According to water security specialists – Talbot – the new SANS 241 is more than just a standard. It redefines drinking water management and is a tool for managing risk in a water-scarce future.

“South Africa’s water landscape is changing, and with it, the way water quality is measured, managed and assured. The latest revision of SANS 241 reflects this shift, placing far greater emphasis on risk-based assessment rather than routine, tick-box compliance,” explains Micole Martens, director, Talbot.

A local approach

SANS 241 stands apart as a locally developed standard specifically designed to address South Africa’s unique water quality

challenges, rather than simply adopting international guidelines. While it draws on global best practice, particularly the World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines for health-based limits, it is structured around local realities.

“A South African-specific approach is essential because standards must reflect local conditions and risk profiles. Certain contaminants, such as residual HIV-related pharmaceuticals, may be more relevant in South Africa than in other regions, while other internationally prioritised contaminants may not pose the same level of concern in South Africa. Local context therefore matters. South Africa’s catchments, treatment challenges, public health pressures and infrastructure constraints are unique and must be properly understood. Locally developed standards enable more accurate prioritisation of risks, rather than relying on imported frameworks that may overlook critical issues specific to the South African environment,” says Liane Henman, contracts liaison manager, Talbot.

“South Africa has a strong track record of developing robust, well-considered legislative frameworks, and this standard is no exception. SANS 241 offers a practical model that other developing countries facing similar challenges, particularly across Africa, could use as a valuable reference point,” affirms Martens.

A risk-based approach

Monitoring programmes are now designed around mandatory process risk parameters, which must always be tested, and system-specific risk-defined parameters, which are selected based on catchment conditions and identified risks.

“For laboratories, changes to this standard have been long overdue. This means that laboratories no longer test every possible parameter by default, but rather prioritise those that pose a credible risk to a particular water supply system,” adds Henman.

She goes on to explain that this is an absolute game changer for the sector: “For example, if the water source is a borehole and has a low probability of containing parasites, this expensive test can be excluded from the testing regime.”

Adaption needed

The amended SANS 241 demands more from the water sector. Instead of asking whether everything on a prescribed list has been tested, the standard now requires entities to justify their monitoring programmes based on a thorough understanding of their supply system and its catchment.

“Did you test everything you were supposed to? Do you understand your system well enough to justify why you tested what you did? Monitoring programmes must now be robust enough to ensure that testing is relevant, targeted and fit for purpose, while also ensuring that all necessary parameters are adequately covered,” states Martens.

Henman notes that many operators are accustomed to being told exactly what to test, following a simple tick-box approach. A risk-based framework, however, encourages deeper engagement- requiring questions to be asked, decisions to be justified and systems to be properly understood, which can feel unfamiliar and uncomfortable at first.

In this context, Talbot has always actively partnered with clients, rather than simply executing standard tests. This involves engaging directly with organisations to understand the specific influences affecting their water systems, from source water characteristics to operational conditions. By analysing available data to identify trends and outliers, Talbot can help design monitoring programmes that are not only compliant, but targeted and practical, ensuring that testing is both fit-for-purpose and justified.

Cost

Martens notes that while the amendments to SANS 241 may require higher initial investment, particularly as organisations gain a clearer understanding of their systems and establish baseline data, this approach supports improved cost efficiency over the longer term. Costs, she argues, should be weighed against the value of improved risk management and incident prevention.

“A monitoring programme that fails to prevent water quality incidents is far more expensive in the long run, often resulting in reactive and unnecessary expenditure.”

Although the transition may be more demanding initially, it enables more targeted testing, reduces the need for emergency interventions and strengthens confidence in decision-making. “Central to this shift is a well-designed risk assessment, which ensures that monitoring programmes are tailored to the specific conditions of each water system. By moving away from routine, repetitive testing and focusing only on relevant parameters, organisations can eliminate unnecessary costs while ensuring that expenditure is justified, defensible and aligned with real risks,” says Henman.

Contaminants outside the standard

Not all contaminants are included in SANS 241, and this is largely by design rather than omission. One of the biggest gaps relates to organic contaminants, particularly emerging pollutants. While some, such as benzene, atrazine and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, have been included, a far broader list was considered during the revision process but ultimately not incorporated into the main standard. The primary reason for this is the limited ability within South Africa to test for these compounds consistently and reliably. Many of these analyses require specialised methods, equipment and expertise that are not yet widely available, making routine compliance testing impractical at a national level.

Instead of being ignored, these contaminants have been placed in an annexure as ‘parameters of concern’. This includes substances such as PFAS, pharmaceuticals and certain advanced disinfection by-products. These are recognised as potential health risks, but they are not yet mandatory for routine monitoring. Their inclusion in the annexure serves as a signal to the sector that these contaminants are important and likely to be incorporated into future revisions as local testing capability improves.

New capacity

However, Talbot is steadily building specialised expertise to test for contaminants of emerging concern (CECs). “These analyses require significant technical and financial investment. Talbot anticipated changes required with regards to water quality testing and has been actively building the required capacity, proactively strengthening our capabilities ahead of regulatory requirements,” says Henman.

Talbot recently launched their Industrial Water Security Hub at Dube Trade Port, Kwa-Zulu Natal establishing a dedicated facility designed to support advanced and complex environmental analyses, including CECs. The new facility is in the process of finalising rollout and validation of new analytical methods, strengthening Talbot’s capability and capacity to support this testing. By combining advanced laboratory capability with engineering and data-driven insights, Talbot is strengthening its ability to help clients design monitoring programmes that are not only compliant, but relevant, defensible and aligned with real system risks.

“We are excited about the amendments to SANS 241. We can assist our clients in determining which testing is most applicable to their needs, allowing us to become a valuable partner in strengthening water security. This shift also opens the door to deeper partnerships. Laboratories are no longer just there to produce results, but to actively contribute to improved water safety outcomes. While the risk-based approach is new and will bring challenges, it ultimately enables stronger decision-making and a far more meaningful understanding of our water systems,” concludes Martens.

 “The amended SANS 241 demands more from the water sector. Instead of asking whether everything on a prescribed list has been tested, the standard now requires entities to justify their monitoring programmes based on a thorough understanding of their supply system and its catchment. Did you test everything you were supposed to? Do you understand your system well enough to justify why you tested what you did? Monitoring programmes must now be robust enough to ensure that testing is relevant, targeted and fit for purpose, while also ensuring that all necessary parameters are adequately covered.”