Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2017)753 - Quality of water intended for human consumption (recast) - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2017)753 - Quality of water intended for human consumption (recast). |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2017)753  |
| date | 01-02-2018 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
Most people living in the EU enjoy very good access to high quality drinking water, especially compared to some other regions in the world. This is the result of a long tradition of drinking water management in many European Member States, but is also in large measure thanks to European environmental legislation and EU funding 1 . Since the 1980s, the EU has applied rules that require stringent water safety checks. This means that urban waste water is collected and treated, industrial emissions are safely managed, the use of chemicals is approved under strict conditions and a holistic approach is taken to managing water bodies across borders. While in some cases high initial investments or competing priorities meant these rules could not be put into practice within agreed timelines, water management has continued to improve, and the Commission and the Member States are now making a joint, concerted effort to fully implement the rules as soon as possible 2 .
There is one piece of legislation, Council Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption 3 , that needs to be singled out since it is designed specifically to protect people from the adverse effects of drinking contaminated water by ensuring that it is wholesome and clean. In general, the Directive has been relatively well implemented by Member States, but its approach to monitoring quality at the point of consumption uses parameters determined over 20 years ago. This calls for an examination of whether the Directive deals effectively with existing and emerging pressures and ensures that people living in and visiting European Union countries can continue to enjoy high-quality drinking water for decades to come.
Drinking water is clearly high in the minds of many Europeans. Drinking water was the focus of the first ever European citizens’ initiative ‘Right2Water’ 4 , which collected over 1.8 million signatures and to which the Commission responded positively. The initiative was submitted to the Commission in December 2013, and urged in particular that ‘EU institutions and Member States be obliged to ensure that all inhabitants enjoy the right to water and sanitation’ and that ‘the EU increase its efforts to achieve universal access to water and sanitation’. In its response 5 , the Commission invited Member States to do everything they can to ensure everyone has access to a minimum water supply. This is fully in line with the Agenda 2030, in particular Sustainable Development Goal 6 and the associated target to ‘achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all’, which were adopted in 2015 6 . The Commission also committed to reviewing the Directive, which was included as a result in the Commission’s Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) 7 . The proposal therefore directly follows up on the European citizens' initiative Right2Water.
The revision is also part of the plan to transition to a circular economy 8 . The revised proposal will help Member States manage drinking water in a resource-efficient and sustainable manner, thereby helping to reduce energy use and unnecessary water loss. It will also help reduce the number of plastic bottles we use by improving people’s confidence in tap water.
The Commission started this process by first evaluating the Directive, in line with Better Regulation principles 9 . The results of the evaluation were published on 1 December 2016 10 and helped identify the Directive’s strengths and weaknesses. They confirmed that the Directive is the relevant tool to ensure the high quality of the water consumed in the EU, because its basic purpose is to enforce drinking water monitoring and ensure that Member States restore required water quality levels in case of issues.
However, the evaluation identified four areas with room for improvement:
–the list of parameters;
–the use of the risk-based approach;
–increased transparency on water-related issues and giving consumers access to up-to-date information; and
–materials in contact with drinking water.
The accompanying impact assessment also looked at the point raised in the European citizens’ initiative and consultations that parts of the population, for instance vulnerable and marginalised groups such as Roma in particular, have no access to drinking water. On the basis of the results of the impact assessment, this legislative proposal offers proportionate answers to these issues.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
The proposal is a recast of Directive 98/83/EC, which was amended in 2003, 2009 and 2015. In the interest of clarity, a recast is considered most appropriate. It is in line with the commitment made in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law Making 11 to use the legislative technique of recasting more frequently when modifying existing legislation.
Overall, the proposal is consistent with the EU’s established legislation in the field of water, especially the Water Framework Directive 12 , the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 13 , the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 14 and the Nitrates Directive 15 . The proposal in particular complements Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Water Framework Directive that concern the requirements to identify and monitor the water bodies used for abstraction of drinking water and to designate protected areas covering those water bodies. Furthermore, it complements Article 11 of that Directive, requiring Member States to establish programmes of measures, including measures aimed at protecting the abstraction areas for drinking water.
Water after the point of compliance is considered as ‘food’ underRegulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the general principles and requirements of food law 16 . It is therefore proposed that provisions related to ‘water put into bottles and containers and intended for sale’ be removed from the scope of Directive 98/83/EC, as any bottled drinking water will fall under the scope of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 after the point of compliance.
Concerning specific categories of water put into bottles, natural mineral waters are exempted from the scope of this Directive in accordance with Directive 2009/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 17 . However, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 9 i Directive 2009/54/EC, spring waters should comply with the provisions of this Directive. Therefore, spring waters should remain in the scope of this Directive.
• Consistency with other Union policies
The revision of Directive 98/83/EC was included in the 2017 Commission Work Programme as a new initiative 18 that will help implement the Action Plan for the Circular Economy. The proposal contains elements that support the sustainable management of drinking water in a resource-efficient manner and that will help reduce bottled water consumption. This is consistent with the EU’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and marine litter 19 and the European Strategy for Plastics 20 .
The proposal also contributes to the effort to reduce administrative burden and to design policies that are as effective and efficient as possible, in line with the Commission Communication on Better Regulation 21 . Updating standards and taking a more holistic risk management approach should also help maintain the competitiveness of the EU’s water sector and stimulate innovation. The proposal also aims to simplify monitoring and reporting processes, with a focus on automation, less frequent reports and more relevant data. This is in line with the EU’s Better Regulation approach and the Fitness Check on Reporting and Monitoring 22 . Provisions to improve citizens’ access to information on their drinking water also tie in with the Commission’s Digital Market Strategy 23 .
The proposal will also help achieve priority objective 3 of the 7th Environment Action Programme to 2020: ‘To safeguard the Union’s citizens from environment-related pressures and risks to health and well-being’ 24 . It also fits under priority objective 4, which requires that the public has access to clear environmental information at national level. To that end, the proposal makes cross-references and guarantees consistency with the requirements of Directive 2003/4/EC 25 and the INSPIRE Directive 26 .
Deleting the rules on materials in contact with drinking water (Article 10 of Directive 98/83/EC) will ensure greater consistency with internal market legislation and, in particular, with the Construction Products Regulation 27 . The impact assessment concluded that the current article, which implies mutual recognition between Member States and involves legal uncertainty, constitutes a possible obstacle to the internal market. It is proposed that a new article on Domestic Distribution risk assessment take over some of the obligation formerly contained in Article 10 of Directive 98/83/EC and that, in parallel, a standardisation mandate be issued under the Construction Products Regulation, to set requirements applicable to construction materials and products in contact with drinking water. The removal of technical barriers for construction products may only be achieved by the establishment of harmonised technical specifications for the purposes of assessing the performance of construction products, hence the necessity to establish and publish the necessary harmonised standards in the Official Journal of the European Union under Regulation (EU) No 305/2011.
Security aspects are dealt with under other Union policies, in particular Directive (EU) 2016/1148 concerning measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems across the Union 28 ('NIS Directive'). The Commission has also adopted in October 2017 an Action Plan to step up EU-level preparedness, resilience and coordination against attacks involving chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) substances.
Lastly, the proposal is also answering the European Citizens' initiative by requiring Member States to ensure access to water for vulnerable and marginalised groups. This will also help implement EU policy on Roma integration within the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies 29 and the Council Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States 30 .
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The proposal is based on Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ex-Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European Community). This is the same legal basis as the directive being recast.
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
The EU has shared competence with Member States to regulate environment and health in the water sector. This means that the EU can only legislate as far as the Treaties allow it, and must observe the principles of necessity, subsidiarity and proportionality.
The objectives of the Directive, namely to protect human health from the adverse effects of any contamination of water intended for human consumption, will be achieved by setting minimum quality standards at EU level as well as setting minimum requirements for monitoring, reporting, access to water, transparency and remedial action when these standards are not met. Member States may determine which concrete action (for example, type of remedial measures, actual monitoring programmes) they wish to take.
The revision of the Directive was originally triggered by the European citizens’ initiative ‘Right2Water’, supported by more than 1.8 million signatories. Action at EU level to ensure access to drinking water was also demanded by the European Parliament in its response to the initiative 31 and in response to the EU’s commitment to the UN Sustainable Development Goals 32 . This proposal therefore sets general rules at EU level, within the remit of the EU’s powers and in full respect of subsidiarity, but allows Member States a margin of discretion in deciding how to implement the obligation to improve access to safe drinking water.
Lastly, the REFIT evaluation also confirmed the added value of drinking water legislation at EU level since, over time, it can help greatly in harmonising water quality across Europe. This was shown, for instance, by Member States, particularly smaller ones, that do not always have the resources and specific expertise, expecting the EU to continue to set the essential chemical and microbiological parameters and related values for drinking water. Many stakeholders have also insisted that EU measures are the best way to address emerging health hazards from water.
The scale and effects of the action set out in the Directive mean its objectives are better achieved at EU than at national level.
• Proportionality
The accompanying impact assessment provides more details on the proportionality and cost-effectiveness of the options in this legislative proposal. Overall, it demonstrated that the most suitable and most cost-effective measures that could be taken at EU level when revising the Directive were:
(a)reviewing and updating the list of parameters in the Directive in line with newest scientific findings whilst introducing the risk-based approach for large and small water suppliers;
(b)improving rules on transparency and access to up-to-date information for consumers;
(c)improving and simplifying reporting;
(d)removing obstacles that prevent the free trade in materials in contact with drinking water;
(e)improving access to safe drinking water.
• Choice of the instrument
This proposal substantially amends Directive 98/83/EC and adds many new provisions. In the interest of clarity, it is proposed to use the recasting method. Given that the instrument being recast is a Directive, for reasons of consistency of legal drafting and to facilitate Member States transposition of the act, this proposal is also for a Directive.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
The Commission has evaluated the performance of Directive 98/83/EC against five criteria:
–effectiveness;
–efficiency;
–coherence;
–relevance; and
–EU added value.
The evaluation was conducted back-to-back with the impact assessment study, and the problem areas identified in the evaluation are reflected in the problem definitions and policy options in the impact assessment.
The evaluation concluded that the Directive is effective in achieving its objectives and helping to protect human health from the adverse effects of contamination by ensuring a high level compliance with the parametric values. However, the relevance of compliance rates measured against partly outdated parameters is somewhat limited. It also found that Article 10 of the Directive concerning ‘materials in contact with drinking water’ leaves Member States too much flexibility in determining what ‘necessary measures’ are. This led to additional tests and controls when placing a product on the market of another Member State, which made the provision ineffective.
The efficiency analysis estimated the total cost for supplying drinking water in the EU in 2014 at roughly EUR 46.5 billion. EUR 8.3 billion of this can be attributed to the implementation of the Directive. Although the health benefits resulting from the Directive could not be quantified 33 , the evaluation found that total attributable benefits significantly outweigh total attributable costs. It did not find any provisions causing excessive administrative costs related to monitoring, information provision and reporting. Only the flexibility under Article 10 of Directive 98/83/EC (as explained above) was found to be a significant unnecessary burden for industry.
The coherence of Directive 98/83/EC with the Water Framework Directive is especially important as protecting drinking water resources is an indispensable part of the plans and measures under the Water Framework Directive. Directive 98/83/EC does not refer to the protection of water resources to be used for the abstraction of drinking water mainly because it preceded the Water Framework Directive. This missing link must be made to ensure the polluter pays principle and the precautionary principle both apply. The proposal will therefore help improve coherence between the two Directives by introducing the risk-based approach from abstraction to tap, and improving exchanges and communication between Member States’ authorities and water suppliers to ensure there is a full governance cycle for water.
With regard to relevance, the evaluation found the parametric values set in Directive 98/83/EC are no longer appropriate as they do not reflect scientific progress, better risk assessments, changed consumer behaviour and new environmental pressures.
The EU added value of Directive 98/83/EC is that it ensures the same level of protection of human health from adverse effects of any contamination across the whole EU. Anecdotally, fewer major drinking water incidents were observed in the EU than in other regions of the world — however, this cannot demonstrably be linked to the existence of Directive 98/83/EC.
The main areas for improvement identified in the evaluation were therefore:
–the list of parameters;
–the lack of a risk-based approach;
–the lack of transparency and lack of access to up-to-date information for consumers; and
–materials in contact with drinking water.
• Stakeholder consultations
In accordance with the Better Regulation Guidelines 34 , several consultation activities took place.
·Open public consultation on the basis of online questionnaire
Following the European citizens’ initiative on the right to water (Right2Water) 35 , between June and September 2014 the Commission performed an open public consultation in all languages on the quality of drinking water. The consultation received 5 908 answers and 138 opinions and position papers from key stakeholders. In addition, in September 2014 and in October 2015 the Commission held meetings with stakeholders to discuss transparency and benchmarking.
·Targeted public consultations
The Commission organised three targeted public stakeholder consultation conferences: in May 2015 for the REFIT evaluation, in December 2015 for the impact assessment, and in September 2016 on the review of the drinking water standards. These reached a wide range of stakeholders, including national and regional authorities, representatives of industry, business associations and companies, and experts. The conferences gathered a variety of views and allowed the Commission to have discussions directly with the stakeholders. Specific working documents or questionnaires were issued for all the conferences, and all presentations and minutes, including participants’ lists, were made publicly available 36 .
·REFIT feedback mechanism
After the Inception Impact Assessment was published on the Better Regulation website on 28 February 2017, stakeholders were given until 28 March 2017 to provide feedback on that document.
·Additional consultations
On several other occasions the Commission informed stakeholders of the revision and invited them to comment, for example in January 2016 at a well-attended Paramount Seminar on drinking water protection, or at discussions in various expert group meetings. To ensure the process was as transparent as possible, all relevant documents which fed into the revision, such as the impact assessment supporting study, were made publicly available 37 .
The consultations clearly supported updating and revising the list of parameters. The public consultation overwhelmingly favoured the list including endocrine disrupting compounds, substances used in consumer products and pharmaceuticals, whereas many technical experts disagreed. Most stakeholders favoured the EU-wide implementation of a risk-based approach. Nevertheless, they wanted to ensure that Member States would have sufficient flexibility in this regard. The need for harmonisation regarding materials and products in contact with drinking water was continuously pointed out by a range of stakeholders.
A strong message from the public consultation, especially from citizens, was the wish for more up-to-date online information on the quality of drinking water. Consumers feel insecure about tap water when abroad in the EU and, although compliance rates are high, they are generally rather reluctant to trust it. Opinions varied regarding whether the Directive should include rules on access to water. Those against argued that access to water would be outside the scope of the Directive and should therefore be addressed under other EU legislation, or elsewhere.
• Collection and use of expertise
The legal proposal and the impact assessment are based on a vast body of material and studies, as referenced in the Impact Assessment Staff Working Document.
In December 2015, a cooperation project was launched with the WHO Regional Office for Europe to support the revision of Annex I to Directive 98/83/EC (list of parameters to be included in the Directive). The project was concluded in summer 2017 38 . More details about the recommendations of this project and how they were used in this Commission’s proposal are included in Section 5 ‘Other Elements’.
Several studies were conducted by external parties commissioned to assess the revision of the Directive. These studies included:
–a Material Guidance for Users and Plumbers 39 ;
–the Study Report on Products and Materials in contact with Drinking Water 40 ; and
–the Impact Assessment Study 41 .
The Impact Assessment Study conducted by independent external parties also used a modelling tool to assess policy options and preferred policy packages.
• Impact assessment
The proposal is based on an impact assessment, which received a positive opinion with reservations 42 from the Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 23 June 2017. The issues raised by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board were addressed in the revised version of the Impact Assessment Staff Working Document, in which a specific chapter details the changes made following the Regulatory Scrutiny Board’s opinion. Based on the evaluation, the stakeholder consultations and the European citizens’ initiative ‘Right2Water’, a number of policy options were developed to address each of the problem areas identified. The impact assessment examined the options to determine how far they could help achieve the Directive’s overarching objective of protecting consumer health, their financial implications and their environmental impacts towards 2050. The findings are provided in the Impact Assessment Study and the Impact Assessment Staff Working Document.
The five policy options contain:
–options to adapt the parameter list of the Directive to newest standards through extension or limitation of the list;
–the adoption of the risk-based approach for large (and small) water suppliers;
–harmonisation of standards of materials in contact with drinking water;
–improving consumers’ access to up-to-date information and better monitoring of implementation; and
–options to provide access to water.
The analyses and the consequent ranking of the options led to the conclusion that a combination of the different options would be the best way to address, in the long-term, all the problem areas identified in the evaluation. A combination of the options would ensure:
–high quality drinking water for everyone in the EU. Updating and improving the list of parameters based on the WHO’s recommendations will also protect people from emerging hazards to human health;
–a more modern approach to monitoring, by using the risk-based approach for both large and small water suppliers;
–the modernisation, and hence simplification, of reporting provisions;
–that consumers are provided with up-to-date and relevant information;
–improved access to water, and the provision of access to water for vulnerable and marginalised groups.
The options were ranked and three policy packages were developed. Two of them (packages 2 and 3) were the preferred packages from the health and environmental viewpoints. The small increase in costs for both packages is legitimate and outweighed by the health benefits. Both policy packages provide answers to all four areas of improvement identified in the evaluation. In addition, policy package 3 substantially improves the situation for non-connected EU citizens since it addresses — with a separate option — the issue of access to water identified in the European citizens’ initiative ‘Right2Water’ and in SDG 6. This separate option covers a set of measures to improve access to water, but the related additional set-up costs are most probably overestimated as — in absence of more accurate data — they are based on the assumption that half of the non-connected citizens would be provided with individual treatment systems.
It was therefore decided that this legislative proposal should maintain the benefits of policy package 3 by introducing a general obligation to improve access to drinking water for everyone and to ensure access for vulnerable and marginalised groups, whilst leaving it up to the Member States to decide how to best improve access to water taking specific local situations into account. It is assumed that implementing those specific measures would be substantially cheaper than providing half of the non-connected citizens with alternative systems (as assumed in policy package 3).
This is in line with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity as, while the general principle is set at EU level, Member States keep a wide margin of discretion in how to better ensure access to water.
In practice, it means that the costs and the impacts of the proposal will be between EUR 5.9 billion (policy package 2) and EUR 7.3 billion (policy package 3). These costs will mainly be borne by water operators. Consumers would see a very marginal increase in their household costs. However, this does not risk making drinking water unaffordable and could be offset by people drinking tap water rather than bottled water.
Administrative costs to national authorities were assessed as negligible or diminishing. For instance, simplified reporting requirements will lead to a EUR 0.35 million fall in annual operating costs.
Both policy packages have a positive impact on the environment because it is assumed that as consumer confidence in tap water increases, consumption of bottled water will fall. This will be stimulated further by providing all consumers with better access to up-to-date information. Furthermore, requiring large and small water suppliers to use the risk-based approach will lead to less need for treatment, and thus energy savings and fewer chemicals released into the environment. The risk-based approach should also improve the treatment of pollution at source and application of the polluter pays principle.
Requiring Member States to improve and provide a certain level of access to water will be a positive step towards meeting the targets of Sustainable Development Goal 6. It will also have the positive side-effect of creating jobs.
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
All of the options examined in the impact assessment either have a negligible impact on administrative burden or actually reduce it, mainly because most costs are borne by water operators and not by national authorities. In order to reduce administrative burden and simplify procedures, this proposal builds on the impact assessment by substantially reducing national reporting obligations to the Commission. Rather than requiring Member States to submit a report, they will have to establish data sets with their monitoring results only where they exceed the parameters in the Directive. They will also have to provide additional information such as risk assessments. This is expected to save up to EUR 0.35 million per year.
To respect proportionality, small water suppliers will have longer than large and very large water suppliers to implement the risk-based approach. To avoid burdening small water suppliers, these will have to update on-line information less regularly than large and very large suppliers.
Finally, the proposed provisions on consumer information and transparency make the proposal ‘internet ready’ by requiring water suppliers to make extensive use of digital means to inform consumers of quality and hazards in relation to drinking water.
• Fundamental rights
As mentioned in the Commission Communication on the European citizens’ initiative ‘Water and sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good, not a commodity!’ 43 , access to safe drinking water and sanitation is inextricably linked to the right to life and human dignity, as recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 44 , and to the need for an adequate standard of living. The Commission also underlined the importance of the human rights dimension of access to safe drinking water and committed to ensuring that this remains at the heart of its policies.
Over the last decade, international law has acknowledged a right to safe drinking water and sanitation, most prominently at UN level 45 . The UN General Assembly Resolution 64/292 recognises ‘the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights’. Moreover, in the final outcome document of the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), heads of State and Government and high level representatives reaffirmed their ‘commitments regarding the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, to be progressively realised for [their] populations with full respect for national sovereignty’ 46 . These commitments were reaffirmed in 2015 when the heads of State committed to Sustainable Development Goal 6 and its associated target, by 2030, of ‘achieving universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all’.
At European level, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe declared ‘that access to water must be recognised as a fundamental human right because it is essential to life on earth and is a resource that must be shared by humankind’ 47 . The EU has also reaffirmed that ‘all States bear human rights obligations regarding access to safe drinking water, which must be available, physically accessible, affordable and acceptable’ 48 .
The Commission took all this into account when developing its reply to the European citizens’ initiative on the ‘Right2Water’ and this legislative proposal.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
The proposal does not have budgetary implications for the Commission. It is expected that it can be implemented under the existing allocations for the Commission and the European Environmental Agency and that no additional resources are needed.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
Large suppliers will be expected to implement the risk-based approach within 3 years, while small water supplies will be given 6 years.
The Annexes will be reviewed regularly in the light of scientific and technical progress. To allow for two full 6-year cycles of data, the complete Directive will be evaluated 12 years after its transposition.
To ensure that the Directive achieves its objective of protecting human health from the adverse effects of contaminated drinking water, and to improve other areas in which the Directive was found to be less optimal, a number of different success indicators were suggested. These will be used for future evaluations and will be developed in cooperation with the European Environmental Agency, taking account of the findings of the Fitness Check 49 on environmental monitoring and reporting. The success indicators are:
–the number of ‘incidents’ (i.e. cases of potential danger to human health) and cases in which the limit values were exceeded in the EU. In the new reporting system, Member States will be asked to report in a more effective manner on these incidents and on the solutions provided;
–the number of people in the EU with access to water intended for human consumption;
–long-term health impacts due to the quality of the drinking water — this will require additional epidemiologic studies in conjunction with a specialised organisation such as the WHO;
–the new transparency requirements and minimum information to be available online, for example the leakage rates in the networks. This will allow a systematic analysis of implementation levels and achievements.
• Explanatory documents (for directives)
Considering the scope of the proposal and the fact that it is a recast of an existing directive (Directive 98/83/EC), which all Member States have transposed in full, it is neither justified nor proportionate to require explanatory documents on the transposition.
• Detailed explanation on how the WHO recommendations concerning parameters and parametric values for the proposal were taken into account
The existing parametric values set in Annex I to Directive 98/83/EC are generally based on the World Health Organization Guidelines for drinking water. These Guidelines are regularly updated and were last amended in early 2017 by the first addendum to the fourth edition 50 .
There were already some differences between the WHO Guidelines and Directive 98/83/EC in setting parameters and their levels when the Directive was adopted in 1998. For example:
–the WHO Guidelines do not include standards for the group of pesticides, whereas the Directive includes all pesticides and their degradation products;
–WHO guideline values are associated with a lifetime cancer risk of 10-5, whereas the EU made a policy choice for a more precautionary approach by choosing a risk value of 10-6 as acceptable.
In December 2015, the Commission and the WHO Regional Office for Europe concluded the ‘Drinking Water Parameter Cooperation Project’, the final report of which was published in 2018 51 (hereafter the WHO report). The objective of the project was to provide policy-relevant, science-based advice to inform the revision of Annex I to the Directive.
There is a high level of consensus between the WHO recommendations contained in the WHO report and the proposal. In particular, the recommendations confirm the need to regulate a list of selected parameters, of the hundreds of parameters for which WHO guideline values exist. The Commission has taken over the large majority of the recommended parameters and parametric values from this list, but on a few parameters has suggested a different approach. This section provides the reasoning as to why the Commission proposal does not follow the WHO recommendations in a few cases.
Contents
- 1. Parameters that the WHO recommended be removed from Annex I
- 2. Parametric values that the WHO recommended be raised
- 3. New parameters recommended for inclusion by the WHO
- 3.1 Chlorate and chlorite
- 3.2 Perfluorinated compounds
- 4. Endocrine disrupting compounds
- 5. Chromium and lead
- Former Articles 16 (Repeal), 17 (Transposition) and 18 (Entry into force)
- Annex I
- Part B
- Part C
- Annex II
- Annex III
- Annex IV (new)
- Former Annexes IV and V
- Annex V (new)
- Annex VI (new)
Because of their low occurrence in drinking water, usually due to pollution incidents, the WHO report recommended that five parameters be removed from the Directive:
–benzene,
–cyanide,
–1,2-dichloroethane,
–mercury, and
–polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
The WHO justified removing these parameters by explaining that they could still be monitored where necessary by Member States on the basis of the WHO guidance value. Stakeholders, and in particular Member States’ authorities, strongly advocated not to remove them for health reasons and also because of the necessity to have a binding value set at EU level. It was therefore decided to keep them in Annex I. However, the risk-based approach set out in the Directive allows water suppliers to remove a parameter from the list of substances to be monitored under certain conditions; water suppliers therefore have the right not to monitor those parameters if they are irrelevant in a supply zone. Last but not least, the treatment plants needed to meet these limit values have already been built.
The WHO report recommended updating the value for antimony (up from 5 to 20 μg/l), boron (up from 1 to 2.4 mg/l) and selenium (up from 10 to 40 μg/l) based on their latest available health-based guideline values as published in the first addendum to the fourth edition of the WHO Guidelines. However, since the current values have been in place for decades, it is assumed that there will be no increased costs as treatment techniques to meet these limit values are already in place. In any event, the risk-based approach allows water suppliers to remove a parameter from the list to be monitored under certain conditions. Therefore original, stricter, values have been maintained in Annex I to the Directive.
Concerning boron more specifically, some national derogations were granted in regions of high boron-baring rocks where boron occurs naturally in groundwater. Requests to revise the value for boron also came from the European Parliament (E-9146/2016, P-0848/2016, E-10 109/2014). Although there is no recent official opinion, the European Food Safety Authority has in the past recommended 52 that — to protect all age groups — natural mineral water should not contain more than 1.5 mg boron.
The WHO report recommended including chlorate (ClO3) and chlorite (ClO2) as new parameters and to set a value of 0.7 mg/l for both. Both are predominantly disinfection by-products using hypochlorite. The WHO recognised that this value may be too high, and remarked that, if it is feasible to meet lower values, then such lower values would be appropriate. One cause of the problem has been identified, namely that chlorate is generated in hypochlorite solutions that are not fresh and are stored for long periods, particularly at warm temperatures.
A specific European Food Safety Authority opinion of 2015 53 found that chlorate concentrations of 0.7 mg/kg in drinking water (the value proposed by the WHO), could lead to infants and toddlers being overexposed to chlorate. Further, the Agency found that chlorate can inhibit iodine uptake, although more human health data are needed on iodine uptake inhibition by chlorate. EFSA also referred to a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) that evaluated chlorate and derived a health-based value of 0.01 mg/kg of body weight as a toxicological reference value for chronic risk assessment, which would give a drinking water value of 0.24 mg/l.
Therefore, the Commission considers that it is justified to set the value for chlorate and chlorite at the stricter level of 0.25 mg/l, which is around 3 times lower than proposed by the WHO.
The WHO report recommended adopting parametric values for two individual perfluorinated substances: perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) should have a value of 0.4 µg/l and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) a value of 4 µg/l.
PFOS and PFOA were initially the most common perfluorinated compounds. They are found in groundwater primarily as a consequence of contamination of soil by fire-fighting foams, which break down to these and some other perfluorinated substances. However, they can also result from industrial point pollution, and stem from products with water- or grease-repellent material such as Teflon-coated saucepans, greaseproof paper, pizza grills, or waterproof and dirt-repellent outdoor sports equipment.
PFOS and PFOA are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances. PFOS was originally included in the list of restricted substances in Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation 54 , but is now regulated as a persistent organic pollutant under Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 55 . PFOA, its salts and PFOA-related substances were added to the list of restricted substances in Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation on 14 June 2017 56 as the Commission considered that manufacturing, using or selling them leads to an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.
Perfluorohexane-1-sulphonic acid and its salts (PFHxS) was added to the REACH candidate list of substances of very high concern on 7 July 2017 as a ‘very persistent and very bio-accumulative substance’ under Article 57(e) of the REACH Regulation.
However, there is a wider range of substances with varying chain lengths that can include perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (including PFOA), perfluoroalkane sulfonic acids (including PFOS), perfluoroalkane sulfinic acids, fluorotelomer alcohols and perfluoroalkane sulphonamides. PFOA and PFOS are the most common substances, but as they have been substituted by similar per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) often with shorter chains, it is likely that PFOA and PFOS are no longer representative of this group of anthropogenic persistent chemicals 57 .
There is currently no legislative approach that regulates the whole group of these substances, and there is no conclusive list of all the substances available. Sweden has done intensive research on PFASs 58 . The Swedish National Food Agency has recommended limits for drinking water based on the presence of 11 PFASs (PFBS, PFHxS, PFOS, 6:2 FTSA, PFBA, PFPeA, PFHxA, PFHpA, PFOA, PFNA and PFDA). If the sum of these 11 PFASs occurs at concentrations greater than 0.09 µg/l, the Agency recommends measures be taken as soon as possible to reduce the pollution. The United States has health advisory levels for PFOA/PFOS of 0.07 µg/l. The priority substances list set under Directive 2008/105/EC 59 includes PFOS with a value of 0.00065 µg/l. This shows that lower parametric values than those recommended by the WHO are achievable. As these substances do not belong in the environment, a precautionary approach following the one used for pesticides in Directive 98/83/EC is suggested. The Commission therefore proposes deviating from the WHO recommendation of 4 µg/l (PFOA) and 0.4 µg/l (PFOS) for the two individual substances and instead regulating the whole group.
The proposal is to regulate the group of PFASs, as defined by the OECD 60 , and to suggest values of 0.1 μg/l for individual PFAS and 0.5 μg/l for PFASs in total, as is done for pesticides. As these values are higher than those referred to in Sweden or the United States, it should be feasible to meet them.
The WHO did not propose guideline values for endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) but suggested that - since aquatic life is much more sensitive to the effects of oestrogenic EDCs than mammals, including humans - it would be possible to use precautionary benchmark values which are close to existing or possible future environmental quality standards, for the protection of aquatic life. The following three representative EDCs and benchmark values were proposed by the WHO:
–beta-estradiol: 0.001 µg/l;
–nonylphenol: 0.3 µg/l; and
–bisphenol A: 0.01 µg/l.
Even though the WHO indicated that currently there is no evidence of risks to health from drinking water, which is a minor source of exposure, and that such risks are unlikely, it was decided to include these parameters in the Directive on the basis of the precautionary principle.
The WHO does not recommend including the full range of EDCs in the parameter list under Annex I to the Directive, as it considers that routine monitoring for the full range of these compounds would currently be difficult, expensive and not effective at preventing contamination of drinking-water.
The three substances were chosen as benchmarks because they are known to be present in surface water sources impacted by treated sewage effluent and other discharges. Beta-estradiol is a natural oestrogen. The opinion of the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks 61 (SCHER) and related dossier identify the endocrine-disrupting properties as the key mechanism of action for the derivation of the environmental quality standard for this compound. The SCHER supported setting the environmental quality standard at 0.4 ng/l, which is close to the parametric value of 1 ng/l proposed for drinking water.
Bisphenol A is widely used in the manufacture of some plastics and epoxy resins. It is currently classified as reproductive toxicant category 1B under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 62 . Following proposals from the French authorities, first the use of bisphenol A in thermal paper has been restricted in the EU (December 2016), then bisphenol A was added to the REACH candidate list of substances of very high concern based on its harmonised classification as reprotox 1B (January 2017) and subsequently also based on its endocrine disrupting properties (June 2017).
Nonylphenol is a building block of alkylphenol ethoxylates used in surfactants, although these are now forbidden in the EU. Nonylphenol is also subject to restrictions (REACH Annex XVII) and was included in the REACH candidate list of substances of very high concern based on its endocrine disrupting properties (June 2013), and in the priority substances list set under Directive 2008/105/EC.
Therefore, it is proposed to follow the values suggested by the WHO for these three EDCs. As the Directive’s approach does not provide for ‘benchmark values’, and does not specify the purpose of parameters and values, it is proposed including them in the list of parameters under Annex I. Furthermore, these compounds are relatively insoluble in water and are effectively removed by conventional adsorption treatment methods (e.g. bank filtration, coagulation, ozonation, granular activated carbon). The compounds will therefore be considered as any other chemical parameter under the Directive, meaning, as mentioned above, that water suppliers have the possibility to remove these parameters from the list to be monitored under certain conditions, if a risk assessment concludes they are irrelevant.
The Commission considers that including these three endocrine disrupting compounds under the Directive is justified on the basis of the precautionary principle. It is supported by stakeholders. Including these compounds will also help protect human health as part of the extended parameter list modelled by option 1.2 in the impact assessment.
The WHO report recommends maintaining the current parametric value of 10 µg/l for lead and of 50 µg/l for chromium total.
The WHO remarks that lead is one of few substances known to cause direct health impacts through drinking water, and that concentrations should be therefore as low as reasonably practical. To that end, the Commission therefore proposes lowering the value to 5 µg/l 10 years after the entry into force of the Directive. During this transitional 10-year period, the current value of 10 µg/l will be maintained.
The WHO remarks that the value for chromium remains under review. Ongoing discussions with many toxicologists suggest introducing a lower value for chromium, and in particular for the more toxic Chromium VI. The Commission will therefore apply to chromium the same approach taken for lead. It proposes reducing the value by 50 % to 25 µg/l after a transition period of 10 years after the entry into force of the Directive.
The proposal also provides for the regular review of Annex I (where these parametric values are set) and for the possibility to amend Annex I in the light of scientific progress. Therefore, there is a possibility to set stricter values for both these parameters before the end of the 10-year transitional period, should future scientific developments warrant it.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
Article 1 — Objective
This Article remains unchanged.
Article 2 — Definitions
The existing definitions have been slightly clarified and new definitions have been added (‘water suppliers’, ‘priority premises’, and vulnerable and marginalised groups), in line with the new provisions in the Recast.
The WHO recommended the inclusion of a definition of priority premises, for the purposes of facilitating application of the new provisions related to domestic distribution risk assessment.
Article 3 — Exemptions
The provisions remain unchanged, the references to the Directive are simply updated.
Article 4 — General obligations
The Article remains largely unchanged, the changes relate to formal modifications or drafting clarifications.
Article 5 — Quality standards
The Article remains largely unchanged, the changes relate to formal modifications or drafting clarifications.
Article 6 — Point of Compliance
Paragraphs 2 and 3 have been deleted but are now mostly taken over under the new provisions on domestic distribution risk assessments (new Article 10).
Article 7 — Risk-based approach to water safety (new)
This new Article presents the overall risk-based approach, serves as an introduction to the new Articles 8, 9 and 10 and also introduces general obligations related to the risk assessments (regular updates and reviews and timelines for drawing up the risk assessments).
Article 8 — Hazard assessment of bodies of water used for the abstraction of water intended for human consumption (new)
This new Article introduces obligations related to carrying out hazard assessments, in particular:
–Identifying abstraction points,
–Identifying hazards and pollution sources,
–Monitoring parameters that are relevant to the hazards and pollution sources identified. Only relevant parameters or pollutants are to be monitored. They may include parameters that are to be complied with at the tap in accordance with this Directive, but also pollutants or substances already monitored in water bodies in accordance with the Water Framework Directive, or microplastics. Microplastics are of particular concern due to the negative effects on marine and freshwater environments, aquatic life, biodiversity, and possibly to human health since their small size facilitates uptake and bioaccumulation by organisms, or toxic effects from the complex mixture of chemicals these particles consist of.
On the basis of the hazard identification and monitoring, Member States can then take the following measures:
–Exempt water suppliers from, or require water suppliers to, carry out additional treatment and/or monitoring,
–Prevention measures to safeguard the abstraction area,
–Mitigating measures to address the pollution source, including research to understand impacts, for instance of microplastics, on aquatic ecosystems and human health, and find solutions to mitigate possible risks.
Article 9 — Supply risk assessment (new)
This Article introduces obligations related to carrying out a supply risk assessment by the water supplier. These provisions are not new, as those obligations had already been introduced in 2015 with the amended Annex II to the Directive. Part of Annex II to Directive 98/83/EC has therefore been moved to this Article 9. Annex II, part C, now only contains the technical specifications to adjust the monitoring frequency of the parameters subject to a supply risk assessment.
Article 10 — Domestic distribution risk assessment (new)
This new Article introduces obligations related to carrying out domestic distribution risk assessments, in particular:
–Assessing risks linked to domestic distribution system, including risks linked to products and materials in contact with drinking water,
–Monitoring the following parameters: lead and Legionella. The latter has been found by the WHO to cause the highest health burden of all waterborne pathogens in the Union. In addition, it is also recommended by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control to apply regular checks and appropriate control measures to man-made water systems as a means to prevent cases of Legionnaires’ disease at tourist accommodation sites, hospitals, long-term healthcare facilities or other settings where sizeable populations at higher risk may be exposed 63 .
On the basis of the risk assessment and monitoring, Member States can then take measures, such as training of plumbers, information and advice to house owners, appropriate treatment techniques in cooperation with water suppliers, etc. In addition, this Article partly addresses aspects covered in former Article 10 (products in contact with drinking water) and ensures consistency with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 under which standards for construction products in contact with drinking water are to be established.
Article 11 — Monitoring (former Article 7)
Monitoring programmes have to be established, which cover all different monitoring obligations under this Directive. It is left to Member States to decide whether monitoring programmes should be established by national authorities or delegated, for instance, to the water suppliers. However, it is likely that most of the monitoring is actually carried out by water suppliers, to ensure water quality at the tap. Since new monitoring obligations are introduced in relation to hazard assessments (Article 8) and domestic distribution risk assessment (Article 10), it is necessary to clarify this Article and its relation to Annex II.
Paragraphs 1, 5 and 6 remain unchanged.
Paragraph 2 is amended to refer to monitoring to be undertaken under new Articles 8 and 9 (hazard assessments and domestic distribution risk assessments) and to the ‘regular’ monitoring of parameters listed in Annex I, parts A and B, in accordance with Annex II. In the latter case, monitoring may be adjusted, by water suppliers, on the basis of a supply risk assessment.
Former Paragraph 4 (possibility to adopt guidelines for monitoring) is deleted, as considered unnecessary. The possibility to amend Annex II (which relates to monitoring specifications) is however maintained under Article 18(2) (via delegated acts).
Article 12 — Remedial actions and restrictions in use (former Article 8)
Paragraph 1 remains unchanged.
Paragraph 2 is amended to refer to the new list of parameters for the domestic distribution risk assessment, foreseen under Annex I, part C.
Paragraph 3 is amended to clarify that exceedance of values set in Annex I, parts A and B, shall automatically be considered as potential danger to human health. This clarification is considered necessary in light of several ongoing infringement procedures under Directive 98/83/EC.
A new paragraph 4 is added to clarify obligations related to consumer information in case of exceedance of parametric values and/or potential danger to human health. Most of the obligations already existed under Directive 98/83/EC, but it was considered necessary to clarify them and group them under one paragraph to facilitate their implementation, also in light of several ongoing infringement procedures under Directive 98/83/EC.
Paragraph 5 remains unchanged.
Former Paragraph 6 is deleted, as considered unnecessary.
Former Paragraph 7 is deleted since former Annex I, part C, on ‘indicator parameters’ has been deleted.
Former Paragraph 8 obligations are incorporated under new Paragraph 4.
Former Article 9 — Derogations
Former Article 9 is deleted. The complex process to grant 3 derogations of 3 years is no longer justified. It was originally introduced in the Directive to allow Member States to comply with parametric values newly set in 1998. The system is now simplified, but the logic is the same as in Directive 98/83/EC: where a Member State exceeds a parametric value, Article 11 on remedial actions should apply (prohibition or restriction of the water, information to consumers, health advice, etc.). There should not be a need to formally adopt, via a Decision, the parametric value that is in exceedance of the one set in the Directive.
Former Article 10 — Quality assurance of treatment equipment and materials (deleted)
Former Article 10 is deleted: it is considered that this Article is no longer necessary under Directive 98/83/EC and is partly replaced by new Article 10 on domestic distribution risk assessment. The necessary harmonisation will take place, instead, under internal market legislation with the issuance of standardisation mandates under the Construction Products Regulation. Until these standardisation mandates are executed and the harmonised standards are published in the Official Journal, the status quo will continue to apply.
Article 13 — Access to water intended for human consumption (new)
This is a new Article, prompted mainly by the calls of the European citizens’ initiative ‘Right2Water’ and the Commission’s reply to the initiative. The Articles foresees 2 main obligations:
–First, an obligation for Member States to improve access to and promote use of drinking water via a number of measures, some of which are included in the Article (assessing the share of people without access to drinking water, informing them about connection possibilities, encouraging the use of tap water in public buildings and restaurants, ensuring that equipment to freely access tap water is available in most cities, etc.),
–Second, an obligation for Member States to take all measures necessary to ensure access to drinking water for vulnerable and marginalised groups. When those groups do not have access to water intended for human consumption in the sense of this Directive, Member States should swiftly inform them of the quality of the water available to them, and give the necessary related health advice.
This should contribute to the commitment taken under UN Sustainable Development Goal 6 and the associated target to ‘achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all’. The concept of equitable access to water is usually three-dimensional, encompassing: geographic differences in services provided (for instance, due to lack of infrastructure), difficulties faced by vulnerable and marginalised groups (e.g. refugees, nomadic communities, homeless people and minority cultures such as Roma, Sinti, Travellers, Kalé, Gens du voyage, etc., whether sedentary or not) trying to access water services, and financial affordability. Concerning affordability, any water pricing policy in the Union must take into account the principles of recovery of costs and polluter pays. Member States are also allowed to have regard, when establishing differentiated water tariffs, to the variation in the economic and social conditions in the population. The principle of recovery of costs therefore does not prevent Member States from adopting social tariffs or having measures safeguarding populations at a socio-economic disadvantage, in addition to the measures provided for in new Article 13 of this Directive.
Article 14 — Information to the public (new)
This Article partly replaces former Article 13 of Directive 98/83/EC. Provisions related to access to information are more detailed, as it is expected that increased transparency will improve consumers’ confidence in their drinking water, including its quality, production and management. The obligations are two-fold:
–First, to ensure availability of a number of information, online, specified under Annex IV. The information accessed by the consumer should be relevant to his/her area of interest.
–Second, to provide, in addition, some specific information directly to the consumers (for instance on their invoices), such as volume consumed and details of the tariff(s) and cost-structure.
Article 15 — Information on monitoring of implementation (new)
This Article partly replaces former Article 13 of Directive 98/83/EC. Provisions related to reporting are simplified compared to former provisions and replaced by a new system, which does not involve actual reporting. This ensures that the system is made more effective by avoiding a long time lag between reference date of the data reported, and actual date of reporting.
The Article foresees that Member States should put in place a data set gathering only drinking water-relevant data under this Directive: incidents, exceedances of values set in the Annex, hazard and domestic distribution risk assessments, and measures taken to ensure access to water intended for human consumption.
The data sets should be set up in compliance with the INSPIRE Directive. To that end, the support of the European Environmental Agency is foreseen, whose role will also be to regularly access the data and provide the Commission with overviews of the Directive’s implementation at Union level, to be used also in the context of future evaluations of the Directive (Article 17).
Article 16 — Access to Justice (new)
This is a new Article, which is in line with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and implements the Aarhus Convention with regard to access to justice. It should be possible for citizens and NGOs to legally review the decisions taken by Member States under this Directive.
Article 17 — Evaluation (new)
This new Article sets the frame for future evaluations (in the sense of the Commission’s Better Regulation guidelines) of the Directive. The first evaluation is foreseen after 12 years of the Directive’s implementation, to receive at least data on 2 cycles of supply risk assessments.
Article 18 — Review of Annexes (former Article 11)
This Article replaces Article 11 of Directive 98/83/EC. Article 11 provided for the review of Annexes I, II and III of the Directive via the former Regulatory Procedure with Scrutiny. It is proposed to replace this procedure with delegated acts (for the amendment of all Annexes), also in line with the commitment made by the Institutions in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 to ‘to give high priority to the prompt alignment of all basic acts which still refer to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny’.
The regular review of Annex I is maintained to ensure that it remains in line with latest scientific developments.
Article 19 — Exercise of the delegation (new)
This is a new standard Article for the adoption of delegated acts.
Article 20 — Committee Procedure (former Article 12)
This is a new standard Article for the adoption of implementing acts.
Former Article 13 — Information and reporting (deleted)
Article deleted and mostly replaced by new Article 15.
Former Article 14 — Timescale for compliance (deleted)
This Article has been deleted since it granted some extra time (5 years) to implement Directive 98/83/EC in 1998, up to 2003. This Article has now become obsolete and should therefore be deleted.
Former Article 15 — Exceptional circumstances (deleted)
This Article from Directive 98/83/EC granted the possibility to Member States to request some extra time (of up to 6 years) to the Commission (in addition to the 5 years foreseen in former Article 14) to ensure compliance with Directive 98/83/EC. This Article has now become obsolete and should therefore be deleted.
These three articles have been deleted and replaced by the updated standard text for repeal, transposition and entry into force in Recast Directives (cf Articles 22, 23, 24 new).
Article 21 — Penalties (new)
A standard new Article on penalties has been introduced.
Article 22 — Transposition
This Article follows the standard template.
Article 23 — Repeal
This Article follows the standard template.
Article 24 — Entry into force
This Article follows the standard template. 20 days are foreseen for the entry into force of the Directive after publication in the Official Journal.
Article 25 — Addressees (former Article 19)
The Article remains unchanged.
Part A
Part A of Annex I concerns parametric values for microbiological parameters. Upon recommendation of the WHO, new parameters have been added to the list, namely Clostridium Perfringens spores and Coliform bacteria, Turbidity (moved from former Part C ‘Indicator Parameters’), and Somatic Coliphages.
Part B of Annex I concerns parametric values for chemical parameters. Several new parameters (with associated parametric values) have been added, upon WHO recommendation or on the basis of the precautionary principle, namely: Bisphenol A, Chlorate, Chlorite, Beta-Estradiol, Haloacetic acids, Microcystin, Nonylphenol, PFASs (individual and total), Uranium.
Part C of Annex I of Directive 98/83/EC used to concern Indicator Parameters. Indicator Parameters have been deleted from Annex I (except for a few moved to Part A, such as turbidity), and moved to Annex IV, on information to consumers. The rationale is that indicator parameters do not provide health-related information but rather information of interest to consumers (such as taste, colour, anions, cations, etc.).
The new Part C of Annex I concerns parameters to be assessed under the new domestic distribution risk assessment (foreseen in new Article 10), namely lead and Legionella.
Part A — General objectives and monitoring programmes for water intended for human consumption
Part A of Annex II concerns general obligations related to monitoring programmes, and remains largely unchanged, except for the addition of a new reference to operational monitoring, with the associated turbidity parameter. This has been added upon the recommendation of the WHO as operational monitoring provides quick information, on a daily basis, to make sure that the treatment is functioning correctly.
Part B — Frequencies
Part B of Annex II concerns monitoring frequency. Two categories of parameters are specified:
(2)core parameters (E. coli, Clostridium perfringens spores and somatic coliphages), which must always be monitored at the frequencies specified in the Table in Part B, and cannot be subject to a supply risk assessment; and
(3)all other parameters, which must be monitored at the frequencies specified in the Table in Part B, until a supply risk assessment is carried out, in accordance with Part C of the same annex.
The Table of Part B concerning frequencies has been simplified and Note 3 (under the Table) deleted as it became unnecessary.
Part C — Supply risk assessment
The first paragraphs of Part C have been moved to new Article 9 on ‘supply risk assessment’. The rest (specifications to deviate from monitoring frequency when a supply risk assessment is performed) of this Part C, introduced in Directive 98/83/EC with the 2015 amendment, remains largely unchanged and the few modifications relate to formal alignment of the drafting to the wording of the rest of the Directive.
Part D — Sampling methods and sampling points
This Part, introduced in Directive 98/83/EC with the 2015 amendment, remains largely unchanged.
Part A — Microbiological parameters for which methods of analysis are specified
The first two paragraphs of Part A have been deleted as they concerned the possibility to amend Annex III Part A via regulatory procedure with scrutiny, and the possibility to amend Annex III via delegated acts is already foreseen under Articles 18 and 19.
The list of methods for microbiological parameters has been updated to reflect the new microbiological parameters included in Annex I, part A.
Part B — Chemical parameters for which performance characteristics are specified
This Part had been updated with the 2015 amendment of Directive 98/83/EC. At the time, 2 tables had been introduced, including one with specifications to be used until end 2019. It is proposed to delete this second table with specifications that are only valid until end 2019, and to maintain only the first table.
The table with the list of specifications for chemical parameters has also been updated to reflect the new list of chemical parameters set out in Annex I, part B.
Annex IV is a new Annex which lists the information that must be available on a website, for purposes of consumer information. For reasons of proportionality, some additional specific information will have to be provided by very large water suppliers, including annual information on the overall performance of the water system in terms of efficiency, including leakage rates and energy efficiency. It is assumed that by contributing to better awareness of the issue, increased transparency could influence water suppliers and Member States’ authorities alike to address the issue of water losses and leakages.
Annex IV concerned the deadlines for transposition into national law of former Directive 80/778/EEC (also in view of the different Member States’ Accessions). Annex V was the former table of correspondence between Directive 80/778/EEC and Directive 98/83/EC. They are no longer of relevance and have been deleted.
Annex V (new) is a standard Annex which lists the repealed Directive and its successive amendments, as well as their dates of transposition and application.
Annex VI is the new table of correspondence between Directive 98/83/EC and the new recast Directive proposal.
🡻 1998/83 (adapted)