MSC Dissertation 08 (Christopher Chua) - The Potential of The Uk Water Quality Regulatory Model For Asean Cities (LRes)

The Potential for Adapting the

UK Water Quality Regulatory
Model for ASEAN Cities
- Further development of a unique Singapore
model and a study of technical example of
metaldehyde-containing pesticides in UK as an
illustration of regulatory issues in the UK
By
Christopher CHUA Wee Hong
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science in Water
Regulations & Management

Centre for environmental Health Engineering (CEHE)

Faculty of Engineering & Physical Sciences
University of Surrey

September 2008
© Christopher CHUA 2008

The Potential for Adapting the UK Water Quality Regulatory Model for ASEAN Cities
Declaration of Originality
“I hereby declare that the dissertation entitled ‘The Potential for

Adapting the UK Water Quality Regulatory Model for ASEAN Cities’
for the partial fulfilment of the degree of MSc in Water Regulations &
Management, has been composed by myself and has not been presented or
accepted in any previous application for a degree. The work, of which this is a
record, has been carried out by myself unless otherwise stated and where the
work is mine, it reflects personal views and values. All quotations have been
distinguished by quotation marks and all sources of information have been
acknowledged by means of references including those of the Internet.”
…………………………………….
Christopher Chua Wee Hong
Date: ……………………………...
Christopher Chua MSc in Water Regulation & Management

-ii- Dissertation 2008
Abstract
This dissertation considers the possibility of adapting the UK water

quality regulatory models for use in assisting ASEAN countries to develop
high levels of drinking water quality in their cities and surrounding rural
communities. The UK model could also potentially be modified by Singapore
in an innovative manner to further develop a unique water quality regulatory
model. Technology is available for ASEAN cities to provide safe drinking
water, but there is a concurrent need to develop the existing inadequate
regulatory framework to ensure a sustainable water supply.

-iii- Dissertation 2008
Acknowledgement
This dissertation is in fulfilment of the 1st MSc in Water Regulations &

Management and would not have been possible had it not been for:
God almighty for His blessings and guidance.
Classmates, staff, lecturers and visiting professors of the Centre of

Environmental Health Engineering (CEHE) at the University of Surrey (UniS),
especially Prof Barry Lloyd and my supervisor, Mr Brian Clarke, who has
provided lots of support and made water policies & issues discussions so
interesting and so enlightening. Special thanks to Ms Collette Laurens, who
provided the best administrative support and advice throughout the course.
The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) for their support and for the
many inspectors who has provided support and lectured during the modules &
industrial attachment and for sharing their experiences, in particularly Prof.
Jenni Colbourne, Dr Jim Foster, Ms Sharon Evans, Dr Steve Lambert and Mr
Andy Taylor. Special thanks to Dr Annabelle May and Ms Allen Jane for their
help and advice.
Ms Jill Dryer from Severn Trent Water Limited for providing valued
advice and comments.
Dr Lee Tung Jean & Mr Ridzuan Ismail from the Water Services
Division of the Ministry of Environment & Water Resources (MEWR),
Singapore, for providing advice and experience sharing on the regulatory
situation in Singapore.
Colleagues from PUB, especially Mr Harry Seah, Mr Chong Hou Chun,

Mr Haja Nazarudeen, Mr Woo Chee Hoe, for their help and patience in
answering my queries. Special thanks to my Director, Mr Ng Han Tong, for
his help and his support.
Georgia, my supportive wife and my 2 girls, Natalie and Rebecca, for

being patient with me in not being able to bring them on more European
sightseeing tours and not spending more time playing during this period.

-iv- Dissertation 2008
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADB Asian Development Bank

ASEAN Association of South East Asian Nation
AWGWRM ASEAN Working Group on Water Resources Management
AWGESC ASEAN Working Group on Environmentally Sustainable Cities
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CIA Central Intelligence Agency, US
CCTV Close Circuit Television
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
DALY Disability-adjusted life year
DBOO Design, Build Own & Operate
DBPs Disinfection by-products
DEFRA Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK
DoH Department of Health
DWD Drinking Water Directive
DWU Drinking Water Unit, NEA, Singapore
DWI Drinking Water Inspectorate of England & Wales
DT50 Half-life of 50% of chemical after application to degrade
EA Environment Agency, UK
EEC European Economic Community
EPHA Environmental Public Health Act 1987, Singapore
EOI Expression of Intent
EU European Union
FAO Food & Agricultural Organisation, United Nations
FSA Food Safety Authority
GAC Granulated Activated Carbon
GCMS Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry
HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points
HPA Health Protection Agency, UK
IuWRM Integrated urban Water Resources Management
Koc Adsorption coefficient
Kow Octonol-water partition coefficient
LOAEL Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
MDG Millennium Development Goals
MGD Million Gallons per day

-v- Dissertation 2008
MEWR Ministry of Environment & Water Resources, Singapore

NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level
NEA National Environment Agency, Singapore
NEWater Singapore’s third national tap
Ofwat Water Services Regulation Authority
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PCV Parameter Concentration Value
PSD Pesticide Safety Directorate
PUB PUB, Singapore’s National Water Agency
QMRA Qualitative Microbial Risk Assessment
RESCP Regional Environmental Sustainable Cities Programme
RO Reverse Osmosis membrane filtration
SIWW Singapore International Water Week
TAC Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia
TDI Total daily Intake
TEU Treaty of European Union 1992
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TQM Total Quality Management
UK United Kingdom
UKAS United Kingdom Accredited Service
UKWIR United Kingdom Water Industry Research
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
WHO World Health Organisation
WHOPES WHO Pesticide Evaluation Programme
WHOROE WHO Regional Office for Europe
WSD Water Studies Division, MEWR, Singapore
WSP Water Safety Plans
YLD Years of healthy life lost in states of less than full health
YLL Years of life lost by premature mortality

-vi- Dissertation 2008
Contents
Page
Abstract..................................................................................................................iii
Acknowledgement................................................................................................. iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................ v
Contents ................................................................................................................ vii
1. Introduction ................................................................................................- 1 -
2. Aims & Objectives ...................................................................................... - 2 -
3. Water Quality & Treatment ....................................................................... - 4 -
3.1. Water quality ........................................................................................ - 7 -
3.1.1. Microbiological water quality ................................................................ - 8 -
3.1.2. Chemical water quality ......................................................................... - 11 -
3.1.3. Acceptability water quality ...................................................................- 13 -
3.1.4. Radiological water quality ....................................................................- 14 -
3.2. Water treatment .................................................................................. - 15 -
4. Water Regulations ................................................................................... - 19 -
4.1. World Health Organisation................................................................- 19 -
4.1.1. Guidelines for safe drinking water ...................................................... - 20 -
4.1.2. Health- based targets ............................................................................- 21 -
4.1.3. Water Safety Plans ............................................................................... - 22 -
4.1.4. Surveillance .......................................................................................... - 27 -
4.1.5. Other Recommendations ..................................................................... - 29 -
4.2. European Union..................................................................................- 31 -
4.2.1. Drinking Water Directives ................................................................... - 33 -
4.3. United Kingdom................................................................................. - 35 -
4.3.1. England & Wales .................................................................................. - 35 -
4.3.2. The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000 ...................... - 38 -
4.3.3. The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) ........................................... - 39 -
5. Metaldehyde-containing pesticide in the UK ........................................ - 50 -
5.1. Metaldehyde ....................................................................................... - 50 -
5.2. Role of Regulation ............................................................................. - 53 -
5.3. Case Study .......................................................................................... - 54 -

-vii- Dissertation 2008
Page
6. Water Situation in Southeast Asia .......................................................... - 57 -
6.1. Association of Southeast Asian Nations........................................... - 57 -
6.2. Singapore ............................................................................................ - 62 -
6.2.1. Water Quality Regulations .................................................................. - 64 -
6.2.2. Integrated Water Resources Management ......................................... - 68 -
7. Discussion................................................................................................. - 74 -
7.1. International guidelines .................................................................... - 75 -
7.2. EU & ASEAN perspectives ................................................................ - 77 -
7.3. UK and Singapore water quality regulatory model ......................... - 78 -
7.4. Proposed ASEAN Water Quality Regulatory Model ....................... - 82 -
7.5. Metaldehyde-containing pesticides, a practical issue..................... - 86 -
8. Conclusion ................................................................................................ - 87 -
Appendix A - The UN Millennium Development Goals .............................. - 90 -
Appendix B – International Drinking Water Guidelines ............................ - 92 -
Appendix C – EU Drinking Water Regulations .......................................... - 104 -
Appendix D – Drinking Water Regulations in UK ...................................... - 114 -
Appendix E – The Environmental Public Health (Quality of Piped Drinking
Water) Regulations 2008 ............................................................................. - 122 -
References ..................................................................................................... - 125 -

-viii- Dissertation 2008
List of Figures
Page
FIGURE 1 OVERVIEW OF DISSERTATION .................................................................................... - 3 -
FIGURE 2. DISEASES CONTRIBUTING TO THE WATER-, SANITATION- & HYGIENE-RELATED DISEASE
BURDEN .................................................................................................................... - 5 -
FIGURE 3 ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL AT CONCENTRATION .................................- 12 -

FIGURE 4 MEMBRANE PROCESS CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................. - 18 -
FIGURE 5 DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATER SAFETY PLANS ........................................................ - 25 -
FIGURE 6 PARTIES ACTIVE IN EU WATER POLICY PROCESS ...................................................... - 32 -
FIGURE 7 MAP OF UK ............................................................................................................. - 35 -
FIGURE 8 THE CURRENT UK WATER INDUSTRY ...................................................................... - 36 -
FIGURE 9 THE DRINKING WATER INDUSTRY IN ENGLAND & WALES ........................................ - 37 -
FIGURE 10 ORGANISATION OF THE DWI................................................................................... - 41 -
FIGURE 11 ASSESSMENT OF INCIDENTS FLOW DIAGRAM .......................................................... - 46 -
FIGURE 12 INFORMATION PROFILE OF METALDEHYDE. ............................................................ - 50 -
FIGURE 13 MAP OF ASEAN...................................................................................................... - 57 -
FIGURE 14 ASEAN ORGANISATION STRUCTURE ....................................................................... - 58 -
FIGURE 15 ASEAN ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE .............................................. - 59 -
FIGURE 16 MAP OF SINGAPORE ................................................................................................ - 62 -
FIGURE 17 CURRENT SINGAPORE WATER QUALITY REGULATORY MODEL .................................. - 65 -
FIGURE 18 CLOSING THE WATER LOOP IN SINGAPORE ............................................................. - 68 -
FIGURE 19 SINGAPORE'S CATCHMENT AREAS ............................................................................ - 70 -
FIGURE 20 PROPOSED BASIC WATER INDUSTRY MODEL ............................................................. - 83 -
List of Tables
Page
TABLE 1 PARAMETERS USED IN ASSESSING WATER QUALITY IN DIFFERENT SITUATION .......... - 10 -
TABLE 2 CATEGORISATION OF SOURCE OF CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS ..................................... - 11 -
TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF MAIN WATER TREATMENT PROCESSES ................................................ - 16 -
TABLE 4 EXAMPLES OF DEFINITION FOR LIKELIHOOD AND CONSEQUENCES OF A HAZARDOUS
EVENT ..................................................................................................................... - 24 -
TABLE 5 RISK MATRIX ........................................................................................................... - 24 -

TABLE 6 MINIMUM FAECAL INDICATOR TEST FREQUENCY IN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS ............ - 29 -
TABLE 7 MINIMUM SAMPLE FREQUENCY FOR PIPED SUPPLY .................................................. - 29 -
TABLE 8 TOXICITY STUDIES ON METALDEHYDE ......................................................................- 51 -
TABLE 9 METALDEHYDE PROPERTIES TABLE ......................................................................... - 52 -
TABLE 10 WATER STATISTICS FOR SOUTHEAST ASIAN COUNTRIES (1995 & 2004) .................. - 60 -
TABLE 11 WATER RESOURCES STATISTICS FOR SINGAPORE ..................................................... - 69 -

-ix- Dissertation 2008
1. Introduction
ASEAN cities are growing at a rapid pace, yet it seems that safe
drinking water is still a growing issue which needs to be addressed for the
protection of public health and for the country’s developments. While the
ASEAN member countries have access to available funding, technology and
skills necessary for the provision of water services, it seems that their
institutional arrangements and regulatory framework are inadequate to
support these developments.
Within ASEAN, Singapore has successfully implemented an integrated

water resources management strategy that allows its population to have access
to an uninterrupted supply of safe drinking water. However, Singapore has
just started to develop its water quality regulatory model to ensure sustainable
drinking water quality. The Ministry of Environment & Water Resources
(MEWR), together with its two operational statutory boards (National
Environment Agency (NEA) and PUB, Singapore’s national water agency), is
responsible for environment and water resources in Singapore. PUB is
responsible for water resources management, while NEA is responsible for
environmental and public health issues.
Most of the European Union (EU) member states are developed

countries with access to safe drinking water. The EU implements the Drinking
Water Directive (DWD) to ensure a common approach to the provision of
water services in the EU. In the UK, the water quality regulatory model is
unique with a privatised water industry in England & Wales. The Drinking
Water Inspectorate (DWI) is the independent water quality regulator which
has been successful in ensuring that England & Wales enjoy a high quality of
safe drinking water. It is highly likely that the effective UK water quality
regulatory model could be adapted to assist the ASEAN countries to develop
high levels of drinking water quality for its population. Singapore’s fledging
water quality regulatory model could also be refined by adopting some of the
experiences gained by the DWI in implementing the UK model.

‐ 1 ‐ Dissertation 2008

2. Aims & Objectives
The focus of this dissertation is on the water quality regulatory models.

While there are other issues relating to regulating any water industry, such as
financial and environmental issues, these are beyond the scope of this
dissertation. Nevertheless, these issues need to be studied further to develop
a comprehensive model for the water industry.
This dissertation aims to:

• Analyse international drinking water quality guidelines, EU & UK
drinking water quality regulatory model;
• Assess water quality regulatory issues in the ASEAN member countries;
• Assess the water quality regulatory model in Singapore; and
• Assess issues relating to the metaldehyde-containing pesticide in the
UK as an example of a current issue in the regulatory system
The objectives of this dissertation are:

• Compare and contrast the regulatory approach in the UK and in
Singapore;
• Propose measures to enable Singapore to develop a unique water
quality regulatory model;
• Complete a detailed literature review, including DWI, MEWR, PUB &
NEA source materials;
• Develop a water quality regulatory model for the potential
improvement to safe drinking water in ASEAN cities and
• Complete a detailed study of issues and information relating to
metaldehyde-containing pesticide in the UK
The overview of the dissertation is shown in Figure 1.


Water Quality
International Regional National

United Nations European Union United Kingdom
• Millennium • Organisation • Regulations
Development Goals • DWD framework • Regulators (DWI)
WHO • Directives & Regulations
• Guidelines
Association of Southeast Asian Nations Metaldehyde-

ASEAN containing pesticide
• Organisation
• Metaldehyde
• Approach to issues
• Role of regulations
• Water Quality guidelines and objectives
• Case study

Rural Communities Urban Cities
Singapore
• Integrated Water Resources Management
• Statutory Authorities & Water Suppliers
• Current Regulations
Discussion & Conclusion

• Review of the WHO guidelines
• Comparison of the regulatory approach in UK & Singapore
• Proposed ASEAN Water quality regulatory model
• Proposed development of the Singapore water quality regulatory model
Figure 1 Overview of dissertation


3. Water Quality & Treatment
World leaders of the 189 United Nation (UN) member states, at the
United Nations Millennium Summit held in New York on 6 - 8 September
2000, agreed to a common goal of the United Nations Millennium Declaration
to work together on global social issues and to ensure that the benefits of
globalisation be inclusive and equitable to all people, especially for those in
the developing countries or economies (UN, 2000)1.
This declaration led to the development of the time bound and

measurable Millennium Development Goals (MDG) which provides a
framework for global action towards a common goal. The MDGs, comprising
of 8 goals and 18 targets, are listed in Appendix A. The relevant target and
goal related to water and sanitation are Goal 7 and target 10, which states,
“Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability
Target 10: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without
sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation.”
(Lenten R. et al, UNDP, 2005)2
At the opening of the water exhibition organized by the American

Museum of Natural History and the UN Department of Public Information in
Oct 07, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that “Safe drinking water and
adequate sanitation are crucial for poverty reduction, crucial for sustainable
development, and crucial for achieving any and every one of the Millennium
Development Goals.” Mr Ban also noted that high population growth,
unsustainable consumption patterns, poor management practices, pollution,
inadequate investment in infrastructure, and low efficiency in water-use are
putting huge stresses on the earth’s water resources and estimates that the
current 700 million people in 43 countries affected by water scarcity could
swell to more than 3 billion by 2025 (UN News centre, 24 Oct 2007)3.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) (2008) 4 affirms that “the

combination of safe drinking water and hygienic sanitation facilities is a
precondition for success in the fight against poverty and hunger (Goal 1),
primary education (Goal 2), gender equality and women empowerment (Goal


3), child mortality (Goal 4), maternal health (Goal 5), HIV/AIDS and Malaria
(Goal 6), ensure environmental sustainability (Goal 7) and develop global
partnerships (Goal 8).”
Prüss-Üstün A. et al (2008)5 wrote that at least 10% of the world’s

disease burden (in disability-adjusted life years or DALYs, a weighted measure
of deaths and disability) could be alleviated by improvement in drinking water,
sanitation, hygiene and water resources management and these only include
those diseases which are quantifiable or have adequate evidence. The
proportion of diseases contributing to this disease burden is shown in Figure
2. Drinking water quality and access improvements are mainly related to the
reduction of diarrhoeal diseases, malnutrition and Trachoma.
Figure 2 Diseases contributing to the water-, sanitation- & hygiene-

related disease burden
(Prüss-Üstün A. et al, pp 11, 2008)5
Prüss-Üstün A. et al (2008)5 further concluded from a systematic

review of diarrhoeal disease literature, that improvement in water supply and
water quality would reduce the frequency of diarrhoeal diseases by 25% and 31%
respectively.
The WHO (2006)7 uses Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALY) as the

common measurement to objectively evaluate and compare the effects of the


diverse hazards associated with very adverse health outcomes and is defined
as the weighted sum of years of life lost by premature mortality (YLL) and
years of life lived in disability (YLD) or DALY = YLL + YLD. Each health
effect is weighted for its severity from 0 (normal good health) to 1 (death) and
multiplied by time duration and the number of people affected. DALYs are
used to compare health effects of different agents in water. The Guidelines’
reference level of risk is 10-6 DALYs per person-year.
A major concern of water supply is the spread of the infectious water-

related diseases through the water supply. This refers to diseases caused by
living organisms (bacteria, viruses or parasites like protozoa or helminths)
which are usually spread from person to another, or to or from animal, and is
related to water. Cairncross S. & Feachem R. (1993)6 classified these diseases
by their distinct route of transmission through water:
a) Water-borne route – transmission occurs when pathogens in water
is drunk by a person or animal;
b) Water-washed route – transmission is reduced when there is
sufficient quantity of water for hygiene purposes;
c) Water-based route – transmission is due to infection by pathogens
which spend part of its life cycle in water; and
d) Insect-vector route – transmission is spread by insects which either
breed in water or bite near water.
Cairncross S. & Feachem R. (1993)6 further recommended that water-

borne and water-washed diseases could be prevented with an improvement in
quality and sufficiency of safe drinking water supply and using this supply
rather than an unsafe source.
This underlies the importance of water and sanitation for any

sustainable developments in a country. Evidence exists to support the need
for improvements in drinking water, but there are still questions in
determining what it actually means to have adequate access to water of a
suitable water quality. What would be a safe concentration of any parameter,
such that it is considered safe?


3.1. Water quality
The WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality (WHO, 2006) 7

defines safe drinking water as water of a certain microbiological, chemical,
physical and radiological quality that does not represent any significant health
risk over a lifetime of consumption. In the 3rd edition of the WHO Guidelines,
the WHO has moved away from setting an international standard for drinking
water quality to a risk-based approach for setting national or regional
standards and regulations. The WHO framework for safe drinking water is
covered in Chapter 4.1.1.
As the setting of water quality standards depends on the local context

and conditions, the WHO recommends a preventive rather than remedial
approach to the management of water supplies. There is still a need then to
monitor at sufficient frequency and ensure that the final water quality meets
certain water quality standards. Water quality standards should be scientific
& evidence based and must be determined by local authorities based on
international guidelines, regional recommendations and national
requirements.
The WHO (2006)7 advises that national regulatory agency and local
water authorities determine and respond to the constituents of public health
significance, as under any given circumstances, only a few constituents are of
concern.
The WHO (2006)7 guidelines assumes a per capita consumption of 1

litre of unboiled water for microbial hazards and for chemical hazards, the
daily per capita consumption of 2 litres by a person weighing 60kg.


3.1.1. Microbiological water quality
The WHO (2006)7 considers the control of outbreaks of water borne

diseases as the foremost priority in drinking water quality control. This is
because such infectious outbreaks could affect a large number of people in a
short period of time. The public health burden of the diverse pathogen-
causing infectious diseases depends on the severity, infectivity and exposed
population size.
Cairncross S. & Feachem R. (1993)6 highlighted that all faecal-oral

diseases and most of the water based diseases are caused by pathogens
transmitted in human excreta, normally in faeces. Cairncross S. & Feachem R.
(1993)6 also explained that as many of the pathogens are present in very small
number in polluted water, it is therefore common practice to detect “indicator
bacteria” instead.
Lloyd (2007)8 noted that Thermotolerant coliform and Escherichia coli

met 7 (bold) out of the following 11 criteria for the ideal water industry
indicator of the presence of enteric-pathogens:
- Presence of indicator denote the presence of all relevant pathogens;
- Detectable whenever a waterborne pathogen is present
- Present in greater number than the pathogens
- Absent when the pathogens are absent
- Abundant in human and animal excreta and absent from
other sources
- Unable to grow in water
- Survive longer than pathogens in water
- More resistant than pathogens to disinfectants
- Rapidly and reliably isolated
- Easily identified.
- Precisely enumerated.
The WHO (2006)7 recognised that these 2 indicator bacteria are

important parameters for verification of microbial quality and recommends
that E. coli or Thermotolerant coliform must not be detectable in a 100-ml


sample of treated potable water. The guidelines for microbiological quality for
drinking water are found in Appendix B-1.
While indicator bacteria tests provide a quick overview of the possible

health risk due to faecal contamination, it does not allow the detection of
some pathogenic viruses and protozoan like Cryptosporidium or Giardia.
OECD & WHO (2003) 9 explained that this is because the viruses and protozoa
have different environmental behaviour and survival characteristics compared
to faecal bacteria. There is no single indicator organism that can be
universally used for all purposes in surveillance, as each has its own
advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, there might be a need for direct
pathogen testing, which is still in a developmental stage and requires a highly
specialised laboratory, highly trained staff, appropriate safety measures and
time.
OECD & WHO (2003)9 discussed some of the possible microbiological

alternative and non-microbial parameters which could be used to assess
microbial water quality in different situations. This is summarised in Table 1.
It is noted that all the parameters, except for Pseudomonas and Aeromonas
spp. are suitable parameters in outbreak investigations. A more detailed
explanation of the parameters is found in Appendix B-2.
The WHO (2006)7 thus recommends a qualitative microbial risk

assessment (QMRA), epidemiological studies and case histories of outbreaks
to determine the necessary microbial water quality improvements needed.
This takes into account the following:
• Hazard identification – identifying all potential hazardous events such
as the source(s) and possible time of occurrence and the selection and
control of possible representative organism to ensure the control of all
pathogens of concern.
• Exposure assessment – subjective estimation of the concentration of
pathogenic microbes ingested and the volume of water consumed
(treated and/or unboiled) by exposed individuals;


• Dose-response assessment – study of dose-response of healthy

volunteer to derive the probability of adverse health effect after
exposure to pathogenic organisms and to determine the infective dose;
• Risk characterisation - integration of all available information from
exposure, dose-response, severity and risk of infection to determine the
disease burden of each potential disease in DALYs.
Table 1 Parameters used in assessing water quality in different situation

Sanitary survey, Treatment Disinfection Treated water Ingress in Regrowth in
Source-water & removal efficiency Distribution distribution
groundwater efficiency system system
characterization
Enteric viruses Total coliforms Total coliforms Total coliforms Total coliforms
Thermotolerant Thermotolerant Thermotolerant Thermotolerant Thermotolerant Thermotolerant
coliforms coliforms coliforms coliforms coliforms coliforms
Escherichia coli Escherichia coli Escherichia coli Escherichia coli Escherichia coli
Faecal streptococci Total bacteria Total bacteria Total bacteria Total bacteria
(enterococci)* (microscopic) (microscopic) (microscopic) (microscopic)
Somatic coliphages Viable bacteria Viable bacteria Viable bacteria Viable bacteria
(microscopic) (microscopic) (microscopic) (microscopic)
F specific RNA Heterotrophic Heterotrophic Heterotrophic Heterotrophic
phages bacteria bacteria bacteria bacteria
Bacteroides phages Aerobic spore- Aerobic spore- Pseudomonas,
forming bacteria forming bacteria Aeromonas
Clostridium Clostridium Somatic
perfringens perfringens coliphages
Giardia cysts, Giardia cysts, F specific RNA
Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidiu phages
oocysts m oocysts
Rainfall events* Particle size Bacteroides
analysis phages
Flow * Turbidity Flow Flow Flow
Solids (Total and pH Colour
dissolved)
Conductivity Disinfectant Disinfectant Disinfectant
residual residual residual
Turbidity
Organic matter Organic matter
(TOC, BOD, COD) (TOC, BOD, COD)
Microscopic
particulate analysis
Ammonia
* faecal streptococci and flow parameter are for sanitary survey and surface water characterisation only, while rainfall is
only used for sanitary survey and microscopic particulate analysis is meant for groundwater characterisation.


3.1.2. Chemical water quality
Natural occurring or pollution derived chemicals are found in varying

quantities in water and can be a significant contribution to public health
problems. The chemicals can be grouped according to their original source as
shown in Table 2. The adverse health effects of most chemical contaminants
are associated with long-term exposure. Thomson T. et al (2007) 10
recommended that it is more effective to identify and focus on priority

chemicals of concern, as assessing and developing strategies for every
chemical would be impractical and require plenty of resources.
Table 2 Categorisation of source of chemical constituents

Source of Chemical constituents Example of sources
Naturally occurring (including Rocks, soils, cyanobacteria in eutrophic
naturally occurring algal toxins) lakes
Agricultural activities Manures, fertilizers, pesticides, intensive
animal practices
Human settlements Sewerage & waste disposal, urban runoff,
fuel leakage,
Industrial activities Mining, manufacturing, processing,
Water treatment or materials in Water treatment chemicals, disinfection
contact with water by-products (DBPs), storage tank/pipes
material corrosion and leeching
(Thomson T. et al, 2007)10
The WHO guidelines for drinking water quality (2008) 11 provide

guideline values for “36 inorganic constituents, 27 industrial chemicals, 36
pesticides, 4 disinfectants and 23 disinfectant-by-products”, of which the 95
chemicals of health significance in drinking water are found in Appendix B-1.
These chemicals are chosen based on the following criteria:
• Credible evidence of chemicals occurring in drinking water together
with evidence of actual or potential toxicity;
• Significant international concern; or
• Considered for inclusion or is included in the WHO Pesticide
Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES) programme


The derivation of these guideline values are scientifically based on

health effect studies on human populations or toxicity studies on laboratory
animals, supported by other appropriate studies. Health effects studies on
human population are preferred, but there is limited value on such studies
because of the lack of qualitative information on the concentration to which
people have been exposed to and due to simultaneous exposure to other
agents. There is uncertainty in the findings from the more frequently used
toxicity studies on laboratory animals because of the relatively small number
of animals used and relatively high dose administered. This requires
extrapolating the results from animals to humans as the human populations
are usually exposed to low doses (WHO, 2006)7. This means that most
guideline values are likely to be very conservative.
As illustrated in Figure 3, different approaches are taken for the

different groups of chemicals:
• Carcinogens – non-threshold chemicals, where there are adverse health
effects at any level of concentration and no safe dose;
• Toxic substances – threshold chemicals, where there are no adverse
health effects below a certain concentration;
• Essential elements – necessary for humans and animals for normal
functions, for which there is a safe concentration range, where adverse
health effects are observed from deficiency (below safe concentration
range) and over-exposure (above concentration range).
Carcinogenic substances Toxic substances

Adverse (Boron, Cyanide, Lead)
(Arsenic, Vinyl Chloride)
health
effects Essential elements
(fluoride, selenium, iodine,
manganese, copper)
Concentration
NOAEL Safe concentration range (mg/l)
Figure 3 Adverse health effects of chemical at concentration


For threshold chemicals, there is a need to derive the Tolerable Daily

Intake (TDI), which is defined as amount of substances in food and drinking
water, expressed on a body weight basis (mg/kg of body weight), that can be
consumed over a lifetime without appreciable health risk. The guidelines
values are derived as follows:
Where

NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effect Levels

LOAEL = Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level*
UF = Uncertainty factor
bw = body weight
P = fraction of TDI allocated to drinking water
C = daily drinking-water consumption
* If LOAEL is used, an additional uncertainty factor has to be applied
(WHO, 2006) 7
3.1.3. Acceptability water quality
Drinking water must not only be safe, but it must be acceptable to

consumers. While most consumers are not able to determine the safety of
their drinking water due to lack of equipments, they could reject the water due
to its physical appearance, taste and odour and use an alternate unsafe source.
The physical appearance, taste and odour of drinking water are affected
by microbiological and chemical contaminants in water (attached as
Appendix B-3), but the acceptability of drinking water by consumers is also
subjective and influenced by individual and local factors. As most of these
contaminants have microbiological and chemical health-based guidelines, the
parameters that fall into this category would include colour, pH, turbidity,
hardness and total dissolved solids. (WHO, 2006)7


3.1.4. Radiological water quality
The WHO (2006)7 stated that the long-term incidence of cancer in

humans and animals could increase as a result of low to moderate dose of
radiation exposure. Radiation arises from naturally-occurring and man-made
sources.
The guideline value is the recommended reference dose level equivalent

to a cumulative 0.1mSv in annual drinking water consumption, given as
activity concentration (Bq/l). The WHO (2006)7 states that “The SI unit for
radioactivity is the Becquerel (Bq), where 1Bq = 1 disintegration per
second...The SI unit for equivalent and effective dose is the sievert (Sv) where
1Sv = 1 J/kg”. (WHO, 2007)7
The guidance levels for radionuclide in drinking water are attached as

Appendix B-1 and is calculated by
.
Where
GL = guidance level of radionuclide in drinking water (Bq/litre)
IDC = individual dose criterion, equal to 0.1mSv/yr for this calculation
Hing = dose coefficient for ingestion by adults (mSv/Bq)
q= annual ingested volume of drinking water, assumed to be 730l/yr
As the concentration of radionuclide in drinking water is relatively low,

the WHO (2006)7 recommends that it might not be justified to identify
individual radioactive species using sophisticated and expensive analysis
without first carrying out a screening procedure for detection limits of 0.5
Bq/litre for gross alpha activity and 1 Bq/litre for gross beta activity.
(WHO, 2007)7


3.2. Water treatment
It is common to treat raw water to produce safe drinking water for the
protection of public health, as most raw water quality does not meet safe
drinking water standards. Allan S.C. (1997)12 cited that there are eight specific
reasons for treatment water:
• To remove disease-causing pathogens;
• To remove potentially toxic natural or synthetic substances;
• To remove dissolved and gaseous radioactivity;
• To improve organoleptic quality of water to prevent consumer rejecting
water due to its physical appearance, taste or odour;
• To prevent bacterial after-growth in the distribution system;
• To prevent deposition and silting up of pipes;
• To prevent corrosion and dissolution of pipes and fittings; and
• To comply with local, national and international law on water quality.
Water treatment is based on a multi-barrier approach to removing

contaminants and depends, amongst other things, on the quality of the source
water and final water quality desired. The conventional approach is to choose
a combination of the appropriate processes at the treatment works. Some of
the main treatment processes can be found in Table 3. Typical water
treatment processes usually comprises of pre-treatment, main treatment and
disinfection.


Table 3 Summary of main water treatment processes

Processes Functions
Screens Sets of coarse (100mm spacing) to fine screens used as a physical removal of
larger particles such as litters or branches and for protection of downstream
processes
Roughening Coarse media (rock or gravel with size 4 – 12mm) pre-filter used to reduce
filters turbidity (60-90% removal) and faecal coliform bacteria (93 – 99.5%
removal)
Micro-strainers Stainless steel or polyester wire fabric mesh of apertures 15 – 45mm pre-
treatment strainers for removing 40-70% algae cells and large protozoa and
5-20% turbidity removal.
Aeration The use of a cascade or fountain system to introduce air into the raw water to
increase dissolved oxygen in water to protect downstream processes, reduce
CO2, raise pH, remove iron and manganese from water and improve taste in
water by stripping out hydrogen sulphide and volatile organic compounds.
Off-stream/ bank Self-purification reservoir storage to improve water quality before treatment
side storage and to ensure adequate supplies at periods of peak demand. Storage also
eliminates variation in water quality due to floods and surface run-offs.
Exposure to sunlight (natural UV radiation) kills some pathogens and
removes colour. Long term storage allows suspended solids to settle and
reduces turbidity, while algae can remove hardness by converting
bicarbonates to precipitate carbonates.
Coagulation & Chemical coagulant like alum (aluminium sulphate) or other salts of
flocculation aluminium or iron are added and rapidly mixed to allow colloidal particles in
the water to coagulate and then agitated to flocculate so that the flocs can be
removed more easily later. The efficiency of the process depends on the raw
water quality, coagulant dose, coagulant aid, mixing conditions and pH. Jar
tests are usually carried out to determine the optimum dose required.
Optimal coagulation can carry out 1-2 log removal of bacteria, viruses and
protozoa, as well as removing turbidity, suspended solids, certain heavy
metals and low-solubility organochlorine pesticides.
Sedimentation Solid-liquid separation process to remove the solids from the raw water by
allowing the flocs to settle.
Dissolved Air- DAF functions like a sedimentation tank to remove flocs, except that air
flotation (DAF) bubbles are introduced from the bottom of the tank to allow the floc particles
to attach to the air bubbles and float to the surface, where it can be skimmed
off. DAF is found to be effective in the removal of algal cells,
Cryptosporidium oocysts or humic acids.
Lime softening The addition of lime or soda ash to increase the pH of water to reduce
hardness by precipitating calcium and magnesium from the raw water.
Lime softening can also aid in the removal of bacteria (2 log removal
maximum), viruses (up to 4 log removal) and protozoa (up to 2 log removal)
at high pH (>11) depending on temperature, time of exposure and pH.
Ion Exchange The adsorption processes where there is a reversible interchange of same
charge ions between a solid ion-exchange medium and the raw water. With
different resins used, ion exchange can be used for water softening and for
removal of radionuclide and heavy metals, nitrate, arsenic, cadmium,
selenium, uranium and dissolved organic carbon.
Rapid gravity The use of single, dual- or multi-media of granular material like sand or
filtration anthracite of different grades to allow water to pass rapidly through the
relatively large gaps in between the grains to remove the suspended solids


Processes Functions
through straining, adsorption, adhesion and sedimentation. Filtration rates
are typically 5 – 10 m/h. rapid gravity filtration can also remove turbidity,
adsorbed chemicals, oxidised iron and manganese from raw water. Under
optimum coagulation conditions, up to 2 log removal of bacteria, viruses and
protozoa can be achieved.
Pressure filters The rapid gravity filter process is carried out in an enclosed in an enclosed
cylindrical shell to eliminate the need for a separate pumping stage.
Slow Sand A non-pressurised, chemical-free biological filtration process where the raw
Filtration water is passed through 0.15-0.3mm diameter fine sand of 0.5m to 1.5m
depth and a flow rate of 0.1 to 0.3 m3/m2.h. There is a thin biological active
filter skin at the top called the Schmutzdecke. A matured slow sand filter can
remove biological particles such as bacteria, viruses, Cryptosporidium,
faecal coliform and other organic debris up to 4-log removal, iron and
manganese biologically and is effective for the removal of algae and organics,
including certain pesticides and ammonia.
Membrane – Physical pressure-driven filtration process to remove contaminants from
Microfiltration water using a semi-porous membrane media of pore size of 0.01-12µm at
(MF) operating pressure of 1 -2 bars. Microfiltration can remove algae, protozoa,
bacteria and microbes larger than 0.2 micron and is widely used to remove
chlorine resistant pathogens like Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia
cysts. Please see Figure 4.
Membrane Similar to MF except that pore size is in the range of 1nm – 100nm. UF
filtration – operates at less than 5bars and is capable of removing suspended solids
ultrafiltration (turbidity <0.1 NTU), organics (molecular cut-off weight of 800), bacteria
(UF) and viruses, including Cryptosporidium (at least 4 log removal). Please see
Figure 4.
Membrane Similar to UF, except pore size is in the range of 0.001mm to 0.01mm. NF
filtration – operates at about 5 bars and rejects divalent ions (magnesium and calcium),
nanofiltration organics (molecular cut-off weight above 200), suspended solids, bacteria
(NF) and viruses. Please see Figure 4.
Membrane Similar to NF, except pore size is less than 0.002mm. Operating at 15- 50
filtration - reverse bar, only water essentially passes through, while dissolved salts, suspended
osmosis (RO) monovalent ions and organics (molecular cut-off weight above 50).
Complete removal of bacteria, viruses and protozoa is possible with pre-
treatment and membrane integrity conserved. Please see Figure 4.
Activated carbon Normally in powdered (PAC) or granular (GAC) form using porous
adsorption carbonaceous material with large surface area (500-1500 m2/g) for the
removal of removal of pesticides and other organic chemicals, cyanobacterial
toxins, total organic carbon and for control of taste and odour.
Chlorine Chlorine is commonly used in destroying or inactivating most water-borne
disinfection disease-causing micro-organisms, and as a powerful oxidant to improve
water quality by removing reduced nitrogen, iron, manganese, sulphide and
certain organic species. Chlorine can combine with ammonia to form
chlorine residual (chloramines) to provide protection against
recontamination in the distribution network. Chlorine, chlorine dioxide or
chloramines can be used.
Ozone As a powerful oxidant, ozone is used as a primary disinfectant to effectively
disinfection inactivate harmful protozoan that form cysts and almost all other pathogens.
Ozone is also effective in removing some pesticides and organic materials.


Processes Functions
Ultra-violet (UV) The adsorption of UV radiation with a frequency of 250 – 256 nm in their
disinfection DNA can inactivate microorganisms. A quick, chemical-free process, UV is
able to remove bacteria up to 8 log removal; viruses up to 6 log removal and
protozoa like Cryptosporidium oocysts by a 4 log removal depending on
dosing.
Plumb solvency Small quantities of phosphate can be added to reduce lead in pipe dissolving
reduction in treated water.
(Wikipedia, 2008)13 (WHO, 2006)7 (WHO & OECD, 2003)9
(Koch membrane, 2008)14 (Gray N.F., 2005)15

Figure 4 Membrane process characteristics
(Koch membrane, 2008)14


4. Water Regulations
The purpose of drinking water regulations is to ensure that the

consumers have safe potable water through effective control. Legislation need
to:
• Define clearly the roles and responsibility of the stakeholders (water
supplier, policy and regulatory authorities, public health authorities,
consumers, chemical and material suppliers, analytical services
providers, etc) involved in drinking water supply;
• Have sufficient enforcement measures;
• Allows for changes and amendments needed for future conditions; and
• Be flexible enough to cater to different situations.
(WHO, 2006)7
The UNDP (2008)16 recognises that the lack of access to safe drinking
water results mainly from profound failure in water governance. Water
governance requires an integrated political, social, economic and
administrative system to manage water resources and provide water services
to the population.
To gain a better understanding of drinking water regulations, it is

useful to look at the international guidelines from the WHO, the regional
directives of the EU and the national regulations of the UK.
4.1. World Health Organisation
The WHO was established in 1948 with the aim of attaining the highest
possible levels of health for all people in all countries. Representatives of the
193 WHO member states and 2 associate members form the WHO Assembly,
which sets policies, approves budget and appoints the Director-General for a
5-year term. The WHO Assembly also elects the 34 member Executive Board.
Six regional committees focus on regional health matters. The WHO
constitution comprises of 82 articles which details the operations and
functions of the WHO. (WHO, 2006)17 (WHO, 2008)18


The WHO published international drinking water standards in 1958,

1963 and 1971. These are superseded by the WHO guidelines for drinking
water quality, published in 3 volumes. The 1st edition and 2nd edition were
published in 1983-84 and 1993-97 respectively. (WHO, 2008)18
The 3rd edition of volume 1 of the Guidelines, a rolling edition, was

published in 2004 and the 1st addendum was added in 2006. Parts of the
previous Volume 2 are replaced by a series of publications providing
information on the assessment and management of risks associated with
microbial hazards and by internationally peer-reviewed risk assessments for
specific chemicals, while the previous volume 3 is still valid in providing
guidance on good practices in surveillance, monitoring and assessment of
drinking water quality in community supplies. (WHO, 2008)18
The 4th edition for Volume 1 of the Guidelines is currently in progress

(Davidson A. et al, 2005)19 (WHO, 2008)20. More than 20 WHO water quality
experts last met in Singapore to review the technical work for the 4th edition
on 24-27 Jun 08. This was held in conjunction with the Singapore
International Water Week (SIWW, 2008)21.
The WHO guidelines for safe drinking water are commonly used as the
reference source and form the basis of water quality standards for most
countries in the world. The guideline values for water quality parameters are
found in Appendix B-1.
4.1.1. Guidelines for safe drinking water
The Guidelines for drinking water quality (WHO, 2006)7 outline a

framework to ensure that safe drinking water could be provided as part of the
strategy for the protection of public health and the reduction of water-related
diseases. The idea is to critically analyse any drinking water system from
catchment to tap for hazards control and prevention.


The framework comprises of the following:

• Health-based targets based on national and local conditions for the
purpose of protecting and improving public health;
• Water safety plans for a systematic multi-barrier approach to a
comprehensive risk analysis and management of water supply; and
• Surveillance to monitor and verify on the compliance with the water
safety plan and ensure the adequacy of supply for public health.
(WHO, 2006)7
4.1.2. Health- based targets
Health-based targets set the health and water quality goals for the
implementation of the safe drinking water framework to ensure realistic
targets for the effective protection of overall public health in the local context.
Every country and community will have different and unique levels of health-
based targets, as there is a need to take into account the status, trends,
contribution of drinking water to the transmission of infectious diseases and
to overall exposure to hazardous chemicals both in individual and overall
public health management, access to water, local situations (including
economic, environmental, social and cultural conditions) and local (financial,
technical and institutional) resources. (WHO, 2006)7
The 4 principal types of health-based targets include:

• Health outcome targets based on the reduction in the total disease
burden for a particular microbial or chemical hazards largely
attributable to water;
• Water quality targets for mainly chemical constituents, additives
or treatment by-products in water with stable concentrations that
represent health risks from long term exposure, typically expressed as
guideline values;
• Performance targets for control of constituents with fluctuations in
numbers or short periods that represent health risks in short term
exposure, typically expressed as required reductions; and


• Specified technology targets for specific equipment or processes

or actions for smaller municipal, community and household drinking
water supplies, which typically include recommendations and guidance
for application and operation of such technology.
(WHO, 2006)7
The proportion of exposure to enteric pathogens or hazardous

chemicals attributed to drinking water needs to be considered, as there could
be other sources of exposure.
4.1.3. Water Safety Plans
The Water Safety Plan draws upon the multi-barrier approach and the
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) methodology used
extensively in the food industry, as well as approaches found in the quality
assurance standards management systems like ISO 9000 and total quality
management (TQM) (Godfrey S. & Howard G., 2004)22. Drury D. (2007)23
highlighted that the WSPs analyse quality assurance within the operations &
procedures and do not depend on end-point quality assessments.
The 3 components of the WSP are:

• System assessment of the entire drinking water supply chain from
catchment to tap, as a whole, can achieve the water quality as specified
in the health-based targets. The assessment identifies potential
hazards for each part of the supply chain, its individual level of risks
and the appropriate control measures;
• Operational monitoring of the rapid identification of deviation of
the required performances of each control measure for the hazards in
the systems; and
• Management plans to document the system assessment, normal
and incident operations, monitoring, validation, remedial actions,
reporting and communication procedures and supporting programmes.
(WHO, 2006)7


DWI (2005)24 highlighted that the team responsible for developing the
water safety plans requires:
• Complete in-depth knowledge of each element of the specific water
supply chain and its capability to supply safe water which meets the
health-based standards and requirements;
• Identification of the hazards for each element of the water supply chain,
the consequences and frequency of occurrence of each hazard and the
level of risk each of these presents;
• Identification and validation of the short-term, medium-term and long-
term control measures to reduce each identified risk to an acceptable
level;
• Implementation of a routine monitoring system of those control
measures with action trigger criteria when the control measures are not
within the specified targets;
• Implementation of remedial action plans when a control measure is
outside of the specified target with checks to certify that the system is
brought back under control;
• Validation monitoring to determine whether the system is performing
as assumed in the system assessment; and
• Independent verification for the correct implementation of the WSP to
ensure that the water supplied is safe and meets health-based and other
regulatory targets.
The water safety plan team looks critically at the entire water system
and their individual components (from catchment, intake, each treatment
process, distribution, to the customer’s tap) to identify what the risk of every
possible hazard is, how to reduce and control the risk of the hazards and how
to show that the controls are working. Drury D. (2007)23 explains that the
development of a successful WSP requires the involvement and participation
by company staff members who have a deep understanding on how the
company operates each component of the water supply systems.


A hazardous event is an incident or situation that can lead to the

presence of a hazard, which is anything that could cause harm. There is a
need to determine the risk of every hazardous event. Risk is defined as the
combination of the likelihood of a hazardous event occurring and the
consequences of the hazard. The definition of the likelihood and
consequences of an event, with examples in bracket, are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Examples of definition for likelihood and consequences of a

hazardous event
Likelihood of a hazardous event Severity of the Consequences of a hazardous
occurring event if it occur
A Almost certain (Once a day) 1 Insignificant (No significant impact)
B Likely (Once a week) 2 Minor (minor impact to a small population)
C Moderate (Once a month) 3 Moderate (minor impact to a large population)
D Unlikely (Once a year) 4 Major (major impact to a small population)
E Rare (Once every 5 years) 5 Catastrophic (major impact to a large

population)
Risk prioritisation can then be carried out using a matrix as shown in

Table 5 to identify the significance of the hazard, the importance of each
hazard and the prioritisation of improvements needed. For example, an
insignificant hazard that is almost certain to occur will be ranked as a medium
risk event, while a catastrophic hazard which is unlikely to occur will be
ranked as a high risk event.
Table 5 Risk matrix

Consequences
Likelihood 1 2 3 4 5
A (Almost certain ) V High
B (Likely)
C (Moderate) Medium High
D(unlikely) Low
E (rare) Negligible
(WHO, 2005)25


The steps taken to develop a WSP are illustrated clearly in Figure 5

(WHO, 2005)25.
Assemble the WSP Team Review

experience
and future
System assessment
Document and describe the system needs
Carry out a hazard assessment and

risk characterisation
Identify control measures
Supporting
Define operational limits and
Operational
monitoring
programmes
monitoring of control measures
Establish verification procedures
Review,
Establish management procedures
approval and
for corrective actions, normal
Communications
audit
Management &
operations and incident response
Establish record keeping
Validation and verification
Figure 5 Development of the Water Safety Plans

(WHO, 2005)25
A multi-disciplinary team of experts with a thorough understanding of

the individual elements of the water system needs to be assembled to develop
the WSP. The team should consist of specialists with knowledge of the
catchment and raw water sources, treatment processes, distribution networks,
drinking water quality, public health, domestic distribution system and
customer matters. Senior management support is crucial in the development
of the WSP. A team leader with sufficient authority, interpersonal and
organisation skill should be selected to drive the project and ensure focus.


The role of each individual member should be defined properly.

Communication procedures with all stakeholders should also be established.
Next, the team should collect and evaluate information to document

and describe the entire water supply system. If information is missing, then
there is a need to determine how and where to collect the information. A
detailed flow diagram will be helpful in providing an overview. Stakeholders
and users are also identified.
For each element of the water supply system, the team should identify
potential failures, problems, their locations and implications in terms of
hazards and hazardous events. The team should also consider influencing
factors. This involves assessment of historic information and events as well as
predictive information based on expert knowledge. Next, the WSP team
should determine the consequence and likelihood of each hazardous event and
the need for action. This is usually done using the risk scoring matrix.
Concurrently with the identification of hazards and evaluation of risk,

the WSP team should document existing and potential control measures and
decide if these control measures are effective. There is also a need to
determine if the control measures could introduce or affect any other
hazard/risk and their subsequent control measures, if necessary. Risk of the
hazardous events should be reprioritised after the control measures are put in
place.
At the same time, if there are insufficient control measures or the risks
are not sufficiently reduced or mitigated, then the team should develop a
short-term, medium-term and long-term action and improvement plan to
mitigate or control each significant risk.
Following the identification of all hazardous events, their hazards,

associated risk and control measures, the WSP team will need to define
operational limits of all critical control points to monitor the control measures
and actions that need to be taken if there is a deviation. This ensures that the
control measures are effectively working within the operational limits, and


quick notification and remedial actions taken when there is a deviation. The
documentation of the monitoring includes what to monitor, how to monitor,
where the monitoring is carried out, who will carry out the monitoring, who
will do the analysis and who receives the results for action.
A formal verification and auditing process needs to be established to

ensure that the WSP is working properly. Verification involves compliance
monitoring; internal & external auditing of operational activities; and
consumer satisfaction.
Management procedures can then be documented for standard and

incident operating conditions and the resultant corrective actions to be taken
when necessary. Emergency supplies, investigation plan, communication
procedures with stakeholders, reporting procedures and procedures for
regular review and management update are also included.
Supporting programmes should also be determined for each step of the

water safety plan, as the delivery of safe water through the WSP involves
managing people and processes. These programmes include training,
calibration, operation & maintenance, R&D, legal, hygiene and sanitation
aspects.
The entire WSP needs to be documented, presented and approved by

all stakeholders to allow “buy-in” and support. This is important if the WSP is
to be implemented effectively. There is also a need to include a provision for
the WSP to be reviewed and regularly updated.
4.1.4. Surveillance
Drinking water suppliers are legally and morally responsible for the
control of drinking water quality and the sufficiency of supply. The WHO
(2006)7 recommends the setting up of a separate surveillance agency
responsible for overseeing public health assessment in drinking water to
complement the water supplier in view of the conflict of interest between
public health and operational costs.


Drinking water surveillance requires the long-term constant

assessment of the safety and suitability of drinking water supply for the
protection of public health. Surveillance provides information, which should
be effectively managed and used, as a collaborative mechanism and support
for the surveillance agency and water supplier, for the prioritisation of water
supply improvements. However, the surveillance agency would also require
legal instruments and authority to use enforcement, which should be used
only as a last resort.
The basic parameters for adequacy of supply that the surveillance

agency needs to assess public health are:
• Quality – validation and compliance audit of the approved WSPs;
• Quantity – proportion of population using different levels of drinking
water supply;
• Accessibility – percentage of population with reasonable access to
improved drinking water supply;
• Affordability – tariff paid by domestic customers; and
• Continuity – percentage of the time when drinking water is available.
(WHO, 2006)7
WHO (2006)7 recommended surveillance be carried out by audit-based

or direct assessment approaches.
The audit-based approach basically requires the water supplier to

undertake assessment activities, verification testing of water quality and to
furnish all relevant information to the surveillance agency, while the
surveillance agency is responsible for 3rd party auditing to verify compliance.
Accredited external laboratories commonly carry out analytical services, paid
for by the water supplier. The surveillance agency needs to have the expertise
and capability to:
• Review and approve water safety plans;
• Audit the water safety plans implementation periodically (at regular
intervals, following significant incidents or changes to the systems); and


• Investigate and assess incident reports to ensure that the cause is

correctly determined and corrective actions taken and reported to
prevent reoccurrence of a similar situation.
The direct assessment approach will require the surveillance agency to

carry out independent testing of water supplies. The surveillance agency will
require its own or 3rd party analytical facilities and trained staff to carry out
sampling, analysis and sanitary inspection.
4.1.5. Other Recommendations
With a preventive approach, the WHO guidelines (2007)7 recommend

minimal dependence on end-point monitoring, as the sampling is meant only
as verification of water quality.
Simple and more frequent faecal indicator tests are recommended to

detect contamination in water supply. Faecal contamination is not distributed
evenly throughout the piped distribution system and can vary with local
conditions. The recommended minimum sampling frequencies for faecal
indicator tests are shown in Table 6.
Table 6 Minimum faecal indicator test frequency in distribution systems

Population Total no of samples per year
Point sources Progressive sampling of all sources over 3- to 5-year cycles
Piped supplies
5000 – 100 000 12 per 5000 population (rounded up)
>100 000 – 500 000 12 per 10 000 population plus additional 120 samples
>500 0000 12 per 100 000 population plus additional 180 samples
(WHO, 2006)7
Table 7 Minimum sample frequency for piped supply

Population Served No. of monthly samples
< 5000 1
5000 – 100 000 1 per 5000 population
> 100 000 1 per 10 000 population, plus 10 additional samples
(WHO, 1997)26


The principal source of the chemicals found in water will determine the
location and frequency of sampling. However, the WHO (2006)7 recognises
that source water sampling once a year may be adequate for stable
groundwater source, while the variable surface water source might require
higher frequency. For piped supply, the recommended minimum sampling
frequencies are based on the population served, as shown in Table 7. The
sampling frequencies for other supplies in small communities are attached in
Appendix BAppendix B – International Drinking Water Guidelines.
Each location where the samples are taken should be individually

considered, but the samples must be representative of the water source,
treatment plant, storage facilities, distribution network, customer delivery
points and points of use. The general criteria of the selection of locations are
that:
- Samples need to be representative of the different sources as it is
obtained or enters the system;
- Yield samples, representative of the conditions at the most
unfavourable sources or places in the supply system and points of
possible sources of contamination, need to be included;
- Sampling locations should take into account the number of inhabitants
served by each source in multiple source systems;
- Locations need to be uniformly distributed throughout the distribution
system, taking into account population distribution and proportional to
the number of branches or links;
- Samples need to be representative of the system as a whole and of its
main components;
- There is a need to sample water in reserved tanks and reservoirs and
there should at least be one sampling point directly after the outlet at
each treatment works; and
- Sampling locations can be fixed or variable. Fixed sites are useful in
allowing results to be compared over time, while local problems are
more readily detected using random locations.
(WHO, 1997)26


4.2. European Union
The European Economic Community (EEC) was originally set up to

create a common market between the constituent Member States, but has now
been extended to a large number of common policy goals which is directly or
indirectly related to attain conditions leading to a single market within the
combined territories of the member countries. The EEC was renamed as the
European Union (EU) in 1992 by virtue of the Treaty on European Union
(TEU). (Hedemann-Robinson M., 2007)27
The Single European Act amending the Treaties was enacted on 1 Jul
1987. The Act aims to create a single internal market and formulates a
European foreign policy. More importantly, it introduces explicit references
to the EU’s powers relating to environmental protection for the 1st time. This
includes:
‐ Article 100a which allows for environmental protection legislation
affecting the internal market to be adopted by the majority of member
states; and
‐ Article 130r, 130s & 130t, which specifies the objectives, means and
procedures for unanimous adoption of environmental legislation.
(European Community, 1996)28
The EU comprises of 27 member states, which are Belgium, France,

Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, United
Kingdom, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania. (Europa, 2008)29
What is unique about the EU is that there are distinct, separate

legislative, executive and judicial organs of government, the power of which is
transferred from the member states to the community by virtue of treaties and
that the community law overrides the national laws.


The EU adopts the following type of legislation:

‐ Non-binding recommendations or resolutions
‐ Regulations which are binding and directly applicable to Member
States and overrides national laws
‐ Decisions which are directly binding to the persons (member states,
individual and legal persons) they are addressed to; and
‐ Directives which member states are required to transpose and
implement through their national law or regulations within a specified
time period (normally 18 months to 2 years).
As illustrated in Figure 6, the EU water policy formation involves the

core European institution, Member States government and non-governmental
organisations with interest in water. The Council decides on the policy
objectives and directions, while the Commission develops and drafts the
directions into appropriate policy text and directives. The European
Parliament actively debates on the legislation and can amend the draft
legislation presented by the Council. The European Parliament shares the
responsibility of passing European laws with the European Council.
Representatives of sectors affected by water-related regulations and various
water-related organisations try to influence the process by lobbying. This
reflects the similar situation at the national level. The scientist and
technologist group is consulted on water-related technical issues and their
recommendations are critical to the nature of the policies.
EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS
ORGANISED EUROPEAN
EUROPEAN
INTERESTS REPRESENTATIVES/
PARLIAMENT
ASSOCIATIONS
SCIENTISTS EUROPEAN
TECHNOLOGISTS COMMISSION
MEMBER STATES’ COUNCIL OF

GOVERNMENT MINISTERS
NATIONAL LEVEL EUROPEAN LEVEL
Figure 6 Parties active in EU water policy process

(Kallis G. & Nijkamp P., 1999) 30


Kallis G. et al. (1999) 30 describe EU water policies as split between

water use directives and water pollutant directives. Water use directives are
concerned with setting the Europe-wide quality standards of water intended
for a particular use that all Member States are to comply with, while water
pollutant directives deal with emission control and standards for discharges
into water.
4.2.1. Drinking Water Directives
The EU council (1998) 31 adopted the Drinking Water Directive

98/83/EC (DWD) on 3 November 1998 for all member states to transpose
into national law to ensure that potable water for consumption is clean and
wholesome for the protection of public health in the EU. This fulfils one of the
objectives specified in article 174 of the European treaty, which relates to the
protection of human health, aims at the highest level of environmental
protection and takes into account available scientific data (EU, 2008)32.
The DWD (1998)31 states that water intended for human consumption
is wholesome and clean if it contains no micro-organism, parasites and
concentration of substances that endanger human health; and meet the
minimum parametric values and requirements set out in the DWD. Member
States are allowed to impose stricter parametric values and add other
parameters for the protection of human health within their territory.
The parametric concentration values (PCV) are generally based on the

WHO guidelines and recommendations of the Commission's Scientific
Advisory Committee. The committee, comprising of Member States’
representatives and a chairman appointed by the Commission, carry out a 5
year review of the PCV and monitoring requirements of the DWD and propose
other measures relating to the DWD. (EC, 1998)31
The DWD (EC, 1998)31 specifies 2 microbiological parameters (5 for

water for sale in bottles or containers); 26 chemical parameters and 20
indicator parameters. The directive parametric values, indicator parameters,


sampling frequency and analysis specifications are clearly defined in the DWD
and are attached as Appendix C.
Member States are required to carry out regular water quality

monitoring programme based on the frequency and sampling points set out in
the DWD to show evidence of compliance. Samples taken must be
representative of the water quality throughout the year. Compliance sample is
collected at the point where the water is taken for consumption and use. For
piped supply, the sample is taken at the consumer’s tap. (EC, 1998)31
Any failure in meeting the parametric values has to be investigated

immediately to determine the cause of the failure. Member States have to
ensure that appropriate remedial actions are carried out as soon as possible
and give priority to their enforcement actions. Supply of water which
constitute a potential danger to human health need to be prohibited or
restricted. Article 10 in the DWD also requires that Member States ensure
that any materials and substances for new installations of water treatment and
distribution do not have an adverse impact on human health. (EC, 1998)31
Derogation, the act of failing or likely to fail the DWD standards, is

allowed if there is no likely danger to human health and if the water supply in
the area cannot be maintained by any other means. Member States can decide
on the 1st derogation for a period up to 3 years to allow remedial actions to be
taken. The Member States can inform the Commission of a 2nd derogation (up
to a period of 3 years); if the progress review showed that the progress made
in the 1st derogation is not sufficient. The Commission’s approval will be
required if there is a need for a 3rd derogation (up to a period of 3 years).
(EC, 1998)31
Adequate and up-to-date water quality information must be made

available to consumers. Member States publish and submit a report every 3
years on the water quality and the measures taken to fulfil the DWD. Arising
from these reports, the Commission will then produce a synthesis EU report
on water quality. (EC, 1998)31


4.3. United Kingdom
The United Kingdom comprises of

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
(Figure 7). There are 12 water and sewerage
services providers and 15 water suppliers in the
UK as shown in Figure 8. Scotland and
Northern Ireland each has public-owned water
and sewerage service provider and independent
water quality regulator. The situation is unique
in England & Wales, as it is privatised with
several companies being subsidiaries of
international enterprises.
(Water UK, internet, 2008)34
Figure 7 Map of UK
(CIA World Factbook, 2008)33
4.3.1. England & Wales
May A. (2007)35 gives an overview of the main parties involved in the

water industry in England & Wales, summarised in Figure 9. The WHO is
the international health authority and provides the basis of all health-related
regulations and standards, though it is not strictly providing standards for the
EU Member States. The EU is the regional authority, which decides on the
regional standards for the Member States. The Department of Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is the UK government ministry responsible
for the water policies of UK. The regulatory agencies exist to ensure that
public water suppliers comply with the water regulations and support the local
authorities, which are responsible for regulating the private water supplies.
Water UK represents the public water supplier, while there are other
organisations representing the manufacturers. The Consumer Council for
Water acts as the consumer’s voice to protect consumer interests.


Figure 8 The current UK water Industry

(Water UK, Internet, 2008)36


WHO
(International Advisory)
Regional
European Union
(Regional)
UK Govt Ministries (DEFRA)
UK Government Agencies
(Regulatory)
(England & Wales)

National
Local Authorities Water UK &
Other Associations
Private Water Public Water Consumer

Supplies Suppliers Council for
water
Consumer
Figure 9 The drinking water industry in England & Wales
The water industry in England & Wales is regulated by different

government appointed regulators focusing on different key areas:
• Financial & economic – The Ofwat regulates the water services and
prices charges;
• Environmental – The Environmental Agency (EA) is responsible for
raw water quality and resources, abstraction, pollution control and
discharges into the environment; and
• Drinking Water Quality – The Drinking Water Inspectorate
regulates drinking water quality compliance.
(Water UK, 2008)37


4.3.2. The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations

2000
Drinking water quality standards are specified in the Water Supply

(Water Quality) Regulations 2000 and are based on the 1998 EC Drinking
Water Directives. “Wholesome water” is defined by the water quality
standards in the regulations, which includes 2 microbiological & 26 chemical
Directive Standards, 2 microbiological & 10 chemical National Standards and
12 Indicator Parameters (This is because the 8 DWD indicator parameters
have been adopted as the National Standards). The regulations also specify a
catch-all standard that the water supplied does not contain any micro-
organism or substances at a concentration or value which would constitute a
potential danger to human health. The parameters, sampling frequency,
compliance location and analysis specification are shown in Appendix D.
(UK parliament, 2000) 38
The regulations (UK parliament, 2000)38 require public water

companies to pre-fix the water supply zone annually, which is limited to a
maximum of 100,000 consumers and must be of uniform water quality.
Audit monitoring is carried out to establish that the specifications of

the parameters in the regulations are satisfied, while check monitoring obtains
information on the organoleptic and microbiological water quality and the
drinking water treatment effectiveness for the purpose of satisfying the
provisions of “wholesomeness” in the regulations. The frequencies of the
compliance monitoring programme are specified within the regulations so
that compliance statistics are not influenced by significant over-sampling.
However, water companies may identify additional non-compliance sampling
programme for more information on water quality. (DWI, 2005)39
Sampling points are required to be selected at random unless there is

authorisation from the Secretary of State. Permanent sampling points are
allowed only if there is no adverse change on the parameter between the
sampling point and the consumer’s tap.


It is clearly stated in the regulations that water companies are required

to investigate any failure (or potential failure) and notify DWI of the cause of
the failure and the actions taken by the water company. The regulations also
set out actions taken by DWI once notification is made to either impose an
enforcement order or have the water company seek a departure, so that
remedial work could be carried out. An Authorised Departure (for Directive
standards) or Derogation (for National Standards) is only allowed for
parameters which pose no potential harm to human health and is only allowed
for a maximum period of 3 years. (UK parliament, 2000)38
To satisfy article 10 of the Drinking Water Directive (1983)31, the DWI

(2008)40, on behalf of Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural
Affairs, approves materials and chemicals used by water companies that come
in contact with water, as stated in regulations 31 - 33 of the Water Supply
(Water Quality) Regulations 2000 (2000)38. This is known as the Regulations
31 approval and is carried out on a case by case basis.
4.3.3. The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI)
Section 57 of the Water Act 2003 (UK parliament, 2003)41 amended

Section 86 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (UK parliament, 1991) 42 to
specifically designate the Chief Inspector, on behalf of the secretary of state, to
independently carry out the powers and duties specified in sections 67 – 70 &
77 – 82 with respect to quality and sufficiency of supply of drinking water.
The Chief Inspector publishes an Annual Report on Drinking Water in
fulfilment of the requirements as stated in section 86(2b) of the Water
Industry Act 1991 (UK parliament, 1991)42. Section 86(2b) requires the Chief
Inspector to report to the Secretary of State on the status of the water industry
with respect to water quality.
Colbourne J. (2008)43 explains that the Chief Inspector is specifically

designated by legislation to be independent from the government in
discharging the specified duties and is subjected to judicial review on the Chief
Inspector’s competencies.


The DWI ensures that the drinking water supplied to customers in

England and Wales is safe and in compliance with the water quality
regulations by carrying out the following core duties:
• Carry out technical audit of public water companies;
• Initiate enforcement action as necessary for contraventions of the
wholesomeness standards or other enforceable environmental duties;
• Investigate incidents which adversely affect drinking water quality;
• Prepare cases for prosecution if there is sufficient evidence that water
unfit for human consumption has been supplied;
• Provide technical and scientific advice to Ministers and DEFRA officials
and the office for the Welsh Assembly Government on drinking water
policy issues,
• Identify and assess new issues or hazards relating to drinking water
quality and initiate research as required;
• Assess and respond to consumer complaints on drinking water quality
when local procedures have been exhausted;
• Assist in the Authorities’ approval process for substances, products and
processes used in the public water supplies;
• Provide authoritative guidance on matters such as the analytical
methods used in the monitoring of drinking water;
• Provide technical advice to local authorities responsible for enforcing
the Private Water Supplies Regulations 1991 (UK parliament, 1991)44
and regulating private water supplies; and
• Report to the EU on UK’s drinking water quality under the European
Drinking Water Directive
(Ofwat, 2006)45 (May A, 2007)35
The current staff and organisation structure of the DWI are shown in
Figure 10. The lean organisation is structured according to teams with
specific core functions.


Figure 10 Organisation of the DWI

(DWI, 29 May 07)46


The water industry in England & Wales operates on a self-regulatory

model. The DWI does not take or analyse samples or carry out investigations
or remedial actions. Instead the DWI provides an independent check on all
water quality data provided by water companies, carries out technical
assessments on whether the investigation and actions by water companies are
appropriate when there is a breach in standard and carries out audits for
prioritised high risk water supply systems.
Rouse M. (2000)47 confirmed that the technical audits comprise of the

following activities:
‐ An annual assessment, based on water quality and other compliance
information provided by companies
‐ Inspection of individual companies, focusing on whether the individual
components of the treatment processes as a whole, is functioning as
planned; identifying and mitigating areas of high vulnerabilities within
the systems which compromise drinking water quality; and the
accuracy of the companies’ sampling and analysis programme to ensure
a reliable measure of drinking water quality; and
‐ Interim checks made on particular aspects of compliance with the
regulations based on information provided periodically by the
companies.
May A. (2008)35 further elaborated that the DWI carries out inspection
checks on:
‐ Sampling & analytical arrangements (review of sampling programme,
audit of sampler, laboratory inspections);
‐ Reporting arrangements (audit trails);
‐ Compliance programmes (selected schemes audits, review of
programmes to meet standards; undertakings review)
‐ Public records (whether the results are correct);
‐ Appropriate treatment processes in the treatment works;
‐ Operation and maintenance of the treatment works and distribution
networks; and
‐ Consumer complaints.


The DWI has implemented a risk-based audit process to prioritise and

focus their audits in high risk systems and processes. The process utilises all
available information from water company data, inspector’s knowledge of the
issues, process types and sites to time of last inspections, and ranks the
systems and processes according to their risk. The inspectors then work
through the list in order of risks, ensuring that the high risk sites are audited
first using available resources. This is only possible and justifiable as water
companies are required to provide all relevant water quality data to allow the
DWI to get an accurate picture of water quality at the treatment works, service
reservoirs and supply zones. (May A., 2007)35
From 1990 to 2003, the water companies were only required to submit
annual compliance data to DWI for their assessment. Since 2003, the DWI
requires water companies to submit monthly returns of all compliance
sampling results to allow the:
• Creation of a database to rigorously analyse and assess the water
companies’ compliance with the standards; and
• UK to comply with the requirements specified in the European
Community Standardised Reporting Directive (91/692/EEC).
(DWI, 2003)48
The DWI database is the key support for the DWI in carrying out its
core duties more effectively. May A. (2007)35 found that the searchable water
quality database (with over three million results a year) aids the DWI in their
assessment, decision making and other regulatory functions. Taylor A. (28
Apr 08)49 shared that the database contains all records from the monthly
compliance data submissions, incident reports, public enquiries, DWI’s
investigations and other related information. The database allows the
creation of visual maps of hotspots, which are used for analysis and included
in the annual report. The DWI inspectors have the flexibility of working
anywhere by having restricted access to the database on the DWI server using
internet connections. Taylor A. (28 Apr 08) also confirmed that there is a
strict format for the inputs of the compliance data as stated in DWI
information letter 6/2003 (DWI, 2003)48, or the database will reject the data.


S.68 (1) (a) of Water Industry Act 1991 (UK parliament, 1991)42
requires water companies to supply wholesome water, as defined by the Water
Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000. The duty of the DWI, on behalf of
the secretary of state, is to consider enforcement when there is a breach in
regulations. As explained in Chapter 4.3.2, water companies are required to
notify the DWI of failures to supply wholesome water, the DWI thus provides
guidance to water companies on notification of such events in their
information letter 02/2004 (DWI, 2004)50.
Water companies are required to notify the DWI of all events, the
nature of which have, or are likely to have
• Adversely affected the quality and sufficiency of the water supplied by
them;
• Given rise to a significant risk to the health of the consumers;
• Been matters of national significance
• Attracted local or national publicity relating to the supply or causing
concern to consumers;
• Been reports of disease in the community associated with water supply.
The DWI will then carry out an investigation of the incident.
(DWI, 2004)50
The DWI (2008)51 defines an incident as a sub-set of events, including

combination, but not limited to the following:
• Any sudden and unexpected breach of part III of the Water Supply
(Water Quality) Regulations 2000 amendment regulations (England) &
2001 amendment regulations (Wales) on wholesomeness of water
supplied
• Any breach of Part IV of the above regulations on water treatment
• Any usual deterioration of water quality
• Any significant risk to the health of the consumer
• Significant consumer perception of water quality changes
• Significant consumer concern about the quality of the water supplied


Examples of notification for the above events include any:

• Event or sequence of events leading to a significant and unexpected or
unusual deterioration in the quality of water at the source, on entering
supply, or at any point in the distribution, resulting in customer
concern
• Malfunction of the disinfection or pre-treatment equipment
• Notification made to local health authority under regulation 35
• Treated water sample with Cryptosporidium oocyst or Giardia cysts or
significant increase in cryptosporidiosis
• Burst mains or significant loss of supply or potential depressurisation
of any point in distribution system
• Suspected backflow/back siphonage
• Significant publicity or contact made by local consumer representative
or media interest
All other event notifications are not classified as incidents.
(DWI, 2008)51
The DWI inspectors use the flowchart in Figure 11 for their incident
investigation. The water company should contact the DWI, either by
telephone and email, as soon as it is aware of a notifiable problem or of a
developing situation, which might become notifiable. An interim report with
information set out in annex 4 of the information direction 03/2008 has to be
submitted.
Upon receipt of the initial notification, the DWI circulates outline

details of the events to DEFRA, Welsh Assembly government and key external
stakeholders (FSA, EA, DoH), as appropriate. Ministers may be advised of
high profile events or events in their constituencies.
Within 5 working days, the DWI will advise the company, in email or
writing, about whether the event is considered an incident, non-incident or
there is insufficient information to classify the event. If classified as an
incident, the DWI might require the company to submit a final 20-day report.


* Targeted time frames that

Notification of Event
may be extended should
via Telephone/Other
further investigation or
means
information be needed.
** Targeted time frame that

72 hours may be influenced by the
Court.
Assessment of initial
Report *** Targeted time frame for
this process from notification
5 days
to report submitted by the
Water Company
1 Month ***
Classified as Incident?
3 Months*
YES NO
Full Report submitted Reclassified as a Signing off of

by Water Company Non-Incident Non-Incident
Assessment and
Investigation
Prosecution Assessment
12 Months**
NO
YES
3 Months*
Completion of Signing off of incident
Prosecution Following Actions upon
Proceedings Recommendations
Figure 11 Assessment of Incidents Flow Diagram

(DWI, online, 2008)52
The DWI (2008)53 evaluates and determines:

• Cause of the event and whether it is avoidable;
• Company response and handling of the event;
• Lessons learnt to prevent future similiar events;
• If any breach of enforceable regulations occurred; and
• If water unfit for human consumption was supplied.


Upon assessment, the DWI will issue a concluding letter to the

company and the relevant stakeholders. The concluding letter will include the
findings and conclusions of the assessment, and any recommendations which
the company can respond to within 20 working days.
If a non-trivial failure of a directive standard was contravened that is

likely to recur and was not due to consumers' tap, the DWI may invite the
water company to apply for an Authorised Departure (EC Directives Standard)
or Derogation (National Standard) provided there is no health risk involved.
This allows the company to temporary supply water that is not wholesome up
to a maximum of 3 years, provided the company carry out an undertaking to
rectify the issue. The DWI can also consider an enforcement order on the
water company to carry out specified rectification work for failures where
there is a health risk.
If the wholesomeness standard was contravened during the event and

the problem is likely to recur, the DWI may consider initiating enforcement
action under section 18 of the Water Industry Act 1991.
Investigation and prosecution for the supply of water unfit for human
consumption under s.70 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (amended under
section 20 of schedule 8 of Water Act 2003 - enforceable on 1 Oct 04) and s.57
of Water Act 2003 (amended S86 of Water Industry Act 1991) allows
prosecution of anyone whose action result in backflow or back siphonage
incidents which affects the quality of water in the distribution. Prosecution
will also be considered if:
• At least 2 consumers experienced illness as a result of or reject the
water supplied;
• Evidence indicates that the company does not have a due diligence
defence; and
• It is in public interest to prosecute. (38 out of 40 cases since 1990 were
successful prosecution.)
(DWI, 2008)51


The DWI (2008)54 carries out the Regulations 31 approval for products
and chemicals used by public water companies on behalf of the Secretary of
State as discussed in Chapter 4.3.2. The applicant submits all relevant
information on the product or chemical to be approved, which the DWI
regulations 31 team will review. The DWI might require further information,
testing at an approved laboratory or seeking expert advice before allowing
such products or chemicals to be used. At least once a year, the Secretary of
State issues a list of all substances and products for which approval has been
granted, refused, modified, revoked or prohibited. (DWI, 2008)55
Research on water quality issues, as a core duty, serves to augment the

other core duties of the DWI. The DWI manages a DEFRA-funded research
programme on drinking water quality and health. The purpose is to:
• Provide a scientific basis for policy decisions, both within the UK and in
international bodies like the EU, UN and WHO;
• Provide technical information to understand present and upcoming
drinking water contaminants on public health and consumer
acceptability;
• Obtain technical information to assist the DWI in carrying out its core
duties more effectively and efficiently; and
• Provide a basis for assessing regulatory activities’ impact on the public.
(Watts and Crane Associates, 2006)56
An annual research ideas meeting is held to brainstorm and prioritise

research projects to be carried out in the year. Representatives from DEFRA,
DWI, HPA, UKWIR, EA and other stakeholders will present their proposed
projects and the meeting will decide on the projects to be funded.
(Foster J. 28 Apr 08)57
The DWI drafts the specifications for the projects to ensure that there is
a clear objective and outcome. The most suitable procurement route,
including co-funding, single tender or Expression of Intent (EOI), is selected
for the project types. Upon tender closing, three independent scorers from
DWI assess the award of the contract by using a scoring system. The most


important criterion is to determine if the proposal is realistic. The scoring

also includes pricing, as the projects are government-funded and there is a
need to be transparent. (Foster J. 28 Apr 08)57
Research projects are usually carried out by private consultants,

academics, commercial research companies and water companies. The DWI
Science and Strategy team manages the research project by monitoring
progress, meeting with the contractor, processing/approving payment,
reviewing and commenting on reports and evaluating the research project
upon completion. (Foster J. 28 Apr 08)57
May A. (2006)58 conclude that “privatisation has achieved significant

benefits in drinking water quality, but only with strong regulation and a
regulator specifically dedicated to drinking water quality.” This would also
apply to any water supplier, whether private or public. The reason is that the
regulations should be based on evidence and facts to show where the
companies are meeting the regulatory requirements, and where the
improvements have to be made in the water systems.


5. Metaldehyde-containing pesticide in the UK
5.1. Metaldehyde
Metaldehyde is the common active component for molluscicide pellets

used for snail and slug control. The compound is also poisonous to animals.
Metaldehyde is also used as camping stove fuel and was used in 1981 – 1982 in
a cloud seeding experiment at the University of Utah. (Wikipedia, 17 Jun 08)59
A “cyclic polymer of acetaldehyde”, metaldehyde is an easily fractured

colourless crystal with powdery appearance, tasteless and has a formaldehyde
odour. It is soluble in benzene and chloroform; slightly soluble in diethyl
ether and ethanol, but is insoluble in acetone and acetic acid. Metaldehyde
will also polymerise at high temperature (>80○C) and by strong acid (WHO &
FAO, 2008) 60 . Figure 12 provides more information. Clayden J. et al
(2001) 61 wrote that metaldehyde is formed from acetaldehyde with
hydrochloric acid (HCl) below 0○C and on heating, reverts back to
acetaldehyde. Bieri M. (2003) 62 noted that metaldehyde is a pure
hydrocarbon which degrades finally to water & carbon dioxide after first
degrading to acetaldehyde and then into acetic acid. Polymerisation is the
chemical process of substances merging to form new compounds (Nathan et al,
1975)63.
IUPAC name: r-2, c-4, c-6, c-8-tetramethyl-1,3,5,7-tetroxocane.

CAS name: 2,4,6,8-tetramethyl-1,3,5,7-tetraoxacyclooctane.
CAS registry number: 108-62-3. (The homopolymer is 9002-91-9).
Molecular formula: C8H16O4
Relative molecular mass: 176.2 g/mol
Density 1.27 g/cm3
Solubility: Water @ 17○C - 200 mg/litre
Water @ 30○C - 260 mg/litre
Synonyms: Metacetaldehyde Structural formula:
Trade names: AntimiliceR; AriotoxR; CekumetaR;
DeadlineR; HalizanR; LimatoxR; Limeol
GR; MetaR; MetasonR; MifaslugR;
NamekilR; Slug DeathR; Slug Fest
Colloidel 25R; SlugitR; Slug-ToxR.
Figure 12 Information profile of Metaldehyde.


Metaldehyde is effective by contact (absorption through skin or lungs)

and by ingestion (absorption through the gastrointestinal tracts). The
effective single dose which will kill off 50% of the rat population in laboratory
tests (LD50) is about 227 mg/kg body weight (bw). Humans can experience
symptoms of poisoning with a low dose of only a few mg/kg of their body
weight. Other toxicity information can be found in Table 8. The WHO
(2005) 64 classified metaldehyde as a class II or moderately hazardous
chemical.
Table 8 Toxicity studies on metaldehyde

Toxicity – mammals
Oral LD50 Dermal LD50 4-hr inhalation LD50
Rat 227-690 mg/kg bw >2275 mg/kg bw 200 µg/m3
Mouse* 200 mg/kg bw 203 µg/m3
Guinea pig 175-700 mg/kg bw
Rabbit 290 – 1250 mg/kg bw
* An oral dose of 1000 mg/kg bw can kill mice within 2 hrs of exposure. Symptoms
of poisoning 10 minutes after dosing include sedation, shivering, whole body tremors,
tonic-clonic convulsions and death.
Toxicity - Man
>50 mg/kg Drowsiness, tachycardia, spasms, irritability, salivation,
abdominal cramps, fever, facial flushing, nausea, vomiting
50 – 100 mg/kg Ataxia and increased muscle tone
100 – 200 mg/kg Convulsions, tremors and hyperflexia
400 mg/kg Coma and death
Toxicity – Non-mammals
Rainbow trouts 96-hr LC50 = 62 µg/m3
Bluegills 96-hr LC50 = 10 µg/m3
Chickens Minimum lethal dose of 500mg/kg bw
Ducks Minimum lethal dose of 300 mg/kg bw
Pan UK (2008) 65 provides an explanation of the following physical

properties of pesticides in measuring their interaction with the environment:
• Half life (DT50) – defined as the time required for half of the pesticide
present after application to degrade. The time depends on temperature,
soil pH, soil microbe content, exposure to light, water or oxygen. This
is further sub-divided into soil half-life (in soil), photolysis half-life
(exposure to light) and hydrolysis half-life (reaction with water).


• Water solubility – measures “how readily the chemicals dissolve in

water” and determines the likelihood of a pesticide being transported
away from the application site by run-off.
• Adsorption coefficient, Koc – measures the chemical’s adhesion strength
to soil and is defined as “the ratio of mass of pesticide adsorbed per unit
mass of soil to mass of pesticide remaining in solution at equilibrium”.
Koc is dependent on type of soil and soil pH. High Koc value indicates a
preference to soil adhesion rather than to dissolving in water.
• Octanol-water partition coefficient, log Kow – measures chemical
distribution between two immiscible solvents (polar water and non-
polar octanol) and is defined as the “ratio of the concentration of
pesticide in the octanol layer to the concentration of the pesticide
dissolved in the water layer”. Low log Kow value indicates the chemical
is more hydrophilic and more soluble in water.
As shown in Table 9, it takes about 10 days for metaldehyde to

degrade in soil. Bieri M. (2003)62 claimed that metaldehyde has a DT50 of
about 5.3 to 9.9 days in average German top soil under aerobic conditions and
expects metaldehyde to have a DT50 of 12 days in water. However, the US
Environment Protection Agency (EPA) (2006)66 stated that metaldehyde has a
half-life of 2 months in aerobic soil and >200 days in anaerobic conditions.
Table 9 Metaldehyde properties table
Common Pesticide Soil Half-life Water Solubility Sorption

Name Movement (days) (mg/l) Coefficient
Rating (soil Koc)
Metaldehyde Low 10 230 240

(National Pesticide Information Centre, 2008)67
Rumsby P. (2007)68 stated that metaldehyde is one of the emerging

contaminants that several UK water companies are facing, as it has recently
exceeded the individual pesticide standard of 0.1 µg/l in 2007. Rumsby P.
(2007)68 speculated that there could be a higher usage of the molluscicide in
the wet 2007 summer to control snails and slugs and that metaldehyde might
not be removed by GAC due to its low Kow value greater than 2.


WRC (2008)69 is now commissioned by some of the water companies to

work with them to carry out research to identify suitable treatment processes
for the removal of metaldehyde. This in turn will help the companies to
decide on appropriate treatment processes and provide evidence to support
their discussion with DWI and other relevant authorities on proposals to
resolve the metaldehyde issues.
5.2. Role of Regulation
The DWI (2008)70 reported that in the western region, 2 out of 37, 239
tests for individual pesticides exceed the standard of 0.10µg/l for metaldehyde,
although there was no PCV breach for total pesticides. The DWI (2007)71 is
considering enforcement action after evaluating the incidents and found that:
• There was inadequate notification of relevant authorities for the
contravention;
• There was little priority given to analysis of metaldehyde when the
increased risks of hazards are known; and
• Bristol Water plc failed to meet the requirements of the Water
Undertakers (Information) Direction 2004
The DWI (2008)72 further reported that Sutton and East Surrey Water
in the Thames region found metaldehyde in its reservoir and in the final water
after extending its raw water monitoring programme. The extension of the
raw water monitoring programme was a result of the DWI being critical of
Sutton and East Surrey Water for not taking any action, nor was it mindful of
the river water quality, despite being made aware of a potential source water
pesticide problem three months earlier.
Allen J. (2008) 73 said that the DWI is currently viewing the

metaldehyde contraventions as any other breaches in the standard. The DWI
is investigating the situation and ensuring that the water companies are
working to resolve the issues to prevent reoccurrence.
Bristol Water plc (2008)74 commented that from 2007, one of their
greatest current challenges is the high metaldehyde pesticide levels found in


raw water. In 2007, 2 out of 31 tests for metaldehyde, in water sample from a
supply point, were tested with a maximum concentration of 0.209µg/l, which
failed to meet the individual pesticide standards of 0.1µg/l.
Bristol Water plc (2008)74 carries out a pesticide monitoring strategy

based on an independent assessment of the types of pesticide used within
their catchment areas, and only carries out analysis for any pesticide with a
concentration greater than 10ng/l. It was found that metaldehyde
concentration in raw water and after treatment exceeded the standards at
certain times of the year and under certain conditions, although the
concentration levels detected in the treated water were not considered to be
hazardous to human health. Nevertheless, Bristol Water plc has
commissioned research to determine suitable treatment process to treat the
water to the required standards.
The Control of Pesticide Regulations (COPR) and Plant Protection

Products Regulations (PPPR) legislation regulates the use, supply, storage and
advertisement of pesticides in the UK. The Pesticide Safety Directorate (PSD)
is responsible for agricultural pesticides, while the Health & Safety Executive
(HSE) are responsible for non-agricultural pesticides. (PSD, 2008)75
PSD (2008) 76 approved 179 products containing metaldehyde from

about 40 companies, for use with conditions in the UK until 21 Dec 2013.
However with the enforcement of EC regulation 396/2005 on the maximum
residue levels (MRLs), PSD (2008)77 has revoked about 127 products for on
label use on Potato and Cauliflower crops.
5.3. Case Study
The company was aware of industry concerns of metaldehyde occurring

in drinking water supplies in December 2007, where the increase was likely
due to increased usage within the catchment areas and heavy rainfall during
the period. The company’s pesticide sampling programme did not include
metaldehyde, as no significant quantities were detected previously in their
catchments. (Water company, 2008)78


Investigation sampling of raw and final water samples at four water

treatment works were carried out on 14 Dec 07. Specialised analysis was
carried out by an external professional laboratory. The results of the analysis
indicated that metaldehyde (concentration range of 0.107µg/l to 0.125µg/l)
was detected above the PCV at three of the water works. The analysis of re-
sampling of the final water samples from three of the water works on 23 Jan
08 found that metaldehyde above the PCV was still detected from samples
taken at one of the water treatment works. Further sampling on 25 Jan 08 at
this water treatment works and its distribution system did not find any sample
with metaldehyde above 0.1µg/l. (Water company, 2008)78
A further survey of metaldehyde carried out in the surface water

treatment works in the region and a bulk supply from another water company
from the same region on 25 – 29 Jan 08 revealed metaldehyde above or at
PCV in several raw water sources and two treated water samples. From Feb to
Mar 08, the company continued to carry out surveys to determine the risk and
treatment removal efficiency for metaldehyde and found metaldehyde levels
above 0.1µg/l at two new monitoring points and one of the earlier water works.
The company has since included a monthly sampling programme for
metaldehyde for the region for risk assessments purposes.
(Water company, 2008)78
The water treatment works treats raw water with physical-chemical

treatment processes including storage reservoirs, coagulation, clarification
(dissolved air flotation or hopper bottom clarifiers), rapid gravity filtration,
GAC adsorption and chlorine disinfection. One of the treatment works is even
fitted with pre-ozonation and ozone before GAC adsorption. Based on the
results of the sampling analysis and from the water industry sources, the
company concluded that GAC and ozone might not remove metaldehyde
efficiently. (Water company, 2008)78 & 79
The external professional laboratory used gas chromatography-mass

spectrometry (GCMS) following solid-phase extraction (SPE). This analytical
method is partly validated and accepted by UKAS & DWI, but is not UKAS-


accredited yet (Personal communication, 2008)78. Although the company was

concerned about the results obtained from the analysis of sample having
discrepancies (discussed below), the external professional laboratory claimed
that further investigation indicated that the method used is specific to
metaldehyde and is robust. Nevertheless, the company intends to work with
all relevant stakeholders on establishing a properly accredited analytical
method for metaldehyde. (Water company, 2008)78
An analysis of the results provided by the company (Water company,

2008) 78 indicates the following:
• Some of the raw water samples were not available for comparison with
treated water samples which indicated metaldehyde above PCV;
• Some of the final treated water has a higher metaldehyde concentration
than post-GAC sample, although all results were above the PCV;
• Many of the raw water samples have a lower metaldehyde
concentration than the final treated water sample; and
• The time of collection of some raw water samples was later than the
time of collection of the downstream final treated water sample.
As a result of a number of water companies facing metaldehyde

contravention, a meeting was held in Apr 08 to discuss the issue. This
meeting was attended by the DWI, EA, Water UK, and representatives from
manufacturers and water companies. It resulted in finding ways to investigate
and proposing solutions to the challenge, such as
• Reformulation of slug pellets to reduce solubility;
• Comprehensive education programme for users;
• Inter-laboratory trials on verification of analytical method
• Research into treatment options for removal of metaldehyde
(Government Agency, 2008)80


6. Water Situation in Southeast Asia
6.1. Association of Southeast Asian Nations
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2008) 81 was

established on 8 Aug 1967 to form an ASEAN community with the objective of
regional peace, stability and economic co-operation and social-cultural
development. The fundamental principles of ASEAN, contained in the Treaty
of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC), primarily rely on
recognition of equality and sovereignty of each member country; non-
interference in the internal affairs of other member countries; peaceful
resolution of differences and intra-national issues; and effective co-operation
among member countries.
Figure 13 Map of ASEAN
ASEAN comprises of 10 Southeast Asian countries (as shown in

Figure 13), namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand,
Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam, Lao People Democratic Republic (PDR) (or
Laos), Myanmar and Cambodia. In 2006, ASEAN has 560 million people, 4.5
million square kilometres, about US$1,100 billion in combined gross domestic
product and about US$1,400 billion in total trade. (ASEAN, 2008)81


The annual Meeting of the ASEAN Heads of State and Government is

the highest decision making body in ASEAN and convened the ASEAN
Summit every year. The ASEAN Standing Committee coordinates the work
carried out in between the annual ASEAN Ministerial Meeting. Member
countries take turn to chair the ASEAN summit and meetings. Regular
Ministerial meetings on specific sectors are supported by committees of senior
officials, technical working groups and task forces. There are also several
specialised bodies and arrangements promoting inter-governmental
cooperation in various fields. This is illustrated in Figure 14. The Secretary-
General of ASEAN is appointed on a five-year term, and accorded ministerial
status, to initiate, advise, coordinate, and implement ASEAN activities.
(ASEAN, 2008)81
ASEAN Summit
ASEAN Economic ASEAN ASEAN Finance

Ministerial Ministerial Ministerial Others
Meetings (AEM) Meeting (AMM) Meeting (AFMM)
Senior Economic Senior Officials ASEAN Senior

ASEAN Standing
Officials meetings Meeting (SOM) Finance Officials Committees
Committee (ASC)
(SEOM) Meeting (ASFOM)
Sub‐committees/ Working Group Working Group Sub‐committees / Sub‐committees /

Working Groups Working Group Working Group
ASEAN
secretariat
Figure 14 ASEAN Organisation structure

(ASEAN, 2008)81
In 1997, the ASEAN leaders adopted the ASEAN vision 2020 which
aims to build an outward-looking, peaceful, stable and prosperous group of
Southeast Asian nations. One of the aims of the ASEAN Vision 2020 calls for
“a clean and green ASEAN with fully established mechanisms for sustainable
development to ensure the protection of the region's environment, the
sustainability of its natural resources and the high quality of life of its


peoples." This highlights the emphasis placed by ASEAN in recognising that

sustainable development and environmental protection as instrumental in
long term economic growth and social developments in the region. The
ASEAN governance environmental structure to develop, coordinate and
implement environmental initiatives and programmes is shown in Figure 15.
(ASEAN, 2008)82
ASEAN Summit
(ASEAN Heads of state/Government)
ASEAN Ministerial Meeting ASEAN Ministerial Meeting
(AMM) on the Environment Secretary General
(ASEAN Foreign Ministers) (ASEAN Environment Ministers) of ASEAN
ASEAN Senior Officials ASEAN Secretariat
ASEAN Standing Committee
(ASC) on the Environment (Bureau for Resources
(ASOEN) Development)
ASEAN Working ASEAN Working ASEAN ASEAN Working ASEAN Working

Group on Group on Working Group Group on Group on Water
Nature Coastal and on Multilateral Environmentally Resources
Conservation & Marine Environmental Sustainable Cities Management
Biodiversity Environment Agreements (AWGESC) (AWGWRM)
(AWGNCB) (AWGCME) (AWGMEA)
Figure 15 ASEAN environmental governance structure
The ASEAN Working Group on Environmentally Sustainable Cities

(2008)83, chaired by Singapore, was formed in Jun 2003 to develop strategies
and action plans for the Regional Environmentally Sustainable Cities
Programme (RESCP). The RESCP focuses on economic developments of
cities in the region in conjunction with the sustainable enhancement of the
living environment within the city in the area of clean air, clean land and clean
water. In the area of clean water, part of the strategies and programmes to
achieve good accessibility and quality of water supply for ASEAN cities include:
‐ Enforcement of efficient supply and use of water by reviewing and
enacting water policies and legislation; and
‐ Monitoring of water quality standards for drinking water by developing
ASEAN indicators, benchmarks and associated monitoring programme
on water sources quality, supply and accessibility.


The ASEAN Working Group on Water Resources Management

(AWGWRM) focuses on the long term sustainable integrated water resources
management plan to ensure sufficiency of water supply for ASEAN. One of
the key needs in the ASEAN Strategic plan for water resources management
(2005)84 is to develop a reporting system for a common set of water quality
standard and parameters across ASEAN for evaluation and analysis.
Table 10 Water statistics for Southeast Asian countries (1995 & 2004)
Drinking water House connections for
Population
coverage drinking water
Country
Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
2004 water statistics
Cambodia 19 81 41 64 35 9 36 2
Indonesia 47 53 77 87 69 17 30 6
Lao PDR 21 79 51 79 43 14 44 6
Malaysia 64 36 99 100 96 94 98 87
Myanmar 30 70 78 80 77 6 16 2
Philippines 62 38 85 87 82 45 58 23
Singapore 100 0 100 100 100 100
Thailand 32 68 99 98 100 38 85 16
Brunei* - - - - - - - -
Vietnam 26 74 85 99 80 24 73 6
1995 water statistics
Cambodia 14 86 29 4 54 29 25 0
Indonesia 36 64 74 13 90 28 65 4
Lao PDR 17 83 49 13 79 44 43 6
Malaysia 56 44 98 100 98 96
Myanmar 26 74 61 5 85 17 53 1
Philippines 54 46 87 31 92 46 81 13
Singapore 100 0 100 100 100 100
Thailand 30 70 97 32 98 76 97 13
Brunei* - - - - - - - -
Vietnam 22 78 68 11 91 44 61 1
* Statistics for Brunei are not available
(WHO &UNICEF, 2008)85
The UN (2008) 86 reported that the percentage of population with

access to clean water in urban areas have decreased from about 94% in 1990
to 89% in 2005, while the percentage in rural areas has increased from about
68% in 1990 to about 76% in 2004. The decrease in percentage for the urban


areas appears to be due to the fact that the service delivery systems are unable
to keep pace with the rapidly growing population. As seen in Table 10, there
is a shift in the population from the rural areas to the urban areas. Other than
Singapore, Malaysia and urban Thailand, the percentage of houses with direct
connections for drinking water is very low.
Biswas A. (2003)87 believes that water management solutions must be

found within the developing countries, rather than just copying solutions from
other parts of the world. This is because of the differences in climatic and
local water issues. In Southeast Asia, 80% of the annual rainfall is focused
within 15 to 20 non-consecutive days within the monsoon period, which lasts
about two to three months, and it is relatively dry the rest of the year.
Therefore, ASEAN countries have to manage the large quantities of water
within those periods for flood prevention and water supply.
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2005)88 recommended the need

for establishing a regulatory framework for water services in Asian countries.
As the provision of water services is a natural monopoly in a city, companies
could exploit their control with high tariff and inequitable service delivery
while governments could keep water charges too low for political gains.
Resource and economic regulations will ensure that all stakeholders’ interests
are catered for and that water services are efficient and cost-effective. Based
on ADB’s experience in Asia, there is a need for competent, credible and
independent regulators within a transparent regulatory framework
throughout Asia and that subsidies are the purview of the government and not
the water services providers.
ADB recognises that Singapore’s water agency, PUB, responsible for

both water services and policy implementation, is able to self-regulate well
because of the discipline and commitment by the government. Although most
Asian countries self-regulate, they are unable to do so as well as Singapore,
because legislation and policies are often overlooked and the agencies lack the
autonomy to manage their own affairs, even though it is legislated but it is not
enforced. ADB recommends that governments need to become regulators


instead of just service providers. Regulations are required to bring

transparency, accountability, equitability and efficiency to the water sector
and must apply to all public and private operators. Regulatory bodies must
protect both consumers’ and operators' interests and need only ensure that
policies and legislation are conformed with. (ADB, 2003)89
6.2. Singapore
Located in Southeast Asia between

Malaysia and Indonesia, Singapore is a
tropical island city state with a land mass
of 682.7 sq km, a population of 4.6
million people and virtually no natural
resources (CIA, 2008) 90 . Tortajada C.
(2006) 91 noted that Singapore is
considered a water scarce country
because of the limited land area to store
the annual rainfall of 2400 mm/yr, Figure 16 Map of Singapore
making water supply one of the CIA, 4 Jul 08)90
Singapore Government’s main concerns.
At the dialogue session during the inaugural Lee Kuan Yew Water Prize
Award Ceremony, Singapore’s Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew revealed that
Singapore's quest to be less dependent on Malaysia for its water supply came
about from day one when the country separated from Malaysia in 1965. Then
the Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee believed that technology would steer
Singapore towards self-sufficiency and set up a unit within the Prime
Minister’s Office to systematically plan to make every drop of water in
Singapore potable (Channel Newsasia, 25 Jun 08)92. This highlights the need
for any country to put in place a long term sustainable water resources
management strategy. It also clearly shows that the Singapore government
sees water as an important strategic resource for survival, public health and
economic development.


The World Bank (2006) 93 highlighted that the core water policy in
Singapore is to ensure a long term sustainable clean water supply. This
follows tremendous efforts in the 1980s to establish a strictly enforced
environmental, legal and management system; integrated urban land-use
planning; pollution clean-up and control systems and the construction of a
complete urban sanitation system.
Totajada C. (2006)91 believes that Singapore’s success in water

management is due to:
• Concurrent emphasis on water supply and demand management;
• Institutional effectiveness; and
• Creating an enabling environment, including strong political will, an
effective legal & regulatory framework and an experienced and
motivated workforce.
During the World Water Week Conference 2007 held in Stockholm,

Sweden on 15 Aug 07, the Singapore government and WHO signed a
partnership agreement to work together in promoting safe management of
drinking water globally. Mrs Susanne Weber-Mosdorf, WHO's Assistant
Director-General for Sustainable Development and Healthy Environments,
commented that "Singapore is an exemplary model of integrated water
management and WHO hopes to work closely with Singapore to share such
expertise in water management with its Member States."
(WHO & MEWR, 2007)94
Deere et al (2007)95 reported that the main finding of the feedback

from the WSP training of trainers workshop, held in Singapore on 3 – 5 Dec
07, is that while WSP trainers agree that implementing WSPs would be useful
in improving water quality and the reliability of water supplies, water utilities
are unlikely to implement WSP unless they are legally obliged to do so, as the
WSP will not be their main priority. Water regulators would be required to
implement legislation or provide incentives to encourage water suppliers to
implement WSP.


6.2.1. Water Quality Regulations
The Ministry of Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) is

responsible for ensuring a sustainable living environment for Singaporeans
and focuses on the management of water, land, air and public health. MEWR
has two statutory boards, the National Environment Agency (NEA) and PUB
(the national water agency) to carry out the operational undertakings. PUB is
responsible for water issues, while NEA is responsible for issues relating to the
quality of the living environment in Singapore, environmental protection and
environmental public health. Both statutory boards are answerable to the
Minister for Environment & Water Resources and the Government of
Singapore in discharging their responsibilities. The current Singapore water
quality regulatory model is summarised in Figure 17. (MEWR, 2008)96
Within MEWR, the Water Studies Division (WSD) is responsible for the
strategic oversight of water issues in Singapore, including the water master
plan, pricing, legislation, policies and planning considerations. MEWR also
takes on the role of regulating the efficiency and performance of PUB, the sole
public water supplier. (Ministry, 2008)97
PUB is responsible for the technical and operational requirements of

water supply. The country’s water collection and drainage systems, reservoirs,
public water treatment plants, public water distribution networks, sewerage
systems, water reclamation plants, public NEWater factories and NEWater
distribution networks are owned and managed by PUB. Under the public-
private-partnership (PPP), PUB also purchases water from private-owned
NEWater factories and desalination plant, carried out under the design, built,
owned and operate (DBOO) arrangements. NEWater is Singapore’s third
national tap or water source and is produced from treated used water using
dual-membrane filtration and UV disinfection. Chapter 6.2.2 discusses this
further. (PUB, 2008)98


Ministry of Environment and Water Resources

Water Services Division
‐ Responsible for overall strategic policy on all water issues
‐ Formulates policies for water industry
‐ Regulates PUB on efficiency & performance
‐ Determines the tariff structure for public drinking water supplies
PUB National Environment Agency (NEA)

‐ Manages the entire water cycle ‐ Environment and water quality regulator
‐ Responsible for integrated urban ‐ Responsible for approval of Water Safety
water resources management Plans and sampling programme
‐ Sole public drinking water supplier ‐ Regulations sets the WHO
(except for small private supplies guidelines (1 microbiological, 3
for internal consumption) physical, 3 radiological, 94 chemical
‐ Regulates operational parameters) for quality parameters
requirements for water supply and sampling frequency
system (including plumbers) ‐ Responsible for regulating water quality of
‐ Operational training for utilities private water supplies
PUB-owned drainage Private owned NEWater Private water supplies for

systems, reservoirs, water factories and internal consumption
treatment works, desalination plant (campsites on offshore
NEWater factories, owned & operated under islands)
sewerage systems the PPP arrangement – NEA is responsible for
water quality
Water Supply system to household, public buildings,

private buildings and industries
Figure 17 Current Singapore water quality regulatory model
Since Jan 08, MEWR has worked with NEA to introduce the new
Environmental Public Health (Quality of piped drinking water) Regulations
2008, which becomes enforceable in Aug 2008. The newly formed Drinking
Water Unit (DWU), under the NEA’s Environmental Public Health
Department, is responsible for regulating water quality for both public and
private water suppliers. As such, the DWU is responsible for approving the
WSPs that PUB and other private water suppliers will prepare. The DWU is


working closely with the WHO in developing and promoting the water safety
plans amongst developing member states and is a member of the WHO
Regional Office for Europe’s (WHOROE) International Network of Water
Regulators. The WHOROE (2008)99 explained that only regulators are invited
to join this network for the purpose of knowledge sharing and networking.
While there are limited private piped water supplies, these are mainly
for internal use in the offshore islands and there is usually no tariff charged,
so the tariffs are not regulated. However, NEA is responsible for regulating
the water quality for these water supplies. With the new regulations, MEWR
is working closely with PUB and NEA on their role in regulating the private
water supplies. It is likely that PUB will regulate the technical efficiency of
these water supplies, while NEA is responsible for the public health aspect of
water quality. (Personal communication, 2008)97
The Public Utilities Act 2001 (Singapore Government, 2001) 100 was
enacted to reconstitute the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and matters
connecting to water services. S.6 of the Act specifies the functions and duties
of the board including, amongst other things, the responsibilities to “secure
and provide an adequate supply of water at reasonable prices” and “regulating
the supply of piped water for human consumption”. PUB is also responsible
for the levy and regulates the tariffs for water supplied for human
consumption, but the Minister’s approval is required for setting the tariff
structure. S.41 of the Act also stipulates that only PUB is allowed to supply
piped water for human consumption, unless explicit approval with conditions
is granted by PUB.
The Public Utilities (Water Supply) Regulations specifies that water

meter and water saving devices are mandatory in Singapore, unless
exemptions are approved by PUB (World Bank, 2006)93. It seemed highly
unlikely that PUB will allow exemption in the public supplies, as this will have
an impact on the tariff collection and the efficient use of drinking water.
The Minister for Environment and Water Resources appoints the

Director-General of Public Health to discharge the duties specified in the


Environmental Public Health Act 1987 (EPHA) under section 3 of the Act. S.
58 requires the approval of the Director-General for any wells, tanks or
reservoirs used for drinking, domestic or other purposes. S.78 – 80 of the
EPHA specifies that only wholesome or unpolluted water may be sold for
human consumption and allows NEA to introduce regulations to define water
quality standards. (Singapore Government, 1987)101
Although Singapore has always adopted the WHO guidelines on water

quality, the Environmental Public Health (Quality of piped drinking water)
Regulations 2008 is the first to be introduced that legally defines water quality
standards. The specified water quality parameters, attached as Appendix E,
include 1 microbiological parameter, 95 chemical parameters, 3 radiological
parameters and 3 physical-chemical parameters. These are essentially
extracted wholesale from the WHO Guidelines for Safe Drinking Water. The
regulations also require all water suppliers to implement a WSP and sampling
programme, approved by the Director-General, which has to be reviewed
annually. (Singapore Government, 2008)102
NEA also produced a “Code of practice on piped drinking water

sampling and safety plan” to help water suppliers in complying with the
regulations. The code of practice (NEA, 2008) 103 recommends a basic
sampling for microbiological parameters only at the frequency specified in the
WHO guidelines (as shown in Chapter 4.1.5), while the minimum frequency
of the comprehensive sampling plan for all parameters specified in the
regulations is at least once a year, except those approved and identified as not
of concern.
Lye L.H. (2006)104 argued that environmental laws can be effectively

enforced only if an effective system of governance is established, starting with
effectively organised government institutions, offices and enforcement
agencies. Lye L.H. (2006)104 concluded that Singapore owes its success in
environmental management to its merit-based systems, political leadership,
administrative service and civil servants in the various environmental
agencies.


6.2.2. Integrated Water Resources Management
PUB (2008) placed equal emphasis on both components of IWRM -

water supply and water demand management. This is neatly summed up in
its vision “Water for All: Conserve, Value, Enjoy” (MEWR, 2008)106. However,
water supply management will be the main focus of this chapter.
Figure 18 Closing the Water Loop in Singapore

(PUB, internet, 2008)105
Since 2001, PUB (2008) 105 manages, in an integrated manner,

Singapore’s water resources from drainage systems, rivers, reservoirs,
waterworks, distribution network, water reclamation plants, NEWater
factories and sewerage systems to optimise Singapore’s limited water
resources. Using advanced technology, PUB short-circuit the water loop with
NEWater (reclamation of treated used water) and desalination as shown in
Figure 18. Some of the key water statistics can be found in Table 11.


Table 11 Water resources statistics for Singapore
Water Resource Management Unit 2005 2006 2007
Drinking water (% access) % 100 100 100
Adequate sanitation (% access) % 100 100 100
Drinking water quality (meeting WHO standard) % 99.96 99.99 99.96
Water consumption as % of water demand met by % 100 100 100

total water resources
Unaccounted for water % 5.0 4.5 4.4
No. of accounts served per employee - 396 400 393
Monthly bill collection efficiency % 99 99 99
Monthly bill collection efficiency Days of sales 33 32 32

outstanding
Water Supply Unit 2005 2006 2007
No. of raw water reservoirs in Singapore - 14 14 14
No. of desalination plants - 1 1 1
Sales of potable water in Singapore ‘000m3/day 1,206 1,230 1248

- Domestic 694 702 724
- Non-domestic 512 528 524
No. of NEWater plants - 3 3 4
Sale of NEWater ‘000m3/day 73 81 134
Sale of Industrial Water ‘000m3/day 107 112 80
Volume of used water treated ‘000m3/day 1,352 1399 1469
Water Demand Unit 2005 2006 2007
Domestic water consumption per capita litres/day 160 158 157

(MEWR, pg 7, 2008)106
Singapore has developed the Four National Taps or four water

sources to ensure a sustainable and diversified water supply for Singapore.
These comprise of local catchment water, imported water, NEWater and
desalination. (MEWR, 2008)106


i) Local Catchment Water
Singapore practises large scale rainwater harvesting from protected,

unprotected and urbanised catchments. This is made possible by
integrated land-use planning and development, including siting of pollutive
industries in designated zones, strict pollution control and a comprehensive
separate sewerage and drainage systems. There are currently 14 reservoirs
in Singapore, but two-thirds of Singapore’s land surface will be water
catchment by 2011 with the completion of the Marina Barrage and Punggol-
Serangoon Reservoir Scheme as shown in Figure 19. The reservoirs are
integrated with excess water collected from one reservoir pumped into
another for storage to reduce water wastage under the reservoir integration
scheme.
(Lee P.O., 2005)107
Punggol‐

Figure 19 Singapore's catchment areas
PUB is working on the Marina Barrage project, which is a unique 3-in-1

project. The barrage is a dam across the 350m Marina Channel and
comprises of nine steel crest gates. The benefits of the Marina barrage are
to act as a tidal barrier to control flooding in some of the low-lying parts in
the city, create the 15th freshwater reservoir with a catchment area of 100 sq
km in the already built-up city centre of Singapore, and to become a major


lifestyle attraction with many opportunities for lifestyle, recreational and

sports activities in downtown Singapore. (Lee P.O. 2005)107
ii) Imported Water
Singapore currently imports water from the neighbouring Malaysian

state of Johor under two long term agreements signed in 1961 and 1962.
These agreements allow Singapore an entitlement of raw water until 2011
and 2061 respectively. The water is treated in Johor and transferred via
three large pipelines across the 2km causeway between the two countries.
(Tortajada C., 2006)91
iii) NEWater
All used water in Singapore is collected via the sewerage systems and
treated at water reclamation plants to international standards. The use of
advanced water technology allows Singapore to reclaim the treated used
water. This ultra-clean NEWater is treated using a multi-barrier micro-
filtration, reverse osmosis and ultra-violet disinfection. The technology is
discussed in Table 3 of Chapter 3.2. Although a small percentage is
mixed into the raw water reservoirs for indirect potable use (IPU), most of
the NEWater is supplied for use in the industries and commercial buildings
as part of a substitution strategy. This meant that potable water, previously
used by the industries, can now be available for human consumption. PUB
owns and operates 3 NEWater factories, and purchase NEWater from the
Keppel Seghers Ulu Pandan NEWater Plant on a 20 years Design, Built,
Own & Operate (DBOO) contract, which can supply up to 148, 000 m3/day
(32 MGD or million gallons per day). (PUB, 2008)108
PUB (2008)109 also recently signed a 25-year NEWater agreement with

Sembcorp Utilities Pte Ltd to design, build, own and operate the 50 MGD
NEWater plant on the rooftop of the new PUB’s Changi Water Reclamation
Plant. As with all NEWater factories, PUB will put in place a
comprehensive system of water quality tests and audit, and the plant’s
online water quality monitoring system will be linked to PUB for


continuous real-time monitoring. The 5 NEWater factories will supply up

to 30% of Singapore’s current water needs by 2010.
iv) Desalination
The first Public-Private-Partnership project in Singapore is the

desalination plant project awarded to Singspring Pte ltd, a subsidiary of
Hyflux Ltd. PUB can purchase desalinated water from the 30 MGD
(136,380 m3/day) Singspring Desalination Plant for 20 years. A 2-pass
reverse osmosis process, with pre-treatment (Dissolved Air Flotation
Filtration) and post-treatment (remineralisation) processes, produces
desalinated water to supply up to 10% of Singapore’s current water needs.
The desalinated water is blended with PUB’s treated potable water before
being supplied to the public. The plant was officially opened by Prime
Minister Lee Hsien Loong on 13 Sep 05 and the project was accorded the
Asia Pacific Water Deal of the year 2003 by Euromoney. As the plant’s
online monitoring system is linked to PUB’s monitoring system, PUB is
able to monitor the major water quality parameters on a continuous, real-
time basis.
(Hyflux, 2008)110
There are 14 integrated water supply zones in Singapore, comprising

the distribution network from each of the 14 service reservoirs determined
both by hydraulics and reservoir capacity, rather than by population size. This
is because the supply zones serve both industry and domestic needs. These
service reservoirs, consisting of one or more tanks, are regularly maintained
and are shut down for inspection and cleaning at least once every 5 years or as
and when necessary. (Haja N., 2008)111
Kok T.W. et al (2008)112 highlighted that PUB has a comprehensive

integrated water quality management and operation system to monitor water
quality for the water supply chain from source to tap. This allows real-time
analysis and trending of water quality, which is used in operations and
decision making. Woo C.H. (2008)113 explained that any abnormality will be


generated by the systems, which will alert the relevant officers to take
necessary action.
Together with monitoring of source water quality and operational water

quality at the water treatment works, the water quality is also monitored
extensively throughout the water supply network through:
• Online water quality monitoring of surrogate parameters using
onsite sensors and analysers located at strategic critical control points;
• Daily routine sampling of about 170 samples collected at all service
reservoirs, distribution mains, customers’ premises and specific
sampling programme from schools and hospitals;
• Toxicity monitoring using telemetric CCTV fish monitoring in
conventional tanks or Fish Biosensors using de-chlorinated treated
water from critical points along the trunk mains and service reservoirs.
(Kok T.W., 2008)112
With regards to water quality management within the customer’s

premises, Kok T.W. et al (2008)112 explained that PUB employs the following
three-prong approach:
• Legislation & enforcement – only PUB licensed plumbers can
carry out plumbing works, and all plumbing works and fittings have to
comply with the stipulated requirements. Customers are required to
regularly inspect and properly maintain their water services
installations.
• Education – regular briefings and circulars are used to raise
awareness and provide help to customers in maintaining their water
services installations.
• Physical measures – Advice on physical measures to ensure water
quality is provided for customers.


7. Discussion
The UN has started to recognise that safe drinking water and sanitation
are very important elements for supporting a country’s development. This can
be seen in the targeted approach to solving global issues through the
provisions of the MDGs, and the involvement of the various UN agencies,
countries and other organisations in assisting those countries which are facing
water shortages. Other than investment in technological developments, there
is a need to ensure that there are sufficient supporting institutional
arrangements for educational, legislative and regulatory structure to support
the sustainable developments of the country. While technology provides the
means to solve the micro issues, such as removing a certain contaminant from
drinking water, the institutional and supporting arrangements provide a
sustainable solution to the macro issues.
Without proper access to safe and sustainable drinking water and

sanitation for its population, a country’s developments can be severely limited.
In the case of Singapore, drinking water is essential for both human and
economic survival. The provision of a stable government and sustainable and
reliable infrastructure (including amongst other things, uninterrupted,
reliable drinking water supply and 100% sanitation services) ensure continued
foreign investment in providing jobs and development of Singapore’s growth
as a nation. This makes Singapore attractive as a regional headquarters for
many multi-national companies looking to invest and develop their businesses
in the Asia-Pacific region. It can be appreciated that the development of
Singapore’s integrated water resources management systems has taken time
to continuously develop and maintain, ensuring its high standards today.
While governments are usually committed to providing safe drinking

water for the population, there is uncertainty as to what determines that
drinking water is safe. It is not possible to determine whether water is safe
unless it is tested and measured against a set of parameters regularly. The
challenge is that there are both natural (which was previously unknown) and
man-made (previously not available) contaminants that can be found in water


that needs to be treated to potable standards. Unless there is sufficient

evidence to show the safe contaminant concentration levels, the setting of
acceptable standards is determined by a government authority’s judgement,
based on perceived health, social and economic considerations. Monitoring
and sampling programmes require resources, which have to be balanced with
other necessary developments. As monitoring programmes usually provide
long term intangible results, they are given less priority than other short term
tangible developments.
Countries, in different regions and in different stages of development,

face different issues in relation to drinking water quality. The development of
regional groupings, like the EU and ASEAN, provides common grounds for
networking and sharing of knowledge on common water quality issues,
ensuring consistent policies among the regional member states in providing a
minimum level of safe drinking water in the region. With a regional minimum
safe drinking water level, it would allow the region to raise the safe drinking
water quality level in a sustainable, continuous manner. Raising the safe
drinking water quality level requires time, commitment and resources, and
has to be consistent with the developments in other areas in the country.
7.1. International guidelines
As an international health authority, the WHO is able to pull resources

together to provide public health advice to the WHO member states. This
allows the cross-sharing of knowledge in determining and handling known
public health risks. The WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality is the
result of water experts around the world collaborating on producing
recommendations for the provision of safe drinking water. The guideline
values for the parameters stated in the Guidelines are the minimum standards
that all countries could aspire to achieve in their national drinking water
quality standards.
Being an international advisory document, the guidelines have to be

comprehensive and have to cater for all situations, whether in developed or


developing communities. It is up to the national authorities to determine the

application of the guidelines. The success of implementing the framework for
safe drinking water depends on the political will, government stability and the
institutional arrangements within the country.
The government leaders must have the political will to ensure that
water remains one of their top priorities, so that the necessary resources can
be committed to developing and maintaining the drinking water
infrastructures to meet the national requirements. This can be seen in the
case of Singapore, where there is political will in ensuring that water remains
a priority on the national agenda. Together with scientific evidence, the
political will of the leaders in accepting and promoting NEWater is also one of
the main reasons that NEWater is generally accepted by the public as one of
Singapore’s national taps, allowing reclaimed water to be used nationwide.
Drinking water and sanitation infrastructure require resources to

support both development and maintenance. This is only possible if there is
stability in the country with a government committed to providing the
necessary climate and support for investments. There is a need to ensure that
the private or public water utilities can recover the cost and that sufficient
incentives are provided to allow private water utilities to consider investing in
water services in the country. It is unlikely that a company will provide
services and invest in an unstable country, where there is no regular and
effective collection of sufficient tariffs to at least cover the cost of the water
services and generate some profit.
The WSP is only a tool to ensure that the health-based targets are
achieved. It is for the national health authority to determine what targets are
required to be achieved based on the local conditions, as highlighted in
Chapter 4.1.2. The WSP will not be effective without a proper definition in
the legislation defining “drinking water quality”.
Although the WSP is a simple tool, there is a need to determine the

necessary institutional arrangement that will allow the sustainable


implementation of the WSP. One of the institutional arrangements is the

legislative instrument to require the use of WSPs in water services.
As highlighted by Deere et al (2007) on page - 63 -in chapter 6.2,

feedback from the WDP trainers indicated that there is a need to include WSP
in the legislation to ensure that water utilities give it priority. The UK and
Singapore are some of the few countries which have specifically amended their
legislation to ensure that water utilities implement WSPs. However, there is a
parallel need for an independent regulator who must be competent enough to
verify that the WSP is implemented effectively.
Existing well-managed water utilities have already been practising the

hazard analysis and critical control mentioned in the WSP, especially in the
water treatment works and distribution systems. The WSP allows water
utilities to involve other stakeholders to put in place WSP in the catchment
and consumer’s premises, which are usually outside the control of the water
utilities.
The WHO has recommended shifting the emphasis for the provision of
safe drinking water to a preventive approach instead of relying on end-point
monitoring. End-point monitoring is now used as a verification tool to ensure
that the WSP is implemented properly. As such, the sampling frequency is
very minimal, as seen in Table 6 & Table 7. The Guidelines do recommend a
higher sampling frequency for variable surface water sources. This is
necessary, as sampling only provides water quality information at the point of
collection. There is definitely a need to monitor water quality regularly and
frequently to ensure a safe drinking water supply. It is important to take into
account water quality changes due to the local (seasonal, geological, cultural,
industrial, etc) conditions.
7.2. EU & ASEAN perspectives
It can be seen from analysing the EU and the ASEAN that the 2 regional
groups function quite differently. There are also political, cultural and social
differences. While both regional groups were formed for the common


economic and social development of their region, the approaches to achieving

these objectives are quite different. The EU has created an independent EU
government that presides over the member states and as such, can create
legislation to govern and push regional objectives. However, the ASEAN has
to ensure that ASEAN objectives do not constitute interference in the internal
affairs of member states and functions mainly through consensus.
The ASEAN therefore does not have the legislative authority to allow
the creation of regulations similar to the EU DWD to ensure a minimum water
quality among the ASEAN region. It would be more useful for the ASEAN to
provide guidance, advice and resources through the ASEAN working groups,
as shown in Figure 15, to share resources on water quality management. A
regional grouping of water quality regulators, affiliated to the WHOROE’s
International Network of Water Regulators (of which the Singapore water
quality regulator is a member of) could be set up to allow the sharing of
knowledge and networking among the ASEAN water quality regulators.
It can be seen that there is a shift in the population in Southeast Asian

countries and the ASEAN cities are growing. As highlighted by Tortajada C.
(2006)91, Singapore’s experience and performance in integrated water
resources managements could be emulated by other countries to ensure
sustainable water supplies for their urban cities. However, to cater to the
entire country, Singapore’s experiences have to be adapted to each city in the
country, and expanded to the surrounding rural communities. The key is then
to ensure that there are suitable institutional arrangements to allow for such
developments.
7.3. UK and Singapore water quality regulatory model
While the UK has adopted a privatised industry in England & Wales,

with independent regulators to allow for private investments to meet the EU
DWD, Singapore has elected for public agencies to provide water and
sewerage services, with the provision for public-private partnership in water
treatment. Both drinking water industries are funded by the collection of


tariffs, which is based on a set of criteria to allow the UK water companies and
the Singapore water agencies to be sufficiently financed. Subsidies are
provided separately by the governments, and not by the companies and
utilities. This allows a fairer payment of water services, both for the
consumers and the water utilities.
In the UK, the water quality is governed by legislation, strictly enforced

by the DWI. The water utilities are self-regulated, as they provide the
necessary sampling results to show compliance with the regulatory
requirements. The legislation requires the compliance of the relevant
parameters at specified concentration values and the water companies are
only obliged to supply such information. The water companies will not
sample, test and provide information to the DWI on parameters that are not
required by the regulations. As such, there is a need to ensure that the
legislation caters for all possible parameters and situations. It is thus crucial
to have the DWI monitoring and ensuring that the companies are carrying out
their obligations and to introduce changes to the legislation when required.
The collection of monthly water quality data allows the DWI to analyse and
determine contraventions and possible trends, so that further contraventions
can (hopefully) be avoided.
The UK water quality regulatory model, with the DWI functioning as an

independent water quality regulator, is a cost effective model. The model
allows the water utilities to carry out monitoring programmes, ensure
compliance with the water quality standards, and carry out improvement
programmes and remedial actions for water quality incidents. Water utilities
would then be able to gain competencies in handling water quality issues in
their provision of services. At the same time, it allows the government to focus
on being regulators, rather than service providers. The regulators exist as a
check to ensure compliance, while the water utilities focus on operational
efficiency and cost recovery through tariffs.
The DWI is well established with more than 18 years of regulatory

experience, which shows that a strong regulator within a well defined


regulatory structure is required for ensuring that there are improvements to

water quality. It is important to the DWI that they are seen to be acting
independently from the UK government and without interference from
political leaders, especially since the DWI is funded through DEFRA. This is
to assure the public that their interests are being protected. This
independence can be seen in the heavy reliance of science-based evidence
used in decision making within the DWI and the sharing of water quality
information with the public through media releases and the annual reports by
the Chief Inspector. This would certainly apply to both public and private
utilities.
In Singapore’s case, PUB is responsible for the provision of drinking

water of the highest quality to the public, and reports directly to the Minister
for Environment and Water Resources in discharging its duties. PUB is also
considered self-regulated, although there is a difference from the term used in
the UK. This is because the legislations do not provide an exact meaning to
the definition of water quality. As drinking water is of high importance in
Singapore, PUB has to take extra measures to determine and ensure safe
drinking water based on the guideline values recommended by the WHO
Guidelines for safe drinking water.
The move to introduce the Environmental Public Health (Quality of

Piped Drinking Water) Regulations 2008, with the requirements of the use of
WSP and water quality parameters, and the setting up of the Drinking Water
Unit within the NEA are important steps to ensuring the continued provision
of safe drinking water within Singapore.
As the DWU is a relatively new setup within the Environmental Health

Department of the NEA, the functions of the DWU are still being worked out
so that there is no conflict between the functions of PUB and NEA. It is likely
that PUB will remain responsible for the technical and efficient operation of
water services, while DWU is responsible for ensuring that public health risks
arising from drinking water are minimised.


It would certainly be useful for the DWU to develop capabilities similiar

to those of the DWI, to allow the DWU to carry out its roles and functions
competently. This is because of the need for competent knowledge in public
health risks, water treatment processes, water quality issues, legislation and
local conditions to allow the DWU to carry out the regulatory duties effectively.
Other than the approval of WSPs, the DWU would have to carry out
technical audits to verify that the water suppliers are implementing the
approved WSPs appropriately. This would require the setting up of a
technical audit framework that allows the DWU to carry out regular
assessment and checks to assure themselves and the public that the risks are
being managed properly.
The development of a water quality database and proper procedures in

the submission of water quality data would allow the DWU to carry out
evidence-based decision making and water quality assessment, and also to
carry out a risk-based approach to auditing water supplies, focusing their
limited resources on high risk parts of the water supply systems. The DWU
would have up-to-date water quality information for the entire country
available, thus allowing the DWU to investigate and determine current and
potential water quality issues.
All the WHO Guidelines parameters have been adopted as the water
quality parameters in the regulations, some of which might not be applicable
in Singapore. This has meant that additional resources are used in potentially
unnecessary sampling and monitoring. It is reasonable for the legislation to
allow the water companies and utilities to carry out testing of all of the water
quality parameters for a period of time, to effectively determine which
relevant parameters should be monitored. The DWU could analyse the water
quality data to refine the water quality parameters in the regulations and
independently determine the relevant water quality parameters to be
monitored more frequently.
The legislation does not clearly specify the functions of the DWU, the
actions and procedures to be carried out in the event of a breach in the


drinking water standards, nor the penalty or enforcement actions for such
breaches. As such, it is unclear what the DWU or the Director-General of
Public Health will do in the event of such breaches. It would likely include
notices to the water suppliers to carry out remedial actions to ensure that such
contraventions would not happen again. It is also not a requirement in the
legislation to inform the DWU of water quality incidents, which means that
the DWU will be unable to investigate all incidents, thereby ensuring that the
water companies are carrying out proper remedial actions.
An independent regulator with sufficient authority is crucial in

providing an independent check on the drinking water quality and ensuring
that water utilities implement suitable improvement programmes to meet
regulatory compliance. Although both PUB and NEA report to the same
ministry, it is highly certain that there is independence in regulating water
quality, as PUB & NEA are separate entities with separate funding.
7.4. Proposed ASEAN Water Quality Regulatory Model
Arising from the studies, a flexible basic water quality regulatory model
for ASEAN cities is proposed, as shown in Figure 20.
The model is divided into three sections: International; Regional/Sub-

regional and National arrangements. The purpose of the model is to provide
the basic regulatory framework to ensure adequacy and sufficiency of an
uninterrupted supply of safe drinking water.
The UN agencies and the WHO form the international arrangements, in

the form of co-ordinators and advisors for the region and countries in
ensuring safe drinking water. The UN could focus on international co-
operation, development and implementation of strategies to achieve the
MDGs for the regions. The WHO provides advice and support on public
health risks arising from drinking water. The international bodies would have
broad global overviews of the critical health issues and could coordinate
resources in assisting countries dealing with drinking water issues.


United Nations WHO
International
(International Co-ordinator & Support) (International Health Authority & Advisor)
ASEAN
(Regional co-ordinator and advisor)
Sub-regional
Regional &
ASEAN Network of
Water Regulators
National Environment Ministry
Regulatory Agencies Ψ Water Quality

Accredited Regulator
Laboratories
Public Water Agency

Public Statutory
Private Water
Water Supply
Supplier
companies
Public owned
drainage and
National
reservoir system
Public Owned Private Public Statutory

works Water works Supplier works
Public Water Agency Public Statutory

Distribution Network Supplier distribution
ж ж ж
network
Consumer
Ж – Consumer Representative group

Ψ – Regulatory agencies include the financial regulator, environment agencies,
land use/town planning authorities, accreditation authority, and local
authorities/councils
Figure 20 Proposed basic water industry model


In Southeast Asia, the ASEAN could continue to play an active role in

ensuring and promoting safe drinking water in the agenda. The formation of
the ASEAN Network of Water Regulators, affiliated with the International
Network of Water Regulators, will allow the ASEAN regulators to share and
collaborate on water regulatory challenges and water quality issues pertaining
to the region. An ASEAN agency could also be instituted to develop the
reporting system for a common set of water quality standard and parameters
across the ASEAN for evaluation and analysis.
Within the country, the national Environment Ministry could be

responsible for policies and legislation on water resources and quality. The
ministry could introduce and maintain suitable institutional arrangement and
legislative authority to regulate water resources and water services. This
allows the Environment Ministry to exercise a national overview of the water
challenges of the country and coordinate the developments needed. The
country could look at every practicable source of water and develop an
integrated water resources management strategy to ensure sustainable water
resources for the population and for national developments. The IWRM
strategy must be consistent with the developments of the country.
Most ASEAN countries already have public water agencies in place to

provide water services. This could be developed further to practice IWRM and
carry out the operational functions of IWRM for the Environment Ministry.
The public water agency could be responsible for the water resources and
sanitation infrastructure, including the rivers, lakes, reservoirs, drainage
systems and sewerage collection systems. The public water agency or the
environment agency could also be responsible for abstraction and discharge
into the water resources infrastructure to ensure the sufficient use of water
resources and that the water resources are not heavily polluted.
The water quality regulator could be one of the independent regulators

set up to ensure drinking water quality. The other regulators could include
land-use authority, accreditation authorities, financial regulator, environment
agencies and local councils/governments. The water quality regulator ensures


that the safe drinking water is supplied in accordance with the regulations by
carrying out similar functions like the DWI as discussed in Chapter 4.3.3.
Water supply services would be provided by three different types of

entities, which are the public water agency, public statutory water supply
companies and private water supplies.
The public water agency could operate its own water treatment works
to gain operational experience and maintain a basic water supply, and could
also enter into public-private-partnership agreements to purchase treated
water from treatment works owned and operated by private companies. The
public agency would still be responsible for the distribution network and
supply to the consumers.
Private water companies could also be licensed to be public statutory

water supply companies, which could have separate water supply systems to
consumers. There could also be connections in the separate distribution
networks to ensure continuity of supply and need only be used in rare
circumstances.
In certain areas, there might be a need to maintain and allow for

private water supplies. However, these should be the exception, rather than
the norm, as private water supplies will usually be used in places which are
beyond the reach (both economic and physical conditions) of the public water
supply networks.
There should also be feedback channels, including consumer

representatives groups to allow for feedback and complaints to the water
suppliers. Such complaints are usually the first indications of water quality
and sufficiency issues.
The basic water quality model will allow a consistent approach to

developing and ensuring that there is an uninterrupted supply of safe drinking
water to the public. It is also flexible enough to be adapted to the local
conditions in the country.


7.5. Metaldehyde-containing pesticides, a practical

issue
Metaldehyde is one of the emerging contaminants that UK water

utilities are required to deal with in their treatment systems. The main issue
is that water utilities are finding that GAC and ozone might not be efficient in
removing metaldehyde from drinking water and thus there might be a risk
that this might contravene the pesticide standards. There is also no accredited
approach for analysing metaldehyde in water. Analytical results from the case
studies raised many questions as the data does not seem to make sense,
especially since some of the final treated water samples have higher
metaldehyde concentration than that found in the raw water sample. As with
all contaminants, there is a need for a multi-faceted approach to involve
stakeholders in resolving the issue.
It can be clearly seen from the studies of the metaldehyde incidents that
the sampling programmes were extended to monitor for the presence of
metaldehyde, due to the information sharing amongst the water companies
and with the DWI. This was in addition to having the DWI as an independent
regulator to audit the water companies on their monitoring programmes and
regulatory compliance.


8. Conclusion
¾ While technologies are available to treat water to a suitable quality and can
be adopted by countries to provide safe drinking water, technologies focus
on the micro issues. Regulatory and management frameworks focus on the
macro policies and issues to ensure the sustainable use of technology in
providing safe drinking water for the population. Technology and
regulatory frameworks need to be incorporated concurrently to ensure a
consistent approach to ensure a sustainable water supply for the
population’s basic needs and national developments.
¾ Regulations are not meant to deter or hinder water utilities in discharging

their duties. It is meant to help water utilities (both public and private) in
ensuring that they are providing the best possible water services to the
public. Regulations also ensure that both the interests of the water utilities
and the consumer are protected. Well-managed utilities would have
already carried out the necessary checks to ensure compliance and
incorporated possible strategies to handle potential issues in their water
services. The water quality regulators independently verify regulatory
compliance and assure the public that the water utilities are providing safe
drinking water. At the same time, this arrangement allows the water
quality regulators to obtain and analyse information on current and
potential water issues.
¾ The WHO Guidelines for drinking water quality provide a framework that
could be adapted to different countries and situations in different stages of
development to ensure the provision of safe drinking water. The
institutional arrangements within the region and country are important
factors to ensure that the framework is properly implemented. One of the
important criteria in the implementation would be to amend the
legislation to require the water utilities to implement WSPs. Although the
emphasis is on a preventive approach to safe drinking water, there is a
need to balance the approach with regular and sufficiently frequent


monitoring programmes. There is no assurance of water quality unless

there is evidence through proper sampling and analysis of water samples.
¾ The effective UK water quality model has advantages in that it allows the
government to focus on being regulators, rather than service providers. It
has a regulatory framework with a strong independent water quality
regulator that has been proven to be effective in ensuring that safe
drinking water is provided through regulatory compliance. It is also cost
effective, as it allows water utilities to be self-regulated and provide for
sampling and monitoring of compliance parameters with no need for
duplicating resources in a parallel sampling and monitoring programme
operated by a regulator or health ministry.
¾ The ASEAN has seen a shift in the populations from rural communities to
urban cities. This meant that there is a critical need to ensure that there
are sufficient and adequate safe drinking water supplies for these rapidly
growing cities. It is important that the ASEAN ensures that member
countries review and enact the relevant water policies and legislation, as
well as develop ASEAN water quality standards. There are certainly great
potential and advantages in adapting the UK regulatory model for the
ASEAN cities. ASEAN member countries could also emulate Singapore’s
success in integrated water resources management. These led to the
development of the water quality regulatory model in Figure 20.
¾ Singapore has successfully implemented water resources management and

has been focusing on technology development. The government has just
started on developing a regulatory framework for drinking water quality.
The introduction of the new regulations in Singapore and the DWU are
positive steps in aligning with the WHO Guidelines on drinking water
quality and in ensuring the sustainable development of safe drinking water
in the country. As the DWU is a relatively new regulatory unit, it would be
useful to collaborate with the DWI to develop its competencies in a unique
Singaporean model. To discharge its duties, some of the possible areas in
which the DWU can develop to strengthen its competencies and knowledge
are to:


Set up water quality database for water quality analysis;

Develop frameworks for technical audits and incident investigations;
Refine the Singapore water quality standards and tighten the water
quality legislation;
Focus research on emerging water quality issues; and
Provide continual training for staff in water treatment, water quality
and public health issues required in carrying out their regulatory
functions.
¾ Metaldehyde contaminant is an emerging cause of concern in the UK.

Water utilities are finding that their current treatment processes do not
seem to be effective in removing metaldehyde. Sampling and analytical
approaches need to be developed to ensure the timely and accurate
detection of metaldehyde in water. These studies indicate that the UK
water quality regulatory structure and the presence of the DWI have
ensured that water companies are working to monitor and resolve the
metaldehyde issue and other contraventions in a consistent manner.
¾ The dissertation focuses only on water quality regulatory models and has
only covered the tip of the iceberg of the challenges faced in the provision
of a sustainable, uninterrupted and safe drinking water supply to the
ASEAN cities. Some potential areas of further studies are the:
Further development and implementation of the ASEAN water quality
regulatory model, taking into consideration the local conditions within
the ASEAN member countries;
Development of a training framework for competent regulators;
Review and tighten the Singapore water quality legislations;
Identification of the institutional arrangements required for the
implementation of the WHO framework for safe drinking water; and
Development of strategies for the effective treatment and control of
metaldehyde in drinking water.
~ End ~


Appendix A - The UN Millennium Development Goals

(Lenton R. et al, pp xviii – xix, 2005)2
Goals Target
1. Halve, between 1990 & 2015, the proportion of
1. Eradicate Extreme people whose income is less than $1 a day.
poverty & hunger
2. Halve, between 1990 & 2015, the proportion of
people who suffer from hunger.
3. Ensure that by 2015, children everywhere, boys and
2. Achieve universal
girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of
Primary Education
primary schooling.
3. Promote gender 4. Eliminate gender disparity in primary and
equality and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and in all
empower women levels of education by 2015.
5. Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the
4. Reduce child
under-5 mortality rate.
mortality
5. Improve maternal 6. Reduce by three-quarter, between 1990 and 2015,

health the maternal mortality rate.
7. Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the

6. Combat HIV/AIDS, spread of HIV/AIDS
malaria and other
diseases 8. Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the
incidence of malaria and other major diseases.
9. Integrate the principles of sustainable development
into country policies and programmes and reverse
the loss of environmental resources.
7. Ensure
10. Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people
Environmental
without sustainable access to safe drinking
sustainability
water and basic sanitation.
11. Have achieved by 2020 a significant improvement

in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers


8. Develop a global 12. Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable,

partnership for non-discriminatory trading and financial system
development (includes a commitment to good governance,
development and poverty reduction - both
nationally and internationally)
13. Address the special needs of the Least Developed

Countries (include tariff- and quota-free access for
Least Developed Countries’ export, enhanced
programme of debt relief for heavily indebted poor
countries (HIPC) and cancellation of official
bilateral debt and more generous official
development assistance of countries committed to
poverty reduction)
14. Address the special needs of landlocked countries

and small island developing states (through the
Programme of Action for Sustainable Development
of Small Island Developing States and 22nd General
Assembly provision)
15. Deal comprehensively with the debt problems of

developing countries through national and
international measures in order to make debt
sustainable in the long term
16. In cooperation with developing countries, develop

and implement strategies for decent and productive
work for youth
17. In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies,

provide access to affordable essential drugs in
developing countries
18. In cooperation with the private sector, make

available the benefits of new technologies, especially
Information and Communication Technologies


Appendix B – International Drinking Water Guidelines
Appendix B-1: The WHO Guidelines for safe drinking water

(WHO, 2006)7
Guideline values for verification of microbial quality a
Organisms Guideline value
All water directly intended for drinking
E. coli or Thermotolerant coliform bacteria b,c Must not be detectable in any 100-ml sample
Treated water entering the distribution system
E. coli or Thermotolerant coliform bacteria b Must not be detectable in any 100-ml sample
Treated water in the distribution system
E. coli or Thermotolerant coliform bacteria b Must not be detectable in any 100-ml sample
a. Immediate investigative action must be taken if E. coli is detected.
b. Although E. coli is the more precise indicator of faecal pollution, the count of
Thermotolerant coliform bacteria is an acceptable alternative. If necessary, proper
confirmatory tests must be carried out. Total coliform bacteria are not acceptable
indicators of the sanitary quality of water supplies, particularly in tropical areas, where
many bacteria of no sanitary significance occur in almost all untreated supplies.
c. It is recognized that in the great majority of rural water supplies, especially in developing
countries, faecal contamination is widespread. Especially under these conditions,
medium-term targets for the progressive improvement of water supplies should be set.
Guideline values for chemicals that are of health significance in

drinking-water
Chemical Guideline Remarks
value a
(mg/litre)
Acrylamide 0.0005b
Alachlor 0.02b
Aldicarb 0.01 Applies to aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone

Aldrin and dieldrin 0.00003 For combined aldrin plus dieldrin
Antimony 0.02
Arsenic 0.01 (P)
Atrazine 0.002
Barium 0.7
Benzene 0.01b
Benzo[a]pyrene 0.0007b



value a
(mg/litre)
Boron 0.5 (T)
Bromate 0.01b(A,T)
Bromodichloromethane 0.06b
Bromoform 0.1
Cadmium 0.003
Carbofuran 0.007
Carbon tetrachloride 0.004
Chlorate 0.7 (D)
Chlordane 0.0002
Chlorine 5 (C) For effective disinfection, there should be a residual
concentration of free chlorine of >0.5 mg/litre after
at least 30 min contact time at pH <8.0
Chlorite 0.7 (D)
Chloroform 0.3
Chlorotoluron 0.03
Chlorpyrifos 0.03
Chromium 0.05 (P) For total chromium
Copper 2 Staining of laundry and sanitary ware may occur
below guideline value
Cyanazine 0.0006
Cyanide 0.07
Cyanogen chloride 0.07 For cyanide as total cyanogenic compounds
2,4-D (2,4- 0.03 Applies to free acid
dichlorophenoxyacetic acid)
2,4-DB 0.09
DDT and metabolites 0.001
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.008
Dibromoacetonitrile 0.07
Dibromochloromethane 0.1
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.001b
1,2-Dibromoethane 0.0004b (P)
Dichloroacetate 0.05b (T, D)
Dichloroacetonitrile 0.02 (P)
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2- 1 (C)
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- 0.3 (C)
Dichloroethane, 1,2- 0.03b



value a
(mg/litre)
Dichloroethene, 1,2- 0.05
Dichloromethane 0.02
1,2-Dichloropropane (1,2-DCP) 0.04 (P)
1,3-Dichloropropene 0.02b
Dichlorprop 0.1
Dimethoate 0.006
Dioxane, 1,4- 0.05b
Edetic acid (EDTA) 0.6 Applies to the free acid
Endrin 0.0006
Epichlorohydrin 0.0004 (P)
Ethyl benzene 0.3 (C)
Fenoprop 0.009
Fluoride 1.5 Volume of water consumed and intake from other
sources should be considered when setting national
standards
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.0006
Isoproturon 0.009
Lead 0.01
Lindane 0.002
Manganese 0.4 (C)
MCPA 0.002
Mecoprop 0.01
Mercury 0.006 For inorganic mercury
Methoxychlor 0.02
Metolachlor 0.01
Microcystin-LR 0.001 (P) For total microcystin-LR (free plus cell- bound)
Molinate 0.006
Molybdenum 0.07
Monochloramine 3
Monochloroacetate 0.02
Nickel 0.07
Nitrate (as NO3-) 50 Short-term exposure
Nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA) 0.2
Nitrite (as NO2-) 3 Short-term exposure
0.2 (P) Long-term exposure



value a
(mg/litre)
Pendimethalin 0.02
Pentachlorophenol 0.009b (P)
Permethrin 0.3 Only when used as a larvicide for public health
purposes
Pyriproxyfen 0.3
Selenium 0.01
Simazine 0.002
Styrene 0.02 (C)
2,4,5-T 0.009
Terbuthylazine 0.007
Tetrachloroethene 0.04
Toluene 0.7 (C)
Trichloroacetate 0.2
Trichloroethene 0.02 (P)
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6- 0.2b (C)
Trifluralin 0.02
Trihalomethanes The sum of the ratio of the concentration of each to
its respective guideline value should not exceed 1
Uranium 0.015 (P,T) Only chemical aspects of uranium addressed
Vinyl chloride 0.0003b
Xylenes 0.5 (C)
a. P = provisional guideline value, as there is evidence of a hazard, but the available information
on health effects is limited;
T = provisional guideline value because calculated guideline value is below the level that can
be achieved through practical treatment methods, source protection, etc.;
A = provisional guideline value because calculated guideline value is below the achievable
quantification level;
D = provisional guideline value because disinfection is likely to result in the guideline value
being exceeded;
C = concentrations of the substance at or below the health-based guideline value may affect
the appearance, taste or odour of the water, leading to consumer complaints.
b. For substances that are considered to be carcinogenic, the guideline value is the concentration
in drinking-water associated with an upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk of 10-5 (one
additional cancer per 100 000 of the population ingesting drinking-water containing the
substance at the guideline value for 70 years). Concentrations associated with upper-bound
estimated excess lifetime cancer risks of 10-4 and 10-6 can be calculated by multiplying and
dividing, respectively, the guideline value by 10.


Guidance levels for radionuclide in drinking-water

Radionuclide Guidance Radionuclide Guidance Radionuclide Guidance
level level level
(Bq/litre)a (Bq/litre)a (Bq/litre)a
3H 10 000 93Mo 100 140La 100
7Be 10000 99Mo 100 139Ce 1000
14C 100 96Tc 100 141Ce 100
22Na 100 97Tc 1000 143Ce 100
32P 100 97mTc 100 144Ce 10
33P 1 000 99Tc 100 143Pr 100
35S 100 97Ru 1000 147Nd 100
36Cl 100 103Ru 100 147Pm 1000
45Ca 100 106Ru 10 149Pm 100
47Ca 100 105Rh 1000 151Sm 1000
46Sc 100 103Pd 1000 153Sm 100
47Sc 100 105Ag 100 152Eu 100
48Sc 100 110mAg 100 154Eu 100
48V 100 111Ag 100 155Eu 1000
51Cr 10000 109Cd 100 153Gd 1000
52Mn 100 115Cd 100 160Tb 100
53Mn 10 000 115mCd 100 169Er 1000
54Mn 100 111In 1000 171Tm 1000
55Fe 1 000 114mIn 100 175Yb 1000
59Fe 100 113Sn 100 182Ta 100
56Co 100 125Sn 100 181W 1000
57Co 1 000 122Sb 100 185W 1000
58Co 100 124Sb 100 186Re 100
60Co 100 125Sb 100 185Os 100
59Ni 1000 123mTe 100 191Os 100
63Ni 1000 127Te 1000 193Os 100
65Zn 100 127mTe 100 190Ir 100
71Ge 10 000 129Te 1000 192Ir 100
73As 1 000 129mTe 100 191Pt 1000
74As 100 131Te 1000 193mPt 1000
76As 100 131mTe 100 198Au 100
77As 1 000 132Te 100 199Au 1000
75Se 100 125I 10 197Hg 1000


Radionuclide Guidance Radionuclide Guidance Radionuclide Guidance

level level level
(Bq/litre)a (Bq/litre)a (Bq/litre)a
82Br 100 126I 10 203Hg 100
86Rb 100 129I 1000 200Tl 1000
85Sr 100 131I 10 201Tl 1000
89Sr 100 129Cs 1000 202Tl 1000
90Sr 10 131Cs 1000 204Tl 100
90Y 100 132Cs 100 203Pb 1000
91Y 100 134Cs 10 206Bi 100
93Zr 100 135Cs 100 207Bi 100
95Zr 100 136Cs 100 210Bib 100
93mNb 1000 137Cs 10 210Pbb 0.1
94Nb 100 131Ba 1000 210Pob 0.1
95Nb 100 140Ba 100 223Rab 1
224Rab 1 235Ub 1 242Cm 10
225Ra 1 236Ub 1 243Cm 1
226Rab 1 237U 100 244Cm 1
228Rab 0.1 238Ub,c 10 245Cm 1
227Thb 10 237Np 1 246Cm 1
228Thb 1 239Np 100 247Cm 1
229Th 0.1 236Pu 1 248Cm 0.1
230Thb 1 237Pu 1000 249Bk 100
231Thb 1 000 238Pu 1 246Cf 100
232Thb 1 239Pu 1 248Cf 10
234Thb 100 240Pu 1 249Cf 1
230Pa 100 241Pu 10 250Cf 1
231Pab 0.1 242Pu 1 251Cf 1
233Pa 100 244Pu 1 252Cf 1
230U 1 241Am 1 253Cf 100
231U 1 000 242Am 1000 254Cf 1
232U 1 242mAm 1 253Es 10
233U 1 243Am 1 254Es 10
234Ub 10 254mEs 100
a. Guidance levels are rounded according to averaging the log scale values (to 10n if the
calculated value was below 3 × 10n and above 3 × 10n-1).
b. Natural radionuclide.
c. The provisional guideline value for uranium in drinking-water is 15 mg/litre based on its
chemical toxicity for the kidney


Minimum frequency of sampling and analysis of water supplies

(WHO, pp 54, 1997)26
Source and mode Minimum frequency of sampling and Remarks

of supply analysis
Bacteriological Physical/chemical
Open wells for Sanitary protection Once initially for Pollution usually expected
community supply measures; community wells to occur
bacteriological testing
only if situation
demands
Covered dug wells Sanitary protection Once initially, Situations requiring testing:
and shallow tube measures; thereafter as change in environmental
wells with hand- bacteriological testing situation demands conditions, outbreak of
pumps only if situation waterborne disease, or
demands increase in incidence of
waterborne diseases
Deep tube wells Once initially, Once initially, Situations requiring testing:
with hand-pumps thereafter as situation thereafter as change in environmental
demands situation demands conditions, outbreak of
waterborne disease, or
increase in incidence of
waterborne diseases
Protected springs Once initially, Periodically for Situations requiring testing:

thereafter as situation residual chlorine if change in environmental
demands water is chlorinated conditions, outbreak of
waterborne disease, or
increase in incidence of
waterborne diseases
Community Sanitary protection Not needed -

rainwater collection measures;
systems bacteriological testing
only if situation
demands
Piped distribution 12 Faecal indicator 1 per 5000

system test sample per year population
(up to 100 000 per 5000 population
population) rounded up
Piped distribution 12 Faecal indicator 1 per 10 000

system (100 000 – test sample per year population, plus 10
500 000 per 10000 population additional samples
population) plus additional 120
samples
Piped distribution 12 Faecal indicator 1 per 10 000

system test sample per year population, plus 10
(>500 000 per 10000 population additional samples
population) plus additional 180
samples


Appendix B-2: Analysis of Microbial water quality
OECD & WHO (pp48 - 73, 2003)9 provided an analysis of microbial and non-
microbial parameters which are used to assess drinking water quality.
Microbial parameters include:

a) Total coliform – Basic information on source water quality, it is easy to
detect and enumerate in water, include non faecal coliform. Detectable using
simple inexpensive cultural method
b) Thermotolerant coliform – Refers to a group of total coliform able to
ferment lactose at 44 - 45○C and comprises genus Escherichia, Klebsiella,
Enterobacter & Citrobacter. Total coliform can originate from faeces,
industrial effluent. It is easily detectable.
c) E. coli – taxonomically well defined; abundant in faeces concentration of 109
per gram. Detectable by simple inexpensive cultural methods.
d) Enterococci & faecal streptococci – mostly of faecal origin and generally
regarded as specific indices of human faecal pollution. Faecal streptococci is
more resistant to stress and chlorination. Enterococci can be used to
supplement E.coli in catchment assessment in tropical climates as an index of
faecal pollution and can also be an additional indicator of treatment efficiency.
Detectable by simple inexpensive cultural methods
e) Ratio of counts of Thermotolerant and faecal streptococci – >4
indicate a human source while <0.7 indicate animal source. Not
recommended as means of differentiating pollution
f) Direct total counts and activity tests (total and viable bacteria) –
provide basic info on no of bacteria in water during abstraction and treatment.
Not used in routine monitoring as the test assesses only general microbial
levels and not faecal contamination. Simple and rapid.
g) Heterotrophic aerobic and aerobix spore former bacterial counts
– used to assess general bacterial content of water (only those able to grow
and produce visible colonies on media under prescribed temp and incubation
time. Useful for long term assessment of water treatment efficiency and
cleanliness & integrity of distribution system and suitability of water for use in
food & drink manufacture. Simple, inexpensive cultural methods.
h) Bacteriophages – viruses that infect bacteria; easy to detect and enumerate.
Coliphages is detectable by simple, inexpensive and rapid methods, while
Bacteroides bacteriophages require anaerobic culture facilities & more
expertise and lab resources
¾ Somatic Coliphages – infect host-specific strain via cell walls (somatic)
receptors and frequently detected in human and animal faeces. Normal host
is E. coli. Somatic coliphages occurs very likely to be related to faecal
pollution. However inadequate knowledge of their natural history limit
usefulness. Suitable index of faecal contamination in raw water and
treatment virus inactivation and removal
¾ F-specific RNA bacteriophages (male-specific coliphages) – infect
bacteria through F- or sex-pili. Commonly found in huge number in sewage.
Has relatively high persistence and similarity to viruses, it is a primary index


for sewage contamination, treatment efficiency or groundwater protection.

Possible to distinguish human from animal contamination by grouping F-
specific RNA coliphages. 2 groups of RNA and DNA containing F-specific
coliphages; 4 basic sub-group of F-specific RNA coliphages (similar in size,
shape and basic composition to many human enteric viruses)
¾ Bateroides phages – outnumber coliform group in human faeces with
Bacteroide fragilis most commonly found more resistant to natural
inactivation and water treatment processes that bacterial indicators an decay
rate similar to human enteric viruses. However, low densities in raw water
and currently unreliable methods of detection
i) Sulphite-reducing clostridia & clostridium perfingens – C.
perfingens is faecally specific and is preferred. Clostridia not recommended
for routine monitoring because of their longer length of survival (false alarm).
C. perfingens without E. coli in groundwater indicate intermittent
contamination. Presence in finished water indicates deficiencies in treatment
filtration processes and potential for protozoan cysts to have passed through
treatment process.
j) Pseudomonas aeruginosa and aeromonas spp. – environmentally
widespread. Ps. Aeruginosa commonly found in faeces, soil, water and
sewage, but multiply in enriched aquatic environment and on organic
material surface in contact with water. Aeromonas spp. can be found in
treated distribution mains because of regrowth. Both are useful for assessing
regrowth in distribution. Detectable by simple, inexpensive cultural methods.
Considered as health risk to laboratory staff, as both are pathogenic
k) Presence-absence test (P-A) – the most probable number method reduced
to a single tube, indicates if coliform bacteria are present or not. Effective
screening device for occasional contamination. Very simple to tests.
Standard procedure in APHA, AWWA, WEF
l) Hydrogen sulphide test – some bacteria associated with faecal
contamination produce H2S. H2S strip test is potentially useful for screening
water sources and drinking water for faecal contamination without access to
water testing lab, or a simple advanced warning system.
m) Pathogens – detecting actual risks of infections rather than potential
indicator. However, it is impossible to monitor all known pathogens and
other unknown pathogenic agents
¾ Enteric viruses – always associated with human and animal faecal
pollution. Can survive for long periods in environment and quite resistant to
treatment. Enumeration is expensive and time consuming. Most cannot be
grown in laboratory condition. Requires well-equipped lab and highly trained
staff
¾ Protozoan parasites (Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia cysts)
– variable number found in faeces in human and animal sources including
amphibians, birds and mammals. Long survival in environment and very
resistant to treatment. Isolation and enumeration is expensive and requires
well equipped lab.


Non-microbial parameters include:

a) Rainfall events – major cause of degradation of source water quality as
rainfall drives pathogen and soil into and through water bodies, resuspend
sediments, infiltrate groundwater and cause overflow in combined and poorly
maintained sewers.
b) Flow – determines availability and production of quality water. Flow affects
discharge volumes, coagulation & sedimentation processes and disinfection
efficiencies
c) Colour – denotes presence of humic and fulvic substances, metal and highly
coloured industrial waste in water; and reflects degradation of source water,
corrosion problem in distribution system and performance in adsorptive
treatment processes like GAC. Simple and cheaply measured on site
d) pH – affects treatment processes. Simple and inexpensive testing methods
which can be online or in-situ.
e) Solids – amount of total, suspended and dissolved solids in water affect
removal and disinfection processes, as well as taste and appearance of
drinking water. In-situ or online tests are generally inexpensive and fast.
f) Turbidity – measure of light refracted by suspended solids in water, and is
the most widely used general application non-microbial parameters which
provide significant data on treatment processes. Relatively inexpensive and
fast in-situ or online tests are available.
g) Particle size analysis – general index of removal effectiveness and a good
quality parameter for filtration. However, online tests are expensive and
require a high level of skill
h) Microscopic particulate analysis – provide microscopic information on
the nature of particulates in water. More for research and investigation,
rather than for routine monitoring. Test is generally not available as it is
time-consuming and requires well-trained skilled personnel.
i) Disinfectant residual concentration – primary data on quality control
of disinfection.
j) Organic matter – indicates potential of heterotrophic bacteria regrowth in
reservoirs and distribution systems. Measured as Total Organic Carbon
(TOC), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) or Biochemical Oxygen demand
(BOD). Tests can be carried out with basic laboratory facilities and adequately
trained personnel. TOC tests, which are applicable to drinking water, can be
carried out using online instrumentation.
k) Specific chemical parameters like Ammonia or Boron – Relatively
simple and rapid in-field ammonia tests could be used as initial detection of
fresh sanitary waste contamination. Boron is proposed as an index of faecal
pollution, but is limited, as use of boron as a water softener in detergents is
widely being discontinued. Further research, well-equipped laboratories and
well-trained staff are required for other proposed index chemical parameters
like faecal sterols, secretory immunogolobulin type A and urobilin.


Appendix B-3: Acceptability water quality

(WHO, 2006)7
Biologically derived contaminants
Actinomycetes & fungi Abundant in surface water sources and can grow on unsuitable
materials in the distribution network; give rise to geosmin, 2-
methyl isoborneol and other substances
Animal life Invertebrate animals can be present in raw water sources and
can pass through the inadequate processes in water treatment
works and reside in the distribution system. Can also act as
secondary hosts to parasites
Cynobacteria and algae Algae blooms may impede coagulation and filtration
processes, causing colour and turbidity issues in treated water.
Can give rise to geosmin, 2-methyl isoborneol and other
chemicals and can induce cyanotoxins in drinking water,
which is of public health significance
Iron bacteria Causes oxidation of ferrous and manganese salts, leaving
deposits
Chemically derived contaminants
Aluminium Aluminium in excess of 0.1-0.2 mg/l results in aluminium

hydroxide floc in distribution system and iron discolouration
Ammonia Threshold odour concentration of ammonia at alkaline pH is
about 1.5mg/l and a taste threshold of about 35 mg/l
Chloride High concentrations give salty taste. The taste threshold is
about 200 – 300mg/l for sodium, potassium and calcium
chloride.
Chlorine Detectable at concentrations even at 0.3 mg/l to below 5mg/l.
Taste threshold is about 0.6 – 1.0mg/l
Chlorophenols Very low taste and odour thresholds. Taste thresholds for 2-
chlorophenols, 2,4-dichlorophenols and 2,4,6-trichlorphenols
are 0.1, 0.3 and 2mg/l. Odour thresholds are 10, 40 and
300µg/l respectively.
Colour Primarily due to the presence of humic and fulvic acids
(organic matter). Colour levels are detectable above 15 true
colour units
Copper Mainly arises from water leaching copper from copper pipes
and can vary significantly with length of contact with the
pipes. Staining occurs at copper concentration of 1 mg/l, and
imparts colour and bitter taste at 5mg/l
Dichlorobenzenes Odour thresholds for 1,2- and 1,4-dichlorobenzene are at 2-10
& 0.3 – 30 mg/l respectively. Tastes thresholds are 1 and 6
mg/l respectively.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Reduction in DO in water can lead to an increase in ferrous
iron concentration, causing subsequent discolouration at the
tap when the water is aerated
Ethyl benzene Odour threshold is about 2 - 130µg/l, while the taste threshold
is 72 - 200µg/l
Hardness Taste threshold for calcium causing hardness is about 100-300
mg/l, while that for magnesium is likely to be much lower
Hydrogen sulphide Taste and odour threshold is about 0.05 – 0.1 mg/l
Iron Promotes the growth of iron bacteria. At concentrations of 0.3
mg/l, iron causes staining and imparts taste


Manganese Concentrations above 0.1 mg/l, manganese causes undesirable

tastes and cause staining.
Monochloramine Monochloramine is formed when chlorine reacts with
ammonia in water, and can be detected at 0.3 mg/l.
Petroleum oils Low molecular weight hydrocarbon with low odour thresholds
can occur in water due to petroleum oils.
pH pH is an important operational control parameter for
treatment processes efficiency, although it has no direct
impact on customer. Low pH water can corrode water mains
and pipes in household water systems, which can have an
adverse impact on taste and appearance.
Sodium Taste threshold is about 200 mg/l and depends on the
associated anions and temperature of water
Styrene Styrene’s sweet odour could be detected in water at 4-
2600µg/l.
Sulfate The noticeable taste of Sodium & Calcium Sulfate can be
detected at 250 mg/l and 1000 mg/l respectively.
Toulene The sweet, pungent, benzene-like odour of Toulene can be
detected at 24 - 170µg/l. The reported taste threshold is 40 -
120µg/l
Total Dissolved Solids High TDS causes scaling in water pipes, heaters, boilers and
(TDS) household appliances. The taste threshold of TDS is at 600
mg/l
Trichlorobenzenes The odour-threshold for 1,2,3-, 1,2,4-, 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene
are 10, 5-30 and 50µg/l.
Turbidity Turbidity less than 5 NTU is usually acceptable.
Xylene Concentrations at 300µg/l will give rise to detectable taste and
odour. The guideline value for xylene is based on the lowest
odour threshold of 20µg/l
Zinc Concentrations at 4mg/l will impart an undesirable astringent
tastes. Concentrations of 3-5mg/l will cause water to appear
opalescent and greasy film appears on boiling.


Appendix C – EU Drinking Water Regulations
Appendix C-1: Drinking Water Directive (PARAMETERS AND

PARAMETRIC VALUES)
(EC Council, 1998)31
PART A - Microbiological parameters
Parameter Parametric value (number/100 ml)
Escherichia coli (E. coli) 0
Enterococci 0
The following applies to water offered for sale in bottles or containers:
Parameter Parametric value
Escherichia coli (E. coli) 0/250 ml
Enterococci 0/250 ml
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 0/250 ml
Colony count 22 °C 100/ml
Colony count 37 °C 20/ml
PART B - Chemical parameters

Parameter Parametric value Unit Notes
Acrylamide 0.10 µg/l Note 1
Antimony 5.0 µg/l
Arsenic 10 µg/l
Benzene 1.0 µg/l
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.010 µg/l
Boron 1.0 mg/l
Bromate 10 µg/l Note 2
Cadmium 5.0 µg/l
Chromium 50 µg/l
Copper 2.0 mg/l Note 3
Cyanide 50 µg/l
1,2-dichloroethane 3.0 µg/l
Epichlorohydrin 0.10 µg/l Note 1
Fluoride 1.5 mg/l
Lead 10 µg/l Notes 3 and 4



Mercury 1.0 µg/l
Nickel 20 µg/l Note 3
Nitrate 50 mg/l Note 5
Nitrite 0.50 mg/l Note 5
Pesticides 0.10 µg/l Notes 6 and 7
Pesticides — Total 0.50 µg/l Notes 6 and 8
Polycyclic aromatic 0.10 µg/l Sum of concentrations of specified
hydrocarbons compounds; Note 9
Selenium 10 µg/l
Tetrachloroethene and 10 µg/l Sum of concentrations of specified
Trichloroethene parameters
Trihalomethanes — 100 µg/l Sum of concentrations of specified
Total compounds; Note 10
Vinyl chloride 0.50 µg/l Note 1
Note 1: The parametric value refers to the residual monomer concentration in the water as calculated according to
specifications of the maximum release from the corresponding polymer in contact with the water.
Note 2: Where possible, without compromising disinfection, Member States should strive for a lower value. For the
water referred to in Article 6(1)(a), (b) and (d), the value must be met, at the latest, 10 calendar years after the
entry into force of the Directive. The parametric value for bromate from five years after the entry into force of
this Directive until 10 years after its entry into force is 25 µg/l.
Note 3: The value applies to a sample of water intended for human consumption obtained by an adequate sampling
method (1) at the tap and taken so as to be representative of a weekly average value ingested by consumers.
Where appropriate the sampling and monitoring methods must be applied in a harmonised fashion to be drawn
up in accordance with Article 7(4). Member States must take account of the occurrence of peak levels that may
cause adverse effects on human health.
Note 4: For water referred to in Article 6(1)(a), (b) and (d), the value must be met, at the latest, 15 calendar years after the
entry into force of this Directive. The parametric value for lead from five years after the entry into force of this
Directive until 15 years after its entry into force is 25 µg/l. Member States must ensure that all appropriate
measures are taken to reduce the concentration of lead in water intended for human consumption as much as
possible during the period needed to achieve compliance with the parametric value. When implementing the
measures to achieve compliance with that value Member States must progressively give priority where lead
concentrations in water intended for human consumption are highest.
Note 5: Member States must ensure that the condition that [nitrate]/50 + [nitrite]/3 # 1, the square brackets signifying
the concentrations in mg/l for nitrate (NO3) and nitrite (NO2), is complied with and that the value of 0,10 mg/l
for nitrites is complied with ex water treatment works.
Note 6: ‘Pesticides’ means: organic insecticides, organic herbicides, organic fungicides, organic nematocides, organic
acaricides, organic algicides, organic rodenticides organic slimicides, related products (inter alia, growth
regulators) and their relevant metabolites, degradation and reaction products. Only those pesticides which are
likely to be present in a given supply need be monitored.
Note 7: The parametric value applies to each individual pesticide. In the case of aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor and
heptachlor epoxide the parametric value is 0,030 µg/l.
Note 8: ‘Pesticides — Total’ means the sum of all individual pesticides detected and quantified in the monitoring
procedure.
Note 9: The specified compounds are: benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(ghi)perylene, indeno(1,2,3-
cd)pyrene.
Note 10: Where possible, without compromising disinfection, Member States should strive for a lower value. The
specified compounds are: chloroform, bromoform, dibromochloromethane, and bromodichlorome-thane. For
the water referred to in Article 6(1)(a), (b) and (d), the value must be met, at the latest, 10 calendar years after the
entry into force of this Directive. The parametric value for total THMs from five years after the entry into force of
this Directive until 10 years after its entry into force is 150 µg/l. (1) To be added following the outcome of the
study currently being carried out. Member States must ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to reduce
the concentration of THMs in water intended for human consumption as much as possible during the period
needed to achieve compliance with the parametric value. When implementing the measures to achieve this
value, Member States must progressively give priority to those areas where THM concentrations in water
intended for human consumption are highest.


PART C - Indicator Parameters

Aluminium 200 µg/l
Ammonium 0,50 mg/l
Chloride 250 mg/l Note 1
Clostridium perfringens 0 number/100 ml Note 2
(including spores)
Colour Acceptable to consumers and no abnormal change
Conductivity 2 500 µS cm-1 at 20 °C Note 1

Hydrogen ion concentration 6.5 and 9.5 pH units Notes 1 and 3
Iron 200 µg/l
Manganese 50 µg/l
Odour Acceptable to consumers and no abnormal change
Oxidisability 5,0 mg/l O2 Note 4
Sulphate 250 mg/l Note 1
Sodium 200 mg/l

Taste Acceptable to consumers and no abnormal change
Colony count 22° No abnormal change
Coliform bacteria 0 number/100 ml Note 5
Total organic carbon (TOC) No abnormal change Note 6
Turbidity Acceptable to consumers and no Note 7
abnormal change
Tritium 100 Bq/l Notes 8 and 10
Total indicative dose 0.10 mSv/year Notes 9 and 10
Note 1: The water should not be aggressive.
Note 2: This parameter need not be measured unless the water originates from or is influenced by surface
water. In the event of non-compliance with this parametric value, the Member State concerned
must investigate the supply to ensure that there is no potential danger to human health arising
from the presence of pathogenic micro-organisms, e.g. Cryptosporidium. Member States must
include the results of all such investigations in the reports they must submit under Article 13(2).
Note 3: For still water put into bottles or containers, the minimum value may be reduced to 4,5 pH units.
For water put into bottles or containers which is naturally rich in or artificially enriched with
carbon dioxide, the minimum value may be lower.
Note 4: This parameter need not be measured if the parameter TOC is analysed.
Note 5: For water put into bottles or containers the unit is number/250 ml.
Note 6: This parameter need not be measured for supplies of less than 10 000 m³ a day.


Note 7: In the case of surface water treatment, Member States should strive for a parametric value not
exceeding 1.0 NTU (nephelometric turbidity units) in the water ex treatment works.
Note 8: Monitoring frequencies to be set later in Annex II.
Note 9: Excluding tritium, potassium -40, radon and radon decay products; monitoring frequencies,
monitoring methods and the most relevant locations for monitoring points to be set later in
Annex II.
Note 10: 1. The proposals required by Note 8 on monitoring frequencies, and Note 9 on monitoring
frequencies, monitoring methods and the most relevant locations for monitoring points in Annex
II shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 12. When elaborating
these proposals the Commission shall take into account inter alia the relevant provisions under
existing legislation or appropriate monitoring programmes including monitoring results as
derived from them. The Commission shall submit these proposals at the latest within 18 months
following the date referred to in Article 18 of the Directive.
2. A Member State is not required to monitor drinking water for tritium or radioactivity to
establish total indicative dose where it is satisfied that, on the basis of other monitoring carried
out, the levels of tritium of the calculated total indicative dose are well below the parametric
value. In that case, it shall communicate the grounds for its decision to the Commission,
including the results of this other monitoring carried out.


Appendix C-2: Drinking Water Directive (MONITORING)

TABLE A: Parameters to be analysed
1. Check monitoring
The purpose of check monitoring is regularly to provide information on the
organoleptic and microbiological quality of the water supplied for human
consumption as well as information on the effectiveness of drinking-water
treatment (particularly of disinfection) where it is used, in order to determine
whether or not water intended for human consumption complies with the
relevant parametric values laid down in this Directive.
The following parameters must be subject to check monitoring. Member

States may add other parameters to this list if they deem it appropriate.
Aluminium (Note 1)
Ammonium
Colour
Conductivity
Clostridium perfringens (including spores) (Note 2)
Escherichia coli (E. coli)
Hydrogen ion concentration
Iron (Note 1)
Nitrite (Note 3)
Odour
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Note 4)
Taste
Colony count 22 °C and 37 °C (Note 4)
Coliform bacteria
Turbidity
Note 1: Necessary only when used as flocculant (*).
Note 2: Necessary only if the water originates from or is influenced by surface water (*).
Note 3: Necessary only when chloramination is used as a disinfectant (*).
Note 4: Necessary only in the case of water offered for sale in bottles or containers.
(*) In all other cases, the parameters are in the list for audit monitoring.
2. Audit monitoring
The purpose of audit monitoring is to provide the information necessary to
determine whether or not all of the Directive's parametric values are being
complied with. All parameters set in accordance with Article 5(2) and (3)
must be subject to audit monitoring unless it can be established by the
competent authorities, for a period of time to be determined by them, that a
parameter is not likely to be present in a given supply in concentrations which
could lead to the risk of a breach of the relevant parametric value. This
paragraph does not apply to the parameters for radioactivity, which, subject to
Notes 8, 9 and 10 in Annex I, Part C, will be monitored in accordance with
monitoring requirements adopted under Article 12.


TABLE B1: Minimum frequency of sampling and analyses for

water intended for human consumption supplied from a
distribution network or from a tanker or used in a food-
production undertaking
Member States must take samples at the points of compliance as defined in Article
6(1) to ensure that water intended for human consumption meets the requirements of
the Directive. However, in the case of a distribution network, a Member State may
take samples within the supply zone or at the treatment works for particular
parameters if it can be demonstrated that there would be no adverse change to the
measured value of the parameters concerned.
Volume of water distributed or Check monitoring Audit monitoring number of

produced each day within a number of samples per samples per year (Notes 3 and
supply zone (Notes 1 and 2) year (Notes 3, 4 and 5) 5)
m³
≤100 (Note 6) (Note 6)
>100 ≤1 000 4 1
>1 000 ≤10 000 1
+ 1 for each 3 300 m³/d and
part thereof of the total volume
>10 000 ≤100 000 4 3
+ 3 for each 1 000 m³/d + 1 for each 10 000 m³/d and
and part thereof of the part thereof of the total volume
total volume
>100 000 10
+ 1 for each 25 000 m³/d and
part thereof of the total volume
Note 1: A supply zone is a geographically defined area within which water intended for human
consumption comes from one or more sources and within which water quality may be
considered as being approximately uniform.
Note 2: The volumes are calculated as averages taken over a calendar year. A Member State may use
the number of inhabitants in a supply zone instead of the volume of water to determine the
minimum frequency, assuming a water consumption of 200 l/day/capita
Note 3: In the event of intermittent short-term supply the monitoring frequency of water distributed
by tankers is to be decided by the Member State concerned.
Note 4: For the different parameters in Annex I, a Member State may reduce the number of samples
specified in the table if:
(a) the values of the results obtained from samples taken during a period of at least two
successive years are constant and significantly better than the limits laid down in Annex
I, and
(b) no factor is likely to cause a deterioration of the quality of the water.
The lowest frequency applied must not be less than 50 % of the number of samples specified in
the table except in the particular case of note 6.
Note 5: As far as possible, the number of samples should be distributed equally in time and location.
Note 6: The frequency is to be decided by the Member State concerned.


TABLE B2: Minimum frequency of sampling and analysis for

water put into bottles or containers intended for sale
Volume of water produced Check monitoring number Audit monitoring number of
for offering for sale in bottles of samples per year samples per year
or containers each day (1)
m³
≤10 1 1
>10 ≤60 12 1
>60 1 for each 5 m³ and part 1 for each 100 m³ and part
thereof of the total volume thereof of the total volume
(1) The volumes are calculated as averages taken over a calendar year.


Appendix C-3: Drinking Water Directive (SPECIFICATIONS FOR

THE ANALYSIS OF PARAMETERS)
Each Member State must ensure that any laboratory at which samples are
analysed has a system of analytical quality control that is subject from time to time to
checking by a person who is not under the control of the laboratory and who is
approved by the competent authority for that purpose.
1. PARAMETERS FOR WHICH METHODS OF ANALYSIS ARE SPECIFIED
The following principles for methods of microbiological parameters are given

either for reference whenever a CEN/ISO method is given or for guidance, pending
the possible future adoption, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 12,
of further CEN/ISO international methods for these parameters. Member States may
use alternative methods, providing the provisions of Article 7(5) are met.
Coliform bacteria and Escherichia coli (E. coli) (ISO 9308-1)

Enterococci (ISO 7899-2)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (prEN ISO 12780)
Enumeration of culturable microorganisms - Colony count 22 °C (prEN ISO 6222)
Enumeration of culturable microorganisms - Colony count 37 °C (prEN ISO 6222)
Clostridium perfringens (including spores)
Membrane filtration followed by anaerobic incubation of the membrane on m-CP

agar (Note 1) at 44 ± 1 °C for 21 ± 3 hours. Count opaque yellow colonies that turn
pink or red after exposure to ammonium hydroxide vapours for 20 to 30 seconds.
Note 1: The composition of m-CP agar is:
Basal medium
Tryptose (30 g) Yeast extract (20 g) Sucrose(5 g)
L-cysteine hydrochloride (1 g) MgSO4 · 7H2O (0,1 g) Bromocresol purple (40 mg)
Agar (15 g) Water (1 000 ml)
Dissolve the ingredients of the basal medium, adjust pH to 7,6 and autoclave at
121 °C for 15 minutes. Allow the medium to cool and add:
D-cycloserine 400 mg
Polymyxine-B sulphate 25 mg
Indoxyl-β-D-glucoside to be dissolved in 8 ml sterile water before 60 mg
addition
Filter — sterilised 0,5% phenolphthalein diphosphate solution 20 ml
Filter — sterilised 4,5 % FeCl3·6H2O 2 ml
2. PARAMETERS FOR WHICH PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS ARE

SPECIFIED
2.1. For the following parameters, the specified performance characteristics are that
the method of analysis used must, as a minimum, be capable of measuring
concentrations equal to the parametric value with trueness, precision and limit
of detection specified. Whatever the sensitivity of the method of analysis used,


the result must be expressed using at least the same number of decimals as for
the parametric value considered in Annex I, Parts B and C.
Parameters Trueness % of Precision % of Limit of Conditions Notes

parametric parametric detection % of
value value parametric value
(Note 1) (Note 2) (Note 3)
Acrylamide To be controlled by
product specification
Aluminium 10 10 10
Ammonium 10 10 10
Antimony 25 25 25
Arsenic 10 10 10
Benzo(a)pyrene 25 25 25
Benzene 25 25 25
Boron 10 10 10
Bromate 25 25 25
Cadmium 10 10 10
Chloride 10 10 10
Chromium 10 10 10
Conductivity 10 10 10
Copper 10 10 10
Cyanide 10 10 10 Note 4
1,2-dichloroethane 25 25 10
Epichlorohydrin To be controlled by
Fluoride 10 10 10
Iron 10 10 10
Lead 10 10 10
Manganese 10 10 10
Mercury 20 10 20
Nickel 10 10 10
Nitrate 10 10 10
Nitrite 10 10 10
Oxidisability 25 25 10 Note 5
Pesticides 25 25 25 Note 6
Polycyclic aromatic 25 25 25 Note 7
hydrocarbons


Parameters Trueness % of Precision % of Limit of Conditions Notes

parametric parametric detection % of
value value parametric value
(Note 1) (Note 2) (Note 3)
Selenium 10 10 10
Sodium 10 10 10
Sulphate 10 10 10
Tetrachloroethene 25 25 10 Note 8
Trichloroethene 25 25 10 Note 8
Trihalomethanes — 25 25 10 Note 7
Total
Vinyl chloride To be controlled by
Note 1(1*): Trueness is the systematic error and is the difference between the mean value of the large number of
repeated measurements and the true value.
Note 2 (2*): Precision is the random error and is usually expressed as the standard deviation (within and between
batches) of the spread of results about the mean. Acceptable precision is twice the relative standard
deviation.
Note 3: Limit of detection is either:

- three times the relative within batch standard deviation of a natural sample containing a low
concentration of the parameter,
or
- five times the relative within batch standard deviation of a blank sample.
Note 4: The method should determine total cyanide in all forms.
Note 5: Oxidation should be carried out for 10 minutes at 100 °C under acid conditions using permanganate.
Note 6: The performance characteristics apply to each individual pesticide and will depend on the pesticide
concerned. The limit of detection may not be achievable for all pesticides at present, but Member
States should strive to achieve this standard.
Note 7: The performance characteristics apply to the individual substances specified at 25 % of the parametric
value in Annex I.
Note 8: The performance characteristics apply to the individual substances specified at 50 % of the parametric
value in Annex I.
2.2. For hydrogen ion concentration the specified performance characteristics are
that the method of analysis used must be capable of measuring concentrations
equal to the parametric value with a trueness of 0.2 pH units and a precision
of 0.2 pH units.
3. PARAMETERS FOR WHICH NO METHOD OF ANALYSIS IS SPECIFIED
Colour
Odour
Taste
Total organic carbon
Turbidity (Note 1)
Note 1: For turbidity monitoring in treated surface water the specified performance characteristics are that the
method of analysis used must, as a minimum, be capable of measuring concentrations equal to the
parametric value with a trueness of 25 %, precision of 25 % and a 25 % limit of detection.
(1*) These terms are further defined in ISO 5725.


Appendix D – Drinking Water Regulations in UK

The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000
(UK Parliament, 2000)38
PRESCRIBED CONCENTRATIONS AND VALUES
TABLE A – MICROBIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
Part I: Directive requirements
Item Parameters Concentration or Units of Point of compliance
Value (maximum) Measurement
1. Enterococci 0 number/100ml Consumers’ taps
2. Escherichia coli 0 number/100ml Consumers’ taps
(E. coli)
Part II: National requirements

1. Coliform bacteria 0 number/100ml Service reservoirs(*) and
water treatment works
2. Escherichia coli 0 number/100ml Service reservoirs and
(E. coli) water treatment works
(*)
Compliance required as to 95% of samples from each service reservoir (regulation 4(6)).
TABLE B – CHEMICAL PARAMETERS

Part I: Directive requirements
1. Acrylamide 0.10 µg/l (i)
2. Antimony 5.0 µgSb/l Consumers’ taps
3. Arsenic 10 µgAs/l Consumers’ taps
4. Benzene 1.0 µg/l Consumers’ taps
5. Benzo(a)pyrene 0.010 µg/l Consumers’ taps
6. Boron 1.0 mgB/l Consumers’ taps
7. Bromate 10 µgBrO3/l Consumers’ taps
8. Cadmium 5.0 µgCd/l Consumers’ taps
9. Chromium 50 µgCr/l Consumers’ taps
10. Copper(ii) 2.0 mgCu/l Consumers’ taps
11. Cyanide 50 µgCN/l Consumers’ taps
12. 1, 2 dichloroethane 3.0 µg/l Consumers’ taps
13. Epichlorohydrin 0.10 µg/l (i)
14. Fluoride 1.5 mgF/l Consumers’ taps
15. Lead(ii) (a) 25, from 25th µgPb/l Consumers’ taps
December 2003 until
immediately before
25th December 2013
(b) 10, on and after
25th December 2013
16. Mercury 1.0 µgHg/l Consumers’ taps
17. Nickel(ii) 20 µgNi/l Consumers’ taps
18. Nitrate(iii) 50 mgNO3/l Consumers’ taps


19. Nitrite(iii) 0.50 mgNO2/l Consumers’ taps

0.10 Treatment works
20. Pesticides(iv)(v) 0.030 µg/l Consumers’ taps
Aldrin _
Dieldrin _
Heptachlor _
Heptachlor epoxide _
other pesticides 0.10 µg/l Consumers’ taps
21. Pesticides: Total(vi) 0.50 µg/l Consumers’ taps
22. Polycyclic aromatic 0.10 µg/l Consumers’ taps
hydrocarbon(vii)
23. Selenium 10 µgSe/l Consumers’ taps
24. Tetrachloroethene and 10 µg/l Consumers’ taps
Trichloroethene(viii)
25. Trihalomethanes: 100 µg/l Consumers’ taps
Total(ix)
26. Vinyl chloride 0.50 µg/l (i)
(i)
The parametric value refers to the residual monomer concentration in the water as calculated according to
specifications of the maximum release from the corresponding polymer in contact with the water. This is controlled
by product specification.
(ii)
See also regulation 6(6).
(iii)
See also regulation 4(2)(d).
(iv)
See the definition of “pesticides and related products” in regulation 2.
(v)
The parametric value applies to each individual pesticide.
(vi)
“Pesticides: Total” means the sum of the concentrations of the individual pesticides detected and quantified in the
monitoring procedure.
(vii)
The specified compounds are benzo(b)fluoranthene; benzo(k)fluoranthene; benzo(ghi)perylene &
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene. The parametric value applies to the sum of the concentrations of the individual compounds
detected and quantified in the monitoring process.
(viii)
The parametric value applies to the sum of the concentrations of the individual compounds detected and
quantified in the monitoring process.
(ix)
The specified compounds are chloroform; bromoform; dibromochloromethane; and bromodichloromethane. The
parametric value applies to the sum of the concentrations of the individual compounds detected and quantified in the
monitoring process.
Part II: National requirements

Item Parameters Concentration or Value Units of Point of
(maximum) Measurement compliance
1. Aluminium 200 µgAl/l Consumers’ taps
2. Colour 20 mg/l Pt/Co Consumers’ taps
3. Hydrogen ion 9.5 pH value Consumers’ taps
6.5 (minimum) pH value
4. Iron 200 µgFe/l Consumers’ taps
5. Manganese 50 µgMn/l Consumers’ taps
6. Odour Acceptable to consumers and no abnormal Consumers’ taps
change
7. Sodium 200 mgNa/l Consumers’ taps
8. Taste Acceptable to consumers and no abnormal Consumers’ taps
change
9. Tetrachloromethane 3 µg/l Consumers’ taps
10. Turbidity 4 NTU Consumers’ taps


INDICATOR PARAMETERS
Item Parameters Specification Units of Point of
Concentration or Value Measurement monitoring
(maximum unless
otherwise stated) or State
1. Ammonium 0.50 mgNH4/l Consumers’ taps
2. Chloride
(i) 250 mgCl/l Supply point
(*)
3. Clostridium perfringens 0 Number/100ml (*)

Supply point
(including spores)
4. Coliform bacteria 0 Number/100ml Consumers’ taps
5. Colony counts No abnormal change Number/1ml at Consumers’ taps,
22°C service reservoirs
Number/1ml at and treatment
37°C works
6. Conductivity
(i) 2500 µS/cm at 20°C Supply point
(*)
6A. Hydrogen ion 9.5 pH value Consumers’ taps

6.5 (minimum) pH value
7. Sulphate
(i) 250 mgSO4/l Supply point
(*)
8. Total indicative dose (for 0.10 mSv/ year Supply point

(*)
(ii)
radioactivity)
9. Total organic carbon No abnormal change mgC/l Supply point
(*)
(TOC)
10. Tritium (for 100 Bq/l Supply point
(*)
radioactivity)
11. Turbidity 1 NTU Treatment works
(i)
The water should not be aggressive.
(ii)
Excluding tritium, potassium – 40, radon and radon decay products.
(*) May be monitored from samples of water leaving treatment works or other supply point, as no significant change
during distribution.


MONITORING
TABLE 1- PARAMETERS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR CHECK
MONITORING
(1) (2) (3)
Item Parameter Circumstances
1. Aluminium When used as flocculant or where the water originates from,
or is influenced by, surface waters
2. Ammonium
3. Clostridium perfringens Where the water originates from, or is influenced by, surface
(including spores) waters
4. Coliform bacteria
4A. Colony counts
5. Colour
6. Conductivity
7. Escherichia coli (E. coli)
8. Hydrogen ion
9. Iron When used as flocculant or where the water originates from,
or is influenced by, surface waters
10. Manganese Where the water originates from, or is influenced by, surface
waters
11. Nitrate When chloramination is practised
12. Nitrite When chloramination is practised
13. Odour
14. Taste
15. Turbidity
TABLE 2- ANNUAL SAMPLING FREQUENCIES: WATER SUPPLY ZONES

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Substances and parameters subject to Estimated Reduced Standard
check monitoring population
of water supply
zone
E. coli
Coliform bacteria
Residual disinfectant < 100 4
Aluminium ≥ 100 12 per 5,000
(i)
Ammonium population
Clostridium Perfringens (including
(*)
spores)
Colony counts
Colour
(*)
Conductivity
Hydrogen ion <100 1 2
Iron 100–4,999 2 4
Manganese 5,000–9,999 6 12
(ii) 10,000–29,999 12 24
Nitrate 30,000–49,999 18 36
(ii)
Nitrite 50,000–79,999 26 52
Odour 80,000–100,000 38 76
Taste
Turbidity


(1) (2) (3) (4)

Substances and parameters subject to Estimated Reduced Standard
Audit monitoring population
of water supply
zone
Aluminium
Antimony
Arsenic
(*)
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
(*)
Boron
(iii)
Bromate
Cadmium
Chromium
Clostridium Perfringens (including
spores)
Copper
(*)
Cyanide
(*)
1,2 dichloroethane
Enterococci
(*)
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese <100 1
(*)
Mercury 100–4,999 4
Nickel 5,000–100,000 8
(ii)
Nitrate
(ii)
Nitrite
(*)
Pesticides and related products
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Selenium
Sodium
Trichloroethene/
(*)
Tetrachloroethene
(*)
Tetrachloromethane
Trihalomethanes
(*)
Chloride
(*)
Sulphate
(*)
Total organic carbon
(*)
Tritium
(*)(iv)
Gross alpha
(*)(iv)
Gross beta
(*) Sampling for these parameters may be within water supply zones or at supply points as specified in Table 3,
subject to notes (ii) and (iii) below.
(i) Where the population is not an exact multiple of 5,000, the population figure should be rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5,000.
(ii) Check monitoring in water supply zones is required only where chloramination is practised. In other
circumstances audit monitoring is required.
(iii) Audit monitoring in water supply zones is required only where sodium hypochlorite is added after water has left
the treatment works. In other circumstances, audit monitoring is required at supply points.
(iv) To monitor for total indicative dose (for radioactivity).


TABLE 3 – ANNUAL SAMPLING FREQUENCIES: TREATMENT WORKS

OR SUPPLY POINTS(*)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Item Substances and parameters Volume of water Reduced Standard
supplied m3/d
1. E. coli
2. Coliform bacteria <20 4
3. Colony counts 20–1,999 12 52
4. (ii) 2,000–5,999 52 104
Nitrite 6,000–11,999 104 208
5. Residual disinfectant ≥12,000 104 365
6. Turbidity
Subject to check monitoring
7. Clostridium perfringens
(i) <20 2
20–999 2 4
8. Conductivity 1,000–1,999 6 12
2,000–5,999 12 24
6,000–9,999 18 36
10,000–15,999 26 52
16,000–32,999 52 104
33,000–49,999 78 156
50,000–67,999 104 208
68,000–84,999 130 260
85,000–101,999 156 312
102,000–119,999 183 365
120,000–241,999 365 730
242,000–484,999 730 1,460
485,000–728,999 1,095 2,190
Subject to audit monitoring
9. Benzene
10. Boron
11. Bromate
(iii)
11A. Clostridium Perfringens (including spores)

12. Cyanide
13. 1,2 dichloroethane
14. Fluoride
<20 1
15. Mercury
20–999 4
16. Nitrite
(iia)
1,000–49,999 8
17. Pesticides and related products 50,000–89,999 12
18. Trichloroethene 90,000–299,999 24
Tetrachloroethene 300,000–649,999 36
19. Tetrachloromethane ≥650,000 48
20. Chloride
21. Sulphate
22. Total organic carbon
23. Tritium
24. Gross alpha
(iv)
25. Gross beta

(iv)
(*) Sampling is at treatment works for the substances and parameters shown in column (1) of the Table as items 1 to
6 and at supply points for the other substances and parameters, except nitrite subject to notes (ii) and (iia)
below.
(i) Check monitoring is required only in respect of surface waters (see regulation 6(2) and Table 1 in Schedule 3).
(ii) Sampling at treatment works when chloramination is practised.
(iia) Sampling at treatment works when chloramination is not practised.
(iii) Audit monitoring at supply points is required only where sodium hypochlorite is not added after water has left
the treatment works. In other circumstances, audit monitoring is required in water supply zones.
(iv) To monitor for total indicative dose (for radioactivity).


ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
TABLE A1
PARAMETERS FOR WHICH, SUBJECT TO REGULATION 16(7), METHODS
OF ANALYSIS ARE PRESCRIBED
(1) (2)
Parameter Method
Clostridium perfringens Membrane filtration followed by anaerobic incubation of the
(including spores) membrane on m-CP agar* at 44 & 1°C for 21 & 3 hours. Count
opaque yellow colonies that turn pink or red after exposure to
ammonium hydroxide vapours for 20 to 30 seconds.
Coliform bacteria ISO 9308-1
Colony count 22°C- PrEN ISO 6222
enumeration of culturable
microorganisms
Colony count 37°C- prEN ISO 6222
enumeration of culturable
microorganisms
Enterococci ISO 7899-2
Escherichia coli (E. coli) ISO 9308-1
*The composition of m-CP agar is:

Basal medium
Tryptose 30.0g
Yeast extract 20.0g
Sucrose 5.0g
L-cysteine hydrochloride 1.0g
MgSO4·7H2O 0.1g
Bromocresol purple 40.0mg
Agar 15.0g
Water 1,000.0ml
Dissolve the ingredients of the basal medium; adjust pH to 7.6 and autoclave at 121°C for 15
minutes. Allow the medium to cool and add:
D-cycloserine 400.0mg
Polymyxine-B sulphate 25.0mg
Indoxyl- µ –D-glucoside 60.0mg
to be dissolved in 8ml sterile water before
addition 20.0ml
Filter-sterilised 0.5% phenolphthalein 2.0ml
diphosphate solution
Filter-sterilised 4.5% FeCl3·6H2O
TABLE A2
PARAMETERS IN RELATION TO WHICH METHODS OF ANALYSIS MUST SATISFY
PRESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS
(1) (2) (3) (4)

Parameters Trueness % of Precision % of Limit of detection % of
prescribed prescribed prescribed
concentration or value concentration or value concentration or value
or specification or specification or specification
Aluminium 10 10 10
Ammonium 10 10 10
Antimony 25 25 25
Arsenic 10 10 10


(1) (2) (3) (4)

Parameters Trueness % of Precision % of Limit of detection % of
prescribed prescribed prescribed
concentration or value concentration or value concentration or value
or specification or specification or specification
Benzene 25 25 25
Benzo(a)pyrene 25 25 25
Boron 10 10 10
Bromate 25 25 25
Cadmium 10 10 10
Chloride 10 10 10
Chromium 10 10 10
Colour 10 10 10
Conductivity 10 10 10
Copper 10 10 10
Cyanide
(i) 10 10 10
1,2-dichloroethane 25 25 10
Fluoride 10 10 10
Iron 10 10 10
Lead 10 10 10
Manganese 10 10 10
Mercury 20 10 20
Nickel 10 10 10
Nitrate 10 10 10
Nitrite 10 10 10
Pesticides and 25 25 25
(ii)
related products
Polycyclic aromatic 25 25 25
(iii)
hydrocarbons
Selenium 10 10 10
Sodium 10 10 10
Sulphate 10 10 10
Tetrachloroethene
(i 25 25 10
v)
Tetrachloromethan 20 20 20
e
Trichloroethene
(iv) 25 25 10
Trihalomethanes: 25 25 10
(iii)
Total
Turbidity
(v) 10 10 10
Turbidity
(vi) 25 25 25
(i) The method of analysis should determine total cyanide in all forms.
(ii) The performance characteristics apply to each individual pesticide and will depend on the pesticide concerned.
(iii) The performance characteristics apply to the individual substances specified at 25% of the parametric value in
Part I of Table B in Schedule 1.
(iv) The performance characteristics apply to the individual substances specified at 50% of the parametric value in
Part I of Table B in Schedule 1.
(v) The performance characteristics apply to the prescribed value of 4 NTU.
(vi) The performance characteristics apply to the specification of 1 NTU for water leaving treatment works.


Appendix E – The Environmental Public Health (Quality

of Piped Drinking Water) Regulations 2008
(Singapore Government & NEA, 2008)102
DRINKING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Part I - Microbial parameters:

1. Escherichia coli (or alternatively, shall not be detectable in any 100
Thermotolerant coliform bacteria) millilitre sample
Part II - Physico-chemical parameters:

1. Colour shall not exceed 15 True Colour Units
2. Turbidity shall not exceed 5 Nephelometric Turbidity Units
3. pH 6.5-9.5
Part III - Radiological parameters:

1. Gross Alpha activity shall not exceed 0.5 Becquerel/litre
2. Gross Beta activity shall not exceed 1 Becquerel/litre
3. Radon 222 concentration shall not exceed 100 Becquerel/litre
Part IV - Chemical parameters:

Maximum prescribed quantity
(milligrams/litre)
Acrylamide 0.0005
Alachlor 0.02
Aldicarb Sulfoxide and Aldicarb Sulfone 0.01
combined Aldrin and Dieldrin 0.00003
Antimony 0.02
Arsenic 0.01
Atrazine 0.002
Barium 0.7
Benzene 0.01
Benzo[a]pyrene 0.0007
Boron 0.5
Bromate 0.01
Bromodichloromethane 0.06
Bromoform 0.1
Cadmium 0.003
Carbofuran 0.007
Carbon tetrachloride 0.004
Chlorate 0.7
Chlordane 0.0002
Chlorine1 5
Chlorite 0.7
Chloroform 0.3
Chlorotoluron 0.03
Chlorpyrifos 0.03
Chromium, in all forms as a total 0.05
Copper 2
Cyanazine 0.0006
Cyanide 0.07



(milligrams/litre)
Cyanide in Cyanogen Chloride form as part of 0.07
total cyanogenic compounds
2,4-D(2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) in free 0.03
acid form
2,4-DB [4-(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy) butyric acid] 0.09
DDT and metabolites 0.001
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.008
Dibromoacetonitrile 0.07
Dibromochloromethane 0.1
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.001
1,2-Dibromoethane 0.0004
Dichloroacetate 0.05
Dichloroacetonitrile 0.02
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2- 1
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- 0.3
Dichloroethane, 1,2- 0.03
Dichloroethene, 1,2 0.05
Dichloromethane 0.02
1,2-Dichloropropane(1,2-DCP) 0.04
1,3-Dichloropropene 0.02
Dichlorprop 0.1
Dimethoate 0.006
Dioxane, 1,4- 0.05
Edetic acid (EDTA-Ethylene Diamine 0.6
Tetraacetic Acid) in free acid form
Endrin 0.0006
Epichlorohydrin 0.0004
Ethylbenzene 0.3
Fenoprop (2,4,5-TP; 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy 0.009
propionic acid)
Fluoride 0.7
Hexachlorobutadiene(HCBD) 0.0006
Isoproturon 0.009
Lead 0.01
Lindane 0.002
Manganese 0.4
MCPA(4-Chloro-2-methylphenoxyacetic acid) 0.002
Mecoprop (MCPP; [2(2-methyl- 0.01
chlorophenoxy) propionic acid])
Mercury, in inorganic form 0.006
Methoxychlor 0.02
Metolachlor 0.01
Microcystin-LR, in free and cell bound forms 0.001
as a total
Molinate 0.006
Molybdenum 0.07
Monochloramine 3
Monochloroacetate 0.02
Nickel 0.07
Nitrate(as NO3-) 50



(milligrams/litre)
Nitrate plus nitrite combined The sum of the ratios of the
concentrations of each to their
maximum prescribed quantity
should not exceed 1
Nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA) 0.2
Nitrite (as NO2-) 3
Pendimethalin 0.02
Pentachlorophenol(PCP) 0.009
Permethrin, where used as a larvicide for 0.3
public health purposes
Pyriproxyfen 0.3
Selenium 0.01
Simazine 0.002
Styrene 0.02
2,4,5-T(2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid) 0.009
Terbuthylazine(TBA) 0.007
Tetrachloroethene 0.04
Toluene 0.7
Trichloroacetate 0.2
Trichloroethene 0.02
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6- 0.2
Trifluralin 0.02
Trihalomethanes The sum of the ratio of the
concentration of each
Trihalomethane2 to its respective
maximum prescribed quantity
should not exceed 1
Uranium (only chemical aspects of uranium 0.015
addressed)
Vinyl chloride 0.0003
Xylenes 0.5
1 Where disinfection with chlorine is carried out, there should be a residual concentration of free chlorine of ≥0.5
mg/litre after at least 30 minutes contact time at pH<8.0 at the water treatment plant.
2 Refers to bromoform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane and chloroform.


References
When indicated, the confidentiality agreement is observed. Copies of
the confidential documents are kept by supervisor/course director.

1 United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Millennium
Declaration ARES/55/2, pp 1- 4, 18 Sep 2000.
2 Lenton R., Wright A.M. & Lewis K., UN Millennium project Task force on
Water and Sanitation, Health, dignity & Development: what will it
take?, pp xviii – xix, 2005
3 UN News centre, Press release - Ban Ki-moon urges greater efforts to

tackle “silent crisis” of safe water for all, [online], 24 Oct 2007. [cited
27 Jun 08], available at
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24397&Cr=water&Cr1=#
4 World Health organisation, Health through safe drinking water and

basic sanitation, [online], [cited 30 Jun 08], available at
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/mdg1/en/print.html
5 Prüss-Üstün A, Bos R, Gore F, Bartram J., Safer water, better health: costs,
benefits and sustainability of interventions to protect and promote
health, World Health Organization, pp 7, Geneva, 2008.
6 Cairncross S. & Feachem R., Environmental health Engineering in the

Tropics – An introductory text, 2nd edition, pp (1 – 9, 29 – 33), 1993
7 World Health Organisation, Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality

Third Edition First Addendum, Volume 1, pp (1-2, 8-9, 22 – 23, 72 – 75,
84 – 93, 486), 2006
8 Lloyd B.J, MSc Environmental Health module lecture notes –

Sanitary indicator theory, University of Surrey, 2007
9 OECD & WHO, Assessing Microbial Safety of Drinking Water –

Improving Approaches and methods, 2003
10 Thompson T., Fawell J., Kunikane S., Jackson D., Appleyard S., Callan P.,
Bartram J. & Kingston P., Chemical safety of drinking-water:
assessing priorities for risk management, WHO, pp 3, 2007
11 WHO SEARO, WHO Water drinking guidelines, [online] [cited 17 Jul 08]
Available at http://www.searo.who.int/EN/Section314_4295.htm
12 Allan S.C., The microbiological performance and operational

characteristics of an integrated OXFAM Physico-chemical water
treatment system MSc dissertation, UniS, pp 19, 1997


13 Wikipedia, Water purification, [online] [cited 08 Aug 08], available at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_purification
14 Koch Membrane, Microfiltration – filtration overview, [online], [cited 7

Aug 08], available at http://www.kochmembrane.com/sep_mf.html
15 Gray N.F., Water Technology – An introduction for environmental

scientists and engineers, 2nd edition, pp 257 – 282, 2005
16 UNDP, Effective Water Governance – The key to Sustainable Water

Management and Poverty Eradication, [online], [cited 15 Jun 08],
available at http://www.undp.org/water/about_us.html
17 WHO, Constitution of the World Health Organisation, Basic

Document, Forty-fifth edition, pp 1 – 18, Oct 2006
18 WHO, WHO – Governance, [online], [cited 14 Jul 08] , available at

http://www.who.int/governance/en/index.html
19 Davidson A., Howard G., Stevens M., Callan P., Fewtrell L., Deere D. & Bartram
J., Water Safety Plans – Managing drinking-water quality from
catchment to consumer, WHO, pp 3, 2005
20 WHO, WHO Guidelines for Drinking water quality, [online], [cited 20

Jul 08] , available at
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/guidelines/en/
21 SIWW Pte Ltd, Singapore International Water Week - Co-located

Events, [online], [cited 11 Jul 08] , available at
http://www.siww.com.sg/aboutevent/colocatingevents.php
22 Godfrey S. and Howard G., Water safety Plans (WSP) for urban piped
water supplies in developing countries, WEDC, Loughborough
University, UK, pp 4, 2004
23 Drury D., Safeguarding Supplies from catchment to tap, ENDs report

391, pp 32-35, Aug 2007, available at
http://www.endsreport.com/index.cfm?action=report.article_printable&articl
eID=17664>
24 DWI, DWI – A brief guide to drinking water safety plans, pp 3, Oct

2005.
25 WHO, Water Safety Plans - Managing Drinking-Water Quality from

Catchment to Consumer, 2005


26 WHO, Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality – Second Edition,
Volume 3 – Surveillance and Control of community Supplies, pp 56,
1997
27 Hedeman-Robinson M., Enforcement of European Union Environment

Law – Legal Issues & Challenges, pp 9, 2007.
28 European Community, European Community Environmental

Legislation: Volume 7 – Water, pp iv-v, 1996
29 European Commission, EU at a glance – Key dates in the history of

European integration, [online], [cited 17 Jul 08] , available at
http://europa.eu/abc/12lessons/key_dates/index_en.htm
30 Kallis G. & Nijkamp P., Evolution of EU Water Policy: A critical

assessment and a hopeful perspective, pp (2, 14 - 16), 1999.
31 European Council, Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on

the quality of water intended for human consumption, pp 1 – 23, 3
Nov 98.
32 European Parliament, Consolidated version of the Treaty establishing

the European Community, [online], [cited 17 Jul 08] , available at
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/
33 CIA World Fact Book, United Kingdom, [online], [cited 19 Jul 08], ,
available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/uk.html
34 Water UK, Water facts: The Water Industry Today, [online], [cited 19
Jul 08], available at http://www.water.org.uk/home/resources-and-
links/waterfacts/waterindustry
35 May A., An assessment of the impact of regulatory models for

drinking water quality in UK, University of Surrey, pp (9, 20, 37 – 39, 45, ,
114 – 123, 266 – 268, 284 – 285), 2007
36 Water UK, The UK Water Industry (Sep 2007), [online], [cited 19 Jul 08] ,
available at http://www.water.org.uk/home/our-member
37 Water UK, Water facts – our regulators, [online], [cited 31 May 08] ,
available at http://www.water.org.uk/home/resources-and-
links/waterfacts/water-regulators
38 UK parliament, The Water Supply (Water Quality) regulations 2000,

pp (7-8, 16 -21, 26 - 28,), 2000


39 DWI, Guidance on the Water Supply (Water Quality Regulations
2000 (England) and the Water Supply (Water Quality)
Regulations 2001 (Wales), pp 14, 2005
40 DWI, What is Regulations 31?, [online], [cited 02 Aug 08] , available at

http://www.dwi.gov.uk/31/WhatisReg31.shtm
41 UK Parliament, Water Act 2003, pp 74, 2003
42 UK Parliament, Water Industry Act 1991, pp (58 & 63), 1991 [cited 29 May
08] , available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/
43 Colbourne J., Personal communication with Prof. Jenni Colbourne,

Chief Inspector of Drinking Water for England & Wales, 5 Aug 08
44 UK Parliament, The Private Water Supplies Regulations 1991, , 1991,

[cited 29 May 08], available at http://www.dwi.gov.uk/regs/si2790/2790.htm
45 Ofwat, The development of the water industry in England & Wales,

pp 54 -55, 2006, available at
http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/aptrix/ofwat/publish.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/devel
opment_of_water_industry270106.pdf/$FILE/development_of_water_indust
ry270106.pdf
46 DWI, Information letter 03/2007 – New structure for the Drinking

Inspectorate, [online], Annex A, 09 May 2007 [ cited 29 May 07], available at
http://www.dwi.gov.uk/regs/infolett/2007/info0307.shtm
47 Rouse M., DWI Code of Enforcement, [online], DWI, [cited 20 Jul 08],
available at http://www.dwi.gov.uk/consumer/faq/code4enforce.shtm
48 DWI, Information letter 6/2003- The Water Undertakers

(Information) Direction 2003 - Format for provision of certain
information, 2003, [cited 22 May 08] , available at
http://www.dwi.gov.uk/regs/infolett/2003/info0603revised.shtm
49 Taylor A., Personal communication with Mr Andy Taylor, DWI

water quality data manager, 28 Apr 08
50 DWI, DWI Information Letter 02/2004, pp 1-2, 16 Jan 04
51 DWI, DWI Guidance on notification, pp(4, 7-8, 12-13), 18 Feb 08
52 DWI, Events and incidents affecting drinking water quality, [online],

[cited 21 Jul 08] , available at
http://www.dwi.gov.uk/consumer/incidents/incidentindex.shtm


53 DWI, Water company – Incidents and prosecutions, Events and
incidents affecting water quality, [online] [cited 20 Jul 08], available at
http://www.dwi.gov.uk/consumer/incidents/incidentindex.shtm
54 DWI, What is Regulations 31?, [online], [cited 02 Aug 08], available at

http://www.dwi.gov.uk/31/WhatisReg31.shtm
55 DWI, The approval scheme for products used in contact with water
intended for human consumption, Advice sheet 1 – overview of
application progress and general requirements, pp 4 – 7, 2008
56 Watts and Crane Associates, Evaluation of the Drinking Water Quality

and Health Research Programme (1996-2004) for Defra, pp 5, 2006,
available at http://www.dwi.gov.uk/research/reports/0848.pdf
57 Foster J., Personal communication with Dr Jim Foster, DWI Deputy

Chief Inspector(Science & Strategy), 28 Apr 08
58 May A., Benefits of Drinking Water Quality Regulation – England &

Wales, IWA Water Science & Technology, Vol 54, No. 11-12, pp 392, 2006
59 Wikipedia, Metaldehyde, [online], [cited 17 Jun 08], available at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaldehyde
60 WHO & FAO, WHO/FAO datasheet on pesticideNo.93 – Metaldehyde,

[online], Jul 96, [cited 10 Jun 08] , available at
http://www.inchem.org/documents/pds/pds/pest93_e.htm#1.3
61 Clayden J., Greeves N., Warren S. & Wothers P., Organic Chemistry,
Oxford University press, pp 1452, 2001
62 Bieri M., The Environmental profile of metaldehyde, Lonza Ltd, 2003
63 Nathan S.S., Murthy S.K. & Holden J.B., Organic Chemistry made simple,
pp 44, 1975
64 WHO, The WHO recommended classification of pesticides by

hazard and guidelines to classification : 2004, pp 23, 2005
65 PAN UK, PAN Pesticide Database: Physical properties, [online], 27 Jul

06, [cited 04 Aug 08] , available at
http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Docs/ref_waterair1.html#Koc
66 USEPA, Registration Eligibility Decision (RED) document for

Metaldehyde, pp 21, 2006


67 National Pesticide Information Centre, NPIC OSU Extension Pesticide
Properties database – Metaldehyde, [online] [cited 5 Jul 08] , available
at http://npic.orst.edu/ppdmove.htm
68 Rumsby P., Presentation on Emerging Contaminants, pp 17, National

Centre for Environmental Toxicology, WRc plc, 2007
69 WRC plc, WRC new research projects 2008, [online] [cited 13 Aug 08] ,
available at http://www.wrcplc.co.uk/default.aspx?item=833
70 DWI, Drinking Water 2007 – Western Region (A report by the Chief

inspector of Drinking Water, Drinking Water Inspectorate), pp 30,
Jun 2008
71 DWI, Drinking Water 2007 – Incidents in 2007, pp 68, Jun 2008
72 DWI, Drinking Water 2007 – Thames Region (A report by the Chief

inspector of Drinking Water, Drinking Water Inspectorate), pp 38,
Jun 2008
73 Allen J., Personal communication with Ms Allen J., DWI Inspector,

19 Jun 08
74 Bristol Water plc, Water Quality in 2007, pp (4, 14), May 2008
75 PSD, Pesticide Law, [online] [cited 15 Aug 08] , available at

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/approvals.asp?id=869
76 PSD, PSD database on approved products, [online] [cited 08 Jul 08],

available at https://secure.pesticides.gov.uk/pestreg/ProdList.asp
77 PSD, Revocation of authorized uses as a result of EC Maximum

Residual Levels (MRLs) coming into force under EC Regulations
396/2005, [online], 24 Jul 08 [cited 4 Aug 08], available at
http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/foor_safety.asp?id=2492
78 Water Company, Confidential report, confidentiality agreement observed,

report copies kept by the course director, 2008
79 Water Company, Personal communication 1, confidentiality agreement

observed, correspondence copies kept by the course director, 2008
80 Government agency, Personal communication 2, confidentiality

agreement observed, correspondence copies kept by the course director, 2008
81 ASEAN Secretariat, Association of South East Nations – overviews,

[online], [cited 17 Jul 08], available at http://www.aseansec.org/147.htm


82 ASEAN secretariat, Third ASEAN State of the Environment Report
2006, pp 105-109,, 2006
83 ASEAN, Framework for Environmentally Sustainable Cities in

ASEAN, [online], [cited 27 Jul 08], available at
http://www.aseansec.org/framework.htm
84 ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Strategic plan of action on water

resources management, pp 1-7, 2005.
85 WHO and UNCEF, WHO/UNICEF Joint monitoring programme –

Water and sanitation database, [online] [cited 17 Jul 08]
86 UN ESCAP, UNDP & ADB, A future within reach 2008 – Regional

partnership for the Millennium Development Goals in Asia & the
Pacific, United Nations publication, pp 19 – 21, 2008
87 Biswas A., Interview with Prof Asit K. Biswas –“Global water

problems are solvable”, The Impeller, 62:2003, pp 13, 2003
88 ADB, Country Water Action: Asia, Credible Regulatory Bodies —

Managing Water Interests, [online] [cited 9 Jun 08], available at
http://www.adb.org/water/actions/REG/regulatory-bodies.asp
89 McIntosh A.C., Asian Water Supplies- reaching the urban poor, Asian
Development Bank and International Water Association, pp 105 – 116, 2003.
90 CIA, The World Factbook – Singapore, [online], [cited 4 Jul 08] ,

available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/sn.html
91 Tortajada C., Water Management in Singapore, Water Resources

Development Vol 22, No.2, pp (227, 229), Jun 06
92 Aziz I.S. and Cheney S., Singapore's quest to be less dependent on

Malaysia for water started at separation, [online] , Channel Newsasia,
[cited 25 Jun 08], available at
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/356371/1/
.html>
93 World Bank, Dealing with Water Scarcity in Singapore: Institution,

Strategies and Enforcement, World Bank’s Analytical and Advisory
Assistance Programme “China: Addressing Water Scarcity”, pp 2 – 4, Jul 2006
94 WHO & MEWR, Press release - World Health Organisation signs

agreement with Singapore, pp 1, 15 Aug 2007


95 Deere D. (WHO), Fong H.L (PUB), Woo C.H (PUB) and Wong Y.T. (PUB),
Training Mission report - Water Safety Plans Training of Trainers
Workshop 3-5 Dec 07, pp 1 – 10, 2007, available at
http://www.wpro.who.int/NR/rdonlyres/FABFA1B5-D50D-4FEF-9C28-
0F320210484D/0/WSPWorkshopFinalTechnicalReport.pdf
96 MEWR, Ministry of Environment & Water Resources – Our History,

[online] [cited 08 Aug 08], available at http://app.mewr.gov.sg
97 Ministry, Personal communication 3, confidentiality agreement observed,

correspondence copies kept by the course director, 2008
98 PUB, Water Supply – History & Future of Water Supply, [online]

[cited 21 Jun 08], available at
http://www.pub.gov.sg/about/historyfuture/Pages/WaterSupply.aspx
99 WHOROE, International network of water regulators,[online] [cited 17

Jul 08], available at
http://www.euro.who.int/watsan/CountryActivities/20060119_1
100 Singapore Government, The Public Utilities Act 2001 (Chapter 261),
[online] [cited 11 Aug 08], available at http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/
101 Singapore Government, Environmental Public Health Act 1987

(Chapter 95), [online] [cited 10 Aug 08], available at
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/
102 Singapore Government & NEA, Environmental Public Health (Quality

of piped drinking water)Regulations 2008, pp 3 – 12, 2008
103 NEA, Code of Practice on Piped Drinking Water sampling and

Safety Plans, pp 6, Jan 2008
104 Lye L.H., A fine city in a garden – a study of environmental

governance in Singapore, 4th International IUCN Academy Colloquium, pp
6, 2006
105 PUB, Water Loop, [online] [cited 20 Jun 08], available at

http://www.pub.gov.sg/water/Pages/default.aspx
106 MEWR, Key Environmental Statistics – Water Resources

Management, pp 7, 2008, available at
http://app.mewr.gov.sg/web/Contents/Contents.aspx?ContId=682
107 Lee P.O (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore), Water

Management Issues in Singapore, Presented at Water in Mainland
Southeast Asia, pp 6-8, 2005


108 PUB, NEWater – the 3rd National Tap, [online], [cited 13 Aug 08],
available at http://www.pub.gov.sg/water/Pages/NEWater.aspx
109 PUB, Press Release – “PUB awards tender for the fifth and largest
NEWater plant at Changi to Sembcorp”, [online], 18 Jan 08, [cited 25
Jul 08], available at
http://www.pub.gov.sg/mpublications/Pages/PressReleases.aspx?ItemId=178
110 Hyflux, Brochure - Singspring Desalination Plant at Tuas, pp 1 – 2,

[online], 17 Nov 05 [cited 11 Aug 08], available at http://www.hyflux.com
111 Haja N., Personal communication with Mr Nazarudeen, Assistant

Director, Water Supply (Network) Department, PUB, 17 Jul 08
112 Kok T.W, Lim K.S., Loh M.W., Haja N., Wong K.W, Soh T., Tiew K.N. and Lee
M.F., Integrated Water Quality Management – Singapore’s
Experience, SIWW, pp 1 – 9, 2008
113 Woo C.H., Personal communication with Mr Woo C.H., Executive

Microbiologist, Technology & Water Quality Office, PUB, 24 Jul 08


MSC Dissertation 08 (Christopher Chua) - The Potential of The Uk Water Quality Regulatory Model For Asean Cities (LRes)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

MSC Dissertation 08 (Christopher Chua) - The Potential of The Uk Water Quality Regulatory Model For Asean Cities (LRes)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Potential for Adapting the

Christopher CHUA Wee Hong

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the

Centre for environmental Health Engineering (CEHE)

© Christopher CHUA 2008

“I hereby declare that the dissertation entitled ‘The Potential for

Christopher Chua Wee Hong

Christopher Chua MSc in Water Regulation & Management

This dissertation considers the possibility of adapting the UK water

Christopher Chua MSc in Water Regulation & Management

This dissertation is in fulfilment of the 1st MSc in Water Regulations &

God almighty for His blessings and guidance.

Classmates, staff, lecturers and visiting professors of the Centre of

Colleagues from PUB, especially Mr Harry Seah, Mr Chong Hou Chun,

Georgia, my supportive wife and my 2 girls, Natalie and Rebecca, for

Christopher Chua MSc in Water Regulation & Management

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADB Asian Development Bank

Christopher Chua MSc in Water Regulation & Management

MEWR Ministry of Environment & Water Resources, Singapore

Christopher Chua MSc in Water Regulation & Management

Christopher Chua MSc in Water Regulation & Management

Christopher Chua MSc in Water Regulation & Management

FIGURE 3 ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL AT CONCENTRATION .................................- 12 -

TABLE 5 RISK MATRIX ........................................................................................................... - 24 -

Christopher Chua MSc in Water Regulation & Management

Within ASEAN, Singapore has successfully implemented an integrated

Most of the European Union (EU) member states are developed

Christopher Chua MSc in Water Regulation & Management

2. Aims & Objectives

The focus of this dissertation is on the water quality regulatory models.

This dissertation aims to:

The objectives of this dissertation are:

The overview of the dissertation is shown in Figure 1.

Christopher Chua MSc in Water Regulation & Management

International Regional National

Association of Southeast Asian Nations Metaldehyde-

Discussion & Conclusion

Figure 1 Overview of dissertation

Christopher Chua MSc in Water Regulation & Management

3. Water Quality & Treatment

This declaration led to the development of the time bound and

At the opening of the water exhibition organized by the American

The World Health Organisation (WHO) (2008) 4 affirms that “the

Christopher Chua MSc in Water Regulation & Management

Prüss-Üstün A. et al (2008)5 wrote that at least 10% of the world’s

Figure 2 Diseases contributing to the water-, sanitation- & hygiene-

Prüss-Üstün A. et al (2008)5 further concluded from a systematic

The WHO (2006)7 uses Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALY) as the

Christopher Chua MSc in Water Regulation & Management

A major concern of water supply is the spread of the infectious water-

Cairncross S. & Feachem R. (1993)6 further recommended that water-

This underlies the importance of water and sanitation for any

Christopher Chua MSc in Water Regulation & Management

3.1. Water quality

The WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality (WHO, 2006) 7

As the setting of water quality standards depends on the local context

The WHO (2006)7 guidelines assumes a per capita consumption of 1

Christopher Chua MSc in Water Regulation & Management

3.1.1. Microbiological water quality

The WHO (2006)7 considers the control of outbreaks of water borne

Cairncross S. & Feachem R. (1993)6 highlighted that all faecal-oral

Lloyd (2007)8 noted that Thermotolerant coliform and Escherichia coli