1

ALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE—CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE—EARTHJUSTICE 

GREENPEACE—NATIVE VILLAGE OF POINT HOPE 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER—OCEAN CONSERVANCY 

OCEANA—PACIFIC ENVIRONMENT—REDOIL—SIERRA CLUB 

May 18, 2011 

VIA EMAIL 

Ms. Hanh Shaw 

Team Lead 

NPDES Permit Unit, OWW-130 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 

Seattle, WA 98101 

E: shaw.hanh@epa.gov 

Re: Shell Offshore Inc., Statoil USA E&P, and ConocoPhillips Notices of Intent for 

 Coverage under General Permit No. AKG280000 

Dear Ms. Shaw: 

 The undersigned groups hereby submit the following comments to Shell Offshore Inc. 

(Shell)’s, Statoil USA E&P (Statoil)’s, and ConocoPhillips (Conoco)’s notices of intent (NOIs) 

for coverage under General Permit No. AKG280000 (General Permit). These companies have 

submitted a total of 34 NOIs under the current General Permit for activities that would not 

commence until over a year from now at the earliest, well after the General Permit is due to 

expire. Shell intends to conduct exploration drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas in 2012 

and beyond; Conoco and Statoil intend to conduct exploration operations in the Chukchi Sea 

beginning in 2013. Each expects to discharge pollution at rates well above those analyzed by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the General Permit. 

 As the deluge of NOIs indicates, the Arctic Ocean may face in the coming years a largescale expansion of industrial activity never before seen in the region. In particular, the proposed 

expansion of exploration drilling in the relatively pristine waters of the Arctic Ocean threatens to 

introduce large amounts of pollution into the ocean, including risking a large oil spill. These 

discharges endanger the ocean and its wildlife and local residents. Discharges of toxic and 

bioaccumulating waste—especially from drilling muds—could harm residents of the North 

Slope, who depend on subsistence harvests of ocean mammals and fish. Bioaccumulating wastes 

are already collecting rapidly in the tissue of Arctic marine fauna, and there remain large gaps in 

the scientific understanding of why this is occurring.1

 High mercury levels in particular are a 

 

1 See Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Arctic Pollution 2011 at v (2011) (Arctic Pollution 2011), 

available at http://www.amap.no/. 
2

problem in the Arctic, with the pollutant found in alarmingly high levels in the region’s people, 

marine mammals, and fish.2

 This is not the first time EPA has been confronted with these issues. In 2009, Shell 

submitted 7 NOIs for discharges into the Arctic Ocean related to its proposed 2010 exploration 

drilling.3

 Some of those discharges would have far exceeded the levels EPA considered in 

promulgating the General Permit.4

 At the time, many of the undersigned groups petitioned EPA 

to require Shell to apply for individual permits.5 EPA is currently considering that petition.6 

Again in 2010, Shell submitted an NOI for proposed 2011 drilling. Many of the undersigned 

groups submitted comments to the NOI asking EPA to require Shell to apply for an individual 

permit because some of the discharges would occur after the expiration of the General Permit 

and would far exceed the levels analyzed by EPA in connection with the General Permit.7 As 

described below, the 34 NOIs currently under consideration suffer from many of the same 

problems as Shell’s earlier NOIs. 

 It is critical that EPA analyze and respond to this increased industrial activity in a 

comprehensive and coherent manner. Accordingly, EPA must carefully decide, seeking public 

input as appropriate, whether and how to permit ocean discharges into the Arctic Ocean. It 

would not be consistent with existing law or the current General Permit for the agency to 

approve Shell’s, Statoil’s, and Conoco’s future operations under the General Permit, which 

expires this summer, more than a year before these companies’ proposed discharges would even 

commence. Moreover, EPA has broad discretion to require an individual permit when, for 

example, a company’s discharges will be a significant contributor of pollutants.8 It should 

exercise that discretion and require individual permit applications for the future activities for 

which the companies have submitted NOIs. This is especially important here because many of 

the discharges described in the NOIs exceed the levels EPA considered in promulgating the 

General Permit. EPA must analyze these discharge levels to ensure they will not harm water 

quality before permitting the companies to operate. 

EPA should not permit Shell, Statoil, or Conoco to operate under the General Permit because 

the General Permit will expire before the companies plan to drill. 

 EPA should not permit Shell, Statoil, or Conoco to operate under the General Permit 

because the General Permit will have expired by the time the companies plans to operate, and 

EPA cannot extend the General Permit beyond its five-year term. Shell plans for its exploration 

 

2 Id. 

3

 Shell Offshore Inc., Notice of Intent under General Permit AKG-28-0000, Drillship M/V Discoverer, Lease 

Number OCS-Y-1805, Lease Block 6658 (Oct. 12, 2010). 

4 Id. at 9. 5

 Audubon Alaska, et al., Petition Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 122.28(b)(3) to Require Individual Permitting Processes 

for Ocean Discharges from Shell’s Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Exploration Drilling Plans (Jan. 19. 2010). 6

 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10, Re: Petition to Require Shell Exploration & Production 

Company to Obtain an Individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for its 

Proposed Exploration Activities in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska (May 18, 2010). 

7

 Alaska Wilderness League, et al., Re: Shell Offshore Inc. Notice of Intent for Coverage under General Permit No. 

AKG280000 (Jan. 24, 2011). 

8

 40 C.F.R. § 122.28(b)(3); Arctic General Permit at 10. 
3

drilling operations to start in 2012,9 and Conoco and Statoil plan for their operations to start in 

2013,10 but the General Permit expires on June 26, 2011.11 When the General Permit expires, it 

will have been in effect for five years. The Clean Water Act (CWA) and the EPA’s 

implementing regulations preclude general extension of the General Permit beyond June 26, 

2011. The CWA mandates that National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permits are limited to fixed terms not exceeding five years.12 In accordance with this provision, 

EPA has promulgated a regulation that provides that “the term of a permit shall not be extended 

by modification beyond the maximum duration” of five years.13 This limitation on a permit’s 

duration is important as it helps “ensure that permits evolve to reflect advances in technology.”14 

EPA therefore should require Shell, Statoil, and Conoco to apply for individual permits. 

 Under some circumstances, the terms of an expired permit can continue in force for 

particular dischargers pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 558(c) pending the agency’s processing of a permit 

renewal application.15 However, none of those circumstances exist here. Section 558(c) 

provides that for a “license with reference to an activity of a continuing nature” an expiring 

permit can remain in effect during the pendency of the agency’s consideration of a timely and 

sufficient application for a renewal or a new license.16 Although offshore drilling does not per se

fall outside the definition of an activity that is of a continuing nature,17 the drilling for which 

Shell, Statoil, and Conoco seek approval here does. First, none of the companies seek “to 

continue [an] existing operation.”18 The discharges described in the NOIs have not yet 

commenced, nor are they scheduled to commence until at least one year after the General Permit 

expires. These operations thus fall well outside the ambit of what Section 558(c) is intended to 

protect, namely prejudice to licensees from agency delays in the issuance of permits.19 No 

 

9 See Shell Offshore Inc., Revised Outer Continental Shelf Lease Exploration Plan, Camden Bay, Beaufort Sea, 

Alaska (May 2011). 

10 ConocoPhillips, Filing of Notices of Intent-REVISED-NPDES General Permit AK280000 ConocoPhillips, 

Chukchi Sea Exploration Plan (Apr. 14, 2011) (Conoco NOIs Filing); Statoil USA E&P, Filing of Notices of 

Intent—NPDES General Permit AK280000, Statoil USA E&P, Chukchi Sea Exploration Program (Apr. 13, 2011) 

(Statoil NOIs Filing). 

11 EPA, Region 10, 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, Permit 

No. AKG280000 at 1 (May 16, 2006) (Arctic General Permit). 

12 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(3), (b)(1)(B); see also 40 C.F.R. § 122.46(a).. 13 40 C.F.R. § 122.46(b). 

14 NW Envtl. Advocates v. U.S. EPA, not reported in F. Supp. 2d, 2006 WL 2669042, *12 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (citing 33 

U.S.C. § 1342(b)(1)(A) (NPDES permits must apply the “best available technology” requirement of 33 U.S.C. § 

1311)); see also 45 Fed. Reg. 33,290, 33,308 (May 19, 1980) (stating “permit expiration and reissuance is an 

important mechanism for providing regular scrutiny of permit compliance and updating of permit conditions.”). 

15 See 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.6, .28(b)(2)(i), .46(b). 16 5 U.S.C. § 558(c)(“When the licensee has made timely and sufficient application for a renewal or a new license in 

accordance with agency rules, a license with reference to an activity of a continuing nature does not expire until the 

application has been finally determined by the agency.”) (emphasis added); see Miami MDS Co. v. FCC, 14 F.3d 

658, 660 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (describing an activity of a continuing nature as “an activity that is normally carried on 

indefinitely under licenses that as a regular matter are renewed or replaced with new licenses issued to the current 

holder”). 

17 See Natural Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 859 F.2d 156, 212-14 (D.C. Cir. 1988) 18 See Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp. v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 353 U.S. 436, 439 (1957). 

19 Section 558(c) is aimed at “protecting those persons who already have regularly issued licenses from the serious 

hardships occasioned both to them and to the public by expiration of a license before the agency finds time to pass 

upon its renewal.” County of Sullivan v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 436 F.2d 1096, 1099 (2d Cir. 1971). 
4

ongoing, authorized activity would be disrupted in this instance if the companies are not granted 

authorization under the General Permit. The companies are aware of the term of the General 

Permit and have plenty of time to apply for an individual discharge permit for their drilling rather 

than seeking the shortcut of coverage under the expiring General Permit. Second, the drilling 

operations the companies propose are once-off activities that are of limited duration and will 

last—at most—a few months and have defined starting and ending points. These are not the sort 

of activities that are considered activities of a continuing nature.20 Finally, requiring an 

individual permit here, rather than extending an expired general permit that is currently 

undergoing agency revision and reconsideration, would also meet the CWA’s directive to ensure 

that permitting evolves to reflect advances in technology. 

 The terms of the General Permit further support the need for Shell, Statoil, and Conoco to 

seek individual permits for their future discharges.21 The General Permit provides that “[i]f the 

permittee intends to continue an activity regulated by this general permit after the expiration date 

of this permit, the permittee must either apply for and obtain an individual permit or submit an 

NOI to be covered under a new general permit.”22 The Fact Sheet further reiterates that “the 

permittee must submit a new complete notice of intent prior to the expiration date of the general 

permit should the operator choose to continue operations under this general permit in the event 

of administrative extension of the general permit.”23 Shell, Statoil, and Conoco do not seek to 

continue an activity under the General Permit as the General Permit requires. Rather they all 

intend to begin new operations. Accordingly, EPA should not approve the companies’ NOIs 

pursuant to the terms of the General Permit. 

EPA should require Shell, Statoil, and Conoco to obtain individual permits to ensure the 

proposed discharges, which are far larger than those contemplated by the General Permit, do 

not result in unreasonable degradation. 

 Even if the General Permit could extend to cover the oil companies’ NOIs, EPA should 

still require Shell, Statoil, and Conoco to apply for individual permits, because the oil companies 

will discharge pollutants in amounts far in excess of the amounts that EPA considered under the 

General Permit. EPA may permit discharges only if they will not cause unreasonable 

degradation of the marine environment.24 In issuing the General Permit, EPA produced the 

Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation (ODCE) to determine whether discharges under the 

General Permit could result in unreasonable degradation of the marine environment.25 EPA 

based its conclusion that discharges would not cause unreasonable degradation on assumptions 

about the volumes and rates at which pollutants would be discharged.26 As described below, the 

 

20 See Miami MDS Co., 14 F.3d at 660 (one-time activity is not of continuing duration for purposes of Section 

558(c) extension); see also Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Callaway, 530 F.2d 625, 633-34 n.13 (5th Cir. 1976) (noting 

that dredge-and-fill project is not an activity of a continuing nature because it ends when the hole is filled). 21 EPA’s regulations state that continuance may occur only under the terms of the general permit. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 

122.6, .28(b)(2)(i). 

22 Arctic General Permit at 53. 

23 EPA, Region 10, Fact Sheet for Arctic General Permit at 9-10 (2004) (emphasis added). 

24 40 C.F.R. § 125.123(a). 

25 EPA, Final Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation of the Arctic NPDES General Permit for Oil and Gas 

Exploration (Jan. 24, 2006) (ODCE). 

26 See, e.g., ODCE at 2-1 – 2-17. 
5

companies’ proposed discharges would greatly exceed some of these assumptions, severely 

undermining EPA’s conclusion that discharges under the General Permit would not cause 

unreasonable degradation of marine waters. To date, EPA has nowhere conducted an analysis of 

the potential degradation that could result from the volumes of pollution that Shell, Statoil, and 

Conoco propose to discharge, and it cannot rationally conclude that the discharges will not cause 

unreasonable degradation. 

 Of particular concern are Shell’s, Statoil’s, and Conoco’s proposals to discharge large 

volumes of drilling muds, far in excess of the amounts EPA analyzed in connection with issuing 

the General Permit. Additionally, Shell, Statoil, and Conoco would discharge much more noncontact cooling water than EPA analyzed in connection with issuing the General Permit, and 

Shell and Conoco would discharge more sanitary and domestic waste than EPA analyzed. These 

potential discharges are cause for concern because they will contain toxic components that can 

harm aquatic life and degrade the aquatic environment, and because EPA has not considered 

their discharge in these amounts. 

1. Drilling Muds 

 Notwithstanding the fact that Shell, Statoil, and Conoco are capable of transporting and 

disposing of their spent drilling muds offsite—indeed Shell itself has proposed doing so for some 

of its Beaufort Sea wells—the companies propose to dump toxic drilling muds directly into the 

ocean for the vast majority of their operations.27 In total, the volume of the muds the companies 

intend to dump in the ocean far exceeds the amount EPA considered in the ODCE. At a single 

prospect in the Chukchi Sea, for example, Shell seeks to discharge more than double the amount 

of drilling mud that EPA analyzed in total for all Chukchi Sea leases under the five-year General 

Permit.28 In the Beaufort Sea, in drilling 5 wells, Shell intends to discharge more than 3 times 

EPA’s total estimate.29 Similarly, it appears that Statoil and Conoco will discharge well over 

EPA’s estimate for drilling muds in the Chukchi Sea.30

 Because Shell’s, Statoil’s, and Conoco’s discharges of drilling muds will greatly exceed 

the volumes underlying EPA’s degradation analysis, EPA should require these companies to 

apply for individual permits. This is particularly important because drilling muds are toxic. In 

addition to liquid, the muds usually contain bentonite clay that increases the viscosity and alters 

the density of the drilling fluid.31 Drilling muds also contain other additives that change the 

 

27 See, e.g., Shell, Notice of Intent (NOI) for Lease Number OCS-Y-1936, Block Number 6559 (Torpedo) at Table 1 

(Dec. 16, 2010). 

28 Compare Shell, NOI for Lease Number OCS-Y-2040, Block Number Karo 6514 (Bluefoot B) at Table 1 (Dec. 16, 

2010) (estimating 4,937 bbls/well) with ODCE at 2-9 (estimating 2,260 bbls for Minerals Management Service 

(MMS) leases in the Chukchi Sea). 

29 See, e.g., Shell, NOI for Lease Block OCS-Y-1704, Block Number 6352 (Mauya A) at Table 1 (Dec. 16, 2010) 

(Shell Mauya A NOI) (estimating 3,526 bbl/well); ODCE at 2-9 (estimating 5,610 bbl for MMS leases in the 

Beaufort Sea). 

30 Statoil estimates that it will discharge approximately 4,000 bbl of drilling muds per well. Statoil NOIs Filing, 

Table 1 at 1. The exact amount of drilling muds Conoco will discharge remains unclear because the company does 

not provide this number. However, Conoco will discharge 8,585 bbls/well of drilled formation rock mixed with 

drilling muds and 800 bbls/well of drilling muds alone. Conoco NOIs Filing, Table 1 at 1. 31 ODCE at 2-2. 
6

properties of the fluids.32 The ODCE states that some of the most significant of these additives 

are: 

 Weighting materials, primarily barite (barium sulfate), may be used to increase the 

density of the mud in order to equilibrate the pressure between the wellbore and 

formation when drilling through particularly pressurized zones. Hematite (Fe2O3) 

sometimes is used as a weighting agent in oil-based muds; 

 Corrosion inhibitors such as iron oxide, aluminum bisulfate, zinc carbonate, and zinc 

chromate protect pipes and other metallic components from acidic compounds 

encountered in the formation; 

 Dispersants, including iron lignosulfonates, break up solid clusters into small particles so 

they can be carried by the fluid; 

 Flocculants, primarily acrylic polymers, cause suspended particles to group together so 

they can be removed from the fluid at the surface; 

 Surfactants, like fatty acids and soaps, defoam and emulsify the mud; 

 Biocides, typically organic amines, chlorophenols, or formaldehydes, kill bacteria that 

may produce toxic hydrogen sulfide gas; and 

 Fluid loss reducers include starch and organic polymers and limit the loss of drilling mud 

to under-pressurized or high-permeability formations.33

 These substances can be toxic and can bioaccumulate. For example, the weighting 

material barite is a mineral composed of barium sulfate and is known to contain several toxic 

heavy metals, including mercury, cadmium, arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc.34 

Mercury pollution has become a large problem for the Arctic. Despite efforts to control mercury 

contamination in the area, levels are continuing to rise in Arctic species, including polar bears, 

beluga whales, and seals.35 For some of the region’s top predators, concentrations have 

exceeded the threshold for biological effects.36 For polar bears, high mercury levels can lead to a 

chemical imbalance in the brain that affects all aspects of the animal’s behavior, survival, and 

reproduction.37 The high mercury levels in the Arctic food web are a tremendous problem for 

the Arctic’s indigenous peoples who are often exposed to mercury through their diets. These 

peoples subsist in large part on fish and marine mammals that are high on the food chain that as a 

result have accumulated significant levels of mercury in their tissue. A study on Inuit preschool 

children in Nunavut, Canada, found that 59 percent of the children surveyed had a 

methylmercury intake that exceeded the acceptable intake level for children.38 For humans, 

mercury exposure can affect the nervous system, hindering brain development, the reproductive 

system, the immune system, and perhaps even the cardiovascular system.39

 

32 Id. 33 Id. at 2-3. 34 See ODCE at 2-6. 35 Arctic Pollution 2011. 

36 Id. 37 Id. at 25. 38 Id. at 30. 

39 Id. at 28-30. 
7

 Drilling mud and barite can blanket the seafloor, negatively affecting the benthos.40 

Laboratory studies on recruitment and development of benthic communities suggest that drilling 

mud and barite can affect recruitment and alter benthic communities or depress abundances.41 

This could cause harm to other Arctic organisms, like the walrus in the Chukchi, that rely on 

benthos for food. Harming walrus would affect human communities, as walrus are an important 

subsistence resource for many communities, including some outside of Arctic, like Gambell and 

Savoonga on St. Lawrence Island. 

2. Other Discharges 

 Other discharges identified in Shell’s, Statoil’s, and Conoco’s NOIs will add additional 

harmful substances or pollution to the marine environment. The companies propose to discharge 

these pollutants at volumes and rate above those analyzed by EPA in connection with issuing the 

General Permit. All three companies would exceed EPA’s estimates for non-contact cooling 

water.42 Also, Shell and Conoco would exceed EPA’s estimate for sanitary and domestic 

waste.43 These discharges run the risk of unreasonably degrading marine waters. Having not yet 

analyzed these levels of pollution in connection with the General Permit, EPA cannot determine 

based on that review whether discharges at this level pursuant to the General Permit will result in 

unreasonable degradation and, therefore, EPA should analyze them through individual permit 

applications. 

 Cooling water discharges can pose threats to the marine environment. The damage 

temperature changes can cause to aquatic life is well documented and recognized. For aquatic 

organisms, water temperature regulates metabolism and affects an organism’s ability to survive 

and reproduce effectively.44 For fish, temperature shifts can kill adults or fry, affect activity 

levels, or limit reproduction.45 Also particularly important to note here is that temperature 

changes are even less well tolerated by organisms stressed by toxic materials.46 Because the 

companies’ operations will discharge other toxic pollutants, those operations potentially could 

expose Arctic organisms to a lethal combination temperature changes and toxic pollution . 

 Sanitary and domestic waste discharges also have the potential to cause adverse impacts. 

They include substances causing a biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids 

(TSS), coliform, and chlorine.47 BOD depletes oxygen availability, making less oxygen 

available to higher forms of aquatic life.48 High BOD can cause aquatic organisms to become 

 

40 See ODCE at 3-2. 41 Id. at 3-21. 42 ODCE at 2-15 (estimating that discharges of non-contact cooling water will be less than 210,000 gallons per 

day(gpd)); see, e.g., Shell Mauya A NOI at Table 1 (estimating a discharge of up to 1,890,000 gpd of non-contact 

cooling water); Statoil NOIs Filing, Table 1 at 4-5 (estimating a discharge of 4,704,000 gpd of non-contact cooling 

water); Conoco NOIs Filing, Table 1 at 3 (estimating up to 4,746,000 gpd of non-contact cooling water). 

43 ODCE at 2-13 (estimating that discharges of sanitary and domestic waste would be less than 6,000 gpd per 

drillrig); Shell Mauya A NOI at Table 1 (estimating 15,246 gpd of sanitary and domestic waste); Conoco NOIs 

Filing, Table 1 at 2 (estimating 6,636 gpd of sanitary and domestic waste). 

44 EPA, Quality Criteria for Water 1986 at 276 (May 1, 1986). 45 Id. at 279. 46 Id. 47 ODCE at 2-12. 

48 EPA, Water: Monitoring & Assessment, available at http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms52.cfm. 
8

stressed, suffocate, and die.49 TSS can harm fish, particularly young fish.50 At lower 

concentrations, the negative effects “are largely behavioral (avoidance, reduced feeding, 

coughing, seeking refuge) which can lead to reduced growth if exposure is frequent or 

persistent.”51 At higher concentrations, TSS can result in mortality.52 Also, chlorine can cause 

significant changes to aquatic habitats.53 It can act as an irritant to marine mammals and be 

highly toxic to fish. 

******* 

 For the reasons stated above, EPA should not permit Shell, Statoil, or Conoco to conduct 

their future operate under the expiring General Permit, but should require the companies to apply 

for individual permits for their proposed activities, with full public review and participation. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Leah Donahey 

Western Arctic and Oceans Program Director 

ALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE 

Rebecca Noblin 

Alaska Director 

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 

 

Sandra Purohit 

Government Relations Associate 

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE 

David Hobstetter 

Associate Attorney 

EARTHJUSTICE 

 

Melanie Duchin 

Arctic Program Director 

GREENPEACE 

Caroline Cannon 

President 

NATIVE VILLAGE OF POINT HOPE 

 

Charles M. Clusen 

Alaska Project Director 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE 

COUNCIL 

Pamela A. Miller 

Arctic Program Director 

NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL 

CENTER 

 

Andrew Hartsig 

Director, Arctic Program 

OCEAN CONSERVANCY 

Susan Murray 

Director, Pacific 

OCEANA 

 

49 Id. 50 Rowe, M., Essig, D., Jessup, B., Guide to Selection of Sediment Targets for Use in Idaho TMDLs at 21 (Jun. 

2003), available at

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/pollutants/sediment/upload/2004_08_17_criteria_s

ediment_appendix5.pdf. 

51 Id. 52 Id. 53 Auckland Council, Common Pollutants and Effects, available at

http://www.northshorecity.govt.nz/OurCommunity/EnvironmentalEducation/PollutionPrevention/Pages/CommonPo

llutantsAndEffects.aspx 
9

Carole Holley 

Alaska Program Co-Director 

PACIFIC ENVIRONMENT 

Faith Gemmill 

Executive Director 

REDOIL 

 

Dan Ritzman 

Alaska Program Director 

SIERRA CLUB