Opinion ID: 3007001
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Monitoring Requirements for WQBELs

Text: Petitioners also argue that EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in failing to require that permittees monitor ballast water discharges to ensure compliance with WQBELs. The only monitoring requirement for WQBELs is that ships report the ʺexpected date, location, volume, and salinity of any ballast water to be dischargedʺ into U.S. waters or at a reception facility. VGP § 4.3, at 72 (emphasis added). There is no requirement to report actual volumes, locations, or composition of ballast water discharges. We agree that failure to include monitoring requirements for WQBELs was arbitrary and capricious. The regulations require monitoring to ʺassure compliance with permit limitations.ʺ 40 C.F.R. § 122.44. Generally, ʺan NPDES permit is unlawful if a permittee is not required to effectively monitor its permit compliance.ʺ NRDC, 725 F.3d at 1207. Here, the reporting requirement provided little information on the quality of the ballast water, requiring only information on expected date, location, volume, and salinity. There is no way to derive from that information whether a vessel is actually in compliance with the WQBELs. Thus, because the 2013 VGP does not contain a mechanism to evaluate compliance with the WQBELs, the monitoring requirements are arbitrary and ‐60‐ capricious and not in accordance with the law. See Waterkeeper All., 399 F.3d at 499 (failure of permit to include any mechanism for evaluating compliance with required technical standards rendered agency unable to ensure compliance with water quality standards). Our conclusion is further supported by the simple, but overlooked, options that EPA has in structuring WQBEL monitoring requirements. One possible condition EPA could consider including in the WQBELs would be to require shipowners to monitor the actual time, place, and volume of ballast water discharge, rather than the expected time, place, and volume. Another possible condition would be to require shipowners to monitor for a particular pathogen or pollutant if it became known that such a pathogen or pollutant is a problem in a particular port. Each of these options would provide more significant monitoring. EPAʹs contentions on this point are unpersuasive. EPA argues that if a vessel is in compliance with the TBELs, it should be ʺgenerally expected to already be controlling [its] vessel discharges to a degree that is protective of water quality,ʺ rendering additional monitoring to demonstrate compliance with narrative WQBELs unnecessary. App. at 530. In defense of this position, EPA ‐61‐ also argues that 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i) does not apply because of ʺpractical constraints on the ability to collect and analyze the volumes of ballast water necessary to ʹdirectlyʹ detect and quantify such organisms at the levels of concern.ʺ EPA Br. at 98. According to EPA, it is simply ʺunrealisticʺ to have stricter monitoring. This, however, is not a valid excuse in the WQBEL context. See NRDC, 859 F.2d at 208 (stating legislative history of CWA ʺstrongly supports [the] position that Congress did not intend to tie compliance with water quality‐ based limitations to the capabilities of any given level of technology,ʺ and ʺa water quality‐based permit limit begins with the premise that a certain level of water quality will be maintained, come what may, and places upon the permittee the responsibility for realizing that goalʺ). It is inconsistent to say that WQBELs are necessary to ensure that water quality standards are met, while specific enforcement of such WQBELs is unnecessary. More importantly, this lack of enforcement violates the CWA regulations, which mandate that no permit may be issued ʺ[w]hen the imposition of conditions cannot ensure compliance with the applicable water quality requirements of all affected States.ʺ 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(d). ‐62‐ Accordingly, EPAʹs failure to include monitoring for compliance with WQBELs was inconsistent with regulations and thus arbitrary and capricious.