Expert Group under Directive 98/83/EC

22 September 2016

Agenda Items 10-11-12

Review and possible revision

European Commission

Directorate General for the Environment Unit C.2

Evaluation Drinking Water Directive

• - Follow-up of the citizens' initiative Right2Water and of the 2014 Public consultation

• - Inclusion in the Commission Work Programme 2015 A New Start, COM(2014) 910 final, Annex 3 Refit

- New 'Better Regulation Guidelines'

- Evaluation Roadmap published in June 2015 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2015_env_041_drinking_water_en.pdf

- Study: www.safe2drink.eu

2 Stakeholder-meetings

2

Perspective

- Legislator in 1998 -

3

Retrospective

Evaluation

Evaluate actions, consequences, results/impacts Was/Is DWD

• - effective objectives achieved, influences?

- - efficient costs/benefits, other more efficient ways?

- - coherent internally, externally, gaps, overlaps?

- - relevant appropriate or obsolete parameters and approaches?

- - added value profits, continue to require action at EU level?

4 Evidence! Why? How?

5

Intervention Logic

6

Intervention Logic Objectives DWD

•to prevent adverse effects on human health of any contamination, and to ensure that drinking water at the consumer tap is wholesome and clean

•drinking water quality is monitored and – in case of non-compliance - restored

•consumers are informed

Actions for Member States/Water operators:

•Monitoring programmes focusing on quality standards Action plan on lead until 24/12/2013

•Remedial action to restore Drinking Water quality in case of non-compliance with microbial and chemical parameters •Derogations in exceptional circumstances

Limitation until nine years after transposition

•Quality assurance measures for contact materials (Art. 10) •Up-to-date information is provided to consumers

Consequences: •Maintain no adverse health effects through drinking water, lead contamination reduced

•Relevant quality information available to suppliers and authorities •Exceedances not constituting a potential danger to human health temporarily granted

•Safer materials for water distribution used, lead pipes replaced

•Consumers and Commission better informed

External Factors: •Water Framework Directive (Article 7 abstraction, Ground Water Directive) •Other EU legislation (agriculture (CAP), nitrates, pesticides, food, construction products) •Evolution of treatment techniques •Scientific development of analytical methods •Pressures related to human and economic activities •Climate change effects (floods, droughts, scarcity)

Expected Results/Impacts: •Higher water quality and contribution to better health •Reduced concentration of contaminants like lead as an important indicator •Consumers and Industry can rely on wholesome and clean tap water •Further and indirect impacts on pollution prevention of source water, water supply, land-use, agriculture

Draft Evaluation Findings

• DWD: one of the tools relevant to ensure the quality of the water consumed in the EU.

• fulfills its basic purpose to enforce drinking water monitoring and its restoration in case of non-compliance

• Areas with room for improvement:

1. parameters

2. risk-based approach

3. information to consumers

4. contact materials

1. Parameters

• compliance with the DWD standards > 99%

• but: performance of the DWD is difficult to measure

• increased compliance proves

• an increase in water quality ensuring a high level of health protection

• that DWD implementation measures have been taken

• related quality standards and values could be partly not relevant anymore

• do not match emerging pressures, latest scientific knowledge and changing pollution pressure

Par

2. Risk based approach

• no clear link between DWD standards and health effects

• compliance data not decisive whether drinking water is really safe

• preventive safety planning and risk based elements are so far only under-proportionately considered

• water safety plan implementing the risk-based approach offer opportunities (beyond the 2015 amendment of Annexes II and III)

3. Materials Article 10

• no specific data on the extent of the DWD benefits, but indications that the DWD is in general a highly efficient instrument

• Limited potential to reduce administrative burden

• one burden identified originating in DWD Article 10 permitting too much legal flexibility

• non-recognition of national approval systems for products in contact with drinking water, obstacle to the internal market

4. Information

• public consultation: 77% information provisions are far from adequate, more up-to-date information should be published online

• provisions in the DWD too imprecise, differing information practices

• Reporting process is slow and does not tap the potential of modern information technology and data management

• Final study online since July 2016

• Staff Working Document (SWD): Q4 2016

=> Political Validation, decision on revision

Next Steps: Evaluation Report

Expert Group under Directive 98/83/EC

22 September 2016

Agenda Item 11 Studies

- Impact Assessment - -Materials

European Commission

Directorate General for the Environment Unit C.2

-

14

Retrospective

Evaluation

Impact Assessment

Forward

looking

• Impact Assessment

• 1. What is the problem - and why it is a problem? Presenting the main challenges currently faced by the EU DWD, and how these might evolve over time by 2030/2050 if no additional policy action is taken (the so-called baseline scenario)

• 2. Why should the EU act?

• 3. What should be achieved? 4. What are the proposed options to achieve the objectives?

• 5. What are the expected impacts of the proposed options?

• 6. How do the options compare?

15

IA Steps

16

Options

• Impacts – Who or what is affected, how, and why?

•

17

HEALTH IMPACT Better regulation Guidelines IA Tools Adverse effects?

Population potentially at risk?

ECONOMIC IMPACT Setting-up cost

Costs of monitoring

Cost of smart information and reporting

Costs of measures (treatment& preventive)

Bottled-water purchase

Annual health cost/benefit (M€/year)

Change in employment

#17: Impacts on sectoral competitiveness #18: Impacts on Research & Innovation #19: The "SME TEST" #20: Impacts on Competition (impact of the initiative on the competitive position of EU companies in the water sector vis-à-vis companies of third countries) #21: Impacts on the internal market #22: External trade and investment #23: ICT assessment, the digital economy and society #24: Fundamental Rights & Human Rights #25: Employment, working conditions, income distribution and inequality #26: Impacts on Education Culture and Youth #27: Impacts on health #28: Impacts on consumers #29: Territorial impacts #30: Developing countries #31: Resource efficiency

SOCIAL IMPACT

Change in costs per household (from BL, Eur per

year)

Affordability (share of income spent on DW)

Confidence in water quality

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Water quality

Treating pollution at source

Importance of water treatment

Energy use

Impacts

18

Health risks (illustrative)

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

2015 2030 2050

Mill

ion

s o

f in

hab

itan

ts

19

Costs (illustrative)

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Me

uro

s p

er

year

20

Costs vs Benefits (illustrative)

-500

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

-16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0

Co

sts

M€

/year

Health benefits

Impact Assessment Study

Ongoing

• Analysis of possible impacts

• Review of assumptions

• Discuss, compare, and combine options and their impacts

• Preferred options/ option packages?

• Finalise and publish IA study: Q4 2016

• Draft Commission Impact Assessment Report - Staff Working Document (SWD)

• Pass Regulatory Scrutiny Board and consider its opinion

• SWD accompanies possible Commission Proposal

Next Steps: Impact Assessment

Study Materials/Products in contact with

Drinking Water

23

Tasks EU Study Materials

• Assessment of the situation – What is the problem?

• Consider Preparation of EU "Product"-Legislation – Ecodesign MEErP (example sanitary tapware)

• Product 'scope', EU Market analysis, appropriate materials/products and test methods

• Guidance for users, including households and plumbers

• Support "Inception Impact Assessment" (Roadmap): What is the issue and mapping of options

Path: /CircaBC/env/Water Industries/Library/DRINKING WATER/D - Studies/D - Materials_Products in contact with Drinking Water Study Browse url: https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/26398165-15d9-4eaf-8671-a6e8e6b6a32c

24

Two related studies

• Panteia-Study Economic Effects of article 10 of the Drinking Water Directive options

• Approval/Certification costs is € 728 million yearly 4MS and € 480 million and 24MS or in total € 1.208 billion, potential yearly cost saving through harmonisation € 664 million

• To comply with national regulations costs a lot of time and money, approval procedures delay the marketing of products, barriers for free trade for smaller firms, …

• FIGAWA - (Association of Companies for Gas and Water Technologies) Study: Effects of Article 10 on test and certification costs, Member survey

• The test programmes (and related costs) vary considerably

• 57% of the test and certification costs could be saved

25

internal draft – example • public water distribution network EU28 between 4,451,000 km

and 5,310,000 km • 44% (by length) are made using plastic pipe (PE and PVC) • 43% metal (iron, ductile iron and steel) • 12% are made of cement (concrete or asbestos cement) • 1% unknown

• service pipe installed in the EU is estimated to be 1,945,500 km • majority of installed service pipes are now plastic (80% in UK and

Germany, 95% parts of France), replacing traditional metal pipe

• 25 million km of plumbing pipe

• Annual investments

• 10-12 billion distribution system renewal (material costs 12.5%)

• 25 billion on water plumbing system components

26

National example

27

internal draft – example Results testing:

- It does not appear possible to label certain types of material as “safe to use” without some suitability testing

- Some materials are more likely to cause certain types of test or water quality failures than others, for example, some types of rubbers, in general, are far more likely to cause enhancement of microbial growth

- testing to be based upon both the type of material and its water contact surface area

- Conclusions etc. under preparation

28

Task 2: Guide for Users

• Simple, non-technical summary of the findings of Task 1

• Limited to 20 to 30 text pages

• Target audience = household level (priority to “plumbers” and “householders”)

• A neutral approach (not favouring a specific material or product)

• Advices or examples: issues for EU level (not too specific cases)

Table of content 1. Introduction (objectives of the guide, problem being

addressed)

2. Awareness of products in contact with drinking water: a matter of health

3. Choosing the right products and good practices for the water user

4. Avoiding incompatible products

5. Where to find further information (including a list of national authorities, competent bodies and main quality marks)

National authorities and competent bodies

Austria Federal Ministry of

Healthwww.bmgf.gv.at

ÖVGW Österreichische

Vereinigung für das Gas-

und Wasserfach

Accepted certification:

DVGW, Kiwa

www.ovgw.at

Belgium

Public Service of

Wallonia

Flemish Environment

Agency

www.wallonie.be

https://en.vmm.b

e

BELGAQUA Belgian

Federation for the Water

Sector

Accepted certification:

DVGW

www.belgaqua.be

Bulgaria Ministry of Healthwww.mh.governm

ent.bgDVGW accepted

Croatia Croatian Waters DVGW accepted

Cyprus Ministry of Health www.moh.gov.cy

Czech Republic National Institute of

Public Health www.szu.cz DVGW accepted

DenmarkMinistry in charge of

Transport and Buildingwww.trm.dk

GDV Godkendt til

Drinkkevand

www.godkendttildrikke

vand.dk

EstoniaEnvironmental Health

Department

www.terviseamet

.ee

FinlandMinistry of Social Affairs

and Health

http://stm.fiVTT Technical Research

Centre of Finlandwww.vttresearch.com

France

Ministry of Social Affairs,

Health and Women

Rights

http://social-

sante.gouv.fr

ANSES - Agence nationale

de sécurité sanitaire de

l’alimentation, de

l’environnement et du

travail

Accepted certifications:

ACS, CLP, CAS

http://bit.ly/2bLBcYu

Member States National legislation

Competent body & where to look for

information

(list is not all inclusive)

National authorities and competent bodies

GermanyFederal Ministry of

Health

www.bmg.bund.d

e

UBA Umweltbundesamt

DVGW Deutscher Verein

des Gas- und Wasserfaches

www.umweltbundesamt

.de

www.dvgw.de

Greece Ministry of Health www.moh.gov.gr

HungaryNational Institute of

Environmental Health

http://oki.antsz.h

uDVGW accepted

IrelandEnvironmental

Protection Agencywww.epa.ie

ItalyMinistry in charge of

Healthwww.salute.gov.it

National Institute of

Health (ISS)

DVGW accepted

www.iss.it

Latvia Ministry of Agriculture www.zm.gov.lv DVGW accepted

LithuaniaState Food and

Veterinary Servicewww.vmvt.lt DVGW accepted

LuxembourgAdministration of water

management

www.eau.public.l

uDVGW accepted

MaltaEnvironmental Health

Directorate

http://health.gov.

mt

Poland Sanitory Inspectorate http://gis.gov.plPZH Panstwowy Zaklad

Higienywww.pzh.gov.pl

Member States National legislation

Competent body & where to look for

information

(list is not all inclusive)

National authorities and competent bodies

Portugal

Water and Waste

Services Regulation

Authority

www.ersar.ptINSA Instituto Nacional de

Saudewww.insa.pt

RomaniaMinistry in charge of

Healthwww.ms.ro DVGW accepted

Slovakia Ministry of Health www.uvzsr.sk

Slovenia Ministry of Health www.mz.gov.si

National Institute of

Public Health of the

Republic of Slovenia

www.ivz.si

SpainMinistry of Health, Social

Services and Equalitywww.msssi.gob.es

Asocación Espaõla de

Normalización y

Certificación

www.aenor.es

Sweden National Food Agencywww.livsmedelsv

erket.se

SWEDCERT (Kiwa)

DVGW acceptedwww.kiwa.se

The Netherlands

Ministry of

infrastructure and the

environment

www.government

.nlKiwa Nederland www.kiwa.nl

United Kingdom

Secretary of State for the

Environment Food and

Rural Affairs (England)

Ministries and

assemblies for Wales,

North. Ireland and

Scotland

www.gov.ukWRAS Water Regulations

Advisory Scheme

KIWA UK

www.wras.co.uk

www.kiwa.co.uk

Member States National legislation

Competent body & where to look for

information

(list is not all inclusive)

Questions from the consultants (o.vieu@oieau.fr):

- Identification of candidates for a group of users (from the

expert group + consider possibility to include 1-2 users

from the ground, ie householder, plumber).

- Objective is to ensure content is simple enough and useful

for the target audience

- For all MS:

- Check accuracy of table with National authorities and

competent bodies, and picture with quality marks (Task 2)

- Check accuracy of a table with summary of competent

authorities, approvals bodies and testing laboratories

(Task 1).

- Tables will be on CIRCABC

- -

34

Task 3

Political 6-7 page Summary

- What is the issue?

- Option mapping

- + rough identification of main impacts

- Study to be finalised by end 2016

35

Expert Group under Directive 98/83/EC

22 September 2016

Agenda Item 12 Preview Stakeholder meeting

Drinking Water Parameters

European Commission

Directorate General for the Environment Unit C.2

37

3 Sessions 23/9 • Underlying principles of risk-based standard setting and

monitoring • Introduction to microbiological parameters: current

shortcomings and possible approaches, Gertjan Medema, KWR Watercycle Research Institute

• Introduction to chemical parameters: update needs,

occurrence data and possible criteria for inclusion/removal of parameters, John Fawell, WHO consultant

2 Background papers available

38

Launch of request on occurrence data of 19 May 2016: Antimony Benzene Benzo(a)pyrene Cyanide 1,2-Dichloroethane Mercury Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Selenium Tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene Boron Chlorate Chlorite Haloacetic acids Microcystin N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) Uranium Chlorophenols Thallium

39

Replies to this request on occurrence data: • Data received from 19 Member States and some

stakeholders. • Austria, Belgium (Brussels, Flanders, Wallonia), Cyprus,

Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and United Kingdom (England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland).

• 27 Water Utilities from Finland, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden.

Thank you for your support!

Comments to:

ENV-DRINKING-WATER@ec.europa.eu

Tobias Biermann

European Commission

DG Environment

Unit C.2 - Marine Environment

and Water Industry

1049 Brussels/Belgium

Phone: +32 2 29 62573

tobias.biermann@ec.europa.eu

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water

40