In The Matter of: General Permit for Discharges From Oil & Gas Exploration and Production Facilities, Permit Number LAG260000

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATF OF LOUTSiANA COURT OF APPEAL FiRST CIRCUIT NUIVIBER 2010 CA 1640 jN THE MATTER OF GAS EXPLORATION PRODUCTION FACILITIES PERMIT NUMBER RGES GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCH FROM OIL DEVELOPMENT LAG2G0000 Judgment Rendered w Appealed from the 1f enth t Nin Judicial Distarict Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Rou e State of Louisiana Suit 1 5 482 4 Honorable Kay Bates Judge Stuart H Smith Counsel for Joanne M Appellant Plaintiff New Ryan Louisiana Environmental Orleans LA lction Network L AN Herman Robinson l Couns for Ann B Hill Appellee Defendant Louisiana D of partment Environmental Quality ackie 1 Marve Claudia Rush Baton Rouge LA Counsel for G William Jarman M Dwayne Johnson Appellee Cntervenor Esteban Herrera Jr Baton Rouge Louisiana Mid Continent Oil and Gas Association LA BEFORE PARRO GUIDRY AND HUGHES JJ GUIDRY J The Louisiana Environmental Action Network LEAN appeals a judgment of the district court affirming a decision of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality the LDEQ to re a National Pollutant Discharge issue Elimination System NPDES permit foar discharge of pollutants from oil and gas production into Elimination the t rritorial System seas LPDES of Louisiana as a Louisiana Pollutant Discharge permit The permit issued October 13 2009 and effective January 1 2010 governs the discharge af deck drainage produced water well treatment completian and workover fluids treated sanitary and damestic waste hydrostatic test wastewater other miscellaneous discharg from oil and gas s exploration development and production facilities located in the territorial seas of Louisiana and the dischar of produced water to the territorial seas of Louisiana e from oil and gas exploration development and production facilities located in the Uuter Continental Shelf waters off the caast of Louisiana The original NPDES permit issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA in 997 expired on December 3 20p2 but was administratively continued by the LDEQ pending its review of the application for NPDES means the natioz pro for issuing modifying revc and reissuin al ram kin terminating rnonitoring and enforcing perrnits and iinposin and enforcing pretreatment C S 1251 requirements under sections 307 02 318 and 405 of the Clean Water Act 33 I1 7 13 40 CFR 2 122 As stated in the EPA 1996 Environrnental Impact Statement EIS the territorial seas of s uisiana Lc are located between the ordinary low water line along the coast of Louisiana which is in direct contact with the open sea extending seaward to a distance oI three mi The territorial es seas are shallow waters measuring from a zero depth at the caastlinc t typically 25 to 50 feet deep at the outer limit althou the depih c bc up to 130 feet near the mouth of the Mississippi h n C S River See 33 U 8 1362 and L 33 C IX B 708 3 ES LYI means those portions of the Louisiana l Quality Act and thc I nvironrnental ouisiana Water Control Law and all regulations prc under thcir authority that are deemed mulgated equivalent to the NPD under the ederal Water Pollution Control 1ct otherwise known as thc S Clean Water Act and for which Louisiana is the delegated authority La R 30 S 2073 1 2 renewal of the permit Qpponents to the permit contend that the testin and monitoring requirements far the discharge af produced water imposed in the pennit are insufficient to adequately insure that environmental costs are being minimized or avoided as much as possible consistent with the public welfare The Louisiana Constitution mandates that t natural resources of the he state including air and wate and the h scenic historic and esthetic r althful quality of the environm shall be protected conserved and replenished insofar as nt possible and consistent with the health Const art IX safety and welfare of the people La 1 Moreover applicable water quality regulations provide No substances shall be present in the waters of the state or the sediments underlying combination will be quantities that alone ar human plant or animal life said waters toxic to in in or significantly increase health risks due to exposure to the substances or consumption of contaminated fish or other aquatic life The numerical criteria I 33 specify allowable concentrations in AC IX 6 C 1113 water for s individual taxic substances to provide protection veral from the toxic effects of these substances 4 Federal regulations suspended issuance of federal permits for activities subject to an approved state program under the NPD of fhe federal Clean Water Act See 40 CFR 123 A S d 1 znemorandum of agreement between the Li and tlae A transferred permit responsibility to Q F the LDNQ upon assumption of the NPDES prograrn by the LDEQ Valid NPDES permits held by lacilities became C permits with an expiration date consistent with the original NPDES S t PC permit See La R 30 AC 33 S 2011 11 D 1 D 2301 IX 5 In addition to LLAN the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation the Oakville Community lctian Group fhe Gulf Restoration Network the Sierra G1ub Chapter the Louisiana elta I Bayoukeeper the Atchafalaya Basinkeeper the I Mississippi Riverkeeper and neil ower Couvillion also filed objeciions to the peramit issued by the LDEQ Specifically LEAN asserts the following allegations on appeal of the district court judgment s aftirming the decision of the I on judicial review Q D 1 The judgment is contrary to law bccause LDEQ decision to issue the General s Permit was in violation of its c obligations as public trustee onstitutional 2 The j is cantrary ta law because LDEQ decisian to issue the Gen udgment s ral Fermit was in violation of the Clean Water Act and Louisiana water quality regulatians anti policies radation de 3 The j is contrary to law because LDEQ factual fi in its basis for udgment s decisian are not supported and sustainable by a prepc of the evide nderance ce and thus the conclusians derived therefrom are arbitrary and capricious 4 The judgment is contrary to law because whilc produced waters are generally exempt irom the radiation regulations the produced waters cause radium to accumulate in sediments which arc not exempt f radiation regulations Thus rorn s LDEQ inappropriate approval of the General Fermit without requiring nitoring mc of aquatic or or seditnents i5 thus contrary to state law anisms 3 LAC 33 113 l S IX B As has been routinely held since the Louisiana Supreme Court landmark s decision in Save Ourselves Inc v Louisiana Environinental Control Commission 452 So 2d 1 l S2 La 1984 a decision of the LDEQ must satisfy the issues of whether 1 the potential and real adverse environm effects of the proposed ntal project have been avoided to the maximum extent possible 2 a cost benefit analysis of the environmental impact costs balanced against the social and eeonomic benefits of the project demanstrate that the latter outweighs the former and 3 there are no alternativ projects or alternative sites or nitigating measures which would offer more protection to the nvironment than the proposed project without unduly curtailing non ben to the extent applicable See environmental tits e In re Belle Co L 00 pp 1 b La App 1 st Cir 6 l 09 So C 0504 17 O 27 2d 225 23 Furthermore as a public trustee the LDEQ is duty to bound demonstrate that it has properly exercised the discretion vested in it by making basic findings supported by evidence and ultimate findings that flow rationally from the basic indings and it must articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the order or in this case the permit issued See Save Ours lves Inc 4S2 So 2d at 1159 60 When reviewin a decision of the LDEQ the court may affirm or remand the case for further proceedings The eourt may also reverse or modify an agency decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejud because the ced administrative findings inferences conclusions or decisions are 1 in violation On review an appellate court should not reverse a substantive decision of the LDEQ on its merits unless it can be shown that the actual balancc of costs and benelits that was struck was arbitrary or clearly gave insufticient wei to environmental protection However if the ht decision was reached proccdurally without individualized consideration and balancing af enviconmental factors conducted 1 and in ood faith it is the court responsibility to airly s reverse he test for det whether an action was arbitrary or capricious is whether the rmining action talcen was without reason Dow Chemical Co I Operations Com Cellulose ouisiana lex and Li H Flants Part 70 Air Permit Major Modifications and Emissicm v ht drocarbons Keduction Credits 03 p 8 App lst Cir 9 885 So 2d S 10 writ denied 04 227 La 04 17 3005 La 2 896 So 2d 34 OS 18 4 of constitutional or statutory provisions 2 in excess of th statutory authority of the agency 3 made upon unlaw procedure 4 aftected by ather error of law ul 5 arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion or 6 not supported and sustainable by a preponderance o the evidence as determined by the reviewing court La R S G 964 49 see also La R 30 providing that the standard of review S 2050 F 21 contained in La R 49 shall apply to an appeal of a final perinit action S 964 G The main concern raised in thi5 matter is tk fact that the permit does not e provide for any direct testing af the sediments and marine life of the terz seas to verify that no significant environmental impacts are being caused by produced water discharges At the time the original NPDES permit was issued in 1997 there was no regulatory authorization o such discharges to the area of the territorial seas However at the time the LDEQ reviewed the NPDES permit for re issuance as an LPDES permit such regulated discharges had been allowed foar several years under the existing NPDES permit The LDEQ maintains that the imposition of effluent limitations monitoring requirements and toxicity testin adequately address bioaccumulation concerns In replying to public comments raising concerns regarding the cumulative impact of dischar of produced water on the es hypoxic zone marine organisms and sediment quality the LDEQ issued the following responses A Bioaccumulation was one of the actors considered in the establishment of wat quality criteria The nature of the discharges r included in the gen permit coupled with technically sound ral permit limits provide reasonable assurance or compliance with water quality standards ofthe receiving water badies Produced does contain large amounts of oxygen demanding substances mostly oil and gr and toxic pollutants ase therefore limitations or monitoring requirements for biological water not The hypoxic zone is the area of low dissolved oxygen that forms in the shallow waters of thc Gulf of Mexico fi the Mississippi River Delta weslward to near the Texas border ouisiana i Specitically these concerns wcre mainly raised in public comnients 1 l 14 19 26 27 and 2 5 oxygen demand S BOD are not included in the general day permit for produced water Produced water has not been attributed to the dead zone The dead zone is mostly attributed to a nutrient overload from the Mississippi River A report published by John Veil Todd A Kimmell and Abbey C Rechner of the National Assessment Environmental I7ivisian Argonne A in Laboratory looked at the dead zone and August 2005 considered the contribution of produced water The report provid d It is also important to consider that offshore platforms discharge to open ocean environments that are subject to wind and wave action Discharges that are made anywhere near this information the surtace will receive abundant reoxygenation due to the natural d Mare than half of the platforms identifi as processes discharging produced water to the hypaxic zone discharge at or above the surface of the acean About 93 of those platfoz ms in the top 20 feet of the water column This should discharge provide effective mitigation for some of the oxy demanding en pollutants B The provisions in the draft permit were developed primarily utilizing the Effluent Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Offshore Subcategory of th Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category See 40 CFR 43S Additional provisions based on state regulations were included to further protect the environment An Environmental August S 199fi was completed on Impact Statement EIS The territorial seas of Lauisiana are high in energy and tend to be turbid and well because of the effects of the mixed river and Comprehensive biological produced water discharges and impacts bioaccumulation of toxic chemicals by marine organisms in the territorial seas of Louisiana have be conducted through the EIS and n other studies The EIS found that the discharges from the general permit would not cause impacts to be signiticantly greater than those resulting from a single discharge from different sources or cause impacts cumulatively to cross an environmentally significant threshold Other studies have taken fiish tissue samples from reef fish located around oil and gas rigs in the territorial seas of Louisiana and found that these fish are less likely to have mercury in the tissue Studies have shown that Radium is not a significant problem in fish in the territorial seas of Louisiana Additionally toxicity testing has been established in the g permit for Outfall 002 produced neral water Toxicity testing records lethal and sub such as lethal reproduction and growth effects of produced water and chemically discharges assessments waves of the currents of treated seawater and freshwater on marine organisms The permit limitations monitoring frequencies and conditions were established in the permit to be protective of the environment LDEQ 6 included imitations for parameters nat listed in the federal guidelines See 40 CFR 435 such as Benzene Total Lead Total Phenol and Total Thallium for Out 002 Produced Wat because these all r pollutants were found ta be the most problematic in produc water d Th Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Paint Source Category and EIS researched numerous studies and conducted studies when developing the guidelines for the offshor subcategory at 40 FR 435 and in drafting the 1995 NPDES permit The limits in the general permit are consistent with 40 CFR 35 the previous permit and other similar offshore permits In its Basis for Decision the LDEQ further maintained that EPA completed an EIS on August 5 1996 The EIS found that the discharges from the gen p would not cause cumulative ral rmit impacts to be significantly reater than those resulting from a single discharge trom different sources or cause impacts cumulatively to cross an environmentally significant threshold The EIS further found that Radium is not a significant problem in fish in the territorial seas of Louisiana As stated the LDEQ relied on general offshore studies that have shown that the discharge of produced water has had no significant environmental impact to support its decision to issue the LPDES permit without requiring any direct testing or studies of the impact of produced water discharges in the area of the territorial seas Two reports submitted by the LDEQ to suppart its permitting decision discussed a study that examined the impact of produced water discharges on the hypoxic zone in th Gulf of Mexico Those reports basically concluded that nutrient loading to the hypoxic zone from produced water discharges was insignificantly small as compared to the degree af nutrient loading from the Atchafalaya and Mississippi Rivers and the predicted incremental impacts of 10 The record c a Environmental Impact Statement issued by the EFA that is dated ntains Final June 1996 4n the secand page of that document it is noted that comments on the Final EIS were due August 5 1996 7 produced water loads on dissolved oxy conditions in the northern Gulf of en were small Mexico i A third report titled Findings of the Offshore Ope Committee rators Produced Water Bioaccumulation Study presented at the Society of Petroleum Engineers International Conference on Health Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production in June 1998 discussed the results of a three year conducted study from 1994 to 1997 d assess that the potential for bioaccumulation to marine organisms of s target compounds associated with lected produced water and to evaluate the human health risk to seafood consumers The study involved measuring chemical concentrations in the edible tissues of marine organisms collected near 12 platforms discharging more than 4 barrels of 600 produced water per day and comparing the resul to the measurement of chemical s concentrations in the edible tissues of marine organisms collected near 12 non discharging platforms The target compounds measured were three volatile organics benzene toluene and our ylbenzene th volatile semi arganics phenol fluorene pyrene a benzo and bis three metals arsenic cadmium phthalate ethylhexyl 2 and mercury and and two radionuclides Radium 2 Eleven species of ish three species of mollusks and one species of crustacean were collected for nt asurem m in the appears that study d produc The repart concluded that based on the study it water discharges into U S waters under the current regulatory requirements do not pose an unacceptable risk to the environment or human consumers Hypoxia c when nutrients enter a body of water and stimulate thc growth of ccurs phytoplankton As the phytoplankton dies it falls to the k oi fhe body of water where it is ottom anisms decomposed by microor The decornposition process consumes oxygen from bottom rs wat to create hypoxic conditions 8 While the territorial seas are considered offshore waters the LDEQ makes no mention o the fact that the territorial seas are of considerably less depth than offshore waters extending beyond the borders of th t seas that ar the rritorial subject of the studies cited by the LDEQ However the EPA in issuing the original NPDES permit gave the following response to a comment suggestin that based on the study conduct by the Offshore Operators Committee monitorir d g for arsenic and benzene in produced water should be waived Study has provided detailed fects e of produced water discharges at sev offshore platforms however none of those ral The wide Industry infiormation Bioaccumulation about bioaccumulative platforms are located in shallow water such as that which makes up a great percentage of the territorial seas off Louisiana The potential for bioaccumulation is expected to be much greater in shallow water where the ef receives less dilution than it is luent in the wide deeper water examined under the Industry Bioaccumulation Study Therefore the study did not provide tion inform which can be applied ta discharges authorized by this permit to ensure compliance with Ocean Discharge Criteria and water quality standards Emphasis added According to th EIS produced by the EPA in 1996 which supported the s EPA decision to issue the original NPDES permit th ecosystem of the territorial seas of the Gulf of Mexico supports a variety of marine life and the area is a part of a nationally important breeding spawnin nursery and feeding ar for many a of types finfish and llfish sh The EPA also expressed the following pronouncements in the EIS EPA considers that additional data are requir prior ta making any d regulatory proposals regarding naturally occurring radium in produced The cornmenter alsc suggested that a data on the edible tissue as gathered by the ctual bioaccumulation study is a more direct rneasure for assessing the potential to impact human health 13 We note that the Otfshore Operators Committee report based on the study states that two of the platform pairs one a discharging platform and one a non platform used in the discharging bioaccumulation study werc located in shallow waters less than 10 meters in depth The report further noted that of the BTEX compounds term used for benzene toluene ethylbenzene and volatilc xylene aramatic compounds typically found in etroleurn products studied only benzene was detected at a concentration above the practical quantificatic level the lowest level n that car reliably be achieved with specitied limits of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operations in maxine animal tissues This detection was made in three specimens taken from two locations in shallow waters af deptk less than 10 meters s 9 Onshore disposal of oil and gas wastes contaminated with naturally occurring radioactivity is an ongoing concern which is beginning to be addressed thraugh State regulatory programs water Public health and other impacts EFA is studying the possibility that a public health risk exists due to consumption of finfish and shellfish that are exposed to produced water that may contain radionuclides the ral gen NPDES permit monitoring includes a requirement for radioactivity Impacts from discharg authorized by the s proposed general NPDES permit are evaluated in combination with Cumulative s EPA acts im permits for coastal and outer continental shelf waters At this time EPA has not identified any aspect of the actians which the NPDES pez will authorize in the Territorial Seas which could mit interact with actions authorized in other ways and which would either cause impacts to be significantly great than those resulting r from the simple addition of the impacts from different sources or cause impacts cumulatively to crass an environmentally signifrcant threshold Although the EPA approved the present LPDES permit LAG260000 based on the foregoing statements it appears some degre of follow testing was intended in up the original NPDES permit The LPDES permit does provide for regular monitoring and reporting of discharges Most of the effluents monitored and report have established eFfluent d limitations mandated under state and federal water quality standards Monitoring and reporting of those substances with established effluent limitations under state and f guidelines is understandably nE to ensure compliance with the deral ded lines guid however with regard to radium it appears something moxe would be required to determine if the amounts of radium bein discharged as documented by monitoring and reporting requirements are having any environmental impact as there are no effluent limitations provided for that substance More interestingly the evidenc submitted by the LDEQ appears to buttress the assertion advocated by the opponents to the permit that there should be a 10 i nt requirem for some type of follow direct bio of the effects of he up monitoring discharges The reports th LDEQ submitted describing the results of the produced water hypoxia and bioaccumulation studies all reference the fact that the studies were conducted as a for the issuance ctnd r of NPDES eguirement issuance e General Permit GMG 290000 for discharges from offshore oil and gas operations in the western portion of the Outer Continental Shelt of the Gulf of Mexico by the EPA Thus there is precedent for mandating such follow up testing and studies as a part of the permitting process In a letter to the LDEQ dated January 16 2009 the United States Department of th Interior Fish and Wildlife Service submitted comments regarding the permit LAG260000 In the letter the agency stated that f ederally listed species that are known to occur in the discharge area include ndangered West Indian manatee Trichechus manaCus threatened ulf sturgeon Acipe tser nxyrhynchus desotoi and its critical habitat as well as endangered and threatened sea turtles In regard to the West Indian manatee the agency concurred in the s LDEQ determination that issuance of LAG260000 is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed species or their critical habitats in Louisiana As for the endangered and threatened sea turtl the agency advised that t National s he Marine Fisheries Service is responsibl for aquatic marine threatened or endangered species and int the LDEQ o whom to contact for information armed concerning the turtles However in regard to the Gulf sturgeon the agency stated the ollowing The primary constituent elements essential for the conservation of Gulf sturgeon are those habitat components that support feeding resting sheltering reproduction migration and physical features necessary or maintaining the natural processes that support those habitat components those elements should be eonsidered when determining potential project impacts The primary elements for Gulf sturg critical habitat include on 11 constituent water quality including temperature salinity pH hardness turbidity oxygen cantent and other chemical characteristics necessary for normal behavior growth and viability of all life stages sediment quality includin texture and other chemical characteristics necessary for normal behaviar growth and viability of all life stages Should issuance of the draft pennit dir ar indirectly affect the ctly Gulf sturgeon or its critical habitat in Louisiaana further consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service will be necessary In a document titled Produced Water Permit Explained the LDEQ gives the following rationale for why it does not provide for additional follow testing up or studies of the effects of the discharge of produced water in the territorial seas of Louisiana It is important to note the receiving bady of water for produced water is the Gulf of Mexico The open waters of the Gulf along with the environmental influences of currents tides wind and water depth allow for the produced water to be assimilated into the environment As the result nf past LDEQ studies which showed that produced water was not easily assimilated when discharged in coastal and inshore habitats the department banned the discharge of produced water in coastal and inshore habitats There have been no studies brought to the LDEQ attention that sJ details adverse eft related to discharging produced water into the ects open waters of the Gu1f If the LDEQ had information that showed the discharge of produced water into the Gulf would cause adverse effect on human health or the environment then the department would take the necessary actions needed to otfer the appropriate protection as it did when it banned the discharge of produced water in coastal and inshore habitats back in the 1990s Emphasis added As the LDEQ notes it conducted actual studies of the effeet of produced water es dischar in coastal and inshore habitats and discovered that produced water was not easily assimilated when discharged in coastal and inshore habitats As a consequence the LDEQ banned the discharge of produced water in coastal and inshore habitats 12 We certainly agree with the LDEQ assertion that the permit contains s several requirements unreasonable and degradation restrictions of the to help environment diminish by the and guard against permitted activity However reviewing the evidence presented and r on by the LDEQ it appEars lied the LDEQ reached the decision to issue the LPDES permit procedurally without individualized con5ideration or a fair balar of environmental factors cing In the case of In re West Pearl River Navi Project 94 La App ation 22b0 l st Cir b 657 So 2d b40 writ denied 95 La 11 663 So 2d 9S 23 2049 95 17 720 this court r a decision of the LDEQ to issue a revised water quality versed certification to the United States Army Corps of Engineers because there was insuff cient evidence in the record for the agency to conclude that the proposed activity would pose environmental no problems or threats to water quality The court reasoned that the LDEQ could not verify that water quality standards would be met based on the toxic testing of s samples from only five of the twenty diment on at proposed dredging 5 657 So 2d sites at 642 n re West Pearl River Navigation Project 94 2260 The court r the action to the LDEQ to analyze manded sediments from all of the proposed dredging sites to ensure that state water quality standards would be met if the permit were issued Pursuant to the criteria listed in LAC 33 a LPDES permit can be C 6307 IX issued even though the state administrativ authority has insufficient information to determine that there will be no unreasonable degradation of the marine See LAC 33 which defines unreasonable degradation of the marine environment 6303 IX as 1 si adverse changes in ecosystem diversity productivity and stability ot nificant the biological community within the area of discharge and surrounding biological carnmunities 2 ihreat to human health through direct exposure to pollutants or through consumption of exposed aquatic organisms or 3 loss of esthetic recreational scientii or econornic values which is unreasonable ir r to the benEtit derived from the discharge lation 13 environment pursuant ta LAC 33 laowever one of the criteria listed in 6305 IX LAC 33 for issuance af a pennit under such circumstances is that the 0 630 IX permit must comply with all of the conditions established in paragraph D of LAC G3p7 iX 33 One of the conditions listed in LAC 33 is that the permit D 6307 IX shall specify a monitoring program which is sufficient to assess the impact of the dischaz on water and sediment biolagical quality including where appropriate analysis of the bioaccumulative and persistent impact on or aquatic life of the discharge LAC 2 D 6307 IX 33 emphasis added See also LAC 33 which provides that the state administrative authority may 6309 IX require an applicant to provide pertinent information including analysis of the location where pollutants ar sought to be discharged including the biological community Based on the record before us we find that LEAI has borne its burden of showing that the evidence relied on by the LDEQ does not support its determination by a preponderance af the evidence that the proposed p has rmit minimized or avoided potential and real adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent Instead it appears the LDEQ abused its discretion in failing to address the potential environmental impacts identified by the EPA in issuing the initial NPDES permit since the evidence submitted has not been shown to support the LDEQ basic finding that the discharge of produc water to the territv s d zal seas of Louisiana will cause no signiticant bioaccumulative impacts CONCLUSI4N Accordingly we find the I abused its discretion in issuing DEQ LPDES perinit LAG26000p without providing for some type ot direct testing or monitoring nts bio requirem o verify that the discharge of produced water to the area of the territorial seas of Louisiana causes no significant enviz onmental impacts We therefore remand this matter to the LDEQ with instructions to modify 14 the permit in a manner consistent with this opinion such that the permitting decision will suitably luate ev requirements adequately insure whether the that tl e xisting monitoring environmental costs and testing of discharging produced water dir into the terXitorial seas of Lauisiana are being minimiz ctly d or avoided as much as possible consistent with the public welfare All costs of this appeal in the amount of 1 are assessed against the Louisiana Department 82 538 of Enviranmental Quality REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS 15

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.