You are on page 1of 21

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.
Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 2 of 21

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.
Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 3 of 21

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.
Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 4 of 21

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.
Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 5 of 21

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

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.
Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 7 of 21

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.
Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 8 of 21

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.
Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 9 of 21

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.

73. AWA should be able to foresee and prevent many of its unauthorized discharges

because there is a clear pattern of frequent malfunctions at the plant.

ii. AWAs Violations During Scheduled Maintenance, Startup and Shutdown

74. AWA has filed numerous notifications of scheduled maintenance, startup and

shutdown events.

75. As stated above, for example, between March 8, 2003 and February 21, 2006,

permitted opacity levels were exceeded in a total of at least 37 occasions.

76. AWA reported an estimated total of at least 989.97 lbs of alumina dust were

emitted during these violations.

9.
Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 10 of 21

77. These unauthorized discharges result from AWAs failure to prevent malfunctions

and other improper functioning of various equipment, including but not limited to the calciners.

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).

79. 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.

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.
Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 11 of 21

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.

87. As stated above, for example, between March 8, 2003 and February 21, 2006,

permitted opacity levels were exceeded on a total of at least 98 occasions.

88. AWA reported an estimated total of at least 2064.59 lbs of alumina dust were

emitted during these violations.

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.
Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 12 of 21

91. 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.

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.

94. AWA should be able to foresee and prevent many of its unauthorized discharges

because there is a clear pattern of frequent malfunctions at the plant.

ii. AWAs Violations During Scheduled Maintenance, Startup and Shutdown

95. AWA has filed numerous notifications of scheduled maintenance, startup and

shutdown events.

96. As stated above, for example, between March 8, 2003 and February 21, 2006,

Permitted opacity levels were exceeded in a total of at least 37 occasions.

97. AWA reported an estimated total of at least 989.97 lbs of alumina dust were

emitted during these violations.

98. These unauthorized discharges result from AWAs failure to prevent malfunctions

and other improper functioning of various equipment, including but not limited to the calciners.

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.
Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 13 of 21

100. 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.

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.
Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 14 of 21

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.
Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 15 of 21

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.
Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 16 of 21

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.

128. 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 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.
Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 17 of 21

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.

134. The Citys damages are a direct and proximate result of negligent acts and/or

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.
Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 18 of 21

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.
Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 19 of 21

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.
Case 6:07-cv-00013 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/22/07 Page 20 of 21

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

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.