WRF Research Project Guidance on Implementing an Effective Water Loss Control Program

Transcription

1 WRF Research Project 4695 Guidance on Implementing an Effective Water Loss Control Program March 12, 2019 No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission.

2 Download presentation Slides and recording will be available to WRF subscribers WITHIN 24 hours after the webcast 2

3 Input your webinar questions here Q&A at end of webinar 3

4 search

5 WRF Ongoing Research Utilizing Smart Water Networks to Manage Pressure and Flow to Reduce Water Loss and Extend Useful Life of Pipes , Completion 2022 AMI-Meter Data Analytics, 4741, Completion 2020 Assessing Water Demand Patterns to Improve Sizing of Water Meters and Service Lines , Completion

6 Webcast Agenda Topic Speaker Introductions Maureen Hodgins, WRF 10 min Overview - Water Loss Timeline 4695 Water Loss Control Plan Project overview Guidance Manual overview Chris Leauber, Water and Wastewater Authority of Wilson County, TN Gary Trachtman, Arcadis U.S., Inc. 15 min 20 min Situational Assessment Benchmarking Database Target Setting Assessing Interventions Alan Wyatt, Independent Consultant 27 min WRF & AWWA related initiatives Gary Trachtman, Arcadis U.S., Inc. 3 min Question and Answer Maureen Hodgins, WRF 15 min 6

7 Water Loss Timeline Chris Leauber Water and Wastewater Authority of Wilson County, TN No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission.

8 Water Loss Timeline AWWA Committee Report entitled Revenueproducing vs. Unaccounted-for Water Defined use of a metered water ratio % authorized customer consumption/ supplied Regulations unaccounted-for water (UAF), unaccounted-for water percentage (UAF%) Inverse of the metered water ratio water International Water Association (IWA) w/ AWWA review Devised best practice approach Standardized water audit methodology Robust terms and definitions Published array of PIs for apparent (paper) and real (physical) losses 8

9 Water Loss Timeline AWWA funded Beecher Policy Research report on Survey of State Agency Water Loss Reporting Practices Prevailing (state agency) policies (all using percentage indicators at the time) are not entirely clear, consistent, or operational and that most analysts agree a better system of accounting is the foundation for a better system of accountability for the drinking water supply industry. 9

10 Water Loss Timeline 2003 AWWA WLCC Committee Report: Applying worldwide BMPs in water loss control; published in Journal AWWA Adopts IWA approach by issuing a Committee Report Recommends to discontinue using Unaccounted-for Water (UFW) Recommends to abandon setting target for losses as UFW% 2006 AWWA Water Loss Control Committee s Free Water Audit Software v3.0 10

11 Water Loss Timeline 2007 AWWA Research Foundation Project #2811 Evaluating Water Loss and Planning Loss Reduction Strategies Concluded AWWA Water Loss Audit balances are undertaken in a standard manner Balances may be readily compared 2007 AWWA Research Foundation Project #2928 Leakage Management Technologies Found AWWA Water Loss Audit feasible for successful management strategy in N.A. Key starting point before active leakage management activities 11

12 Water Loss Timeline AWWA Manual M36, Water Audits and Loss Control Programs, 3rd Edition Recommended that the term unaccounted for water no longer be used AWWA WLCC Free Water Software v4.2 Audit Ref.1 (AWWA) 2011 Georgia Environmental Protection Division Mandatory reporting with AWWA Water Audit Methodology Delaware River Basin Commission Mandatory reporting with the AWWA Water Audit Methodology 12

13 Water Loss Timeline TN Office of Comptroller of the Treasury Mandatory reporting with the AWWA Water Audit Methodology AWWA Water Loss Control Committee s Free Water Audit Software v WRF Project #4372a Real Loss Component Analysis: A Tool for Economic Water Loss Control Breaks out components of real losses Analysis of economic intervention strategies Leak Repair Data Collection Guide 13

14 Water Loss Timeline 2015 WRF Project #4372b Water Audits in the United States: A Review of Water Losses and Data Validity Summarizes state regulations Analysis of 4,575 water audits 2015 AWWA Best Practices in Water Loss Control Focus on the Three V s (Volumes, Value, and Validity) Assess volumes of water supplied and lost Cost impacts of the losses Data grading used in the AWWA Free Water Audit Software Assess the trustworthiness of the data 14

15 Water Loss Timeline EPA-810-B Best Practices to Consider When Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion Identifies AWWA Water Audit Methodology as Best Practice Water Audit Methodology embodied in Manual of Practice M36 Water Audits and Loss Control Programs, 4 th Edition New details on production meter testing Real (leakage) loss reduction Description of several free software tools Examples of regulatory approaches 15 Ref. 2 (AWWA)

16 Water Loss Timeline 2016 WRF Project 4639a Level 1 Water Audit Validation: Guidance Manual Examines inputs to improve accuracy & document uncertainty Water audit is more reliable w/ Level 1 Validation Sets industry standard 2017 CA Department of Water Resources Mandatory reporting with the AWWA Water Audit Methodology 16

17 Water Loss Timeline American Water Works Association s (AWWA) Policy Statement on Metering and Accountability (latest revision, 2019) Annually compile a water audit meeting acceptable quality assurance standards Water Research Foundation (WRF) Project 4695: Guidance on Implementing an Effective Water Loss Control Plan Users will find content in this Guidance Manual at strategic (planning) and tactical (actionable) levels 17

18 Water Loss Timeline 2019 (not yet published) - The AWWA Technical and Education Council (TEC) Assessment of Performance Indicators for Non-Revenue Water Target Setting and Progress Tracking Recommending a set of NRW PIs Phasing out (or in) particular indicators, based on evaluation of criteria: Technically Rigorous Understood by Various Stakeholders Suitable for Use in Target Setting and Progress Monitoring, Facilitating NRW Reduction Suitable for the State of Readiness of North American Water Utilities and Regulatory Agencies to Implement 18

19 Water Loss Timeline 2019 (work in progress) - AWWA Water Loss Control Committee, Non-Revenue Water (NRW) Performance Indicator Task Force (PITF) Evaluate current and prospective PIs, and update AWWA Policy on the continued use of %PIs Committee Report w/ results of the AWWA TEC grant project w/ recommended set of NRW Pis (work in progress) - AWWA Free Water Audit Software, v6.0 19

20 Water Loss Timeline (work in progress) - WRF Project #4917 Utilizing Smart Water Networks to Manage Pressure and Flow to Reduce Water Loss and Extend Useful Life of Pipes Guidance manual of best practices smart water network technology and systems Smart water network solutions; manage pressures and flows Extend the life of the piping network Reduce water loss Four case studies 20

21 WWAWC Utility Perspective Must have buy-in from upper management Out of Sight Out of Mind AWWA FWAS & use PIs for target setting WWAWC focused on DMAs and Step Testing Can t manage what you don t measure Minimum Night Flow analysis total system 23 DMAs Event notification for anomalies Key to reducing real losses (leakage) is to reduce runtime, flow rate & break frequency 21

22 Regulatory Perspective GA Availability of water resources Level 1 validation required Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Target setting based on real losses/conn/day CA Availability of water resources Level 1 validation required Operating pressure component of system data System-specific leakage target derived from an economic model TN Financial Data Validity Score NRW % by cost of operating system Other States and Regulatory Agencies 22

23 WWAWC Benefits - WRF 4695 Capture the sound, proven methodologies Documented in a way that other utilities can understand & implement Comparisons with WADI Dataset results WWAWC is focusing on AMI portion top priority Static vs. mechanical meters life cycle costs Business case AMI Leading into smart water networks 23

24 WRF Research Project 4695 Guidance on Implementing an Effective Water Loss Control Program Guidance Manual Overview Gary Trachtman Arcadis U.S., Inc. No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission.

25 Acknowledgements Participating Utilities Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority American Water Austin Water Consolidated Utility District of Rutherford County Eastern Municipal Water District Greater Cincinnati Water Works Halifax Water Nashville Metro Water Services Principal Investigator Co-Principal Investigator Research Team WRF Project Manager Gary B. Trachtman, PE (Arcadis U.S., Inc.) Alan S. Wyatt, Independent Consultant Stephen Davis, PE, BCEE (Metering Technology Consultants, LLC) George Kunkel, Jr., PE (Kunkel Water Efficiency Consulting, LLC) Maureen Hodgins 25

26 Project Advisory Committee Alex Gerling, American Water Works Association Tejal Kshatriya, Water Conservation, Fort Worth, TX Chris Leauber, Water & Wastewater Authority of Wilson County, TN Sue Mosburg, Sweetwater Authority, Chula Vista, CA Kartiki Naik, California State Water Resources Control Board Reinhard Sturm, Water Systems Optimization 26

27 27 Project Background and Objective Project Timeline April 2017 November 2018 Project Funding: $164,131 ($99,203 from WRF) Objective: Create a peer-reviewed Guidance Manual and Decision Framework(s) to help North American water utilities develop an actionable, cost-effective and defensible water loss reduction and control plan, that aligns with the utilities strategic goals, water resource management concerns and local circumstances, and is based on lessons of experience from leading North American water utilities large and small. 27

28 12 28 March 2019 Statement of Need Real loss control has benefited from developing technologies, but the basis for preparing optimal apparent loss control programs is underdeveloped WRF 4695 Guidance Manual will help a water utility complete the planning cycle: Performance targets for real and apparent loss control could be more meaningful for utilities and stakeholders More guidance needed: Estimating benefits via financial or economic valuation Assessing candidate interventions, selecting the most promising activities, reaching targets Assembling financially attractive activities into a multi-faceted, optimal plan 28

29 Guidance Manual Content Manual Introduction and Overview Situational Assessment Organization How to Use What is Your Water Loss Condition? Application of Protocol Strategic Objectives Coordination with Organizational Goals Drivers, Key Indicators, Setting Targets Action Planning Implementation Appendices ID and Screen Candidate Activities Supply Meters, Apparent & Real Loss Control, AMR/AMI Monitor, Track, & Document Results, Costs, Benefits Evaluate, Adjust, Communicate, Review Worked Example NRW Performance Indicators WADI Plus Dataset Sensitivity Analysis of Optimal NRW Model Cost Data & Valuation of Water Loss Control Activities 29

30 Additional Guidance Manual Content Situational Assessment Action Planning Implementation Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced Levels Suitable Valuation Methods for Water Loss Volumes New Research in SF Resd l Low Flow Water Demand Water Meter Life Cycle Cost Analysis Role of AMR/AMI in Water Loss Control Financial Analysis of Pressure Management Projects Assessing and Overcoming Barriers Communicating the Water Loss Control Plan to Stakeholders 30

31 Request for Information from Participating Utilities Detailed Water Loss related data, plus insights on: Integrating Water Loss Control Plan with Strategic Plan Setting performance targets and benchmarking processes and activities Placing a monetary value on water savings and impact of applying alternative valuations Data for evaluating candidate activities, costs and volumetric loss reductions Allocating resources for implementation of activities in-house or outsourced? Using financial assessments to formulate and justify water loss control program Using tools or methods not promoted by AWWA, but appearing to be useful Costs incurred and benefits achieved versus expectations Future activities and refinements for water loss control 31

32 Strategic Alignment 32

33 Water Loss Control - Why and How? 33

34 Direction Strategy Implementation Set Overarching Effective Utility Management Goals Reduce NRW ID Key Performance Indicators Define Current State ID Data Gaps & Collection Process Run Trend Analysis on KPIs ID Targets & Evaluate Candidate Strategies Select Strategies Asset Data Service Life Failure Risk External/Internal Influences Analysis (Legal, Technical, Service Levels) TBL Analysis Life Cycle Analysis Benefit-Cost Analysis Incorporate Asset Management Assess Staff Capabilities for Financial, Organizational & Operational Implementation Implement Strategies Conduct Performance Monitoring Confirm or Adjust Strategies Achieving Objectives at Least Cost??

35 External Influences on NRW 35

36 Oversight Influences on NRW 36

37 Tactical Elements 37

38 Potential Strategies and Team for Apparent Loss Management Meter accuracy error. Meters do not register actual volumes passing Water Loss Management Team: Unauthorized consumption, theft, and illegal consumption Existing apparent losses Economic level Unavoidable apparent loss Data transfer errors between meter and archives. Poor customer accountability Billing Meter Reading Customer Services Revenue Water Field Services System Development IT Data analysis errors between archived data and data used for billing/water balance Ref. AWWA M36 38

39 Potential Strategies and Team for Real Loss Management Pressure management Water Loss Management Team: Improved response time for leak repair Unavoidable real losses Economic level Existing real losses Active leakage control Distribution Field Services Leak Survey Leak Repair SCADA Engineering Water Accountability Asset Management Improved system maintenance replacement rehabilitation Ref. AWWA M36 39

40 Which Assessment Protocol Should be Employed? CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL Criterion Years of Validated Audit Completed Beginner Intermediate Advanced None or One Three to Five Greater than Five Data Validity Score Less than 51 Between 52 and 71 Greater than 71 NRW Management Experience Activities not underway or just beginning Activities underway for less than five years Activities underway for over five years NRW Management Plan in Place? No Probably only an informal plan Yes with objectives, ongoing activities, and monitoring Ref. 3, (WRF) 40

41 Conducting a Situational Assessment SITUATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL - ACTIVITIES FOR THREE LEVELS Step Beginner Intermediate Advanced 1. Review Water Audit and Validation Annual Use and Analysis of Results from AWWA FWAS Annual Use and Analysis of Results from AWWA FWAS Annual Use and Analysis of Results from AWWA FWAS 2. Conduct Trend Analysis 3. Conduct Uncertainty Analysis NRW Component Volumes and Values NRW Component and Subcomponent Volumes and Values Uncertainty Analysis NRW Component, Sub-components, and Categories of Sub-component Volumes and Values Uncertainty Analysis 4. Benchmark Current Performance NRW Components NRW Components and Subcomponents NRW Components and Subcomponents, using cohorts 5. Assess Apparent Loss in Detail Meter Error Meter Error, Unauthorized Consumption and SDHE Large and Small Meter Error, Unauthorized Consumption and SDHE 6. Assess Real Loss in Detail Quadrants Quadrants & Component Analysis Quadrants & Component Analysis: Over Time and Across Zones 7. Conduct Practices Assessment 8. Assess Drivers and Constraints Checklist Basic Review of Data Quality, Water Resources and Financial Issues Review Practices for Real and Apparent Losses Intermediate Review of Data Quality, Water Resources and Financial Issues Review Practices for Real and Apparent Losses and Correlate to Performance Advanced Review of Data Quality, Water Resources and Financial Issues Ref. 3, (WRF) 41

42 Decision Frameworks - Programmatic Ref. 3, (WRF) 42

43 Decision Framework for Apparent Loss Determination Extract Meter Information Account Number, Size, Mfr, Type Install Date, Cumulative Throughput Since Install, Usage for Last 12 Mos Sort by Meter Size, Type Establish Meter Accuracy Relationships at AWWA Low, Intermediate, High Flow Ranges (for representative pulled meters) Local Accuracy Test Results Available? Yes No Use Utah State University meter accuracy relationships (2011 WRF/EPA) for small meters 5/8" by ¾ thru 2" Calculate Predicted Accuracy for Meter Inventory for Age and Cumulative Throughput at AWWA low, intermediate, and high flow ranges Meter age by size and type, Meter throughput by size and type (for each meter size and type) Determine Estimated Customer Usage Patterns at AWWA low, intermediate, high flow rates Apply AWWA Flow Distribution for < 2" Meters? Yes Apply AWWA Flow Distribution for 2" Mtrs & Larger? Yes Calculate Weighted Average Meter Accuracy for Low, Intermediate and High Flow Rates for Each Meter and By Meter Size Ref. 3, (WRF) No Use Observed Flow Distribution No Use Observed Flow Distribution Based on Annual Usage for each Meter Size, Calculate System-wide Weighted Meter Accuracy Enter Overall Meter Inaccuracy in M36 AWWA FWAS 43

44 Decision Framework - Real Loss Ref. 3, (WRF) 44

45 Communicate the Plan Recognize customers and other stakeholders need for information: Sources, volumes and monetary values of NRW Annual reporting of activities / results Triple Bottom Line benefits of your Water Loss Control Program Include key performance indicators that are readily understood by the public and that are actionable by your utility Compare performance over time among systems with similar characteristics and reporting periods 45

46 WRF Research Project 4695 Guidance on Implementing an Effective Water Loss Control Program Situational Assessment, Benchmarking and Intervention Evaluation Alan Wyatt Independent Consultant No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission.

47 Conducting a Situational Assessment SITUATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL - ACTIVITIES FOR THREE LEVELS Step Beginner Intermediate Advanced 1. Review Water Audit and Validation Annual Use and Analysis of Results from AWWA FWAS Annual Use and Analysis of Results from AWWA FWAS Annual Use and Analysis of Results from AWWA FWAS 2. Conduct Trend Analysis 3. Conduct Uncertainty Analysis NRW Component Volumes and Values NRW Component and Subcomponent Volumes and Values Uncertainty Analysis NRW Component, Sub-components, and Categories of Sub-component Volumes and Values Uncertainty Analysis 4. Benchmark Current Performance NRW Components NRW Components and Subcomponents NRW Components and Subcomponents, using cohorts 5. Assess Apparent Loss in Detail Meter Error Meter Error, Unauthorized Consumption and SDHE Large and Small Meter Error, Unauthorized Consumption and SDHE 6. Assess Real Loss in Detail Quadrants Quadrants & Component Analysis Quadrants & Component Analysis: Over Time and Across Zones 7. Conduct Practices Assessment 8. Assess Drivers and Constraints Checklist Basic Review of Data Quality, Water Resources and Financial Issues Review Practices for Real and Apparent Losses Intermediate Review of Data Quality, Water Resources and Financial Issues Review Practices for Real and Apparent Losses and Correlate to Performance Advanced Review of Data Quality, Water Resources and Financial Issues Ref. 3, (WRF) 47

48 Nashville MWS Assessment Step 2: Trend Analysis Ref. 3, (WRF) 48

49 Nashville MWS Assessment Step 3: Uncertainty Analysis Range of Real Loss Volume: 107 to 122 Gals / Conn / Day Range of Real Loss Value: $2.0M to $2.5M / year 49 Ref. 3, (WRF)

50 Production Metering Production Metering Accuracy has the biggest impact on audit uncertainty Guidance Manual covers: Design and Installation Periodic Testing of Primary Flow Elements Calibration of Secondary Instruments Verification of Data Transmission and Reporting Systems Testing Alternatives 50

51 Nashville MWS Assessment Step 4: Benchmark Performance Ref. 3, (WRF) 51

52 Nashville MWS Assessment Step 5: Assess Apparent Loss in Detail Large Meter Testing, Sizing, and Replacement Program Small Meter Testing & Replacement Program Ref. 3, (WRF) 52

53 Nashville MWS Assessment Step 6: Assess Real Loss in Detail The MWS Active Leak Detection and Repair Program has led to a significant decline in unreported mains breaks and connection leaks. Similar graph for reported breaks and leaks shows a steady, low, value over the years Note rise in pressure in FY16-17 and decrease in ILI. More on that later. 53 Ref. 3, (WRF)

54 Nashville MWS Assessment Step 6. Assess Real Loss in Detail Use Quadrants to assess priority real loss issues A Modified Suez Quadrant for Nashville MWS for reported mains shows low break rates which indicates relatively low emphasis will be needed on mains rehabilitation / renewal to address real losses. Instead, more emphasis will be needed on frequent leak detection, rapid repairs and pressure management. Ref. 3, (WRF) 54

55 Nashville MWS Assessment Step 6. Assess Real Loss in Detail Use Quadrants to identify priority real loss issues A Pearson Trow Quadrant for Nashville MWS shows that a combination of pressure management, frequent leak detection, and rapid repairs will be useful. Ref. 3, (WRF) 55 A review of current practices shows appropriate leak detection frequency, and reasonably rapid response on mains breaks, which then points to pressure management and speed of repairs on service line leaks.

56 WADI Plus Benchmarking Database What: Combines annual audits from AWWA WADI, WRF 4695, Georgia, Washington, Wisconsin and others into a multi-site, multi-year database. Why: Facilitate assessment and benchmarking by: expanding the number of sites and years per site creating more balance in utility size and regions Result: 223 audits from 68 utilities from 5 Regions in NA from 2009 to Results provided by regional cohort. Allows benchmarking to national or regional utilities across many indicators. Thorough validation of financial parameters still needed. Ref. 3, (WRF) 56

57 Regional Water Loss Volumes in WADI Plus WADI Plus Finding: Substantial variation in unit loss volumes by Region, especially at the 75 th percentile Ref. 3, (WRF) 57

58 Regional Benchmarking Example Percentile Values of Water Losses, Gallons / Connection / Day App Loss Real Loss Water Loss 10% % % % % Ref. 3, (WRF) 58

59 WADI Plus helpful for identifying the most useful indicators for Assessment Efforts were made to identify indicators that are not unduly influenced by utility size, water consumption, connections density, pressure, VPC, CRUC or other situational factors, making them more useful for assessment and benchmarking WADI Plus Finding Example: For a given ILI, high pressure sites have a high unit real loss volume. Using Pressure Management Index (PMI) with ILI removes this bias. All points have Connection Density > 32 / mile Ref. 3, (WRF) 59

60 Benefits of Water Loss Reduction - Valuation Apparent Loss Valued at the CRUC. If the utility charges for sewer services based on billed water volume, AWWA recommends that sewer volumetric charge also be included in the CRUC. This is logical for use at any specific utility. However, if both types of utilities are mingled in the same dataset, benchmarking is clouded. Real Loss Commonly Valued at the VPC (cost of chemicals, electricity for pumping, purchased water, etc). If water supply conditions are constrained, AWWA recommends use of CRUC to value real losses. Additional Avoided Costs can be added to the basic VPC, including deferral or downsizing of future water production / treatment capacity, cost of network break repairs, water production sludge management costs, and a portion of wastewater treatment costs. WRF 4695 Report provides guidance on these avoided costs. Adjustment can be made to long term Avoided Costs for water resource availability in dry years or droughts. Once valuations are clear, it is possible to proceed to target setting and assessing interventions 60

61 Ideal Target Setting An Ideal Approach for Target-Setting Addresses both real and apparent losses, Considers water resource / allocation or capacity limitations to compute an avoided cost of future capacity expansion, Sets targets for constrained water situations (such as a dry year), Uses a modest number of inputs that are not too hard to determine and is not very sensitive to errors of lack of confidence in inputs, Provides targets (with a confidence band) for a given location, or is run multiple times for many different sets of conditions to create sets of tabular target guidance for a range of possible situations. Ref. 3, (WRF) 61

62 Getting Started on Target Setting - Cohorts Metro North Georgia Water Planning District (MNGPD) Utilities with densities > 32 conns/mile and similar surface water sources Validated 2013 audits: Real losses ranged from 8 to 132 Gals / Conn / Day, with a median of 35 Gals / Conn / Day. MNGPD Adopted Two Tier Rule: Utilities with Real Loss greater than 60 G/C/D should reach 60 G/C/D by 2025 Utilities with Real Loss between 60 G/C/D and 35 G/C/D should reach 35 G/C/D by 2025 Known as Drive to the Median 62 Georgia Cohorts by Utility Size and Water Source (2016) Ref. 3, (WRF)

63 Pilot Optimal NRW Model Optimality occurs when the marginal costs of reducing an NRW component is equal to the marginal benefits of the reduction. Model mathematics similar to analyses of Economic Level of Leakage, and Optimal Meter Replacement Programs Model accounts for present value of avoided costs of future capacity expansion, and allows planning for dry years. Model provides site specific targets for real and apparent loss and guidance on optimal meter replacement frequency and optimal leak detection period Accuracy about + or -10%, without a large data requirement Needs more work on data collection development of localized cost curves, and respective results, for various water loss interventions 63

64 Pilot Optimal NRW Model Real Loss Ref. 3, (WRF) 64

65 Optimal Target-Setting Model: Example Results Parameter Nashville FY16-17 Nashville Optimal Halifax FY16-17 No of Connections 195,416 88,758 Connection Density, Connections / Mile Average Operating Pressure, psi Billed Authorized Consumption, Gals / Conn / Day Customer Retail Unit Cost, US$ / 1000 Gallons $2.98 $7.89 Variable Production Cost, US$ / 1000 gallons $0.31 $0.50 Halifax Optimal Apparent Loss Volume, Gals / Conn / Day Apparent Loss / Billed Authorized Consumption 2.6% 2.1% 2.2% 1.5% Total Annual Value of Apparent Loss, US$M /year $1.80 $1.43 $1.47 $1.04 Real Loss Volume, Gals / Conn / Day Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) ILI * Pressure Management Index 50 psi) Total Annual Value of Real Loss, US$M /year $2.6 $1.4 $0.9 $0.9 Ref. 3, (WRF) 65

66 Optimal Target Setting for Apparent Loss Results from example site WADI Plus Median Optimal apparent loss volume depends on CRUC, cost of apparent loss control programs, billed water consumption and meter accuracy decline. Curve shapes correspond to a square root function which matches the theory Ref. 3, (WRF) 66

67 Methods of Assessing Interventions and Examples Method Calculation WRF 4695: Example Simple Payback Period Initial Cost / Annual Financial Savings Pressure Management Simple Cost / Volume of Water Saved Life Cycle Cost Analysis Benefit : Cost Analysis Net Present Value (IRR) Activity Unit Cost Compared to VPC or CRUC Sum of present cost and discounted future costs Benefits can be more than just value of water savings Prevent Value of Benefits Present Value of Costs Active Leak Detection Customer Meter Reading Options Unauthorized Consumption Pressure Management Ref. 3, (WRF) 67

68 Participating Utilities Data for Planning and Evaluating Activities to Reduce Water Loss FWAS Water Audit Software: used by all 6 utilities, including CUDRC which uses FWAS monthly Leakage Component Analysis (LCA): used by 5 of the 6 ABCWUA combines data from FWAS, LCA, GIS-based pipe network maps, and Work Order System on break/leak frequency to prioritize areas for leak detection crews and for asset management. Austin Water uses multiple data to assess its outsourced leak detection program, including miles surveyed, leaks per mile, cost per mile, and leak flow rate, to arrive at a cost per gallon recovered. Halifax Water uses DMAs and associated night flow data to guide leak detection and repair efforts, and plan for system upgrades. The DMA infrastructure has also facilitated flow and pressure monitoring to optimize pressure management. Halifax commissioned a detailed AMI feasibility study based on billing system records, meter test results and labor productivity data, prior to implementation underway. 68

69 Assessing Interventions for Apparent Loss Control 1. Meter Testing (Costs big economies of scale) 2. Large Customer Meter Testing / Replacement (Case studies: savings and payback periods) - Example Next 3. Small Customer Meter Replacement (Costs show some economies of scale) 4. Static vs Mechanical Meters (Life Cycle Cost Assessment) 5. Business Case for AMR/AMI Example Next 6. Unauthorized Consumption - Benefit : Cost Analysis 69

70 Large Customer Meter Testing and Replacement Large Meter Testing and Replacement is often highly cost effective moderate cost and high revenue return. Very important to ensure that meter size and type is correctly tuned to water demand profile. Gwinnett County, GA: Testing on 3-inch and larger meters showed that half of these meters had errors greater than +/- 6 percent LADWP: Large meter accuracy degradation rate: 1.8% / year; Residential: 1% / year Nashville: Conducted testing, right sizing and replacements, cutting apparent losses from large meters by 75% over 4 years Indianapolis: Testing showed 15% error on meters > 3 ; Testing and Replacement Program payback period: 9 months NYC: Replaced 26,000 large meters, increasing billed consumption by 15%; Payback period estimated at approximately 3 years 70

71 Role of AMR/AMI in Water Loss Management AMR/AMI Data Entry Reduces potential for manual data handling errors (SDHE) Apparent Loss Short-interval data facilitates comparison of consumption with District Metered Area inflows Real Loss Newer Metering Technology and Ancillary Monitoring Devices Improved accuracy at very low flows identifies customer-side leakage and revenue loss. Apparent Loss Customer meter endpoints can transmit data received from acoustic noise loggers indicating potential customer-side and system-side leakage. Real Loss Business Case Comparisons of Manual and Advanced Meter Reading include: Reading cycle O&M costs Equipment purchase and installation costs Life Cycle / Present Value Analysis 71

72 Business Case for AMI Initial Cost and OM&R Life Cycle Cost Comparison of Manual Meter Reading and Fixed AMI, at a scale of 200,000 meters. Starting point of analysis is estimations of Monthly OM&R and Initial Costs. Ref. 3, (WRF) 72

73 Business Case for AMI Life Cycle Cost Tabulation Life Cycle Cost of Manual Meter Reading = $ 112 million Life Cycle Cost of Fixed AMI Meter Reading = $ 75 million Ref. 3, (WRF) 73

74 Assessing Interventions for Real Loss Control 1. Quadrant Analysis (illustrated in the Situational Assessment section) 2. Leakage Component Analysis (WRF 4372a) 3. Active Leak Detection (Program Costs; Unit Cost Analysis vs VPC) Example Next 4. District Metered Areas (Case Studies, Costs and Benefits, Payback Periods) - Example Next 5. Pressure Management - (Costs and Benefits, Payback Analysis, Net Present Value / IRR) Example Next 6. Acoustic Monitoring - (Case Studies, Costs and Benefits; Lift and Shift, Continuous) Examples Next 74

75 Economics Austin Water Leak Detection Program Ratio of Benefits to Costs vary from 1.2 to 3.5. So, field evaluation of an intervention is best done with a track record of experience Ref. 3, (WRF) 75

76 Economics of Pressure Management Table provides simple payback period of PM projects in NA. Key local factors which influence payback include: network configuration, type and condition of pipe material, and the VPC. Ref. 3, (WRF) 76 These calculations do not include other benefits such as break repair cost savings, and reduced frequency of active leak detection programs

77 District Metered Areas (DMAs) A discrete zone of a water distribution system created by closing boundary valves and installing a meter(s) to measure flow into and out of the DMA.* DMA Program Rollout Primary benefits: Faster leak detection in DMAs with night flow monitoring and step testing. DMA structure also facilitates pressure management. Most appropriate on water systems with PVC mains, especially smaller systems with low connection density, due to unsuitability of conventional acoustic leak detection. * Verify acceptable service level and water quality. 77

78 Continuous Acoustic Monitoring (CAM) Two methods using Noise Loggers: lift and shift, and Continuous Acoustic Monitoring - permanent installation of noise, flow and pressure sensors. Technology evolving rapidly toward CAM with links to AMI data. Primary Benefits: faster leak detection and localization, lower labor cost, and more robust data on system operations CAM best suited to metallic pipe. Requires training. CAM at two New Jersey American Water systems: In Irvington, real loss fell by 61% in 1 year. In New Egypt, real loss fell from 112 to 18 Gals / Conn / Day in 1 year, deferring a $4M wellfield expansion. Southeastern US city contracts for CAM services at a fixed annual cost of $60,000. Noise, flow and pressure data from 268 sensors sent to cloud and analyzed by trained utility staff using SCADA and custom software for night flow analysis, leakage event detection, and leak localization via centralized correlation technology. CAM annual cost was less than alternative contracted annual leak detection surveys. 78

79 Real Loss Management Practices Assessment Improves understanding of current performance indicators and opportunities for improvement. Practices to Improve Accuracy of Real Loss Performance Data Rigorous Audit Validation High Accuracy Source Metering Extensive Pressure Monitoring Real Loss Assessment by Zone Use of Hydraulic Models Practices to Improve Real Loss Performance Frequency of Active Leak Detection whether Acoustic Surveys, DMAs and Night Flow, of Use of Noise loggers, or a combination Speed of Response and Repair for different categories of breaks and leaks Optimal pressure management especially flow modulated Asset rehabilitation / replacement rate: mains, services, fixtures Annual assessment of cost effectiveness of various real loss management interventions 79

80 Real Loss Practices of Participating Utilities NA Data Not Available Ref. 3, (WRF) 80

81 WRF Research Project 4695 Guidance on Implementing an Effective Water Loss Control Program A Look Ahead Gary Trachtman Arcadis U.S., Inc. No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission.

82 12 82 March 2019 Coordination of WRF 4695 with Related Initiatives AWWA WLCC Performance Indicator Task Force and FWAS Subcommittee AWWA TEC Grant - NRW KPIs Objectives: WRF 4695 Finalize AWWA WLCC position on NRW KPIs Advocate for new system/model for NRW assessment, target-setting and management Incorporate PITF recommendations in FWAS v6 Recommend KPIs Technical Rigor Stakeholder Understanding Use in Target Setting, Progress Monitoring, NRW Reduction Compatible w/ State of Readiness Guidance Situational Assessment Target Setting of KPIs Intervention Evaluation WLCP Implementation WLCP Communication Benchmarking Guidance for Selecting Actionable Performance Indicators and Setting Targets Evolving Regulatory Programs 82

83 What s Next? Root Causes of Water Loss Water-Energy Nexus Identifying and Effectively Applying Meaningful Performance Indicators Business Case and Implementation Guidance Reviewing Intervention Effectiveness and Assessing New Technologies Communicating NRW Status and Earning Support for WLC Programs 83

84 References 1. AWWA (American Water Works Association) AWWA Manual of Water Supply Practices M36: Water Audits and Loss Control Programs, 3rd ed. Denver, CO: AWWA. 2. AWWA (American Water Works Association) AWWA Manual of Water Supply Practices M36: Water Audits and Loss Control Programs, 4 th ed. Denver, CO: AWWA. 3. Trachtman G., J. Cooper, S. Sriboonlue, A. Wyatt, S. Davis, and G. Kunkel Guidance on Implementing an Effective Water Loss Control Plan. Denver, Colo.: Water Research Foundation. 84

85 Questions? No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission.

86 Thank You! No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission.