Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development Report: Chemical Contamination in Durham, North Carolina

Introduction: A Case Study in Sustainable Development Goal Deficiencies

An investigation into long-term chemical contamination in Durham, North Carolina, reveals significant challenges to achieving several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The pollution of a creek in the McDougald Terrace neighborhood, a predominantly low-income, minority community, highlights critical failures related to public health, environmental protection, and social equity. This report analyzes the situation through the lens of the SDGs, focusing on the impacts on the community and the institutional responses.

SDG 3 & 6: Compromised Health, Well-being, and Water Quality

Creek Contamination and Public Health Risks

A creek flowing through Burton Park and the McDougald Terrace public housing community has been identified as a significant environmental and public health hazard, directly contravening the principles of SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation). In August 2023, the City of Durham cordoned off the creek following the detection of high levels of industrial chemicals.

• Detected Contaminants: High levels of acetone, toluene, and ethanol were found in water originating upstream from the Brenntag Mid-South chemical distribution facility.
• Groundwater Pollution: Sampling has revealed groundwater contaminants at the Brenntag site at levels hundreds of times higher than state standards, including cobalt, lead, and benzo(a)pyrene. 1,4-dioxane, a likely carcinogen, was detected at 770 times the safe level.
• Community Impact: The creek, which runs past an elementary school and a playground, emits a foul odor described by residents as unbearable. This chronic exposure to pollution directly undermines the community’s right to a safe and healthy environment as outlined in SDG 3.

Health Disparities in an At-Risk Community

The residents of McDougald Terrace are chronically exposed to multiple sources of pollution, leading to severe health disparities.

• Elevated Health Issues: Children’s asthma hospitalization rates in this census block group are four times the state average. Residents also experience lower life expectancy and higher rates of heart disease.
• Multiple Exposures: The community is subjected to diesel fumes, hazardous air pollutants, and particulate matter from a major railroad, the Durham Freeway, and nearby industrial sources.
• Hazardous Proximity: The area ranks in the top 5 percent in North Carolina for proximity to hazardous waste sites, placing residents in a vulnerable zone as designated by the EPA.

SDG 10 & 11: Environmental Injustice and Unsustainable Communities

A Legacy of Inequality

The situation in McDougald Terrace is a stark example of environmental injustice, failing the objectives of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). The burden of industrial pollution is disproportionately placed on a marginalized community.

• Demographics: The McDougald Terrace neighborhood is 99 percent Black or Latino, with 46 percent of residents classified as low-income.
• Historical Context: The community was established in a “redlined” area, a practice of systemic disinvestment in minority neighborhoods. Historical zoning policies steered hazardous industries toward the city’s predominantly Black east side.
• Failure to Protect Vulnerable Populations: The ongoing contamination and regulatory inaction perpetuate a cycle of inequality, denying residents access to safe public spaces and a clean environment, which are fundamental components of a sustainable community under SDG 11.

SDG 12 & 16: Failures in Responsible Production and Institutional Accountability

Corporate Operations and Regulatory Oversight

The case highlights significant lapses in corporate responsibility and institutional enforcement, undermining SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Brenntag Mid-South: A History of Contamination and Violations

The Brenntag facility has a documented history of pollution and operational deficiencies.

1. Persistent Contamination: Since at least the mid-1990s, under Brenntag and its predecessor Southchem, high levels of chemicals have been detected in groundwater and stormwater runoff.
2. Inspection Violations: State inspections have repeatedly found safety and containment issues. A 2022 inspection noted dented and leaking barrels and insufficient barriers to prevent spills. A 2025 inspection found rusted drums, improperly closed containers, and evidence of spills.
3. Inadequate Permitting: For nearly 30 years, the facility operated without a state stormwater permit, a critical tool for regulating runoff. The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) failed to ensure a permit was issued due to lost paperwork and lack of follow-up, only issuing one in early 2024.

Institutional Failures and Lack of Accountability

The response from regulatory bodies has been insufficient to protect the community and hold the polluter accountable, a failure of SDG 16.

• State Inaction: Despite pleas from city officials dating back to 2008, the DEQ failed to take a more active role in addressing the contamination. The Division of Water Resources was reportedly unaware of the history of problems until 2025.
• Federal Uncertainty: The City of Durham’s request for assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in February 2025 was followed by the elimination of the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, casting doubt on the potential for federal intervention.
• Insufficient Penalties: Since 2022, the state and city have fined Brenntag a total of just $3,500. This is contrasted with the company’s reported gross profits of over $4 billion in 2024, demonstrating a lack of meaningful financial deterrent to ensure compliance with SDG 12.

Current Status and Path Forward

Local Government Action

The City of Durham is taking steps to address the crisis, though a comprehensive solution requires state and federal partnership.

• Legal and Regulatory Action: In June 2025, the city cited Brenntag for illegal discharge and failure to complete corrective actions.
• Investment in Investigation: In August 2025, the Durham City Council approved up to $400,000 for a consultant to trace pollutants to their source and fund public outreach.

Addressing the contamination in Durham is essential for making progress on multiple Sustainable Development Goals. It requires robust enforcement from strong institutions (SDG 16), corporate accountability for production patterns (SDG 12), and a commitment to ending the systemic inequalities that place marginalized communities at risk (SDG 10), thereby ensuring the health (SDG 3), clean water (SDG 6), and safety of all communities (SDG 11).

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
• SDG 15: Life on Land
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  • Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.
    
    Explanation: The article extensively discusses the contamination of a creek and groundwater with hazardous chemicals like acetone, toluene, ethanol, cobalt, lead, and 1,4-dioxane from the Brenntag facility. It explicitly links this pollution to potential health effects, including “cancer, eye and skin irritation, reproductive and respiratory harm, genetic mutations.” It also notes that residents are exposed to diesel fumes and other air pollutants, and that the area has significantly higher rates of asthma hospitalizations, heart disease, and lower life expectancy.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  • Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally.
    
    Explanation: The core issue of the article is the pollution of a local creek by a chemical distribution company. The text states that “high levels of acetone, toluene and ethanol” were detected, and that pollution has at times “turned the water black, as if it were ink.” This directly relates to the goal of reducing water pollution and minimizing the release of hazardous chemicals into water bodies.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.
    
    Explanation: The article highlights a severe case of environmental injustice. It points out that the affected McDougald Terrace neighborhood is “99 percent Black or Latino, and 46 percent low-income.” The chronic exposure of this specific demographic to pollution, while their concerns go unaddressed for decades, points to a failure to protect and include a vulnerable community.
  • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.
    
    Explanation: The article connects the current situation to a history of discriminatory policies, noting the community was in a “redlined area” and that after WWII, “Durham’s predominantly white leadership enacted zoning policies to steer hazardous or polluting industries to the city’s predominantly Black east side.” This demonstrates how past discriminatory practices have led to present-day inequalities in environmental safety and health outcomes.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  • Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.
    
    Explanation: The pollution from the Brenntag facility is a clear example of an adverse environmental impact within the city of Durham. The article mentions that the area “ranks among the top 5 percent in the state in terms of proximity to hazardous waste sites” and that residents are exposed to “hazardous air pollutants, particulate matter and other harmful emissions from nearby industrial sources,” directly addressing the need to manage urban pollution.
  • Target 11.7: By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities.
    
    Explanation: The contaminated creek runs through Burton Park, a public space. The article states the city “fenced off the creek” and that children are warned, “You can’t go in there.” This demonstrates a loss of access to a safe public and green space for the community, particularly for children who are mentioned playing nearby.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  • Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.
    
    Explanation: The article details Brenntag’s failure to manage its chemicals responsibly. State inspectors found “dented, rusted and leaking barrels of chemicals,” improperly stored hoses with “caustic materials evident inside,” and evidence of spills. The company also operated for over two decades without a required stormwater permit, leading directly to the release of contaminants into the local environment.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  • Target 15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements.
    
    Explanation: The creek is an inland freshwater ecosystem that has been severely degraded by chemical pollution. The article describes it as “stagnant,” reeking, and at times “black, as if it were ink.” This pollution directly harms the local ecosystem and prevents its sustainable use by the community.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
    
    Explanation: The article provides a clear account of institutional failure. It states that the state agency (DEQ) “failed to regulate stormwater discharge from the site” for nearly 30 years, lost paperwork, and failed to follow up on permit applications. The EPA’s effectiveness is also questioned, especially after the elimination of the “Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights.” The minimal fines ($3,500) levied against a company with billions in profits also show a lack of accountability.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• For SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

  • Indicator for Target 3.9: Mortality rate attributed to unsafe water, unsafe sanitation and lack of hygiene (exposure to unsafe Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for All (WASH) services).
    
    Implied Indicators: The article provides several health statistics that serve as direct measures of illness from pollution: “children’s asthma hospitalization rates are four times the state average,” “lower life expectancy and higher rates of heart disease.” The presence and concentration of specific hazardous chemicals (“1,4-dioxane, has been detected at 770 times what the state considers safe”) is also a direct indicator of risk.

• For SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation)

  • Indicator for Target 6.3: Proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water quality.
    
    Implied Indicators: The article provides qualitative and quantitative indicators of poor water quality. These include visual descriptions (“turned the water black”), olfactory evidence (“It stinks,” “Smells have been so bad… Durham police have been called in to look for dead bodies”), and the results of water sampling (“high levels of acetone, toluene and ethanol,” “creek sediment contained lead”). The city’s new plan to spend $400,000 to “track pollutants” is an indicator of monitoring efforts.

• For SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

  • Indicator for Target 10.2: Proportion of people reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed in the previous 12 months on the basis of a ground of discrimination prohibited under international human rights law.
    
    Implied Indicators: The article uses demographic data as an indicator of disproportionate impact: “Census data show the McDougald Terrace neighborhood is 99 percent Black or Latino, and 46 percent low-income.” The historical context of “redlining” and discriminatory “zoning policies” serve as indicators of systemic inequality.

• For SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)

  • Indicator for Target 11.6: Annual mean levels of fine particulate matter (e.g. PM2.5 and PM10) in cities (population weighted).
    
    Implied Indicators: The article indicates high levels of urban pollution by stating the neighborhood is exposed to “diesel fumes from a major railroad and the Durham Freeway” and “hazardous air pollutants, particulate matter and other harmful emissions.” A key indicator mentioned is that the area “ranks among the top 5 percent in the state in terms of proximity to hazardous waste sites.”
  • Indicator for Target 11.7: Proportion of population with convenient access to public space.
    
    Implied Indicators: The physical barrier (“orange snow fence”) and warning signs (though now missing) are direct indicators that access to the public space around the creek is restricted and unsafe.

• For SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production)

  • Indicator for Target 12.4: Number of parties to international multilateral environmental agreements on hazardous waste, and other chemicals that meet their commitments and obligations in transmitting information as required by each relevant agreement.
    
    Implied Indicators: The article points to a failure in responsible chemical management through inspection reports citing “dented, rusted and leaking barrels,” “compromised” containers, and spills. The fact that Brenntag operated for over 20 years without a required “state stormwater permit” is a clear indicator of non-compliance with environmental regulations. The small fine of “$3,500” relative to “$4 billion” in profits is an indicator of ineffective penalties.

• For SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

  • Indicator for Target 16.6: Primary government expenditures as a proportion of original approved budget, by sector (or by budget codes or similar).
    
    Implied Indicators: The article indicates institutional failure through a timeline of inaction: the DEQ’s failure to regulate for “nearly 30 years,” lost paperwork in 1996, and an application that “lay dormant for 12 years.” The elimination of the EPA’s “Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights” is a specific indicator of a weakening of institutional capacity to address such issues.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: insideclimatenews.org