Primary & Secondary Containment Improvement Conditions - How it works for the Water Industry and why you need to defend yourself
The following has been presented to OFWAT following the PR24 mechanism for increasing users bills and is essential reading for anyone recently hit with an EA permit review, specifically relating to primary and secondary containment assessment and upgrades.
If you are going through this process then you need to be aware of this as it is wholly unfair that failing water companies get paid for unnecessary upgrades while operators of small to medium operations with a clean record face possible closure due to potential unnecessary upgrades (though that depends who is fighting your corner).
The below is as submitted to OFWAT (12/07/2024):
Please find details as per voicemail saved under the above file reference number and request for additional details.
REF: Standard rules consultation no 20: revision of standard rules permits for biowaste treatment – Specifically related to secondary containment of Sludge Farm sites
My issue relates to PR24, specifically to the sums being applied for by water companies in relation to IED upgrades, which are deemed necessary to meet best available techniques (BAT) reference documents (BREF) and BAT conclusions by 2022 – as laid out in the waste treatment BREF for all waste activities detailed under the Industrial Emission Directive (IED).
We are an engineering consultancy who specialise in containment engineering primarily (CQA stands for Containment Quality Associates) and have been established since 1998 (formerly operating as Containment Quality Associates Ltd since 1993). We are involved in the updating of CIRIA C736 which the best practice the EA uses as the basis of the works being discussed.
Concern was raised early on when the EA were suggesting secondary containment was required in order to meet the latest requirements. Working with a lot of smaller and medium sized operators for whom the same improvement conditions apply, it quickly became apparent that consequences of this if taken literally (as appears to have been done by the water industry) would cost millions and put a huge number of business at risk of closure. Kindly, the EA confirmed that it was never intended that the consultation required operators to retrospectively construct secondary containment, but ensure that risk was minimised following the details presented in CIRA C736.
The consultation outcome is available below and I draw particular attention to section 7:
We have identified that there are failures in how CIRIA 736 determines the level of containment (in that secondary containment requirements refer to permanent storage of inventory in lagoons, not temporary storage of inventory where the risks are very much different) and the assumption that it is required. This is perfectly fine for new builds, however as stated in the attached email and consultation response, the aim is to reduce risk to a minimum using appropriate measures. This should include the elements [EA Officer] outlines in their email. (see below)
1. Undertake an inspection and works programme to ensure that all primary and secondary containment is fit for purpose and shall include:
(a) an assessment and inspection of all primary containment, using a Written Scheme of Examination devised and undertaken by an appropriately qualified certified engineer
(b) an assessment and inspection of all secondary containment against the standards set out in CIRIA 736 by a chartered structural engineer
(c) written reports of the findings of a) and b) (improvement condition 1) shall be submitted to the Environment Agency. Where the reports do not demonstrate that critical primary and secondary containment is fit for purpose, the reports shall contain detailed proposals to bring the containment up to the required standards including timescales for the implementation of individual measures (‘the measures’), or shall propose alternative appropriate measures to ensure all polluting materials will be contained on site
(d) where it contains proposals for works, the report recommendations shall be implemented by the operator in accordance with the Environment Agency’s written approval
?
SO [referencing section highlighted in bold] this means if they cannot meet the standard then what other measures can be put in place – like increased inspection of levels, monitoring, ?float alarms, containment – accident plans – usual management and prevention stuff. We stated clearly in our consultation we did not expect operators to reconstruct or pour new concrete but it may mean they have a bag of lemons and have to accept its not great and increase their vigilance and have processes in place if there is a loss .
Hope that’s clear
Kind regards
领英推荐
The water industry and their multinational consultants have it appears failed to carry out the necessary risk assessments and have gone straight for the upgrade option. Taking United Utilities as an example, the cost for upgrades is estimated at c ￡172m for works related to the permit review. The permits have stated the need for protection of emissions, and below is an extract from Standard rules SR2010 No16 On-farm anaerobic digestion facility including use of the resultant biogas, much smaller scale than water companies, but directly related. Water companies have always had the same requirement.
3.2 Emissions of substances not controlled by emission limits
3.2.1 Emissions of substances not controlled by emission limits (excluding odour) shall not cause pollution. The operator shall not be taken to have breached this rule if appropriate measures, including, but not limited to, those specified in any approved emissions management plan, havebeen taken to prevent or where that is not practicable, to minimise, those emissions.
3.2.2 The operator shall:(a) if notified by the Environment Agency that the activities are giving rise to pollution, submit to the Environment Agency for approval within the period specified, an emissions management plan; implement the approved emissions management plan, from the date of approval, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Environment Agency.(b)
3.2.3 All liquids in containers, whose emission to water or land could cause pollution, shall be provided with secondary containment, unless the operator has used other appropriate measures to prevent or where that is not practicable, to minimise leakage and spillage from the primary container.
Section 3.2.3 clearly states that secondary containment shall be in place, if not then other appropriate measures apply.
?The risks presented by failure for which this funding is being requested need to be fully investigated. To our knowledge there have been no failures for which the secondary containment aims to prevent. Alternative appropriate measure need to be fully addressed first. These are not capital improvements, but operational improvements for which PR24 is not applicable. These are upgrades required for the operators (permit holders) to maintain the requirements of their permit.
It is therefore wholly inappropriate for utility companies to use the PR24 funding mechanism payable through the bill payer to carry out improvements which should be directly funded through operational budgets and SHOULD not be linked in any way to capital projects.
Actions required:
The assessments should be independently reviewed by appropriately qualified consultants NOT currently engaged with utility companies on framework agreements due to the lack of independence.
PR24 applications relating to the above should be supplied to ourselves for review for ALL providers who have applied for additional relief through this measure
PR19 relief applied should be investigated immediately and any payments or bill increases relating to the above be immediately frozen until investigation is completed.
?
Please respond promptly to confirm that the above will be considered and swiftly acted upon.
?
Regards
?
Darren Bland Director
CQA International Ltd
?
?
?
Principal Environmental Consultant at Arthian Ltd
8 个月Excellent piece ??