Aquatown water

safety plan
Worked example

An extract of a water safety plan to support

implementation of the guidance presented in the
Water safety plan manual: step-by-step risk management
for drinking-water suppliers (second edition)
INTRODUCTION CONTEXT
This worked example provides a hypothetical Aquatown is located in the tropics, in a country that has an emerging economy. Despite recent
water safety plan (WSP) for the water supply improvements in living and health standards, Aquatown has substantial lower-income populations,
in the fictitious Aquatown. It should be used many of whom live in informal settlements. Aquatown Water Services (ATWS) is the water supplier to
in conjunction with the guidance provided in Aquatown.
the Water safety plan manual: step-by-step risk
Aquatown’s water supply has surface water and groundwater sources. The region is experiencing the
management for drinking-water suppliers, second
effects of climate variability and change, and these effects are likely to be exacerbated in the future.
edition (WHO & IWA, 2023). The worked example
There are some concerning trends in the reliability of source water already apparent.
aims to support implementation of water safety
planning across all 10 modules in the manual. This worked example is an abbreviated version of the Aquatown WSP. It illustrates:
This is not a full WSP. It is heavily abbreviated and D application of water safety planning in a realistic scenario;
is not comprehensive. It should be read and used
as a tool to understand how water safety planning
D the linkages between all modules in water safety planning, including identifying hazards
and hazardous events, conducting risk assessments, implementing improvement plans and
works in practice. The example should inform the
conducting operational monitoring;
development of a context-specific WSP tailored to
the local water supply. D how water safety planning is a continuous cycle, highlighting the WSP development, operation,
verification and review phases; and
Not all hazards, hazardous events, control
measures and validations relevant to the water
D potential reporting formats (in an abridged form).

supply – or their justification – are included. Where

there is more detail that is not included in this
As every WSP is developed to suit its own unique context, the Aquatown WSP is illustrative only and should
abbreviated example, it is shown as “....…”.
not be indiscriminately used for the development of a system-specific WSP.

“We hope you find our commentary helpful as you prepare and implement your own WSP.

Some commentaries from Sometimes we describe how we did a particular task. Or we might explain why we did
the WSP team are shown something or highlight other points of interest.”

Aquatown WSP team

Worked example: Aquatown WSP 1

MODULE 1: WSP TEAM
“One of the early tasks the ATWS leadership group
Stakeholders undertook when selecting the WSP team was to identify
the stakeholders. We used simple stakeholder mapping.”
Table 1.1 shows an extract of a summary of the stakeholder identification process
conducted as part of the initial WSP development.

TABLE 1.1 • SUMMARY EXTRACT OF THE STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION PROCESS

WATER RELEVANCE TO POINT OF
STAKEHOLDER INTERACTION WITH WSP TEAM
SUPPLY STAGE THE WSP CONTACT
Source Department of Forestry Manages forestry in catchment Chief forestry officer Annual meeting, and ad hoc support
for region
Department of Religious Affairs Operates place of worship in catchment Local chief official Meeting before annual religious festival
Farmer representative Farming in catchment Farmers Association Guidance on catchment farming
chairperson activities; to be included on WSP team
Department of Environment Oversees raw water data (flow and water quality), setting of Principal regional Twice-yearly briefings, and ad hoc
environmental standards and regulations to control contamination officer support
National Meteorological “Before the WSP, we had no interaction with this stakeholder.” Ad hoc support on technical issues for
Office risk assessment
... ... ... ... ...
Treatment and Scheduled monthly update meetings
Aquatown Municipal Council Owns and operates the water supply Aquatown mayor
distribution and informal meetings as required
Responsible for household water storage and any subsequent Complaints and Billings
Customers Householders Quarterly reports
treatment Section of ATWS
Nongovernmental organization
Works with people living with HIV/AIDs in Aquatown NGO coordinator Annual meeting or as required
(NGO)
Schools, institutions and local
Individual representatives Not applicable Informal meetings
businesses
Sets and regulates national drinking-water quality standards,
including annual reports on ATWS compliance. ATWS Water Quality
Manager and Annually regarding compliance
Regulatory Ministry of Health Responsible for public health, especially related to drinking-water; reporting unless incident or serious
has expertise in the event of incidents or disease outbreaks. Aquatown Municipality non-compliance issue arises
Health Department
Undertakes water sampling and testing independently of ATWS.
... ... ... ... ...

2 Water safety plan manual, second edition

WSP team “Team members shown with a formed the core team and met more
often than the other members.”
An extract of the WSP team table is given in Table 1.2.

TABLE 1.2 • EXTRACT OF THE WSP TEAM TABLE

SKILLS, KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE CONTACT
JOB TITLE ROLE IN WSP TEAM
RELEVANT TO WSP DETAILS
ATWS Operations Managera Operations, including water C Team leader
treatment C Coordination with all external stakeholders
C Operational monitoring
ATWS General Managera Senior management of ATWS; long- C Adviser “Contact details,
term knowledge of the water supply, C Emergency response coordinator including
including operations management emergency
Water Delivery Managera Abstraction of both surface water C Operational monitoring related to catchments, abstraction and treatment contact numbers,
and groundwater sources and water C Liaison with catchment authorities were added
treatment for all team
Network operations and Day-to-day water network operation; C Network risk management and operation linkages members. This
maintenance representativea,b customer in-house practices C Emergency response planning is very important
in the case of an
C Water treatment risk management and operation linkages emergency!”
Water Treatment Operatora,b Day-to-day treatment operations
C Emergency response planning
Water sampling, laboratory testing C Operational monitoring and reporting involving sampling and testing, and reporting on
ATWS Water Quality Officera
and reporting verification programme
ATWS Planning and Design Planning and design of water C Adviser
Engineer services C Liaison with design expertise as required
Farmers Association
Farming operations in catchment C Liaison with farming operations in catchment
Chairperson
Aquatown municipality Public Health (especially waterborne C National health expertise liaison as required
Health Officer diseases) C Emergency response planning
Senior officer of ATWS Customers and customer practices C Regular reporting on customer feedback, especially related to water quality and service levels
Complaints and Billings C Liaison with the NGO coordinator working with informal settlements
Sectionc C Customer service surveys
... ... ...

a
Core WSP team member.
b
This role rotates to provide opportunity over time for several maintenance staff to be part of the WSP.
c
This group waAs subsequently renamed and given a new focus – see Module 7.

Worked example: Aquatown WSP 3

Several external stakeholders supported the WSP team as expert advisers for targeted risk assessments and improvement planning,
as shown in the Table 1.3.

TABLE 1.3 • EXTERNAL ADVISERS TO THE WSP TEAM

JOB TITLE SKILLS, KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE RELEVANT TO THE WSP
Chief Forestry Officer for the region (Department of Forestry) Catchment risks associated with forest management in the catchment
Climate Forecast Officer (National Meteorological Office) Hazards and hazardous events, and assessment of risks related to climate change
NGO coordinator Experiences of informal settlement communities
National university microbiological and water quality specialist Microbiology and water quality

MODULE 2: SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Intended users and uses
ATWS provides a single product: potable water. The water is abstracted from surface water and groundwater sources, treated, and delivered
to customers to meet the water quality objectives set by the national health authority and other service-level requirements. The water quality
objectives are captured in the national drinking-water quality standards. The intended uses and users of the water supply are given in Table 2.1.

TABLE 2.1 • INTENDED USES AND USERS OF THE WATER SUPPLY

Intended use The water supplied is intended for general use for ingestion, personal bathing and laundry. Foodstuffs may be prepared from the water.
Intended users ATWS provides water to the entire general population of Aquatown, including the population living in the town’s informal community. The
intended users do not include those who are significantly immunocompromised, or industries or institutions with special water quality
needs. These excluded users are advised to provide additional point-of-use treatment.

4 Water safety plan manual, second edition

Boundary of WSP “These limits go beyond the formal limits of legal responsibility of
ATWS in providing its water services.
The boundary of the WSP begins at the catchment, and includes all treatment,
distribution and storages operated by ATWS. This was done because:

For customers with piped connections and continuous (24/7) supply, the WSP C significant areas of Aquatown have intermittent water services,
ends at the customer’s meter or in-house plumbing connection point. which means that household storage is needed; and

C the low-income areas rely extensively on public tap stands,

For all other customers, including customers served by intermittent supply, yard
where water is collected in small containers for transfer to other
taps and public tap stands, the WSP extends to include the user’s premises. household storage tanks.

We want to minimize water quality risks to all consumers. We, and

Detailed system information the Municipal Council, see this as part of ATWS’s customer charter
General information on the supplier and water supply commitments to Aquatown’s residents and visitors.”

Aquatown is the second largest town of its state. ………

“We maximized the use of diagrams and tables to keep the text
The water supplier is Aquatown Water Services (ATWS). ATWS is part of the
minimal, while not leaving out important details.”
Engineering Services Department of the Aquatown Municipal Council.

The ATWS staff breakdown is given in ………

General information summarized in the system description includes water “Aquatown has an annual religious festival that has significant
supply coverage, population and customer category details (with special implications for demand and services in some months, so it was
important we understood this.”
consideration of equity issues), unaccounted-for water, water demand and
production rates, and scale and limitations of water quality testing services.

See Fig. 2.1 for an overview of the water supply. Fig. 2.2 shows a detailed
schematic of the water treatment plant, and Fig. 2.3 shows a schematic of a “We used simple in-house software packages to prepare these
typical user premises. figures and sketches. We found this style adequate, apart from some
treatment processes where process flow diagrams were used.

As there are many ways to show and sketch a system, you need to
adopt drawings that best suit your needs and capabilities.”

Worked example: Aquatown WSP 5

 “We assessed the degree of inherent protection of
the raw water using guidance in Protecting surface
water for health (WHO, 2016).

ha: hectare; ML: megalitre; SP: sample point; WTP: water treatment plant.

Fig. 2.1. Aquatown water supply system diagram (extract only)

6 Water safety plan manual, second edition

 “Figure 2.3 shows how
houses with intermittent
supply typically transfer
and store water.”

“During risk
assessment
we identified a
weakness with
the locations of
the sampling/
monitoring
points. E.g.
See Risk
Assessment
Item T8”.

Fig. 2.2. Water treatment plant schematic Fig. 2.3. Schematic of a typical three-storey
household with rooftop storage tanks

Worked example: Aquatown WSP 7

 “For the purposes of this worked example, only abbreviated notes of our system description are given here.”

Surface water catchment and abstraction Water treatment plants

This information included pertinent details, with some graphics and analysis This information included the treatment plants for both surface water and
of catchment area, soil types and land use in the catchment; farming groundwater.
practices and chemical pesticides in the catchment; and raw water quality,
As far as possible, these were presented in diagrammatic form using simplified
including seasonal changes, source protection measures, and intake and
process diagrams (see Fig. 2 as an example) and graph format, especially
abstraction details.
showing treatment plant performance data.

Groundwater
This information included pertinent details, such as aquifer type, safe yield,
“We were keen to understand vulnerabilities of the treatment
extraction, depth of groundwater, groundwater quality, and source protection process. So we were interested in issues like design capacity,
measures to protect the bore and groundwater. historical performance records of production and quality,
chemical dosing practices, operational controls and procedures,
Climate and climate change impacts operational monitoring, staff capacity, training and limitations.”

This information summarized pertinent climate information, such as rainfall

patterns (including trends and seasonal analysis). It also included results
of national climate change projections relevant to the surface water and
groundwater sources, including impacts on water quantity and quality.

Water quality required

“The WSP document presented the
……… water quality that ATWS is required to
deliver to customers in an annex, but
highlighted here the key parameters
and conditions for ease of reference.”

8 Water safety plan manual, second edition

Distribution system Customers’ premises
This information included details about: Metered connections

D post-treatment storage (e.g. type, size, roofing, access points/openings, Details of connections with continuous supply are shown in ………
maintenance);
For properties with intermittent supply (see Fig. 3), water is fed from the
D the pipe network (overview); system to a ground-level plastic/poly tank or a buried masonry tank.
D the pipe network’s condition, pressure regimes, and extent and scope of From this tank, water is pumped to rooftop storage tanks and for
intermittency; distribution to the ………

D service for residents of the informal areas – especially vulnerability This also described typical in-house treatment of water by consumers
related to the public tap stands; (i.e. point-of-use systems).
D the extent of use and controls for the trucked-in water service (i.e. water
Low-income/informal living areas
tanker trucks); “Being conscious that
Collected water is ……… the residents of these
D the condition of the sanitation services especially in the intermittent
areas are generally more
service areas (see commentary); and These containers are transported vulnerable than others,
D records of water quality in the distribution system. to the house by ……… we needed to understand
how the water is collected,
Point-of-use treatment is ……… stored, treated and used
in these localities.”
Current delivered-water quality
“Much of this information was presented in the flow
diagrams. Graphs and analysis of the raw and treated water quality in the previous 24
months indicate that ………
With regard to water carting services, ATWS has two
potable water tanker trucks but also uses additional private
contractors when required.
“The data for the analysis were from both ATWS
Once again, bearing in mind the intermittent service areas and Ministry of Health historical data.”
and the diverse users in these areas, we were seeking to
understand vulnerability related to the pipes when they are
under low or no pressure during the day.”

Worked example: Aquatown WSP 9

Persistent problems observed by the WTP team Confirm system information accuracy
Intermittent supply is ……… This section summarized how the information was collected and how the
accuracy of the information was confirmed.
The water treatment plant is sometimes operated above its capacity as a
result of demands greater than its capacity. As a result, ………

Free chlorine residual results below the target levels are observed ………
“Our record of older pipe assets was poor, so we
Insufficient reliable water quality data are available for the distribution supplemented the information we had with that
network downstream of the service reservoirs to allow a complete of existing line operation staff and a recently
retired plumber who ‘knew the system in his
understanding of the quality of the water that customers receive.
head’ to capture and record our pipe network.
The low-income/informal areas have a more vulnerable population. The Getting reliable and accurate pipe network
poor condition of the standpipes and the intermittent supply mean that their drawings is likely to be an ongoing project.”
water quality ………

The water tanker trucks used to deliver trucked-in water are not well
managed, and ……… “After we completed our desktop description,
we divided the WSP team and went with staff
Anecdotal evidence suggests that, during the religious festival, the health on-site to confirm or, in some cases, correct our
department reports increases in waterborne illnesses (e.g. diarrhoea). understanding of the water supply.

Most dirty water complaints are in the low-income/informal areas and in the The treatment plant engineer used the original
network served by Service Reservoirs 2 and ……… design data and compared this with the available
raw and treated water data.”

“Summarizing the persistent problems was a

very helpful exercise for us. It increased our
understanding of the water supply and informed
the risk assessment in other modules.”

10 Water safety plan manual, second edition

MODULES 3 AND 4: IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
EVENTS, AND RISK ASSESSMENT

“This section is related to Modules 3 and 4.

Refer to Table 3/4.1, which presents an extract of the risk assessment. The risk assessment took some time to complete. We
focused on one component of the water supply at a time (e.g. surface water catchment, groundwater abstraction). We initially
brainstormed hazards and hazardous events using the WSP team’s expert judgement, and then cross-checked this against
examples of generic threats for water supplies. We also had discussions with field staff, stakeholders and selected experts.

This extract reflects some of the particular issues facing our water supply, including climate change impacts, service areas with
intermittent supply and low-income/informal housing areas, and the system’s dependency on water trucking services.”

“For the initial cycle of WSP development, the WSP team decided not to undertake a dual-stage (raw and residual) risk
assessment, and used a single-stage approach instead (residual risk only). However, in the first review of the WSP, the team
did undertake raw risk assessments for some hazardous events – refer to the comments in Module 10.”

Validation of existing control measures

“Existing control measures were validated using the informal judgment technique (as discussed in section 4.2 of the Water safety
plan manual, second edition (WHO & IWA, 2023)).

We chose this because we lacked a lot of specific validation data, and it seemed the most suitable for the initial cycle of WSP
development, based on the WSP team’s limited experience. However, during future rounds of WSP development, and as the
team’s capacity builds, the WSP team intends to do more robust validation of select control measures it is deemed necessary.”

Worked example: Aquatown WSP 11

Risk matrix
The risk matrix and definitions used are presented below.1

LIKELIHOOD AND SEVERITY DEFINITIONS

LIKELIHOOD
DEFINITION “Risk matrices often describe the severity
RATING DESCRIPTION
in terms of ‘treated’ water quality.
1 Highly unlikely Not expected or will probably not occur.
Has not been observed in the field. Undertaking the risk assessment for the
first time, we found it difficult to address
No water quality data or other relevant data confirm occurrence. hazardous events at the source stage (i.e.
2 Unlikely May occur in exceptional circumstances. untreated water) using severity definitions
that relate to treated water.
Has not been observed in the field.
No water quality data or other relevant data confirm occurrence. So we thought it would be helpful to
use separate severity definitions for the
3 Possible Could occur, but not often.
source stage (i.e. untreated water) and
Has been observed occasionally in the field. other downstream stages of the water
Limited water quality data or other relevant data confirm occurrence. supply (i.e. treated water).”

4 Likely Expected to occur in many circumstances.

Recurrent but not frequent occurrence.
Has been observed occasionally in the field.
Confirmed by water quality or other relevant data.
5 Almost certain Expected to occur in most circumstances.
Occurs frequently.
Has been observed regularly in the field.
Confirmed by water quality data or other relevant data.

1
Additional examples of risk matrices for consideration may be found at https://wsportal.org/resource/wsp-manual-supplementary-tool-module-4-examples-of-risk-assessment-matrices/.

12 Water safety plan manual, second edition

LIKELIHOOD AND SEVERITY DEFINITIONS
SEVERITY DEFINITION
AT OTHER DOWNSTREAM STAGES OF THE WATER SUPPLY
RATING DESCRIPTION AT SOURCE STAGE
(WATER TREATMENT PLANT, DISTRIBUTION/STORAGE, USER LEVEL)
1 Insignificant Insignificant impact or consequence on quantity or quality of Insignificant impact on treated water quality or quantity.
untreated water at the intake (abstraction) point, and little impact Insignificant impact on service delivery or normal operations.
on operation of other parts of the water supply. Insignificant impact on customer trust.
2 Minor Minor impact or consequence on quantity or quality of water at Minor (non-health related) impact on treated water quality for a small percentage of customers.
intake point (e.g. requiring minor adjustments to treatment plant Minor impact on water quantity.
operations to maintain normal supply for short durations). Some manageable disruptions to service delivery or normal operations.
Minor corrective action required for service delivery.
Slight rise in customer complaints.
Minor impact on customer trust.
3 Moderate Moderate impact or consequence on quantity or quality of Moderate (non-health) impact on treated water quality for a small percentage of customers.
water at intake point (e.g. requiring adjustments in dosing and Moderate impact on water quantity.
backwashing to treatment plant operations to maintain supply for Some manageable disruptions to service delivery or normal operations.
extended durations). Corrective action required for service delivery.
Appreciable rise in customer complaints.
Moderate negative impact on customer trust.
4 Major Major impact or consequence on: Treated water quality (non-health) impact for a large percentage of customers.
C water quality at intake point (e.g. significantly compromised Potential long-term health effects from consuming the drinking-water.
ability of the treatment plant to meet required standards, Major impact on water quantity.
resulting in major disruption to normal operation); or Water supply is significantly compromised, with abnormal operation requiring extra level of
C available quantity of water (e.g. production quantities monitoring.
significantly reduced, supply of water interrupted for short Large number of customer complaints.
periods); or Considerable negative impact on customer trust.
C an extensive duration of these negative consequences for an
extended duration (e.g. several days or weeks).
5 Catastrophic Very serious impact or consequence on water quality or quantity Significant treated water quality impact for a large percentage of customers.
at intake point (e.g. the water supply would be unable to meet Potential illness or death from consuming the drinking-water.
required standards for either quality or quantity, emergency water Breach of regulatory requirement or major investigation by regulator, with regulatory sanctions
supply arrangements). or prosecution likely.
Significant impact on water quantity.
Litigation by customers likely.
Failure of system operation and considerable levels of additional monitoring.
Very large number of customer complaints.
Significant loss of customer trust.

Worked example: Aquatown WSP 13

 5 × 5 RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX
SEVERITY
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Highly unlikely 1

2 4 6 8 10
Unlikely 2
Likelihood

3 6 9 12 15
Possible 3

4 8 12 16 20
Likely 4

5 10 15 20 25
Almost certain 5

GENERAL RISK PRIORITY GUIDELINES

RISK SCORE RISK

(likelihood × severity) LEVEL Low risk Clearly not a priority
≤5 Low Actions may be taken as part of routine operation to manage the hazardous event. Actions should be
considered in the future, especially when changes take place or as part of the WSP review process.
6-11 Medium
Medium risk Medium priority
≥12-24 High Attention is required in operation, and/or possible improvements related to the hazardous event should be
made in the medium and long terms to continue minimizing risks.
≥25 Severe
High risk Priority
Actions need to be taken to mitigate the risk from the hazardous event. Possible options should be
documented (as part of the improvement plan) and implemented based on priorities and available resources.
Severe risk Clearly a priority
The risk from the hazardous event is severe enough that action is clearly a priority. This means checking
short-term options to mitigate acute consequences and examining alternative water resources.

14 Water safety plan manual, second edition

TABLE 3/4.1 • EXTRACT FROM THE RISK ASSESSMENT TABLE

Are existing control measures effective? Risk with controls in place

Hazard type

Likelihood

Risk score
Uncertain

Risk level
Severity
Ref Process Hazardous event Existing control Validation

Yes

No
No. step (X happens because of Y) measure notes

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

...
Poorly treated domestic wastewater
Surface- from septic tank installations in the

Med
C5 water catchment seeps into surface water M None Not applicable 3 3 9
catchment and reaches intake (X) due to overflows
(Y)
Historically, existing regulations have
Reduced quantity available for
Regulations been adequate but, in reduced rainfall
Surface- drinking-water purposes (X) due
limiting water and run-off scenarios, regulations may

High
C6 water to increased competing demands Q ✓ 3 4 12
extraction for not be adequately managed because
catchment between Aquatown water supply and
farming use they are based on percentage of flows,
farming irrigation needs (Y)
not volumes of water extracted

Surface-
Decreased source water yield (X) due

High
C7 water Q None Not applicable 3 5 15
to long-term reduced rainfall (Y)
catchment

Surface- Reduced water availability per capita

High
C8 water (X) due to increased demand driven by Q None Not applicable 3 5 15
catchment population growth (Y)

Contamination of the raw water with

Surface- Poor practices have been observed
agrichemicals (specifically aldicarb) Farming

Med
C9 water C and noted by the Department of ✓ 2 4 8
(X) because of suboptimal on-farm regulations
catchment Environment
management practices (Y)
Mobilization of accumulated sediment
Surface-
and nutrients and sudden influx into

High
C10 water M, A None Not applicable 4 4 16
raw water source (X) caused by rainfall
catchment
after excessive drought/dry periods (Y)

Worked example: Aquatown WSP 15

 TABLE 3/4.1 • EXTRACT FROM THE RISK ASSESSMENT TABLE CONTINUED

Are existing control measures effective? Risk with controls in place

Hazard type

Likelihood

Risk score
Uncertain

Risk level
Severity
Ref Process Hazardous event Existing control Validation

Yes

No
No. step (X happens because of Y) measure notes

Local surface run-off contaminated

Concrete apron Sanitary seal is only flush with ground
by animal waste contaminates the
Groundwater casing around bore level.
bore (X) due to animals grazing near

High
C11 abstraction M head, borehole ✓ 3 4 12
the abstraction facilities, combined Fencing is broken or gates are left
facilities sanitary seal, and
with inadequate protection of open.
some fencing
surface run-off entering borehole (Y)
Site is located well
Groundwater River water floods groundwater M,
above historic or

Low
C12 abstraction abstraction sites (X) due to intense P, ... ✓ 1 5 5
predicted 100-year
facilities run-off/flooding events (Y) Q
flood levels
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

...
Routine maintenance Spot checks indicate poor compliance
WTP for schedule for the with maintenance schedule, with
surface water: Particles not removed (X) due to dosing system – some operators reporting resource

Med
T4 M, A limitations impacting maintenance. ✓ 2 4 8
coagulation and dosing equipment breakdown (Y) pumps and lines,
flocculation probes and meters, Not every dosing pump has a back-up
electronics (standby) pump.
WTP for
Particles not removed (X) due to
surface water: Operator training Weakness in consistency noted in

High
T5 dosing rates set incorrectly or M, A ✓ 3 4 12
coagulation and following experience field visits
inappropriately (Y)
flocculation
Poor performance of the whole
Generator has insufficient capacity to
WTP for surface treatment process (X) due to failure On-site back-up

High
T6 M, A continue with normal operations, and ✓ 3 4 12
water of the power supply and inadequate generator
fuel source is limited
power supply back-up (Y)

16 Water safety plan manual, second edition

TABLE 3/4.1 • EXTRACT FROM THE RISK ASSESSMENT TABLE CONTINUED

Are existing control measures effective? Risk with controls in place

Hazard type

Likelihood

Risk score
Uncertain

Risk level
Severity
Ref Process Hazardous event Validation

Yes

No
No. step (X happens because of Y) Existing control measure notes

WTP for Compromised removal of particles Historically, has not been noted as a
surface (X) due to sand filter bed not being Operator manually problem, but sudden changes in flow

Med
T7 M, A ✓ 3 3 9
water: sand completely fluidized during filter managed rates through the filters have been
filters backwashing (Y) occasionally observed
Protozoa contamination arising from Can only sample and analyse combined
WTP for
poor performance of one filter (X) Filtered water sampling filtered water turbidity.
surface

High
T8 because of an inability to determine M point at common ✓ 3 5 15
water: sand Chlorination is not effective for most
individual filtered water turbidity manifold
filters protozoa.
readings from each filter (Y)
Adjustments by the
operator to calculate
and select the dose
Insufficient free chlorine residual
WTP for controller set point,
in water at the exit point of the
surface and periodic manual

Med
T9 treatment plant (X) because the M ... ✓ 2 5 10
water: checks of free chlorine
dose controller’s set point has
chlorination concentration,
been incorrectly calculated (Y)
especially during
periods of water quality
variability
WTP for Coagulation,
Ineffective chlorination (X) because
surface flocculation and

High
T10 turbidity is above the target level M ... ✓ 3 5 15
water: filtration before
(Y)
chlorination chlorination
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

...
Worked example: Aquatown WSP 17
 TABLE 3/4.1 • EXTRACT FROM THE RISK ASSESSMENT TABLE CONTINUED

Is this control measure effective? Risk with controls in place

Hazard type

Likelihood

Risk score
Uncertain

Risk level
Severity
Ref Process Hazardous event Existing control Validation

Yes

No
No. step (X happens because of Y) measure notes

Design of pipe
inlet and outlet in
storages.
Distribution: Inadequate disinfection (X) due to flow
Intermittent supply ...

Med
D11 service short-circuit from the inlet to the outlet M ✓ 2 4 8
reservoirs (Y) operation helps to
ensure that tanks
are filled before
demand.
Asset inspection
Distribution: / maintenance
Microbial contamination (X) from entry
service program including
of birds and small animals or faeces

Med
D12 reservoirs M repair of faults No known incidents ✓ 2 4 8
through faults and gaps in roofs or
with metal or gaps and
hatches, overflow pipes or air vents (Y)
roofing maintenance of
chlorine residuals
Distribution:
concrete pH increases in concrete tanks (X) due Short retention Tests indicate that pH of water exiting

Med
D13 A ✓ 2 3 6
service to excessive detention time (Y) times storages is within acceptable limits
reservoirs

Distribution: Stored water is contaminated (X) by M, Fencing, 24/7

Low
D14 service unauthorized access and associated C, caretakers and ... ✓ 1 5 5
reservoirs vandalism (Y) A gates

Distribution: Frequency of cleaning: no programme

Growth of algae or biofilms (X) from

High
D15 service M, A None in place, and some tanks have not been Not applicable 4 3 12
inadequate cleaning (Y)
reservoirs cleaned in 10 years

18 Water safety plan manual, second edition

 TABLE 3/4.1 • EXTRACT FROM THE RISK ASSESSMENT TABLE CONTINUED

Are existing control measures effective? Risk with controls in place

Hazard type

Likelihood

Risk score
Uncertain

Risk level
Severity
Ref Process Hazardous event Existing control Validation

Yes

No
No. step (X happens because of Y) measure notes

Distribution: Survival of pathogens and growth of

Maintaining

High
D16 piped opportunistic pathogens (X) due to lack M ... ✓ 4 4 16
chlorine residual
network of residual chlorine (Y)

Distribution: Ingress of contamination into pipes Some practices

High
D17 piped (X) due to unsanitary repair and M, A informally ... ✓ 3 4 12
network maintenance practices (Y) followed

Contaminated water is drawn into

Distribution: the pipes (X) because of low or no

High
D18 piped pressures in the pipes for extended M, A None Not applicable 5 4 20
network periods due to intermittent operation of
pipe network (Y)
Design
specification,
Distribution: pipe stocks,
Disruption of supply (X) due to pipe

High
D19 piped Q asset register, Pipe breaks are common ✓ 5 4 20
bursting/breaks (Y)
network purchasing
from accredited
suppliers
Pipes replaced
Control measure does not actively
Distribution: Contamination of water by turbidity, after breaks and
prevent problem based on historical

High
D20 piped offensive odours, scales, etc. (X) from A internal corrosion ✓ 5 3 15
customer complaints and asset
network internally corroded pipes (Y) identified as cause
inspection
of breakage

Distribution:
Inequitable pressure/flow distribution

High
D21 piped Q No current control Not applicable 5 4 20
(X) due to intermittent operation (Y)
network

Worked example: Aquatown WSP 19

 TABLE 3/4.1 • EXTRACT FROM THE RISK ASSESSMENT TABLE CONTINUED

Are existing control measures effective? Risk with controls in place

Hazard type

Likelihood

Risk score
Uncertain

Risk level
Severity
Ref Process Hazardous event Existing control Validation

Yes

No
No. step (X happens because of Y) measure notes

Distribution: Enforcement is poor, and anecdotal

Severe
Contamination (X) from illegal (and
D22 piped M, A Regulations evidence of low-level corruption by ✓ 5 5 25
substandard) connections (Y)
network some staff

Distribution:
Elevated disinfection by-products (X) Detention times in system are low, and

Low
D23 piped C No current control 2 2 4
due to long network detention times (Y) source water is not high in organics
network

Contamination (e.g. debris, soil or

Distribution: Complaints about dirty water after pipe
groundwater) enters an open main (not Experienced staff

Med
D24 piped A repairs are sometimes received by ✓ 3 3 9
capped) when in the repair trench (X) conducting repairs
network complaints department
because of poor repair procedures (Y)
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

...
Water supplier’s tankers are reserved
for drinking-water, and tankers are used
frequently.
Cross-contamination of water tanker
M, Cleaning carried Spot checks indicated that, when tanker
Distribution: contents from other uses of the tanker

High
D31 C, out by water operation is outsourced (e.g. high ✓ 4 4 16
tanker (X) because the tanker is not properly
A tanker operators number of visitors in town), cleaning by
cleaned and disinfected before use (Y)
some operators is inadequate.
This has been confirmed by some spot
checks and some water quality tests.
Water transferred from the tanker
direct to users or to local storage tanks
Distribution: becomes contaminated (X) because

High
D32 M None Not applicable 3 4 12
tanker the connection hoses have not been
disinfected by the water hauler before
delivery (Y)

20 Water safety plan manual, second edition

 TABLE 3/4.1 • EXTRACT FROM THE RISK ASSESSMENT TABLE CONTINUED

Are existing control measures effective? Risk with controls in place

Hazard type

Likelihood

Risk score
Uncertain

Risk level
Severity
Ref Process Hazardous event Existing control Validation

Yes

No
No. step (X happens because of Y) measure notes

User’s Deterioration of water quality (X) due to

Med
U3 premises: inadequate maintenance of household M, A None Not applicable 5 2 10
household water storage tanks (Y)

Regulatory
requirement to
User’s Loss of water availability in overall
have automatic It is common to see household water

High
U4 premises: system (X) due to overflowing Q ✓ 5 3 15
float valves on all storage tanks overflowing
household household tanks (X)
household water
storage tanks
Collected water for informal settlement
User’s
households is microbially contaminated

Med
U5 premises: M None Not applicable 3 3 9
(X) due to unsanitary hoses connected
household
to the public tap stand (Y)
Water becomes contaminated by
User’s children at home (X) because open

High
U6 premises: containers are used to transport water M None Not applicable 4 3 12
household from public tap stand and/or household
storage (Y)

Drinking-water is chemically Little enforcement of regulations.

User’s
contaminated by leaching (X) due to Building Older installations pre-dating existing

Med
U7 premises: C ✓ 3 2 6
use of substandard material in building regulations regulations are not covered.
household
plumbing (Y)

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

...
A: acceptability hazard; C: chemical hazard; M: microbial hazard; Q: quantity-related hazard; R: radiological hazard.

Worked example: Aquatown WSP 21

MODULE 5: IMPROVEMENT PLANNING
Prioritizing actions for improvement
A risk score of 6 (i.e. medium, high or severe risk) is taken as the cut-off point, above which
improvements must be undertaken.

“This was our cut-off point so we would prioritize medium, high or severe risks over low
risks, and to justify the improvement plans in budget submissions. Note that, in your WSP,
you need to decide an appropriate basis where additional control (i.e. improvements)
should be prioritized for action.

An improvement was also considered where a loss of control would result in a public
health risk.”

In addition, the WSP team used its judgement based on the general risk priority guidelines
(See page 15).

Improvement plans

“The improvement plan number (IP no.) in Table 5.1 is matched to the row reference number
in the risk assessment table (i.e. the first column in Table 3/4.1). This provided a clear
linkage between the hazardous event and the improvement that addresses this risk.

The improvement plan extract shows some examples of improvement for Aquatown. This
extract shows the status 12 months after the WSP started, by way of illustration.”

22 Water safety plan manual, second edition

 TABLE 5.1 • IMPROVEMENT PLAN EXTRACT
IP SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENT ARISING RESPONSIBLE DUE DATE BUDGET STATUS
NO.a ACTION FROM PARTY (from commencement (and source of funds) (12 months after
of the WSP)b commencement of
WSP operations)

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

IP C6 Work with stakeholders and High risk (risk score 12). Projected rainfall ATWS General 3 years for review Low financial cost Review of options
government to develop a long-term reductions and increased variability Manager and final decisions (no capital cost) but and implications 50%
strategy for demand management associated with climate change will make potentially high political complete
and water reuse, and investigate Aquatown’s surface water source more cost.
alternative water sources for the vulnerable as the competition with farmers Source: AWTS strategic
Aquatown water supply for water increases. planning budget.
... ... ... ... ... ... ...
IP Replace single 3-phase power High risk (risk score 12) related to failure ATWS Capital Within 18 months Medium cost (around Contract awarded.
T6-1 supply feed to treatment plant with of plant when power supply is lost Works $500 000) anticipated. Current completion
dual supply Manager Source: ATWS capital date is 6 months
budget. behind schedule due to
import delays.
... ... ... ... ... ... ...
IP Establish new process and standard High risk (risk score 12) related to ingress ATWS Within 12 months No capital cost. Complete; SOP is now
D15 operating procedures (SOPs) of harmful microorganisms from leaky Operations Increase in annual in operation
for storage tank maintenance roofs and openings Manager operations cost by 1%.
programme, including cleaning
Source: ATWS
operational budget.
... ... ... ... ... ... ...
IP U5 Community advice, education and Moderate (risk score 9) ATWS Equity Within 6 months Small cost to support Initial programme
ongoing support to households on Manager in NGO in its education complete; ongoing
good hygiene practice conjunction campaign. support planned for
with NGO Source: ATWS community next 18 months
engagement budget/
operational budget.
a
The improvement plan number (IP no.) is matched to the row reference number in the risk assessment table (i.e. the first column in Table 3/4.1).
b
Generic time frames are provided in this table for illustrative purposes. In practice, an actual date showed be provided in the improvement plan.

Worked example: Aquatown WSP 23

MODULE 6: OPERATIONAL MONITORING
Examples of some of the detailed operational monitoring plans are provided below.

“The operational monitoring number (OMP no.) in Table 6.1 is matched to the row reference number in the risk
assessment table (i.e. the first column in Table 3/4.1). This provided a clear linkage between the existing control measure
and the operational monitoring that must be conducted to confirm that this control measures is working as intended.”

TABLE 6.1 • OPERATIONAL MONITORING PLAN EXTRACT

OMP PROCESS CONTROL WHAT TO CORRECTIVE
WHERE WHEN HOW WHO ACCEPTABLE LIMIT(S)
NO.a STEP MEASURE MONITOR ACTION
OMP Groundwater Inspection and Fencing, and At each Weekly Visual Groundwater All fences and gates Repair concrete cover, fences
C11 abstraction maintenance programme presence or borewell minimum; if rain inspection pump operator closed and no evidence and gates within 3 days.
facilities for concrete apron evidence of of more than of stock within 10 Contact stock owner
casing around bore stock near 10 mm forecast metres of each immediately. Agree on ways to
head, borewell sanitary borewell. within 3 days, borewell. avoid in future and to remove
seal, and some fencing Damage to before forecast No damage to sanitary any stock within zone.
concrete cover. rain days seal. If stock were within 10 metres,
check chlorination operation.
OMP WTP for Adjustments by Free chlorine Downstream Continuous Chlorine Treatment Free chlorine residual Adjust controller set point.
T9 surface operator to select dose residual of storage (online) analyser. plant operator 1–1.5 mg/L. Recalculate dose rates and
water: controller set point concentration. before monitoring Independent No dose calculation change settings.
chlorination and periodic manual Dose flow release to or check of dose error identified. Train staff in dose calculations.
(chlorine checks on free available rate and dose distribution Four times daily calculations.
dose chlorine concentration, calculation.
controller) especially during
periods of variability in
water quality
OMP WTP for Coagulation, flocculation Turbidity Combined Continuous Online turbidity Treatment Turbidity <0.5 NTU Identify cause, take
T10 surface and filtration before of filtered outlet of (online) analyser plant operator appropriate remedial action
water: chlorination water before sand filters monitoring as per SOP 013 and monitor
chlorination chlorination closely.

24 Water safety plan manual, second edition

 TABLE 6.1 • OPERATIONAL MONITORING PLAN EXTRACT CONTINUED
OMP PROCESS CONTROL WHAT TO CORRECTIVE
WHERE WHEN HOW WHO ACCEPTABLE LIMIT(S)
NO.a STEP MEASURE MONITOR ACTION
OMP Distribution: Maintaining chlorine Chlorine Consumers’ Multiple Field kit Water quality Residual chlorine ≥0.2 Adjust chlorine dose.
D16 piped residual residual. taps and samples per officer mg/L to all customers. Adjust pH.
network pH. public tap week as per pH 7–8. If persistent, investigate cause
stands sampling and take appropriate action as
programme per SOP 069.
OMP Distribution: Design specification, All pipe ATWS Before Check Water quality All materials are Do not accept unsuitable
D19 piped pipe stocks, asset materials and contracts purchasing documentation, officer/ suitable for contact materials.
network register, purchasing values certified office materials and including procurement with drinking-water If suspected that they have
from accredited as safe for At receiving on receipt. certification of manager and do not result been installed, investigate
suppliers contact with sites (depots/ Annual review materials in contamination of appropriate options to rectify.
drinking-water stores) of records for drinking- water.
compliance. Pipe materials
comply with quality
requirements.
OMP Distribution: Trained staff conducting Free chlorine At site of At completion Field test kits Pipe Residual chlorine ≥0.5 Undertake addition flushing
D24 piped pipe repairs residual repair at of pipe repair supervisor mg/L. and disinfection, and repeat
network concentration hydrant or or installation Turbidity ≤5 NTU. sampling
and turbidity. tap of new main
Compliance before main
with SOP 024. is returned to
service
OMP Distribution: Cleaning of tanker by Free chlorine On-site Before putting Field test kits Tanker Residual chlorine of Repeat tanker cleaning
D31 tanker water tanker operators residual tanker into supervisor wash water ≥0.5 mg/L,
concentration service left in tanker for 4
of wash water hours after spraying
and visual and visually clean
appearance
check.
Compliance
with SOP 111.

mg/L: milligram per litre; NTU: nephelometric turbidity unit; WTP: water treatment plant.
a
The operational monitoring plan number (OMP no.) is matched to the row reference number in the risk assessment table (i.e. the first column in Table 3/4.1).

Worked example: Aquatown WSP 25

Implementation of the MODULE 7: VERIFYING WSP EFFECTIVENESS
operational monitoring
plans Compliance monitoring
Compliance monitoring by the national health regulator continued in the same way as before the WSP.

“Once the operational monitoring

plans were agreed, we set about
Customer satisfaction programme
modifying and improving our
day-to-day reporting systems to “Before the WSP, ATWS had a customer complaints team. During development of the WSP, this
incorporate any new operational team was transformed to be an active customer communications team. Its role has become
data. In some cases, little change more important over time as a way of getting feedback from customers on ATWS’s service.
was needed; for new monitoring,
additional reporting mechanisms After 18 months, the communications team undertook its first customer satisfaction survey,
were required. which included users in the low-income/informal areas.

Staff were involved in the design The communications team has plans to develop a geographic information system to better
of any new reporting mechanisms, track patterns and frequency of customer feedback, which will inform proactive maintenance
and training was carried out to activities in the distribution network.”
support implementation.

Reporting to the WSP team was by WSP audits

exception. The regular WSP team
meetings reviewed data outside
what is considered a normal range. “An external informal audit was carried out after 12 months operation of the WSP. The focus of
this initial audit was providing advice. It was undertaken by an experienced WSP auditor from
Monitoring results are reviewed another city (i.e. independent of the ATWS’s WSP team).
twice weekly by the supervisor.
Trending analyses are undertaken The auditor’s report and assistance were greatly appreciated by the WSP team. For
every 3 months to monitor example, the audit highlighted that our operational monitoring on chlorine residuals needed
performance of key control improvement to better capture some dead-end areas of the network that experience low flow
measures – for example, seasonal rates.
variations of treated water turbidity
against raw water turbidity.” There is currently no regulatory requirement for WSP audits, but we have decided to
undertake a formal external audit after 36 months of WSP operation.”

26 Water safety plan manual, second edition

MODULE 8: TABLE 8.1 • EXTRACT OF SOP DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
PROCESS TIMETABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT
MANAGEMENT STEP
SHORT DESCRIPTION OF SOPs TO BE DEVELOPED OR REVISED
(FROM START OF THE WSP)

PROCEDURES General Response to customer complaints 18 months

Catchment Fertilizer/pesticide application (to be prepared by Farmers 18 months
Standard operating Association, supported by ATWS)

procedures (SOPs) Waste management at religious cultural site in catchment (to be 12 months
prepared by Department of Religious Affairs, with support from ATWS)
Treatment Filter backwashing 12 months
Jar test 12 months
“We undertook a review of our Distribution Tank cleaning (IP D6) 6 months
existing SOPs and emergency
Operating intermittent supplies 12 months
response plans to identify
any existing gaps, existing Maintaining chlorine residual throughout the distribution system 12 months
management procedures that Pipeline repair procedures (IP D24) 12 months
needed to be updated, or old
SOPs that needed to be archived Customer Customer reporting and follow-up procedures 12 months
support
and taken out of circulation. We
summarized the output of this Note: Details are not included in this example.
exercise in Tables 8.1 and 8.2.

Our existing management

procedures are stored in our TABLE 8.2 • EXTRACT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
electronic document management PROCESS SHORT DESCRIPTION OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS TO BE TIMETABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT
system, which can be conveniently STEP DEVELOPED OR REVISED (FROM START OF THE WSP)
accessed by operators on their
General Epidemic 18 months
field mobile devices. Hard copies
are also available in the depots, at Cyber-attack on information technology system
water treatment plants and at key Catchment Flood 18 months
assets throughout the network (e.g. Bushfire
distribution storage tanks).”
Treatment Extended power failure 18 months
Distribution Major backflow contamination event 18 months

Note: Details are not included in this example.

Worked example: Aquatown WSP 27

MODULE 9: SUPPORTING PROGRAMMES
Consumer outreach/education programmes
Apart from the improvement plan IP U5 (community advice, education and ongoing support to households on good hygiene practice), no additional outreach
programmes have been planned at this stage. This will be kept under regular review.

Operator training and other supporting programmes

Planned supporting programme activities are summarized in the table below.

SUPPORTING PROGRAMME PLAN EXTRACT

PROCESS STEP SHORT DESCRIPTION OF SUPPORTING PROGRAMMES TO TIMETABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT
OR GROUP BE DEVELOPED OR REVISED (FROM START OF THE WSP)

Operators Training for operators on new SOPs When new SOPs are developed

Supplier staff (general) New staff orientation on WSP in induction 12 months

Contractor Training on WSP approaches 9 months

Catchment Research on transport and attenuation of agricultural chemicals used in catchment and 24 months
possible impacts on raw water

Treatment Calibration of online monitoring equipment 12 months

Distribution Leak detection 12 months

Water network hydraulic and water quality modelling 36 months

Proactive mains cleaning

Customer support staff New customer complaint management software When introduced

28 Water safety plan manual, second edition

MODULE 10: WSP REVIEW AND
UPDATING
Regular WSP team meetings

“Following adoption of the WSP, WSP team meetings were conducted

initially every month for the first 6 months and then every 2 months Postscript
thereafter. A regular agenda was soon developed to streamline the
meetings. It included a dedicated agenda item for each meeting to “This is a quick note during the first external formal audit (36 months
review the operational monitoring data and actions taken on the after starting our WSP).
improvement plans.”
Although it's great to have someone completely independent examine
our WSP and our WSP operations, it's also a nervous time for us
Planned and periodic review meetings … The auditor is very experienced and thorough, but she is quite
approachable and supportive … We know we'll learn a lot from the
“We instituted a twice-yearly review of the WSP. This played audit process.
a positive role in the ongoing monitoring, and some important
improvements have been made over time as a result of this review.” For example, she's shown us some benefits of doing a dual-stage (raw
and residual) risk assessment. This showed that, even without our
existing control measure (which we've been monitoring for several
Review after incident or near miss years), the raw risk was very low. So all our efforts in having that control
measure and monitoring it have not really gained very much. We will
“We are pleased to say that we’ve had no incidents or near misses roll out the dual-stage risk assessment approach to other hazardous
since starting the WSP. events gradually in the future!
We continually try to think of ‘what could go wrong’, but know that it’s We are still gaining experience with our WSP. Over the past 3 years, we
quite possible for something unforeseen to occur, and recognise the
have seen some real benefits – but that's another story …”
importance of emergency preparedness as part of Module 8.”

Worked example: Aquatown WSP 29

For more information, contact:
Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Health
World Health Organization
20 Avenue Appia
1211 Geneva 27
Switzerland
[email protected]
https://www.who.int/health-topics/water-sanitation-and-hygiene-wash