1993-11-30_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (2)

Home Browse Search

MCR next argues that the fact that the two NOVs enforce different permits is irrelevant because the two permits are also identical , and therefore, duplicative with respect to the dis- charges out of Outfall 016 . See Answer Brief at 29-32 . MCR' s argument is both untimely and unfounded. At the time the two NOVs were issued, MCR had operated for eight years under the protection of the CDPS Permit and of the DMG Permit . In spite of repeated opportunities to object to the terms of the CDPS Permit, MCR never did so. Not until the WQCD attempted to enforce the CDPS Permit did MCR complain that its terms are duplicative of the terms in the DMG Permit . **7 The CWQCA provides that a request for judicial review of the WQCD' s addressed in DMG' s NOV. 7** It has been widely recognized by federal courts that a par- ty ' s failure to object to the issuance of an NPDES permit within the period prescribed by statute precludes the party from object- ing to the permit ' s terms and conditions thereafter . See Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey Inc. v. Powell Duffryn Ter- minals Inc. , 913 F. 2d 64, 78 ( 3d Cir . 1990) ; Texas Municipal Power Agency v. EPA, 799 F. 2d 173 ( 5th Cir . 1986) . Such statu- tory time periods have been held to be jurisdictional in nature, thus precluding a court ' s ruling on such objections if raised by the party late. Texas, 799 F. 2d at 174. This "now or never" rule applies even though it may eventually result in the imposition of severe civil or criminal liability. Public Interest, 913 F. 2d at 78 . The rationale behind the "now or never" rule is that statu- tory time limitations show the legislative decision to impose statutory finality on agency actions, which the courts may not second-guess . Texas, 799 F. 2d at 174. As such, the rule has been strictly enforced by federal courts. Id. at 175 . The same rationale behind the rule applies in the instant case. -14-