UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington, D.C. 20549



FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)ý

QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009Oro

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934For the transition period
from                        to


Commission file number 001-33830

EnergySolutions, Inc.(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization)

51-0653027(I.R.S. Employer
Identification Number)423 West 300 South, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, Utah(Address of principal executive offices)

84101(Zip Code)


Registrant's
telephone number, including area code:(801) 649-2000

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 ý    No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to
be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit
and post such files). Yes o    No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting
company. See definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer," and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer ý

Accelerated filer o

Non-accelerated filer o (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Smaller reporting company o


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange
Act). Yes o    No ý

As of April 30, 2009, 88,305,674 shares of registrant's common stock were outstanding.



---







ENERGYSOLUTIONS, INC.    INDEX TO QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q    For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2009



PagePART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATIONItem 1.

Financial Statements

1Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

1Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive
Income

2Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flow

3Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements

4Item 2.

Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations

15Item 3.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market
Risk

25Item 4.

Controls and Procedures

25PART II. OTHER INFORMATIONItem 1.

Legal Proceedings

26Item 1A.

Risk Factors

27Item 6.

Exhibits

44Signatures

45


i

---





Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1.    Financial Statements

EnergySolutions, Inc.Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
       March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008        (in thousands of dollars)

March 31,
2009

December 31,
2008(unaudited)AssetsCurrent assets:Cash and cash equivalents

$
30,933

$
48,448Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts


321,507


213,037Costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings on uncompleted contracts


68,027


59,545Income tax receivable


5,592


5,537Inventories


12,230


11,218Prepaid expenses


17,528


19,109Other current assets


21,127


34,363Total current assets


476,944


391,257Property, plant and equipment, net


113,558


114,021Goodwill


528,254


528,254Other intangible assets, net


350,519


357,100Restricted cash and decontamination and decommissioning deposits


30,092


31,712Other noncurrent assets


136,854


128,368Total assets

$
1,636,221

$
1,550,712Liabilities and EquityCurrent liabilities:Current portion of long-term debt

$
3,213

$
2,954Accounts payable


115,312


89,513Accrued expenses and other current liabilities


225,898


177,439Deferred income taxes


2,068


2,067Unearned revenues


28,989


26,734Total current liabilities


375,480


298,707Long-term debt, less current portion


553,544


563,803Pension liability


115,648


104,897Facility and equipment decontamination and decommissioning liabilities


64,648


65,904Deferred income taxes


41,658


41,385Other noncurrent liabilities


4,746


7,197Total liabilities


1,155,724


1,081,893Commitments and contingenciesEnergySolutionsstockholders' equity:Preferred stock, $0.01 par value, 100,000,000 shares authorized; no shares issued and outstanding





Common stock, $0.01 par value, 1,000,000,000 shares authorized; 88,305,674 shares issued and outstanding


883


883Additional paid-in capital


482,562


482,042Accumulated other comprehensive income


7,958


4,895Capital deficiency


(11,897
)

(20,034
)Total EnergySolutionsstockholders' equity


479,506


467,786Noncontrolling interests


991


1,033Total equity


480,497


468,819Total liabilities and equity

$
1,636,221

$
1,550,712


See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

1

---





Table of Contents

EnergySolutions, Inc.Condensed Consolidated Statements of
Operations and Comprehensive Income        Three Months Ended March 31, 2009 and 2008        (in thousands of dollars, except per share information)  (Unaudited)

Three Months Ended March 31,2009

2008Revenues

$
437,109

$
501,753Cost of revenues


386,511


428,220Gross profit


50,598


73,533Selling, general and administrative expenses


30,779


28,262Income from operations


19,819


45,271Interest expense


(7,956
)

(12,538
)Other income (expenses), net


733


(2,061
)Income before income taxes and noncontrolling interests


12,596


30,672Income tax expense


(4,274
)

(11,184
)Net income


8,322


19,488Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests


(195
)

(195
)Net income attributable to EnergySolutions

$
8,127

$
19,293Net income attributable to EnergySolutionsper sharesee note 8:Basic

$
0.09

$
0.22Diluted

$
0.09

$
0.22Shares used to calculate net income attributable to EnergySolutionsper share:Basic


88,305,674


88,303,500Diluted


88,337,242


88,310,022Cash dividends declared per common share

$
0.025

$
0.025Comprehensive income:Net income

$
8,322

$
19,488Foreign currency translation adjustment


965


204Change in unrecognized actuarial gain (loss)


2,098


(2,113
)Comprehensive income


11,385


17,579Comprehensive income attributable to noncontrolling interests


(195
)

(195
)Comprehensive income attributable to EnergySolutions

$
11,190

$
17,384


See
accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

2

---





Table of Contents

EnergySolutions, Inc.Condensed Consolidated Statements of
Cash Flows        Three Months Ended March 31, 2009 and 2008        (in thousands of dollars)  (Unaudited)

Three Months Ended March 31,2009

2008Cash flows from operating activitiesNet income attributable to EnergySolutions

$
8,127

$
19,293Adjustments to reconcile net income attributable to EnergySolutionsto net cash provided by operating
activities:Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests


195


195Depreciation and amortization


11,651


11,818Equity-based compensation expense


2,727


2,551Foreign currency transaction loss


762


475Deferred income taxes


2,307


1,229Amortization of debt financing fees


1,033


717Loss on disposal of property, plant and equipment


1


124Unrealized (gain) loss on derivative contracts


(38
)

2,842Changes in operating assets and liabilities:Accounts receivable


(111,936
)

(3,244
)Costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings on uncompleted contracts


(8,483
)

(33,497
)Income tax receivable


(55
)

6,131Inventories


(1,011
)

(903
)Prepaid expenses and other current assets


17,248


(7,722
)Accounts payable


27,375


(17,882
)Accrued expenses and other current liabilities


57,255


32,885Unearned revenues


(4,110
)

7,051Facility and equipment decontamination and decommissioning liabilities


369


393Restricted cash and decontamination and decommissioning deposits


(6
)

2,248Other noncurrent assets


(11,662
)

(11,982
)Other noncurrent liabilities


9,883


13,417Net cash provided by operating activities


1,632


26,139Cash flows from investing activitiesPurchases of property, plant and equipment


(4,195
)

(1,280
)Purchases of intangible assets


(372
)

Net cash used in investing activities


(4,567
)

(1,280
)Cash flows from financing activitiesRepayments of long-term debt


(10,000
)

(20,000
)Dividends to stockholders


(2,208
)

(2,208
)Distributions to noncontrolling interests partners


(228
)

(131
)Repayments of capital lease obligations


(353
)

(396
)Net cash used in financing activities


(12,789
)

(22,735
)Effect of exchange rate on cash


(1,791
)

(404
)Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents


(17,515
)

1,720Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period


48,448


36,366Cash and cash equivalents, end of period

$
30,933

$
38,086


See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

3

---





Table of Contents

EnergySolutions, Inc.Notes to Condensed Consolidated
Financial Statements        (Unaudited)

(1) Description of Business

EnergySolutions, Inc. ("we," "our," "EnergySolutions" or the "Company") is a
leading provider of specialized, technology-based nuclear services to government and commercial customers. Our customers rely on our expertise to address their needs throughout the lifecycle of their
nuclear operations. Our broad range of nuclear services includes engineering, operation of nuclear reactors, in-plant support services, spent nuclear fuel management, decontamination and
decommissioning ("D&D"), logistics, transportation, processing and disposal. We derive almost 100% of our revenues from the provision of nuclear services.

We
provide our services through four segments: Federal Services; Commercial Services; Logistics, Processing and Disposal ("LP&D"), and International. Our Federal Services segment derives
revenues from U.S. government customers for the management and operation or clean-up of facilities with radioactive materials. Our U.S. government customers are primarily individual
offices, departments and administrations within the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") and U.S. Department of Defense ("DOD"). Our Commercial Services segment provides a broad range of
on-site services, including D&D, to commercial customers. Our commercial customers include power and utility companies, pharmaceutical companies, research laboratories, universities,
industrial facilities and other commercial entities with nuclear materials, as well as state agencies in the United States. Our LP&D segment provides a broad range of logistics, transportation,
processing and disposal services to government and commercial customers. This segment also operates our facilities for the safe processing and disposal of radioactive materials, including a facility
in Clive, Utah, four facilities in Tennessee and two facilities in Barnwell, South Carolina. Our International segment derives
revenues primarily through contracts with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority ("NDA") in the United Kingdom ("UK") to operate, manage and decommission 10 Magnox sites with 22 nuclear reactors. In
addition, our International segment provides turn-key services for the disposal of radioactive sources from non-nuclear power generating facilities such as hospitals, research
facilities and other manufacturing and industrial facilities.

(2) Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") for interim financial
information and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. In the
opinion of management, all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring activities, considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. These unaudited condensed consolidated
financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2009.

The
preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the
date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. The results of operations for the
three months ended March 31, 2009 are not necessarily indicative of results that can be expected for the full year.

4

---



Table of Contents

EnergySolutions, Inc.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(Unaudited)

(2) Basis of Presentation (Continued)

We
have majority voting rights for two of our minority-owned joint ventures. Accordingly, we have consolidated their operations in our consolidated financial statements. We recorded the
noncontrolling interests, which reflects the portion of the earnings of operations which are applicable to other noncontrolling partners.

Certain
amounts for prior periods have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation. Prior to the fourth quarter of 2008, we included letter of credit interest in cost
of revenues and selling, general and administrative expenses. During the fourth quarter of 2008, we reclassified these amounts from operating expenses to interest expense in the accompanying condensed
consolidated statements of operations. Accordingly, for the three months ended March 31, 2008, gross profit and income from operations were increased by $550,000 and $878,000, respectively, as
a result of this reclassification. We have also reclassified $6.4 million from unearned revenues to accrued expenses and other current liabilities to conform to the current year presentation.

(3) Recent Accounting Pronouncements

Accounting Pronouncements Recently Adopted

In December 2007, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS")
No. 160,Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statementsan amendment of ARB No. 51. SFAS No. 160
requires that noncontrolling (or minority) interests in subsidiaries be reported in the equity section of a company's balance sheet, rather than in a mezzanine section of the balance sheet between
liabilities and equity. SFAS No. 160 also changes the manner in which the net income of a subsidiary is reported and disclosed in the controlling company's income statement. SFAS No. 160
also establishes guidelines for accounting for changes in ownership percentages and for deconsolidation. Pursuant to the transition provisions of SFAS No. 160, we adopted the statement on
January 1, 2009 via retrospective application of the presentation and disclosure requirements.

In
March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161,Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. SFAS No. 161
changes the disclosure requirements for derivative instruments and hedging activities. Entities are required to provide enhanced disclosures about (a) how and why an entity uses derivative
instruments, (b) how derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for under SFAS No. 133 and its related interpretations, and (c) how derivative instruments and
related hedged items affect an entity's financial position, financial performance, and cash flows. Pursuant to the transition provisions of the statement, we adopted SFAS No. 161 on
January 1, 2009. The required disclosures are presented in Note 7 on a prospective basis. SFAS No. 161 does not impact the consolidated financial results as it is
disclosure-only in nature.

In
December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141(R),Business Combinations. SFAS No. 141(R) replaces SFAS No. 141, Business Combinations, but
retains the requirement that the purchase method of accounting for acquisitions be used for all business combinations. SFAS
No. 141(R) expands on the disclosures previously required by SFAS No. 141, better defines the acquirer and the acquisition date in a business combination, and establishes principles for
recognizing and measuring the assets acquired (including goodwill), the liabilities assumed and any noncontrolling interests in the acquired business. SFAS No. 141(R) also requires an acquirer
to record an adjustment to income tax expense for changes

5

---



Table of Contents

EnergySolutions, Inc.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(Unaudited)

(3) Recent Accounting Pronouncements (Continued)

in
valuation allowances or uncertain tax positions related to acquired businesses. Pursuant to the transition provisions of the statement, we adopted SFAS No. 141(R) on January 1, 2009
and it does not impact the consolidated financial results as we had no acquisitions during the three months ended March 31, 2009.

Accounting Pronouncements Issued But Not Yet Effective

In April 2009, the FASB issued three new FASB Staff Positions (FSPs) all of which impact the accounting and disclosure related to
certain financial instruments. FSP FAS 157-4, "Determining Fair Value When the Volume and Level of Activity for the Asset or Liability Have Significantly Decreased and Identifying
Transactions That Are Not Orderly" (FSP FAS 157-4) provides additional guidance for estimating fair value in accordance with SFAS 157 when the volume and level of activity
for the asset or liability have significantly decreased. It also includes guidance on identifying circumstances that indicate a transaction is not orderly. FSP FAS 115-2 and
FAS 124-2, "Recognition of Other-Than-Temporary Impairment" (FSP FAS 115-2 and FAS 124-2) amends the
other-than-temporary impairment guidance for debt securities to make the guidance more operational and to improve the presentation and disclosure of
other-than-temporary impairments on debt and equity securities in the financial statements. FSP FAS 107-1 and APB 28-1 "Interim
Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments" (FSP FAS 107-1 and
APB 28-1) amends FASB Statement No. 107 to require disclosures about the fair value of financial instruments on an interim basis in addition to the annual disclosure
requirements. All three FSPs are required to be adopted for interim periods ending after June 15, 2009. We do not expect adoption of these staff positions to have a material impact on our
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

(4) Inventories

Inventories consist of the following as of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008:

March 31,
2009

December 31,
2008(in thousands of dollars)Parts and supplies

$
407

$
517Work in process





3,050Finished goods


11,823


7,651$
12,230

$
11,218


(5) Senior Credit Facilities

Our credit facilities consist of a $75.0 million revolving credit facility, which matures on June 7, 2011, and a total of $770.0 million in term loan facilities,
which mature on June 7, 2013, and a $100.0 million synthetic letter of credit facility, which expires on June 7, 2013. The revolving credit facility includes a sublimit of
$60.0 million for letters of credit, of which $14.9 million were issued as of March 31, 2009. The synthetic letter of credit facility had $100.0 million issued as of
March 31, 2009.

6

---



Table of Contents

EnergySolutions, Inc.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(Unaudited)

(5) Senior Credit Facilities (Continued)

Borrowings
under the credit facilities bear interest at a base rate (the greater of the Prime Rate or 0.5% higher than the Federal Funds Rate) plus an applicable margin or, at our
option, the London Interbank Offered Rates ("LIBOR"), adjusted for the Eurodollar reserve percentage, plus an applicable margin. The applicable margin for base rate and LIBOR loans is 2.25%. As of
March 31, 2009 and 2008, the interest rate of borrowings under the term loan facilities was 4.15% and 7.1%, respectively.

According
to the terms of the credit agreements, at the end of each calendar quarter, we are required to make scheduled repayments of the term loans of $1.5 million, adjusted for
optional prepayments made. In addition to the scheduled repayments, we may be required to make mandatory quarterly repayments, to be applied to the principal balance of the term loan, the amounts of
which are
dependent on our excess cash flow for the quarter and our leverage ratio as defined in the credit agreements. As of March 31, 2009, we have mandatory principal repayments based on our excess
cash flow and scheduled repayments of $3.2 million due within the next 12 months. The outstanding principal of the term loan facilities must be repaid by June 7, 2013.

The
credit facilities require us to maintain certain financial ratios, including maximum leverage ratios (based upon the ratios of total consolidated indebtedness and first lien
indebtedness to consolidated operating cash flow) and a minimum cash interest coverage ratio (based upon the ratio of consolidated operating cash flow to consolidated cash interest expense), which are
tested quarterly. Based on the formulas set forth in the credit agreements as of March 31, 2009, we are required to maintain a maximum leverage ratio and a maximum first lien leverage ratio of
4.25 and 3.75, respectively, and minimum cash interest coverage ratio of 2.50. Failure to comply with these financial ratio covenants would result in a default under our credit facilities and, absent
a waiver or an amendment from the lenders, preclude us from making further borrowings under our credit facilities and permit the lenders to accelerate all outstanding borrowings under the credit
facilities. As of March 31, 2009, our total leverage, first lien leverage and interest coverage ratios were 3.36, 3.36 and 5.18, respectively. The credit agreements also contain annual capital
expenditure limitations. For fiscal year 2009, the credit agreements require us to limit capital expenditures to $45.0 million. Capital expenditures for the three months ended March 31,
2009 were $4.2 million. As of March 31, 2009, we were in compliance with all of the covenants under our credit agreements.

The
obligations under the credit facilities are secured by substantially all of our assets and guaranteed by each of our existing and subsequently acquired or organized domestic
subsidiaries.

During
the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, we made principal repayments totaling $10.0 million and $20.0 million, respectively, on the outstanding term
loan facilities. During the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, we made cash interest payments of $876,000 and $11.8 million, respectively.

Amendment Agreements

On December 11, 2007, we, through our subsidiary ZionSolutions, entered into an agreement with Exelon (the "Zion Agreement") to
dismantle Exelon's Zion nuclear facility located in Zion, Illinois ("Zion Station"), which ceased operation in 1998.

Upon
completion of the transaction, Exelon has agreed to transfer to ZionSolutions substantially all of the assets (other than land) associated with Zion Station, including assets held
in nuclear

7

---



Table of Contents

EnergySolutions, Inc.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(Unaudited)

(5) Senior Credit Facilities (Continued)

decommissioning
trusts. In consideration for Exelon's transfer of those assets, ZionSolutions has agreed to assume decommissioning and other liabilities associated with the Zion Station. ZionSolutions
also agreed to take possession and control of the land associated with the Zion Station pursuant to a lease agreement to be executed at the closing. ZionSolutions will be obligated to complete the
required decommissioning work according to an established schedule and to construct a dry cask storage facility on the land for spent nuclear fuel currently held in spent fuel pools at the Zion
Station.

The
parties agreed to enter into various other agreements to ensure the performance of the obligations of ZionSolutions under its contracts to complete the required decommissioning and
other work. In particular, we have agreed to execute a Credit Support Agreement pursuant to which we will deliver a letter of credit in the face amount of $200.0 million, which will be held by
Exelon. The occurrence of specified events of default would allow Exelon to draw upon the letter of credit.

In
anticipation of the closing of this transaction, on July 16, 2008, we and our subsidiary, Duratek, Inc. ("Duratek"), entered into Amendment Agreements with our lenders
under the current credit facilities. The Amendment Agreements provide that the existing credit agreements shall be amended and restated in their entirety upon satisfaction of certain conditions
including the closing of the transaction with Exelon.

The
amended and restated credit facilities were sought (a) to allow us to provide for a new letter of credit facility in the aggregate principal amount of $200.0 million
(the "Zion letter of credit facility") pursuant to the Zion Agreement and (b) to return the existing synthetic letters of credit facility deposits and make term letter of credit facility loans
in the aggregate principal amount of $100.0 million for which we have agreed to maintain restricted cash equal to the amount of the facility. The new term letter of credit facility and the
restricted cash amount will be reflected on our consolidated balance sheet when they are effective concurrent with completing the transaction with Exelon.

The
Amendment Agreements provide that the amended and restated credit facilities will include letter of credit fees of 2.50% with respect to letters of credit issued under each of the
revolving loan facility and the Zion letter of credit facility. In addition, the Amendment Agreements provide that the amended and restated credit facilities will provide for interest rates on loans
as follows: (i) with respect to any term loan, (x) LIBOR plus 2.50% (or LIBOR plus 2.00% when the leverage ratio is less than 2.0 to 1.0) or (y) the base rate plus 1.25% (or the
base rate plus 1.00% when the leverage ratio is less than 2.0 to 1.0), (ii) with respect to any revolving loan, (x) LIBOR plus 2.50% or (y) the base rate plus 1.25%, and
(iii) with respect to any term letter of credit facility loan, LIBOR plus 2.50% (or LIBOR plus 2.00% when the leverage ratio is less than 2.0 to 1.0).

The
Amendment Agreements provide that the amended and restated credit facilities are subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions precedent to closing, including those related to
approval for the transactions contemplated by the Zion Agreement. In July 2008, we paid fees of approximately $6.4 million to the lenders to obtain the Amendment Agreements, which are being
amortized over the remaining term of the credit facilities. In addition, once we have closed the Zion agreement and the Zion letter of credit is issued, we anticipate paying the providers of the Zion
letter of credit facility approximately $7.5 million, which will be amortized over one year, which is the term of the Zion letter of credit facility.

8

---



Table of Contents

EnergySolutions, Inc.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(Unaudited)

(6) Fair Value Measurements

In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157,Fair Value Measurements. This standard clarifies the
principle that fair value should be based on the assumptions that market participants would use when pricing an asset or liability. Additionally, it establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes
the information used to develop those assumptions. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that a company has the ability to access
at the measurement date. Level 2 inputs are inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly.
Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs for the asset or liability. SFAS No. 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 14, 2007. In
February 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position ("FSP") FAS 157-2,Partial Deferral of the Effective Date of Statement 157, which
delays the effective date for all nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities, except those that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring basis. The
FSP deferred the effective date of SFAS No. 157 for nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities to fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008. In accordance with this staff
position, we adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 157 that became effective at the beginning of fiscal year 2008 with respect to financial assets and liabilities, which did not have an impact on
our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 157 for non-financial assets and liabilities in the first quarter of 2009, which
did not have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

The
carrying value of accounts receivable, inventories, prepaid assets, accounts payable, accrued expenses and unearned revenues approximate their fair value principally because of the
short-term nature of these assets and liabilities. As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, we had outstanding term loans of $556.8 million and
$566.8 million with fair values of approximately $490.0 million and $430.7 million, respectively.

As
of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, we had no assets or liabilities considered to be Level 1 or Level 3. The following table discloses the
Level 2 fair value of our interest rate and foreign currency derivative contracts outstanding at March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008 that are included in other current assets,
accrued expenses and other current liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities in the accompanying balance sheets:

March 31,
2009

December 31,
2008(in thousands
of dollars)

(in thousands
of dollars)AssetsFair value of derivative contractsshort term

$
158

$
LiabilitiesFair value of derivative contractsshort term





521Fair value of derivative contractslong term


902


261


(7) Derivative Financial Instruments

We have entered into derivative contracts to help offset our exposure to movements in interest rates in relation to our variable rate debt. As of March 31, 2009 and
December 31, 2008, the fair value liability of the derivative contracts was $902,000 and $261,000, respectively, which is included in other

9

---



Table of Contents

EnergySolutions, Inc.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(Unaudited)

(7) Derivative Financial Instruments (Continued)

noncurrent
liabilities in the accompanying balance sheets. These contracts are not designated as accounting hedges. Unrealized gains and losses resulting from adjustments to the fair value of the
contracts are included in other income (expenses), net, and resulted in a net loss of $641,000 and $2.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. We do
not use interest rate derivatives for trading or speculative purposes.

We
have foreign currency exposure related to our operations in the UK as well as other foreign locations. During the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, we recognized
losses of $1.0 million and $817,000, respectively, in other income (expenses) net, in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations related to foreign currency gains or losses. We have
entered into derivative contracts to help offset our exposure to movements in foreign currency rates in relation to our U.S. dollar denominated intercompany loan with our UK subsidiary. This foreign
currency derivative contract is not designated as an accounting hedge. As of March 31, 2009, the fair value of the derivative was $158,000, which is included in other current assets in the
accompanying balance sheets. Unrealized gains and losses resulting from adjustments to the fair value of the contracts are included in other
income (expenses), net and resulted in a gain of $680,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2009. We had no foreign currency derivative contracts for the three months ended March 31,
2008.

(8) Net Income Per Share

Basic net income per share is computed by dividing net income attributable to EnergySolutionsby the weighted-average number of common
shares outstanding during the period. Diluted net income per share is computed by dividing net income attributable to EnergySolutionsby the
weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period and potentially dilutive common stock equivalents. Potential common stock equivalents that have been issued by us relate to
outstanding stock option and non-vested restricted stock awards and are determined using the treasury stock method.

The
following table sets forth the computation of the common shares outstanding in determining basic and diluted net income per share:

For the Three Months Ended March 31,2009

2008Weighted average common sharesbasic


88,305,674


88,303,500Potential common stock from restricted stock and stock options


31,568


6,522Weighted average common sharesdiluted


88,337,242


88,310,022


For
the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, there were 7.5 million and 5.8 million potentially dilutive securities excluded from the diluted
net income per share calculation as they were anti-dilutive.

10

---



Table of Contents

EnergySolutions, Inc.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(Unaudited)

(9) Equity-Based Compensation

Profit Interests

In prior years, certain members of our management were granted profit interest units in ENV Holdings LLC ("ENV Holdings"),
formerly our parent, in consideration for services rendered during the vesting period. These units did not represent ownership in ENV Holdings but rather these units entitled the holders to
distributions from ENV Holdings if a distribution was paid. There were several classes of units granted and each successive class carried a lower priority on distributions. Certain units vested
immediately upon grant and others vested over periods up to three years. We estimated the fair value at grant date of the units issued using both a market and an income approach and recorded
compensation expense of $308,000 and $281,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, which represents the portion of the fair value of these units that vested in
those periods. In February 2009, ENV Holdings liquidated and made a final distribution to its members at which time any unvested units vested and as of March 31, 2009, there was no unrecognized
compensation expense related to the profit interest units.

Stock Options and Restricted Stock

In November 2007, we adopted the EnergySolutions, Inc. 2007 Equity Incentive
Plan (the "Plan"). The Plan authorizes our Board of Directors to grant equity awards to directors, officers, employees and consultants. The aggregate number of shares of common stock that may be
issued pursuant to awards granted under the Plan is 10,440,000. We recorded non-cash compensation expense related to our stock option and restricted stock grants of $2.4 million and
$2.3 million during the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. As of March 31, 2009, we had $25.9 million of unrecognized compensation expense related to
outstanding stock options, which will be recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.8 years. As of March 31, 2009, there was $3.0 million of unrecognized compensation cost
related to non-vested restricted stock which is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 3.2 years.

(10) Pension Plans

Net periodic benefit costs for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 consisted of the following:

For the Three Months Ended March 31,2009

2008(in thousands of dollars)Service cost

$
7,766

$
12,661Interest cost


34,478


46,686Expected return on plan assets


(29,122
)

(52,027
)$
13,122

$
7,320


The
preceding information does not include amounts related to benefit plans applicable to employees associated with certain contracts with the U.S. Department of Energy because we are
not responsible for the current or future funded status of these plans.

11

---



Table of Contents

EnergySolutions, Inc.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(Unaudited)

(11) Income Taxes

We recognized income tax expense of $4.3 million and $11.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, based on an estimated annual
effective tax rate on our consolidated operations of 34.5% and 36.6%, respectively. During the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, we made income tax payments of $5.5 million and
$3.4 million, respectively.

For
the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, we had no change in our unrecognized tax benefits under FASB Interpretation No. 48,Accounting
for Uncertainty in Income Taxesan interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109.As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, we had $906,000 of
unrecognized tax benefits, which may impact our annual effective tax rate in future years.

(12) Segment Reporting and Business Concentrations

We provide our services through four segments: Federal Services ("FS"), Commercial Services ("CS"), Logistics, Processing and Disposal ("LP&D"), and International. The following table
presents segment information as of and for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008:

As of and for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2009FS

CS

LP&D

International

Corporate
Unallocated
Items

Consolidated(in thousands of dollars)Revenues from external customers(1)

$
66,081

$
21,724

$
46,004

$
303,300

$


$
437,109Income (loss) from operations


5,615


3,178


11,763


18,509


(19,246
)

19,819Depreciation and amortization expense


224


361


5,413


2,376


3,277


11,651Goodwill


143,514


90,129


233,193


61,418





528,254Other long-lived assets(2)


34,579


21,129


227,621


94,707


86,041


464,077Purchases of property, plant and equipment


3,517


202


(653
)

22


1,107


4,195Total assets(3)


283,664


149,436


558,115


461,658


183,348


1,636,221




As of and for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2008FS

CS

LP&D

International

Corporate
Unallocated
Items

Consolidated(in thousands of dollars)Revenues from external customers(1)

$
44,587

$
30,595

$
54,115

$
372,456

$


$
501,753Income (loss) from operations


6,348


9,644


16,894


30,105


(17,720
)

45,271Depreciation and amortization expense


107


499


5,387


2,344


3,481


11,818Goodwill


143,144


91,042


232,713


59,178





526,077Other long-lived assets(2)


31,809


27,290


248,915


103,728


72,962


484,704Purchase of property, plant and equipment


25


171


367


128


589


1,280Total assets(3)


247,532


164,438


586,103


521,199


145,832


1,665,104


---

12

---



Table of Contents

EnergySolutions, Inc.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(Unaudited)

(13) Employee Termination Benefits

An organizational review of our Magnox sites identified an opportunity to reduce the existing workforce, primarily at three of the sitesDungeness, Sizewell and Chapelcross
(the "Sites"). The Sites are in the process of defueling, which involves removing fuel from the reactor, loading it into flasks and transporting it for processing with a third party. The volume of
fuel that can be processed is dependent on the third party reprocessing plant. Due to recent operational problems,
the reprocessing plant has been, and will continue, struggling to handle the current volume of fuel from the Sites. As a result, defueling rates have decreased and fewer defueling staff are required
at the Sites. In addition, decommissioning of the Magnox Berkeley site is relatively close to completion with only a few projects remaining. As such, activity at the Berkeley site is, and will
continue for a number of years, to be very limited. Thus, the Berkeley site is overstaffed for the foreseeable future.

As
a result of the overstaffing at the four Magnox sites, we presented a termination plan to the NDA to terminate approximately 200 employees on a voluntary basis at these sites. The
termination plan and employee termination benefits to be paid for the voluntary termination of these employees in accordance with the Magnox Lifetime Plan, an agreement among Magnox, the employees and
the trade unions, were pre-approved by the NDA Expenditure Review Panel during the three months ended March 31, 2009. All employee termination benefits are treated as part of the
normal Magnox cost base and will be reimbursed by the NDA.

For
the three months ended March 31, 2009, in accordance with SFAS No. 112,Employers' Accounting for Postretirement
Benefits, we have recognized expected employee termination benefits of $31.6 million, which are included in cost of revenues in the accompanying condensed consolidated
statements of operations for our International Segment. We have recognized a corresponding liability, which is included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities. In addition, we have
recognized revenues and a receivable from the NDA for the reimbursement of the employee termination benefits. Benefits are expected to be paid over the next 18 months.

The
following is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending liability balances (in thousands of dollars):

Beginning liability, December 31, 2008

$
Employee termination benefits


31,638Payments


Ending liability, March 31, 2009

$
31,638


(14) Commitments and Contingencies

We may become subject to various claims and legal proceedings covering matters that may arise in the ordinary course of our business activities. As of March 31, 2009, we are not
involved in any legal proceedings that we believe would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, operating results and cash flows.

13

---



Table of Contents

EnergySolutions, Inc.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)

(Unaudited)

(15) License Stewardship Program

On December 11, 2007, we, through our subsidiary ZionSolutions, entered into an agreement with Exelon to dismantle Exelon's Zion nuclear facility located in Zion, Illinois, which
ceased operation in 1998. Upon completion of the transaction, Exelon has agreed to transfer to ZionSolutions substantially all of the assets (other than land) associated with Zion Station, including
assets held in nuclear
decommissioning trusts. In consideration for Exelon's transfer of those assets, ZionSolutions has agreed to assume decommissioning and other liabilities associated with the Zion Station. ZionSolutions
also agreed to take possession and control of the land associated with the Zion Station pursuant to a lease agreement to be executed at the closing. ZionSolutions will be obligated to complete the
required decommissioning work according to an established schedule and to construct a dry cask storage facility on the land for spent nuclear fuel currently held in spent fuel pools at the Zion
Station. Closing of this transaction is subject to the satisfaction of a number of closing conditions, including approval by the NRC of the license transfer of the facility operating licenses and
conforming license amendments from Exelon to ZionSolutions (the "License Transfer").

Due
to the financial crisis that has impacted the United States and world markets, the Zion Station decommissioning trust fund balance, a significant portion of which is invested in the
stock market, has declined. On October 14, 2008, we announced that we intend to defer the transfer of the Zion Station assets until we reaffirm that there is sufficient value in the Zion
decommissioning trust funds to ensure adequate funds for the accelerated decommissioning of the plant. Pursuant to the agreement, we have until December 31, 2009 to close the transaction.

Prior
to our announcement to defer the transfer of the Zion Station assets, we had anticipated that the closing of this transaction would occur in late third quarter or during the fourth
quarter of 2008. Accordingly, we hired employees, entered into subcontracts and performed services for Exelon under a planning contract. Invoicing for some of these services provided is subject to the
closing of the transaction. As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, we have incurred costs of $12.7 million and $12.4 million, respectively, which have been deferred
until the closing of the transaction. Since we believe that the closing of this transaction before December 31, 2009 is still probable, we will continue to defer these costs until we close the
transaction, at which time we will recognize the costs and related revenues. If we determine that it is not probable that we will close this transaction, we will expense these costs in the period of
such determination. We have taken steps to reduce the monthly project costs including the termination of certain employees, transferring employees to other projects and the termination of certain
subcontracts and lease agreements. Any costs relating to the termination of employees, subcontractors and lease or other agreements are expensed in the period terminated.

On
May 4, 2009, the NRC issued an order approving the License Transfer subject to ZionSolutions satisfying the NRC that (i) the Zion letter of credit facility has been
established, (ii) an irrevocable easement of disposal capacity of 7.5 million cubic feet has been established and (iii) the appropriate amount of insurance required of a licensee
under the NRC's regulations has been obtained. If the License Transfer is not completed by May 4, 2010, the order approving the License Transfer expires; however, upon written application and
for good cause shown, the expiration date may be extended by order of the NRC.

14

---





Table of Contents

Item 2.    Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

The following discussion and analysis of the financial condition and results of our operations should be read
together with the condensed consolidated financial statements and the related notes of EnergySolutions included elsewhere in this Form 10-Q.

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements made herein, including statements regarding our projected revenues, expenses and income and the implementation of
strategic initiatives are forward-looking in nature. These forward-looking statements reflect current analysis of existing information and are subject to various risks and uncertainties. As a result,
caution must be exercised in relying on
forward-looking statements. Due to known and unknown risks, our actual results may differ materially from our expectations or projections.

While
most risks affect only future revenues or expenses, some risks may relate to accruals that have already been reflected in earnings. Our failure to receive payments of accrued
amounts or incurrence of liabilities in excess of amounts previously recognized could result in a charge against future earnings.

Additional
information concerning these and other factors can be found in our periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), including our
Form 10-K filed February 27, 2009 and this report under "Item 1ARisk Factors." Our SEC filings are available publicly on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov, on EnergySolutions'website at www.energysolutions.comor upon request from EnergySolutions'Investor Relations Department atir@energysolutions.com. We disclaim any obligation to update the forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or
otherwise.

Overview

We are a leading provider of specialized, technology-based nuclear services to government and commercial customers. Our customers rely
on our expertise to address their needs throughout the lifecycle of their nuclear operations. Our broad range of nuclear services includes engineering, operation of nuclear reactors,
in-plant support services, spent nuclear fuel management, decontamination and decommissioning ("D&D"), logistics, transportation, processing and disposal. We derive almost 100% of our
revenues from the provision of nuclear services.

We
provide our services through four segments: Federal Services, Commercial Services, Logistics, Processing and Disposal ("LP&D") and International. Our Federal Services segment derives
revenues from U.S. government customers for the management and operation or clean-up of facilities with radioactive materials. Our U.S. government customers are primarily individual
offices, departments and administrations within the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") and the U.S. Department of Defense ("DOD"). Our Commercial Services segment provides a broad range of
on-site services, including D&D, to commercial customers. Our commercial customers include power and utility companies, pharmaceutical companies, research laboratories, universities,
industrial facilities and other commercial entities with nuclear materials, as well as state agencies in the United States. Our LP&D segment provides a broad range of logistics, transportation,
processing and disposal services to government and commercial customers. This segment also operates our facilities for the safe processing and disposal of radioactive materials, including a facility
in Clive, Utah, four facilities in Tennessee and two facilities in Barnwell, South Carolina. In cases where a project involves the provision of both specialized nuclear services and processing and
disposal services, our Federal Services or Commercial Services segment, depending on the type of customer, and our LP&D segment will coordinate to provide integrated services. Our International
segment has contracts with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority ("NDA") in the United Kingdom ("UK") to operate, manage and decommission 10 Magnox sites with 22 nuclear reactors. In addition, our
International segment
provides turn-key services for the disposal of radioactive sources from non-nuclear power generating facilities such as hospitals, research facilities and other manufacturing
and industrial facilities.

15

---



Table of Contents

Results of Operations

The following table shows certain items from our income statements for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008.

Three Months Ended March 31,2009

2008(in thousands of dollars)Revenues:Federal Services Segment

$
66,081

$
44,587Commercial Services Segment


21,724


30,595LP&D Segment


46,004


54,115International Segment


303,300


372,456Total revenues


437,109


501,753Cost of revenues:Federal Services Segment


57,112


36,471Commercial Services Segment


16,778


19,015LP&D Segment


32,018


34,537International Segment


280,603


338,197Total cost of revenues


386,511


428,220Gross profit:Federal Services Segment


8,969


8,116Commercial Services Segment


4,946


11,580LP&D Segment


13,986


19,578International Segment


22,697


34,259Total gross profit


50,598


73,533Segment selling, general and administrative expenses:Federal Services Segment


3,353


1,768Commercial Services Segment


1,768


1,936LP&D Segment


2,223


2,684International Segment


4,189


4,154Total segment selling, general and administrative expenses


11,533


10,542Segment operating income:Federal Services Segment


5,616


6,348Commercial Services Segment


3,178


9,644LP&D Segment


11,763


16,894International Segment


18,508


30,105Total segment operating income


39,065


62,991Corporate selling, general and administrative expenses


19,246


17,720Total income from operations


19,819


45,271Interest expense


(7,956
)

(12,538
)Other income (expenses), net


733


(2,061
)Income before income taxes and noncontrolling interests


12,596


30,672Income tax expense


(4,274
)

(11,184
)Income before noncontrolling interests


8,322


19,488Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests


(195
)

(195
)Net income

$
8,127

$
19,293


16

---



Table of Contents

Three Months Ended March 31, 2009 Compared to Three Months Ended March 31, 2008

Federal Services Segment

Revenues and cost of revenues in our Federal Services segment increased $21.5 million and $20.6 million, respectively,
for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2008. Gross profit increased $0.9 million while gross margin decreased to 13.6% for the
three months ended March 31, 2009 from 18.2% for the three months ended March 31, 2008 primarily due to increased activity on lower margin contracts and decreased activity on higher
margin contracts.

On
March 14, 2008 we obtained majority voting rights and began consolidating our Uranium Disposition Services, LLC ("UDS") joint venture. For the three months ended
March 31, 2009, we reported a full quarter of activity for UDS resulting in increased revenues of $8.8 million and cost of revenues of $8.8 million. The low gross margin for UDS
of 0.5% and 1.6% for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, resulted in no significant contribution to gross profit as a result of the consolidation.

In
June 2007, we were awarded a contract by the DOE to clean up the Atlas mill tailings near Moab, Utah. During the three months ended March 31, 2008, work on the contract was in
the early stages. During the three months ended March 31, 2009, we performed significant work on the rail benches and increased excavation activities in preparation of transporting the mill
tailings to the disposal cell. As a result, cost of revenues on the Moab contract increased $8.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to the three months ended
March 31, 2008. The contract with the DOE allows for the reimbursement of costs plus a fee, resulting in increased revenues of $9.3 million for the three months ended March 31,
2009 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2008. Thus, gross profit on the Moab contract increased $0.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to the
three months ended March 31, 2008 due to the recognition of award fee.

Our
business development efforts related to engineering and technology projects within Federal Services during 2008 have resulted in several project awards that have increased revenues
by $8.9 million, cost of revenues by $6.9 million and gross profit by $2.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to March 31, 2008. In addition,
our Parallax operations contributed additional revenues, cost of revenues and gross profit of $2.2 million, $1.7 million and $0.5 million, respectively, for the three months ended
March 31, 2009 compared to March 31, 2008 as a result of new contract awards and increased volume on current contracts.

These
increases were offset, in part, by a collective decrease of revenues, cost of revenues and gross profit of $7.9 million, $5.3 million and $2.6 million,
respectively, for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2008 related to two contracts at the DOE Hanford site and our Savannah River site
operations contract.

Segment
selling, general and administrative expenses in our Federal Services segment increased $1.6 million to $3.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009
from $1.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008. The increase is primarily attributable to increased consulting and business development costs due to work on several contract
proposals during the first quarter of 2009.

Commercial Services Segment

Revenues and cost of revenues in our Commercial Services segment decreased $8.9 million and $2.2 million, respectively,
for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2008. Gross profit decreased $6.6 million while gross margin decreased to 22.8% for the
three months ended March 31, 2009 from 37.8% for the three months ended March 31, 2008 due primarily to the relative profitability of the major projects being performed in each period.

17

---



Table of Contents

Revenues
and gross profit in our large components operations decreased $3.5 million and $2.7 million, respectively, for the three months ended March 31, 2009
compared to the three months ended March 31, 2008. This decrease was primarily due to the substantial completion of two significant large components projects during the first quarter of 2008.

Revenues
and gross profit in our spent fuel operations decreased $3.4 million and $1.2 million, respectively, for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to
the three months ended March 31, 2008. This decrease was mostly attributable to the acceleration of work during the three months ended March 31, 2008 related to the closure of the
Barnwell disposal site to states outside the Atlantic compact in July 2008.

In
addition, one of our large commercial engineering and technology waste container design and fabrication projects was completed in December 2008. This resulted in a decrease of
revenues and gross profit of $4.3 million and $2.4 million, respectively, for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2008.

These
decreases were offset, in part, by increased revenues of $1.0 million in our commercial decommissioning services for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to
the three months ended March 31, 2008 due to increased activity on one of our major projects. Cost of revenues related to our commercial decommissioning services increased $1.7 million
resulting in a decrease in gross profit of $0.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to March 31, 2008. This is due to lower margins on one of our major
fixed price contracts for the three months ended March 31, 2009 as a result of increased complexity of the project increasing the cost of revenues.

In
addition, revenues in our liquid waste processing division increased $1.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to the three months ended
March 31, 2008 due to increased demand for liners. As a result, cost of revenues and gross profit increased $1.0 million and $0.8 million, respectively, for the three months ended
March 31, 2009 compared to March 31, 2008.

Segment
selling, general and administrative expenses in our Commercial Services segment decreased $0.1 million to $1.8 million for the three months ended March 31,
2009 from $1.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008. The decrease is primarily attributable to lower business development and license stewardship costs. All other segment
selling, general and administrative expenses have remained stable.

LP&D Segment

Revenues and cost of revenues in our LP&D segment decreased $8.1 million and $2.5 million, respectively, for the
three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2008. Gross profit decreased $5.6 million while gross margin decreased to 30.4% for the three months
ended March 31, 2009 from 36.2% for the three months ended March 31, 2008 due to decreased revenues.

Revenues
at our Clive, Utah facility decreased $10.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2008 as a result
of decreased volumes of waste processed and disposed mostly due to the completion of two major large components projects during the first quarter of 2008. This decrease in revenues resulted in a
decrease of cost of revenues of $1.6 million related to lower taxes, fees and equipment costs mostly attributable to the lower volumes of waste processed and disposed. The majority of costs at
our Clive, Utah facility are fixed, resulting in a disproportionate decrease in cost of revenues when compared to revenues. As a result, gross profit
decreased $8.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2008.

Revenues
related to our transportation services decreased $1.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2008
due to lower shipments on major contracts. Cost of revenues related to our transportation services decreased $1.4 million due to lower

18

---



Table of Contents

shipments
and additional reductions in operating and overhead costs, resulting in a $0.3 million increase in gross profit for the three months ended March 31, 2009.

These
decreases were offset, in part, by increased revenues of $3.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to March 31, 2008 at our Bear Creek,
Tennessee facility as a result of increased receipts of waste and processing of backlog carried over from 2008 during the three months ended March 31, 2009. The majority of costs at our Bear
Creek, Tennessee facility are fixed, resulting in a comparable increase in gross profit of $3.4 million when compared to revenues.

Segment
selling, general and administrative expenses in our LP&D segment decreased $0.5 million to $2.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 from
$2.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008. The decrease is mostly attributable to reduced labor costs, insurance expense, taxes and costs related to business development
activities.

International Segment

Revenues in our International segment decreased $69.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to the
three months ended March 31, 2008. Our revenues, prior to considering the effects of fluctuations in pound sterling exchange rates, increased $32.5 million. However, this increase was
offset by a $101.7 million decrease due to a decline in pound sterling exchange rates during the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to the same period in 2008. Of the
$32.5 million increase in revenues, our revenues from the Magnox contracts increased $35.1 million mostly due to increased reimbursable contract cost base. This increase was offset, in
part, by decreased revenues of $2.6 million related to our other UK operations.

Cost
of revenues in our International segment decreased $57.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2008.
Our cost of revenues, prior to considering the effects of fluctuations in pound sterling exchange rates, increased $34.7 million. However, this increase was offset by a $92.3 million
decrease due to a decline in pound sterling
exchange rates during the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to the same period in 2008. Of the $34.7 million increase in cost of revenues, our cost of revenues from the Magnox
contracts increased $37.1 million primarily due to increased labor and subcontractor costs, including $31.6 million of employee termination benefits related to voluntary termination of
approximately 200 employees at four of our Magnox sites. Benefits to be paid for the voluntary termination of these employees in accordance with the Magnox Lifetime Plan, an agreement with Magnox, the
employees, and the trade unions, were pre-approved by the NDA Expenditure Review Panel during the three months ended March 31, 2009. All employee termination benefits are treated as
part of the normal Magnox cost base and will be reimbursed by the NDA. This increase was offset, in part, by a decrease in cost of revenues of $2.4 million related to our other UK operations.

Gross
profit in our International segment decreased $11.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2008. Our
gross profit, prior to considering the effects of fluctuations in pound sterling exchange rates, decreased $2.2 million. In addition, gross profit decreased $9.3 million due to a decline
in pound sterling exchange rates during the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to the same period in 2008. Gross profit margin in our International segment was 7.5% for the three months
ended March 31, 2009 compared to 9.2% for the three months ended March 31, 2008. The decrease in gross profit margin is due to lower efficiency fees recognized from our Magnox contracts
with the NDA for the three months ended March 31, 2009. Most of the efficiency fees related to the contract fiscal year ended March 31, 2008 were recognized during the three months ended
March 31, 2008. For the contract fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, more of the efficiency fees were recognized in the quarter ended December 31, 2008 than in the same quarter of
the prior year due to earlier achievement of milestones; thus reducing the amount recognized during the three months ended March 31, 2009. We expect this trend to continue in future periods.

19

---



Table of Contents

Segment
selling, general and administrative expenses in our International segment remained constant at $4.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 and
consist of bid and proposal expenses relating to potential contracts in the United Kingdom and other administrative expenses.

Corporate selling, general and administrative expenses

Corporate selling, general and administrative expenses increased $1.5 million, or 8.5%, to $19.2 million for the three
months ended March 31, 2009 from $17.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008. This increase is primarily attributable to increased marketing and advertising expenses
related to a television advertising campaign run during the first quarter of 2009 in Utah, increased legal fees primarily related to our declaratory judgment action with the
Northwest Compact and increased professional fees incurred to recruit additional independent directors. Other corporate general and administrative costs have remained stable.

Interest expense

Interest expense decreased $4.5 million, or 36.0%, to $8.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 from
$12.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008. The decrease is primarily attributable to a decline in both our average borrowings outstanding and interest rates related to our
credit facilities.

Other income (expense), net

Other income, net, increased $2.8 million, or 133.3%, to a net other income of $733,000 for the three months ended
March 31, 2009 from a net other expense of $2.1 million for the three months ended March 31. 2008. The increase is mostly attributable to decreased losses of $2.2 million
on our interest rate derivative contracts, increased gains on our foreign currency derivative contracts of $680,000 and increases in our proportional share of income from our joint ventures in which
we have a non-controlling interest of $256,000. These increases are offset, in part, by increased net remeasurement losses of $183,000 on our US dollar denominated notes receivable with
our UK subsidiary and other foreign currency transactions.

Income taxes

We recognized income tax expense of $4.3 million and $11.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and
2008, respectively, based on an estimated annual effective tax rate on our consolidated operations of 34.5% and 36.6%, respectively. The decrease in the estimated annual effective tax rate is mostly
due to the effect of research and development credits in the UK.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

We finance our operations primarily through cash provided by operations. As of March 31, 2009, our principal sources of
liquidity consisted of $30.9 million of cash and cash equivalents and $60.1 million of availability under the $75.0 million revolving portion of our credit facilities, which is
net of $14.9 million of outstanding letters of credit. We also have a synthetic letter of credit facility of $100.0 million, of which $100.0 million of letters of credit were
issued as of March 31, 2009.

During
the three months ended March 31, 2009, our cash and cash equivalents decreased $17.5 million, to $30.9 million. This compares to an increase in cash and cash
equivalents of $1.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008. During the three months ended March 31, 2009, we had net cash inflows from operating activities of
$1.6 million. Cash from operating activities for the three months ended March 31, 2009 included net income of $8.1 million and significant non-cash expenses including
depreciation and amortization expense of $11.7 million and equity-based compensation expense of $2.7 million. Cash from operating activities was also provided from increased

20

---



Table of Contents

accounts
payable and accrued liabilities of $84.6 million. The increase in accounts payable and accrued liabilities was primarily due to timing of payments to vendors of our Magnox contracts in
the UK. Cash from operating activities was used by an increase in accounts receivable of $111.9 million primarily due to timing of collections on work performed on our contracts with the NDA.

During
the three months ended March 31, 2009, we had net cash outflows from investing activities of $4.6 million, primarily related to purchases of property, plant and
equipment. Our cash outflows from our financing activities were $12.8 million, primarily related to repayment of debt and payment of stockholder dividends.

Our
principal need for liquidity has been, and will continue to be, for working capital, to pay down debt and for capital expenditures. We also expect to use cash flow from operations to
pay quarterly dividends. However, the declaration and payment of future dividends to holders of our common stock will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on many factors,
including our results of operations, financial condition, liquidity requirements, restrictions that may be imposed by applicable law and our contracts and other factors deemed relevant by our board of
directors. To the extent we maintain an annual dividend of $0.10 per share, our annual cash requirements for this dividend would be $8.8 million, based on the number of shares currently
outstanding. We believe that our cash flow from operations, available cash and cash equivalents and available borrowings under the revolving portion of our credit facilities will be sufficient to meet
our future liquidity needs, including the payment of such dividend, through at least the next twelve months.

We
have accumulated benefit obligations related to our pension plans of $2.4 billion. See Note 19 to our audited consolidated financial statements included in
Form 10-K filed February 27, 2009 for a more detailed discussion. Approximately 99% of the accumulated benefit obligation relates to the Magnox North and Magnox South pension
plans (the "Magnox Plans"). The Magnox Plans are funded by contributions from employees and the NDA pursuant to a contractual arrangement. As a result, we are reimbursed for contributions made to the
Magnox Plans under the terms of these contracts. Thus, we have no potential net funding requirements relative to the accumulated benefit obligation. The plan we are required to fund related to our
employees of Reactor Sites Management Company Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary in the UK, is currently funded by regular monthly payroll contributions from us and the employees. This will be the
sole source of funding until at least mid-2010 at which time the next triennial valuation of the plan will be completed. Therefore, we do not expect there to be any implications to our liquidity
within the next 12 months resulting from potential incremental cash payments to maintain funding requirements.

Although
we have no specific current plans to do so, if we decide to pursue one or more significant strategic acquisitions, we may incur additional debt or sell additional equity to
finance the purchase of those businesses.

Capital Expenditures

We had capital expenditures of $4.2 million and $1.3 million in three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively. This increase of $2.9 million is mostly attributable to equipment required for the Atlas mill tailings contract. We expect capital expenditures for the year ending
December 31, 2009 will be approximately $26.0 million, relating primarily to the implementation of an enterprise resource planning system (Oracle EBS R12) and equipment to be used at our
decommissioning sites and at our facilities, which is in compliance with the debt covenants of our credit agreement. We anticipate the sources of funds for our anticipated capital expenditures will
come from cash flows provided by our operating activities.

21

---





Table of Contents

Credit Facilities

We have entered into credit facilities with Citicorp North America, Inc., or CNAI, as administrative agent and collateral agent.
Our credit facilities consist of a $75.0 million revolving credit facility, which matures on June 7, 2011, and a total of $770.0 million in term loan facilities, which mature on
June 7, 2013, and a $100.0 million synthetic letter of credit facility, which expires on June 7, 2013.

The
obligations under the credit facilities are unconditional and irrevocably guaranteed by each of our existing and subsequently acquired or organized domestic subsidiaries. In
addition, the credit facilities and such guarantees are secured on a first- and second-priority basis by security interests (subject to permitted liens as defined in the credit agreements governing
the credit facilities) in substantially all tangible and intangible assets owned by us and each of our domestic subsidiaries, subject to certain exceptions, including limiting pledges of voting stock
of foreign subsidiaries to 65% of voting stock of first-tier foreign subsidiaries.

Borrowings
under the credit facilities bear interest at a rate equal to (1) in the case of the first lien term loans, (i) the greater of the rate of interest announced by
CNAI, from time to time, as its prime
rate in effect at its principal office in the city of New York, and the federal funds rate plus 0.50% per annum (the "base rate"), plus 0.75% (or 0.50% when the leverage ratio (as defined in the
credit agreements) as of the most recently completed fiscal quarter is less than 2.0 to 1.0) or (ii) for any portion of the term loans as to which we have elected to pay interest on a
Eurodollar basis, LIBOR plus 2.25% (or 2.00% when the leverage ratio (as defined in the credit agreements) as of the most recently completed fiscal quarter is less than 2.0 to 1.0), (2) in the
case of the revolving loans, (i) the base rate plus 0.75% or (ii) for any portion of the revolving loans as to which we have elected to pay interest on a Eurodollar basis, LIBOR plus
2.25% (3) in the case of synthetic letters of credit under the first lien credit facilities, 2.25% (or 2.00% when the leverage ratio (as defined in the related credit agreement) as of the most
recently completed fiscal quarter is less than 2.0 to 1.0).

According
to the terms of the credit agreements, at the end of each calendar quarter, we are required to make scheduled repayments of the term loans of $1.5 million, adjusted for
optional prepayments made, provided that the final installment shall be equal to the amount outstanding of the term loan facilities.

We
are generally also required to prepay borrowings under the credit facilities with (1) 100% of the net proceeds we receive from non-ordinary course asset sales or as
a result of a casualty or condemnation, subject to reinvestment provisions, (2) 100% of the net proceeds we receive from the issuance of debt obligations other than specified debt obligations
and (3) the excess, if any, of 50% (or, if our leverage ratio is less than 3.0 and greater than 1.0, 25%) of excess cash flow (as defined in the credit agreements) reduced by the aggregate
amount of term loans optionally prepaid during the applicable fiscal year. Under the credit facilities, we are not required to prepay borrowings with excess cash flow if our leverage ratio is less
than or equal to 1.0. As of March 31, 2009, we were required to make a mandatory prepayment of approximately $1.7 million based on our excess cash flow.

As
of March 31, 2009, the weighted average interest rate under our credit facilities was 4.15%. At this rate and assuming an outstanding balance of $556.8 million as of
March 31, 2009, our annual debt service obligations would be $29.0 million, consisting of $23.1 million of interest and $5.9 million of scheduled principal payments.
However, due to optional prepayments made through March 31, 2009, only $1.5 million of our scheduled principal payments are currently due within the next year.

The
credit facilities require us to maintain certain financial ratios, including maximum leverage ratios (based upon the ratios of total consolidated indebtedness and first lien
indebtedness to consolidated operating cash flow) and a minimum cash interest coverage ratio (based upon the ratio of consolidated operating cash flow to consolidated cash interest expense), which are
tested quarterly. Based on the formulas set forth in the credit agreements as March 31, 2009, we are required to

22

---



Table of Contents

maintain
a maximum leverage ratio and a maximum first lien leverage ratio of 4.25 and 3.75, respectively, and minimum cash interest coverage ratio of 2.50. Failure to comply with these financial ratio
covenants would result in a default under our credit facilities and, absent a waiver or an amendment from the lenders, preclude us from making further borrowings under our credit facilities
and permit the lenders to accelerate all outstanding borrowings under the credit facilities. As of March 31, 2009, our total leverage, first lien leverage and interest coverage ratios were
3.36, 3.36 and 5.18, respectively. As such, we have determined that we are in compliance with these financial covenants.

The
credit facilities also contain a number of affirmative and restrictive covenants including limitations on mergers, consolidations and dissolutions; sales of assets; investments and
acquisitions; indebtedness; liens; affiliate transactions; and dividends and restricted payments. Under the credit facilities, we are permitted maximum annual capital expenditures of up to
$30.0 million under the first lien credit facilities plus the lesser of (1) a one year carry-forward of the unused amount from the previous fiscal year and (2) 50% of the amount
permitted for capital expenditures in the prior fiscal year. Our permitted maximum annual capital expenditures for 2009 is $45.0 million. The credit facilities contain events of default for
non-payment of principal and interest when due, a cross-default provision with respect to other indebtedness having an aggregate principal amount of at least $5.0 million and an
event of default that would be triggered by a change of control, as defined in the credit facilities. As of March 31, 2009, we were in compliance with all of our covenants and other obligations
under the credit facilities.

Amendment Agreements

On December 11, 2007, we, through our subsidiary ZionSolutions, entered into an agreement with Exelon (the "Zion Agreement") to
dismantle Exelon's Zion nuclear facility located in Zion, Illinois ("Zion Station"), which ceased operation in 1998.

Pursuant
to the Zion Agreement, Exelon has agreed to transfer to ZionSolutions substantially all of the assets (other than land) associated with Zion Station, including assets held in
nuclear decommissioning trusts. In consideration for Exelon's transfer of those assets, ZionSolutions has agreed to assume decommissioning and other liabilities associated with the Zion Station.
ZionSolutions also agreed to take possession and control of the land associated with the Zion Station pursuant to a lease agreement to be executed at the closing. ZionSolutions will be obligated to
complete the required decommissioning work according to an established schedule and to construct a dry cask storage facility on the land for spent nuclear fuel currently held in spent fuel pools at
the Zion Station.

The
parties agreed to enter into various other agreements to ensure the performance of the obligations of ZionSolutions under its contracts to complete the required decommissioning and
other work. In particular, we have agreed to execute a Credit Support Agreement pursuant to which we will deliver a letter of credit in the face amount of $200.0 million, which will be held by
Exelon. The occurrence of specified events of default would allow Exelon to draw upon the letter of credit.

In
anticipation of the closing of this transaction, on July 16, 2008, we and our subsidiary, Duratek, entered into Amendment Agreements with our lenders under the current credit
facilities. The Amendment Agreements provide that the existing credit agreements shall be amended and restated in their entirety upon satisfaction of certain conditions including the closing of the
transaction with Exelon.

The
amended and restated credit facilities were sought (a) to allow us to provide for a new letter of credit facility in the aggregate principal amount of $200.0 million
(the "Zion letter of credit facility") pursuant to the Zion Agreement and (b) to return the existing synthetic letters of credit facility deposits and make term letter of credit facility loans
in the aggregate principal amount of $100.0 million for which we have agreed to maintain restricted cash equal to the amount of the facility.

23

---



Table of Contents

The
new term letter of credit facility and the restricted cash amount will be reflected on our consolidated balance sheet.

The
Amendment Agreements provide that the amended and restated credit facilities will include letter of credit fees of 2.50% with respect to letters of credit issued under each of the
revolving loan facility and the Zion letter of credit facility. In addition, the Amendment Agreements provide that the amended and restated credit facilities will provide for interest rates on loans
as follows: (i) with respect to any term loan, (x) LIBOR plus 2.50% (or LIBOR plus 2.00% when the leverage ratio is less than 2.0 to 1.0) or (y) the base rate plus 1.25% (or the
base rate plus 1.00% when the leverage ratio is less than 2.0 to 1.0), (ii) with respect to any revolving loan, (x) LIBOR plus 2.50% or (y) the base rate plus 1.25%, and
(iii) with respect to any term letter of credit facility loan, LIBOR plus 2.50% (or LIBOR plus 2.00% when the leverage ratio is less than 2.0 to 1.0).

The
Amendment Agreements provide that the amended and restated credit facilities are subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions precedent to closing, including those related to
approval for the transactions contemplated by the Zion Agreement. In July 2008, we paid fees of approximately $6.4 million to the lenders to obtain the Amendment Agreements, which are being
amortized over the remaining term of the credit facilities. In addition, once we have closed the Zion agreement and the Zion letter of credit is issued, we anticipate paying the providers of the Zion
letter of credit facility approximately $7.5 million, which will be amortized over one year, which is the term of the Zion letter of credit facility.

Off Balance Sheet Arrangements

We have routine operating leases, primarily related to real estate and rail equipment, and investments in joint ventures at
March 31, 2009.

As
of March 31, 2009, we had outstanding floating-rate term loans of $556.8 million. Under our credit facilities, we are required to maintain one or more
interest rate swap agreements for the aggregate notional amount of at least 33% of the outstanding aggregate principal amount of the term loans. Accordingly, we entered into a swap agreement effective
December 18, 2008. As of March 31, 2009, the swap agreement had a notional amount of $200.0 million and a fair value liability of approximately $902,000.

We
are required to post, from time to time, standby letters of credit and surety bonds to support contractual obligations to customers, self-insurance programs, closure and
post-closure financial assurance and other obligations. As of March 31, 2009, we had $100.0 million in letters of credit issued under our synthetic letters of credit
facilities and $14.9 million in letters of credit issued under our revolving credit facilities. As of March 31, 2009, we had $451,000 in surety bonds outstanding. With respect to the
surety bonds, we have entered into certain indemnification agreements with the providers of the surety bonds, which would require funding by us only if we fail to perform under the contracts being
insured and the surety bond issuer was obligated to make payment to the insured parties.

Our
processing and disposal facilities operate under licenses and permits that require financial assurance for closure and post-closure costs. We provide for these
requirements through a combination of restricted cash, cash deposits, letters of credit and insurance policies. As of March 31, 2009, the closure and post-closure state regulatory
requirements for our facilities were $147.9 million, which amount is not determined on the same basis as the asset retirement obligation, or ARO, calculated under SFAS No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement
Obligations.

Critical Accounting Policies

This management's discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations is based upon our consolidated financial
statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of these financial statements

24

---



Table of Contents

requires
us to make estimates and assumptions about matters that are uncertain. These estimates and assumptions are often based on judgments that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances,
but all such estimates and assumptions are inherently uncertain and unpredictable. Actual results may differ from those estimates and assumptions, and it is possible that other professionals, applying
their own judgment to the same facts and circumstances, could develop and support alternative estimates and assumptions that would result in material changes to our operating results and financial
condition. For a further discussion of our critical accounting policies, see our Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, which was filed on February 27, 2009.

Item 3.    Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

Our primary market risk relates to changing interest rates. As of March 31, 2009, we had outstanding floating-rate
term loan debt of $556.8 million, of which $3.2 million is currently due within the next year. Under our credit facilities, we are required to maintain one or more interest rate swap
agreements for the aggregate notional amount of at least 33% of the outstanding aggregate principal amount of the term loans. As of March 31, 2009, our swap agreement had a notional amount of
$200.0 million and a fair value liability of approximately $902,000.

A
hypothetical interest rate change of 1% on our credit facilities would have changed interest expense for the three months ended March 31, 2009 by approximately
$5.6 million. In addition, a hypothetical interest rate change of 1% on our swap agreement would have changed the fair value of the interest swap at March 31, 2009 by approximately
$3.6 million. Changes in market interest rates would impact the fair value of our long-term obligations. As of March 31, 2009 we had outstanding borrowings under our credit
facilities of $556.8 million with an approximate fair value of $490.0 million.

We
have foreign currency exposure related to our operations in the United Kingdom as well as other foreign locations. This foreign currency exposure arises primarily from the translation
or re-measurement of our foreign subsidiaries' financial statements into U.S. dollars. For example, a substantial portion of our annual sales and operating costs are denominated in pound
sterling and we have exposure related to sales and operating costs increasing or decreasing based on changes in currency exchange rates. If the U.S. dollar increases in value against these foreign
currencies, the value in U.S. dollars of the assets and liabilities originally recorded in these foreign currencies will decrease. Conversely, if the U.S. dollar decreases in value against these
foreign currencies, the value in U.S. dollars of the assets and liabilities originally recorded in these foreign currencies will increase. Thus, increases and decreases in the value of the U.S. dollar
relative to these foreign currencies have a direct impact on the value in U.S. dollars of our foreign currency denominated assets and liabilities, even if the value of these items has not changed in
their original currency. We attempt to mitigate the impact of this exchange rate risk by utilizing financial instruments, including derivative transactions pursuant to our policies. As such, a 10%
change in the U.S. dollar exchange rates in effect as of March 31, 2009, would cause a change in consolidated net assets of approximately $8.9 million and a change in gross profit of
approximately $2.3 million, primarily due to pound sterling-denominated exposures.

Item 4.    Controls and Procedures.

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Based on their evaluation as the end of the period covered by this report, our principal executive officer and principal financial
officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) or 15d-15(e) of the Exchange Act) are effective, based upon an
evaluation of those controls and procedures required by paragraph (b) of Rule 13a-15 or Rule 15d-15 of the Exchange Act.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There were no changes to our internal control over financial reporting that occurred as of the end of the period covered by this report
that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

25

---





Table of Contents

PART II

Item 1.    Legal Proceedings.

As previously reported, we have engaged in discussions with Sogin, SpA, the Italian state-owned utility company, to provide D&D and
radioactive materials management services in support of the clean-up of Sogin's nuclear facilities. Our pending license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") to import
material from Italy, to process it at our facility in Tennessee and to dispose of the residual material at our Clive facility in Utah has generated local and national expressions of opposition. We
believe our license application is consistent with all applicable laws and regulations and with past practices. Moreover, the Italian materialmetals, paper and clothingis the
same type of material that we handle routinely from the domestic nuclear industry.

The
NRC has issued numerous licenses over the past ten years allowing the importation of low-level radioactive waste ("LLRW") to be processed and ultimately disposed at our
Clive facility. Under these licenses, our Clive Facility has received Class A LLRW originating in Germany, Canada, France, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.

The
States of Tennessee and Utah have confirmed to the NRC that the proposed Italian project is consistent with the licenses and permits issued by those states. However, the Governor of
the State of Utah announced on April 23, 2008 that he would send his representative to the May 8, 2008 meeting of the Northwest Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Management (the "Northwest Compact") to vote against any proposal that would allow us to receive international waste at our Clive facility.

On
May 5, 2008, we filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court of Utah (the "Declaratory Judgment Action") asking the court to declare that (i) the
Northwest Compact does not have regulatory authority over our Clive facility, which is a private commercial facility rather than a regional facility created by the Compact, (ii) the U.S.
Constitution does not allow the Northwest Compact to discriminate between identical domestic and foreign materials handled at our Clive facility, and (iii) any effort by the Northwest Compact
to restrict our receipt of foreign LLRW is pre-empted by federal statutes and regulations. The State of Utah and the Rocky Mountain Interstate Compact on Low-level Radioactive
Waste have intervened as defendants in the declaratory judgment action.

At
the Northwest Compact meeting on May 8, 2008, the representatives of the eight member States of the Northwest Compact, despite our commitment to restrict our receipt of
international waste to 5% of the remaining capacity at our Clive facility, unanimously adopted a clarifying resolution proposed by the Utah committee member, clarifying that the Northwest Compact has
never adopted a resolution permitting us to receive international waste at our Clive facility. We continue to believe that the Northwest Compact does not have regulatory authority over our Clive
facility, and that neither the U.S. Constitution nor Federal law permits the Northwest Compact to prohibit us from receiving international waste at our Clive facility.

On
October 6, 2008, the NRC approved an order holding in abeyance its decision with respect to our pending import license application until the U. S. District Court of Utah issues
its ruling in the Company's declaratory judgment action.

On
February 26, 2009, prior to the parties presenting oral arguments on their respective motions for summary judgment of the Declaratory Judgment Action, the U.S. District Court
Judge stated that our Clive facility is not and never has been a "regional disposal facility." Following oral arguments, the court took under advisement the remaining issue of whether the Northwest
Compact can nonetheless exercise jurisdiction over a private, non-compact facility.

26

---



Table of Contents

We
intend to vigorously prosecute our declaratory judgment action, but we do not believe we will be able to process and dispose of any radioactive materials contemplated by the Italian
initiative during fiscal 2009.

Item 1A.    Risk Factors.

These risks and uncertainties have the potential to affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows,
strategies or prospects in a material and adverse manner.

We and our customers operate in a highly regulated industry that requires us and them to obtain, and to comply with, national, state and local government permits and
approvals.

We and our customers operate in a highly regulated environment. Our facilities are required to obtain, and to comply with, national,
state and local government permits and approvals. Any of these permits or approvals may be subject to denial, revocation or modification under various circumstances. Failure to obtain or comply with
the conditions of permits or approvals may adversely affect our operations by temporarily suspending our activities or curtailing our work and may subject us to penalties and other sanctions. Although
existing licenses are routinely renewed by various regulators, renewal could be denied or jeopardized by various factors, including:



In
addition, if new environmental legislation or regulations are enacted or existing laws or regulations are amended or are interpreted or enforced differently, we or our customers may
be required to obtain additional operating permits or approvals. Changes in requirements imposed by our environmental or other permits may lead us to incur additional expenses by requiring us to
change or improve our waste management technologies and services to achieve and maintain compliance. We may be unable to meet all potential regulatory changes.

We and our customers operate in a politically sensitive environment, and the public perception of nuclear power and radioactive materials can affect our customers and us.

We and our customers operate in a politically sensitive environment. The risks associated with radioactive materials and the public
perception of those risks can affect our business. Various public interest groups and political representatives frequently oppose the operation of processing and disposal sites for radioactive
materials such as our Barnwell, South Carolina, Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Clive, Utah facilities. For example, public interest groups and the governor of Utah have made public statements regarding
their desire to limit the source and volume of radioactive materials that we process and dispose at our Clive facility. Representatives in Congress have introduced federal legislation to ban the
importation of foreign waste. If any efforts to limit our operations at these or any of our other current or future facilities were successful, then our business would suffer.

Opposition
by third parties to particular projects can delay or prohibit the construction of new nuclear power plants and can limit the operation of nuclear reactors or the handling and
disposal of radioactive materials. Adverse public reaction to developments in the use of nuclear power or the disposal of radioactive materials, including any high profile incident involving the
discharge of radioactive materials, could directly affect our customers and indirectly affect our business. In the past, adverse public reaction, increased regulatory scrutiny and litigation have
contributed to extended

27

---



Table of Contents

construction
periods for new nuclear reactors, sometimes extending construction schedules by decades or more, contributing to the result that no new reactor has been ordered since the 1970s. Adverse
public reaction also could lead to increased regulation or outright prohibition, limitations on the activities of our customers, more onerous operating requirements or other conditions that could have
a material adverse impact on our customers and our business.

In
addition, we may seek to address public and political opposition to our business activities through voluntary limitations on our operations. For example, as part of our response to
public statements made by public interest groups and the governor of Utah regarding their desire to limit the source and volume of radioactive materials that we process and dispose at our Clive
facility, we voluntarily agreed with the governor to withdraw a request for a license amendment to increase our capacity at our Clive facility. We are also experiencing both local and national
expressions of opposition to the importation of LLRW from international sources, including opposition articulated in U.S. congressional proposals and from the Northwest Compact. The Northwest Compact,
which consists of Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, was created pursuant to a federal statute that enables states to enter into interstate compacts for the
purposes of managing LLRW. In response to this opposition, we have volunteered to limit the amount of foreign LLRW accepted at our Clive facility to a maximum of 5% of the total remaining facility
capacity. We also have filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court in Utah seeking an order that the Northwest Compact does not have jurisdictional or regulatory authority over our
Clive facility and that the Northwest Compact may not discriminate between domestic and foreign materials. Our actions to diffuse public and political opposition to our business can divert time and
resources away from our core business operations and strategies, and failure to achieve the intended results of our actions may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and
results of operations.

Our business depends on the continued operation of our Clive, Utah facility.

Our disposal facility in Clive, Utah is a strategic asset and is vital to our business. This facility is the largest privately owned
commercial facility for the disposal of LLRW in the United States, and contributed 4.8% and 6.2% of our revenues for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Because of the
greater profitability of the Clive facility in comparison with the rest of our business, a loss of revenue from Clive would have a disproportionate impact on our gross profit and gross margin. The
Clive facility is subject to the normal hazards of operating any disposal facility, including accidents and natural disasters. In addition, access to the facility is limited, and any interruption in
rail or other transportation services to and from the facility will affect our ability to operate the facility. Our Clive facility is highly regulated and subject to extensive licensing and
permitting requirements and continuous air and ground water monitoring. Changes in federal, state or local regulations, including changes in the interpretation of those regulations, can affect our
ability to operate the facility. Actions by states or the federal government may affect facility capacity, expansion or extension of the Clive facility. The Northwest Compact also has asserted it has
authority over our Clive facility and is seeking to restrict our ability to import foreign LLRW for disposal at the facility, and federal legislation has been introduced to prohibit the importation of
foreign LLRW waste. Such actions may hinder, delay or stop shipments to the facility, which could seriously impair our ability to execute disposal projects and significantly reduce future revenues. We
believe that we have sufficient capacity for more than 30 years of operations based on our estimate of future disposal volumes, our ability to optimize disposal capacity utilization and our
assumption that we will obtain a license amendment to convert a disposal cell originally intended for 11e(2) waste to Class A LLRW. If we are unable to obtain the license amendment, our
projected capacity to dispose of Class A LLRW would be materially reduced. If future disposal volumes increase beyond our expectations or if our other assumptions prove to be incorrect, then
the remaining capacity at Clive would be exhausted more quickly than projected.

28

---



Table of Contents

Any
interruption in our operation of the Clive facility or decrease in the effective capacity of the facility would adversely affect our business, and any prolonged disruption in the
operation of the facility or reduction in the capacity or useful life of the facility would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our quarterly operating results may fluctuate significantly and may not meet our financial guidance or published analyst forecasts, which could have a negative effect on the
price of our common stock.

Our quarterly operating results may fluctuate significantly because of a number of factors, many of which are outside our control,
including:



Fluctuations
in quarterly results, lower than anticipated revenues or our failure to meet financial guidance or published analysts' forecasts could have a negative effect on the price of
our common stock.

Our international operations involve risks that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

For the three months ended March 31, 2009, we derived 69.4% and 47.4% of our revenues and segment operating income,
respectively, and for the three months ended March 31, 2008, we derived 74.2% and 47.8% of our revenues and segment operating income, respectively, from our operations outside of North America.
Our business is dependent on the success of our international operations, and we expect that our international operations will continue to account for a significant portion of our total revenues. In
addition to risks applicable to our business generally, our international operations are subject to a variety of heightened or distinct risks, including:



29

---





Table of Contents



Changes in existing environmental and other laws, regulations and programs could harm our business.

A significant amount of our business of processing and disposing of radioactive materials derives directly or indirectly from existing
national and state laws, regulations and programs related to pollution and environmental protection. National, state and local environmental legislation and regulations require substantial
expenditures and impose liabilities for noncompliance. Accordingly, a real or perceived relaxation or repeal of these laws and regulations, or changes in government policies regarding the funding,
implementation or enforcement of these programs, could result in a material decline in demand for nuclear services. The ultimate impact of the proposed changes will depend upon a number of factors,
including the overall strength of the economy and the industry's views on the cost-effectiveness of remedies available under the changed laws and regulations.

Our
operations are subject to taxation by the U.S. and UK governments, the State of Utah, Tooele County and other foreign governments. In the event of a material increase in our taxes
resulting from an increase in our effective tax rate or change in our scheme of taxation, we may not have the ability to pass on the effect of such increase to our customers and, as a result, our
stockholders could bear the burden of any such tax increase. The risk of a material tax increase may be exacerbated by political pressure to limit our operations. See"We and our customers operate
in a politically
sensitive environment, and the public perception of nuclear power and radioactive materials can affect our customers and us."

Our
facilities are also subject to political actions by government entities which can reduce or completely curtail their operations. For example, the State of South Carolina closed the
Barnwell disposal site on July 1, 2008 to customers outside of the Atlantic Compact States of South Carolina, New Jersey and Connecticut. Although the Barnwell closure did not have a
significant impact on our revenues or net income, political pressures to reduce or curtail other operations could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Our life-of-plant contracts may not remain effective through a nuclear power plant's decontamination and decommissioning.

Although our life-of-plant contracts are intended to provide us with revenue streams from the processing and
disposal of substantially all LLRW and mixed low-level waste ("MLLW") generated over the remaining lives of nuclear power plants operated by our commercial power and utility customers, and
ultimately waste disposal revenue streams when the plants are shut down, these

30

---



Table of Contents

contracts
may not actually remain effective for that entire period. A typical "life-of-plant" contract may terminate before D&D because the contract
may:



The
early termination or renegotiation of a life-of-plant contract may reduce our revenues and profits. In addition, life-of-plant
contracts may expose us to liability in the event that government bodies limit our ability to accept radioactive materials by capping the capacity of one or more of our disposal facilities or taking
other actions.

We may not be successful in winning new business mandates from our government and commercial customers.

We must be successful in winning new business mandates from our government and commercial customers to replace revenues from projects
that are nearing completion and to increase our revenues. Our business and operating results can be harmed by the size and timing of a single material contract. For example, during 2005, we were the
primary subcontractor to Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC for the transportation and disposal of LLRW, MLLW and other contaminated materials from the DOE's Rocky Flats Environmental
Technology site near Denver, Colorado. Pursuant to this contract, we generated $105.4 million of revenues during 2005. The DOE declared the clean-up complete in October 2005, and we
have not generated significant revenues from Rocky Flats since 2005.

Our
business strategy includes bidding on government contracts as a lead prime contractor in a consortium. We expect to bid on a significant portion of the approximately
$25.8 billion of federal nuclear services contracts that we estimate will be awarded within the next five years. In the past, we have operated primarily as a subcontractor or in a minority
position on a prime contractor team. In pursuing a lead prime contractor role, we will be competing directly with a number of large national and regional nuclear services firms that may possess or
develop technologies superior to our technologies and have greater financial, management and marketing resources than we do. Many of these companies also have long-established customer
relationships and reputations. As a result, we may not be successful in being awarded the lead prime contractor role for any of these contracts.

We may fail to win re-bids in the United Kingdom for the Southern and Northern Region decommissioning contracts currently held by our subsidiary RSMC.

In December 2008, the NDA announced that the current NDA contracts held by RSMC through its subsidiaries, Magnox North Limited and
Magnox South Limited, in relation to the Southern Region sites and Northern Region sites will be put out for re-bid in 2011. During the contract year ended March 31, 2009, RSMC
recognized revenues of $1.1 billion from these contracts. We expect the competition for these contracts to be intense, and our failure to win the re-bid of either or both contracts
would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. Even if we win the re-bid, the participation of a partner could reduce our profits from these contracts. In addition, any
limitations on our ability to import international waste to our Clive facility could reduce one of our competitive advantages in competing for these contracts. See risk factor "We and our
customers operate in a politically sensitive environment, and the public perception of nuclear power and radioactive materials can affect our customers and us."

31

---



Table of Contents

The loss of one or a few customers could have an adverse effect on us.

One or a few government and commercial customers have in the past and may in the future account for a significant portion of our
revenues in any one year or over a period of several consecutive years. For example, the NDA accounts for virtually all of our revenue in the International segment (which is our largest segment based
on 2008 revenues). For the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, 69.7% and 73.9% of our revenues were from contracts funded by the NDA. In addition, from time to time we
typically have contracts with various offices within the DOE, including with the Office of Environmental Management, the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, the National Nuclear Security
Administration and the Office of Nuclear Energy. For the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, 12.4% and 8.8% of our revenues were from contracts funded by the DOE. Because
customers generally contract with us for specific projects, we may lose these significant customers from year to year as their projects with us are completed. Our inability to replace this business
with other projects could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

The elimination or any modification of the Price-Anderson Act's indemnification authority could harm our business.

In the United States, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the "AEA"), comprehensively regulates the manufacture, use and storage
of radioactive materials.
Section 170 of the AEA, which is known as the Price-Anderson Act, supports the nuclear services industry by offering broad indemnification to commercial nuclear power plant operators and DOE
contractors for liabilities arising out of nuclear incidents at power plants licensed by the NRC and at DOE nuclear facilities. That indemnification protects not only the NRC licensee or DOE prime
contractor, but also companies like us that work under contract or subcontract for a licensed power plant or under a DOE prime contract or transporting radioactive material to or from a site. The
indemnification authority of the NRC and DOE under the Price-Anderson Act was extended through 2025 by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The
Price-Anderson Act's indemnification provisions generally do not apply to our processing and disposal facilities, and do not apply to all liabilities that we might incur while
performing services as a contractor for the DOE and the nuclear energy industry. If an incident or evacuation is not covered under Price-Anderson Act indemnification, we could incur substantial
losses, regardless of fault, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. In connection with international transportation of toxic, hazardous and
radioactive materials, it is possible for a claim to be asserted which may not fall within the indemnification provided by the Price-Anderson Act. If such indemnification authority is not applicable
in the future, our business could be adversely affected if the owners and operators of new facilities fail to retain our services in the absence of commercially adequate insurance and indemnification.

Our existing and future customers may reduce or halt their spending on nuclear services from outside vendors, including us.

A variety of factors may cause our existing or future customers to reduce or halt their spending on nuclear services from outside
vendors, including us. These factors include, but are not limited to:



32

---



Table of Contents



These
events also could adversely affect us to the extent that they result in the reduction or elimination of contractual requirements, the suspension or reduction of nuclear reactor
operations, the reduction of supplies of nuclear raw materials, lower demand for nuclear services, burdensome regulation, disruptions of shipments or production, increased operational costs or
difficulties or increased liability for actual or threatened property damage or personal injury.

Economic downturns and reductions in government funding could harm our businesses.

Demand for our services has been, and we expect that demand will continue to be, subject to significant fluctuations due to a variety
of factors beyond our control, including economic and industry conditions. The stress experienced by global capital markets that began in the second half of 2007 substantially increased during 2008
and has continued into 2009. Recently, concerns over inflation, energy costs, geopolitical issues, the availability and cost of credit, the U.S. mortgage market and a declining real estate market have
contributed to increased volatility and diminished expectations for the global economy and expectations of slower global economic growth going forward. These factors, combined with volatile oil
prices, declining business and consumer confidence and increased unemployment, have precipitated an economic recession.

During
economic downturns, the ability of private and government entities to make expenditures on nuclear services may decline significantly. Economic or political conditions may be
unfavorable to our industry and there may be significant fluctuations adversely affecting our industry as a whole. In addition, our operations depend, in part, upon government funding, particularly
funding levels at the NDA or DOE. Significant changes in the level of government funding (for example, the annual budget of the NDA or DOE) or specifically mandated levels for different programs that
are important to our business could have an unfavorable impact on our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows. For example, although the Magnox contract funding for the
2008/09 contract year increased over the 2007/08 contract year, the NDA has stated that the Magnox North and Magnox South sites,
for which we are currently a prime contractor, may receive reduced funding allocations in the future so that the NDA may address other sites that contain more hazardous materials that pose a greater
degree of risk. In addition, it is likely that Congress will not pass a fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill until the new administration has been in office for some time, which may delay spending on
new government contracts.

In
addition, current market conditions have exerted downward pressure on the price of our common stock, which could limit our ability to raise capital, if necessary, through borrowings
or the issuance of additional securities. A protracted economic downturn could exacerbate these adverse conditions. Although numerous governments have taken steps to mitigate the disruption to
financial markets, there can be no assurances that government responses will restore consumer confidence for the foreseeable future.

The
current state of the financial markets could also exert pressure on our customers and could limit their ability to secure working capital. This may impact their liquidity and their
ability to make timely payments of their invoices to us. The inability of our customers to make timely payments of our invoices may negatively impact our cash flows.

As a government contractor, we are subject to extensive government regulation, and our failure to comply with applicable regulations could subject us to penalties that may
restrict our ability to conduct our business.

Our government contracts, which are primarily with the NDA and the DOE, are a significant part of our business. Allowable costs under
U.S. government contracts are subject to audit by the U.S. government. Similarly, some UK contracts are subject to audit by UK regulatory authorities, including the NDA. If these audits result in
determinations that costs claimed as reimbursable are not allowed

33

---



Table of Contents

costs
or were not allocated in accordance with applicable regulations, we could be required to reimburse government authorities for amounts previously received.

Government
contracts are often subject to specific procurement regulations, contract provisions and a variety of other requirements relating to the formation, administration, performance
and accounting of these contracts. Many of these contracts include express or implied certifications of compliance with applicable regulations and contractual provisions. We may be subject to qui tam
litigation brought by private individuals on behalf of the government under the Federal Civil False Claims Act, which could include claims for up to treble damages. Additionally, we may be subject to
the Truth in Negotiations Act, which requires certification and disclosure of all factual costs and pricing data in connection with contract negotiations. If we fail to comply with any regulations,
requirements or statutes, our existing
government contracts could be terminated or we could be suspended from government contracting or subcontracting. If one or more of our government contracts are terminated for any reason, or if we are
suspended or debarred from government work, we could suffer a significant reduction in expected revenues and profits. Furthermore, as a result of our government contracting, claims for civil or
criminal fraud may be brought by the government for violations of these regulations, requirements or statutes.

Our commercial customers may decide to store radioactive materials on-site rather than contract with us to transport, process and dispose of the radioactive
materials at one of our off-site facilities.

Our LP&D segment's results of operations may be affected by the decisions of our commercial customers to store radioactive
materials on-site. There has been little regulatory, political or economic pressure for commercial utilities and power companies to dispose of radioactive materials at off-site
facilities. Some of these commercial entities have the ability to store radioactive materials generated by their operations on-site, instead of contracting with an outside service
provider, such as us, to transport, process and dispose of the radioactive materials at an off-site location, such as our Clive facility. The decision to store radioactive materials
on-site rather than contracting to dispose of them at an off-site facility may be influenced by the accounting treatment for radioactive materials. Currently, the liability for
the disposal of radioactive materials stored on-site may be capitalized on the owner's balance sheet and amortized over the expected on-site storage period. In contrast,
radioactive materials shipped off-site for disposal are expensed during the period in which the materials are shipped off-site. The NRC has rejected our proposal to undertake
an amendment of current NRC rules to permit operators of nuclear reactors to access decommissioning funds for transportation and disposal of retired large components of currently operating nuclear
power plants. We will continue to work with the NRC to request, on a case-by-case basis, that operators of these nuclear reactors be permitted to access decommissioning funds
for transportation and disposal of retired large components. The NRC's refusal to grant such requests could have an adverse impact on the prospects for our Commercial Services and LP&D
segments.

We may not be successful in entering into license stewardship arrangements with owners and operators of shut-down nuclear reactors.

We are marketing our license stewardship solution to the owners and operators of shut-down nuclear reactors in SAFSTOR or
monitored storage. Although we believe that our license stewardship initiative is an attractive alternative to deferring decommissioning and related risks to the reactor owner, including future cost
increases and the future availability of disposal capacity, the following factors may adversely affect our license stewardship initiative:



34

---



Table of Contents



As
discussed elsewhere in this report, we have entered into an agreement with Exelon to dismantle Exelon's nuclear facility located in Zion, Illinois, which ceased operation in 1998. The
NRC has issued an order approving the license transfer of the facility operating licenses and conforming license amendments from Exelon to ZionSolutions subject to the performance of certain
conditions. However, because of the current market downturn, the nuclear decommissioning trust fund balance for the Zion Station, a significant portion of which is invested in the stock market, has
declined in value. As a result, we intend to defer the completion of this transaction until we reaffirm that there is sufficient value in the decommissioning trust funds to ensure adequate funds for
the accelerated decommissioning of the plant. As of March 31, 2009, we have incurred costs of $12.7 million that have been deferred until the closing of the transaction. We will continue
to defer these costs until we close the transaction, at which time we will recognize the costs and related revenues. If we determine that it is not probable that we will close this transaction, we
will expense these costs in the period of such determination.

Our
inability to successfully complete the transaction with Exelon or to enter into other license stewardship arrangements may harm our business, financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.

We are subject to liability under environmental laws and regulations.

We are subject to a variety of environmental, health and safety laws and regulations governing, among other things, discharges to air
and water, the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous or radioactive materials and wastes, the remediation of contamination associated with releases of hazardous substances and human health and
safety. These laws and regulations and the risk of attendant litigation can cause significant delays to a project and add significantly to its cost. Our projects often involve highly regulated
materials, including hazardous and radioactive materials and wastes. Environmental laws and regulations generally impose limitations and standards for regulated materials and require us to obtain
permits and licenses and comply with various other requirements. Fees associated with such environmental permits and licenses can be costly. In addition, the improper characterization, handling,
testing, transportation or disposal of regulated materials or any other failure to comply with these environmental, health and safety laws, regulations, permits or licenses have resulted in fines or
penalties from time to time and could subject us and our management to civil and criminal penalties, the imposition of investigatory or remedial obligations or the issuance of injunctions that could
restrict or prevent our operations. These laws and regulations may also become more stringent, or be more stringently enforced, in the future.

35

---



Table of Contents

Various
national, state and local environmental laws and regulations, as well as common law, may impose liability for property damage and costs of investigation and clean-up
of hazardous or toxic substances on property currently or previously owned by us or arising out of our waste management, environmental remediation or nuclear D&D activities. These laws may impose
responsibility and liability without regard to knowledge of or causation of the presence of contaminants. The liability under these laws can be joint and several, meaning liability for the entire cost
of clean-up can be imposed upon any responsible party. We have potential liabilities associated with our past radioactive materials management activities and with our current and prior
ownership of various properties. The discovery of additional contaminants or the imposition of unforeseen clean-up obligations at these or other sites could have an adverse effect on our
results of operations and financial condition.

When
we perform our services, our personnel and equipment may be exposed to radioactive and hazardous materials and conditions. We may be subject to liability claims by employees,
customers and third parties as a result of such exposures. In addition, we may be subject to fines, penalties or other liabilities arising under environmental or safety laws. Although to date we have
been able to obtain liability insurance for the operation of our business, there can be no assurance that our existing liability insurance is adequate or that it will be able to be maintained or that
all possible claims that may be asserted against us will be covered by insurance. A partially or completely uninsured claim, if successful and of sufficient magnitude, could have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Our operations involve the handling, transportation and disposal of radioactive and hazardous materials and could result in liability without regard to our fault or
negligence.

Our operations involve the handling, transportation and disposal of radioactive and hazardous materials. Failure to properly handle
these materials could pose a health risk to humans or animals and could cause personal injury and property damage (including environmental contamination). If an accident were to occur, its severity
could be significantly affected by the volume of the materials and the speed of corrective action taken by emergency response personnel, as well as other factors beyond our control, such as weather
and wind conditions. Actions taken in response to an accident could result in significant costs.

In
our contracts, we seek to protect ourselves from liability associated with accidents, but there is no assurance that such contractual limitations on liability will be effective in all
cases or that our, or our customers', insurance will cover all the liabilities we have assumed under those contracts. The costs of defending against a claim arising out of a nuclear incident or
precautionary evacuation, and any damages awarded as a result of such a claim, could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We
maintain insurance coverage as part of our overall risk management strategy and due to requirements to maintain specific coverage in our financing agreements and in many of our
contracts. These policies do not protect us against all liabilities associated with accidents or for unrelated claims.
In addition, comparable insurance may not continue to be available to us in the future at acceptable prices, or at all.

36

---



Table of Contents

We are engaged in highly competitive businesses and typically must bid against other competitors to obtain major contracts.

We are engaged in highly competitive businesses in which most of our government contracts and some of our commercial contracts are
awarded through competitive bidding processes. We compete with national and regional firms with nuclear services practices, as well as small or local contractors. Some of our competitors have greater
financial and other resources than we do, which can give them a competitive advantage. In addition, even if we are qualified to work on a new government contract, we might not be awarded the contract
because of existing government policies designed to protect small businesses and underrepresented minority contractors. Competition also places downward pressure on our contract prices and profit
margins. Intense competition is expected to continue for nuclear service contracts, challenging our ability to maintain strong growth rates and acceptable profit margins. If we are unable to meet
these competitive challenges, we could lose market share and experience an overall reduction in our profits. In the event that a competitor is able to obtain the necessary permits, licenses and
approvals to operate a new commercial LLRW disposal site, our business could be adversely affected.

For
example, Waste Control Specialists LLC, or WCS, filed a license application with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in August 2004 for a LLRW disposal facility and
announced receipt of a conditional license on January 20, 2009. In order to receive an active license, the conditional license requires WCS to complete several major environmental studies,
examples of which
include groundwater, air emissions, and seismic stability studies. WCS must also demonstrate that the leachate from the landfill will not reach the Ogallala-Antlers-Gatuna Aquifer. The conditional
license states that prior to accepting federal facility waste, WCS must receive an agreement signed by the U.S. Secretary of Energy that it will assume all rights, title and interest in land and
buildings for the disposal of federal facility waste. Should the conditional license become active, WCS will be allowed to receive waste from the Texas Compact, which includes the states of Texas and
Vermont, and from federal facilities (i.e., DOE). WCS will not be able to receive waste via railcar or receive depleted uranium, and will be required to dispose of commercial waste in specially
designed containers in the compact portion of the facility. We cannot predict whether WCS will successfully resolve the contingencies related to the draft LLRW license, or whether the State of Texas
will issue a final license to WCS. In addition, WCS recently received a separate license to permanently dispose of 11e(2) materials at its facility.

Our business and operating results could be adversely affected by losses under fixed-price contracts.

Fixed-price contracts require us to perform all work under the contract for a specified lump-sum. Fixed-price contracts
expose us to a number of risks not inherent in cost-reimbursable contracts, including underestimation of costs, ambiguities in specifications, unforeseen costs or difficulties, problems
with new technologies, delays beyond our control, failures of subcontractors to perform and economic or other changes that may occur during the contract period. If we have under estimated the costs of
our fixed-price contracts, we may experience losses on such contracts.

If we guarantee the timely completion or performance standards of a project, we could incur additional costs to cover our guarantee obligations.

In some instances, we guarantee a customer that we will complete a project by a scheduled date. For example, in connection with our
license stewardship initiative, we guarantee that we will complete the decommissioning of a nuclear power plant that is currently shut down within both a particular time frame and budget. We also
sometimes guarantee that a project, when completed, will achieve certain performance standards. If we fail to complete the project as scheduled or if the project fails to meet guaranteed performance
standards, we may be held responsible for the impact to the customer resulting from any delay or for the cost of further work to achieve the performance standards, generally

37

---



Table of Contents

in
the form of contractually agreed-upon penalty provisions. As a result, the project costs could exceed our original estimate, leading to reduced profits or a loss for that project.

Our use of proportional performance accounting could result in a reduction or elimination of previously reported profits.

A significant portion of our revenues are recognized using the proportional performance method of accounting. Generally, the
proportional performance accounting practices we use result in recognizing contract revenues and earnings based on output measures, where estimable, or on other measures such as the proportion of
costs incurred to total estimated contract costs. For some of our long-term contracts, completion is measured on estimated physical completion or units of production. The cumulative effect
of revisions to contract revenues and estimated completion costs, including incentive awards, penalties, change orders, claims and anticipated losses, is recorded in the accounting period in which the
amounts are known or can be reasonably estimated. Due to uncertainties inherent in the estimation process, it is possible that actual completion costs may vary from estimates. A significant downward
revision to our estimates could result in a material charge to our results of operations in the period of such a revision.

Acquisitions that we pursue may present unforeseen integration obstacles and costs, increase our debt and negatively impact our performance.

Our growth strategy includes selective acquisitions of other nuclear services businesses, both domestic and international, that we
expect will enhance our existing portfolio of services and strengthen our relationships with our government and commercial customers. In 2007, we completed the acquisitions of Reactor Sites Management
Company Limited, Parallax, Inc., NUKEM Corporation and Monserco Limited. From time to time, we may consider additional acquisitions, which, if consummated, could be material. We cannot give any
assurance as to whether any such transaction could be completed or as to the price, terms or timetable on which we may do so. If we are able to consummate any such acquisition, it could result in
dilution of our earnings, an increase in indebtedness or other consequences that could be adverse.

The
expense incurred in consummating acquisitions, or our failure to integrate such businesses successfully into our existing businesses, could result in our incurring unanticipated
expenses and losses. Furthermore, we may not be able to realize anticipated benefits from acquisitions. The process of integrating acquired operations into our existing operations may result in
unforeseen operating difficulties and may require significant financial resources that would otherwise be available for the ongoing development or expansion of existing operations. Some of the risks
associated with our acquisition strategy include:



We
may not be able to identify suitable acquisition targets or negotiate attractive terms in the future. In addition, our ability to complete acquisitions is limited by covenants in our
credit facilities and our financial resources, including available cash and borrowing capacity. Given the serious decline in our stock price and tight debt markets, we may be unable to make
acquisitions. If we are unable to

38

---



Table of Contents

make
successful acquisitions, our ability to grow our business could be adversely affected. We made no acquisitions during 2008.

Our success depends on attracting and retaining qualified personnel in a competitive environment.

Our operations require the services of highly qualified managerial and business development personnel, skilled technology specialists
and experts in a wide range of scientific, engineering and health and safety fields. Partly because no new nuclear reactors have commenced construction since the mid-1970s, there has been
a limited number of qualified students graduating from universities with specialized nuclear engineering or nuclear science-based degrees. As a result, the nuclear services industry is experiencing a
shortage of qualified personnel. We face increasing competition and expense to attract and retain such personnel. Loss of key personnel or failure to attract personnel to expand our operations could
have an adverse effect on our ability to operate our business and execute our business strategy.

Our failure to maintain our safety record could have an adverse effect on our business.

Our safety record is critical to our reputation. In addition, many of our government and commercial customers require that we maintain
certain specified safety record guidelines to be eligible to bid for contracts with these customers. Furthermore, contract terms may provide for automatic termination in the event that our safety
record fails to adhere to agreed-upon guidelines during performance of the contract. As a result, our failure to maintain our safety record could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition and results of operations.

An impairment charge could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142,Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets, we are required to test acquired goodwill for impairment on an annual basis based upon a fair value approach, rather than amortizing it over time. Goodwill represents
the excess of the amount we paid to acquire our subsidiaries and other businesses over the fair value of their net assets at the date of the acquisition. We have chosen to perform our annual
impairment reviews of goodwill as of the end of the first quarter of each fiscal year. We also are required to test goodwill for impairment between annual tests if events occur or circumstances change
that would more likely than not reduce our enterprise fair value below its book value. In addition, we are required to test our finite-lived intangible assets for impairment if events occur or
circumstances change that would indicate the remaining net book value of the finite-lived intangible assets might not be recoverable. These events or circumstances could include a significant change
in the business climate, including a significant sustained decline in an entity's market value, legal factors, operating performance indicators, competition, sale or disposition of a significant
portion of our business, potential government actions towards our facilities and other factors. If the fair market value of our reporting units is less than their book value, we could be required to
record an impairment charge. The valuation of reporting units requires judgment in estimating future cash flows, discount rates and other factors. In making these judgments, we evaluate the financial
health of our business, including such factors as industry performance, changes in technology and operating cash flows. The amount of any impairment could be significant and could have a material
adverse effect on our reported financial results for the period in which the charge is taken.

In
June 2006, we acquired Duratek for an aggregate purchase price of $440.8 million. Goodwill recognized for this acquisition was $310.5 million. We paid a premium in
excess of the fair value of $216.9 million. We were willing to pay this premium as a result of our identification of significant synergies that we expect to realize through the acquisition.
However, if we determine that we are not able to realize these expected synergies and determine that the fair value of the assets acquired is less

39

---



Table of Contents

than
the book value of those assets, then we would have to recognize an impairment to goodwill as a current-period expense. Because of the significant amount of goodwill recognized in the Duratek
acquisition, an impairment of that goodwill could result in a material expense and could result in a decrease in the market price of our common stock.

Since
our annual impairment test, which was completed in the second quarter of 2008, we updated our forecasts to reflect the impacts of the global economic down turn. For the three
months ended March 31, 2009, we do not believe that any impairment charge is required; however, we will be completing our annual impairment test in the second quarter of 2009. Further changes
in our forecasts or decreases in the value of our common stock could cause book values of certain operating segments to exceed their fair values, which may result in goodwill impairment charges in
future periods. We had $528.3 million of goodwill and $350.5 million of finite-lived intangible assets, which collectively represented 53.7% of our total assets of $1.6 billion as
of March 31, 2009.

We have substantial debt, which could harm our financial condition, business and growth prospects.

As of March 31, 2009, the outstanding balance under our credit facilities was $556.8 million. Our substantial debt could
have important consequences to us, including the following:



We
currently have $14.9 million letters of credit issued against our $75.0 million revolving credit facility, which matures on June 7, 2011; a $556.8 million
balance on our first lien term loan facilities, which mature on June 7, 2013 with minimum payments of $3.2 million in 2009, $5.9 million in 2010, 2011 and 2012; and a
$100.0 million synthetic letter of credit facility, which expires on June 7, 2013.

Borrowings
under our credit facilities bear interest at variable rates. As of March 31, 2009, the weighted average interest rate under our credit facilities was 4.15%. At this
rate and assuming an outstanding balance of $556.8 million as of March 31, 2009, our annual debt service obligations would be $23.1 million. Based on the amount of debt
outstanding and the interest rate at March 31, 2009, a hypothetical 1% increase in interest rates would increase our annual interest expense by approximately $5.6 million. If interest
rates were to increase significantly, our ability to borrow additional funds may be reduced, our interest expense would significantly increase and the risks related to our substantial debt would
intensify.

The agreements governing our debt restrict our ability to engage in certain business transactions.

The agreements governing the credit facilities restrict our ability to, among other things, engage in the following actions, subject to
limited exceptions:



40

---







Table of Contents



Our
credit facilities also contain other covenants that are typical for credit facilities of this size, type and tenor, such as requirements that we meet specified maximum leverage and
minimum cash interest coverage ratios. Our ability to make additional borrowings under our credit facilities depends upon satisfaction of these covenants. Our ability to comply with these covenants
and requirements may be affected by events beyond our control.

Our
failure to comply with obligations under our credit facilities could result in an event of default under the facilities. A default, if not cured or waived, could prohibit us from
obtaining further loans under our credit facilities and permit the lenders thereunder to accelerate payment of their loans. If our debt is accelerated, we cannot be certain that we will have funds
available to pay the accelerated debt or that we will have the ability to refinance the accelerated debt on terms favorable to us or at all. If we could not repay or refinance the accelerated debt, we
could be insolvent and could seek to file for bankruptcy protection. Any such default, acceleration or insolvency would likely have a material adverse effect on the market value of our common stock.

We rely on intellectual property law and confidentiality agreements to protect our intellectual property. Our failure to protect our intellectual property rights could
adversely affect our future performance and growth.

Protection of our proprietary processes, methods and other technology is important to our business. Failure to protect our existing
intellectual property rights may result in the loss of valuable technologies. We rely on patent, trade secret, trademark and copyright law as well as judicial enforcement to protect such technologies.
A majority of our patents relate to the development of new products and processes for the processing and disposal of radioactive materials. Our intellectual property could be challenged, invalidated,
circumvented or rendered unenforceable.

We
also rely upon unpatented proprietary nuclear expertise, continuing technological innovation and other trade secrets to develop and maintain our competitive position. We generally
enter into confidentiality agreements with our employees and third parties to protect our intellectual property, but these agreements are limited in duration and could be breached, and therefore they
may not provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets or proprietary nuclear expertise. Adequate remedies may not be available in the event of an unauthorized use or disclosure of our trade
secrets and nuclear expertise. Others may obtain knowledge of our trade secrets through independent development or other access by legal means. The failure of our intellectual property or
confidentiality agreements to
protect our processes, technology, trade secrets and proprietary nuclear expertise and methods could have an adverse effect on our business by jeopardizing our rights to use critical intellectual
property.

In
addition, effective intellectual property protection may be limited or unavailable in some foreign countries where we may pursue operations.

If our partners fail to perform their contractual obligations on a project or if we fail to coordinate effectively with our partners, we could be exposed to legal liability,
loss of reputation and reduced profit on the project.

We often perform projects jointly with contractual partners. For example, we enter into contracting consortia and other contractual
arrangements to bid and perform jointly on large projects. Success on

41

---



Table of Contents

these
joint projects depends in part on whether our partners fulfill their contractual obligations satisfactorily. If any of our partners fails to perform its contractual obligations satisfactorily,
we may be required to make additional investments and provide additional services in order to compensate for that partner's failure. If we are unable to adequately address our partner's performance
issues, then our customer may exercise its right to terminate a joint project, exposing us to legal liability, loss of reputation and reduced profit.

Our
collaborative arrangements also involve risks that participating parties may disagree on business decisions and strategies. These disagreements could result in delays, additional
costs and risks of litigation. Our inability to successfully maintain existing collaborative relationships or enter into new collaborative arrangements could have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations.

We conduct a portion of our operations through joint venture entities, over which we may have limited control.

We currently have equity interests in joint ventures and may enter into additional joint ventures in the future. As with most joint
venture arrangements, differences in views among the joint venture participants may result in delayed decisions or disputes. We also cannot control the actions of our joint venture partners, and we
typically have joint and several liability with our joint venture partners under the applicable contracts for joint venture projects. These factors could potentially harm the business and operations
of a joint venture and, in turn, our business and operations.

Operating
through joint ventures in which we are minority holders results in us having limited control over many decisions made with respect to projects and internal controls relating to
projects. These joint ventures may not be subject to the same requirements regarding internal controls and internal control over financial reporting that we follow. As a result, internal control
problems may arise with respect to the joint ventures.

Our dependence on subcontractors and equipment manufacturers could adversely affect us.

We rely on subcontractors and equipment manufacturers to complete our projects. For example, when providing D&D services to a
government customer, we may rely on one or more subcontractors to conduct demolition work. To the extent that we cannot engage subcontractors or acquire equipment or materials to provide such
services, our ability to complete the project in a timely fashion or at a given profit margin may be impaired. Our LP&D segment also enters into contracts with various railroads for the
transportation of radioactive materials from project sites to our processing and disposal facilities. In the event that the railroads fail to deliver radioactive materials to our facilities on time,
we could be forced to delay recognizing LP&D revenues until the time of delivery.

In
addition, if a subcontractor or a manufacturer is unable to deliver its services, equipment or materials according to the negotiated terms for any reason, including the deterioration
of its financial condition, we may be required to purchase those services, equipment or materials from another source at a higher price. This may reduce our profitability or result in a loss on the
project for which the services, equipment or materials were needed.

Letters of credit and adequate bonding are necessary for us to win certain types of new work.

We are required to post, from time to time, standby letters of credit and surety bonds to support contractual obligations to customers
as well as other obligations. These letters of credit and bonds indemnify the customer if we fail to perform our obligations under the contract. For example, in connection with our agreement with
Exelon Corporation regarding the decommissioning of its Zion nuclear facility located in Zion, Illinois, we are required to deliver a $200 million letter of credit to Exelon relating to our
present and future obligations. If a letter of credit or bond is required for a particular project and we are unable to obtain it due to insufficient liquidity or other reasons, we will not be able to
pursue that project. We have a bonding facility but, as is typically the case, the issuance

42

---



Table of Contents

of
bonds under that facility is at the surety's sole discretion. In addition, we have limited capacity under our credit facilities for letters of credit. Moreover, due to events that affect the
insurance and bonding and credit markets generally, bonding and letters of credit may be more difficult to obtain in the future or may only be available at significant additional cost. There can be no
assurance that letters of credit or bonds will continue to be available to us on reasonable terms. Our inability to obtain adequate letters of credit and bonding and, as a result, to bid on new work
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. As of March 31, 2009, we had $100.0 million in letters of credit which are issued
under our synthetic letter of credit facility, $14.9 million in letters of credit which are issued under the revolving portion of our credit facility and $451,000 in surety bonds outstanding.

Because we publish earnings guidance for our company, our common stock may be subject to increased volatility and we may be subject to lawsuits by investors.

Because we publish earnings guidance, we are subject to a number of risks. Based on the timing of winning key contracts, regulatory
decision making and other uncertainties relating to assumptions that management makes in calculating our expected financial results, actual results may vary from the guidance we provide investors. Our
stock price may decline following an announcement of disappointing earnings or earnings guidance or if we revise our earnings guidance downward as the estimates and assumptions we make in calculating
guidance become more certain. On October 14, 2008, we announced a reduction in our earnings guidance due, among other things, to the current economic downturn. Following that announcement, our
stock price declined by 44% on October 14, 2008.

Our
earnings guidance reflects our assumptions regarding future performance, including, among other things, the likelihood of securing and performing work under new contracts. If we fail
to secure and perform work under contracts in accordance with our assumptions, we may be unable to achieve our
earnings guidance. Some companies that have made downward revisions to their earnings guidance or did not meet the guidance provided have been subject to lawsuits by investors. Such lawsuits may have
merit and result in adverse settlements or judgments. Even if such lawsuits are dismissed or have no merit, they may be costly and may divert management attention and other resources away from our
business, which could harm our business and the price of our common stock.

If securities or industry analysts stop publishing research or reports about our business, if they change their recommendations regarding our stock adversely or if our
operating results do not meet their expectations, our stock price could decline.

The trading market for our common stock is influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us
or our business. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause
our stock price or trading volume to decline. Moreover, if one or more of the analysts who cover our company downgrade our stock or if our operating results do not meet their expectations, our stock
price could decline.

As a public company, we are subject to additional financial and other reporting and corporate governance requirements that may be difficult for us to satisfy.

In connection with our initial public offering in November 2007, we became obligated to file with the SEC annual and quarterly
information and other reports that are specified in Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. We are also required to ensure that we have the ability to prepare financial
statements that are fully compliant with all SEC reporting requirements on a timely basis. We are also subject to other reporting and corporate governance requirements, including the requirements of
the NYSE and certain provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the

43

---



Table of Contents

regulations
promulgated thereunder, which impose significant compliance obligations upon us. As a public company, we are required to, among other things:



These
changes require a significant commitment of additional resources. We may not be successful in implementing these requirements and implementing them could adversely affect our
business or operating results. In addition, if we fail to implement the requirements with respect to our internal accounting and audit functions, our ability to report our operating results on a
timely and accurate basis could be impaired.

If we or our independent registered public accounting firm identify a material weakness in our internal controls and such material weakness is not properly remediated, it
could result in material misstatements of our financial statements in future periods.

We or our independent registered public accounting firm may, in the future, identify a material weakness in our internal control over
financial reporting. A material weakness is defined by the standards issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board as a significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies,
that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected.

If
material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting are identified in the future, we may be unable to provide required financial information in a timely and reliable
manner, or otherwise comply with the standards applicable to us as a public company, and our management may not be able to report that our internal control over financial reporting is effective in
accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. There could also be a negative reaction in the markets due to a loss of investor confidence in us and the reliability of our financial
statements and, as a result, our business may be harmed and the price of our common stock may decline.

Item 6.    Exhibits.

31.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14a. Filed herewith.31.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14a. Filed herewith.32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Furnished herewith.


44

---





SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its
behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, this 8th day of May, 2009.

ENERGYSOLUTIONS,INC.By:

/s/ PHILIP O. STRAWBRIDGE Philip O. Strawbridge Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer


45

---