| Regulatory Matters, Commitments, Contingencies And Environmental Liabilities | REGULATORY MATTERS, COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES Contingent Residual Support Agreement – AmeriGas In connection with the closing of the contribution of its propane operations in January 2012, ETP agreed to provide contingent, residual support of $1.55 billion of intercompany borrowings made by AmeriGas and certain of its affiliates with maturities through 2022 from a finance subsidiary of AmeriGas that have maturity dates and repayment terms that mirror those of an equal principal amount of senior notes issued by this finance company subsidiary to third party purchasers. ETP Retail Holdings Guarantee of Sunoco LP Notes Retail Holdings has provided a guarantee of collection, but not of payment, to Sunoco LP with respect to (i) $800 million principal amount of 6.375% senior notes due 2023 issued by Sunoco LP, (ii) $800 million principal amount of 6.25% senior notes due 2021 issued by Sunoco LP and (iii) $2.035 billion of borrowings outstanding under Sunoco LP’s Term Loan. NGL Pipeline Regulation ETP has interests in NGL pipelines located in Texas and New Mexico. ETP commenced the interstate transportation of NGLs in 2013, which is subject to the jurisdiction of the FERC under the Interstate Commerce Act (“ICA”) and the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Under the ICA, tariff rates must be just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory and pipelines may not confer any undue preference. The tariff rates established for interstate services were based on a negotiated agreement; however, the FERC’s rate-making methodologies may limit ETP’s ability to set rates based on our actual costs, may delay or limit the use of rates that reflect increased costs and may subject us to potentially burdensome and expensive operational, reporting and other requirements. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect ETP’s business, revenues and cash flow. FERC Audit In March 2016, the FERC commenced an audit of Trunkline for the period from January 1, 2013 to present to evaluate Trunkline’s compliance with the requirements of its FERC gas tariff, the accounting regulations of the Uniform System of Accounts as prescribed by the FERC, and the FERC’s annual reporting requirements. Commitments In the normal course of our business, we purchase, process and sell natural gas pursuant to long-term contracts and we enter into long-term transportation and storage agreements. Such contracts contain terms that are customary in the industry. We believe that the terms of these agreements are commercially reasonable and will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. We have certain non-cancelable leases for property and equipment, which require fixed monthly rental payments and expire at various dates through 2058 . The table below reflects rental expense under these operating leases included in operating expenses in the accompanying statements of operations, which include contingent rentals, and rental expense recovered through related sublease rental income: Three Months Ended 2016 2015 Rental expense (1) $ 51 $ 52 Less: Sublease rental income (7 ) (8 ) Rental expense, net $ 44 $ 44 (1) Includes contingent rentals totaling $ 16 million and $4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 respectively. Certain of our subsidiaries’ joint venture agreements require that they fund their proportionate shares of capital contributions to their unconsolidated affiliates. Such contributions will depend upon their unconsolidated affiliates’ capital requirements, such as for funding capital projects or repayment of long-term obligations. Litigation and Contingencies We may, from time to time, be involved in litigation and claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business. Natural gas and crude oil are flammable and combustible. Serious personal injury and significant property damage can arise in connection with their transportation, storage or use. In the ordinary course of business, we are sometimes threatened with or named as a defendant in various lawsuits seeking actual and punitive damages for product liability, personal injury and property damage. We maintain liability insurance with insurers in amounts and with coverage and deductibles management believes are reasonable and prudent, and which are generally accepted in the industry. However, there can be no assurance that the levels of insurance protection currently in effect will continue to be available at reasonable prices or that such levels will remain adequate to protect us from material expenses related to product liability, personal injury or property damage in the future. MTBE Litigation Sunoco, Inc., along with other refiners, manufacturers and sellers of gasoline, is a defendant in lawsuits alleging MTBE contamination of groundwater. The plaintiffs typically include water purveyors and municipalities responsible for supplying drinking water and governmental authorities. The plaintiffs primarily assert product liability claims and additional claims including nuisance, trespass, negligence, violation of environmental laws and deceptive business practices. The plaintiffs in all of the cases seek to recover compensatory damages, and in some cases also seek natural resource damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. As of March 31, 2016 , Sunoco, Inc. is a defendant in five cases, including cases initiated by the States of New Jersey, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and two others by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico with the more recent Puerto Rico action being a companion case alleging damages for additional sites beyond those at issue in the initial Puerto Rico action. Four of these cases are venued in a multidistrict litigation proceeding in a New York federal court. The New Jersey, Puerto Rico, Vermont, and Pennsylvania cases assert natural resource damage claims. Fact discovery has concluded with respect to an initial set of 19 sites each that will be the subject of the first trial phase in the New Jersey case and the initial Puerto Rico case. Insufficient information has been developed about the plaintiffs’ legal theories or the facts with respect to statewide natural resource damage claims to provide an analysis of the ultimate potential liability of Sunoco, Inc. in these matters. It is reasonably possible that a loss may be realized; however, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued. Management believes that an adverse determination with respect to one or more of the MTBE cases could have a significant impact on results of operations during the period in which any said adverse determination occurs, but does not believe that any such adverse determination would have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s consolidated financial position. Regency Merger Litigation Following the January 26, 2015 announcement of the definitive merger agreement with Regency, purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas, Texas and Delaware state court asserting claims relating to the proposed transaction. All Regency merger related lawsuits have been dismissed, though one lawsuit remains pending on appeal. On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman (“Dieckman”), a purported Regency unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of Regency’s common unitholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges that the transaction did not comply with the Regency partnership agreement because the conflicts committee was not properly formed. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and on March 29, 2016, the Delaware court granted Defendants’ motion and dismissed the lawsuit. On April 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Delaware. This appeal is styled Adrian Dieckman v. Regency GP LP, et al. , No. 208, 2016, in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Jamie Welch Litigation On March 10, 2016, Jamie Welch (“Welch”) filed an original petition against ETE and LE GP in Texas state court in Dallas. Welch alleges that Defendants 1) breached their contractual obligation to deliver and convert Welch’s Class D units upon termination; 2) failed to deliver long term incentive shares awarded to Welch; 3) failed to pay Welch’s 2015 bonus; 4) breached their obligation to grant Welch an interest in the Lake Charles LNG project; and 5) breached their obligation to pay Welch his severance. Welch brings claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit. On April 12, 2016, Defendants removed Welch’s lawsuit from state court to federal court in Dallas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. On April 29, 2016, Welch filed an amended complaint and removed his claim for payment of severance benefits. Enterprise Products Partners, L.P. and Enterprise Products Operating LLC Litigation On January 27, 2014, a trial commenced between ETP against Enterprise Products Partners, L.P. and Enterprise Products Operating LLC (collectively, “Enterprise”) and Enbridge (US) Inc. Trial resulted in a verdict in favor of ETP against Enterprise that consisted of $319 million in compensatory damages and $595 million in disgorgement to ETP. The jury also found that ETP owed Enterprise approximately $1 million under a reimbursement agreement. On July 29, 2014, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of ETP and awarded ETP $536 million , consisting of compensatory damages, disgorgement, and pre-judgment interest. The trial court also ordered that ETP shall be entitled to recover post-judgment interest and costs of court and that Enterprise is not entitled to any net recovery on its counterclaims. Enterprise has filed a notice of appeal with the Texas Court of Appeals, and briefing by Enterprise and ETP is complete. Oral argument was held on April 20, 2016. The Court of Appeals is taking the briefs under advisement. In accordance with GAAP, no amounts related to the original verdict or the July 29, 2014 final judgment will be recorded in our financial statements until the appeal process is completed. Litigation Relating to the Williams Companies, Inc. On April 6, 2016, The Williams Companies, Inc. (“Williams”) filed a complaint against ETE and LE GP in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Delaware Williams Litigation”). This lawsuit is styled The Williams Companies, Inc. v. Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., et al. , C.A. No. 12168-VCG. Williams alleges that Defendants breached the merger agreement between Williams, ETE, and several of ETE’s affiliates (the “Merger Agreement”) by issuing ETE’s Series A Convertible Preferred Units (the “Convertible Units”). According to Williams, the issuance of Convertible Units (the “Issuance”) violates various contractual restrictions on ETE’s actions between the execution and closing of the merger. Williams seeks, among other things, to (a) rescind the Issuance and (b) invalidate an amendment to ETE’s partnership agreement that was adopted on March 8, 2016 as part of the Issuance. The Delaware Court of Chancery held a hearing on Williams’ Motion to Expedite on April 14, 2016. The Court granted Williams’ Motion to Expedite but significantly limited discovery. Williams amended its complaint in the Delaware suit on April 19, 2016, but did not add any additional claims. The Court has set a permanent injunction hearing for June 15, 2016. Defendants intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Williams also filed a petition against Mr. Warren in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on April 6, 2016 (the “Texas Williams Litigation”). This lawsuit is styled The Williams Companies, Inc. v. Kelcy Warren , C.A. No. DC-16-03941. Williams alleges that Mr. Warren tortiously interfered with the Merger Agreement through his involvement in the Issuance. Williams seeks, among other things, damages from Mr. Warren, who intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. On May 3, 2016, ETE and LE GP filed an answer and counterclaim in the Delaware Williams Litigation. The counterclaim asserts that Williams materially breached its obligations under the Merger Agreement by (a) blocking ETE’s attempts to complete a public offering of the Convertible Units, including, among other things, by declining to allow Williams’ independent registered public accounting firm to provide the auditor consent required to be included in the registration statement for a public offering and (b) bringing the Texas Williams Litigation against Mr. Warren in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas. Litigation Relating to the WMB Merger Between October 5, 2015, and December 24, 2015, purported Williams stockholders filed six putative class action lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the merger. The suits are captioned Greenwald et al. v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al ., C.A. No. 11573-VCG; Ozaki v. Armstrong et al ., C.A. No. 11574-VCG; Blystone v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al ., C.A. No. 11601-VCG; Glener et al. v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al ., C.A. No. 11606-VCG; Amaitis et al. v. Armstrong et al ., C.A. No. 11809-VCG; and State-Boston Retirement System et al. v. Armstrong et al ., C.A. No. 11844-VCG. The complaints assert various claims against the individual members of Williams’ board of directors; ETE, ETC, ETC GP, LE GP and ETE GP (the “ETE Defendants”); Williams; and others. On January 13, 2016, the Court consolidated these six actions into a new consolidated action captioned In re The Williams Companies, Inc. Merger Litigation , Consolidated C.A. No. 11844-VCG (the “Merger Litigation”). In its stipulated order, the Court dismissed without prejudice the ETE Defendants (among others) from the consolidated action. On January 14, 2016, a purported Williams stockholder (“Bumgarner”) filed a putative class action lawsuit against Williams and ETE, captioned Bumgarner v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al ., Case No. 16-cv-26-GKF-FHM, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Bumgarner alleges that ETE and Williams have violated Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) by making allegedly false statements concerning the merger. As relief, the complaint seeks an injunction against the proposed merger. On February 1, 2016, Bumgarner filed an amended complaint, making substantially the same allegations. On February 19, 2016, ETE and Williams moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Bumgarner moved for expedited discovery on April 21, 2016. On April 28, 2016, the Court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed Bumgarner’s claims in their entirety with leave to amend. The Court also granted expedited proceedings with respect to any further proceedings. On January 19, 2016, The City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System (“CBRRS”), a purported shareholder of Williams, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the members of Williams’ board of directors, Williams, ETE, ETC, ETC GP, LE GP, and ETE GP challenging the merger and the disclosures made in connection with the merger. The lawsuit was styled City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. Alan S. Armstrong, et al. , C.A. No. 16-17-RGA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. CBRRS alleged violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act among other claims. CBRRS moved to expedite, and Defendants moved to dismiss the suit. The Court denied expedition. CBRRS voluntarily dismissed the suit on March 7, 2016. Unitholder Litigation Relating to the Issuance In April 2016, two purported ETE unitholders (the “Issuance Plaintiffs”) filed putative class action lawsuits against, Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. and LE GP, LLC, Kelcy Warren, John McReynolds, Marshall McCrea, Matthew Ramsey, Ted Collins, K. Rick Turner, William Williams, Ray Davis, and Richard Brannon in the Delaware Court of Chancery. These lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. Unitholder Litigation , Consolidated C.A. No. 12197-VCG, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. One of the Issuance Plaintiffs had initially filed an action to inspect the books and records of ETE on April 11, 2016 but voluntarily dismissed the books and records action on April 22, 2016. The Issuance Plaintiffs allege that the Issuance breached various provisions of ETE’s limited partnership agreement. The Issuance Plaintiff seek, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief that (a) prevents ETE from making distributions to the Convertible Units and (b) invalidates an amendment to ETE’s partnership agreement that was adopted on March 8, 2016 as part of the issuance of Convertible Units. One of the Issuance Plaintiffs moved for expedited proceedings. The Delaware Court of Chancery granted a Motion to Expedite filed by one of the Issuance Plaintiffs and stated that the injunction hearing should be held before any August 2016 distribution. Defendants intend to vigorously defend this consolidated lawsuit. Other Litigation and Contingencies We or our subsidiaries are a party to various legal proceedings and/or regulatory proceedings incidental to our businesses. For each of these matters, we evaluate the merits of the case, our exposure to the matter, possible legal or settlement strategies, the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and the availability of insurance coverage. If we determine that an unfavorable outcome of a particular matter is probable and can be estimated, we accrue the contingent obligation, as well as any expected insurance recoverable amounts related to the contingency. As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , accruals of approximately $59 million and $40 million , respectively, were reflected on our balance sheets related to these contingent obligations. As new information becomes available, our estimates may change. The impact of these changes may have a significant effect on our results of operations in a single period. The outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty and there can be no assurance that the outcome of a particular matter will not result in the payment of amounts that have not been accrued for the matter. Furthermore, we may revise accrual amounts prior to resolution of a particular contingency based on changes in facts and circumstances or changes in the expected outcome. Currently, we are not able to estimate possible losses or a range of possible losses in excess of amounts accrued. No amounts have been recorded in our March 31, 2016 or December 31, 2015 consolidated balance sheets for contingencies and current litigation, other than amounts disclosed herein. Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. New England Gas Company. On July 7, 2011, the Massachusetts Attorney General (“AG”) filed a regulatory complaint with the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (“MDPU”) against New England Gas Company with respect to certain environmental cost recoveries. The AG is seeking a refund to New England Gas Company customers for alleged “excessive and imprudently incurred costs” related to legal fees associated with Southern Union’s environmental response activities. In the complaint, the AG requests that the MDPU initiate an investigation into the New England Gas Company’s collection and reconciliation of recoverable environmental costs including: (i) the prudence of any and all legal fees, totaling approximately $19 million , that were charged by the Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman firm and passed through the recovery mechanism since 2005, the year when a partner in the firm, the Southern Union former Vice Chairman, President and Chief Operating Officer, joined Southern Union’s management team; (ii) the prudence of any and all legal fees that were charged by the Bishop, London & Dodds firm and passed through the recovery mechanism since 2005, the period during which a member of the firm served as Southern Union’s Chief Ethics Officer; and (iii) the propriety and allocation of certain legal fees charged that were passed through the recovery mechanism that the AG contends only qualify for a lesser, 50% , level of recovery. Southern Union has filed its answer denying the allegations and moved to dismiss the complaint, in part on a theory of collateral estoppel. The hearing officer has deferred consideration of Southern Union’s motion to dismiss. The AG’s motion to be reimbursed expert and consultant costs by Southern Union of up to $150,000 was granted. By tariff, these costs are recoverable through rates charged to New England Gas Company customers. The hearing officer previously stayed discovery pending resolution of a dispute concerning the applicability of attorney-client privilege to legal billing invoices. The MDPU issued an interlocutory order on June 24, 2013 that lifted the stay, and discovery has resumed. Panhandle (as successor to Southern Union) believes it has complied with all applicable requirements regarding its filings for cost recovery and has not recorded any accrued liability; however, Panhandle will continue to assess its potential exposure for such cost recoveries as the matter progresses. Compliance Orders from the New Mexico Environmental Department Regency received a Notice of Violation from the New Mexico Environmental Department on September 23, 2015 for allegations of violations of New Mexico air regulations related to Jal #3. The Partnership has accrued $250,000 related to the claims and will continue to assess its potential exposure to the allegations as the matter progresses. Lone Star NGL Fractionators Notice of Enforcement Lone Star NGL Fractionators received a Notice of Enforcement from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on August 28, 2015 for allegations of violations of Texas air regulations related to its Mont Belvieu Gas Plant. The Partnership has accrued $300,000 related to the claim. As of April 2016, the Agreed Order is in the approval process with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and includes a $21,000 penalty and a $21,000 Supplemental Environmental Project. Environmental Matters Our operations are subject to extensive federal, state and local environmental and safety laws and regulations that require expenditures to ensure compliance, including related to air emissions and wastewater discharges, at operating facilities and for remediation at current and former facilities as well as waste disposal sites. Although we believe our operations are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, risks of additional costs and liabilities are inherent in the business of transporting, storing, gathering, treating, compressing, blending and processing natural gas, natural gas liquids and other products. As a result, there can be no assurance that significant costs and liabilities will not be incurred. Costs of planning, designing, constructing and operating pipelines, plants and other facilities must incorporate compliance with environmental laws and regulations and safety standards. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the assessment of administrative, civil and criminal penalties, the imposition of remedial obligations, the issuance of injunctions and the filing of federally authorized citizen suits. Contingent losses related to all significant known environmental matters have been accrued and/or separately disclosed. However, we may revise accrual amounts prior to resolution of a particular contingency based on changes in facts and circumstances or changes in the expected outcome. Environmental exposures and liabilities are difficult to assess and estimate due to unknown factors such as the magnitude of possible contamination, the timing and extent of remediation, the determination of our liability in proportion to other parties, improvements in cleanup technologies and the extent to which environmental laws and regulations may change in the future. Although environmental costs may have a significant impact on the results of operations for any single period, we believe that such costs will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position. Based on information available at this time and reviews undertaken to identify potential exposure, we believe the amount reserved for environmental matters is adequate to cover the potential exposure for cleanup costs. Environmental Remediation Our subsidiaries are responsible for environmental remediation at certain sites, including the following: • Certain of our interstate pipelines conduct soil and groundwater remediation related to contamination from past uses of PCBs. PCB assessments are ongoing and, in some cases, our subsidiaries could potentially be held responsible for contamination caused by other parties. • Certain gathering and processing systems are responsible for soil and groundwater remediation related to releases of hydrocarbons. • Currently operating Sunoco, Inc. retail sites. • Legacy sites related to Sunoco, Inc., that are subject to environmental assessments include formerly owned terminals and other logistics assets, retail sites that Sunoco, Inc. no longer operates, closed and/or sold refineries and other formerly owned sites. • Sunoco, Inc. is potentially subject to joint and several liability for the costs of remediation at sites at which it ha s been identified as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”). As of March 31, 2016 , Sunoco, Inc. had been named as a PRP at approximately 48 identified or potentially identifiable “Superfund” sites under federal and/or comparable state law. Sunoco, Inc. is usually one of a number of companies identified as a PRP at a site. Sunoco, Inc. has reviewed the nature and extent of its involvement at each site and other relevant circumstances and, based upon Sunoco, Inc.’s purported nexus to the sites, believes that its potential liability associated with such sites will not be significant. To the extent estimable, expected remediation costs are included in the amounts recorded for environmental matters in our consolidated balance sheets. In some circumstances, future costs cannot be reasonably estimated because remediation activities are undertaken as claims are made by customers and former customers. To the extent that an environmental remediation obligation is recorded by a subsidiary that applies regulatory accounting policies, amounts that are expected to be recoverable through tariffs or rates are recorded as regulatory assets on our consolidated balance sheets. The table below reflects the amounts of accrued liabilities recorded in our consolidated balance sheets related to environmental matters that are considered to be probable and reasonably estimable. Currently, we are not able to estimate possible losses or a range of possible losses in excess of amounts accrued. Except for matters discussed above, we do not have any material environmental matters assessed as reasonably possible that would require disclosure in our consolidated financial statements. March 31, 2016 December 31, 2015 Current $ 40 $ 42 Non-current 293 326 Total environmental liabilities $ 333 $ 368 In 2013, we established a wholly-owned captive insurance company to bear certain risks associated with environmental obligations related to certain sites that are no longer operating. The premiums paid to the captive insurance company include estimates for environmental claims that have been incurred but not reported, based on an actuarially determined fully developed claims expense estimate. In such cases, we accrue losses attributable to unasserted claims based on the discounted estimates that are used to develop the premiums paid to the captive insurance company. During the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 , Sunoco, Inc. and Sunoco LP collectively recorded $ 8 million and $7 million , respectively, of expenditures related to environmental cleanup programs. On December 2, 2010, Sunoco, Inc. entered an Asset Sale and Purchase Agreement to sell the Toledo Refinery to Toledo Refining Company LLC (TRC) wherein Sunoco, Inc. retained certain liabilities associated with the pre-Closing time period. On January 2, 2013, USEPA issued a Finding of Violation (FOV) to TRC and, on September 30, 2013, EPA issued an NOV/FOV to TRC alleging Clean Air Act violations. To date, EPA has not issued an FOV or NOV/FOV to Sunoco, Inc. directly but some of EPA’s claims relate to the time period that Sunoco, Inc. operated the refinery. Specifically, EPA has claimed that the refinery flares were not operated in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions and/or in conformance with their design, and that Sunoco, Inc. submitted semi-annual compliance reports in 2010 and 2011 that failed to include all of the information required by the regulations. EPA has proposed penalties in excess of $200,000 to resolve the allegations and discussions continue between the parties. The timing or outcome of this matter cannot be reasonably determined at this time, however, we do not expect there to be a material impact to our results of operations, cash flows or financial position. Our pipeline operations are subject to regulation by the U.S. Department of Transportation under the PHMSA, pursuant to which the PHMSA has established requirements relating to the design, installation, testing, construction, operation, replacement and management of pipeline facilities. Moreover, the PHMSA, through the Office of Pipeline Safety, has promulgated a rule requiring pipeline operators to develop integrity management programs to comprehensively evaluate their pipelines, and take measures to protect pipeline segments located in what the rule refers to as “high consequence areas.” Activities under these integrity management programs involve the performance of internal pipeline inspections, pressure testing or other effective means to assess the integrity of these regulated pipeline segments, and the regulations require prompt action to address integrity issues raised by the assessment and analysis. Integrity testing and assessment of all of these assets will continue, and the potential exists that results of such testing and assessment could cause us to incur future capital and operating expenditures for repairs or upgrades deemed necessary to ensure the continued safe and reliable operation of our pipelines; however, no estimate can be made at this time of the likely range of such expenditures. In April 2016, the PHMSA issued a Notice of Probable Violation ("NOPV"), Proposed Civil Penalty and Proposed Compliance Order related to certain procedures carried out during construction of Sunoco Logistics’ Permian Express 2 pipeline system in Texas. The correspondence proposes penalties in excess of $0.1 million , and Sunoco Logistics is currently in discussions with PHMSA to resolve these matters. The timing or outcome of these matters cannot be reasonably determined at this time, however, Sunoco Logistics does not expect there to be a material impact to its results of operations, cash flows, or financial position. Our operations are also subject to the requirements of the OSHA, and comparable state laws that regulate the protection of the health and safety of employees. In addition, OSHA’s hazardous communication standard requires that information be maintained about hazardous materials used or produced in our operations and that this information be provided to employees, state and local government authorities and citizens. We believe that our operations are in substantial compliance with the OSHA requirements, including general industry standards, record keeping requirements, and monitoring of occupational exposure to regulated substances. |
