CHAPTER 4 PUBLIC WORKS TREATMENT FACILITIES

CHAPTER 4 PUBLIC WORKS TREATMENT FACILITIES National CRR Risk Ratio 2012 = 74.3% Provincial Best Performers The best performing DPW Regional Offices in South Africa are situated in the medium risk space: Eastern Cape Port Elizabeth with CRR/CRR max of 60% Western Cape with CRR/CRR max of 61.8% KwaZulu North with CRR/CRR max of 67.4 % Gauteng Pretoria with CRR/CRR max of 67.4 % The best performing wastewater systems in South Africa are: Groot Fontein Agriculture College with CRR/CRR max of 29.4% Robben Island with CRR/CRR max of 41.2% Provincial Lowest Performers The lowest performing DPW Regional Office in South Africa is situated in the critical risk space: Northern Cape with CRR/CRR max of 96.1% with all plants in the critical risk category The lowest performing plants (situated in the critical risk space with CRR/CRR max of 100% are: Eastern Cape Mthatha (7), Mpumalanga (3), KwaZulu Natal South (3), North West (2), Northern Cape (2), Limpopo (1) and Free State (1) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 28

Current National Status The current national situation reflects 117 DPW owned wastewater systems in South Africa. The status of the design flows and daily inflows of these wastewater systems can be summarised as follows: MICRO SIZE <0.5 Ml/day SMALL SIZE 0.5-2 Ml/day MEDIUM SIZE 2-10 Ml/day LARGE SIZE 10-25 Ml/day MACRO SIZE >25 Ml/day Undeter mined Totals No of WWTPs 11 8 3 0 0 95 117 Total Design Capacity (Ml/day) 1.02 6.98 7.00 0.00 0.00 95 15.00 Total Daily Inflows (Ml/day) *ADWF = Average dry Weather Flow WWTP = Wastewater Treatment Plants 1.74 8.75 7.20 0.00 0.00 89 17.69 Ninety five of the 117 plants have unknown design capacities and eighty nine of the 117 plants are not measuring the flows into the plants at the frequency required. The respective Regional Offices must make a concerted effort to calculate these unknown design capacities. Also, as a minimum requirement, the Process Controllers at all these plants (where no flow monitoring is currently undertaken) should be taught to do basic manual inflow monitoring, calculations and recordings at these plants as a preliminary measure but ultimately flow meters should be installed, calibrated and be part of the operational rosters and schedules at each plant. At the present situation reflects in the table above, the number of plants situated in the large and macro sizes will remain unknown until all the design capacities of the plants have been established. The undetermined status of the design capacities and inflows remains inordinately high in proportion to the total number of wastewater systems in South Africa. National Distribution of DPW - WWTPs MICRO SIZE <0.5 Ml/day, 11 SMALL SIZE 0.5-2 Ml/day, 8 MEDIUM SIZE 2-10 Ml/day, 3 MACRO SIZE >25 Ml/day, 0 Undetermined, 95 LARGE SIZE 10-25 Ml/day, 0 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 29

National Distribution of Design Capacities LARGE SIZE 10-25 Ml/day, 0.00 MACRO SIZE >25 Ml/day, 0.00 MICRO SIZE <0.5 Ml/day, 1.02 MEDIUM SIZE 2-10 Ml/day, 7.00 SMALL SIZE 0.5-2 Ml/day, 6.98 National Distribution of Inflows LARGE SIZE 10-25 Ml/day, 0.00 MACRO SIZE >25 Ml/day, 0.00 MICRO SIZE <0.5 Ml/day, 1.74 MEDIUM SIZE 2-10 Ml/day, 7.20 SMALL SIZE 0.5-2 Ml/day, 8.75 The number and split of the wastewater systems in South Africa per DPW Regional Office can also be summarised as follows: DPW Regional offices No WWTP s SAPS Military or Naval Correctional Services (Prisons) WWTP Split Border Post or Control Port of Entry Magistrate s Court, College or School Gauteng (Pretoria) 8 1 5 1 1 Gauteng 1 1 Other or not specifie d DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 30

(Johannesburg) KwaZulu Natal 18 4 2 8 3 1 (North and South) Limpopo 17 2 12 1 1 1 Mpumalanga 10 1 3 3 3 North West 10 4 2 1 3 Free State 7 1 6 Eastern Cape 10 3 4 1 2 (Port Elizabeth) Eastern Cape 18 3 1 12 2 (Mthatha) Western Cape 12 1 9 1 1 Northern Cape 6 2 1 2 1 117 18 29 40 8 5 3 14 No. of Wastewater Treatment Works per DPW Regional Office Western Cape, 12 Northern Cape, 6 Gauteng (Pretoria), 8 Gauteng (JHBG), 1 KwaZulu Natal (North & South), 18 Eastern Cape (Umtata), 18 Limpopo, 17 Eastern Cape (PE), 10 Free State, 7 North West, 10 Mpumalanga, 10 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 31

% WWTP Split Split of Wastewater Treatment Works per DPW Regional Office 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Other or Unspecified Magistrates Court, College or School Port of Entry Border Post or Control Correctional Services Military or Naval DPW Regional Offices National Risk Analysis The following table shows the cumulative risk analysis for various performance categories for the plants in South Africa in 2012: NATIONAL CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS Performance Category 2012 Highest CRR 17 Average CRR 12.6 Lowest CRR 5 Average Design Rating (A) 1.0 Average Capacity Exceedance Rating (B) 4.8 Average Effluent Failure Rating (C) 4.3 Average Technical Skills Rating (D) 3.5 AVERAGE % DEVIATION from maximum CRR 74.3% From the above table, it can be observed that the national as a whole falls within the high risk space and indicates that efforts and resources would be required to rectify and abate the 79 of the 117 plants operating in the high and critical risk space. The CRR/CRRmax%deviation of 74.3% can be compared with the South African average of 66.0% that was obtained for municipal plants. This indicates a 8% gap to bridge, which can be used a valuable benchmark. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 32

Number of WWTPs The treatment capacity exceedance is demonstrating that the plants are mostly overloaded or their status unknown in which case the Regulator assign maximum risk (assuming >100% flow) to the plants. The plants not measuring the daily flows and the number of effluent failures are high. Until flow monitoring is initiated for these plants and monitoring commences for these plants, it is not known whether these figures are highly skewed or if this is not the case. The appointment of staff and the classification of these Supervisors and Process Controllers have to be addressed as well. These risk indicators should be used to focus on the mentioned risk element (i.e. design capacity, operational flow, effluent quality, technical skill). The number of plants in the different risk categories is represented in the histogram below. Nationally, the total number of plants in critical space is 27 and number of plants in high risk space is 42. Ideally, DPW wants to move its overall performance into low and medium risk space, but this would require focussed planning and tightening the service levels agreement with service providers to ensure >90% effluent on an ongoing basis. National Risk Profile: CRR as % of CRRmax 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 41 42 27 7 0-50 50-70 70-90 90-100 RISK PERCENTAGE % Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND 90 100% Critical risk WWTPs 70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs 50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs <50% Low Risk WWTPs The following plants are in the critical and high risk categories and require a concerted strategy and corrective action plans to turnaround the performance at these plants commencing with a rigorous CRR analysis of the status quo and way forward: Position DPW Regional Office and Regional Splits 2012 Average CRR/CRRmax % deviation 1 Eastern Cape PE 60.0% 2 Western Cape 61.8% 3 KwaZulu Natal North 67.4% 4 Gauteng Pretoria 68.4% 5 North West 73.5% 6 Limpopo 74.0% DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 33

Risk Profile - % CRR/CRRmax 60.0 61.8 67.4 68.4 73.5 74.0 78.8 80.7 88.2 88.2 88.2 96.1 Position DPW Regional Office and Regional Splits 2012 Average CRR/CRRmax % deviation 7 KwaZulu Natal South 78.2% 8 Mpumalanga 78.8% 9 Eastern Cape Mthatha 80.7% 10 Free State 88.2% 10 Gauteng Johannesburg 88.2% 11 Northern Cape 96.1% Critical risk High risk Medium risk The average % CRR/CRRmax and position of the DPW Regional Offices in South Africa is reflected on the performance log below. NATIONAL PERFORMANCE LOG 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Performance Position in South Africa To assist with focussed mitigation of risk within each system, the Regulator has introduced Wastewater Risk Abatement Plans (W 2 RAP) as one approach to focus and rectify the primary risk areas before high risk scenarios develop. Currently no W 2 RAPs are in place in South Africa as reflected in the table below. Finalised W 2 RAPs to abate risk as part of business Draft W 2 RAPs in place Conceptualised or W 2 RAPs in planning process None None None None None None DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 34

Conclusion The performance in South Africa can be summarised as follows: i. The majority of plants are in high and medium risk space, with 42 plants in high risk and 27 plants in critical risk space ii. 95 of 117 plants where design capacities unknown iii. 89 of 117 plants where inflows unknown iv. 54% (4.3 of 8) for final effluent failure rating on average [No effluent failures = 0, Maximum effluent failures = 8] v. 88% (3.5 of 4) for technical skills rating on average [R2834 (best case scenario) = 1 ; R2834 non- (worst case scenario) = 4] DPW REGIONAL OFFICE PERFORMANCE INDICATOR: 4 11 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 35

EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE Department of Public Works Provincial CRR Risk Ratio 2012 = 73.5% Provincial Best Performers The top three best performing plants in Eastern Cape Province: Grootfontein Agriculture College with CRR/CRR max of 29.4% Heald Town SAPS and Kwaaibrandt with CRR/CRR max of 47.1% Provincial Lowest Performers The lowest performing plants in Eastern Cape Province with CRR/CRR max of 100% are: Willowvale CS, Tabankulu CS, Mzamba SAPS, Engcobo CS, Libode CS, Flagstaff CS and Elliotdale SAPS Introduction There are currently in total 28 wastewater systems where 18 plants fall in the Mthatha region and 10 plants fall within the Port Elizabeth region. The current status as a whole can be summarised as follows: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 36

MICRO SIZE <0.5 Ml/day SMALL SIZE 0.5-2 Ml/day MEDIUM SIZE 2-10 Ml/day LARGE SIZE 10-25 Ml/day MACRO SIZE >25 Ml/day Undeter mined Totals No of WWTPs 5 4 19 28 Total Design Capacity (Ml/day) 0.21 3.65 19 3.86 Total Daily Inflows (Ml/day) *ADWF = Average dry Weather Flow WWTP = Wastewater Treatment Plants 0.11 3.3 23 3.41 Nineteen of the 28 plants have unknown design capacities and twenty three of the 28 plants are not measuring the flows into the plants at the frequency required. The KZN regional office has appointed a Consultant to calculate the unknown design capacities for the Mthatha plants which is a positive step forward. As a minimum requirement, the Process Controllers should be taught to do basic manual inflow monitoring, calculations and recordings at these plants until such time as flow meters are installed and are operational. Provincial Risk Analysis The following table shows the cumulative risk analysis for various performance categories for the plants in the Eastern Cape Province in 2012: CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS Performance Category 2012 Highest CRR 17 Average CRR 12.5 Lowest CRR 5 Average Design Rating (A) 1.0 Average Capacity Exceedance Rating (B) 4.6 Average Effluent Failure Rating (C) 4.4 Average Technical Skills Rating (D) 3.5 AVERAGE % DEVIATION from maximum CRR 73.3 From the above table, it can be observed that the province as a whole falls within the high risk space and indicates that efforts and resources would be required to rectify and abate the 16 of the 28 plants operating in the high and critical risk areas. Out of these 16 plants the Mthatha region has 14 of these plants operating in the high and critical risk space. The treatment capacity exceedance is demonstrating that the plants are mostly overloaded due to many plants not measuring the daily flows into the plants, and the number of effluent failures remains high. Until flow monitoring is initiated for 23 of the 28 plants and monitoring commences for 8 of the 28 plants, it is not known whether these figures are highly skewed or if this is not the case. The appointment of staff and the classification of these Supervisors and Process Controllers have to be addressed as well. These risk indicators should be used to focus on the mentioned risk element (i.e. design capacity, operational flow, effluent quality, technical skill). DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 37

The number of plants in the different risk categories is represented in the histogram below. The number of plants in critical space is 7 and number of plants in high risk space is 9. Risk Profile: CRR as % of CRRmax 10 8 9 9 7 6 4 3 2 0 0-50 50-70 70-90 90-100 RISK PERCENTAGE % Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND 90 100% Critical risk WWTPs 7 70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs 9 50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs 9 <50% Low Risk WWTPs 3 The following plants are in the critical and high risk categories and require a concerted strategy and corrective action plans to turnaround the performance at these plants commencing with a rigorous CRR analysis of the status quo and way forward: Priority DPW Regional Office 2012 Average CRR/CRRmax % deviation WWTPs in critical and high risk space 1 Port Elizabeth 81% Willowvale CS, Tabankulu CS, Mzamba SAPS, Engcobo CS, Libode CS, Flagstaff CS, Elliotdale SAPS, Cofimvaba CS, Mthatha CS, Qunu Museum, Elliotsdale CS, Nqamakwe CS, Lusikisiki CS and Mthatha 14 SAI 2 Mthatha 60% Debe Neck SAPS and Middledrift Prison 7 Critical risk 9 High risk 9 Medium risk To assist with focussed mitigation of risk within each system, the Regulator has introduced Wastewater Risk Abatement Plans (W 2 RAP) as one approach to focus and rectify the primary risk areas before high risk scenarios develop. Currently no W 2 RAPs are in place in Eastern Cape as reflected in the table below. Finalised W 2 RAPs to abate risk as part of business Draft W 2 RAPs in place Conceptualised or W 2 RAPs in planning process None None None None None None DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 38

Conclusion Eastern Cape progress can be summarised as follows: i. The majority of plants are in high and medium risk space, with 9 plants in high risk and 7 plants in critical risk space. ii. 19 of 28 plants where design capacities unknown iii. 23 of 28 plants where inflows unknown iv. 55% (4.4 of 8) for final effluent failure rating on average [No effluent failures = 0, Maximum effluent failures = 8] v. 88% (3.5 of 4) for technical skills rating on average [R2834 (best case scenario) = 1 ; R2834 non- (worst case scenario) = 4] EASTERN CAPE MTHATHA PERFORMANCE POSITION IN SOUTH AFRICA: EASTERN CAPE PE PERFORMANCE POSITION IN SOUTH AFRICA: 1 st 9 th DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 39

Department of Public Works: Eastern Cape - Mthatha Assessment Areas Cofimvaba CS Elliotdale CS Elliotdale SAPS Engcobo CS Technology Oxidation ponds Oxidation ponds Activated sludge and sludge drying beds Oxidation ponds Design Capacity (Ml/d) Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity i) Microbiological 0.0% 0.0% NI NI ii) Chemical 76.5% 50.0% NI NI iii) Physical 66.7% 66.7% NI NI Annual Average Effluent Quality 47.7% 38.9% NI NI Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 76.5% 76.5% 100.0% 100.0% Highest Risk Area Design and Design and Design and Design and operational capacity operational capacity operational capacity operational capacity not known, non not known, non not known, non not known, non with with with with staff, no effluent staff, no effluent staff, poor effluent staff, poor effluent monitoring monitoring Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 NI NI NI R.584 Description of Projects Expenditure Additional Notes Plant to be refurbished and ponds lined Refurbishment of aeration Lining of ponds, perimeter fencing and installation of irrigation pump Assessment Areas Flagstaff CS Libode CS Lusikisiki CS Maluti SAPS Technology Oxidation ponds Oxidation ponds Oxidation ponds Oxidation ponds Design Capacity (Ml/d) Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity iv) Microbiological NI NI 0.0% NMR v) Chemical NI NI 75.0% NMR vi) Physical NI NI 66.7% NMR Annual Average Effluent Quality NI NI 47.2% NMR Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 100.0% 100.0% 70.6% 52.9% Highest Risk Area Design and operational capacity not known, non with staff, no effluent monitoring Design and operational capacity not known, non with staff, no effluent monitoring Design and operational capacity not known, non with staff. Poor effluent Design and operational capacity not known, non with staff Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 40

Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 Description of Projects Expenditure Additional Notes Assessment Areas Lining of ponds, perimeter fencing and installation of irrigation pump Mthatha ACCU SAPS Prison facilities not yet operational. Minimal flow from SAPS and Court. monitoring initiated February 2012 Lining of ponds, perimeter fencing and installation of irrigation pump Mthatha CS Mthatha 14SAI Mount Fletcher CS Technology Oxidation ponds Oxidation ponds Oxidation ponds Oxidation ponds Design Capacity (Ml/d) Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity vii) Microbiological 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% NMR viii) Chemical 93.8% 50.0% 75.0% NMR ix) Physical 100.0% 66.7% 66.7% NMR Annual Average Effluent Quality 64.6% 38.9% 47.2% NMR Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 64.7% 76.5% 70.6% 52.9% Highest Risk Area Design and operational capacity not known, non with staff, poor microbiological effluent Design and operational capacity not known, non with staff, poor effluent Design and operational capacity not known, non with staff, poor effluent Design and operational capacity not known, non with staff Risk Abatement Process No W2RAP No W2RAP No W2RAP No W2RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 Description of Projects Expenditure Lining of ponds, perimeter fencing, installation of irrigation pump Additional Notes Establishing design capacity and operating capacity to assess requirement for plant upgrade Assessment Areas Mqanduli CS Mzamba SAPS Nqamakwe CS Qunu Museum Technology Oxidation ponds Rotating biological Biofilters package Oxidation ponds contactors plant Design Capacity (Ml/d) Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity x) Microbiological 0.0% NI 0.0% 0.0% xi) Chemical 95.0% NI 93.8% 82.5% xii) Physical 100.0% NI 66.7% 83.3% Annual Average Effluent 64.7% NI 53.5% 55.5% DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 41

Quality Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) Highest Risk Area 64.7% 100% 70.6% 76.5% Design and operational capacity not known, non with staff, poor microbiological effluent Design and operational capacity not known, non with staff, no effluent monitoring Design and operational capacity not known, non with staff, poor effluent Design and operational capacity not known, non with staff Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 Description of Projects Expenditure Lining of ponds, perimeter fencing, installation of irrigation pump Assessment Areas Tabankulu CS Willowvale CS Technology Oxidation ponds Oxidation ponds Design Capacity (Ml/d) NI NI Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity NI NI xiii) Microbiological NI NI xiv) Chemical NI NI xv) Physical NI NI Annual Average Effluent Quality NI NI Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 100% 100% Design and operational capacity not known, Design and operational capacity not known, Highest Risk Area non with non with staff, no effluent staff, no effluent monitoring monitoring Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 NI NI Description of Projects Expenditure Lining of ponds, perimeter fencing, installation of irrigation pump Regulation Impression The Eastern Cape Mthatha region currently has eighteen wastewater treatment plants under their jurisdiction. Of the eighteen plants, seven plants are rated at a critical risk rating, seven plants with a high risk rating and four with a medium risk rating. Parameters that contribute to the risk are the lack of information regarding the design and operating capacity, poor effluent or the absence of effluent monitoring, and non with R2834 with regard to operating staff. Plants that have a maximum risk rating of 100% have no information available with regard to the design and operating capacity, do not undertake effluent monitoring and do not have operating staff that complies with R2834. The poor microbiological for all plants where effluent monitoring is implemented is unacceptable, as this will negatively impact on the receiving environment. In addition, the design and operating capacity is not known for any of the treatment plants so it is not possible to establish whether the plants are operating within the design capacity or are overloaded. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 42

The Department encourages the Department of Public Works in the Eastern Cape to develop a Green Drop Improvement Plan and W 2 RAP to guide a risk based approach to the development and implementation of actions required to improve the performance of the plants and a sustainable reduction of the risk rating at all the wastewater treatment plants. Improved with the Green Drop criteria and a reduction of the risk rating will require management support and the appropriate allocation of resources for implementation of corrective actions. Risk Analysis 2012 Performance 2012 Systems (as CRR/CRR max %) Low risk 0 Medium risk 4 High risk 7 Critical risk 7 Elliotdale SAPS Flagstaff CS Risk per plant as CRR/CRR max % deviation 100 100 Performance Indicator Libode CS Engcobo CS 100 100 Mzamba SAPS 100 Tabankulu CS 100 Willowvale CS 100 Mthatha 14 SAI Lusikisiki CS Elliotdale CS Qunu Museum Mthatha ACCU Nqamakwe CS Mthatha CS Mqanduli CS Cofimvaba CS Maluti SAPS Mt Fletcher CS 53 53 71 71 76 76 65 71 76 65 76 0 20 40 60 80 100 2012 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 43

Department of Public Works: Eastern Cape - Port Elizabeth Assessment Areas Debe Neck SAPS Die Blaar Technology Biofilters Activated sludge Grootfontein Agric College Biofilters, anaerobic digestion, land application of sludge Heald Town SAPS Activated sludge Design Capacity (Ml/d) NI 0.015 1.0 0.01 Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity xvi) Microbiological xvii) Chemical xviii) Physical Annual Average Effluent Quality Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) Highest Risk Area NI NI (Assume 100%) 100% 20.0% NI 100.0% 100.0% 80.0% NI 90.0% 100.0% 72.5% NI 100.0% 100.0% 66.7% NI 96.7% 100.0% 73.1% 88.2% 58.8% 29.4% 47.1% Design and operating capacity not known, no monitoring data Lack of influent monitoring, non with staff Operating capacity equals design capacity Non with staff, poor effluent Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 NI NI NI R1.5m Description of Projects Expenditure Additional Notes Operated by Amatola Water Operated by Amatola Water Operated by Amatola Water Construction of drying beds ongoing and installation of additional aeration Operated by Amatola Water Assessment Areas Kirkwood CS Kwaaibrandt Middeldrift CS Technology Biofilters, anaerobic digestion and sludge drying Activated sludge Oxidation ponds beds Design Capacity (Ml/d) 0.75 0.015 0.5 Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity 66.7% NI (Assume 100%) NI (Assume 100%) xix) Microbiological 72.0% 100.0% 100.0% xx) Chemical 90.5% 100.0% 45.6% xxi) Physical 84.3% 100.0% 81.7% Annual Average Effluent Quality 82.3% 100.0% 75.7% Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 58.8% 47.1% 82.4% Highest Risk Area Non with R2834 for operating and maintenance staff, poor effluent Lack of influent monitoring, non with R2834 for operating and maintenance staff Design and operational capacity not known, non with R2834 for operating staff, poor effluent Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 NI NI NI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 44

Description of Projects Expenditure NI NI NI Additional Notes Operated by Amatola Water Operated by Amatola Water Assessment Areas Patensie CS St Albany CS Storms River SAPS Technology Biofilters, anaerobic digestion and sludge drying beds Biofilters, anaerobic digestion and sludge drying beds Activated sludge Design Capacity (Ml/d) 0.16 1.4 0.01 Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity 68.8% 128.6% NI (Assume 100%) xxii) Microbiological 72.0% 90.0% 63.0% xxiii) Chemical 56.5% 56.0% 83.3% xxiv) Physical 87.3% 93.7% 93.7% Annual Average Effluent Quality 71.9% 79.9% 80.0% Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 58.8% 64.7% 64.7% Highest Risk Area Poor effluent Operating capacity exceeds design capacity, poor effluent Lack of influent monitoring, non with R2834 for operating and maintenance staff, Poor effluent Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 NI R6.5m NI Description of Projects Expenditure Upgrading plant 65% complete Additional Notes Operated by Amatola Water Operated by Amatola Water Operated by Amatola Water Regulation Impression The Eastern Cape Port Elizabeth region currently has ten wastewater treatment plants under their jurisdiction. Of the ten plants, two plants are rated at a high risk rating, five plants with a medium risk rating and three with a low risk rating. The lack of information about the design and operating capacity, non with R2834 with regard to the operating and maintenance staff and poor effluent or the absence of effluent monitoring contribute to the risk rating of the plants. Several of the plants have no influent monitoring so it is not possible to establish whether the plants are operating within the design capacity or are overloaded. Upgrading of the St Albany Correctional Services plant, which is currently receiving a flow that exceeds the design capacity, is ongoing which will result in a reduction in the risk rating of the plant. The Department encourages the Department of Public Works in the Eastern Cape to develop a Green Drop Improvement Plan and W 2 RAP to guide a risk based approach to the development and implementation of actions required to improve the performance of the plants and a sustainable reduction of the risk rating at all the wastewater treatment plants. Improved with the Green Drop criteria and a reduction of the risk rating will require management support and the appropriate allocation of resources for implementation of corrective actions. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 45

Risk Analysis 2012 Performance 2012 Systems (as CRR/CRR max %) Low risk 3 Medium risk 5 High risk 2 Criticak risk 0 Die Blaar Risk per plant as CRR/CRR max % deviation 59 Kwaaibrandt 47 Performance Indicator Groot Fontein Agri Col 29 Debe neck SAPS 88 Storms River SAPS 65 Heald Town SAPS 47 St Albany CS 65 Patensie CS 59 Kirkwood CS 59 Middledrift CS 82 0 20 40 60 80 100 2012 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 46

FREE STATE PROVINCE Department of Public Works Provincial CRR Risk Ratio 2012 = 88.2% Provincial Best Performers The best performing plant in Free State Province: Groenpunt with CRR/CRR max of 71% Provincial Lowest Performers The lowest performing plant in Free State Province: Bloemspruit with CRR/CRR max of 100% Introduction There are currently in total 7 wastewater systems where the current status can be summarised as follows: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 47

MICRO SIZE <0.5 Ml/day SMALL SIZE 0.5-2 Ml/day MEDIUM SIZE 2-10 Ml/day LARGE SIZE 10-25 Ml/day MACRO SIZE >25 Ml/day Undeter mined Totals No of WWTPs 7 7 Total Design Capacity (Ml/day) Total Daily Inflows (Ml/day) *ADWF = Average dry Weather Flow WWTP = Wastewater Treatment Plants 7 0 7 0 All of the plants have unknown design capacities and are not measuring the flows into the plants. A Consultant should be appointed to calculate the unknown design capacities for these plants. As a minimum requirement, the Process Controllers should be taught to do basic manual inflow monitoring, calculations and recordings at these plants until such time as flow meters are installed and are operational. Provincial Risk Analysis The following table shows the cumulative risk analysis for various performance categories for the plants in the Free State province in 2012: CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS Performance Category 2012 Highest CRR 17 Average CRR 15.0 Lowest CRR 12 Average Design Rating (A) 1.0 Average Capacity Exceedance Rating (B) 5.0 Average Effluent Failure Rating (C) 6.0 Average Technical Skills Rating (D) 4.0 AVERAGE % DEVIATION from maximum CRR 88.2 From the above table, it can be observed that the province as a whole falls within the high risk space and indicates that efforts and resources would be required to rectify and abate the situation where all plants are operating in the high and critical risk areas. The treatment capacity exceedance is demonstrating that the plants are mostly overloaded due to many plants not measuring the daily flows into the plants, and the number of effluent failures remains high. Until flow monitoring is initiated for all these plants and monitoring commences for 4 of the 7 plants, it is not known whether these figures are highly skewed or if this is not the case. The appointment of staff and the classification of these Supervisors and Process Controllers have to be addressed as well. These risk indicators should be used to focus on the mentioned risk element (i.e. design capacity, operational flow, effluent quality, technical skill). The number of plants in the different risk categories is represented in the histogram below. The number of plants in critical space is 4 and number of plants in high risk space is 3. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 48

Risk Profile: CRR as % of CRRmax 4 4 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0-50 50-70 70-90 90-100 RISK PERCENTAGE % Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND 90 100% Critical risk WWTPs 3 70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs 4 50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs 0 <50% Low Risk WWTPs 0 The following plants are in the critical and high risk categories and require a concerted strategy and corrective action plans to turnaround the performance at these plants commencing with a rigorous CRR analysis of the status quo and way forward: Priority DPW Regional Office 2012 Average CRR/CRRmax % deviation WWTPs in critical and high risk space 1 Bloemfontein 88% All plants 3 critical risk and 4 high risk 3 Critical risk 4 High risk To assist with focussed mitigation of risk within each system, the Regulator has introduced Wastewater Risk Abatement Plans (W 2 RAP) as one approach to focus and rectify the primary risk areas before high risk scenarios develop. Currently no W 2 RAPs are in place in Free State as reflected in the table below. Conclusion Finalised W 2 RAPs to abate risk as part of business Draft W 2 RAPs in place Conceptualised or W 2 RAPs in planning process None None None None None None Free State progress can be summarised as follows: i. The majority of plants are in critical and high risk space, with 4 plants in high risk and 3 plants in critical risk space ii. All plants with design capacities unknown iii. All plants with inflows unknown iv. 75% (6 of 8) for final effluent failure rating on average [No effluent failures = 0, Maximum effluent failures = 8] v. 100% (4 of 4) for technical skills rating on average [R2834 (best case scenario) = 1 ; R2834 non- (worst case scenario) = 4] FREE STATE PERFORMANCE POSITION IN SOUTH AFRICA: 10 th DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 49

Department of Public Works: Free State Assessment Areas Bloemspruit Caledonspoort Goedemoed Groenpunt Technology Biofilters, anaerobic digestion and sludge drying beds Activated sludge and sludge drying beds Biofilters, anaerobic digestion and sludge drying beds Biofilters, anaerobic digestion and sludge drying beds Design Capacity (Ml/d) Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity xxv) Microbiological NI 0.0% 41.0% 100.0% xxvi) Chemical NI 66.3% 66.3% 83.3% xxvii) Physical NI 52.3% 52.3% 61.0% Annual Average Effluent Quality NI 39.5% 53.2% 81.4% Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 100.0% 88.2% 88.2% 70.6% Highest Risk Area Design and operating capacity not know, non with staff, poor effluent Design and operating capacity not know, non with staff, poor effluent Design and operating capacity not know, non with staff, poor effluent Design and operating capacity not know, non with staff, poor effluent Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 Description of Projects Expenditure Assessment Areas Grootvlei Maseru Bridge 22 Field Unit Technology Biofilters, anaerobic digestion and sludge drying Activated sludge Activated sludge beds Design Capacity (Ml/d) NI NI NI Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity NI NI NI xxviii) Microbiological 83.0% 67.0% 75.0% xxix) Chemical 62.3% 56.3% 62.0% xxx) Physical 55.3% 72.3% 52.7% Annual Average Effluent Quality 66.9% 65.2% 63.2% Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 94.1% 94.1% 82.4% Highest Risk Area Design and operating capacity not know, non with R2834 for operating staff, poor effluent Design and operating capacity not know, non with R2834 for operating staff, poor effluent Design and operating capacity not know, non with R2834 for operating staff, poor effluent Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 NI NI NI Description of Projects Expenditure NI NI NI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 50

Regulation Impression The Free State region currently has seven wastewater treatment plants under their jurisdiction. Of the seven plants, three plants are rated at a critical risk rating, three plants with a high risk rating and one with a high risk rating. Parameters that contribute to the risk are the lack of information regarding the design and operating capacity, poor effluent or the absence of effluent monitoring, and non with R2834 with regard to operating staff. The design and operating capacity is not known for any of the treatment plants so it is not possible to establish whether the plants are operating within the design capacity or are overloaded. The poor treatment performance, as indicated by the poor effluent, contributes to the high and critical risk rating. The Department encourages the Department of Public Works in the Free State to develop a Green Drop Improvement Plan and W 2 RAP to guide a risk based approach to the development and implementation of actions required to improve the performance of the plants and a sustainable reduction of the risk rating at all the wastewater treatment plants. Improved with the Green Drop criteria and a reduction of the risk rating will require management support and the appropriate allocation of resources for implementation of corrective actions. Risk Analysis 2012 Performance 2012 Systems (as CRR/CRR max %) Low risk 0 Medium risk 0 High risk 4 Criticak risk 3 Grootvlei Risk per plant as CRR/CRR max % deviation 94 Performance Indicator Bloemspruit Goedemoed 88 100 Maseru Bridge 94 Caledonspoort 88 22 Field Unit 82 Groenpunt 71 0 20 40 60 80 100 2012 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 51

GAUTENG PROVINCE Department of Public Works Provincial CRR Risk Ratio 2012 = 70.2% Provincial Best Performers The top three best performing plants in Gauteng Province: Ditholo Military Base, Wallmansthal Military Base and Thabatshwane Military Base with CRR/CRR max of 58.8% Provincial Lowest Performers The lowest performing plants in Gauteng Province: Devon CS with CRR/CRR max of 88.2% Roodeplaat Dog School (SAPS) with CRR/CRR max of 82.4% Zonderwater CS and Toitskraal with CRR/CRR max of 76.5% Introduction There are currently in total 9 wastewater systems and the current operational status can be summarised as follows: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 52

MICRO SIZE <0.5 Ml/day SMALL SIZE 0.5-2 Ml/day MEDIUM SIZE 2-10 Ml/day LARGE SIZE 10-25 Ml/day MACRO SIZE >25 Ml/day Undeter mined Totals No of WWTPs 1 8 9 Total Design Capacity (Ml/day) 2 8 2 Total Daily Inflows (Ml/day) *ADWF = Average dry Weather Flow WWTP = Wastewater Treatment Plants 0.32 6 0.32 All 8 plants have unknown design capacities and six of the 8 plants are not measuring the flows into the plants. A Consultant should be appointed to calculate the unknown design capacities for these plants. As a minimum requirement, the Process Controllers should be taught to do basic manual inflow monitoring, calculations and recordings at these plants until such time as flow meters are installed and are operational. Provincial Risk Analysis The following table shows the cumulative risk analysis for various performance categories for the plants in the Gauteng province in 2012: CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS Performance Category 2012 Highest CRR 17 Average CRR 12.0 Lowest CRR 10 Average Design Rating (A) 1.0 Average Capacity Exceedance Rating (B) 5.0 Average Effluent Failure Rating (C) 3.8 Average Technical Skills Rating (D) 3.2 AVERAGE % DEVIATION from maximum CRR 70.6 From the above table, it can be observed that the province as a whole falls within the high risk space and indicates that efforts and resources would be required to rectify and abate the 5 of the 9 plants operating in the high risk areas. It is taken as a positive that no plants are currently operation in the critical risk space. The treatment capacity exceedance is demonstrating that the plants are mostly overloaded due to many plants not measuring the daily flows into the plants. Until flow monitoring is initiated for 6 of the 8 plants it is not known whether the figure is highly skewed or if this is not the case. The number of effluent failures remains moderate and there is room for improvement. The appointment of staff and the classification of these Supervisors and Process Controllers have to be addressed as well. These risk indicators should be used to focus on the mentioned risk element (i.e. design capacity, operational flow, effluent quality, technical skill). The number of plants in the different risk categories is represented in the histogram below. The number of plants in the high risk space is 5. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 53

Risk Profile: CRR as % of CRRmax 5 5 4 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0-50 50-70 70-90 90-100 RISK PERCENTAGE % Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND 90 100% Critical risk WWTPs 0 70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs 5 50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs 4 <50% Low Risk WWTPs 0 The following plants are in the critical and high risk categories and require a concerted strategy and corrective action plans to turnaround the performance at these plants commencing with a rigorous CRR analysis of the status quo and way forward: Priority DPW Regional Office 2012 Average CRR/CRRmax % deviation WWTPs in high risk space 1 Johannesburg 88% Devon CS 2 Tshwane 68% Roodeplaat Dog School (SAPS), Zonderwater CS, Toitskraal and CAT Military Base 0 Critical risk 5 High risk 4 Medium risk To assist with focussed mitigation of risk within each system, the Regulator has introduced Wastewater Risk Abatement Plans (W 2 RAP) as one approach to focus and rectify the primary risk areas before high risk scenarios develop. Currently no W 2 RAPs are in place in Gauteng as reflected in the table below. Conclusion Finalised W 2 RAPs to abate risk as part of business Draft W 2 RAPs in place Conceptualised or W 2 RAPs in planning process None None None None None None Gauteng progress can be summarised as follows: i. The majority of plants are in high and medium risk space, with 5 plants in high risk and no plants in critical risk space ii. 8 of 9 plants where design capacities unknown iii. 6 of 9 plants where inflows unknown DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 54

iv. 48% (3.8 of 8) for final effluent failure rating on average [No effluent failures = 0, Maximum effluent failures = 8] v. 80% (3.2 of 4) for technical skills rating on average [R2834 (best case scenario) = 1 ; R2834 non- (worst case scenario) = 4] GAUTENG JOHANNESBURG PERFORMANCE POSITION IN SOUTH AFRICA: GAUTENG PRETORIA PERFORMANCE POSITION IN SOUTH AFRICA: 4 th 10 th DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 55

Department of Public Works: Gauteng - Johannesburg Assessment Areas Devon CS Technology Biofilters, anaerobic digestion and sludge drying beds Design Capacity (Ml/d) NI Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity NI xxxi) Microbiological 67.0% xxxii) Chemical 55.8% xxxiii) Physical 96.0% Annual Average Effluent Quality 72.9% Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 88.2% Highest Risk Area Design and operating capacity not know, non with R2834 for operating staff, poor effluent Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 NI Description of Projects Expenditure NI Regulation Impression The Gauteng Johannesburg region currently has one wastewater treatment plants under their jurisdiction, which is categorised as a high risk plant. Parameters that contribute to the risk are the lack of information regarding the design and operating capacity, poor effluent and non with R2834 with regard to operating staff. The lack of information regarding the design and operating capacity means that it is not possible to establish whether the plant is operating within the design capacity or is overloaded. The Department encourages the Department of Public Works in the Gauteng Johannesburg region to develop a Green Drop Improvement Plan and W 2 RAP to guide a risk based approach to the development and implementation of actions required to improve the performance of the plants and a sustainable reduction of the risk rating at all the wastewater treatment plants. Improved with the Green Drop criteria and a reduction of the risk rating will require management support and the appropriate allocation of resources for implementation of corrective actions. Risk Analysis 2012 Performance 2012 Systems (as CRR/CRR max %) Low risk 0 Medium risk 0 High risk 1 Criticak risk 0 Devon CS Risk trend per plant as CRR/CRR max % deviation 88 Performance Indicator 0 50 100 2012 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 56

Department of Public Works: Gauteng Pretoria Boekenhoutkloof Ditholo Military Assessment Areas CAT Military Base Military Base Base Septic tank and Septic tank and Septic tank and Technology rotating biological rotating biological rotating biological contactors, sludge contactors, sludge contactors, sludge drying beds drying beds drying beds Design Capacity (Ml/d) Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity NI (assume 100%) NI (assume 100%) NI (assume 100%) NI xxxiv) Microbiological 11.0% 27.0% 50.0% 40.0% xxxv) Chemical 75.0% 70.5% 75.0% 37.5% xxxvi) Physical 96.0% 96.3% 100.0% 81.3% Annual Average Effluent Quality 60.7% 64.6% 75.0% 52.9% Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 64.7% 70.6% 58.8% 82.4% Highest Risk Area Design and operating capacity not known, non with staff, poor effluent Design and operating capacity not known, non with staff, poor effluent Design and operating capacity not known, non with staff, poor microbiological effluent Roodeplaat Dog School (SAPS) Activated sludge and sludge lagoons Design and operating capacity not known, non with staff, poor effluent Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 Description of Projects Expenditure Additional Notes Optimum MLSS concentration constrained by sludge management facility. Disinfection facility not properly located Assessment Areas Technology Thabatshwane Military Base Biofilters, anaerobic digestion and sludge drying beds Toitskraal Septic tank and rotating biological contactors, sludge drying beds Wallmansthal Military Base Biofilters, anaerobic digestion and sludge drying beds Zonderwater CS Biofilters, anaerobic digestion and sludge drying beds Design Capacity (Ml/d) Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity NI (Assume 100%) NI (assume 100%) NI (Assume 100%) NI (Assume 100%) xxxvii) Microbiological 9.0% 11.0% 78.0% 0.0% xxxviii) Chemical 72.8% 41.5% 75.0% 60.0% xxxix) Physical 96.7% 100.0% 100.0% 96.3% Annual Average Effluent Quality 59.5% 50.8% 84.3% 52.1% Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 58.8% 76.5% 58.8% 76.5% DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 57

Highest Risk Area Design and operating capacity not known, non with staff, poor microbiological effluent Design and operating capacity not known, non with staff, poor effluent Design and operating capacity not known, non with staff, poor microbiological effluent Design and operating capacity not known, non with staff, poor effluent Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 Description of Projects Expenditure Additional Notes Plant not fully operational as electrical cables and transformer stolen Regulation Impression The Gauteng Pretoria region currently has eight wastewater treatment plants under their jurisdiction. Of the eight plants, three plants are rated at a high risk rating and five with a medium risk rating. Parameters that contribute to the risk are the lack of information regarding the design and operating capacity, poor effluent or the absence of effluent monitoring, and non with R2834 with regard to operating staff. Information regarding the design and operating capacity is not known for any of the plants so it is not possible to establish whether the plants are operating within the design capacity or are overloaded. Poor microbiological is noted for all the plants, which will negatively impact on the receiving environment. The poor treatment performance, as indicated by the poor effluent, contributes to the high risk rating. The Department encourages the Department of Public Works in the Gauteng Pretoria region to develop a Green Drop Improvement Plan and W 2 RAP to guide a risk based approach to the development and implementation of actions required to improve the performance of the plants and a sustainable reduction of the risk rating at all the wastewater treatment plants. Improved with the Green Drop criteria and a reduction of the risk rating will require management support and the appropriate allocation of resources for implementation of corrective actions. Toitskraal Thabatshwane Military Base CAT Military Base Zonderwater CS Wallmansthal Military Base Risk per plant as CRR/CRR max % deviation 59 59 71 76 76 Risk Analysis 2012 Ditholo Military Base 59 Performance 2012 WWTPs (as CRR/CRR max %) Low risk 0 Medium risk 4 High risk 4 Criticak risk 0 Boekenhoutkloof Military Base Roodeplaat Dog School (SAPS) 0 20 40 60 80 100 2012 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 58 Performance Indicator 65 82

KWAZULU NATAL PROVINCE Department of Public Works Provincial CRR Risk Ratio 2012 = 71.3% Provincial Best Performers The top three best performing plants in KwaZulu Natal Province: Glencoe CS and Waterval CS with CRR/CRR max of 47% Mtunzini CS with CRR/CRR max of 53% Provincial Lowest Performers The three lowest performing plants in KwaZulu Natal Province: Warburg SAPS, Nkandla Prestige Project A and Nyoni SAPS with CRR/CRR max of 100% Introduction There are currently in total 18 wastewater systems with eleven in KwaZulu Natal North and seven in KwaZulu Natal South. The current status as a whole can be summarised as follows: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 59

MICRO SIZE <0.5 Ml/day SMALL SIZE 0.5-2 Ml/day MEDIUM SIZE 2-10 Ml/day LARGE SIZE 10-25 Ml/day MACRO SIZE >25 Ml/day Undeter mined Totals No of WWTPs 2 16 18 Total Design Capacity (Ml/day) 1.33 16 1.33 Total Daily Inflows (Ml/day) *ADWF = Average dry Weather Flow3.70 WWTP = Wastewater Treatment Plants 0.07 3.70 10 3.77 Sixteen of the 18 plants have unknown design capacities and ten of the 18 plants are not measuring the flows into the plants at the frequency required. The KZN regional office has appointed a Consultant to calculate the unknown design capacities for the KwaZulu Natal South plants which can be seen as a positive step forward. As a minimum requirement, the Process Controllers should be taught to do basic manual inflow monitoring, calculations and recordings at these plants until such time as flow meters are installed and are operational. Provincial Risk Analysis The following table shows the cumulative risk analysis for various performance categories for the plants in the KwaZulu Natal province in 2012: CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS Performance Category 2012 Highest CRR 17 Average CRR 12.2 Lowest CRR 8 Average Design Rating (A) 1.0 Average Capacity Exceedance Rating (B) 4.8 Average Effluent Failure Rating (C) 4.3 Average Technical Skills Rating (D) 3.1 AVERAGE % DEVIATION from maximum CRR 71.6 From the above table, it can be observed that the province as a whole falls within the high risk space and indicates that efforts and resources would be required to rectify and abate the 7 of the 18 plants operating in the high and critical risk areas. Out of these 18 plants the KwaZulu Natal North has 3 plants and KwaZulu Natal South has 4 plants operating in the high and critical risk space. The treatment capacity exceedance is demonstrating that the plants are mostly overloaded due to many plants not measuring the daily flows into the plants, and the number of effluent failures remains high. Until flow monitoring is initiated for 10 of the 18 plants and monitoring commences for 5 of the 18 plants, it is not known whether these figures are highly skewed or if this is not the case. The appointment of staff and the classification of these Supervisors and Process Controllers have to be addressed as well. These risk indicators should be used to focus on the mentioned risk element (i.e. design capacity, operational flow, effluent quality, technical skill). DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 60

The number of plants in the different risk categories is represented in the histogram below. The number of plants in critical space is 5 and number of plants in high risk space is 2. Risk Profile: CRR as % of CRRmax 10 9 8 6 5 4 2 2 2 0 0-50 50-70 70-90 90-100 RISK PERCENTAGE Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND 90 100% Critical risk WWTPs 5 70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs 2 50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs 9 <50% Low Risk WWTPs 2 The following plants are in the critical and high risk categories and require a concerted strategy and corrective action plans to turnaround the performance at these plants commencing with a rigorous CRR analysis of the status quo and way forward: Priority DPW Regions 2012 Average CRR/CRRmax % deviation 1 KZN South 78% 2 KZN North 67% WWTPs in critical and high risk space Wartburg SAPS, Nkandla Prestige Project A, and Nyoni SAPS and New Hanover CS Hluhluwe SAPS, Ndumo SANDF and Ubombo SAPS 5 Critical risk 2 High risk 9 Medium risk To assist with focussed mitigation of risk within each system, the Regulator has introduced Wastewater Risk Abatement Plans (W 2 RAP) as one approach to focus and rectify the primary risk areas before high risk scenarios develop. Currently no W 2 RAPs are in place in KwaZulu Natal as reflected in the table below. Finalised W 2 RAPs to abate risk as part of business Draft W 2 RAPs in place Conceptualised or W 2 RAPs in planning process None None None None None None Conclusion KwaZulu Natal progress can be summarised as follows: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 61

i. The majority of plants are in critical and medium risk space, with 2 plants in high risk and 5 plants in critical risk space ii. 16 of 18 plants where design capacities unknown iii. 10 of 80 plants where inflows unknown iv. 54% (4.3 of 8) for final effluent failure rating on average [No effluent failures = 0, Maximum effluent failures = 8] v. 78% (3.1 of 4) for technical skills rating on average [R2834 (best case scenario) = 1 ; R2834 non- (worst case scenario) = 4] KWAZULU NATAL NORTH PERFORMANCE POSITION IN SOUTH AFRICA: KWAZULU NATAL SOUTH PERFORMANCE POSITION IN SOUTH AFRICA: 3 rd 7 th DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 62

Department of Public Works: KwaZulu Natal North Assessment Areas Technology Ekuseni Juvenile CS Activated sludge and SBR and sludge drying beds Glencoe CS Golela Border Post Hlobane SAPS Activated sludge, oxidation ponds and sludge drying beds Activated sludge Activated sludge and sludge drying beds Design Capacity (Ml/d) 0.5 NI NI NI Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity 86.4% NI NI NI xl) Microbiological 33.0% 100.0% 100.0% 58.0% xli) Chemical 83.3% 100.0% 57.5% 93.8% xlii) Physical 92.7% 97.3% 100.0% 92.7% Annual Average Effluent Quality 69.6% 99.1% 85.8% 81.5% Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 58.8% 47.1% 58.8% 64.7% Highest Risk Area Design and operating Design and operating Design and operating capacity not known, Design and operating capacity not known, capacity not known, non with capacity not known, non with non with R2834, poor effluent non with R2834, poor effluent R2834, poor effluent microbiological R2834 microbiological chemical Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 Description of Projects Expenditure Assessment Areas Technology Hluhluwe SAPS Activated sludge and sludge drying beds Mtubatuba 12 Battalion Activated sludge and BNR and sludge lagoons Ncome CS Oxidation ponds Ndumo SANDF Oxidation ponds Design Capacity (Ml/d) Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity xliii) Microbiological NI 75.0% 100.0% NI xliv) Chemical NI 96.0% 73.0% NI xlv) Physical NI 96.3% 92.7% NI Annual Average Effluent Quality NI 89.1% 88.6% NI Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 94.1% 58.8% 64.7% 94.1% Design and operating capacity not known, Design and operating Design and operating Design and operating capacity not known, Highest Risk Area non with capacity not known, capacity not known, non with R2834, no effluent non with non with R2834, no effluent monitoring R2834 R2834 monitoring Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 Description of Projects Expenditure DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 63

Assessment Areas Onverwacht Border Post Ubombo SAPS Waterval CS Technology Oxidation ponds Rotating biological Biofilters, anaerobic contactors digestion, sludge drying beds Design Capacity (Ml/d) NI NI 1.0 Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity NI NI 90.0% xlvi) Microbiological 100.0% 30.0% 42.0% xlvii) Chemical 77.0% 32.5% 93.8% xlviii) Physical 80.7% 71.7% 96.3% Annual Average Effluent Quality 85.9% 44.7% 77.4% Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 64.7% 88.2% 47.1% Highest Risk Area Design and operating Design and operating Design and operating capacity not known, non capacity not known, non capacity not known, non with R2834, poor with R2834, poor with R2834 effluent microbiological effluent Risk Abatement Process No W2RAP No W2RAP No W2RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 NI NI NI Description of Projects Expenditure NI NI NI Regulation Impression The KwaZulu Natal north region currently has eleven wastewater treatment plants under their jurisdiction. Of the eleven plants, two plants are rated at a critical risk rating, one with a high risk rating, six with a medium risk rating and two with a low risk rating. Parameters that contribute to the risk are the lack of information regarding the design and operating capacity, poor effluent or the absence of effluent monitoring, and non with R2834 with regard to operating staff. The two plants that have a maximum critical risk rating have no information available with regard to the design and operating capacity, do not undertake effluent monitoring and do not have operating staff that complies with R2834. With the exception of the Ekuseni Juvenile CS plant and the Waterval CS plant, information regarding the design and operating capacity is not known for the remaining plants so it is not possible to establish whether the plants are operating within the design capacity or are overloaded. The poor treatment performance, as indicated by the poor effluent, contributes to the high risk of those plants categorised with a high risk rating. The Department encourages the Department of Public Works in the KwaZulu Natal North region to develop a Green Drop Improvement Plan and W 2 RAP to guide a risk based approach to the development and implementation of actions required to improve the performance of the plants and a sustainable reduction of the risk rating at all the wastewater treatment plants. Improved with the Green Drop criteria and a reduction of the risk rating will require management support and the appropriate allocation of resources for implementation of corrective actions. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 64

Risk Analysis 2012 Performance 2012 Systems (as CRR/CRR max %) Low risk 2 Medium risk 6 High risk 1 Criticak risk 2 Performance Indicator Ubonbo SAPS Waterval CS Onverwacht Border Post Ndumo SANDF Ncome CS Hluhluwe SAPS Hlobane SAPS Golela Border Post Glencoe CS Ekuseni Juvenille CS Mtubatuba 12 Battalion Risk per plant as CRR/CRR max % deviation 47 47 59 59 59 65 65 65 88 0 20 40 60 80 100 2012 94 94 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 65

Department of Public Works: KwaZulu Natal South Assessment Areas Kranskop CS Mtunzini CS New Hanover CS Technology Activated sludge and sludge drying beds Biofilters, anaerobic digestion, sludge drying beds Rotating biological contactors and sludge lagoons Nkandla Prestige Project Biofilter package plant Design Capacity (Ml/d) Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity xlix) Microbiological 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% NI l) Chemical 72.5% 100.0% 53.1% NI li) Physical 90.0% 100.0% 66.7% NI Annual Average Effluent Quality 54.2% 66.7% 39.9% NI Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 64.7% 52.9% 70.6% 100.0% Highest Risk Area Design and operating capacity not known, non with staff, poor effluent microbiological Design and operating capacity not known, non with staff, poor effluent microbiological Design and operating capacity not known, non with staff, poor effluent Design and operating capacity not known, non with staff, no effluent monitoring Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 Three additional Description of Projects Replacement of two sludge drying beds Expenditure of the four bio discs constructed Assessment Areas Nyoni SAPS Sevontein CS Wartburg SAPS Technology Activated sludge Activated sludge and sludge Septic tank and biofilter drying beds package plant Design Capacity (Ml/d) NI NI NI Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity NI NI NI lii) Microbiological NI 0.0% NI liii) Chemical NI 87.5% NI liv) Physical NI 100.0% NI Annual Average Effluent Quality NI 62.5% NI Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 100.0% 58.5% 100.0% Highest Risk Area Design and operating Design and operating Design and operating capacity not known, non capacity not known, non capacity not known, non with R2834 for with R2834 for with R2834 for operating operating operating staff, poor effluent staff, no effluent staff, no effluent microbiological monitoring monitoring Risk Abatement Process No W2RAP No W2RAP No W2RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 NI NI NI Description of Projects Expenditure NI NI NI Additional Notes Package plant not fully operational DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 66

Regulation Impression The KwaZulu Natal south region currently has seven wastewater treatment plants under their jurisdiction. Of the seven plants, three plants are rated at a critical risk rating and four with a medium risk rating. Parameters that contribute to the risk are the lack of information regarding the design and operating capacity, poor effluent or the absence of effluent monitoring, and non with R2834 with regard to operating staff. The three plants that have a critical risk rating have no information available with regard to the design and operating capacity, do not undertake effluent monitoring and do not have operating staff that complies with R2834. Information regarding the design and operating capacity is not known for any of the plants so it is not possible to establish whether the plants are operating within the design capacity or are overloaded. The poor treatment performance, as indicated by the poor effluent, contributes to the high risk of those plants categorised with a medium risk rating. The Department encourages the Department of Public Works in the KwaZulu Natal South region to develop a Green Drop Improvement Plan and W 2 RAP to guide a risk based approach to the development and implementation of actions required to improve the performance of the plants and a sustainable reduction of the risk rating at all the wastewater treatment plants. Improved with the Green Drop criteria and a reduction of the risk rating will require management support and the appropriate allocation of resources for implementation of corrective actions. Risk Analysis 2012 Performance 2012 Systems (as CRR/CRR max %) Low risk 0 Medium risk 3 High risk 1 Criticak risk 3 Performance Indicator Nyoni SAPS Nkandla Prestige Project A Wartburg SAPS Sevontein CS New Hanover CS Mtunzini CS Risk per plant as CRR/CRR max % deviation 53 59 71 100 100 100 Kranskop CS 65 0 50 100 2012 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 67

LIMPOPO PROVINCE Department of Public Works Provincial CRR Risk Ratio 2012 =74% Provincial Best Performers The top three best performing plants in Limpopo Province: Naboomspruit Military Base and Acornhoek SAPS with CRR/CRR max of 53% Hoedspruit 8 SQ Military Base, Hoedspruit 85 SQ Military Base and Leboeng SAPS with CRR/CRR max of 65% Provincial Lowest Performers The three lowest performing plants in Limpopo Province: Matatshe CS with CRR/CRR max of 100% Beit Bridge Border Control with CRR/CRR max of 88% Hoedspruit 19 SQ Military Base, Hoedspruit 400 SQ Military Base, Soekmekaar Magistrate Court and Vuwane Military Base with CRR/CRR max of 82% Introduction There are currently in total 17 wastewater systems and the current operational status can be summarised as follows: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 68

MICRO SIZE <0.5 Ml/day SMALL SIZE 0.5-2 Ml/day MEDIUM SIZE 2-10 Ml/day LARGE SIZE 10-25 Ml/day MACRO SIZE >25 Ml/day Undeter mined Totals No of WWTPs 17 17 Total Design Capacity (Ml/day) 17 0.00 Total Daily Inflows (Ml/day) *ADWF = Average dry Weather Flow WWTP = Wastewater Treatment Plants 0.20 3.80 14 4.00 All of the 28 plants have unknown design capacities and fourteen of the 28 plants are not measuring the flows into the plants. A Consultant should be appointed to calculate the design capacities for these plants. As a minimum requirement, the Process Controllers should be taught to do basic manual inflow monitoring, calculations and recordings at these plants until such time as flow meters are installed and are operational. Provincial Risk Analysis The following table shows the cumulative risk analysis for various performance categories for the plants in the Limpopo province in 2012: CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS Performance Category 2012 Highest CRR 17 Average CRR 12.6 Lowest CRR 9 Average Design Rating (A) 1.0 Average Capacity Exceedance Rating (B) 5.0 Average Effluent Failure Rating (C) 3.6 Average Technical Skills Rating (D) 4.0 AVERAGE % DEVIATION from maximum CRR 74 From the above table, it can be observed that the province as a whole falls within the high risk space and indicates that efforts and resources would be required to rectify and abate the 12 of the 17 plants operating in the high and critical risk areas. The fact that there is only one plant in the critical risk space is commendable. The treatment capacity exceedance is demonstrating that the plants are mostly overloaded due to many plants not measuring the daily flows into the plants, and the number of effluent failures remains moderately high. Until flow monitoring is initiated for 14 of the 17 plants it is not known whether the exceedance rating is highly skewed or not. The appointment of staff and the classification of these Supervisors and Process Controllers have to be addressed as well. These risk rating indicators should be used to focus on the mentioned risk element (i.e., design capacity, operational flow, effluent quality, technical skill). The number of plants in the different risk categories is represented in the histogram below. The number of plants in critical space is 1 and number of plants in high risk space is 11. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 69

Risk Profile: CRR as % of CRRmax 12 11 10 8 6 5 4 2 0 1 0 0-50 50-70 70-90 90-100 RISK PERCENTAGE % Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND 90 100% Critical risk WWTPs 11 70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs 11 50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs 5 <50% Low Risk WWTPs 0 The following plants are in the critical and high risk categories and require a concerted strategy and corrective action plans to turnaround the performance at these plants commencing with a rigorous CRR analysis of the status quo and way forward: Priority DPW Regional Office 2012 Average CRR/CRRmax % deviation 1 Polokwane 74% WWTPs in critical and high risk space Matatshe CS, Beit Bridge Border Control, Hoedspruit 19 SQ MB, Hoedspruit 400 SQ MB, Soekmekaar Magistrate Court, Vuwane MB, Hoedspruit 514 SQ MB, Hoedspruit Boston MB, Hoedspruit BVVA MB, Hoedspruit HQ MB and Hoedspruit Main Works MB 11 Critical risk 11 High risk 5 Medium risk To assist with focussed mitigation of risk within each system, the Regulator has introduced Wastewater Risk Abatement Plans (W 2 RAP) as one approach to focus and rectify the primary risk areas before high risk scenarios develop. Currently no W 2 RAPs are in place in Limpopo as reflected in the table below. Finalised W 2 RAPs to abate risk as part of business Draft W 2 RAPs in place Conceptualised or W 2 RAPs in planning process None None None None None None DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 70

Conclusion Limpopo progress can be summarised as follows: i. The majority of plants are in high and medium risk space, with 11 plants in high risk and 1 plant in critical risk space ii. All plants with design capacities unknown iii. 14 of 17 plants where inflows unknown iv. 45% (3.6 of 8) for final effluent failure rating on average [No effluent failures = 0, Maximum effluent failures = 8] v. 100% (4 of 4) for technical skills rating on average [R2834 (best case scenario) = 1 ; R2834 non- (worst case scenario) = 4] LIMPOPO PERFORMANCE POSITION IN SOUTH AFRICA: 6 th d DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 71

Department of Public Works: Limpopo Assessment Areas Technology Acornhoek SAPS Anaerobic and facultative ponds Beit Bridge Border Post Activated sludge and sludge drying beds Hoedspruit Military Base Main Works Biofilters, anaerobic digestion and sludge drying beds Hoedspruit Boston Military Base Septic tanks and rotating biological contactors, land disposal of sludge Design Capacity (Ml/d) Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity lv) Microbiological NMR 33.0% 92.0% 83.0% lvi) Chemical NMR 64.5% 83.3% 60.5% lvii) Physical NMR 44.3% 61.0% 75.0% Annual Average Effluent Quality NMR 47.3% 78.8% 72.8% Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 52.9% 88.2% 70.6% 76.5% Highest Risk Area Design and Design and Design and Design and operational capacity operational capacity operational capacity operational capacity not known, non not known, non not known, non not known, non with with with with staff, poor effluent staff, poor effluent staff staff Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 Description of Projects Expenditure Assessment Areas Technology Hoedspruit Military Base BVVA Septic tanks and rotating biological contactors, land disposal of sludge Hoedspruit Military Base HQ Septic tanks and rotating biological contactors, land disposal of sludge Hoedspruit Military Base 8SQ Septic tanks and rotating biological contactors, land disposal of sludge Hoedspruit Military Base 19 SQ Septic tanks and rotating biological contactors, land disposal of sludge Design Capacity (Ml/d) Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity lviii) Microbiological 83.0% 75.0% 92.0% 83.0% lix) Chemical 75.0% 75.0% 75.0% 60.5% lx) Physical 72.3% 75.0% 75.0% 69.3% Annual Average Effluent Quality 76.8% 75.0% 80.7% 70.9% Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 70.6% 70.6% 64.7% 82.4% Highest Risk Area Design and Design and Design and Design and operational capacity operational capacity operational capacity operational capacity not known, non not known, non not known, non not known, non with with with with staff, poor effluent staff, poor effluent staff, poor effluent staff DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 72

Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 Description of Projects Expenditure Assessment Areas Technology Hoedspruit Military Base 85 SQ Septic tanks and rotating biological contactors, land disposal of sludge Hoedspruit Military Base - 400 SQ Septic tanks and rotating biological contactors, land disposal of sludge Hoedspruit Military Base - 514 SQ Septic tanks and rotating biological contactors, land disposal of sludge Leboeng SAPS Septic tank and Rotating biological contactors, land disposal of sludge Design Capacity (Ml/d) Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity lxi) Microbiological 92.0% 92.0% 0.0% 92.0% lxii) Chemical 75.0% 70.8% 62.5% 79.3% lxiii) Physical 75.0% 58.3% 77.7% 77.7% Annual Average Effluent Quality 80.7% 73.7% 46.7% 83.0% Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 64.7% 82.4% 76.5% 64.7% Highest Risk Area Design and Design and Design and Design and operational capacity operational capacity operational capacity operational capacity not known, non not known, non not known, non not known, non with with with with staff, poor effluent staff, poor effluent staff staff Risk Abatement Process No W2RAP No W2RAP No W2RAP No W2RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 Description of Projects Expenditure Assessment Areas Makhado Military Base Matatshe CS Naboomspruit Military Base Technology Anaerobic and facultative Anaerobic and facultative Anaerobic and facultative ponds ponds ponds Design Capacity (Ml/d) NI NI NI Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity NI NI NI lxiv) Microbiological 100.0% 58.0% NMR lxv) Chemical 64.8% 29.2% NMR lxvi) Physical 53.0% 47.3% NMR Annual Average Effluent Quality 72.6% 44.9% NMR Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 76.5% 100.0% 52.9% Highest Risk Area Design and operational Design and operational Design and operational capacity not known, non capacity not known, non capacity not known, non with R2834 for with R2834 for with R2834 for operating operating operating staff, poor effluent staff, poor effluent staff Risk Abatement Process No W2RAP No W2RAP No W2RAP DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 73

Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 Description of Projects Expenditure NI NI NI NI NI NI Assessment Areas Soekmekaar Magistrates Court Vuwane Military Base Technology Activated sludge and sludge drying beds Activated sludge and sludge drying beds Design Capacity (Ml/d) NI NI Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity lxvii) Microbiological lxviii) Chemical lxix) Physical Annual Average Effluent Quality Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) Highest Risk Area NI 75.0% 75.0% 58.5% 71.0% 58.3% 61.0% 63.9% 69.0% 82.4% 82.4% Design and operational capacity not known, non with staff, poor effluent NI Design and operational capacity not known, non with staff, poor effluent Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 NI NI Description of Projects Expenditure NI NI Regulation Impression The DPW Limpopo currently has seventeen wastewater treatment plants under their jurisdiction. Of the seventeen plants, one plant is rated at a critical risk rating, eight plants rated at a high risk rating and eight plants with a medium risk rating. Parameters that contribute to the risk are the lack of information regarding the design and operating capacity, poor effluent or the absence of effluent monitoring, and non with R2834 with regard to operating staff. Information regarding the design and operating capacity is not known for any of the plants so it is not possible to establish whether the plants are operating within the design capacity or are overloaded. The poor treatment performance, as indicated by the poor effluent, contributes to the risk rating. The risk ratings of the Acornhoek SAPS plant and Naboomspruit Military Base plant has a lower risk rating due to the evaporation of the final effluent rather than discharge to the environment which reduces the risk of the plant. The plants are categorised as a medium risk plants. The key risk parameters are the non- with R2834 with regard to the operating staff and the lack of information regarding design and operating capacity. Although effluent monitoring is not a requirement for calculating the risk of oxidation ponds that do not discharge effluent into the environment, it is recommended to enable the treatment performance of the wastewater treatment works to be monitored. The Department encourages the Department of Public Works in Limpopo to develop a Green Drop Improvement Plan and W 2 RAP to guide a risk based approach to the development and implementation of actions required to improve the performance of the plants and a sustainable reduction of the risk rating at all the wastewater treatment plants. Improved with the Green Drop criteria and a reduction of the risk rating will require management support and the appropriate allocation of resources for implementation of corrective actions. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 74

Risk Analysis 2012 Performance 2012 Systems (as CRR/CRR max %) Low risk 0 Medium risk 5 High risk 11 Criticak risk 1 Performance Indicator Acornhoek SAPS Naboomspruit (MB) Beit Bridge (BC) Matatshe (CS) Vuwane (MB) Makhado (MB) Soekmekaar (Magistrate Court) Hoedspruit Boston(MB) Hoedspruit 8 SQ (MB) Hoedspruit 85 SQ (MB) Hoedspruit 19 SQ (MB) Hoedspruit BVVA(MB) Hoedspruit HQ (MB) Hoedspruit 514 SQ (MB) Hoedspruit 400 SQ (MB) Hoedspruit Main Works (MB) Leboeng SAPS Risk per plant as CRR/CRR max % deviation 0 20 40 60 80 100 2012 53 53 65 65 76 65 71 71 76 76 71 82 82 88 82 82 100 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 75

MPUMALANGA PROVINCE Department of Public Works Provincial CRR Risk Ratio 2012 = 78.8% Provincial Best Performers The top three best performing plants in Mpumalanga Province: Sandriver Military Base with CRR/CRR max of 53% Barberton CS and Camden Military Base with CRR/CRR max of 59% Provincial Lowest Performers The three lowest performing plants in Mpumalanga Province: Lebombo Border Post, Zonestraal Military Base and Geluk CS with CRR/CRR max of 100% Introduction There are currently in total ten wastewater systems and the current operational status can be summarised as follows: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 76

MICRO SIZE <0.5 Ml/day SMALL SIZE 0.5-2 Ml/day MEDIUM SIZE 2-10 Ml/day LARGE SIZE 10-25 Ml/day MACRO SIZE >25 Ml/day Undeter mined Totals No of WWTPs 10 10 Total Design Capacity (Ml/day) Total Daily Inflows (Ml/day) *ADWF = Average dry Weather Flow WWTP = Wastewater Treatment Plants 10 0.00 10 0.00 All of the ten plants have unknown design capacities and are not measuring the flows into the plants. A Consultant should be appointed to calculate the unknown design capacities, and as a minimum requirement, the Process Controllers should be taught to do basic manual inflow monitoring, calculations and recordings at these plants until such time as flow meters are installed and are operational. Provincial Risk Analysis The following table shows the cumulative risk analysis for various performance categories for the plants in the Mpumalanga province in 2012: CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS Performance Category 2012 Highest CRR 17 Average CRR 13.4 Lowest CRR 9 Average Design Rating (A) 1.0 Average Capacity Exceedance Rating (B) 5.0 Average Effluent Failure Rating (C) 4.4 Average Technical Skills Rating (D) 4.0 AVERAGE % DEVIATION from maximum CRR 78.8 From the above table, it can be observed that the province as a whole falls within the high risk space and indicates that efforts and resources would be required to rectify and abate the 7 of the 10 plants operating in the high and critical risk areas. The treatment capacity exceedance is demonstrating that the plants are mostly overloaded due to many plants not measuring the daily flows into the plants, and the number of effluent failures remains high. Until flow monitoring is initiated for all the plants it is not known whether this figure is highly skewed or if this is not the case. The appointment of staff and the classification of these Supervisors and Process Controllers have to be addressed as well. These risk indicators should be used to focus on the mentioned risk element (i.e. design capacity, operational flow, effluent quality, technical skill). The number of plants in the different risk categories is represented in the histogram below. The number of plants in critical space is 3 and number of plants in high risk space is 4. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 77

Risk Profile: CRR as % of CRRmax 4 4 3 3 3 2 1 0 0 0-50 50-70 70-90 90-100 RISK PERCENTAGE % Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND 90 100% Critical risk WWTPs 3 70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs 4 50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs 3 <50% Low Risk WWTPs 0 The following plants are in the critical and high risk categories and require a concerted strategy and corrective action plans to turnaround the performance at these plants commencing with a rigorous CRR analysis of the status quo and way forward: Priority DPW Regional Office 2012 Average CRR/CRRmax % deviation 1 Nelspruit 78.8 WWTPs in critical and high risk space Lebombo Border Post, Zonestraal MB, Geluk CS, Mahamba Border Post, Daggakraal SAPS, Witbank CS and Oshoek Border Post 3 Critical risk 4 High risk 3 Medium risk To assist with focussed mitigation of risk within each system, the Regulator has introduced Wastewater Risk Abatement Plans (W 2 RAP) as one approach to focus and rectify the primary risk areas before high risk scenarios develop. Currently no W 2 RAPs are in place in Mpumalanga as reflected in the table below. Finalised W 2 RAPs to abate risk as part of business Draft W 2 RAPs in place Conceptualised or W 2 RAPs in planning process None None None None None None Conclusion Mpumalanga progress can be summarised as follows: i. The majority of plants are in high and medium risk space, with 4 plants in high risk and 3 plants in critical risk space ii. All plants with design capacities unknown iii. All plants with inflows unknown DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 78

iv. 55% (4.4 of 8) for final effluent failure rating on average [No effluent failures = 0, Maximum effluent failures = 8] v. 100% (4 of 4) for technical skills rating on average [R2834 (best case scenario) = 1 ; R2834 non- (worst case scenario) = 4] MPUMALANGA PERFORMANCE POSITION IN SOUTH AFRICA: 8 th DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 79

Department of Public Works: Mpumalanga Assessment Areas Technology Barberton CS Biofilters and sludge drying beds Camden Military Base Septic tank with aerated final chamber Daggakraal SAPS Biofilter, land disposal for sludge Geluk CS Rotating biological contactors, sludge lagoons Design Capacity (Ml/d) Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity lxx) Microbiological 100.0% 100.0% 67.0% NI lxxi) Chemical 72.5% 72.5% 64.5% NI lxxii) Physical 100.0% 100.0% 91.7% NI Annual Average Effluent Quality 90.8% 90.8% 74.4% NI Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 58.8% 58.8% 82.4% 100.0% Highest Risk Area Design and Design and Design and Design and operational capacity operational capacity operational capacity operational capacity not known, non not known, non not known, non not known, non with with with with staff, poor effluent staff, poor effluent staff staff Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 Description of Projects Expenditure Additional Notes Plant was not operational but now undergoing refurbishment Assessment Areas Lebombo Port of Entry Mahamba Port of Entry Oshoek Port of Entry Technology Activated sludge package Septic tank and activated Activated sludge and sludge plant sludge, sludge drying beds drying beds Design Capacity (Ml/d) NI NI NI Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity NI NI NI lxxiii) Microbiological 25.0% 58.0% 67.0% lxxiv) Chemical 18.8% 52.0% 69.0% lxxv) Physical 41.7% 86.0% 83.7% Annual Average Effluent Quality 28.5% 65.3% 73.2% Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 100.0% 82.4% 70.6% Highest Risk Area Design and operational Design and operational Design and operational capacity not known, non capacity not known, non capacity not known, non with R2834 for with R2834 for with R2834 for operating operating operating staff, poor effluent staff, poor effluent staff Risk Abatement Process No W2RAP No W2RAP No W2RAP DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 80

Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 Description of Projects Expenditure NI NI NI NI NI NI Assessment Areas Sand river Military Base Witbank CS Zonestraal Military Base Technology Biofilters, anaerobic Anaerobic and facultative digestion and sludge drying ponds beds Oxidation ponds Design Capacity (Ml/d) NI NI NI Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity NI NI NI lxxvi) Microbiological NMR 17.0% NI lxxvii) Chemical NMR 50.0% NI lxxviii) Physical NMR 77.7% NI Annual Average Effluent Quality NMR 48.2% NI Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 52.9% 82.4% 100.0% Highest Risk Area Design and operational capacity not known, non with R2834 for operating staff Design and operational capacity not known, non with R2834 for operating staff, poor effluent Design and operational capacity not known, non with R2834 for operating staff, no effluent monitoring Risk Abatement Process No W2RAP No W2RAP No W2RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 NI NI NI Description of Projects Expenditure NI NI NI Additional Notes monitoring started in August 2011 Regulation Impression The DPW Mpumalanga currently has ten wastewater treatment plants under their jurisdiction. Of the ten plants, three plants are rated at a critical risk rating, three plants rated at a high risk rating and four plants with a medium risk rating. Parameters that contribute to the risk are the lack of information regarding the design and operating capacity, poor effluent or the absence of effluent monitoring, and non with R2834 with regard to operating staff. Information regarding the design and operating capacity is not known for any of the plants so it is not possible to establish whether the plants are operating within the design capacity or are overloaded. Poor effluent is noted for the plants with the high risk ratings. Plants that are categorised as high risk are impacted by the lack of information regarding the design and operating capacity and the quality of final effluent or poor treatment performance. The implementation of monitoring at Zonestraal Military Base plant and refurbishment of Geluk CS plant will facilitate the reduction of the risk rating of the plants. The Department encourages the Department of Public Works in Mpumalanga to develop a Green Drop Improvement Plan and W 2 RAP to guide a risk based approach to the development and implementation of actions required to improve the performance of the plants and a sustainable reduction of the risk rating at all the wastewater treatment plants. Improved with the Green Drop criteria and a reduction of the risk rating will require management support and the appropriate allocation of resources for implementation of corrective actions. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 81

Risk Analysis 2012 Performance 2012 Systems (as CRR/CRR max %) Low risk 0 Medium risk 3 High risk 4 Criticak risk 3 Oshoek Border Post Witbank CS Risk per plant as CRR/CRR max % deviation 71 82 Performance Indicator Geluk CS Daggakraal SAPS 82 100 Mahamba Border Post 82 Camden Military Base 59 Zonestraal Military Base 100 Barberton CS 59 Lebombo Border Post 100 Sandriver Military Base 53 0 20 40 60 80 100 2012 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 82

NORTH WEST PROVINCE Department of Public Works Provincial CRR Risk Ratio 2012 = 73.5% Provincial Best Performers The top three best performing plants in North West Province: Skillpad BC with CRR/CRR max of 53% Losperfontein CS with CRR/CRR max of 59% Welgegend SAPS with CRR/CRR max of 65% Provincial Lowest Performers The three lowest performing plants in North West Province: Molopo MB and Klipdrift MB with CRR/CRR max of 100% Rooigrond SAPS with CRR/CRR max of 82% Introduction There are currently in total ten wastewater systems and the current operational status can be summarised as follows: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 83

MICRO SIZE <0.5 Ml/day SMALL SIZE 0.5-2 Ml/day MEDIUM SIZE 2-10 Ml/day LARGE SIZE 10-25 Ml/day MACRO SIZE >25 Ml/day Undeter mined Totals No of WWTPs 10 10 Total Design Capacity (Ml/day) Total Daily Inflows (Ml/day) *ADWF = Average dry Weather Flow WWTP = Wastewater Treatment Plants 10 0 10 0.0 All the 28 plants have unknown design capacities and are not measuring the flows into the plants. A Consultant should be appointed to calculate the unknown design capacities for these plants, and as a minimum requirement, the Process Controllers should be taught to do basic manual inflow monitoring, calculations and recordings at these plants until such time as flow meters are installed and are operational. Provincial Risk Analysis The following table shows the cumulative risk analysis for various performance categories for the plants in the North West province in 2012: CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS Performance Category 2012 Highest CRR 17 Average CRR 12.5 Lowest CRR 9 Average Design Rating (A) 1.0 Average Capacity Exceedance Rating (B) 5.0 Average Effluent Failure Rating (C) 3.5 Average Technical Skills Rating (D) 4.0 AVERAGE % DEVIATION from maximum CRR 73.5 From the above table, it can be observed that the province as a whole falls within the high risk space and indicates that efforts and resources would be required to rectify and abate the 6 of the 10 plants operating in the high and critical risk areas. The treatment capacity exceedance is demonstrating that the plants are mostly overloaded due to many plants not measuring the daily flows into the plants, and the number of effluent failures remains moderately high. Until flow monitoring is initiated for all the plants and monitoring commences for 2 of the 10 plants, it is not known whether these figures are highly skewed or if this is not the case. The appointment of staff and the classification of these Supervisors and Process Controllers have to be addressed as well. These risk indicators should be used to focus on the mentioned risk element (i.e. design capacity, operational flow, effluent quality, technical skill). The number of plants in the different risk categories is represented in the histogram below. The number of plants in critical space is 2 and number of plants in high risk space is 4. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 84

Risk Profile: CRR as % of CRRmax 4 4 4 3 2 2 1 0 0 0-50 50-70 70-90 90-100 RISK PERCENTAGE % Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND 90 100% Critical risk WWTPs 2 70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs 4 50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs 4 <50% Low Risk WWTPs 0 The following plants are in the critical and high risk categories and require a concerted strategy and corrective action plans to turnaround the performance at these plants commencing with a rigorous CRR analysis of the status quo and way forward: Priority DPW Regional Office 2012 Average CRR/CRRmax % deviation 1 Mmabatho 73.5% WWTPs in critical and high risk space Molopo MB, Klipdrift MB, Rooigrond SAPS, Boshoek SAPS, Bray SAPS and Ramatlabama BC 2 Critical risk 4 High risk 4 Medium risk To assist with focussed mitigation of risk within each system, the Regulator has introduced Wastewater Risk Abatement Plans (W 2 RAP) as one approach to focus and rectify the primary risk areas before high risk scenarios develop. Currently no W 2 RAPs are in place in North West as reflected in the table below. Finalised W 2 RAPs to abate risk as part of business Draft W 2 RAPs in place Conceptualised or W 2 RAPs in planning process None None None None None None Conclusion North West progress can be summarised as follows: i. The majority of plants are in high and medium risk space, with 4 plants in high risk and 2 plants in critical risk space ii. All plants with design capacities unknown iii. iv. All plants with inflows unknown 63% (5 of 8) for final effluent failure rating on average [No effluent failures = 0, Maximum effluent failures = 8] DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 85

v. 88% (3.5 of 4) for technical skills rating on average [R2834 (best case scenario) = 1 ; R2834 non- (worst case scenario) = 4] NORTH WEST PERFORMANCE POSITION IN SOUTH AFRICA: 5 th DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 86

Department of Public Works: North West Assessment Areas Bray SAPS Boshoek SAPS Klipdrift MB Losperfontein CS Technology Septic tank and rotating biological contactors Septic tank and rotating biological contactors Biofilters, anaerobic digestion Biofilters, drying beds Design Capacity (Ml/d) Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity lxxix) Microbiological 41.0% 58.0% NI 100.0% lxxx) Chemical 83.0% 95.8% NI 97.8% lxxxi) Physical 72.0% 66.7% NI 93.3% Annual Average Effluent Quality 65.3% 73.5% NI 97.0% Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 70.6% 70.6% 100.0% 58.8% Highest Risk Area Design and Design and Design and operational capacity Design and operational capacity operational capacity not known, non operational capacity not known, non not known, non with not known, non with with with staff, no effluent staff, poor effluent staff, poor effluent staff monitoring Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 Description of Projects Expenditure Assessment Areas Molopo MB Ramatlabama BC Rooigrond CS Technology Septic tank, rotating biological contactors, sludge drying beds Activated sludge and sludge drying beds Septic tank, activated sludge and sludge drying beds Design Capacity (Ml/d) NI NI NI Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity NI NI NI lxxxii) Microbiological NI 100.0% 16.0% lxxxiii) Chemical NI 88.8% 68.5% lxxxiv) Physical NI 83.3% 84.7% Annual Average Effluent Quality NI 90.7% 56.4% Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 100.0% 70.6% 82.4% Design and operational capacity not known, non Design and operational capacity not known, non Design and operational capacity not known, non Highest Risk Area with R2834 for with R2834 for with R2834 for operating operating operating staff, no effluent monitoring staff, poor effluent staff, poor effluent Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 NI NI NI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 87

Description of Projects Expenditure Refurbishment of plant Installation of disinfection system Assessment Areas Skilpad BC Swartkopfontein BC Welgegend Septic tank and rotating Septic tank and rotating Technology Oxidation ponds biological contactors biological contactors Design Capacity (Ml/d) NI NI NI Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity lxxxv) Microbiological lxxxvi) Chemical lxxxvii) Physical Annual Average Effluent Quality Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) Highest Risk Area NI NI NI 100.0% 100.0% 70.0% 100.0% 93.0% 95.0% 100.0% 91.3% 94.3% 100.0% 94.8% 86.4% 52.9% 64.7% 64.7% Design and operational capacity not known, non with R2834 for operating staff Design and operational capacity not known, non with R2834 for operating staff Design and operational capacity not known, non with R2834 for operating staff Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 NI NI NI Description of Projects Expenditure NI NI NI Regulation Impression The DPW North West currently has ten wastewater treatment plants under their jurisdiction. Of the ten plants, two plants are rated at a critical risk rating, one plant rated at a high risk rating and seven plants with a medium risk rating. Parameters that contribute to the risk are the lack of information regarding the design and operating capacity, poor effluent or the absence of effluent monitoring, and non with R2834 with regard to operating staff. The two plants categorised as critical risk have a maximum risk rating of 100% due to the lack of information regarding the design and operating capacity, no effluent quality information and non- with R2834 with regard to the staff complement. The effluent at the plant that is categorised as high risk is poor, particularly microbiological, which increases the risk rating. Information regarding the design and operating capacity is not known for any of the plants so it is not possible to establish whether the plants are operating within the design capacity or are overloaded. The Department encourages the Department of Public Works in the North West to develop a Green Drop Improvement Plan and W 2 RAP to guide a risk based approach to the development and implementation of actions required to improve the performance of the plants and a sustainable reduction of the risk rating at all the wastewater treatment plants. Improved with the Green Drop criteria and a reduction of the risk rating will require management support and the appropriate allocation of resources for implementation of corrective actions. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 88

Risk Analysis 2012 Performance 2012 Systems (as CRR/CRR max %) Low risk 0 Medium risk 4 High risk 4 Criticak risk 2 Klipdrift MB Molopo MB Risk per plant as CRR/CRR max % deviation 100 100 Performance Indicator Welgegend SAPS Rooigrond SAPS Swartkopfontein BC 65 65 82 Skilpad BC 53 Ramatlabama BC Bray SAPS Boshoek SAPS 71 71 71 Losperfontein CS 59 0 50 100 2012 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 89

NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE Department of Public Works Provincial CRR Risk Ratio 2012 = 96.1% Provincial Best Performers No plants are performing well in Northern Cape Province. The best performing plants have a CRR/CRR max of 94.2% Provincial Lowest Performers All plants are situated in the critical risk space with CRR/CRR max ranging from 94% to 100% Introduction There are currently in total six wastewater systems and the current operational status can be summarised as follows: MICRO SIZE <0.5 Ml/day SMALL SIZE 0.5-2 Ml/day MEDIUM SIZE 2-10 Ml/day LARGE SIZE 10-25 Ml/day MACRO SIZE >25 Ml/day Undeter mined Totals No of WWTPs 6 6 Total Design Capacity (Ml/day) Total Daily Inflows (Ml/day) *ADWF = Average dry Weather Flow 6 6 6 6.0 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 90

WWTP = Wastewater Treatment Plants All of the six plants have unknown design capacities and are not measuring the flows into the plants. A Consultant should be appointed to calculate the unknown design capacities for these plants, and as a minimum requirement, the Process Controllers should be taught to do basic manual inflow monitoring, calculations and recordings at these plants until such time as flow meters are installed and are operational. Provincial Risk Analysis The following table shows the cumulative risk analysis for various performance categories for the plants in the Northern Cape province in 2012: CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS Performance Category 2012 Highest CRR 17 Average CRR 16.3 Lowest CRR 16 Average Design Rating (A) 1.0 Average Capacity Exceedance Rating (B) 5.0 Average Effluent Failure Rating (C) 8.0 Average Technical Skills Rating (D) 3.3 AVERAGE % DEVIATION from maximum CRR 96.1 From the above table, it can be observed that this is the only province as a whole that falls within the critical risk space. This indicates that efforts and resources would be required as a matter of great priority to rectify and abate the six plants operating in the critical risk space. The treatment capacity exceedance is demonstrating that the plants are mostly overloaded due to the plants not measuring the daily flows into the plants, and the effluent failures are at the maximum limit. Until flow monitoring is initiated for these plants and monitoring commences is undertaken, these figures will remain highly skewed. Although the technical skills remained below the maximum limit, the appointment of staff and the classification of these Supervisors and Process Controllers still have to be remedied as well. These risk indicators should be used to focus on the mentioned risk element (i.e. design capacity, operational flow, effluent quality, technical skill). The number of plants in the different risk categories is represented in the histogram below. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 91

Risk Profile: CRR as % of CRRmax 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0-50 50-70 70-90 90-100 RISK PERCENTAGE % Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND 90 100% Critical risk WWTPs 6 70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs 0 50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs 0 <50% Low Risk WWTPs 0 The following plants are in the critical and high risk categories and require a concerted strategy and corrective action plans to turnaround the performance at these plants commencing with a rigorous CRR analysis of the status quo and way forward: Priority DPW Regional Office 2012 Average CRR/CRRmax % deviation 1 Kimberley 96.1% All the plants WWTPs in critical risk space 6 Critical risk 0 High risk To assist with focussed mitigation of risk within each system, the Regulator has introduced Wastewater Risk Abatement Plans (W 2 RAP) as one approach to focus and rectify the primary risk areas before high risk scenarios develop. Currently no W 2 RAPs are in place in Northern Cape as reflected in the table below. Conclusion Finalised W 2 RAPs to abate risk as part of business Draft W 2 RAPs in place Conceptualised or W 2 RAPs in planning process None None None None None None Northern Cape progress can be summarised as follows: i. All plants are in critical risk space ii. All plants with design capacities unknown iii. All plants with inflows unknown iv. 100% (8 of 8) for final effluent failure rating on average [No effluent failures = 0, Maximum effluent failures = 8] v. 83% (3.3 of 4) for technical skills rating on average [R2834 (best case scenario) = 1 ; R2834 non- (worst case scenario) = 4] NORTHERN CAPE PERFORMANCE POSITION IN SOUTH AFRICA: 11 th DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 92

Department of Public Works: Northern Cape Assessment Areas Lohatla Military Base Louisvale Military Base Middelputs Border Post Technology Rotating biological contactors, aerobic digester and sludge drying beds Septic tank with aerated chamber, land disposal of sludge Rotating biological contactors Design Capacity (Ml/d) NI NI NI Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity NI NI NI lxxxviii) Microbiological NI NI NI lxxxix) Chemical NI NI NI xc) Physical NI NI NI Annual Average Effluent Quality NI NI NI Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 94.1% 94.1% 100.0% Design and operational capacity not known, non Design and operational capacity not known, non Design and operational capacity not known, non Highest Risk Area with R2834 for with R2834 for with R2834 for operating operating operating staff, no effluent monitoring results staff, no effluent monitoring results staff, no effluent monitoring Risk Abatement Process No W2RAP No W2RAP No W2RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 NI NI NI Description of Projects Expenditure Replacement of pumps at humus tanks and primary settlement tanks Replacement of primary settlement pumps Assessment Areas Nakop Port of Entry Olifansthoek Radio Station Vioolsdrift Port of Entry Technology Oxidation ponds Rotating biological contactors NI Design Capacity (Ml/d) NI NI NI Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity xci) Microbiological xcii) Chemical xciii) Physical Annual Average Effluent Quality Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) Highest Risk Area NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 100.0% 94.1% 94.1% Design and operational capacity not known, non with R2834 for operating staff, no effluent monitoring Design and operational capacity not known, non with R2834 for operating staff, no effluent monitoring results Design and operational capacity not known, non with R2834 for operating staff, no effluent monitoring results Risk Abatement Process No W2RAP No W2RAP No W2RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 NI R0.085m NI Description of Projects Expenditure Repairs to biological rotating contactors Additional Notes Repair project implemented for DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 93

O&M of plant Regulation Impression The DPW Northern Cape currently has six wastewater treatment plants under their jurisdiction. All of the plants are rated as critical risk plants. The reason for the critical risk rating is the lack of information regarding the design and operating capacity, no effluent monitoring, and non with R2834 with regard to operating staff. The lack of information regarding the design and operating capacity means that it is not possible to establish whether the plants are operating within the design capacity or are overloaded. In addition, the treatment performance cannot be monitored in the absence of analysis of the effluent quality and the level of with acceptable discharge standards. The Department encourages the Department of Public Works in the Northern Cape to develop a Green Drop Improvement Plan and W 2 RAP to guide a risk based approach to the development and implementation of actions required to improve the performance of the plants and a sustainable reduction of the risk rating at all the wastewater treatment plants. Improved with the Green Drop criteria and a reduction of the risk rating will require management support and the appropriate allocation of resources for implementation of corrective actions. Risk Analysis 2012 Performance 2012 Systems (as CRR/CRR max %) Low risk 0 Medium risk 0 High risk 0 Criticak risk 6 Nakop Port of Entry Risk per plant as CRR/CRR max % deviation 100 Performance Indicator Middelputs Border Post Vioolsdrift Port of Entry 94 100 Lohatla Military Base 94 Olifantshoek Radio Station 94 Louisvale Military Base 94 90 95 100 2012 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 94

WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Department of Public Works Provincial CRR Risk Ratio 2012 = 61.8% Provincial Best Performers The top three best performing plants in Western Cape Province: Robben Island with CRR/CRR max of 41% Voorbert CS with CRR/CRR max of 47% Helderstroom CS with CRR/CRR max of 53% Provincial Lowest Performers The three lowest performing plants in Western Cape Province: Langebaan Road Central Flight School with CRR/CRR max of 88% Buffeljagsrivier CS with CRR/CRR max of 82% Test Flight & Development Centre with CRR/CRR max of 71% Introduction There are currently in total twelve wastewater systems and the current operational status can be summarised as follows: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 95

MICRO SIZE <0.5 Ml/day SMALL SIZE 0.5-2 Ml/day MEDIUM SIZE 2-10 Ml/day LARGE SIZE 10-25 Ml/day MACRO SIZE >25 Ml/day Undeter mined Totals No of WWTPs 6 2 2 2 12 Total Design Capacity (Ml/day) 0.81 2 5 2 7.81 Total Daily Inflows (Ml/day) *ADWF = Average dry Weather Flow WWTP = Wastewater Treatment Plants 1.0375 1.75 3.4 3 6.19 Only two of the 12 plants have unknown design capacities and only three of the 12 plants are not measuring the flows. The regional office is encouraged to calculate the unknown design capacities for the two plants, to initiate flow monitoring at these three plants. Provincial Risk Analysis The following table shows the cumulative risk analysis for various performance categories for the plants in the Western Cape province in 2012: CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS Performance Category 2012 Highest CRR 15 Average CRR 10.5 Lowest CRR 7 Average Design Rating (A) 1.0 Average Capacity Exceedance Rating (B) 4.2 Average Effluent Failure Rating (C) 3.6 Average Technical Skills Rating (D) 2.8 AVERAGE % DEVIATION from maximum CRR 61.8 From the above table, it can be observed that the province as a whole falls within the medium risk space and is further encouraged to improve on the current status quo. The treatment capacity exceedance demonstrates that the plants are mostly overloaded and require future planning and associated resources to increase the design capacity at these plants. The number of effluent failures remains moderately high and can be improved on through an analysis of the associated problems at these works and corrective actions can be put in place to remedy the status quo. The appointment of staff and the classification of these Supervisors and Process Controllers have to be addressed as well. These risk indicators should be used to focus on the mentioned risk element (i.e. design capacity, operational flow, effluent quality, technical skill). The number of plants in the different risk categories is represented in the histogram below. The number of plants in high risk space is 3 and comparatively represents the best performance across the provinces in South Africa. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 96

Risk Profile: CRR as % of CRRmax 7 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2 0-50 50-70 70-90 90-100 3 RISK PERCENTAGE % Deviation = CRR/CRR(max) TREND 90 100% Critical risk WWTPs 0 70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs 3 50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs 7 <50% Low Risk WWTPs 2 The following plants are in the critical and high risk categories and require a concerted strategy and corrective action plans to turnaround the performance at these plants commencing with a rigorous CRR analysis of the status quo and way forward: Priority DPW Regional Office 2012 Average CRR/CRRmax % deviation 1 Cape Town 61.76% WWTPs in critical and high risk space Langebaan Road Central flight School, Buffeljagsrivier CS and Test Flight & Development Centre 0 Critical risk 3 High risk 7 Medium risk To assist with focussed mitigation of risk within each system, the Regulator has introduced Wastewater Risk Abatement Plans (W 2 RAP) as one approach to focus and rectify the primary risk areas before high risk scenarios develop. Currently no W 2 RAPs are in place in Western Cape as reflected in the table below. Finalised W 2 RAPs to abate risk as part of business Draft W 2 RAPs in place Conceptualised or W 2 RAPs in planning process None None None None None None Conclusion Western Cape progress can be summarised as follows: i. The majority of plants are in high and medium risk space, with 3 plants in high risk and no plants in critical risk space ii. 2 of 12 plants where design capacities unknown iii. 3 of 12 plants where inflows unknown DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 97

iv. 45% (3.6 of 8) for final effluent failure rating on average [No effluent failures = 0, Maximum effluent failures = 8] v. 70% (2.8 of 4) for technical skills rating on average [R2834 (best case scenario) = 1 ; R2834 non- (worst case scenario) = 4] WESTERN CAPE PERFORMANCE POSITION IN SOUTH AFRICA: 2 nd DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 98

Department of Public Works: Western Cape Assessment Areas Brandvlei CS Buffelsjag CS Drakenstein CS Dwarsrivier CS Technology Anaerobic and facultative ponds and lime stabilisation of sludge Activated sludge and sludge lagoons Activated sludge and sludge lagoons Activated sludge and sludge lagoons Design Capacity (Ml/d) 0.3 0.1 3.0 0.09 Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity 100.0% 146.5% 63.3% 282.2% xciv) Microbiological 67.0% 50.0% 83.0% 92.0% xcv) Chemical 41.8% 31.0% 69.0% 66.8% xcvi) Physical 61.3% 69.3% 82.7% 86.0% Annual Average Effluent Quality 56.7% 50.1% 78.2% 81.6% Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 64.7% 82.4% 52.9% 58.8% Highest Risk Area Operational capacity Operational capacity exceeds design at design, non Non with capacity, non Operational capacity with with exceeds design capacity, poor staff, poor effluent effluent staff, poor effluent staff, poor effluent Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 Description of Projects Expenditure Additional Notes Assessment Areas Three year repair contract for O&M of plant Helderstroom CS Three year repair contract for O&M of plant Langebaan Road Central Flight School Activated sludge and sludge lagoons Paardeburg CS Three year repair contract for O&M of plant Riebeek West CS Technology Activated sludge and Activated sludge and sludge lagoons sludge lagoons Design Capacity (Ml/d) 2 NI 0.1 0.1 Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity 75.0% NI 232.4% 124.0% xcvii) Microbiological 3.0% 25.0% 92.0% 83.0% xcviii) Chemical 60.5% 47.8% 50.0% 58.5% xcix) Physical 94.3% 80.7% 86.0% 91.7% Annual Average Effluent Quality 52.6% 51.1% 76.0% 77.7% Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 52.9% 88.2% 58.8% 64.7% Highest Risk Area Poor effluent Operational and design capacity not known, non with Operational capacity exceeds design capacity, poor effluent Activated sludge and sludge lagoons Operational capacity exceeds design capacity, non with DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 99

staff, poor effluent staff, poor effluent Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 Description of Projects Expenditure Additional Notes 3 year maintenance and repair contract for O&M of plant Assessment Areas Technology Robben Island Macerator and sea discharge Saldanha Naval Base Biofilters and sludge drying beds Test Flight & Development Centre Rotating biological contactors, anaerobic and facultative ponds, sludge lagoons Voorberg CS Activated sludge and sludge lagoons Design Capacity (Ml/d) NI 1.0 0.12 1.0 Operational % i.t.o. Design Capacity NI 50.0% 234.2% 124.9% c) Microbiological NMR 92.0% 100.0% 92.0% ci) Chemical 41.7% 39.5% 60.5% 75.0% cii) Physical 87.5% 64.0% 77.7% 97.3% Annual Average Effluent Quality 64.6% 65.2% 79.4% 88.1% Wastewater Risk Rating (%CRR/CRRmax) 41.2% 58.8% 70.6% 47.1% Highest Risk Area Operational capacity Operational capacity exceeds design Non with exceeds design capacity, non Design and capacity, non with operational capacity with not known staff, poor effluent staff, poor effluent staff Risk Abatement Process No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP No W 2 RAP Capital & Refurbishment expenditure in 2010/2011 Description of Projects Expenditure Additional Notes Three year repair contract for O&M of plant, Application for new licence submitted Regulation Impression The DPW Western Cape currently has twelve wastewater treatment plants under their jurisdiction. Of the twelve plants, two plants are rated at a high risk rating, eight plants rated at a medium risk rating and two plants with a low risk rating. Parameters that contribute to the risk are the lack of information regarding the design and operating capacity, poor effluent or the absence of effluent monitoring, and non with R2834 with regard to operating staff. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 100

Six of the treatment plants are operating at a capacity that exceeds the design capacity and one plant is at a capacity that equals the design capacity. This is impacting on the treatment performance and the effluent, which increases the risk rating of the plant. Information has not been provided with regard to the longer-term plans for upgrading of these plants. The lack of influent monitoring at the Langebaan Road Central Flight School means that it is not possible to establish whether the plant is operating within the design capacity or is overloaded although the treatment performance at this plant is poor as indicated by the low effluent. The contracts entered into for five of the plants for the operations will facilitate the optimisation of treatment performance and a reduction in the risk rating. The Department encourages the Department of Public Works in the Western Cape to develop a Green Drop Improvement Plan and W 2 RAP to guide a risk based approach to the development and implementation of actions required to improve the performance of the plants and a sustainable reduction of the risk rating at all the wastewater treatment plants. Improved with the Green Drop criteria and a reduction of the risk rating will require management support and the appropriate allocation of resources for implementation of corrective actions. Risk Analysis 2012 Performance 2012 Systems (as CRR/CRR max %) Low risk 2 Medium risk 7 High risk 3 Criticak risk 0 Voorberg CS Test Flight & Development Risk per plant as CRR/CRR max % deviation 47 71 Performance Indicator Saldanha Naval Base Robben Island Riebeek West CS 41 59 65 Paardeberg CS 59 Langebaan Road Central 88 Helderstroom CS 53 Dwarsrivier CS 59 Drakenstein CS 53 Buffeljags CS 82 Brandvlei CS 65 0 20 40 60 80 100 2012 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2012 Page 101