14.01.2022 | Fundamental right
Manual + objection letter
Environmental permit 'Lot1_RINK_RINK 2.0._Amendment VW_MIL' – OMV reference 2021160022 – Rinkoniên
Thank you for your commitment to submitting the objection below.
Please follow the steps below:
STEP 1. GO TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DESK.
STEP 2. SEARCH FOR
- Enter the project code “ in the search box at the top left2021160022” in
- select “Lot1_RINK_RINK 2.0._Change VW_MIL” (2021160022)” from the popup list below the search box
the project now appears in the list on the right side
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 3. SELECT THE PROJECT.
Click on the 'information button' behind the project in the box on the right.
Project number: 2021160022
Click on the 
behind the project.
All details and documents of this project will appear:
STEP 4. CLICK ON 'ADD NEW OBJECTION'
Click on 'ADD NEW OBJECTION' in the blue bar at the bottom.
STEP 5. SIGN UP / LOG IN
Log in with Itsme, an eID card reader or another method.
STEP 6. 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
- Fill in your name and address in the yellow marker on the example!
- click SUBMIT!
EXAMPLE Letter of Objection
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:
[ENTER YOUR NAME HERE]
[FILL IN YOUR FULL ADDRESS HERE]
[ENTER YOUR PLACE OF RESIDENCE HERE]
—————————————————————————————————————————–
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, adjustment of environmental conditions by the operator for classified establishments or activities 'Rinkoniên/BAM Infrastructuurwerken Linkeroever' with project name 'Lot1_RINK_RINK 2.0._Wedging VW_MIL', at 2000 Antwerp (LO) + 2070 Zwijndrecht
Permit applicant: THV Rinkoniên, Burchtstraat 89, 9150 Kruibeke
Ref. OMV 2021160022
————————————————————————————————————–
Dear,
With this message I formally submit an objection in the context of the ongoing public inquiry into the application for an environmental permit 'Lot1_RINK_RINK 2.0._Wedging VW_MIL' (OMV reference 2021160022). This environmental permit includes adjustments to the following special conditions granted in the environmental permit with file number OMV/20182018100299 and facility number 20180628-0114:
– Rinkoniên requests the following additional condition: “Transport of PFAS-enriched soil (more than 3 μg/kg ds PFOS/PFOA and/or more than 8 μg/kg ds PFAS – OVAM guidelines) from the construction site through the surrounding residential areas – specifically Zwijndrecht, Burcht and Antwerp Linkeroever – is not permitted. Maximum use will be made of the construction site road network.”
– Rinkoniên requests the following additional condition: “Covering soil transports of soil with a concentration > 70 μg/kg ds PFAS when using public roads.”
– Rinkoniên requests the following additional condition: “Keeping the location locally moist where soils with a concentration of > 70 μg/kg ds PFAS are excavated, when dust formation occurs.”
– Rinkoniên requests the following additional condition: “Wetting (with a spray vehicle) of construction roads and tracks in dry weather conditions and when there is dust formation and regularly sweeping the paved construction roads.”
– Rinkoniên requests the following additional condition:
“Keeping the location where the ground activities are carried out moist by using uncontaminated (drainage) water in the event of dust formation. Uncontaminated (drainage) water means that it complies with the following standard framework for the following PFAS components:
– PFOS: maximum 0.1 μg/l;
– PFOA: maximum 0.1 μg/l;
– PFC compounds other than PFOS and PFOA for which analytical methods have been established in WAC_IV_A_025: maximum 0.1 μg/l per substance.”
– Rinkoniên requests the following additional condition: “In order to facilitate the follow-up of the progress of the earthmoving, the operator informs OVAM and the VMM – Air Quality department monthly, by providing an up-to-date situation plan on the (site-related) interim storage locations ((W-)TOPS) and the operator reports which zones have been completed within the site zone. When the project is completed, the work plan for this will be submitted.”
This environmental permit also includes ADDITIONAL and NEW special conditions:
– BAM NV requests the following additional condition:
“The tasks assigned to LANTIS in the PFAS/dust measurements monitoring plan with reference number OWVA- 00000-LAN-PPL-W21-000003, are carried out for all cadastral work zones within Infrastructure Works Left Bank (ILO) and Scheldt Tunnel (ST) during the implementation works, including communication to local residents regarding dust/PFAS measurements monitoring. The measurement results are always provided to AGOP, VMM for evaluation and to AHH for information after analysis and testing against the testing framework applicable at that time. If exceedances are found, the necessary actions must be taken to keep this exceedance as short as possible in time. The measurement locations and measurement frequency are determined in accordance with the site planning and submitted for consultation to the VMM entity responsible for air. Adjustments to this monitoring plan with regard to the tasks assigned to LANTIS can only be made after consultation with the Enforcement department and the VMM entity responsible for air.”
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 'Lot1_RINK_RINK 2.0._Amendment VW_MIL' (OMV reference OMV 2021160022)', as long as the impact on the environment, including Habitats Directive areas and Birds Directive areas, the population and human health is not investigated as required by the applicable legislation on environmental impact assessment. In addition, this permit application must be evaluated in light of the judgment of the Council of State of 29 December 2021 (no. 252.567 of 29 December 2021 in case A. 235.240/VII-41.264).
- 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.
- No adequate research into environmental impacts
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.
It is important that VMM recently measured an excess of PFBA in the air at 100 meters from the Sint-Anna beach. In the months of August, September and October remarkably high concentrations of PFBA were measured. From the Apache article dated 27/12/2021: “The researchers investigated how much PFAS settles on the soil via air deposition at nine measuring points in the wider area around 3M. At the measuring point on the Wandeldijk on the Left Bank, next to the Sint-Anna beach, an average of 213.7 nanograms of PFBA (ng/m²/day) was measured per square meter every day. For comparison: the amount of deposited PFOS measured at the same location, responsible for the historical pollution of the area around 3M, was 2.4 ng/m²/day in the same period. The difference is very large at the Sint-Anna beach. At other locations, the differences between PFBA and PFOS are less large, but PFBA still occurs in noticeably higher doses than PFOS almost everywhere. The results of all measuring points added together, PFBA accounts for 55% of the measured deposited PFAS. For PFOS, this is 13%.”
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
There is no detailed data available on PFAS pollution in the area to which the permit application relates. As a result, it seems difficult or impossible to assess the effects of the works on the environment and public health. For example, it will be difficult to determine whether the standstill principle is being 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.
On Thursday 16/12/2021, the Antwerp Court of First Instance declared admissible an environmental injunction action that questions the framework of standards used, because it is not based on the most recent scientific insights.
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.
- Judgment of the Council of State (no. 252.567 of 29 December 2021 in case A. 235.240/VII-41.264)
The Council of State ordered the suspension of the execution, in case of extreme urgency, of the declaration of conformity by the non-profit organisation Grondbank with no. 2015-16-210737 of 3 December 2021 of the update of the Technical Report on infrastructure works on the Left Bank dated 19/12/2019, with reference OWL1-SBSRTS-RAP-0001; the declaration of conformity by the non-profit organisation Grondbank with no. 2046-19-305809 of 3 December 2021 of the update of the Technical Report on the Scheldt Tunnel and Linkeroever connection dated 21/11/2020, with reference OWVA-SBS-BAM-RAP-0027.
She bases the above decision on the fact that the earthmoving works are not in accordance with the earthmoving regulations.
The Council of State decided that the work zone for the Oosterweel works was not correctly demarcated. According to the court, the area of the works – which extends over several kilometres from the 3M site in Zwijndrecht to Antwerp-Linkeroever and the Scheldt – does not form a single work zone, but a set of three separate construction projects, each of which has been permitted in a different way. This earth movement on the work zone cannot be legally valid. This was also confirmed in the press by client Lantis on 30/12/2021.
During the hearing, the Auditor at the Council of State was also particularly critical of the approach at the Oosterweel site. The auditor stated that the soil excavated by BAM should be qualified as waste, as stipulated in the materials decree. This waste may not simply be dumped in a so-called 'safety berm' on the 3M site. According to the Auditor, internal BAM documents show that the qualification as a 'safety berm' is merely a pretext. This term was explicitly created in the settlement between 3M and Lantis, in order to prevent the soil storage from having to be licensed as a landfill.
The suspension of the declaration of conformity of the Technical Reports for the Oosterweel works by the Council of State obviously also has consequences for this permit application. First of all, the permit application states that various recommendations of the Earthmoving Commission (led by Mr. Vrancken) were incorporated in the new technical reports. The declaration of conformity of these Technical Reports was, however, suspended by the Council of State.
Since both illegalities have not been remedied in the current state of the permit procedure, the permit cannot be granted.
- European directives POP regulation
It should also be noted that a European regulation on so-called persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which also includes PFAS-like chemicals, has been in force since 2019. This POP regulation clearly stipulates that there is a ban on the application or reuse of soil contaminated with PFOS *. In addition, violations are subject to severe criminal sanctions **.
Currently, a question concerning the interpretation of the POP Regulation is pending with the European Commission. It seems appropriate to wait with granting a permit until an answer to that question has been received. Only if the answer confirms the approach proposed in the permit application, a permit can be granted.
- Bio Monitoring Plan does not provide guarantees for the safety of local residents
The current permit application also refers to the 'Appendix 2 Monitoring plan dust PFAS measurements ILO_ST_V3'. The method for air measurements described therein has not been adapted to the specific situation of Zwijndrecht. The blood test of 800 people by the Flemish government and the blood test of 10 people by Grondrecht, has shown that local residents already have much too high PFOS/PFAS blood levels in their blood. It showed that no less than 90% of the participants in the blood test have a real chance of health effects due to too high PFOS/PFAS levels in their blood. The study by the Flemish government therefore concluded that the exposure of local residents to PFAS must be reduced to the absolute minimum. The prescribed method does not show that this guarantee exists.
The proposed test values of 0.4 – 2.2 ng/m³ for the sum of the 4 PFAS compounds (PFNA, PFOA, PFHxS and PFOS), drawn up by VITO and VMM, do not take into account the fact that local residents already have much too high PFOS/PFAS blood values. A test framework must be provided that takes this vulnerability into account.
In short, the 'appendix 2 Monitoring plan substance PFAS measurements ILO_ST_V3' does not provide any guarantees that the safety and health of local residents is guaranteed. Consequently, no permit can be granted for the adjustments and new conditions referred to in this permit application.
General decision:
Based on the objections described under Titles 1 to 8, it must be concluded that in the current state of the application, insufficient research has been conducted into the effects that can be expected on local residents and the environment if a permit is granted.
For example, no adequate EIA was conducted 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. For example, the biomonitoring plan does not provide sufficient guarantees for the health and safety of local residents.
Due to the ruling of the Council of State dated 29/12/2021, no earthmoving is possible within the cadastral work zone because the declarations of conformity for the infrastructure works LO and Schelde were suspended. There are therefore no valid Technical Reports available, which means that excavation of soil and earthmoving is not possible. The legality objections raised by the Council of State and its Auditor must be resolved before a permit can be granted.
Finally, a question is pending with the European Commission on the interpretation of the POP Regulation; it is appropriate to await a response in that procedure before granting a permit.
Consequently, for all the above arguments, it is appropriate not to grant the permit at this time.
* REGULATION (EU) 2019/1021 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 20 June 2019 on persistent organic pollutants.
** https://www.tijd.be/politico-economie/belgie/vlaanderen/het-europese-zw-van-damocles- Boven-oosterweel/10356595.html.
English 
Nederlands (België)