Challenges and Opportunities between Rand Water and WSA’s in Relation to Blue Drop Activities

1. Challenges and Opportunities between Rand Water and WSA’s in Relation to Blue Drop Activities Tony Ceronio and Leanne Coetzee Rand Water - Water Services Forum 18 April 2018 Presented by Tony Ceronio

2. This presentation… • As a (PAST) auditor provide opinions/ information on the following: • Will DWS resume Blue Drop audits? • Format: National/Regional Office? • DWS audit requirements - future thinking? • Audit approach w.r.t. Rand Water and its WSAs • Outline the strengths of past audits • Do you have an opinion on how we can improve these strengths • Outline the weaknesses of past audits • Do you have an opinion on how we can improve these weaknesses

3. DWS and the future of BD audits…a speculation • Several false starts since the 2014 audit round • Tender WP11263 closed 27 February 2018 for PSP for BD, GD and ND specialist support services within the context of certification – not yet appointed. Is it going to happen? • Commitment appears to be in place. • Funding is reported to be in place. • Tender was issued prior to Ministerial change – impact unknown?

4. DWS and the future of BD audits…it has to happen

5. DWS and the future of BD audits…the published plan (Tender WP11263) • Specialist Audit Leads from the PSP – with development mandate.

6. Audit requirements…2014 Planning • BD & ND Certification requirements were published in 2014 • Extended period in public domain – will be applied • No movement in weighting / Significant changes in the sub-criteria

7. Additions and Subtractions… • Many (significant) changes in the requirements: Linkages & Implementation • Some additions (list is not complete): • Residuals management incl. Licensing (bonus in 2016*, scoring thereafter) • Competence of support service departments incl. of SLAs between Ops and Finance, Supply Chain, HR, IT. (How is this responsive to WSP?) • Aesthetic WQ risk (bonus to 2022*, scoring thereafter) • Increased focus on management commitment • Increased focus on Community & School Awareness(bonus in 2016*, scoring thereafter) • Increased focus on Asset Management(How is this responsive to WSP?) • Onus on WSA to prove sufficiency of Operational Budgets

8. Additions and Subtractions…cont’d • Disqualifications • Access to water • Acute health compliance • Site Audit score is not reflective of the BD score (linked score from 2017* onward)

9. Background to make sense of this…

10. Background to make sense of this…

11. Background to make sense of this… “We are good because our water quality is good” translates to “we are fortunate our water quality is good and we hope it doesn’t change”. This does not reflect excellence in drinking water quality management.

12. Background to make sense of this… Pro-active control over the variables that impact on water quality reflects excellence in water quality management.

13. Background to make sense of this…

14. Background to make sense of this… Crit 1.1-1.3: Risk Assessment & Water Safety Planning = 35% of 70% Crit 5: Asset Management Crit 3: DWQ Compliance Crit 4: Management - Approvals - Perf Agreements - SLAs - Awareness & publications Crit 1.4-1.5: Monitoring & Data Crit 1.6: IMP Crit 2: Process Control and Support Services

15. Risk Cycle – More detailed assessment In the past:

16. Risk Cycle – More detailed assessment Going forward: • Medium and high risk levels • Not just from WQ record Quantitative assessment to assess efficacy • Budget • Person • Timeline • To determine impact of the corrective measure • SANS241 • Response plan per hazard • Root cause investigation per event “What is it that is currently preventing me or could prevent me from attaining my water quality targets?”

17. Asset Register • Maintenance Plan • Condition Assessment Assets – More detailed assessment In the past:

18. Assets – More detailed assessment The three “documents” must show strong links on an asset-by-asset basis Going forward: • Description • Specification • Location • Age and Condition • CRC and will only be scored if the findings are acknowledged in the WSP Update Update Execute

19. Rand Water and its WSAs • Historically WSA and WSP’s were audited in one go… • one round of separate audits proved to DWS that WSAs and WSP do not work together if separated during auditing… • WSAs and WSP's were again combined during auditing… • except for Rand Water. • Will this continue? • Scoring allocation? • Fairness?

20. Rand Water & WSAs…Strengths (2014) • Many as indicated by the excellent scores of Rand Water and many of the WSA’s. • Resources (vs. Silos; requires mandated co-ordination) • Thorough engagement with the audit team (incl. using of the opportunity as a learning experience) • Excellent audit preparation/execution (focus on key requirements) • Various teams responsible for their own presentations (inconsistent presentation & silos; requires strong co-ordination; consider preparatory mock assessments?; standardise documentation systems) • Management support appears to be excellent (note increased requirements – consider attendance)

21. Rand Water & WSAs…Challenges (2014) • “We are different”; “It doesn’t apply to us”; “We are too big”; “We are special” – Everyone says that... • WSA & WSP coordination (audits and ongoing, e.g. SLA?) • WQ focus and not yet fully converted to a Risk Focus (come over to the left hand side of the equation) • Definitive and clear WSP process (close the loop) • “% efficacy” in place of quantitative impact assessment = overstated risk! • Process Audits (good water does not suggest a resilient process) • Asset management (register incomplete in some respects, close the loops)

22. Rand Water & WSAs…Challenges (2014) • Present record of agreements with DWS on deviation from the norm (understatement of the monitoring programme; reporting timelines) • 2014 IMP only activated on WQ failure and not on other events – note the requirement that every hazard needs an IMP (Improvement Report Register?) • Regulation 813 PC compliance? • Allocation of sample points per WSA for WQ compliance? • Reporting dates and cycles? Old data & discrepancies. • “Under reporting” of LIMS data by 12-13% due to ad hoc samples (agree with DWS on handling of these)

23. Rand Water & WSAs…Challenges (2014) • Presentation of sites (Vereeniging) does not match paper audit score – BD disqualifier if > 10% difference. (Think food factory) • Simplified flow diagrams for lines in an out of the plants (active and inactive) with flow meters to assist discussion. • Fake evidence – DON’T. Illegal (penalties) and will not be scored as linkages and implementation cannot be demonstrated.

24. Closing remarks • Major changes can be expected if the BD audits continue: • Linkages / interdependencies with the WSP must be clear. • Interrogation to determine implementation of the WSP will be much more detailed. • Evaluation of ongoing effort vs paper exercise will be much more detailed. • Prescription of form is more pronounced than in previous rounds. • It may not be able to give the assessor the specific information as per the prescripts: • Try. If the assessor cannot establish interdependencies as required the score cannot be allocated. • If really not possible, prepare a clear presentation on how the philosophies of the BD and the scorecard are supported by what is being presented.

25. Discussion… Tony Ceronio & Leanne Coetzee tonyc@csvwater.co.za Leanne@csvwater.co.za Thank you!

26. The 4 legs… Adequate Design & Construction Adequate maintenance

27. The 4 legs… Adequate Operations Adequate Administration