City of Point Comfort V Alcoa Original Petition

Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 1 of 21
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
VICTORIA DIVISION
THE CITY OF POINT COMFORT,

CALHOUN COUNTY, TEXAS,
Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No.

ALCOA WORLD ALUMINA, L.L.C.,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
COME NOW, the City of Point Comfort, Texas, Plaintiff, and complains of Alcoa
World Alumina, L.L.C., Defendant herein, and for cause of action would respectfully show the
following:
I. JURISDICTION
1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), this Court has original jurisdiction over actions
in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and where there is diversity of citizenship
between the parties.
2. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7604(a), the City of Point Comfort, Texas (the City)
has the authority to bring suit against Alcoa World Alumina for its Clean Air Act permit
violations, 42 U.S.C. 7661 et seq. As required by 42 U.S.C. 7604(b), on April 9, 2006 the
City provided Alcoa World Alumina with notice of its intent to sue regarding Alcoa World
Aluminas Clean Air Act permit violations. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, this Court
has jurisdiction because this case involves a federal question regarding federal Clean Air Act
permit violations.
3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a), this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the
related state claims brought in this suit.
1.
II. VENUE
4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b) and (c), venue is proper because the substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted occurred in this district and
Alcoa World Alumina is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.
5. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7604(c), venue is proper because the source of the permit
violations is located in this district.
III. PARTIES
6. Plaintiff is the City of Point Comfort, Calhoun County, Texas.
7. The City of Point Comforts local government offices are located at 902 Lamar
Street, Point Comfort, Texas 77978.
8. Alcoa World Alumina, L.L.C. is a Delaware limited liability corporation
conducting business in the State of Texas and may be served by serving its registered agent C T
Corporation System at 350 North St. Paul St., Dallas, Texas 75201.
9. Alcoa World Aluminas Point Comfort Operations are located at State
Highway 35, Point Comfort, Texas 77978.
IV. FACTS
10. The City of Point Comfort is a small city on the Texas coast located in Calhoun
County with a population of approximately 781 citizens.
11. The City is located directly to the north of Alcoa World Aluminas Point Comfort
facility (AWA).
12. The City is located directly northeast of AWAs disposal pits.
2.
13. Historical meteorological data show that the wind blows predominantly from a
southerly through east-southeasterly direction for the majority of months.
14. Portions of AWAs Point Comfort facility are within the Citys territorial
boundaries.
A. The Alumina Process
15. AWA produces alumina from bauxite ore at its Point Comfort facility.
16. Bauxite is ground and mixed with sodium hydroxide liquor to form a watery
mixture of insoluble matter, i.e., a slurry.
17. This slurry is combined with steam under high heat and pressure to produce
sodium aluminate.
18. The sodium aluminate is then clarified, which removes red mud solids from the
solution.
19. The solution next undergoes precipitation, which produces hydrated alumina.
20. Next, the hydrated alumina is dried using a process called calcination to produce
alumina.
B. The Disposal Pits
21. Large areas of the AWA Point Comfort facility are occupied by open-air
impoundments, known as disposal pits.
22. These disposal pits are red in color and contain the waste produced by the
alumina process.
23. These disposal pits are highly caustic because of the addition of sodium
hydroxide.
3.
24. These disposal pits are usually kept wet in an attempt to prevent the substance
from drying.
25. Drying does occur, however, and the waste in the disposal pits turns into a red
dust.
26. AWA has constructed levees around its disposal pits.
27. When a strong wind blows and the red dust in the disposal pits is higher than
the levees, the red dust can and does escape the confines of these levees.
28. This blowing red dust obscures visibility on highway 35.
29. This blowing red dust is also deposited on structures throughout the City.
30. The blowing red dust may contain residues harmful to human health, such as
arsenic, chromium, selenium, radium 266 and/or thorium.
31. These excessive emissions of red dust result from AWAs failure to properly
design its disposal pits.
32. These excessive emissions of red dust result from AWAs failure to properly
maintain its disposal pits.
C. AWAs Permits For Its Calciners And The White Alumina Dust
33. The federal government enacted the Clean Air Act because of the growth in the
amount and complexity of air pollution brought about by urbanization, industrial development,
and the increasing use of motor vehicles, [which] has resulted in mounting dangers to the public
health and welfare. 42 U.S.C. 7401(a)(2).
34. The federal government also found that air pollution prevention (that is, the
reduction or elimination, through any measures, of the amount of pollutants produced or created
4.
at the source) and air pollution control at its source is the primary responsibility of States and
local governments. 42 U.S.C. 7401(a)(3).
35. Therefore, the federal government rallied its resolve and decided to protect and
enhance the quality of the Nations air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare
and the productive capacity of its population with its primary goal being air pollution
prevention. 42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(1), (c).
36. In compliance with Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7661-
7661f) as delegated to, and administered by the State of Texas, AWA obtained a Federal
Operating Permit (No. O-01344), and New Source Review authorizations (Permit No. 8166) for
its Point Comfort facility.
37. These permits impose monitoring, record-keeping and reporting requirements
necessary to ensure the facilitys compliance.
38. AWAs Point Comfort facility operates several flash calciner units, which are
authorized under Permit No. 8166.
39. At alumina production facilities, a white alumina dust is emitted primarily from
the calciners.
40. At the AWA facility in Point Comfort there are four calciners.
41. The calciner units identified as R-51, R-55 and R-56 in the permit are the sources
of unauthorized emissions of white alumina dust.
42. During the emission of this white alumina dust, other gases, such as hydrogen
fluoride, are also released.
43. Once emitted, this white alumina dust becomes wet from moisture in the
atmosphere and these other emitted gases attach to the white alumina dust.
5.
44. Once these other emitted gases are attached to the wet white alumina dust a new
corrosive substance is formed.
45. The white alumina dust and corrosive substances settle on City buildings, vehicles
and other equipment.
46. The white alumina dust and corrosive substances have caused and continue to
cause significant damage to City buildings, vehicles and other equipment.
D. AWA Violates Its Permits Many Times
47. The City contends that AWA has violated its permit emissions limits for
particulate matter on numerous occasions, and could have prevented release of these emissions.
Detailed information relating to these releases is set forth in Exhibit A (AWA Self Reported
Excess Opacity Events and Emission Events), and Exhibit B (AWA Self Reported Maintenance,
Air Startup, and Air Shutdown Events) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
48. According to data AWA reported to the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ), between March 8, 2003 and February 21, 2006, the facility has exceeded its
permitted opacity levels at least 135 times.
49. AWA has filed numerous notifications of scheduled maintenance, startup and
shutdown events.
50. According to data AWA reported to the TCEQ, between March 8, 2003 and
February 21, 2006, the facility has exceeded its permit opacity levels at least 37 times during
startup, shutdown or maintenance events.
51. On Feb. 3rd, 2006, the TCEQ filed a petition, TCEQ Docket No. 2005-0350-AIR-
E, bringing an enforcement action against AWA for some of these emission violations and for
various other violations of TCEQ regulations.
6.
52. This TCEQ enforcement action lists only 10 of the violations contained in the
Citys Notice of Intent.
53. Numerous other violations listed in the Citys Notice of Intent have not been
subject to any enforcement action.
54. Although the frequency of AWAs self-reported emission events to TCEQ has
declined since the City filed its Notice of Intent, residents of the City continue to see frequent
deposits of white dust.
55. These excessive unauthorized emissions result from AWAs failure to prevent
malfunctions and other improper functioning of various equipment, including but not limited to
the calciners.
56. AWA should be able to foresee and prevent many of its unauthorized discharges
because there is a clear pattern of frequent malfunctions at its Point Comfort facility.
57. The frequent or reasonably preventable excess emissions indicate an underlying
problem with the design, operating procedures, or maintenance of a source, and therefore should
not be considered a malfunction or unpreventable.
58. The City alleges that AWA has been negligent in the operation and maintenance
of its facility in one or more of the following particulars: failure to maintain and operate effective
dust control systems on the disposal pits, and failure to maintain and operate the calciner units
in a manner that reduces or eliminates unauthorized emissions.
59. Each of the foregoing acts or omissions constituted a proximate cause of the
interference with the use and enjoyment of City property and the injuries and damages made the
basis of this action.
7.
V. CAUSES OF ACTION
60. The City hereby incorporates the facts set forth in paragraphs 1 to 59.
A. COUNT 1: VIOLATION OF FEDERAL PERMITS
61. Under 42 U.S.C. 7604(a)(2), citizens, including the City, can bring suit against
corporations who violate their permits.
62. Violations of federal operating permits are prohibited under 42 U.S.C. 7166a(a)
and 40 C.F.R. 71.12.
63. AWA has violated its federal operating permit (No. O-01344) and New Source
Review authorizations (Permit No. 8166).
64. These unauthorized discharges result from AWA's failure to prevent malfunctions
and other improper functioning of various equipment, including but not limited to the calciners.
i. AWAS Violations During Upset Events
65. AWA has and continues to violate its permit emissions limits for particulate
matter.
66. As stated above, for example, between March 8, 2003 and February 21, 2006,
permitted opacity levels were exceeded on at least 98 occasions.
67. AWA reported an estimated total of at least 2064.59 lbs of alumina dust were
emitted during these violations.
68. These unauthorized discharges or upset events result from AWA's failure to
prevent malfunctions and other improper functioning of various equipment, including but not
limited to the calciners.
69. An upset event is an unplanned or unanticipated occurrence or excursion of a
process or operation that results in unauthorized emissions of any air contaminant except
8.
carbon dioxide, water, nitrogen, methane, ethane, noble gases, hydrogen, and oxygen, which
exceeds any air emission limitation in a permit, rule, or order of the commission or as authorized
by Texas Clean Air Act, 382.0518(g). 30 T.A.C. 101.1(104), (105).
70. Unauthorized discharges are presumed to be preventable because the owner or
operator of a facility has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the criteria identified in [30
T.A.C.] 101.222(d) of this title for excess opacity events, or in [30 T.A.C.] 101.222(e) of this
title for excess opacity events resulting from scheduled maintenance, startup, or shutdown
activities are satisfied for each excess opacity event.
71. Many emissions in the incident reports are caused by improperly designed
equipment, lack of preventative maintenance, and careless or improper operation, or operator
error.
72. Therefore, these excess emissions caused by frequent unpreventable
malfunctions at the AWA plant do not qualify as upsets.
because there is a clear pattern of frequent malfunctions at the plant.
ii. AWAs Violations During Scheduled Maintenance, Startup and Shutdown
shutdown events.
permitted opacity levels were exceeded in a total of at least 37 occasions.
9.
77. These unauthorized discharges result from AWAs failure to prevent malfunctions
78. EPA policy states that, all periods of excess emissions arising during startup and
shutdown must be treated as violations. EPA, Memorandum on Policy Regarding Excess
Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown, 2 (Sept. 20, 1999).
80. Therefore, these excess emissions caused by frequent preventable scheduled
maintenance, startup, or shutdown activities are violations.
81. AWA should be able to foresee and prevent many of its unauthorized discharges.
B. COUNT 2: VIOLATIONS OF THE TEXAS CLEAN AIR ACT
82. Under the Texas Clean Air Act, Texas has determined to safeguard the states air
resources from pollution by controlling or abating air pollution and emissions of air
contaminants, consistent with the protection of public health, general welfare, and physical
property, including the esthetic enjoyment of air resources by the public and the maintenance of
adequate visibility. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 382.002(a).
83. Under Texas law, an air contaminant means particulate matter radioactive
material, dust, fumes, gas, mist, smoke, vapor, or odor, including any combination of those
items, produced by processes other than natural. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 382.003(2)
(emphasis added).
10.
84. Under Texas law, air pollution means the presence in the atmosphere of one or
more air contaminants or combination of air contaminants in such concentration and of such
duration that: (A) are or may tend to be injurious to or to adversely affect human health or
welfare, animal life, vegetation, or property; or (B) interfere with the normal use or enjoyment of
animal life, vegetation, or property. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 382.003(3).
85. Unauthorized emissions of any air contaminant or the performance of any
activity that causes or contributes to, or will cause or contribute to, air pollution are prohibited
under Texas law. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 382.085(a).
i. AWAS Violations During Upset Events
86. AWA has and continues to violate its permit emissions limits for particulate
matter.
permitted opacity levels were exceeded on a total of at least 98 occasions.
89. These unauthorized discharges or upset events result from AWA's failure to
prevent malfunctions and other improper functioning of various equipment, including but not
limited to the calciners.
90. An upset event is an unplanned or unanticipated occurrence or excursion of a
process or operation that results in unauthorized emissions of any air contaminant except
carbon dioxide, water, nitrogen, methane, ethane, noble gases, hydrogen, and oxygen, which
exceeds any air emission limitation in a permit, rule, or order of the commission or as authorized
by Texas Clean Air Act, 382.0518(g). 30 T.A.C. 101.1(104), (105).
11.
92. Many emissions in the incident reports are caused by improperly designed
equipment lack of preventative maintenance, careless or improper operation, or operator error.
93. Therefore, these excess emissions caused by frequent unpreventable
malfunctions at the AWA plant do not qualify as upsets.
because there is a clear pattern of frequent malfunctions at the plant.
ii. AWAs Violations During Scheduled Maintenance, Startup and Shutdown
shutdown events.
Permitted opacity levels were exceeded in a total of at least 37 occasions.
98. These unauthorized discharges result from AWAs failure to prevent malfunctions
99. EPA policy states that, all periods of excess emissions arising during startup and
shutdown must be treated as violations. EPA, Memorandum on Policy Regarding Excess
Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown, 2 (Sept. 20, 1999).
12.
101. Therefore, these excess emissions caused by frequent preventable scheduled
maintenance, startup, or shutdown activities are violations.
102. AWA should be able to foresee and prevent many of its unauthorized discharges.
103. These violations occur because of unauthorized discharges resulting from AWA's
failure to prevent malfunctions and other improper functioning of various equipment, including
but not limited to the calciners.
104. During these unauthorized discharges, white alumina dust is being generated
from AWAs Point Comfort facilitys calciners.
105. This unauthorized discharge of white alumina dust is an air contaminant.
106. This unauthorized discharge of white alumina dust generating from AWAs Point
Comfort facility is air pollution because it interferes with the normal use or enjoyment of City
property.
107. This unauthorized discharge of white alumina dust generating from AWAs Pont
Comfort facility violates Texas law.
C. COUNT 3: PUBLIC NUISANCE
108. Under section 382.113(a)(1) of the Texas Health and Safety Code, the City has
the right to abate a nuisance.
13.
109. Defendant, AWA, or its agents, servants, and employees caused and permitted the
aforementioned conditions to exist, such that AWA has endangered the public health, safety or
welfare.
110. AWAs failure to properly control the red dust emissions generating from its
disposal pits endangers the public health, safety or welfare.
111. AWAs failure to properly control the white alumina emissions generating from
its calciners endangers the public health, safety or welfare.
112. Both emissions generating from AWAs Point Comfort facility constitute a public
nuisance.
D. COUNT 4: NUISANCE PER SE
113. Under section 382.113(a)(2) of the Texas Health and Safety Code, the City can
enact and enforce an ordinance for the control abatement of air pollution.
114. In this regard, City Ordinance No. 2006-0-5 provides that for the control and
abatement of air pollution to promote the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the City.
115. Under the City ordinance, air pollution means the presence in the atmosphere
of one or more air contaminants or combination of air contaminants in such concentration and of
such duration that: (A) are or may tend to be injurious to or to adversely affect human health or
welfare, animal life, vegetation, or property; or (B) interfere with the normal use or enjoyment of
animal life, vegetation, or property.
116. Under the City ordinance, air contaminant means particulate matter, radioactive
material, dust, fumes, gas, mist, smoke, vapor, or odor, including any combination of those
items, produced by processes other than natural.
14.
117. The red dust generating from AWAs Point Comfort facility is an air
contaminant that is injurious to, or adversely affects, human health or welfare, animal life,
vegetation, or property, and interferes with he normal use or enjoyment of animal life,
vegetation, or property.
118. The white alumina dust generating from AWAs Point Comfort facility is an air
contaminant that is injurious to, or adversely affects, human health or welfare, animal life,
vegetation, or property, and interferes with he normal use or enjoyment of animal life,
vegetation, or property.
119. Both the red and white dust generating from AWAs Point Comfort facility
violates the City ordinance, and thereby both constitute nuisance per se.
E. COUNT 5: NEGLIGENCE
i. The Red Dust
120. Defendant, AWA, or its agents, servants, and employees negligently caused and
negligently permitted the aforementioned conditions to exist, such that the negligence of AWA
caused the incident and damages complained about herein.
121. The Citys damages are a direct and proximate result of negligent acts and/or
omissions on the part of AWA including AWAs failure to take the necessary, reasonable care in
the design and/or operation of its disposal pits and in the control of red dust emissions coming
from those same disposal pits.
122. AWA breached its duty owed to the City when it failed to use reasonable care in
preventing the red dust air contaminants blowing off of its disposal pits and onto City property,
and damaging City buildings, vehicles and other equipment.
15.
123. As the direct and proximate result of AWAs conduct in failing to control
frequent and excessive unauthorized emissions of red dust from its facility, AWAs emissions
caused damages to the Citys buildings, vehicles and other equipment.
124. As a result of AWAs negligence, the Citys buildings, vehicles and other
equipment were damaged.
125. AWAs acts and omissions, singularly, or in combination with others, either
named herein or as yet undiscovered, were the proximate cause of the Citys injuries and
damages.
ii. The White Alumina Dust
126. Defendant, AWA, or its agents, servants, and employees negligently caused and
negligently permitted the aforementioned conditions to exist, such that the negligence of AWA
caused the incident and damages complained about herein.
127. Although the AWA emissions or releases are characterized as upsets, there is a
distinct pattern of frequent malfunctions at the facility that clearly indicates a lack of reasonable
care.
omissions on the part of AWA including AWAs failure to take the necessary reasonable care in
the operation of its four calciner units and in the control of white alumina emissions coming from
those same calciner units.
129. AWA breached its duty owed to the City when it failed to use reasonable care in
preventing the white alumina dust air contaminants from damaging the Citys buildings, vehicles
and other equipment.
16.
130. As the direct and proximate result of AWAs conduct in failing to control
frequent and excessive unauthorized emissions of white alumina dust coming from its calciner
units at its facility, AWAs emissions caused damages to the Citys buildings, vehicles and other
equipment.
131. As a result of AWAs negligence, the Citys buildings, vehicles and other
equipment were damaged.
132. AWAs acts and omissions, singularly, or in combination with others, either
named herein or as yet undiscovered, were the proximate cause of the Citys injuries and
damages.
F. COUNT 6: NEGLIGENCE PER SE
133. AWA, or its agents, servants, and employees negligently caused and negligently
permitted the aforementioned conditions to exist, such that the negligence of AWA caused the
injuries complained about herein.
omissions on the part of AWA including its failure to comply with the City Air Pollution
Ordinance No. 2006-0-5.
135. As a result of AWAs negligence, City property, vehicles, and other equipment
have been damaged from red dust and white alumina dust generating from AWAs Point
Comfort facility.
136. AWAs acts and omissions, singularly, or in combination with others, either named
herein or as yet undiscovered, were the proximate cause of injuries and damages suffered by the
City in an amount which exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of the court for which the City
hereby sues.
17.
G. COUNT 7: GROSS NEGLIGENCE
137. In Texas, plaintiffs can recover exemplary damages for harm that results from
gross negligence. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 41.003(a)(3).
138. Gross negligence is defined as an act or omission: (A) which when viewed
objectively from the standpoint of the actor at the times of its occurrence involves an extreme
degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others; and (B)
of which the actor has actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless
proceeds with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. TEX. CIV. PRAC.
& REM. CODE 41.001(11).
139. AWAs actions and/or omissions herein committed and as set forth above in detail
amounts to gross negligence.
140. AWAs conduct, viewed objectively, involved an extreme degree of risk in light of
the probability and magnitude of harm to the City.
141. Indeed, AWA is aware of a distinct pattern of frequent malfunctions at its facility.
142. AWA, however, has failed to adequately remedy these frequent malfunctions at
its facility.
143. AWA is also aware that red dust from its mud lakes and white alumina dust from
its four calciners is disbursed beyond the confines of its facility.
144. Despite the subjective awareness of the frequent malfunctions at its facility and
the disbursement of the red dust from the mud lakes and the white alumina dust from its four
calciners, AWA nevertheless proceeds with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or
welfare of others, namely, the City.
18.
145. The City, therefore, seeks exemplary damages in an amount within the
jurisdictional limits of the court.
H. COUNT 8: TRESPASS
146. AWAs intentional conduct in its unauthorized discharges resulting from its failure
to prevent malfunctions and other improper functioning of other equipment, including but not
limited to the calciners, caused and is continuing to cause considerable damage to City property.
147. AWAs intentional conduct in its unauthorized discharges resulting from
violations occurring during its scheduled maintenance, startups and shutdowns, including but not
limited to the calciners, caused and is continuing to cause considerable damage to City property.
148. The aforementioned conduct and activities constituted wrongful entry onto City
property and is an unlawful violation of the Citys property rights, because AWA has no right to
possess City property and this intrusion was without the Citys permission.
149. As a result of AWAs intentional conduct, these intrusive substances damaged
City property.
150. As a result of AWAs intentional conduct, the City has sustained considerable
economic losses.
VI. RELIEF REQUESTED
151. The City requests that an injunction be issued prohibiting AWA from operating
under its federal operating permit (No. O-01344) and New Source Review authorizations (Permit
No. 8166) until AWA has rectified its pattern of frequent malfunctions at its Point Comfort
facility which has led to the frequent prohibited emissions of the white alumina dust.
152. The City also requests that an injunction be issued until AWA has eliminated the
emissions of the red dust coming from its disposal pits.
19.
153. The City also requests judgment against AWA for a sum within the jurisdictional
limits of the Court; prejudgment interest as provided by law, attorneys fees; award of exemplary
damages against AWA in a sum determined by the trier of fact; post judgment interest as
provided by law; exemplary damages; costs of suit, and such other and further relief to which the
City may be justly entitled.
20.
VII. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the City requests that upon a final trial
hereof, that an injunction be issued as requested above, and for other and further relief to which
the City may show itself justly entitled, including attorneys fees.
BLACKBURN CARTER, P.C.
by: s/James B. Blackburn, Jr.

JAMES B. BLACKBURN, JR.
Attorney in charge
TBN: 02388500
Southern District of Texas Bar No. 7416
4709 Austin
Houston, Texas 77004
713/524-1012
713/524-5165 (fax)
OF COUNSEL:
Mary W. Carter
TBA No. 03926300
Charles W. Irvine
TBA No. 24055716
BLACKBURN CARTER, P.C.
4709 Austin
Houston, Texas 77004
713/524-1012
713/524-5165 (fax) Counsel for Plaintiff
21.

City of Point Comfort V Alcoa Original Petition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

City of Point Comfort V Alcoa Original Petition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 1 of 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE CITY OF POINT COMFORT,

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

between the parties.

related state claims brought in this suit.

Alcoa World Alumina is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.

violations is located in this district.

6. Plaintiff is the City of Point Comfort, Calhoun County, Texas.

Street, Point Comfort, Texas 77978.

8. Alcoa World Alumina, L.L.C. is a Delaware limited liability corporation

9. Alcoa World Aluminas Point Comfort Operations are located at State

Highway 35, Point Comfort, Texas 77978.

County with a population of approximately 781 citizens.

12. The City is located directly northeast of AWAs disposal pits.

southerly through east-southeasterly direction for the majority of months.

A. The Alumina Process

mixture of insoluble matter, i.e., a slurry.

B. The Disposal Pits

impoundments, known as disposal pits.

26. AWA has constructed levees around its disposal pits.

28. This blowing red dust obscures visibility on highway 35.

arsenic, chromium, selenium, radium 266 and/or thorium.

design its disposal pits.

maintain its disposal pits.

health and welfare. 42 U.S.C. 7401(a)(2).

local governments. 42 U.S.C. 7401(a)(3).

prevention. 42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(1), (c).

its Point Comfort facility.

37. These permits impose monitoring, record-keeping and reporting requirements

necessary to ensure the facilitys compliance.

authorized under Permit No. 8166.

of unauthorized emissions of white alumina dust.

fluoride, are also released.

corrosive substance is formed.

and other equipment.

cause significant damage to City buildings, vehicles and other equipment.

D. AWA Violates Its Permits Many Times

48. According to data AWA reported to the Texas Commission on Environmental

permitted opacity levels at least 135 times.

startup, shutdown or maintenance events.

various other violations of TCEQ regulations.

Citys Notice of Intent.

subject to any enforcement action.

deposits of white dust.

57. The frequent or reasonably preventable excess emissions indicate an underlying

not be considered a malfunction or unpreventable.

in a manner that reduces or eliminates unauthorized emissions.

basis of this action.

A. COUNT 1: VIOLATION OF FEDERAL PERMITS

corporations who violate their permits.

and 40 C.F.R. 71.12.

Review authorizations (Permit No. 8166).

i. AWAS Violations During Upset Events

permitted opacity levels were exceeded on at least 98 occasions.

emitted during these violations.

limited to the calciners.

69. An upset event is an unplanned or unanticipated occurrence or excursion of a

by Texas Clean Air Act, 382.0518(g). 30 T.A.C. 101.1(104), (105).

70. Unauthorized discharges are presumed to be preventable because the owner or

activities are satisfied for each excess opacity event.

equipment, lack of preventative maintenance, and careless or improper operation, or operator

72. Therefore, these excess emissions caused by frequent unpreventable