Utility Week - authoritative, impartial and essential reading for senior people within utilities, regulators and government
Issue link: https://fhpublishing.uberflip.com/i/651174
8 | 11TH - 17TH MARCH 2016 | UTILITY WEEK Interview ing "it's a really interesting challenge and something we have to closely look at". "Our expectation is that there would be no deterioration in water quality and there should be no effects as a result of water trad- ing or transportation." Rink expects water trading to be tackled in the forthcoming abstraction reform legislation, and to play an ever-increasing role in the water resource challenge, especially for the companies in the south and southeast of the UK. The solution is, according to Rink, a simple one: communication. While one company is aware of what happens in its region and will have submitted part of its mitigation planning to the DWI, the recipient of any traded water may not have access to that information or have thought about the issues, which could lead to problems. "Every- thing from abstraction through to the tap must be con- sidered, must be risk assessed, and must be looked at," he says. The protection of water sources is something Rink has an obvious passion for, and something he will bring with him into the review of the EU Drinking Water Directive in the near future. Rink says the review of the directive may consider the risk assessments companies have to carry out and the materials used to purify and treat drinking water. How- ever, he adds that the key element is the protection of the water resource in the first instance. "The water we use for abstraction must be main- tained at that quality. At the end of the day the better the water at abstraction the less risk there is." Protecting fresh water sources from the impact of fracking is something he says must be ensured, and he believes that collaboration between oil and gas com- panies and the water companies is essential. The shar- ing of information about the chemicals and materials used in the fracking process is something that will let water companies prepare for and mitigate any contami- nation events. Not that Rink expects there to be a need for these plans – which the water companies will have to draw up as part of their risk-assessment strategies. "There are clear requirements for fracking and one of them is a permit which must be granted by the Envi- ronment Agency. The basis of that permit is that [the shale gas companies] cannot drill under fresh water aquifers – so we know there is a low risk if it is carried out properly." He adds that the oil and gas industry, in co-operation with the water sector, could work together to debunk myths about the safety of fracking and "put consumers' minds at risk". However, one area where Rink does have reservations is the impact of competition. His predecessor, Jeni Colbourne, told Utility Week at the end of 2014 that the introduction of non-household competition could affect the quality of water supplied. She said: "Are there any new hazards? Yes. Opening the market, in theory, significantly puts up the risk." Her concerns are echoed by her successor, who says both the introduction of non-domestic competition and domestic competition – which could start to be intro- duced by 2020 following the government's announce- ment at the end of last year – could make the sector significantly more complex. "I see the water industry like a jigsaw puzzle. At the moment it's a 25-piece jigsaw puzzle. When you put [non-household] competition into the water industry, it is like a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle. That doesn't mean the puzzle can't be solved and you can't see the picture, but it does add another level of complexity." The potential for domestic competition at the end of the decade takes the complexity – and the metaphor – further still, even if it is currently in the DWI's "future challenges" pile. "That's moving from a 1,000-piece jigsaw to a 50 mil- lion-piece jigsaw. You're increasing complexity even fur- ther, but there is no reason it shouldn't happen and no reason it shouldn't be successful." Whatever the state of competition, he says, the inspectorate's remit will remain the same – "ensuring the customer receives all the time good quality, clean and wholesome water". If standards fall below this, Rink is well aware that the implications would be profound for the trust and confidence that customers have in the sector, something the DWI's fellow regulator Ofwat is pushing hard to build and maintain. "People are confident in water but when they lose confidence, it is very difficult to get it back. You can't take it off the shelf if something is wrong, so we've got to get it right first time, every time." The DWI's regulatory approach is different from that of its regulatory sibling in the Environment Agency, which has recently hit companies with a series of record fines for pollution events. Rink intends to take the DWI down a different path. "We are promoting a self-regulatory model – the water industry is at the forefront of self-regulation. "We ask them to do the risk assessment, they provide us with the information, and they mitigate those risks. Where that doesn't happen we do use regulatory tools to ensure that they do." These tools include issuing notices on the companies, carrying out investigations, working with the water com- panies to resolve any issues, and then, as a last resort, fining and penalising the supplier or whoever is respon- sible for the water quality problem. The aim for Rink, and the inspectorate, is to be "the invisible regulator". "If you have to jump up and down and shout, if peo- ple are contacting you, you've not got it right. If you're working nicely in the background and industry is taking note, doing their duties – that's where I want to be." In that sense, Rink believes his history with the DWI been positive. He joined in 2002 as an inspector, before working his way up to become principal inspector, dep- uty chief inspector and then taking on the chief inspector role in August last year. "I do have the feeling that having a pair of hands that has been in the industry for a while is probably a plus rather than a minus. That's important from a regula- tory point of view to have a strong science background and a strong water background because the industry respects that." He adds with a smile: "I've pretty much been to every treatment works in the country and there hasn't been a company in this country where I've not set foot or visited their offices." This gives him a great vantage point from which to work with the sector, keeping companies on task to ensure that, however the sector develops, they keep pro- viding clean, safe, and wholesome water. "If you pollute the water and use expensive technology to remove it, that's a bit of an own goal."