| Regulatory Matters, Commitments, Contingencies And Environmental Liabilities | REGULATORY MATTERS, COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES 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. The audit is ongoing. Commitments In the normal course of business, ETP purchases, processes and sells natural gas pursuant to long-term contracts and enters into long-term transportation and storage agreements. Such contracts contain terms that are customary in the industry. ETP believes that the terms of these agreements are commercially reasonable and will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations. ETP’s joint venture agreements require that they fund their proportionate share 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. We have certain non-cancelable leases for property and equipment, which require fixed monthly rental payments with typical initial terms of 5 to 15 years, with some having a term of 40 years or more. 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 2018 2017 Rental expense (1) $ 40 $ 40 Less: Sublease rental income (6 ) (6 ) Rental expense, net $ 34 $ 34 (1) Includes contingent rentals totaling $1 million and $4 million for three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017 , respectively. 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. Dakota Access Pipeline On July 25, 2016, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) issued permits to Dakota Access to make two crossings of the Missouri River in North Dakota. The USACE also issued easements to allow the pipeline to cross land owned by the USACE adjacent to the Missouri River. On July 27, 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (“SRST”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the USACE and challenged the legality of these permits and claimed violations of the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”). The SRST also sought a preliminary injunction to rescind the USACE permits while the case was pending, which the court denied on September 9, 2016. Dakota Access intervened in the case. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (“CRST”) also intervened. The SRST filed an amended complaint and added claims based on treaties between the Tribes and the United States and statutes governing the use of government property. In February 2017, in response to a presidential memorandum, the Department of the Army delivered an easement to Dakota Access allowing the pipeline to cross Lake Oahe. The CRST moved for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to block operation of the pipeline, which was denied, and raised claims based on the religious rights of the Tribe. The SRST and the CRST amended their complaints to incorporate religious freedom and other claims. In addition, the Oglala and Yankton Sioux tribes (collectively, “Tribes”) have filed related lawsuits to prevent construction of the Dakota Access pipeline project. These lawsuits have been consolidated into the action initiated by the SRST. Several individual members of the Tribes have also intervened in the lawsuit asserting claims that overlap with those brought by the four Tribes. On June 14, 2017, the Court ruled on SRST’s and CRST’s motions for partial summary judgment and the USACE’s cross-motions for partial summary judgment. The Court concluded that the USACE had not violated trust duties owed to the Tribes and had generally complied with its obligations under the Clean Water Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and other related statutes; however, the Court remanded to the USACE three discrete issues for further analysis and explanation of its prior determinations under certain of these statutes. On May 3, 2018, the District Court ordered the USACE to file a status report by June 8, 2018 informing the Court when the USACE expects the remand process to be complete. Following the completion of the remand process by the USACE, the Court will make a determination regarding the three discrete issues covered by the remand order. On December 4, 2017, the Court imposed three conditions on continued operation of the pipeline during the remand process. First, Dakota Access must retain an independent third-party to review its compliance with the conditions and regulations governing its easements and to assess integrity threats to the pipeline. The assessment report was filed with the Court. Second, the Court has directed Dakota Access to continue its work with the Tribes and the USACE to revise and finalize its emergency spill response planning for the section of the pipeline crossing Lake Oahe. Dakota Access filed the revised plan with the Court. And third, the Court has directed Dakota Access to submit bi-monthly reports during the remand period disclosing certain inspection and maintenance information related to the segment of the pipeline running between the valves on either side of the Lake Oahe crossing. The first and second reports were filed with the court on December 29, 2017 and February 28, 2018, respectfully. In November 2017, the Yankton Sioux Tribe (“YST”), moved for partial summary judgment asserting claims similar to those already litigated and decided by the Court in its June 14, 2017 decision on similar motions by CRST and SRST. YST argues that the USACE and Fish and Wildlife Service violated NEPA, the Mineral Leasing Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, and YST’s treaty and trust rights when the government granted the permits and easements necessary for the pipeline. On March 19, 2018, the District Court denied YST’s motion for partial summary judgment and instead granted judgment in favor of Dakota Access pipeline and the USACE on the claims raised in YST’s motion. The Court concluded that YST’s NHPA claims are moot because construction of the pipeline is complete and that the government’s review process did not violate NEPA or the various treaties cited by the YST. On February 8, 2018, the Court docketed a motion by CRST to “compel meaningful consultation on remand.” SRST then made a similar motion for “clarification re remand process and remand conditions.” The motions seek an order from the Court directing the USACE as to how it should conduct its additional review on remand. Dakota Access pipeline and the USACE opposed both motions. On April 16, 2018, the Court denied both motions. While ETP believes that the pending lawsuits are unlikely to block operation of the pipeline, we cannot assure this outcome. ETP cannot determine when or how these lawsuits will be resolved or the impact they may have on the Dakota Access project. Mont Belvieu Incident On June 26, 2016, a hydrocarbon storage well located on another operator’s facility adjacent to Lone Star NGL Mont Belvieu’s (“Lone Star”) facilities in Mont Belvieu, Texas experienced an over-pressurization resulting in a subsurface release. The subsurface release caused a fire at Lone Star’s South Terminal and damage to Lone Star’s storage well operations at its South and North Terminals. Normal operations have resumed at the facilities with the exception of one of Lone Star’s storage wells. Lone Star is still quantifying the extent of its incurred and ongoing damages and has or will be seeking reimbursement for these losses. MTBE Litigation Sunoco, Inc. and/or Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) (now known as Sunoco (R&M), LLC) are defendants in lawsuits alleging MTBE contamination of groundwater. The plaintiffs, state-level governmental entities, assert product liability, nuisance, trespass, negligence, violation of environmental laws, and/or deceptive business practices claims. The plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory damages, and in some cases also seek natural resource damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. As of April 18, 2018, Sunoco, Inc. is a defendant in six cases, including one case each initiated by the States of Maryland, Vermont and Rhode Island, one by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and two by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The more recent Puerto Rico action is a companion case alleging damages for additional sites beyond those at issue in the initial Puerto Rico action. The actions brought by the State of Maryland and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have also named as defendants Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., ETP Holdco Corporation, and Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals, L.P. Sunoco, Inc. and Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) have reached a settlement with the State of New Jersey. The Court approved the Judicial Consent Order on December 5, 2017. On April 5, 2018, the Court entered an Order dismissing the matter with prejudice. It is reasonably possible that a loss may be realized in the remaining cases; however, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued. 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 such adverse determination occurs, but such an adverse determination likely would not have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s consolidated financial position. Regency Merger Litigation Purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas and Delaware asserting claims relating to the Regency-ETP merger (the “Regency Merger”). All but one Regency Merger-related lawsuits have been dismissed. On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman (“Dieckman”), a purported Regency unitholder, filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Regency Merger Litigation”), on behalf of Regency’s common unitholders against Regency GP, LP; Regency GP LLC; ETE, ETP, ETP GP, and the members of Regency’s board of directors (“Defendants”). The Regency Merger Litigation alleges that the Regency Merger breached the Regency partnership agreement because Regency’s conflicts committee was not properly formed, and the Regency Merger was not approved in good faith. On March 29, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. Dieckman appealed. On January 20, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Chancery. On May 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Verified Class Action Complaint. Defendants then filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and a Motion to Stay Discovery on May 19, 2017. On February 20, 2018, the Court of Chancery issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims against all defendants other than Regency GP, LP and Regency GP LLC. On March 6, 2018, Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiff’s Verified Amended Class Action Complaint. Defendants cannot predict the outcome of the Regency Merger Litigation or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the Regency Merger Litigation. Defendants believe the Regency Merger Litigation is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it and any others that may be filed in connection with the Regency Merger. 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 $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 filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals. On July 18, 2017, the Court of Appeals issued its opinion and reversed the trial court’s judgment. ETP’s motion for rehearing to the Court of Appeals was denied. ETP filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. Litigation Filed By or Against Williams On April 6, 2016, The Williams Companies, Inc. (“Williams”) filed a complaint against ETE and LE GP, LLC (“LE GP”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “First Delaware Williams Litigation”). Williams sought, among other things, to (a) rescind the issuance of the Partnership’s Series A Convertible Preferred Units (the “Issuance”) and (b) invalidate an amendment to ETE’s partnership agreement that was adopted on March 8, 2016 as part of the Issuance. On May 3, 2016, ETE and LE GP filed an answer and counterclaim in the First Delaware Williams Litigation. The counterclaim asserts in general that Williams materially breached its obligations under the ETE-Williams merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”) by (a) blocking ETE’s attempts to complete a public offering of the Series A Convertible Preferred 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 a lawsuit concerning the Issuance against Mr. Warren in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, which the Texas state court later dismissed based on the Merger Agreement’s forum-selection clause. On May 13, 2016, Williams filed a second lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court”) against ETE and LE GP and added Energy Transfer Corp LP, ETE Corp GP, LLC, and Energy Transfer Equity GP, LLC as additional defendants (collectively, “Defendants”) (the “Second Delaware Williams Litigation”). In general, Williams alleged that Defendants breached the Merger Agreement by (a) failing to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain from Latham & Watkins LLP (“Latham”) the delivery of a tax opinion concerning Section 721 of the Internal Revenue Code (“721 Opinion”), (b) breaching a representation and warranty in the Merger Agreement concerning Section 721 of the Internal Revenue Code, and (c) taking actions that allegedly delayed the SEC in declaring the Form S-4 filed in connection with the merger (the “Form S-4”) effective. Williams asked the Court, in general, to (a) issue a declaratory judgment that ETE breached the Merger Agreement, (b) enjoin ETE from terminating the Merger Agreement on the basis that it failed to obtain a 721 Opinion, (c) enjoin ETE from terminating the Merger Agreement on the basis that the transaction failed to close by the outside date, and (d) force ETE to close the merger or take various other affirmative actions. ETE filed an answer and counterclaim in the Second Delaware Williams Litigation. In addition to the counterclaims previously asserted, ETE asserted that Williams materially breached the Merger Agreement by, among other things, (a) modifying or qualifying the Williams board of directors’ recommendation to its stockholders regarding the merger, (b) failing to provide material information to ETE for inclusion in the Form S-4 related to the merger, (c) failing to facilitate the financing of the merger, (d) failing to use its reasonable best efforts to consummate the merger, and (e) breaching the Merger Agreement’s forum-selection clause. ETE sought, among other things, a declaration that it could validly terminate the Merger Agreement after June 28, 2016 in the event that Latham was unable to deliver the 721 Opinion on or prior to June 28, 2016. After a two-day trial on June 20 and 21, 2016, the Court ruled in favor of ETE on Williams’ claims in the Second Delaware Williams Litigation and issued a declaratory judgment that ETE could terminate the merger after June 28, 2016 because of Latham’s inability to provide the required 721 Opinion. The Court also denied Williams’ requests for injunctive relief. The Court did not reach a decision regarding Williams’ claims related to the Issuance or ETE’s counterclaims. Williams filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Delaware on June 27, 2016. Williams filed an amended complaint on September 16, 2016 and sought a $410 million termination fee, and Defendants filed amended counterclaims and affirmative defenses. In response, Williams filed a motion to dismiss Defendants’ amended counterclaims and to strike certain of Defendants’ affirmative defenses. On March 23, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court’s ruling on the June trial, and as a result, Williams has conceded that its $10 billion damages claim is foreclosed, although its $410 million termination fee claim remains pending. On December 1, 2017, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Williams’ motion to dismiss in part and denying Williams’ motion to dismiss in part. Trial is set for May 20, 2019. Defendants cannot predict the outcome of the First Delaware Williams Litigation, the Second Delaware Williams Litigation, or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve these lawsuits. Defendants believe that Williams’ claims are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them. Unitholder Litigation Relating to the Issuance On April 12, 2016, two purported ETE unitholders (the “Issuance Plaintiffs”) filed putative class action lawsuits against ETE, LE GP, Kelcy Warren, John McReynolds, Marshall McCrea, Matthew Ramsey, Ted Collins, K. Rick Turner, William Williams, Ray Davis, and Richard Brannon (collectively, the “Issuance Defendants”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Issuance Litigation”). Another purported ETE unitholder, Chester County Employees’ Retirement Fund, later joined the Issuance Litigation. The Issuance Plaintiffs allege that the Issuance breached various provisions of ETE’s partnership agreement. The Issuance Plaintiffs seek, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief that (a) prevents ETE from making distributions to holders of the Series A Convertible Preferred Units and (b) invalidates an amendment to ETE’s partnership agreement that was adopted on March 8, 2016 as part of the Issuance. On August 29, 2016, the Issuance Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, and in addition to the injunctive relief described above, seek class-wide damages allegedly resulting from the Issuance. The matter was tried in front of Vice Chancellor Glasscock on February 19-21, 2018. Post-trial arguments were heard on April 16, 2018. The Issuance Defendants cannot predict the outcome of the Issuance Litigation or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can the Issuance Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the Issuance Litigation. The Issuance Defendants believe the Issuance Litigation is without merit and intend to defend vigorously against it and any other actions challenging the Issuance. Bayou Bridge On January 11, 2018, environmental groups and a trade association filed suit against the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs allege that the Corps’ issuance of permits authorizing the construction of the Bayou Bridge Pipeline through the Atchafalaya Basin (“Basin”) violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Rivers and Harbors Act. They asked the district court to vacate these permits and to enjoin construction of the project through the Basin until the Corps corrects alleged deficiencies in its decision-making process. ETP, through its subsidiary Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC (“Bayou Bridge”), intervened on January 26. On March 27, Bayou Bridge filed an answer to the complaint. On January 29, 2018, Plaintiffs filed motions for a preliminary injunction and TRO. United States District Court Judge Shelly Dick denied the TRO on January 30 but subsequently granted the preliminary injunction on February 23. On February 26, Bayou Bridge filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay the February 23 preliminary injunction order. On February 27, Judge Dick issued an opinion that clarified her February 23 preliminary injunction order and denied Bayou Bridge’s February 26 motion to stay as moot. On March 1, Bayou Bridge filed a new notice of appeal and motion to stay the February 27 preliminary injunction order in the district court. On March 5, the district court denied the March 1 motion to stay the February 27 order. On March 2, 2018, Bayou Bridge filed a motion to stay the preliminary injunction in the Fifth Circuit. On March 15, the Fifth Circuit granted a stay of injunction pending appeal and found that Bayou Bridge “is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.” Oral arguments were heard on the merits of the appeal, that is, whether the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction in the Fifth Circuit on April 30, 2018. Rover On November 3, 2017, the State of Ohio and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“Ohio EPA”) filed suit against Rover Pipeline, LLC (“Rover”) and Pretec Directional Drilling, LLC (“Pretec”) seeking to recover approximately $2.6 million in civil penalties allegedly owed and certain injunctive relief related to permit compliance. Laney Directional Drilling Co., Atlas Trenchless, LLC, Mears Group, Inc., and D&G Directional Drilling, Inc. d/b/a D&G Directional Drilling, LLC (collectively, with Rover and Pretec, “Defendants”) were added as defendants on April 17, 2018. Ohio EPA alleges that the defendants illegally discharged millions of gallons of drilling fluids into Ohio’s waters that caused pollution and degraded water quality, and that the defendants harmed pristine wetlands in Stark County. Ohio EPA further alleges that Rover caused the degradation of Ohio’s waters by discharging pollution in the form of sediment-laden storm water into Ohio’s waters and that Rover violated its hydrostatic permits by discharging effluent with greater levels of pollutants than those permits allowed and by not properly sampling or monitoring effluent for required parameters or reporting those alleged violations. Rover’s answer to Ohio EPA’s complaint is due on May 17, 2018. In January 2018, Ohio EPA sent a letter to the FERC to express concern regarding drilling fluids lost down a hole during horizontal directional drilling (“HDD”) operations as part of the Rover Pipeline construction. Rover sent a January 24 response to FERC and stated, among other things, that as Ohio EPA conceded, Rover was conducting its drilling operations in accordance with specified procedures that had been approved by FERC and reviewed by the Ohio EPA. In addition, although the HDD operations were crossing the same resource as that which led to an inadvertent release of drilling fluids in April 2017, the drill in 2018 had been redesigned since the original crossing. Ohio EPA expressed concern that the drilling fluids could deprive organisms in the wetland of oxygen. Rover, however, has now fully remediated the site, a fact with which Ohio EPA concurs. 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, 2018 and December 31, 2017 , accruals of approximately $30 million and $33 million , respectively, were reflected on our consolidated 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. On April 25, 2018, and as amended on April 30, 2018, State Senator Andrew Dinniman filed a Formal Complaint and Petition for Interim Emergency Relief (“Complaint”) against Sunoco Pipeline L.P. (“Sunoco”) before the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”). Specifically, the Complaint alleges that (i) the services and facilities provided by the Mariner East Pipeline (“ME1”, “ME2” or “ME2x”) in West Whiteland Township are unreasonable, unsafe, inadequate, and insufficient for, among other reasons, selecting an improper and unsafe route through densely populated portions of the Township with homes, schools, and infrastructure and causing inadvertent returns and sinkholes during construction because of unstable geology in the Township; (ii) Sunoco failed to warn the public of the dangers of the pipeline; (iii) the construction of ME2 and ME2x increase the risk of damage to the existing co-located ME1 pipeline; and (iv) ME1, ME2 and ME2x are not public utility facilities. Based on these allegations, Senator Dinniman’s Complaint seeks emergency relief by way of an order (i) prohibiting construction of ME2 and ME2x in West Whiteland Township; (ii) prohibiting operation of ME1; (iii) in the alternative to (i) and (ii) prohibiting the construction of ME2 and ME2x and the operation of ME1 until Sunoco fully assesses and the PUC approves the condition, adequacy, efficiency, safety, and reasonableness of those pipelines and the geology in which they sit; (iv) requiring Sunoco to release to the public its written integrity management plan and risk analysis for these pipelines; and (v) finding that these pipelines are not public utility facilities. In short, the relief, if granted, would continue the suspension of operation of ME1 and suspend further construction of ME2 and ME2x in West Whiteland Township. A hearing before Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth H. Barnes on the emergency relief is scheduled for May 7 and 10, 2018. On July 25, 2017, the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (“EHB”) issued an order to SPLP to cease HDD activities in Pennsylvania related to the Mariner East 2 project. On August 1, 2017 the EHB lifted the order as to two drill locations. On August 3, 2017, the EHB lifted the order as to 14 additional locations. The EHB issued the order in response to a complaint filed by environmental groups against SPLP and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”). The EHB Judge encouraged the parties to pursue a settlement with respect to the remaining HDD locations and facilitated a settlement meeting. On August 7, 2017 a final settlement was reached. A stipulated order has been submitted to the EHB Judge with respect to the settlement. The settlement agreement requires that SPLP reevaluate the design parameters of approximately 26 drills on the Mariner East 2 project and approximately 43 drills on the Mariner East 2X project. The settlement agreement also provides a defined framework for approval by PADEP for these drills to proceed after reevaluation. Additionally, the settlement agreement requires modifications to several of the HDD plans that are part of the PADEP permits. Those modifications have been completed and agreed to by the parties and the reevaluation of the drills has been initiated by the company. In addition, on June 27, 2017 and July 25, 2017, the PADEP entered into a Consent Order and Agreement with SPLP regarding inadvertent returns of drilling fluids at three HDD locations in Pennsylvania related to the Mariner East 2 project. Those agreements require SPLP to cease HDD activities at those three locations until PADEP reauthorizes such activities and to submit a corrective action plan for agency review and approval. SPLP is working to fulfill the requirements of those agreements and has been authorized by PADEP to resume drilling at one of the three locations. No amounts have been recorded in our March 31, 2018 or December 31, 2017 consolidated balance sheets for contingencies and current litigation, other than amounts disclosed herein. Environmental Matters Our operations are subject to extensive federal, tribal, 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. Historically, our environmental compliance costs have not had a material adverse effect on our results of operations but there can be no assurance that such costs will not be material in the future or that such future compliance with existing, amended or new legal requirements will not have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results. 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 investigatory, remedial and corrective action obligations, the issuance of injunctions in affected areas 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 revi |
