NYSE: WCN

Waste Connections, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Ontario, Canada.

Our Operating Strategy

Our operating strategy seeks to improve financial returns and deliver superior shareholder value creation within the solid waste industry. We generally target markets where we can establish a substantial presence and operate efficiently and profitably through exclusive contracts, vertical integration or asset positioning. We also target niche markets, like non-hazardous E&P waste treatment, recovery and disposal services, with similar characteristics. We are a leading provider of waste services in most of our markets, and the key components of our operating strategy, which are tailored to the competitive and regulatory factors that affect our markets, are as follows:

Target Markets Where We Can Operate Efficiently. By targeting markets where we can operate efficiently, including secondary and rural markets, we believe that we are able to achieve a substantial presence, reducing our exposure to customer churn and improving our financial returns. In certain niche markets, like E&P waste treatment and disposal, early mover advantage in certain rural basins may improve market positioning and financial returns given the limited availability of existing third-party-owned waste disposal alternatives.

Control the Waste Stream. In markets where waste collection services are provided under exclusive arrangements, or where waste disposal is municipally owned or funded or available at multiple sources, we seek to achieve efficiencies through our collection services that aid our growth and profitability.

Optimize Asset Positioning. We believe that the location of disposal sites is often a critical factor to success in the waste services industry. Given the importance of and costs associated with the transportation of waste to treatment and disposal sites, having disposal capacity proximate to the waste stream may provide a competitive advantage.

Provide Vertically Integrated Services. In markets where we believe that owning landfills will allow us to achieve efficiencies, we generally focus on providing integrated services, from collection through disposal of solid waste in landfills that we own or operate.

Manage on a Decentralized Basis. We manage our operations on a decentralized basis through six geographic operating segments. This places decision-making authority closer to the customer, enabling us to identify and address customers’ needs quickly in a cost-effective manner. We believe that decentralization provides a low-overhead, highly efficient operational structure that allows us to expand into geographically contiguous markets and operate in relatively small communities that larger competitors may not find attractive. We believe that this structure gives us a strategic competitive advantage, given the relatively rural nature of many of the markets in which we operate, and makes us an attractive buyer to many potential acquisition candidates.

We manage and evaluate our business on the basis of the operating segments’ geographic characteristics, interstate waste flow, revenue base, employee base, regulatory structure, and acquisition opportunities. Each operating segment has a regional vice president and a regional controller reporting directly to our corporate management. These regional officers are responsible for operations and accounting in their operating segments and supervise their regional staff. See Note 17 to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for further information on our segment reporting of our operations.

Each operating location has a district or site manager who has a high degree of decision-making authority for his or her operations and is responsible for maintaining service quality, promoting safety, implementing marketing programs and overseeing day-to-day operations, including contract administration. Local managers also help identify acquisition candidates and are responsible for integrating acquired businesses into our operations and obtaining the permits and other governmental approvals required for us to operate.

Implement Operating Standards. We develop company-wide operating standards, which are tailored for each of our markets based on industry norms and local conditions. We implement cost controls and employee training and safety procedures and establish a sales and marketing plan for each market. By internalizing the waste stream of acquired operations, we can further increase operating efficiencies and improve capital utilization. We use a wide-area information system network, implement financial controls and consolidate certain accounting, personnel and customer service functions. While regional and district management operate with a high degree of autonomy, our executive officers monitor regional and district operations and require adherence to our accounting, purchasing, safety, marketing, legal and internal control policies, particularly with respect to financial matters. Our executive officers regularly review the performance of regional officers, district managers and operations. We believe we can improve the profitability of existing and newly acquired operations by establishing operating standards, closely monitoring performance and streamlining certain administrative functions.

Our Growth Strategy

We tailor the components of our growth strategy to the markets in which we operate and into which we hope to expand.

Obtain Additional Exclusive Arrangements. Our operations include market areas where we have exclusive arrangements, including franchise agreements, municipal contracts and governmental certificates, under which we are the exclusive service provider for a specified market. We usually obtain these exclusive rights through the acquisition of a company with such exclusive rights or contractual arrangements or by winning a competitive bid.

We devote significant resources to securing additional franchise agreements and municipal contracts through competitive bidding and by acquiring other companies. In bidding for franchises and municipal contracts and evaluating acquisition candidates holding governmental certificates, our management team draws on its experience in the waste industry and knowledge of local service areas in existing and target markets. Our district management and sales and marketing personnel maintain relationships with local governmental officials within their service areas, maintain, renew and renegotiate existing franchise agreements and municipal contracts, and secure additional agreements and contracts while targeting acceptable financial returns. Our sales and marketing personnel also expand our presence into areas adjacent to or contiguous with our existing markets, and market additional services to existing customers.

Generate Internal Growth. To generate internal revenue growth, our district management and sales and marketing personnel focus on increasing market penetration in our current and adjacent markets, soliciting new customers in markets

where such customers have the option to choose a particular waste collection service and marketing upgraded or additional services (such as compaction or automated collection) to existing customers. We also seek price increases necessary to offset increased costs, to improve operating margins and to obtain adequate returns on our deployed capital. Where possible, we intend to leverage our franchise-based platforms to expand our customer base beyond our exclusive market territories. As customers are added in existing markets, our revenue per routed truck increases, which generally increases our collection efficiencies and profitability. In markets in which we have exclusive contracts, franchises and governmental certificates, we expect internal volume growth generally to track population and business growth.

Expand Through Acquisitions. We intend to expand the scope of our operations by continuing to acquire waste businesses in new markets and in existing or adjacent markets that are combined with or "tucked-in" to our existing operations. We focus our acquisition efforts on markets that we believe provide significant growth opportunities for a well-capitalized market entrant and where we can compete efficiently with potential new competitors. This focus typically highlights markets in which we can: (1) provide waste collection services under exclusive arrangements such as franchise agreements, municipal contracts and governmental certificates; (2) provide vertically integrated collection and disposal services and establish a substantial presence; or (3) establish a substantial presence in a niche market through the provision of treatment and disposal services. We believe that our experienced management, decentralized operating strategy, financial strength, size and public company status make us an attractive buyer to certain waste collection and disposal acquisition candidates. We have developed an acquisition discipline based on a set of financial, market and management criteria to evaluate opportunities. Once an acquisition is closed, we seek to integrate it while minimizing disruption to our ongoing operations and those of the acquired business.

In new markets, we often use an initial acquisition as an operating base and seek to strengthen the acquired operation's presence in that market by providing additional services, adding new customers and making "tuck-in" acquisitions of other waste companies in that market or adjacent markets. We believe that many suitable "tuck-in" acquisition opportunities exist within our current and targeted market areas that may provide us with opportunities to bolster our position and route density.

The North America solid waste services industry has experienced continued consolidation over the past several years. In spite of this consolidation, the solid waste services industry remains regional in nature, with acquisition opportunities available in select markets. In some markets in both municipal solid waste, or MSW, and E&P waste, independent landfill, collection or service providers may lack the capital resources, management skills and/or technical expertise necessary to comply with stringent environmental and other governmental regulations or to operate efficiently. In addition, many of the remaining independent operators may wish to sell their businesses to achieve liquidity in their personal finances or as part of their estate planning.

During the year ended December 31, 2025, we completed 19 acquisitions for consideration having a net fair value of $966.8 million. During the year ended December 31, 2024, we completed 24 acquisitions for consideration having a net fair value of $2.228 billion. During the year ended December 31, 2023, we completed 13 acquisitions for consideration having a net fair value of $766.2 million.

HUMAN CAPITAL

At Waste Connections, we believe that empowered, engaged employees can be an important differentiator. We aim to attract and retain top talent who embody our values of safety, integrity, and customer service, all while making Waste Connections a great place to work. Our culture, grounded in Servant Leadership and our Operating Values, encourages employees to create positive impacts for customers, communities, and each other—driving our ongoing growth and success.

Waste Connections’ key human capital management objectives are designed to:

● Ensure our people and communities are safe and healthy

● Reward and support employees through competitive pay, benefits and wellness programs

● Acquire and retain high-performing talent that aligns with our Operating Values

● Enhance our culture through employee engagement

● Develop talent for critical roles and leadership positions

Our Workforce

As of December 31, 2025, Waste Connections employed approximately 24,214 active employees, including 11,347 commercial truck drivers and 2,020 mechanics, with 20,471 employees in the U.S. and 3,743 in Canada. Our workforce included 44% ethnic minorities, 17% women, and 7% veterans. At year end, approximately 16% of our workforce were employed under collective bargaining agreements, primarily with the Teamsters Union in both the U.S. and Canada. We have 23 collective bargaining agreements covering 1,414 employees that have expired or are set to expire during 2026. In 2025, we did not experience any work stoppages or days idle due to labor issues.

Health and Safety

Safety is our first operating value at Waste Connections. We are committed to the safety of our employees, customers, and the communities we serve. Our ultimate goal is to “Drive to ZERO”, that is, to work toward achieving zero incidents and accidents, and we continue to invest in technology to support the efforts of our leaders to drive results. We utilize onboard event recording technology to identify both risky behavior, which is coached, and best practices, which are reinforced and rewarded with safety bonuses. We have developed a risk-based scoring system for our drivers to improve their safe driving skills and hold our leaders responsible for the performance of the employees they are privileged to serve.

In 2025, our behavior-based approach to safety drove a 13% reduction in incident rates, setting a record low after several consecutive years of improvement, and achieving our aspirational sustainability target seeking 25% improvement from 2018 levels. As compared to industry averages, we have historically trended significantly better on Total Recordable Incident Rate, or TRIR.

Safety training is an integral part of our culture of safety. To reinforce safe driving skills and safe work practices throughout Waste Connections, we require both initial training for all new driver employees and reinforcement training each year. Areas of focus in training include: “Target 4” defensive driving, Smith System driving fundamentals, Injury & Illness prevention, and Safe Work Practices training. We further emphasize the importance of safety through regular tailgate safety meetings and rollout safety instructions for our drivers, and through the utilization of electronic safety communication boards, safety alerts, and other communications to heighten awareness and maintain focus every day on the importance of safety.

To further demonstrate our commitment to safety, we are investing in advanced sensors within certain vehicle types, capable of automatically braking a backing vehicle when a risk is detected. Additionally, we are in the process of enhancing our on-board technology with advanced pedestrian detection systems that provide visible and audible warnings to drivers. These upgrades, combined with our continued commitment to a behavior-based approach, position us for ongoing improvement in safety performance.

Compensation and Benefits

We offer compensation and benefits that we believe help attract and retain employees, and promote their financial and overall wellness. In addition to competitive base salaries, we offer a range of short-term, long-term, and commission-based incentive programs tied to financial, safety, and human capital metrics. Our total rewards package includes:

● Market-competitive pay, bonus, and equity opportunities

● Comprehensive healthcare plans

● Market-leading retirement benefits

● Generous and flexible time off

● Employee Share Purchase Plan

● Military pay differential and paid leave for training

● Scholarship programs for employees’ dependents

● Commercial Driver’s License training opportunities

In 2025, we introduced DailyPay as a new benefit providing employees access to earned wages prior to payday. This benefit helps reduce financial stress, empowers employees to manage unexpected expenses without resorting to costly third-party loans, and supports overall financial wellness.

Employee Wellness

We support employee wellness through comprehensive benefits, including affordable healthcare, retirement plans, paid time off, and programs supporting financial and emotional health. In 2025, we introduced additional programs to meet evolving employee needs, address the rising cost of healthcare for families, and provide more proactive health management. These programs include: surgery concierge service, cancer care support and weight loss programs.

Employee Experience and Retention

We recognize the value of retaining engaged employees, as they are our most productive and safest team members. The employee experience begins with the hiring process, where we focus on attracting individuals whose characteristics align closely with our Operating Values, followed by intentional onboarding, consistent training, and ongoing personal development.

Leadership prioritizes retention at every level of the organization and actively monitors employee experience through engagement surveys, stay interviews, and action plans. Additionally, retention and employee experience are incorporated into leadership compensation plans, supported by annual survey results and year-over-year turnover tracking.

As a result of these and other initiatives, voluntary turnover declined by 17% compared to the prior year, contributing to a cumulative reduction of over 50% since 2022. Additionally, in 2025, our engagement survey participation rate was 95%, with an overall score of 8.6, exceeding the prior year and industry benchmarks.

Training and Development

At Waste Connections, we maintain that our purposeful culture drives differentiated results; therefore, investing in our people is a priority as we employ an approach guided by Servant Leadership. This concept inverts the traditional management hierarchy, positioning leaders to serve their employees both professionally and personally, and empowers employees by prioritizing their needs, sharing responsibility and driving personal development.

We provide employee development opportunities through a combination of in-person and virtual training. An integral component of our internal training initiatives is the pair of commercial driving academies established in 2024, through which we have trained more than 1,400 drivers to date and which we intend to further expand in the years ahead. Our academy curriculum emphasizes both skill development and cultivating the right driver mindset, blending comprehensive classroom instruction with practical on-the-road training.

We also offer opportunities for diesel technology training through our “Next Gen” scholarship program for eligible dependents of current employees at WyoTech, a technical college. Between graduates of our scholarship program and our targeted recruiting efforts for other WyoTech graduates not affiliated with our program, this partnership has produced approximately 70 technicians now employed at various Waste Connections locations.

Our leadership development efforts focus on multi-day Servant Leadership training sessions ranging from introductory courses to advanced sessions. These leadership training sessions are developed and administered by dedicated internal resources and also include participation by the senior leadership team.

Our investment in these frontline and leadership programs demonstrates our commitment to our people. These programs also accelerate employee proficiency, foster engagement and drive employee retention.

Sustainability/Environmental, Social and Governance, or ESG

Environmental, organizational and financial sustainability initiatives have been key components of our success since we were founded in 1997. We continuously monitor and evaluate new technologies and investments that can enhance our commitment to the environment, to our employees and to the communities we serve. We have committed $500 million to the advancement of long-term, aspirational ESG targets, which we evaluate continuously and have expanded as we make progress towards their achievement. Our targets align with our focus on value creation for our stakeholders, and we have incorporated progress towards their achievement into compensation metrics. Our ESG targets include reduced absolute Scope 1 and 2 emissions and emissions intensity, expanded resource recovery processing, increased landfill gas recovery and beneficial reuse, increased on-site leachate treatment at our landfills, and improved metrics for safety and employee engagement.

WASTE SERVICES

Collection Services

We provide collection services to residential, commercial, municipal, industrial and E&P customers. Our services are generally provided under one of the following arrangements: (1) governmental certificates; (2) exclusive franchise agreements; (3) exclusive municipal contracts; (4) residential subscriptions; (5) residential contracts; or (6) commercial, industrial and E&P service agreements.

Governmental certificates, exclusive franchise agreements and exclusive municipal contracts grant us rights to provide MSW services within specified areas at established rates and are long-term in nature. Governmental certificates, or G Certificates, are unique to the State of Washington and are awarded by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, or WUTC, to solid waste collection service providers in unincorporated areas and electing municipalities. These certificates typically grant the holder the exclusive and perpetual right to provide specific residential, commercial and/or industrial waste services in a defined territory at specified rates, subject to divestiture and/or overlap or cancellation by the WUTC on specified, limited grounds. Franchise agreements typically provide an exclusive period of seven years or longer for a specified territory; they specify a broad range of services to be provided, establish rates for the services and can give the service provider a right of first refusal to extend the term of the agreement. Municipal contracts typically provide a shorter service period and a more limited scope of services than franchise agreements and generally require competitive bidding at the end of the contract term. In markets where exclusive arrangements are not available, we may enter into residential contracts with homeowners’ associations, apartment owners and mobile home park operators, or work on a subscription basis with individual households. In such markets, we may also provide commercial and industrial services under customer service agreements generally ranging from one to five years in duration. Finally, in certain E&P markets with “no pit” rules or other regulations that limit on-site storage or treatment of waste, we offer containers and collection services to provide a closed loop system for the collection of drilling wastes at customers’ well sites and subsequent transportation of the waste to our facilities for treatment and disposal.

Landfill Disposal Services

As of December 31, 2025, we owned or operated 77 MSW landfills, 20 E&P waste landfills and caverns, which only accept E&P waste, and 17 non-MSW landfills, which only accept construction and demolition, industrial and other non-putrescible waste. We generally own landfills to achieve vertical integration in markets where the economic and regulatory environments make landfill ownership attractive. We also own landfills in certain markets where it is not necessary to provide collection services because we believe that we are able to attract volume to our landfills, given our location or other market dynamics.

For landfills we operate but do not own, the owner of the property, generally a municipality, usually holds the permit and we operate the landfill pursuant to a landfill operating agreement for a contracted term, which may be the life of the landfill. Where the contracted term is not the life of the landfill, the property owner is generally responsible for final capping, closure and post-closure obligations. We are responsible for all final capping, closure and post-closure obligations at our operated landfills for which we have life-of-site agreements.

Based on remaining permitted capacity as of December 31, 2025, and projected annual disposal volumes, the average remaining landfill life for our owned operational landfills and landfills operated, but not owned, under life-of-site agreements, is estimated to be approximately 31 years. Many of our existing landfills have the potential for expanded disposal capacity beyond the amount currently permitted. We regularly consider whether it is advisable, in light of changing market conditions and/or regulatory requirements, to seek to expand or change the permitted waste streams or to seek other permit modifications. We also monitor the available permitted in-place disposal capacity of our landfills on an ongoing basis and evaluate whether to seek capacity expansion using a variety of factors.

We are currently seeking to expand permitted capacity at six of our landfills, for which we consider expansions to be probable. Although we cannot be certain that all future expansions will be permitted as designed, the average remaining landfill life for our owned operational landfills and landfills operated, but not owned, under life-of-site agreements is estimated to be approximately 34 years when considering remaining permitted capacity, probable expansion capacity and projected annual disposal volume.

The following table reflects estimated landfill capacity and airspace changes, as measured in tons, for owned operational landfills and landfills operated, but not owned, under life-of-site agreements (in thousands):

​ ​ ​

​ ​ ​

Probable

​ ​ ​

​ ​ ​

​ ​ ​

Probable

​ ​ ​

Permitted

Expansion

Total

Permitted

Expansion

Total

Balance, beginning of year

1,754,826

132,057

1,886,883

1,718,534

156,707

1,875,241

Acquired landfills

1,706

—

1,706

71,924

—

71,924

Permits granted

13,992

(13,992)

—

29,643

(29,643)

—

Airspace consumed

(51,876)

—

(51,876)

(52,128)

—

(52,128)

Expansions initiated

—

6,185

6,185

—

—

—

Changes in engineering estimates

8,024

2,509

10,533

(13,147)

4,993

(8,154)

Balance, end of year

1,726,672

126,759

1,853,431

1,754,826

132,057

1,886,883

The estimated remaining operating lives for the landfills we own and landfills we operate under life-of-site agreements, based on remaining permitted and probable expansion capacity and projected annual disposal volume, in years, as of December 31, 2025, and December 31, 2024, are shown in the tables below. The estimated remaining operating lives include assumptions that the operating permits are renewed.

​ ​ ​

0 to 5

​ ​ ​

6 to 10

​ ​ ​

11 to 20

​ ​ ​

21 to 40

​ ​ ​

41 to 50

​ ​ ​

51+

​ ​ ​

Total

Owned operational landfills

102

Landfills operated under life-of-site agreements

—

—

—

8

25

39

9

20

​ ​ ​

0 to 5

​ ​ ​

6 to 10

​ ​ ​

11 to 20

​ ​ ​

21 to 40

​ ​ ​

41 to 50

​ ​ ​

51+

​ ​ ​

Total

Owned operational landfills

101

Landfills operated under life-of-site agreements

—

—

—

7

25

37

11

20

The disposal tonnage that we received in 2025 and 2024 at all of our landfills is shown in the tables below (tons in thousands):

Three Months Ended

March 31,

June 30,

September 30,

December 31,

Twelve Months

Ended

​ ​ ​

Number

​ ​ ​

Total

​ ​ ​

Number

​ ​ ​

Total

​ ​ ​

Number

​ ​ ​

Total

​ ​ ​

Number

​ ​ ​

Total

​ ​ ​

December 31,

of Sites

Tons

of Sites

Tons

of Sites

Tons

of Sites

Tons

Owned operational landfills and landfills operated under life-of-site agreements

11,551

13,180

13,936

13,209

51,876

Operated landfills

11,706

113

13,373

113

14,115

114

13,382

52,576

Three Months Ended

March 31,

June 30,

September 30,

December 31,

Twelve Months

Ended

​ ​ ​

Number

​ ​ ​

Total

​ ​ ​

Number

​ ​ ​

Total

​ ​ ​

Number

​ ​ ​

Total

​ ​ ​

Number

​ ​ ​

Total

​ ​ ​

December 31,

of Sites

Tons

of Sites

Tons

of Sites

Tons

of Sites

Tons

Owned operational landfills and landfills operated under life-of-site agreements

11,820

13,767

13,831

12,710

52,128

Operated landfills

11,990

113

13,948

114

14,018

113

12,884

52,840

The expiration dates for the seven operated landfills range from 2027 to 2042. We are seeking or intend to seek renewal of all seven contracts prior to, or upon, their expiration.

Transfer Station Services

We own or operate MSW transfer stations and E&P waste transfer stations with marine access. Transfer stations receive, compact and/or load waste to be transported to landfills or treatment facilities via truck, rail or barge. They extend our direct-haul reach and link collection operations or waste generators with distant disposal or treatment facilities by concentrating the waste stream from a wider area and thus providing better utilization rates and operating efficiencies.

Recycling Services

We offer residential, commercial, industrial and municipal customers recycling services for a variety of recyclable materials, including compost, cardboard, mixed paper, plastic containers, glass bottles and ferrous and aluminum metals. We own and operate recycling operations and market collected recyclable materials to third parties for processing before resale. The majority of the recyclables we process for sale are paper products and are shipped to customers in the United States and Canada, as well as other markets, including Asia. Changes in end market demand as well as other factors can cause fluctuations in the prices for such commodities, which can affect revenue, operating income and cash flows. We believe that recycling will continue to be an important component of local and state solid waste management plans due to the public’s increasing environmental awareness and expanding regulations that mandate or encourage recycling. We also believe that the costs of processing recyclables, including the costs of contamination, which have historically been subsidized by the sale of recycled commodities, need to be fully recognized. To that end, we have increased the fees that we charge for the collection of recyclables and for processing at our recycling facilities to more fully reflect the processing costs associated with the separation of recyclables into marketable commodities. In some instances, we will look to pass the risk associated with the volatility of recycled commodity prices onto our customers.

Beneficial Reuse of Landfill Gas

We develop, own and operate projects for the beneficial reuse of landfill gas through our landfill network. Over time, landfill gas is produced as waste decomposes at landfills, and the methane component is a readily available renewable energy source that can be gathered and converted into a valuable source of clean energy as recognized by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, in the same category as wind, solar, and geothermal resources. As of December 31, 2025 we have gas recovery systems at 61 of our landfills to collect methane, which can then be used to generate electricity for local households, fuel local industrial power plants or power alternative fueled vehicles. For 15 of these beneficial reuse projects, the processed gas is used to fuel electricity generators. The electricity is then sold to public utilities. For 17 of these projects, the landfill gas is processed to pipeline quality natural gas and sold to natural gas companies. In some cases, landfill gas generated at our landfills qualifies as a renewable fuel for which renewable fuel credits may be available. We currently have over a dozen renewable natural gas projects in development, some of which are conversions of electrical generating units to renewable natural gas units and others are greenfield projects on landfills where no current beneficial reuse system exists today. We expect these renewable natural gas projects to come online over the next few years.

E&P Waste Treatment, Recovery and Disposal Services

E&P waste is a broad term referring to the by-products resulting from oil and natural gas exploration and production activity. These generally include: waste created throughout the initial drilling and completion of an oil or natural gas well, such as drilling fluids, drill cuttings, completion fluids and flowback water; production wastes and produced water during a well’s operating life; contaminated soils that require treatment during site reclamation; and substances that require clean-up after a spill, reserve pit clean-up or pipeline rupture. E&P waste customers are oil and natural gas exploration and production companies operating in the areas that we serve. E&P waste revenue is therefore driven by vertical and horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing, production and clean-up activity; it is complemented by other services including closed loop collection systems and the sale of recovered products. E&P waste activity varies across market areas which are tied to the natural resource basins in which the drilling activity occurs and reflects the regulatory environment, pricing and disposal alternatives available in any given market.

We provide non-hazardous E&P waste treatment, recovery and/or disposal services from a network of E&P waste landfills and caverns, MSW landfills that also receive E&P waste, E&P liquid waste injection wells and E&P waste treatment and oil recovery facilities. Treatment processes vary by site and regulatory jurisdiction. At certain treatment facilities, loads of flowback and produced water and other drilling and production wastes delivered by our customers are sampled, assessed and tested by third parties according to state or provincial regulations. Solids contained in a waste load are deposited into a land treatment cell where liquids are removed from the solids and are sent through an oil recovery system before being injected into saltwater disposal injection wells or placed in evaporation cells that utilize specialized equipment to accelerate evaporation of liquids. In certain locations, fresh water is then added to the remaining solids in the cell to “wash” the solids several times to remove contaminants, including oil and grease, chlorides and other contaminants, to ensure the solids meet specific regulatory criteria that, in certain areas, are administered by third-party labs and submitted to the regulatory authorities. In certain locations, we provide customers with a terminal or access point to transport their produced clean crude oil to market by pipeline. We manage directly or indirectly the purchase of the oil and any subsequent sale of the oil to the customer, including any blending or enhancing activities that occur to the oil prior to shipment by pipeline.

COMPETITION

The North America MSW services industry is highly competitive and requires substantial labor and capital resources. Our competition includes: three publicly-held solid waste companies—Waste Management, Inc., Republic Services, Inc. and GFL Environmental, Inc.; several regional, publicly held and privately owned companies; and several thousand small, local, privately owned companies, including independent waste brokers, some of which we believe have accumulated substantial goodwill in their markets. We compete for collection, transfer and disposal volume based primarily on the price and, to a lesser extent, quality of our services. We also compete with operators of alternative disposal facilities, including incinerators, and with counties, municipalities and solid waste districts that maintain their own waste collection and disposal operations. Public sector operators may have financial and other advantages over us because of their access to

user fees and similar charges, tax revenues, tax-exempt financing and the ability to flow-control waste streams to publicly owned disposal facilities.

From time to time, competitors may reduce the price of their services in an effort to expand their market shares or service areas or to win competitively bid municipal contracts. These practices may cause us to reduce the price of our services or, if we elect not to do so, to lose business. We provide a significant amount of our residential, commercial and industrial collection services under exclusive franchise and municipal contracts and G Certificates. Exclusive franchises and municipal contracts may be subject to periodic competitive bidding. Competition in the solid waste industry is also affected by the increasing national emphasis in the U.S. and Canada on recycling and other waste reduction programs, which may reduce the volume of waste we collect or deposit in our landfills.

The U.S. and Canadian MSW services industries have undergone significant consolidation, and we encounter competition in our efforts to acquire collection operations, transfer stations and landfills. We generally compete for acquisition candidates with publicly owned regional and national waste management companies. Accordingly, it may become uneconomical for us to make further acquisitions or we may be unable to locate or acquire suitable acquisition candidates at price levels and on terms and conditions that we consider appropriate, particularly in markets we do not already serve.

Competition for E&P waste in the U.S. and Canada comes primarily from smaller regional companies that utilize a variety of disposal methods and generally serve specific geographic markets. We also compete in certain markets with publicly held and privately owned companies such as Waste Management, Inc., Republic Services, Inc., Clean Harbors, Inc., Secure Waste Infrastructure Corp., Select Water Solutions, Inc., Ecoserv, LLC, Oilfield Water Logistics LLC, Albright Flush Systems Ltd., Plains Environmental and others. In addition, customers in many markets have the option of using internal disposal methods or outsourcing to another third-party disposal company.

REGULATION

Introduction

Our operations in the United States and Canada, including landfills, transfer stations, solid waste transportation, intermodal operations, vehicle maintenance shops, fueling facilities and oilfield waste treatment, recovery and disposal operations, are all subject to extensive and evolving federal, state, provincial and, in some instances, local environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, the enforcement of which has become increasingly stringent. These laws and regulations may, among other things, require securing permits or other authorizations (collectively, “permits”) for regulated activities; govern the amount and type of substances that may be discharged or emitted into the environment in connection with our operations; impose cleanup or corrective action responsibility for releases of regulated substances into the environment; restrict the way we handle, manage or dispose of wastes; limit or prohibit our activities in sensitive areas such as wetlands, wilderness areas or areas inhabited by endangered or threatened species; require investigatory and remedial actions to mitigate pollution conditions caused by our operations or attributable to former ownership or operations; and impose specific standards addressing worker protection and health. Compliance is often costly or difficult to achieve, and the violation of these laws and regulations may result in the denial or revocation of permits, issuance of corrective action orders, assessment of administrative and civil penalties and even potentially criminal prosecution.

In many instances in the United States, liability is often “strict,” meaning it is imposed without a requirement of intent or fault on the part of the regulated entity. The environmental regulations that affect us in the United States are generally administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, state environmental agencies, and other federal, state and local authorities having jurisdiction over our U.S. operations.

The environmental legislation affecting us in Canada is administered by federal and provincial regulatory agencies, which have jurisdiction over certain aspects of our Canadian operations. The relevant Canadian federal environmental legislation that affects our operations is administered by federal departments such as Environment and Climate Change Canada. Provincial and local agencies and departments administer their own environmental legislation, such as the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. In most instances in Canada, liability for violations of environmental

and health and safety laws is imposed without a requirement of intent on the part of the regulated entity, and is subject to a defense of due diligence.

Compliance with existing environmental regulatory requirements and permits requires significant capital and operating expenditures. It is possible that substantial costs for compliance or penalties for non-compliance may be incurred in the future. We believe that in recent years, environmental regulation of the industry has increased as have the number of enforcement actions brought by regulatory agencies. It is also possible that other developments, such as the adoption of additional or more stringent environmental laws, regulations and enforcement policies, could result in additional costs or liabilities that we cannot currently foresee or quantify. Moreover, changes in environmental laws or regulations could reduce the demand for our services and adversely impact our business. We also expend significant resources (both administrative and financial) directed toward development, expansion, acquisition and permitting of landfills, transfer stations and other facilities we operate. Regarding any permit issued by a regulatory agency necessary for our operations, there are no assurances that we will be able to obtain or maintain all necessary permits or that any such permit held may ultimately be renewed on the same or similar terms. Further, permits obtained impose various requirements and may restrict the size and location of disposal operations, impose limits on the types and amount of waste a facility may receive or manage, as well as a waste disposal facility’s overall capacity. Additional operational conditions or restrictions may be included in the renewal or amendment of a previously issued permit. As regulations change, our permit requirements could become more stringent and compliance may require material expenditures at our facilities, impose significant operational restraints or require new or additional financial assurance related to our operations. Regarding any permit that has been issued, it remains subject to renewal, modification, suspension or revocation by the agency with jurisdiction.

Various laws impose cleanup or remediation liability on responsible parties, which are discussed in more detail below. Substances subject to cleanup liability have been or may have been disposed of or released on or under certain of our facilities. At some of our facilities, we have conducted and continue to conduct monitoring or remediation of known soil and groundwater contamination and, as required, we will continue to perform such work. It is possible that monitoring or remediation could be required in the future at other facilities we own or operate, or previously owned or operated. These monitoring and remediation efforts are usually overseen by environmental regulatory agencies. Further, it is not uncommon for neighboring landowners or other third parties to file claims for personal injury or property damage allegedly caused by the release of regulated substances into the environment. In addition, from time to time, our intermodal services business undertakes the transport of hazardous materials. This transportation function is also regulated by various federal, state, provincial and potentially local agencies.

A number of major statutes and regulations apply to our operations, which are generally enforced by regulatory agencies. Typically, in the United States, federal statutes establish the general regulatory requirements governing our operations, but in many instances these programs are delegated to the states, which have independent and sometimes more strict regulation. In Canada, it is typically provincial statutes that establish the primary regulatory requirements governing our waste operations. Federal statutes in Canada govern certain aspects of waste management, including international and interprovincial transport of certain kinds of waste. Certain of these statutes in the United States and Canada contain provisions that authorize, under certain circumstances, lawsuits by private citizens to enforce certain statutory provisions. In addition to penalties, some of these statutes authorize an award of attorneys’ fees to parties that successfully bring such an action. Enforcement actions for a violation of these statutes and related rules, or for a violation of or failure to have a permit, which is required by certain of these statutes, may include administrative, civil and criminal/regulatory penalties, as well as injunctive relief in some instances. In our ordinary course of business, we incur significant costs complying with these statutes, regulations and applicable standards they impose.

A brief description of certain of the primary statutes affecting our operations is discussed below.

Laws and Regulations

A. Waste and Hazardous Substances

1. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, or RCRA

In the United States, RCRA regulates the generation, treatment, storage, handling, transportation and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste and requires states to develop programs to ensure the safe disposal of solid waste. Regulations promulgated under RCRA impose broad requirements on the waste management industry. In October 1991, the EPA adopted what are known as the Subtitle D Regulations, which govern solid non-hazardous waste landfills. The Subtitle D Regulations establish, among other things, location restrictions, minimum facility design and performance standards, operating criteria, closure and post-closure requirements, financial assurance requirements, groundwater monitoring requirements, groundwater remediation standards and corrective action requirements. These and other applicable requirements, including permitting, are typically implemented by the states, and in some instances, states have enacted more stringent requirements.

Waste related to oil and gas exploration and production, or E&P, is typically regulated differently than those wastes designated as “hazardous waste.” Regarding the management and disposal of E&P waste, although E&P wastes may contain hazardous constituents, most E&P waste is exempt from stringent RCRA regulation as a hazardous waste. We are required to obtain permits for the land treatment and disposal of E&P waste as part of our operations. The construction, operation and closure of E&P waste land treatment and disposal operations are generally regulated at the state level. These regulations vary widely from state to state. None of our oilfield waste recycling, treatment and disposal facilities are currently permitted to accept hazardous wastes. Some wastes handled by us that currently are exempt from regulation as hazardous wastes may in the future be designated as “hazardous wastes” under RCRA or other applicable statutes if changes in laws or regulations were to occur. If the RCRA E&P waste exemption is repealed or modified, we could become subject to more rigorous and costly operating and disposal requirements.

A breach of laws or regulations governing facilities we operate may result in suspension or revocation of necessary permits, civil liability, and imposition of fines and penalties. Moreover, if we experience a delay in obtaining, are unable to obtain, or suffer the revocation of required permits, we may be unable to serve our customers, our operations may be interrupted and our growth and revenue may be limited.

RCRA also regulates underground storage of petroleum and other materials it defines as “regulated substances.” RCRA requires tank registration, compliance with technical standards for tanks, release detection and reporting and corrective action, among other things. Certain of our facilities and operations are subject to these requirements, which are typically implemented at the state level and may be more stringent in certain states.

2. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, or CERCLA

CERCLA, which is also known as the “Superfund” law, established a program in the United States allowing federal authorities to provide for the investigation and cleanup of facilities where, or from which, a release of any hazardous substance into the environment has occurred or is threatened. CERCLA defines “hazardous substances” broadly. One of the primary ways that CERCLA addresses a release or threatened release of hazardous substances is by imposing strict, joint and several liability for cleanup on its broad categories of responsible parties. This means that responsible parties can bear liability without fault and that each responsible party potentially could bear liability for the entirety of cleanup costs, notwithstanding its individual contribution. Generally, responsible parties are current owners and/or operators of the contaminated site; former owners and operators of the site at the time when the hazardous substances were disposed; any person who arranged for treatment or disposal of the hazardous substances; and transporters who selected the disposal site. In addition to CERCLA’s liability framework, the EPA may issue orders directing responsible parties to respond to releases of hazardous substances. Further, the EPA and private parties who have response liability to the EPA or who have incurred response costs, can bring suit against other responsible parties to seek to recover certain costs incurred in their response efforts. CERCLA also imposes liability for the cost of evaluating and remedying damage to natural resources. Various states have enacted laws analogous to and independent of CERCLA that also impose liability, which is typically strict and joint and several, for investigation, cleanup and other damages associated with the release of hazardous or other regulated

substances. We may handle hazardous substances within the meaning of CERCLA, or hazardous and other substances regulated under similar state statutes, in the course of our ordinary operations. As a result, we may be jointly and severally liable under CERCLA or similar states statutes for all or part of the costs required to cleanup sites if and where these hazardous substances have been released into the environment. CERCLA and these analogous state laws and regulations may also expose us to liability for acts or conditions that were in compliance with applicable laws at a prior time. Under certain circumstances, our sales of residual crude oil collected as part of the saltwater injection process could result in liability to us if the residual crude contains hazardous substances or is covered by one of the state statutes and the entity to which the oil was transferred fails to manage and, as necessary, dispose of it or components thereof in accordance with applicable laws. Additionally, the EPA is considering the possible inclusion of certain additional contaminants to CERCLA’s list of hazardous substances. Among these substances are various per- and polyfluoroalklyl substances, or PFAS, and bisphenol A, or BPA.

Regarding PFAS, the EPA published a final rule on May 8, 2024, designating two of the most widely used PFAS—Perfluorooctanoic Acid, or PFOA, and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid, or PFOS—as CERCLA hazardous substances. This rule creates potential liability under CERCLA for downstream recipients of PFAS, including passive receivers such as our landfills as well as waste transporters. Further, as a designated CERCLA “hazardous substance,” these PFAS are also required to be listed and regulated as “hazardous materials” by the Department of Transportation under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, or HMTA. On September 17, 2025, the EPA announced its intent to retain this designation. The inclusion of these substances in CERCLA’s definition of hazardous substances may alter or increase liabilities associated with ongoing cleanup activities, or potentially give rise to additional liability, including for acts or conditions that were in compliance with applicable laws when they occurred. Further, to the extent listed as a hazardous material under the HMTA, additional licensing as well as increased liability and operating costs could be incurred in connection with transportation of waste materials, generally.

3. Canadian Waste Legislation

The primary waste laws regulating our business in Canada are imposed by the provinces. These include provincial laws that regulate waste management, including requirements to obtain permits and approvals, and regulations with respect to the operation of transfer stations and landfilling sites. Each provincial jurisdiction in Canada has its own regulatory regime; however, the key requirements under these regimes are similar across Canada. For example, the Environmental Protection Act, or the EP Act, in Ontario and its underlying regulations regulate the generation, treatment, storage, handling, transportation and disposal of wastes in Ontario, among other things. The EP Act requires an approval or, in some cases, a registration, for the establishment, operation or alteration of a waste management system (which includes all facilities or equipment used in connection with waste) or a waste disposal site. The specific terms and conditions of an approval may impose emission limits, monitoring and reporting requirements, siting and operating criteria, financial assurance or insurance and decommissioning requirements. Certain landfilling sites are subject to more stringent regulatory requirements that can include detailed prescribed design standards, leachate collection systems, landfill gas management or collection systems and/or site closure plans including post-closure care requirements. The federal Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 imposes requirements with respect to the interprovincial and international movement of hazardous wastes and hazardous recyclable material, which can affect the movement of wastes and recyclables to our Canadian facilities. The expansion or establishment of certain waste management projects, including waste treatment and landfilling sites, may also be subject to provincial or federal environmental assessment requirements.

A breach of laws or regulations governing our operations may result in suspension or revocation of necessary approvals and imposition of fines and penalties. Moreover, if we experience a delay in obtaining, are unable to obtain, or suffer the revocation of required approvals, we may be unable to serve our customers, our operations may be interrupted, and our growth and revenue may be limited.

4. Canadian Contaminated Sites Legislation

There are provincial and federal laws in Canada that regulate spills and releases of substances into the environment and require the remediation of contaminated sites. Clean up of contaminated sites in connection with our business is primarily regulated by provincial environmental laws. Each province has its own regulatory regime; however, the key requirements under these regimes are similar across Canada. For example, the EP Act in Ontario authorizes the agency to

issue orders to responsible persons to undertake remedial or other corrective actions to investigate, monitor, and remediate the discharge or presence of contaminants in the environment. These orders can generally be issued on a joint and several liability basis to categories of responsible persons, including persons who caused or permitted the discharge of a contaminant, persons who own the discharged substance, as well as current and past owners of lands or the source of the contamination and persons who have or have had management or control over lands or the source of the contamination. Responsible parties can bear liability under an order without fault. The costs to comply with an order can be very substantial. Some provincial jurisdictions provide a statutory right to compensation from the owner or person in control of a substance that is discharged into the environment to any person who suffers loss as a result. The federal government has also enacted laws that regulate the release of certain substances into the environment. We handle many contaminants and pollutants in the course of our ordinary operations and, as a result, may be liable under provincial and federal statutes for all or part of required cleanup costs if substances have been released into the environment. Under such laws, we could be required to remove previously disposed substances and wastes (including substances disposed of or released by prior owners or operators) or remediate contaminated property (including soil and groundwater contamination, whether from prior owners or operators or other historic activities or spills). Regarding PFAS, the federal and certain provincial governments in Canada have published environmental criteria regarding PFAS substances, including soil, groundwater and surface water criteria and drinking water standards. The publication of new remediation criteria may alter or increase liabilities associated with ongoing cleanup activities, or potentially give rise to additional cleanup liabilities, including for acts or conditions that were in compliance with applicable laws when they occurred.

B. Wastewater/Stormwater Discharge

1. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, or the Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants from a variety of sources, including, without limitation, solid waste disposal facilities, transfer stations and oilfield waste facilities into Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, including surface and potentially ground waters. Under the Clean Water Act, sites or facilities that discharge pollutants to WOTUS must have a permit authorizing that discharge. If certain materials such as run-off, collected leachate, or other contaminants from our owned or operated facilities, including landfills, transfer stations, or other facilities, are discharged into streams, rivers or other regulated waters, the Clean Water Act requires a discharge permit. These permits typically contain requirements to conduct monitoring and, under certain circumstances, to treat and reduce the quantity of pollutants in such discharge. Further, if a landfill or other facility discharges wastewater through a treatment works, it may be required to comply with additional permitting or treatment, and other specific requirements. Also, virtually all landfills are required to comply with the EPA’s storm water regulations, which are designed to prevent the introduction of contaminated storm water run-off into United States’ waters.

At this time, the ultimate regulatory test for defining WOTUS is unsettled, and the determination therefore will be based upon the outcome of regulatory promulgations and associated litigation. The manner in which WOTUS is defined could affect our operations by potentially increasing or modifying regulatory requirements governing our discharges. In 2015, the Clean Water Rule was promulgated, which would expand federal control over many U.S. water resources by broadening the definition of WOTUS, thereby potentially classifying a larger range of water resource types as jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. Since promulgation of that rule, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, or the Corps, have promulgated several regulatory definitions of WOTUS which have been subject to ongoing litigation. With regard to a January 2023 regulatory definition of WOTUS, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments concerning that definition in Sackett v. EPA and released an opinion on the definition in May 2023. In August 2023, the EPA and the Corps issued a final rule to amend the WOTUS definition consistent with the Supreme Court’s definition. That final rule became effective September 8, 2023. On November 20, 2025, however, EPA and the Corps published in the Federal Register a proposed rule intended to clarify the WOTUS definition and fully implement the Sackett v. EPA decision. The proposed rule has been challenged, and a final rule has yet to be promulgated. Because the scope of the WOTUS definition remains unclear, its uncertainty could inhibit project development, and result in longer developmental diligence, as well as permitting timelines, or increase compliance or mitigation costs for both our operations and the operations of our customers. As a result, uncertainty concerning the scope of the WOTUS definition could adversely affect our business. Additionally, the Clean Water Act’s spill prevention, control and countermeasure requirements require development of site-specific plans, and appropriate containment berms and similar structures to help contain and prevent the contamination of regulated waters in the event of a hydrocarbon storage tank release. The Clean Water Act also contains provisions that can prohibit

development or require permitting before construction or expansion of a landfill may occur in areas designated as wetlands. Various states in which we operate or may operate in the future have been delegated authority to implement the Clean Water Act and its permitting requirements, and some of these states have adopted regulations or policies that are more stringent than federal Clean Water Act requirements, including regulating discharges to state waters in addition to WOTUS.

2. Safe Drinking Water Act, or SDWA

Our United States E&P underground injection operations are subject to, among other laws, the SDWA, as well as analogous state laws and regulations. Under the SDWA, the EPA established the underground injection control, or UIC, program, which includes requirements for permitting, testing, monitoring, record keeping and reporting of injection well activities, as well as a prohibition against the migration of fluid containing any contaminant into underground sources of drinking water. Certain state regulations require us to obtain permits from the applicable regulatory agencies to operate our underground injection wells. Leakage from the subsurface portions of injection wells could cause degradation of fresh groundwater resources, potentially resulting in suspension of our UIC permit, fines and penalties, the incurrence of expenditures for remediation of the affected resource and potential liability to third parties for property damages.

The EPA has been reviewing whether management and disposal of E&P wastes should be subject to additional regulation. In July 2018, the EPA partnered with New Mexico to assess alternatives to immediate disposal of E&P wastewater by reusing it and/or treating it for reintroduction into the hydrologic cycle, as well as potential regulations related thereto. Moreover, in May 2019, EPA issued its draft Study of Oil and Gas Extraction Wastewater Management Under the Clean Water Act regarding EPA’s examination of whether to alter its regulation of the treatment and discharge of E&P wastewater. The final report was released in May 2020. If regulations requiring reuse or treatment are developed and implemented on a broad scale, it may increase our (or our customers’) compliance costs or reduce the volume of E&P wastes that may be disposed of via underground injection, which could have an adverse effect on our business.

3. Canadian Water Protection Legislation

There is legislation in Canada from the federal and provincial governments and, in many cases, by-laws from municipal governments, that protect water quality and regulate the discharge of substances into the aquatic environment. Federal water pollution control authority is derived primarily from the Fisheries Act, which contains provisions for the protection of fish (water quality), fish habitat and the use of fish by man. This includes a general prohibition on the deposit of any deleterious substances into water that is frequented by fish, unless otherwise authorized. There is legislation in each provincial jurisdiction that also protects water sources and regulates water pollution, and generally requires an approval or permit for a discharge of any effluent, including in some cases stormwater, into a water body. For example, in Ontario, the Ontario Water Resources Act, or OWRA, prohibits the discharge of material of any kind into any water that may impair the quality of the water. The OWRA requires that an approval be obtained for the use and operation of certain sewage and stormwater works. Such approvals typically contain monitoring requirements and impose restrictions on effluent characteristics. Other provinces in Canada have similar regimes for the protection of water. Most municipalities have also created by-laws to regulate the discharge of sewage and stormwater into municipal sewers. If run-off or other contaminants from our landfills, transfer stations or other waste facilities are discharged or migrate into waters and cause impairment, we could face significant liability under municipal, provincial and federal laws.

C. Air Emissions

1. The Clean Air Act, or CAA

In the United States, the CAA generally regulates the emissions of air pollutants from a variety of sources, including certain landfills and oilfield waste facilities, based on factors such as the date of the construction and tons per year of emissions of regulated pollutants. Typically, federal requirements are delegated to the states and implemented at the state level. The CAA and analogous state laws require permits for and impose other restrictions on facilities and equipment that have the potential to emit pollutants into the atmosphere. Under the CAA, generally a facility deemed to be a major source must be authorized by a permit, known as a federal operating permit. Additional or more stringent regulations of our facilities may occur in the future, which could increase operating costs or impose additional compliance burdens.

In those situations where major source permitting is not required, typically state laws and rules will require permitting as a type of minor source. Larger landfills and landfills located in areas where the ambient air does not meet certain air quality standards called for by the CAA may be subject to even more extensive air pollution controls and emissions limitations. In addition to the potential air emissions permitting of landfill facilities, such permitting may be required for the construction of gas collection and flaring systems, composting and other operations giving rise to emissions. In some instances, major source federal operating permits, may be required depending on the nature and volume of air emissions.

In addition to permitting, the CAA imposes other regulatory obligations, including, in some instances, performance standards on operations and equipment. For example, in certain instances, major sources are subject to emissions limitations known as maximum achievable control technology, or MACT. The EPA has promulgated regulations requiring MACT on large MSW landfills. The MACT standards imposed on landfill emissions often require installation of landfill gas collection systems. The EPA has also issued what are known as new source performance standards, or NSPS, which detail requirements regarding control of landfill gases from new, modified, or reconstructed, among other things, MSW landfills. Regarding facilities that are not subject to the NSPS, the EPA has promulgated emissions guidelines, specifying standards of performance for existing MSW landfills. The emissions guidelines are implemented and enforced by states through State Implementation Plans, or SIPs, which contain the state-specific regulations and guidance directly applying the emissions guidelines to affected sources in the state through permitting, monitoring, and other means. If one or more states do not submit approvable SIPs by the emissions guideline’s prescribed deadline, the EPA is required to promulgate what is known as a Federal Implementation Plan, or FIP, for the emissions guideline, which then governs the operation of covered sources in states and territories without SIPs in place.

Applicability of NSPS, emissions guidelines, and implementation plans generally depends on whether the MSW landfill facility is a “new source” or an “existing source.” New sources, which are subject to NSPS requirements, generally are those MSW landfill facilities that were constructed, modified or reconstructed after July 17, 2014. Existing sources, which are subject to the emissions guidelines and their associated state and federal implementation plans, are generally those landfills that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction on or before July 17, 2014.

New sources are subject to NSPS under Title 40, Part 60, Subpart XXX of the Code of Federal Regulations (Subpart XXX), which were issued on August 29, 2016. Subpart XXX specifies standards for landfill gas control. The Subpart XXX NSPS reduces the threshold for non-methane organic compounds at which new, reconstructed or modified MSW landfills must install emission controls. Subpart XXX also requires monitoring surface emissions of methane, monitoring of temperature and pressure at the wellhead of landfill gas collection systems and imposes other requirements.

Existing landfills, which are not subject to NSPS Subpart XXX, are indirectly governed by the emissions guidelines and the SIPs or FIPs implementing these requirements. The EPA promulgated what are known as the Subpart Cf emissions guidelines on August 29, 2016. These emissions guidelines triggered a requirement for states to submit SIPs implementing the emissions guidelines limits. In February 2020, the EPA found that 42 states and territories had failed to submit approvable SIPs by the deadline, which had been extended to 2019. The EPA published its proposed FIP in August 2019, and finalized it in May 2021 with an effective date of June 21, 2021. The FIP imposed compliance requirements consistent with Subpart Cf for existing sources in those states without an EPA-approved SIP. The FIP also replaced compliance obligations under certain legacy regulations. Together, the Subpart XXX and Subpart Cf regulations lower the non-methane organic compounds applicability threshold at which both new and existing MSW landfills must install a gas collection and control system, and impose other regulatory requirements. As a result of this and other regulatory actions affecting air emissions from our facilities, it is possible that we could face greater operational burdens and costs, as well as other requirements could have a material effect on landfill operations, and adversely affect our business.

Additionally, in March 2020, the EPA finalized amendments to the most recent MSW Landfill NSPS and emission guidelines that would allow regulated entities to demonstrate compliance with landfill gas control, operating, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements by following the corresponding requirements in the MSW Landfills National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant, or NESHAP, regulations at Subpart AAAA. These amendments were intended to improve compliance and implementation of the regulations. Compliance with these regulatory requirements could result in significant additional costs, which we will incur in our ordinary course of business. In addition, state air regulatory agencies may request delegation of authority to implement the FIP and state law requirements may impose

additional restrictions beyond federal requirements, which could also result in compliance costs. For example, some state air programs uniquely regulate odor and the emission of certain specific toxic air pollutants.

The EPA recently modified, or is in the process of modifying, other standards promulgated under the CAA in a manner that could increase our compliance costs. For example, the EPA has discussed modifying national ambient air quality standards, or NAAQS, applicable to carbon monoxide and oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, as well as other standards, to make them more stringent. The NAAQS standards for particulate matter, published December 18, 2020, retained the NAAQS levels from 2012, and the ozone NAAQS, published December 31, 2020, retained 2015 NAAQS levels. In 2021, EPA announced it would reconsider the December 2020 decision. In February 2024, the EPA finalized a more stringent primary (health-based) annual PM2.5 standard and related metrics, such as the Air Quality Index and monitoring requirements. The rule is the subject of ongoing litigation; however, in the interim, the revised PM2.5 NAAQS became effective May 6, 2024. On March 12, 2025, EPA announced that it will reassess and potentially revise the 2024 PM2.5 NAAQS rule. Ongoing state implementation of the current NAAQS, as well as potential implementation of even more stringent standards, could result in, among other things, additional capital or operating expenditures. Further, our customers’ operations may be subject to existing and future CAA permitting and regulatory requirements that could have a material effect on their operations, which could have an adverse effect on our business, increase the operating costs and otherwise impact financial condition and operating results.

Further, the EPA has sought to strengthen regulations governing GHG and VOC emissions from the oil and natural gas sector. In March 2024, the EPA published the new NSPS and Emissions Guidelines, or EGs, known as Subpart OOOOb and Subpart OOOOc, respectively, to further reduce methane and VOC emissions from certain sources in the oil and natural-gas sector, including certain existing and previously unregulated sources. The rules also set more stringent standards and requirements for a variety of sources. Subpart OOOOb generally became effective in May 2024, with rolling compliance dates for certain sources. Subpart OOOOc, which will apply to existing sources, has a longer implementation timeline, requiring each state to submit a plan to the EPA for appropriate emissions reductions within two years of the date that the rule is published, and regulated entities are required to comply with state or federal rules within three years after the deadline for state plan submittals. Any state implementing rules will be required to be at least as stringent as the federal rules. Of note, however, on July 31, 2025 the EPA published an interim final rule to extend certain Subpart OOOOb compliance deadlines and the Subpart OOOOc submittal deadline. The EPA then published on December 3, 2025 a final interim final rule concluding that the amendments made in the interim final rule were warranted and making further changes to a very limited scope of compliance deadlines. States, however, may continue to implement their own GHG and VOC emissions regulations notwithstanding these federal initiatives. The timing and full scope of any final regulatory requirements imposed by EPA or the states or the cost to comply with such requirements is not known at this time. Compliance with these rules or with any future federal or state methane regulations could, among other things, require capital expenditures for our customers and increase their operating costs, thereby impacting our business.

Further, the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, signed into law in August 2022, includes the first-ever direct federal “charge” on methane emissions called the “Waste Emissions Charge,” or WEC, for applicable facilities within nine segments of the oil and natural gas industry. The WEC applied to methane emissions beginning in 2024, with the first charge for 2024 emissions due in 2025. On November 18, 2024, the EPA finalized rulemaking to establish a regulatory program for assessing and remitting the fee on methane emissions. The WEC was subsequently disapproved by a joint resolution of Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, and President Trump signed the Joint Resolution of Disapproval on March 14, 2025. Consistent with the Joint Resolution of Disapproval, on May 19, 2025, the EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register removing the WEC regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations, or CFR. The Joint Resolution of Disapproval invalidates the implementing rule, but the underlying WEC requirement in the IRA still exists. A separate law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBA, enacted on July 4, 2025, postponed the WEC’s effective date until 2034. As a result, the statutory obligation for the fee remains, but its implementation is stalled until new rules, if any, are developed and take effect, potentially not until 2034. While these changes should not directly affect our waste disposal operations, should their applicability ultimately be implemented and affect our customers in the E&P industry, it could then result in decreased development and, therefore, decreased waste production and a decreased demand for E&P waste disposal services.

EPA included landfill methane emissions in its quadrennial document outlining enforcement priorities, the FY 2024-2027 National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives. In the document, EPA advised that it plans to use preexisting

landfill NSPS to further curtail and enforce methane emission reductions. In July 2024, it was announced that the EPA will issue an updated NSPS and EG proposal for methane emissions from MSW landfills in 2025 after concluding an analysis of available new technologies and landfill work practices, but EPA did not do so by December 31, 2025. Additionally, on October 25, 2024, the EPA opened a non-regulatory docket to gather information and data on new technologies and work practices for MSW landfills. Increased EPA regulatory oversight may result in increased compliance costs for our business and may have a material impact on operations and adverse effect on our business.

2. Canadian Air Quality Legislation

In Canada, the primary laws regulating air emissions from our operations come from provincial laws. Provincial laws may require approvals for air emissions and may impose other restrictions on facilities and equipment that have the potential to emit pollutants into the atmosphere. Provincial laws may require the construction of landfill gas management systems, including gas collection and flaring systems, which are subject to approvals or other regulatory requirements. Failure to obtain an approval or comply with approval or other regulatory requirements could result in the imposition of substantial administrative or regulatory penalties. The Canadian federal government published new Landfill Methane Regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, which came into force on December 12, 2025. The Landfill Methane Regulations apply to private and municipally owned landfills that receive municipal solid waste and that meet the prescribed applicability criteria based on the quantity of municipal solid waste in the landfill and disposal rates. The Landfill Methane Regulations will impose limits on methane concentrations at the surface of the landfill at certain landfills and regular monitoring to confirm that these limits are met, among other requirements.

D. Occupational Health and Safety

1. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, or the OSH Act

In the United States, the OSH Act is administered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, and many state agencies whose programs have been approved by OSHA. The OSH Act establishes employer responsibilities for worker health and safety, including the obligation to maintain a workplace free of recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious injury, comply with adopted worker protection standards, maintain certain records, provide workers with required disclosures and implement certain health and safety training programs. Various OSHA standards may apply to our operations, including standards concerning notices of hazards, safety in excavation and demolition work, the handling of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials and worker training and emergency response programs. Moreover, the Department of Transportation, OSHA, and other agencies regulate and have jurisdiction concerning the transport, movement and related safety of hazardous and other regulated materials. In some instances, state and local agencies also regulate the safe transport of such materials to the extent not preempted by federal law.

2. Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Laws

In Canada, each province establishes and administers a provincial occupational health and safety regime. Similar to the United States, these regimes generally identify the rights and responsibilities of employers, supervisors, workers and other parties. Employers are required to implement all prescribed safety requirements and to exercise reasonable care to protect employees from workplace hazards, among other things. Various occupational health and safety standards may apply to our Canadian operations, including requirements relating to communication of and exposure to hazards, safety in excavation and demolition work, the handling of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials and worker training and emergency response programs. In addition to the provincial departments of transportation, Transport Canada has jurisdiction to regulate the transportation of dangerous goods, which can include wastes.

E. Additional Regulatory Considerations

We also review regulatory developments that may affect our business, including, among others, those described below.

1. State, Provincial and Local Regulation

In addition to the federal statutes regulating our operations, each state or province where we operate or may operate in the future has laws and regulations governing the management, generation, storage, treatment, handling, transportation, and disposal of solid waste, E&P waste, occupational safety and health, water and air pollution and, in most cases, the siting, design, operation, maintenance, corrective action, closure and post-closure maintenance of landfills and transfer stations. Further, many municipalities have enacted or could enact ordinances, local laws and regulations affecting our operations, including zoning and health measures that limit solid waste management activities to specified sites or activities. Other jurisdictions have enacted “fitness” rules focusing on companywide and overall corporate compliance history in making permitting decisions. In addition, certain jurisdictions have enacted flow control provisions that direct or restrict the delivery of solid wastes to specific facilities, laws that grant the right to establish franchises for collection services and bidding for such franchises and bans or other restrictions on the movement of solid wastes into a municipality. Specific state and local permits for our operations may be required and may be subject to periodic renewal, modification or revocation by the issuing agencies. There has also been an increasing trend at the state, provincial and local levels to mandate and encourage waste reduction at the source and recycling, and to prohibit or restrict landfill disposal of certain types of solid wastes, such as food waste, yard waste, leaves, tires, electronic equipment waste, painted wood and other construction and demolition debris. The enactment of laws or regulations reducing the volume and types of wastes available for transport to and disposal in landfills could prevent us from operating our facilities at their full capacity.

In August 2024, three states (New Jersey, New Mexico, and North Carolina) petitioned the EPA to list certain PFAS as hazardous air pollutants under Clean Air Act and to establish emission standards from source categories. The EPA has 18 months to respond to the petition. As of December 31, 2025, the EPA had not issued a specific response to this petition. Several state legislatures and state agencies have been evaluating or have taken various regulatory actions related to PFAS in the environment, including proposing or finalizing cleanup standards for PFAS in soil and water, groundwater standards, surface water standards, and/or drinking water standards for PFOS, PFOA, and other PFAS. States with finalized drinking water standards for certain PFAS include Vermont, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Michigan, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The federal and certain provincial governments in Canada have also published environmental criteria regarding certain PFAS substances, including soil, groundwater and surface water criteria and drinking water standards.

The Company cannot predict what additional regulatory or legislative actions in the United States and elsewhere arising from the foregoing or other proceedings and activities, if any, may be taken regarding such compounds or the consequences of any such actions to the Company, including to its operations. Given divergent and rapidly evolving regulatory standards, there is currently significant uncertainty about the potential costs to industry and communities associated with operating and control technologies that may be required.

2. Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation

We do not conduct hydraulic fracturing operations, but we do provide treatment, recovery and disposal services in the United States for the fluids used and wastes generated by our customers in such operations. Recently, there has been increased public concern regarding the alleged potential for hydraulic fracturing to adversely affect the environment, including drinking water supplies. Proposals have been made to enact separate federal, state or local legislation that would increase the regulatory burden imposed on hydraulic fracturing. Laws and regulations have been proposed and/or adopted at the federal, state and local levels that would regulate, restrict or prohibit hydraulic fracturing operations or require the reporting and public disclosure of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process. Certain states and localities have placed moratoria or bans on hydraulic fracturing or the disposal of waste therefrom, or have considered the same.

In June 2016, the EPA promulgated a rule prohibiting discharges of wastewater pollutants from onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction facilities to publicly-owned treatment works, or POTWs. Further, the EPA’s

promulgation and subsequent revision of methane and VOC rules between 2016 and 2025 caused regulatory uncertainty for oil and gas exploration and production facilities, including hydraulic fracturing operations. In November 2021, the EPA again proposed rules to regulate methane and VOCs from the oil and gas industry sources, and these rules were finalized in November 2023. The rules enact a new NSPS, under Subpart OOOOb, which includes standards for emission sources not regulated previously under the 2016 NSPS Subpart OOOOa. Additionally, the rules include the first oil and gas emissions guidelines for existing sources, known as Subpart OOOOc, which require states to submit and implement SIPs to enforce the guidelines on existing oil and gas emissions sources. Among the many additional requirements are: (i) the definition of “storage vessels” is revised to include the entire tank battery, not just a single tank, now setting the emissions threshold (i.e., the “potential to emit,” which is the highest quantity of certain pollutants that a source could potentially release into the air, even if that source has never actually emitted the highest quantity) at 6 tons per year, or tpy, VOC; (ii) well closure plans and fugitive emissions monitoring required on all wells prior to closure, with an optical gas imaging (OGI) survey to be submitted to EPA upon closure in certain instances; and (iii) creation of a Super Emitter Program that, among other things, authorizes third parties to remotely monitor regulated facilities and notify EPA when certain emissions events are detected. Subpart OOOOb generally becomes effective within 60 days after the rule is published, with certain exceptions. Subpart OOOOc has a longer implementation timeline, requiring each state to submit a plan to EPA for appropriate emissions reductions within 2 years of the date that the rule is published, and regulated entities are required to comply with state or federal rules within three years after the deadline for state plan submittals. As noted above, on July 31, 2025 the EPA published an interim final rule to extend certain Subpart OOOOb compliance deadlines and the Subpart OOOOc submittal deadline. The EPA then published on December 3, 2025 a final interim final rule concluding that the amendments made in the interim final rule were warranted and making further changes to a very limited scope of compliance deadlines. These rules may require oil and gas operators to expend material sums on compliance, including on equipment repair or replacement, and may reduce our customers’ E&P activities and could have an adverse impact on our business. Additionally, several states may adopt laws or regulations analogous to or even more stringent than the federal rules, and the state rules would remain in effect regardless of the outcome of any federal stay or litigation. Further, several states in which we conduct business require oil and natural gas operators to disclose information concerning their operations, which could result in increased public scrutiny.

The EPA has contemplated additional rulemaking that could affect the exploration and production industry sector. In May 2014, the EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or ANPR, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, seeking comment on whether and how the EPA should regulate the reporting or disclosure of the use of hydraulic fracturing chemical substances and mixtures and their constituents. Several states have implemented such requirements. Additionally, in December 2016, the EPA released a study on the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. In that study, the EPA found evidence that hydraulic fracturing activity can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances, but data gaps limited the EPA’s ability to fully assess the matter. The EPA also published in May 2018 a detailed study of centralized waste treatment, or CWT, facilities accepting oil and gas extraction wastewater. The study assessed the regulatory status of CWTs, characteristics of wastewaters discharged from them, available treatment technologies and associated costs. EPA has yet to implement regulations or guidelines based on this study. The impact of rules that the EPA is contemplating, has proposed or has recently promulgated will be uncertain until the rules are finalized and fully implemented.

If new federal, state or local laws, regulations or policies restricting hydraulic fracturing are adopted, such legal requirements could result in delays, eliminate certain drilling and injection activities and make it more difficult or costly for our customers to perform hydraulic fracturing. Any such regulations limiting, prohibiting or imposing operational requirements on hydraulic fracturing could reduce oil and natural gas E&P activities by our customers and, therefore, adversely affect our business. Such laws or regulations could also materially increase our costs of compliance.

3. Disposal of Drilling Fluids

Certain of our facilities in the United States and Canada accept drilling fluids and other E&P wastes for disposal via underground injection. The disposal of drilling fluids is generally regulated at the state or provincial level, and claims, including some regulatory actions, have been brought against some owners or operators of these types of facilities for nuisance, seismic disturbances and other claims in relation to the operation of underground injection facilities. To date, our facilities have not been subject to any such litigation, but could be in the future.

4. Climate Change Laws and Regulations

Generally, the promulgation of climate change laws or regulations restricting or regulating greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions from our operations could increase our costs to operate by increasing control technology requirements or changing regulatory obligations. In the United States, the EPA’s current and proposed regulation of GHG emissions may adversely impact our operations. Pursuant to the EPA’s rulemakings and interpretations, certain air permits issued on or after January 2, 2011 must address GHG emissions. As a result, new or modified emissions sources may be required to install Best Available Control Technology to limit GHG emissions, but future regulations may revise these requirements. Additionally, regulations in the Subpart OOO Federal Implementation Plan, the NSPS in Subpart ‎XXX require the reduction of GHG emissions from new ‎or modified landfills‎, as detailed above. In addition, the EPA’s Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule sets monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to certain landfills and other entities. In September 2025, however, the EPA proposed to largely repeal the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, including those provisions for landfills. A final rule had not yet been implemented as of December 31, 2025. For this reason, the status of this reporting rule remains in flux. Reporting would only continue for those oil and gas industry segments linked to the WEC rule, but even those reporting requirements are suspended until 2034, aligning with the delayed WEC rule implementation date.

The Canadian federal government enacted the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, or GGPPA, in 2018, which establishes a national carbon-pricing regime for provinces and territories in Canada where there is no provincial regime in place or where the provincial regime does not meet the federal benchmark. Often referred to as the federal backstop, the federal carbon-pricing regime consisted initially of a carbon levy applied to certain fossil fuels and an output-based pricing system, or OBPS, applied to certain industrial facilities with reported emissions of 50,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, or CO2e, or more per year. The federal government ceased the application of the fuel charge component of the federal backstop effective April 1, 2025, leaving OBPS in place.

The Canadian federal government published new Landfill Methane Regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, which came into force on December 12, 2025. The Landfill Methane Regulations apply to private and municipally owned landfills that receive municipal solid waste and that meet the prescribed applicability criteria based on the quantity of municipal solid waste in the landfill and disposal rates. The federal government expects these regulations to reduce methane emissions from Canadian landfills by about 50% below 2019 levels by 2035. Landfills that meet the applicability criteria are required to calculate their annual methane generation and submit an assessment report to Environment and Climate Change Canada. Current landfills that exceed 664 tonnes of methane generation annually and closed landfills exceeding 1,000 tonnes of methane generation annually are subject to additional compliance requirements that will be phased in between 2028 and 2035 to allow time for the design and installation of methane control infrastructure that may be needed for compliance. The additional compliance requirements include limits on methane concentrations at the surface of the landfill, regular monitoring to confirm that these limits are met, regular monitoring to detect and repair leaks in landfill gas management systems within prescribed time periods, prohibitions on venting landfill gas with limited exceptions, and a requirement that recovered methane must be destroyed or used. In addition to the federal Landfill Methane Regulations, certain provinces have regulations in place to reduce methane emissions from landfills.

Certain states and several Canadian provinces have promulgated legislation and regulations to limit GHG emissions through requirements of specific controls, carbon levies, cap and trade programs or other measures. Comprehensive GHG legislation or regulation, including carbon pricing, affects not only our business, but also that of our customers.

Heightened regulation of our customers’ operations could also adversely affect our business. The regulation of GHG emissions from oil and gas E&P operations may increase the costs to our customers of developing and producing hydrocarbons and, as a result, may have an indirect and adverse effect on the amount of E&P waste delivered to our facilities. New emission rules applicable to oil and gas production sources in the United States and Canada may require additional emissions controls, impose emissions charges, and increase capital costs for our customers, which could reduce their E&P activities, and subsequently negatively impact our business operations. As discussed above, certain states have enacted rules analogous to or even more stringent than the federal rules.

These statutes and regulations increase our costs and our customers’ costs, and future climate change statutes and regulations may have an impact as well. If we are unable to pass such higher costs through to our customers, or if our

customers’ costs of developing and producing hydrocarbons increase, our business, financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected. The impact of any potential rules affecting existing sources is uncertain.

5. Flow Control, Interstate, and International Waste Restrictions

Certain permits and state and local regulations, known as flow control restrictions, may limit a landfill’s or transfer station’s ability to accept waste that originates from specified geographic areas, to import out-of-state waste or wastes originating outside the local jurisdictions or to otherwise accept non-local waste. While certain courts have deemed these laws to be unenforceable, other courts have not. Certain state and local jurisdictions may seek to enforce flow control restrictions contractually. These actions could limit or prohibit the importation of wastes originating outside of local jurisdictions or direct that wastes be handled at specified facilities. These restrictions could limit the volume of wastes we can manage in jurisdictions at issue and also result in higher disposal costs for our collection operations. If we are unable to pass such higher costs through to our customers, our business, financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected. Additionally, certain local jurisdictions have sought or may seek to impose extraterritorial obligations on our operations in an effort to affect flow control and may enforce tax and fee arrangements on behalf of such jurisdictions.

Changes to international waste importation and exportation laws may affect the price of recyclable scrap commodities. Price fluctuations, in turn, may adversely affect our business. For example, the Chinese government banned the importation of all materials classified by China as solid waste and virtually all recyclables (except for certain metallic recyclables) as of January 1, 2021. Other international restrictions also limit the transportation of waste and recyclable scrap. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous ‎Wastes and their Disposal, or the Convention, is an international multilateral agreement ‎regulating the export and import of waste, including hazardous waste, for recovery and ‎disposal.‎ The Convention also prohibits the movement of waste between parties to the Convention ‎and non-parties‎ unless the waste is moved pursuant to a separate agreement. Canada is a party to the Convention and has implemented domestic legislation to implement Canada's commitment to the Convention and other similar international commitments. The Cross-border Movement of Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Recyclable Material Regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 impose restrictions and permitting requirements in Canada with respect to transboundary movements of certain hazardous wastes and recyclable materials. The Convention was amended in 2022 to list both hazardous and non-hazardous e-waste in the Annexes of the Convention as of January 1, 2025. At this time, the Canadian Federal Government has not incorporated the recent Convention e-waste amendments into domestic regulations. The United States is not a party to the Convention; however, Canada and the United States have a separate agreement with respect to the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes. Increased restriction of transboundary waste shipment could create additional burdens associated with recyclable commodity fluctuation. These restrictions, in addition to circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, have caused and may continue to cause supply chain disruptions in the recycling industry. Further legal restrictions to recyclable scrap shipments may increase the cost of doing business and/or cause disruptions in our operations.

6. Regulation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, or PFAS, and Other Emerging Contaminants

At this time, several substances are being reviewed by governmental authorities for potential heightened regulation, including PFAS. PFAS, a class of man-made chemicals, have been in use since the 1940s and are found in many consumer products including textiles, fire suppressants, cookware, packaging and plastics. These types of products and materials can be found in wastes that our facilities accept and have accepted for management and disposal. PFAS are environmentally persistent and tend to bioaccumulate in exposed populations. PFAS contamination has been found in the air, soil and water, including drinking water. This contamination has prompted action by Congress, EPA and several states.

EPA has begun to examine the potential regulation of PFAS materials under the SWDA, ‎SDWA, RCRA, CERCLA and TSCA. EPA established lifetime health advisories for PFAS ‎materials in May 2016. The PFAS Act of 2019, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, ‎directed the EPA Administrator to take certain actions with regard to PFAS; it also immediately added certain PFAS to the list of chemicals covered by the TRI under EPCRA Section 313 and provided a framework for additional PFAS to be added to TRI on an annual basis. Under the 2019 PFAS ‎Act, EPA was further directed to include PFAS substances in the SDWA monitoring program for ‎unregulated contaminants

‎and to promulgate a rule requiring PFAS data submission under TSCA. Since that time, EPA has taken a significant number of steps regarding PFAS.

In addition to the PFAS Act of 2019, EPA has issued guidance and strategic planning initiatives indicating further PFAS regulation is forthcoming. On October 18, 2021, EPA announced its PFAS Strategic Roadmap wherein it laid out a whole-of-agency approach to addressing PFAS. The roadmap set timelines by which EPA planned to take specific actions and committed to more stringent PFAS policies. EPA released its First Annual PFAS Roadmap Progress Report in November 2022, and its Second Annual PFAS Roadmap Progress Report in December 2023. In August 2023, EPA finalized its National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives for 2024-2027, which included “addressing exposure to PFAS.” EPA advises that the initiative will seek to implement the PFAS Strategic Roadmap and “hold responsible” parties who manufactured PFAS or used it in the manufacturing process and other parties who significantly contributed to PFAS releases to the environment. On April 28, 2025, EPA announced a suite of upcoming agency actions to address PFAS, including but not limited to the creation of effluent limitations guidelines for certain PFAS and initiatives to engage with Congress and industry to establish clear liability frameworks. As with other regulatory matters, enhanced EPA regulation or oversight may increase our customers’ compliance costs or, depending on how EPA ultimately implements any associated rules, may increase our compliance costs and have an adverse effect on our business.

Beyond strategic efforts and compliance initiatives, EPA has begun to develop and finalize rules to further regulate PFAS, and additional rules are expected to be forthcoming. In February 2024, the EPA proposed two rules addressing PFAS. The first proposed rule would list nine types of PFAS as RCRA “hazardous constituents,” which are chemicals expressly identified for consideration in RCRA facility assessments when corrective action requirements are imposed and, where necessary, require further investigation and cleanup through the RCRA corrective action process. The second proposed rule would expand the scope of substances potentially subject to corrective action under RCRA to include certain wastes contaminated with PFAS constituents. Neither rule has been finalized as of December 31, 2025, but if either is, the revisions would expand the EPA’s authority to address certain PFAS contaminated waste under RCRA.

As noted above, on May 8, 2024, EPA issued a final rule designating two of the most widely used PFAS—PFOA and PFOS—as CERCLA hazardous substances. As designated CERCLA hazardous substances, PFAS are also now required to be listed and regulated as hazardous materials by Department of Transportation under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. On September 17, 2025, the EPA announced its intent to retain this designation. The CERCLA rule creates potential liability under CERCLA for downstream recipients of PFAS, including passive receivers such as our landfills and transporters of PFAS-containing materials.

EPA has also taken steps to regulate the presence of PFAS in groundwater, surface water and drinking water. Directly related to our business, in January 2023, EPA released the Effluent Limitations Guidelines Plan 15, which included an analysis of information and data collected through a detailed study of the Landfills category, pursuant to which EPA determined the development of effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards for landfills that discharge their leachate is warranted to address PFAS discharge. In accordance with these findings, EPA advised that it intends to revise the existing Landfills Point Source Category Effluent Limitations Guidelines to address PFAS discharge from these landfills. Strengthened effluent limitations may require capital and compliance expenses, and may have an adverse impact on our business.

EPA has undertaken substantial additional regulatory action related to PFAS in water, and such action may impact our business or our customers’ businesses. For example, in August 2023, EPA rescinded its 2019 groundwater cleanup guidance for PFOA and PFOS, and recommended CERCLA and RCRA processes for site-specific PFAS contamination decisions. To that end, EPA updated its Regional Screening Level and Regional Removal Management Level tables to now include 14 types of PFAS, which will provide risk-based values for EPA to use in determining whether further action or removal is necessary for a site. Moreover, in April 2024, the EPA established legally enforceable levels for six PFAS known to occur in drinking water. On May 14, 2025, the EPA announced that it plans to retain the 2024 drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS, but will delay related compliance deadlines from 2029 to 2031. The EPA also announced that it intends to rescind regulations for the four other PFAS covered in the 2024 PFAS drinking water rule. EPA stated that it plans to finalize an associated rule in 2026. In August 2023, EPA released the first set of data collected under the fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, or UCMR 5, intended to improve EPA’s understanding of the frequency that 29 PFAS and lithium are found in the nation’s drinking water systems, and at what levels. Earlier, in April 2022, EPA

issued a memorandum to seek to minimize PFAS pollution in surface water as EPA works to set effluent guidelines, develop analytical methods and issue water quality criteria for PFAS. In December 2022, EPA issued a follow-up memorandum recommending states and municipalities use the most current sampling and analysis methods in their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, programs to identify known or suspected sources of PFAS and to take actions using pretreatment and permitting authorities, such as imposing technology-based limits on sources of PFAS discharges. Although the full scope of final PFAS regulation is not finalized, increased regulation of PFAS in water may lead to increased scrutiny of our operations and increased compliance costs for us and our customers, and may have an adverse impact on our business.

EPA has issued or proposed a number of other significant PFAS rules that should not directly regulate our business, but may impact our customers’ businesses. For example, in January 2024, EPA finalized a rule that prevents regulated entities from starting or resuming, without a complete EPA review and risk determination, the manufacture, processing or use of about 300 “inactive” PFAS that have not been made or used for many years. Under this rule, companies are prohibited from resuming uses of inactive PFAS absent EPA notification and review. In June 2023, EPA released a framework for addressing new PFAS and new uses of PFAS under TSCA prior to introducing them into commerce. In May 2025, EPA promulgated an interim final rule delaying the TSCA PFAS reporting deadline until October 13, 2026. In November 2025, EPA proposed changes to the scope of certain TSCA PFAS reporting regulations to incorporate exemptions and modifications that will reduce unnecessary or potentially duplicative reporting requirements for manufacturers. Similarly, in October 2023, EPA released a final rule removing PFAS Toxics Release Inventory, or TRI, reporting exemptions for chemicals used in small concentrations. This summary of PFAS rules that may impact our customers’ businesses is not exhaustive, and EPA is continuing to push forward with development and implementation of new PFAS rules. Increased regulatory costs to our customers’ businesses may reduce their output and have an adverse impact on our business.

State governments are also beginning to regulate PFAS. Certain states have taken action to limit exposure to PFAS and require remediation of PFAS-related environmental contamination. Much of the state action has been directed at drinking water limits, but in some instances, bills and policies have included PFAS prohibitions in food packaging, consumer products, and firefighting products.

The EPA is also considering regulation of other contaminants of concern, including BPA and phthalates, which are common in polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, products. For example, in June 2023, the EPA proposed a Significant New Use Rule under TSCA for 18 chemicals—including BPA and PFAS—made from plastic waste-derived feedstocks used to make transportation fuels. In 2025, the EPA withdrew these proposed Significant New Use Rules due to EPA’s own December 2024 decision to withdraw the original TSCA Section 5(e) Order that formed the basis for the proposed rules, following litigation and public comments. The rules, if eventually finalized and implemented, would require EPA notification and review before using contaminated feedstocks to make transportation fuels. If the EPA moves forward with regulating these or other contaminants of concern in the future, we and our customers may face higher compliance costs for, among other things, proper treatment of contaminated substances.

PFAS are also the subject of environmental and health reviews by the federal and provincial governments in Canada. Certain PFAS, including PFOS, PFOA and certain long chain perfluorocarboxylic acids, or LC-PFCA, are currently listed as toxic substances on Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and are subject to regulatory restrictions on their use in Canada under the Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2012. In addition, environmental screening values, standards or guidelines have been adopted for certain PFAS substances with respect to soil, groundwater and drinking water quality by the federal and some provincial governments in relation to some PFAS substances.

The Canadian federal government conducted a review of the class of PFAS substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) and published a "State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Report” and a "Risk Management Approach for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) excluding fluoropolymers” in March 2025. The State of PFAS Report contains an assessment of the potential risks of PFAS and concludes that all substances in the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers (as defined in the report), meet the criteria of a toxic substance under CEPA. The Risk Management Approach recommended that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, be added to Part 2 of Schedule 1 of CEPA. Adding a substance to Schedule 1 of CEPA enables the federal government to implement

risk management measures for that substance. The federal government’s risk management objective is to achieve the lowest levels of environmental and human exposure over time that are technically feasible, taking into consideration socio-economic factors. In conjunction with these activities, in July 2024, the federal government published a Notice in the Canada Gazette with respect to certain PFAS substances that required parties who manufacture, import or use certain PFAS substances in the manufacture of other goods in Canada above established thresholds to report information to the government for the purpose of supporting these future risk management activities relating to PFAS.

Increased regulation of PFAS and other emerging contaminants could adversely affect our operations. Our already-substantial financial obligations associated with post-closure maintenance at our existing landfills may increase and accruals for these obligations may also need to be increased. Guidance calling for enhanced treatment of landfill leachate and landfill gas could potentially increase burdens for disposal of PFAS-containing materials generated by our facilities or accepted at our facilities, some of which may potentially need to be upgraded to accept PFAS-containing waste. Finally, regulation of PFAS as an air contaminant and/or wastewater effluent pollutant could increase the cost to conduct our business, including, without limitation, potentially requiring greater capital expenditures to meet control requirements as well as operation and maintenance costs.

F. Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Standards

Pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the EPA promulgated the Renewable Fuel Standards, or RFS, which require refiners to either blend “renewable fuels,” such as ethanol and biodiesel, into their transportation fuels or to purchase renewable fuel credits, known as renewable identification numbers, or RINs, in lieu of blending. In some cases, landfill gas generated at our landfills in the United States and Canada qualifies as a renewable fuel for which RINs are available. Such RINs can be sold by the Company.

The price of RINs has been extremely volatile and the value of RINs is dependent upon a variety of factors, including the required volumes promulgated by the EPA. The EPA annually establishes the renewable fuel volumes required under the RFS for the following year, and rules promulgated under the RFS are often challenged in court. On December 7, 2021, EPA proposed a series of actions setting biofuel volumes for 2020, 2021 and 2022, and introducing other regulatory changes. EPA also proposed to add a 250-million-gallon “supplemental obligation” to the volumes proposed for 2022 and stated its intent to add another 250 million gallons in 2023 to address the outcome of prior litigation. Subsequently, on June 3, 2022, the EPA finalized a set of actions establishing 2020, 2021 and 2022 renewable fuel volume blending obligations for the refining industry under the RFS Program. Multiple EPA actions were announced simultaneously to address several outstanding, delayed and challenged EPA decisions regarding the RFS program, including denying and restoring blending volume obligations waived through small refinery exemptions. EPA also announced $700 million in CARES Act funding through the Biofuel Producer Program paid as compensation to eligible biofuels producers for COVID-19 related market losses. On December 1, 2022, EPA announced a proposed rule to establish 2023, 2024 and 2025 RFS volumes and percentage standards, which was finalized on July 12, 2023. The proposed rule additionally included regulatory changes prescribing how RINs from renewable electricity, or eRINs, would be implemented and managed under the RFS program, but did not finalize the proposed revisions to the eRIN program. On June 13, 2025, EPA published a proposed rule to, among other things, establish required RFS volumes and percentage standards for 2026 and 2027, partially waive the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement, revise the associated percentage standard and remove renewable electricity as a qualifying renewable fuel under the RFS program (eRINs).

These volume proposals may be met with opposition, consistent with action taken regarding prior regulations. If successful, efforts to cause reductions or limitations on the requirement to blend renewable fuel would likely reduce the volume of RINs purchased to meet the RFS blending requirements. Further, there have been proposals to revise, and in some instances limit, the RFS program in the United States. As recently as October 2019, House Energy and Commerce Committee members, Representatives Shimkus and Flores, introduced the 21st Century Transportation Fuels Act that aims to eliminate volume-based renewable fuels mandates and instead rely upon the transition to a national octane standard and automobile manufacturing standards to govern fuel composition. This bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change in October 2019, but no further action has been taken. In 2023, Representative Scott Perry introduced the Eliminating the RFS and Its Destructive Outcomes Act, which was referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, but no further action has been taken. Various parties have also sought for the executive branch to revise the RFS. Limiting or eliminating the RFS could have the effect of reducing or eliminating the volume of RINs

required to meet blending requirements, which could adversely affect the demand for RINs and accordingly the revenue stream we have historically derived from the sale of RINs. ‎Further, uncertainty associated with RFS regulatory requirements may increase volatility of RIN prices, which may adversely affect our business.

The Clean Fuel Regulations, or CFRs, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 came into force on June 21, 2022 (replacing the former Renewable Fuel Regulations). The CFRs require primary suppliers to have an average volumetric renewable content of at least 5% for gasoline that they produce in Canada and/or import, and 2% for diesel fuel and heating distillate oil. The CFRs require primary suppliers to gradually reduce the carbon intensity of the gasoline and diesel that they produce and sell in Canada through GHG reductions on a lifecycle basis, accounting for emissions from the extraction, processing, distribution and end use of the fuel. The CFRs establish lifecycle carbon intensity, or CI, limits for each fuel type (gasoline and diesel), expressed in grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per megajoule (gCO2e/MJ). Gasoline and diesel producers and importers must lower the CI of the gasoline and diesel that they produce in Canada and/or import in accordance with these limits.

The CI reduction requirement started in 2023 with a reduction of 3.5 gCO2e/MJ below 2016 levels. The required reduction will increase each year by a further 1.5 gCO2e/MJ until it reaches a reduction of 14 gCO2e/MJ in 2030.

The CFRs establish a credit market, and each compliance credit is equivalent to a one-tonne reduction of life cycle CO2e emissions for the applicable compliance period. Compliance credits can either be created by primary suppliers or transferred to them by other “registered creators.” Compliance credits are the only mechanism for primary suppliers to achieve compliance with their reduction requirement. There are three main categories of credit-creating action: undertaking projects that reduce the lifecycle CI of liquid fossil fuels; supplying low carbon fuels and supplying fuel or energy to advanced vehicle technology. Several Canadian provinces have also promulgated legislation and regulations to implement low carbon fuel policies. We continue to evaluate evolving markets and legal regimes in the United States and Canada with respect to the beneficial use of low carbon fuels generated in connection with our operations.

G. Regulation of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Metals, or NORM

Certain states have enacted laws and regulations regulating NORM. In the course of our E&P waste operations, some of our equipment involved in E&P waste management and disposal may be exposed to naturally occurring radiation associated with oil and gas deposits. Further, certain E&P wastes we handle could be NORM contaminated. NORM wastes exhibiting levels of naturally occurring radiation exceeding established state standards are typically subject to special handling and disposal requirements, and any storage vessels, piping, equipment and work area affected by NORM waste may be subject to remediation or restoration requirements. It is possible that we may incur significant costs or liabilities associated with inadvertently handling NORM contaminated waste or equipment that becomes NORM contaminated based on exposure or contact with elevated levels of NORM.

H. Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR, Regulations

EPR regulations place responsibility on product manufacturers or suppliers to assume certain waste management or recycling responsibility for their products after such products’ useful life or otherwise impose obligations on product manufacturers or suppliers to reduce the volume of waste associated with their products.

EPR regulations have yet to be promulgated at the federal level in the United States, but have been promulgated or considered in state and local jurisdictions in the United States. For example, both Maine and Oregon enacted EPR legislation in 2021. Colorado and California enacted similar rules in 2022. These statutes require brands to provide funding to improve recycling infrastructure statewide. Other states have adopted partial EPR programs. For example, Connecticut has passed various EPR legislation. In its 2023 legislative session, Connecticut adopted a program that will require producers of plastic beverage containers to register beginning in April 2026 and establishes phased minimum post-consumer recycled content requirements for plastic beverage containers. In 2025, the nation’s first tire EPR law became effective in Connecticut. EPR regulations could have an adverse effect on our business if enacted at the federal level or if widely enacted by state or local governments.

Numerous provincial jurisdictions in Canada have promulgated EPR and related waste diversion legislation and other programs that mandate or encourage recycling and waste reduction and restrict the landfill disposal of certain types of waste. The enactment of new and more stringent regulations reducing the types or volumes of wastes available for disposal in landfills could impact our future operations.

I. Right-to-Repair

President Joe Biden issued Executive Order 14036 on July 9, 2021, directing the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, in the United States to draft regulations that limit the ability of original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, to restrict independent repairs of their products. This order aims to reduce the amount of waste produced by electronics and other goods by reducing the cost to repair or refurbish damaged items rather than discarding them. On July 21, 2021, the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, voted unanimously to increase enforcement against practices that limit consumer repair choices, and brought its first right-to-repair cases in 2022. On December 29, 2022, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Digital Fair Repair Act into law, the first major electronics “right-to-repair” state legislation. Several other states followed in 2023. In April 2023, Colorado became the first state to pass right-to-repair laws for farmers, and Minnesota and California passed electronic right-to-repair laws in May and October 2023, respectively. Several states enacted various right-to-repair laws in 2025, including consumer electronics right-to-repair laws enacted by Oregon, Washington and Texas.

Similar regulatory initiatives are being introduced in Canada. For example, amendments to the federal Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair), came into force in 2024 that support the right to repair by allowing the circumvention of technological protection measures when maintaining or repairing a product without violating copyright laws. Certain provinces have also proposed or enacted right-to-repair legislation. If such rules are issued or new regulatory requirements come into force, demand for electronic waste disposal could be reduced, potentially representing a reduction in demand for our services.

J. State Public Utility Regulation

In some states, public authorities regulate the rates that landfill operators may charge. The adoption of rate regulation or the reduction of current rates in states in which we own or operate landfills could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

K. Inflation Reduction Act

The Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, of 2022 put in place broad-reaching tax, loan, incentive and other programs, although many such programs were revised or repealed pursuant to the July 2025 OBBA. The IRA’s provisions include, but are not limited to: a lower eligibility threshold and higher dollar value for the updated 45Q tax credit for carbon capture and sequestration; new and expanded tax credits for certain renewable energy projects as well as tax credits for certain biogas projects for which construction is initiated by December 31, 2024; commercial electric vehicle credits; a charge on methane emissions from selected entities in the oil and gas industry; and reinstatement of the hazardous substance Superfund financing rate, among others. The OBBA, among other things, revised certain portions of the 45Q tax credit for carbon capture and sequestration and the IRA’s renewable energy tax credit provisions, repealed the commercial electric vehicle tax credit for vehicles acquired after September 30, 2025, and delayed until 2034 implementation of the charge on methane emissions from certain oil and gas industry sources. It is possible that, as implemented, the IRA or the OBBA could increase the costs of operation for certain of our customers, including in the oil and gas industry. In the event that the IRA or the OBBA, as implemented, increase operational costs for our customers or reduces oil and gas E&P activities by our customers, it could adversely affect our business. At this time, it is unclear how the credits, fees, and programs set forth in the IRA or the OBBA will impact our business or our customers’ businesses.

RISK MANAGEMENT, INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SURETY BONDS

Risk Management

We maintain environmental and other risk management programs that we believe are appropriate for our business. Our environmental risk management program includes evaluating existing facilities and potential acquisitions for environmental law compliance. We do not presently expect environmental compliance costs to increase materially above current levels, but we cannot predict whether compliance matters at existing facilities or future acquisitions will cause material cost increases. We also maintain a worker safety program that encourages safe practices in the workplace. Operating practices at our operations emphasize minimizing the possibility of environmental contamination and litigation. Our risk management programs are designed, we believe, to ensure that our facilities are in material compliance with applicable federal, state and provincial regulations.

Insurance

We maintain an insurance program for automobile liability, general liability, employer’s liability claims, environmental liability, cyber liability, employment practices liability and directors’ and officers’ liability as well as for employee group health insurance, property and workers’ compensation. Our loss exposure for insurance claims is generally limited to per incident deductibles or self-insured retentions. Losses in excess of deductible or self-insured retention levels are insured subject to policy limits.

Under our current Company-wide insurance program, we carry per incident deductibles or self-insured retentions ranging from $250,000 to $2 million for cyber liability and directors’ and officers’ liability claims. Additionally, we have umbrella policies with insurance companies for automobile liability, general liability and employer’s liability. Our property insurance limits are in accordance with the replacement values of the insured property.

Under our current insurance program for our U.S. operations, we carry per incident deductibles or self-insured retentions ranging from $350,000 to $50 million for automobile liability claims, workers’ compensation and employer’s liability claims, general liability claims, employee group health insurance and employment practices liability, environmental liability, and for most property claims, subject to certain additional terms and conditions. Since workers’ compensation is a statutory coverage limited by the various state jurisdictions, the umbrella coverage is not applicable. Our environmental protection insurance policy covers all owned or operated landfills, transfer stations and other facilities, subject to the policy terms and conditions. From time to time, actions filed against us include claims for punitive damages, which are generally excluded from coverage under our liability insurance policies. Our policy provides insurance for new pollution conditions that originate after the commencement of our coverage. Pollution conditions existing prior to the commencement of our coverage, if found, could be excluded from coverage.

Under our current insurance program for our Canadian operations, we carry per incident deductibles or self-insured retentions ranging from $350,000 to $22.5 million for automobile liability claims, property claims, employment practices liability and environmental liability. Since workers’ compensation is a provincial coverage limited by the various province jurisdictions, the umbrella coverage is not applicable. Employees are eligible to receive health coverage under Canada’s public health care system and, in addition, most employees of our Canadian operations are eligible to participate in group medical and drug coverage plans sponsored by us. Our environmental protection insurance policy covers all owned or operated landfills, transfer stations and other facilities, subject to the policy terms and conditions. Our policy provides insurance for new pollution conditions that originate after the commencement of our coverage. Pollution conditions existing prior to the commencement of our coverage, if found, could be excluded from coverage.

Financial Surety Bonds

We use financial surety bonds for a variety of corporate guarantees. The financial surety bonds are primarily used for guaranteeing municipal contract performance and providing financial assurances to meet asset closure and retirement requirements under certain environmental regulations. In addition to surety bonds, such guarantees and obligations may also be met through alternative financial assurance instruments, including insurance, letters of credit and restricted cash and investment deposits. At December 31, 2025 and 2024, we had provided customers and various regulatory authorities

with surety bonds in the aggregate amount of approximately $1.040 billion and $934.3 million, respectively, to secure our asset closure and retirement requirements and $1.117 billion and $1.077 billion, respectively, to secure performance under collection contracts and landfill operating agreements.

We source financial surety bonds from a variety of third-party insurance and surety companies, including a company in which we own a 9.9% interest that, among other activities, issues financial surety bonds to secure landfill final capping, closure and post-closure obligations for companies operating in the solid waste sector.

SEASONALITY

Based on historic trends, excluding any impact from an economic recession, we would expect our operating results to vary seasonally, with revenues typically lowest in the first quarter, higher in the second and third quarters and lower in the fourth quarter than in the second and third quarters. This seasonality reflects (a) the lower volume of solid waste generated during the late fall, winter and early spring because of decreased construction and demolition activities during winter months in Canada and the U.S. and (b) reduced E&P activity during harsh weather conditions, with expected fluctuation due to such seasonality between our highest and lowest quarters of approximately 10%. In addition, some of our operating costs may be higher in the winter months. Adverse winter weather conditions slow waste collection activities, resulting in higher labor and operational costs. Greater precipitation in the winter increases the weight of collected MSW, resulting in higher disposal costs, which are calculated primarily on a per ton basis.

INFORMATION ABOUT OUR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The following table sets forth certain information concerning our executive officers as of February 2, 2026:

Name

​ ​ ​

Age

​ ​ ​

Positions

Ronald J. Mittelstaedt

62

President and Chief Executive Officer

Jason J. Craft

50

Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer

James M. Little

64

Executive Vice President – Engineering and Disposal

Patrick J. Shea

55

Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

Mary Anne Whitney

62

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Matthew S. Black

53

Senior Vice President and Chief Tax Officer

Aaron J. Bradley

44

Senior Vice President – Performance Optimization

Robert M. Cloninger

53

Senior Vice President, Deputy General Counsel and Assistant Secretary

Eric O. Hansen

60

Senior Vice President – Chief Information Officer

Susan R. Netherton

56

Senior Vice President – People, Training and Development

Robert A. Nielsen III

Senior Vice President – Operations

Dan Pio

Senior Vice President – Operations

Philip J. Rivard

Senior Vice President – Business Development

Derek Tan

Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer

Ronald J. Mittelstaedt has been President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company since April 2023. ​ From July 2019 to that date, Mr. Mittelstaedt served as Executive Chairman of the Company. From its formation in 1997 to July 2019, Mr. Mittelstaedt served as Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Mr. Mittelstaedt has served as a director of the Company since its formation and serves on the Executive Committee. Mr. Mittelstaedt was elected Chairman in January 1998 and served in that capacity until stepping down to serve as President and Chief Executive Officer in April 2023. He also served as President of the Company from its formation through August 2004. Mr. Mittelstaedt has more than 35 years of experience in the solid waste industry. He serves as a director of SkyWest, Inc. Mr. Mittelstaedt holds a B.A. degree in Business Economics with a finance emphasis from the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Jason J. Craft has been Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company since August 2025. From July 2023 to that date, Mr. Craft served as a Regional Vice President of the Company. From July 2020 to July 2023, Mr. Craft served as Senior Vice President – Operations of the Company. From December 2014 to July 2020, Mr. Craft served as a Regional Vice President of the Company. From February 2010 to December 2014, Mr. Craft served as a Divisional Vice President of the Company. From July 2006 to February 2010, Mr. Craft served as a District Manager of the Company, and from November 2003 to July 2006 he served as a member of the Company’s Operations Analysis and Integrations department. From April 2003 until November 2003, Mr. Craft served as a member of the Company’s Internal Audit department. Mr. Craft held various accounting positions with The Newark Group Inc. from June 2000 to April 2003. Mr. Craft spent seven years in the military, both in the U.S. Navy and the Army National Guard. Mr. Craft holds a B.S. degree in Accounting from Montana State University.

James M. Little has been Executive Vice President – Engineering and Disposal of the Company since July 2019. From February 2009 to that date, Mr. Little served as Senior Vice President – Engineering and Disposal of the Company. From September 1999 to February 2009, Mr. Little served as Vice President – Engineering of the Company. Mr. Little held various management positions with Waste Management, Inc. (formerly USA Waste Services, Inc., which acquired Waste Management, Inc. and Chambers Development Co. Inc.) from April 1990 to September 1999, including Regional Environmental Manager and Regional Landfill Manager, and most recently Division Manager in Ohio, where he was responsible for the operations of ten operating companies in the Northern Ohio area. Mr. Little is a certified professional geologist and holds a B.S. degree in Geology from Slippery Rock University.

Patrick J. Shea has been Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of the Company since July 2019. From August 2014 to that date, Mr. Shea served as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of the Company. From February 2009 to August 2014, Mr. Shea served as Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of the Company. He served as General Counsel and Secretary of the Company from February 2008 to February 2009 and Corporate Counsel of the Company from February 2004 to February 2008. Mr. Shea practiced corporate and securities law with Brobeck,

Phleger & Harrison LLP in San Francisco from 1999 to 2003 and Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts (now Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP) in New York and London from 1995 to 1999. Mr. Shea holds a B.S. degree in Managerial Economics from the University of California at Davis and a J.D. degree from Cornell University.

Mary Anne Whitney has been Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company since February 2021. From July 2018 to that date, Ms. Whitney served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company. From February 2018 to July 2018, Ms. Whitney served as Senior Vice President - Finance of the Company. From March 2012 to February 2018, Ms. Whitney served as Vice President - Finance of the Company. From November 2006 to March 2012, Ms. Whitney served as Director of Finance of the Company. Ms. Whitney held various finance positions for Wheelabrator Technologies from 1990 to 2001. She serves on the Board of Directors of Vestis Corp. Ms. Whitney holds a B.A. degree in Economics from Georgetown University and an M.B.A. in Finance from New York University Stern School of Business.

Matthew S. Black has been Senior Vice President and Chief Tax Officer of the Company since May 2025. From February 2023 to that date, Mr. Black served as Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company. From January 2017 to February 2023, Mr. Black served as Senior Vice President and Chief Tax Officer of the Company. From March 2012 to January 2017, Mr. Black served as Vice President and Chief Tax Officer of the Company. From December 2006 to March 2012, Mr. Black served as Executive Director of Taxes of the Company. Mr. Black served as Tax Director for The McClatchy Company from April 2001 to November 2006, and served as Tax Manager from December 2000 to March 2001. From January 1994 to November 2000, Mr. Black held various positions, including Tax Manager, for PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Mr. Black is a Certified Public Accountant and holds a B.S. degree in Accounting and Master’s degree in Taxation from California State University, Sacramento.

Aaron J. Bradley has been Senior Vice President – Performance Optimization of the Company since February 2025. ​ From March 2022 to that date, Mr. Bradley served as a Regional Vice President of the Company. ​ From October 2018 to March 2022, Mr. Bradley served as a Divisional Vice President of the Company. ​ From September 2015 to October 2018, Mr. Bradley served as a District Manager of the Company. From April 2010 to September 2015, Mr. Bradley held various positions for the Company, including Assistant District Manager, Division Controller, District Controller, and Assistant Controller. Prior to joining the Company in April 2010, Mr. Bradley served as Controller and Chief Financial Officer for Burks Tractor Company. ​ Mr. Bradley holds a B.S. degree in Finance and an M.B.A. from Idaho State University.

Robert M. Cloninger has been Senior Vice President, Deputy General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of the Company since February 2022. From August 2014 to that date, Mr. Cloninger served as Vice President, Deputy General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of the Company. From February 2013 to August 2014, Mr. Cloninger served as Deputy General Counsel of the Company. He served as Corporate Counsel of the Company from February 2008 to February 2013. Mr. Cloninger practiced corporate, securities and mergers and acquisitions law with Schiff Hardin LLP in Chicago from 1999 to 2004 and Downey Brand LLP in Sacramento from 2004 to 2008. Mr. Cloninger holds a B.A. degree in History from Northwestern University and a J.D. degree from the University of California at Davis.

Eric O. Hansen has been Senior Vice President – Chief Information Officer of the Company since February 2019. From July 2004 to that date, Mr. Hansen served as Vice President – Chief Information Officer of the Company. From January 2001 to July 2004, Mr. Hansen served as Vice President – Information Technology of the Company. From April 1998 to December 2000, Mr. Hansen served as Director of Management Information Systems of the Company. Mr. Hansen holds a B.S. degree from Portland State University.

Susan R. Netherton has been Senior Vice President – People, Training and Development of the Company since February 2022. From July 2013 to that date, Ms. Netherton served as Vice President – People, Training and Development of the Company. From February 2007 to July 2013, Ms. Netherton served as Director of Human Resources and Employment Manager of the Company. From 1994 to 2007, Ms. Netherton held various human resources positions at Carpenter Technology Corporation, a publicly-traded, specialty metals and materials company. Ms. Netherton holds a B.S. in Elementary Education from Kutztown University and an M.B.A. from St. Mary’s College of California.

Robert A. Nielsen III has been Senior Vice President – Operations of the Company since July 2023. From April 2002 to that date, Mr. Nielsen served as a Region Vice President of the Company, including for its Southern, Western and

Eastern Regions. From May 1999 to April 2002, Mr. Nielsen served as a District Manager of the Company. Prior to joining the Company in May 1999, Mr. Nielsen worked for Browning Ferris Industries as an Area Vice President of Recycling. Mr. Nielsen holds a B.S. degree in Agriculture from University of Maine.

Dan Pio has been Senior Vice President – Operations of the Company since July 2023. From June 2016 to that date, Mr. Pio served as a President of Waste Connections of Canada. From January 2016 to June 2016, Mr. Pio served as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Integration Officer of Progressive Waste Solutions Ltd. prior to its merger with the Company. From October 2013 to January 2016, Mr. Pio served as Executive Vice President, Strategy and Business Development for Progressive Waste Solutions Ltd. From March 2010 to October 2013, Mr. Pio served as Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of BFI Canada. From January 2001 to October 2005, Mr. Pio served as Senior Vice President with Waste Management, Inc. and President of Waste Management of Canada. During his over 35 years in the solid waste industry, Mr. Pio also held senior level positions at USA Waste Services and Laidlaw Waste Systems. Mr. Pio holds a B.A. Economics degree from McMaster University.

Philip J. Rivard has been Senior Vice President – Business Development of the Company since July 2023. From April 2022 to that date, Mr. Rivard served as Executive Director and Head of M&A of the Company. From July 2001 to March 2022, Mr. Rivard served as a Regional Vice President of the Company. From August 1999 to June 2001, Mr. Rivard served as a Divisional Vice President of the Company. From October 1997 to July 1999, Mr. Rivard served as a Business Development Manager of the Company. From July 1988 to September 1997, Mr. Rivard held various positions with USA Waste Services Inc., Sanifill, Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries. Mr. Rivard worked as an external auditor at Touche Ross & Co. from June 1986 to June 1988. Mr. Rivard holds a B.S. degree in Accounting from Metropolitan State University of Denver.

Derek Tan has been Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company since May 2025. From February 2025 to that date, Mr. Tan served as Vice President – Financial Reporting of the Company. From January 2020 to February 2025, Mr. Tan served as Region Controller - Canada of the Company. From May 2016 to December 2019, Mr. Tan served as Assistant Region Controller - Canada of the Company. Mr. Tan served as Accounting Director for Quidsi, a subsidiary of Amazon, from June 2015 to April 2016. From June 2013 to May 2015, Mr. Tan held various District Controller positions with the Company. From September 2008 to May 2013, Mr. Tan held various positions, including Audit Senior, for Deloitte. Mr. Tan is a Certified Public Accountant in the United States and a Chartered Professional Accountant in Canada. Mr. Tan holds a B.A. degree in Criminology from Simon Fraser University, Diploma in Accounting from the University of British Columbia, and Master’s degree in Accounting from the University of Saskatchewan.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

Our corporate website address is www.wasteconnections.com. We make our reports on Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K and any amendments to such reports available on our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we file them with or furnish them to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, and with the securities commissions or similar regulatory authorities in Canada. The SEC maintains an internet website at www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. The references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to our website address or any third party’s website address, including but not limited to the SEC’s website and any websites maintained by the securities commissions or similar regulatory authorities in Canada, do not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained in those websites and should not be considered part of this document unless otherwise expressly stated.