Blue Drop Certification Programme as an incentive based PRESENTATION regulation TITLE for drinking water Presented by: Name Surname Directorate Presented by: Sharon Ramodipa Directorate: Drinking water regulation Date Date: 31 July 2017
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) Challenges experinced in this Programme remain in: Process Controlling: Insufficient skilled process controllers; Vacancies. Monitoring: Inconsistent and Insufficient monitoring comprising good performance Data uploading Water Services Institutions not always sufficiently prepared for adverse incidents. Lack of investment on infrastructure (DWQM is underfunded)
2014 Blue Drop National Overview 1036 systems were assessed in 152 WSAs, 15 water supply system for two private institutions Immense improvements observed since 2008 (see trends)
National Trends Performan ce Category National BD Score Number of WSAs assessed Number of systems assessed Number of Blue Drops awarded 2009 2010 2011 2012 2014 Current analysis 51.4 67.2 72.9 87.6 79.6 107 153 162 153 152 402 787 914 931 1036 25 38 66 98 44
Average Provincial Blue Drop Score There is general decline in BD score from 98 to 44 systems in 2014 This may emanates from; 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.
Water Safety planning performance Water Safety Planning is seen as a strategic approach for pro-active management of risks in the water business. Water Safety Planning constitute 35% towards the Blue Drop score. Water Safety Planning scored a good compliance for the 1036 systems assessed.
Provincial Performance Province Provincial Blue Drop Score Gauteng 92% Western Cape 89% Kwa -Zulu Natal 86% Free State 75% Eastern Cape 72% Mpumalanga 69% Northern Cape 68% North West 63% Limpopo 62%
Blue Drop Performance The Department has seen decline of the Blue Drop status by more than 50% and this is a major concern. The Department has identified systems that are in critical state which have been prioritised as part of intervention to improve performance Improvements can be achieved in drinking water quality management throughout the country if the principles of water safety planning are followed.
LABORATORY REQUIREMENTS IN BD 4. Credibility of DWQ data 5. Incident Management a) Certificate of Accreditation for applicable methods OR Z-scores results ( z- scores must be 2 & 2 are acceptable) in a recognised Proficiency Testing Scheme. b) DWQ Data credibility on the BDS (Blue Drop Certified Data) Protocol to specify: (1) alert levels, (2) response times, (3) required actions, (4) roles & responsibilities, (5) communication vehicles/methods and (6) must include response on possible risks identified in the Risk Assessment of the Water Safety Planning process Incident Register to include: (7) Date, location and description of incident, (8) Action taken and date of resolution, (9) Outcome of cause investigation BONUS: Sampler's Training- BONUS: Incident Management Protocol Communication- To be eligible for this bonus, WSI s must provide proof of training of samplers or Sampling Quality Control measures (Name the Sampling Training Course, Duration, Service Provider, and detail of Attendees) 1) Evidence of relevant sampling training that will ensure credibility of the sampling process; or 2)Evidence of control measures to ensure sampling credibility Communication on the Incident Management Protocol process with all relevant staff within the Municipality
Water Services Institutions to note All water quality failures to be loaded on BDS (only DWA can give permission for data to not be submitted) Authorised data (SANAS accredited laboratories) DWA should give permission for data not to be loaded, i.e. failure data confirmed to be laboratory errors Incident Management Protocol- - The term confirmed data / incident as used in protocols not to be confused with ALL water quality failure data which needs to be submitted to DWS - Take good precaution, Don t cause unnecessary panic unless a water quality failure has been confirmed
5C Samples of water quality 1. A water services institution must collect water samples PROPOSED REGULATION 5 2. Samples collected by a water services institution must be analysed in an accredited laboratory or a laboratory that participate in Proficiency Testing Scheme 3. The results of samples contemplated in subregulation (2) must be submitted to the Minister within thirty (30) days after analysis has been conducted in the laboratory or on request by the Minister 4. The results of the water quality monitoring programme implemented by a water services institution must comply with the limits contemplated in SANS 241 5. Where the laboratory results indicate that the water supplied poses a health risk to consumers, water quality non-compliance shall be confirmed within thirty six (36) hours. The water services provider must, within twelve (12) hours of the confirmation of non-compliance, inform the- (a) Water Services Authority Minister, and Member of the Executive Council responsible for the Provincial Health, Of the health risk.
Blue Drop Risk Rating
2014 BD Risk Rating This BD report also provide details with respect to risk management through the Blue Drop risk rating (BDRR) tool which serves as a precautionary tool for water services authorities Informs WSAs about possible risks and the level thereof within supply systems that may impact negatively on the supply of drinking water It empowers WSAs 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, note BDRR does not influence Blue Drop score but the latter may not be achieved without meeting the requirements of the BDRR. BDRR improved compared to 2013 with systems in low risk category increasing from 16 to 365 in 2014 whilst those in critical risk rating category decreased from 234 in 2013 to 26 in 2014.
Distribution of the number of systems per risk category 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.
Why measure Risk? The tool was developed to ensure a uniform measurement of all systems across the country Are we complying with Regulation 17? Are we complying with SANS 241 (or any limits set by the Department)? Do we manage DWQ according to the principles of risk management
Formula
BDR (%) = (0.25A + 0.25B + 0.5C) / BDR max x100 A = Annual Average Production (Operational) capacity RR X Population RR
POPULATION RISK FACTOR: The larger the population served by the water supply system, the larger the impact should any hazardous event occur in the system (this impact could be the nr of people affected by disease) No Info 9 9 18 27 45 63 81 81 1 000 000 & more 9 9 18 27 45 63 81 81 500 000 <1 000 000 7 7 14 21 35 49 63 63 100 000 - <500 000 5 4 10 15 25 35 45 45 50 000 <100 000 3 3 6 9 15 21 27 27 1 000 <50 000 2 2 4 6 10 14 18 18 <1 000 1 1 2 3 5 7 9 9 1 2 3 5 7 9 9 <90% 90% - <95% 95% - <98% 98% - <100% 100% - <105% 105% & More No Info TREATMENT CAPACITY / EFFICIENCY RISK FACTOR: Should the water treatment operational capacity exceed the design capacity, it increases the impact should there be any process control incident (public health risk)
BDR (%) = (0.25A + 0.25B + 0.5C) / BDR max x100 B = Works RR X (Process Control RR + Supervisor RR + Maintenance RR)
Drinking Water Quality Risk Rating The DWQ Risk Rating consist of 2 components: 1. Actual DWQ Quality Risk Rating: a) The Annual Microbiological (E. coli / Faecal coli / Protozoan parasites) compliance with SANS 241 (50%) b) The Annual Chemical-health determinand compliance with SANS 241 (20%) c) The Risk-defined Compliance (30%) 2. Water Safety Planning Risk Rating: a) Risk management (implementation) as per the Water Safety Planning Process (60%) b) Monitoring Compliance (20%) c) Full SANS Risk Assessment (20%)
Recommendations The following interventions should be prioritized by WSIs: Monitoring & data uploading to be prioritised and aligned to SANS 241; Implement water safety planning to improve risk management; Improve compliance and adherence to registered monitoring programmes; Source relevant technical skills; and Improve asset management including operations & maintenance 22
THANK YOU