Fundamental right: PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE PFAS: questions for BAM/LANTIS

23.09.2021 | Fundamental right

In the run-up to the hearing of 24.09.2021, we provided the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee with a questionnaire that can provide inspiration for the preparations.
This questionnaire is a summary of the input submitted by Grondrecht's supporters.

Certain questions that are particularly pressing are listed in the fat.

---

1. Knowledge of PFAS pollution

• What is the first moment at which (directors, employees, etc. of) BAM/Lantis were informed of the PFAS contamination in or near the cadastral work zone?
• What steps have you taken yourself to have the impact of the works in the context of the Oosterweel connection in the PFAS-contaminated area investigated? What advice resulted from that?
• How was PFAS contamination in the work zone mapped? 
  • Have 3D models been made to map the entire pollution and to know how the pollution would spread further? 
  • The cadastral work zone also includes the 3M grounds. Were soil samples taken there to know how big the pollution is/was?
• How were the plans for the works in the context of the Oosterweel connection adjusted on the basis of this information? Which alternatives (route, working methods, etc.) were (not) explored? On the basis of which considerations was the current plan chosen? 
• With which government services was the information on PFAS pollution (not) shared and when? Was PFAS pollution reported in the various permit procedures that BAM/Lantis went through?
• There are a stone's throw from residential areas PFOS levels measured over 70 µg/kg. At what point did you become aware of this contamination, and how did you deal with it? Have you informed (local) governments? Why (not)?
• As early as 2017, advice was sought from Prof. Jan Tytgat on the risks of PFAS pollution in the region around the Oosterweel shipyard. He advised against the consumption of local products and local groundwater and against letting children play in sandboxes. What initiative did BAM/Lantis take to inform local residents about this? Who decided not to start a broad communication campaign, and why? 
• The Earthmoving report prescribes: “[Regarding pollution monitoring] it is best to set up active communication with local residents so that they gain insight into the why and how and so that they can follow up on the results. The committee recommends active involvement of local residents in the measurement strategy, via an organisation that is representative of the residents, as well as providing a signalling function or reporting point for local residents.”
  The brochures you distribute to local residents do not mention any of these aspects. When do you plan to implement this recommendation, and how?
• We are now mainly talking about PFAS pollution in the soil. Have measurements also been taken in the cadastral work zone for other soil and groundwater pollution/contamination? 

2. Earthmoving

• How accurate is the knowledge at BAM/Lantis about the pollution levels in the various subzones of the cadastral work zone? What methods are used to map this pollution? Were 3D models made of this?
• Can you use this information to adequately estimate where the pollution is located and what risks there are that the pollution will spread to less polluted areas (whether or not on the site)?
• The Grondverzet report prescribes that BAM/Lantis will work out a rezoning. The website of the Flemish government says about this: “On the one hand, this involves a rezoning of the site, whereby the area is meticulously reclassified according to the measured contamination and all soils with PFOS values above 3µg/kg ds are relocated according to a risk assessment. This allows the standstill principle to be applied very purposefully and the existing soil to be supplemented only with soil with the same or a lower PFOS value.”
  How did you go about this recommendation? Can you guarantee that soils with different PFAS concentrations do not get mixed with each other, also within the category 3-70µg/kg? Or is there a risk that soils of 4 µg/kg and 69 µg/kg still get mixed?
• How are soil flows at the Oosterweel construction site monitored by BAM/Lantis to prevent soils with different concentrations from being mixed? Which government services monitor these soil flows? What information about soil flows is publicly available? Can local residents monitor in which zones of the construction site work is being carried out, and with which PFAS concentrations the soil is contaminated?
• How much soil with PFAS values above 3 µg/kg has been removed since the start of the works? Does Lantis share the PFAS values of the soil that the company removes with the government or the buyer? Do you know where that soil ended up? Is there a risk that that soil is used as agricultural land? Is there a risk that that soil is used by companies that carry out earth and water works in the context of government contracts? 
• ROTS informed this committee that the soil piles with values above 1000 µg/kg have already been removed. How was the separation of these soils carried out? Where did these soils go?
• Professor Jan Tytgat argued on June 18, 2021 for the much stricter standard that applies in the Netherlands. There, soil above 3 µg/kg is in principle too dangerous to process in traffic infrastructure or noise barriers on a construction site. Everything above 3 µg/kg poses a risk to the environment and health in the long term. What would be the impact of using that standard on the Oosterweel works? What alternative methods are available?
• How is it that soils with contamination above 70 µg/kg were used in the Kluifrotonde? Can you rule out that, in addition to the Kluifrotonde, soil with contamination above 70 µg/kg was used in the top and living layer of the verges? How do you monitor this?
• What is the cost price of the follow-up and maintenance of the contaminated packed soils and the filtering of the contaminated groundwater after commissioning by the Flemish Government? Has a price calculation ever been made for this? If not, why not? and can this still be made? 
• Can you explain how the other recommendations from the Earthmoving report were addressed, such as: 
  • “The committee advises that Lantis always uses clean soil for the living layer of soils in the vicinity of residential areas and recreational areas. This is to avoid the risk of enriched soil being blown to the areas bordering the cadastral work zone. The measurements of blowing dust and falling dust should enable monitoring of the risk of enrichment of the soil of adjacent areas.”
  • “Given the limited measurements available today, the committee recommends a well-considered and substantiated measurement campaign in which both the level of dust blown up and the levels of PFAS in these samples are measured.”
  • “Given the potential risks resulting from the earthmoving, the committee recommends developing a long-term and adapted monitoring plan for groundwater and surface water to monitor the long-term impact of the works in the zones where free use as building soil is permitted.”

3. Remediation

• Professor Jan Tytgat stated on June 18, 2021 that he thinks we have wasted time and that we should have started the remediation of the area in which you are working in 2017. What is your view on the need for remediation of the area?

• Was there ever a detailed investigation into the feasibility of remediation of the area? What advice was given, and by whom? What steps have you taken since then to implement that advice? 
  • See also interview with Jan Tytgat from June 18, 2021, where it indicates that remediation is possible (“you can turn that soil into a kind of slimy mass, so that it becomes a watery substance that is pulled through so-called zeolite filters that remove the PFOS molecules”), but may be expensive.
• The Earthmoving Commission made the following recommendations regarding the containment of pollution. How did you go about this?
  • “In concrete terms, the committee advises taking into account the quality of the soil present and demonstrating that no additional risk to groundwater arises from free use as construction soil use, within the application zone of the soil. To this end, it is best to develop an adapted methodology that takes into account the quality of the soil present, in consultation with the soil management organisation, possibly substantiated by additional leaching tests.”
  • “Avoid the formation of new groundwater fluxes by adjusting the excavation profile of the Palingbeek in such a way that drainage is guaranteed and the ecological added value is partly retained.”
• What is the impact of the Oosterweel works on more far-reaching remediation plans for the area? Will they make it impossible for all soils with a value above 3 µg/kg or even above 70 µg/kg to be excavated and stored? How much soil will become inaccessible for excavation if the current plans are implemented? What are possible long-term prospects for remediation of that soil?
• Lantis has commissioned the construction of a water purification plant. Can you provide more information about this plant: who built it and manages it, how does it work, which substances (and especially: which PFAS) does it filter out, what are the costs of the plant (financially, but also for the environment)? Which water is (not) purified via this plant? Is polluted surrounding water (such as Blokkersdijk) also purified? What happens to the waste materials?

4. Collaboration with 3M

• Can you explain what considerations ultimately led to a settlement with 3M? On the basis of what advice was that decision made? Who made the final decision to settle?
• Can you explain why you had law firm Stibbe investigate what possibilities BAM/Lantis, but especially 3M, have in dealing with soil and groundwater contaminated by PFCs? Was this advice requested at the request of 3M?

• With regard to the so-called security berm:
  • Where does the name security berm come from? Isn't the label waste dump more appropriate?
  • How do you motivate that this verge is a construction application? 
  • If it were solely up to BAM/Lantis, what amount of soil would you excavate and store on the 3M premises? 
  • What do the current plans for the verge look like? To what extent do they differ from the representation of the works in the various permits? Does a new permit need to be applied for, as stated by Isabelle Larmusseau in this committee? If so, are you working on a new application?
• What measures are to guarantee that the contaminated soil in the verge on the 3M site will not spread? Are these guarantees the same as on the Oosterweel site? Do you think these guarantees are sufficient, and if so, why? 
• The declaration of conformity for soil piles on 3M terrain will expire soon, how will this continue? Rots indicated that he is not working on updating this. 
• Has BAM/Lantis sought advice on the implications of the works in the context of the Oosterweel connection for possible claims for damages against 3M? Do the works complicate the exercise of demonstrating the causal link between the pollution by 3M and the damage suffered by local residents? What measures is BAM/Lantis taking to remedy this disruptive effect?