No. 12 - Unconsented discharges

This edition was inspired by a very nice message I received from a gentleman about dischargers who don't realise their wastewater is actually trade effluent. This did remind me of a time when one of my old employers (I'm looking at you United Utilities) decided that everything needed to have a highly descriptive title to make sure it was crystal clear what we were talking about. Out went the well-loved Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) description and in came Unsatisfactory Intermittent Discharges (UID), which sounds far too specialist and medical. Nobody was really keen on admitting they had a discharge that was both intermittent and unsatisfactory. Common sense prevailed and we all ignored the edict from Colin (it was law at UU at the time that you had to be called Colin to be a director or senior manager) and returned to calling them CSOs.

This made me think about conversations I've had with customers about the difference between describing wastewater and trade effluent. In particular, how do you know that what you are discharging is trade effluent (and hopefully satisfactorily non-intermittent)? How do you know you need permission to even discharge?

Known unknowns

Water and sewerage companies (WASCs) should have a complete database of all active trade effluent consents in their region. Trade effluent officers and any business account managers should visit premises regularly to review the site effluent situation, compliance and costs. There should, somewhere, be a sub-categories of trade effluent consent, perhaps organised by income, volume, COD load or some measure of debt or risk. One category that is somewhat nebulous is the "known unknown" tribe. There will always be traders who discharge but don't have a consent. Small car-washes that spring up. New tenants in industrial units who simply don't realise they need a consent. Rural businesses who don't realise that their wastewater is trade effluent. Water companies know these exist but sometimes don't know who or where they are. Here are three examples we have come across.

Water companies should make the effort to identify unknown dischargers

Example 1 - a small brewery

The client was a small brewery in a small village with a small treatment works two fields away. One day the water company decided to investigate high CODs and high solids at the works inlet. They discovered a well-known small brewery in the area had been discharging effluent for over ten years but without a consent. The owner had no idea they needed a consent. The water company knew the brewery existed (they supplied the water) but hadn't twigged a consent had not been issued. This was a failure on both sides that was resolved amicably.

Example 2 - a food manufacturer

This was a small food manufacturer (factory population = 2 + an itinerant cat) on a large industrial estate and sandwiched (pun intended) between two very large units. They had been discharging again for over ten years before a build-up of FOG in the drains outside betrayed their existence. They didn't know what a TE consent was and again the local water company supplied the site but had failed to spot the gap in TE regulation.

Example 3 - a biosciences company

An interesting one. The client felt that another agreement they had with the water company covered TE as part of the site's general wastewater discharge (it didn't and actually never had). They discharged around 20 m3/d for seven years before realising that a TE consent was needed when they did an internal review. The water company was aware the site existed but had not consented it.

Things slip through the net. No trade effluent database will be perfect. Some traders don't know about trade effluent consents.

These are only three examples of clients not realising they needed a consent but I've come across many others in seventeen years in TE. Most clients we've worked with have known or had some inkling that they needed to speak to "the water board" about discharges of non-domestic wastewater. I think that is down to maturity of TE legislation in the UK and the general diligence with which most traders make themselves aware of their environmental responsibilities.

If you area trader and you think your discharge is unconsented then bear in mind it is illegal to discharge trade effluent to sewer without a consent. We've found most water companies will be pragmatic about small dischargers, even though ignorance of the legislation is not an excuse for failing to apply for a consent. If in doubt, ask.

It's rare for a large discharge to be unconsented but it does happen. Sites can change hands and consents can slip through the net. A site can be built and then mothballed, with tenants moving in a long time later and consents forgotten about. We've also come across tenants who thought they were discharging to the river and were actually discharging to sewer (and we've seen it the the way round as well). Again, if in doubt, ask.

What should you do to avoid a discharge that might not be legal? Thoroughly check your paperwork and files to see if a consent has been issued. Several water companies have online databases of consents that can be searched by name or post code. Check those. Before you contact the water company, compile a file of relevant information about where your discharge goes, how long it's been happening and include any data about volume or composition. THEN approach the water company or ask us, we're friendly and can talk to water companies on your behalf. Compiling your file beforehand will save a lot of questions when you start talking to a trade effluent officer.

Most unconsented dischargers fall into the category of known unknowns. Water companies know you probably exist but know nothing about you. There is that rare beast, however, the unknown unknown. We came across one once who had been in operation for years but had never been billed for water or effluent and whose local water company had no idea the company or even its site existed. That's a story for another edition!