Feeding the Plastics Industrial Complex

The rapidly growing plastics industry in the U.S. receives billions of dollars in government subsidies. Yet a majority of plastics manufacturers violate their air pollution control permits, often releasing hazardous chemicals that risk the health and safety of nearby communities.  

The Environmental Integrity Project examined 50 plants that were built or expanded in the U.S. since 2012 and that manufacture plastics and their main ingredients, such as ethylene and PVC (polyvinyl chloride).  We found an alarming pattern : Companies like ExxonMobil and Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) receive public subsidies after  making promises  to be “committed to protecting public safety, health, and the environment.”  But once the subsidies are in hand, the companies fail to keep their promises by releasing illegal pollution during repeated malfunctions and breakdowns, and sometimes fires and explosions. Addressing this lack of environmental compliance is an urgent issue, because the industry is growing rapidly.  Ten new plastics plants and 17 expansions are planned over the next five years, with many of these projects also seeking public subsidies.

Who pays for these tax breaks for illegal pollution?  Usually, Latino and Black communities that live near the plastics plants and suffer from their frequent chemical releases. About 66 percent of the more than 591,000 people living within three miles of the 50 new and expanded plastics plants built in the U.S. since 2012 are people of color, living in neighborhoods that are over-exposed to air pollution while schools and other public services are chronically underfunded.  This report  examines whether the public funds used to subsidize the plastic industry are addressing these inequities or making the problem worse by depriving local communities of badly needed tax revenues while paying for industrial expansions that erode their health and quality of life.

The plastics companies frequently promise to protect public health when they receive public subsidies. We calculated almost $9 billion in tax breaks or direct subsidies for 32 of the 50 plastics plants over a decade. But despite these promises, 84 percent of the plants violated their air pollution control permits at least once over the last three years.   And 94 percent reported chemical releases during explosions, fires, malfunctions, or other “upsets.” The 50 plants we studied reported a total of 1,242 incidents over the last five years that released nearly 34 million pounds of air pollution.  Yet despite these frequent violations and chemical releases that threaten the public, none of the facilities lost their public subsidies – which averaged $278 million per plant.

The stories and photos on the map below provide specific examples of communities hit by fires, explosions and other accidents at plastic plants, many of which are supported by public funds or tax breaks. For a copy of the full report with more information,  click here. 

 Our report  makes the following recommendations:

1) State and federal regulators should deny permits for industrial facilities that make primary ingredients used mostly in single-use, disposable plastics. Permits that are issued to plastics plants should impose strict and legally required pollution limits that protect the health of nearby communities, minimize climate pollution, and are based on an accurate accounting of emissions.

2) Fenceline monitoring should be required at all plastics plants.  EPA has proposed standards that would require this monitoring for multiple carcinogens, including benzene, and corrective action at about half of the plastics plants studied in this report. These standards should be strengthened, expanded to all plastics plants, and promptly implemented.

3) Plastic manufacturers should face accountability for breaking the law. Under the Clean Air Act, plants must comply with emission limits at all times, including during accidents, startups, and upset events.

4) The public should have access to pollution information. Emissions data, including real-time fenceline monitoring results and malfunction reports, should be posted promptly to a public, online database that is easy to use. Communities should receive alerts of any accidents or threats relating to plastics plants. 

5) Reject subsidies and tax breaks for plastics manufacturers. Public funds should be used to benefit projects that improve public health. Local entities should reject and revoke subsidies for plastics plants that expose neighboring communities to harmful air pollution and violate their environmental permits. Government subsidies should be tied to environmental compliance.