Risk assessment
There were personnel changes within the risk assessment team; one inspector moved to the private water supply team, one inspector left to join the water industry, and a new inspector was welcomed into the team in August.
The Water Industry (Suppliers’ Information) Direction (the Information Direction) was published in July which incorporates regulation 28 reporting specifications. This enables better tracking of the reporting requirements for the industry and separates DWSP guidance from the requirements for provision of information.
Guidance on the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2016 (as amended) for England and Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2018 for Wales specific to PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in drinking water was published August. This guidance consolidates and supersedes previous PFOS/PFOA guidance (2021) and subsequent information letters regarding PFAS monitoring, risk assessment and reporting requirements, and expectations for AMP8 and beyond PFAS strategies.
Key changes to the PFAS guidance included a requirement to implement a risk reduction strategy to progressively reduce PFAS concentrations at tier 2 as well as tier 3 sites, the application of tiers to final water and raw water where there is no treatment in place, monitoring and reporting of the compound 6:2 FTAB added to the list of PFAS parameters and reporting of the ‘Sum of PFAS’. The latter two requirements must be implemented by 1 January 2025. The expectations of the PFAS Guidance extend to New Appointments and Variations (NAVs), these companies should exchange information and data and must also have a forward-looking PFAS strategy.
All PFAS chemicals of interest were listed in Annex C of the Information Direction. It is incumbent on companies to notify the Inspectorate should PFAS chemicals not listed be identified at concentrations above tier 1.
The risk assessment team attended the industry forum in September. The continuous collaboration with the industry that the forum enables is valuable and the Inspectorate is appreciative of water industry representatives’ time in attendance and the contributions to progress in DWSP.
Information was provided describing the above changes in the PFAS guidance and the ongoing work to provide the industry with new DWSP guidance. The DWSP guidance was produced in draft for Inspectorate review prior to being shared with the forum. At the forum meeting, companies were given an insight into details being included in the new guidance such as reiteration of the endorsement of the WHO water safety planning approach and expectations regarding it.
Clarification was given regarding hazards requiring assessment including the nitrate/nitrite formula (regulation 4(2)(d), Cryptosporidium, PFAS chemicals of interest and chlorate, all subject to regulation 4(2)(b). Other changes being written into the new DWSP guidance such as inclusion of delivery dates for additional control measures within regulation 28 data, timescales for submitting reactive DWSP updates to the Inspectorate should not exceed two months from the date of the event, compliance breach or other trigger were also discussed.
Based on the feedback from the industry, a small working group was set up with representatives from large, small companies and NAVs to address the comments received. This resulted in some amendments and updates to the guidance which should provide companies with additional support to meet their responsibilities under the Regulations.
There have been ongoing inconsistencies in the data submitted to the Inspectorate under regulation 28. Not all companies have reported hazardous events historically. The forum discussed how hazardous events could be reported to better enable the Inspectorate to understand the causes of risks and appropriateness of control measures. The visibility and reporting of risks carried forward from upstream assets was also discussed as an outstanding issue with relevance to reporting consistency. A working group was proposed to identify a common approach to these inconsistencies.
Feedback about response to recommendations was provided to the industry forum to clarify Inspectorate scoring of company responses to recommendations and demonstrate regulatory transparency. The response scoring and definition criteria were tabulated as part of the Inspectorate’s presentation to the forum. Other key points about this information were that the provision of information should satisfy Inspectors that companies’ actions are sufficient to prevent recurrence of an event or infringement and the importance of evidence from companies demonstrating actions taken was also highlighted.
The team will continue with a program of DWSP audits throughout the year with safety plans being audited against the Regulations.