The false alarms and ‘non-impacting’ discharges from event duration monitors (EDM) by a UK water company

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4012861/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The false alarms and ‘non-impacting’ discharges from event duration monitors (EDM) by a UK water company

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4012861/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Sewage discharges to aquatic environments present a real danger to human and ecosystem health. Event duration monitors (EDMs) from combined stormwater overflows (CSOs) are now fitted to over 90% of storm overflows in England and Wales. These have transformed our understanding of consented and non-consented discharges of sewage and wastewater from UK water companies. In 2018, Southern Water Services Ltd launched “Beachbuoy” which is an online ‘near’ real-time platform to inform customers when EDMs have been activated at particular CSOs and bathing water sites. Since April 2022, this water company categoried CSO discharges as genuine, genuine but non-impacting, and not genuine (false alarms by EDMs). We analyzed Beachbuoy data to provide an overview of CSO discharges and EDM activity and performance in the region. Across all assets, between December 2020 and February 2023 there were 7,164,656 genuine (impacting and non-impacting) minutes of discharges of which 19% overall were regarded as non-impacting of bathing water locations. Non-impacting discharges from all assets often persisted beyond multiple tidal cycles suggesting the impacts on bathing waters may need to be reevaluated. Discharges classed as ‘not genuine’ (false alarms) were highly variable between CSO for which some recorded false discharges 100% of the time. There were very strong correlations between the triggering of genuine and not genuine discharges and time of the day. Overall, 39% of all total minutes discharged and 14% if discharge events were classified as not genuine. Sewage releases from CSOs were more likely to happen between 7-10 am indicating that earlier morning patterns in human behaviours are substantially impacting the infrastructure's ability to tackle increased capacity in the system through precipitation. We discuss the appropriateness of classifying sewage discharges as ‘non-impacted’ and whether data should also be obtained on false negative discharges (EDMs not activating) as well as false positive discharges (not genuine). We call for better regulation of how this information is presented to the public.

Environmental Engineering

Environmental Policy

Marine and Freshwater Ecology

Marine and Freshwater Biology

Biotechnology and Bioengineering

Scientific Communication

Sewage

Water Quality

Event Duration Monitors

Water Company

Sewage discharges to aquatic environments present a risk to human and ecosystem health (Tuholske et al 2021; Wear et al 2021; Younger et al 2022). Not only do discharges contain human pathogens but also a vast array of toxic chemical contaminants including pharmaceuticals, plastic additives, flame retardants, surfactants, metals and PFAS compounds. Because many of the pathogens are only expected to last in seawater for relatively short periods of time (days) and are often linked with visible signs of discharge such as wet wipes and sanitary products, the impacts of longer-lasting but invisible chemical contaminants are often overlooked. For example, sewage is a major source of PFAS compounds (Lenka et al 2021; Kurwadkar et al 2022) and these are toxic, bioaccumulate and classed as the most environmentally persistent substances among organic chemicals (Cousins et al 2020). Classed as ‘forever chemicals’ some have put estimates of over 1000 years on their breakdown and we are already starting to see these compounds bioaccumulating in our offshore wildlife (Andvik et al 2021; Wood et al 2021; Boldrocchi et al 2022). Therefore, we must understand the amounts of sewage countries are discharging into coastal environments as their impacts like those of other persistent chemicals (e.g. PCBs) may be seen for generations after they are banned.

The water industry in the United Kingdom is publicly owned in Northern Ireland and Scotland, a private not-for-profit organization company in Wales and is made up of nine privately owned water and sewerage companies in England plus a smaller number which provide water only services (Buse and Bayliss, 2022). Much of the sewerage infrastructure pre-1960s which a combined system which took foul and surface water runoff. Built into this infrastructure were combined stormwater overflows which under licence from the Environment Agency allows water companies to legally discharge untreated effluent into water courses during periods of extreme weather (rain or snowmelt). Between 2020 and 2022, there were an estimated 7.5 million hours of sewage discharges into watercourses in England and Wales (Environment Agency EDM data, 2023). These untreated discharges despite being diluted present an impact to the health of water courses and a human health risk to water users (Hassard et al 2017; Tuholske et al 2021; Sojobi, and Zayed, 2022).

There has been considerable controversy over the frequent discharges from combined stormwater overflows (CSOs) in England prompting critics to suggest a failure in environmental and financial regulation. Currently, there are ongoing environmental and financial investigations into these water companies by the regulators and investigations into the regulators themselves by a newly formed Office of Environment. Furthermore, there are several judicial inquiries into the government in the UK High Court by NGOs and businesses plus civil actions against water companies for rebates on water bills. In 2021 Southern Water pleaded guilty to 51 counts of discharging untreated sewage into coastal waters between 2020 and 2025 which was estimated to be 16–21 billion liters (Environment Agency vs Southern Water Ltd, 2021). As a consequence, they were fined £90 million and the financial regulator forced the company to discount bills for their poor performance.

There are thought to be approximately 15,000 CSOs in the UK. In 2013 the Department of Fisheries, Agriculture and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) insisted that the water industry had a better understanding of the performance of their wastewater assets and insisted on a program of fitting Event Duration Monitors (EDMs; EA, 2021). These EDMs work by either measuring flow or using non-contact radar, ultrasonic, pressure devices and floats (CIWEM, 2021). The Environment Agency hopes that the data from EDMs will “inform water companies’ management of storm overflows under current and future pressures; and when they aren’t meeting the bar, we can take robust action based on sound evidence to secure improvements, using enforcement if necessary.” Details of where and how best to fit EDMs have been published by the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM, 2021). They report that special consideration should be taken over the location of EDMs to ensure accuracy (with minimum noise and interference), repeatability (consistently return the same measurement data for comparable spill events), reliability (minimize the likelihood of damage, make maintenance or repairs easier) and safety.

Environment Agency data highlights the rapid 14-fold increase in the coverage of monitors, from 862 in 2016 to 12,393 in 2021 (EA, 2023 Fig. 1). The take-up of these monitors varies considerably between companies with Anglian Water having 54.3% CSOs listed as having EDMs and Southern Water having 98% (EA, 2023).

Table 1

Summary Data on the performance of Southern Water’s Event Duration Monitors (EDMs) compared to the Sector; Data available from https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/19f6064d-7356-466f-844e-d20ea10ae9fd/event-duration-monitoring-storm-overflows-annual-returns; SOAF = Storm Overflow Assessment Framework)
Event Duration Summary (2022)	Southern Water (SW)	Water Company Totals / Average
Total no. storm overflows listed in the annual return in 2022	978	14,580
Total no. storm overflows with EDM commissioned	963	13,323
% overflows listed with EDM commissioned	98.5%	91%
Total no. storm overflows with spill data in 2022	939	13,080
Average no. spills per storm overflow with spill data in 2022	17.8	23.0
Average duration (hrs) per monitored spill event in 2022	8.8	5.8
Total no. number of monitored spill events in 2022	16,688	301,091
Average no. spills per storm overflow with spill data in 2022	17.8	23.0
Total duration (hrs) of monitored spill events in 2022	146,819	1,754,921
Average duration (hrs) per monitored spill event in 2022	8.8	5.8
% storm overflows spilled ≤ 10 times in 2022	51.8%	48.4%
Percentage time operating [spilling] during 2022 per overflow (average)	1.8%	1.5%
Total no. storm overflows with EDM Operation data	963	13,181
% storm overflows with EDM Operation data provided where expected	100%	98.9%
% storm overflows with 0% EDM Operation during reporting period	2.5%	1.6%
% storm overflows with ≥ 90% EDM Operation during reporting period	87.2%	83.6%
% storm overflows with < 90% EDM Operation during reporting period	12.8%	16.4%
% of those with < 90% operability with reason provided	100%	100%
% with EDM installed & provided count data - with 0 spill count (did not spill)	19.6%	18%
% storm overflows with spill data - recorded ≥ 1 spill count	80.4%	82%
% recorded 5 spills or less	41.4%	37%
% recorded 10 spills or less	51.8%	48%
% recorded > 10 spills	48.2%	52%
% recorded 20 spills or more	34.1%	39%
% recorded 40 spills or more	15.1%	20%
% recorded 60 spills or more	5.2%	11%
% recorded 100 spills or more	0.7%	3%
% recorded 200 spills or more	0%	0%
No. monitored storm overflows that spilled > 60 in one year	49	1,355
Of those that spilled over SOAF thresholds of > 60x in one year, % with a reason provided	100%	99.6%
Of those that spilled over SOAF thresholds of > 60x in one year, what % due to exceptional rainfall throughout the year?	0%	0%
Of those that spilled over SOAF thresholds of > 60x in one year, what % due to other operational (incl. asset maintenance)?	0%	18%
Of those that spilled over SOAF thresholds of > 60x in one year, what % due to hydraulic capacity reasons?	0%	60%
Of those that spilled over SOAF thresholds of > 60x in one year, what % N/A - Ongoing Investigation for primary reason?	100%	21%
% storm overflows with EDM Operation data provided where expected	100%	98.9%
Total no. storm overflows with spill data	939	13,080
% storm overflows listed with spill data	96.0%	89.7%
% storm overflows with < 90% operability where valid reason provided	100%	100%
% of storm overflows > 60 spills in one year with a reason provided	100%	99.6%

Southern Water Services Ltd covers the South and Southeast coast of England, treating the wastewater and supplying water services to 2.6 million customers (https://www.southernwater.co.uk/media/2641/at-a-glance.pdf). The assets cover 700 miles of coastline, 84 bathing water sites and where they have just under 200 CSOs which discharge directly to the sea. In 2018, Southern Water launched “Beachbuoy” (https://www.southernwater.co.uk/water-for-life/our-bathing-waters/beachbuoy) which is an online platform which is meant to inform customers when EDMs have been activated at particular CSOs and bathing water sites. This initially focused on two locations Langstone Harbour close to Portsmouth (UK) and the Isle of Wight before being expanded across their region. How the data has been presented on Beachbuoy has evolved since its initiation launch from originally having EDMs displaying under review before being categorized as genuine or not genuine via human validation. Initially, all spills were considered genuine and the public were alerted. In April 2022 Southern Water made changes to the way the data was presented by differentiating between ‘impacting’ and ‘non-impacting' discharges through what they refer to as dynamic modelling (Fig. 2). Discharges which are not expected to impact the water quality at bathing water locations are categorized as non-impacting and are meant to consider unique location-based hydrographic models and the tides and weather coupled with the known degradation rates of faecal coliform bacteria. The time it takes to validate spills as genuine or not genuine can vary spatially and temporally.

Southern Water point out that:

“Following feedback, we released an upgrade in September 2022 that enables Beachbuoy to now account for tidal conditions. This means that the tool also considers the impact a release has on a local bathing water based on the location of the outfall, the duration of the release and tidal conditions at the time. If an outfall is a long way out to sea – some are located 3–5 km away from the shoreline for example – and the release is short with tidal conditions meaning there could be no impact on a bathing water, the tool will no longer trigger a warning to users. We are continuing to provide all the data on our website in the same way that we always did, so our levels of transparent reporting have not changed. However, while previously the Beachbuoy alert cautiously took the worst-case scenario when it was flagged on the app, this could inadvertently cause unnecessary worrying for the public and the tourism industry alike. When Beachbuoy initially went live, a release from any associated outfall would trigger a status change to the bathing water, regardless of the prevailing tidal conditions. However, this was an extremely cautious approach. Following feedback from users and other stakeholders, we commissioned independent hydrological specialists Atkins to refine our tidal modelling to reflect the tidal influence on releases from every outfall with the potential to impact bathing water at key tidal states.” https://www.southernwater.co.uk/media/7442/beachbuoy-how-we-model-impact.pdf

The Environment Agency generates summary data on the discharge frequencies from storm overflows and how they compare to the sector averages. The current data for Southern Water is presented in Table 1 however these do not look at EDM performance in terms of false alarms, temporal trends or categorised such as non-impacting discharges. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the publicly available data from the Beachbuoy website and determine the extent of false alarms and proportions of discharges categorized as non-impacting discharges across bathing sites, season and time. The objective of this paper is not to abortion blame but merely to make the data available in a format that trends, patterns and general observations could be summarized and help inform those studying the impacts on human and ecosystem health to understand the temporal and geographic extent of spills.

An Environmental Information Regulation (EIR) request was put to Southern Water Plc on the 6th March 2023 which is a UK Statutory Instrument (2004) right of access to environmental information held by UK public authorities (ERI 1751). The data requested were for all the event ID’s, site numbers, bathing sites, outfalls, activation start and end times plus activity fields from 2021-01-01 to 2023-03-06 as a csv file. On the 3rd April 2023 the water company reported they required more time to provide a comprehensive response and this would take a further 20–40 days. This EIR (1751) request was refused on the 12th April 2023 on the basis that the data was publicly available on the BEACHBUOY website (https://www.southernwater.co.uk/water-for-life/beachbuoy). Southern Water response stated that “Under the EIR Regulations and guidance issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office, we are not required to create information in order to answer a request and as we do not already create, process or record this information, it cannot be said that we “hold” this information for the purposes of Regulation 12(4)(a) EIR. To clarify, Southern Water do not have a downloadable excel file for Beachbuoy, however, you are able to do this yourself. Just select an outfall you are interested in, and you can the copy and paste the data from the Historical Release Table into an excel spreadsheet.” The team were directed to Southern Water’s official flow and spill reporting data however this was not suitable as it no longer includes discharges categorized as Not-Impacting or Not Genuine (https://www.southernwater.co.uk/our-performance/environmental-performance/flow-and-spill-reporting).

The Beachbuoy website provides a list of all storm release activity relating to coastal bathing waters. Information that appears on the site is displayed in chunks of 25 spills/discharges. Anyone wishing to get a copy of the complete dataset of spills would need to spend many hours manually requesting every one of more than 800 pages, then copying and pasting 25 rows of data from each. Furthermore, because the data presented is dynamic with discharges constantly changing category from unverified to verified and assigned genuine or not this means the data is in constant flux making overviews of the data logistically challenging.

Citizen science software developers wrote programs to automate this labour-intensive process which were optimised, and the results of each program were cross-checked for accuracy (https://github.com/csodata/tools). These yielded over 21,000 rows of data (one row per spill event) and over half a million data items. We have made these programs available via GitHub to enable others to replicate our analysis.

Between December 2020 and March 2023 there were 25,294 discharges categorized on BeachBuoy (Fig. 3; Tables 2 & 3) across 77 classified Bathing Water areas and 186 outfalls. Presented alphabetically by CSO name and on a Log10 scale, the median, interquartile ranges and minimum and maximum for each CSO are presented in Fig. 3. The median discharge duration for a typical CSO is between 10 and 1000 minutes with some extending beyond 100,000 minutes.

There were data entries scrutinized during this study there were many incidences where one event ID had multiple entries. This sometimes could be explained by instances whereby an event needed to be verified and subsequently had its category changed. For some event IDs there were over 1000 logs which probably highlights faulty monitoring devices which were allocated the same ID. Other incidents occurred where one event ID number was attributed to several locations.

In total these represented over 10 million minutes of discharges (10,095,826 minutes or 7010 days) and are presented in yearly quarters in Tables 2 (event counts) and 3 (event duration) and in descending order in Fig. 4. The top 20 outfalls which between them discharged 5,389,965 minutes of genuine (including non-impacting) are presented in Table 4.

Table 2

Frequency of discharges events between December 2022 and March 2023 categorised as Genuine, Genuine Not-Impacting and Not Genuine from 176 Southern Water outfalls.
Year	Row Labels	Genuine	Genuine - Non Impacting	Not Genuine	Under Review	Under Review - Non Impacting	Grand Total
2020	2020	1					1
	Qtr4	1					1
2021	2021	10439					10439
	Qtr1	3236					3236
	Qtr2	1679					1679
	Qtr3	1974					1974
	Qtr4	3550					3550
2022	2022	5708	3765	1502	147	270	11392
	Qtr1	1746	1	39			1786
	Qtr2	451		50			501
	Qtr3	637	390	168			1195
	Qtr4	2874	3374	1245	147	270	7910
2023	2023	1152	1511	472	178	149	3462
	Qtr1	1152	1511	472	178	149	3462
Grand Total		17300	5276	1974	325	419	25294

Table 3

Duration of discharges (minutes) between December 2022 and March 2023 categorised as Genuine, Genuine Not-Impacting and Not Genuine from 176 Southern Water outfalls.
Year	Row Labels	Genuine	Genuine - Non-Impacting	Not Genuine	Under Review	Under Review - Non-Impacting	Grand Total
2020	2020	339					339
	Qtr4	339					339
2021	2021	2612472					2612472
	Qtr1	1085528					1085528
	Qtr2	298399					298399
	Qtr3	400613					400613
	Qtr4	827932					827932
2022	2022	2315123	950533	2571231	14368	22508	5873763
	Qtr1	286098	68	363			286529
	Qtr2	48954		66249			115203
	Qtr3	100699	39923	30269			170891
	Qtr4	1879372	910542	2474350	14368	22508	5301140
2023	2023	883788	402401	359939	12176	15423	1673727
	Qtr1	883788	402401	359939	12176	15423	1673727
Grand Total		5811722	1352934	2931170	26544	37931	10160301

Table 4

Top 20 CSOs for discharging the most untreated effluent based on duration (minutes) between December 2020 and March 2023.
CSO Name	Minutes Discharged
1. PEEL COMMON	717855
2. SANDOWN NO2	695460
3. SANDOWN NO1	608880
4. APPLEY PARK RYDE TRANSFER	393030
5. BEXHILL & HASTINGS NO2	331994
6. NORTON TRANSFER IOW	307862
7. WOODVALE TRANSFER NO1	245296
8. RANGE ROAD HYTHE K LONG	235092
9. LANE END ROAD BEMBRIDGE	219290
10. LIDSEY	216433
11. SPRINGHILL COWES TRANSFER	215700
12. WEST PARK BOGNOR REGIS	195696
13. SWALECLIFFE NO1	189714
14. TERMINUS ROAD COWES 2	175518
15. BUDDS FARM HAVANT NO2	143483
16. BOSHAM	118664
17. SUMMER LANE PAGHAM	108030
18. HILLWAY BEMBRIDGE	98418
19. SIDLESHAM	97514
20. SEA ROAD LITTLEHAMPTON	76036

The largest proportion of discharges would take place in the wetter months October to February with the amount discharging in the winter periods varying over the winter months of 2020/2021, 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 (Fig. 5). The winter period of 2022/2023 highlights visually the proportion of discharge categories as not impacting or not genuine since the new classification came into consideration in April 2022.

Excluding the discharges categorized as under review the total number of discharges was broadly similar in 2021 (10,439 events) compared to 2022 (10,975 events; Table 2). However, the total number of minutes reported discharged was substantially more in 2022 (5,836,887 minutes) compared to in 2021 (2,612,472 minutes; Table 3). Discharges were further categorized as non-impacting or not genuine from April 2022 onwards. The total number of minutes discharged in 2022 was broken down into 40% classed as Genuine (2,315,123 mins), 16% as Genuine Non-Impacting (950,533 mins) and 44% as Not Genuine (2,571,231 mins). For comparison from the 1st quarter of 2023 for which data was captured 54% classed as Genuine (883,788 mins), 24% as Genuine Non-Impacting (402,401 mins) and 22% as Not Genuine (359,939 mins). In 2022, based on the number of discharge events (counts), 52% were considered genuine, 34% were classed as genuine non-impacting and 14% not genuine based on the counts of discharge events (Table 2). Therefore, ‘Not Genuine’ discharges or false alarms make up 14% of discharges as classified by counts, but 44% of the total minutes discharged. The average duration (mins) of genuine, genuine non-impacting and non-genuine discharges were 336, 256 and 1485 minutes respectively. Those classified as not genuine would, on average, last 3 times longer in duration than genuine discharges.

Eighteen percent of the specific outlet locations have discharges categorized as not genuine for more than 50+% of the occasions (Fig. 6a). Twenty two percent of the specific outlet locations have discharges categorized as not genuine for more than 50+% of the overall minutes (Fig. 6b).

Discharges irrespective of classification would occur significantly more frequently during the morning (6-10am) compared to other hours of the day with the exception of 2-3am (Kruskal Wallis X = 146.1 Treatments = 24 Values = 12206 p < 0.0001; Fig. 7). When broken down into 5-minute time bins and plotted as sum duration minutes over 24 hours over there was a clear correlating daily patterns between those discharges classified as genuine (impacting and non-impacting) and those deemed to be not genuine (false alarms) (Fig. 8). The lowest point for minutes discharged was between 3-6am but from 7am onwards through to 11am there would be increasingly higher numbers of wastewater discharges. Potting the two variables (Genuine and Not Genuine) together revealed clear and significant positive relationships between the times of the day when genuine and not genuine spills occurred (Linear Regression (F = 1996; DFn,DFd 1, 286; p < 0.0001) Y = 10.57*X − 17435 R² = 0.8747; Fig. 9)

A number of the outlets had 100% of their discharges classed as non-genuine. These were Albion Groyne Brighton, Black Rock Marine Drive Brighton, Cinque Ports Way Hastings No1, Foads Hill Cliffs End, Hurst Point View Totland, Roedean Close Bexhill, Shoreham No2, Sunnyfield Road Barton On Sea, Village Road Alverstoke, Military Road Averstoke, Military Road Ramsgate No.2 and Roedean Close Bexhill (Fig. 6). Results of the Spearman correlation indicated that there is a significant positive relationship (r(185) = .885, p < 0.001) between the proportion of the spills classified as not genuine and the proportion of the total overall minutes from outfalls (Fig. 10). However, there were many exceptions to the relationship. For example, many outlets had less than 5% of the discharges categorized as not genuine based on the counts but over 90% of the discharges based on the total minutes.

There was a clear and strong positive correlation between the outfalls which discharge most frequently (counts) and the ones which discharged for the longest duration (mins) (Spearman Rank, r(185) = .875, p < .001; Fig. 11).

In 2022 Southern Water decided to categorize discharges not only on whether they were genuine or not but whether they were ‘impacting’ or not. Between Jan 2022 and Jan 2023, there were 5276 discharges categorized as non-impacting representing over 1.3 million minutes. The rank order of those CSOs reported as discharging the most Non-Impacting discharges in terms of events and duration are presented in Fig. 12. Figure 13 is a box plot of Log10 median, interquartile range and minimum/maximum duration of discharges (minutes) discharged to every Bathing Water area across the South East region covered by Southern Water. Most Bathing Water sites have discharges which last a median time of between 100 and 1000 minutes (1.6 hrs to 16.7 hrs). However, we determined that many bathing water areas have discharges categorized as non-impacting that proceed the length of 1 and often many 4 + full tidal cycles. Some locations had discharges lasting a maximum of 100000 minutes (~ 70 days) and were classed an non-impacting.

Water companies in England have come under intense public and political scrutiny after it has been revealed that untreated wastewater regularly discharges into rivers and coasts, often during periods of modest rainfall. As a result of this pressure, the government mandated the need for EDMs to be fitted into all WWTPs and CSO discharge points. These are now fitted to over 90% of the English CSOs. However, we don’t currently know how well EDM perform and whether the information provided is satisfactory for safeguarding human and ecosystem health. The English EA does provide overview statistics on the performance of water companies on their progress of fitting EDM to their infrastructure and summarizes the percentage of CSOs with EDM fitted and monitoring, numbers of spills/discharges attributed e.g. exception rainfall, hydraulic capacity, maintenance or other issues (see Table 1). These are all benchmarked against the sector averages. However, what is not scrutinized is how the data is presented to the general public through the increasing use of ‘real-time’ or near ‘real-time’ information portals such as Southern Water’s Beachbuoy.

Leading the early rollout of the EDM has been Southern Water whose area covers the South East coast of England. Here we highlight that over 2 years between Dec 2020 and March 2023 there were 25,294 untreated discharges including those still being reviewed representing 10,160,301 minutes (7076 days) registered on the Beachbuoy database. Within the UK this period included a series of national and regional lockdowns due to COVID-19 infections in the population. National lockdowns occurred from late March 2020 - June 2020 and January 2021 – July 2021 and more localized restrictions occurred between September 2020 – November 2020.

Are all EDM false alarms really false alarms?

The company changed the way it displayed and represented the data during that period introducing categories such as non-impacting discharges and not genuine discharges for those considered false alarms (or false positives). We highlight that “Not Genuine” discharges are quite frequent occurrences with EDM devices and 14% discharges by event counts and 44% duration in minutes. Several CSOs have only been presented as having ‘Not Genuine’ discharges and have never purportedly had a real stormwater discharge event. What we don’t know is that devices are reporting false readings over 14% of the time by event count, what percentage of the time do they not detect discharges when real discharge events are occurring (false negatives)? Neither the water companies nor the government agencies provide data on the performance of EDM technologies. During this study, we also highlight very strong correlations in daily readings of not genuine discharges to those occurring that are considered genuine which brings into question whether some false alarms are indeed false but true discharges. The occurrence of genuine and not genuine increasing and decreasing at the same periods throughout the day leaves two plausible explanations. Firstly, whatever causes the genuine discharges also triggered false alarms or secondly, some of the alarms reported as false are indeed real.

Also interesting is the timing of the genuine and not genuine discharges which are most likely to occur during early morning 6 onwards through to about 11am. This indicates that the triggering of EDMs is not also just a component of excess rainfall but also the daily patterns of the general public such as showering, setting washing machines/dishwashers and flushing toilets before leaving for school or work. This supports Giakoumis and Voulvoulis (2023) who recently analysed EDM data and concluded that their findings reveal the chronic under capacity of the English wastewater systems as a fundamental cause behind the increased frequency and duration of CSO spills.

Are non-impacting discharges really ‘non-impacting’?

Since spring 2022 when discharges were categorised as ‘Genuine Impacting’ or ‘Non-Impacting’, there was approximately 35% reported as non-impacting in 2022 and over 50% for the 1^st quarter of 2023. In total, there had been 1,352,934 minutes (940 days) of non-impacting discharges over the study period. We have established that the median discharge duration for a typical CSO to the coastal environment is between 100 and 1000 minutes however many of these outfalls have discharges which exceed several tidal cycles and some lasted over 70 days.

In 2022, Southern Water decided to change the way it displayed and presented its discharge data. The iconography on the Beachbuoy portal was changed so that alerts didn’t immediately appear as red icons but white icons until discharged had been characterized as genuine or not or impacting or non-impacting. At the time the water company received criticism for the approach with the UK broadsheet newspaper running with the headline “Southern Water alters pollution alert tool to curb automatic red alerts” (The Guardian, 2022) and “Southern Water's sewage discharge app changes provokes row” (BBC, 2022) in September 2022. A spokesperson for Southern Water at the time said “This is an important step for the tool, ensuring we provide accurate, fair and clear information to wild swimmers, kayakers, paddleboarders and all users of the beautiful beaches across our region. Beachbuoy is leading the way in providing near real-time data about storm releases, but we must ensure it goes further to inform the public about the impacts to the watercourse and not limit their enjoyment of their local bathing water. We’ll never hide data though, with all releases still available on the website”.

From April 2022 discharges considered to be genuine were further categorized as to whether they were Genuine or Genuine Non-Impacting. This also received criticism for several reasons. Firstly, the algorithms and oceanographic models from which the data was based were not available for scrutiny plus the term ‘Non-Impacting’ if the models are correct only provides data for designated Bathing Water areas and estimates ‘risk’ of human pathogens in seawater. However, these do not consider chemical contaminants in wastewater and ecological impacts, or discharges modelled currents flowing in the opposite direction to designated Bathing Water beaches (Poopipattana, et al 2021) In July 2023, on the back of this criticism Southern Water changed the terminology from 'non-impacting" to "non-impacted" to better represent the condition of the specific bathing water location. However, critics have pointed to the fact that these 'non-impacting' discharges or indeed 'non-impacted' discharges could well be 'impacting' water quality for human and ecological health in areas not close to designated bathing water locations. We therefore suggest that if algorithms are based on the tidal cycles, wind and ocean currents this data be made available and fully scrutinized to determine the validity of those statements.

Summary

We have highlighted that the CSOs served by Southern Water discharged over 7000 days of untreated effluent into coastal environments in just over 2 years between December 2020 and March 2023. This is the equivalent of over 19 years of continuous discharges to the South Coast of England of untreated wastewater containing chemical contaminants and pathogens to the English Channel and southern North Sea. Investigations by the BBC (BBC, 2023) and Unearthed (Greenpeace, 2023) found that these discharges often occur during dry weather and directly or close to Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), RAMSAR sites for the protection of migratory seabirds, UNESCO World Heritage Sites and protected Shellfish grounds. Therefore, the information presented by the water companies must be accurate and in a form that is easily understood to fully understand the impacts on human health and the environment. The data presented within was denied to the researchers via a statutory Environmental Information Request (EIR) because the data was publicly available online. However, in this instance, the data was not available in a way that is or was easily scrutinized. Water Companies in England have been criticised for not making environmental data easily available to researchers and environmental organizations. For example, the BBC during their dry spills investigation was denied data from 6 or 9 major water companies in England because they said “they couldn't provide information because they were already being investigated for potential illegal spilling by industry regulator Ofwat and the EA” (BBC, 2023). However, OFWAT the financial regulator of the water industry has recently warned water companies they are endangering public trust by withholding data (The Times, February 2023). In response, a senior lawyer for South West Water is reported as saying in an article for the Times newspaper that “it is the regulators and not the press or public” who should be able to view information regarding “complex technical and regulatory matters” (The Times, February 2023).

We have highlighted that many EDMs on CSOs are faulty and provide many false alarms which at some specific locations can be 100% percent of the time. We have also highlighted an interesting correlation between discharges classified as genuine and not genuine which warrants further investigation as they collectively occur at similar times of the day. Water Companies in England self-report their discharges to the environmental regulator. It is important therefore that the regulators and public get accurate information on discharges. We have highlighted that discharges formerly classified as “Non-impacting” before recently being renamed “Not Impacted” occur with considerable frequency and duration. The water companies may have modelled the risks posed based on death rates of bacteria in seawater and tidal currents. These frequent and lengthy discharges are likely to have an impact on the aquatic environment. Given more water companies are expected to make real-time or near real-time monitoring available to the public. We encourage the regulators serving the environment (EA), finances (OFWAT) and information commissioner to guide EDM data by water companies to be presented to the public.

Andvik, C., Jourdain, E., Lyche, J.L., Karoliussen, R. and Borgå, K., 2021. High levels of legacy and emerging contaminants in killer whales (Orcinus orca) from Norway, 2015 to 2017. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 40(7), pp.1848-1858.
BBC (2022). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-62924995
BBC (2023). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66670132
The Guardian (2022). https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/14/southern-water-pollution-alert-tool-automatic-red-alerts
Boldrocchi, G., Spanu, D., Polesello, S., Valsecchi, S., Garibaldi, F., Lanteri, L., Ferrario, C., Monticelli, D. and Bettinetti, R., 2022. Legacy and emerging contaminants in the endangered filter feeder basking shark Cetorhinus maximus. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 176, p.113466.
Buse, Kent and Bayliss, Kate (2022) 'England's privatised water: profits over people and planet.' British Medical Journal, 378. o2076.https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o2076
CIWEM, 2021. Event Duration Monitoring Good Practice Guide. Version 3.0 November 2021 https://www.ciwem.org/assets/uploads/CIWEM_UDG_EDM_Good_Practice_Guide_2021_final.pdf
Cousins, I.T., DeWitt, J.C., Glüge, J., Goldenman, G., Herzke, D., Lohmann, R., Ng, C.A., Scheringer, M. and Wang, Z., 2020. The high persistence of PFAS is sufficient for their management as a chemical class. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 22(12), pp.2307-2312.
Environment Agency (2021). Event duration monitoring – lifting the lid on storm overflows. https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2021/03/31/event-duration-monitoring-lifting-the-lid-on-storm-overflows/, (accessed 10 December 2022)
Environment Agency (2023). Event Duration Monitoring Annual Returns. https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/19f6064d-7356-466f-844e-d20ea10ae9fd/event-duration-monitoring-storm-overflows-annual-returns
Giakoumis, T. and Voulvoulis, N., 2023. Combined sewer overflows: relating event duration monitoring data to wastewater systems' capacity in England. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology, 9(3), pp.707-722.
Greenpeace (2023) https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2023/08/04/interactive-map-sewage-spills-pollution-protected-areas/
Hammond, P., Suttie, M., Lewis, V.T., Smith, A.P. and Singer, A.C., 2021. Detection of untreated sewage discharges to watercourses using machine learning. NPJ Clean Water, 4(1), p.18.
Hassard, F., Sharp, J.H., Taft, H., LeVay, L., Harris, J.P., McDonald, J.E., Tuson, K., Wilson, J., Jones, D.L. and Malham, S.K., 2017. Critical review on the public health impact of norovirus contamination in shellfish and the environment: a UK perspective. Food and environmental virology, 9, pp.123-141.
Judiciary of England and Wales. Environment Agency vs Southern Water Ltd 2021. Summary by Mr Justice Johnson. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Southern-Water-Sentencing-Remarks.pdf
Kurwadkar, S., Dane, J., Kanel, S.R., Nadagouda, M.N., Cawdrey, R.W., Ambade, B., Struckhoff, G.C. and Wilkin, R., 2022. Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances in water and wastewater: A critical review of their global occurrence and distribution. Science of The Total Environment, 809, p.151003.
Wood, C., Balazs, G.H., Rice, M., Work, T.M., Jones, T.T., Sterling, E., Summers, T.M., Brooker, J., Kurpita, L., King, C.S. and Lynch, J.M., 2021. Sea turtles across the North Pacific are exposed to perfluoroalkyl substances. Environmental Pollution, 279, p.116875.
Poopipattana, C., Suzuki, M. and Furumai, H., 2021. Impact of long-duration CSO events under different tidal change conditions on distribution of microbial indicators and PPCPs in Sumida river estuary of Tokyo Bay, Japan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, pp.7212-7225.
Sojobi, A.O. and Zayed, T., 2022. Impact of sewer overflow on public health: A comprehensive scientometric analysis and systematic review. Environmental research, 203, p.111609.
Times Newspaper (2023). https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/water-companies-told-to-stop-withholding-secret-data-clean-it-up-l6pbd2lrm
Tiwari, A., Oliver, D.M., Bivins, A., Sherchan, S.P. and Pitkänen, T., 2021. Bathing water quality monitoring practices in Europe and the United States. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), p.5513.
Tuholske, C., Halpern, B.S., Blasco, G., Villasenor, J.C., Frazier, M. and Caylor, K., 2021. Mapping global inputs and impacts from of human sewage in coastal ecosystems. PloS one, 16(11), p.e0258898.
Younger, A., Kershaw, S. and Campos, C.J., 2022. Performance of Storm Overflows Impacting on Shellfish Waters in England. Land, 11(9), p.1576.
Wear, S.L., Acuña, V., McDonald, R. and Font, C., 2021. Sewage pollution, declining ecosystem health, and cross-sector collaboration. Biological Conservation, 255, p.109010.
Wood, C., Balazs, G.H., Rice, M., Work, T.M., Jones, T.T., Sterling, E., Summers, T.M., Brooker, J., Kurpita, L., King, C.S. and Lynch, J.M., 2021. Sea turtles across the North Pacific are exposed to perfluoroalkyl substances. Environmental Pollution, 279, p.116875.

The authors declare potential competing interests as follows: JR & MO belong to community-based organisations that highlight the impacts of sewage discharges on the environment. ATF is an academic who has received funding from research councils, EU, charities and industry including water industries.

GraphicalAbstract.png
Graphical Abstract

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The false alarms and ‘non-impacting’ discharges from event duration monitors (EDM) by a UK water company

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1