Drinking Water Inspectorate logo

Drinking Water 2001

A report by the Chief Inspector
Drinking Water Inspectorate

Michael Rouse, Chief Inspector, 1993-2002

Our Mission

To be recognised as the effective guardians of drinking water quality. We shall achieve this by:

Chief Inspector's Statement

Our mission is to be recognised by consumers as the effective guardians of drinking water quality. We strive to serve water consumers and I am pleased to give an account of our efforts during the year 2001 towards achieving our mission.

This is the Inspectorate's 12th annual report which covers drinking water quality in England and Wales. This report is designed for the general reader who has some scientific knowledge. The report is also available on our web site together with hyperlinks to source documents for those seeking more detailed information. There is a companion report covering Wales alone in both English and Welsh languages. There is also a leaflet which summarises the results for England and Wales as a whole, and leaflets on the results for each water company, with Welsh language versions for the Welsh water companies. We aim to provide information to meet the requirements of both water consumers and those with a professional interest. We value any feedback and suggestions for improving our reporting.

Meeting the Standards

There has been a further improvement in drinking water quality with the number of breaches of the standards reducing from 4,475 in 2000 to 4,054 in 2001, with the percentage level of compliance increasing from 99.83% in 2000 to 99.86% in 2001.

The improvement in compliance in 2001 is mainly due to significant reductions in the number of breaches of the total coliform and faecal coliform standards at treatment works and service reservoirs. There has also been a significant improvement in compliance for iron, THMs and lead in water supply zones. The decrease in the number of zones failing the iron standard reflects the continuation of the programmes of work given by the water companies to renovate their distribution systems. The action taken by the companies, together with enforcement action by the Inspectorate, has resulted in improved treatment to reduce the level of THM formation. The improvement in compliance with the lead standard can be attributed to the installation of additional treatment at treatment works to reduce the take up of lead from pipework.

Many of the breaches in 2001 were for nitrite, with the number of samples containing nitrite above the standard remaining similar to the previous year. The presence of nitrite above the standard is usually associated with the use of chloramines as a disinfectant. The new Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 20001, of which I will say more later, introduce a new standard for nitrite which applies at the treatment works rather than to the water supplied at consumers' taps. The change in standard facilitates the use of chloramines as a form of disinfection with the associated benefits compared with chlorine. Overall protection is provided by a formula which covers nitrate and nitrite combined and is measured at the tap.

Improvement Programmes

The improvement programmes can be considered in three parts: firstly the programmes of work required to meet the regulations in force today; secondly, the programmes of enhanced water treatment required to meet the Cryptosporidium treatment standard; and thirdly, the programmes of work required to meet the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000 (in England), 2001 (in Wales).

The most significant item in the first category is the distribution system undertakings. These are legally binding commitments, entered into by the water companies, to deal with corroded cast iron mains and other associated historic problems in distribution networks. We are now in the third five-year phase of this work. This work is critical to removing the most common source of discolouration, that of iron corrosion and other deposits in water mains. The current problems arose in part from inadequacies in treatment during the 1970s and 1980s, but mainly from insufficient attention to maintenance for long periods prior to 1990. It is important that, once the remedial work has been completed, sufficient maintenance is carried out to ensure that the renovated assets remain in good condition and to minimise the risk of supplying discoloured water in the future. To this end the Inspectorate is working with water companies in the development of operation and maintenance strategies.

Also, the Inspectorate and OFWAT together are carrying out work aimed at achieving the appropriate level of maintenance to prevent deterioration of water quality. This requires the water companies to have good information on the condition of their assets, and to monitor the performance of those assets, so that an appropriate level of repair activity can be carried out. Good progress has been made in the development of improved serviceability indicators, which will be used in the next Periodic Review. Although water companies need some stability in approach leading up to the Review, it is important that the research continues towards a better understanding of how deterioration of assets affects asset performance so that increasingly better predictive measures can be put in place after 2005.

The work on improving water treatment to provide effective barriers against Cryptosporidium is important in the protection of public health. When the work is completed, we will have, throughout England and Wales, treatment processes with highly enhanced particle removal capability. This, coupled with the most advanced monitoring in place anywhere in the world, will provide comprehensive protection to all consumers supplied through the public supply networks. I comment below on the results to-date.

The 2000/2001 Regulations parameter standards are not required to be met until the end of December 2003. Instead of waiting until the new or revised standards come into force, additional treatment processes are being installed in areas in which failures are predicted, so that the standards will be met by the end of 2003. The most significant programmes are those to achieve compliance with the standards for lead. The new Regulations require a tightening of the standard from 50 µg/l to 25 µg/l by the end of the year 2003, and a further tightening to 10 µg/l by the year 2013. The approach being adopted is to achieve as much as possible using plumbosolvency control, by a combination of pH adjustment, to reduce the acidity of some waters, and phosphate dosing, which coats the surface of the lead pipes and reduces the take up of lead. The approach being adopted, which is in line with statutory requirements, has two important benefits for consumers. Firstly, making the water less plumbosolvent will result in less lead pick up from both parts of the service pipe, the part that is the water company's responsibility as well as the part for which the consumer is responsible. Secondly, less lead pipe replacement will be required, thereby reducing disruption to consumers' properties and an associated avoidance of direct costs to consumers. To date the results of additional treatment are very encouraging, with higher levels of compliance likely to be achieved than previously anticipated. The extent of success will not be known until the optimisation programmes have been completed.

There had been some concern that the Foot and Mouth Disease Outbreak might delay some programmes of work, due to the restriction of access to some areas. In practice, the impact has been quite small, with water companies working hard to maintain programmes. In the case of the distribution system undertakings, the sequence of works was re-scheduled from rural to urban areas wherever possible. The water companies are due a lot of credit for the way in which they managed their programmes during the outbreak. They should also be commended for maintaining their regulatory sampling programmes, as far as was practicable, during that difficult period.

The Next Periodic Review

Having reviewed progress on the current improvement programmes, it is appropriate to comment on the next financial period, 2006 - 2010. There are some important stages leading up to OFWAT's price determinations. The first is what do consumers' want, and how do they balance their wants against how much they are prepared to pay. The Inspectorate supports fully the decision by all the parties involved to co-operate to produce an integrated market research programme. Last time round there was valid criticism of the fragmented approach. Achieving truly objective responses covering conflicting factors is very difficult, but it is important that the best advice available is used in preparing the questions. The Inspectorate will play its part in assisting this process.

On drinking water quality, the programmes necessary to meet the new Regulations are a regulatory essential and have to be included. I have mentioned above the work already taking place to meet the new lead standards. Once optimisation of plumbosolvency has been achieved, there will be the need for lead pipe replacement programmes in those areas in which treatment steps alone have not been sufficient. In many areas it will not be possible to achieve full optimisation ahead of the time OFWAT makes the price determinations, but it will be possible to make sound estimates of lead pipe replacement to allow financial provisions to be included.

Another potentially important area for future development is the aesthetic quality of drinking water. Although, as can be seen by the results given in this report, there are now very few exceedances of regulatory standards with compliance approaching 100%, consumers judge their drinking water quality by how it looks, tastes and smells. For example, chlorine taste or odour is generally disliked. Therefore it becomes necessary to move from just achieving effective disinfection, to doing it in such a way that chlorine residuals in the distribution system are controlled to minimise consumers' concerns about aesthetic quality. The current statutory method of measuring for acceptable taste and odour has been shown, with experience, to be inadequate under some circumstances. Currently, there are no effective 'instruments' to replace the use of people's own senses, but as sensitivity to specific substances varies considerably between individuals there is a strong case for more research to develop objective and repeatable methods. The market research is being designed to test whether aesthetic quality is a priority for consumers, and whether they are prepared to pay more for improved quality at the tap. My personal view is that priority should be given to dealing with the chlorine issue. It would not cost a lot of money, but much could be achieved by reviewing disinfection practice without compromising the microbiological safety of water supplies.

Cryptosporidium

At the end of the year 2001 there had been 21 months of monitoring for Cryptosporidium, under the requirements of Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1999. Most importantly, there were no reported increases in the illness cryptosporidiosis in the communities supplied by those sites being monitored under the Regulations. The focus, stimulated by the Regulations, on the management of the operation of treatment plants, is demonstrating that well-operated particle removal processes provide an effective barrier, thereby giving public health protection. The results from individual sites over all seasons show that some sites require particular vigilance whereas others, originally thought to be at significant risk, may not justify the cost of daily sampling and analysis. There is therefore a case for reviewing the risk assessment on some sites. However, public health protection is paramount, and we will not allow relaxation of the monitoring requirements unless we are confident that consumers are not being put at risk. A summary of the results is given in Chapter G, Part 3, and the results for each water company are given in the individual company sections.

Progress in meeting the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000/2001

The results of the monitoring carried out during 2001, to provide the first data on the quality of drinking water measured against the new and changed parameters in the 'new' regulations, are given in Chapter J of Part 3 of the report. Although this data is not compliance data, as those standards do not come into effect until the beginning of 2004, it is important in providing information on whether the improvement programmes, now in place, cover fully the actions needed to meet the new standards by that time. The details of this will be checked with the water companies and the required additional actions taken.

I have already mentioned the benefits of the lead plumbosolvency programmes with the prospect that far less lead pipe replacement will be required than previously envisaged. This is confirmed by these early results. There were only 390 (just 2%) tests exceeding the interim standard for lead of 25 µg/l compared with an estimated level, based on special monitoring, in 1998 of around 5%. There is the expectation of significant further improvement in next years' figures.

The results for the other parameters are in line with expectations, with there being only twenty isolated exceedances of the stringent standard for nitrite measured at the treatment works. I have already mentioned the benefits of this change in the approach to controlling nitrite allowing the beneficial use of chloramines for disinfection chemicals which are more acceptable to consumers than chlorine - and there is also a lower propensity to generate THMs.

Incidents

Last year I was pleased to report a significant reduction in the number of incidents compared with the year before. Although the number of notifications has increased during 2001, the number regarded as incidents has remained very similar to 2000. It is particularly pleasing that it is now rare for there to be an incident in which a water company has significantly failed in its operations, such that the need to pursue a prosecution has become an uncommon requirement. This is a reflection of the extent to which water companies have developed the quality of their operations, with resulting enhanced service to consumers, and a high level of public health protection.

During the year the long running legal challenge by Yorkshire Water reached a satisfactory conclusion. The judgement of His Honour Judge Norman Jones QC, the Recorder for Leeds, not only confirmed the Inspectorate's interpretation of the law, but also provided some important guidance on the meaning of 'unfit for human consumption'. The Judge ruled that water is unfit if it would be likely to, or did, cause injury when drunk, or if its appearance and/or smell would cause a reasonable person of firm character to refuse to drink it or use it in the preparation of food. A significant amount of the Inspectorate's time had to be devoted to the challenge, effort which was not then available for other work. I am pleased now that all our efforts can be directed towards providing consumers with a consistently high quality of water which meets the requirements of the Regulations.

Handling Consumer Complaints

Most consumer complaints about drinking water quality are handled to the satisfaction of the consumer by water companies. The Inspectorate handles only those complaints on which consumers are dissatisfied by the water company response. There has been an increasing number referred to the Inspectorate in recent years. The increasing trend can be seen in Chapter D in Part 3 of the report. It is not known whether the increase is as a result of the Inspectorate being better known or whether there has been in a deterioration in the companies' customer service. The handling of complaints about water quality by the companies is being investigated in conjunction with WaterVoice, the newly named customer service committee.

Water Supply Security

All water companies are legally required to have plans in place to cater for a full range of emergencies. Under the terms of the current Security and Emergency Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction of 1998, water and sewerage companies have to prepare, keep under review, and revise contingency plans to ensure the provision of an essential water supply or, as the case may be, sewerage services, at all times. I welcome and endorse the mutual aid arrangements that the water companies have developed to assist each other in emergencies, for example with the loan of equipment. I also endorse the arrangements that are in place for the co-operative use of water companies' laboratory facilities, which can be augmented as required by the use of other laboratories.

Water Company Restructuring and Competition

In my report last year I referred to the restructuring of Dwr Cymru Cynfyngedig and the importance of the licensed undertaker retaining total responsibility for drinking water quality, and not abdicating that responsibility to the operational contractors. There are indications that some other companies are considering moving to a structure which would include the contracting out of operations. Changes to the licence conditions, similar to those applied to Dwr Cymru, will be needed to ensure effective regulation of drinking water quality. In practice these need to cover the requirements on provision of information, responding to enforcement action taken by the Inspectorate within the required timetables, and being wholly responsible for the performance and any failures of contractors. Another very important requirement is that compliance sampling and analysis is carried out independently of the operating contractors. The Inspectorate will continue to work closely with OFWAT so that these licence requirements can be put in place.

The Competition Act came into force in March 2000 and, in anticipation of this, the Inspectorate published guidance on the drinking water quality aspects of common carriage. At that time I felt uncertain as to the likely level of enquiries from prospective entrants. Common carriage could be managed safely providing the guidance was followed. However, commercial success would require there being suitable sources (i.e. sources of good quality water close to a trunk main) and new entrants having, or acquiring, the expertise to develop and manage them. To date, there has been only a low level of interest, perhaps because of the legal arguments associated with the absolute responsibilities of the water undertaker under the Water Industry Act 1991. Under current law the undertaker would be responsible for any failures of an unlicensed new entrant, including the criminal offence of supplying water unfit for human consumption. It is also likely that the undertaker would be responsible for some aspects of failures of licensed entrants. Clearly this is unsatisfactory and the Inspectorate believes that all suppliers should be licensed and equal under law. One important responsibility is that associated with the Cryptosporidium Regulations, which in my view makes it essential for all new entrants to be licensed. Until there are changes to the law, the only opportunity for licensing of entrants is that of an inset appointment. The use of this mechanism is a matter for the water undertaker and the new entrant, overseen by OFWAT, and not a matter for the Inspectorate.

The Inspectorate's Own Performance

We take our own performance very seriously and aim to meet the performance targets we have set ourselves in our Code for Enforcement. The targets are demanding, especially some, such as those related to the handling of incidents, which are influenced by the number of incidents, over which we have no control. Although it is important that we strive to meet these requirements, we need to devote our energies to whatever priorities arise in the protection of public health. The full results against our targets are given in Chapter A in Part 3 of the report, but I give below a few highlights.

I am pleased to report that all letters notifying companies that enforcement action was being considered as a result of inspections, compliance assessment and following water quality incidents, were sent on target. There has also been continuing good performance in carrying out preliminary assessments of compliance data and in preparing draft and final inspection reports.

As I mentioned above, there was a significant increase in the number of drinking water quality complaints being referred to the Inspectorate. We handled 346 complaints in 2001, compared with 281 in 2000. However, despite dedicating resources to investigating complaints, only 200 (57.8%) of the 346 complaints received were assessed within our Code target times. The relatively large number still ongoing mainly involve complex investigations or have been delayed for reasons beyond our control.

The performance with respect to the assessment of water quality incidents has generally been good. By 31 March 2002, 72.3% of the 119 incidents assessed in 2001 were completed within the Code's target times.

Our Code for Enforcement includes provision for individuals to complain about the way in which we have performed in handling their drinking water quality complaint, or any other matter. In 2001 one such complaint against the Inspectorate was received. This was investigated according to our internal procedures, but the seeking of legal advice resulted in unacceptable delays in responding to some of the correspondence. As a result our procedures have been revised accordingly.

In addition to the above measures, we also seek feedback from the people we regulate, the water companies. The water companies don't have any choice about their regulators and we have a statutory duty to enforce the regulations, so there can be no question about the what, apart from interpretation of regulations, but there are questions about how we operate. Our Code for Enforcement includes some elements of how, but it is important to obtain feedback from water companies on some of the specifics, including clarity of information and communication. Water companies cannot be expected to provide critical feedback directly to their regulator, although some do, so we use an independent consultant, Bob Price, who has a good understanding of the Regulations, the Inspectorate and the water companies. Bob has carried out a survey of water companies to obtain their views on our performance during the period 2000 - 2001. His report is being studied at the time of drafting this report. I will place a copy of the report, which will incorporate our responses, and the actions we are taking to improve our performance, on our web site.

Some Reflections

In my previous reports I have included a forward look. As this is my last report as Chief Inspector I would like to include some thoughts on how far we have travelled and on what the future might hold.

I would like to begin by paying a tribute to the water companies. Yes, it is possible for a regulator to force improvements through wielding the regulatory stick. On a few isolated occasions this has been necessary, but generally progress has been achieved through co-operation. The enforcement process, in which water companies voluntarily offer legally binding undertakings, has been very efficient and very effective, with improvement programmes usually being put in place very quickly. Apart from the speed at which improvements have been made, the process has the advantage of the water companies themselves proposing solutions which are compatible with their own experience and operations. Generally the water companies have been highly responsive in the operation of the undertaking system, with consumers benefiting from timely completion of improvements. The alternative using of enforcement orders would have required the Inspectorate to specify the solutions, without the benefit of local knowledge, as well as requiring additional technical resources. I find it amazing, even now, that a complaint about our enforcement process was made to the European Commission, with a resultant referral to the European Court. It was pleasing that the Court recognised the effectiveness of our approach in practice. It is even more pleasing that enforcement principles, similar to those which we have had in place since 1990, were included in the 1998 Directive.

It is important that water companies continue to recognise that water supply is a 'public health' business. It is equally important that the water undertakers are regarded by others as public health providers and not foremost as commercial entities. They must be seen to have that responsibility and be treated as such. They must not be regarded as outsiders, but as equal public health partners with local authorities and health authorities. Water is probably the single most important component of a healthy nation. Because we have excellent safe water we tend to take it for granted, but just look around some parts of the world to see the impact of waterborne disease. We need to remain vigilant and that means water companies seeing their business as 'public health'.

The value of hydration to general health has become more generally recognised, with many people not drinking sufficient quantities of water. Research has shown that lack of sufficient hydration affects both physical and mental performance, especially in children and elderly people. Some schools are beginning to introduce better access to drinking water to improve the alertness and learning capability of their children. It is thought that children will be more inclined to drink tap water if it is provided in attractive sports cap bottles rather than the more traditional water fountain. The Inspectorate is working with the water companies, through a national competition, to improve the knowledge of school children on water matters, particularly related to drinking water quality, on how it is supplied and regulated. A trial held in early 2002, in conjunction with Thames Water and Three Valleys Water in St Albans and Slough, has been successful, and has provided the experience necessary to proceed with a national competition. By giving the schools greater exposure to knowledge on drinking water, including comparisons with less fortunate parts of the world, it is anticipated that the children will carry greater awareness of its importance through into adulthood.

The introduction of drinking water quality regulation, which was associated with the introduction of national regulations and a necessary element of privatisation, has delivered real benefits. Drinking water quality has been given high priority, with around £10 billion having been spent on enhanced treatment and on the refurbishment of the distribution systems. These improvement programmes have now largely dealt with the consequences of pre-1990 system neglect, but we must avoid slipping back, and the serviceability indicators need to be able to predict deterioration of performance before drinking water quality is affected. Good progress has been made in the understanding of serviceability of assets, but there is a need for ongoing research.

Change has now become the norm with recognisable pressures for further improvements in performance and lower costs. Competition in water supply had not been considered in our country for over a 100 years, but came onto the agenda with the Competition Act 1998. Competition policy is a matter for Government but one of the Inspectorate's roles is to advise on what steps are necessary to protect public health. Safeguards are essential not only to protect public health, but to allow competition, because if there were to be a major incident, associated with say common carriage, the prospects for future competition would become non-existent. I believe that this means that all suppliers should be licensed and subject to the same level of regulation. It is not sensible to pursue competition in a non-structured way, because if, in order to achieve lower prices, incomers have to cut corners, then the benefits are likely to be low and not worth the risks. As I write I feel confident that the requirements to protect public health are being incorporated.

One of my objectives has been to provide good information on drinking water quality matters for all levels of interest. I have adopted an open policy on reporting other than with commercially sensitive information, or with information associated with legal actions. I believe this not only to be right, but also very important for public confidence in the Inspectorate. Through this report, leaflets and our web site, we continually aim to improve the scope and quality of the information supplied. Further development of the web site is being planned, and this will incorporate a section for children. Ultimately, in connection with reporting against the regulations which come into force at the end of 2003, the aim is to include provision on the web site for consumers to access information on the compliance results for their supply zone.

In this country, as this report shows, we have very high quality tap water, yet many consumers are dissatisfied with it due to its appearance or taste. Consequently they resort to using in-house filters, without understanding the changes these make to the quality of the water, or they buy bottled water. Yet, at blind tasting events, where tap and bottled waters are at the same refrigerated temperature, expert tasters have been unable to tell the difference, often preferring tap water. The most common complaint is about chlorine. The chlorine residual maintains important ongoing disinfection through the distribution systems, but the level throughout the systems needs to be controlled to avoid unpleasant taste. There are also problems arising from 'hard' waters. Some consumers in hard water areas complain about scum on tea, which seems to have become a particular problem since the advent of plastic kettles, perhaps because the deposits are powdery and do not remain on the plastic surface.

These are not regulatory matters, because the water meets the required standards at the tap, but they concern me because they result in consumers incurring additional costs. In areas where there are specific consumer complaints about chlorine, the Inspectorate works with the water companies to minimise the dosing levels subject to achieving effective disinfection. However, much could be done by developments 'beyond the tap'. I have mentioned the value of refrigeration as cooled water always tastes better, and during a few hours of storage most remaining chlorine dissipates. Unfortunately in this country few refrigerators incorporate a designed-in water jug. Equally, there is a case for looking at the materials used in the design of kettles. I see these matters as part of water supply, as part of giving water customers product satisfaction. I would like to see water companies being pro-active in working with appliance manufacturers to address 'beyond the tap' quality matters, and to 'market' tap water in line with its high quality. One part of this could be through making attractive water bottles available so that consumers could have tap water with them when out of the house as an alternative to buying bottled water. As mentioned earlier, it would be particularly valuable to provide children with sports cap bottles to encourage the consumption of water at low cost.

It has been a privilege to lead the Inspectorate for nine years, a privilege to lead a dedicated and hard working team, with all members wholly committed to fulfilling our role as 'guardians of drinking water quality'. They have made my working life both stimulating and enjoyable, and I thank them all for their hard work and support to me throughout the period.

1 The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2001 in Wales.

[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]
| A - Z Index | Business and Technical | Consumer Information | Contacting us |
| DWI Home Page | News | Product Approval | Search our site | Wales |

Drinking Water Inspectorate,
Floor 2/A1, Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6DE
Telephone : 020 7944 5956 - Facsimile : 020 7944 5969
E-mail: dwi.enquiries@defra.gsi.gov.uk

Published 10 July 2002
Return to Publications and Reports Index
Return to Drinking Water Inspectorate Home Page
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA)Home Page
The National Assembly for Wales / Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru Home Page
Web site terms
© Crown copyright 2002