Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I welcome Dr Gary Curran, Northern Ireland Water's (NIW) director of engineering and sustainability; Angela Halpenny, Northern Ireland Water's head of environmental regulation; and Paddy Brow, Northern Ireland Water's head of the living with water programme.

Are members content that the evidence is recorded by Hansard?

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We have your presentation and members have had a chance to look at it. We are fully aware of the funding issues that affect NI Water. Today, we are focusing on waste water capacity issues. As I did with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), I will give you 10 minutes to go through everything. I ask that you focus on the waste water capacity issues because that is what the Committee has asked you to present on today. We are fully aware of the funding issues, so we are happy for you to move on from that. I invite you to make a 10-minute presentation; we have the details of it in front of us.

Dr Gary Curran (Northern Ireland Water): Thank you for the opportunity to present to the Committee today on waste water issues. I will certainly talk about capacity matters, but it needs to be reflected that capacity and funding go hand in hand and cannot really be separated. We are a delivery organisation and, obviously, we are engaged with a lot of stakeholders that have many conflicting pressures and opposing positions. The task of highlighting the key link between capacity and the impact on the environment lies with NIEA. A lot of the interaction is based on the social and environmental guidance. That is one of the key documents that steers how we interact and what we are required to deliver.

We are talking about compliance, so let us look at the waste water assets that we have. We treat over 360 million litres of waste water a day, and we do that through over 1,000 waste water treatment works. That is probably a reflection of our rural geography. I know that earlier this morning, you were talking about storm overflows. We have 2,444 of those, which is probably the highest per head of population in the UK. Those are the pressure relief mechanisms that provide safeguards for properties and prevent them from flooding. Consequently, those assets may be discharging into the receiving water courses at times of high flow. That feeds into the compliance discussion that we will have today.

There is a legacy of chronic generational underinvestment. That is not something that has just happened recently. Development has continued and used up any surplus capacity that was available in a lot of areas. That is linked to the insufficient biological or hydraulic capacity at our treatment works and in our networks. The fundamental reason for constraints on development is NI Water's requirement to protect the environment for future generations. That is not Northern Ireland Water saying that it is constrained because, simply, its pipes are not big enough; it is about protecting the environment. We are custodians of the environment, but we find ourselves very much in the middle of the argument between development and compliance. If we continue to connect above overloaded storm overflows or failing works, more sewage will be spilled into the environment and the water quality in our rivers, loughs and seas will worsen.

What are we doing to mitigate the impact of the constraints and how are we balancing that with the environmental pressures? We are maximising our infrastructure wherever possible. I head the engineering team, and one of the key things that we are looking at is how to maximise the assets that we have and look at catchment-based solutions. We are looking at targeted interventions with any additional funding that comes along. We were willing to accept — it was gratefully received — some additional funding towards the end of last year that facilitated some housing development. We will continue to do that while continuing to work with developers on developer-led and developer-funded solutions. We do not want to have to say no to developers, and we are doing everything in our control to facilitate connections whilst endeavouring to protect the environment. We deploy a range of interventions to do that, but they are having diminishing returns. We will not be able to do that ad infinitum. We need substantial investment to improve our assets so that we can facilitate that.

There is a key slide in your pack that has a graph showing the waste water recovery programme based on price control 21 (PC21). That is a key diagram that shows that we knew that we had an issue, the legacy of which dates back to before NI Water was even formed on the waste water side. We had a plan to address it: we knew what we needed to do, we had the resources and we had the contractors and designers on board. We just needed the funding programme. That funding was qualified by the Utility Regulator, which said, "Yes. That seems like a fair and reasonable programme". We started that profile to address the waste water assets and fix the issues that were impacting on public health and the environment. It can clearly be seen from the diagram that nothing above the dashed line, which represents our current funding level, is currently achievable. That means that we are unable to address the environmental impacts in PC21, the regulatory time frame for which we are currently in.

The issue of constrained funding becomes even more acute in price control 27 (PC27) to the point that it could start to impact on proposed work to enhance our clean water assets, and there could be no enhancement at all of our waste water assets. That is a developing and potentially more severe issue. In addition, we will not be able to address the transition to a net zero position or even plan for the new sludge disposal facilities to treat the sludge that comes out of our waste water assets.

In essence, we are saying that we require something in the order of £600 million to £700 million a year of capital funding to invest in our assets to bring them up to current standards. If standards become tighter and requirements change, additional funding may be required. That puts Northern Ireland perilously close to having a permanent waste water issue; potentially no improvement in water course standards, where waste water is the primary pollutant; and limited ability to meet new environmental commitments. That could end our ability to connect most new homes and enterprises, and, following the recent publication of the Programme for Government, it could impact on the ability to improve the economy, housing and the environment. This is a societal issue for Northern Ireland; it is not an issue specifically for NI Water.

I will stop there and open up to questions, if you feel that that is appropriate.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you for working with me. That was under 10 minutes as well, so both NIEA and NI Water have done well today with their presentations.

I am keen to focus on NI Water's policy on capacity constraints. How is overall capacity determined by NI Water?

Dr Curran: That issue comes up quite often. There is a slide in your pack that identifies and gives some clarity on that. The determination is based on failing assets. That is why we close part or all of a catchment. Failing assets are a consequence of environmental impact, which is determined by where the constraints are. That could be at the works if the design capacity of the works has been exceeded; the population level that NIEA has given consent to being served by the works has been exceeded; the works are failing or are at risk of failing the sanitary compliance criteria set out by NIEA; or, as, I think, you discussed earlier, there are enforcement actions from NIEA on the works.

In our networks, there could be unacceptable storm overflows that do not meet the NIEA requirements for hydraulic capacity or, to put it a better way, the retention of waste water in the network.

Those are determined in-house. A specific group of people in my team has been set aside to develop the hydraulic models with the increasing site-based information from flow monitoring that is coming back. Those models are industry best practice, they are third-party audited and they are managed by a skilled and qualified group of professionals. We believe that those models and the evidence that we are gathering from sites — because those models will then be verified from those site samples, and so on — are the best way in which to determine, at the minute, whether there is capacity or constraint in the network. We will therefore be in a difficult position when it comes to accepting any new development that is upstream of that constraint. We currently work to a zero-detriment approach, so there is the opportunity to facilitate connections, maybe from a brownfield site, or to accept some new connections if there is the opportunity to offset storm water from the network. There is not necessarily a blanket ban just because that asset has failed. There may be opportunities, but, as I mentioned earlier, those opportunities are starting to have diminishing returns because, ultimately, any spare capacity or anything that you can do on the network will be used up.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Is anybody checking your capacity figures, bar the likes of —?

Dr Curran: Yes. Those models are third-party audited. That is not just done by my own team; external parties look at them. Those models are all audited. At the minute, through assessment of compliance at storm overflows, NIEA has categorised around 39% of our storm overflows as being non-compliant. That is determined not just by NI Water but by NI Water working with NIEA and that third-party auditing process.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): That 39% is quite a significant figure. What are you trying to implement now to turn that around, and what is the timescale for reducing that 39%?

Dr Curran: That 39% is quite a significant figure. To be honest, it will probably get higher as we get more information back. Of the storm overflows that we have assessed, the figure for those that are non-compliant is probably closer to 50%. As I said, 85% of our network is now modelled, so we know what we need to do through increasing the capacity of the network or the water treatment works. A lot of that is about alleviating the restriction. We are also looking at trying to bring in modern technologies. The event duration monitors (EDM) that you talked about give us much more detailed information on what is actually happening on a site. We cross-reference that with the modelled information. A lot of work is going on to try to get a really good understanding, but, as I say, we are also endeavouring to use capacity and maximise every bit of it that we can in the network.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): In the previous session, we talked about dry spilling and the lack of information on that. Will you ensure that you have all the infrastructure in place to properly monitor dry spilling?

Dr Curran: One key element in the monitoring of dry spilling is the EDMs that I talked about — those event duration monitors. We have some capital money to put those in place. One of the last slides in the presentation talks about EDMs. You can see that everything to the left-hand side of the graphic on that slide is operational activity. Putting the monitor in place is actually the relatively straightforward piece: there is the maintenance of that, the assessment of all the flows, the analysis to understand what is happening, and then the operational response. The larger element of activity, and possibly the larger element of expenditure, will be on the operational side to do all of that. We have a programme and we are expanding the number of EDMs that we are putting out. Eventually, we would like to see EDMs at our storm overflows, but they also have to go in at our works. We recently updated our website with last year's information. For 2024, we have published data from those EDMs, which number 132, on our bathing waters. We have published the frequency, duration and operability of those instruments.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): In the last session, you heard me ask NIEA about the five-year rule for houses or developments that are vacant. Who came up with that?

Dr Curran: That was an internal proposal. For a property that is vacant, we felt that five years was a sensible time frame within which a developer can go in, design, build and get all the necessary planning permission. It would allow the development to continue. We acknowledge that that comes with a certain risk to NI Water in trying to manage the flows that come from the development, but without it the default position for a property that became vacant for any period would have been that no flow could come from it if somebody purchased it. The rule is an effort to address that. Our developer services team manages that process in-house. You will be aware that, if a property has extant planning approval, we are obligated to connect it, even in a network that is constrained.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Why five years?

Dr Curran: It felt like a sensible time frame, based on engagement with the industry and developers, to allow them to purchase the property, come up with proposals and construct it.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Did you engage with the industry before creating that policy in NI Water?

Dr Curran: Yes. We engaged with the industry to try to understand what felt like a sensible time frame: a period that was long enough but not too long. Five years is a compromise: it is not definitive. Should it be six years or should it be four years? It was felt that five years was a good compromise to facilitate the normal processes.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I have an interest in unadopted development sites. You will be aware that developer-led contributions are coming down the track. NI Water has worked with developers in the past, creating article 161 agreements and putting them in place, and developers have created their own waste water treatment plants. In my area, that has resulted in some water pollution incidents. Does NI Water accept that it has helped facilitate the water pollution incidents across Northern Ireland, by creating a scenario in which people have been allowed to set up mini waste water treatment plants? NI Water has said, "We're not adopting these sites". Meanwhile, the treatment plants at those sites have been allowed — they have been given consent by NI Water — and are continually allowed to spill pollution into our waterways.

Dr Curran: If developers are looking to build on sites that cannot be connected to our infrastructure, there is an option for package plants, possibly, to be built. There is a fairly well-defined process that the developer needs to go through, which involves engaging with us and building and testing that asset to the required standard and handing it over. In essence, we put the developer through the same process that we would have to go through if we were building a package plant. It should be built and capable of running to the required standard that we would ask of ourselves.

As mentioned earlier, the developer will have to get discharge consent from NIEA for where the output from that site goes, but there is a clear and well-defined process. If that developer does not put in place the required infrastructure — it could be as simple as laying the sewers or package plants incorrectly — we will not adopt it.

There is a bond that could be put in place whereby, if the developer goes bust, we — or DFI, as it was at the time — could step in and undertake some work. In certain circumstances, however, the value of that bond may not be sufficient to allow the remedial work to be done.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Enforcement action is under way with NI Water. Can you detail that enforcement action?

Dr Curran: Enforcement? Sorry, I am —.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Enforcement in terms of water quality and waste water capacity with the Utility Regulator.

Dr Curran: More generally? It is constant, and Angela may be better placed to talk about the enforcement process. There is constant engagement between ourselves and NIEA on sampling, the consequences of that sampling and any enforcement that may come out of it.

Ms Angela Halpenny (Northern Ireland Water): There are two elements to enforcement. Dealing with pollution incidents, I think that NIEA made it clear that SORPI does not cover management failures. In those cases, it would take enforcement action for high- or medium-severity incidents. That would involve a statement under caution that we present to NIEA. It considers the facts that we present, and if it feels that there is sufficient evidence, it will submit the file to the PPS and that will be taken forward to the courts for a prosecution.

On the waste water side, with regard to non-compliance at a waste water treatment works, in the announced sampling regime we report the results to NIEA. We operate self-monitoring, so it is our responsibility to collect the samples, analyse the tests and report monthly to NIEA. It then assesses the samples and determines whether we have met the sanitary compliance conditions for the consent. If we did not, we receive a warning letter. That is the start of the NIEA enforcement process, and the letter will ask us to give an account of why the treatment works has failed to meet the requirements of the consent and what we were doing about it. After two consecutive years it moves up to a postal caution. When we submit our evidence in the postal caution, NIEA will serve an enforcement notice on the treatment works, and that will have a compliance date, generally tied in to our capital works programme. We then have a compliance date to work to in order to make whatever improvements are necessary to comply with the conditions of the consent.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Very quickly, how many enforcement notices do you have?

Ms Halpenny: Currently, eight treatment works have enforcement notices on them.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Are those eight situated across Northern Ireland?

Ms Halpenny: Yes.

Mr Stewart: Thanks, folks, for coming along today. It was useful that you were here for the previous session, so you got to hear what NIEA said.

We had a useful session with NI Water two meetings ago. I raised the issue in my constituency which is effectively a blanket ban on development. When I raised the issue of a priority need for a special educational needs school that was trying to increase capacity, there was an initial refusal. When I asked why case-by-case examples could not be used, the response from NI Water was very much that it was an NIEA issue. However, that did not seem to be the case. Will you talk us through the collaborative relationship between you and NIEA? When it is just an automatic response for Northern Ireland Water to refuse?

Dr Curran: Back to the fundamentals: our assets are deemed to be compliant or non-compliant, so are they having a negative impact on the environment? If they are, we cannot facilitate any additional load to our network. That arrangement of whether they are compliant or non-compliant is done in conjunction with NIEA. As for accepting new development, our developer services team manages that. I am not exactly sure of the detail of the case that you are talking about, but I imagine that the team will have looked at the potential loading that would have come out of that development and whether there were failing assets downstream. In Larne, development has been facilitated through a developer-led and -funded substantial package plant because of the impact on the environment of doing it otherwise. As I said, if that is built to the required standards and so on, it will come into our ownership and we will run it going forward. Part of the difficulty that we have is if there is a proliferation of those package plants. If we are not able to accommodate connections through the normal way and package plants are seen as the solution to it, accepting that they are built to the correct standards and so on, there are quite substantial increased operational costs for Northern Ireland Water to start taking on all of those, acknowledging that the quite substantial number of works at the minute further add to that.

Mr Stewart: I appreciate that you mentioned Larne, because it takes me to my next point on the waste capacity issue at large in Northern Ireland. The waste water treatment facility in Larne was opened in 2011 to much fanfare, and it was said at the time, by both NI Water and the Minister, that it was future-proofed until at least 2030. I appreciate that things sometimes change, but, by 2018, it was at capacity, yet there was not a great deal of development above and beyond what was in the local area plan. How come, within seven years, a waste treatment facility can be at capacity, and what assurances can the Committee get that, when there is the rightful investment in waste water recovery plans, the facilities that are built will be future-proofed and not at capacity in seven years instead of 20?

Dr Curran: Again, I do not know the precise details of that. I imagine that the works itself may have sufficient capacity but that the incapacity is in the catchment and the storm overflows. A lot more emphasis has been placed on storm overflows and what is coming out of that in catchments all across Northern Ireland, so we are now looking very much on a holistic basis at our catchment management, not separating out a works from a network. We look at it in totality. The constraints in Larne are possibly more around discharges from the network through those storm overflows.

Mr Stewart: That takes me to my next point. On your engagement with the Department on the water, flooding and sustainable drainage Bill and the developer-led solutions that might come through legislation, we heard that that was going to public consultation. We were, perhaps rightly, a little concerned that there did not seem to be the level of engagement between yourselves and the Department that we might have expected, given that this is one of the key pillars of a solution to waste water entering the solutions. I am interested to get your thoughts on how that legislation might be part of a solution and how impactful it could be, both the developer-led aspect of it and the flooding and sustainable drainage Bill.

Dr Curran: I will take the developer-led bit, and Paddy can talk first about the legislation.

Mr Paddy Brow (Northern Ireland Water): We welcome legislation coming through. We need to engage with the Department on that. Our chief executive was here two weeks ago and discussed that, and we are looking forward to engaging with the Department. She was very clear to say that it is not a silver bullet, which is correct. We have done some analysis that indicates that it could give us in the region of 1% of our capital per annum. It will really help in rural locations where we have issues with overflows and small treatment works, but if we look at big locations like Belfast, it will not be significant, because those are really large treatment works that have been deferred for over 10 years already. If you look at the scale of the capital that they require, you will see that it is not going to be a significant factor. It is welcome and has the potential to benefit some locations, but it is not a silver bullet.

Mr Stewart: That is useful. Thank you very much, Paddy. What about the developer-led aspect?

Dr Curran: The developer-led piece is another tool in the toolbox and has had some degree of success, but, as Paddy said, there are diminishing returns coming out of that. As we use up any spare capacity that we can potentially eke out of our networks or works, that will be used up.

Mr Stewart: This is my final point. We could ask questions all day, but I am conscious of time. The slides refer to PC21 and the shortfall of £0·8 billion. If that was to become available through another silver bullet tomorrow, how long would that take to roll out and to take capacity to where it needs to be so that we do not have the constraint issues that we have now?

Mr Brow: The good news is that greater Belfast really illustrates the benefits of our having a plan. When we developed the living with water programme in 2015, we worked to understand our network and where we could make investments to unlock capacity. When the Department came to us and said, "Although there has been a shortfall in investment of about £150 million capital over the past year, we have some additional capital that could become available", we were able to say, "Yes, that can be used in this location". That just shows the benefit of investment planning. We are on site at the moment in upper Falls waste water treatment works doing some work that should be completed in about a year and a half, which is great. However, we have now demobilised 150 scientists and engineers who were on site to build these large waste water treatment works. Those have been stopped. We can get them back, but, after the approval of the full business cases, it will take six months to get on site. Two weeks ago, when our chief executive was here, she said that, in order to be able to efficiently deliver those major projects, we need a commitment that sustained levels of increased capital investment will be available for many years, because they are so large. If we are given an initial amount of money for one year, that means that we cannot award contracts for the big treatment works. The smaller pockets of money that we are given are very welcome, and we will make the very best use of those when we can. We have a great engineering team that will look at where the money that we are given can make the most impact. We have been given some additional funding over and above what we are expecting for next year, and that is already being allocated to progress those smaller projects. However, we have to be careful and understand that those are just the smaller projects; the larger ones cannot be taken forward.

Mr Stewart: Has an analysis been done of the cost implication of not fully funding and delaying the work? You said that the scientists and engineers have been put on hold. It will take time and money to re-energise them. What is the impact of not investing to save, effectively?

Mr Brow: It will cost more. For Belfast lough, the consequences are potentially profound. We predicted that, if we did not address the investment needs of Belfast, the water quality would continue to decline and the shellfish industry would collapse. We are seeing that. Successive Northern Ireland Environment Agency reviews of Belfast lough show that the water quality is declining. The shellfish industry used to produce 10,000 tons of mussels a year in Belfast lough, which was fantastic. That provides what are called ecosystem services. Each individual mussel filters about 18 litres of water a day. We are now down to 1,000. The beds are moving from an acceptable class to an unacceptable class. We are watching in real time the collapse of the shellfish industry, and NIEA's reports tell us that the water quality is declining. If we lose that ecosystem service, it will cost us a lot more to invest. If there were no shellfish industry, the additional cost at Belfast waste water treatment works alone could be £50 million. Operational costs are a real challenge and concern for us. That would mean that the operational cost of that plant alone would increase by £1 million a year. We would have to import methanol, which is carbon, and pay for that in order to achieve more stringent standards. That just underlines the fact that we are on a knife edge with regard to Belfast lough. We have to maintain and protect the shellfish industry. Deferring the investment is a real challenge. That is why we published the 'Story of Belfast Lough' in October last year. We worked with stakeholders to collect all of the information, put it in a condensed form and say, "These are the implications of deferring this investment".

Mr Stewart: That is really useful. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): When the chief executive was at Committee two weeks ago, she said that the engagement with the Department on developer-led contributions would happen later that week. Did that engagement happen, or are you still waiting to have it?

Dr Curran: I am not sure. I imagine that it went ahead.

Mr Brow: I think that it has started, which we welcome.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK.

Mr K Buchanan: Thanks for coming along. My question is about the 1,027 waste water treatment works. You referred to how you determine capacity constraint. Do you determine that based on a heavy rain incident, a rain incident or no rain incident? In other words, how do you define the capacity?

Dr Curran: We base it on —.

Mr K Buchanan: I know that it has a volume of capacity, but what are you basing your sums on?

Dr Curran: The models that we run take an average of 20 years' rainfall for that particular catchment, where we can get that information. We then build up an idealised rainfall profile for a year and run what happens in that network, modelling a year's rainfall based on data for, say, 20 years. We look at that in all conditions, including dry-weather flows — up to three or six dry-weather flows — to see what happens. There is a complete range. These are not simple calculations such as those that, historically, I would have done with pen and paper; they are very complex models. We run those models, and they are then verified from site data. It is not just a case of running the model; we go out and analyse what happens over the course of at least a year so that the summer and winter periods are taken into account. We verify those from site-based information, as well.

Mr K Buchanan: You are getting the storm and rain data across an average. You need to try to make this work for me, though, because I just do not understand that. Taking an average day, do you allow for there being some rain every day?

Dr Curran: Not necessarily, no.

Mr K Buchanan: On what basis, then, is the capacity of those 1,027 plants designed?

Dr Curran: The flow compliance of a works is based on a range of conditions, both hydraulic and biological. We look at the dry-weather flow, the full flow to treatment and the "formula A flow", as it is called. We look at what comes into the works, what has to be treated, what has to be retained in storage tanks and what can be discharged. We look at a complete range when it comes to hydraulic capacity.

Mr K Buchanan: If there were to be a dry spell in the summer, would those plants be sitting at 80%, 90% or 100% on average? This is a strange way to put it, but say there was no rain: broadly what capacity would those 1,027 plants be sitting at?

Dr Curran: It depends. Every catchment area is completely different. We may even have inputs from trade effluent; we do not accept just domestic waste, but trade effluent waste as well. Every day is different. There could be groundwater infiltration from some of the sewers and things like that. Every catchment is different, so I cannot possibly say what a low-flow —.

Mr K Buchanan: I will put it another way. Are they at capacity now, based on there being no heavy rain?

Dr Curran: The works or the networks?

Mr K Buchanan: The treatment works.

Dr Curran: The works are based on information that has come in from a number of years, including a full range of flow conditions.

Mr K Buchanan: Are you more concerned with —. Can those treatment plants handle it not raining all summer? Do they have the capacity today if it does not rain all summer?

Dr Curran: It depends on the condition of the works. Some of them may not be able to reach the standards, but it is very dependent, and every year is different. It is not a binary yes or no answer. Flow into our sewers is variable and dependent on what comes in.

Mr K Buchanan: OK. You talked about the biological and hydraulic capacity. Of those 1,027 works, what, broadly, is the issue: biological or hydraulic constraints?

Dr Curran: It is a combination of the two. At the minute, a lot of focus has been put on biological capacity. That is very much what we are looking at in the announced sampling that you heard about. In terms of the impact on the receiving environment, however, you need to take into account biological capacity: the strength of the effluent and the flow volume. Basically, a combination of those two will give you the figure for the loading on the environment.

Mr K Buchanan: What methods are you looking at for increasing biological treatment capacity without having more tanks?

Dr Curran: That is one of the key things that we are looking at. How can we do things differently? How we can avoid building more large concrete boxes? How can we really invigorate our works? For example, I sit on the UK Water Industry Research council, and we are very aware of a lot of the technologies that are coming through. We look constantly at different technologies that are coming through that might give us incremental increases to the treatment processes or fundamentally change the treatment processes. We are, however, very aware of all the techniques that are coming out for clean water and waste water when it comes to improving capacity at our works.

Mr K Buchanan: Is the biological aspect the biggest cost in of a treatment plant upgrade, as in more retention time? What trials have you done to improve biological time?

Dr Curran: Again, you cannot separate the two, because flow times load gives you the impact on the environment. We look at where the sanitary compliance targets are taking us; what we can do; where they are going to go, potentially, in the future; what we may have to do to future-proof that; and what we can do on flow compliance. Is there an opportunity for taking unwanted water out of the network, for instance? As a rule of thumb, 85% of what is treated is rainwater, so wow can we remove that?

Mr K Buchanan: I have one more question, if I may. Who came up with the one-in-12 storm water offsetting rule?

Dr Curran: The one-in-12 offsetting rule is a guide that we worked with NIEA on. It is very much based on the zero detriment principle. Going back to what I said about coverage of the models, that will give us an initial view, and if the developer wishes to go further, we will engage through a waste water impact assessment, and if we have models in place, run those models. That figure may change to be appropriate or specific — bespoke — for that catchment.

Mr McReynolds: As the only Belfast MLA on the Committee, I will kick off with the living with water programme for Belfast. It has been described recently as being paused, stalled or delayed. How would you describe how the delivery of the programme is currently sitting?

Mr Brow: It is a combination. The major projects are paused, stopped or not proceeding because they cannot be done unless the full business case has been approved and we have the teams in place, but they have been demobilised. There are other projects — smaller projects — that are continuing. We welcomed the news yesterday that the Northern Ireland Executive were releasing £15 million from an innovation fund for some work. That will most likely be invested in one of the catchments where we have particular capacity issues. We are working in west Belfast on a project that is specifically designed to release capacity for new houses. We are proceeding with some of the smaller projects that we can proceed with, but major projects are stopped.

Mr McReynolds: Is there supposed to be work taking place at the Sydenham pumping station over the summer? Is that work that was initially planned, or is it a short-term measure to try to look after what is there?

Mr Brow: The Sydenham pumping station needs to be replaced completely. It is the pumping station that serves this Building, and it pumps from here to Kinnegar. It is out of capacity, it does not have any storm storage, the pumps in it are of poor design and it is prone to flooding houses. We operate that pumping station very carefully to avoid flooding houses. If you go into it, you will see boxes full of spares ready to connect up. Every time it rains, we have a wet-weather protocol to attend that site. Unfortunately, because of the funding constraints, that project has been stopped. We were to build a complete replacement, which would have had storm storage to reduce the overflows. It is Northern Ireland's single largest overflow. It discharges into the Connswater virtually every time that it rains. Due to its status, the Environment Agency will not allow us to remove ten overflows that discharge into the Connswater community greenway, so they also cause pollution when it rains. That project is stopped, but we are going to carry out some essential base maintenance. We are concerned about how that pumping station is at risk of power outages. Unfortunately, we have had recent power outages that caused us great concern. With our precious base maintenance money, we are going to be investing £2 million this year to buy two generators which would have been installed in the permanent facility — in the new replacement pumping station. We are going ahead and buying those and fitting them beside the existing pumping station, because operating that pumping station in a way that does not cause the flooding of houses is our priority. That takes precedence over the environment in that location.

Mr McReynolds: You mentioned flooding of houses; every time I hear that, Naomi Long appears in my head. When she was MP for East Belfast, she went to the Sydenham area — that is roughly where she is from — to witness the impact of the flooding there at that time. You also mentioned power outages; what does that look like?

Mr Brow: That looks like issues at a Northern Ireland Electricity substation materialising, and then the power goes off. The most recent one was on 23 February, when the power to that pumping station was off for two hours. Let me give you an idea of the scale of that pumping station. If you say, "Let's bring in an emergency generator", there are only two emergency generators that can move — that are not bolted down — on this island that could get there. If we put it on a lorry, we could not get it to that site unless we demolished five houses. That is just an idea of how big that pumping station is. It serves 5% of the population of Northern Ireland. There are no generators there at the moment, because we have dual supply coming in. The pumping station gets things called brownouts, where there are fluctuations in the electricity supply or one phase drops out. That means that the panels go off. That is why, whenever there is rain or heavy wind, we send guys there who have to sit overnight in a terrible hovel of a room and nurse that pumping station through. If there are issues, or if equipment is fried by some of those fluctuations, they open up those boxes with all the spares and they get to work to keep that pumping station alive. We are very concerned about that pumping station. We are very concerned about the risk of flooding. There have been two near instances in the past six months where we got to within hours of flooding houses. We are doing everything possible to maintain that pumping station, to look after it and nurse it through, but we are nursing through an asset that needs to be completely replaced. The pumps in it have a propensity to turn wet wipes into rope, and when they block the pumps it takes 20 hours to get the pumps out and replace them. In a modern pumping station, it takes 20 minutes to lift the pump out.

Keith, you referenced capacity constraints and issues. If you want to look at that facility, see the boxed spares and look at how we nurse that through and operate it, or if you want to see big frames the size of this room welded up with temporary pumps welded into place so that, if one of the pumps fails, we can turn on a temporary pump that is 40 years old and start throwing it over the wall rather than flooding houses, you can come there. That pumping station is completely optimised to stop out-of-sewer flooding, but it needs to be replaced urgently.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Paddy. That touches on my next question, which is about the capital resource side of things that we often do not think about. I do not believe that the public thinks about it, even in terms of water treatment and water management; it is so capital-heavy, resource-heavy and engineering-heavy. In the previous session, I mentioned my fear that a battle is beginning to emerge between development, water quality and environmental protection. What processes does Northern Ireland Water follow to treat water effectively? What do you make of the idea that Northern Ireland Water could perhaps scale back and be more efficient to deliver and manage water?

Mr Brow: We use a range of processes in each of our waste water treatment works to treat waste water. My answer to Keith's question about whether we rush to build new assets is no; we seek to avoid that. The living with water programme has three major treatment works: Whitehouse, Belfast and Kinnegar. They serve a third of the population of Northern Ireland, but they are all out of capacity. The treatment works that serves this Building was designed to serve about 100,000 people, but today it is serving 170,000. That is why, if you drive in on the road from Bangor, you will often get a whiff of odour. That is the smell of an overloaded waste water treatment works doing its best.

When we designed those waste water treatment works, we went to the international market to get the best experience that we could to say, "How can we upgrade those in the most cost-effective way?" The upgrade for Kinnegar is based on some innovative Dutch technology, which means that we only have to build one new main process tank and refurbish the other five. The Belfast upgrade is based on technology called integrated fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS), which was developed by Severn Trent Water and is described as a "process intensification". That treatment works needs to be doubled in capacity; it was designed 27 years ago to serve 300,000 people for a 25-year life. Kinnegar was designed 30 years ago with a 25-year life, and that has passed. Rather than building a complete replacement works, we only need to build two new lanes to add to the additional eight, and then we will intensify the other lanes.

The Whitehouse is a different type of process and we will intensify that with an American technology.

We have employed the best international experience that we can to work out how to upgrade the treatment works. The upgrades are designed and complete. The outline business cases are complete, and two out of the four have been submitted to DFI, and we are ready to deliver them. As I said, if the full business cases, which we can submit very quickly, are approved, it will take six months to get on-site at those treatment works.

Mr McMurray: Thank you for the presentation thus far. I want to revisit some of the things that you have said. You said that a lack of funding risks waste water issues becoming permanent. We have touched on some of them, but where is the tipping point for permanency, and why do you feel that there is feel that there is a point of no return?

Dr Curran: To take that on and relate the compliance and funding, we are probably at that tipping point now. We really are at the point where, if funding is not substantially elevated to the levels that we have outlined and signed off by the Utility Regulator, there is very limited opportunity to improve the standards. We have indicated that something in the order of £600 million to £700 million a year capital expenditure is required to ensure compliance, and that needs to be sustained over a number of years and a number of price control periods. It is not a one-off that we need this year and that will resolve the issue; it needs to be sustained.

Mr McMurray: Thank you. Again, to come back to another point about developer contribution and that we may have diminishing returns in that regard. In my head, there are engineered solutions to slow the surface water coming in, there are package plants that have been mentioned today, and then the waste water treatment works. The last time your colleagues were in, nine out of the 13 had been paused as such. Is there a disconnect between what developer contributions can achieve and what is required to solve the issue?

Dr Curran: Developer contributions are quite specific and bespoke. For example, in a certain circumstance where we need an upgrade of a small pumping station or something like that, a developer contribution may be sufficient to facilitate that development. However, for the sort of figures that Paddy is talking about for Belfast, the developer contribution is not going to be able to do that. What is needed is sustained funding. A developer contribution could be suitable for a small area or as a particular small asset. It will help; there is no doubt that, and it is another tool in the toolbox that can be employed. Ultimately, for the likes of Belfast or other major waste water treatment works, developer contributions are not going to do it. Indeed, it is the mechanics around it, and if you are a developer, how much you actually pay. Do you just pay enough to get the capacity for your site? Then, the next person comes along, and we have to start that again. Do you build another pumping station? It is a management issue. It is welcome and will be useful, but it is quite specific.

Mr McMurray: OK. Some of the evidence that was submitted showed that 50% of the waste water treatment works have failed or have been at risk of failing in the last four years, but only 5% have been subject to enforcement action. Again, the 30% overflow is currently not meeting NIEA standards. How do you feel about that? Is it a reflection of the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI) arrangements? We heard in the evidence session that SORPI was in place, but it seems that it is not working. What is your opinion on SORPI?

Dr Curran: I will take the first bit, and Angela might go into a bit more on the scientific side. SORPI was put in place when Northern Ireland Water was formed. It was a reflection of the asset's status at that time and the need for sustainable long-term funding. It was a reflection of the failure and a transition to allow us the time and the investment to bring those assets up to a certain time. It was only ever meant to be a time-bound and not a permanent solution. It facilitates development at the moment, and the NIEA is very aware of that in its considerations going forward. The withdrawal of SORPI needs to be considered in the round with everything taken on board. It was only ever meant to be a time-bound proposal or a transition to allow NI Water to bring its assets up to the required standards when the funding came in. Maybe, Angela could add a bit more.

Ms Halpenny: Yes. On the 5%, NIEA bases enforcement on the announced sampling programme. For those purposes, we have considered all available evidence, so we do not sleepwalk into causing a bigger environmental issue. Therefore, in preparation for waste water regulation reform, we have undertaken unannounced sampling regimes to understand the difference between the announced sample dates and how the work performs on that day, compared to an unannounced date. The operational teams in NI Water do not have any visibility of the sample dates. Any sample that failed or works at risk of failing were included in the assessment, and that is how the 50% number came about.

Mr McMurray: Some 50% have failed or are at risk of failing, yet only 5% are subject to enforcement action. The two figures do not seem to marry up, given the extent of the problem.

Ms Halpenny: Yes. The 5% are the works with enforcement notices, which is the highest tier of enforcement. There is a build-up from the warning letters that I referred to earlier. A number of works will be at that stage, and if they fail for another consecutive year, they will be in the enforcement notice process. We are currently dealing with the 2024 regulatory correspondence from the NIEA about the works that will be likely to reach that stage.

Mr Boylan: Thank you very much for your presentation. I promise, Chair, that I will not get into the PCs because it is a different issue for another day. I do not want to turn the issue into the environment versus building houses. We will leave that aside.

Did NI Water play any part in updating the social and environmental guidance?

Dr Curran: There is an action on all the parties involved to update the social and environmental guidance. We certainly played our part and drafted the amendments that we considered needed to be included, particularly to take on board the climate requirements that probably were not in place at the time. Indeed, one of the key things is getting something into the guidance that will specifically call out development. The ability to provide the facilities for economic development, either commercial or housing, is currently not in the existing social and environmental guidance. There is no directive to point us in the direction of facilitating new connections.

Mr Boylan: You mentioned building major projects, and we all know about your budgets and that a multi-year budget would be better. What environmental impact does that have?

Dr Curran: Working to an annual budget is really difficult for the larger projects that Paddy referred to. It is the lack of ability to properly plan and deliver those assets in an efficient way. Multi-year budgets for all Departments, not just the Department for Infrastructure, would be welcomed. It makes things —

Mr Boylan: I appreciate that, but my point is why not look at upgrading systems instead?

Dr Curran: We certainly talked about that, and maximising the potential of existing assets is something that we are very much focused on. We will not necessarily go to a default of a blanket replacement of an asset. When we talk about waste water, we will look at the whole catchment and see whether there are opportunities to reduce loads coming in. One of the most beneficial things that we have seen recently is through engagement, particularly with Angela's team on the trade effluent side, looking at a specific manufacturing process in a catchment. They have now introduced on-site treatment, which has not removed but significantly reduced the load coming in. Through that engagement, we have been able to reduce the overall load coming into that treatment works. In conjunction with other things, that may allow us — it is still early days — through some substantial base maintenance and some small enhancement, to get that back up to an acceptable standard without having to do a complete replacement.

Mr Boylan: I have two final questions. Is our water quality fairly good?

Dr Curran: Drinking water?

Mr Boylan: Drinking water, yes.

Dr Curran: Yes, it is very good.

Mr Boylan: Yes, it is described as such in all the reports. My point is this. This PC is supposed to be based on waste water treatment. Why do we then continue to deny the opportunity to look at building for waste water, as opposed to drinking water? You said yourself, the drinking water is very good.

Dr Curran: It goes back to the social and environmental guidance and the direction to protect drinking water. Certainly, our drinking water is very good. We are starting to see issues, maybe taste and odour coming out from Lough Neagh. It is still safe and very acceptable to drink, but occasionally, in the summer period, you get taste and odour. Changing environmental conditions will change the requirements that we have for treating that drinking water. We will always protect drinking water: clean, safe drinking water is fundamental to a civilised society, in advance of waste water. However, an argument needs to be had on the guidance that comes to us. It is not for Northern Ireland Water to decide that. It is a societal thing. It is something for the Executive, might I suggest, to look at the preference.

The capital expenditure profile that we work to at the minute will not allow us to do everything we want to do. We have a proposal put forward with all the key stakeholders called a reasoned submission, as to how we would prioritise that work. We prioritise clean, safe drinking water. We prioritise maintenance to ensure that, when works break down, we fix them so that they do not break down. However, the enhancement element is the last piece that we will go to.

Mr Boylan: I appreciate that, and I appreciate the challenge. Finally, I want to go back to the PC issue. It seems that we need to get the balance right. We need to reach our environmental targets. None of us has a problem with that, but you also need to look at the challenge that all MLAs are facing.

I would say this, Gary, and this is what I said to NIEA. It is a slightly different operation and has different responsibilities. That is why I was asking the witnesses about SORPI. A full analysis was done on what we had and what our assets were 20 years ago. We have had so many PCs. I could ask you in this PC: the inflationary 30% or 28%, whatever you say after the three-year review, should have been looked at in the PC anyway, in potential growth. Likewise, in the new PC, they should be looked at in terms of environmental targets and challenges.

Dr Curran: Northern Ireland Water finds itself in a position where it faces conflicting pressures. We have environmental requirements, concerns for drinking water, developers who want to build and industries. We are trying to manage those. What we seek is clear guidance on those priorities. Customers will play a part in that. As regards the PC, the historic processes, you are quite right. A substantial investment has been made, but waste water has always been the poor relation.

Mr Boylan: Absolutely.

Dr Curran: There has not been the investment in waste water that is needed. There has been some — do not get me wrong. It has not been completely forgotten about, but the focus has always been on clean water. We have never had the full extent of investment in waste water that we have outlined and that the Utility Regulator recently signed off as being required.

Mr Boylan: I have one final point, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Very quickly.

Mr Boylan: When you are around it long enough, you see it. That is my point: we knew this. From all the reports and all the chat, we knew where the areas at risk of flood were, and we knew the challenges. A number of reports have been done over the past 10 or 15 years. Those should have been looked at and respected when the PCs were put in. I understand that there are bigger challenges. That is my final point. There should have been a wee bit of foresight in all those things.

Dr Curran: There has been foresight. We have done quite extensive planning for those periods and have been signalling that. Generational underinvestment has happened.

Mr Boylan: Not when we get waste water coming and the PC21 programme, after having nearly 20 years of it.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. Mark Durkan wants to come in.

Mr Durkan: Thanks to the team for coming along. We appreciate that there are conflicting pressures and priorities, and you have outlined some of those again today. Is Northern Ireland Water — I am not suggesting that this has been done wilfully — breaking the law as a result of what is happening now in Belfast lough? I can point to numerous laws on that: for example, the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, which states that it is a criminal offence to permit damage to an area of special scientific interest (ASSI); the water framework directive; and the shellfish directive. Numerous laws are being breached. Has Northern Ireland Water carried out a legal regulatory impact assessment, and, if so, what were its conclusions?

Dr Curran: We are involved in that whole regulatory impact assessment. We are doing a lot of work and taking a lot of legal opinion. We need to be clear on whether or not we are meeting compliance and the difference between not achieving compliance and breaking the law. Whether the law has been broken will be determined by the courts of law. We fully admit that there are certain circumstances in which we are not meeting those compliance targets, hence the need for the new works and so on.

Mr Durkan: Is the Utility Regulator investigating Northern Ireland Water for legal compliance?

Dr Curran: It may have a role to play on legal compliance for certain aspects. There may be compliance in terms of the environmental impact, which could be completely different. There are a lot of different bodies involved that may have an opinion on it.

Mr Durkan: But would the Utility Regulator have a remit?

Dr Curran: I am not exactly sure of the details, but it regulates us as a utility and has a view on our legal position.

Mr Durkan: OK. That is fine. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I want to follow up on a few things very quickly, if you do not mind. You spoke about unannounced sampling. Have you found any differences between, or themes in, the results from unannounced sampling and those from announced sampling?

Ms Halpenny: Yes. We have sample regimes in place. It is not like for like in terms of frequency. There are some sites from which we may choose to collect more samples because we feel that those are at higher risk of non-compliance. Broadly, we see a lower level of compliance in the unannounced regime compared with that in the announced regime.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. That is interesting. Are you able to provide the Committee with any figures on that? I also asked NIEA for those.

Ms Halpenny: Yes, we will follow that up.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): In the last session, we heard that NIEA is involved with DFI and DFC in a steering group on housing supply. Is NI Water involved in that steering group? Obviously, one of the considerations for housebuilding is capacity, so are you involved in that steering group?

Dr Curran: Through DFI, we will be involved. Only a couple of weeks ago, I presented to the Department for Communities. We are fully engaged with understanding the requirements for housing development, particularly social housing.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Will you be actively at that steering group or is just departmental officials?

Dr Curran: I imagine that we will be asked to come in and be involved in that steering group, yes.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you very much for your evidence today. We greatly appreciate it, and we appreciate your time.