Tyco Fire Products L.P. (“Tyco Fire Products”), in coordination with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ("WDNR"), has been conducting an environmental assessment of its Fire Technology Center ("FTC") located in Marinette, Wisconsin and surrounding areas in the City of Marinette and Town of Peshtigo, Wisconsin. In connection with the assessment, perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") and perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and/or other per- and poly fluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") have been detected at the FTC and in groundwater and surface water outside of the

During the third quarter of 2019, the Company increased its environmental reserves, which included $140 million related to remediation efforts to be undertaken to address contamination relating to fire-fighting foams containing PFAS compounds at or near the FTC, as well as the continued remediation of arsenic and other contaminants at the Tyco Fire Products Stanton Street manufacturing facility also located in Marinette, Wisconsin (the “Stanton Street Facility”). The Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss in excess of the established accruals at this time.

A substantial portion of the increased reserves relates to remediation resulting from the use of fire-fighting foams containing PFAS at the FTC. The use of fire-fighting foams at the FTC was primarily for training and testing purposes in order 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. The reserve was recorded in the quarter ended June 30, 2019 following a comprehensive review by independent environmental consultants related to the presence of PFAS at or near the FTC, as well as remediation discussions with the WDNR.

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. On August 22, 2019, the Governor of Wisconsin issued an executive order that, among other things, directed the WDNR to create a PFAS Coordinating Council and to work with other Wisconsin agencies (including WDHS) to establish final groundwater quality standards based on the WDHS’s prior recommendation. On November 6, 2020, WDNR received further recommendations from WDHS regarding individual standards for 12 additional PFAS and a combined standard for four additional PFAS, PFOA, and PFOS.

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 voluntarily responded to the WDNR’s letter to request 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 2019 letter. The letter stated that “if you fail to take the actions required by Wis. Stat. § 292.11 to address this contamination, the DNR will move forward under Wis. Stat. § 292.31 to implement the SI workplan and evaluate further environmental enforcement actions and cost recovery under Wis. Stat. § 292.31(8).” 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. 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 May 2021, as part of Tyco Fire Products’ ongoing investigation and remediation program, WDNR approved Tyco Fire Products’ proposed Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System (“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 commenced construction on the GETS. Tyco Fire Products also has started the process of removing PFAS-affected soil from the FTC.

In December 2020, the Company received a notice from the Wisconsin Department of Justice (“WDOJ”) that the WDOJ was considering a potential civil enforcement action against the Company relating to environmental matters at the FTC including, but not limited to, the investigation and remediation of PFAS at or near the FTC as discussed above and the Company’s alleged failure to timely report the presence of PFAS chemicals at the FTC. Such enforcement action could seek civil monetary penalties and/or injunctive relief. The Company is presently unable to predict the duration, scope, or

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 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. The increase in the reserve related to the Stanton Street Facility in the third quarter of 2019 was recorded following a further review of the Consent Order, which resulted in the identification of several structural upgrades needed to preserve the effectiveness of prior remediation efforts. In addition to ongoing remediation activities, the Company is also working with the WDNR to investigate the presence of PFAS at or near the Stanton Street Facility as part of the evaluation of PFAS in the Marinette region.

Potential environmental liabilities accrued by the Company do not take into consideration possible recoveries of future insurance proceeds. They do, however, take into account the likely share other parties will bear at remediation sites. 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 uncertainty as to the nature and scope of the investigations and remediation to be conducted, 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. The Company recorded conditional asset retirement obligations for continuing operations of $29 million at both December 31, 2021 and September 30, 2021.

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'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). 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.

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.

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.

PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS compounds are being studied by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and other environmental and health agencies and researchers. The 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. While those studies continue, the EPA has issued a health advisory level for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. In March 2021, the EPA published its final determination to regulate PFOS and PFOA in drinking water. In October 2021, the EPA released its "PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA's Commitments to Action 2021-2024." The 2021-2024 Roadmap sets timelines by which the 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 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.

Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products are named in 32 putative class actions in federal courts originating from Colorado, Delaware, 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.

There are more than 1,900 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 1,900 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 three matters that are proceeding in state court: One case, Young v. Chemguard et al., was filed in superior court in Maricopa County, Arizona, removed to the United States District Court, District of Arizona, and tagged to the MDL, but was remanded to state court prior to being transferred to the MDL. The decision to remand the case to state court is currently being appealed. The second case, Forbach et al. v. Chemguard et al., was filed in superior court in Coconino County, Arizona, and is proceeding with initial discovery. The third case, Ellison-Wood v. Chemguard, Inc., et al., was filed recently in district court in Tarrant County, Texas.

Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products have been named as defendants in approximately 168 cases in federal and state courts involving municipal or water provider plaintiffs in 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. All but five 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.

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, 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 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.

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. 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.

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.