Report on Industrial Emissions Regulatory Relief and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Executive Summary

A recent federal government decision has granted two-year extensions to approximately 90 industrial facilities, including two in Indiana, delaying their compliance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hazardous air pollution standards. This report analyzes the decision’s direct conflict with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning public health, environmental protection, and sustainable communities. The exemptions, granted to facilities such as SABIC Innovative Plastics and Cook Medical, prioritize corporate economic concerns over established environmental and health protections, thereby shifting the burden of pollution onto local communities and undermining progress toward global sustainability targets.

2.0 Analysis of Conflict with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

2.1 SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The regulatory delay poses a direct threat to SDG 3, which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all. Specifically, it undermines Target 3.9, which calls for a substantial reduction in deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air pollution.

• Increased Health Risks: Experts express concern that two additional years of non-compliance will have “potentially profound impacts on community health.” The EPA’s own risk assessments place the affected facilities in Indiana on the high end of risk to human health.
• Exposure to Carcinogens: One proclamation specifically targets facilities using ethylene oxide, a known carcinogen, for medical equipment sterilization. The EPA has identified that such facilities can pose “high lifetime cancer risks to surrounding communities.”
• Prioritizing Profit Over Health: Public health advocates argue that the exemptions represent a policy choice where corporate profit is deemed more important than human health, which is a direct contradiction of the people-centric focus of SDG 3.

2.2 SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

The decision is in opposition to the principles of SDG 12, which calls for sustainable production patterns. The core of this conflict lies in the failure to adhere to Target 12.4, concerning the environmentally sound management of chemicals and the reduction of their release into the air, water, and soil.

1. Postponement of Sustainable Practices: The exemptions allow companies to continue operating with outdated, more polluting technologies until approximately 2028-2029, delaying the transition to more responsible production methods.
2. Continued Chemical Release: The SABIC chemical plant, for example, released several million pounds of chemicals on and offsite in 2023. The delayed regulations were designed specifically to curb such releases.
3. Externalizing Environmental Costs: The argument that compliance is too expensive ignores the externalized costs shifted to the public. As one advocate stated, “The burden doesn’t go away. It simply shifts” to the public in the form of increased healthcare costs and environmental damage.

2.3 SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The policy impacts the viability of creating safe, resilient, and sustainable communities as outlined in SDG 11. Target 11.6, which focuses on reducing the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities by improving air quality, is particularly compromised.

• Proximity to Vulnerable Populations: The EPA has acknowledged that many of the exempted facilities are located near residences, schools, and communities already facing environmental justice concerns.
• Degradation of Local Environments: Continued emissions of hazardous air pollutants directly degrade the quality of the local environment, affecting the health and well-being of residents and challenging the goal of creating sustainable living spaces.

3.0 Conclusion

The granting of regulatory exemptions to major industrial polluters represents a significant regression in the pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals. By delaying compliance with scientifically-backed pollution standards, the decision actively undermines SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). The policy framework prioritizes short-term industrial economic relief over the long-term health of citizens and the environment, demonstrating a clear departure from the integrated and indivisible principles of sustainable development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

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

The article highlights issues that are directly connected to several Sustainable Development Goals. The analysis identifies the following SDGs as relevant:

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The core of the article discusses the public health implications of easing pollution regulations. It repeatedly mentions concerns about human health, the carcinogenic nature of chemicals like ethylene oxide, and the potential for increased illnesses in communities near industrial facilities.
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure: The article centers on industrial facilities (chemical manufacturers, sterilization facilities, power plants) and the regulations governing their operations. It addresses the challenge of upgrading industries with cleaner technologies to reduce pollution, which is a key aspect of sustainable industrialization.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The issue of air pollution from industrial sites directly impacts the environmental quality of nearby communities. The article notes that many of these facilities are located near “residences, schools and communities,” linking industrial pollution to urban and community health.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: This goal is relevant due to its focus on the environmentally sound management of chemicals and wastes. The article’s main subject is the regulation of hazardous chemical emissions (like ethylene oxide) from manufacturing and sterilization processes, which falls squarely under the aim of reducing the release of pollutants into the environment.

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

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

1. 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 directly supports this target by highlighting the health risks associated with industrial emissions. It mentions that ethylene oxide is a “carcinogen” and is “responsible for all kinds of respiratory inflammation and chronic inflammation and it can damage your nervous system.” The concern that easing regulations deprioritizes human health and could lead to “profound impacts on community health” aligns perfectly with this target.
2. Target 9.4: “By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and processes…”
   • Explanation: The article discusses the industry’s challenge in meeting new EPA regulations. A company spokesperson is quoted saying, “There isn’t an ‘off the shelf solution’ for compliance… rather, the technology needs to be engineered and constructed.” This points to the need for retrofitting industries with new, cleaner technologies, which is the central theme of Target 9.4. The two-year extension on compliance is a delay in achieving this target.
3. 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 article connects industrial pollution to the health of local populations, stating that an EPA assessment places the facilities “on the high end of riskiness to human health, after considering… the size of the exposed population.” It also notes that the EPA found many sterilization facilities are “located near residences, schools and communities,” directly linking industrial air quality to the environmental impact on communities, as addressed in Target 11.6.
4. 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: This target is central to the article’s topic. The entire conflict revolves around regulations for “hazardous air pollution” and the release of chemicals. The article specifies that the SABIC plant “released several million pounds of chemicals on and offsite” and discusses the release of ethylene oxide from the Cook Medical facility. The debate over extending compliance deadlines is a debate about the timeline for achieving the environmentally sound management of these chemicals.

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

Yes, the article mentions or implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Indicator for Target 3.9 (Health): The article implies the use of health risk assessments as an indicator. It refers to an “EPA assessment for the plants… [that] places both facilities on the high end of riskiness to human health.” It also mentions specific health outcomes like “lifetime cancer risks,” “respiratory inflammation,” and nervous system damage, which can be tracked as health indicators in affected communities.
• Indicator for Target 12.4 and 11.6 (Pollution Release): The article provides direct, quantifiable data that serves as an indicator for the release of pollutants. It states, “In 2023, the EPA reported 11 pounds of ethylene oxide at Cook Medical in Ellettsville were disposed of or released” and that the SABIC plant “released several million pounds of chemicals on and offsite.” The amount of hazardous chemicals released into the air, measured in pounds or tons, is a direct indicator.
• Indicator for Target 9.4 (Industry Upgrade): While not a direct metric, the article implies an indicator related to the rate of adoption of new technologies. The statement that “the technology needs to be engineered and constructed” suggests that tracking the development and installation of such pollution-control technologies would be a measure of progress. The cost of compliance, mentioned as potentially exceeding “$50 billion,” is also a related financial indicator of the investment required for this industrial transition.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: indystar.com