## Facts

- Paxon Polymer Company (later acquired by Exxon Chemical Americas) applied to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for a Part 70 operating permit to construct and operate a new polypropylene production unit adjacent to an existing Baton Rouge Polyolefins Plant in East Baton Rouge Parish.
- The facility was located in a multi-parish ozone nonattainment area, meaning the area had not met the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone.
- DEQ evaluated the application under state and federal air-permitting requirements applicable to nonattainment areas, including emissions limits and controls intended to limit ozone-forming emissions.
- DEQ provided public notice and a public comment period for the proposed permit.
- North Baton Rouge Environmental Association (NBREA) and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) participated in the administrative process and requested additional opportunities for public involvement, including a public hearing in a nearby community and an extension of the comment period.
- DEQ issued the air permit authorizing construction and operation of the polypropylene unit.
- NBREA and LEAN sought judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, arguing that DEQ’s permit decision violated Louisiana’s environmental protections, including the public-trust obligation in La. Const. art. IX, § 1, and that DEQ failed to give adequate consideration to environmental and health effects in the affected communities.
- The district court upheld DEQ’s decision and denied the challengers’ application for rehearing.
- NBREA and LEAN appealed to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether DEQ’s decision to issue the air permit was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion under Louisiana administrative-law standards of review.
2. Whether DEQ satisfied its duties under La. Const. art. IX, § 1 and related environmental statutes by considering environmental and health effects and balancing those effects against the project’s social and economic benefits.
3. Whether DEQ reasonably determined, based on the administrative record, that the project met applicable nonattainment-area air-quality requirements and would not unlawfully worsen ozone conditions.
4. Whether DEQ provided legally sufficient notice and an opportunity for public comment and hearing in connection with the permit decision.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the district court judgment and left DEQ’s permit in place.
- The court applied a deferential review standard and concluded that DEQ’s factual findings and technical determinations were supported by the administrative record.
- The court held that DEQ’s written reasons and record showed consideration of environmental effects and a constitutionally required balancing of environmental protection with economic and social factors.
- The court rejected the challengers’ arguments that DEQ’s handling of the permit was unlawful, concluding that the agency acted within its authority and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously.
- The court found the public-notice and participation process sufficient under the governing permitting framework.

## Legal Principles

- A reviewing court gives substantial deference to an environmental agency’s factual findings and technical judgments; the court does not reweigh evidence and will uphold the decision if it is supported by the record and is not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
- La. Const. art. IX, § 1 imposes a public-trust duty requiring the state, through its environmental regulator, to consider environmental impacts and to balance environmental protection with social and economic considerations in permitting decisions.
- The public-trust duty is satisfied when the agency’s record and stated reasons show that relevant environmental consequences were considered and weighed in reaching the final decision; the duty does not require denial of every permit with environmental impacts.
- In nonattainment areas, permit decisions turn on compliance with applicable air-quality requirements and the agency’s reasoned evaluation of emissions, controls, and other regulatory conditions shown in the administrative record.
- Public participation requirements are met when the agency provides notice and a meaningful opportunity to submit comments and when the record reflects consideration of those comments in the final permitting action.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld DEQ’s air permit for Exxon’s polypropylene plant in an ozone nonattainment area, holding that DEQ acted within its authority, compiled a record supporting its air-quality determinations, and satisfied Louisiana’s constitutional and statutory requirements by considering environmental effects and balancing those effects against the project’s asserted benefits, with adequate opportunities for public participation.


North Baton Rouge Environmental Association v. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 805 So. 2d 255 (2001)