Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

UNITED STATES of AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, and the ) 

 ) 

State of Colorado, ) 

Plaintiff-Intervener, and the ) 

State of Louisiana, ) 

Plaintiff-Intervener, and the ) 

 

State of Oklahoma, ) 

Plaintiff-Intervener, and the ) 

State of Montana, ) 

Plaintiff-Intervener, ) 

 

v. ) Civil Action 

 ) No. 

Conoco Inc. ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

_____________________________ ) 

 

 

CONSENT DECREE

WHEREAS, Plaintiff, the United States of America (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “the United

States”), on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (herein, “EPA”), has

simultaneously filed a Complaint and lodged this Consent Decree against Conoco Inc., (hereinafter

“Conoco” or “Company”), for alleged environmental violations at four petroleum refineries owned and

operated by Conoco;
Page 2

WHEREAS, the United States has initiated a nationwide, broad-based compliance and

enforcement initiative involving the petroleum refining industry; 

WHEREAS, the parties agree that the installation of equipment and implementation of controls

pursuant to this Consent Decree will achieve major improvements in air quality control; 

WHEREAS, in light of the settlement memorialized in this Consent Decree, Conoco has not

answered or otherwise responded to the Complaint; 

WHEREAS, the United States’ Complaint alleges that Conoco has been and is in violation of

the following statutory and regulatory provisions: 

1) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) requirements at Part C of Subchapter I of

the Clean Air Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7475, and the regulations promulgated

thereunder at 40 CFR § 52.21 (the “PSD Rules”), and “Plan Requirements for NonAttainment Areas” at Part D of Subchapter I of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7502-7503, and the

regulations promulgated thereunder at 40 CFR § 51.165(a) and (b), Part 51, Appendix S,

and § 52.24 (“PSD/NSR Regulations”) and the State Implementation Plans and rules

adopted thereafter;

2) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for sulfur recovery plants, fuel gas combustion

devices, and fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators found at 40 CFR Part 60,

Subparts A and J and wastewater units under Subpart QQQ, under Section 111 of the

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7411 (“Refinery NSPS Regulations”); 

3) Leak Detection and Repair (“LDAR”) regulations found at 40 CFR Part 60 Subparts VV

and GGG, under Section 111 of the Act, 40 CFR Part 61, Subparts F and V, and 40 CFR

Part 63, Subparts F, H, and CC, under Section 112(d) of the Act (“LDAR Regulations”); 

4) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAP”) for Benzene

Waste, 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart FF, and Section 112(e) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(e)

(“Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP Regulations”); and

5) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for sulfuric acid plants at 40 CFR Part 60, 

Subpart H.

WHEREAS, the States of Colorado, Louisiana, Montana and Oklahoma will file a Complaint

in Intervention (“Plaintiff-Intervener”), alleging that Conoco was and is in violation of the 
Page 3

applicable Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan (SIP), and other state environmental statutory and

regulatory requirements; 

WHEREAS, the United States and Conoco agree that the environmental projects (or

measures) identified in the Consent Decree will reduce annual emissions from Conoco’s refineries: 1)

nitrogen oxide by approximately 3,210 tons; 2) sulfur dioxide by approximately 4,000 tons; 3) volatile

organic compounds by approximately 100 tons; and 4) particulate matter (“PM”) by approximately

400 tons; 

WHEREAS, Conoco has denied and continues to deny the violations alleged in each of the

Complaints and maintains its defenses to the violations alleged; 

WHEREAS, Conoco has, in the interest of settlement, agreed to undertake installation of air

pollution control equipment and enhancements to air pollution management practices at its four

refineries to reduce air emissions; 

WHEREAS, projects undertaken pursuant to this Consent Decree are for the purposes of

abating or controlling atmospheric pollution or contamination by removing, reducing, or preventing the

creation of emission of pollutants (“pollution control facilities”) and as such, may be considered for

certification as pollution control facilities by federal, state or local authorities;

WHEREAS, EPA agrees that for New Source Review purposes the following emissions

control projects when required by this Consent Decree are “environmentally beneficial projects” that

could be considered to be pollution control projects: wet gas scrubbers, ultra low-NOx burners,

selective non-catalytic reduction for NOx, pollutant-reducing catalyst additives, third-stage separators,

add-on controls for benzene waste and controls to reduce flaring; 

WHEREAS, EPA expects that Conoco will design, operate and maintain the controls identified

in the preceding Paragraph in a manner consistent with standard and reasonable air pollution control

practices, and that collateral emissions increases will be adequately addressed by Conoco;

WHEREAS, Conoco has waived any applicable federal or state requirements of statutory

notice of the alleged violations; 

WHEREAS, Conoco has identified and self-reported certain potential violations of

environmental statutes and agreed that settlement of these issues is the most expeditious method to

resolve these potential violations; 

WHEREAS, the United States, Plaintiff-Interveners, and Conoco have agreed that settlement

of this action is in the best interest of the parties and in the public interest, and that entry of this Consent
Page 4

Decree without further litigation is the most appropriate means of resolving this matter; and 

WHEREAS, the United States, Plaintiff-Intervener, and Conoco have consented to entry of this

Consent Decree without trial of any issues; 

NOW, THEREFORE, without any admission of fact or law, and without any admission of the

violations alleged in the Complaints, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED as follows: 

PART I.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The Complaints state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Conoco under Sections

113 and 167 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7413 and 7477, and 28 U.S.C. § 1355. This Court has

jurisdiction of the subject matter herein and over the parties consenting hereto pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1345 and pursuant to Sections 113 and 167 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7413 and 7477.

2. Venue is proper under Section 113(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(b), and under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(b) and (c). 

PART II.

APPLICABILITY

3. The provisions of this Consent Decree shall apply to and be binding upon the United States, the

State of Colorado, the State of Louisiana, the State of Montana and the State of Oklahoma, and upon

Conoco as well as Conoco’s officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns, and shall apply to

Conoco’s refineries for the life of the Consent Decree. In the event Conoco proposes to sell or transfer

all or part of any of its refineries subject to this Consent Decree, it shall advise in writing to such

proposed purchaser or successor-in-interest of the existence of this Consent Decree and provide a

copy of the Consent Decree, and shall send a copy of such written notification by certified mail, return

receipt requested, to EPA before such sale or transfer, if possible, but no later than the closing date of

such sale or transfer. This provision does not relieve Conoco from having to comply with any applicable

state or local regulatory requirement regarding notice and transfer of facility permits. 
Page 5

PART III. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. Conoco operates four (4) petroleum refineries for the manufacture of various petroleum-based

products, including gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels, and other marketable petroleum by-products. 

5. Conoco owns and operates refineries located as follows:

Commerce City, Colorado (hereinafter Denver Refinery)

Westlake, Louisiana (hereinafter Lake Charles Refinery, including the Excel Paralubes

facility operated and partly owned by Conoco)

Billings, Montana (hereinafter Billings Refinery)

Ponca City, Oklahoma (hereinafter Ponca City Refinery)

 

6. Petroleum refining involves the physical, thermal and chemical separation of crude oil into

marketable petroleum products. 

7. The petroleum refining process at Conoco’s four refineries results in emissions of significant

quantities of criteria air pollutants, including nitrogen oxides (“NOx”), carbon monoxide (“CO”),

particulate matter (“PM”), sulfur dioxide (“SO2”), as well as volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) and

hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”), including benzene. Sources of these emissions include the fluid

catalytic cracking units (“FCCUs”), process heaters and boilers, the sulfur recovery plants, flares, the

wastewater treatment system, and fugitive emissions from leaking components. 

PART IV.

REDUCTIONS OF NOx EMISSIONS FROM 

FLUIDIZED CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS (FCCUs)

Program Summary: Conoco shall implement a program to reduce NOx emissions from refinery

FCCUs by the use of NOx reducing catalyst additives at each of its five (5) FCCUs. Conoco shall

incorporate new NOx emission limits as established by this Consent Decree into operating permits and

will demonstrate future compliance with the lower emission limits through the use of Continuous
Page 6

Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS). 

A. Low NOx CO Promoter and NOx Reducing Catalyst Additives, Optimizations and

Demonstrations at the Denver, Lake Charles, Billings, Ponca City No. 4 and Ponca City No. 5

FCCUs

8. By no later than March 1, 2004, where CEMS have yet to be installed, or September 1, 2003,

where CEMs are already installed, Conoco shall begin the determination of the optimized addition

rates of low NOx CO promoter and NOx reducing catalyst additive (Optimization Study) at each of

the five (5) FCCUs in accordance with Attachment 2 to this Consent Decree, which is incorporated

herein by reference, to establish the optimized catalyst additive addition rate. 

9.(a) By no later than September 1, 2004, where CEMS are yet to be installed, or March 1, 2004,

where CEMS are in place, Conoco will begin the performance demonstration of the catalyst additives

at the optimized addition rates (NOx Additive Demonstration) over a twelve (12) month period to yield

the lowest NOx concentration feasible from the FCCU at that optimized rate. 

 9.(b) Identification of Commercially Available Products: At least one month prior to beginning the

short term trials in Paragraph 9c below, Conoco shall notify EPA in writing of all NOx reducing catalyst

additives that are commercially available and shall identify each NOx reducing catalyst additive, up to

the maximum of four, that Conoco proposes to use for the short term trials required below. Unless EPA

objects prior to the beginning the trials, to one or more of the products identified, Conoco shall

commence the short term trials.

9.(c) Short Term Trials of NOx Reducing Catalyst Additives: By no later than eight (8) months before

beginning the optimization period, Conoco shall commence trials of the commercially available NOx

reducing catalyst additives for the purpose of identifying the comparative NOx reduction effectiveness

of each product. After completion of the trials and at least one month prior to beginning the

optimization period, Conoco shall submit a report that sets forth the comparative NOx reduction

effectiveness of each commercially available NOx reducing catalyst additive. Conoco shall propose for

EPA’s approval the particular NOx reducing catalyst additive that Conoco proposes to use in the

optimization and demonstration periods for each FCCU. If Conoco intends to use a NOx reducing

catalyst additive that is not the best performing NOx reducing catalyst additive (as required by

Attachment 2), Conoco shall also propose for EPA’s approval adjustments to: 1) the incremental pickup factor, and 2) total catalyst additive addition rate. Subject to EPA’s approval, a NOx reducing

catalyst additive shall not be deemed the best performing additive if it impairs the performance of the

FCCU.

10. By no later than thirty (30) days prior to beginning the determination of the optimized addition
Page 7

rates of low-NOx CO promoter and NOx reducing catalyst additive at each FCCU, Conoco shall

notify EPA in writing of which low-NOx CO promoter and NOx reducing catalyst additive that it

intends to use in the optimization and demonstration periods, and shall submit a protocol for the

optimization which describes, at a minimum, the methods that will be used to calculate control

effectiveness (pounds NOx reduced per pound of additive), cost effectiveness (dollars per ton of NOx

reduced), and percent additive added. 

11. By no later than eighteen (18) months from the Date of Lodging, Conoco shall submit six (6) to

twelve (12) months of baseline data, depending upon CEMS certification, to EPA for each FCCU that

shall include at a minimum the following data on a daily average basis:

(1) Regenerator flue gas temperature;

(2) Coke burn rate;

(3) FCCU feed rate;

(4) FCCU feed API gravity;

(5) FCCU feed nitrogen content;

(6) Estimated percentage of each type of FCCU feed component (i.e. atmospheric gas oil,

vacuum gas oil, atmospheric tower bottoms, vacuum tower bottoms, etc.) by volume;

(7) Estimated percentage by volume of the FCCU feed that is hydrotreated;

(8) CO boiler firing rate and fuel type for Ponca City No. 5 FCCU;

(9) CO boiler combustion temperature for Ponca City No. 5 FCCU;

(10) Total catalyst addition rate;

(11) NOx reducing catalyst additive and NOx reducing catalyst additive addition rates and 

(12) Hourly and daily SO2, NOx, CO and O2 concentrations. 

12. By no later than thirty (30) days prior to beginning the twelve (12) month demonstration at each

FCCU, Conoco shall notify EPA in writing of the proposed optimized additive addition rate for each

FCCU with an explanation and the supporting data that demonstrates that the requirements of

Attachment 2 have been met in establishing the optimized rates. During the demonstration, Conoco

shall add catalyst additive at the optimized rate and in a consistent manner (evenly over time) that
Page 8

minimizes NOx emissions. 

13. No later than sixty (60) days after the completion of the twelve (12) month demonstration,

Conoco shall report to EPA the results of the demonstration for each FCCU. The report shall include,

at a minimum, each of the parameters reported in the baseline data set required in Paragraph 11. 

Conoco shall report the data or measurements to EPA in electronic format. Conoco also shall submit

the information to the appropriate state agency.

14. Conoco shall determine the NOx and O2 concentrations at the point of emission to the

atmosphere by CEMS. 

B. Establishing FCCU NOx Emission Limits at the Denver, Lake Charles, Billings, Ponca

City No. 4 and Ponca City No. 5 FCCUs

15. As part of its demonstration report required in Paragraph 13, Conoco shall propose to the EPA

3-hour rolling average and 365-day rolling average concentration based limits (ppmvd), each at 0%

oxygen, for NOx emissions from each of its FCCUs. Conoco shall comply with the limits it proposes

for each FCCU beginning immediately upon submission of its report to EPA, until such time as Conoco

is required to comply with the emissions limits set by EPA, as specified below. 

16. EPA will use the data collected from each FCCU during the baseline, optimization, and

demonstration periods and all other available pertinent information to establish limits for NOx emissions

from the FCCUs. EPA may establish 3-hour rolling average and 365-day rolling average concentration

based limits (ppmvd), each at 0% oxygen, for NOx emissions from each of Conoco’s FCCUs based

on the level of performance during the baseline, optimization, and demonstration periods, a reasonable

certainty of compliance, and any other available pertinent information. 

17. EPA will notify Conoco of its determination of NOx concentration limits for the units, and

Conoco shall immediately comply if the EPA limit is equal to or less stringent than the limit proposed by

Conoco. If the limit established by EPA is more stringent than the limit proposed by Conoco, Conoco

will comply with the EPA established emission limit within 30 days.

C. Installation of SNCR System and Continued Addition/Optimization/Demonstration of LowNOx CO Promoter and NOx Reducing Catalyst Additives at Ponca City No. 5 FCCU

18. By no later than December 31, 2006, Conoco shall install and operate a selective non-catalytic
Page 9

reduction system (SNCR) on the CO Boiler at the Ponca City No. 5 FCCU.

19. After the installation of the SNCR and by no later than March 31, 2007, Conoco shall begin

the determination of the optimized addition rates of low-NOx CO promoter and NOx reducing catalyst

additive at Ponca City No. 5 FCCU (SNCR Optimization Study) in accordance with Attachment 2 to

this Consent Decree, which is incorporated herein by reference, to establish the optimized catalyst

additive addition rate. 

20. By no later than September 30, 2007, Conoco will begin the performance demonstration of the

catalyst additive at the optimized addition rate over a twelve (12) month period to yield the lowest NOx

concentration feasible from the FCCU at that optimized rate. 

21. After installation of the SNCR and by no later than sixty (60) days prior to beginning the

additive optimization at Ponca City No. 5 FCCU, Conoco shall notify EPA in writing of which lowNOx CO promoter and NOx reducing catalyst additive that it intends to use in the optimization and

demonstration periods, and shall submit a protocol for the optimization which describes, at a minimum,

the methods that will be used to calculate control effectiveness (pounds NOx reduced per pound of

additive), cost effectiveness (dollars per ton of NOx reduced), and percent additive added. 

22. After the installation of the SNCR and by no later than thirty (30) days prior to beginning the

twelve (12) month demonstration at Ponca City No. 5 FCCU, Conoco shall notify EPA in writing of

the optimized additive addition rate for Ponca City No. 5 FCCU with an explanation and the

supporting data that demonstrates that the requirements of Attachment 2 have been met in establishing

the optimized rates. During the demonstration, Conoco shall add catalyst additive at the optimized rate

and in a consistent manner (evenly over time) that minimizes NOx emissions.

23. No later than sixty (60) days after the completion of the twelve (12) month demonstration,

Conoco shall report to EPA the results of the demonstration for Ponca City No. 5 FCCU. The report

shall include, at a minimum, each of the parameters reported in the baseline data set required in

Paragraph 11. Conoco shall report the data or measurements to EPA in electronic format. 

D. Establishing FCCU NOx Emission Limits for SNCR System, Low-NOx CO Promoter and

NOx Reducing Catalyst Additive at Ponca City No. 5 FCCU

24. As part of its demonstration report required in Paragraph 23 above, Conoco shall propose to

the EPA 3-hour rolling average and 365-day rolling average concentration based limits (ppmvd), each

at 0% oxygen, for NOx emissions for Ponca City No. 5 FCCU. Conoco shall comply with the limits it
Page 10

proposes for Ponca City No. 5 FCCU beginning immediately upon submission of its report to EPA,

until such time as Conoco is required to comply with the emissions limits set by EPA, as specified in

Paragraph 26. 

25. EPA will use the data collected from Ponca City No. 5 FCCU during the baseline,

optimization, and demonstration periods and all other available pertinent information to establish limits

for NOx emissions from the Ponca City No. 5 FCCU. EPA may establish 3-hour rolling average and

365-day rolling average concentration based limits (ppmvd), each at 0% oxygen, for NOx emissions

from the Ponca City No. 5 FCCU based on the level of performance during the baseline, optimization,

and demonstration periods, a reasonable certainty of compliance, and any other available pertinent

information. 

26. EPA will notify Conoco of its determination of NOx concentration limits for the Ponca City No.

5 FCCU, and Conoco shall immediately comply if the EPA limit is equal to or less stringent than the

limit proposed by Conoco. If the Ponca City No. 5 FCCU limit established by EPA is more stringent

than the limit proposed by Conoco, Conoco will comply with the EPA established emission limit within

thirty (30) days.

E. Hydrotreater Outages

27. No later than one hundred eighty (180) days from the Date of Lodging of the Consent Decree,

Conoco shall submit to EPA for its approval a plan to minimize NOx emissions from its Billings,

Denver, Lake Charles and Ponca City FCCUs (including associated air pollution control equipment)

during hydrotreater outages. This plan will address how to calculate the impact of the period(s) of the

hydrotreater outages on the annual average emission limits for the FCCUs and may allow for exclusion

from the 365-day average those 3-hour average concentrations during periods of hydrotreater outages. 

Conoco shall comply with the plan at all times including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction

of the hydrotreater. The 3-hour NOx emission limits established for the FCCUs as provided in this

Order shall not apply during periods of hydrotreater outages at the Billings, Denver, Lake Charles,

Ponca City No. 4 (if a gas oil hydrotreater is installed) and Ponca City No. 5 FCCUs, provided that

Conoco is maintaining and operating its FCCUs (including associated air pollution control equipment) in

a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions in accordance

with the EPA-approved good air pollution control practices plan.
Page 11

F. Demonstrating Compliance with FCCU NOx Emission Limits

28. Beginning no later than twelve (12) months from the Date of Lodging where CEMS are in

place, and eighteen (18) months from the Date of Lodging where CEMS are yet to be installed,

Conoco shall use a NOx and O2 CEMS to monitor performance of each FCCU during the baseline,

optimization, and demonstration periods, and to report compliance with the terms and conditions of this

Consent Decree. 

 29. Conoco shall make CEMS and process data available to EPA upon demand as soon as

practicable. 

 30. Conoco shall install, certify, calibrate, maintain, and operate all CEMS required by this Part in

accordance with the requirements of Paragraphs 202 and 203.

PART V.

REDUCTIONS OF SO2 EMISSIONS FROM FCCUs

Program Summary: Conoco shall implement a program to reduce SO2 emissions from refinery

FCCUs by the use of SO2 adsorbing catalyst additives at each of its five (5) FCCUs. Conoco shall

incorporate lower SO2 emission limits into operating permits and will demonstrate future compliance

with the lower emission limits through the use of CEMS. 

A. Application of SO2 Adsorbing Catalyst Additive at the Denver, Lake Charles, Billings,

Ponca City No. 4 and Ponca City No. 5 FCCUs

31. By no later than eighteen (18) months from the Date of Lodging where CEMS are yet to be

installed, and twelve (12) months from the Date of Lodging where CEMS are in place, Conoco shall

begin to add SO2 adsorbing catalyst additive (Optimization Study) to each of the five (5) FCCUs in

accordance with Attachment 2 to this Consent Decree, which is incorporated herein by reference, to

establish the optimized catalyst additive addition rate. 

32. By no later than twenty-four (24) months from the Date of Lodging where CEMS are yet to be

installed, or eighteen (18) months from the Date of Lodging where CEMS are in place, Conoco will

begin the performance demonstration of the catalyst additive at the optimized addition rate over a

twelve (12) month period to yield the lowest SO2 concentration feasible from the FCCU at that

optimized rate. 

B. SO2 Adsorbing Catalyst Additives Optimizations and Demonstrations

33. By no later than sixty (60) days prior to beginning the additive optimization at each FCCU,
Page 12

Conoco shall notify EPA in writing of which SO2 adsorbing catalyst additive that it intends to use in the

optimization and demonstration periods, and shall submit a protocol for the optimization which

describes, at a minimum, the methods that will be used to calculate control effectiveness (pounds SO2

reduced per pound of additive), cost effectiveness (dollars per ton of SO2 reduced), and percent

additive added. 

34. By no later than eighteen (18) months from the Date of Lodging, Conoco shall submit six (6) to

twelve (12) months of baseline data, depending upon CEMS certification, to EPA for each FCCU that

shall include at a minimum the following data on a daily average basis:

(1) Regenerator flue gas temperature;

(2) Coke burn rate;

(3) FCCU feed rate;

(4) FCCU feed API gravity;

(5) FCCU feed sulfur content;

(6) Estimated percentage by volume of each type of FCCU feed component (i.e.

atmospheric gas oil, vacuum gas oil, atmospheric tower bottoms, vacuum tower

bottoms, etc.);

(7) Estimated percentage by volume of the FCCU feed that is hydrotreated;

(8) CO boiler firing rate and fuel type for Ponca City No. 5 FCCU;

(9) CO boiler combustion temperature for Ponca City No. 5 FCCU;

(10) Total catalyst addition rate;

(11) SO2 adsorbing catalyst additive type and additive addition rates and 

(12) Hourly and daily SO2, NOx, CO and O2 concentrations. 

35. By no later than thirty (30) days prior to beginning the twelve (12) month demonstration at each

FCCU, Conoco shall notify EPA in writing of the optimized additive addition rate for each FCCU with

an explanation and the supporting data that demonstrates that the requirements of Attachment 2 have

been met in establishing the optimized rates. During the demonstration, Conoco shall add catalyst
Page 13

additive at the optimized rate and in a consistent manner (evenly over time) that minimizes SO2

emissions. 

36. No later than sixty (60) days after the completion of the twelve (12) month demonstration,

Conoco shall report to EPA the results of the demonstration for each FCCU. The report shall include,

at a minimum, each of the parameters reported in the baseline data set required in Paragraph 34. 

Conoco shall report the data or measurements to EPA in electronic format. Conoco also shall submit

the information to the appropriate state agency.

37. Conoco shall determine the SO2 and O2 concentrations at the point of emission to the

atmosphere by CEMS.

C. Establishing FCCU SO2 Emission Limits

38. As part of its demonstration report required in Paragraph 36, Conoco shall propose to the EPA

7-day rolling average and 365-day rolling average concentration based limits (ppmvd), each at 0%

oxygen, for SO2 emissions from each of its FCCUs. Conoco shall comply with the limits it proposes

for each FCCU beginning immediately upon submission of its report to EPA, until such time as Conoco

is required to comply with the emissions limits set by EPA, as specified in Paragraph 40. 

39. EPA will use the data collected from each FCCU during the baseline, optimization, and

demonstration periods and all other available pertinent information to establish limits for SO2 emissions

from the FCCUs. EPA may establish 7-day rolling average and 365-day rolling average concentration

based limits (ppmvd), each at 0% oxygen, for SO2 emissions from each of Conoco’s FCCUs based on

the level of performance during the baseline, optimization, and demonstration periods, a reasonable

certainty of compliance, and any other available pertinent information. 

40. EPA will notify Conoco of its determination of SO2 concentration limits for the units, and

Conoco shall immediately comply if the EPA limit is equal to or less stringent than the limit proposed by

Conoco. If the SO2 limit established by EPA is more stringent than the limit proposed by Conoco,

Conoco will comply with the EPA established emission limit within thirty (30) days.

D. Hydrotreater Outages

41. No later than one hundred-eighty (180) days from the Date of Lodging of the Consent Decree,

Conoco shall submit to EPA for its approval a plan to minimize SO2 emissions from its Billings, Denver,

Lake Charles and Ponca City FCCUs (including associated air pollution control equipment) during

hydrotreater outages. This plan will address how to calculate the impact of the period(s) of the
Page 14

hydrotreater outages on the annual average emission limits for the FCCUs and may allow for exclusion

from the 365-day average those daily average concentrations during periods of hydrotreater outages.

Conoco shall comply with the plan at all times including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction

of the hydrotreater. The seven (7) day SO2 emission limits established for the FCCUs as provided in

this Order shall not apply during periods of hydrotreater outages at the Billings, Denver, Lake Charles,

Ponca City No. 4 (if a gas oil hydrotreater is installed) and Ponca City No. 5 FCCU’s, provided that

Conoco is maintaining and operating its FCCU’s (including associated air pollution control equipment)

in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions in accordance

with the EPA-approved good air pollution control practices plan. Following the installation of a wet

gas scrubber at an FCCU, this Paragraph shall no longer apply to that FCCU.

E. Final FCCU SO2 Emission Limits for the Billings, Ponca City No. 4 and Ponca City No. 5

FCCUs

42. If the 365-day rolling average limit or the 7-day rolling average limit established pursuant to

Paragraph 38 is greater than 25 ppmvd at 0% O2 or 50 ppmvd at 0% O2, respectively, for the Billings,

Ponca City No. 4, or Ponca City No. 5 FCCU, Conoco shall, by the dates specified below, install

additional SO2 control technology and meet SO2 emission limits of 25 ppmvd at 0% O2 on a 365-day

rolling average limit and 50 ppmvd at 0% O2 on a 7-day rolling average:

(1) Billings FCCU June 30, 2007;

(2) Ponca City No. 4 December 31, 2008; and

(3) Ponca City No. 5 December 31, 2006. 

F. Demonstrating Compliance with FCCU SO2 Emission Limits

43. Beginning no later than twelve (12) months from the Date of Lodging Conoco shall use a SO2

and O2 CEMS to monitor performance of each FCCU during the baseline, optimization, and

demonstration periods, and to report compliance with the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree. 

 44. Conoco shall make CEMS and process data available to EPA upon demand as soon as

practicable. 
Page 15

 45. Conoco shall install, certify, calibrate, maintain, and operate all CEMS required by this Part in

accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 202 and 203.

PART VI.

REDUCTIONS OF OTHER EMISSIONS FROM FCCUs

A. REDUCTIONS OF PM EMISSIONS FROM FCCUs

Program Summary: Conoco shall implement a program to reduce PM emissions from refinery

FCCUs by the use of either third stage separators (TSS), electrostatic precipitators (ESP), or wet gas

scrubbers (WGS) at each of its 5 FCCUs as follows: 

46. Conoco shall install and operate PM controls as follows: 

Lake Charles: On the Date of Lodging of the Consent Decree, Conoco shall continue to

comply with a PM emissions limit of 1 pound per 1000 pounds of coke burned as

demonstrated by a stack test as described in Paragraph 47. 

Denver: By no later than June 30, 2006, Conoco shall comply with a PM emissions limit of 1

pound per 1000 pounds of coke burned as demonstrated by a stack test as described in

Paragraph 47. 

Billings : By no later than June 30, 2007, Conoco shall comply with a PM emissions limit of 1

pound per 1000 pounds of coke burned as demonstrated by a stack test as described in

Paragraph 47. 

Ponca City No. 4 : By no later than December 31, 2008, Conoco shall comply with a PM

emissions limit of 1 pound per 1000 pounds of coke burned as demonstrated by a stack test as

described in Paragraph 47.

Ponca City No. 5: By no later than December 31, 2006, Conoco shall comply with a PM

emissions limit of 1 pound per 1000 pounds of coke burned as demonstrated by a stack test as

described in Paragraph 47. 

47. (a) PM Monitoring – FCCU. Conoco shall follow an EPA-approved stack test protocol to
Page 16

monitor PM emissions on each FCCU at each refinery. Conoco shall propose and submit the stack

test protocol for approval to EPA and the Plaintiff-Interveners no later than two hundred forty (240)

days following Date of Lodging of this Consent Decree. During the first two (2) years of operations

following installation of the control device selected for that particular facility, the facilities shall conduct

annual stack tests at each FCCU. Tests may be conducted less frequently than annually upon a

showing of at least three (3) annual tests that limits are not being exceeded.

47. (b) Opacity Monitoring – FCCU. Conoco shall install Continuous Opacity Monitoring System 

(COMS) on each FCCU at each refinery by no later than twelve (12) months after the Date of

Lodging. Conoco shall install, certify, calibrate, maintain, and operate all COMS required by this Part

in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 202 and 203.

PM Controls Associated with the Adoption of a Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL)

48. For each refinery which implements a PAL for PM pursuant to Part XV, Conoco agrees to

limit PM emissions from that refinery’s FCCU(s) to 0.5 pounds per 1000 pound of coke burned on a

365-day rolling average basis and 1 pound per 1000 pounds of coke burned on a 3-hour rolling

average. Conoco shall comply with this limit beginning upon the date on which it applies for the PAL.

B. REDUCTIONS OF CO EMISSIONS FROM FCCUs 

Program Summary: Conoco shall implement a program to reduce CO emissions from refinery

FCCUs by the use of either full combustion or a CO boiler. 

49. By no later than the Date of Lodging, Conoco shall meet an emission limit of 500 ppmvd CO at

0% O2 on a 1-hour average basis. Compliance will not have to be demonstrated until certification of

CO CEMS, and future compliance will be demonstrated with the CEM.. 

50. By no later than June 30, 2003, Conoco shall meet an emission limit of 150 ppmvd CO at 0%

O2 on a 365-day rolling average basis. 

51. Beginning no later than twelve (12) months from the Date of Lodging, Conoco shall use a CO

CEMS to monitor performance of each FCCU and to report compliance with the terms and conditions

of this Consent Decree. 

52. Conoco shall make CEMS and process data available to EPA upon demand as soon as

practicable. 

53. Conoco shall install, certify, calibrate, maintain, and operate all CEMS required by this Part in
Page 17

accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 202 and 203. 

C. FCCU REGENERATOR NSPS SUBPARTS A and J APPLICABILITY

54. Conoco’s FCCU Regenerators shall be affected facilities subject to the requirements of NSPS

Subpart A and J for each relevant pollutant by the dates specified below: 

Denver:

SO2 - 24 months from the Date of Lodging

PM - June 30, 2006

CO - June 30, 2003

Opacity - June 30, 2006

Lake Charles:

SO2 - Date of Lodging

PM - Date of Lodging

CO - Date of Lodging

Opacity - Date of Lodging

Billings:

SO2 - 24 months from the Date of Lodging

PM - June 30, 2007

CO - June 30, 2003

Opacity - June 30, 2007
Page 18

Ponca City No. 4:

SO2 - 24 months from the Date of Lodging

PM - December 31, 2008

CO - June 30, 2003

Opacity - December 31, 2008

Ponca City No. 5:

SO2 - 24 months from the Date of Lodging

PM - December 31, 2006

CO - June 30, 2003

Opacity - December 31, 2006

PART VII.

EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM HEATERS AND BOILERS

A. NOx Reductions

55. (a) On or before July 31, 2009, Conoco shall complete a program to reduce the overall NOx

emissions from the Controlled Heaters and Boilers at their refineries in an amount greater than or equal

to 1,526 tons per year as demonstrated by the inequality in Paragraph 56. For purposes of this Part,

Controlled Heaters and Boilers shall mean heaters and boilers which have been either shut down, or for

which the refinery has installed one of the following NOx control technologies: SCR, SNCR, current or

next generation ultra-low NOx burners, or technologies that Conoco demonstrates to EPA’s

satisfaction will reduce NOx emissions to 0.040 lbs per mmBTU or lower.

55. (b) A “Current Generation Ultra Low-NOx Burner” is one that is defined as a burner currently
Page 19

on the market that is designed to achieve a NOx emission rate of 0.03 to 0.04 lb/mmBTU with

consideration given for variations in specific heater operating conditions such as air preheat, fuel

composition and bridgewall temperature. A “Next Generation Ultra-Low NOx Burner” is defined as a

burner new to the market that is designed to an emission rate of 0.012 to 0.015 lb/mmBTU (HHV),

when firing natural gas at typical industry firing conditions at full design load. Upon EPA approval,

Conoco may also include technology designed and installed to meet less than 0.040 lbs per mmBTU. 

56. Conoco’s selection of control technology must at a minimum reduce overall NOx emissions

from the Controlled Heaters and Boilers by at least 1,526 tons per year from a prior actual to future

allowable basis (equivalent to at least a 50% reduction) so as to satisfy the following inequality:

 n

Σ [(EActual)i - (EAllowable)i ] $ 1526 tons of NOx per year

 i = 1

Where:

(EAllowable)i = The requested portion of the permitted allowable pounds of NOx per million

BTU for heater or boiler i)/(2000 pounds per ton)] x [(the lower of permitted

or maximum heat input rate capacity in million BTU per hour for heater or

boiler i) x (the lower of 8760 or permitted hours per year)] ; 

(EActual)i = The tons of NOx per year prior actual emissions (unless prior actuals

exceed allowable emissions, then use allowable) as shown in

Attachment 1 for controlled heater or boiler i; and

n = The number of heaters and boilers at all refineries that are controlled.
Page 20

57. Attachment 1 to this Consent Decree provides the following information for each of the heaters

and boilers greater than 40 mmBTU per hour at each refinery identified in Paragraph 5: 

(1) the maximum heat input capacities in mmBTU/hr;

(2) the baseline emission rate for both calendar years 1999 and 2000 in lbs/mmBTU and

tons per year; and

(3) the type of data used to derive the emission estimate (i.e. emission factor, stack test, or

CEMS data) and the averaging period for the emissions data. 

58. Conoco shall achieve two-thirds of the combined NOx emissions reductions from the

Controlled Heaters and Boilers as set forth in Paragraph 56, by December 31, 2005. Conoco shall

demonstrate compliance with this requirement by demonstrating in their March 31, 2006, annual report

that they have installed NOx controls and applied for enforceable limits that will achieve the required

reductions, pursuant to Part XIII (Permitting). For purposes of this Consent Decree, “applied for” shall

mean that Conoco have submitted a complete and timely application for the appropriate permit, permit

modification, and/or permit waiver. For purposes of this Paragraph only, Controlled Heaters and

Boilers may include the following units that accept the annual average heat input rate (mmBTU/hr) as

listed below: 

 mmBTU/hr

Billings: B-1 & B-2: 5.5 & 5.5

Denver: B-4 & B-6: 9.3 & 10.0

Lake Charles: B-3 & B-4: 8.0 & 9.0

Ponca City: B-6 & B-7: 26.1 & 31.5

59. On or before July 31, 2009, Conoco shall have installed NOx controls on at least 30% of the

heater and boiler capacity greater than 40 mmBTU per hour located at each refinery. The heater and

boiler capacity at each refinery shall be based on the maximum Heat Input Capacity during the

1999/2000 baseline period. 

60. Conoco may include in the 30% capacity demonstration those heaters and boilers which have

been either shut down, or for which the refinery has installed one of the following NOx control
Page 21

technologies: SCR, SNCR, current or next generation ultra-low NOx burners, or technologies that

Conoco demonstrates to EPA’s satisfaction will reduce NOx emissions to 0.040 lbs per mmBTU or

lower.

61. Conoco shall submit a detailed NOx Control Plan (“Control Plan”) to EPA for approval by no

later than four (4) months after the Date of Lodging of the Consent Decree, with annual updates

(“Updates”) no later than March 31 of each year for the life of the Consent Decree. EPA shall

approve the Control Plan provided that it meets the requirements of the Consent Decree. Upon receipt

of EPA’s approval of the initial Control Plan, Conoco shall implement the Control Plan. The Control

Plan and its updates shall describe the progress of the NOx emissions reductions program for heaters

and boilers greater than or equal to 40 mmBTU per hour towards meeting the requirements of

Paragraph 56 and shall contain the following for each such heater and boiler at each refinery:

(a) All of the information required as identified in Attachment 1;

(b) The baseline utilization rate in average mmBTU/hr for calendar years 1999 and 2000; 

(c) Reserved.

(d) Identification of all heaters and boilers that Conoco has controlled to reduce NOx

emissions and plans to control in accordance with Paragraph 56;

(e) Identification of the type of controls installed or planned with date installed or planned;

(f) The allowable NOx emissions (in lbs/mmBTU) and allowable heat input rate (in

mmBTU/hr) obtained or planned, dates obtained or planned, and identification of the

permits in which the limits were obtained;

(g) The results of emissions tests and annual average CEMS data (in ppmvd at 3% O2,

lb/mmBTU, and tons per year) conducted pursuant to Paragraph 56;

(h) The amount in tons per year applied or to be applied toward satisfying Paragraph 56; and

(i) A description of the achieved and anticipated annual progress toward satisfying Paragraph

56 described on a refinery-by-refinery basis. 

62. The Control Plan and Updates required under Paragraph 61 shall be certified as provided in

Paragraph 212.
Page 22

63. For heaters and boilers with a capacity of less than 100 mmBTU/hr Higher Heating Value

(HHV), but greater than or equal to 40 mmBTU/hr (HHV) for which NOx Controls are installed

pursuant to Paragraph 56 of this Consent Decree, Conoco shall conduct an initial performance test for

NOx and CO within one hundred eighty (180) days of each heater and boiler start-up following

installation of NOx Controls. 

64. For heaters and boilers with a capacity of less than 150 mmBTU/hr (HHV), but greater than or

equal to 100 mmBTU/hr (HHV) for which NOx Controls are installed pursuant to Paragraph 56 of this

Consent Decree, Conoco shall conduct an initial performance test or CEMS certification for NOx and

CO within one hundred eighty (180) days of each heater and boiler start-up following installation of

NOx Controls, and either: 

(a) Install, or continue to operate, a NOx and CO CEMS at the time of the installation of the

NOx Control. Conoco shall install, calibrate, maintain and operate the CEMS pursuant to

Paragraph 202 and 203. These CEMS will be used to demonstrate compliance with

emission limits established under this Part; or

(b) Use or develop an approved Parametric Emissions Monitoring System (PEMS) for NOx

and CO within one hundred eighty (180) days of each unit’s start-up following installation

of NOx Control, considering the full range of operating conditions. 

65. For heaters and boilers with a capacity of 150 mmBTU/hr (HHV) or greater, for which NOx

Controls are installed pursuant to Paragraph 56 of this Consent Decree, Conoco shall install, or

continue to operate, a NOx and CO CEMS at the time the NOx Control(s) is (are) installed under this

Consent Decree. In the event two (2) or more heaters or boilers vent to a common stack, and one (1)

heater or boiler has not had NOx Controls installed, the CEMS sampling point must be set such that the

unit(s) with the installed NOx Control is monitored directly. 

66. For heaters and boilers which require CEMS, by no later than one hundred eighty (180) days

after commencement of operation of the NOx controls, Conoco shall install, certify, calibrate, maintain

and operate CEMS pursuant to Paragraph 202 and 203.

67. The requirements of this Part do not exempt Conoco from complying with any and all Federal,

state or local requirements that may require technology upgrades based on actions or activities
Page 23

occurring after the Date of Entry of this Consent Decree. 

68. Conoco shall retain all records required to support their reporting requirements under this Part,

for the life of this Consent Decree, unless other regulations require the records to be maintained longer. 

B. SO2, CO, PM and NSPS REQUIREMENTS FOR HEATERS AND BOILERS

69. By no later than the Date of Lodging, all heaters and boilers at each of Conoco’s refineries shall

be affected facilities subject to the requirements of NSPS Subpart J for fuel gas combustion devices,

except where an alternate schedule for NSPS Subpart J compliance is set forth in Attachment 3. 

70. Conoco does not currently burn any liquid fuel in its heaters and boilers at the Denver, Lake

Charles, and Ponca City refineries. For the life of this Consent Decree, Conoco shall not commence

burning of any liquid fuel in its heaters and boilers.

71. No later than the Date of Lodging, except in instances of natural gas curtailment where Conoco

can demonstrate that fuel oil is required, Conoco agrees to limit SO2 emissions from fuel oil burning in

all heaters and boilers at the Billings refinery to 300 tons per year of SO2 on a 365-day rolling average

as determined by SO2 CEMS. During documented periods of natural gas curtailment, SO2 emissions

from the burning of any liquid fuel in heaters and boiler at the Billings refinery shall not be included in the

365-day average. Conoco shall install an SO2 CEMS on each heater and boiler that burns fuel oil

during periods other than natural gas curtailment. 

72. PM Controls Associated with the Adoption of a Plantwide Applicability Limit

For each refinery which implements a PAL for PM pursuant to Part XV, Conoco agrees to limit PM

emissions from each heater or boiler included in the PAL to 0.005 lb/mmBTU (HHV) on a 365-day

rolling average and 0.010 lb/mmBTU (HHV) on a 24-hour rolling average. Conoco shall comply with

this limit upon the date of its application for such PAL.

73. (a) CO Controls for Heaters and Boilers

Upon installation of NOx controls at a specific heater or boiler, Conoco shall limit the CO emissions

from that Controlled Heater and Boiler to 0.060 lb/mmBTU on a 24-hour rolling average basis and

0.040 lb/mmBTU on a 365-day rolling average basis.
Page 24

73. (b) CO Controls Associated with the Adoption of a Plantwide Applicability Limit

For each refinery which implements a PAL for CO pursuant to Part XV, Conoco agrees to limit CO

emissions from each heater or boiler to 0.060 lb/mmBTU on a 24-hour rolling average basis and 0.040

lb/mmBTU on a 365-day rolling average basis. For each refinery that implements a PAL for CO

pursuant to Part XV of this Consent Decree, Conoco shall monitor CO emissions to demonstrate

compliance with this requirement as follows: 

(a) For heaters and boilers with a capacity greater than 150 mmBTU/hr (HHV), install or

continue to operate CO CEMS; 

(b) For heaters and boilers with a capacity of less than or equal to 150 mmBTU/hr (HHV) but

greater than 100 mmBTU/hr (HHV), install or continue to operate a CO CEMS, or install a

parametric emission monitoring system ("PEMS"); and 

(c) For heaters and boilers with a capacity of less than or equal to 100 mmBTU/hr (HHV)

conduct an initial performance test and/or utilize a portable continuous analyzer. The results

of this testing shall be reported based upon the average of three (3) one hour testing

periods. 

74. SO2 Controls Associated with the Adoption of a Plantwide Applicability Limit: For each

refinery which implements a PAL for SO2 pursuant to Part XV, Conoco agrees to limit SO2 emissions

from all heaters and boilers that burn fuel gas included in the PAL to 0.040 lb SO2/mmBTU (HHV) or

125 ppmvd H2S in fuel gas each on a 365-day rolling average basis. For purposes of determining an

equivalent lbSO2/mmBTU if the125 ppmvd H2S option is selected for a heater or boiler, for use as the

permitted concentration in Section II.B. and daily concentration in Section III.A.3. of Attachment 7, the

following equation shall be used: 

SO2 emission rate in lb/mmBTU = [H2S concentration ppmvd/1,000,000] x [1/(379 dscf/lbmole)] x 34 lb/lb-mole x (64 lb/lb-mole/34 lb/lb-mole) / [fuel gas higher heating value

(mmBTU/dscf)] 

75. For each refinery that implements a PAL for SO2 pursuant to Part XV of this Consent Decree,

Conoco shall monitor SO2 emissions and calculate a daily SO2 emission rate by measuring the H2S
Page 25

content of the fuel gas to demonstrate compliance with the 0.040 lb SO2/mmBTU requirement as

follows: 

(a) Calendar daily average SO2 emission rate in lb/mmBTU = [calendar daily average H2S

concentration ppmvd/1,000,000] x [1/(379 dscf/lb-mole)] x 34 lb/lb-mole x (64 lb/lbmole/34 lb/lb-mole) / [calendar daily average fuel gas higher heating value (mmBTU/dscf)] 

(b) The 365-day rolling average shall be calculated on a daily basis for each heater and boiler

by summing the calendar daily average SO2 emission rate in pounds per mmBTU for the

prior 365 days and then dividing by 365. 

Standard conditions: 60 deg. F., 14.7 lb. force/sq. in. absolute 

PART VIII.

PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS RE: 

BENZENE WASTE OPERATIONS NESHAP (BWON)

Program Summary: Conoco shall undertake the following enhancement to its existing programs to

minimize or eliminate fugitive benzene waste emissions at each of the refineries listed in Paragraph 5. 

A. Current Compliance Status

76. Conoco shall comply with the compliance options specified below:

(a) On the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree, Conoco’s Ponca City and Lake Charles

Refineries shall comply with the compliance option set forth at 40 CFR § 61.342(c),

utilizing the exemptions set forth in 40 CFR § 61.342(c)(2) and (c)(3)(ii) (hereinafter

referred to as the “2 Mg compliance option”); 

(b) On the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree, Conoco’s Billings Refinery shall comply with

the compliance option set forth at 40 CFR § 61.342(e) (herein referred to as the “6 BQ

compliance option”); 

(c) On or before April 5, 2001, Conoco reported that it had a Total Annual Benzene (TAB) of

less than 10 Mg/yr at its Denver Refinery, in accordance with Subpart FF. 

B. Refinery Compliance Option Changes
Page 26

77. Commencing on the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree and continuing through termination,

Conoco shall not change the compliance option of any Refinery from the 6 BQ compliance option to

the 2 Mg compliance option. If at any time from the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree through its

termination, the Denver Refinery is determined to have a TAB equal to or greater than 10 Mg/yr,

Conoco shall not utilize the 2 Mg compliance option. Conoco shall consult with EPA and the

appropriate state agency before making any change in compliance strategy not expressly prohibited by

this Paragraph. All changes must be undertaken in accordance with the regulatory provisions of the

Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP. 

C. Review and Verification of Each Refinery’s TAB and, as applicable, Each Refinery’s

Compliance with the 2 Mg or 6 BQ Compliance Options

78. All Refineries: Phase One of the Review and Verification Process. Conoco shall complete a

review and verification of each Refinery’s TAB, and each Refinery’s compliance with the <10 Mg, 2

Mg or 6 BQ compliance option, as applicable. For each Refinery, Conoco’s Phase One review and

verification process shall include, but not be limited to: 

(a) an identification of each waste stream that is required to be included in the Refinery’s TAB

(e.g., slop oil, tank water draws, spent caustic, desalter rag layer dumps, desalter vessel

process sampling points, other sample wastes, maintenance wastes, and turnaround wastes,

if these streams meet the definition of a waste under Subpart FF); 

(b) a review and identification of the calculations and/or measurements used to determine the

flows of each waste stream for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy of the annual waste

quantity for each waste stream; 

(c) an identification of the benzene concentration in each waste stream, provided, however,

that previous analytical data or documented knowledge of waste streams may be used, 40

CFR § 61.355(c)(2), for streams not sampled; and 

(d) an identification of whether or not the stream is controlled consistent with the requirements

of Subpart FF. 

79. By no later than September 30, 2002, following the completion of Phase One of the review and

verification process, Conoco shall submit a Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP Compliance Review

and Verification report (“BWON Compliance Review and Verification Report”) that sets forth the

results of Phase One, including but not limited to the items identified in (a) through (d) of Paragraph 78.

At its option, Conoco may submit one BWON Compliance Review and Verification Report that

includes the results of all Refineries or may submit four separate BWON Compliance Review and

Verification Reports. 
Page 27

80. All Refineries: Phase Two of the Review and Verification Process. Based on EPA’s review of

the Phase One BWON Compliance Review and Verification Report(s), no later than thirty (30) days

from Conoco's submittal of the BWON Compliance Review and Verification Report, EPA may select

up to twenty (20) additional waste streams at each Refinery for sampling for benzene concentration.

Conoco will conduct the required sampling and submit the results to EPA within sixty (60) days of

receipt of EPA’s request. To the extent that EPA requires Conoco to sample a waste stream as part of

the Phase Two review that Conoco chose to sample as part of the Phase One review, Conoco may

average the results of the two sampling events. Conoco will use the results of this additional sampling to

recalculate the TAB and the uncontrolled benzene quantity. If Phase Two sampling is required by

EPA, Conoco shall submit an amended BWON Compliance Review and Verification Report no later

than one hundred-fifty (150) days after receipt of EPA's request for sampling. 

D. Waste/Slop Oil Management

81. No later than March 31, 2002, Conoco, in consultation with EPA and the appropriate state

personnel, will conduct a review of its waste/slop oil management activities at its Denver Refinery. This

review is to identify potential sample locations, determine “end of line” benzene sample locations and

review available oil movement transfer documentation to assist Conoco with preparation for their

sampling as required under Paragraphs 106 – 114. No later than August 31, 2002, Conoco will

conduct similar reviews at the remaining three (3) refineries subject to this Decree. 

E. Implementation of Actions to Correct Non-Compliance

82. Amended TAB Reports. If the results of the BWON Compliance Review and Verification

Report(s) indicate(s) that a Refinery’s most recently-filed TAB report does not satisfy the requirements

of Subpart FF, Conoco shall submit, by no later than sixty (60) days after completion of the BWON

Compliance Review and Verification Report(s), an amended TAB report to the appropriate state

agency. Conoco’s BWON Compliance Review and Verification Report(s) shall be deemed an

amended TAB report for purposes of Subpart FF reporting to EPA. 

83. Denver Refinery. If the results of the BWON Compliance Review and Verification Report(s)

indicate that the Denver Refinery has a TAB of over 10 Mg/yr, Conoco shall submit to EPA, to Region

8 of EPA, and to the Colorado DPHE, by no later than one hundred eighty (180) days after completion

of the BWON Compliance Review and Verification Report(s), a plan that identifies with specificity the

compliance strategy and schedule that Conoco will implement to ensure that the Denver Refinery

complies with the 6 BQ compliance option as soon as practicable. 

84. Billings, Ponca City and Lake Charles Refineries. If the results of the BWON Compliance
Page 28

Review and Verification Report(s) indicate that Conoco is not in compliance with the 6 BQ compliance

option at the Billings Refinery, or the 2 Mg compliance option at the Ponca City and Lake Charles

Refineries, then, for each such Refinery not in compliance, Conoco shall submit to EPA, to the

appropriate EPA Region, and to the appropriate state agency, by no later than one hundred twenty

(120) days after completion of the BWON Compliance Review and Verification Report(s), a plan that

identifies with specificity the compliance strategy and schedule that Conoco will implement to ensure

that the subject Refinery complies with its applicable compliance option as soon as practicable. 

85. Review and Approval of Plans Submitted Pursuant to Paragraphs 83 and 84. Any plans

submitted pursuant to Paragraphs 83 and 84 shall be subject to the approval of, disapproval of, or

modification by EPA, which shall act in consultation with the appropriate state agency. Within sixty (60)

days after receiving any notification of disapproval or request for modification from EPA, Conoco shall

submit to EPA and the appropriate state agency a revised plan that responds to all identified

deficiencies. Upon receipt of approval or approval with conditions, Conoco shall implement the plan. 

86. Certification of Compliance with the 2 Mg or 6 BQ Compliance Option, as Applicable. By no

later than thirty (30) days after completion of the implementation of all actions, if any, required pursuant

to Paragraphs 83 and 84 to come into compliance with the applicable compliance option, Conoco shall

submit a report to EPA that, as to each Refinery, the Refinery complies with the Benzene Waste

Operations NESHAP. 

F. Carbon Canisters

87. Except as noted for Conoco’s Lake Charles Refinery, Conoco’s Refineries requiring control

devices shall comply with the requirements of Paragraphs 88 - 96 (either primary and secondary

canisters in series or single carbon canisters) at all locations at Conoco’s Refineries where a carbon

canister(s) is utilized as a control device under the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP. Lake

Charles Refinery may continue to use its primary control system (flare) as the primary control system

with single carbon canister system as backup. Lake Charles may change to dual canisters in series if

needed. 

88. Primary and Secondary Carbon Canisters. By no later than two hundred seventy (270) days

after the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree, Conoco shall replace all dual canister systems in parallel

with primary and secondary carbon canisters and operate them in series. 

89. By no later than thirty (30) days following completion of the installation of the dual canisters in

series as provided in Paragraph 88, Conoco shall submit a report certifying the completion of the

installation. The report shall include a list of all locations within each Refinery where secondary carbon

canisters were installed and the date that each secondary canister was put into operation. 
Page 29

90. For dual carbon canister systems in series, “breakthrough” between the primary and secondary

canister is defined as any reading equal to or greater than 50 ppm volatile organic compounds

(“VOC”). At any time during the life of this Consent Decree, Conoco may propose to EPA to conduct

a study of the effectiveness of the benzene and VOC limits proposed under this paragraph for dual

carbon canisters. The study shall be designed to determine the concentration of VOCs or benzene that

may be emitted from the primary (lead) carbon canister in a dual series before VOCs above

background or benzene above 1 ppm is emitted from the secondary (tail) carbon canister. If Conoco

elects to conduct the study, it must submit written notice to EPA and submit a proposed statement of

work and schedule for the study for EPA-approval.

91. By no later than seven (7) days after start of operation of each secondary carbon canister,

Conoco shall start to monitor for breakthrough between the primary and secondary carbon canisters at

times when there is actual flow to the carbon canister, in accordance with the frequency specified in 40

CFR § 61.354(d). 

92. Conoco shall replace the original primary carbon canisters with either a fresh carbon canister or

the secondary canister immediately when breakthrough is detected. If the original secondary carbon

canister is used as the new primary carbon canister, a fresh carbon canister will become the secondary

canister. For this Paragraph, “immediately” shall mean within twenty-four (24) hours.

93. Utilizing single carbon canisters. Conoco shall continue to operate its existing single canisters

for short-term operations such as with temporary storage tanks. For all canisters operated as part of a

single canister system, “breakthrough” is defined for the purposes of this Decree as any reading of

VOC above background. Beginning no later than the Date of Entry of this Consent Decree, Conoco

shall monitor for breakthrough from a single carbon canister at times when there is actual flow to the

carbon canister, in accordance with the frequency specified in 40 CFR § 61.354(d). 

94. For locations where single canisters are utilized, canisters will be replaced when breakthrough is

determined within eight (8) hours for canisters with historical replacement intervals of two weeks or less

or within twenty-four (24) hours for canisters with a historical replacement interval of more than two

weeks. Single carbon canisters can be replaced with a dual system (in series) at any time, provided

that Conoco provides notice to EPA and single canister monitoring is continued until the second

canister is installed. 

95. Conoco shall maintain a supply of fresh carbon canisters used as single canisters at each

Refinery at all times. Conoco shall either maintain the supply or assure a replacement is available within

the replacement interval for all canisters used in dual systems. 
Page 30

96. Records for the requirements of Paragraphs 88 - 95 shall be maintained in accordance with 40

CFR § 61.356(j)(10). 

G. Annual Review

97. Conoco shall establish a process to annually review process and project information for each

Refinery, including but not limited to construction projects, to ensure that all new benzene waste

streams are included in each Refinery’s waste stream inventory during the life of the Consent Decree. 

Conoco shall have one hundred eighty (180) days from Date of Entry of the Consent Decree to modify

existing management of change procedures for this annual review or to develop a new program. 

H. Laboratory Audits

98. Conoco shall conduct audits of all laboratories that perform analyses of Conoco’s benzene

waste operations NESHAP samples to ensure that proper analytical and quality assurance/quality

control procedures are followed. These audits may be conducted either by Conoco personnel or third

parties. 

99. Beginning within six (6) months after the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree, Conoco shall

conduct initial audits of the laboratories used by two (2) of its Refineries. Conoco shall complete initial

audits of the laboratories used by the remaining Conoco Refineries within twelve (12) months of the

Date of Entry of the Consent Decree. In addition, Conoco shall audit any new laboratory used for

analyses of benzene samples prior to use of the new laboratory. 

100. During the life of this Consent Decree, Conoco shall conduct subsequent laboratory audits,

such that each laboratory is audited every two (2) years. 

I. Spills

101. Upon entry of the Consent Decree, Conoco shall review reportable spills within the Refineries

identified in Paragraph 5 to determine if benzene waste, as defined under Subpart FF, was generated. 

For the purposes of this review, ‘reportable’ will be the smaller of the benzene quantity defined as

reportable by either CERCLA or the State in which the particular refinery operates. Conoco shall

account for such benzene waste in the respective TABs as required by 40 CFR § 61.342. For the

Refineries with a TAB greater than or equal to 10 Mg/year, Conoco will account for such benzene

wastes in accordance with the applicable compliance option calculations, as appropriate under Subpart

FF, unless the benzene waste is promptly managed in controlled waste management units. 
Page 31

J. Training

102. By no later than one hundred twenty (120) days from the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree,

Conoco shall develop and begin implementation of annual (i.e., once each calendar year) training for all

employees asked to draw benzene waste samples. 

103. Billings, Lake Charles and Ponca City Refineries: For the Billings, Lake Charles and Ponca

City Refineries, by no later than one hundred eighty (180) days from the Date of Entry of the Consent

Decree, Conoco shall complete the development of standard operating procedures for all control

equipment used to comply with the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP. By no later than two

hundred seventy (270) days thereafter, Conoco shall complete an initial training program regarding

these procedures for all operators assigned to this equipment. Comparable training shall also be

provided to any persons who subsequently become operators, prior to their assumption of this duty.

Until termination of this Decree, “refresher” training in these procedures shall be performed at a

minimum on a three (3) year cycle. 

104. The Denver Refinery shall comply with the procedure and training provisions of Paragraph 103

if and when that Refinery’s TAB exceeds 10 Mg/yr. Conoco shall propose the schedule for these

procedures and training at the same time that Conoco proposes a plan, pursuant to Paragraph 83 that

identifies the compliance strategy and schedule that Conoco will implement to come into compliance

with the 6 BQ compliance option. 

105. If personnel are employees of contractors, the contractor will provide their employees' training

information to Conoco. 

K. Sampling Plans

106. Conoco shall submit a sampling plan for each Refinery to EPA for approval. The plan will

include the information required by Sections L, M and N of this Part. If no Phase Two samples are

requested by EPA, the plans shall be submitted no later than December 31, 2002. If EPA requests

Phase Two samples, the plan shall be submitted no later than two hundred ten (210) days after EPA's

request. The sampling plan shall be implemented during the first full calendar quarter after Conoco

receives written approval from EPA of the sampling plans required by this Paragraph. After two (2)

years, Conoco may request an alternative sampling plan for any of its Refineries, including sampling

frequency, and EPA should not unreasonably withhold its consent.

L. Sampling (Less than 10 Mg/yr)

107. For the Denver Refinery, which has a TAB of less than 10 Mg/yr, Conoco shall submit a

sampling plan pursuant to Paragraph 106 to EPA which will: 
Page 32

(a) Identify the annual sampling of all waste streams that contributed 0.05 Mg/yr or more to the

previous year’s TAB calculation; and

(b) Identify sampling to conduct quarterly “end of the line” benzene determination. This will include

proposed sampling locations and methods for flow calculations to be used in the quarterly

benzene determination. 

M. End of Line Sampling (6 BQ Compliance Option) 

108. Conoco shall submit a sampling plan pursuant to Paragraph 106 to EPA to conduct quarterly

“end of the line” benzene determination for the Billings Refinery which is complying with the 6 Mg/yr

compliance option (40 CFR § 61.342(e)). 

109. Conoco’s plan for the Billings Refinery will contain proposed sampling locations and methods

for flow calculations to be used in the quarterly benzene determination. 

110. Conoco’s plan for the Billings Refinery shall also provide for quarterly sampling of all

uncontrolled waste streams that count toward the 6 Mg/yr calculation and contain greater than 0.05

Mg/yr of benzene. 

N. End of Line Sampling (2 Mg Compliance Option)

111. Conoco shall submit sampling plans pursuant to Paragraph 106 to EPA to conduct quarterly

“end of the line” benzene determinations for the Lake Charles and Ponca City Refineries which are

complying with the 2 Mg/yr compliance option (40 CFR 61.342(c)). 

112. Conoco’s plans for the Lake Charles and Ponca City Refineries will contain proposed sampling

locations and methods for flow calculations to be used in the quarterly benzene determination. 

113. Conoco’s plans for the Lake Charles and Ponca City Refineries shall also provide for quarterly

sampling of all uncontrolled waste streams that count toward the 2 Mg/yr calculation and contain

greater than 0.05 Mg/yr of benzene. 

114. Conoco’s plans for the Lake Charles and Ponca City Refineries shall also provide for quarterly

sampling of all uncontrolled waste streams that qualify for the ten (10) ppmw exemption (see 40 CFR

61.342(c)(2)) and contain greater than 0.1 Mg/yr of benzene.
Page 33

O. Quarterly Estimation of Annual TAB

115. Conoco shall use all sampling results and approved flow calculation methods under the

approved sampling plans (Paragraph 106) to calculate a quarterly and estimate a calendar year value

for each refinery. If the quarterly calculation for a refinery made pursuant to this Paragraph exceeds: a)

2.5 Mg for the refinery with TAB historically less than 10 Mg/yr, b) 0.5 Mg for refineries complying

with the 2 Mg compliance option, or c) 1.5 Mg for refineries complying with the 6 BQ compliance

option, then Conoco shall prepare for that refinery a written summary and schedule of the activities

planned to minimize benzene wastes at such facility for the rest of the calendar year to ensure that the

calendar year calculation complies with the 10 Mg TAB calculation, or the 2 Mg or 6 BQ compliance

options. The summary and schedule are due no later than sixty (60) days after the close of the quarter

in which the quarterly calculation exceeded the applicable quantity. 

116. If any estimated calendar year calculation for any facility made pursuant to the preceding

Paragraph exceeds: (a) 10 Mg for refineries with TABs historically less than 10 Mg/yr, (b) 2 Mg for

refineries complying with the 2 Mg compliance option, or (c) 6 Mg for refineries complying with the 6

BQ compliance option, then Conoco shall prepare for each such refinery a written summary and

schedule of the activities planned to minimize benzene wastes at such facility to ensure that the calendar

year calculation complies with the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP compliance option. (The

projected annual estimates themselves are not the basis for penalties and are not deemed to be

instances of non-compliance for purpose of this Consent Decree.) The summary and schedule are due

no later than sixty (60) days after the close of the quarter in which the estimated annual amount

exceeded the applicable quantity. 

P. Miscellaneous Measures

117. The provisions of this Paragraph shall apply to: (a) the Billings, Ponca City and Lake Charles

Refineries from the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree through termination of the Consent Decree

and (b) to the Denver Refinery, if its TAB exceeds 10 Mg/yr, from such time as a compliance strategy

is completed, through termination of the Consent Decree. Conoco shall: 

(a) Conduct monthly visual inspections of all water traps used for BWON control within the

Refineries’ individual drain systems; 

(b) By no later than June 30, 2002, identify and mark all area drains that are segregated

stormwater drains; 
Page 34

(c) Where installed, visually inspect all conservation vents or indicators on process sewers for

detectable leaks on a weekly basis; reset any vents where leaks are detected; and record

the results of the inspections. After two (2) years of weekly inspections, and based upon

an evaluation of the recorded results, Conoco may submit a request to the appropriate EPA

Region to modify the frequency of the inspections. Nothing in this Paragraph 117(c) shall

require Conoco to monitor conservation vents on fixed roof tanks. 

(d) On a quarterly basis, conduct monitoring of the controlled oil-water separators in benzene

service in accordance with the “no detectable emissions” provision in 40 CFR § 61.347. 

118. Conoco shall manage all groundwater remediation conveyance systems at its Billings, Lake

Charles and Ponca City Refineries in accordance with the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP. 

119. The provisions of Paragraph 118 do not currently apply to Conoco’s Denver Refinery. The

groundwater treatment system at Conoco's Denver Refinery receives groundwater from both Conoco’s

Denver Refinery and another non-Conoco refinery, both of which are subject to groundwater

remediation orders under RCRA. If the Denver Refinery TAB exceeds 10 Mg during the term of this

Consent Decree and before the resolution of the three existing RCRA Orders and before the nonConoco refinery has stopped its contaminated groundwater from migrating to Conoco's property,

Conoco's Denver Refinery will be required to submit a plan to the EPA to address only the Conoco

contribution to the benzene contamination in the groundwater system. 

Q. Closed Loop Sampling

120. Within one (1) year after the Date of Entry of this Consent Decree, each refinery will review the

closed purge sampling devices on sampling points on waste and process streams consistent with safety,

feasibility, and cost, and with the requirements of 40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart CC and report such

findings to the EPA. Conoco believes that a project or investigation involving these closed loop

systems will have little effect on benzene emissions. The systems will be compared to the Refinery

MACT standard. Any applicable regulatory deficiencies will be corrected within two (2) years of the

Date of Entry of the Decree, unless a refinery process unit shutdown is required, in which case the

deficiency shall be corrected during the next scheduled process unit shutdown. 

R. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for this Part

121. In addition to the reports required under 40 CFR § 61.357 and the Quarterly Progress Report

Procedures of Part XIV (Recordkeeping and Reporting), at the times specified in the applicable

provisions and Paragraphs of this Part VIII, Conoco shall make available, as and to the extent required,

the following reports to EPA: 
Page 35

(a) BWON Compliance Review and Verification Report(s) (Paragraph 79), as amended, if 

necessary (Paragraph 80); 

(b) Amended TAB Report(s), if necessary (Paragraph 82);

(c) Plan for Denver to come into compliance with the 6 BQ compliance option upon 

discovering that its TAB exceeds 10 Mg/yr through the BWON Compliance Review and

Verification Report(s) (Paragraph 83); 

(d) Plan for the Billings, Lake Charles and Ponca City Refineries to come into compliance

with the applicable compliance option, if the BWON Compliance Review and Verification

Report(s) indicate non-compliance (Paragraph 84);

(e) Compliance certification, if necessary (Paragraph 86); 

(f) Report certifying the completion of the installation of dual carbon canisters in series 

(Paragraph 89); 

(g) Sampling Plans (Paragraphs 106 – 114); 

(h) Report on installation of closed purge sampling devices (Paragraph 120); and

(i) Written summary and schedule to ensure that uncontrolled benzene does not equal or

exceed, as applicable, 2, 6, or 10 Mg/yr – or is minimized – based on quarterly or

projected calendar year uncontrolled benzene quantities as determined through EOL

sampling (Paragraphs 115 and 116). 

122. Quarterly Reports: Conoco shall submit the following information quarterly as part of the

information submitted in either the quarterly reports required pursuant to 40 CFR § 61.357(d)(6) and

(7) (“Section 61.357 Reports”), (Billings, Lake Charles, and Ponca City) or in the quarterly reports

due pursuant to Part XIV of this Decree (Denver and/or the other three (3) Refineries). This provision

is applicable through the Life of the Consent Decree, unless the reporting for (a), (b) or (c) below is

modified as provided in Paragraph 123:

(a) Sampling results and approved flow calculations generated pursuant to Sections L, M and

N.

(b) Estimated quarterly and annual TABs calculated and reported pursuant to Section O.
Page 36

(c) Initial and/or subsequent training conducted in accordance with Paragraphs 102-105

through the end of calendar quarter for which the quarterly report is due. 

(d) Initial and subsequent laboratory audits conducted pursuant to Paragraphs 98-100 through

the end of calendar quarter for which the quarterly report is due. Conoco shall include, at a

minimum, the identification of each laboratory audited, a description of the methods used in

the audit, and the results of the audit.

123. Any time after two (2) years of quarterly reporting pursuant to Paragraph 122(a), (b), or (c) of

sampling results and estimated calendar calculations, Conoco may submit a request to EPA on any or

all of these items to modify the frequency of reporting. This request would include the provision to

report for the previous calendar year in the quarterly report due for the last calendar quarter of each

year submitted pursuant to the provisions of Part XIV of the Consent Decree. This request for

Paragraphs 122(a) and (b) would include a provision to recommence quarterly reporting for any

calendar year in which the estimated calendar calculation for any facility indicates it may exceed the

annual compliance option.

124. Reserved

125. Conoco shall submit all reports, plans and certifications required to be submitted under this Part

to EPA Headquarters. Where indicated, Conoco also shall submit the information to the appropriate

state agency. Conoco may submit the materials electronically. Certifications shall be made in

accordance with the provisions in Part XIV. 

PART IX.

PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS RE:

LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR

Program Summary: In order to minimize or eliminate fugitive emissions of volatile organic compounds

(VOCs), volatile hazardous air pollutants (VHAPs), and organic hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from

equipment in light liquid and/or in gas/vapor service, Conoco shall undertake at each of its Refineries

the enhancements at Paragraph 126 through Paragraph 153 to each Refinery’s LDAR program as may

be required under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, Subparts GGG and VV; Part

61, Subparts J and V; Part 63, Subparts F, H, and CC; and applicable state LDAR requirements. The

terms “equipment,” “in light liquid service” and “in gas/vapor service” shall have the definitions set forth
Page 37

in the applicable provisions of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, Subparts GGG and

VV; Part 61, Subparts J and V; Part 63, Subparts F, H and CC; and applicable state LDAR

regulations. 

A. Written Refinery-Wide LDAR Program

126. By no later than one hundred eighty (180) days after the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree,

Conoco shall develop and maintain, for each of its Refineries, a written program for compliance with all

applicable federal and state LDAR regulations. This written program may be specific to each Refinery

and will include all process units subject to federal and/or state LDAR regulations (“Refinery-wide

program”). Until termination of this Decree, Conoco shall implement this program on a Refinery-wide

basis, and Conoco shall update each Refinery’s program as necessary to ensure continuing compliance. 

Each Refinery-wide program shall include: 

(a) An overall, Refinery-wide leak rate goal that will be a target for achievement on a processunit-by-process-unit basis; 

(b) An identification of all equipment in light liquid and/or in gas/vapor service that has the

potential to leak VOCs, HAPs, and VHAPs, within process units that are owned and

maintained by each Refinery; 

(c) Procedures for identifying leaking equipment within process units that are owned and

maintained by each Refinery; 

(d) Procedures for repairing and keeping track of leaking equipment; 

(e) A process for evaluating new and replacement equipment to promote consideration and

installation of equipment that will minimize leaks and/or eliminate chronic leakers; 

(f) A definition of “LDAR Personnel” and process for accountability, and identify for each

refinery the person or position that will be the “LDAR coordinator.” This person shall have

the authority and responsibility to implement improvements to the LDAR program; and 

(g) Procedures (e.g., a Management of Change program) to ensure that components subject to

LDAR requirements added to each Refinery during maintenance and construction are

integrated into the LDAR program. 

B. Training

127. By no later than one (1) year from the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree, Conoco shall

implement the following training programs at each of its Refineries: 
Page 38

(a) For Conoco employees newly-assigned to LDAR responsibilities, Conoco shall require

LDAR training prior to each employee beginning such work; 

(b) For all Conoco employees assigned LDAR responsibilities, such as monitoring technicians,

database users, QA/QC personnel and the LDAR Coordinator, Conoco shall provide and

require completion of annual LDAR refresher training; 

(c) For all other Conoco employee operations and maintenance personnel, such as operators

and mechanics performing valve packing and designated unit supervisor reviewing for delay

of repair work, Conoco shall provide and require completion of an initial training program

that includes instruction on aspects of LDAR that are relevant to the person’s duties. Until

termination of this Decree, “refresher” training in LDAR for these personnel shall be

performed at a minimum on a three- (3) year cycle; and 

(d) If contract employees are performing LDAR work, Conoco’s contractor will provide its

training information and records to Conoco. 

C. LDAR Audits

128. Conoco shall implement at each of its Refineries, Refinery-wide audits performed as set forth in

Paragraphs 129 and 130, to ensure each Refinery’s compliance with all applicable LDAR

requirements. Conoco’s LDAR audits shall include but not be limited to, comparative monitoring,

records review, tagging, data management, and observation of the LDAR technicians’ calibration and

monitoring techniques. An audit of each Refinery shall occur every two (2) years and, if Conoco-led

audits are done, third-party and Conoco-led audits shall be separated by two (2) years. 

129. Third-Party Audits. Conoco shall retain a contractor(s) to perform a third-party audit of each

Refinery’s LDAR program at least once every four (4) years. The first third-party audit for two (2) of

Conoco’s four (4) Refineries shall be completed no later than one (1) year from the Date of Entry of

the Consent Decree. The first third-party audits of Conoco’s remaining two Refineries shall be

completed within two (2) years from the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree. 

130. Conoco-Led Audits. Unless the alternative in Paragraph 131 is chosen, Conoco shall conduct

audits of each Refinery’s LDAR program by sending personnel familiar with the LDAR program and its

requirements from one or more of Conoco’s other Refineries or locations to audit another Conoco

Refinery. Conoco shall complete the first round of these LDAR audits by no later than two (2) years

from the date of the completion of the third-party audits required in Paragraph 129. Conoco audits of

each Refinery shall be held every four (4) years thereafter for the life of this Consent Decree. 

131. Alternative. As an alternative to the Conoco-led audits required by Paragraph 130, Conoco
Page 39

may elect to retain third parties to undertake these audits. 

D. Actions Necessary to Correct Non-Compliance

132. If the results of any of the audits conducted pursuant to Paragraphs 128-131 at any of

Conoco’s Refineries identify any areas of non-compliance, Conoco shall implement, as soon as

practicable, all steps necessary to correct the area(s) of non-compliance, and to prevent, to the extent

practicable, a recurrence of the cause of the non-compliance. Until two (2) years after termination of

the Consent Decree, Conoco shall retain the audit reports generated pursuant to Paragraphs 129-130

and shall maintain a written record of the corrective actions that Conoco takes at each of its Refineries

in response to any deficiencies identified in any audits. 

133. In the quarterly report submitted pursuant to the provisions of Part XIV of this Consent Decree

(Recordkeeping and Reporting) for the first calendar quarter of each year, Conoco shall report on the

audits and corrective actions for audits performed during the previous year as provided in Paragraph

151(b). 

E. Internal Leak Definition for Valves and Pumps

134. Conoco shall utilize the internal leak definitions listed in Paragraphs 135 and 136 for valves and

pumps in light liquid and/or gas/vapor service, unless other permit(s), regulations, or laws require the

use of lower leak definitions. 

135. Leak Definition for Valves. By no later than two (2) years after the Date of Entry, Conoco shall

utilize an internal leak definition of 500 ppm VOCs for all of its Refineries’ valves in light liquid and/or

gas vapor service, excluding pressure relief devices. 

136. Leak Definition for Pumps. By no later than two (2) years from the Date of Entry of this

Consent Decree, Conoco shall utilize an internal leak definition of 2,000 ppm for its Refineries’ pumps

in light liquid and/or gas/vapor service. 

F. Reporting, Recording, Tracking, Repairing and Remonitoring Leaks of Valves and

Pumps Based on the Internal Leak Definitions

137. Reporting. For regulatory reporting purposes, Conoco may continue to report leak rates in

valves and pumps against the applicable regulatory leak definition, or may use the lower, internal leak

definitions specified in Paragraphs 135 and 136. Conoco will identify in the report which definition is

being used. 

138. Recording, Tracking, Repairing and Re-monitoring Leaks. Conoco shall record, track, repair

and re-monitor applicable leaks in excess of the internal leak definitions of Paragraphs 135 and 136 (at
Page 40

such time as those definitions become applicable), except that Conoco shall have thirty (30) days to

make repairs and re-monitor leaks that are greater than the internal leak definitions but less than the

applicable regulatory leak definitions. 

G. "First Attempt at Repairs" on Valves

139. Conoco shall implement "first attempt at repair" beginning no later than ninety (90) days after

the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree. Conoco shall promptly make a “first attempt at repair" on

any valve that has a reading greater than 200 ppm of VOCs excluding control valves, pumps, and

components that LDAR personnel are not authorized to repair. The timing for the “first attempt at

repair” of those components which the monitoring personnel are not authorized to repair will be

consistent with the existing regulatory requirements. “First attempt at repair” will be made promptly (no

later than the next business day) for the valves over 200 ppm that the LDAR monitoring personnel are

authorized to attempt repair. The “first attempt at repair” will be re-monitored no later than the next

regular business day at that refinery to assure the leak is not worse. No other action will be required

unless the leak exceeds the then-applicable leak definition for the refinery. If, after two (2) years,

Conoco can demonstrate with sufficient monitoring data that the “first attempt at repair" at 200 ppm will

worsen or not improve the Refinery’s leak rates, Conoco may request that EPA reconsider or amend

this requirement. 

H. LDAR Monitoring Frequency

140. Pumps. When the lower leak definition for pumps becomes applicable pursuant to Paragraph

136, Conoco shall monitor pumps in light liquid and/or gas vapor service at the lower leak definition on

a monthly basis. 

141. Valves. Unless more frequent monitoring is required by a State regulation, when the lower

internal leak definition for valves becomes applicable pursuant to Paragraph 135, Conoco shall

implement a program to monitor valves in light liquid and/or gas vapor service – other than difficult to

monitor or unsafe to monitor valves – on a quarterly basis, with no ability to skip periods on a processunit-by-process-unit basis. 

I. Electronic Monitoring, Storing, and Reporting of LDAR Data

142. Electronic Storing and Reporting of LDAR Data. At each of its Refineries, Conoco has and will

continue to maintain for the duration of this Consent Decree an electronic database for storing and

reporting LDAR data. 

143. Electronic Data Collection During LDAR Monitoring. For the duration of this Consent Decree,

Conoco shall continue to use dataloggers and/or electronic data collection devices during all LDAR
Page 41

monitoring. Conoco or its designated contractor shall use its/their best efforts to transfer, on a daily

basis, electronic data from electronic datalogging devices to the electronic database of Paragraph 142. 

For all monitoring events in which an electronic data collection device is used, the collected monitoring

data shall include a time and date stamp, an operator identification, and an instrument identification. 

Conoco may use paper logs where necessary or more feasible (e.g., small rounds, re-monitoring, or

when dataloggers are not available or broken), and shall record, at a minimum, the identification of the

technician undertaking the monitoring, the date, and the identification of the monitoring equipment. 

Conoco shall transfer any manually recorded monitoring data to the electronic database of Paragraph

142 within seven (7) days of monitoring. 

J. QA/QC of LDAR Data

144. By no later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree,

Conoco or a third party contractor retained by Conoco shall develop and implement a procedure to

ensure a quality assurance/quality control (“QA/QC”) review of all data generated by LDAR

monitoring technicians. This QA/QC procedure shall include procedures for:

(a) contractor(s) reviewing the monitoring data provided to Conoco before submitting the data

to Conoco; 

(b) quarterly performing QA/QC of Conoco’s and any contractor’s monitoring data which shall

include, but not be limited to: number of components monitored per technician, time

between monitoring events, and abnormal data patterns; and 

(c) periodically reviewing the daily monitoring reports. 

K. Calibration/Calibration Drift Assessment

145. Calibration. Conoco shall conduct all calibrations of LDAR monitoring equipment using

methane as the calibration gas, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, EPA Reference Test Method 21. 

146. Calibration Drift Assessment. Beginning no later than the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree,

Conoco shall conduct calibration drift assessments of LDAR monitoring equipment at the end of each

monitoring shift, at a minimum. Conoco shall conduct the calibration drift assessment using, at a

minimum, an approximately 500 ppm calibration gas. If any calibration drift assessment after the initial

calibration shows a negative drift of more than 10% from the previous calibration, Conoco shall remonitor all valves that were monitored since the last calibration that had a reading greater than 100 ppm
Page 42

and shall re-monitor all pumps that were monitored since the last calibration that had a reading greater

than 500 ppm. 

L. Delay of Repair

147. Within thirty (30) days of the completion of the written program described in Paragraph 126,

for any equipment for which Conoco is allowed, under 40 CFR § 60.482-9(a) or equivalent state

regulations, to place on the “delay of repair” list for repair, Conoco shall: 

(a) Require sign-off by the unit supervisor, which position shall be identified in the written

program, that the piece of equipment is technically infeasible to repair without a process unit

shutdown, before the component is eligible for inclusion on the “delay of repair” list; and 

(b) Include equipment that is placed on the “delay of repair” list in Conoco’s regular LDAR

monitoring. For leaks above the internal leak definition rate and below the regulatory rate,

Conoco shall have thirty (30) days to put the equipment on the delay of repair list.

148. For valves: For valves, other than control valves or pressure relief valves, that qualify to be on

the “delay of repair” list and are leaking at a rate of 50,000 ppm or greater, Conoco will undertake

“extraordinary efforts” to fix the leaking valve rather than keeping the valve on the “delay of repair” list,

unless Conoco can demonstrate that there is a safety, mechanical, or major environmental concern

posed by repairing the leak in this manner. For valves, extraordinary efforts for repairs shall be defined

as non-routine repair methods. The extraordinary effort will be undertaken within one hundred twenty

(120) days of the valve being placed on the "delay of repair" list. After two (2) unsuccessful attempts

to repair a leaking valve through extraordinary efforts, Conoco may keep the leaking valve on its “delay

of repair” list. Conoco will implement these extraordinary repair procedures within thirty (30) days of

completion of the written program. 

149. Within one hundred twenty (120) days of implementation of the written program, Conoco shall

also make extraordinary efforts to repair those valves which have been placed on the delay of repair list

which leak at 10,000 ppm for more than three (3) years. Conoco may delay these repairs further if it

can demonstrate that there is a safety, mechanical, or major environmental concern posed by repairing

the leak in this manner. 

M. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for this Paragraph

In Addition to the Reports Required under 40 CFR § 63.654 and the Quarterly Progress

Report Procedures of Part XIV (Recordkeeping and Reporting). 

150. Written Refinery-Wide LDAR Program. No later than thirty (30) days after completion of the
Page 43

development of the written refinery-wide LDAR programs that Conoco develops pursuant to

Paragraph 126, Conoco shall submit a copy of each Refinery’s Program to EPA and to the appropriate

state agency. 

As Part of Either the Reports Required under 40 CFR § 63.654 or the Quarterly Progress

Report Procedures of Part XIV (Recordkeeping and Reporting). 

151. Consistent with the requirements of Part XIV (Recordkeeping and Reporting), Conoco shall

include the following information, at the following times, in its quarterly progress reports: 

a. First Quarterly Progress Report Due under the Consent Decree. At the later of: (i) the first

quarterly progress report due under the Consent Decree; or (ii) the first quarterly progress

report after the requirement becomes due, Conoco shall include the following: 

(1) A certification of the implementation of the “first attempt at repair” program of

Paragraph 139; 

(2) A certification of the implementation of QA/QC procedures for review of data

generated by LDAR technicians as required by Paragraph 144; 

(3) An identification of the position at each Refinery responsible for LDAR performance as

defined in the written program required in Paragraph 126; 

(4) A certification of the development of a tracking program for new valves and pumps

added during maintenance and construction defined in the written program required in

Paragraph 126; 

(5) A certification of the implementation of the calibration drift assessment procedures of

Paragraph 146; and 

(6) A certification of the implementation of the “delay of repair” procedures of Paragraphs

147 - 149. 

(b) Quarterly Progress Report for the First Calendar Quarter of Each Year - Reporting on

Audits. Conoco will report on the audits and corrective actions (Paragraphs 128 - 133) in

the quarterly progress report that Conoco submits for the first calendar quarter of each year

pursuant to Part XIV. For the first third-party audit at each Refinery, Conoco shall include

a copy of each audit report from audits conducted in the previous calendar year and a

summary of the actions taken or planned to correct all deficiencies identified in the audits. 

For the remainder of the audits required pursuant to this Order, in the quarterly progress

report that Conoco submits for the first calendar quarter of each year, Conoco shall identify
Page 44

which refineries were audited in the previous year, identify the auditors, and identify that a

written plan exists identifying corrective action for any deficiencies identified in the audits

and that this plan is being implemented. The certification for that quarterly report as

provided in Paragraph 214 will serve as the certification for the audit information. 

(c) In Each Report due under 40 CFR § 63.654. In each report due under 40 CFR §

63.654, Conoco shall include: 

(1) Training. Information identifying the measures that Conoco took to comply with the

provisions of Paragraph 127; and 

(2) Monitoring. The following information on LDAR monitoring: (a) a list of the process

units monitored during the quarter; (b) the number of valves and pumps monitored in

each process unit; (c) the number of valves and pumps found leaking; (d) the number of

“difficult to monitor” pieces of equipment monitored; (e) the projected month of the

next monitoring event for that unit; and (f) a list of all equipment currently on the “delay

of repair” list and the date each component was placed on the list. 

152. Reserved

153. Agencies to Receive Reports, Plans and Certifications Required in this Part; Number of

Copies. Conoco shall submit all reports, plans and certifications required to be submitted under

Paragraphs 150 - 151 to EPA. Where indicated, Conoco also shall submit the information to the

appropriate state agency. Upon written agreement of the parties, Conoco may submit the materials

electronically. Certifications shall be made in accordance with the provisions in Part XIV. 

PART X. 

PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS RE: 

SUBPART J AND FLARING

Program Summary: Pursuant to the schedule included in this Consent Decree, Conoco agrees to take

the following measures at all of its Claus Sulfur Recovery Plants (SRPs) and certain flaring devices at

the refineries identified in Paragraph 5. Conoco shall eliminate all reasonably preventable SO2 emissions

from flaring. Conoco will implement procedures for root cause analysis of acid gas flaring incidents at all

refineries identified in Paragraph 5. 
Page 45

A. Definitions

154. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, terms used in this Part shall have the meaning given

to those terms in the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq., and the regulations promulgated

thereunder. In addition, the following definitions shall apply to the terms contained within this Part X of

this Consent Decree: 

(a) “Acid Gas” shall mean any gas that contains hydrogen sulfide and is generated at a refinery

by the regeneration of an amine scrubber solution.

(b) “Acid Gas Flaring” shall mean, for purposes of this Consent Decree, the combustion of

Acid Gas and/or Sour Water Stripper Gas in a Flaring Device. Nothing in this definition

shall be construed to modify, limit, or affect EPA’s authority to regulate the flaring of gases

that do not fall within the definitions contained in this Decree of Acid Gas or Sour Water

Stripper Gas. 

(c) “Acid Gas Flaring Device” shall mean any device that receives and combusts Acid Gas

and/or Sour Water Stripper Gas, except facilities in which gases are combusted to produce

elemental sulfur, sulfuric acid, ammonium thiosulfate, ammonium bisulfite or sodium bisulfite. 

 (d) “Acid Gas Flaring Incident” (or “AG Flaring Incident”) shall mean the continuous or

intermittent flaring/combustion of Acid Gas and/or Sour Water Stripper Gas that results in

the emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2) equal to, or greater than five-hundred (500) pounds in

a twenty-four (24) hour period; provided, however, that if five-hundred (500) pounds or

more of sulfur dioxide have been emitted in a twenty-four (24) hour period and Flaring

continues into subsequent, contiguous, non-overlapping twenty-four (24) hour period(s),

each period of which results in emissions equal to, or in excess of five hundred (500)

pounds of sulfur dioxide, then only one Acid Gas Flaring Incident shall have occurred.

Subsequent, contiguous, non-overlapping periods are measured from the initial

commencement of Flaring within the Acid Gas Flaring Incident. 

(e) “Day” shall mean a calendar day. 

(f) “Denver No. 1 Incinerator Incident” shall mean, for the purpose of this Consent Decree,

combustion of Tail Gas in the Denver No. 1 SRU incinerator such that the amount of sulfur

dioxide emissions in excess of the permitted interim emission limits (as established for

Denver No. 1 SRP operating scenarios pursuant to Paragraph 172) exceeds five hundred

(500) pounds on a twenty-four (24) hour average basis. This definition shall apply only
Page 46

until the Denver Refinery No. 1 SRU is retrofitted to meet NSPS standards. 

(g) “First Time Occurrence of a Root Cause” shall mean that the root cause of the Flaring

Incident as identified pursuant to the procedures outlined in Paragraph 183(d) is one for

which the root cause is not a recurrence of the same root cause of a previous Flaring

Incident that has occurred since Date of Entry of this Decree for the Conoco refineries

identified in Paragraph 5. 

(h) “Hydrocarbon Flaring” or “HC Flaring” shall mean, for purposes of this Consent Decree,

the combustion of refinery process gases, except for Acid Gas and/or Sour Water Stripper

Gas and/or Tail Gas, in a Hydrocarbon Flaring Device. Nothing in this definition shall be

construed to modify, limit, or affect EPA’s authority to regulate the flaring of gases that do

not fall within the definitions contained in this Consent Decree. 

(i) “Hydrocarbon Flaring Device” (or a “flare”) shall mean a combustion device used to safely

control any excess volume of a refinery process gas as follows: 

Billings Refinery: Main Plant Flare and its Spare, SRU/Ammonium Sulfide Unit Flare, 

Denver Refinery: Main Plant Flare, Asphalt Unit (AU or Sour Crude Unit) Flare, Slop

Oil Flare, Rail Rack Flare, 

Lake Charles Refinery: North Flare, South Flare, West (Excel) Flare, T-38 Flare,

API/CPI Flare, and

Ponca City Refinery: East Plant Flare, West Plant Flare, South Plant Flare, Coker

Combo Flare, Mobile Temporary Spare Flare and Rail Rack Flare

(j) “Hydrocarbon Flaring Incident” (or “HC Flaring Incident”) shall mean the continuous or

intermittent flaring of refinery process gases, except for Acid Gas or Sour Water Stripper

Gas or Tail Gas, at a Hydrocarbon Flaring Device that results in the emissions of sulfur

dioxide (SO2) that are equal to or greater than five hundred (500) pounds in a twenty-four

(24) hour period. The SO2 trigger value in this definition may be revised upward pursuant

to the procedure in Paragraph 180 for Conoco’s coker flares after Conoco has conducted

a coker flare study and installed flare gas recovery systems on its coker flares. 

(k) “Malfunction” shall mean any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of

air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or

usual manner. Failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation

are not malfunctions. 
Page 47

(l) “Root Cause” shall mean the primary cause of an Acid Gas Incident, Tail Gas Incident,

Denver No. 1 Incinerator Incident or Hydrocarbon Flaring Incident as determined through

a process of investigation; provided, however, that if the subject incident encompasses

multiple releases of sulfur dioxide, the “Root Cause” may encompass multiple primary

causes. 

(m) “Scheduled Maintenance” shall mean any maintenance performed during a shutdown of a

unit that Conoco schedules at least ten (10) days in advance of the shutdown. 

(n) “Shutdown” shall mean the cessation of operation of an affected facility for any purpose. 

(o) “Sour Water Stripper Gas” or “SWS Gas” shall mean the gas produced by the process of

stripping or scrubbing refinery sour water. 

(p) “Startup” shall mean the setting in operation of an affected facility for any purpose. 

(q) “Sulfur Recovery Plant” shall mean the devices operated or permitted by Conoco at

Conoco’s Refineries identified as: 

Billings Refinery SRP (No. 1 SRU); 

Denver Refinery SRPs (No. 1 SRU and No. 2 SRU); 

Lake Charles SRPs (Nos. 1/2 SRUs and Nos. 4/5 SRUs); and 

Ponca City Refinery SRP (No. 1 SRU). 

(r) “Tail Gas” (TG) shall mean exhaust gas from the Claus trains and the tail gas unit (“TGU”)

section of the SRP.

(s) “Tail Gas Incident” (or “TG Incident”) shall mean, for the purpose of this Consent Decree,

combustion of Tail Gas that either: (i) is combusted in a flare and results in 500 pounds of

sulfur dioxide emissions in a twenty-four (24) hour period; or (ii) is combusted in a

monitored incinerator and the amount of sulfur dioxide emissions in excess of the 250 ppm

limit (as defined by 40 CFR 60.104 (2)(i)) on a twenty-four (24) hour average exceeds

500 pounds. This definition shall not apply to the Denver No. 1 SRU until such time as that

unit is retrofitted to meet NSPS Subpart J standards. 

(t) “Upstream Process Units” shall mean all amine contactors, amine scrubbers, and sour water

strippers at the refinery, as well as all process units at the refinery that produce gaseous or

aqueous waste streams that are processed at amine contactors, amine scrubbers, or sour

water strippers. 

B. Flare NSPS Subparts A and J Applicability – Non-Coker Flares
Page 48

155. By no later than March 31, 2003, Conoco will review the Subparts A and J compliance status

of the flares that do not service delayed coker unit blowdown systems: 

Billings Refinery: SRU/Ammonium Sulfide Unit Flare;

Denver Refinery: Main Plant Flare, AU Flare, Slop Oil Flare, Rail Rack Flare; 

Lake Charles Refinery: North Flare, West Flare, T-38 Flare, API/CPI Flare; and

Ponca City Refinery: East Plant Flare, West Plant Flare, South Plant Flare, Rail Rack

Flare, Mobile Temporary Spare Flare. 

156. Conoco shall meet the NSPS Subpart A and J requirements for the flares listed in Paragraph

155 using one of the following methods:

(a) Implementing good air pollution control practices as required by 40 CFR § 60.11(d) and

following the procedures set forth in Paragraphs 183 through 188. 

(b) Operating the flare as a fuel gas combustion device and monitoring H2S in accordance with

40 CFR § 60.104(a)(1); or

(c) Operating the flare such that it only receives process upset gas, fuel gas that is released to

the flare as a result of relief valve leakage or other emergency malfunctions (as defined by

NSPS Subpart J.) 

157. Conoco shall implement the compliance option chosen for each flare listed in Paragraph 155

the earlier of: (a) the first turnaround for each flare that occurs at least six (6) months after completion

the flare’s evaluation; or (b) the end of 2006. 

158. Conoco shall submit notifications to EPA when it has achieved compliance with Subpart A and

J for each particular flare. Such notifications will be submitted within thirty (30) days of completion of

the compliance option. Conoco shall include a certification of compliance for the release for liability for

each particular flare for NSPS Subpart A and J under Part XXI (Effect of Settlement). 

159. Upon bringing a flare into compliance per Paragraph 156, Conoco shall conduct a flare

performance test pursuant to 40 CFR § 60.8 and §60.18. In lieu of conducting the velocity test

required in 40 CFR § 60.18, Conoco may submit velocity calculations which demonstrate that the flare

meets the performance specification required by 40 CFR § 60.18. 

160. To the extent that Conoco chooses to use an alternative monitoring method at a particular flare

to demonstrate compliance with the emissions limits under 40 CFR § 60.104, Conoco may begin using
Page 49

the method immediately upon submitting the application for approval to use the method provided that

the alternative method for which approval is being sought is the same or is substantially similar to the

method identified as the “Alternative Monitoring Plan for NSPS Subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas” attached

to EPA’s December 2, 1999, letter to Koch Refining Company LP. 

C. Flare NSPS Subparts A and J Applicability – Coker Flares

161. Conoco shall comply with the Subpart A and J requirements at the following flares that service

delayed coker blowdown systems:

Billings Refinery: Main Plant Flare and its Spare;

Lake Charles Refinery: South Flare; and

Ponca City Refinery: Coker Combo Flare. 

162. Conoco shall meet the Subpart A and J requirements for the flares servicing delayed cokers as

listed in Paragraph 161 by installing and operating flare gas recovery systems as a means of

implementing good air pollution control practices as required by 40 CFR § 60.11(d) to minimize flaring

activity in lieu of meeting the emissions limits and monitoring and recordkeeping requirements under 40

CFR § 60.104, 105 and 107. Where Conoco has previously agreed to install or installs flare gas

recovery systems as Supplemental Environmental Projects as part of prior State Orders, Conoco shall

ensure good air pollution control practices by following the procedures for conducting Root Cause

Failure Analysis and Corrective Action for flaring incidents as specified in this Consent Decree.

163. Conoco has previously agreed to install flare gas recovery systems as Supplemental

Environmental Projects in State Orders in Oklahoma and Montana as indicated below. As such, the

installation of these systems is not considered to be required by this Consent Decree:

Billings Refinery: Main Plant Flare and its Spare by the end of 2003 as specified to in a

letter to the State of Montana dated June 25, 2001, and to be incorporated in a compliance

order.

Ponca City Refinery: Coker Combo Flare by July 2002 as specified to in Consent Order

00-196 dated July 11, 2000, with the State of Oklahoma. 

164. Conoco shall install a new or upgrade the existing flare gas recovery system at the Lake

Charles Refinery South Flare by the end of 2005. 

165. Conoco shall have a six (6) month period following the installation or upgrade of any flare gas

recovery system installed on a flare listed in Paragraph 161 to optimize the operation of the flare gas
Page 50

recovery system. Root Cause Failure Analyses will not be required during this optimization period

unless the flare gas recovery system is shutdown or bypassed. 

166. Within two (2) years of the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree, Conoco, as a licensor of

delayed coking technology, shall perform and provide to EPA and the appropriate Plaintiff-Interveners

(subject to each party’s obligation to protect confidential business information in accordance with

Federal and State regulations) a coker flare gas minimization study that will evaluate NSPS Subpart A

and J compliance methodologies for flares servicing delayed cokers. This study will look at methods to

minimize pass through of gases from a flare gas recovery system to flare, optimal flare gas recovery

operations, and coker design and operation.

167. Upon bringing a flare into compliance per Paragraph 162, Conoco shall conduct a flare

performance test pursuant to 40 CFR § 60.8 and § 60.18. In lieu of conducting the velocity test

required in 40 CFR § 60.18, Conoco may submit velocity calculations which demonstrate that the flare

meets the performance specification required by 40 CFR § 60.18. 

168. Conoco shall submit notification to EPA when it has achieved compliance with Subpart A and J

for each particular flare listed in Paragraph 161 through the use of good engineering control practices. 

Such notifications will be submitted within thirty (30) days of completion of the flare gas recovery

system installation and the six month shakedown period. Conoco shall include a certification of

compliance for the release for liability for each particular flare for NSPS Subparts A and J under Part

XXI (Effect of Settlement). 

D. SRP NSPS Subparts A and J Applicability

169. Immediately upon the Date of Lodging of this Consent Decree, the Conoco operated and

permitted SRPs, other than the Denver No. 1 SRU, shall be subject to and will continue to comply with

the applicable provisions of NSPS Subparts A and J. 

170. Immediately upon Date of Lodging of this Consent Decree, Conoco agrees that all emission

points (stacks) to the atmosphere for tail gas emissions from each of Conoco's operated and permitted

SRPs other than the Denver No. 1 SRU will continue to be monitored and reported upon as required

by 40 CFR §§ 60.7(c), 60.13, and 60.105. This requirement is not applicable to Acid Gas Flaring

Devices. 

171. The Denver No. 1 SRU shall comply with the NSPS Subparts A and J requirements for Claus

units the earlier of the last Tier 1 and 2 Diesel or Low Sulfur Gasoline compliance date as applicable to

the Denver Refinery or the end of 2008. 

172. Conoco shall implement the following interim measures at the Denver No. 1 SRU until it
Page 51

complies with the NSPS Subparts A and J requirements for Claus units.

(a) By no later than September 30, 2002, Conoco shall install a CEM on the Denver No. 1

Tail Gas Incinerator stack to measure flow and SO2 emissions.

(b) By no later than March 31, 2003, Conoco shall perform an optimization study to determine

the maximum turndown ratio at which the unit continues to operate reliably and the

maximum operating rate of the unit when the Denver No. 2 SRU is shut down. This may

include considerations for oxygen enrichment as discussed in the Colorado Supplemental

Environment Project (Colorado SEP) descriptions noted in the Consent Agreement

between Conoco and the U.S. EPA Docket No. RCRA (3008) VIII-97-03, effective

August 7, 1998, and Colorado Compliance Order on Consent Number 98-08-07-02, also

effective August 7, 1998. Results of this study shall be reported to EPA Region 8 and the

State of Colorado within thirty (30) days of completing the study. 

(c) By no later than May 31, 2003, Conoco shall apply for a modification to Colorado Permit

C-10,998 to adopt specific emission limits associated with the optimal maximum turndown

and maximum capacity rates including considerations for oxygen enrichment as noted in

Colorado SEP descriptions referenced above.

(d) Conoco shall comply with limits established pursuant to sub-paragraph (c), above,

immediately upon Conoco’s submission of an application for modification of the existing

permit.

(e) Upon submission of an application for modification of the existing permit, Conoco shall

implement procedures for evaluating whether Denver No. 1 Incinerator Incidents are due to

Malfunctions as required by Paragraph 182. The procedure requires Root Cause Failure

Analysis and Corrective Action for incidents as specified in Paragraph 183, and stipulated

penalties for Denver No. 1 Incinerator Incidents if the Root Causes were not due to

Malfunctions as outlined in Paragraph 189 of this Consent Decree. 

173. All sulfur pit emissions to the atmosphere shall be either eliminated or included and monitored

as part of the SRP’s emissions by no later than the first turnaround of the applicable Claus train

occurring six (6) months after the Date of Lodging of this Consent Decree. 

174. Reserved 

175. During the life of this Consent Decree, for the purpose of determining compliance with the SRP

emission limits, Conoco shall apply the “start-up/shutdown” provisions set forth in NSPS Subpart A to

the Claus Sulfur Recovery Plant and not to the independent start-up or shut-down of its corresponding
Page 52

control device(s) (e.g. TGU). However, the malfunction exemption set forth in NSPS Subpart A shall

apply to both the Claus Sulfur Recovery Plant and its control device(s) (e.g., TGU). 

E. Sulfur Recovery Plant Optimization

176. During the life of the Consent Decree, Conoco shall continue to maintain its Conoco Sulfur

Processing Best Practices Network as a means to optimize sulfur plant operations. This network

charter is included in Attachment 6. The network, at a minimum, will review: 

(a) operator and engineer training for SRP and amine treating operations;

(b) operating parameters, material balances and efficiencies;

(c) acid gas and SWS gas composition;

(d) operating problems and corrective actions;

(e) incremental improvements achieved;

(f) new or modified operating procedures; and

(g) root cause and corrective action performed as a result of any incident investigation

performed as a result of an Acid Gas Flaring Incident or Tail Gas Flaring Incident. 

F. Past Flaring Analysis

177. Conoco supplied EPA with a list of the Acid Gas Flaring Incidents at all of its refineries that

occurred since 1996. Conoco has implemented (or is in the process of identifying and implementing)

corrective actions to minimize the number and duration of Acid Gas Flaring events. The corrective

actions include an electrical reliability project currently being implemented at Ponca City and the

upgrade of the Denver No. 1 SRU pursuant to the descriptions noted in the Consent Agreement

between Conoco and the U.S. EPA Docket No. RCRA (3008) VIII-97-03, effective August 7, 1998,

and Colorado Compliance Order on Consent Number 98-08-07-02, also effective August 7, 1998,

allowing it to process sour water stripper off-gas. 

G. Future Flaring

178. By no later than the Date of Entry of this Decree, Conoco shall implement procedures at the

refineries identified in Paragraph 5, for evaluating whether future Acid Gas Flaring Incidents and Tail

Gas Incidents are due to Malfunctions. The procedures require Root Cause Failure Analysis and

Corrective Action for flaring incidents as specified in this Consent Decree, and stipulated penalties for

Acid Gas Flaring Incidents or Tail Gas Incidents if the Root Causes were not due to Malfunctions. 
Page 53

179. By no later than the Date of Entry of this Decree, Conoco shall implement procedures at the

refineries identified in Paragraph 5, for evaluating whether future HC Flaring Incidents are due to

Malfunctions. The procedures require Root Cause Failure Analysis (RCFA) and Corrective Action for

HC Flaring Incidents as specified in this Consent Decree at Paragraphs 183 (a)-(e) and 184. For each

of the flares identified in Paragraphs 155 and 161, during the period between the Date of Entry of this

Decree and the date Conoco certifies the flare is compliant with NSPS Subparts A and J in accord

with Paragraphs 158 and 168, Conoco may prepare and submit a single RCFA for one or more Root

Causes found by that analysis to routinely reoccur. Conoco shall inform the EPA and the State in that

RCFA that it is electing to report only once on that Root Cause(s) during the interim period. Unless

EPA or the State object within thirty (30) days of receipt of the RCFA, such election shall be effective.

During this interim period, additional RCFAs will be triggered whenever there is a release of 500

pounds of SO2 in a 24-hour period as the result of identifiable, abnormal operating conditions. 

180. If within six (6) months after installation of a flare gas recovery system at each of the flares

identified in Paragraph 161 and adoption of reasonable measures identified in the study conducted

pursuant to Paragraph 166, any or all of the flares identified in Paragraph 161 routinely have SO2

emissions in excess of 500 pounds per 24-hour period, Conoco may propose for EPA and the

appropriate State Agency concurrence an alternative unit specific value above which a flaring incident

investigation would be required in lieu of the 500 pounds per 24-hour period. Conoco’s written

request would include the proposed value, a list of all measures taken or adopted up to the time of the

submittal to try to reduce SO2 emissions below 500 pounds per 24-hour period, and information

required as part of the RCFA process. EPA and the State shall approve or disapprove the proposed

value within sixty (60) days of receipt. 

H. Tail Gas Incidents and Denver No. 1 Incinerator Incidents

181. For Tail Gas Incidents, Conoco shall follow the investigative, reporting, and corrective action as

outlined in Paragraph 183 and the same assessment of stipulated penalty procedures for Acid Gas

Flaring outlined in Paragraph 189. Such Tail Gas Incidents would not be counted in the tally of Acid

Gas Flaring Incidents under Paragraph 190. 

182. For a Denver No. 1 Incinerator Incident, Conoco shall follow the investigative, reporting, and

corrective action as outlined in Paragraph 183 and the same assessment of stipulated penalty

procedures for Acid Gas Flaring Incidents outlined in Paragraph 189. Denver No. 1 Incinerator

Incidents shall not be counted in the tally of Acid Gas Flaring Incidents under Paragraph 190. 
Page 54

I. Requirements Related to All Flaring Incidents

183. Investigation and Reporting. No later than forty-five (45) days following the end of an Acid Gas

Flaring Incident, Tail Gas Incident, HC Flaring Incident, or a Denver No. 1 Incinerator Incident

(individually and collectively referred to as “Flaring Incident”), Conoco shall submit a report to the

applicable EPA Regional Office and applicable State Agency that sets forth the following: 

(a) The date and time that the Flaring Incident started and ended. To the extent that the Flaring

Incident involved multiple releases either within a twenty-four (24) hour period or within

subsequent, contiguous, non-overlapping twenty-four (24) hour periods, Conoco shall set

forth the starting and ending dates and times of each release; 

(b) An estimate of the quantity of SO2 that was emitted and the calculations that were used to

determine that quantity; 

(c) The steps, if any, that Conoco took to limit the duration and/or quantity of SO2 emissions

associated with the Flaring Incident; 

 

(d) A detailed analysis that sets forth the Root Cause and all contributing causes of that Flaring

Incident, to the extent determinable; 

 

(e) An analysis of the measures, if any, available to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence a

Flaring Incident resulting from the same Root Cause or contributing causes in the future. If

two or more reasonable alternatives exist to address the root cause, the analysis shall

discuss the alternatives that are available, the probable effectiveness and cost of the

alternatives, and whether or not an outside consultant should be retained to assist in the

analysis. Possible design, operational, and maintenance changes shall be evaluated. If

Conoco concludes that corrective action(s) is (are) required under Paragraph 184, the

report shall include a description of the action(s) and, if not already completed, a schedule

for its (their) implementation, including proposed commencement and completion dates. If

Conoco concludes that corrective action is not required under Paragraph 184, the report

shall explain the basis for that conclusion; 

 

(f) For AG Flaring Incidents, Tail Gas Incidents and Denver No. 1 Incinerator Incidents, a

statement that: 

(1) Specifically identifies each of the grounds for stipulated penalties in Paragraphs 189 and

190 of this Decree and describes whether or not the Acid Gas Flaring Incident, Tail

Gas Incident, or Denver No. 1 Incinerator Incident falls under any of those grounds;
Page 55

provided, however, that Conoco may choose to submit with the Root Cause Failure

Analysis a payment of stipulated penalties in the nature of settlement without the need to

specifically identify the grounds for the penalty. Such payment of stipulated penalties

shall not constitute an admission of liability, nor shall it raise any presumption

whatsoever about the nature, existence or strength of Conoco’s potential defenses. 

Further, if Conoco submits the Root Cause Failure Analysis with a payment of

stipulated penalties in the nature of settlement, the incident for which the stipulated

penalties are paid would be counted in the tally of flaring incidents under Paragraph 190

and Conoco could not later assert that it should not be. 

 

(2) Describes which Paragraph 192(a) or (b) applies, and why, the Acid Gas Flaring

Incident, Tail Gas Incident, or Denver No. 1 Incinerator Incident falls under Paragraph

192 of this Decree; 

(3) States whether or not Conoco asserts a defense to the Acid Gas Flaring Incident, Tail

Gas Incident, or Denver No. 1 Incinerator Incident, and if so, a description of the

defense if the subject incident falls under either Paragraph 190 or Paragraph 192(b);

provided, however, that if Conoco submits stipulated penalties in the nature of

settlement as described in (f)(1) above, such defenses are moot and may be, but shall

not be required to be, included in the incident investigation report. 

(g) To the extent that investigations of the causes and/or possible corrective actions still are

underway on the due date of the report, a statement of the anticipated date by which a

follow-up report fully conforming to the requirements of Paragraph 183 will be submitted. 

However, if Conoco has not submitted a report or a series of reports containing the

information required to be submitted under this Paragraph within forty-five (45) days (or

such additional time as EPA may allow) after the due date for the initial report for the Acid

Gas Flaring Incident, Tail Gas Incident, or Denver No. 1 Incinerator Incident, the stipulated

penalty provisions of Paragraphs 189 and 190 shall apply. Nothing in this Paragraph shall

be deemed to excuse Conoco from its investigation, reporting, and corrective action

obligations under this Part that occurs after a subject Acid Gas Flaring Incident, Tail Gas

Incident, or Denver No. 1 Incinerator Incident for which Conoco has requested an

extension of time under this Paragraph; and 

(h) To the extent that completion of the implementation of corrective action(s), if any, is not

finalized at the time of the submission of the report required under this Paragraph, then, by

no later than thirty (30) days after completion of the implementation of corrective action(s),
Page 56

Conoco shall submit a report identifying the corrective action(s) taken and the dates of

commencement and completion of implementation.

 

J. Corrective Action

184. In response to any Acid Gas Flaring Incident, Tail Gas Incident, HC Flaring Incident or Denver

No. 1 Incinerator Incident, Conoco, as expeditiously as practicable, shall take such interim and/or longterm corrective actions, if any, as are consistent with good engineering practice to minimize the

likelihood of a recurrence of the Root Cause and all contributing causes of the subject incident. 

185. If EPA does not notify Conoco in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of the report(s)

required by Paragraph 183 that it objects to one or more aspects of Conoco’s proposed corrective

action(s), if any, and schedule(s) of implementation, if any, then that (those) action(s) and schedule(s)

shall be deemed acceptable for purposes of Conoco’s compliance with Paragraphs 184 of this Consent

Decree. 

186. EPA does not, however, by its agreement to the entry of this Consent Decree or by its failure to

object to any corrective action that Conoco may take in the future, warrant or aver in any manner that

any of Conoco’s corrective actions in the future will result in compliance with the provisions of the

Clean Air Act or its implementing regulations. Notwithstanding EPA’s review of any plans, reports,

corrective measures or procedures under this Section J, Conoco shall remain solely responsible for

compliance with the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations. 

187. If EPA does object, in whole or in part, to Conoco’s proposed corrective action(s) and/or its

schedule(s) of implementation, or, where applicable, to the absence of such proposal(s) and/or

schedule(s), it shall notify Conoco of that fact within thirty (30) days following receipt of the report(s)

required by Paragraph 183 above. 

188. Nothing in this Part shall be construed as a waiver of EPA’s rights under the Clean Air Act and

its regulations for future violations of the Clean Air Act or its regulations nor to limit Conoco’s right to

take such corrective actions as it deems necessary and appropriate immediately following a Flaring or

Denver No. 1 Incinerator Incident or in the period during preparation and review of any reports

required under this Part. 

K. Acid Gas Flaring and Stipulated Penalties

189. Stipulated Penalties. The stipulated penalty provisions of Paragraph 199(a) shall apply to any
Page 57

Acid Gas Flaring Incident for which the Root Cause was one or more of the following acts, omissions,

or events: 

(a) Error resulting from careless operation by the personnel charged with the responsibility for

the SRPs, TGUs, or Upstream Process Units; 

(b) A failure of equipment that is due to a failure by Conoco to operate and maintain that

equipment in a manner consistent with good engineering practice; and/or

(c) failure to follow written procedures;

 

provided, however, that Conoco may elect to submit stipulated penalties in the nature of settlement with

no admission of liability as described in Paragraph 183(f)(1) with the submittal of the RCFA. Should

Conoco admit that the incident was the result of one of previously listed acts, omission, or events, and

not elect to automatically submit stipulated penalties in the nature of settlement, then except for a Force

Majeure event, Conoco shall have no defenses to a demand for stipulated penalties for an Acid Gas

Flaring Incident that falls under this Paragraph. 

190. The stipulated penalty provisions of Paragraph 199 shall apply to any Acid Gas Flaring Incident

that either: 

(a) Results in emissions of sulfur dioxide at a rate of greater than twenty (20) pounds per hour

continuously for three (3) consecutive hours or more; or 

 

(b) Causes the total number of Acid Gas Flaring Incidents per refinery in a rolling twelve (12)

month period to exceed five (5). 

 

191. Defenses. In response to a demand by EPA for stipulated penalties, Conoco shall be entitled

to assert a Malfunction defense with respect to any Acid Gas Flaring Incident falling under Paragraph

190. In the event that a dispute arising under Paragraph 190 is brought to the Court pursuant to the

Dispute Resolution provisions of this Decree, nothing in this Paragraph is intended or shall be construed

to deprive Conoco of its view that Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction defenses are available for Acid

Gas Flaring Incidents, nor to deprive EPA of its view that such defenses are not available. In the event

that an Acid Gas Flaring Incident falls under both Paragraphs 189 and 190, then Paragraph 189 shall

apply. 

192. The stipulated penalty provisions of Paragraph 199 shall apply to Acid Gas Flaring Incidents
Page 58

other than those identified in Paragraphs 189 and 190 as follows: 

(a) No stipulated penalties shall apply if the Root Cause is a First Time Occurrence of a Root

Cause provided; 

 

(1) If the Root Cause of the Acid Gas Flaring Incident was sudden, infrequent, and not

reasonably preventable through the exercise of good engineering practice, then that

cause shall be designated as an agreed-upon malfunction for purposes of reviewing

subsequent Flaring Incidents; 

 

(2) If the Root Cause of the Acid Gas Flaring Incident was not sudden and infrequent, and

was reasonably preventable through the exercise of good engineering practice, then

Conoco shall implement corrective action(s) pursuant to Paragraph 184; 

(b) Stipulated penalties shall apply if the Root Cause is a recurrence of the same Root Cause of

a previous Acid Gas Flaring Incident that has occurred since the Date of Entry of this

Consent Decree, unless: 

 

(1) the Acid Gas Flaring resulted from a Malfunction, 

(2) the Root Cause previously was designated as an agreed-upon malfunction under

Paragraph 192(a)(1), or 

(3) the Acid Gas Flaring Incident was a recurrence of an event that Conoco had previously

developed a corrective action plan for and for which it had not yet completed

implementation. 

 

(c) In the event that a dispute arising under Paragraph 192(b) is brought to the Court pursuant

to the Dispute Resolution provisions of this Decree, nothing in this Paragraph is intended or

shall be construed to deprive Conoco of its view that Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

defenses are available for Acid Gas Flaring Incidents, nor to deprive the United States of its

view that such defenses are not available. 

 

(d) If no Acid Gas Flaring Incident occurs at a refinery for a rolling thirty-six (36) month period

following entry of this Consent Decree (other than as a result of a Malfunction or Force

Majeure event), then the stipulated penalty provisions of Paragraph 199 no longer apply at

that refinery. EPA may elect to reinstate the stipulated penalty provision if Conoco has an
Page 59

AG Flaring or Tail Gas Incident which would otherwise be subject to stipulated penalties. 

EPA’s decision to reinstate the stipulated penalty provision shall not be subject to dispute

resolution. Once reinstated, the stipulated penalty provision shall apply to future flaring

incidents at that refinery and continue for the remaining life of this Consent Decree. 

 

L. Miscellaneous

193. Calculation of the Quantity of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions resulting from Acid Gas or Hydrocarbon

Flaring. The methodology outlined in this paragraph and paragraphs 194, 195, and 196 will be used for

determining emissions of SO2 resulting from Acid Gas Incidents, Tail Gas Incidents and Hydrocarbon

Flaring Incidents. In the event Conoco determines that a more accurate methodology exists for such

calculations, Conoco will notify EPA and the appropriate state agency prior to using the new

methodology for purposes related to this consent decree.

For purposes of this Consent Decree, the quantity of SO2 emissions resulting from Acid Gas or

Hydrocarbon Flaring shall be calculated by the following formula:

Tons of SO2 = [FR][TD][ConcH2S][8.31 x 10-5].

The quantity of SO2 emitted shall be rounded to one decimal point. (Thus, for example, for a

calculation that results in a number equal to 10.050 tons, the quantity of SO2 emitted shall be

rounded to 10.1 tons and 10.049 would be 10.0 tons.) For purposes of determining the

occurrence of, or the total quantity of SO2 emissions resulting from, an Acid Gas Flaring

Incident that is comprised of intermittent Acid Gas Flaring, the quantity of SO2 emitted shall be

equal to the sum of the quantities of SO2 flared during each such period of intermittent Acid Gas

Flaring. 

194. Calculation of the Rate of SO2 Emissions during Acid Gas or Hydrocarbon Flaring. For

purposes of this Consent Decree, the rate of SO2 emissions resulting from AG or Hydrocarbon Flaring

shall be expressed in terms of pounds per hour, and shall be calculated by the following formula: 

ER = [FR][ConcH2S][0.169].

The emission rate shall be rounded to one decimal point. (Thus, for example, for a calculation
Page 60

that results in an emission rate of 19.95 pounds of SO2 per hour, the emission rate shall be

rounded to 20.0 pounds of SO2 per hour; for a calculation that results in an emission rate of

20.05 pounds of SO2 per hour, the emission rate shall be rounded to 20.1 and 20.049

becomes 20.0 pounds.) 

195. Meaning of Variables and Derivation of Multipliers used in the Equations in Paragraphs 193

and 194: 

ER = Emission Rate in pounds of SO2 per hour 

 

FR = Average Flow Rate to Flaring Device(s) during Flaring, in standard cubic feet per hour 

 

TD = Total Duration of Flaring in hours 

 

ConcH2S = Average Concentration of Hydrogen Sulfide in gas during Flaring (or immediately

prior to Flaring if all gas is being flared) expressed as a volume fraction (scf H2S/scf gas) 

 

8.44 x 10-5 = [lb mole H2S/379 scf H2S][64 lbs SO2/lb mole H2S][Ton/2000 lbs] 

 

0.169 = [lb mole H2S /379 scf H2S][1.0 lb mole SO2/1 lb mole H2S][64 lb SO2/1.0 lb mole

SO2] 

Standard conditions: 60 deg F, 14.7 lb-force/sq.in. absolute

 

The flow of gas to the Acid Gas or Hydrocarbon Flaring Device(s) (“FR”) shall be as measured by the

relevant flow meter. Hydrogen sulfide concentration (“ConcH2S”) shall be determined from the SRP

feed gas analyzer. In the event that either of these data points is unavailable or inaccurate, the missing

data point(s) shall be estimated according to best engineering judgment. The report required under

Paragraph 183 shall include the data used in the calculation and an explanation of the basis for any

estimates of missing data points. 
Page 61

196. Calculation of the Quantity of SO2 Emissions resulting from a Tail Gas Incident. For the

purposes of this Consent Decree, the quantity of SO2 emissions resulting from a Tail Gas Incident shall

be calculated by one of the following methods or an equivalent method approved by EPA, based on the

type of event: 

(a) If the Tail Gas Incident is combusted in a flare, the SO2 emissions are calculated using the

methods outlined in Paragraph 193, or 

(b) If the Tail Gas Incident is a event exceeding the 250 ppmvd adjusted to 0% O2 (NSPS J

limit), from a monitored SRP incinerator, then the following formula applies to each 24-hour

period of an incident beginning with the first hour that the rolling 12 hour average SO2

concentration exceeds the 250 ppmvd Subpart J limit and ending with the 24-hour period in

which the 250 ppmcvd NSPS limit is last exceeded. Total SO2 emissions during an

incident are determined by summing the emissions during each 24-hour period of the

incident: 

HTGI

ERTGI = Σ [ FRInc.]i [Conc. SO2 - 250]i [(20.9-%O2)/20.9]i [0.169 x 10-6] 

i=1

Where: 

ERTGI = Excess Emissions from Tail Gas at the SRP incinerator, in SO2 lbs. over a 24 hour

period 

 

FRInc. = Incinerator Exhaust Gas Flow Rate (standard cubic feet per hour, dry basis) (actual

stack monitor data or engineering estimate based on the acid gas feed rate to the SRP) for each

hour of the incident.

 

Conc. SO2 = Actual SO2 concentration (CEM data) in the incinerator exhaust gas, ppmvd

adjusted to 0% O2 for each hour of the incident 

% O2 = O2 concentration (CEM data) in % in the incinerator exhaust gas in ppm on dry basis

for each hour of the incident
Page 62

 

0.169 x 10-6 = [ lb mole of SO2 / 379 SO2] [ 64 lbs SO2 / lb mole SO2] [ 1x 10-6 ] 

HTGI = Hours when the incinerator CEM was exceeding 250 ppmvd adjusted to 0% O2in

each 24 hour period of the incident (as described above).

Standard conditions: 60 deg F, 14.7 lb-force/sq.in. absolute

 

In the event the SO2 and/or the O2 CEM hourly concentration data are inaccurate or not available or a

flow meter for FRInc, does not exist or is inoperable, then estimates will be used based on best

engineering judgment.

197. Effect of State Startup, Shutdown or Malfunction Provisions. Nothing in this Consent Decree

shall prevent Conoco from asserting a startup, shutdown or malfunction defense where such a defense

exists in State law for state law purposes. 

198. Existing and new CEMS required by this Part shall comply with the certification, calibration,

maintenance, and operation requirements for CEMS found in Part XI, Paragraphs 202 and 203.

M. Stipulated Penalties under this Part

199. Nothing in this Part shall be understood to subject Conoco to stipulated penalties for

Hydrocarbon Flaring Incidents. Conoco shall be liable for the following stipulated penalties for

violations of the requirements of this Part. For each violation, the amounts identified below apply on the

first day of violation through the end of the incident as explained below: 

(a) Acid Gas Flaring, Tail Gas Incidents or Denver No. 1 Incinerator Incidents for which 

Conoco is liable under this Part: 

 
Page 63

Tons

Emitted in

Acid Gas

Flaring,

Tail Gas

Incident or

Denver No.

1

Incinerator

Incident

Length of Time from

Commencement of Flaring within

the Acid Gas Flaring, Tail Gas or

Denver No. 1 Incinerator Incident

to Termination of Flaring within

the Acid Gas Flaring or Tail Gas

Incident is 3 hours or less

Length of Time from Commencement

of Flaring within the Acid Gas Flaring,

Tail Gas or Denver No. I Incinerator

Incident to Termination of Flaring

within the Incident is greater than 3

hours but less than or equal to 24

hours

Length of Time of

Flaring within the

Acid Gas Flaring, 

Tail Gas, or Denver

No. 1 Incinerator

Incident is greater

than 24 hours

5 Tons or

less

$500 per Ton $750 per Ton $1,000 per Ton

Greater

than 5 Tons,

but less

than or

equal to 15

Tons

$1,200 per Ton $1,800 per Ton $2,300 per Ton, up

to, but not

exceeding, $27,500

in any one calendar

day

Greater

than 15

Tons

$1,800 per Ton, up to, but not

exceeding, $27,500 in any one

calendar day

$2,300 per Ton, up to, but not

exceeding, $27,500 in any one

calendar day 

$27,500 per calendar

day for each

calendar day over

which the Acid Gas

Flaring or Tail Gas

Incident lasts

(1) For purposes of calculating stipulated penalties pursuant to this Subparagraph, only one

cell within the matrix shall apply. Thus, for example, for an Acid Gas Flaring Incident in

which the Acid Gas Flaring starts at 1:00 p.m. and ends at 3:00 p.m., and for which

14.5 tons of sulfur dioxide are emitted, the penalty would be $17,400 (14.5 x $1,200);

the penalty would not be $13,900 [(5 x $500) + (9.5 x $1200)]. 

 

(2) For purposes of determining which column in the table set forth in this Subparagraph

applies under circumstances in which flaring occurs intermittently during an Acid Gas

Flaring or Tail Gas or Denver No. 1 Incinerator Incident, the flaring shall be deemed to

commence at the time that the flaring that triggers the initiation of an Acid Gas Flaring or

Tail Gas Incident commences, and shall be deemed to terminate at the time of the

termination of the last episode of flaring within the Acid Gas Flaring or Tail Gas

Incident. Thus, for example, for flaring within a Flaring Incident that (i) starts at 1:00

p.m. on Day 1 and ends at 1:30 p.m. on Day 1; (ii) recommences at 4:00 p.m. on Day

1 and ends at 4:30 p.m. on Day 1; (iii) recommences at 1:00 a.m. on Day 2 and ends at
Page 64

1:30 a.m. on Day 2; and (iv) no further Acid Gas Flaring occurs within the Acid Gas

Flaring Incident, the Acid Gas Flaring within the Acid Gas Flaring Incident shall be

deemed to last 12.5 hours—not 1.5 hours—and the column for flaring of “greater than

3 hours but less than or equal to 24 hours” shall apply. 

(3) For purposes of determining which column in the table set forth in this Paragraph applies

under circumstances in which a Denver No. 1 Incinerator Incident occurs, the Incident

shall be deemed to commence at the time when the emissions exceeded the applicable

permitted limit, and shall be deemed to terminate at the time the emissions fell below the

applicable permitted limit. The permitted limits for determining which column applies shall

be those established in Paragraph 172 of this Consent Decree. 

 

(b) For submitting any report that does not conform to the requirements of this Part after the

deficiencies are pointed out and until corrected: $5,000 per week, per report. 

 

(c) Failure to timely submit any report required by this Part beginning on the 7th day past the

Report’s due date: $5,000 per week, per report

(d) For those corrective action(s) which Conoco is required to undertake following Dispute

Resolution, then, from the 91st day after EPA’s receipt of Conoco’s report under

Paragraph 183 of this Decree until the date that either (i) a final agreement is reached

between EPA and Conoco regarding the corrective action or (ii) a court order regarding

the corrective action is entered: $5,000 per month 

 

(e) Failure to complete any corrective action under Paragraph 184 of this Decree in

accordance with the schedule for such corrective action agreed to by Conoco or imposed

on Conoco pursuant to the Dispute Resolution provisions of this Decree (with any such

extensions thereto as to which EPA and Conoco may agree in writing). If Conoco presents

a reasonable basis for extension, EPA shall not unreasonably withhold its consent or fail to

respond timely to Conoco’s request: $5,000 per week 

 
Page 65

N. Certification

200. Agencies to Receive Reports, Plans and Certifications Required in this Part; Number of

Copies. Conoco shall submit all reports, plans and certifications required to be submitted under this

Part to EPA. Where indicated, Conoco also shall submit the information to the appropriate state

agency. Conoco may submit the materials electronically. Certifications shall be made in accordance

with the provisions in Part XIV. 

201. The reporting requirements set forth in this Part do not relieve Conoco of its obligation to any

State, local authority, or EPA to submit any other reports or information required by the CAA, or by

any other state, federal or local requirements.

PART XI.

CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORS

202. Conoco shall install, certify, calibrate, maintain, and operate all COMS required by this

Consent Decree in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR §§ 60.11, 60.13 and Part 60

Appendices A and B. Conoco shall install, certify, calibrate, maintain, and operate all CEMS required

by this Consent Decree in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR § 60.11, 60.13 and Part 60

Appendices A, B and F. With respect to 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F, in lieu of the requirements of

40 CFR Part 60 Appendix F § 5.1.1, 5.1.3 and 5.1.4, Conoco shall conduct either a Relative

Accuracy Audit ("RAA") or a Relative Accuracy Test Audit ("RATA") once every twelve (12)

calendar quarters, provided that a Cylinder Gas Audit is conducted each calendar quarter. These

COMS and CEMS will be used to demonstrate compliance with emission limits. 

203. By no later than twelve (12) months from the Date of Lodging, all existing COMS on Conoco’s

FCCUs affected by this Consent Decree shall comply with the certification, calibration, maintenance,

and operation requirements of 40 CFR § 60.11 and 60.13 and Part 60 Appendix A and B. By no

later than twelve (12) months from the Date of Lodging, all existing CEMS on Conoco’s FCCUs,

heaters, boilers, tail gas treatment units or other units affected by this Consent Decree shall comply with

the certification, calibration, maintenance, and operation requirements of 40 CFR § 60.11 and 60.13

and Part 60 Appendices A, B and F. With respect to 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F, in lieu of the
Page 66

requirements of 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix F § 5.1.1, 5.1.3 and 5.1.4, Conoco shall conduct either a

Relative Accuracy Audit (RAA) or a Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) once every twelve (12)

calendar quarters, provided that a Cylinder Gas Audit is conducted each calendar quarter. These

COMS and CEMS will be used to demonstrate compliance with emission limits. 

PART XII. 

SUBPART QQQ COMPLIANCE AT BILLINGS REFINERY

Program Summary: Conoco agrees to evaluate and, where necessary, correct deficiencies in its

NSPS Part 60 (Subpart QQQ) compliance at the Billings Refinery and the Billings Jupiter Sulfur Plant.

204. Within six (6) months of entry of this Consent Decree, Conoco’s Billings Refinery will

determine which, if any, oily wastewater streams are entering the storm sewers or storm water diversion

tanks. Conoco and the State of Montana have agreed that Conoco shall review the streams in the

following areas:

Waste Staging Area

T-3901

SU-101 overflow

Cross Connection west of D-21

PB Merox

Drum D-59

#1 Amine north of D-14

D-80 & D-81 vicinity

D-276, D-172 & D-22 vicinity

KOH treater

GOHS unit

Propane caustic treater area

Amine Contactor area

Gasoline merox unit area 
Page 67

205. Within seven (7) months of entry of the decree, Conoco will report findings to State of

Montana. The report will identify streams reviewed for Subpart QQQ applicability, the estimated

amount of oil reaching the storm sewers, and whether this has any impact on BWON reporting or

compliance. 

206. On or before June 1, 2002, Conoco’s Billings Refinery will report to the State of Montana

whether specific streams identified as reaching the storm water system will be removed from the storm

water system and/or whether the storm water diversion tanks and affected drains will be upgraded to

Subpart QQQ status. 

207. By end of 2003 (next turnaround date), Conoco’s Billings Refinery will remove all oily

wastewater streams from storm sewers and storm water diversion tanks or upgrade sewers and tanks

to meet Subpart QQQ standards for drains, junction boxes, and oil water separators as appropriate. 

208. By January 31, 2004, Conoco will submit a final report to the State of Montana indicating how

Subpart QQQ compliance has been achieved at the Billings Refinery. 

PART XIII. 

PERMITTING

Program Summary: The purpose of this Part is to require the incorporation of emissions limits and

other requirements of the Consent Decree into federally enforceable permits.

209. Incorporation of Consent Decree Requirements in Permits. By no later than one hundredtwenty (120) days following the Date of Lodging of the Consent Decree, Conoco shall submit

applications to incorporate the emission limits and standards required by the Consent Decree that are

effective as of the Date of Lodging of the Consent Decree into minor or major new source review

permits or other permits (other than Title V permits), which are federally enforceable and, upon

issuance of such permits shall file any applications necessary to incorporate the requirements of those

permits into the refinery’s Title V permit. In cases where activities required by this Consent Decree do

not otherwise require state construction or operating permits, Conoco may propose and include such

terms as a part of the refineries’ Title V operating permit and they shall be considered federally
Page 68

enforceable terms. The Parties agree that incorporation of the requirements of this Decree into Title V

permits may be by “administrative amendment” under 40 CFR § 70.7(d) and analogous state Title V

rules, where allowed by state law. 

210. (a) By no later than ninety (90) days after the effective date or establishment of any emission

limits, standards and schedules established pursuant to this Consent Decree, Conoco shall submit

applications to incorporate those emission limitations into minor or major new source review permits or

other permits, in addition to Title V permits, which are federally enforceable and, upon issuance of such

permits shall file any applications necessary to incorporate the requirements of those permits into the

refinery’s Title V permit. The Parties agree that incorporation of the requirements of this Decree into

Title V permits may be by “administrative amendment” under 40 CFR §70.7(d) and analogous state

Title V rules where allowed by state law. 

210. (b) By no later than ninety (90) days following Conoco’s receipt of the initial third party-led audit

of the LDAR program at each Refinery, Conoco shall submit a permit application to incorporate, where

necessary, the increased VOC emissions associated with previously unmonitored or incorrectly

monitored components. 

PART XIV. 

GENERAL RECORDKEEPING, RECORD RETENTION AND REPORTING

211. For the purposes of this Consent Decree, any requirement for Conoco to consult, obtain

approval of or submit any type of information to EPA or the United States, including reports, analyses,

or data, shall be construed as imposing identical requirements from Conoco to each appropriate

Plaintiff-Intervener. Conoco shall retain all records required to be maintained in accordance with this

Consent Decree for a period of five (5) years after termination of the Consent Decree, unless other

regulations require the records to be maintained longer. 

212. All notices, reports or any other submissions required of Conoco to be certified, with the

exception of the Quarterly Progress Reports, shall contain the following certification. They may be

signed by the refinery manager or his/her designee, as provided in writing by the refinery manager,

provided the designee is a company employee responsible for environmental management and

compliance. 
Page 69

“I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the

information submitted herein and that I have made a diligent inquiry of those individuals

immediately responsible for obtaining the information and that to the best of my knowledge and

belief, the information submitted herewith is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that

there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and

imprisonment.” 

213. Beginning with the first full calendar quarter after entry of this Consent Decree, Conoco shall

submit a calendar Quarterly Progress Report (“calendar quarterly report”) to EPA and the appropriate

Plaintiff-Intervener within thirty (30) days after the end of each calendar quarter during the life of this

Consent Decree. In addition to any other information specifically required to be submitted per other

Parts of this Consent Decree, this report shall contain the following: 

(a) progress report on the implementation of the requirements of Parts IV-XII; 

 

(b) a summary of all Hydrocarbon Flaring Incidents; 

 

(c) a summary of the emissions data as required by Parts IV-XII, of this Consent Decree for

the calendar quarter; and 

 

(d) a description of any problems anticipated with respect to meeting the Compliance Programs

of Parts IV-XII of this Consent Decree. 

214. The calendar Quarterly Progress Reports shall be certified by a refinery manager or company

official responsible for environmental management and compliance at the refineries covered by the

report, as follows: 

“I certify under penalty of law that this information was prepared under my direction or

supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly

gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my directions and my inquiry of the

person(s) who manage the system, or the person(s) directly responsible for gathering the

information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate,

and complete.” 
Page 70

PART XV.

GENERATION OF EMISSION CREDITS 

OR USE OF 

PLANTWIDE APPLICABILITY LIMIT (PAL)

Program Summary: Conoco must decide whether it will generate specific limited emission reduction

credits or opt to use plantwide applicability limits (PALs). Either program is subject to limits as

described below. 

A. Election of Emission Credit Reductions or Plantwide Applicability Limits

215. No later than twelve (12) months after the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree, Conoco shall

notify EPA and the Plaintiff Interveners whether it shall elect to use emission credits generated and to be

used pursuant to Paragraphs 218 through 224 or adopt one or more PALs in accordance with

Paragraphs 226 through 242 at its four (4) refineries. Conoco must choose one of the two options. 

216. Generation and use of the emission reduction credits will be restricted as indicated in

Paragraphs 218 through 224. Generation and use of the emission reduction credits will not affect the

releases of liability provided for in Paragraphs 271 through 277. 

217. Establishment and use of the plantwide applicability provisions will be governed by Paragraphs

226 through 242. Releases of liability will be affected as indicated in Paragraph 278. 

B. Restrictions on the use of Emission Reduction Credit Generation

Program Summary: The purpose of this subsection is to generally forbid the use of

emissions reductions required by the Consent Decree in netting and as offsets while

allowing for the limited use of a fraction of the emissions reductions required by the

Consent Decree provided that the emissions units for which the reductions are used are

being modified or constructed for Tier 2 Gasoline or Low Sulfur Diesel and that the

emissions from those units are below certain levels. The provisions of this Subsection

are for purposes of this Consent Decree only, and may not be used or relied upon by
Page 71

Conoco or any other entity, including any party to this Consent Decree, for any other

purpose, in any subsequent permitting or enforcement action, except as provided

herein. These provisions are intended to limit the use of reductions made pursuant to

this Consent Decree and are not intended to grant use of reductions as in netting and as

offsets for reductions that have not been made. 

218. Except as provided herein, Conoco shall not generate or use any NOx or SO2 emissions

reductions that result from any projects required by this Consent Decree as credits or offsets in any

PSD, major non-attainment and/or minor New Source Review (“NSR”) permit or permit proceeding. 

Notwithstanding the above, Conoco may conduct projects pursuant to this Consent Decree that create

more emission reductions than are required by this Consent Decree. In such instances, Conoco, with

the concurrence of the permitting authority, may retain a portion of the achieved emissions reductions

for use as credits or offsets. All other emission sources of NOx and SO2, and any netting associated

with other pollutants, are outside the scope of these netting limitations and are subject to PSD/NSR

applicability as implemented by the appropriate permitting authority or EPA. Use of reductions in

netting and as offsets in any PSD, major non-attainment and/or minor NSR permit or permit proceeding

pursuant to the limitations herein shall be further limited by the applicable regulations, and by the PSD,

major non-attainment, and/or minor NSR permit. 

219. Tier 2 Gasoline. From the reductions made pursuant to the Consent Decree, Conoco shall use

only 100 total tons per year of NOx and 100 total tons per year of SO2 from the refineries identified in

Paragraph 5 necessary for use as credits or offsets in any PSD, major non-attainment and/or minor

NSR permit or permit proceeding occurring after the Date of Lodging of this Consent Decree for Tier 2

Gasoline projects. 

220. Conoco shall only use the credits for projects necessary to meet the requirements of Tier 2

Gasoline, provided that the new or modified emissions units being permitted have emission limits at the

time of permitting as follows:

(a) For heaters and boilers, a limit of 0.040 lbs NOx per million BTU or less on a 3-hour

rolling average basis; 

(b) For heaters and boilers, a limit of 0.1 grains of hydrogen sulfide per dry standard cubic foot

of fuel gas or 20 ppmvd SO2 at 0% O2 both on a 3-hour rolling average;
Page 72

(c) For heaters and boilers, no liquid or solid fuel firing capabilities;

(d) For FCCUs, a limit of 20 ppmvd NOx at 0% O2 or less on a 365-day rolling average

basis;

(e) For FCCUs, a limit of 25 ppmvd SO2 at 0% O2 or less on a 365-day rolling average basis;

and

(f) For SRPs, applicability of NSPS Subpart J emission limits. 

221. Low Sulfur Diesel. From the reductions made pursuant to this Consent Decree, Conoco may

use total 200 tons per year of NOx and 200 total tons per year of SO2 from the refineries identified in

Paragraph 5 as credits or offsets in any PSD, major non-attainment and/or minor NSR permit or permit

proceeding occurring after the Date of Lodging of this Consent Decree necessary to permit the Low

Sulfur Diesel projects at each refinery. 

222. Conoco shall only use the credits for projects necessary to meet the requirements of the Low

Sulfur Diesel rule provided that the new or modified emissions units being permitted have emission limits

at the time of permitting as follows:

(a) For heaters and boilers, a limit of 0.02 pounds of NOx per million BTU or less on a 3-hour

rolling average basis; 

(b) For heaters and boilers, a limit of 0.1 grains of hydrogen sulfide per dry standard cubic foot

of fuel gas or 20 ppmvd SO2 at 0% O2, both on a 3-hour rolling average;

(c) For heaters and boilers, no liquid or solid fuel firing capabilities;

(d) For FCCUs, a limit of 20 ppmvd NOx at 0% O2 or less on a 365-day rolling average

basis;
Page 73

(e) For FCCUs, a limit of 25 ppmvd SO2 at 0% O2 or less on a 365-day rolling average basis;

and

(f) For SRPs, applicability of NSPS Subpart J emission limits. 

223. If Conoco can make a showing to EPA that additional credits are necessary for construction or

modification of emission units required by the Tier 2 Gasoline or Low Sulfur Diesel regulations, Conoco

may request that EPA allow use of additional credits for that purpose in accordance with this Part, not

to exceed 5% each for NOx and SO2 of any refinery’s total reductions achieved by that date under this

Consent Decree. 

224. Conoco shall only use the credits under this Part if it can demonstrate to the United States that,

at the time the credits are to be applied, it is otherwise in compliance with all other requirements of this

Consent Decree at each of its refineries. If it is in violation of any Consent Decree requirement at any

of its refineries, Conoco shall be prohibited from using any credits until the violation(s) is corrected and

any stipulated penalties are paid in full. 

225. Use of the emission reduction credits generated and used pursuant to this Consent Decree does

not preclude Conoco from establishing plantwide applicability limits under any other existing or future

state, local or federal program. 

C. Restrictions Regarding the Plantwide Applicability Limits (“PALs”)

Program Summary: This Subsection sets forth a process for the establishment of partial "plantwide

applicability limits" ("PALs") for each of the Conoco petroleum refineries identified in Paragraph 5. If

Conoco elects to use PALs in accordance with Paragraph 215, Conoco may not emit NOx, SO2, PM

or CO into the atmosphere from the emissions units included within a PAL in excess of the aggregate

emissions limits ("Cap") established for the PAL pursuant to Paragraphs 226 through 242. The Cap(s)

established under Paragraphs 226 through 242 for each refinery shall be considered the actual

emissions for the emissions units under the PAL for the purpose of determining emissions increases

associated with a physical change or change in method of operation for such emissions units for federal

new source review for the life of the PAL. 
Page 74

D. Covered Emissions Units

226. The initial PALs established pursuant to this Subsection shall include only those emissions units

identified in Attachment 7. 

227. Conoco may expand, upon EPA approval, the universe of emissions units to be included within

a particular PAL to include additional emissions units. Conoco shall identify all combustion units at each

refinery and will endeavor to include in the PAL such units, where practicable. 

228. For newly constructed units included within the PAL that receive major NSR permits and that

reflect the application of BACT or LAER, the Cap shall be increased by an amount equal to the

emissions units allowable emissions. For emissions units included within the PAL that are modified, that

receive major NSR permits, and that reflect the application of BACT or LAER, the Cap shall be

increased by an amount equal to the difference between the new allowable emissions rate and the

emissions unit's previous contribution to the Cap as determined in reference to Attachment 7. 

229. Establishing Baseline Emissions. Conoco shall establish baseline emissions for emissions units

within any PAL based on emissions from the two (2) most recent consecutive calendar years, or other

such representative two (2) calendar year periods as approved by EPA. Conoco shall calculate the

baseline emissions covering the time period set forth in the preceding sentence and set forth in

Attachment 7 ("Baseline Cap and Compliance Determination for the PAL(s)"). 

230. Initial Cap. On or before December 31, 2004, Conoco shall provide EPA with a report that

identifies its proposed level for the Cap associated with each initial PAL in tons per year on a 365-day

rolling average consistent with Attachment 7 ("Baseline, Cap, and Compliance Determination for the

PAL(s)"). The effective date of the PALs at each of Conoco's petroleum refineries shall be the date

EPA approves each such PAL. 

231. Changes in Cap(s). On or before each February 15th after the PAL is approved, and each

February 15th thereafter, Conoco shall submit to EPA for its approval, an application to revise the

then-existing Cap. Conoco's proposal shall reflect the contribution to the Cap from each emissions unit

covered by the PAL, including those emissions units that were controlled as required by the Consent

Decree pursuant to Parts IV, V, VI and VII in the preceding calendar year. The recalculation of the
Page 75

cap for emissions from units that were controlled as required by the Consent Decree in the preceding

year, shall be determined by reference to Section II.B. of Attachment 7. In addition, Conoco's

proposed revision to a Cap must be consistent with any regulatory requirements enacted by a State or

local authority to meet attainment objectives, effective before December 31 of that preceding calendar

year. Each Cap proposed by Conoco pursuant to this Subsection shall be expressed in tons per year

on a 365-day rolling average consistent with Attachment 7. 

232. Cap Approval and Compliance. EPA will notify Conoco of its determination of the Cap

proposed by Conoco. Conoco will demonstrate compliance with each Cap on a 365-day rolling

average beginning no later than January 1st of the calendar year following EPA's approval and on each

day thereafter through December 31st of that calendar year. 

233. During the life of a PAL, the following shall apply to determination of whether a major

modification has occurred pursuant to PSD and major non-attainment NSR: 

(a) For a modification to an emission unit under a PAL, for a particular pollutant, that affects

only other emissions units within the PAL, the net emissions change for units under the PAL

shall be zero. 

(b) For modifications to an emissions unit within a PAL, for a particular pollutant, that affect an

emissions unit outside of the PAL: 

(1) the emissions change for the unit modified within the PAL shall be zero; 

(2) the emissions change for emissions units under the PAL that are not modified but are

affected shall be zero; and 

(3) the emissions change for emissions units outside of the PAL that are affected shall be

calculated as required by the applicable PSD and major non-attainment NSR

regulations. 

(c) For a modification to a unit outside of the PAL, for a particular pollutant, that affects an

emissions unit within a PAL: 

(1) the emissions change for the emissions unit within the PAL that is affected shall be zero;

and 

(2) the emissions change for the emissions unit outside the PAL that is affected shall be

calculated as required by the applicable PSD and major non-attainment NSR
Page 76

regulations. 

(d) For the purposes of netting for changes to units outside of the PAL, no contemporaneous

increases or decreases shall be allowed or considered for emissions units under the PAL. 

(e) Net emissions change for emissions units not within the PAL shall always be less than the

significance levels. Increased emissions allowed pursuant to issuance of a PSD or major

non-attainment NSR permits shall not be considered an increase pursuant to 40 CFR §

52.21, and the SIP-approved PSD and major non-attainment NSR programs. 

234. This Section does not in any way change, alter or modify any obligation of Conoco to comply

with the concentration based limits ("ppmvd" or "lb/mmBTU") imposed by Paragraphs 15, 24, 38, 46,

49, 50 and 169. 

235. This Section does not in any way change, alter or modify any obligation of Conoco, whether

existing or imposed by virtue of this Consent Decree, to comply with the NSPS. If any physical or

operational change results in an increase in the emission rate to the atmosphere of any pollutant from the

affected facility to which a NSPS applies, Conoco must comply with all applicable parts of the NSPS

and the General Provisions in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart A. The determination of whether there has

been an increase in emissions to the atmosphere shall be based on a comparison of the emission rate (in

pounds per hour) at the maximum achievable capacity prior to and after the physical or operational

change. 

236. The establishment of a PAL under this Section does not in any way change, alter or modify any

obligation of Conoco, to comply with any applicable minor NSR permitting requirements or obligations. 

237. Notice of Changes to Emissions Unit. Together with its annual proposal for a Cap revision

required by Paragraph 231, Conoco shall provide a written report to EPA and the Plaintiff-Interveners

of actual construction of physical or operational changes made to emissions units included within any

PAL. The report shall: 

(a) Describe the physical or operational change; 

(b) Identify the emissions unit that the physical or operational change has affected or will affect,

whether or not such emissions unit is included within the Cap; 

(c) Provide a statement of whether or not any New Source Performance Standard ("NSPS") is

applicable to the physical or operational change and the reason why the NSPS does or

does not apply; and 
Page 77

(d) A netting analysis (increases and decreases) for all emissions units not within the PAL that

emit SO2 or NOx, PM and CO for that prior calendar year. 

238. PAL and Cap Life and Renewal. The life of any PAL established pursuant to this Section shall

be no more than five (5) years from its effective date as determined under Paragraph 230. The

provisions of Paragraph 233 of the Consent Decree shall apply only during those same 

five (5) years. 

239. Cap Life. Expiration of the Cap without renewal shall result in an examination of PSD/NSR

applicability for all emissions units included within the PAL in accordance with the then-effective PSD

and major non-attainment NSR regulations. 

240. Second PAL. At any time prior to three (3) months before termination of a PAL established

pursuant to Paragraph 230, Conoco may apply to EPA and the appropriate Plaintiff Intervener to

renew such PAL. The baseline for any second PAL shall be calculated pursuant to Attachment 7. 

Conoco shall determine baseline emissions for emissions unit to be included in any second PAL through

monitoring conducted consistent with Attachment 7. Conoco shall comply with the terms and

conditions of Paragraphs 234 with respect to any renewed PAL. 

241. Cap Exceedance. If Conoco allows or causes an exceedance of the 365-day rolling average

Cap for any pollutant, Conoco shall undertake an analysis to determine whether emission unit(s) at the

source were modified for that pollutant during the life of the PAL. Conoco shall complete the analysis

required by the foregoing sentence within ninety (90) days of the exceedance and report such analysis

to EPA. No later than one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of the exceedance, Conoco shall

submit to EPA for its review and approval a proposed BACT/LAER determination for each modified

emissions unit(s) identified above and a schedule for installation of any BACT/LAER controls

proposed. Conoco shall propose a schedule that will propose installation of controls as soon as

practicable but not to exceed forty-two (42) months from the initial date of the exceedance. EPA shall

review and, after consultation with the appropriate State or local permitting authority, notify Conoco of

its approval or rejection of the proposal. Upon EPA approval, Conoco shall install BACT (or LAER as

appropriate) on the emissions units modified. The modification analysis shall be conducted as though

the Cap is a non-enforceable limit. Except as provided in this Subsection, nothing in this provision is

intended to limit the applicability of 40 CFR § 52.21, the SIP-approved PSD and major non-attainment

NSR programs. 

242. CAP Exceedance Stipulated Penalties. For exceeding a Cap, Conoco shall pay the higher of

$27,500 (as adjusted for inflation) per pollutant for each succeeding day that Conoco exceeds the 365-
Page 78

day annual rolling average or $20,000 per ton (or fraction thereof) in excess of the Cap for each

pollutant. 

PART XVI. 

SUPPLEMENTAL AND BENEFICIAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS

243. In accordance with the schedule set forth and the scope of work submitted pursuant to

Attachment 8 to this Consent Decree, Conoco shall spend $5.1 million ($5,100,000) on Supplemental

Environmental Projects (“SEPs”) and Beneficial Environmental Projects (“BEPs”) in the communities

where their refineries are located in the amounts specified in Paragraphs 244, 245 and 246. Conoco

agrees that in any public statements regarding the funding of the projects identified in this Consent

Decree, Conoco must clearly indicate that these projects are being undertaken pursuant to this

settlement. Except as otherwise provided in this Consent Decree, Conoco shall not use or rely on the

emission reductions generated as a result of their performance of the SEPs required by this Part in any

emissions credit, trading, or netting program. Refinery-site projects, including energy projects, may be

considered for inclusion in either State- or Federally-determined projects. 

244. Conoco shall spend $1.35 million ($1,350,000) as SEP(s) or BEP(s) in the Commerce

City/northeast metropolitan Denver area. These projects are to be determined jointly between Conoco,

the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener, and EPA.

245. Conoco shall spend $500,000 in each community surrounding the Billings, Lake Charles and

Ponca City refineries on joint Conoco and state-determined SEP(s) or BEP(s). These projects are to

be determined jointly between Conoco, the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener, and EPA.

246. Conoco shall spend $2,250,000 for Federal projects benefitting the communities in which the

Conoco facilities are located. These projects are to be determined jointly between Conoco, the

appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener, and EPA to fund projects as follows: $725,000 in Colorado; $725,000

in Montana; $400,000 in Louisiana; and $400,000 in Oklahoma. 

247. Federal projects at one or more refineries may include the following projects or other projects

proposed by Conoco in accordance with Attachment 8 which are community-based and/or facilitybased SEPs, subject to approval by EPA and the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener:

 (a) Conducting a pilot test and evaluation of "Smart LDAR" technology, using lasers to detect
Page 79

emission leaks, at one or more refineries. Such test and evaluation will be conducted in

consultation and coordination with EPA;

(b) Purchasing mobile air quality analytical equipment for state or local air authorities that all the

Parties can agree upon;

(c) Purchasing portable air quality analyzers for state or local air authorities;

(d) Improving ambient monitoring systems through projects such as increased portable SO2

monitoring devices; improving information management, upgrading PM-10 or NOx

monitors;

(e) Watershed improvement projects; 

(f) Funding retrofits in truck or school bus fleets to reduce PM and NOx emissions;

(g) Implementing odor control projects;

(h) Funding equipment improvements for local air pollution authorities or local emergency

response department;

(i) Providing grant money to state or local clean air or energy efficiency projects,

(j) Fund or implement hazardous waste collection programs or recycling programs, or

(k) Sustainability projects to minimize waste creation or enhance energy efficiency.

PART XVII. 

CIVIL PENALTY

248. Within thirty (30) calendar days of Entry of this Consent Decree, Conoco shall pay a combined

civil penalty in the amount of $1.5 million dollars ($1,500,000). Of the total, $1,050,000 shall be paid

to the United States. Conoco shall pay the civil penalties by Electronic Funds Transfer (“EFT”) to the

United States Department of Justice, in accordance with current EFT procedures, referencing the

USAO File Number and DOJ Case Number 90-5-2-1-07295/1, and the civil action case name and

case number of the Southern District of Texas. The costs of such EFT shall be Conoco’s
Page 80

responsibility. Payment shall be made in accordance with instructions provided to Conoco by the

Financial Litigation Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Texas. Any funds

received after 11:00 a.m. (EST) shall be credited on the next business day. Conoco shall provide

notice of payment, referencing the USAO File Number and DOJ Case Number 90-5-2-1-07295/1,

and the civil action case name and case number, to the Department of Justice and to EPA, as provided

in Paragraph 296 (Notice).

249. Of the total civil penalty, Conoco shall pay $250,000 to Plaintiff-Intervener, the State of

Louisiana. Payment shall be made in the form of a certified check payable to the Louisiana Department

of Environmental Quality and delivered to Darryl Serio, Fiscal Officer, Office of Management and

Finance, LDEQ, P.O. Box 82231, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70884.

250. Of the total civil penalty, Conoco shall pay $125,000 to Plaintiff-Intervener, the State of

Oklahoma. Payment shall be by check or money order made payable to the Department of

Environmental Quality Revolving Fund, and delivered to: Oklahoma Department of Environmental

Quality Finance and Human Resources Management, P.O. Box 2036, Oklahoma City, OK 73101;

attention: Janet Pennington.

251. In lieu of a civil penalty, Conoco shall expend certain sums for SEPs and BEPs in the State of

Colorado as described in Part XVI.

252. Of the total civil penalty, Conoco shall pay $75,000 to Plaintiff-Intervener, the State of

Montana. Payment shall be made payable to the State of Montana and delivered to: John L. Arrigo,

Administrator, Enforcement Division, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box

200901, Helena, MT 59620-0901. 

253. Upon entry of this Decree, this Decree shall constitute an enforceable judgment for purposes of

post-judgment collection in accordance with Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3308, and other applicable federal

authority. The United States and the Plaintiff-Interveners shall be deemed judgment creditors for

purposes of collection of any unpaid amounts of the civil and stipulated penalties and interest. 

254. No amount of the civil penalty to be paid by Conoco shall be used to reduce their federal or

state tax obligations. 
Page 81

PART XVIII.

STIPULATED PENALTIES

255. Conoco shall pay stipulated penalties to the United States and the appropriate PlaintiffIntervener (split 50% to each), for each failure by Conoco to comply with the terms of this Consent

Decree; provided, however, that the United States or the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener may elect to

bring an action for contempt in lieu of seeking stipulated penalties for violations of this Consent Decree. 

256. For each violation, the amounts identified below shall apply on the first day of violation, shall be

calculated for each incremental period of violation (or portion thereof), and shall be doubled beginning

on the fourth consecutive, continuing period of violation, except such doubling shall not apply to

Subparagraphs (l) and (m). In the alternative, at the option of the United States or the appropriate

Plaintiff-Intervener, stipulated penalties shall equal 1.2 times the economic benefit of Conoco’s delayed

compliance, if this amount is higher than the amount calculated under this Paragraph. In addition and

for purposes of assessing stipulated penalties for a failure to comply with a concentration-based, rolling

average emission limit established under Section IV.B, IV.D, V.C, V.E or VI.B, an actionable violation

will occur when there is noncompliance with such limit for 5% or more of each such unit’s operating

time during any calendar quarter. Where a single event triggers more than one stipulated penalty

provision in this Consent Decree, only the higher of the individual stipulated penalties shall apply.

(a) Requirements for NOx emission reductions from FCCUs (Part IV): 

 

(1) Failure to conduct Optimization Study, as required by Section A: $30,000 per month

per refinery 

(2) Failure to conduct NOx additive demonstrations, if applicable, as required by Section

A: $30,000 per month per refinery 

 

 (3) Failure to install SNCR, as required by Section C: $100,000 per quarter per refinery 

 

(4) Failure to conduct SNCR Optimization Study, if applicable, as required by Section C:

$30,000 per month per refinery 

(5) Failure to comply with emission limits, as required by Section B and D: $1,500 per day

per emission limit per emission point 

 
Page 82

(6) Failure to submit timely reports, as required by Sections A, C, and E: $1,000 per week

per report 

(7) Failure to install, calibrate, maintain and operate properly CEMS, as required by

Section F and Part XI: $2,500 per month per CEMS

 

(b) Requirements for SO2 emission reductions from FCCUs (Part V): 

 

(1) Failure to timely conduct optimization studies, as required by Section A: $5,000 per

month per unit 

 

(2) Failure to submit timely reports, as required by Section B: $1,000 per week per report 

(3) Failure to comply with emission limits, as required by Section C or E: $1,500 per day

per emission limit per emission point

 

(4) Failure to install, calibrate, maintain and operate properly CEMS, as required by

Section F or Part XI: $2,500 per month per CEMS

(c) Requirements for PM emission reductions from FCCUs (Part VI): 

 

(1) Failure to comply with emission limits, as required by Section A: $1,500 per day per

emission limit per emission point 

 

(2) Failure to conduct the stack tests as required by Paragraph 47: $2,500 per month per

FCCU

 

(3) Failure to submit timely reports, as required by Paragraph 47: $1,000 per week per

report beginning on the 7th day after which the report was due

(d) Requirements for CO emission reductions from FCCUs (Part VI): 

 

(1) Failure to comply with emission limits, as required by Paragraphs 49 and 50: $1,500

per day per emission limit per emission point 

(2) Failure to install, calibrate, maintain and operate properly CEMS, as required by

Paragraph 53 and Part XI: $2,500 per month per CEMS
Page 83

(e) Requirements for NSPS Regenerator Applicability (Part VI):

(1) Failure to comply with emission limits, as required by Paragraph 54: $1,500 per day

per emission limit per emission point 

(f) Requirements for Heaters/Boilers (Part VII):

(1) Failure to meet the emission limits and to demonstrate compliance with Paragraphs 55

and 56:

(i) $800 per day for each heater or boiler with capacity of 150 mmBTU/hr (HHV) or

greater

(ii) $400 per day for each heater or boiler with capacity of less than 150 mmBTU/hr

(HHV)

(2) Failure to achieve the total combined NOx reductions in accordance with Paragraph

56: $100,000 per quarter, per refinery

(3) Failure to achieve two-thirds (2/3) of the combined NOx reductions in accordance with 

Paragraph 58: $200,000 per quarter, per refinery

(4) Failure to install NOx controls on at least 30% of the heater and boiler capacity in

accordance with Paragraphs 59 and 60: $100,000 per quarter, per refinery

(5) Failure to submit the Control Plan and Update Reports in accordance with Paragraph

61: $1,000 per report per month

(6) Failure to conduct a performance test, to install, calibrate and operate CEMS, or to

establish operating parameters in accordance with Paragraph 66 and Part XI: $2,000

per month per unit

(7) Failure to make heater or boiler Subpart J compliance by Date in Paragraph 69 or

Attachment 3: $2,500 per month per heater

(8) Failure to submit plan for Subpart J compliance per Attachment 3: $1,000 per report
Page 84

per month

(9) Failure to limit SO2 emissions from fuel oil burning at the Billings Refinery to 300 tons per

year as required by Paragraph 71: $5,000 per ton over 300 tons

 (10) Failure to meet CO controls on Controlled Heaters and Boilers required by Paragraph

73(a):

(i) $800 per day for each heater or boiler with capacity of 150 mmBTU/hr (HHV) or 

 greater

(ii) $400 per day for each heater or boiler with capacity of less than 150 mmBTU/hr 

 (HHV)

(g) Requirements for Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP program enhancements 

(Part VIII): 

 

(1) Failure to timely complete compliance reviews and verification as required by Section

C, audits as required by Section H, or waste/slop oil review as required by Section D: 

$5,000 per month per review/audit 

 

(2) Failure to timely sample, as required by the plans under Sections K, L, M or N: 

$5,000 per week or $30,000 per quarter, per stream (whichever amount is greater, but

not to exceed $150,000 per quarter) 

 

(3) Failure to timely install secondary carbon canisters, as required by Section F: $5,000

per week per canister 

 

(4) Failure to timely replace carbon canisters, as required by Section F: $1,000 per day

per canister 

 

(5) Failure to monitor for breakthrough, as required by Section F: $1,000 per week per

canister 

 

(6) Failure to perform monitoring, as required by Paragraph 117(d): $500 per monitoring

event 

 
Page 85

(7) Failure to timely implement training program or to timely establish standard operating

procedures, as required by Section J: $10,000 per quarter per refinery 

 

(8) If it is discovered by an EPA or state investigator, or their agent, that Conoco failed to

mark segregated stormwater drains, as required by Section P: $1,000 per week per

drain 

 

(9) Failure to timely complete reviews, analyses or inspections, as required by Section G,

O or Paragraph 117(c): $500 per week per review, analysis or inspection 

 

(10) Failure to timely submit complete reports under Section Q: $1,000 per week per

report 

 

(11) Following the development of the final Compliance Review and Verification Plan, if it is

discovered by an EPA or state investigator or inspector, or their agent, that Conoco

failed to include all benzene waste streams in its TAB, for each waste stream that is: 

 

less than 0.03 Mg/yr - $500 

between 0.03 and 0.1 Mg/yr - $1500 

between 0.1 and 0.5 Mg/yr - $6000 

greater than 0.5 Mg/yr - $12,000 

 

(h) Requirements for Leak Detection and Repair program enhancements (Part IX): 

 

(1) Failure to develop a written LDAR program, as required by Section A: $3,000 per

week 

 

(2) Failure to timely implement training program, as required by Section B: $10,000 per

month 

 

(3) Failure to timely conduct internal or external audit, as required by Section C: $5,000

per month per audit 

 

(4) Failure to timely implement internal leak definition, as required by Section E: $10,000

per month per process unit 

(5) Failure to develop and timely implement first attempt at repair, as required by Section
Page 86

G: $10,000 per month 

 

(6) Failure to implement monitoring program, as required by Section H: $10,000 per

month per process unit 

 

(7) Failure to timely monitor, as required by Section H: $5,000 per week per process unit 

 

(8) Failure to have dataloggers and electronic database storage, as required by Section I: 

$5,000 per month per refinery 

 

(9) Failure to timely establish LDAR accountability, as required by Section J: $5,000 per

month per refinery

(10) Failure to conduct calibration drift assessment or to remonitor components (if and as

required), as required by Section K: $100 per day per refinery 

 

(11) Failure to attempt to minimize a component being placed or continuing to be on the

“delay of repair” list, as required by Section L: $5,000 per component 

 

(12) Failure to timely submit reports required under Section M: $1,000 per week per report 

 

(13) Following the completion of the refinery-wide written program(s), if it is discovered by

an EPA or state investigator or inspector, or their agent, that Conoco failed to include

all required components in its LDAR program: $175 per component 

 

(i) Requirements Applicable to SRPs and Flaring (Part X): 

 

(1) Failure to comply with emission limits identified or referred to in Section D: 

 

Number of rolling 12-hr average exceedances within average exceedance calendar day 

1-12: $350 

Over 12: $750

(2) Failure to comply with any other emission limits identified or referred to in Part X: 

$1,000 per day per refinery 

(3) Operation of the SRP during scheduled maintenance of its associated TGU: $25,000
Page 87

per SRP per day per refinery 

(4) Failure to address sulfur-pit emissions, as required by Section D: $5,000 per quarter

per sulfur pit 

 

(5) Failure to conduct the Denver No. 1 SRP Optimization Study, as required by Section

D, or to implement such Study’s recommendations: $5,000 per month 

 

(6) Failure to timely submit any plan or report required by Part X: $1,000 per week per

plan or report, beginning on the 7th day after the report was due

 

(7) Submitting any plan or report that does not conform to the requirements of Part X: 

$1,000 per plan or report 

(8) Failure to timely implement any selected option(s) required in a required plan or Part X: 

$1,000 per day per refinery 

 

 (9) Failure to timely monitor emissions as required under Part X: $1,000 per day per

refinery 

(j) Requirements for Subpart QQQ Compliance at Billings Refinery (Part XII):

(1) Failure to evaluate process water streams for entry into storm water system per Part

XII: $1,000 per stream

(2) Failure to submit report required under Part XII: $1,000 per day

(3) Failure to submit report identifying whether Conoco will be removing streams or

retrofitting wastewater system per Paragraph 206: $1,000 per day

(4) Failure to meet compliance deadline of Part XII: $1,000 per day

(5) Failure to submit final report per Part XII: $1,000 per day

(k) Requirements for Permitting (Part XIII): 

 

(1) Failure to timely submit a complete permit application: $1,000 per week per unit 
Page 88

 

(l) Requirements for Reporting and Recordkeeping (Part XIV): 

(1) Failure to timely submit any report required by this Part beginning on the 7th day past

the report’s due date: $5,000 per week, per report

 

(m) Failure to escrow stipulated penalties, as required by this Part: $10,000 per week per

penalty 

 

257. Conoco shall pay such stipulated penalties only upon written demand by the United States or

the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener no later than thirty (30) days after Conoco receives such demand. 

Such demand will identify to which government agencies payment must be made. Stipulated penalties

shall be apportioned between the United States and the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener, 50% to each. 

Such payment shall be made to the United States and to the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener in the

following manner: 

(a) Stipulated Penalties owed the United States. Conoco shall pay the stipulated penalties by

Electronic Funds Transfer (“EFT”) to the United States Department of Justice, in

accordance with current EFT procedures, referencing the USAO File Number and DOJ

Case Number 90-5-2-1-07295/1, and the civil action case name and case number of the

Southern District of Texas. The costs of such EFT shall be Conoco’s responsibility.

Payment shall be made in accordance with instructions provided to Conoco by the

Financial Litigation Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Texas.

Any funds received after 11:00 a.m. (EST) shall be credited on the next business day.

Conoco shall provide notice of payment, referencing the USAO File Number and DOJ

Case Number 90-5-2-1-07295/1, and the civil action case name and case number, to the

Department of Justice and to EPA, as provided in Paragraph 296 (Notice). 

(b) Stipulated Penalties Owed Plaintiff-Intervener the State of Louisiana. Payment to PlaintiffIntervener the State of Louisiana shall be made in the form of a certified check payable to

the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and delivered to Darryl Serio, Fiscal

Officer, Office of Management and Finance, LDEQ, P.O. Box 82231, Baton Rouge,

Louisiana, 70884. 

(c) Stipulated Penalties Owed Plaintiff-Intervener the State of Colorado. Payment to PlaintiffIntervener the State of Colorado shall be made by submitting a check, payable to the

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South,
Page 89

Denver, Colorado 80246-1530. 

(d) Stipulated Penalties Owed Plaintiff-Intervener the State of Montana. Payment to PlaintiffIntervener the State of Montana shall be made by submitting a certified check, payable to

the State of Montana, and delivered to: John L. Arrigo, Administrator, Enforcement

Division, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 200901, Helena, MT 

59620-0901. 

(e) Stipulated Penalties Owed Plaintiff-Intervener the State of Oklahoma. Payment to PlaintiffIntervener the State of Oklahoma shall be made by submitting a check or money order

made payable to the Department of Environmental Quality Revolving Fund, and delivered

to: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Finance and Human Resources

Management, P.O. Box 2036, Oklahoma City, OK 73101; attention: Janet Pennington 

258. Should Conoco dispute its obligation to pay part or all of a stipulated penalty, it may avoid the

imposition of the stipulated penalty for failure to pay a penalty due to the United States or the

appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener by placing the disputed amount demanded by the United States or the

appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener, not to exceed $50,500 for any given event or related series of events at

any one refinery, in a commercial escrow account pending resolution of the matter and by invoking the

Dispute Resolution provisions of Part XXII within the time provided in this Part for payment of

stipulated penalties. If the dispute is thereafter resolved in Conoco’s favor, the escrowed amount plus

accrued interest shall be returned to Conoco, otherwise the United States or the appropriate PlaintiffIntervener shall be entitled to the escrowed amount that was determined to be due by the Court plus

the interest that has accrued on such amount, with the balance, if any, returned to Conoco. 

259. The United States and the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener reserve the right to pursue any other

remedies to which they are entitled, including, but not limited to, additional injunctive relief for Conoco’s

violations of this Consent Decree. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall prevent the United States or the

appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener from pursuing a contempt action against Conoco and requesting that the

Court order specific performance of the terms of the Decree. Nothing in this Consent Decree

authorizes the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener to take action or make any determinations under this

Consent Decree regarding Conoco refineries outside their state. 

260. Election of Remedy. The United States and the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener will not seek

both stipulated penalties and civil penalties for the same actions or occurrences as those constituting a

violation of the Consent Decree. 
Page 90

PART XIX. 

RIGHT OF ENTRY

261. Any authorized representative of the EPA or an appropriate state agency, upon presentation of

credentials and compliance with the Refinery's safety requirements, shall have a right of entry upon the

premises of the Conoco refineries identified in Paragraph 5 at any reasonable time for the purpose of

monitoring compliance with the provisions of this Consent Decree, including inspecting plant equipment,

and inspecting and copying all records maintained by Conoco required by this Consent Decree. 

Nothing in this Consent Decree shall limit the authority of EPA and the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener

to conduct tests and inspections under Section 114 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7414, or any other

statutory and regulatory provision.

PART XX. 

FORCE MAJEURE

262. If any event including, but not limited to construction delays, one or more union strikes at

Conoco facilities, preparation for union strikes, acts of terrorism and/or an act of declared or

undeclared war, occurs which causes or may cause a delay or impediment to performance in complying

with any provision of this Consent Decree, and which otherwise meets the requirements of this Part,

Conoco shall notify the United States and the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener in writing as soon as

practicable, but in any event within twenty (20) business days of when Conoco first knew of the event

or should have known of the event by the exercise of due diligence. In this notice, Conoco shall

specifically reference this Paragraph of this Consent Decree and describe the anticipated length of time

the delay may persist, the cause or causes of the delay, and the measures taken or to be taken by

Conoco to prevent or minimize the delay and the schedule by which those measures will be

implemented. Conoco shall adopt all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize such delays. 

263. Failure by Conoco to substantially comply with the notice requirements of Paragraph 262 as

specified above shall render this Part XX voidable by the United States and Plaintiff-Interveners as to

the specific event for which Conoco has failed to comply with such notice requirement, and, if voided, it

shall be of no effect as to the particular event involved. 

264. The United States and the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener shall notify Conoco in writing

regarding their claim of a delay or impediment to performance within thirty (30) business days of receipt

of the Force Majeure notice provided under Paragraph 262. 
Page 91

265. If the United States and the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener agree that the delay or impediment

to performance has been or will be caused by circumstances beyond the control of Conoco, including

any entity controlled by them, and that they could not have prevented the delay by the exercise of due

diligence, the parties shall stipulate to an extension of the required deadline(s) for all requirement(s)

affected by the delay by a period equivalent to the delay actually caused by such circumstances, or such

other period as may be appropriate in light of the circumstances. Such stipulation may be filed as a

modification to this Consent Decree by agreement of the parties pursuant to the modification

procedures established in this Consent Decree. Conoco shall not be liable for stipulated penalties for

the period of any such delay. 

266. If the United States and the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener do not accept Conoco’s claim of a

delay or impediment to performance, Conoco must submit the matter to this Court for resolution to

avoid payment of stipulated penalties, by filing a petition for determination with this Court. In the event

that the United States and the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener do not agree, the position of the United

States on the Force Majeure claim shall become the final Plaintiffs’ position. Once Conoco has

submitted this matter to this Court, the United States and the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener shall have

twenty (20) business days to file its response to said petition. If Conoco submits the matter to this

Court for resolution and the Court determines that the delay or impediment to performance has been or

will be caused by circumstances beyond the control of Conoco, including any entity controlled by them,

and that they could not have prevented the delay by the exercise of due diligence, Conoco shall be

excused as to that event(s) and delay (including stipulated penalties), for all requirements affected by the

delay for a period of time equivalent to the delay caused by such circumstances or such other period as

may be determined by the Court. 

267. Conoco shall bear the burden of proving that any delay of any requirement(s) of this Consent

Decree was caused by or will be caused by circumstances beyond their control, including any entity

controlled by them, and that they could not have prevented the delay by the exercise of due diligence. 

Conoco shall also bear the burden of proving the duration and extent of any delay(s) attributable to

such circumstances. An extension of one compliance date based on a particular event may, but does

not necessarily, result in an extension of a subsequent compliance date or dates. 

268. Unanticipated or increased costs or expenses associated with the performance of Conoco’s

obligations under this Consent Decree shall not constitute circumstances beyond their control, or serve

as a basis for an extension of time under this Part. 

269. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Consent Decree, this Court shall not draw any

inferences nor establish any presumptions adverse to any party as a result of Conoco delivering a notice
Page 92

of Force Majeure or the parties’ inability to reach agreement. 

270. As part of the resolution of any matter submitted to this Court under this Part XX, the parties

by agreement, or this Court, by order, may in appropriate circumstances extend or modify the schedule

for completion of work under this Consent Decree to account for the delay in the work that occurred

as a result of any delay or impediment to performance agreed to by the United States and the

appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener or approved by this Court. Conoco shall be liable for stipulated

penalties for its failure thereafter to complete the work in accordance with the extended or modified

schedule. 

PART XXI. 

EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT

271. FCCUs. This Consent Decree constitutes full settlement of and shall resolve all civil liability

under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) requirements at Part C of the Act, and the

regulations promulgated thereunder at 40 CFR § 52.21 (the “PSD” rules), and the Plan Requirements

for Non-Attainment Areas at Part D of the Act, and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 40 CFR

§51.165(a) and (b) and Part 51, Subpart S, and § 52.24, and the Colorado, Louisiana, Montana and

Oklahoma regulations which incorporate and/or implement those rules, for any increase in SO2, NOx

and CO emissions resulting from Conoco’s construction, modification, or operation of the FCCUs at

the refineries identified in Paragraph 5, occurring prior to Lodging of this Consent Decree. During the

life of this Consent Decree, the units described in this Paragraph shall be on a compliance schedule and

any modification to these units, as defined in 40 CFR § 52.21, which is not required by this Consent

Decree is beyond the scope of this release. 

272. Heaters and Boilers. This Consent Decree constitutes full settlement of and shall resolve all civil

liability of Conoco to the United States and the Plaintiff-Interveners for the violations alleged in the

United States and the Plaintiff-Interveners’ Complaints and all civil liability of Conoco occurring prior to

entry of this Consent Decree under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and NonAttainment New Source Review requirements at Parts C and D of the Act, and the regulations

promulgated thereunder at 40 CFR § 52.21 (the “PSD” rules), and state and local regulations which

incorporate and/or implement those rules, for any increase in SO2, NOx, and CO emissions resulting

from Conoco’s construction, modification, or operation of the process heaters and boilers at the

refineries identified in Paragraph 5. During the life of the Consent Decree, these units shall be on a

compliance schedule and any modification to these units, as defined in 40 CFR § 52.21, which is not

required by this Consent Decree is beyond the scope of this release. 
Page 93

273. VOCs. Upon Conoco’s implementation of the enhanced LDAR program and submittal of the

applications for revised permits pursuant to Paragraph 210 (b), the United States and PlaintiffInterveners covenant not to sue Conoco for civil penalties for increases in VOC emissions resulting

from identification of new components through the audits conducted pursuant to Paragraphs 128

through 130. The United States and Plaintiff-Interveners expressly reserve their right to bring

PSD/NSR claims for any other VOC emissions units at the refinery and to consider the implications of

the revised emission estimates on past PSD/NSR applicability determinations.

274. Subpart J. This Consent Decree constitutes full settlement of and shall resolve all civil liability of

Conoco to the United States and the Plaintiff-Interveners for the violations alleged in the United States’

and Plaintiff-Interveners’ Complaints and all civil liability of Conoco for any violations at the refineries

identified in Paragraph 5 based on events that occurred during the relevant time period under the

following statutory and regulatory provisions: NSPS Subpart J for (1) FCCU regenerators located at

the facilities and as per the schedule set out in Paragraph 54, (2) the fuel gas combustion devices

including the flares listed in Paragraph 154(h) and all heaters and boilers, and (3) the SRPs and the

relevant state and local regulations which incorporate and/or implement the above-listed federal

regulations. For purposes of this Paragraph, the “relevant time period” shall mean the period beginning

when the United States’ claims and/or Plaintiff-Interveners’ claims under the statutes and regulations

identified in this Paragraph accrued, through the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree. 

275.(a) NSPS Subpart A and J Releases. Conoco’s submission of notifications of compliance with

respect to the flares listed in Paragraphs 155 and 161 constitutes full settlement of and shall resolve all

past civil liability of Conoco to the United States and the Plaintiff-Interveners for NSPS Subpart A and

J for those flares through the date of the demonstrated or certified compliance.

275.(b) NSPS Subpart H Release. Conoco shall continue to comply with the New Source

Performance Standards (NSPS), 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart H for Sulfuric Acid Plants at the Lake

Charles refinery. Conoco’s application to modify existing permits to incorporate the Subpart H

requirements, and receipt of the modified permits, shall resolve all civil liability of Conoco for any

violations that occurred during the period beginning when the United States’ claims and or PlantiffIntervener’s claims under Subpart H accrued, through the Date of Lodging of the Consent Decree. 

276. Benzene Waste and LDAR Releases. Conoco’s performance of the measures required 

pursuant to Parts VIII and IX, constitutes full settlement of and shall resolve all civil liability of Conoco

to the United States and the Plaintiff-Intervener for any violations at the refineries identified in Paragraph

5 based on events that occurred during the “relevant time period” under the following statutory and

regulatory provisions: Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR), 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts VV and GGG,
Page 94

and 40 CFR Part 63, Subparts F, H, and CC; and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAP) for Benzene, 40 CFR Part 61, Subparts FF, J and V pursuant to Section 112(d)

of the Act, and state and local regulations which incorporate or implement those rules. This release also

includes those events that continued past the Date of Lodging, provided those events were identified in

or prior to the submittal of each Refinery’s initial Third Party LDAR audit conducted pursuant to

Paragraph 129 or the BWON Compliance Verification Review conducted pursant to Paragraphs 78

and 80 and these events are addressed pursuant to Paragraphs 83, 84, 85, and 86 or 132 as

appropriate. This release specifically includes, but is not limited to, those violations which Conoco has

previously self-disclosed to Plaintiff-Interveners Colorado and Montana as a result of audits conducted

in 2000 and/or 2001. For purposes of this Paragraph, the “relevant time period” shall mean the period

beginning when the United States’ claims and/or Plaintiff-Interveners’ claims under the statutes and

regulations identified in this Paragraph accrued through Date of Lodging. 

277. Other Issues. Conoco’s completion of the injunctive requirements set forth in Parts I-XI of this

Consent Decree and EPA’s concurrence shall also constitute full settlement of all civil liability of

Conoco to the United States and Plaintiff-Interveners for previously identified state or federal PSD

issues for SO2, NOx, and CO, and BWON, LDAR and NSPS Subpart J matters, including the

following specific alleged violations at the refineries identified in Paragraph 5: 

(a) Billings Refinery:

This Consent Decree resolves Conoco’s discharge of process oily wastewater into the

segregated stormwater systems in violation of Subpart QQQ as alleged in the United

States’ Complaint.

(b) Ponca City, Oklahoma:

This Consent Decree resolves the BWON, LDAR, PSD, and NSPS Subpart J issues

addressed in Oklahoma DEQ Consent Order No. 01-395 and all Clean Air Act issues

identified in the Oklahoma DEQ Compliance Inspection conducted on May 22- 23,

2001. 

(c) Lake Charles, Louisiana:

 This Consent Decree resolves the violations outlined in the Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality Consolidated Compliance Order and Notice of Potential

Penalty No. AE-CN-01-0008 dated January 26, 2001, and No. AE-CN-01-

0192 dated November 13, 2001.

(d) Denver, Colorado:

This Consent Decree resolves the Clean Air Act violations noted as being referred to the
Page 95

United States Environmental Protection Agency in the December, 2001 Compliance Order on

Consent between Colorado and Conoco Inc.

278. If Conoco elects to implement one or more plantwide applicability limits for PM in accordance

with the election in Paragraph 215, the NSR/PSD liability release provided for in Paragraphs 271 and

272 for FCCUs and process heaters and boilers shall be extended to PM, provided Conoco meets the

additional limits in Paragraphs 48 and 72.

PART XXII. 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

279. The dispute resolution procedure provided by this Part XXII shall be available to resolve all

disputes arising under this Consent Decree, except as otherwise provided in Part XX regarding Force

Majeure, provided that the party making such application has made a good faith attempt to resolve the

matter with the other party. 

280. The dispute resolution procedure required herein shall be invoked upon the giving of written

notice by one of the parties to this Consent Decree to another advising of a dispute pursuant to this

Part. The notice shall describe the nature of the dispute, and shall state the noticing party’s position

with regard to such dispute. The party or parties receiving such a notice shall acknowledge receipt of

the notice and the parties shall expeditiously schedule a meeting to discuss the dispute informally not

later than fourteen (14) days from the receipt of such notice. 

281. Disputes submitted to dispute resolution shall, in the first instance, be the subject of informal

negotiations between the parties. Such period of informal negotiations shall not extend beyond thirty

(30) calendar days from the date of the first meeting between representatives of the United States and

the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener and Conoco, unless the parties’ representatives agree to shorten or

extend this period. 

282. If these dispute resolution procedures are invoked to resolve a dispute regarding particular

work practice or the contents of a compliance plan, Conoco shall comply with the elements of the plan

or emission limit it has proposed until such time as the dispute is completely resolved.

283. In the event that the parties are unable to reach agreement during such informal negotiation

period, the United States and the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener shall provide Conoco with a written
Page 96

summary of its position regarding the dispute. The position advanced by the United States and the

appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener shall be considered binding unless, within forty-five (45) calendar days

of Conoco’s receipt of the written summary of the United States and the appropriate PlaintiffIntervener’ position, Conoco files with this Court a petition which describes the nature of the dispute. 

In the event that the United States and the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener are unable to reach

agreement with regard to Conoco’s claim, the position of the United States shall be the Plaintiffs’ final

position. 

284. Where the nature of the dispute is such that a more timely resolution of the issue is required, the

time periods set out in this Part may be shortened upon motion of one of the parties to the dispute. 

285. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Consent Decree, in dispute resolution, this Court

shall not draw any inferences nor establish any presumptions adverse to either party as a result of

invocation of this Part XXII or the parties’ inability to reach agreement. 

286. In resolving the dispute between the parties, the position of the United States and the

appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener shall be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the administrative

record, as identified and agreed to by all parties. 

287. As part of the resolution of any dispute submitted to dispute resolution, the parties by

agreement, or this Court by order, in appropriate circumstances, may extend or modify the schedule for

completion of work under this Consent Decree to account for the delay in the work that occurred as a

result of dispute resolution. Conoco shall be liable for stipulated penalties for their failure thereafter to

complete the work in accordance with the extended or modified schedule. 

XXIII. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

288. Other Laws. Except as specifically provided by this Consent Decree, nothing in this Consent

Decree shall relieve Conoco of its obligation to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws

and regulations. Subject to Paragraph 260 (Election of Remedy), nothing contained in this Consent

Decree shall be construed to prevent, alter or limit the ability of the United States’ and the appropriate

Plaintiff-Interveners’ rights to seek or obtain other remedies or sanctions available under other federal,

state or local statutes or regulations, by virtue of Conoco’s violation of this Consent Decree or of the

statutes and regulations applicable to violations of this Consent Decree. This shall include the United

States’ and the appropriate Plaintiff-Interveners’ right to invoke the authority of the Court to order
Page 97

Conoco’s compliance with this Consent Decree in a subsequent contempt action. 

289. Use of Contractors to Meet Conoco’s Obligations. Except where expressly prohibited,

Conoco may use a contractor to fulfill its obligations under this Consent Decree. Where Conoco uses

one or more contractors to comply with its obligations, Conoco shall ensure that the contractor is

aware of and in compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree.

290. Reserved.

291. Liability for stipulated penalties, if applicable, shall accrue for violation of such obligations and

payment of such stipulated penalties may be demanded by the United States as provided in this

Consent Decree, provided that stipulated penalties that may have accrued between the Date of Lodging

of the Consent Decree and the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree may not be collected by the

United States unless and until Consent Decree is entered by the Court. 

292. Third Parties. This Consent Decree does not limit, enlarge or affect the rights of any party to

this Consent Decree as against any third parties. 

293. Costs. The United States, the Plaintiff-Interveners, and Conoco shall each bear their own costs

and attorneys’ fees. 

294. Public Documents. All information and documents submitted by Conoco to the United States

and the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be subject to public

inspection, unless subject to legal privileges or protection or identified and supported as business

confidential by Conoco in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2, or any equivalent state statutes and

regulations. 

295. Public Comments. The parties agree and acknowledge that final approval by the United States

and entry of this Consent Decree is subject to the requirements of 28 CFR § 50.7, which provides for

notice of the lodging of this Consent Decree in the Federal Register, an opportunity for public comment,

and consideration of any comments. The parties acknowledge and agree that final approval by the State

of Louisiana, Department of Environmental Quality, and entry of this Consent Decree is subject to the

requirements of La. R.S. 30:2050.7, which provides for public notice of this Consent Decree in

newspapers of general circulation and the official journals of parishes in which Conoco facilities are

located, and opportunity for public comment, consideration of any comments, and concurrence by the

State Attorney General. 
Page 98

296. Notice. Unless otherwise provided herein, notifications to or communications with the United

States and the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener or Conoco shall be deemed submitted on the date they

are postmarked and sent either by overnight receipt mail service or by certified or registered mail,

return receipt requested. When Conoco is required to submit notices or communicate in writing under

this Consent Decree to EPA relating to one of the refineries identified in Paragraph 5, Conoco shall also

submit a copy of that notice or other writing to the Plaintiff-Intervener for the state in which the refinery

is located. Except as otherwise provided herein, when written notification or communication is required

by this Consent Decree, it shall be addressed as follows: 

As to the United States: 

Chief 

Environmental Enforcement Section 

Environment and Natural Resources Division 

United States Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station 

Washington, DC 20044-7611 

United States Attorney 

Southern District of Texas 

c/o United States Marshal Service 

United States Courthouse 

515 Rusk 

Houston, Texas 77002 

 

As to the United States Environmental Protection Agency: 

 

Director 

Air Enforcement Division “AED” (2242A) 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

With copies to the EPA Regional office where the refinery is located: 
Page 99

EPA Region 6: 

Chief 

Air, Toxics, and Inspection Coordination Branch (6EN-A) 

Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

EPA Region 8:

Technical Enforcement Program Air Director

Mail Code 8ENF-T

Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental Justice

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 8

999 18th Street, Suite 300

Denver, CO 80202-2466

As to Conoco: 

Donald J. Pirolo, Project Manager

Implementation Lead

Conoco Inc.

600 North Dairy Ashford

Room PO2052

Houston, Texas 77079

Telephone: (281)293-1815

As to Plaintiff-Intervener the State of Colorado:

Robert Jorgenson

Supervisor, Field Services Unit

Stationary Sources Program

Air Pollution Control Division

Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South

Denver, Colorado 80246-1530
Page 100

As to Plaintiff-Intervener the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Environmental Quality:

R. Bruce Hammatt, Administrator 

Enforcement Division 

Office of Environmental Compliance 

P.O. Box 82215 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2215 

As to Plaintiff-Intervener the State of Oklahoma: 

Eddie Terrill

Division Director

Air Quality Division, Department of Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 1677

Oklahoma City, OF 73101-1677

As to Plaintiff-Intervener the State of Montana:

Administrator

Enforcement Division

Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Metcalf Building

P.O. Box 200901

Helena, MT 59620-0901

Chief

Air & Waste Management Bureau

Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Metcalf Building

P.O. Box 200901

Helena, MT 59620-0901

 

297. Approvals. All EPA approvals or comments required under this Decree shall come from EPA,

Air Enforcement Division (AED) at the address listed in Paragraph 296 (Notice). All PlaintiffIntervener approvals shall be sent from the offices identified in Paragraph 296. 

298. Any party may change either the notice recipient or the address for providing notices to it by
Page 101

serving all other parties with a notice setting forth such new notice recipient or address. 

299. The information required to be maintained or submitted pursuant to this Consent Decree is not

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 United States Code. §§ 3501 et seq. 

300. This Consent Decree shall be binding upon all Parties to this action, and their successors and

assigns. The undersigned representative of each Party to this Consent Decree certifies that he or she is

duly authorized by the Party whom he or she represents to enter into the terms and bind that Party to

them. 

301. Modification. This Consent Decree may be modified by the written approval of the United

States, the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener and Conoco or by Order of the Court. Furthermore, EPA

and the appropriate Plaintiff Intervener may allow extensions of compliance dates upon a written and

substantiated showing by Conoco of good cause that such a delay is necessary. Additionally, it is

anticipated that the Parties may reduce the frequency or nature of reporting over time. 

302. Continuing Jurisdiction. The Court retains jurisdiction of this case after entry of this Consent

Decree to enforce compliance with the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree and to take any

action necessary or appropriate for its interpretation, construction, execution, or modification. During

the term of this Consent Decree, any party may apply to the Court for any relief necessary to construe

or effectuate this Consent Decree. 

303. This Consent Decree constitutes the entire agreement and settlement between the Parties. Prior

drafts of the Consent Decree shall not be used in any action involving the interpretation or enforcement

of the Consent Decree. 

PART XXIV. 

TERMINATION

304. This Consent Decree shall be subject to termination upon motion by the United States, the

Plaintiff-Intervener, or Conoco after Conoco satisfies all requirements of this Consent Decree. The

requirements for termination include payment of all stipulated penalties that may be due to the United

States or the Plaintiff-Intervener under this Consent Decree, installation of control technology systems

as specified herein and the performance of all other Consent Decree requirements, the receipt of all

permits specified herein, and EPA’s receipt of the first calendar quarterly progress report following the

conclusion of Conoco’s operation for at least one year of all units in compliance with the emission limits

established herein. At such time, if Conoco believes that it is in compliance with the requirements of this
Page 102

Consent Decree and the permits specified herein and has paid any stipulated penalties required by this

Consent Decree, then it shall so certify to the United States and the Plaintiff-Intervener, and unless any

of the Plaintiffs object in writing with specific reasons within one hundred twenty (120) days of receipt

of the certification, the Court shall order that this Consent Decree be terminated on Conoco’s motion. 

So entered in accordance with the foregoing this_________day of __________, 2002. 

 

 

__________________________________ 

United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Texas 

 
Page 103

FOR PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 

________________________________ Date __________ 

John Cruden, 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

Environment and Natural Resources Division 

United States Department of Justice 

10th & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20530 

 

________________________________ Date __________ 

Dianne M. Shawley 

Senior Counsel 

Environment and Natural Resources Division 

United States Department of Justice 

1425 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20005 

________________________________ Date __________ 

Mervyn Mosbacker

United States Attorney 

By: 

Gordon M. Speights Young

Assistant United States Attorney 

Southern District of Texas

P.O. Box 61129

Houston, TX 77208
Page 104

FOR UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: 

________________________________ Date __________ 

Sylvia Lowrance 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 
Page 105

FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENER THE STATE OF COLORADO: 

 

________________________________ Date __________ 

Attorney General

 
Page 106

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL BY PLAINTIFF-INTERVENER, THE STATE OF LOUISIANA,

THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: 

 

________________________________ Date __________ 

Linda Korn Levy

Assistant Secretary

Office of Environmental Compliance

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

________________________________ Date __________ 

Ted R. Broyles, II

Senior Attorney (LA Bar No: 20456)

Legal Division

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

(225) 765-0236
Page 107

FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENER THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:

 

________________________________ Date __________ 

Mark S. Coleman

Executive Director

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677
Page 108

FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENER THE STATE OF MONTANA: 

 

________________________________ Date __________ 

Jan P. Sensibaugh, Director

Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Metcalf Building

P.O. Box 20091

Helena, MT 59620-0901
Page 109

FOR DEFENDANT, CONOCO INC.:

________________________________ Date __________ 

A.W. Dunham

President and CEO
Page 110

 

Attachment 1

Heater/Boiler 

Data to be Included:

For each of the heaters and boilers at each refinery for which reporting is required:

(1) the maximum heat input capacities in mmBTU/hr;

(2) the baseline emission rate for both calendar years 1999 and 2000 in lbmBTU and tons

per year; and

(3) the type of data used to derive the emission estimate (i.e. emission factor, stack test, or

CEMS data). 
Page 111

ATTACHMENT 2 

 DETERMINING THE OPTIMIZED ADDITION RATES OF 

LOW NOx COMBUSTION PROMOTERS

AND NOx REDUCING CATALYST ADDITIVES 

AT THE FCCUs

I. PURPOSE

This Appendix defines a process by which Conoco shall determine the Optimized Addition

Rates for Low NOx Combustion Promoters and NOx Reducing Catalyst Additives during the

Optimization Period for each FCCU.

II. ESTABLISHING AN OPTIMIZED LOW NOx COMBUSTION PROMOTER

ADDITION RATE

A. Overview. Establishing an Optimized Low NOx Combustion Promoter Addition Rate for each

FCCU is a three-step process: (1) establishing a minimum addition rate for the conventional

combustion promoter that Conoco currently uses such that the effectiveness of the conventional

combustion promoter is maintained (the “Minimum Conventional Combustion Promoter Addition

Rate”); (2) replacing the conventional combustion promoter with Low NOx Combustion Promoter at

an addition rate that is the functional equivalent of the Minimum Conventional Combustion Promoter

Addition Rate (the “Initial Low NOx Combustion Promoter Addition Rate”); and (3) increasing the

addition rate up to two times the Initial Low NOx Combustion Promoter Addition Rate if the Initial

Low NOx Combustion Addition Rate is not effective (the “Optimized Low NOx Combustion Promoter

Addition Rate”). Conoco may elect to forego the establishment of an optimized Low NOx Combustion

Promoter Addition Rate as required below in B through E for an FCCU if Conoco agrees to replace all

Conventional Combustion Promoter with Low NOx Combustion Promoter in that FCCU.
Page 112

B. “Effectiveness” Determinations. The effectiveness of conventional combustion promoter shall

be determined by the following criteria: (1) afterburn is controlled and regenerator temperature and

combustion levels are adequately maintained; and (2) temperature excursions are brought under control

adequately. The effectiveness of Low NOx Combustion Promoter shall be determined by those two

criteria and by whether a measurable reduction in NOx emissions occurs.

C. Establishing the Minimum Conventional Combustion Promoter Addition Rate. Conoco

shall reduce its historical usage of conventional combustion promoters to the point that the addition rate

is the minimum necessary to retain the effectiveness of the conventional combustion promoter that

Conoco is using (“Minimum Conventional Combustion Promoter Addition Rate”).

D. Establishing the Initial Low NOx Combustion Promoter Addition Rate. Based on

information provided by the vendor, Conoco shall replace conventional combustion promoter with Low

NOx Combustion Promoter at a rate that is the functional equivalent of the Minimum Conventional

Combustion Promoter Addition Rate. This functionally equivalent rate shall be called the Initial Low

NOx Combustion Promoter Addition Rate.

E. Establishing the Optimized Low NOx Combustion Promoter Addition Rate. If the Low NOx

Combustion Promoter is not effective at the Initial Low NOx Combustion Promoter Addition Rate,

Conoco shall increase, by up to two times, the Initial Low NOx Combustion Promoter Addition Rate. 

If, at two times the Initial Low NOx Combustion Promoter Addition Rate, the Low NOx Combustion

Promoter is not effective, Conoco may discontinue the use of Low NOx Combustion Promoter.
Page 113

III. ESTABLISHING AN OPTIMIZED NOx REDUCING CATALYST ADDITIVE

ADDITION RATE 

A. Overview. The Optimized NOx Reducing Catalyst Additive Addition Rate shall be determined by

evaluating NOx emissions reductions and annualized costs at three different addition rates.

B. The Increments. The three addition rates or “increments” shall be based on total FCC catalyst

addition rates and shall be:

1.0 Weight % NOx Reducing Catalyst Additive

1.5 Weight % NOx Reducing Catalyst Additive

2.0 Weight % NOx Reducing Catalyst Additive

C. The Procedure. Conoco shall successively add NOx Reducing Catalyst Additive at each

increment set forth above. Once a steady-state has been achieved at each increment, Conoco shall

evaluate the performance of the NOx Reducing Catalyst Additive in terms of NOx emissions reductions

and projected annualized costs. The final Optimized NOx Reducing Catalyst Additive Addition Rate

shall occur at the lowest addition rate where either:

(1) the FCCU meets 20 ppmvd NOx (at 0% O2) on a 365-day rolling average, in which

case Conoco shall agree to accept limits of 20 ppmvd NOx (at 0% O2) on a 365-day

rolling average basis at the conclusion of the Demonstration Period;

(2) the total annualized cost-effectiveness of the NOx Reducing Catalyst Additive used

exceeds $10,000 per ton of NOx removed as measured from an uncontrolled baseline

(as estimated based on current operating parameters as compared to operating

parameters during the baseline period); or 

(3) the Incremental NOx Reduction Factor is less than 1.8, where the Incremental NOx

Reduction Factor is defined as:
Page 114

PRi - PRi-1

CARi - CARi-1 where:

PRi = Pollutant (NOx) reduction rate at increment i in pounds per day

from the baseline

PRi-1 = Pollutant (NOx) reduction rate at the increment prior to

increment i in pounds per day from the baseline

CARi = NOx Reducing Catalyst Additive Rate at increment i in pounds

per day from the baseline

CARi-1 = NOx Reducing Catalyst Additive Rate at the increment prior to

increment i in pounds per day from the baseline

If the requirements of either (1), (2), or (3) above are not met at any addition rate less than 2.0 Weight

% NOx Reducing Catalyst Additive, then the Optimized Addition Rate shall be 2.0 Weight % NOx

Reducing Catalyst Additive.

IV. ESTABLISHING AN OPTIMIZED SO2 REDUCING CATALYST ADDITIVE

ADDITION RATE 

A. Overview. The Optimized SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive Addition Rate shall be determined by

evaluating SO2emissions reductions and annualized costs at four different addition rates.

B. The Increments. The four addition rates or “increments” shall be based on total FCC catalyst

addition rates and shall be:

5.0 Weight % SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive

6.7Weight % SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive

8.4Weight % SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive

10.0 Weight % SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive
Page 115

C. The Procedure. Conoco shall successively add SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive at each

increment set forth above. Once a steady-state has been achieved at each increment, Conoco shall

evaluate the performance of the SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive in terms of SO2 emissions reductions

and projected annualized costs. The final Optimized SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive Addition Rate

shall occur at the lowest addition rate where either:

(1) the FCCU meets 25 ppmvd SO2 (at 0% O2) on a 365-day rolling average and 50

ppmvd SO2 (at 0% O2) on a 7-day rolling average, in which case Conoco shall agree

to accept limits of 25 ppmvd SO2 (at 0% O2) on a 365-day rolling average and 50

ppmvd SO2 (at 0% O2) on a 7-day rolling average at the conclusion of the

Demonstration Period; and

(2) the Incremental SO2 Pickup Factor is less than 2.0, where the Incremental SO2

Reduction Factor is defined as:

PRi - PRi-1

CARi - CARi-1

where:

PRi = Pollutant (SO2) reduction rate at increment i in pounds per day

from the baseline

PRi-1 = Pollutant (SO2) reduction rate at the increment prior to

increment i in pounds per day from the baseline

CARi = SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive Rate at increment i in pounds

per day from the baseline

CARi-1 = SO2

 Reducing Catalyst Additive Rate at the increment prior to

increment i in pounds per day from the baseline

If the requirements of either (1), (2), or (3) above are not met at any addition rate less than 10.0 

Weight % SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive, then the Optimized Addition Rate shall be 10.0 Weight %

SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive. If the addition of SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive at any increment

limits the FCCU feedstock processing rate or conversion capability in a manner that cannot be

reasonably compensated for by the adjustment of other parameters, then Optimized SO2 Reducing
Page 116

Catalyst Additive Addition Rate shall be reduced to a level at which the additive no longer interferes

with the FCCU processing or conversion rate. In no case, however, shall the Optimized SO2 Reducing

Catalyst Additive Addition Rate be less than 5.0 Weight %.
Page 117

Attachment 3

NSPS Subpart J Compliance Schedule for Heaters and Boilers

Billings Refinery: H-16 - June 30, 2003

Denver Refinery : H-27 - December 31, 2006

Ponca Refinery: All heaters and boilers fed by refinery fuel gas system shall comply with NSPS

Subpart J requirements by no later than December 31, 2006. Within six (6) months of

Date of Lodging, Conoco shall submit a Compliance Plan identifying the heaters and

boilers on refinery fuel gas and a tentative schedule for ensuring they are Subpart J

complaint by December 31, 2006. Annual updates to the Compliance Plan shall be

submitted to EPA no later than March 31st of each year beginning March 31, 2003. 

The Compliance Plan and updates shall contain a description of the progress made

towards compliance for the previous calendar year and a description of the work

planned for the current calendar year.
Page 118

Attachment 4

RESERVED
Page 119

Attachment 5

RESERVED
Page 120

Attachment 6

Conoco, Inc.

Best Practice Network Charter

Name: Treating/Sulfur Processing Best Practices Network

Sponsor: Manufacturing Functional Excellence Team (MFET)

Purpose: Improve treating unit performance to attain specification products and to meet environmental

permit requirements without negative impact on the performance of associated refinery processes. 

Improve sulfur recovery performance to provide reliable, safe operation, and to meet environmental

permit requirements without negative impact on the performance of associated refinery processes.

Membership: Leader: Treating/Sulfur Processing Resource representative, Refinery area managers with

treating, amine, sour water processing, and sulfur recovery units, refinery process engineers in these

areas, MCAL laboratory technician, CAS chemists.

Key Interfaces: OTL’s, Refining Technology management, Refinery Management, REO’s, refinery

operators, Jupiter Chemicals, M&S representative, Air Products (amine supplier), and chemical and

catalyst supplier.
Page 121

Goals: Attain the performance specified below:

Treating: 

All treated product streams meet specifications consistently

Minimize consumption of treating chemicals and supplies (<505Mlb/yr MDEA,

<$100M/yr filters, <$100M/yr carbon), stop single event related amine losses such

as maintenance draining)

Minimize utility consumption

Minimize impact of treating units on refinery processes

Meet all environmental permit requirements without reportable incidents

Minimize wastes and emissions 

Minimize maintenance costs by effective corrosion control

Develop or acquire, and implement advances in treating technology 

Sulfur Processing:

Meet all environmental permit requirements without reportable incidents

Minimize utility consumption

Minimize impact of sulfur processing units on refinery processes

Minimize wastes and emissions 

Minimize maintenance costs by effective corrosion control 

Develop or acquire, and implement advances in sulfur processing technology 

Key Activities:

Monthly e-mail update of network activities

Treating:

In-control room operator training

Development of training/monitoring tools

Development of amine treating software

Development and implementation and monitoring of amine heat stable control program

Development and implementation and monitoring of amine inventory conservation

program

Complete implementation of Conoco improved particle filtration technology

Complete implementation of improved hydrocarbon contamination removal technology

(1999)

Implementation of correct caustic/MEROX/Merichem operations procedures

On and off-site diagnosis and remedy of treating problems

Coordination of laboratory and technology expertise resources

 
Page 122

Sulfur Processing

In-control room operator training

Development of training tools

On and off-site diagnosis and remedy of operations problems

Development and implementation of new sulfur recovery technology 

Implementation of available sulfur recovery technologies

Sulfur Plant computer program operation

Coordination of laboratory and technology expertise resources

Metrics:

Monitoring of amine, caustic, filter, carbon, and other related treating system costs 

Monitoring of compliance with product and environmental treating specifications

Monitoring of compliance with environmental emissions specifications

Monitoring on impact on related refinery processes
Page 123

Attachment 7

BASELINE AND CAP DETERMINATION FOR THE PAL(S)

I. Determining the Baseline – Conoco shall establish baseline emissions for emission units within

any PAL established pursuant to Part XV using this Attachment separately for each pollutant. Conoco

shall include the following emissions units within each PAL: all FCCUs, all SRUs (excluding flares,

thermal oxidizers), all heaters (>5 mmBTU/hr), and all boilers (>5 mmBTU/hr). The foregoing

sentence shall not apply to incinerators except those associated with SRUs. Conoco may propose, for

EPA approval, to include additional emissions units within a PAL. EPA will consider Conoco’s

proposal based on availability, accuracy and reliability of baseline data, adequacy of monitoring, relative

contribution to the Cap, and any other relevant and available information. In addition, Conoco may

propose for EPA approval alternate methods to calculate baseline emissions and emission rates used to

determine compliance with the PAL. 

A. Determining Baseline Concentrations for NOx, SO2, CO and PM for Calendar years

2001-2003. The baseline concentration shall be in lb/mmBTU separately for each fuel

fired for heaters and boilers for all pollutants, in ppmvd @ 0% O2 for all other

emissions units for NOx, SO2, and CO, in lb/1000 lb coke for PM emissions from

FCCUs, in lb/dscf for PM emissions from all other units, and shall be determined as

follows:

1. For calendar years 2001-2003, for emissions units that have CEMS installed

the baseline concentration shall be established using the average concentration

in that time period, or if CEMS were not installed in that time period, at least

three (3) months of CEMS data from another representative time period, with

adjustment for variability of operating parameters during this period as

compared to the operating parameters for calendars years 2001-2002, and

excluding periods of operation that result in emissions above allowable levels. 

2. For calendar year 2003, for emissions units that have CEMS installed by

December 31, 2002, the baseline concentration shall be established using the

average concentration from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, and

excluding periods of operation that result in emissions above allowable levels.
Page 124

3. For emissions units that do not have CEMS installed the baseline concentration

shall be established as follows:

a. For heaters and boilers > 40 mmBTU/hr conduct a series of source

tests and parametric analysis or provide 30 consecutive days of CEMS

data (from temporary CEMS);

b. For heaters and boilers < 40 mmBTU/hr either conduct a series of

source tests and parametric analysis, or conduct tests measuring

concentration using a portable analyzer; and

c. For all other emissions units, submit a proposal for EPA approval for

the concentration with supporting information as part of the PAL

application required by Part XV.

B. Determining Baseline Utilization for Calendar Years 2001-2003. The baseline

utilization for each calendar year for each emissions unit shall be the average utilization

of that emissions unit as follows:

1. For FCCUs utilization shall be in terms of an annual average pounds of coke

burn per hour with an annual average weight percent hydrogen on coke and

annual average CO Boiler auxiliary fuel firing rate in mmBTU/hr for each fuel at

annual average combustion O2 by volume percent, combustion temperature in

degrees Fahrenheit, and air pre-heat temperature in degrees Fahrenheit;

2. For sulfur recovery units shall be in terms of long tons of sulfur produced per

day, at an annual average acid gas feed rate in scfd, NH3 gas feed rate in scfd,

air feed rate to reactor furnace (RF) in scfd, annual average acid and NH3 gas

concentration in percent by volume, and annual average natural gas feed rate in

mol/hr;

3. For heaters and boilers utilization shall be in terms of annual average fuel firing

rate for each fuel fired in mmBTU/hr for each fuel at annual average combustion

O2 by volume percent, combustion temperature in degrees Fahrenheit, and air

pre-heat temperature in degrees Fahrenheit.
Page 125

C. Determining Baseline Emissions. Conoco shall determine baseline emissions for an

emissions unit to be included in the PAL as follows:

1. For FCCUs, baseline emissions in tons per year for a particular calendar year

shall be calculated as follows:

BEFCCU = BCFCCU x [BRFFCCU + BCOBFFCCU] x 379 x 

MW x [8760/2000]

 

BRFFCCU = [(3.64 x wt % HB) + (1.53 x {100-wt % HB})]

 x [BCBR] 

BCOBFFCCU = [(BUOCOB) x (9190) +(BUFGCOB) x (BFd-fg) + 

BUNGCOB) x (8710)]

 

 where:

BEFCCU = baseline emissions for the FCCU in tons per year

BRFFCCU = baseline FCCU regenerator contribution from burning

coke to stack gas flow in scfm at 0 % O2

BCOBFFCCU = baseline FCCU CO boiler contribution from fuel firing

to stack gas flow in scfm at 0 % O2

BCFCCU = baseline concentration in ppmvd @ 0 % O2 for that

calendar year

MW = molecular weight of the pollutant in pounds per poundmole

wt % HB = annual average weight percent hydrogen on coke for

that calendar year as determined by either continuous
Page 126

measurement or daily measurements of CO2 and

moisture in the FCCU flue gas.

BCBR = annual average FCCU regenerator coke burn rate in

pounds of coke per hour for that calendar year as

determined continuously or on a daily basis by heat

balance and flue gas constituents.

BUOCOB = baseline utilization rate of CO boiler on oil in

mmBTU/hr for that calendar year

BUFGCOB = baseline utilization rate of CO boiler on fuel gas in

mmBTU/hr for that calendar year

BUNGCOB = baseline utilization rate of CO boiler on natural gas in 

mmBTU/hr for that calendar year

BFd-fg = the baseline flow factor on a dry basis for fuel gas and

shall be calculated for that calendar year for each

application using the equation in section 3.2. of Method

19 in 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A.

2. For SRUs, baseline emissions in tons per year for a particular calendar year

shall be calculated as follows:

BESRU = BCSRU x [BFRI] x MW x [8760/2000]

BFRI = BWG + [(BNG + BTA)/1-B%EA] - BSP

 Where:

BFRI = baseline incinerator flue gas flow rate in lb-moles per

hour;

BCSRU = baseline SRU flue gas baseline concentration in ppmvd

at 0 % O2;
Page 127

BWG = baseline waste gas flow in lb-moles per hour;

BNG = baseline natural gas flow in lb-moles per hour;

BTA = baseline theoretical air in lb-moles per hour;

B%EA = baseline percent excess air; and

BSP = baseline sulfur product loss in lb-moles per hour

calculated based on an annual average of sulfur

recovered in long tons per day for that calendar year.

3. For heaters and boilers, baseline emissions in tons per year for a particular

calendar year shall be calculated as follows:

BEH&B (tpy) = [(BCOH&B x BUOH&B) + (BCFGH&B x 

BUFGH&B) + (BCNGH&B x BUNGH&B)] x

 [8760/2000]

 

 Where:

BUOH&B = baseline utilization rate of the heater or boiler on oil in

mmBTU/hr;

BUFGH&B = baseline utilization rate of the heater or boiler on fuel

gas in mmBTU/hr;

BUNGH&B = baseline utilization rate of the heater or boiler on natural

gas in mmBTU/hr;

BCOH&B = baseline concentration for emissions of a pollutant from

the heater or boiler firing oil in lb/mmBTU;

BCFGH&B = baseline concentration for emissions of a pollutant from
Page 128

the heater or boiler firing fuel gas in lb/mmBTU;

BCNGH&B = baseline concentration for emissions of a pollutant from

the heater or boiler firing natural gas in lb/mmBTU.

To determine the contribution of SO2 emissions from oil firing, the baseline

emissions for SO2 only for all heaters and boilers collectively firing oil shall be

calculated by the following alternative method in place of BCOH&B x BUOH&B

in the equation above:

BROE = BOFRH&B x 42 x DO x wt%S x 64/32 x (1/2000)

Where:

BROE = Baseline refinery-wide SO2 emissions from oil firing in

tons per year; 

BOFRH&B = Baseline oil firing rate in barrels per year;

DO = Baseline density of oil in pounds per gallon; and

wt%S = Baseline sulfur content of oil in weight percent sulfur.

4. For other units included within a PAL, Conoco shall propose for EPA approval

a calculation method consistent with the above methods in its application for the

PAL. 

II. Establishing the Cap. Conoco shall establish the Initial Cap and each annual revision to that

Cap used in any PAL submitted for approval by EPA pursuant to this Consent Decree in

accordance with procedures of this Attachment.

A. Each initial Cap shall be calculated in accordance with the following equation separately
Page 129

for each pollutant:

 o p q

Initial Cap = Σ (BEFCCU)a + Σ (BESRU)b + Σ (BEH&B)c + X

 a = 1 b = 1 

c = 1

 

X = for all other units Conoco shall propose for EPA approval a

calculation method consistent with the above methods in its

application for the PAL

 Where:

(BEFCCU)a = baseline emissions in tons per year for FCCU a within the PAL

o = the number of FCCUs within the PAL;

(BESRU)b = baseline emissions in tons per year for SRU b within the PAL

p = the number of SRUs within the PAL;

(BEH&B)c = baseline emissions in tons per year for heater or boiler c within

the PAL; and

q = the number of heaters and boilers within the PAL.

B. Except as provided below, each Cap shall be revised annually as required by Part XV. 

Each annual revision to the Cap shall be in tons per year and calculated in accordance

with the equation below separately for SO2, NOx, and PM. For CO, the Initial Cap

shall remain in effect for the full duration of the PAL and shall not be revised to lower it

as CO limits become effective. 

 r s

Revised Cap Prior Cap - [ Σ (BEFCCU - PEFCCU)d + Σ (BESRU - PESRU)e

 d = 1 e = 1

 t

+ Σ (BEH&B - PEH&B)f + (BROE - PROE) ] + Y;
Page 130

 f = 1

 (PEFCCU)d = [BEFCCU]d x [PCFCCU]d / [BCFCCU)]d;

(PESRU)e = [BESRU]e x [PCSRU]e / [BCFSRU)]e;

(PEH&B)f = [PCH&B]f x ([BUOH&B]f + [BUFGH&B]f + [BUNGH&B]f ) x

[8760/2000];

PROE = POFRH&B x 42 x DO x wt%S x 64/32 x (1/2000)

Y = for all other units Conoco shall propose for EPA approval a

calculation method consistent with the above methods in its

application for the PAL;

 Where:

Prior Cap = the prior cap for the PAL for the preceding year in tons per

year;

r = the number of FCCUs within the PAL for which 365-day

rolling average emissions limits were established pursuant to the

consent decree in the preceding calendar year;

(PCFCCU)d = the 365-day rolling average emission limit established pursuant

to this consent decree in ppmvd at 0% O2 for FCCU d;

s = the number of SRUs within the PAL for which 365-day rolling

average emissions limits were established pursuant to the

consent decree in the preceding calendar year;

(PCSRU)e = the 365-day rolling average emission limit established pursuant

to this consent decree in ppmvd at 0% O2 for SRU e;

t = the number of heaters and boilers within the PAL for which

365-day rolling average emissions limits were established

pursuant to the consent decree in the preceding calendar year; 
Page 131

(PCH&B)f = the 365-day rolling average emission limit established pursuant

to this consent decree in ppmvd at 0% O2 for heater or boiler f;

POFRH&B = Permitted oil firing rate established pursuant to this consent

decree for all heaters and boilers at the refinery in barrels per

year;

DO = Maximum or permitted density of oil in pounds per gallon; and

wt%S = Maximum or permitted sulfur content of oil in weight percent

sulfur.

If the permitted emission rate (PE) is higher than the baseline emission (BE) rate for

particular emission unit, the term BE-PE shall be considered zero for that emissions unit

for the purposes of the above summation. For the Revised SO2 Cap only, the value

produced by the equation above shall be multiplied by 1.15 to arrive at the final value of

the Revised Cap, provided, however, that the Revised Cap shall never be more than

the Cap for the prior year. 

III. Determining Compliance with the Cap. 

A. Each day Conoco shall calculate the daily emission rate using the following equations

for each emissions unit in a PAL: 

1. For FCCUs, daily emissions in tons per day for a particular calendar day shall

be calculated as follows:

 

 DEFCCU = DCFCCU x [DRFFCCU + DCOBFFCCU] x 379 x MW x [24/2000]

DRFFCCU = [(3.64 x wt % HD) + (1.53 x {100-wt % HD})] x [DCBR] 

DCOBFFCCU = [(DUOCOB) x (9190) +(DUFGCOB) x (DFd-fg) + DUNGCOB) x (8710)]

 where:

 DEFCCU = daily emissions for the FCCU in tons per year
Page 132

DRFFCCU = daily FCCU regenerator contribution from burning coke to

stack gas flow in scfm at 0 % O2

DCOBFFCCU = daily FCCU CO boiler contribution from fuel firing to stack gas

flow in scfm at 0 % O2

DCFCCU = calendar daily average concentration in ppmvd at 0% O2;

MW = molecular weight of the pollutant in pounds per pound-mole;

wt % HD = calendar daily average weight percent hydrogen on coke as

determined by either continuous measurement or daily

measurements of CO2 and moisture in the FCCU flue gas;

DCBR = calendar daily average FCCU regenerator coke burn rate in

pounds of coke per hour as determined continuously or on a

daily basis by heat balance and flue gas constituents;

DUOCOB = calendar daily average utilization rate of CO boiler on oil in

mmBTU/hr;

DUFGCOB = calendar daily average utilization rate of CO boiler on fuel gas

in mmBTU/hr for that calendar day;

DUNGCOB = calendar daily average utilization rate of CO boiler on natural

gas in mmBTU/hr for that calendar day

DFd-fg = the calendar daily average flow factor on a dry basis for fuel

gas and shall be calculated for that calendar day for each

application using the equation in section 3.2. of Method 19 in

40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A.

2. For SRUs, calendar daily average emissions in tons per day for a particular

calendar day shall be calculated as follows:

DESRU = DCSRU x [DFRI] x MW x [24/2000]

DFRI = DWG + [(DNG + DTA)/1-D%EA] - DSP
Page 133

 where:

DFRI = calendar daily average incinerator flue gas flow rate in

lb-moles per hour;

DCSRU = calendar daily average SRU flue gas concentration in

ppmvd at 0 % O2;

DWG = calendar daily average waste gas flow in lb-moles per

hour;

DNG = calendar daily average natural gas flow in lb-moles per

hour;

DTA = calendar daily average theoretical air in lb-moles per

hour;

D%EA = calendar daily average percent excess air; and

DSP = calendar daily average sulfur product loss in lb-moles

per hour calculated based on an calendar daily average

of sulfur recovered in long tons per day for that

calendar day.

3. For heaters and boilers, calendar daily average emissions in tons per day for a

particular calendar day shall be calculated as follows:

DEH&B (tpy) = [(DCOH&B x DUOH&B) + (DCFGH&B x

DUFGH&B) + (DCNGH&B x DUNGH&B)] x [24/2000]

 Where:

DUOH&B = calendar daily average utilization rate of the heater or

boiler on oil in mmBTU/hr;

DUFGH&B = calendar daily average utilization rate of the heater or
Page 134

boiler on fuel gas in mmBTU/hr;

DUNGH&B = calendar daily average utilization rate of the heater or boiler on

natural gas in mmBTU/hr;

DCOH&B = calendar daily average concentration for emissions of a

pollutant from the heater or boiler firing oil in

lb/mmBTU;

DCFGH&B = calendar daily average concentration for emissions of a

pollutant from the heater or boiler firing fuel gas in

lb/mmBTU;

DCNGH&B = calendar daily average concentration for emissions of a

pollutant from the heater or boiler firing natural gas in

lb/mmBTU.

To determine the contribution of SO2 emissions from oil firing, the daily

emissions for SO2 only for all heaters and boilers collectively firing oil shall be

calculated by the following alternative method in place of DCOH&B x DUOH&B

in the equation above:

DROE = DOFRH&B x 42 x DO x wt%S x 64/32 x (1/2000)

Where:

DROE = Daily refinery-wide SO2 emissions from oil firing in tons

per day;

DOFRH&B = Daily oil firing rate in barrels per day;

DO = Daily density of oil in pounds per gallon; and

wt%S = Daily sulfur content of oil in weight percent sulfur.

4. For other units included within a PAL, Conoco shall propose for EPA approval

a calculation method consistent with the above methods in its application for the
Page 135

PAL.

C. Calculating the total daily emissions for units within the PAL. Each day, Conoco shall

calculate the total daily emission rate in tons per day as follows:

u V w

DECap = Σ(DEFCCU)g + Σ (DESRU)h + Σ (DEH&B)j + DROE + Z

 g = 1 h = 1 j = 1

 

Z = for all other units Conoco shall propose for EPA approval a

calculation method consistent with the above methods in its

application for the PAL

 

 Where:

(DEFCCU)g = calendar daily emissions in tons per calendar day for FCCU g

within the PAL

u = the number of FCCUs within the PAL;

(DESRU)h = calendar daily emissions in tons per calendar day for SRU h

within the PAL

v = the number of SRUs within the PAL;

(DEH&B)j = calendar daily emissions in tons per calendar day for heater or

boiler j within the PAL; and

w = the number of heaters and boilers within the PAL.

 

D. Calculating the 365-day rolling average emission rate. Each day, Conoco shall

calculate the 365-day rolling average emission rate in tons per year as follows:

 365

AECap = Σ (DECap)k
Page 136

 k = 1

k = the preceding 365 calendar days; and

(DECap)k = the daily emission rate in tons per day for calendar day k. 
Page 137

Attachment 8

SUPPLEMENTAL AND BENEFICIAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS

PERFORMANCE OF FEDERAL AND STATE PROJECTS

A. Conoco agrees to undertake Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) and

Beneficial Environmental Projects (BEPs), with an estimated aggregate cost of at least $5.1 million, in

accordance with Part XVI, Paragraphs 243 through 247 of this Consent Decree. These SEPs and

BEPs will be selected from those identified in the Consent Decree, or those subsequently approved by

EPA and the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener, and will proceed independently, according to the

approved schedule for each project. Conoco agrees to report to EPA on a quarterly basis on the

progress of its implementation of these SEPs and BEPs in accordance with this Attachment. However,

Conoco agrees to report as soon as practicable any information obtained during development or

implementation of any of these SEPs or BEPs which would materially affect the success of each. 

B. By no later than one hundred-twenty (120) days following Date of Entry of this

Consent Decree, Conoco shall submit a Statement of Work (SOW) for the SEPs and BEPs that they

elect to perform, a schedule for development and implementation, and an estimated cost. The SOW

shall be approved by EPA and the appropriate state and local authority. Within 45 days of receipt of

the approval, Conoco shall begin implementation of the SEPs and BEPs in accordance with the SOWs.

C. Conoco may submit a request to EPA or to the appropriate state or local authority

for approval of any proposed changes to the SOWs for the SEPs and BEPs, and EPA or to the

appropriate state or local authority shall have 20 business days to respond to the request. Resolution of

any disputes arising in the context of the Companies’ project implementation will be handled in

accordance with Part XXII (Dispute Resolution) of this Consent Decree. 

 

D. Beginning with the first quarter following entry of this Consent Decree, Conoco shall

submit a status report for each of the SEPs and BEPs that indicates the progress to date and the

anticipated date of completion. The report shall be submitted to EPA and the appropriate state and

local authorities as provided in Paragraph 296 (Notice) of this Consent Decree.

E. In the first quarterly report following completion of each project, Conoco shall

submit to EPA and the appropriate Plaintiff-Intervener a Final SEP or BEP Report containing the

following information:

 1. a narrative description of the development and implementation of the SEP and BEP; 
Page 138

 2. a certification that the SEPs and BEPs were installed and operated in accordance the 

 approved or modified SOW for each; 

 3. a certification that Conoco has spent the full amount allocated for each SEP or BEP.

F. Each SEP and BEP must be implemented in conformance with all federal, state and 

 local laws.