As a kindergarten teacher, the “scales were still on her eyes,” says Hélène Versteeg (68). Her old primary school in Dordrecht is one kilometer from the factory site of the Teflon factory Chemours. “I was even in the newspaper with a check for 10,000 guilders from Chemours. It allowed me to buy new books for the school library.” Her perspective on the company has now changed. “This year I heard from former colleagues that because of PFAS in the soil, no spade was allowed to be put into the ground for the construction of a nature schoolyard.”
Versteeg put on an Extinction Rebellion shirt on Friday. She has come to the town hall of Dordrecht for a hearing of the Provincial Council of South Holland, where the management of Chemours must account for the emission of toxic PFAS. Versteeg: “If we citizens do not speak up, nothing will change.” There is enough attention for the hearing: so many people wanted to speak that an additional hearing had to be scheduled for next Wednesday.
Turbulent week
And it’s already been a turbulent week for Chemours. On Wednesday, the Province of South Holland announced that it would impose a penalty of 125,000 euros on Chemours for a discharge of unlicensed PFAS into the river Merwede in May of this year. Made on Thursday NRC It is known that eggs from hobby chickens in the region are contaminated with PFAS from the factory. And on Friday, Zembla revealed that Chemours wanted to settle for ‘several millions’ in a lawsuit with the municipalities of Dordrecht, Sliedrecht, Papendrecht and Molenlanden, on the condition that the municipalities refrain from future lawsuits.
The start of the hearing was reserved for residents living near the factory. “I am angry,” Nienke Blauw (46) began her story, “because I was deliberately poisoned with PFAS, sad because I passed on the PFAS through breastfeeding to my son without knowing it, with whom I went swimming in the puddle Merwelanden, which is now closed due to contamination with PFAS. There are thousands of angry mothers and fathers like me.” Blauw studies environmental law and is one of the initiators of the mass declaration against the management of Chemours, which has already been joined by more than 2,700 people.
Read also: ‘PFAS pollution from Chemours worse than known so far’
Chemours board members Marc Reijmers and Frenk Hulsebosch registered the feelings of insecurity and unrest, but sought the cause outside the company. Chemours management was “concerned about the unrest” fueled by “suggestive reporting”. In response to questions from Members of Parliament, the board members avoided any hint of liability. Does the company feel morally responsible for the historical pollution of the region? “We share the concerns about that.” Will Chemours pay for soil remediation and water purification? “Chemours would like to contribute to mapping this out.” Why did the company want to settle with municipalities if it is not responsible for the damage? “As long as the lawsuit of the municipalities is ongoing, we cannot say anything about it.”
Lifestyle advice from government
Many local residents also expressed their disappointment in the government. “Instead of stopping the discharges, our government came up with lifestyle advice,” said Evelijn In ‘t Veld, English teacher. “Do not eat vegetables from your own garden, do not eat eggs, do not eat fish you catch yourself. It became even more poignant when our children were no longer allowed to swim in a recreational lake. My appeal to all responsible drivers: tackle the problem at the source, aim for zero emission PFAS.”
But is that possible? In March, the judge nullified another stricter license for Chemours. The members of Parliament therefore wanted to know from the DCMR environmental service whether there was more that the province could do.
Daan Molenaar, director of permits, indicated that DCMR “cannot ask for more than we are asking now”. South Holland is already leading the way with strict requirements for the emission of potentially very high concern substances. The problem, Miller said, is the law. “In the Netherlands you cannot ban a substance in advance. There must first be evidence that a substance poses risks. The precautionary principle is not used in our legislation.”
Other speakers denounced the fragmentation of responsibilities across different governments. “It would help if governments didn’t always point at each other,” said Kees van der Helm of Sliedrecht activist group ‘Health for Everything’. “Now provide a single counter where we can report PFAS cases and from which information is provided.”