Standards & Regulations Group
You may remember the stink (pun intended) there was last year about sewage discharges into rivers lakes, and bathing waters. There was public ‘outrage’ at the increase in discharge incidents whilst water company directors were getting large bonuses. In February 2024 Ofwat, directed by the Environment Agency, announced that they would be undertaking a consultation on banning bonus payments for directors where serious criminal breaches had occurred, such as successful prosecution for a Category 1 or 2 pollution incident. Consultation has gone a bit quiet since then; perhaps other things, such as a periodic review and a general election, have diverted attention? However, we can see that the EA and Ofwat are taking sewage ‘dumping’ seriously as shown, on 6th August, by the significant fines (totalling £168m) to be imposed on Thames, Yorkshire and Northumbrian Water, with further water companies under investigation.
On the same day (11th July) that the Ofwat draft determinations were published, one of the first actions of Steve Reed, the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was a ‘roundtable’ with water company Chief Executives. The word ‘discussion’ that normally appears after ‘roundtable’ is notably absent and the Defra statement following the meeting was strongly worded:
“…The new Government will force water companies to tackle illegal sewage dumping into our rivers, lakes and seas. Firm action should have been taken much earlier to ensure money was spent on fixing the sewage system, not syphoned off for bonuses and dividends….”
Earlier, Ofwat had published the draft determinations for AMP 8 headlining on their website “Ofwat sets out record £88 billion upgrade to deliver cleaner rivers and seas, and better services for customers” and highlighting “Investment of £10bn to tackle storm overflows with a target to reduce spills from storm overflows by 44% from levels in 2021”.
So how is King Charles III involved?
He’s not directly. However, the King’s Speech at the State Opening of Parliament set out the new Labour government’s priorities for the months ahead. This included bills on workers’ rights, the renationalisation of the railways, illegal immigration, housing and planning and House of Lords reform. Also included was the Water (Special Measures) Bill:
“This bill will deliver on Labour’s manifesto pledge of cracking down on water companies that don’t deliver for customers or pollute rivers, lakes and seas…. ensuring water bosses face personal criminal liability for lawbreaking, giving the water regulator powers to ban bonus payments… and real-time monitors installed at sewage outlets to be independently scrutinised.” (highlighting is mine)
On the face of it, monitoring looks like a really good first step – after all it has been said “If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it.”
The EA claims that Event Duration Monitoring (EDM) has been installed at 100% of storm overflows (although this percentage is disputed in an ENDs report, because of unrecognised overflows, definition of active overflows, etc.). The data for 2023 has been collected and released – apparently the 54% increase in spills (2023 vs 2022) is excusable due to the wetter weather! Perhaps more concerning is that the average number of spills per overflow was 33; more ammunition for Feargal Sharkey?
We will now see the focus move to ‘emergency overflows’ at wastewater treatment works. These are supposed to operate only when the Flow to Full Treatment (FFT) is exceeded and the storm tanks are already full. The fines on the 6th August reflect the operational underperformance of some treatment works and the frequency of illegal discharges. Currently there are nearly 7000 unmonitored emergency overflows; the EA plan is for 25% of these to be monitored between 2025 and 2030, with 100% monitoring by 2050. Ofwat took these targets (and the improvements to the sewage infrastructure) into account in the draft determinations.
EDM monitoring is clearly key to understanding the problem and inform what steps need to be taken, and where. But how do the industry and the regulator ensure that monitoring is producing reliable data? This is where we come to MCERTS.
If you’ve not heard of MCERTS, it is the Environment Agency’s Monitoring Certification Scheme for emissions that could pollute the air, water or land and it covers equipment, personnel and organisations. Any business that has an environmental permit will be required to have certification to MCERTS standards. From 1st April 2025, all new and replacement EDMs at wastewater treatment plants must be MCERTS certified.
Development of MCERTS for water was driven by the EA and the standards were drawn up by industry stakeholders, including FWA member WRC. The multiple standards cover product certification, site certification, operator assessment and independent inspection and should mean that monitoring data can inform the required improvement of priority discharges. I won’t go through the whole process here, but it is very detailed and thorough.
Of course, there are concerns:
- Currently, only one make of EDM monitor has MCERTS certification, and that was only issued earlier this year. The cost (and time) may deter other EDM manufacturers from going through the certification process.
- It is known that, in the rush to install monitoring at storm overflows, non-certified flow meters have been used; it is estimated that at least 20% of sites may need to replace their monitoring system to achieve certification.
- Training schemes for operators and independent inspectors have been prepared but little training is being done. There is a real concern that there will not be sufficient resource to cover the incremental requirements in AMP8.
- Who pays? Water and sewer companies will bear the upfront cost of site certification and independent audits, and then the cost of sorting out deficient infrastructure. Of course, in the end, we all will pay through higher wastewater bills.
So, there is momentum, things are happening, but is it enough and is it fast enough? Are we, as a country, prepared to pay to fix all the legacy issues, which some attribute to the privatisation of the water industry?
Just as an end note: the regulators are coming down hard on the water companies; obviously sewage pollution has a high public (yuck) profile and perhaps the water companies have made themselves an easy target. There is potentially a much bigger problem long term when we look at the more insidious effect of diffuse pollution and how we can prevent it. Of particular concern are highway runoff outfalls, which are not monitored and are not required to have environmental permits. The CIWEM report “Highway runoff and the water environment” (May 2024) details the multiple poisonous and harmful substances in highway runoff, at concentrations orders of magnitude above the Environmental Quality Standards limits set under the Water Framework Directive (a nod to Jo Bradley who has been campaigning on this for years).
Any views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the position of the Future Water Association.
If you’d like to become more involved in standards work and influence the way that standards evolve in your area, get in touch with us at standards@futurewaterassociation.com