| Litigation, Environmental and Other Contingencies | Litigation, Environmental and Other Contingencies We and our subsidiaries are parties to various legal, regulatory and other matters arising from the day-to-day operations of our businesses or certain predecessor operations that may result in claims against the Company. Although no assurance can be given, we believe, based on our experiences to date and taking into account established reserves and insurance, that the ultimate resolution of such items will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial position, results of operations or dividends to our shareholders. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the matters to which we are a party and intend to vigorously defend the Company. When we determine a loss is probable of occurring and is reasonably estimable, we accrue an undiscounted liability for such contingencies based on our best estimate using information available at that time. If the estimated loss is a range of potential outcomes and there is no better estimate within the range, we accrue the amount at the low end of the range. We disclose contingencies where an adverse outcome may be material or, in the judgment of management, we conclude the matter should otherwise be disclosed. FERC Proceedings FERC Rulemaking on Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for Jurisdictional Natural Gas Pipelines On March 15, 2018, FERC issued a notice of proposed rule-making (NOPR) which proposed a process to implement for ratemaking purposes the 2017 Tax Reform. The NOPR proposed that each regulated interstate natural gas pipeline make a mandatory filing (Form 501-G) to reflect, based upon certain required assumptions, the rate impact of the reduced statutory corporate tax rate, and in the case of master limited partnerships and other pass-entities, the elimination of an income tax allowance and unspecified resulting treatment of accumulated deferred income tax (ADIT) in the cost of service. The Commission’s NOPR also provided four options for regulated entities to consider: (1) make a limited filing under section 4 of the NGA to reduce rates for the impact of the 2017 Tax Reform; (2) commit to file a general section 4 rate case in the near future; (3) file an explanation why no rate change is needed, and (4) take no further action other than filing the required Form 501-G report. On July 18, 2018, FERC issued Order No. 849 (Final Rule) promulgating a final rule to implement the 2017 Tax Reform for jurisdictional natural gas pipelines. The Final Rule continues to require the regulated interstate pipelines to file the Form 501-G reflecting certain mandatory assumptions. The Final Rule also maintains substantially the same four options for a pipeline to choose between to implement the reduced corporate tax rate. The Final Rule does clarify that pass through entities whose income consolidates up to a federal income tax paying entity will be allowed to reflect an income tax allowance. It also clarifies that the required filing is a one-time informational filing and that FERC is not mandating any adjustment in rates as a function of complying with the Final Rule. Companies are also allowed to file an addendum which may reflect an income tax allowance, alternative capital structure and alternative equity returns. The Final Rule maintains the integrity of negotiated rate contracts. We believe that the required, one-time, informational Form 501-G filings will be misleading and confusing to customers and investors. We also continue to believe any negative impact to revenues will be mitigated and spread out over multiple years given the procedural options presented in the Final Rule, the prospective nature of rate changes under section 5 of the NGA and the fact that the Commission affirmed its intention to respect negotiated rate contracts. Many of our rates are set pursuant to negotiated rate arrangements that consistent with the Final Rule will not be subject to adjustment due to changes in tax law. Also, many of our current transactions are provided at discounted rates that are below maximum tariff rates, many of which would not be impacted by a change in the maximum tariff rate. Further, on many of our pipelines we are operating under rate settlements that limit changes to their terms during the life of the settlement. SFPP The tariffs and rates charged by SFPP are subject to a number of ongoing proceedings at the FERC, including the complaints and protests of various shippers, the most recent of which was filed in 2015 (docketed at OR16-6) challenging SFPP’s filed East Line rates. In general, these complaints and protests allege the rates and tariffs charged by SFPP are not just and reasonable under the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA). In some of these proceedings shippers have challenged the overall rate being charged by SFPP, and in others the shippers have challenged SFPP’s index-based rate increases. If the shippers prevail on their arguments or claims, they are entitled to seek reparations (which may reach back up to two years prior to the filing date of their complaints) or refunds of any excess rates paid, and SFPP may be required to reduce its rates going forward. These proceedings tend to be protracted, with decisions of the FERC often appealed to the federal courts. The issues involved in these proceedings include, among others, whether indexed rate increases are justified, and the appropriate level of return and income tax allowance SFPP may include in its rates. On March 22, 2016, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in United Airlines, Inc. v. FERC remanding to FERC for further consideration of two issues: (1) the appropriate data to be used to determine the return on equity for SFPP in the underlying docket, and (2) the just and reasonable return to be provided to a tax pass-through entity that includes an income tax allowance in its underlying cost of service. On July 21, 2017, an initial decision by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in OR16-6 concluded that the Complainants are due reparations, with appropriate interest, equal to the difference between what SFPP collected from the Complainants for service on the East Line and the amounts SFPP would have collected had it charged just and reasonable rates for that line. The ALJ ruled that an income tax allowance should be included in the cost of service both to determine reparations and to set going forward rates, and found that the new just and reasonable rates are not knowable until the FERC reviews the initial decision and orders a compliance filing. The FERC will determine which portions of the initial decision to affirm, reject or amend. On March 15, 2018, the FERC announced certain policy changes including a Revised Policy Statement on Treatment of Income Taxes (Revised Policy Statement) and, that same day, the FERC issued orders in a series of pending SFPP proceedings which combined to deny income tax allowance to SFPP, direct SFPP to make compliance filings in its 2008 and 2009 rate filing documents, and restart the 2011 SFPP complaint proceeding which had been abated. Requests for rehearing were filed in the Revised Policy Statement docket as well as the SFPP dockets in which the Revised Policy Statement was applied. The requests for rehearing in the SFPP dockets remain pending at the FERC. On July 18, 2018, the FERC issued an Order on Rehearing in the Revised Policy Statement docket in which it denied the rehearing petitions and clarified that the issue of entitlement to an income tax allowance will continue to be resolved in individual proceedings, including proceedings involving income tax pass-through entities. The FERC also clarified that when an income tax allowance is eliminated from cost of service, previously ADIT balances associated with such income tax allowance may also be eliminated. With respect to the various SFPP related complaints and protest proceedings at the FERC, we estimate that the shippers are seeking approximately $30 million in annual rate reductions and approximately $300 million in refunds. Management believes SFPP has meritorious arguments supporting SFPP’s rates and intends to vigorously defend SFPP against these complaints and protests. However, to the extent the shippers are successful in one or more of the complaints or protest proceedings, SFPP estimates that applying the principles of FERC precedent, as applicable, to pending SFPP cases would result in rate reductions and refunds substantially lower than those sought by the shippers. EPNG The tariffs and rates charged by EPNG are subject to two ongoing FERC proceedings (the “2008 rate case” and the “2010 rate case”). With respect to the 2008 rate case, the FERC issued its decision (Opinion 517-A) in July 2015. The FERC generally upheld its prior determinations, ordered refunds to be paid within 60 days, and stated that it will apply its findings in Opinion 517-A to the same issues in the 2010 rate case. All refund obligations related to the 2008 rate case were satisfied during calendar year 2015. EPNG sought federal appellate review of Opinion 517-A and oral arguments were held on February 15, 2017. On February 21, 2017, the reviewing court delayed the case until the FERC rules on the rehearing requests pending in the 2010 Rate Case. With respect to the 2010 rate case, the FERC issued its decision (Opinion 528-A) on February 18, 2016. The FERC generally upheld its prior determinations, affirmed prior findings of an Administrative Law Judge that certain shippers qualify for lower rates and required EPNG to file revised pro forma recalculated rates consistent with the terms of Opinions 517-A and 528-A. EPNG and two intervenors sought rehearing of certain aspects of the decision, and the judicial review sought by certain intervenors has been delayed until the FERC issues an order on rehearing. The rehearing and judicial review process is scheduled to begin in August of 2018. On February 23, 2018, a customer group filed a motion in the 2010 rate case requesting the FERC order us to recalculate the rates to be effective on January 1, 2018 to include impacts of the 2017 Tax Reform. We answered in opposition on March 12, 2018. On May 3, 2018, the FERC issued Opinion 528-B upholding its decisions in Opinion 528-A, effectively denying the motion of the customer group, and requiring EPNG to implement the rates required by its rulings and provide refunds within 60 days. On July 2, 2018, EPNG reported to the FERC the refund calculations, and that the refunds had been provided as ordered. Also on July 2, 2018, EPNG initiated appellate review of Opinions 528, 528-A and 528-B. TMEP Litigation There are numerous legal challenges pending before the Federal Court of Appeal that have been filed by various governmental and non-governmental organizations, First Nations or other parties seeking judicial review of the recommendation of the NEB and subsequent decision by the Federal Governor in Council to conditionally approve the TMEP. The petitions allege, among other things, that additional consultation, engagement or accommodation is required and that various non-economic impacts of the TMEP were not adequately considered. The remedies sought include requests that the NEB recommendation be quashed, that additional consultations be undertaken, and that the order of the Governor in Council approving the TMEP be quashed. After provincial elections in British Columbia (BC) on May 9, 2017, the New Democratic Party and Green Party formed a majority government. The new BC government sought and was granted limited intervenor status in the Federal Court of Appeal proceedings to argue against the government’s approval of the TMEP. A hearing was conducted by the Federal Court of Appeal from October 2 through October 13, 2017. A decision is expected in the coming months, and is subject to potential further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Although we believe that each of the foregoing appeals lacks merit, in the event an applicant is successful at the Supreme Court of Canada, among other potential impacts, the NEB recommendation or Governor in Council’s approval may be quashed, permits may be revoked, the TMEP may be subject to additional significant regulatory reviews, there may be significant changes to the TMEP plans, further obligations or restrictions may be implemented, or the TMEP may be stopped altogether, which could materially impact the overall feasibility or economic benefits of the TMEP, which in turn would have a material adverse effect on the TMEP and, consequently, our investment in KML. In addition to the judicial reviews of the NEB recommendation report and Governor in Council’s order, two judicial review proceedings were commenced at the Supreme Court of BC by the Squamish Nation and the City of Vancouver. The petitions alleged a duty and failure to consult or accommodate First Nations, and generally, among other claims, that the Province should not have approved the TMEP, and sought to quash the Environmental Assessment Certificate (EAC) issued by the BC Environmental Assessment Office. On September 29, 2017, the BC government filed evidence in support of the EAC in the judicial review proceeding involving the Squamish Nation. Hearings were conducted in October and November 2017, respectively, for the City of Vancouver and the Squamish Nation judicial review proceedings and the Court took the matters under consideration. On May 24, 2018, the Court dismissed both proceedings. On June 22, 2018, the City of Vancouver filed its notice to appeal the decision to the BC Court of Appeal, and on June 25, 2018, the Squamish Nation also filed an appeal to the BC Court of Appeal. Any decision of the BC Court of Appeal may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Although we believe that each of the foregoing appeals lacks merit, in the event that an applicant for judicial review is successful, among other potential impacts, the EAC may be quashed, provincial permits may be revoked, the TMEP may be subject to additional significant regulatory reviews, there may be significant changes to the TMEP plans, further obligations or restrictions may be imposed or the TMEP may be stopped altogether. On October 26, 2017 and November 14, 2017, Trans Mountain filed motions with the NEB. The first motion sought to resolve delays experienced by Trans Mountain in obtaining preliminary plan approvals from the City of Burnaby. The second motion sought to establish a NEB process to backstop provincial and municipal processes in a fair, transparent and expedited fashion. On December 7, 2017, the NEB issued an order granting the relief requested by Trans Mountain in respect of its motion related to Burnaby (the Burnaby Order). On January 19, 2018, the NEB granted, in part, Trans Mountain’s second motion by establishing a generic process to hear any future motions as they relate to provincial and municipal permitting issues. On February 16, 2018, Burnaby and BC applied to the Federal Court of Appeal for leave to appeal the Burnaby Order. On March 23, 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal denied the application. On May 9, 2018, Burnaby applied for leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. A successful appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada could result in the Burnaby Order being quashed. On April 25, 2018, the BC Lieutenant Governor in Council referred a question to the BC Court of Appeal regarding the constitutionality of draft legislation seeking to impose a requirement for a hazardous substance permit on all persons having possession, charge or control of a certain volume of “heavy oil” in the course of operating an industry, trade or business. We believe the draft legislation, if enacted, would apply to TMEP. On June 18, 2018, the Court granted 20 persons participatory status in the reference matter, including Trans Mountain. The Court has scheduled a hearing on the referenced matter to begin on March 18, 2019. As a result of the filing or resolution of this or any related reference matter, among other potential impacts, there may be significant changes to the TMEP plans, further obligations or restrictions may be imposed or the TMEP may be stopped altogether. Other Commercial Matters Union Pacific Railroad Company Easements Landowner Litigation A purported class action lawsuit was filed in 2015 in a U.S. District Court in California against Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR), SFPP, KMGP and Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. “D” by private landowners who claim to be the lawful owners of subsurface real property allegedly used or occupied by UPRR or SFPP for pipeline easements on rights-of-way held by UPRR. Substantially similar follow-on lawsuits were filed in federal courts by landowners in Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. These suits, which were brought purportedly as class actions on behalf of all landowners who own land in fee adjacent to and underlying the railroad easement under which the SFPP pipeline is located in those respective states, assert claims against UPRR, SFPP, KMGP, and Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. “D” alleging that the defendants’ occupation and use of the subsurface real property was improper. Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification were denied by the federal courts in Arizona and California. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Plaintiffs’ request for interlocutory review of the decisions on class certification. The New Mexico and Nevada lawsuits were stayed. An additional lawsuit was filed in a U.S. District Court in Arizona by private landowners seeking recovery for claims substantially the same as those made in the purported class actions. During first quarter 2018, the parties reached agreements in principle to settle all pending lawsuits on terms that are not material to KMI’s results of operations, cash flows or dividends to shareholders. Gulf LNG Facility Arbitration On March 1, 2016, Gulf LNG Energy, LLC and Gulf LNG Pipeline, LLC (GLNG) received a Notice of Disagreement and Disputed Statements and a Notice of Arbitration from Eni USA Gas Marketing LLC (Eni USA), one of two companies that entered into a terminal use agreement for capacity of the Gulf LNG Facility in Mississippi for an initial term that is not scheduled to expire until the year 2031. Eni USA is an indirect subsidiary of Eni S.p.A., a multi-national integrated energy company headquartered in Milan, Italy. Pursuant to its Notice of Arbitration, Eni USA sought declaratory and monetary relief based upon its assertion that (i) the terminal use agreement should be terminated because changes in the U.S. natural gas market since the execution of the agreement in December 2007 have “frustrated the essential purpose” of the agreement and (ii) activities allegedly undertaken by affiliates of Gulf LNG Holdings Group LLC “in connection with a plan to convert the LNG Facility into a liquefaction/export facility have given rise to a contractual right on the part of Eni USA to terminate” the agreement. As set forth in the terminal use agreement, disputes are meant to be resolved by final and binding arbitration. A three-member arbitration panel conducted an arbitration hearing in January 2017. On June 29, 2018, the arbitration panel delivered its Award, and the panel's ruling calls for the termination of the agreement and Eni USA's payment of compensation to GLNG. The Award resulted in our recording a net loss in our equity investment in GLNG due to a non-cash impairment of our investment in GLNG partially offset by our share of earnings recognized by GLNG. Brinckerhoff Merger Litigation In April 2017, a purported class action suit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by Peter Brinckerhoff, a former EPB unitholder on behalf of a class of former unaffiliated unitholders of EPB, seeking to challenge the $9.2 billion merger of EPB into a subsidiary of KMI as part of a series of transactions in November 2014 whereby KMI acquired all of the outstanding equity interests in KMP, Kinder Morgan Management, LLC and EPB that KMI and its subsidiaries did not already own. The suit alleged that the merger consideration did not sufficiently compensate EPB unitholders for the value of three derivative suits concerning drop down transactions which the derivative plaintiff lost standing to pursue after the merger and which the present suit now alleges were collectively worth as much as $700 million . The suit claimed that the alleged failure to obtain sufficient merger consideration for the drop down lawsuits constitutes a breach of the EPB limited partnership agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The suit also asserted claims against KMI and certain individual defendants for allegedly tortiously interfering with and/or aiding and abetting the alleged breach of the limited partnership agreement. In November 2017, the Court dismissed the suit in its entirety. On June 8, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. Also in November 2017, counsel for Brinckerhoff filed a separate lawsuit against KMEP and KMI seeking to recover up to $44 million in attorneys’ fees allegedly incurred in connection with the assertion of derivative claims that Brinckerhoff lost standing to pursue. On April 9, 2018, the Court dismissed the suit in its entirety, and that dismissal is final. Price Reporting Litigation Beginning in 2003, several lawsuits were filed by purchasers of natural gas against El Paso Corporation, El Paso Marketing L.P. and numerous other energy companies based on a claim under state antitrust law that such defendants conspired to manipulate the price of natural gas by providing false price information to industry trade publications that published gas indices. Several of the cases have been settled or dismissed. The remaining cases, which are pending in a U.S. District Court in Nevada, were dismissed, but the dismissal was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision dated April 21, 2015, and the cases were then remanded to the District Court for further consideration and trial, if necessary, of numerous remaining issues. On May 24, 2016, the District Court granted a motion for summary judgment dismissing a lawsuit brought by an industrial consumer in Kansas in which approximately $500 million in damages has been alleged. On March 27, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court. Settlements have been reached in class actions originally filed in Kansas and Missouri, which settlements received final court approval and have been paid. In the Wisconsin class action in which approximately $300 million in damages has been alleged against all defendants, the U.S. District Court denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted plaintiff’s request for an interlocutory appeal of this ruling. There remains significant uncertainty regarding the validity of the causes of action, the damages asserted and the level of damages, if any, which may be allocated to us in the remaining lawsuits and therefore, our legal exposure, if any, and costs are not currently determinable. Pipeline Integrity and Releases From time to time, despite our best efforts, our pipelines experience leaks and ruptures. These leaks and ruptures may cause explosions, fire, and damage to the environment, damage to property and/or personal injury or death. In connection with these incidents, we may be sued for damages caused by an alleged failure to properly mark the locations of our pipelines and/or to properly maintain our pipelines. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular incident, state and federal regulatory authorities may seek civil and/or criminal fines and penalties. General As of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, our total reserve for legal matters was $411 million and $350 million , respectively. The reserve primarily relates to various claims from regulatory proceedings arising in our products and natural gas pipeline segments. Environmental Matters We and our subsidiaries are subject to environmental cleanup and enforcement actions from time to time. In particular, CERCLA generally imposes joint and several liability for cleanup and enforcement costs on current and predecessor owners and operators of a site, among others, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, subject to the right of a liable party to establish a “reasonable basis” for apportionment of costs. Our operations are also subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to protection of the environment. Although we believe our operations are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, risks of additional costs and liabilities are inherent in pipeline, terminal and CO 2 field and oil field operations, and there can be no assurance that we will not incur significant costs and liabilities. Moreover, it is possible that other developments, such as increasingly stringent environmental laws, regulations and enforcement policies under the terms of authority of those laws, and claims for damages to property or persons resulting from our operations, could result in substantial costs and liabilities to us. We are currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving alleged violations of environmental and safety regulations, including alleged violations of the Risk Management Program and leak detection and repair requirements of the Clean Air Act. As we receive notices of non-compliance, we attempt to negotiate and settle such matters where appropriate. These alleged violations may result in fines and penalties, but we do not believe any such fines and penalties, individually or in the aggregate, will be material. We are also currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving groundwater and soil remediation efforts under administrative orders or related state remediation programs. We have established a reserve to address the costs associated with the cleanup. In addition, we are involved with and have been identified as a potentially responsible party in several federal and state superfund sites. Environmental reserves have been established for those sites where our contribution is probable and reasonably estimable. In addition, we are from time to time involved in civil proceedings relating to damages alleged to have occurred as a result of accidental leaks or spills of refined petroleum products, NGL, natural gas and CO 2 . Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Willamette River, Portland, Oregon In December 2000, the EPA issued General Notice letters to potentially responsible parties including GATX Terminals Corporation (n/k/a KMLT). At that time, GATX owned two liquids terminals along the lower reach of the Willamette River, an industrialized area known as Portland Harbor. Portland Harbor is listed on the National Priorities List and is designated as a Superfund Site under CERCLA. A group of potentially responsible parties formed what is known as the Lower Willamette Group (LWG), of which KMLT is a non-voting member. The LWG agreed to conduct the remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) leading to the proposed remedy for cleanup of the Portland Harbor site. The EPA issued the FS and the Proposed Plan on June 8, 2016 which included a proposed combination of dredging, capping, and enhanced natural recovery. On January 6, 2017, the EPA issued its Record of Decision (ROD) for the final cleanup plan. The final remedy is more stringent than the remedy proposed in the EPA’s Proposed Plan. The estimated cost increased from approximately $750 million to approximately $1.1 billion , and active cleanup is now expected to take as long as 13 years to complete. KMLT and 90 other parties are involved in a non-judicial allocation process to determine each party’s respective share of the cleanup costs. We are participating in the allocation process on behalf of KMLT and KMBT in connection with their current or former ownership or operation of four facilities located in Portland Harbor. Our share of responsibility for Portland Harbor Superfund Site costs will not be determined until the ongoing non-judicial allocation process is concluded in several years or a lawsuit is filed that results in a judicial decision allocating responsibility. Until the allocation process is completed, we are unable to reasonably estimate the extent of our liability for the costs related to the design of the proposed remedy and cleanup of the site. In addition to CERCLA cleanup costs, we are reviewing and will attempt to settle, if possible, natural resource damage (NRD) claims asserted by state and federal trustees following their natural resource assessment of the site. At this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate the extent of our potential NRD liability. Roosevelt Irrigation District v. Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., U.S. District Court, Arizona The Roosevelt Irrigation District filed a lawsuit in 2010 against KMGP, KMEP and others under CERCLA for alleged contamination of the water purveyor’s wells. The First Amended Complaint sought $175 million in damages from approximately 70 defendants. KMGP was dismissed from the suit. On August 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint seeking monetary damages in unspecified amounts and reducing the number of defendants to 26 including KMEP and SFPP. The claims against KMEP and SFPP were related to alleged releases from a specific parcel within the SFPP Phoenix Terminal and the alleged impact of such releases on water wells owned by the plaintiffs and located in the vicinity of the Terminal. During the first quarter of 2018, KMEP and SFPP settled all claims made by the Roosevelt Irrigation District on terms that are not material to KMI’s results of operations, cash flows or dividends to shareholders. Uranium Mines in Vicinity of Cameron, Arizona In the 1950s and 1960s, Rare Metals Inc., a historical subsidiary of EPNG, mined approximately twenty uranium mines in the vicinity of Cameron, Arizona, many of which are located on the Navajo Indian Reservation. The mining activities were in response to numerous incentives provided to industry by the U.S. to locate and produce domestic sources of uranium to support the Cold War-era nuclear weapons program. In May 2012, EPNG received a general notice letter from the EPA notifying EPNG of the EPA’s investigation of certain sites and its determination that the EPA considers EPNG to be a potentially responsible party within the meaning of CERCLA. In August 2013, EPNG and the EPA entered into an Administrative Order on Consent and Scope of Work pursuant to which EPNG is conducting a radiological assessment of the surface of the mines and the immediate vicinity. On September 3, 2014, EPNG filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona seeking cost recovery and contribution from the applicable federal government agencies toward the cost of environmental activities associated with the mines, given the U.S. is the owner of the Navajo Reservation, the U.S.’s exploration and reclamation activities at the mines, and the pervasive control of such federal agencies over all aspects of the nuclear weapons program. Defendants filed an answer and counterclaims seeking contribution and recovery of response costs allegedly incurred by the federal agencies in investigating uranium impacts on the Navajo Reservation. The counterclaim of defendant EPA has been settled, and no viable claims for reimbursement by the other defendants are known to exist. In August 2017, the District Court found the U.S. liable under CERCLA as owner of the Navajo Reservation. The matter seeking cost recovery and contribution from federal government agencies is set for trial in February 2019. We intend to continue to prosecute and defend this case vigorously. Lower Passaic River Study Area of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, Essex, Hudson, Bergen and Passaic Counties, New Jersey EPEC Polymers, Inc. (EPEC Polymers) and EPEC Oil Company Liquidating Trust (EPEC Oil Trust), former El Paso Corporation entities now owned by KMI, are involved in an administrative action under CERCLA known as the Lower Passaic River Study Area Superfund Site (Site) concerning the lower 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River. It has been alleged that EPEC Polymers and EPEC Oil Trust may be potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under CERCLA based on prior ownership and/or operation of properties located along the relevant section of the Passaic River. EPEC Polymers and EPEC Oil Trust entered in |
