Report on Air Pollution Rule Exemptions in Indiana and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

The Trump administration has granted two-year exemptions from recent air pollution regulations to two chemical facilities in Indiana: SABIC Innovative Plastics and Cook Group Inc. This decision has significant negative implications for several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning health, sustainable communities, and responsible production.

Facility Analysis and SDG Impact

SABIC Innovative Plastics, Posey County

This facility’s operational record presents a direct challenge to achieving key SDG targets.

• Environmental Record: Ranks as the sixth-largest source of toxic releases in Indiana.
• Regulatory Non-Compliance: Has a documented history of violating the Clean Air Act for the past three consecutive years, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
• Pollutant Profile: Key emissions include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are linked to respiratory ailments and cancer.

These factors directly contravene the principles of several SDGs:

1. SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The continued emission of hazardous VOCs poses a direct threat to the health of the local population, undermining Target 3.9, which aims to substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air pollution.
2. SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): The facility’s history of violations and high toxic release volume demonstrates a pattern inconsistent with Target 12.4, which calls for the environmentally sound management of chemicals and wastes throughout their life cycle to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.

Cook Group Inc., Monroe County

Despite lower total emissions, the specific chemical released by this facility raises acute public health concerns and conflicts with SDG principles.

• Pollutant Profile: The facility emits ethylene oxide, a chemical classified as highly toxic and a potent carcinogen.
• Community Health Risk: According to EPA data, residents near the plant face some of the highest cancer risks from air pollution in the state.

The situation at this facility highlights a failure to advance the following SDGs:

1. SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The emission of a known carcinogen into a residential area is in direct opposition to ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all.
2. SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): The elevated cancer risk makes the surrounding community less safe and sustainable, failing to meet Target 11.6, which aims to reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality.

Regulatory Exemptions and Institutional Implications

The exemptions were granted based on applications arguing that compliance technology was unavailable and that adherence to the rules would pose a threat to national security. This process and its outcome have broader implications for environmental governance.

• Advocacy Position: Environmental advocates contend that the existing regulations already represent a compromise between the EPA and industry, making the claim of unavailable technology dubious.
• Corporate Response: Cook Group Inc. stated its request was due to supply chain uncertainties for necessary monitoring equipment, particularly from single-source suppliers. However, the company affirmed its intention to comply with the rule and has since acquired the required technology. SABIC did not provide a comment.
• Impact on SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): Granting exemptions from established environmental laws can be viewed as weakening regulatory institutions. This action undermines Target 16.6, which aims to develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels, by creating loopholes that compromise public health and environmental protection.
• Impact on SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure): While supply chain issues were cited, providing exemptions may disincentivize industry investment in innovative and sustainable technologies for pollution control, hindering progress toward Target 9.4, which calls for upgrading infrastructure and retrofitting industries to make them sustainable.

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

The article discusses issues of industrial air pollution, its health consequences, and regulatory actions, which directly connect to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These goals focus on health, sustainable communities, responsible production, and strong institutions.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article’s core theme is the health impact of air pollution from chemical plants.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The pollution directly affects the quality of life and environmental safety of residents living near the industrial facilities.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The issue stems from industrial production processes that release hazardous chemicals, highlighting a need for more sustainable practices.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article discusses government regulations, violations of environmental laws, and the granting of exemptions, which relates to the effectiveness and accountability of institutions like the EPA.

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

Based on the specific problems mentioned in the article, the following targets are most relevant:

1. 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 directly supports this target by highlighting the emission of hazardous chemicals. It states that SABIC emits “volatile organic compounds, which can make it difficult to breathe and some can cause cancer.” It also notes that due to ethylene oxide emissions from the Cook Group plant, “residents nearby have some of the highest risk for cancer from air pollution in the state.” These are clear examples of illnesses linked to chemical air pollution.

2. 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 article focuses on the environmental impact on communities in Posey County and Monroe County. The release of toxic chemicals by SABIC and Cook Group Inc. directly degrades the local air quality, creating an adverse environmental impact on the residents of these areas.

3. 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 the failure to manage chemical releases. It mentions that SABIC “releases about 4 million pounds of toxic chemicals every year” and has “violated clean air laws for the past three years.” This points to a lack of environmentally sound management of chemicals, leading to their release into the air and subsequent harm to human health.

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
     
     Explanation: The article brings into question the effectiveness and accountability of regulatory institutions. The fact that the “Trump administration will let two chemical plants in Indiana bypass recent air pollution rules” and that SABIC has “violated clean air laws for the past three years” suggests a breakdown in the enforcement of environmental regulations. The provision of exemptions itself is a commentary on institutional processes.

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

The article provides both quantitative and qualitative data that can serve as indicators for measuring progress.

1. For Target 3.9 (Reduce illnesses from pollution):

   • Indicator (Implied): Morbidity/risk rates linked to air pollution.
     
     Explanation: The article doesn’t provide a direct mortality rate (Indicator 3.9.1), but it offers a proxy by stating that residents near the Cook plant face “some of the highest risk for cancer from air pollution.” Measuring and reducing this cancer risk level would be a direct way to track progress toward this target.

2. For Target 11.6 (Reduce adverse environmental impact):

   • Indicator (Implied): Annual mean levels of specific air pollutants.
     
     Explanation: While not mentioning PM2.5 (Indicator 11.6.2), the article specifies the pollutants of concern: “volatile organic compounds” and “ethylene oxide.” The amount of these chemicals released annually serves as a direct indicator of local air quality. For example, the article states “SABIC releases about 4 million pounds of toxic chemicals every year.” A reduction in this amount would indicate progress.

3. For Target 12.4 (Sound management of chemicals):

   • Indicator: Amount of hazardous waste/chemicals released.
     
     Explanation: This is directly related to Indicator 12.4.2 (Hazardous waste generated…and proportion treated). The article provides a specific figure: “SABIC releases about 4 million pounds of toxic chemicals every year.” This number is a direct measurement of untreated hazardous chemicals being released into the environment. Tracking this figure over time would measure progress.

4. For Target 16.6 (Effective and accountable institutions):

   • Indicator (Qualitative): Number of violations of environmental laws and number of exemptions granted.
     
     Explanation: Progress can be measured by tracking the enforcement of regulations. The article states that SABIC has “violated clean air laws for the past three years.” A decrease in the number of such violations would indicate more effective institutional oversight. Similarly, the number of exemptions granted to bypass pollution rules serves as an indicator of institutional accountability.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article. In this table, list the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their corresponding targets, and the specific indicators identified in the article.

Source: wboi.org