Water Audit Software Training WorkshopPresented by the

Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning DistrictAtlanta, GA

September 5 & 6, 2006

George Kunkel P.E.Philadelphia Water Department

Workshop Outline

The IWA/AWWA Methodology & Development of the AWWA Water Loss Control Committee’s 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

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

States Survey Findings & Conclusion

15%

10%

10%

10%

20%15%

15%

15%

15%10%

10%15%

15%

15%

20%15%

7.5%

20%

20%

15%

15%

15%

“A better system of accounting is needed to instill better accountability in drinking water utilities”

“Unaccounted-for Water Percentage” Just Doesn’t 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

Philadelphia’s Loss Control Success is not reflected by old percentage indicators

Philadelphia Water DepartmentNon-revenue Water vs. Metered Water Ratio

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Fiscal Year

No

n-r

even

ue W

ate

r, M

GD

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Mete

red

Wate

r R

ati

o,

%

Non-revenue Water, mgdMetered Water Ratio, %Linear (Non-revenue Water, mgd)

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

IWA/AWWA Standard Water Balance

SystemSystem

InputInput

VolumeVolume

AuthorizedAuthorized

ConsumptionConsumption

RevenueRevenueWaterWater

NonNon

Revenue Revenue

WaterWater

BilledBilledAuthorizedAuthorized

ConsumptionConsumption

UnbilledUnbilledAuthorizedAuthorized

ConsumptionConsumption

ApparentApparentLossesLosses

RealRealLossesLosses

WaterWater

LossesLosses

Billed Metered ConsumptionBilled Metered Consumption

Unbilled Unmetered ConsumptionUnbilled Unmetered Consumption

Unauthorized ConsumptionUnauthorized Consumption

Customer Meter Inaccuracies & Customer Meter Inaccuracies & Systematic Data Handling Error Systematic Data Handling Error

Leakage on Transmission &Leakage on Transmission &Distribution MainsDistribution Mains

Billed Unmetered ConsumptionBilled Unmetered Consumption

Unbilled Metered ConsumptionUnbilled Metered Consumption

Leakage on Service ConnectionsLeakage on Service Connections up to metering pointup to metering point

Reservoir Leakage & OverflowReservoir Leakage & Overflow

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

Water Audit Software Development

Software beta tested by 21 water utilities Accessible from AWWA’s WaterWiser Website

www.awwa.org/waterwiser/waterloss/Docs/waterauditsoftware.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

Implementing AWWA’s Water Audit Software

IWA/AWWA method now offers a robust water auditing approach where none existed previously

AWWA’s 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

On to the Software!

Water Audit Software Training WorkshopPresented by the

Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning DistrictAtlanta, GA

September 5 & 6, 2006

George Kunkel, P.E.

Philadelphia Water Department

Assessing the Water Audit Calculations and Performance

AWWA Quality Programs

Self-assessment

Peer review

Benchmarking

Accreditation

Self Assessment: Trending Your PerformancePhiladelphia’s NRW Reduction

Philadelphia Water Department - Water Supplied & Non-Revenue Water

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Fiscal Year

Wat

er S

up

pli

ed,

Cu

sto

mer

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n,

MG

D

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

No

n-R

even

ue

Wat

er,

MG

D (

wat

er s

up

pli

ed

min

us

bil

led

au

tho

rize

d c

on

sum

pti

on

)

Water Supplied (Delivered), Input to Distribution MGDBilled Authorized Consumption: City & Exports, MGDNon-revenue Water, MGD

Assessing Existing Regulatory “Performance Indicators”; 2001 States Survey

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

Ten Practices queried in the AWWA “States Survey” Project – 43 State and 3 Regional Agencies

www.awwa.org/Sections/committee/committee_view.cfm?hpid=30

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

States Survey Findings & Conclusion

15%

10%

10%

10%

20%15%

15%

15%

15%10%

10%15%

15%

15%

20%15%

7.5%

20%

20%

15%

15%

15%

“A better system of accounting is needed to instill better accountability in drinking water utilities”

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

1996 WATER:\STATS Data Graph

Figure 11996 WATER:\STATS Data - Non-billed Water as Percent of Input Volume

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

1 19

37

55

73

91

109

127

145

163

181

199

217

235

253

271

289

307

325

343

361

379

397

415

433

451

469

487

505

Number of Systems

No

n-b

ille

d W

ate

r %

Series1

Assessing Water Utility Survey Data (Cont.)

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

AWWA WATER/:STATS 2002 Distribution Survey Information Categories

- Utility Information

- Services Provided

- Pipe Material

- Valves

- Water Conveyance

- Finished Water Storage

- Hydrants/Flushing

- Customer Metering

- Customer Service Lines

- Service Line Responsibility

- Corrosion Control

- Water Supply Auditing

- Leakage Management

- Infrastructure Management

Assessing Water Utility Survey Data (Cont.)

Response to Question: Do you routinely compile a Water Audit?

Number of Responses/Population Served

< 10,000 10,001-100,000 > 100,001 Total

YES 13 135 62 210 (62%)

NO 8 87 34 129 (38%)

Total 21 222 96 339

AWWA WATER/:STATS 2002 Distribution Survey

Assessing Water Utility Survey Data (Cont.)

AWWA WATER:\STATS 2002 Distribution SurveyWater Audit Reporting

12%

4%

3%

3%

78%

No Water Volume Input Reported

No Authorized Consumption Reported

Negative Water Loss (Consumption > Volume Input)

Zero Water Loss (Consumption = Volume Input)

Positive Water Loss (Volume Input > Consumption)

Assessing Water Utility Survey Data (Cont.)

AWWA WATER/:STATS 2002 Distribution Survey

Summary Data for 251 Responding Utilities – Water Audit Reporting(All data in billion gallons per year)

BalanceColumn 1

BalanceColumn 2

BalanceColumn 3

Volume Input 2,671 2,671

Billed Authorized ConsumptionUnbilled Authorized Consumption

2,29644

2,340 - 2,340

331 331

ApparentLosses (28.3%)

94

Sub-total: Consumption

Water Losses

Real Losses ( 71.7%)

237

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

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

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)

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

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

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

Accuracy Bands (%)

Reliability Bands

A B C D

[0;1] A1 ** ** **

[1;5] A2 B2 C2 **

[5;10] A3 B3 C3 D3

[10;25] A4 B4 C4 D4

[25;50] ** ** C5 D5

[50;100] ** ** ** D6

General Guidelines for Setting a Target ILI Value

Target ILI Range Financial Considerations

Operational Considerations

Water Resource Considerations

1.0 -3.0 Water resources are costly to develop or purchase

Operating with leakage above this level would require expansion of infrastructure or new water resources

Available resources are greatly limited and are very difficult and/or environmentally unsound to develop

> 3.0 – 5.0 Water resources can be developed or purchased at reasonable expense

Existing supply infrastructure is sufficient as long as leakage is controlled

Resources are sufficient if good demand management measures are in place

> 5.0 – 8.0 Cost to purchase or obtain/treat water is low, as are rates charged to customers

Superior reliability, capacity and integrity of infrastructure make the system immune to supply shortages

Water resources are plentiful, reliable and easily extracted

Greater than 8.0 Although operational and financial considerations may allow a long-term ILI greater than 8.0, such a level is not an effective utilization of water as a resource. Setting a target level greater than 8.0 – other than as an incremental goal to a smaller long-term target – is discouraged.

Less than 1.0 If the calculated ILI value is 1.0 or less, two possibilities exist: a) world class low leakage levels are being maintained, or b) a portion of the water audit data may be flawed. If extensive leakage control activities are not practiced, it is likely that the latter case applies

Performance Indicators from water utilities compiling bottom-up IWA/AWWA Water Audits

Water Utility NRWv

%

NRWc

%

App L

g/c/d

Real L

g/c/d

UARL

mgd

ILI

WCSA, Abingdon, VA

35.0 17.4 21.6 73.8 1.3 1.15

San Antonio Water System

7.9 12.2 4.1 34.7 6.7 1.60

Metro Water Nashville

33.0 44.0 60.8 98.9 2.9 5.6

El Dorado Irrigation Dist, CA

14.3 33.9 36.2 81.8 1.3 2.25

Halifax Regional Water Commission

18.1 2.1 5.2 65.5 1.5 4.0

Toronto Water 11.4 0.6 7.6 14.3 6.3 1.17

Philadelphia Water Department

34.6 13.1 25.5 121.2 6.1 11.03

Performance Indicators – results from software beta test water utilities, using a top-down audit approach

Water Utility NRWv

%

NRWc

%

App L

g/c/d

Real L

g/c/d

UARL

mgd

ILI

North Wales Water

North Wales, PA8.5 4.2 0 33 0.48 1.55

Wichita Water & Sewer Department

2.5 2.5 0 8.1 2.1 0.62

City of Calgary, AB 19.4 5.3 12.1 54.6 5.28 2.9

Denver Water 3.7 1.3 4.6 12.5 4.95 0.75

Benton Co Water District #1, Avoca AR

18.5 6.1 3.8 32.6 0.06 0.97

Perkasie Bor Authority

Perkasie, PA13.1 1.7 2.8 20.1 0.05 1.33

Moscow Water Dept.

Moscow, ID9.8 2.6 1.9 22.5 0.11 1.09

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!

Water Audit Software Training WorkshopPresented by the

Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning DistrictAtlanta, GA

September 5 & 6, 2006

George Kunkel, P.E.

Philadelphia Water Department

Bottom-up Validation of the Water Audit

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

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

Know Your Production Metering Configuration

PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENTQUEEN LANE WATER TREATMENT PLANT CONFIGURATION

HIGH SERVICE PUMPING

B FILTERS C

FW STORAGE

RAW WATER BASIN METERS

RAW WATER PUMPING

A A = Raw water pumping flow

SCHUYLKILL RIVER B = Pretreatment flow GRAVITY MAIN DISTRIBUTION

METERS C = Treated Water Flow

Plant Output = Meter Rates C +/- Changes in Volume of Filtered Water Storage Basins

SYSTEM LOSSES

A to B: Loss in transmission mains, flume, and raw water basin leakage; typically 1% - 2% of raw water pumped

B to C: Loss in treatment process; chemical application, filter backwash, typically 5% - 8% of raw water pumped

A to C: Overall total = sum of A to B and B to C and metering inaccuracies; typically 7% - 10%

(Note: changes in raw water basin and filtered water storage basins are included when determing loss)

One Technique to Monitor Production Meter Accuracy

A B C

RAW WATER FILTER

DATE +/- EVEV EFFLUENT

(MG) (MG) (MG) (MG) (%) (MG) (%) (MG) (%)

4/1/98 73.6 72.6 66.7 1.0 1.4 5.9 8.1 6.9 9.44/2/98 73.3 71.9 66.7 1.4 1.9 5.2 7.2 6.6 9.04/3/98 66.0 64.7 58.0 1.3 2.0 6.7 10.4 8.0 12.14/4/98 72.0 70.6 64.9 1.4 1.9 5.7 8.1 7.1 9.94/5/98 88.4 86.9 79.9 1.5 1.7 7.0 8.1 8.5 9.64/6/98 81.6 80.2 74.4 1.4 1.7 5.8 7.2 7.2 8.84/7/98 75.8 74.4 69.0 1.4 1.8 5.4 7.3 6.8 9.04/8/98 66.8 65.8 60.1 1.0 1.5 5.7 8.7 6.7 10.04/9/98 68.4 67.3 62.1 1.1 1.6 5.2 7.7 6.3 9.24/10/98 66.1 64.8 59.5 1.3 2.0 5.3 8.2 6.6 10.0

TOTAL 732.0 719.2 661.3 12.8 57.9 70.7AVERAGE 73.2 71.9 66.1 1.3 1.7 5.8 8.1 7.1 9.7MAXIMUM 88.4 86.9 79.9 1.5 2.0 7.0 10.4 8.5 12.1MINIMUM 66.0 64.7 58.0 1.0 1.4 5.2 7.2 6.3 8.8

FILTER PLANT MASS BALANCE REPORT

PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT

PLANT MASTER METERS WATER LOSS

QUEEN LANE WATER TREATMENT PLANT

A - B B - C A - CPRETREAT

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

It’s important to find out what the Billing System does to Metered Data

Philadelphia’s Revenue Protection Program – Water & Revenue Recoveries of Apparent Losses

Fiscal Year

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

Total

PWD - WRB Revenue Protection ProgramWater Recovered,

MGDRevenue

Recovered, $Categories of Greatest Recovery

1.74 $2,835,000Non-billed 3 (Payment Delinquency Shutoffs) Accounts & Zero Consumption Accounts

1.67 $2,003,000

Zero Usage (consumption) Accounts0.74 MGD - Meter Readings remainunchanged for at least 6 months:defective AMR and tampering aremost common cause of lost water

1.14 $1,782,000 Zero Usage Accounts

0.69 $1,037,000 Zero Usage Accounts

Missing Accounts, Hand Estimates,Non-billed 6 (Service & Meter Permit)Accounts

1.39 $2,100,000Non-billed 6 (Service & Meter Permit)Accounts

12.44 $12,657,000

5.81 $2,900,000

Breaks are Dramatic, but Leaks Lose More Water!

Awareness, Location & Repair Implications

AA LL RR

L E A K D U R A T I O NL E A K D U R A T I O NF

LO

W R

AT

E A

T A

GIV

EN

PR

ES

SU

RE

T I M E

FL

OW

RA

TE

AT

A G

IVE

N P

RE

SS

UR

E

T I M E

Ga

lls

. /

da

y

2 0 0 0 0

R E P O R T E DM A I N B R E A K

2 2 , 0 0 0 G a l l o n s

1 . 1 D a y s

LGa

lls

. /

da

y R E P O R T E DC U S T O M E R S I D ES E R V I C E B R E A K

2 9 9 , 0 0 0 G a l l o n s6 5 0 0

4 6 D a y s

RA

Ga

lls

. /

da

y

1 6 D a y s

R E P O R T E DU T I L I T Y S I D E

S E R V I C E B R E A K1 0 4 , 0 0 0 G a l l o n s

6 5 0 0

RLA

Understand the effects of pressure on leakage levels and infrastructure

Who is responsible for Customer Service Connection Piping?

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Perc

en

t o

f U

tili

ties W

ith

In

dic

ate

d R

esp

on

sib

ilit

ies

CS OwnerMain tocurbstop

CSOwnerCurbstop toCus Meter

CSOwnerMeter to

Premises

Leak RepairRespon Main to

Curbstop

Leak RepairRespon

Curbstop toCus Meter

Leak RepairRespon.Meter to

Premises

AWWA WATER:\STATS 2002 Distribution SurveyCustomer Service Line (CS) Responsibilities by Water Utilities

Small Systems - Less than or equal to 10,00021 Systems

Medium Systems - 10,001 - 100,000 222Systems

Large Systems - Greater than 100,001 96Systems

Service Line Leak Repair Times

AWWA WATER:\STATS 2002 Distribution SurveyAverage Leak Repair Completion Time

11.2

21.6

12.3

3.6

4.84.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

Small Systems - Less than orequal to 10,000 21 Systems

Medium Systems - 10,001 -100,000 222 Systems

Large Systems - Greater than100,001 96 Systems

Av

era

ge

Tim

e, d

ays

Average Days Until Enforcement (forCustomer Repairs)

Average Days to Repair a Leak (when Utilitymakes repairs)

How are service connection leaks handled?

AWWA WATER:\STATS 2002 Distribution SurveyRepair Policy for Utilities That Provide Leak Repairs to Customer Service Lines

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Repairs Free ofcharge

Provisional (ex: firstrepair free)

Other Repair Policy Lead LineReplacement

Type of Policy

Per

cen

t o

f U

tili

itie

s w

ith

In

dic

ated

Po

licy

Small Systems - Lessthan or equal to 10,000 21Systems

Medium Systems -10,001 - 100,000 222Systems

Large Systems - Greaterthan 100,001 96Systems

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