Water Audit Software Training Workshop Presented by the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Atlanta, GA

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 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

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

5. “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

6. Philadelphia’s 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 IWA Water Balance terminology Australia (WSAA), Canada (NRC), Malta, New Zealand (NZWWA), South Africa (WRC), USA (AWWA Water Loss Control Committee), World Bank Training Institute IWA Water Balance terminology Australia (WSAA), Canada (NRC), Malta, New Zealand (NZWWA), South Africa (WRC), USA (AWWA Water Loss Control Committee), World Bank Training Institute

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 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

11. 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

12. On to the Software!

13. Water Audit Software Training WorkshopPresented by the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning DistrictAtlanta, GASeptember 5 & 6, 2006 George Kunkel, P.E. Philadelphia Water Department

14. AWWA Quality Programs Self-assessment Peer review Benchmarking Accreditation

15. Self Assessment: Trending Your PerformancePhiladelphia’s NRW Reduction

16. 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

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

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 Over 300 responses went unused since they lacked data or showed negative lossOver 300 responses went unused since they lacked data or showed negative loss

21. 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 2002 survey is extensive and highly detailed. Benefit: considerable, good information Drawback: low response rate 2002 survey is extensive and highly detailed. Benefit: considerable, good information Drawback: low response rate

22. 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 Definition of “Water Audit” was left up to the respondent. Most likely just compare input flow with total billingsDefinition of “Water Audit” was left up to the respondent. Most likely just compare input flow with total billings

23. Assessing Water Utility Survey Data (Cont.) 22% did not provide sufficient and reasonable data to have logical water audit numbers22% did not provide sufficient and reasonable data to have logical water audit numbers

24. Assessing Water Utility Survey Data (Cont.) AWWA WATER/:STATS 2002 Distribution Survey 237 billion gallons/year - Enough water to supply a top ten US city237 billion gallons/year - Enough water to supply a top ten US city

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

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*

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

41. Philadelphia’s 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 Worldwide, most leakage losses occur on customer service lines Explain significance of leak run time and the effect of policy on customer service line leakageWorldwide, most leakage losses occur on customer service lines Explain significance of leak run time and the effect of policy on customer service line leakage

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