13

Water safety plans for small systems

Small, community-managed water supplies are found in both developed and

developing countries worldwide. A wide range of technologies may be employed in
such supplies, from relatively sophisticated treatment plants (sometimes of a
‘package’ nature) serving customers with in-house connections, to single point
sources such as a tubewell or borehole fitted with a handpump. The common feature,
however, of all such small water supplies is that operation and maintenance is
performed by members of the community with limited specialist skills, who can
commit only limited amounts of time and who frequently receive little or no financial
remuneration or formal training. Furthermore, the range of available equipment to
identify and rectify faults may be limited as is access to water quality testing
equipment. There is often a significant degree of reliance on external bodies (usually
an arm of local or national Government) to provide support for problems beyond the
capacity of the community operator to resolve (for instance rehabilitation) and in
providing general guidance.

13.1 PRIORITISING HAZARDS

The development of water safety plans for small systems should focus on the control
of microbial quality and in particular pathogens derived from faecal contamination.
Studies from both developed and developing countries highlight the vulnerability of
small systems to microbial contamination (Gelinas 1997; Howard et al. 2003;
Fewtrell et al. 1998). The risks of microbial contamination are more significant in
shallow aquifers, which may show significant changes in quality in response to
rainfall (Wright 1985; Barrett et al. 2000). Deeper aquifers tend to have better and

95
more stable microbial quality. Where small systems include piped distribution with
connections at a ‘within-house level of service’ feeding showers there is a risk from
Legionella, although control strategies may require greater involvement by external
bodies as this may be beyond the capacity of community operators to control.
Chemical hazards are most likely to result from either natural sources or
agricultural pollution. Of the natural chemicals, arsenic and fluoride are likely to be
the most significant problems facing small systems. Nitrate and pesticides may be
found in areas of agriculture (and on-site sanitation in the case of nitrate) and lead
may be problem in older distribution systems. Problems of chemical contamination
may also be found with rainwater collection in areas with high air pollution or where
chemicals leach from roofing material.
By preference, the assessment of risks posed by chemicals in water should be
based on data derived from water quality tests performed on samples of water taken
from water supplies before commissioning. However, it is unlikely that such data
exist for all supplies and therefore risk assessment may be based on an incomplete set
of data. The WHO document ‘Chemical Safety of Drinking-water: assessing priorities
for risk management’ (Thompson et al. 2004) provides further guidance in how to
identify chemicals likely to pose the greatest risk to health in a country or region or
water supply employing a particular technology type. Although chemical quality in
deeper groundwater is often stable, in shallow groundwater chemical quality may
vary significantly with rainfall and seasonal fluctuations have been noted for arsenic
and nitrate (Barrett et al. 2000).
The water safety plan should propose control measures for chemical hazards where
possible. However, in most cases, the control of these hazards must be addressed at
the design stage (for instance by setting appropriate intake depths) rather than
operational controls. Monitoring is unlikely to be feasible by the operators of small
systems and therefore any water quality testing will necessarily devolve to the
surveillance agency. This further supports the need for the water safety plan to focus
on microbial quality in smaller systems.

13.2 SMALL SYSTEM APPROACHES

The nature of small, community-managed water supplies means that the operators of
the water supply are unlikely to have the necessary skills to develop system-specific
water safety plans without outside assistance. Therefore, water safety plans must
either be developed for the supply, or detailed guidance must be provided to ensure
that local water safety plans can be developed. Two approaches are therefore
envisaged to support small systems:
• development of generic water safety plans for particular technologies to be
applied across a region or country; or,
• development of guides that support the local development of a water safety
plan, with examples (model water safety plans) provided that may be
modified according to local conditions.

Either approach may be applied in different situations depending on the resources

available within communities. Both approaches may be used in a single country. In
both developed and developing countries, very small water supplies serving relatively

96
few households would be most likely to require the development of a generic water
safety plan for the technology used. Appendix B provides examples of generic water
safety plans that can be adapted to circumstances in different countries and/or regions.
These could also function as model water safety plans.
In larger communities, including small towns, the capacity of communities to use
guidance material to develop water safety plans may be much greater. The greater
complexity of the supplies and wider range of hazardous environments that could
occur will also make it desirable that water safety plans be tailored to the conditions
in individual supplies.
In developing water safety plans for small systems, the implementation of the
plans will be highly dependent on the training and resource material made available to
operators. This is also likely to require ongoing support in maintaining the water
safety plan and providing periodic updating. This is often a role that the surveillance
agency will play, in addition to their role in independent assessment of water safety.

13.3 DEVELOPING GENERIC TECHNOLOGY WATER

SAFETY PLANS
Generic technology water safety plans should be based on a thorough understanding
of the hazards and risks that may threaten each type of technology. These may
include, for example, lack of covers on wells allowing direct ingress of contaminated
surface water, lack of drains that allow inundation of the wellhead, animal access
close to the wellhead leading to the development of pathways into the source and
faecal material close the source. For situations where there are many small supplies
these cannot be tailored to each individual water supply, although it is possible to
define a generalised list of hazardous events and associated risks for the settings in
which such systems will be found.
The first stage in this process is to identify the range of technologies that exist
within the country/region for which generic water safety plans will be developed. This
may involve consideration of technologies installed by organisations other than a
Government water supply agency (for instance by non governmental organizations).
Variations in construction and design of the small systems should also be considered,
as these may influence both the types of hazardous event that may occur and the risk
(in particular the likelihood) associated with a hazardous event. For instance,
contamination introduced by a bucket may occur in a well without handpump, but
should not occur in a well with a handpump. Collecting information on the types of
technology for which generic water safety plans will be developed would usually take
the form of a detailed inventory of sources (Howard 2002; Lloyd and Helmer 1991).
The development of the generic technology water safety plans is usually best
undertaken by a group of experts familiar with the technologies and the setting within
the country. In Bangladesh a set of draft water safety plans were developed through
convening a workshop of selected sector experts who went through the full process
guided by facilitators familiar with water safety plans (APSU, 2005). The outputs
from the workshop were a set of generic water safety plans for use by organisations
undertaking the rolling-out of water safety plans to community-managed water
supplies. The water safety plans themselves were not provided to the community,

97
rather a set of simplified tools for community operators were developed to support
action-orientated monitoring.
Water safety plans for can be based on the results of studies of water quality and
sanitary inspection on a representative sample of water supplies throughout the
country that reflect different climatic and hydrogeological conditions (Howard, 2003).
Hazardous events that affect particular technologies, the likelihood of their occurrence
and the impact of water quality can be assessed through simultaneous collection of
sanitary inspection and water quality data. The process followed is also a form of
validation of the protection barriers put in place around a small water source to secure
water safety.
Sanitary inspection forms should be used to undertake the hazardous event
assessment. These may initially identify a long list of questions to be asked regarding
the security of the source, which through piloting and review of data may be reduced
to key questions that apply for all sources of the same technology. The material
shown in Appendix C provides examples of the types of forms that may be developed.
These forms include a range of factors that can be broadly categorised into three
groups (Howard 2002):
• Hazard factors – these are potential sources of faeces situated so that they
may represent a risk to the water supply (an example being the location of a
pit latrine in relation to the water source).
• Pathway factors – these are potential routes by which contamination may
enter the water supply (examples include eroded backfill areas of protected
springs, or leaking pipes).
• Indirect factors – these are factors that represent a lack of a control measure to
prevent contamination (and therefore increase the likelihood of a hazard or
pathway developing), but do not themselves represent either a hazard or a
pathway. An example of this is a fence around the water source. The absence
of a fence will not lead directly to contamination, but may allow animals or
humans to gain access to the source and create either a hazard (through
defecation) or a pathway (through causing damage to the source or its
immediate surroundings).

In many cases the presence of multiple factors may be required in order for
contamination to result, based on a source-pathway-receptor model that is commonly
used to explain contamination. There are likely to be exceptions to this general rule,
for instance where a particular hazard is the sole cause of the contamination (Lloyd
and Bartram 1991). In such a case, while reductions in other risks may be desirable,
they may potentially have limited impact on the quality of water (Howard 2002).

13.3.1 Designing the studies to develop water safety plans

Variability may be significant for both microbial and chemical quality. For instance,
in rural areas peak microbial contamination may occur at the onset of a wet season,
but then rapidly diminish as the reserves of faecal material are exhausted (Bartram
1999). In peri-urban areas, microbial contamination may occur in response to a
rainfall event, but as the faecal reserve is not exhausted repeated peaks may be found
(Howard et al. 2003).

98
 Studies to support the development of water safety plans can be undertaken in
several ways. Longitudinal studies require repeated sampling of the same sources
over an extended period, with one year being a realistic minimum to gain a sufficient
set of data to represent variation in quality. If these studies are undertaken then the
collection of rainfall data is strongly advisable. Cross-sectional studies may also be
used, which will typically involve single samples taken from a wider range of sources.
These have an advantage in that a much wider range of sources may be visited
which may increase representivity in relation to the source characteristics, but will not
provide information regarding seasonal fluctuations in quality. If data are also
collected on rainfall then some indication of the impact of rainfall may be possible.
The final method is to review data available from routine monitoring programmes,
whether in their entirety or a sample of results. This approach may provide a mixture
of data from repeated sampling from the same sources with single samples taken from
sources, which may add to the complexity of the analysis of the data.
Analysis of the data from the studies is important in understanding the relative
importance of different hazardous events and in the interactions between risk factors
that lead to contamination occurring. This allows both the identification of specific
control measures and also provides a greater insight into how different possible
hazardous events may occur. Statistical analysis may be based on simple assessments
of frequency of reporting of sanitary risks (Cronin et al, 2002) or through the use of
contingency tables and logistic regression (Howard et al, 2003).

References:
APSU, 2005 ‘Support to implementation of water safety plans, www.apsu-bd.org
Cronin A, Breslin N, Taylor RG and Pedley S, 2002, Assessing the risks to
groundwater quality from on-site sanitation and poor sanitary well
completion, in 'Eocsan- closing the loop', Proceedings of the Second
International conference of Ecological Sanitation, Lubeck, Germany, April
2003.
Howard G, Pedley, S, Barrett M, Nalubega M & Johal K. (2003). Risk factors
contributing to microbiological contamination of shallow groundwater in Kampala,
Uganda. Water Research, 37(14): 3421-3429.

99
13.1: Contingency table analysis of water quality and sanitary inspection data (adapted from Howard et al. 2003)
Variable Faecal streptococci >0 cfu/100ml Thermotolerant coliforms >10 cfu/100ml
Odds ratio p 95% CI Odds ratio p 95% CI
Faulty masonry 1.913 0.008 1.185-3.087 1.506 0.075 0.960-2.363
Backfill area eroded 2.276 0.001 1.381-3.749 2.762 <0.001 1.716-4.445
Collection area floods 0.966 0.890 0.591-1.579 0.603 0.035 0.377-0.964
Fence absent or faulty 5.175 0.052 0.987-27.138 3.496 0.138 0.668-18.303
Animal access <10m 2.010 0.488 0.279-14.471 1.366 0.756 0.190-9.826
Surface water uphill 3.655 <0.001 2.054-6.507 3.933 <0.001 2.316-6.680
Diversion ditch faulty 1.114 0.679 0.667-1.862 1.324 0.263 0.810-2.163
Other pollution uphill 2.040 0.259 0.577-7.210 5.728 0.029 1.196-27.429
Latrine <30m uphill of spring 1.229 0.455 0.715-2.113 1.759 0.036 1.038-2.979
Latrine <50m uphill of spring 0.862 0.547 0.532-1.397 0.738 0.198 0.465-1.171
High population density 2.889 <0.001 1.780-4.688 4.708 <0.001 3.899-7.644
Waste <10m uphill of spring 0.144 0.150 0.875-2.380 2.557 <0.001 1.560-4.189
Waste <20m uphill of spring 1.340 0.231 0.830-2.163 3.085 <0.001 1.923-4.950
Waste <30m uphill of spring 0.842 0.590 0.451-1.573 1.896 0.031 1.059-3.397
Rainfall within previous 5 days 2.284 0.009 1.225-4.259 4.097 <0.001 2.096-8.008
Rainfall within previous 2 days 3.285 <0.001 2.014-5.357 3.827 <0.001 2.385-6.139
Rainfall with previous day 2.583 0.001 1.473-4.529 2.115 0.004 1.276-3.506

100
Table 13.2: Generic water safety plan for protected spring not connected to a piped network
Hazardous event Cause Risk Control Critical limits Monitoring Corrective Verification
measure Target Action What When Who action
Contam. able to Backfill area Mod/ Effective Area has Fence is broken Sanitary Monthly CO Repair fencing Sanitary
recharge spring in becomes major spring grass cover; Diversion ditch inspection and ditches; inspection and
backfill area eroded protection fence and is damaged drain surface analysis of:
measures diversion Surface water water. Re-lay E.coli and faecal
maintained ditch in good pools develop grass. streptococci
condition Rehabilitate
No surface protective
water uphill measures
Contamination in Spring box Mod/ Maintain Masonry in Masonry Sanitary Monthly CO Repair masonry Sanitary
spring box or or retaining major to protection and good deteriorated; inspection and covers; inspection and
outlet wall in poor mod drainage works condition; ww ditch clear ditch analysis of:
condition, ww ditch blocked E.coli and faecal
inundn from clear and in streptococci
ww good
condition
Contam. surface Surface Mod to un/ Establish set- No surface Surface water Sanitary Monthly/ CO Drain surface Sanitary
water causes water is major back distance water, solid close to springs inspection seasonally water pools inspection and
rapid recharge allowed to based on travel waste dumps Low sanitation Colour uphill of analysis of:E.coli
form pools time; drainage uphill coverage change springs, and faecal
uphill and Faecal Poor solid response to promote streptococci
leads to rapid disposal waste removal rainfall improved
recharge of methods Springs show sanitation and
pollutants available rapid response solid waste
and limited in flow and disposal
attenn quality to
rainfall

101
Hazardous event Cause Risk Control Critical limits Monitoring Corrective Verification
measure Target Action What When Who action
Ingress of animal Animal Mod/ mod Set-back No kraals or Animal Sanitary Monthly CO Remove animal Sanitary
faeces husbandry distance to sheds in set- husbandry inspection sheds or kraals inspection
uphill and Control animal back found within from uphill of E.coli, faecal
close to the husbandry; distance; controlled area spring or move streptococci,
spring good fencing fence in good Fencing to safe distance bacteriophages,
Animal condition damaged or Repair or erect nitrate
damage to absent fences
backfill area
Leaching of Leaching of Mod/ Provide No sources Latrines/ Inspection by Monthly CO Move pollutant Sanitary
microbial faecal mod adequate set- of faecal sewers built or community sources, inspection
contaminants into material back distances material solid waste improve E.coli, faecal
aquifer from defined on within set- dumps within sanitation streptococci,
sanitation, travel time back distance separation design, reduce bacteriophages,
solid waste, distance sewer leakage nitrate, chloride,
drains tracer studies
Leaching of Leaching of Mod/ Provide No sources Pollutant Inspection by Monthly CO Move pollutant Inspection
chemicals into chemicals minor adequate set- of chemicals discharges community sources, Analysis of
groundwater from back distances within set- within set-back improve chemical
landfills, defined on back distance distance pollution composition of
waste travel time containment pollution
dumps, Analysis of water
discharges to quality
ground

Contam. – contamination; Mod – moderate; Un – unlikely; inundn – inundation; attenn – attenuation ; ww – wastewater;
CO – community operator

102
13.3.2 Implementing a system of support for generic
technology water safety plans
Once the generic technology water safety plans have been developed, the water
safety plan team will need to develop a strategy for rolling-out implementation
of the water safety plans at a source level. This will require the development and
testing of simple monitoring and operational tools for community operators,
development of training materials and a programme of ongoing support and
surveillance. These tools should be piloted in a small number of communities,
evaluated and refined before trying to roll-out a programme across a country.
Responsibility for ensuring water safety and implementing a water safety
plan in a community-managed supply resides with the operator of the supply
who, by using tools for monitoring and maintaining control measures, should
have the skills and resources to ensure that the relevant generic technology
water safety plan can be applied. Ensuring that the operators have adequate
skills and capacity to perform this role is a critical aspect of the effective
implementation of a water safety plan. This requires that the tools developed for
community operators are easy to use and provide the operator with information
for each control measure, such as:
• what the control measure is and how it prevents or reduces
contamination;
• how the performance of the control measure is measured and what
monitoring tools should be used;
• how often monitoring should be undertaken and how information will
be recorded;
• to identify when the control measure has exceeded a critical limit; and
• to apply the appropriate corrective action when a critical limit has been
exceeded.

Performing these tasks successfully requires that the operator is provided

with the appropriate technical training and materials as shown in Figure 13.1.
It is also important that operators are aware of the agency to contact should a
problem be noted that is beyond their immediate capacity to correct. In addition
to operator training, training should also be provided to a water management
committee to enable them to monitor the performance of the operator. This
should include development of simple reporting formats between the operator
and the management committee and establishing agreed targets and milestones.
Where an operator is deemed to consistently fail to provide the level of
performance expected or is no longer available to carry out the tasks required,
the committee should have a means by which to bring this to the attention of the
103
support or surveillance agency. This may result in identifying and training a new
operator. As the maintenance of water safety requires ongoing interventions
ongoing training of the operator, by an external agency, is likely to be required.
Thus the surveillance or support agency may wish to develop local training units
or contract reputable third party organisations to support ongoing skills
development and training provision.

SOP – standard operating procedure

Figure 13.1: Community operator requirements for water safety plan implementation

The first component of the water safety plan is a simplified guide to the
technology that should provide the operator with a basic description of the
technology, how it works, how it prevents or reduces contamination and what
problems could occur that would result in contamination. This guide should
provide the operator with a good understanding of their system and how their
activities are important in controlling risks. The use of illustrations is likely to
be important in all circumstances and in particular for operators of very small
systems in developing countries.
Community operators will also need simple tools for monitoring of the
control measures and actions to be taken when the control measures are no
longer in compliance with critical limits. Monitoring of the control measures can
largely be achieved through regular sanitary inspection. This should use
approaches that are closely linked to actions to be taken as a result of monitoring

104
data indicating that a critical limit is being exceeded. Either pictorial or written
forms may be appropriate depending upon the level of literacy. In both cases,
however, it should be clear what is action is expected when the monitoring
indicates a loss of control measure compliance. Example forms are shown in
Tables 13.3 and 13.4.

Table 13.3 Community checklist for monitoring a protected spring

Checklist No Yes Action
Does the water in the spring change
colour after heavy rain?
Have the local public health department
tested your spring recently?
Were you told the result and given any
advice?
Did you act on the advice?
Is the retaining wall showing any signs
of damage?
Does the retaining wall need repair –
what is this and can you do it yourself?
If you cannot do it, is there anyone in
your community who can do this repair?
How much will the repair cost (think
about labour as well as material)?
Does the uphill diversion ditch need
cleaning?
When was it last cleaned?
Is the drainage ditch below the spring
blocked or need clearing?
Does the fence need any repairs?

In some circumstances it may be more appropriate to use pictorial approaches

to illustrate what constitutes good and bad practice regarding water safety
management. The latter can draw on examples from the Participatory Health and
Sanitation Transformation (PHAST) approach to hygiene, which contains
examples of the types of materials and their use in relation to water source
management (WHO 1996b). The approach adopted should be based on the
needs and capacity of the communities that will use the generic water safety
plan within the country.

105
Table 13.4 Checklist for operation and maintenance of a protected spring
Activity Dry season Wet season Action limits
Routine After heavy
rainfall
Clear uphill At least once At least once Always inspect Clean if ditch contains mud
diversion ditch per month per week or silt
Clear drainage At least once At least once Always inspect Clean if ditch contains mud
ditch from per month per week or silt
outlets
Slashing grass At least once At least once Cut grass once it exceeds
inside fence per dry per month mid-shin height
season
Make sure steps At least once At least once Always inspect Clean and repair when dirty
are clean and not per week per week or showing signs of
broken breaking
Clear rubbish At least once At least once Always inspect Dispose of rubbish properly
away from area per week per week
around spring,
particularly
uphill
Keep paths and At least once At least once Clear paths and dispose of
grassed areas per month per month rubbish properly
above springs
clear of rubbish
Trim hedge once Do not trim in As soon as Trim hedge
it reaches a the dry season hedge reaches
height of 4 feet 4 feet in
height
Carry out regular At least twice Daily Always inspect Record faults and identify
inspections of per week actions to be taken
the spring and
note any faults

106
 The materials and tools required by operators to implement a generic water
safety plan are summarised in Figure 13.2 below.

SOP – standard operating procedure

WSP – water safety plan

Figure 13.2: Providing the information to the operator

13.3.3 Developing supporting programmes

A programme of support and surveillance will need to be developed to aid
implementation of the generic water safety plan. It is important that these
programmes reflect the capacity of the surveillance agency and are piloted to
ensure the long-term applicability. The stages and requirements to achieve this
are outlined in Figure 13.3.
Pilot trials of the water safety plans should be undertaken in a number of
communities to evaluate their effectiveness and to identify modifications
required. The pilot should run for at least 12 months and be evaluated to ensure
the monitoring tools have been used and appropriate actions taken. The
evaluation should also include an assessment of the feasibility of the supporting
programmes.

107
Figure 13.3: Implementing the water safety plan roll-out

Implementing a generic technology water safety plan includes several key

elements. These include the development of training and supporting materials
that will enable the community operator and other key members of the
community (for instance water committee) to operate the water safety plan,
undertake the required monitoring and understand how the data will be used.
The development of a monitoring programme by the community will require
training for the community water supply operators.

108
13.3.4 Progressive expansion
The progressive rolling-out of the water safety plans requires careful planning
and will almost certainly have to address the two different situations of new
supplies being developed and application of water safety plans to existing water
supplies. It is recommended that programmes be developed for both situations,
with training and support to water safety plan development in all new supplies
that are developed and a programme to provide training and support to
implement water safety plans in existing supplies prepared.
A water safety plan should be developed for all new supplies with
appropriate training, tools and documentation provided to operators before the
supply is commissioned. This should be supported by testing of samples of
water taken from the source as part of a commissioning report. The selection of
chemicals to be included should be based on an assessment of the natural
chemicals and pollutants likely to be present, based on the geology, climate and
land-use. Further guidance is available in Thompson et al. (2004) for inclusion
in drinking-water quality monitoring programmes.
The existing supplies are likely to represent a larger group than the new
supplies and thus the programme will need to consider the most effective
approach to developing appropriate water safety plans and associated support
programmes. This will be most effectively done through the progressive rolling-
out across the country/region.
The roll-out of generic water safety plans could be integrated into the
development of a regional surveillance programme. In terms of planning, it is
important that the rolling-out takes into account the capacity of the surveillance
agency and water supply agency/authority to provide ongoing support to
communities. Experience from a number of countries has shown that to have an
impact on the quality of small water supplies, surveillance programmes must be
directly linked to interventions (Bartram 1999; Moore 1999). Therefore
investment to support water safety plans should be linked to investment in order
to support development of surveillance at local levels.

13.3.5 Verification for generic technology water safety plans

Responsibility for the verification for generic technology water safety plans
should not be undertaken by the community operator, although they should
participate in the process. The verification of performance will primarily be
carried out by the surveillance agency as part of their routine activities.
Verification should focus attention on the overall microbial quality of the
drinking-water and will also include testing of those chemicals previously
identified as locally or regionally important. Although it will be expected that

109
the principal faecal indicator organisms used will be E.coli or thermotolerant
coliforms, a limited number of analyses of other organisms such as faecal
streptococci and bacteriophages may also be included. Such analyses would be
expected to be performed on a smaller number of supplies and form specific
targeted assessments rather than broader routine surveillance.
It is unlikely that verification will occur at every small supply on a frequent
basis as the costs involved in regular visits and testing are prohibitive in most
countries. Therefore, verification should be designed as a means of assessing the
performance of the generic technology water safety plan as applied across a
number of water supplies rather than assessing the performance of its
application on individual supplies. If this approach is adopted then only a
sample of supplies using the generic water safety plan need to be visited each
year. It would be expected, however, that each supply would be visited
regularly, for instance once every three to five years.

13.4 GUIDES TO AID LOCAL DEVELOPMENT OF

WATER SAFETY PLANS
For many smaller communities (including where utilities operate a small town
supply), there may be a lack of capacity to undertake the development of a
system-specific water safety plan without external support, but where applying a
generic technology water safety plan would not be appropriate. This may be
because the system is relatively complex and there may be significant variation
in the hazardous events that could affect supplies. These situations would
typically apply in larger communities with a well-defined management
structure, with more than one operator who may receive partial remuneration
and commonly where some form of piped distribution system exists.
In such situations, the development of a water safety plan can be tailored to
the situation found in the supply but based on a set of generic materials that
provide guidance in developing the water safety plan. To support the local
development of water safety plans for small systems, a number of supporting
materials are required. These will typically include guidance notes, for instance
in the form of flow charts and decision-trees for different components of water
supplies. Demonstration materials or example plans may be required to provide
users with a clearer idea of what is contained within a water safety plan and how
they are structured and used. These should provide the local water safety plan
team with information regarding the type of hazardous events that may occur
and examples of potential control measures with associated monitoring, critical
limits and means of verification. The model water safety plans included in the
Appendix illustrate the type of an example material that could be provided, in

110
addition to guides to support local water safety plan development. In developing
guides on the preparation of the water safety plans, a national team of experts
with extensive experience of small water supplies should be established to
develop both the guides and model water safety plans.
The first stage in developing the guides and model water safety plans is to
decide what types of supply will be targeted. Implementation is likely to be
easier to plan and manage if a clear distinction is drawn between the types of
water supply or community where generic technology water safety plans should
be used and those that will be expected to develop system-specific water safety
plans using guides and model water safety plans. Clear criteria should be
established, for instance in relation to technology type, management
arrangements and population size. Some possible criteria are as follows:
• treatment is applied within the water supply (including where only
terminal disinfection is used routinely);
• the water supply has a piped distribution system that serves more than a
few public taps;
• the population served by the individual supply exceeds 1000 people;
• the supply has more than one operator, who receive some payment for
services provided; and,
• there is distinct management body with a constitution.

In order to achieve the local development of water safety plans for small
systems, the operators will need a range of information as outlined in Figure
13.4.

111
Figure 13.4: Supporting guided water safety plan development and implementation

13.4.1 Preparing the support material

Developing descriptions of water supplies and their components is the first stage
of this process. These descriptions should be more extensive than those
developed for the generic water safety plan materials and be in the form of
simple booklets covering the scientific and engineering principles of each
component of the system. This should include discussion of how the different
parts of the system act to control risks by ensuring that hazards are reduced,
eliminated or excluded from the water supply. The descriptions can be
‘modular’ to allow operators to develop a set of materials dealing with their own
system. The modules should cover source protection, water treatment and
distribution.
Material should also be developed to support operators in undertaking hazard
identification (primarily in terms of hazardous events), risk assessment,
112
identifying control measures with associated critical limits and monitoring.
These guides should provide the user with clear guidance regarding how to
identify a potential hazardous event and to determine the risk of that event
occurring. Guidance should also be provided to the users about appropriate
monitoring for each control measure, which is likely to be a mixture of
inspection methods and physico-chemical tests. This guidance is best provided
in a series of look-up tables including, for instance, a number of potential
control measures and the appropriate monitoring approach. The information
included in the model water safety plans in the Appendix could be used as a
starting point to develop these look-up tables.
As with the development of the generic technology water safety plans, the
guidance material (including model water safety plans) should be developed by
a national team of experts with detailed knowledge of the types of supply that
will be covered and the types of hazardous events and control measures that will
be effective.
It is important that in developing the model water safety plans, that the risk of
hazardous events is based, wherever possible, on analysis of water quality and
sanitary inspection data, potentially through failure analysis or through the
development of statistical models. The model water safety plans should be based
on analysis of representative data and should ensure that weighting of the
likelihood of the event occurring reflects data from the field. As with the
approach to developing the generic water safety plans, such analysis can be
based on data derived from specific assessments designed to be representative.
Data previously collected should also be analysed to provide a longer-term
perspective on risks that may arise.
The model water safety plans should be similar in format to the expected
structure of a water safety plan and provide the user with a comprehensive list of
likely hazardous events, control measures and means of monitoring. In
approaches used in New Zealand, potential hazardous events and control
measures are listed for water supplies, with local operators expected to identify
those hazardous events and controls that can be put into place in their supply
(NZMOH 2001). It would also be possible to provide a full model water safety
plan to users and encourage operators to select those that are of relevance to
their system. It is important, however, to ensure that users do not simply copy
the model water safety plan but use these in conjunction with the advice within
the guides to develop their own water safety plan.

113
13.4.2 Developing and testing the guides
The guidance material may take a number of forms including manuals, videos,
audio-visual material and web-based guides. The guides should provide
sufficient information to allow users to follow the process and should refer to
model water safety plans. The guides should be structured so that the user is
taken through all the stages of the establishment and implementation of a water
safety plan. The use of decision-trees and flow-charts is particularly helpful and
the guides should provide questions to prompt the user to identify information
needs and how to acquire this information. The guides should assist the user in
making key decisions, for instance regarding the selection of particular control
measures or the frequency of monitoring or verification that will be required.
The team developing the guidance material should include water quality
specialists but will also be likely to benefit from participation from professionals
within the knowledge transfer sector. The success of the guides may rest, to a
significant extent, on the degree to which the guides are user-friendly and use a
language and approach that is comprehensible to the target audience.
Before embarking on a programme of guided water safety plan development,
the materials within the guides and model water safety plans should be piloted
and evaluated. Where additional training is to be provided to operators this
should also be piloted and evaluated to ensure that the materials prepared will
result in effective water safety plans being developed.

13.4.3 Approval of the water safety plan

The water safety plans developed based on guidance material should undergo a
formal approval process. This will require that an external assessor (either the
surveillance agency or accredited third party organisation) review the water
safety plan and water supply to ensure that there are no omissions and that the
water safety plan in its entirety will provide assurance of safety. Such a process
requires a detailed assessment of the catchment and source, an audit of the
treatment works and field assessment of the distribution systems. Where the
water safety plan in deemed to be inadequate for a particular supply, the
assessor should identify deficiencies in the plan and make recommendations for
improvements. If there is a persistent failure by the community water supply
managers to develop an appropriate water safety plan, the surveillance agency
should have the right to impose a water safety plan on the supply managers.

114
13.4.4 Verification
Where the process of establishing a water safety plan is being guided in the
fashion outlined above, how verification is undertaken should be carefully
considered. In some situations it may be possible for the system operators to
undertake some verification using low-cost analytical equipment. This would
primarily focus on the analysis of water quality, with principal focus on E.coli
or thermotolerant coliforms and chemical hazards of concern. Verification
programmes will need to be undertaken regularly and the surveillance agency
should support and approve local verification programmes.
In this situation, the surveillance agency will still be required to conduct
additional analysis of the water quality, including assessments of a wider range
of indicator organisms and chemicals, and undertake audits of the systems. In
other cases, primary responsibility for verification may devolve to the
surveillance agency as in the case of the technology generic water safety plans.
Whether verification is performed by both the operator and surveillance agency
or surveillance agency alone, the primary objective of verification is the
performance of the water safety plan for individual supplies, with broader
lesson-learning a secondary objective.

13.4.5 Progressive expansion

The use of the guides for the development of water safety plans is likely to
require progressive expansion, although it can be expected to be quicker than for
generic water safety plans as the requirements on supporting bodies may be
more limited and greater use can be made of a range of audio-visual tools to
support development. Guided water safety plans should be prepared and
supported for all new supplies constructed and training provided to operators
before they take up their responsibilities.
For existing supplies, the roll-out may be more progressive and could be
integrated with the surveillance programme or other means of support to smaller
water supplies. It is likely that progressive rolling-out of the programme can be
achieved relatively quickly and should follow either administrative boundaries
or supply types – for instance, small towns supplies first followed by
increasingly smaller communities.

115