SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 8-k
CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) September 28, 2004
PERMA-FIX ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 1-11596 58-1954497
-------- ------- ----------
(State or other jurisdiction (Commission File Number) (IRS Employer
of incorporation) Identification No.)
1940 N. W. 67th Place, Suite A, Gainesville, Florida 32653
---------------------------------------------------- ----------
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
Registrant's telephone number, including area code (352) 373-4200
Not applicable
-------------------------------------------------------------
(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)
Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to
simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the
following provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):
|_| Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act
(17 CFR 230.425)
|_| Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act
(17 CRF 240.14a-12)
|_| Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
|_| Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c)) under the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
Section 7 - Regulation FD
Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure
The Registrant previously disclosed in its Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003, that during January 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") issued to Perma-Fix of Dayton, Inc. ("PFD"), a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Registrant, a Notice of Findings of Violations ("Findings")
alleging that PFD committed numerous violations of the Clean Air Act (the "Act")
or regulations thereunder, and, although EPA did not assert any penalties or
fines in the Findings, they did, however, specify that EPA had several
enforcement options, including issuing an administrative penalty order or
bringing judicial action against PFD. PFD has had numerous meetings with EPA
regarding this matter. On September 28, 2004, PFD received an Administrative
Compliance Order ("Order"), dated September 21, 2004, from EPA alleging that PFD
was a "major source" of hazardous air pollutants and, as a major source, PFD was
required to have obtained a Title V air permit, and thereby was not in
compliance with provisions of the Act and/or regulations thereunder applicable
to a major source. The Order further provides that PFD has six months from the
effective date of the Order, to develop, submit, obtain and comply with numerous
costly and burdensome compliance initiatives applicable to one that is a major
source of hazardous air pollutants and to submit an application to the State of
Ohio for a Title V Air permit. The Order does not assert any penalties or fines
but provides that PFD is not absolved of any liabilities, including liability
for penalties, for the alleged violations cited in the Order, and that failure
to comply with the Order may subject PFD to penalties up to $32,500 per day for
each violation. PFD has 10 days from the receipt of the Order to request a
conference with EPA regarding the Order, which PFD intends to do. The Registrant
and PFD have retained environmental consultants who have advised the Registrant
and PFD that, based on the tests that they have performed, the enviromental
consultants do not believe that PFD is a major source of hazardous air
pollutants. The Registrant and PFD have been further advised by counsel that if
PFD is not a major source of hazardous air pollutants, PFD would not be required
to obtain a Title V air permit, would not have violated the provisions of the
Act alleged in the Order and would not be required to comply with the costly and
burdensome compliance initiatives contained in the Order. Further, the Company
and PFD have been further advised that the Order may violate certain
constitutional issues involving due process based on a recent decision by the
United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit. A determination that PFD was a
major source of hazardous air pollutants and required to comply with the Order,
such could have a material adverse effect on the Registrant. The Registrant and
PFD intend that PFD will vigorously defend itself in connection with this
matter.
SIGNATURES
----------
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Company has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
PERMA-FIX ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC.
By: /s/ Richard T. Kelecy
-----------------------
Richard T. Kelecy
Chief Financial Officer
Dated: October 4, 2004