EPA updates air emission regs for hazardous waste combustors – E&E News by POLITICO

Analysis of EPA’s Proposed Hazardous Waste Combustor Rule and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary of the Proposed Regulation

A new proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to update regulations for hazardous waste burning operations is not expected to result in any measurable improvement in air quality. The key findings of the proposal are as follows:

• The regulatory update is a result of a 2022 lawsuit filed by environmental groups concerned about public health and environmental contamination.
• The draft rule establishes new emission limits or work practice standards for only two previously unregulated pollutants: hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen cyanide.
• The EPA projects no impact on air quality because existing emissions data indicates that all affected hazardous waste combustors are already in compliance with the proposed new limits.

Assessment in Relation to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation)

The proposal’s limited scope has direct implications for the achievement of key health and environmental SDGs.

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The original lawsuit highlighted that pollutants such as lead and mercury from these facilities poison the air, water, and soil, posing significant health risks. As the new rule does not address these specific pollutants and anticipates no air quality improvements, it fails to meaningfully advance the goal of reducing illnesses and deaths from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution.
2. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: The legal challenge explicitly mentioned the contamination of water resources. The proposed rule’s narrow focus on two air pollutants does not address the broader threat of water and soil contamination from hazardous waste operations, thereby limiting progress toward protecting and restoring water-related ecosystems.

Implications for SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and Environmental Justice

The proposal falls short of addressing critical targets within SDG 11, particularly concerning vulnerable communities.

• Environmental Justice: The lawsuit underscored that these operations disproportionately affect “environmental justice communities.” The lack of substantive change in the proposed rule represents a missed opportunity to advance SDG 11’s objective of making human settlements inclusive, safe, and sustainable, especially for marginalized populations bearing the brunt of industrial pollution.
• Community Safety: By not imposing stricter controls on a wider range of hazardous emissions, the proposal does little to enhance the environmental safety and resilience of communities situated near these industrial facilities.

Evaluation against SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

The regulatory action and its outcome reflect on the effectiveness of institutional frameworks for sustainable development.

1. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: This goal calls for the environmentally sound management of chemicals and wastes. The proposal is a minimal administrative step rather than a significant move toward reducing the release of pollutants, thereby failing to substantially strengthen the framework for responsible waste management.
2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: While the EPA’s action demonstrates a response to legal proceedings, the proposal’s lack of impact raises questions about the effectiveness and accountability of institutions in protecting environmental quality. The outcome suggests that existing legal and regulatory mechanisms may be insufficient to drive the significant changes required to meet sustainable development objectives.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

The article discusses issues related to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through its focus on environmental regulation, pollution from hazardous waste, and the impact on communities.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article directly connects to SDG 3 by highlighting the health risks associated with pollution from hazardous waste burning. It mentions that pollutants like “lead, mercury and other pollutants” are released by these operations, which “poison the air, water, and soil of neighboring communities.” This poses a direct threat to human health and well-being.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  This goal is relevant as the article explicitly states that pollutants from hazardous waste operations poison not only the air and soil but also the “water” in surrounding communities. This points to the degradation of water quality due to industrial pollution.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The article’s focus on the impact of pollution on “neighboring communities, including environmental justice communities” links directly to SDG 11. This goal aims to make human settlements safe and sustainable, which includes managing air quality and waste.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  This is a central theme, as the entire article revolves around the management and regulation of “hazardous waste burning operations.” The discussion about setting new emission limits and standards for waste combustors is about achieving the environmentally sound management of waste.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article highlights the role of institutions and legal processes. The mention of a “lengthy court fight,” a “2022 lawsuit” by environmental groups, and the resulting “EPA proposal” and “draft rule” all point to the functioning of legal and regulatory institutions (EPA) and the role of civil society in holding them accountable.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

Based on the article’s content, the following specific targets can be identified:

1. Target 3.9: Substantially reduce deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and pollution

   The article’s core concern is the release of “lead, mercury and other pollutants” that “poison” communities. The effort to update regulations for hazardous waste burning is an attempt to manage and reduce the health impacts of this pollution, directly aligning with this target.

2. Target 6.3: Improve water quality by reducing pollution

   The statement that pollutants “poison… water” directly relates to this target, which aims to improve water quality by “minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials.”

3. Target 11.6: Reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities

   This target focuses on “paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.” The article’s discussion of air quality impacts from “hazardous waste combustors” on “neighboring communities” is a clear connection to this target.

4. Target 12.4: Achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes

   The article is entirely about the regulation of “hazardous waste burning operations” to control their emissions. The EPA’s draft rule, which sets “new emission limits or work practice standards,” is a direct implementation of this target, which seeks to “significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil.”

5. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making

   The “lengthy court fight” and “2022 lawsuit” initiated by “a coalition of environmental groups” demonstrate a participatory process where civil society engages with government institutions (like the EPA) to influence decision-making on environmental regulations.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

The article mentions or implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets:

• Emission Limits for Specific Pollutants

  The article explicitly mentions that the EPA would “set new emission limits or work practice standards for just two: hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen cyanide.” These emission limits are direct, quantifiable indicators used to measure the release of pollutants into the air from industrial sources. This can be used to track progress for targets 3.9, 11.6, and 12.4.

• Air Quality Data

  The article’s central theme is whether the new regulations would “make no difference in air quality.” This implies that air quality measurements are the primary indicator of success. While the article states the EPA does not “anticipate that the planned changes would impact air quality,” the measurement of pollutants like lead and mercury in the air of affected communities would be the key indicator to verify this claim.

• Development and Enforcement of Regulations

  The existence of the “draft rule” itself is an indicator of institutional action towards managing hazardous waste. The process described—a lawsuit leading to a proposed update to regulations—serves as an indicator for Target 16.7, reflecting the responsiveness of institutions to public and legal challenges.

Summary of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: eenews.net