> According to Isabelle Larmuseau, it is far from certain that the chemical company will gallantly pay for the gigantic costs. The environmental law expert argues that Lantis’s haunting of the contaminated sites creates new contamination that threatens to shift at least part of the clean-up obligation from 3M to government agency Lantis and thus, ultimately, to the taxpayer.
> But Environment Minister Demir insists that the environment lawyer is wrong and that 3M will not escape its clean-up duty. To this end, the Flemish government has two irons in the fire. On the one hand, the so-called site decree ‘PFAS 3M – Zwijndrecht’ which imposes a number of measures on 3M around soil contamination, health and nature protection. On the other, there is the remediation agreement in which 3M pledges more than half a billion euros to carry out remediation in a wide radius around the 3M plant.
> According to Zuhal Demir, 3M wrongly believes that the site decision discriminates against the company. Specifically, 3M would take particular offence at the mandatory reimbursement of citizens for the additional costs they incur, linked to PFAS pollution. For example, in foundation works when building a house. 3M, for its part, argues that the site decision violates the remediation agreement.
> Nevertheless, Demir is confident that the €571 million 3M pledged will not be compromised. “3M has never said it does not want to comply with the restructuring agreement. In fact, 3M is also complying with its remediation obligation. In our view, the remediation agreement is not in question.”
Translated with Deepl and corrected one word it got wrong.
1 comment
Some excerpts:
> According to Isabelle Larmuseau, it is far from certain that the chemical company will gallantly pay for the gigantic costs. The environmental law expert argues that Lantis’s haunting of the contaminated sites creates new contamination that threatens to shift at least part of the clean-up obligation from 3M to government agency Lantis and thus, ultimately, to the taxpayer.
> But Environment Minister Demir insists that the environment lawyer is wrong and that 3M will not escape its clean-up duty. To this end, the Flemish government has two irons in the fire. On the one hand, the so-called site decree ‘PFAS 3M – Zwijndrecht’ which imposes a number of measures on 3M around soil contamination, health and nature protection. On the other, there is the remediation agreement in which 3M pledges more than half a billion euros to carry out remediation in a wide radius around the 3M plant.
> According to Zuhal Demir, 3M wrongly believes that the site decision discriminates against the company. Specifically, 3M would take particular offence at the mandatory reimbursement of citizens for the additional costs they incur, linked to PFAS pollution. For example, in foundation works when building a house. 3M, for its part, argues that the site decision violates the remediation agreement.
> Nevertheless, Demir is confident that the €571 million 3M pledged will not be compromised. “3M has never said it does not want to comply with the restructuring agreement. In fact, 3M is also complying with its remediation obligation. In our view, the remediation agreement is not in question.”
Translated with Deepl and corrected one word it got wrong.