Commitments and Contingencies (Notes)	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Environmental Matters We are subject to extensive federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations. These laws, which change frequently, regulate the discharge of materials into the environment and may require us to remove or mitigate the environmental effects of the disposal or release of petroleum or chemical substances at various sites, install additional controls or make other modifications to certain emission sources, equipment or facilities. We are incurring and expect to continue to incur expenses for environmental remediation liabilities at a number of currently and previously owned or operated refining, pipeline, terminal and retail station properties. We have accrued liabilities for these expenses and believe these accruals are adequate based on current information and projections that can be reasonably estimated. Additionally, we have recognized environmental remediation liabilities assumed in past acquisitions from the prior owners that include amounts estimated for site cleanup and monitoring activities arising from operations at refineries, certain terminals and pipelines, and retail stations prior to the dates of our acquisitions. Our environmental accruals are based on estimates including engineering assessments, and it is possible that our projections will change and that additional costs will be recorded as more information becomes available. Our accruals for environmental expenditures totaled $267 million and $262 million at June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, including $23 million and $24 million for TLLP, respectively. These accruals include $221 million and $216 million at June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, related to amounts estimated for site cleanup activities arising from operations at our Martinez refinery prior to August 2000 and operations of assets acquired in the Los Angeles Acquisition prior to June 1, 2013. We cannot reasonably determine the full extent of remedial activities that may be required at the Martinez refinery and for assets acquired in the Los Angeles Acquisition, and it is possible that we will identify additional investigation and remediation costs for site cleanup activities as more information becomes available. Our estimates for site cleanup activities reflect amounts for which we are responsible under applicable cost-sharing arrangements. We also have insurance policies related to certain matters at our Martinez refinery that provide coverage up to $190 million for expenditures in excess of $50 million in self-insurance. We have not recognized possible insurance recoveries and the insurer has challenged coverage and filed a declaratory relief action in federal court. Washington Refinery Fire The naphtha hydrotreater unit at our Washington refinery was involved in a fire in April 2010, which fatally injured seven employees and rendered the unit inoperable. The Washington State Department of Labor & Industries (“L&I”), the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (“CSB”) and the EPA initiated separate investigations of the incident. L&I completed its investigation in October 2010, issued citations and assessed a $2.4 million fine, which we appealed. L&I reassumed jurisdiction of the citation and affirmed the allegations in December 2010. We disagree with L&I’s characterizations of operations at our Washington refinery and believe, based on available evidence and scientific reviews, that many of the agency’s conclusions are mistaken. We filed an appeal of the citation in January 2011. In separate September 2013 and November 2013 orders, the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals granted partial summary judgment in our favor and dismissed most of the citations. We have established an accrual for this matter although we cannot currently estimate the final amount or timing of its resolution. The outcome of this matter will not have a material impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of operations. On May 1, 2014, the CSB finalized its investigation report on the April 2010 naphtha hydrotreater unit fire at our Washington refinery. In the report, the CSB made recommendations to federal and state agencies, the American Petroleum Industry and us. In response to the recommendations made to us, we have communicated to the CSB the actions we are and will be taking. Our completion of those actions will not have a material impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of operations. The EPA, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), is continuing its criminal investigation of the Washington naphtha hydrotreater fire. We cannot predict what action, if any, the EPA and DOJ will take. As a result, we cannot currently estimate the amount or timing of the resolution for any action that may result from this investigation. We received a notice of violation (“NOV”) from the EPA alleging 46 violations of the Clean Air Act Risk Management Plan requirements at our Washington refinery on November 20, 2013. The EPA conducted an investigation of the refinery in 2011, following the April 2010 fire in the naphtha hydrotreater unit. While we have submitted a response to the EPA and requested clarification of certain allegations, we cannot currently estimate the amount or timing of the resolution of this matter. We believe the outcome will not have a material impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of operations. Other Matters In the ordinary course of business, we become party to lawsuits, administrative proceedings and governmental investigations, including environmental, regulatory and other matters. Large, and sometimes unspecified, damages or penalties may be sought from us in some matters. We have not established accruals for these matters unless a loss is probable, and the amount of loss is currently estimable. Legal We are a defendant, along with other manufacturing, supply and marketing defendants, in a lawsuit brought by the Orange County Water District, alleging methyl tertiary butyl ether (“MTBE”) contamination in groundwater. The lawsuit is proceeding in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York and the defendants are being sued for having manufactured MTBE and having manufactured, supplied and distributed gasoline containing MTBE. The plaintiff alleges, in part, that the defendants are liable for manufacturing or distributing a defective product. The suit generally seeks individual, unquantified compensatory and punitive damages and attorney’s fees. We intend to vigorously assert our defenses against this claim. While we cannot currently estimate the final amount or timing of the resolution of this matter, we have established an accrual and believe that the outcome will not have a material impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of operations. Environmental The EPA has alleged that we have violated certain Clean Air Act regulations at our Alaska, Washington, Martinez, North Dakota and Utah refineries. We also retained the responsibility for resolving similar allegations relating to our former Hawaii refinery, which we sold in September 2013. We previously received a NOV in March 2011 from the EPA alleging violations of Title V of the Clean Air Act at our Alaska refinery, which arose from a 2007 state of Alaska inspection and inspections by the EPA in 2008 and 2010. We also previously received NOVs in 2005 and 2008 alleging violations of the Clean Air Act at our Washington refinery. We are continuing discussions of all EPA claims with the EPA and the DOJ. The ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material impact on our future interim or annual results of operations, as we may be required to incur material capital expenditures and/or civil penalties. However, we do not believe that the outcome will have a material impact on our liquidity or financial position. We have investigated conditions at certain active wastewater treatment units at our Martinez refinery pursuant to an order received in 2004 from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board that named us as well as two previous owners of the Martinez refinery. We cannot currently estimate the amount of the ultimate resolution of the order, but we believe it will not have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of operations. Tax We are subject to extensive federal, state and foreign tax laws and regulations. Newly enacted tax laws and regulations, and changes in existing tax laws and regulations, could result in increased expenditures in the future. We are also subject to audits by federal, state and foreign taxing authorities in the normal course of business. It is possible that tax audits could result in claims against us in excess of recorded liabilities. However, we believe that resolution of any such claim(s) would not have a material impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of operations.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Environmental Matters

We are subject to extensive federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations. These laws, which change frequently, regulate the discharge of materials into the environment and may require us to remove or mitigate the environmental effects of the disposal or release of petroleum or chemical substances at various sites, install additional controls or make other modifications to certain emission sources, equipment or facilities.

We are incurring and expect to continue to incur expenses for environmental remediation liabilities at a number of currently and previously owned or operated refining, pipeline, terminal and retail station properties. We have accrued liabilities for these expenses and believe these accruals are adequate based on current information and projections that can be reasonably estimated. Additionally, we have recognized environmental remediation liabilities assumed in past acquisitions from the prior owners that include amounts estimated for site cleanup and monitoring activities arising from operations at refineries, certain terminals and pipelines, and retail stations prior to the dates of our acquisitions. Our environmental accruals are based on estimates including engineering assessments, and it is possible that our projections will change and that additional costs will be recorded as more information becomes available.

Our accruals for environmental expenditures totaled $267 million and $262 million at June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, including $23 million and $24 million for TLLP, respectively. These accruals include $221 million and $216 million at June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, related to amounts estimated for site cleanup activities arising from operations at our Martinez refinery prior to August 2000 and operations of assets acquired in the Los Angeles Acquisition prior to June 1, 2013. We cannot reasonably determine the full extent of remedial activities that may be required at the Martinez refinery and for assets acquired in the Los Angeles Acquisition, and it is possible that we will identify additional investigation and remediation costs for site cleanup activities as more information becomes available. Our estimates for site cleanup activities reflect amounts for which we are responsible under applicable cost-sharing arrangements. We also have insurance policies related to certain matters at our Martinez refinery that provide coverage up to $190 million for expenditures in excess of $50 million in self-insurance. We have not recognized possible insurance recoveries and the insurer has challenged coverage and filed a declaratory relief action in federal court.

Washington Refinery Fire

The naphtha hydrotreater unit at our Washington refinery was involved in a fire in April 2010, which fatally injured seven employees and rendered the unit inoperable. The Washington State Department of Labor & Industries (“L&I”), the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (“CSB”) and the EPA initiated separate investigations of the incident. L&I completed its investigation in October 2010, issued citations and assessed a $2.4 million fine, which we appealed. L&I reassumed jurisdiction of the citation and affirmed the allegations in December 2010. We disagree with L&I’s characterizations of operations at our Washington refinery and believe, based on available evidence and scientific reviews, that many of the agency’s conclusions are mistaken. We filed an appeal of the citation in January 2011. In separate September 2013 and November 2013 orders, the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals granted partial summary judgment in our favor and dismissed most of the citations. We have established an accrual for this matter although we cannot currently estimate the final amount or timing of its resolution. The outcome of this matter will not have a material impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of operations.

On May 1, 2014, the CSB finalized its investigation report on the April 2010 naphtha hydrotreater unit fire at our Washington refinery. In the report, the CSB made recommendations to federal and state agencies, the American Petroleum Industry and us. In response to the recommendations made to us, we have communicated to the CSB the actions we are and will be taking. Our completion of those actions will not have a material impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of operations.

The EPA, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), is continuing its criminal investigation of the Washington naphtha hydrotreater fire. We cannot predict what action, if any, the EPA and DOJ will take. As a result, we cannot currently estimate the amount or timing of the resolution for any action that may result from this investigation.

We received a notice of violation (“NOV”) from the EPA alleging 46 violations of the Clean Air Act Risk Management Plan requirements at our Washington refinery on November 20, 2013. The EPA conducted an investigation of the refinery in 2011, following the April 2010 fire in the naphtha hydrotreater unit. While we have submitted a response to the EPA and requested clarification of certain allegations, we cannot currently estimate the amount or timing of the resolution of this matter. We believe the outcome will not have a material impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of operations.

Other Matters

In the ordinary course of business, we become party to lawsuits, administrative proceedings and governmental investigations, including environmental, regulatory and other matters. Large, and sometimes unspecified, damages or penalties may be sought from us in some matters. We have not established accruals for these matters unless a loss is probable, and the amount of loss is currently estimable.

Legal

We are a defendant, along with other manufacturing, supply and marketing defendants, in a lawsuit brought by the Orange County Water District, alleging methyl tertiary butyl ether (“MTBE”) contamination in groundwater. The lawsuit is proceeding in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York and the defendants are being sued for having manufactured MTBE and having manufactured, supplied and distributed gasoline containing MTBE. The plaintiff alleges, in part, that the defendants are liable for manufacturing or distributing a defective product. The suit generally seeks individual, unquantified compensatory and punitive damages and attorney’s fees. We intend to vigorously assert our defenses against this claim. While we cannot currently estimate the final amount or timing of the resolution of this matter, we have established an accrual and believe that the outcome will not have a material impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of operations.

Environmental

The EPA has alleged that we have violated certain Clean Air Act regulations at our Alaska, Washington, Martinez, North Dakota and Utah refineries. We also retained the responsibility for resolving similar allegations relating to our former Hawaii refinery, which we sold in September 2013. We previously received a NOV in March 2011 from the EPA alleging violations of Title V of the Clean Air Act at our Alaska refinery, which arose from a 2007 state of Alaska inspection and inspections by the EPA in 2008 and 2010. We also previously received NOVs in 2005 and 2008 alleging violations of the Clean Air Act at our Washington refinery. We are continuing discussions of all EPA claims with the EPA and the DOJ. The ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material impact on our future interim or annual results of operations, as we may be required to incur material capital expenditures and/or civil penalties. However, we do not believe that the outcome will have a material impact on our liquidity or financial position.

We have investigated conditions at certain active wastewater treatment units at our Martinez refinery pursuant to an order received in 2004 from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board that named us as well as two previous owners of the Martinez refinery. We cannot currently estimate the amount of the ultimate resolution of the order, but we believe it will not have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of operations.

Tax

We are subject to extensive federal, state and foreign tax laws and regulations. Newly enacted tax laws and regulations, and changes in existing tax laws and regulations, could result in increased expenditures in the future. We are also subject to audits by federal, state and foreign taxing authorities in the normal course of business. It is possible that tax audits could result in claims against us in excess of recorded liabilities. However, we believe that resolution of any such claim(s) would not have a material impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of operations.