The future of Victoria’s Safe Drinking Water Regulations

Technical report – background to proposed regulations

The future of Victoria’s Safe Drinking Water RegulationsTechnical report – background to proposed regulations

If you would like to receive this publication in an accessible format, please phone 1300 761 874 using the National Relay Service 13 36 77 if required, or email <water@health.vic.gov.au>

This document is available as a PDF on the internet at <www.health.vic.gov.au/water>

© Copyright, State of Victoria, Department of Health, 2013

This publication is copyright, no part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.

Authorised and published by the Victorian Government, 50 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne.

November 2013 (1311004)

Introduction 1

1. Achievements and limitations of the current situation 2

Achievements 2

Risk management approach from catchment to tap 2

Uniform safe drinking water quality 3

Limitations 4

2. The catchment and quantifying risk 5

Proposal for quantifying risk 5

Rationale 5

Health-based targets 5

What would this mean for the next set of regulations? 6

Options for quantifying risks 6

3. Monitoring at the treatment plant 8

Proposal for operational monitoring 8

Rationale 8

Operational performance monitoring survey 8

What would this mean for the next set of regulations? 9

Critical control point 9

Establishment of a critical limit 9

Operational procedures and processes 9

Effectiveness of treatment processes 10

4. Verification monitoring in the distribution system 11

Proposal for verification monitoring 11

Rationale 11

What does it mean for the next set of regulations? 11

5. Documentation and reporting 13

Proposal for documentation and reporting 13

Rationale 13

What does it mean for the next set of regulations? 13

Appendix 1: Reference group and working group membership 14

Appendix 2: Regulation 6 – risk management plan 15

Appendix 3: Schedule 2 – drinking water quality standards 16

Glossary 17

References 19

Contents

1

This report is supplementary to the Department of Health discussion paper The future of Victoria’s Safe Drinking Water Regulations.

The review of the 2005 regulations is being conducted by the department in its capacity as the Victorian Government’s drinking water quality regulator. The development of the discussion paper and proposal for regulatory reform was undertaken in collaboration with representatives from water businesses, the water industry workforce, water industry peak bodies and researchers (Appendix 1).

Three working groups met from September 2012 to April 2013 to inform and review the evidence base underlying the review. The Existing Regulations Working Group reviewed the current regulations in terms of consistency with developing policy, good practice and effectiveness and made recommendations for regulations that could address regulatory gaps.

The Operational Performance Working Group considered recent changes to the Australian drinking water guidelines (ADWG) that shift the emphasis of monitoring from endpoint testing at the consumer tap to operational monitoring of water treatment barriers identified as critical control points (CCP) (NHMRC & NRMMC 2011). This group also assisted with a survey to obtain information on current operational performance monitoring (OPM) practices at water treatment plants.

The Health-based Targets Working Group considered international trends towards health-based targets for microbial safety, as they are likely to be adopted into the next version of the ADWG. This group assessed the implications of this change for Victoria’s drinking water regulatory framework and contributed to considerations for the practical application of health-based targets in Victoria.

Since the introduction of the Safe Drinking Water Regulations 2005 the department and water industry have worked together to establish a comprehensive catchment-to-tap approach to managing drinking water quality. This has involved developing and implementing risk management plans that have helped water businesses to achieve significant improvements to the quality of drinking water across the state. In this period, however, notifications received indicate a need to support and encourage consistent approaches to continuous improvement.

For the next set of regulations it is proposed to further align Victoria’s drinking water regulatory framework with the latest evidence-based approaches to enable water businesses to recognise future trends and better manage their risks. The Victorian Government is also committed to substantially reducing the burden of unnecessary regulation on Victorian businesses. The proposals in the discussion paper provide opportunities to reduce regulatory burden for water businesses without compromising the safety of Victoria’s drinking water.

This report provides the technical information that was used to inform a direction for future regulations and the changes being proposed.

1. Achievements and limitations of the current regulations

2. The catchment – quantifying risk

3. Monitoring at the treatment plant – OPM

4. Verification in the distribution system

5. Reporting and documentation

Introduction

2

Safe Drinking Water Act 2003. The required content of a risk management plan is detailed in the regulations. The regulations specify what risks the plan must address and other matters that the plan must contain (Appendix 2).

It is consistent with a process-based approach to regulation1, which the Victorian Government encourages where appropriate to avoid prescriptive rules. In this way, the framework enables innovation as it allows for water suppliers to assess risks and develop tailored solutions to mitigate those risks under their control.

In 2007 the department implemented an auditing regime in accordance with s. 11 of the Act to ensure that water businesses’ plans comply with the obligations imposed under the Act. The regulations specify the documents to be audited, the approval requirements for risk management plan auditors and the form of the audit certificate.

Since the auditing regime was implemented the rate of compliance by water businesses with their risk management obligations under the Act has risen from 60 per cent to 92 per cent. Figure 1 demonstrates this significant improvement over time.

1 Process-based regulation is a risk-based approach that is preferable when government and industry are seeking to manage a number of risks simultaneously and where the industry has sufficient maturity and capability (Department of Treasury and Finance, 2011).

The current regulatory approach has served Victoria well. The regulations have been effective in introducing a risk management approach to the management of drinking water quality. This is evidenced by the water quality improvements that have been achieved since 2005 by the Victorian water industry. Continuous improvement is an important element of risk management, but there are inconsistencies that demonstrate the need to encourage more consistent performance management processes.

AchievementsThe significant achievements from the current regulations include the adoption of a risk management approach and the promotion of uniform safe drinking water quality standards across the state.

Risk management approach from catchment to tap

Under the current framework, water businesses take a proactive approach to managing water quality through comprehensive risk management plans that are developed in accordance with the requirements of the

1. Achievements and limitations of the current situation

Figure 1: Compliance of water businesses’ risk management plans with the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25

Noncompliant businesses

Compliant businesses

2011–1220092008

Year of compliance audit

Num

ber

of w

ater

bus

ines

ses

15

10

23

2

23

2

Note: The noncompliant businesses in 2011–12 were not the same as those in 2009.

Source: Department of Health 2013a

3

Uniform safe drinking water quality

The regulations promote a uniform approach to safe drinking water quality by defining water sampling localities and water sampling points, drinking water quality standards, sampling and analysis and approval of water analysts. These systems and principles have achieved continuous improvement in drinking water quality throughout Victoria.

Under the regulations, water businesses regularly test drinking water quality throughout their supply systems to ensure that drinking water at the point of supply with their customers meets a number of quality standards specified in Schedule 2 of the regulations (Appendix 3). The scheduled standards identify the parameters used for assessing drinking water quality, the required sampling frequency for each parameter and the quality standard for each parameter. There is one microbial water quality standard, Escherichia coli (E. coli), and eight physical–chemical standards. Compliance is measured against these standards.

Figure 2: Water sampling locality2 compliance with the drinking water quality standards

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2011–122010–112009–102008–092007–08

Reporting period

85

67

50

62

38

Num

ber

of w

ater

loca

tions

Source: Department of Health 2013a

2 Each water business covers a discrete geographic area that is divided into a number of ‘water sampling localities’. A water sampling locality is a defined area of similar water quality.

The current regulations have achieved improved compliance over time, increasing from 82.5 per cent in 2007–08 to 92 per cent in 2011–12 (Department of Health 2013a). The steady reduction in the rate of noncompliance against the scheduled drinking water standards seen across the state is shown in Figure 2.

In 2011–12 fewer than eight per cent of localities were noncompliant compared with 2007–08, when 17.5 per cent of water sampling localities were noncompliant. The only exception to this positive trend was during 2010–11, when compliance with the turbidity and disinfection by-product standards was adversely impacted by the 2010 Victorian floods (Department of Health 2013a).

The current regulations have also achieved a sustained level of improvement in smaller regional water supplies, where compliance increased by 64 per cent between the 2004–05 and 2011–12 reporting periods (Department of Health 2013a). Importantly, the water sampling localities in these areas are benchmarked against the same standards as the Melbourne metropolitan area, meeting a key objective of uniform safe drinking water quality across the state.

4

LimitationsUnder the Act, water businesses are required to report to the department incidents indicating a risk to public health or noncompliance with drinking water quality standards. In 2011–12 the total number of notifications was significantly lower than in the previous four reporting periods. This downward trend reflects ongoing improvements in risk management and systems maintenance that water businesses have put in place and the passing of the worst effects of the ten-year drought.3

While notifications have been few, and most have not resulted in known adverse health effects for consumers (Department of Health 2013a), all incidents including ‘near misses’ have been studied carefully by the department and the affected businesses, and the lessons learnt from these near misses are critical to this review. Three studied events are summarised in Box 1 and demonstrate the need to encourage water businesses to adopt a continuous improvement culture in performance management.

These events highlight limitations to the current arrangements with respect to managing all microbial hazards (bacteria, protozoa and viruses). To date, the approach to reducing risk from microbial hazards has not prescribed numerical values for microbial safety, but rather required drinking water sampled at the tap to be free of E. coli as an indicator for bacterial hazards. However, E. coli is not an appropriate indicator for viral or protozoan hazards.

The events described in Box 1 also highlight the problem of relying on endpoint testing. Consistent production of safe drinking water requires water treatment processes to operate effectively and continuously within their design parameters, as drinking water cannot be withheld while testing verifies safety. The current reliance on endpoint testing also means solutions to problems occur reactively.

The proposal for future regulations is aimed at addressing the following questions.

• Arethebarrierssufficienttomanagehazardsandrisks?

• Arethepreventivestrategiesworkingnow?

• Didthepreventivestrategieswork?

3 An increase in notifications in 2010–11 was an exception to the overall downward trend and reflected the significant impact of the 2010–11 floods on water quality.

Box 1

1. Water from an irrigation channel was being passed through a water treatment plant with conventional treatment processes. Indications of an impending failure of the disinfection process were acted upon too slowly because the dosing plant was not identified as a CCP. The eventual failure, coupled with the slow response to the issue, meant that the plant ran without disinfection for approximately 10 hours. Chlorine disinfection is an effective control measure for bacterial and viral hazards; while no reports of illness were received, potentially unsafe drinking water was delivered to customers.

2. Water from an unprotected catchment was being passed through a water treatment plant that had filtration and disinfection processes. An underestimated rain event caused a very significant increase in the raw water turbidity, which impacted on filtration performance. The filters were not able to cope, but water production was continued due to the potential for the town to run out of water. The result was undertreated and potentially contaminated water entering the drinking water supply system. Effective filtration is a control measure for bacteria and protozoa; while no reports of illness were received, potentially unsafe drinking water was delivered to customers.

3. Treated water delivered to a town via a pipeline required a booster chlorination system to maintain safe levels of disinfection. Ongoing pump problems prior to the failure, coupled with a poor monitoring and maintenance regime, allowed a very high concentration of chlorine to enter the town’s supply. This event resulted in short-term health effects for some residents.

5

Proposal for quantifying riskThe proposal is to require additional mandatory content in regulations, which will improve the management of catchment hazards and risks. It would require risk management plans to outline the steps that will be taken to quantify and analyse the risk of each hazard identified in the plan. This is aimed at addressing the question ‘Are the barriers sufficient to manage hazards and risk?’

RationaleRisk management plans require an assessment of risk. While various hazards and risks can be described, the determination of the appropriate level of treatment that should be applied to reduce risk to an acceptable level requires quantification of the risks. Currently businesses are expected to undertake hazard identification, which requires investigation of water catchments to identify the potential hazards for all likely scenarios to human health. The ability, however, to quantify these risks is limited by the absence of an agreed methodology.

Currently there is no agreed methodology in Victoria, or Australia, for quantifying microbial risk in drinking water. Some water businesses with the capability to quantify risk have developed their own approaches and applied targets based on a range of available authoritative guidance.4 This has resulted in a range of inconsistent approaches being applied across the water industry.

Health-based targets

Health-based targets for microbial risk is not a new concept as they are considered current good practice, and have been adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and several developed countries around the world.5 They provide a quantitative measure of safety for all microbial pathogens (bacteria, virus and protozoa), and can be used to help determine the level of treatment necessary to reduce microbial risk to an acceptable level.

4 Sources include international guidance; general principles from ADWG 2011; risk assessment guidance from Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment; QMRA process from the Australian guidelines for water recycling.

5 Guidance is issued by the United States Environment Protection Agency (USEPA), the WHO, the New Zealand Ministry of Health and Health Canada.

2. The catchment and quantifying risk

Box 2: What is a health-based target?

It is not possible to undertake an activity with zero risk. ‘Health-based target’ is a term used to define the level of risk that is acceptable to the community to protect public health. It is a benchmark that can be used to define the safety of drinking water and can be expressed either as a water quality target or as a treatment goal.

The two health-based metrics for microbial pathogens in drinking water that are most often discussed are the ‘infection rate’ metric, which has been adopted by the USEPA and the ‘DALY’ (disability-adjusted life year) metric, which is used by the WHO.

Operationally it is important to understand that health-based targets are a mechanism to work out what treatment is necessary for a given source water. It is neither practical, nor required, to measure infection rates, DALYs or for that matter any other health-based metric during normal operations. A health-based target for the microbial safety of drinking water will define the level of water treatment that is required to achieve an acceptable level of health risk, in turn providing a level of certainty that safe drinking water has been produced (Water Quality Research Australia 2013b).

The Victorian regulations already apply health-based targets for chemical and radiological parameters measured at the consumer tap. For microbial risk the current regulations do not prescribe numerical values but rather require drinking water sampled at the tap to be free of E. coli which is an indicator for bacterial hazards only. Viral and protozoan hazards are not considered by this approach.

The next major update to the ADWG, expected in 2015, is likely to adopt a health-based targets approach for the microbial safety of drinking water (NHMRC 2009). This method considers all microbial hazards and has already generated a lot of discussion among drinking water stakeholders (Water Quality Research Australia 2013a).

6

What would this mean for the next set of regulations?In order to promote consistency across Victoria, regulations could require the steps to be taken to quantify the risk to human health for each hazard to be outlined in the risk management plan. It is not proposed that the new regulations would explicitly refer to health-based targets but rather the regulations would be designed to be consistent with their adoption and application.

Water businesses would be required to characterise source water risk and demonstrate that they have reliable barriers in place to effectively manage identified microbial hazards such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa in all scenarios.6

To support this, the department could issue guidance on how health-based targets may be used in risk management plans, including:

• guidanceonthehealth-basedtargetoutcomethatrepresents an acceptable risk to human health

• guidanceonlogreductionvaluestobeusedinhealth-based target calculations.

The development of such guidance would follow further consultation with the water sector and further consideration of developments in relation to health-based targets, for example, the work by the NHMRC and the next revision of the ADWG.

In most cases, adjusting to microbial health-based targets will be achieved by optimising existing water treatment processes and would provide a more defensible benchmark in relation to the investment required. This would also support the changing focus to OPM, rather than on endpoint testing.

6 Scenarios include environmental, climatic, human and animal behaviours.

Options for quantifying risks

Water businesses could be given the option to quantify their own water quality risks using quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) or using default values, for example, a bin classification system.7

Quantitative microbial risk assessment

This approach requires the use of health-based targets and direct pathogen monitoring data. The amount of data required for this method could be considered onerous for some businesses; however, this concept allows a business to calculate its level of microbial risk and the associated water treatment that is required to achieve an acceptable level of health risk. This method provides an alternative way of identifying performance targets for treatment systems.

The following case study highlights the impact of microbial (virus, bacteria and protozoa) loads on treatment plants during extreme events and when treatment processes are underperforming. It demonstrates how QMRA can be used to look at risk factors and develop options to mitigate them in an efficient and planned way. It also reinforces the importance of the preventive risk-based management approach.

7 The USEPA utilises a bin system that categorises source water Cryptosporidium concentrations into one of four bin classifications that have associated treatment requirements.

7

Default values

Another method for quantifying microbial risk is the use of default values. A sanitary survey supported by E. coli and turbidity data from the drinking water catchment would be required for those businesses relying on a default approach. An example of this approach is provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1 shows example risk profiles for different water catchments and relates these to the different levels

Table 1: An example of using default values to quantify microbial risk by catchment type

Source water Risk

Log reduction value

Virus Bacteria Protozoa

Protected groundwater Very low 0 0 0

Unprotected groundwater Low–moderate 2 4–5 0

Protected surface waterModerate–high 4 5–6 2

Very low 0 4–6 0

Unprotected surface water

Low 3–4 5–6 3

Moderate 4–5.5 6 4–4.5

High 5.5–6.5 6 5.5

Source: NHMRC 2009

Box 3: Case study – Source water characterisation and quantified risk assessment

Recently, one Victorian water business undertook a risk assessment exercise using the QMRA methodology outlined in the AGWR to review their preventive measures at seven drinking water treatment plants.

The primary objective of the water business was to update its understanding of the performance of its drinking water treatment plants when under challenge from extreme weather events by using data collected as part of a pathogen-specific sampling program. Using the microbial risk assessment methodology, all seven treatment plants had calculated risks below the adopted minimum tolerable risk8 under typical treatment process performance, regardless of maximum, average or minimum source water pathogen concentrations.

The project also found that under certain scenarios (for example, theoretically compromised water treatment processes) the calculated risks were above the adopted tolerable risk level for bacteria and viruses in some cases. This was the case for the older plants and those where chloramination was the primary method of disinfection. As a result, the risks identified have been incorporated into the water quality improvement program.

of bacteria, virus and protozoa that could be present. This is matched with the level of removal required, represented as log reduction values.9 The log reductions provided here have been estimated using information from the USEPA and New Zealand guidelines (NHMRC 2009). This information could be used to determine the treatment targets of individual treatment measures. In most cases this would result in the optimisation of barriers already in place.

8 The minimum tolerable risk adopted was 1 µDALY per person per year (AGWR 2006).

9 A one-log reduction equates to 90 per cent reduction of a pathogen. A two-log reduction equates to a 99 per cent reduction, a three-log reduction equates to a 99.9 per cent reduction and a four-log reduction equates to a 99.99 per cent reduction.

8

Proposal for operational monitoringThe proposal is to require additional mandatory content in regulations, which will improve the management of hazards and risks at the treatment plant. It would require risk management plans to identify CCPs within a treatment plant and outline the operational procedures and process controls at each CCP. This would include determining the critical limits and performance criteria for each CCP, along with alarming, reporting and mitigation procedures in the event of a breach of a critical limit. This would require the inclusion of a definition of a CCP and a definition of a critical limit in the regulations. This is aimed at addressing the question ‘Are the preventive strategies working now?’

RationaleThis is considered to be the next evolution in the protection of public health and risk management in the delivery of drinking water, which is recognised in the 2011 ADWG. Consistent production of safe drinking water requires water treatment processes to operate effectively and continuously within their design parameters, as drinking water cannot be withheld while testing verifies safety. Assuring the safety of drinking water requires an effective monitoring strategy that is preventive rather than reactive. Properly designed OPM programs provide an effective measure of water quality and protect against the production and distribution of unsafe water (NHMRC & NRMMC 2011). An increased focus on operational performance is one of the key changes proposed, and is considered necessary to protect public health into the future.

Shifting the regulatory focus from endpoint testing to OPM would encourage activities that demonstrate and ensure treatment processes are functioning effectively. OPM is already applied throughout the Victorian water industry; however, there is no provision in the regulatory framework to ensure consistency in the OPM undertaken by water businesses. One of the objectives of the Act was to implement a standardised approach to the management of drinking water quality across all water businesses.

3. Monitoring at the treatment plant

Box 4: Operational performance monitoring

OPM can verify that safe water is being delivered at all times, because data for CCPs can be continuously monitored and is available in real time. Properly designed and justified control limits around risk management barriers and well-constructed treatment plant monitoring programs provide an effective measure of water quality and safeguard against the production and distribution of out-of-specification water. Control limits also assist in determining and optimising treatment plant investment decisions.

Operational performance monitoring survey

As part of this review, the department conducted a survey of current OPM practices at 211 (97 per cent) of the state’s water treatment plants. The survey results showed that the most common treatment processes are coagulation, media filtration and chlorination. The survey also indicated that it was adopted practice for water treatment plants to have online monitoring capability and for water businesses to have a monitoring program to characterise source water quality. The results also confirmed that OPM has been adopted by all water businesses in some form.

The results also highlight some differences from accepted good practice.

• While73percentofplantsusecoagulation/flocculationas a treatment process, and some key parameters are well monitored, continuous monitoring of coagulant dose is below 50 per cent.

• While81percentofplantsusemediafiltration,theimplementation of automated control for the filtration process is low.

• Thereareinconsistenciesincertainaspectsoftreatmentperformance, for example

– how filtration backwash regimes are applied

– management of critical limits

– how corrective actions are implemented

– monitoring of influencing factors (such as temperature) and process performance measures (such as contact time) for disinfection processes.

9

• Theapplicationofcontrollimitstounitprocessesisalsovariable. In particular, the level of online monitoring for coagulation/flocculation, media filtration and chemical disinfection is highly variable (Department of Health 2013c).

What would this mean for the next set of regulations?The current regulations do not provide a legislative mechanism to ensure appropriate treatment is matched to the assessed level of microbial risk. The regulations also do not promote consistency in the use and form of OPM across the Victorian water sector. Therefore, it is proposed to develop regulations to encourage the identification of CCPs in risk management plans, with appropriate monitoring and control limits being applied at each CCP. Water businesses would need to identify the points in their systems where a failure could increase the risks to public health and ensure there is the capacity to monitor and mitigate those risks.

Critical control point

Establishing a definition of a CCP would enable regulations to be created around monitoring a CCP and reporting breaches of critical limits. A CCP could be defined as ‘a key point, step or procedure at which control can be applied and that is essential to prevent or eliminate a hazard or reduce it to an acceptable level’ (NHMRC & NRMMC 2011).

Where a treatment process was identified in the risk management plan as a critical step where control must be applied, the water business would need to ensure that the process is identified as a CCP, and that appropriate critical limits are developed and implemented for the CCP.

Establishment of a critical limit

In addition to including a definition for a CCP the new regulations could include a definition of a critical limit as ‘a prescribed tolerance that distinguishes acceptable from unacceptable performance at a critical control point’ (NHMRC & NRMMC 2011).

Exceeding or deviating from a critical limit represents a loss of control of a treatment barrier or process and indicates an unacceptable health risk. The department would require water businesses to have risk management tools in place to ensure that water that is produced under such conditions is not delivered to the consumer. The department would expect that reporting would only be required where a critical limit had been breached and corrective action – such as shutdown or diversion of out-of-specification water – had failed.

Operational procedures and processes

Water businesses could also be required to address in their risk management plans the specific operational criteria they have established for the entire water supply system from catchment to tap, including the distribution system, to ensure control activities are being carried out effectively. This could include:

• documentationonoperationalprocedures,includingtheidentification of responsibilities and authorities

• establishmentofmonitoringprotocolsforoperationalperformance, including selection of operational parameters and thresholds and the routine review of data

• establishmentofcorrectiveactionstocontrolexcursionsin operational parameters

• calibrationandmaintenanceofequipment

• theuseofapprovedmaterialsandchemicalsincontactwith drinking water.

The provision of broad criteria in guidance could allow for flexibility in approach and support the process-based approach to regulation that is currently being applied through risk management plans. It could also consider any perceived difficulty in applying numbers to dynamic and interrelated treatment processes. Compliance with such criteria could be assessed through audit.

Greater rigour around operational performance would be offset by reduced reliance on monitoring drinking water quality at the consumer tap.

10

Effectiveness of treatment processes

To confirm effectiveness of water treatment processes in reducing microbial hazards to an acceptable level, water businesses could be given the option of undertaking their own testing, also called validation.10 For those businesses that choose this option, non-mandatory guidance would be developed by the department to support this activity.

Another method to validate treatment processes can be undertaken with the use of default values. Table 2 shows a possible model for such default values. For most water supply systems this would only involve the optimisation of existing barriers rather than investment in additional barriers.

Table 2: A possible model for default water treatment values

Treatment process Dose/Cta

Log reductions

Virus Bacteria Protozoa

Coagulation, sedimentation and filtration 1 1 1–3

Slow sand filtration 1–2 1–2 1–3

Coagulation and microfiltration 2 4 4

Ultrafiltration 2–4 4 4

Chlorine10 mg.min/L 2 4b 0

20 mg.min/L 4 4b 0

Ultraviolet light55 mJ/cmb 1 4b 4b

110 mJ/cmb 2 4b 4b

a Ct = concentration x time

b A maximum 4 log reduction allocated to disinfection barriers

Source: adapted from NHMRC 2009

10 Treatment validation is the process of demonstrating that a treatment system can produce water of the required microbial quality under a defined range of operating conditions.

11

Proposal for verification monitoringWhile it is proposed to reduce the focus on monitoring drinking water quality at the point of supply by reducing the number of mandatory standards and removing redundancies that currently exist, verification monitoring would still be retained. Modifying the existing regulations to ensure that verification monitoring is a part of the broader risk management approach would be implemented through incorporating water sampling programs into risk management plans. The proposed changes are aimed at addressing the question ‘Did the preventive strategies work?’

RationaleThe system is currently focused on monitoring quality at the point of supply (the consumer tap) and a number of current regulations exist to support this focus on endpoint testing. While monitoring at the point of supply is a valuable indicator, it is of limited utility in managing risk, because it is impractical to withhold supply while quality issues are addressed.

The current situation is time-consuming, expensive for water suppliers, and is of limited value for managing risks to consumers; therefore, the current review provides a good opportunity to look at ways for reducing regulatory burden on water businesses.

Verification of drinking water quality, however, is important to confirm that preventive strategies have worked and to confirm that drinking water is still safe after it has passed through the distribution system. Achieving improved compliance with water quality standards, coupled with an intention to strengthen risk management, could allow for a reduction in mandated testing against specified standards. This proposal is removing the requirement to monitor for particular chemicals at set frequencies, but this does not mean that water businesses shouldn’t undertake this monitoring if their risk assessment determines otherwise.

What does it mean for the next set of regulations?Regulations to support verification could involve the following:

Verification monitoring:

• Includedetailsofverificationmonitoringinriskmanagement plans, including arrangements for water sampling localities, sampling, analysis, testing and reporting and assessment of customer satisfaction. Risk management plans could be required to specify water sampling points and the related sampling regime. This means the requirement for approval and registration of water sampling points could be removed from the regulation.

• Retaintheregulationtovarythefrequencyofmonitoringof a specified standard.

• Removetherequirementtoindependentlyassessandapprove individual laboratory technicians, but retain the requirement for the analysis of water samples to be undertaken by a laboratory that is accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia with the relevant test accreditation.

Verification standards:

• Removedrinkingwaterqualitystandardswhichhaveachieved high levels of ongoing compliance:

– bromate

– formaldehyde

– chloroacetic acid

– dichloroacetic acid

– trichloroacetic acid

– aluminium (acid soluble).

• Retainthreemandatorydrinkingwaterqualitystandardsto help identify problems within the distribution system:

– E. coli

– turbidity

– total trihalomethanes (THMs).

4. Verification monitoring in the distribution system

12

• Adjustthestandardsthatareassociatedwiththesethree parameters per water sampling locality in line with the 2011 ADWG to:

– 100 per cent of samples free of E. coli, based on weekly sampling

– all samples below a turbidity of 5.0 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU), based on weekly sampling

– total THMs less than 0.25 mg/L, based on monthly sampling.

• Retainagenericstandardthatdrinkingwatercannotcontain an algae, toxin, pathogen, substance or chemical in an amount that may pose a risk to human health.

• ConsiderdevelopingagenericstandardforOPM.

13

Proposal for documentation and reportingWhile it is proposed to reduce the reporting requirements by removing monthly reporting, documentation and reporting is still important and could be reformed through the following mechanisms. The reporting regime for water quality monitoring data could be reformed to reduce the administrative burden on water businesses, by replacing the monthly reporting requirement with an exception reporting model. Annual reporting requirements would remain and include a long-term review of CCP performance as well as operator technical competencies matched to specific treatment facilities.

RationaleA number of regulations exist to support documentation and reporting. Annual report details remain relevant however the current requirement to provide monthly water quality monitoring data to the department is time-consuming and a burden on water businesses. At least 95 per cent of tested water samples are compliant with the water quality standards set out in the 2005 regulations. Monthly reporting creates administrative duplication and is an unnecessary burden to both water suppliers and the department. As there is now evidence that water quality compliance is more consistent across the state, along with a high level of ongoing compliance, this part of the regulations has been identified as an area to consider regulatory burden reduction.

What does it mean for the next set of regulations?The proposal to remove the requirement for monthly reporting of water quality sample analysis data would increase reliance on notifications under ss. 18 and 22 of the Act.11 This reporting is firmly entrenched among water businesses, and removing the monthly reporting requirement would reduce the administrative burden and duplication of reporting of water analysis data to

assess compliance. In its place it is proposed that the provision of detailed water quality monitoring data would be required by the department regarding water which poses a risk to human health because it does not comply with a water quality standard or is known or suspected to be contaminated and is supplied or potentially supplied to customers.

The department would require that reporting only occurs when a critical limit has been breached and corrective action such as shutdown or diversion of out-of-specification water has failed, or when a water quality standard has not been met. This would include reporting on failures in risk management, for example, noncompliance with a critical limit (associated with a CCP or barrier to contamination), a key performance target, a standard or a guideline value when the noncompliance may pose a risk to public health.

Review of businesses’ water quality monitoring processes and documentation as part of the risk management plan audit would provide an opportunity for review and oversight of businesses’ compliance with these notification requirements.

Regulations outlining annual report requirements would remain however the proposed approach would require the following to be included:

• theperformanceofCCPs,toconfirmthatbusinesseshave systematic processes in place to manage drinking water quality

• asummaryofdataforallCCPsthataremonitoredonline. This could include the percentage of time or the volume of water supplied, where target criteria (alert limits) and critical limits were met and whether any trends or problems can be identified

• informationoncompliancewiththeVictorian framework for water treatment operator competencies: best practice guidelines (Department of Health & VWIA 2010). This would confirm that businesses have appropriately trained operators in place.

5. Documentation and reporting

11 Section 18 – notification required if water is supplied or not likely to comply with a water quality standard. Section 22 – notification required if water is supplied or to be supplied where there has been known or suspected contamination (Safe Drinking Water Act 2003).

14

Reference group

Chair: Ms Jan Bowman

VicWater

Department of Environment and Primary Industries

Essential Services Commission

Consumer Utilities Advocacy Centre

Department of Health Water Program

Working groups

Existing Regulations Working Group

Chair: Mr David Sheehan

Water Industry Operators Association of Australia

National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia

Chisholm Institute of TAFE

Gippsland Water

Yarra Valley Water

Southern Rural Water

Department of Health Water Program

Operational Performance Working Group

Chair: Ms Jan Bowman

North East Water

Barwon Water

Melbourne Water

Water Industry Operators Association of Australia

Hydrological Services

Department of Health Water Program

Health-based Targets Working Group

Chair: Mr Rodney Dedman

Monash University

Melbourne Water

Barwon Water

Department of Health Water Program

Appendix 1: Reference group and working group membership

15

(1) For the purposes of s. 9(1)(e) of the Act, a risk management plan must contain the following matters:

(a) the names and contact details of, and the positions held by, the persons responsible for managing hazards and risks to the quality of the water identified in the risk management plan

(b) details of the activities undertaken, and measures taken, to manage hazards and risks to the quality of the water, including the method by which the effectiveness of these activities and measures is verified

(c) details of the features of the system of supply designed to assist in the management of risks to the quality of the water, including the method by which the effectiveness of these features is verified

(d) in the case of a water supplier, details of the procedures for consultation with water storage managers and other water suppliers for the purpose of achieving agreement on the hazards and risks to quality of the water supplied

(i) to the water supplier by water storage managers or other water suppliers

(ii) by the water supplier to other water suppliers

(e) details of procedures and management systems for

(i) ensuring that the amount and purity of chemicals added to drinking water does not adversely affect the quality of that water or pose a risk to human health

(ii) controlling any residue or chemical by-products imparted to drinking water as a result of the addition of chemicals to water supplied for drinking purposes

(f) details of emergency management arrangements and procedures for dealing with an incident, event or emergency that may adversely affect the quality or safety of drinking water, or result in water being supplied that poses a risk to human health, including

(i) the names and contact details of, and the positions held by, the persons responsible for dealing with such an incident, event or emergency

(ii) methods for communicating or disseminating information to the public in relation to any such incident, event or emergency.

(2) For the purposes of s. 9(2) of the Act, a risk management plan must address the following risks:

(a) the risk to human health that arises from the presence in water of

(i) pathogenic microorganisms

(ii) inorganic chemicals, including inorganic disinfection by-products

(iii) organic chemicals, including pesticides, pesticide residues and organic disinfection by-products

(iv) radiological parameters

(v) algal toxins

(b) the risks arising from an incident or event that may cause the above organisms, substances and matters to enter or be present in the system of supply

(c) the risk of transfer of those organisms, substances and matters.

Source: Safe Drinking Water regulations, 2005

Appendix 2: Regulation 6 – risk management plan

16

Table 3: Drinking water quality standards

ParameterSampling frequency per water sampling locality Standard

Aluminium

One sample per month

0.2 milligrams per litre of drinking water (acid soluble)

Bromate 0.02 milligrams per litre of drinking water

Chloroacetic acid 0.15 milligrams per litre of drinking water

Dichloroacetic acid 0.1 milligrams per litre of drinking water

E. coli One sample per weekAt least 98 per cent of all samples of drinking water collected in any 12-month period contain no E. coli per 100 millilitres of drinking water

Formaldehyde

One sample per month

0.5 milligrams per litre of drinking water

Trichloroacetic acid 0.1 milligrams per litre of drinking water

THMs 0.25 milligrams per litre of drinking water

Turbidity One sample per week95 per cent upper confidence limit of the mean of samples of drinking water collected in any 12-month period must be less than or equal to 5.0 NTU

Source: Safe Drinking Water regulations, 2005

Appendix 3: Schedule 2 – drinking water quality standards

17

Control limit A generic term used to describe both target criteria and critical limits.

Critical control point

A key point, step or procedure at which control can be applied and that is essential to prevent or eliminate a hazard or reduce it to an acceptable level (NHMRC & NRMMC 2011).

Critical limit A prescribed tolerance that distinguishes acceptable from unacceptable performance at a CCP (NHMRC & NRMMC 2011).

DALY – see disability-adjusted life year

Disability-adjusted life year

Used to calculate a value that considers both the probability of experiencing an illness or injury and the impact of the associated health effects.

Drinking water Water that is intended for human consumption or for purposes connected with human consumption, for example, preparing food or making ice for human consumption or for preserving unpackaged food.

Hazard A biological, chemical, physical or radiological agent that has the potential to cause harm.

Health-based targets

A benchmark that defines the level of risk to protect public health that is acceptable to the community.

Log reduction value Used in reference to physical–chemical treatment of water to remove or inactivate microorganisms such as bacteria, protozoa and viruses (Department of Health 2013b).

μDALY A unit of measure for risk. Microbial safety of water that does not give rise to a health impact of 1 µDALY (microDALY) per person per year is equivalent to between one and eight cases of diarrhoea per 10,000 people per year (also see Disability-adjusted life year).

Monitoring Systemically keeping track of something, including sampling or collecting information and documentation (NSW Department of Finance and Services 2012).

Multiple barriers The multiple steps in the water treatment process.

This approach aims to provide sufficient backup to allow continuous operation in the face of normal fluctuations in performance. A failure of one barrier can be compensated for by effective operation of the remaining barriers, minimising the likelihood that contaminants will pass through the treatment system and harm consumers (WHO 2004).

Operational performance monitoring

A planned sequence of measurements and observations to assess and confirm the performance of preventive measures such as water treatment processes. Measurements are of operational parameters that will indicate whether processes are functioning effectively (NHMRC & NRMMC 2011).

Pathogen Disease-causing organisms such as viruses, protozoa and bacteria.

Regulatory burden Costs that extend to producers over and above business-as-usual costs (Department of Treasury and Finance 2009).

Glossary

18

Risk The likelihood of a hazard causing harm in exposed populations in a specified timeframe, including the magnitude of that harm (NSW Department of Finance and Services 2012).

Risk assessment The process of using available information to predict how often hazards or specified events may occur (likelihood) and the magnitude of their consequences (NSW Department of Finance and Services 2012).

Risk management The systematic evaluation of the water supply system, the identification of hazards and hazardous events, the assessment of risks and the development and implementation of preventive strategies to manage the risks (NRMMC, EPHC & AHMC 2006).

SCADA – see Supervisory control and data acquisition

Supervisory control and data acquisition

Supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems are used to control dispersed water supply assets, particularly where centralised data acquisition and control are important to system operation. They are widely used in water and wastewater systems, oil and natural gas pipelines, electrical power grids and railway transportation (National Institute of Standards and Technology 2008).

Target criteria Quantitative or qualitative parameters established for preventive measures to indicate performance and performance goals (NHMRC & NRMMC 2011).

Validation The substantiation by scientific evidence (investigative or experimental studies) of existing or new processes and the operational criteria that demonstrate the pathogen-reduction capability of the process to effectively control hazards (NRMMC, EPHC & AHMC 2006).

Verification An assessment of the quality of drinking water being supplied to consumers. It incorporates monitoring drinking water quality in the distribution system and assessing consumer satisfaction. It provides assurance that the preventive measures and treatment barriers in the water supply system have worked, and are working, to supply safe drinking water (NHMRC & NRMMC 2011).

19

Department of Health & Victorian Water Industry Association (2010) Victorian framework for water treatment operator competencies, State Government Victoria, Melbourne.

Department of Health (2013a) Annual report on drinking water quality in Victoria 2011–12: managing drinking water quality from catchment to tap, State Government Victoria, Melbourne.

Department of Health (2013b) Guidelines for validating treatment processes for pathogen reduction: supporting Class A recycled water schemes in Victoria, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.

Department of Health (2013c) Operational performance monitoring survey, State Government Victoria, Melbourne.

Department of Treasury and Finance (2009) Victorian regulatory change measurement manual, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.

Department of Treasury and Finance (2011) Victorian guide to regulation, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.

EPHC – see Environment Protection and Heritage Council

National Health and Medical Research Council (2009) Health-based targets for microbial safety of drinking water supplies: draft discussion paper, National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (2008) Guide to industrial control systems (ICS) security, NIST special publication 800–82, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, Maryland.

NHMRC – see National Health and Medical Research Council

NRMMC – see Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council

National Health and Medical Research Council & Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (2011) National water quality management strategy: Australian drinking water guidelines 6 2011, National Health and Medical Research Council, National Resource Management Ministerial Council, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Environment Protection and Heritage Council & Australian Health Ministers’ Conference (2006) Australian guidelines for water recycling: managing health and environmental risks (Phase 1), Natural Resource Ministerial Management Council, Environment Protection and Heritage Council & Australian Health Ministers’ Conference, Canberra.

NSW Department of Finance and Services (2012) Urban water regulation review – discussion paper: joint review of the Water Industry Competition Act 2006 and regulatory arrangements for water recycling under the Local Government Act 1993, NSW Government, Sydney.VWIA – see Victoria Water Industry Association

World Health Organization (2004) Water treatment and pathogen control: process efficiency in achieving safe drinking water, eds. MW LeChevallier & K Au, IWA Publishing, London.

Water Research Australia (2013a) Health-based targets (HBTs) for the microbial safety of drinking water: stakeholder viewpoints, Water Research Australia, Adelaide.

Water Research Australia (2013b) Health-based targets for microbial safety of drinking water: introduction, Water Research Australia, Adelaide.

Legislation and regulation

Safe Drinking Water Act 2003 (Vic), available at <www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/sdwa2003188>.

Safe Drinking Water Regulations 2005 (Vic), available at <www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/sdwr2005297>.

References