EVALUATION DESCRIPTIVE SOIL RESEARCH ERM

16.03.2022 | Fundamental right – Greenpeace – Thomas Goorden – Bond Beter Leefmilieu

1. Vision of the coalition (BBL – Goorden – Greenpeace – Grondrecht) on the BBO and OVAM's remediation approach

The introduction to the non-technical report of the BBO (1st Phased Descriptive Soil Survey – Area south of the E34 motorway & 3M factory Zwijndrecht Initial assessment of the human risk assessment for PFAS in soil) states the following:

“Given the complexity of the BBO, it was decided in consultation with OVAM that this update would be carried out in several phases. For each identified BBO phase, a separate phased BBO report would be drawn up and submitted to OVAM.”

General but very legitimate questions that immediately arise here are:

• Why did OVAM, in consultation with ERM, decide that the BBO should be carried out in different phases?
• How can there be a fully watertight soil remediation plan for the entire polluted region be drawn up if only an area of 2.5-3 km south of the E34 is mapped?
• We can understand that the remediation has to be done in phases, but we cannot understand that the pollution should be mapped in phases. These are two completely different things. By not mapping the entire pollution plume from the start, the problem is not tackled at the roots. By only drawing up a BBO for 1 small segment (only residential and agricultural area of the municipality of Zwijndrecht and part of Beveren), and subsequently a remediation plan, there is a risk that other areas will become more difficult or possibly impossible to remediate.

Our legitimate concerns about the design of this BBO and what was decided to investigate in 'mutual consultation' between ERM (3M) and OVAM:

1. The BBO report states on page 1 under the heading “1.1 Background of the project and regulatory framework” the following:
   “It was decided to tackle the BBO in phases, with the first phase limited to the soil (solid part of the earth), both on and off the 3M factory site. Since the pumping works of the ongoing Oosterweel works have an impact on the local water management, it was decided to start the next phase of the BBO for the groundwater at the end of the construction works (estimated in 2025), so that the new hydrogeological situation can be taken into account.”
   • It is already very clear here that the Oosterweel works have priority over the complete mapping and complete remediation of the polluted habitat. The coalition cannot agree with this method and advocates first having a watertight remediation plan on the table, of which it is certain that the Oosterweel works will not jeopardize it, before continuing to dig. (see also the coalition's vision paper on remediation of the 3M environment)
   • By not taking groundwater into account (and therefore also leaching into surface water), an unreasonable risk arises that the pollution of groundwater in the area and the Scheldt that has taken place in the past decades would continue for many years. This while numerous health and environmental standards in the area have already been severely exceeded. A sound remediation plan must therefore at least include an investigation into the immediate and strong reduction of the pollution load towards groundwater and surface water.
2. The BBO report states on page 1 under the heading “1.1 Background of the project and regulatory framework” the following: “The assessment of the risk of dissemination and the ecotoxicological risk for the observed PFAS compounds, as well as the assessment of the human risk for the other land uses (including on the 3M site), will be discussed in a subsequent phase of the BBO.”
   • The coalition believes that ecotoxicological and indirect human toxicological risks should also be included in the BBO and points out that this is a legal obligation.
   • The coalition advocates that all destination types should be mapped out now, as well as the interaction between closely connected destination types. Practically speaking: If an industrial site is adjacent to a nature reserve, this must of course be taken into account.
   • The coalition also refers to what Vlarebo demands and describes as the purpose of a descriptive soil survey and associated tasks:
     • The type, nature and determine the origin of pollutants;
     • Determination of the quantity, concentrations and magnitude of the pollutants found on the site (the entire pollution plume);
     • The risk of distribution to evaluate these pollutants (mapping leaching into groundwater, but also surface water and air pollution);
     • The risks of the pollutants to the public health and the environment evaluate. (human and ecotox and therefore also all destination types, including nature and agricultural areas!)
3. In the BBO report, on page 2 under the title “1.2 Project area”, the following is stated:
   “The limitation of the PFAS contamination to the guideline value for PFOS of 3 μg/kg ds was not feasible at this stage. This is related to the supposed mixing with other non-3M related PFAS sources and with the presence of an increased PFAS background value in the Antwerp port area.”
   
   The coalition notes the following:
   • It is at least strange and unambitious that the limitation of 3 μg/kg ds (PFOS guideline value) is not considered feasible, simply because there is possible presumed mixing with other non-3M-related sources. It is the task of a BBO to map the entire contamination, this is also stated in the Vlarebo:
     “As described in the Vlarebo, the purpose of a descriptive soil survey includes the following tasks:
     • The type, nature and determine the origin of pollutants
     • Determination of the quantity, concentrations and magnitude of the pollutants found on the site;”

DECISION:

The coalition does not agree that a limit of 3 μg/kg ds for PFOS is not feasible. It is the task of the BBO to map the nature of the contamination, mapping possible (assumed!) sources is part of this task of the BBO. If there is mixing, it is precisely the function of a BBO to provide clarity. No pre-determination can be made in this regard. Note that a historical investigation into all activities of 3M in the area since the start of PFOS production will be necessary, including the described experiments with contaminated sediment as fertilizer.

• title “2.2.1 Use of fire-fighting foam” on page 7 of the report: The coalition believes that other possible PFAS hotspots due to fire-fighting exercises were also caused by polluter 3M. After all, the fire-fighting products used for the fire interventions and fire exercises were produced by 3M.
• title “2.2.2 Presence of PFAS in wastewater”: The coalition believes that it should be investigated how the wastewater from these different companies contains PFAS. It should be clarified whether this is (indirectly) caused by the contamination of 3M.

4. Determination of the COCs (compounds of concern)
   Despite the fact that PFNA is included in the EFSA 4 standard and that 3M has a discharge permit for it, it is not considered a COC in this BBO. PFNA should be included in the BBO.

The coalition is very concerned about this incomplete approach and cannot therefore agree with it. It regrets the lack of a coherent approach and vision on the remediation of the entire region, including all destination types. It is also convinced that both ecotoxicological and human toxicological risks must be investigated. The possible spread must also be measured, which implies that air pollution and the spread of ground and surface water must also be part of the BBO. As is known, the pollution is widespread and does not stop at municipal, city or national borders. The coalition requests more clarity and guarantees about the remediation of the entire habitat. Resources must be made available to clean up the entire polluted region, and these costs must of course be recovered from the polluter 3M.

2. Timeline of the complete BBO and the complete remediation

The coalition states that the following points are crucial to guarantee a complete remediation and therefore asks OVAM to roll out all these steps:

• All subsequent phases of the BBO must be included and devised, with the aim of mapping the entire pollution plume.
• the timing of all these next phases needs to be fixed, i.e. we need to know when a full BBO is available.
• a timetable for a watertight remediation plan for the entire polluted region.
• (phased or otherwise) remediation of the habitat.
• a guaranteed plan of action for the entire scope of remediation

3. Remediation based on which soil standards?

Because PFAS are still non-standardized substances, there is a particular risk that “tailor-made remediation standards” are used that do not sufficiently take into account the impact on the wider living environment. The selectivity in the research (including the lack of consideration of leaching or the lack of ecotoxicological considerations) does not bode well in this respect. After all, if something is not checked or measured, it cannot be taken into account when determining soil remediation standards.

Remediation standards must therefore be based on a scientifically correct selection that takes into account:

1. Both human and ecotoxicological considerations, with the lowest standard “winning”.
2. The most recent scientific knowledge about the human reference dose. At the moment this is the so-called EFSA-4 RfD from 2020.
3. Not only the destination type of the areas where lands will be located, but also the effect on surrounding areas with a different destination type, especially when it concerns nature or agricultural areas. Certainly because of the high mobility of these substances, the effects of, among other things, blowing and leaching must be taken into account and, where necessary, buffer zones and/or other measures must be provided.

The soil standards currently in circulation, including the proposed VITO test values from 2020, do not meet these basic conditions in any way.

4. The remediation does not stop at the removal, washing or burning of the contaminated soils

3M and the client authority have a duty of care to reduce any further contamination through any emission to zero when cleaning up these soils. For example, it cannot be the intention to burn contaminated soils at too low a temperature so that PFAS can still spread further through the air. The same applies if the soils were to be removed. Then everything must be covered correctly so that further spreading is leached out. Every possible risk must be analysed and avoided.