BLUE Drop
Overview of current requirements
SALGA / MILE / IMESA Training Workshop
Rodney Mashele
Depart: Water Affairs
Directorate: Water Services Regulation
To obtain certification,
a score of 95% is
required;
Blue Drop 2011 Requirements
This would include adherence to
Excellent Quality Requirements
as stipulated by the WHO
Guidelines
DWQ
Compliance (30%)
Monitoring
Programme (15%)
Process
Controlling (10%)
Analysis
Credibility (5%)
DWQ Data
Submission (5%)
DWQM
Publication (5%)
DWQ Asset
Management (15%)
Water Safety Plan Process &
Incident Response Management (15%)
2011 Blue Drop Performance
Blue Drop Assessment Progress
• In spite of the nr of water
supply systems increasing
from 787 to 914, evident
gradual improvement in the
manner DWQ is being
managed
• The national Blue Drop score
(calculated against
performance of all systems
assessed) increased to 72.9%
914
787
402
year 1
year 2
year 3
Blue Drop 2011 Performance
• 66 water supply systems obtained the coveted Blue
Drop certification. This is an increase of 73% on last
year’s 38.
• The number of systems scoring higher than 50%
increased from 370 to 536.
• BUT, there is still concern over the 378 smaller
systems that scored less than 50% (even though this
figure decreased from 417 for 2010).
Actual Drinking Water Quality
Compliance Comparison
99.50%
99.00%
99.50%
99.00% 99.00%
99.00%
98.50%
98.00%
97.30%
97.50%
97.50%
97.00%
96.50%
96.00%
Micro
Chemical
y2010
y2011
Physical
1. These compliance percentages
stems from the data for the
years 2009 and 2010, reported
in the BD reports of 2010 & 2011
respectively
2. The actual drinking water quality
compliance remained more or
less the same in spite of a huge
increment in number of analyses
performed
3. The tightening of SANS 241
might have an affect on the
compliance figures over next two
years
Actual Drinking Water Quality
Compliance Comparison
99.50%
99.00%
98.50%
98.00%
97.50%
97.00%
BDS Data Submission
• 2005 – 4 700
• 2007 – 610099.50%
• 2008 – 316 000 99.00%
• 2009 – 1 200 000
97.50%
97.30% – 1.7 mil
• 2010
• 2011 – 1.9 mil
99.00% 99.00%
96.50%
96.00%
Micro
Chemical
y2010
y2011
Physical
1. These compliance percentages
stems from the data for the
years 2009 and 2010, reported
in the BD reports of 2010 & 2011
respectively
2. The actual drinking water quality
compliance remained more or
less the same in spite of a huge
increment in number of analyses
performed
3. The tightening of SANS 241
might have an affect on the
compliance figures over next two
years
Blue Water Services Performance Audit
Regulatory Performance Management System (RPMS) - 9 KPI’s
Financial expenditure Jul 10 to Jun 2011
Jan to Dec 2011
Water
Supply
System
Water
Supply
System
Water
Supply
System
Water
Supply
System
1
2
3
4
System specific information, i.e.
System risks
Monitoring / compliance
Asset management (finance / staff)
KPI 5 & 6
KPI 7 – customer services
standards
= incident management
DWQ
Compliance (30%)
Monitoring
Programme (15%)
Analysis
Credibility (5%)
DWQ Data
Submission (5%)
Process
Controlling (10%)
DWQM
Publication (5%)
DWQ Asset
Management (15%)
Water Safety Plan Process &
Incident Response Management (15%)
KPI 8 – institutional effectiveness
= finance
= bylaws (WW)
= WSP process communication
= staff
= performance publication
KPI 9 – financial performance
= actual expenditure (O&M as
per KPI 10)
KPI 10 – asset management
= asset register
KPI 11 – water use efficiency
= amount in / amount out
KPA 1: Risk Management
(30%)
KPA 2: Process Management
& Control(15%)
DWQ
Compliance (30%)
Monitoring
Programme (15%)
Analysis
Credibility (5%)
DWQ Data
Submission (5%)
Process
Controlling (10%)
DWQM
Publication (5%)
DWQ Asset
Management (15%)
Water Safety Plan Process &
Incident Response Management (15%)
KPA 3: Drinking Water
Quality Compliance (30%)
KPA 4: Management,
Accountability & Local
Regulation (10%)
KPA 5: Asset Management
(15%)
Water safety
planning
PROCESS
a.) The Water Safety Planning Process is steered by a group of people that
includes the technical, financial and management staff of the municipality.
Where a WSP arrangement exist the WSA and WSP should partake in this
process.
b.) There should be clear indication that the water services institution
conducted a water safety planning process and not only drafted a document.
c.) There should be clear reference to the specific water supply system at hand
and not only global risk management measurements put in place.
Risk
assessment
a.) The Risk Assessment must cover both treatment and reticulation .
b.) The Water Services Institution (WSI) must provide information on findings
of the Risk Assessment (and detail Risk Prioritisation method followed) for the
specific water supply system including water resource quality. Format not
important but it should be proven not to be a desktop study.
c.)The Water Safety Planning process must include (adequate) Control
Measures for each significant hazard or hazardous event identified.
d.) A Water Quality Risk Assessment conducted for at least 80% of the SANS
241 list of determinands. This is to verify whether treatment technology is
adequate to treat the raw water to comply with national standard level.
Water Safety Planning Process and Risk Assessment
a.) Prove Operational Monitoring is:
i) Informed by the Risk Assessment
ii) Required sites to monitor: Raw water, after filtration (per process unit) and final
water.
iii) Determinands: pH, turbidity and disinfectant residual
iv) Frequency of analyses: at least once per shift (i.e. every 8 hours)
v) Equipment used + Evidence of calibration (or any other means of ensuring
credible readings for the past 3 years).
Risk-based
monitoring
programme
b.) Prove Compliance Monitoring is:
i) Informed by the Risk Assessment.
ii) Monitoring programme is registered on BDS.
iii) Actual monitoring occur according to registered BDS monitoring programme
(80%).
iv) Required sites monitored: Water works final & distribution network + Frequency
of analyses: Water works final according SANS 241; distribution monthly.
v) Coverage of population served must at least be 80%
Data credibility
Incident Management Protocol
1 Works classified according to Regulation 2834
2 Process Controllers must be Registered according
to Regulation 2834 (nr vs. requirement to operate
plant)
PROCESS
MANAGEMENT Introduction of Reg 17
& CONTROL 3 “Availability” of water treatment works logbook
PROCESS CONTROL BONUS
1 Microbiological (Overall, SANS 241: 2006)
2 Chemical (Overall, SANS 241: 2006)
Risk-based monitoring
Operational efficiency index
Compliance
1 Hard-copy vs BDS Data
2 Sufficient (11) months of data submitted
3 Management of continuous failures
SANS 241
• All requirements mandatory
• One standard limit, different risk categories
– Health risks = WHO guidelines
•
•
•
•
Risk Assessment– basis for own monitoring
Monitoring activity 1- compulsory
Monitoring activity 2- risk defined
Various compliance calculations
– Annual
– Risk defined
per determinand
Table 2:
Physical, aesthetic, operational & chemical
May have two limits
for different risks
Single limit per risk
SANS 241
• All requirements mandatory
• One standard limit, different risk categories
– Health risks = WHO guidelines
•
•
•
•
Risk Assessment– basis for own monitoring
Monitoring activity 1- compulsory
Monitoring activity 2- risk defined
Various compliance calculations
– Annual
– Risk defined
per determinand
Determinands & frequency of analyses
Monitoring activity 1
Table 1 — Minimum monitoring for process indicators
Determinand
Minimum monitoring frequency
Intake water
Final water
Distribution system
Conductivity or total
dissolved solids
Daily
Daily
Not applicable
pH value
Daily
Once per shift
Fortnightly
Turbidity
Daily
Once per shift
Fortnightly
Disinfectant residuals
Not applicable
Once per shift
Fortnightly
E. coli (or faecal
coliforms)
Not applicable
Weekly
Fortnightly but
dependent on
population served
Heterotrophic plate count
Not applicable
Weekly
Fortnightly
Treatment chemicals
Not applicable
Weekly
Fortnightly



Disinfection sustained at value defined by institution
If non-compliant, corrective action + follow-up sampling
Reduced variability of groundwater quality, analyse monthly
SANS 241
• All requirements mandatory
• One standard limit, different risk categories
– Health risks = WHO guidelines
•
•
•
•
Risk Assessment– basis for own monitoring
Monitoring activity 1- compulsory
Monitoring activity 2- risk defined
Various compliance calculations
– Annual
– Risk defined
per determinand
Verification of water quality
risk assessment defined indices
• Risk-defined tier 1 - associated health effect
(Microbiological and acute or chronic-Chemical)
• Risk-defined tier 2 - operational determinands
annual drinking water quality indices


Tier 1: Acute health – 1 microbiological
Acute health – 1 chemical
per determinand
Chronic health
Aesthetic
Tier 2: Viruses and protozoa
1 Microbiological (Overall, SANS 241: 2006)
2 Chemical (Overall, SANS 241: 2006)
Risk-based monitoring
Operational efficiency index
Compliance
1 Hard-copy vs BDS Data
2 Sufficient (11) months of data submitted
3 Management of continuous failures
1 Management commitment (signature):
Water Safety Plan; DWQ Monitoring Programme;
Water Treatment Plant Logbook; Operations and
Maintenance Budget; Water Services Development
Management, Plan
Accountability,
2 Publication
& Local
Regulation 3 Service Level Agreement
4 12-Month Data Submission
BONUS: Workplans aligned to O&M
1 ANNUAL PROCESS AUDIT
2 ASSET REGISTER
3 AVAILABILITY & COMPETENCE OF MAINTENANCE
TEAM
Asset
4 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE MANUAL
Management
5 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE BUDGET AND
EXPENDITURE
6 DESIGN CAPACITY vs.. OPERATIONAL CAPACITY
Thank you for your attention