PFAS in soil and water: what the Willebroek pilots mean for your projects
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, cannot be managed like standard, localized pollution. Their persistence, mobility, and the diversity of the molecules involved require a cross-analysis of site history, various environmental media, and future land use. In Willebroek, Flanders, two pilot facilities for the European LIFE PFASTER project are now operational. Their goal: to test remediation techniques for soil and groundwater, then draw lessons that can be applied to other regions.
Willebroek: a pilot project that goes beyond the individual plot
On August 13, 2026, OVAM announced the commissioning of two pilot facilities at the former De Naeyer paper mill site in Willebroek. The trials are set to run continuously over the following weeks and months to evaluate PFAS pollution treatment techniques. The site is particularly instructive because the contamination is not limited to the former industrial facility; it also affects the surrounding area, including the Broek de Naeyer nature reserve.
The approach adopted is therefore territorial. The PFASTER project replication page describes a conceptual site model that accounts for soil, sediment, groundwater, surface water, and both aquatic and terrestrial food chains. Techniques are evaluated based on their applicability, cost, sustainability, and ability to reduce human, ecological, and dispersion risks. This point is essential for project developers: the right answer does not necessarily consist of moving the pollution. It must reduce risk in a verifiable way, over the long term, and at a scale consistent with transfer pathways.
Why a PFAS diagnostic must cross-reference environmental media
The European Commission notes that PFAS are highly persistent and can circulate between soil, water, and ecosystems. Since January 12, 2026, member states have also been required to monitor PFAS in drinking water using a harmonized method and take action if applicable values are exceeded. This development directly affects water abstraction and resources, but it also reinforces the value of an environmental diagnostic capable of identifying upstream transfers.
In practice, analyzing only soil or only groundwater can lead to an incomplete picture. The study must link potential sources, migration pathways, and receptors: buildings, gardens, crops, water intakes, watercourses, natural environments, or neighboring activities. The sampling strategy must also be proportionate to the site's historical context and future use. PFAS are not a single molecule: analysis and interpretation must account for a family of substances and their varying properties.
In Flanders, the supplementary OVAM guidelines for the *beschrijvend bodemonderzoek*, published on July 7, 2025, specifically require examining relevant media simultaneously and considering PFAS as a group of parameters. This framework reinforces a simple operational rule: the quality of a remediation decision depends first on the quality of the pollution model.
Three regions, three regulatory entry points
In Belgium, the PFAS issue is handled within a regionalized framework. In Wallonia, a suspected site must be analyzed in accordance with the Soil Decree of March 1, 2018, and the applicable study sequence, from the orientation study to the characterization study and, if necessary, the risk assessment. The results may also have consequences for environmental or single permits.
In Brussels, the Soil Condition Recognition serves as the entry point for many procedures. Brussels Environment indicates that it allows for the identification of the nature and extent of soil or groundwater pollution and determines the next steps in the process. The administration also has a Code of Good Practice for the study and treatment of PFAS in soil and groundwater. Significant pollution may trigger emergency measures depending on the proximity of sensitive areas such as vegetable gardens, schools, or water intakes.
In Flanders, the procedure is structured around the OBO (orientation study) and the BBO (characterization study). OVAM has developed specific protocols for suspected sites, particularly those linked to the use of firefighting foams containing fluorinated compounds. The Willebroek pilots do not, by themselves, create a new general obligation. However, they provide useful feedback for comparing techniques and preparing management strategies adapted to diffuse pollution.
.avif)
What this means for you
For an industrialist, developer, or public entity, the primary challenge is to identify PFAS risk before it blocks a transaction, expansion, or permit application. This involves a targeted historical study, verification of activities likely to have used or emitted PFAS, consultation of available regional data, and a sampling strategy covering all relevant media.
The second challenge is to avoid choosing a remediation technique based solely on an analytical result. Site characteristics, transfer pathways, future uses, construction constraints, costs, and secondary impacts must be compared together. The lessons from PFASTER point precisely in this direction: building a territorial approach, evaluating multiple techniques, and seeking a risk reduction that is technically feasible, sustainable, and replicable.
ABV Environment supports industrial and real estate projects from soil and groundwater diagnostics to managing regional procedures, comparing remediation options, and securing permits. Does your site have an activity history compatible with PFAS risk? A structured diagnostic early on can turn environmental uncertainty into an actionable decision.
