We have noticed that in addition to questions, there are also many misunderstandings about PFAS at Schiphol. We correct several of those misunderstandings on this page.
There are no PFAS in deicing fluid.
No. At Schiphol, PFAS contamination mainly occurs at locations that have a link to firefighting foam. These include fire stations, fire training areas and locations where incidents took place.
We didn't do the brick-baking tests at Schiphol. You need special facilities for that. And if we are going to bake larger amounts of bricks, it will take place at a different location, at a brick producer and not at Schiphol. Brick producers have the necessary large kilns and facilities for this. The next test step of baking larger numbers of bricks can only be taken when sufficient sludge is available. So, the soil treatment facility must first be operational. That is expected to be in 2025.
The soil treatment facility works according to a commonly used technique, but with an adapted cleaning process especially for soil containing PFAS. To make sure it works for our own clayey soil, we have done extensive testing with independent experts. Our soil contains an average of 20% clay. The facility can handle up to 40%. The laboratory tests and the previous test cleaning with 1013 tonnes of soil in Belgium gave a positive result.
In some reports you will read that an environmental impact assessment (EIA, or MER in Dutch) is needed for the soil treatment facility. It is claimed that the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) recommended an EIA, but that is not true.
The soil treatment facility is subject to an EIA review requirement but there is no direct EIA obligation. Because of the requirement to carry out an EIA review, Schiphol drew up an EIA notification and submitted it to the Environment Agency for assessment. Based on the EIA notification, the Environment Agency has decided that an EIA does not need to be drawn up.
In a letter of advice to the Environment Agency, the ILT has confirmed that there is no direct EIA obligation and that the assessment of the EIA notification is up to the Environment Agency.
Although both situations involve PFAS, the comparison between Schiphol and Chemours is skewed. Here are two reasons why:
User versus manufacturer Schiphol used to use firefighting foam that contained PFAS. Chemours is a manufacturer and ensures that products, such as raincoats and frying pans, become water and grease-repellent.
Extent of emission Because Schiphol does not produce PFAS, there are no emissions to the air or directly to ditches. The use of firefighting foam did cause PFAS to enter groundwater. During groundwork, groundwater is pumped up and discharged into ditches. The quality of the water to be discharged is examined beforehand. If it is found to contain PFAS, the water is purified before it is discharged.