XML 48 R29.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Environmental Matters The Company accrues for potential environmental liabilities when it is probable a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability is reasonably estimable. The following table presents the location and amount of reserves for environmental liabilities in the Company's consolidated statements of financial position (in millions):
| September 30,
| 2022 |  | 2021
Other current liabilities | $ | 66 |  |  | $ | 48 |
Other noncurrent liabilities | 220 |  |  | 54 |
Total reserves for environmental liabilities | $ | 286 |  |  | $ | 102 |
The Company periodically examines whether the contingent liabilities related to the environmental matters described below are probable and reasonably estimable based on experience and ongoing developments in those matters, including continued study and analysis of ongoing remediation obligations. During the three months ended September 30, 2022, with the assistance of independent environmental consultants and taking into consideration investigation and remediation actions previously completed, new information available to the Company during the fourth quarter of 2022 and ongoing discussions with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ("WDNR"), the Company completed a comprehensive long-term analysis and cost assessment related to the Company’s ongoing environmental remediation obligations. As a result of this analysis, the Company increased its accrual for environmental liabilities by $228 million, which are recorded on an undiscounted basis. The Company expects that it will pay the amounts recorded over an estimated period of up to 20 years. The Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of the established accruals for environmental liabilities at this time. A substantial portion of the increase to the Company's environmental reserves relates to ongoing long-term remediation efforts to address contamination relating to fire-fighting foams containing perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS"), perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"), and/or other per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") at or near the Tyco Fire Products L.P. (“Tyco Fire Products”) Fire Technology Center ("FTC") located in Marinette, Wisconsin and surrounding areas in the City of Marinette and Town of Peshtigo, Wisconsin, as well as the continued remediation of PFAS, arsenic and other contaminants at the Tyco Fire Products Stanton Street manufacturing facility also located in Marinette, Wisconsin (the “Stanton Street Facility”). The increase in reserves was recorded as a result of several events that occurred in the three months ended September 30, 2022, including the completion and testing of the Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System (“GETS”) at the FTC (as further discussed below), the completion of resident surveys in Peshtigo regarding long-term drinking water solutions, correspondence with regulators on planned remediation activities, finalization of cost estimates for system upgrades and related long-term run rate costs in response to new permit requirements at the Stanton Street Facility, and the development of additional information through ongoing investigation and analysis. These events have allowed the Company to develop estimates of costs associated with the long-term remediation actions expected to be performed over an estimated period of up to 20 years, including the continued operation of the GETS, the implementation of long-term drinking water solutions, continued monitoring and testing of the wells, the operation and wind-down of other legacy remediation and treatment systems and the completion of ongoing investigation obligations. The use of fire-fighting foams at the FTC was primarily for training and testing purposes to ensure that such products sold by the Company’s affiliates, Chemguard, Inc. ("Chemguard") and Tyco Fire Products, were effective at suppressing high intensity fires that may occur at military installations, airports or elsewhere. In May 2021, as part of Tyco Fire Products’ ongoing investigation and remediation program, the WDNR approved Tyco Fire Products’ proposed GETS, a permanent groundwater remediation system that will extract groundwater that contains PFAS, treat it using advanced filtration systems, and return the treated water to the environment. Tyco Fire Products has completed construction of the GETS, which is now in operation. Tyco Fire Products is also in the process of completing the removal and disposal of PFAS-affected soil from the FTC. Tyco Fire Products has been engaged in remediation activities at the Stanton Street Facility since 1990. Its corporate predecessor, Ansul Incorporated (“Ansul”) manufactured arsenic-based agricultural herbicides at the Stanton Street Facility, which resulted in significant arsenic contamination of soil and groundwater on the site and in parts of the adjoining Menominee River. In 2009, Ansul entered into an Administrative Consent Order (the "Consent Order") with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to address the presence of arsenic at the site. Under this agreement, Tyco Fire Products’ principal obligations are to contain the arsenic contamination on the site, pump and treat on-site groundwater, dredge, treat and properly dispose of contaminated sediments in the adjoining river areas, and monitor contamination levels on an ongoing basis. Activities completed under the Consent Order since 2009 include the installation of a subsurface barrier wall around the facility to contain contaminated groundwater, the installation of a groundwater extraction and treatment system and the dredging and offsite disposal of treated river sediment. In addition to ongoing remediation activities, the Company is also working with the WDNR to investigate and remediate the presence of PFAS at or near the Stanton Street Facility as part of the evaluation and remediation of PFAS in the Marinette region. PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS compounds are being studied by EPA and other environmental and health agencies and researchers. EPA has not issued binding regulatory limits, but had initially stated that it would propose regulatory standards for PFOS and PFOA in drinking water by the end of 2019, in accordance with its PFAS Action Plan released in February 2019, and issued interim recommendations for addressing PFOA and PFOS in groundwater in December 2019. In March 2021, EPA published its final determination to regulate PFOS and PFOA in drinking water. While those studies continue, EPA issued in June 2022 an updated set of interim health advisory levels for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water, as well as final health advisory levels for two other types of PFAS (PFBS and GenX chemicals). In November 2022, EPA added a class definition of PFAS to the final version of EPA's fifth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 5), which is a list of substances not currently subject to national drinking water regulation, but which EPA believes may require future regulation. In October 2021, EPA released its "PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA's Commitments to Action 2021-2024." The 2021-2024 Roadmap sets timelines by which EPA plans to take specific actions, including, among other items, publishing a national PFAS testing strategy, proposing to designate PFOA and PFOS as Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act hazardous substances, restricting PFAS discharges from industrial sources through Effluent Limitations Guidelines, publishing the final toxicity assessment for five additional PFAS, requiring water systems to test for 29 PFAS under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and publishing improved analytical methods in eight different environmental matrices to monitor 40 PFAS present in wastewater and stormwater discharges. Both PFOA and PFOS are types of synthetic chemical compounds that have been present in firefighting foam. However, both are also present in many existing consumer products. According to EPA, PFOA and PFOS have been used to make carpets, clothing, fabrics for furniture, paper packaging for food and other materials (e.g., cookware) that are resistant to water, grease or stains. In August 2022, EPA published a proposed rule that would designate PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA. It is difficult to estimate the Company’s ultimate level of liability at many remediation sites due to the large number of other parties that may be involved, the complexity of determining the relative liability among those parties, the financial viability of other potentially responsible parties and third-party indemnitors, the uncertainty as to the nature and scope of the investigations and remediation to be conducted, changes in environmental regulations, changes in permissible levels of specific compounds in drinking water sources, or changes in enforcement theories and policies, including efforts to recover natural resource damages, the uncertainty in the application of law and risk assessment, the various choices and costs associated with diverse technologies that may be used in corrective actions at the sites, and the often quite lengthy periods over which eventual remediation may occur. It is possible that technological, regulatory or enforcement developments, the results of additional environmental studies or other factors could change the Company's expectations with respect to future charges and cash outlays, and such changes could be material to the Company's future results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Nevertheless, the Company does not currently believe that any claims, penalties or costs in addition to the amounts accrued will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, the Company has identified asset retirement obligations for environmental matters that are expected to be addressed at the retirement, disposal, removal or abandonment of existing owned facilities. Conditional asset retirement obligations were $17 million and $29 million at September 30, 2022 and 2021, respectively. FTC-Related Remediation and Litigation On June 21, 2019, the WDNR announced that it had received from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (“WDHS”) a recommendation for groundwater quality standards as to, among other compounds, PFOA and PFOS. The WDHS recommended a groundwater enforcement standard for PFOA and PFOS of 20 parts per trillion. Although Wisconsin recently approved final regulatory standards for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water and surface water, the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board did not approve WDNR's proposed standards for PFOA and PFOS in groundwater. In September 2022, the Governor of Wisconsin signed a scope statement setting out parameters for the WDNR to draft a final rule regarding groundwater quality standards for PFOA and PFOS, among other compounds. The WDNR is now in the process of drafting the rule. In July 2019, the Company received a letter from the WDNR directing the expansion of the evaluation of PFAS in the Marinette region to include (1) biosolids sludge produced by the City of Marinette Waste Water Treatment Plant and spread on certain fields in the area and (2) the Menominee and Peshtigo Rivers. Tyco Fire Products responded to the WDNR’s letter by requesting additional necessary information. On October 16, 2019, the WDNR issued a “Notice of Noncompliance” to Tyco Fire Products and Johnson Controls, Inc. regarding the WDNR’s July 3, 2019 letter. The WDNR issued a further letter regarding the issue on November 4, 2019. In February 2020, the WDNR sent a letter to Tyco Fire Products and Johnson Controls, Inc. further directing the expansion of the evaluation of PFAS in the Marinette region to include investigation activities south and west of the previously defined FTC study area. In September 2021, the WDNR sent an additional “Notice of Noncompliance” to Tyco Fire Products and Johnson Controls, Inc. concerning land-applied biosolids, which reviewed and responded to the Company’s biosolids investigation conducted to date. Tyco Fire Products responded to the WDNR’s September 2021 notice by the December 27, 2021 deadline set by WDNR and submitted a Land Applied Biosolids Interim Site Status Update Report to WDNR on October 25, 2022. Tyco Fire Products and Johnson Controls, Inc. believe that they have complied with all applicable environmental laws and regulations. The Company cannot predict what regulatory or enforcement actions, if any, might result from the WDNR’s actions, or the consequences of any such actions. In March 2022, the Wisconsin Department of Justice (“WDOJ”) filed a civil enforcement action against Johnson Controls Inc. and Tyco Fire Products in Wisconsin state court relating to environmental matters at the FTC (State of Wisconsin v. Tyco Fire Products, LP and Johnson Controls, Inc., Case No. 22-CX-1 (filed March 14, 2022 in Circuit Court in Marinette County, Wisconsin)). The WDOJ alleges that the Company failed to timely report the presence of PFAS chemicals at the FTC, and that the Company has not sufficiently investigated or remediated PFAS at or near the FTC. The WDOJ seeks monetary penalties and an injunction ordering these two subsidiaries to complete a site investigation and cleanup of PFAS contamination in accordance with the WDNR's requests. The lawsuit is presently at the beginning stages of litigation. Tyco Fire Products and Johnson Controls, Inc. each filed Answers to the Complaint on April 4, 2022 and the parties are proceeding with initial fact discovery. The Company is vigorously defending this civil enforcement action and believes that it has meritorious defenses, but the Company is presently unable to predict the duration, scope, or outcome of this action. In October 2022, the Town of Peshtigo filed a tort action in Wisconsin state court against Tyco Fire Products, Johnson Controls Inc., Chemguard, Inc., and ChemDesign, Inc. relating to environmental matters at the FTC (Town of Peshtigo v. Tyco Fire Products L.P. et al., Case No. 2022CV000234 (filed October 18, 2022 in Circuit Court in Marinette County, Wisconsin)). The town alleges that use of AFFF products at the FTC caused contamination of water supplies in Peshtigo. The town seeks monetary penalties and an injunction ordering abatement of PFAS contamination in Peshtigo. The lawsuit is presently at the beginning stages of litigation. The Company was served with the operative complaint on October 21, 2022. The Company plans to vigorously defend against this case and believes that it has meritorious defenses, but the Company is presently unable to predict the duration, scope, or outcome of this action. Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF") Litigation Two of the Company's subsidiaries, Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products, have been named, along with other defendant manufacturers, suppliers and distributors, and, in some cases, certain subsidiaries of the Company affiliated with Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products, in a number of class action and other lawsuits relating to the use of fire-fighting foam products by the U.S. Department of Defense (the "DOD") and others for fire suppression purposes and related training exercises. Plaintiffs generally allege that the firefighting foam products contain or break down into the chemicals PFOS and PFOA and/or other PFAS compounds and that the use of these products by others at various airbases, airports and other sites resulted in the release of these chemicals into the environment and ultimately into communities’ drinking water supplies neighboring those airports, airbases and other sites. Plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages, including damages for alleged personal injuries, medical monitoring, diminution in property values, investigation and remediation costs, and natural resources damages, and also seek punitive damages and injunctive relief to address remediation of the alleged contamination. In September 2018, Tyco Fire Products and Chemguard filed a Petition for Multidistrict Litigation with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) seeking to consolidate all existing and future federal cases into one jurisdiction. On December 7, 2018, the JPML issued an order transferring various AFFF cases to a multi-district litigation (“MDL”) before the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Additional cases have been identified for transfer to or are being directly filed in the MDL. AFFF Putative Class Actions Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products are named in 33 pending putative class actions in federal courts originating from Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, New Hampshire, South Carolina, the District of Columbia, Guam, West Virginia, Michigan, Texas and South Dakota. All of these cases except one have been direct-filed in or transferred to the MDL, and the remaining action was recently removed to federal court and will be tagged for transfer to the MDL shortly. AFFF Individual or Mass Actions There are more than 2,900 individual or “mass” actions pending that were filed in state or federal court in various states including California, Colorado, New York, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Missouri, Arizona, Texas, and South Carolina against Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products and other defendants in which the plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages, including damages for alleged personal injuries, medical monitoring, and alleged diminution in property values. The cases involve plaintiffs from various states including approximately 7,000 plaintiffs in Colorado and more than 2,900 other plaintiffs. The vast majority of these matters have been tagged for transfer to, transferred to, or directly-filed in the MDL, and it is anticipated that several newly-filed state court actions will be similarly tagged and transferred. There are several matters that are proceeding in state courts, including actions in Arizona, Illinois, and Texas. Tyco and Chemguard are also periodically notified by other individuals that they may assert claims regarding PFOS and/or PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of AFFF. AFFF Municipal and Water Provider Cases Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products have been named as defendants in more than 250 cases in federal and state courts involving municipal or water provider plaintiffs in various states including Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, the District of Columbia, and several municipalities or water providers from various states who direct-filed complaints in South Carolina. The vast majority of these cases have been transferred to or directly filed in the MDL, and it is anticipated that the remaining cases will be transferred to the MDL. These municipal plaintiffs generally allege that the use of the defendants’ fire-fighting foam products at fire training academies, municipal airports, Air National Guard bases, or Navy or Air Force bases released PFOS and PFOA into public water supply wells, allegedly requiring remediation of public property. Tyco and Chemguard are also periodically notified by other municipal entities that those entities may assert claims regarding PFOS and/or PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of AFFF. State or U.S. Territory Attorneys General Litigation related to AFFF In June 2018, the State of New York filed a lawsuit in New York state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al No. 904029-18 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)) against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting foams used at locations across New York, including Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh and Gabreski Air National Guard Base in Southampton, Plattsburgh Air Force Base in Plattsburgh, Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, and unspecified “other” sites throughout the State. The lawsuit seeks to recover costs and natural resource damages associated with contamination at these sites. This suit has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York and transferred to the MDL. In February 2019, the State of New York filed a second lawsuit in New York state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)), against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting foams used at additional locations across New York. This suit has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York and transferred to the MDL. In July 2019, the State of New York filed a third lawsuit in New York state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)), against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting foams used at further additional locations across New York. This suit has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York and transferred to the MDL. In November 2019, the State of New York filed a fourth lawsuit in New York state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)), against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting foams used at further additional locations across New York. This suit has been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. In January 2019, the State of Ohio filed a lawsuit in Ohio state court (State of Ohio v. The 3M Company et al., No. G-4801-CI-021804752-000 (Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County, Ohio)) against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various specified and unspecified locations across Ohio. The lawsuit seeks to recover costs and natural resource damages associated with the contamination. This lawsuit has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and transferred to the MDL. In addition, in May and June 2019, three other states filed lawsuits in their respective state courts against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various specified and unspecified locations across their jurisdictions (State of New Hampshire v. The 3M Company et al.; State of Vermont v. The 3M Company et al.; State of New Jersey v. The 3M Company et al.). All three of these suits have been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. In September 2019, the government of Guam filed a lawsuit in the superior court of Guam against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various locations within its jurisdiction. This complaint has been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. In November 2019, the government of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands filed a lawsuit in the superior court of the Northern Mariana Islands against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various locations within its jurisdiction. This complaint has been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. In August 2020, the Attorney General of the State of Michigan filed two substantially similar lawsuits—one in federal court and one in state court—against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various locations within the State. The federal action has been transferred to the MDL, and the state court action has been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. In December 2020, the State of Mississippi filed a lawsuit against a number of manufacturers and other defendants, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA damage of the State’s land and natural resources allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various locations throughout the State. This complaint was direct-filed in the MDL in South Carolina. In April 2021, the State of Alaska filed a lawsuit in the superior court of the State of Alaska against a number of manufacturers and other defendants, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA damage of the State’s land and natural resources allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various locations throughout the State. The State’s case has been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. The State of Alaska has also named a number of manufacturers and other defendants, including affiliates of the Company, as third-party defendants in two cases brought by individuals against the State. These two cases have also been transferred to the MDL. In early November 2021, the Attorney General of the State of North Carolina filed four individual lawsuits in the superior courts of the State of North Carolina against a number of manufacturers and other defendants, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA damage of the State’s land, natural resources, and property allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at four separate locations throughout the State. These four cases have been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. In October 2022, the Attorney General filed two similar lawsuits in the superior courts of the State of North Carolina regarding alleged PFAS damages at two additional locations. It is anticipated that these two cases will be removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. In February 2022, the Attorney General of the State of Colorado filed a lawsuit in Colorado state court against a number of manufacturers and other defendants, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA damage of the State's land and natural resources, public health, and State property allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various locations throughout the State. This complaint has been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. In April 2022, the Attorney General of the State of Florida filed a lawsuit in Florida state court against a number of manufacturers and other defendants, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA damage to the State's natural resources and public health allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various locations throughout the State. It is anticipated that this complaint will be removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. In May 2022, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against a number of manufacturers and other defendants, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA damage of the State's natural resources, property, residents, and consumers allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various locations throughout the State. This complaint was direct-filed in the MDL in South Carolina. In July 2022, the Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin filed a lawsuit in Wisconsin state court against a number of manufacturers and other defendants, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFAS damage to the State's natural resources and public health allegedly resulting, in part, from the use of firefighting foams at various locations throughout the State. This complaint has been removed to federal court and tagged for transfer to the MDL. The Attorney General has opposed transfer, and the parties are awaiting a decision from the JPML. In November 2022, the Attorney General of the State of California filed a lawsuit in California state court against a number of manufacturers and other defendants, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA damage of the State’s land and natural resources allegedly resulting from the manufacture, use, marketing, or sale of PFAS-containing products, including firefighting foams, at various locations throughout the State. It is anticipated that this case will be removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. Other AFFF Related Matters In March 2020, the Kalispel Tribe of Indians (a federally recognized Tribe) and two tribal corporations filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, and the United States with respect to PFAS contamination allegedly resulting from the use and disposal of AFFF by the United States Air Force at and around Fairchild Air Force Base in eastern Washington. This case has been transferred to the MDL. In October 2022, the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (a federally recognized tribe) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFAS contamination allegedly resulting from the use and disposal of AFFF at Duluth Air National Guard Base in Duluth, Minnesota. This complaint has been transferred to the MDL. The Company is vigorously defending the above matters and believes that it has meritorious defenses to class certification and the claims asserted, including statutes of limitations, the government contractor defense, various medical and scientific defenses, and other factual and legal defenses. The government contractor defense is a form of immunity available to government contractors that produced products for the United States government pursuant to the government’s specifications. In September 2022, the AFFF MDL Court declined to grant summary judgment on the government contractor defense, ruling that various factual issues relevant to the defense must be decided by a jury rather than the Court. Tyco and Chemguard have insurance that has been in place for many years and the Company is pursuing this coverage for these matters. However, there are numerous factual and legal issues to be resolved in connection with these claims, and it is extremely difficult to predict the outcome or ultimate financial exposure, if any, represented by these matters, and there can be no assurance that any such exposure will not be material. Asbestos Matters The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials. These cases have typically involved product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components. The Company estimates the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs on a discounted basis. In connection with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the Company records asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are probable. The following table presents the location and amount of asbestos-related assets and liabilities in the Company's consolidated statements of financial position (in millions):
| September 30,
| 2022 |  | 2021
Other current liabilities | $ | 58 |  |  | $ | 58 |
Other noncurrent liabilities | 380 |  |  | 400 |
Total asbestos-related liabilities | 438 |  |  | 458 |
Other current assets | 37 |  |  | 13 |
Other noncurrent assets | 263 |  |  | 365 |
Total asbestos-related assets | 300 |  |  | 378 |
Net asbestos-related liabilities | $ | 138 |  |  | $ | 80 |
The following table presents the components of asbestos-related assets (in millions):
| September 30,
| 2022 |  | 2021
Restricted |  |  |
Cash | $ | 6 |  |  | $ | 6 |
Investments | 239 |  |  | 314 |
Total restricted assets | 245 |  |  | 320 |
Insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities | 55 |  |  | 58 |
Total asbestos-related assets | $ | 300 |  |  | $ | 378 |
The Company's estimate of the liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and future claims and defense costs is based on the Company's historical claim experience, and estimates of the number and resolution cost of potential future claims that may be filed and is discounted to present value from 2068 (which is the Company's reasonable best estimate of the actuarially determined time period through which asbestos-related claims will be paid by Company affiliates). Estimated asbestos-related defense costs are included in the asbestos liability. The Company's legal strategy for resolving claims also impacts these estimates. The Company considers various trends and developments in evaluating the period of time (the look-back period) over which historical claim and settlement experience is used to estimate and value claims reasonably projected to be paid through 2068. At least annually, the Company assesses the sufficiency of its estimated liability for pending and future claims and defense costs by evaluating actual experience regarding claims filed, settled and dismissed, and amounts paid in settlements. In addition to claims and settlement experience, the Company considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as changes in legislation, the legal environment, and the Company's defense strategy. The Company also evaluates the recoverability of its insurance receivable on an annual basis. The Company evaluates all of these factors and determines whether a change in the estimate of its liability for pending and future claims and defense costs or insurance receivable is warranted. The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the identity of defendants, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, amount of insurance, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Many of these factors are closely linked, such that a change in one variable or assumption may impact one or more of the others, and no single variable or assumption predominately influences the determination of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary significantly from actual results. Insurable Liabilities The Company records liabilities for its workers' compensation, product, general and auto liabilities. The determination of these liabilities and related expenses is dependent on claims experience. For most of these liabilities, claims incurred but not yet reported are estimated by utilizing actuarial valuations based upon historical claims experience. The Company maintains captive insurance companies to manage its insurable liabilities. The following table presents the location and amount of insurable liabilities in the Company's consolidated statements of financial position (in millions):
| September 30,
| 2022 |  | 2021
Other current liabilities | $ | 89 |  |  | $ | 77 |
Accrued compensation and benefits | 22 |  |  | 22 |
Other noncurrent liabilities | 230 |  |  | 226 |
Total insurable liabilities | $ | 341 |  |  | $ | 325 |
The following table presents the location and amount of insurable receivables in the Company's consolidated statements of financial position (in millions):
| September 30,
| 2022 |  | 2021
Other current assets | $ | 10 |  |  | $ | 5 |
Other noncurrent assets | 20 |  |  | 15 |
Total insurable receivables | $ | 30 |  |  | $ | 20 |
Other Matters The Company is involved in various lawsuits, claims and proceedings incident to the operation of its businesses, including those pertaining to product liability, environmental, safety and health, intellectual property, employment, commercial and contractual matters, and various other casualty matters. Although the outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty and some lawsuits, claims or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to us, it is management’s opinion that none of these will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Costs related to such matters were not material to the periods presented.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration