19.10.2021 | Fundamental right
Manual for objection letter
Environmental permit Roadside landscape E34 south – Lantis
Thank you for your commitment to submitting the objection below.
Please follow the steps below:
STEP 1. GO TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DESK.
STEP 2. CLICK ON THE LINK UNDER “Public Investigations”.
STEP 3. CLICK ON “File an objection online”.
STEP 4. SEARCH FOR
- Enter the project code “ in the search box at the top left2021060385” in
- select “Roadside landscape E34 South (2021060385)” from the popup list below the search box
On the right side the project parts for Antwerp and Zwijndrecht now appear in the list
Submit the objection for both locations, you do not have to be a resident of Zwijndrecht or Antwerp. Everyone can always submit an objection anywhere.
STEP 5. SELECT THE RIGHT PROJECT.
A public inquiry is underway in both the municipality of Zwijndrecht and the city of Antwerp in the context of the same revision of the 3M permit.
It is best to submit your objection to both so that each board has to deal with it.
Project number: 2021060385
Click on the 
behind one of the two projects.
All details and documents of this project will appear:
STEP 6. LOG IN AT THE TOP RIGHT OF THE WINDOW – CHOOSE YOUR LOGIN METHOD – FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS.
STEP 7. AFTER LOGGING IN, CLICK ON “ADD NEW OBJECTION” AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WINDOW.
STEP 8. FILL IN THE FORM.
- enter your email address
- select what applies under “Representation”
- choose whether you want your objection to be visible to others > if so, check this box
- enter your objection in the large box and/or attach a file
- On the following pages of this manual you will find an example that you can copy
- click SUBMIT!
Objection Letter Template
Select the entire text and image below, copy and paste it into the “Contents of the appeal” field of your appeal.
Please note that after pasting the text you must enter your name and address (marked in yellow below) to personalize.
Of course you can also add your own comments.
copy from here
By:
YOUR NAME
YOUR FULL ADDRESS
YOUR PLACE OF RESIDENCE
At:
Organizers of the public inquiry:
- The College of Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Antwerp
Attn: Permits Department, Grote Markt 1, 2000 Antwerp. - The Board of Mayor and Aldermen of the Municipality of Zwijndrecht
attn. Permits Department, Binnenplein 1, 2070 Zwijndrecht
Permitting authority:
The Department of Environment of the Flemish Government
Department of Area Development, Environmental Planning and Projects
Directorate of Area Development
Team Mer
King Albert II Avenue 20 box 8, 1000 Brussels
mailto:mer@vlaanderen.be
OBJECTION
Against an environmental permit for the Roadside Landscape E34 South, type urban development actions, at location Neerstraat 2, 2070 Zwijndrecht.
Against an environmental permit for the Roadside Landscape E34 South, type classified establishments or activities, at location Blancefloerlaan 501, 2050 Antwerp.
Permit applicant: Management Company Antwerp Mobile (BAM NV – public limited company under public law), Sint-Pietersvliet 7, 2000 Antwerp
Ref. OMV 2021060385
Dear,
With this message I formally submit an objection in the context of the ongoing public inquiry into the application for an environmental permit 'Bermenlandschap E34 Zuid' (OMV reference 2021060385). This environmental permit includes the following works:
- adjusting the verges (higher on the motorway side and more sloping/wider on the landscape side), which also means that the cycle path, canals and waterways will locally have to shift southwards.
- the cycle path will be widened from 4m as permitted to 6m wide so that it can also be used as a cycle highway (a head wall must be provided for this purpose at the Vlietbosbeek and the permitted ecotunnel will be additionally covered for a limited part)
- the connections of the cycle path to the existing municipal roads are being adjusted,
- the high-voltage building C05 is placed 0.5m higher than permitted,
- the bicycle bridge (or structure K15) is being adapted in accordance with the adjusted verge and approach ramps,
- local noise barriers are being modified and emergency passages (emergency doors) are being provided,
- the licensed above-ground retention basin (no. 2) will be provided underground and in the verge, with an ADR basin also being provided,
- the Neerstraat will be partly relocated and partly combined with the cycle path and designed as a cycle street,
- the existing outflow structure of the Vlietbosbeek will be reopened and put into use;
- trees will not be planted as stated in the SBVA Infra LO, these are indicated on the permitted status implantation plans of the current application as 'trees not to be planted', these do not form part of the reforestation task linked to the deforestation from Infra LO,
- the reforestation that was planned will be included differently in this permit application due to the changed design and location of the cycle path (see also addendum B01 and Q1 to this application),
- additional existing pavements will be demolished.
The image below, based on research conducted by the permit applicant itself, shows that the project area to which the permit application applies falls within a zone that is heavily polluted with PFAS, including PFOS. By means of this letter I object to the granting of a permit for 'Roadside landscape E34 South', as long as the impact on the environment, including Habitat Directive areas and Bird Directive areas, the population and human health is not investigated as required by the applicable legislation on environmental impact assessment, and as long as the recommendations of the Earthmoving Commission are not fully implemented.
- A sufficient project EIA was never drawn up for the basic permit
First of all, it should be noted that for the basic permits for which the current environmental permit application constitutes a partial amendment, environmental impact assessments in accordance with the applicable legislation were never conducted. For example, the impact on the environment of earthmoving works in areas contaminated with PFAS was never (adequately) investigated. This was confirmed during the hearings of the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee PFAS-PFOS, including on 27 August (by Isabelle Larmuseau, KU Leuven).
In view of this PFAS contamination, no adequate water and soil test was carried out for this and other permits; nor was the impact of the planned earthmoving on the groundwater adequately studied; nor was the impact of the works on nearby protected nature reserves investigated.
Consequently, reference cannot be made to the basic permit to argue that the environmental impact of the works for which a permit is currently being requested should not be investigated.
- Also in this application no adequate research into the environmental effects
The documents accompanying the current permit application also do not show that the possible effects of PFAS on the environment were investigated in a manner that is consistent with the applicable legislation on environmental impact assessment.
After all, there was still no adequate water and soil test; nor was the impact of earthmoving mentioned in the permit application on the groundwater adequately studied; nor was the impact on nearby protected nature areas (Habitat Directive areas, Bird Directive areas) investigated.
It is also important that it has recently emerged that (permitted or unpermitted) discharges from 3M Belgium contain, in addition to PFOS, other toxic PFAS compounds (PFOA, FBSA, PFBSA, MeFBSA, MeFBSAA). Consequently, the effect of the works to which the application relates must also be investigated, given the possible presence of these substances in the project area.
Finally, it is by no means demonstrated that all recommendations from the Grondverzet report (14 July 2021) are being fully implemented. After all, these recommendations are intended to ensure that risks to people and the environment are maximally limited.
Since no adequate research has been carried out into the environmental impact of the planned works, a permit cannot be granted.
- Extent of PFAS pollution unprecedented
In IIOA addendum E2 we read:
“Figure 2 below shows a print screen of a plan from the descriptive soil survey of 2006, showing values of the PFOS analyses that were carried out in the soil samples at that time. The yellow colour indicates where the gravel cores will be realised in the future. In the drillings that were carried out in function of the technical report referred to earlier, concentrations of between approx. 20 and 70 μg/kg PFOS were found in the top layer in this zone.
In figure 3 below, a print screen is taken from a plan from the descriptive soil survey of 2006, showing values of the PFOS analyses that were carried out in the groundwater samples at that time. Indicatively shown in yellow is where the gravel cores will be realised in the future. The concentrations from the soil survey in this zone are confirmed in the groundwater survey that was carried out in the meantime, which was mentioned earlier, in which concentrations in the wells were observed that were smaller than 1 μg/L.
The descriptive soil survey of 2006 showed a remediation obligation of the contamination plume in the groundwater with PFOS outside the 3M site. Currently, there is no further remediation obligation of the groundwater south of the E34, for which a final evaluation study was drawn up (due to stable condition).
Since 2019, everything has been re-investigated and a new descriptive soil survey is expected in 2022.”
From these and other passages it can be deduced that no current, detailed data is available on PFAS pollution in the area to which the permit application relates. Consequently, it seems difficult or impossible to test the effects of the works on the environment and public health. For example, it will be difficult to determine whether the standstill principle is respected.
This lack of information also makes it impossible for the advisory and licensing authorities to make a sufficient assessment of the environmental impact of the works (in an area polluted with PFAS) for which a permit is requested. Additional research is therefore required before a permit can be granted.
- The application does not take into account the most recent insights and standards regarding PFAS
In view of the EFSA 2020 standards, it also appears that the standard framework used is outdated. In September 2020, EFSA reduced the European reference dose to 0.63 ng/kg bw/day for the sum of PFOS+PFOA+PFHxS+PFNA. This implies that the current soil standard of 70 µg/kg ds is based on a cumulative underestimation of the toxicity of PFOS by a minimum factor of 1,020x (4,500 ng/L versus 4.41 ng/L). The standard used is in stark contrast to standard frameworks used elsewhere, where similar pollution problems occur. For example, with regard to the pollution in Dordrecht (PFAS pollution by Chemours), the rule is applied not to excavate soil above 3 micrograms/kg ds.
Given the environmental duty of care, which obliges the permit applicant to take all measures to prevent damage and nuisance, the permit application should in principle be assessed on the basis of the most recent insights. In this case, this was not done; consequently, no permit can be granted.
- Remediation and/or waste disposal obligation
In any event, the advisory or licensing authorities must investigate whether there is no obligation to remediate or dispose of waste in relation to the PFOS contamination in the area to which the permit application relates.
As confirmed by the Council for Permit Disputes (14 January 2021), remediation of a project area may be required before work can commence in a contaminated area.
In addition, it must be examined whether, in view of the provisions on environmental criminal law, the waste disposal obligation must not be fulfilled before the works are started. This has not happened in the present case either.
General decision:
Based on the objections described under Titles 1 to 5, it must be concluded that in the current state of the application, insufficient research has been conducted into the effects on the environment that can be expected if a permit is granted.
For example, no adequate water and soil test was carried out for these works; nor was the impact of earthmoving on the groundwater adequately studied; nor was the impact of the works adequately investigated on nearby protected nature areas (Habitat Directive areas, Bird Directive areas) and on the population and human health. Furthermore, it was not demonstrated that the recommendations of the Earthmoving Commission are being fully implemented.
Consequently, it is appropriate not to grant the permit at this time.
English 
Nederlands (België)