Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 1 of 49 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) 

STATE OF LOUISIANA, ) 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ) 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ) 

NORTHWEST CLEAN AIR AGENCY, ) 

) CIVIL ACTION NO. H-05-258 

) 

Plaintiffs, ) JUDGE SIM LAKE 

) 

v. ) 

) 

CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, ) 

WRB REFINING, LLC, ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 

) 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONSENT DECREE 

WHEREAS, on January 27, 2005, Plaintiffs, the United States of America (“United 

States”), on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Co-Plaintiff the State of 

Illinois (“Illinois”), on behalf of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”), 

Co-Plaintiff the State of Louisiana (“Louisiana”), on behalf of the Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”), Co-Plaintiff the State of New Jersey (“New Jersey”), at the 

request and on behalf of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”), 

Co-Plaintiff the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (“Pennsylvania”), on behalf of the 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PaDEP”), and Co-Plaintiff the 

Northwest Clean Air Agency (“NWCAA”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in this 
Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 2 of 49 

action against and simultaneously lodged a consent decree with ConocoPhillips Company 

(“COPC”); 

WHEREAS, on December 5, 2005, this Court entered the consent decree (the “December 

2005 Consent Decree”) that fully resolved the claims in the complaint; 

WHEREAS, on May 1, 2007, a First Amendment to the December 2005 Consent Decree 

was entered; 

WHEREAS, on September 27, 2007, this Court approved a stipulated order adding WRB 

Refining LLC (“WRB Refining”) as a party to the Consent Decree for certain obligations at the 

Wood River and Borger Refineries as the owner of those refineries, 

WHEREAS, the December 2005 Consent Decree as modified by the First Amendment 

and the addition of WRB Refining as a Defendant hereinafter shall be referred to as the “Consent 

Decree” or “Decree”; 

WHEREAS, as reflected in this Second Amendment, Plaintiffs, COPC, and WRB 

Refining (“the Parties”) have agreed upon certain additional modifications pursuant to 

Paragraph 437 of the Consent Decree; 

WHEREAS, as required by Section V.J "NSPS Applicability of Flaring Devices", COPC 

has already complied with its requirement to certify that fifty (50) percent of the system-wide 

Flaring Devices identified in Appendix A are in compliance with one of the four compliance 

methods set forth in paragraph 139; has specifically submitted Alternative Monitoring Plans for 

some Flaring Devices that combust only vapors that are collected and combusted to comply with 

the wastewater provisions in 40 C.F.R. Section 60.692, 40 C.F.R. Section 61.343 through 

61.348, or 40 C.F.R. Section 63.647, or the marine tank vessel loading provisions in 40 C.F.R. 
Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 3 of 49 

Section 63.652 or 63.651; and will continue to submit such AMPs unless and until the 

monitoring requirements of Subpart J are amended; 

WHEREAS, in consideration of additional time to install the controls required by the 

Supplemental Environmental Project in Paragraph 268, COPC agreed to the additional injunctive 

relief found in Paragraph 255A; 

WHEREAS, the implementation of the additional injunctive relief in Paragraph 255A 

more than offsets any excess emissions that may be generated during the extension of time 

granted in revised Paragraph 268; 

WHEREAS, the Parties recognize, and the Court by entering this Second Amendment 

finds, that this Second Amendment has been negotiated at arm’s length and in good faith and that 

this Second Amendment is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest; 

NOW THEREFORE, before the taking of any testimony, without adjudication of any 

issue of fact or law, and upon the consent and agreement of the Parties, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows: 

AMENDED AND RESTATED SECTIONS 

The Consent Decree shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its 

terms, except that new Paragraphs numbered 57A, 179A, 179B, 179C, 255A, 272A, 286A, 

288A, 353A, 353B, 353C, 353D, 412A, and 417A are added and Paragraphs 11(B), (D), (HH) 

and (JJ), 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 67A, 68, 69, 74, 75, 77, 139, 143, 216, 217, 229, 230, 231, 268, 

275, 413 and 433 are revised. Additionally Appendix A is revised and Appendix I is added. 

* * * * 
Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 4 of 49 

11. Unless otherwise defined herein, terms used in the Consent Decree will have the meaning 

given to those terms in the Clean Air Act and the implementing regulations promulgated 

thereunder. The following terms used in the Consent Decree will be defined for purposes of the 

Consent Decree and the reports and documents submitted pursuant thereto as follows: 

* * * 

B. “Acid Gas Flaring” or “AG Flaring” shall mean the combustion of Acid Gas and/or 

Sour Water Stripper Gas in one or more AG Flaring Devices. 

* * * 

D. “Acid Gas Flaring Incident” or “AG Flaring Incident” shall mean the continuous or 

intermittent combustion of Acid Gas and/or Sour Water Stripper Gas that results in the emission 

of sulfur dioxide equal to, or in excess of, five-hundred (500) pounds in any 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 AG Flaring 

Incident shall have occurred. Subsequent, contiguous, non-overlapping periods are measured 

from the initial commencement of flaring within the AG Flaring Incident. When AG Flaring 

occurs within a twenty-four hour period at more than one Flaring Device at a Covered Refinery, 

the quantities of sulfur dioxide attributable to AG Flaring emitted from each Flaring Device shall 

be added together for purposes of determining whether there is one AG Flaring Incident unless 

the root causes of the AG Flaring at the various Flaring Devices are not related to each other. 

* * * 
Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 5 of 49 

HH. “Hydrocarbon Flaring” or “HC Flaring” shall mean the combustion of 

refinery-generated gases, except for Acid Gas and/or Sour Water Stripper Gas and/or Tail Gas, in 

one or more Hydrocarbon Flaring Devices. 

* * * 

JJ. “Hydrocarbon Flaring Incident” or “HC Flaring Incident” shall mean the continuous 

or intermittent combustion of refinery-generated gases, except for Acid Gas or Sour Water 

Stripper Gas or Tail Gas, that results in the emission of sulfur dioxide 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 any 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 HC Flaring Incident shall have 

occurred. Subsequent, contiguous, non-overlapping periods are measured from the initial 

commencement of Flaring within the HC Flaring Incident. When HC Flaring occurs within a 

twenty-four hour period at more than one Flaring Device at a Covered Refinery, the quantities of 

sulfur dioxide attributable to HC Flaring from each Flaring Device shall be added together for 

purposes of determining whether there is one HC Flaring Incident unless the root causes of the 

HC Flaring at the various Flaring Devices are not related to each other 

 * * * * 

57A. Installation and Operation of a WGS at Sweeny FCCU 3. COPC will complete the 

installation and begin operation of a WGS at Sweeny FCCU 3 by no later than December 31, 

2009. COPC will design the WGS to achieve an SO2 concentration of 25 ppmvd or lower on a 

365-day rolling average basis and 50 ppmvd or lower on a 7-day rolling average basis at 0% 

oxygen. By no later than June 30, 2010, COPC will comply with an SO2 concentration limit of 
 

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 6 of 49 

25 ppmvd or lower on a 365-day rolling average basis and 50 ppmvd or lower on a 7-day rolling 

average basis at 0% oxygen. 

* * * * 

61. Use of SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additives at the LAR Wilmington FCCU and Sweeny 

FCCU 27: Summary. The reduction of SO2 emissions from the LAR Wilmington FCCU and 

Sweeny FCCU 27 will be accomplished by the use of SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additives as 

described in Paragraphs 62 - 66. 

62. SO2 Baseline Data and SO2 Model. By the dates set forth below, for the following 

baseline time periods, for the following FCCUs, COPC will submit to EPA and the Applicable 

Co-Plaintiff two reports: (1) a report of twelve (12) months of baseline data and (2) a report 

describing a model to predict uncontrolled SO2 concentration and mass emission rate: 

FCCU Baseline Start Baseline End Report 

LAR Wilmington 12/31/05 12/31/06 2/28/07 

Sweeny 27 6/30/06 12/31/06 2/28/07 

The baseline data will include all data considered in development of the model on a daily 

average basis, and, at a minimum, the data required in Paragraph 43. Upon request by EPA, 

COPC will submit any additional data that EPA determines it needs to evaluate the model. The 

report describing the model will include a description of how the model was developed including 

which parameters were considered, why parameters were eliminated, efforts and results of model 

validation, and the statistical methods used to arrive at the equation to predict uncontrolled SO2 

concentration and mass emission rate. 
 

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 7 of 49 

63. SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additives – Short Term Trials 

(a) By no later than the dates set forth in the table in Paragraph 63(c), COPC will 

identify for EPA approval at least two commercially available brands of SO2 

Reducing Catalyst Additives, for each FCCU, that COPC proposes to use for 

shortterm trials and submit a protocol to EPA for conducting the trials. 

(b) COPC will propose use of at least two brands of SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additives 

that are likely to perform the best in each FCCU. EPA will base its approval or 

disapproval on its assessment of the performance of the proposed brands of 

additives in other FCCUs, the similarity of those FCCUs to COPC’s FCCUs, as 

well as any other relevant factors, with the objective of conducting trials of the 

brands of SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additives likely to have the best performance in 

reducing SO2 emissions. In the event that COPC submits less than two 

approvable brands of additives, EPA will identify other approved additives brands 

to COPC. 

(c) If EPA has approved two brands of SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additives by no later 

than the “trial start” date set forth below, then COPC will commence and 

complete the trials of those two brands and will submit a report to EPA that 

describes the performance of each brand that was trialed by the following dates 

for each of the following FCCUs: 

FCCU COPC IDs

 2 Additives

and submits 

Protocol 

 Trial Starts Trial Ends Report

 Date 

LAR Wilmington 9/30/07 3/31/08 9/30/08 11/30/08 

Sweeny 27 8/31/06 12/31/06 6/30/07 8/31/07 

If EPA has not approved two brands of additives by the “trial start” date, then 

subsequent deadlines will be modified as agreed by the parties. 

(d) In the report on the short-term trials, COPC will propose to use the best 

performing brand of additive as measured by percentage of SO2 emissions 

reduced and the concentration to which SO2 emissions were reduced in the trials, 

taking into account all relevant factors. EPA will either approve the proposed 

brand of additive or approve another brand of additive that was trialed for use in 

the optimization study. In approving an additive, EPA will consider the impact of 

the additive on the processing rate and/or the conversion capability if such 

impacts cannot be reasonably compensated for by adjusting operating parameters. 

Upon request by EPA, COPC will submit any additional available data that EPA 

determines it needs to evaluate the trials. 
Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 8 of 49 

64. SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additives – Optimization Study and Report 

(a) By no later than the dates set forth in the table in Paragraph 64(c) 

(“Paragraph 64(c) Table”), COPC will submit, for EPA approval, a proposed 

protocol consistent with the requirements of Appendix D for optimization studies 

to establish the optimized SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive addition rates. The 

protocol will include methods to calculate effectiveness, methods for baseloading, 

and percent additive used at each increment tested. 

(b) If EPA has approved a brand of SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive by no later than 

the “Optimization Start” date set forth in the Paragraph 64(c) Table, then COPC 

will commence and complete the optimization study of the SO2 Reducing Catalyst 

Additive in accordance with the approved protocol and Appendix D by no later 

than the dates set forth in the Paragraph 64(c) Table. If EPA has not approved a 

brand of SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive by no later than the “Optimization 

Start” date, then subsequent deadlines will be modified as agreed by the parties. 

(c) By no later than the following dates, COPC will report the results of the SO2 

Reducing Catalyst Additive Optimization Study and propose, for EPA approval, 

optimized addition rates of all catalysts to be used for the demonstration period. 

FCCU Protocol

Due

 Optimization Optimization Report Due 

Start End 

LAR Wilmington 6/30/08 12/31/08 6/30/09 7/31/09 

Sweeny 27 3/31/07 9/30/07 3/31/08 4/30/08 

Upon request by EPA, COPC will submit any additional data that EPA 

determines it needs to evaluate the SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive Optimization 

Study. 

(d) During the Optimization Study, COPC will successively add SO2 Reducing 

Catalyst at increments of 5.0, 6.7, 8.4, and 10.0 Weight % SO2 Reducing Catalyst 

Additive. Once a steady state has been achieved at each increment, COPC will 

evaluate the performance of the SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive in terms of SO2 

emissions reductions. The final Optimized SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive 

Addition Rate, in pounds per day, will occur at the addition rate where either: 

(i) The FCCU meets 25 ppmvd SO2 at 0% O2 on a 365-day rolling average, 

in which case COPC will agree to accept a limit of 25 ppmvd SO2 at 0% 

O2 on a 365-day rolling average basis at the conclusion of the 

demonstration period; 

(ii) Incremental Pickup Factor <2.0 lb SO2/lb additive; or 

(iii) FCCU is operating at 10.0% Weight % SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive. 
Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 9 of 49 

If an additive limits the processing rate or the conversion capability in a manner 

that cannot be reasonably compensated for by adjustment of other parameters, 

then the additive level will be reduced to a level at which the additive no longer 

causes such effects. 

65. SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additives – Demonstration Period and Report 

(a) By no later than dates set forth in the table in Paragraph 65(b), COPC will 

commence and complete a demonstration of the EPA-approved SO2 Reducing 

Catalyst Additive at the optimized addition rates that COPC proposes unless EPA 

proposes different optimized addition rates. Delays by EPA in approving the 

optimized addition rate may result in extensions of the demonstration period and 

extensions of relevant deadlines as agreed by the parties. 

(b) By no later than the following dates, COPC will report to EPA and the Applicable 

Co-Plaintiff the results of the demonstrations (“SO2 Additive Demonstration 

Report”). The SO2 Additive Demonstration Report will include, at a minimum, 

the SO2 and oxygen CEMS data recorded during the demonstration period and all 

baseline data on a daily average basis for the demonstration period. 

FCCU Demonstration Start Demonstration End Report Due 

LAR Wilmington 6/30/09 12/31/10 3/1/11 

Sweeny 27 3/31/08 9/30/09 11/30/09 

(c) During the demonstration period, COPC will both physically add SO2 Reducing 

Catalyst Additive and operate each FCCU, CO Boiler (where applicable) and 

FCCU feed hydrotreaters (where applicable) in a manner that minimizes SO2 

emissions to the extent practicable without interfering with conversion or 

processing rates. 

* * * * 

67. COPC may notify EPA at any time prior to the following dates of COPC’s agreement to 

comply with SO2 emission limits of 25 ppmvd on a 365-day rolling average basis and 50 ppmvd 

on a 7-day rolling average basis, at 0% oxygen, effective on the following dates: 

FCCU Date 

LAR Wilmington 3/1/11 

Sweeny 27 11/30/09 
Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 10 of 49 

If COPC makes such a notification, Paragraphs 61 - 66 will no longer apply for the affected 

FCCU(s) after the date of the notification. 

67A. At any time during the SO2 Reducing Catalyst Additive Demonstration Period for the 

LAR Wilmington and Sweeny 27, COPC may propose for EPA approval to end the 

Demonstration Period early and propose a short-term (7-day rolling average) and a long-term 

(365-day rolling average) concentration based limit (ppmvd), each at 0% oxygen, for SO2 

emissions from an FCCU. COPC may also propose alternative limits to be applicable during 

Hydrotreater Outages or other alternate operating scenarios. If EPA approves the proposed 

limits, then COPC shall immediately begin complying with the proposed limits and the SO2 

Reducing Catalyst Additive Demonstration Period shall end and the requirements of Paragraphs 

61-66 shall no longer apply for that FCCU. Unless and until EPA approves the proposed limits, 

COPC shall continue to add SO2 reducing additive at the optimized rate for the remainder of the 

demonstration period, and Paragraphs 61-66 shall remain in effect. 

68. Establishing Final SO2 Emission Limits at the LAR Wilmington FCCU and Sweeny 

FCCU 27. Except where COPC has notified EPA of its intent to comply with SO2 emission 

limits of 25 ppmvd on a 365-day rolling average basis and 50 ppmvd on a 7-day rolling average 

basis, at 0% oxygen, COPC will propose, in each SO2 Additive Demonstration Report, final 

7-day rolling average and 365-day rolling average concentration-based (ppmvd) SO2 emission 

limits, at 0% oxygen, for the LAR Wilmington FCCU and Sweeny FCCU 27. COPC may 

propose alternative emissions limits to be applicable during Hydrotreater Outages, startup of the 

FCCU, shutdown of the FCCU, or other alternative operating scenarios. COPC will comply with 

the emission limits it proposes for each FCCU beginning immediately upon submission of the 

applicable report for that FCCU. COPC will continue to comply with these limits unless and 

until COPC is required to comply with the emissions limits set by EPA pursuant to Paragraphs 
Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 11 of 49 

69 - 70 below. Upon request by EPA, COPC will submit any additional, available data that EPA 

determines it needs to evaluate the demonstration. 

69. EPA will use the data collected about each FCCU during the baseline period, the 

optimization period, and the demonstration period, as well as all other available and relevant 

information, to establish limits for SO2 emissions for the LAR Wilmington FCCU and for 

Sweeny FCCU 27. EPA will establish a 7-day rolling average and a 365-day rolling average 

concentration-based (ppmvd) SO2 emission limits at 0% oxygen. EPA will determine the limits 

based on: (i) the level of performance during the baseline, optimization, and demonstration 

periods; (ii) a reasonable certainty of compliance; and (iii) any other available and relevant 

information. 

* * * * 

74. Hydrotreater Outages. For the following FCCUs, by the following dates, COPC will 

submit to EPA for approval, with a copy to the Applicable Co-Plaintiff, a plan for the operation 

of the FCCUs (including associated air pollution control equipment) during Hydrotreater 

Outages in a way that minimizes emissions as much as practicable. 

FCCU Date 

LAR Wilmington FCCU 3/31/05 

Sweeny FCCU 3 6/30/06 

Sweeny FCCU 27 6/30/06 

The plan will, at a minimum, consider the use of low sulfur feed, storage of hydrotreated feed, 

and an increase in additive addition rate. The short-term SO2 emission limits established 

pursuant to this Consent Decree at the LAR Wilmington FCCU and Sweeny FCCU 27 will not 

apply during periods of FCCU feed Hydrotreater Outages provided that COPC is in compliance 

with the plan and is maintaining and operating its FCCUs in a manner consistent with good air 

pollution control practices. The short-term NOx emission limits established pursuant to this 
Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 12 of 49 

Consent Decree at the LAR Wilmington FCCU and Sweeny FCCU 3 will not apply during 

periods of FCCU feed Hydrotreater Outages provided that COPC is in compliance with the plan 

and is maintaining and operating its FCCUs in a manner consistent with good air pollution 

control practices. COPC will comply with the approved plan at all times, including periods of 

startup, shutdown, and Malfunction of the hydrotreater. In addition, in the event that COPC 

asserts that the basis for a specific Hydrotreater Outage is a shutdown (where no catalyst 

changeout occurs) required by ASME pressure vessel requirements or applicable state boiler 

requirements, COPC will submit a report to EPA and the Applicable Co-Plaintiff that identifies 

the relevant requirements and justifies COPC’s decision to implement the shutdown during the 

selected time period. 

75. At such time as COPC accepts an emission limit of 0.5 pound PM per 1000 pounds of 

coke burned on a 3-hour average basis for both Borger FCCUs 29 and 40 as determined by the 

testing protocol in Paragraph 83, COPC may submit and utilize hydrotreater outage plans for 

Borger FCCUs 29 and 40 consistent with the requirements of Paragraph 74. The Hydrotreater 

Outage Plans will be submitted to EPA for approval at the same time COPC submits the PM 

performance results for Borger FCCUs 29 and 40. 

* * * * 

77. PM Emission Limits for the Bayway, Borger 29, Borger 40, Sweeny 3, Trainer, Wood 

River 1 and Wood River 2 FCCUs. COPC will continue to operate the wet gas scrubber at the 

Bayway Refinery and will design the wet gas scrubbers at the Borger 29, Borger 40, Sweeny 3, 

Trainer, Wood River 1 and Wood River 2 FCCUs to achieve an emission limit of 0.5 pound PM 

per 1000 pounds of coke burned on a 3-hour average basis. To the extent that, under 

Paragraph 58 of this Consent Decree, COPC does not install wet gas scrubbers at Borger FCCUs 

29 and 40, this requirement will not apply. By no later than the following dates for the following 

12

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 13 of 49 

FCCUs, COPC will comply with an emission limit of 0.5 pound PM per 1000 pounds of coke 

burned on a 3-hour average basis determined by the testing protocol in Paragraph 83: 

Bayway Date of Lodging 

Borger 29 December 31, 2006 

(if applicable) 

Borger 40 December 31, 2015 

(if applicable) 

Sweeny 3 December 31, 2009 

Trainer December 31, 2006 

Wood River 1 December 31, 2008 

Wood River 2 December 31, 2012 

* * * * 

139. Compliance Methods for Flaring Devices. For each Flaring Device, COPC will elect to 

use one or any combination of following compliance methods: 

(a) Operate and maintain a flare gas recovery system to control continuous or routine 

combustion in the Flaring Device. Use of a flare gas recovery system on a flare 

obviates the need to continuously monitor and maintain records of hydrogen 

sulfide in the gas as otherwise required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.105(a)(4) and 60.7; 

(b) Operate the Flaring Device as a fuel gas combustion device and comply with 

NSPS monitoring requirements by use of a CEMS pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 

§ 60.105(a)(4) or with a predictive monitoring system approved by EPA as an 

alternative monitoring system pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 60.13(i); 

(c) Eliminate the routes of continuous or intermittent, routinely-generated fuel gases 

to a Flaring Device and operate the Flaring Device such that it receives only 

process upset gases, fuel gas released as a result of relief valve leakage or gases 

released due to other emergency malfunctions; 

(d) Eliminate to the extent practicable routes of continuous or intermittent, 

routinely-generated fuel gases to a Flaring Device and monitor the Flaring Device 

by use of a CEMS and a flow meter; provided, however, that this compliance 

method may not be used unless COPC: (i) demonstrates to EPA that the Flaring 

Device in question emits less than 500 pounds per day of SO2 under normal 

conditions; (ii) secures EPA approval for use of this method as the selected 

13

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 14 of 49 

compliance method; and (iii) uses this compliance method for five or fewer of the 

Flaring Devices listed in Appendix A; or 

(e) (i) Demonstrate that the Flaring Device combusts only vapors that are collected 

and combusted to comply with the wastewater provisions in 40 C.F.R. § 60.692, 

40 C.F.R. §§ 61.343 through 61.348, or 40 C.F.R. § 63.647, or the marine tank 

vessel loading provisions in 40 C.F.R. § 63.562 or 40 C.F.R. § 63.651; and (ii) 

comply with the monitoring requirements in 40 C.F.R. Subpart J in effect for that 

usage of the Flaring Device at the time of acceptance of NSPS applicability. 

* * * * 

143. By no later than December 31, 2011, COPC will certify compliance to EPA and 

the Applicable Co-Plaintiff with one or more of the compliance methods in Paragraph 139 and 

will accept NSPS applicability for all of the Flaring Devices in Appendix A. 

* * * * 

179A. Implementation of Actions Necessary to Correct Non-Compliance: Control 

Measures for Locations Identified in Appendix I. By no later than the dates set forth in 

Appendix I, COPC shall install controls consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 61, 

Subpart FF (“ BWON”) on the locations identified in Appendix I, “BWON Compliance 

Schedule for the Ferndale Refinery,” in order to achieve compliance with the 2.0 Mg option at 

the Ferndale Refinery. All controls will be installed by no later than December 31, 2008. 

179B. Implementation of Actions Necessary to Correct Non-Compliance at the Ferndale 

Refinery: Control Measures for the Phenolic and Oily Water Lift Station. 

(a) Short-term measures. By no later than December 20, 2007, COPC will apply a polyurea 

coating to the cover, hatches, and all other sources of openings to the atmosphere on the 

phenolic and oily water lift station. From December 20, 2007, until the completion of the 

long-term measures in Paragraph 179B(b), COPC will reapply the polyurea coating or an 

equivalent or superior sealant as soon as practicable but no later than fifteen days after 

breaking any hatch or electrical seal on the lift station. In the period between the 

14

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 15 of 49 

breaking of any hatch seal and the reapplication of a sealant, COPC will undertake good 

faith efforts to minimize emissions. 

(b) Long-term measures. 

(i) By no later than November 30, 2008, COPC will complete the replacement or the 

redesign of the phenolic and oily water lift station at the Ferndale Refinery, 

including the closed vent and vapor recovery system for the lift station. The 

replacement or redesign will be designed to achieve no detectable emissions as 

defined by 40 C.F.R. 61.341 from the lift station, including no detectable 

emissions from the interfaces between the hatches and the cover, the interface 

between the cover and the vault, and all penetrations of the cover or hatches. To 

the extent that COPC proposes to use a carbon adsorption system as its vapor 

recovery system, COPC will comply with the installation requirements of 

Paragraph 186, the “breakthrough” definition of Paragraph 187, the monitoring 

requirements of Paragraph 188, and the replacement requirements of 

Paragraph 189. 

(ii) By no later than March 14, 2008, COPC will electronically submit to EPA and 

NWCAA for review and comment a proposed redesign or replacement design for 

the phenolic and oily water lift station. The proposed design will include 

information regarding the closed vent and vapor recovery system that COPC 

proposes to use to control emissions from the lift station. To the extent that 

COPC proposes to use a carbon adsorption system, COPC will include the design 

replacement interval for the proposed carbon canisters. If all aspects of the 

proposed design cannot be electronically submitted, COPC will submit the 

proposal by overnight mail. By no later than 10 business days after receipt of the 

15

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 16 of 49 

full design proposal, EPA and NWCAA will provide comments, if any. COPC 

may proceed on design implementation if COPC has not received any comments 

from EPA or NWCAA within 10 business days after their receipt of the proposed 

design. Notwithstanding the opportunity for review and comment by EPA and 

NWCAA on the proposed design, COPC will remain solely responsible for 

complying with the requirements of Paragraph 179B(b)(i) and the BWON at the 

lift station. EPA and NWCAA do not warrant or aver in any manner that their 

review and comment, if any, on the proposed design will result in compliance 

with the requirements of Paragraph 179B(b)(i) or the BWON at the lift station. 

(c) Monitoring. 

(i) Quarterly Monitoring During the Period of Short-Term Measures. Commencing 

in the first quarter of 2008 and continuing through completion of the long-term 

measures identified in Paragraph 179B(b), COPC shall utilize 40 C.F.R. Part 60, 

Appendix A, Method 21 to monitor for leaks from the phenolic and oily water lift 

station one time per quarter, including one time in the partial quarter of 

October/November 2008. Monitoring will not be undertaken during any time 

period when the lift station is bypassed and/or isolated. COPC shall repair all 

leaks consistent with all applicable regulatory requirements. 

(ii) Additional Monitoring During the Period of the Short-Term Measures. In 

addition to the monitoring required by Paragraph 179B(c)(i), by no later than five 

(5) days after completing either a reapplication of a sealant to any parts of the 

phenolic and oily water lift station or a repair occasioned by the monitoring in 

Paragraph 179B(c)(i), COPC shall utilize 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Appendix A, Method 

16

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 17 of 49 

21 to monitor for leaks. COPC shall repair all leaks consistent with all applicable 

regulatory requirements. 

(iii) Monitoring after Completion of Long-Term Measures. By no later than fifteen 

(15) days after completing the long-term measures identified in Paragraph 

179B(b), COPC will utilize 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Appendix A, Method 21 to monitor 

for leaks. Leak monitoring will continue on a quarterly basis commencing in the 

first quarter of 2009 until eight (8) quarters have passed. COPC will use its best 

efforts to monitor the lift station over the range of normal operating conditions for 

the eight (8) monitoring quarters. Upon detecting any leaks, COPC will repair the 

leaks consistent with all applicable regulatory requirements. 

(iv) Leak Trend Analysis. At any time that COPC detects a leak during the 

monitoring events in Paragraph 179B(c)(iii), COPC will log the location and 

concentration of each leak to enable itself to evaluate whether any leak trends are 

occurring. If COPC perceives any trends in the location or concentration of the 

leaks noted, COPC will undertake actions to investigate and correct the cause(s) 

identified as expeditiously as practicable. 

(v) 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Appendix A, Method 21 monitoring shall be performed using a 

Toxic Vapor Analyzer with a flame ionization and/or photoionization detector. 

(vi) COPC shall include the results of all monitoring, including the operating 

conditions (e.g., whether the pumps were on or off; whether the flow was high or 

low) undertaken pursuant to this Subparagraph 179B(c) in the reports due under 

Subparagraph 179C(a) of this Consent Decree. 

17

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 18 of 49 

179C. Reports. 

(a) Interim Progress Reports. By no later than April 21, 2008, July 21, 2008, and 

October 21, 2008, COPC will submit reports to EPA and NWCAA that provide updates on the 

progress of the installation of the controls required pursuant to Paragraph 179A and 179B(b). 

With respect to the project required pursuant to Paragraph 179B(b), COPC’s reports will include 

a description of the progress in designing, ordering, procuring, and installing the replacement lift 

station or the redesigned lift station and the closed vent and vapor recovery system. COPC will 

provide revised designs and flow diagrams whenever, if ever, there are any differences between 

the proposal COPC submits pursuant to Paragraph 179B(b)(ii) and the design as COPC is 

implementing it. 

(b) Annual BWON Report. By no later than April 7, 2008, COPC will submit to 

EPA and NWCAA the annual report required under 40 C.F.R. Section 61.357(d)(2). 

(c) Final Report. By no later than January 31, 2009, COPC will submit a final report 

documenting completion of the installation of all controls required by Paragraphs 179A and 

179B(b). In that report, COPC shall certify compliance with the BWON. 

(d) Leak Trend Analysis Report. By no later than January 31, 2011, COPC will 

submit a report describing the leak trends, if any, found pursuant to Paragraph 179B(c)(iv). 

COPC will identify all corrective measures taken, if any, in response to any leak trends found. 

* * * * 

216. Exception to Implementing Corrective Measures. If COPC can identify the 

reason(s) in any particular calendar quarter that the quarterly and projected annual calculations 

result in benzene quantities in excess of those identified in Paragraph 215, and COPC can state 

that it does not expect that reason or reasons to recur or if COPC has already identified the 

reason(s) for the benzene quantities in excess of those identified in Paragraph 215 and COPC has 

18

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 19 of 49 

previously submitted a compliance plan but COPC had not yet completed implementation of that 

plan, then COPC may exclude the benzene quantity attributable to the identified reason(s) from 

the projected calendar year quantity. If that exclusion results in no potential violation of the 

Benzene Waste Operation NESHAP, COPC will not be required to implement corrective 

measures under Paragraph 217, and COPC may exclude the uncontrolled benzene attributable to 

the identified reason(s) in determining the applicability of Paragraph 218. At any time that 

COPC proceeds under this Paragraph, COPC will describe how it satisfied the conditions in this 

Paragraph in the reports due under Section IX of this Decree. 

217. Compliance Assurance Plan. If COPC meets one or more conditions in 

Paragraph 215 for implementing corrective measures, then by no later than sixty (60) days after 

the end of the calendar quarter in which one or more of the conditions were met, COPC will 

submit a compliance assurance plan to EPA for approval, with a copy to the Applicable 

Co-Plaintiff. In that compliance assurance plan, COPC will identify the cause(s) of the 

potentially-elevated benzene quantities, all corrective actions that COPC has taken or plans to 

take to ensure that the cause(s) will not recur, and the schedule of actions that COPC will take to 

ensure that the subject refinery complies with the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP for the 

calendar year. COPC will implement the plan unless and until EPA disapproves. In the event 

that COPC anticipates that it will not meet a compliance date in its compliance assurance plan, 

then COPC shall update the plan as soon as practicable to identify the compliance date it 

anticipates not satisfying, the corrective measures that COPC anticipates will not be timely made 

and the reasons therefore, and a proposed alternative compliance date. 

* * * * 

229. Third-Party Audits. COPC will retain a contractor(s) to perform a third-party audit of the 

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

19

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 20 of 49 

report for the Bayway, Ferndale, and Sweeny Refineries will be completed no later than 

December 31, 2005; the first third-party audit and report for the Alliance, Borger, LAR Carson, 

Santa Maria, Trainer, and Wood River Refineries will be completed by no later than 

December 31, 2006; and the first third-party audit and report for the LAR Wilmington and 

Rodeo Refineries will be completed by no later than April 1, 2007. An additional third-party 

audit will be completed for the Alliance Refinery no later than December 31, 2007. 

230. Internal Audits. COPC will conduct internal audits of each Refinery’s LDAR program 

by sending personnel familiar with the LDAR program and its requirements from one or more of 

COPC’s other Refineries or locations to audit another COPC Refinery. COPC will complete an 

internal LDAR audit by no later than two (2) years from the date of the completion of the 

third-party audits required in Paragraphs 228 and 229. COPC will perform an internal audit of 

each Refinery’s LDAR program at least once every four (4) years. COPC may elect to retain 

third-parties to undertake the internal audit, provided that an LDAR audit at each Refinery 

occurs every two (2) years. The internal audit to be performed at the Alliance Refinery in 2008 

shall be performed by a third-party. 

231. Audit Every Two Years. To ensure that an audit occurs every two (2) years at each 

Refinery, once a Refinery’s initial third-party audit is completed, the remaining third-party and 

internal audits at that Refinery will be separated by not more than two (2) years. Audits may be 

performed at any time in the calendar year in which they are due. 

* * * * 

255A. By no later than December 31, 2007, COPC will have completed the installation 

of sleeves on the slotted guidepoles on the following tanks located at the Bayway Refinery: 

T241, T243, T349, T351, and T352. Commencing on December 31, 2007, these tanks will be 

subject to NSPS Subpart Kb as affected facilities and will comply with the requirements of 

20

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 21 of 49 

NSPS Subparts A and Kb, including all monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and operating 

requirements. 

* * * * 

268. Controlling Emissions from the API Separator at the Bayway Refinery. 

(a) By no later than December 1, 2007, COPC will submit to NJDEP, with respect to 

the Bayway Refinery, revised permit applications necessary to implement a project to control 

volatile organic compound emissions from (i) the preflumes associated with Channels 3 through 

7 of the API separator (“Preflumes”); (ii) Channels 3 through 7 of the API separator (“Channels 

3 through 7"); and (iii) the Corrugated Plate Separator (“CPS”). As part of those permit 

applications, COPC will include a list of all waste streams that are directed to the API Separator 

and all waste streams that are directed elsewhere, including an identification of the destination of 

the waste streams that are not directed to the API. In the list of waste streams, COPC will 

include VOC composition, VOC concentration, and stream flow rates. 

(b) By no later than December 31, 2009, COPC will have completed implementation 

of the control project required in Subparagraph (a). The equipment installed to meet the 

requirement of Subparagraph (a) will have a VOC control/removal efficiency of at least 95%. 

The equipment installed either (i) will cover the currently-existing Preflumes, Channels 3 

through 7, and the CPS; or (ii) will replace these structures with a controlled system that is 

covered or enclosed. 

(c) COPC will spend no less than Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000) for the project 

identified in this Paragraph. It is the intent of the United States, New Jersey and COPC that the 

Supplemental Environmental Project required by this Paragraph consist of the installation of 

VOC controls at the structures identified in Subparagraph 268(a). To the extent that COPC 

21

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 22 of 49 

undertakes additional work on the underlying structures themselves (or elsewhere), such 

additional work falls outside the scope of this SEP. 

(d) By no later than thirty (30) days after the entry of this Second Amendment, COPC 

will submit to EPA and NJDEP a report that identifies the status of the project required under 

this Paragraph and projects the dates for completing critical project milestones. Thereafter, 

COPC will comply with the requirements of Paragraphs 277 and 279 for providing progress 

reports to EPA and NJDEP. 

* * * * 

272A. Additional Supplemental Environmental Projects Relating to the Ferndale 

Refinery. 

(a) Lummi Tribe Wood Stove Replacement Project. COPC will implement a 

Supplemental Environmental Project, the “Lummi Tribe Wood Stove Replacement Project,” in 

accordance with this Subparagraph of this Second Amendment. This SEP shall be completed by 

no later than June, 30, 2009. This SEP shall consist of the replacement of approximately 

twenty-five (25) old, fireplaces/wood stoves with propane stoves. The replacements will be 

provided free of charge to members of the Lummi tribe living on the Lummi Reservation. 

COPC may use a contractor or consultant in planning and implementing this SEP. COPC will 

spend One-Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) on this project, and the number of wood 

stoves replaced will be adjusted upward or downward, as appropriate, so as to limit to $100,000 

the amount that COPC will be required to spend. 

(b) Columbia Valley Wood Stove Replacement Project. COPC will implement a 

Supplemental Environmental Project, the “Columbia Valley Wood Stove Replacement Project,” 

in accordance with this Subparagraph of this Second Amendment. This SEP shall be completed 

no later than June 30, 2009. This SEP shall consist of the replacement in residences in Columbia 

22

 

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 23 of 49 

Valley, of approximately twenty (20) old, high polluting wood heating appliances with cleaner 

heating devices. COPC will coordinate with NWCAA in the performance of this SEP. COPC 

may use a contractor or consultant in planning and implementing this SEP. COPC will spend 

One-Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) on this project, and the number of wood stoves 

replaced will be adjusted upward or downward, as appropriate, so as to limit to $100,000 the 

amount that COPC will be required to spend. 

(c) For Federal Income Tax purposes, COPC agrees that it will neither capitalize into 

inventory or basis nor deduct any costs or expenditures incurred in performing the SEPs. 

* * * * 

275. COPC is responsible for the satisfactory completion of the SEPs/BEPs required under 

this Consent Decree in accordance with this Section VIII. Upon completion of the SEPs/BEPS 

set forth in Paragraphs 268 – 272A, COPC will submit to EPA and the Applicable State/Local 

Co-Plaintiff a cost report certified as accurate under penalty of perjury by a responsible corporate 

official. In the cost report for the Bayway VOC Control Project required in Paragraph 268, 

COPC will identify what costs were for VOC controls and what costs were not. If COPC does 

not expend the entire projected cost of the applicable SEP/BEP as set forth in this Section VIII, 

COPC will pay a stipulated penalty equal to the difference between the amount expended as 

demonstrated in the certified cost report(s) and the projected cost. The stipulated penalty will be 

paid as provided in Paragraph 377 (Payment of Stipulated Penalties) of the Consent Decree. 

* * * * 

286A. Civil Penalty Payment. By no later than thirty (30) days after Entry of this 

Second Amendment, COPC will pay a civil penalty of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) to the 

United States and Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) to the Northwest Clean Air Agency in 

consideration for the resolution of civil liability set forth in Paragraph 412A of this Second 

23

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 24 of 49 

Amendment. Payment shall be made in the manner described in Paragraph 281 (for the United 

States) and Paragraph 285 (for the Northwest Clean Air Agency). 

* * * * 

288A. By no later than thirty (30) days after the Entry of this Second Amendment, 

COPC will pay a stipulated penalty of Eighty Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($80,500) in 

satisfaction of the claim for stipulated penalties made by the United States and the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for Acid Gas Flaring that occurred at the Trainer Refinery 

between April 2, 2007, and May 19, 2007. Fifty percent (50%) of this penalty ($40,250) shall be 

paid to the United States and fifty percent (50%) ($40,250) shall be paid to the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania. Payment shall be made as directed in Paragraph 281 (for the United States) and 

Paragraph 284 (for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania). 

* * * * 

353A. For failure to meet the deadlines set forth in Appendix I for the installation of 

BWON-compliant controls on the locations at the Ferndale Refinery identified therein: $10,000 

per month or partial month, per location; or an amount equal to 1.2 times the economic benefit of 

delayed installation, whichever is greater. 

353B. For failure to meet the deadline set forth in Paragraphs 179B(b), $1000 per day. 

353C. For failure to undertake the monitoring and/or repairs required by 

Paragraph 179B(c): $100 per location, per day not monitored; $500 per location, per day not 

repaired within the regulatory time frames for repairs. 

353D. For failure to timely submit the reports required by Paragraph 179C, $1000 per 

week, per deliverable. 

* * * * 


24

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 25 of 49 

412A. Resolution of Liability Regarding Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP 

Violations at the Ferndale Refinery. Entry of this Second Amendment will resolve all civil 

liability of COPC to the United States and NWCAA for violations of BWON Requirements at 

the Ferndale Refinery that were caused either by the uncontrolled status of the locations 

identified in Appendix I or by leaks at the phenolic and oily water lift station. This resolution of 

liability covers violations that occurred or may occur on or before December 31, 2008, and is 

contingent upon COPC completing the installation of the controls required by Paragraphs 179A 

and 179B by no later than December 31, 2008. 

413. Resolution of Liability Regarding LDAR Requirements. Entry of this Consent 

Decree will resolve all civil liability of COPC to the United States and the Co-Plaintiffs for 

violations of the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth below in Subparagraphs 413(a) 

through 413(c) that (1) commenced and ceased prior to the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree; 

and (2) commenced prior to the Date of Entry of the Consent Decree and continued past the Date 

of Entry, provided that the events giving rise to such post-Entry violations are identified by 

COPC in its Initial Third-Party Audit Report(s) submitted pursuant to Paragraph 229 or, for the 

Alliance Refinery only, by the second third-party audit conducted at the Alliance Refinery 

pursuant to Paragraph 229 and corrected by COPC as required under Paragraph 232: 

(a) LDAR Requirements. For all equipment in light liquid service and gas and/or vapor 

service, the LDAR requirements of Co-Plaintiffs under state implementation plans 

adopted pursuant to the Clean Air Act or promulgated by EPA pursuant to Sections 111 

and 112 of the Clean Air Act, and codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subparts VV and GGG; 

40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subparts J and V; and 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subparts F, H, and CC; 

(b) Any applicable, federally-enforceable state or local regulations or permits that 

implement, adopt, or incorporate the specific regulatory requirements identified in 

Paragraph 413(a). 

(c) Any applicable state or local regulations or permits enforceable by the Co-Plaintiffs that 

implement, adopt, or incorporate the specific regulatory requirements identified in 

Paragraph 413(a). 

25

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 26 of 49 

* * * * 

417A. Entry of this Second Amendment will resolve all liability of COPC to the United States 

and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for stipulated penalties for Acid Gas Flaring that 

occurred at the Trainer Refinery between April 2, 2007, and May 19, 2007, and all civil liability 

of COPC to the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for violations of 

Sections 304 and 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

(“EPCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 11004, and Section 103(a) of Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9603(a), relating to Acid Gas Flaring 

that occurred at the Trainer Refinery between April 2, 2007, and May 19, 2007. 

* * * * 

433. Notice. Unless otherwise provided herein, notifications to or communications 

between the Parties will be deemed submitted on the date they are postmarked and sent by 

U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, except for notices under Section XIV (Force Majeure) and Section 

XV (Retention Jurisdiction/Dispute Resolution) which will be sent either by overnight mail or by 

certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. Each report, study, notification or other 

communication of COPC will be submitted as specified in this Consent Decree, with copies to 

EPA Headquarters, the applicable EPA Region, and the Applicable Co-Plaintiff. If the date for 

submission of a report, study, notification or other communication falls on a Saturday, Sunday or 

legal holiday, the report, study, notification or other communication will be deemed timely if it is 

submitted the next business day. Except as otherwise provided herein, all reports, notifications, 

certifications, or other communications required or allowed under this Consent Decree to be 

submitted or delivered to the United States, EPA, the Co-Plaintiffs, and COPC will be addressed 

as follows: 

26

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 27 of 49 

As to the United States: 

Chief 

Environmental Enforcement Section 

Environment and Natural Resources Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Environment and Natural Resources Division 

Department of Justice 

Regular Mail: P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044-7611 

Express Mail: 601 D. St. NW, Rm. 2121, Washington DC 20004 

Reference Case No. 90-5-2-1-06722/1 

As to EPA: 

Director, Air Enforcement Division

Office of Civil Enforcement 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Code 2242-A 

Regular Mail:1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Ariel Rios Building South 

Room 1119 

Washington, DC 20460-0001 

Express Mail: Use same address but 20004 as zip. 

with a hard copy to 

Director, Air Enforcement Division

Office of Regulatory Enforcement 

c/o Matrix New World Engineering 

120 Eagle Rock Ave., Suite 207 

East Hanover, NJ 07936-3159 

and an electronic copy to 

csullivan@matrixneworld.com

foley.patrick@epa.gov 

EPA Regions: 

Region 2: 

Chief 

Air Compliance Branch 

US EPA Region 2 

Ted Weiss Federal Building 

290 Broadway, 21st Floor 

New York, New York 10007-1866 

27

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 28 of 49 

Region 3: 

Chief 

Air Enforcement Branch (3AP12) 

EPA Region III 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA, 19103 

Region 5: 

Air and Radiation Division 

U.S. EPA, Region 5 

77 West Jackson Blvd. (AE-17J) 

Chicago, IL 60604 

Attn: Compliance Tracker 

and 

Office of Regional Counsel 

U.S. EPA, Region 5 

77 West Jackson Blvd. (C-14J) 

Chicago, IL 60604 

Region 6: 

Chief 

Air, Toxics, and Inspections Coordination Branch 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue 

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 

Region 9: 

Director 

Air Division 

Mail Code AIR-1 

USEPA Region 9 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Region 10: 

Director, Office of Compliance and Enforcement 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 

Mail Code: OCE-164 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 

Seattle, WA 98101 

28

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 29 of 49 

As to Co-Plaintiffs: 

As to Co-Plaintiff the State of Illinois 

Maureen Wozniak 

Assistant Counsel 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

1021 North Grand Avenue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

and 

Manager 

Compliance and Enforcement Section 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

1021 North Grand Avenue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

As to Co-Plaintiff the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Environmental 

Quality: 

Administrator, Enforcement Division 

Office of Environmental Compliance 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 4312 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-4312 

As to Co-Plaintiff the State of New Jersey: 

Administrator, Air Compliance & Enforcement 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Post Office Box 422 

401 East State Street 

Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0422 

and 

Manager, Northern Air Compliance & Enforcement Office 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

7 Ridgedale Ave. 

Cedar Knolls, New Jersey 07927 

and 

29

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 30 of 49 

Deputy Attorney General, Section Chief 

Environmental Enforcement 

Division of Law 

P.O. Box 093 

25 Market Street 

Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0093 

As to Co-Plaintiff the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

Regional Manager, Air Quality 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

2 East Main St. 

Norristown, PA 19401 

As to Co-Plaintiff the Northwest Clean Air Agency 

Director

Northwest Clean Air Agency 

1600 South Second St. 

Mount Vernon, WA 98273-5202 

As to COPC: 

Dorsey Payne, Program Manager 

ConocoPhillips Company 

1000 South Pine 

860-18 South Tower 

Ponca City, OK 74602-1267 

Telephone: (580) 767-6404 

Thomas J. Myers, HSE Manager, U.S. Refining, Commercial and Transportation 

ConocoPhillips Company 

600 North Dairy Ashford 

Room TA3138 

Houston, TX 77079 

Telephone: (281) 293-4851 

Managing Counsel, North American Refining Transportation and Regulatory Group 

Legal Department 

ConocoPhillips Company 

600 North Dairy Ashford 

Houston, TX 77079 

With a copy to each Applicable Refinery as shown below: 

As to Alliance: 

30

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 31 of 49 

Refinery Manager 

ConocoPhillips Company 

Alliance Refinery 

P.O. Box 176 

Belle Chasse, LA 70037 

As to Bayway: 

Refinery Manager 

ConocoPhillips Company 

Bayway Refinery 

1400 Park Avenue 

Linden, NJ 07036 

As to Borger: 

Refinery Manager 

WRB Refining LLC 

Borger Refinery 

P. O. Box 271 

Borger TX 79008 

As to Ferndale: 

Refinery Manager 

ConocoPhillips Company 

Ferndale Refinery 

PO Box 8 

Ferndale, WA 98248 

As to the Los Angeles Carson and/or Los Angeles Wilmington Refineries: 

Refinery Manager 

ConocoPhillips Company 

Los Angeles Refinery (Carson and Wilmington) 

1660 W. Anaheim St. 

Wilmington, CA 90744 

As to the Rodeo and Santa Maria Refineries: 

Refinery Manager 

ConocoPhillips Company 

San Francisco Refinery 

1380 San Pablo Ave. 

Rodeo, CA 94572 

31

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 32 of 49 
Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 33 of 49 

Consent Decree in the matter of United States et al. v. ConocoPhillips Company, Civil Action 

No. H-05-0258 (Southern District of Texas). 

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

June 18, 2008 s/ Ronald J. Tenpas, by permission________ 

 RONALD J.TENPAS 

Assistant Attorney General 

Environment and Natural Resources Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

June 18, 2008 s/ Annette M. Lang___________________ 

 ANNETTE M. LANG 

Trial Attorney 

Environmental Enforcement Section 

Environment and Natural Resources Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 7611 

Ben Franklin Station 

Washington, D.C. 20044-7611 

Telephone: (202) 514-4213 

Facsimile: (202) 616-6584 

DONALD J. DEGABRIELLE, JR. 

United States Attorney 

Southern District of Texas 

June 18, 2008 s/ Kevin C. Aiman_____________________ 

 KEVIN C. AIMAN 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Southern District of Texas 

Texas Bar No. 00797884 

Fed. Bar No. 30329 

909 Milam, Suite 1500 

P.O. Box 61129 

Houston, TX 77208 

Telephone: (713) 567-9516 

Facsimile: (713) 718-3407 

 Page 34 

 

Consent Decree in the matter of United States et al. v. ConocoPhillps Company, Civil Action

No. H-05-0258 (Southern District of Texas).

FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

~ JiJClQil (JJrrlib1 WALKERB.SMITH \

Director

Office of Civil Enforcement

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Penrsylvana Ave., Mail Code 2201A

Washington, DC 20460

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 34 of 49 
 

Consent Decree in the matter of United States et al. v. ConocoPhillips Company.Civi1 Action

No. H-05-0258 (Southern Distrct of Texas).

FOR CO-PLAINTIFF

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

LISA M. MAIGAN

Attorney General

State of Ilinois

MATTHEW J. DUN, Chief

Environmental Enforcement! Asbestos Litigation Division

L//lt/ol9

Date

--. ~ ~- BY:

THOMAS DAVIS, Chief

Environmental Bureau

Assistant Attorney General

500 S. Second St.

Springfield, IL 62706

(217) 782-9031

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

~

Date

BY:

/1

.J/ ¿ .~ 11 ,,11/ "'

"í'~l4 v(. VVf~ ~ Robert A. Messina

Chief Legal Counsel

Ilinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 35 of 49 
 

Consent Decree in the matter of United States et al. v. ConocoPhilips Company, Civil Action

No. H-05-0258 (Southern District of Texas).

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL BY CO-PLAINTIFF, THE STATE OF LOUISIANA,

THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY:

4--2Lf~

Date . HATCH

.V~

Ass! Secretary

Office of Environmental Compliance

Louisiana Department of Environmental

Quality

Date TED R. B

Trial Attorney

(La. Bar Roll # 0456)

Legal Affairs Division

Louisiana Department of Environmental

Quality

P.O. Box 4302

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-4302

(225) 219-3985

l(-dL+~8

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 36 of 49 
 

Consent Decree in the matter of United States et al. v. ConocoPhilips Company, Civil Action

No. H-05-0258 (Southern District of Texas).

~ 1-(( -voo~

Dae

By:

D e l!l'Al iS; mR By:

FOR CO-PLAINTIFF

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

ANNE MILGRAM

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY

SCOTT B. DUBIN

5'~ß~

Deputy Attorney General

New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety

Division of Law

RJ Hughes Justice Complex

25 Market Street

P.O. Box 093

Trenton, NJ 08625-0093

(609) 633-8713

LISA P. JACKSON

COMMISSIONER

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

401 East State Street

P.O. Box 402

Trenton, NJ 08625-0402

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 37 of 49 
 

Consent Decree in the matter of United States et al. v. ConocoPhillps Company,Civil Action

No. H-05-0258 (Southern District of Texas).

FOR CO-PLAITIFF

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Datt/1ff!dl¿ Q7~- - ~. . FRÁCIN CARIN

~

Regional Manager, Air Quality

Pennsylvania Deparment of Environmental

Protection

2 East Main Street

Norrstown P A 19401

(484) 250-5920

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 38 of 49 
 

Consent Decree in the matter of United States et al. v. ConocoPhilips Company, Civil Action No. H-05-0258 (Southern District of Texas).

FOR CO-PLAINTIFF

NORTHWEST CLEAN AIR AGENCY

¥/Zf1/æ f I

Date LAUGHLAN H. CLAR, WSBA # 10996

~ ~lø

Zender Thurston P.S.

1700 D St.

P.O. Box 5226

Bellingham, W A 98227

(360) 647-1500

"- '. :'i'-""~_..__.. "

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 39 of 49 
 

Consent Decree in the matter of United States et al. v. ConocoPhillips Company,Civil Action

No. H-05-0258 (Southern District of Texas).

FOR CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY

r - 2S ,. ó gDate L. . ZIE A

President, U.S. Refining

ConocoPhillips

600 N. Dairy Ashford

Houston, Texas 77079

(281) 293-1000

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 40 of 49 
 

Consent Decree in the matter of United States et al. v. ConocoPhilips Company.Civil Action

No. H-05-0258 (Southern District of Texas).

FOR WR Refining LLC

Date L. . Ziemba

Vice President

WR Refining LLC

600 N. Dairy Ashford

Houston, Texas 77079

(281) 293-1000

..

.cf -- i- r--o lCase 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 41 of 49 
Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 42 of 49 

APPENDIX A 

LIST OF FLARING DEVICES AT THE COVERED REFINERIES 

Refinery Name of Flare 

Alliance Low Pressure Flare (coker) 

High Pressure Flare 

Marine Vapor Recovery Flare – 406 D-15 

Marine Vapor Recovery Flare – 406 D-16 

Bayway Poly Flare 

 CLEU Flare 

 ABW Flare 

 Eastside Flare 

Borger East Refinery Flare 

West Refinery Flare 

 ARDS Flare 

 Cat Flare 

NGL Non-Corrosive Flare 

NGL Corrosive Flare 

Acid Gas Flare 

 Derrick Flare 

Ferndale ZTOF 

Emergency Ground Flare 

LAR Carson LAR Carson East 

 LAR Carson West 

LAR LAR Wilmington North 

Wilmington 

 LAR Wilmington South 

 LAR Wilmington Unicracker 

LPG Flare 

A-1

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 43 of 49 

Rodeo 19C-1 

19C-602 

Santa Maria Flare 

Sweeny Unit 7 Flare 

 Units 11/14 Flare 

Units 7/10D/18 Flare 

Units 10abc/12/51 LP Flare 

Units 10abc/12/68 HP Flare 

Units 15/17/19 Flare 

Expansion LP Flare 

 Expansion HP Flare 

Unit 5 Flare 

Unit 30 Flare 

 VDU/DCU Flare 

DEA Stripper Flare 

SW Stripper Flare 

Trainer Main Yard Flare 

Old Yard Flare 

Acid Gas Flare 

 SWS Gas Flare 

Wood River Alkylation Flare 

 Aromatics North Flare 

Aromatics South Flare 

Distilling West Flare 

North Property Ground Flare 

Lube (HCNHT) Flare 

 Distilling Flare 

Benzene Loading Flare 

VOC Flare (and Spare) 

A-2

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 44 of 49 

Appendix I 

 Compliance Schedule for the Ferndale Refinery 

(See attached pdf file.) 

A-3

Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 45 of 49 
Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 46 of 49 
Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 47 of 49 
Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 48 of 49 
Case 4:05-cv-00258 Document 44 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/2008 Page 49 of 49