Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE 2014 GREEN DROP PAT REPORT 1. Background 1.1 Water services delivery is performed by a number of stakeholders, Water Services
Authorities, Water Boards, Private Sector owners and Service Providers across the country. Water remains more than ever the very life force of our country, without it there is no life, no economy, no development and no hope to become the best we can be. As the Department of Water and Sanitation, we take our role as custodian of water resources very seriously and we are always exploring ways in which we can facilitate the conservation and protection of our most precious resource.
1.2 The incentive- based regulation Green Drop (GD) Certification Programme was
developed in 2008. Since then, this uniquely South African approach has managed to improve municipal wastewater management and keep the public and stakeholders informed and updated with credible and current information. I am overwhelmed by the embracing of this approach by not only our municipal sector, but also the quest to be assessed for excellence by our private operators and sector partners. The participation of Water Services Institutions (WSIs) in the programme is clear indication of commitment and enthusiasm to achieve excellence in water management and provision thereof. I am proud to say that the progressive manner in which we are improving our performance, is evident of the passion and commitment by dedicated men and women in the sector.
1.3. This form of regulation is being paired with risk based regulatory approach which
developed good correlation by presenting best management practice paired with risk management to inform the sector where key priorities lie . Green Drop is implemented by the Department bi-annually, with the alternate year being the year where focus is on Green Drop (PAT) report.
1.4 Such ‘risk’ is defined and calculated as Cumulative Risk Rating (CRR), which is a risk
calculated against the Design Capacity of plant which also represent the hydraulic loading onto the receiving water body, Operational flow exceeding- on- and below capacity; number of non-compliance trends in terms of effluent quality as discharged to the receiving water body and compliance or non-compliance in terms of technical skills
1.5 The 2014 Green Drop Progress Report provides information on the performance of
Water Services Authorities (WSAs) with respect to Cumulative Risk Rating per wastewater treatment works from July 2012 to June 2013. A total of 152 municipalities and 824 plants were assessed, with the works receiving a total of 5 000 Ml wastewater per day or 1 825 000 Ml/year. The Report not only provides audit details on risk associated with effluent quality compliance as per site specific water use Authorization or default standards based on sensitivity of receiving environment as part of best practice but also include:
• Assessment of wastewater risk abatement planning which is a risk-based approach in wastewater treatment and dealing with associated risks and mitigation thereof,
• Capital & Refurbishment expenditure for Financial Year 2012-2013 (Rand) • Technical skills availability for operation of the plants, and • Management support
3
2. 2014 GREEN DROP RISK RESULTS 2.1 The 2014 Green Drop Progress report is based on a self-assessment by the
municipalities and confirmed by the Department of Water and Sanitation to ensure credibility and verified information is reported to the public. The DWS team that served as moderators for the information provided by the Water Services Institutions is made up of a trained group who not only assesses the performance, but they also ensure that regulatory advice is given to municipal wastewater management on required improvements.
2.2 The main objective of this regulation approach is to identify, measure 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.
2.3 A wastewater treatment works with a higher Cumulative Risk Rating (CRR) value
means that plant has reached or is approaching its critical state of operation and therefore requires intervention. A lower CRR value means the plant holds a low and manageable risk position.
2.4 The 2014 Green Drop Progress Report presents the current risk profile and a 6-year
trend analysis of wastewater treatment plants on three levels:
National overview that collate and elevate the detailed findings on system level to that of a provincial overview, which can then be compared and inculcated as a national view of wastewater treatment performance. Comparative analyses amongst the provincial performances are useful indicators and benchmarks for the various role players.
Province specific risk figures and information to highlight the strengths, weaknesses and progress for the collective of WSIs within the province or region;
System specific risk data and information pertaining to the performance of each wastewater treatment system per WSI (municipal, private WSIs);
2.5 Risk-based regulation allows the municipality to identify and prioritise the critical risk
areas within its wastewater treatment process and to take corrective measures to abate the identified risks. Risk analysis is used by the Regulator (DWS) to identify, quantify, prioritize and manage the risks according to their potential impact on the water resource, to ensure a targeted regulation of those facilities that fall in high and critical risk parameters.
2.6 Wastewater treatment works risk profiles are the summation of the respective
municipal performances. Each Province has different dynamics with municipal participants that progressed or regressed on different levels. The status of National Risk Performance is summarized as follows:
198 plants shows progress by taking up lower risk (CRR %deviation) positions - these municipalities are congratulated and commended for their responsible and active mitigation of risk;
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.
4
2.7 The plants that digressed by taking up increased risk ratios will be placed under
surveillance and continuously monitored for implementation of corrective interventions and risk mitigation measures.
2.8 One of the key performance areas within the national Green Drop Certification
programme is the presence and implementation of risk abatement management by a Water Services Institution. The Department has commenced with risk-based regulation in 2008, thereby establishing a baseline risk profile for each municipal plant in South Africa.
5
CUMULATIVE RISK COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Performance Category 2008 2009 2011 2012 2013 2014 Risk Trend [2013-2014]
Highest CRR 25 29 32 28 30 29 ↓ Average CRR 13.5 13.3 13.6 12.3 12.2 13.4 ↑ Lowest CRR 5 4 3 2 4 3 ↓ Average Design Rating (A)
2.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 → Average Capacity Exceedance Rating (B)
3.3 3.7 4.1 3.8 3.6 4.1 ↑ Average Effluent Failure Rating (C)
3.2 5.7 5.7 4.7 4.9 5.1 ↑ Average Technical Skills Rating (D)
1.7 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.9 ↑ AVERAGE % DEVIATION FROM maximum-CRR
67 66.8 69.2 66 65.4 71.7 ↑ 2.9 The above data indicate that the overall risk profile of wastewater treatment plants
remained reasonably constant over the period 2008 to 2013. However, digress in the performance of municipal treatment facilities is evident for 2014, based on the unvarying upwards risk trend arrows. The highest risk plant and position of 30 (2013) has reduced to a CRR value of 29 but still giving an increased national average of 13.4 as opposed to 12.2 in 2013. The cumulative effect can be seen in the increased and digressed CRR/CRRmax% deviation from of 65.4% (in 2013) to 71.7% (in 2014). A positive reflection is to be found in the reduction of both the maximum CRR (30 to 29) and minimum CRR (4 to 3) of all plants.
2.10 The movement of risk in the following barchart shows that the majority of plants are
in high risk (259) positions, followed by 218 plants in medium risk and 212 plants in critical risk positions. The reduction in the number of plants in low risk domain, which decreased from 199 to 135, is raising concern. Some of the formerly ‘low risk’ plants have since moved into higher risk positions, which is undesirable. This can be seen by the increase in high risk plants from 232 to 259, and critical risk plants from 121 plants to 212 plants.
6
2.11 The overall picture projects negatively and suggests that the municipal industry as a
whole has not managed to contain and then turnaround the risk. The Regulator regards this trend with concern and the plants that have digressed into higher risk positions are placed under regulatory surveillance. It is important to understand that municipalities that are positioned in low risk domain, that have successfully abated their risks, will have a positive and uplifting impact on the cumulative risk profile of their province, whilst high risk municipalities will down-grade the collective CRR score of the province and thereby counteract or outweigh the positive contributions
2.12 The 2014CRR/CRRmax% deviation is made up by the risk profiles of the various provinces as
follows (comparative figure for 2013 provided below the 2014 results):
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 -
50
0 -
50
0 -
50
0 -
50
0 -
50
50
-70
50
-70
50
-70
50
-70
50
-70
70
-90
70
-90
70
-90
70
-90
70
-90
90
-10
0
90
-10
0
90
-10
0
90
-10
0
90
-10
0
Oct-08
Apr-11
Apr-12
Apr-13
Jun-14
Oct-08
Apr-11
Apr-12
Apr-13
Jun-14
Oct-08
Apr-11
Apr-12
Apr-13
Jun-14
Oct-08
Apr-11
Apr-12
Apr-13
Jun-14
196
138
220 199
135
259 262 244
272
218
264 284
213 232
259
129 137 154
121
212
Nu
mb
er o
f W
WTP
s
RISK PERCENTAGE
National Risk Profile: CRR as % of CRRmax
7
2.13 The above table show provincial risk profile for 2014, it is therefore important that
Provincial Action Plans, whether support directed, or other, identify the lower performers (municipalities with high and critical risk plants) and direct corrective action and risk mitigation measures accordingly. Various opportunities co-exist for municipalities, business and agriculture to cooperate and improve wastewater services. It is in the collective interest of municipal ‘neighbours’ within a province/ region to work together, share resources, experience and best practice to stimulate further progress via progressive risk abatement. Successful partnerships will result in a positive replacement of high risk with lower risk treatment facilities on a national scale – thereby presenting a safer and healthier environment and reliable service to all. The Green Drop scorecard ‘rewards’ such partnerships through incentive scoring for ‘cross pollination’ (collaboration)
2.14 In addition to the assessment of municipal systems, it is imperative to mention the
participation of 19 privately owned systems. I want to congratulate all the municipalities and private institutions that have managed to reduce their risk positions.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
57
.7%
66
.8%
66
.8%
71
.5%
72
.9%
80
.2%
83
.3%
84
.2%
86
.1%
Performance Position in South Africa
Ris
k P
rofi
le -
% C
RR
/CR
Rm
ax
NATIONAL PERFORMANCE LOG 2014
8
3. PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCE 3.1 Eastern Cape The following municipalities are in critical and high risk positions in 2014 and placed under regulatory surveillance and therefore require immediate intervention:
WSA Name
2014 Average
CRR/CRRmax % deviation
WWTPs in critical and high risk space
Ndlambe LM 100.0%
Alexandria-KwaNonkqubela, Bathurst-Nolukhanyo, Bushmans River Mouth, Marselle, Kenton on Sea - Ekuphunleni, Port Alfred
OR Tambo DM 100.0% Flagstaff, Lusikisiki, Mqanduli, Mthatha, Nqgeleni, Port St John, Qumbu, Tsolo
Chris Hani DM 88.6% Cala, Cofimvaba, Cradock, Elliot, Engcobo, Molteno, Queenstown, Sada, Sterkstroom, Tsomo
Dordrecht, Hofmeyr, Middelburg, Tarkastad
Blue Crane Route LM
88.2% Cookhouse, Pearston, Somerset East
Koukamma LM 87.1% Clarkson, Kareedouw, Krakeel River, Louterwater, Sandrift, Stormsriver
Coldstream, Joubertina, Misgund
Sundays River Valley LM
86.8% Addo, Enon-Bersheba, Greater Kirkwood, Paterson
Baviaans LM 84.3% Rietbron Steytlerville, Willowmore
Ikwezi LM 82.4% Jansenville, Klipplaats
Alfred Nzo DM 81.6% Bizana, Cedarville, Ntanbankulu Matatiele
Makana LM 80.2% Alicedale, Belmont Valley, Mayfield
Kouga LM 75.6% Hankey, Humansdorp, Jeffrey's Bay, Kruisfontein, St. Francis, Thornhill
Joe Gqabi-Ukhahlamba DM
69.3%
Aliwal North, Burgersdorp, Herschell, Jamestown, Lady Grey, Mount Fletcher, Oviston, Sterkspruit, Steynsburg, Ugie
Camdeboo LM 60.8% Aberdeen
Amathole DM 52.6% Adelaide, Peddie
Critical risk WSA and plants
High risk WSA and plants
Medium risk WSA and plants
9
3.2 Free State The following municipalities are in critical and high risk positions and placed under regulatory surveillance and therefore require immediate intervention :
WSA Name
2014 Average
CRR/CRRmax % deviation
WWTPs in critical and high risk space
Naledi LM 100% Dewtsdorp, Van Stadensrus, Wepener
Nala 100% Bothaville, Wesselsbron
Mafube LM 97.7% Frankfort, Namahadi, Tweeling, Cornelia, Villiers
Letsemeng LM 97.7% Jacobsdal, Koffiefontein, Luckhoff, Oppermans, Petrusburg
Mohokare LM 96.1% Zastron, Rouxville, Smithfield
KopanongLM 96.1%
Edenberg, Fauresmith, Gariep Dam, Jagersfontein, Philippolis, Reddersburg, Springfontein, Trompsburg
Nketoana LM 95.6% Lindley-Ntha, Petrus Steyn, Reitz Arlington
Tswelopele LM 94.1% Hoopstad
Setsoto LM 93.2% Clocolan, Marquard, Senekal Ficksburg
Ngwathe LM 90.6% Heilbron, Koppies, Parys, Vredefort
Moqhaka LM 88.1% Steynsrus Viljoenskroon, Kroonstad
Masilonyana LM 87.1% Brandfort, Masili, Theunissen, Soutpan
Winburg
Phumelela LM 86.3% Memel, Warden, Vrede
Mantsopa LM 84.7% Excelsior, Hobhouse, Lady Brand, Thaba Patchoa, Tweespruit
Metsimaholo 79.4% Deneysville, Oranjeville
Dihlabeng LM 76.0% Mautse, Rosendal Bethlehem, Clarens, Mashaeng, Fouriesburg
Matjhabeng LM 70.8% Theronia Mmamahabane, Mbabane, Odendaarlsurs (AS), Thabong, Allanridge (AS), Ventersburg
Mangaung LM 67.9% Sterkwater Bainsvlei, Bloemspruit, Boshabelo
Maluti A Phofung LM
62.7% Makwane, Matsegeng, Moeding
Tokologo LM 37.3% Bultfontein
Critical risks
High risk
Medium risk
10
3.3 Gauteng Province
Five plants in Gauteng reside in critical risk position, and a number of plants are in high risk positions. Subsequently, these plants are placed under regulatory surveillance and therefore require immediate intervention:
WSA Name 2014 Average CRR/CRRmax % deviation
WWTPs in critical and high risk space
Randfontein LM
81.8% Randfontein
Midvaal LM 79.1% OheniMuri Vaal Marina, Meyerton
Ekurhuleni Metro
72.6% Tsakane, Welgedacht
Vlakplaas, Esther Park, J.P. Marais, Jan Smuts, Waterval, Dekama, Rondebult, Benoni, Hartebeesfontein
City of Tshwane
69.2% Ekangala, Rethabiseng
Babelegi, Rayton, Baviaanspoort, Godrich, Zeekoegat, Sunderland Ridge, Refilwe
Mogale City LM
66.5% Flip Human
Emfuleni LM 62.0% Sebokeng
Lesedi LM 61.8% Heidelberg
Critical risk plants
High risk WSA and plants
Medium risk WSA
11
3.4 Kwazulu-Natal Province
The following municipalities are in high- and critical risk positions and will be placed under regulatory surveillance and therefore require immediate intervention:
WSA Name 2014 Average CRR/CRRmax % deviation
WWTPs in critical and high risk space
Uthukela DM 89.7% Weenen, Wembezi, Estcourt
Ladysmith, Bergville, Colenso, Ekuvukeni, Winterton, Ezakheni
Uthungulu DM 86.0%
Mbongolwane, Nkandla, Oceanview, Owen SitholeAgric College
Gingindhlovu, King dinuzulu, KwaBadala, Mpushini, Mtunzini, Ekuphumuleni Hospital, Melmoth, Caterine booth Hospital, Ekhombe
Umkhanyakude DM
80.0% Ingwavuma-Mosvolt Hospital, KwzMsane, Manguzi Hospital, Matubatuba, Hluhluwe, Mkhuze, Hlabisa Hospital, St Lucia, Jozini
Ugu DM 77.0% Mbango, Margate Eden Wilds, Malangeni, Melville, Murchison Hospital, Pennington, Red Dessert, Shelly Beach, Harding, Ramsgate, Scottburgh, Munster, Palm Beach, South Broom
Zululand DM 74.3% Thulasizwe eDumbe-Paul Pietersburg, Klipfontein, Vryheid, Ceza Hospital, Itshelejabu Hospital, Nongoma, Pongola, Ulundi, Nkonjeni Hospital
Sisonke DM 72.9% Franklin Underberg, Bulwer, Polela, St Apollonaris
Amajuba DM 69.1% Utrecht, Welgedagt
Umzinyathi DM 64.2% Tugela Ferry
Ilembe DM 62.2% Vukile, Montebello Hospital
Mphumulo Hospital, Ntunjambili Hospital, Stanger, Kwadukuza
% Deviation = CRR/CRR(max)
TREND
90 – 100% Critical risk WWTPs
70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs
50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs
<50% Low Risk WWTPs
12
3.5 Limpopo Province
The following municipalities are in high and critical risk positions in Limpopo following the assessments. Subsequently, these plants are placed under regulatory surveillance and therefore require immediate intervention:
WSA Name 2014 Average CRR/CRRmax % deviation
WWTPs in critical and high risk space
Greater Sekhukhune DM
90.3%
Burgersfort,Elandskraal, Groblersdal, Jane Furse,Leeuwfontein (Mokganyaka),Meckleberg (Moroke), Monsterlus (Hlogotlou), Motetema, Nebo, Phokwane, Tubatse
Denilton, Marble Hall, Roosenekaal
Mogalakwena LM
86.4% Rebone Mokopaneold&new
Lephalale LM 83.5% Zongesien
Mookgophong LM
82.4% Thusang (Roedtan)
Thabazimbi LM 80.4% Thabazimbi Northam, Rooiberg
Mopani DM 79.5% Modjadji (Duiwelskloof), Senwamokgope, Namakgale
Lulekani, Giyani, Pahlaborwa, Lenyenye
Vhembe DM 78.8% Mutale, Mhinga, Musina, Nancefiled, Thifulanani
Thohoyandou, Dzanani, Siloam Ponds
BelaBela LM 78.4% Radium Pienaarsrivier
Modimolle LM 73.5% Vaalwater
Capricorn DM 69.4% Alldays, Lebowakgomo Ponds, Senwabarwana
Medium risk WSA and plants
High risk WSA and plants
Critical risk WSA and plants
13
3.6 Mpumalanga Province The following municipalities are in critical risk positions in 2014. All municipal plants that are in critical and high risk space are placed under regulatory surveillance. Subsequently, these plants are placed under regulatory surveillance and therefore require immediate intervention:
WSA Name 2014 Average CRR/CRRmax % deviation
WWTPs in critical and high risk space
Dipaleseng LM 100.0% Belfour, Greylingstad, Grootvlei Mine, Grootvlei Eskom
Lekwa LM 100.0% Standerton, Morgenzon
PixleykaSeme LM 98.8% Volksrust, Vukuzakhe, Amersfoort, Perdekop, Wakkerstroom
Msukaligwa LM 98.5% Breyten AS, Chrissesmeer, Davel, Ermelo, Lothair, Breyten Ponds
Emalahleni LM 96.6%
Klipspruit, Rietspruit, Riverview, Ferrobank, Phola-Ogies, Kriel-Ganala
Naauvwpoort
Mkhondo LM 94.8% Amsterdam, Piet Retief
Govan Mbeki LM 92.0% Embalenhle, Trichardt, Evander, Kinross, Leandra-Leslie
Bethal
Victor Khanye LM 87.3% Botleng, Delmas
Thembisile LM 84.3% KwaMhlanga Ponds East KwaMhlanga West, Tweefontein
Albert Luthuli LM 83.5% Ekulendeni-Kromdraai, Mpuluzi-Mayflower
Badplaas, Carolina
Emakhazeni LM 83.4% Emthonjeni-Machadorp WatervalBoven-Mgwenwa, Belfast, Dullstroom
Dr JS Moroka LM 81.2% Vaalbank
Bushbuckridge LM 80.2% Dwarsloop, Thulamahshe, Mangwaza, Tintiswalo Hospital
Maviljan, Mkhuhlu
Nkomazi LM 78.8% Hectorspruit, Komatipoort, Mhlathikop, Tonga, Malelane
Umjindi LM 77.3% Barberton
Steve Tshwete LM 61.9% Blinkpan-Mine Village
Mbombela LM 58.0% Kabokweni
Critical risk WSA and plants
High risk WSA and plants
Medium risk WSA
Low Risk WSA
14
3.7 North West Province The following municipalities are in high and critical risk positions in 2014 and placed under regulatory surveillance and therefore require immediate intervention:
WSA Name
2014 Average
CRR/CRRmax % deviation
WWTPs in critical and high risk space
Maquassi Hills LM
100.0% Rulaganyang, Wolmaranstad, Leeudoringstad
Moretele LM 100.0% Swartdam
NgaraModiriMolema DM
99.6%
Coligny, Itsoseng, Lichtenburg, Ottosdal, Sannieshof, Mafikeng, Delareyville, Lehurutshe-Welbedacht, Atamelang, Zeerust, Mmabatho
Ventersdorp LM 94.1% Ventersdorp
Matlosana LM 89.9% Stilfontein, Hartebeesfontein Orkney, Klerksdorp
Dr. Ruth S Mompati DM
88.2% Bloemhof, SchweizerReinecke, Vryburg
Kgetlengriver LM
88.2% Koster Swartruggens
Moses Kotane LM
76.5% Mogwase
Madibeng LM 71.2% Rietfontein-Hartbeespoort, Letlhabile, Mothotlung
Rustenburg LM 58.4% Monnakato
Critical risk plants
High risk WSA and plants
Medium risk WSA
15
3.8 Northern Cape Province The following municipalities (red and orange marking) are in high and critical risk positions in the Northern Cape following the post 2013 assessments. Subsequently, these plants are placed under regulatory surveillance and placed under regulatory surveillance and therefore require immediate intervention:
WSA Name 2014 Average CRR/CRRmax % deviation
WWTPs in critical and high risk space
Renosterberg LM 100.0% Vanderkloof, Petrusville, Pillipstown
Richtersveld LM 100.0% Port Nolloth Gamagara LM 94.5% Olifantshoek, Dibeng, Dingleton
Marareng LM 94.1% Warrenton Thembelihle LM 92.7% Hopetown Old and New Strydenburg Old and New
Ga-Segonyana LM 91.2% Kuruman Mothibistad
!Kai! Garib LM 90.2% Kenhardt Keimoes, Kakamas
Karoo Hoogland LM
86.3% Williston Fraserburg, Sutherland
Mier LM 86.3% Askam, Loubos Rietfontein
Umsobomvu LM 76.5% Noupoort Colesberg
Sol Plaatjie LM 76.2%
Homevale, Beaconsfield, Ritchie-Rietvale
Phokwane LM 74.5% Jan Kempsdorp Hartswater
Dikgatlong LM 68.6% Barkley West
Ubuntu LM 68.6% Richmond
Siyancuma LM 68.6% Douglas
Kareeberg LM 68.6% Carnavon
Siyathemba LM 66.7% Prieska
Nama Khoi LM 64.7% Bergsig Springbok, Steinkopf, Carolusburg, Nababeep
!Kheis LM 62.4% Groblershoop
Joe Morolong LM 55.9% Hotazel
Emthanjeni LM 49.0% De Aar
Hantam LM 43.5% Calvinia
% Deviation = CRR/CRR(max)
TREND
90 – 100% Critical risk WWTPs
70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs
50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs
<50% Low Risk WWTPs
16
3.9 Western Cape Province Five plants in Western Cape reside in critical risk position in 2014, and forty six plants are in high risk positions. Subsequently, these plants are placed under regulatory surveillance therefore require immediate intervention:
WSA Name
2014 Average
CRR/CRRmax % deviation
WWTPs in critical and high risk space
Lainsburg LM 88,2% Lainsburg
Stellenbosch LM 79,5% Franschhoek, Stellenbosch, Wemmershoek, Pniel, Raithby, Klapmuts
Kannaland LM 78,4% Ladismith, Zoar
Prince Albert LM 76,5% Klaarstroom, Leeu Gamka, Prince Albert
Cederberg LM 75,6% Algeria, Wupperthal
Citrusdal, Eland's Bay - Piketberg
Swellendam LM 75,3% Buffelsjag, Barrydale, Koornland, Klipperivier, Suurbraak
Matzikama LM 74,5% Nuwerus Doringbaai, Klawer, Bitterfontein, Lutzville, Vredendal South, Ebennaeser, Koekenaap, Strandfontein
Cape Agulhas LM 72,1% Struisbaai, Waenhuiskrans, Bredasdorp
Langeburg LM 64,5% Montagu, Ashton
Swartland LM 64,4% Koringberg, Kalbaskraal, Moorreesburg, Riebeeck Kasteel, Riebeeck Wes
Breede Valley LM 63,0% Rawsonville
Saldanha Bay LM 58,0% Saldanha
Oudtshoorn LM 57,6% Oudtshoorn
Drakenstein LM 56,1% Wellington
Berg River LM 55,3% Velddrift
Hessequa LM 51,8% Stilbaai, Albertina, Riversdale
Theewaterskloof LM
49,6% Caledon
City of Cape Town Metro
49,3% Borcherd's Quarry, Athlone
Critical risk WSA and plants
High risk WSA and plants
Medium risk WSA and plants
Low risk WSA and plants
17
Green Drop Progress Acknowledgement 2014 The following municipalities are commended for their outstanding achievement in terms of risk abatement and overall risk management practices. Well done and continue to aspire to advance this good practice to even higher peripheries in the coming year of full Green Drop Certification Audits.
Eastern Cape: Best overall risk positions achieved: Buffalo City; Nelson Mandela
Best progress in risk abatement: Camdeboo
Free State: Best overall risk positions achieved: Tokologo
Best progress in risk abatement: Tokologo
Gauteng:
Best overall risk positions achieved: City of Johannesburg; Johannesburg Water
Best progress in risk abatement: Merafong
Kwa-Zulu Natal:
Best overall risk positions achieved: eThekwini; Umhlathuze; Umgungundlovu
Best progress in risk abatement: Umhlathuze
Limpopo:
Best overall risk positions achieved: Polokwane
Best progress in risk abatement: Vhembe
Mpumalanga:
Best overall risk positions achieved: Mbombela
Best progress in risk abatement: Albert Luthuli; Nkomazi; Steve Tshwete
Northern Cape:
Best overall risk positions achieved: Tsantsabane; Hantam; Emthanjeni
Best progress in risk abatement: Tsantsabane; Hantam; Kamiesberg; Kheis; Joe
Morolong; Siyathemba; Siyancuma; Ubuntu; Khai
Ma; Nama Khoi
North West:
Best overall risk positions achieved: Tlokwe; Rustenburg
18
Best progress in risk abatement: Tlokwe; Rustenburg; Moses Kotane
Western Cape:
Best overall risk positions achieved: Beaufort West; Bitou; Witzenberg; Overstrand
Best progress in risk abatement: Beaufort West; Bitou; Hessequa; Bergriver;
Drakenstein