George kunkel p e philadelphia water department
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 48

George Kunkel P.E. Philadelphia Water Department PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 132 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Water Audit Software Training Workshop Presented by the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Atlanta, GA September 5 & 6, 2006. George Kunkel P.E. Philadelphia Water Department. Workshop Outline.

Download Presentation

George Kunkel P.E. Philadelphia Water Department

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


George kunkel p e philadelphia water department

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

George Kunkel P.E.

Philadelphia Water Department


Workshop outline

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

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

States Survey Findings & Conclusion

20%

10%

15%

15%

15%

15%

20%

15%

20%

15%

15%

15%

10%

10%

15%

15%

15%

7.5%

10%

20%

15%

10%

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


Unaccounted for water percentage just doesn t cut it

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


Improvements in water auditing

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

Authorized

Consumption

Billed

Authorized

Consumption

Billed Metered Consumption

Revenue

Water

Billed Unmetered Consumption

Unbilled

Authorized

Consumption

Unbilled Metered Consumption

System

Input

Volume

Unbilled Unmetered Consumption

Unauthorized Consumption

Non

Revenue

Water

Apparent

Losses

Water

Losses

Customer Meter Inaccuracies & Systematic Data Handling Error

Reservoir Leakage & Overflow

Leakage on Transmission &

Distribution Mains

Real

Losses

Leakage on Service Connections

up to metering point

IWA/AWWA Standard Water Balance


Features of the free water audit software package

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

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

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

On to the Software!


George kunkel p e philadelphia water department1

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

George Kunkel, P.E.

Philadelphia Water Department

Assessing the Water Audit Calculations and Performance


Awwa quality programs

AWWA Quality Programs

  • Self-assessment

  • Peer review

  • Benchmarking

  • Accreditation


Self assessment trending your performance philadelphia s nrw reduction

Self Assessment: Trending Your PerformancePhiladelphia’s NRW Reduction


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

Assessing Existing Regulatory “Performance Indicators”; 2001 States Survey

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

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 conclusion1

States Survey Findings & Conclusion

20%

10%

15%

15%

15%

15%

20%

15%

20%

15%

15%

15%

10%

10%

15%

15%

15%

7.5%

10%

20%

15%

10%

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


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

Assessing Water Utility Survey Data


1996 water stats data graph

1996 WATER:\STATS Data Graph


Assessing water utility survey data cont

Assessing Water Utility Survey Data(Cont.)

AWWA WATER/:STATS 2002 Distribution Survey Information Categories

  • 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

- 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 cont1

Assessing Water Utility Survey Data(Cont.)

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

Number of Responses/Population Served

< 10,00010,001-100,000> 100,001Total

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 cont2

Assessing Water Utility Survey Data(Cont.)


Assessing water utility survey data cont awwa water stats 2002 distribution survey

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


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

Improving Water Loss Control Assessments

  • Operational indicators

  • Quality of Service indicators

  • Financial indicators


Performance indicators iwa awwa water audit method

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 method1

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

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 data1

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

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


General guidelines for setting a target ili value

General Guidelines for Setting a Target ILI Value


Performance indicators from water utilities compiling bottom up iwa awwa water audits

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


Water audit software training workshop presented by the metropolitan north georgia water planning district atlanta ga

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


Summary assessing water audit calculations performance

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!


George kunkel p e philadelphia water department2

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

George Kunkel, P.E.

Philadelphia Water Department

Bottom-up Validation of the Water Audit


Key validation areas 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


Water audit software training workshop presented by the metropolitan north georgia water planning district atlanta ga

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

Know Your Production Metering Configuration


One technique to monitor production meter accuracy

One Technique to Monitor Production Meter Accuracy


Water audit software training workshop presented by the metropolitan north georgia water planning district atlanta ga

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 AccountsUsage (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

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


Breaks are dramatic but leaks lose more water

Breaks are Dramatic, but Leaks Lose More Water!


Awareness location repair implications

Awareness, Location & Repair Implications


Understand the effects of pressure on leakage levels and infrastructure

Understand the effects of pressure on leakage levels and infrastructure


Who is responsible for customer service connection piping

Who is responsible for Customer Service Connection Piping?


Service line leak repair times

Service Line Leak Repair Times


How are service connection leaks handled

How are service connection leaks handled?


Summary bottom up measurement auditing validate and improve the water audit over time

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


  • Login