Case 2:10-cv-01556 Document 1-3 Filed 10/12/10 Page 1 of 100 PageID #: 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAK CHAES DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and STATE OF LOUISIANA Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. JUDGE CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY MAGISTRATE JUDGE and SASOL NORTH AMERICA INC., Defendants. CONSENT DECREE FOR REMOVAL ACTION AN RECOVERY OF RESPONSE COSTS Case 2:10-cv-01556 Document 1-3 Filed 10/12/10 Page 2 of 100 PageID #: 26 TABLE OF CONTENTS i. BACKGROUND........................................................................................................... 4 II. JURSDICTION AND VENU ............. .... ....... ........ ......... .............................. ........ ..... 9 III. PARTIES BOUN....................................................................................................... 10 iv. DEFINITIONS............................................................................................................. 10 V. GENERAL PROVISIONS .......................................................................................... 18 VI. PERFORMNCE OF THE WORK BY SETTLING DEFENDANTS ...................... 21 VII. QUALITY ASSURANCE, SAMLING, AND DATA ANALYSIS .........................27 VIII. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ....................................................... 30 iX. REPORTING REQUIRMENTS ... ............... .......... ..... ......;..... ........... ......... .............. 33 X. EPA APPROVAL OF PLANS AND OTHER SUBMISSIONS................................. 35 XI. PROJECT COORD INA TORS .................................................................................... 38 Xii' PERFORMNCE GUARNTEE............................................................................... 39 XIII. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION ... .............. ..................................................... 45 XIV. EMERGENCY RESPONSE........................................................................................ 50 XV. PAYMNTS FOR RESPONSE COSTS .................................................................... 51 XVI. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURNCE ...............................................................55 XVII. FORCE MAJEURE.................................................................................................... 58 XVII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION.......................................................................................... 60 XIX. STIPULATED PENALTIES ..... .... .... ........... .............................................................. 64 XX. COVENANTS NOT TO SUE BY THE UNITED STATES ..................................... 70 XXI. COVENANTS NOT TO SUE BY THE STATE ....................................................... 76 XXii' COVENANTS BY SETTLING DEFENDANTS ..................................................... 79 XXIII. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT; CONTRIUTION PROTECTION ...........................81 XXIV. ACCESS TO INORMTION ..... ....................... .... ........................................... ....... 83 XXV. RETENTION OF RECORDS ....... ............... ......................... .................. ............ ....... 85 XXVI. NOTICES AND SUBMISSIONS ............................ ......... .............................. ........... 86 XXVii' EFFECTIVE DATE.....................................................................:.............................. 90 XXVII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION ............................ ..... ................................ ........... 89 XXVIX. APPENDICES.............;.............................................................................................. 89 XX. COMMITY RELA TI ONS .................................................................................... 90 Case 2:10-cv-01556 Document 1-3 Filed 10/12/10 Page 3 of 100 PageID #: 27 XXXI. MODIFICATION ....................................................................................................... 90 XXII. TERMINATION......................................................................................................... 91 XXIII. LODGING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMNT .............................. 91 xxxiv. SIGNATORIES/SERVICE......................................................................................... 92 xxxv. FINAL JUDGMENT.................................................................................................. 93 3 Case 2:10-cv-01556 Document 1-3 Filed 10/12/10 Page 4 of 100 PageID #: 28 This Consent Decree is made and entered into by and among Plaintiff, the United States of America ("United States"), on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), the State of Louisiana, and Settling Defendants ConocoPhilips Company and Sasol North America Inc. (collectively the "Settling Defendants"). i. BACKGROUND A. Contemporaneously with the lodging of this Consent Decree, the United States, on behalf of the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EP A"), the United States Department ofthe Interior, acting through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("DOI/USFWS"), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") of the United States Departent of Commerce, and the State of Louisiana (State), on behalf of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries ("LDWF") and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality ("LDEQ"), have fied a Complaint in this matter against Settling Defendants pursuant to Sections 1 06 and 1 07 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9606 and 9607; Section 311(t) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act or "CW A"), 33 U.S.c. § 1321(t); and the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act, La. R.S. 30:2001 et seq. B. In the Complaint, the United States and State of Louisiana seek, inter alia: (1) reimbursement of costs incurred by United States for response actions at the Calcasieu Estuary Superfund Site in Ca1casieu Parish, Louisiana (hereinafter tlie "Site" or the "Ca1casieu Estuary Site"), together with accrued interest; (2) performance of response actions at the Bayou V erdine Area ofConcem ("BV AOC") by Settling Defendants consistent with the National Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300 (as amended) ("NCP"); and (3) recovery of damages for the injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, pursuant to Section 311(t) ofthe CW A, 42 U.S.C. 4 Case 2:10-cv-01556 Document 1-3 Filed 10/12/10 Page 5 of 100 PageID #: 29 1321(t), under the trusteeship of the federal and state natural resource trustee agencies which include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") ofthe U.S. Departent of Commerce, the U.S. Department ofInterior, acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("DOI/SFWS"), LDEQ, Louisiana Deparment of Wildlife and Fisheries ("LDWF"), and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources ("LDNR") (collectively referred to as the "Trustees"). C. In the Complaint, the United States and State of Louisiana assert, inter alia, that Defendants, or their legal predecessors in interest, discharged and disposed of hazardous substances, into Bayou Verdine from their refining and petrochemical facilities and that such hazardous substances were released into the environment and have caused the incurrence of response costs by the United States and State of Louisiana and injury to, loss of and destruction of natural resources in the Calcasieu Estuary. D. EPA notified the State of Louisiana (the "State") in 2006 of negotiations with potentially responsible parties regarding the reimbursement of costs and the implementation of the Non-Time Critical Removal Action for the BV AOC, and EP A has provided the State with an opportnity to participate in such negotiations and be a party to this Consent Decree. E. EPA notified the DOI/SFWS and the NOAA in or before 1997 of negotiations with potentially responsible parties regarding the release of hazardous substances that may have resulted in injury to the natural resources under Federal trusteeship and encouraged the trstees to participate in the negotiation of this Consent Decree. DOl and NOAA and the State Trustees have asserted claims for injury to resources under their trusteeship and have negotiated a settlement of those claims the terms of which are set forth in a separate consent decree lodged 5 Case 2:10-cv-01556 Document 1-3 Filed 10/12/10 Page 6 of 100 PageID #: 30 contemporaneously with the lodging of this Consent Decree (the "NRD Consent Decree"). The NRD Consent Decree is incorporated by reference into this Decree for all purposes. F. The Defendants ("Settling Defendants") that have entered into this Consent Decree do not admit any liability to the Plaintiffs arising out of the transactions or occurrences alleged in the Complaint, nor do they acknowledge that any release or threatened release of hazardous substances at or from their facilities constitutes an imminent or substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment. The Settling Defendants do not admit and retain the right to controvert any of the factual or legal statements or determinations made herein in any judicial or administrative proceeding except in an action to enforce this Consent Decree. G. EPA has not placed, nor has EPA proposed to list, the Calcasieu Estuary Superfund Site on the National Priorities List, set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 300, Appendix B. H. The BV AOC is located southwest of the city of Westlake and slightly northwest of the city of Lake Charles,