Water & Wastewater Treatment

6 | MARCH 2016 | WWT | www.wwtonline.co.uk Comment I t was once considered a problematic by-product of the wastewater treatment process to be disposed of by any means available; but attitudes towards sludge have certainly undergone a transformation in recent years. With utilities across the UK investing in anaerobic digestion and other technologies to harness its energy-producing power, and Ofwat currently conducting a consultation into how a competitive sludge market might operate, it's not only the case that wastewater companies have much to gain from exploiting their own sludge, but also that the chance to get hold of others' sludge might represent a sizeable business opportunity. Little wonder then that in announcing the upgrade of Davyhulme WWTW to gas- to-grid technology last month, Tom Lissett of United Utilities referred to sludge as "black gold." Neil Corrigall of Severn Trent succinctly summed up the value of the stuff to the Midlands utility in his presentation at WWT's Awesome sludge recent Wastewater 2016 conference in Birmingham: "Sludge is awesome," he told delegates. When it comes to the potential opening of the sludge market, the results of Ofwat's consultation may determine just how awesome sludge is allowed to be. In some ways, the nascent market for sludge compares favourably to the market that is set to emerge in water retail. Sludge has a clear and significant value in terms of the power it can generate and the nutrients that can be recovered from it. Utilities which lack the space, resources or inclination to invest in their own sludge treatment facilities have every interest in passing their sludge on, while companies which have the facilities in place will be only too keen to take it. Companies with AD facilities can diversify their offering by taking food waste from councils and other industries, providing a growing revenue stream. However, as with the development of any new market, there are a number of practical hurdles that need to be sorted out before the sludge (and the money) can begin to flow. For a start, the market will perhaps never be a truly national one: transport is the biggest cost involved in sludge treatment, so cold economics mean James brockett eDItor JamesBrockett@fav-house.com Twitter: @wwtmag that sludge will probably always need to be treated somewhere close to where it is produced. Utilities sharing a sludge treatment centre on their boundaries, or third party companies taking over the running of an existing sludge treatment works, are more plausible scenarios than a free-for-all with sludge being hawked around the country to the highest bidder. As our Getting to Grips article in this issue reveals (P27) much thought also needs to go into the most efficient methods of dewatering, transport and storage. Furthermore, sludge is far from being a uniform product, with the nature of waste streams and treatment capabilities varying from place to place. While this might not be an insurmountable challenge in a bilateral deal between two utilities, getting a wider market off the ground would require an ongoing role for regulation. Rules preventing co-digestion might need to be re- revaluated if wastewater companies with AD facilities are to make the most of the food waste opportunity. Despite these concerns, these are exciting times for anyone involved in sludge, and water companies would be missing out if they were not planning how to maximise the value of this previously underestimated resource. Industry view sponsored by keith Hayward, sales and marketing manager, Hydro International Wastewater 'Not that old chestnut,' I hear you say; is there any more to be said about boom and bust in the UK water industry? Against this framework, achieving game-changing shi s in water company risk-averse cultures can seem a distant prospect, especially when any aspirations for change are pitted against the pressing day-to-day realities of the five- year AMP merry-go-round. By their very nature, cycles keep on coming around. Just so, it is déjà vu with cyclicality in the water industry, despite all that talking, investigating and agreeing about just how much we need to smooth the peaks and troughs of five- year investment planning. What Goes Around … I reported my first sighting of 'AMP6 tumbleweed' in this column in September 2013, and here we are bumping along the bottom, with just a few healthy shoots to herald the mid-cycle peak times ahead. Our feedback from other equipment suppliers is consistent with this, and even amongst Tier 1 contractors my impression is that it 's more or less a perpetuation of the same. In May 2014 the Government pledged to bring forward £440m of investment to help smooth the transition to AMP6. That followed concerted lobbying by the EIC, ICE, British Water and Future Water. The Cyclicality Working Group and the Treasury's own 'Smoothing Investment Cycles in the Water Industry' study le little doubt of the negative impact on jobs, skills retention and innovation of a phenomenon that is costing the industry £1.1 billion each AMP cycle. I believe there is a real commitment to change from water company senior management, and equally from those at the operating and maintenance 'coal face'. However, there's still much to do to change culture and skills, especially among water company middle ranks, where most of the scoping, planning and packaging work for capital projects is done. From an equipment suppliers perspective, there's little real sign of a move to Totex any time soon or of a change from the false economies of lowest price Capex contracts. At exactly the same point in AMP5, this column's previous incumbent, Chris Day, called for structural change. He pointed to the absurdity of a planning cycle in which most of the project planning, design, framework packages, and even sometimes appointment of delivery partners, only begins once the AMP is underway. It seems we are here all over again. As he retired, Chris predicted it would be 15 years before any real change would happen. Will he be proved right? www.hydro-int.com

• Cover