Manual + objection letter Soil Remediation Project (BSP) subzone 1a

18.09.2022 | Fundamental right

Manual + objection letter BSP subzone 1a

---

Thank you for your commitment to submitting the objection below.
Please follow the steps below:

STEP 1. GO TO THE WEB FORM ON THE OVAM WEBSITE AND INDICATE AT THE BOTTOM THAT YOU WANT TO SUBMIT COMMENTS OR OBJECTIONS.

https://app.keysurvey.com/f/41625498/73c9/

STEP 2. INDICATE WHETHER YOU WANT TO PROVIDE GENERAL COMMENTS OR SPECIFIC BASED COMMENTS.

Both residents and non-residents can submit comments or objections.

STEP 3. COPY THE OBJECTION LETTER BELOW AND PASTE IT INTO THE BOX OF THE WEB FORM

If necessary, supplement Grondrecht's objection with your own (plot-related) questions and/or comments.

STEP 4. FILL IN YOUR CONTACT DETAILS IN THE WEB FORM

STEP 5. YOU CAN ALSO SEND THE OBJECTION TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF ZWIJNDRECHT OR TO OVAM BY LETTER:

1. until 25/09/'22 to OVAM, Soil Management Department, Stationsstraat 110, 2800 Mechelen.

2. until 21/09/'22 to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen of the Municipality of Zwijndrecht, attn. Permits Department, Binnenplein 1, 2070 Zwijndrecht. Or by email: info@zwijndrecht.be

---

EXAMPLE Letter of Objection

---

Select the entire text and image below, copy and paste it into the OVAM web form (see above).

---

copy from here

OBJECTION | Evaluation of citizen collective Fundamental Right to the first phased soil remediation project subzone 1a (dated July 29, 2022, Project no.: R001-0642375) 

——————————————————————————————————————–

By:
Name: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Address: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………… …………………

At:

1. OVAM, Soil Management Department, Stationsstraat 110, 2800 Mechelen. https://app.keysurvey.com/f/41625498/73c9/

2. The Board of Mayor and Aldermen of the Municipality of Zwijndrecht, attn. Permits Department, Binnenplein 1, 2070 Zwijndrecht 

——————————————————————————————————————–

Dear,

With this message I formally submit an objection in the context of the ongoing public inquiry into the first phased soil remediation project subzone 1a (dated July 29, 2022, Project no.: R001-0642375). This objection contains the following comments: 

1. Temporary storage facility permit

• The TOP where the contaminated soils are temporarily stored separately according to function must be correctly permitted and subject to the necessary environmental impact assessment. 

• The TOP must then be built completely correctly before excavation work commences so that the contaminated soil can be immediately removed to the TOP to provide maximum protection for local residents.

• The appropriate assessment in section 9 Annexes under the title “Annex 12” is insufficient, it does NOT investigate the possible effects of PFAS on the environment. It does not examine what the leaching standard is for these piles of temporarily stored heavily PFAS-contaminated soil. Nor is it described how the TOP is built. An estimate must also be made of the duration of the TOP, so that it is guaranteed that this landfill is temporary and by no means permanent.

2. Mapping of groundwater level 

The groundwater for the zone 1a in question must be mapped. In “part 3 report” of the BSP, on page 38, it states the following: 

“The limited groundwater data available to date indicate that PFOS and PFOA levels exceed proposed soil remediation standards in the immediate vicinity of the site. Other PFAS compounds (mainly PFBA and PFBS) have also been detected in the groundwater of the wells examined.”

On page 41 under “title 2.3.2 Groundwater level” the following can be read: 

“The phreatic groundwater in the larger project area varies between 0.6 and 3.3 m below ground level, based on groundwater levels collected during the September 2021 sampling.”

It must be investigated whether the groundwater in places in the zone 1a to be remediated can rise higher than the depth of the (living layer) remediation of 0.7 m depth. If this is the case, unlimited future use of the living layer is impossible. At the residents' meeting in Zwijndrecht in June '22, there were testimonies from residents where the groundwater level on their property even rises above ground level. If this remediation is not definitive due to the groundwater level contaminated with PFAS, one must consider per plot whether it is useful to remediate now. Of course, not remediating certain plots may result in further contamination within zone 1a.

Grondrecht already pointed out in the evaluation of the BBO by ERM on 16/03/'22 that the measurement and impact of groundwater pollution must be part of the BBO and therefore also of this BSP.

3. Zoning

• Contamination from plots of adjacent zones to zone 1a must not be possible. If there is a risk here, it must be examined how this can be avoided. If necessary, measures must be taken and these must be examined by experts. We are thinking of, for example, demarcating a border zone, possibly placing screens in the ground, covering the ground, etc.
• The soil certificate is a living document, but it is expected that this certificate can be somewhat definitive after remediation. It cannot be the intention that the same plots are exposed to the same source of pollution again.

4. Going beyond BATNEEC principle

Where necessary, more must be done than surface remediation. The following table in “Part 3 report” shows that zone 1a is heavily contaminated with PFOS, also deeper than 70 cm below ground level. 

Residents must be able to enjoy their land completely and carefree. For some plots, a living layer remediation will therefore not be sufficient, as high concentrations of PFOS are observed at depths of more than -70 cm. The table above indicates that average concentrations of 5.4 micrograms/kg ds are found up to a depth of 1.5 m. This is above the limit of 3.8 micrograms/kg ds from the temporary action framework of OVAM for the application of gardens with vegetable gardens or chicken runs. 

Grondrecht believes that everyone has the right to keep chickens or grow their own vegetables/fruit. Detailed measurements per plot must be used to determine which depth contains which level of PFAS/PFOS contamination, so that it can be determined to what depth remediation is required. 

In “part 5” of the BSP on page 117 it says the following: 

“The 70 cm depth was chosen here as a conservative depth for surface remediation, based on the fact that this is greater than the rooting depth of most vegetable and fruit crops from allotments and greater than the potential excavation depth for planting trees or shrubs or for installing garden sheds.”

It is known that roots of fruit trees grow to the depth of the groundwater level if it is higher than 2m below ground level. There are various types of vegetables, such as sweet potatoes, asparagus, okra, tomatoes, rhubarb, pumpkin that (or their roots) can grow to a depth of -90 cm. There are also various grasses and weeds that have deeper roots than -70 cm. So there are still concrete measures to follow for removing garden waste. 

If the layer beneath the new living layer is still too polluted after remediation, even the human risk will not be eliminated through this remediation. It is therefore necessary to examine in detail per plot whether “variant C” (deeper removal) should be chosen instead of “variant B” (top layer remediation).

5. Possibility of flexible remediation and keeping the comfort of those affected as high as possible

Grondrecht believes that more detailed measurements per plot in, among other things, residential areas should be taken. With this acquired knowledge per plot, it can be specifically examined which plots are very high, high, moderate, low or perhaps not even polluted. In this way, work can be done on a customized basis.  

If the contamination with PFOS in the soil is lower than the limit values for gardens with vegetable garden/chicken run according to the current temporary PFAS action framework, the owner should be able to choose not to remediate. If the action framework is tightened in the short term - duration of the remediation - these standards will of course apply. Of course, a compliant soil certificate, stating that no contamination has been measured, must also be available for these plots. In addition, ERM must first investigate whether that plot cannot be infected by other plots. In these cases, 3M remains obliged to remediate.

Conversely, if plots are heavily and deeply contaminated, Variant B (deeper excavation) will have to be chosen. Variant B then means that each plot will be assessed to determine how deep the remediation will have to be to enable safe human use. See also above under “Title 4 Going beyond the BATNEEC principle”.

If local residents wish to delay remediation because they want to await possible technological developments regarding remediation (including phytoremediation techniques), this must be understood and taken into account. 

Not remediating under paving also goes against unlimited and flexible use in the future. A future buyer/tenant may want to remove certain paving and place a vegetable garden there. If the current owner now wants to have his entire plot remediated (including removal of paving), this must be made possible. The wishes can be recorded during the site visit/description, the visit of the expert, the start-of-site meeting or with the consultant/representative of the municipality of Zwijndrecht and the Flemish government. See also further “Title 8. The Flemish government and the municipality of Zwijndrecht must assist local residents in their role as developer”.

This remediation is being carried out as a priority in this (residential) zone of Zwijndrecht near 3M because the results of the PFAS blood test among local residents are very poor. The construction traffic and additional dust nuisance during the excavation and remediation works are a huge concern for local residents. They literally fear for their health. The 'De Naeyer' site is referred to as an example or reference project for the remediation of zone 1a, but it should be noted that the health of these local residents is much more precarious. Consequently, one will have to be even more careful here. Both the duration of the remediation must be kept as short as possible and the dust nuisance must be limited as much as possible. 

We would like to emphasize that a dust action plan must be developed by 3M that must be checked by professional government agencies, also follow-up during the construction site is required. The dust action plan in “Part 9 annexes” is inadequate and must be worked out in more detail in function of planning and per plot.

The proposed period of 3-4 years for the complete remediation of zone 1a must be maintained and, if possible, even optimised. However, this may not be a reason to introduce less qualitative fertile soil. A detailed total implementation plan must be drawn up, checked by a professional government institution. This plan is followed up and adjusted if unexpected situations occur; this must also be discussed with a controlling and supervisory government institution and of course with the owners involved. 

6. Maintain or restore garden plants to their original condition with a warranty period

The ambition should be to maximally guarantee or even improve the value and use of local residents' gardens after the remediation (see also further arguments under "Title 5" and "Title 7"). 

• Preservation and/or reuse of the vegetation and planting of the relevant plot. The starting point for this is that the removal and temporary storage of the greenery must be handled with care. Taking into account the following matters (non-exhaustive): 
  • protection of roots and plants during conservation
  • protection of roots and plants when moving, taking into account the appropriate timing per species.
  • Recovered plants should be temporarily planted in clean soil for storage, taking into account seasonal timing and the correct conditions

• Quality and quantity of soil supplied: See reasoning under “title 7”. 
• 3M must compensate local residents for the costs of watering their gardens, as this must still be done with tap water instead of groundwater (no-regret measures). 
• After the redevelopment of the gardens, the contractor must provide a guarantee period or warranty of at least 5 years (starting from the date of planting). If grass or certain plants do not grow well, or even die or break, they must be repaired or replaced free of charge.

7. Remediation as a lever to improve the environment and property 

• De-hardening: where people want to remove their hardening, both in the front and back garden, it must be possible to de-harden. This ensures maximum remediation and maximum de-hardening. De-hardening and remediation as a win-win situation. See also “Title 5. Possibility of flexible remediation and keeping the comfort of those affected as high as possible”.
• asbestos removal: Where asbestos is present in pavements or roofs, it must be removed in a certified manner. Who will pay for this? 
• Biodiversity: By preserving biodiversity, we protect all living species (animals, plants, etc.) that together form our ecosystems. These ecosystems can be disrupted precisely by the living layer remediation, this must be limited at all times. It is important that sufficient deep clean and fertile soil is recreated, with the correct composition of topsoil. On the one hand, a signal layer of geotextile cloth or clay can possibly serve as a separation layer between the supplied and contaminated soil so that they do not mix. The layer thicknesses depend on the intended use. On the other hand, we must be careful with the compaction of the soil, which means that (rain)water penetrates our soil less well. According to the BSP, the (unpaved) gardens will be refilled with 50 cm of geotechnically sufficiently compactable sandy soil and then with 20 cm of high-quality topsoil. The quality, quantity and composition of the topsoil must be guaranteed so that all types of plants or vegetation can grow and live in it and so that healthy use is guaranteed. That is why Grondrecht would like to recommend that an independent expert advise and check the quality and quantity of the topsoil per plot (and therefore per intended use).

8. The Flemish government and the municipality of Zwijndrecht must assist local residents in their role as building owners

This soil remediation is one with a high impact and requires a high degree of involvement and knowledge. The residents must (unintentionally) act as a professional building owner for the cleaning up of a pollution that he did not choose. Grondrecht is absolutely of the opinion that the Flemish Government and the municipality of Zwijndrecht must take on this role as a professional building owner and must be a partner of the residents. We know from the municipality that they are going to hire a consultant. Is this sufficient? 

What does the Flemish government do? It is the government's task to assist its affected citizens. Only the Flemish government has a grip on 3M if things go wrong during this cleanup due to the deal with 3M. We expect a description of the task package that the controlling authority, for example the environmental department, enforcement department or OVAM, will take on. Concrete suggestions for this could be:

During the works, weekly (or more frequent if desired) site meetings are organised between the contractor, 3M, garden expert and a representative of the residents. The Flemish government and the municipality of Zwijndrecht must appoint a representative for this. This representative is the linchpin between the residents and the contractor and garden expert and client 3M and defends the interests of the citizens. 

9. What about the other zones? Timeline of the complete BBO and the complete remediation of the contaminated area

Grondrecht already stated during the evaluation of the Descriptive Soil Survey drawn up by ERM on 16/03/'22 that the following points are crucial to guarantee 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, taking into account indirect human and ecotoxicity and groundwater contamination.

Note: It is the task of the BBO to map the nature of the pollution, possible (assumed!) sources are 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. 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. Possible other PFAS hotspots due to fire-fighting exercises were also caused by pollutant 3M. After all, the fire-fighting products used for the fire interventions and fire exercises were produced by 3M. 

• The timing of all these next phases needs to be fixed. In other words, we need to know when a full BBO is available, also for the area outside zone 1 & 2. 
• A timing for the BSP outside zone 2. 
• A guaranteed plan of action for the entire scope of remediation 

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

The PFAS-contaminated soil to be disposed of for the remediation of subzone 1a must be completely legal and safe. 3M and the supervisory authority have a precautionary duty to reduce the possible further contamination via any emission to zero when remediating 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 via the air. The same applies to the sludge residue or the activated carbon filters that still have to be burned after cleaning contaminated soils or groundwater. The same applies if the soils were to be disposed of. The products of phytoremediation techniques must also be treated as PFAS-containing waste.

DECISION: 

Consequently, in view of all the above-mentioned arguments listed in Titles 1 to 10, it is appropriate not to declare the BSP compliant, or only to declare it compliant upon inclusion of the above-mentioned comments. 

——————————————————————————————————————–