Water Audit Software Training Workshop Presented by the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning Di

1
Water Audit Software Training WorkshopPresented
by the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning
DistrictAtlanta, GASeptember 5 6, 2006

• George Kunkel P.E.
• Philadelphia Water Department

2
Workshop Outline

• The IWA/AWWA Methodology Development of the
  AWWA Water Loss Control Committees Water Audit
  Software
  
• A Walk Through the Water Audit Software
• Interpreting the Water Audit data for performance
  tracking and benchmarking
  
• Bottom-up validation to improve the Water Audit

3
US Drinking Water Industry Shortcomings

• Terminology Historically a Lack of standardized
  definitions of water and revenue losses
  
• Technical Not all water supplied by a water
  utility reaches the customer
  
• Financial Not all of the water that reaches the
  customer is properly measured or paid for

4
States Survey Findings Conclusion
20
10
15
15
15
15
20
15
20
15
15
15
10
10
15
15
15
7.5
10
20
15
10
A better system of accounting is needed to
instill better accountability in drinking water
utilities
5
Unaccounted-for Water Percentage Just Doesnt
Cut It!

• No consistent definitions for the various
  components of use or loss were employed
  
• Worldwide, no standard definition has been found
  to exist for the term unaccounted-for water
  
• Percentage indicators have been found to be
  suspect in measuring technical performance
  
• Percentage indicators translate nothing about
  water volumes and costs

6
Philadelphias Loss Control Success is not
reflected by old percentage indicators
7
Improvements in Water Auditing

• Method developed by International Water
  Association Water Loss Task Force (with AWWA
  participation) in 2000
  
• Supported by AWWA WLC Committee in August 2003
  Committee Report
  
• AWWA WLC Committee is rewriting the M36
  Publication Water Audits Leak Detection, to
  be published late 2007
  
• AWWA WLC Committee launched the Free Water Audit
  Software package April 2006

8
IWA/AWWA Standard Water Balance
9
Features of the Free Water Audit Software Package

• Purpose promote standardized method for audits
• User-friendly tool, easy toggle between
  worksheets, only access to MS EXCEL is needed
  
• Designed as a basic top-down water audit
• Complete list of terms and definitions
• Performance indicators are calculated,
  eliminating chance of math errors
  
• Checks installed to alert questionable data
• Data from multiple systems can be transferred and
  analyzed electronically

10
Water Audit Software Development

• Software beta tested by 21 water utilities
• Accessible from AWWAs WaterWiser Website
• www.awwa.org/waterwiser/waterloss/Docs/wateraudits
  oftware.cfm
  
• Software Development Team
• Andrew Chastain-Howley (chair) Water Prospecting
  and Resource Consulting
  
• Alain Lalonde, Veritec Consulting
• David Sayers, Delaware River Basin Commission
• David Goff, P.E. Goff Water Audits and
  Engineering
  
• George Kunkel, P.E. Philadelphia Water Department

11
Implementing AWWAs Water Audit Software

• IWA/AWWA method now offers a robust water
  auditing approach where none existed previously
  
• AWWAs Free Water Audit Software Package gives
  the drinking water industry a standardized tool
  to improve accountability and track water loss
  standing
• Leading agencies such as the Metropolitan North
  Georgia Water Planning District are leading the
  way in promoting best practices in water
  management

12
On to the Software!

13
Water Audit Software Training WorkshopPresented
by the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning
DistrictAtlanta, GASeptember 5 6, 2006
Assessing the Water Audit Calculations and
Performance

• George Kunkel, P.E.
• Philadelphia Water Department

14
AWWA Quality Programs

• Self-assessment
• Peer review
• Benchmarking
• Accreditation

15
Self Assessment Trending Your PerformancePhilade
lphias NRW Reduction
16
Assessing Existing Regulatory Performance
Indicators 2001 States Survey
Ten Practices queried in the AWWA States Survey
Project 43 State and 3 Regional Agencies

• Water loss policy
• Definition of water loss
• Accounting and reporting
• Standards and benchmarks
• Goals and targets

• Planning requirements
• Compilation and publication
• Technical assistance
• Performance incentives
• Auditing and enforcement

www.awwa.org/Sections/committee/committee_view.cfm
?hpid30
17
Regulatory Agencies have customarily used an
unaccounted-for water percentage

• Existing statues have UFW by default rather than
  by design
  
• Texas is leading the way for improvement data
  from over 2,000 IWA/AWWA water audits is
  currently being analyzed findings available in
  early 2007
• UFW Percentage is a weak performance indicator
• No consistent definitions for the various
  components of use or loss have been employed
  
• Worldwide, no standard definition has been found
  to exist for the term unaccounted-for water
  
• Percentage indicators have been found to be
  suspect in measuring technical performance
  
• Percentage indicators translate nothing about
  water volumes and costs

18
States Survey Findings Conclusion
20
10
15
15
15
15
20
15
20
15
15
15
10
10
15
15
15
7.5
10
20
15
10
A better system of accounting is needed to
instill better accountability in drinking water
utilities
19
Assessing Water Utility Survey Data

• AWWA WATER/STATS Surveys
• 1996 general survey data analyzed by the WLC
  Committee
  
• Water volume input to distribution
• Water billed in various customer classes
• Crude comparison of water input to total billings
  conducted
  
• Results show widely varying data, typical of the
  times
  
• This survey was not structured to inquire
  directly about water loss control data
  

20
1996 WATER\STATS Data Graph
21
Assessing Water Utility Survey Data (Cont.)
AWWA WATER/STATS 2002 Distribution Survey
Information Categories
- Utility Information - Services Provided - Pipe
Material
- Valves - Water Conveyance
- Finished Water Storage - Hydrants/Flushing - C
ustomer Metering - Customer Service Lines - Serv
ice Line Responsibility
- Corrosion Control - Water Supply Auditing - Le
akage Management
- Infrastructure Management

• Valid Responses from 339 Water Utilities
• USA Utilities 56.7 million (19.5)/ Canadian
  Utilities 3.6 million (11.1)
  
• 330 USA Utilities 9 Utilities from Canada
• 21 Small Systems Population less than 10,000
• 222 Medium Systems Population 10,001 - 100,000
• 96 Large Systems Population greater than 100,000

22
Assessing Water Utility Survey Data (Cont.)
AWWA WATER/STATS 2002 Distribution Survey

• Response to Question Do you routinely compile a
  Water Audit?
  
• Number of Responses/Populatio
  n Served
  
• 
  100,001 Total
  
• YES 13 135
  62 210 (62)
  
• NO 8 87
  34 129 (38)
  
• Total 21 222
  96 339
  

23
Assessing Water Utility Survey Data (Cont.)
24
Assessing Water Utility Survey Data (Cont.) AWWA
WATER/STATS 2002 Distribution Survey
25
Improving Water Loss Control Assessments

• IWA Publication Performance Indicators for Water
  Supply Services 2000
  
• Structure of the Performance Indicator Framework
• Water Resources indicators
• Personnel indicators
• Physical Indicators
• Level of detail descriptor L1 High Level, low
  detail L2- medium detail L3 most detailed
  

• Operational indicators
• Quality of Service indicators
• Financial indicators

26
Performance Indicators IWA/AWWA Water Audit
Method

• Operational Performance Indicators
• Real Losses Normalized (1), gallons/service
  connection/day, L1
  
• Real Losses Normalized (2), gallons/service
  connection/day/psi of pressure, L3
  
• Apparent Losses Normalized, gallons/service
  connection/day, L1
  
• Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL), gal
• (5.41Lm 0.15Nc 7.5Lp) x P,
  where
  
• Lm length of mains, Nc connections, Lp
  Length private pipe, P ave. pressure, Psi
  
• Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI)
• Current Real Losses/UARL,
  dimensionless, L3
  

27
Performance Indicators IWA/AWWA Water Audit
Method

• Financial Performance Indicators
• Non-revenue water over system input volume,
  percentage, L1
  
• Non-revenue water expressed as a percentage of
  the annual cost of running the water supply
  system, L3
  
• (Non-revenue water Unbilled Authorized
  Consumption Apparent Losses Real Losses)
  

28
Grading the Quality of the Water Audit Data

• Confidence Grading Descriptors
• A Highly Reliable
• Based upon sound records of high quality data
• B Reliable
• Good data, but with minor shortcomings (some
  missing, old or dated data)
  
• C Unreliable
• Data based upon extrapolation from a limited
  sample of actual data
  
• D Highly Unreliable
• Data based on unconfirmed verbal reports and/or
  cursory inspections or analysis
  
• taken from Performance Indicators for Water
  Supply Services, IWA Publishing, 2000

29
Grading the Quality of the Water Audit Data

• Accuracy Bands
• 1 Better than or equal to /- 1
• 2 Not band 1, but better than or equal to /-
  5
  
• 3 Not bands 1 or 2, but better than or equal to
  /- 10
  
• 4 Not bands 1,2 or 3, but better than or equal
  to /- 25
  
• 5 Not bands 1,2,3, or 4 but better than or equal
  to /- 50
  
• 6 Not bands 1,2,3,4, or 5 but better than or
  equal to /- 100
  
• X Values which fall outside of the valid range,
  such as greater than 100, or small numbers
  
• taken from Performance Indicators for Water
  Supply Services, IWA Publishing, 2000

30
Grading the Quality of the Water Audit Data -
Matrix of Confidence Grades
taken from Performance Indicators for Water
Supply Services, IWA Publishing, 2000
indicates confidence grades that are
considered to be incompatible
31
General Guidelines for Setting a Target ILI Value
32
Performance Indicators from water utilities
compiling bottom-up IWA/AWWA Water Audits
33
Performance Indicators results from software
beta test water utilities, using a top-down audit
approach
34
Summary Assessing Water Audit Calculations
Performance

• Water Audit Software outstanding tool to assess
  water loss standing and track in-house progress
  
• Performance Comparisons with other water
  utilities reliable if water audit data has been
  validated
  
• Several means exist to grade data and normalize
  comparisons standard procedures are needed to
  grade the data
  
• Implementation of water auditing into standard
  drinking water industry practices will create
  reliable datasets and identify best-in-class
  practices and benchmark levels, but work is
  needed to refine the procedures
• Texas first large scale assessment of Water
  Audit data
  
• So, let the water auditing begin!

35
Water Audit Software Training WorkshopPresented
by the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning
DistrictAtlanta, GASeptember 5 6, 2006
Bottom-up Validation of the Water Audit

• George Kunkel, P.E.
• Philadelphia Water Department

36
Key Validation Areas of the Water Audit

• Bring the people from different functional areas
  together to confirm the various process data that
  goes into the water audit
  
• Verify the Production Meter Data
• The water audit starts here and errors in this
  data carry throughout the entire audit
  
• Learn how the customer billing system works
• Billings systems have been designed for financial
  reasons, but we now use their consumption data
  for multiple purposes
  
• Recognize some key leakage factors
• Gather data on leakage repair response time
• Evaluate pressure levels in your system
• Know your policy on customer service line leakage

37
Bring the people from different functional areas
together to confirm the various process data that
goes into the water audit

• Forming the team provides
• Knowledge from keys areas
• Opportunity for improved interaction
• Identification of gaps in process
• Culture of accountability and team building

38
Know Your Production Metering Configuration
39
One Technique to Monitor Production Meter Accuracy
40
Learn the workings of the Customer Billing System
this generates the amount of Billed Authorized
Consumption

• Philadelphia Customer Metered Consumption Vs.
  Customer Billed Consumption
  
• A sampling of Customer Billed Usage 8-inch
  meters
  
• Month of Accounts Usage (100
  cubic feet)
  
• July 1999 71
  177,312
  
• Aug 1999 70
  -134,825
  
• Sept 1999 69
  246,923
  
• Oct 1999 68
  178,278
  
• Its important to find out what the Billing
  System does to Metered Data

41
Philadelphias Revenue Protection Program Water
Revenue Recoveries of Apparent Losses

42
Breaks are Dramatic, but Leaks Lose More Water!
43
Awareness, Location Repair Implications
44
Understand the effects of pressure on leakage
levels and infrastructure
45
Who is responsible for Customer Service
Connection Piping?
46
Service Line Leak Repair Times
47
How are service connection leaks handled?
48
Summary Bottom-up Measurement Auditing
Validate and Improve the Water Audit over time

• Bottom-up activities include field measurements
  and audits replace estimated data with actual
  data
  
• For most water utilities, water audit validation
  is evolutionary, improving over time
  
• It is key to assemble employees from the
  pertinent groups to contribute accurate data and
  knowledge of the operations
  
• Start in basic mode, and improve incrementally