Leominster Water Pollution Control Facility (Board decision, September 5, 2007)

In re Leominster Water Pollution Control Facility (EAB NPDES Appeal No. 06-16): petition dismissed after withdrawal

Decision type
Board decision
Dockets
NPDES 06-16, MA0100617
Decided
September 5, 2007
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Board precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-23

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Board precedent from 2007, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2007
The EPA regulations may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Board or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final EAB decision
This Environmental Appeals Board order is a final disposition of the NPDES permit appeal. The Board dismissed the City's petition with prejudice after the City withdrew it following an agreement with EPA Region 1 concerning compliance with the appealed permit. The full text below is the official EPA release, transcribed from a scanned PDF with OCR proofreading.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official EPA EAB release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Transcribed from a scanned original: EPA EAB released this decision as an image-only file. The full text below is a machine transcription, proofread against the scan. Check the official release before quoting exact language.
Read the official release (epa.gov)

Plain-English summary

The City of Leominster petitioned for review of NPDES Permit No. MA-0100617. The City later reported that it had reached an agreement with EPA Region 1 that would facilitate compliance with the permit and make the appeal unnecessary. The Environmental Appeals Board dismissed the City's petition for review with prejudice. The order does not state a penalty.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authorities: None stated in the release.
  • Outcome: The petition for review was dismissed with prejudice after the City withdrew it.
  • Key point: An agreement that makes an NPDES appeal unnecessary can support dismissal with prejudice after the petitioner withdraws the appeal.

Full text (EPA EAB public release)

             BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, D.C.
                                                                             SEP - 5 2007
                                                                             Clerk, Environmental Appeals Board
                                                                             INITIALS

In re:

Leominster Water Pollution
Control Facility NPDES Appeal No. 06-16

NPDES Permit No. MA-0100617

                   ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

     By submission dated August 24, 2007, the City of Leominster ("City"), the petitioner in the

above-captioned matter, states that it is withdrawing its Petition for Review. See Notice of
Withdrawal of Appeal ("Notice"). The Notice states that the City has reached an agreement with U.S.
EPA Region 1 "that will facilitate compliance with the conditions of the appealed NPDES permit
therefore making the instant appeal unnecessary." Notice at 1. Accordingly, the City's Petition for
Review is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

     So ordered.


                                ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD

                                By: [signature]
                                Scott C. Fulton
                                Environmental Appeals Judge


                          CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

   I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Order Dismissing Petition for Review in the matter

of Leominster Water Pollution Control Facility, NPDES Appeal No. 06-16, were sent to the
following persons in the manner indicated:

First Class Mail: Jeffrey T. Blake
Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
101 Arch Street, 12th Floor
Boston, MA 02110-0007

Pouch Mail: Joshua Caditz
Assistant Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA Region 1 (RAA)
One Congress Street - Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114-2023

Dated: SEP - 5 2007

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace