This space provides access to different forms data stored within the Formosa Plastics Archive.

Photo Essay: Water Monitoring, Formosa Plastics Texas

View essay

Map of Pellet Sampling Locations

Comment by Diane Wilson:

"The Court concludes that the evidence shows violations for each of the 736 days of discharges into Lavaca Bay from Outfall 001. See [Ex. 63, 254, 263-295 and 472]….In addition, the Court concludes that Formosa is a serial offender, violating its Permit concerning discharge of floating solids, in other than trace amounts, from other Outfalls from January 31, 2016, to at least March 24, 2019. Some 1,149 days of violations are recorded through Outfalls 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 012.

The colored points on the map are where the 2,428 samples were collected."


Diane Wilson sampling by Kayak


"Jan. 2019, Waterkeeper Diane Wilson in kayak sampling at Formosa stormwater outfall 06 at Cox Creek"

Catching Pellets

Comment by Diane Wilson:

"2018, Waterkeepers David Sumpter and Ronnie Hamrick using nets to catch pellets floating in the water near Formosa stormwater outfall 06."

Checking Vegetation for Pellets

Comment by Diane Wilson:

"2019, Waterkeeper Ronnie Hamrick checking vegetation for pellets on east bank near Formosa outfall 06 at Cox Creek."

Diane Wilson sampling pellets, 2019


"April 2019, Waterkeeper Diane Wilson continues sampling after March 2019 trial."

Powder Sample, 2019

Comment by Diane Wilson:

"2019, plastic powder sample taken from Lavaca Bay."

Nurdle Sample, Ronnie Hamrick, 2017

Comment by Diane Wilson:

"Waterkeeper Ronnie Hamrick at Port Lavaca Marina holding two samples of pellets collected during monitoring of Lavaca bay and Cox Creek for illegal discharged pellets/nurdles and powder."

Waterkeeper Bob checking pellet/powder samples

Comment by Diane Wilson:

"April 2019, Waterkeeper Bob Lindsey checking pellet/powder samples."

Clean Water Suit Samples, 2019

Comment by Diane Wilson:

"March 2019, approximately 2500 samples collected as evidence for Citizens Clean Water suit."

Bins of Samples, 2019

Comment by Diane WIlson:

"March 2019 Waterkeepers and supporters loading samples into bins and putting in trailer to take to court in Victoria, Texas."

Photo: Pellets in Cox Creek, 02.11.2018

"December 2, 2018 pellets/nurdles discovered outside the boom of Formosa Plastics, outfall 06"

Photo: Pellets Outfall 06, 12.2017

"December 2017, pellets on east bank of Cox Creek, south of Highway 35 bridge at Cox Creek, north of outfall 06"

Photo: Dale Jurasek with Pellets, 03.2019

"March, 2019 Waterkeeper Dale Jurasek holding bag of pellets collected as evidence in Clean Water suit against Formosa Plastics, Point Comfort, Texas. "

Photo: Discussing Pellet Situation, 01.2019

Jan. 2019, Waterkeepers discussing pellet situation at Cox Creek: Ronnie Hamrick, Cheyenne Jurasek, Bob Lindsey, and David Sumpter

Kayak Protest

March 2019, Waterkeeper and Executive director of San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper at kayak protest

Photo: Social Distancing Kayak Trip

April, 2020 Waterkeeper Taylor Wilson practicing social distancing and wearing mask before kayak trip down Cox Creek.

Photo Essay: Stormwater Outfall, Formosa Plastics Texas

View essay

Photo: Outfalls 02, 04 and 05, 08.25.2018

August 2018, outfalls 2,4,5 into Cox Creek. This view is facing north to the facility.

Photo: Missing Gate Outfall 006

November 20, 2017, missing screen on gate at Formosa outfall 06 that discharges into Cox Creek

Photo: Ditch and Pipe Discharge Outfall 007, 11.2017

November 2017, earthen ditch and pipe discharge of Formosa outfall 07 into Cox Creek

Photo: Formosa Outfall 08, 11.2017

November 2017, Waterkeeper Ronnie Hamrick at Formosa outfall 08 near Cox Creek.

Photo: Sampling at Outfall 08

November 2017, Waterkeepers Hamrick and David Sumpter at Formosa outfall 08 at Cox Creek

Photo: Outfall 011, 2020.05

May 2020, Formosa outfall 011 that discharges into Lavaca Bay at loading dock area

Photo: Outfall 09, 08.17. 2018

2018 Formosa outfall 09 into Cox Creek

Photo: Observing Spillway, 11.2018

Dec 2018, Diane Wilson, Waterkeeper, on south side of Cox Creek (Alcoa dam area) spillway and observing cement discharge entrance.

Photo Essay: Courtroom Sketches, Yunlin & Tainan County

View essay

2016.03.22 – 0001 開庭 court

Yunlin District Court, March 22, 2016. The third court hearing of Chang et al. (Taisi residents) v. five representative companies of the Sixth Naphtha petrochemical zone.

A panoramic view of the court: the defendants’ lawyers on the left and the plaintiffs’ lawyers on the right. In the first row of the audience were three plaintiffs who accompanied Brother Wu (a leader in organizing the plaintiffs’ group) and documentary filmmaker Hao-chung Chan (author of Shrouding the Clouds, about air pollution from the Sixth Naphtha cracker). The last row was occupied by FPG employees.



2016.03.22 – 0005 原告洪嘉呈律師Plaintiff Hong Jiacheng

Plaintiff attorney Aslan Chia-cheng Hung.


2016.03.22 – 0006 被告陳怡妃律師Defendant Chen Yifei

Defendant attorney Chen during one of her aggressive criticisms of plaintiffs’ lawyers arguments on the causal link between air pollutants and the plaintiffs’ cancers.


2016.03.22 – 0007 旁聽寫紀錄的被告律師和法官

A defendant lawyer in plain-clothes taking notes and looking tired of long discussions on causality.


2016.03.22 – 0004 被告蔡順雄律師Attorney Cai Shunxiong

Yunlin District Court, March 22, 2016.

Defendant attorney Tsai feels very much at home in the courtroom, frequently leaving the seat assigned to the defendants to sit in the middle of the courtroom at the desk normally reserved for experts and the plaintiffs, translating to the judge in “plain Chinese”, i.e., oversimplifying and misleading the problem of causality between air pollutants and cancers.


2016.03.22 – 0002 法官 judge

The judge, who tends to prefer this language, gives the defendants much fewer opportunities to have their say.


2016.03.22 – 0003 原告詹順貴律師

The head of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, Att. Thomas Chan. After this hearing, in May 2016, he was invited to stand as the Deputy Minister of the Environmental Protection Administration (Taiwan EPA), a position he left in September 2018. In the meantime, he could not attend anymore court hearings and his younger colleagues had a harder time with the judge.


2017.01.13-0001 開庭court | Yunlin District Court

Yunlin District Court, Friday 13, January 2017.

The fifth court hearing was a black Friday for the plaintiffs’ lawyers. The judge wanted the discussion to proceed from the first plaintiff and the first defendant, and so on, one after another. Although it is a strange way to approach problems of causality in a case of industrial pollution, the defendants’ lawyers were very happy with that.

Furthermore, the judge rejected the plaintiffs’ request to have Prof. Chan Chang Chuan (NTU College of Public Health) testify as an expert at the bar, despite the fact he had conducted a lot of excellent epidemiological research on the case. For the sake of neutrality, the judge prefered to ask two other experts, although they had not conducted research on the case.





2017.01.13-0003 黃律師提到新聞

Plaintiffs’ lawyer Shu-fang Huang discussed the huge amount of surveillance data on air pollution, which were falsified by Formosa Plastics, breaching the Air Pollution Control Act. This made the headlines the previous day, but the judge rejected the problem: “I don’t care about newspapers!” 

原告黃淑芳律師提出了大量關於空氣污染的監視數據,並稱這些數據其實是台塑偽造的,這違反了《空氣污染防制法》。 儘管這是前一天的頭條新聞,但法官拒絕正視這個問題,還說:「我才不在乎什麼報紙!」

2017.09.01 – 0001 開庭

Yunlin District Court, September 2017, the sixth court hearing.

Ms. Wu, the wife of a plaintiff with cancer, was sitting behind me; as we were waiting for the hearing to start, I asked her about her husband’s health; she started crying.

And soon after the discussion began, defendant Att. Tsai went to sit in the middle of the courtroom to argue that the research by Chan C.C. was “only one point of view”.





20170901 – 0004 被告陳怡妃,被告陳鵬光律師

Defendant lawyer Att. Chen further underlines that his research is “too abstract”, lacking concrete facts.


2017.09.01 – 0002 開庭的法官Judge

The judge is so ignorant of what epidemiological evidence is—and so little interested in learning about it—that the defendants can easily play their misleading game.


2017.1.13 Yunlin residents vs. FPG: Plaintiffs lawyers and the sleeping judge, Yunlin District Court

When it’s time for the plaintiffs’ lawyers to speak, he starts sleeping!


2019.10.15 – 0001 Yunlin Court

Yunlin District Court, 10 0ctober 2019. 

Today the judge grew tired of the long speeches by the defendants and asks them to give him a simple definition of what they mean by "danger" 危險.



2019.10.15 – 0003 Yunlin Court

 I tried to adopt the judge’s position to imagine how he might appreciate defendant Att. Tsai’s translations of the debate in “plain Chinese”, the other lawyers and the audience behind: a few plaintiffs and environmental groups in the first row, including a foreigner (me), and FPG employees in the third row.


2019.10.15 – 0002 Yunlin Court

For the plaintiffs’ lawyers, the judge requests they provide “simple standards” to make a decision on causality.


2019.10.15 – 0004 Yunlin Court

On the left, defendant Att. Chang argues that the plaintiffs must prove a reasonable probability that “substances” from the petrochemical zone cause cancer (the defendants do not use the words “air pollutants”). At least now, they do not argue that the plaintiffs should prove which substance from which company chimney is causing the plaintiffs’ cancers, as they asked for during the first hearings.



2019.10.15 – 0005 Yunlin Court

Yunlin District Court, 10 0ctober 2019.

The judge seems to spend little time reading the documents provided by the lawyers. And most of the time, he adopts a rather passive attitude during the court hearings. Instead of inviting the plaintiffs into the court to explain their motivations for sueing the companies, and instead of organizing a contradictory debate between experts suggested by the two sides, he seems obsessed to request the two sides agree on one expert who could decide if there is a causality between the cancers and what is emitted in the industrial zone. Then he gets angry about the debate having no end. At the previous hearing, he was also angry because he thought environmental groups attending the hearings had made audio recordings and shared some of his weird behaviors with the defendants’ lawyers.



2017.08.01 開庭

Yunlin District Court, 10 0ctober 2019.

For once, the judge made a sound request of the lawyers: to translate those complex and very technical matters into plain Chinese. Defendant Att. Tsai has been eager to meet this demand, punctuating his explanation in Mandarin with some Taiwanese language. Actually, many plaintiffs do not really understand Mandarin, so it would be helpful for them if the hearings could be conducted in Taiwanese. But anyhow, given the little attention the judge gives them, these hearings are obviously not framed for them.


至少,法官曾經對律師提出了一個合理要求:將那些複雜且技術性很強的問題翻成白話中文。被告蔡律師一直渴望嘗試這種方式,並加入不少台語來解釋。事實上,其實許多原告並不真正懂中文,因為他們使用台語。因此,若法院庭審以台語進行的話,對這些原告會有幫助。 但無論如何,由於法官注意道他們,這些法院庭審顯然不是為他們所安排的。


2021.2.23 Yunlin residents vs. FPG, Tainan High Court

Tainan High Court, 23 February 2021.

Part of the lawsuit has recently started in the high court. The first hearing provided a sharp contrast with the atmosphere in the district court. The judge begins with inviting the plaintiffs’ lawyers to sum up their statement of appeal and she listens carefully to it. The precision of her questions and propositions to both sides suggest that she had carefully read the documents submitted to the court by the lawyers.


高等法院最近已開始審理部分的訴訟案。 第一次法院庭審與地方法院的氣氛有著鮮明對比。法官首先邀請原告律師總結他們的上訴聲明,途中,她仔細地聆聽。從她對雙方問題和主張的準確性看來,她已仔細閱讀了律師們提交給法院的文件。


2021.2.23 Yunlin residents vs. FPG, Tainan High Court, "Please wear a mask"

And here is Att. Tsai who comes again in the middle of the room for his show. Despite the rules  that impose the wearing of masks in prevention of the Covid-19, he just takes it off. His excuse is that it’s not convenient for speaking. But after five minutes, the judge finally asks him to put the mask back on.

被告蔡律師再次在法庭中間「展演」。儘管因Covid-19的關係,入內須戴口罩的規定,但他坦白說這樣自己不方便說話,因此將口罩卸下。 但是五分鐘後,法官還是要求他:「請把口罩戴上」。

2021.2.23 Yunlin residents vs. FPG: "What is Risk?", Tainan High Court

Defendant Att. Chen attempts to reuse the district court judge’s request for a simple definition of danger, but this time it’s not convincing enough for the judge.


2021.2.23 Yunlin residents vs. FPG: "A reasonable probability"

Defendant Att. Wu argues that the plaintiffs must prove “a reasonable probability” of at least 50% of risk. “In Taiwan, there’s a new case of cancer every five minutes. These can’t be all attributed to air pollution. Moreover, our company ranks among one of the best in the world for the respect of environmental protection. Besides, the plaintiffs should not treat the courtroom as if it were an academic conference. Scientific simulations are not equal to solid data from the EPA.”

被告吳律師認為,原告必須證明至少有50%風險的「合理蓋然性」,因為「在台灣,每五分鐘就有一個新的癌症病例,這些難以全部歸因於空氣污染。再者,我們公司在環境保護方面,是世界最佳公司之一。 此外,原告不應濫用法庭資源,把這裡當作學術會議做研究,科學模擬並無法為EPA提供可靠的數據。」