Water and Sanitation Safety Planning

Jarkko Rapala

Ministry of Social Affairs and Health

FINLAND

Holistic Approach for the Water Cycle:

from source through tap and back

Protection

of Water

Sources

Water

Treatment,

Delivery

Land Use,

Planning

Construction,

Renovation,

Building

Maintenance

SEWERAGE AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT

WATER ABSTRACTION AND SUPPLY

SSP

WSP

BW

SP

Tools of the WSP Software

Hazard identification tool

- 38 process steps

- 881 predefined hazardous events and hazard combinations

Risk management tool

- Examples of control measures and management

- Health risk assessment tool

Auditing tool

Model documents

The same software used for the SSP

- Management of risks for health and environment

Is there sewage sewage pumping

stations in the catchment area?

Hazard Consequence Probability Risk (Low, M1-3, H1-4)

Explanation of the

hazardous event

Control measure 1

in use (green)

Control measure 2

not in use (brown)

Support function: operation premises, automation, electricity,

compressed air, tap water, sampling, working methods,

professional skills, communications, data security, management etc

Sewersystem

Inflowstructure

Wastewatertreatment plant

Effluentstructures

Effluentpoint

Sludge

treatment

Connection point

Pumping

stations

Sewage station

Sewage lorry

Biogas

treatment

Odor

Odor

Noise

Odor

emission

Sewerage

well structures

External

sludge or

organic waste

Overflow

point

Overflow

structure

Odor

Odor

Gas utilization

External sludge or

organic fractions

Other

contract

parties

Vaikutus-

alue

Vaikutus-

alue:

A

r

e

a

o

f

I

n

f

l

u

e

n

c

e

Odor

340 predifined questions to identify

hazards and control measures

Output of WSP and SSP

Improvment Plan

Monitoring Plan

Identification of interfaces with emergency and contingency

planning

Interfaces with Emergency/Contingency Planning

Fail in control measures defined in WSP/SSP → emergency situation

PREPAREDNESS/EMERGENCY/CONTINGENCY PLANNING

Water Services, Environmental Health, Rescue Administration

Relevant Parties, including the authorities

CO

LL

AB

OR

AT

ION

Water Supplier

CO

LL

AB

OR

AT

ION

Buildings

Sustainable use of natural resources,

Protection of the water sources

Risk management in water supply abstraction and supply chain

Security of the installations, including

materials

Na

ture

pro

tec

tio

n a

rea

s

Su

pe

rvis

ion

of

teh

e

nvir

on

me

nt

…

Co

lla

bo

rati

on

of

the

re

leva

nt

pa

rtie

s

Wa

ter

inta

ke

Tra

ns

po

rta

tio

n

Wa

ter

tre

atm

en

t

…

Sto

rag

e

Dis

trib

uti

on

Ma

teri

als

Ins

talla

tio

ns

…

Co

mp

ete

nc

e

The percentage of predefined hazardous events and hazard combinations

(N=881) in WSP that can only be controlled if collaboration between different

stakeholders exists

Success Factors 1/2

1. Collaboration between drinking water supplier / wastewater treatment

operator, authorities and stakeholders

– suggested WSP/SSP team

• members of the operator

• environmental protection authority

• health protection authority

• authorities for construction and land use

• rescue authority

• stakeholders with environment permit (e.g. industry that may pose a threat to

environment)

• stakeholders with requirement of particularly high quality drinking water (e.g. food

industry)

– environment permit for wastewater operator

• risk assessment required by the authority

• no common tool prior to SSP

Success Factors 2/2

2. Coordination of monitoring programmes and planning

– Improvement and Monitoring Plans as outputs from WSP/SSP

• integration and coordination into/with authorities’ plans

• identification of possible emergency situations

3. Regular auditing of WSP/SSP

– cross-auditing by operators or other external audit

• content of the WSP/SSP

– auditing by authorities:

• has WSP/SSP been done and updated?

• have improvement and monitoring plans been followed?

• documentation

4. Common exercises

Major Gaps

Too many stakeholders?

NO, if the objectives are consistent, based on risk assessment and mutually

accepted

Mutual trust?

POSSIBLE, if there is no prior collaboration

Legislative differences in objectives

– e.g. microbiological factors are [the most] important for human health but

they are not considered in classification by WFD

Statutory in National Legislation in Finland

Emergency planning based on risk assessment

Collaboration in preparation of the plans

– operators, authorities, other stakeholders

Cordination of the plans and common and regular exercises

Risk assessment in the environment permit

– wastewater operators

– other operations that may cause hazard for the environment

WSP and SSP (non-statutory)

offer the tool for the risk assessment