Carbon critical future:A water industry and regulatoryperspective.

Dr Arthur ThorntonHead of Regulation and Research:Atkins Water and Environment

The challenges:

• The complexity of the environment� Monitor: complex interactions� Setting Appropriate standards:

� Control: Intervention points, new techniques or newtechnologies

� Impacts of controls: Benefits v limitations, costs,carbon emissions, waste,

� Stakeholdes: Interactions, communication,common understanding

• Climate change: Magnitude and impacts

• Carbon Critical Design: planning and solutiondelivery.

• The compartmentalisation of environmentalregulation (e.g. WFD v carbon)

Today’s presentation

Aims: To explore integrated and holisticsolutions, identify barriers and successes.

• Climate change on the water industry:Adaptation and Mitigation

• Carbon critical policy:�Policy and carbon impact.

• Water treatment:�Carbon in the design process.

The water industry perspective:Developing an AdaptationStrategy

Adaptation:�Reservoirs, water mains,treatment works, sewers,pumping stations, sewageworks….. Not easilymoved!!

�Planning for a more extremefuture.

Climate change:

Hydro-social cycle and potentialimpacts

Demand

Summer dilution

Storm intensity

Summer yield

Flood risk WWtreatment

WWtreatment

Treatment &distribution

Treatment &distribution

SewerageSewerage

DischargeDischarge

UseUse

AbstractionAbstraction

Regulatorpositioningand changesinto the future

Customers,standards,expectations &perception.

Stakeholders, Board, investors,Government, planners

Changing environment

Climate change: Adaptation Strategy

�Understanding the impacts of climate change over the designlife of the systems that we are developing.

�Developing adaptation strategies for identified impacts –costs and uncertainties

�Regional and catchment planning

�Identify critical knowledge gaps, training or skill requirementsor capacity needs, and ways to address them.

�Develop an integrated water industry strategy focussed onsustainable ways to deal with the likely impacts of climatechange.

Timeline

21002080205020302010

1. Business as usual:

PR09..nWR PlansHabitats DirectiveWFD Planning

2. New / emerging drivers:

Water Stress

Defra Water Sector Plans –Vision to 2030

Climate Change Bill – emissiontargets to 2050

Energy PerformanceCommitment (from 2009)

Customer / stakeholderpressures

Cost of carbon

3. Socio-economic changes

ForesightIntelligent infrastructureSustainable energy and builtenvironment

Implications for Industry businessmodels (gradual or step ?)

4. Barriers and constraints

RegulatoryCustomer

EnvironmentCosts

Engineering

Action nowBuilding adaptive capacity

Planning future actions

Priority actionsEffective adaptation to major threats includes:

� Design all new/renewed sewers for higher capacity� SUDS promotion and retrofitting to reduce storm flows� Seasonal wastewater discharge charges or consents� Increased spare treatment capacity to cope with flow

variability� Increased intensity of demand management� Building Regulations and planning conditions� Promote use of greywater, rainwater harvesting� Review abstraction consents to take account of

environmental changes which would take place anyway� Review discharge consenting approaches

Implications for the waterindustry – water services

� Short term� Proportionate and risk-based approach to securing and protecting

assets� Minimise carbon emissions� Development of new low / zero carbon schemes� Assess vulnerability and / or resilience to the impacts of climate

change and identify where adaptation responses will be required.� Medium term

� SUDS as a viable alternative to connecting surface water intosewers

� Asset-life appropriate risk-based design standards� Long term

� Integrated approach to water and land use planning� Carbon critical business model� Service led approach

Implications for the water industryregulation

� Regulatory leadership & innovation is required that:

� Ensures companies consider potential climate change impacts andthe need for adaptation

� Encourages carbon and climate critical planning by the industry� Is flexible – no one size fits all approach to adaptation� Encourages behavioural change and alternatives to ‘end of pipe’

measures� Ensures companies are not penalised for higher initial cost

solutions where these represent least cost solutions given currentclimate change forecasts

� Provides an appropriate financial framework of incentives andfunding.

Implications for the water industry -customers

� Managing customer expectations will be crucial in deliveringadaptation and mitigation

� A new approach to communicating with customers will berequired that:

� Raises awareness of what the industry is currently doing� Provides simple, clear messages and reinforces them� Demonstrates the link between reducing energy and water use� Demonstrates the link between climate change and levels of service

and the need for investment

Barriers to action

� Uncertainty over magnitude and timing of impact

� Lack of clear guidance on adaptation

� Regulatory approach to adaptation: Planning andinvestment objectives

� Lack of awareness of climate change impacts –inconsistent approach to impact assessment

� Spatial planning - location of new development decidedprior to assessment of water service capacity.

Carbon Critical Policy:Priority Hazardous Substances /Priority substances andemerging chemicals.

Substances of interestCadmium (PHS)

Nonylphenols (PHS) and their ethoxylates

PAHs

Mercury (PHS)

Pentabromodiphenyl ether (PeBDE) (PHS)

Tributyl tin (TBT) (PHS)

Di(2-ethylhexyl phthalate) (DEHP) (PS)

Lead (PS)

Nickel (PS)

Copper (Dangerous substance & WFD Annex VIII substance)

Zinc (Dangerous substance & WFD Annex VIII substance)

Control at source:Source apportionment

NPEs LAS

Domestic40%

Light industry14%

Town centre9%

Runoff33%

Industry4%

Lead

Domestic61%

Light industry12%

Town centre22%

Runoff2%

Industry3%

Copper

Domestic64%

Light industry2%

Town centre21%

Runoff11%

Industry2%

DEHP

Town centre97%

Light industry0%

Domestic2%Runoff

0%Industry

1%

Tetrachloroethene

Domestic19%

Light industry3%

Town centre67%

Runoff5%

Industry6%

Mercury

Domestic71%

Light industry10%

Town centre17%

Runoff2%

Industry0%

Chloroform

Copper Mercury Lead

TetraCE

ChloroformDEHPLight industry

0%

Runoff1%

Domestic84%

Town centre15%

Industry0%

PeBDE

PeBDE

Domestic12%

Town centre70%

Runoff10%

Light industry2%

Industry6%

NPEs

Domestic81%

Light industry1%

Runoff1%

Town centre16%

Industry1%

LAS

NPE LAS

Sources and fate of substances

River flowUPSTREAM: Lowconcentration ofsubstance;Standards met

Treatment Works

DOWNSTREAM: Higherconcentration of substanceStandards may not be met

Control at source:

� Source control (TBT, NP/NPE, PeBDE, Hg, Cd)

� Metals in tap water (Pb, Cu, lesser extent Zn)

� However:� TBT: Controls in place but found occasionally

� DEHP: No controls in place (variability in treatment)

Control at source:� PHS are already heavily controlled (Hg, Cd,PeBDE & NP/NPEO)

� ‘Die away’ occurs in sewage influent concentrationsas manufacturing and use restrictions are applied

Water qualityobjective

Environmental “die off”

Quantityused

Time in yearsNew usecontrol

The time taken forexisting controlmeasures to work.

Developing Controls

River flowUPSTREAM: Lowconcentration ofsubstance;Standards met

Treatment Works

DOWNSTREAM: Higherconcentration of substanceStandards may not be met

Developing Controls

River flowUPSTREAM: Lowconcentration ofsubstance;Standards met

Treatment Works

DOWNSTREAM: Higherconcentration of substanceStandards may not be met

Chemical use

restrictionsNEW PROCESSES

River flowUPSTREAM: Lowconcentration ofsubstance;Standards met

DOWNSTREAM: Higherconcentration of substanceStandards may not be met

River flowUPSTREAM: Lowconcentration ofsubstance;Standards met

DOWNSTREAM: Higherconcentration of substanceStandards may not be met

River flow

New Advanced

Treatment

Processes Chemical

Chemical Restrictions

Chemical Restrictions

userestri

ctions

What dilutions are available inreceiving waters?

� EA Low Flow 2000 data(Q50 flow)

� WwTW DWF x 1.25

� GIS plotted

� Sense check to ensuredischarge is on correctriver and reviewed EA/water companies

Example of a cost curveCost curve SF - Ni

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

0246810121416182022

EQS

WLC

£m

; CO

2 kt

/yr;

Slu

dge

ML/

yr

WLC £mCO2 kt/yrSludge ML/yrRQP consent (WLC)RQP consent (CO2)RQP consent (sludge)

Provisional EQSOriginal EQS

UKWIR WW17 outputsdrove a rethink at EU levelregarding this EQS

Cost of compliance

� Defra: WFD in the order of £101bn*� Defra: Chemicals potentially facing the

water industry £5.6bn*� Defra: CO2 emissions from this investment

not calculable at this time (insufficientunderstanding)

� UKWIR project indicated an increase in theorder of 25% to 50% in current treatmentemissions. Primarily in energy use.

� Risk of infraction proceedings?

*investment over 43 years from 2009

Carbon critical policy

�Understand the Precautionary Principleand carbon risks

�Least carbon may not be least effort:Control at source, stakeholders, education

�Integration of environmental and policymodels.

�Holistic regulation: Avoid regulatorycompartmentalisation.

Carbon Critical Design:Example in Water treatment

IntroductionMid Kent Water: Water Only Company serving nearly 600,000customers

Options: Reservoir, desalination, additional surface waterabstraction (more detailed design of solutions than previousexample).

Cost effective balance of supply and demand: water frameworkdirective and climate change

Minimise its own carbon emissions

No off-the shelf tool to give appropriate estimates for itssolutions

Decided to lead the way and create a methodology that wasflexible enough to apply to its scheme assessmentrequirements

Appropriate carbon footprintingEmbedded: Materials, transport, manufacture and deployment of e.g. pipesLimitation: Can’t know where every bit of aggregate or cement is actually from(assumptions made and sensitivity analysis performed)

Construction: Plant moving round site: types of plant deployed estimate ofbuild times utilisation and fuel use.Limitation: Estimates based on technology expertise and constructionprojects

Transport: Moving plant and materials to site.Limitation: Sites are in relation to suppliers provides a much better estimate.

Operation: Energy and maintenance requirements. Based on expertassessment of equipment sizes used in the schemes, operation andrequirements for duty standby and maintenance.

ConclusionsOperational carbon is relatively simple compared to the embedded,construction and transport carbon.

To determine embedded, construction and transport carbon there are manyresearch papers presenting figures for different materials or constructionapproached:

• Use different methodologies; they may be country specific and may setdifferent boundaries.

• There is therefore the need to understand the detail and consider if theapplication to UK construction industry is appropriate.

• Relative amounts of embedded carbon:� Approximately 15% for pipes, as buildings are becoming more carbon efficient

in operation the relative proportion of embedded carbon is increasing to c40%.

Conclusions:

ConclusionsInnovation is alive and well but it maynot be made of concrete or steel!

� Integrated environmental andregulatory tools.

� Communication and relationshipsbetween stakeholders.

� Balancing the environmental risks anddeveloping appropriate and timelycontrols.

� Preparing for potentially differentfuture scenarios.