1. Generic risk assessment tool Dr David Cunliffe Principal Water Quality Adviser SA Health

2. Background  WSPs provide a systematic approach for assessing risks to water quality and identifying appropriate management plans.  However, operators of small community water supplies do not always have the expertise or resources to undertake risk assessments  A generic RA tool would help address this problem.  The tool should be targeted towards an audience with some knowledge of water systems (operators/regulators) e.g. public health/environmental health officers, local/regional authorities etc  Training and field guide materials in Phase 2 (increase reach)

3. Australian tool  Health Canada reviewed existing tools and found that the Australian Community Water Planner provided a useful platform. The Aust tool incorporates many features of WSPs (not surprising)  However, the Australian tool needs redevelopment. This includes: o broadening the scope (more required on chemical quality) o improving international applicability (e.g. range of sources and supplies, terminology) o Including more information on operator qualifications o coverage of household elements o risk prioritization  The Australian tool includes some modularisation to reduce complexity for the user but this needs enhancement  The Aust tool is CD based and written in an old language

4. Gap analysis  Health Canada circulated written materials from the Australian tools seeking input into the gap analysis from SCWSM network members  Contractors have been engaged to use this feedback and further review of existing material to broaden applicability considering conditions in regions such as: o Western Pacific o Sub-Saharan Africa o South East Asia o Arctic o Sth America  Issues being assessed include: o catchments and source water (types and protection) o treatment technologies o distribution, collection and storage  Outputs available January 2011

5. Australian developments  Original CWP focussed on microbial quality. A 2 nd web-based tool has been developed to deal with chemical, physical and radiological quality  The new tool is written in a more up-to-date language which has wider use. It includes some features considered desirable for the International tool including: o risk prioritization and o enhanced modularization  Prior to release of the 2 nd tool a 3 rd tool started development. The aim is to combine the CD based microbiological tool with the web-based chem, phys radiological tool. The same contractor and software company has been retained  There are selfish Aust drivers for the 3 rd tool but it should be useful for the project (newer language, wider range of parameters, lessons learned). Will be completed in 2010

6. Next steps – content selection  Physical features o parameters (health-based, aesthetic, operational, micro, chem, physical, radiological) o source types o treatment technologies o distribution (carting, standpipes etc), storage and collection  Risk evaluation ocritical hazards and associated risks orisk prioritization (method/cut-off, risk-consequence? qualitative, semi quantitative ?)  Risk management guidance oproactive, reactive/corrective omonitoring (testing, observational) opublic involvement oimprovement programs

7. Tool development  Tool functionality o software platform, paper based tools o Logic structure and design  Tool practicality o ease of understanding/use (level of detail?) o time to complete o Relevance to common situations and target audience  Information input and output formats  User guides  Internal and external pilots  Implement dissemination strategy Target 2012