Opinion ID: 184802
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: GM's Other Challenges

Text: GM raises two arguments that are not foreclosed by theconclusion reached immediately above. Each may be resolved in short order. First, GM contends the EPA erred in concluding that thepermit for Outfall 002 did not expire on October 1, 1990. Recall the ALJ held that the appropriate penalty would bethe same regardless of whether GM was responsible for thedischarges after that date, and GM did not challenge theALJ's penalty calculations before the EAB or this court. Therefore, we need not resolve whether substantial evidencesupports the EPA's finding that GM violated the terms of itspermit after October 1, 1990; even if GM did not do so, itspenalty would still be $62,500. Second, GM claims it was denied due process because itlacked notice that metals present in rainfall or leached fromroofs and gutters would be considered 'pollutants' that werethe responsibility of the permit holder. The permit forOutfall 002, however, clearly states that the permittee isauthorized to discharge an unspecified amount of stormwaterrunoff .... [which] shall be limited [to 140 F/l of copper, 75Fg/of lead, and 1000 Fg/l of zinc]. GM, in its correspondenceinforming the MDNR of its permit violations, itself countedthe ambient and leached metals as contributing to thoseviolations. Consequently, GM's lack of notice claim ringshollow, to say the least. See NRDC v. EPA, 673 F.2d 400,406-07 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (Each individual subject to the[Consolidated Permit Regulations] will of necessity have participated in a permit proceeding before being punished forviolating the conditions specified in his permit. A pollutercharged with violating those conditions will certainly be onnotice of the duty he is alleged to have breached). This exhausts GM's challenges to the EPA's finding thatthe Company violated its NPDES permit for Outfall 002. GM does not contest the EPA's conclusion that the information contained in the DMRs it submitted constitutes substantial evidence that GM violated its permit on at least 39occasions prior to October 1, 1990. Accordingly, we hold thatsubstantial evidence supports the EPA's finding of violations.