Ms BURNET – I will ask some questions and thanks for that introduction, Mr Theo.
When is the Macquarie Point treatment works going to be decommissioned?
What’s the timeframe for that?
Mr THEO – We are working to have the treatment plant at Macquarie Point decommissioned by the end of 2026.
Ms BURNET – Okay. I understand that there is a pipe running from Evans Street diagonally across to Macquarie Point. Is that right?
Mr WILLMOTT – Correct.
Ms BURNET – What sort of concerns do you have with decommissioning? Are you decommissioning? How are you going to reroute that?
Mr WILLMOTT – That is just like any other development that wants to undertake development around our pipelines. The Macquarie Point Development Corporation are actually relocating that, down Evans Street and around in front of the TasPorts land and into the pump station where we’re building it.
Ms BURNET – So, that is not costing you anything?
Mr WILLMOTT – No. That’s not our project.
Ms BURNET – That is all MPDC?
Mr WILLMOTT – That’s correct, because they’re the developer.
Ms BURNET – Back to Macquarie Point. You talked about the project for the treatment works removal likely to be ending by 2026. There are at least three other significant projects slated for Macquarie Point. There is the northern access road. It hasn’t been funded but, presumably, that is down to the port and the Antarctic division. There is the rebuild of berth 6 for the Nuyina, which Mr Winter mentioned. I think we heard yesterday that it will take about three to four years to finish that. If it starts in February of next year, getting everything in place, then we’d be looking at that being delivered at the same time as your project. Then there’s the Macquarie Point stadium. Given that this is a fairly small area, how confident are you that you’ll be able to decommission your treatment works in that time and with everything else going on?
Mr WILLMOTT – Yeah, look, we’re very confident that we can fit within the timeframes that have been allocated to us. We work really closely with MPDC and State Growth. Certainly, on the northern access road, we’ve been in discussions with them because of the pipeline that comes up out of the site. All the agencies are working together really well on this project to make sure it’s a success.
Mr THEO – I was just going to say there’s multiple activity currently on foot.
Mr WILLMOTT – There is.
Mr THEO – There’s activity happening at Selfs Point as we speak. Just last, I think it was last weekend, we had an open day for the community.
Mr WILLMOTT – Yep, that’s right. For the community.
Mr THEO – There is work currently happening at Macquarie Point, and the pipeline alignment clearance has occurred along the Domain.
Mr WILLMOTT – Correct.
Mr THEO – So, you know, those three fronts will be occurring concurrently to make sure that the project is completed by the end of 2026.
Ms BURNET – I suppose my concern, given the recent history of the QuayLink project, is that moving parts landing the way they ought doesn’t always happen. The stadium’s a mega‑project. These are pretty big pieces that you’re looking at as well. Do you envisage any problems or blowout of time?
Mr WILLMOTT – No, not at the moment we don’t. We’re quite confident that we’ve got the right timeline. We work really closely with Anne Beach and her team at MPDC on these projects.
It’s got to be noted, though, the treatment plant itself is very well clear of where the stadium will be, and so is the pump station that we’re constructing. We’re on the far river side of the property from the MPDC side, certainly just outside the boundary there, so I don’t see any issues with us being in the way of the stadium build.
With the plant, we have to be decommissioned by the end of 2026. That’s our plan. We’ll demolish it soon thereafter, once we have confidence in our new treatment plant that we’ve got going at Selfs Point, and then, yeah, we’re out of there altogether.
Ms BURNET – Thank you. You mentioned, Mr Willmott, that you have regular discussions with the MPDC and Ms Beach and you mentioned the northern access road. I’m just curious to know how the pipeline and so forth is impacted by that northern access road?
Mr WILLMOTT – With the design that we’ve taken to come up out of the site there, we’ve taken into account the proposed road and it’s not finalised. We’ve put the pipe out of the way so it doesn’t impact that access into the port.
Ms BURNET – Okay. So, the pipeline’s currently going across the domain, is that coming out on the Queen’s Domain Road? Is there a lot of work? There seems to be a lot of work, as I went past there the other day.
Mr WILLMOTT – It is. So yeah, George mentioned about the clearing. We looked at all routes to get that pipeline from Macquarie Point to Selfs Point. We looked in the river. We were going to submersible pipe; we couldn’t do that. So, we’ve taken the least impact route for, certainly, weighing up aboriginal heritage, European heritage and impact on the public. If we didn’t go through that fire trail – because there’s a fire trail there where we went through. We’ve cleared around it. The pipeline is a big pipeline; it’s 700 millimetres in diameter. We need fairly large machinery to get into there.
Ms BURNET – Future proofing?
Mr WILLMOTT – That’s right. To have that machinery in that area, we couldn’t leave those trees where they were. We’d also have the spoil running down the hill and getting amongst the trees; we wouldn’t be able to clean it up. We’ve got a full revegetation plan for that area one we complete. That has all been approved by the Hobart City Council as well. We’ve gained all approvals to do that work and it is the least impact on all of those criteria.
Ms BURNET – And it’s probably sheoak mainly through there, and Casuarina?
Mr WILLMOTT – Casuarina, yeah, they were.
Ms BURNET – Was there any other sort of major environmental concern, grasslands or anything like that?
Mr WILLMOTT – No, no major concerns in there otherwise we wouldn’t have gone through there. So, yeah, we’ve been really selective on the route, certainly at the other end of that roadway down towards the Domain Highway there. We’ve had to come fairly well out into the road past the old Tasmanian Zoo there because of that Aboriginal heritage and the European heritage there. We’ve also had to worry about the impact on the trees there ’cause they’re quite old. So, we’ve taken all steps to make sure that’s limited.
Ms BURNET – I want to go to the Selfs Point proposed treatment works. So greater capacity from Hobart, is that going to be collecting from other parts up the Derwent?
Mr WILLMOTT – Yes. The treatment plant, once it’s put into place, it’ll be treating all the areas such as Lenah Valley, New Town, where the Selfs Point Treatment Plant already captures. So we’ll be augmenting those two treatment plants together. We did have a look at continuing to treat through the old treatment plant, but the technology is just so outdated and worn out that it was far better to build a treatment plant with more capacity. This also sets us up for the Selfs Point Sewer Transformation, it was used earlier. We’re investing additional money into that program, so it sets it up for the future. We’ll see treatment plants such as Prince of Wales Bay; the one at Cameron Bay which is right next to Mona; and the one at Risdon Vale which is near the Aboriginal land there – they’ll all get reduced into Selfs Point. That’ll be in future though.
Ms BURNET – Thank you. Just a similar question to Mr Ferguson. I was at Beacon House for a Christmas lunch earlier this week and somebody was talking about how he grew up at Austins Ferry and Windermere Bay or –
Mr WILLMOTT – Windermere Beach.
Ms BURNET – Beach, yes. It was a lot less degraded than it is now. Presumably that’s effluent and a lot of pollution that’s occurring from runoff. Is that in your purview as well, and is that going to be improved?
Mr WILLMOTT – Yes, we’ll see significant improvement as we start to treat down at Selfs Points instead of further up into the estuary there. Once we decommission Cameron Bay, we’ll see the sewage treated at Selfs Point. That is discharged through the Blinking Billy outfall. But there’s a real kicker with the Selfs Point project in that there’ll be 132 tonnes reduced from the river in nitrogen and phosphorus, so that’s 50 per cent of our impact that we have on the river each year will be stopped as we start to treat there at Selfs Point.
It’ll also end with a bit more treatment on the back end of the plant. We’ll be able to make available 9 billion litres of reuse water, and it’ll be class A recycled water if we treat it to that standard, which will be available for agriculture and also industry around there. We’re talking with heavy industry in that area to see, if we were to treat that water to a high standard, whether or not we could get a better benefit out of it.
It is already reused as well. We already heat the pool, so, the Aquatic Centre. So the discharge already goes through the heat exchanger there, through the City Hall, through the hotel at the Grand Chancellor, and two nursing homes in Sandy Bay. There’s some really great circular economy outcomes of this project.
Ms BURNET – Will that continue?
Mr WILLMOTT – Yes, it will. We’ll have to discharge something there, so I’d suggest that we will have partial discharge there, yes.
Ms BURNET – Thanks.
Ms BURNET – Again, just asking about Selfs Point. The energy goes – you will be using biodigesters? Is that right?
Mr WILLMOTT – Yes, that’s right. I did not say either. We are also going to be generating power on site. We will see around 30 to 40 per cent of the power for the site will be generated on site. That is equivalent of around 350 to 400 homes of power per year. That is significant.
Ms BURNET – What are you going to be using that for? Are you looking at using biochar to remove micro plastics and biosolids?
Mr WILLMOTT – The plant doesn’t include biochar, but it can in the future. The way that we are building this plant is so that it can be upscaled, quite easily, in future once we have constructed it. There is no biochar right now. In the future there will be, at the site, but just not right now.
Ms BURNET – I think I might have discussed that, it might have been with you, Mr Theo, when we were at Bryn Estyn for the tour. Was that considered in that settling pool?
Mr THEO – I think the PFAS you are referring to and reference to biochar is related to biosolids, which are the solids that come out of the wastewater treatment plants. Technology is emerging and the industry is moving, and biochar is just one option. Matt and the team are currently looking at what is the option we want to go with in Tasmania, but biochar is basically baking or cooking the –
Ms BURNET – I know a lot about biochar, yes –
Mr THEO – And removing the PFAS, where the biosolid becomes nutrient rich fertiliser. The National Environment Management Plan, NEM 3, which comes into effect at the end of this calendar year; states have to sign up to it. That will spell out the rules with respect to what you can do with biosolids. If PFAS is to be removed as part of that process, which I believe it will be, there will be a transition period for utilities to be able to respond to that.
Our medium-to-long term goal is to actually remove PFAS from the biosolids and we are currently investigating what are those options and put a recommendation to our board in due course.
Ms BURNET – Presumably, that would sequester carbon as well. You would have a better outcome environmentally?
Mr THEO – Carbon sequestration? I am not sure if it would apply, I have not –
Ms BURNET – Maybe an opportunity?
Mr THEO – Yes, carbon sequestration on the back of biochar creation –
Mr DERBYSHIRE – It is not something I have looked into.
Mr THEO – It is not something that is come across normally but we will certainly look into.
Ms BURNET – I might have to ask that, next year.
Mr DERBYSHIRE – While there is a pause. Can I correct my answer to there is actually an estimation of volumetric charge for the meter when the IPL fails, based on previous usage? Remembering that, the volumetric component is only around 16 per cent and hence, the moving towards a meter renewal program that will replace those meters.
Ms BURNET – I have a question around algal blooms. Algal blooming is predisposed by higher water temperatures which is a problem associated with climate change, low water flows, stagnation and high nutrient run‑off from a variety of industrial and agricultural activities. These activities include particularly intensive agriculture, for example, large dairy operations, fish hatcheries with flow-through design, clear-fell forestry – both native forest and plantation – and composting facilities.
What strategies are being employed to reduce the incidence of algal blooms in Tasmanian water catchments? And what regulations are legislated and in place to prevent excess nutrient run‑off into our water catchments?
Mr THEO – The first thing I need to make clear is we don’t manage catchments.
Ms BURNET – That’s a problem, isn’t it? Who does? I know you come from Queensland and there were catchment authorities.
Mr THEO – We do not manage catchments, but what we do, and we’re well versed in it and it’s documented, and Matt might wish to provide some further detail, is we constantly monitor the quality of the raw water coming down the rivers. Our obligation under law is to make sure that what comes out of the water treatment plant is –
Unknown – Wastewater treatment plant?
Mr THEO – No, a water treatment plant. What comes out of the water treatment plant is water that is compliant with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, and that’s what we do. It means our treatment plants are designed to be able to respond to the raw water quality that comes down the river.
We welcome the opportunity to be involved in looking at catchment management activities and how can we improve overall catchment river health, for that matter. Matt, you might want to talk about the fact that we do an assessment of our, I think it’s 70 catchments across the state and we rate them one to four.
Mr DERBYSHIRE – I was going to go back a step and just say on the issue of catchment management, we sit on the Rural Water Roundtable, which includes all stakeholders from Tasmanian Graziers and Farmers Association, NREs, NRM bodies around the state, Hydro, Tas Irrigation, TasWater, et cetera. One of the key activities there is ensuring that the health of our rivers isn’t degraded further. I know that NRM has had some success with keeping cattle out of rivers, reducing run‑off from not only soil, which causes turbidity and makes water hard for us to treat, but also E. coli and the nutrients that you mentioned.
One of the things that we’re working with EPA on at the moment is what’s called a nutrient offset scheme. What that would involve is, rather than TasWater spending tens of millions of dollars upgrading a treatment plant to reduce nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus, we could make a smaller investment that gets a better outcome for the community by fencing, by creating wetlands that filter out those nutrients. So, right now, we’re working with EPA on what that would look like. We’ve had discussions with the Economic Regulator about if we did make that investment, how do we include it in our regulated asset base, rather than it being a kind of unfunded cost? That’s probably where we’re aiming our attention at the moment.
Ms BURNET – I believe that under the Public Health Act 1997, if TasWater becomes aware that the water it manages may pose a threat to public health, you are required to advise Public Health services. Does TasWater see BMAA toxin from some blue-green algae as a threat to public health, and what scientific information has been considered in that regard?
Mr DERBYSHIRE – In short, no we don’t. We rely on the National Health and Medical Research Council to provide guidance on the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, which specifies which pesticides, toxicants that we monitor in catchments. At the moment, there’s no clear established link between BMAA and health risks. That’s supported by the World Health Organisation and that’s the advice that we follow. But really, we stick to the playbook determined by the Department of Health and we are regularly in discussions with the Department of Health on a range of issues, not just BMAA, but other potential contaminants in water. So, yeah, the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines determine what we monitor for.
Ms BURNET – In its 2021 guide, Toxic Cyanobacteria and Water, the World Health Organisation warns of the serious health risks posed by BMAA to humans and ecosystems, particularly in areas with frequent blue-green algal blooms, and emphasises the importance of broader data collection for further research. I know you’re going by national guidelines, but given there is concern, why isn’t TasWater testing for BMAA?
Mr DERBYSHIRE – Well, we test for blue-green algae and we monitor catchment –
Ms BURNET – But BMAA, it’s a –
Mr DERBYSHIRE – Well, you need blue-green algae to generate BMAA. Algae is the precursor to BMAA. So, no algae, no BMAA.
Ms BURNET – This is going to be my last question about BMAA. BMAA is regarded as a neurotoxin produced by blue-green algae, and it was causally associated with the devastating motor neurone disease in a major scholarly review in 2022. I’m curious to know how TasWater scientists assess the risk of BMAA being present in Tasmanian people’s drinking water.
Mr THEO – First – and Matt can talk to – I think he’s touched on the point about monitoring for algae in the raw water. We don’t bring algae into the treatment process. Can I just say that we rely on health regulators. We are not a regulator of –
Ms BURNET – Well –
Mr THEO – We test for those things we are asked to test for that are determined by health regulators both nationally, locally and internationally. They inform what we test for.
The flip – the other side of the question is what do you test for if it’s not in the health regulations? The research and the science – and we’ve asked this question on many occasions ‑ doesn’t support that hypothesis. I know there are people that have a different opinion. I get it, but we rely on the health regulators to determine what we do.
A moment ago you also asked the question about why don’t we test. There’s no test for drinking water for BMAA that is certified and validated that will allow a consistent result. In other words, we will send 10 samples to 10 different labs and we’ll get 10 different results. Then, if you play the conversation further, let’s say you get a number – two, or three or four ‑ what does it mean? What’s the health value that we need to be working towards and keeping below? That’s where the health regulators come into play. We’re happy to test for whatever we’re asked to test for. It’s not a parameter we’ve been asked to test.
Ms BURNET – In October, Safe Water Hobart wrote to you to meet with the owner –
Mr THEO – They wrote to meet at the annual general meeting with the owners, yes.
Ms BURNET – And I don’t know that they got a response –
Mr THEO – Yes, they did. I personally wrote to them, and they have an open invitation to meet with me personally, and the experts within TasWater are more than happy to hear their concerns. They’ve also taken a tour of the Bryn Estyn Water Treatment Plant, which is a world‑class facility.
Ms BURNET – Port of Hobart?
Mr THEO – Yes.
Ms BURNET – Could we table that letter and that response, please?
Mr THEO – The one that I responded to? Yes, absolutely.
Ms BURNET – Yes. Thank you.
Mr DERBYSHIRE – I’ll just add, too, that we do 280,000 water tests every year. That’s two tests every minute. One test every two minutes.
Ms BURNET – Yes, there’s those tests, but there’s this specific test, and this is the concern that’s been raised.
Mr THEO – Can I ask, if you know of a test that actually provides consistent results, we’d love to hear about it, but no one can point us in that direction. To my earlier point, if there was – and all our research suggests there isn’t – but if there was, what’s the value we work towards, in the absence of a regulator saying it’s got to be below a certain number?
Mr DERBYSHIRE – There is research that says that if BMAA or cyanobacteria get into a treatment plant, the filtration and treatment processes that we have at Bryn Estyn would destroy the cells.
Ms BURNET – But not the neurotoxin?
Mr DERBYSHIRE – Well, you need the cells – the cells are destroyed before the neurotoxin’s released.
CHAIR – Just to clarify, Ms Burnet, you need to put that in writing, for them to table the letter.
Ms BURNET – Yes.
Ms BURNET – I’m heading to Bruny Island and I think there might have been some correspondence with Dr Woodruff today. But I note that the 30 per cent of drinking water that is unaccounted for – oh, sorry, that’s the wrong question. Can you clarify the quantity and quality of the water currently in the aquifer on Bruny Island?
Mr DERBYSHIRE – We conduct monthly rural water testing and we conduct weekly treated water testing and those results are all within the guidelines of the Australian drinking water quality.
Ms BURNET – Okay. There’s now been over six months of little to no rain on Bruny, apart from the recent adverse weather events in August, which may have increased the quantity of water in the aquifer, but also created significant damage across the island, which has resulted in a drastically reduced aquifer size. Will there be any assessment of the aquifer in alignment with the current science?
Mr DERBYSHIRE – We monitor the level of water in the aquifer. When the aquifer is under what I would call ‘strain’ in warmer months, when water carters are using that site to fill water tanks on Bruny Island, we will restrict how much water can be taken. We may even take measures to close the filling station at Bruny Island and redirect those water carters.
Ms BURNET – Is it going to be an ongoing problem or how will it be rectified?
Mr DERBYSHIRE – We’re actually investigating what the longer-term options for Bruny Island are, and they could be anything. One of the options we looked at was a pipeline from mainland Tasmania. Another was a desalination plant. So, there’s a range of options. They’re making their way through the business case at the moment.
Ms BURNET – Thank you.
CHAIR – The time being 6.30 p.m., the time for scrutiny is over. I thank everyone for your attendance.
