No Further Information Available.

This project will address key issues in order to meet the outcome “Ownership and responsibility for water quality is clear and all part their part in its protection”. The project will improve our understanding of the complex chemistry which underlies the control of lead solubility.  Recent developments in analytical instrumentation open up a number of avenues to enhance the industry's understanding of the surface chemistry which facilitates compliance or causes failure.

The drinking water and environmental regulators have stated that they see the main effort to improve water quality / quantity to be based at a catchment level. This will aid the minimisation of algae, pesticides and colour in the raw water sources which in turn will minimise issues water companies face from taste & odour contacts.

The previous UKWIR project, “Quantifying the benefits of Catchment Management” was undertaken over 5 years ago and the project “Catchment Management – how do we know its worked” was started in 2015/16 but put on hold indefinitely. Catchment management has gained traction since then with some companies making great progress. The time is right for a review of the evidence, for or against, catchment management.

The development of phytoplankton in water supply reservoirs across the UK can cause severe treatment problems at water treatment works, resulting in a loss of output, increased treatment cost and, in extreme cases, threatening the continuity/resilience of water supply. Events of this nature are, however, relatively infrequent and may not occur for many years. This makes it difficult to plan for them and/or to maintain continuity in the measures required to reduce their risk and react to problems when they occur. In addition, continuity in monitoring and maintenance of records to assess the risk of these events is difficult to maintain.

As a result, water companies may be unprepared for extreme phytoplankton blooms and therefore not deal with them in the most efficient and effective way. This situation is unsatisfactory because there is an ongoing risk to continuity of water supply to customers, the primary legal obligation of water companies. Furthermore, the risk of these extreme events is likely to increase as there is a growing  body of evidence that suggests that algal blooms are occurring at times of the year when they have never or rarely been seen before and they are lasting longer, a possible result of climate change. If our changing climate is a driver for what we are seeing we need to establish clarity about the mechanisms involved in driving the change, so that we might understand just how bad a problem it might become.

 The Water Industry needs to ensure that the knowledge base to understand the risk of severe phytoplankton events affecting water treatment is improved.  It also needs to develop better planning proocedures to reduce the risk of these events and to manage them better when they occur. 

There is significant interest in the prevalence of nano-particles and microplastics entering the environment.

There is a lack of understanding for the water industry with regards to the occurrence, fate and behaviour of these particles during transport and Waste Water Treatment; once dischrged to the river system there is limited understanding of how these particles behave; if river water is abstracted down-stream there is a lack of knowledge around the occurrenceand degree of removal of these particles through water treatment processes.

No Further Information Available.

There is an increasing trend for water testing laboratories, and water supply companies, to send all microscope slides on which Cryptosporidium oocysts have been seen to the Cryptosporidium Reference Unit, Swansea, for genotyping (identification of species). An internal audit of results at the CRU has shown that there is a positive relationship between typeability and the number of oocysts seen on the slides. However, most slides received had just one oocyst, and these are only very rarely typeable to the required level by current methods. This is largely due to the small amount of Cryptosporidium DNA present.

The methodology employed currently for Cryptosporidium slide genotyping uses optimised, validated methods for removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts from slides and optimised DNA extraction and purification from low numbers of oocysts; these were developed and validated as part of WRF project 4099. The PCRs developed and validated at the CRU for the UK water industry have been shown to be sensitive and specific for the detection and differentiation of all Cryptosporidium species and specifically C. parvum and C. hominis. For slides containing greater numbers of oocysts, the current strategy for unravelling mixed populations of Cryptosporidium spp. on a slide – by means of multiple PCRs each using small volumes of DNA samples - is successful, with a high rate of typeability and more than one species frequently detected. However, more recently there has been a trend for more slides with small numbers of oocysts to be submitted, and where there is a low amount of target DNA in the sample (from <5 oocysts), the strategy is less successful and a single, large volume assay may be more appropriate. The challenge is to design an assay that provides the required level of typing, and to introduce as much target DNA as possible in to the PCR mix without compromising the chemistry of the assay.

Due to the high demand the increased submission of slides with small numbers of oocysts places on laboratory resources, generating little in return by way of genotyping results, and following consultation with stakeholders, the CRU intends to temporarily withdraw the slide genotyping service for slides with <5 oocysts seen where these are not part of an outbreak or public health investigation of a water quality incident. This will allow staff to undertake the research and development work described below to improve typeability and sensitivity, while retaining specificity, for the future. This approach has been discussed with DWI and the Industry and accepted as a proportionate approach, facilitating the delivery of an improved methodology and service for the future.

UKWIR has undertaken an ambitious programme to define longer term, strategic research needs in key areas via its Big Questions initiative.  Drinking water quality (DWQ) is the third such area to be developed.  

Drinking water quality is of key importance to public health and provision of safe drinking water has been recognised as one of the greatest technological advances of the last century.  The future challenges in DWQ include: raw water quality deterioration due to climate change and related factors, increasing expectations of quality from both the public and the regulators, energy efficiency in treatment, and delivering quality with aging infrastructure. This review will consider all options for improving DWQ from catchment to tap and identify the most appropriate interventions.

A research programme for DWQ must consider improvements to existing drinking water infrastructure to maintain water quality in the face of source water degradation and limited resources - particularly in the short term – but then identify the potential possible shifts in the current drinking water infrastructure paradigm that might include partially- or fully-decentralised treatment, delivery of different grades of water quality, new materials, and innovative treatment processes in the longer term.

Both Ofwat and the Environment Agency (EA) have said recently that they have some concerns with the current Sustainable Economic Level of Leakage (SELL) process for the setting of leakage targets.  The recent EA guidance on leakage for Water Resource Management Planning (WRMP19) says :

“There is increased realisation that SELL may not be the most effective way to plan leakage levels.  WRMP19 will be the final time that a leakage figure is derived from SELL.  We expect water companies to evolve and move away from SELL for WRMP24 and to innovate to reduce leakage beyond the current levels”.

 The Ofwat consultation document on outcomes for PR19 (February 2017) expresses a different view :

“Companies should report their SELL in business plans, explain their assumptions on future improvements in leakage reduction efficiency in the SELL, and explain how its Performance Commitment for leakage is appropriate in relation to SELL”. 

 There is a strong feeling amongst companies that leakage targets should continue to be based on a sound economic analysis.  However, the cost of leakage management relationship for SELL modelling is derived from analysis of the company’s own historical leakage management performance data.  It is therefore a valid criticism of this process that if a company has been historically inefficient, then this inefficiency becomes built into the SELL.

In the UK, there is approximately 50,000km of Asbestos Cement (AC) water mains, 60% of which have been in service for over 50 years, the majority (approximately 66%) being small diameter, 100mm or less. With time, it has been noted that the failure rate of AC mains is increasing, demanding the need of replacement which can cost around £5 billion.

Several studies have identified that the principal failure mechanism of AC water mains is:
- exposure to conveyed water that has an aggressive nature, typically low alkalinity
- exposure to aggressive soils, typically low pH
- failure of the joints, typically due to microbial attack on the natural rubber joint rings

All of the above deterioration mechanisms are directly proportional to time, i.e., the longer the exposure, the greater the level of deterioration. Whilst there may be opportunities to extend the life of such pipes through lining and pressure management, these interventions are unlikely to be a success due to the small diameter and long-term exposure to the aggressive conditions that has already taken place.

If the level of AC main failures (pipe and joints) continue to increase, this will impact on the number of interruptions to supply and levels of leakage.

This project will be a collaborative project with the Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA).

It is estimated that about 25% of the leakage within a water distribution network is located on a customer's property and occurs within the pipe that is not the responsibility of the Water Companies. However, this is still included in the leakage figures that water companies report to regulators.

The customers can be divided into household and non- household. For household customers, water companies offer a range of solutions from providing free advice to free repairs. There is limited understanding of how these different policies ultimately impact on reported leakage levels and overall cost to the business. For non household customers, water companies don't provide free repair services as a part of their standard customer leakage policy. However, with the opening of retail market, communication with non-household customers has become difficult, slowing down the leak repair and increasing the level of leakage.

Water Companies are also increasingly installing smart metering which identify leaks with very low flowrates. This has challenged the industry to find such small leaks, which are not cost effective to repair, and can be difficult to locate.

No Further Information Available.

No Further Information Available.

No Further Information Available.

Distribution Maintenance staff at water companies know well that many leaks and bursts, once excavated, prove to be at the location of a previous repair, and occur as a result of a failure of the old repair. However it is not known how much data is collected on this, and there is no quantitative evidence of the magnitude or significance of this problem at national level. Nor has there been any study of the reasons for the failures, i.e. whether they are due to deterioration of the clamp or other repair materials over time, or whether they are caused by faulty workmanship at the time of the initial repair.

Many companies do record the types of failure within their records of mains and service bursts. However these descriptions are often very brief (e.g. “pin-hole”), and the fact that the failure was at a previous repair may not be recorded. This project will initially assess the availability of suitable data, in collaboration with participating water companies. The UKWIR National Mains Failure Database may also be a valuable source of data.

No Further Information Available.

Modern technology has made it possible to collect much greater quantities of data, and at higher resolution. Leakage analysis methods and leak detection technology have both made many advances in recent years, but data collection and manipulation processes have hardly changed. The basic principle of measuring minimum night flow into a DMA, and then subtracting estimates of household and non-household night use to give leakage, remains unchanged in the past 30 years.

However the recent growth in smart networks, and particularly the use of smart meters for revenue purposes, could offer many new opportunities for better leakage management. It is essential that these opportunities and benefits are identified now, so that water companies can take them into account when making their choices of which smart technologies to invest in.

The preparation of strategic water resource plans[1] requires several supporting environmental assessments to be undertaken alongside plan development. A water company must determine if its plan falls within the scope of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive and/or requires Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). The plan must also be able to demonstrate that implemnation of  it would not cause a deterioration in waterbody classification and/or demonstrate that it would not preclude the delivery of measures to facilitate the improvements needed to attain good status, as required under the Water Framework Directive (WFD).  Drought plans also require consideration under the SEA Directive and Habitats Regulations, although WFD assessments are usually undertaken as part of the ‘shelf-copy’ drought permit/order environmental assessments prepared in support of the drought plan in line with regulatory guidance.

 Relevant UKWIR guidance relating to SEA and HRA of WRMPs and drought plans[2] was last updated in 2012. Since then, there have been several developments in regulator guidance and current best practice (including a revision to Environment Agency drought plan guidance anticipated in late 2019), and several important Habitats Directive rulings with implications for strategic water resource plans in particular, including the 2018 ‘People over Wind’ judgment[3]. The requirement to prepare a stand-alone WFD assessment is an additional requirement since the 2012 UKWIR guidance was published.

 There is an increasing move to use an Ecosystem Services (ESS) approach to environmental valuation. An UKWIR project in 2016[4] reviewed the potential benefits of ESS/Natural Capital Accounting (NCA) approaches and made some recommendations for future implementation, but at time of writing these had not been taken forward.

 Clearly with increased focus on development of water trading and regional transfer schemes, it is crucial that environmental assessments of strategic water resource plans for both regional and company level plans adopt the same methodology, baseline environmental data collation and approach to environmental valuation to allow direct comparison of intra- or inter- company or region water resource options. This applies to all aspects of assessment including SEA, HRA, WFD and ESS/NCA. This would require an update to the current UKWIR SEA and HRA guidance, and development of standard methodology for WFD and NCA/ESS assessments for strategic water resource plans. It is essential that the regulators are fully involved in the project steering group to ensure they are signed up to the approaches and guidance developed at a National level[5]. 

 Drought plans are different to strategic water resource plans in that they do not comprise a preferred plan or programme of water resource options, but rather a basket of measures that will be considered for implementation during a future drought event. The measures selected and the programme will depend on other factors including the timing, duration and spatial extent of the dry weather event experienced. The drought plan SEA Environmental Report is therefore a comparative assessment of the environmental effects of implementing each drought option, which should be used to review the potential environmental impacts of implementing supply side or drought permit/order options should they be progressed in the future. However, although a fundamental requirement of the Directive (and demonstrated by the SEA post-adoption statement) there is a need for better integration of SEA into the decision making process for both drought plan implementation and strategic water resource plan preferred programme selection.