Expert Group under Directive 98/83/EC 22 September 2016 ......Expert Group under Directive 98/83/EC...
Transcript of Expert Group under Directive 98/83/EC 22 September 2016 ......Expert Group under Directive 98/83/EC...
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 ([email protected]):
- 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:
Tobias Biermann
European Commission
DG Environment
Unit C.2 - Marine Environment
and Water Industry
1049 Brussels/Belgium
Phone: +32 2 29 62573
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water
40