1. Water Safety Conference 2-4 November, 2010 Kuching, Malaysia Success or failure: Demonstrating effectiveness of a Water Safety Plan Mudaliar M M; Tully D T; Walker M J.

2. Introduction WSPs are widely regarded as one of the most effective ways of ensuring drinking water safety A comprehensive, proactive, risk-based management approach NZ one of very few countries that have legislated WSPs

3. 2005 Application of WSPs

4. 2010 Application of WSPs

5. Sharing of experiences and lessons learned from all over the world Provided insights into the challenges ahead for water suppliers, government, regulators and researchers Highlighted the lack of ‘compelling body of evidence’ to corroborate the benefits associated with implementing a PHRMP 1 st Water Safety Plan conference

6. “I think you should be more explicit here in step 2.” Show me the evidence!

7. Why the lack of evidence? The mechanisms for collecting evidence is inadequate or non-existent The evidence is available, but linkages to WSPs are not established WSPs not implemented long enough to show evidence Why the lack of evidence?

8. What do you wish to achieve with a WSP? How would know when you’ve achieved it? What evidence is there to show that you’ve achieved it? Demonstrating Water Safety Plan effectiveness

9. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) should be identified and described in the WSP Procedures for maintaining records and documents should be stated in the plan Monitoring plan should describe how these KPIs would be measured Public health and performance targets should be set during the development of a WSP Procedures for evaluating a WSP should be included in the plan 1. Establishing mechanisms to collect evidence

10. Health-based targets (WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water, 3 rd Edition, 2004) Targets set a benchmark against which progress can be measured Health outcomes Water quality targets Performance targets Specified technology Targets should be specific, measurable, achievable and have a timeframe. They can be quantitative or qualitative. Setting performance targets

11. Monitoring plans in a PHRMP usually reflect compliance monitoring that a supply is already undertaking Monitoring Monitoring plans should be expanded to include monitoring of KPIs “If it isn’t recorded, it didn’t happen!” Records & documentation Records and documents form the body of evidence required to demonstrate effectiveness of a PHRMP Monitoring & Record-keeping

12. HazardEventLikeli- hood Consequ- ence Risk level Control Measure Target Microbial contamin- ation Cross contamina- tion from leaking pipes in retic. LikelyMajorHighResidual FAC in distri- bution Leak detection progra- mme in place FAC in retic >= 0.5ppm All leaks detected fixed within 24 hours KPI FAC Time it takes to fix leaks When?Who? Corrective Action Conti- nuous Records FAC Analy- zer Maint. Super -visor Adjust dosing rate Review SOPs &/or Mainte- nance manual FAC data on SCADA Mainte- nance logs Each time leak detected Setting targets MonitoringRecords Incorporating operational targets in a WSP

13. Verification / Validation External vs Internal evaluation Overall performance evaluation vs evaluation of Individual systems or processes Evaluating a WSP

14. Long-term plans, Annual plans, budgets, policies are good sources of targets WSPs should make linkages to these targets Suppliers generally set performance targets at the policy, planning or management level 2. Linking with evidence that may already exist

15. In some cases, evidence may not be available until several years after a WSP has been implemented Evidence is dependent on a WSP’s goals, objectives and targets 3. Long-term vs Short-term evidence

16. Appropriate linkages should be made to evidence that may already exist Some evidence may not be available until several years after implementation, therefore need to identify shorter-term targets The processes for monitoring and evaluating a WSP should be established at the time the plan is being written Take home messages...

17. QUESTIONS