Adding chemicals to banned list could be a waste of money, MPs told

There is a lack of evidence to warrant adding to the "priority substance" list of chemicals controlled under the Water Framework Directive, MPs heard today.

Giving evidence at the Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into water quality, Richard Aylard, sustainability director at Thames Water called for further studies to assess whether 15 chemicals put forward by the European Commission are toxic and at what level. There are currently 33 chemicals on the list. 

He said current evidence for their inclusion was weak and the costs of dealing with the chemicals was “enormous”. 

“We are running into billions of pounds for customers and the carbon and energy costs have not been factored into the equation,” Aylard said. “If we apply the additional treatment that has been talked about we would be using a lot more carbon to treat wastewater”. 

The UK water industry has estimated that cleaning up the extra substances at sewage works could cost around £27 billion over 20 years and Aylard said this would mean increasing customers’ wastewater bills by around £100 a year. 

He said spending a huge amount of money on this issue could potentially reduce investment on matters of greater importance such as reducing sewer flooding and tackling raw sewage entering rivers. 

Marco Lattughi, senior operations manager, RPS and Mike Murray, technical affairs manager, Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry agreed with Aylard. 

Lattughi said the technology to monitor the levels at which the chemicals had implications in water did not exist at present. 

“We would be spending a lot of money treating something that we can’t actually measure,” he said. “What we propose is further studies into the toxicology of these chemicals at these low doses prior any inclusion and the scope for treatment because the cost of treatment could exceed £27 billion.” 

Murray claimed there was a lack of evidence to suggest that the chemicals would have an adverse effect on the environment and said they should not be added to the list.