TasWater Long Term Strategic Plan FY2017-18 To FY2036-37

Long Term Strategic Plan
2018-2037
Tasmanian Water & Sewerage Corporation Pty Ltd HPRM record number: 17/78892
GPO Box 1393 Hobart, TAS 7001 Uncontrolled when printed
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 2 of 113
Document Approval and Issue Notice
This is a managed document. For identification of amendments each page contains a release number
and a page number.
Changes will only be issued as a complete replacement document. Recipients should remove
superseded versions from circulation. This document is authorised for release once all signatures
have been obtained.
Prepared:
(For release) Eamon Sullivan, Program Manager Price and Service Plan Date: 16 August 2017
Endorsed:
(For release) Dean Page, General Manager Retail and Customer Services (Acting) Date: 23 August
2017
Approved:
(For acceptance) Michael Brewster, Chief Executive Officer Date: 23 August 2017
Build Status:
Version Date Author Reason Sections
1.0 16 August 2017 E. Sullivan Final for approval and public release All Sections
Amendments in this release:

Section Title Section Number Amendment Summary
Distribution:
Version Issue Date Issued To
1.0 25 August 2017 For public release
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 3 of 113
Contents
List of acronyms and abbreviations................................................................................................ 6
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 8
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 10
1.1 Who we are ............................................................................................................................... 10
1.2 Our historical context and challenges ....................................................................................... 11
1.3 Our regulatory framework ........................................................................................................ 12
1.4 Why we developed the LTSP ..................................................................................................... 13
1.5 How the LTSP works with other plans....................................................................................... 13
2 Our customer promises and strategic framework.............................................................. 14
2.1 Our customer promises ............................................................................................................. 14
2.2 Our strategic framework ........................................................................................................... 15
2.3 Measuring our success .............................................................................................................. 15
3 The expectations of our customers and regulators ............................................................ 17
3.1 Our customer engagement framework .................................................................................... 17
3.2 Summary of consultation activities undertaken ....................................................................... 17
3.3 The results of our engagement with customers ....................................................................... 19
3.4 The results of our engagement with regulators........................................................................ 20
4 Our approach to developing the LTSP ............................................................................... 22
4.1 Background to the LTSP ............................................................................................................ 22
4.2 Relationship with Price and Service Plan 3 ............................................................................... 22
4.3 Overall approach to the LTSP .................................................................................................... 23
5 Our Long Term Strategic Plan: value for money outcomes................................................. 25
5.1 Background and methodology .................................................................................................. 25
5.2 The customer outcomes we will deliver ................................................................................... 26
5.3 How we will deliver these outcomes ........................................................................................ 26
6 Our Long Term Strategic Plan: drinking water quality outcomes ........................................ 28
7 Our Long Term Strategic Plan: environmental outcomes ................................................... 33
8 Our Long Term Strategic Plan: dam safety outcomes......................................................... 36
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 4 of 113
9 Our Long Term Strategic Plan: service reliability outcomes................................................ 40
10 Asset management and the LTSP ...................................................................................... 44
10.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 44
10.2 Asset Management Journey – PSP2 to Present ........................................................................ 46
10.3 Context for asset management consistent with the LTSP ........................................................ 50
10.4 Specific asset management approaches ................................................................................... 51
11 Challenges, risks and opportunities .................................................................................. 52
11.1 Challenges and risks .................................................................................................................. 52
11.2 Opportunities ............................................................................................................................ 53
11.3 Improvement Plan ..................................................................................................................... 54
12 Conclusion and next steps ................................................................................................ 57
12.1 How the LTSP will evolve over time .......................................................................................... 57
Appendix 1: List of capital projects to deliver the LTSP ................................................................. 58
Appendix 2: LTSP methodology ................................................................................................... 92
Appendix 3: Specific asset management approaches .................................................................. 100
Appendix 4: List of asset management improvement initiatives and status ................................. 111
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 5 of 113
List of acronyms and abbreviations
Acronym Meaning
ABS Australia Bureau of Statistics
ADWG Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011
AER Australian Energy Regulator
AM Asset Management
AMIP Asset Management Improvement Plan
AMIS Asset Management Information System
ANCOLD Australian National Committee on Large Dams
BA Building Application
BWA Boil Water Alert
Capex Capital Expenditure
CCW Certificate for Certifiable Works
COTA Council on the Ageing
CPI Consumer Price Index
CWC Capital Works Committee
DALY Disability Adjusted Life Years
DHHS Department of Health and Human Services
DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
DRP Debt Risk Premium
DWQ Drinking Water Quality
DWQMP Drinking Water Quality Management Plan
EPA Environment Protection Authority
ERAWA Economic Regulation Authority of Western Australia
ESC Essential Services Commission of Victoria
ESCOSA Essential Services Commission of South Australia
ET Equivalent Tenement
FTE Full Time Equivalent
GBFA Gross Building Floor Area
HBT Health Based Target
IAP2 International Association for Public Participation
IPART Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales
LGA Local Government Area
LGAT Local Government Association of Tasmania
LGF Loan Guarantee Fees
LTSP Long Term Strategic Plan
MOS Management Operating System
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 6 of 113
Acronym Meaning
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NPV Net Present Value
OCCC OTTER Customer Consultative Committee
Opex Operating Expenditure
OTTER Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator
PA Plumbing Application
PHA Public Health Alert
POA Price on application
PPI Producer Price Index
PSP2 Price and Service Plan 2 (1 July 2015 to 30 June 2018)
QCA Queensland Competition Authority
RAB Regulated Asset Base
RBA Reserve Bank of Australia
RFR Risk Free Rate
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
TasCorp Tasmanian Public Finance Corporation
TasCOSS Tasmanian Council of Social Service
TDWQG Tasmanian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines 2015
TER Tasmanian Economic Regulator
THA Tasmanian Hospitality Association
TSIC Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council
WACC Weighted Average Cost of Capital
WSAA Water Services Association of Australia
WTP Water Treatment Plant
WWMP Wastewater Management Plan
All dollar amounts stated in this document are nominal in the year indicated unless otherwise stated.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 7 of 113
Executive Summary
Our Long Term Strategic Plan (LTSP) identifies customer outcomes to be delivered over a 20 year
period (FY2017/18 through FY2036/37) and the resulting balance between prices, service standards
and the time to reach full compliance. It is based on customer and regulator feedback and integrates
with our 10 Year Financial Plan which provides the financial constraints for the LTSP.
We are very aware that our services must be affordable for our customers. However, we face some
major challenges to ensure drinking water for all customers is clean and safe to drink, to reduce the
impact of sewage treatment and disposal on the environment, to maintain a secure supply of water
by managing the safety of our dams and to replace our ageing networks to provide reliable service to
our customers.
While we are on the way to addressing many of these challenges, at the start of the LTSP we will still
have several substantial challenges to address including:
 Regional towns on permanent boil water alerts or public health alerts (although we will
address these early in the LTSP – by August 2018)
 10 of our dams will still be above the level of tolerability prescribed by Australian
National Committee on Large Dams Incorporated (ANCOLD) guidelines at the start of
PSP3
 50%1 of total effluent volume will is compliant with the EPA’s licence discharge limits
 The rate of unplanned water supply interruptions and sewer mains breaks and chokes
are above the median for similar sized water utilities in Australia and
 Many of our critical sewer pump stations adjacent to sensitive receiving waters are
undersized and prone to overflow and are known to discharge onto beaches,
recreational sites, schools and to shellfish leases.
It is not feasible for us to address all of these challenges in the short term given the scale of
expenditure required and the need to strike a balance with customer affordability. Our LTSP provides
the framework for engaging with customers, stakeholders and regulators to prioritise these
outcomes over the long term.
Our consultation for the LTSP sought feedback from our customers and stakeholders on a range of
topics relating to the outcomes. This included investment priorities associated with each outcome,
acceptable price increases to achieve the outcomes and customer service standards related to the
outcomes.
This feedback was an integral part of the development of our LTSP. We assigned quantitative
measures to link each project in our capital program to the customer outcomes in our strategic
framework. We then prioritised the capital projects by comparing their relative costs and benefits
(that is, their contribution to achieving measures of success for each customer outcome).
The preferred scenario in our LTSP model contains a weighting to emphasise various compliance
outcomes in accordance with the preferences expressed by our customers during consultation. The
LTSP includes the following characteristics:
1
The measurement of effluent compliance currently differs between TasWater and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)
Tasmania. The two measures both use seven parameters for an effluent sample. However, the EPA measure, used in the Office of the
Tasmanian Economic Regulator’s (OTTER) State of the Industry Report (SOIR), allows for a partial pass where some of the parameters are
compliant. TasWater’s measure requires all parameters to be compliant to ‘pass’. As of 1 July 2017, EPA Tasmania will use TasWater’s more
stringent measure for monitoring our Memorandum of Understanding, although the EPA will continue to use their method for the SOIR.
The effluent compliance figures used throughout this document refer to TasWater’s more stringent measure however for comparison
purposes the equivalent EPA measure for is 86.0% compliance for FY2017/18 compared with TasWater’s 50%.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 8 of 113
 Improving drinking water quality as highest priority (ie projects that contribute to
achieving this priority receive a greater weighting)
 Improving environmental compliance and dam safety as a high priority (but slightly less
weighting than drinking water quality)
 Maintaining service reliability with a focus on critical assets and high impact/sensitive
environments in PSP3 and
 The individual projects in the LTSP also reflect priorities discussed with our regulators.
Based on what our customers have told us, and what we are able to deliver within the constraint of
acceptable price increases while maintaining prudent levels of debt, the key outcomes we will deliver
for customers over the 20-year LTSP are:
 Microbiological compliance of 100 per cent for drinking water systems
 Effluent compliance of 93 per cent by volume measured against EPA standards
 All dams are deemed safe in accordance with Australian standards by FY2022/23
 Unplanned water supply interruptions and sewer main breaks and chokes reduced to
the average level for large Australian water utilities
 To achieve value for money, we have identified $12M in annual (ongoing) cost savings
that will be progressively achieved in the first three years of the LTSP, growing to
$17.5M by the end of the first 10 years of the LTSP and
 A managed transition to cost-reflective pricing, with price increases trending to the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) rate of increase or less from FY2027/28 and beyond.
The customer outcomes, and the expenditure required to deliver these outcomes, over the 20-year
period of the LTSP are shown below.
Environmental and Drinking Water Quality Outcomes
Effluent compliance by volume
Health based target tolerability level
% of connections with tolerable HBT Level

Microbiological compliance
100% 100%
90% 90%
80% 80%
Effluent Compliance,
70% 70%
60% 60%
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Service Interruptions
Water service reliability Sewerage service reliability
Unplanned water suppy interruptions
180 90
(no. per 1,000 properties)
160 80
Sewer breaks and chokes
(no. per 100km of main)
140 70
120 60
100 50
80 40
60 30
40 20
20 10
0 0
Note: Shading of expenditure from FY2027/28 through FY2036/37 represents a lower degree of certainty in these years. We will refine our modelling
in future versions of the LTSP as we collect better data. Further, the planning and delivery of capital projects is dynamic in nature as new data and
information emerges. The level of capital expenditure and priority of projects is subject to minor changes as a result.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 9 of 113
1 Introduction
With infrastructure that can last 100 years or more, we build and operate water and sewerage
systems to provide service to multiple generations of Tasmanians. As a result, we need to take a long
term view when planning our investments.
This document represents our first Long Term Strategic Plan (LTSP) and sets out the outcomes we will
deliver to customers over a 20 year period from 2018 to 2037. Over this period we still have much to
do to provide the quality of service that Tasmanians should reasonably expect.
We face some major challenges to ensure drinking water for all customers is clean and safe to drink,
to reduce the impact of sewage treatment and disposal on the environment, to manage the safety of
our dams and to maintain service reliability by replacing our large, dispersed and ageing networks as
they reach the end of their useful life.
At the same time, Tasmania has a challenging socio-economic environment with approximately 25
per cent of our customers being eligible for concessions from the State Government. We are very
aware that our services must be affordable for current and future customers - and our LTSP is
responsive to this reality.
It is not feasible for us to address all of these requirements at once given the scale of expenditure
required and the need to strike a balance with customer affordability. The LTSP provides a
framework for engaging with customers, stakeholders and regulators to prioritise water and
sewerage outcomes over the next 20 years.
1.1 Who we are

TasWater is registered as a proprietary limited company under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
owned by the 29 local government councils of Tasmania and with an independent Board of Directors.
We provide water and wastewater services to residential and business customers across Tasmania.
Our core business is to provide two essential services to Tasmanians:
 The sourcing, treatment and reliable delivery of quality drinking water to our customers
and
 The collection, transportation, treatment and safe return of wastewater to the
environment.
We have 70 drinking water systems and supply water to more than 202,000 connections using a
network of water mains over 6,200km in length. We have 112 sewage treatment plants and collect
sewage from more than 177,000 connections using a network of sewer mains over 4,700km in
length.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 10 of 113
Figure 1: Key facts about TasWater
1.2 Our historical context and challenges

We commenced operations on 1 July 2013 following the merger of the three former regional
Tasmanian water and sewerage corporations (Ben Lomond Water, Cradle Mountain Water and
Southern Water) and the common services provider company, Onstream. This in turn preceded the
merging of 29 councils and three bulk water authorities in 2009.
We operate in a unique environment compared to other large water utilities in Australia. We have
significantly more assets per customer than our mainland counterparts (eg treatment plants, dams).
In 2015, a survey of water utilities in Australia found that although our population was between two
to three per cent of the total population surveyed, we had 38% of water treatment plants and 37% of
sewage treatment plants, but only two per cent of the total revenue.
This is further illustrated in the comparison below with other Australian water utilities.
Water utility WTPs2 Properties STPs3 Properties Properties Capital spend per Year
per WTP per STP serviced property started
TasWater 74 2,736 113 1,575 202,478 $637 2013
Sydney Water 9 211,000 25 74,080 1,899,234 $359 1995
Barwon 8 18,875 11 12,364 151,418 $528 1994

Water
Hunter Water 6 40,333 19 12,158 242,277 $414 1991
All else being equal, this large number of small scale assets creates higher costs for us than similar
water utilities. A large proportion of our inherited infrastructure is also ageing and in poor condition.
This results in customer service and historical compliance levels that are well behind the levels
delivered by other major Australian water utilities.
The disproportionate number of dispersed assets also results in a significantly different scale of
challenge for the creation and delivery of our capital program. The number of solutions we must
develop and projects we must manage is directly proportional to the number of assets requiring
2
Water Treatment Plants
3
Sewage Treatment Plants
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 11 of 113
upgrades. This results in the need for more project managers, engineers, scientists and planners than
might be the case in other jurisdictions were they starting from the same low level of inherited asset
condition as TasWater.
The scale and program breadth challenges are further exacerbated by the relative immaturity of
TasWater, being formed only four years ago, when compared with our interstate counterparts, the
majority of whom have been in existence for decades. This shorter life span directly impacts key
inputs critical for the rapid acceleration and efficient delivery of a robust capital program. Key
examples of this include the requirement for reliable data and mature processes, essential for an
organisation with the scale and number of customers that TasWater serves. The development of
such processes and data was simply not possible pre TasWater.
The other key challenge for TasWater has been the evolving regulatory and reporting requirements
that commenced with the formation of the former corporations and have become more stringently
applied with the formation of a single state-wide corporation.
The need to concurrently undertake the merging of four corporations whilst simultaneously
delivering better customer service outcomes, reducing costs, building new state-wide processes, ,
developing a new culture to underpin the business, reducing our public risk profile, making the
workplace safer for employees, lifting regulatory compliance, accelerating our capital program,
addressing historical customer pricing inequities and building for the first time in Tasmania’s history,
a comprehensive long term plan for the state; all in the short span of four years has represented an
enormous challenge for all involved but one we have thrived on and are proud to be part of.
Unfortunately this has occurred in an environment where we have found it difficult to successfully
communicate the complexities associated with our space to the broader public, particularly against
an historical backdrop where there has been limited external understanding of the need for the
reforms, the size of the investment needed and the resultant long term impact on customer’s prices.
Since our formation, we have commenced the task of addressing these challenges. In our first year
we successfully merged the four former corporations into a single statewide entity while maintaining
a focus on our customers. In our second year we delivered on our savings targets while making major
improvements in safety, fault response times, sewage spill reductions and Ombudsman complaints.
In our third year of operations we used the learnings and knowledge gained in the first two years of
operation to build a 10 year plan to address Tasmania’s water and sewerage infrastructure
challenges.
However, we still have much to do to address the challenges that face us and to deliver the
outcomes that our customers and stakeholders expect.
1.3 Our regulatory framework

We are governed by a range of legislative and regulatory instruments, including the Water and
Sewerage Industry Act 2008 (Industry Act). The Industry Act provides a regulatory framework
covering the provision of water and sewerage services. It is similar to utility regulatory frameworks in
other jurisdictions and includes an economic regulator and a number of technical regulators. These
key regulators are:
 The Tasmanian Economic Regulator (TER) who regulates the prices we can charge our
customers and the standards of service we provide to our customers
 The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) who regulates environmental matters such
as sewage treatment plant licensing and compliance
 The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) who regulates drinking water
quality
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 12 of 113
 The Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) who
regulates water allocating licensing and dam permits
We also have a number of other regulatory bodies such as local government Environmental Health
Officers and the Tasmania Fire Service. In addition, any customer not satisfied with the outcome of
their complaint to us, can refer the matter to the Ombudsman.
1.4 Why we developed the LTSP

Following the TER’s Price and Service Plan 2 (PSP2) price determination investigation, we sought
external advice on the ability of Tasmania’s water and sewerage regulatory framework to provide
long term, sustainable outcomes for the state.
This work by Frontier Economics made the recommendation that we should develop a long term
strategic plan that outlines “investment needed to meet regulatory requirements and service
standards as the basis for articulating and seeking consensus on the key trade-offs between prices,
service standards and the time to reach full compliance”.
The TasWater Board accepted this recommendation and asked that the LTSP be prepared in parallel
with PSP3 and build upon the extensive planning work undertaken to date.
1.5 How the LTSP works with other plans
The LTSP has been developed to give direction to the whole business. It outlines our goals, customer
preferences and stakeholder support. The detail of how the LTSP will be delivered is in the integrated
set of strategies, projects and plans that sit below the LTSP as shown below.
Figure 2: Relationship between the LTSP and other plans
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 13 of 113
2 Our customer promises and strategic framework
Our strategic framework is anchored to our vision:
To be a trusted and respected provider of essential services that is making a positive

difference to Tasmania.
This vision reflects the strong desire of the TasWater Board and employees of TasWater to focus on
what really matters for our owners, customers and the community who depend on us for essential
services.
In developing the LTSP we have engaged with Tasmanian customers and stakeholders to find out
what they think our water and sewerage priorities should be for the future. This feedback has helped
us to improve our strategic framework to reflect the value we aim to provide Tasmanians.
2.1 Our customer promises

The LTSP demonstrates how we will keep our customer promises and deliver on the outcomes in the
years to come.
Figure 3: Our customer promises
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 14 of 113
2.2 Our strategic framework
The customer promises are now embedded into our overarching strategic framework, shown in the
figure below.
It provides the supporting foundation for our LTSP, Corporate Plan and all subsidiary strategies and
plans. This framework reflects the expectations of our customers and community, regulators and
owners.
Figure 4: Our Strategic Framework
2.3 Measuring our success

Our customer promises and outcomes are intended to be enduring and reflect the fact that we
provide our services for the long term. Our intention is to achieve all of our customer promises and
outcomes over time and our LTSP provides the roadmap for us to do this.
We have assigned measures of success to each customer outcome to demonstrate when the
outcome will be achieved and to enable customers and stakeholders to assess our progress over
time. In this first version of the LTSP, we have only reported those measures of success:
 For which we have enough data to reasonably predict future outcomes based on various
investment scenarios and
 That represent the key trade-offs relating to our most immediate challenges.
The measures of success we have modelled in this LTSP are highlighted in orange below.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 15 of 113
Table 1: Measures of success
Customer Promises Customer Outcomes Measures of Success
You are satisfied with our service Customer satisfaction percentage

Deliver a positive
customer You find it easy to do business with us Customer effort score
experience to you
You are kept informed Brand perception score
Your price increases are minimised Annual percentage price increase

Give you value for
money The local economy benefits from our
Percentage of growth and capacity plans completed
investment and capacity building
Percentage of customers where microbiological

compliance has been achieved
Your drinking water is clean and safe to drink Percentage of customers where a tolerable health based
target has been achieved
Water quality complaints (per 1,000 properties)
Provide you with Number of dams that plot above ANCOLD limit for
safe drinking water tolerable risk
and responsibly You have a reliable supply of water
Frequency of stage three water restrictions
manage your
sewage Unplanned interruptions (per 1,000 properties)
Your sewage is efficiently collected and Sewer breaks and chokes (per 100km main)
transported Number of odour complaints (per 1,000 properties)
Your sewage is treated and disposed of with Number of spills to sensitive receiving waters
minimal impact to the environment and its Treated wastewater volume compliant with EPA
users requirements (percentage)
Our work is conducted safely to protect our

Build culture and people, contractors and the communities we Total recordable injury frequency rate
skills for the long serve
term benefit of
Tasmania Our culture and capabilities support us to
Cultural index
make a positive difference to Tasmania
In addition to the measures of success above, there are several other indicators of customer benefits
that are linked to either regulatory obligations and/or defined and documented business rules. They
are effectively additional measures of success (that have not yet been modelled in detail) or tactical
objectives that enable us to manage our infrastructure and risk profile at an asset level. The full
range of benefit categories, including both the measures of success of customer outcomes (above)
and the tactical objectives, are discussed in greater detail in Appendix 2.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 16 of 113
3 The expectations of our customers and regulators
First and foremost, we are a provider of essential services to Tasmania. Customers are at the heart of
our business and, correspondingly, customers are at the heart of the price and service plan process.
In developing our LTSP and draft PSP3 submission, we consulted with a wide range of customers and
stakeholders which helped us to understand their views on key issues. Our approach to engaging
with customers and a summary of our consultation activities and the feedback we received is
described in more detail below.
3.1 Our customer engagement framework

Our customer engagement framework for the LTSP used four primary components:
 Developing a Consultation Issues Paper to help customers and stakeholders think about
key challenges (eg service outcomes, priority, prices) in their submissions
 Conducting focus groups and telephone surveys with representative cross-sections of
customers in different locations
 Conducting one-on-one sessions with key stakeholders, peak bodies and regulators to
have in-depth discussions and receive feedback on targeted issues in greater detail and
 Closing the loop by providing a summary of feedback received during engagement, an
explanation of what feedback was taken up (or not), and why.
In line with accepted industry practice, our framework is based on the Community Engagement
Spectrum developed by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). The Spectrum
provides a framework to consider the purpose and desired outcome of the following engagement
types:
 Inform – tell our story and provide information
 Consult – seek input to set and revise strategies, plans and priorities
 Involve – foster meaningful discussion with customers and stakeholders
 Collaborate – facilitate consensus with customers and stakeholders and
 Empower – place final decision making with the customers and stakeholders.
Our approach relied on the ‘Inform’ and ‘Consult’ parts of the Spectrum through the Consultation
Issues Paper, focus groups and telephone survey. We also used the ‘Involve’ method through one-on-
one interviews, workshops and forums with major customers, peak bodies and our regulators.
Our customer engagement approach also touched on the ‘Collaborate’ method specifically through
the Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Industry Regulators Forums. Our aim for these forums was to
achieve consensus (to the extent possible) between our regulators for our compliance priorities and
proposed trade-offs .
3.2 Summary of consultation activities undertaken

Simultaneous to the preparation of the LTSP, the development of TasWater’s submission of PSP3 has
been underway. As part of the development of TasWater’s PSP3 submission, TasWater engaged with
customer and stakeholders in several ways to seek input to PSP3. A summary of the engagement
activities undertaken is provided in the table below.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 17 of 113
Table 2: Customer engagement activities undertaken
Activity Number of customers and stakeholders involved
1. Providing general information on the basis and objectives of  Approximately 210,000 business and
PSP3 to customers and stakeholders through newsletter residential customers – overview information;
inserts in bills, raising awareness of PSP3 and encouraging 600 major customers and stakeholders –
participation detailed information
2. Holding Focus Groups to explore customers’ perceptions,  40 customers over six focus groups
views and priorities concerning TasWater
3. Preparing a Consultation Issues Paper to provide more  Available to all via TasWater’s website.
detailed information and stimulate discussion  Advertised in three major newspapers, and
letters and emails sent to major customers,
peak bodies and government agencies to raise
awareness of the Issues Paper.
4. Providing the opportunity for anyone with access to the  Three comments received and responded to
internet to comment through TasWater’s Yoursay website
portal
5. Enabling anyone to comment via written submissions  Six submissions received, including five from
Tasmanian local governments
6. Holding individual discussions with major customers and  11 major customers (12 approached)
peak bodies representing the interests of specific groups, 10 peak body stakeholder discussions (12
including low income, vulnerable and disadvantaged people, approached)
and various business sectors
7. Undertaking telephone surveys of representative samples of  135 randomly selected business customers
business and residential customers #  406 randomly selected residential customers
8. Holding discussion workshops with representatives of peak  Workshops with three peak body
bodies and state government departments representatives and four state government
representatives
9. Holding an ongoing series of meetings and forums with  Regulator forums with the economic
organisations which regulate TasWater’s operations. regulator and each of the technical regulators
(DHHS, DPIPWE and EPA)
Other activities sought in-depth engagement with major customers, peak representative bodies, or
facilitated customers and stakeholders to participate. These activities included:
 Focus groups
 Consultation Issues Paper
 Individual interviews and discussions (with major customers and peak bodies representing
various business sectors and community service groups).
 Telephone surveys
The engagement activities described above were undertaken with a view to obtain feedback from
customers on a number of topics (e.g. priorities for expenditure and outcomes, pricing, price and
service trade-offs; and policies and related tariff structures). The key topics for informing
development of the LTSP included
1) TasWater’s role and priorities
2) TasWater’s spending and trade-offs
3) Water and sewerage bills, pricing and cost increases
The key outcomes of the customer consultation activities for these topics are provided below
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 18 of 113
3.3 The results of our engagement with customers
3.3.1.1 Customer priorities for TasWater
The overall recommended priorities revealed in focus groups, customer and peak body discussions
and workshops were consistently:
 Safe drinking water
 Meeting environmental standards for treated waste water discharges
 Structural dam safety.
Ensuring adequate drinking water availability throughout the year was identified after these activities
were undertaken and was not included. There were some differing views, such as the Tasmanian
Seafood Industry Council (TSIC) which prioritised waste water discharges into aquaculture areas, and
some local governments that rated all as equally important, but overall, the priority set out above
were clearly preferred across the board.
The phone surveys revealed very high awareness of TasWater’s challenges in providing safe drinking
water and meeting environmental guidelines for waste water discharges, but very few were aware of
structural dam safety issues. The statistically representative phone survey of residential customers
ranked their priorities as:
 Treat sewage to meet environmental standards
 Ensure an adequate supply of drinking water throughout the year
 Ensure that water storage dams are structurally safe.
The phone survey of business customers’ prioritises amended this order as follows:
 Ensure an adequate supply of water throughout the year
 Treat sewage to meet environmental standards
 Ensure that water storage dams are structurally safe.
3.3.1.2 Investment to address key challenges
This topic examined customer and stakeholder views on the spending priorities that should be
adopted to address priority areas, and whether the balance of capital and operational expenditure
seemed appropriate. These were examined in discussions, focus groups and workshops only.
Both business and residential customers generally saw existing investment priorities as appropriate,
agreeing with overall priorities of drinking water, then waste water treatment. When showed
expenditures, some participants recognised that waste water projects would be more expensive to
achieve similar benefits, but most felt they did not have adequate experience to comment on
expenditures in these areas.
The concept of trade-offs was quickly recognised (if you’re doing a lot about X then you won’t have
enough money for Y or Z). There was clear recognition that not everything could be done at once.
3.3.1.3 Increases in customer charges for water and sewerage
This topic examined what level of cost increases TasWater customers and stakeholders felt was
reasonable and acceptable (for PSP3), considering impacts on customers, and whether larger
increases could be justified to rectify non-compliances more rapidly. The figure below provides the
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 19 of 113
results of customer preferences for per annum price increases in PSP3, and shows that 41% of
customers supported 5% per annum overall cost increase (which is in line with past price increases).
Figure 5 Customer preferences for per annum price increases in PSP3
Residential Business Overall
50%
45%
41% 41%
Proportion of respondents
40%
30%
23%
23% 23%
20% 16% 16%

15%
11%
9%
10% 7% 7% 6%
4% 5%
3%
1% 1% 1% 1% 0.3% 0.2%
0%
Decrease Stay the 1% 2% 3% 5% 10% Don't
same increase increase increase increase increase know
3.3.2 Key outcomes of customer engagement to Inform the LTSP
Given the above results, the key outcomes to inform the LTSP development included:
 The maximum customer increase in water and sewerage charges was determined to be 5%
per annum overall (including both fixed and variable cost increases) for the PSP3 period.
After further assessment of the likely increases in fixed and variable costs to match an overall
cost increase of 4.6% per annum for PSP3. This has been reflected in TasWater’s financial
model, and is therefore captured in the “medium investment” scenarios tested in the
optimisation modelling.
 The overall recommended priorities for investment were identified as:
o Safe drinking water;
o Meeting environmental standards for treated wastewater discharge;
o Structural dam safety.
This has been reflected in the weighting given to benefits in the LTSP Optimisation Model (refer to
Appendix 2 for more detail).
3.4 The results of our engagement with regulators

The Tasmanian Economic Regulator initiated the Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Regulators Forum
in 2016 to provide a forum for the state’s water and sewerage industry regulators and TasWater to
discuss strategic or priority water and sewerage issues.
The organisations represented on the forum include:
 TasWater
 Tasmanian Economic Regulator
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 20 of 113
 Environment Protection Authority (environmental impacts from sewage treatment plant
discharges)
 Department of Health and Human Services (safe drinking water)
 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (dam safety and water
licensing).
At a meeting in March 2017 with the regulators, six trade-off scenarios with difference balances of
compliance and prices increases were outlined:
 Scenario 1 – an affordable price path, with the highest weighting given to environmental
outcomes
 Scenario 2 – an affordable price path, with the highest weighting given to water quality
 Scenario 3 – an affordable price path, with the highest weighting given to service reliability
outcomes
 Scenario 4 – an affordable price path – with equal weighting to all outcomes
 Scenario 5 – a high price path – with full compliance achieved more quickly, but at the
expense of customer bills
The preferred scenario (Scenario 6) was most closely related to Scenario 4 (affordable, balanced), but
weighted the outcomes to reflect customer preferences, and includes the following characteristics:
 Drinking water quality as highest priority
 Environmental compliance and dam safety as an equal second priority
 Service reliability focused on critical assets and high impact/sensitive environments
 Projects reflect priorities discussed with individual regulators
 Annual bill increases kept to 4.6% per annum in PSP3 to balance affordability with
compliance challenges.
3.4.1 Key outcomes of regulator engagement to inform the LTSP
Key messages from the forum included:

 The regulators provided general support for the direction of TasWater’s preferred scenario
and the balance of compliance improvement over the long term, as well as clear support for
the enhanced planning framework in which expenditure is linked to outcomes.
 There was a consensus that achievement of 100% compliance was not preferred, as it would
require high price increases for customers (as demonstrated by the ‘High investment’
Scenario 5).
 The preferred scenario was well supported as it was based on outcomes of thorough
customer engagement and strikes a good balance between cost increases and compliance
improvements, and was supported for adoption as TasWater’s LTSP.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 21 of 113
4 Our approach to developing the LTSP
In 2016 we engaged Jacobs, an international engineering consultancy with a local office in Hobart, to
assist us in developing an LTSP. The objective of this engagement was to provide an outline of the
investment needed to meet regulatory requirements and service standards, and to make explicit the
key trade-offs between expenditure, service standards and the time to reach full compliance.
This section describes the methodology and outcomes of our partnership with Jacobs which has led
to the creation of this document. The LTSP gives direction to the whole business and, with the
assistance of Jacobs, has been developed in a way which harnesses and is shaped by the information
and works being undertaken (or planned to be undertaken) across the business, while providing a
singular focus which is reflective of our aspirational targets, customer preferences and stakeholder
support.
4.1 Background to the LTSP

TasWater was formed from the amalgamation of the three previous regional water utilities and we
inherited the assets, service and performance responsibilities for water and sewerage infrastructure
in Tasmania. The LTSP is the first long term plan for water and sewerage services in Tasmania that
takes a view of the needs and priorities for investment from a holistic, statewide, customer-focused
perspective.
As we move through the reform journey following amalgamation, we are endeavouring to
concurrently undertake a number of major tasks, including:
 Improving our data and information and development of supporting analytical tools (all with
the aim of enhancing the form and quality of data to explicitly support decision processes)
 Addressing some of the more immediate customer service issues and critical regulatory
shortcomings (e.g. removing permanent boil water alerts) and to strike a balance between
customer preferences and the competing priorities of the various regulators (including the
TER and the technical regulators EPA, DHHS and DPIPWE)
 Delivering on commitments made by the predecessor organisations in the current capital
plan
 Developing a sound overarching strategic and business decision framework and
 Disaggregating block budget expenditure to the greatest practicable extent to better support
the nexus between the expenditure and the benefits derived from it.
To assist with addressing the above major tasks, a more structured capital planning process – and
associated operating expenditure impact - has been progressively developed during PSP2. This
process has been refined and focused through the development of the LTSP.
4.2 Relationship with Price and Service Plan 3

The LTSP has been prepared in parallel with TasWater’s Price and Service Plan 3 (PSP3), the draft of
which was submitted to the TER on 30 June 2017. The LTSP provides the basis for PSP3 as well as the
following PSPs.
The LTSP forecasts expenditure and improvements for the period FY 2017/18 to 2036/37, with the
first four years of the LTSP informing:
 The final year of PSP2 initiatives (including projects, programs and their associated
expenditure and benefits)
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 22 of 113
 The PSP3 capital expenditure and operating expenditure plans (including projects, programs
and their associated expenditure and benefits).
The remainder of the LTSP covers future PSP periods through PSP8 and into the first year of PSP9 -
assuming that future PSPs continue to be three year regulatory periods.
4.3 Overall approach to the LTSP

The over-arching approach Jacobs and TasWater have collectively undertaken to develop the LTSP
incorporates:
 Collaborative work - an integrated Jacobs and TasWater team which has worked closely with
the broader TasWater internal stakeholders
 A continuous challenge process - projects in the LTSP were scrutinised in terms of their
prudency and efficiency as if the TER was assessing them to ensure any expenditure has the
strongest possible justification
 Quality and comprehensiveness of data - the best possible information was sought as inputs
into the LTSP Optimisation Model. The model itself is objective and robust to the extent
possible given the currently available data and
 Providing informative outputs - the trade-off modelling using the LTSP Optimisation Model
enables us to clearly articulate the challenges we have in making decisions about the
investment required to address the gaps in current performance in our engagement with
customers and regulators.
As part of this process, a framework has been developed which provides evidence to support each
stage of the ‘line of sight from our strategic framework, customer promises and outcomes through to
proposed projects and investment.
A summary of the individual activities which have been undertaken to develop the LTSP is provided
below:
1. Planning framework enhancement - review of our planning framework, and subsequent
enhancement of it to incorporate:
 Activity streams - categorisation of all expenditure items in to appropriate activity streams
generally relating to asset classes
 Line of sight - development of a framework which facilitates line of sight between investment
and customer outcomes
 Benefits - identifying and/or defining benefit categories that incorporate both strategic
measures of success and tactical objectives. This links every investment to a measurable
customer outcome.
2. Review of data and information adequacy - identifying and consolidating the data and
information to test or establish the performance against the objectives set, sufficient for the
continuous challenge process outlined above
3. Establishing the performance gap - analysing our current performance against the measures of
success and tactical objectives to establish the current performance gap
4. Capital program review - reviewing and challenging the existing capital program for its
sufficiency to address the performance gap and identify the need for supplementary
information to:
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 23 of 113
 Enhance the quality (and/or comprehensiveness) of the data underpinning the justification
for projects in the capital program and
 Establish what additional projects may be required to bridge the performance gap.
5. Staff engagement - engaging a broad selection of TasWater staff to define the appropriate
benefits for every project and program (relating to measures of success and tactical objectives),
and to gather the data for any new projects required to address the performance gap
6. Enhanced capital program - identifying and categorising projects/programs in order to ultimately
inform the development of an updated, more robust and comprehensive capital program for
use in the LTSP Optimisation Model
7. Integrated modelling - development of a project prioritisation model (LTSP Optimisation Model)
which incorporates the enhanced capital program and the enhanced planning framework. The
LTSP Optimisation Model is used to test trade-offs between different outcome scenarios and it
also integrates with our Long Term Financial Model in relation to price constraints and an
interest cover ratio threshold
8. Trade-off testing - testing of different trade-off positions and the associated prioritisation and
financial impacts in order to develop a robust LTSP that aligns with both customer preferences
and regulator expectations
9. Trade-offs workshop - workshop to discuss proposed pathways to meet the tactical objectives
with a broad selection of TasWater team members initially, before presentation and discussion
of the trade-off testing with external stakeholders at the Tasmanian Water and Sewerage
Industry Regulators Forum
10. Selection of a preferred LTSP - select a preferred trade-off scenario based on information from
customer consultation activities, and feedback provided by the regulators
11. LTSP documentation - development of a full Long Term Strategic Plan (this document).
The methodology we used to develop the LTSP is explained in more detail in Appendix 2.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 24 of 113
5 Our Long Term Strategic Plan: value for money outcomes
5.1 Background and methodology
5.1.1 Relationship to our 10 Year Financial Plan

In 2016 we released a ten year $1.55 billion plan to address Tasmania’s critical water and sewerage
issues. The plan included:
 Removing all longstanding boil water and do not consume public health alerts across 24
towns by August 2018
 Reshaping and modernising sewage treatment infrastructure to comply with environmental
standards across Devonport, Launceston, Hobart and regional centres
 Improving drinking water quality and increasing drinking water systems resilience to
catchment risks around the state
 Improving the safety of our highest risk dams.
The self-funded plan required:
 Reduction of owner council’s distributions to by $150 million over the period
 Driving productivity savings to reduce business costs, by the end of the period, achieving
post-merger savings of $25 million per annum.
The 10 Year Financial Plan, including the capital program, has directly informed the LTSP. The LTSP
builds upon the 10 Year Financial Plan by transparently prioritising the projects and programs to
achieve the highest benefit in line with customer preference and what regulators have told us.
We will deliver on key objectives from the 10 Year Financial Plan including removing all longstanding
boil water and do not consume public health alerts across 24 towns, managing drinking water risks
and the highest risk dams. However, some of the larger sewage treatment infrastructure projects will
start later than previously forecast, reflecting their relative costs and benefits.
The LTSP has a greater focus on drinking water quality projects in particular and a more balanced
split in proposed infrastructure investment across drinking water quality and environmental
outcomes.
The LTSP Optimisation Model has the following linkages with the Long Term Financial Model:
 Annual price increases – price increases are an input to the Long Term Financial Model and
are based on customer willingness to pay established through consultation (set at 4.6% per
annum in PSP3, 3.7% per annum in PSP4 and PSP5 and trending to CPI in PSP6 and beyond)
 Interest cover ratio – this is a measure of the financial viability of our business and is a
variable set in the Long Term Financial Model (set at a target of 2.0). Our interest cover ratio
is discussed further in Section 5.1.2.
 Operating expenditure – the incremental impact on operating expenditure from the capital
program is an output of the LTSP Optimisation Model that becomes an input to the Long
Term Financial Model (with consequential impacts on our revenue requirements to maintain
financial viability). This variable is updated as the capital expenditure program from the LTSP
Optimisation Model is updated and
 Capital expenditure – the maximum capital expenditure that we can afford in each year is
determined in the Long Term Financial Model and is subject to the annual price increase and
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 25 of 113
interest cover ratio constraints. The capital expenditure budget is an output of the Long Term
Financial Model that is the key input to the LTSP Optimisation Model.
5.1.2 Interest cover ratio

While some companies benchmark their level of indebtedness via their gearing ratio, we consider
this to be a secondary measure of leverage for us. Given the financial sustainability of the business is
heavily reliant on future regulated revenue allowances, we use the capacity to service our debt,
reflected in the interest cover ratio, as the primary consideration of the appropriateness of the size
of our debt portfolio.
We have established a target interest cover ratio of greater than 2.0 times. This determination is
supported by independent research into interest cover ratios and gearing levels among 29 Australian
water utilities4. As at 30 June 2014, the median interest cover ratio of this reference group was 2.0
times.
The Essential Services Commission (ESC) of Victoria also considers interest cover ratio to be the best
measure of a water utility’s financial viability. Their benchmark range has traditionally been 1.5 to
3.0. Following a study by Nera Economic Consulting in 20135, the ESC maintained the lower
benchmark and introduced an interest cover ratio of 1.8 as a cautionary threshold in relation to the
impact of price determinations on the financial viability of a water utility6.
Our interest cover ratio benchmark of 2.0 is in line with the Victorian water industry and the Nera
Economic Consulting report. Over the 20 year duration of the LTSP, our interest cover ratio varies
between 1.9 and 3.3 with an average ratio of 2.3 over this period.
5.2 The customer outcomes we will deliver

During consultation for the LTSP, our customers told us we should focus on improving compliance
outcomes (water quality, environment, dam safety) and maintaining current standards for service
reliability (rather than improving them).
To achieve these outcomes, customers supported modest price increases – but affordability remains
a key issue for many customers who recognise the necessity for trade-offs between outcomes.
Therefore, based on customer input the key outcomes we will deliver to provide value for money in
the LTSP include:
 Limiting price increases to 4.6% per annum in PSP3 and indicatively 3.7% per annum in PSP4
and PSP5 and 2.5% per annum (CPI) thereafter. We will deliver improved compliance
outcomes within this price and revenue constraint – an approach which has been endorsed
by our regulators (DHHS, EPA, DPIPWE)
 If we were to fully recover our costs, our price increases would average 7.9% per annum in
PSP3 (for example)
 This approach represents a managed transition to full cost recovery over the next 10 years,
rather than moving to full cost recovery (and higher prices) immediately.
5.3 How we will deliver these outcomes

In addition to making trade-offs between the pace of compliance improvement and price increases,
we have also introduced a Productivity Improvement Program. The Productivity Improvement
Program commenced with a brief to establish a business-wide program of work (beyond merger
savings) which would deliver:
4
Bancorp Corporate Finance, TasWater Benchmarking Study, August 2015
5
Nera Economic Consulting, Assessing the Financeability of Regulated Water Service Providers, October 2013
6
Essential Services Commission of Victoria, Assessing the Financial Viability of Victorian Water Businesses, June 2014
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 26 of 113
 Improved productivity
 Reduction in costs and
 Increase in revenue.
We have identified $12M in annual (ongoing) cost savings that will be progressively achieved in the
first three years of the LTSP, growing to $17.5M by the end of the first 10 years of the LTSP – all of
which helps to minimise price increases for customers.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 27 of 113
6 Our Long Term Strategic Plan: drinking water quality outcomes
6.1.1 Regulator functions and our compliance requirements
The functions of the Director of Public Health, as administered by the DHHS in relation to the
provision of drinking water services, are to:
 Protect public health around the supply of drinking water and to develop and implement
strategies to promote and improve public health
 Establish drinking water quality performance standards
 Monitor performance against standards and the Public Health Act 1997 (and its
associated Tasmanian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines 2015), Fluoridation Act 1968,
Fluoridation Regulations 1999 and Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011 (updated
November 2016) and
 Report on and enforce compliance.
We are required to develop and implement a Drinking Water Quality Management Plan (DWQMP)
under the Public Health Act 1997. The DWQMP must contain information specified by the Director of
Public Health and be endorsed by our Chief Executive Officer. The plan must be reviewed and
updated on an annual basis unless otherwise directed by the Director of Public Health. All changes to
the plan are to be noted in a document amendment history.
In addition to the requirement for a DWQMP, the Public Health Act states that we must manage
water in a manner that does not pose a threat to public health, and we are required to provide
potable water that complies with the health guideline values contained within the Australian
Drinking Water Guidelines 2011 (ADWG).
The Tasmanian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines 2015 (TDWQG) strongly align with the best
practice management principles outlined in the ADWG. The ADWG is reviewed on a rolling four
yearly basis. We will continue to engage with DHHS in the application of the ADWG in the Tasmanian
context as the national and state guidelines are updated and reviewed.
The ADWG contains a range of specific limits for water quality parameters that compliance is
measured against. These include microbiological parameters, the presence of metals in the water we
supply, disinfection by-products, pesticides and other general parameters.
6.1.2 Relevant measures of success and tactical objectives

Based on the above regulatory requirements, we have a key regulatory obligation with respect to
compliance with the ADWG (including removal of towns from permanent boil water alerts and public
health alerts), and a key measure of success relating to the reduction of risk in our drinking water
systems.
DHHS and the water industry in general are moving to a risk-based approach to ensure the quality of
drinking water for customers. Proactively managing drinking water quality risk means that we can
prevent people getting sick and the rate of illness in the community remains at a very low (tolerable)
level. The more risks we can reduce or eliminate, the less likely people may get sick. This approach is
called the Health Based Targets (HBT) method. The HBT use a measure known as Disability Adjusted
Life Years (DALY) to determine the mitigation activities and level of water treatment required to
achieve a tolerable level of health risk.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 28 of 113
In addition to the key metrics for drinking water quality, we have also identified several other tactical
objectives and measures of success that relate to delivering drinking water quality outcomes for
customers. A full list is shown in the table below.
Table 3 List of measures of success and tactical objectives for drinking water quality
Item KPI
 All water supply systems and water supplied is 100% compliant with ADWG micro-
biological standards (including sufficient barriers are in place)
 All water supply systems and water supplied is 100% compliant with ADWG with non-
micro-biological standards
 All water supply systems and water suppled is 100% compliant with the Tasmanian
Drinking Water Quality Tactical
Fluoridation Code of Practice
Objectives
 100% of customers receive water that has tolerable health based tolerable level of
risk
 100% of critical WTP (including dosing systems) assets in the most extreme risk
category due for renewal are renewed / responded to as per TasWater’s established
rules.
 All water supply systems and water supplied is 100% compliant with ADWG
 Health based tolerable level of risk
Drinking Water Quality  Short term boil water alerts put in place by DHHS
Measures of Success  Towns on long term Boil Water Alerts or Public Health Alerts
 All TasWater Dosing Stations/Systems provide water compliant with DWQ
requirements as per ADWG & Tasmanian Fluoridation Code of Practice
It is noted that, at the time of the development of the LTSP, all of the potable water systems which
were not compliant with the micro-biological components of ADWG were also not compliant with
the non-micro-biological components of ADWG. Therefore, these two tactical objectives were
combined into a singular measure of success to be used in this LTSP.
6.1.3 Current performance

At the end of FY2015/16, 99.2 per cent of our drinking water systems met the microbiological
requirements set out in the ADWG and we will achieve 100 per cent compliance early in the LTSP.
Correspondingly, most of our performance assessment relates to ensuring we:
 Remove all remaining towns from permanent boil water alerts or public health alerts (which
we will do by August 2018) and
 Appropriately manage the risk in our drinking water systems in accordance with the HBTs.
This focus on risk reduction is to ensure that we maintain 100 per cent compliance going
forward.
An assessment was made as to the percentage of our customers receiving water from a system with
a tolerable level in accordance with the HBTs. The number of connections in each potable water
system was used as a proxy for number of customers in each potable water system.
At the time of development of the LTSP, the current performance for key measures of success
relating to drinking water quality outcomes is:
 16% of TasWater customers are receiving water from a system that has a tolerable HBT, and
 There were 20 permanent boil water alerts or public health alerts in place, though this
number was expected to reduce to six by the end of FY2017/18 (with all removed by August
2018).
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 29 of 113
Over the duration of the LTSP, we will deliver the following key customer outcomes relating to
drinking water quality:
 Achieve and maintain microbiological compliance of 100 per cent for drinking water systems
 Remove all towns from permanent boil water alerts and public health alerts by early in the
LTSP (August 2018) and
 Progressive reduction of public health risk, with 85 per cent of our customers receiving water
from a system that achieves a tolerable level in accordance with the HBTs.
The graph below shows the forecast reduction in drinking water quality risk, defined as the
percentage of customers receiving water that meets a tolerable health-based target for risk of illness.
The health-based targets approach in the ADWG is about managing risks that may be present in each
catchment that supplies our drinking water systems. This is about preventing future harm within the
drinking water systems and maintaining 100% compliance with microbiological guidelines in the
ADWG.
Figure 6: Forecast outcomes for drinking water quality
Health based target tolerability level Microbiological compliance
100%
90%
Connections meeting HBTs,
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
The graph below shows the forecast reduction in public health alerts (PHAs), both Boil Water Alerts
and Do Not Consume alerts. PHAs are a public health sub-set of the broader Drinking Water Quality
(DWQ) regulatory obligation and we expect to remove these by the end of the first quarter of
FY2018/19.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 30 of 113
Figure 7: Forecast outcomes for public health alerts
Towns on public health alerts
7
Number of towns on BWAs or DNCs

In alignment with the priorities set out by DHHS, we have a continuous program of work to assess
the risk in our drinking water systems, from the source waters and catchments to the treatment
plants and distribution networks.
To identify the activities required to reduce the risk in our systems to a tolerable level (informed by
the HBTs), we have completed desktop microbiological catchment risk assessments and treatment
barrier assessments for all systems. These studies have identified emerging catchment risks such as
grazing and farming activities that require additional treatment barriers to ensure drinking water
quality is maintained at a safe level.
As a result, we have identified many capital projects to improve drinking water quality over the LTSP
period to address these risks. Our investment to improve drinking water quality outcomes in the LTSP
is shown in the graph below.
Figure 8: Drinking water quality investment in the LTSP
Drinking Water Quality Investment

140
120
Capex ($M nominal)
100
80
60
40
20
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 31 of 113
A full list of drinking water quality projects, and their associated costs, benefits and timing, are
included in Appendix 1. These projects include water treatment plant upgrades, system optimisation
activities, risk assessments and other water quality initiatives that are consistent with the priorities
identified by DHHS.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 32 of 113
7 Our Long Term Strategic Plan: environmental outcomes
7.1.1 Regulatory requirements

The functions of the EPA in relation to the water and sewerage sector include the assessment and
regulation of significant wastewater treatment plants. The EPA’s responsibilities in relation to these
plants include:
 Undertaking environmental impact assessments in relation to proposals for new plants
or significant changes to existing plants
 Developing legally binding environmental conditions for approved plants, which are
included as part of the planning permit or as a stand-alone environment protection
notice and
 Ensuring compliance with environmental conditions, largely through collection and
evaluation of data on specified discharge limits and the impacts on the receiving
environment.
Our compliance requirements are outlined, in part, in the licence limits specific to each of our
sewage treatment plants. The licences typically specify limits that relate to parameters such as
volume, level of nutrients and other water quality parameters of the treated effluent. We measure
our compliance against these individual limits. We also report the percentage of statewide treated
wastewater volume (by flow) that is compliant with EPA requirements.
The EPA regulates Level 2 sewage treatment plants (STPs), which are those with a throughput greater
than 100kL/day. Smaller plants classified as Level 1 plants are regulated by the local council
Environmental Health Officers who provide a key role in working with us to manage environmental
impacts.
In November 2016 we established a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the EPA to achieve
accelerated environmental compliance and performance over the next three years. The MoU sets
out the management and regulatory approach that we will adopt (in conjunction with the EPA) to
improve our environmental compliance and the performance of our wastewater network by
December 2019.
We have agreed to focus on capital and operational expenditure projects which target the following:
 13 STPs that account for 70 per cent of all treated wastewater from our network (the
‘Big 13’ STPs)
 The top 20 key environmental risks posed by any part of our wastewater network
 Enhanced statewide control of trade waste, tankered waste and leachates entering our
sewerage network and treatment plants and
 Other statewide projects initiated during the MOU period that seek to either optimise
wastewater infrastructure functionality through better control or to divert outputs to
reuse rather than direct discharge into the environment.
Based on the above regulatory requirements, our measures of success and tactical objectives related
to environmental outcomes are shown in the table below.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 33 of 113
Table 4 List of measures of success and tactical objectives for environmental outcomes
Item KPI
STPs effluent compliance

 All STPs are 100% compliant with their EPA licenses and /or their published EQAs
Tactical Objective
 %age of STP effluent fully compliant with EPA licence requirements by state-wide
effluent volume basis
STPs Measures of Success  # of STPs which currently pose a High Environmental Risk
 100% of critical STP assets still in 'extreme' risk category due for renewal are
renewed/responded to as per TasWater’s established rules.
An assessment of the percentage of state-wide STP effluent volume compliant with EPA
requirements indicated that, at the time of development of the LTSP, TasWater’s current
performance was:
 50% of state-wide STP effluent volume is compliant with EPA requirements and is targeted at
achieving approximately 62% compliance at the end of PSP2 (FY2017/18)7
 There are 20 high environmental risk STP sites still to be addressed.

As a result of focusing our investment on the ‘Big 13’ STPs in alignment with the EPA’s priorities, our
effluent compliance by volume using the more stringent measure will reach 78 per cent by the end of
PSP3 and will reach 93 per cent by the end of the LTSP period. We will also mitigate environmental
risks for 18 of the EPA’s top 20 sites (90 per cent) during PSP3 through a combination of
infrastructure upgrades and system optimisation activities.
Over the duration of the LTSP, we will deliver the following key customer outcomes relating to the
environment:
 Effluent compliance by volume of 93 per cent (with compliance of 78 per cent by the end of
PSP3) and
 Mitigation of the EPA’s top 20 environmental risks.
The graph below shows the effluent quality compliance forecast over the LTSP. This is defined as the
percentage of STP effluent compliant with EPA licences, by statewide STP effluent volume.
7
The measurement of effluent compliance currently differs between TasWater and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)
Tasmania. The two measures both use seven parameters for an effluent sample. However, the EPA measure, used in the Office of the
Tasmanian Economic Regulator’s (OTTER) State of the Industry Report (SOIR), allows for a partial pass where some of the parameters are
compliant. TasWater’s measure requires all parameters to be compliant to ‘pass’. As of 1 July 2017, EPA Tasmania will use TasWater’s more
stringent measure for monitoring our Memorandum of Understanding, although the EPA will continue to use their method for the SOIR.
The effluent compliance figures used throughout this document refer to TasWater’s more stringent measure however for comparison
purposes the equivalent EPA measure for is 86.0% compliance for FY2017/18 compared with TasWater’s 50%.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 34 of 113
Figure 9: Forecast outcomes for effluent compliance
Effluent compliance by volume
100%
90%
80%
Effluent Compliance
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

We have identified a series of capital and operational project improve environmental compliance
over the LTSP period to fulfil the agreed priorities under the MoU with the EPA. Our investment to
improve environmental outcomes in the LTSP is shown in the graph below.
Figure 10: Investment to improve environmental outcomes in the LTSP
Environmental Investment
140
120
100
Capex ($M nominal)
80
60
40
20
The specific projects, and their costs, timing and benefits, are outlined further in Appendix 1 and
include sewage treatment plant upgrades, system optimisation activities and trade waste initiatives
that are consistent with the focus areas identified in the MoU above.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 35 of 113
8 Our Long Term Strategic Plan: dam safety outcomes
Our Dam Safety Management Plan and Dam Safety Improvement Program was used to establish
suitable tactical objectives (and subsidiary measures of success) for dams, and TasWater’s current
performance against them.

The Tasmanian Water Management (Safety of Dams) Regulations 2011 requires dam owners to
comply with the guidelines developed by the Australian National Committee on Large Dams
(ANCOLD) noting that under Tasmanian legislation the ANCOLD guidelines do not just apply to ‘large’
dams but apply to all on-stream dams and all off-stream dams greater than 1 ML.
The ANCOLD Guidelines on Dam Safety Management (2003) requires that “dam risk profiles are
available and that risks are being addressed on a priority basis” and the ANCOLD Guidelines on Risk
Assessment (2003) states “...Give priority to life safety risks over other risks..”. For the dams which
have a life safety risk the ANCOLD Guidelines on Risk Assessment (2003) specify the individual and
societal risk criteria or ‘limit of tolerability’ for existing dams which is a function of the number of
fatalities and the annual probability of failure.
According to the ANCOLD Guidelines on Risk Assessment for existing dams (Guideline 10-1) life safety
risks should be reduced below the limit of tolerability to the extent that is dictated by the “As Low As
Reasonably Practicable” (ALARP) principle. That is the risks, lower than the limit of tolerability, are
tolerable only if risk reduction is impracticable or if it is grossly disproportionate to the improvement
gained.
To determine if a proposed upgrade is justified under the ALARP principle the ‘Cost to Save A
Statistical Life’ (CSSL) is calculated and then compared to the following criteria which has been
obtained from Table 8.7 of the ANCOLD Guidelines on Risk Assessment (October 2003) which has
been reproduced below in Table 5.
Table 5 ANCOLD CSSL Justification Ratings
Range of Cost-per-statistical-life saved (A$M/Life)

ALARP Justification Rating
Greater than or equal to Less than
Very Strong 0 1.5
Strong 1.5 6
Moderate 6 30
Poor 30

Based on the above regulatory requirements, we have one overarching regulatory obligation with
respect to dam safety, and two risk groups in dams which drive investment:
 Dams which plot above the societal limit of tolerability, which are considered to have
unacceptable risk, except in exceptional circumstances.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 36 of 113
 Dams which plot just below the societal limit of tolerability, which are considered to have risk
which are tolerable only if they satisfy the ALARP principle (discussed below)
A singular tactical objective and two subsidiary measures of success were adopted for the Dams
activity stream:
Table 6 List of measures of success and tactical objectives for dam safety
Item KPI
Dams Tactical Objective  All dams are 100% compliant with the ANCOLD guidelines
 Number of dams plotting above the limit of tolerability for societal risk
Dams Measures of Success
 Number of dams that must still be made to satisfy the ALARP principle

We have over 300 water and wastewater storages, lagoons and weirs which fall under the definition
of a dam under the Tasmanian Dam Safety Legislation, the majority of which have been assigned a
‘very low’ or ‘low’ consequence category based upon a preliminary desktop assessment. The number
of dams in our portfolio which have been assessed as having a ‘significant’ or higher consequence
category with an associated population at risk is currently 30.
While a formal assessment needs to be undertaken for the remainder of the dams; which is planned
to be undertaken on an ongoing rolling basis, it is unlikely that any additional dams will be identified
as having a population at risk. However, if this is found to be the case the LTSP will be updated
accordingly.
At the time of development of the LTSP, our current performance under the dams tactical objectives
and measures of success as reflected in Figure 11 was:
 22 dams non-compliant with the ANCOLD guidelines
 10 dams plotting above the societal limit of tolerability
 12 dams required to satisfy the ALARP principle.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 37 of 113
Figure 11 ANCOLD Societal Risk Plot FY2015/16
The graph below shows the reduction of number of dams plotting above the societal limit of
tolerability in the LTSP period. This is a key measure of dam safety compliance, in accordance with
the ANCOLD guidelines, and is the primary measure of success we have modelled for this version of
the LTSP.
Figure 12 Forecast outcomes for dam safety
Dams above ANCOLD limit of tolerability for societal risk
10
Number of dams above ANCOLD limit
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 38 of 113
We are prioritising our compliance improvements towards dams within our portfolio that are rated
as ‘significant’ or higher consequence category in accordance with the ANCOLD guidelines. Our
investment to improve dam safety outcomes in the LTSP is shown in the graph below.
Figure 13: Investment to improve dam safety outcomes in the LTSP
Dam Safety Investment

35
30
Capex ($M nominal)
25
20
15
10
For this investment, we will reduce the risk of eight of our dams, with the remaining dam above the
ANCOLD societal limit of tolerability to be upgraded by FY2022/23. In the interim, this dam will be
made safe through appropriate risk management controls (eg by lowering the dam water level).
A full list of dam safety projects, and their associated costs, benefits and timing, are included in
Appendix 1.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 39 of 113
9 Our Long Term Strategic Plan: service reliability outcomes

TasWater is required to meet obligations set out in a number of Acts, regulations and codes. The key
regulatory requirements for water and sewer networks are set out in the Water and Sewerage
Industry Act (2008), under which the Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Industry Customer Service
Code, issued by OTTER, is made.
The code specifies standards and conditions of service and supply with which TasWater must comply
in providing certain regulated services to customers. It applies in respect of TasWater’s water supply
services intended for drinking water, reticulated drinking water that is non-potable water, and
sewerage services.
Under the code, TasWater is required to:
 Meet the customer-related standards, procedures, practices and conditions for regulated
services as set out in this Code; and
 Develop, issue and comply with a customer charter which meets the procedural and
substantive requirements of this Code and sets out the regulated entity’s approved
transitional service standards.
The key minimum sewer network services standards (relating to infrastructure management) under
the customer service code are captured in the tables below.
Table 7: Key sewer network minimum service standards (as at June 2017)
Minimum Service
Key Sewer Network Service Standard Indicator and unit
Standard
Sewer breaks and chokes (per 100km of sewer main) 28

Average time to attend sewer spills, breaks and chokes (minutes) 41
Average sewer service interruption (minutes) 150
Sewerage spills contained within five hours (percent) 99
Customers receiving more than three sewerage service interruptions per year 0
Table 8: Key water network minimum service standards (as at June 2017)
Minimum Service
Key Water Network Service Standard Indicator and unit
Standard
Unplanned water supply interruptions (per 100km of water main) 32

Average time taken to attend burst and leaks – Priority 1 (minutes) 30
Average frequency of unplanned water supply interruptions (number) 0.1
Average frequency of planned water supply interruptions (number) 0.1
Average planned customer minutes off water supply (minutes) 20
Average unplanned customer minutes off water supply (minutes) 15
Average duration of unplanned water supply interruptions (minutes) 100
Average duration of planned water supply interruptions (minutes) 180
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 40 of 113
Minimum Service
Key Water Network Service Standard Indicator and unit
Standard
Unplanned water supply interruptions restored within five hours (percent) 98

Planned water supply interruptions restored within five hours (percent) 95
Number of customers receiving more than five unplanned water supply interruptions in a
0
financial year (number)
Unaccounted for water (percent) 10
A number of these indicators (i.e. response times, duration of interruptions etc.) relate to reactive
actions and maintenance activities.
Based on the above regulatory requirements, the following tables show the relevant measures of
success and tactical objectives that were established for service reliability in the LTSP.
Table 9: List of measures of success and tactical objectives for service reliability
Item KPI
 # of dry weather spills/chokes p.a. per 100km of main.

 100% of critical sewer network assets (pump stations, pressure mains, gravity mains)
in the most extreme risk category due for renewal are renewed/ responded to as per
Sewer Network Tactical
TasWater's established rules.
Objectives
 Ensure all sewer systems (pipes, pump stations, treatment plants) have adequate dry
and wet weather flow capacity to transfer and treat foreseeable flows while meeting
Customer Code requirements (or equivalent e.g. accepted industry standard).
 Shellfish and Public Waterways Spills Mitigation
 Sensitive Waterways Spills Mitigation
 DWF Overflow Mitigation
 WW Overflow Mitigation (flows between 1.3 ADWF & 1-5yr Recurrence Interval
event).
 100% of sewer network (pipes, pump stations) have adequate dry and wet weather
Sewer Network Measures of flow capacity to transfer flows to STPs while meeting Customer Code requirements
Success (or equivalent e.g. accepted industry standard)
 100% of critical sewer network assets in the most extreme risk category due for
renewal are renewed/ responded to as per TasWater's established rules
 # of dry weather spills/chokes p.a. per 100km of main
 # of wet weather spills/chokes p.a. per 100km of main
 # of Customer Odour Complaints per 1000 properties
 %age of STPs which have sufficient capacity
 Ensure all water supply systems (dams, treatment plants, pipes, pump stations) have
adequate capacity to supply foreseeable flows to customers while meeting Customer
code requirements (or equivalent e.g. accepted industry standard)
 All WS systems are 100% compliant with TasWater published Customer Code
Water Network Tactical
requirements (e.g. zone Supply Standards [pressure, volumes])
Objectives
 100% of critical water network assets (pump stations, pressure mains) in the most
extreme risk category due for renewal are renewed/ responded to as per TasWater's
established rules
 # of unplanned water supply interruptions per 100km of main.
Water Network Measures of  All WS systems are 100% compliant with TasWater published Customer Code
Success requirements (e.g. zone Supply Standards [pressure, volumes])
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 41 of 113
Item KPI
 100% of critical water network assets (pump stations, pressure mains) in the most
extreme risk category due for renewal are renewed/ responded to as per TasWater's
established rules.
 # of unplanned water supply interruptions per 100km of main
At the time of development of the LTSP, all of the data and information required to establish
TasWater’s current performance in all of the tactical objectives and measures of success nominated
above was not readily available. The current performance of the tactical objectives and measures of
success which could be determined are listed below:
 There were 61 sewer mains breaks and chokes (per 100km of sewer main) in FY2015/16 and
 There were 170 unplanned water supply interruptions (per 1,000 properties).

Service standards in the LTSP were modelled conservatively with outcomes based on a theoretical
link between renewal expenditure (to replace ageing networks) and improvements in service
reliability (fewer water main breaks, sewer spills or other service interruptions).
Based on our theoretical modelling, we have targeted reducing water supply interruptions and sewer
main breaks and chokes to the average level for large Australian water utilities8. In that context, the
service reliability outcomes we will deliver over the LTSP period are shown below.
Figure 14: Forecast outcomes for service reliability
Service Interruptions
Water service reliability Sewerage service reliability
Unplanned water suppy interruptions
180 90
(no. per 1,000 properties)
160 80
Sewer breaks and chokes
(no. per 100km of main)
140 70
120 60
100 50
80 40
60 30
40 20
20 10
0 0

The renewal expenditure in the LTSP has been reduced in the early years to make room for
improving compliance as a first priority based on customer preferences.
8
Based on the average value for large Australian water utilities in FY2015/16, our 20 year targets are 150 unplanned water supply
interruptions per 1,000 properties and 31.7 sewer main breaks and chokes per 100km of main
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 42 of 113
To meet customer service standards in PSP3 with a reduction in renewal expenditure from PSP2, we
will make use of our improving data, information systems and processes to better allocate asset
management investment and operational resources. This includes leveraging our new asset
management information system (Maximo) and our recently developed asset criticality framework
and risk-based prioritisation method for renewal expenditure.
Over the next few years, we will gather data and investigate further options that will enable us to
optimise network replacement expenditure – and service reliability outcomes – for the next version
of the LTSP.
Our investment to improve service reliability outcomes and maintain business systems and
supporting infrastructure in the LTSP is shown in the graph below.
Figure 15: Investment to improve service reliability outcomes and maintain business systems in the LTSP
Service Reliability and Business System Investment

Sewer networks Water networks Business systems/other
120
100
Capex ($M nominal)
80
60
40
20
More detail on our approach to asset management is contained in Section 11 and a full list of capital
projects relating to service reliability and business systems and supporting infrastructure is contained
in Appendix 1.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 43 of 113
10 Asset management and the LTSP
10.1 Overview
As part of the PSP2 price determination review in 2014, the TER’s independent reviewer assessed the
maturity of TasWater’s asset management system (AMS) underpinning its PSP2 pricing submission as
representative of that for a young organisation. However, the TER’s review also noted that TasWater
is committed to and strongly supported the development of a systematic approach to management
of its assets, and for its asset management approach to be aligned with the ISO55001 international
standard, the relatively new and currently accepted standard for asset management in infrastructure
intensive and customer focussed organisations. This standard supersedes PAS55.
This alignment demonstrates our ongoing commitment to continuing business improvement
generally and to enhancing our asset management systems, processes and procedures in particular
so that its assets cost efficiently and effectively deliver its customer service obligations and meet
customer and stakeholder needs.
Consistent with ISO55001, the first step
of this asset management improvement
journey was the development and
adoption of key guidance and strategic
documents, including:
 Asset Management Policy -
TAMPOL04
 Strategic Asset Management Plan
(SAMP) - TAMMNP01; and
 Asset Management System
Approach (AMS) - TAMFRA02.
These documents have been endorsed
by our Board and define the broader
direction and key elements and
requirements needed to deliver
improved asset management (AM)
capability and to ensure our assets
efficiently deliver services to meet
customer and stakeholder needs.
These documents were provided to
OTTER in 2015 to meet our Customer
Service Code requirements. A further
independent review identified that
while we had a relatively lower level of
asset management maturity, it was “at
the forefront of development of its AMS
compared to its peers in the water
sector” and had a solid foundation for
effective asset management. AMS Framework
from TAMFRA02 - Asset Management System Approach (AMS)
The Asset Management Improvement
Plan (AMIP) is the next step in the
continual improvement journey for AM and provides the tactical implementation of these
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 44 of 113
documents, and the review and performance tracking required for ongoing continuous
improvement. Areas for improvement and system deficiencies identified from a number of internal
and external sources are addressed in the AMIP, and these are included in a program of
improvement projects across the organisation. Many of these projects are currently underway, and
the AMIP is under review and update as part of the AMS continuous improvement cycle. The AMIP is
included as Appendix 4.
Crucial to the success of the AMS is the awareness and adoption across the broader business and to
create a customer centric asset management direction. There has been a comprehensive promotion
and consultation program through the business, including surveys and presentations to teams and to
new starters at TasWater.
The core of the AMS is the development of asset decision processes. These are embedded in a suite
of strategies and management plans, including:
 Growth and Capacity Strategies and Management Plans – which will consider each of the over
180 water and sewerage networks from the perspective of capacity to provide customer
requirements, both now and when expected development is considered. They also assess the
effects of system yield, climatic impacts and licencing issues.
 Asset Class Lifecycle Strategies and Management Plans – which are a whole of life assessment of
individual asset classes, and consider prioritised maintenance, renewal and disposal of assets.
These are heavily reliant on criticality framework which TasWater has developed, and condition
and performance information.
 Maintenance Strategy – outlines how maintenance requirements are assessed, proposes typical
maintenance responses and interventions based upon asset criticality and how maintenance
activities are enacted in the new Maximo Asset Management Information System.
 Spill Abatement and Infiltration & Inflow Strategies – provide state wide direction for these high
risk areas, which are in turn incorporated into specific strategies listed above
 Asset Data Strategy - outlines a number of recommendations to improve TasWater’s asset data
quality to ensure data is meaningful and relevant, and allows the successful performance of its
asset management activities, as a key AM enabler.
10.1.1.1 Asset Management Capability Review:
Built into the ISO Management System structure, is the requirement for continuous improvement.
We have undertaken informal internal reviews and also formal external benchmarking through the
WSAA Asset Management Customer Value project in 2016 which involved Australian water
businesses and many international water utilities. The AMCV compared various aspects and
measures of water business asset management to establish an asset management “level of maturity”
and to demonstrate relative performance against other water and non-water infrastructure business
both in Australia and also globally.
The 2016 AMCV Utility Report allowed an assessment of the asset management changes between
the three former corporations and TasWater. It shows an approximate 10% improvement in most
key functional areas of asset management compared with the previous (and equivalent) WSAA
Aquamark benchmarking study completed in 2012 by the three predecessor Tasmanian water and
sewerage corporations. The detailed outcomes are presented in our specific performance report and
a broader summary report of outcomes covering all the water and non-water infrastructure business
participants.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 45 of 113
The AMCV noted that the particular areas where TasWater has made progress against improvement
opportunities identified at the time, include:
 Asset data management
 Asset condition and
 Maintenance and strategy planning.
We formally implemented our Asset Management Information System (AMIS) in January 2017 with
the changeover to Maximo. The AMIS will become a fundamental tool for marshalling the key data
for effective operation of the Asset Management System overall and analysis of asset management
performance in a meaningful manner. It will support embedment of the ISO55000 framework and
drive cultural change. The AMIS will allow improved capture, storage and analysis of asset data to
inform effective decision making.
10.2 Asset Management Journey – PSP2 to Present
We have made, and will continue to make, progress on the development of specific asset
management plans and responses, underpinned by the broader LTSP capital planning framework.
The strategic framework outlined in this LTSP includes specific objectives and targets around asset
management for each of the proactive and reactive asset classes of:
 Sewer Networks (including sewer pipelines and sewage pump stations)
 Water Networks (including water pipelines and water pump stations)
 Sewage Treatment Plants
 Water Treatment Plants (including dosing stations)
 Reservoirs
 Dams.
Using the asset management objectives for the LTSP, we have analysed our current data to:
 Establish current asset management performance (where practicable with current data)
 Identify gaps in the data required to establish our plans, noting that there were inconsistencies
and gaps in the data collected by various predecessor organisations
 Drive the ongoing development of cohesive, structured and practical asset management plans
that are aligned with our business’ financial and capital plans.
We are now collecting the required supporting data, or appropriate proxies, to finalise our asset
management plans for every asset group, and to continue revising these plans (and appropriately
prioritising works and associated expenditure) as more and better data is gathered over the balance
of PSP2 and PSP3. This is reflected in our AMIP (which is an evolving document). During the balance
of PSP2 and PSP3 we will, for all our asset classes, be more robustly establishing the relationships
between tactical objectives, the gaps in performance, the most cost effective response(s) to
improving performance and the direct benefits resulting from works and expenditure.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 46 of 113
Table 10 Summary of Improvement Initiatives implemented during PSP2
Item Status at start of PSP2 Status at end of PSP2
1 AM System  Asset Management System Approach  Asset Management Approach document

Approach
document set the initial path for the longer adopted in 2015.
term development of TasWater’s AM
activities.
2 AM Policy a) Legacy AM policies from 3 predecessor water  TasWater Board has endorsed Asset
and sewerage corporations in existence. Management Policy consistent with ISO55000
Asset Management quality standards.
3 Asset b) 2012 WSAA “Aquamark” review identifies  2016 WSAA “Asset Management Customer
Management
multiple opportunities for improvement in the Value” review (successor to “Aquamark”) finds
Process Review
asset management processes of TasWater’s 3 steady progress in most core functions of Asset
predecessor water and sewerage Management, however there is still significant
corporations. room for improvement in most business
process execution.
4 Strategic Asset  Legacy AMP’s of 3 predecessor water and  SAMP submitted to Economic Regulator
Management Plan sewerage corporations were the only AMP 06/2015
(SAMP)
documents in place initially. These were all  SAMP reviewed by GHD Audit 08/2015 - found
completed with differing approaches. to be fit for purpose
 Financial modelling identifies “backlog”
renewals for clarification in Asset Class
Strategies. Backlog need reviewed for sewer
pipelines
5 Data Quality  Significant data quality issues with legacy  PINaDQA, a Priority Information Needs and
infrastructure data Data Quality Analysis study completed to
 Absence of clear data quality improvement understand TasWater’s information needs and
plan prioritize data quality improvements
 3 regional GIS applications with inconsistent  Data quality improvement programs to

metadata rationalise metadata, source /pick up missing
data
6 AM Information  Navision, a legacy financial information  Maximo, a dedicated Asset Management

System (AMIS)
management system, used as an Asset Information System is implemented in January
Management Information system with limited 2017
success  Consistent state-wide work flows, business
 3 legacy regional approaches to collection and processes, data structure, reporting
management of data, making state-wide requirements enforced through project.
analysis of performance challenging
 Shortcomings of Navision addressed in
functional requirements for new AMIS tender
request
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 47 of 113
7 Sewer Condition  Prior to the start of targeted condition  CCTV assessments for the worst performing
Assessment
assessment program most CCTV inspections and most critical 9% of sewer network
driven by breakdown/reactive .maintenance completed.
 2 year CCTV Inspection Program commences  Pilot inspection of 25% of sewers in one of
inspection of 10% of TasWater’s sewers worst performing catchments undertaken.
commences.  Inspection programs are currently prioritised
 CCTV program initially riven by performance on the basis of blockage analysis and criticality
analysis/ aural history/ & later improved with assessments
criticality analysis  CCTV assessments completed by accredited
contractors to WSAA Conduit Evaluation Code
of Australia WSA05-2008
 Development of centralised storage and
management system for CCTV records
underway.
 Training of staff in use of WINCan VX software
8 Sewer Criticality &  No systemised/ corporate approach used to  Corporate criticality framework developed
Risk Assessment define critical assets  Sewer criticality analyses completed &
 Common sense approaches used to define providing data used to prioritize condition
maintenance requirements of high inspection and renewal evaluation.
consequence sewers
9 Sewer Renewals  Largely driven by breakdown or reactive  Sewer renewals program jointly driven by CCTV
Program maintenance reports of poor condition assessments
pipelines.
 Level of investment has significantly improved
since 2009 at commencement of corporations,
however recognition that low sustainability
ratio needs to be addressed in longer term
 Investment based on high blockage areas
together with some appreciation of criticality
10 Water pipelines  Program focusses on reactive reports of poor  Increasing liaison with Local Government on
renewal program
condition assets following break repairs opportunities for renewal in conjunction with
/excavation of leaks road reconstruction works.
 Limited focus on renewal of pipeline types  Dedicated “renewal champion” to coordinate
that contribute to dirty water complaints & prioritize renewal works across state.
through corrosion( e.g. galvanised wrought  Strategic studies into long term supply e.g.
iron, unlined cast iron) HWIP, commenced to define longer term
 Pipeline performance using NPR indicator A8 functions of existing and future pipelines.
at suburb and town scale used to prioritize Provides input on whether certain pipelines
regional funding equity. would in fact be required in future or whether
 Quantum of funding applied to renewal of supply would be delivered from different
water pipelines class is “top down” allocation catchments.
with recognition that low sustainability ratio  Long term Strategic Plan is developing
needs to be addressed in longer term initiatives to provide more cost effective
improvements to life cycle cost of service
delivery than simply renewals. These include :
(1) Pressure reduction (2) Valve exercising (3)
Valve insertion
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 48 of 113
11 Tactical AM  High level notional AM objectives developed  Detailed analysis of tactical objectives (AMOs)
Objectives (TOs
in conjunction with SAMP undertaken
/AMOs)
 Detailed asset management objectives (AMOs)  Alignment of TOs with high level Strategic
not in place. Objectives and Outcomes, consistent with PSP
development
12 Long Term No LTSP in place.  Draft LTSP plan developed, linking Tactical
Strategic Plan Objectives with initiatives and SMART
(LTSP)
measures
 Board approval of the Final LTSP anticipated in
June 2017
13 Asset Class  No consistent life cycle strategy in place for  Currently being developed in conjunction with
Strategy for Sewer management of sewer pipelines as an asset LTSP
Pipelines
class across state, only legacy AMPs
14 Asset  No formal maintenance strategy  Criticality based strategy developed for non-
Maintenance
 Legacy maintenance programs pipeline assets /partially implemented
Planning &
Strategy  Restructuring of maintenance coding to  Vast majority of failing pipeline assets are low
permit improved analysis based on root cause criticality and managed with combination of
analyses reliability and criticality approaches.
 3 regional approaches to maintenance

 Incisive analysis difficult due to variable data
quality across the state.
 Provided input into PINaDQA Study for priority
data quality improvement initiatives.
15 Quantum of long  Derived from asset register as notional spends  SAMP completed initial financial modelling of
term renewals
 Significant “backlog” renewals identified and a renewal capital demand based on asset
required
state-wide plan was to be developed to register and valuation
“ground truth” the real need.  Ground truth-ing of sewer pipeline renewal
backlog completed, reducing apparent backlog
from $76M to $10M
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 49 of 113
10.3 Context for asset management consistent with the LTSP
The tactical objectives for asset management for water and sewer assets (network and treatment
plants) are shown in Appendix 2. These are the foundation of an effective and efficient asset
management system.
Further refinement of these will be undertaken over the balance of PSP2 and during PSP3 including
the necessary development of sub-set tactical AM objectives to better target improved performance
and to quantify the benefit to be achieved for the investment made. An example of this is the
tactical objective (AMO) for spills/overflows from the sewer network being split in terms of:
 Dry weather (DWF) and wet weather (WWF) spills/overflows;
 Spills/overflows due to SPS failures and those due to sewer pipe failures; and
 Spills/overflows which affect shellfish leases and sensitive waterways.
We have commenced development and progressive implementation of a formalised risk based Asset
Management Framework and adoption of a formalised set of risk based business decision rules to
cost efficiently and effectively manage asset performance and deliver level of service obligations for
customers and stakeholders.
The overarching intent is to move from what has been historically a reactive asset management
approach to a proactive asset management approach which will deliver greater benefits and
maximise the benefits achieved for investment made.
The foundation steps in supporting the line of sight approach for asset management activities
consistent with our strategic framework and delivering asset and level of service performance
improvements are to assign for each asset in each asset class a:
 Criticality rating based on a quantitative (desirable in the longer term) or qualitative assessment
(necessary at least in the short term) of the impacts or consequences of asset failure and to
define those assets that are
o “prevent fail” assets which require a proactive management strategy and
intervention approach; or
o “fix on fail” assets that would be subject of a reactive approach and/or
supported by financial rules for establishing cost efficient intervention.
NB: The threshold “consequence” rating (whether quantitative or qualitative”

could adjusted/refined over time). Our criticality framework is defined in a
separate document
 Condition rating or likelihood of failure (e.g. remaining asset life), noting that in the absence of
the necessary condition information initially age or default condition curves for specific asset
types can be, and is being, used by TasWater; and a
 Risk rating
These assessments will only be possible with the capture of more targeted, relevant and accurate
data during PSP3 (and stored in Maximo) to identify shortfalls in compliance with our tactical AM
objectives.
This risk based assessment will also be supported by an:
 Assessment of performance against the nominated tactical AM objectives or sub-sets of them
(using the relevant KPIs to establish the extent of compliance against them);
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 50 of 113
 Approved decision rules as triggers for intervention based on risk or shortfall in tactical objective
performance gap; and
 Establishment of a further component of the framework to identify the most cost efficient
response (policy, opex, capex, other) based on the need (risk status and/or gap in achievement
of tactical AM or service objectives). Specific appropriate responses could include inspection
(various levels, rehabilitation, renewal).
It is important to note that for the first pass criticality and risk assessment that this has been
undertaken consistent with our corporate criticality and risk criteria and framework. This approach
which will be refined over time as more and better becomes available, will:
 Enable targeting of the riskiest and poorest performing assets;
 Identify where condition assessment is lacking (and indicate whether a Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3
condition assessment is required) and/or better defining the timing of cost efficient intervention
measures.
The balance between proactive and reactive investment will improve over time as the above
approach becomes more mature and is embedded within our business. The balance between
proactive and reactive expenditure in organisations with mature AM systems achieving lowest life
cycle costs in managing its assets is indicatively split 70% on proactive works/initiatives and 30% on
reactive works. We have historically spent more on reactive works of up to 80%.
For this initial LTSP, the assumed split between proactive and reactive expenditure and the split of
proactive expenditure on condition assessments and rehabilitation/renewal works is different for
each class (as indicated in the following sections). It is acknowledged that there will be a transition
period from the current largely reactive approach to the longer term more balanced and cost
efficient proactive approach.
10.4 Specific asset management approaches

More detailed information on specific asset management approaches for our main asset classes is
available in Appendix 3.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 51 of 113
11 Challenges, risks and opportunities
A number of challenges, risks and opportunities have been identified through the development of
the LTSP and are described below.
11.1 Challenges and risks
The two most critical challenges and risks for TasWater identified throughout the LTSP have been in
relation to:
 The quality and/or comprehensiveness of data and information; and
 The robustness of supporting documentation underpinning proposed works and
expenditure.
These two items are of critical significance to the business being able to justify the prudency and
efficiency of proposed works and expenditure to not only TER (and therefore the customers required
to pay for said works and expenditure) but also to the business itself. The shortcomings identified are
discussed further in the sections following.
11.1.1 Data and information challenges and gaps

We inherited data and information from our predecessors of varying quality, comprehensiveness and
adequacy to support robust business decision making and development of plans for regulatory
scrutiny. This also provided some difficulties in establishing both our current position and the gap in
required performance and current performance.
However, some assumptions have been implemented where necessary to fill these gaps for the
purposes of producing an LTSP. We will continue to collect supporting data, in a form which is
compatible and aligned with the enhanced planning framework, as a matter of priority over the
balance of PSP2 and PSP3. This data and information will be used to continuously refine and
strengthen the LTSP as well as all subsidiary strategies and plans.
11.1.2 Robustness of supporting documentation
Particular issues and risks that have arisen throughout the LTSP project, including:
 Timing risks – i.e. the status of current planning documents (and plans generally) with
respect to the current level of preparation for regulatory scrutiny and realism of practical
implementation and delivery of works. These have been reviewed by Jacobs to ensure
deliverability, but will be the subject of ongoing refinement as projects move through the
planning phase and
 Uncertainty about the timing and expenditure needed for major rationalisation capital
projects i.e. LSIP, HSIP, PSIP and NMSIP the potential robustness of the underpinning strategy
for those less developed rationalisation projects. Again the timing for major projects has
been adjusted in some cases based on guidance from Jacobs, and these will be the subject of
refinement as business cases are completed.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 52 of 113
11.1.3 Emerging external factors
We undertook an assessment on potential megatrends in emerging opportunities and issues within

the wider community (i.e. within Tasmania, Australia or globally), and the impacts that these trends
could have on the provision of water and sewerage services to cusotmers. A summary output of this
assessment is included in Table 11.
Table 11 Emerging External Issues Summary
Emerging Impact Current response

Opportunities and
Reach TasWater Impact Anticipated time
Issues
L=Likelihood frame for impact
C=Consequence
Medium Workforce plan under

Demographics Global 5-10yr
(L3, C3) development
High
Environment Global 10yr Strategy under development
(L3, C4)
High IT Roadmap (plan to review and
Technology Global 1-3yr
(L4, C4) update), Data improvement plan
Social Values & Medium Customer/community

Global 5-10yr
Behaviours (L3, C3) engagement strategy
Disinfection By- Medium Plan to be developed following

National 1-3yr
product Reductions (L3, C3) data review
Move to Health High Will be added to Drinking Water

National 1yr
Based Targets (L4, C4) Quality Management Plan
Change of National/ Medium

2-5yr Watching brief
Government Local (L3, C3)
The assessment results do not prompt any changes to this LTSP. However, the outputs of megatrend
assessments in the future will be similarly reviewed to determine any required adjustment of the
LTSP.
11.2 Opportunities
11.2.1 Business direction

The LTSP is structured to give direction to the whole business, and has been developed in a way
which harnesses and is shaped by the information and works being undertaken (or planned to be
undertaken) across the business, while providing a singular focus which is reflective of TasWater’s
aspirational targets, customer preferences and stakeholder support. The LTSP sits across the business
as a manifestation of everything the business is about and attempting to achieve, so all other plans
and strategies are subsidiary to the LTSP. The detail of how the LTSP will be achieved then sits below
it in the actual strategies, projects, plans etc. which will be delivered by the various teams across our
business.
The LTSP, having provided the overarching priorities, direction and required outcomes for the
business, allows teams to now focus on the individual projects required to achieve the LTSP. This will
be in the form of strategies and projects supported by documentation of sufficiently robust options
assessments, cost estimates and investigations, with a focus on reviewing and refining the projects
scheduled for PSPs 3 and 4 as a priority.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 53 of 113
An iterative process comparing the ‘bottom-up’ plans to the ‘top-down’ LTSP can now be
implemented, to ensure that the projects which are developed will individually and collectively
contribute to the explicit goals of the LTSP (i.e. forecast benefits within a defined capital program).
11.2.2 Strategy and planning

The development of tactical objectives, and the disaggregation of some of these tactical objectives,
provides a strong opportunity to develop very focussed strategies (particularly in relation to
networks). It provides more precise direction for asset management staff and will inform targeting of
expenditure and effort, as it will allow teams to:
 More precisely prioritise benefits;
 Define the outcomes which TasWater is trying to achieve; and
 Better target expenditure accordingly.
This will provide greater surety and confidence that we are able to deliver the customer outcomes
we have promised.
Development of strategies under this framework will allow clear understanding of the actual works
to be planned and undertaken, what they will achieve, as well as their contribution to the
overarching strategy (and ultimately their contribution to the LTSP also).
11.3 Improvement Plan

The LTSP will be reviewed periodically and continually improved. Table 12 below provides a summary
of the improvement opportunities which have been identified throughout the development of the
LTSP.
Table 12 Improvement Plan
Proposed Timing Area Improvement Opportunity
Short term Benefits Benefits estimates review for post-PSP3 scheduled projects
Capex & Opex Cost estimates review for post-PSP3 scheduled projects
estimates
Strategic planning Iterative “top down” and “bottom up” planning for post-PSP3 scheduled
projects
Strategic planning Further understanding of TasWater’s current performance, further
assessments to be made for TasWater’s current position in the networks,
other asset management and non-infrastructure tactical objectives and
measures of success,
Tactical Objectives – Refinement of the tactical objectives during PSP3 including the necessary
Asset Management development of sub-set tactical AM objectives to better target improved
performance and to quantify the benefit to be achieved for the
investment made.
Asset Management Implementation of a consistent AM framework (which is aligned with the
enhanced planning framework) across all asset classes.
Asset Management Refinement of the criticality and risk assessment undertaken to define
criticality of assets, using the new and better quality data which will be
captured (and stored in Maximo) during PSP3
Asset Management - Further re-prioritisation of the specific SPS upgrade works within PSP3
SPSs and the next 10 and 20 year periods should be undertaken to fine tune
them to deliver maximum benefits for the planned investment.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 54 of 113
Asset Management  Strengthen the linkage between the technical planning with the LTSP
SPSs - Overarching framework and approach (the “line of sight”).
 The whole process to be embedded in our AM approach by all AM
teams building on the important foundation work undertake to date.
 While it is important to keep AM risks understood in the context of
all corporate risks (through the corporate risk framework) which has
underpinned the initial risk assessments, it is necessary to establish
AM risks linked to service obligations (tactical AM and service
objectives) at a greater level of granularity. By doing this the AM
risks and impacts on service delivery can be better understood both
in relative terms for informing investment decisions and establishing
the particular benefits to be delivered.
 Criticality (consequence), likelihood of failure and risk assessments,
as far as practicable, would be most useful for establishing prudency
and efficient investment decisions if they are quantitatively based.
Asset Management  More targeted and informative data should be collected to better
SPSs - Data establish the shortfalls in performance and service delivery and the
benefits to be delivered linked with investment planned to address
the shortfalls.
 The current set of assigned benefits for planned future SPS works
should be reviewed and refined as appropriate.
 In particular with respect to the benefits related to spills/overflows
reductions from sewer networks as a whole, there needs to be
clearer supporting information to distinguish between the relative
contributions from SPS failure and sewer pipe failures.
 Greater refinement of the extent of upgrade works required and the
associated costs. This would include an assessment of the upgrade
options considered as a template for establishing efficient solution
response(s).
Asset Management  The historical analysis of actual spills/overflow risk should be
SPSs – Forward completed as a priority.
looking  The actual works planned for PSP3, and the first 10 years of the LTSP
especially, should be further refined to take account of more robust
data on risk assessment and the potential benefits (risk reduction,
spills/overflow reduction) and costs as it becomes available.
Currently there are SPSs which had not been identified for inclusion in
the 10 year plan (first half of the LTSP) and which should prima facie
be included in the 10 year plan, especially as a number at least have a
higher priority than those currently included. Some re-prioritisation is
also necessary on the back of the important AM performance analysis
TasWater has undertaken to date.
 The initial analysis to date is what could be described as “static”
rather than “dynamic”. This approach should be enhanced by also
showing how the risk profile would look in 5, 10 and 20 years.
Asset Management  To ensure that the potential for surprises is eliminated or minimised,
SPSs – Reactive to a transition plan to manage potential “hot spot” risks, while moving
Proactive Transition from a reactive to the proactive asset management approach, should
Plan be developed to support the overall LTSP capital investment plan (for
SPSs in particular).
Asset Management – As per SPSs.
Other asset classes
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 55 of 113
For LTSP further Optimisation model & Inclusion of OPEX costs as part of the “cost” calculation of projects to be
development decision making used for decision making
Optimisation model & Calculation of project ‘benefits’ (i.e. externalities) economically. That is,
decision making given a $ value, and used as part of the NPV analysis of projects.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 56 of 113
12 Conclusion and next steps
Having been formed on 1 July 2013, we are only part way through the reform journey that many of
our Australian counterparts began over 20 years ago. We have made significant progress since our
formation to improve water and sewerage services in Tasmania. However, we operate in a unique
environment among comparable water utilities in Australia. This presents many challenges such as
having more assets per customer than our peers, a low compliance base that requires major
infrastructure upgrades to meet legislative obligations and a customer base for whom affordability is
a key issue.
It is not feasible for us to address all of these challenges in a short time period given the scale of
expenditure required and the need to strike a balance with customer affordability. Our LTSP provides
the framework for engaging with customers, stakeholders and regulators to prioritise these
outcomes over the long term.
Our consultation sought feedback from our customers and stakeholders on a range of topics relating
to the outcomes. This included investment priorities associated with each outcome, acceptable price
increases to achieve the outcomes and customer service standards related to the outcomes.
This customer feedback is at the heart of our LTSP. As a result, we plan to make substantial
improvements to drinking water, environment and dam safety compliance outcomes in the early
years of the LTSP while maintaining service standards for customers. In doing so, we will limit price
increases to 4.6% per annum in PSP3 to manage impacts to customer bills and maintaining prudent
debt levels. We will take a managed transition to cost-reflective pricing in PSP5, with price increases
trending to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rate of increase or less from FY2027/28 and beyond.
12.1 How the LTSP will evolve over time

Over the next 20 years we will face new challenges. Customer and stakeholder priorities will change,
along with their expectations of our investment, price increases and focus.
This first version of our LTSP is a starting point and reflects customer and stakeholder preferences at
the point in time of its development. To ensure the LTSP remains a living document that embodies
the current and future needs of our customers, we will continue to:
 Regularly engage with customers and other stakeholders
 Build relationships with our regulators
 Improve the state’s water and sewerage infrastructure to provide the services that the
community expects
 Invest in and improve the quality of our data and analysis as a key driver of future sound
investment decision making
 Invest in our people and in the community and
 Update our LTSP ahead of every Price and Service Plan submission.
The LTSP has been influenced by engagement with hundreds of our customers and stakeholders to
ensure it is based on what matters most to Tasmanians. Thank you to everyone who has played a
part in developing the LTSP, and assisting us to realise our vision of being a trusted and respected
provider of essential services that is making a positive difference to Tasmania.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 57 of 113
Appendix 1: List of capital projects to deliver the LTSP
Table 13 Capital projects and programs in years 1 to 10 of LTSP ($’000s, nominal)
Project Activity Program (if

Project description FY2017/18 FY2018/19 FY2019/20 FY2020/21 FY2021/22 FY2022/23 FY2023/24 FY2024/25 FY2025/26 FY2026/27
No. stream applicable)
Investigations
1 STPs Ambient Monitoring 164 425 435 897 459 471 966 495 507 520
Bicheno Sewer
Major STP
2 STPs Treatment Plant - - - - - - 1,834 627 - -
Upgrade Project
Upgrade
Brighton Sewer
Major STP
3 STPs Treatment Plant - - - - - - - - 2,518 1,244
Upgrade Project
Upgrade
Burnie Sewer
Major STP
4 STPs Treatment Plant 624 - - - - - - - - -
Upgrade Project
Upgrade
Cambridge Wet
Weather Emergency
5 STPs Major Projects - 3,776 1,086 - - - - - - -
Storage & Plant
Process Improvements
Cameron Bay Belt Asset
6 STPs 260 - - - - - - - - -
Press replacement Management
Cradle Valley STP Asset
7 STPs - - - - - - - - - -
Membrane Renewal Management
Minor Stand-
8 STPs Cygnet outfall 520 - - - - - - - - -
alone Project
Digester Vacuum-
Program of
9 STPs Pressure Relief Valve - - - - 402 1,060 - - - -
Works
Upgrade
Dover Sewer
Major STP
10 STPs Treatment Plant - - - - - - - - 321 2,041
Upgrade Project
Upgrade
Kingborough
11 STPs Sewerage Strategy - Major Projects 14,601 24,575 2,589 - - - - - - -
Treatment & Network
Knights Rd Sewer Business
Business
12 Treatment Plant Systems / Corp / - - - - - 597 - - - -
Systems
Buildings Safety
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 58 of 113
Launceston Sewer LSIP (includes
13 STPs Improvement Program the LSIP Concept - - - 1,106 15,878 87,766 111,169 103,934 1,627 -
(LSIP) project)
Maydena Sewer
Major STP
14 STPs Treatment Plant - - - - - - - - - -
Upgrade Project
upgrade
New Sewer Treatment Minor Stand-
15 STPs - - - - - - - 651 - -
Plant Tullah alone Project
Northern Midlands
Sewerage
16 STPs NMSIP 2,199 2,983 20,185 1,007 - - - - - -
Improvement Plan -
Longford STP Upgrade
Pardoe Sewer
17 STPs PSIP - 532 9,560 14,569 10,339 5,373 - - - -
Improvement Plan
Queenstown Sewer
Major STP
18 STPs Treatment Plant Major - - - - - - - - 2,708 765
Upgrade Project
Plant Upgrade
Sewer Treatment
Plant AS4024 Machine Program of
19 STPs 257 532 543 - - - - - - -
Safety Audit and Works
Upgrade
Sewer Treatment
Asset
20 STPs Plant Renewal 1,552 3,855 3,850 3,936 4,025 3,900 1,753 2,615 6,117 9,796
Management
Program
Smithton Sewer
Major STP
21 STPs Treatment Plant - - - - - - - - 2,382 814
Upgrade Project
Upgrade
St Marys Reuse Major STP
22 STPs - 1,293 1,145 - - - - - - -
Upgrade Upgrade Project
Stanley Sewer
Major STP
23 STPs Treatment Plant - - - - - - - - - -
Upgrade Project
Upgrade
24 STPs Ti Tree Bend - Digester Major Projects 1,508 1,078 - - - - - - - -
Ulverstone Sewer
Major STP
25 STPs Treatment Plant - - - - 1,196 - - 2,575 6,599 1,353
Upgrade Project
Upgrade
Minor Stand-
26 STPs Upgrade Zeehan STP - - - - - - - - - -
alone Project
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 59 of 113
Westbury Sewer
Major STP
27 STPs Treatment Plant - 269 1,706 - - 2,380 - - - -
Upgrade Project
Upgrade and Reuse
Woodbridge Sewer
Minor Stand-
28 STPs Treatment Plant - - 45 644 353 - - - - -
alone Project
Upgrade - Stage 2
Wynyard Sewer
Major STP
29 STPs Treatment Plant - - - - 4,179 2,134 2,188 2,242 2,298 2,356
Upgrade Project
Upgrades
STPs Optimisation Big 13: STPs
30 STPs - 2,258 - - - - - - - -
(various) Program Optimisation
Mac Point Big 13: STPs
31 STPs 152 - - - - - - - - -
Optimisation Optimisation
Ti Tree Bend Big 13: STPs
32 STPs 699 - - - - - - - - -
Selfs Point Big 13: STPs
33 STPs 25 840 - - - - - - - -
Big 13: STPs
34 STPs POW Bay Optimisation 355 5 - - - - - - - -
Optimisation
Big 13: STPs
35 STPs Pardoe Optimisation 284 79 - - - - - - - -
Optimisation
Big 13: STPs
36 STPs Smithton Optimisation 207 - - - - - - - - -
Optimisation
Cameron Bay Big 13: STPs
37 STPs 385 - - - - - - - - -
Big 13: STPs
38 STPs Hoblers Optimisation 76 - - - - - - - - -
Optimisation
Big 13: STPs
39 STPs Rosny Optimisation 709 - - - - - - - - -
Optimisation
Big 13: STPs
40 STPs Longford Optimisation 61 - - - - - - - - -
Optimisation
Big 13: STPs
41 STPs Burnie Optimisation 507 - - - - - - - - -
Optimisation
Big 13: STPs
42 STPs Norwood Optimisation 101 105 - - - - - - - -
Optimisation
Ulverstone Big 13: STPs
43 STPs 395 840 215 - - - - - - -
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 60 of 113
Newnham Big 13: STPs
44 STPs 304 - - - - - - - - -
George Town Big 13: STPs
45 STPs - 194 - - - - - - - -
Big 13: STPs
46 STPs Wynyard Optimisation 507 210 - - - - - - - -
Optimisation
Prospect Vale Big 13: STPs
47 STPs - 105 - - - - - - - -
Top 20: STPs
48 STPs Bicheno Optimisation 0 - - - - - - - - -
Optimisation
Top 20: STPs
49 STPs Bridport Optimisation 81 - - - - - - - - -
Optimisation
Cambridge Top 20: STPs
50 STPs 1,317 3,151 - - - - - - - -
Top 20: STPs
51 STPs Carrick Optimisation 334 - - - - - - - - -
Optimisation
Top 20: STPs
52 STPs Cygnet Optimisation 0 - - - - - - - - -
Optimisation
Geeveston Top 20: STPs
53 STPs - 263 1,609 553 - - - - - -
Green Point Top 20: STPs
54 STPs 0 - - - - - - - - -
Hoblers Bridge Top 20: STPs
55 STPs 0 - - - - - - - - -
Top 20: STPs
56 STPs Longford Optimisation 0 - - - - - - - - -
Optimisation
Top 20: STPs
57 STPs Margate Optimisation 51 - - - - - - - - -
Optimisation
Top 20: STPs
58 STPs Norwood Optimisation - 0 - - - - - - - -
Optimisation
Top 20: STPs
59 STPs Prospect Optimisation 0 - - - - - - - - -
Optimisation
Scottsdale Top 20: STPs
60 STPs 0 - - - - - - - - -
Top 20: STPs
61 STPs Sheffield Optimisation - 1,260 - - - - - - - -
Optimisation
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 61 of 113
Top 20: STPs
62 STPs Stieglitz Optimisation 0 - - - - - - - - -
Optimisation
Turriff Lodge Top 20: STPs
63 STPs - 525 1,609 - - - - - - -
Turners Beach Top 20: STPs
64 STPs 0 - - - - - - - - -
Small Towns
65 DWQ Mole Creek 196 - - - - - - - - -
existing project
Ringarooma Valley Small Towns
66 DWQ 125 - - - - - - - - -
scheme existing project
Small Towns
67 DWQ Rosebery WTP 159 - - - - - - - - -
existing project
Flinders Island water Small Towns
68 DWQ 453 - - - - - - - - -
supply project existing project
Small Towns
69 DWQ King Island solution 7,489 1,078 - - - - - - - -
existing project
Gretna water supply Small Towns
70 DWQ 2,631 - - - - - - - - -
system existing project
Judbury water supply Small Towns
71 DWQ 3,724 - - - - - - - - -
upgrade New project
Rossarden water Small Towns
72 DWQ 3,511 - - - - - - - - -
supply system New project
Gladstone water Small Towns
73 DWQ 3,121 - - - - - - - - -
Colebrook water Small Towns
74 DWQ 3,050 - - - - - - - - -
Mathinna water Small Towns
75 DWQ 3,050 - - - - - - - - -
Wayatinah water Small Towns
76 DWQ 2,731 - - - - - - - - -
Bronte Park water Small Towns
77 DWQ 2,270 - - - - - - - - -
Conara water supply Small Towns
78 DWQ 2,093 - - - - - - - - -
system New project
Small Towns
79 DWQ Rocky Creek WTP 306 3,673 - - - - - - - -
existing project
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 62 of 113
Mountain River water Small Towns
80 DWQ - 111 - - - - - - - -
supply system existing project
Cornwall water supply Small Towns
81 DWQ - 1,838 - - - - - - - -
system New project
Gormanston water Small Towns
82 DWQ - 1,286 - - - - - - - -
Epping Water supply Small Towns
83 DWQ - 1,213 - - - - - - - -
system New project
Herrick water supply Small Towns
84 DWQ - 992 - - - - - - - -
system New project
Bryn Estyn Major
Major DWQ
85 DWQ Upgrade / - 5,910 6,036 71,612 73,402 - - - - -
Projects
Replacement
Fern Tree Major
Major DWQ
86 DWQ Upgrade / - - - - 14,868 8,021 8,222 8,427 44,052 1
Projects
Replacement
Forth River Major
Major DWQ
87 DWQ Upgrade / 3,773 3,910 45,934 47,386 - - - - - -
Projects
Replacement
Gawler River Major
Major DWQ
88 DWQ Upgrade / - - - - - - - 4,177 9,599 5,931
Projects
Replacement
Huon Valley Major
Major DWQ
89 DWQ Upgrade / - - - - - - - - 1,316 1,349
Projects
Replacement
Bothwell Major
Major DWQ
90 DWQ Upgrade / - - - 309 317 7,487 - - - -
Projects
Replacement
Tullah Major Upgrade Major DWQ
91 DWQ - - - - 170 174 4,766 - - -
/ Replacement Projects
Distillery Creek DWQ UV
92 DWQ 197 - - - - - - - - -
Disinfection Project Program
North Esk Disinfection DWQ UV
93 DWQ 205 - - - - - - - - -
Project Program
DWQ UV
West Tamar Program
94 DWQ 150 - - - - - - - - -
Disinfection Project
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 63 of 113
South Esk Disinfection DWQ UV
95 DWQ - - 159 - - - - - - -
Project Program
Longford Disinfection DWQ UV
96 DWQ - 110 - - - - - - - -
Project Program
Swansea Disinfection DWQ UV
97 DWQ - - - - - 59 - - - -
Project Program
St Helens Disinfection DWQ UV
98 DWQ 37 - - - - - - - - -
Project Program
Fingal Disinfection DWQ UV
99 DWQ - - - - - 16 - - - -
Project Program
Dover Disinfection DWQ UV
100 DWQ - 30 - - - - - - - -
Project Program
Scottsdale Disinfection DWQ UV
101 DWQ - - - - - 64 - - - -
Project Program
Deloraine Disinfection DWQ UV
102 DWQ - - - 51 - - - - - -
Project Program
Westbury Disinfection DWQ UV
103 DWQ - - - - - 49 - - - -
Project Program
Manuka River
DWQ UV
104 DWQ (Strahan) Disinfection - 34 - - - - - - - -
Program
Project
Bridport Disinfection DWQ UV
105 DWQ - - - - - 32 - - - -
Project Program
Campbell Town/Ross DWQ UV
106 DWQ - - - - - 45 - - - -
Maydena Disinfection DWQ UV
107 DWQ - - - - - 8 - - - -
Project Program
Dowlings Creek DWQ UV
108 DWQ - - - - - 8 - - - -
Adventure Bay DWQ UV
109 DWQ - - - - - 5 - - - -
Bracknell Disinfection DWQ UV
110 DWQ - - - - - 16 - - - -
Project Program
DWQ UV
Waratah Disinfection Program
111 DWQ - - - - - 8 - - - -
Project
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 64 of 113
St Marys Disinfection DWQ UV
112 DWQ - - - - - 11 - - - -
Project Program
Chlorination Upgrade Existing DWQ
113 DWQ - 532 543 - - - - - - -
(Various Sites) project
Water Treatment
Asset
114 DWQ Plant Renewal 985 1,932 1,929 1,972 2,417 2,336 1,050 1,272 2,617 3,919
Management
Program
WTP
System optimisation -
115 DWQ Optimisation 4,054 4,201 - - - - - - - -
Water
Program
Fluoride Stations
Existing DWQ
116 DWQ Study and Upgrade 513 - - - - - - - - -
project
project
Dams - Minor
117 Dams Dams - Minor CAPEX 2,053 2,127 2,173 2,241 2,297 2,355 2,414 2,474 2,536 2,599
CAPEX
Dams -
Dams - Compliance
118 Dams Compliance 1,232 1,276 1,304 1,345 1,378 1,413 1,448 1,484 1,522 1,560
Reporting
Reporting
Dams
Improvement
Program - Dams
119 Dams Conglomerate Creek 3,040 1,050 - - - - - - - -
plotting above
Societal Limit of
Tolerability
Dams
Improvement
Program - Dams
120 Dams Flagstaff plotting above 205 5,212 - - - - - - - -
Societal Limit of
Tolerability
Dams
Improvement
Program - Dams
121 Dams Pet Dam plotting above 103 3,723 3,981 - - - - - - -
Societal Limit of
Tolerability
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 65 of 113
Dams
Improvement
Program - Dams
122 Dams Lake Mikany - 6,069 - - - - - - - -
plotting above
Societal Limit of
Tolerability
Dams
Improvement
Program - Dams
123 Dams Lake Isandula 103 106 1,955 - - - - - - -
plotting above
Societal Limit of
Tolerability
Dams
Improvement
Program - Dams
124 Dams Ridgeway Upgrade - - 127 - 6,892 16,484 - - - -
plotting above
Societal Limit of
Tolerability
Dams
Improvement
Program - Dams
125 Dams Westbury Dam required to 2,053 - - - - - - - - -
satisfy ALARP
principle
Dams
Improvement
Program - Dams
126 Dams Lower Reservoir required to 117 485 - - - - - - - -
satisfy ALARP
principle
Dams
Improvement
Program - Dams
127 Dams Upper Reservoir required to 840 3,481 - - - - - - - -
satisfy ALARP
principle
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 66 of 113
Dams
Improvement
Program - Dams
128 Dams Lower Prosser 1,581 638 - - - - - - - -
required to
satisfy ALARP
principle
Other Dams
129 Dams Swansea - Stage 1 975 - - - - - - - - -
Projects
Other Dams
130 Dams Swansea - Stage 2 - 3,191 - - - - - - - -
Projects
Blackman River Dam Other Dams
131 Dams 308 1,276 - - - - - - - -
No 1 Projects
Other Dams
132 Dams Coles Bay Dam 267 1,106 - - - - - - - -
Projects
Sewer CCTV Inspection Condition
133 770 968 967 986 1,011 977 1,098 1,064 1,090 1,225
Networks Program Assessment
Sewer Combined System
134 887 877 878 897 919 885 1,004 970 994 1,117
Networks Program
Davis St, Smithton
Sewer Rehab/ Renewal
135 Sewer Pump Station 1,283 - - - - - - - - -
Networks Program
Upgrade
Huonville Main Road
Sewer
136 Sewer Pump Station Capacity 2,058 - - - - - - - - -
Networks
Replacement
Sewer Inflow and Infiltration
137 Capacity 411 851 869 897 689 706 724 742 761 780
Networks Rectification Program
Jason St SPS and
Esplanade SPS Rising
Sewer Main Replacements
138 Capacity - 1,078 - - - - - - - -
Networks (St Helens)
Jetty Road, Bicheno

Sewer Sewer Pump Station
139 Upgrade Capacity 657 - - - - - - - - -
Networks
Sewer Kingston Sewer Pump Rehab/ Renewal

140 1,745 - - - - - - - - -
Networks Station E Rising Main Program
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 67 of 113
Lauderdale Pressure
Sewer Sewage Scheme (LPSS)
141 OPEX 25 - - - - - - - - -
Networks - Electrical
Investigations
Rosny Sewer Pump
Sewer
142 Station Strategy - Capacity - - - - - - - - - -
Networks
Project
Sewers Proactive
Sewer Asset
143 Asset Management - 293 365 364 372 423 492 221 268 551 617
Networks Management
CCTV
Sewers Proactive
Sewer Asset Management - Asset
144 98 122 121 124 141 164 74 89 184 206
Networks L3 Condition Management
assessment
Sewers Proactive
Sewer Asset
145 Asset Management - 1,564 1,944 1,942 1,983 2,254 2,622 1,179 1,427 2,937 3,292
Networks Management
Renewals
Sewers Reactive Asset
Sewer Asset
146 Management - 335 417 416 425 483 562 253 306 629 705
Networks Management
Maintenance
Sewer Asset
147 Management - 503 625 624 637 725 843 379 459 944 1,058
Networks Management
Renewals
Corrosion &
Sewer Smithton retic Odour Odour
148 - - - 57 - 716 1,223 - - -
Networks Control Management
Program
SPSs Proactive Asset
Sewer Asset
149 Management - L1, 2 122 138 243 249 338 368 166 201 413 771
Networks Management
Condition Assessment
Sewer Management - L3 Asset
150 Condition assessment 41 46 81 83 113 123 55 67 138 257
Networks Management

Sewer Management – Asset
151 Renewals 648 734 1,295 1,325 1,801 1,962 885 1,070 2,204 4,115
Networks Management
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 68 of 113
SPSs Reactive Asset
Sewer Asset
152 Management - 139 157 277 284 386 420 190 229 472 882
Networks Management
Maintenance
SPSs Reactive Asset
Sewer Asset
153 Management - 208 236 416 426 579 631 284 344 708 1,323
Networks Management
Renewals
St Helens Sewer
Sewer Treatment Plant Inlet
154 Capacity 959 - - - - - - - - -
Networks Works & Esplanade
Sewer Pump Station
Stock Route (South)
Sewer
155 Sewer Pump Station Capacity - - 644 - 681 - - 733 752 770
Networks
(Cressy)
Torren St, Richmond
Sewer
156 Sewer Pump Station Capacity 51 - - - - - - - - -
Networks
Renewal
Windsor Park SPS
Sewer Rising Main
157 Capacity - 1,078 - - - - - - - -
Networks Replacement and
Pump Upgrade
Water Burnie Cam Pipeline
158 1,241 608 - - - - - - - -
Networks Construction
Water Fireplug condition
159 308 425 435 448 459 471 483 495 507 520
Networks assessment
Longford Water
Supply System
Water
160 (Railway Bridge - 364 - - - - - 635 - - -
Networks
Mountford Farm)
Trunk Main
Water Margate Water Main
161 3,635 - - - - - - - - -
Networks Upgrade Stage 2
Asset
Water Management
162 Metering Program 3,664 3,585 1,630 1,681 2,010 2,061 845 1,082 2,536 3,674
Networks
National Park Fluoride

Water & Chlorine Building
163 Rebuild Safety Programs - - - - - - - - 1,141 -
Networks
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 69 of 113
Proactive Asset
Water Asset
164 Management - L1, 2 325 405 404 413 507 573 294 356 734 1,234
Networks Management
Proactive Asset
Water Asset
165 Management - L3 217 270 270 276 338 382 196 238 489 823
Networks Management
Condition assessment
Proactive Asset
Water Asset
166 Management - 1,625 2,024 2,021 2,066 2,533 2,863 1,472 1,782 3,669 6,172
Networks Management
Renewals
Reactive Asset
Water Asset
167 Management - 279 347 347 354 434 491 252 306 629 1,058
Networks Management
Maintenance
Reactive Asset
Water Asset
168 Management - 650 810 809 827 1,013 1,145 589 713 1,468 2,469
Networks Management
Renewals
Reservoir
Water Asset
169 Renewal/Upgrade 583 579 582 1,183 2,417 2,336 1,228 1,697 3,489 4,604
Networks Management
Program
Asset Condition Business
Business
170 Inspection and data Systems / Corp / 173 - - - - - - - - -
Systems
improvement program Safety
Business
Business Rocherlea
171 Systems / Corp / - 532 1,304 - - - - - - -
Systems Redevelopment
Safety
Asset Safety Business
Business
172 Rectification Program - Systems / Corp / 772 1,157 1,156 1,183 1,608 1,564 1,757 1,702 1,745 1,959
Systems
Unplanned Safety
Fleet (Vehicles and Business
Business
173 Plant) Replacement Systems / Corp / - - - - - - - - - 2,911
Systems
Program Safety
Business
Business Minor Plant and Systems / Corp /
174 Safety - - - - - - - - - 520
Systems Equipment
Business
Business Minor Projects Systems / Corp /
175 Safety 3,285 4,255 3,476 3,586 3,676 3,768 3,862 3,959 4,058 4,159
Systems Program
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 70 of 113
Business
Business
176 Non-network IT Systems / Corp / 1,642 2,127 2,607 2,690 2,757 2,826 2,897 2,969 3,043 3,119
Systems
Safety
Business
Business
177 Non-network other Systems / Corp / 3,367 4,680 4,346 4,483 4,595 4,710 4,828 4,948 5,072 5,199
Systems
Safety
Business
Business
178 SCADA Program Systems / Corp / 2,053 3,372 2,890 2,959 3,021 2,920 3,283 3,179 3,271 3,061
Systems
Safety
Electrical
179 Other Electrical Program 2,324 2,315 1,538 2,367 2,812 2,732 3,070 2,969 3,053 2,939
program
Miscellaneous Minor Miscellaneous
180 Other 205 319 326 336 345 353 362 371 380 390
Works Minor Works
Building and Facilities
181 Other - - - - - - - - - -
Program
O&M Manuals (State -
182 Other - - - - - - - 243 255 -
Wide)
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 71 of 113
Table 14 Capital projects and programs in years 11 to 20 of LTSP ($’000s, nominal)
Note: Projects with zero expenditure in years 11 to 20 have been removed from the table below.

Investigations
1 STPs Ambient Monitoring 533 546 560 574 588 603 618 633 649 665
Brighton Sewer
Major STP
3 STPs Treatment Plant 1,275 1,307 1,339 1,373 1,407 1,442 - - - -
Upgrade Project
Upgrade
Cradle Valley STP Asset
7 STPs - - - - - 1,357 - - - -
Membrane Renewal Management
Maydena Sewer
Major STP
14 STPs Treatment Plant 137 1,540 1,421 - - - - - - -
Upgrade Project
upgrade
Queenstown Sewer
Major STP
18 STPs Treatment Plant Major 784 803 823 102 - - - - - -
Upgrade Project
Plant Upgrade
Sewer Treatment
Asset
20 STPs Plant Renewal 10,125 10,549 10,813 11,083 13,203 13,533 14,195 16,137 15,897 16,294
Management
Program
Smithton Sewer
Major STP
21 STPs Treatment Plant 834 855 - - - - - - - -
Upgrade Project
Upgrade
Stanley Sewer
Major STP
23 STPs Treatment Plant - 2,358 - - - - - - - -
Upgrade Project
Upgrade
Ulverstone Sewer
Major STP
25 STPs Treatment Plant 555 426 437 - - - - - - -
Upgrade Project
Upgrade
Minor Stand-
26 STPs Upgrade Zeehan STP 1,057 - - - - - - - - -
alone Project
Wynyard Sewer
Major STP
29 STPs Treatment Plant 2,415 2,475 509 - - - - - - -
Upgrade Project
Upgrades
Gawler River Major
Major DWQ
88 DWQ Upgrade / 6,079 6,231 6,387 6,547 - - - - - -
Projects
Replacement
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 72 of 113
Huon Valley Major
Major DWQ
89 DWQ Upgrade / 31,824 - - - - - - - - -
Projects
Replacement
Water Treatment
Asset
114 DWQ Plant Renewal 4,050 4,220 4,325 4,433 5,281 5,413 5,678 6,455 6,359 6,518
Management
Program
Dams - Minor
117 Dams Dams - Minor CAPEX 2,664 2,731 2,799 2,869 2,941 3,014 3,090 3,167 3,246 3,327
CAPEX
Dams -
Dams - Compliance
118 Dams Compliance 1,599 1,639 1,680 1,722 1,765 1,809 1,854 1,900 1,948 1,996
Reporting
Reporting
Sewer CCTV Inspection Condition
133 1,266 1,319 1,352 1,385 1,650 1,692 2,218 2,521 2,839 2,910
Sewer Combined System
134 1,154 1,203 1,233 1,263 1,505 1,543 2,023 2,300 2,589 2,654
Networks Program
Sewer Inflow and Infiltration
137 Capacity 799 819 840 861 882 904 927 950 974 998
Rosny Sewer Pump
Sewer
142 Station Strategy - Capacity - - - - 1,470 - 2,317 2,375 - 3,960
Networks
Project
Sewers Proactive
Sewer Asset
143 Asset Management - 638 665 681 698 832 853 894 1,017 1,001 1,027
Networks Management
CCTV
Sewers Proactive
Sewer Asset Management - Asset
144 213 222 227 233 277 284 298 339 334 342
Networks L3 Condition Management
assessment
Sewers Proactive
Sewer Asset
145 Asset Management - 3,402 3,544 3,633 3,724 4,436 4,547 4,769 5,422 5,341 5,475
Networks Management
Renewals
Sewer Asset
146 Management - 729 760 779 798 951 974 1,022 1,162 1,145 1,173
Networks Management
Maintenance
Sewer Management – Asset
147 Renewals 1,093 1,139 1,168 1,197 1,426 1,462 1,533 1,743 1,717 1,760
Networks Management
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 73 of 113
Sewer Asset
149 Management - L1, 2 797 831 852 873 1,040 1,066 1,118 1,271 1,252 1,283
Networks Management
Sewer Asset
150 Management - L3 266 277 284 291 347 355 373 424 417 428
Networks Management
Sewer Asset
151 Management - 4,252 4,431 4,541 4,655 5,545 5,684 5,962 6,778 6,677 6,844
Networks Management
Renewals
SPSs Reactive Asset
Sewer Asset
152 Management - 911 949 973 997 1,188 1,218 1,278 1,452 1,431 1,466
Networks Management
Maintenance
SPSs Reactive Asset
Sewer Asset
153 Management - 1,367 1,424 1,460 1,496 1,782 1,827 1,916 2,178 2,146 2,200
Networks Management
Renewals
Stock Route (South)
Sewer
155 Sewer Pump Station Capacity - 809 - 850 - - - 939 - -
Networks
(Cressy)
Water Fireplug condition
159 533 546 560 574 588 603 618 633 649 665
Networks assessment
Water Asset
162 Metering Program 3,797 3,956 4,055 4,156 4,951 5,075 5,323 6,051 5,961 6,110
Networks Management
Proactive Asset
Water Asset
164 Management - L1, 2 1,276 1,329 1,362 1,396 1,664 1,705 1,789 2,033 2,003 2,053
Networks Management
Proactive Asset
Water Asset
165 Management - L3 850 886 908 931 1,109 1,137 1,192 1,356 1,335 1,369
Networks Management
Proactive Asset
Water Asset
166 Management - 6,379 6,646 6,812 6,982 8,318 8,526 11,178 10,166 10,015 10,265
Networks Management
Renewals
Reactive Asset
Water Asset
167 Management - 1,093 1,139 1,168 1,197 1,426 1,462 1,533 1,743 1,717 1,760
Networks Management
Maintenance
Reactive Asset
Water Management – Asset
168 Renewals 2,551 2,658 2,725 2,793 3,327 3,410 3,577 4,067 4,006 4,106
Networks Management
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 74 of 113
Reservoir
Water Asset
169 Renewal/Upgrade 4,759 4,958 5,082 5,209 6,205 6,361 6,671 7,584 7,471 7,658
Networks Management
Program
Asset Safety Business
Business
172 Rectification Program - Systems / Corp / 2,025 2,110 2,163 2,217 2,641 2,707 3,549 4,034 4,542 4,655
Systems
Unplanned Safety
Fleet (Vehicles and Business
Business
173 Plant) Replacement Systems / Corp / 2,984 3,059 - - - - - - - -
Systems
Program Safety
Business
Business Minor Plant and
174 Systems / Corp / 533 546 - - - - - - - -
Systems Equipment
Safety
Business
Business Minor Projects
175 Systems / Corp / 3,197 3,277 3,359 3,443 3,529 3,617 3,708 3,800 3,895 3,993
Systems Program
Safety
Business
Business
176 Non-network IT Systems / Corp / 3,197 3,277 3,359 3,443 3,529 3,617 3,708 3,800 3,895 3,993
Systems
Safety
Business
Business
177 Non-network other Systems / Corp / 5,329 5,462 5,598 5,738 5,882 6,029 6,180 6,334 6,492 6,655
Systems
Safety
Business
Business
178 SCADA Program Systems / Corp / 3,164 3,297 3,379 3,463 4,126 4,229 5,545 6,304 7,097 7,274
Systems
Safety
Electrical
179 Other Electrical Program 3,037 3,165 3,244 3,325 3,961 4,060 5,323 6,051 6,813 6,983
program
181 Other 2,484 2,610 2,741 - - - - - - -
Program
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 75 of 113
Table 15 Selected key benefits assigned to capital projects and programs in the LTSP Optimisation Model (incremental benefit)
Note: benefits associated with projects that occur before FY2017/18 or after FY2036/37 are not shown in this table.
Percentage of
Number of
customers
Number of dams that plot Percentage of
supplied by a Number of STPs Contribution to
towns on above the effluent compliant
system that which pose a high service reliability
Project Activity Program (if permanent ANCOLD limit with EPA
Project description meets ADWG environmental risk and/or business
No. stream applicable) BWAs or of tolerability requirements by
compliance and per EPA MoU support
PHAs for societal volume
tolerable HBT
risk
risk levels
1 STPs Ambient Monitoring Investigations Yes

Bicheno Sewer
Major STP Upgrade 0.094%
2 STPs Treatment Plant
Project
Upgrade
Brighton Sewer
Project
Upgrade
Burnie Sewer Treatment Major STP Upgrade 0.321%
4 STPs
Plant Upgrade Project
Cambridge Wet Weather
Emergency Storage &
5 STPs Major Projects
Plant Process
Improvements
Cameron Bay Belt Press
6 STPs Asset Management
replacement
Cradle Valley STP
Membrane Renewal
Minor Stand-alone -1
8 STPs Cygnet outfall
Project
Digester Vacuum-
Pressure Relief Valve
9 STPs Upgrade Program of Works
Dover Sewer Treatment

Plant Upgrade Major STP Upgrade 0.029%
10 STPs
Project
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 76 of 113
Percentage of
Number of
customers
tolerable HBT
risk
risk levels
Kingborough Sewerage
11 STPs Strategy - Treatment & Major Projects 2.000%
Network
Knights Rd Sewer
Business Business Systems /
12 Treatment Plant
Systems Corp / Safety
Buildings
Launceston Sewer LSIP (includes the
13 STPs Improvement Program LSIP Concept 5.310%
(LSIP) project)
Maydena Sewer
Major STP Upgrade
Project
upgrade
New Sewer Treatment Minor Stand-alone 0.460%
15 STPs
Plant Tullah Project
Northern Midlands
Sewerage Improvement 0.329%
16 STPs NMSIP
Plan - Longford STP
Upgrade
Pardoe Sewer 4.198%
17 STPs PSIP
Improvement Plan
Queenstown Sewer
18 STPs Treatment Plant Major
Project
Plant Upgrade
Sewer Treatment Plant
19 STPs AS4024 Machine Safety Program of Works Yes
Audit and Upgrade
Sewer Treatment Plant Yes
Renewal Program
Smithton Sewer
Project
Upgrade
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 77 of 113
Percentage of
Number of
customers
tolerable HBT
risk
risk levels

22 STPs St Marys Reuse Upgrade
Project
Stanley Sewer
Project
Upgrade
24 STPs Ti Tree Bend - Digester Major Projects
Ulverstone Sewer
Project
Upgrade
Minor Stand-alone 0.144%
26 STPs Upgrade Zeehan STP
Project
Westbury Sewer
Project
Upgrade and Reuse
Woodbridge Sewer
Minor Stand-alone 0.0001%
Project
Upgrade - Stage 2
Wynyard Sewer
Project
Upgrades
STPs Optimisation Big 13: STPs 5.000%
30 STPs
(various) Program Optimisation
Big 13: STPs 4.200%
31 STPs Mac Point Optimisation
Optimisation
Ti Tree Bend Big 13: STPs 3.200%
32 STPs
Big 13: STPs 3.000%
33 STPs Selfs Point Optimisation
Optimisation
Big 13: STPs 2.100%
34 STPs POW Bay Optimisation
Optimisation
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 78 of 113
Percentage of
Number of
customers
tolerable HBT
risk
risk levels
Big 13: STPs 2.000%

35 STPs Pardoe Optimisation
Optimisation
Big 13: STPs 1.600%
36 STPs Smithton Optimisation
Optimisation
Cameron Bay Big 13: STPs 1.200%
37 STPs
Big 13: STPs 1.200%
38 STPs Hoblers Optimisation
Optimisation
Big 13: STPs 1.100%
39 STPs Rosny Optimisation
Optimisation
Big 13: STPs 1.000%
40 STPs Longford Optimisation
Optimisation
Big 13: STPs 0.900%
41 STPs Burnie Optimisation
Optimisation
Big 13: STPs 0.670%
42 STPs Norwood Optimisation
Optimisation
Big 13: STPs 0.600%
43 STPs Ulverstone Optimisation
Optimisation
Big 13: STPs 0.500%
44 STPs Newnham Optimisation
Optimisation
George Town Big 13: STPs 0.500%
45 STPs
Big 13: STPs
46 STPs Wynyard Optimisation
Optimisation
Prospect Vale Big 13: STPs
47 STPs
Top 20: STPs
48 STPs Bicheno Optimisation Optimisation -1
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 79 of 113
Percentage of
Number of
customers
tolerable HBT
risk
risk levels
Top 20: STPs -1

49 STPs Bridport Optimisation
Optimisation
Top 20: STPs -1
50 STPs Cambridge Optimisation
Optimisation
Top 20: STPs 0.329% -1
51 STPs Carrick Optimisation
Optimisation
Top 20: STPs
52 STPs Cygnet Optimisation
Optimisation
Top 20: STPs -1
53 STPs Geeveston Optimisation
Optimisation
Green Point Top 20: STPs -1
54 STPs
Hoblers Bridge Top 20: STPs -1
55 STPs
Top 20: STPs 1.000%
56 STPs Longford Optimisation
Optimisation
Top 20: STPs -1
57 STPs Margate Optimisation
Optimisation
Top 20: STPs 0.670%
58 STPs Norwood Optimisation
Optimisation
Top 20: STPs
59 STPs Prospect Optimisation
Optimisation
Top 20: STPs
60 STPs Scottsdale Optimisation
Optimisation
Top 20: STPs -1
61 STPs Sheffield Optimisation
Optimisation
Top 20: STPs
62 STPs Stieglitz Optimisation Optimisation -1
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 80 of 113
Percentage of
Number of
customers
tolerable HBT
risk
risk levels
Turriff Lodge Top 20: STPs -1

63 STPs
Turners Beach Top 20: STPs -1
64 STPs
Small Towns 0.110% -1
65 DWQ Mole Creek
existing project
Ringarooma Valley Small Towns 0.265% -4
66 DWQ
scheme existing project
Small Towns 0.277% 0
67 DWQ Rosebery WTP
existing project
Flinders Island water Small Towns 0.068% -1
68 DWQ
supply project existing project
Small Towns 0.282% 0
69 DWQ King Island solution
existing project
Gretna water supply Small Towns 0.030% -1
70 DWQ
system existing project
Judbury water supply Small Towns 0.043% -1
71 DWQ
upgrade New project
Rossarden water supply Small Towns 0.040% -1
72 DWQ
system New project
Gladstone water supply Small Towns 0.036% -1
73 DWQ
system New project
Colebrook water supply Small Towns 0.035%
74 DWQ
system New project
Mathinna water supply Small Towns 0.035% -1
75 DWQ
system New project
Small Towns
Wayatinah water supply New project 0.031% -1
76 DWQ
system
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 81 of 113
Percentage of
Number of
customers
tolerable HBT
risk
risk levels
Bronte Park water Small Towns 0.026%

77 DWQ
Conara water supply Small Towns 0.024% -1
78 DWQ
system New project
Small Towns 0.257% -1
79 DWQ Rocky Creek WTP
existing project
Mountain River water Small Towns 0.001% -1
80 DWQ
supply system existing project
Cornwall water supply Small Towns 0.020% -1
81 DWQ
system New project
Gormanston water Small Towns 0.014% -1
82 DWQ
Epping Water supply Small Towns 0.013% -1
83 DWQ
system New project
Herrick water supply Small Towns 0.011% -1
84 DWQ
system New project
Bryn Estyn Major Major DWQ 23.668%
85 DWQ
Upgrade / Replacement Projects
Fern Tree Major Major DWQ 5.917%
86 DWQ
Forth River Major Major DWQ 7.460%
87 DWQ
Gawler River Major Major DWQ 2.125%
88 DWQ
Huon Valley Major Major DWQ 1.632%
89 DWQ
Major DWQ
Bothwell Major Upgrade Projects 0.112%
90 DWQ
/ Replacement
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 82 of 113
Percentage of
Number of
customers
tolerable HBT
risk
risk levels
Tullah Major Upgrade / Major DWQ 0.097%

91 DWQ
Replacement Projects
Distillery Creek 7.233%
92 DWQ DWQ UV Program
North Esk Disinfection 6.334%
Project
West Tamar Disinfection 4.080%
Project
South Esk Disinfection 2.094%
Project
Longford Disinfection 1.841%
Project
Swansea Disinfection 0.328%
Project
St Helens Disinfection 0.881%
Project
Fingal Disinfection 0.126%
Project
Dover Disinfection 0.303%
Project
Scottsdale Disinfection 0.549%
Project
Deloraine Disinfection 0.541%
Project
Westbury Disinfection 0.464%
Project
Manuka River (Strahan)
104 DWQ Disinfection Project DWQ UV Program 0.258%
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 83 of 113
Percentage of
Number of
customers
tolerable HBT
risk
risk levels
Bridport Disinfection 0.470%

Project
Campbell Town/Ross 0.354%
Maydena Disinfection 0.069%
Project
Dowlings Creek 0.045%
Adventure Bay 0.0004%
Bracknell Disinfection 0.081%
Project
Waratah Disinfection 0.074%
Project
St Marys Disinfection 0.183%
Project
Chlorination Upgrade Existing DWQ
113 DWQ
(Various Sites) project
Water Treatment Plant Yes
114 DWQ Asset Management
Renewal Program
System optimisation - WTP Optimisation Yes
115 DWQ
Water Program
Fluoride Stations Study Existing DWQ Yes
116 DWQ
and Upgrade project project
Dams - Minor Yes
117 Dams Dams - Minor CAPEX
CAPEX
Dams - Compliance
Reporting Dams - Compliance Yes
118 Dams
Reporting
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 84 of 113
Percentage of
Number of
customers
tolerable HBT
risk
risk levels
Dams Improvement
Program - Dams
119 Dams Conglomerate Creek plotting above -1
Societal Limit of
Tolerability
Dams Improvement
Program - Dams
120 Dams Flagstaff plotting above -1
Societal Limit of
Tolerability
Dams Improvement
Program - Dams
121 Dams Pet Dam plotting above -1
Societal Limit of
Tolerability
Dams Improvement
Program - Dams
122 Dams Lake Mikany plotting above -1
Societal Limit of
Tolerability
Dams Improvement
Program - Dams
plotting above
123 Dams Lake Isandula -1
Societal Limit of
Tolerability
Dams Improvement
Program - Dams
plotting above
124 Dams Ridgeway Upgrade Societal Limit of
Tolerability
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 85 of 113
Percentage of
Number of
customers
tolerable HBT
risk
risk levels
Dams Improvement
Program - Dams
125 Dams Westbury Dam
required to satisfy
ALARP principle
Dams Improvement
Program - Dams
126 Dams Lower Reservoir
required to satisfy
ALARP principle
Dams Improvement
Program - Dams
127 Dams Upper Reservoir
required to satisfy
ALARP principle
Dams Improvement
Program - Dams
128 Dams Lower Prosser
required to satisfy
ALARP principle
Other Dams
129 Dams Swansea - Stage 1
Projects
Other Dams
130 Dams Swansea - Stage 2
Projects
Blackman River Dam No Other Dams
131 Dams
1 Projects
Other Dams
132 Dams Coles Bay Dam
Projects
Sewer CCTV Inspection Condition Yes
133
Sewer Combined System Yes
134
Networks Program
Sewer Davis St, Smithton Sewer Rehab/ Renewal
135
Networks Pump Station Upgrade Program
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 86 of 113
Percentage of
Number of
customers
tolerable HBT
risk
risk levels
Huonville Main Road

Sewer
136 Sewer Pump Station Capacity
Networks
Replacement
Sewer Inflow and Infiltration Yes
137 Capacity
Jason St SPS and
Sewer Esplanade SPS Rising
138 Capacity
Networks Main Replacements (St
Helens)
Jetty Road, Bicheno
Sewer
Networks
Upgrade
Sewer Kingston Sewer Pump Rehab/ Renewal
140
Networks Station E Rising Main Program
Lauderdale Pressure
Sewer
141 Sewage Scheme (LPSS) - OPEX
Networks
Electrical Investigations
Sewer Rosny Sewer Pump
142 Capacity
Networks Station Strategy - Project
Sewer Sewers Proactive Asset Yes
143 Asset Management
Networks Management - CCTV
Sewers Proactive Asset
Sewer Yes
144 Management - L3 Asset Management
Networks
Sewer Sewers Proactive Asset Yes
Networks Management - Renewals
Sewer Management –
146 Asset Management Yes
Networks Maintenance
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 87 of 113
Percentage of
Number of
customers
tolerable HBT
risk
risk levels
Sewer Sewers Reactive Asset Yes

Corrosion & Odour
Sewer Smithton retic Odour
148 Management
Networks Control
Program
Sewer Yes
149 Management - L1, 2 Asset Management
Networks
Sewer Yes
Networks
Sewer SPSs Proactive Asset Yes
SPSs Reactive Asset
Sewer Yes
152 Management - Asset Management
Networks
Maintenance
Sewer SPSs Reactive Asset Yes
St Helens Sewer
Sewer Treatment Plant Inlet
154 Capacity
Networks Works & Esplanade
Sewer Pump Station
Stock Route (South)
Sewer
Networks
(Cressy)
Torren St, Richmond
Sewer
Networks
Renewal
Windsor Park SPS Rising
Sewer
157 Main Replacement and Capacity
Networks
Pump Upgrade
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 88 of 113
Percentage of
Number of
customers
tolerable HBT
risk
risk levels
Water Burnie Cam Pipeline

158
Networks Construction
Water Fireplug condition Yes
159
Networks assessment
Longford Water Supply
Water System (Railway Bridge -
160
Networks Mountford Farm) Trunk
Main
Water Margate Water Main
161
Networks Upgrade Stage 2
Water Yes
162 Metering Program Asset Management
Networks
National Park Fluoride &
Water
163 Chlorine Building Safety Programs
Networks
Rebuild
Proactive Asset
Water Yes
164 Management - L1, 2 Asset Management
Networks
Proactive Asset
Water Yes
Networks
Water Proactive Asset Yes
Reactive Asset
Water Yes
167 Management - Asset Management
Networks
Maintenance
Reactive Asset
Water Management –
168 Asset Management Yes
Networks Renewals
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 89 of 113
Percentage of
Number of
customers
tolerable HBT
risk
risk levels
Reservoir
Water Yes
169 Renewal/Upgrade Asset Management
Networks
Program
Asset Condition
Business Business Systems / Yes
170 Inspection and data
improvement program
Business Rocherlea Business Systems /
171
Systems Redevelopment Corp / Safety
Asset Safety
172 Rectification Program -
Unplanned
Fleet (Vehicles and
173 Plant) Replacement
Program
Business Minor Plant and Business Systems / Yes
174
Systems Equipment Corp / Safety
175 Minor Projects Program
176 Non-network IT
177 Non-network other
178 SCADA Program
179 Other Electrical Program Electrical program Yes
Miscellaneous Minor Miscellaneous Yes
180 Other
Works Minor Works
181 Other Program Yes
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 90 of 113
Percentage of
Number of
customers
tolerable HBT
risk
risk levels
O&M Manuals (State - Yes

182 Other
Wide)
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 91 of 113
Appendix 2: LTSP methodology
The sections below provide more detailed information on the methodology we used, and the activities we
undertook, to develop the LTSP.
A2.1 Enhanced planning framework
An enhanced planning framework has been developed as part of the LTSP to support the overarching strategic
framework with the specific intent of:
 Specifying measures of success (or KPIs) and supporting tactical objectives which are quantitative and
readily measurable to make clear:
o what quantitative outcomes need to be achieved for customers and regulators;
o the extent to which the measures of success and tactical objectives are currently being
achieved
o the benefits of proposed investment in projects and programs to be quantitatively
determined
o the overall line of sight between proposed investments and customer outcomes
 Establishing the capability to undertake a quantitative assessment across and within individual
projects and programs to allow prioritisation modelling of them based on benefits and investment for
timely delivery of desired customer and regulatory outcomes for the LTSP and
 Enhancing and focussing the business data and information to best support the overarching strategic
framework and the LTSP and individual planning documents for each activity stream, for example:
o Drinking Water Quality Management Plan
o Dam Safety Management Plan
o Wastewater Management Plan
o Strategic Asset Management Plan (which contained targets relating to networks
performance).
The enhanced framework allows us to consider all capital or operational expenditure items in terms of their
cost and associated contribution to one or more customer outcomes (expressed through measures of success
or tactical objectives).
This helps to establish the prudency of the investment (particularly for compliance-related measures of
success) and also sets the foundation for a cost to benefit prioritisation assessment to be made across all
capital projects (i.e. to interrogate the relative efficiency of proposed expenditure and the optimal overall
timing for delivery of a range of customer and regulatory and business risk management benefits).
A2.2 Benefit categories
Establishment of quantitative benefits to be delivered by individual projects and programs is central to the
LTSP and investment prioritisation using the optimisation model.
The benefit categories which have been adopted for input to the optimisation model are a combination of
quantitative measures of success of customer outcomes and other, more specific, tactical objectives mainly
related to service performance and asset management. This is to allow for further levels of prioritisation (and
useful disaggregation of plans and strategies) within tactical objectives.
The full list of benefit categories in the LTSP model is shown in the table below.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 92 of 113
Table 16: List of measures of success and tactical objectives that form the benefit categories in the optimisation model
Outcome theme Benefit (measure of success or tactical objective)

Percentage of customers where microbiological compliance has been achieved
Percentage of customers where a tolerable health based target has been achieved
Number of short term boil water alerts put in place by DHHS
Drinking Water Quality Number of towns on permanent boil water alerts or public health alerts
All TW Dosing Stations/Systems provide water compliant with DWQ requirements as per ADWG &
Tasmanian Fluoridation Code of Practice
Percentage of critical water treatment plant (including dosing systems) assets in the most extreme
risk category due for renewal that are renewed.
Number of dams regulated by ANCOLD that are 100% compliant
Dam Safety Number of dams that plot above the ANCOLD limit of tolerability for societal risk
Number of dams that must still be made to satisfy the ALARP principle
Percentage volume of compliant effluent
Number of STPs which currently pose High Environmental Risk
Number of critical STP assets still in 'extreme' risk category
Environment
Percentage of STPs which have sufficient capacity
Shellfish and Public Waterways Spills Mitigation
Sensitive Waterways Spills Mitigation
DWF Overflow Mitigation
WW Overflow Mitigation (flows between ~1.3 ADWF & 1:5yr Recurrence Interval event)
Percentage of sewer network (pipes, pump stations) have adequate dry and wet weather flow
capacity to transfer flows to STPs while meeting Customer Code requirements (or equivalent e.g.
accepted industry standard)
Percentage of critical sewer network assets (pump stations, pressure mains, gravity mains) in the
most extreme risk category due for renewal are renewed/ responded to as per TW's established
rules.
Sewer breaks and chokes (per 100km of main)
Service Reliability Number of dry weather spills/chokes p.a. per 100km of main
Number of wet weather spills/chokes p.a. per 100km of main
TasWater's Residual risk is at an acceptable level (as defined by TW's corporate risk framework
(including OH&S, business risk).
Number of odour complaints (per 1,000 properties)
Percentage of water supply systems compliant with customer code requirements (e.g. zone Supply
Standards [pressure, volumes])
Percentage of critical water network assets (pump stations, pressure mains) in the most extreme risk
category due for renewal are renewed/ responded to as per TW's established rules.
Unplanned water supply interruptions (per 1,000 properties)
A2.3 LTSP Optimisation Model
A2.3.1 Model overview and purpose

An optimisation model has been developed to help select projects from the capital program in a way which
maximises the benefits of those projects while keeping the total capital cost within the capital expenditure
threshold in any given year – which itself is determined through a relationship with TasWater’s Long Term
Financial Model (where constraints for annual price rises and the interest cover ratio are set).
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 93 of 113
The LTSP Optimisation Model does this by considering the capital cost profile and incremental operating cost
of every project as well as benefits the project will deliver to customers. Each benefit is defined as one of
series of modelled benefit categories, each of which links to a customer outcome through the strategic
framework.
The LTSP Optimisation Model is built based on a technique known as linear programming – when a problem is
formulated as a linear program there exists a suite of well-studied mathematical techniques to get the best
possible solution. For the LTSP a spreadsheet model has been developed which formulates the problem of
which projects to commit capital to - and when - as a linear program, then uses a free and open source Excel
add-in called OpenSolver to solve the optimisation problem and generate an optimised capital program.
By using a technique which guarantees an optimal capital program solution, within the set of assumptions and
constraints of the model, detailed trade-off testing scenarios examining the outcomes of different capital
expenditure profiles (governed by acceptable price rises) and customer outcome weightings can be specified.
A2.3.2 Model inputs
The key LTSP Optimisation Model inputs are described in the sections below.
A2.3.2.1 Capital expenditure budget
The capital expenditure budget in each year is one of the key input variables for the optimisation model. Most
of the significant projects in our capital program are multi-year projects, and therefore tend to have an
expenditure profile that is spread out over several years. Some projects have relatively minor capital
expenditure in year 1, but significant cost in later years. The capital cost of all projects started in a particular
year whether in development (planning and design) or in construction phase are included in the budget for
that year.
The model does not enforce the annual budget strictly in each year – if a big cost item pushes the capital
spend in one year above the budget, this is allowed so long as the shortfall is made up in another year. The
percentage of the total budget in each year that can be ‘rolled over’ like this is flexible, and is set in the model
parameters sheet. By default, 10% of the budget in any year can be held back to be spent in the next year –
this allows for solutions that are more realistic and flexible.
The capital expenditure budget in each year of the LTSP is governed by two significant constraints relating to
annual price increases and our interest cover ratio. These are determined through a relationship with our Long
Term Financial Model and are described in more detail in Section 5.1.
A2.3.2.2 Project list
Our enhanced capital program was used as the basis of all projects that the optimisation model could select.
The enhanced capital program has an estimated capital expenditure for projects in each year from FY2017/18
through FY2036/37, as well as a quantified benefit (contribution to one or more customer outcomes) and,
where relevant, the incremental impact of the project on operating costs.
The cost profile of each project is fully respected in the optimisation model. For example, the Ulverstone
Sewer Treatment Plant upgrade has approximately $1,200,000 planned in year one of the project (primarily
related to initial planning work), and then an additional four years of capital expenditure in years four to seven
(primarily related to design and construction). When the model considers this project it can choose which year
to start construction, but will always ensure that four years of consecutive expenditure occur, three years after
the chosen start time, and that this subsequent expenditure will lie within the capital works budgets of those
later years.
For each line item in the enhanced capital program, the following was defined:
 Projects are deemed Mandatory (and the whole or a specified percentage of the related expenditure
forms a base as per our capital program and is not part of the prioritisation process) , where either:
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 94 of 113
o A specific commitment to regulators and/or customers has been made in terms of project
timing (e.g. Small Towns, the Longford component of NMSIP)
o The project is already in construction or tender phase or) a specified percentage of the
project has already been spent (set to 25% in the model)
o Sewerage and water system optimisation projects are considered to be mandatory,
although their high benefit to cost ratio would have resulted in early scheduling into the
program anyway
o Renewal programs (percentage considered mandatory as specified below)
o Business system support programs (percentage considered mandatory as specified
below)
 All other projects and programs which are not referred to in the previous point are therefore not
considered to be mandatory and form part of the prioritisation and trade-off modelling
 The originally proposed capital expenditure value and timing of the project / program (which is then
optimised by the model)
 The incremental operating expenditure impact of the project/ program, although it is not used as a
decision variable in the model at this stage (rather, opex impact is calculated and forms an input back
into our Long Term Financial Model) and
 The quantitative benefit(s) to be achieved by the project across the modelled benefit categories.
A2.3.2.3 Benefit weighting matrix
In the LTSP Optimisation Model, projects are not assessed purely on a cost basis. The benefits that these
projects produce are mostly non-monetary, and so to trade off the costs and benefits of one project against
another requires some method of comparing the benefits on a like to like basis. The benefits weighting matrix
is the mechanism that allows this comparison to be made, and the relative weighting of each benefit category
is set as a scenario parameter.
A weighting factor must be assigned to each benefit category in the model, with a higher weight representing
a higher priority or more highly valued (e.g. by customers) project. Where two projects have the same
improvement in their respective benefit categories, and those benefit categories are weighted equally, the
cheaper project will in general be selected first by the model.
Likewise, if benefit category A has a weight factor twice as high as benefit category B, a project that improves
benefit category B will have to be more than twice as effective, or less than half the capital cost of an
equivalent project that improves benefit category A to be given a higher priority in the optimisation model.
The weighting of benefits in the LTSP Optimisation Model has been set according to the preferences expressed
by our customers during consultation and endorsed by our technical regulators. Namely, drinking water
quality benefits are weighted the highest, followed closely by environmental outcomes and dam safety
outcomes. Service reliability outcomes are given a slightly lower weighting.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 95 of 113
A2.3.3 Model methodology
The optimisation model produces an optimised capital program by converting the list of projects into a
standardised form that allows project benefits and costs to be compared on a like-for-like basis, and optimised
in a way which respects budgetary, timing, and other constraints. The order of operational logic is broadly
described in the steps indicated below and is illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 16 LTSP Optimisation Model Schematic
Capital Works Program
Mandatory projects
Optimised Capital Plan
and programs of works
Non-Mandatory
Optimisation Model
projects and programs
Benefits Weighting
Capital Works Budget
Matrix
A2.3.3.1 Step 1: Filter out projects that are mandatory and those which are discretionary, and calculate a
budget for the discretionary projects.
The optimisation model allows for some flexibility in choosing which projects should be considered
mandatory. These are either directly flagged as mandatory in the project data sheet, or alternatively will be
considered mandatory if the spend-to-date on these projects exceeds a certain percentage of the total capital
cost. The exact percentage at which this is triggered is a scenario parameter, and can be set on the ‘Scenarios’
sheet.
Mandatory projects are not passed through to the optimisation model, but are assumed to be “must-build”.
The cost and timing of these projects in the capital plan is passed through to the final optimised plan without
adjustment. However, the cost of these projects is recorded, and deducted from the available budget for non-
mandatory projects.
Some programs of work have a mandatory percentage option, such as the renewals programs. In these cases,
the mandatory percentage of the work program (e.g. renewal program) costs and benefits are passed through
to the final capital program without adjustment, but the rest of the work program is selected or not based on
its merits.
A2.3.3.2 Step 2: Convert the budget and project list into a linear programming problem
The model then converts the list of discretionary projects into a standardised form that can be interpreted and
solved by a linear program solving engine. During this stage the model converts each possible project into a
binary build decision, and weighs the value of the benefits of each project against each other. Generally
speaking, the form of the model is a maximisation problem. The model tries to maximise benefits, subject to
budget and timing constraints, by choosing whether and when to build projects.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 96 of 113
A2.3.3.3 Step 3: Solve the linear problem
An open source optimisation engine called COIN-OR is used to solve linear optimisation programs written in
Microsoft Excel using a free plugin called OpenSolver. The optimisation engine solves the linear programming
problem, and returns the optimised capital program.
A2.3.3.4 Step 4: Combine and present the results
The final step of the model is to synthesize the optimised program of discretionary projects with the
mandatory projects, and summarise the final optimised capital program. We also convert the model outputs
(in real dollars) to a nominal form.
A2.3.4 Key model assumptions

The key assumptions in the LTSP Optimisation Model for assessing investment scenarios and benefits are:
A2.3.4.1 Capital program and estimates:
 The basis of all the optimisation modelling and trade-off work was our enhanced capital program
 Oher than for newly identified projects, existing cost estimates and expenditure profiles have been
adopted. These cost estimates have been subject to a challenge process throughout the LTSP project
(with greater emphasis on those projects/programs which had high CAPEX and/or lower benefit). This
challenge process is ongoing
 The expenditure profiles for each of the sewerage system rationalisation projects (e.g.. Launceston,
Pardoe, Northern Midlands were updated using revised project staging as recommended by Jacobs.
A2.3.4.2 Project / program benefits:
 Derivation of benefits: The benefits have been determined in line with:
o The revised strategic framework which links investment to customer outcomes
o The quantitative benefit estimation adopted for the prioritisation modelling represents an
initial estimate which has been quantified by TasWater staff but is sometimes based on
limited data. These will be further tested and refined as projects move through the
planning phases.
 Timing of realisation of benefits: the associated benefit of any project/program (where known), is
assumed to be realised in the:
o Final year of a project; except for
o The major sewage treatment plant rationalisation projects, in which the benefit is realised
in the penultimate year of the project - on the basis that the plant is available for use in
that year (with the final year being for defects liability period / final process proving).
A2.4 How we balance competing priorities

Since it is not feasible to address all of our compliance and renewal challenges immediately while also
minimising price impacts, it is necessary to make trade-offs between achieving various customer outcomes
over time.
To do so, we sought feedback from our customers and stakeholders on a range of topics relating to investment
priorities, acceptable price increases to achieve the outcomes and customer service standards related to the
outcomes.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 97 of 113
A2.4.1 What our customers have told us
We engaged with our customers and stakeholders extensively during development of this LTSP, including
focus groups, a telephone survey and individual discussions with major customers, peak bodies and our
regulators.
The feedback from customers is described in more detail in Section 2 of the LTSP. However, in general, the
feedback we have received is summarised below:
 Customers generally support improving compliance as a first priority (before service reliability),
with drinking water quality most important, and environment and dam safety equal second
 About 40% of survey respondents support a 5% annual price increase in the first three years of
the LTSP, although almost none support a higher increase
 Customer affordability remains a key issue, and focus group participants confirm this
 Customers generally prefer service standards to remain the same, rather than relaxing them to
get cost decreases
 Service reliability should be focused on critical assets in the first 10 years of the LTSP (those assets
that, if they fail, have the greatest impact on customers or receiving environments)
 Customers want TasWater to improve its productivity to the extent possible before increasing its
prices further.
A2.4.2 What our regulators have told us

The water and sewerage services we provide to Tasmanians must meet legislative requirements and the
expectations of a range of regulators. Each of our technical regulators (EPA, DHHS and DPIPWE) have outlined
their near term priorities for us which we have incorporated in our LTSP. The expectations of our regulators
are summarised below.
A2.4.2.1 Drinking water quality (Department of Health and Human Services)

In March 2017 the Director of Public Health provided us with a list of actions to guide our priorities in PSP3 in
relation to improving drinking water quality. These priorities are:
 Remove Boil Water Alerts and Public Health Alerts in drinking water systems
 Identify and implement Critical Control Points in accordance with the Australian Drinking Water
Guidelines (ADWG) framework
 Increase knowledge of source waters through catchment risk assessments, and improve source
protection through capital investments designed to reduce or eliminate public health risks
 Identify opportunities to improve disinfection management and maintain suitable chlorine
residuals in reticulation networks
 Improve fluoridation performance through compliance with the Tasmanian Fluoridation Code of
Practice and
 Identify and implement strategies to remove and reduce Disinfection By-Product formation to
levels below those specified in the ADWG.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 98 of 113
A2.4.2.2 Environment (Environment Protection Authority)
In November 2016 we established a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the EPA to achieve
accelerated environmental compliance and performance over the next three years. The MoU sets out the
management and regulatory approach that we will adopt (in conjunction with the EPA) to improve our
environmental compliance and the performance of our public wastewater network by December 2019. We
have agreed to focus on capital and operational expenditure projects which target the following:
 13 STPs that account for 70 per cent of all treated wastewater from our network (the ‘Big 13’
STPs)
 The top 20 key environmental risks posed by any part of our wastewater network
 Enhanced statewide control of trade waste, tankered waste and leachates entering our sewerage
network and treatment plants
 Other statewide projects initiated during the MOU period that seek to either optimise
wastewater infrastructure functionality through better control or divert outputs to reuse rather
than direct discharge into the environment.
A2.4.2.3 Dam safety (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment)
We are responsible for approximately 300 water and wastewater storages, lagoons and weirs that are defined
as a ‘dam’ under the Water Management Act 1999. The Water Management Act references the Australian
National Council on Dams (ANCOLD) Guidelines on Dam Safety Management 2003. We manage our dams
using a dam portfolio risk assessment process in line with these guidelines.
Although the Water Management Act applies to all dams, the emphasis of our regulator is generally on dams
with a consequence category of ‘significant’ or higher as defined in the Australian National Committee on
Large Dams (ANCOLD) guidelines for consequence categories.9
The majority of our dams are compliant with the ANCOLD guidelines for risk assessment10 which consider both
the consequence category of the dam and the likelihood of failure. However, at the end of PSP2, nine dams
will have a risk rating that exceeds the individual and societal risk criteria under the ANCOLD guidelines on risk
assessment. These dams are a focal point for our regulator in PSP3.
A2.4.3 How we have used the customer and regulator feedback

As described in the LTSP Optimisation Model section above, we have assigned quantitative measures to link
each project in our capital program to the customer outcomes in the LTSP. Capital projects were prioritised by
comparing their relative costs and benefits (that is, their contribution to achieving measures of success for
each customer outcome). Our LTSP also uses a weighting to emphasise the outcomes that our customers and
stakeholders told us were most important.
Our LTSP is based on completing the highest priority projects in each year, up to a limit that is determined in
part by the acceptable annual price increase.
Our regulators (EPA, DHHS, DPIPWE) have provided general support for the compliance outcomes in our LTSP.
The regulators understand that significant investment is required to improve compliance levels and that, while
marked improvement in compliance is expected, the necessary investment needs to be spread out over time
to avoid price shocks on customer bills.
9
ANCOLD, Guidelines on the Consequence Categories for Dams, 2012.
10
ANCOLD, Guidelines on Risk Assessment, 2003.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 99 of 113
Appendix 3: Specific asset management approaches
A3.1 Specific asset management approaches – main asset classes
A3.1.1 Overview
We are at various stages of development and implementation of our asset management approach for our
asset classes.
The approach has currently been developed to a greater level of detail for sewage pump station and sewage
treatment plant assets. As an illustration of this, the next section outlines for sewage pump stations the
manner in which this approach is intended to be used to better target poorly performing assets and to cost
efficiently deliver works to address shortfalls in achievement of AM tactical objectives over time; and the
implications for the LTSP. This approach is being implemented for all asset classes.
The remaining sections indicate for the other main asset classes the status of the approach and the
implications for the LTSP. An improvement plan for implementation in the balance of PSP2 and PSP3 is also
indicated.
A3.1.2 Sewage Pump Stations (SPSs)

During PSP2, we have been both:
 Developing our strategic risk based asset management framework for SPSs at a more particular focussed
and actionable level of detail to ensure improved performance of SPSs in terms of the relevant tactical
and service objectives (risk, overflows); and, in parallel,
 Undertaking remedial works (including SPS renewals) to effect immediate improvements on the
perceived higher risk SPSs (“hot spots”) in advance of this.
The former work informs the LTSP (next 20 years) and the development of targeted programs of future works
to efficiently and effectively deliver maximum benefit (in terms of SPS risk reduction and/or reduced overflow
potential) - consistent with the overall LTSP framework.
In advance of the outcomes from the structured risk based approach outlined later in this section, we have
undertaken or plan to undertake remedial works in PSP2 at approximately 36 SPSs.
It is important to note that decisions on the SPS upgrade works to undertake initially (in PSP2) were made
without the benefit of the subsequent risk and performance analysis indicated later in this section and
represented a balanced approach between addressing some known “hot spots” and meeting commitments of
the predecessor organisations.
Anticipated benefits are expected from the investment in SPSs upgrade works in PSP2. Approximately 50% (17
SPSs) deliver benefits in terms of meeting LTSP tactical AM objectives by:
 Moving high risk assets to an acceptably lower risk category
 Reducing the risk of sewage spills/overflow events that have in the past affected or have the potential to
impact shellfish areas and
 Reducing the sewage spill/overflow risk from the sewer network more generally.
Our progress in developing the risk based framework and decision rules for investment in SPSs consistent with
the LTSP and targeted prudent and efficient programs of works is summarised in the following. The approach
to criticality and risk assessment for the sewage pump station (SPSs) cohort is based on and consistent with
our Corporate Risk Framework.
We have completed a first pass criticality (consequence) and risk assessment for each of our 752 SPSs and
assigned both a criticality and risk rating to each. This has been undertaken in advance of all the elements of a
formalised overarching Asset Risk Framework covering all cohorts being in place.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 100 of 113
The criticality factors considered in assessing the consequences of SPS failure - consistent with our currently
overarching Asset Criticality Framework - are:
 Health and safety
 Public health (includes shellfish and sensitive waterways impacts)
 Financial
 Environment
 Compliance and legal
 Reputation (also includes shellfish and sensitive waterways impacts); and
 Management effort involved
Of particular note is that shellfish and sensitive waterways impacts are not a factor in their own right for the
consequence assessment. However from a tactical (or level of service) objective viewpoint it is a discrete
subset of the broader tactical objective to limit spills from the sewer network which are comprehended by the
public health and reputation criteria. Spills reduction impacting shellfish areas and sensitive waterways can be
targeted and given a higher priority for investment within the overall objective of reducing spills/overflows
from the sewer network as a whole.
The criticality assessment to date is largely qualitative and undertaken in the context of corporate risks rather
more specific asset management risks determined at a greater level of granularity and with a direct link with
the relevant tactical objectives (and consequently customer service obligations). The greater level of
granularity will ultimately enable better decision making to establish more targeted and effective asset
management programs of works and to enable more efficient investment decisions.
SPS failure is defined as the likelihood of an overflow occurring (i.e. an inability to transfer flows without a spill
to the environment, including mechanical/electrical/civil breakdowns). Condition (or likelihood of failure)
assessment is based on an actual condition assessment where available; otherwise it is based on an
assessment of a range of weighted factors including:
 An aggregated weighted condition score of the SPS structures and equipment including the condition of
switchboards, pipework and valves, pump, mechanical equipment, wet wells and vent pole.
 Assessments are based on age or standard deterioration curves where actual condition assessment
information is not available.
 SCADA overflow history (events/year)
 Ratio of WWF to DWF
 Frequency of power outage
 Average duration of power outage
 Number of reactive maintenance events
 ET (inflow into SPS)
 Number of pumps
The risk of each SPS has been assessed as a product of the consequence rating multiplied by the likelihood of
failure rating. The table below provides an overall summary of the current risk analysis and risk categorisation
of all 752 SPSs.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 101 of 113
Table 17 Overall categorisation of TasWater’s 752 SPSs
No. notionally included in initial 10 year Capital Plan No.currently not covered by 10 year Capital Plan
No of SPSs Undertaken - by criticality rating - by criticality rating
Risk Ranking in Risk / Planned
Category in PSP2
Low & Low &
Total Very High High Medium Total Very High High Medium
Very Low Very Low
Very High /
0 0 0
Extreme
High 61 7 21 8 19 3 0 33 10 21 4 0
Medium 314 18 21 0 2 13 6 275 5 97 198
Low 320 9 2 0 0 0 2 309 0 0 1 287
Other 2 2
TOTAL 697 36 44 8 21 16 8 617 10 26 102 485
No risk /
criticality 55
assessment
We have undertaken further assessment using weightings placed on the relative importance of achieving
benefits from reducing spills/overflows from SPSs impacts on shellfish areas and sensitive waterways and risk
status of SPSs to establish a balanced “Top 100” Action List. This is intended to be used as a basis for defining
the program of SPS renewal works to be delivered to most effectively and efficiently use the capital
expenditure allocated for SPS asset management.
The tables below show a notional estimated cost for the primary forms of proactive response consistent with
prudent asset management, namely condition assessment (where not already undertaken) preceding and
informing planned condition or upgrade /renewal works.
Planned condition assessment activities will be based on risk and will take the form of either:
 Level 1 inspection (for medium risk assets): Visual inspection of SPS components; site discussion with
operator to identify performance issues anecdotally; Pump draw down test
 Level 2 inspection (for high risk assets): As per Level 1 plus man entry into well; non-destructive testing
(NDT) at isolated locations on concrete structure to support visual inspection; high level
repair/rehabilitation recommendations
 Level 3 inspection (very high risk assets): As per Level 2 plus structural stability check/remaining life
estimation; detailed repair/rehabilitation specification and costing.
More detailed condition assessment and its costs are assumed to be incorporated in the cost of the upgrade
works. A complete picture of the risk ranking consistent with the corporate risk framework of the “Top 50
SPSs” and balance of the “Top 100 SPSs” list based on overall risk is shown in the tables below.
Of particular note is our work-in-progress to establish SPS historical performance in terms of actual sewage
spills/overflows based on an assessment of relevant historical SCADA records. To date approximately 76 SPSs
(of total of 754) have been assessed. The outcomes of the assessment to date have been reflected in the
current risk analysis as appropriate and can be used to quantify the benefit to be derived from SPS upgrade
investment.
As indicated earlier, the risks shown in the analysis to date need to be viewed in the context of other risks
resulting from application of our corporate risk framework. A number of high risk SPSs and poorly performing
SPSs in terms of spills are indicated for potential inclusion in the LTSP (first 10 years or beyond). Based on the
LTSP and this risk based assessment of SPSs (and all asset classes) further refinement of the specific candidate
projects for investment within the broader renewals program will be necessary as further and better
information becomes available on spills history and risk status. This will not diminish the need for overall
investment in management of SPSs (and all asset classes).
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 102 of 113
The overall outcome of this ongoing work and implementation of the structured risk based AM and LTSP
approach is that:
 There is a significant pool of potential SPS upgrade works from which to draw that would deliver
significant improvements in tactical AM objectives and customer service outcomes; and
 Further re-prioritisation of the specific SPS upgrade works within PSP3 and the next 10 and 20 year
periods should be undertaken to fine tune them to deliver maximum benefits for the planned investment.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 103 of 113
Table 18 “Top 50 SPS” List by risk ranking
Asset Risk
Maximo Overflow Asset
Service Score Asset Risk
Location Description Likelihood Criticality
System (Likelihood x Ranking
ID RANK RANK
Criticality)
STHSP07 St Helens PS 7 (McMichaels Terrace) 10 ranked 5 ranked 2428.11 1 ranked
STISP07 Stieglitz PS 3 (Stieglitz) 10 ranked 16 ranked 2267.74 2 ranked
SMISP12 Pelican Point Smithton Main SPS 1 ranked 39 ranked 2263.78 3 ranked
TIBSP01 Ti Tree Bend Boland Street Pump Station 7 ranked 29 ranked 2231.18 4 ranked
TIBSP20 Ti Tree Bend St John Street Pump Station 16 ranked 10 ranked 2224.18 5 ranked
BURSP11 Burnie Reeves St SPS 18 ranked 6 ranked 2218.48 6 ranked
STHSP01 St Helens Georges Bay Esplanade SPS (St Helens) 23 ranked 9 ranked 2134.04 7 ranked
ULVSP18 Ulverstone ULV 16 - Helen Street WWPS 3 ranked 43 ranked 2125.51 8 ranked
TIBSP09 Ti Tree Bend Hope Street Pump Station 10 ranked 25 ranked 2119.36 9 ranked
ULVSP23 Penguin PEN 01 - Johnsons Beach SPS 3 ranked 66 ranked 1912.95 10 ranked
BETSP01 Beauty Point Flinders St SPS 10 ranked 46 ranked 1860.22 11 ranked
WYNSP11 Wynyard Main Wynyard Pump Station SPS 5 ranked 70 ranked 1846.99 12 ranked
STISP01 Stieglitz PS 8A (Akaroa Heights) 42 ranked 14 ranked 1801.50 13 ranked
DUNSP02 Dunalley Fulham Road Sewer Pump Stn 42 ranked 20 ranked 1742.93 14 ranked
TIBSP16 Ti Tree Bend Old Margaret Street Pump Station 27 ranked 36 ranked 1736.25 15 ranked
DEVSP03 Devonport (Pardoe) Bluff SPS - 6 SPS 6 ranked 83 ranked 1684.73 16 ranked
SOMSP08 Somerset Main Somerset Pump Station SPS 10 ranked 70 ranked 1671.08 17 ranked
BETSP04 Beauty Point Sandy Beach SPS 26 ranked 46 ranked 1639.93 18 ranked
SCASP05 Scamander PS 4 (Scamander Pump 4) 8 ranked 83 ranked 1623.09 19 ranked
LEGSP10 Legana Tanner Dr SPS 19 ranked 60 ranked 1578.77 20 ranked
DUNSP03 Dunalley Imlay Street Sewer Pump Stn 225 ranked 2 ranked 1551.55 21 ranked
STISP05 Stieglitz PS 1 (O'Connors Beach) 225 ranked 3 ranked 1542.60 22 ranked
STHSP08 St Helens PS 4 (Parkside) 225 ranked 3 ranked 1542.60 22 ranked
STISP06 Stieglitz PS 5 (Richard Court) 225 ranked 7 ranked 1513.42 24 ranked
LEGSP08 Legana Muddy Ck SPS (x2) 137 ranked 23 ranked 1476.74 25 ranked
STHSP13 St Helens PS 13 (Wharf Pump Outfall) 352 ranked 1 ranked 1455.25 26 ranked
STHSP02 St Helens Jason St SPS 155 ranked 27 ranked 1421.45 27 ranked
RSNSP02 Rosny Bellerive Sewer Pump Station 95 ranked 38 ranked 1408.30 28 ranked
SELSP02 Selfs Point Blinking Billy Sewer Pump Stn 114 ranked 34 ranked 1406.01 29 ranked
SOMSP13 Somerset Surf Club Pump Station SPS 15 ranked 131 ranked 1404.97 30 ranked
HBLSP04 Hoblers Bridge Hoblers Bridge Road Pump Station 1 ranked 180 ranked 1395.30 31 ranked
STHSP16 St Helens PS (Binalong Bay Road) 352 ranked 7 ranked 1387.30 32 ranked
GEOSP13 George Town Wellington Street SPS 74 ranked 44 ranked 1383.73 33 ranked
GEOSP13 George Town Wellington St SPS (Longford) 74 ranked 44 ranked 1383.73 33 ranked
SISSP02 Sisters Beach Catchment B Pump Station SPS 19 ranked 99 ranked 1375.33 35 ranked
Prospect Vale and
PROSP01 Blackstone Heights
Bayview PS 42 ranked 60 ranked
1372.84
36 ranked
RICSP03 Richmond Torrens Street Sewer Pump Station 61 ranked 54 ranked 1370.58 37 ranked
TRISP02 Triabunna Deep Jetty Sewage Pump Stn 225 ranked 28 ranked 1328.51 38 ranked
WYNSP12 Wynyard Nurses Retreat Pump Station SPS 9 ranked 153 ranked 1325.33 39 ranked
TIBSP13 Ti Tree Bend Mckenzie Street Pump Station 137 ranked 42 ranked 1300.89 40 ranked
TIBSP15 Ti Tree Bend New Margaret Street Pump Station 352 ranked 19 ranked 1297.50 41 ranked
CYGSP04 Cygnet 88 Lymington Rd SPS 329 ranked 21 ranked 1290.73 42 ranked
DUNSP01 Dunalley Esplanade Dunalley SPS 84 ranked 58 ranked 1282.81 43 ranked
SELSP13 Selfs Point Sandy Bay No.2 Sewer Pump Stn 225 ranked 34 ranked 1273.36 44 ranked
DOVSP01 Dover Bayview Road Sewer Pump Station 329 ranked 24 ranked 1265.37 45 ranked
MAQSP02 Macquarie Point Finlay St Sewer Pump Station 114 ranked 53 ranked 1259.95 47 ranked
STRSP15 Strahan No.5 - Major PS - Risby Cove SPS 31 ranked 112 ranked 1259.30 48 ranked
SORSP08 Sorell Somerville St Sewer Pump Stn 51 ranked 73 ranked 1257.10 49 ranked
BICSP08 Bicheno Jetty Road Sewer Pump Station 32 ranked 99 ranked 1255.73 50 ranked
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 104 of 113
Table 19 Balance of “Top 100 SPS” List by risk ranking
Asset Risk
Maximo Overflow Asset
Service Score Asset Risk
Location Description Likelihood Criticality
System (Likelihood x Ranking
ID RANK RANK
Criticality)
TIBSP06 Ti Tree Bend Forster Street Pump Station 329 ranked 25 ranked 1254.89 51 ranked
CYGSP09 Cygnet Foreshore Lymington SPS 329 ranked 31 ranked 1230.11 52 ranked
SORSP01 Sorell Arthur St Sewer Pump Station 67 ranked 73 ranked 1214.49 53 ranked
RSNSP04 Rosny East Bellerive Sewer Pump Station 95 ranked 65 ranked 1213.74 54 ranked
RSNSP07 Rosny Howrah Beach SPS 352 ranked 30 ranked 1203.25 55 ranked
MIDSP07 Midway Point Southern Dr Sewer Pump Stn 495 ranked 17 ranked 1191.00 56 ranked
BICSP05 Bicheno Gordon St Sewer Pump Station 74 ranked 75 ranked 1190.60 57 ranked
ORFSP10 Orford Wade Bridge Sewer Pump Station 51 ranked 107 ranked 1167.93 58 ranked
STHSP09 St Helens PS 5 (Quail Street) 225 ranked 48 ranked 1165.36 59 ranked
MIDSP04 Midway Point McKinly St Sewer Pump Station 567 ranked 11 ranked 1161.46 60 ranked
STRSP11 Strahan No.6 (Major PS) Featherstone St SPS 51 ranked 112 ranked 1160.92 61 ranked
STISP03 Stieglitz PS 2 (Jetty Road)repositioned 225 ranked 51 ranked 1157.45 62 ranked
STHSP04 St Helens PS 3 (Kerwins) repositioned 567 ranked 13 ranked 1156.97 63 ranked
ORFSP09 Orford The Hedge Sewer Pump Station 61 ranked 107 ranked 1148.14 64 ranked
SWASP07 Swansea Jetty Road Sewer Pump Station 61 ranked 110 ranked 1142.56 65 ranked
RSNSP14 Rosny Talune Street Sewer Pump Station 155 ranked 66 ranked 1134.43 66 ranked
STHSP11 St Helens PS 8 (Tully Street) 95 ranked 79 ranked 1121.42 67 ranked
MIDSP05 Midway Point Penna Road Sewer Pump Stn 603 ranked 15 ranked 1110.29 68 ranked
DOVSP06 Dover Foreshore Sewer Pump Station 429 ranked 37 ranked 1098.89 69 ranked
BETSP03 Beauty Point Redbill Pt SPS 198 ranked 68 ranked 1088.10 70 ranked
STISP04 Stieglitz PS 4 (Kiama Parade SPS) 137 ranked 79 ranked 1079.89 71 ranked
STHSP05 St Helens PS 6 (Lindsay Parade) 155 ranked 77 ranked 1071.00 72 ranked
DOVSP10 Dover Kent Beach Road Sewer Pump Station 495 ranked 32 ranked 1070.88 73 ranked
MIDSP08 Midway Point Penna Rd. Sewer Pump Stn No 2 (NEW) 650 ranked 11 ranked 1069.77 74 ranked
ORFSP05 Orford Prosser Bridge Sewage Pump Stn 95 ranked 107 ranked 1068.95 75 ranked
DOVSP12 Dover Wharf Sewer Pump Station 495 ranked 33 ranked 1065.70 76 ranked
SORSP09 Sorell Tasman Hwy Sewer Pump Stn 137 ranked 85 ranked 1058.32 77 ranked
SORSP05 Sorell Forcett St Sewer Pump Stn 137 ranked 90 ranked 1046.20 78 ranked
CYGSP05 Cygnet Burtons Reserve SPS 467 ranked 41 ranked 1040.35 79 ranked
RICSP01 Richmond Bilney Street Sewer Pump Station 352 ranked 54 ranked 1039.75 80 ranked
BLASP21 Blackmans Bay SPS G Blackmans Bay 95 ranked 133 ranked 1007.77 81 ranked
SELSP12 Selfs Point Sandy Bay No.1 Sewer Pump Stn 398 ranked 57 ranked 1005.83 82 ranked
MIDSP03 Midway Point Geeves Cres Sewer Pump Stn 660 ranked 18 ranked 1004.43 83 ranked
BLASP04 Blackmans Bay Balmoral Road Sewer Pump Stn 114 ranked 127 ranked 1004.31 84 ranked
BICSP09 Bicheno Murray St Sewer Pump Station 114 ranked 127 ranked 1004.31 84 ranked
RSNSP09 Rosny Lindisfarne Sewer Pump Station 352 ranked 62 ranked 999.22 86 ranked
MIDSP01 Midway Point Esplanade No.1 Sewer Pump Stn 198 ranked 85 ranked 997.26 87 ranked
RICSP02 Richmond Cosgrove Dr Sewer Pump Station 265 ranked 76 ranked 990.47 89 ranked
TRISP01 Triabunna Charles St Sewer Pump Station 169 ranked 118 ranked 977.84 90 ranked
CABSP02 Cambridge Kennedy Drive Sewer Pump Station 198 ranked 96 ranked 976.71 91 ranked
BRDSP03 Bridport Bridport #3 SPS 198 ranked 112 ranked 964.15 92 ranked
CYGSP10 Cygnet Slab Road Sewer Pump Station 225 ranked 94 ranked 963.55 93 ranked
CAMSP15 Cameron Bay Strathaven Sewer Pump Station 225 ranked 99 ranked 956.75 94 ranked
DEVSP04 Devonport (Pardoe) Coles Beach SPS - 7 SPS 29 ranked 193 ranked 956.71 95 ranked
RANSP13 Ranelagh Main Street SPS (Hutchins Carpark) 398 ranked 69 ranked 951.39 96 ranked
STHSP01 St Helens PS 1A (Old Main Station) 225 ranked 105 ranked 951.00 97 ranked
STHSP17 St Helens Annies St E SPS 495 ranked 58 ranked 932.95 98 ranked
GEOSP11 George Town Seaport SPS 398 ranked 72 ranked 930.09 99 ranked
PORSP10 Port Sorell Wilmot St/ Shop Pump Station SPS 84 ranked 154 ranked 923.75 100 ranked
The capital provision in our enhanced capital program and this LTSP for SPS improvements is shown in
the table below. As described earlier, the LTSP includes only 80% of the original allocation to facilitate
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 105 of 113
earlier satisfaction of customer preferences and enable faster improvement in other service delivery
areas (e.g. drinking water quality, effluent compliance and dams).
Table 20 Capital provision in PSP3 and LTSP for SPS asset management
PSP2 LTSP Capex Allocation (Current plan)

PSP2
Sewage Pump Stations (SPSs) PSP2 Rest of first
Forecast PSP3 PSP4
Type Asset Management PSP2 Planned Final 10 years
Total 2018/19 - 2021/22 - Final 10 years
First 2 years Year 2024/25 -
2020/21 2023/24
(2017/18) 2027/28
Proactive Asset Management
L1, L2 Condition Assessment $933,465 $149,959 $1,083,424 $727,459 $941,867 $2,127,256 $8,963,026
L3 Condition assessment $311,155 $49,986 $361,141 $242,486 $313,956 $709,085 $2,987,675
Renewals $4,978,483 $799,779 $5,778,262 $3,879,779 $5,023,293 $11,345,364 $47,802,808
Sub-Total $6,223,103 $999,724 $7,222,827 $4,849,724 $6,279,116 $14,181,705 $59,753,508

Reactive Asset Management $0
Maintenance $1,066,818 $171,381 $1,238,199 $831,381 $1,076,420 $2,431,149 $10,243,458
Renewals $1,600,227 $257,072 $1,857,298 $1,247,072 $1,614,630 $3,646,724 $15,365,187
Sub-Total $2,667,044 $428,453 $3,095,497 $2,078,453 $2,691,050 $6,077,874 $25,608,646
TOTAL $8,890,147 $1,428,177 $10,318,324 $6,928,177 $8,970,166 $20,259,579 $85,362,154
The key messages in relation to the management of SPSs are:

 The total forecast expenditure on SPS upgrade works for PSP2 is significant and exceeds that
planned for PSP3. This somewhat increased expenditure in PSP2 is in part due to the need to
meet historical commitments and immediate priority issues (e.g. safety risks, existing odour
issues, impact of private properties, existing overflow history, inadequate emergency storage
buffer) and deliver benefits in terms of reduced overflows and reduction of SPSs with a high
risk status;
 The PSP3 expenditure progressively ramps up over the balance of the first 10 years of the
LTSP (and beyond);
 The PSP3 needs to be sharply focused on those assets which will deliver the greatest benefit;
As for other activity streams, the number and value of candidate projects exceeds the capital
provision for the first 10 years of the LTSP. However, unlike the other activity streams where
there are clear regulatory obligations to be met and the capex investment is aimed at
achieving regulatory compliance, the focus on asset performance is one of targeting
investment in managing asset risks and the potential impacts on service standards so that
they do not deteriorate in the first 10 years of the LTSP. As additional capital becomes
available in the second 10 years of the LTSP opportunities to address asset risks more fully
and/or cost efficiently improve service standards will exist. The challenge inherent in the
LTSP is to ensure that there is a focus on asset performance and risks to ensure that they do
not further deteriorate and adversely impact service standards.
 As for other activity streams, if AM related SPS performance is to improve more quickly, a
greater level of capital investment would be required.
A3.1.3 Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs)

A3.1.3.1 Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) renewals - historical approach
The STP renewals program (prior to the recent work on criticality and risk assessment for STP assets)
has been populated with projects through the following methods:
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 106 of 113
 Projects identified through site visits completed by TasWater staff and other service providers;
 Project requests lodged by Service Delivery staff in the Project Management System (PMS) that
are classified as a STP renewal project and brought into the program;
 Historical project requests or legacy projects from the previous regional corporations that were
either low priority or small capital value that were not funded as an individual project; and
 A subjective assessment of asset condition
The initial/current renewals program has been based on project requests made prior to the
development of an asset criticality framework.
A3.1.3.2 Development of new risk based approach – validation of STP renewals program
Asset Condition and Criticality assessment
More recently (late 2016/early 2017) an initial desktop criticality and condition assessment has been
undertaken for all STP assets at a process level consistent with the corporate risk framework. This
work was focussed on understanding the criticality of the various processes and related assets to
ensure successful operation of STP assets and compliance with the relevant service obligations
(including compliance obligations).
Criticality assessment criteria included the consequence of failure of the STP to comply with license
requirements, safety and public health impacts and the potential for environmental harm or nuisance.
Any STP process assets which have a criticality (consequence) rating of 3 or higher were deemed a
“prevent fail” asset requiring proactive management.
The condition assessment rating of STP process assets was based on:
 Actual asset site condition assessments based on actual inspections at a number of plants - where
available these were used as the base asset condition assessment rating; or otherwise
 Estimates of useful life for other assets until an actual condition assessment has been undertaken.
These were assessed as follows
o Using the recorded description of the asset or component and the existing
condition assessment work to assign an initial condition rating to like processes
(e.g. inlet works, sedimentation tanks, etc.) and asset classes (e.g. civil/structural,
mechanical, electronic, etc.) at a site; and,
o Modification as appropriate using asset deterioration curves by asset class and
STP process or overall treatment type. These asset deterioration curves were
established by estimating asset age (based on asset installation data), the
measured on-site asset condition data and a comparison with the assigned useful
lives from a 2009 Asset Valuation Project. Example asset deterioration curves
adopted are indicated in
o The deterioration curves developed were then applied to all critical STP assets
and processes to assign a condition rating based on year of installation.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 107 of 113
A3.1.3.3 STP Program Audit and Reconciliation
The desktop assessment of asset criticality and condition rating had flagged all critical processes
(criticality rating of 3 or higher) that were notionally in a poor to very poor condition (condition rating
of 4 or 5). The outputs of this work were then compared to the existing STP renewal projects on the
STP renewals program based on the “historical approach”.
There was a greater than 60% correlation between the existing projects within the list and the
theoretical condition and criticality work. The key learnings were that the 40% difference was largely
due to:
 Projects being incorrectly classified as renewals which should have been classified as system
improvement projects and which are now included in the revised STP capital projects list (e.g.
installation of screens at a STP, installation of chemical dosing and filtration at a STP) – 10%
 Projects where assets were identified as in poor condition but of low criticality and which should
be covered by a reactive maintenance component of the budget - (20%)
 Assets that were of high criticality but in of average condition and medium risk overall which
would be addressed in time but are prematurely on the STP renewals program - less than 5% and
 Other projects were identified as having a higher priority for initial condition inspection and/or
renewals than indicated in Item A above, based on a first pass risk based assessment for STP
assets as indicated here.
The existing program was considered to be reasonably robust with the majority of the projects listed
representing critical assets that were in need of asset renewal. This is considered sufficiently robust to
inform the short term STP renewals programs and to identify where further more detailed inspections
(to complete detailed criticality and condition assessment works) and investigations (e.g. data
improvement and validation due to shortcomings in the existing asset register) should be undertaken.
These will be better focussed over time as the risk based approach is fully implemented.
The capital provision in TasWater’s enhanced capital program and this LTSP for STP asset renewals is
shown in the table below.
Table 21 Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) Asset management (including renewals) - Capital provision in PSP3 and LTSP

PSP2
Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) PSP2 Rest of first
Forecast PSP3 PSP4
Asset Management PSP2 Planned Final 10 years
2020/21 2023/24
(2017/18) 2027/28
TOTAL $7,931,952 $1,914,365 $9,846,317 $13,522,099 $10,469,245 $27,950,540 $113,816,207
A3.1.4 Other asset classes
The LTSP investment profiles for asset management including renewals is shown for water treatment
plants, water reservoirs, sewer networks, water networks and mater replacement in the following
tables.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 108 of 113
Table 22 Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Asset management (including renewals) - Capital provision in PSP3 and LTSP

PSP2
Water Treatment Plants (WTPs) PSP2 Rest of first
Forecast PSP3 PSP4
2020/21 2023/24
(2017/18) 2027/28
TOTAL $4,314,917 $1,215,470 $5,530,387 $6,776,243 $6,277,901 $11,581,321 $45,526,483
Table 23 Water Reservoirs Asset management (including renewals) - Capital provision in PSP3 and LTSP

PSP2
Water Reservoirs PSP2 Rest of first
Forecast PSP3 PSP4
2020/21 2023/24
(2017/18) 2027/28
TOTAL $1,999,448 $719,153 $2,718,600 $2,704,420 $6,464,273 $14,229,588 $53,493,617
Table 24 Sewer Network Mains Asset management (including renewals) - Capital provision in PSP3 and LTSP

PSP2
Sewer Network - Mains PSP2 Rest of first
Forecast PSP3 PSP4
Management PSP2 Planned Final 10 years
2020/21 2023/24
(2017/18) 2027/28
CCTV Condition Assessment $879,757 $361,602 $1,241,359 $1,278,370 $1,226,257 $2,031,182 $7,170,421
L3 Condition assessment $293,252 $120,534 $413,786 $426,123 $408,752 $677,061 $2,390,140
Renewals $4,692,037 $1,928,545 $6,620,582 $6,817,974 $6,540,037 $10,832,969 $38,242,245
Sub-Total $5,865,046 $2,410,681 $8,275,727 $8,522,468 $8,175,046 $13,541,211 $47,802,806
Reactive Asset Management
Maintenance $1,005,436 $413,260 $1,418,696 $1,460,994 $1,401,436 $2,321,350 $8,194,766
Renewals $1,508,155 $619,890 $2,128,044 $2,191,492 $2,102,155 $3,482,026 $12,292,150
Sub-Total $2,513,591 $1,033,149 $3,546,740 $3,652,486 $3,503,591 $5,803,376 $20,486,917
TOTAL $8,378,637 $3,443,831 $11,822,468 $12,174,954 $11,678,637 $19,344,587 $68,289,723
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 109 of 113
Table 25 Water Network Pipes Asset management (including renewals) - Capital provision in PSP3 and LTSP

PSP2
Water Network - Pipes PSP2 Rest of first
Forecast PSP3 PSP4
2020/21 2023/24
(2017/18) 2027/28
L1, L2 Condition Assessment $995,044 $400,953 $1,395,997 $1,419,820 $1,482,994 $3,512,515 $14,340,842
L3 Condition assessment $663,363 $267,302 $930,665 $946,547 $988,663 $2,341,677 $9,560,561
Renewals $4,975,221 $2,004,765 $6,979,986 $7,099,102 $7,414,972 $17,562,576 $73,536,411
Sub-Total $6,633,628 $2,673,020 $9,306,648 $9,465,470 $9,886,630 $23,416,768 $97,437,814
Reactive Asset Management
Maintenance $852,895 $343,674 $1,196,569 $1,216,989 $1,271,138 $3,010,727 $12,292,150
Renewals $1,990,088 $801,906 $2,791,994 $2,839,641 $2,965,989 $7,025,031 $28,681,684
Sub-Total $2,842,983 $1,145,580 $3,988,564 $4,056,630 $4,237,127 $10,035,758 $40,973,834
TOTAL $9,476,611 $3,818,600 $13,295,212 $13,522,099 $14,123,757 $33,452,526 $138,411,649
Table 26 Metering Replacement Program - Capital provision in PSP3 and LTSP

PSP2
Metering Program PSP2 Rest of first
Forecast PSP3 PSP4
2020/21 2023/24
(2017/18) 2027/28
TOTAL $8,080,847 $7,232,044 $15,312,891 $12,904,236 $8,508,287 $17,323,869 $68,289,724
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 110 of 113
Appendix 4: List of asset management improvement initiatives and status
Summary of AMIP as at 17 July 2017
Project Project Title Original Target Rescheduled Progress

No. Completion Completion
Customer Focus and Understanding

1 Customer Analysis Program FY2016/17 FY2017/18
Stakeholder Management Now embedded in PSP3/LTSP program, and will
2 FY2015/16 FY2016/17
Strategy be transferred to BAU.
Was included in customer engagement of
PSP3/LTSP development. Working to include
3 Customer Satisfaction Survey FY2016/17 FY2017/18
Asset related feedback into existing annual
customer survey
Levels of Service definition
Data Advisory Group working through
Performance Indicator review.
4 Levels of Service and KPI review TBC TBC Additional work is required to review LOS as
included in Customer Code with regulators.
Stakeholder Segmentation
5 FY2017/18 FY2017/18
Strategy
People related Improvements
Key output of Service Delivery Value Creation
6 Operations Strategy FY2016/17 FY2017/18
Program
Requires strategic plan for KM from capture
Knowledge Management through to knowledge sharing. This was
7 FY2016/17 TBC
Strategy reconfirmed as part of AMCV outcomes and
supported by CWC.
Preliminary conversations around types of
Capability and Competency technical competencies that may be applicable
8 FY2016/17 FY2017/18
Framework to demonstrate AM skills. First tier
fundamentals training has been conducted.
Asset Management
Being finalised and rolled forward to current
9 Communication/ Awareness FY2015/16 FY2017/18
year, based on feedback from SAMSC.
Plan
Initial conversations held, and may be
Asset Management Culture and
10 FY2016/17 FY2017/18 developed further in line with Culture Survey
Change Management Plan
improvements.
AM Objective development and updates
Top level AMO structure now integrated into
Asset Management Objective LTSP. The resulting structure will enable AMOs
11 FY2015/16 FY2017/18
Integration to be finalised ensuring ‘line of sight’ between
LTSP, Corporate Plan and AMOs.
Will be implemented in SAMP update and then
AM Objective Implementation rolled out through all asset management
12 FY2016/17 FY2017/18
Process strategies and plans. Will be delayed as per
comments in Project 11 on finalising LTSP.
Strategy and Plan preparation
All have been delayed due to conflicting
priorities and WEG review affecting resourcing.
Review and Update of AMS
13 FY2016/17 FY2017/18 Scope will need to be reconsidered to align
Documentation
with LTSP, and avoid duplication, particularly
the SAMP and AMP.
6 high priority asset classes under development

(STP,WTP,SPS, Reservoirs, Water and Sewer
14 Asset Class Lifecycle Plans Ongoing Ongoing
pipelines). Revised template for ACLS/MP is
being developed.
Being developed both in house and with

15 Growth and Capacity Plans Ongoing Ongoing
external resources.
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 111 of 113
Documents meeting current requirements for

technical regulators, but will need to be
reviewed for alignment with AMS structure and
Regulatory Document
16 FY2015/16 FY2017/18 outputs. The AMS Approach will be updated by
Standardisation and Integration
mid August 2017, to describe how current
documents are integrated into decision making
and prioritisation.
Needs to be reassessed against LTSP content.

Preparation of the TasWater
17 FY2016/17 FY2017/18 Considering outsourcing of AMP and a strategic
Asset Management Plan
project has been submitted.
Final endorsement and approval is underway.

18 Asset Disposal Plan FY2015/16 FY2015/16 Ongoing review and update of plan will then be
rolled out.
19 Spill Abatement Strategy Completed
20 Reuse and Biosolids Strategy Completed
Currently being addressed through the

Technical Maintenance completed Maintenance Strategy and the
21 Ongoing Ongoing
Programs Planned Maintenance Optimisation Project
(PMOP) which is underway.
22 Shellfish Strategy and Plan Completed
Discussions have commenced in Centralised

23 Strategic Spares Planning FY2018/19 FY2018/19
Procurement.
24 Dam Safety Management Plan FY2017/18 Currently Draft Approval
Workflow/Process Mapping
Tied to upcoming broader IMS/Quality program
Quality Management System (and hence
Identification of IMS/AMS
25 FY2015/16 FY2017/18 broader IMS) project on hold, so any interfaces
interfaces
to will now also be on hold. Accordingly the
completion target has been delayed.
Confirmed that these will be prepared by

relevant Division or Department. Insufficient
resources to develop required suite of
26 AM Process Mapping Program Ongoing Ongoing processes at this level. Seeking Strategic Project
to enable review of status of AM processes,
and update of 20 critical processes that are
missing.
Data and Knowledge

Priority models are being developed as
27 System Capacity Modelling FY2017/18 FY2017/18
required
Now being expanded to address all TasWater
28 Asset Data Strategy
Data
29 Condition Assessment Program FY2017/18 FY2017/18 Targeted assessment program is underway.
30 Criticality Assessment Program FY2015/16 FY2016/17 Framework and Strategy complete
Asset Data Improvement Underway
31 FY2017/18 FY2017/18
Program
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 112 of 113
Asset Register Consolidation
32 FY2016/17 FY2017/18 As part of Maximo implementation
and Cleansing
33 Drawing Management System FY2016/17 FY2017/18 Under consideration
Some configuration management is being

34 Configuration Management FY2017/18 FY2017/18 considered as part of System Optimisation
reviews.
Asset Management Information
35 FY2016/17 FY2016/17 Maximo has been implemented.
System
Risk Management
Ongoing discussions with Risk group to
Integration of Risk Management
36 Ongoing Ongoing alignment of decision tools with Risk
Framework
Framework
AM Performance evaluation and Improvement
Asset Performance reporting metrics identified
37 Asset Performance Assessment FY2017/18 FY2017/18 across asset types. MAXIMO access to extract
raw data currently being negotiated
Asset Management AMIP complete. Current update to be
38 Ongoing Ongoing
Improvement Program completed by end of Q2 2018.
Internal review process commencing with AMIP
review and update. Review and Benchmarking
program will be included in updated AMS
39 AMS Audit and Review Program FY2015/16 TBC
Approach by 30 June 2017. Formal Audit
program will be on hold, until TW decides to
proceed with formal certification.
Asset Management Customer
40 FY2016/17 FY2016/17 2016 AMCV program complete.
Value (AMCV) Benchmarking
Commercial Improvements
15 August To be updated to align to LTSP
41 Long Term Financial Plan FY2016/17
2017
42 Asset Valuation Procedure TBC TBC
Submitted to TER.
43 Price and Service Plan 3 N/A Not applicable
Organisational Changes
Governance and Committee New governance arrangements in place
44 FY2016/17 1 January 2017
Structure review following WEG review.
Review of Empowered Asset
45 Management Organisational FY2016/17 1 January 2017 Completed as part of WEG review
Model
ABN: 47 162 220 653 Page 113 of 113

TasWater Long Term Strategic Plan FY2017-18 To FY2036-37

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TasWater Long Term Strategic Plan FY2017-18 To FY2036-37

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Long Term Strategic Plan

Amendments in this release:

1.0 25 August 2017 For public release

ABS Australia Bureau of Statistics

ADWG Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011

AER Australian Energy Regulator

AMIP Asset Management Improvement Plan

AMIS Asset Management Information System

ANCOLD Australian National Committee on Large Dams

BWA Boil Water Alert

Capex Capital Expenditure

CCW Certificate for Certifiable Works

COTA Council on the Ageing

CPI Consumer Price Index

CWC Capital Works Committee

DALY Disability Adjusted Life Years

DHHS Department of Health and Human Services

DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

DRP Debt Risk Premium

DWQ Drinking Water Quality

DWQMP Drinking Water Quality Management Plan

EPA Environment Protection Authority

ERAWA Economic Regulation Authority of Western Australia

ESC Essential Services Commission of Victoria

ESCOSA Essential Services Commission of South Australia

FTE Full Time Equivalent

GBFA Gross Building Floor Area

HBT Health Based Target

IAP2 International Association for Public Participation

IPART Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales

LGA Local Government Area

LGAT Local Government Association of Tasmania

LGF Loan Guarantee Fees

LTSP Long Term Strategic Plan

MOS Management Operating System

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NPV Net Present Value

OCCC OTTER Customer Consultative Committee

Opex Operating Expenditure

OTTER Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator

PHA Public Health Alert

POA Price on application

PPI Producer Price Index

PSP2 Price and Service Plan 2 (1 July 2015 to 30 June 2018)

PSP3 Price and Service Plan 3 (1 July 2018 to 30 June 2021)

PSP4 Price and Service Plan 4 (1 July 2021 to 30 June 2024)

PSP5 Price and Service Plan 5 (1 July 2024 to 30 June 2027)

QCA Queensland Competition Authority

RAB Regulated Asset Base

RBA Reserve Bank of Australia

RFR Risk Free Rate

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

STP Sewage Treatment Plant

TasCorp Tasmanian Public Finance Corporation

TasCOSS Tasmanian Council of Social Service

TDWQG Tasmanian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines 2015

TER Tasmanian Economic Regulator

THA Tasmanian Hospitality Association

TSIC Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council

WACC Weighted Average Cost of Capital

WSAA Water Services Association of Australia

WTP Water Treatment Plant

WWMP Wastewater Management Plan