Outcry over Texas plastics plant points to broader industry issues

As world leaders work on a global treaty to address mounting harms from plastics pollution, a Texas plastics plant seen as a “serial” corporate polluter is in the crosshairs of environmentalists who say the operation provides a prime example of the need for a halt to petrochemical development.

The Formosa Point Comfort Plant on the Central Texas Coast has achieved notoriety for its persistence in defying efforts to rein in pollution, illegally dumping plastic pellets into area waterways for decades, environmental advocates say.

The facility racked up more than $23 million in fines as of Nov. 12 for failure to comply with a 2019 consent decree requiring it to achieve “zero discharge” of plastic waste and clean up nearby waterways, according to records provided by the San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper.

The records indicate that the plant has committed more than 700 violations of the consent decree and the restrictions of its state permit by discharging plastic waste since the consent decree went into effect, including over 140 violations this year alone.

“We can confidently say that they’re discharging plastic every single day into the bay,” said Diane Wilson, a Waterkeeper member and former fisherwoman who was arrested in August for protesting at Formosa’s US headquarters in New Jersey. “And if Formosa’s doing it, you can bet that all the other plastic plants out there, they’re discharging plastic,” she said.

Protests planned

Protesters plan to gather outside the Texas Formosa facility next week to highlight the plant’s ongoing environmental violations and to urge President Biden to issue a moratorium on petrochemical development in the final days of his term. Activists also are planning a similar rally outside the Formosa Plastics US headquarters in New Jersey. They also plan to march outside the branch locations of Bank of America, Chase, and Wells Fargo to highlight their “financing of major plastic polluters.”

The activists are also opposing a proposed expansion of the facility in Point Comfort, as well as a planned PVC plant expansion in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and a huge petrochemical complex the Formosa plans to build in St James Parish, Louisiana, a community infamously nicknamed “Cancer Alley” for its high cancer rates. Additionally, they are calling for an independent study to assess any lingering pollution from a Formosa chemical spill in Vietnam, and the release of Vietnamese activists who spoke out after the incident.

The protests coincide with the meeting of delegates from the US and more than 170 countries in Busan, South Korea, where the world leaders are attempting to finalize a global treaty to address plastic pollution.

Plastic pollution is “one of the biggest environmental issues facing the planet,” according to the United Nations (UN). Each year, more than 430 million tonnes of plastic are produced, most of which soon becomes waste, creating “devastating consequences for wildlife, ecosystems, human health and the global economy,” the UN states.

Plastic pollution is on track to nearly triple by 2060, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Plastics are a major product of the petrochemical industry since their ingredients are derived from fossil fuels, including crude oil and natural gas. Refined petroleum called naphtha is used as a feedstock for making the building blocks of plastics, called “petrochemical crackers.”

Though Taiwan-based Formosa is but one player in the massive plastics/petrochemical industry, it’s ongoing failures to limit its discharges, and criticisms of regulators charged with overseeing the facility, underscore the widespread issue with pollution from US plastics plants, critics say.

Earlier this month, the watchdog group Environmental Integrity Project released an analysis of 70 facilities across the US. The report concluded that inadequate oversight from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state regulators has contributed to a growing pollution problem from facilities across the nation even as the plastics industry booms.

The report listed the Formosa Point Comfort plant as one of the 2022 top dischargers of dioxins, which it calls “one of the most toxic chemicals known to science,” and a 2023 top discharger of nitrogen and phosphorus, nutrients that can lead to toxic algae blooms.

Formosa rejects the criticism, asserting that it is acting “responsibly.”

“Through employee training, updated equipment, and rigorous maintenance practices, Formosa ensures that plastic materials are managed responsibly, reducing environmental impact and aligning with industry standards for sustainability,” a spokesperson for the company said. “We believe we are an industry leader and continuously evaluate opportunities to enhance our containment efforts.”

In a video about its sustainability practices, the company said it has worked to reduce its environmental impact by limiting the amount of water it discharges and installing “sophisticated plastic removal technologies that provide ultra-filtration of its processed wastewater.” Formosa also said it is building a more than 150-acre stormwater collection system that will be able to contain a 50-year storm event.

Enforcement issues

Wilson has been fighting Formosa for years. She sued the company in 2017, alleging the illegal discharges of plastic pellets and other pollutants. In 2019, the company agreed to a $50 million settlement, pledging to put money into a trust to pay for pollution mitigation, habitat restoration and other environmental work.

“You could just go out and see it,” Wilson said of the pollution. “I would take a kayak and paddle right up to the [company discharge sites] and there would be plastic everywhere.”

Wilson estimates that she and her team collected over 24 million plastic pellets from miles of shoreline near the bay, the creek and surrounding wetlands and beaches, which they later bagged and dragged into the courthouse on a cart.

As part of the settlement, Formosa agreed to build a wastewater sampling mechanism that measures plastic powder or pellets in samples of discharge, which have been collected regularly since the equipment began operating in 2021, said Wilson.

While the consent decree requires the company to report all violations to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Wilson says the agency has long failed to issue violations of its own accord.

“They know what Formosa has done,” said Wilson. “They know that what’s been discharged could impact the bay. “TCEQ goes to the Texas legislature, and the Texas legislature, they don’t want any tough violations, they don’t want tough enforcement against industry. They let them do it.”

In his June 2019 decision, US District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt called Formosa a “serial offender” with “enormous” violations, citing the evidence for more than 1,000 days of plastic discharge brought forward by the plaintiffs. The fact that Formosa had only received six citations from TCEQ “merely shows the difficulty or inability of the TCEQ to bring Formosa into compliance with its Permit restrictions,” wrote Hoyt.

Last March, more than 65 organizations signed a letter calling on TCEQ to require Formosa Plastics to update its monitoring “to accurately determine whether Formosa Plastics’ discharge is harming Lavaca Bay,” citing a 2022 study from the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico that found a long-term decline in the health of the bay.

In April of 2019, the agency issued a Notice of Enforcement that initiated an enforcement action after finding “floating white debris of various sizes” at an outfall discharge location in Lavaca Bay and near the mouth of the Lavaca River during investigations. TCEQ staff also reported finding plastic pellets flowing past the facility fenceline at several outfalls.

“The matter is being litigated and TCEQ declines to comment on pending litigation,” said a spokesperson for the agency.

“Just another nightmare”

Formosa is currently in the process of applying for permits to operate 21 injection wells, said TCEQ, which would enable the company to dispose of its waste underground.

“The operator of an injection well permitted by the TCEQ is prohibited from conducting injection activities that would allow movement of fluid that would pollute an [underground source of drinking water],” said TCEQ, adding that the agency requires monitoring of injection well activities and an annual test of the well’s integrity.

However, a petition submitted to the EPA by Texas environmental groups in March asked federal regulators to revoke the state’s injection well permitting program for oil and gas wastewater, stating: “The conflict between Texas’ failure to protect drinking water resources and the State’s focus on the extraction of oil and gas resources is putting millions of acre-feet of drinking water at risk.”

Wilson worries the wells are really a way for the company to skirt the consent decree and potentially open another can of worms.

“Knowing Formosa and their record, you can bet they are going to be trying to push what they can put down these injection wells,” said Wilson. “Everything’s self-reporting and it’s just another nightmare.”

(Featured image: plastic pollution from the Formosa Point Comfort Plant. Photo by San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper.)