City of Haverhill (Board decision, April 28, 2020)

In re City of Haverhill (EAB NPDES Appeal No. 19-04): petition dismissed after settlement discussions

Decision type
Board decision
Dockets
NPDES 19-04, MA0101621
Decided
April 28, 2020
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Board precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-21

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Board precedent from 2020, 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 2020
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 appeal. After the City of Haverhill and EPA Region 1 negotiated a resolution and the City moved to dismiss its petition, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the petition. The full text below is the official EPA release.
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.
Read the official release (epa.gov)

Plain-English summary

The City of Haverhill petitioned the Environmental Appeals Board to review an NPDES permit issued by EPA Region 1 for discharges from Haverhill's wastewater treatment facility and combined sewer overflow outfalls to the Merrimack River. The parties obtained stays while they pursued a negotiated resolution. Haverhill then moved to dismiss the petition, stating that the parties had resolved the dispute and that EPA would begin permit modification proceedings. The Board granted the motion and dismissed the petition. The order does not impose a penalty or decide the permit issues on the merits.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authorities: 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(k)
  • Outcome: The petition for review was dismissed after the petitioner reported a negotiated resolution with the Region.
  • Key point: A permit petitioner may dismiss an EAB appeal after the parties negotiate a resolution and the Region assents to dismissal.

Full text (EPA EAB public release)

                                                                                   F I L E D
                                                                                              Apr 28 2020
                                                                                  Clerk, Environmental Appeals Board
                    ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD        INITIALS ________________________

           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                           WASHINGTON, D.C.


                                              )

In re: )
)
City of Haverhill ) NPDES Appeal No. 19-04
)
NPDES Permit No. MA0101621 )
)

                         ORDER GRANTING MOTION AND
                        DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

      On October 25, 2019, the City of Haverhill, Massachusetts (“Haverhill”), petitioned the

Environmental Appeals Board (“Board”) to review the National Pollution Discharge Elimination

System permit U.S. EPA Region 1 (“Region”) issued to Haverhill on September 25, 2019. The

permit authorizes discharges to the Merrimack River from Haverhill’s wastewater treatment

facility and combined sewer overflow outfalls. The Board granted four successive motions to

stay the proceedings, filed jointly by the parties, to provide them with an opportunity to pursue a

negotiated resolution of some or all issues in dispute. The matter is currently stayed through

April 30, 2020. On April 27, 2020, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(k), Haverhill filed a motion

to dismiss its petition for review. Haverhill represents that the Region assents to the motion.

      As grounds for dismissal, Haverhill states that the parties have engaged in months of

productive settlement discussions and have negotiated a resolution of Haverhill’s petition. It also

states that EPA will initiate permit modification proceedings as soon as possible. Having

considered Haverhill’s motion and the representations therein, the Board GRANTS the motion

and DISMISSES Haverhill’s petition for review.
So ordered. 1

                                             ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD

Dated: Apr 28 2020 By: ________
Mary Kay Lynch
Environmental Appeals Judge

     1
    The three-member panel deciding this matter is composed of Environmental Appeals

Judges Aaron P. Avila, Mary Kay Lynch, and Kathie A. Stein.

                                       -2-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I certify that copies of the Order Granting Motion and Dismissing Petition for Review

in the matter of City of Haverhill, NPDES Appeal No. 19-04, were sent to the following persons in the manner indicated:

By Electronic Mail:
Matthew J. Connolly, Esq.
Michael A. Leon, Esq. Steven Neugeboren, Esq. Matthew Snell, Esq. Office of General Counsel Valerie A. Moore, Esq. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nutter McClennen & Fish, L.L.P. 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Seaport West Mail Code 2355A 155 Seaport Boulevard Washington, D.C. 20460 Boston, Massachusetts 02210 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Deidre C. Desmond, Esq. [email protected] Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection
Samir Bukhari, Esq. Office of General Counsel Eve S. Vaudo, Esq. One Winter Street, Third Floor John W. Kilborn, Esq. Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Office of Regional Counsel, Region 1 [email protected] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 Town of Groveland Mail Code 04-6 Town Hall Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912 183 Main Street [email protected] Groveland, Massachusetts 01834 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Isaiah Lewis
City of Haverhill Wastewater Division
40 South Porter Street
Haverhill, Massachusetts 01835
[email protected]

Dated: ____
Apr 28 2020
______
Eurika Durr
Clerk of the Board
-3-

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