Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

Commission file number 001-33830

EnergySolutions, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

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

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes o No x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes o No x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No 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 Regulations S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. 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 the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant on June 30, 2011, was approximately $439 million based upon the closing price reported for such date on the New York Stock Exchange. For purposes of this disclosure, shares of common stock held by persons who hold more than 5% of the outstanding shares of common stock and shares held by executive officers and directors of the registrant have been excluded because such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of executive officer or affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

As of March 12, 2012, 89,181,997 shares of registrant’s common stock were outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K incorporates by reference certain information from the definitive proxy statement for the registrant’s annual meeting of stockholders to be held on or about May 23, 2012. The registrant intends to file the proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days of December 31, 2011.

Table of Contents

ENERGYSOLUTIONS, INC.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

For Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2011

Table of Contents

GLOSSARY OF DEFINED TERMS

The following defined terms are used throughout this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Many of the forward-looking statements are located in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” Forward-looking statements provide current expectations of future events based on certain assumptions and include any statement that does not directly relate to any historical or current fact. Forward-looking statements can also be identified by words such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “predicts,” and similar terms. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and the Company’s actual results may differ significantly from the results discussed in the forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause such differences include, but are not limited to, those discussed in the subsection entitled “Risk Factors” under Part I, Item 1A of this Form 10-K. We undertake no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements for any reason, except as required by law.

References herein to “EnergySolutions,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” or “our” refer to EnergySolutions, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries unless the context otherwise requires.

PART I

Item 1.  Business

Overview

We are a leading provider of a broad range of nuclear services to government and commercial customers who rely on our expertise to address their needs throughout the lifecycle of their nuclear operations. Our broad range of nuclear services includes engineering, in-plant support services, spent nuclear fuel management, decontamination and decommissioning (“D&D”), operation of nuclear reactors, logistics, transportation, processing and low-level radioactive waste (“LLRW”) disposal. We also own and operate strategic processing and disposal facilities that complement our services and uniquely position us to provide a single-source solution to our customers.

We derive almost 100% of our revenue from the provision of nuclear services, and we believe that virtually every company or organization in the United States (“U.S.”) that holds a nuclear license uses our services or facilities, directly or indirectly. Our government customers include the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”), U.S. Department of Defense (“DOD”) and United Kingdom (“U.K.”) Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (“NDA”). Our commercial customers include many of the largest owners and operators of nuclear power plants in the U.S., including Constellation Energy Group, Inc., Duke Energy Corporation, Entergy Corporation, Exelon Corporation, and Florida Power & Light Company. We have entered into long-term arrangements, which we refer to as “life-of-plant” contracts, with nuclear power and utility companies that own and/or operate 84 of the 104 operating nuclear reactors in the U.S. Under these life-of-plant contracts, we have typically agreed to process and dispose of substantially all LLRW and mixed low-level waste (“MLLW”) generated by our customers’ nuclear power plants, and ultimately the waste materials generated from the D&D of those plants. Our commercial customers also include hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, research laboratories, universities with research reactors, industrial facilities, and other commercial facilities.

We operate strategic facilities designed 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. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, our facility in Clive, Utah is the largest privately owned LLRW disposal site in the U.S. and currently handles over 95% of all commercial LLRW disposal volume in the country. We estimate that LLRW accounts for more than 90% of the volume but less than 1% of the radioactivity of all radioactive by-products. We also manage ten sites in the U.K. with 22 reactors for the NDA, of which 2 are currently operating and producing electricity and 20 are in various stages of decommissioning. We have a comprehensive portfolio of nuclear processing technology and know-how, supported by approximately 271 patents that we own or are licensed to use. As of December 31, 2011, we had more than 5,700 employees, including more than 1,080 scientists and engineers and 280 radiation and safety professionals. Approximately 3,400 of our employees are located at the ten sites we manage in the U.K. We also manage approximately 650 employees at various DOE sites. We have received multiple awards for our safety record.

Our Segments

EnergySolutions is a solution-oriented company that helps its customers solve the complex challenges posed by the management and use of hazardous and nuclear materials. We provide a broad range of nuclear services to government and commercial customers through two major operating groups: the Government Group and the Global Commercial Group. The Global Commercial Group reports its results under three separate operating business divisions: Commercial Services, Logistics, Processing and Disposal (“LP&D”) and International. When a project involves the provision of specialized on-site nuclear services as well as processing and disposal services and depending on the type of customer, our Government Group

1

Table of Contents

or Commercial Services divisions coordinate with our LP&D division to provide those specialized services. We actively seek to minimize contract risk across the groups and, in 2011, approximately 90% of our revenue was derived from cost-reimbursable or unit-rate contracts.

Government Group

We derive revenue from U.S. government customers for the management and operation (“M&O”) of DOE facilities and the clean-up of sites and facilities under the federal government’s control that are contaminated by hazardous or radioactive materials. The services we provide to our government customers include the on-site characterization, processing, sorting, segregation, packaging, transportation, management and disposal of classified and unclassified solid and liquid transuranic, LLRW, MLLW and other special wastes. Our licensed technologies are used for the processing of high-level radioactive waste, and as a result, we participate as part of consortia that manage the nation’s high-level radioactive waste inventories at a number of government sites. The Government Group operations are divided into four regional organizations (Northwest, Eastern, Southeast and Southwest) and three national organizations (Navy Decommissioning Programs, Engineered Systems and Technology Projects and Management Consulting).

Our government work includes the development of processes, engineering, fabrication and operation of facilities to reduce the hazards posed by high-level radioactive waste pending final disposition in a national geological repository. In addition, we derive revenue from the provision of D&D, processing and disposal services to the DOD, including the environmental restoration of contaminated federal sites, the decontamination of classified equipment, and the decontamination and recycling of materials for re-use in nuclear applications. We also manage site operations of federal facilities as part of a number of our contracts.

Our government work involves providing customized waste management solutions, D&D of high hazard nuclear facilities, environmental remediation of federal sites contaminated by hazardous and radiological waste, and the deployment of our engineering and technology-based expertise to meet these kinds of challenges throughout the federal government. Our primary emphasis to date has been for the clean-up of sites at major DOE facilities, such as the Hanford site in Richland, Washington; Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina; Idaho National Lab in Idaho Falls, Idaho and Los Alamos National Laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Our contract role for government customers is either under Tier 1 or Tier 2 contract arrangements. Under a Tier 1 contract, we typically provide services as an integrated member of a prime contract team either as a joint venture owner or as an integrated team subcontractor. Where we act as part of a Tier 1 team under a prime contract with the DOE, our employees often work alongside with and manage dedicated employees at the site who are employed by the Tier 1 contractor for the duration of the prime contract and who are covered by local benefit packages. Under a Tier 2 contract arrangement, we provide services to Tier 1 contractors on a subcontracted basis.

Our government customers have in the past and may in the future account for a significant portion of our revenue. We assumed voting control over two joint ventures at the request of the DOE during the fourth quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008, respectively. Consolidation of these joint ventures added $38.9 million, $110.6 million, and $108.8 million to our segment revenue in 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. Revenue from DOE contractors and subcontractors represented approximately 15.3%, 21.7% and 15.8% of our total consolidated revenue in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.  While in the past our primary focus was on the DOE, we began to target additional government markets that have work scopes that align with our core competencies.

Our Government Group work is highly customized to our customers’ specific needs and the technical challenges posed at those customers’ sites. The following are examples of our Government Group work in recent years:

Hanford Site Operations

The 586-square mile Hanford site was a former plutonium production complex with nine nuclear reactors and associated processing facilities located along the Columbia River in southeastern Washington. In 1989, the DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), and the Washington State Department of Ecology signed the Tri-Party Agreement, which established milestones for the clean-up of the Hanford site. Currently, the DOE is shifting a portion of the use of the site from inactive storage to waste characterization, treatment, storage and disposal operations. Massive plants are being designed and built either to vitrify the waste at the Hanford site or to contain it in blocks of concrete grout. About 300 contaminated buildings are slated for clean up, and a radioactive waste packaging program is expected to continue until the Hanford site clean-up is complete.

2

Table of Contents

On May 29, 2008, we won the contract for the management of all high-level waste systems at Hanford as part of the Washington River Protection Solutions LLC (“WRPS”) team. WRPS has the responsibility to safely manage approximately 53 million gallons of radioactive and chemical waste until it can be prepared for disposal. This is one of the largest and most complex environmental cleanup projects undertaken by the DOE. The waste, stored in 177 underground tanks near the center of the Hanford site, will be vitrified into glass logs in a treatment plant that is currently under construction. WRPS will also be responsible for safely storing the treated waste until permanent disposal facilities become available. Under separate agreements, we also provide management and technical services as a subcontractor to other prime contractors at the Hanford site. For example, our technology for the vitrification of high-level waste has been licensed to the DOE, and it has been selected as the baseline technology for the project. We designed the vitrification system for the high-level waste treatment plant, and we continue to provide engineering, research, and testing services to the DOE for their work at the site.

Oak Ridge Operations

The DOE has three separate and distinctive operations within the city of Oak Ridge, Tennessee. These are the Y-12 National Security Complex (“Y-12”), the East Tennessee Technology Park (“ETTP”), and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (“ORNL”). ORNL, one of the DOE’s largest science and energy laboratories, was established in 1943 as a part of the Manhattan Project, and has been managed since April 2000 by a partnership of the University of Tennessee and Battelle Memorial Institute.

We have provided on-going technical and management support to ORNL since 1987. Our wholly owned subsidiary Isotek Systems LLC, is responsible for the management and disposition of the site’s highly radioactive uranium 233 stockpile. Other project work at ORNL includes the operation of the wastewater treatment plant at the site as well as project work including sampling, characterization, abatement, segregation, packaging, transportation, D&D, and disposal of hazardous materials. We are also responsible for sorting, segregating, and volume reduction of LLRW at ORNL.

We provide similar waste management, D&D, and environmental remediation services to Y-12 and ETTP through Tier 2 project contracts.

Savannah River Site Operations

Established in 1950 by the Atomic Energy Commission, the DOE’s Savannah River Site (“SRS”) is a 310-square mile facility near Aiken, South Carolina. The site was constructed during the early 1950s to produce materials, primarily tritium and plutonium-239, used in the fabrication of nuclear weapons in support of certain U.S. defense programs. Due to changes in the national security strategy of the U.S., many SRS facilities are no longer needed to produce or process nuclear materials. The DOE has identified approximately 300 structures as surplus and requiring clean-up, ranging in size and complexity from large nuclear reactors to scores of small storage buildings.

We have supported the management and disposition of hazardous and radioactive solid waste and high-level liquids waste at SRS since 1996. Highly radioactive liquid waste is generated at SRS as by-products from the processing of nuclear materials for national defense, research and medical programs. The waste, totaling about 36 million gallons, is currently stored in 49 underground carbon steel waste tanks grouped into two “tank farms” at SRS.

We are part of a team that has been contracted by the DOE for the design, construction, commissioning and operation of a new waste processing facility at SRS. The facility will be a pre-treatment plant to remove cesium from the highly radioactive waste stored in the tank farms. Our role on the team includes the performance of nuclear safety analysis for the facility, commissioning, testing, start-up, and operation of the facility.

On December 8, 2008, the DOE awarded the SRS contract to manage liquid waste to Savannah River Remediation, LLC, under which we are a pre-selected Tier 2 contractor. Under this contract, we provide technology support to the SRS vitrification facility. Since the contract award, our licensed vitrification technology has been applied to the SRS melters which has significantly expanded their capacity. We also support Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, the M&O contractor for the site as a Tier 2 contractor in the disposition of hazardous radiological waste streams.

Idaho National Laboratory

Established in the late 1950s, the Idaho National Laboratory occupies approximately 700 square miles and was originally established as the National Reactor Testing Station. More than 60 nuclear reactors were designed, built and tested on the site. Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing missions were subsequently added to the site, whereby the DOE extracted highly

3

Table of Contents

enriched uranium from used nuclear fuel for recycling into the weapons program. The Idaho National Laboratory was also a disposal site for transuranic waste generated during processing operations at Rocky Flats in Colorado.

We built the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Plant at the Idaho National Laboratory to safely treat transuranic contaminated waste for final disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico. This contract was recompeted and a team including EnergySolutions was awarded this contract in the third quarter of 2011.

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio occupies approximately 640 acres situated on a 3,714 acre federal site. It is operated by the United States Enrichment Corporation, a subsidiary of USEC Inc. The plant has a long history of enriching uranium for defense and commercial nuclear power needs, beginning in the early 1940s with a U.S. defense initiative to produce fissionable material for the atomic bomb. The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant ended enrichment operations in 2001.

Through a joint venture with Los Alamos Technical Associates, we provided environmental management services at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant project, including site characterization, decommissioning, waste processing, and environmental restoration. We submitted an application as the lead of a team for the continued D&D activities of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. However, the contract was awarded to a competing team in 2010. Our prime contract concluded in the first part of 2011 with the completion of the transition to the new contract team. The new contract team has asked that we continue to support the site clean-up as a subcontractor to their team.

Atlas Mill Tailings Cleanup

In June 2007, the DOE awarded us a contract to clean up the Atlas mill tailings that lie alongside the Colorado River near Moab, Utah. The site encompasses approximately 435 acres, of which approximately 130 acres contain uranium mill tailings (16 million tons). This contract included the design and construction of the disposal cell, design and construction of the transportation system and shipment and disposal of 2.5 million tons of tailings. In 2009, this project received American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”) funding to transport and dispose of an additional 2 million tons of tailings material. The contract was largely completed in December 2011.

Los Alamos National Laboratory

The Los Alamos National Laboratory (“LANL”) occupies approximately 40 acres located in northern New Mexico, as a research facility of the National Nuclear Security Administration that is managed by Los Alamos National Security LLC.

Since its inception in 1943, the primary mission of LANL has been focused on high-level science and technology essential to national defense and global security. Many of the activities and operations at LANL have produced solids, liquids, and gases that contain radioactive and non-radioactive hazardous materials. Such activities include conducting research and development programs in basic and applied chemistry, biology, and physics; fabricating and testing explosives; cleaning chemically contaminated equipment; and working with radioactive materials. Since environmental management work began in 1989 at LANL, the number of legacy sites there requiring further processing has been reduced by approximately 60 percent through active remediation, or by confirming that no action is needed.

In September 2009, we were awarded contracts to install and operate two transuranic waste processing lines at LANL. These lines will process over 1,000 drums of transuranic waste and prepare them for shipment to the DOE Waste Isolation Pilot Plant for disposal.

Navy Decommissioning Programs

Our Navy Decommissioning Programs focus on the U.S. Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program (“NNPP”).  NNPP operates four federal shipyards (Portsmouth, New Hampshire; Norfolk, Virginia; Puget Sound, Washington; and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii), and subcontracts the operation of two private shipyards in Newport News, Virginia and Groton, Connecticut.  There are also three Navy laboratories: Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory in New York, Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory in Pennsylvania, and the Naval Reactors Facility in Idaho.  We have received, processed, and dispositioned waste from these facilities since 1994.  These sites have been of particular importance to our metal recycling programs at fixed facilities in Tennessee, with NNPP’s continued commitment to green technologies.

4

Table of Contents

We began providing our first D&D services for NNPP at the Portsmouth shipyard in 2006.  This task developed NNPP’s confidence in the Company and led to various D&D operations at other federal shipyards.  We have performed D&D projects, involving removal of dockside structures, at the Portsmouth and Pearl Harbor shipyards for four years.

Engineered Systems and Technology Projects

We employ highly trained personnel with technical and engineering experience in critical areas of the nuclear services industry. Our technical capabilities include engineering (chemical, process, mechanical, nuclear, civil and structural), radiological safety, chemistry, environmental, safety, and other disciplines that are critical to the provision of technology-based nuclear services.

We provide on-site engineering services to support the deployment of radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste treatment, transportation, and disposal technologies. In addition, we design equipment, components and integrated turn-key systems, train customer personnel, and perform a broad range of engineering consultation services. As part of the acquisition of BNG America, LLC (“BNGA”), we obtained the rights in the U.S., Canada and Mexico to the full suite of spent nuclear fuel recycling technologies of British Nuclear Fuels Limited, including intellectual properties. We also employ many of the employees who designed, constructed, commissioned and operated the existing spent fuel recycling facilities in the U.K.

Our Engineered Systems and Technology Projects Group’s expertise in radioactive waste immobilization through vitrification is an important competitive advantage. Vitrification is a technique in which waste mixes with glass-forming chemicals to form molten glass that solidifies and immobilizes the embedded waste. It is an established means for the disposal and long-term storage of nuclear and other hazardous wastes that produces a non-leaching, durable material that effectively traps waste that can be stored for relatively long periods without concern for air or groundwater contamination. Our patented system is the baseline technology for the high-level radioactive waste and LLRW waste vitrification processes at the DOE’s Hanford Waste Treatment Plant. We have designed, constructed, and operated nonradioactive, nonhazardous pilot melters to test design concepts for the full scale units that will vitrify millions of gallons of highly radioactive tank waste at the Hanford site. The engineered systems and technology group has also been awarded a contract to ensure that the planned mixing processes during pretreatment will work as designed.

Our Engineered Systems and Technology Projects Group manages complex engineering, procurement, construction and integration projects by combining our technologies, expertise in the implementation of nuclear quality assurance programs, and engineering and project management team experience. The following are examples of project integration work we have undertaken in recent years:

Autosampling Pneumatic Transfer System—Waste Treatment Plant, Hanford, Washington- The Autosampling Pneumatic Transfer System (“ASX”) is an integrated process and control system for the Waste Treatment Plant Project in Hanford, Washington. The ASX system collects waste and process effluent samples from vessels and equipment of the Pretreatment Facility, Low-Activity Waste Facility, and High Level Waste Facility and pneumatically sends the samples to the Analytical Laboratory for testing confirmation. Our project scope was to design, supply, test, and provide technical services for the installation, commissioning, and training for ten shielded autosamplers and associated equipment. This project was completed in 2010.

M3 Pulse Jet Mixer Mixing Stand—Waste Treatment Plant, Hanford Washington - We are currently contracted to design, build, fabricate, install, commission, operate, and report test results for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant M3 PJM Mixing Test Stand in Hanford, Washington. This test is designed to compare computational fluid dynamics analytical data for pulse jet mixing in the WTP Tanks FEP-17 and HLP-22 with scaled results using a four foot diameter instrumented test vessel. We expect to complete work on this project in mid 2012.

Management Consulting

EnergySolutions Performance Strategies (“ESPS”) provides management consulting, with 150 consultants supporting our Government and Global Commercial Groups.  ESPS delivers high impact individuals in specialty disciplines: nuclear safety, quality assurance, training, and performance assurance.  Performance assurance, the dominant discipline within ESPS, is staffed by retired Navy engineers and adds substantial value to our own projects and our customer’s operations.

5

Table of Contents

Global Commercial Group

The Global Commercial Group reports its results under three separate operating business divisions: Commercial Services, LP&D and International.

Commercial Services Operations

We provide a broad range of on-site services to our commercial customers, including nuclear power and utility companies, fuel fabrication and related nuclear fuel cycle companies, pharmaceutical companies, research laboratories, universities, industrial facilities, and other entities that generate radioactive and hazardous materials or are involved in the nuclear services industry. Our services are delivered to our clients through three principal groups as follows:

1.               Our Project Services Delivery Group provides D&D, large component removal and disposition, radioactive material characterization and management, spent nuclear fuel services, emergency response, site remediation and restoration, license termination, stakeholder and regulatory interface, liquid and solid waste management, and other nuclear and hazardous services.

2.               Our Technology Products Group provides expertise, technology, systems and equipment used to process millions of gallons per year of radioactively contaminated liquids generated by operating nuclear plants in the U.S. and internationally. We have proprietary and patented systems and technologies that support our client’s needs to safely manage their radioactive plant liquid and effluent discharges.

3.               Our Long-Term Stewardship Group conducts our license stewardship program that is a new, innovative approach to provide decommissioning services. This group led the efforts to successfully close a unique transaction with Exelon Generation Company on September 1, 2010, where we assumed the responsibility for decommissioning the shut-down Zion Nuclear Power Station in Zion, Illinois.

Project Services Delivery Group

The services our Project Services Delivery Group provides to clients include:

Decontamination and Decommissioning.  We have been providing D&D services to our customers for over 30 years. This includes D&D of commercial nuclear power plants, test reactor facilities, nuclear research laboratories, fuel cycle/fabrication facilities, and industrial facilities that used nuclear materials in their processes.

Large Component Removal and Disposition.  Our expertise, personnel and strategic assets enable us to prepare large components for transport via public highway, waterway, rail, or combinations thereof to ensure the highest degree of safety and compliance with regulatory requirements. Large components include overweight and oversized nuclear components, such as reactor pressure vessels, steam generators, reactor heads, pressurizers, turbine rotors, reactor coolant pumps and feed water heaters. Transportation, processing and disposal of these large components are typically handled through our LP&D segment.

Site Remediation and Restoration.  We provide site characterization, remediation and release survey services to clients who have radioactively contaminated sites, including facilities that are currently licensed at the federal and state level by the NRC or NRC-Agreement States. We also provide remediation services at legacy facilities where non-radioactive material possession license currently exists, or where licenses were previously terminated but residual contamination remains above current regulatory guidelines.

On-Site Waste Management Services.  We provide a variety of client-site waste management services to prepare waste streams for more efficient on-site storage and/or compliant packaging and transport to an authorized disposal facility. Engineered processing at client sites includes size reduction by means of shearing or cutting, compaction, solidification, and dewatering.

Spent Fuel Pool Services.  We have more than 30 years of experience managing and processing irradiated hardware and other high activity materials found in spent fuel pools at both boiling water and pressurized water reactors. Our fuel pool services include underwater irradiated hardware volume reduction, component transfer and container loading, cask transportation, fuel pool vacuuming, pool-to- pad transfers, and waste characterization. Our fuel pool personnel are specially trained to handle the planning, on-site processing, packaging, transportation, on-site storage and disposal of various fuel pool components. We have completed more than 100 fuel pool projects, and our customers have included nearly every nuclear power and utility company in the U.S. and TEPCO in Japan. We

6

Table of Contents

also provide full service support of spent fuel storage activities, including cask design and procurement, cask loading and related activities, as well as design and construction oversight for on-site independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs).

Emergency Response.  We employ more than 145 trained nuclear safety professionals who can be deployed rapidly throughout the U.S. to respond to a variety of radioactive contamination events. We also maintain procedures, equipment, and mobile radioactive material licenses that can be used for radiological emergency response events. We have responded to a variety of emergency situations, including spills and other radiological events at non-nuclear facilities.

Examples of key projects awarded or completed in 2011 by the Project Services Delivery group that highlight our capabilities and breadth of experience in providing the above services include the following:

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)—Humboldt Bay Decommissioning Projects - In 2011, the Project Services Delivery Group was again awarded new projects for nuclear decommissioning support at the Humboldt Bay Power Plant (“HBPP”) in Eureka, California. This work consists of three projects.  The first project which includes engineering and planning work is scheduled to be completed in 2012, and involves removal, segmenting and disposition of the HBPP Unit 3 reactor vessel internals.  The second project, which began in 2011 and is also scheduled to be completed in 2012 involves the removal of greater than Class C waste that is stored in the spent fuel pool, shipping the waste to our Barnwell processing facility for removal of organics by de-ashing, and return to HBPP for eventual storage in their Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation.  The third project, which began in 2011, was planning for the removal of four liquid radioactive waste hold-up tanks and associated piping.  The project also entails the removal of approximately 100 cubic feet of resin/sludge from one of the tanks and processing and de-watering.  The project is expected to complete before mid year 2012.

General Electric (GE)—Multi-Site Projects and Services - In 2011, we continued to support GE with projects and services at two sites, including the Wilmington, North Carolina and Vallecitos, California facilities. At the GE Hitachi’s global nuclear fuels plant in Wilmington, North Carolina, we provided on-site waste management and facility dismantlement services, including support of the scrap pack facility, waste management consulting services, and various dismantlement projects for liabilities reduction. At the GE Vallecitos site, we completed legacy waste removal. We submitted a written proposal to GE for the interference removal and source term reduction of the GE Test Reactor at Vallecitos nuclear center, which is expected to be approved during the first quarter of 2012.

Whittaker Corporation Site Remediation Projects - In 2011, we continued work at two Whittaker Corporation legacy sites in California and Pennsylvania.

At the Whittaker Bermite site in Santa Clarita, California, we were contracted to complete the remediation of a former firing range contaminated with depleted uranium fragments. The scope of services included site clearing, unexploded ordnance clearance and removal, site characterization, excavation, disposal of contaminated soil, final status surveys, and backfilling and grading the site. Waste was transported to and disposed of at our Clive, Utah disposal facility. In 2011, the Final Status Survey Report was submitted to the California Department of Health Services, Radiologic Health Branch (“RHB”) for review and approval, we are awaiting the completion of the review by RHB.

At the Whittaker Site in Transfer, Pennsylvania, we continued remediation of a 5.8 acre area of slag and soil byproducts located along the Shenango River.  Whittaker Corporation, as well as prior owners of the site, used raw source material containing licensable quantities of thorium and uranium to process rare earth metals on site. During the course of the project waste was transported to and disposed of at our Clive, Utah disposal facility. The site was divided into four sections, three of which have been remediated. After completion of decommissioning activities, the site will have been remediated to levels that will permit license termination for unrestricted use.

University of Arkansas - SEFOR Reactor — We provided cleanup, removal and disposal services at this site. Phase 1 included the cleanup of exterior grounds and burn pits, grubbing within the fenced in area of the site and tree removal from various locations, security fence maintenance, control of harmful insects, installation and set up of a radiological gate monitor, and performance of various radiological surveys throughout the site. Phase 2 included sampling and analysis of various soils and liquids throughout the site, asbestos abatement from all location of work areas complete, maintenance building cleanup, demolition, and disposal, maintenance tool shed cleanup, removal and disposal of underground storage diesel tank, septic tank system backfill and closure, 110 foot waste gas vent stack removal and disposal, removal of sodium from the secondary system, disposal of approximately 40,000

7

Table of Contents

gallons of liquid waste to a publicly owned treatment works from the radioactive waste and gaseous vaults, and the sodium drain tank vault room.

PCS Nitrogen Corporation - We provided a decommissioning plan and disposal methods to dispose of four NORM laden cooling towers in Memphis, Tennessee. Our efforts in the demolition of the cooling towers included providing assistance from our radiological group, safety representatives and broker, and the lending of our radioactive license. We also provided assistance in the disposal of the project waste materials.

Dow Chemical Corporation — We provided the radioactive program and labor to replace Thoria Catalyst in a chemical reactor at the Dow Chemical plant in Freeport, Texas. The scope of work entailed the provision of safety plans, procedures, labor for Thoria replacement and safety representatives, along with our radiological programs and technician that provided radiological surveys and monitoring throughout the project. In addition, all the waste that was generated throughout the project was manifested by our broker, and shipped to our Clive, Utah facility for disposal.

Fruit of the Loom Custodial Trust—Breckenridge, Michigan Site Remediation.  In 2011, we completed remediation of burial pits containing radioactive materials at the former Michigan Chemical Company (MCC) site in Breckenridge, Michigan, under contract to the Fruit of the Loom Custodial Trust for the site. Between 1967 and 1970, MCC operated a rare earth processing plant near St. Louis, Michigan. The MCC manufactured an array of chemical products, including fire-retardant materials, insecticides, animal food supplements, and rare earth oxides. MCC used the Breckenridge site for the disposal of the process wastes from the MCC’s rare earth processing plant. Our services at the site included soil sampling, excavation and packaging of buried wastes, rail transport, and disposal of contaminated materials at our Clive, Utah disposal facility. The final status survey report for site release from regulatory control has been submitted to the NRC.

Detroit Edison—Removal & Disposition of Fermi-I Reactor Vessel & Large Components.  In 2011, we completed the decommissioning work at the Fermi Unit 1 Reactor facility in Newport, Michigan under a contract for removal and disposition of the reactor vessel and large components. The Fermi 1 reactor was a sodium cooled reactor design that operated from 1963 until 1972.  Services provided at Fermi 1 included the disassembly and segmentation of the reactor vessel, primary shield tank, heat exchangers, and reactor coolant pumps, along with all interconnecting piping.  All dismantled equipment is being packaged, transported to, and disposed of at our Clive, Utah facility.

Exelon Nuclear—Multiple Plant EPU Outage Support. 2011 was the busiest year for Turbine Retrofit outages under our contract with Exelon for the removal and disposal of turbine casings, rotors and miscellaneous waste from the Quad Cities Unit 1, Peach Bottom Unit 3 and Dresden Unit 2 reactor sites. More than 6.2 million pounds of waste were transported to our Clive, Utah disposal facility during these outages. Work on this contract began in late 2009 and will continue through the end of Exelon’s scheduled plant outages in 2012.

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS)—Licensing and Disposal of Steam Generator Lower Assemblies (SGLA).  In 2011 we continued our engineering and licensing support of SONGS resulting in their receipt of a special permit from the U.S. Department of Transportation allowing the transportation of their old SGLA. Two of the four SGLA were successfully transported from SONGS to our Clive, Utah disposal facility in 2011. The remaining two SGLA are expected to be delivered to our Clive, Utah disposal facility in 2012.

South Texas Project (STP)—Transport of Reactor Head.  In 2011 we were awarded a contract to transport two reactor heads from the STP nuclear plant located in Wadsworth, Texas to our Clive, Utah disposal facility. Despite the project’s aggressive schedule, we successfully transported and disposed of the reactor heads at our Clive, Utah disposal facility in July 2011.

Liquid Waste Processing Group - Our radioactive liquids processing services incorporate a number of technologies, including advanced ion exchange and membrane-based systems, to reduce radioactive secondary waste generation, reduce radioactive liquid discharge, improve water chemistry and enable the recycling of wastewater for reuse by utilities. We are currently providing full-time on-site services for the removal of radioactive and chemical contaminants from wastewater at over 20 nuclear power plants across the country. We also provide dewatering services of radioactive particulate wastes. The dewatered waste resulting from our dewatering technology is compatible with our approved disposal containers and with disposal criteria at our Clive, Utah and Barnwell, South Carolina disposal facilities. We currently provide dewatering services at more than 30 nuclear power plants in the U.S. In addition to long term on-site service contracts, we also provide radioactive liquids processing and dewatering services on a demand basis for nuclear facilities in the U.S., the U.K., and Mexico.  In

8

Table of Contents

2011, we completed a liquid waste processing technology demonstration at the damaged reactor in Fukushima, Japan. This demonstration involved the successful onsite bench scale testing of water treatment technologies for removal of a complex spectrum of high concentration radionuclides.

Technology Products Group

Our Technology Products Group provides engineered equipment to a variety of customers including domestic nuclear power stations, international nuclear power stations, U.S. Navy, U.S. Navy shipbuilders, and DOE contractors. The Technology Products Group is composed of highly experienced project managers most of whom are graduate engineers. These project managers are well equipped to evaluate customer requirements and direct the design of processing systems, handling equipment, specialty containers and liners and transport equipment to safely and efficiently handle the customer’s radioactive waste from point of origin through storage and final disposal. They are also knowledgeable in all aspects of design, fabrication management and overall project management.

The Technology Products Group’s primary focus is on liquid waste process equipment design and fabrication including:

·                  Ion exchange systems

·                  Reverse osmosis systems

·                  Specialty ultra filtration systems

·                  Advanced injection methodology for polymer and coagulants treatments

·                  Dewatering systems utilizing self-engaging fillheads (SEDS, SERDS)

·                  Solidification and encapsulation systems utilizing cement or polymers

·                  Container remote grappling equipment

·                  Container remote capping equipment

·                  Liquid drying systems

·                  Carbon steel pressure vessels

·                  Stainless steel pressure vessels

·                  High integrity container and liners utilized as waste containers including but not limited to:

·                  High Integrity Containers

·                  High Integrity Container Overpacks

·                  Standard steel containers

·                  Specialty containers including but not limited to:

·                  NRC Licensed Type B transportation casks and cask inserts

·                  Type A transportation casks

·                  Specification 7A and IP-II containers

·                  Specialty transport, storage and disposal liners

·                  On-site concrete shield and storage containers and lifting hardware including:

·                  Class B and C waste storage vaults

·                  Radvaults and OSSCs

·                  Process shields

The Technology Products Group also operates and manages the Nuclear Support Services Facility (“NSSF”) and Liner Operations Group, both located at our Barnwell, South Carolina disposal facility. The NSSF maintains a radioactive materials license to permit receipt of contaminated equipment and subsequent maintenance and, or repair of this equipment at the NSSF hot shop. The Liner Operations Group assembles and delivers waste processing containers to EnergySolutions’ clients. Examples of work performed in 2011 include:

·                  Ginna Nuclear Power Station — Self-Engaging Dewatering System

·                  Grand Gulf Nuclear Station — Design and fabrication of a cross-flow filtration system

·                  Indian Pont Nuclear Power Station — Advanced Liquid Processing System

·                  Norfolk Naval Shipyard — Specialty containers for processing liquid waste streams from submarines

·                  Portsmouth Naval Shipyard — Specialty containers for processing liquid waste streams from submarines

9

Table of Contents

·                  Huntington-Ingalls Newport News — Specialty containers for processing liquid waste streams from aircraft carriers and submarines

·                  Electric Boat — Specialty containers for processing liquid waste from submarines

·                  Savannah River Nuclear Solutions — Specialty containers for processing liquid waste streams

·                  Humboldt Bay Nuclear Station — Specialty containers for processing various waste streams

·                  EnergySolutions Asia — Technical fabrication support for Yangjiang and Haiyang liquid waste processing equipment, and technical support to Toshiba in development of a proposal of engineered equipment for processing liquid waste at the Fukushima nuclear station

·                  Argonne National Laboratory — Design, licensing and fabrication of a shielded container for shipment of gamma and neutron emitting sources within EnergySolutions’ NRC licensed 10-160B Transport Cask

·                  Sandia National Laboratory — Design, licensing and fabrication of a shielded container for shipment of gamma sources within EnergySolutions’ NRC licensed 10-160B Transport Cask

·                  Spallation Neutron Source Facility (ORNL) — Specialty containers for shipment and disposal of proton beam targets and shield equipment

·                  ZionSolutions Decommissioning — Concrete storage containers (Radvaults), specialty liners and support equipment for temporary storage and transport of decommissioning waste

·                  Waste Control Specialists, LLC — specialty liners and support equipment for waste disposal

Long-Term Stewardship Group

Our Long-Term Stewardship program is a new, innovative approach to provide decommissioning services to both our commercial and government customers. Under this program, we acquire title to substantially all of a customer’s buildings, facilities and equipment of its non-operating nuclear facilities. As the owner of the facility and associated permits, licenses and other assets, we are eligible to acquire a license from the NRC to decommission the plant, and to acquire the rights to the customer’s decommissioning trust fund associated with the facility (if applicable). Because of our technology, expertise and assets, this unique structure facilitates the decommissioning of the plant ahead of the schedule that the customer would otherwise expect to achieve.

In September 2010, we entered into an arrangement, through our subsidiary ZionSolutions, LLC (“ZionSolutions”) with Exelon Generation Company (“Exelon”) to dismantle Exelon’s Zion nuclear facility located in Zion, Illinois (“Zion Station”), which ceased operation in 1998. Upon closing, Exelon transferred to ZionSolutions substantially all of the assets (other than land) associated with Zion Station, including all assets held in its nuclear decommissioning trust fund. In consideration for Exelon’s transfer of those assets, ZionSolutions agreed to assume decommissioning and other liabilities associated with Zion Station. ZionSolutions also took possession and control of the land associated with Zion Station pursuant to a lease agreement executed at the closing. ZionSolutions is under contract to complete the required decommissioning work according to an established schedule and to construct a dry cask storage facility on the land for the spent nuclear fuel currently held in spent fuel pools at the Zion Station. Exelon retains ownership of the land and the spent nuclear fuel and associated operational responsibilities following completion of the Zion Station D&D project. The NRC approved the transfer of the facility operating licenses and conforming license amendments from Exelon to ZionSolutions (the “License Transfer”). At the conclusion of the project any remaining plant facilities and associated amended licenses are returned to Exelon and the lease terminates.

To satisfy the conditions of the NRC order approving the License Transfer, we (i) secured a $200 million letter of credit facility, (ii) granted an irrevocable easement of disposal capacity of 7.5 million cubic feet at our Clive disposal facility and (iii) purchased the insurance coverages required of a licensee under the NRC’s regulations.

Upon closing, we recorded the fair value of the trust fund and recorded deferred revenue in an amount equal to the trust fund value less certain assumed tax liabilities. We also recorded the liability associated with the Zion D&D activities in accordance with the applicable accounting guidance for asset retirement obligations (“ARO”), as well as a deferred cost

10

Table of Contents

amount equal to the initial value of the ARO liability. For a discussion of the accounting of this transaction, see Critical Accounting Policies located in Part II, Item 7 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

During the course of the project, some major scope activities to be completed include transferring over 2,000 spent fuel assemblies to storage in an independent spent fuel storage installation, removing major components such as the reactor vessel, steam generators, pressurizers, turbines, generators, main power transformers, and other large components, demolishing and removing all buildings and structures with the exception of the independent spent fuel storage installation, transporting and disposing of radioactive and hazardous waste, and remediation of the site to unrestricted release criteria as specified by the NRC.

By the end of 2011, we had accomplished or initiated a number of key activities related to our obligations to complete the identified scope of work.  Some of our achievements on the project include refurbishing abandoned office spaces and plant equipment such as cranes and ventilation, demolishing and removing the dry active waste storage building along with miscellaneous other structures, abating, removing and disposing of approximately 50% of all thermal insulation asbestos, repairing and visually inspecting fuel assemblies in preparation for transfer into dry storage, opening access into the containment building and installing rail systems to facilitate movement of material and equipment, and removing and disposing of the unit 2 reactor head.

Logistics, Processing and Disposal (“LP&D”)

We provide a broad range of logistics, processing and disposal services, and we own and operate strategic facilities for the safe processing and disposal of radioactive materials. Our facilities include our LLRW disposal facility in Clive, Utah, three processing facilities in Tennessee, and two separate processing and disposal facilities in Barnwell, South Carolina, that we operate pursuant to a long-term lease with the state of South Carolina. We also own a facility in Tennessee that we believe is the only commercial facility in the world with the ability to cast, flat-roll and machine casks and other products from depleted uranium. We believe that virtually every company or organization that holds a nuclear license in the U.S. uses our facilities either directly or indirectly.

Our transportation and logistics services encompass all aspects of transporting radioactive materials, including obtaining all required local and federal licenses and permits, loading and bracing shipments, conducting vehicle radiation surveys, and providing transportation assistance to other companies throughout the U.S. Through our Hittman Transport Services, Inc. (“Hittman”) subsidiary, we own and operate a dedicated fleet of tractors, trailers and shipping containers for transporting radioactive materials and contaminated equipment for processing and disposal. In 2009, we added to our existing rail infrastructure and service by acquiring the assets of Heritage Railroad Corporation a short line railroad that serves the Heritage Center Industrial Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee and our Bear Creek, Tennessee facility. Through this asset acquisition, we ensured future rail service from Bear Creek to Clive, Utah.  Our specialized shipping casks are engineered containers for the safe transport of radioactive material. We also have expertise in transporting very large, and contaminated reactor components from commercial power plants to processing or disposal sites. These components include reactor pressure vessels, steam generators, and other smaller components. Transportation modes include barge, rail and truck transport.

We have the capability to store, treat, and dispose of several types of radioactive materials, including the following:

·                  LLRW generated from contaminated soil and debris at clean-up sites, such as ion exchange resins and filter materials used to clean water at nuclear plants, medical waste, activated metals, manufacturing materials, and medical and technological research materials;

·                  MLLW, such as radioactive and hazardous materials, including lead-lined glove boxes, lead-shielded plates, and radioactivity contaminated electric arc furnace dust;

·                  NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material), such as waste from radium processes, and from mining activities;

·                  PCB Radioactive and PCB Mixed Waste, such as PCB Capacitors (large and small), transformers, bulk product, remediation waste, etc;

·                  dry active waste, consisting of protective clothing, resins, filters, evaporator bottoms, and hot metal debris;

·                  liquid waste, which is similar to LLRW, but in liquid form; and

11

Table of Contents

·                  waste defined as “byproduct materials” under section 11e(2) of the AEA, consisting of dirt generated by mining and milling operations.

The LLRW that we dispose of at our Clive, Utah disposal facility comes primarily from the clean-up activities of contaminated sites (including DOE facilities, nuclear power plants, Superfund sites, and industrial sites), and from the routine operations of utilities, industrial sites, and hospitals. We treat and dispose of only Class A LLRW, MLLW and 11e(2) materials at our Clive, Utah disposal facility, and we do not plan to seek authorization to accept Class B and C wastes at that site. However, we are able to dispose of Class A, as well as Class B and C waste from customers located in the Atlantic Compact States of South Carolina, New Jersey and Connecticut at the state owned Barnwell, South Carolina facility that we operate.

Our MLLW treatment facility at Clive, Utah disposal facility uses several treatment technologies to reduce the toxicity of waste materials prior to their disposal. These technologies include thermal desorption, stabilization, amalgamation, reduction, oxidation, deactivation, chemical fixation, neutralization, debris spray washing, macro-encapsulation, and micro-encapsulation processes.

Many of our LP&D projects complement the services we provide in our Government Group and Commercial Services divisions. The following are examples of LP&D services that we have performed in recent years:

Life-of-Plant Contracts

Our life-of-plant contracts integrate our LP&D services into a tailored solution for our commercial customers’ needs. Life-of-plant contracts provide our customers with LLRW and MLLW processing and disposal services for the remaining lives of their nuclear power plants, as well as D&D waste disposal services when these plants are shut down. We have signed life-of-plant contracts with nuclear power and utility companies that own and/or operate 84 of the 104 operating nuclear reactors in the U.S. Some of the customers with whom we have entered into life-of-plant contracts include Dominion Resources, Inc., Duke Energy Corporation, Entergy Corporation, Exelon Corporation, Florida Power & Light Company, and Progress Energy.

Large Components

An important service provided to our commercial nuclear power plant customers is the disposition of overweight and oversized nuclear components, such as reactor pressure vessels, steam generators, reactor heads, pressurizers, turbine rotors, reactor coolant pumps, and feed water heaters. As operational nuclear power plants age, their components are replaced either to provide increased operational capacity or as part of planned plant maintenance. For example, in late 2008 and 2009, we worked on a contract to remove eight retired steam generators from Duke Energy’s McGuire Nuclear Station in Huntersville, North Carolina. The preparation of these large components for transportation, processing and disposal was handled through our Commercial Services division. This contract provided us with the experience to propose and win a three year project with Exelon to upgrade several of its nuclear power plants in the mid-west, and to dispose four steam generators from Edison International’s San Onofre Nuclear Plant in California. The scope of work includes the removal, packaging and transport of large components for disposal during time-critical outage periods. The first phase of that project was successfully completed in 2010, two steam generators were received and disposed of at our Clive, Utah disposal facility in 2011, and the remaining two will be disposed of in 2012.

Los Alamos National Laboratory

The DOE is currently in the process of a phased cleanup and D&D program at the LANL site and surrounding lands. Under a continuing series of contracts in place since June 2005, we have repackaged LANL transuranic legacy waste to meet the requirements for its disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. Revenue from these services is recognized in our Government Group segment. We are also a major subcontractor for the transport and disposal of LLRW, MLLW and other contaminated materials from LANL. Revenue from these services is recognized in our LP&D segment.

Separations Process Research Unit

The Separations Process Research Unit cleanup site is located within the currently operating 170-acre Naval Reactor Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory in Niskayuna, New York. The facilities operated as a pilot plant to research the process to separate plutonium from irradiated matrices. The facilities and process systems were flushed and drained after operations ceased in 1953. As part of the cleanup effort, we are the subcontractor responsible for the packaging, transportation, treatment and disposal of LLRW and MLRW waste. This work began late in 2009 and it is currently ongoing.

12

Table of Contents

Other Department of Energy Environmental Management Sites

The DOE’s Office of Environmental Management has ongoing work at several major sites including Portsmouth in Ohio, Paducah in Kentucky, and the ETTP in Tennessee.  As part of cleanup efforts at these and other DOE sites EnergySolutions provides treatment and disposal services.

U.S. Navy Contracts

We are the principal service provider to the U.S. Navy for the disposition of radiological materials under the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. Through a series of long-term contracts, we process and dispose of LLRW and MLLW generated by the U.S. Navy’s nuclear operations worldwide.

Several of our facilities provide services to the U.S. Navy, including our Clive, Utah, Barnwell, South Carolina, and Oak Ridge and Memphis, Tennessee facilities. These services include volume reduction, metal recycling, and specialized processing. These processed materials may then be disposed of at our Clive and Barnwell facilities. In addition to processing liquid and solid radioactive materials, we also provide transportation and logistics services to the U.S. Navy, as well as on-site support at naval bases around the U.S. for the removal of radioactive materials.

International

The International division derives its revenue primarily through contracts with the NDA in the U.K. for the operation and management of its ten Magnox nuclear power plant sites. Under these contracts, we are responsible for the operation, defueling, and decommissioning of those sites. One site currently generates electricity and the nine other sites are in varying stages of defueling and decommissioning. We also provide waste management and technology-based services to customers in the U.K., Italy, Spain, Germany, China, Korea, Japan and Canada.

In December 2008, the NDA announced that the competition to select a single parent body organization for Magnox Limited and Research Sites Restoration Limited is expected to commence in 2012 and be completed no later than 2014. We intend to compete for the rebid of the Magnox contracts by teaming with one or more partners.

During the contract year ending March 31, 2012, we expect to receive funding from the NDA in the amount of approximately £655.0 million for our Magnox operations, or $1.1 billion based on the annual average sterling pound exchange rate for the year ended December 31, 2011. Notable achievements during the 2011/12 contract year included the Berkeley site becoming the first commercial power station in the U.K. to enter its reactors into SAFSTOR, receiving approval for the extension of power generation at the Wylfa site to December 2012, continued operation of one reactor at the Oldbury site (the oldest operational nuclear power station in the world), removal of all irradiated fuel from the Dungeness site, removal of all asbestos containing material from the Sizewell site, and the acceptance of the new baseline for the Magnox sites by the NDA, known as the Magnox Optimized Decommissioning Program (MODP). The MODP program is anticipated to deliver £1.2 billion or $1.9 billion in lifecycle savings (present day values) to the NDA across the Magnox estate over the next several years.

We have extended our business development efforts into other European, Asian and Canadian markets and in January 2010, we were selected to design and supply a liquid waste processing system for two new reactors at Yangjiang in Guangdong Province, China. The contract has an option for providing the same system for two additional reactors to be built at the same site. The new reactors are being constructed by the China Nuclear Power Engineering Company and China Nuclear Power Design Company, which are subsidiaries of China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Corporation. In August 2010, a consortium between EnergySolutions and Yuanda Environmental Engineering Company was selected to provide waste management systems for up to eight new reactors being developed by China Power Investment Corporation. The contract scope includes the design, equipping, and commissioning of the Site Radioactive Treatment Facility for the treatment and storage of liquid, wet-solid, and solid waste radioactive streams.

In August 2010, we submitted an import and export application for waste owned by Eckert and Ziegler Nuclitec GmbH of Germany to the NRC for review. This license was obtained in May 2011 and we are now in contractual discussions over the shipment of the waste, which is generated primarily at German hospitals and universities, which will be volume reduced using our licensed facilities at our Bear Creek, Tennessee facility and then returned to its country of origin. For a description of some of the risks applicable to our International division, please see Item 1A. Risk Factors—“Our international operations involve risks that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.”

13

Table of Contents

Our operations in Canada include radioactive waste management, radiation health physics consulting, sealed source services and storage of containers.  These services and operations are licensed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and provided primarily under a Waste Nuclear Substance Licensed.  In 2011, we were awarded an engineering contract to support the Darlington active liquid waste project and Pickering decommissioning project and we plan to continue to grow the radioactive waste services business in Canada utilizing the Waste Nuclear Substance Licensed in 2012.  One of our major customers in Canada is Ontario Power Generation.

Customer Concentrations

Our International segment derives its revenue primarily through contracts with the NDA. For the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively 60.2%, 57.6%, and 60.1%, of our total revenue was generated from contracts funded by the NDA. Accounts receivable relating to the NDA at December 31, 2011 and 2010 were $227.7 million and $183.6 million, respectively.

We have contracts with various offices within the DOE, including the Office of Environmental Management, the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and the Office of Nuclear Energy. Revenue from DOE contractors and subcontractors represented approximately 15.3%, 21.7% and 15.8% of consolidated revenue for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Accounts receivable and costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings on uncompleted contracts relating to DOE contractors and subcontractors at December 31, 2011 were $35.8 million and $66.6 million, respectively. Accounts receivable and costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings on uncompleted contracts relating to DOE contractors and subcontractors at December 31, 2010 were $46.8 million and $45.9 million, respectively.

Our Processing and Disposal Facilities

Clive Facility

Our Clive facility is located in Tooele County, Utah, approximately 75 miles west of Salt Lake City and approximately 35 miles away from the nearest population center (Grantsville, Utah). The DOE and the state of Utah investigated 29 sites to identify the safest permanent disposal location for radioactive materials before settling on what is now our Clive disposal site. The location was selected and used by the DOE as a disposal site for uranium tailings due to its remote location, low precipitation, naturally poor groundwater quality, and relatively impermeable clay soils. Tooele County has designated the area around the facility as a hazardous industrial district, which restricts the future use of land in the area to heavy industrial processes and to industries dealing with hazardous wastes.

The state of Utah authorizes our Clive facility to dispose of Class A LLRW, NORM, 11e(2) materials, and MLLW. The facility’s location enables it to receive radioactive materials year-round via bulk truck, containerized truck, enclosed truck, bulk rail, rail boxcars, and rail intermodals. We are served by the Union Pacific Railroad at our private siding where we maintain more than seven miles of track. This direct rail access and our gondola railcar rollover system provides a cost-effective method for unloading up to 100,000 cubic feet of radioactive materials per day. We maintain a fleet of approximately 300 high capacity gondola railcars under long-term operating leases, as well as custom designed flat cars and other multi-model containers, to facilitate the safe transport of radioactive materials to our Clive facility. We also maintain an all-weather paved asphalt road to the site from Interstate 80 to facilitate truck shipment.

Unlike the other existing commercial LLRW disposal sites which are state owned, our Clive facility, property, buildings and equipment are owned by EnergySolutions. Over the years, the facility has been adapted to meet the changing needs of customers. Our Clive facility has the unique distinction of having two gondola railcar unloading facilities, a large industrial scale shredder, and high pressure water cleaning and decontamination facilities.

Disposal Cells

Our Clive facility uses an above-ground, engineered disposal design, also known as a secure landfill that uses a near-surface engineered embankment design for our disposal cells. Using standard heavy construction equipment, radioactive materials are placed in 24-inch thick layers and then compacted in a continuous “cut and cover” process that provides for long-term disposal with minimal active maintenance. The system relies on natural, durable materials to ensure performance over time. Each cell has a 24-inch liner system designed to assist in isolating hazardous materials from the environment. The liner, consisting of compacted low-permeability clay, covers a foundation of compacted indigenous clay and soils. The cell embankment top slopes are covered with a compacted two-foot to seven-foot thick clay cover, a rock drainage layer, and a two-foot thick rock erosion barrier to ensure long-term protection from the environment. Cover construction begins as areas

14

Table of Contents

of the cell are filled to capacity. The process of continual building, filling and capping of the cells ensures long-term cell stability and minimizes the work that would be required upon site closure. In addition to the standard liner and cover used in the LLRW and 11e(2) materials cells, the MLLW cell has a triple-synthetic-liner system with a synthetic cover barrier. The mixed waste liner system includes leachate collection and leak detection systems required for the containment of hazardous waste.

Disposal Capacity

We believe that we have sufficient capacity for approximately 30 years of operations at our Clive facility based on our estimate of future disposal volumes, our ability to optimize disposal capacity through volume reduction and compaction techniques, and the assumption that we will obtain a license amendment to convert a disposal cell currently intended for 11e(2) materials to Class A LLRW. The license amendment would increase our capacity for Class A LLRW disposal from 95 million cubic feet to approximately 140 million cubic feet. 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. See Item 1A. Risk Factors—“We operate in a politically sensitive environment, and public perception of nuclear power and radioactive materials can affect our business” and “Our business depends on the continued operation of our Clive, Utah disposal facility.”

Tennessee Facilities

We own and operate facilities at three locations in Tennessee where we process and transfer radioactive materials generally to our Clive, Utah disposal facility. These facilities are all operated in an integrated fashion to maximize the breadth of options available to our customers.

Our Bear Creek facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee includes a licensed commercial LLRW processing facility which has the only commercially licensed radioactive metals recycling furnace and the largest LLRW incinerators in the U.S. It receives waste primarily from nuclear utilities, government agencies, industrial facilities, laboratories and hospitals. Our Bear Creek facility also manages classified nuclear waste, which is specially processed to obscure any classified information.

Our Gallaher Road facility in Kingston, Tennessee is located adjacent to Oak Ridge, Tennessee and provides specialty waste processing and transportation logistical services. Our Gallaher Road facility is also the base for our Hittman trucking operations where we maintain our fleet of tractors, trailers and shipping containers for transporting radioactive materials.

Our Memphis, Tennessee facility’s riverside location allows for access by barge as well as truck and rail. This facility is specifically designed to handle large components such as steam generators, turbine rotors, heat exchangers, large tanks and similar components. From our Memphis facility, disassembled components can be shipped to our other facilities for ultimate disposition. We also lease space to various nuclear service vendors at this facility who support commercial nuclear power generation outage activities.

In addition to our three Tennessee processing facilities, we also own a facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee that provides metals manufacturing, processing, casting and rolling, fabrication and other capabilities to our customers. We believe it is the only commercial facility in the world with the ability to cast, flat-roll and machine products from depleted uranium. Material processed at this facility can be found in a variety of products, including electronics, medical isotope shipping containers, nuclear accelerators, nuclear fuel storage casks, and jet aircraft.

We also operate a transload facility located in the Heritage Center Industrial Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.  The 12 acre transload yard serves as a logistics center connecting our Hittman truck and rail operations (the former Heritage Railroad Corporation short line).

South Carolina Facilities

We operate a LLRW disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina pursuant to a long-term lease and an operating agreement with the state of South Carolina that expires on April 5, 2075. Barnwell is the only commercial facility in the U.S. that is permitted to accept all classes of commercially generated LLRW. This facility provides disposal services for large components not suitable for volume reduction, and for ion exchange resins and other radioactive materials that are generated by nuclear power plants, hospitals, research laboratories and industrial facilities. On July 1, 2008, the state of South Carolina restricted the Barnwell disposal site to receive only Class A, B and C LLRW from customers located in the three Atlantic

15

Table of Contents

Compact States—South Carolina, New Jersey and Connecticut. We have continued to operate the Barnwell site for the Atlantic Compact States on a cost-reimbursable basis under our long-term lease.

We also operate a facility adjacent to the Barnwell disposal facility to support the preparation of materials for disposal, including equipment decontamination and parts retrieval and recycling. The facility also provides specialty processing services.

Research and Development

We conduct research and development activities that are critical to the development of a variety of technologies used in the nuclear services industry, especially those used as part of our services to manage radioactive waste from DOE facilities. Our research and development efforts are funded either directly or through partnerships with government, commercial or academic entities. We contract or subcontract with the Vitreous State Laboratory of the Catholic University of America, located in Washington, DC, to provide research and development services under fixed-price and cost-reimbursable contracts. Typically, these contracts are funded by our customers and involve the stabilization or vitrification of radioactive materials. We also have an agreement with certain Catholic University professors to exclusively license a number of patents related to vitrification and ion exchange technologies which they own.

We also have relationships with the University of Nevada and Washington State University to provide technology-based research capabilities to support some of our projects and technical initiatives.

Patents and Other Intellectual Property Rights

As of December 31, 2011, we owned or licensed the right to use approximately 129 patents in the U.S. We also own or license the rights to use approximately 142 foreign counterparts (including both issued patents and patent applications pending). These licenses cover the fields of radioactive material management, storage, treatment, separation, spent nuclear fuel recycling, and transport. We have approximately 19 registered trademarks in the U.S. Our patents expire between 2012 and 2027. We do not believe that our business, results of operations or financial condition will be adversely affected by any of the patent expirations over the next several years.

Collectively, our intellectual property is important to us; however, there is no single patent or trademark that is in itself material to us at the present time. Moreover, we do not believe that the termination of intellectual property rights expected to occur over the next several years, either individually or in the aggregate, will materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. See Item 1A. Risk Factors—“We rely on intellectual property laws, trade secrets and confidentiality agreements to protect our intellectual property. Our failure to protect our intellectual property rights could adversely affect our future performance and growth.”

Contracts

Our work is performed under a variety of contract types including cost-reimbursable contracts, unit-rate contracts, and fixed-price contracts, some of which may be modified by incentive and penalty provisions. Each of our contracts may contain components of more than one of the contract types discussed below. The majority of the government work in our Government Group and International segments is performed on a cost-reimbursable basis awarded through a competitive proposal process and negotiation. With the relatively fluid nature of the scope of the government work we perform, we believe this type of contract reduces our exposure to unanticipated and unrecoverable cost overruns. Fixed-price contracts, on the other hand, are generally obtained by the proposal and negotiation processes but are accepted only when the scope of the work is clearly defined. Our commercial D&D projects are generally fixed-price contracts or time and material based contracts and almost all of our contracts within the LP&D operations are unit-rate.

The following table sets forth the percentages of revenue represented by these types of contracts during the year ended December 31, 2011:

16

Table of Contents

Cost-Reimbursable Contracts

Most of the government contracts in our Government Group and International divisions are cost-reimbursable contracts. Under a cost-reimbursable contract, we are reimbursed for allowable or otherwise defined costs incurred plus an amount of profit. The profit element may be in the form of a simple mark-up applied to the labor costs incurred or it may be in the form of a fee, or a combination of a mark-up and a fee. The fee element can take several forms; it may be a fixed amount as specified in the contract; it may be an amount based on the percentage of the estimated costs; or it may be an incentive fee based on targets, milestones, cost savings, or other performance factors defined in the contract.

Our government contracts are typically awarded through competitive bidding or negotiations, and may involve several bidders or offerors. Many of these contracts are multi-year indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity agreements. These contracts provide estimates of a maximum amount the governmental agency expects to spend. Our program management and technical staffs work closely with our customers to define the scope and amount of work required. Although these contracts do not initially provide us with any guaranteed amount of work, as projects are defined, the work may be awarded to us via task release without having to further compete for the work. Government contracts typically have annual funding limitations and are subject to public sector budgeting constraints. Government contracts may be terminated at the discretion of the government agency for convenience with payment of compensation only for work performed and commitments made at the time of termination. In the event of termination, we would typically receive an allowance for profit or fee on the work we performed.

Our government cost-reimbursable contracts are subject to oversight audits by government representatives, to profit cost controls and, limitations to provisions permitting modification or termination, in whole or in part, at the government’s convenience. Government contracts are subject to specific procurement regulations and a variety of socioeconomic requirements as well as local economic development initiatives. For example, government contracts may require the contractor to submit a small business subcontracting plan or make another type of commitment to use a small business in the project to be awarded. Failure to comply with such regulations and requirements could lead to suspension, termination for cause, and possibly debarment from future government contracting or subcontracting efforts for a period of time. Among the causes for debarment are violations of various statutes, including those related to employment practices, the protection of the environment, the accuracy of records, and the recording of costs.

Unit-Price Contracts

Almost all of the contracts entered into by our LP&D division, including our life-of-plant contracts, are unit-rate contracts. Under a unit-rate contract, we are paid a specified amount for every unit of work performed. A unit-rate contract is essentially a fixed-price contract with the only variable being the number of units of work performed. Variations in unit-rate contracts include the same type of variations as fixed-price contracts. We are normally awarded unit-rate contracts on the basis of a total estimated price that is the sum of the product of the specified units and unit prices.

Our life-of-plant contracts generally provide our customers with LLRW and MLLW processing and disposal services for the remaining lives of their nuclear power plants, as well as D&D waste disposal services when those plants are shut down. Life-of-plant contracts typically contain a standardized set of purchasing terms and pre-negotiated pricing provisions, and often provide for periodic price adjustments.

Fixed-Price Contracts

Under fixed-price contracts, the price is not subject to any adjustment by reason of our cost experience or our performance under the contract. Our Zion Station project is considered a fixed price contract. Under this contract type, we are the beneficiary of any cost savings but are typically unable to recover performance cost overruns. However, these contract prices may be adjusted for changes in scope of work, new or changing laws and regulations, and other negotiated events.

Sales and Marketing Strategy

We conduct our sales and marketing efforts principally through our business development groups, which are dedicated to serving existing customers or pursuing new opportunities in each of our segments.

The market for our Government Group and International operations is the management and clean-up of radioactive materials. Within this market, there are two different types of contracts. The first is Tier 1 contracts in which a federal agency outsources the M&O of a federal project for the purpose of executing a site mission, managing a site clean-up, or a

17

Table of Contents

combination of both. The second type is Tier 2 contracts, which are project-driven contracts. For these contracts, we generally act as a subcontractor to a Tier 1 contractor. Each of these opportunities requires unique business development and sales approaches.

The federal procurement process is an objective and highly-structured process governed by federal acquisition regulations. We typically pursue Tier 1 opportunities for nuclear services at a number of DOE sites, and we generally bid on Tier 1 contracts as a member of a consortium. The sales cycle for these contracts begins at least one year and in many instances two years before the release of a request for proposal (“RFP”). Tier 2 opportunities are discrete project-based opportunities to act as a subcontractor to Tier 1 contractors or as a smaller contractor to federal agencies. The sales cycle for Tier 2 opportunities can be six months or less.

We generally pursue contracts that are decided on a “best-value” basis in which the decision-makers consider a combination of technical and cost factors. Factors include the technical approach to managing and performing the project, key project personnel, experience performing similar projects, past performance, and customer references. Cost factors are generally weighed to include cost structures as they would be applied to a specific project.

In our Commercial Services division, our sales teams actively market our integrated services and technical expertise to nuclear power and utility customers. For example, one of our commercial sales teams was instrumental in developing and marketing the concept of life-of-plant contracts with our commercial power and utility customers, and has also been involved in developing our license stewardship initiative to serve the shut-down nuclear reactor D&D market.

In our LP&D division, we maintain dedicated sales teams at our Clive and Barnwell disposal facilities to market to and serve customers who require logistics, transportation and disposal services for radioactive materials. Our LP&D sales team’s duties include visiting customer sites, assisting customers in completing all required paperwork and obtaining necessary licenses and permits for the transportation of radioactive materials to any of our facilities and managing the transportation process.

Our sales efforts in our International division mirror our sales efforts in our Commercial Services division in the U.S. Our business development and technical teams approach bidding opportunities in the U.K. in a similar manner as they do for bids for contract opportunities in the U.S. In addition, our international business development team works closely with key nuclear power operators to pursue a variety of opportunities.

Safety

We devote significant resources to ensuring the safety of the public, our employees, and the environment. In the U.S., we have built a safety record that is critical to our reputation throughout all our markets, particularly with DOE and other federal agency contractor services. Our 2011 domestic safety incident record is substantially better than standards for other similar businesses according to the North American Industrial Classification System with total Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) recordable and lost time incidence rates of 0.26 and 0.04, respectively, versus industry averages of 4.3 and 1.4, respectively. None of our safety incidents have involved radioactive contamination. We have received numerous safety achievement awards in recognition of our industry leading safety record.

We have traditionally met or exceeded the occupational and public radiation safety requirements for the U.S. nuclear services industry. The average employee radiation dose at our Clive, Utah disposal facility is less than 50 millirem annually, which is only 1.0% of the federal government’s allowable annual guideline of 5,000 millirem.

In 2011, we passed approximately 500 person-days of regulatory inspections by state regulators, the NRC, the DOE and the Nuclear Procurement Issues Committee. We submit routine reports to the applicable state and federal regulatory agencies demonstrating compliance with applicable rules and regulations.

We have established an extensive safety education program for our employees. Before employees are permitted to work in restricted areas, they are required to complete a four-day training course on radiation theory, proper work procedures and radiation safety. In addition to extensive training, we employ more than 160 safety professionals and technicians who are responsible for protecting our workers, the public, and the environment. We also employ a round-the-clock security staff to prevent unauthorized access to our sites. Two of our facilities in the U.S. are recognized by OSHA as Voluntary Protection Program Star Sites.

In the U.K., every Magnox site is accredited under the ISO 14001 system, an internationally accepted specification for environmental management systems, as well as Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems specification

18

Table of Contents

18001, which establishes standards for occupational health and safety. Our Magnox North and Magnox South operations have also won numerous awards for health and safety. See Item 1A. Risk Factors—“Our failure to maintain our safety record could have an adverse effect on our business” and “We may incur regulatory fines or lose our NDA contract fees if a significant accident were to occur at the power generating facilities.”

Insurance

Like all companies in the nuclear industry, we derive significant benefit from the provisions of the Price-Anderson Act, as amended. The Price-Anderson Act was enacted in 1957 to indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents, while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Price-Anderson Act, as amended, establishes a no-fault insurance-type system for commercial reactors that indemnifies virtually any industry participant against third party liability resulting from a nuclear incident or evacuation at a commercial reactor site or involving shipments to or from a commercial reactor site. Through a primary layer insurance pool and a secondary layer insurance pool both funded by the nuclear industry, each reactor has coverage for approximately $12.6 billion in claims that covers activities at the reactor site and the transportation of radioactive materials to or from the site. The Price-Anderson Act limits liability for an incident to $12.6 billion, unless the Federal government decides to provide additional funding. Activities conducted under a contract with the DOE are covered by a $11.9 billion indemnity issued by the DOE. For activities at our facilities that are not covered by the Price-Anderson Act, we maintain nuclear liability insurance coverage issued by American Nuclear Insurers, as follows:

Our Clive, Utah facility maintains a pollution legal liability policy which, in addition to typical pollution liability coverage, includes coverage for bodily injury, property damage, and clean-up costs associated with LLRW and material at the site.

Competition

We compete with national and regional services firms who provide nuclear services for government and commercial customers. We believe that the following are key competitive factors in these markets:

·                  technical approach;

·                  skilled managerial and technical personnel;

·                  proprietary technologies and technology skill credentials;

·                  quality of performance;

·                  safety;

·                  diversity of services; and

·                  price.

Competitors to our Government Group and International divisions include national engineering and construction firms such as Bechtel Group, Inc., CH2M Hill, Fluor Corporation, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., URS Corporation, AMEC plc and AREVA. Many of our competitors have greater financial and other resources than we do, which may give them a competitive advantage. In addition, we also face competition from smaller firms. Our major U.S. government customer, the DOE, has substantially increased small business set-aside programs for prime contracts. Because we are not a

19

Table of Contents

small business, we have responded by teaming in certain circumstances as a subcontractor with small businesses responding to requests for proposals as a prime contractor on selected procurements.

In the Commercial Services area, our competitors for major projects in the nuclear utility decommissioning market include large nuclear services firms such as Bechtel Group, Inc., URS Corporation’s Washington Division, AREVA, and the Shaw Group. To some degree, we also face competition from nuclear utilities, since many elect to self-perform the decommissioning of their plants. Other competitors in the Commercial Services market include a number of companies who have the capability to provide similar services, which include large component removal, facility decontamination, site remediation, radiological consulting services, staff augmentation, fuel pool services, cask services, and liquid waste processing. We believe that we have a competitive advantage due to our wider range of in-house services and larger staff resources. However, we often face stiff price competition on bids where other companies are willing to accept lower margins or have lower indirect cost structures.

In the LP&D division we face competition in providing radioactive material transportation, processing, and disposal services to our customers. Currently, the predominant radioactive material treatment and disposal methods include direct landfill disposal, on-site containment or processing, incineration, and other thermal treatment methods. Competition in this area is based primarily on price, safety record, regulatory and permit restrictions, technical performance, dependability, and environmental integrity.

At this time, we have the only commercial disposal outlet for MLLW, and we operate two of the three commercial LLRW disposal sites in the U.S., through our Clive, Utah and Barnwell, South Carolina disposal facilities. The other commercial LLRW facility is a state owned facility located in Richland, Washington that does not accept radioactive materials from outside the Northwest Interstate Compact on Low Level Radioactive Waste Management (the “Northwest Compact”). We are the only company to have received an operating license for active LLRW disposal since the enactment of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act.

With respect to Class A waste, we compete primarily with processors who reduce waste volumes through treatment (compaction, sorting and incineration). With respect to large components, we compete primarily with processors that have the abilities to cut, scrap and partially decontaminate these components. In both instances, much of the waste generated is usually transported to our Clive, Utah disposal facility. Another option available to utilities and to industrial sites is to store their waste on-site.

In the future, other commercial sites may be licensed for the disposal of radioactive waste, including the Waste Control Specialists LLC (“WCS”) site in Andrews County, Texas. WCS filed a license application for a LLRW disposal facility with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) in August 2004, and announced receipt of a Radioactive Material License on September 10, 2009. WCS announced the initiation of site construction activities in January 2011. Continued construction of the site is contingent on approvals by the TCEQ. Once approved and construction is complete, additional conditions of the license must be met prior to commencement of disposal operations. These conditions will require 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. Should the license become active, WCS will be allowed to receive waste from the Texas Compact, which includes the states of Texas and Vermont, as well as from federal facilities. In January 2011, the Texas LLRW Disposal Compact Commission approved a measure to allow WCS to receive limited amounts of waste from states outside the Texas Compact. Under their current license, WCS will not be able to receive waste via railcar or receive depleted uranium, and WCS will be required to dispose of commercial waste in specially designed containers in the compact area of the facility.

Employees

As of December 31, 2011, we had more than 5,700 employees, including approximately 1,080 scientists and engineers and 280 radiation and safety professionals. A majority of our employees are skilled professionals, including nuclear scientists and engineers, hydrogeologists, engineers, project managers, health physics technicians, environmental engineers and field technicians. Approximately 140 of our U.S. employees and 2,700 of our U.K. employees are represented by labor unions. In addition to our own employees, we also manage, approximately 650 DOE employees through various Tier 1 arrangements at those sites, a portion of who belong to unions.

Approximately 3,400 of our employees are located at the ten Magnox sites we manage in the U.K. A full organizational review of our Magnox sites has been undertaken in conjunction with an optimized decommissioning planning

20

Table of Contents

exercise for all ten sites. This exercise has brought together a number of initiatives, including the re-combination of our Magnox North Limited and Magnox South Limited subsidiaries into a single entity Magnox Limited, a reduction in support and overhead costs, increased funding for accelerated decommissioning work at two sites, and the base lining of an optimized generation, defueling and decommissioning program for Magnox. The re-combination of Magnox North Limited and Magnox South Limited subsidiaries took effect on January 5, 2011. The Magnox Optimized Decommissioning Plan (MODP) has been approved by the NDA and forms part of the NDA funding settlement which in turn is part of the U.K. government’s recently announced Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR).

During the CSR period to 2015, the MODP includes approximately twelve changes of organization across the ten Magnox sites, generation to defueling to decommissioning, as a result of these changes and the drive to reduce support and overhead costs, there will be significant manpower reductions, expected to be approximately 1,000 staff, during the CSR period to 2015 followed by a further reduction in manpower of 600 in the period from 2016 to 2020. The initial re-combination of the Magnox entities together with reduced support and overheads, will generate reductions of approximately 300 staff over the next twelve months followed by further reductions as sites go from generation to defueling or from defueling to decommissioning.

The termination plan and employee termination benefits to be paid to these employees are in accordance with the existing employee and the trade union agreements and were pre-approved by the NDA. All employee termination benefit costs are treated as part of the normal Magnox cost base and will be reimbursed by the NDA. The total termination benefit cost included within the MODP over the CSR period to 2015 is estimated to be approximately £200 million and is expected to be paid by the NDA over a four year period.

Regulation

Applicable U.S. Statutes

We operate in a highly regulated industry, and are subject to extensive and changing laws and regulations administered by various federal, state and local governmental agencies, including those governing radioactive materials and environmental and health and safety matters. Some of the laws affecting us include, but are not limited to, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (“AEA”), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (“RCRA”), the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (“ERA”), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (“NWPA”), the Utah Radiation Control Act, the Utah Air Conservation Act, the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Act, the Utah Water Quality Act, the Tennessee Radiological Health Service Act, the South Carolina Atomic Energy and Radiation Control Act, the South Carolina Radioactive Waste Transportation and Disposal Act, the Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act (“Clean Air Act”), the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; each as from time to time amended.

The AEA and the ERA authorize the NRC to regulate the receipt, possession, use and transfer of commercial radioactive materials, including “source material,” “special nuclear material” and “by-product material.” Pursuant to its authority under the AEA, the NRC has adopted regulations that address the management, treatment, and disposal of LLRW, and that require the licensing of LLRW disposal sites by the NRC or states that have been delegated authority to regulate low-level radioactive material under Section 274 of the AEA. Nearly all of our nuclear related licenses are overseen by Agreement States (i.e., a state to which the NRC has delegated some authority). Our primary regulators are government agencies of the states where our processing and disposal facilities are located, namely Utah, South Carolina and Tennessee.

RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (“HSWA”), provides a comprehensive framework for the regulation of the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous and solid waste. The intent of RCRA is to control hazardous and solid wastes from the time they are generated until they are properly recycled or treated and disposed. As applicable to our operations, RCRA prohibits improper hazardous waste disposal and imposes criminal and civil liability for failure to comply with its requirements. RCRA requires that hazardous waste generators, transporters and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities meet strict standards set by government agencies. In certain circumstances, RCRA also requires operators of treatment, storage and disposal facilities to obtain and comply with RCRA permits. The land disposal restrictions developed under the HSWA prohibit land disposal of specified wastes unless these wastes meet or are treated to meet best demonstrated available technology treatment standards, unless certain exemptions apply. In the same way that the NRC may delegate authority under the AEA, the EPA may delegate some federal authority under RCRA to the states.

21

Table of Contents

TSCA provides the EPA with the authority to regulate over 60,000 commercially produced chemical substances. The EPA may impose requirements involving manufacturing, record keeping, reporting, importing and exporting. TSCA also established a comprehensive regulatory program, analogous to the RCRA program for hazardous waste, for the management of polychlorinated biphenyls.

The Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants into streams and other waters of the U.S. (as defined in the statute) from a variety of sources. If wastewater or runoff from our facilities or operations may be discharged into surface waters, the Clean Water Act requires us to apply for and obtain discharge permits, conduct sampling and monitoring and, under certain circumstances, reduce the quantity of pollutants in those discharges. The federal government may delegate Clean Water Act authority to the states.

The Clean Air Act empowers the EPA and the states to establish and enforce ambient air quality standards and limits of emissions of pollutants from facilities. This has resulted in tight control over emissions from technologies like incineration, as well as dust emissions from locations such as waste disposal sites. States can assume control over portions of the federal Clean Air Act authority through EPA approval of “state implementation plans.”

The processing, storage, and disposal of high-level radioactive waste (e.g., spent nuclear fuel) are subject to the requirements of the NWPA, as amended by the NWPA Amendments. These statutes regulate the disposal of high-level radioactive waste by establishing procedures and schedules for the DOE to site geologic repositories for such waste, and such repositories are to be licensed by the NRC. The NRC has issued regulations that address the storage and disposal of high-level radioactive waste, including storage and transportation of such waste in dry casks and storage at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (“ISFSI”). ZionSolutions will be responsible for licensing and constructing an ISFSI as part of the agreement to dismantle Exelon’s Zion Station plant. Although we are not involved with the processing or disposal of high-level radioactive waste at our facilities, we do provide technical and operations support services to the DOE and nuclear utilities for the management of such high-level waste at client sites.

Applicable U.K. Statutes

Through our U.K. subsidiaries, we are subject to extensive and changing laws and regulations in the U.K. Some of the laws affecting us include, but are not limited to, the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (“RSA 1993”), the Environment Act 1995, the 2004 Energy Act and the Electricity Act 1989 and the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999.

The Nuclear Installations Act 1965 governs the construction and operation of nuclear installations, including fuel cycle facilities, in the U.K. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 regulates workplace health, safety and welfare within the U.K.

The RSA 1993 provides a comprehensive framework for the keeping and use of radioactive materials as well as accumulation and disposal of radioactive waste.

The Environment Act 1995 created the Environment Agency in England and Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (“SEPA”). Under the Environment Act 1995, these agencies enforce environmental protection legislation including the RSA 1993.

The 2004 Energy Act established the NDA to ensure the decommissioning and clean-up of Britain’s civil public sector nuclear sites including the sites operated by ESEU Limited.

The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 provides a framework for the general radiation protection of workers and the public from work activities involving ionising radiation.

The U.S. Regulatory Environment

The state of Utah regulates our operations at our Clive facility. Our Utah licenses include our Clive facility’s primary radioactive materials license (UT2300249) and our 11e(2) material license (UT2300478), which is currently in timely renewal (which allows us to operate under the terms of our prior license until a new license is issued). Four different divisions of the Department of Environmental Quality regulate this facility with approximately 14 employees devoted to the facility. The Division of Radiation Control and the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste regulate our ability to receive LLRW, NORM/NARM (naturally-occurring/accelerator-produced radioactive material), 11e(2) material and MLLW. Additionally, the Division of Water Quality and the Division of Air Quality also regulate the facility. The site is inspected daily to ensure strict compliance with all Utah regulations. The Division of Radiation Control also requires us to provide letters of credit as financial assurance for the decommissioning or “closure” of our Clive facility, including areas that are

22

Table of Contents

closed on an ongoing basis. The adequacy of the funding provided is reviewed annually to assure that adequate financial resources are set aside and maintained to fund any required on-site clean-up activities. Finally, we also maintain nine Tooele County, Utah Conditional Use Permits for the facility.

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control regulates our South Carolina operations through multiple groups, including the Division of Waste Management, the Bureau of Air Quality, and the Bureau of Water. Our licensed operations in South Carolina include the Barnwell disposal facility (the license is currently in timely renewal), the Calibration Laboratory, the Nuclear Services Support Facility, the Barnwell Environmental and Dosimetry Lab and the Chem-Nuclear Systems, Service Operations Division. The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control has staff specifically devoted to the regulation of our facilities which continually inspects us and assures that we fully comply with all regulations. We lease the Barnwell site from the state of South Carolina and under the terms of the Atlantic Compact. As part of that lease and as part of its regulatory oversight, South Carolina requires us to contribute to a long-term care fund for the site and maintain decommissioning or closure assurance.

The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (“TDEC”), regulates our Tennessee operations through multiple groups, including the Division of Radiological Health, the Division of Solid Waste Management and the Division of Water Pollution Control. The TDEC has staff that continually oversees our facilities and also requires each facility to provide decommissioning assurance. Several of our Tennessee licenses are currently in timely renewal.

When we engage in the transportation of hazardous or radioactive materials, we are subject to the requirements of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as amended by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990. Pursuant to these statutes, the U.S. Department of Transportation regulates the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce. Our wholly owned subsidiary Hittman Transport Services, Inc., operates our primary shipping operation. Shippers and carriers of radioactive materials must comply with both the general requirements for hazardous materials transportation and with specific requirements for the transportation of radioactive materials. Many states also regulate our shipping business including California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Pennsylvania.

As described above, we are also regulated by the federal government, including by the NRC and EPA. The NRC regulates us regarding the certification of casks used to transport waste, importation of waste from foreign countries, decommissioning of power reactors and non-reactor decommissioning operations in non-Agreement States. We have multiple current Certificates of Compliance, which allow us to manufacture and sell radioactive material packages for the storage and transportation of radioactive material, including dry casks for spent nuclear fuel. These Certificates of Compliance permit the use of these packages by third parties as well as for our own transportation needs. The NRC requires us to maintain a Quality Assurance program associated with these Certificates of Compliance. To the extent we engage in the storage, processing, or disposal of MLLW, the radioactive components of the mixed waste are subject to NRC regulations promulgated under the AEA. The EPA, under RCRA, regulates the hazardous components of the waste. To the extent that these regulations have been delegated to the states, the states may also regulate mixed waste.

Operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities are required to obtain RCRA Part-B permits from the EPA or from states authorized to implement the RCRA program. Our Bear Creek facility located near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, is permitted under RCRA by the TDEC as a hazardous waste treatment facility. We have developed procedures to ensure compliance with RCRA permit provisions at our Bear Creek facility, including procedures for ensuring appropriate waste acceptance and scheduling, waste tracking, manifesting and reporting and employee training.

Under RCRA, wastes are classified as hazardous either because they are specifically listed as hazardous or because they display certain hazardous characteristics. Under current regulations, waste residues derived from listed hazardous wastes are considered hazardous wastes unless they are delisted through a formal rulemaking process that may last a few months to several years. For this reason, waste residue that is generated by the treatment of listed hazardous wastes, including waste treated with our vitrification technologies, may be considered a hazardous waste without regard to the fact that this waste residue may be environmentally benign. Full RCRA regulation would apply to the subsequent management of this waste residue, including the prohibition against land disposal without treatment in compliance with best demonstrated available technology treatment standards. In some cases, there is no current technology to treat mixed wastes, although EPA policy places these wastes on a low enforcement priority. Our ownership and operation of treatment facilities exposes us to potential liability for clean-up of releases of hazardous wastes under RCRA.

CERCLA effectively imposes strict, joint and several retroactive liabilities upon owners or operators of facilities where a release of hazardous substances occurred, the parties who generated the hazardous substances released at the facilities and parties who arranged for the transportation of hazardous substances to these facilities. The Clean Water Act and

23

Table of Contents

CERCLA also require companies to report releases to the environment of listed hazardous substances to the National Response Center, and impose fines for failure to do so.

Because we own and operate vitrification, storage, incineration and metal processing facilities, we are exposed to potential liability under CERCLA for releases of hazardous substances into the environment at those sites. If we use off-site storage or disposal facilities for final disposition of the glass and other residues from our vitrification, incineration and other treatment processes, or other hazardous substances relating to our operations, we may be subject to clean-up liability under CERCLA, and we could incur liability as a generator of these materials or by virtue of having arranged for their transportation and disposal to such facilities. We have designed our processes to minimize the potential for release of hazardous substances into the environment. In addition, we have developed plans to manage and minimize the risk of CERCLA or RCRA liability by training operators, using operational controls and structuring our relationships with the entities responsible for the handling of waste materials and by-products.

Certain of our facilities are required to maintain permits under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and corresponding state statutes. The necessity to obtain such permits depends upon the facility’s location and the expected emissions from the facility. A state may require additional state licenses or approvals. Further, many of the federal regulatory authorities described in this section have been delegated to state agencies; accordingly, we hold the required licenses, permits and other approvals from numerous states.

We believe that our treatment systems effectively trap particulates and prevent hazardous emissions from being released into the air, the release of which would violate the Clean Air Act. However, our compliance with the Clean Air Act may require additional emission controls and restrictions on materials stored, used and incinerated at existing or proposed facilities in the future.

Many of the government agencies overseeing our operations require us to regularly monitor the impacts of our operations on the environment, and to periodically report the results of such monitoring. The costs associated with required monitoring activities have not been, and are not expected to be, material. In complying with existing environmental regulations in past years, we have not incurred material capital expenditures. We do not expect to incur material capital expenditures in future periods for compliance with environmental regulations. However, we could be required to remediate any adverse environmental conditions discovered or occurring in the future which may require material expenditures.

OSHA provides for the establishment of standards governing workplace safety and health requirements, including setting permissible exposure levels for hazardous chemicals that may be present in mixed wastes. We must follow OSHA standards, including the preparation of material safety data sheets, hazardous response training and process safety management, as well as various record-keeping disclosure and procedural requirements. The NRC also has set regulatory standards for worker protection and public exposure to radioactive materials or wastes that we adhere to.

The U.K. Regulatory Environment

Through our U.K. subsidiaries, we hold contracts and licenses to operate and decommission 22 reactors at 10 of the NDA sites in the U.K. Two of these reactors are operating and 20 are in various stages of decommissioning. Approximately 3,400 employees in the U.K. operate these sites and are subject to the U.K. regulatory environment. We also have other operations in the U.K. that are also subject to this regulatory environment.

The Health and Safety Executive (“HSE”) is responsible for licensing nuclear installations. The Office of Nuclear Regulation (“ONR”), previously called Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (“NII”), which is part of the Nuclear Directorate of the HSE, ensures that nuclear installations comply with all statutory safety requirements.  ONR staff regularly inspects our facilities to confirm that the relevant licensing requirements are met throughout the life of the facility, including decommissioning.

The Environment Agency in England and Wales and the SEPA in Scotland have extensive powers and statutory duties to improve and protect the environment across England, Wales and Scotland. The Nuclear Regulation Groups (North and South) of the Environmental Agency regularly inspect and regulate our facilities in England and Wales to confirm compliance with regulations regarding radioactive substances, integrated pollution control, waste regulation and water quality. SEPA fulfills a similar function in Scotland. Memoranda of Understanding between the Environment Agency/SEPA and the HSE facilitate coordination between the multiple agencies regarding overlapping functions.

24

Table of Contents

Under the Energy Act 2004, the NDA was given responsibility for the operation, clean-up and decommissioning of 20 civic public sector nuclear sites, including reactor facilities used for the storage, disposal or treatment of hazardous material. We are operating or decommissioning reactors for the NDA at 10 of these sites. Accordingly, we serve as a prime contractor for the NDA.

Financial Information About Business Segments and Foreign and Domestic Operations

For financial information relating to (a) each of our business segments and (b) our foreign and domestic sales, transfers between geographic areas net income and identifiable assets, see Note 16 to our consolidated financial statements included within this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Development of Our Business

The Company was initially formed as Envirocare of Utah, Inc. in 1988 to operate a disposal facility for mixed waste, uranium mill tailings and Class A LLRW in Clive, Utah. In January 2005, the Company converted to a limited liability company, Envirocare of Utah, LLC (“Envirocare”). Immediately thereafter, the sole member of Envirocare sold all of its member interest to ENV Holdings LLC. In 2006, we changed our name from Envirocare of Utah, LLC to EnergySolutions, LLC. Since 2005, we have expanded and diversified our operations through a series of strategic acquisitions, including the D&D division of Scientech, LLC in October 2005, BNGA in February 2006, Duratek, Inc, in June 2006, Safeguard International Solutions, Ltd. (renamed EnergySolutions EU Services Limited) in December 2006, Parallax, Inc. (renamed EnergySolutions Performance Strategies) in January 2007, RSMC in June 2007, NUKEM Corporation (renamed EnergySolutions Diversified Services, Inc.) in July 2007, and Monserco in December 2007. The operations of these acquisitions are included in our results of operations from the date of acquisition.

On November 20, 2007, the date of the completion of our initial public offering, we completed our conversion to a corporate structure whereby EnergySolutions, LLC became a wholly owned subsidiary of EnergySolutions, Inc. EnergySolutions, Inc. is organized and existing under the General Corporation Law of the state of Delaware.

On July 30, 2008, we completed a secondary offering of 35 million shares of common stock offered by ENV Holdings, previously our majority shareholder, as selling shareholder. The underwriters of the offering subsequently exercised their over-allotment option and purchased 5.25 million additional shares of our common stock from ENV Holdings. Following completion of the offering, ENV Holdings owned approximately 16.7% of our outstanding shares of common stock.

On February 13, 2009, ENV Holdings completed a distribution of all of our shares to its members on a pro rata basis for no consideration. As a result, ENV Holdings is no longer a beneficial owner, directly or indirectly, of any shares of our common stock.

Available Information

We file annual, quarterly and current reports and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). These materials can be inspected and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE., Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of these materials may also be obtained by mail at prescribed rates from the SEC’s Public Reference Room at the above address. Information about the Public Reference Room can be obtained by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC also maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. The address of the SEC’s Internet site is www.sec.gov.

We make available, free of charge, on our Internet website, located at www.energysolutions.com, our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to such reports, as soon as reasonably practicable following the electronic filing of such report with the SEC. Such reports can be found under “SEC Filings” in the “Investor Relations” tab. In addition, we provide electronic or paper copies of our filings free of charge upon request. The information on our website is not a part of this Annual Report and is not incorporated into any of our filings made with the SEC.

Item 1A.  Risk Factors.

You should carefully consider the following factors and other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K before deciding to invest in our common stock.

25

Table of Contents

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

We operate in a highly regulated environment that requires us to obtain and comply with federal, 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. Renewal of existing permits could be denied or jeopardized for various reasons, including:

·                  failure to provide adequate financial assurance for decommissioning or closure;

·                  failure to comply with environmental and safety laws and regulations or permit conditions;

·                  local community, political or other opposition;

·                  executive action; or

·                  legislative action.

In addition, if new environmental legislation or regulations are enacted or existing laws or regulations are amended or are interpreted or enforced differently, we may be required to obtain additional or modify existing operating permits or approvals. Such changes may also cause us to incur additional expenses.

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

We 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 disposal facilities. For example, public interest groups and the former 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. The Utah Board of Radiation Control has also placed a temporary moratorium on the disposal of depleted uranium at our Clive facility even though depleted uranium is Class A waste that has previously been disposed of at our Clive facility. In addition, the NRC has announced that it is undertaking a limited rulemaking to require the preparation of a site-specific analysis at sites that dispose of significant quantities of depleted uranium. Although preliminary NRC analyses indicate that facilities such as our Clive facility will continue to be suitable for the disposal of depleted uranium, the Utah Board of Radiation Control has approved its own rule that requires a performance assessment prior to disposal of significant quantities of depleted uranium at our Clive facility. This assessment has been completed and submitted for review and approval.  The review and approval process or other restrictions could result in a delay or changes in how we dispose of depleted uranium at our Clive facility. Any regulatory, environmental or legislative efforts to limit or delay the operations at any of our facilities will adversely affect our business.

The recent events in Japan related to the release of radioactive material from the Fukushima nuclear power plant following the nuclear disaster there, highlight how public reaction can have a significant political influence and cause changes in governmental policies. Opposition by third parties 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. In the past, adverse public reaction, increased regulatory scrutiny and litigation have contributed to extended construction periods for new nuclear reactors, sometimes extending construction schedules by decades or more. Adverse public reaction and the perceived risks associated with nuclear power and radioactive material could also lead to increased regulation which limits or prohibits the activities of our customers. Our customers might also be subject to more onerous operating requirements. Any of the foregoing conditions or unforeseen adverse conditions in the future could have a material adverse impact on our business.

In addition, we may seek to address public and political opposition to our business activities through voluntary limitations on our operations. These actions, however, divert time and resources away from our core business operations and strategies and may not achieve the results we desire. For example, as part of our response to public statements made by public interest groups and the former 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 former governor to withdraw a request for a license amendment to increase our overall capacity at our Clive facility.

26

Table of Contents

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 significantly impact project schedules and cost. 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 may result 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.

Various federal, 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 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. There can be no assurance that our existing liability insurance is adequate, 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 at any of our facilities, if successful and of sufficient magnitude, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Our operations are subject to taxation and regulation by federal, state, local and other governmental entities.

We have deferred tax assets for net operating loss carry-forwards. We also currently benefit from research and development credits which reduce our overall tax rate. The expiration of the net operating loss carry-forwards and inability to qualify for future tax credits or changes in governing rules and regulations could result in a material increase in our taxes and effective tax rate. 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.

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, which consists of South Carolina, New Jersey and Connecticut. Although the Barnwell closure did not have a significant impact on our revenue or net income, political pressures to reduce or curtail other operations could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Our business depends on the continued operation of, and adequate capacity at, our Clive, Utah disposal 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 U.S. 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. 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.

In December 2009, the governor of Utah announced he had reached an agreement with the DOE not to ship any additional depleted uranium from the Savannah River site to the Clive facility until a site-specific performance assessment of the Clive facility could be completed. These and other actions by states or the federal government may affect the operation, capacity, expansion or extension of the Clive facility. The Northwest Compact, which consists of Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming was created pursuant to a federal statute that enable states to enter into

27

Table of Contents

interstate compacts for the purpose of managing LLRW. The Northwest Compact has asserted that it has authority over our Clive facility, and on November 9, 2010, the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Northwest Compact is statutorily and constitutionally permitted to exercise exclusionary authority over the Clive facility. Any of the foregoing actions may hinder, delay or stop shipments to the facility, which could impair our ability to execute disposal projects and significantly reduce future revenue.

We believe that the Clive facility has sufficient capacity for approximately 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 pending license amendment to convert volume originally intended for 11e(2) waste to Class A LLRW. The license amendment would increase our capacity for Class A LLRW disposal from 95 million cubic feet to approximately 140 million cubic feet. Our projected capacity to dispose of Class A LLRW would be materially reduced if we were unable to obtain the license amendment or if material modifications are required to obtain the license amendment. We have assumed that we will obtain the pending license amendment because, among other reasons, we entered into an agreement in 2007 with the governor of the state of Utah which specifically stated support for conversion of 11e(2) volume to a Class A LLRW disposal volume and we believe we continue to have gubernatorial support for this license amendment. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be able to obtain the needed license amendment, particularly given the politically sensitive nature of our business as described above. If future disposal volumes increase beyond our expectations or if our other assumptions prove to be incorrect, then the remaining capacity at the Clive facility would be utilized more quickly than projected. 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.

28

Table of Contents

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

For the year ended December 31, 2011, we derived 62.0% and 181.1% of our revenue and segment operating income from our operations outside of North America. For the year ended December 31, 2010, we derived 57.9% and 23.9% of our revenue and operating income from our operations outside of North America. Our business depends 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 revenue and operating income. In addition to risks applicable to our business generally, our international operations are subject to a variety of heightened or distinct risks, including:

·                  recessions or inflationary trends in foreign economies and the impact on government funding and our costs of doing business in those countries;

·                  the expansion of our business and operations in China, including challenges related to protecting our intellectual property and political risks;

·                  difficulties in staffing and managing foreign operations;

·                  changes in regulatory requirements;

·                  foreign currency fluctuations;

·                  the adoption of new, and the expansion of existing, trade restrictions;

·                  acts of war and terrorism;

·                  the ability to finance efficiently our foreign operations;

·                  high initial entry costs associated with new markets;

·                  the possibility of greater than expected operating costs;

·                  social, political and economic instability;

·                  increases in taxes;

·                  limitations on the ability to repatriate foreign earnings; and

·                  natural disasters or other crises.

The loss of one or a few customers or a particular strategic asset 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 revenue in any one year or over a period of several consecutive years. For example, the NDA accounts for most of our revenue in the International segment (which is our largest segment based on 2011 and 2010 revenue). For the year ended December 31, 2011, 60.2% of our revenue was from contracts funded by the NDA. For the year ended December 31, 2010, 57.6% of our revenue was 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 years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, 15.3%, 21.7% and 15.8%, respectively, of our revenue was from contracts funded by the DOE. Our business strategy and profitability rely on our ownership of unique disposal facilities. A significant amount of our revenue is derived from large one-time projects.

The termination or expiration of a significant contract, the loss of a significant customer, the loss of a strategic asset or the lack of new project awards could have a materially adverse effect on our business. In addition, customers generally contract with us for specific projects and as projects are completed we may lose customers from year to year. For these reasons, we may be particularly sensitive to significant fluctuations in our revenue, liquidity and profitability. Our inability to replace this business could have an adverse effect on our operations and financial condition.

We may fail to win re-bids in the U.K. for the Magnox decommissioning contracts currently held by our subsidiary EnergySolutions EU Limited.

The NDA contracts (the “Magnox Contracts”) held by EnergySolutions EU Limited through its subsidiary Magnox Limited (formerly held by the Magnox North Limited and Magnox South Limited subsidiaries), in relation to the Magnox North sites and the Magnox South sites (the “Magnox Sites”) have been extended and are scheduled to expire June 30, 2014

29

Table of Contents

and can be extended for an additional nine months at the option of the NDA. For the contract year ended March 31, 2012, we expect to recognize revenue of approximately $1.1 billion from these contracts.  The competition of these contracts is expected to commence in the second half of 2012 and be completed in late 2013. We expect the re-bid of the Magnox Contracts and other material contracts under which we perform will involve intense competition. We anticipate competing for the re-bid of the Magnox Contracts by teaming with one or more partners which will reduce our ownership percentage of the re-bid opportunity.  Our failure to win the re-bid would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. Even if we win the re-bid, the participation of a partner will reduce the revenue and profits accruing to us from these contracts.

Our license stewardship arrangement with Exelon exposes us to significant financial risks.

The transaction with Exelon is the first of its kind and, therefore, required extensive assurances. The Exelon transaction is expected to prove the license stewardship initiative as a viable model, such that other utility companies will not require as many layers of financial assurance. The transaction with Exelon establishes a series of financial consequences intended to ensure that the Zion Station decommissioning trust fund does not fall below projected completion costs (a “Deficiency”). Whenever there is a Deficiency, ZionSolutions must defer collection of invoices from the trust fund (“deferred receivables”) until the Deficiency is resolved. EnergySolutions, LLC and EnergySolutions, Inc. guaranteed ZionSolutions’ performance. If the deferred receivables reach $50 million, ZionSolutions must defer withdrawals from the trust fund or EnergySolutions, LLC must extend a loan to ZionSolutions or contribute capital to ZionSolutions such that the ZionSolutions’ own deferred receivables do not exceed $50 million. Deferral of receivables may also be triggered (up to, but not greater than, $5 million per month) if ZionSolutions fails to achieve certain milestones, subject to force majeure or schedule extension conditions. With respect to any deferral of receivables, such receivables may be collected when the Deficiency is resolved or the milestone is achieved, as applicable. Also, additional rent under the lease with Exelon may be required if substantial completion of the D&D activities is not achieved within ten years, subject to certain schedule extension conditions. Such additional rents would be $200,000 per month for the first year of delay, $800,000 per month for the second year of delay, $1,250,000 per month for the third year of delay and $1,750,000 per month for the fourth year of delay and beyond. As discussed above, the Exelon transaction also includes financial assurances beyond the deferral of receivables and additional rents. These include a pledge of the ZionSolutions equity to Exelon, a $200 million letter of credit (the proceeds of which may only be used for decommissioning by Exelon to the extent that Exelon exercises its right to ZionSolutions under the pledge), and a disposal easement at our Clive facility. To the extent that any of these deficiencies or events of default occur, there will be a substantial impact to our operations and financial condition because we have the contractual obligation to fund the operations of ZionSolutions if costs exceed the value of the trust fund.

In February 2012, we completed a comprehensive review and assessment of the Zion Station project schedule, costs and related projected decommissioning trust fund values.  Based on this review and assessment, there were no deficiencies or events of default identified and we have shared the results of the review and assessment with Exelon.  Over the remaining life of the project, the decommissioning trust fund is not projected to fall below projected completion costs and there is no expectation that any deficiency or event of default will occur, even in the unlikely event of the project being unprofitable. Nevertheless, all forward-looking projections and expectations regarding the Zion Station project are subject to various risks and uncertainties as noted below.

The future performance of the Zion Station project is subject to various risks and uncertainties.

As discussed above, we have recently completed a comprehensive schedule, cost and budget update for the Zion Station project.  As a result of this update, we have derived various findings and results, including, among others, that (i) estimated project costs have increased from the original budgeted amounts and (ii) the profit margin of the project is currently estimated to range from approximately 10% to 15%.  The profitability of the Zion Station project is a function of project cost management and NDT fund investment earnings performance.  Therefore, if future project costs increase and all other factors remain constant, the profit of the project will decrease.  Similarly, if the NDT fund investment earnings are lower than current projections and all other factors remain constant, the profit of the project will decrease as a result of lower available funding.

Our current estimate of the project’s profit margin assumes that the NDT fund investment earnings will achieve a 6% annual rate of return over the remaining life of the project.  There can be no assurance we will achieve this rate of return.  Moreover, to the extent the actual rate is lower than 6%, the project’s profit will be lower unless there is a corresponding decrease in project costs.  Although NDT fund earnings to date have outperformed initial projections, we have recently reallocated NDT fund investments to be more heavily weighted towards fixed-income securities rather than equity securities which are anticipated to result in more stable, albeit lower, investment earnings.

Because there are eight years remaining on the project, there can be no assurance that our current estimates,

30

Table of Contents

assumptions and projections will prove accurate and all such forward-looking statements, including our projection of the project’s profitability, could change materially.  Our estimates, assumptions and projections are necessarily dependent upon future economic, market and other conditions, of which we have no control.  Accordingly, the expected profit of the Zion Station project is uncertain.  In the event actual project costs are higher than total realized NDT fund levels, we will realize no profit on the project and could incur a substantial loss that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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 regarding the decommissioning of Zion Station, we delivered a $200 million letter of credit to Exelon relating to our present and future obligations. This letter of credit may be drawn by Exelon upon the occurrence of one of the following conditions (i) our failure to maintain the required letter of credit from a qualified financial institution, (ii) our bankruptcy or the bankruptcy of ZionSolutions, our subsidiary that provides decommissioning services to Exelon, (iii) the cessation by ZionSolutions to provide all or substantially all decommissioning services for a period of longer than one year, (iv) our failure to make a payment pursuant to our guarantee of ZionSolutions’ obligations, or (v) ZionSolutions’ failure to use diligent efforts to perform services according to the agreed upon schedule.

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. 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.

Our quarterly operating results may fluctuate significantly.

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

·                  the seasonality of our contracts, the spending cycle of our government customers and the spending patterns of our commercial customers;

·                  the large size and irregular timing of payments under our international contracts;

·                  the number and significance of projects commenced and completed during a quarter;

·                  uncertainty in timing for receiving government contract awards;

·                  our contract with the NDA, under which we generally recognize most efficiency fees in the first and fourth calendar quarters of each year;

·                  unanticipated changes in contract performance, particularly with contracts that have funding limits;

·                  the timing of resolutions of change orders, requests for equitable adjustments and other contract adjustments;

·                  decisions by customers to terminate our contracts;

·                  delays incurred in connection with a project;

·                  seasonal variations in shipments of radioactive materials;

·                  the timing of expenses incurred in connection with acquisitions or other corporate initiatives;

·                  staff levels and utilization rates;

·                  competitive factors in our industry; and

·                  general economic or political conditions.

Fluctuations in quarterly results, lower than anticipated revenue or our failure to meet financial guidance or published analyst forecasts, could negatively impact the price of our common stock.

Our life-of-plant contracts may not remain in effect through a nuclear power plant’s decontamination and decommissioning or may subject us to additional liabilities.

Our life-of-plant contracts are intended to provide us with revenue streams from the processing and disposal of substantially all LLRW and MLLW generated over the remaining lives of nuclear power plants operated by our commercial power and utility customers. These contracts are also meant to provide waste disposal revenue streams when the plants are shut down. However, these 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:

·                  have a shorter initial term than the useful life of the plant and the contract may not be extended by the utility;

·                  include a provision that allows the customer to terminate the contract after a certain period of time or upon certain events such as the development of a new disposal facility within the plants compact region;

·                  allow for renegotiation of pricing terms if market conditions change; and

·                  allow for renegotiation of pricing terms based on increases in taxes and pass-through or other costs.

The early termination or renegotiation of a life-of-plant contract may reduce our revenue and profits. In addition, life-of-plant contracts may expose us to liability in the event that any government action limits our ability to accept radioactive materials by capping the capacity of one or more of our disposal facilities or taking other actions that prevent us from disposing of LLRW and MLLW at our facilities or substantially increase the cost of doing so.

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

We must be successful in winning new business from our government and commercial customers to replace revenue from completed projects and to sustain growth. Our business and operating results can be significantly influenced by the size and timing of a single material contract.

Large government contracts become available for bidding on an infrequent basis. Our business strategy includes bidding on such contracts as the prime contractor, part of a joint venture or other team arrangement competing for a prime

31

Table of Contents

contract, and as a first tier or lower subcontractor. We expect to bid on a significant portion of the approximately $30 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 prime contract, we will be competing directly against a number of large national and regional nuclear services firms that may possess or develop superior technologies and/or have greater financial, management and marketing resources. 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.

Investor lawsuits could adversely affect our business and financial position.

Two purported class action lawsuits were filed against us in October 2009. In February 2010, the lawsuits were consolidated and a lead plaintiff was named. The lawsuit names as defendants EnergySolutions, Inc., certain of our current and prior directors, certain of our officers, the lead underwriters in our November 2007 initial public offering (“IPO”) and July 2008 secondary offering (the “July 2008 Offering”) and ENV Holdings LLC, our former parent. The lawsuit alleges that the registration statements and prospectuses for the IPO and July 2008 Offering contained inaccurate statements of material facts and omitted material information required to be disclosed therein. The lawsuit seeks to certify a class consisting of all purchasers of our stock from November 14, 2007 through October 14, 2008. Our stock price varied from approximately $27.85 to $5.64 during that period.

Under our organizational documents and contractual agreements, we have indemnification obligations to all of the named defendants. While we currently believe that our interests and defenses in the lawsuit are similar to those of the other parties who have also been named as defendants in the lawsuit, the interests and defenses of the other defendants could become different or diverge from ours in the future. If our interests were to diverge, we may incur additional costs and expenses that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If plaintiffs are successful in certifying a class and establishing the allegations in the lawsuit, damages could be significant, and our financial condition and liquidity could be materially adversely affected. Although we believe that the lawsuit is without merit and we intend to vigorously defend it, there can be no assurance that we will prevail. An unfavorable resolution of this lawsuit could result in a substantial judgment against us and, even if we are successful in defending against the allegations of the lawsuit, we may incur significant costs for legal fees and indemnification obligations to other named defendants. We may also incur increased costs for renewal of our directors’ and officers’ liability insurance. The defense of the lawsuit may also involve the commitment of significant company resources and may demand the time and attention of our employees, officers and directors, particularly those who are personally named, to the detriment of our business operations.

In addition, two shareholder derivative actions have been filed against us. On August 25, 2010, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah against EnergySolutions, Inc. as the nominal defendant, various current and prior directors and certain of our officers. On October 8, 2010, another shareholder derivative action was filed in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, against EnergySolutions, Inc., certain prior directors, ENV Holdings LLC, our former parent, and Lindsay Goldberg & Bessemer, L.P. Both derivative complaints allege breach of fiduciary duty against the defendants. The underlying facts in both of the derivative complaints are substantively the same as those in the purported class-action lawsuit. There may be additional similar lawsuits filed in the future. Under our organizational documents and contractual agreements, we have indemnification obligations to certain of the named defendants in these derivative lawsuits. While we currently believe that our interests and defenses in these lawsuits are similar to those of the other parties who have also been named as defendants, the interests and defenses of the other defendants could become different or diverge from ours in the future. If our interests were to diverge, we may incur additional costs and expenses that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. For more information regarding the above referenced lawsuits, including their current status, see Item 3. Legal Proceedings in Part I of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

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

Our safety record is critical to our reputation. Many of our government and commercial customers require that we maintain certain specified safety record guidelines to be eligible to bid for contracts. Furthermore, contract terms may provide for automatic termination in the event that our safety record fails to adhere to agreed-upon guidelines. 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.

32

Table of Contents

We may incur regulatory fines or lose our NDA contract fees if a significant accident were to occur at the power generating facilities.

Under the Magnox Contracts, we manage 22 nuclear reactors, 2 of which are currently operating, for the NDA. The management and operation of such facilities subjects us to various risks including potential harmful effects on the environment and human health resulting from the storage, handling and disposal of radioactive materials, and limitations on the amounts of types of insurance commercially available to cover potential losses.

We are required to meet licensing and safety-related requirements imposed by the NDA and other regulatory agencies in the U.K. In the event of non-compliance, the NDA or other regulatory agencies may increase regulatory oversight, impose fines, and/or shut down a facility, depending upon the assessment of the severity of the situation. Revised security and safety requirements promulgated by regulatory agencies could necessitate capital expenditures, as well as proportionate assessments against us to cover third-party losses.

If a nuclear incident were to occur at one of the nuclear facilities operated by us, there could be environmental, health and public safety consequences. A nuclear incident could lead to the termination of our position as the operator of that facility and/or other nuclear facilities and potentially impact other segments of our business.

The elimination or any modification of the Price-Anderson Act’s indemnification authority, which is applicable to certain of our operations, could harm our business.

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, provides for 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 contractor 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, we may not be able to obtain commercially adequate insurance on a cost effective basis, or at all, and our business could be adversely affected if the owners and operators of new facilities elect not to retain our services.

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:

·                  the financial condition and strategy of the owners and operators of nuclear reactors;

·                  a reduction in demand for nuclear generating capacity;

·                  civic opposition to or changes in government policies regarding nuclear operations;

·                  disruptions in the nuclear fuel cycle, such as insufficient uranium supply or conversion; or

·                  accidents, terrorism, natural disasters or other incidents occurring at nuclear facilities or involving shipments of nuclear materials.

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

33

Table of Contents

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 continued throughout 2009, 2010 and 2011. Recently, concerns over inflation, energy costs, geopolitical issues, the availability and cost of credit, the U.S. mortgage market and a depressed 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, low business and consumer confidence and high unemployment, have extended the economic downturn.

During economic downturns, the ability of private and government entities to make expenditures on nuclear services is likely to be curtailed. Our Commercial Services customers have reduced their spending on nuclear services during the recent downturn, and despite recent signs of recovery in equity markets, they have not increased their spending to levels prior to the downturn. In particular, our operations depend, in part, upon government funding, and especially upon funding levels at the NDA and DOE. Significant changes in the level of government funding (for example, the annual budget of the NDA or DOE) or specifically mandated levels for individual 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 2011/2012 contract year increased over the 2010/2011 contract year, the NDA may reduce Magnox funding allocations in the future as the NDA directs funds to meet the funding requirements of other “high hazard” sites that are perceived to pose a greater degree of risk.

If Congress does not pass annual appropriations bills in a timely fashion, it may delay spending on new government contracts. Any reduction in the level of government funding, particularly at the DOE, may result in, among other things, a reduction in the cleanup and waste handling projects put out for bid by the government or the curtailment of existing government waste disposal programs, either of which may result in a reduction in the number of contract award opportunities available to us, a reduction of waste shipment and disposal activities from DOE sites and an increase in our costs of obtaining a contract award or providing services under the contract.

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.

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 operating results and cash flows.

As a government contractor, we are subject to extensive regulation, and contractual and other requirements relating to the formation, administration and performance of contracts, and our failure to comply with applicable regulations and requirements 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 U.K. contracts are subject to audit by U.K. regulatory authorities, including the NDA. If these audits result in determinations that costs claimed as reimbursable are not allowed 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 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. Some of our projects receive funding under the ARRA or similar federal and state programs designed to provide financial assistance to create jobs, improve energy efficiency, encourage the development of renewable energy, and meet critical infrastructure needs. The receipt of these funds subjects us to additional regulatory oversight and reporting

34

Table of Contents

requirements, which impose additional administrative burdens and costs on our business. Failure to comply with applicable regulations, requirements or statutes could disqualify us from receiving recovery funding, result in the termination or suspension of our existing government contracts, impose fines or other penalties on us, or result in our suspension or debarment from government contracting. 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 revenue and profits. Furthermore, as a result of our government contracting or the receipt of recovery funding, claims for civil or criminal fraud may be brought by the government for violations of these regulations, requirements or statutes.

Our global operations require importing and exporting goods and technology across international borders.

We are subject to U.S. and foreign international trade laws. To the extent that we export products, technical data and services outside the U.S., we are subject to U.S. laws and regulations governing international trade and exports, including but not limited to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, the Export Administration Regulations and trade sanctions against embargoed countries, which are administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The violation of such laws could subject us to civil or criminal penalties, including substantial monetary fines, or other adverse actions including denial of import or export privileges, and could damage our reputation and therefore, our ability to do business.

Our commercial customers may decide to store radioactive materials on-site rather than contract with us to transport, process and dispose of their radioactive materials.

Our LP&D segment’s results of operations may be affected by the decisions of our commercial customers to store radioactive materials on-site, rather than contract with us to transport, process and dispose of their radioactive materials. 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 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, among other reasons, 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.

Although we have entered into a license stewardship arrangement with Exelon and closed that transaction, we may not be successful in entering into other license stewardship arrangements with owners and operators of shut-down nuclear reactors.

We continue to market 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, the following factors may adversely affect our license stewardship initiative:

·                  owners and operators of shut-down nuclear reactors have the option of maintaining their reactors in SAFSTOR or monitored storage, allowing their decommissioning trust fund to grow and eventually pursue a D&D program in the future;

·                  uncertainty regarding the appropriate tax and regulatory treatment of aspects of our license stewardship initiative may prevent owners and operators of nuclear power plants from entering into these kinds of arrangements with us;

·                  if a plant’s decommissioning trust fund has decreased or failed to grow, the fund may not be large enough to make license stewardship economically feasible;

35

Table of Contents

·                  we may fail to obtain the necessary approvals and licenses from the NRC and the applicable state public utility commission on terms we find acceptable, or at all;

·                  these contracts may require us to post letters of credit or surety bonds that we may be unable to obtain on reasonable terms, or at all;

·                  as the owner of the reactor assets and the holder of the NRC license, we may be subject to unforeseen environmental liabilities, including fines for non-compliance with environmental requirements and costs associated with the clean-up of unanticipated contamination; and

·                  if we underestimate the costs or timing of D&D activities at a particular site, the project may not be profitable for us.

Under our license stewardship initiative we will assume the D&D obligations of owners of shut-down nuclear reactors or other nuclear facilities. We anticipate the costs of this process will be paid exclusively from the decommissioning trust fund of the related facility. We would commit to undertake a particular arrangement only if we believed the decommissioning trust fund would be sufficient to fund the D&D activities including a reasonable profit. However, if we fail to appropriately manage the investment of the trust fund, to achieve a targeted return, or such funds are adversely affected by market conditions or investment returns, there may not be sufficient funds in the trust fund to complete the obligations we have assumed. Moreover, the costs of D&D could exceed the amounts in the trust fund, and we may not be able to draw from other sources of funds, including funds from our other operations, to meet the costs of the project. Any of these outcomes would expose us to significant financial risk.

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, including accidents involving the release of such materials.

Our operations involve managing radioactive and hazardous materials, including handling, transportation and disposal. Failure to properly manage these materials could pose a health risk to humans 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 insurance (or the insurance of our customers) 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 to comply with specific requirements in our financing agreements and in other 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.

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 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 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 and likely requiring the expenditure of additional marketing costs and related expenses to retain market share. If we are unable to meet these competitive challenges, we could lose market share and experience an overall reduction in our profits.

We expect WCS to commence operations and begin accepting commercial Class A, B and C LLRW during the first half

36

Table of Contents

of 2012 at its site near Andrews, Texas.  In addition, other competitors have requested regulatory relief from the NRC to dispose of extremely low-level commercial Class A waste in non-licensed facilities such as specialized landfills. These developments present additional competitive risks that could adversely affect our business, particularly as it relates to the revenue and gross profits from the operation of our Clive, Utah disposal 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 regulatory, economic or other changes that may occur during the contract period. If we have underestimated the costs of our fixed-price contracts, we may experience losses on such contracts and, in certain circumstances, those losses could be material.

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 or within a specified budget. 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. Sometimes, we also guarantee that a project, when completed, will achieve certain performance standards. If we fail to complete the project as scheduled or budgeted, 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 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 revenue is recognized using the proportional performance method of accounting. Generally, the proportional performance accounting practices we use result in recognizing contract revenue 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 revenue 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 operating results.

We may pursue 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. 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 acquisitions include:

·                  failure to complete anticipated acquisitions or achieve the expected benefits from completed acquisitions;

·                  potential disruption of our ongoing business and distraction of management;

·                  unexpected loss of key employees or customers of the acquired company;

37

Table of Contents

·                  conforming the acquired company’s standards, processes, procedures and controls with our operations;

·                  hiring additional management and other critical personnel; and

·                  increasing the scope, geographic diversity and complexity of our operations.

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 senior secured credit facility and other credit arrangements and by 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 make successful acquisitions, our ability to grow our business could be adversely affected.

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

Our operations require the services of highly qualified operations personnel and management, 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 in the U.S. since the mid-1970s, there have 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. Also, the Company has continued to realign senior management to reflect ongoing changes in business opportunities, priorities and strategies. As part of the realignment, several of our executive officers and members of senior management are no longer with the Company. We face increasing competition and expense to attract and retain other qualified personnel. Loss of key personnel or failure to attract qualified management and other personnel could have an adverse effect on our ability to operate our business and execute our business strategy.

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

We are required to test acquired goodwill for impairment on an annual basis. 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 complete our annual impairment reviews of goodwill in the second 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. Changes in our forecasts or decreases in the value of our common stock could cause book values of certain reporting units to exceed their fair values, which may result in goodwill impairment charges. 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.

We performed our most recent annual impairment test as of April 1, 2011, and, based on step one of the impairment analysis, each of our reporting units’ fair value exceeded their carrying value.  However, due to adverse stock market conditions that existed during the third and fourth quarter of 2011, our stock price and corresponding market capitalization declined significantly.  This decline prompted us to perform an interim goodwill impairment test as of December 31, 2011, and as a result, we recorded a non-cash goodwill impairment charge for the Government Group and LP&D reporting units totaling $174.0 million during the quarter ended December 31, 2011.  The $174.0 million goodwill impairment charge was not finalized prior to the issuance of this report but was estimated based on a preliminary goodwill impairment analysis as of December 31, 2011 and represents our best estimate of the impairment charge.  The second step of the impairment test will be completed during the first quarter of 2012.  Once completed, there may be a material adjustment to the goodwill impairment charge recorded on our condensed consolidated statements of operations.

As of December 31, 2011, we had $306.4 million of goodwill and $260.9 million of finite-lived intangible assets, which collectively represented 18.8% of our total assets of $3.0 billion as of December 31, 2011.  After recording the $174.0 million impairment charge noted above, the fair value of our reporting units exceeded their carrying value.  However, future

38

Table of Contents

events such as a deterioration of market conditions, a decline in stock price, an adverse change in regulatory requirements, a reduction in government funding, or a failure to win new business or re-bids of current contracts could result in an additional future impairment charge.

Based on the annual goodwill impairment analysis performed as of April 1, 2010, we determined that an indicator of impairment existed for the Government Group reporting unit. Upon completion of step two of the impairment analysis which included an assessment of fair value of all assets and liabilities of the reporting unit, we concluded that the goodwill within our Government Group reporting unit was impaired and recorded a $35.0 million non-cash goodwill impairment charge in the second quarter of 2010.

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

As of December 31, 2011, we had outstanding debt balances of $527.0 million under our senior secured credit facility and $300 million under our senior notes. Our substantial debt could have important consequences to us, including the following:

·                  we must use a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to pay interest and other fees on our debt, which reduces the funds available to us for other purposes;

·                  our ability to obtain additional debt financing in the future for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions or general corporate purposes may be limited;

·                  we may be unable to renew, replace or repay long-term debt as it becomes due, particularly in light of the tightening of lending standards as a result of the economic downturn;

·                  our flexibility in reacting to changes in the industry may be limited and we could be more vulnerable to adverse changes in our business or economic conditions in general; and

·                  we may be at a competitive disadvantage to competitors that have less debt.

Borrowings under our senior secured credit facility bear interest at variable rates. As of December 31, 2011, the interest rate of our term-loan and revolving letter of credit facilities was 6.25%. Assuming that this rate remains constant during the following years, our interest payment obligations related to the term loan obligations would be approximately $32.9 million for each of the next five years. Based on the amount of debt outstanding and the interest rate at December 31, 2011, a hypothetical 1% increase in interest rates would increase our annual interest expense by approximately $5.3 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.

Outstanding balances under our senior notes due 2018 bear interest at a 10.75% fixed interest rate. At this rate and assuming an outstanding balance of $300.0 million as of December 31, 2011, our annual debt service obligations would be $32.3 million. Based on the amount of outstanding debt and its fixed interest rate we must use a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to redeem all or a portion of our senior notes and to pay interest and other fees associated with our senior notes, which could reduce the funds available to us for other purposes and could significantly increase our debt.

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

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

·                  incur or guarantee additional debt;

·                  declare or pay dividends to holders of our common stock;

·                  make investments and acquisitions;

·                  incur or permit to exist liens;

·                  enter into transactions with affiliates;

39

Table of Contents

·                  make material changes in the nature or conduct of our business;

·                  merge or consolidate with, or sell substantially all of our assets to, other companies;

·                  enter into guarantees for, and investments into, certain subsidiaries and joint ventures;

·                  make capital expenditures; and

·                  transfer or sell assets.

The agreements governing our senior secured credit facility contain financial covenants which we may not meet with our future financial results.

Our senior secured credit facility contains financial covenants requiring us to maintain specified maximum leverage and minimum cash interest coverage ratios. The results of our future operations may not allow us to meet these covenants, or may require that we take action to reduce our debt or to act in a manner contrary to our business objectives.

Our failure to comply with obligations under our senior secured credit facility, including satisfaction of the financial ratios, would result in an event of default under the facilities. A default, if not cured or waived, would prohibit us from obtaining further loans under our senior secured credit facility and permit the lenders thereunder to accelerate payment of their loans and withdraw the letters of credit which support our bonding obligations. If we are not current in our bonding obligations, we may be in breach of our contracts with our customers, which generally require bonding. In addition, we would be unable to bid or be awarded new contracts that required bonding. If our debt is accelerated, we currently would not have funds available to pay the accelerated debt and may not have the ability to refinance the accelerated debt on terms favorable to us or at all particularly in light of the tightening of lending standards as a result of the ongoing financial crisis. If we could not repay or refinance the accelerated debt, we would 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 laws, trade secrets 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/or disposal of radioactive materials. Our intellectual property could be challenged, invalidated, circumvented or rendered unenforceable.

We also rely upon unpatented proprietary 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 expertise. Adequate remedies may not be available in the event of an unauthorized use or disclosure of our trade secrets and expertise. Others may obtain knowledge of our trade secrets through independent development or other access by legal means. The failure of intellectual property laws or our confidentiality agreements to protect our processes, technology, trade secrets and proprietary expertise and methods could have an adverse effect on our business by jeopardizing our rights to our 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, 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 have entered into contracting consortia and other contractual arrangements to bid and perform jointly on large projects. Success on 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

40

Table of Contents

our customer may exercise its right to terminate a joint project, exposing us to legal liability, reputational harm 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. We cannot control the actions of our joint venture partners, and as with most joint venture arrangements, differences in views among the joint venture participants may result in delayed decisions or disputes. We also typically have joint and several liabilities 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 project, financial and other controls. These joint ventures may not be subject to the same requirements regarding internal controls and financial reporting that we follow. As a result, problems may arise with respect to the joint ventures that could adversely affect our ability to respond to requests, meet contractual obligations or comply with internal control requirements to which we are otherwise subject.

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

We often 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 revenue 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.

We may not be successful in executing our business strategies.

We must be successful in executing long-term strategic plans and opportunities which include winning new business from our government and commercial customers and in diversifying our business into other areas that allow us to exploit our core competencies. If we are not successful in these endeavors, we may not achieve our financial goals.

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 (the “Exchange Act”). 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 New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and certain provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 and the regulations promulgated under those Acts, which impose significant compliance obligations upon us. As a public company, we are required to, among other things:

·                  prepare and distribute periodic public reports and other shareholder communications in compliance with our obligations under the federal securities laws and NYSE rules;

41

Table of Contents

·                  clearly define the roles and duties of our board of directors and committees of the board;

·                  institute comprehensive financial reporting and disclosure compliance functions;

·                  involve and retain outside counsel and accountants in the activities listed above;

·                  maintain an effective investor relations function; and

·                  establish and monitor internal policies, including those relating to disclosure controls and procedures.

These requirements require a significant commitment of resources. We may not be successful in implementing and monitoring specific requirements and the failure to do so could adversely affect our business or operating results. In addition, if we fail to satisfy 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.

We must successfully upgrade and maintain our information technology systems.

We rely on various information technology systems to manage our operations. We are currently implementing modifications and upgrades to our systems, including making changes to legacy systems, replacing legacy systems with successor systems with new functionality and acquiring new systems. These types of activities subject us to inherent costs and risks associated with replacing and changing these systems, potential disruption of our internal control structure, substantial capital expenditures, additional administration and operating expenses, retention of sufficiently skilled personnel to implement and operate the new systems, demands on management time, and other risks and costs of delays or difficulties in transitioning to new systems or of integrating new systems into our current systems. Our system implementations may not result in productivity improvements at a level that outweighs the costs of implementation, or at all. In addition, the implementation of new technology systems may cause disruptions in our business operations and have an adverse effect on our business, cash flows and operations, if not anticipated and appropriately mitigated.

Our new enterprise resource planning system became operational in January 2010. In addition to the risks addressed in the preceding paragraph, specific risks associated with our implementation of the new system include: (i) delays in generating certain customer invoices and the required supporting details which could negatively affect cash flows, (ii) delays in processing supplier invoices and/or payments which could potentially disrupt operations and/or result in financial penalties, (iii) system performance issues due to inadequate technology infrastructure, (iv) excessive delays in closing monthly financial periods which could result in delays in filings of quarterly SEC reports, (v) inability of our users to use the system as designed and configured to support key business processes and requirements, and (vi) not being fully compliant with state, federal, Sarbanes-Oxley, and labor union requirements.

Because we publish earnings guidance, 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 new contracts, regulatory decision making and other uncertainties relating to assumptions that management makes in calculating

42

Table of Contents

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.

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 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 adversely affect the price of our common stock.

Item 1B.  Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2.  Properties.

As of December 31, 2011, we owned 11 properties, leased 31 properties and operated 1 property pursuant to long-term lease with the state of South Carolina. We believe that our current facilities are sufficient for the operation of our business and that suitable additional space in various local markets is available to accommodate any reasonable foreseeable needs that may arise. The following table provides summary information of our owned and leased real property, inclusive of renewal options:

43

Table of Contents

Item 3.    Legal Proceedings

False Claim Act Proceeding

On August 7, 2002, Roger Lemmon, Patrick Cole and Kyle Gunderson filed a “qui tam” complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah as “relators” on behalf of the U.S. government, against Envirocare (our predecessor), pursuant to the False Claims Act. The complaint alleges that Envirocare (a) violated various contractual and regulatory requirements related to waste disposal at the Clive, Utah facility; (b) failed to report the violations; and (c) falsely implied, in invoice documentation to the U.S. government, that Envirocare had complied with all applicable contractual and regulatory requirements. The complaint alleges that the U.S. government is entitled to recover substantial (but unspecified) damages, including treble damages. The U.S. government declined to pursue the case on its own behalf. The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah dismissed the complaint three times, each time with leave to amend the complaint. On August 4, 2010, the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the third dismissal.  This proceeding is in the discovery phase.

City of Roseville Employees’ Retirement System v. EnergySolutions, Inc., et al.

On October 9, 2009, a purported class-action lawsuit captioned City of Roseville Employees’ Retirement System v. EnergySolutions, Inc., et al., Civil No. 09 CV 8633 (“City of Roseville Lawsuit”) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On October 12, 2009, a second complaint captioned Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund vs. EnergySolutions, Inc., et al., Civil No. 09 CV 8648 (together with the City of Roseville Lawsuit, the “Related Actions”) was filed in the same court. On February 18, 2010, the court consolidated the Related Actions and appointed a lead plaintiff. On April 20, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants EnergySolutions, Inc., certain of our current and prior directors, certain of our prior officers, the lead underwriters in our November 2007 initial public offering (“IPO”) and July 2008 secondary offering (the “July 2008 Offering”) and ENV Holdings, LLC, our former parent.

On June 18, 2010, the defendants in the Related Actions filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Rather than oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint on August 4, 2010, expanding on certain allegations in the consolidated amended complaint and adding certain new allegations.  The plaintiffs bring claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) against all defendants and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants except the underwriter defendants.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company’s registration statements and prospectuses and other public disclosures in connection with the IPO and July 2008 Offering contained misstatements and/or omissions of material fact. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants made material misstatements and/or omissions relating to five categories of the Company’s business: life of plant contracts, opportunities in the shut-down nuclear reactor market, the Zion Station project, the Company’s rule making petition to the NRC to permit the use of decommissioning funds for disposal of major components prior to the cessation of activities at

44

Table of Contents

nuclear facilities, and global macroeconomic conditions.  The plaintiffs seek to include all purchasers of our common stock from November 14, 2007 through October 14, 2008, as a plaintiff class and seek damages, costs and interest, rescission of the IPO and July 2008 offering and such other relief as the court may find just and proper.

On September 17, 2010, the defendants in the Related Actions filed a motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss on November 2, 2010 and the defendants filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of defendants’ motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint on December 10, 2010.  On June 16, 2011, the court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss. On September 30, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint.  Specifically, the court, among other things, dismissed all claims against all defendants relating to the alleged material misstatements and/or omissions relating to the state of the Zion Station project and the potential adverse effects of general macroeconomic conditions and dismissed certain other claims against certain defendants. Further, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims related to the alleged material misstatements and/or omissions relating to life of plant contracts, opportunities in the shut-down nuclear reactor market and the Company’s rule making petition to the NRC.  This proceeding is in the initial phases of discovery.

Shareholder Derivative Actions

On August 25, 2010, Sanjay Israni filed a shareholder derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah alleging breach of fiduciary duty and related claims against EnergySolutions, Inc. as the nominal defendant and various of our current and prior directors and officers. The underlying facts alleged in the derivative complaint are substantively the same as those in the Related Actions. The defendants in this case filed a motion to dismiss on June 16, 2011. On July 20, 2011, the plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss.  On August 17, 2011, briefing on the motion by both parties was completed.  To facilitate orderly management of all issues in all this and related litigation, the parties agreed to postpone hearings on the motion, and the court has entered an order denying the motion without prejudice, permitting the motion to be renewed at any time.

On October 8, 2010, Jack Fish filed a shareholder derivative action in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and related claims against EnergySolutions, Inc. as the nominal defendant, certain prior directors, ENV Holdings, LLC and Lindsay Goldberg & Bessemer, L.P. The underlying facts alleged in this derivative complaint are substantively the same as those in the Related Actions.  The parties have stipulated that this case will be stayed pending further development in the Related Actions.

Pennington et al. v. ZionSolutions, LLC, et al.

On July 14, 2011, four individuals, each of whom are electric utility customers of Commonwealth Edison Company, the former owner of the Zion Station (“Com Ed”), filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against ZionSolutions and Bank of New York Mellon, the trustee of the Zion Station decommissioning trust (“NDT”) fund.

The plaintiffs claim that payments from the NDT fund to ZionSolutions for decommissioning the Zion Station are in violation of Illinois state law, Illinois state law entitles the utility customers of Com Ed to payments (or credits) of a portion of the NDT fund and that Bank of New York Mellon was inappropriately appointed by ZionSolutions as trustee of the NDT fund. The plaintiffs seek to enjoin and recover payments from the NDT fund to ZionSolutions, that payments (or credits) of a portion of the NDT fund be made to utility customers of Com Ed, the appointment of a new trustee over the NDT fund, an accounting from Bank of New York Mellon of all assets and expenditures from the NDT fund, and costs and attorneys fees. The plaintiffs also seek class action certification for their claims.  On September 13, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims.  The motion has been fully briefed and submitted to the court for a decision.  No decision has been rendered by the court.

We believe the legal claims alleged against the Company in the complaints described above are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend these actions.

EnergySolutions, LLC v. Ingen VK, LLC, et al.

On March 31, 2011, the Company filed suit against Ingen VK, LLC and Bryan Melchior in the Third Judicial District of the State of Utah. In the complaint, the Company sought for “declaratory judgment” determining that a certain agreement between Ingen VK and the Company (the “Ingen Contract”) is terminated and/or invalid. The Company also sought related damages and other remedies. Bryan Melchior, a former employee of the Company, negotiated the Ingen Contract on behalf of the Company and is now affiliated with Ingen VK. The complaint alleges that Bryan Melchior engaged in self-dealing and deception when he negotiated the Ingen Contract as an employee of the Company. On April 20, 2011, Ingen VK, Bryan Melchior, Paul Vankomen (a principal of Ingen VK) and BCM Ventures Inc. answered the complaint and filed counterclaims against the Company alleging breach of contract, tortuous interference, violation of state antitrust laws and other causes of action. On June 2, 2011, the Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment which the court granted from the bench on September 1, 2011.  In granting the Company’s motion, the court ruled that the Ingen Contract was invalid, and the parties subsequently settled the case.  The suit was dismissed by the court in December 2011.

Item 4.  Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

45

Table of Contents

PART II

Item 5.  Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Price Range of Common Stock

Our common stock began trading on the NYSE under the symbol “ES” on November 15, 2007. The price range per share of common stock presented below represents the highest and lowest sales prices for our common stock on the NYSE for each full quarterly period within the two most recent fiscal years:

Holders

As of March 12, 2012, there were 91 stockholders of record and approximately 36,500 beneficial stockholders.

Dividends

During the year ended December 31, 2009 and through the third quarter of 2010, we paid quarterly dividends of $0.025 per share. During the third quarter of 2010, following an in-depth review of our uses of capital, we determined that the capital previously allocated for the payment of common stock dividends would be better utilized for debt reduction and reinvesting in the business to support our internal growth and improve our ability to deliver financial results that will benefit all of our stockholders. Therefore, the dividend paid in the third quarter of 2010 was the last dividend paid under this policy. 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.

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans

See Part III, Item 12 of this report for disclosure relating to our equity compensation plans. Such information will be included in our proxy statement for our 2012 annual meeting of stockholders (the “2012 Proxy Statement”), which is incorporated herein by reference.

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers

None.

Performance Graph

The following graph compares the cumulative 49-month total return to shareholders of EnergySolutions, Inc.’s common stock with the cumulative total returns of the S&P Midcap 400 Index and the Dow Jones U.S. Heavy Construction Index. The graph tracks the performance of a $100 investment in our common stock and in each of the indexes (with the reinvestment of all dividends) from November 15, 2007 to December 31, 2011.  The stock price performance included in the graph is not necessarily indicative of future stock price performance.

46

Table of Contents

COMPARISON OF 49 MONTH CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN*

Among EnergySolutions, Inc., The S&P Midcap 400 Index

And The Dow Jones U.S. Heavy Construction Index

*                                         $100 invested on November 15, 2007 in stock or October 31, 2007 in index, including the reinvestment of dividends. Fiscal year ending December 31.

Item 6.  Selected Financial Data

The following table presents selected financial data for our business as of the dates and for the periods indicated. The financial data as of and for the periods presented was derived from the audited consolidated financial statements of EnergySolutions, Inc. or EnergySolutions, LLC prior to our initial public offering at which time EnergySolutions, LLC became a wholly owned subsidiary of EnergySolutions, Inc. The financial data as of December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 and for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 have been derived from audited consolidated financial statements that are not included within this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The financial data as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 and for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 have been derived from audited consolidated financial statements that are included within this Annual Report on Form 10-K. This selected financial data should be read in conjunction with Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in Item 7 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, which includes a discussion of factors that materially affect the comparability of the information presented, and in conjunction with consolidated financial statements and related notes included in Item 15 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

47

Table of Contents