Our facilities and operations are subject to federal, state and local environmental and occupational health and safety laws and regulations of the U.S. and foreign countries. We take a proactive approach in our efforts to comply with these laws and regulations as they relate to our manufacturing operations and in proposing and implementing any remedial plans that may be necessary. We also regularly conduct comprehensive environmental, health and safety audits at our facilities to maintain compliance and improve operational efficiency.

Although we believe past operations were in substantial compliance with the then applicable regulations, we or one or more of our subsidiaries are involved with various investigation and remediation activities at 21 sites. In addition to these 21 sites, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") has provided us notice that Enpro has potential responsibility at one additional site where one of our subsidiaries formerly conducted business operations but no longer does. We have responded to the EPA that we do not have responsibility at that site and are awaiting the EPA's response. At 11 of the 21 sites, the future cost of investigation or remediation is expected to be less than $500,000. At 20 of the 21 sites, one or more of our subsidiaries (or an entity that merged with and into one of our subsidiaries) formerly conducted business operations but no longer do. We continue to conduct manufacturing operations at one site.

Our policy is to accrue environmental investigation and remediation costs when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. For sites with multiple future projected cost scenarios for identified feasible investigation and remediation options where no one estimate is more likely than all the others, our policy is to accrue the lowest estimate among the range of estimates. The measurement of the liability is based on an evaluation of currently available facts with respect to each individual situation and takes into consideration factors such as existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations and prior experience in the remediation of similar contaminated sites. Liabilities are established for all sites based on these factors. As assessments and remediation progress at individual sites, these liabilities are reviewed and adjusted to reflect additional technical data and legal information. As of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, we had recorded liabilities aggregating $38.7 million and $40.7 million, respectively, in other liabilities for estimated future expenditures relating to environmental contingencies. The current portion of our aggregate environmental liability included in accrued liabilities was $8.6 million at June 30, 2025. These amounts have been recorded on an undiscounted basis in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Given the uncertainties regarding the status of laws, regulations, enforcement policies, the impact of other parties potentially being fully or partially liable, technology and information related to individual sites, we do not believe it is possible to develop an estimate of the range of reasonably possible environmental loss in excess of our recorded liabilities.

We believe that our accruals for specific environmental liabilities are adequate based on currently available information. Based upon limited information regarding any incremental remediation or other actions that may be required at these sites, we cannot estimate any further loss or a reasonably possible range of loss related to these matters. Actual costs to be incurred in future periods may vary from estimates because of the inherent uncertainties in evaluating environmental exposures due to unknown and changing conditions, changing government regulations and legal standards regarding liability.

Based on our prior ownership of Crucible Steel Corporation a/k/a Crucible, Inc. (“Crucible”), we may have contingent liabilities in one or more significant environmental matters. One such matter, which is included in the 21 sites referred to above, is the Lower Passaic River Study Area of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site in New Jersey. The Lower Passaic River Study Area includes a 17-mile tidal portion of the Passaic River stretching from the river's mouth at Newark Bay to Dundee Dam in Garfield, New Jersey. Crucible operated a steel mill abutting the Passaic River in Harrison, New Jersey from the 1930s until 1974, which was one of many industrial operations on the river dating back to the 1800s. Certain contingent environmental liabilities related to this site were retained by a predecessor of EnPro Holdings when it sold a majority interest in Crucible Materials Corporation (the successor of Crucible) in 1985. The EPA notified our subsidiary in September 2003 that it is a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) for Superfund response actions in the Lower Passaic River Study Area.

EnPro Holdings and approximately 70 of the numerous other PRPs, known as the Cooperating Parties Group, are parties to a May 2007 Administrative Order on Consent with the EPA to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) of the contaminants in the Lower Passaic River Study Area. In September 2018, EnPro Holdings withdrew from the Cooperating Parties Group but remains a party to the May 2007 Administrative Order on Consent. The RI/FS was completed and submitted to the EPA at the end of April 2015. The RI/FS recommends a targeted dredge and cap remedy with monitored natural recovery and adaptive management for the Lower Passaic River Study Area. The cost of such remedy is estimated to be $726 million.

Previously, on April 11, 2014, the EPA released its Focused Feasibility Study (the “FFS”) with its proposed plan for remediating the lower eight miles of the Lower Passaic River Study Area, which is also referred to as Operating Unit 2 ("OU2"). The FFS calls for bank-to-bank dredging and capping of the riverbed of that portion of the river and estimates a range of the present value of aggregate remediation costs of approximately $953 million to approximately $1.73 billion, although estimates of the costs and the timing of costs are inherently imprecise. On March 3, 2016, the EPA issued the final Record of Decision ("ROD") as to the remedy for OU2, with the maximum estimated cost being reduced by the EPA from $1.73 billion to $1.38 billion, primarily due to a reduction in the amount of cubic yards of material that will be dredged. In October 2016, Occidental Chemical Corporation, the successor to the entity that operated the Diamond Alkali chemical manufacturing facility, reached an agreement with the EPA to develop the design for this proposed remedy at an estimated cost of $165 million. On June 30, 2018, Occidental Chemical Corporation sued over 120 parties, including the Company, in the United States District Court for New Jersey seeking recovery of response costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA").

When the EPA initiated the allocation process in 2017, it explained that a fair, carefully structured, information-based allocation was necessary to promote settlements. Following the completion of the allocation process, in the second quarter of 2021 the EPA began settlement negotiations with the parties that participated in the allocation process, including EnPro Holdings, to resolve the settling parties’ liability as to the full 17-mile Lower Passaic River Study Area (including OU2). In September 2022, EnPro Holdings paid $5.9 million as part of a settlement between those parties and the EPA. The court approved and entered the settlement on December 18, 2024, and two parties have appealed the court's order. The payment will be held in escrow until all appeals have been resolved. Our reserve for the Lower Passaic River Study Area at June 30, 2025 was $0.7 million, which is for work remaining at the site that is not covered by the settlement. Further adjustments to our reserve for the site are possible as new or additional information becomes available.

EnPro Holdings has received notices from the EPA asserting that it is a potentially responsible party under the CERCLA as the successor to a former operator of eight uranium mines in Arizona, including two EPA-designated “priority” mines located in the Cameron Chapter of the Navajo Nation and six EPA-designated “non-priority” mines located in the more remote Bodaway Gap Chapter of the Navajo Nation, which are collectively one of the 21 sites referenced above. The former operator conducted operations at these mines from 1954 to 1957, prior to Enpro's formation in 2002. In the 1990s, remediation work performed by others consisted of capping the exposed areas of these mines. We entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Interim Removal Action with the EPA effective November 7, 2017 for the investigation and remediation of these mines. We entered into a First Modification of Original Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent effective July 8, 2022 for the performance of Engineering Evaluations and Cost Analyses (EE/CA's) of potential remedial options at each of the mines. In 2020, the EPA initiated group discussions with EnPro Holdings and other potentially responsible parties to resolve various technical issues, including the development of cleanup standards. Based on these discussions and subsequent discussions with other responsible parties with similar sites, we have concluded that further remedial work beyond maintenance of and minor repairs to the existing caps is probable, and we have evaluated the feasibility of various remediation scenarios. Our reserve at June 30, 2025 for this site was $11.6 million, which reflects estimated costs to consolidate mining waste on-site and construct enhanced caps for each of the eight uranium mines and is the low end of the range of our reasonably likely liability with respect to these mines. Based on discussions with the EPA, EnPro Holdings will include multiple remedial options in the EE/CA for each of the mines, including an evaluation of consolidating and capping mining wastes on site and alternatives involving the excavation and transport of on-site mining waste to an off-site disposal location. If required, excavation and transport of mining wastes at one or more of the eight sites for off-site disposal would significantly increase costs, and we are not able at this time to estimate the upper end of a range of liability with respect to these mines.

Under the agreement governing the November 2022 sale of GGB to The Timken Company, Enpro retained responsibility for compliance with New Jersey's Industrial Site Remediation Act ("ISRA") with respect to two GGB facilities located in Thorofare, New Jersey, which are collectively one of the 21 sites referenced above. ISRA requires the environmental investigation and remediation of industrial properties in association with the closure, sale or transfer of operations. All work under ISRA must be conducted under the direction of a Licensed Site Remediation Professional (“LSRP”) certified by a state licensing board. On September 9, 2024, the Company’s LSRP submitted Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation Reports (“PA/SI Reports”) for this site to the state agency, confirming that the preliminary assessment identified, among other things, concentrations of certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) in soil and groundwater at the site. The PA/SI Reports also include the LSRP’s recommendations to further investigate the PFAS impacts in soil and groundwater at the site. Our reserve at June 30, 2025 for the site was $2.4 million. These reserves are based on currently available facts about the site and may be revised as investigation of the site continues in accordance with the ISRA requirements, or based on future technical consultation with the state agency.

In connection with operation of a former division of EnPro Holdings, the Company has been implementing and managing a solution to clean trichloroethylene ("TCE") soil and groundwater contamination at the location of a former operation in Water Valley, Mississippi (the “Water Valley Facility”). The Water Valley Facility was operated by a corporate predecessor of EnPro Holdings from 1972 through 1996, prior to Enpro’s formation in 2002. By 1987, TCE was no longer used at the Water Valley Facility. In 1996, Enpro Holdings’ corporate predecessor sold the division, including the Water Valley Facility, to BorgWarner. In 2021, BorgWarner sold the Water Valley Facility to Solero Technologies, which currently operates it.

On June 4, 2024, eight former employees at the Water Valley Facility filed a complaint in the United States District Court, Northern District of Mississippi against Enpro Inc., EnPro Holdings and others alleging personal injury, nuisance, and other claims related to alleged exposure to TCE. In response to an order of the Federal Court issued on March 17, 2025 dismissing the former employees’ occupational exposure-related claims with prejudice based upon the exclusivity of the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Act and identifying defects in the remaining claims, the eight former employees filed an amended complaint with the Federal Court re-alleging certain of their remaining claims on March 31, 2025. EnPro Holdings has filed a motion to dismiss those claims in this amended complaint, which remains pending. Legal counsel for these former employees have indicated in preliminary discussions with the Company's legal counsel that they have identified a significant number of potential claimants who are not current or former employees of the Water Valley Facility for whom they may file complaints. At this time, the Company does not have further information regarding potential non-employee claimants and no such additional lawsuits have been filed.

From May 28, 2025 through July 18, 2025, 148 individuals, including the eight former employees who filed the amended complaint described above, filed petitions with the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission alleging that they are former employees at the Water Valley Facility and suffered injury caused by workplace exposure to toxic chemicals. These claimants allegedly worked at the Water Valley Facility for periods spanning from prior to 1972 to present. These petitions name EnPro Holdings’ corporate predecessor and certain of the subsequent operators of the Water Valley Facility as potentially liable employers.

Our reserve at June 30, 2025 for the site was $7.9 million for on-going cleanup and monitoring costs and operation of a permanent vapor intrusion remediation system. Given the early stage of these pending legal proceedings, Enpro cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible outcomes of the pending Federal Court lawsuit of the eight former employees, the pending workers compensation petitions, or any other lawsuits or claims based on similar allegations, and no reserves have been accrued for such legal proceedings at June 30, 2025. We have notified relevant workers compensation and general liability insurers of the claims and petitions described above.

Crucible, which was engaged primarily in the manufacture and distribution of high technology specialty metal products, was a wholly owned subsidiary of EnPro Holdings until 1983 when its assets and liabilities were distributed to a new subsidiary, Crucible Materials Corporation. EnPro Holdings sold a majority of the outstanding shares of Crucible Materials Corporation in 1985 and divested its remaining minority interest in 2004. Crucible Materials Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in May 2009 and is no longer conducting operations.

We have certain ongoing obligations, which are included in other liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets, including workers’ compensation, retiree medical and other retiree benefit matters, in addition to those mentioned previously related to EnPro Holdings' period of ownership of Crucible. Based on EnPro Holdings' prior ownership of Crucible, we may have certain additional contingent liabilities, including liabilities in one or more significant environmental matters included in the matters discussed in “Environmental” above. We are investigating these matters. Except with respect to those matters for which we have an accrued liability as discussed in "Environmental" above, we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss related to these contingent liabilities.