Green Drop System (GDS)

Online visitors Total: 45 | Guests: 44 | Members: 1       Login    

    Green Drop Assessment: Top 10 Performance Analysis

Filter by:      

South Africa:  Top 10 WSA Performers  

WSANumber of WorksProvincial Green Drop ScoreRisk Profile [CRR as % of CRR(Max)]Average Green Drop ScoreGreen Drops Awarded% Systems that achieved >50%Rank
Bitou 2 96.5% 22.0%  96.3%   2 100.0% 1
Tlokwe/Ventersdorp Local 3 95.0% 57.1%  65.7%   2 66.7% 2
George 6 90.5% 56.8%  58.8%   1 66.7% 3
eThekwini 28 90.5% 45.6%  87.1%   9 100.0% 4
City of Johannesburg 7 90.2% 49.4%  89.5%   4 100.0% 5
Witzenberg 4 89.7% 43.1%  85.4%   1 100.0% 6
Mossel Bay 8 89.2% 39.4%  75.3%   2 75.0% 7
Overstrand 5 88.8% 39.1%  84.3%   1 100.0% 8
City of Cape Town 26 86.8% 55.9%  85.8%   11 96.2% 9
Buffalo City 13 86.2% 50.1%  80.5%   2 100.0% 10

Top Performers
(Show footnote)
The national position on wastewater service performance is a variation from excellent to very poor. The one accomplishment that can be attributed to municipalities in South Africa is the marked increase in submission of evidence for Green Drop assessment, and the subsequent 100% coverage of all systems. This mark and important reference point which few countries can claim credit. As such, the Regulator has a complete database of the exact strengths and gaps per municipality and per wastewater system from where gradual and sustainable improvement can be facilitated and measured on a continuous basis.

The way forward is contained in a progressive Green Drop programme which alternates the Green Drop assessments with regulatory implementation on ground level, which will be directed by the Green Drop information. In 2011 to 2012, the Regulation Unit will be engaging (within predetermined Regulatory Inspectors Panels) with allocated Water Services Authorities in order to measure progress on the published Green Drop Reports as well as WS Regulation Performance Publications (RPMS). This would mean that panels will be:
  • Monitoring rectification processes (which will include planning initiatives, technology choices, MG applications, etc);
  • Gauge GDS and RPMS activity;
  • Work with low performing municipalities to identify key areas of focus for turnaround and to perform proper performance audits;
  • Monitoring Service Level Agreements vs. Actual Service Delivery/performance by service providers;
  • Allow for the Municipal Cross Pollination programme to take effect;
  • Work with Water Resource and Protection unit to inform the licensing processes.

 

South Africa:  Top 10 Works with Lowest Risk Rating  

ProvinceWSA NameWorks NameGreen Drop Score (2011)Green Drop Score (2009)% ProgressRisk Profile [CRR as % of CRR(Max)]Cumulative Risk Rating (CRR)Rank
MP Mbombela/Umjindi NELSPRUIT   0.0%   0.0% 0.0%   0.0%   0 825
LP Vhembe Nancefield WWTW   0.0%   0.0% 0.0%   0.0%   0 826
LP Sekhukhune Nebo Ponds WWTW   0.0%   0.0% 0.0%   0.0%   0 827
LP Capricorn Malamulele WWTW   0.0%   0.0% 0.0%   0.0%   0 830
KZ iLembe Shakaskraal   98.5%   45.0% 118.9%   16.7%   3 2
WC Bitou Plettenberg Bay - Gansevallei   96.5%   79.0% 22.2%   21.7%   5 7
WC Bitou Kurland   96.1%   77.5% 24.0%   22.2%   4 9
KZ Umgungundlovu Coolair   88.6%   33.0% 168.5%   22.2%   4 44
KZ uMhlathuze Vulindlela   83.2%   72.0% 15.6%   22.2%   4 88
KZ Umgungundlovu Appelbosch Hospital   82.5%   11.0% 650.0%   22.2%   4 94
< 30%: Critical state30 - <50%: Very poor performance50 - <80%: Average performance80 - <90%: Good status90 - 100%: Excellent situation

Best Risk Profiles
(Show footnote)
Risk is defined and calculated by the following formulae:

Cumulative Risk Rating (CRR) = A x B + C + D

where:
A = Design Capacity of plant which also represent the hydraulic loading onto the receiving water body
B = Operational flow exceeding-, on- and below capacity
C = Number of non-compliance trends in terms of effluent quality as discharged to the receiving water body
D = Compliance or non-compliance i.t.o. technical skills

A CRR value is calculated for each municipal wastewater treatment facility in South Africa, as provided in this Green Drop Report. Municipalities can consult the Department of Water Affairs to obtain the individual risk assessments for their plants. However, the various municipal CRR profiles are usually send to the respective Executive Mayors from the Minister’s office, to inform the political principles of the facilities that reside in high - and critical risk space.

A CRR%deviation is used throughout the Report to indicate that variance of a CRR value before it reaches its maximum CRR value. The higher the CRR%deviation value, the closer the CRR risk is to the maximum value it can obtain.

Example 1: a 95% CRR%deviation value means the plant has only 5% space remaining before the system will reach its maximum critical state (100%).

Example 2: a 25% CRR%deviation value means the plant holds a low and manageable risk position and is not close to the limits that define a critical state (90-100%).

South Africa:  Top 10 Performers based on Green Drop Score  

ProvinceWSA NameWorks NameGreen Drop Score (2011)Green Drop Score (2009)% ProgressRisk Profile [CRR as % of CRR(Max)]Cumulative Risk Rating (CRR)Rank
KZ eThekwini Phoenix   99.4%   92.0% 8.0%   39.3%   11 1
KZ iLembe Shakaskraal   98.5%   45.0% 118.9%   16.7%   3 2
KZ iLembe Frasers   97.6%   52.0% 87.7%   47.8%   11 3
NW Tlokwe/Ventersdorp Local Tlokwe   97.0%   78.0% 24.4%   35.7%   10 4
NW Tlokwe/Ventersdorp Local Tlokwe   97.0%   78.0% 24.4%   35.7%   10 5
WC City of Cape Town Macassar (Strand)   96.8%   90.0% 7.6%   54.5%   18 6
WC Bitou Plettenberg Bay - Gansevallei   96.5%   79.0% 22.2%   21.7%   5 7
WC City of Cape Town Wildevoelvlei   96.3%   76.0% 26.7%   47.8%   11 8
WC Bitou Kurland   96.1%   77.5% 24.0%   22.2%   4 9
KZ eThekwini Central   96.0%   90.0% 6.7%   52.6%   20 10
< 30%: Critical state30 - <50%: Very poor performance50 - <80%: Average performance80 - <90%: Good status90 - 100%: Excellent situation

Top Performers
(Show footnote)
The national position on wastewater service performance is a variation from excellent to very poor. The one accomplishment that can be attributed to municipalities in South Africa is the marked increase in submission of evidence for Green Drop assessment, and the subsequent 100% coverage of all systems. This mark and important reference point which few countries can claim credit. As such, the Regulator has a complete database of the exact strengths and gaps per municipality and per wastewater system from where gradual and sustainable improvement can be facilitated and measured on a continuous basis.

The way forward is contained in a progressive Green Drop programme which alternates the Green Drop assessments with regulatory implementation on ground level, which will be directed by the Green Drop information. In 2011 to 2012, the Regulation Unit will be engaging (within predetermined Regulatory Inspectors Panels) with allocated Water Services Authorities in order to measure progress on the published Green Drop Reports as well as WS Regulation Performance Publications (RPMS). This would mean that panels will be:
  • Monitoring rectification processes (which will include planning initiatives, technology choices, MG applications, etc);
  • Gauge GDS and RPMS activity;
  • Work with low performing municipalities to identify key areas of focus for turnaround and to perform proper performance audits;
  • Monitoring Service Level Agreements vs. Actual Service Delivery/performance by service providers;
  • Allow for the Municipal Cross Pollination programme to take effect;
  • Work with Water Resource and Protection unit to inform the licensing processes.

 

South Africa:  Top 10 Improving Works based on Green Drop Score  

ProvinceWSA NameWorks NameGreen Drop Score (2011)Green Drop Score (2009)% ProgressRisk Profile [CRR as % of CRR(Max)]Cumulative Risk Rating (CRR)Rank
WC Mossel Bay Herbertsdale   49.3%   1.0% 4 830.0%   66.7%   12 377
NC Renosterberg Petrusville   32.1%   1.0% 3 110.0%   61.1%   11 500
NC Renosterberg Philipstown   30.6%   1.0% 2 960.0%   66.7%   12 511
WC Mossel Bay Ruiterbos   77.4%   3.0% 2 480.0%   27.8%   5 155
KZ Umkhanyakude St Lucia ponds   23.8%   1.0% 2 280.0%   88.9%   16 571
KZ Umkhanyakude Ingwavuma Hospital   23.4%   1.0% 2 240.0%   100.0%   18 578
KZ Umkhanyakude Hlabisa Hospital   23.4%   1.0% 2 240.0%   72.2%   13 579
WC Cederberg Citrusdal   66.9%   3.0% 2 130.0%   38.9%   11 235
WC Cederberg Lambert's Bay   66.2%   3.0% 2 106.7%   38.9%   11 242
WC Cederberg Clanwilliam   65.3%   3.0% 2 076.7%   47.2%   13 250
< 30%: Critical state30 - <50%: Very poor performance50 - <80%: Average performance80 - <90%: Good status90 - 100%: Excellent situation

Top Improvers
(Show footnote)
Top improvers are based on the Dreen Drop Score achieved in 2011 as percentage of the Previously recorded Greed Drop Score....





This page : 17 254
Hits today: 2 648
Site hits   : 8 523 688
Version 2 : 8 075 764