Is the EU drinking water directive standard for pesticides in drinking water consistent with the precautionary principle?

Regulations based on the precautionary principle should undertake a comprehensive assessment of all available scientific and technical data to identify sources of epistemic uncertainty. In the European Union (EU), environmental regulation is required to fulfill the principles established in Article 174 of the EU Treaty, such that it offers a high level of protection and is consistent with the precautionary principle. Pesticides in drinking water are currently regulated by the Drinking Water Directive using a maximum allowable concentration of 0.1 µg/L. This standard (a surrogate zero) was consistent with the precautionary principle when it was originally set in 1980 and remained consistent when retained in 1998. However, given developments in EU pesticide and water policy, international experience in regulating pesticides, and an increasing knowledge of pesticide toxicity, it can be argued that the level of epistemic uncertainty faced by regulators has substantially decreased. In this paper, we examine the extent to which such developments now challenge the basis of European drinking water standards for pesticides and whether, for substances for which there is good toxicological understanding, a regulatory approach based upon the World Health Organization (WHO) Guideline Value (GV) methodology would be more consistent with the principles underpinning European environmental policy.

Biosolids--a fuel or a waste? An integrated appraisal of five co-combustion scenarios with policy analysis.

An integrated appraisal of five technology scenarios for the co-combustion of biosolids in the UK energy and waste management policy context is presented. Co-combustion scenarios with coal, municipal solid waste, wood, and for cement manufacture were subject to thermodynamic and materials flow modeling and evaluated by 19 stakeholder representatives. All scenarios provided a net energy gain (0.58-5.0 kWh/kg dry solids), having accounted for the energy required for transportation and sludge drying. Co-combustion within the power generation and industrial (e.g., cement) sectors is most readily implemented but provides poor water utility control, and it suffers from poor public perception. Co-combustion with wastes or biomass appears more sustainable but requires greater investment and presents significant risks to water utilities. Incongruities within current energy and waste management policy are discussed and conclusions for improved understanding are drawn.