| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES Litigation Asbestos-Related Matters of Union Carbide Corporation A summary of Asbestos-Related Matters of Union Carbide Corporation can be found in Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 . Introduction Union Carbide is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that Union Carbide sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on Union Carbide’s premises, and Union Carbide’s responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former Union Carbide subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. (“Amchem”). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to Union Carbide’s products. Union Carbide expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed against Union Carbide and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future claims. Estimating the Asbestos-Related Liability Since 2003, Union Carbide has engaged Ankura Consulting Group, LLC ("Ankura"), a third party actuarial specialist, to review Union Carbide's historical asbestos-related claim and resolution activity in order to assist Union Carbide's management in estimating the asbestos-related liability. Each year, Ankura has reviewed the claim and resolution activity to determine the appropriateness of updating the most recent Ankura study. Based on the December 2017 Ankura review, and Union Carbide's own review of the data, Union Carbide's total asbestos-related liability through the terminal year of 2049, including asbestos-related defense and processing costs, was $1,369 million at December 31, 2017 , and included in “Accrued and other current liabilities” and “Asbestos-related liabilities - noncurrent” in the consolidated balance sheets. Each quarter, Union Carbide reviews claims filed, settled and dismissed, as well as average settlement and resolution costs by disease category. Union Carbide also considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of pending claims, trial experience of Union Carbide and other asbestos defendants, current spending for defense and processing costs, significant appellate rulings and legislative developments, trends in the tort system, and their respective effects on expected future resolution costs. Union Carbide's management considers all these factors in conjunction with the most recent Ankura study and determines whether a change in the estimate is warranted. Based on Union Carbide's review of 2018 activity, it was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at March 31, 2018 . Union Carbide's asbestos related liability for pending and future claims and defense and processing costs was $1,339 million at March 31, 2018 . Approximately 16 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 84 percent related to future claims. Summary The Company's management believes the amounts recorded by Union Carbide for the asbestos-related liability (including defense and processing costs) reflect reasonable and probable estimates of the liability based upon current, known facts. However, future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed and/or received each year and the average cost of defending and disposing of each such claim, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the United States over a significant period of time, could cause the actual costs for Union Carbide to be higher or lower than those projected or those recorded. Any such events could result in an increase or decrease in the recorded liability. Because of the uncertainties described above, Union Carbide cannot estimate the full range of the cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims facing Union Carbide and Amchem. As a result, it is reasonably possible that an additional cost of disposing of Union Carbide's asbestos-related claims, including future defense and processing costs, could have a material impact on the Company's results of operations and cash flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position. Bayer CropScience v. Dow AgroSciences ICC Arbitration A summary of the Bayer CropScience v. Dow AgroSciences ICC Arbitration can be found in Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017. On August 13, 2012, Bayer CropScience AG and Bayer CropScience NV (together, “Bayer”) filed a request for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC") International Court of Arbitration against Dow AgroSciences LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow, and other subsidiaries of Dow (collectively, “DAS”) under a 1992 license agreement executed by predecessors of the parties (the “License Agreement”). In its request for arbitration, Bayer alleged that (i) DAS breached the License Agreement, (ii) the License Agreement was properly terminated with no ongoing rights to DAS, (iii) DAS infringed its patent rights related to the use of the pat gene in certain soybean and cotton seed products, and (iv) Bayer was entitled to monetary damages and injunctive relief. DAS denied that it breached the License Agreement and asserted that the License Agreement remained in effect because it was not properly terminated. DAS also asserted that all of Bayer’s patents at issue are invalid and/or not infringed, and, therefore, for these reasons (and others), a license was not required. A three -member arbitration tribunal presided over the arbitration proceeding (the “tribunal”). In a decision dated October 9, 2015, the tribunal determined that (i) DAS breached the License Agreement, (ii) Bayer properly terminated the License Agreement, (iii) all of the patents remaining in the proceeding are valid and infringed, and (iv) that Bayer is entitled to monetary damages in the amount of $455 million inclusive of pre-judgment interest and costs (the “arbitral award”). One of the arbitrators, however, issued a partial dissent finding that all of the patents are invalid based on the double-patenting doctrine. The tribunal also denied Bayer’s request for injunctive relief. On March 1, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") affirmed the arbitral award. As a result of this action, in the first quarter of 2017, DAS recorded a loss of $469 million , inclusive of the arbitral award and post-judgment interest, which was included in "Sundry income (expense) - net" in the consolidated statements of income and related to the Agriculture segment. On May 26, 2017, DAS paid the $469 million arbitral award to Bayer as a result of that decision. On September 11, 2017, DAS filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to review the case, but the Court denied DAS’s petition. The litigation is now concluded with no risk of further liability. Rocky Flats Matter A summary of the Rocky Flats Matter can be found in Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017. Dow and Rockwell International Corporation ("Rockwell") (collectively, the "defendants") were defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in 1990 on behalf of property owners ("plaintiffs") in Rocky Flats, Colorado, who asserted claims for nuisance and trespass based on alleged property damage caused by plutonium releases from a nuclear weapons facility owned by the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") but operated by Dow and Rockwell. The plaintiffs tried their case as a public liability action under the Price Anderson Act ("PAA"). Dow and Rockwell litigated this matter in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ("District Court"), the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. On May 18, 2016, Dow, Rockwell and the plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement for $375 million , of which $131 million was paid by Dow. The DOE authorized the settlement pursuant to the PAA and the nuclear hazards indemnity provisions contained in Dow's and Rockwell's contracts. On April 28, 2017, the District Court conducted a fairness hearing and granted final judgment approving the class settlement and dismissed class claims against the defendants ("final judgment order"). On December 13, 2016, the United States Civil Board of Contract Appeals unanimously ordered the United States government to pay the amounts stipulated in the Settlement Agreement. On January 17, 2017, Dow received a full indemnity payment of $131 million from the United States government for Dow's share of the class settlement. On January 26, 2017, Dow placed $130 million in an escrow account for the settlement payment owed to the plaintiffs. The funds were subsequently released from escrow as a result of the final judgment order. The litigation is now concluded. Dow Silicones Chapter 11 Related Matters A summary of the Dow Silicones Chapter 11 Related Matters can be found in Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017. Introduction In 1995, Dow Silicones, then a 50 :50 joint venture between Dow and Corning Incorporated ("Corning"), voluntarily filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in order to resolve Dow Silicones' breast implant liabilities and related matters (the “Chapter 11 Proceeding”). Dow Silicones emerged from the Chapter 11 Proceeding on June 1, 2004 (the “Effective Date”) and is implementing the Joint Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”). The Plan provides funding for the resolution of breast implant and other product liability litigation covered by the Chapter 11 Proceeding and provides a process for the satisfaction of commercial creditor claims in the Chapter 11 Proceeding. As of June 1, 2016, Dow Silicones is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow. Breast Implant and Other Product Liability Claims Under the Plan, a product liability settlement program administered by an independent claims office (the “Settlement Facility”) was created to resolve breast implant and other product liability claims. Product liability claimants rejecting the settlement program in favor of pursuing litigation must bring suit against a litigation facility (the “Litigation Facility”). Dow Silicones has an obligation to fund the Settlement Facility and the Litigation Facility over a 16 -year period, commencing at the Effective Date. At March 31, 2018 , Dow Silicones and its insurers have made life-to-date payments of $1,762 million to the Settlement Facility and the Settlement Facility reported an unexpended balance of $130 million . Dow Silicones' liability for breast implant and other product liability claims ("Implant Liability") was $263 million at March 31, 2018 ( $263 million at December 31, 2017 ), which was included in "Other noncurrent obligations" in the consolidated balance sheets. Dow Silicones is not aware of circumstances that would change the factors used in estimating the Implant Liability and believes the recorded liability reflects the best estimate of the remaining funding obligations under the Plan; however, the estimate relies upon a number of significant assumptions, including: future claim filing levels in the Settlement Facility will be similar to those in a prior settlement program, which management uses to estimate future claim filing levels for the Settlement Facility; future acceptance rates, disease mix, and payment values will be materially consistent with historical experience; no material negative outcomes in future controversies or disputes over Plan interpretation will occur; and the Plan will not be modified. If actual outcomes related to any of these assumptions prove to be materially different, the future liability to fund the Plan may be materially different than the amount estimated. If Dow Silicones was ultimately required to fund the full liability up to the maximum capped value, the liability would be $2,015 million at March 31, 2018 . Commercial Creditor Issues The Plan provides that each of Dow Silicones' commercial creditors (the “Commercial Creditors”) would receive in cash the sum of (a) an amount equal to the principal amount of their claims and (b) interest on such claims. The actual amount of interest that will ultimately be paid to these Commercial Creditors is uncertain due to pending litigation between Dow Silicones and the Commercial Creditors regarding the appropriate interest rates to be applied to outstanding obligations from the 1995 bankruptcy filing date through the Effective Date, as well as the presence of any recoverable fees, costs, and expenses. Upon the Plan becoming effective, Dow Silicones paid approximately $1,500 million to the Commercial Creditors, representing principal and an amount of interest that Dow Silicones considers undisputed. At March 31, 2018 , the liability related to Dow Silicones' potential obligation to pay additional interest to its Commercial Creditors in the Chapter 11 Proceeding was $79 million and is included in "Accrued and other current liabilities" in the consolidated balance sheets ( $78 million at December 31, 2017 ). The actual amount of interest that will be paid to these creditors is uncertain and will ultimately be resolved through continued proceedings in the District Court. Indemnifications In connection with the June 1, 2016 ownership restructure of Dow Silicones, Dow is indemnified by Corning for 50 percent of future losses associated with certain pre-closing liabilities, including the Implant Liability and Commercial Creditors matters described above, subject to certain conditions and limits. The maximum amount of indemnified losses which may be recovered are subject to a cap that declines over time. No indemnification assets were recorded at March 31, 2018 or December 31, 2017 . Summary The amounts recorded by Dow Silicones for the Chapter 11 related matters described above were based upon current, known facts, which management believes reflect reasonable and probable estimates of the liability. However, future events could cause the actual costs for Dow Silicones to be higher or lower than those projected or those recorded. Any such events could result in an increase or decrease in the recorded liability. Separation of DuPont's Performance Chemicals Segment On July 1, 2015, DuPont completed the separation of its Performance Chemicals segment through the spin-off of all of the issued and outstanding stock of The Chemours Company (the "Separation"). In connection with the Separation, DuPont and The Chemours Company (“Chemours”) entered into a Separation agreement (the "Separation Agreement"). Pursuant to the Separation Agreement and the amendment to the Separation Agreement, Chemours indemnifies DuPont against certain litigation, environmental, workers' compensation and other liabilities that arose prior to the Separation. The term of this indemnification is generally indefinite and includes defense costs and expenses, as well as monetary and non-monetary settlements and judgments. In connection with the recognition of liabilities related to these matters, DuPont records an indemnification asset when recovery is deemed probable. At March 31, 2018, the indemnified assets were $82 million included in "Accounts and notes receivable - Other" and $332 million included in "Noncurrent receivables" along with the corresponding liabilities of $82 million recorded in "Accrued and other current liabilities" and $332 million included in "Other noncurrent obligations" in the consolidated balance sheets. PFOA Matters DuPont used PFOA (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt), as a processing aid to manufacture some fluoropolymer resins at various sites around the world including its Washington Works' plant in West Virginia. Pursuant to the Separation Agreement discussed above, DuPont is indemnified by Chemours for the PFOA matters discussed below and has recorded a total indemnification asset of $14 million . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA") and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) DuPont is obligated under agreements with the EPA, including a 2009 consent decree to which Chemours was added in 2017, and has made voluntary commitments to the NJDEP. These obligations and voluntary commitments include surveying, sampling and testing drinking water in and around certain DuPont sites and offering treatment or an alternative supply of drinking water if tests indicate the presence of PFOA in drinking water at or greater than the national health advisory level established from time to time by the EPA. At March 31, 2018, DuPont had an accrual of $14 million related to these obligations and voluntary commitments. DuPont recorded an indemnification asset corresponding to the accrual balance at March 31, 2018. Leach v. DuPont In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. A settlement was reached in 2004 that binds approximately 80,000 residents, (the "Leach Settlement"). In addition to paying $23 million to plaintiff’s attorneys for fees and expenses and $70 million to fund a community health project, DuPont is obligated to fund up to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and to pay administrative costs and fees associated with the program. Since the establishment in 2012 of an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement, approximately $2 million has been contributed to the account and approximately $1 million has been disbursed from the account. DuPont also must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water Association, and private well users. While it is probable that DuPont will incur liabilities related to funding the medical monitoring program and providing water treatment, DuPont does not expect any such liabilities to be material. Under the Leach Settlement, DuPont funded a series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent science panel of experts (the "C8 Science Panel"). The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the Leach Settlement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer; testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and diagnosed high cholesterol. Leach class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for the six human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. Following the Leach Settlement, approximately 3,550 lawsuits alleging personal injury claims were filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia. These lawsuits are consolidated in multi-district litigation ("MDL") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. MDL Settlement In the first quarter of 2017, the MDL was settled for $671 million in cash (the "MDL Settlement"), half of which was paid by Chemours and half paid by DuPont. At December 31, 2017, all payments under the settlement agreement were made by both companies. DuPont’s payment was not subject to indemnification or reimbursement by Chemours. In exchange for that payment, DuPont and Chemours are receiving releases of all claims by the settling plaintiffs. The MDL Settlement was entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and is not in any way an admission of liability or fault by DuPont or Chemours. All of the MDL plaintiffs participated and resolved their claims within the MDL Settlement. Post MDL Settlement PFOA Personal Injury Claims The MDL Settlement did not resolve claims of plaintiffs who did not have claims in the MDL or whose claims are based on diseases first diagnosed after February 11, 2017. At March 31, 2018, 34 lawsuits alleging personal injury, including kidney and testicular cancer, from exposure to PFOA in drinking water had been filed against DuPont in West Virginia and Ohio. In addition, three lawsuits are pending in federal court in New York on behalf of five individuals who are residents of Hoosick Falls, New York. The plaintiffs claim personal injuries, including kidney cancer, thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis, from alleged exposure to PFOA discharged into the air and water from nearby manufacturing facilities owned and operated by defendant third parties. Plaintiffs claim that PFOA used at the facilities was purchased from or manufactured by DuPont and co-defendant, 3M Company. Water Utility and Related Actions Actions filed by local water utilities pending in Alabama and New Jersey state court allege contamination from PFOA, and in the case of the Alabama action, perfluorinated chemicals and compounds, including PFOA (“PFCs”), used in co-defendant manufacturers’ operations. In February 2018, the State of Ohio filed suit in Ohio state court alleging natural resource damages from historical PFOA emissions from the Washington Works site. The plaintiffs in these suits seek monetary damages, remediation and other costs / damages. While it is reasonably possible that DuPont could incur liabilities related to the post MDL Settlement PFOA personal injury claims and the water utility and related actions described above, any such liabilities are not expected to be material. Chemours is defending and indemnifying DuPont in these matters in accordance with the amendment to the Separation Agreement discussed below. Amendment to Separation Agreement Concurrent with the MDL Settlement, DuPont and Chemours amended the Separation Agreement to provide for a limited sharing of potential future PFOA liabilities (i.e., indemnifiable losses, as defined in the Separation Agreement) for a period of five years beginning July 6, 2017. During that five -year period, Chemours will annually pay future PFOA liabilities up to $25 million and, if such amount is exceeded, DuPont would pay any excess amount up to the next $25 million (which payment will not be subject to indemnification by Chemours), with Chemours annually bearing any further excess liabilities. After the five -year period, this limited sharing agreement will expire, and Chemours’ indemnification obligations under the Separation Agreement will continue unchanged. There have been no charges incurred by DuPont under this arrangement through March 31, 2018. Chemours has also agreed that it will not contest its liability to DuPont under the Separation Agreement for PFOA liabilities on the basis of ostensible defenses generally applicable to the indemnification provisions under the Separation Agreement, including defenses relating to punitive damages, fines or penalties or attorneys’ fees, and waives any such defenses with respect to PFOA liabilities. Chemours has, however, retained defenses as to whether any particular PFOA claim is within the scope of the indemnification provisions of the Separation Agreement. It is possible that new lawsuits could be filed against DuPont related to PFOA that may not be within the scope of the MDL Settlement. Any such new litigation would be subject to indemnification by Chemours under the Separation Agreement, as amended. DuPont Matters: Fayetteville Works Facility, North Carolina Prior to the Separation of Chemours, DuPont introduced GenX as a polymerization processing aid and a replacement for PFOA at the Fayetteville Works facility. The facility is now owned and operated by Chemours which continues to manufacture and use GenX. Chemours is responding to ongoing inquiries and investigations from federal, state and local investigators, regulators and other governmental authorities as well as inquiries from the media and local community stakeholders. These inquiries and investigations involve the discharge of GenX and certain similar compounds from the Chemours’ facility at Fayetteville Works into the Cape Fear River in Bladen County, North Carolina. In August 2017, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina served DuPont with a grand jury subpoena for testimony and the production of documents related to alleged discharges of GenX from the Fayetteville Works facility into the Cape Fear River. In the fourth quarter of 2017, DuPont was served with additional subpoenas relating to the same issue. It is possible that these ongoing inquiries and investigations, including the grand jury subpoena, could result in penalties or sanctions, or that additional litigation will be instituted against Chemours and/or DuPont. At March 31, 2018, several actions, filed on behalf of putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near or who draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River, are pending in federal court against Chemours and DuPont. DowDuPont has been dismissed without prejudice from all such actions in which it was named. These actions relate to the alleged discharge of certain PFCs into the river from the operations and wastewater treatment at the Fayetteville Works facility. The actions, filed in the fourth quarter of 2017 and consolidated into a single purported class action, seek various relief including medical monitoring, property damages and injunctive relief. Separate actions filed by the various North Carolina water authorities including Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and Brunswick County, North Carolina, have been consolidated into a single purported class action seeking actual and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief. In the first quarter of 2018, approximately 70 plaintiffs, who own property near the Fayetteville Works facility, filed an action seeking damages for nuisance allegedly caused by releases of certain PFCs from the site. Management believes the probability of loss with respect to these actions is remote. DuPont has an indemnification claim against Chemours with respect to current and future inquiries and claims, including lawsuits, related to the foregoing. At March 31, 2018, Chemours is defending and indemnifying DuPont in the pending civil actions. Other Litigation Matters In addition to the specific matters described above, Dow and DuPont are parties to a number of other claims and lawsuits arising out of the normal course of business with respect to product liability, patent infringement, governmental regulation, contract and commercial litigation, and other actions. Certain of these actions purport to be class actions and seek damages in very large amounts. All such claims are being contested. Dow and DuPont have active risk management programs consisting of numerous insurance policies secured from many carriers at various times. These policies may provide coverage that could be utilized to minimize the financial impact, if any, of certain contingencies described above. It is the opinion of the Company’s management that the possibility is remote that the aggregate of all such other claims and lawsuits will have a material adverse impact on the results of operations, financial condition and cash flows of the Company. Gain Contingency - Dow v. Nova Chemicals Corporation Patent Infringement Matter A summary of the Dow v. Nova Chemicals Corporation Patent Infringement Matter can be found in Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017. On December 9, 2010, Dow filed suit in the Federal Court in Ontario, Canada ("Federal Court") alleging that Nova Chemicals Corporation ("Nova") was infringing Dow's Canadian polyethylene patent 2,106,705. Nova counterclaimed on the grounds of invalidity and non-infringement. On June 29, 2017, the Federal Court issued a Confidential Supplemental Judgment, concluding that Nova must pay $645 million Canadian dollars (equivalent to $495 million U.S. dollars) to Dow, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, for which Dow received payment of $501 million from Nova on July 6, 2017. Although Nova is appealing portions of the damages judgment, certain portions of it are indisputable and will be owed to Dow regardless of the outcome of any further appeals by Nova. At March 31, 2018 , Dow had $341 million ( $341 million at December 31, 2017 ) included in "Other noncurrent obligations" related to the disputed portion of the damages judgment. Dow is confident of its chances of defending the entire judgment on appeal, particularly the trial court's determinations on important factual issues, which will be accorded deferential review on appeal. Environmental Matters Accruals for environmental matters are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated based on current law and existing technologies. At March 31, 2018 , the Company had accrued obligations of $1,298 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $211 million for the remediation of Superfund sites. These obligations are included in "Accrued and other current liabilities" and "Other noncurrent obligations" in the consolidated balance sheets. This is management’s best estimate of the costs for remediation and restoration with respect to environmental matters for which the Company has accrued liabilities, although it is reasonably possible that the ultimate cost with respect to these particular matters could range up to two and a half times that amount. Consequently, it is reasonably possible that environmental remediation and restoration costs in excess of amounts accrued could have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. It is the opinion of the Company’s management, however, that the possibility is remote that costs in excess of the range disclosed will have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Inherent uncertainties exist in these estimates primarily due to unknown conditions, changing governmental regulations and legal standards regarding liability, and emerging remediation technologies for handling site remediation and restoration. At December 31, 2017 , the Company had accrued obligations of $1,311 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs, including $219 million for the remediation of Superfund sites. Pursuant to the DuPont and Chemours Separation Agreement, DuPont is indemnified by Chemours for certain environmental matters, included in the liability of $1,298 million , that have an estimated liability of $242 million at March 31, 2018 , and a potential exposure that ranges up to approximately $430 million above the current accrual. As such, DuPont has recorded an indemnification asset of $242 million corresponding to its accrual balance related to these matters at March 31, 2018 , including $42 million related to Superfund sites. Guarantees The following table provides a summary of the final expiration, maximum future payments and recorded liability reflected in the consolidated balance sheets for each type of guarantee: Guarantees Mar 31, 2018 Dec 31, 2017 In millions Final Expiration Maximum Future Payments Recorded Liability Final Expiration Maximum Future Payments Recorded Liability Dow guarantees 2023 $ 4,766 $ 37 2023 $ 4,774 $ 49 Dow residual value guarantees 2027 914 133 2027 889 135 Total Dow guarantees $ 5,680 $ 170 $ 5,663 $ 184 DuPont guarantees 2022 $ 248 $ — 2022 $ 260 $ — DuPont residual value guarantees 2029 36 — 2029 37 — Total DuPont guarantees $ 284 $ — $ 297 $ — Total guarantees $ 5,964 $ 170 $ 5,960 $ 184 Guarantees The Subsidiaries have entered into guarantee agreements arising in the ordinary course of business from relationships with customers and nonconsolidated affiliates when the Subsidiaries undertake an obligation to guarantee the performance of others (via delivery of cash or other assets) if specified triggering events occur. With guarantees, su |
