Water safety plan quality assurance tool [electronic resource]

Menu 4 1 NA Water Safety Plan Quality Assurance Tool Version 1.3 Macros are disabled. You need to enable macros for this Tool to work properly. Please refer to the instructions on how to enable macros. This is located in the About the Tool section (An Introduction). Name of water supplier: Country water supplier is located: Using the Tool Resources

Enter Assessment About the Tool Set Language Show Other Options >> View Assessment Results WHO/IWA WSP Manual WHO Lexicon WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, 4th Edition WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, 4th Edition

About the Tool 0=first row 1=introduction 2=Spreadsheet color 3=Instruction 115 0 276 General Instructions on Using the WSP Quality Assurance Tool Structure of the Tool Structure of Enter Assessment portion of the Tool Scoring Using the Tool to support implementation Quantitative questions Comment fields Resources, guidance and references Spreadsheet Tools: ‘create new’ feature Color coding of Enter Assessment portion of the Tool Summary tables and summary graphs Structure of the Tool The Tool consists of four sections: ·        Section 1 - Menu - this is the opening page of the Tool. ·      Section 2 - About the Tool - this section contains the Tool overview and general instructions on how to use the Tool. ·      Section 3 - Enter Assessment - this is where you enter your evaluations related to WSPs. ·      Section 4 - Assessment Results - this section synthesizes the information entered in the Enter Assessment section into summary tables and graphs.

All sections of the Tool are available by selecting the appropriate tab near the bottom of the Tool or the relevant buttons within the different sections of the Tool. Structure of Enter Assessment portion of the Tool 1 Part 1 consists of two tables: ·   Table 1 – General Information on the Water Supplier ·     Table 2 – General Information on each Water Supply System Part 2 consists of ten tables related to the WSP approach. For ease of use, these tables are structured around the steps identified in the WSP Manual: ·      Table 3 – WSP Team · Table 4 – System Description ·         Table 5 – Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment ·        Table 6 – Control Measures and Validation (including reassessment and prioritization of risks) ·         Table 7 – Improvement Plan ·         Table 8 – Operational Monitoring ·      Table 9 – Verification ·         Table 10 – Management Procedures ·       Table 11 – Supporting Programmes ·         Table 12 – Review of the WSP (including periodic reviews and following incidents) In line with the WSP Manual approach and within each table, the questions are in sequence and a previous step may need to be completed before the next step can also be completed. An obvious example of this is that risk assessment cannot be marked as fully completed until hazard identification and control identification and validation have been fully completed. To obtain maximum benefit from the Tool, it is important that all questions are reviewed even though a particular action has not yet been started. Water suppliers should also feel free to add other questions that they consider useful for their particular circumstances. Scoring Responses to the questions in tables three to twelve are generally in a drop down list format with a zero to four grading scale. It is important that a water supplier’s responses are an honest and self-critical appraisal of the progress it has made. ·      A score of zero should be given to steps that have not been started; · One point should be given to steps which have just started; ·         Two points should be given to steps that have been partially completed and documented; ·        Three points should be given where the step has been substantially completed and documented; and ·         Four points should be given where the step has been fully completed and documented and evidence of this is readily available. Guidance is given for each question on what would merit a score of four points. ‘Not started’ and ‘just started’ should be self explanatory but it will be for the water supplier to decide if a score of two points or three points is merited. In some cases, these general definitions do not apply and therefore, more specific guidance has been provided for those questions. Additionally, where applicable, some questions also have a ‘not applicable’ (NA) rating in addition to scores. Using the Tool to support implementation It is not the intention to put too much emphasis on the exact scores obtained. In fact, it is unlikely that many questions will merit four points until WSP implementation has been in place for some time. Even in these cases, there should generally be room for improvement and therefore, it is likely that the top score will not be achieved for all questions. If the total scores are very high, the water supplier may find it helpful to arrange for an independent external evaluation with the Tool. Furthermore, as Water Safety Planning is an iterative process, obtaining top scores is not an end in itself and it is imperative that the WSP is continually reviewed and assessed to ensure that the WSP remains up to date and is effective. Where the scoring should be helpful is to point to areas where improvement to WSP implementation is needed, where interventions have led to improvements and where priorities should be directed. Regular use of the Tool will show the water supplier and others involved with the WSP process that progress is being made with WSP implementation over time. It also allows for easy reporting of progress to all within the supplier including senior management. Quantitative questions The response to some questions is in the form of outputs, for example, number of stakeholders identified, number of hazardous events identified and number of operational tests carried out. These questions are optional and are not scored. However, the information provided will help the water supplier to further measure its progress with WSP implementation over time since it allows for the assessment of various parameters and should be a means of demonstrating improvements linked to WSP implementation such as an increase in the number of controls validated, a reduction in the number of incidents and fewer quality results outside of operational limits. Also, this will enable senior management or an external assessor to gain insight into the magnitude and complexity of each WSP. Comment fields water suppliers or similar entities managing organized drinking-water supplies to assess the completeness of a WSP and the effectiveness of its implementation. It is important that full use is made of the comment fields when answering the questions in the Tool. These can be used to justify a score when the water supplier is not completely sure of which score to award, to explain a supplier’s interpretation of a question where it is unsure of the meaning or terminology, to explain why a question has not been completed, to document the evidence used to justify a score, etc. This will enable the comments to act as an aide memoire for the next time the Tool is completed. Accordingly including information about the persons entering comments (e.g. names, representing organizations and job titles) will also be helpful. The comment fields should also be utilized when a score of ‘partially completed’ or ‘substantially completed’ is entered. These scores are more subjective and the comments can facilitate consistency in the scoring approach during future assessments. Resources, guidance and references The resources included within the opening page of the Tool (the Menu page), are available only when the user is connected to the internet. These resources have been included as they are specifically referenced within the Enter Assessment portion of the Tool. The full web addresses and citations for these resources are included in the User Manual. 1 All questions within the Enter Assessment portion of the Tool include further guidance. This guidance, which can be found in the pop-up note that accompanies each question, may include a tab (titled Guidance) that contains information such as clarification of the question, definition of terms and further details of the WSP step. This guidance should be fully understood and considered when answering each question. Another tab includes a list references (titled References), including the specific Modules in the WSP Manual where further information can be found. 1 Spreadsheet Tools: 'create new' feature 1 1 1 Click on this button to create a new question. These can be general (e.g. non-scoring) or assessment (e.g. scoring) type questions, where the latter questions are added to the cumulative score at the bottom of each table. For the assessment type questions created in tables three to twelve, the scoring is restricted to zero to four for consistency with the existing questions. Scoring definitions and guidance needed for any new questions should be entered in the comment fields. 1 1 Click on this button to add a new assessment column. This will enable you to: ·    Conduct assessments and compare performance over time. ·  Conduct assessments and compare performance between different water supply systems over a similar time period. In this case, the tables that are general to the water supplier only need to be assessed once. These general tables are one, three, ten and eleven. In order to compare these systems in the summaries, it is advised that each table is still filled out by copying the answer from the initial assessment for that time period. Color coding of Enter Assessment portion of the Tool Within tables one to twelve, the Tool uses the following colors to distinguish the different types of information. Light orange cells indicate fields that need to be filled in based on the question in the cell to the left. Light grey cells should be used to enter comments. You may wish to use this space to explain why a particular answer has been given or to act as an aide memoire for the next time the assessment is completed. It may additionally be helpful to include the details of the persons entering comments in case any questions arise in the future. Light blue cells include calculations based on the answers provided in the light orange cells. These calculations are automatically generated and thus their values cannot be modified. Dark grey cells indicate that an assessment for that particular question is not needed. The question is currently not applicable based on answers provided for in previous, dependent questions. To obtain maximum benefit from the Tool, it is suggested that these questions are still reviewed. Red cells indicate that the assessment conflicts with an answer provided for in previous, dependent questions. Please read the associated comment and update your assessment accordingly. Summary tables and summary graphs A summary of the information entered in tables one to twelve can be found in the Assessment Results section of the Tool. These summary tables and graphs will assist the water supplier in easily identifying where efforts should be targeted and where progress has been made. The WSP team may also find these results a useful resource when communicating to senior management; for example, to indicate where further resources are needed and to demonstrate that progress with WSPs are being made. The summary tables display the information included in tables one to twelve in a numerical format. This includes the answers provided for both the scoring and quantitative type questions. These tables have been organized by general information (derived from tables one to two), by WSP step (derived from tables three to twelve) and by water supply component (derived from tables five to eight, ten and twelve). For the latter two summaries, the tables also include information on the number of questions within each summary, the total possible points as well as the actual scores achieved. These summaries will not reflect the additional questions and corresponding scores that may be added by the water supplier. The summary graphs display the scoring type information included in tables three to twelve in a chart format where the results can be viewed by WSP step and by water supply component. The user may wish to refer to the summary tables for further details on how these graphs were derived. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Water Safety Plan Quality Assurance Tool: An Introduction Opening the Tool Compatibility Macros What is the Tool? Who should use the Tool? When should the Tool be used? Opening the Tool If this Tool has been obtained on the web, it must be saved and opened as an Excel file in order for it to work properly. The Tool will not work correctly if it is opened directly from the web. Compatibility This Tool is compatible with the 2003, 2007 and 2010 versions of Excel. Macros This Tool contains macros which must be enabled in order for the Tool to function correctly. Therefore, when you open the Tool, please enable macros when prompted. If macros are disabled, a warning note will appear on the menu page (in red) of the Tool or you will receive a security warning near the top of the page. If you see the Security Warning: 1. Select ‘Always trust macros from this publisher’ and ‘Enable Macros’. 2. OR select ‘Options’ and then ‘Trust all documents from this publisher’ and ‘Ok’. 3. OR select ‘Enable this content’. Then click ‘Yes’ when asked, ‘Do you want to make this file a trusted document’. If you see the warning note or the macros are disabled and there is no security warning, follow the relevant directions for Excel 2003, 2007 or 2010, respectively. To enable macros when using Excel 2003 version: 1. Go to the Menu Bar and select 'Tools'. 2. Move the cursor over ‘Macro’ and select ‘Security’. 3. From the options, select ‘Medium’ and then select ‘Ok’. 4. Close the file and re-open it. There is no need to save the file prior to closing when prompted. When you open the file, you will receive a security warning. Select ‘Enable Macros’. This will allow all the features of the Tool to be fully active. To enable macros when using Excel 2007 version: 1. Go to the top left corner and select the Round Office button. 2. Select ‘Excel Options’ near the bottom right corner. 3. Select ‘Trust Center’ and then ‘Trust Center Settings’. 4. Select ‘Message Bar’ and from the options, select ‘Show the Message Bar in all applications when content has been blocked’. 5. Select ‘Macro Settings’ and from the options, select ‘Disable all macros with notification’. 6. Click ‘Ok’ twice. 7. Close the file and re-open it. There is no need to save the file prior to closing when prompted. When you open the file, you will receive a security warning. Select ’Options’, then ‘Trust all documents from this publisher’ and ‘Ok’. This will allow all the features of the Tool to be fully active. To enable macros when using Excel 2010 version: 1. Go to the top left corner and select ‘File’. 2. Select ‘Options’ 3. Select ‘Trust Center’ and then ‘Trust Center Settings’. 4. Select ‘Message Bar’ and from the options, select ‘Show the Message Bar in all applications when active content, such as ActiveX controls and macros, has been blocked’. 5. Select ‘Macro Settings’ and from the options, select ‘Disable all macros with notification’. 6. Click ‘Ok’ twice. 7. Select ‘Enable this content’ (within the Home tab). Then click ‘Yes’ when asked, ‘Do you want to make this file a trusted document’. This will allow all the features of the Tool to be fully active. For help, please contact wspqatool@who.int. What is the Tool? The Water Safety Plan (WSP) Quality Assurance Tool is an Excel-based tool which is intended to assist water suppliers or similar entities managing organized drinking-water supplies to assess the completeness of a WSP and the effectiveness of its implementation. It is closely aligned with the WHO/IWA Water Safety Plan Manual (Bartram et al.,2009) (http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publication_9789241562638/en/index.html) and knowledge and understanding of this Manual are essential prerequisites for proper application of the Tool. The major benefits in applying the Tool will be the systematic highlighting of: ·         Areas where progress is being made with WSP implementation; and ·    Opportunities for improvements Experience has also shown that application of the Tool can facilitate improved understanding of the WSP process, thus complementing existing training that may be taking place. Who should use the Tool? The Tool should be used by the WSP team set up by the water supplier. If this team includes external expertise, representatives of other stakeholders or other parties, they should also contribute to the Tool. Where a water supplier is only responsible for part of a water supply system, for example abstraction and treatment or distribution, or it receives a bulk supply from another supplier, its WSP team should work with the teams from the other water suppliers so that the Tool is completed from catchment to point of use for each water supply system. This will allow for greater understanding of the complete system and how each entity operates and also ensures that hazards are identified at entity boundaries that could otherwise be missed or not understood. The Tool can also be used by water supplier senior management and internal assessors as a means of monitoring WSP related activities. In addition, it could be used by external assessors for an independent assessment on progress with WSP development and implementation. Use of the Tool by these entities would allow for a consistent approach to these types of assessments. When should the Tool be used? The Tool can be used all the way from setting out on the WSP approach to full and continuing implementation. The Tool is likely to be of most use when utilized at intervals dictated by the pace of WSP implementation. When applied at the early stages, the Tool will guide and assess WSP development and implementation. It will assist in identifying areas of weakness and highlight where efforts need to be targeted. For those suppliers that have already implemented a WSP, this Tool will additionally help to challenge complacency to ensure that the WSP remains up to date and is effective.

&CWSP Quality Assurance Tool - About the Tool &LPage &P of &N&CVersion 1.2&R&D Create new Create a new question Main Menu Print Introduction General instructions What is the Tool? Compatibility Macros Opening the Tool Who should use the Tool? When should the Tool be used? Structure of the Tool Structure of Enter Assessment portion of the Tool Scoring Using the Tool to support implementation Quantitative questions Comment fields Resources, guidance and references Spreadsheet Tools: ‘create new’ feature Summary tables and summary graphs Color coding of Enter Assessment portion of the Tool For help, please contact wspqatool@who.int. (http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publication_9789241562638/en/index.html)

Enter Assessment 0 10 Table 10: Management Procedures 02 Table 2 should be filled out for each water supply system. Table 3 is not system specific. 04 Table 4 should be filled out for each water supply system. 05 Table 5 should be filled out for each water supply system. 06 Table 6 should be filled out for each water supply system. 07 Table 7 should be filled out for each water supply system. 08 Table 8 should be filled out for each water supply system. 09 Table 9 should be filled out for each water supply system. Table 10 is not system specific. Table 11 is not system specific. 12 Table 12 should be filled out for each water supply system. System specific question 1 = copy answer, 2 = new calculation, 3 merge cells ,4 = copy answer and merge with next,0 = only borders added; 5 MergeWithNext Is Score Question Guidance Component Guidance Table ID References Special combo if score = then score of line = Value in score Scoring info Table name ID Question Assessment Rationale/Comments Rationale/Comments Guidance/References 03-04-05-06-07-08-09-10-11-12 Guidance on how to score each question: 03-04-05-06-07-08-09-10-11-12 For each question, definitions are provided on each possible score. To score a 4, the step must also be fully documented and evidence should be readily available demonstrating that the action is complete and is effective, as appropriate. When scoring a 3 or 2, please enter in the comment field (light grey cells), why that score was given. 0 947 01-02-03-04-05-06-07-08-09-10-11-12 0 Date of assessment (Month-Year) 20 0 02-03-04-05-06-07-08-09-10-11-12 0 Name of water supply system 21 1 0 1.1 Country water supplier is located 0 22 1 01 0 1.1 Total population of coverage area 23 1 114 01 0 1.2 Number of consumers supplied 24 List the number of people (estimate) receiving water from the supplier.

Bulk suppliers should also be aware of the number and location of people using their supply as part of their WSP. This is vital information in the event of an emergency or when alternative supplies have to be used.

It may be helpful to describe how this number was derived in the comment field to allow for better comparisons between systems and over time as the methodology may not always be consistent. 1 126 01 0 1.3 Number of water supply systems 25 In general, a water supply system consists of supply components (catchment, treatment, distribution and point of use), which collectively, results in the provision of water to consumers. The nature of the components may differ from system to system. For example, in one system, there may be multiple catchments/sources feeding a treatment works, a distribution area may receive water from multiple treatment works or there may be several distribution networks originating from a single source. 140 01 0 1.4 Number of water supply systems covered by a WSP 26 Fully implemented in this context means that the WSP process has been conducted and documented from catchment to point of use, some improvements identified in the WSP are being carried out and the WSP is periodically being reviewed and updated as needed. 1 140 01 0 30 0 0 a. that is being developed and/or implemented 27 1 140 01 0 31 0 0 b. that has been fully implemented 28 145 01 0 1.5 Number of consumers covered by a WSP 29 This should equal the number of consumers covered by the water supply systems noted in question 1.4a and b, respectively.

Fully implemented in this context means that the WSP process has been conducted and documented from catchment to point of use, some improvements identified in the WSP are being carried out and the WSP is periodically being reviewed and updated as needed. 1 145 01 0 a. that is being developed and/or implemented 30 1 145 01 0 b. that has been fully implemented 31 1 153 01 0 1.6 Number of staff within the water supplier 32 If the organization is responsible for other sectors (e.g. wastewater, electricity) the number of staff listed should only include those that work directly in the provision of drinking-water supplies. 1 148 01 0 1.7 Number of staff within the water supplier that are aware of the WSP approach and involved in its development and implementation 33 This should include water supply staff within and outside the WSP team. Ideally, all staff connected with water safety should understand the WSP approach and be involved in its development and implementation. 1 792 01 0 1.8 Length of time the supplier has been implementing/fully implementing WSPs (years) 34 No guidance available 4 1253 01 0 1.9 Have any benefits been seen as a result of WSP development and/or implementation? 35 1253 01 0 More than one answer can be chosen. If "other" is checked, please list what other benefits have been seen in the comment field. 36 5 01 1 No 39 No 0 1.10 Is there legislation, regulation(s) and/or standard(s) related to the WSP approach (risk assessment/risk management) affecting the water supplier? 37 01 0 If yes, please describe the relevant requirements in the comment field. 38 5 01 1 0 1.11 Is there a process in place to demonstrate that the requirements of the legislation, regulation(s) and/or standard(s) related to the WSP approach (risk assessment/risk management) have been met? 39 01 0 If yes, please describe the process in the comment field. 40 NewLine01 01 2 123 01 0 % Population obtaining water from supplier 0.00% 41 This is equal to: (Answer of 1.2 / Answer of 1.1) * 100 2 124 01 0 % Water supply systems covered by a WSP that is being developed and/or implemented 0.00% 42 This is equal to: (Answer of 1.4a / Answer of 1.3) * 100 2 125 01 0 % Water supply systems covered by a WSP that has been fully implemented 0.00% 43 This is equal to: (Answer of 1.4b / Answer of 1.3) * 100 2 127 01 0 % Population obtaining water covered by a WSP that is being developed and/or implemented 0.00% 44 This is equal to: (Answer of 1.5a / Answer of 1.1) * 100 2 141 01 0 % Population obtaining water covered by a WSP that has been fully implemented 0.00% 45 This is equal to: (Answer of 1.5b / Answer of 1.1) * 100 2 142 01 0 % Consumers obtaining water covered by a WSP that is being developed and/or implemented 0.00% 46 This is equal to: (Answer of 1.5a / Answer of 1.2) * 100 2 196 01 0 % Consumers obtaining water covered by a WSP that has been fully implemented 0.00% 47 This is equal to: (Answer of 1.5b / Answer of 1.2) * 100 2 217 01 0 % Staff involved in WSP development and implementation 0.00% 48 This is equal to: (Answer of 1.7 / Answer of 1.6) * 100 3 0 Enter overall comments for table 1 here 49 02 0 2.1 Does the water supplier have responsibility for the water supply system? 50 02 0 If shared responsibility or no responsibility, please list who has responsibility in the comment field. 51 0 254 02 1 0 a. Catchment area (watershed) 52 A catchment is a discrete area of land which has a common drainage system. See the WHO Lexicon for further details. 0 02 1 0 b. Raw water sources (abstraction) 53 0 02 1 0 c. Treatment 54 0 02 1 0 d. Distribution 55 0 255 02 1 0 e. Consumer premises 56 Generally, the water supplier would not have complete responsibility for the quality of water in consumer premises. Responsibility is likely to be shared with other stakeholders, for example with building owners and users. Even if there are regulatory requirements requiring the water supplier to enforce requirements within consumer premises it is unlikely that these can be achieved without stakeholder involvement. 0 1254 02 0 2.2 Total population of coverage area 57 0 836 02 0 2.3 Number of consumers supplied 58 List the number of people (estimate) receiving water from this water supply system.

If the water supplier only has one water supply system, then this number should equal the number entered in 1.2. Additionally, for many systems this number will be the same as that given in question 2.2. For others, particularly where there are sparse areas of population, a significant percentage of the population may be relying on small private water supplies and therefore, the total number of people receiving water from this system will be smaller. Where this is the case, this provides useful information for the WSP team in respect of the potential for cross connections and waterborne disease surveillance as reported outbreaks may have nothing to do with the water supplier.

It may be helpful to describe how this number was derived in the comment field to allow for better comparisons between systems and over time as the methodology may not always be consistent. 0 197 02 0 2.4 Number of service connections 330 This information will provide an indication on the complexity of the water supply system. 0 197 02 0 2.5 Number of treatment works 59 This information will provide an indication on the complexity of the water supply system. 0 198 02 0 2.6 Total volume of potable water (m3) entering the distribution system (e.g. from the treatment plant and/or received from bulk supplier) within the past year 60 This information will provide an indication on the complexity of the water supply system. 0 199 02 0 2.7 % Water loss in the distribution system within the past year 61 This information provides a reflection of the integrity of the distribution system. As WSP implementation progresses and improvements are being made to the distribution system, the % water loss within the distribution may decrease. 5 200 02 0 308;309;310;311 NA 0 2.8 Number of incidents that have occurred within the past year 62 An incident is a situation when action should be taken outside of normal operating procedures to prevent the distribution of unsafe drinking-water. This could result from exceeding critical limits or the occurence of unforeseen events such as natural disasters and accidents. As WSP development and implementation progresses, there should ideally be a reduction in the number of incidents. 200 02 0 Please explain in the comment field the supplier's definition of incident that was used to answer this question if it differs from the definition provided. 63 NewLine02 02 2 876 02 0 % Population obtaining water from system 0.00% 64 This is equal to: (Answer of 2.3 / Answer of 2.2) * 100 65 0 1 206 03 226 1 Table 3: WSP Team 3.1 Is WSP development and implementation funded and supported at the senior management level? 66 Support by senior management is necessary in order to implement changes stemming from WSP development. This means there is sufficient funding and time allocation for the team to be set up and undertake the system description, risk assessment, etc. This does not mean that funding is available for potential improvements that may be identified through the WSP process.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 1, page 9 Section: Engage senior management, and secure financial resource support 0 1 212 03 230 1 0 70 0 Table 3: WSP Team 3.2 Has a WSP team been identified and set up? 67 The WSP team should collectively understand the water supply system, be able to assess the risks associated with each system component and have authority to ensure recommendations derived from the WSP can be implemented. If the water supplier does not have sufficient internal expertise, the WSP team should also include individuals from external organizations. A team leader should be assigned to oversee WSP development and implementation and responsibilities of each team member should be identified and documented.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 1 0 1 214 03 1 Table 3: WSP Team 3.3 Has the WSP methodology been defined? 68 The WSP methodology should be described in an overview document which describes the workplan for the WSP team. It should include information on the WSP team, the timeframe to develop the WSP, a general description of each water supply system that is being covered and the general approach to WSP development including how hazard identification and risk assessment will be carried out. The methodology should be further refined and expanded as WSP development progresses and should reference more detailed documents and procedures for further details. 0 1 216 03 231 1 Table 3: WSP Team 3.4 Have water quality targets been identified? 69 Water quality targets are generally set by the government or regulator. If there are no regulatory requirements, the water supplier should establish some minimum targets.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 2

WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (GDWQ) 4th Edition - Chapters 2 (page 21) and 3 0 1 218 03 232 1 Table 3: WSP Team 3.5 Has the WSP team planned regular meetings and are these being conducted? 70 The WSP team should agree to meet regularly to ensure that the WSP remains up to date. The number of meetings will depend on supplier circumstances, including the complexity of the system, timescale for implementation, etc. The team should meet more frequently during WSP development and as the WSP matures, meetings are likely to become less frequent.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 10 NewLine03 03 2 03 0 Total score for Table 3 0 71 3 0 Enter overall comments for table 3 here 72 0 1 237 04 238 1 0 74 0 Table 4: System Description 4.1 Has the water supply system been described from catchment to consumer? 73 There should be a detailed description of the water supply system from catchment to consumer. Flow diagrams and/or system schematics should be included which capture all elements of the water supply system in sufficient detail and identify where the system is vulnerable to hazards and where existing controls are sited. As a minimum, it should include all the sources, abstraction points, treatment sites, treatment streams, service reservoirs, pumping stations, area of supply and connections to other water supply systems and any special arrangements for users and uses of the water. The description should also include the water quality targets and be dated.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 2 0 1 240 04 241 1 Table 4: System Description 4.2 Has the system description been confirmed by site visits and local knowledge and input? 74 A system description derived only from a desk study is not sufficient.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 2 NewLine04 04 2 04 0 Total score for Table 4 0 75 0 Enter overall comments for table 4 here 76 2 313 05 314 0 5.1 Have stakeholders been identified? 0 77 Stakeholders are usually external to the water supplier and include anyone that has influence or could be influenced by the water supply.

The WSP approach requires water suppliers to work with other stakeholders. All relevant stakeholders should be part of the WSP process to inform the system description, hazard identification and the risk assessment, particularly when the water supplier does not have complete control over the water supply component/where other stakeholders could contribute to the introduction of hazards. Similarly, stakeholders may have a role to play in removing or minimizing identified risks.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 3, page 34 (Example/tool 3.12) 0 1 313 315 05 314 1 0 83;88;93 0 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment a. Catchment 78 The water supplier should have given thought to every stakeholder who has control or influence over land use and hazard input into the catchment. Examples of catchment stakeholders are included on page 14 (Example/tool 1.6) of the WSP Manual. 0 1 313 316 05 314 1 0 84;89;94 0 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment b. Treatment 79 Treatment stakeholders may include contractors. 0 1 313 317 05 314 1 0 85;90;95 0 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment c. Distribution 80 Distribution stakeholders may include contractors. 0 1 313 318 05 314 1 0 86;91;96 0 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment d. Consumer premises 81 Consumers include anyone who may use the finished water for consumption or other domestic or industrial purposes, including building operators and owners. Consumers should be identified as stakeholders in the WSP and the water supplier should have records of the number and type of premises (e.g. industrial and domestic) supplied. 2 319 05 320 0 5.2 Have stakeholders been contacted and are they engaged in the WSP process? 0 82 The senior manager or equivalent representative of each stakeholder group should be contacted by the water supplier. Each stakeholder should be aware of the WSP, how it affects them and their responsibilities towards making the water supply safe.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manal - Module 3, page 34 (Example/tool 3.12) 0 1 319 05 320 1 0 93 0 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment a. Catchment 83 0 1 319 05 320 1 0 94 0 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment b. Treatment 84 0 1 319 05 320 1 0 95 0 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment c. Distribution 85 0 1 319 05 320 1 0 96 0 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment d. Consumer premises 86 2 327 05 0 5.3 Number of stakeholder groups identified 0 87 List the number of stakeholder groups identified.

The WSP team should define what is meant by stakeholder in their WSP methodology document. This information will provide an indication on the magnitude and complexity of the water supply system and can also be used to assess progress with the activity identified in question 5.1. Furthermore, this will provide insight into progress with the WSP. As WSP development progresses and more is known about the system components, there is likely to be an increase in the number of stakeholders identified. 0 327 328 05 0 a. Catchment 88 Examples of catchment stakeholders include land owners and relevant government organizations/departments, such as the public health department and the environmental health department. 0 327 05 0 b. Treatment 89 0 327 05 0 c. Distribution 90 0 327 329 05 0 d. Consumer premises 91 Examples of consumer stakeholders include residential consumers, industrial consumers and hospitals. 2 330 05 0 5.4 Number of stakeholder groups contacted regarding water safety responsibilities 0 92 List the number of stakeholder groups contacted.

This information will provide an indication on the magnitude and complexity of the water supply system and can also be used to assess progress with the activity identified in question 5.2. Furthermore, this will provide insight into progress with the WSP. As WSP development progresses and more is known about the system components, there is likely to be an increase in the number of stakeholders contacted. 0 330 05 0 a. Catchment 93 0 330 05 0 b. Treatment 94 0 330 05 0 c. Distribution 95 0 330 05 0 d. Consumer premises 96 2 331 05 332 0 5.5 Has hazard identification been conducted? 0 97 A hazard is a physical, biological, chemical or radiological agent that can cause harm to public health. A hazardous event is a process/circumstance whereby a hazard/contaminant could be introduced into the water supply. The identification of hazards and associated hazardous events (source of hazard) should be wide ranging and not limited to chemical and microbiological parameters (e.g. considers weather, climate change, etc.).

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manal - Module 3 0 1 331 333 05 332 1 0 103;108;113;119 0 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment a. Catchment 98 See page 29 (Example/tool 3.1) of the WSP Manual for examples of catchment hazards and associated events. 0 1 331 334 05 332 1 0 104;109;114;120 0 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment b. Treatment 99 The identification of hazards/hazardous events should include a review of those identified in the catchment element but not controlled there. See page 30 (Example/tool 3.2) of the WSP Manual for examples of treatment hazards and associated events. 0 1 331 335 05 332 1 0 105;110;115;121 0 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment c. Distribution 100 The identification of hazards/hazardous events should include a review of those identified in the treatment element but not controlled there. This includes evaluation of stored water. See page 31 (Example/tool 3.3) of the WSP Manual for examples of distribution network hazards and associated events. 0 1 331 336 05 332 1 0 106;111;116;122 0 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment d. Consumer premises 101 The identification of hazards/hazardous events should include a review of those identified in the distribution element but not controlled there as well as those consumer premises hazards/hazardous events that the supplier has little direct control over, such as household water storage and handling practices and consumer installations (e.g. pipeworks and fittings). See page 31 (Example/tool 3.4) of the WSP Manual and sections 4.5 - 4.6 of WHO's Water Safety in Buildings (2011, http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/2011/9789241548106/en/index.html) for examples of hazards and associated events affecting consumer premises. 2 343 05 344 0 5.6 Were site visits made for visual inspection and was local input obtained to inform the hazard identification? 0 102 Site visits should be sufficiently comprehensive so that the water supplier is confident that the hazards/hazardous events can be identified.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manal - Module 3 0 1 343 345 05 344 1 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment a. Catchment 103 Evidence that the catchment has been visited may include dated photographs, reports, pro forma or questionnaires used for information gathering from stakeholders and raw water quality data.   0 1 343 346 05 344 1 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment b. Treatment 104 Evidence that treatment facilities have been visited may include dated photographs, reports and records of interviews with treatment operators. 0 1 343 347 05 344 1 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment c. Distribution 105 Evidence that distribution facilities (such as service reservoirs, pumping stations and mains, including the laying and repairing of mains) have been visited may include dated photographs, reports and records of interviews with distribution operators. 0 1 343 348 05 344 1 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment d. Consumer premises 106 Evidence that consumer premises have been visited may include historic pollution events, records of consumer complaints about water quality and data trends. 2 355 05 356 0 5.7 Were historical data and events and predictive information assessed? 0 107 Historical data and events covering the previous five years should be assessed. This may include data that have been collected from other stakeholders and, if so, the water supplier should participate in analysis of that data so that it can be fully informed of the likely hazards/hazardous events. If the water supplier is aware of one or more major events that occurred more than five years ago and believes that those circumstances could still arise, these should also be included in the assessment.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manal - Module 3 0 1 355 357 05 356 1 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment a. Catchment 108 Assessment of historical data and events and predictive information should include hydrologic data, meteorological data, geological information, historic pollution events, land use surveys, planning applications, modelling and data trends.   0 1 355 358 05 356 1 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment b. Treatment 109 Assessment of historical data and events and predictive information should include historic pollution events, modelling, changes in volume treated and data trends. 0 1 355 359 05 356 1 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment c. Distribution 110 Assessment of historical data and events and predictive information should include historic pollution events, changes in flow patterns, modelling, records of valve positions and data trends. 0 1 355 360 05 356 1 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment d. Consumer premises 111 Assessment of historical data and events and predictive information should include historic pollution events, land use surveys, planning applications, modelling and data trends. 2 367 05 0 5.8 Number of hazardous events identified 0 112 List the number of hazardous events (source of hazard) identified.

A hazardous event is a process/circumstance whereby a hazard/contaminant could be introduced into the water supply. This information will provide an indication on the magnitude and complexity of the water supply system and can also be used to assess progress with question 5.5. Furthermore, this will provide insight into progress with the WSP. As WSP development progresses and more is known about the system components, there should be an increase in the number of hazardous events identified. 0 367 05 0 a. Catchment 113 0 367 05 0 b. Treatment 114 0 367 05 0 c. Distribution 115 0 367 05 0 d. Consumer premises 116 0 1 370 05 371 1 0 119;120;121;122 0 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment 5.9 Has the risk assessment methodology been defined, including the definition of significant risks? 117 Prior to conducting the risk assessment, the WSP team should draw up detailed definitions for the likelihood and severity categories. This enables the hazardous events to be prioritized in terms of their impact on the capacity of the system to deliver safe water. The risk matrix score that identifies significant risks should also be defined since an improvement plan should be drawn up for all significant risks.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 3 2 378 05 379 0 5.10 For each identified hazard/hazardous event, was the risk assessment (likelihood of occurrence and severity of the consequence) conducted prior to consideration of controls? 0 118 Assessment should be applied consistently from system to system and from source to point of use. Checking the same hazard within different but similarly defined supply systems should show the same (or similar) assessment. Where there is limited information to carry out the initial risk assessment, the default risk assessment should be in the ‘high’ range as unknowns are high risk until enough information or data can be gathered to fully risk assess.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manal - Module 3 0 1 378 834 05 379 1 0 158;163;168;173;178 0 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment a. Catchment 119 Limited information to carry out the initial risk assessment may result from lack of raw water quality and flow data. 0 1 378 835 05 379 1 0 159;164;169;174;179 0 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment b. Treatment 120 Limited information to carry out the initial risk assessment may result from lack of raw water quality and flow data. 0 1 378 380 05 379 1 0 160;165;170;175;180 0 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment c. Distribution 121 Limited information to carry out the initial risk assessment may result from lack of raw water quality and flow data and unknown internal conditions of water mains. 0 1 378 381 05 379 1 0 161;166;171;176;181 0 Table 5: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment d. Consumer premises 122 Limited information to carry out the initial risk assessment may result from unknown internal storage systems in buildings. NewLine05 05 2 05 0 Total score for Table 5 0 123 2 877 05 0 % Identified stakeholders that have been contacted 0.00% 124 This is equal to: (Answer of 5.4 / Answer of 5.3) * 100 2 878 05 0 % Identified catchment stakeholders that have been contacted 0.00% 125 This is equal to: (Answer of 5.4a / Answer of 5.3a) * 100 2 879 05 0 % Identified treatment stakeholders that have been contacted 0.00% 126 This is equal to: (Answer of 5.4b / Answer of 5.3b) * 100 2 880 05 0 % Identified distribution stakeholders that have been contacted 0.00% 127 This is equal to: (Answer of 5.4c / Answer of 5.3c) * 100 2 881 05 0 % Identified point of use stakeholders that have been contacted 0.00% 128 This is equal to: (Answer of 5.4d / Answer of 5.3d) * 100 0 Enter overall comments for table 5 here 129 2 404 06 405 0 135;136;152;153 0 0 6.1 Has a control measure or a lack of control measure been identified for each hazard/hazardous event? 0 130 For each hazard/hazardous event, the water supplier should identify if a control measure is already in place or if one is needed.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manal - Module 4 0 1 404 406 06 405 1 0 138;143;148 0 Table 6: Control Measures and Validation a. Catchment 131 Control measures within the catchment may be owned/operated by the water supplier or a stakeholder (e.g. controlled zones for pesticide spraying). In the latter case, it may be necessary to obtain agreements with the relevant stakeholders. Examples of control measures associated with catchment hazards are included on page 41 (Example/tool 4.1) of the WSP Manual.   0 1 404 06 405 1 0 139;144;149 0 Table 6: Control Measures and Validation b. Treatment 132 0 1 404 06 405 1 0 140;145;150 0 Table 6: Control Measures and Validation c. Distribution 133 0 1 404 407 06 405 1 0 141;146;151 0 Table 6: Control Measures and Validation d. Consumer premises 134 Water suppliers may have limited responsibility for controls once the water leaves the distribution system. Possible controls in these situations include the development of an educational programme to inform users about risks that users have influence on (e.g. pipe materials, unsanitary taps and and storage and handling practices) with advice on how they can reduce or eliminate these risks and backflow prevention devices within the consumer premise or at the boundary of the consumer premise. 0 414 06 0 6.2 Number of control measures identified that are in place 135 List the number of control measures identified that are in place.

If a hazard affects more than one water treatment works supplying a water supply system but is not controlled at all those works, the control should not be counted here because the hazard will still represent a risk to the system. This information can be used to assess progress with the activity identified in question 6.1. 0 417 06 0 6.3 Number of control measures identified that are needed but not present 136 List the number of control measures identified that are needed but are not in place.

This information can be used to assess progress with the activity identified in question 6.1. 2 431 06 432 0 152;153 0 0 6.4 Have validation procedures been identified and developed for all existing control measures? 0 137 Validation is the process of obtaining evidence on the performance of control measures. This may be a full description or a reference to existing procedures. It should show how the supplier established whether or not the control is achieving its designed mitigation capacity. This may require an intensive programme of monitoring to demonstrate efficacy, or if a control measure has been in place for some time, existing operational data may be sufficient.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 4 0 1 431 433 06 432 1 0 143;148 0 Table 6: Control Measures and Validation a. Control measures in catchment 138 An example includes conducting catchment sanitary surveys to determine buffer distances and fencing in a catchment to ensure minimal risk of microbial pathogens entering a water intake. 0 1 431 06 432 1 0 144;149 0 Table 6: Control Measures and Validation b. Control measures in treatment 139 0 1 431 06 432 1 0 145;150 0 Table 6: Control Measures and Validation c. Control measures in distribution 140 0 1 431 06 432 1 0 146;151 0 Table 6: Control Measures and Validation d. Control measures in consumer premises 141 2 06 432 0 6.5 Has validation been implemented according to the identified procedures and has the resulting data and information been collected and assessed? 0 142 For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 4 0 1 06 432 1 0 148 0 Table 6: Control Measures and Validation a. Control measures in catchment 143 0 1 06 432 1 0 149 0 Table 6: Control Measures and Validation b. Control measures in treatment 144 0 1 06 432 1 0 150 0 Table 6: Control Measures and Validation c. Control measures in distribution 145 0 1 06 432 1 0 151 0 Table 6: Control Measures and Validation d. Control measures in consumer premises 146 2 450 06 432 0 152 0 0 6.6 Has each risk been reassessed and prioritized after validation of each control measure? 0 147 Only risks that have controls in place need to be reassessed.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 4 0 1 450 06 432 1 Table 6: Control Measures and Validation a. Catchment 148 0 1 450 06 432 1 Table 6: Control Measures and Validation b. Treatment 149 0 1 450 06 432 1 Table 6: Control Measures and Validation c. Distribution 150 0 1 450 06 432 1 Table 6: Control Measures and Validation d. Consumer premises 151 0 458 06 0 6.7 Number of control measures validated as effective 152 List the number of control measures validated as effective.

All control measures should be validated as effective and therefore, this information along with the information provided for question 6.2, can be used to assess progress with this action. As WSP implementation progresses, there should be an increase in the number of effectively validated controls. 0 1 06 419 1 Table 6: Control Measures and Validation 6.8 Is there a process to ensure new controls are subject to validation? 153 For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Modules 4 and 5 NewLine06 06 2 06 0 Total score for Table 6 0 154 2 882 06 0 % Controls that have been validated as effective 0.00% 155 This is equal to: (Answer of 6.7 / Answer of 6.2) * 100 0 Enter overall comments for table 6 here 156 2 468 07 469 0 7.1 Have options for an improvement programme been developed for each significant uncontrolled risk? 0 157 Where significant risks have been identified, an improvement programme should be developed where some programmes may first require investigation. Each identified improvement needs an owner to take responsibility for implementation and a targeted implementation date. Depending on the degree of complexity and implementation costs, a long term plan (in addition to short and medium term options) may be necessary to control the risk.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 5 0 1 468 07 469 1 0-NA 163;168;173;178-163;168;173;178 0-NA Table 7: Improvement Plan a. Catchment 158 0 1 468 07 469 1 0-NA 164;169;174;179-164;169;174;179 0-NA Table 7: Improvement Plan b. Treatment 159 0 1 468 07 469 1 0-NA 165;170;175;180-165;170;175;180 0-NA Table 7: Improvement Plan c. Distribution 160 0 1 468 07 469 1 0-NA 166;171;176;181-166;171;176;181 0-NA Table 7: Improvement Plan d. Consumer premises 161 2 478 07 0 7.2 Number of improvement programmes developed to address inadequate and absent controls (those requiring further mitigation measures) 0 162 List the number of improvement programmes that have been developed.

The WSP team should define what is meant by improvement programme. This should include short, medium and long term improvement programmes. This information can be used to assess progress with the activity identified in question 7.1. 0 478 07 0 a. Catchment 163 0 478 07 0 b. Treatment 164 0 478 07 0 c. Distribution 165 0 478 07 0 d. Consumer premises 166 2 07 480 0 7.3 Have improvement programmes been prioritized? 0 167 For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 5 0 1 07 480 1 Table 7: Improvement Plan a. Catchment 168 0 1 07 480 1 Table 7: Improvement Plan b. Treatment 169 0 1 07 480 1 Table 7: Improvement Plan c. Distribution 170 0 1 07 480 1 Table 7: Improvement Plan d. Consumer premises 171 2 07 480 0 7.4 Are improvement programmes being implemented according to the prioritized plan and is progress being tracked? 0 172 For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 5 0 1 07 480 1 0 178 0 Table 7: Improvement Plan a. Catchment 173 0 1 07 480 1 0 179 0 Table 7: Improvement Plan b. Treatment 174 0 1 07 480 1 0 180 0 Table 7: Improvement Plan c. Distribution 175 0 1 07 480 1 0 181 0 Table 7: Improvement Plan d. Consumer premises 176 2 496 07 0 7.5 Number of improvement programmes with implementation underway 0 177 List the number of improvement programmes with implementation underway.

This information along with the information provided for question 7.2, can be used to assess progress with the activity identified in question 7.4. 0 496 07 0 a. Catchment 178 0 496 07 0 b. Treatment 179 0 496 07 0 c. Distribution 180 0 496 07 0 d. Consumer premises 181 NewLine07 07 2 07 0 Total score for Table 7 0 182 2 883 07 0 % Improvement programmes that are being implemented 0.00% 183 This is equal to: (Answer of 7.5 / Answer of 7.2) * 100 2 884 07 For cell size % Catchment improvement programmes that are being implemented 0.00% 184 This is equal to: (Answer of 7.5a / Answer of 7.2a) * 100 2 885 07 For cell size % Treatment improvement programmes that are being implemented 0.00% 185 This is equal to: (Answer of 7.5b / Answer of 7.2b) * 100 2 886 07 For cell size % Distribution improvement programmes that are being implemented 0.00% 186 This is equal to: (Answer of 7.5c / Answer of 7.2c) * 100 2 887 07 For cell size % Point of use improvement programmes that are being implemented 0.00% 187 This is equal to: (Answer of 7.5d / Answer of 7.2d) * 100 0 Enter overall comments for table 7 here 188 2 516 08 517 0 8.1 Has an operational monitoring programme been developed, including the establishment of procedures to show that control measures continue to work and are effective? 0 189 Procedures should be described or referenced and have been validated to show they are effective. This should include defining what will be monitored, any critical limits, the methods of detection, when and where the monitoring is conducted and who is responsible for conducting the monitoring and interpretation of the data.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 6 0 1 516 08 517 1 0 195 0 Table 8: Operational Monitoring a. Catchment 190 0 1 516 08 517 1 0 196 0 Table 8: Operational Monitoring b. Treatment 191 0 1 516 08 517 1 0 197 0 Table 8: Operational Monitoring c. Distribution 192 0 1 516 08 517 1 0 198 0 Table 8: Operational Monitoring d. Consumer premises 193 2 524 08 517 0 8.2 Have corrective actions been established for deviations that may occur and are these implemented when needed? 0 194 Triggers for action should be detailed as well as the positions of those who would need to make decisions and follow those procedures.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 6 0 1 524 08 517 1 Table 8: Operational Monitoring a. Catchment 195 0 1 524 08 517 1 Table 8: Operational Monitoring b. Treatment 196 0 1 524 08 517 1 Table 8: Operational Monitoring c. Distribution 197 0 1 524 08 517 1 Table 8: Operational Monitoring d. Consumer premises 198 2 08 517 0 8.3 Has an operational monitoring and reporting programme been implemented? 0 199 For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 6 0 1 08 517 1 0 205 0 Table 8: Operational Monitoring a. Catchment 200 0 1 08 517 1 0 206 0 Table 8: Operational Monitoring b. Treatment 201 0 1 08 517 1 0 207 0 Table 8: Operational Monitoring c. Distribution 202 0 1 08 517 1 0 208 0 Table 8: Operational Monitoring d. Consumer premises 203 2 537 08 517 0 8.4 Is a system in place for regularly checking operational monitoring results and trends and is this being implemented? 0 204 Regular review of trends should be carried out and recorded according to the monitoring procedures. Records of monitoring data, violations of critical limits and corrective actions should be kept.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 6 0 1 537 08 517 1 Table 8: Operational Monitoring a. Catchment 205 0 1 537 08 517 1 Table 8: Operational Monitoring b. Treatment 206 0 1 537 08 517 1 Table 8: Operational Monitoring c. Distribution 207 0 1 537 08 517 1 Table 8: Operational Monitoring d. Consumer premises 208 0 538 08 0 8.5 Number of control measures subject to operational monitoring 209 List the number of control measures subject to operational monitoring.

All control measures should be subject to operational monitoring and therefore, this information along with the information provided for question 6.2, can be used to assess progress with this action. As WSP implementation progresses, there should be an increase in the number of control measures subject to operational monitoring. 0 539 08 0 8.6 Number of microbial operational analytical tests required or planned within the past year on the source water 210 List the number of microbial operational analytical tests required or planned within the past year on the source water. If the required number of tests differs from the planned number of tests, please list the higher of the two.

As part of the WSP, it is important to know that an appropriate number of operational monitoring samples have been scheduled, taken and analyzed. Therefore, this information along with the information provided for question 8.8, will provide some insight into this. 0 540 08 0 8.7 Number of physical, chemical and radiological operational analytical tests required or planned within the past year on the source water 211 List the number of physical, chemical and radiological operational analytical tests required or planned within the past year on the source water. If the required number of tests differs from the planned number of tests, please list the higher of the two.

As part of the WSP, it is important to know that an appropriate number of operational monitoring samples have been scheduled, taken and analyzed. Therefore, this information along with the information provided for question 8.9, will provide some insight into this. 0 541 08 0 214 Disable 0 8.8 Number of microbial operational analytical tests carried out within the past year on the source water 212 List the number of microbial operational analytical tests carried out within the past year on the source water.

As part of the WSP, it is important to know that an appropriate number of operational monitoring samples have been scheduled, taken and analyzed. Therefore, this information along with the information provided for question 8.6, will provide some insight into this. 0 542 08 0 215 Disable 0 8.9 Number of physical, chemical and radiological operational analytical tests carried out within the past year on the source water 213 List the number of physical, chemical and radiological operational analytical tests carried out within the past year on the source water.

As part of the WSP, it is important to know that an appropriate number of operational monitoring samples have been scheduled, taken and analyzed. Therefore, this information along with the information provided for question 8.7, will provide some insight into this. 0 543 08 0 8.10 Number of microbial operational analytical tests carried out within the past year on the source water that met the supplier's defined limits 214 List the number of microbial operational analytical tests carried out within the past year on the source water that met the supplier's defined limits.

Generally, compliance limits are not set on the source water. However, the supplier may set their own limits, for example, limits may be set based on design/performance capacities of the treatment works. This information along with the information provided for questions 8.6 and 8.8, will provide insight into progress with the WSP. As WSP implementation progresses and improvements are being made in the catchment, the number and % of samples meeting the supplier's defined limits may increase. 0 544 08 0 8.11 Number of physical, chemical and radiological operational analytical tests carried out within the past year on the source water that met the supplier's defined limits 215 List the number of physical, chemical and radiological operational analytical tests carried out within the past year on the source water that met the supplier's defined limits.

Generally, compliance limits are not set on the source water. However, the supplier may set their own limits, for example, limits may be set based on design/performance capacities of the treatment works. This information along with the information provided for questions 8.7 and 8.9, will provide insight into progress with the WSP. As WSP implementation progresses and improvements are being made in the catchment, the number and % of samples meeting the supplier's defined limits may increase. NewLine08 08 2 08 0 Total score for Table 8 0 216 2 888 08 For cell size % Controls subject to operational monitoring 0.00% 217 This is equal to: (Answer of 8.5 / Answer of 6.2) * 100 2 908 08 For cell size % Microbial tests on source water that met monitoring frequency targets within the past year 0.00% 218 This is equal to: (Answer of 8.8 / Answer of 8.6) * 100

This number provides insight into how well microbial operational monitoring was undertaken on source water since it compares the number of samples the supplier planned to take to the actual number that were taken. 2 889 08 For cell size % Microbial tests on source water that met supplier's defined limits within the past year 0.00% 219 This is equal to: (Answer of 8.10 / Answer of 8.8) * 100 2 909 08 For cell size % Physical, chemical and radiological tests on source water that met monitoring frequency targets within the past year 0.00% 220 This is equal to: (Answer of 8.9 / Answer of 8.7) * 100

This number provides insight into how well physical, chemical and radiological operational monitoring was undertaken on source water since it compares the number of samples the supplier planned to take to the actual number that were taken. 2 890 08 For cell size % Physical, chemical and radiological tests on source water that met supplier's defined limits within the past year 0.00% 221 This is equal to: (Answer of 8.11 / Answer of 8.9) * 100 0 Enter overall comments for table 8 here 222 0 1 563 09 562 1 Table 9: Verification 9.1 Has a verification sampling programme been defined? 223 A water quality verification sampling programme should specify the parameters to be tested, location of sampling points, frequency of sampling, sampling procedures to be used and who has responsibility for the programme.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manal - Module 7 0 1 09 562 1 0 226 0 Table 9: Verification 9.2 Has verification sampling been carried out according to the sampling programme? 224 For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manal - Module 7 0 1 570 09 562 1 Table 9: Verification 9.3 Has a verification analysis and reporting programme been defined? 225 Procedures related to the analysis of samples and its reporting should be documented. This should specify the water quality targets, where and how the samples are analyzed, who is conducting the analysis and how, when and to whom verification monitoring results should be reported for both normal and unusual results. Procedures should be in place for both internal and external reporting of results as well as for follow up on exceedances.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manal - Module 7 0 1 09 562 1 Table 9: Verification 9.4 Has verification analysis and reporting been carried out according to the analysis and reporting programme? 226 For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manal - Module 7 0 1 571 09 562 1 Table 9: Verification 9.5 Are there sufficient laboratory resources to ensure confidence in the laboratory data gathered? 227 Quality assurance mechanisms need to be in place to ensure that the monitoring data gathered is of adequate accuracy. This includes ensuring that the verification monitoring equipment has the right sensitivity and utilizing accredited test methods and laboratories.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manal - Module 7 0 1 572 09 575 1 Table 9: Verification 9.6 Are internal audits of the WSP and operational activities being carried out regularly? 228 Rigorous audits are part of the verification process and help to maintain the practical implementation of a WSP by confirming that procedures are being implemented and followed and ensuring that significant risks are controlled and that water quality is meeting the required standards. It is essential that the auditor is very knowledgeable about drinking-water supplies and the WSP process. A good WSP should be subjected to regular internal audits by someone detached from the WSP team. The frequency of audits will depend on the level of confidence required by the water supplier and the regulatory authorities, but should take place at regular intervals.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 9

Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (GDWQ) 4th Edition - Chapter 5, pages 79-80 0 1 573 09 575 1 Table 9: Verification 9.7 Are external audits of the WSP and operational activities being carried out regularly? 229 Rigorous audits are part of the verification process and help to maintain the practical implementation of a WSP by confirming that procedures are being implemented and followed and ensuring that significant risks are controlled and that water quality is meeting the required standards. It is essential that the auditor is very knowledgeable about drinking-water supplies and the WSP process. A good WSP should be subjected to regular internal audits by someone detached from the WSP team backed up by less frequent external independent audits. External audits may be carried out by regulatory authorities or by qualified independent auditors. The frequency of audits will depend on the level of confidence required by the water supplier and the regulatory authorities, but should take place at regular intervals.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 9

Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (GDWQ) 4th Edition - Chapter 5, pages 79-80 0 1 574 09 562 1 Table 9: Verification 9.8 Is there a system for recording, analyzing and reporting consumer complaints and queries and is this being implemented? 230 Consumer complaints about drinking-water quality should cover the whole water supply system. Therefore, depending on the type of supply system, this should include complaints from consumers receiving and using the finished water directly and those receiving water supplied by retailers who obtain a bulk supply from the treatment utility. Suppliers should have in place procedures for dealing with and responding to consumer complaints and queries about drinking-water quality and should be keeping and analyzing records for trend analysis and early warning of problems.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manal - Module 7 0 903 09 0 9.9 Number of consumer complaints that have been received within the past year related to water quality (taste, odor, turbidity, poor health) or water quantity (pressure, no water) 231 2 625 09 0 9.10 Number of microbial verification monitoring tests (faecal indicator bacteria such as E. coli or thermotolerant coliforms) required or planned within the past year 0 232 List the number of microbial verification monitoring tests required or planned within the past year. If the required number of tests differs from the planned number of tests, please list the higher of the two.

Verification monitoring should be planned to be implemented on samples taken at the end of treatment, within the water supplier's distribution network, within consumer's private distribution networks as well as at the point of use. As part of the WSP, it is important to know that an appropriate number of verification monitoring samples have been scheduled, taken and analyzed. Therefore, this information along with the information provided for question 9.12, will provide some insight into this. 0 625 09 0 a. At the end of treatment 233 0 625 09 0 b. Within distribution 234 0 625 09 0 c. At the end of distribution up to the consumer boundary 235 0 625 09 0 d. At the point of use 236 2 627 09 0 9.11 Number of physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring tests required or planned within the past year 0 237 List the number of physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring tests required or planned within the past year. If the required number of tests differs from the planned number of tests conducted, please list the higher of the two. Verification monitoring should be planned to be implemented on samples taken at the end of treatment, within the water supplier's distribution network, within consumer's private distribution networks as well as at the point of use. As part of the WSP, it is important to know that an appropriate number of verification monitoring samples have been scheduled, taken and analyzed. Therefore, this information along with the information provided for question 9.13, will provide some insight into this. 0 627 09 0 a. At the end of treatment 238 0 627 09 0 b. Within distribution 239 0 627 09 0 c. At the end of distribution up to the consumer boundary 240 0 627 09 0 d. At the point of use 241 2 629 09 0 9.12 Number of microbial verification monitoring tests (faecal indicator bacteria such as E. coli or thermotolerant coliforms) carried out within the past year 0 242 List the number of microbial verification monitoring tests carried out within the past year.

Verification monitoring should be planned to be implemented on samples taken at the end of treatment, within the water supplier's distribution network, within consumer's private distribution networks as well as at the point of use. As part of the WSP, it is important to know that an appropriate number of verification monitoring samples have been scheduled, taken and analyzed. Therefore, this information along with the information provided for question 9.10, will provide some insight into this. 0 629 09 0 253 Disable 0 a. At the end of treatment 243 0 629 09 0 254 Disable 0 b. Within distribution 244 0 629 09 0 255 Disable 0 c. At the end of distribution up to the consumer boundary 245 0 629 09 0 256 Disable 0 d. At the point of use 246 2 631 09 0 9.13 Number of physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring tests carried out within the past year 0 247 List the number of physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring tests carried out within the past year.

Verification monitoring should be planned to be implemented on samples taken at the end of treatment, within the water supplier's distribution network, within consumer's private distribution networks as well as at the point of use. As part of the WSP, it is important to know that an appropriate number of verification monitoring samples have been scheduled, taken and analyzed. Therefore, this information along with the information provided for question 9.11, will provide some insight into this. 0 631 09 0 258 Disable 0 a. At the end of treatment 248 0 631 09 0 259 Disable 0 b. Within distribution 249 0 631 09 0 260 Disable 0 c. At the end of distribution up to the consumer boundary 250 0 631 09 0 261 Disable 0 d. At the point of use 251 2 633 09 0 9.14 Number of microbial verification monitoring tests (faecal indicator bacteria such as E. coli or thermotolerant coliforms) carried out within the past year that met water quality targets 0 252 List the number of microbial verification monitoring tests carried out within the past year that met water quality targets.

This information along with the information provided for questions 9.10 and 9.12, will provide some insight into progress with the WSP. As WSP implementation progresses and improvements are being made, the number and % of samples meeting water quality targets may increase. 0 633 09 0 a. At the end of treatment 253 0 633 09 0 b. Within distribution 254 0 633 09 0 c. At the end of distribution up to the consumer boundary 255 0 633 09 0 d. At the point of use 256 2 635 09 0 9.15 Number of physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring tests carried out within the past year that met water quality targets 0 257 List the number of physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring tests carried out within the past year that met water quality targets.

This information along with the information provided for questions 9.11 and 9.13, will provide some insight into progress with the WSP. As WSP implementation progresses and improvements are being made, the number and % of samples meeting water quality targets may increase. 0 635 09 0 a. At the end of treatment 258 0 635 09 0 b. Within distribution 259 0 635 09 0 c. At the end of distribution up to the consumer boundary 260 0 635 09 0 d. At the point of use 261 NewLine09 09 2 09 0 Total score for Table 9 0 262 2 910 09 For cell size 2 % Microbial verification monitoring tests that met monitoring frequency targets within the past year 0.00% 263 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.12 / Answer of 9.10) * 100

This number provides insight into how well microbial verification monitoring was undertaken since it compares the number of samples the supplier planned to take to the actual number that were taken. 2 891 09 For cell size 3 % Microbial verification monitoring tests that met water quality targets within the past year 0.00% 264 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.14 / Answer of 9.12) * 100 2 915 09 For cell size 4 % Physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring tests that met monitoring frequency targets within the past year 0.00% 265 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.13 / Answer of 9.11) * 100

This number provides insight into how well physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring was undertaken since it compares the number of samples the supplier planned to take to the actual number that were taken. 2 892 09 For cell size 5 % Physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring tests that met water quality targets within the past year 0.00% 266 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.15 / Answer of 9.13) * 100 2 911 09 For cell size 6 % Microbial verification monitoring tests conducted at the end of treatment that met monitoring frequency targets within the past year 0.00% 267 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.12a / Answer of 9.10a) * 100

This number provides insight into how well microbial verification monitoring was undertaken at the end of treatment since it compares the number of samples the supplier planned to take to the actual number that were taken. 2 893 09 For cell size 7 % Microbial verification monitoring tests conducted at the end of treatment that met water quality targets within the past year 0.00% 268 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.14a / Answer of 9.12a) * 100 2 912 09 For cell size 8 % Microbial verification monitoring tests conducted within distribution that met monitoring frequency targets within the past year 0.00% 269 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.12b / Answer of 9.10b) * 100

This number provides insight into how well microbial verification monitoring was undertaken within distribution since it compares the number of samples the supplier planned to take to the actual number that were taken. 2 894 09 For cell size 9 % Microbial verification monitoring tests conducted within distribution that met water quality targets within the past year 0.00% 270 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.14b / Answer of 9.12b) * 100 2 913 09 For cell size 10 % Microbial verification monitoring tests conducted at the end of distribution up to the consumer boundary that met monitoring frequency targets within the past year 0.00% 271 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.12c / Answer of 9.10c) * 100

This number provides insight into how well microbial verification monitoring was undertaken at the end of distribution up to the consumer boundary since it compares the number of samples the supplier planned to take to the actual number that were taken. 2 895 09 For cell size 11 % Microbial verification monitoring tests conducted at the end of distribution up to the consumer boundary that met water quality targets within the past year 0.00% 272 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.14c / Answer of 9.12c) * 100 2 914 09 For cell size 12 % Microbial verification monitoring tests conducted at the point of use that met monitoring frequency targets within the past year 0.00% 273 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.12d / Answer of 9.10d) * 100

This number provides insight into how well microbial verification monitoring was undertaken at the point of use since it compares the number of samples the supplier planned to take to the actual number that were taken. 2 896 09 For cell size 13 % Microbial verification monitoring tests conducted at the point of use that met water quality targets within the past year 0.00% 274 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.14d / Answer of 9.12d) * 100 2 918 09 For cell size 14 % Physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring tests conducted at the end of treatment that met monitoring frequency targets within the past year 0.00% 275 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.13a / Answer of 9.11a) * 100

This number provides insight into how well physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring was undertaken at the end of treatment since it compares the number of samples the supplier planned to take to the actual number that were taken. 2 897 09 For cell size 15 % Physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring tests conducted at the end of treatment that met water quality targets within the past year 0.00% 276 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.15a / Answer of 9.13a) * 100 2 916 09 For cell size 16 % Physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring tests conducted within distribution that met monitoring frequency targets within the past year 0.00% 277 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.13b / Answer of 9.11b) * 100

This number provides insight into how well physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring was undertaken within distribution since it compares the number of samples the supplier planned to take to the actual number that were taken. 2 898 09 For cell size 17 % Physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring tests conducted within distribution that met water quality targets within the past year 0.00% 278 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.15b / Answer of 9.13b) * 100 2 919 09 For cell size 18 % Physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring tests conducted at the end of distribution up to the consumer boundary that met monitoring frequency targets within the past year 0.00% 279 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.13c / Answer of 9.11c) * 100

This number provides insight into how well physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring was undertaken at the end of distribution up to the consumer boundary since it compares the number of samples the supplier planned to take to the actual number that were taken. 2 899 09 For cell size 19 % Physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring tests conducted at the end of distribution up to the consumer boundary that met water quality targets within the past year 0.00% 280 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.15c / Answer of 9.13c) * 100 2 920 09 For cell size 20 % Physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring tests conducted at the point of use that met monitoring frequency targets within the past year 0.00% 281 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.13d / Answer of 9.11d) * 100

This number provides insight into how well physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring was undertaken at the point of use since it compares the number of samples the supplier planned to take to the actual number that were taken. 2 900 09 For cell size 21 % Physical, chemical and radiological verification monitoring tests conducted at the point of use that met water quality targets within the past year 0.00% 282 This is equal to: (Answer of 9.15d / Answer of 9.13d) * 100 283 1 660 10 661 0 10.1 Are management procedures (e.g. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)) in place for normal operating conditions and for corrective actions when anything that can affect the safety of the drinking-water supply goes wrong? 0 284 Documentation of all aspects of the WSP is essential. Management procedures should detail all of the actions to be taken to maintain normal operating conditions for the production of safe drinking-water. This includes procedures for all treatment processes, distribution system operations and maintenance of the systems. In addition to procedures for normal operating conditions, it is important that they are in place for incident situations (situations outside of normal operating conditions), describing corrective actions necessary to maintain safe water and protect consumers. If all procedures are not documented, the procedures that are needed should be identified and prioritized.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manal - Module 8 1 1 660 10 661 1 0 290 0 Table 10: Management Procedures a. Catchment 285 1 1 660 10 661 1 0 291 0 Table 10: Management Procedures b. Treatment 286 1 1 660 10 661 1 0 292 0 Table 10: Management Procedures c. Distribution 287 1 1 660 10 661 1 0 293 0 Table 10: Management Procedures d. Consumer premises 288 1 10 661 0 10.2 Are management procedures (e.g. SOPs) being followed? 0 289 For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manal - Module 8 1 1 10 661 1 Table 10: Management Procedures a. Catchment 290 1 1 10 661 1 Table 10: Management Procedures b. Treatment 291 1 1 10 661 1 Table 10: Management Procedures c. Distribution 292 1 1 10 661 1 Table 10: Management Procedures d. Consumer premises 293 1 1 676 10 661 1 Table 10: Management Procedures 10.3 Is a generic emergency plan in place that includes communication procedures and is the plan being implemented when needed? 294 A generic emergency plan should be in place to cover unforeseen events that may occur for which no corrective actions have been identified. In addition, there should be management procedures setting out a communication plan to alert and inform consumers and other stakeholders when there is a problem with the safety of the water supply and for providing and distributing emergency supplies of water.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manal - Module 8 NewLine10 10 2 10 0 Total score for Table 10 0 295 0 Enter overall comments for table 10 here 296 1 1 686 11 687 1 Table 11: Supporting Programmes 11.1 Have training and education programmes been developed to identify and correct gaps in staff knowledge or skills that may impede timely WSP implementation? 297 Relevant and supportive training and education programmes are necessary to support the development of people's skills and knowledge where gaps are identified. This may include operator/sampler training programmes to ensure employees understand and correctly implement management procedures, including those related to verification monitoring and lab staff training. All programmes should be subject to regular review to ensure that needs are being met.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manal - Module 9 1 1 696 11 687 1 Table 11: Supporting Programmes 11.2 Are relevant staff outside of the WSP team aware of WSP methodology as well as its aims and objectives? 298 The WSP team is responsible for getting the WSP approach understood and accepted by the rest of the supply. Minimally, all relevant staff outside of the WSP team should be informed of their role in the WSP through procedures such as internal communications, team meetings and educational programmes. A process should also be in place to ensure staff are regularly updated and to allow staff outside the team to contribute to the WSP process.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manal - Module 9 NewLine11 11 2 11 0 Total score for Table 11 0 299 0 Enter overall comments for table 11 here 300 0 1 707 12 708 1 NA 303;304;305;306;308;309;310;311;313;314;315;316;317 NA Table 12: Review of the WSP 12.1 Is the system description regularly reviewed and updated as needed? 301 As WSP implementation progresses, improvements and changes should be reflected in an updated water supply system description. The timeline for this regular review needs to be pre-set by the WSP team.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Modules 2 and 10 2 712 12 717 1 0 12.2 Is the WSP regularly reviewed and updated as needed? 0 302 All aspects of the WSP including the list of stakeholders, the list of hazards and the risk assessment should be regularly reviewed and updated as necessary. It should also be reviewed whenever there are any changes/improvements made, when procedures are updated that could impact the water supply system and when there are staff or stakeholder changes.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 11 0 1 712 12 717 1 Table 12: Review of the WSP a. Catchment element 303 0 1 712 12 717 1 Table 12: Review of the WSP b. Treatment element 304 0 1 712 12 717 1 Table 12: Review of the WSP c. Distribution element 305 0 1 712 12 717 1 Table 12: Review of the WSP d. Consumer premises element 306 2 716 12 717 1 0 12.3 Within the past year, has the WSP been subject to review following any incidents and was the WSP revised accordingly? 0 307 The WSP should be reviewed whenever there is an incident, emergency or near miss. The WSP team should also determine the cause of the event and the sufficiency of the response and update the WSP as necessary.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Module 11 0 1 716 12 717 1 Table 12: Review of the WSP a. Catchment element 308 0 1 716 12 717 1 Table 12: Review of the WSP b. Treatment element 309 0 1 716 12 717 1 Table 12: Review of the WSP c. Distribution element 310 0 1 716 12 717 1 Table 12: Review of the WSP d. Consumer premises element 311 2 737 12 738 0 12.4 Are management procedures (e.g. SOPs) regularly reviewed and revised as needed and are staff made aware of changes? 0 312 Management procedures should be reviewed regularly and each time there is an incident, emergency or near miss. They should also be reviewed and updated when there are changes in circumstances, for example, when improvements are implemented or when there are staff changes. It is important that all staff are made aware of any changes.

For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Modules 8 and 10 0 1 737 12 738 1 Table 12: Review of the WSP a. Catchment 313 0 1 737 12 738 1 Table 12: Review of the WSP b. Treatment 314 0 1 737 12 738 1 Table 12: Review of the WSP c. Distribution 315 0 1 737 12 738 1 Table 12: Review of the WSP d. Consumer premises 316 0 1 12 748 1 Table 12: Review of the WSP 12.5 Are training and education programmes regularly reviewed and revised to reflect gaps in staff knowledge or skills that may impede timely WSP implementation? 317 For detailed guidance on this step, please refer to: WSP Manual - Modules 9 and 10 NewLine12 12 2 12 0 Total score for Table 12 0 318 0 Enter overall comments for table 12 here 319 2 03 0 Total score for Table 3 including new questions 0 320 2 04 0 Total score for Table 4 including new questions 0 321 2 05 0 Total score for Table 5 including new questions 0 322 2 06 0 Total score for Table 6 including new questions 0 323 2 07 0 Total score for Table 7 including new questions 0 324 2 08 0 Total score for Table 8 including new questions 0 325 2 09 0 Total score for Table 9 including new questions 0 326 2 10 0 Total score for Table 10 including new questions 0 327 2 11 0 Total score for Table 11 including new questions 0 328 2 12 0 Total score for Table 12 including new questions 0 329 New Line 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

&CWSP Quality Assurance Tool - Part 1&RTable 01 &LPage &P of &N&CVersion 1.2&R&D Please select from below, the table you would like to work on Main Menu View Results Print Show Guidance Create new Create a new question Improved understanding of the risks to the water supply Improved drinking-water quality results Improved stakeholder relationships Reduction in the number of incidents Other (e.g. reduction in operational budgets, increased consumer confidence) Not Applicable (NA) as WSP development has only recently begun None None

Assessment Results WSP Quality Assurance Tool: Summary of Results Graphs - Results by WSP Step Table 0 Tables - Results of General Information WSP team 0.00% System description 0.00% Hazard identification and risk assessment 0.00% General water supplier information Dec-99 Control measures and validation 0.00% Number of water supply systems 0 Improvement plan 0.00% % Population obtaining water from supplier 0.00% Operational monitoring 0.00% % Water supply systems covered by a WSP that is being developed and/or implemented 0.00% Verification 0.00% % Water supply systems covered by a WSP that has been fully implemented 0.00% Management procedures 0.00% % Population obtaining water covered by a WSP that is being developed and/or implemented 0.00% Supporting programmes 0.00% % Population obtaining water covered by a WSP that has been fully implemented 0.00% Review of the WSP 0.00% % Consumers obtaining water covered by a WSP that is being developed and/or implemented 0.00% % Consumers obtaining water covered by a WSP that has been fully implemented 0.00% % Staff involved in WSP development and implementation 0.00% Supply specific information 0 Dec-99 Responsibility for catchment 0 Responsibility for raw water sources 0 Responsibility for treatment 0 Responsibility for distribution 0 Table Dec-99 Responsibility for consumer premises