BLUE Drop. Overview of current requirements

Similar documents
HAZARD ANALYSIS AND CRITICAL CONTROL POINTS FOR WATER SUPPLIES. Kevin Hellier. Melbourne Water Corporation

4) Data sources and reporting ) References at the international level... 5

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point The Almond Board of California. Overview. Definitions

Quality Assurance Scheme

Case Study on Water Safety Plan Implementation and Lessons Learned. Auditing WSPs in Victoria, Australia

Monitoring and Assessment of Microbiological Quality. Session Objectives

A FIELD TEST FOR ASSESSING THE MICROBIAL QUALITY OF WATER: AN H 2 S STRIP TEST B Genthe and M Franck

Universidad Centroamericana José Simeón Cañas Dept. of Process Engineering and Environmental Sciences

Thames Water AMP6 Outcomes Reporting Policy Annex 2 Wholesale. Asset Health Control Limits & Failure Thresholds March 2015

Drinking Water Monitoring Programme Audit Report

Drinking-Water Systems Regulation O. Reg. 170/03

Physicochemical and microbiological quality of water from a pilot domestic rainwater harvesting facility in Ireland.

In May of this year, the state Department of Health adopted a new rule that defines how emergency water sources can be used (Exhibit 2).

Alberta Health Drinking Water Regulation Survey. March 2015

Virginia Department of Health Office of Drinking Water

Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report 2016

4.05. Groundwater Program. Chapter 4 Section. Background. Follow-up to VFM Section 3.05, 2004 Annual Report. Ministry of the Environment

A Comparison of the Bacteriological Quality of Drinking Water for the City of Johannesburg in the Wet and Dry Season

Asset Risk Management Journey Plan

Drinking-Water Systems Regulation O. Reg. 170/03

Water quality monitoring and assessment: general principles and fitness for purpose

Environmental Management Chapter ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER DIVISION - WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

Self-Evaluation/Audit Checklist for Food Supplement Manufacturers

Monitoring and Assessment of Chemical Quality. Session Objectives

Annual Report. December 2010 November Bradley Cole 2/7/2012

Indicator Fact Sheet (WEU10) Drinking Water Quality

PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM ANNUAL REPORT

Health and Safety Management Standards

Section 11: Water treatment and related matters

Drinking Water Quality Management Plan Report Seqwater (SP507) Drinking Water Quality Management Plan

DWQMS Form Sault Ste. Marie DWS Annual & Summary Reports 2016

Microbiological Quality: Understanding Drinking Water Quality and Management

EPA Federal Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) Public Water System Training Workshop

Report on 2011 NPCC Culture of Compliance Survey Initiative

The Regional Municipality of Durham. Port Perry Drinking Water System 2017 Annual Report

SQF 2000 Food Safety Management System Implementation Workbook

Terms of Reference for Assessment of Water System Infrastructure and Water Supply Sources for Semi-Public Water Systems

GROUNDWATER MONITORING AT FORMER FCC SITE, MAPUA FEBRUARY 2010 SAMPLING UPDATE

Drinking-Water Systems Regulation O. Reg. 170/03

FRAMEWORK FOR IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Dynamic Reallocation of Portfolio Funds

Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards

AEROSPACE STANDARD. Quality Systems - Aerospace - Model for Quality Assurance in Design, Development, Production, Installation and Servicing

DRINKING WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

NOVEL APPROACHES TO TRIHALOMETHANE MANAGEMENT. Dr Rino Trolio. Water Corporation (WA)

Drinking Water Annual Report City of Kelowna

Drinking Water Quality Report

California Leafy Greens Handlers Marketing Agreement (CA LGMA) Water Provisions

North Dakota s Nutrient Reduction Strategy. Presented to the 2016 ND Water Quality Monitoring Conference March 4, 2016

On-Site Sewage Systems Maintenance Inspections

Metrics in Microbiology Monitoring Practices

CITY OF ST. LOUIS Water Quality Report 2016

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR CITY OF JOHANNESBURG CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

The roadmap to EU-MDR Implementation

Reliability Improvement using Defect Elimination

EVENT-BASED PATHOGEN ASSESSMENT IN A DEGRADED CATCHMENT. Heidi Josipovic. North East Water

Guidelines for setting water tariffs

RUWACON QUALITY MANUAL

What Determines water Quality? Well Maintenance Well water Testing AZ survey on individual systems water quality Final remarks

2016 Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals

CERTIFICATION AND FINANCING PROPOSAL

AAMI Quality Systems White Paper: Comparison of 21 CFR Part 820 to ISO 13485:2016 1

Analytical Quality Control:

FSC36 SAFE FEED/SAFE FOOD GUIDANCE DOCUMENT

BRC Global Standard for Food Safety Position Statements

ISO 22000:2005 SYSTEMKARAN ADVISER & INFORMATION CENTER SYSTEM KARAN ADVISER & INFORMATION CENTER FOOD SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ISO 22000:2005

CSO Monitoring and The Environment Agency

CITY OF LONDON ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPERATIONS GREENWAY POLLUTION CONTROL CENTRE 2013 ANNUAL REPORT

Health and Safety Targets, Measures and Plans Guideline

PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE PLAN (FINANCE) MADE AND ENTERED INTO BY AND BETWEEN THE THABA CHWEU LOCAL MUNICIPALITY AS REPRESENTED BY

i

Medical Device Regulatory Framework 9 SEPTEMBER 2015 FUNDISA CONFERENCE JANE ROGERS

Position Description

WATER REQUIREMENTS IN SOUTH AFRICA AND THE ROLE OF WATER BOARDS

REPORT 2014/148 INTERNAL AUDIT DIVISION. Audit of the recruitment process at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

Effect of holding time on E.coli Densities in Wastewater Samples

Internal Policy. Policy Title: Applies to: Reference #

EDICT ± OF GOVERNMENT

Side by Side Piloting of Process Alternatives Yields Direct Performance Comparison

Phil Mashoko(Pr Eng) Director: W & S City of Cape Town South Africa

Food Regulatory Guide

YOUR CERTIFICATION PROCESS EXPLAINED

Health-based targets should assist The judgement of safety or what is a

MARK CREEK DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

STAATSKOERANT, 1 DESEMBER 2017 No DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY NO DECEMBER 2017

Steamboat Springs 2013 Drinking Water Quality Report For Calendar Year 2012

Quality Assurance and Improvement Program (QAIP)

PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT MADE AND ENTERED INTO BY AND BETWEEN: THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY AS REPRESENTED BY THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED. This paper is presented in line with the internal audit contract with Scottish Police Authority

4.1 This directive is issued under the authority of the Assistant Deputy Minister, Socio-Economic Policy and Programming and Program Re-design.

ROLE DESCRIPTION. Strategic Procurement Manager

City of Bellevue Water Department Drinking Water Consumer Confidence Report

Examining the New SQF Quality Code: How to Comply by the January Deadline

DWQMS Procedure QP-01 Document & Records Control

Microbiological criteria and shelf-life. ...Current legal situation

2013 Restoration Verification Audit Program Procedure Manual

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS. No. R August 2013 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: WASTE ACT, 2008 (ACT NO.

CLEAR JUICE TURBIDITY MONITORING FOR SUGAR QUALITY

Tara Water Works Operation and Maintenance Annual Report February 2017

Reforestation in grassland areas of Uchindile, Kilombero, Tanzania & Mapanda, Mufindi, Tanzania

Transcription:

BLUE Drop Overview of current requirements SALGA / Ethekwini / MILE / IMESA Training Workshop Mariette Swart Depart: Water Affairs Directorate: Water Services Regulation

Blue Drop 2011 Requirements DWQ Compliance (30%) To obtain certification, a score of 95% is required; This would include adherence to Excellent Quality Requirements as stipulated by the WHO Guidelines Monitoring Programme (15%) Analysis Credibility (5%) DWQ Data Submission (5%) DWQ Asset Management (15%) DWQM Publication (5%) Process Controlling (10%) 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 Series1

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% 98.50% 98.00% 97.50% 97.00% 96.50% 96.00% 97.30% 97.50% 99.50% 99.00% 99.00% 99.00% Micro Chemical Physical y2010 y2011 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

Water Safety Planning 1. A concept introduced by the World Health Organization (WHO) to ensure that all possible risks are managed to ensure the continued supply of safe drinking water. 2. South Africa noted as one of the countries in the world where this concept is developing fastest (WHO and International Water Association). 3. Even though 490 systems were found to have water safety plans in place, the Blue Drop Process revealed that 349 adhered to acceptable implementation requirements. Status of Water Safety Plan 200 180 160 140 120 76 26 29 48 100 80 60 40 20 0 55 54 19 24 33 15 12 34 100 KZN FS LMP NC WC EC GP MPU NW 86 9 28 36 67 22 3 7 21 25 29 12 4 23 Unsatisfactory 0-29% Satisfactory 30%-60% Acceptable >60%

Blue Water Services Performance Audit Regulatory Performance Management System (RPMS) - 9 KPI s Financial expenditure Jul 10 to Jun 2011 Water Supply System Water Supply System Water Supply System Water Supply System Jan to Dec 2011 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%) Water Safety Plan Process & Incident Response Management (15%) Process Controlling (10%) DWQM Publication (5%) DWQ Asset 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%) DWQ Compliance (30%) Monitoring Programme (15%) Analysis Credibility (5%) DWQ Data Submission (5%) Water Safety Plan Process & Incident Response Management (15%) Process Controlling (10%) DWQM Publication (5%) DWQ Asset Management (15%) KPA 2: Process Management & Control(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

Risk-based monitoring programme 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). 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

PROCESS MANAGEMENT & CONTROL 1 Works classified according to Regulation 2834 2 Process Controllers must be Registered according to Regulation 2834 (nr vs. requirement to operate plant) Introduction of Reg 17 3 Availability of water treatment works logbook PROCESS CONTROL BONUS

1 Microbiological (Overall, SANS 241: 2006) 2 Chemical (Overall, SANS 241: 2006) Compliance Risk-based monitoring Operational efficiency index 1 Hard-copy vs BDS Data 2 Sufficient (11) months of data submitted 3 Management of continuous failures

Management, Accountability, & Local Regulation 1 Management commitment (signature): Water Safety Plan; DWQ Monitoring Programme; Water Treatment Plant Logbook; Operations and Maintenance Budget; Water Services Development Plan 2 Publication 3 Service Level Agreement 4 12-Month Data Submission BONUS: Workplans aligned to O&M

Asset Management 1 ANNUAL PROCESS AUDIT 2 ASSET REGISTER 3 AVAILABILITY & COMPETENCE OF MAINTENANCE TEAM 4 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE MANUAL 5 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE BUDGET AND EXPENDITURE 6 DESIGN CAPACITY vs.. OPERATIONAL CAPACITY

South African National Standard (SANS 241) for Drinking Water 2011 SALGA / Ethekwini / MILE / IMESA Training Workshop Mariette Swart Depart: Water Affairs Directorate: Water Services Regulation

South African National Standard (SANS 241) for Drinking Water 2011 Fundamental changes Class I limits - suitable for lifetime consumption Class II limits - maximum allowable for limited duration were used as acceptable limits for normal operation Application information was an Informative Annexure, i.e. non-mandatory

Principles Overall objective is the protection of public health Based on WHO limits: All health-related WHO limits should be maintained LATEST TO APPLY Aesthetic limits can be slightly relaxed if there is a significant economic implication of a more stringent limit

SANS 241: 2011 Standard divided into SANS 241 1 and SANS 241-2: Part 1 includes the numerical limits Part 2 is the application of SANS 241-1 Both Parts are Normative i.e. mandatory

SANS 241: 2011

Microbiology Table 1 Determinands classified according to risk Single limit, not statistical approach

Table 2: Physical, aesthetic, operational & chemical May have two limits for different risks Single limit per risk

Other Changes Additional determinands required to be monitored, for example uranium, algal toxins Some limits are more stringent, for example Cadmium from 10 µg/l (2006) to 3 µg/l (2011)

Analysis Any method is acceptable which can offer the necessary limit of quantification with regard to: Trueness Precision Limit of detection Test-kit methods may be used, particularly for operational monitoring, if they offer the required performance

SANS 241: 2011

Management actions to achieve the numerical limits specified in SANS 241-1 Responsibility WSA / WSP Conventional treatment plants Borehole systems minimum requirements

Key elements for management actions 1. water quality risk assessment intake water to point of delivery 2. routine monitoring operational & compliance (location of sampling points, frequency & determinands) 3. response monitoring incident management / increased monitoring of DWQ following non-compliance 4. verification of water quality calculate compliance with numerical limits; and 5. water safety plan address outcomes of above planning process

Water quality risk assessment Identify & document all potential hazards & risks in the supply chain Hazards grouped according impact on human health and quality of the water determinands with acute health impacts determinands with chronic health effects organic or radionuclide contaminants have an aesthetic impact of operational importance Pending the nature of the risks identified implement adequate MONITORING of all risks + corrective / VERIFICATION measures

Water quality risk assessment Analyse for all water quality determinands listed in tables 1 & 2 of SANS 241-1:2011 + Additional determinands anticipated to be in the water Catchment land uses and activities Analysis on intake waters should exclude those determinands formed only after treatment

Frequency ensure that all spatial & temporal risks are apparent (minimum annually) periods anticipated with most unacceptable intake water quality during peak demand in the event of the following situations: occurrence of any change in the intake water supply potentially leading to the institution not complying with SANS 241; after a failure of any component of the treatment process potentially leading to the institution not complying with SANS 241; a new or refurbished treatment system is put into service; a new distribution system is altered or re-commissioned such that information on all spatial & temporal risks are not available

Location A WQ risk assessment shall provide info on WQ at the following locations: water abstracted for purification intake water water emanating from a treatment plant final water representative points of delivery from water services providers; and representative points of delivery to consumers distribution zone to ensure 80% coverage of supply system each distribution zone monitored at its furthest supply point (includes outlets from reservoirs and towers)

Interpretation Sample point Action Intake Water Final Water Treatment insufficient Address with control Monitoring activity 1 + Monitoring activity 2 Intake Water Final Water Adequate treatment Verify ongoing treatment Monitoring activity 1 + Monitoring activity 2 Intake Water Final Water Risks within acceptable limits Monitoring activity 1 + Annual analyses of all other determinands listed in SANS 241-1 Intake Water Final Water Added to the water during the treatment process (aluminium, iron, disinfectant residuals) Monitoring activity 1 (treatment chemicals) Optimise treatment Input points to contracted bulk Distribution delivery points to customers Monitoring activity 1 + Monitoring activity 2

Routine monitoring a) Activity 1 (routine monitoring) b) Activity 2 (follow-up on the risk assessment)

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

Determinands & frequency of analyses Monitoring activity 1 Minimum sample numbers for E. coli (or faecal coliforms) in distribution systems Population served Total number of samples per month* (minimum) < 5 000 2 5 000 to 100 000 1 per 5 000 head of population 100 000 to 500 000 1 per 10 000 head of population 500 000 1 per 20 000 head of population * During the rainy season, sampling should be carried out more frequently to ensure that all spatial and temporal risks are apparent

Determinands & frequency of analyses Monitoring activity 1 Frequency of analyses for determinands identified during the risk assessment exceeding the numerical limits in SANS 241-1 Risk Frequency Infrastructure optimisation Acute health 1 Weekly Ensure optimised Acute health 2 Monthly functioning of infrastructure Chronic health Monthly Infrastructure change If problem is not resolved, obtain necessary infrastructure Aesthetic Operational Monthly Weekly Monitoring to continue until such time that the identified determinand no longer constitutes an unacceptable risk

Water Safety Plans "move away from the mindset of monitoring to verify the quality of water with the assumption that the water is safe, toward one of monitoring to detect contamination most effectively with the knowledge that contamination potential is always present. This requires information that will increase the understanding of the entire water supply chain and provide improved insight on hazards, risks, treatment performance and overall vulnerability of the water supply chain"

Thank you for your attention