The post Hazardous Chemicals in Food Packaging Found in Humans appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Kate Horgan.

Papua New Guinea will face a grim reality of a ban on its shipping of oil and hydrocarbons in international waters if it continues to ignore the implementation of a domestic waste oil policy that is 28 years overdue.

The Conservation and Environment Protection Authority’s Director for Renewable Brendan Trawen made this stark revelation in response to queries posed by Post-Courier Online.

In the backdrop of investment projects proposed in the resource space, the issue of waste oil and its disposal has incurred hefty fines and reputational damage to the nation, and could seriously impact the shipments of one of the country’s lucrative exports in oil and LNG.

• READ MORE: Waste oil – a timebomb for Papua New Guinea – Matthew Vari

“International partners are most protective of their waterways. Therefore, PNG has already been issued with a warning on implementation of a ban of oil and hydrocarbon shipments, including LNG from PNG through Indonesian water,” he said.

In addition, the issuing of a complete ban on all hydrocarbon exports from Singapore through Indonesian waters to PNG.

“In light of growing international concern about the need for stringent control of transboundary movement of hazardous waste oil, and of the need as far as possible to reduce such movement to a minimum, and the concern about the problem of illegal transboundary traffic in hazardous wastes oil, CEPA is compelled to take immediate steps in accordance with Article 10 of the Basel Convention Framework,” Trawen said.

He indicated CEPA had limited capabilities of PNG State through to manage hazardous wastes and other wastes.

Safeguarding PNG’s international standing
The government of PNG had been “rightfully seeking cooperation with Singaporean authorities since 2020” to safeguard PNG’s international standing with the aim to improve and achieve environmentally sound management of hazardous waste oil.

“Through the NEC Decision No. 12/2021, respective authorities from PNG and Singapore deliberated and facilitated the alternative arrangement to reach an agreement with Hachiko Efficiency Services (HES) towards the establishment of a transit and treatment centre in PNG.

“In due process, HES have the required permits to allow transit of the waste oils in Singapore, Malaysia and South Korea for recycling.”

Minister of Environment, Conservation and Climate Change Simon Kilepa acknowledged that major repercussions were expected to take effect with the potential implementation ban of all hydrocarbons and oil shipments through Indonesian waters.

Political, economic and security risks emerged without doubt owing to GoPNG through CEPA’s negligence in the past resolving Basel Convention’s outstanding matters.

“It is in fact that the framework and policy for the Waste Oil Project exists under the International Basel Convention inclusive of the approved methods of handling and shipping waste oils. What PNG has been lacking is the regulation and this program provides that through,” he said.

“CEPA will progress its waste oil programme by engaging Hachiko Efficiency Services to develop and manage the domestic transit facility.

“This will include the export of waste oil operating under the Basel and Waigani agreements dependent upon the final destination.”

CEPA will proceed with the Hazardous Waste Oil Management Programme immediately to comply with the long outstanding implementation of the Basel Convention requirements on the management of Hazardous waste oil.

A media announcement and publicity would be made with issuance of Express of Interest (EOI) to shippers and local waste companies

A presentation would be made to NEC Cabinet and a NEC decision before the sitting of Parliament.

Matthew Vari is a senior journalist and former editor of the PNG Post-Courier. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The Singapore cargo ship Dali chartered by Maersk, which collapsed the Baltimore bridge in the United States last month, was carrying 764 tonnes of hazardous materials to Sri Lanka, reports Colombo’s Daily Mirror.

The materials were mostly corrosives, flammables, miscellaneous hazardous materials, and Class-9 hazardous materials — including explosives and lithium-ion batteries — in 56 containers.

According to the Mirror, the US National Transportation Safety Board was still “analysing the ship’s manifest to determine what was onboard” in its other 4644 containers when the ship collided with Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, collapsing it, on March 26.

• READ MORE: Baltimore Key Bridge collapse investigation begins

The e-Con e-News (ee) news agency reports that prior to Baltimore, the Dali had called at New York and Norfolk, Virginia, which has the world’s largest naval base.

Colombo was to be its next scheduled call, going around South Africa’s Cape of Good Hope, taking 27 days.

According to ee, Denmark’s Maersk, transporter for the US Department of War, is integral to US military logistics, carrying up to 20 percent of the world’s merchandise trade annually on a fleet of about 600 vessels, including some of the world’s largest ships.

The US Department of Homeland Security has also now deemed the waters near the crash site as “unsafe for divers”.

13 damaged containers
An “unclassified memo” from the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) said a US Coast Guard team was examining 13 damaged containers, “some with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] and/or hazardous materials [HAZMAT] contents.

The team was also analysing the ship’s manifest to determine if any materials could “pose a health risk”.

CISA officials are also monitoring about 6.8 million litres of fuel inside the Dali for its “spill potential”.

Where exactly the toxic materials and fuel were destined for in Sri Lanka was not being reported.

Also, it is a rather long way for such Hazmat, let alone fuel, to be exported, “at least given all the media blather about ‘carbon footprint’, ‘green sustainability’ and so on”, said the Daily Mirror.

“We can expect only squeaky silence from the usual eco-freaks, who are heavily funded by the US and EU,” the newspaper commented.

“It also adds to the intrigue of how Sri Lanka was so easily blocked in 2022 from receiving more neighbourly fuel, which led to the present ‘regime change’ machinations.”

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

"Of the $234.6 billion total capital expenditure for the LNG export terminals built in the last decade, loans from international public finance institutions made up at least 24% of the total ($55.2 billion)," the report explains. "On top of this, these institutions provided $22.4 billion in equity investments and loan guarantees to insure against potential losses for other financiers."

The 17 completed projects included in the analysis have locked 928 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) each year, comparable to "the annual emissions of 423 coal-fired power plants, nearly two times the annual emissions of Canada, or over three times the annual emissions of France."

OCI's briefing warns that another dozen projects expected to be completed by 2026 would generate an additional 654 megatonnes of yearly planet-heating pollution, or about the annual emissions of Germany—as climate scientists and energy experts emphasize the need to swiftly end the world's fossil fuel era.

"These shocking figures show that laggard countries need to catch up with leading governments and urgently change course to stop pumping taxpayers' money into gas projects that are wrecking our climate, leave the energy crisis unsolved, and will end up as stranded assets."

"These shocking figures show that laggard countries need to catch up with leading governments and urgently change course to stop pumping taxpayers' money into gas projects that are wrecking our climate, leave the energy crisis unsolved, and will end up as stranded assets," asserted OCI public finance strategist Adam McGibbon.

At $39.7 billion, Japan leads the world in public financing for LNG export capacity 2012-26, followed by China ($25.4 billion) and the United States ($15.5 billion). Rounding out the top 10 "worst offenders" are South Korea, Russia, Italy, Germany, France, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.

During the COP26 climate summit in Scotland two years ago, the United States, Italy, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands were among the 39 countries and institutions that signed the Glasgow Statement, agreeing to cut off financing for new international fossil fuel projects by the end of last year and instead invest in clean energy.

Japan initially held out, but under pressure from its fellow Group of Seven countries, ultimately agreed to the pledge last May. However, in July, at the urging of Germany and Italy, the G7 watered down its members' commitments specifically on gas.

With Japan set to host a G7 summit in Hiroshima next month, the nation's "leadership in the expansion of LNG development is the exact opposite of what we need," OCI campaigner Makiko Arima declared Wednesday. "Japan needs to take last year's G7 commitment to end public finance for fossil fuels seriously and stop funding gas projects."

"There is no time for so-called transition fuels, when fossil fuel dependency is exacerbating the climate and energy crises, and fossil fuel projects are harming communities and the environment," Arima added. "G7 countries need to do much more than make climate commitments that they break."

While the United States, Australia, and Russia top the list of counties, by emissions, where publicly financed LNG products were built in the past decade or are now underway, they are followed by nations that aren't the "worse offenders" in terms of funding: Mozambique, Canada, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, and Mexico.

As Common Dreams has reported, civil society groups across Africa have argued in recent months that "rather than doubling down on the obsolete and dirty energy systems," the African Union must "move away from harmful fossil fuels towards a transformed energy system that is clean, renewable, democratic, and actually serves its peoples."

Anabela Lemos, director of Justica Ambiental!/Friends of the Earth Mozambique, echoed that argument Wednesday.

While Global North nations, "the culprits creating the climate crisis, benefit from this gas," it is the Global South "who will suffer," Lemos stressed, noting that "Mozambique has been hit by four cyclones within three years that have displaced over 1 million people."

"The gas industry in Mozambique is devastating the country's climate, people, environment, and economy," she said. "Even though gas has been produced in Mozambique for decades, still only 30% of people have electricity access, and in Inhambane Province, where Sasol has been extracting gas for 20 years, displaced communities have seen no benefits."

"Northern governments and their companies involved in the Mozambique LNG Project in Cabo Delgado Province are complicit in forcing the already debt-ridden country into a fossil fuel lock-in, and pushing people into further poverty, by taking away their livelihoods and fueling a war that has created 1 million refugees," Lemos added.

Given the impacts of export terminals on both the climate and the communities around such facilities, OCI's report concludes with recommendations that include ending domestic subsidies and permits for fossil fuel development, scaling up finance for clean energy, and providing debt cancellation, climate finance, and loss and damage support for the Global South.

"To meet their climate obligations, governments should stop funding LNG expansion," said McGibbon. "In addition, those countries that have not already done so should join the Glasgow Statement initiative to show they are serious about solving the climate and energy security crises. Anything less is just hot air."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

The post A Hazardous Decision: Supplying Ukraine with Depleted Uranium Shells appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

“It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” Larry said.

The preliminary draft permit, which the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality issued last week, allows Clean Harbors to continue the open burning and open detonation of materials for at least another eight months. The facility disposes of outdated munitions from several military bases, including the shuttered National Guard training site at Camp Minden, and old fireworks from Disney World.

Larry and her neighbors in the small enclave of mostly Black residents just outside of Colfax known as The Rock have reported a deep slate of medical issues, ranging from asthma and allergies to cancer. Many of their illnesses are on the list of presumptive conditions the Department of Defense provided to veterans exposed to burn pit victims.

Larry’s 15-year-old grandnephew is afflicted with what North Carolina State University researcher  Jennifer Richmond-Bryant told the family is likely chemical-related acne caused by several harsh compounds found in the burn pit waste streams. The boy’s pediatrician couldn’t explain it, Larry said.

Just recently, after her grandson’s teacher noticed he was blinking frequently and staring fixedly, the third grader was evaluated by a neurologist for seizures. Richmond-Bryant told the family both conditions are associated with the neurotoxins and hazardous gasses in the air they breathe, Larry said.

“The people in The Rock are not dumb,” she said. “We do not accept a permit that allows Clean Harbors Colfax to continue to poison our kids. Would you?”

‘The devil is in the details’

Experts in science and environmental law say the contained disposal system Clean Harbors is seeking a permit  to build won’t necessarily reduce the harmful emissions. They have reviewed the draft permit and question whether the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has the best interests of The Rock’s residents and other Clean Harbor neighbors in mind.

LSU-Shreveport chemistry professor Brian Salvatore has been a longtime vocal opponent of the disposal facility, which has operated for 21 years in Central Louisiana. He told the Illuminator the LDEQ’s cover letter on the draft is not reflective of the permit’s true stance on open burning.

“The devil is in the details,” Salvatore said.

He highlighted multiple excerpts from the permit that say the operation of the proposed closed burn system would be “supplemental” to the continued open burning of some waste streams.

In an email to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s regional director, Salvatore said the exemptions Clean Harbors is seeking from federal emissions enforcement should instead be requirements from the EPA for the company to use available technology to accomplish the clean destruction of 100% of Clean Harbors Colfax’s hazardous chemical waste stream.

Clean Harbors should not be granted exemptions if it willingly chooses not to invest in such equipment, he added.

Colfax resident Terry Brown, a former state lawmaker, also opposes the permit for expansion. His wife has battled breast cancer, leukemia and thyroid issues. Restrictions in the LDEQ draft permit are, at best, a case of far too little, far too late, he said.

“The technology has been around for 10 years. Why didn’t LDEQ make the company install it seven years ago when they started blowing up the munitions from Camp Minden?” Brown asked.

‘It’s not a huge improvement’

There is a discrepancy over how long open burning will continue at Clean Harbors between the draft permit and the cover letter from LDEQ that accompanies it. Both the letter and the permit say that open burning will end 180 days after Clean Harbors accepts the permit. But unlike the cover letter, the permit says contained burning will be “supplemental” to ongoing open burning, and that open burning will continue until the new contained burn facility is up and running.

The draft permit also doesn’t mention potential exceptions Clean Harbors could seek that would allow burning to continue indefinitely.

LDEQ spokesman Gregory Langley did not respond to the Illuminator’s questions regarding the discrepancies.

As with the Illuminator’s previous reporting on Clean Harbors, there has been no response to calls and messages to the company’s headquarters in Massachusetts about the Colfax facility.

Wilma Subra of the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, who has been advising Clean Harbor neighbors on the science of contamination, said the draft permit frightens her.

She said the LDEQ would have ideally placed limits on Clean Harbors’ emissions as it transitions from open burning and open detonation (OB/OD) site to a closed process. But Subra pointed to a passage in the draft permit that states “current emissions and OB/OD configuration will remain effective until start up [of the contained system].”

“I’m scared they’ll keep open burning for a long, long time because of the time it will take the company to order, construct and shake down a contained burn system.”

Subra is also extremely concerned about the proposed emission levels of the closed system.

“A contained burn system is supposed to have very few emissions,” she said. “But when you look at what the difference is, it’s not a huge improvement. And in some cases, it’s higher after than before.”

Half of the limits of LDEQ’s six “criteria pollutants” are higher in the draft permit, including the allowable limit for volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

“Those are the toxic chemical compounds that you would try to avoid being able to be released into the air. The levels don’t seem appropriate for a closed burn system,” Subra said.

Slawo Lomnicki, an associate professor at LSU and lead researcher for its Superfund Center, is an expert in incineration. He told the Illuminator via email the draft permit offers little information on anticipated emissions from the closed system.

“Details of emissions of the new system is dependent on the operation and air pollution control devices used. There is no sufficient detail on that in the permit,” Lomnicki wrote.

Subra is also concerned about the lack of proposed smokestack emissions monitoring.

“It could be pushing out smoke like open burning, and there’s no way of monitoring it as it happens, and there’s no alarm going off that says, ‘You’re out of compliance, do something immediately!’”

Subra wants to know why LDEQ isn’t requiring Clean Harbors to stop accepting hazardous waste in the meantime.

“They’re going to be bringing in tons of waste. The limit is on what they burn, not on what they can receive, and I can see when it’s coming close to time [for the contained burning], they’re going to be taking large quantities of waste in because they know they’ll be able to open burn it,” she said.

‘It’s really bad news for these people’

Larry and other neighbors of Clean Harbors joined the Coalition for a Clean and Healthy Environment after its formation in 2015 to fight the open burning. They have been crying out for legislative or administrative relief since the group’s inception.

Coalition members have two primary measures for assessing the proposed LDEQ permit: How quickly the open burn/open detonation operation can be shut down, and how can Clean Harbors be required to drastically reduce overall toxic emissions.

Five generations of Larry’s family live in The Rock. Several relatives have asthma, allergies, skin damage and hair loss.

“We will not stand for it, and whoever agreed to the permit needs to go back and reevaluate it. [Gov. John Bel] Edwards needs to close them down permanently and move them out of our community.”

Pathologist Dr. Stephen Norman of Alexandria has treated several residents who live near Clean Harbors and attributes many of their pulmonary disorders to the facility.

He expressed disgust at the prospect LDEQ would negotiate a permit with the company that would allow another eight months or more of open burning.

“Sadly, we’ve come to expect this kind of thing in Louisiana, which is at the bottom of every good list and is just not taking care of its citizens – especially the Black citizens. It’s criminal the way the state is giving the company license to do this.”

“If the open burning continues, they won’t get better because this stuff is not dose dependent. Any amount is going to cause damage,” he added. “It’s really bad news for these people.”

Brenda Vallee, founder of the coalition, told the Illuminator its members will review the draft permit closely and submit public comments with the hope of improving it. The end of the comment period is May 1.

Some coalition members say Clean Harbors’ cleanup of environmental damage already caused to Central Louisiana’s water, soil, air and wildlife should be a prerequisite for their continued operations.

Coalition member John Munsen Jr. of Colfax said he submitted complaints to the LDEQ the day before the draft permit was released about heavy smoke from Clean Harbors.

“I asked why they never sent out an inspector after one of our members complained about seeing the black plumes traveling from Clean Harbors Colfax onto her property, which legally they’re supposed to do, and the [LDEQ} lawyer acknowledged they’re supposed to do that,” Munsen said. “And then I asked why they’re dragging their feet when they threaten to penalize the company but never follow through.”

Munsen said the lawyer promised to call him back the following week with an explanation.

Salvatore is calling for even more direct interaction with state regulators and hopes the coalition will soon demand LDEQ hold a press conference where very specific questions can be asked and answered on the spot.

“I am tired of playing cat and mouse with people who have proven to be less than ethical and responsible in the past.”

Langley, the agency spokesman, said the LDEQ “will follow our prescribed process and will not be holding or participating in a press conference regarding the draft permit.”

Larry said after seeing what LDEQ’s best thinking is for her community, the only permit she’s looking for now is a “cease and desist” order.

“Not the ‘70% percent of emissions, 180 days and keep burning until they make a new plant’ permit. We do not accept the permit,” she said. “We do not.”

This first appeared on the Louisiana Illuminator. 

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Frances Madeson.

The Environmental Protection Agency moved Friday to designate two commonly used "forever chemicals" as hazardous under federal law, a long-awaited step that green groups welcomed as important while also warning it is inadequate to address the scale of toxic pollution caused by the increasingly ubiquitous substances.

The EPA said in a press release that it has proposed a rule to formally classify perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)—part of a long list of chemical compounds known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—"as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as 'Superfund.'"

"Today's historic announcement sends an unmistakable message: They were poisoning us, it must stop, and they must pay."

"This rulemaking would increase transparency around releases of these harmful chemicals and help to hold polluters accountable for cleaning up their contamination," the EPA said, noting that the rule would, "in certain circumstances, facilitate making the polluter pay by allowing EPA to seek to recover cleanup costs from a potentially responsible party or to require such a party to conduct the cleanup."

The agency said it intends to publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register in the coming weeks, starting a 60-day public comment period during which the chemical lobby is expected to fight back against the new designation of common PFAS, mostly nondegradable substances that have been linked to cancer and detected in drinking water, soil, human blood, breast milk, and everyday household products.

"We urge EPA ​to listen to the communities who have been impacted by PFAS, and not be deterred from finalizing this rule by irrational comments from the polluters who created this public health crisis," said Christine Santillana, the legislative representative at Earthjustice.

The American Chemistry Council, a trade group that represents major PFAS polluters such as DuPont and 3M, wasted no time attacking the EPA proposal, calling it "an expensive, ineffective and unworkable means to achieve remediation for these chemicals."

But environmentalists hailed the proposal as a major improvement over the status quo, under which the EPA has been accused of "doing the bare minimum" to monitor and combat PFAS contamination. 

Melanie Benesh, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), called the rule "historic" and commended the Biden administration for signaling that "PFAS polluters will finally be forced to pay their fair share of cleaning up their mess."

Activist and actor Mark Ruffalo, a longtime anti-PFAS campaigner, also applauded the EPA, declaring that "today's historic announcement sends an unmistakable message: They were poisoning us, it must stop, and they must pay."

"After knowingly poisoning their workers, neighbors, and virtually every living being on the planet, PFAS polluters will finally—FINALLY—be held accountable," said Ruffalo. "We have all paid for decades—in the forms of higher care costs and higher drinking water bills—for one of the greatest environmental crimes in history. Now, finally, the polluters must pay."

But the applause came with crucial caveats. Benesh acknowledged in an interview with the Washington Post that EPA's new rule wouldn't be enough to completely eliminate PFAS from manufacturing processes.

"Just naming something as a hazardous substance doesn't really affect use," said Benesh.

The EPA's rule doesn't ban PFOA or PFOS. Rather, as the agency explains, "releases of PFOA and PFOS that meet or exceed the reportable quantity would have to be reported" to the federal government if the regulation is finalized.

"A release of these or any other hazardous substance will not always lead to the need to clean up or add a site to the National Priorities List (NPL), liability, or an enforcement action," the EPA said, adding that a "final rule would encourage better waste management and treatment practices by facilities handling PFOA or PFOS."

Sonya Lunder, the Sierra Club's senior toxics policy adviser, argued in a statement that "today's action alone does not match the urgency of the problem."

"EPA must rapidly assess and add other PFAS chemicals to Superfund and the [Resource Conservation and Recovery Act] Hazardous Waste list," said Lunder. "It must ensure PFAS waste is not transferred to marginalized communities who live near incinerators, landfills, and injection wells. PFAS producers, not the public, should bear the cost of cleaning up contaminated sites."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

The Environmental Protection Agency moved Friday to designate two commonly used "forever chemicals" as hazardous under federal law, a long-awaited step that green groups welcomed as important while also warning it is inadequate to address the scale of toxic pollution caused by the increasingly ubiquitous substances.

The EPA said in a press release that it has proposed a rule to formally classify perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)—part of a long list of chemical compounds known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—"as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as 'Superfund.'"

"Today's historic announcement sends an unmistakable message: They were poisoning us, it must stop, and they must pay."

"This rulemaking would increase transparency around releases of these harmful chemicals and help to hold polluters accountable for cleaning up their contamination," the EPA said, noting that the rule would, "in certain circumstances, facilitate making the polluter pay by allowing EPA to seek to recover cleanup costs from a potentially responsible party or to require such a party to conduct the cleanup."

The agency said it intends to publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register in the coming weeks, starting a 60-day public comment period during which the chemical lobby is expected to fight back against the new designation of common PFAS, mostly nondegradable substances that have been linked to cancer and detected in drinking water, soil, human blood, breast milk, and everyday household products.

"We urge EPA ​to listen to the communities who have been impacted by PFAS, and not be deterred from finalizing this rule by irrational comments from the polluters who created this public health crisis," said Christine Santillana, the legislative representative at Earthjustice.

The American Chemistry Council, a trade group that represents major PFAS polluters such as DuPont and 3M, wasted no time attacking the EPA proposal, calling it "an expensive, ineffective and unworkable means to achieve remediation for these chemicals."

But environmentalists hailed the proposal as a major improvement over the status quo, under which the EPA has been accused of "doing the bare minimum" to monitor and combat PFAS contamination. 

Melanie Benesh, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), called the rule "historic" and commended the Biden administration for signaling that "PFAS polluters will finally be forced to pay their fair share of cleaning up their mess."

Activist and actor Mark Ruffalo, a longtime anti-PFAS campaigner, also applauded the EPA, declaring that "today's historic announcement sends an unmistakable message: They were poisoning us, it must stop, and they must pay."

"After knowingly poisoning their workers, neighbors, and virtually every living being on the planet, PFAS polluters will finally—FINALLY—be held accountable," said Ruffalo. "We have all paid for decades—in the forms of higher care costs and higher drinking water bills—for one of the greatest environmental crimes in history. Now, finally, the polluters must pay."

But the applause came with crucial caveats. Benesh acknowledged in an interview with the Washington Post that EPA's new rule wouldn't be enough to completely eliminate PFAS from manufacturing processes.

"Just naming something as a hazardous substance doesn't really affect use," said Benesh.

The EPA's rule doesn't ban PFOA or PFOS. Rather, as the agency explains, "releases of PFOA and PFOS that meet or exceed the reportable quantity would have to be reported" to the federal government if the regulation is finalized.

"A release of these or any other hazardous substance will not always lead to the need to clean up or add a site to the National Priorities List (NPL), liability, or an enforcement action," the EPA said, adding that a "final rule would encourage better waste management and treatment practices by facilities handling PFOA or PFOS."

Sonya Lunder, the Sierra Club's senior toxics policy adviser, argued in a statement that "today's action alone does not match the urgency of the problem."

"EPA must rapidly assess and add other PFAS chemicals to Superfund and the [Resource Conservation and Recovery Act] Hazardous Waste list," said Lunder. "It must ensure PFAS waste is not transferred to marginalized communities who live near incinerators, landfills, and injection wells. PFAS producers, not the public, should bear the cost of cleaning up contaminated sites."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

The Indonesian government has filed a K105.6 million (US$30 million) writ against Papua New Guinea, naming two senior officials as persons of interest toward the illegal shipments of hazardous materials.

The two officials named are acting managing director for Conservation and Environment Protection Authority (CEPA) Gunther Joku and State Solicitor Daniel Rolpagarea.

Republic of Indonesia’s Ministry of Environment and Forestry-Basel Protocol’s Department’s Chief Compliance Officer Siti Muhammad told the Post-Courier they had been given the cold shoulder by the PNG government over the issue.

• READ MORE: Other PNG environmental reports

Last week the Indonesian government, in a letter addressed to the CEPA’s’s acting managing director Gunther Joku demanded that the PNG government pay a fine of K105.6 million (US$30 million) in 14 days for the management and storage of six illegal oil shipments.

Muhammad said that by 1 August 2022 PNG would be required to seek written approval from Indonesia Environment prior to the loading of any oil-related products, including but not limited to HS 1511 – Palm Oil HS 2710 – Crude Oil.

“We have advised Sime Darby (Malaysia) of the new process required effective August 1 2022 toward any oil palm shipments which transit through our waters and Indonesia Customs is advising PNG customs as such,” she said.

“It is my intent to ensure that any shipments coming from Papua New Guinea are monitored and checked for correct information due to the ongoing mislabeling issues.

Filed a writ
“We have filed a writ against the State of Papua New Guinea, naming Mr Gunther Joku and Mr Daniel Rolpagarea as persons of interest toward the illegal shipments of Hazardous Materials from Papua New Guinea and they will be advised in due course and requested to attend the hearing in Jakarta.”

Muhammad said they were currently planning a ban on any oil shipments through Indonesian waters either to or from PNG until such a time they had assurance that the products which were being claimed, were indeed what were being shipped.

This includes oil palm and crude oil.

“The waters of Indonesia are critical to the Asia-Pacific region and we acknowledge that on the previous instance of PNG causing a spill from an illegal shipment, no recognition or rectification was provided,” Muhammad said.

“Our waters provide transit for fuel to Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific. Closing our waters due to an issue from Papua New Guinea will see the entire Indo-Pacific shut down and provide an unthinkable security risk to the region.

“Many countries will suffer if our waterways are blocked due to this occurrence. Indonesia will not take such risks purely because Papua New Guinea lacks the interest to implement programs which she has signed to.”

Melisha Yafoi is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.