Certain of our aggregates reserves are burdened by volumetric production payments (nonoperating interest) as described in Note 4. As the holder of the operating interest, we have responsibility to bear the cost of mining and producing the reserves attributable to this nonoperating interest.

We are subject to occasional governmental proceedings and orders pertaining to occupational safety and health or to protection of the environment, such as proceedings or orders relating to noise abatement, air emissions or water discharges. As part of our continuing program of stewardship in safety, health and environmental matters, we have been able to resolve such proceedings and to comply with such orders without any material adverse effects on our business.

We have received notices from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or similar state or local agencies that we are considered a potentially responsible party (PRP) at a limited number of sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) or similar state and local environmental laws. Generally, we share the cost of remediation at these sites with other PRPs or alleged PRPs in accordance with negotiated or prescribed allocations. There is inherent uncertainty in determining the potential cost of remediating a given site and in determining any individual party's share in that cost. As a result, estimates can change substantially as additional information becomes available regarding the nature or extent of site contamination, remediation methods, other PRPs and their probable level of involvement, and actions by or against governmental agencies or private parties.

We have reviewed the nature and extent of our involvement at each Superfund site, as well as potential obligations arising under other federal, state and local environmental laws. While ultimate resolution and financial liability is uncertain at a number of the sites, in our opinion, based on information currently available, the ultimate resolution of claims and assessments related to these sites will not have a material effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows, although amounts recorded in a given period could be material to our results of operations or cash flows for that period. Amounts accrued for environmental matters (measured on an undiscounted basis) are presented below:

We are a defendant in various lawsuits in the ordinary course of business. It is not possible to determine with precision the outcome, or the amount of liability, if any, under these lawsuits, especially where the cases involve possible jury trials with as yet undetermined jury panels.

▪LOWER PASSAIC RIVER STUDY AREA (DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS and SUPERFUND SITE) — The Lower Passaic River Study Area is part of the Diamond Shamrock Superfund Site in New Jersey. Vulcan and approximately 70 other companies are parties (collectively the Cooperating Parties Group, CPG) to a May 2007 Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the EPA to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (draft RI/FS) of the lower 17 miles of the Passaic River (River). The draft RI/FS was submitted recommending a targeted hot spot remedy; however, the EPA issued a record of decision (ROD) in March 2016 that calls for a bank-to-bank dredging remedy for the lower 8 miles of the River. The EPA estimates that the cost of implementing this proposal is $1.38 billion. In September 2016, the EPA entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent with Occidental Chemical Corporation (Occidental) in which Occidental agreed to undertake the remedial design for this bank-to-bank dredging remedy and to reimburse the United States for certain response costs.

Efforts to investigate and remediate the River have been underway for many years and have involved hundreds of entities that have had operations on or near the River at some point during the past several decades. We formerly owned a chemicals operation near the mouth of the River, which was sold in 1974. The major risk drivers in the River have been identified to include dioxins, PCBs, DDx and mercury. We did not manufacture any of these risk drivers and have no evidence that any of these were discharged into the River by Vulcan.

In August 2017, the EPA informed certain members of the CPG, including Vulcan and others, that it planned to use the services of a third-party allocator with the expectation of offering cash-out settlements to some parties in connection with the bank-to-bank remedy identified in the ROD. This voluntary allocation process established an impartial third-party expert recommendation for use by the government and the participants as the basis of possible settlements, including settlements related to future remediation actions. The final allocation recommendations, which are subject to confidentiality provisions, were submitted to the EPA for its review and consideration in December 2020. Certain PRPs, including Vulcan, thereafter received a joint confidential settlement demand from the EPA/Department of Justice (DOJ). Vulcan and certain of the other PRPs that received the joint confidential settlement demand (the Settling Defendants) reached an agreement to settle with the EPA/DOJ and negotiated a Consent Decree. The court granted the motion to enter the Consent Decree in December 2024. Occidental thereafter filed an appeal challenging the entry of the Consent Decree. The appeal remains pending. Vulcan’s portion of the settlement is within the immaterial loss recorded for this matter in 2015.

In July 2018, Vulcan, along with more than 100 other defendants, was sued by Occidental in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark Vicinage. Occidental is seeking cost recovery and contribution under CERCLA for costs related to the River. This lawsuit is currently stayed. In another related proceeding, Occidental filed a lawsuit in March 2023 against Vulcan and 39 other defendants in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark Vicinage seeking cost recovery and contribution under CERCLA for costs related to the upper 9 miles of the River. It is unknown at this time how the settlement and approval of the Consent Decree with the EPA/DOJ would affect the Occidental lawsuits.

▪TEXAS BRINE MATTER (DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS) — During operation of its former Chemicals Division, Vulcan leased the right to mine salt out of an underground salt dome formation in Assumption Parish, Louisiana from 1976 - 2005. Throughout that period, Texas Brine Company (Texas Brine) was the operator contracted by Vulcan to mine and deliver the salt as brine. We sold our Chemicals Division in 2005 and transferred our rights and interests related to the salt and mining operations to the purchaser, a subsidiary of Occidental Chemical Company (Occidental), and we have had no association with the leased premises or Texas Brine since that time. In August 2012, a sinkhole developed in the vicinity of the Texas Brine mining operations. Numerous lawsuits were filed thereafter in state court in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. Other lawsuits, including class action litigation, were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans.

In these lawsuits, the main plaintiffs sued numerous defendants, including Texas Brine, Occidental and Vulcan, alleging various damages including, but not limited to, property damages; a claim by the State of Louisiana for response costs and civil penalties; physical damages to oil and gas pipelines and storage facilities (pipelines); and business interruption losses. All such claims have been settled except for the claims by the State of Louisiana. Our insurers to date have funded these settlements in excess of our self-insured retention amount.

Additionally, Texas Brine, Occidental and Vulcan sued each other in various state and federal court forums. Vulcan and Occidental dismissed all of their claims against one another in 2017. Texas Brine's and Vulcan's claims against each other remained pending in state and federal court until the third quarter of 2025. In general, Texas Brine alleged that the sinkhole was caused, in whole or in part, by our negligent or fraudulent actions or failure to act; that we breached the salt lease with Occidental, as well as an operating agreement and related contracts with Texas Brine; that we were strictly liable for certain property damages in our capacity as a former lessee of the salt lease; and that we violated the agreement under which we sold our Chemicals Division to Occidental. Texas Brine’s claims against Vulcan included claims for past and future response costs, lost profits and investment costs, indemnity payments, attorneys’ fees, other litigation costs, and judicial interests. Texas Brine also filed a lawsuit against Vulcan seeking indemnity for potential exposure Texas Brine was subject to in its related arbitration with Occidental, to the State of Louisiana, and for ongoing and future Louisiana regulatory matters. In the second quarter of 2022, we recorded an immaterial loss related to these claims brought by Texas Brine.

During the third quarter of 2025, Vulcan and Texas Brine settled all disputed matters remaining between them, with Vulcan paying an amount within the range of the immaterial loss recorded in the second quarter of 2022. With the dispute between Vulcan, Occidental and Texas Brine concluded, the only remaining liability related to this matter concerns claims by the State of Louisiana. The claims from the State of Louisiana as defined by their pleadings and discovery responses present an immaterial liability within the range of the remaining loss recorded in the second quarter of 2022.

▪1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE LITIGATION (DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS) — During the operation of our former Chemicals Division, which was divested to Occidental in 2005, Vulcan manufactured a chlorinated solvent known as 1,1,1-trichloroethane. Vulcan faces liabilities related to 1,1,1-trichloroethane stabilized with 1,4-dioxane ("TCA"). We are one of the defendants in cases filed in both state and federal courts, including one case filed by the State of New Jersey. According to the various complaints, the plaintiffs seek damages including, but not limited to, unspecified compensatory damages associated with the remediation of water wells allegedly contaminated with 1,4-dioxane, natural resource damages, disgorgement of profits from the sale of TCA, punitive damages, as well as penalties and attorney's fees under various statutes. Our first-layer insurance carrier has funded all settlements to date. We will vigorously defend the remaining cases on substantive and procedural grounds. At this time, we cannot determine the likelihood of loss, or reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any, pertaining to the above-referenced cases.

▪HEWITT LANDFILL MATTER (SUPERFUND SITE) — In 2015, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued a Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) directing Calmat Co., a Vulcan subsidiary (hereinafter Vulcan) to assess, monitor, cleanup, and abate wastes that have been discharged to soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater at the former Hewitt Landfill in Los Angeles.

Following an extensive investigation and pilot scale testing, Vulcan implemented an onsite corrective action plan approved by RWQCB that includes a groundwater pump, treat and reinjection system. In 2024, the RWQCB made a request under the CAO for a work plan to install additional monitoring wells and optimize and expand the existing on-site remediation system. This request complements expansion discussions with the EPA and other stakeholders as part of an Alternative Design Plan (ADP). Currently-anticipated costs of these on-site source control activities have been fully accrued.

We are also engaged in an ongoing dialogue with the EPA and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) regarding the potential contribution of the Hewitt Landfill to groundwater contamination in the North Hollywood Operable Unit (NHOU) of the San Fernando Valley Superfund Site.

The EPA and Vulcan entered into a 2017 Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) for the design of two extraction wells south of the Hewitt Landfill to protect the North Hollywood West (NHW) well field. Thereafter, LADWP proposed and ultimately constructed two water production and well head treatment facilities—the NHW system and the North Hollywood Central (NHC) system—at LADWP wellfields located near the Hewitt Landfill. After significant evaluation of the likely effect of LADWP’s water production facilities on other previously-feasible remediation options and the exchange of numerous workplans and evaluation reports, Vulcan submitted an ADP to the EPA in August 2025. The ADP relies upon the RWQCB-approved expansion of the onsite Hewitt remedy and, necessarily, the two well head treatment systems operated by LADWP as the preferred method to address the off-site impacts that were the target of the 2017 AOC. The ADP further contemplates an agreement on the coordination of the operation of the onsite Hewitt remedy and LADWP’s well head treatment systems. The EPA, Vulcan, and LADWP continue to engage in a dialogue regarding the coordination of the systems. At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of a loss pertaining to potential work completed at the direction of the EPA.

Additionally, Vulcan is in a dispute with LADWP regarding the cost and necessity of LADWP's construction of the two well head treatment facilities and Vulcan's relative contribution to their construction and operation. LADWP has alleged that the Hewitt Landfill is one of the primary sources of contamination at the NHW system and one of the sources of contamination at the NHC system. According to information available on the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) website, the capital cost of the NHW system is estimated at $92 million, and the capital cost of the NHC system is estimated at $245 million. LADWP's actual cost is likely to be in excess of these publicly-reported estimates. Additionally, both systems will incur costs for operation and maintenance. Both treatment systems received substantial grants of Proposition 1 bond funding from the SWRCB. According to information available on the SWRCB website, the bond money obtained for the NHW system is $46 million, and the bond money obtained for the NHC system is $95 million. LADWP has also indicated that it may assert claims related to the historical inability to use water in the vicinity of its well fields.

We anticipate continued discussions with LADWP regarding its potential claims. In conjunction with those discussions, we are engaging in further efforts to gather and analyze records and data in order to assess the extent of possible contribution by the Hewitt Landfill to the groundwater contamination in the area, consistent with the parallel request by the EPA, and the reasonableness of LADWP’s efforts. This work is also intended to assist in identification of other PRPs that may have contributed to groundwater contamination in the area of the NHW and NHC systems. Together, these efforts will allow us to analyze our anticipated equitable contribution to LADWP’s treatment systems. Among other factors, we anticipate that any contribution should take into account the on-site source control and other measures implemented by Vulcan at the former Hewitt Landfill, the relative contribution and duration of any contaminants originating from the Hewitt Landfill to the LADWP systems, and the cost-effectiveness of the LADWP systems. At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of a loss pertaining to LADWP’s potential contribution claim.

Finally, Honeywell operated a facility within the NHOU footprint that is responsible for groundwater contamination and, under an EPA agreement, will construct and operate a water treatment system. Honeywell’s system is often referred to by EPA as the second interim remedy (2IR). Honeywell alleges that some of the contamination to be remediated by the 2IR originated from the Hewitt Landfill and that Vulcan should fund some portion of the costs that Honeywell has incurred and will incur in developing and implementing the remedy. In 2021, an immaterial settlement was reached with Honeywell related to certain past costs incurred.

In a 2023 lawsuit against Vulcan and a third party, Honeywell stated it has incurred more than $11 million to resolve its liability to the EPA and estimated that it will spend in excess of $100 million to construct and operate its water treatment system. Through the lawsuit, Honeywell seeks an "equitable share of necessary response costs" from Vulcan and a third party, which claims indemnity from Vulcan. Vulcan has filed its answer to the lawsuit and remains in discussions with Honeywell regarding the reasonable costs Honeywell has incurred and Vulcan’s share of the same. We are also gathering and analyzing data and developing technical information to determine the extent of possible contribution by the Hewitt Landfill to groundwater contamination in the area of Honeywell’s system. Based on this technical information and recent settlement discussions, we have accrued an immaterial amount for our liability to Honeywell.

▪NAFTA ARBITRATION — In September 2018, our subsidiary Legacy Vulcan, LLC (Legacy Vulcan), on its own behalf, and on behalf of our Mexican subsidiary Calizas Industriales del Carmen, S.A. de C.V. (Calica), served the United Mexican States (Mexico) a Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim to Arbitration under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This NAFTA claim relates to the treatment of a portion of our quarrying operations in Quintana Roo, Mexico arising from, among other measures, Mexico’s failure to comply with a legally binding zoning agreement and relates to other unfair, arbitrary and capricious actions by Mexico’s environmental enforcement agency. We assert that these actions are in breach of Mexico’s international obligations under NAFTA and international law.

As required by Article 1118 of NAFTA, we sought to settle this dispute with Mexico through consultations. Notwithstanding our good faith efforts to resolve the dispute amicably, we were unable to do so and filed a Request for Arbitration with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in December 2018. In January 2019, ICSID registered our Request for Arbitration.

A hearing on the merits took place in July 2021. While we awaited the final resolution from the tribunal, we continued to engage with government officials to pursue an amicable resolution of the dispute. On May 5, 2022, Mexican government officials unexpectedly and arbitrarily shut down Calica’s remaining operations in Mexico. On May 8, 2022, Legacy Vulcan filed an application in the NAFTA arbitration seeking provisional measures and leave to file an ancillary claim in connection with this latest shutdown (see Part I, Item 2 "Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" under the caption "Known Trends or Uncertainties"). In July 2022, the NAFTA arbitration tribunal granted Legacy Vulcan’s application and ordered Mexico not to take any action that might further aggravate the dispute between the parties or render the resolution of the dispute potentially more difficult. A hearing on the merits of the ancillary claim took place in August 2023. We expect that the NAFTA arbitration tribunal will issue a decision on the claim and ancillary claim during 2025.

It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of these and other legal proceedings in which we are involved, and a number of factors, including developments in ongoing discovery or adverse rulings, or the verdict of a particular jury, could cause actual losses to differ materially from accrued costs. No liability was recorded for claims and litigation for which a loss was determined to be only reasonably possible or for which a loss could not be reasonably estimated. Legal costs incurred in defense of lawsuits are expensed as incurred. In addition, losses on certain claims and litigation described above may be subject to limitations on a per occurrence basis by excess insurance, as described in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K.