PLOWMAN, Mr Paul, Executive General Manager, Water and Environment Services, Sydney Water [14:31] CHAIR: Welcome. Do you have an opening statement for us? Mr Plowman : I do. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear today. Sydney Water is responsible for delivering water and managing wastewater for 5.6 million customers across Greater Sydney and the Illawarra. We are already managing competing demands for a growing city in a climate constrained environment and are planning to sustainably meet the future needs through significant, carefully staged investments. This includes new trunk infrastructure and greater use of rainfall-independent sources of water, such as recycled water. Sydney Water welcomes the opportunity to contribute to a shared understanding of how the growth in data centres can be supported in a way that balances the interests of our existing customers and delivers long-term benefits for New South Wales. Servicing the data centre sector requires a different approach when compared to traditional residential and commercial water servicing. Data centres have a different demand profile and require large volumes of water at very specific locations. They also require high levels of reliability to support continual operation. While this is different to business as usual, Sydney Water is well equipped to manage this and has adopted a core set of principles to cater for the emerging sector whilst sustainably servicing the community. Those principles are: existing customers should not bear any additional cost to support data centres, services should not be adversely affected by data centre demand and risk should not be transferred to existing customers. Based on these principles, charges for large water users such as data centres should reflect the economically efficient cost of supply and long-term system resilience through greater use of rainfall independent sources. Pricing mechanisms should also consider the long-term demand and also the cost uncertainties. This approach is consistent with the guidelines released by the New South Wales state government, which places a priority on water efficiency, using recycled water and the need to appropriately price data centre water supply and protect other customers from their cost impacts. Demand projections remain the greatest challenge in planning for data centre growth. Consumption information from existing data centres does not necessarily provide the baseline for future demand, particularly in the context of hyperscale facilities. We are reliant on the information that's provided by proponent applications, and we continue to refine our projections as we work with applicants to understand the factors that can influence both demand and the inherent feasibility of a given proposal. Sydney Water is working with government, industry and community to enable this growth in a way that's sustainable, equitable and in the public interest. Supplying water to new data centres provides opportunities also. Better utilisation of recycled water has the potential to reduce pressure on our constrained wastewater management system and our waterways. We're not ensuring that these sources represent new supply in the longer term nor supplanting the potential sources of rainfall-independent drinking water that will be necessary to cater for population growth. Sydney Water looks forward to supporting the committee's work and contributing to a balanced, future focused approach that supports economic growth but, most importantly, safeguards the water security of the people of greater Sydney. CHAIR: Thank you. Senator Ghosh, have you got any questions for Sydney Water? Senator GHOSH: Certainly. Water has been one of the major concerns raised by community about the advent and then the proliferation of data centres. What do you think are the biggest risks, from a water perspective, of data centres being rolled out in urban, semiurban and then regional areas? Mr Plowman : There are two elements to that. I would start by saying that a lot of discussion is around comparing how much drinking water might be used. I think it's really important to emphasise the fact that data centres don't need drinking water. They can use other sources of water, like recycled water. That goes to the comments around what the biggest challenges are—it's how quickly we can build the necessary recycled water schemes in order to supply the demands of data centres. There are some risks associated with that, as I suggested in my opening statement. Getting a good handle on what the demand's going to be is one of the challenges that we face. Senator GHOSH: How do you approach planning of that, when you've got a field or technology like data centres, where the technology is evolving? For instance, in respect of the use of water across the life of data centres even in the last five years, the water use profile has changed. Mr Plowman : There are a lot of factors that go into assessing the demand, and we've put a lot of time and effort into that. But it is certainly a different demand profile from what we're used to across the city. If you look at data centres more broadly, there are a number of factors that impact how much water a data centre is going to use. Fundamentally, that's a choice of cooling technology. That's the No. 1 decision, and data centres are making that decision based on their commercial imperatives but also maybe what's available from an electricity perspective wherever they're being developed. There are a number of other things that factor into that decision. That goes to the feasibility of an actual development going forward. If we aggregate all of the demand, it's also a function of how likely it is a particular data centre's going to head. We heard from the witnesses earlier about the consent issues that are going on that might push out the timeframe for a particular data centre, which then also affects our demand projections. So there are a bunch of factors in there. There are also market forces. Also, the electricity availability within where a particular data centre is planned can also affect the timing of when that happens. That all has—pardon the pun—a flow-on effect to calculating the demand for water. We do have a process in place where we rank all of the proposals and put a likelihood associated with them, to make the best educated guess we can on what that's going to do. But, until we enter into commercial agreements, there's some uncertainty. Senator GHOSH: Can I just pick up on something you said earlier? Is it your understanding that, with those cooling technologies, as you use less water, then you use more electricity? Or is that too simplistic? Mr Plowman : There are lots and lots of technology choices that data centres can make to do their cooling. Generally speaking, if you choose a technology that uses more water, you're probably likely to use less energy, less power, to cool your data centre. Senator GHOSH: Thank you very much. CHAIR: Senator Pocock, have you got questions? Senator DAVID POCOCK: I do. How much water do you provide to data centres currently? Mr Plowman : It's currently less than one per cent of average daily demand. Average daily demand is about 1,500 millilitres a day. I haven't got my calculator here, but it is about there. Senator DAVID POCOCK: And is that drinking water or recycled water? Mr Plowman : Absolutely, that's drinking water, most predominantly. There are a few very small data centres that use sewer mining technology. But, generally, it's drinking water. Senator DAVID POCOCK: And they just pay the going rate, or do they get a special— Mr Plowman : They pay commercial rates. There are no special rates; it's the same as what any commercial business would be paying. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Less than what Sydneysiders pay for their houses? Mr Plowman : I'd have to take that on notice, to find out exactly what the commercial rate is on a per capita basis. But, generally speaking, it's the same. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Thank you. You can take that on notice. You said that they can use recycled water, but it sounds like all of the water you currently provide is drinking water. Mr Plowman : Yes. But we've got multiple schemes that are in development now to be providing the recycled water, particularly as those hyperscale data centres start to come online, because it's not feasible to give potable water or drinking water. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Will they do that because it's cheaper or because they'll be forced to? Mr Plowman : It won't be cheaper. Senator DAVID POCOCK: So what's the commercial imperative for them? Mr Plowman : They've got the datacentre guidelines. If we don't have the capacity to service, there's no choice. So the commercial imperative is this: if you want your development to go forward, you're going to have to participate in the recycled water scheme. Senator DAVID POCOCK: What's your statutory obligation? If there's a data centre and a new housing development and they both need a meg of water, how do you decide who to provide it to? Is it first in, best dressed? Mr Plowman : Housing first. Senator DAVID POCOCK: That's in your obligations? Mr Plowman : I don't think you can categorise it as a binary option. Housing is our priority. But, as I said before, data centres are generally located in very specific areas. So you very, very rarely have to be making that decision, of either/or. In fact, I can't actually think of an example of either/or— Senator DAVID POCOCK: We just heard from the councils who are saying they're having to make that decision. It's either 'data centre' or, potentially, 'housing'. And this is a finite resource. CHAIR: In fact, the centre in Ultimo was used as the example in relation to power. Mr Plowman : I don't know of an example that I could give you, admittedly, where the response to proponents—we're not right at the front end, where planning decisions are made in terms of land use and things like that. But there is no trade-off that I can put my finger on where we've had to make a decision around, 'Do we give water to a data centre, or do we give water to a housing development?' CHAIR: Not yet! Senator DAVID POCOCK: What happens in the next big drought? If Sydney puts water restrictions in place and data centres can't use less water, do they just keep getting— Mr Plowman : Under the New South Wales guidelines, they'll still need to be the same as any commercial business. Under the agreement, the customer agreement that we have, they'll still be subject to water restrictions. Senator DAVID POCOCK: So, if a big drought really gets us, they'll keep using as much water as they use in this year, a wet year, and everyone else has to use less? Mr Plowman : No. I'm saying they'll still be subject to water restrictions. Senator DAVID POCOCK: How will you restrict water to a data centre? Mr Plowman : They'll have the same guidelines that any commercial organisation would have. Senator DAVID POCOCK: In practice, what does that mean though? Mr Plowman : We usually work with large water centres to get a bespoke water-saving plan—for example, if it were a laundry or something like that. Senator DAVID POCOCK: But these aren't laundries; these are data centres. Mr Plowman : No. I understand, but the same principles would go in place where we would— Senator DAVID POCOCK: But is there? My understanding is that—depending on the design, obviously—your water and electricity are fixed. Mr Plowman : Not necessarily. They can make their own operational decisions on what they prioritise within the data centre. I guess the principle is that they are going to have to try and save some water. It's not appropriate for the rest of the community to be trying to save water and them not. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Do you think there's a role for the Commonwealth in establishing national baseline energy and water efficiency metrics for data centres? Mr Plowman : Certainly, the New South Wales guidelines have water efficiency metrics attached to them, and I understand Victoria also recently put some in place. That's a very useful metric, particularly when you have a period of time before recycled water comes in. These are very important metrics to have. Senator DAVID POCOCK: One of the issues with energy is that these proponents are saying, 'Of course we'll invest in renewables and our own supply, but we want to build this thing in the next 24 months,' and those projects take five to 10 years. Mr Plowman : That's right. Senator DAVID POCOCK: I assume it's the same with water— Mr Plowman : It is, yes. Senator DAVID POCOCK: where they say, 'Yes, we'll eventually use recycled water, but in the meantime we want that sweet drinking water. Mr Plowman : That's right. Senator DAVID POCOCK: You said it's currently at one per cent. Do you have any visibility of what that's going to get up to over the next five to 10 years? Mr Plowman : It could be up to about five per cent. In that interim— Senator DAVID POCOCK: What date is— Mr Plowman : in the data centre guidelines, there's the requirement to enter into an offsetting scheme so we can try and save water either through leakage or other mechanisms or invest in that upfront to try and reduce down that five per cent until such time as we can get recycled water. Senator DAVID POCOCK: They have to pay for the offsetting. Mr Plowman : That's right, yes. CHAIR: I don't know how far you forecast, but between now and, say, 20230 how much of Sydney's water supply is going to be used by data centres? Mr Plowman : It could be up to five per cent. CHAIR: It could be up to five per cent of the entire— Mr Plowman : That's right. Senator DAVID POCOCK: In the next few years. Mr Plowman : 2030. CHAIR: And that's with the changes to the use of water that the proponents are suggesting. Mr Plowman : I should point out— CHAIR: Sorry. To be clear, I'm trying to understand whether five per cent is the best case or worst case. Mr Plowman : Worst case. I was about to answer that exact question. As I said, we're reliant on the wishes of proponents when they come in. That doesn't mean that it can be supplied, and it doesn't mean that we wouldn't be entering into restrictions and other ways to reduce the water. The guidelines also really emphasise the need, if you are going to use drinking water, to look at the technology that you use for, as we've said before, the water efficiency targets but also, quite clearly, to try and work towards closed-cycle cooling systems and alternatives. CHAIR: Sorry, Senator Pocock. Senator DAVID POCOCK: No problem. Finally, what changes are needed to better monitor the water use of data centres? Mr Plowman : Like any commercial business, we'll be putting meters on all of those so we'll be able to know, in real time, the water use. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Does the community know, or is that commercial in confidence? Mr Plowman : We haven't really started those things yet. That would be something we could take into consideration. Given that there are guidelines talking about water efficiency, we would monitor that to make sure that those guidelines are complied with. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Are guidelines enforceable, or are they guidelines? Mr Plowman : We're certainly operating as if they're the rules by which we're playing at the moment. We're treating them as rules. Senator DAVID POCOCK: If someone breaks them, what can you do? Mr Plowman : There are a whole bunch of planning processes that we've got, and there are all sorts of rules that we've got, under the act, to manage customers that aren't paying their bill or doing what they need to do. We have trade waste licences to manage the wastewater side of things. Ultimately, before data centres connect, they need to pay all of the necessary money so that we can use those instruments, as well. Senator DAVID POCOCK: You were saying to Senator Hanson-Young one per cent up to five per cent by 2030-31, so where does that four per cent come from? Who doesn't get that water? Mr Plowman : Sorry? How does it— Senator DAVID POCOCK: I assume you have a fixed amount of water, based on dams and— Mr Plowman : Yes. We're talking averages here. Increasingly, averages don't mean much when it comes to water management. For the last five years in Sydney we've had our dam at between 98 and 100 per cent, so there isn't an offset in those circumstances. As we've talked about already on droughts, that's when then everyone needs to pitch in and do their bit for managing water. Senator DAVID POCOCK: I'm not trying to be funny here, but just so I understand it: you've got, in any given year, 100 per cent of the water that you can allocate or sell. They're going to go from one to five per cent. I assume someone's currently using that four per cent that they're going to start using. How does that work in a water market? Where does that come from? Does the price of water go up? Mr Plowman : No, it doesn't go up. Senator DAVID POCOCK: So where does that water come from? Mr Plowman : It's shared across the whole city. I'm not quite sure I'm following. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Do you currently allocate all the water you can, or is there some left? Mr Plowman : No. That's why the dam stays at 100 per cent. It's not a resource that is a fixed amount every year. Sometimes you have wet years, so you've got as much as you need, and other years you don't. Senator DAVID POCOCK: But I assume you're planning for that drought year. Mr Plowman : Average year. CHAIR: An average year is different to a drought year. Mr Plowman : That's right. But we talked before about what we would do during a drought. Senator DAVID POCOCK: I'm still unclear, though. Are people not buying water that the data centres are then buying, or— Mr Plowman : There is no constraint at the moment. Senator DAVID POCOCK: I understand that, but these last four years have been very unusual, and we're potentially heading into what some people are calling a super El Nino. What happens then? Mr Plowman : I'll expand a bit more on the offsets program that I just talked about, because that's where the water savings come. For example, in Sydney at the moment, we have a leakage rate of around eight per cent of water, which is internationally very good but slightly above the average across the country. There's an opportunity there to invest, based on the fees that we've received from data centres on the offset program, in leakage management that would save us three per cent. So there's three-quarters of your four per cent there. Then there are other offset schemes around ramping up our desalination plant, for example, and keeping the dam full. That's the equivalent of a battery scheme. I think I'm getting to understand your question a little bit around how you manage your system to try and find that extra four per cent. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Is the offset scheme something that only data centres have to do, or is it all commercial? Mr Plowman : It's just data centres. We classify data centres as large water users, and the changing nature of the economy in Sydney and the Illawarra is that there have not been any large water users in the same way as data centres. Have I answered your question? Senator DAVID POCOCK: Yes, thank you. CHAIR: You talked about recycled water. We heard from AirTrunk that they're in conversations—and I assume that's with you, Sydney Water—about recycled water. What does that actually mean? Is there infrastructure that needs to be built to make that happen? Can you just unpack it. If these data centres are going to start using recycled water, is it already available? Mr Plowman : No. Well, there are some areas where recycled water is available but not to the scale that we're talking about. So it's exactly the same as you've probably been talking about with power. People are entering into power-purchase agreements to have renewable energy built. We need to do the same thing to expand our treatment plants and, indeed, build some new treatment plants to actually produce recycled water. That recycled water can't be done just anywhere, because of the scale. You actually need enough wastewater in the system to treat at the scale that you're talking about. So you build a treatment plant. To service the demand that we're contemplating at the moment, we have to upgrade two of our major treatment plants and potentially build another two recycled water plants to facilitate that. Then you have to build the transfer network to get the recycled water to the data centres. One of the things that we are lucky about at the moment is that some of those treatment plant upgrades are actually located in Western Sydney, where the proximity to some of these hyperscale proposals is not too far away. So it's an economically efficient way of producing it as well, which is why you are seeing AirTrunk saying they're interested in recycled water. CHAIR: That's obviously for their Western Sydney facility. What about here in Lane Cove? Is there recycled water currently available? Mr Plowman : There is no recycled water available at the moment. But Sydney Water is, in fact, in the midst of an EIS for the development of the Camellia advanced water recycling centre, which is just east of Parramatta on the Parramatta River. We have to build that facility anyway because of growth in the city and the capacity of the downstream assets. We had planned to build that facility in 2032 to relieve the pressure on the wastewater network. That facility can be repurposed for recycled water for anything north of the Parramatta River. But, of course ,you have to build the network, you have to build that facility and you have to do all of those things. So, to answer your question, there's nothing available right now, but there is the potential for recycled water in this particular area of the city. CHAIR: In reality, how long away is that? Mr Plowman : It totally depends on the uptake and some of the demand things that I was mentioning before. But it could be available between three and five years. The EIS has been timed to give us the opportunity. If there isn't a data centre demand, then we won't build the facility until 2032. But, if we can get a recycled water demand, we'll pursue that. CHAIR: And who pays for the infrastructure? Mr Plowman : The data centres. CHAIR: So it's not going to cost the taxpayer anything? Mr Plowman : No. But we would we would be building that facility anyway, so it's an incremental cost. So there's no increased costs to customers. Customers will get benefit out of that because we needed to build some of that facility anyway. CHAIR: Yes, but what I'm asking is different to thinking that a customer has to pay that versus the public has to pay. Mr Plowman : Sydney Water doesn't rely on public money to— CHAIR: So there'll be no asking the state government to foot any of this bill? Mr Plowman : No. It's total cost recovery, in line with the guidelines that the New South Wales government put out. All of those costs are recovered from data centres. CHAIR: How many data centre customers, or how many data centres—you must have an idea. You're not going to do it unless the demand is there. What's the sweet spot? Mr Plowman : We support the guidelines. You asked me the question: are they guidelines or are they rules? We see them as rules, and they will compel data centres to do that. With all of the other planning elements that we were talking about before, if they get through that process, recycled water will be there available for them to use. As you can imagine, to protect the broader customer base and the community from those costs, we need to make sure that we receive payment upfront for the water allocation that will allow us to then go and invest in the infrastructure. Again, with the principles I was talking about earlier about no transfer of risk to customers, if we are going to build that infrastructure, we want to have had people pay for the water allocation upfront. CHAIR: How many have done that so far? Mr Plowman : None so far, but, as I said before, that's because we've got one per cent—they're all small. Those big ones are going through the planning approval process at the moment. CHAIR: When do you expect that to finish? There must be some kind of deadline so that you can make a decision. Mr Plowman : Internally we are estimating that we'll start to get agreements early next year, but, again, there are so many commercial elements to that, so the timing is a little bit like, 'How long is a piece of string?' But we are in serious discussions with each of the proponents. CHAIR: In terms of testing of water once it's been used by the facility, who's in charge of that? Is it regular, is it independent and is it checked? Mr Plowman : We have trade waste agreements. There's a requirement under the Sydney Water Act that, if you're discharging from a commercial entity into our sewers, you have to meet certain standards and there are all these requirements. We actually ask proponents to give us that information as part of their application, so we know roughly—not roughly; we know exactly—what they intend to be able to do. At the moment, that water testing is still under our trade waste levels, but, as part of that trade waste agreement, we'll be continuing testing to make sure that they're meeting the obligations and what's under the license that we've given them. CHAIR: Is there any PFAS being found? Mr Plowman : I heard this morning that that was mentioned. It hasn't been anything that any of my experts has mentioned as being a particular issue, but I would say to the committee that we're concerned about any emerging contaminant that enters the urban water cycle because, at the end of the day, we need to manage it. So we'll keep our eye on that and get the necessary research done to really understand— CHAIR: I guess the concern people have is that, again, it comes to this cumulative impact. You might have this facility that's already here at Lane Cove and maybe that's not triggering levels of particular contaminants. But, once you have the Goodman one operating, how are you going to manage that? Mr Plowman : That's why we said our trade waste licence is taking a system perspective. Those limits are set for very good reasons and they're based on the system interactions— CHAIR: How regularly do existing proponents have to do that testing and give those results to you? Mr Plowman : It'll be on a case-by-case basis and within the individual agreements, but, as I said, the scale of what's already existing at the moment in data centres is relatively small compared to all of the other commercial customers that we have. CHAIR: Could I ask you to take on notice whether you could get back to us on the last two years' worth of testing in this area. You said it hasn't been raised with you by your experts, but there clearly are community concerns, and I think that, in the spirit of transparency, it might help. Mr Plowman : There's a bunch of stuff on our website. Are you talking about general—because at the moment— CHAIR: Whatever level you can give us, really. We've asked AirTrunk to give us their testing results. They've taken that on notice. Senator Henderson was asking them about that. What I'd like to know is how we can marry that up with the information that Sydney Water has. Mr Plowman : I'm not sure, so I'll take it on notice and see what data we have and where it's located, because it might be further downstream. CHAIR: Thank you. Senator Henderson. Senator HENDERSON: I thank you very much for your time. I just want to continue with the discussion in relation to contaminants in the water. I just want to be clear on this: has Sydney Water tested for chemicals being released from any data centre in Sydney? Mr Plowman : Not to my knowledge. Senator HENDERSON: So how then can you make statements in relation to the quality of the water going into the stormwater or sewerage if you're not doing that testing? Mr Plowman : I haven't come across any research or stuff that has said that PFAS is a particular issue coming out of data centres. Senator HENDERSON: Well, it is in the United States, as we've heard this morning. Mr Plowman : Sure. Senator HENDERSON: So are you concerned about the possibility of contaminants, including PFAS, being in the water and being released not just into the sewerage but into stormwater, rivers and lakes and the water system in Sydney? Mr Plowman : Absolutely. As I said, because it hasn't been raised by my technical experts, we don't have any research at the moment. But now it's been raised, we will make sure that we know, because I'm concerned. Senator HENDERSON: If you're concerned, I'd say to you: why haven't you been testing the water? And could I suggest that you start testing the water coming out of the data centres in Sydney. Mr Plowman : Sure. Senator HENDERSON: You will? That's a commitment? Mr Plowman : I'll take some technical expert advice on it, but what I can say is that, with you, I'm absolutely concerned and I'll take expert advice on how we should manage that risk. First of all, I'll take technical advice on identifying whether it's a risk or not, and after we've identified whether it's a risk or not, we absolutely will do that, because that's what we stand for. Senator HENDERSON: Terrific. Can I also suggest that you ask the data centres for their testing results, if they are testing the water. We heard from AirTrunk this morning, for instance, who said that they've got no concerns. But having no concerns is very different to understanding whether there are any contaminants in the water. So have you— Mr Plowman : I will add to that. In our— Senator HENDERSON: Sorry, Mr Plowman, have you requested any testing results from any data centre in relation to the water quality, particularly the water flowing into the system and, potentially, into rivers and lakes? Mr Plowman : Not to my knowledge, but I'll take it on notice to make sure. Senator HENDERSON: Okay. Can I ask why you haven't requested that testing. Mr Plowman : Mostly because we haven't identified it as a particular risk area. Based on a risk assessment, we haven't actually determined that PFAS is there. But throughout the course of this discussion, it's been quite clear that things have been raised, so I'll just say again that now it's been raised we will make sure that we understand the risks, and if we identify that there is a credible scientific based risk, we will absolutely— Senator HENDERSON: Rather than focus on the risk, given the risk in other jurisdictions, can I perhaps suggest that you immediately request the testing data from every data centre located in Sydney to determine what their own test results show. Mr Plowman : Noted. I'll take advice before I commit to that. Senator HENDERSON: Thanks, Mr Plowman. Are you aware we've had PFAS raised? Are there any other chemicals that potentially pose a risk that might be present in the water? Mr Plowman : Not to my knowledge at this point. But we are doing the scanning, and we have the proposed trade waste limits in there. Going back to my comment before to Senator Hanson-Young, our trade waste limits have about 100 hundred contaminants in there, and they are all based on working backwards from where we have to deal with it, all the way back up into the system. So they set a bunch of standards that we will ask data centres to comply with and that they will need to test to make sure they're complying with. Just remember— Senator HENDERSON: You've said that you're going to consider asking for the test results from every data centre. How long will that consideration take? There are lots of community members who are very concerned about this, so could I suggest to you that you should expedite your consideration and give communities clarity over that process? At the end of the day, people deserve that information, and you are the experts. You are running Sydney's water supply. You want to make sure that communities can be guaranteed that the water is clean and not contaminated. So how long would it take you to make that assessment before you go out to the data centres and say, 'Right, give us your data'? Mr Plowman : We will be requiring— Senator HENDERSON: I suggest it should be about 24 hours. Mr Plowman : Just as part of the trade waste licence, they have to supply their trade waste characteristics. They have to actually provide the monitoring, so that's already in place. What's been raised today are the specifics around PFAS. We do have what we call a waste acceptance standard for PFAS. They shouldn't be discharging PFAS into the system. But, based on what we've heard today, I will take it back and get my experts to provide some advice, and we'll look at the— Senator HENDERSON: To be fair, there's no evidence as such that PFAS is being discharged. CHAIR: But there is concern. Senator HENDERSON: But there is concern. Mr Plowman : Exactly. Senator HENDERSON: Therefore, I urge you to take this seriously, because the people of Sydney deserve to know that their water is not contaminated in any way. I think that should be very high priority. Mr Plowman : Can I just make sure we are talking about wastewater here—not water? Senator HENDERSON: I'm talking about water. What other sort of water are you talking about, rather than wastewater? Mr Plowman : I just wanted to make sure that we weren't talking about drinking water having any issues. I think what you're talking about is discharges to the wastewater system. Senator HENDERSON: I'm talking about discharges, but I also raise concerns in relation to water potentially entering lakes and rivers. I don't know that, but I'm just— CHAIR: Groundwater. Senator HENDERSON: Yes. I'm just suggesting that you need to— Mr Plowman : The reason I was asking the question for clarification was really because what we can monitor—because we are Sydney Water—is the trade waste discharges into the wastewater system. What I can't do is manage stormwater and any groundwater impacts that may have, because we're not the stormwater authority. So that's all I was asking. That's why I was just saying— Senator HENDERSON: What about the risk of other contaminants like diesel getting into rivers and lakes? Mr Plowman : It's not really our accountability, as the— CHAIR: That's EPA's. Mr Plowman : That's right. But what we do know is that, if there are hydrocarbons in the system, they can make their way into the wastewater system through various ways. Again, we manage that through our trade waste licence requirements. Hydrocarbons are one of the areas that we make sure of because we don't want that in the sewer. That's one of the things around diesel and so forth. We don't want any bunded areas, if there's a spill, just discharged into the sewer. Senator HENDERSON: Just for clarification, can I ask: is any wastewater being recycled at all and reused in any way? Mr Plowman : Yes. We have multiple recycled water systems across the city— Senator HENDERSON: And is any of that recycled water being used for drinking? Mr Plowman : No. Senator HENDERSON: So what's the use of the recycled water? Mr Plowman : We have lots of purple pipes schemes. That's for flushing toilets, gardens and landscaping. We've got multiple industrial uses as well. Senator HENDERSON: Do you tolerate any level of PFAS in wastewater? Is there a threshold? Mr Plowman : I can't remember off the top of my head. It is ubiquitous in the system. There are always traces of PFAS everywhere, so you can't have zero in the wastewater. You can't have zero in the wastewater, because, if you used shampoo this morning, it would have PFAS in there. It finds its way into the wastewater system. But we can treat for it. We do treat for those things where we know there is a particular risk area, particularly if it's— Senator HENDERSON: I'll look forward to your further answers on notice. I'm looking forward to the results of the accountability exercise that you'll run with the data centres in relation to their testing. CHAIR: Thank you for giving us your time today and your evidence. We have asked a lot of questions on notice, so our secretariat team will be in touch about how to facilitate getting them to us..