Annual Report - Drinking Water Quality of Public Water Supplies in Tasmania 1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010

Department of Health and Human Services PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE

File No.: HO7966

Contents

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

TASMANIA’S DRINKING WATER QUALITY REGULATORY FRAMEWORK...... 2

PERFORMANCE OF TASMANIA’S WATER CORPORATIONS – DRINKING WATER QUALITY ...... 4

CONCLUSION ...... 11

WATER QUALITY SUMMARY FOR EACH PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM...... 12

BEN LOMOND WATER...... 13 CRADLE MOUNTAIN WATER...... 20 SOUTHERN WATER ...... 24

Introduction This Drinking Water Quality Report for 2009-2010 is part of the overall commitment by the Director of Public Health and the Department of Health and Human Services’ Public & Environmental Health Service to protect public health. This protection is achieved through various mechanisms namely, establishing legislation that promotes best practice in drinking water quality management, regulating the implementation of the legislation by industry, providing advice to water corporations who manage public drinking water supply systems and 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 Drinking Water Quality Guidelines is the submission of annual drinking water quality reports by the water corporations. This report by the Director of Public Health consolidates the information supplied by the water corporations from each region in Tasmania to create a statewide view on drinking water quality in Tasmania as supplied through public drinking water supply systems.

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 to the first guiding principle of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2004 which states ”The greatest risks to consumers of drinking water are pathogenic microorganisms”.

1 of 35

Tasmania’s Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Framework Regulatory framework

Tasmania’s regulatory framework to ensure safe drinking water remains unchanged from the last Annual Report and comprises of the following pieces of legislation: Public Health Act 1997; and

Tasmanian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines 2005

The Public and Environmental Health Service (PEHS) within the Department of Health and Human Services ensures water corporations managing public water supply systems protect the public’s health while meeting their regulatory obligations stated within the legislation. Additionally, PEHS provides guidance for the water corporations on legislative requirements. The focus of this report is on the following specific requirements within the legislation:

 Bacteriological sampling compliance

 Bacteriological compliance  Boil Water Alerts and other mitigation actions

 Drinking Water Management Plans.

Public Health Act 1997 Drinking Water Quality Guidelines

The Public Health Act 1997 Drinking Water Quality Guidelines were released in November 2005. These Guidelines differed from their predecessor in that minimum bacteriological sampling frequency and the development of Drinking Water Quality Management Plans were introduced.

Bacteriological Sampling Compliance

Water corporations must collect bacteriological samples and test drinking water from their drinking water systems in accordance with the sampling requirements prescribed in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, 2004 (ADWG) and the Public Health Act 1997 Drinking Water Quality Guidelines. The correct sample number and frequency is vital to demonstrate the monitoring is sufficiently representative of the ‘whole’ of the water given to the consumer throughout the year.

The purpose of taking bacteriological samples of drinking water is to verify that the drinking water supply system is effective in removing any harmful bacteria that would pose a risk to public health however it should be noted that sampling of the water at the end of its ‘production’ and just prior to delivery to the consumer is not intended to be used as the sole mechanism to operationally manage a drinking water supply system.

With respect to bacteriological sampling, the Tasmanian Drinking Water Guidelines, 2005 state “water supplied by a drinking water supply system must be sampled and tested at an accredited laboratory for Escherichia coli (or thermotolerant coliforms) in accordance with Table 10.2 of the ADWG..”. In addition, “Water supplied by a drinking water supply system which supplies less than 1000 consumers must be sampled and tested at an accredited laboratory for Escherichia coli (or thermotolerant coliforms) once per week, unless it can be demonstrated that water quality management practices are such that the level of microbial risk does not represent a threat to public health in which case a lower frequency of sampling is sufficient.”

Adequate bacteriological sampling and testing needs to be undertaken for drinking water supply systems that have treatment steps designed to remove pathogens because the sampling and corresponding results

2 of 35 demonstrate whether such barriers used against pathogens have been effective. Drinking water supply systems without any treatment steps to remove pathogens (and thereby operate with a permanent boil water alert) do not require the same scale of sampling. Sampling for permanent boil water alert drinking water supply systems is not used for compliance purposes, but rather the data are gathered for longer term trend analyses that assists in determining if water quality is deteriorating.

Bacteriological compliance

Water corporations need to demonstrate that the drinking water supply systems which they manage meet the bacteriological health guideline values in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2004 (ADWG). The criterion is that 98 percent of all drinking water samples collected from a drinking water supply system do not contain any E. coli (or thermotolerant coliforms).

E. coli and thermotolerant coliforms are indicator organisms (i.e. they themselves may not necessarily be harmful) of faecal pollution in the water. These organisms originate from the intestines of many animals and in humans. The presence of E. coli or thermotolerant coliforms 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 or thermotolerant coliforms 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.

Boil Water Alerts and mitigation actions

When samples fail (i.e. E. coli or thermotolerant coliforms are detected), water corporations 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 can be removed or treated. At other times however, a more wide ranging investigation is required and temporary boil water alerts are issued by the water corporations (in consultation with the office of the Director of Public Health) to protect the public in the meantime. Permanent boil water alerts occur in systems that are not able to remedy the contamination (in Tasmania this is usually because there is no or inadequate water treatment process in the first place) so the public are required to take action against contaminated water.

Drinking Water Quality Management Plans

Water corporations must have a drinking water quality management plan (DWQMP) containing the information prescribed in the Public Health Act 1997 Drinking Water Quality Guidelines for each of the public drinking water supply systems they manage. In addition to bacteriological compliance, the DWQMP contains a testing schedule/program (for non microbiological parameters) which are designed based on risk management principles. Any chemical 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.

3 of 35

Performance of Tasmania’s Water Corporations – Drinking Water Quality

Drinking Water Supply Systems in Tasmania There were 98 public drinking water supply systems in Tasmania in 2009-10, which represents a reduction of the 108 present in 2008-09. These systems were owned and managed by the regional water corporations - namely Ben Lomond Water, Cradle Mountain Water and Southern Water – which were established as part of the State’s water and sewerage reform. The reduction in the number of systems since the 20008-09 report relates to single management of some drinking water supply systems which were previously managed by multiple organisations (eg a bulk water supplier and a local council). For example, the then bulk water authority managed a system from catchment to a connection point however the local government council managed the remaining part of the supply system (ie reticulation system) to the individual households. This is now considered to be one system, not two separate systems. Table 1 indicates the number of drinking water supply systems managed by each water corporation.

The majority of drinking water supply systems in Tasmania are quite linear – that is, water is collected at the source (or at the connection with the bulk water system) and flows through various infrastructure to reach the consumer without mixing with other systems. This infrastructure design has provided the basis for defining a drinking water supply system for the purpose of providing a consistent statewide perspective on drinking water.

There are two exceptions to this. One is the Bruny Island public water supply system managed by Southern Water. In this system water is sourced from the ground, treated (via filtration and ultra-violet disinfection) and stored in a small reservoir. Water is pumped from the reservoir by commercial water carriers and transported to residents’ tanks on the Island.

The other exception is Southern Water’s bulk water system which supplies the reticulated systems in the Greater Hobart area from four catchments. Reticulation systems receiving water from the bulk water system can receive water from a single catchment or a combination of several catchments. The bulk water system has been split into nine pipeline systems as they each contain water unique in quality and properties. The consumers connected to these bulk water pipelines are known as wayside customers. Population

The last census (ABS, 2006) indicated that the population of Tasmania was 476 481 but ABS estimates indicate this has since grown to 507,100 in 2009-2010. Based on the population estimates for each supply system in this report1, approximately 88 percent of Tasmanians receive their drinking water from a public drinking water supply system. Due to the highly dispersed population, many of the public drinking water supply systems are servicing very small populations. Table 1 shows the number of drinking water systems supplying various population ranges in each region. Of interest is that 49 percent of drinking water supply systems (excluding the bulk water pipeline systems) in the State are supplying communities of less than 500 consumers. The majority of these very small systems are within the northern and southern regions, managed by Ben Lomond Water and Southern Water respectively. Basic water treatment whether for systems supplying large or small communities is considerably expensive.

1 Approximations only; extrapolations based on connection per system data provided by the water corporations and population and dwelling information obtained from ABS Census 2006 data.

4 of 35

Table 1: Number and percentage of drinking water systems* managed by the water corporations supplying each population range

Water Population range

Corporation Greater than 5000 – 1000 1000 – 500 Less than 500 5000

Ben Lomond 5 6 3 21 Water

Cradle Mountain 7 2 4 6 Water

Southern Water 6 6 6 17

TOTAL (%) 18 (20%) 14 (16%) 13 (15%) 44 (49%)

* excludes nine bulk water pipeline systems

Table 2 shows that although there are only a few large drinking water supply systems, they are in fact servicing the majority of the population (89%) receiving reticulated water in Tasmania whereas the 64 percent of the systems that are small to very small service just 4 percent of the population.

Table 2: Percentage of the total number of drinking water supply systems* and total population receiving reticulated water

Size (based on population Percentage of the total Percentage of the serviced) number of drinking water population receiving supply systems reticulated water

Large (greater than 5000) 20% 89%

Medium (5000 – 1000) 16% 7%

Small (<1000) 15% 2%

Very small ( less than 500) 49% 2%

* excludes nine bulk water pipeline systems

Water Treatment

There is a range of water treatment processes which are applied in Tasmania’s drinking water supply systems. Figure 1 indicates that 46 percent of systems have full treatment, while 31 percent and 23 percent of systems have chlorination-only treatment or no treatment respectively. Chlorination-only systems are drinking water supply systems that only have one treatment barrier (i.e. chlorination) against all microbiological hazards that may be present in the source water. It is important to note that chlorination can become ineffective if the source water becomes turbid (which commonly occurs during rain events and/or drought conditions), and such supplies sometimes require temporary additional measures such as boil water alerts during these episodes.

5 of 35

Figure 1: Percentage of drinking water supply systems and their respective water treatment (n= 98)

23%

46% Full Chlorine only None 31%

A fundamental requirement for a 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 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 bacteriological contamination which a single water treatment process - disinfection - would generally suffice to ensure safe drinking water. If, however, 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, chemical, physical) 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, good operational procedures to reduce recontamination during main repairs and installation of backflow prevention devices.

Capital and operational costs correspondingly increase with the amount and type of water treatment processes required. It continues to be a challenge for the water corporations to incorporate appropriate water treatment processes to ensure safe drinking water across the range of systems in Tasmania. This challenge is particularly difficult when the appropriate water treatment is costly but the size of the community being supplied is small. Concurrently, the other challenge for the water corporations, government and multiple stakeholders is to ensure good drinking water catchment management so source waters do not continue to degrade in quality. Poor drinking water catchment management will incur increasing costs to the public as upgrades and additions to water treatment infrastructure become necessary to manage the declining quality of the source water. Bacteriological Sampling – Compliance with Monitoring Requirements

The degree of confidence that water corporations have met bacteriological compliance criteria is very dependent on the required number of samples being collected.

Table 3 indicates that of the total 74 drinking water supply systems (those systems operating with a permanent boil water alert in place have been excluded), 56 systems (76%) were adequately sampled in terms of full compliance with the bacteriological sampling frequency recommended by the ADWG and the

6 of 35

Tasmanian Drinking Water Guidelines. Eighteen of the 74 drinking water supply systems (24%) were not adequately sampled.

This level of monitoring compliance has improved significantly from the 65% reported in the previous year, which was prior to the establishment of the water corporations. Table 4 shows the number of drinking water supply systems managed by the respective water corporations, which were compliant with the required bacteriological sampling frequency requirements. Several water supply systems were not adequately sampled during the first two months of commencement of the new water corporations, but sampling frequency improved throughout the remainder of 2009-10. It is anticipated that in the next reporting period all such systems will be adequately sampled for the entire year.

Table 3: The number of drinking water supply systems managed by the water corporations which were compliant with required bacteriological sampling requirements (excluding those with operating with permanent boil water alerts)

Number of drinking water supply systems

Water Corporations Adequate sampling Not compliant with sampling requirement

Ben Lomond Water 17 2

Cradle Mountain Water 12 5

Southern Water 27 11

Tasmania (%) 56 (76%) 18 (24%)

With respect to drinking water supply systems operating with permanent boil water alerts, the intent of bacteriological sampling is not to determine compliance but rather to use the monitoring results to optimise the effectiveness of the boil water notice. Hence drinking water supply systems with a permanent boil water alert need monitoring to detect declining quality in the water being reticulated to the consumer and communicate the increase in public health risk to the community. For example, if the sampling results reveal higher than normal levels of E. coli then such information should prompt the water supplier to issue a reminder notice to all consumers to boil their drinking water and avoid ingesting untreated water, as the risk to public health has increased. Bacteriological Compliance

The determination of the bacteriological compliance of a drinking water supply system is dependent on the collection of sufficient bacteriological samples (see section above). Sufficient samples need to be collected to provide statistical confidence in the level of compliance. For the purpose of this report, bacteriological compliance has not been determined for systems which were not sampled sufficiently and these are reported below as ‘unknown compliance’.

The bacteriological compliance criteria which is prescribed in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (2004) is that 98 percent of drinking water samples collected from the drinking water supply system do not contain any E. coli (or thermotolerant coliforms). This criterion recognises that no system is fail-proof but the margin of allowable error is very small, thus establishing a high standard for compliance and assurance for the consumer.

Figure 2 shows that for the reporting period 2009 – 2010 the level of known bacteriologically-compliant systems in Tasmania was 61 percent. This is a small improvement on the level of compliance in the 2008- 2009 (59%). With regard to the number of systems with unknown compliance, there has been a significant decrease to 24 percent when compared with the 32 percent observed in the previous year. As a result of 7 of 35 the increase in sampling, the level of bacteriologically non-compliant drinking water supply systems has increased to 15 percent compared with 9 percent in 2008-2009.

Despite the apparent increase in bacteriological non-compliance amongst the drinking water systems, it is critical that the water corporations ensure their systems are adequately sampled, as it allows them to gain better understanding of the level of risk which they need to manage.

100

bacteriological compliant 50 bacteriological non-compliant bacteriological compliance unknown

0 Ben Lomond Water Cradle Mountain Water Southern Water Tasmania

Figure 2: The percentage of bacteriological compliance of drinking water supply systems managed by the three water corporations and in Tasmania

Bacteriological compliance is a measure of the effectiveness in the management of a drinking water supply system and to demonstrate that the system has the capability to address bacteriological hazards and risks, from intake to household.

When bacteriological compliance is not met, the water corporation needs to identify the factors contributing to the inability to meet the required standard and instigate short and long term plans to improve the system. At all times, the drinking water supply should not pose a threat to public health, hence the need for short term corrective actions such as temporary boil water notices, dosing of service reservoirs with chlorine or removal of contaminated water.

Boil Water Alerts and other mitigative actions

A total of 24 drinking water supply systems operate with a permanent boil water alert during the reporting period. This differs from the 23 drinking water supply systems reported in the previous years. The reasons for the difference are:

1. Prior to the water and sewerage reform a small private drinking water supply system operating with a permanent boil water alert was managed by a local council and it was included in the total number of publicly managed drinking water supply systems. This system is now fully privately managed and is no longer included in the performance statistics.

2. Two other very small drinking water supply systems (6 and 30 connections respectively) previously not reported to the Department of Health and Human Services by a rural Council, were transferred to Cradle Mountain Water and are included in this year’s performance monitoring. As

8 of 35

the water from both these systems does not receive any treatment, the drinking water supplies are on permanent boil water alerts.

Approximately 1.1per cent of the Tasmanian population are provided with drinking water from the systems operating with a permanent boil water alert listed in Table 4. The majority of these systems do not have any water treatment processes in place. Table 3: Tasmanian drinking water supply systems operating with a permanent boil water alert in 2009-10.

System Water Supplier Water treatment Population (approx)

Branxholm Ben Lomond Water None 350

Cornwall Ben Lomond Water None 120

Derby Ben Lomond Water None 300

Ellendale Southern Water None 130

Fingal Ben Lomond Water None 450

Franklin (Jackson Rd) Southern Water Chlorination only 50

Gladstone Ben Lomond Water None 55

Gormanston Cradle Mountain Water None 75

Gretna Southern Water None 75

Herrick Ben Lomond Water None 50

Judbury/Ranelagh Southern Water None 220

Legerwood Ben Lomond Water None 190

Lady Barron Ben Lomond Water None 290

Lilydale Ben Lomond Water None 390

Linda Cradle Mountain Water None 15

Mathinna Ben Lomond Water None 190

Mole Creek Ben Lomond Water None 490

Mountain River Southern Water None 90

Pioneer Ben Lomond Water None 150

Ringarooma Ben Lomond Water None 370

Rossarden Ben Lomond Water None 180

Swansea Southern Water Chlorination only 540

Whitemark Ben Lomond Water None 450

Winnaleah Ben Lomond Water None 240

In 2009-10 a total of 16 drinking water supply systems operated with one or more temporary boil water alerts, which is an increase from only three systems reported in the 2008-09 and four systems in 2007-08. This is related to two factors.

9 of 35

The first factor was that eight drinking water supply systems in the northern region were placed on temporary boil water alerts for the first few months of 2009-10, in response to poor weather causing rising flood waters and turbid source water. These alerts were undertaken as a precautionary measure by Ben Lomond Water as the drinking water from those eight supply systems receives chlorination as the only water treatment process. Chlorination-only systems can become ineffective if the water being chlorinated is very turbid.

The second factor arose from the significant increase (compared to previous years) in monitoring of drinking water supply systems undertaken by Southern Water. As a result, more drinking water supply systems were identified as non-compliant and temporary boil water alerts were used to reduce the risk from some of these systems. Drinking Water Quality Management Plans

The requirement for water suppliers to develop and implement drinking water quality management plans for their drinking water systems was established in the Tasmanian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines and follows the national water quality risk management approach prescribed in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2004. The plans are required to outline the identified public health risks of each drinking water supply system and the water corporation’s corresponding systematic and preventative measures to minimise and manage those risks.

As part of their interim operating licence, each water corporation was required to review and revise all existing drinking water quality management plans for each public drinking water supply system within their respective region. All three corporations complied with this requirement. Chemical and other non-bacteriological monitoring and compliance

The primary focus of this report has been on the microbiological quality of drinking water as this is the most important public health risk in relation to water quality in Tasmania. However, during the reporting period the water corporations conducted preliminary monitoring programs for non-microbiological parameters as part of their implementation of the Drinking Water Quality Management Plans for each system. The intent of the preliminary monitoring program was for the water corporations to gain a fuller understanding of the risks posed to water quality within each drinking water supply system they managed. It is anticipated that the extended monitoring will be undertaken over the next few years to gain sufficient data and information, to enable a more risk-based approach to water quality management in the future.

Ninety-three (93) of the 98 drinking water supply systems were tested for chemical contaminants and other physical parameters. The only chemical contaminants detected above their respective health guideline values were disinfection by-products. These disinfection by-products were detected in four systems in the southern region. Assessment of the risk associated with the detections indicated the public health threat was low.

10 of 35

Conclusion In 2009-2010, sixty one percent of drinking water supply systems were fully bacteriologically compliant while 15 percent were not compliant. The remaining 24 percent of systems were not sampled sufficiently to enable statistically valid determination of compliance. In the previous reporting period, 59 percent of systems were compliant however 32 percent of systems were not sufficiently sampled.

Significant effort has been undertaken by the newly-established water corporations during 2009-10 to better understand the level of bacteriological compliance within their systems and to manage the risks associated with non-compliant systems. A range of capital projects have commenced or are planned to deliver lasting improvements to the bacteriological quality of the supplies.

It is anticipated that key projects such as the reservoir roofing projects in southern and northern regions and the Huon Valley regional water scheme will address many of the reasons behind currently non- compliant systems, and will improve the level of compliance within the State.

The number of permanent boil water alerts in the State (24) is imposed generally on systems servicing only very low numbers of consumers; however DHHS continues to encourage progression towards removal of a permanent boil water alert by a water corporation particularly in communities that could increase in population and/or are frequented by tourists.

As part of the compliance implementation plans, the corporations reviewed and amended the Drinking Water Quality Management Plans which they inherited from the previous water suppliers. In the process of implementing the Plans, preliminary monitoring programs were begun. It is anticipated that the data and information from these programs will greatly increase the knowledge of the systems and thereby assist the water corporations in managing their supply systems.

It is evident that the new water corporations face a significant amount of water quality compliance issues which will require considerable amount of money, time and effort to address. From a public health risk perspective, DHHS has requested that water corporations provide lasting solutions to address compliance issues in systems with significant bacteriological risks. However, in the short-term they need to ensure that these systems are still operated effectively by adopting a risk-based approach to the management of their systems. They should monitor their systems to meet compliance requirements and to operate their systems using the best possible risk management practices available.

The water and sewerage reform has provided an enormous opportunity to move forward with regard to improving drinking water quality in Tasmania. As shown in this report, the improvements to water quality are not entirely evident because the new water corporations continue to identify issues in the process of understanding the drinking water supply systems they have inherited. However, the inherent determination, sole focus and expertise within these water corporations are fundamental to addressing the many drinking water quality issues within the State and ultimately providing safe drinking water for Tasmanians.

11 of 35

Water Quality summary for each public drinking water supply system.

The following section contains the individual performance of each water corporation with respect to the public drinking water supply systems which they manage.

12 of 35

Ben Lomond Water

Name of water Water treatment Approximate Preliminary Preliminary Compliance Compliance with supply system population serviced sampling program chemical with Bacteriological by water supply – chemical contaminant Bacteriological criteria system contaminants compliance Sampling requirements

Avoca Chlorination only 130 Yes Yes No Unknown

Bracknell Chlorination only 370 Yes Yes Yes No

Branxholm None 350 Yes Yes N/A N/A

Bridport Coagulation/ Flocculation, 1800 Yes Yes No Unknown clarification, filtration, chlorination, fluoridation

Campbell Town/ Ross Fluoridation and 1200 Yes Yes Yes Yes chlorination only

Conara Chlorination only 100 Yes Yes Yes Yes

13 of 35

Ben Lomond Water (continued)

Cornwall None 120 Yes Yes N/A N/A

Cressy Chlorination only 950 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Deloraine Coagulation/ flocculation, 2700 Yes Yes Yes Yes dissolved air flotation filtration, chlorination, fluoridation

Derby None 300 Yes Yes N/A N/A

Distillery Creek Coagulation/ flocculation, 31000 Yes Yes Yes Yes (Launceston) clarification, filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation

14 of 35

Ben Lomond Water (continued)

Epping Chlorination only 50 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Exton Chlorination only 160 Yes Yes Yes No

Fingal None 450 Yes Yes N/A N/A

Gladstone None 55 Yes Yes N/A N/A

Herrick None 50 Yes Yes N/A N/A

15 of 35

Ben Lomond Water (continued)

Lady Barron None 290 No Unknown N/A N/A

Legerwood None 190 Yes Yes N/A N/A

Lilydale None 390 Yes Yes N/A N/A

Longford/ Perth/ Coagulation/ flocculation, 8000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Evandale dissolved air flotation filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation

Mathinna None 190 Yes Yes N/A N/A

16 of 35

Ben Lomond Water (continued)

Mole Creek None 490 Yes Yes N/A N/A

North Esk - Chimney Coagulation/ flocculation, 37000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Saddle (East Tamar/ clarification, filtration, pH Launceston/George adjustment, chlorination, Town/Hillwood/Low fluoridation Head)

Pioneer None 150 Yes Yes N/A N/A

Ringarooma None 370 Yes Yes N/A N/A

Rossarden None 180 Yes Yes N/A N/A

17 of 35

Ben Lomond Water (continued)

Scamander Chlorination only 510 Yes Yes Yes No

Scottsdale Coagulation/ Flocculation, 2500 Yes Yes Yes No clarification, filtration, chlorination, fluoridation

St Helens Coagulation/flocculation, 2000 Yes Yes Yes Yes powdered activated carbon, dissolved air flotation filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation

St Marys Pre-chlorination, Dynasand 530 Yes Yes Yes Yes filtration, Calgon treatment, pH adjustment (when required), chlorination, fluoridation

South Esk – Mt Leslie Coagulation/ flocculation, 10000 Yes Yes Yes Yes (Launceston/Prospect dissolved air flotation, Vale/ Hadspen/ filtration, pH adjustment, Carrick) chlorination, fluoridation

18 of 35

Ben Lomond Water (continued)

West Tamar – Reatta Coagulation/ flocculation, 21000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Road (West Tamar) powdered activated carbon, filtration (with granular activated carbon), pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation

Westbury/Hagley Fluoridation and 2300 Yes Yes Yes Yes chlorination only

Whitemark None 450 No Unknown N/A N/A

Winnaleah None 240 Yes Yes N/A N/A

19 of 35

Cradle Mountain Water

Barrington (Sheffield/ Coagulation/ flocculation, 3000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Railton) dissolved air flotation filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation

Burnie Manganese removal (if 18000 Yes Yes Yes Yes required), coagulation/ flocculation, direct filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation

Cam (Somerset/ Coagulation/ flocculation, 7400 Yes Yes Yes Yes Wynyard) clarification, filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation

Currie Chlorination only 1000 Yes Yes No Unknown

Deep Creek Coagulation/ flocculation, 5900 Yes Yes Yes Yes (Smithton/ Irishtown/ dissolved air flotation Stanley) filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation

20 of 35

Cradle Mountain Water (continued)

Dowlings Creek Membrane filtration, 230 Yes Yes Yes Yes (Yolla) chlorination

Forth (Devonport/ Coagulation/ flocculation, 28000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Forth/ Leith / Latrobe / clarification, filtration, pH Port Sorell) adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation

Gawler (Ulverstone/ Coagulation/ flocculation, 13000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Turners Beach) clarification, filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation

Gormanston None 75 No Unknown N/A N/A

Grassy Powdered activated carbon/ 130 Yes Yes No Unknown coagulation/ flocculation, filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination

21 of 35

Cradle Mountain Water (continued)

Leven (Penguin/ Coagulation/ flocculation, 6000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Sulphur Creek/ dissolved air flotation Heybridge) filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation

Linda None 15 No Unknown N/A N/A

Paloona (Paloona/ Chlorination only 850 Yes Yes Yes Yes Melrose/ Eugenana)

Queenstown (consists 1 x Sand filtration, 2200 Yes Yes Yes Yes of three systems) fluoridation and chlorination

2 x fluoridation and chlorination only

Rosebery (consists of 1 x Sand filtration, 1100 Yes Yes Yes Yes two systems) fluoridation and chlorination

1 x fluoridation and chlorination only

22 of 35

Cradle Mountain Water (continued)

Strahan Coagulation/ flocculation, 640 Yes Yes No Unknown clarification, filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation

Tullah Coagulation/ flocculation, 200 Yes Yes No Unknown clarification, filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination

Waratah Chlorination only 240 Yes Yes Yes No

Zeehan Coagulation/ flocculation, 850 Yes Yes No Unknown clarification, filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation

23 of 35

Southern Water

Bicheno Coagulation/ flocculation, 710 Yes Yes No Unknown dissolved air flotation filtration, chlorination

Bothwell Coagulation/ Flocculation, 450 Yes Yes No Unknown sand filtration, chlorination

Brighton Coagulation/ flocculation, 16000 Yes Yes Yes No clarification, filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation (Bryn Estyn Water Treatment Plant)

Bruny Island Filtration & UV disinfection (for water carriers) No Unknown Yes Yes

Campania – Kempton Coagulation/ flocculation, 2500 Yes Yes Yes Yes clarification, filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation (Bryn Estyn Water Treatment Plant

24 of 35

Southern Water (continued)

Clarence Coagulation/ flocculation, 49000 Yes Yes Yes Yes clarification, filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation (Bryn Estyn Water Treatment Plant

Colebrook Chlorination only 130 Yes Yes Yes No

Coles Bay Dissolved air flotation 250 Yes No No Unknown filtration, chlorination

Cygnet (Agnes Creek) Coagulation/ flocculation, 200 Yes Yes Yes Yes filtration, chlorination

Cygnet (Nichols Fluoridation and 1700 Yes Yes Yes No Rivulet) chlorination only

25 of 35

Southern Water (continued)

Dover Coagulation/ flocculation, 990 Yes Yes Yes No filtration, chlorination, fluoridation

Ellendale None 130 Yes Yes N/A N/A

Franklin (Jackson’s None 50 Yes Yes N/A N/A Road)

Geeveston (Donnellys) filtration, chlorination, 500 Yes Yes Yes Yes fluoridation

Geeveston Chlorination and 1400 Yes Yes Yes No (Kermandie) fluoridation only

26 of 35

Southern Water (continued)

Glenorchy Supplied from three 45000 Yes Yes Yes Yes sources: Coagulation/ flocculation, clarification, filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation (BRYN ESTYN Water Treatment Plant) &/or Chlorination and Fluoridation (National Park dosing station) &/or Chlorination and Fluoridation (Merton dosing station)

Gretna None 75 Yes Yes N/A N/A

Hamilton Chlorination only 180 Yes No No Unknown

27 of 35

Southern Water (continued)

Hobart Supplied from three 50000 Yes Yes Yes Yes sources: Coagulation/ flocculation, clarification, filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation (BRYN ESTYN Water Treatment Plant) &/or Chlorination and Fluoridation (National Park dosing station) &/or Chlorination and Fluoridation (Ferntree dosing station)

Huon (Rocky Creek) Chlorination and 1200 Yes Yes Yes Yes fluoridation only

Huonville Coagulation/ flocculation, 2500 Yes Yes Yes No clarification, filtration, chlorination, fluoridation

28 of 35

Southern Water (continued)

Judbury/Ranelagh None 220 Yes Yes N/A N/A

Kingborough Supplied from two 29000 Yes Yes Yes Yes sources: Coagulation/ flocculation, clarification, filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation (BRYN ESTYN Water Treatment Plant) &/or Chlorination and Fluoridation (Ferntree dosing station)

Maydena Chlorination only 260 Yes Yes No Unknown

Mountain River None 90 Yes Yes N/A N/A

29 of 35

Southern Water (continued)

New Norfolk Supplied by two sources: 5200 Yes Yes No Unknown Coagulation/ flocculation, clarification, filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation (Bryn Estyn Water Treatment Plant) & chlorination and fluoridation only (Illabrook dosing station)

Oatlands Coagulation/flocculation, 730 Yes Yes Yes Yes filtration, chlorination, fluoridation

Orford Coagulation/flocculation, 500 Yes Yes No Unknown filtration, chlorination, fluoridation

Ouse Chlorination only 180 Yes No No Unknown

30 of 35

Southern Water (continued)

Sorell / Midway Point/ Coagulation/ flocculation, 5000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Penna clarification, filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation (Bryn Estyn Water Treatment Plant)

Swansea Chlorination only 540 Yes Yes N/A N/A

Triabunna Coagulation/flocculation, 730 Yes Yes No Unknown sand filtration, chlorination, fluoridation

Tunbridge Chlorination only 170 Yes Yes No Unknown

Wayatinah Filtration/ chlorination 130 Yes No No Unknown

31 of 35

Southern Water (continued)

Westerway/ National Chlorination & fluoridation 110 Yes Yes Yes Yes Park only (National Park dosing station)

Clarence South Bulk water pipeline systems Wayside consumers Yes Yes Yes Yes No coagulation/ flocculation, Northern Lines clarification, filtration, pH Sorell Line adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation (Bryn Estyn Southern Regional Water Treatment Plant) West Derwent

Glenorchy Ops Bulk water pipeline system Wayside consumers Yes Yes Yes Yes No supplied from three sources: coagulation/ flocculation, clarification, filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation (Bryn Estyn Water Treatment Plant) &/or chlorination and fluoridation (National Park dosing station) &/or chlorination and fluoridation (Merton dosing station)

32 of 35

Southern Water (continued)

Hobart Mountain Bulk water pipeline system Wayside consumers Yes Yes Yes Yes No chlorination and fluoridation (Ferntree dosing station)

Kingborough & Bulk water pipeline system Wayside consumers Yes Yes Yes Yes No Bonnett Hill supplied from two sources: coagulation/

flocculation, clarification, filtration, pH adjustment, chlorination, fluoridation (Bryn Estyn Water Treatment Plant) &/or chlorination and fluoridation (Ferntree dosing station)

Lake Fenton/ Bulk water pipeline system Wayside consumers Yes Yes Yes Yes No Waterworks supplied from two sources: chlorination and fluoridation (Ferntree dosing station) &/or chlorination and fluoridation (National Park dosing station)

33 of 35