Water Industry Chemical Investigations –CIP1

£25 million - 46 chemicals, 16 sanitary/BLM dets, 0.75 million data points

Effluent screening -162 sewage works; 5000 samples

Process sampling - 26 sewage works; 5000 samples

Sewerage catchment sampling - 8 catchments; 8000 samples

10 pilot studies & 14 supporting technical investigations

Effluent

Comprehensive characterisation

Identified highest risk chemicals

Log normality distribution confirmed

Current treatment

Already impressive removal

Differences between ASP & PFs

Other factors too – loading, operation

Advanced treatment

No single treatment tech effective for all

subs

Metals most challenging

Estimates of financial & carbon costs

Sources to sewer

Generally domestic dominated

With some specific trade influences

Water Industry Chemical Investigations CIP2

c£90 millionEffluent impact assessment - 600 sewage works; environment u/s & d/s; 5 years; 55,000 samples

Process sampling - 45 sewage works; 2000 samples including emerging subs

Treatment options - 10 large scale CIP1 demos, 3 pilots of innovative tech

Catchment studies - 5 catchments; all key sectors; explore catchment solutions

Technical investigations – including sludge disposal characterisation

Environmental impact

Evidence of impact

PR19 & PR24 planning

Options for treatment

Practical experience of operational

control

More robust costing base

Emerging subs & current treatment

20 pharmaceuticals

Catchment

Multiple pollutants with multiple sources

and multiple interventions with differing

results across substances

Are catchment solutions possible?

Role of end-of-pipe & source control

The Chemicals’ Strategy

• Developed with Defra

• Framework to choose the best intervention / combination of interventions

• Promotes source control and waste management

• Evidence based decisions – obtain better evidence where needed

• A focus on new and emerging issues

• Strategy applied in PR19

4

CIP3 Investigations – PR19• Number of investigations planned in PR19 to build on the work in

CIP2. These compliment and build on previous CIP investigations.

• Investigations designed by a collaboration between the water companies and many Environment Agency teams– water quality, groundwater, contaminated land, marine, and evidence.

• These help implement or inform the strategy

• These investigations will have implications for PR24 and beyond

• Planned investigations include:

• Monitoring of chemicals in discharges to ground and TraC waters

• Investigation of chemical concentrations and fate in sludge

• Monitoring of long-term trends in chemical concentrations

• Studies of microplastics and anti-microbial resistance in sewage effluents

• Studies of sewage catchments to determine sources of specific chemicals

• Studies of chemical removal by new and existing technologies

5

1. Groundwater Investigations

• Is the chemical composition of groundwater

discharges different to those to surface

water?

• Higher BOD equates to higher chemical

concentrations. However, these discharges

are unlikely to have a high trade content or

receive high amounts of urban runoff.

• Six samples (both effluent & groundwater)

over 18 months

• Minimum of three sites per company

6

Discharges to TraCWFD_INV_CHEM2

• Is the chemical composition of TraC discharges different to those to

surface water?

• BOD is typically higher in these discharges, so chemical

concentrations may be expected to be higher.

• In addition, some large traders and/or traders with effluents of different

composition discharge to TraC waters.

• Discharges also often have large volumes, so daily loads of chemicals

may be expected to be higher than many discharges to surface

waters.

• Effluent-only monitoring of all >25000 PE direct discharges into six

‘high risk’ estuaries as identified by the Environment Agency. Monthly

monitoring for 18 months for chemicals causing EQS failures in those

estuaries, or of widespread concern in estuaries.

7

Trend MonitoringWFD_MON_CHEM

Is source control reducing the concentrations of these substances over time?

Is the reduction significant and/or likely to continue?

Are any other controls of some/all substances needed?

Monitoring of five discharges per company, including one TraC and one from CIP1 and/or CIP2.

Influent and effluent spot sampling at operator self-monitoring (OSM) frequency.

Monitoring for the full five years of PR19 and to be subject to further funding in PR24 and beyond.

8

AMR WFD_INV_CHEM3

• £2 million programme of investigations into changes in abundance of AMR genes through wastewater and sludge treatment processes.

• Are AMR genes in water company effluents an issue and do they need to be controlled?

9

6. MicroplasticsWFD_INV_CHEM5

£1million programme of investigations into changes in abundance of microplastics through wastewater and sludge treatment processes.

Are microplastics in water company effluents an issue and do they need to be controlled?

10

Innovative Pathway ControlWFD_INV_CHEM4

• Five companies have proposed projects under this driver. e.g:

• Can sustainable prescribing reduce the level of pharmaceuticals reaching our sewage treatment works and the environment, avoiding or reducing the need to install costly and energy intensive additional treatment processes?

• Can cypermethrin discharges be reduced through engagement with users such as veterinary, equine, livestock, and agricultural college sites?

11

Catchment InvestigationsWFD_INV_CHEM6

• Investigations for HBCDD, cypermethrin and PFOSinstead of having permit limits in PR19

• Concentrations are frequently high across the country but not in all locations, so sewer catchment investigations will attempt to find sources and look at options for control.

• In addition, PFOS river surveys will be carried out to try and identify sources other than WwTW.

• Is there a difference between rural and urban catchments?

• Are domestic and/or trade inputs significant?

12

Sludge InvestigationsWFD_INV_CHEM67

Does sludge treatment effectively remove the sampled chemicals?

Do different sludge treatment processes have different levels of removal? Are some more effective than others?

Are any chemicals exceeding Regulatory standards or a cause for concern at the point of disposal to land?

Monthly sampling of sludge processes at same sites used for CIP2 sludge investigations for 18 months. Sampling at entry to sludge treatment and at point of disposal to land.

13

Effluent and river monitoring for TBT, DEHP and Triclosan

• Investigations to monitor levels of these substances which have shown a decline between CIP1 and CIP2

• Data will be used for PR24 permitting decisions

• Sampling at works where permit limits would currently be required

WFD_INV_CHEM9 and WFD_INV_CHEM10

14

Monitoring of Chemical Removal by Installed Technologies

Expand on the findings of the F&P trials in CIP2 and provide further data to increase confidence in the removal rates of chemicals by different types of technology. No optimisation of the works for chemicals is required.

How effective are different types of technology at removing different chemicals?

What affects removal rates e.g. influent concentrations, retention times, temperature?

Are some types of technology more effective at removing large numbers of chemicals?

Companies to sample a combination of plants which:are currently operating, or

are being installed in AMP6 to remove P

WFD_INV_CHEM11

15

Mechanisms of Chemical Removal

Mechanisms of chemical removal, building on the work in the F&P trials. For example:

Are chemicals broken down or are they moved into sludge?

Is chemical removal by steel slag media associated with elevated pH?

Why do different installations of the same technology e.g. sand filters remove chemicals better than others?

Understanding of how chemicals are partitioned

Optimisation of some technologies

WFD_INV_CHEM12

16

Technical infeasibility investigationsWFD_INV_CHEM13

Investigations into source of substances or optimisation of existing treatment, where achievement of the permit limit, or a significant proportion of it, is not technically feasible

17

Any Questions?