Via Electronic Mail and Regulations.gov
July 10, 2017
Ms. Evelyn Rosborough, Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: (214) 665-7515
Email: rosborough.evelyn@epa.gov
RE: Draft NPDES Permit for Offshore Oil and Gas Operations in the Western Portion of
the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico, General Permit No. GMG290000, EPAR06-OW-2017-0217
Dear Ms. Rosborough:
The Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) submits the following comments to
Region 6 of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) on the Draft National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) General Permit for New and Existing Dischargers in
the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category for the Western
Portion of the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico, General Permit No. GMG290000
(“Proposed Permit”). The Western Gulf of Mexico is littered with thousands of offshore oil and
gas platforms, thousands of miles of offshore pipelines, and tens of thousands of offshore
wells—the largest concentration of offshore oil and gas activity in the country. While the Center
appreciates EPA’s new permit condition requiring oil companies to maintain an inventory of the
chemicals used in offshore hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) and other well stimulation
treatments, such condition does not go nearly far enough to protect Gulf ecosystems or marine
species from these environmentally destructive practices.
The Center urges EPA to prohibit the dumping of chemicals used in offshore fracking
and other well stimulation into the Gulf, and implement a zero discharge requirement for
wastewater generated by offshore oil and gas drilling activities, including drill cuttings and
fluids, well treatment fluids, and produced water. Such action is necessary to ensure the
Proposed Permit does not result in an unreasonable degradation of the marine environment as
required by the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), particularly given the enormous scale of offshore oil
and gas drilling conducted in the Western Gulf under the jurisdiction of Region 6.
Moreover, prior to issuing the permit, EPA must prepare an environmental impact
statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and must engage in formal
consultation under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). These evaluations under NEPA and the
ESA are necessary to ensure that EPA carefully considers the risks and harms inherent in
1

 discharging fracking chemicals and other drilling wastes into the Gulf, including the cumulative
impacts of the discharge of wastewater from thousands of active drilling platforms; that the
public is made aware of such risks; and that the marine environment and imperiled marine
species are sufficiently protected from the myriad dangerous pollutants discharged by offshore
oil and gas drilling activities. Failure to do so would violate NEPA and the ESA.
I.

EPA’s Proposed Permit Fails to Comply with the Clean Water Act

The Proposed Permit does not adequately protect water quality or the ocean environment
and therefore fails to comply with the CWA. Congress enacted the CWA in order “to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters;” to guarantee
“water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife
and provides for recreation;” and to promptly eliminate water pollution.1 To help meet these
goals, the CWA establishes the NPDES permitting program. Specifically, under Section 301,
“the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful,” unless the discharger meets one
of several exceptions, which includes obtaining a permit issued pursuant to Section 402.2 “The
combined effect of sections 301(a) and 402 is that ‘[t]he CWA prohibits the discharge of any
pollutant from a point source into navigable waters of the United States without an NPDES
permit’”3
Every NPDES permit must contain effluent limits sufficient both to “restore” and
“maintain” the receiving waterbody.4 In particular, the CWA requires EPA to set technologybased effluent limits that reflect the ability of available technologies to reduce and ultimately
eliminate pollution discharges.5 All sources and all pollutants must be subject to technologybased effluent limits,6 unless more stringent water quality-based effluent limits are required to
avoid exceedances of water quality standards.7
To implement the CWA’s tech-based effluent limit requirements, EPA must establish
national effluent limitations and guidelines (“NELGs”) for industrial point sources, which
establish an absolute minimum level of pollution control that must be achieved by industrial
point sources.8 EPA looks first to the NELGs when setting technology-based effluent limits.9
Where NELGs do not exist for a particular pollutant or class of pollutants to be discharged from
a point source, EPA is required to exercise their best professional judgment (“BPJ”) to set caseby-case technology-based effluent limits for pollutants in NPDES permits.10
1

33 U.S.C. § 1251(a).
33 U.S.C. § 1301(a).
3
Nw. Evtl. Advocates v. EPA, 537 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).
4
See 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a).
5
See id. §§ 1311 (establishing technology-based effluent limits),1342(a)(1) (requiring that NPDES permits
incorporate technology-based effluent limits).
6
See id. § 1311(b)(2)(A),.
7
See id. § 1312(a).
8
33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b), 1314(b); See Natural Res. Def Council v. EPA, 859 P.2d 156, 183 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
9
See id.
10
33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b)(2)(A); 1342(a)(1)(A); 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(c); see also Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 787 P.2d
965, 969 (5th Cir. 1986) (“Where EPA has not promulgated applicable technology-based effluent limitations
guidelines, the permits must incorporate, on a case-by-case method, ‘such conditions as the Administrator
determines are necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act.’”) (citations omitted).
2

2

 In addition, in order to provide enhanced protections for marine waters, Section 403 of
the CWA establishes ocean discharge criteria.11 Congress directed EPA to publish regulations
and guidelines for determining degradation of the “waters of the territorial sea, the contiguous
zone, and oceans….”12 Under the ocean discharge criteria, EPA cannot issue a discharge permit
where the discharge would cause “undue degradation of the marine environment.”13
The Proposed Permit does not comply with the ocean discharge criteria or adequately
protect water quality because it allows the unlimited discharge of produced water; it allows the
discharge of toxic fracking and other well treatment fluids; it allows the discharge of drill
cuttings and fluids; and is less protective of water quality than other offshore oil and gas permits.
It is wholly shocking that EPA allows the oil and gas industry to dump its wastewater into the
Gulf of Mexico. This is a serious disloyalty to the public and its reliance on the agency to protect
water quality. EPA must therefore implement substantial changes to the terms and conditions of
the Proposed Permit prior to its issuance, including zero-discharge requirements for all drilling
fluids, produced wastewater and well treatment fluids.
A. EPA’s Proposed Permit Fails to Comply with the Ocean Discharge Criteria
EPA cannot issue the Proposed Permit because EPA cannot make a valid finding that the
permit complies with the CWA requirements for discharges into the ocean. Permits for ocean
discharges must comply with ocean discharge criteria.14 EPA can only issue a permit if it
concludes “on the basis of available information” that the discharge “will not cause an
unreasonable degradation of the marine environment.”15 The CWA specifically prohibits EPA
from issuing a NPDES permit that would allow the discharge of pollutants into the ocean where
“insufficient information exists on any proposed discharge to make a reasonable judgment on
any of the guidelines….”16
Unreasonable degradation is defined in 40 C.F.R. § 125.121(e)(1-3) as:
(1) Significant adverse changes in ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability
of the biological community within the area of discharge and surrounding
biological communities;
(2) Threat to human health through direct exposure to pollutants or through
consumption of exposed aquatic organisms; or
(3) Loss of esthetic, recreational, scientific or economic values which is
unreasonable in relation to the benefit derived from the discharge.
The following factors must be considered in the evaluation:17
11

33 U.S.C. § 1343.
Id. § 1343(c)(1).
13
40 C.F.R. § 125.123.
14
33 U.S.C. § 1343.
15
40 C.F.R. § 125.123(a).
16
33 U.S.C. § 1343(c)(2).
17
40 C.F.R. §125.122(a).
12

3

 (1) The quantities, composition and potential for bioaccumulation or persistence
of the pollutants to be discharged;
(2) The potential transport of such pollutants by biological, physical or chemical
processes;
(3) The composition and vulnerability of the biological communities which may
be exposed to such pollutants, including the presence of unique species or
communities of species, the presence of species identified as endangered or
threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, or the presence of those
species critical to the structure or function of the ecosystem, such as those
important for the food chain;
(4) The importance of the receiving water area to the surrounding biological
community, including the presence of spawning sites, nursery/forage areas,
migratory pathways, or areas necessary for other functions or critical stages
in the life cycle of an organism.
(5) The existence of special aquatic sites including, but not limited to marine
sanctuaries and refuges, parks, national and historic monuments, national
seashores, wilderness areas and coral reefs;
(6) The potential impacts on human health through direct and indirect pathways;
(7) Existing or potential recreational and commercial fishing, including
finfishing and shellfishing;
(8) Any applicable requirements of an approved Coastal Zone Management plan;
(9) Such other factors relating to the effects of the discharge as may be
appropriate; and
(10) Marine water quality criteria developed pursuant to section 304(a)(1).
Here, EPA relies on conclusory statements in its Fact Sheet on the Proposed Permit and a
document from 1991 evaluating the ocean discharge criteria for the NPDES General Permit for
the Gulf of Mexico OCS to find that the Proposed Permit satisfies the ocean discharge criteria.
EPA’s conclusion that the Proposed Permit meets the ocean discharge criteria and does not
constitute an unreasonable degradation of the marine environment is inadequate and flawed.
EPA cannot make a valid finding that the permit does not cause an unreasonable
degradation of the marine environment. In the Fact Sheet on the Proposed Permit, EPA
acknowledges that offshore fracking is occurring in the Gulf of Mexico, and that the Proposed
Permit allows chemicals used in offshore fracking to be dumped into the Gulf.18 EPA further
acknowledges that it lacks data regarding the types and quantities of chemicals used in such
practices.19 EPA further admitted in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act
that it had no records on the effects of the chemicals used in offshore fracking wastewater on the
marine environment.20

18

EPA, FACT SHEET AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR THE PROPOSED REISSUANCE OF THE
NPDES GENERAL PERMIT FOR NEW AND EXISTING SOURCES IN THE OFFSHORE SUBCATEGORY OF
THE OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION POINT SOURCE CATEGORY FOR THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OF THE GULF OF MEXICO (GMG290000) at 24-25, Apr. 17, 2017.
19
Id.
20
Letter from EPA, Region 6 to Center for Biological Diversity RE: FOIA Request EPA-R9-2017-000778, Feb. 15,
2017.

4

 Nevertheless, the Proposed Permit allows the unlimited discharge of produced
wastewater and well stimulation fluids, including the unlimited discharge of chemicals used in
offshore fracking and other well stimulation treatments.21 There are significant data gaps on the
impacts of these discharges on the marine environment; and what is known indicates that the
discharge of such wastewater is inherently dangerous and causes undue degradation of the ocean
environment.
1.

The Discharge of Produced Water and Other Wastes Causes an Undue
Degradation of the Marine Environment

EPA has not meaningfully analyzed the massive volume of produced water that flows
into the Gulf of Mexico from oil and gas operations. Fracking and other new information
indicate that produced water may have increased in volume. For example, EPA records reveal
that offshore oil and gas platforms in Region 6 discharged more than 75 billion gallons of
produced water in 2014.22 The discharge of produced water—a complex pollutant associated
with offshore oil productions—is incompatible with the ocean discharge criteria. Such
wastewater can contain harmful substances like benzene, arsenic, lead, hexavalent chromium,
barium, chloride, sodium, sulfates, and boron, and it also can be radioactive.23 Produced water
itself is potentially harmful to humans, aquatic life, and ecosystems—in fact, a study sponsored
by the U.S. Department of Energy demonstrated that oil production yields “environmentally
hazardous” produced water.24
Produced water contains several chemicals that are toxic to aquatic life. These
compounds include dispersed oils, aromatic hydrocarbons and alkylphenols, heavy metals,
biocides, corrosion inhibitors, emulsion breakers, coagulants, oxygen scavengers, and naturally
occurring radioactive materials.25 The most common metals in produced water are arsenic,
cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc.26 In addition, produced water can
contain substantial amounts of organic material, inorganic salts, small particles, organic acids
(e.g., acetic acid and propionic acid), and can have high levels of sulfur and sulphide.27

21

While the Proposed Permit prohibits the discharge of priority pollutants except in trace amounts in well
stimulation fluids, that limitation does not apply when fracking fluids are mixed with produced water. Moreover, a
number of the chemicals frequently used in offshore operations are not listed as priority pollutants by EPA, and thus
can be discharged in unlimited amounts in well treatment fluids as well. See The Center, Troubled Waters: Offshore
Fracking’s Threat to California’s Ocean, Air and Seismic Stability, Sept. 2014,
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/offshore_fracking/pdfs/Troubled_Waters.pdf (listing 10 most
commonly used fracking chemicals in oil and gas operations in waters off California).
22
See Excel Spreadsheet, Produced Water Discharges for Region 6 in 2014.
23
See e.g., Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. Cedar Point Oil Co., 73 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 1996); Mall, Amy, Petition
for Rulemaking Pursuant to Section 6974(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Concerning the
Regulation of Wastes Associated with the Exploration, Development, or Production of Crude Oil or Natural Gas or
Geothermal Energy at 8 (2010).
24
C Tsouris, Oak Ridge National Lab., Emerging Applications of Gas Hydrates at 7.
25
Neff, J., K. Lee, and E. M. DeBlois. 2011. Produced water: overview of composition, fates, and effects. Pp. 3–54
Produced water. Springer.
26
Bakke, T., J. Klungsøyr, and S. Sanni. 2013. Environmental impacts of produced water and drilling waste
discharges from the Norwegian offshore petroleum industry. Marine Environmental Research 92:154–169.
27
Id.

5

 Several compounds in produced water are known to have negative biological effects.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and alkylphenols, which are abundant in produced water, are
potent carcinogens causing DNA damage28 and can lead to oxidative stress,29 cardiac function
defeats,30 embryotoxicity in fish,31 reduction of lysosomal membrane stability in kidney cells,32
elevated hepatic activity,33 and neoplasia of fish liver.34 Other chemicals such as alkyl phenols at
concentration found in produce waters have hormone-disrupting effects in fish,35 can change the
lipid composition in hepatic cells of free-living Atlantic cod and haddock,36 lead to cytotoxicity
in liver cells in rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss),37 disrupt normal larval pigmentation and
increase jaw deformities in Atlantic cod, which reduces feeding ability and results in larval
mortality.38
Chemicals in produced water cause substantial negative and lethal effects under chronic
and acute exposure. Studies of chronic exposure of adult sea scallops (Placopecten
magellanicus) to different types and concentrations of diluted operational drilling fluids, under
environmental representative conditions, have found reductions in somatic and reproductive
28

Aas, E., T. Baussant, L. Balk, B. Liewenborg, and O. K. Andersen. 2000. PAH metabolites in bile, cytochrome
P4501A and DNA adducts as environmental risk parameters for chronic oil exposure: a laboratory experiment with
Atlantic cod. Aquatic Toxicology 51:241–258.
29
Hasselberg, L., S. Meier, and A. Svardal. 2004. Effects of alkylphenols on redox status in first spawning Atlantic
cod (Gadus morhua). Aquatic Toxicology 69:95–105; Sturve, J., L. Hasselberg, H. Fälth, M. Celander, and L.
Förlin. 2006. Effects of North Sea oil and alkylphenols on biomarker responses in juvenile Atlantic cod (Gadus
morhua). Aquatic toxicology 78:S73–S78.
30
Incardona, J. P., T. K. Collier, and N. L. Scholz. 2004. Defects in cardiac function precede morphological
abnormalities in fish embryos exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Toxicology and applied pharmacology
196:191–205.
31
Carls, M. G., L. Holland, M. Larsen, T. K. Collier, N. L. Scholz, and J. P. Incardona. 2008. Fish embryos are
damaged by dissolved PAHs, not oil particles. Aquatic toxicology 88:121–127.
32
Holth, T. F., J. Beckius, I. Zorita, M. P. Cajaraville, and K. Hylland. 2011. Assessment of lysosomal membrane
stability and peroxisome proliferation in the head kidney of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) following long-term
exposure to produced water components. Marine environmental research 72:127–134.
33
Meier, S., H. Craig Morton, G. Nyhammer, B. E. Grøsvik, V. Makhotin, A. Geffen, S. Boitsov, K. A. Kvestad, A.
Bohne-Kjersem, A. Goksøyr, A. Folkvord, J. Klungsøyr, and A. Svardal. 2010. Development of Atlantic cod (Gadus
morhua) exposed to produced water during early life stages: Effects on embryos, larvae, and juvenile fish. Marine
Environmental Research 70:383–394.
34
Myers, M. S., J. T. Landahl, M. M. Krahn, and B. B. McCain. 1991. Relationships between hepatic neoplasms and
related lesions and exposure to toxic chemicals in marine fish from the US West Coast. Environmental Health
Perspectives 90:7.
35
Arukwe, A., T. Celius, B. T. Walther, and A. Goksøyr. 2000. Effects of xenoestrogen treatment on zona radiata
protein and vitellogenin expression in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Aquatic toxicology 49:159–170; Arukwe, A.,
S. W. Kullman, and D. E. Hinton. 2001. Differential biomarker gene and protein expressions in nonylphenol and
estradiol-17β treated juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology
Part C: Toxicology & Pharmacology 129:1–10; Meier, S., T. E. Andersen, B. Norberg, A. Thorsen, G. L. Taranger,
O. S. Kjesbu, R. Dale, H. C. Morton, J. Klungsøyr, and A. Svardal. 2007. Effects of alkylphenols on the
reproductive system of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Aquatic Toxicology 81:207–218.
36
Grøsvik, B. E., S. Meier, B. Liewenborg, G. Nesje, K. Westrheim, M. Fonn, O. S. Kjesbu, H. Skarphéḥinsdóttir,
and J. Klungsøyr. 2010. PAH and biomarker measurements in fish from condition monitoring in Norwegian waters
in 2005 and 2008. ICES.
37
Tollefsen, K. E., R. C. Sundt, J. Beyer, S. Meier, and K. Hylland. 2011. Endocrine modulation in Atlantic cod
(Gadus morhua L.) exposed to alkylphenols, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, produced water, and dispersed oil. Journal
of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A 74:529–542; Meier et al. 2010.
38
Meier et al. 2010.

6

 tissue growth and mortality.39 For example, chronic intermittent exposure of adult sea scallops to
oil-based mud was highly lethal at concentrations as low as 1 mg/L.40 Oil-based muds are
chemically toxic and disrupt the physiological state and nutritional conditions of sea scallops
resulting in low growth rate and survival.41 Similarly, studies of chronic exposure of the blue
mussel (Mytilus edulis, a common biomarker) to produced water have shown DNA damages
within 1 km of the outfalls.42 However, current methods may not be sensitive enough to detect
biological effects beyond few kilometers from the outfall.43 Thus the idea that produced water
impacts are largely localized is still unverified.
Fish may suffer the highest impacts of produced water since some species are attracted to
oil rigs and platforms. For example, samples collected from haddock (Melanogrammus
aeglefinus) populations in areas with extensive oil and gas production in the North Sea show
induction of biotransformation enzymes, oxidative stress, genotoxicity, and altered fatty acid
composition.44 Several studies have shown that fish exposed to alkylphenols and polyaromatic
hydrocarbons in produced water alter their endocrine physiology.45 For example, a study of
exposure of different developmental stages of Atlantic cod to several concentrations of produced
water collected from an oil platform in the North Sea found that alkylophenols (a chemical
known to cause endocrine activity and commonly found in produced water) bioaccumulate in
tissue.46 Concentration of produced water of 1 percent disrupts normal larval pigmentation,
reduces feeding by deforming jaw parts in larvae, and leads to mortality.47
Alkylophenols have also endocrine effects and disrupt several reproductive parameters in
fish, such as reduction of gonadal development,48 induction of plasma vitellogenin in males and
juveniles,49 and prevention of spermatogenesis and oogenesis.50 Serious reproductive disturbance
has been demonstrated in first-time spawning Atlantic cod.51 For example, acute exposure (1 to 5
weeks) of Atlantic cod to alkylophenols (via food) resulted in impaired oocyte development,

39

Cranford, P. J., D. C. Gordon Jr, K. Lee, S. L. Armsworthy, and G.-H. Tremblay. 1999. Chronic toxicity and
physical disturbance effects of water-and oil-based drilling fluids and some major constituents on adult sea scallops
(Placopecten magellanicus). Marine Environmental Research 48:225–256.
40
Id.
41
Id.
42
Brooks, S., C. Harman, B. Zaldibar, U. Izagirre, T. Glette, and I. Marigómez. 2011. Integrated biomarker
assessment of the effects exerted by treated produced water from an onshore natural gas processing plant in the
North Sea on the mussel Mytilus edulis. Marine pollution bulletin 62:327–339.
43
Bakke et al. 2013.
44
Balk
45
Tollefsen, et al. 2011.
46
Meier et al. 2010.
47
Id.
48
Meier et al. 2007.
49
White, R., S. Jobling, S. A. Hoare, J. P. Sumpter, and M. G. Parker. 1994. Environmentally persistent
alkylphenolic compounds are estrogenic. Endocrinology 135:175–182.
50
Weber, L. P., R. L. Hill, and D. M. Janz. 2003. Developmental estrogenic exposure in zebrafish (Danio rerio): II.
Histological evaluation of gametogenesis and organ toxicity. Aquatic toxicology 63:431–446; Weber, L. P., Y.
Kiparissis, G. S. Hwang, A. J. Niimi, D. M. Janz, and C. D. Metcalfe. 2002. Increased cellular apoptosis after
chronic aqueous exposure to nonylphenol and quercetin in adult medaka (Oryzias latipes). Comparative
Biochemistry and Physiology Part C: Toxicology & Pharmacology 131:51–59.
51
Meier et al. 2007.

7

 reduction of estrogen levels, and substantial delay of spawning in females.52 Males showed
reduction of testosterone and impairment of testicular development.53 Similarly, chronic
exposure (e.g., over 14 weeks) of Atlantic cod to relative low doses of alkylophenols have led to
similar results.54 Other studies of chronic exposure (12 weeks) of Atlantic cod to produced water
with concentrations as low as 0.066 - 0.2 percent have shown impair oocyte development and
reduce estrogen levels in pre-spawning females, and altered testicular development and reduction
of sperm amount in males.55 These endocrine disruptions occur at concentration found in plumes
of produced water and chemical compounds present in produced water are likely to have stronger
effects on fish closer to oil platforms.56
All these studies show that exposure to produced water can cause a wide range of
negative effects in fish and invertebrates. Several of the responses to produced water exposure
suggest substantial impacts such as loss of cell membrane integrity, gene expression changes,
cytotoxicity, DNA damage, hepatic lipid composition, and reproductive disruption. Based on
these studies chronic exposure to even low concentrations of produced water has negative
consequences for the physiology of fish and invertebrates. Population and community effects are
mostly unknown, as are the cumulative effects of chronic and acute produce water exposure are
also unknown.57
i.

Fate of Produced Water and Habitat Degradation

Produced water undergoes several changes following discharge to the ocean including,
dilution, biodegradation, adsorption, evaporation, and photooxidation (Fig. 1).58 These
transformation processes may produce other chemicals that are more bioavailable and toxic for
marine organisms than the original chemicals. The rate of biodegradation of chemicals in
produced water is thought to be variable and mostly unknown but it depends on the persistence
of the chemicals in the water column.59

52

Id.
Id.
54
Meier et al. 2011.
55
Sundt, R. C., and C. Björkblom. 2011. Effects of produced water on reproductive parameters in prespawning
Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A 74:543–554.
56
Bakke et al. 2013.
57
Bakke et al. 2013.
58
Neff 2002.
59
Id.
53

8

 Figure 1. Environmental fates of inorganic and organic chemicals (C) from produced water in seawater following the discharge
of treated produced water to the ocean. Figure and legend after Neff (2002).

Habitat degradation due to produced water is high near outfalls. Most produced water
contain relatively high concentration of several metals compared with clean sea water, with
barium, iron, and manganese being the most abundant.60 These metals tend to rapidly precipitate
from the plume, forming barium sulfate and oxides of iron and manganese on sediment surfaces
over large areas around the produced water discharges. Evidence suggests that effects of
discharges of produced water in the water column and on the seabed in general have higher
impacts within 1 or 2 km from the outfall sources.61 However, the published literature has not yet
been able to demonstrate with high confidence that the effects of produced water are only local.
Studies have shown that benthic communities require at least 5-10 years to recover from wastes
accumulated on the seabed from produced water.62
ii.

Plume Size of Produced Water

The plume size of produced water is directly related to dilution rates. Dilution rates and
potential biological effects of produced water following discharge to the ocean depends on
several factors including discharge temperature, density of produced water, current speed,
mixing regime, depth of the outfall, water column stratification, and seasonal environmental
conditions.63 For example, produced water can dilute quickly upon discharge in well-mixed
marine waters.64 In general, modeling studies of dispersion of produced water show a rapid
60

Neff 2002.
Bakke et al. 2013.
62
Bakke, T., A. M. V. Green, and P. E. Iversen. 2011. Offshore Environmental Effects Monitoring in Norway–
Regulations, Results and Developments. Pages 481–491Produced Water. Springer; Bakke et al. 2013.
63
Neff 2002.
64
Id.
61

9

 initial dilution (e.g., 30 to 100 fold) within tens of meters of the outfall and slower dilution with
distance.65 Modeled dilutions of produced water discharged to the Gulf of Mexico vary greatly
depending on discharge rate and current speed.66 Plume dilution generally slows down during
slack currents and increases during strong currents.
Some produced water is highly buoyant and the plume trends to spread as a thin layer of
one or two meters thick on the ocean surface with limited vertical or lateral dispersion in very
calm waters. In contrast, under high current and high winds the concentration of the produced
water plumes are highly variable and shows variable concentration within the plume. However, it
is safe to say that marine organisms close to discharge points are exposed to the highest chemical
concentrations.67 However, most studies today do not have the require sensitivity to detect
impacts of produced water at very low concentrations.
These studies demonstrate that there are many unknowns regarding the impacts of the
discharge of produced water on the marine environment, including on marine species, but what is
known indicates that produced water substantially degrade the marine environment. EPA
therefore cannot make the non-degradation finding for produced water. As explained further
below, available technologies exist that allow for zero discharge of such wastes and other
permits require zero discharge of produced water. EPA should mandate such a limit for the
Western Gulf of Mexico.
2.

The Discharge of Chemicals Used in Offshore Fracking and Other Well
Stimulation Causes an Undue Degradation of the Marine Environment

EPA acknowledges that offshore fracking and other well stimulation treatments occur in
the Gulf of Mexico.68 There are significant data gaps regarding the impacts of offshore fracking
and acidization on the marine environment, and the best available scientific information indicates
that the discharge of well treatment chemicals does not meet the ocean discharge criteria.
Therefore, EPA cannot permit the discharge of fracking and other well stimulation chemicals.
EPA cannot make a valid finding that the permit does not cause an unreasonable
degradation of the marine environment because “insufficient information exists” regarding the
impacts of well stimulation chemicals “to make a reasonable judgment” that the discharge
satisfies all of the ocean discharge criteria.69 For example, an independent scientific review of
offshore well stimulation by the California Council on Science and Technology found significant
data gaps on basic questions regarding offshore fracking and acidizing. Among these data gaps,
the study found inadequate reporting of well stimulation events, the composition of well
stimulation fluid, and toxicity data for common chemicals in fracking and acidizing fluids. In
fact, the review found that “no studies have been conducted on the toxicity and impacts of well
65

Brandsma, M. G., and J. P. Smith. 1996. Dispersion modeling perspectives on the environmental fate of produced
water discharges. Pages 215–224Produced Water 2. Springer; Washburn, L., S. Stone, and S. MacIntyre. 1999.
Dispersion of produced water in a coastal environment and its biological implications. Continental Shelf Research
19:57–78.
66
Brandsma and Smith 1996.
67
Bakke et al. 2013.
68
Fact Sheet at 24-25.
69
See 33 U.S.C. § 1343(c)(2).

10

 stimulation fluids discharged in federal waters to the marine environment.”70 And, in discussing
the impacts of the discharge of fracking chemicals into the ocean, the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management has previously noted that “[t]he lack of toxicity data for 31 of the 48 distinct
chemicals was identified as a problem…, as was the lack of available data on chronic impacts of
these chemicals in the marine environment…these issues [are] critical data gaps in the analysis
of potential impacts of offshore discharges of WST waste fluids to sensitive marine species.”71
What is known about the chemicals used in of offshore fracking and acidizing indicates
that the Proposed Permit does not meet the ocean discharge criteria.72 Harmful chemicals present
in these fluids can include volatile organic compounds, such as benzene, toluene, xylenes, and
acetone.73 A Congressional Report sampling incomplete industry self-reports found that “[t]he
oil and gas service companies used fracking products containing 29 chemicals that are (1) known
or possible human carcinogens, (2) regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their risks to
human health, or (3) listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.”74 One peerreviewed scientific study examined a list of 944 fracking fluid products containing 632
chemicals, 353 of which could be identified with Chemical Abstract Service numbers.75 The
study concluded that more than 75 percent of the chemicals could affect the skin, eyes, and other
sensory organs, and the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems; approximately 40 to 50 percent
could affect the brain/nervous system, immune, and cardiovascular systems, and the kidneys; 37
percent could affect the endocrine system; and 25 percent could cause cancer and mutations.76
Another study reviewed exposures to fracking chemicals from onshore wells and noted
that trimethylbenzenes are among the largest contributors to non-cancer threats for people living
within a half mile of a well, while benzene is the largest contributor to cumulative cancer risk for
people, regardless of the distance from the wells.77 Another recent study has found increased
arsenic and heavy metals in groundwater near fracking sites in Texas.78 Moreover, researchers
found greater hormone-disrupting properties in water located near hydraulic fracturing drilling
sites than in areas without drilling, and they found that 11 chemicals commonly used for fracking
are endocrine disruptors.79 Recent science on fracking shows that birth defects are more common

70

Id.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Draft EA on Well Stimulation on the Pacific OCS at 4-35.
72
See, e.g., United States House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce Minority Staff,
Chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing (“House Report”) at 11-12 (2011); Colborn, Theo et al., Natural Gas
Operations for a Public Health Perspective, 17 Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 1039 (2011) (“Colborn
2011”) at 1039; McKenzie, Lisa et al., Human health risk assessment of air emissions form development of
unconventional natural gas resources, Sci. Total Environ. (2012) (“McKenzie 2012”).
73
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on
Drinking Water Resources (2011).
74
House Report at 8.
75
Colborn 2011 at 1.
76
Id.
77
McKenzie 2012 at 5.
78
Fontenot, Brian E et al., An evaluation of water quality in private drinking water wells near natural gas extraction
sites in the Barnett Shale Formation. Environmental Science & Technology (2013) (“Fontenot 2013”); U.S. GAO,
Information on Shale Resources, Development, and Environmental and Public Health Risks (2012).
79
Kassotis, Christopher D., et al. Estrogen and Androgen Receptor Activities of Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals
and Surface and Ground Water in a Drilling-Dense Region. Endocrinology, doi 10.1210/en.2013-1697 (2013).
71

11

 in babies born to mothers living near fracked wells, according to researchers at the Colorado
School of Public Health.80
The chemicals used in offshore fracking are alarming. An analysis of chemicals used in
12 wells in the Pacific Ocean and disclosed by the voluntary reporting site FracFocus reveals that
almost all of the chemicals used are suspected of causing gastrointestinal, respiratory, and liver
hazards, as well as skin, eye, and sensory organ risks. More than half of the chemicals are
suspected of being hazardous to the kidneys, immune and cardiovascular systems, and more than
one third are suspected of affecting the developmental and nervous systems. Between one-third
and one-half of the chemicals used are suspected ecological hazards.81 For example, the chemical
X-Cide used often in fracking operations is a hazardous substance under the Occupational Safety
and Health Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Cleanup, and Liability Act.
According to its Material Safety Data Sheet, the product is hazardous to both fish and wildlife.
Seven Harmful Chemicals used in 12 California Offshore Wells
Chemical
Number of
Known Health Effects
Wells Used
Crystalline
All 12 wells
Harmful to skin, eyes and other sensory organs, respiratory system,
Silica (X-Cide)
immune system and kidneys; mutagen. Known human carcinogen.
Methanol
All 12 wells
Harmful to skin, eyes and other sensory organs, respiratory system,
gastrointestinal system and liver, brain and nervous system, immune
system, kidneys, reproductive and cardiovascular system; mutagen,
developmental inhibitor and endocrine disruptor. Ecological risks.
Glyoxal
11 wells
Harmful to skin, eyes and other sensory organs, respiratory and
reproductive system, gastrointestinal system and liver, brain and
nervous system, immune system, cardiovascular system and blood,
endocrine disruptor; mutagen, promoter of cancer. Ecological risks.
Sodium
All 12 wells
Harmful to skin, eyes and other sensory organs, respiratory system,
Tetraborate
gastrointestinal system and liver, brain and nervous system, kidneys,
cardiovascular system. Ecological risks.
2-Butoxyethanol 3 wells
Harmful to skin, eyes and other sensory organs, respiratory system,
gastrointestinal system and liver, brain and nervous system, immune
system, kidneys, reproductive system and cardiovascular system;
mutagen, developmental inhibitor and endocrine disruptor; linked to
liver cancer. Also linked to adrenal tumors. Ecological risks.1
Merhyl-4All 12 wells
Harmful to skin, eyes and other sensory organs, respiratory,
isothiazolin
reproductive system, brain and nervous system, immune system;
mutagen; developmental inhibitor. Ecological risks.
Ethoxylated
9 wells
Harmful to skin, eyes and other sensory organs, respiratory system,
nonylphenol
gastrointestinal system and liver, immune system, reproductive and
cardiovascular system; developmental inhibitor and endocrine
disruptor.
Table 1. The Center, Troubled Waters: Offshore Fracking’s Threat to California’s Ocean, Air and Seismic Stability, Sept. 2014.

80

McKenzie, Lisa, et al., Birth Outcomes and Maternal Residential Proximity to Natural Gas Development in Rural
Colorado, Environmental Health Perspectives (2014).
81
Colborn 2011.

12

 In addition, scientific research has indicated that 40 percent of the chemicals used in
fracking can harm aquatic animals and other wildlife.82 For example, some of the chemicals used
in fracking operations can break down into nonylphenol, a very toxic substance with a wide
range of harmful effects that include the development of intersex fish and altered sex ratios at the
population level.83 Nonylphenol can also inhibit the development, growth, and survival of marine
invertebrates, and has been shown to bioaccumulate in marine mammal species.84
Phenol formaldehyde resins are also used in offshore fracking. These resins are toxic and
can cause cancer and mutations; if released into the marine environment, these pollutants have
the potential to absorb other chemical compounds such as nonylphenol, increasing their toxicity
to marine life.85 Indeed, chemicals frequently used in offshore fracking are among the most toxic
in the entire world with respect to aquatic life.86
Additionally, recent studies using fluids produced by fracking to examine their impact on
aquatic animals found that the fluids have significant negative effects on rainbow trout, even at
greater than 100-fold dilutions.87 These effects include oxidative stress, endocrine disruption, and
biotransformation which may lead to longer term impacts on populations where spills have
occurred. A similar study analyzed the impacts of fracking fluids on water fleas, and found
exposure to fracking fluids caused a significant decline in reproduction and increased mortality.88
And another study found acute toxicity of zebrafish embryos from fracking fluid.89
Another recent study found that oil companies use dozens of extremely hazardous
chemicals to acidize wells. Specifically, the study found that almost 200 different chemicals have
been used and that at least 28 of these substances are F-graded hazardous chemicals—
carcinogens, mutagens, reproductive toxins, developmental toxins, endocrine disruptors or high
acute toxicity chemicals.90 Each acidization can use as much as hundreds of thousands of pounds

82

CCST. 2014. Advanced Well Stimulation Technologies in California: An Independent Review of Scientific and
Technical Information. August 28, 2014; The Center, Troubled Waters: Offshore Fracking’s Threat to California’s
Ocean, Air and Seismic Stability, Sept. 2014,
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/offshore_fracking/pdfs/Troubled_Waters.pdf.
83
Diehl, J., et al. 2012. The distribution of 4-nonylphenol in marine organisms of North American Pacific Coast
estuaries. Chemosphere 87:490-497.
84
Id.
85
Mato, Y. et al. 2001. Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment.
Environmental Science & Technology 35:318-324.
86
CCST. 2015, Vol. II at 76.
87
Yuhe He, et al. 2017. Effects on Biotransformation, Oxidative Stress, and Endocrine Disruption in Rainbow Trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) Exposed to Hydraulic Fracturing Flowback and Produced Water. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2017, 51, 940−947. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04695; Tamzin A. Blewett, et al. 2017.The effect of hydraulic flowback
and produced water on gill morphology, oxidative stress and antioxidant response in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss), Nature: Scientific Reports. 7:46582. DOI: 10.1038/srep46582.
88
Tamzin A. Blewett, et al. 2017. Sublethal and Reproductive Effects of Acute and Chronic Exposure to Flowback
and Produced Water from Hydraulic Fracturing on the Water Flea Daphnia magna,
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 3032−3039. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05179.
89
Yuhe He, et al. 2017. Chemical and toxicological characterizations of hydraulic fracturing flowback and produced
water. Water Research 114 (2017) 78-87.
90
Khadeeja Abdullah, Timothy Malloy, Michael K. Stenstrom & I. H. (Mel) Suffet. 2016. Toxicity of acidization
fluids used in California oil exploration, Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry.

13

 of some chemicals.91 Moreover, acid treatments typically have a low pH that is incompatible
with water quality criteria and maintenance of existing water quality especially in light of ocean
acidification.
3.

Existing Permit Conditions Do Not Prevent Undue Degradation

EPA assumes that the conditions in the Proposed Permit are sufficiently protective of the
marine environment. But this conclusion is arbitrary—the existing permit conditions do not
prevent undue degradation of the marine environment.
In determining no undue degradation, EPA seems to rely on the treatment and toxicity
testing for produced water and well treatment fluids required under the Proposed Permit. But
treatment of produced water is only oil-water separation, which does not remove any of the
chemicals that flow back. It therefore does not prevent the fluids from being dumped into the
ocean in the first place. Moreover, toxicity testing is insufficient to ensure that discharges are not
toxic because the testing is not frequent enough and not required for all discharge events. For
example, the Proposed Permit would only require testing once every six months, and not at the
same time as a fracking event.
Moreover, the toxicity requirement that no observable effect concentrations should occur
at the edge of the 100-meter mixing zone92 is arbitrary. Rather, the no observable effect standard
should be met at the outfall. Discharges must meet water quality and ocean discharge standards
at the point of discharge. Indeed, EPA’s no undue degradation determination arbitrarily does not
account for impacts inside the mixing zone, whether any mixing zones will overlap, or what the
impact of such overlap could be.
Further, while the Proposed Permit prohibits the discharge of priority pollutants except in
trace amounts in well stimulation fluids, that limitation does not apply when fracking fluids are
mixed with produced water. Moreover, a number of the chemicals frequently used in offshore
operations are not listed as priority pollutants by EPA, and thus can be discharged in unlimited
amounts in well treatment fluids as well.
In addition, while the inventory requirement that requires reporting of well treatment
fluids to EPA with discharge monitoring reports is a step in the right direction, it does not
prevent such chemicals from being discharged, and is thus inadequate to protect water quality. It
is unclear whether the inventory requirement applies to well treatment fluids that are comingled
with produced water. The Proposed Permit states that “[w]hen well treatment, completion or
workover fluids are commingled and discharged with produced water, the discharges are
considered produced water.”93 This appears to undermine the requirements to inventory and
disclose the discharges thus failing to protect water quality when well treatments, such as
fracking, result in flow back or otherwise dilute the discharges with produced water.

91

Id.
Fact Sheet at 16, 30.
93
Proposed Permit at 23.
92

14

 Similarly, it is generally good to incentivize the industry-wide study and characterization
of discharge of well treatment chemicals; but this does not assuage concerns that the discharges
should be prohibited until proven safe. And if EPA chooses to allow the discharge of fracking
fluids, it should mandate this study in addition to mandating the disclosure of the types and
quantities of fracking chemicals used in each frack job, not merely as an alternative to the
disclosure requirements.
4.

The Permit Should Require Zero Discharge of Drill Cuttings, Drilling
Fluids, Well Treatment Fluids, and Produced Water

Given available information indicating that the discharge of water pollution from
offshore oil and gas operations degrades the ocean environment, and the significant data gaps
regarding the impacts of such discharge, including that of offshore fracking and other well
stimulation chemicals, EPA should revise the permit to disallow the discharge of water pollution
from oil and gas drilling operations.94 The receiving waters in the Gulf of Mexico are important
habitat for endangered species, fish, and other wildlife. The discharge of pollution will degrade
the marine environment.
The Gulf of Mexico is one of the most productive—and fragile—marine ecosystems in
the nation. It supports a staggering array of marine life and represents an important contribution
to the Gulf coast economy. The Gulf of Mexico is home to thousands of marine species, ranging
from simple invertebrates such as gastropods and sponges to complex and highly evolved fish
and marine mammals. It is estimated that there are thousands of species of invertebrates, at least
600 species of fish, and dozens of species of cetaceans in the Gulf. In addition, five of the
world’s eight species of sea turtles as well as tens of thousands of shore and coastal birds reside
in or migrate to the Gulf of Mexico. More than 300 species of coral, combined with other hardbottom communities, wetlands, seagrass beds, mangroves, and soft-bottom communities, provide
the necessary habitat to support this rich assemblage of marine life. These diverse and highly
complex habitats provide food, shelter, and spawning grounds for all of the Gulf’s species at
different points during their life history.
Many of the species that are found in the Gulf of Mexico are listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA. The Region is home to endangered sperm whales and endangered
West Indian manatees; five threatened and endangered sea turtle species including green,
hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, and loggerhead turtles; ten bird species including
endangered whooping cranes and red-cockaded woodpecker; and three listed fish species—
Alabama sturgeon, the Gulf subspecies of Atlantic sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish.95 Critical
habitat is designated in the Gulf for loggerhead turtles, Gulf sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, West
Indian manatees, and piping plovers.96 And there are five coral species that are listed as
threatened under the ESA—elkhorn, staghorn, lobed star, mountainous star, and boulder star
corals.97

94

There could be an exception for emergency discharges.
BOEM, 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Draft Proposed Program at 6-12 (Jan. 2015).
96
Id.
97
Id. at 6-11.
95

15

 The Gulf of Mexico is also home to many species of marine mammals protected under
the Marine Mammal Protection Act, including killer whales, dwarf and pygmy sperm whales,
pygmy killer whales, several species of beaked whales, bottlenose dolphins, Atlantic and
pantropical spotted dolphins, striped dolphins, Clymene dolphins, Fraser’s dolphins, Risso’s
dolphins, and melon-headed whales.98
The Gulf of Mexico is also home to Bryde’s whales, where the species exists as a small,
resident population. It is the only baleen whale known to be resident to the Gulf. Recent
abundance estimates put the population’s size at fewer than 50 animals, and they are severely
restricted in range, being found only in the northeastern Gulf, more specifically in the waters of
the DeSoto Canyon. A recent study by the National Marine Fisheries Service suggests that the
population is isolated and evolutionarily distinct from all other Bryde’s whales examined to date,
indicating that the species may be a distinct subspecies.99
The discharge of pollution from offshore oil and gas drilling into this important habitat is
unnecessary because a zero discharge permit is feasible. There are already oil and gas operations
that meet zero discharge requirements. For example, coastal offshore drilling operations in the
Gulf already require zero discharge of produced water and treatment, workover, and completion
fluids as well as drilling fluids, drill cuttings, and dewatering effluent.100 Similarly, the general
permit for oil and gas drilling activities on the Beaufort OCS prohibits discharge of drilling
fluids at certain times of year and has a no discharge limit in certain locations.101 If EPA does not
implement the restriction as a technology-based effluent limitation, the best management practice
(“BMP”)—used to address developments for which the effluent limitation guidelines have not
kept pace—should mandate the zero discharge requirement.102
5.

In the Alternative, the Permit Must Place Additional Restrictions on
the Discharges to Protect Water Quality

The permit should be for zero discharge; however, if EPA declines to adopt a zero
discharge limitation for drilling fluids, produced water, and well treatment fluids then it must
include additional limitations to prevent degradation of water quality. Specifically the permit
should (1) limit the volume of produced water to be discharged; (2) prohibit the discharge of well
treatment fluids, including fracking chemicals; (3) require enhanced monitoring; and (4) if well
treatment fluids are still permitted to be discharged or comingled with produced water there
should be a non-detect limit on priority pollutants and chemicals classified as hazardous at the
discharge point.

98

NOAA, Cetacean Data Availability, http://cetsound noaa.gov/cda.
NRDC, Petition to list the Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni) as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act, Sept. 2014, available at http://docs.nrdc.org/wildlife/files/wil_14091701a.pdf.
100
61 Fed. Reg. 66,086, 66,088 (December, 16, 1996) (Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category).
101
EPA, AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) FOR OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION FACILITIES ON THE OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF AND CONTIGUOUS STATE WATERS IN THE BEAUFORT SEA, Permit No.: AKG28-2100, Oct. 23, 2012.
102
See 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(k).
99

16

 First, EPA must place a numeric volume limit for produced water allowed to be
discharged. As explained above, produced water degrades water quality and introduces toxins
into the marine environment. Well treatment activities may increase produced water discharges
and extend the life of oil and gas operations; without a limit on produced water volume it is
impossible for EPA to guarantee against the degradation of the marine environment and water
quality. Already the amount of produced water that is discharged into the Gulf of Mexico is
harmful, and the quantity could increase with new leases and changes in drilling and well
stimulation practices. The proposed permit is more lax than other OCS General Permits, and it is
therefore arbitrary and inconsistent with other EPA General Permits. For example, in the Pacific
OCS general permit, EPA Region 9 set a limit of volume of produced water allowed for each
platform.103
Second, EPA should require zero discharge of well treatment fluids, and well treatment
fluids comingled with produced water. Under the permit, EPA considers chemicals used in
offshore fracking to be well treatment fluids. Well treatment fluids contain toxic chemicals that
are harmful for aquatic animals and water quality. Well treatment uses chemicals for a variety of
functions, such as: dissolving acids, biocides, breakers, clay stabilizers, corrosion inhibitors,
crosslinkers, foamers and defoamers, friction reducers, gellants, pH controllers, proppants, scale
controllers, and surfactants. And, as explained above, modern fracking uses hundreds of
chemicals that cause cancer or damage to the nervous, cardiovasculatory, and endocrine systems;
and can be incredibly toxic to fish and other marine life.104
Third, EPA should also require monitoring and reporting for additional chemicals in all
types of discharges. For example, the Pacific OCS permit requires monitoring for specific
chemicals, such as benzene, in produced water for each platform, for certain chemicals it also
prescribes discharge limits.105 Here, given the new information about produced water and its
potential toxicity, EPA should require more robust monitoring for chemicals that could degrade
the marine environment.
Fourth, while discharges of well treatment fluids should be completely prohibited, if EPA
nonetheless decides to allow such discharges, it must place numeric limits on the toxic chemicals
that occur in well treatment fluids that apply at the point of discharge and require robust
monitoring to ensure compliance. In addition to limits, EPA should identify biologically
sensitive areas or seasons to require zero discharge to protect sensitive species. For example,
EPA should restrict discharges in sea turtle critical habitat and Desoto Canyon. This would be
more consistent with other EPA permits. For example, the Beaufort OCS General Permit
prohibits discharge of drilling fluids during bowhead whaling activities and has a no discharge
limit near the Boulder Patch.106
103

EPA, Reissuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Offshore Oil
and Gas Exploration, Development and Production Operations Off Southern California, 79 Fed. Reg. 1,643 (Jan 23,
2014) at 9.
104
Colborn 2011.
105
Supra n. 103.
106
EPA, AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) FOR OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION FACILITIES ON THE OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF AND CONTIGUOUS STATE WATERS IN THE BEAUFORT SEA, Permit No.: AKG28-2100, Oct. 23, 2012.

17

 Finally, EPA should require coverage under an individual NPDES permit rather than
coverage under the proposed general NPDES permit for any facility that intends to discharge
drilling wastes, including produced water and well stimulation fluids, landward of the 200-meter
isobath. EPA’s Region 4, with jurisdiction over discharges in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico,
recently proposed to require facilities seaward of the 200-meter isobaths to obtain coverage
under an individual permit.107 This will enable permit conditions to be specifically tailored to the
types and quantities of wastes the individual facility intends to discharge, in an effort to better
protect water quality.
II.

Issuance of the Permit Requires Preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act

EPA’s issuance of the Proposed Permit requires an environmental impact statement
(“EIS”) under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). NEPA, America’s “basic
national charter for protection of the environment,”108 requires federal agencies to take a “hard
look” at the environmental consequences of their actions before taking action.109 In this way,
NEPA ensures that federal agencies “will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed
information concerning significant environmental impacts” and that such information “will be
made available to the larger [public] audience that may play a role in both the decisionmaking
process and the implementation of the decision.”110
To that end, NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an EIS for all “major Federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”111 NEPA’s implementing
regulations define “major federal action” to include the “[a]pproval of specific projects, such as
construction or management activities located in a defined geographic area” and specify that
“[p]rojects include actions approved by permit.”112
NEPA’s implementing regulations also specify factors that must be considered in
determining when a major federal action may significantly affect the environment warranting the
preparation of an EIS.113 Specifically, in determining whether an action may have “significant”
impacts on the environment, an agency must consider the “context” and “intensity” of the
action.114 “Context” means the significance of the project “must be analyzed in several contexts
such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the
locality.”115

107

EPA, Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. GEG460000 For
Offshore Oil and Gas Activities in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, Apr. 2017.
108
40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(a).
109
Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410, n. 21 (1976); 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(a).
110
Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989).
111
42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).
112
40 C.F.R. § 1508.18.
113
See id. § 1508.27(b).
114
Id. § 1508.27.
115
Id. § 1508.27(a).

18

 The intensity of the action is determined by considering the ten factors enumerated in the
regulations, which include: (1) impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse; (2) the degree to
which the proposed action affects public health or safety; (3) unique characteristics of the
geographic area such as proximity to ecologically critical areas; (4) the degree to which the
effects on the human environment are likely to be highly controversial; (5) the degree to which
the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or
unknown risks; (6) the degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions
with significant effects; (7) whether the action is related to other actions with individually
insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts; (8) the degree to which the action may cause
loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources; (9) the degree to
which the action may adversely affect a species listed under the ESA or its critical habitat; and
(10) whether the action threatens a violation of federal, state or local environmental laws.116
The presence of even just “one of these factors may be sufficient to require preparation of
an EIS in appropriate circumstances.”117 If “substantial questions as to whether a project . . . may
cause significant degradation of some human environmental factor,” an EIS must be prepared.118
Accordingly, in order for a court to find that an EIS is warranted, “a plaintiff need not show that
significant effects will in fact occur” only that there are “substantial questions whether a project
may have a significant effect on the environment.”119
NEPA regulations dictate that “[i]t is only when the proposed action ‘will not have a
significant effect on the human environment,’ that an EIS is not required.”120 Wherever a
question exists as to whether an EIS is required, an agency must ordinarily at least prepare an
environmental assessment (“EA”), which is used to determine whether the environmental effects
of the action are “significant” and therefore require the preparation of an EIS.121 An EA is “a
concise public document that briefly provides evidence and analysis for determining whether to
prepare an EIS or a finding of no significant impact.”122
Here, several significance factors are raised, clearly necessitating the preparation of an
EIS. In particular, the Proposed Permit—which allows the unlimited discharge of produced
wastewater and well stimulation fluids into the Gulf of Mexico—impacts a geographically,
ecologically, culturally important areas; may have adverse environmental impacts, including
impacts to ESA-listed species and their critical habitat; represents a substantial public
controversy; has unique or unknown risks; and threatens a violation of the CWA. At the very
least, EPA must prepare an EA.
A. The Proposed Permit Affects Geographically and Culturally Unique Areas
As explained above, the Gulf of Mexico is one of the most productive—and fragile—
116

Id. § 1508.27(b)(1)-(10).
Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 402 F.3d 846, 865 (9th Cir. 2005).
118
Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas, 137 F.3d 1146, 1149 (9th Cir. 1998).
119
Nat. Resource Defense Council v. Winter, 502 F.3d 859, 867 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).
120
National Audubon Soc. v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7, 13 (2nd Cir. 1997) (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1508.13, emphasis by
court).
121
40 C.F.R. § 1501.4.
122
Id. at § 1508.9.
117

19

 marine ecosystems in the nation. Hundreds of types of fish and shellfish inhabit the Mississippi
Delta and Gulf of Mexico, many of which support fisheries. The warm waters are home to a vast
array of wildlife and habitats, including many sensitive animals that are threatened by offshore
drilling. There are five species of ESA-listed sea turtles and important nesting beaches dotting
the coast; and there are five species of ESA-listed corals. Whales and dolphins live in the Gulf,
which includes core habitat for endangered sperm whales. There are 3 million acres of wetlands
with breeding, foraging and migratory habitat for more than 400 types of birds. These habitats
and animals are being degraded and harmed by waste discharge from drilling operations, and
some fish and shellfish may accumulate toxins that eventually wind up on our plates. Many other
species in the Gulf of Mexico are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
As also explained above, produced wastewater and well stimulation chemicals can have
several negative impacts due to the dangerous chemicals present in such discharges. Moreover,
EPA’s Proposed Permit allows oil companies to discharge produced water and well stimulation
fluids, including chemicals used in offshore fracking and acidizing, which can also affect
geographically and culturally unique areas in the Gulf. An EIS is therefore required.
B. The Proposed Permit May Have Adverse Impacts and May Impact ESA-Listed Species
EPA’s Proposed Permit allows oil companies to discharge unlimited quantities of
produced water, and allows the chemicals used in fracking and other well stimulation treatments
to be discharged into the Gulf of Mexico. EPA must prepare an EIS because the discharge of
produced water, including the discharge of chemicals used in offshore fracking and acidizing,
have adverse impacts, and may impact ESA-listed species and their critical habitat.123 While
substantial data gaps exist regarding the impacts of these practices, what is known is cause for
great alarm.
As explained above, scientific research indicates that produced wastewater may have
substantial environmental impacts. Scientific research also indicates that 40 percent of the
chemicals used in fracking can harm aquatic animals and other wildlife.124 By example, some
chemicals used in fracking operations can break down into nonylphenol, a very toxic substance
with a wide range of harmful effects including the development of intersex fish and altered sex
ratios at the population level.125 Nonylphenol can also inhibit development, growth, and survival
of marine invertebrates, and has been shown to bioaccumulate in marine mammal species.126
Contamination incidents have occurred that demonstrate that impacts to ESA-listed fish
in the Gulf and wildlife harm is a real impact that must be considered. For example, in 2013, a
company admitted to dumping wastewater from fracking operations into the Acorn Fork Creek

123

40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(1), (9).
CCST. 2014. Advanced Well Stimulation Technologies in California: An Independent Review of Scientific and
Technical Information. August 28, 2014; The Center, Troubled Waters: Offshore Fracking’s Threat to California’s
Ocean, Air and Seismic Stability, Sept. 2014,
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/offshore_fracking/pdfs/Troubled_Waters.pdf.
125
Diehl, J., et al. 2012. The distribution of 4-nonylphenol in marine organisms of North American Pacific Coast
estuaries. Chemosphere 87:490-497.
126
Id.
124

20

 in Kentucky, causing a massive fish kill.127 In fact, “the discharges killed virtually all aquatic
wildlife in a significant portion of the fork, including fish and invertebrates.”128 According to
scientists, the abrupt and persistent changes in post-fracking water quality resulted in toxic
conditions.129 Among the species harmed was the blackside dace, a threatened minnow
species.130 The discharge of fracking wastewater into the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania is
suspected to be the cause of fish abnormalities, including high rates of spots, lesions, and
intersex.131 Several spills of fracking fluid from pipelines in Pennsylvania over the last few years
also resulted in significant fish kills.132 Such contamination incidents are a real risk in the Gulf of
Mexico given EPA’s Proposed Permit that would allow oil companies to dump fracking
chemicals into the Gulf. EPA must therefore prepare an EIS.
C. The Proposed Permit Represents a Substantial Public Controversy
EPA must prepare an EIS because the Proposed Permit would allow oil companies to
dump offshore fracking wastewater directly into the Gulf of Mexico, which constitutes a
substantial public controversy. In determining whether an action is significant, CEQ regulations
also require an agency to consider “[t]he degree to which the effects. . . are likely to be highly
controversial.”133 “Controversial” is “a substantial dispute [about] the size, nature or effect of the
major Federal action.”134 A substantial dispute exists when evidence, raised prior to the
preparation of an EIS or Finding of No Significant Impact casts serious doubt upon the
reasonableness of an agency’s conclusions.135 “[A]n outpouring of public protest” has been held
to satisfy the requirement of “substantial dispute.”136
There as certainly been an “outpouring of public protest” about offshore fracking,
including the dumping of fracking chemicals into the ocean. For example, when the public first
learned that oil companies were fracking off the West Coast, demonstrations were held where the
public protested offshore fracking and the federal government’s approval of the practice.137 And
127

Vaidyanathan, Gayathri, Fracking Spills Cause Massive Ky. Fish Kill, E&E News, Aug. 29. 2013,
http://www.eenews net/greenwire/2013/08/29/stories/1059986559.
128
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement, Case at a Glance: U.S. v. Nami Resources Company,
LLC, www fws.gov/home/feature/2009/pdf/NamiInvestigation.pdf.
129
Jennifer Dloughy, Study documents fish kill from hydraulic fracturing fluid, Fuel Fix, Aug. 28, 2013, referencing
and citing Papoulias, D.M. and A.L. Velasco. (2013). Histopathological analysis of fish from Acorn Fork Creek,
Kentucky, exposed to hydraulic fracturing fluid releases. Southwestern Naturalist 12 (Special Issue 4): 92-111.
130
Id.
131
Piette, Betsy, BP Oil Spill, Fracking Cause Wildlife Abnormalities, Workers World (April 27, 2012) available at
http://www.workers.org/2012/us/bp_oil_spill_fracking_0503/; Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission, Ongoing
Problems with the Susquehanna River smallmouth bass, a Case for Impairment (May 23, 2012),
www fish.state.pa.us/newsreleases/2012press/senate_susq/SMB_ConservationIssuesForum_Lycoming.pdf.
132
MIT Energy Initiative. (2011). “The future of Natural Gas, An Interdisciplinary MIT study.”
http://web mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/natural-gas-2011.shtml.
133
40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(4).
134
Blue Mountains Diversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).
135
Protect Our Water v. Flowers, 377 F. Supp.2d 844, 861 (E.D. Cal. 2004).
136
Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, 14 F.3d 1324, 1334 (9th Cir.1992).
137
See e.g., Fracking foes plan Coastal Commission rally today in Long Beach, OC Register, Mar. 11, 2014,
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/fracking-605193-commission-beach html; Hundreds of Tribal Representatives
Join Huge Rally to Oppose Fracking, IC Magazine, Mar. 18, 2014, https://intercontinentalcry.org/hundreds-tribalrepresentatives-join-huge-rally-oppose-fracking-22513/

21

 a number of conservation organizations sent letters to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
urging the agency to place a moratorium on offshore fracking and other well stimulation
treatments unless and until extensive environmental review was conducted and the practices
proven safe.138 Further, a number of organizations have expressed concern over EPA’s NPDES
permits for offshore oil and gas operations that allow the dumping of fracking wastewater into
the ocean.139 And there was an outpouring of public protest generated as the result of requests
under the Freedom of Information Act revealing the scope of offshore fracking permitted in the
Gulf of Mexico and the quantity of produced water EPA allows to be dumped into the Gulf.140
Moreover, the oil industry claims offshore fracking has no adverse environmental
impacts, while numerous scientists and reports have linked fracking to water contamination, air
contamination, spills, and earthquakes.141 EPA’s proposal to allow oil and gas companies to
dump fracking wastewater into the Gulf of Mexico clearly constitutes a substantial public
controversy. Indeed, it is hard to imagine an issue more fitting of this description than offshore
fracking activities. An EIS is therefore required.
D. The Proposed Permit Has Highly Uncertain, Unique, or Unknown Risks
EPA must prepare an EIS because the Proposed Permit involves highly uncertain, unique,
or unknown risks.142 For example, as explained above, an independent scientific review of
offshore well stimulation by the California Council on Science and Technology found significant
data gaps on basic questions regarding offshore fracking and acidizing.143 And in discussing the
impacts of the discharge of fracking chemicals into the ocean, the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management has previously acknowledged that there are critical data gaps in the analysis of

138

See e.g., Letter from the Center for Biological Diversity to BOEM and BSEE, Oct. 3, 2013,
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/offshore_fracking/pdfs/LetterOnOffshoreFrackingMoratoriumNEPA
_2013.pdf; Letter from Environmental Defense Center, et al. to BOEM and BSEE, Dec. 23, 2013,
http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2014/2/W7a-2-2014.pdf, pg. 12.
139
See e.g., The Center, Legal Petition Urges EPA to Ban Dumping of Offshore Fracking Chemicals Into
California's Ocean, Feb. 26, 2014, https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/fracking-02-262014.html.
140
See e.g., The Center, Obama Administration Permitted 1,200 Offshore Fracks in Gulf of Mexico, June 28, 2016,
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2016/offshore-fracking-06-28-2016.html; Mike Ludwig,
This Map Shows Where Offshore Fracking Has Occurred in the Gulf of Mexico.
TruthOut, June 30, 2026, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36643-this-map-shows-where-offshore-fracking-hasoccurred-in-the-gulf-of-mexico.
141
See e.g., Goebel, et al. 2016; Ellen Webb, et al. 2014. Developmental and reproductive effects of chemicals
associated with unconventional oil and natural gas operations. Reviews on Environmental Health. Vol. 29, Issue 4,
pp. 307–318, ISSN (Online) 2191-0308, ISSN (Print) 0048-7554. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2014-0057; California aquifers
contaminated with billions of gallons of fracking wastewater, RT.com, Oct. 2014,
https://www rt.com/usa/194620-california-aquifers-fracking-contamination/; Fontenot, Brian E, et al. 2013. An
evaluation of water quality in private drinking water wells near natural gas extraction sites in the Barnett Shale
Formation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (17), pp 10032–10040; doi: 10.1021/es4011724.
142
See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(5).
143
California Council on Science and Technology. 2015. An Independent Scientific Assessment of Well Stimulation
in California: Volume III. Case Studies of Hydraulic Fracturing and Acid Stimulations in Select Regions: Offshore,
Monterey Formation, Los Angeles Basin, and San Joaquin Basin, at 29.

22

 potential impacts of the discharges of fracking chemicals and other well stimulation waste fluids
on sensitive marine species.144
EPA appears to rely on the lack of information to find that there will not be significant
impacts from allowing oil companies to dump fracking and other well stimulation fluids into the
Gulf of Mexico. But as the Ninth Circuit has made perfectly clear, “lack of knowledge does not
excuse the preparation of an EIS; rather it requires the [agency] to do the necessary work to
obtain it.”145 In other words, the substantial data gaps that exist regarding the impacts of offshore
fracking and acidizing on the marine environment necessitate the preparation of an EIS.146
E. The Proposed Permit Threatens a Violation of a Federal Environmental Law
EPA must also prepare an EIS because the Proposed Permit threatens to violate the
CWA—a federal law intended to protect the environment.147 Under the CWA, EPA can only
issue the Proposed Permit if it reasonably finds that the discharge satisfies the ocean discharge
criteria and will not cause an undue degradation of the marine environment.148 But, as explained
above, EPA does not have sufficient information to determine that the discharge of produced
water and well stimulation fluids, including the discharge of chemicals used in offshore fracking,
will not cause an undue degradation of the marine environment. Indeed, the available
information indicates just the opposite. EPA must therefore prepare an EIS.
III.

EPA’s NEPA Analysis Must Take A Hard Look at the Direct, Indirect and
Cumulative Impacts from the Proposed Permit,

In conducting an EIS under NEPA, EPA must consider and describe the direct, indirect
and cumulative impacts from the Proposed Permit.149 Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts
are distinct from one another: direct effects are “caused by the action and occur at the same time
and place.”150 Indirect effects are caused by the action but, “are later in time or farther removed
in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing
effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density
or growth rate, and related effect on air and water and other natural systems, including
ecosystems.”151
Cumulative impacts are those impacts that “result from the incremental impact of the
action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of
what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative
144

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Draft EA on Well Stimulation on the Pacific OCS at 4-35.
Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Babbitt, 241 F.3d 722, 733 (9th Cir. 2001).
146
To the extent EPA is relying on past EISs conducted on the issuance of previous iterations of the General Permit
to authorize the new permit, that reliance fails to satisfy EPA’s duties under NEPA because the EISs fail to consider
the impacts of the discharge of chemicals used in fracking and other wells stimulation treatments into the Gulf.
147
40 C.F.R § 1508.27(b)(1)-(10).
148
40 C.F.R. § 125.123(a); 33 U.S.C. § 1343(a), (c)(2).
149
Id. §§ 1502.16, 1508.7, 1508.8; Northern Plains Resource Council v. Surface Transportation Board, 668 F.3d
1067, 1072‐73 (9th Cir. 2011).
150
40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(a).
151
Id. § 1508.8(b).
145

23

 impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a
period of time.”152 EPA’s analysis must consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative impact of
drilling waste, produced water, and well treatment discharges, including the impacts of
discharging chemicals used in offshore fracking and acidizing.
As part of this analysis, EPA must obtain, disclose, and analyze the full scope of offshore
fracking and other well stimulation in the Gulf of Mexico. The Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”)—the entity charged with permitting offshore drilling
activities in federal waters—should have information on the scope of such activities permitted in
the waters within the jurisdiction of Region 6 of EPA. For example, a recent request pursuant to
the Freedom of Information Act revealed that BSEE permitted offshore fracking more than 1,600
times at more than 600 wells in the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region.153 Failure to obtain this
information would make it impossible for EPA to comply with the hard look requirements of
NEPA.
Fracking and other new information indicate that produced water may have increased
volume. EPA records reveal that offshore oil and gas platforms in Region 6 discharged more
than 75 billion gallons of produced water in 2014.154 EPA must quantify the amount of produced
water permitted to be discharge under the Proposed Permit, including that which occurs from
drilling on the Western Gulf of Mexico OCS as well as the produced water that is allowed to be
discharged in the Western Gulf from operations in state waters.
In its EIS, EPA must also “rigorously explore” and “objectively evaluate” all reasonable
alternatives to issuing the Proposed Permit.155 EPA must consider several alternatives that would
better protect the marine environment from the dangerous discharges associated with offshore oil
and gas activities, and better comply with EPA’s duties under the CWA. For example, EPA must
consider:
(1) an alternative that would prohibit the discharge of all produced wastewater, well
treatment and completion fluids, and other drilling wastes (i.e., a “zero-discharge”
standard), such as is currently required of coastal offshore drilling operations in the
Gulf;156
(2) an alternative that would prohibit the discharge of chemicals used in offshore fracking
and other well stimulation treatments into the Western Gulf of Mexico;
(3) an alternative that would require oil companies intending to use offshore fracking or
other well stimulation treatments to get an individual permit, rather than being
eligible for coverage under the Proposed Permit;
(4) an alternative that would require oil companies to provide advance notice of their use
of well stimulation to the public and require public disclosure of the chemicals used
in well stimulation treatments;
152

Id. § 1508.7.
Letters from Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region to Center for
Biological Diversity, Re: FOIA Request No 2015-00019, Apr.– June 2016.
154
See Excel Spreadsheet, Produced Water Discharges for Region 6 in 2014.
155
40 C.F.R. § 1502.14.
156
61 Fed. Reg. at 66,088.
153

24

 (5) an alternative that would place the burden on the oil companies to prove a chemical is
ecologically safe before being permitted to use and discharge it;
(6) an alternative that would require monitoring or WET testing of effluent when
discharging chemicals used in fracking or other well stimulation treatments, and
continued testing for a certain amount of time after the discharge;
(7) an alternative that would implement a zero-discharge requirement in certain
ecologically sensitive areas; and
(8) an alternative that would require facilities landward of the 200-meter isobath to obtain
coverage under an individual permit
To the extent EPA is relying on past NEPA analysis to authorize the Proposed Permit,
that reliance is improper. NEPA requires agencies to supplement their NEPA analyses when
“[t]he agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to
environmental concerns; or [t]here are significant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.”157
New information demonstrates that the use of fracking has increased dramatically in
recent years, and this trend is expected to continue. Indeed, according to a representative of
Baker Hughes (which operates about one-third of the world’s offshore fracking fleet), fracking in
the Gulf of Mexico is expected to increase due to the fact that the industry is now targeting
increasingly deeper wells in the Gulf.158 Moreover, EPA is now authorizing “brine and waterbased mud discharges at the seafloor for temporary well abandonment” as “miscellaneous
discharges” for the first time, which could have impacts on benthic communities and other
wildlife for the reasons described above. This information, coupled with the new information
above regarding the impacts of produced water and the chemicals used in offshore fracking on
wildlife and the marine environment clearly trigger EPA’s duty to supplement its prior analysis.
Similarly, to the extent EPA is relying on the EIS conducted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management on the Five-Year Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program, that reliance is also
improper because that document does not take a hard look at the direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts of the Proposed Permit or examine alternatives to the Proposed Permit.
IV.

EPA Must Comply with its Consultation Obligations Under the Endangered
Species Act Prior to Approving the Proposed Permit

Approval of the Proposed Permit would also require consultation under Section 7 of the
ESA prior to its issuance. In enacting the ESA, Congress recognized that certain species “have
been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction.”159
Accordingly, a primary purpose of the ESA is “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon
which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, [and] to provide a
program for the conservation of such . . . species.”160

157

40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(i), (ii).
David Wethe, Bloomberg News, Deep Water Fracking Next Frontier for Offshore Drilling, Aug. 27, 2014,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-07/deep-water-fracking-next-frontier-for-offshore-drilling.
159
16 U.S.C. § 1531(a)(2).
160
Id. § 1531(b).
158

25

 To reach these goals, Section 9 of the ESA prohibits any person, including any federal
agency, from “taking” any endangered species without proper authorization through a valid
incidental take permit.161 The term “take” is statutorily defined broadly as “to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct.”162 The definition of “harm” has been defined broadly by regulation as “an act which
actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or
degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential
behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.”163 Courts have found federal
agencies liable for take of listed species where agency authorized activities resulted in the killing
or harming of ESA-listed species.164
Additionally, Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires federal agencies to “insure that any
action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of [the critical] habitat of such species.”165 “Action” is broadly defined to include
“all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part” by
federal agencies and include granting permits and licenses, as well as actions that may directly or
indirectly cause modifications to the land, water, or air.166
To facilitate compliance with Section 7(a)(2), an “agency shall . . . request” from the
Services information regarding whether any listed species “may be present” in a proposed action
area, and if so, the “agency shall conduct a biological assessment” to identify species likely to be
affected.167 The agency must then initiate formal consultation with the Services if a proposed
action “may affect” any of those listed species.168
After formal consultation, the Services issue a biological opinion to determine whether
the agency action is likely to “jeopardize” any species’ existence. If so, the opinion may specify
reasonable and prudent alternatives (“RPAs”) that avoid jeopardy.169 If the Services conclude
that the action or the RPAs will not cause jeopardy, the Services will issue an incidental take
statement (“ITS”) that specifies “the impact, i.e., the amount or extent, of . . . incidental taking”
that may occur.170 When those listed species are marine mammals, the take must first be
authorized pursuant to the MMPA, and the ITS must include any additional measures necessary

161

16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B); see also 50 C.F.R. § 17.31(a) (extending the “take” prohibition to threatened species
managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)..
162
16 U.S.C. § 1532(19).
163
50 C.F.R. § 17.3; see also Babbitt v. Sweet Home Ch. Of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995)
(upholding regulatory definition of harm).
164
See e.g., Defenders of Wildlife v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 882 F.2d 1294, 1300-01 (8th Cir. 1989); Strahan v. Coxe,
127 F.3d 155, 163 (1st Cir. 1997).
165
16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a).
166
50 C.F.R. § 402.02.
167
16 U.S.C. § 1536(c).
168
50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a); 51 Fed. Reg. 19,926 (June 3, 1986) (“may affect” broadly includes “[a]ny possible effect,
whether beneficial, benign, adverse or of an undetermined character”).
169
16 U.S.C. § 1536(b); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(h)(3).
170
50 C.F.R. § 402.14(h)(3).

26

 to comply with the MMPA take authorization.171 The take of a listed species in compliance with
the terms of a valid ITS is not prohibited under Section 9 of the ESA.172
As explained above, issuance of the Proposed Permit could have several adverse effects
on listed species and their critical habitat. Indeed, Region 4 of EPA has previously admitted that
wastewater discharges from offshore oil and gas operations might impact ESA-listed species. For
example, EPA’s Draft EA and biological evaluation on the issuance of a NPDES permit for the
Eastern Gulf of Mexico state that sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Kemp’s ridley in
particular, appear to be under stress and that the discharges permitted under the General Permit,
including produced water and well treatment fluids, could result in “local minor impacts to sea
turtles.”173 Similarly, EPA admitted that the discharges may result in “local minor impacts” to
fish, including ESA-listed Gulf sturgeon and smalltooth sawfish.174
Nevertheless, EPA states that it believes issuance of the Proposed Permit is not likely to
adversely affect sea turtles, Gulf sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, or any other listed species in the
Gulf. Such a determination is arbitrary and capricious. In reaching this determination, EPA
appears to rely on prior consultations with NMFS and the FWS. That reliance is improper. An
action agency must reinitiate consultation when: (1) the amount of take specified in an ITS is
exceeded; (2) new information reveals that the action may have effects not previously
considered; (3) the action is modified in a way not previously considered; or (4) new species are
listed or critical habitat designated that may be impacted by the agency’s action.175 The
information above, such as new studies documenting the harmful impacts of produced water and
chemicals used in well stimulation treatments, as well as the amount of offshore fracking
occurring in the Gulf of Mexico and the quantity of produced water being discharged,
demonstrates that these criteria have been met, triggering EPA’s duty to reinitiate consultation.
EPA cannot issue the permit unless and until formal Section 7 consultation is complete
and any measures necessary to mitigate the harm to listed species or their critical habitat from the
discharge of offshore oil and drilling wastes are including as binding conditions of the permit.
V.

Conclusion

In sum, the Proposed Permit does not comply with the ocean discharge criteria or
adequately protect water quality because it allows the unlimited discharge of produced water; it
allows the discharge of toxic fracking and other well treatment fluids; and is less protective of
water quality than other offshore oil and gas permits. EPA must therefore implement substantial
changes to the terms and conditions of the Proposed Permit prior to its issuance.
Moreover, prior to issuing the Proposed Permit, EPA must prepare an EIS under NEPA
and ensure formal consultation under Section 7 of the ESA is completed, and that any conditions
171

Id.
16 U.S.C. §§ 1536(b)(4), (o)(2); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i)(5).
173
EPA, Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit No. GEG460000 For Offshore Oil
and Gas Activities in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico at 4-5; Appx. E at E-5.
174
Id. at 4-17.
175
50 C.F.R. §§ 402.16; 402.14(h)(3).
172

27

 necessary to protect imperiled species or the marine environment from dangerous oil and gas
wastewater discharges are included in the permit.
Sincerely,
/s/ Kristen Monsell
Kristen Monsell, Staff Attorney
Center for Biological Diversity
kmonsell@biologicaldiversity.org
 

28