Agenda item

Present from the Environment Agency (EA) were Mr A Valentine, Senior Investment Manager, and Ms L Bee, Environment Management Team Leader.

Mr Valentine and Ms Bee gave an overview from the EA perspective:

• Mr Valentine had visited the site on March 2021. The EA believed there had been a breach of the site permit and this would be investigated.
• Initial concerns had been around the potential scale of the issue linked to the site size, Little Marlow was in the top ten largest treatment sites in the area, and has a history of past issues. However, it was acknowledged this had been a single catastrophic event unlike previous issues where the site had experienced multiple problems over an extended period. The use of storm drains was acknowledged as not ideal but had allowed for overflow effluent to be monitored.
• Thames Water had shared their monitoring data and the EA had carried out their own downstream monitoring 4-5 times since the event. They had also installed 2 real time monitors that could be viewed remotely. There had been low ammonia levels recorded, a good indicator of pollutants, and no impact on dissolved oxygen levels. A small amount of sewage fungus had been seen over a small area but overall, there had been no serious impact from pollution.
• The EA would be asking Thames Water to review the level of redundancy at the site and to review their position on having critical spares readily available.
• The EA would be circulating their own email briefing shortly which they would share with local groups they had previously been in correspondence with.
• The EA pollution hotline remained open for reporting 0800 807060 for all issues not just Little Marlow.

The following points were discussed as a result of questions asked by attendees:

• Thames Water were expected to do everything they could to comply with their environmental permits which were descriptive not prescriptive. This included reviewing and updating their environmental permit to ensure it adequately covered local growth.
• The EA did not have the regulatory rights to insist on a specific level of redundancy or to make their own inspections of equipment. There would be a phased roll out of new environmental permit regulations for management system conditioning meaning the EA could take a more in-depth look at site management. If the EA felt that a permit holder was not operating within their permit, notices could be issued outlining specific steps that must be taken.
• This was felt to be right approach as the EA were responsible for overseeing many different areas of business and it was the site operators who were the subject matter experts for their area. Mr Valentine felt it was in the providers best interest to comply.
• The burden on commuter towns had increased with approximately 3m less commuters traveling into London.  Thames Water confirmed the normal diurnal patterns of peak flow in morning and evening had been replaced with 12 hours of higher flow rates.
• Had the same issue occurred at different times of year the impact might have been:
  • During winter months the rate of overflow could be expected to be higher.
  • During summer months there were lower flow rates, overflow rates would have been lower and possibly non-existent. The river was used more over the summer and there would be increased public scrutiny.
• In terms of compliance the site had previously received the 2^nd largest fine of all time at the point it was issued. Since 2017 compliance had improved considerably. During Ms Bee’s time as team leader this was the first time the site had had significant issues.

RESOLVED

The committee would continue to monitor the progress to ensure the repair works started on 19 April and the length of time it took for installation.