Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Environmental

The Company is involved in a number of environmental remediation investigations and cleanups and, along with other companies, has been identified as a potentially responsible party ("PRP") for certain byproduct disposal sites. While each of these matters is subject to various uncertainties, it is probable that the Company will agree to make payments toward funding certain of these activities, and it is possible that some of these matters will be decided unfavorably to the Company. The Company has evaluated its potential liability and its financial exposure is dependent upon such factors as the continuing evolution of environmental laws and regulatory requirements, the availability and application of technology, the allocation of cost among potentially responsible parties, the years of remedial activity required and the remediation methods selected.

The Company evaluates its liability for future environmental remediation costs on a quarterly basis. Although actual costs to be incurred at identified sites in future periods may vary from the estimates, given inherent uncertainties in evaluating environmental exposures, the Company does not expect that any costs that are reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in connection with environmental matters in excess of the amounts accrued would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The following table summarizes information related to the location and undiscounted amount of the Company's environmental liabilities:


(In thousands)	December 31 2025		December 31 2024
Current portion of environmental liabilities (a)	$	12,736	$	11,815
Long-term environmental liabilities	38,256		46,585
Total environmental liabilities	$	50,992	$	58,400

(a) The current portion of environmental liabilities is included in the caption Other current liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, the Company is a defendant or party to various claims and lawsuits, including those discussed below. Unless stated otherwise below, the Company has not determined a loss to be probable or estimable for the legal proceedings.

In November 2022, the EPA and the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection (the “KDEP”) conducted an inspection of Clean Earth of Calvert City LLC’s facility in Calvert City, KY and alleged several violations related to the storage location and volumes of hazardous waste, certain missed inspections and the lack of documentation related to the importing of waste. The Company took corrective actions at the facility, which were completed by February 2023 and the EPA proposed a civil penalty of $0.8 million. During the second quarter of 2025, the Company executed a settlement with the EPA that involved a combination of civil penalties in the amount for approximately $0.2 million and a Supplemental Environmental Project that costs approximately $1.2 million and requires installing a concrete and storm water management system to enhance compliance and protection of the environment.

On January 27, 2020, the EPA issued a Notice of Potential Liability to the Company, along with several other companies, concerning the Newtown Creek Superfund Site located in Kings and Queens Counties in New York, which alleges certain facilities formerly owned or operated by subsidiaries of the Company may have resulted in the discharge of hazardous substances into Newtown Creek or its Dutch Kills tributary. The site has been subject to CERCLA response activities since approximately 2011. The EPA expects to issue a Record of Decision for the sitewide cleanup plan no sooner than 2028 and announced, in July 2021, that it would defer its decision on a potential early action response for the lower two miles of the Creek until the site-wide studies are completed. On August 28, 2024, the EPA released a proposed plan for clean up of the East Branch portion of Newtown Creek. On January 17, 2025, the EPA released its decision approving this early action remedy for the East Branch. The Company is one of 30 PRPs that have received notices, though it is believed other PRPs may exist. The Company vigorously contests the allegations of this notice and currently does not believe that this matter will have a material effect on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Company has had ongoing meetings with the SCE over processing salt cakes, a processing byproduct, stored at the Al Hafeerah site. The Company’s Bahrain operations that produced the salt cakes have ceased operations. An Environmental Impact Assessment and Technical Feasibility Study for facilities to process the salt cakes was approved by the SCE during the first quarter of 2018. Commissioning of the facilities was completed during the third quarter of 2021 and the processing of the salt cakes has commenced, with the expectation that the Company would be able to sell the products that resulted from the processing in an amount that would cover the processing costs. During the fourth quarter of 2024, the Company concluded that, despite significant commercial efforts and ongoing discussions with the SCE, it could not sufficiently recover the processing costs from these sales as it had previously estimated and, as such, recorded an additional provision of $27.2 million, which was classified in Cost of services on the Company's Statements of Operations. During the fourth quarter of 2025, the Company recorded an additional provision of $5.0 million based on the current expected recovery of the processing costs, including the recent agreement to sell a significant quantity of processed material to a regional buyer. The Company is currently exploring other options to resolve this matter in a cost-effective manner, including engaging certain entities to remove the remaining salt cakes from Bahrain, subject to a suitability analysis. The Company's current reserve of $27.4 million as of December 31, 2025 represents the Company’s best estimate of the net costs to fully resolve this matter. The Company will continue to evaluate this reserve and any future change in estimated costs, which could be material to the Company’s results of operations in any single period.

On July 27, 2018 Brazil’s Federal and Rio de Janeiro State Public Prosecution Offices (the "MPF" and "MPE", respectively) filed a Civil Public Action against CSN, one of the Company's customers, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary, the Municipality of Volta Redonda, Brazil, and the Instituto Estadual do Ambiente, the state of Rio de Janeiro's environmental protection agency, seeking the implementation of various measures to limit and reduce the accumulation of customer-owned slag at the site in Brazil. On August 6, 2018, the 3rd Federal Court in Volta Redonda (the "3rd Volta Redonda Court") granted the MPF and MPE an injunction against the defendants requiring, among other things, CSN and the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary to limit the volume of slag sent to the site. Because the customer owns the site and the slag located on the site, the Company believes that complying with this injunction is the steel producer’s responsibility. Nevertheless, the 3rd Volta Redonda Court issued two orders fining the Company and CSN for what it viewed as violations of the injunction. The Company appealed the fines and the underlying injunction and, beginning on March 25, 2022, the 3rd Volta Redonda Court entered a series of orders suspending the litigation proceedings and staying any additional fines and interest accruals while the parties discuss a possible resolution to the matter. The aggregate amount of fines levied against the Company, exclusive of interest, is approximately 32 million Brazilian reais (or approximately $6 million as of December 31, 2025). On October 5, 2024, the 3rd Volta Redonda Court determined that, as of August 1, 2024, the Company was not responsible for complying with the injunction because the Company no longer operates at the site. In May 2025, the authorities issued a settlement proposal in which CSN would perform remediation at the site and pay approximately 264 million Brazilian reais (or approximately $48 million as of December 31, 2025) and the Company would pay approximately 66 million Brazilian reais (or approximately $12 million as of December 31, 2025) for alleged environmental damage. The Company disputes that environmental damage was caused by the accumulation of slag and, as such, does not agree with the proposed payment. The Company and the other parties continue to discuss a potential resolution related to the portion of the authorities' claims that allegedly occurred prior to August 1, 2024. On September 30, 2025, the public prosecutors pursuing the Civil Public Action initiated a criminal proceeding before the 2nd Federal Court in Volta Redonda (the "2nd Volta Redonda Court") against CSN and the Company and is seeking 431 million Brazilian reais (or approximately $78 million as of December 31, 2025) from the two companies. A majority of the amount sought in this proceeding is identical to, and overlaps with, the damages sought in the Civil Public Action. The 2nd Volta Redonda Court has accepted the complaint from the public prosecutors, and both CSN and the Company submitted their respective defenses in January 2026. The Company denies that any environmental damage occurred and will defend itself vigorously. Because of multiple defenses available, including that the slag is inert and not harmful to the environment, and that the slag deposits do not belong to it, the Company does not believe that a loss relating to this matter is probable.

In October 2021, the Company received a subpoena and two indictments before the Amsterdam District Court in the Netherlands concerning the Company's operations at a customer site in Ijmuiden, Netherlands. The Amsterdam Public Prosecutor’s Office ("APPO") issued two indictments against the Company, alleging violations in connection with dust releases and/or events alleged to have occurred in 2018 through May 2020 at the site. The action cited provisions which permit fines for the alleged infractions and sought €0.1 million in fines with a smaller amount held in abeyance. On February 2, 2022, the APPO announced that it would further investigate residents’ claims related to this matter. On February 25, 2022, the Amsterdam District Court ruled that the Company was liable for only one alleged violation and that this alleged violation was unintentional. The court issued a fine of €5 thousand, to be held in abeyance. Both the Company and the APPO appealed this ruling. On July 19, 2024, the Court of Appeals ruled that the Company was liable for two intentional violations and issued a fine of €25 thousand. Both the Company and the APPO appealed this ruling. On April 23, 2025, the APPO withdrew its appeal of the Court of Appeal's ruling from July 19, 2024 and the Company withdrew its reciprocal appeal on May 8, 2025. As such, the Court of Appeal's July 19, 2024 ruling has become final and binding. The Company is vigorously contesting all allegations against it and is also working with its customer to ensure the control of emissions. The Company has contractual indemnity rights from its customer that it believes will substantially cover any fines or penalties. Due to multiple defenses available to the Company, including that the majority of the alleged issues relate to the customer’s operations, the Company does not believe a loss is probable or potentially material.

On March 22, 2022, the EPA issued a Notice of Intent to File an Administrative Complaint ("NOI") alleging violations of the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act at the Company’s facilities in Tacoma, WA and Kent, WA. The NOI relates largely to the period when Stericycle owned and operated the sites. The NOI proposes a penalty of $3.0 million. The investigation is ongoing and the Company has recorded a liability of $0.6 million as its best estimate to resolve this matter. Since that time, the EPA has expanded coverage of this matter to additional facilities, but has not provided an update to the proposed penalty to-date. While it is the Company’s position that it has recourse for some or all liabilities, if any, that arise from this matter under the ESOL purchase agreement and representations and warranties insurance policies purchased by the Company, there can be no assurances that the Company’s position will ultimately prevail.

DEA Investigation

Prior to the Company’s acquisition of ESOL, Stericycle, Inc. notified the Company that the DEA had served an administrative subpoena on Stericycle, Inc. and executed a search warrant at a facility in Rancho Cordova, CA and an administrative inspection warrant at a facility in Indianapolis, IN. The Company has determined that the DEA and the DTSC have launched investigations involving, at least in part, the ESOL business of collecting, transporting, and destroying controlled substances from retail customers that transferred from Stericycle, Inc. to the Company. The Company is cooperating with these inquiries, which relate primarily to the period before the Company owned the ESOL business. Since the acquisition of the ESOL business, the Company has performed a vigorous review of ESOL’s compliance program related to controlled substances and has made material changes to the manner in which controlled substances are transported from retail customers to DEA-registered facilities for destruction. Pursuant to an agreement with Stericycle, the Company has contractual recourse for any material loss the Company has determined is reasonably possible. The Company has not accrued any amounts in respect of these investigations and does not believe a loss is reasonably possible.

Brazilian Tax Dispute

On December 30, 2020, the Company received an assessment from the municipal tax authority in Ipatinga, Brazil alleging $1.9 million in unpaid service taxes from the period 2015 to 2020. This dispute is currently in the collection action phase of the legal process and the amount assessed includes interest charges that may increase at statutorily determined amounts per month and are assessed on the aggregate amount of the principal and penalties. In addition, while in the collection action phase, the losing party could be subject to a charge to cover statutorily mandated legal fees, which are generally calculated as a percentage of the total assessed amounts due, inclusive of penalty and interest. After calculating the interest and penalties accrued, the Company estimates that the current overall potential liability for this case is approximately $6.8 million at December 31, 2025. On July 21, 2023, the Company filed the last administrative appeal against the decision that maintained the assessment and a final administrative decision is still pending. Due to the multiple defenses that are available, the Company does not believe a loss is probable and, as a result, no loss provision has been recorded in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements and the Company does not expect that any costs that are reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in connection with this tax dispute would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously defending itself against this tax claim under various alternatives, including judicial appeal. The Company will continue to evaluate its potential liability with regard to this claim on a quarterly basis; however, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome.

Asbestos Actions

The Company is named as one of many defendants in legal actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants, among others, many manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.

As of December 2025, there were approximately 17,000 pending asbestos personal injury actions filed against the Company. The vast majority of these actions were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County), of which the majority of such actions were on the Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the New York Supreme Court in December 2002 for all pending and future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical impairment. A relatively small portion of cases are on the Active or In Extremis docket in New York County or on active dockets in other jurisdictions. The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form that contains a standard demand of significant damages, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without identifying any Company product.

The Company will continue to vigorously defend against such claims and is confident that it will be successful in doing so. The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor of asbestos fibers. Any asbestos-containing part of a Company product used in the past was purchased from a supplier and the asbestos encapsulated in other materials such that airborne exposure, if it occurred, was not harmful and is not associated with the types of injuries alleged in the pending actions.

The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary and excess policies that the Company believes will be available, if necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions referred to above. The costs and expenses of the asbestos actions are being paid by the Company’s insurers.

In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S., the Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in the future. The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously defending these claims and cases. As of December 2025, the Company has successfully dismissed approximately 28,500 cases by stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial.

It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related actions in the U.S. due to the unpredictable nature of this litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements because a loss contingency is not deemed probable or estimable. Despite this uncertainty, and although results of operations and cash flows for a given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related actions, the Company does not expect that any costs that are reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in connection with asbestos litigation would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Other

The Company is subject to various other claims and legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters that arose in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, all such matters are adequately covered by insurance or by established reserves, and, if not so covered, are without merit or are of such kind, or involve such amounts, as would not have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

Insurance liabilities are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred for a particular event and the amount of loss associated with the event can be reasonably estimated. Insurance reserves have been estimated based primarily upon actuarial calculations and reflect the undiscounted estimated liabilities for ultimate losses, including claims incurred but not reported. Inherent in these estimates are assumptions that are based on the Company's history of claims and losses, a detailed analysis of existing claims with respect to potential value, and current legal and legislative trends. If actual claims differ from those projected by management, changes (either increases or decreases) to insurance reserves may be required and would be recorded through income in the period the change was determined. When a recognized liability has been determined to be covered by third-party insurance, the Company records an insurance claim receivable to reflect the covered liability. Insurance claim receivables are included in Other receivables on the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets. See Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies for additional information on Accrued insurance and loss reserves.

ENVIRI Corp 10-K