In light of the newly announced ASCHEM pesticide monitoring programme for Tasmania (MR below), we question if DPIPWE are using the appropriate [best practice] instruments/methods for detecting a suite of pollutants in our waterways, and also ask the adequacy of the frequency of tests performed & timing (episodic and first flush events).
In its current form, the programme does not allow for the protection of public and environmental health in Tasmania.
This paper shows that grab sampling for many pollutants in waterways is inadequate and the use of passive samplers gives more realistic and representative results and does indeed detect far more pollutants.
It is important to note that individual pesticide monitoring does not address mixture toxicity or indeed water quality per se, and does not indicate compliance with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines with the requirement for no pesticides in raw drinking water.
It also does not address the issue of replacing more toxic pesticides with safer alternatives in Tasmanian water catchments.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.phptitle=Pollution_Information_Tasmania
What Bryan Green, MP Minister for Primary Industries and Water said:
Wednesday, 31 August 2011
Improving Testing of Tasmanian Waterways
The Minister for Primary Industries and Water Bryan Green today welcomed moves to strengthen monitoring of pesticides in Tasmanian waterways.
Mr Green said modifications to the Agricultural, Silvicultural and Veterinary Chemicals Council (ASCHEM) Pesticide Water Monitoring Program will begin to be implemented next month,
“This will improve the capacity of our resources to be able to test in catchments where there has only been limited testing in the past and where risk of contamination is deemed higher, Mr Green said.
“Tasmania is the only State in Australia with such a comprehensive State-based monitoring program for pesticides in water.
“The key objective of this program is to assess the quality of surface water for the protection of human health and environmental values from pesticide application.
Mr Green said that modifications to the program included a more targeted approach to which pesticides are monitored and where.
“As part of the review of the program we have removed monitoring at a number of sites where there have been no or a limited number of detections.
“Flood monitoring will also now be part of the “Targeted Monitoring component and managed in a more rigorous manner.
The current non targeted approach to flood monitoring (i.e. sampling for every high flow event) is financially unsustainable and not an effective or efficient use of resources.
“These changes will enable the program to prioritise those catchments and regions where there has been a previous detection of pesticides or there is a heightened risk of contamination.
The modified program is comprised of three components:
• Routine Monitoring – 47 sites are proposed to be monitored on a bi-monthly basis based on perceived risk of chemical contamination, primary use (i.e. drinking water) and/or lack of prior monitoring. The monitoring provides an overview of potential contamination issues across the State.
• Targeted Monitoring – Designed to provide short term intensive monitoring studies in catchments where historical data warrants intensive monitoring.
• Ground Water Monitoring – This monitoring will focus on those groundwater resources utilised by the water authorities and those sites where previous monitoring by this Department (DPIPWE) detected concentrations of some pesticides in its 2009 pilot study.
Mr Green said working with the State’s three regional water corporations to co-ordinate monitoring and data sharing would further enhance the program.
“This together with proposals to tighten spraying requirements around waterways will further protect drinking water catchments from pesticide contamination, Mr Green said.
Background:
Occurrence of Herbicides and Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products in Surface Water and Groundwater around Liberty Bay, Puget Sound, Washington
J. Environ. Qual. 39:1173–1180 (2010)
doi:10.2134/jeq2009.0189
Published online 9 Mar. 2010.
Received 22 May 2009.
*Corresponding author ([email protected]).
Extract
Passive samplers can provide important insight into the suite of contaminants present that grab sampling may miss due to episodic events or concentrations below the detection limits that could be toxicologically relevant (Alvarez et al., 2004; Togola and Budzinski, 2007).
The POCIS extracts were expected to have more contaminants present because of the integrative nature of the sampler and the expected low level of contaminants in this area. As anticipated, the contaminant level detected in grab samples was low, making the POCIS a necessary tool for assessing the contaminants in the main stream discharging into Liberty Bay. Th e use of these samplers in all the creeks would have provided a much more thorough picture of the contaminants present in the area.
reference
Alvarez, D.A., J.D. Petty, J.N. Huckins, T.L. Jones-Lepp, D.T. Getting, J.P.
Goddard, and S.E. Manahan. 2004. Development of a passive, in situ,
integrative sampler for the hydrophilic organic contaminants in aquatic
environments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23:1640–1648.
Togola, A., and H. Budzinski. 2007. Development of polar organic integrative
samplers for analysis of pharmaceuticals in aquatic systems. Anal. Chem.
79:6734–6741.
