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