2022
Water quality deserves as much attention as floodin and drought
Water quality deserves just as much attention as flooding and drought
An appeal case against the discharge permit of Chemours, a lawsuit against the Flanders government (which ultimately proved unnecessary) and an investigation into how the emmissiontest can be improved. Manager Rona Vink of Evides: “Our surface water must not be used as a kind of sewer.”
Rona Vink manages the Technology & Sources Department, which employs 32 enthusiastic technologists, hydrogeologists and microbiologists. "You can see us as the water quality conscience within Evides. We monitor and supervise the water quality from the source to the tap." Evides abstracts the water from the Meuse, Haringvliet and groundwater sources.
To keep the water quality as high as possible and, where necessary, to improve it, the employees workon influencing policy and representing interests, conducting research and developing knowledge in the field of purification technology and water quality. They analyse the water quality, supervise the abstraction areas and advise their own organisation about future modifications in the drinking water production process.
In 2022, together with the drinking water company Oasen, Evides brought an appeal case against the discharge permits of the chemicals company Chemours in Dordrecht. The province of Zuid-Holland and Rijkswaterstaat revised the old permits and issued new ones in 2022. Vink: "The company therefore has permission to continue discharging wastewater with PFAS substances into the sewers and the surface water."
All the drinking water companies in the Netherlands are arguing for a total ban on PFAS, both for the production and for their application in products. “Every discharge of PFAS is one too many," says Vink. Chemours’ previous permit was issued in 2013. If substances of very high concern (VHC) are released then, since 2016, the permit must be reviewed every five years and then revised, if necessary, she states.
Oasen had already brought an appeal case in 2018 due to an industrial discharge of GenX. "An appeal case is quite a big step," says Vink. "It demands much preparation and of course you'd rather the practice of permit issuance protected drinking water sources adequately."
Vink was closely involved in the preparation of the appeal case against Chemours. The permit is extremely complex and comprises over 300 pages, but she says regardless: "In regard to the carefulness with which the consideration was made, we see points of improvement.”
In October 2022, Minister of Infrastructure and Water Management Mark Harbers decided that every permit with PFAS must be checked against the RIVM-recommended drinking water target, namely a maximum of 4.4 nanograms per litre. "This decision has not yet been included in these permits," says Vink, "and neither have the latest insights about PFAS. We also refer to this in the appeal case. Insufficient attention was paid to this in the assessment of the permit application. Moreover, the RIVM previously issued advice about the harmfulness of PFAS to public health."
It is important that no more PFAS are discharged, because, Vink states: “The concentrations currently present in the surface water in the Netherlands, and in the Meuse as well, are already higher than 4.4 nanograms per litre and the levels are still increasing. The harmful concentrations of PFAS get into the water of the Meuse via various direct and indirect sources and from our own country and abroad.
The appeal case writ against Chemours was sent to the court in February and the court is currently preparing the lawsuit. It is not yet known when the case will be heard. Vink expects that due to the complexity this could take a while. "It is encouraging that several countries in Europe are getting up steam for a PFAS prohibition, though it does cost a great deal of time to get it all together."
Amendment of the Water Framework Directive and standards for PFAS
Until now, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) has contained environmental quality standards (EQS) for only one of the PFAS, namely PFOS. On 26 October 2022, the European Commission published a proposal for an amendment to the WFD. This WFD standard is based on risks from the perspective of drinking water production. This WFD proposal includes a standard for the sum 24 PFAS of 4.4 nanograms of PEQ per litre. Although at the time of writing this, not all these 24 PFAS are monitored, it is already clear that for example at the monitoring point Bergsche Maas, this proposed standard was not met at any single moment in 2022 (see Figure 4). In order to meet the proposed standard, appropriate measures will need to be taken in the Meuse river basin.
Figure 4 Sum of 24 PFAS at Bergsche Maas in 2022
Contaminated or uncontaminated soil
In 2022, Evides, together with the drinking water companies Dunea and WML, brought a lawsuit against an environmental permit that the Flanders government had issued in December 2021. The gravel consortium Rekin was allowed to deposit over 7 million cubic metres of soil into a pond that is connected to the Meuse in the vicinity of the Belgian town of Kinrooi near the Dutch border.
Too little was known about the origin and contamination of the soil and its consequences on the environment. "Uncontaminated soil was mentioned, but what criteria were used for this? This was absent from the permit," explains Vink.
In the permit it was not clearly described whether the soil that would be deposited would also be tested against PFAS limit values, which meant it was unclear whether there would be a risk to the drinking water supply. This was the reason for the drinking water companies to go to appeal. Finally, no lawsuit arose from this. Zuhal Demir , the Flemish Minister of The Environment, Justice, Tourism and Energy decided in late 2022 to withdraw the environmental permit: the soil is therefore not allowed to be deposited.
Better imission-emmission test
Furthermore, in the past year, Evides together with a consultancy bureau has conducted research into what can be improved in the mission-immission test inregard to protecting drinking water sources. The National Government imposes this testing framework task on Rijkswaterstaat, the waterboards, the provinces and the environmental agencies. These competent authorities use this to assess permits as to whether a certain discharge is permitted.
Using a step-by-step plan in the associated manual, both the discharge and the receiving surface water are looked at. Could the substances be discharged with an eye to the water quality requirements and standards in force, such as the Water Framework Directive objectives, or would the maximum permissible impact be exceeded? "The emission-immission test is a sound instrument,” Vink considers. “But it stands or falls depending on how you use it.”
Investigation that was completed in 2022 showed that it is not always sufficiently clear what the quality of the surface water is, that will be discharged into, even in the case of substances of very high concern. This is because Rijkswaterstaat and the water boards do not monitor many of these substances everywhere and for extended periods of time. Vink: "Therefore they cannot be included in the test and, thus, a background concentration of zero is entered, the concentration that is already present in the water before the discharge. This can lead to a discharge being permitted unjustly." This often concerns substances that are difficult to remove and are harmful to the quality of the drinking water.
The conclusion was discussed with the association partners in the Clean Meuse Water Chain, Vink reports. After the summer of 2023, this organisation is going to monitor many more substances that are harmful to the drinking water and the ecology in the Meuse over the course of a year. For the emission-immission test, monitoring must continue for at least three years. Afterwards, these substances can be included in the testing toolbox (for more about the Clean Meuse Water Chain, please see section D1).
The competent authorities and the companies themselves must also describe and establish much better what exactly is in the discharge, it has emerged from the investigation on the emission-immission test. Vink: “This regards the questions; how much will be discharged? Whwhat substances will be discharged?, When will they be discharged? And, are these substances harmful to the drinking water?” Currently, health risks often cannot be assessed systematically because there is no complete picture. Because the company is not transparent or does not have enough information itself.
"This means you can miss substances, because they have not been investigated, for example, " says Vink. "A safety netneeds to be included in the permit on how to deal with these situations. Additional investigation must be done as to whether there is a complete picture of all drinking water-relevant substances in the discharge and to what extent these are discharged."
The firm Sitech in Geleen forms an example for other companies in this regard, reports Vink. Sitech screens the discharge continuously, since it became known in 2015 that the company discharged the harmful substance pyrazole, after which various drinking water companies had to suspend water abstraction. After this, the entire discharge was mapped out step-by-step and jointly with all parties, and the company has frequent consultation on the matter with Evides and others.
In April 2023, the Dutch Safety Board (in Dutch, OVV) published a report in which the organisation stated that citizens should be better protected against the harmful emissions or discharge from industrial companies. The investigators specifically mentioned Tata Steel, Asfalt Productie Nijmegen and Chemours.
These three companies do little more than what is legally mandatory to reduce the harmful emissions, the OVV wrote. They only go into action if people nearby keep complaining. And due to the lack of knowledge, capacity and sense of urgency, the government frequently responds only reactively. Previous reports too, for example from the Van Aartsen Commission, draw attention to the gaps in the permit issuance, the supervision and enforcement of these permits.
Lack of knowledge and expertise
"Unfortunately, I recognise this picture,” Vink responds. According to her, this happens due to, among other reasons, a lack of sufficient, sound knowledge and expertise at the competent authorities. “The permits of these companies and industrial processes are really complex. The assessment and consideration often fall short, due to which those living near polluters are often not well protected."
Moreover, the knowledge about PFAS compounds is developing continuously, Vink emphasises. “Ten years ago, the views on the harmfulness of certain substances were different from today, so as a competent authority you must follow these developments closely. For example the tightening up regarding PFAS."
Complaints received by businesses and government bodies from the surrounding area often receive a procedural answer along the lines of 'it's allowed according to the permit,' is Vink's experience. "While in these cases there is often a valid reason to do additional investigation. This can of course lead to distrust from the citizens."
A permit should in fact be a safety net for the citizens and the environment, she considers. In order tobe able to check immediately whether the company that receives the permit can further reduce discharge through measures in the industrial processes. "We want the precautionary principle to weigh very heavily," says Vink. "To only grant permits once you know exactly what the company is going to discharge and that the company is not discharging harmful substances, rather than realising this afterwards. This is useful to prevent these harmful substances from ending up in the surface water and living environment."
In recent years, various investigations have been done and advisory reports have been published to make improvements to this situation and the water quality. Does Vink expect something to be done with this? "The government has released money for various measures to improve the water quality more quickly, and also improvement of permit issuance, supervision and enforcement is being worked on, so I am hopeful that things will improve."
But, she adds: "This requires you also obtain the labour force needed to carry this out." And finding specialised staff is of course difficult given the current tight labour market. Besides this, she indicates the recent conclusion of the Council for the Environment and Infrastructure that the objectives of the Water Framework Directive must be translated more explicitly and bindingly into national legislation. "The rules for fertilisers, crop protection products and the discharge of hazardous substances need to be tightened up."
Vink is positive about all these reports having led to the insight that many discharge permits, and standards in use, are out of date and that the safety net needs to be improved. Because it is not known exactly what substances are present in a discharge, and due to amended target levels and insights about the harmfulness of substances. “Rijkswaterstaat has therefore started to update the permits, starting with the discharges of substances of very high concern. The fact that this will take quite a while still is due to it being so difficult to get sufficiently skilled staff, and sometimes due to the complexity of the permit as well," she says.
More attention to water quality
There needs to be more attention paid to the quality of our water, Vink states in conclusion. “We have recently had the nitrogen crisis, but the next crisis is already on its way: the water crisis. And then we won’t just have to worry about the quantity, but also the quality. If this is the case, doing our best in the Netherlands will have to get even better than it is now.”
The complexity of this,, she adds, arises from the fact that in the meantime millions of chemical substances have been approved worldwide, of which many are relevant to the drinking water sector. Besides this, the quantity of chemical substances that are being produced is rising rapidly and the safety assessments of these substances always lags behind.
One silver lining, she considers, is the revision of REACH, the Regulation of the European Agency for Chemical substances, that is planned for 2023. This system for the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical substances that are produced in or imported into the European Union has existed since 2007.
"It is high time that we no longer see our surface water as a sort of sewer," emphasises Vink, "but as a valuable water system necessary to our protection that is the basis for healthy drinking water. The water quality deserves just as much attention as flooding and drought."