Salford Hospital revisited
Background
The Chief Inspector’s annual report for private water supplies for the calendar year 2013 included a case study concerning a decision by an NHS hospital in the north of England to develop a new large private water supply. The intention was that this private supply would replace the existing mains water supply and be used for domestic purposes, including drinking, food preparation and washing, by all staff, patients and visitors. The objectives of the scheme were to make extensive cost savings in water charges, and to improve resilience. At the time of the publication of this case study in 2013 the new borehole remained unused for the reasons explained within it.
This case study seeks to review and update this case, given the cost and effort afforded at the time to bring the new borehole into service.
This case influenced subsequent changes to the Regulations in England and Wales in 2016 and 2017 inclusively.
New borehole
The work to drill this new borehole commenced in 2010, the same year in which new private water supply regulations came into force in England and Wales. These new regulations did not make provision for a private water supply to be notified to the local authority, whether it was a pending new supply or an historic one. Consequently, the construction and intended commissioning of this new hospital facility proceeded without the awareness of the environmental health department of the local authority until they were alerted to it by a third party two years later in 2012. By this time the work was largely complete, and hospital management were confident that the testing that they had commissioned provided sufficient data to demonstrate that the supply was wholesome. On this basis they saw no reason why the supply could not be turned on.
The local authority strongly advised the hospital not to take this step until they had conducted a risk assessment in accordance with the then new regulations. On its completion the local authority concluded that there were potential unmitigated chemical catchment risks that presented a danger to human health, for which further extensive testing was required. The hospital disputed the need for further tests, which would incur considerable additional expense. The local authority further concluded that no regard had been paid in the design of the system to the requirements of regulation 5 (use of products and substances in private supplies) and found that the UV was not a validated system.
Conclusions
The Inspectorate concluded in the case study published in 2014, that the root cause of the various issues it described, stemmed from the fact that the legislation did not compel the registration of new (or any) private supplies by owners and users with the local authority.
Revision of regulations in 2016
In response to this case, the Inspectorate recommended to Defra that the private supply regulations include a duty on owners and users to register private supplies when they were next revised. When the Regulations in England were later revised in 2016 (later amended in 2018) and in 2017 in Wales, it was however found that no amendment could be made in this respect without a change to the primary legislation. Nevertheless, changes were made to the Regulations which imposed further duties on local authorities to risk assess and monitor a private supply that is to be, or has been, used for the first time (or for the first time after being out of use for a period of 12 months or more), where a local authority is made aware of such circumstances.
The updated Regulations also required that a private water supply must not be brought into use or used until the local authority is satisfied that the supply does not constitute a danger to human health. These revised regulations implied that they be applicable to any private supply including those serving a single dwelling only, despite, elsewhere confusingly stating that supplies of this nature were exempt from mandatory risk assessments and testing.
Limitations of regulatory changes
The effectiveness of these changes, whilst making some improvements, do not fully prevent a recurrence of the issues that the 2013 case study describes. Often previously unknown supplies only come to light when they have failed in some way, leading to the local authority being contacted for help in a reactive manner. This is contrary to the risk-based intentions of the Regulations, which facilitate proactive mitigation of risk.
It is likely that a local authority may never become aware of a new supply in its area or be fully informed of existing ones if they are not required to actively seek them out, or if owners and users are not compelled to register them. This is of concern, particularly where, as this case study illustrates, it concerns a large supply to a public building where consumers are, or may be, vulnerable and/or immunocompromised.
A person in control, as this case study also shows, may be ill-informed or naïve to the multi barrier approach that is necessary to ensure adequate protection is in place to meet regulatory requirements. Despite common belief, it is not simply the case that one or several compliant tests will verify that a supply is always wholesome and safe. Similarly, it cannot be assumed that users are necessarily sited to, aware, or complicit with the associated legislation. For these reasons and others, the fundamental regulatory framework for private water supplies is itself, not without risk to consumers.
Current position
In 2024 the Inspectorate learned that the then new borehole at the hospital was never used as intended. It has therefore remained redundant and unused for a decade or more. The reasons for this are unknown to the Inspectorate and may be complex. However, the considerable time, effort and costs that were undoubtedly lost to this well intended project are concerning. Furthermore, this case study challenges the effectiveness of current private water supply regulation in protecting consumers in a way that is equitable to public drinking water supplies.