OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the proposal for a Council Directive concerning the quality of water intended for human consumption
Date: 1995-12-21
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: drinking water, public health, water analysis, water consumption, water pollution













EUR-Lex - 51995AC1458 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51995AC1458

OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the proposal for a Council Directive concerning the quality of water intended for human consumption  


Official Journal C 082 , 19/03/1996 P. 0064 





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. Introduction1.1. 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 comments2.1. 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 comments3.1. 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  14As 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 parameters3.4.1. 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. CadmiumThe limit value for cadmium should be lowered to 3  micrograms per litre, in line  with the WHO proposal. 3.4.3. LeadLead 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; chloroformThe 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. CopperA five-year transitional arrangement should apply in the case of copper. 3.4.6. Plant-protection productsAs 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 II3.5.1. 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 Presidentof the Economic and Social CommitteeCarlos FERRER() OJ No C  131, 30. 5. 1995, p. 5. APPENDIX Opinion of the Economic and Social CommitteeAmendments rejectedDuring 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 voteFor: 40, against: 40,  abstentions: 26. Point 3.5.1Add 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 voteFor: 31, against: 53,  abstentions: 4.