REGULATORY MATTERS, COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES

Contingent Residual Support Agreement – AmeriGas

In connection with the closing of the contribution of its propane operations in January 2012, ETLP (formerly Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.) agreed to provide contingent residual support of $1.55 billion of intercompany borrowings made by AmeriGas and certain of its affiliates with maturities through 2022 from a finance subsidiary of AmeriGas that have maturity dates and repayment terms that mirror those of an equal principal amount of senior notes issued by this finance company subsidiary to third-party purchasers. In 2016, AmeriGas repurchased certain of its senior notes, which caused a reduction in the amount supported by ETLP under the contingent residual support agreement. In February 2017, AmeriGas repurchased a portion of its 7.00% senior notes. The remaining outstanding 7.00% senior notes were repurchased in May 2017, and ETLP no longer guarantees any AmeriGas notes.

Guarantee of Sunoco LP Notes

In connection with previous transactions whereby Retail Holdings contributed assets to Sunoco LP, Retail Holdings provided a limited contingent guarantee of collection, but not of payment, to Sunoco LP with respect to (i) $800 million principal amount of 6.375% senior notes due 2023 issued by Sunoco LP, (ii) $800 million principal amount of 6.25% senior notes due 2021 issued by Sunoco LP and (iii) $2.035 billion aggregate principal for Sunoco LP’s term loan due 2019. In December 2016, Retail Holdings contributed its interests in Sunoco LP, along with the assignment of the guarantee of Sunoco LP’s senior notes, to its subsidiary, ETC M-A Acquisition LLC.

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 our business, we purchase, process and sell natural gas pursuant to long-term contracts and we enter into long-term transportation and storage agreements. Such contracts contain terms that are customary in the industry. We believe that the terms of these agreements are commercially reasonable and will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

We have certain non-cancelable leases for property and equipment, which require fixed monthly rental payments and expire at various dates through 2034. 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 June 30,				Six Months Ended June 30,
	2017		2016		2017		2016
Rental expense	$	14	$	21	$	34	$	39

Our joint venture agreements require that we fund our proportionate share of capital contributions to our unconsolidated affiliates. Such contributions will depend upon our unconsolidated affiliates’ capital requirements, such as for funding capital projects or repayment of long-term obligations.

Litigation and Contingencies

We may, from time to time, be involved in litigation and claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business. Natural gas and crude oil are flammable and combustible. Serious personal injury and significant property damage can arise in connection with their transportation, storage or use. In the ordinary course of business, we are sometimes threatened with or named as a defendant in various lawsuits seeking actual and punitive damages for product liability, personal injury and property damage. We maintain liability insurance with insurers in amounts and with coverage and deductibles management believes are reasonable and prudent, and which are generally accepted in the industry. However, there can be no assurance that the levels of insurance protection currently in effect will continue to be available at reasonable prices or that such levels will remain adequate to protect us from material expenses related to product liability, personal injury or property damage in the future.

Dakota Access Pipeline

During the summer of 2016, individuals affiliated with or sympathetic to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (the “SRST”) began to protest the development of the pipeline project. Protesters trespassed on to the construction site, tampered with equipment, and disrupted construction activity at the site. In response to the protests, Dakota Access filed a lawsuit in federal court in North Dakota to restrain protestors from disrupting construction and also requested a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against the Chairman of the SRST and the protestors. The U.S. District Court granted and later dissolved a TRO enjoining protest activity. The protestors moved to dismiss the lawsuit and the Court granted their motion in May 2017.

On July 25, 2016, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) issued permits to Dakota Access consistent with environmental and historic preservation statutes for the pipeline to make two crossings of the Missouri River in North Dakota, including a crossing of the Missouri River at Lake Oahe. After significant delay, the USACE also issued easements to allow the pipeline to cross land owned by the USACE adjacent to the Missouri River in two locations. Also in July, the SRST filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the USACE that challenged the legality of the permits issued for the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline across those waterways 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 is pending. Dakota Access intervened in the case. The SRST soon added a request for an emergency TRO to stop construction on the pipeline project. On September 9, 2016, the Court denied SRST’s motion for a preliminary injunction, rendering the TRO request moot.

After the September 9 ruling, the Department of the Army, the DOJ, and the Department of the Interior released a joint statement that the USACE would not grant the easement for the land adjacent to Lake Oahe until the Army completed a review to determine whether it was necessary to reconsider the USACE’s decision under various federal statutes relevant to the pipeline approval.

The SRST appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and filed an emergency motion in the U.S. District Court for an injunction pending the appeal, which was denied. The D.C. Circuit then denied the SRST’s application for an injunction pending appeal and later dismissed SRST’s appeal of the order denying the preliminary injunction motion. 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 December 2016, the Department of the Army announced that, although its prior actions complied with the law, it intended to conduct further environmental review of the crossing at Lake Oahe. In February 2017, in response to a presidential memorandum, the Department of the Army decided that no further environmental review was necessary and delivered an easement to Dakota Access allowing the pipeline to cross Lake Oahe. Almost immediately, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (“CRST”), which had intervened in the lawsuit in August 2016, moved for a preliminary injunction and TRO to block operation of the pipeline. These motions raised, for the first time, claims based on the religious rights of the tribe. The district court denied the TRO and preliminary injunction, and the CRST appealed and requested an injunction pending appeal in the district court and the D.C. Circuit. Both courts denied the CRST’s request for an injunction pending appeal. Shortly thereafter, at CRST’s request, the D.C. Circuit dismissed CRST’s appeal.

The SRST and the CRST amended their complaints to incorporate religious freedom and other claims. In addition, the Oglala and Yankton Sioux 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 rejected the majority of the Tribes’ assertions and granted summary judgment on most claims in favor of the USACE and Dakota Access. In particular, the Court concluded that the USACE had not violated any 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 determination under certain of these statutes. The USACE has advised the Court that it expects to have completed this additional work by the end of 2017. The Court ordered briefing that will conclude at the end of August 2017 to determine whether the pipeline should remain in operation during the pendency of the USACE’s review process and the Court is expected to rule on this issue during September 2017. The USACE and Dakota Access have each filed a brief with the Court to oppose any shutdown of operations of the pipeline during this review process. The Court has stayed consideration of any other claims until it fully resolves the remaining issues relating to its remand order.

While we believe that the pending lawsuits are unlikely to block operation of the pipeline, we cannot assure this outcome. We 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 (CMB) 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), along with other refiners, manufacturers and sellers of gasoline, are defendants in lawsuits alleging MTBE contamination of groundwater. The plaintiffs, typically governmental authorities, assert product liability claims and additional claims including nuisance, trespass, negligence, violation of environmental laws, and deceptive business practices. 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 June 30, 2017, Sunoco, Inc. is a defendant in six cases, including cases initiated by the States of New Jersey, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and two others by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico with the more recent Puerto Rico action being a companion case alleging damages for additional sites beyond those at issue in the initial Puerto Rico action. Four of these cases are venued in a multidistrict litigation proceeding in a New York federal court. The New Jersey, Puerto Rico, Vermont, and Pennsylvania plaintiffs assert natural resource damage claims.

Fact discovery has concluded with respect to an initial set of 9 sites each that will be the subject of the first trial phase in the New Jersey case and the initial Puerto Rico case. The initial set of 9 New Jersey trial sites are now pending before the United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, the Hon. Freda L. Wolfson for the pre-trial and trial phases. The remaining portion of the New Jersey case remains in the multidistrict litigation. In early 2017, Sunoco, Inc. and Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) and two other co-defendants reached a settlement in principle with the State of New Jersey, subject to the parties agreeing on the terms and conditions of a Settlement and Release agreement, among other things. 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 said 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

Following the January 26, 2015 announcement of the Regency merger, purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas and Delaware asserting claims relating to 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 on behalf of Regency’s common unitholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The lawsuit 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. Dieckman appealed. On January 20, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court issued an order reversing the judgment of the Court of Chancery that dismissed Counts I and II of Dieckman’s Complaint. On February 21, 2017, Regency and the other defendants filed their respective Motions to Dismiss the Chancery Court matter. 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. Briefing on both of these motions is ongoing.

Enterprise Products Partners, L.P. and Enterprise Products Operating LLC Litigation

On January 27, 2014, a trial commenced between ETLP 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 ETLP against Enterprise that consisted of $319 million in compensatory damages and $595 million in disgorgement to ETLP. The jury also found that ETLP owed Enterprise approximately $1 million under a reimbursement agreement. On July 29, 2014, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of ETLP and awarded ETLP $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 intends to file a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court.

Sunoco Logistics Merger Litigation

Five purported Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. common unitholders (“Plaintiffs”) separately filed seven putative unitholder class action lawsuits challenging the merger and the disclosures made in connection with the merger. The lawsuits are styled (a) Shure v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00044-UNA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Shure Lawsuit”); (b) Verlin v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00045-UNA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Verlin Lawsuit”); (c) Duany v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00058-UNA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Duany Lawsuit”); (d) Epstein v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et. al., Case No, 1:17-cv-00069, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Epstein Lawsuit”) and (e) Sgnilek v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00141, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Sgnilek Lawsuit” and collectively with the Shure Lawsuit, Verlin Lawsuit, Duany Lawsuit, and Epstein Lawsuit, the “Lawsuits”).

Plaintiffs allege causes of action challenging the merger and the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in connection with the merger. Plaintiffs allege that (i) defendants have violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and (ii) the members of the ETP Board have violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs in the Shure Lawsuit and Verlin Lawsuit also allege that Sunoco Logistics has violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs also assert, in general, that the terms of the merger (including, among other terms, the merger consideration) are unfair to ETP common unitholders and resulted from an unfair and conflicted process. Based on these allegations, the Sgnilek Lawsuit alleges that (a) the ETP Board, ETP GP, ETP LLC, ETP, and ETE have breached the covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties, and (b) Sunoco Logistics and Sunoco Partners LLC have aided and abetted those alleged breaches.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin defendants from proceeding with or consummating the merger unless and until defendants disclose the allegedly omitted information summarized above. The Sgnilek Lawsuit also seeks to enjoin defendants from proceeding with or consummating the merger unless and until the ETP Board adopts and implements processes to obtain the best possible terms for ETP common unitholders. To the extent that the merger is consummated before injunctive relief is granted, Plaintiffs seek to have the merger rescinded. Plaintiffs also seek damages and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees.

On May 31, 2017, a Joint Stipulation and Order was filed (1) setting deadlines for Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and Defendants’ Answer; (2) dismissing Sunoco Logistics and Sunoco Partners LLC from the lawsuits; and (3) consolidating the remaining five lawsuits under the Shure Lawsuit.

Defendants believe the Lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against the Lawsuits and any other actions challenging the merger.

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 June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, accruals of approximately $71 million and $77 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.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“Ohio EPA”) has alleged that various environmental violations have occurred during construction of ETP subsidiary Rover Pipeline LLC’s (“Rover”) pipeline project. The alleged violations include inadvertent returns of drilling muds and fluids at horizontal directional drilling (“HDD”) locations in Ohio that affected waters of the State, storm water control violations, improper disposal of spent drilling mud containing diesel fuel residuals, and open burning. The alleged violations occurred from April to July, 2017. The Ohio EPA has proposed penalties of more than $900,000 in connection with the alleged violations and is seeking certain corrective actions. ETP is working with Ohio EPA to resolve the matter. The timing or outcome of this matter cannot be reasonably determined at this time; however, we do not expect there to be a material impact to our results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

In addition, on May 10, 2017, the FERC prohibited Rover from conducting HDD activities at 27 sites in Ohio. On July 31, 2017, the FERC issued an independent third party assessment of what led to the release at the Tuscarawas River site and what Rover can do to prevent reoccurrence once the HDD suspension is lifted. Rover has notified the FERC of its intention to implement the suggestions in the assessment and to implement additional voluntary protocols. The timing or outcome of this matter cannot be reasonably determined at this time; however, Rover anticipates resuming HDD activities before their suspension results in a material delay of pipeline construction.

On July 17, 2017, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (“WVDEP”) issued a Cease and Desist order requiring Rover to cease any land development activity in Doddridge and Tyler Counties. Under the order, Rover has 20 days to submit a corrective action plan and schedule for agency review. The order follows several notices of violation WVDEP issued to Rover alleging stormwater non-compliance. Rover is complying with the order, has already addressed many of the stormwater control issues, and anticipates having the corrective action plan and schedule in place before the order results in a material delay of pipeline construction.

No amounts have been recorded in our June 30, 2017 or December 31, 2016 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 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 and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality notifying Sunoco Pipeline L.P. (“SPLP”) and Mid-Valley Pipeline Company (“Mid-Valley”) that enforcement actions were being pursued for three crude oil releases: (a) an estimated 550 barrels released from the Colmesneil-to-Chester pipeline in Tyler County, Texas (“Colmesneil”) operated and owned by SPLP in February of 2013; (b) an estimated 4,509 barrels released from the Longview-to-Mayersville pipeline in Caddo Parish, Louisiana (a/k/a Milepost 51.5) operated by SPLP and owned by Mid-Valley in October of 2014; and (c) an estimated 40 barrels released from the Wakita 4-inch gathering line in Oklahoma operated and owned by SPLP in January of 2015. In May of this year, we presented to the DOJ, EPA and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality a summary of the emergency response and remedial efforts taken by SPLP after the releases occurred as well as operational changes instituted by SPLP to reduce the likelihood of future releases. In July, we had a follow-up meeting with the DOJ, EPA and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality during which the agencies presented their initial demand for civil penalties and injunctive relief. In short, the DOJ and EPA proposed federal penalties totaling $7 million for the three releases along with a demand for injunctive relief, and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality proposed a state penalty of approximately $1 million to resolve the Caddo Parish release. Neither Texas nor Oklahoma state agencies have joined the penalty discussions at this point. We are currently working on a counteroffer to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.

Environmental Remediation

Our subsidiaries are responsible for environmental remediation at certain sites, including the following:


•	Certain of our interstate pipelines conduct soil and groundwater remediation related to contamination from past uses of PCBs. PCB assessments are ongoing and, in some cases, our subsidiaries could potentially be held responsible for contamination caused by other parties.


•	Certain gathering and processing systems are responsible for soil and groundwater remediation related to releases of hydrocarbons.


•	Currently operating Sunoco, Inc. retail sites previously contributed to Sunoco LP in January 2016.


•	Legacy sites related to Sunoco, Inc. that are subject to environmental assessments, including formerly owned terminals and other logistics assets, retail sites that Sunoco, Inc. no longer operates, closed and/or sold refineries and other formerly owned sites.

•

Sunoco, Inc. is potentially subject to joint and several liability for the costs of remediation at sites at which it has been identified as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”). As of June 30, 2017, Sunoco, Inc. had been named as a PRP at approximately 49 identified or potentially identifiable “Superfund” sites under federal and/or comparable state law. Sunoco, Inc. is usually one of a number of companies identified as a PRP at a site. Sunoco, Inc. has reviewed the nature and extent of its involvement at each site and other relevant circumstances and, based upon Sunoco, Inc.’s purported nexus to the sites, believes that its potential liability associated with such sites will not be significant.

To the extent estimable, expected remediation costs are included in the amounts recorded for environmental matters in our consolidated balance sheets. In some circumstances, future costs cannot be reasonably estimated because remediation activities are undertaken as claims are made by customers and former customers. To the extent that an environmental remediation obligation is recorded by a subsidiary that applies regulatory accounting policies, amounts that are expected to be recoverable through tariffs or rates are recorded as regulatory assets on our consolidated balance sheets.

The table below reflects the amounts of accrued liabilities recorded in our consolidated balance sheets related to environmental matters that are considered to be probable and reasonably estimable. Currently, we are not able to estimate possible losses or a range of possible losses in excess of amounts accrued. Except for matters discussed above, we do not have any material environmental matters assessed as reasonably possible that would require disclosure in our consolidated financial statements.



	June 30, 2017		December 31, 2016
Current	$	30	$	26
Non-current	275		283
Total environmental liabilities	$	305	$	309

In 2013, we established a wholly-owned captive insurance company to bear certain risks associated with environmental obligations related to certain sites that are no longer operating. The premiums paid to the captive insurance company include estimates for environmental claims that have been incurred but not reported, based on an actuarially determined fully developed claims expense estimate. In such cases, we accrue losses attributable to unasserted claims based on the discounted estimates that are used to develop the premiums paid to the captive insurance company.

During the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, Sunoco, Inc. recorded $8 million and $8 million, respectively, of expenditures related to environmental cleanup programs. During the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, Sunoco, Inc. recorded $10 million and $14 million, respectively, of expenditures related to environmental cleanup programs.

On December 2, 2010, Sunoco, Inc. entered an Asset Sale and Purchase Agreement to sell the Toledo Refinery to Toledo Refining Company LLC (“TRC”) wherein Sunoco, Inc. retained certain liabilities associated with the pre-closing time period. On January 2, 2013, USEPA issued a Finding of Violation (“FOV”) to TRC and, on September 30, 2013, EPA issued a Notice of Violation (“NOV”)/ FOV to TRC alleging Clean Air Act violations. To date, EPA has not issued an FOV or NOV/FOV to Sunoco, Inc. directly but some of EPA’s claims relate to the time period that Sunoco, Inc. operated the refinery. Specifically, EPA has claimed that the refinery flares were not operated in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions and/or in conformance with their design, and that Sunoco, Inc. submitted semi-annual compliance reports in 2010 and 2011 to the EPA that failed to include all of the information required by the regulations. EPA has proposed penalties in excess of $200,000 to resolve the allegations and discussions continue between the parties. The timing or outcome of this matter cannot be reasonably determined at this time, however, we do not expect there to be a material impact to our results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Our operations are also subject to the requirements of OSHA, and comparable state laws that regulate the protection of the health and safety of employees. In addition, OSHA’s hazardous communication standard requires that information be maintained about hazardous materials used or produced in our operations and that this information be provided to employees, state and local government authorities and citizens. We believe that our past costs for OSHA required activities, including general industry standards, record keeping requirements, and monitoring of occupational exposure to regulated substances have not had a material adverse effect on our results of operations but there is no assurance that such costs will not be material in the future.