Thanks very much for seeing us. Water is our most precious and important natural resource. It is vital to life, and Scotland has it in abundance. It is important for health, tourism, wildlife and a sustainable economy, and the Scottish Government has a responsibility to maintain and improve the quality of all fresh water in Scotland. The drinking water quality regulator for Scotland exists to ensure that the water is safe and pleasant to drink and that it has the trust of customers. It also ensures that issues that may affect drinking water quality in Scotland are adequately understood and that any knowledge gaps are filled through research.
In Badenoch and Strathspey, since the change in 2012 from Loch Einich to the aquifers in Kinakyle, there has been a problem with the water supply that the DWQR has still not acknowledged. This could be the tip of the iceberg for the whole of Scotland. The DWQR has been aware of the issues with taste, odour and skin irritation since 2012 but no monitoring of Scottish Water was done until the full audit in 2016, which concluded that everything was normal. We were told that there would be on-going discussions with the national health service, the DWQR and Scottish Water, but none took place.
When the problem was classified as a major event, the DWQR resolved to closely monitor water quality during chloramination, but that has produced no results. Given the dissatisfaction of locals, Drew Hendry MP and Scottish Water commissioned an independent survey that produced appalling results for Scottish Water, resulting in its having to admit that the taste and odour were substandard. The health issues that were identified in the survey have been admitted and, after an open meeting with local people, they have had to be addressed—but it has taken five years.
After that meeting with Dr Ken Oates, Moira Watson and the DWQR, Peter Farrer’s reassurances are hollow. It has been reiterated that
“the water is of a high quality and over the past five years has consistently met the strict standards”.
However, we know that that is not the case, because Peter Farrer told us in January:
“We would like to apologise that the taste of the water does not come up to the standard expected and also that it has taken us longer to make improvements than it should have”.
The same Peter Farrer says that Scottish Water’s mantra is to
“put our customers at the heart of our business.”
The standards are not picking up the problems. Local doctors made their concerns known to the health board in 2012 and again in 2015. Why is the DWQR not investigating or enforcing the standards? Where are the long-term studies of the effects of chloramination? There are none.
Scottish Water sent us a postcard—I have it here. It has apologised for the taste and odour issues and, in order to resolve them, it is adding ammonia to the chlorine. Chloramine is a water disinfectant that is 200 times less effective than chlorine at killing E coli, rotavirus and so on, and it is far more difficult to remove, but it is cheap. What detriment to human health is caused by the disinfection by-products? Scottish Water may simply be trading regulated DBPs for unregulated ones such as—I have written them down, but they are difficult to pronounce—N-nitrosodimethylamine, iodinated DBPs and hydrazine. There are no risk assessments for the unregulated ones.
There is also evidence of disinfection by-product exposure via inhalation during showering, but there have been no follow-up studies to confirm the risks. A Cranfield University study concludes that, in the UK, only one group of DBPs is regulated—the trihalomethanes, which have a permitted level of 100µg at the taps. Further investigations are needed, as there is limited sampling, and we need more information on the occurrence of NDMA where there are health concerns. For a number of chemicals, the toxicity database is grossly inadequate or absent.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is concerned over the lack of data on iodinated DBPs, which makes sound assessments of the risks that they pose in drinking water impossible. In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency does not hold enough information on chloramines and their effects on weakened immune systems in infants, the elderly, those undergoing chemotherapy and those with HIV, nor does it hold information on their incompatibility for dialysis patients.
Risk assessments that are based on incomplete data are not sound. Despite the interaction of all the chemicals that are used in the industry, there are no cumulative risk assessments. Therefore, the system is not robust enough.
The DWQR’s job is to monitor the risks. There are efficient and sustainable alternative options for water treatment that are based on ion exchange, ultra-violet light, ceramic membranes and advanced oxidation, which offer lower lifecycle costs, greater efficiency and much lower environmental impacts. Publicly owned companies have a responsibility to use those. Although evidence about whether many chemicals pose any significant threat to public health may be lacking, removing them as an additional benefit of treatment for other purposes is advantageous.
09:45