Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 20
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. ______________
`
`COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT
`1000 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 1100
`Washington, DC 20005,
`
`SIERRA CLUB
`2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300
`Oakland, CA 94612,
`
`PORT ARTHUR COMMUNITY ACTION
`NETWORK
`501 West 15th Street
`Port Arthur, TX 77640,
`
`ENVIRONMENT TEXAS
`200 East 30th Street
`Austin, TX 78705,
`
`NETA RHYNE
`9227 Highway 17
`Toyahvale, TX 79786,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ANDREW WHEELER, in his official capacity as
`Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
`Agency,
`William Jefferson Clinton Building
`Mail Code 1101A
`1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20460,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief, with costs and fees
`
`under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., and the declaratory judgment statute, 28
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 2 of 20
`
`U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202.
`
`2.
`
`With this action, Plaintiffs Environmental Integrity Project (“EIP”), Sierra Club,
`
`Port Arthur Community Action Network, Environment Texas, and Neta Rhyne (“Plaintiffs”)
`
`seek an order declaring that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)
`
`through the Defendant EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler (“Administrator”), is required,
`
`pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2), to grant or deny eight petitions filed by Plaintiffs. Each of
`
`these petitions requests that the Administrator object to a permit issued under Title V of the
`
`Clean Air Act by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) authorizing
`
`operation of a major source of air pollution located in the state of Texas. Plaintiffs also seek an
`
`order requiring the Administrator to perform his non-discretionary duty to grant or deny each of
`
`these petitions by March 31, 2021.
`
`3.
`
`The eight petitions at issue in this action are listed in the table below and attached
`
`hereto as Exhibits A through H:
`
`Permit Number Operator
`O2546
`ETC Texas Pipeline
`LTD
`Premcor Refining
`Group Inc.
`Sandy Creek Services
`LLC
`Phillips 66
`
`O1498
`
`O3336
`
`O1440
`
`O3764
`
`O2942
`
`O1513
`
`O1541
`
`Kinder Morgan Crude
`& Condensate LLC
`Oak Grove
`Management Company
`LLC
`BP Amoco Chemical
`Company
`Blanchard Refining
`Company LLC
`
`Source Name
`Waha Gas Plant
`
`Exhibit Number
`Exhibit A
`
`Port Arthur Refinery
`
`Exhibit B
`
`Sandy Creek Energy
`Station
`Borger Refinery
`
`Exhibit C
`
`Exhibit D
`
`Galena Park Facility
`
`Exhibit E
`
`Oak Grove Steam
`Electric Station
`
`Exhibit F
`
`Texas City Chemical
`Plant
`Galveston Bay Refinery Exhibit H
`
`Exhibit G
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 3 of 20
`
`JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND NOTICE
`
`4.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims set forth in this
`
`complaint pursuant to the citizen suit provision of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a), and
`
`has the authority to award attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7604(d). This Court also has
`
`subject matter jurisdiction over the claims set forth in this complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331 (federal question) and 1346 (United States as defendant), as the Clean Air Act is a
`
`federal statute and the Administrator is an agent of the United States government.
`
`5.
`
`This case does not concern federal taxes, is not a proceeding under 11 U.S.C. §§
`
`505 or 1146, nor does it involve the Tariff Act of 1930. Thus, this Court has authority to order
`
`the declaratory relief requested under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. If the Court orders such relief, 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 2202 authorizes this Court to issue injunctive relief, and 28 U.S.C. § 2412 authorizes this Court
`
`to award Plaintiffs their costs and attorneys’ fees.
`
`6.
`
`A substantial part of the alleged events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’
`
`claims occurred in the District of Columbia. In addition, Plaintiffs bring this suit against the
`
`Administrator in his official capacity as an officer or employee of EPA, residing in the District
`
`of Columbia. Thus, venue is proper in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
`
`7.
`
`As required by 42 U.S.C. § 7604(b)(1)(A), Plaintiffs notified the Administrator
`
`of the EPA of the violations alleged in this complaint and of Plaintiffs’ intent to sue, via certified
`
`first-class mail and email. Exhibits I (Notice of Intent Letter) and J (Notice of Intent Letter
`
`Delivery Confirmation). The notice letter was received on September 28, 2020.
`
`8.
`
`More than 60 days have passed since the Administrator received this notice of
`
`intent to sue letter. The Administrator has not acted to remedy the violations alleged in this
`
`Complaint. Therefore, an actual controversy exists between the parties.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 4 of 20
`
`The Plaintiffs
`
`PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT is a national nonprofit
`
`corporation founded to advocate for the effective enforcement of state and federal environmental
`
`laws, with a specific focus on the Clean Air Act and large stationary sources of air pollution,
`
`like chemical plants, petroleum refineries, and power plants. EPA’s failure to respond in a timely
`
`manner to Plaintiffs’ petitions, which demonstrate that Texas Title V permits for some of the
`
`largest sources of air pollution in the United States fail to comply with the Clean Air Act, adversely
`
`affects EIP’s ability to assure that major sources of air pollution comply with federally
`
`enforceable public health protections.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff SIERRA CLUB is one of the Nation’s largest and oldest grassroots
`
`nonprofit membership organizations. Sierra Club’s Texas chapter was formed more than forty
`
`years ago and has a long history of working to reduce industrial air pollution that adversely affect
`
`air quality in Texas. Sierra Club petitioned the Administrator to object to the eight Title V
`
`permits, because the permits fail to comply with Clean Air Act requirements. The
`
`Administrator’s failure to perform his non-discretionary duty to grant or deny each of these
`
`petitions injures the organizational interests of Sierra Club as well as the concrete public health
`
`interests of its members.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff PORT ARTHUR COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK
`
`is a
`
`community group formed by Port Arthur residents to advocate for solutions that reduce or
`
`eliminate environmental and public health hazards and to improve the quality of life in Port
`
`Arthur, Texas. The Administrator’s failure to perform his non-discretionary duty to grant or
`
`deny Plaintiffs’ petition to object to the Title V permit for the Port Arthur Refinery injures the
`
`organizational interests of the Port Arthur Community Action Network as well as the concrete
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 5 of 20
`
`public health interests of its members.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff ENVIRONMENT TEXAS is a statewide non-profit environmental
`
`organization that advocates for clean air, clean water, and preservation of Texas’s natural areas
`
`on behalf of its approximately 5,000 members. Environment Texas researches and distributes
`
`analytical reports on environmental issues, advocates before legislative and administrative
`
`bodies, conducts public education, and pursues public interest litigation on behalf of its
`
`members. The Administrator’s failure to perform his non-discretionary duty to grant or deny
`
`each of these petitions injures the organizational interests of Environment Texas as well as the
`
`concrete public health interests of its members.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff NETA RHYNE is a private citizen who lives in the northwest region of
`
`Texas. Ms. Rhyne is exposed to sulfur dioxide pollution and other disruptive effects of oil and
`
`gas activities in the Permian Basin. The Administrator’s failure to grant or deny the petition to
`
`object to the Title V permit for the Waha Gas Plant injures Ms. Rhyne’s concrete health and
`
`property interests.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiffs have an interest in ensuring that Title V permits authorizing operation
`
`of the Waha Gas Plant, the Port Arthur Refinery, the Sandy Creek Energy Station, the Borger
`
`Refinery, the Galena Park Facility, the Oak Grove Steam Electric Station, the Texas City
`
`Chemical Plant, and the Galveston Bay Refinery comply with all applicable federal
`
`requirements. Members and employees of Plaintiff organizations live, work, and recreate in
`
`areas that are affected by air pollution emitted from each of the major industrial sources that are
`
`the subjects of the petitions and this Complaint. Neta Rhyne lives, works and recreates in areas
`
`of Texas that are affected by air pollution from the Waha Gas Plant. Neta Rhyne, members and
`
`employees of Plaintiff organizations, as well as Plaintiff organizations, will be harmed if EPA
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 6 of 20
`
`fails to object to the Title V permits authorizing operation of these major sources.
`
`The Defendant
`
`15.
`
`Defendant Andrew Wheeler is the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
`
`Agency. The Administrator is responsible for implementing and enforcing the Clean Air Act.
`
`The Clean Air Act assigns to the Administrator a nondiscretionary duty to grant or deny timely
`
`filed Title V petitions within 60 days.
`
`16.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Administrator’s failure to respond to Plaintiffs’
`
`petitions has caused, is causing, and unless this Court grants the requested relief, will continue
`
`to cause Plaintiffs concrete injuries that the Court can redress through this case.
`
`LEGAL AUTHORITY
`
`17.
`
`The Clean Air Act is designed to protect and enhance the quality of the nation’s
`
`air so as to promote the public health and welfare and productive capacity of its population. 42
`
`U.S.C.§ 7401(b)(1). To advance this goal, Congress amended the Act in 1990 to establish the
`
`Title V operating permit program. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7661-7661f. Title V of the Clean Air Act
`
`provides that “[a]fter the effective date of any permit program approved or promulgated under
`
`this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person to violate any requirement of a permit issued
`
`under this subchapter, or to operate . . . a major source . . . except in compliance with a permit
`
`issued by a permitting authority under this subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 7661a(a).
`
`18.
`
`The Waha Gas Plant, the Port Arthur Refinery, the Sandy Creek Energy Station,
`
`the Borger Refinery, the Galena Park Facility, the Oak Grove Steam Electric Station, the Texas
`
`City Chemical Plant, and the Galveston Bay Refinery are all major sources subject to Title V
`
`permitting requirements.
`
`19.
`
`The Clean Air Act provides that the Administrator may approve a state’s program
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 7 of 20
`
`to administer the Title V operating permit program with respect to sources within its borders.
`
`42 U.S.C. § 7661a(d). The Administrator approved Texas’s administration of its Title V
`
`operating permit program. 61 Fed. Reg. 32693 (June 25, 1996); 66 Fed. Reg. 66318 (December
`
`6, 2001). Thus, the TCEQ is responsible for issuing Title V operating permits in Texas.
`
`20.
`
`Before the TCEQ may issue, modify, or renew a Title V permit, it must forward
`
`the proposed permit to EPA for review. 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(a)(1)(B). The Administrator then has
`
`45 days to review the proposed permit. The Administrator must object to the permit if he finds
`
`that it does not comply with all applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. §
`
`7661d(b)(1). If the Administrator does not object to the permit during EPA’s 45-day review
`
`period, “any person may petition the Administrator within 60 days” to object to the permit. 42
`
`U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2).
`
`21.
`
`If a petition is timely filed, the Administrator has a non-discretionary duty to
`
`grant or deny it within 60 days. Id.
`
`22.
`
`The Clean Air Act authorizes citizen suits “against the Administrator where there
`
`is alleged a failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this chapter which is
`
`not discretionary with the Administrator.” 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2).
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Waha Gas Plant
`
`23.
`
`ETC Texas Pipeline Ltd.’s (“ETC”) Waha Gas Plant is located in Pecos County,
`
`Texas. It is a major source of volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
`
`carbon monoxide.
`
`24.
`
`ETC applied to the TCEQ for a renewal of Title V Permit No. O2546 for the Waha
`
`Gas Plant on October 17, 2018. The Executive Director of the TCEQ issued a draft renewal
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 8 of 20
`
`operating permit (“Waha Draft Permit”), notice of which was published on May 16, 2019. The
`
`public comment period for the Waha Draft Permit ended on June 17, 2019.
`
`25.
`
`On June 17, 2019, the Environmental Integrity Project and Neta Rhyne submitted
`
`timely written comments to the TCEQ during the public comment period. The comments
`
`identified specific deficiencies contained in the Waha Draft Permit.
`
`26.
`
`EPA’s 45-day review period for the proposed permit ended on January 10, 2020.
`
`EPA did not object to the permit.
`
`27.
`
`On March 10, 2020, the Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club, and Texas
`
`Campaign for the Environment timely filed with EPA a petition to object to the Waha Title V
`
`operating permit. 42. U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2). The petition was based on objections to the Waha
`
`Draft Permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period, as
`
`required by 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2).
`
`28.
`
`Though the Administrator was required to grant or deny the petition within 60
`
`days, he has not yet done so. 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2).
`
`Port Arthur Refinery
`
`29.
`
`Premcor Refining Group Inc.’s (“Premcor”) Port Arthur Refinery is located in
`
`Jefferson County, Texas. The Port Arthur Refinery is a major source of air pollution that emits
`
`a variety of federally-regulated pollutants, including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
`
`dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and hazardous air pollutants.
`
`30.
`
`Premcor filed a renewal application for Title V Permit No. O1498 on July 5,
`
`2011. The Executive Director of the TCEQ issued a draft renewal operating permit (“Port Arthur
`
`Refinery Draft Permit”), notice of which was published on December 16, 2015. The public
`
`comment period for the Port Arthur Refinery Draft Permit ended on January 15, 2016.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 9 of 20
`
`31.
`
`On January 12, 2016, the Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club, and Air
`
`Alliance Houston submitted timely written comments to the TCEQ during the public comment
`
`period. The comments identified specific deficiencies contained in the Port Arthur Refinery Draft
`
`Permit.
`
`32.
`
`EPA’s 45-day review period for the proposed permit ended on December 22,
`
`2017. EPA did not object to the permit.
`
`33.
`
`On February 20, 2018, the Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club, and Port
`
`Arthur Community Action Network timely filed with EPA a petition to object to the Port Arthur
`
`Refinery Title V operating permit. 42. U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2). The petition was based on
`
`objections to the Port Arthur Refinery Draft Permit that were raised with reasonable specificity
`
`during the public comment period, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2).
`
`34.
`
`Though the Administrator was required to grant or deny the petition within 60
`
`days, he has not yet done so. 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2).
`
`Sandy Creek Energy Station
`
`35.
`
`The Sandy Creek Energy Station is a major source of many different federally
`
`regulated pollutants, including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, volatile
`
`organic compounds, and hazardous air pollutants. The Sandy Creek Energy Station is located in
`
`McLennan County, Texas.
`
`36.
`
`Sandy Creek Services, LLC (“Sandy Creek”) filed an application for Title V
`
`Permit No. O3336 on October 30, 2009. The Executive Director of the TCEQ issued a draft
`
`operating permit (“Sandy Creek Draft Permit”), notice of which was published on September
`
`26, 2016. According to the public notice, the public comment period for the Sandy Creek Draft
`
`Permit would end 30 days after the date of publication.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 10 of 20
`
`37.
`
`On October 26, 2016, EIP and Sierra Club submitted timely written comments to
`
`the TCEQ during the public comment period. These comments identified specific deficiencies
`
`contained in the Sandy Creek Draft Permit.
`
`38.
`
`EPA’s 45-day review period for the proposed permit ended on November 17,
`
`2017. EPA did not object to the permit.
`
`39.
`
`On January 16, 2018, EIP and Sierra Club timely filed with EPA a petition to
`
`object to the Sandy Creek Title V operating permit. 42. U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2). The petition was
`
`based on objections to the Sandy Creek Draft Permit that were raised with reasonable specificity
`
`during the public comment period, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2).
`
`40.
`
`Though the Administrator was required to grant or deny the petition within 60
`
`days, he has not yet done so. 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2).
`
`Borger Refinery
`
`41.
`
`Phillips 66’s Borger Refinery is a major source of volatile organic compounds,
`
`sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, greenhouse gasses, and
`
`hazardous air pollutants located in Hutchinson County, Texas.
`
`42.
`
`Phillips 66 filed an application to renew Title V Permit No. O1440 on August
`
`28, 2013. The Executive Director of the TCEQ issued a draft operating permit (“Borger Draft
`
`Permit”), notice of which was published on October 14, 2015. According to the public notice,
`
`the public comment period for the Borger Draft Permit would end 30 days after the date of
`
`publication.
`
`43.
`
`On November 13, 2015, EIP and Sierra Club submitted timely written comments
`
`to the TCEQ during the public comment period. These comments identified specific deficiencies
`
`contained in the Borger Draft Permit.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 11 of 20
`
`44.
`
`On May 25, 2017, the Executive Director forwarded his response to public
`
`comments along with his proposed renewal Title V Permit No. O1440 to EPA for review.
`
`45.
`
`EPA’s 45-day review period for the Borger Title V permit ended on July 14,
`
`2017. EPA did not object to the permit.
`
`46.
`
`On September 12, 2017, EIP and Sierra Club timely filed with EPA a petition to
`
`object to the Borger Title V operating permit. 42. U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2). The Petition was based
`
`on objections to the Borger Draft Permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the
`
`public comment period, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2).
`
`Galena Park Facility
`
`47.
`
`Kinder Morgan Crude & Condensate LLC’s (“Kinder Morgan”) Galena Park
`
`Facility is a major source of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide,
`
`hazardous air pollutants, and greenhouse gasses located Galena Park, Harris County, Texas.
`
`48.
`
`Kinder Morgan filed an application for Title V Permit No. O3764 on November
`
`12, 2014. The Executive Director of the TCEQ issued a draft operating permit (“Galena Park
`
`Draft Permit”), notice of which was published on October 29, 2015. According to the public
`
`notice, the public comment period for the Galena Park Draft Permit would end 30 days after the
`
`date of publication. Bilingual notice of the Galena Park Draft Permit was published on
`
`November 1, 2015 and provided that the comment period of the Galena Park Draft Permit would
`
`end 30 days after the date of publication.
`
`49.
`
`On November 30, 2015, EIP, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services,
`
`Sierra Club, Environment Texas, and Air Alliance Houston timely-submitted written comments
`
`to the TCEQ during the public comment period. These comments identified specific deficiencies
`
`contained in the Galena Park Draft Permit.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 12 of 20
`
`50.
`
`EPA’s 45-day review period for the Galena Park permit ended on June 30, 2017.
`
`EPA did not object to the permit.
`
`51.
`
`On August 29, 2017, EIP, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services,
`
`Sierra Club, Environment Texas, Air Alliance Houston, and Patricia Gonzales timely filed with
`
`EPA a petition to object to the Galena Park Title V operating permit. 42. U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2).
`
`The petition was based on objections to the Galena Park Draft Permit that were raised with
`
`reasonable specificity during the public comment period, as required by 42 U.S.C. §
`
`7661d(b)(2).
`
`Oak Grove Steam Electric Station
`
`52.
`
`Oak Grove Management Company’s (“Oak Grove”) Oak Grove Steam Electric
`
`Station is a major source of volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter,
`
`nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, hazardous air pollutants, and greenhouse gasses located
`
`Robertson County, Texas.
`
`53.
`
`Oak Grove filed an application for Title V Permit No. O2942 on March 23, 2007.
`
`The Executive Director of the TCEQ issued a draft operating permit (“Oak Grove Draft Permit”),
`
`notice of which was published on August 3, 2016. According to the public notice, the public
`
`comment period for the Oak Grove Draft Permit would end 30 days after the date of publication.
`
`54.
`
`On August 31, 2016, EIP and Sierra Club timely-submitted written comments to
`
`the TCEQ during the public comment period. These comments identified specific deficiencies
`
`contained in the Oak Grove Draft Permit.
`
`55.
`
`EPA’s 45-day review period for the Oak Grove Title V permit ended on May
`
`26, 2017. EPA did not object to the permit.
`
`56.
`
`On July 25, 2017, EIP and Sierra Club timely filed with EPA a petition to object
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 13 of 20
`
`to the Oak Grove Title V operating permit. 42. U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2). The petition was based on
`
`objections to the Oak Grove Draft Permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the
`
`public comment period, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2).
`
`Texas City Chemical Plant
`
`57.
`
`BP Amoco Chemical Company’s (“BP”) Texas City Chemical Plant is a major
`
`source of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, hazardous air
`
`pollutants, and greenhouse gases located in Galveston County, Texas.
`
`58.
`
`BP filed an application to renew Title V Permit No. O1513 on November 14,
`
`2013. The Executive Director of the TCEQ issued a draft operating permit (“BP Draft Permit”),
`
`notice of which was published on June 12, 2014. According to the public notice, the public
`
`comment period for the BP Draft Permit would end 30 days after the date of publication.
`
`59.
`
`On July 24, 2014, EIP, Air Alliance Houston, and Sierra Club timely-submitted
`
`written comments to the TCEQ during the public comment period. These comments identified
`
`specific deficiencies contained in the BP Draft Permit.
`
`60.
`
`EPA’s 45-day review period for the BP Title V permit ended on February 3,
`
`2017. EPA did not object to the permit.
`
`61.
`
`On April 4, 2017, EIP and Sierra Club timely filed with EPA a petition to object
`
`to the BP Title V operating permit. 42. U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2). The petition was based on
`
`objections to the BP Draft Permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public
`
`comment period, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2).
`
`Galveston Bay Refinery
`
`62.
`
`Blanchard Refining Company LLC’s (“Blanchard”) Galveston Bay Refinery is a
`
`major source of volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxide,
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 14 of 20
`
`carbon monoxide, and hazardous air pollutants located in Galveston County, Texas.
`
`63.
`
`Blanchard filed an application to renew Title V Permit No. O1541 on March 3,
`
`2009. The Executive Director of the TCEQ issued a draft operating permit (“Blanchard Draft
`
`Permit”), notice of which was published on September 6, 2012. According to the public notice,
`
`the public comment period for the Blanchard Draft Permit would end 30 days after the date of
`
`publication.
`
`64.
`
`On October 5, 2012, EIP, Air Alliance Houston, and Sierra Club timely-
`
`submitted written comments to the TCEQ during the public comment period. These comments
`
`identified specific deficiencies contained in the Blanchard Draft Permit.
`
`65.
`
`On August 27, 2014, Blanchard published notice of a revised Blanchard Draft
`
`Permit. This notice did not identify any changes made to the initial Blanchard Draft Permit, nor
`
`did it respond to public comments concerning the Blanchard Draft Permit.
`
`66.
`
`Notice of a second revision to the Blanchard Draft Permit was published on
`
`December 17, 2015. This notice did not identify any changes made from the previous version
`
`of the Blanchard Draft Permit, nor did it respond to public comments on the initial Blanchard
`
`Draft Permit. The notice for the second revision to the Blanchard Draft Permit indicated that
`
`the public comment period would end 30 days after the date the notice was published.
`
`67.
`
`On January 19, 2016, EIP, Air Alliance Houston, and Sierra Club timely filed
`
`public comments on the second revision to the Blanchard Draft Permit. These comments
`
`identified specific deficiencies contained in the Blanchard Draft Permit.
`
`68.
`
`EPA’s 45-day review period for the Blanchard Title V permit ended on
`
`February 10, 2017. EPA did not object to the permit.
`
`69.
`
`On April 11, 2017, EIP and Sierra Club timely filed with EPA a petition to object
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 15 of 20
`
`to the Blanchard Title V operating permit. 42. U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2). The petition was based on
`
`objections to the Blanchard Draft Permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the
`
`public comment periods for that permit, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2).
`
`70. More than 60 days has passed since Plaintiffs filed each of the eight Title V
`
`petitions referenced in Paragraphs 27, 33, 39, 46, 51, 56, 61, and 69 of this Complaint. Though
`
`the Administrator was required to grant or deny each of these Title V petitions within 60 days, 42
`
`U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2), he has not granted or denied any of them.
`
`71.
`
`On September 24, 2020, Plaintiffs sent Administrator Andrew Wheeler notice of
`
`their intent to sue for his failure to grant or deny their eight Title V petitions within 60 days.
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2)
`(Failure to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Petitions)
`
`FIRST CLAIM
`
`(Failure to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Petition for Objection to the Waha Plant Permit)
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-71.
`
`The Administrator has a nondiscretionary duty to respond within 60 days to
`
`Plaintiffs’ petition requesting that EPA object to the Waha Gas Plant permit. 42 U.S.C. §
`
`7661d(b)(2) (“[t]he Administrator shall grant or deny such a petition within 60 days after the
`
`petition is filed.”) (emphasis added).
`
`74.
`
`It has been more than 60 days since the Administrator received Plaintiffs’ petition
`
`requesting that EPA object to the Waha Gas Plant permit.
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`The Administrator has not granted or denied Plaintiffs’ Waha Gas Plant petition.
`
`The Administrator has failed to perform this nondiscretionary duty and remains
`
`in violation of this obligation.
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 16 of 20
`
`SECOND CLAIM
`
`(Failure to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Petition for Objection to the Port Arthur Refinery
`Permit)
`
`77.
`
`78.
`
`Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-71.
`
`The Administrator has a nondiscretionary duty to respond within 60 days to
`
`Plaintiffs’ petition requesting that EPA object to the Port Arthur Refinery permit. 42 U.S.C. §
`
`7661d(b)(2) (“[t]he Administrator shall grant or deny such a petition within 60 days after the
`
`petition is filed.”) (emphasis added).
`
`79.
`
`It has been more than 60 days since the Administrator received Plaintiffs’ petition
`
`requesting that EPA object to the Port Arthur Refinery permit.
`
`80.
`
`The Administrator has not granted or denied Plaintiffs’ Port Arthur Refinery
`
`petition.
`
`81.
`
`The Administrator has failed to perform this nondiscretionary duty and remains
`
`in violation of this obligation.
`
`THIRD CLAIM
`
`(Failure to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Petition for Objection to the Sandy Creek Energy
`Station Permit)
`
`82.
`
`83.
`
`Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-71.
`
`The Administrator has a nondiscretionary duty to respond within 60 days to
`
`Plaintiffs’ petition requesting that EPA object to the Sandy Creek Energy Station permit. 42
`
`U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2) (“[t]he Administrator shall grant or deny such a petition within 60 days
`
`after the petition is filed.”) (emphasis added).
`
`84.
`
`It has been more than 60 days since the Administrator received Plaintiffs’ petition
`
`requesting that EPA object to the Sandy Creek Energy Station permit.
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 17 of 20
`
`85.
`
`The Administrator has not granted or denied Plaintiffs’ Sandy Creek Energy
`
`Station petition.
`
`86.
`
`The Administrator has failed to perform this nondiscretionary duty and remains
`
`in violation of this obligation.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM
`
`(Failure to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Petition for Objection to the Borger Refinery Permit)
`
`87.
`
`88.
`
`Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-71.
`
`The Administrator has a nondiscretionary duty to respond within 60 days to
`
`Plaintiffs’ petition requesting that EPA object to the Borger Refinery permit. 42 U.S.C. §
`
`7661d(b)(2) (“[t]he Administrator shall grant or deny such a petition within 60 days after the
`
`petition is filed.”) (emphasis added).
`
`89.
`
`It has been more than 60 days since the Administrator received Plaintiffs’ petition
`
`requesting that EPA object to the Borger Refinery permit.
`
`90.
`
`91.
`
`The Administrator has not granted or denied Plaintiffs’ Borger Refinery petition.
`
`The Administrator has failed to perform this nondiscretionary duty and remains
`
`in violation of this obligation.
`
`FIFTH CLAIM
`
`(Failure to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Petition for Objection to the Galena Park Facility
`Permit)
`
`92.
`
`93.
`
`Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-71.
`
`The Administrator has a nondiscretionary duty to respond within 60 days to
`
`Plaintiffs’ petition requesting that EPA object to the Galena Park Facility permit. 42 U.S.C. §
`
`7661d(b)(2) (“[t]he Administrator shall grant or deny such a petition within 60 days after the
`
`petition is filed.”) (emphasis added).
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 1 Filed 01/04/21 Page 18 of 20
`
`94.
`
`It has been more than 60 days since the Administrator received Plaintiffs’ petition
`
`requesting that EPA object to the Galena Park Facility permit.
`
`95.
`
`The Administrator has not granted or denied Plaintiffs’ Galena Park Facility
`
`petition.
`
`96.
`
`The Administrator has failed to perform this nondiscretionary duty and remains
`
`in violation of this obligation.
`
`SIXTH CLAIM
`
`(Failure to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Petition for Objection to the Oak Grove Steam
`Electric Station Permit)
`
`97.
`
`98.
`
`Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-71.
`
`The Administrator has a nondiscretionary duty to respond within 60 days to
`
`Plaintiffs’ petition requesting that EPA object to the Oak Grove Steam Electric Station permit.
`
`42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2) (“[t]he Administrator shall grant or deny such a petition within 60 days
`
`after the petition is filed.”) (emphasis added).
`
`99.
`
`It has been more than 60 days since the Administrator received Plaintiffs’ petition
`
`requesting that EPA object to the Oak Grove Steam Electric Station permit.
`
`100. The Administrator has not granted or denied Plaintiffs’ Oak Grove Steam Electric
`
`Station petition.
`
`101. The Administrator has failed to perform this nondiscretio