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” 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.

On January 27, 2020, the U.S. 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. The Notice 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, and a feasibility study is currently being performed to evaluate a potential early action response for the lower two miles of the Creek. The Company is one of approximately seventeen (17) Potentially Responsible Parties that have received notices, though it is believed other PRPs may exist. The Company vigorously contests the allegations of the Notice and currently does not believe that this matter will have a material effect on the Company’s financial position.

On June 25 and 26, 2018, the DTSC conducted a compliance enforcement inspection of ESOL’s facility in Rancho Cordova, California, which was then owned by Stericycle, Inc. On February 14, 2020, the DTSC filed an action in the Superior Court for the State of California, Sacramento Division, alleging violations of California’s Hazardous Waste Control Law and the facility’s hazardous waste permit arising from the inspection. On August 27, 2020 the DTSC issued a Notice of Denial of Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Application. On September 25, 2020, the Company filed an administrative appeal. The DTSC investigation was ongoing well before the Company's acquisition of the ESOL business, and the Company was aware of the investigation and many of the issues raised in the investigation at the time of the purchase. Accordingly, the Company is indemnified for certain fines and other costs and expenses associated with this matter by Stericycle, Inc. As a result, the administrative appeal will be led by Stericycle, Inc. The Company has not accrued any amounts in respect of these alleged violations and cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that it may incur.

As previously disclosed, 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 has 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 is currently in progress and should be completed by the end of March 2021, and full operations are expected during the second half of 2021. The Company has previously established a reserve of $7.0 million, which represents the Company's best estimate of the ultimate costs to be incurred to resolve this matter. The Company continues to evaluate this reserve and any future change in estimated costs could be material to the Company’s results of operations in any one period.

On July 27, 2018 Brazil’s Federal and Rio de Janeiro State Public Prosecution Offices (MPF and MPE) filed a Civil Public Action against one of the Company's customers (CSN), the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary, the Municipality of Volta Redonda, Brazil, and the Instituto Estadual do Ambiente (local 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 granted the MPF and MPE an injunction against the same parties 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. On March 18, 2019 the Court issued an order fining the Company 5,000 Brazilian reais per day (or approximately $1,000 per day) and CSN 20,000 Brazilian reais per day (or approximately $3,900 per day) until the requirements of the injunction are met. On November 1, 2019, the Court issued an additional order increasing the fines assessed to the Company to 25,000 Brazilian reais per day (or approximately $4,800 per day) and raising the fines assessed to CSN to 100,000 Brazilian reais per day (or approximately $19,300 per day). The Court also assessed an additional fine of 10,000,000 Brazilian reais (or approximately $1,925,000) against CSN and the Company jointly. The Company is appealing the fines and the underlying injunction. Both the Company and CSN continue to have discussions with the governmental authorities on the injunction and the possible resolution of the underlying case. The Company does not believe that a loss relating to this matter is probable or estimable at this point.

On October 19, 2018 local environmental authorities issued an enforcement action against the Company concerning the Company’s operations at a customer site in Ijmuiden, Netherlands. The enforcement action alleges violations of the Company’s environmental permit at the site, which restricts the release of any visible dust emissions. The enforcement action ordered the Company to cease all violations of the permit by October 31, 2018. The authorities have issued three additional

enforcement actions since that time and have asserted fines of approximately $0.7 million which the Company has recorded, with the possibility of additional fines for any future violations. The Company is vigorously contesting the enforcement action and fines and is also working with its customer to ensure the control of emissions. The Company has contractual indemnity rights from its customer, should it be required to pay the assessed fines.

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, California and an administrative inspection warrant at a facility in Indianapolis, Indiana. 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. In connection with these investigations, the DEA also executed a search warrant on an ESOL facility in Austin Texas on July 2, 2020. 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. The Company has not accrued any amounts in respect of these investigations and cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that it may incur, if any. Investigations of this type are, by their nature, uncertain and unpredictable. While it is the Company’s position that it has recourse for some or all liabilities, if any, that arise from these matters 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.

The Company is involved in a number of tax disputes with federal, state and municipal tax authorities in Brazil. These disputes are at various stages of the legal process, including the administrative review phase and the collection action phase, and include assessments of fixed amounts of principal and penalties, plus interest charges that increase at statutorily determined amounts per month and are assessed on the aggregate amount of the principal and penalties. In addition, the losing party, at the collection action or court of appeals phase, 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. Many of the claims relate to ICMS, services and social security tax disputes. The largest proportion of the assessed amounts relate to ICMS claims filed by the SPRA, encompassing the period from January 2002 to May 2005.

In October 2009 the Company received notification of the SPRA’s final administrative decision regarding the levying of ICMS in the State of São Paulo in relation to services provided to a customer in the State between January 2004 and May 2005. As of December 31, 2020, the principal amount of the tax assessment from the SPRA with regard to this case is approximately $1.2 million, with penalty, interest and fees assessed to date increasing such amount by an additional $16.3 million. On June 4, 2018, the Appellate Court of the State of Sao Paulo ruled in favor of the SPRA but ruled that the assessed penalty should be reduced to approximately $1.2 million. After calculating the interest accrued on the penalty, the Company estimates that this ruling reduces the current overall potential liability for this case to approximately $7 million. All such amounts include the effect of foreign currency translation. The Company has appealed the ruling in favor of the SPRA to the Superior Court of Justice. Due to multiple court precedents in the Company's favor, as well as the Company's ability to appeal, the Company does not believe a loss is probable.

Another ICMS tax case involving the SPRA refers to the tax period from January 2002 to December 2003. In December 2018, the administrative tribunal hearing the case upheld the Company's liability. The Company has appealed to the judicial phase. The aggregate amount assessed by the tax authorities in August 2005 was $4.9 million (the amounts with regard to this claim are valued as of the date of the assessment since it has not yet reached the collection phase), composed of a principal amount of $1.2 million, with penalty and interest assessed through that date increasing such amount by an additional $3.7 million. On December 6, 2018, the administrative tribunal reduced the applicable penalties to $0.8 million. After calculating the interest accrued on the current penalty, the Company estimates that the current overall potential liability for this case to be approximately

The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously defending itself against these tax claims under various alternatives, including judicial appeal. The Company will continue to evaluate its potential liability with regard to these claims on a quarterly basis; however, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of these tax-related disputes in Brazil. No loss provision has been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements for the disputes described above because the loss contingency is not deemed probable, and the Company does not expect that any costs that are reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in connection with Brazilian tax disputes would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company is subject to ongoing collective bargaining and individual labor claims in Brazil through the Harsco Environmental Segment which allege, among other things, the Company's failure to pay required amounts for overtime and vacation at certain sites. The Company is vigorously defending itself against these claims; however, litigation is inherently unpredictable, particularly in foreign jurisdictions. While the Company does not currently expect that the ultimate resolution of these claims will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of these labor-related disputes. As of December 31, 2020 and 2019, the Company has established reserves of $4.3 million and $6.5 million, respectively, on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for amounts considered to be probable and estimable.

The Company is named as one of many defendants (approximately 90 or more in most cases) 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.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit. 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.

At December 31, 2020, approximately 16,549 of the actions filed in New York Supreme Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the 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. The remaining approximately 50 cases in New York County are pending on the Active or In Extremis Docket created for plaintiffs who can demonstrate a malignant condition or physical impairment.

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.

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 is covered by third-party insurance, the Company records an insurance claim receivable to reflect the covered liability. Insurance claim receivables are included in Insurance claim receivable and Other receivables on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. See Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, for additional information on Accrued insurance and loss reserves.