EWS and its performance in the Blue Drop / Green Drop Programmes

WATER & SANITATION April 2013

BDS First in KZN!

th 4

in the Country!

2012 Blue Drop Scores

Overall

98.79 100 98

Water Safety Planning

Treatment Process Management DWQ compliance Management Accountability Asset management

100
100 94

GDS RESULTS 2010/11

First in Kwa-Zulu Natal Best wastewater works in the country Fourth in the country Highest ranked Metro

90.6% overall Municipal Green Drop Score 9 Green Drops obtained Greatest volume of effluent at GD quality

NATIONAL TOP 10 GDS PERFORMERS

1 Green Drop Tlokwe LM Score 97.0%

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Bitou LM George LM eThekwini Metro City of Johannesburg Witzenberg LM Beaufort West LM Overstrand LM Mossel Bay LM City of Cape Town

96.4% 91.0% 90.6% 90.5% 89.7% 89.5% 88.8% 88.6% 86.8%

NATIONAL RESULTS 2010/11

Programmes are NOT

Just water quality Easy Cheap A competition run once a year Superficial Merely a Nice to have

They are
Thorough Challenging Progressive Legislated

A measure of

EXCELLENCE

2012-13 BDS Assessment GDS Audit

BDS ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

KPA 1: Risk Management
KPA 2: Process Management & Control

KPA 3: Drinking Water Quality Compliance

KPA 4: Management, Accountability & Local Regulation

KPA 5: Asset Management

Key Performance Areas and Indicators

Key Performance area

1 Water Safety Planning

KPA percentages
30 35 35

Key performance Indicator

1.1 Water safety planning process 1.2 Risk assessment & Review of Control measures

KPI percentages
10 10 30 30 5 35

1.3 Risk-based monitoring programmes

1.4 Credibility and Submission of Drinking Water Quality Data

25 25
20 15

25
15

1.5 Incident Management

15 20

20

Assessment of efficacy Confirmation samples

Stakeholders

Evaluation

Water Safety Plan

Risk Mitigation
Plans Budget Completion

Risk Assessment
Catchment to tap Risk Matrix Statistics Sampling

Monitoring Programmes
Compliance monitoring Currently 7 plans registered including a risk based programme Includes
Microbiological Chemical Physical Organoleptic

Operational monitoring 3 plans registered covering the small EWS works

Mainly chemical and physical Performed on site

Major works run and analysed by Umgeni Water

Performed by EWS laboratory

Incident management
Incident management protocol
Available at
Water works Scientific services Head office

Developed in conjunction with major service provider

Incident log Operated on conservative principles

Key Performance area 2

KPA Key performance percentages Indicator 2.1 Compliance with Regulation - Works Classification

KPI percentages 15 10 10

Drinking Water 15 10 10 Quality Process Management & Control

2.2 Compliance with 50 Regulation - Process Controller Registration

2.3 Availability of 35 signed WTP logbook

50

40

40

50

Key Performance area 3

KPA Key performance Indicator percentages 3.1 Compliance per Determinand (according to Monitoring Programme)

KPI percentages 60 60 60

Drinking 30 30 25 Water Quality Compliance

3.2 Risk Assessment Defined Health 20 20 Index 3.3 Operational Efficiency Index 20 20

20 20

Monitoring performance
Year 2012
Sites monitored Coverage (%) Compliance (%)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Microbiological (Compliance monitoring)

213 99.9 90.2 218 99.9 88.7 211 99.9 84.2 217 99.9 90.9 222 99.9 90.3 222 99.9 91.8 224 99.9 93.0 222 99.9 91.8 220 99.9 90.0 215 99.9 88.5 219 99.9 89.7 212 99.9 83.8

Operational monitoring
Compliance (%) 92.8 91.5 92.0 93.1 92.6 93.6 94.4 93.6 89.3 91.4 91.7 87.5

Key Performance area 4 Management, Accountability & Local Regulation

KPA Key performance Indicator percentages 10 10 15 4.1 Management Commitment 4.2 Publication of Performance 4.3 Service Level Agreements / Performance Agreements

KPI percentages 40 40 30 30 30 30 40 30 30

Key Performance area 5 Asset Management

KPA Key performance Indicator percentages 15 15 15 5.1 Annual Process Audit 5.2 Asset Register 5.3 Availability & Competence of Maintenance Team 5.4 Operations and Maintenance Manual 5.5 Maintenance and Operations Budget and Expenditure 5.6 Design Capacity versus Operational Capacity

KPI percentages 20 20 15 15 15 15 15 15 20 20 15 15 20 15 15 15 20 15

GDS ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA BREAKDOWN

Criteria 1: Process Control, Maintenance and Management Skill

Technical and managerial skill Classification of treatment works and staff Maintenance team available O&Ms, Ops logbooks
Criteria 2: Wastewater Monitoring Programme

Operational and Compliance monitoring Laboratory information and credibility

Criteria 3: Submission of WW Quality Results

Proof of Submission to DWA on the GDS

Criteria 4: Effluent Quality Compliance

90% quality compliance on all 3 Categories

(Microbiological; Chemical & Physical) Copy of Authorisation

Criteria 5: WW Quality Risk Management

Incident Management Protocol WW Risk Abatement Plan

Criteria 6: Bylaws

Proof and evidence of implementation

Criteria 7: WW Treatment Capacity

Hydraulic and Organic Design Capacities Medium long term planning of treatment and collector
system

Criteria 8: WW Asset Management

Process audit and sewer inspection Infrastructure asset register O&M Budget

OUR EXPERIENCE AT GDS 2012

Requirements
Multi-disciplinary teams Documented Processes Records Finance Infrastructure YES but the key ingredient is .