The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) has cited reasons of public interest for declining to reveal the source of the cryptosporidium contamination at United Utilities’ Franklaw treatment works in 2015.
Responding to a freedom of information request from Utility Week, the DWI said it was withholding the information as “release of interim findings before the completion of an investigation would be likely to be prejudicial to the course of justice”.
This relates to a clause in the freedom of information act which allows for information to be withheld if it has the potential to impact legal proceedings.
DWI’s ongoing investigation was instigated after an outbreak of the cryptosporidium parasite caused a boil water order to be issued to some 300,000 United Utilities customers in Lancashire in August 2015. The incident is said to have cost the water company £25 million in compensation payments.
Shortly afterwards, there were widespread reports in the national and industry press claiming that a dead pheasant caught in United Utilities pipe network was the source of the outbreak, however this has not been officially recognised by DWI.
The inspectorate currently has no end date for its investigation into the United Utilities cryptosporidium incident which may incur further heavy financial penalties on the water company. Analysists from RBC Capital have previously warned that United Utilities may specifically run afoul of the Drinking Water Inspectorate’s category 3 water quality event standards and the water quality service index.
It added that these “penalty-only ODIs (outcome delivery incentives)” could have a “cumulative impact of just over £20 million”.
In addition, the water company could yet be hit with fines similar to those which were eventually handed down to Bournemouth Water in 2015 for an incident in 2013 which led the supply of contaminated water to customers. Bournemouth Water was ordered to pay £130,000 in this case.
When asked about DWI’s decision to withhold confirmation of the source of its cryptosporidium outbreak, a spokesperson for the United Utilities responded: “It’s not for us to give a running commentary on the DWI’s own investigation.”