Sunoco 2010 Annual Report Download - page 39

$98 thousand in a penalty assessment and provide $295 thousand in funding for a supplemental environmental
project (“SEP”). Sunoco has provided full funding for the SEP and this matter is currently closed. (See also the
Company’s Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008.)
In September 2009, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) issued a proposed
Consent Assessment of Civil Penalty (“CACP”) alleging noncompliance with state and federal air regulations at
Sunoco’s Marcus Hook refinery. Following negotiations with PADEP, the matter was settled in January 2010 for
a civil penalty of $173 thousand. (See also the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2009 and the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2009.)
The U. S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) announced a National Emphasis
Program under which it is inspecting domestic oil refinery locations. OSHA conducted inspections at Sunoco,
Inc. (R&M)’s Toledo refinery for a six-month period commencing in November 2007, at the Eagle Point refinery
for a six-month period commencing in June 2008 and at the Marcus Hook refinery for a six-month period
commencing in January 2009. The inspections focused on the OSHA Process Safety Management requirements.
The inspections resulted in the issuance of citations in excess of $100 thousand. In October 2009, a settlement
was reached with regard to the Toledo inspection, with Sunoco paying $270 thousand. Sunoco has formally
contested the Eagle Point and Marcus Hook citations and is in settlement negotiations with OSHA. (See also the
Company’s Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, and the
Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008.) OSHA conducted an
additional inspection at Sunoco, Inc. (R&M)’s Toledo refinery beginning in April 2009. The inspection resulted
in the issuance of a citation in September 2009 in excess of $100 thousand. Sunoco has formally contested the
citation and is engaged in settlement discussions with OSHA. (See also the Company’s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 and the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009.)
In April 2010, Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) received a stipulated penalty demand in an amount exceeding $100
thousand from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Region V, under a global Clean Air Act
Consent Decree. The penalty demand relates to four alleged acid gas flaring events at Sunoco, Inc. (R&M)’s
Toledo refinery between December 2006 and January 2010, as well as findings noted in a third-party audit of that
facility. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) remitted $14 thousand in penalty payment and disputed the remaining amount.
Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) met with the EPA in July 2010 to discuss potential resolution and the matter remains
pending. (See also the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2010.)
In May 2010, Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) received a proposed CACP from the PADEP alleging violations of Title
V permit requirements and/or state and/or federal air regulations at Sunoco’s Marcus Hook refinery. The CACP
seeks a penalty in excess of $100 thousand. In September 2010, Sunoco and the PADEP agreed to a resolution of
the alleged violations which required that Sunoco pay a penalty of $130 thousand. (See also the Company’s
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010.)
In July 2010, Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) received a proposed penalty assessment from Philadelphia Air
Management Services (“AMS”) in an amount exceeding $100 thousand, intended to resolve outstanding alleged
violations of Title V permit requirements and/or state and/or federal air regulations at Sunoco’s Philadelphia
refinery. In September 2010, Sunoco met with AMS to discuss potential resolution and the matter remains
pending. (See also the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2010.)
In August 2010, the PADEP issued a penalty assessment in excess of $100 thousand alleging that Sunoco
did not undertake certain actions related to the identification or sampling of groundwater contamination at a retail
31