€¦ · Web viewThere were 64 drinking water supply systems managed by TasWater at the end of 2017-18. A public drinking water supply system consists of the water supply network,

File No.: PPH01577

Annual ReportWaterQuality

of Public Drinking Water Supply Systems

in Tasmania1 July 2017 - 30 June 2018

Contents1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................12. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................23. DRINKING WATER QUALITY REGULATORY FRAMEWORK - TASMANIA........3

3.1. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.......................................................................................33.2. DRINKING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS...........................................................................33.3. DRINKING WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS.........................................................43.4. COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK.....................................................................4

3.4.1. Sampling Compliance................................................................................................43.4.1.1. Microbiological Sampling Compliance.....................................................................53.4.1.2. Non-Microbiological Sampling Compliance.............................................................53.4.2. Compliance Assessment............................................................................................53.4.2.1. Microbiological Compliance Assessment.................................................................53.4.2.2. Non-Microbiological Compliance Assessment.........................................................6

3.5. PUBLIC HEALTH WARNINGS......................................................................................63.5.1. Boil Water Alerts........................................................................................................63.5.2. Public Health Alerts....................................................................................................7

4. DRINKING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS IN TASMANIA.................................84.1. POPULATION..........................................................................................................84.2. WATER TREATMENT................................................................................................9

5. MICROBIOLOGICAL DRINKING WATER QUALITY.....................................105.1. MICROBIOLOGICAL SAMPLING COMPLIANCE................................................................105.2. MICROBIOLOGICAL COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT............................................................10

6. NON-MICROBIOLOGICAL DRINKING WATER QUALITY.............................126.1. NON-MICROBIOLOGICAL SAMPLING COMPLIANCE.........................................................126.2. NON-MICROBIOLOGICAL COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT.....................................................12

7. PUBLIC HEALTH WARNINGS.................................................................167.1. BOIL WATER ALERTS............................................................................................167.2. TEMPORARY BOIL WATER ALERTS............................................................................177.3. PUBLIC HEALTH ALERTS.........................................................................................18

8. FLUORIDATION...................................................................................208.1. FLUORIDE COMPLIANCE.........................................................................................218.2. POPULATION SERVICED BY COMPLIANT FLUORIDATION SYSTEMS....................................22

9. CONCLUSION......................................................................................2310. WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS – WATER QUALITY SUMMARY......................24APPENDIX 1 - DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES 2017-18....................................25

List of TablesTable 1: Water supply systems supplying different population ranges........................................8

Table 2: Type of water supply system and population serviced...................................................9

Table 3: Bacteriological compliance of all drinking water supply systems as a percentage.......10

Table 4: Microbiologically non-compliant drinking water supply systems 2017-18....................11

Table 5: Non-microbiological sampling compliance of drinking water supply systems..............12

Table 6: Non-microbiological compliance assessment of drinking water supply systems..........13

Table 7: Non-microbiological compliance as a percentage of all water supply systems............13

Table 8: Non-compliant non-microbiological drinking water supply systems.............................14

Table 9: Number of water supply systems operating on a BWA at 30 June 2018.......................16

Table 10: Water supply systems operating on a BWA at the end of 2017-18............................16

Table 11: Boil Water Alerts lifted during 2017-18......................................................................17

Table 12: Number of water supply systems that operated on a TBWA......................................17

Table 13: Water supply systems operating on a TBWA during 2017-18....................................18

Table 14: Water supply systems operating on a PHA at the end of 2017-18.............................18

Table 15: Fluoridation of drinking water supply systems 2017-18.............................................20

Table 16: Compliance assessment of fluoridation stations........................................................21

Table 17: Fluoridated water supply systems not meeting the regulatory compliance requirements.............................................................................................................................22

Table 18: Summary of Drinking Water Supply Systems for 2017-18 (with comparison against 2016-17)....................................................................................................................................34

Drinking Water Quality Report 2017-18

1. Executive SummaryOverview

A total of 64 water supply systems in Tasmania were operated by TasWater.

91 per cent of the Tasmanian population of 526 700 people receive a reticulated water supply system managed by TasWater.

Microbiological 1001 per cent of the serviced population received microbiologically compliant

drinking water. Nine water supply systems were subject to a Boil Water Alert; which

affected 0.4 per cent of the serviced population. Three water supply systems were subject to a Temporary Boil Water

Alert, which affected one per cent of the serviced population.

Non-Microbiological 98 per cent of the serviced population received chemically compliant

drinking water. One water supply system was subject to a Public Health Alert (Do Not

Consume); which affected less than 0.1 per cent of the serviced population.

Fluoridation TasWater operated 38 fluoridation systems servicing 36 of the water

supply systems. A total of 468 830 people received a fluoridated water supply, which equates to 98 per cent of the serviced population.

1002 per cent of the population receiving a fluoridated supply received water with an average fluoride concentration within the required range.

1 Compliance determined to be 99.8 per cent and rounded to 100 per cent for reporting2 Compliance determined to be 99.8 per cent and rounded to 100 per cent for reporting

P a g e | 1Drinking Water Quality Report 2017-18

2. IntroductionThis Drinking Water Quality Report for 2017-2018 is part of the responsibilities of the Director of Public Health and Environmental Health Services to protect public health. This protection is achieved through: Establishing legislation that promotes best practice in drinking water quality

management regulating the implementation of the legislation by industry by providing advice

to TasWater who Manage public drinking supplies Informing the public of the status of drinking water quality in Tasmania.A requirement of the Public Health Act 1997 and its subsidiary legislation, the Tasmanian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines (2015) is the submission of an Annual Drinking Water Quality Report by TasWater. This report by the Director of Public Health consolidates the information furnished by TasWater from each drinking water supply system in Tasmania to create a state-wide summary of public health and drinking water quality. This is the fifth year that the one Water Corporation (TasWater) has been responsible for the provision of drinking water after the previous three Regional Water Corporations (Ben Lomond Water, Cradle Mountain Water and Southern Water) amalgamated in July 2013.This report is primarily focused on the microbiological quality of drinking water, as this represents the greatest public health risk in Tasmania. The fundamental requirement for drinking water to be free of microbiological contamination establishes the foundation for provision of safe drinking water and is aligned with the first guiding principle of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, which states “the greatest risks to consumers of drinking water are pathogenic microorganisms”.This report has been prepared by Environmental Health Services, part of Public Health Services within the Department of Health. When compliance data is presented, it has been rounded to the nearest whole number; unless the number is less than one, in which case it has been rounded to the nearest one decimal place. This may result in percentages not adding up to 100 per cent and/or in some instances rounded numbers differing slightly to what has been reported in other documents.


3. Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Framework - Tasmania

3.1. Regulatory FrameworkTasmania’s regulatory framework to ensure safe drinking water comprises of the following pieces of legislation: Public Health Act 1997 Tasmanian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines 2015 (the Tasmanian Guidelines) Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (the ADWG) Fluoridation Act 1968 Fluoridation (Interim) Regulations 2009 Tasmanian Code of Practice for the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies 2017-

2021.

Public Health Services (PHS) within the Department of Health (DoH) ensures TasWater manages public water supply systems to protect the public’s health while meeting their regulatory obligations within the legislation. On 1 July 2018, the Department of Health (DoH) was created and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) ceased to exist. Whilst the 2017-18 reporting period was regulated by DHHS, references in this report are to DoH. This report focuses on the following specific requirements within the legislation: Microbiological compliance Non-microbiological compliance Public Health Warnings: including Boil Water Alerts and Public Health Alerts Fluoridation.

3.2. Drinking Water Supply SystemsThere were 64 drinking water supply systems managed by TasWater at the end of 2017-18. A public drinking water supply system consists of the water supply network, from the treatment to the customer’s connection. In some instances, a supply system can service multiple communities or geographic locations; largely originating from a series of pipelines to facilitate the movement and delivery of treated water around the networks. Whilst TasWater undertakes compliance testing across the State, the requirement to take samples is determined by both the risk and the geographical layout (known as a monitoring zone or water supply) of a supply system. There are several systems that comprise numerous monitoring zones to ensure that the water supplied to customers does not pose a threat to public health. Where this is the case, an aggregation of all the available data from these monitoring zones has been undertaken prior to the assessment of compliance of that supply system. This is a different approach to previous years, when each monitoring zone was assessed with all the available data. This approach has resulted in a reduction in the number of water supply systems that have been assessed for compliance this year.


This change in reporting against overall supply systems has attempted to resolve some inconsistencies in how previous assessments were made during the periods that drinking water were managed by Councils or regional water corporations. For example, the Ringarooma supply system consists of five discrete monitoring zones, the towns Ringarooma, Legerwood, Branxholm, Derby and Winnaleah. Aggregation of the entire data set results in one assessment of compliance for that entire population serviced by this supply system, which this year is reported as one supply system and not five water supplies. Detailed information about each of the water supply systems can be found in Appendix 1.

3.3. Drinking Water Quality Management PlansTasWater must have a Drinking Water Quality Management Plan (DWQMP) containing the information prescribed in the Tasmanian Guidelines and the ADWG for each of the public drinking water supply systems they manage. In addition to microbiological compliance, the DWQMP contains a testing schedule/program for non-microbiological parameters down to a water supply level, based on risk management principles. Any non-microbiological contaminants detected while implementing the testing schedule/program must be below the relevant health guideline values in the ADWG, for the drinking water to be considered compliant. As the development of the monitoring program is risk-based, it results in many variations of monitoring programs across the State and not all water supply systems are subject to the same monitoring parameters or frequency. Assessment of the non-microbiological compliance is undertaken against the monitoring results obtained through the sampling program for each water supply system individually. The DWQMP is subject to biennial external audit to ensure it meets the regulatory and legislative requirements during its implementation. The first audit was undertaken in December 2017, with no significant aspects to public health identified. TasWater maintained and implemented their DWQMP during 2017-18. The next external audit is due to be undertaken during November 2019.

3.4. Compliance Assessment Framework3.4.1. Sampling Compliance

TasWater must collect samples and test drinking water from their drinking water supply systems in accordance with the sampling requirements prescribed in the ADWG, the Tasmanian Guidelines and their Drinking Water Quality Management Plan (DWQMP). The correct sample number and frequency is vital to demonstrate the monitoring is sufficiently representative of all water from the supply system throughout the year. The purpose of taking samples of drinking water is to verify the treatment barriers within the water supply systems are effective in removing any substance that would pose a risk to public health. Sampling of the water at the end of its “production” and just before delivery to the consumer is not intended to be used as the sole mechanism to operationally manage a drinking water supply system; TasWater undertakes additional operational, investigative and event-based monitoring, which is outside the scope of this report.



3.4.1.1. Microbiological Sampling ComplianceThe Tasmanian Guidelines require that water supplied by a drinking water supply system must be sampled and tested at an accredited laboratory for Escherichia coli (E. coli) in accordance with the frequency outlined in the ADWG or at such other frequency as required by the Director of Public Health. The population serviced by a water supply system dictates the number of samples required to verify the safety of the water. Supply systems servicing under 1 000 people require a minimum of one sample per week, whereas populations greater than 1 000 require more than one as specified in the ADWG. Drinking water supply systems on a long-standing boil water alert only require one microbiological sample per month, as stipulated by the Director of Public Health.Adequate microbiological sampling and testing needs to be undertaken for drinking water supply systems that have treatment barriers designed to remove pathogens because the sampling and corresponding results demonstrate whether such barriers used against pathogens have been effective or not. Section 5.1oulines the microbiological sampling compliance for 2017-18.

3.4.1.2. Non-Microbiological Sampling ComplianceThe Tasmanian Guidelines require that water supplied by a drinking water supply system must be sampled and tested at an accredited laboratory in accordance with the monitoring program set out in TasWater’s DWQMP or at such other frequency required by the Director of Public Health. The DWQMP adopts a risk-based approach to the management of drinking water and as such the sampling frequency and parameters tested will vary between water supply systems. Section 6.1 outlines the non-microbiological sampling compliance for 2017-18.

3.4.2. Compliance AssessmentTasWater must demonstrate the drinking water supply systems they manage do not pose a threat to public health. The determination of compliance is consistent with the framework outlined in the ADWG; that only the results of routine compliance samples are used and results from resamples and investigations are excluded from the assessment data.

3.4.2.1. Microbiological Compliance AssessmentThe criterion in the 2011 ADWG is that E. coli should not be detected in a minimum 100 mL sample of drinking water. This was a shift from the 2004 ADWG which outlined a criterion that 98 per cent of all drinking water samples collected from a drinking water supply system do not contain any E. coli. DoH has retained the 98 per cent measure for E. coli as the compliance measure to allow for consistency of comparison over the previous years’ results. The Tasmanian Guidelines have been updated to reflect this requirement and noted deviation from the 2011 ADWG. Clearly, complete absence of E. coli remains an operational objective.


E. coli is an indicator organism (i.e. it may not necessarily be harmful) of faecal contamination in the water. These organisms originate from the intestines of many animals and humans. The presence of E. coli in drinking water indicates the potential presence of other harmful bacteria (which also exist in faeces) that pose a high risk to public health. Detection of any E. coli in a drinking water sample suggests a potentially serious fault in the effectiveness and integrity of the drinking water supply system and requires immediate investigation. The absence of these organisms in samples helps to verify that all the steps (whether a treatment process or an operational procedure) in the water supply system are being effective in producing safe drinking water.Section 5.2 outlines the microbiological compliance assessment for 2017-18.

3.4.2.2. Non-Microbiological Compliance Assessment

Table 10.6 of the ADWG specifies health-related guideline values for non-microbiological parameters that may be found in drinking water. Evaluation of the sampling results against the health-related limit for each parameter is undertaken in order to determine compliance. For a water supply system to be classified as compliant, all samples taken for the reporting period must be at or below the relevant limit. If any sample exceeds the relevant limit, then the water supply is classified as non-compliant for the reporting period. Section 6.2 outlines the non-microbiological compliance assessment for 2017-18.

3.5. Public Health WarningsPublic Health Warnings (PHW) are designed to protect public health and in this context are issued when water quality testing indicates that there is an increased risk associated with the use of the water from a supply system. PHW can take the form of Boil Water Alerts (BWA) which may be Temporary (TBWA) for short-lived episodes. These are generally issued after non-compliances against the microbiological health related guideline values; as boiling of the water will inactivate the bacteria. PHW can also be Public Health Alerts (PHA); which are analogous to a “do not consume” alerts and correspond to non-compliances against the non-microbiological health-related guideline values. PHW are issued by TasWater at the direction of the Director of Public Health or a Public Health Officer. Public Health Warnings are put in place to protect the consumer from adverse

effects of using a publicly supplied drinking water. o For microbiological risks a Boil Water Alert is issued meaning that the

water must be boiled prior to consumption. o For non-microbiological risks a Public Health Alert is issued meaning that

the water cannot safely be consumed.

3.5.1. Boil Water AlertsWhen microbiological samples are non-compliant (i.e. E. coli are detected, or a pathogen risk is identified), TasWater must undertake immediate corrective actions to


ensure there is no public health risk. Most commonly, the source of the contamination is quickly identified, and the contamination is removed or treated. At other times, however, a more wide-ranging investigation is required, and a TBWA is issued by TasWater at the direction of the Director of Public Health to protect the public. A BWA occurs in water supplies unable to remedy the contamination so the public are required to take ongoing action against contaminated water. A BWA may affect part of or all a water supply system depending on hydraulic separation through the network configuration.TasWater has plans and capital expenditure allocated for most of the water supply systems operating on a BWA and are aiming to have most of these removed by 2018-193. The term TBWA will still be used to indicate the short term BWAs that are imposed from time to time. If the issues giving rise to a TBWA cannot be addressed within a three-month period, the alert will move to a BWA. All BWAs can be found on the DHHS website www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/publichealth/alerts and TasWater’s website www.taswater.com.au/News/Outages---Alerts.

3.5.2. Public Health AlertsWhen non-microbiological samples are non-compliant (i.e. any parameter that has a corresponding ADWG health-related guideline value is exceeded, or a risk is identified), TasWater must undertake immediate investigative and corrective action. A resample is also required to verify the original failure and to rule out sample contamination and spurious results. When there is no easily identifiable reason for the non-compliance and the resample also exceeds the guideline value, a PHA is usually required to be issued by TasWater at the direction of the Director of Public Health to the affected customers. TasWater must provide them with an alternative source of drinking water until the source of contamination can be isolated and rectified. All PHAs can be found on the DoH website www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/publichealth/alerts and TasWater’s website www.taswater.com.au/News/Outages---Alerts.

3 As at 31 January 2019, only the Gormanston water supply system was operating under a BWA


http://www.taswater.com.au/News/Outages---Alerts

http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/publichealth/alerts

http://www.taswater.com.au/News/Outages---Alerts

http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/publichealth/alerts

4. Drinking Water Supply Systems in Tasmania

There were 64 public drinking water supply systems in Tasmania at the end of 2017-18.

4.1. Population The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) estimated as at 31 March 2018 that the resident population of Tasmania was 526 7004 people. TasWater provide connection data to DoH, which is used to estimate the population serviced by reticulated water by normalising this connection data through the ABS occupancy projection rates and rounded to the nearest whole number. Using this methodology an estimated 476 505 or 91 per cent of people living in Tasmania receive a reticulated drinking water supply. This is referred to as the serviced population in the remainder of this report. Because of the highly dispersed population, many of the public drinking water supply systems are servicing very small populations. 91% of the Tasmanian population receive a reticulated drinking water supply

from TasWater 26 of the 64 water supply systems service populations of less than 500 people

which equates to 0.9% of the serviced population 11 of the 64 water supply systems service populations of greater than 5 000

people which equates to 90% of the serviced population

Table 1 shows that 30 per cent of drinking water supply systems in Tasmania are supplying communities of less than 500 consumers (0.9 per cent of the serviced population). Most of these very small supplies are within the northern and southern regions of Tasmania. Although there are only relatively few large drinking water supply systems, these provide drinking water to the majority of the serviced population (90 per cent).

Population range

Greater than 5 000

1 000 – 5 000

500 – 1 000

Less than 500

Total

No. water supply systems (% of total)

11 (13%) 13 (15%) 13 (15%) 26 (30%) 64

Serviced Population (%)

90 7 2 0.9

Table 1: Water supply systems supplying different population ranges.

4 Obtained from ABS Website Publication 3101.0: Australian Demographic Statistics, March 2018. Released on 20 September 2018.


4.2. Water TreatmentA range of water treatment processes are used in Tasmania’s drinking water supply systems. Table 2 indicates that 80 per cent of water supply systems have full treatment5; while 12 per cent and 8 per cent of water supply systems have disinfection-only or have no treatment respectively. Disinfection-only supplies have one treatment barrier (e.g. chlorination or UV) against all microbiological hazards that may be present in the source water. Disinfection can become ineffective if the source water becomes turbid (commonly during rain and/or drought).

Full Treatment

Disinfection Only

None (raw water)

No. water supply systems (% of total)

51 (80%) 8 (12%) 5 (8%)

Serviced Population (%) 99 0.6 0.1

Table 2: Type of water supply system and population serviced

99% of the Tasmanian population receive their drinking water from a fully treated supply system

A fundamental requirement for the risk-based approach to achieving safe drinking water is to correlate the amount and type of water treatment with the hazards and their respective risks to water quality in that supply system. For example, if water is sourced from a relatively pristine environment, the main hazard and risk to public health from the drinking water would be microbiological contamination which a single water treatment process – disinfection – would generally suffice to ensure safe drinking water. If water was sourced from a heavily impacted catchment, then multiple and appropriate water treatment processes would be required in the drinking water supply system to ensure all the hazards (microbiological and non-microbiological) are eliminated or reduced to a level which would not pose a risk to public health. Furthermore, other barriers beyond treatment are required throughout the drinking water supply system to ensure the water is not re-contaminated. Examples of such barriers are roofs on reservoirs, re-chlorination facilities, good operational procedures to reduce recontamination during main repairs and installation of backflow prevention devices.

5 Full treatment has been defined to mean any system that has one or more treatment barriers in addition to disinfection.


5. Microbiological Drinking Water Quality5.1. Microbiological Sampling ComplianceThe degree of confidence that TasWater has met microbiological compliance criteria is solely dependent on the required number of samples being collected. All the 64 water supply systems were sampled in full compliance with the microbiological sampling frequency required by the ADWG and the Tasmanian Guidelines. 100% of all drinking water supply systems were fully compliant with their

microbiological monitoring programs

5.2. Microbiological Compliance AssessmentThis Section investigates compliance of the 64 water supply systems; which includes those on BWA and PHA. The microbiological compliance criterion, prescribed in the ADWG, is that no E. coli should be detected in any sample of drinking water. As discussed in Section 3.4.2, for compliance reporting purposes DoH has retained the provision that 98 per cent of drinking water samples collected from the drinking water supply system do not contain any E. coli. Table 3 compares the microbiological compliance of all water supply systems over the last five years.

Bacteriological compliance

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

Compliant (%) 76 72 76 82 88

Non-compliant (%) 23 17 23 18 12

Unknown (%) 1 11 1 0 0

Table 3: Bacteriological compliance of all drinking water supply systems as a percentage

Of the 64 drinking water supply systems: o 56 of these were microbiologically compliant o 8 of these were microbiologically non-compliant

As part of TasWater’s investment in upgrading water quality, 12 water supplies had their BWA removed during 2017-18. Some of these were previously raw water systems, where it is expected that E. coli would be present. Cornwall, Gladstone and Gretna were classified as fully treated water supply systems at the end of the reporting period, however, they have been assessed as microbiologically non-compliant owing to poor performance prior to their BWA being lifted.Table 4 shows the eight drinking water supply systems that were assessed as being microbiologically non-compliant for 2017-18, which have been rounded to the nearest whole percentage. It is estimated that 0.2 per cent of the serviced population received water that was not compliant with the microbiological standards during the reporting period.



Water Supply System Status

Compliance (%)

Population

Bronte Park BWA 90 25

Cornwall Potable

93 83

Gladstone Potable

57 147

Gormanston BWA 67 31

Gretna Potable

93 136

Herrick BWA 67 47

Judbury BWA 33 265

Mathinna PHA 67 154

Table 4: Microbiologically non-compliant drinking water supply systems 2017-18

0.2% of the serviced population experienced non-compliant microbiological water quality during 2017-18

This high level of compliance indicates that where treatment barriers are in place, TasWater are operating these in such a way that the microbiological risks are well controlled. When microbiological compliance is not met, TasWater needs to identify the factors contributing to the inability to meet the required standard and instigate short and long-term plans to improve the water supply system. At all times, supplied drinking water should not pose a threat to public health; hence the need for short term corrective actions such as TBWA, dosing of service reservoirs with chlorine or removal of contaminated water.


6. Non-Microbiological Drinking Water Quality

6.1. Non-Microbiological Sampling ComplianceDuring the reporting period TasWater conducted monitoring programs for non-microbiological (physical and chemical) parameters as part of the implementation of their DWQMP for each water supply system. The intent of the monitoring program was for TasWater to gain a fuller understanding of the risks posed to water quality within each supply system they managed and verify compliance to demonstrate risks to public health have been managed. Through the process of a risk assessment undertaken in the development of DWQMP, TasWater identify parameters that are reasonably expected to be detected within the catchment and water treatment process(es). These parameters are subsequently included in monitoring programs. Non-microbiological parameters that have corresponding health-related guideline values in the ADWG are compared to these health values to determine if any risks are present to public health. The process of conducting a risk assessment to design a non-microbiological monitoring program results in different monitoring schedules and frequencies for each of the drinking water supply systems. The ADWG does not specify the frequency or parameters that need to be sampled within any given drinking water supply but does provide broad guidance. TasWater satisfied the non-microbiological monitoring requirements outlined in the ADWG by having a risk-based sampling program implemented for each drinking water supply systems. TasWater satisfied the implementation of each of these monitoring programs by taking the required number of samples in 61 of the 64 water supply systems. Three water supply systems were not adequately sampled as required under the ADWG approach to assess compliance. None of these supplies recorded exceedances in health-related parameters in the samples that were taken during 2017-18 and were therefore assessed to be of unknown compliance (Tullah, Ringarooma and Lake Barrington). A summary of the non-microbiological sampling compliance can be seen in Table 5

Criteria Number

Compliance (%)

Compliant with the sampling requirements

61 95

Non-compliant with the sampling requirements

3 5

Table 5: Non-microbiological sampling compliance of drinking water supply systems

6.2. Non-Microbiological Compliance AssessmentSeven water supply systems reported non-compliances for non-microbiological parameters in samples obtained from their reticulation networks. Based on the


population serviced by these water supply systems, it is estimated that 0.5 per cent of the serviced population temporarily received water not fully compliant with non-microbiological standards during the reporting period. Table 6 shows a summary of the non-microbiological compliance assessment and indicates that 84 per cent of all drinking water supply systems in 2017-18 were compliant against the non-microbiological performance criteria (i.e. absent of any monitoring result in exceedance of a health-related parameter specified in the ADWG).


Assessment Number

Compliance (%)

Compliant 54 84

Non-compliant 7 11

Unknown Compliance

3 5

Table 6: Non-microbiological compliance assessment of drinking water supply systems

A total of 7 drinking water supply systems delivered non-compliant non-microbiological water at some stage during 2017-18

1% of the serviced population experienced water quality that was non-compliant with at least one non-microbiological parameter or of unknown compliance during 2017-18

An examination of the State-wide non-microbiological compliance assessment for the last five years is shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Non-microbiological compliance as a percentage of all water supply systems

The seven water supply systems that were assessed as being non-compliant against the non-microbiological compliance assessment are detailed in Table 8; including the parameters and sampling results for each supply system.


2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

Non-microbiological compliance (%)

84 80 83 82 84

Water supply system

Parameter

Ave6 L

evel

(u

g/L)

ADW

G7 l

imit

(u

g/L)

# N

on-

Com

plia

nces

Min

8 Lev

el

(ug/

L)

Max

9 Lev

el

(ug/

L)

# S

ampl

es

Take

n

Ave10

Lev

el

(µg/

L)

Colebrook Trihalomethanes 251 250 1 12 136

Coles Bay Trihalomethanes 294 250 6 254 335 12 251

ConaraTrichloroacetic

acid 144 100 2 130 157 4 78

EllendaleTrichloroacetic

acid 116 100 1 12 67

Epping

Dichloroacetic acid 108 100 1 4 31

Trichloroacetic acid 169 100 1 4 51

Rosebery Mercury 1.1 1 1 210 <0.1

Zeehan Lead 10.8 10 1 4 2.9

Table 8: Non-compliant non-microbiological drinking water supply systems

One water supply system (Zeehan) detected temporary elevated lead levels above the health-related guideline value, which returned below the ADWG limit after intervention of flushing through fresh water and resampling by TasWater. Lead can be present in drinking water because of dissolution from natural sources, or from household plumbing systems containing lead. These may include lead in pipes, or in solder used to seal joints. The amount of lead dissolved in water will depend on several factors including pH, water hardness and the standing time of the water. Exposure to lead is associated with a wide range of harmful effects on many organs and bodily functions, including effects on neurodevelopment especially during foetal development (in pregnancy) and in early childhood.One water supply system (Rosebery) detected temporary elevated mercury levels above the health-related guideline value, which returned below the limit after an intervention of flushing through fresh water and resampling by TasWater. It is suspected that this mercury detection was because of sample contamination from leaching of mercury into the sample from the lid of the sample bottle. Mercury is widely used in electrical components, dental amalgams, fungicides, antiseptics, preservatives and pharmaceuticals. The main source of human exposure to mercury is via consumption of fish and fish products, which contain higher

6 Average concentration of reported non-compliances7 Health-related guideline value as defined by the ADWG8 Minimum concentration of reported non-compliances9 Maximum concentration of reported non-compliances10 Average concentration of all samples tested


concentrations of mercury than are found in drinking water. The main long-term exposure over a lifetime of the toxic effects of inorganic mercury (the main mercury compound found in drinking water) are to the kidney, leading to kidney failure. Organic mercury compounds are unlikely to be found in drinking water but result in more severe health effects, causing irreversible neurological disorder and mental disability.Two water supply systems (Conara and Ellendale) detected temporary elevated levels of trichloroacetic acid above the health-related guideline value. Two water supply systems (Colebrook and Coles Bay) detected temporary elevated levels of trihalomethanes above the health-related guideline value. One water supply system (Epping) detected temporary elevated levels of both dichloroacetic acid and trichloroacetic acid above the health-related guideline value. Trihalomethanes, dichloroacetic acid and trichloroacetic acid are collectively known and Disinfection By-Products (DBPs) and are formed via a reaction between naturally occurring organic matter such as humic and fluvic acids which result from the decay of vegetable and animal matter in the source water and the chlorine used in the disinfection process. Most disinfectants used to render drinking water safe from pathogenic microorganisms will produce DBPs in the disinfection process. Assessment of the risk associated with these detections indicated the public health risk was low. The ADWG states that disinfection should never be compromised to reduce DBP formation. Many factors affect the rate and formation of DBPs. The risk to health from DBPs at the levels at which they typically occur in drinking water is extremely small compared to other risks associated with inadequate disinfection. So, it is important disinfection is not compromised in attempting to control DBPs.The ADWG health-related guideline values for these non-microbiological parameters are derived from the tolerable or acceptable daily intake (TDI/ADI) and represent the concentration of a contaminant that does not result in any significant risk to the health of the consumer over a lifetime of consumption. The derivation of the values makes numerous assumptions; including an adult body weight of 70 kilograms, consumption of two litres of water a day11; and allocation of 10 per cent of the TDI/ADI to the consumption of drinking water. The health-related guideline values are conservative and incorporate a range of safety factors which always err on the side of caution, and thus one-off or short-term exceedances are unlikely to result in adverse health effects. The assessment of compliance will change on 1 July 2018 to align with the framework contained within the ADWG. This will see sample results rounded to the same number of significant figures that are quoted in the health-related guideline value prior to the assessment of compliance. For example, lead has an ADWG limit of 10 µg/L. A sample result of 14 µg/L would be rounded to 10 µg/L and therefore be assessed as being compliant. A sample result of 15 µg/L would be rounded to 20 µg/L and therefore be assessed as non-compliant. This approach considers the resolution of laboratory analysis and sensitivity and incorporates the conservative safety factors used in the derivation of the health-related guideline values. The approach is also consistent with

11 For lead, the ADWG limit is based on a child weight of 13kg and a consumption of 1L of water per day.


all other jurisdictions around Australia. The first DoH Annual Report that presents this assessment methodology will be the 2018-19 Report.


7. Public Health Warnings7.1. Boil Water Alerts Table 9 shows that at the end of 2017-18, nine drinking water supply systems operated with a BWA, and compares these over last five years.

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

Water supply systems

19 16 18 20 9

Table 9: Number of water supply systems operating on a BWA at 30 June 2018

Of the Tasmanians receiving drinking water approximately 0.4 per cent of serviced population are provided with drinking water from the supplies operating with a BWA listed in Table 10.

Water Supply System

Treatment Population

Bronte Park12 Chlorination 31

Colebrook13 Chlorination 225

Conara14 Chlorination 133

Epping15 Chlorination 56

Gormanston None 50

Herrick16 None 67

Judbury17 None 273

Mathinna18 None 245

Rocky Creek19 Chlorination 43

Table 10: Water supply systems operating on a BWA at the end of 2017-18

A total of 9 drinking water supply systems operated under a BWA at the end of 2017-18 and represents less than 1% of the serviced population

12 BWA lifted on 14 August 2018 13 BWA lifted on 9 July 2018 14 BWA lifted on 14 August 2018 15 BWA lifted on 5 July 201816 BWA lifted on 14 August 201817 BWA lifted on 1 August 201818 BWA lifted on 3 August 201819 BWA lifted on 14 August 2018



Eleven BWA were lifted during the 2017-18 period, owing to investment by TasWater in improved water quality outcomes as can be seen in Table 11. The Ringarooma Valley Scheme services Ringarooma, Legerwood, Derby, Branxholm and Winnaleah via a central treatment plant located in Ringarooma and connected to the other water supplies via a pipeline. The water supply of Winnaleah operated under a PHA and hence does not appear in the Table below. The Cornwall, Gladstone, Mole Creek, Gretna and Lady Baron water supply systems had new water treatment plants constructed and commissioned. The Wayatinah water supply system had an upgrade to the existing water treatment plant and the Mountain River water supply system was removed from the serviced land layer after undergoing service replacement with rainwater tanks.

Water Supply System

Town Date Lifted

Ringarooma

Ringarooma 26 July 2017

Legerwood 26 July 2017

Derby 7 August 2017

Branxholm 7 August 2017

Cornwall 15 June 2017

Gladstone 19 June 2018

Wayatinah 25 June 2018

Mole Creek 7 July 2017

Gretna 24 November 2017

Lady Baron 19 July 2017

Mountain River 6 September 2017

Table 11: Boil Water Alerts lifted during 2017-18

7.2. Temporary Boil Water AlertsDuring 2017-18 a total of three drinking water supply systems had operated on a Temporary Boil Water Alert (TBWA) as shown in Table 12, which compares the previous five years.

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

Water supply system

6 5 7 4 3

Table 12: Number of water supply systems that operated on a TBWA

The details and duration of these TBWA can be seen in Table 13. Both South Hobart and Risdon Vale are discrete supply zones as part of the Greater Hobart water supply system. The TBWA only affected the residents of those locations with the water


supplied to other parts of Hobart fully compliant during these incidents. As such the population presented in Table 13 estimate the affected population as a subset of the entire population serviced by the Greater Hobart water supply system.


Water supply system Treatment Population

Date On Date Off

Greater Hobart – South Hobart

Full 1 737 25/4/18 27/4/18

Greater Hobart – Risdon Vale

Full 2 438 31/10/17 2/11/17

Mole Creek Full 486 30/12/17 1/1/18

Table 13: Water supply systems operating on a TBWA during 2017-18

Three drinking water supply systems operated under a TBWA during 2017-18, which affected 1% of the serviced population

A water supply system (or part thereof) is usually placed on a TBWA after successive non-compliances of microbiological results, which indicate a persistent source of contamination. They can also be issued when a risk is identified that poses a potential threat to public health; as indicated by a single high microbiological detection or a failing of a treatment barrier. TBWA can be removed after appropriate investigation, intervention and accompanied by sufficient data to prove microbiological compliance demonstrating that the threat to public health has been eliminated.In the case of the Mole Creek water supply system, no attributable cause was identified within the supply itself. It is thought that the high microbiological detection was because of the sample being contaminated during transportation to the laboratory. The South Hobart incident arose after a TasWater operator inadvertently opened a valve in the network which allowed unchlorinated water to enter the reservoir servicing the South Hobart locale. No attributable cause was identified within the Risdon Vale network or supply. It was thought that contamination of the sample location may have occurred the day before the sample was collected, as this had been used by TasFire who were attending to a fire in the area.

7.3. Public Health AlertsTable 14 shows that at the end 2017-18 a only one water supply system operated with a Public Health Alert (PHA).

Water supply system

Contaminant Population

Date On Date Off

Rossarden Lead 104 24/12/14 Ongoing20

Table 14: Water supply systems operating on a PHA at the end of 2017-18

One drinking water supply system operated under a PHA at the end of 2017-18, which affected 104 people

20 The Rossarden water supply had its PHA lifted on 3 August 2018 after the installation and commissioning of a new water treatment plant



This is a reduction of three from 2016-17 after investment by TasWater in water quality outcomes for their customers. The water supply of Avoca was connected to the Fingal water supply system via pipeline with the PHA being lifted on 7 July 2017. The Pioneer water supply was removed from the serviced land layer on 6 September 2017 after service replacement by way of rainwater tanks being provided to residents. The Winnaleah water supply was connected to the Ringarooma Valley supply system via pipeline on 10 August 2017. In cases where a water supply system operates on a PHA, there is a requirement for TasWater to provide an alternative source of water for the residents to access and use for their consumption needs. This usually takes the form of a communal rainwater tank in town that contains treated water transported in from the nearest water treatment plant.

TasWater undertakes investigative monitoring to verify that this water will not pose any risks to the public (ie is absent of E. coli) and refilling it when levels become low. If members of the community have trouble accessing the water, TasWater assists in delivering water to these households. Investigative monitoring sits outside of the scope of this compliance report.


8. FluoridationThe DoH has previously issued the Tasmanian Code of Practice for the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies 2007-2010, which was developed to set a standard for fluoridation operation and service delivery. A review of the Code of Practice commenced in 2013 and was subject to a rolling review, with updates issued as necessary. This resulted in the issuing of the Tasmanian Code of Practice for the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies 2017-2021 (the Code of Practice) which is consistent with the requirements of the Fluoridation Act 1968 and Fluoridation (Interim) Regulations 2009. The aim of the Code of Practice is to ensure that the addition of fluoride to public water supplies is carried out in a safe, effective and consistent manner, aligned with best practice management. TasWater are required to comply with the Code of Practice as specified in Ministerial Directions to fluoridate water supplies. Natural fluoride concentrations depend on the type of soil and rock through which water drains and typically range from <0.1 to 0.5 mg/L. In fluoridated supplies, the Tasmanian target fluoride concentration is 1 mg/L with consideration given to the ADWG health-related guideline value, which specifies a maximum concentration of 1.5 mg/L. Fluoride has been shown to prevent dental caries very effectively. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has extensively reviewed the health aspects of fluoride and its prevention of dental disease and released its Public Statement in 201721. Many health authorities around the world recommend fluoridation of public water supplies as an important public health measure. DoH had supported the NHMRC in reviewing their Fluoridation Efficacy Statement of 2007, with the findings reaffirming community water fluoridation as a safe, effective and ethical way to help reduce tooth decay across the population. It concluded that there was no reliable evidence that the fluoridation of public water supplies at the current levels within Australia has any adverse health effects. The ADWG health-related guideline value has been set at 1.5 mg/L to protect children from the risk of dental fluorosis, which is associated with excess fluoride consumption. Dental fluorosis is a problem with the appearance of teeth and is associated with a high intake of fluoride during the time that the teeth are developing. In Australia, dental fluorosis has declined significantly over recent decades, is very mild, and does not affect the function of teeth. Thirty-six water supply systems across Tasmania were serviced by 38 fluoridation stations, or about 56 per cent of all water supply systems. A detailed breakdown of the population receiving fluoridated water can be seen in Table 15. Of the Tasmanians provided with a water supply, about 98 per cent of these people receive fluoridated water.

Tasmania

Water supply systems fluoridated 36

Population receiving fluoridated water 468 83021 NHMRC Public Statement 2017: Water Fluoridation and Human Health in Australia (www.nhmrc.gov.au/health-advice/public-health/health-effects-water-fluoridation)


http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/health-advice/public-health/health-effects-water-fluoridation

Tasmania

supply

Population receiving water supply 476 505

% Population receiving fluoridated water supply

98

Table 15: Fluoridation of drinking water supply systems 2017-18

98% of the serviced population receive fluoridated water

There were no non-compliances of fluoride concentrations exceeding the ADWG health-related guideline value of 1.5 mg/L during 2017-18. Australia’s National Oral Health Plan 2015-2422 includes a key strategy to extend access to the preventative benefits of fluoride through fluoridated water to communities over 1 000 population. Tasmania, ACT and NT are the only jurisdictions to achieve this target. Tasmania has 12 fluoridated water supply systems servicing populations under 1 000 and is working towards the Fluoridation Committee’s Strategic Plan of fluoridating communities of population greater than 500 people. All communities with a population over 1 000 people in Tasmania receiving

reticulated water receive fluoride in their water.

8.1. Fluoride ComplianceThe measure of compliance for fluoride is based on the performance of each fluoridation station where the fluoride is introduced into the drinking water. Monitoring data is taken at the fluoridation station (treatment) and within the reticulation network (distribution). When determining compliance of the operation of the stations, all treatment and distribution samples are considered. Treatment samples are representative of that fluoridation stations and distribution samples are related back to the source of the fluoridation when determining compliance of the fluoridation system.The Code of Practice and the Fluoridation (Interim) Regulations 2009 specify that compliance of fluoridation stations is measured against the requirement to have greater than 90 per cent of all routine fluoride samples fall within the fluoride concentration range of 0.8-1.2 mg/L. Based on this requirement, TasWater were compliant with 33 of the 38 fluoridation stations. A summary of this can be seen in Table 16 with specific details on the non-compliant stations in Table 17. A fluoride sample is taken each day at the dosing station when it is producing treated and fluoridated drinking water. The sample location is downstream from the dosing point and designed to be representative of the fluoride concentrations being sent to the reticulation network and subsequently consumed by customers. Additionally, monitoring occurs at two separate locations within the reticulation network on a weekly basis.

22 Healthy Mouths Health Lives: Australia’s National Oral Health Plan 2015-24. Council of Australian Governments Health Council, 2015. Australian Government. ISBN 78-0-646-94487-6.


Another measure of performance is the non-regulatory metric that examines the average fluoride concentration taken over all water samples. This gives an indication of the population’s exposure to fluoride through drinking water that is fluoridated. The regulatory measure discussed above is designed around the performance of the fluoridation station whereas the non-regulatory measure examines the public health benefits of fluoride exposure. TasWater were compliant in 37 of the 38 fluoridation stations. A summary of this data can be found in Table 16.

Metric Compliant Non-Compliant

90% of all [F] samples within the 0.8-1.2 mg/L range

33 5

Average [F] of all samples within the 0.8-1.2 mg/L range

37 1

Table 16: Compliance assessment of fluoridation stations

Table 17 lists the fluoridated water supply systems that were non-complaint with the regulatory measures. The absence of a value in the second column means that the average fluoride concentration was between the range of 0.8-1.2 mg/L for the reporting period.

Fluoridation System % of all [F] samples within the 0.8-1.2 mg/L

range

Average [F] (mg/L)23

Bicheno 9024

Greater Hobart – National Park

88

Leven River 89

Scamander 85

Swansea 3 0.18

Table 17: Fluoridated water supply systems not meeting the regulatory compliance requirements

A major update of the Code of Practice was completed in 2017-18 focusing on the measurement of regulatory compliance. The new regulatory compliance framework will commence on 1 July 2018 and therefore be reported for the first time in the 2018-19 Report. From 1 July 2018, Tasmania adjusted the optimum range for fluoride concentration in drinking water to be between 0.8 mg/L and 1.1 mg/L. The slight shift down from the

23 Average [F] only given for those water supplies that do not fall within the 0.8-1.2 mg/L range24 Determined to be 89.6% and rounded to 90%


upper limit is consistent with the NHMRC Public Statement 2017 and brings Tasmania into line with the rest of the States and Territories.

8.2. Population Serviced by Compliant Fluoridation Systems

Of the 468 830 people receiving fluoridated water, 460 860 received fluoridated water that had a fluoride concentration within the range for greater than 90 per cent of the time. This equates to 98 per cent of the population receiving water compliant with this metric.468 892 people received on average fluoride concentrations within the 0.8-1.2mg/L range, which equates to 10025 per cent of the population receiving a fluoridated supply receiving water compliant with this metric. 98% of the population receiving a fluoridated water supply receive water that

has fluoride concentrations within the range of 0.8 -1.2 mg/L at least 90% of the time

100% of the population receiving a fluoridated supply receive water with an average fluoride concentration within the range of 0.8 – 1.2 mg/L

25 Determined to be 99.8% and rounded to 100%P a g e | 30


9. Conclusion In 2017-18, 88 per cent of drinking water supply systems (56 of 64) were compliant with the microbiological standards. The 18 per cent (8 of 64) that were non-compliant were predominantly were very small water supply systems. TasWater were fully compliant with the sampling frequency within each of the water supply systems. Overall, this performance resulted in 10026 per cent of the serviced population being supplied with microbiologically compliant drinking water during the year. A range of capital projects had been finalised at the end of 2017-18 or early in the 2018-19 period that delivered lasting improvements to the water quality and safety of various water supply systems. It has been demonstrated that these key projects addressed many of the historical reasons behind non-compliant supply systems and improved the level of compliance within the state. The number of BWAs in the state (nine) at the end of the reporting period generally affected supply systems servicing only very low numbers of consumers (0.4 per cent of the serviced population). During the early part of 2018-19, eight of these BWA had been removed. The focus for DoH is now to encourage TasWater to optimise and continually improve the operation of these water supply systems. At the end of this reporting period only Rossarden remained on Public Health Alerts, affecting less than 0.1 per cent of the serviced population. Seven water supply systems detected non-compliances against the non-microbiological health-related guideline values of the ADWG, whilst three water supply systems were determined to be of compliance unknown owing to insufficient samples being collected. Together this affected 1 per cent of the serviced population. From a public health risk perspective, DoH has asked TasWater to provide lasting solutions to address compliance issues in water supplies with microbiological risks. However, in the short-term they need to ensure that these supplies are still operated effectively by adopting a risk-based approach to the management of them. This report encompasses the ninth reporting year since inception of the water and sewerage reform in July 2009 and the fifth year of reporting against TasWater since the amalgamation of the Regional Water Corporations on 1 July 2013. TasWater invested significant capital during the 2017-18 period that addressed water quality issues across most water supply systems operating on a BWA or PHA, providing compliant drinking water quality to the residents. The current status of any water supply can be sourced from the Department’s website (https://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/publichealth/alerts/resources/current_health_alerts) or TasWater’s website (https://www.taswater.com.au/News/Outages---Alerts/Public-Health-Alerts---Do-Not-Consume and https://www.taswater.com.au/News/Outages---Alerts/Boil-Water-Alerts). Raw data from all of the testing across each water supply system (compliance and investigative) undertaken during 2017-18 is presented in TasWater’s Annual Drinking Water Quality Report, which can be downloaded at https://www.taswater.com.au/About-Us/Publications.

26 Determined to be 99.8% rounded to 100%P a g e | 31


https://www.taswater.com.au/About-Us/Publications

https://www.taswater.com.au/News/Outages---Alerts/Boil-Water-Alerts

https://www.taswater.com.au/News/Outages---Alerts/Boil-Water-Alerts

https://www.taswater.com.au/News/Outages---Alerts/Public-Health-Alerts---Do-Not-Consume

https://www.taswater.com.au/News/Outages---Alerts/Public-Health-Alerts---Do-Not-Consume

https://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/publichealth/alerts/resources/current_health_alerts


10.Water Supply Systems – Water Quality Summary.

Table 18 within Appendix 1 contains the individual performance during 2017-18 of the public drinking water supply systems. (Note: the 2016-17 performance has been given in parenthesis to allow comparative analysis over two consecutive reporting periods).The column headed “chemical sampling requirements” involves an assessment of the compliance with the requirements of implementing a non-microbiological monitoring program consistent with the approach outlined in the ADWG. Adoption of this framework yields differing testing frequencies for different supply systems when designing a monitoring program. The assessment does not assess the sufficiency of the parameters required to be monitored.The column headed “chemical compliance” is an assessment of the compliance of the non-microbiological monitoring results against health-related values specified in the ADWG. It does not include an assessment of aesthetic related guideline values. Those supplies which were determined not to meet the sampling requirements were assessed to be of “unknown” compliance for reporting purposes.The column headed “microbiological sampling requirements” involves an assessment of the design and implementation of the sampling program with the microbiological requirements of the Tasmanian Guidelines and the ADWG. The column headed “microbiological compliance” is an assessment of the monitoring results against the microbiological compliance level outlined in the Tasmanian Guidelines (ie 98 per cent of samples taken must have no E. coli present).To determine which water supply system you receive your drinking water from, please contact TasWater on 136 992.


Appendix 1 - Drinking Water Supplies 2017-18

Water Supply System Treatment Approximate

population

Chemical sampling

requirements

Chemical compliance

Microbiological sampling

requirements

Microbiological

compliance

Public Health Warnin

g27

Adventure Bay UV only

For water carriers

(For water carriers)

Yes

(Yes)

No

(No)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Bicheno Full and fluoridation960

(1 052)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Bothwell Full treatment527

(524)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Bracknell Chlorination only504

(520)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Bridport Full and fluoridation1 499

(1 538)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Burnie – Pet River Full and fluoridation18 260

(18 822)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

27 As at 30 June 2018P a g e | 24



population

Chemical sampling

requirements

Chemical compliance


requirements

Microbiological

compliance

Public Health

Warning

Bronte Park Chlorination Only25

(31)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(No)

Yes

(Yes)

No

(No)

BWA

(BWA)

Cam River Full and fluoridation9 484

(9 492)

Yes

(No)

Yes

(Unknown)

Yes

(No)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Campbell Town/ Ross Full and Fluoridation

1 602

(1 683)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Colebrook Chlorination only208

(225)

Yes

(Yes)

No

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(No)

BWA

(BWA)

Coles Bay Full treatment204

(207)

Yes

(No)

No

(No)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Conara Chlorination only133

(133)

Yes

(No)

No

(No)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

BWA

(BWA)

Cornwall Full treatment83

(142)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

No

(No)

None

(BWA)

Currie Chlorination only 952 Yes Yes Yes Yes None



population

Chemical sampling

requirements

Chemical compliance


requirements

Microbiological

compliance

Public Health

Warning

(1 055) (No) (Unknown) (Yes) (Yes) (None)

Deep Creek Full and fluoridation4 994

(5 090)

Yes

(No)

Yes

(Unknown)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Deloraine Full and fluoridation2 783

(2 820)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Distillery Creek Full and fluoridation38 184

(38 615)

Yes

(No)

Yes

(Unknown)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Dover Full and fluoridation1 211

(1 312)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Dowlings Creek Full treatment247

(250)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Ellendale Full treatment169

(158)

Yes

(No)

No

(Unknown)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Epping Chlorination only54

(56)

Yes

(Yes)

No

(No)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

BWA

(BWA)



population

Chemical sampling

requirements

Chemical compliance


requirements

Microbiological

compliance

Public Health

Warning

Fingal Full treatment828

(644)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Forth Full and fluoridation37 151

(38 134)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Gawler Full and fluoridation12 575

(12 730)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Gladstone Full treatment147

(144)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

No

(No)

None

(BWA)

Gormanston None31

(50)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(No)

Yes

(Yes)

No

(No)

BWA

(BWA)

Grassy Full treatment224

(312)

Yes

(No)

Yes

(Unknown)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Greater Hobart Full and fluoridation223 991

(255 189)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

TBWA

(None)



population

Chemical sampling

requirements

Chemical compliance


requirements

Microbiological

compliance

Public Health

Warning

Gretna Full treatment136

(138)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

No

(No)

None

(BWA)

Herrick None47

(67)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

No

(No)

BWA

(BWA)

Huon Valley Full and fluoridation8 136

(8 551)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Judbury None265

(273)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

No

(No)

BWA

(BWA)

Lady Barron Full treatment179

(240)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(BWA)

Lake Barrington Full and fluoridation2 490

(2 607)

No

(Yes)

Unknown

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Leven River Full and fluoridation4 789

(4 816)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(No)

Yes

(No)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)



population

Chemical sampling

requirements

Chemical compliance


requirements

Microbiological

compliance

Public Health

Warning

Longford Full and fluoridation9 887

(9 924)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Manuka Full treatment855

(962)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Mathinna None154

(245)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

No

(No)

BWA

(BWA)

Maydena Chlorination only222

(236)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(TBWA)

Mole Creek Full treatment486

(500)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(No)

TBWA

(BWA)

North Esk Full and fluoridation34 547

(36 590)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(No)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Oatlands Full and fluoridation941

(979)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)



population

Chemical sampling

requirements

Chemical compliance


requirements

Microbiological

compliance

Public Health

Warning

Orford Full and fluoridation720

(784)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Ouse Full treatment387

(416)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Queenstown Full and fluoridation2 314

(2 576)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Ringarooma Full and fluoridation1 207

(1 245)

No

(Yes)

Unknown

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(No)

None

(BWA)

Rocky Creek Chlorination and fluoridation

1 207

(1 171)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

BWA

(BWA)

Rosebery Full and fluoridation811

(881)

Yes

(No)

No

(No)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Rossarden None104

(229)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(No)

PHA

(PHA)



population

Chemical sampling

requirements

Chemical compliance


requirements

Microbiological

compliance

Public Health

Warning

Scamander Full and fluoridation819

(871)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Scottsdale Full and fluoridation2 963

(2 988)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

South Esk Full and fluoridation12 556

(13 059)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(No)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

St Helens Full and fluoridation2 898

(3 038)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

St Marys Full and fluoridation722

(792)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Swansea Full and fluoridation965

(1 030)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Triabunna Full and fluoridation870

(988)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)



population

Chemical sampling

requirements

Chemical compliance


requirements

Microbiological

compliance

Public Health

Warning

Tullah Full treatment226

(243)

No

(Yes)

Unknown

(No)

Yes

(No)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Tunbridge Full treatment222

(201)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Waratah Full and fluoridation318

(224)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Wayatinah Full treatment38

(43)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(No)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(BWA)

West Tamar Full and fluoridation23 317

(23 941)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Westbury Full and fluoridation2 457

(2 478)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Whitemark Full treatment308

(320)

Yes

(No)

Yes

(Unknown)

Yes

(Yes)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)



population

Chemical sampling

requirements

Chemical compliance


requirements

Microbiological

compliance

Public Health

Warning

Zeehan Full and fluoridation1 008

(1 200)

Yes

(Yes)

No

(Yes)

Yes

(No)

Yes

(Yes)

None

(None)

Table 18: Summary of Drinking Water Supply Systems for 2017-18 (with comparison against 2016-17)


Documents

€¦ · Web viewThere were 64 drinking water supply systems managed by TasWater at the end of 2017-18. A public drinking water supply system consists of the water supply network,