1. Briefing the Portfolio Committee on Water and Sanitation on the
Green Drop Progress Assessment Tool Report
Presented by:
Mr Dan Mashitisho
Director-General
26 January 2017
PRESENTATION TITLE
Presented by:
Name Surname
Directorate
Date

2. CONTENTS Background Green Drop Overview
Criteria for Risk Based Regulation
Cumulative Risk Comparative Analysis
2014 National Risk Profile
Provincial Best Performers
Performances Per Provinces
Challenges
Recommendations
Way Forward

3. Background
The programme was initiated in 2008, first Green Drop report published in 2009.
The Green Drop process measures and compares the results of the performance of WSIs, and subsequently rewards (or penalises) the institution upon evidence of their excellence (or failures) according to the minimum standards or requirements that has been defined.
The Green Water Services Audit and the Progress Assessment Tool (PAT) are the tools whereby incentive- and risk-based regulation is conducted in South Africa.
The Green Drop regulation programme is an Incentive Based Regulation that seeks to identify and develop the core competencies required for the sector that, if strengthened, will gradually and sustainably improve the level of wastewater management in South Africa.

4. Background
Green Drop audits and certification takes place every 2nd year, using the full set of Green Water Services Audit (GWSA) criteria to assess performance of the wastewater system Output = Green Drop Report
Progress assessments takes place during the Green Drop ‘gap’ year, using the PAT to assess the cumulative risk status of treatment systems Output = Green Drop Progress Report

5. Green Drop Overview
Audits conducted for 152 Water Services Authorities (WSA or municipalities) in the 9 provinces of South Africa
824 Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW) assessed in the municipal sector;
4 WWTW’s for Private Systems ( Sun City, Nedbank- Olwazini, Sasol Synfuels and Sasol Infrachem)
13 WWTW’s for Department of Environmental Affairs(Kruger National Park)

6. Criteria for Risk Based Regulation
CRR #
RISK INDICATOR
DESCRIPTION and UNIT
VALUE A
DESIGN CAPACITY
If NI, then calculate or estimate (Class, flow, etc)
Hydraulic Design Capacity [Ml/day] 5 B
OPERATIONAL FLOW
If ADWF = 0 [NI] and/or Design Capacity = 0 [NI], then CELL H114 = 151% (max weight)
ADWF / Hydraulic Design Capacity (Ml/day) x 100 [%] 4 C
EFFLUENT FAILURE [No monitoring or no info;
Waived
NMR = as per Authorisation]
% Microbiological compliance
% E.coli OR Faecal Coliform
 100%
100%
% Physical compliance
% pH
93.33%
% Electrical Conductivity
 90%
% Suspended Solids
90%
% Chemical compliance
% COD
% Ammonia
% Nitrates
% Orthophosphate
Overall Compliance
93% D
TECHNICAL SKILLS [Compliance with R2834]
Supervisor + Process Controllers + Maintenance (1) 2
Supervisor + Maintenance & No Process Control (2)
Process Control + Maintenance & No Supervisor (2)
Process Control + Supervisor & No Maintenance (2)
Supervisor & No Maintenance & No PC's (3)
Process Controllers & No Maintenance & No Sup (3)
Maintenance & No PC's & No Supervisor (3)
No Supervisor & No Maintenance & No PCs (4)
Spec WF (1-4) 12
(CRR) 13
MaxCRR 17

7. CUMULATIVE RISK COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
→ = Unchanged
↑= Poor Performance
Mandatory audits were introduced as per Section 62 of the Water Services Act, No 108 of 1997.
Performance Category
2008
Voluntary Audits
2009
Mandatory Audits
2011
2012
2013
2014
Performance trend
Number of municipalities assessed 98
156 (100%)
152 (100%) →
Number of wastewater systems assessed
444
821
824
Average CRR
13.5
13.3
13.6
12.3
12.2
13.4 ↑
Average Design Rating (A)
2.5
1.4
Average Capacity Exceedance Rating (B)
3.3
3.7
4.1
3.8
3.6
Average Effluent Failure Rating (C)
3.2
5.7
4.7
4.9
5.1
Average Technical Skills Rating (D)
1.7
2.4
2.6
2.9
AVERAGE % DEVIATION FROM maximum-CRR 67
66.8
69.2 66
65.4
71.7

8. CUMULATIVE RISK COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
The overall risk profile of wastewater treatment plants remained reasonably constant over the period 2008 to 2013.
However, regress in the performance of municipal treatment facilities is evident for 2014.
The lack of the incentive (non recognition of best performers due to non-release of the 2013 Green Drop Report) contributed to the regression.
Results indicated that, despite significant regulatory pressure, processes or evidence are still lacking in terms of in-flow and/or effluent quality monitoring.

9. % Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND
2014 National Risk Profile
% Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND
90 – 100% Critical risk WWTPs
70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs
50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs
<50% Low Risk WWTPs

10. 2014 National Risk Profile
The majority of plants are in high risk (259 plants) and medium risk (218 plants), with 212 plants in critical risk and 135 plants in low risk space.
The plants that regressed by taking up increased risk ratios will be placed under surveillance and continuously monitored for implementation of corrective interventions and risk mitigation measures.

11. Provincial Best Performers
Province
Best overall risk positions achieved
Best progress in risk abatement
Eastern Cape
Buffalo City; Nelson Mandela
Camdeboo
Free State
Tokologo LM
Gauteng
City of Johannesburg; Johannesburg Water
Merafong LM
Kwa-Zulu Natal
eThekwini Metro; uMhlathuze and Umgungundlovu DM
uMhlathuze
Limpopo
Polokwane LM;
Vhembe DM
Mpumalanga
Mbombela
Chief Albert Luthuli LM; Nkomazi LM and Steve Tshwete LM

12. Provincial Best Performers
Province
Best overall risk positions achieved
Best progress in risk abatement
Northern Cape
Tsantsabane; Hantam; Emthanjeni
Tsantsabane; Hantam; Kamiesberg; Kheis; Joe Morolong; Siyathemba; Siyancuma; Ubuntu; Khai Ma; Nama Khoi
North West
Tlokwe LM and Rustenburg LM
Tlokwe LM, Rustenburg LM, Moses Kotane LM
Western Cape
Beaufort West; Bitou; Witzenberg; Overstrand
Beaufort West; Bitou; Hessequa; Bergriver; Drakenstein

13. Performances Per Provinces

14. Eastern Cape Risk Profile % Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND
90 – 100% Critical risk WWTPs
70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs
50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs
<50% Low Risk WWTPs

15. 2014 Provincial Risk Profile
Eastern Cape is serviced by 16 WSAs, with wastewater treated by 124 WWTW
35 plants improved and 19 remain stable in their risk positions since 2013;
70 plants show digress by taking up higher risk positions;
Province
Critical/High Risk WSAs
Eastern Cape
Ndlambe LM;
OR Tambo DM; Chris Hani DM; Blue Crane Route LM; Koukamma LM Sundays River Valley LM; Baviaans LM; Ikwezi LM; Alfred Nzo DM; Makana LM; Kouga LM; Joe Gqabi; Ukhahlamba DM; Camdeboo LM; Amathole DM

16. Free State Risk Profile % Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND
90 – 100% Critical risk WWTPs
70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs
50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs
<50% Low Risk WWTPs

17. 2014 Provincial Risk Profile
Free State is serviced by 20 WSAs, with wastewater treated by 93 WWTW
16 WWTW improved and 18 WWTW remained unchanged from 2013 to 2014;
59 WWTW digressed by taking up higher risk positions;
Province
Critical/High Risk WSAs
Eastern Cape
Ndlambe LM;
OR Tambo DM; Chris Hani DM; Blue Crane Route LM; Koukamma LM Sundays River Valley LM; Baviaans LM; Ikwezi LM; Alfred Nzo DM; Makana LM; Kouga LM; Joe Gqabi; Ukhahlamba DM; Camdeboo LM; Amathole DM

18. % Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND
Gauteng Risk Profile
% Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND
90 – 100% Critical risk WWTPs
70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs
50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs
<50% Low Risk WWTPs

19. 2014 Provincial Risk Profile
Gauteng is serviced by 10 WSAs, with wastewater treated by 58 WWTW
8 plants improved upon their 2013 risk positions;
10 plants remained in the same risk positions as in 2013;
40 plants digressed by taking up higher risk position.
Province
Critical/High Risk WSAs
Gauteng
Randfontein LM; Midvaal LM; Ekurhuleni Metro
City of Tshwane; Mogale City LM; Emfuleni LM; Lesedi LM

20. 2014 Kwa-Zulu Natal Risk Profile % Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND
90 – 100% Critical risk WWTPs
70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs
50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs
<50% Low Risk WWTPs

21. 2014 Provincial Risk Profile
22 plants improved and 22 plants remained unchanged from 2013 to 2014;
96 plants digressed by taking up higher risk positions;
the majority of plants are in high risk (55) and medium risk (44) space, with 28 plants in low risk and 13 plants in critical risk space.
Province
Critical/High Risk WSAs
Kwa-Zulu Natal
UThukela DM; UThungulu DM; UMkhanyakude DM; Ugu DM; Zululand DM; Sisonke DM; Amajuba DM; UMzinyathi DM; ILembe DM

22. % Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND
2014 Limpopo Risk Profile
% Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND
90 – 100% Critical risk WWTPs
70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs
50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs
<50% Low Risk WWTPs

23. 2014 Provincial Risk Profile
13 plants shows an improvement, whilst 10 plants remained unchanged;
The majority of plant, i.e. 36, have digressed in their risk positions;
Majority of plants are in critical risk space (24) and high risk space (19), with 13 plants in medium risk and 3 plant in low risk space
Province
Critical/High Risk WSAs
Limpopo
Greater Sekhukhune DM; Mogalakwena LM; Lephalale LM; Mookgophong LM; Thabazimbi LM; Mopani DM; Vhembe DM; BelaBela LM; Modimolle LM; Capricorn DM

24. Mpumalanga Risk Profile % Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND
90 – 100% Critical risk WWTPs
70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs
50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs
<50% Low Risk WWTPs

25. 2014 Provincial Risk Profile
Mpumalanga is serviced by 18 WSAs, with wastewater treated by 76 WWTW;
14 WWTW improved in risk position, and 10 plants remained unchanged;
52 WWTW digressed by taking up higher risk positions
Percentage of WWTW in critical risk position is 52%.

26. 2014 Provincial Risk Profile
A steep increase in critical risk plants, from 18 to 40, is observed.
The majority of plants now reside in the critical risk space (40 systems), and this is a very disconcerting status quo.
From the 21 plants which resided in low risk space in 2012, only 4 plants are now considered low risk.
Province
Critical/High Risk WSAs
Mpumalanga
Dipaleseng LM; Lekwa LM; PixleykaSeme LM
; Msukaligwa LM
; Emalahleni LM; Mkhondo LM; Govan Mbeki LM
; Victor Khanye LM; Thembisile LM; Albert Luthuli LM; Emakhazeni LM; Dr JS Moroka LM; Bushbuckridge LM; Nkomazi LM; Umjindi LM; Steve Tshwete LM; Mbombela LM

27. 2014 North West Risk Profile % Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND
90 – 100% Critical risk WWTPs
70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs
50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs
<50% Low Risk WWTPs

28. 2014 Provincial Risk Profile
5 plants shows an improvement, whilst 5 plants remained unchanged;
The majority of plant, i.e. 27, have digressed in their risk positions;
Majority of plants are in critical risk space (23) and high risk space (5), with 5 plants in medium risk and 1 plant in low risk space
Province
Critical/High Risk WSAs
North West
Maquassi Hills LM; Moretele LM; NgaraModiriMolema DM; Ventersdorp LM; Matlosana LM; Dr. Ruth S Mompati DM; Kgetlengriver LM; Moses Kotane LM; Madibeng LM; Rustenburg LM

29. Northern Cape Risk Profile % Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND
90 – 100% Critical risk WWTPs
70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs
50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs
<50% Low Risk WWTPs

30. 2014 Provincial Risk Profile
Northern Cape province is serviced by 27 WSAs, with wastewater treated by 79 WWTW;
38 WWTW improved upon the 2013 CRR risk ratio;
36 WWTW digressed; and
5 WWTW remained unchanged.
Province
Critical/High Risk WSAs
Northern Cape
Renosterberg LM; Richtersveld LM; Gamagara LM; Marareng LM; Thembelihle LM; Ga-Segonyana LM; !Kai! Garib LM; Karoo Hoogland LM; Mier LM; Umsobomvu LM; Sol Plaatjie LM; Phokwane LM; Dikgatlong LM; Ubuntu LM; Siyancuma LM; Kareeberg LM; Siyathemba LM; Nama Khoi LM; !Kheis LM; Joe Morolong LM; Emthanjeni LM; Hantam LM

31. Western Cape Risk Profile % Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND
90 – 100% Critical risk WWTPs
70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs
50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs
<50% Low Risk WWTPs

32. 2014 Provincial Risk Profile
Western Cape province is serviced by 25 WSAs, with wastewater treated by 158 WWTW;
47 plants improved and 19 plants maintain its risk status;
92 plants digressed by taking up higher risk positions.
Province
Critical/High Risk WSAs
Western Cape
Lainsburg LM; Stellenbosch LM; Kannaland LM
; Prince Albert LM; Cederberg LM; Swellendam LM; Matzikama LM; Cape Agulhas LM; Langeburg LM; Swartland LM; Breede Valley LM; Saldanha Bay LM; Oudtshoorn LM; Drakenstein LM; Berg River LM; Hessequa LM; Theewaterskloof LM; City of Cape Town Metro

33. Challenges Department of Water and Sanitation:
2015 Green Drop Assessments not undertaken due to delayed approval to advertise tender for appointment of PSP.
Lack of capacity at DWS CD:WSR to undertake Green Drop Assessments internally.
Delayed release of the Green Drop Report leads to lack of trust from the WSA’s and is an institutional risk.
Water Services Authorities:
Process Controlling:
Insufficient skilled process controllers;
Vacancies.
Monitoring:
Data uploading on Green Drop System( analytical results not loaded thus giving misleading compliance data countrywide).
Water Services Institutions lack or minimal maintenance of sewer pump stations (lack of investment on infrastructure).
Vandalism of infrastructure.

34. Recommendations
The WSAs need to prioritize implementation of a risk-based action plan that would start to identify and address the most critical risks pertaining to wastewater treatment performance;
Installation of meters for inflow measurement ;
Undertake process audits to determine priority infrastructure interventions;
Training and appointment of process controllers to meet minimum level of technical and supervisory expertise.

35. Recommendations
Infrastructure asset management for optimal WWTW and pumpstations performance.
Focused attention on sludge management.
Release of the Green Drop Report to encourage data submission (Individual municipality assessments to be released once the report is completed).
Explore opportunities for mutual partnerships with the private sector such as water stewardship e.g Kumba Iron Ore and Tsantsabane LM (Northern Cape) initiative to cooperate and improve wastewater services.

36. Way Forward
Fast tracking the PSP appointment to undertake the 2015/2016 Green Drop Assessments.
Assemble the Departments (DWS) internal team to conduct 2015 Green Drop Progress Assessment Tool (PAT) assessments.

37. THANK YOU
11/13/2018 5:56 AM