• • • Blue Drop report-card scoring criteria CRITERIA (and weigh ng) SCORE SYMBOL DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS (and secondary weigh ng) 100% A Complies 100% with the set criteria 80% – < 100% B Par ally complies, yet very good performance recorded 60% – < 80% C Possible outstanding issues noted, e.g. managerial commitment for implementa on of safety plan not obtained; risk assessment lacking comprehensive element, etc A risk assessment (on the basis of the water safety plan concept) must have been done, covering all areas of responsibility (from catchment to consumer) (30%) 45% – < 60% E Water safety plan in place but requires significant improvement. Could also be that plan is not informing the monitoring programme 30% – < 45% F Risk assessment done or effort noted to get a water safety plan in place, yet far from the required standard 0% – < 30% G Not complying. No water safety plan – implying DWQrelated risks of this specific water supply system are not managed at all Water safety plan (5%) Process control and maintenance competency (10%) 95% – 100% A Complies with all requirements B Complies with all requirements except for 1 70% – < 80% C Not complying with 2 requirements 50% – < 70% D Not complying with criteria no. 2 or complying with no.2 and none of the other 30% – < 50% E Not complying with criteria no. 1 and 2 or no. 2 and 4 12% – < 30% F Not complying with the majority of the requirements Availability of skilled maintenance skills (10%) 0% – < 12% (and no info) G Not complying with any of the requirements or the complete lack of info Opera ons and maintenance manual is in place (30%) A Complies with all requirements B Complies with all requirements except for 1 60% – < 70% C Not complying with requirement no. 2 and another requirement; Or not complying with any other 3 requirements Opera onal monitoring efficiency (20%) Adequate monitoring coverage or distribu on network (20%) D (15%) 40% – < 50% E Not complying with majority of the criteria. Only complying with one requirement 10% – < 40% F Not complying with majority of the criteria. Only complying with a por on of a single requirement. 0% – < 10% (and no info) 100% A Not complying with any of the requirements or the complete lack of info Fully complies with all requirements 80% – < 100% B Complies with all requirements except for requirement no.1 60% – < 80% C 50% – < 60% D 40% – < 50% 10% – 40% E F 0% (and no info) G Regular submission of drinking water quality results 100% (12months) to DWA 0% (0 months) (5%) (30%) Drinking water quality failure response management (15%) Process controllers complies with skills requirements of Regula on 2834 of Water Act (40%) 90% – 100% 50% – < 60% Drinking water compliance with the South African Na onal Standard (SANS 241) Treatment works complying with Regula on 2834 of Water Act in terms of classifica on and registra on (20%) 70% – < 90% Only complying with requirement no. 2 or any other 2 criteria (5%) Proof had to be presented on how findings of the risk assessment influenced the monitoring programme. It must also indicate plans for security improvement (40%) 80% – < 95% Efficiency of drinking water quality monitoring programme Credibility of drinking water sample analysis The water safety plan must detail roles and responsibili es, deadlines for management ac vi es, and management’s commitment to fund implementa on (30%) G A Compliance monitoring efficiency (40%) Number of key analyses (e.g. E. coli) per popula on served (regulatory yards ck is a minimum of 1:10 000) (20%) Proof to be provided of the laboratory used (10) Laboratory is either accredited or par cipates in an accredited proficiency scheme (obtaining an acceptable Z-score) (50) Not complying with requirement no.2; Or not complying with requirements 1 and 2 Proof that analysis results are used to improve process controlling (30) Only complying with requirement no. 3 Complies with all requirements except for requirement no.3 Only complying with requirement no.1 DWQ data is fully verifiable on the blue drop system (BDS) (10) Not complying with any of the requirements or the complete lack of info Fully complied with criterion G No data submi ed 100% A 80% – < 100% B Fully complies with the criteria Complying but penalty applied due to either lack of system specific data or irregular submission of data 60% – <80% C 40% – < 50% E 0% (and no info) G 100% A 60% – <80% C 40% – < 50% E 0% (and no info) G Results must be submi ed 12 months a year (100) Provided adequate figures/informa on on monitoring data for compliance calcula on (20%) Complies with more than 99% of key micro bacteriological Complies with more than 99% of key micro limits and more than 95% of key chemical limits but could not bacteriological limits and more than 95% of provide sufficient monitoring informa on key chemical limits (80%) Provided sufficient monitoring informa on but did not comply Penali es were introduced to ensure that inadequate sampling and DWQ results with excellence limits of SANS 241 submission are taken into account as situa ons that could portray in inaccurate Did not comply with both sub-criteria or failed to submit posi ve compliance. sufficient data for assessment purposes Fully complies with the criteria Have evidence to proof incident management control, but 1. Proof provided of a drinking water incident has no documented protocol management protocol (45%) Has a documented protocol in place but not evidence to 2. Proof of implementa on – DWQ failure proof implementa on incident register (55%) No complying with criteria or failed to submit sufficient informa on for assessment purposes Blue and Green Drop 2011 47