Netherlands Answers Parliamentary Questions On PFAS Discharges And Permits

The Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management has issued a detailed response to parliamentary questions on PFAS discharges, prompted by concerns about permits for industrial facilities and findings of PFAS contamination linked to waste and recycling operations. The letter, dated 27 January 2026, explains how the Netherlands applies its existing permitting and enforcement framework to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

PFAS Treated As “Very Concerning Substances” With A Minimisation Duty

The ministry states that understanding of PFAS harmfulness has increased and that PFAS are widely present in the environment. PFAS fall within the “very concerning substances” (ZZS) category, where the policy starting point is that emissions should be prevented wherever possible and, where prevention is not possible, reduced to the minimum. The response emphasises that risk cannot be assumed solely from the presence of a PFAS emission, because acceptability depends on factors such as the intrinsic hazard of the substance, emission magnitude, local conditions and cumulative upstream inputs.

Permit Decisions Rely On Case-By-Case Assessment And Water Quality Testing

In addressing a permit application involving a proposed PFAS discharge limit of 5 kg per year, the ministry explains that the competent authority assesses compliance with applicable ZZS rules, including minimisation and the use of best available techniques. It also relies on an “immissietoets”, a water quality impact test, to evaluate expected concentrations in receiving waters against relevant health and environmental limit values, including for drinking water abstraction points.

The ministry notes that, where all legal conditions are met, a permit may not be refusible under the current legal framework. It also references the role of enforcement signals and oversight in ensuring that permitting assessments are carried out correctly.

Cost Allocation And “Polluter Pays”

On costs, the response reiterates that the “polluter pays” principle is embedded in Dutch and EU law. It points to levies for indirect discharges to wastewater treatment and for direct discharges to surface waters, with charges tied to pollution load. Where additional treatment is required to manage a company’s wastewater, those extra costs can be charged back to the company, alongside the firm’s own investment obligations to minimise emissions.