I was curious about the Environment Agency's policy and obligations regarding the quality of equipment (certification) which is being installed to control water flow in rivers and generate electricity from hydro power schemes.
Specifically I wondered if equipment has to adhere to a set of standards - BS Kite Marking or EU Type approval - in order to ensure that a product that meets a minimum set of regulatory, technical and safety requirements - as in - that it is fit for purpose and presents no risk to the public. There is also the question of ISO9000 - but I left that alone...
I formally asked the EA via a Freedom of Information request (and they would have treated it as one anyway) about their policy.
We do not generally check that the primary machinery in a hydropower installation meets BSI Kite Marking, EU Type Approvals or similar certification from an independent body” as this would generally be outside of our regulatory and advisory role in relation to hydropower schemes. (my bold)
I think the term cognitive dissonance is appropriate ....
It would appear that the EA do not bother when it suits them to check their own records to see if an equipment manufacturer has actually installed any product anywhere - and if it works properly. I personally know several lawyers who'd have an absolute field day with negligence there....
I think the term cognitive dissonance is appropriate ....
It would appear that the EA do not bother when it suits them to check their own records to see if an equipment manufacturer has actually installed any product anywhere - and if it works properly. I personally know several lawyers who'd have an absolute field day with negligence there....
The EA has clearly failed to perform its regulatory and advisory role competently at Avoncliff and as a result they have willfully squandered in excess of £2 million pounds indulging in administrative overreach, fraud, lies and bullying.
In fact they will not even answer / are refusing to answer Freedom of Information requests asking for their own reckoning of how much public money has been self indulgently squandered - they could just make it up... as they have done in the past!
FoI Question #1 about costs - (18th June 2012) 1600 days overdue.
FoI Question #2 about costs - (29th Nov 2016) 1 day overdueInterestingly BSI actually have a significant specialty in certifying water control equipment used in flood control and other riverine environments....
So the official that sanctioned and specified the conclusion of the 2014 AMEC report (£40k+) from false data supplied by the EA was not only fabricating a case but also acting outside the EA's regulatory and advisory role in relation to hydropower schemes?
ReplyDeleteThis tends to make a mockery of of their Competing Hydropower Schemes LIT7517 para 17a The optimum use of available resources .... This clearly requires reliable and industry accepted data on the actual turbine to be installed. Annex 1 c also requires known data. Neither of which the EA had available on the proposed Weavers Mill turbine.
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean that the EA makes developers go through numerous environmental hoops and reports to then allow any old piece of junk to be installed with no comparison from the application stated output to the actual output. Surely they would insist on recognised manufacturers with provable data?
ReplyDeleteYes - it does mean that EA officials lie / make up stuff.... and also accept stuff that they know is made up / untrue if it suits their purposes. This blog is littered with examples - as are official reports.
DeleteHaving read the above and being aware of the scheme at Kingston Mill Bradford-on-Avon it means the EA were aware that an untried manufacturer were being used to install a piece of kit at a very visible site. It is almost as if they wish hydropower to have a bad reputation and fail.
ReplyDelete