PowerPoint Presentationpmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/1701… · PPT file · Web...

PRESENTATION TITLEPresented by:Name SurnameDirectorateDate

Briefing the Portfolio Committee on Water and Sanitation on the

Blue Drop Progress Report

Presented by:Mr Dan MashitishoDirector-General

26 January 2017

• Background

• Blue Drop Assessment Criteria

• National trends since inception

• Provincial Performances

• 2014 Blue Drop Risk Rating (BDRR)

• Distribution of the number of systems per risk category (BDRR)

• Recommendations

• Way Forward

CONTENTS

2

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.

3

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.– Vandalism of infrastructure.

4

Blue Drop Assessment criteriaCriteria Weight Key parameters

Water Safety Planning(risk management addressing associated risks from catchment to point of use)

35%

Water Safety planning process

Risk assessment

Monitoring programme

Credibility of data

Incident management

Process Management & control

8% Works classification compliance

Process control registration

WTW Logbook

Process control training

5

Blue Drop Assessment criteria (cont)

Criteria Weight Key parameters

Drinking water quality verification

30% Microbiological compliance

Chemical compliance

Operational compliance

Aesthetic compliance (bonus)

Management accountability & local regulation

10% Management commitment

Publication of performance

Service Level Agreement/PA

Submission of data

6

Blue Drop Assessment criteria (cont)

Criteria Weight Key parameters

Asset Management 14%

Annual process audit

Asset register

Availability & competence of maintenance teamO& M manuals

O & M budget & expenditure

Design capacity vs operational capacity

Water use efficiency & loss management

3% Water Demand Management Strategy & implementationWater Balance

7

National Trends since inceptionPerformance Category

2009 2010 2011 2012 2014* Current analysis

National BD Score

51.4 67.2 72.9 87.6 79.6

Number of WSAs assessed

107 153 162 153 152

Number of systems assessed

402 787 914 931 1036

Number of Blue Drops awarded

25 38 66 98 44

*- 2013, no BD Report, however it was the initial Blue Drop Pat report (unpublished)

8

Provincial PerformanceProvince 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%9

Gauteng

• 10 Water Services Authorities (WSAs) with 29 systems (supported by Rand Water in 17 systems, Magalies Water in 3 & Joburg Water in 2 systems);

• Blue Drop (BD) score declined by 6% compared to 2012 from 98% to 92% in 2014;

• 9 systems achieved BD status compared to 16 in 2012.

10

Eastern Cape• 16 WSAs with 155 water supply systems

(supported by Amatola Water in 66 systems);

• BD score declined by 10% from 82% in 2012 to 72% in 2014;

• No system achieved BD status;• However, improvements were observed in

Chris Hani DM, Koukamma & OR Tambo DM;

• Only 1 system (Ikhwezi LM) in critical state compared to 50 in 2012 & 25 in 2013. 11

Free State

• 20 WSAs with 79 water supply systems supported by Bloem Water (16) , Sedibeng Water (9) Maluti a Phofung Water (3) & Rand Water (2);

• BD score declined by 7.2% from 82% in 2012 to 75% in 2014;

• 6 water supply systems achieved the BD status;

• No system in critical risk category.

12

Kwa-Zulu Natal• 14 WSAs with 209 water supply systems

supported by Umgeni Water (31), uMhlathuze Water(2), uThukela Water (34), Water and Sanitation Services SA (89), Amajuba LM (5) & Abaqulusi (5);

• BD score decreased from 92% in 2012 to 86% in 2014;

• 8 systems attained the BD status;• 2 systems (Donnybrook & Highflats-Harry

Gwala LM) in critical risk category compared to 13 in 2012.

13

Limpopo

• 11 WSAs with 74 water supply systems supported by Lepelle Water (21) & Magalies Water (4);

• Substantial decline in Provincial BD score from 79% in 2012 to 62% in 2014;

• 1 system (Polokwane) attained BD status compared to 9 in 2012;

• 2 systems (Mahwelereng & Mogalakwena rural) in critical risk category compared to 11 in 2012 & 32 in low risk category.

14

Mpumalanga

• 18 WSAs with 100 water supply systems supported by Rand Water (5), Bushbuckridge Water (13), Sembcorp Silulumanzi (5) & City of Tshwane (4);

• BD score increased from 60.9% in 2012 to 69.9% in 2014;

• 9 systems attained BD status;• 1 system (Greater Dipaleseng) in critical

risk category compared to 20 in 2012.

15

Northern Cape• 27 WSAs with 173 water supply systems

supported by Sedibeng Water & private mines;

• 2 supply systems attained BD status (//Khara Hais LM- AH September & Ntsikelelo);

• 4systems[(Onseepkans/Melkbosrand/Viljoenskraal & Witbank- Khai-Ma LM), Andriesvale & Swakopdam – Mier LM –in critical risk category compared to 40 in 2012 and 38 in low risk category compared to 2 in 2012.

16

North West• 11 WSAs with 95 water supply systems

supported by Sedibeng Water, Magalies Water, Botshelo Water, Rand Water, Lekwa Taemane, City of Tshwane, Midvaal Water Company;

• BD score substantially declined from 79% in 2012 to 63% in 2014;

• 1 system (Tlokwe) attained BD status; • 16 systems in critical risk category

compared to 49 in 2012; • 15 systems in low risk compared to 3 in

2012. 17

Western Cape

• 25 WSAs with 122 water supply systems; • BD score declined from 94% in 2012 to

89% in 2014;• 8 water supply systems attained BD

status;• Systems in low risk category declined

from 79 in 2013 to 53.

18

2014 Blue Drop Risk Rating (BDRR)

• BDRR serves as a precautionary tool for water services authorities to implement strategic and operational decisions to improve service delivery or mitigate identified risks.

• It should not be confused with the Blue Drop status, but the latter may not be achieved without meeting the requirements of the BDRR (water safety planning, technical skills and drinking water quality compliance).

19

Distribution of the number of systems per risk category (BDRR)

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. 20

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.

21

RecommendationsMedium to long-term interventions (WSAs): Operational 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.

22

Way forward

• 2015 Blue Drop progress report – Assessments done– Draft Report expected by end April 2017

• 2016 Blue Drop Progress Assessment Tool (BD PAT)– Training of assessors done – Assessments to be initiated during Quarter

4 (January 2017)– Draft Report expected by end October

201723

THANK YOU

24