PRESENTATION TITLE Presented by: Name Surname Directorate Date DRINKING WATER REGULATION Presented by: Rodney Mashele/Noxolo Ncapayi Date: 20 April 2016

2014 Blue Drop Report

Background Blue Drop Certification Programme – Incentive- based regulatory programme initiated in 2008 – seeks to amalgamate legal requirements and best practices within the domain of drinking water quality management towards sustainable improvement – Includes implementation of risk management

Background (cont) In spite of relatively good performance since inception, challenges remain in: – Process Controlling: Insufficient skilled process controllers; Vacancies – Monitoring: Inconsistent and Insufficient monitoring compromising good performance Data uploading on Blue Drop System( analytical results not loaded under correct programme or results not loaded at all) – Water Services Institutions not always sufficiently prepared for adverse incidents – Lack of investment on infrastructure (DWQM is underfunded) – Vandalism of infrastructure

2014 Blue Drop National Overview 1036 systems were assessed in 152 WSAs, 15 water supply system for two institutions (Kruger National Park- San Parks & Sun City- Private)

National Trends (cont)  There is general decline in BD score from 98 to 44 systems in 2014  The decline is as a result of:  Lack of compliance with chemical monitoring programmes as registered on the Blue Drop System  Lower scoring associated with limited application of the Water Safety Plans  The addition of the Water Efficiency (No Drop) criteria not present in previous years

Blue Drop Performance Trend

Provincial Performance ProvinceProvincial Blue Drop Score Gauteng92% Western Cape89% Kwa-Zulu Natal86% Free State75% Eastern Cape72% Mpumalanga69% Northern Cape68% North West63% Limpopo62%

2014 Blue Drop Requirements Blue Water Services CriteriaWeight Water Safety Planning35% DWQ Process Management & Control8% Drinking Water Quality Compliance30% Management, Accountability & Local Regulation10% Asset Management14% Water Use Efficiency & Water Loss Management3%

Provincial Performance  The Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Rand Water as Water Service Provider again achieved the top spot in the Province and is acknowledged and commended.  Five (5) WSAs in Gauteng achieved a Blue Drop score higher than 95%, while the remaining five scored higher than 84%.  Gauteng Provincial Blue Drop Score decreased since 2012 from 98.1% to 92.1% in 2014  The Blue Drop score in 9 WSAs decreased, the number of Blue Drops scored per water supply system almost halved from 16 to 9.  An exception to the above decline is evident in the Midvaal LM that improved their Score from 84% in 2012 to 95% in  Midvaal also for the first time, achieved Blue Drop Status in one of their systems i.e. Meyerton.  Municipal Blue Drop Score for City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality decreased slightly, but have managed to increase their number of Blue Drop Certified systems from 4 to 6.

2014 GP BD certified systems

Performance per KPA

KPA 1: 2014 BD Report Common Findings  Water Safety Planning Process should be brought to life and practices must be informed by the risk management principles  Inadequate risk assessment and risk prioritisation.  Risk prioritisation still regarded as theory not well understood.  WSAs may fail to justify control measures identified to reduce or eliminate the risks.  Lacking in the Implementation of control measures  Monitoring programmes registered in the Blue Drop System not risk informed.  Monitoring programmes not done according to the frequency registered in the Blue Drop System.  Incident management protocol should be discussed and understood by the WSIs Water Safety Planning Processes

KPA 3: 2014 BD Report Common Findings  Achieving the Blue Drop status without excellent Drinking Water Quality compliance could be impossible.  Achieving Drinking Water Quality compliance means the municipality has to meet  Microbiological,  chemical and  operational quality as stated on the Blue Drop requirements.  Full SANS 241 determinands need to be done as prescribed by the SANS 241 standard.  Please note that the Blue Drop System DWQ should be confused with an audit.  Compliance may be meaningless where few determinands were analysed per annum. Drinking Water Quality Compliance

KPA 4: 2014 BD Report Common Findings  Commitment should be supported by proof of documentation, technical staff should not take responsibility of this KPA.  Signature is not enough but implementation should serve as proof during the Blue Drop Audit.  Focus should be given to implementation of any plan.  Monitoring programmes are not signed but only registered on the Blue Drop System.  Water Treatment Logbooks should be signed by senior officials and without proof points may not be given to the municipality.  Operations and maintenance budget should be presented and reflect the size and type of the water supply systems. Management, Accountability & Local Regulation

KPA 4: 2014 BD Report Common Findings  The Department commends the Blue Drop Status or achievement being published to consumers but the publication of the DWQ performance publication should not be replaced by the Blue Drop performance.  DWQ performance at least once per annum should be published by the WSI.  DWQ Performance should indicate the compliance against the SANS 241 Standard and explained the risks associated with the water quality if there are any and further indicate what had been done by the municipality to improve the DWQ compliance with the Standard.  The Department emphasises that where the drinking water quality was compromised, the municipality should include it as part of communications.  In-time submission may affect your Blue Drop performance.  Contract Between WSA and Performance should be understood.  Performance Agreement between Manager or Technical Director should be clear Management, Accountability & Local Regulation

KPA 5: 2014 BD Report Common Findings  Comprehensive process audit should be conducted at least every 2 years.  The Process Audit should meet the MINIMUM requirements as prescribed on the Blue Drop Hand BOOK  Asset management need comprehensive information to be loaded loaded into the Blue Drop System (BDS).  Asset management should not be a once off exercise but a regular business within the municipality.  The 2014 BD Report shows that the information is available within the municipality but in most cases could not be presented because the information is seating with another office.  Water Services Budgets and expenditures in most cases cannot be justified left for interpretation. Asset Management

2014 Blue Drop Risk Rating

2014 BD Risk Rating  BDRR serves as a precautionary tool for water services authorities to implement strategic and operational decisions to improve service delivery or mitigate identified risks.  Blue Drop risk rating should not be confused with the Blue Drop performance, but the latter may not be achieved without meeting the requirements of the BDRR (water safety planning, technical skills, drinking water quality compliance).

Distribution of the number of systems per risk category  BDRR improved compared to 2012 as follows:  A reduction in the number of critical system from 234 systems to 26 systems.  The number of systems in the high risk category also decreased from 580 to 249.  At the same time the number of systems in the low risk category increased from 16 to 365.

Blue Drop Risk Rating

 The 2014 Blue Drop Risk Ratings for the Gauteng Province increased marginally from 13.71% to 17.03%.  The increased operating capacity (from 77% to 90%) as well as the Drinking Water Quality Risk Rating contributed to the increased Blue Drop Risk Rating.  The Drinking Water Quality Risk Rating increased from 13.30% in 2013 to 26.75% in  This was partially due to an adjustment made to the actual chemical water quality compliance in systems where insufficient chemical monitoring was undertaken.

Recommendations  The decline in systems moving out of critical risk category is encouraging even though there is a decline in systems achieving Blue Drop status. The ff interventions should be prioritized by WSAs:  Monitoring & data uploading to be prioritised and aligned to SANS 241  Implement water safety planning  Improve compliance of final water, and  Source relevant technical skills

Recommendations Medium to long-term interventions (WSAs):  Operational capacity (daily production vs Design capacity) within treatment plants need focused attention  Infrastructure asset management  Enhancement of funding to address  O& M, and  related financial investment aligned to technology in use & infrastructure  DWS to  continue monitoring compliance and undertake site visits (PO)  Enhance existing partnerships with COGTA & SALGA

Please note--  The Current Blue Drop certified systems do not guarantee the future Blue Drop status.  It’s the responsibility of the WSA to maintain its Blue Drop status by committing itself to implement both the legal requirements and best practice.  Remember the evidence should be on the Blue Drop System for everyone to see!!  Data submission to the Department is a legislative requirements.  The Department is in the process of finalising the 2014 Blue Drop PAT and the Blue Drop Report should be expected to be release before the end of the year.

THANK YOU