Search

[...]As Ofwat ponders how to explore, how stimulate more trading in the slowly developing bioresources market, Mike Willis, Business Development Director at HUBER Technology, takes a look at some of the supply chain solutions already available to the UK water companies with the potential to make a significant contribution to enhance growth. Mike Willis: During the last price review period Ofwat published it’s Towards 2020 paper setting out how it wanted to approach PR19. Part of their strategy was to develop markets in order to encourage competition. One of these was bioresources – specifically sludge treatment, transportation and disposal - a market which Ofwat has identified with a potential value of £780 million. According to the regulator’s latest bioresources monitoring report published in October 2020, water companies, which make better use of bioresources activities – transporting, treating, recycling and disposing of wastewater sludge to develop low carbon energy -, could provide real benefits to customers, society and the environment. However, the report reveals that Ofwat has concerns about how trading in bioresources is developing and as a result the regulator is now in the process of conducting a review. Over the next few months, Ofwat is taking a more comprehensive look at the market, including assessing the current barriers to competition and the development of the market. “Trading of sludge for treatment is very low and falling” The report says that while there is a reasonable degree of competition in the market for sludge transport and disposal – with third parties providing for 43% and 45% respectively – the trading of sludge for treatment is very low and falling. The water and sewerage companies have also reported a number of barriers to competition. As a provider of key technologies in the bioresources marketplace, we see the work streams identified by Ofwat of treatment, transportation and disposal of wastewater sludge as intrinsically interlinked. So HUBER takes a particular interest in how the market is or is not – developing. We have technologies, which allow you to either thicken or dewater sludge more cheaply than conventional solutions on the market. We also looked at this in the context of how it can contribute towards reducing transportation costs. In particular, from where we stand, the choice of initial biosolids treatment directly dictates how the product is subsequently transported and disposed – and has a significant impact on overall costs. It is already generally acknowledged that the planning and design phase at the start of a project has a major impact on its overall success– not simply on the upfront capital investment cost, but also on Whole Life Costs over what are frequently many years of operational life. Early supply chain involvement has a key role to play in the development of the bioresources market – and in my view, it can make a major contribution to delivering the most effective solution in terms of cost, operational performance and carbon savings, to mention just a few. According to Ofwat’s monitoring report, the regulator is particularly concerned by the fall in sludge treatment between the water and sewerage companies WaSCs over the three-year period it has been collecting data from the WaSCs. This has fallen from 2% in 2017/18 to 0.8% in 2019-20 – and appears to be mostly made up of short-term “emergency trades” resulting from either temporary outages or a large unexpected increase in volume at a site. Ofwat’s concern is understandable, given that treatment made up approximately 70% of bioresources expenditure in 2019-20, with transport and disposal accounting for around 15% respectively. Part of Ofwat’s Water 2020 analysis suggested that up to 13.5% of sludge could be traded across company borders without facing prohibitive transport costs – but evidently the market is currently operating far below this level. Why the bioresources market activity in sludge treatment under is- developed? So why is market activity in sludge treatment much less developed – and what are the barriers hindering the expansion of longer – term trades? It seems clear to suggest that a greater focus on this stage of the process holds the key to unlocking the potential for further expansion in the market – which would in turn be likely to result in more competition in sludge transport if volumes increase. In particular, the choice of thickening and dewatering services at treatment stage should be seen as crucial to enabling trading optimisation both within a Water Company’s own region and cross-border activity between regions. Ofwat’s activity dashboard based on companies’ 2019-2020 information identifies the following types of treatment works spread across the WaSCs in England and Wales, together with details of the volume of sludge generated on a site-by-site basis: 275 Sludge Treatment Centres 1516 Wastewater Treatment Works 4129 small Wastewater Treatment Works Therefore, a technology, which could cut down on process operation and transportation costs, is undoubtedly crucial to helping with further market development. It is clear to us from the work we are already doing in the water sector in this area that technology has a key role to play. HUBER is now working with some of the WaSCs to put technologies in place, which enable them to either thicken or dewater more cheaply than conventional solutions on the market – technologies that are already being used extensively by public utilities outside the UK. Ofwat itself has separately pointed out “there is precedent to draw from in Europe.” The technologies offer WaSCs the opportunity to make an immediate and significant impact on their sludge treatment costs and operational performance – and step up their activity in bioresources trading as a result. The key feature of our technology solutions is that they are all based on equipment that rotates very slowly using one, low power motor running slowly. This not only reduces energy consumption but maintains the integrity of the poly generated floculant, reducing consumption and enhancing cake quality. It is also the reason why we come out much cheaper on a Whole Life Cost basis compared to alternative technologies on offer. I want to emphasise that this is based on evidence-based data - both from our work on municipal sludge applications outside the UK and the results of trials at a number of sites with some of the UK WaSCs. Technologies that deliver in terms of capital, energy and transportation costs – and cut operational carbon in the process I am pleased to say that the trials, which typically take between 2 to 4 weeks to deliver results, have been so successful that we are seeing increasingly greater uptake of our solutions by the water companies. Take the HUBER Q-PRESS® for example, which has specifically been designed for dewatering sludge at small to medium sized treatment works and which is now in place at South West Water’s Plymouth Central WwTW. This first of kind in SWW was facilitated by our early involvement, and collaboration with SWW’s Tier one contractor Kier. On capital costs alone, we were 25% cheaper than our nearest competitor, 30% cheaper than the replacement cost of new centrifuges and about 7% cheaper than the existing temporary solution in place. The Q-PRESS® delivered equally significant savings in terms of operational costs, including: a saving of £60k a year just on tankering transportation costs alone less than 10% of power consumption compared to energy used in a centrifuge solution roughly half the amount of polymer consumed compared to centrifuge solution Other options we’ve explored on behalf of WaSCs include localised treatment hubs with our equipment in place as a means of consolidating sludge treatment from a number of works (which could extended across cross-border sites) which are roughly equidistant from a hub, thereby reducing tanker volumes. After thickening treatment, it could then be transported to bigger strategic Sludge Treatment Centres to be used for biogas energy generation, for example. I would like to conclude by highlighting two other issues, which may be relevant to encouraging greater trading activity in the bioresources sector. Firstly, as part of its current review, Ofwat is considering how to assess different forms of competition and market models. The regulator might like to consider whether the 5-year regulatory cycle itself is distorting the picture in terms of a company’s ability to make informed decisions to invest in the best technology solutions based on a true analysis of Whole Life Costs, which may be spread across two or more 5-year investment periods. Need for a truly integrated bioresources strategy at both company and sector-wide level Finally if it is not in place already, the need for the water companies themselves to avoid a disconnect by having a truly integrated bioresources strategy in place in order to realise the benefits that increased trading could offer. The ability to see the picture in the round and pull a variety of different operational issues and drivers together is key to delivering this. For instance, if separate divisions within an organisation deal with treatment and transport / disposal, are the opportunities in place to discuss how their individual decisions could potentially impact their bioresource strategy? Likewise, how are their choices considered in the context of meeting their carbon net zero goals in terms of cutting energy use and carbon emissions? The key question is – in considering one without the other how are they going to make progress and really capitalise on the commercial market opportunities opening up? To sum up, as a supplier we occupy a place at the beginning of the process. However, it seems clear that only by having integrated strategies in place across the whole value chain – both within the individual WaSCs and on a cross-border basis - will Ofwat see the step change in bioresources trading it is looking to the market to deliver. For further information contact Mike Willis at email mike.willis@huber.co.uk or phone on +44 7887 897322 This in the first of a series of articles from technology specialists HUBER in the run-up to publication of the outcome of Ofwat’s Bioresources Market Review in 2021 and the interview was carried out and written by Elaine Coles from Waterbriefing.[...]

[...]HUBER Resilience Thought Leadership: In the first of a series of thought leadership insights, Steve Morris , Managing Director at wastewater technology specialists HUBER Technology explores whether there’s a disconnect between high level ambitions about resilience and what it actually means in terms of operational delivery. Steve Morris: The National Infrastructure Commission's newly-published Annual Monitoring Report 2021 is a timely reminder, if any were needed, of the importance attached to ensuring the resilience of the UK's critical national infrastructure. Resilience is the word which is heard time and again in the water sector at the moment – from regulators, the Government, the water companies and the supply chain alike – Tier 1s down to SMEs. It’s also not uncommon to hear it referred to in the same breath as asset health - and both are of fundamental importance. In the face of the growing impacts of climate change, population growth and increased customer expectations, resilience is absolutely key – evidenced by the high level messages from the Government, the regulator and the senior management teams at the water companies. But how is resilience actually being delivered on the ground – and are there any blockages or barriers in place which are somehow currently preventing the industry from maximising its full potential? The supply chain is keen to play its part – yet it seems to me that this still continues to be an over-looked area where greater collaboration could really contribute with solutions which would help strengthen the resilience of the systems, processes and critical assets which make up the complex national water and wastewater infrastructure. Targeting resilience at both a strategic and granular level of detail However, in order to achieve the required level of resilience, I would argue that without looking at the granular level of detail, achieving it at the strategic level becomes much harder. I also wonder about the extent to which the high level message is disseminated and embedded throughout an organisation – and whether it somehow gets diluted along the way as it filters down. If a top-down approach is needed to drive the message down, then bottom-up results are necessary to demonstrate that it is having a real and measurable positive effect. Understandably, the focus and the attention of the water companies sometimes appears to be at the top of this particular pyramid. This after all is where most of the attention is on the performance metrics and outcomes which determine how they're rewarded or penalised accordingly. When we speak about resilience, we could describe this as the robustness of the system and its ability to respond and adapt to changes in the whole environment – from individual events in the system to larger scale events like extreme weather –in order to ensure continuity of services to meet customer demands. Ofwat’s own definition in its Towards Resilience discussion paper is: “Resilience is the ability to cope with, and recover from, disruption, and anticipate trends and variability in order to maintain services for people and protect the natural environment, now and in the future.” The UK Government current guidance on resilience - Keeping the Country Running - considers resilience as the ability of assets, networks and systems to anticipate, absorb, adapt to and/or rapidly recover from a disruptive event. Keeping the Country Running – the 4Rs of Resilience R edundancy - avoiding dependencies on single assets R esistance - proofing the system so that it is resistant to known risks – for example, flood defences R eliability - a system that operates effectively, irrespective of whether or not risks materialise R esponse/recovery (the ability to recover quickly so that service is not unduly impacted Resilience in AMP7 – driven by the customer voice in PR19 and impacted by COVID in 2020? So how is resilience being addressed in AMP7 and beyond? It’s important to remember that resilience is now one of Ofwat’s statutory duties and one of the four benchmarks that underpinned the PR19 process that led up to the water companies’ AMP7 Business Plans. There was a major focus on customer engagement in PR19 – much more consultation with customers to find out what they wanted. So some of the resilience requirements e.g. uninterrupted supply, clean drinking water, reduced risk of sewer flooding – reflect the customer’s voice. They may not have been described as resilience – but that’s what they equate to. I think the other thing here to bear in mind is the fact that the start of AMP7 coincided with the start of the COVID 19 and what the legacy of the pandemic is likely to be for the water sector in terms of resilience. COVID has clearly had an impact on operational activities. Just to take one example, like other companies in the supply chain, we’ve noticed a requirement to minimise the time contractors spend on site. Whether the measures the water companies have put in place to COVID-proof their activities will result in long-term behavioural changes, or whether post-pandemic they will revert to the status quo, remains to be seen. For me, I think there will however be an undoubted legacy of the water companies seeking to build even greater resilience into their assets. I’m thinking here in particular of Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) - the use of offsite manufacturing facilities for onsite installation and more controlled onsite processes. The other major shift which has started to bring about transformational change is of course the increasing use of smart technologies and amount of data analysis now being undertaken. Vast amounts of operational data are now available compared with 5/10 years ago, which in theory should enable informed decision-making and an increased focus on putting investment spend where it is really needed. Embedding a resilience culture - a disconnect between theory and practice? However, at the moment there still seems to be a disconnect between the theory and practice of embedding a resilience culture throughout the water sector. While there’s a high level of desire that’s there when it comes to talking about resilience, the key question is whether more could be done to strengthen practical implementation? Key areas which I would suggest clearly impact on an organisation’s view of the resilience of its assets and processes and feed into this include: the extent to which resilience is viewed through the prism of TOTEX and whether in reality an opex versus capex approach still applies whether spending decisions are based on Whole Life costs inherent tensions which result from the ongoing misalignment of the water companies’ planning requirements and widely varying timescales On the third point, to mention just two, are the constantly debated 5 year AMP investment cycles and the Water Resources Management Plans the water companies produce every five years setting out how they will manage water supplies in their region to meet current and future needs over a 25 year timeframe. In my view, reconciling the inevitable short-termism behaviours, which the AMP investment cycles drive, with the complex investment planning decisions needed to meet long-term objectives does not necessarily produce the most efficient and cost-effective outcomes. At the end of the day, the key question for the water companies charged with delivering resilient critical water and wastewater infrastructure is how to ensure resilience is driven down and embedded through their own company. Alongside that, is how to make sure it is also embraced by other key stakeholders. I would of course include the supply chain which plays a significant role in delivering their investment programmes. If the ambition for resilience is there at the top, the supply chain can help realise it at operational level Which brings me back to my original point on the importance of collaboration – if the ambition for resilience is there at the top, the supply chain can help them to realise it at an operational level. It’s true to say that in general, operational resilience has the most immediate and visible impact on customers. At an operational level, risks include critical asset failure or telemetry failure – and it is undoubtedly the case that the failure of even a single asset, in the complex collection of assets, processes and systems that make up the UK’s water and wastewater infrastructure, has the potential to massively cascade into a problem with major impacts. I’d like to suggest that the water companies should not overlook the capability and potential of the supplier to provide invaluable insights, wherever their equipment or process sits at key points of the system. What they can bring to the party is the ability to look upstream and downstream either side of that point and understand the ramifications when the system goes out of kilter, how problems can cascade at key points of failure and what the potential options are to ensure its robustness. Water companies now have a legal duty to ‘secure long-term resilience’ Resilience is now embedded in water-related legislation for England and Wales - the water companies have a legal duty to ‘secure long-term resilience’ and Ofwat has a primary duty to enforce this. One of the four key themes of PR19, resilience is an integral part of water companies’ functions in order to meet their statutory security of supply and service obligations. While there are a wealth of papers and policy documents on infrastructure and resilience relevant to the sector, I’d like to conclude by flagging up two interesting papers which highlight some practical routes forward at both a regulatory and water company level to achieving greater resilience across the water sector. Resilience metrics at company level can help to measure and manage resilience At a company level, as part of PR19, Ofwat highlighted the resilience metrics methodology prepared by Arcadis for United Utilities AMP7 Business Plan submission as an example of good practice. The paper proposed a risk based approach to measuring resilience with resilience metrics defined to focus on: the consequences of the system failing the likelihood of the hazards occurring the vulnerability of the system to the threat resilience controls in place that can reduce any of the above The paper said that at a high level, a standardised risk assessment of resilience would be beneficial as it drives the right behaviours in the customers’ interest - such as focusing on potential service failures. Key questions the paper suggests each water company should ask themselves include: In the event of a critical asset failure, what is the expected duration the system would be out of service for? How many times has the system failed in the last 5 years due to a critical asset failure? Is there a proactive maintenance and monitoring approach for the critical assets within the system? Is the system operated at 100% capacity for the majority of time? At the regulatory level, a paper published by the Government Office of Science– Infrastructure Resilience - said that regulators should use their levers to promote adaptation and resilience building against value for money. In addition, “instead of encouraging efficiency which reduces resilience, regulations should be revised to reflect future threats and allow more information-sharing and collaboration across the supply chain.” The report recommended: “Operators need to develop a resilience strategy which employs the principles of redundancy, resistance, reliability, response and recovery for protection against disruptions. This strategy needs to have buy-in from other stakeholders including supply chain, customers and operators …and needs to be considered at all levels of the organisations.” “It must be understood that striving for optimisation and efficiency can compromise resilience making infrastructure brittle. Strong at impact, but catastrophic at failure. Instead, operators should aim for elastic infrastructure through sacrificing efficiency for the sake of resilience.” Useful food for thought in both documents for all stakeholders in the UK water sector. The supply chain stands ready to help – and given the opportunity, has the potential to bring significant added value to the water sector’s work to strengthen its resilience. Further reading: Current UK Government guidance on resilience- Keeping the Country Running– natural hazards and infrastructure Ofwat- Towards Resilience discussion paper Ofwat - PR19 Final Determinations – Securing Long-term Resilience Government Office of Science Report - Infrastructure Resilience Arcadis report for United Utilities Measuring Resilience in the Water Industry[...]

[...]HUBER offers a wide range of products in their safe access solutions range from pressure tight doors, access covers, security doors, climbing systems and louvres. HUBER offers a wide range of products in their safe access solutions range from pressure tight doors, access covers, security doors, climbing systems and louvres. The range of products is produced in stainless steel ensuring unrivalled product life. HUBER Technology’s pressure tight doors provide safe access into different application tanks- digesters, biogas tanks, drinking water service reservoirs, storm water tanks and sludge tanks along with many other applications. Yorkshire Water used two design principals on a recent installation, historically the source of bacteriological contamination of service reservoirs had been ingress through joints. In order to reduce this, the tank was designed as a monolithic box. To enable safe access into the tank for cleaning, without the use of ladders, inward opening HUBER TT7 water & pressure tight submarine doors were incorporated into the outlet valve chamber, leading to an internal precast concrete staircase. The security of the tanks is enhanced further by the elimination of covers on the roof. Key Benefits and features of installing the HUBER TT7 water & pressure tight doors:- Over 10,000 technical doors installed globally Stainless steel ensuring unrivalled product life Flexible sizes allow us to adjust the door to customers’ wall opening Water pressures up to 30m water gauge can be handled Maximum corrosion protection through state-of-the-art production techniques Cost advantages through value-engineered standardised products High level of safety and security options for operators Weatherproof, watertight, secure, odour tight, load bearing Inspection windows & access hatches Pressure tight solutions Central locking systems DIN, EN 1627 (security doors) & WRAS approved Dwi Approved Experienced technical support & service HUBER Technology have obtained Regulation 31(4)(A) approval for the TT7 range of products for use in drinking water applications. This enables a wider approved application base for the use of the pressure tight doors into the UK water industry.[...]

[...]We are committed to the Investors in People international standard, which reflects our ambition to lead, support and manage people effectively whilst being benchmarked against the best within the world of business. Gold accreditation recognises that we embrace the continuous development of our people to ultimately become a better organisation. Every day offers an opportunity to learn and improve and it means everyone – from HUBER Technology’s Managing Director to Apprentices takes ownership for making work a better place. Investors in People commended HUBER Technology on our culture of trust and, greater focus on wellbeing, the flexibility afforded to employees, and our investment in learning and development. The assessment process highlighted our core values and how well they are embedded within the organisation, the growth of our apprentices, and the commitment to high performance. Assessor Jenny Goward heard from many people during the assessment interviews that HUBER Technology is the best company they have worked for. Paul Devoy, CEO of Investors in People, said: “We’d like to congratulate HUBER Technology on their Gold accreditation - We invest in people which is a fantastic effort for any organisation, and places HUBER Technology in fine company with a host of organisations that understand the value of people. ” Commenting on the award, Steve Morris, HUBER’s Managing Director, said: “We were delighted to retain our IIP Gold accreditation following the assessment in September - and this is something everyone is very proud of. It’s not about the ‘plaque on the wall’, but what’s important is the feedback our colleagues provided and the insights gained, which can truly help us to make HUBER an even better place to work- and to continually improve the service we provide to our customers” The accreditation comes in the year the HUBER family celebrated its 150th anniversary, and we look forward to next year’s 30th anniversary of HUBER in the UK.[...]

[...]HUBER Technology, Inc. began construction on a new facility which will serve as both the Headquarters and manufacturing center for the North American arm of the business. To be completed by the end of the year, the new facility at Charlotte metropolitan area in North Carolina will be able to house a growing staff as well as support a multi-million dollar manufacturing operation. This begins an exciting new chapter for HUBER Technology, Inc. and the HUBER Family. Committed to the same values of quality, ingenuity and workmanship as our parent facility in Berching, Germany, HUBER Technology, Inc. North America Manufacturing will also provide well-designed, well-crafted water and wastewater solutions for the municipal and industrial sectors. The expansion located at an 20 acre area includes the addition of manufacturing capabilities, bringing even quicker turnaround, more flexibility and expanded capacity to an already worldwide operation. “ The construction of our manufacturing facility comes at a time when demand for HUBER solutions has hit an all-time high across the globe, and HUBER Technology, Inc. has decided to rise to meet that challenge. Strategically positioned and poised to deliver the product on increasingly demanding deadlines, HUBER Technology, Inc. is confident that the opening of a manufacturing facility not only serves the needs of local customers but also contributes in the growth of the company as a whole. ”, states Henk-Jan van Ettekoven, President of HUBER Technology. Designed to not only support cutting-edge manufacturing technologies with an area of more than 4,000 m², the new Headquarters will also feature updated office, conference and meeting facilities to provide a higher level of support and training for the nation-wide US representative network, but also for North American and the wider wastewater community. The ground breaking ceremony took place on Thursday, March 14 th . Grateful for the opportunity, HUBER is excited to deliver this news and ready to get started on this new chapter of HUBER Technology, Inc.’s future.[...]