Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive concerning the quality of water intended for human consumption ()

(96/C 82/12)

On 29 May 1995 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 28 November 1995. The rapporteur was Mr Kienle.

At its 331st Plenary Session (meeting of 21 December 1995), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by a majority vote, with three abstentions.

The Economic and Social Committee approves the Commission proposal subject to the following considerations and comments.

1. Introduction

1.1. Water is a 'sine qua non' for all life on earth. It can even be a source of conflict and become a weapon in times of warfare and unrest. Clean water is needed not only by human beings, but by nature as well. For the sake of human health and an intact eco-system, it is urgently necessary to keep all water as free as possible from pollutants and protected for the use of all humanity.

Every effort should be established to ensure that where water is polluted the polluter pays principle is activated.

1.2. Drinking water is the number one sustenance. Supplies to consumers should be clear, appetizing, wholesome and of impeccable quality. Consumer protection is therefore of paramount importance. The Economic and Social Committee recognizes that the Directive relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (80/778/EEC) of 15 July 1980 has contributed to a substantial improvement in the quality of drinking water in Europe, which is now among the best in the world.

The Commission nevertheless makes a convincing case for revising Directive 80/778/EEC in order to remedy certain shortcomings and bring the Directive into line with the latest scientific knowledge and technologies. Previous public discussion of the drinking water Directive has, however, disconcerted people in many Member States of the European Union. Discussions must not therefore prejudice sober, balanced decision-taking.

2. General comments

2.1. The Economic and Social Committee broadly endorses the Commission proposal. It particularly welcomes the dropping of the incorrect and obsolete parameters, the abolition of indicative values and the adoption of rules to deal with situations where values are exceeded.

2.2. The Committee confirms that the Directive on the quality of drinking water is primarily a health-policy measure. At the same time the proposal for a Directive on the ecological quality of water is the most important of the measures on the harmonization of the protection of Community waters (cf. COM(93) 680 final). A 'horizontal' comparison of different EU water-policy measures, however, reveals that in some areas Community legislation has clearly not been harmonized.

2.2.1. The Committee hopes that the Communication and new Framework Directive on water policy recently announced by the Commission will effectively resolve the present lack of coherence.

2.3. The Committee is pleased that the Commission has largely followed the recent recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO), which are based on scientific analyses and take account of the precautionary principle. The adoption of the WHO recommendations will lead to a further improvement in the level of protection for drinking water in the EU.

2.3.1. For levels of plant-protection products, however, the Commission has kept to the previous overall limit value of 0,1 microgram/litre of drinking water. This limit value is much more stringent than the WHO recommendation, is tantamount to a zero reading and can only be justified by the fact that it is a precautionary measure. As a consequence, a situation may develop where a substance used in plant protection is banned in drinking water, while the same substance originating from other sources is allowed.

2.4. The Committee broadly supports the Commission's efforts to 'increase transparency in the application of the Directive'. This helps bring about a more uniform transposition of the Directive into national law and greater public acceptance of environmental rules.

It nevertheless has to be borne in mind that stepping up the frequency of reporting will raise administrative costs for Member States and not automatically improve the quality of the information itself. Giving consumers a clear picture of the quality of drinking water is in fact more important than shortening the interval between reports. Monitoring the quality of drinking water locally is also of great importance.

2.5. The measures to protect and improve drinking water which are associated with the proposed Directive will involve considerable additional costs. So, there must first be some hard thinking about costs and benefits if these measures are to be accepted by business and the public.

2.5.1. The Commission's cost estimates for the replacement of lead pipes within a period of fifteen years, which vary between ECU 34 and 70 billion, are not universally representative.

The Committee calls for appropriate aid programmes in the Member States to make the costs of replacing lead pipes bearable and reasonable for low-income households.

3. Specific comments

3.1. Article 2 (1) (b)

Article 2 (1) (b) of the proposed Directive obliges the food industry to use water of drinking quality for processes which involve no direct contact between the water and food, such as in heat exchangers. It should be made clear - possibly in Article 3 - that the proposed Directive does not apply to water in closed systems. An obligation to use water of drinking quality in closed systems cannot be justified on health grounds because there is no direct contact between the water and food. Using water of drinking quality in such cases would be a breach of the proportional response principle and would lead to large quantities being wasted.

3.2. Article 7 (3)

In the interests of health protection a reduction in the amount of lead must also be achieved in domestic distribution systems. One needs to examine whether the construction products Directive is properly used here.

3.3. Article 14

As the different values and classification of all parameters can be amended in the light of new scientific evidence, the procedure set out in Article 14 should be reviewed to ensure that the ESC is consulted as well as the European Parliament.

3.4. Annex I, part B, chemical parameters

3.4.1. Boron compounds are ubiquitous. Drinking water, which is taken from surface and ground water untainted by human sources, naturally contains small levels of boron. Surface waters contain additional concentrations arising from the industrial and domestic use of borates.

The 1993 WHO drinking-water guidelines form the basis for the new EU limit value. During the discussions, however, the latest findings, based on OECD methodology, were not taken into consideration. WHO regards these new findings as so significant that it has given written authorization for the boron indicative parameters to be reviewed as soon as possible. The low value of 0,3 milligram of boron per litre will therefore probably be dropped. When laying down a limit value for boron, the EU should also take account of the latest scientific knowledge and the WHO review. In the meantime, the EU's drinking water guideline value of 1,0 milligram of boron per litre, which has been in force since 1980, should be maintained as a parametric value.

3.4.2. Cadmium

The limit value for cadmium should be lowered to 3 micrograms per litre, in line with the WHO proposal.

3.4.3. Lead

Lead pipes for drinking water are particularly dangerous to the health of infants and young children, the weakest and most helpless members of our society. It is here that precautions are of paramount importance. The proposed reduction of the lead limit value seems sufficiently well-founded scientifically and is therefore welcomed.

The Committee does, however, feel that Note 3 of Annex I, Part B, should be incorporated into an Article of the Directive. Furthermore, the Committee requires the Commission, in consultation with the Member States, the water industry and other parties, to propose a clear definition of 'a representative sample'. This definition should be based on a harmonized methodology allowing monitoring of comparable and relevant data. The conclusions should be adopted under the procedure set out in Article 14.

When implementing the measures to achieve the limit value, Member States should give priority to those areas where they can have the greatest benefit.

Because of the high costs involved the Committee asks the Commission to also think hard about alternative ways of reducing lead contamination. Bearing in mind the risks of lead substitutes, care must be taken to ensure that replacement materials are chosen and installed in a manner consistent with the objectives of the drinking water Directive.

3.4.4. Bromodichloromethane; chloroform

The limit values of 15 micrograms per litre for bromodichloromethane and of 40 micrograms per litre for chloroform are a compromise between the need to disinfect and the toxic effect of the disinfectant. Every step should be taken to keep the use of toxic disinfectants to a minimum.

3.4.5. Copper

A five-year transitional arrangement should apply in the case of copper.

3.4.6. Plant-protection products

As a result of the strict licensing rules which have now been introduced for plant-protection products in the EU, and thanks to the substantial and costly efforts made by agriculture, advisory services and industry (especially the water-supply industry - and its customers - who are paying for the equipment to extract pesticide residues), it is by and large possible in the European Union to abide by the overall precautionary limit value for ground water of 0,1 microgram per litre of active substance used in plant-protection products. In some European Union regions, forms of cooperation between agriculture and the water industry have been crowned with success.

This cooperation should however be extended to all those regions which have not yet adopted the model. The Commission should also consider closer integration of environmental and agricultural policies relevant to the use of plant-protection products.

There has been a considerable decline in the use of plant-protection products in the European Union since the late 1980s. This is due, inter alia, to the increasingly widespread practice of integrated crop farming, the promotion of extensification as part of the back-up measures for the EU's agricultural reform and checks carried out on plant-protection equipment.

3.4.6.1. The undifferentiated limit value which applies to all active substances used in plant-protection restricts the range of licensed plant-protection products available. This makes it difficult and expensive to use plant-protection products selectively and as sparingly as possible in integrated crop farming. The reduced options for switching plant-protection products may lead to the unwelcome development of resistance. As a result, Europe's farmers may be placed at a distinct competitive disadvantage compared with other agricultural exporters in countries which have set exclusively differentiated, health-related standards for plant-protection products in drinking water.

3.4.6.2. Note 5d (in Annex I) and its announcement that the Commission 'shall examine whether an individual value can be set for a given substance, after an evaluation of the available scientific information', illustrates the Commission's uncertainty in this area. The provision set out in note 5d should therefore be immediately incorporated in an Article of the Directive. This Article should contain clear provisions for the establishment of parametric values for individual plant-protection products, once the substances are listed in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant-protection products on the market. These parametric values should be derived from toxicological studies and be specifically related to individual substances.

3.4.6.3. The introduction of individual parametric values on the basis of internationally recognized scientific principles must incorporate major safety factors and so comprehensively satisfy precautionary principles.

3.4.6.4. The reasoning behind the Commission's decision to delete the overall limit value of 0,5 microgram per litre for all active substances used in plant-protection products appears sound. It is true that interactions and cumulative effects must be taken into account in fixing parametric values for individual substances. As the Commission stresses, this cannot however be done in an arbitrary way for the whole family of substances.

3.5. Annex II

3.5.1. The frequency and scale of analyses should reflect the importance of the parameters (e.g. microbiology) and their local distribution. The lists of parameters should therefore be reviewed, to avoid the emergence of costly 'data graveyards'.

3.5.2. Overall, it is precisely with substantial sampling quantities (involving more than 60 000 mª) that the monitoring frequency regarded as a basic minimum can in part be substantially reduced. This is particularly true of chemical parameters.

Done at Brussels, 21 December 1995.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No C 131, 30. 5. 1995, p. 5.

APPENDIX Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

Amendments rejected

During the discussion, the following amendments, which received more than 25 % of the votes cast, were rejected:

Point 3.2 - Article 7 (3)

Insert after the second sentence:

'Responsibility for the achievement of parametric values should be specified for each of the main elements of the water production and supply chain.'

Result of vote

For: 40, against: 40, abstentions: 26.

Point 3.5.1

Add at the end of the first sentence:

'and take account of the methodology for the design of water-quality sampling programmes recommended by the International Standards Organization.'

Result of vote

For: 31, against: 53, abstentions: 4.