search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
ii UK Focus - Water / Wastewater ENVIRONMENT ACT 2021 - RIVER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS


This article will outline the water quality monitoring requirements of the Environment Act 2021, and discuss some of the issues that need to be addressed in the development of monitoring networks. The author, Dr Liam Goodes, works for OTT HydroMet which includes the trusted product brands of Hydrolab and Sutron, but some of the solutions discussed are delivered by sister company Hach.


Background I


n its 25 Year Environment Plan, issued in 2018, the Government pledged to deliver cleaner air and water, to protect threatened species and to provide richer wildlife habitats. It promised to secure clean and plentiful water by ‘improving at least three quarters of our waters to be close to their natural state as soon as is practicable’.


In addition to storm overfl ows, river water quality can be affected by a variety of factors including agricultural and industrial pollution.


Many wastewater treatment plants are unable to cope with the volumes generated during periods of high rainfall, so wastewater is allowed to ‘spill’ into watercourses. However, the volume of water entering the drainage system can be reduced by measures such as sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) and natural fl ood management (NFM). So, this is not just an issue for the water and wastewater sector; it is vitally important that other sectors also play their part – these include government, highways, local authorities, drainage boards, agriculture, developers, industry etc.


The Environment Act 2021 was the fi rst major piece of environmental legislation to be enacted following the UK’s departure from the EU. The Act aims to improve air and water quality, tackle waste, increase recycling, halt the decline of species, and improve the natural environment. It provides the Government with powers to set new binding targets for water quality, air quality, biodiversity, and waste reduction. The Act also established the Offi ce for Environmental Protection (OEP), which will hold the Government and other public bodies to account.


At the same time as the Environment Bill was progressing through parliament, the cross-party Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) was conducting its own investigation which


IET ANNUAL BUYERS’ GUIDE 2023/24


culminated in the publication of a report titled: ‘Water quality in rivers’. This report made a number of recommendations that related to monitoring, and some of these were included in the Environment Act 2021. Philip Dunne MP, Chair of the EAC, said: “You can’t improve the quality of our waterways unless you know how bad they are to start with, and unless you can measure progress against a baseline.”


Water and sewerage companies (WaSC) are already required to install Event Duration Monitors (EDM) at storm overfl ows, but the Act imposes a requirement to continuously monitor water quality upstream and downstream of discharges, so that, for example, pollution alerts could be provided to regulators and the public.


The EDM data for 2022 storm overfl ows was published in March 2023. It showed that the ten WaSCs in England have 14,580 storm overfl ows, and that 91% of these were fi tted with EDMs. On average, each overfl ow spilled 23 times for an average of 5.8 hours.


Around 89% of storm overfl ows discharge to rivers; 10% to coastal and estuarine waters, and 1% to groundwater.


Environment Act 2021


monitoring requirements In section 81 of Part 5 (Water) of the Environment Act 2021, sewerage undertakers wholly or mainly in England are required to report on discharges from storm overfl ows in near-real time (within one hour). This EDM data will show where the discharge to the environment happened, when it started and when it ended.


Data from EDM improves visibility of sewage discharges into rivers and watercourses and helps sewerage companies to better understand where improvements can be made. EDM also helps the Environment Agency to monitor the performance of water companies. However, EDM does not provide any information on the volume of the fl ow, or the effects on the receiving waters. One of the main purposes, therefore, of Section 82 is to determine whether storm overfl ows have affected water quality, and to make this information available in real-time.


Section 82 of the Environment Act 2021


reads as follows: (1) A sewerage undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in England must continuously monitor the quality of water upstream and downstream of an asset within subsection (2) for the purpose of obtaining the information referred to in


subsection (3).


(2) The assets referred to in subsection (1) are—


(a) a storm overfl ow of the sewerage undertaker, and


(b) sewage disposal works comprised in the sewerage system of the sewerage undertaker, where the storm overfl ow or works


discharge into a watercourse.


Sensor array of the Hydrolab HL7 multiparameter sonde


(3) The information referred to in subsection (1) is information as to the quality of the water by reference to—


(a) levels of dissolved oxygen, (b) temperature and pH values, (c) turbidity, (d) levels of ammonia, and (e) anything else specifi ed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.


Defra Consultation: implementing Sections 81 and 82


The implementation of the Act’s monitoring requirements has prompted a number of important questions, and it is anticipated that Defra will respond to these issues by publishing appropriate technical guidance.


The consultation ran in May 2023, and sought the views of invited consultees on issues such as measurement parameters – whether it would be possible to monitor phosphates and nitrates, and whether ammonia or dissolved oxygen should be used to determine the maximum point of harm. Consultees were also invited to submit comments and suggestions relating to the location of downstream monitors, exemptions and the defi nition of a cluster – a group of discharges that are suffi ciently close for just one pair of monitors to be necessary. Importantly, the consultation also sought views on the ways in which data could be managed and displayed.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128