Author Archives: admin

Prospective New ‘Replacement’ Sea Outfall

The latest schedule can be found in the February 2011 Newsletter.

Please refer to the new materials in the Water Quality Project section in order to appreciate the programme of works proposed by Dwr Cymru / Welsh Water’s contractors & sub-contracts regarding the imminent installation of a replacement so-called ‘long’ sea-outfall from the Sewage Pumping Station located behind the Old Life-boat House at the Y Cwm out into the Bay to a discharge point off Pen Catman.

Also refer to the document title last minute letter to DC/WW for our proposal to complement these works with an additional element, namely an additional storm storage tank capacity located next to the Cwm SPS.

Report: Approval Procedures for Hydro Generating Installation

Here is a Report by Vicky Moller, Vice-Chair of the Group, and one of our leading Members on Renewable Energy (Sustainable Power) issues. She has been invited to attend a discussion in the near future with the U.K. Environment Agency in London, on the topic of the Regulation and Assessment of how much so-called micro scale hydro-power generating installation can contribute in future to our sustainable ‘energy’ needs. Her she discusses the topic of the history and pro and cons of EA regulation of this technology to date.

Hydro for Wales – will the environment agency stop it?

I am convinced not. However there have been hold-ups and frustration with the regulations imposed by the agency. Hold-ups have been up to 3 years, 2 to provide all the information to the agency, eg counting fish over the year, and wait for their response, and one to order the generating equipment.

This is galling when there is the risk of feed in tariffs disappearing on the chariot of fire on which they descended from govt.

The exciting bit, for me, is that it is easy to influence events, I am finding. Our environment group responded to the EA consultation on making it simpler to get hydro, or I responded on their behalf and am invited to London Westminster this month to hear and discuss their proposals. The group wanted this reported, as they are paying my fare. We welcome views and suggestions from anyone in Wales, especially transition organisations.

Back to the wonderful complexities of the issue.

Make no mistake, hydro is the Cinderella of renewables, least regarded, least invested in but the real princess of the bunch. The reasons are all obvious: Water is most energy dense, water flows steadily, is easy to access for repairs and installation. Hydro generators last 100 years, or used to! The life of PV and wind kit is calculated at 20 years.

We need two kinds of power, bread and butter constant for eg lights, water-pumps and computers (bread and butter to me anyway) and special purpose manufacturing, power tools which can be used intermittently when there is the power. Hydro brings home the bread and butter, is the full time worker, getting time off during droughts when her fancy sister pv generally stands in.

But hydro has and can cause problems more serious than lack of power! In the middle ages the rivers and streams of Britain teemed with fish, then watermills were installed everywhere without regard for the fish that fed the peasants. Weirs blocked their spawning grounds, streams suddenly dried up when sluices opened, fish were killed in water wheels, their numbers dropped and sea fishing took off.

In addition to risks for fish there are risks of floods upstream when water is impounded, and depriving people downstream of flows, or their chance of hydro. So hydro cannot be installed willy nilly, regulation is reasonable. Which is more important fish-rich rivers or lit up houses? There is only one right answer, even if people haven’t got it.

The EA didn’t mean to stop hydro by taking 2 years to give an answer, they were just unprepared for the surge of applications. Hence the consultation on getting it simpler. The Welsh Environment Agency has decided to do it differently to England and make it simpler still. However we don’t know how soon their simple plan will leave the table and be on the streets, or the waterways.

One reason people don’t rate hydro is that very few people live at the bottom of waterfalls. Low flat rich land and cities go together. Rocky mountains, hydro potential and sparse habitation go together. What few have noticed is that people have legs, mountains, tides, winds don’t. I was in North Wales slate country and so jealous, they had it all, land for food, slate and forests to build, towering waterfalls for oodles of power. The residents of all backgrounds seemed blind to their enormous luck, there wasn’t a transition movement in sight!

Feed in Tariffs and their solidity. They arrived dripping gold, and some leapt to the opportunity, Now they may waver or shrivel in the October spending review, they could disappear or shrink at any time, and are predicted to in less than 3 years when their review is scheduled. Hydro feed in tariffs have been swathed in uncertainty from the start. Which equipment is certified? None certainly, which installers certified? one or two for Wales, a few more for Scotland. Arguments are ongoing. The trade don’t want certification required for equipment, as old kit works and lasts better than new. Again I was arguing this point with the woman in charge of writing the regulations at Ecobuild 2009. She accepted I had valid points and said it was useful to her deliberations. It would be gratifyng that one can have an influence on policy by arguing at a stand in a show, but it really demonstrates how arbitrary and incompetent the process is.

www.ecocymru.org
www.pembrokeshire.econews.org.uk

Vicky Moller
01239 820971

Hapus i gyfathrebu’n Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg.
Happy to communicate in Welsh or English

Local Exhibition on Future for Electric Cars

THE GUARDIAN ANGEL PROJECT
Electric cars & windmills.

Working with other groups we wish to set up sculptural charge points with information panels and help people to drive small durable electric-hydrogen cars. We aim to set up community owned windmills to feed the charge points. The large profit will be used to set up individual investment accounts; these will give power to the people of Pembrokeshire. We will build renewable fuel stations and non-profit facilities for research and development to help us get off the dependency on Banking & oil.

Energy non-profit History:  Set up in 2007 we promote local renewable energy; we set up Fishguard’s first local used-veg oil COMMUNITY fuel pump and free advice on chip fat and diesel cars. (Used veg oil always WANTED for fuel) Join in with the Guardian Angels. Open home Gallery. We are open most of the year for tea with a donation when available, good to phone St Gwendaf Cot Llanwnda Goodwick SA64 0HX

CONTACT US   Buzz OR Aerona.   T 01348 874922 M 07854701233 or
Email us at us-energy@phonecoop.coopwww.us-energy.org.uk

Come along and see Electric cars, Windmills, solar panels, marine energy and sculptural charge points.

www.us-energy.org.uk See our car, it is a 1975 97% efficient, light family ART car, powered with 100% renewable energy see YouTube film! SOUPORT FROM Transition-Brogwaun, Pembrokeshire county council, Dragon electric cars, and The Techinum. Dawn, Stella, Aerona Buzz, Kevin, Kevin, Emma, Hadee, Peter. PLEASE CONTACT US www.us-energy.org.uk Please look up; See for yourself the future of home energy & transport. Shi Agassi, www.betterplace.com www.nissan-global.com 18% return on your money. £5000 towards a new electric car and 30 million in grants for charging points around the UK!!

PLEASE CONTACT US; IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN USING AN ELECTRIC / AIR / OR HYDROGEN VEHICLE. HOME ENERGY FREE ENERGY.

As seen on TV Radio and national newspapers

PLUG-IN ON THE 13TH October AT THE TECHNIUM (Pembrokeshire) Come and drive an electric car. FILL UP ON US- ENERGY. Love from your Guardian Angel PLUG-IN at home and fill up with clean fuel.

Contact www.us-energy.org.uk Tel 01348874922 Ask for details of our community day. Thank you. Buzz and Aerona.

A Brief History of Newport Sewerage

Newport Sewerage Network on Google Earth Overlay

The current sewerage system in Newport dates from principally the end of the 19th and the first two decades of the 20th Centuries. At that time the local authority with primary responsibility for its installation and maintenance was the Cemaes Rural District Council, whose acronym (CRDC) can still be seen on many SAPs (manholes) and other sewerage infrastructure places.

The system installed then, as now, is predominantly a “combined system”; by which is meant that the same infrastructure is used for both the drainage of surface water run-off from buildings and street gutters, as is also used for the disposal of waste water and sewage from within buildings.

The result is that during, and in the immediate aftermath of, periods of severe rainfall events (i.e. storms) the system can become overloaded with a throughput or flow-rate demand greater than it can handle. For instance current computer modelling, done by DC/WW, for the town main is based on a calculated ‘dry weather flow-rate’ (DWF) of 5.4 l/s  [1]; whereas, the modelled ‘Storm flow rate’ (SFR) is set at 14 l/s [2]. In point of fact, storm condition readings have shown discharge rates in the system exceeding 24l/s, or more than x4 the dry flow rate.

In the early 1970s the Statutory Water Undertaker (“SWU”) completed a ‘so-called’ Long Sea Outfall (“LSO”) which stretched from a simple first stage maceration plant, located immediately to the west side of the Old Lifeboat Station at Y Cwm, out into the Bay to a point 380m off the coast at Pen Catman (“Cat Rock”). The process of discharging untreated sewage to immediate vicinity of coastal waters was said to be only a ‘temporary’ solution, as in due course the then anticipated European Legislation on bathing waters quality (“BWQ”) would demand treatment of all sewage prior to coastal waters discharge. At this time there was no installation of any plant to ‘treat’ the sewage biologically, only a maceration and screening installation down at the Cwm.

In 1997 a detailed Study and Report [3] was done on the sources and levels of sewage contamination parameters, known as Faecal Indicator Organisms (“FIO”), in the whole of the Nyfer (“Nevern River”) Catchment, including also the waters of the Newport Estuary.

The findings indicated that whilst so-called farm run-off into the headwaters of Nyfer Catchment was a major source of faecal indicator organisms, during and after severe weather episodes (i.e. rain storms), generally a full 75% of the FIO budget load in the catchment came from sewer based discharges. This was at a time (summer 1997) when the record of bathing waters samples taken off Treath Mawr (the Big Beach), whilst passing the imperative or mandatory standards for FIO parameters, was never the less regularly failing the Guideline Standard of the 1976 EU BWQ Directive.

As a result of the findings in this Report, and at long last, the then Chairman of the Board of Welsh Water himself came to a meeting in the Memorial Hall (Oct 1998)and promised than within the next 5-year rolling programme of their Capitol Plant Improvement they would provide a full 3-stage Waste Water Treatment Works (“WwTW”) for Newport, including third stage UV (Ultra violet) treatment for destruction of viruses left untouched by the bacteriophage treatment.

In the result, an engineering report was commission in 2001 for the installation but for only a 2-stage settlement and anti-bacterial sedimentation treatment works. However, rather than siting this down in the Cwm valley behind the Old Lifeboat House, which is the natural gravity base of the sewerage network, the Report placed the new WwTW up on ‘Rhigian Farm’ more than 800m (� mile) to the east and up on top of the coastal cliffs more than 55m higher than the town main as it reaches Y Cwm behind the Old Lifeboat Station. In order to supply this new Newport WwTW, DC/WW were then forced to install, at great water ratepayers expense, a continuous (24/7) duplex pumping station down at the Cwm instead, to pump the sewage up the significant height and over this considerable distance. Involving a full kilometre of�sewers to supply and drain the WwTw.�This was�largely all�done in order to cater to the concerns of, and indeed the access disputes between, the local landowners concerned. There was no community involvement in the consultations on this process, yet alone informed debate about its consequential effects whatsoever.

One such entirely predictable effect has of course been that during the heavy rainfall events (rain storms), precisely when the contamination of FIO parameters in the River system is at its greatest due to excessive farm run-off ; that is now also precisely when the pumping capacity down at the Cwm Sewage Pumping Station (“SPS”) is unable to meet the demand, and a combined storm overflow (“CSO”) comes into operation which simply by-passes the SPS, and therefore also the WwTW, entirely and instead simply discharges the ‘combined’ sewage run-off solution directly into the LSO. In effect, a simple re-iteration of the ‘double whammy’ effect previously identified in the Prof Kay study.

A couple of years later over the period 2002/3 DC/WW was, as reported to us, able to access grant aid funding to assist with a significant ‘upgrade’ to the Newport Sewer Main, by way of the laying of a larger diameter relief sewer, including across the Parrog, which would allow for compliance with the provisions of EU Waste Water Directive, given interal UK effect by Regs. in 1994. Including specifically as to the closure of the Combined Storm Overflows (“CSO”) in the system, which it was considered would not then be needed once a relief sewer was installed. That was certainly the ‘promise’ made by DC/WW at the time as a benefit to be gained to the community from the works.

However, in the event, when the contractors came to install this relief sewer across the Parrog, they ‘discovered’ that a house built in the 1970s had been built directly over the top of the ‘old’ town main, against policy on such matters, and that consequently to comply with sewerage rules the ‘old’ Parrog Main would have to be capped and closed under this property, and consequently that the ‘relief’ sewer would have to become a ‘replacement sewer’ instead, across this part of the ‘mid-Parrog’ front.

NAEG is still left suspicious and concerned as to the extent to which this clearly unsatisfactory arrangement, creating in effect a two into one, choke point just before
‘Ty Newydd’, has contributed to a reduction in the flow-rate capacity of the new “relieved” system. What we know is that in the event the CSOs, both at the Parrog and next to the footbridge over the ‘school stream’ (known to DC/WW as ‘The Elms’ site), far from being closed, have been kept and are now due to be upgraded. The Parrog CSO has just this year been granted a brand new Discharge Consent by the EA(W) (for details see here).

Also it was found at the time the relief sewer was being completed in 2003 as far as the Cwm that, during and immediately after rain storms, sewage was ‘backing-up’ in the Lower Parrog area (‘Bron Llys’ and westward). In order to prevent the occurrence of sewage back-up into the domestic properties in the area (Bron-Llys to Bettws) non-return valves or rather flaps were installed. The need for these was self evident and obviously much welcomed by the residents concerned.

However, due to the ingress of sand sedimentation, seemingly blocking the LSO nearly entirely, at around the same time, a CSO was also “installed” under the slipway in front of the Old Lifeboat Station. This was arranged to operate from the manhole chamber, to the right of the Lifeboat House, where there had been some backup emerging, to discharge instead directly into the culvert carrying the Cwm stream waters under the coastal path to the left of the Lifeboat Station. This culvert itself then discharges directly on the open beach on the Cwm to the left of the slipway, which has been a traditional place for picnicking and for bathers using Cwm waters to change etc.

It was claimed by DC/WW again that this was only a temporary measure which might never or only rarely be needed. They claimed that it didn’t need a statutory discharge consent from the EA(W) because it was only an emergency measure, undertaken to protect human life and health in an unforeseeable emergency, as to which see an exceptional defence under the relevant legislation [4]. The NAEG position is that this is a palpably absurd position to take to excuse the creation of a permanent installation arrangement which has now been in “operation” for years.

Originally the EA(W) appeared to us to accept this unacceptable position. However, since we have raised the matter with them, their position is now to have just recently refused a formal discharge consent application for this CSO, on the basis that it is an “unauthorised” discharge for which only a temporary need has been established [5], as respects which they agree they’ll take criminal enforcement action, in the event of their having (or being given) evidence of its use. However, no monitoring equipment was ever installed and the EA(W)’s acceptance of the situation is based only on very intermittent inspections.

More recently still in the winter of 2006/2007 it was noticed that the concrete entablature surrounding the LSO, where that passed through the bottom of the tidal median, and therefore where the effect of the low tide surf is greatest, off the Lady’s Bathing Beach (just beyond Y Cwm), had started to break up. Eventually it was determined by the following winter that the LSO had completely broken up. Consequently, in the spring of 2008 DC/WW installed a short (40m) length of re-placement outfall to the end of the broken section, and secured a dispersal discharger to the sea bed just 1m below mean low water depth.

However, once again it was declared at the time that this was accepted as only a ‘temporary’ solution. Fortunately the fulfilment of that commitment is now at last in sight. As the latest news is that DC/WW will be presenting an Exhibition in the Memorial Hall imminently, illustrating the replacement LSO which they have now scheduled for completed by Aug of next year (2011). So hopefully some good news to end on !


[1] Refer to para 6 of current Cwm SPS CSO storm discharge consent
The rationale for deciding on the “dry weather flow rate” is set out at para 6 of the Treated Discharge Variation Consent as being derived from the following calculation, namely the average daily flow to the treatment works during seven consecutive days without rain (excluding a period which includes public holidays) following seven days during which the rainfall did not exceed 0.25 millimeters on an one day.

[2] More accurately 13,7 l/s (storm flow condition) per para 4 of same consent

[3] Faecal Indicator Organism , Sources and Budgets for the Nyfer Catchment, Pembrokeshire June 1997 A Report to Dwr Cymru and the Environment Agency By Dr Mark Wyer, Dr. John Crowther & Prof David Kay

[4] unlawful discharge of sewage into controlled waters was needed “in an emergency in order to avoid danger to life or health“, as to which see s.89(1)(b) of the Water Resources Act 1991.

[5] This on the basis that once the new replacement and larger diameter LSO is completed next year there’ll be no case any longer whatever for this CSO.

Glossary of Terms & Acronyms

Sewer = /su(r), sju-/ n. a conduit, usu. underground, for carrying off drainage water and sewage.

Sewage = /sud, sju-/ n.  waste matter, esp. excremental, conveyed in sewers.

Sewerage =/surd, sju-/ n.   a system of or drainage by sewers, the infrastructure of the same.

 

CSO = Combined Storm Overflow

(activated in this of severe rainfall to discharge combined sewage discharge and surface water run-off)

DC/WW = Dwr Cymru / Welsh Water

(the statutory water services undertaker with exclusively responsibility for the Newport Area)

EA(W) = Environment Agency (Wales)

(with primary statutory responsibility for all monitoring and supervision of water services and environment in the Newport Area.)

ID = Internal Diameter

LSO = Long Sea Outfall

SAP = Sewer Access Point (manhole)

SPS = Sewage Pumping Station

WwTW = Waste Water Treatment Works (Sewage Works)

 

 

Bathing Water Testing

The whole subject of when Bathing Waters are tested, what for and what are the significance of the results is a very complex and legally hide-bound topic. We do not propose to cover more than the basics here.

What is the European Bathing Water Quality Directive ?

Back as long ago as the early 1970s the European Union (then the EEC) recognised the importance to both public safety and environmental protection of agreeing a common European standard for the quality of bathing waters, heavily used during summer months by bathers. In the result, after many years of wrangling and debate in the political forums, of the then EEC, in 1975 was created, the first European Bathing Waters Quality Directive (76/160/EEC) Now some 35 years old, but yet still the current legal basis upon which all EU bathing Waters Quality are tested and compared.

This directive has the force of law in the UK, and consequently in order to give it full internal effect the UK Government has passed a Statutory Instrument applying the standards and provisions of the Directive here in the UK. This law was issued back in 1991, The Bathing Waters (Classification) Regulations 1991, it having taken at least 15 years after the passing of the Directive, for our Government to get around to giving it such full effect here in Britain.

There has been much involved debate, both acedemic, scientific and political, regarding the effectiveness of the original standards and parameters (pollutants tested for) as set out in the 1976 Directive. Eventually, all of this led in 2006 to agreement on a completely new and replacement directive, called surprisingly enough The EU Bathing Waters Directive (2006/7/EC )

This new and replacement Directive has introduced several new positive innovations :

The revised Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC):

  • has a closer focus on the protection of public health
  • makes changes to the bathing water classifications system, bringing in more stringent standards
  • continues to apply only to bathing waters and does not include other recreational waters (for example surfing or sailing)
  • has a requirement to produce bathing water profiles , and introduces new requirements for public consultation and recognition in the formulation of these profiles
  • has a requirement to improve signs at bathing waters and other information to allow the public to make informed choices about bathing
  • has a requirement to produce emergency plans required for exceptional circumstances
  • includes the possibility of discounting poor samples at some bathing waters due to abnormal weather
  • timetable is in line with the Water Framework Directive, as bathing waters are protected areas under the Water Framework Directive

Once again this new directive has necessitated a UK law being made in order to give it full internal effect, The Bathing Waters Regulations (2008/ 1097) , but alas again these will not become full effective until March 2015 when the appropriate authorities will thereafter be under the legal duty to take measures to ensure compliance. At least this time round the delay prior to legislative effect is only 9 years ! Consequently, until then we will still have to concern ourselves with the old 1976 Directive.