| Regulatory Matters, Commitments, Contingencies And Environmental Liabilities | REGULATORY MATTERS, COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES Winter Storm Impacts Winter Storm Uri, which occurred in February 2021, resulted in one-time impacts to the Partnership’s consolidated net income and also affected the results of operations in certain segments. The recognition of the impacts of Winter Storm Uri during the three months ended March 31, 2021 required management to make certain estimates and assumptions, including estimates of expected credit losses and assumptions related to the resolution of disputes with counterparties with respect to certain purchases and sales of natural gas. The ultimate realization of credit losses and the resolution of disputed purchases and sales of natural gas could materially impact the Partnership’s financial condition and results of operations in future periods. FERC Proceedings By Order issued January 16, 2019, the FERC initiated a review of Panhandle’s existing rates pursuant to Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”) to determine whether the rates currently charged by Panhandle are just and reasonable and set the matter for hearing. On August 30, 2019, Panhandle filed a general rate proceeding under Section 4 of the NGA. The Natural Gas Act Section 5 and Section 4 proceedings were consolidated by the order of the Chief Judge dated October 1, 2019. A hearing in the combined proceedings commenced on August 25, 2020 and adjourned on September 15, 2020. The initial decision by the administrative law judge was issued on March 26, 2021. On April 26, 2021, Panhandle filed its brief on exceptions to the initial decision. Commitments In the normal course of business, our subsidiaries purchase, process and sell natural gas pursuant to long-term contracts and 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 its financial position or results of operations. Our joint venture agreements require that we fund our proportionate share of capital contributions to our unconsolidated affiliates. Such contributions will depend upon the unconsolidated affiliates’ capital requirements, such as for funding capital projects or repayment of long-term obligations. We have certain non-cancelable rights-of-way (“ROW”) commitments, which require fixed payments and either expire upon our chosen abandonment or at various dates in the future. The table below reflects ROW expense included in operating expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations: Three Months Ended 2021 2020 ROW expense $ 6 $ 10 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. 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 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. As of March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, accruals of approximately $49 million and $77 million, respectively, were reflected on our consolidated balance sheets related to contingent obligations that met both the probable and reasonably estimable criteria. In addition, we may recognize additional contingent losses in the future related to (i) contingent matters for which a loss is currently considered reasonably possible but not probable and/or (ii) losses in excess of amounts that have already been accrued for such contingent matters. In some of these cases, we are not able to estimate possible losses or a range of possible losses in excess of amounts accrued. For such matters where additional contingent losses can be reasonably estimated, the range of additional losses is estimated to be up to approximately $80 million. 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 or our estimates of reasonably possible losses prior to resolution of a particular contingency based on changes in facts and circumstances or changes in the expected outcome. Dakota Access Pipeline On July 27, 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (“SRST”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (“District Court”) challenging permits issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) that allowed Dakota Access to cross the Missouri River at Lake Oahe in North Dakota. The case was subsequently amended to challenge an easement issued by the USACE that allowed the pipeline to cross land owned by the USACE adjacent to the Missouri River. Dakota Access and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (“CRST”) intervened. Separate lawsuits filed by the Oglala Sioux Tribe (“OST”) and the Yankton Sioux Tribe (“YST”) were consolidated with this action and several individual tribal members intervened (collectively, with SRST and CRST, the “Tribes”). On March 25, 2020, the District Court remanded the case back to the USACE for preparation of an Environment Impact Statement (“EIS”). On July 6, 2020, the District Court vacated the easement and ordered Dakota Access to be shut down and emptied of oil by August 5, 2020. Dakota Access and the USACE appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (“Court of Appeals”) which granted an administrative stay of the District Court’s July 6 order and ordered further briefing on whether to fully stay the July 6 order. On August 5, 2020, the Court of Appeals 1) granted a stay of the portion of the District Court order that required Dakota Access to shut the pipeline down and empty it of oil, 2) denied a motion to stay the March 25 order pending a decision on the merits by the Court of Appeals as to whether the USACE would be required to prepare an EIS, and 3) denied a motion to stay the District Court’s order to vacate the easement during this appeal process. The August 5 order also states that the Court of Appeals expected the USACE to clarify its position with respect to whether USACE intended to allow the continued operation of the pipeline notwithstanding the vacatur of the easement and that the District Court may consider additional relief, if necessary. On August 10, 2020, the District Court ordered the USACE to submit a status report by August 31, 2020, clarifying its position with regard to its decision-making process with respect to the continued operation of the pipeline. On August 31, 2020, the USACE submitted a status report that indicated that it considered the presence of the pipeline at the Lake Oahe crossing without an easement to constitute an encroachment on federal land, and that it was still considering whether to exercise its enforcement discretion regarding this encroachment. The Tribes subsequently filed a motion seeking an injunction to stop the operation of the pipeline and both of the USACE and Dakota Access filed briefs in opposition of the motion for injunction. The motion for injunction was fully briefed as of January 8, 2021. On January 26, 2021, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s March 25, 2020 order requiring an EIS and its July 6, 2020 order vacating the easement. In this same January 26 order, the Court of Appeals also overturned the District Court’s July 6, 2020 order that the pipeline shut down and be emptied of oil. Dakota Access filed for rehearing en banc on April 12, 2021, which the Court of Appeals denied. Dakota Access has until September 30, 2021 to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. The District Court scheduled a status conference for February 10, 2021 to discuss the effects of the Court of Appeals’ January 26, 2021 order on the pending motion for injunctive relief, as well as USACE’s expectations as to how it will proceed regarding its enforcement discretion regarding the easement. At the request of the USACE, on February 9, 2021 the District Court granted a two-month continuance for the status conference until April 9, 2021. On April 9, 2021, the District Court granted Dakota Access’s request for the opportunity to file updates to its declarations supporting the opposition to injunctive relief and thereafter granted the Tribes’ request to file updates to their declarations supporting their position with respect to injunctive relief. Dakota Access and the Tribes filed their supplemental declarations on April 19, 2021 and April 26, 2021, respectively. On April 26, 2021, the District Court requested that USACE advise it by May 3, 2021 as to USACE’s current position, if it has one, with respect to the Motion. On May 3, 2021, USACE advised the District Court that it had not changed its position with respect to its opposition to the Tribes’ motion for injunction. The USACE also advised the District Court that it expected that the EIS will be completed by March 2022. The District Court is expected to rule on the motion in the near future. The pipeline continues to operate pending rulings from the District Court. ET cannot determine when or how these lawsuits will be resolved or the impact they may have on the Dakota Access pipelines; however, ET expects after the law and complete record are fully considered, the issues in this litigation will be resolved in a manner that will allow the pipeline to continue to operate. In addition, lawsuits and/or regulatory proceedings or actions of this or a similar nature could result in interruptions to construction or operations of current or future projects, delays in completing those projects and/or increased project costs, all of which could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations. Mont Belvieu Incident On June 26, 2016, a hydrocarbon storage well located on another operator’s facility adjacent to Lone Star NGL LLC’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; however, Lone Star is still quantifying the extent of its incurred and ongoing damages and has obtained, and will continue to seek, reimbursement for these losses. MTBE Litigation ETC Sunoco Holdings LLC and Sunoco R&M (collectively, “Sunoco Defendants”) 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 March 31, 2021, Sunoco Defendants are defendants in five cases, including one case each initiated by the States of Maryland 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 ETO, ETP Holdco Corporation, and Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. (“SPMT”). 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 On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman (“Dieckman or Plaintiff”), a purported Regency unitholder, filed a class action complaint related to the Regency-ETO merger (the “Regency Merger”) 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, ET, ETO, Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P., and the members of Regency’s board of directors. The Regency Merger Litigation alleges that the Regency Merger breached the Regency partnership agreement. On March 29, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. Plaintiff appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Chancery. Plaintiff then filed an Amended Verified Class Action Complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss. The Court of Chancery granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims against all defendants other than Regency GP LP and Regency GP LLC (the “Regency Defendants”). The Court of Chancery later granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion for class certification. Trial was held on December 10-16, 2019, and a post-trial hearing was held on May 6, 2020. On February 15, 2021, the Court of Chancery ruled in favor of the Regency Defendants on all claims at issue in this litigation, determined that the Regency Merger was fair and reasonable to Regency, and denied plaintiff any relief. On March 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The Regency Defendants cannot predict the outcome of this appeal but intend to vigorously oppose it. Litigation Filed By or Against Williams In April and May 2016, the Williams Companies, Inc. (“Williams”) filed two lawsuits (the “Williams Litigation”) against ET, LE GP, and, in one of the lawsuits, Energy Transfer Corp LP, ETE Corp GP, LLC, and Energy Transfer Equity GP, LLC (collectively, “ET Defendants”), alleging that ET Defendants breached their obligations under the ET-Williams merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”). In general, Williams alleges that ET 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) issuing the Partnership’s series A convertible preferred units (the “Issuance”), and (c) making allegedly untrue representations and warranties in the Merger Agreement. After a two-day trial on June 20 and 21, 2016, the Court ruled in favor of ET Defendants and issued a declaratory judgment that ET could terminate the merger after June 28, 2016 because of Latham’s inability to provide the required 721 Opinion. The Court did not reach a decision regarding Williams’ claims related to the Issuance nor the alleged untrue representations and warranties. On March 23, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court’s ruling on the June 2016 trial. In September 2016, the parties filed amended pleadings. Williams filed an amended complaint seeking a $410 million termination fee based on the alleged breaches of the Merger Agreement listed above. ET Defendants filed amended counterclaims and affirmative defenses, asserting that Williams materially breached the Merger Agreement by, among other things, (a) failing to use its reasonable best efforts to consummate the merger, (b) failing to provide material information to ET for inclusion in the Form S-4 related to the merger, (c) failing to facilitate the financing of the merger, and (d) breaching the Merger Agreement’s forum-selection clause. In July 2020, the Court denied ET Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Williams’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Trial is currently set for May 10-17, 2021. ET Defendants cannot predict the outcome of the Williams Litigation or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can ET Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve these lawsuits. ET Defendants believe that Williams’ claims are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them. Rover On November 3, 2017, the State of Ohio and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“Ohio EPA”) filed suit against Rover and other defendants seeking to recover civil penalties allegedly owed and certain injunctive relief related to permit compliance. The defendants filed several motions to dismiss, which were granted on all counts. The Ohio EPA appealed, and on December 9, 2019, the Fifth District Court of Appeals entered a unanimous judgment affirming the trial court. The Ohio EPA sought review from the Ohio Supreme Court, which the defendants opposed in briefs filed in February 2020. On April 22, 2020, the Ohio Supreme Court granted the Ohio EPA’s request for review. Briefing has concluded and oral argument was held on January 26, 2021. The parties are awaiting a decision. Revolution On September 10, 2018, a pipeline release and fire (the “Incident”) occurred on the Revolution pipeline, a natural gas gathering line located in Center Township, Beaver County, Pennsylvania. There were no injuries. On February 8, 2019, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) issued a Permit Hold on any requests for approvals/permits or permit amendments for any project in Pennsylvania pursuant to the state’s water laws. The Partnership filed an appeal of the Permit Hold with the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board. On January 3, 2020, the Partnership entered into a Consent Order and Agreement with the PADEP in which, among other things, the Permit Hold was lifted, the Partnership agreed to pay a $28.6 million civil penalty and fund a $2 million community environmental project, and all related appeals were withdrawn. On November 11, 2020, the PADEP issued an order that required additional approvals and work prior to placing the Revolution Pipeline back in service. The Partnership filed an appeal of this order on December 8, 2020. On February 26, 2021, the Partnership entered into a Consent Order and Agreement with the Department in which, among other things, allowed the Partnership to place the Revolution pipeline back in service, the Partnership agreed to pay a $125,000 penalty, and all related appeals were withdrawn. The Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General has commenced an investigation regarding the Incident, and the United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania has issued a federal grand jury subpoena for documents relevant to the Incident. The scope of these investigations is not further known at this time. Chester County, Pennsylvania Investigation In December 2018, the former Chester County District Attorney (the “Chester County DA”) sent a letter to the Partnership stating that his office was investigating the Partnership and related entities for “potential crimes” related to the Mariner East pipelines. Subsequently, the matter was submitted to an Investigating Grand Jury in Chester County, Pennsylvania, which has issued subpoenas seeking documents and testimony. On September 24, 2019, the Chester County DA sent a Notice of Intent to the Partnership of its intent to pursue an abatement action if certain conditions were not remediated. The Partnership responded to the Notice of Intent within the prescribed time period. In December 2019, the Chester County DA announced charges against a current employee related to the provision of security services. On June 25, 2020, a preliminary hearing was held on the charges against the employee, and the judge dismissed all charges. Delaware County, Pennsylvania Investigation On March 11, 2019, the Delaware County District Attorney’s Office (the “Delaware County DA”) announced that the Delaware County DA and the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, at the request of the Delaware County DA, are conducting an investigation of alleged criminal misconduct involving the construction and related activities of the Mariner East pipelines in Delaware County. On March 16, 2020, the Pennsylvania Attorney General Office served a Statewide Investigating Grand Jury subpoena for documents relating to inadvertent returns and water supplies related to the Mariner East pipelines. While the Partnership will cooperate with the subpoena, it intends to vigorously defend itself. Shareholder Litigation Regarding Pennsylvania Pipeline Construction Four purported unitholders of ET filed derivative actions against various past and current members of ET’s Board of Directors, LE GP, and ET, as a nominal defendant that assert claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, breach of ET’s limited partnership agreement, tortious interference, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement related primarily to matters involving the construction of pipelines in Pennsylvania. They also seek damages and changes to ET’s corporate governance structure. See Bettiol v. LE GP , Case No. 3:19-cv-02890-X (N.D. Tex.); Davidson v. Kelcy L. Warren, Cause No. DC-20-02322 (44th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas); Harris v. Kelcy L. Warren , Case No. 2:20-cv-00364-GAM (E.D. Pa.); and King v. LE GP , Case No. 3:20-cv-00719-X (N.D. Tex.). Another purported unitholder of ET, Allegheny County Employees’ Retirement System (“ACERS”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a suit under the federal securities laws purportedly on behalf of a class, against ET and three of ET’s directors, Kelcy L. Warren, John W. McReynolds, and Thomas E. Long. See Allegheny County Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Energy Transfer LP , Case No. 2:20-00200-GAM (E.D. Pa.). On June 15, 2020, ACERS filed an amended complaint and added as additional defendants ET directors Marshall McCrea and Matthew Ramsey, as well as Michael J. Hennigan and Joseph McGinn. The amended complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related primarily to matters involving the construction of pipelines in Pennsylvania. On August 14, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss ACERS’ amended complaint. On April 6, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court held that ACERS could proceed with its claims regarding certain statements put at issue by the amended complaint while also dismissing claims based on other statements. The court also dismissed without prejudice the claims against defendants McReynolds, McGinn, and Hennigan. The defendants cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or any lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can the defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve these lawsuits. However, the defendants believe that the claims are without merit and intend to vigorously contest them. Cline Class Action On July 7, 2017, Perry Cline filed a class action complaint in the Eastern District of Oklahoma against Sunoco R&M and Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. (collectively, “SPMT”) that alleged SPMT failed to make timely payments of oil and gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells and to pay statutory interest for those untimely payments. On October 3, 2019, the Court certified a class to include all persons who received untimely payments from Oklahoma wells on or after July 7, 2012 and who have not already been paid statutory interest on the untimely payments (the “Class”). Excluded from the Class are those entitled to payments of proceeds that qualify as “minimum pay,” prior period adjustments, and pass through payments, as well as governmental agencies and publicly traded oil and gas companies. After a bench trial, on August 17, 2020, Judge John Gibney (sitting from the Eastern District of Virginia) issued an opinion that awarded the Class actual damages of $74.8 million for late payment interest for identified and unidentified royalty owners and interest-on-interest. This amount was later amended to $80.7 million to account for interest accrued from trial (the “Order”). Judge Gibney also awarded punitive damages in the amount of $75 million. The Class is also seeking attorneys’ fees. On August 27, 2020, SPMT filed its Notice of Appeal with the 10th Circuit and appealed the entirety of the Order. SPMT cannot predict the outcome of the case, nor can SPMT predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the appeal, but intends to vigorously appeal the entirety of the Order. 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, natural resource damages, 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 our 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. In February 2017, we received letters from the DOJ on behalf of EPA and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”) notifying SPLP and Mid-Valley Pipeline Company (“Mid-Valley”) that enforcement actions were being pursued for three separate crude oil releases: (a) an estimated 550 barrels released from the Colmesneil-to-Chester pipeline in Tyler County, Texas (“Colmesneil”) which allegedly occurred in February 2013; (b) an estimated 4,509 barrels released from the Longview-to-Mayersville pipeline in Caddo Parish, Louisiana (a/k/a Milepost 51.5) which allegedly occurred in October 2014; and (c) an estimated 40 barrels released from the Wakita 4-inch gathering line in Oklahoma which allegedly occurred in January 2015. In January 2019, a Consent Decree approved by all parties as well as an accompanying Complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana seeking public comment and final court approval to resolve all penalties with the DOJ and LDEQ for the three releases. Subsequently, the court approved the Consent Decree and the penalty payment of $5.4 million was satisfied. The Consent Decree requires certain injunctive relief to be completed on the Longview-to-Mayersville pipeline within three years but the injunctive relief is not expected to have any material impact on operations. In addition to resolution of the civil penalty and injunctive relief, we continue to discuss natural resource damages with the Louisiana trustees related to the Caddo Parish, Louisiana release. On June 4, 2019, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission’s (“OCC”) Transportation Division filed a complaint against SPLP seeking a penalty of up to $1 million related to a May 2018 rupture near Edmond, Oklahoma. The rupture occurred on the Noble to Douglas 8-inch pipeline in an area of external corrosion and caused the release of approximately fifteen barrels of crude oil. SPLP responded immediately to the release and remediated the surrounding environment and pipeline in cooperation with the OCC. The OCC filed the complaint alleging that SPLP failed to provide adequate cathodic protection to the pipeline causing the failure. SPLP is finalizing a settlement agreement with the OCC for a lesser penalty 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 polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”). PCB assessments are ongoing and, in some cases, our subsidiaries could be contractually responsible for contamination caused by other parties. • certain gathering and processing systems are responsible for soil and groundwater remediation related to releases of hydrocarbons. • legacy sites related to Sunoco, Inc. are subject to environmental assessments, including formerly owned terminals and other logistics assets, retail sites that Sunoco 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 has been identified as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”). As of March 31, 2021, Sunoco, Inc. had been named as a PRP at approximately 35 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 throu |
