Pressure is mounting for the establishment of inland bathing waters and for the 'right to swim in all waters'. The conventional approach to achieving standards for faecal indicators organisms in receiving waters is disinfection of effluents - usually with UV. Equally, one of the possible responses to the perceived risk posed by antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARBs) in effluent might also be to provide disinfection. This project will assume some scenarios and develop possible national costs, both for totex and carbon

Environmental Regulators are starting to move towards more ‘end of pipe’ permitting of hazardous substances. For example, investment cycles, specifically AMP8 will see the introduction of nanogram level limits on Cypermethrin and microgram limits on some very hard to remove dissolved metals. 

The Chemical Investigations Programme have identified the presence of hazardous substances in sewage (and biosolids). CIP4 requires further monitoring for an expanded range of substances with the potential to identify a wider range of chemicals at levels that have the potential to negatively impact the environment.

The CIP has monitored only a fraction of the tens of thousands of chemicals used at home and in the industry, and the market keeps growing.  Once these chemicals enter the environment, the impact is varied and poorly understood.  

Technology trials conducted under CIP2 revealed that many of these hazardous chemicals are very difficult to remove and the technologies themselves are very expensive. Furthermore, no single technology would remove all the chemicals of concern and many simply transferred the chemicals of concern from effluent to biosolids, thereby moving the problem not resolving it.

Given these challenges, focus needs to be given on how to develop improved source and pathway control measures. Key to this is improving our understanding of where hazardous chemicals are coming from, and who should pay for the improved monitoring needed to deliver this. Limited evidence collected as part of previous rounds of CIP does show that some trade effluents contain hazardous substances not listed on trade effluent consents, genenally due to the fact that the discharger had no reason to suspect that the chemicals in question would be present. There is therefore a knowledge gap between what is routinely sampled for and what may be present.

The Environment Agency is starting to move towards more ‘end of pipe’ permitting of hazardous substances. For example, AMP8 will see the introduction of nanogram level limits on Cypermethrin and microgram limits on some very hard to remove dissolved metals. 

The 3 rounds of the Chemical Investigations Programme have identified the presence of a number of hazardous substances in sewage (and biosolids). CIP4 will monitor for an expanded range of substances and will find more at levels that give rise to environmental concerns.

Technology trials conducted under CIP2 revealed that many of these hazardous chemicals are very difficult to remove and the technologies themselves are very expensive. Furthermore, no single technology would remove all the chemicals of concern and many simply transferred the chemicals of concern from effluent to biosolids, thereby moving the problem not resolving it.

If we are unable to develop improved source and pathway control measures, then our only option for managing new chemicals permit limits is going to be expensive end of pipe treatment.

Wastewater treatment works are predominately regulated by imposing ‘end of pipe’ solutions.  The Environmental Regulators have in recent years been looking at a more flexible approach, particularly around hazardous chemical, nutrients etc.  The Environment Agency are setting up a permitting ‘sand box’ where potential permitting ideas can be entered by water companies for consideration with the EA assessing if these ideas meet their key tests in that are they legal, understandable and enforceable.

Work has been done by water companies in the area of ‘flexible’ and ‘stretch’ consenting with varying success. Consideration is also being given to consenting timescales, to avoid revisiting works again and again through consecutive investment cycles.

Does the move to real time operational and water quality data, allow other permitting options to now be considered?  There is less known about how other countries approach these permits and we can undoubtedly learn from their experiences.

Some criticism has been directed at Environmental Regulators who may not have considered the overall environmental impact of new consents being introduced and exploring this in more detail with examples would be beneficial.

There appears to be different fundamental approaches adopted by environmental regulators across the world, which tend to be a precautionary or prevention focused.  Understanding more about these varying approaches across the world is also valuable.

There is a clear link to the other project being proposed in this cycle, ‘C04 - Source and pathway control’, and knowledge sharing needs to take place to make sure both projects can deliver their objectives.

Environmental Regulators are starting to move towards more ‘end of pipe’ permitting of hazardous substances. For example, investment cycles, specifically AMP8 will see the introduction of nanogram level limits on Cypermethrin and microgram limits on some very hard to remove dissolved metals.

The 3 rounds of the Chemical Investigations Programme have identified the presence of certain hazardous substances in sewage and biosolids. CIP4 will monitor for an expanded range of substances and will potentially find more, at levels that give rise to environmental concerns.

Technology trials conducted under CIP2 revealed that many of these hazardous chemicals are very difficult to remove from sewage effluent using ‘end of pipe’ processes and the technologies themselves are very expensive. Furthermore, no single technology would remove all the chemicals of concern and many simply transferred the chemicals of concern from effluent to biosolids, thereby moving the problem not resolving it.

If we are unable to develop improved source and pathway control measures, then our only option for managing new chemicals permit limits is going to be expensive end of pipe treatment.

One option for reducing the chemical burden on sewage works and, ultimately, the environment is to remove substances of concern at point of entry into the sewer. The premise of this proposal is that there are technologies that could be deployable to treat low volume inputs that would be completely impractical to install at a sewage works

Water companies are facing a 'perfect storm': After a wet winter, storm overflows are very high on the political agenda; Wild swimmers expect better protection, and pressure mounts for more inland bathing waters; the Covid-19 pandemic has generated massive interest, not just in pathogen surveillance but in the 'risk' attached to discharges, both continuous and intermittent; there remains interest in revising standards for bathing and shellfish waters, to recognise pathogens rather than indicators; qPCR is now a routine approach for detecting the signal of any organism; the spread of antimicrobial resistance through wastewater and biosolids, although unproven in scale, also sits high on the agenda; reuse schemes are a larger part of water resource management, be it for potable or agricultural use; and the microbial quality of biosolids will always be of concern to stakeholders and regulators.

Do we understand this evolving framework and how should we respond? We are, after all, primarily concerned with the protection of public health - is gaining a better understanding of this an area we should be more active in promoting? How would we respond if challenged to reduce the perceived 'risk'? Do we even know if there is a 'risk'?