Issue 1 Spring 2017
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
Welcome to the first issue of The Institute of Water Journal The Institute of Water Journal is a peer-reviewed, technical journal with the sole aim of providing relevant and valuable learning and knowledge on the themes of science, engineering and the environment being applied in a water context, together with thought leadership, innovation and technical developments in other areas such as regulation, customer service and skills development. The Journal contains papers and case studies from authors working across these fields, including regulators, academics and their students, water company personnel and supply chain organisations, including consultants.
Authors are encouraged to consider carefully how readers may be able to readily apply what they have learned from each paper to their role in the water industry, as provision of excellent continuing professional development (CPD) opportunities is absolutely central to the ethos of the Institute of Water. Every paper has been peer-reviewed by a panel of experts from the Institute of Water, industry regulators and key academic partners: you can read more about the panel on page 56. In order for a paper to be accepted for publication in the Journal, the panel must be satisfied that it: •
Provides relevant and valuable learning for water industry professionals
Presents new and innovative thinking or research outputs or a different slant on an existing approach
Contains information and knowledge that many readers will be able to readily apply to their role as part of their Continuing Professional Development
The market is open but are we ready for customers to walk through the door? CCWATER
Evaluating urban non-potable water reuse opportunities GOODWIN ET AL
With the business retail water market open since 1 April 2017, does the sector have the ‘market mindset’? OFWAT
next for economic Feasibility study: Can we 20 Where 37 regulation? utilise pipeline hydroWATER INDUSTRY COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND
for Maximum 24 Regulating Benefit: Scotland’s Approach SEPA
Tackling the Lead issue in Scotland DRINKING WATER QUALITY REGULATOR FOR SCOTLAND
in 32 Accountablility the post-truth era?
generators to support monitoring and control of remote water reservoirs without mains power? ASTON UNIVERSITY THROUGH NORTHUMBRIAN WATER
Island integrated 46 Canvey urban drainage BLACK & VEATCH
in the 50 Groundwater shallow subsurface ESI CONSULTING
CCWATER THE MARKET IS OPEN BUT ARE WE READY FOR CUSTOMERS TO WALK THROUGH THE DOOR?
The market is open but are we ready for customers to walk through the door? It’s been a long time in the making but the doors to the world’s largest water retail market are finally open for business. The hard work that has been done to get the market ready is now being put to the test but:
Evan Joanette Market reform policy manager Consumer Council for Water
It will be some time before we know the answers to these questions. But one thing is certain: as the realities of operating in a competitive market sink in, all of us – retailers, wholesalers, Ofwat, MOSL, Defra and our own organisation, the Consumer Council for Water (CCWater) - will be on a journey of discovery. In the run-up to market opening much of the focus was on making sure that the Central Market Operating System (CMOS), the IT system that underpins the market, could do what it was meant to do - enable customers to switch from their existing retailer to a new one, and provide retailers and wholesalers with data for billing purposes. A huge amount of technical work was done, from developing the codes that govern how the market operates to generating and checking supply point identification numbers (SPIDs) that customers will see on their bills.
“How many of the 1.2 million non-household customers in England who are eligible to switch retailer will take the plunge?”
“How will we know if the market is actually delivering what customers want in terms of lower prices or better service?”
The sector also pulled together to raise customers’ awareness of the market which, at the turn of the year, was very low. It remains to be seen whether the national campaign launched in January – and which CCWater supported - succeeded in whetting the appetite of large numbers of dealhungry customers. Will the initial trickle of interest turn into a torrent of savvy switchers or renegotiators over the coming months? Only time will tell. CCWater is keen to see a vibrant market in which reasonable numbers of customers are engaged, actively seeking better deals and reaping the benefits. But we know there will be teething problems. Our consumer relations team spent months preparing for a potential rise in complaints and enquiries from business customers. Of the 10,000 or so complaints we help to resolve each year, around 1,000 are from non-household customers, mainly small businesses.
“How well will the industry handle the issues that are bound to arise from what is the biggest shake-up in the industry since it was privatised in 1989?”
Indeed, even before the market opened, our team – which has more than 10 years of knowledge and experience in dealing with business customer complaints – was answering a wide range of questions from customers. Most wanted to know if they were eligible to switch retailer, many were worried about their bills going up as a result of the changes, and others, such as residential care homes, were seeking advice on whether or not they would be exempt from paying a commercial tariff. Our team will be monitoring the market on a regular basis, analysing trends in the types of complaints we receive and feeding back statistics to the retailers so that they can fix any emerging problems. If we identify any systemic issues we will report these to MOSL and Ofwat so they can take any necessary action. Each year we will also publish a report on the number of complaints received by each of the 20 or so retailers who are active in the market so that customers can compare their performance.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
We recently consulted the industry on our plans to monitor customer complaints to retailers and we are now considering proposals from retailers as to how they will make their complaints data available to us. We intend to start collecting this data towards the end of the first quarter. Water companies have been providing us with this kind of information since 2005 as part of our statutory duty as a consumer champion. This has helped considerably to improve the industry’s performance, reputation and customer service. It is self evident that customers will benefit from having to make fewer complaints to their retailer. When the market has had time to bed in, CCWater will carry out research into customers’ experiences. We intend to use in-depth interviews with customers who have switched retailer or renegotiated a better deal with their existing provider, to find out whether their experience was good or bad, and if the benefits they were expecting ever materialised. Last year, as part of our preparations, we travelled to Scotland to see how the retail market has been working for customers since competition was introduced there in 2008. Our research north of the border revealed1 that low customer awareness is the single biggest challenge to creating momentum in a new market. The lesson for England is that ongoing communication with customers will be key to ensuring that the market is working effectively. We set the sector in England a challenge to make at least 50 per cent of customers aware of the market by the time it opened and 75 per cent a year afterwards. Now that the dust has settled on the communication campaign by the industry, the big challenge will be whether small and micro businesses, which make up around 90 per cent of the market - and are the least likely to be well informed - will participate.
What will the retailers do to engage with these customers? Will they invest time and effort in informing them that they can switch supplier or sign up with another retailer? Hopefully, the sector will be able to keep up the pace of communication so that customers engage in the market. In 2018 we will publish the next findings of our annual ‘Testing the Waters’ research, a large-scale survey which tracks business customers’ perceptions of the water industry. This will measure how customers feel about the water and sewerage issues that affect them, including their satisfaction with value for money and service. This research will paint a broad picture of what business customers think and it will give an indication of whether, in their view, retail competition is producing the increase in customer satisfaction that we hope it will do.
However, as a consumer representative body we do not want customers to fall prey to some of the sharp practices, such as mis-selling or contract lock-ins, that have dogged other utility markets. Ofwat has consulted on its principles for voluntary codes of practice for TPIs to provide some protection for customers. CCWater will hear from customers whether the activities of any TPIs are a cause for concern and, if necessary, we will bring these to the attention of the industry and customers. Finally, this is new territory for all of us in the water sector and will involve a degree of cultural change. At CCWater we have had to review the way we operate and have bolstered our complaint handling function, and centralised our operations in Birmingham and Cardiff to make sure we are providing an efficient and effective service for customers.
Another issue will be to ensure that customers who decide to switch retailer have a smooth, hassle-free experience. Although the market codes are in place and retailers and wholesalers were able to test their systems during the shadow market period, the practical, real-life handover of customers from their existing water company to a new retailer has not been tried and tested until now. CCWater’s market monitoring activity and customer research will be useful in helping to iron out any problems.
For water companies, which historically have been experts in managing assets to supply water and sewerage services but have not always dazzled in customer service, competition will present opportunities to innovate. Retailers will be much more agile and should be able to develop new and more interesting ways to use data to bring cutting-edge customer service to the industry. For some service providers, this will mean getting their staff up to speed and fully focused on the needs of customers.
We will also monitor the activities of third party intermediaries (TPIs), including brokers, who might have an influential role in the market. They could offer valuable services to business customers and we expect that they will be a mechanism to engage smaller businesses who would otherwise not be aware of - or interested in - the market.
Retail competition is an adventure on which we have only just embarked. Hold on tight – it’s going to be an interesting journey!
Open for business: Lessons for the non-household retail water market in England based on customer experiences in Scotland. CCWater, 24 August 2016. www.ccwater.org.uk/blog/2016/08/25/open-forbusiness-lessons-for-the-non-household-retail-water-market-in-england-based-on-customer-experiences-in-scotland/
GOODWIN ET AL EVALUATING URBAN NON-POTABLE WATER REUSE OPPORTUNITIES
Evaluating urban non-potable water reuse opportunities - Costs and benefits of risk management interventions D. Goodwin
H. M. Smith
Cranfield Water Science Institute, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, UK, MK43 0AL
Thames Water Utilities Ltd. Reading STW, Island Road, Reading, RG2 0RP
Cranfield Water Science Institute, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, UK, MK43 0AL
Cranfield Water Science Institute, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, UK, MK43 0AL
Non-potable water reuse schemes can help address water supply stresses in the UK. However, the feasibility of schemes is questionable due to potentially high capital and operating costs. Perceptions of health risks can contribute to high operating costs through conservative scheme designs. Conversely, a failure to anticipate customers’ water quality expectations can undermine scheme feasibility if there is insufficient water demand. Cost-benefit and health risk analyses are undertaken on a range of existing and potential customers for the Old Ford Water Recycling Scheme in London. Following this, the impacts of different risk reduction interventions are assessed and discussed. Findings show that new connections can improve the economic feasibility. However, increased health risks would require further detailed analysis for the preferred options. Whilst interventions can reduce health risks, the costs of implementing these mean that the potential of sharing risk responsibilities between interested stakeholders should be explored further.
Non-potable reuse schemes are challenged by their economic feasibility
Cost-benefit and health risk assessments are used to compare existing and potential water uses
Risk reduction measures impact cost-benefits but may help address customers’ concerns
Schemes may benefit from stakeholders sharing risk management responsibilities
Introduction Due to stresses on existing water resource management regimes, water reuse schemes are of increasing relevance in the UK. There are clear benefits to mobilising new infrastructure that combines wastewater treatment with water supply. However, such schemes can also be challenged by economic viability (Leverenz et al., 2011) and stakeholder support (Hernández et al., 2006). Reviews of international cases have highlighted the impact insufficient customer buy-in can have on non-potable reuse scheme costbenefits (West et al., 2016). Moreover, whilst the range of feasible urban uses for non-potable water (e.g. flushing toilets in housing developments) might seem conducive to developing schemes, there is uncertainty in understanding stakeholders’ preferences for managing risks (Turner et al., 2016).
There is, therefore, a need to consider the impact different risk reduction interventions might have on the assessments of both health risks and cost-benefits (Lindhe et al., 2011; Qadir et al., 2010). Furthermore, there is a need to understand how this information might be useful to stakeholders evaluating non-potable reuse opportunities (Chen et al., 2014). This paper considers the Old Ford Water Recycling Plant (OFWRP) at the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park (QEOP) in London. The OFWRP currently abstracts raw sewage from the Northern Outfall Sewer, treats it through a membrane bio-reactor (MBR) process (ultrafiltration) followed by granular activated carbon (GAC) and disinfection. The non-potable water, meeting bespoke water quality standards, is distributed in a dedicated pipe network.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
The quality standard was tailored so the non-potable water could be used for irrigation, toilet flushing and cooling towers and the scheme implements a comprehensive Water Safety Plan approach to risk management (Hills, 2013). However, whilst there were initial proposals to irrigate sports fields (stadium and water-based hockey) and provide cooling tower water (energy centre), perceptions of water quality health risks may have prevented these connections from going ahead, thus impacting on scheme cost-benefits (CfSL, 2012; Hills & James, 2014).
There is uncertainty in the future demand for irrigation, therefore a 5 to 15% longer-term reduction was assumed in the calculations. Demand for potential customers was estimated and is summarised in Table 1. The timing for new customer connections varies as some can connect relatively quickly, as most of the infrastructure is already in place (hockey centre and energy centre) whilst other options would be staged over time. Figure 1 - Summary of BAU typical monthly flow data
This article will summarise the case study results that compare a business-as-usual scenario with a range of feasible customer connections. Following this, the impact of risk reduction interventions are considered, using enhanced risk management and technology upgrade scenarios. The principal query guiding the study is: what are the impacts of risk reduction measures on cost-benefit and health risk assessments for non-potable water uses? Consideration is also given to how stakeholders might make use of such information when evaluating non-potable reuse scheme design and governance proposals. It is hoped that development of this research can contribute to improving the viability of new and existing water reuse schemes in the UK.
Methods Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) methods were used. The study first considered: (i) a business as usual (BAU) scenario with existing treatment processes and existing customers (parkland irrigation and toilet flushing at QEOP venues). Next, it considered four potential customer connections: (ii) an energy centre (cooling towers), (iii) water-based hockey playing fields, (iv) an aquatic centre (pool make-up and filter backwash), and (v) a residential development (5,000 unit connections were assumed). The residential option included two sub-options: (a) toilet flushing only, (b) toilet flushing and washing machines. All of these proposed customer connections have been realistically considered as potential customers for the case study except for the aquatic centre, which was included for comparative purposes. Due to uncertainty in estimates, probability distributions were included in the CBA and QMRA using Palisade @Risk software version 7.5 and 10,000 iterations.
Table 1 - Additional non-potable water demand for potential customers Customer / use
Demand† (m3. mth-1)
Notes and references
Epstein et al. (2011)
Olympic Delivery Authority (2012) for pool make-up and filter backwash
Knight et al. (2012)
5,000 units assumed based on 24,000 new homes being planned for construction by 2031 (LLDC, 2014). Approximate occupancy of 1.5 people per unit. 100 L.person-1.day-1, 30% for toilets (Parker & Wilby, 2013).
Residential (toilets and washing machines
As above, 16% for washing machines (Parker & Wilby, 2013).
Uniform distribution, minimum and maximum values. Every value in this range is equally likely, the value is not known but assumed to be within this range.
Operational data (2013 to 2015) for the OFWRP was used to approximate a typical annual profile of volumes of water treated and supplied for the existing customer demand (Figure 1). Due to summer irrigation, existing demand is seasonal. However, the plant continues to operate in winter with much of the treated water diverted to waste.
The CBA used a 30 year time period (Khan, 2013; Verrecht et al., 2010). Net present value (NPV) was calculated using the following formula (Eq. 1) where: B = benefits (Opex), C = costs (Capex and Opex), t = time in years, r = discount rate and K = initial investment.
NPV = -K + ∑ tt = 1 ((1B +- Cr) ) t
GOODWIN ET AL EVALUATING URBAN NON-POTABLE WATER REUSE OPPORTUNITIES
The analysis did not take account of previous investment (i.e. constructing the scheme) and only investigated costs and benefits accrued going forward. The boundary of the costs accrued is the provision of sufficient infrastructure to connect the non-potable water network to a new customer. Membranes were assumed to be replaced every 10 years (Verrecht et al., 2010). A discount rate of 3.5% was used (HM Treasury, 2011), whilst long-term inflation was assumed to be 2% (Verrecht et al., 2010). Sensitivity analysis was performed on the time period and discount rate. The cost model accounted for operational costs (chemicals, energy, sludge removal, staff, analysis and maintenance) and benefits (non-potable water supply, wastewater treatment) (Table 2). Additional Capex and Opex were added for the new customer options (Table 3). Table 2 - Business as usual costs and benefits
Costs - flow dependent
Costs - non-flow dependent
Sale of non-potable water
90% of potable water supply charge (varies per customer depending on usage but fixed rate assumed)
Treatment of wastewater
Residential rate for customers paying for wastewater treatment in North London (N.O.S. catchment). Applies only to the volume of water supplied to customers.
Treatment (incl. MBR, GAC) and distribution
2.50 kWh m-3; -£0.11 kWh-1
Unit energy derived from a combination of monthly energy use data and specification for equipment
Includes Sodium hypochlorite, poly-aluminium, water softening salts and granular activated carbon (replaced approx. every 2 years). From record data and Rutter (2013)*.
-£0.10 m-3 water treated
Record data and Rutter (2013)*
-£40,000; -£60,000; -£80,000 yr-1
Triangle distribution. Most probable is two full time technicians and part-time staff. **
Water quality analysis
From record data**
From record data**
*note Rutter, (2013) was estimated using an annual flow of 200,000m3. **Excludes all research related costs
Table 3 - Additional costs for potential customer connections
Capex: Connection for aquatic centre
New pipe connection, 100m x £300 m-1 plus connections (AECOM, 2015)
Capex: Connections for houses
Assume network extensions and supply to metered break tanks in development. Estimate £300-£500/dwelling (Fisher-Jeffes, 2015; Pickering, 2013).
Opex: Residential Options
Additional staff costs, Network and meter maintenance. Additional water quality analysis. Additional regulation checks. Estimate based on record values and Verrecht et al. (2012)
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT Health risk assessments were undertaken using Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessments (QMRA) and Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY) calculation methods for norovirus (Table 4). Norovirus was selected due to the significant contribution it makes to the disease burden and healthcare costs in the UK (Tam & O’Brien, 2016) and due to the relevance of viruses across the range of exposures considered (Westrell et al., 2004). A DALY is equivalent to the loss of one year of full health and the health-based target of 1x10-6 (µDALY) is referred to. The analysis was undertaken for DALY per person per year (pppy) and DALY per total population exposed. This was done due to a potential trade-off between these two calculations (Westrell et al., 2004). Summary data for exposures and populations for each connection option are provided in Table 5.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
Table 4 - Values used in QMRA calculations
Notes & References
Norovirus – initial concentration
2x10 gene copies per litre
GI and GII 101.5 – 103 each (Purnell et al., 2016). 101 – 104 (NRMMC EPHC & AHMC, 2006).
Log-reduction value (LRV)
4.5; 6.0† LRV
2.3 (MBR only) but none detected post chlorination (except one sample) (Purnell et al., 2016); 4.6 to 5.7 (Chaudhry et al., 2015); 4.2 (Simmons & Xagoraraki, 2011)
Log reduction - other
Swimming pool disinfection 0.5; 0.75; 1.0: Hockey and energy centre dosing 0.1; 0.2; 0.3
Triangle distributions. Additional treatment steps included for aquatic centre (Cl & UV), Energy Centre and Hockey Fields. See NRMMC EPHC & AHMC (2006) for LRVs
DALY per person per year
DALY/year = Pillnessyear x DALY/case x susceptibility
See Appendix 2 NRMMC EPHC & AHMC, (2006)
DALY per case
3.30 x 10-3
Probability of infection (Pinf)
Pinf,NoV = 1 - 1F1 (α, α+β, -DoseNoV)
Calculated using the Kummer confluent hypergeometric function 1F1 (Mok et al., 2014; Teunis et al., 2009)
Pinf fit parameters
α = 0.04 and β = 0.055
Mok et al. (2014)
Disease given infection (Pill)
0.67 x Pinf
Sales-Ortells & Medema (2014)
Table 5 - Summary of values used for exposure to recycled water Recycled water use (exposure)
Events. Person-1. Year-1
BAU* –Irrigation staff
Sinclair et al., (2016). Assume operative undertaking manual water twice per week, 20 weeks per year.
BAU* – Venue toilets
NRMMC EPHC & AHMC, (2006). Assume an individual visitor flushes a toilet twice per year (on average). Approximately 1,000,000 visitors per year (QEOP, 2016)
Residential – toilets
NRMMC EPHC & AHMC, (2006)
Residential – cross connection
Assume 1 in 5,000 houses
Storey et al. (2007) and; NRMMC EPHC & AHMC, (2006). Assume 180 days undetected (6 months).
Residential – washing machine
NRMMC EPHC & AHMC, (2006); Page et al., (2013)
Energy Centre – staff
Hamilton & Haas, (2016) 0.5 µL (high-pressure hose). Storey et al., (2004) 0.06 mL (showering).
Swimming* - swimmer
16-37mL (Dufour et al., 2006); 31-51mL (Schets et al., 2011). Assume regular swimmer, average visit once per week. For visitor numbers see GLL (2015), assuming multiple visits by some swimmers. No dilution factor included.
Hockey* - player
4mL for child on field drip or spray irrigated; 5mL for pressure washing car (DOEE, 2013). Assume person exposed 2 times per week for 24 weeks. Player numbers – best estimate provided by the venue.
* Calculations based on the group assumed to be more at risk (based on population, exposure and number of events.year-1), thus some calculations are for staff and others for the general community – this is a simplification. Vulnerable groups were not considered independently. ** Note that DALY pppy can be estimated for one single household with an assumed cross-connection, however, the calculation used assumed the cross-connection is randomly allocated across the entire population affected. † Uniform distribution
GOODWIN ET AL EVALUATING URBAN NON-POTABLE WATER REUSE OPPORTUNITIES
RISK REDUCTION INTERVENTIONS Two risk reduction intervention scenarios were investigated: (i) technology intervention, consisting of the addition of a reverse osmosis (RO) process, (ii) a risk management intervention, consisting of enhanced risk managed practices – assuming additional regulation inspections, auditing, enhanced water quality testing, risk management practices and increased stakeholder engagement. The RO intervention consists of more upfront investment and flow-dependent Opex, whilst the enhanced risk management intervention consists principally of increased nonflow dependent Opex (e.g. labour) over time. Data used to estimate the impact of the risk reduction interventions in the CBA and QMRA are summarised in Table 6. Table 6 - Additional costs and health risk reductions for risk interventions Risk Reduction
Technology upgrade (RO)
Capex: New RO treatment
-£500,000; -£750,000. Install new RO process (574m3.day-1). £600 m-3 to £1,200 per daily capacity (Pankratz, 2015; Singh, 2013).
Opex: RO energy
1.0 kWh m-3 (Chen et al., 2012); -£0.11 kWh-1
Opex: RO chemicals
-£0.05 m-3. Pre-treatment and processing chemicals Fritzmann et al., (2007)
Additional RO maintenance
-£12,000 yr-1. Estimated based on existing treatment process and Fritzmann et al., (2007).
RO additional log-reduction for viruses
1 LRV (NRMMC EPHC & AHMC, 2006)
Capex: Signage and educational material
-£20,000. Based on recorded data.
Staff – Regulation, Risk management and Engagement
-£40,000 yr-1. Includes water regulation checks, dye testing, network sampling and customer engagement (education, briefing etc.). Assume additional time for reporting, liaison.
Irrigation maximum exposure of 2mL (reduced by 50%)
Reduce exposed population
Irrigation, max 15 ppl; energy centre, max 6 ppl.
Reduced events per year
Irrigation, max 20 events.yr-1; Energy centre staff exposure max 25.yr-1; crossconnection detection 30 days max (detected through enhanced audits, water quality testing, etc)
Enhanced Risk Management
Results & Discussion COST-BENEFIT The results showed that, based on median values, most of the new connection would improve the scheme’s economic performance, with the exception of the residential options with toilets only (Figure 2). Figure 2 - CBA for BAU and new connection options box and whisker graph showing percentiles. Risk interventions show median values only.
hockey fields option which, like the energy centre, had no up-front infrastructure investment required (but lower non-potable water demand). The residential option that included washing machines returned the third highest median value result. However, there was a larger range due to more cost uncertainty. With the exception of the energy centre, no single option would be considered favourable to the scheme’s longer-term feasibility. The CBA highlights the potential to achieve more beneficial economic outcomes. However, adding further risk reduction measures (i.e. RO or enhanced risk management) would make this more challenging. The CBA results for a scheme of this nature are not surprising and concur with literature discussing similar undesirable results (Turner et al., 2016). Whilst unanticipated Capex and Opex (e.g. higher maintenance or water quality monitoring cost) are known to adversely affect economic feasibility (West et al., 2016), customer perceptions of water supply risks and their ultimate buy-in to the scheme may have had bigger economic repercussions in this particular case.
The most beneficial new connection was the energy centre, which returned net benefits overall. The second highest NPV was for the
A limitation of this analysis is that it hasn’t attempted to monetise more subjective items such as other social or environmental
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
benefits (Mattheiss & Zayas, 2016; Pickering, 2013). Therefore, it is acknowledged that different approaches could improve the measured economic performance of the BAU scheme and connection options. Moreover, the results are influenced by non-flow dependent costs, particularly staff - which has been previously shown for small-scale MBR schemes (Verrecht et al., 2012). Such a finding highlights the challenge to setting the boundaries for CBA when assessing small water schemes. For example, due to economies of scale, it may be difficult to compare with much larger-scale plants where the proportion of labour costs are much lower (Fritzmann et al., 2007). Sensitivity analysis Longer time periods (e.g. 45 year NPV) improved the results for options with Capex (in particular, the residential options). On the other hand, the options consisting of only operational expenditure were less sensitive to the length of the analysis time period. Increasing the discount rate to 6.0% (Khan, 2013; Verrecht et al., 2010) reduced costs and benefits over time, thus reducing the magnitude of the difference between the options (i.e. the residential options perform better and the energy centre slightly worse).
For swimming in tertiary-treated wastewater, Westrell et al. (2004) report 6x10-4 DALY pppy, in comparison, this study estimated 4.83x10-7 – 3.30x10-6 for swimmers (with comparatively more exposure events assumed but a higher quality of water). The picture was different when the total health burden on the affected population was considered (Figure 4). Under these scenarios, the aquatic centre (swimmers; 4.62x10-2 – 3.99x10-1 DALY) and the hockey fields (players; 1.03x10-2 – 6.90x10-2 DALY) had the highest total population risk burdens. This was essentially due to the larger populations that would be exposed over the course of a year. The energy centre and BAU (irrigation) had the lowest total population risk burdens, due to the small populations affected (small number of staff). Taking into account uncertainty in the calculations, the two cross-connection estimates provided similar results for the total disease burden on the affected population (as was expected). Figure 4 - Health risk assessment - total population burden box and whisker graph showing percentile values. Risk interventions show median values only.
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT The results showed most of the existing and proposed uses to be below the health-based target of 1x10-6 DALY pppy (Figure 3). Figure 3 - Health risk assessment DALY pppy box and whisker graph showing percentiles. Risk interventions show median values only.
The exceptions were a single household with a cross-connection, the aquatic centre (regular swimmers) and possibly an individual (regular) hockey player. Residential toilets and washing machines returned low individual health risks (i.e. < 10-6 DALY pppy). However, residential options are complicated by the possibility of a cross-connection with the drinking water supply. Furthermore, the impact of a cross-connection was well above the health-based target when considering the impact on the occupants of a single affected household (however, it is below the acceptable threshold if the DALY risk is spread across the affected population). The results are broadly consistent with previous studies. For example, Page et al., (2013) showed residential toilets flushed with non-potable water to be below the 1x10-6 health-based target.
Previous studies documenting total disease burden estimates include: an annual DALY of 0.2 to 9 (for a range of pathogens) for a population of 28,600 exposed to treated wastewater and sludge applied to land (Harder et. al., 2014), and a total DALY of 5.7 per year (for Campylobacter spp., Cryptosporidium spp. and rotavirus) for a hypothetical population of 200,000 exposed to unplanned indirect potable reuse (with upstream wastewater treatment) (Aramaki et al., 2006). Thus, these studies put into context the highest total population burden for this study for the aquatic centre with a total DALY of 4.62x10-2 – 3.99x10-1 for a population range of 50,000 - 150,000. For residential toilet flushing, Fewtrell & Kay (2007) estimated a total disease burden for flushing toilets with rainwater of 7.14x10-5 DALY (Campylobacter spp. and Salmonella spp.) for a residential population of 4,483 people. This puts the results for the residential (toilets) option into context, with a higher total DALY of 1.63x10-4 – 1.09x10-3 but also a larger population of 5,000 - 11,000 (noting that the different pathogens considered mean the results are not directly comparable).
GOODWIN ET AL EVALUATING URBAN NON-POTABLE WATER REUSE OPPORTUNITIES
The implications of these findings are to support the previously identified benefits of using total population disease burden to compare wastewater treatment and exposure options (Westrell et al., 2004). It is also worth noting that there are many limitations to the accuracies of the DALY method, for example, compared with epidemiological methods (Barker, 2014). Moreover, there are limitations around variable susceptibilities of different individuals (Derry et al., 2006), the selection of reference pathogens and fitting parameters to different norovirus genogroups (Sales-Ortells & Medema, 2014). However, the method provides a useful approach for comparing health risks of different exposures for therefore aiding decision-making.
THE IMPACTS OF RISK REDUCTION MEASURES The technology risk reduction intervention (i.e. RO) increased the costs for all connection options and also reduces the potential health risk (assuming normal operating conditions). An enhanced risk management intervention had a similar impact on costbenefits as the RO intervention, however, the health risk reductions were more variable. This is because for many of the options (e.g. aquatic centre) there were no assumptions made about practical ways to reduce exposure. The result did show potential benefits of enhanced risk management for managing cross-connections in new residential developments. Improving the response time for detecting a cross-connection from six months to one month had a similar risk reduction impact as the RO intervention, both in terms of per person and total population exposed. This highlights the challenges with managing the risk of cross-connections in residential development, particularly for hazardous events (such as membrane or RO failure where the risk control would be compromised). As recommended by related studies (e.g. Westrell et al., 2004), worst-case scenarios need further analysis to help evaluate the appropriate risk controls. The most favourable results for both CBA and QMRA calculation were for the energy centre. This had no initial investment required (as infrastructure is already in place), reliable annual demand and low exposure potential (both per person and total population disease burden). The health risk to be managed was assumed to be a small number of staff working at the facility, as this connection option would be unlikely to affect the health of the wider community. Nonetheless, despite the potential cost-benefits, any new connection would increase the health-risk over BAU (without any further risk reductions or cessation of existing uses), as more individuals would be exposed to the non-potable water. Therefore, for a new connection to the energy centre, future analysis is recommended to consider the magnitude of the increased risk for that particular option. For example, an assessment of the risk from exposure to Legionella – a problem for cooling towers irrespective of recycled water use – would be necessary (Hamilton & Haas, 2016). However, there are suitable disinfection and risk controls available for managing Legionella risk in cooling tower systems using recycled water (Jjemba et al., 2015), thus inferring the collaborative role different stakeholders may need to play in risk management.
Whilst this study has considered adding an RO process as the technology intervention, other water treatment steps such as UV or advanced oxidation could also be considered for targeting pathogens, including viruses (Liga et al., 2011). This would, to a degree, be dependent on any key water quality criteria that were identified as needing to be reduced. In the case of targeting healthrisks associated with connecting the energy centre and sports fields (both originally intended to be connected and with the top two CBA results), an additional treatment barrier may help placate previously expressed customer concerns. However, an RO intervention would be required if, for example, there are concerns about impacts from total dissolved solids on cooling tower operations – noting that this should be more cost-effective if installed on the customer’s site (Institute for Sustainable Futures, 2013). For enhanced risk management, this study draws attention to difficulties in estimating both the costs and health risk impacts. This is due to inherent difficulties in estimating the effects of behaviour change or new management practices. For example, whilst it may be appropriate to assume reduced exposures are achievable (WHO, 2006), these may be harder to validate. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that beneficial risk management practices may be constrained by a lack of incentives, poor enforcement or inadequate sharing of management responsibilities (Qadir et al., 2010).
STAKEHOLDER DECISIONS ABOUT NON-POTABLE REUSE Related studies highlight the important role stakeholder expectations and risk perceptions play in determining the economic viability of non-potable water schemes (Turner et al., 2016; West et al., 2016). This study showed how the economic performance of the scheme under consideration could potentially be improved with careful selection of new customers. Furthermore, this brief study also identified a number of areas where there could be potential benefits to sharing risk management (and cost) responsibilities. A useful extension of this study would be to investigate how different stakeholders deliberate and assign importance to evaluation criteria associated with recycled water decisions. This would help to build on existing knowledge regarding the inter-relationship of different criteria involved in selecting new recycled water uses (Chen et al., 2014) and, furthermore, develop understandings of stakeholders’ willingness to share risk management responsibilities, costs and benefits as part of a risk management process.
Conclusions CBA and QMRA are useful tools for comparing potential nonpotable water reuse connection options. Furthermore, considering per person and total population disease burden for the different options contributes to evaluating different dimensions of risk. Understanding the trade-offs involved in these evaluations can then lead to more detailed assessments of specific options. The results showed that cost estimates and risk reductions for a technology risk reduction intervention may be easier to estimate than managementbased interventions.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
However, the benefits of any risk reduction should account for hazardous events and methods of validating the effectiveness of management-based initiatives. This work contributes to understanding the inter-relationships between different evaluation criteria for comparing recycled water uses and can help build more robust methods for improving scheme design and governance decisions.
Acknowledgements This research was co-funded by the UK’s Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) grant number EP/G037094/1 and Thames Water through the STREAM Industrial Doctorate Centre. References AECOM 2015. Spon’s Civil Engineering and Highway Works Price. CRC Press, Abingdon, UK. Aramaki, T., Galal, M. & Hanaki, K. 2006. Estimation of reduced and increasing health risks by installation of urban wastewater systems. Water Science and Technology. 53 (9). pp. 247–252. Barker, S.F. 2014. Risk of norovirus gastroenteritis from consumption of vegetables irrigated with highly treated municipal wastewater-evaluation of methods to estimate sewage quality. Risk Analysis. 34 (5). pp. 803–817. CfSL 2012. Breaking the tape: pre-Games review. Commission for a Sustainable London. London. Chaudhry, R.M., Nelson, K.L. & Drewes, J.E. 2015. Mechanisms of pathogenic virus removal in a fullscale membrane bioreactor. Environmental Science and Technology. 49 (5). pp. 2815–2822. Chen, Z., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Lim, R., Wang, X.C., O’Halloran, K., Listowski, A., Corby, N. & Miechel, C. 2014. A comprehensive framework for the assessment of new end uses in recycled water schemes. The Science of the Total Environment. 470–471. pp. 44–52. Chen, Z., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W.S., Listowski, A., O’Halloran, K., Thompson, M. & Muthukaruppan, M. 2012. Multi-criteria analysis towards the new end use of recycled water for household laundry: A case study in Sydney. Science of the Total Environment. 438. pp. 59–65. Derry, C., Attwater, R. & Booth, S. 2006. Rapid health-risk assessment of effluent irrigation on an Australian university campus. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. 209 (2). pp. 159–71. DOEE 2013. Stormwater management rule and guidebook - Appendix A. Department of Energy and Environment. Washington D.C. Dufour, A.P., Evans, O., Behymer, T.D. & Cantú, R. 2006. Water ingestion during swimming activities in a pool: A pilot study. Journal of Water and Health. 4 (4). pp. 425–430. Epstein, D., Knight, H., Sykes, J. & Carris, J. 2011. The Olympic Park Water Strategy. Olympic Delivery Authority. London, UK. Fewtrell, L. & Kay, D. 2007. Quantitative microbial risk assessment with respect to Campylobacter spp. in toilets flushed with harvested rainwater. Water and Environment Journal. 21 (4). pp. 275–280. Fisher-Jeffes, Ll.N. 2015. The viability of rainwater and stormwater harvesting in the residential areas of the Liesbeek River Catchment, Cape Town. University of Cape Town. Fritzmann, C., Löwenberg, J., Wintgens, T. & Melin, T. 2007. State-of-the-art of reverse osmosis desalination. Desalination. 216 (1–3). pp. 1–76. GLL 2015. London Aquatics Centre. Greenwich Leisure Limited. London, UK. Hamilton, K.A. & Haas, C.N. 2016. Critical review of mathematical approaches for quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) of Legionella in engineered water systems: research gaps and a new framework. Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. 2. pp. 599–613. Harder, R., Heimersson, S., Svanström, M. & Peters, G.M. 2014. Including Pathogen Risk in Life Cycle Assessment of Wastewater Management. 1. Quantitative Comparison of Pathogen Risk to Other Impacts on Human Health. Environmental Science & Technology. 48. pp. 9438–9445. Hernández, F., Urkiaga, A., Fuentes, L. De, Bis, B. & Chiru, E. 2006. Feasibility studies for water reuse projects : an economical approach. Desalination. 187. pp. 253–261. Hills, S. 2013. Applying a Water Safety Plan Approach for Reclaimed Water Use at the 2012 Olympic Park in London. In: IWA Reuse Conference Namibia. 2013. Hills, S. & James, C. 2014. The Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park Water Recycling System, London. In: F. A. Memon & S. Ward (eds.). Alternative Water Supply Systems. IWA Publishing. HM Treasury 2011. The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. London, UK. Institute for Sustainable Futures 2013. Matching Treatment to Risk: Building Industry Capacity to make Recycled Water Investment Decisions. Institute of Sustainable Futures, Univeristy of Technology for the Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence. Sydney. Jjemba, P.K., Johnson, W., Bukhari, Z. & LeChevallier, M.W. 2015. Occurrence and Control of Legionella in Recycled Water Systems. Pathogens. 4 (3). pp. 470–502. Khan, S. 2013. Drinking Water Through Recycling - The benefits and costs of supplying direct to the distribution system. Australian Academy of Technical Science and Engineering. Melbourne, Australia. Knight, H., Maybank, R., Hannan, P., King, D. & Rigley, R. 2012. Lessons learned from the London 2012 Games Construction Project – The Old Ford Water Recycling Plant and Non-Potable Water Distribution Network. Olympic Delivery Authority. London, UK. Leverenz, H.L., Tchobanoglous, G. & Asano, T. 2011. Direct potable reuse: a future imperative. Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination. 1 (1). p. 2. Liga, M. V., Bryant, E.L., Colvin, V.L. & Li, Q. 2011. Virus inactivation by silver doped titanium dioxide nanoparticles for drinking water treatment. Water Research. 45 (2). pp. 535–544. Lindhe, A., Rosén, L., Norberg, T., Bergstedt, O. & Pettersson, T.J.R. 2011. Cost-effectiveness analysis of risk-reduction measures to reach water safety targets. Water Research. 45 (1). pp. 241–53. LLDC 2014. Local Plan Background Paper: Housing. London Legacy Development Corporation. London, UK. Mattheiss, V. & Zayas, I. 2016. Deliverable D4.4 Social and environmental benefits of water reuse schemes – Economic considerations for two case studies. DEMOWARE. Mok, H., Barker, S.F. & Hamilton, A.J. 2014. A probabilistic quantitative microbial risk assessment model of norovirus disease burden from wastewater irrigation of vegetables in Shepparton Australia. Water Research. 54. pp. 347–362. NRMMC EPHC & AHMC 2006. Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks (Phase 1). Natural Resource Ministerial Management Council, Environment Protection and Heritage Council and Australian Health Ministers.
Olympic Delivery Authority 2012. Learning Legacy - Reducing the Aquatics Centre’s water consumption. London, UK. Page, D., Miotliński, K., Toze, S. & Barron, O. 2013. Human health risks of untreated groundwater third pipe supplies for non-potable domestic applications. Urban Water Journal. (April 2014). pp. 1–6. Pankratz, T. 2015. Reverse Osmosis Desalination. In: Energy Optimized Desalination Technology Development Workshop. 2015, San Francisco. Available from https://energy.gov/eere/amo/downloads/ energy-optimized-desalination-technology-development-workshop-november-5-6-2015. Parker, J.M. & Wilby, R.L. 2013. Quantifying Household Water Demand: A Review of Theory and Practice in the UK. Water Resources Management. 27 (4). pp. 981–1011. Pickering, P. 2013. Economic viability of recycled water schemes. Australian Centre for Water Recycling Excellence, Brisbane. Purnell, S., Ebdon, J., Buck, A., Tupper, M. & Taylor, H. 2016. Removal of phages and viral pathogens in a full-scale MBR: Implications for wastewater reuse and potable water. Water Research. 100. pp. 20–27. Qadir, M., Wichelns, D., Raschid-Sally, L., McCornick, P.G., Drechsel, P., Bahri, A. & Minhas, P.S. 2010. The challenges of wastewater irrigation in developing countries. Agricultural Water Management. 97 (4). pp. 561–568. QEOP 2016. Olympic Park - facts and figures. Available from: http://www.queenelizabetholympicpark. co.uk/media/facts-and-figures (Accessed: 1 July 2016). Rutter, P. 2013. Old Ford Water Recycling Plant. In: CIWEM Conference 2013. 2013, Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management. Sales-Ortells, H. & Medema, G. 2014. Screening-level microbial risk assessment of urban water locations: A tool for prioritization. Environmental Science and Technology. 48 (16). pp. 9780–9789. Schets, F.M., Schijven, J.F. & de Roda Husman, A.M. 2011. Exposure assessment for swimmers in bathing waters and swimming pools. Water Research. 45 (7). pp. 2392–2400. Simmons, F.J. & Xagoraraki, I. 2011. Release of infectious human enteric viruses by full-scale wastewater utilities. Water Research. 45 (12). pp. 3590–3598. Sinclair, M., Roddick, F., Nguyen, T., O’Toole, J. & Leder, K. 2016. Measuring water ingestion from spray exposures. Water Research. 99. pp. 1–6. Singh, R.P. 2013. Water Desalination ‘ The Role of RO and MSF ’. IOSR Journal Of Environmental Science, Toxicology And Food Technology. 6 (2). pp. 61–65. Storey, M. V., Ashbolt, N.J. & Stenström, T.A. 2004. Biofilms, thermophilic amoebae and Legionella pneumophila - A quantitative risk assessment for distributed water. Water Science and Technology. 50 (1). pp. 77–82. Storey, M. V, Deere, D., Davison, A., Tam, T. & Lovell, A.J. 2007. Risk Management and Cross-Connection Detection of a Dual Reticulation System. In: eds. S.J. Khan,R.M. Stuetz, andJ.M. Anderson (ed.). 3rd Australian Water Association Water Reuse and Recycling Conference (REUSE07). 2007, UNSW Publishing and Printing Services, Sydney, pp. 115–123. Tam, C.C. & O’Brien, S.J. 2016. Economic cost of campylobacter, norovirus and rotavirus disease in the United Kingdom. PLoS ONE. 11 (2). pp. 1–12. Teunis, P.F.M., Rutjes, S. a., Westrell, T. & de Roda Husman, a. M. 2009. Characterization of drinking water treatment for virus risk assessment. Water Research. 43 (2). pp. 395–404. Turner, A., Mukheibir, P., Mitchell, C., Chong, J., Retamal, M., Murta, J., Carrard, N. & Delaney, C. 2016. Recycled water – Lessons from Australia on dealing with risk and uncertainty. Water Practice and Technology. 11 (1). pp. 127–138. Verrecht, B., James, C., Germain, E., Birks, R., Barugh, A., Pearce, P. & Judd, S. 2012. Economical Evaluation and Operating Experiences of a Small-Scale MBR for Nonpotable Reuse. Journal of Environmental Engineering. pp. 594–601. Verrecht, B., Maere, T., Nopens, I., Brepols, C. & Judd, S. 2010. The cost of a large-scale hollow fibre MBR. Water Research. 44 (18). pp. 5274–5283. West, C., Kenway, S., Hassall, M. & Yuan, Z. 2016. Why do residential recycled water schemes fail ? A comprehensive review of risk factors and impact on objectives. Water Research. 102. pp. 271–281. Westrell, T., Schönning, C., Stenström, T.A. & Ashbolt, N.J. 2004. QMRA (quantitative microbial risk assessment) and HACCP (hazard analysis and critical points) for management of pathogens in wastewater and sewage sludge treatment and reuse. Water Science and Technology. 50 (2). pp. 23–30. WHO 2006. Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater. World Health Organisation, Geneva.
OFWAT MARKET MINDSET
With the business retail water market open since 1 April 2017, does the sector have the ‘market mindset’? Richard Khaldi Senior Director of Customers and Casework, Ofwat
Since 1 April 2017 more than 1.2 million eligible businesses, charities and public sector organisations in England have been able to choose who supplies their water and wastewater retail services. For individual customers the ability to renegotiate, shop around or self-supply means they can: •
lower their bills and charges
improve the customer service they get
get more tailored services – such as consolidated billing or benchmarking; and
become more water efficient.
It is the largest water market of its kind in the world and is expected to deliver £200million of benefits to the UK, as well as significant environmental benefits. It will drive the largest shake-up of the sector since privatisation 25 years ago, and critically should provide a platform for longer-term plans to harness market forces
in other parts of the supply chain (such as water resources and bioresources) to deliver benefits for customers. Over recent years the sector has been working hard to put in place the systems and processes the market will need to operate smoothly. A comprehensive assurance process1 has also tracked the preparations of wholesalers, participating retailers as well as Ofwat itself, to give confidence to the Secretary of State that the market was ready to open. But there’s one key ingredient for an effective market that can’t be process mapped or written into a code: a market mindset. And it is that which will ultimately determine whether retailers and the market itself thrive or fail.
The business retail market: Who is in and who is out? We opened the water supply and sewerage licence (WSSL) application process in 2016. We initially found that we received WSSL applications from incumbents who were setting up separate business retail companies; companies who were already operating in Scotland and those companies acquiring retail businesses from incumbent water companies exiting the retail market. In recent months however we have seen interest and applications for self-supply licences, which enable the licensee to provide retail services to their own eligible premises. These applications have included multi-site companies such as Greene King
and interest from public sector bodies such as local authorities and NHS Trusts. We have also seen a growing number of applications from retailers already operating in the energy retail market, and the first application for wholesale authorisations, which enable the licensee to introduce water into the public water networks of incumbent monopoly water companies whose areas are wholly or mainly in England. At the time of writing, we have received applications from 30 companies and granted a total of 49 licences (24 water and 25 sewerage)2.
Out of the 25 licensees who have currently been granted licences: •
20 are retailers in Scotland;
10 are acquiring customers from incumbent companies that are exiting the market; and
two are retailers already operating in energy.
17 large monopoly companies and 7 local monopoly companies (‘new appointees’) will provide wholesale services in defined geographic areas.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
Ready for the market to open – but ready for an open market?
Their drivers and motivations, their focus on different service offers and, critically, their relationships with others in the sector will be different.
Market opening will require everybody operating in the water sector, be they customers, wholesalers, retailers or the regulator, to have a different mindset from the past. They will no longer be in a sector dominated by vertically integrated monopoly providers.
Getting this mindset right will be key to all market participants maximising the opportunities and overcoming the challenges the new market will pose.
Learning from the experience of retail markets in other sectors We have considered carefully the experiences of introducing competition in other utility markets in the UK and the challenges this has presented. To take one example, in the gas and electricity retail markets the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) found that more than 15 years after the opening of those markets, a number of significant competition problems remained. The CMA imposed a number of remedies to address this, designed to help vulnerable customers, improve engagement and allow customers to drive competition more effectively. These experiences have demonstrated the need to plan carefully in structuring the market so as to avoid competition concerns arising and ensure a framework for effective competition. We have been doing just that: 1. We have put in place codes of conduct to ensure retailers3 and third-party intermediaries (TPIs)4 understand the behaviour we expect of them. 2. We have developed a strong market monitoring framework5 to ensure that we understand in a timely fashion how the market is developing and whether we need to step in to address a particular concern.
3. We have developed a strategy for resolving complaints and disputes6 that is focused on using the most appropriate of our regulatory tools to deliver the best outcome for customers (from informal dialogue through to formal enforcement action). 4. We have developed guidance to allow the market participants to better understand how competition law7 will apply to them and how we will approach competition law complaints. It is the responsibility of all companies operating in the water and wastewater sector in England and Wales to assure themselves that they have taken the necessary steps to ensure their compliance with competition law. 5. We are seeking to protect customers who do not switch their retailer with a time-limited default tariff8. This reflects lessons learnt from energy where some customers who did not switch suffered by remaining on standard variable tariffs. Going forward we will keep a close eye on how the market develops and cooperate closely with other regulators (such as the CMA, Ofgem and the Financial Conduct Authority) on the application of competition law but also more broadly on lessons learnt and shared areas of interest, such as how to maximise customer engagement in competitive markets and ensure they are treated fairly.
A market mindset means focusing on customers There’s no doubt that markets bring the customer’s interests sharply into focus. When customers can move with their feet retailers are highly dependent on offering a quality service that meets their customer’s expectations. •
Just over 50% of recently surveyed business customers said they will consider switching their supplier when the market opened9.
The Scottish water retail market has shown that even where customers haven’t switched, they have successfully levered that option to negotiate a better deal with their existing supplier.
To survive, retailers will need to better understand the needs and growing expectations of their customers, to an extent that monopolies haven’t had to in the past.
They will need to use this customer insight to distinguish themselves in a busy market place, to establish what makes them better for the customer than the next offer. For some this might be lower costs, but for many it will be better quality services, be that through better customer service, innovation, or wrap-around services, such as water efficiency, multi-utility bundling, or other consultancy support. And it won’t just be retailers that will need to focus their minds on doing more and better for customers. Wholesale services make up 90% of the costs of serving customers and include many of the services customers consider vital, such as emergency repairs and water quality.
OFWAT MARKET MINDSET
As a result wholesalers will also come under greater pressure, as vocal, commerciallyfocused retailers look to leverage and drive improvements in wholesale services as part of distinguishing their own offer. In parallel, the growing choice of service offer that will become available to business customers will raise expectations of a better service for residential customers, driving improvements in what currently remain monopoly suppliers.
Third party intermediaries - a potential remedy or source of competition concerns? We expect that the activities of third party intermediaries (TPIs) are likely to be an important contributor to the successful functioning of the water business retail market. TPIs include digital comparison tools, brokers and any company that offers support with utilities procurement.
TPIs are common in other markets, including the energy market and the financial services market. Experience in other sectors has shown that TPIs can have an important impact on customer engagement. The CMA and its predecessors have established and promoted comparison sites as remedies across a variety of markets. But in 2015 the UK Parliament’s Energy and Climate Change Committee held an inquiry into energy price comparison websites10. And in late 2016, the CMA launched a market study11 to consider a range of concerns in relation to digital comparison tools including those relating to competition and consumer trust. Ofwat has no powers to regulate the behaviour of TPIs – only the retailers that use them, and we have required retailers to ensure that any TPIs they contract with to represent them in sales and marketing activities, comply with the terms of the ‘Business Customer Protection Code of Practice’.
But the potential risks meant we could not sit back and do nothing. That is why we consulted on and finalised a number of principles for a voluntary industry-led code of practice to help to ensure standards among TPIs are high and afford customers certain protection. We consider our approach provides TPIs, retailers, customers and other interested parties with guidance on ‘acceptable’ TPI practices, whilst giving the sector ownership of any codes of conduct and the space to innovate. But we will also be seeking further powers to enable us to do more in this area. Given the multi-utility model associated with TPI businesses, we intend to continue working closely with other regulators, particularly Ofgem, to ensure consistency in the application of our principles across the markets.
A market mindset will bring change and innovation One of the key aspects of markets is that they enable participants to focus their efforts where they are best used, and to contract with others to do what they are not best placed to do themselves. Through this markets can help to enable good performers to continue to push the frontier and to remove the efficiencies of poor performers who must either pull their socks up or leave the market. It is already clear that both incumbent water companies and retailers are taking on this opportunity, reflecting on what they can and want to do better and withdrawing from where they feel they don’t want to or can’t compete. Ahead of market opening we have already seen: •
a number of incumbent companies choosing to exit the retail market;
other incumbents establishing associated retailers to help provide clear focus;
a Scottish retailer offering a water and energy bundle and entering into a partnership with an incumbent retailer;
a number of existing Scottish retailers acquiring the customers of exiting incumbents, and
four incumbents creating two joint ventures to bring together their respective strengths in new retailers.
This, alongside the entrance of retailers already operating in the energy sector and the introduction of self-supply licences is radically shaking up the number and type of businesses operating in the sector, each with different motivations and foci. This clearer distinction and understanding of the types of services companies are offering is particularly key to the mindset and operations of incumbent companies. To comply with competition law, they need to be providing their monopoly wholesale services on a level playing field to all retailers. Clearly understanding what those services are and the customers for them is key to ensuring this. This has the potential to challenge every activity that traditional, vertically-integrated companies have historically performed, because their services have been so tightly interwoven. The new market will require wholesalers to challenge this and to establish and manage new relationships, both with a range of companies they haven’t worked with before, but also to adjust how they work with their own retail function if this remains integrated in their business or with any associated retailer they may have group links to.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
OFWAT MARKET MINDSET
A market mindset also means a new approach to regulation Of course, markets also require different things of the regulator. For over 25 years Ofwat has regulated a largely monopolistic sector in which vertically-integrated companies were the norm and most customers were unable to switch their supplier. The resulting regulatory model we adopted tended to be: •
prescriptive and fairly routine
a one-size-fits-all approach to companies; and
focused heavily on ex-ante interventions.
Being a regulator of markets will be very different. It requires more proportionate and targeted interventions where they are really needed, be that in: •
those parts of the supply chain where monopoly provision remains; or
introducing and/or improving markets where greater benefits can be delivered for customers.
Where markets exist regulatory intervention is more likely to be ex-post, responding to how market participants are operating, rather than trying to pre-empt it. The pace and nature of regulatory challenge and interventions will also change radically and be more unpredictable. Just like the wholesalers and retailers we regulate, we need to be prepared that business practices evolve so we cannot limit ourselves to learning from the past and need to keep a close eye on new trends. There will be a need for more dynamic, ‘of the moment’ monitoring of the market to understand how it is working to identify any potential concerns, and to effectively distinguish between what might be: •
‘settling in’ issues or the actions of a specific market participant; and
more fundamental, systemic issues that pose significant detriment to customers.
There will also be a need to play in the appropriate tool from our regulatory toolkit – just rolling out formal enforcement tools for every issue won’t cut it, and other, often relationship and communications-based tools will also play a vital role.
Getting the market mindset is one thing - keeping it is another It is easy to get carried away by the opening of an expanded water market − or viewing the process of competition as an end in itself. But it is customers who this market is for. And as we have seen in other sectors, customer trust is hard won and easily lost. That means everyone involved in the business retail water market – companies, the supply chain, the market operator, regulators and Government – will need to: •
focus on customers;
be open to change and innovation;
target any problems in a proportionate way; and
deliver fair, open and transparent competition.
We will all need to remain constantly vigilant of staying in this market mindset to retain and build customer trust now and for future generations.
Are companies in the mind set to avoid falling foul of competition law concerns? Every company operating in the new market will need assure themselves that they have taken the necessary steps to ensure compliance with UK and EU competition law. To help ensure companies understand and comply with these obligations, we have developed guidance to allow them to better understand how competition law will apply to them – and our process for prioritising and deciding whether to begin an investigation. The Competition Act 1998 (CA98) imposes two key prohibitions on anti-competitive conduct.
AGREEMENTS THAT MAY ACTUALLY OR POTENTIALLY DISTORT COMPETITION •
We can consider allegations against any natural or legal person engaged in economic activity, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed.
We will define the relevant market, product market and geographic market based on the facts of each individual case.
An agreement does not need to be in writing, but also covers tacit understandings as well as express agreements. Concerted practices include forms of co-ordination that fall short of a full agreement.
Prohibition applies to an agreement only if it has as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
Agreements between direct competitors (‘horizontal agreements’) to limit competition are regarded particularly seriously. But agreements can also take place between undertakings active at different levels of the market (‘vertical undertakings’).
There are exemptions where an agreement may not be unlawful, even if it restricts competition.
Where we investigate an infringement of CA98, we may:
THE ABUSE OF A DOMINANT MARKET POSITION •
Dominant companies are those with significant market power, such as the ability to sustain prices significantly above competitive levels or restrict output or quality significantly below competitive levels. Dominant companies have a special responsibility not to allow their conduct to impair or distort competition. They can be classed as ‘super-dominant’ where they enjoy very significant market power, where they operate as a monopoly or quasimonopoly.
We will consider a range of factors in assessing market power and dominance.
Dominance itself is not prohibited. It is only the abuse of a dominant position that is unlawful.
It is not necessary for dominance to exist and abuse to occur on the same market.
Types of abusive conduct that may be of particular concern where dominant undertakings are vertically integrated include predation, refusal to supply and margin squeeze
A dominant undertaking can defend itself against an allegation of abuse by demonstrating that it has an objective justification for its conduct.
impose a financial penalty on the infringing undertaking;
generally make directions as to future conduct; or
agree to accept commitments to address competition concerns.
Claims for redress for breaches of CA98 can be brought in the UK courts which have jurisdiction to hear competition cases, including the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the High Court.
References 1 ‘Assurance framework’, Open Water, July 2015 2 Licences and licensees, Ofwat: http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/regulated-companies/licences/ 3 ‘Business customer protection code of practice’, Ofwat, 19 May 2016 4 Protecting customers in the business market - principles for voluntary TPI codes of conduct, Ofwat March 2017 5 Monitoring the business retail water market, Ofwat website 6 Our priorities, Ofwat: http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/regulated-companies/investigations/how-weinvestigate/priorities/ 7 Guidance on Ofwat's approach to the application of the Competition Act 1998 in the water and wastewater sector in England and Wales, Ofwat, March 2017 8 2016 non-household retail price review, Ofwat, December 2016 9 ‘England-wide customer survey marks start of countdown’, Open Water, 19 January 2017 10 ‘Protecting consumers: Making energy price comparison websites transparent’, Seventh Report 7th Report, UK Parliament Energy and Climate Change Committee, 24 February 2017 11 Digital comparison tools market study, CMA, September 2016
ANNUAL CONFERENCE 15 | 16 JUNE 2017
WE ACHIEVE MORE
WATER INDUSTRY COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND WHERE NEXT FOR ECONOMIC REGULATION?
Where next for economic regulation? Alan D.A. Sutherland Water Industry Commission for Scotland
Introduction The evidence is that the economic regulation of the water and sewerage sector in Scotland1 and the rest of Great Britain2 has worked well. Costs have fallen, service levels to customers have improved markedly and there has been considerable investment in improving water quality and the environment. This paper first reviews how economic regulation of the water sector has evolved and the challenges it faces today. It then sets out how regulation may adapt to these challenges and examines two alternative directions of travel. It suggests that the creation of new markets and the disaggregation of the value chain would result in a significant increase in complexity and the costs of regulation. The paper concludes that an alternative where water companies and regulators rely on collaborative approaches and involving customers is to be preferred.
The approach of the economic regulator Economic regulation of today’s water sector is increasingly more complex than anything envisioned by its pioneers in the UK. Not surprisingly, therefore, the costs of regulation have steadily increased. The UK adopted incentive based (RPI-X) regulation, which fixed a charges cap on the regulated business and, accordingly, a ‘hard budget constraint’. The aim was to create an incentive to find more effective and efficient ways of delivering services to customers. As such, it was quite different to ‘rate of return’ regulation, where the return earned was a function of expenditure. This straightforward approach did not last long. Regulated businesses argued that the regulator should have to evidence the efficiency factor applied in setting charges. Successfully establishing a ‘hard budget constraint’ became increasingly difficult, not least because the underlying analysis became ever more complex. The regulated company will always know more than the regulator about its costs and services.
Abstract This paper reviews how economic regulation of the water sector has evolved and the challenges it faces today. It then sets out how regulation may adapt to these challenges and examines two alternative directions of travel. It suggests that the creation of new markets and the disaggregation of the value chain would result in a significant increase in complexity and the costs of regulation. The paper concludes that an alternative where water companies and regulators rely on collaborative approaches and involving customers is to be preferred.
This difference is referred to as ‘information asymmetry’3. Regulation can adopt various approaches in an attempt to reduce this information asymmetry to more or less manageable levels; for example, expanded submissions of information, audit of information returns and various types of incentive. There is also the potential for ‘regulatory capture’ when the regulator becomes unable to make appropriately independent judgments about a regulated company.
Prior to my initial experience in working jointly with Scottish Water to ensure that non-household wholesale prices and margins were correct, I would have seen collaboration as inimical to effective regulation. It is not. Improved understanding significantly reduces the risk of capture.
Having regulated a single publicly owned company for some 15 years, I have always had to be alert to such accusations. Politicians are quick to spot and seek to capitalise on any failures of governance or performance of a publicly owned company or its regulator! Regulators are right to be cautious about working jointly with a regulated company. They must guard their ability to make appropriately independent judgments and avoid being pulled unnecessarily into management detail. It is perhaps inevitable that economic regulators should prefer market solutions – markets are, after all, rightly seen as the best way to empower customers.
When incentive based regulation was first introduced (both in England and Wales following privatisation4 and in Scotland, following re-organisation), the industry was inefficient5. Significant capital expenditure was required to meet agreed European Union water quality and environmental standards. To demonstrate the reasonableness of charge caps, regulation relied on comparisons between the costs of different companies.
How regulation has evolved
This worked well – principally because the performance differences between companies were material and costs not included in the comparisons were relatively immaterial to the true efficiency ranking.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
The result was dramatic reductions in unit costs (to lower levels than anyone considered possible in 1989). It also resulted in very significant improvements in the levels of service to customers with continuing high level of investment to meet European Union quality standards.
Where we are now REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Economic regulation has coped well with in allowing the funding to deal successfully with known future issues (for example, compliance with EU Environment Directives). It has, however, not found a satisfactory way of addressing issues where the scope and timing impact of the required funding are unknown. Allowing funding ahead of need would reduce the robustness of the ‘hard budget constraint’ and, consequently, the effectiveness of regulatory challenge. A different regulatory intervention (to correct for the loss of the ‘hard budget constraint’) remains to be developed. Further progress is also likely to be increasingly important in ensuring that an effective conduit for customers’ views is established and plays a central role in making the tradeoffs between the levels of charges and the services that are provided. For example, do we understand customers’ views on the current ‘pay as you go’ approach to asset maintenance? Do customers understand the choices that are being made on their behalf? Are they content that the charge burden falls entirely on future generations? Potentially customers’ views could be expressed through markets – but such an approach also has limitations.
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT The gaps in the performance of water companies have narrowed considerably over time. The likelihood is that much of any observed performance gap can now be explained by real differences between companies (few of which the regulator and the regulated company are likely to understand fully).
As such, the traditional approach of driving performance improvement through benchmarking has become more problematic, particularly in relation to: • Ensuring the accuracy of the information provided by the regulated companies; • Establishing the consistency of the information between the companies; and • The robustness of the approach to comparing performance. The historic approach to setting prices will only be fully effective if each of these challenges can be met effectively. There are several reasons why addressing these challenges is likely to be increasingly problematic. These include: • Different operating models can influence the information that is collected and used by a regulated business; • The culture and time horizons of different managements and investors could influence how they provide information; and • It is difficult to compare different combinations of costs and levels of service and to adjust for differences in the operating challenges faced by water companies. In summary, when the performance gaps narrow, increasing reliance is placed on the accuracy of the information used in the benchmarking to establish precise differences in relative performance. The scope for the regulatory framework to cope – at arm’s length - with measurement or modeling error is significantly reduced.
POTENTIAL MITIGATIONS There have been other initiatives to try to address these asymmetries of information. These include the use of regulatory ‘menus’6 (where a company can accept a greater challenge for a greater reward), or more targeted ex-ante or ex-post incentives for specific areas of the regulated company’s activities. The effectiveness of these techniques, however, depends not just on the accuracy of the information that the regulator has to hand but also on how well the regulator has designed the incentive. They require the regulator to understand
what the customer values (probably in some detail). They are also costly. The regulator may also have to make some assumptions about the consistency of performance over time and responses to these incentives by the regulated company (both of management and of the owner). Even if the regulator is able to design appropriate incentives for performance improvement, the uncertainty in the timing of future funding needs (for example, for capital maintenance or other political priorities such as the promotion of a ‘circular economy’) will inevitably reduce the long-term effectiveness of these approaches. There is therefore a need to consider the scope for different ways forward to establish more enduring arrangements and reduce the real costs of information asymmetry.
What role could markets play? The potential advantage of markets is that suppliers can identify new and better ways of providing services to their customers.
‘FOR THE MARKET’ COMPETITION There has been only a limited move towards markets and competition in the water and sewerage sector. Glas Cymru led the way by tendering7 its operations activities, asset management and capital delivery. This use of ‘for the market competition’ brought benefits to customers, however there was no agreement with the regulator that the tendering exercise, in and of itself, was evidence of the company’s efficiency. Could an alternative tendering approach have resulted in a better outcome? The regulator decided to rely on its modelled answer.
WATER INDUSTRY COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND WHERE NEXT FOR ECONOMIC REGULATION?
‘IN THE MARKET’ COMPETITION A second move towards the use of markets was the opening of the non-household retail market to competition in Scotland in 20088. Retailers have developed value-adding services (such as advice on water efficiency, effluent management and rain water harvesting) to meet the expectations of their customers. The non-household retail market appears to be effective for three reasons: • It was straightforward to define. All licensed providers buy wholesale services at the same price. Their success depends uniquely on how well they meet the needs of their customers and how effectively they can provide the services that they offer. • There was no loss of economies of scale or scope, no material externalities or rigidities. Social cross-subsidies9 and household customers were unaffected. There was also no potential for assets to become stranded, which could have increased costs for all customers. • It allowed the management of the core water and sewerage activities to operate their business in whatever way they chose. The separation of non-household retail did not limit the options available to management.
Secondly, the water industry is characterised by cross-subsidies: the costs to serve different areas can be very different; all households in Scotland (and around half in England) pay for their water based (broadly) on the value of their home; and there are other discounts made available to special cases (for example, the less well-off and some smaller charities in Scotland). The range of regional unit costs across supply areas could make it difficult to avoid incidence effects on some groups of customers on any upstream activities that were opened to ‘in the market’ competition. How should the scope of a market (within a vertically integrated value chain) be defined? Would management have the flexibility to provide services to customers in the most efficient and effective way? Will this defined scope meet the expectations of end customers? It would appear that further targeted regulation - albeit probably substantially ex-post - would still be required to mitigate incidence effects and reduce market rigidities (such as the stranding of assets) and, doubtless, unforeseen externalities. This is in addition to the regulation of those elements deemed to be a natural monopoly.
I see these three success factors as a reasonable test of the scope for markets in the water industry beyond non-household retail services.
The additional risk associated with these new markets would almost certainly increase the cost of capital and, most likely, offset any benefits. Information asymmetry would likely be increased.
THE SCOPE FOR MARKETS ACROSS THE WATER SECTOR?
MARKETS AND FUTURE-PROOFING?
Markets in the water sector are complicated by a number of factors.
Perhaps the most problematic issue with a reliance on markets relates to time inconsistency. The water industry has extended asset lives and is a necessary and universal service. Customers (and politicians) would be highly unlikely to accept price volatility. Markets operate in the here and now: supply and demand are matched in the short term. Price volatility in the supply chain could be hard to manage such that it did not impact end customers10.
Firstly, it is difficult to define clearly the boundaries of activities that should be open to competition (non-household retail was very different in that regard).
An alternative approach Collaboration: ‘Seek Trust but Expect Verification’ Traditional economic regulation results in a ‘parent – child’ relationship. The regulated company works out how to live within the costs allowed for by the regulator. The regulated company also has to decide how it will deliver the required levels of service. The primacy (parental status) of the regulator in this relationship explains why regulated companies will allow themselves some leeway in the costs and potential levels of service that they offer to the regulator and their customers. At the last price review the Water Industry Commission for Scotland tried a different approach. It challenged Scottish Water to reach a reasonable agreement directly with its customers – in the form of a Customer Forum. The Commission sought to cajole and challenge Scottish Water to think continually about its reputation. It published a series of decisions both to inform customers of what should be possible but also to set a clearly defined framework for Scottish Water’s business plans. The aim was to make Scottish Water directly responsible to its customers and other stakeholders. Scottish Water responded well. It agreed a business plan with the Customer Forum that included a higher efficiency target on its capital expenditure than the Commission could have justified using traditional benchmarking tools; it agreed a switch to prices tied to CPI rather than RPI and also to compare its customer service to the very best customer focused organisations. Professor Christopher Hodges’11 work on ethical business regulation suggests regulation is at its most effective when it is underpinned by constructive relationships. This practical experience leads me to share one of his key conclusions that a collaborative and constructive relationship – backed by strong incentives to ‘do the right thing’ – will maximize performance, compliance and innovation.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
There appear to be seven steps required to reduce the potential for information asymmetry, ensure there is no regulatory capture and empower customers and communities to the maximum extent possible. They are: 1. Greater trust and openness between regulators and the regulated companies which will act as a catalyst for a far more productive relationship and the ability to take forward joint solutions to address the challenges ahead. 2. Direct engagement12 between the regulated company and its customers to agree a detailed business plan that will meet the needs of the full range of its customers and stakeholders. 3. An opportunity to agree how uncertainty and risk should be handled: helping drive improved performance and greater innovation. 4. An opportunity to provide revenue certainty beyond a particular regulatory control period if this could reduce costs or improve levels of service. 5. A mechanism to monitor financial performance and ensure that returns are fair and appropriate – but also that a company is insulated from unexpected costs. The financial tramlines13 established for the current regulatory period offer protection to both customers and Scottish Water. The Scottish Government, as the owner and banker to Scottish Water, also recognise the benefit of the tramlines in ensuring that the organisation is sustainably financed for the longer term. 6. An expectation that a regulated company will share the benefits of out-performance during the regulatory control period with its customers (through price, reduced service risk – both now and in the future – or enhanced levels of service). 7. Fully transparent reporting of performance and a strong monitoring (regulatory) body that is able to comment authoritatively on performance (and, importantly, which could intervene, if necessary).
The Water Industry Commission for Scotland’s methodology for the next Strategic Review of Charges, which will cover the period 2021 to 2027, will build on these factors.
So what needs to change under this “Collaboration: Seek Trust but Expect Verification” approach? The approach I outline in this paper requires all the key stakeholders – owner, company and regulator - to change. Owner: Different types of owner will obviously have different types of objective. For this approach to be effective and returns to be reasonable and sustainable, an owner needs to think long term and recognize that maintaining the legitimacy of water charges in the eyes of customers is the critical challenge. Customers – the ultimate guarantor of financial sustainability – will react negatively if they come to understand that problems have been stored up for the future that could have been addressed more pro-actively and more cost effectively. Regulated Company: A regulated company needs to demonstrate how and why it is acting in the best interests of its customers – both now and into the future. It has to recognise that its approach will be subject to detailed scrutiny and comment and that its customers will have higher expectations. Economic Regulator: The skills required in the economic regulator would be quite different. The focus is less on econometric modelling and the design of incentives and more on scrutiny of analysis, forensic questioning and rigorous performance monitoring. As such, the regulator seeks to reduce asymmetries of information and acts as an enabler of effective engagement.
Communicating views to the Customer Forum requires some rather technical analysis to be communicated in straightforward and relevant terms. It is perhaps worthwhile noting that the costs of Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS) have reduced substantially since this more collaborative approach was adopted. Customers: Customers should of course expect and demand an improved level of service today. Equally important, however, is that customers feel reassured that issues (whether in terms of charging or levels of service) are not being stored up for the future.
Conclusion Economic regulation of the water industry in Great Britain has been very successful. Costs are down, levels of service are up and environmental and water quality compliance is at record levels. However, there is no room for complacency and companies, regulators and other stakeholders will have to think carefully about how future challenges will be met effectively. More of the same is unlikely to be effective. There are a number of unresolved issues (such as the long term provision for asset replacement) and new challenges (such as demographic change, the circular economy and the changing climate). In my view, there is a clear limit to the scope for markets in the water sector and there are increased risks and costs associated with their introduction. Based on my experience in regulating Scottish Water, I consider that building trust and a collaborative relationship between the regulated company and the regulator offers a better way forward for all stakeholders. The onus is now firmly on all stakeholders to establish trust and, in particular on the regulated company to demonstrate to all its stakeholders, both now and in the future, why such trust is justified.
WATER INDUSTRY COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND WHERE NEXT FOR ECONOMIC REGULATION?
References 1 WICS (2010) ‘Performance Report 2010’, October, and WICS (2015) ‘Performance Report 2010-15’, October. 2 Improvements in the levels of service and reduction of cost inefficiency in the water and wastewater industry in England and Wales since privatisation are outlined in Ofwat (2010) ‘Service and delivery – performance of the water companies in England and Wales 2009-10’, September, in Ofwat (2005) ‘Water and sewerage service unit costs and relative efficiency’ and in Ofwat (1996) ‘1995-96 Report on the cost of water delivered and sewage collected’. More recent information can be found at: http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/regulated-companies/comparingcompanies/performance/. 3 Similar asymmetry may exist between a company and its owner(s) and also within a company between senior and more junior management. 4 ‘The development of the water industry’ published by Ofwat and Defta available at: http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2015/11/rpt_com_devwatindust270106.pdf. 5 WICS (2003), 'Costs and Performance Report 2001-02 East of Scotland Water Authority, North of Scotland Water Authority and West of Scotland Water Authority', February. More information on the historic investment gap to meet drinking water quality and environmental EU standards can be found in WICS (2004), 'Investment and Asset Management' Report, April. 6 For example, Ofwat (2007), ‘Menu Regulation Proposals for PR09: Consultation Paper’, October. 7 Dwr Cymru Welsh ‘Water Procurement Plan Release, 16 August 2006’. 8 The Water Services (Scotland) Act 2005 placed a duty on the Water Industry Commission for Scotland to facilitate the entry of new licensed providers to provide retail services to nonhousehold customers. There are now over 20 retail suppliers operating in the market. 9 In Scotland domestic water charges are directly linked to Council Tax Bands and are the same on the Scottish Islands as they are in the capital city. 10 For example, if it led to an increase in the cost of capital for the industry to compensate for the additional risk borne by the water company, there would be an immediate detriment to customers. 11 Professor Christopher Hodges teaches Justice Systems at the University of Oxford. Hodges (2015) ‘Law and corporate behavior: Integrating theories of regulation, enforcement, compliance and ethics’ Civil Justice Systems, October; Hodges (2016) ‘Ethical Business Regulation: Understanding the Evidence’, Department for Business Innovation & Skills, Better Regulation Delivery Office, February. 12 Littlechild (2014), ‘The Customer Forum: customer engagement in the Scottish water sector’, Studies in Regulation NS 4.2, Regulatory Policy Institute, July. 13 Financial tramlines are essentially a cap and a collar on the financial strength that Scottish Water can have. WICS (2013), ‘Strategic Review of Charges 2015-21: Innovation and Choice’, May; Oxera (2012), 'Regulatory ‘financial tramlines’ for Scottish Water', February.
Regulating for Maximum Benefit: Scotland’s Approach Terry A’Hearn Chief Executive, Scottish Environment Protection Agency
Abstract It is estimated that if everyone in the world lived the lifestyles of people in Scotland, we would need almost three planets. We only have one. Tackling major environmental issues such as this over-use of natural resources are key challenges for our time. One Planet Prosperity is a blueprint for environmental regulation in the 21st century from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). It sets out a simple but powerful vision: 1. To ensure that all operators regulated by SEPA meet their legal obligations quickly, easily and cost effectively; and 2. To help as many regulated operators as possible to move “beyond compliance” in ways that create business benefits. Adopting a genuinely collaborative approach with sectors, regulated businesses and other organisations to enable innovation and problem solving means we can help to identify how to go further than mere compliance and achieve beyond compliance. This is supported by a framework that simplifies the regulatory landscape and reduces regulatory burden. Delivering this approach will not only make Scotland one of the first places to have a 21st century EPA that delivers environmental, social and economic success but will also create a level playing field for businesses, where those that cause environmental harm are challenged and those that have a desire to operate beyond compliance are supported.
The approach to environmental regulation in Scotland is changing and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) is at the forefront of tackling the challenges of how we live in the 21st century
The only way to live within the constraints of our planet is for regulated businesses to identify and benefit from the benefits of operating "beyond compliance".
A new framework is simplifying the regulatory landscape and enabling a more powerful and sophisticated way of regulating, combining our regulatory influence with other influences on a business.
Scotland can realise environmental, economic and social success through the One Planet Prosperity approach to regulation.
SEPA REGULATING FOR MAXIMUM BENEFIT: SCOTLAND'S APPROACH
Introduction The Scottish Environment Protection Agency1 (SEPA) is Scotland’s principal environmental regulator and the national flood forecasting, flood warning and flood risk management authority. The Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 20142 gives SEPA its Statutory Purpose. For the first time, the law makes it very clear about what our purpose is in serving the people of Scotland: Protect and improve the environment (environmental success) in ways that, as far as possible, create: •
health and well-being benefits (social success); and
sustainable economic growth (economic success)
Through the 2014 Act, SEPA is changing the way it regulates. We hope that new powers and new approaches will help to make Scotland one of the first places in the world that has an environmental protection agency (EPA) that is equipped to tackle the challenge of reducing the over-use of the planet’s natural resources.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
The vision of One Planet Prosperity is simple but powerful: 1. To ensure that all operators regulated by SEPA meet their legal obligations quickly, easily and cost effectively; and 2. To help as many regulated operators as possible to move “beyond compliance” in ways that create business benefits. Reaching compliance is the minimum requirement. It is nonnegotiable. It provides a base, but is not sufficient alone to open up opportunities for game-changing innovation. We will need new forms of collaboration to create opportunities to turn the environment from a problem into something that creates new employment or which increases profitability (Fig 2). Figure 2 - One Planet Prosperity
Regulating in the 21st century SEPA celebrated its 20th anniversary in 2016, giving us an opportunity to reflect on successes, such as the substantial cleanup of the River Clyde3 and overall reduction in industrial pollution in Scotland4. However, in the 21st century, success will only continue if we develop significantly smarter ways of reducing industrial and other forms of traditional pollution. As an EPA, we need to help society tackle diffuse sources of pollution; over-use of natural resources; and major environmental challenges, such as climate change. Furthermore we need to do all of this work in ways that contribute to social and economic success of the societies we serve. It is estimated that if everyone in the world lived the lifestyles of people in Scotland, we would need almost three planets5 (Fig 1). We only have one. Tackling major environmental issues such as this over-use of natural resources are key challenges for our time. Figure 1 - Scotland’s Footprint
The most successful businesses in the 21st century will be those that see environmental and social excellence as a profit opportunity. We have a specific role through the regulatory services we provide to help these businesses to realise this opportunity. Realising this vision will mean we are delivering the essential task of helping regulated businesses to reduce water use, carbon-based energy use, materials use and all forms of waste and pollution in ways that improve their profitability and long-term viability.
Working with Scotland’s businesses We recognise there are multiple influences on the environmental performance of a business. The key challenge for SEPA is to combine the things we can do to influence the behaviour of a business with all the other influences on the behaviour of that business (Fig 3).
One Planet Prosperity – Our Regulatory Strategy6 embodies our new purpose. It is our blueprint for making SEPA a regulator fit for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.
SEPA REGULATING FOR MAXIMUM BENEFIT: SCOTLAND'S APPROACH
CASE STUDY: Working in partnership to achieve success in the Eyemouth catchment
Figure 3 - Regulators’ Influence Map
Competition from other businesses
Industry bodies Standards
NGO activities Supply chain requirements
We are making important changes to how we work, which will shape our regulation in a way that supports businesses to move beyond compliance, including:
Diffuse pollution priority catchments8 were launched in 2010 to help identify and tackle water pollution in Scotland’s designated bathing waters from rural sources (forestry and agriculture). The approach to working with farmers and land managers in the catchments is an example of how SEPA has been undertaking the approach described in One Planet Prosperity and the success it can achieve. Over the past 10 years, land managers in river catchments of the Eye Water and Pease Bay (Scottish Borders) have worked co-operatively to embed the agricultural General Binding Rules (GBRs)9 in their farm management. Both catchments link directly to designated bathing waters10, Eyemouth and Pease Bay, of which Eyemouth was consistently failing the bathing water quality legislation.
Sector Plans will be established for each sector we regulate which will focus on practical delivery of environmental, social and economic outcomes. Sector Plans will bring clarity on what we expect of the sector and what the sector expects of us, as well as making it easier for SEPA to work with other Scottish public bodies to provide an integrated service to businesses.
Eye Water was one of Scotland’s first diffuse pollution priority catchments. Pease Bay catchment was included owing to the importance of water quality for popular surfing beaches and the similarities in land use across the catchments.
Sustainable Growth Agreements will be entered into with some businesses that commit the most senior levels to a practical action plan to improve environmental performance in ways that deliver business success.
SEPA officers walked the catchments, collecting data that supported engagement with the agricultural community. Farm visits were also carried out, with feedback provided to each land manager both verbally at the time of the visit and in writing, mapping out potential pollution risks.
Adopting a genuinely collaborative approach with sectors, regulated businesses and other organisations to support innovation and problem solving means we can help to identify how to go further and achieve "beyond compliance".
Also working within the catchment throughout the period was the Tweed Forum and Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), with funding from the Scottish Government.
The whisky sector is a sector that SEPA has worked with for a number of years in ways that the sectoral approach envisages for all the sectors we regulate7. The whisky industry relies on good quality water supply – therefore making sure that the industry is top class at water management is critical, for them and for us.
The Tweed Forum helped to secure funding for farmers and land managers from Scottish Rural Development Programme11 which led to new fencing and water provision and SRUC demonstrated livestock watering sites including a solar powered pump12.
Engaging across sectors to identify shared objectives will help us to deliver environmentally, socially and economically.
The Eyemouth bathing water is still failing water quality tests but we are now investigating other sources as we have now ruled out diffuse pollution from rural activities.
These activities helped to change land management practices through engagement and awareness, building on SEPA’s prioritisation of the catchment for diffuse pollution. At December 2016, all farms were compliant with GBR’s without the need for any enforcement action.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
Regulating for maximum benefit SEPA, as part of the Scottish Government's Better Environmental Regulation programme13 wants to transform the way it approaches regulation by providing a framework that simplifies the regulatory landscape and reduces regulatory burden. Changes are already taking place to make this a reality. Proposals for an Integrated Authorisation Framework14 will consolidate and simplify an operator’s environmental obligations. It will also enable innovation within a business alongside a proportionate, joined up and outcome focused approach to regulation. The model from the water regime of proportionate tiers of authorisation is one which is now going to be applied across other regime including pollution prevention and control, waste management and radioactive substances. Streamlining and integrating (as far as possible) the existing environmental authorisation regimes into an integrated authorisation framework will, amongst other benefits, enable us to focus on the environmental risks that matter most.
The feedback received from industry groups and businesses has been very positive. Regulated businesses stand to gain in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness of our service improving, and will benefit from SEPA being more targeted, transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent – and timely, in terms of our enforcement actions.
Realising benefits One Planet Prosperity aims to deliver environmental, social and economic success in line with our Statutory Purpose. In practical terms, the approach to regulation that it establishes will realise benefits through genuine collaboration with sectors, regulated businesses and other organisations to enable innovation and problem solving through the adoption of more lasting, beyond compliance approaches. These benefits include: •
Sector wide engagement will help to solve outstanding compliance and support a sector to identify and take opportunities to go beyond compliance.
Effective and proportionate use of our regulatory tools, for example using enforcement not just to fix the environmental issue, but also equipping the business with knowledge and tools that help it to see the environment as a business opportunity, not just a compliance problem.
A more powerful and sophisticated way of regulating, combining our regulatory influence with other influences on a business.
Absolute clarity on what SEPA expects from those it regulates.
For regulated businesses, the new framework will provide a simpler and more transparent system that is easier to use and understand which in turn will make it quicker, easier and more cost effective to comply with environmental legislation. Already in action is a new environmental enforcement framework that gives SEPA the means to enforce in an effective and proportionate way. Developed in partnership with the Scottish Government, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and our stakeholders, it strengthens and improves our enforcement actions. It introduces new measures that cover a wide number of offences, providing opportunities for earlier intervention and more innovative ways to change the behaviour of poor performers, non-compliant operators and environmental criminals.
Alongside existing enforcement tools (advice and guidance, final warning letters, statutory notices and referrals to Procurator Fiscal recommending criminal proceedings) SEPA can now use Fixed Monetary Penalties (FMP) and enforcement undertakings. A FMP is a fine that SEPA can impose directly for specific offences. There are three levels prescribed in legislation: £300, £600 and £1000. Launched in June 2016, these are likely to be suitable for “administrative” offences where there has been a failure in getting important information on time and to the right standard to SEPA. We will also consider accepting enforcement undertakings, which offer benefits to the environment and the local community, if we feel that they will effectively change the behaviour of the offender and that they will comply with the undertaking. These measures cover a wide number of offences and provide an opportunity for earlier intervention and more innovative and powerful ways to change the behaviour of poor performers, non-compliant operators and environmental criminals.
For more information on One Planet Prosperity please visit SEPA View17, SEPA’s online magazine which contains features about the strategy and its outcomes. References 1 www.sepa.org.uk 2 Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 - www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2014/3/pdfs/ asp_20140003_en.pdf 3 Scottish Sustainable Marine Environment Initiative Clyde Pilot Environmental Baseline Report (2009) (Figure 15) www.clydemarineplan.scot/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/State-of-the-Clyde. pdf (Figure 15) 4 For example, just 3% of Scotland’s 25,081km of rivers and canals were categorised as having poor water quality in 2012 and none were classified as bad - www.environment.scotland.gov.uk/ get-informed/water/rivers-and-canals/ 5 See: WWF (2007) Scotland’s Global Footprint http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/sgf_final_ report.pdf and Global Footprint Network (2016) Ecological Footprint Per Capita (United Kingdom) - www.footprintnetwork.org/content/documents/ecological_footprint_nations/ ecological_per_capita.html 6 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2016) One Planet Prosperity: Our Regulatory Strategywww.sepa.org.uk/media/219427/one-planet-prosperity-our-regulatory-strategy.pdf 7 Scotch Whisky Association (2016) Scotch Whisky Industry Environmental Strategy www.scotchwhisky.org.uk/what-we-do/environmental-strategy/ 8 www.sepa.org.uk/environment/water/river-basin-management-planning/actions-to-deliverrbmp/priority-catchments/ 9 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2016) The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 as amended: A Practical Guide - www.sepa.org.uk/media/34761/ car_a_practical_guide.pdf 10 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2016) Scottish Bathing Waters 2016 - www.sepa.org. uk/media/219168/1282_sepa_bathing_waters_2016_web.pdf 11 Scottish government (2016) Scottish Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 - www.gov.scot/ Resource/0050/00501661.pdf 12 www.sruc.ac.uk/info/120611/livestock/1572/alternative_watering 13 www.gov.scot/Topics/Environment/waste-and-pollution/BER 14 Scottish Government and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2017) Consultation on proposals for an integrated authorisation framework - www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/01/5439 15 The Environmental Regulation (Enforcement Measures)(Scotland) Order 2015 - www.legislation. gov.uk/sdsi/2015/9780111029466 16 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2016) Guidance on the use of enforcement action www.sepa.org.uk/media/219242/enforcement-guidance.pdf 17 www.sepaview.com/
DRINKING WATER QUALITY REGULATOR FOR SCOTLAND TACKLING THE LEAD ISSUE IN SCOTLAND
Tackling the Lead issue in Scotland - Piece by Piece Bill Byers & Matt Bower Drinking Water Quality Regulator for Scotland
Abstract The use of most lead in plumbing was discontinued around 1970, however much lead remains in use in older properties. Medical opinion has recently shifted to the view that it is not possible to set a “safe” standard for lead exposure, consequently exposure to lead should be minimised. With the regulatory standard for lead in drinking water having reduced to 10μg/l in 2013, there remains the possibility that it may reduce further in the future. The Scottish Government and the Drinking Water Quality Regulator for Scotland have produced a strategy for tackling the lead issue in a piecemeal fashion, on a number of fronts.
Highlights The strategy includes the following elements: •
Ensuring there is a clear and shared understanding of legislation as it relates to duties on drinking water suppliers;
Engaging with health officials to identify common themes and to align drinking water quality policy with health policy;
Working with stakeholders to identify areas where policy can be aligned to ensure the risk of exposure to lead in the environment is minimised;
Investigating the various policy options available and work with SG colleagues in determining the best way forward.
This paper explores the current status of the lead issue and explains the Scottish Government’s proposed approach.
Background Lead is toxic to humans and it accumulates within the body over a lifetime through exposure to lead sources in the environment. Sources include lead-based paint, contaminated soil, dust, petrol, drinking water, food and related products. The risks posed have been mitigated over the years through lead reduction policies in these main exposure routes. The World Health Organisation (WHO), in their Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality1 refers to research that presents drinking water as the largest single controllable source of lead exposure in the USA2. In drinking water quality legislation, the limit for lead in drinking water has progressively reduced over the past 30 years to 10µg/l (micrograms per litre).
The use of lead in plumbing was discontinued in Scotland around 1970, but much remains in older properties;
Medical opinion is of the view that it is not possible to set a “safe” standard for lead exposure, consequently exposure to lead should be minimised as far as possible;
The Scottish Government and the Drinking Water Quality Regulator for Scotland have produced a strategy for tackling the lead issue on a number of fronts;
The approach includes engaging with policy makers, other regulators and stakeholders to raise awareness and address the issue of lead as it arises within their area of interest and control.
Over the same period however, concerns have developed within Scotland’s health professional community that even the 10µg/l standard may be too high and there is an increasing view that we should strive to reduce lead levels in drinking water as far as is practicably possible. Compliance in Scottish public water supplies against the interim 25µg/l standard, in place until 25 December 2013, had gradually increased to a point where 99.49% of regulatory samples passed (8 failures). In 2015, 99.0% complied with the 10 standard (15 failing samples). At this level, where failure can be dependent on the address randomly chosen for regulatory sampling, and with the range of measures deployed to deal with lead, the scope for making any appreciable change in the level of compliance was marginal.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
Coupled with awareness from consumer research that there was a significant level of belief that the lead problem had been dealt with and there was poor awareness of property owner responsibilities, it became apparent there was a need to review Scotlandâ€™s policy towards lead in drinking water if any reduction in exposure to lead was to be achieved.
Drinking Water Quality Regulator for Scotland The Drinking Water Quality Regulator for Scotland (DWQR) established a project in 2012, to review policy to drive achievement of a reduction of exposure to lead in drinking water. The specific aims of the project were to: 1. Ensure there is a clear and shared understanding of legislation as it relates to duties on drinking water suppliers; 2. Engage with health officials to identify common themes and to align drinking water quality policy with health policy; 3. Work with stakeholders to identify areas where policy can be aligned to ensure the risk of exposure to lead in the environment is minimised; 4. Investigate the various policy options available and work with our SG colleagues in determining the best way forward.
Health Impact Exposure to lead, either through long exposure to low levels or through high concentration, may result in the development of signs and symptoms of lead toxicity. Whilst exposure has consequences to all, the impact is more acute in the early stages of life. Children absorb more lead than adults due to their growing bones and other organs within which lead can deposit and accumulate.
The main concern therefore is that even relatively low levels of lead can adversely affect organ and intellectual development. Consequently, those most at risk are women in pregnancy, foetuses, infants and young children. In specific terms, exposure to lead is associated with a wide range of effects, including various neurodevelopmental effects, mortality (mainly due to cardiovascular diseases), impaired renal function, hypertension, fatigue, impaired fertility and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
How does the problem arise? The major source of exposure to lead through drinking water is the leaching of lead from lead pipes and storage cisterns in the supply route to consumers. For properties connected to the public water mains, those built before 1970 are most likely to have had their supply delivered originally through lead pipes and over time, a proportion will have had those pipes replaced. Statistical investigations indicate approximately 4% of underground property service pipes in Scotland remain likely to be lead material. The position with properties served by private water supplies is less certain since new build housing may have connected to old supply systems which may contain lead. For anyone on the public supply, the supply route is formed of pipes in the ownership of both Scottish Water and property owners. Scottish Water has responsibility for communication pipes (the part of the connection within the street). Supply pipes and any pipes internal to the property are the responsibility of the property owner(s). In private supplies, ownership and responsibilities for pipes is often more complex.
Figure 1 - Terminology used in the context of ownership of water supplies to premises
DRINKING WATER QUALITY REGULATOR FOR SCOTLAND TACKLING THE LEAD ISSUE IN SCOTLAND
For the purpose of meeting the requirements of drinking water legislation, the elements of the service pipe influencing compliance is that which provides water to the kitchen tap in a domestic property. In establishments and public buildings it is that which provides water to a drinking water point or food preparation area. Regulations set down the actions Scottish Water must take to minimise the level of lead in the supply but there is no requirement for property owners to remove lead plumbing unless there is a demonstrable failure of the water quality standard.
Why the status quo was just not good enough There are a number of approaches taken in Scotland to dealing with lead piping. There is legislation and policy within health, housing and water quality that can deal with lead piping. Scottish Water adds orthophosphoric acid at treatment works serving larger supply zones where there is a demonstrable risk of failure. This reduces the risk of plumbosolvency by forming a coating on the lead pipe, reducing the risk of leaching. In small supply zones of less than 1000 properties, the approach has been to replace the lead communication pipes and advise property owners to replace their own lead pipes. WHO recognise that it is extremely difficult to achieve a lower lead concentration by conditioning, such as phosphate dosing. WHO state that the principal remedy for reduction of lead in drinking water is removal of pipes and fittings, but this will take much time and money and it recognises that not all water will meet the guideline value immediately3. Meanwhile all other practical measures, including corrosion control should be implemented. For private water supplies, if lead levels in samples exceeds the standard, local authorities should work with owners and users to ensure removal of lead pipes and tanks. Specific treatment for reduction of lead solvency is rarely used in private supplies. Within housing legislation, the local authority has a duty to ensure that any house which fails the ‘tolerable standard’ is “closed, demolished or brought up to the tolerable standard within such period as is reasonable in all the circumstances”. The presence of lead pipes will not mean that a house falls below the tolerable standard, but if the concentration of lead in the water is such as to make the water unwholesome, the house will fail the tolerable standard. Sampling of water within households however, does not form part of the house condition survey. With all these legislative powers and arrangements in place, it remains the case that the key enabler in making inroads in replacing lead pipes in the remaining 72,000 properties across Scotland, is motivating individual property owners to replace the elements within their ownership.
Reducing exposure to lead in drinking water – the approach The project aimed to: •
identify enablers and strengthen or introduce mechanisms with relevant stakeholders for the removal of lead supply pipes and plumbing;
provide better and clearer information to the public on the health aspects of lead in drinking water;
provide better information to householders and property owners to stimulate replacement of lead supply pipes and plumbing.
Table 1 provides a summary of the initiatives pursued to date. The project remains very much a key mechanism to continuing the drive towards reducing risk to Scotland’s population of exposure to lead in drinking water.
Conclusion As the health concern around the impact of lead becomes stronger with the realisation that perhaps there is no lower concentration which could be considered not to have an adverse effect, it is apparent that lead in drinking water is an issue that needs to be tackled. Issues around the sources of lead in drinking water and ownership are complex and will not be resolved quickly, however that is not a reason for doing nothing. Scotland is in a relatively unique position of being a small country with one publicly-owned water supplier and a public sector that is reasonably well-connected and amenable to discussions around taking action to reduce lead exposure from buildings within its ownership or influence. Progress has been made in this respect, although more remains to be done. The major challenge is to deal with lead that is in private ownership, where issues around risk awareness, apathy, shared ownership and financial constraints abound. DWQR will be working with Scottish Water and other stakeholders to move forward in this area, although it is highly likely that any such progress will continue to be incremental and multi-faceted. References 1 World Health Organisation Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality 4th Edition incorporating first addendum; World Health Organisation, Geneva, 2017. 2. Levin R, Schock MR, Marcus AH. Exposure to lead in U.S. drinking water. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on Trace Substances in Environmental Health. Cincinnati, OH, US Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. 3. Lead in Drinking Water - Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinkingwater Quality ; World Health Organisation, Geneva, 2016.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
Table 1 - Initiatives pursued in Scotland to address lead in drinking water Stakeholder / initiative
Scottish Government Home Report
Comment provided on the Scottish Government Home Report Consultation (a report on property condition etc provided by vendors to prospective purchasers) highlighting issues with lead in drinking water and identifying opportunities to encourage removal of lead piping tied to change of property ownership. This mechanism not taken forward due to complexity of enforcing reliable data gathering and disproportionate impact on properties not affected by lead issue. (May 2014)
Scottish Government Common Housing Standards Group
Scottish Government review of various housing standards to promote/consult on establishing a common standard for all housing. Active participation on the group to identify and promote inclusion of appropriate measures to drive the removal of lead piping across all housing sectors. (May 2016)
Scotland’s Housing Network
Engagement with group. Representation from different local authorities is drawn from a mixture of Housing and Environmental Health teams. (Apr 2016) Carried out survey: • •
Gained an understanding of the range of Schemes of Assistance and ‘grants’ available for lead pipe replacements. Understanding of website information on lead pipes.
Opportunity with Empty Homes initiative to remove lead where it exists. Agreed to work the messages about lead piping etc. into their information for empty homes owners, as the period where a house is empty and needs to be brought up to standard is an obvious opportunity to get work done. (Apr 2016)
Regulates some 15,000 premises covering spectrum of care services within communities. Discussions with DWQR agreed the key area of concern is for that sector most at risk from lead - babies and very young children. (Jul 2015) Inspections of services do not cover the physical or structural attributes of premises; Agreement on possibility of being more prescriptive at the point of new registrations being made; Agreement on possibility of providing information and guidance in literature and communications to the appropriate group associations and networks. Item on Lead in ‘Care News’ Oct ‘15
Health Protection Scotland – key member of project steering group and consultee. Scottish Government Health and Scottish Water have worked to align health messages in information media and formal letters for lead failures. Scottish Government Health has also produced a central resource of health information relating to lead and lead in drinking water and placed this on the NHS Inform website. Local authority websites have been reviewed with the aim of identifying potential for co-ordinated common links and search results for information. Standard text has been prepared and sent to stakeholders for insertion in their websites to direct consumers to the authoritative information on NHS Inform website (February 2017)
Supplies water to over 97% of the population and as such is a key influencer and enabler of the reduction in exposure to lead. Confirmation of measures currently employed. Determined by surveys that approximately 4% (72,000) of its communication pipes are expected to be of lead. A similar percentage of consumer-owned supply pipes is expected to be lead although the two data sets are not concentric. Development of myriad other initiatives to engage with consumers, establish consumer attitudes, improve communications of lead issues, promote/ trial novel schemes to incentivise supply pipe replacement. Review lead strategy.
Scottish Government Estates Management
Manage 80 buildings for the Crown in Scotland (Scottish Government). Mitie are contracted to do maintenance of buildings. They were not conscious of any lead in their buildings but would want to be an exemplar of operating buildings and would support the removal of lead if found. Water Management Contract (Currently held by Anglian Water) may offer routes to survey if required. (Aug 2014)
Historic Environment Scotland
345 properties in their care. No conflict in wanting to remove lead but care needs to be taken on historical sites. Also act as influencers for historic buildings owned by others and offer grant aid for ‘fabric’ issues. Agreed that they could put in short references to lead issues in their information leaflets e.g. Conservation Area Regeneration & Advisory documents to raise awareness. (Aug 2014)
Citizens Advice Scotland
CAS supports the general principle of a right to a clean and safe water supply at an affordable price and the right to live in a healthy environment. They agree with the objective of reducing lead content in water but also want to be reassured that the strategies put in place to achieve this represent the best value for money for consumers. (May 2014)
Scottish Government Procurement
Facility was provided within Scottish Government Water Management Contract (WMC) for surveying of incoming pipework within public-owned estate, if required by building managers and owners, to establish the presence of lead material in the drinking water supply route. (Dec 2015)
Anglian Water Business
Successful tender for the WMC. Anglian Water Business has provided an optional (chargeable) lead survey service to Public Bodies. The service is intended to help understand premises and mitigate the extent and risk posed to Public Bodies from the contact of lead pipes (both supply pipes and pipes internal to properties) with drinking water. Agreed 6 monthly reporting of progress with DWQR. (Apr 2016)
Water Regulation Advisory Service (WRAS) Scotland & Northern Ireland Plumbing Employers Federation (SNIPEF)
Discussions on training of plumbing contractors, approved contractors schemes, awareness raising of continuing issues with lead supply pipes. Issues with lead content of some WRAS approved brass fittings are being progressed.
How can monopoly water and wastewater companies be accountable to their customers in the post-truth era? Aileen Armstrong Senior Director of Finance and Governance, Ofwat In recent years, trust in key institutions such as business, government, nongovernmental organisations NGOs and media have declined like never before1.
Building trust through closer customer relationships
As people lose belief they are turning to their social networks for information, leading to the growth of fake news and a cycle of rumour, accusation and denial. According to many media sources we now live in a ‘post truth’ era where facts are less influential than emotion and personal belief2.
The water sector has been working on building trust through closer customer relationships for a while. Historically, companies struggled to take ownership of their performance and relationship with customers. Instead of taking risks and pursuing the delivery models that would deliver what customers wanted, companies may have focused on the problems that Ofwat were looking at.
In this climate, it is more important than ever that institutions delivering essential services are trusted. Water and wastewater providers, regulators, government and others work together to build trust by placing people and their needs at the centre of everything they do. Water is vital to our way of life, economy and environment and the loss of trust in something many of us take for granted every day could have widespread and significant impacts. Although many businesses in England have been able to choose their water supplier from 1 April 2017, the majority of people in England and Wales have no choice of their supplier. Monopoly companies need to work that extra bit harder in having continuous, open and transparent conversations with their customers to make sure they respond to changing priorities and future needs.
Up until 2012, Ofwat used to regulate by funding monopoly companies to match performance levels set centrally (generally set by comparing companies across the sector), collecting information and scrutinising this ourselves, and taking action based on direct reporting. This meant very prescriptive assurance – through the use of ‘reporters’, who independently gave us confidence that companies were meeting their obligations. In addition to the danger of companies focussing on the wrong things, customers and stakeholders were often unaware of what their company was doing or why they were doing it. Some high profile misreporting incidents meant that even if they did get information, they didn’t know if they could trust it.
This can also lead to an undesirable regulatory relationship, where companies always looked to Ofwat before taking action and Ofwat risked being seen to take a position too close to companies.
Moving from a ‘regulator says’ to a ‘customer wants’ culture Acknowledging these issues, from 2012 Ofwat adopted a risk-based approach3, which sought to ensure that the lines of accountability were very clear. Companies are responsible for: •
engaging with their customers about these priorities; and
explaining performance to customers.
We stopped collecting most of the information we used to collect, and encouraged companies to publish more information directly to their stakeholders, rather than simply submitting returns to us. It should be part of a company’s normal operations to understand their customers, adapt their plans, and decide on the right risks to take. We would rely on companies to publish information and highlight problems. And instead of looking at everything, we would engage with other stakeholders and target the biggest problems and use our enforcement tools to address these, where appropriate. We also put greater emphasis on high quality corporate governance for water companies.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
The wider regulatory landscape also changed around this time. The better regulation principles changed the focus of economic regulation, and other sector regulators began to adopt an approach to regulation based more on targeted action based on wider intelligence. And the Water Act 2014 changed some of the statutory relationships which led us to direct approval of plans – for example, removing the requirement for Ofwat to approve charges schemes in favour of setting ex-ante charging rules. This allowed us to further change our approach. For our price review which set controls for the period 2015-20 (PR14), we created new mechanisms and requirements for business planning that we expected to incentivise companies to take ownership of their plans and engagement with customers. We: •
required companies to establish Customer Challenge Groups, who could directly challenge company plans and performance at a local level; expected companies to set their own long term outcomes (rather than our common key performance indicators) based on what customers wanted, and make their own commitments about performance. The achievement of these was incentivised by rewards and penalties for better or worse performance than customers expected; removed the perception of a bias in price reviews towards capital schemes by considering total expenditure (‘totex’) as a whole – in effect, setting allowed revenues for achieving outcomes, rather than delivering schemes; and expected companies to assure their own plans and for their boards to explicitly endorse them.
We also created the risk-based review – a way of assessing business plans in the round, rather than necessarily intervening on all aspects.
This included assessing the confidence we had in the plans that they had developed – which included the level of engagement with customers, the feedback from their customer challenge groups, and the quality of assurance and evidence presented. This review included an incentive for companies with a high quality plan – precisely to incentivise companies to take ownership of their plan, without needing regulatory approval.
The importance of information in building trust During the price review, we realised that companies varied considerably in their response to the shift to risk-based regulation. Although most companies had accepted the elements of outcomes and customer engagement, there were: •
some who clearly understood that they owned their plan and had even gone beyond our expectations; but some who did not seem to have clearly understood their role, and had simply sought to implement our minimum expectations.
We had not made as much progress as we had hoped. From 2015, we recognised that we would need to do more to incentivise this culture shift. It is critical that companies are transparent about how they are performing, and are open to challenge to improve what they do. Information is key to achieving this. Having information that is easy to understand and navigate allows customers and other stakeholders to challenge companies’ performance – and so encourages them to deliver better services. We set new requirements4 for companies to publish an ‘annual performance report’ from 2015-16 onwards, which included expanded regulatory accounts as well as reporting on performance commitments and progress towards outcomes.
But instead of this just being regulatory reporting, we expected much more from companies. Companies had already committed to reporting their performance against outcomes as part of the price review. Annual performance reports went further than this because they required companies to explain why they had not been able to meet any given outcome performance commitment – and what they are doing to improve to meet this commitment in future years. We also expect companies to publish these reports and explain how they are addressing their other obligations to customers – for example, how they are ensuring they have met their legal obligations; and how they are ensuring good board governance.
Incentivising increased customer confidence In line with our shared vision for the sector, our role is to ensure that customer and other stakeholders can trust the information that companies publish. This means that a simple requirement for companies to publish annual performance reports is not enough. In the post-truth era, legitimacy depends on companies continuously testing, proving, and improving the reliability of their information so customers and others can have confidence in using it. This is why we created our company monitoring framework5, which tests the confidence customers and Ofwat can have in each company’s reporting and information. This helps to provoke and challenge the largest monopoly companies to engage with their customers, improve their transparency, and publish information that can be trusted. We assess each company annually and categorise them into one of three categories (‘self-assurance’, ‘targeted’ and ‘prescribed’).
Companies can move up and down depending on our assessments, and the rating they get decides the level of assurance we expect from them in future. The higher the rating, the more freedom that companies get over the assurance they provide. The lower the rating, the less freedom they get. We also want to make sure that companies understand that the expectations on them to engage with their customers and think about assurance are not just limited to when they are producing annual performance reports (or even the business plans).
The 2016 results of our company monitoring framework
For all companies who do not receive the top rating (selfassurance), we require them to publish a ‘risks, strengths and weaknesses’ statement in which they assess which are the areas of information that are most important to customers. Their assurance plans can then reflect these key areas of risk. Most companies went further, and used this as a way of consulting about how the information should be presented too. This would then feed into their approach for reporting information to customers. We did not consider this an additional regulatory burden, as high performing companies should normally be reporting on their performance to customers – as well as consulting with them regularly about what matters to them, and considering how to ensure that information is accurate and presented in the right way. And leading companies were already doing this. We deliberately did not require ‘self-assurance’ companies to publish specific documents about their approach, because we felt they were well placed to decide how to assure their information and inform customers and other stakeholders. But we still expected them to carry out this engagement and assurance – and report on this in their annual performance report. We had confidence they would do this already, so we were simply not being prescriptive about how they did this.
Building trust that lasts and is resilient to change We have already seen the company monitoring framework delivering results6 – with companies stepping up to improving their assurance and engagement. Where companies did not do so well, we still saw some significant improvements and they have made strong commitments to learning the lessons for their next reporting in 2017. And we hope that this will continue to challenge even the leading companies to go that one step further next year.
One area where we would like to improve both the transparency and the quality of information companies publish is on resilience. This has historically been difficult to engage customers with, but the world in which the sector operates is changing.
Companies are accountable for resilience planning and they are best placed to build the relationships and partnerships they need to develop the right level of understanding to identify their risks and respond with the most effective and efficient solutions.
Significant social, political, environmental and economic changes are challenging not only the resilience of the services we rely on every day, but also the systems that underpin them – and how they are planned, delivered, and financed.
This means engaging with their customers in helping them to challenge and giving them confidence in the information they are given.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
We have worked with companies over the last two years to encourage them to publish information about their financial stress-testing, as well as consistent indicators of financial stability across the sector. We would expect the sector to be thinking about how to do this for other elements of resilience too, and we know that leading companies are already engaging with their customers on this. But customer trust is not a fixed target. It changes rapidly and between generations. The challenge for companies will be continuing to build the relationships that quite literally can help them weather the storms (or droughts) to come. And that will mean customers both thinking and feeling that companies have their best interests at heart. In future, companies’ relationships with their customers will need to be as resilient as the services they deliver.
CASE STUDY: How our company monitoring framework encourages companies to publish better quality information •
Business benefits: The framework is driving better engagement with, and trust from, customers and other stakeholders.
Reputational benefits: We publish a league table of companies’ performance, which we publicise. Although the companies are monopolies there is a strong rivalry among companies in doing better than their peers.
Process benefits: Where a company demonstrates that it is able to provide appropriate assurance, it will have more freedom in deciding on how it provides assurance.
If a company provides information in a way that reduces the trust and confidence customers can place in it, we will step in to increase the prescription in order to protect customers.
Future potential benefits: Good assurance is the foundation of trust and confidence, so it will be a key focus of our risk-based review of companies’ business plans when we set their price controls beyond 2020 in 2019. Companies that have developed an excellend approach to assurance will have a better chance of achieving the benefits of having their business plan top rated.
CASE STUDY: The view from South East Water on how they were achieved ‘self-assured’ status for information quality from Ofwat South East Water (SEW) saw the Company Monitoring Framework (CMF) as a key tool to support its drive for improving customer satisfaction – new measures the company implemented in its latest business plan.
Designed to be more accessible for stakeholders and customers it tells the story behind the performance information contained within the Annual Accounts and Annual Performance Report and the Annual Environment Performance Report.
Through conversations with customers and stakeholders SEW realised two things would help improve customer satisfaction: • Ensuring information provided is accurate and transparent • Publishing information in a way that makes it engaging to customers
Oliver Martin, Head of Regulation, said: “Our new report was developed to be more engaging and focused on educating and informing customers and stakeholders about the areas which they told us are priorities for them, including reporting on our environmental obligations. Feedback that we received since from our Customer Panel, stakeholders and customers has been encouraging but we know that there are further improvements that we can make. We also wanted to also ensure that the new report was accurate and used a risk based approach to data governance utilising multiple checks and balances both internally and from our external assurance partners”.
The CMF was therefore embraced by the company and proved a valuable exercise that has encouraged regular assessment of company data, information and performance (the three pillars of its framework) and how this is then reported. Leading to deeper engagement with customers and stakeholders it has brought important insights into the company’s daily work as well as longterm planning. Engagement undertaken for the 2015-16 CMF, covering a survey sent to 2,000 stakeholders and five workshops, highlighted that a re-think of the way the company presented information should be a priority. SEW created a new Performance, People and Planet Report in July 2016.
SEW is continuing with its approach ready for 2017 by taking the opportunity to improve further through best practice identified in the 2016 CMF assessment. Oliver continued: “The feedback will help us ensure the information that we provide is both engaging and robust and overall leads to improvements to our customers’ levels of satisfaction”.
CASE STUDY: The view from Severn Trent Water on how they were achieved ‘self-assured’ status for information quality from Ofwat Severn Trent’s vision is to be the country’s most trusted water company by 2020 which means becoming trusted by customers and external stakeholders alike. To achieve this, it was important for us to receive Ofwat’s highest self-assurance category as it showed our commitment to providing meaningful information to customers that they could trust, as well as highlighting the work we’d undertaken to reach that level. To make sure we had the best possible chance of reaching Ofwat’s highest category, we undertook a four-month long period of consultation where we engaged with customers and stakeholders to better understand how they used the information we produced and the extent to which they trusted it. In addition, we have an annual internal assessment which is designed to identify any potential risks that would stop us complying with our statutory and regulatory obligations. We are now in the second year of that process.
That initial work, both externally and internally, allowed us to develop an assurance and reporting framework based around four key principles. •
Robust assurance – targeted at areas of greatest risk;
Ownership and accountability – where we have clear lines of ownership for both delivery and accuracy of data;
Effective governance – provided by our Board, Audit and Disclosure committees, with additional challenge provided by the Water Forum; and
Transparency and public accountability – where we publicly report on our performance and hold ourselves to account where we don’t meet our commitments.
To help us maintain our self-assured status, we consulted on our draft assurance plan for this year (2016-17).
References 1 Edeman Trust barometer http://www.edelman.com/trust2017/ 2 ‘‘Post-truth’ named word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries’, guardian.co.uk, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/nov/15/post-truth-named-word-of-the-year-by-oxford-dictionaries 3 ‘Delivering proportionate and targeted regulation – Ofwat’s risk-based approach’, Ofwat, March 2012 4 ‘IN 15/18 Expectations for company annual performance reporting 2015-16’, Ofwat, December 2015 5 ‘Company monitoring framework – final position’, Ofwat, June 2015 6 ‘Company monitoring framework: 2016 assessment’, Ofwat, November 2016
Apply today for Professional Registration. For guidance and advice contact Sarah, our Professional Registration Coordinator, on 0191 422 0088 or email firstname.lastname@example.org
Please note, you must be a member of the Institute of Water to apply.
ASTON UNIVERSITY THROUGH NORTHUMBRIAN WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
Can we utilise pipeline hydro-generators to support monitoring and control of remote water reservoirs without mains power? Daniel R. Herron BSc IEng MIMechE MIWater – Mechanical Engineer, Northumbrian Water Group
Abstract The use of more sustainable energy is viewed by the utility industry as essential for both its reputation and efficiency. This paper investigates the application of hydro-power generation to solve a current issue. The need to change batteries for telemetry and monitoring in remote locations is a continuing issue for the water industry. The period of 2010-2016 cost Northumbrian Water Group (NWG) more than £50,000 and 1500 hours of time. Four current sustainable technologies were evaluated, to cover a range of location design variations and operating conditions.
What is the problem? The Northumberland maintenance department in Northumbrian Water (NWG) has historically encountered numerous issues with remote water reservoir storage sites. These locations do not have mains electricity supply, and therefore rely on batteries to power instruments and telemetry for water supply. These batteries are currently charged using small wind turbines and/or solar panels. These methods, particularly in winter months; become unreliable. Lack of sunlight and the unpredictable nature of wind results in power failures. This requires emergency call outs of instrument technicians – incurring considerable cost to the business. Each reservoir location consists of an inlet and outlet pipe with a flow of water, depending on water usage demand. Essentially, there is wasted potential energy in flow and pressure at these locations. This energy can be utilised by applying hydro-electric technology.
Some sites required different power generation methods. It was found that two variations of propeller turbines, and a pressure differential generator can provide a reliable method to overcome battery charging issues at remote sites. Overall the majority of these locations can benefit from the installation of new technology. Financial and time savings were estimated to be £8446/year and 252 hours/year (£8820 of labour cost at £35/hour external recharge) in the area of study. This saving would rise considerably if the technology was applied to NWG’s entire operational area.
Failure of telemetry and instruments results in control rooms being unable to assess how much water is available. Therefore, improving battery charging methods is essential, especially when energy is available from otherwise wasted flow.
Both require important information to be monitored to ensure reliable customer service. Multi-Drop Repeater sites (MDRP) are the more important of the two. They receive data from other sites and feed it into main telemetry outposts.
Sustainability is a key focus for any business. This study investigates the application of sustainable technology to produce time and cost savings, and also provide a more reliable service for water supply monitoring.
Loss of battery power at MDRP sites results in multiple locations not feeding reservoir levels into NWG’s SCADA software (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition). Low power radio sites (LPR) only send information from their location, and less frequently. Loss of their battery charge results in loss of information for that single location. In the Northumberland area, there are 18 MDRP reservoirs and 30 LPR reservoirs.
The initial design principle is to incorporate an ‘in line’ hydro-generator on either inlet or outlet of the remote reservoir with the intention of delivering a back-up charge method for the batteries. There are several potential benefits if new technology is implemented: financial savings, working time reduction, and operational service reliability are key. Across NWG, there are two different types of reservoir sites.
Table 1 shows the implications of battery failures on all MDRP and LPR reservoirs in Northumberland. Costs, hours, and job occurrence are based on the existing position and represent an underestimate as further operational and control room costs are not included.
ASTON UNIVERSITY THROUGH NORTHUMBRIAN WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Table 1 - MDRP & LPR Maintenance Job Information, from 2010 - 2016 Sites
Over the last 6-years the business has incurred more than £50,000 and 1500 hours of work over 486 occasions. These values are taken from approximately 25% of NWG’s operational area, therefore the potential for further benefits are great.
What are the available options? Hydro power generation is not new. However, it has not been widely applied within water mains. Gewin (2015) explains Lucid energy became the first US company to utilise otherwise wasted pipeline energy – implemented in 2012. This is relatively recent considering availability of standard hydro generation technology. This demonstrates how recent the pipeline hydro-generation concept is. Typical hydro-turbine systems are different to the technology required for the reservoir battery charging. A specifically designed hydro-generation plant relies on head, pressure, and flow to generate maximum power from the turbine; as demonstrated in Figure 1. Figure 1 - Typical Hydro-power Generation System (Source: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Power Resources Office, 2005 p. 4).
Figure 2 is a diagram of a typical Kaplan turbine. The water flow is designed to deliver the most efficient magnitude of revolutions on the shaft. This shaft will directly drive the generator to produce power output. Figure 2 - Kaplan Turbine Diagram (Source: Renewables First, 2015) Vertical driveshaft Inlet guide-vanes Rotor (adjustable blades) Nose cone Draft tube
Dandekar and Sharma (2013, pp. 410-415) discuss the mathematical principles behind turbine design for a range of different turbine variations, providing the opportunity to calculate optimum runner (or rotor in Figure 2) angles and turbine speeds for maximum power generation. Kaplan turbines are described in various sources of available literature as the optimum application for low-head conditions. Therefore, it would appear the best turbine choice for this study. To generate recommendations it was necessary to select, interrogate, and evaluate several trial locations for potential turbine implementation. Sites were chosen from the 48 locations. Selections were made from reservoirs with flow monitoring equipment on the inlet or outlet. A range of pipe sizes and velocities were selected to provide a good example of most site locations within NWG. Table 2 contains the selected site locations with relevant size, flow, and velocity information for each inlet or outlet. Table 2 - Sample site location information (Source: author)
Massoud (2005, p. 19) conducted a fluid dynamics investigation surrounding hydro-generation explaining that Kaplan (propeller) turbines are dynamically the most efficient for low-head and higher flow rates. This scenario is similar to the water flow and head conditions in and out of NWG’s service reservoirs.
Flopw rates (AVG)
0 - 6.11 l/s
0 - 0.35 m/s
3 - 6 l/s
0.38 - 0.76 m/s
29.22 - 44.56 l/s
0.47 - 0.71 m/s
9 - 15 l/s
0.28 - 0.48 m/s
Wooler (New Scotts Quarry)
27 - 35 l/s
0.86 - 1.11 m/s
Wooler (New Scotts Quarry)
11 - 20 l/s
0.35 - 0.64 m/s
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
What solutions are proposed? When identifying and evaluating the available technology with potential to solve the problem; each company was contacted to get the required information.
10 watts – power output.
Can survive 48 hours without flow (at 100mA constant output).
Requires minimum water velocity of 0.12 m/s.
Appendix 1 contains full specification details regarding IVL’s hydrogenerators. Figure 3 is a visual example of all IVL hydro-generators and their configuration in a network.
Each technology was evaluated against a range of criteria; power outputs, pipe sizes, costing, and head-loss. The four variations of hydro-generation technologies are for different pipe sizes, flows, and operating conditions. It was necessary to assess if each type of technology would produce the required power to charge the battery in each selected location.
Figure 3 - Visual Representation of IVL Hydro-Generator (Source: Hydro Spin, 2016 p. 3)
IVL FLOW (HYDRO SPIN) IVL Flow has developed a simple Kaplan in-pipeline generator. This technology is currently designed to fit pipe sizes; 80mm, 100mm, 150mm and 200mm. Although IVL is currently developing larger turbine for release in 2017. Taking their 200mm hydro-generator as an example (Hydro Spin, 2016 pp. 1-3), the main features are: •
Suitable for drinking water use.
Minimal Water head-loss.
Swing technology – maintaining low head-loss (allowing turbine to swing upwards if demand flows become too high).
Looking at their performance graphs (Appendix 1) allows estimations of running parameters for selected locations, as shown in Table 3. IVL’s turbines currently are only designed for a maximum pipe size of 200mm (8”). Table 3 - IVL Hydro-Generators Applied to Sample Sites (Source: Author) Site name
IVL Hydro-gen cost
0 - 0.35 m/s
0 - 0.05 Bar
0.38 - 0.76 m/s
0.7 - 5 W
0.05 - 0.075 Bar
North Charlton (inlet)
0.29 - 0.48 m/s
0.1 - 0.225 Bar
0.86 - 1.11 m/s
0.35 - 0.64 m/s
5 - 9.5 W
0.12 - 0.24 Bar
There is one main factor that must be considered before this technology could be implemented. The design of the turbine has small gaps between the face and blades. If unwanted materials are deposited into the main this may result in a blockage. Therefore a bypass around the turbine needs to be implemented. Providing the turbine produces the required output; the bypass valve can be slightly open to ensure there is no stagnant water within the network.
Table 4 (overleaf) contains the cost and time breakeven evaluation for IVL Flow turbines on our MDRP and LRP reservoir locations. The simple payback periods are 4 years (MDRP) and 7 years (LPR). An external recharge rate of £35/hour was used to calculate average time costs. The average time saved during this payback period would be 523 hours (MDRP) and 879 hours (LPR). This is a significant saving for the maintenance department. These figures are averages, some sites may take a longer or shorter time to breakeven.
ASTON UNIVERSITY THROUGH NORTHUMBRIAN WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Table 4 - IVL Cost/Time Breakeven Evaluation (Source: Author) Sites
Issue costs over 6 years
Average cost / site
Average cost / year
Average turbine cost (80,100,150,200mm)
Cost savings of time / year / site at £35/hour
Time incurred over 6 years
Average time / site
Average time / site / year
Cost and time savings / year / site
Average payback time / site
Evaluation of the figures show IVL’s turbines will require a relatively long period to pay-back for LPR sites. MDRP locations have a feasible payback time. The hours saved will be beneficial to the business by completion of further maintenance work during this time. Furthermore, after the payback period is complete, there are estimated savings of £8,446 and 252 hours/year, every year if all sites had a solution implemented.
Schwartz (2015) reported on Lucid’s first large project containing their new turbine innovation in Portland USA. The implementation of turbine technology is estimated to produce $2,000,000 worth of renewable energy income in a 20-year period, coupled with an average of 1,100MWh of energy per year. This is a large return from pipeline hydro technology when considering Kielder Hydro plant produces 20,000MWh every year.
The smallest turbine size available from Lucid is for a 24” pipeline. It cannot be implemented to solve the battery charging issues but could be considered to produce further energy within the network.
Lucid Energy has developed a different concept for hydro-power generation, their design is a bespoke variation for hydro-generation within pipelines. Kanagy (2011, p. 8) explains their prototype testing was in June 2010. Figure 4 is a diagram showing the breakdown of Lucid’s turbine design. Their innovation is a change of runner (propeller) design driven by the water – facilitating less flow restriction and easier maintenance. As bearings and seals are located outside of the pipeline. Figure 4 - Lucid Energy Turbine Diagram (Source: Lucid Energy, 2016)
PIONEER VALLEY (LEVIATHAN ENERGY) Pioneer Valley (PV) has developed two different innovations combining to produce their turbines. Their innovations are expected to deliver between 35-50% extra efficiencies in comparison to their competitors (explained in their literature). A patent for foil shapes to direct flow, and patent for different blade technology with a shrouded design, were obtained in 2007 and 2009 respectively. Appendix 2 contains the patent information of their two innovations and a 3D model of the turbine. PV are also using Kaplan turbine technology for effective power generation at low flows, as discussed in Section 2. Their product is typically designed for tidal or river water. However, PV have confirmed they can adapt their turbine to fit within any water main. Pioneer Valley Renewables (2015, slide 5) provided a standard formula for calculating expected Power generated by their turbines. The formula is applied and adjusted with ‘computation of efficiencies’, the equation is:
Power = 0.5 × density × area × velocity3 To simulate ideal scenarios without ‘computation of efficiencies’ the equation was applied to a sample of locations discussed in Table 2. The typical operating range of water velocity is demonstrated in Figure 5.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
Figure 5 - Pioneer Valley's Turbine Power Output Graphs (Source: Author)
Using their formula; power output was calculated for varying velocity at each location. Based solely on the calculations in Figure 5 it appears that only 3 sample locations would benefit from this technology. As we would require at least 5-10 watts of charge (shown in Figure 5) to ensure batteries remain stable. Appendix 3 contains comparison details between PV’s turbines and standard propeller units.
Figure 6 - Cla-Val PRV/Control Valve and Turbine Setup (Source: Cla-Val, 2016 p. 4)
Table 5 - Pioneer Valley Breakeven Evaluation (Source: Author) Average time & cost / site / year
Average turbine cost
Payback time / site
Time saved in payback
PV quoted turbine prices for Hedgeley Inlet (225mm) £1,283, and Hedgeley Outlet (300mm) £1,500. Payback time and hours saved is demonstrated in Table 5 and is considerably less than for IVL turbines. This turbine type would also require a by-pass leg as discussed in section 3.1. It is recommended these turbines are installed in pipe sizes above 200mm (8”), bespoke manufacturing is required in less standard sized mains.
CLA-VAL Cla-Val is a company that specialise in automated and pressure control valves for water distribution networks. NWG currently utilise their products across the north-east region, to regulate pressure in varying pipework sizes. Pressure regulating valves operate using simple differential pressure principles. They utilise diaphragms within a sealed unit to ensure the desired pressures are maintained. Cla-Val also has developed a renewable energy technology which produces electricity from their pressure regulation equipment.
ASTON UNIVERSITY THROUGH NORTHUMBRIAN WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
The power is generated using a miniature turbine that connects directly to the ¾” differential pressure pipe on the side of a pressure regulating valve (PRV). This unit can be bought separately to add on or with an entire PRV set up. Figure 6 is a visual representation of the PRV and turbine in situ, an arrow indicates the turbine within the setup. Appendix 4 contains technical information for the operation of Cla-Val’s turbine. Figures show that a differential pressure of 12 psi is required to produce 14 watts of power for battery charging. Cla-Val (2016, p.1 – engineering datasheet) explain the unit has an automatic protection device which cuts off power supply to the battery when fully charged to improve battery and generator lifespan. The product is designed for direct application to overcome the issues in remote locations. This technology is simple to install if PRV’s are utilised currently at remote reservoir locations. Further work will be required to survey reservoir locations which have potential to benefit from a PRV installation accompanied with the power generation unit.
Table 5 - Pioneer Valley Breakeven Evaluation (Source: Author) Average cost / site / year
Payback time / site
Time saved in payback
Costings for the units are between £700 - £2500, depending on type of valve and power output required. Breakeven values for each end of the turbine price range are available in Table 6. The breakeven figures depend on the turbine required for each output. The lowest cost turbine will have a significantly lower payback period than any other technology reviewed in this study for both MDRP and LPR sites.
Lessons & conclusions All four technologies reviewed could have a positive impact on sustainable energy production from water pipelines. Each site will be scrutinised in terms of; flows, pressures, head, and PRV installation or requirement. In order to aid the assessment of which product is best to implement for process improvement, Appendix 5 is a decision-making flow chart based on the technology discussed in section 3. It is aimed at aiding in selecting the correct product for application – inspiration taken from Simpson and Williams (2011, pp. 4, 9). Information in the flow chart is taken from technical data reviewed over the four types of hydrokinetic technology. Table 7 - Sustainable Technology Evaluation Summary Table (Source: Author) Sustainable technology
Strengths and opportunities • • •
IVL Flow - Turbine • • •
Lucid Energy - Turbine
• • • •
Pioneer Valley - Turbine
• • • • •
Cla-Val PRV Turbine •
Feasible payback on average of MDRP sites. Will operate as additional charge methos with separate battery. Potential to save £8445 / year and 252 hours / year after payback period. Can survive with 48 hours of non-flow period (after full charge). 'Off the shelf' product. Low minimum operating velocity. Good technology for producing back-to-grid power. Potential to be implemented in larger mains. Good technology for reservoir pipework above 8" with required velocity. Cheaper units to manufacture. Potential to install on open water for back to grid or on site power savings. Bespoke development to fit in any pipe. Very feasible payback period for MDRP and LPR sites. Very simple to install on locations with PRV's. Has independent charging unit and battery to act as assitant to current charging setup. Lower range have minimal payback times, would save considerable time and cost.
Weaknesses and threats
• • •
• • • • •
• • •
Only fits pipe ranges 80-200m, (3-8"). Requires by-pass leg installing, will need small flow through to flush the line. Quite long pay-back period for average LPR sites.
Technology is only available for pipes of 24" and above. Will not overcome reservoir battery charging issues. Will not operate to required standard in some of our lower flow locations. Does not have independent battery unit, would have to be connected to existing charging setup. Requires by-pass leg installing, will need small flow through to flush the line. Can only be implemented at location swith PRV's, or need for a PRV. Requires at least 6-12 psi of differential pressure. Larger sized turbines are quite expensive in comparison long payback for LPR sites.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
Table 7 contains a summary of information for each technology type detailing all positive and negative impacts for implementation. Extensive research and investigation into best practice sustainable technology has produced several opportunities to overcome reservoir battery charging issues. It was clear that a ‘one size fits all’ product would not solve all issues. However, with the reviewed technology, an effective implementation plan can be delivered to overcome varying operating conditions. Selection of the hydro-generation technology was intended to cover these varying process conditions; resulting in a more likely implementation for solution. The proposed format for technology use when overcoming battery charging issues is as follows: Tech type
For use when and where?
Pipe ranges between 80-200mm, when flow reaches minimum condition.
For pipe ranges over 200mm, when flow reaches minimum conditions.
Any location with a current or requirement for PRV, with pressure differential between 6-12 psi.
Savings of £8,446/year and 252 hours/year (£8,820 labour cost at £35/hour) are estimated from previous averages once payback periods are completed. Our original question: ‘Can we utilise pipeline hydro-generators to support monitoring and control of remote water reservoirs without mains power?’ Was answered positively. However, there is potential for exception to typical operating conditions – which would require further evaluation. The key message is that with the correct adoption of technology in specific locations a more reliable service of water supply monitoring can be provided. This also reduces maintenance and operational costs and workloads. In addition, different applications of sustainable technologies have been explored, providing several new avenues to pursue energy production from pipeline flows.
References Beauregard, B. C. (2015) Pioneer Valley Renewables Hydrokinetic Demonstration Observations. Internal Report: Holyoke Gas & Electric. Cla-Val (2016) X143IP Intermediate Power Generator Quick Start Instructions. [Online] Available at: http://www.cla-val.com/documents/pdf/N-X143IP_Quick_Start.pdf (Accessed: December 2016). Cla-Val (2016) Engineering Datasheet: Intermediate Power Generator. [Online] Available at: http:// www.cla-val.com/documents/pdf/E-X143IP_e-Power.pdf (Accessed: December 2016). Dandekar, M. M., Sharma, K. N. (2013) Water Power Engineering. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Viskas Publishing. Farb, D. (2015) Purchasing an Underwater Turbine. Internal Report: Pioneer Valley Renewables. Unpublished. Gewin, V. (2015) Harnessing Power from Urban Water Pipes. [Online] Available at: http://www.popsci. com/gregg-semler-turns-tiny-turbines-mighty-generators (Accessed: October 2016). Hydro Spin (2016) Hydro Power Generation - YOGEV 10w (DN 200-8”). [Online] Available at: http:// www.h-spin.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Yogev-8-inch-DN200-Datasheet.pdf (Accessed: November 2016). Kanagy, J. (2011) Lucid Energy Inc. Presentation. [Online] Available at: http://www.nwhydro.org/wpcontent/uploads/events_committees/Docs/2011_Small_Hydro/Technology%20-%20Lucid%20Energy. pdf (Accessed: November 2016). Lucid Energy (2016) How it Works. [Online] Available at: http://lucidenergy.com/how-it-works/ (Accessed: November 2016). Massoud, M. (2005) Engineering Thermofluids, Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer. Berlin: Springer. Pioneer Valley Renewables (2015) Underwater Turbines. Internal Presentation: Leviathan Energy Group. Unpublished. Renewables First (2015) Kaplan Turbines. [Online] Available at: https://www.renewablesfirst.co.uk/ hydropower/hydropower-learning-centre/kaplan-turbines/ (Accessed: October 2016). Simpson, R., Williams, A (2011) Design of Propeller Turbines for Pico Hydro. [Online] Available at: https://herehydro.weebly.com/uploads/9/3/9/1/93913/pico_propeller_guidelines_apr_2011_v11c.pdf (Accessed: December 2016). Schwartz, R. (2015) Portland Now Generates Electricity from Turbines Installed in City Water Pipes. [Online] Available at: https://www.good.is/articles/portland-pipeline-water-turbine-power (Accessed: November 2016). U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Power Resources Office (2005) Reclamation, Managing Water in the West: Hydroelectric Power. [Online] Available at: https://www.usbr.gov/power/ edu/pamphlet.pdf (Accessed: November 2016). Bibliography Bandyopadhyay, M. N, (2006) Electrical Power Systems: Theory and Practice. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India. Digital Writing 101 (2016) How to – Format Papers in Standard Academic Format. [Online] Available at: http://digitalwriting101.net/content/how-to-format-papers-in-standard-academic-format-usingmicrosoft-word/ (Accessed: September 2016). Dixon, S. L. (2005) Fluid Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Turbo Machinery. 5th ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Murray, Smith and Associates (2016) Portland Water Bureau Conduit 3 Hydroelectric Project, Lucid Energy. Portland: Excellence in Engineering Awards 2016. Sage Publishing (2016) Manuscript Submission Guidelines. [Online] Available at: https://uk.sagepub. com/en-gb/eur/manuscript-submission-guidelines (Accessed: September 2016). Simoes, M. G., Farret, F. A. (2015) Modeling and Analysis with Induction Generators. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Subramanya, K. (2011) Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Machines: Problems and Solutions. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill. Zema, D. A., Nicotra, A., Tamburino, V., Zimbone, S. M. (2015) ‘A simple method to evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of micro hydro power plants in existing irrigation’, Renewable Energy, 85(10), pp. 498-506.
ASTON UNIVERSITY THROUGH NORTHUMBRIAN WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Appendix 1 200mm Hydro Spin Generator Technical Information (Source: Hydro Spin, 2016 p. 2)
YOGEV 10W (DN 200 – 8”) Hydro Power Generation Specifications HYDRAULIC Minimum water velocity
Maximum water velocity
MECHANICAL Plastic materials
Nylon 50% (NSF 61)
Generator outcome power
3 Phase AC (3-70VAC)
HydroCharger output volts
HydroCharger output watts
Up to 10 Watts (Vs flow)
30% less power
Maximum external load
-20˚C – 70˚C
Internal rechargeable battery
Li-Ion 5.3AH (8.2V)
Typical duration without charge
48 hr (100mA const.)
HydroCharger internal consumption
C O M M U N I C AT I O N P A R A M E T E R S
subject to e
Port baud rate
RPM, Battery Voltage, Generator Power, External Load (mA)
This document contains confidential, proprietary information.
Document P/N : ???| Rev A
Appendix 2 Patent/Innovation Information for Pioneer Valley Renewables (Source: Pioneer Valley Renewables, 2015 slide 4).
We do this by unique applications of the science of Computational Fluid Dynamics. The first patent is already granted in four countries, the second so far in the US, with more to come. Your ROI depends on a few factors aside from the cost of turbines and installation: 1. 2. 3. 4.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
Dimensions of the project in length and cross-section. How conditions vary seasonally. Speed of the water flow. Value of the electricity, including carbon or renewable energy credits.
With that information, we can calculate your specific ROI using the following table:
Anticipated Underwater Power (kWh) by water speed and blade diameter for post-demonstration Appendix 3
electricity generation of PVR hydrokinetic turbines versus current state-of-the-art technology. Pioneer Valley Turbine Comparison with Competitors (Source: Farb, 2015 p. 1). Performed at Tel Aviv University School of Engineering
Kilowatts/hour (kWh) SPT PVR SPT PVR 5m Diameter 1m Diameter 0.4 1.3 0 0.1 3.4 10 0.1 0.4 12 34 0.5 1.5 27 81 1.1 3.5 54 158 2.1 6.8 93 273 3.7 12 147 433 5.9 19 220 547 8.8 28 PVR=Shrouded PVR Hydrokinetic Turbine
SPT PVR Speed (m/s) 10m Diameter 1,7 3.6 0.5 29 14 1 46 98 1.5 110 232 2 452 215 2.5 371 781 3 579 1241 3.5 1852 880 4 SPT=Standard Propeller Turbine
X143IP Intermediate Power Generator Quick Start Instructions
Example: A 5-meter diameter PVR hydrokinetic turbine placed in water with speed of 1m/s will produce 10
kWh versus 3.4 kWh for a standard propeller turbine.
Attaining Optimal Performance
• For optimum functioning of the X143IP Power Generator, the AC voltage of the turbine should be between 185 and 200 VAC • If the AC voltage is lower, please refer to the chart below see (Figure 8) to find your differential pressure across the turbine • This differential pressure allows you to know the maximum power delivered from the X143IP Power Generator. With this information, you can evaluate power generated versus power consumed
Differential Pressure Across X143IP Cla-Val Turbine (Source: Cla-Val, 2016 p. 4). 1.7
180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40
AC voltage [VAC]
Figure 8 Differential Pressure Across X143IP Turbine 220
0.0 1.5 2.9 4.4 5.8 7.3 8.7 10.2 11.6 13.1 14.5 Differential Pressure across the Cla-Val Automatic Control Valve (psi)
Differential pressure across the turbine (psi)
Amp Continuous (60 min/h)
Amps Low Peak (10 min/h)
Amps High Peak (1 min/h)
1.2 A 14 W
3A 36 W
5A 60 W
24 V (step-up)
0.6 A 14 W
1.5 A 36 W
2.5 A 60 W
Typical Installations: Underground Vault/Pressure Reducing Stations
Appendix 5 Reviewed Technology Selection Flow Chart (Source: Author).
BLACK & VEATCH CANVEY ISLAND INTEGRATED URBAN DRAINAGE
Canvey Island integrated urban drainage - a collaborative approach to flood risk Paul Martin, Kam Puvanakumar & Claire Watson Black & Veatch
Overview Owing to an absence of an existing model and the complex nature of the drainage system on Canvey Island, a collaborative venture was launched in March 2013 by Anglian Water, the Environment Agency and Essex County Council, with involvement from Essex Highways, Castle Point BC and the RSPB. Black & Veatch (B&V) was appointed to build and verify an integrated urban drainage model to allow the partners to gain a better understanding of the existing surface water and fluvial flood risks on Canvey Island. B&V built an Integrated Catchment Model containing all drainage system components including sewers, pumping stations and watercourses. The model successfully replicates the interaction between the different systems, including tidal influences, and was used to investigate the root cause of flooding at flood hotspots on Canvey Island.
This root cause analysis allowed true flooding mechanisms to be understood, allowing the partners to be better informed of the potential options for managing the current flood risk. Flood and hazard maps were produced, including scenarios where the rainfall and tide levels were adjusted to account for climate change impact. The verified model is now an invaluable tool in understanding how the performance of the assets owned, regulated and maintained by the various partners on Canvey Island can be improved to address flood risk and resilience. The multi-agency approach is highly appropriate for addressing flooding issues related to drainage assets owned, regulated and maintained by different stakeholders, allowing a collaborative approach to developing solutions and engaging with the wider community.
Project Background Canvey Island is an island on the north side of the Thames Estuary, separated from the mainland by a number of creeks. An aerial view of the Island can be seen in Figure 2-1. The island is topographically very flat, with the majority being below sea level and protected behind 14 miles of high sea walls. It has a population of around 37,000 people, increasing to over 43,000 in the summer months. The existing surface water and fluvial flood risk to the island is known to be significant but until recently has not been well understood. Canvey Island has a complex network of surface water sewers, open and culverted ditches, ponds, and storm water pump stations. Rainfall runoff is collected and channelled to the storm water pumping stations and gravity outfalls around the periphery of the Island and pumped or drained out to the Thames estuary. There are no natural streams or rivers on Canvey Island.
Figure 2.1 â€“ Study Area
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
The complexity of the system has an added dimension due to the sheer number of stakeholders involved who are responsible for regulating, maintaining and operating the drainage system assets. In March 2013, three of the key partners responsible for managing flood risk on the island; Anglian Water, the Environment Agency and Essex County Council identified the need to undertake an Integrated Urban Drainage (IUD) modelling study to better understand the existing surface water and fluvial flood risks on Canvey Island. A collaborative approach was needed to produce an accurate and robust model, with the ultimate aim of the project being to produce an integrated model available to all partners that accurately represented the surface water and fluvial flood risks. The importance of this project was reaffirmed following extensive surface water flooding on Canvey Island in August 2013 and July 2014.
Study Methodology Following consultation between the project stakeholders, a scoping report was produced in March 2014 (Black & Veatch 2014). This report outlined the project aims, described the catchment and drainage system, provided a review of available data and discussed the flooding issues and the proposed modelling approaches. Surveys to gather system information were proposed with the aim of addressing deficiencies in the current understanding of the system and leading to increased confidence in the final model performance. B&V was appointed to undertake the modelling using the latest integrated catchment modelling approaches.
During this early data gathering stage it was essential that all partners involved supplied their own data and information to ensure that the drainage system was fully represented. This aspect was critical to the success of the project because it was the first time that all of the drainage assets had been considered as a whole.
MODEL BUILD The modelling was carried out using InfoWorks ICM produced by Innovyze. This hydraulic modelling package allows the modelling of rainfall related flows across the surface of the ground, in piped systems and in open water courses, and importantly it models the interaction between these systems. It also allows the modelling of pumping stations, weirs, flaps and other hydraulically important features, as well as the influence of tide levels on river outfalls.
MODEL VERIFICATION Once the model was built it was necessary to test it to make sure that it worked correctly and is a fair representation of reality. This was achieved firstly by comparing flows and depths recorded at the flow monitors with those predicted by the model for the same rainfall conditions. An example of observed versus predicted results for one flow monitor location is shown in Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1 â€“ Flow Survey Verification Data
Integrated catchment modelling enables a fully joined up approach to catchment management and solution development. This type of modelling allows the drainage systems, river systems, and overland flow routes within a catchment to be modelled simultaneously with seamless links between catchment features. This integrated approach is a step forward from previous methods of simply combining model results from different software packages to understand the overall catchment performance. A three stage project process was followed; 1. Data collection 2. Model build 3. Verification.
DATA COLLECTION To supplement the data collected during the scoping study, detailed surveys were undertaken between September â€“ December 2014, with the aim of addressing deficiencies in the understanding of the system and to increase confidence in the final model performance. These included manhole surveys and ancillary surveys (pumping stations and other key structures), cross section surveys of watercourses and flow surveys to measure flows in the watercourses and sewers.
A total of 53 monitors were installed, recording data at 2 minute intervals. In addition, 32 loggers were installed at pumping stations across the catchment. Secondly, historic verification was carried out where historically recorded rainfall is used to check the model performance against the recorded performance for a particular event. The rainfall pattern that caused the flooding event in July 2014 was applied to the model and the extent of predicted flooding was compared against aerial footage taken from a police helicopter at the time. Flood extent plots created from the model could then be directly compared to the actual flood extent recorded for the rainfall event. The similarity between recorded and predicted flooding provided confidence in the accuracy of the model results.
BLACK & VEATCH CANVEY ISLAND INTEGRATED URBAN DRAINAGE
Key Modelling Techniques RAINFALL RUNOFF MODELLING A mesh consisting of over 1 million triangles was generated to represent the ground topography within the sea walls. This was based on LiDAR data with each mesh element having an elevation associated with it. LiDAR is an optical remote-sensing technique that uses laser light to sample the surface of the earth, producing highly accurate x,y,z measurements. LiDAR data was available for Canvey Island from the Environment Agency at 2m, 1m, 0.5m and 0.25m grid resolution and vertical accuracy ranging between 5 and 15cm. The finest resolution, most accurate data was used where available but where coverage was incomplete, lower resolution data was used. Rainfall applied to the generated ground surface mesh is converted into runoff which runs across the mesh surface and collects in low spots. Varying surface roughness values for roads, fields, etc. are applied and these affect the speed of travel. Buildings were modelled as raised polygons so that runoff is routed around rather than through them. Roof runoff was connected directly to the nearest modelled manhole, or onto the mesh if there is no nearby manhole. Kerbed roads were ‘depressed’ slightly to keep shallow overland flow within the road. Any significant walls or other barriers to overland flow were also represented. Percentage runoff can be customised. Estimating runoff from pervious areas can be particularly difficult since in practice it can vary between 0 and 100 % depending on ground conditions and levels of saturation. In Canvey Island, the runoff was found to be very high since particularly in the winter months the ground is often saturated. There are a number of ways of modelling pervious runoff in InfoWorks. It was determined that a fixed percentage runoff was most suitable and this was used in conjunction with a fixed rate of loss from surface water into the ground (which persists after the rainfall has stopped).
Manholes and sewers were modelled in the traditional way except that the top of each manhole acts as an interface between the underground pipe system and the overland flow. This allows overland flow to drain into the sewers and also allows the sewers to flood out onto the surrounding ground. An example of the flooding representation is shown in Figure 4.1, where the flood extent on the ground model mesh is shown in blue triangles.
TERRAIN SENSITIVE MESHING It is desirable to have greater accuracy in representing the topography where there is more variability in topography. The terrain sensitive meshing feature uses an additional rule in the algorithm used to create the mesh that calls for an element to be sub-divided if the ground elevation within the element varies by more than a defined amount. High numbers of mesh elements have a cost in terms of simulation time and result file size; there is therefore a balance to be struck between ease of use and model accuracy. Terrain sensitive meshing to some extent achieves the best of both worlds, providing an increase in the accuracy of overland flow routing without causing an unnecessary increase in simulation times. This feature was used in the modelling of Canvey Island and was found to provide an accurate representation of reality whilst maintaining model usability. It was of particular use in the modelling of the many small scale ditches and dykes where extensive survey work was not cost effective. An example of the use of Terrain Sensitive Meshing is shown in Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2 – Terrain Sensitive Meshing
Figure 4.1 – Flood Extent on Model Mesh
REPRESENTING WATERCOURSES Whilst the LiDAR based mesh represents depressed river channels to some degree, the hydraulic capacity of the channels cannot be assessed accurately enough in this way. Watercourses on Canvey Island were therefore modelled explicitly with links produced for each reach. These were based on cross-section surveys that were taken at intervals along the length of each watercourse. The software allows for any variable cross-section and even allows multiple roughness values to be used in the same section.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
This functionality is particularly useful as it allows the representation of smoother concrete channels within grass banks; a common feature in Canvey Island due to the shallow gradients. An example cross section from the model is shown in Figure 4.3.
The integrated nature of this study delivered a joined-up modelling approach, providing overall cost and time savings when compared to undertaking separate and un-coordinated smaller studies for each of the stakeholders individually.
Figure 4.3 â€“ Watercourse Cross-Section
Due to the history of severe flood events across Canvey Island, the local MP, elected members, the leader of Castle Point Borough Council, and the whole community of Canvey Island took a very close interest in the development of the study. The project partners faced the added challenge of scrutiny by the local media on project objectives and what the outputs would provide. Extensive community engagement was key to keeping residents informed on the modelling work and ongoing operational activity on the Island. Looking to the future, the collaborative approach is being continued with the identification of viable, joined-up solutions, usually with each scheme intervention benefitting multiple stakeholders.
Outfalls from surface water sewers were connected directly into the river channels within the model. The outer boundary of each modelled river reach was modelled with bank lines. These represent the interface with the LiDAR based mesh and allow overland flow to enter the river channel or for river channels to flood out onto surrounding ground.
Lessons learned and conclusions The complexities of the Canvey Island drainage system determined the need for an innovative approach to building an integrated hydraulic model. The multi-agency approach adopted is highly appropriate for addressing flooding issues related to drainage assets owned, regulated and maintained by different stakeholders. Collaborative working was critical throughout the life of the project and will continue to be so into the future. The inherent efficiency in working together and sharing data, information and ideas during the model development process has given all the stakeholders involved an excellent outcome, and building blocks for future developments.
It is envisaged that the cost of schemes will likely be borne by multiple stakeholders rather than by a single party, with funding contributions split proportionally based on the benefits seen by each party and its customers or stakeholders. This collaborative approach should ensure that any future options to manage flood risk are considered by the partners in a holistic manner, which in turn, should help to drive appropriate future investment on Canvey Island, delivering the maximum possible benefits for the local residents. Acknowledgements We would like to thank our colleagues within the stakeholder organisations; Anglian Water, the Environment Agency and Essex County Council for their support and contribution to this paper. References Atkins (March 2007), Canvey Island Description of Drainage System Black & Veatch (July 2015), Canvey Island Integrated Urban Drainage Study Black & Veatch (April 2014), Canvey Island IUD Modelling Scoping Study Report Black & Veatch (March 2008), Canvey Island Model Verification & Proposed Solutions Report URS/Scott Wilson (August 2011), The Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Pluvial Modelling Report
ESI CONSULTING GROUNDWATER IN THE SHALLOW SUBSURFACE
Why water engineers need to know more about groundwater in the shallow subsurface Mike Streetly
Abstract The rapid growth of the environmental sector in the 1980s/90s led to increased specialisation and a tendency for detailed understanding of the environment to end up in narrow silos. Hydrologists and hydrogeologists involved in water resource management in the UK recognised this risk in the 1990s and the Environment Agency was at the forefront of efforts to manage groundwater and surface water resources in an integrated manner. This was very influential in the development of the Water Framework Directive which was largely focussed at aquifer and catchment scale. However, issues associated with groundwater in the shallow subsurface (e.g. groundwater flooding, contaminated land, Sustainable Drainage (SuDS), sewer infiltration/exfiltration) have suffered from a piecemeal approach to regulation and to the development of solutions.
This is a significant and largely under-investigated issue: over several decades of investigation we have observed serious environmental/engineering design failures from ignoring shallow groundwater. This includes poorly designed SuDS, groundwater infiltration to sewers and generally a lack of appreciation of the significant role of groundwater in many flooding events and catchment flows overall. This paper aims to alert water engineers to some of the common issues and potential solutions, and the need to consider issues within a catchment conceptual model.
Anyone who has visited the well known cave systems of the UK’s Carboniferous Limestone will have seen evidence to support such concepts in those formations, but such features are actually absent from most of the major aquifers of the UK (discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of ‘Introducing Groundwater’ by Price, 1996).
As anyone who has dug a moat for a sandcastle in the beach and encountered the water table knows, the properties of dry and saturated sand are very different. Observing inflows also provides a very rare chance to observe the process of groundwater flow. However, perhaps in general people do not spend enough time at the beach because there is a widespread ignorance of basic groundwater flow processes and the role that groundwater has in many aspects of life in the UK. Hydrogeology is still a young science and basic concepts have yet to permeate the consciousness of most people outside the profession, where there is still such a prevalence of the concept of ‘underground rivers’ and belief in the associated arts of water diviners who are believed to be able to locate these mythical features. Among the popular concepts, Shelley’s poem Xanadu (‘caverns measureless to man etc’) is undoubtedly more widely known than any groundwater text.
At the Bryan Lovell Conference in November 20161, Hazel Gibson, a researcher at Plymouth University Psychology Department gave a good overview of the scale of the challenge in her paper: ‘Rivers Underground: Persistent public conceptualisations of water in the geological subsurface and how that can impact on communications’. In brief, there are two key issues: 1. We should expect that a good proportion of the public believes groundwater is underground rivers. 2. Misconceptions are far more prevalent in relation to subsurface processes than other specialist fields, posing a uniquely bigger challenge for the geoscientist.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
In the Eastern Counties Leather v Cambridge Water Company case (which related to contamination of groundwater), Lord Goff’s judgement in the House of Lords hinged on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, part of common law in relation to nuisance, and he held that the claim by CWC should fail because: ‘the seepage of the PCE from beneath the floor of the ECL works down into the Chalk aquifers below was not foreseeable by a reasonable supervisor employed by ECL, nor was it foreseeable by him that detectable quantities of PCE would be found down catchment…’ In essence this judgement rests on the expectation that the ‘reasonable man’ or ‘man on the Clapham Omnibus’ would not appreciate the science of groundwater flow and contaminant migration, and therefore it would not be reasonable for him to be liable for the consequences. This provides another example that hydrogeology remains a young science that has still not penetrated the public consciousness, and reinforces that hydrogeologists face a significant challenge introducing a basic knowledge of hydrogeology to the general population in order to bring such issues into the scientific age! To these issues of public perception can perhaps be added the technical challenge that all geologists face when communicating uncertainty about ground conditions to engineers who are more familiar with managing risks that they can see and control.
Whilst we expect that geotechnical and/or civil engineers are more educated in these matters, in the authors’ view, the lack of ‘visibility’ of groundwater in the public consciousness has had a negative impact on attempts to manage groundwater in the shallow subsurface in a holistic manner: the hydrogeologist’s lament about groundwater being ‘out of sight and out of mind’ is all too true2. This paper is therefore an attempt to communicate some of the key issues related to shallow groundwater to a wider audience.
Groundwater Flooding An understanding of groundwater flood risk is required as part of all flood risk assessments for development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. This has raised the profile of groundwater amongst a wider audience of asset managers, property owners and developers. The National Flood Forecast Centre has recognised the need to include information on groundwater flooding where necessary in their regular flood guidance statement to government. A pilot study into a national groundwater flood forecasting service is underway. Groundwater flooding has resulted in significant costs to the insurance industry, businesses and the community. Road and rail closures have occurred and the groundwater flooding in the Croydon area in the winter of 13/14 jeopardised the Kenley WTW drinking water supply to approximately 47,000 people. When groundwater reaches the surface flooding can occur and there is a need to understand the processes that have occurred below the ground that have led to this.
Groundwater in the shallow subsurface
2. Urban rivers that may be sealed for flood defence to prevent groundwater influx/efflux or to focus interaction on short reaches.
Water is present everywhere below the ground surface (albeit in variable amounts) and has a profound effect on many of the key properties of the materials within which it occurs: strength, stability, corrosiveness, ability to transmit and attenuate contaminants etc. These effects generally become more pronounced at the point at which all the void space in the ground first becomes fully saturated3.
3. Permeable backfills used in service trenches acting to divert flow and focus recharge.
Meanwhile, as anyone who has carried out a site investigation in an urban area in the UK knows well, the shallow subsurface can be an incredibly complex environment due to the superposition of several centuries of urban development on typically variable alluvial or glacial deposits on which most of the UK’s towns and cities are built. Some of the key processes in which groundwater has an important role are illustrated on Figure 1 (overleaf) and include: 1. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) systems that may not be designed with an understanding of the capacity of the shallow subsurface to accept large volumes of water.
4. Sewers either gaining or losing flow to shallow groundwater. In some low lying areas, sewers were deliberately designed to act as drains. 5. Water mains leaking (rates of 100 mm/a in urban areas are not untypical thus forming a significant component of the local water balance, large leaks can have very significant local effects including the development of sink holes) 6. Construction of deep basements which may ‘dam’ and divert groundwater flows. Most councils in London now have policies requiring hydrogeological and geotechnical Basement Impact Assessments to be submitted in support of relevant planning applications4. 7. Surface drainage diverting and then focussing recharge to ground in particular locations. Whilst the conventional view may be that urbanisation tends to reduce infiltration, detailed studies have shown that the opposite may often be the case (e.g. Lerner, 1990).
ESI CONSULTING GROUNDWATER IN THE SHALLOW SUBSURFACE
8. Trees: Older urban areas may have many established trees that can evaporate significant volumes of water from shallow strata. In places this can be linked to subsidence issues. 9. Thin clay horizons creating perched water tables that cause rapid variations of saturation in soil profile
10. Land contamination that may require significant changes to the local groundwater balance in order to reduce groundwater through flow and thus reduce risks to environmental and human receptors (cut off walls, sealing of permeable surfaces etc.)
URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE URBAN RIVER SuDS 1
6 New Basement
Case Studies The following case studies illustrate how an understanding of the shallow groundwater environment can be important for engineers:
CASE STUDY: Potential for a SuDS system to cause groundwater ingress to nearby basements SuDS are seen as a vital component of making the UK more resilient to flooding and the effect of climate change. Infiltration SuDs are the preferred option before other methods of discharge can be considered. However, what goes into the ground can equally come out. Not all sites that are permeable may be suitable for infiltration SuDS. In some cases aquifers are too thin to receive focused recharge from a large area. This can lead to mounding of groundwater around the soakaway for extreme events. A SUDS system was installed under a supermarket car park based on a modular storage crate system.
Heat pump 11
11. Increasing interest in shallow groundwater as a potential thermal energy resource for heat pump systems5.
The system was designed taking into account contemporary guidance on SUDS design and the local water undertaker’s preference that runoff should not be directed to the local sewer system. A year or so after the system was installed, several local businesses claimed that it had caused flooding of their basements. The claims went to court and significant legal costs were incurred in trying to allocate the scale and responsibility for these events. Key challenges in allocating liability appropriately included: •
Implications of baseline variability in local groundwater levels in response to climate
Impact of the wide variety of sub surface engineering features of the development as well as the SuDS (e.g. soil compaction, sheet piling etc)
Impact of a leaking water supply pipeline
Uncertainties in the drainage systems and pre and post construction maintenance regime in the nearby properties
A groundwater model was used to reveal the relative effects of these different factors.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
Key lessons for SuDS designers include the need to understand that prevailing guidance is focused on depth of unsaturated zone below planned soakaways but it is also important to understand what depth of unsaturated zone is available beneath properties and other structures nearby, and the need to consider the scheme in the context of the overall groundwater flow system (this latter need is the most common omission in engineering and development projects due to absence of any groundwater scientist on most such projects).
Shallow groundwater levels can vary significantly both seasonally and from year to year in response to climate and local, off site factors need to be taken into account. The latter can be a particular challenge as site investigation off site requires more planning and management.
CASE STUDY: Sewers suffering from groundwater influx
Many instances of flash floods in urban areas are largely independent of antecedent conditions and these are typically what models have been used to simulate the effects of in the past.
The winter of 2013/14 saw numerous catchments throughout the UK suffering from groundwater surcharged sewer systems resulting in flooding of properties and resultant damage to property and risk to human health. This phenomenon occurs over a timescale of months or years rather than the shorter period in hours and minutes which are normally used in sewer modelling.
However, there is now growing recognition in the industry that, in a significant proportion of cases, flooding risk and combined sewer overflow (CSO) spill frequency is heavily influenced by the antecedent conditions: a high proportion of recent major flooding in the UK has occurred following a sequence of storms, with the initial storms saturating catchments creating a resultant higher runoff from later storms. Sewer systems which exhibit a high degree of slow response inflow (i.e. groundwater) are particularly vulnerable to the latter situation (the sequence of storms) and for that reason we consider that there is a greater need to have models which have the flexibility to use different preceding conditions as a primary simulation input as this can be just as important as the rainfall input.
There is a general lack of scientific and engineering understanding about the mechanisms by which groundwater flow enters sewer networks across the UK. As a result, the size and timing of inflows in response to rainfall events is poorly quantified in many sewer hydraulic models which has the potential to result in inappropriate engineering solutions being designed. Although there are currently â€˜slow flowâ€™ algorithms built into most sewer modelling software, in many cases this is considered to be 'black box' and the calibration and fundamental principles need to be better understood to ensure that the algorithms are appropriate and sound scientific data can be used to inform them in the models during verification/calibration and suitable design values need to be developed.
Where the slow response / ground infiltration flow is evident and this can be modelled with more science, certainty and accuracy both for model verification and design, this will facilitate optimisation of investment and certainty in risk reduction. In turn this is likely to result in a reduction in costs, from use of over conservative models.
Figure 2 shows the relationship between groundwater levels and discharge from a waste water treatment works in the south east of the UK: when groundwater levels reach certain critical levels, inflow of groundwater into the sewers increases significantly and remains at high levels for prolonged periods. Figure 2 â€“ Relationship between groundwater levels and discharge rate from waste water treatment works
ESI CONSULTING GROUNDWATER IN THE SHALLOW SUBSURFACE
Tools to forecast the likelihood of breaching these critical levels and the duration of subsequent peak flows are now available to help managers plan and respond to these situations . Equally, lining of sewers that are acting as groundwater ‘drains’ has the potential to cause local rises in groundwater levels and thus exacerbate the risk of groundwater flooding. Understanding the shallow groundwater system, potentially through the use of groundwater modelling, is essential to resolving these complex issues.
CASE STUDY: General challenges of sites prone to groundwater flooding Kimpton is located on the historical line of the River Kym, a winterbourne sourced from the underlying Chalk aquifer. During the winter 2000/2001, high groundwater levels led to flooding in Kimpton Village. This was a long duration event, with remedial emergency pumping in Kimpton being required for 3 months: the total cost of the emergency response was around £0.5M. The flooding was derived from two sources: spring flow in the upper catchment due to preferential groundwater flow paths, and a general increase in water table resulting in flooding along the valley bottom. Understanding the return period of such events was an important part of the options appraisal and cost benefit analysis required when designing remedial works. Detailed analysis suggested that this was a result of 1 in 36 year high groundwater levels following the highest 6 month rainfall total on record. Flood modelling was undertaken to predict the impact of a range of different return period flood events: Surface water flooding was modelled using a surface water TUFLOW model to calculate the impact of rainfall runoff on Kimpton. An existing regional groundwater MODFLOW model was modified and used to simulate subsurface flows and spring discharges. The surface water model simulates the impact of the discharges once they become overland flow and interact with Kimpton village. The flood modelling was used to identify the properties within Kimpton which are at risk of flooding for different return period flood events. The 1 in 50 year event has a predicted duration of 120 days (4 months). This is particularly important as the social and economic impacts of flooding are exacerbated by long duration inundation. An appraisal of flood risk management options was undertaken. As a minimum groundwater flood alerts based on local monitoring of groundwater levels should continue. A cost benefit analysis, based on indicative costs and a damages assessment concluded that providing defences for the Business Park was the most cost-effective option. Reinstating local groundwater abstraction is considered too complex as this is dependent on 3rd party involvement such as a water company.
Over pumping and extending surface water drainage capacity was an alternative option and could qualify for flood defence grant funding from FDGiA. Flood defence schemes need to take into account groundwater inflows. Oxford is situated within a narrow valley underlain by permeable gravel deposits. The city suffers from recurrent floods, for example, in 2007 in which approximately 200 properties were affected by a 5% annual likelihood event, and again in 2014. Groundwater levels in the shallow gravel aquifer that underlies Oxford respond rapidly to both fluctuations in river level and rainfall. During periods of high rainfall and river level, it is often the emergence of groundwater that is the first sign of flooding for many of the residents. In addition, in recent times, a significant number of properties have suffered flooding from groundwater alone; i.e. fluvial flow was not a factor. Where the fluvial flow was the main initial cause of flooding, the preceding and subsequent high groundwater levels often prolonged the period of inundation. The Environment Agency is currently investigating potential measures to reduce the risk of flooding in Oxford (see Macdonald et al. 2007 and 2012). As groundwater is a potential cause of flooding, this includes measures to control groundwater levels. However, any scheme also needs to mitigate any resultant impact on natural habitats within the floodplain as a result of these measures: these habitats are partly dependent on shallow groundwater levels to maintain their nature conservation interest. We undertook groundwater modelling to allow the likely impact of the flood alleviation channel on groundwater levels to be assessed. The model was required to simulate both high flow and low flow conditions, the former for assessing groundwater flooding and the latter for assessing impacts on the designated sites. The groundwater model was to be consistent with (although not coupled to) the Environment Agency’s ISIS-TUFLOW model of the surface water drainage network and floodplain.
CASE STUDY: Ground source energy scheme Tate Modern Shallow alluvial aquifers have often been overlooked as thermal resources for low-carbon cooling in the UK. For example, most existing groundwater cooling systems in central London use the confined Chalk aquifer which has a finite capacity as a heat sink which may already have been reached in places. A ground source cooling scheme was recently developed as part of the recent extension to the Tate Modern exploiting the River Terrace Gravels aquifer, the first such scheme in London (Birks et al. 2013). We provided assistance by undertaking groundwater and thermal modelling.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
Key issues of concern were the likely yield from the abstraction and injection boreholes, nearby contaminated land and the influence of adjacent tidal and saline surface water. ESI developed a model using the FEFLOW code to represent the groundwater flow conditions at the site. This was used to assess likely well yields and help plan the well installation and pumping test. Thermal modelling was also undertaken to ensure the abstraction / injection holes were sufficiently far apart to prevent thermal transfer.
CASE STUDY: Groundwater flooding in the Middle East A rising water table is posing problems for the major infrastructure projects currently under construction in Doha, Qatar. Large-scale development, leaks from older infrastructure, recirculation of treated sewage effluent to ground and sea water intrusion have resulted in a rising water table under much of the surrounding area. In 2015 Qatar Rail was forced to halt the tunnelling works of Doha Metro’s Red Line due to ‘flooding’ which damaged a tunnel boring machine. Meanwhile construction works of residential complexes in some areas of Doha are being adversely affected due to a shallow and rising water table causing rising damp and flooding of service trenches. In response the national Public Works Authority (Ashghal) is developing a strategy to control shallow groundwater. This will be part of a plan to develop an Integrated Drainage Master Plan for the State of Qatar. The Master Plan will provide an integrated decision framework for future investment into water and wastewater treatment, groundwater management, surface water and treated wastewater effluent infrastructure for the next 50 years.
CASE STUDY: Groundwater flooding of the A303 at Deptford, Wiltshire The A303 trunk road provides a key strategic route between the M3 near Basingstoke and the A30 near Honiton in Devon, which in turn links to the M5 at Exeter. Following an extended period of heavy rainfall during winter 2014/15, large volumes of groundwater began to run off from adjacent agricultural land onto the eastbound A303 just west of its junction with the A36. Due to the exceptionally high groundwater levels in the area, and the rate of flow onto the eastbound carriageway, the floodwater overwhelmed the road's drainage system. The eastbound carriageway was closed to traffic on 9th January and eastbound traffic was diverted into Salisbury and then back to the A303, adding 12 miles to road users’ journeys. The Highways Agency established a contraflow on the westbound carriageway, allowing traffic to remain on the A303 and travel through the scene in both directions and this remained in place until 21 January, when the groundwater flows had reduced sufficiently to allow the eastbound A303 to safely reopen, some 12 days after it had closed.
Recommendations The case studies in this paper have illustrated the wide range of situations in which a clear understanding of the shallow groundwater system was needed in order to make the correct engineering decisions to achieve the problem holder’s objectives for a site. Engineers need to be aware of the potential project risks relating to the interaction of shallow groundwater with proposed works and to manage these risks appropriately. The following hierarchy of investigations would assist in this process: •
Initial desk studies (commercially available on line)
Inputs from an experienced hydrogeologist into design and interpretation of site investigation data. In particular, groundwater investigations need to be considered into the context of wider, off site groundwater flow systems
More detailed quantitative investigations including use of groundwater models;
Pragmatic approaches to dealing with the inevitable uncertainties based again on experience and judgement.
References 1. https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Lovell16 2. For example, the recent (2016) House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Report on ‘Future flood prevention’ does not mention the word ‘groundwater’ once. 3. Due to the capillary effect this is normally some distance (a few millimetres in gravels to several metres in clay or chalk) above the level to which water levels rise within boreholes: the piezometric surface or water table. 4. e.g. http://www.camden.gov.uk/theme/fc-sw2/ccm/content/environment/ planning-and-built-environment/two/planning-applications/making-an-application/ supporting-documentation/basement-developments/basement-developments. en;jsessionid=E6A6B87883E59CCFBCE50282DF0D1DEB 5. E.g. http://www.groundwateruk.org/Ground-source-heating-and-cooling.aspx 6. E.g. http://geosmartinfo.co.uk/services/gwflood/ Bibliography Birks, D., Whittall, S., Savill, I. Younger P L. and Parkin G. 2013 Groundwater cooling of a large building using a shallow alluvial aquifer in Central London. QJEGH 46, 189-202 Lerner, D. N. 1990 Groundwater Recharge in Urban Areas in Hydrological Processes and Water Management in Urban Areas (Proceedings of the Duisberg Symposium, April 1988). IAHS Publ. no. 198, 1990. Macdonald, D M J, Hall, R, Carden, D, Dixon, A, Cheetham, M, Cornick, S, and Clegg, M. 2007. Investigating the interdependencies between surface and groundwater in the Oxford area to help predict the timing and location of groundwater flooding and to optimise flood mitigation measures. Proceedings of 42nd Defra Flood and Coastal Management Conference. Macdonald, D M J, Dixon, A, Newell, A J, and Hallaways, A. 2012. Groundwater flooding within an urbanised flood plain. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 5, 68-80. Price, M., 1996 Introducing Groundwater Psychology Press
The Institute of Water was founded in 1945 and is the only professional body which caters exclusively for the UK water sector. Our vision is for the UK water industry to be served by the best people. Our aim is to inspire our members to reach their potential through learning, networking and professional development.
Our members are committed to the water industry and its customers, to our vision and values and to developing their careers. We are inclusive and non-hierarchical and our members are drawn from water companies, suppliers, contractors, consultants and regulators. Membership offers anyone who works in water (regardless of their qualifications or discipline/department) the opportunity to broaden their knowledge and develop within the sector.
Benefits of membership include: Professional Registration We are licensed to award Professional Registration in Engineering (Chartered Engineer, Incorporated Engineer, and Engineering Technician), Science (Chartered Scientist, Registered Scientist and Registered Science Technician) and Environment (Chartered Environmentalist and Registered Environmental Technician).
Events We offer a range of events all over the UK on a variety of water sector topics. These events are a combination of technical visits, conferences, lunch and learns and social events, all presenting an opportunity to meet and network with top people from inside and outside the water sector. These events are often free or offer a discounted rate to members.
Mentoring Our Mentoring Programme aims to unlock potential, support career goals and develop talent in the water industry. Mentors and mentees benefit both personally and professionally from this involvement and it is a great way of developing links with people and companies beyond your current employer.
Other benefits •
An online CPD platform for planning and recording career development
A quarterly Magazine to keep up to date with water sector and Institute news as well as case studies and features on topical issues
Opportunities to enter a range of water sector-specific awards
Our brand new Institute of Water Journal, launched in the Spring of 2017 and published twice a year
Introducing our editorial panel Robin Price CSci Vice President Science, Institute of Water Head of Water Quality, Anglian Water Robin’s career in the water industry began in 1992 when he started a PhD at the University of Birmingham researching the impact of ozone treatment on algal-laden water and downstream water treatment processes. The PhD was sponsored by Anglian Water and, at the end of his studies, Robin was offered a 1 month contract by their Innovation team looking at the biology of activated carbon adsorbers.
Over 20 years later, Robin’s scientific career at Anglian Water has taken him through the research and development, regulatory and operational teams, and Robin is currently Head of Water Quality, responsible for process science, public health liaison, water quality risk management along with water quality policy, strategy and regulation within the Water Services directorate. Robin’s role on the Institute of Water Board is to champion the professional development of scientists across the industry, particularly focused on developing Chartered Scientist and associated qualifications, working closely with the Science Council. Robin also chairs the Institute’s Membership and Standards Committee, and is the Board Diversity Champion.
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
Ian Barker CEnv Vice President Environment, Institute of Water Managing Director, Water Policy International Ian Barker is Water Policy International Ltd’s founder and Managing Director. With over 35 years’ experience in the water sector he identified the need for an independent consultancy able to cover the spectrum from policy formulation through to practical, integrated water management solutions and for an independent, authoritative voice on water policy and strategy. Ian has worked within the water industry since before privatisation in 1989, when he opted for a career with the environmental regulator, rather than with one of the privatised companies. Since then, in a range of senior national roles at the Environment Agency, he aimed to ensure that the water companies (and others) could deliver environmental protection and improvement, whilst still reconciling their wider responsibilities. Ian is a Visiting Professor at the University of Exeter’s Centre for Water Systems, and is an Expert Advisor to the OECD on water governance, regulation and management.
CEng Vice President Engineering, Institute of Water
Marcus Rink CSci Chief Inspector, Drinking Water Inspectorate Marcus Rink was appointed as the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water in August 2015 after thirteen years with the Drinking Water Inspectorate at all levels. As Chief Inspector he provides independent scrutiny of the water industry ensuring the safety and quality of water and public confidence through a robust regulatory framework. His role encompasses a range of statutory and nonstatutory functions, discharging the duties of the Secretary of State and the Welsh Government to ensure companies meet their regulatory requirements and Local Authorities take action in respect of private supplies. His career spans over 30 years with the Health Authority, ADAS, Public Analysts, Analytical Laboratories and the DWI providing a diverse insight into management, regulation, enforcement, health and the technical aspects of drinking water. Marcus is a member of the EU expert group advising on the Drinking Water Directive, the advisory EU microbiology expert group and the Chair of the Standing Committee of Analysts who produce independent methodology for water and environmental laboratories.
Prof Dragan Savic FREng, CEng Professor of Hydroinformatics, University of Exeter
Sam is a graduate of Queen’s University Belfast. In 1981 he joined Ferguson McIlveen LLP, Consulting Engineers and worked mainly on water engineering projects, becoming an Associate in the firm in 1988 and a Partner in 1992. He became a Director with Scott Wilson when it acquired Ferguson McIlveen in 2006 and when URS acquired Scott Wilson in 2010 he became Director responsible for Water & Infrastructure Engineering. Sam has over 30 years’ experience as a consulting engineer and has worked on a wide variety of projects in UK, Ireland, Africa and the Russian Far East. He is married and has one daughter. Sam is now retired and in addition to his work for the Institute of Water, is a Board member of the North West Zambia Development Trust and a passionate advocate for its work.
Lynn Cooper CPFA, CEnv Chief Executive, Institute of Water Lynn left her native Glasgow in 1983 with an Accountancy degree and qualified as an accountant with Sunderland and South Shields Water Company in 1987. She remained with the company when it became North East Water then Northumbrian Water until January 1997 when she moved to the Institute of Water as General Secretary. She was appointed as Chief Executive and a Board Member in December 2007. Lynn is a Founding Director of the Society for the Environment, where she served as Treasurer for 8 years, and is a Chartered Environmentalist. In her spare time Lynn coaches middle to long distance runners and enjoys helping people to be the best they can.
Professor Savic is the UK’s first Professor of Hydroinformatics, having held this post at the University of Exeter since 2001. His research interests cover the interdisciplinary field of Hydroinformatics, informatics/computer science and environmental engineering. Applications are generally in the environmental engineering/science areas, including water resources management, flood management, water & wastewater systems and environmental protection & management. Professor Savic has lectured extensively throughout the UK and abroad where he has given research presentations at many institutions on all continents. He is currently a Visiting Professor at the Universities of Bari (Italy) and Belgrade (Serbia), UNESCOIHE (Delft, The Netherlands) and Harbin Institute of Technology (Harbin, China). Professor Savic is a founder and co-director of the Centre for Water Systems, an internationally recognised group for excellence in water and environmental science research. He is a Chartered Civil and Water Engineer with over thirty years’ experience in research, teaching and consulting.
Find out more at instituteofwater.org.uk
WE ACHIEVE MORE
INSTITUTE OF WATER
AN N U A L CONF E R E NCE 1 5 | 1 6 J UNE 2 017 BOOK NOW
CHETHAMS SCHOOL OF MUSIC, MANCHESTER CHAIRED BY THOMAS FAULKNER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, SKANSKA 58 |
INSTITUTE OF WATER JOURNAL ISSUE 1
Institute of Water 4 Carlton Court Team Valley Gateshead NE11 0AZ Tel: 0191 422 0088 @instwater www.instituteofwater.org.uk 60 |