MEMORANDUM

TO: Jodi Howard, US EPA/SPPD/CCG

FROM: Philip Crawford and Colin Hayes, ERG

DATE: April 12, 2010

SUBJECT: Summary of March 3, 2010 US EPA Visit to Formosa Plastics Corporation, 

Baton Rouge, LA

1.0 Introduction

On March 3, 2010, US EPA visited the Formosa Plastics Corporation, Baton Rouge, LA 

facility for a meeting with plant personnel and a tour of the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) production 

facility. This visit was conducted to support EPA’s effort to develop national hazardous air 

pollutant emission standards for the Polyvinyl Chloride PVC and Copolymers Production source 

category.

2.0 Date and Location

March 3, 2010

Formosa Plastics Corporation, Louisiana

Gulf States Road

Baton Rouge, LA 70805

3.0 Attendees

Name Affiliation

Omer Wolff Formosa Plastics Corporation / E&S Manager

Scott Longon Formosa Plastics Corporation / E&S

Brandon Bencaz Formosa Plastics Corporation / E&S

Jodi Howard US EPA

Colin Hayes ERG

Philip Crawford ERG
Memorandum

p. 2 of 8

4.0 Summary of Visit

The meeting began at approximately 1:30 PM. A summary of the meeting’s discussion 

follows.

EPA began the meeting by stating the purpose for the plant visit, covering logistics for 

the meeting, and giving a brief history of recent events leading to the PVC information collection 

request. EPA indicated that the group was visiting the plant to obtain information related to the 

production of PVC and supporting operations. A list of specific items that EPA wished to 

discuss was sent to the facility on February 22, 2010 as an enclosure (Enclosure 1) to the letter 

confirming the site visit. A copy of the enclosure is included in section 5.0 of this memorandum.

EPA inquired if any confidential business information (CBI) would be discussed or transferred 

during the visit. Facility representatives agreed to review notes taken by EPA and remove any 

CBI.

Presentation by Formosa

Formosa Baton Rouge facility personnel prepared a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation 

following the outline of Enclosure 1. Notes and key points from the presentation are listed 

below.

Facility History

1935 – Solvay Process Company

1965 – Allied Chemical

1978 – Imperial Chemical Industries

1981 – Formosa Plastics Corporation 

1981 – Increased capacity of chlorine caustic onsite, continued operation of ethylene 

dichloride (EDC) 1/ vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) 1

1985 – Cogeneration added, increased VCM 1 capacity

1990 – Cogeneration capacity increased by installing additional unit

1991 – PVC plant built, installed VCM 2 plant

1995 – 3

rd gas turbine installed

1996-97 – Expanded chlorine caustic and membrane caustic terminal

2003 – Shutdown VCM 1, shutdown chlorine caustic, PVC production increased, 

installed 25 ton/day dryer

2008 – Shutdown gas turbine 1

General Discussion
Memorandum

p. 3 of 8

The facility is currently expanding the VCM unit. Expansion was originally scheduled to 

be completed by early 2009, but the 2008 recession extended the project timeline. PVC 

production is expected to increase with the VCM upgrade.

PVC demand is lower than in recent years; however, the expansion project was approved 

when demand was forecasted to increase.

The facility is currently ISO 9000 and ISO 14001 certified.

Two main grades of resin are produced; pipe and general purpose. The plant can 

produced multiple grades simultaneously and grades can be adjusted based on customer 

specifications. Formosa stated the main difference in resin grades are different additive 

formulations fed to the reaction.

Process Description

Feedstock is unloaded in the VCM unit. A majority of process additives are brought in 

via truck.

PVC slurry is produced by combining feedstock in the PVC reactors.

The PVC slurry is transferred to steam stripping columns in an effort to remove any 

residual vinyl chloride monomer (RVCM) from the slurry. Each stripper utilizes an 

individual condenser. Recovered VCM is sent to a “large” gas holder. VCM that cannot 

be recovered is sent to the thermal oxidizers (TO’s).

Moisture is removed from the PVC slurry in 7 steam fired drying lines with particulate 

matter (PM) control.

Screening of the product occurs after the dryers before being transferred to product silos. 

Dry PVC product is transferred to product silos where it is loaded into rail cars or trucks 

for shipment. The silos use bag house filters as PM control. As a rare occurrence, the 

facility will ship product in super sacks upon customer request.

Thermal Oxidizers

All process vents from the PVC unit are routed to the TO’s. The TO units are located in 

the VCM plant. Each TO is followed by a scrubber. The TO’s are sized to handle both 

the PVC and VCM plant incineration load. One TO is generally used as a backup.

Rules and Regulations

Vinyl production is regulated under the Hazardous Organic National Emissions Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HON) rule. PVC production is regulated under the 

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).

The PVC unit has a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit. The last 

expansion project resulted in PM emissions triggering a PSD.

Fugitive Emissions
Memorandum

p. 4 of 8

The PVC unit fugitive emissions sources are regulated under the Louisiana non – HON 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rule. Other fugitive emission 

sources follow the HON MACT.

The PVC unit has emissions that are characterized as “insignificant” by the state of 

Louisiana. Insignificant sources include tanks based on size and contents. Formosa 

representatives could not give specific examples of any equipment classified as an 

insignificant source. 

Relief devices are routed to the atmosphere. Formosa has a limited number of “internal 

relief devices.”

Leak Detection and Repair

The Louisiana Non-HON MACT is followed for leak detection and repair (LDAR) at the 

facility. Equipment in heavy liquid service is monitored using audio, visual, and olfactory 

(AVO’s). Method 21 is used to identify leaks. A two person contractor team performs the 

LDAR requirements for the facility.

The PVC unit contains difficult-to-monitor equipment. Generally, any equipment is 

repaired when a leak is discovered. If the equipment cannot be repaired the leak is placed 

on a delay of repair (DOR) list. A percentage cap limits how many leaks may be placed 

on the DOR list. All leaks on the list must be repaired the next time the equipment is 

shutdown.

Formosa representatives were familiar with the alternative work practice (AWP) but 

stated the AWP did not meet the needs of the facility. EPA provided Formosa with details 

about the instrumentation and equipment involved with the AWP.

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions 

The State of Louisiana does not require a startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM)

procedure. Formosa generally does not record any SSM outside of HON requirements. 

Operating laws require reporting of unauthorized discharges.

Off-spec resin

All resin (chunks cleared from reactors, over and undersized, or otherwise off-spec) is 

sold as usable product. A specific product code is attached to the resin to indicate an “offspec” nature.

Emissions testing

The PVC process stream that is sent to the TO was isolated for stack testing. Formosa 

stated this required significant effort and expense to accomplish. Testing was completed

on the TO scrubber exit to the atmosphere.

Samples collected for resin testing were obtained by the same manner as samples taken 

for normal RVCM testing. Samples are collected, composited, and shipped to a lab for 
Memorandum

p. 5 of 8

analysis. Water and slurry are analyzed separately. Typical RVCM content in the resin is 

listed on the product material safety data sheet (MSDS).

Adjournment and Action Items

EPA adjourned the meeting by indicating an additional 114 letter may be sent in an effort 

to fill any data gaps or answer additional questions that EPA may have. Mr. Wolff reviewed the 

notes taken during the meeting and removed any CBI before the meeting was adjourned.

Facility Tour

Following the meeting, Omer Wolff led EPA on a driving tour of the facility. The group 

walked down the PVC unit guided by the PVC process engineer. The group viewed the PVC 

production lines and control equipment.
Memorandum

p. 6 of 8

5.0 Attachments

Enclosure 1

“Summary of Polyvinyl Chloride Production Information of Interest”

Sent to Facility on February 22, 2010
Memorandum

p. 7 of 8

Enclosure 1

Summary of Polyvinyl Chloride Production Information of Interest

To assist in the collection of information during the requested site visit, an outline of 

discussion topics is provided below. This outline is provided as a guide. Please feel free to 

change the order based on the availability of appropriate plant personnel and complexity of the 

process, its controls, and applicable regulatory requirements. 

I. Polyvinyl Chloride Production Overview

a. Short history of facility

b. Overall production capacity of facility and each process unit

c. Type(s) and grade of resin(s) produced

d. Key equipment and unique characteristics of facility

e. Unique characteristics of facility and process compared to other facilities in the 

industry

f. Co-located facilities

II. Polyvinyl Chloride Production Lines

a. Description of units (e.g., types of units, capacity)

b. Description of control devices (e.g., flares, thermal oxidizers)

c. Discussion of applicable emission limits, and monitoring requirements for:

i. PM 

ii. SOx

iii. NOx 

iv. CO 

v. Other (e.g. HAP, VCM)

d. Summary of recent source test data (if applicable)

e. Summary of monitoring capital and operating costs (if available)

f. Key differences between production lines/process units (if more than one)

g. Discussion of key factors that may or may not influence emissions 

III. Combustion Sources

a. Description of units (e.g., capacity, operating frequency)

b. Are units subject to NSPS or MACT? If so, which ones and when did they 

become subject?

c. Discussion of applicable emission limits, and monitoring requirements for:

i. PM 

ii. SOx

iii. NOx 

iv. CO 

v. other

d. Summary of recent source test data (if applicable)

e. Summary of monitoring capital and operating costs (if available)
Memorandum

p. 8 of 8

IV. Insignificant, Unpermitted, and Uncontrolled Air Emission Sources

a. What insignificant, unpermitted, or uncontrolled air emission sources are at this 

facility?

b. What criteria pollutants and HAP are generated and/or emitted by these sources?

c. Are these emissions monitored or quantified?

d. Summary of monitoring capital and operating costs (if available)

V. Leak Detection and Repair Program for Fugitive Equipment Leaks 

a. Overview of leak detection and repair (LDAR) program

i. Is an integrated LDAR program used?

ii. If so, provide number of components, leak definitions, and monitoring 

frequencies used

b. Is monitoring done in-house or by a contractor? 

c. What type of monitoring method is used during LDAR surveys?

d. Are repairs performed in-house or by a contractor?

e. Typical annual LDAR monitoring costs?

VI. Start-up, Shutdown, and Malfunctions

a. How often do you have start-up and/or shutdown events?

b. Do you keep a log of start-up and/or shutdown events?

c. How often do malfunction events occur at your facility?

d. What types of malfunction events occur?

e. Do you keep a log of malfunction events?

VII. Plant Tour 

a. Priority items to be observed during tour include:

i. Production Lines

ii. Control Equipment

b. Insignificant, unpermitted, and uncontrolled air emission sources