Opinion ID: 3007001
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Monitoring Requirements for TBELs

Text: As previously discussed, the 2013 VGP requires vessels to monitor (1) the functionality of their ballast water treatment systems, if installed, and (2) the concentrations of the two ʺindicatorʺ bacteria (E. coli and enterococci). . VGP § 2.2.3.5.1.1.2, at 30, § 2.2.3.5.1.1.4, at 31‐32. ‐55‐ The first requirement, known as ʺfunctionality monitoring,ʺ determines whether a ballast water treatment program is ʺoperating according to the manufacturersʹ requirements.ʺ App. at 96. A shipowner is required to check a measurement that would ʺverify system functionality,ʺ such as how much chlorine the system is using each month. Id. at 1168. If the measurement is correct, it is assumed that the program is in compliance. If the equipment is not operating properly, the ship is not permitted to discharge ballast. The vessel owner is not required to take any measurement of pollutants or significant categories of living organisms in ballast water being discharged. Instead, the shipowner relies solely on the functioning of the treatment system to determine if the ship is complying with the permit. Treatment systems are inspected monthly. See VGP § 2.2.3.5.1.1.2, at 30 (ʺTo assess the [systemʹs] functionality, monitoring indicators of the [systemʹs] functionality is required at least once per month for specific parameters that are applicable to your system.ʺ). The second provision, effluent biological organism monitoring, requires vessels to collect small‐volume samples from ballast discharge and analyze them for concentrations of two indicator pathogens, E. coli and enterococci. VGP § 2.2.3.5.1.1.4, at 31‐32. The idea is that if there are significant ‐56‐ levels of these two pathogens in the sample, then treatment has not been effective. Vessels are not required to monitor Vibrio cholera or medium or large organisms regulated in the 2013 VGP. Sampling is required between one and four times a year, depending on the type of system. Petitioners present two arguments about why these requirements do not accord with the law. First, petitioners argue that the 2013 VGP violates CWA regulations by not requiring vessels to monitor the concentration of living organisms. The regulations require monitoring of mass, volume, or ʺother measurement specified in the permit.ʺ 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i)(1)(i)‐(ii). Petitioners contend the unit of measurement for living organisms in the 2013 VGP should be concentration. Neither functionality monitoring nor testing for two indicator microorganisms measures concentration. Thus, according to petitioners, the monitoring and reporting requirements for TBELs violate 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i)(1). Second, petitioners argue that these monitoring requirements violate the requirement in 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i)(1) that monitoring ʺassure[s] compliance with permit limitations.ʺ Relying on functionality monitoring instead of requiring an actual measurement of concentrations of organisms means that neither EPA nor the public knows if the permittees are complying with the ‐57‐ TBELs. Similarly, petitioners argue that monitoring for the presence of the two ʺindicator bacteria,ʺ E. coli and enterococci, is not sufficient to monitor compliance with TBELs because it indicates only their presence in the water, not their quantity. We disagree with petitioners and conclude that EPAʹs monitoring requirements were not arbitrary and capricious. The CWA regulations expressly allow for monitoring quantities other than mass or volume, namely some ʺother measurement specified in the permit[] for each pollutant limited in the permit.ʺ 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i)(1). Functionality monitoring and monitoring for the presence of indicator organisms qualify as such ʺother measurement.ʺ And while there are potential alternatives, petitionersʹ urged alternative of direct monitoring is not required because ʺmore sophisticated methods for enumerating living organisms in the larger size classes are not currently available for use by permittees.ʺ App. at 524. Current technology is not capable of adequately monitoring ballast water as it is being discharged because, EPA notes, such monitoring requires analyzing large volumes of water and is prohibitively expensive and impractical. According to EPA, testing medium and large organisms with shipboard systems can cost between $75,000 ‐58‐ and $125,000 per vessel per sampling event. Moreover, the process would be impractical, involving sampling and analyzing large volumes of water in labs and requiring ʺdozens of hours to collect and analyze those samples.ʺ EPA Br. at 89. Given the difficult circumstances, EPAʹs monitoring requirements for TBELs were not arbitrary and capricious. Cf. NRDC v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369, 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (ʺ[W]hen numerical effluent limitations are infeasible, EPA may issue permits with conditions designed to reduce the level of effluent discharges to acceptable levels.ʺ). In the face of the severe technological limitations on monitoring, it was reasonable for EPA to decline to require monitoring for parameters for which it is currently impractical to collect and analyze samples. Functionality monitoring and biological indirect monitoring are the only feasible options at present to assure compliance with the permit. We defer to EPAʹs decision that functionality monitoring and biological indicator monitoring, when used in combination, offer an acceptable ʺother measurement.ʺ See Auer, 519 U.S. at 461 (holding that courts should defer to agency’s interpretation of its own regulations if not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation). ‐59‐