veritec water metering report.pdf

City of Revelstoke Committee Report

Date: October 10, 2013

To: Development Services Committee

From: Mike Thomas, Director of Engineering & Development Services

Subject: Water Metering Feasibility and Water Loss Management Study

1. ISSUE:

The Water Metering Feasibility and Water Loss Management Study, as indicated in the 2012 Engineering and Public Works Capital Work Plan has been completed.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1. The 2007 Water Conservation Strategy called for a detailed analysis of water metering scenarios, including a water savings assessment and a cost/benefit of various metering options.

2.2. In January 2013 the City contracted Veritec Consulting Inc. to conduct a Water Metering Feasibility and Water Loss Management Study.

3. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

3.1. The report recommends district metering, with meter verification as well as a number of strategies for water loss detection and management. The financial implications will be determined by which water loss management strategies are undertaken, and the time frame chosen.

3.2. The cost to implement district metering and for verification of existing meters is estimated to be $44,000.

3.3. Figure 5 in this Committee Report breaks down the cost of the recommended water loss management strategies and recommends a time frame for implementation.

3.4. Upgrades to drinking water systems, which reduce water use, are an eligible project under the Gas Tax Agreement.

4. DISCUSSION 4.1. The Water Metering Feasibility and Water Loss Management Study contains three reports:

• Technical Memorandum, Current Situation Analysis

of 7

AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.

Veritec ReportPage 92 of 202Page 92 of 202Page 92 of 202Page 92 of 202

• Water Meter Feasibility Report

• Water Loss Planning Report

Graham Waley of Veritec will provide a presentation of the above reports to Council. Below provides a summary of each report. The results of the first two reports were used to develop the final Water Loss Planning report which becomes the key strategy document.

4.2. Technical Memorandum, Current Situation Analysis

Veritec undertook a Current Situation Analysis and created a Water Balance for 2011 water consumption. A Water Balance is a breakdown of where all of the water which enters the system (system input volume) eventually ends up. The water is broken down into revenue water which includes residential and ICI (industrial, commercial and institutional) users and non-revenue water which is water loss in the system and unbilled consumption (winter bleed, fire hydrant flush, etc.).

It is important to remember that without calibration of the bulk source meters and without having universal metering in place, the results of the water balance requires assumptions and contains uncertainty.

Veritec used the International Water Association (IWA)/ American Water Works Association Water (AWWA) Audit approach and a night flow analysis to determine the different components of the Water Balance. The Technical Memorandum details the Water Balance for 2011, including the assumptions made and the methodology used.

Figure 1- City of Revelstoke 2011 Water Balance with Confidence Interval

Billed Metered Consumption 17.5 ML

Authorised Consumption 993ML+/- 18.1%

Billed Authorized Consumption

968 ML +/- 18.5%

Billed Unmetered Consumption 950.5 ML Revenue Water

968 ML +/- 18.5%

System Input Volume or Water Supplied 2007 ML +/-10.0%

Unbilled Authorized Consumpiton 25 ML

Unbilled Unmetered Cconsumption 25 ML

Apparent Losses 5 ML

Apparent Losses Non-Revenue Water 1039 ML+/- 26.7%

Water Losses 1014 ML+/-26.5% Real Losses

Real Losses 1008 ML+/- 27%

Leaks, breaks and overflows on mains, etc.

of 7



The Water Balance estimates water loss in the system to be 51% +/- 27%. The City of Revelstoke Water Smart Action Plan (Sept 2013) estimates water loss seen in other Basin communities to be between 30-70 % and that the water loss indicated in the Revelstoke 2011 Water Balance is considered ‘normal’ compared with other communities. Vertiec has indicated the potential for a large level of inaccuracy in the data due to uncertainty in the readings from the system bulk meters.

The Water Balance forms the bases for conducting the Water Metering Feasibility analysis and Water Loss Management Study.

4.3. Water Metering Feasibility Study

Veritec conducted a detailed analysis of each of the following water metering scenarios, including a water savings assessment and a cost/benefit analysis:

• Universal Metering

• Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) Metering only

• District Metering with leak detection

Under each of the three scenarios a water savings assessment was conducted.

Figure 2 – Water Savings Assessment for different Metering Scenarios

Veritec assessed the cost of implementing each scenario, including different meter reading options within Universal Metering and ICI Metering. A Net Present Value analysis, which allows for the time series value of money to be accounted for over the lifetime of the meters, was used to evaluate the various scenarios. The analysis assumed a one year implementation followed by a 15 year life cycle. As seen in Figure 3, the only option to have a positive Net Present Value is District Metering with Leak Detection.

CategoriesVolume in

Category - 2011 Water Balance

Sustained Reduction in

Customer Consumption

Sustained Reduction in Water

Loss

Total Sustained Savings

ML/yr % % ML/yrUniversal Metering 950.5 -14% -5% 234.4

ICI Metering 180.2 -10% 0% 18.0District Metering/Water Loss 1008.8 0% -30% 302.6

of 7



Figure 3 –Net Present Value results of different metering scenarios

District metering allows the monitoring of minimum night flow into districts or zones in the distribution system. The flows can be analysed to distinguish components of normal consumption from leakage.

The district metering scenario includes the cost of calibration and replacement of some existing meters, a new meter station and acoustic leak detection equipment. It should be noted that calibration of the existing meters would also allow for verification of the Water Balance.

The report recommends proceeding with district metering and indicates the key factors which influence the recommendation are estimated high water loss levels, low marginal cost to treat and distribute water and no capital cost reduction or deferral available at this time.

The Water Loss Planning report details the capital cost and methodology to implement this scenario.

4.4. Water Loss Planning Report

The report indicates that with leak detection and repair a 30% reduction in water loss (a 15% reduction in gross water consumption) may be achievable. This would create supply head room to serve a roughly estimated additional 963 permanent residents and a $10,239 annual savings in today’s money through reduced electricity and chemical cost.

When the marginal cost of water is cheap, as is the case in Revelstoke, there is often not a financial return on investment for water loss reduction. When undertaking water loss planning it is important to take a Triple Bottom line approach, which considers the environmental, social and economic value of water.

of 7



Figure 4 – Water Loss and a Triple Bottom Line approach

The best estimate of real losses in the system indicates an Infrastructure Leakage Index of 9.6 +/-27.7%. This means the real water losses is over 9 times what is achievable within the system. Veritec recommends that the City should be targeting an Infrastructure Leakage Index between 3 and 5.

District metering would divide the city into zones or districts. Currently the system can be divided into three districts with exiting meters. The proposed scenario would add one more district and verify the existing meters to aid in water loss detection. District metering supports the following water loss detection and control techniques detailing in the water loss planning report:

1. Meter Verification

2. Night Flow Analysis

3. Step Testing

4. Pressure Management Assessment

The report recommends implementation of the above water loss techniques followed by leakage repair over 2014 and 2015. It is important to recognize that verification of existing meters will provide for more certainty in the Water Balance and the reported best estimate of water loss in the system. The cost of the above water loss strategies and a recommended timeframe for implementation is detailed in Figure 5.

of 7



Notes Dependencies Capital/Initial

Costs Ongoing Annual or Year 2

Costs

Bulk Meter Verification &

District Metering

+ve Net Present Value.

$44,000 $5,300

Annual Water Audits

In House, then some consultant support.

Verified Flow Meters to feed analysis

In House $3,000

Night Flow Analysis in

shoulder seasons

Sessions in 2 shoulder seasons


$10,000 In House

Step Testing Operational

Main Valves $3,000 $3,000

Sonic Surveys & Acoustic

Equipment Purchase

Start using contractor then transition to in house once procedures established and equipment is understood.

$25,000 $5,000

Pressure Management Assessment


$20,000

Unknown at this time. Cost:Benefit analysis required after detailed

assessment. Forecast $120,000 for design and commissioning of 1 new PRV station to implement Pressure

Managed Area.

Leak Repairs

Service Repair is approximately $3,500 each. Mains Repair approx.$9,000 each.

NA NA

2014 -$102,000

2015 – $136,300

Figure 5 – Projected Water Loss Control Strategies and Costs.

of 7



5. OPTIONS

5.1. City Council may adopt the three reports and recommend implementation of the recommendations into the five year financial plan

5.2. City Council may receive the report and recommend verification of system meters prior to implementing a full district metering and leak detection program

5.3. City Council may recommend incorporating the water loss management strategy into the five year financial plan and implement the plan over a greater number of years than indicated in the report.

5.4. City Council may recommend some of the water loss strategies recommended, but not all at this time.

5.5. City Council could recommend that a portion of 2015 Gas Tax funding be utilized to implement the recommendations in the report.

of 7



City Revelstoke

Water Meter Feasibility Study

Final Report

Water Savings Assessment –

Cost:Benefit Analysis of Metering

September 2013

SUBMITTED BY:



Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment

Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 1 of 39

Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 4

2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 9

3 Task #3 – Water Savings Assessment from Metering .......................................................... 10

3.1 Water Production Savings ($) ........................................................................................ 13

3.2 Wastewater Treatment Savings ($) ................................................................................ 14

4 Meter Reading Alternatives Discussion................................................................................ 17

4.1 Water Meter Reading by Radio Frequency (RF) ........................................................... 18

4.2 Water Meter Reading by Fixed Area Network (FAN) ................................................... 19

5 Task #4 Cost / Benefit Analysis............................................................................................ 20

5.1 Supply & Installation of Residential Meters (5/8” x 3/4") ............................................. 20

5.2 Supply & Installation of Non-Residential Meters (3/4”- 6”) ......................................... 21

5.3 Meter Reading System Deployment Costs..................................................................... 22

5.4 Meter Reading Yearly Operating & Maintenance Costs ............................................... 23

5.5 Supply & Installation of DMA Meters ........................................................................... 25

5.6 DMA Meter Yearly Operating & Maintenance Costs ................................................... 27

5.7 Opportunities for Capital Costs Deferral ....................................................................... 27

5.8 Net Present Value (NPV) Introduction .......................................................................... 29

5.9 Cost NPV........................................................................................................................ 30

5.10 Cost Savings NPV ...................................................................................................... 30

5.11 NPV Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 31

5.12 COR Water Distribution System Operational Costs & Revenues .............................. 32

5.13 Over-arching Assumptions ......................................................................................... 33

5.14 Water Demand Evaluation Assumptions .................................................................... 33

5.15 NPV Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 33

6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 34

7 Appendix A ........................................................................................................................... 35

8 Appendix B – NPV Tables ................................................................................................... 36

Table of Figures





Figure 1 – 2011 Demand Profiles Across Meter Coverage Scenarios ............................................ 5

Figure 2 – NPV Results .................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 3 – 2011 Demand Profiles Across Meter Coverage Scenarios .......................................... 15

Figure 4 – Greeley WTP Peak Day Flow Chart 2002-2012 ......................................................... 29

Figure 5 – NPV Results ................................................................................................................ 31

List of Tables

Table 1: Demands and Reductions by Meter Coverage Categories ............................................... 5

Table 2: Demands by Meter Coverage Categories ....................................................................... 12

Table 3 - Demands and Reductions by Meter Coverage Categories ............................................ 13

Table 4 - Demand & Cost Reductions from Meter Coverage Scenarios ...................................... 15

Table 5: Cost estimates for the supply and installation of Residential meters ............................. 21

Table 6: Cost estimates for the supply of Non-residential meters ................................................ 22

Table 7: Cost estimates for the supply and installation of Non-residential meters. ..................... 22

Table 8: Equipment, installation, and start-up costs for Universal Metering ............................... 23

Table 9: Yearly meter reading operating and maintenance cost estimates ................................... 24

Table 10: DMA Program – Flow Meter Costs.............................................................................. 26

Table 11: NPV Costs .................................................................................................................... 30

Table 12: NPV Cost Savings ........................................................................................................ 30

Table 13: COR Annual Costs & Revenues for water distribution system .................................... 32

Glossary of Terms

AMI Advanced Metering Infrastructure

AMR Advanced Meter Reading

CBT Columbia Basin Trust

COR City of Revelstoke

DSM Demand Side Management

FAN Fixed Area Network

ICI Industrial, Commercial, Institutional

ILI Infrastructure Leakage Index

Lcd Litres per Capita per Day

Lps Litres Per Second


Veritec Report1 of 202Page 101 of 202Page 101 of 202Page 101 of 202



ML Megalitres

MIU Meter Interface Unit

NPV Net Present Value

NRW Non Revenue Water

PCC Per Capita Consumption

PRV Pressure Reducing Valve

RF Radio Frequency

RMR Revelstoke Mountain Resort

SCADA Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition

WTP Water Treatment Plant

Document Control

Version Date Authored by Graham Waley C.Eng. Manager, Veritec Consulting Inc.

1.5 10/09/2013 Approved

for Issue by Alain Lalonde P.Eng. Principal, Veritec Consulting Inc.

Circulation

list

Penny Page-Britton City of Revelstoke





1 Executive Summary

In 2013 The City of Revelstoke (COR) engaged Veritec Consulting to perform a Meter

Feasibility and Water Loss Planning study. A previous water conservation study in 2007 called

for a detailed analysis of metering scenarios. The City wishes to explore different meter

coverage scenarios in order to plan water use efficiency.

This report represents the main body of work for the Meter Feasibility Study. The deliverables

in this report are the findings from the Water Loss and Meter Feasibility Project in terms of;

Water Savings Assessment, and

Cost:Benefit Analysis of Metering.

The foundation of many demand side management programs, designed to deliver significant

water savings sustained over a period of time, is universal metering of customers. The caveat to

this is the scenario where water loss levels are very high and proactive targeting of this leakage

offers greater water savings than customer metering. This study evaluates meter coverage

scenarios for customer metering and district metering for water loss management.

Cost justification for customer metering is often driven by deferral or reduction in infrastructure

capital project costs. The COR supply currently has no peak day capacity constraint. Neither is

there currently a licensed annual abstraction constraint. No capital works for water or

wastewater system capacity are in the planning stages. Therefore no capital project cost savings

component is present in the financial evaluation.

The meter coverage scenarios which were selected as relevant to the COR for the Net Present

Value (NPV) analysis;

a) Universal Customer Revenue Metering.

b) Non-residential1 only Customer Revenue Metering.

c) District Metering with Leak Detection.

Universal Metering involves metering every water service. Non-residential Metering involves a

meter going onto every service which is not a residence; single-family or multi-family. Instead

1 Interchangeable with Industrial, Commercial, Institutional (ICI)





of a flat rate tariff customers are put onto a user pays tariff which can be structured to leverage

water efficiency. District Metering is the monitoring of minimum night flows into distinct zones

of the distribution system. Supply flows into the district will be of sufficient scale so that flows

can be analyzed to distinguish components of normal consumption from leakage rates. District

Metering can be permanent or temporary and is the foundation of many successful water loss

management programs. To realize the forecast water loss savings from District Metering the

pinpointing and fixing of leaks is also required. Capital budget has therefore been included for

acoustic leak detection equipment. The full cost of active leakage control is laid out in the Water

Loss Planning.pdf report.

Within scenarios a and b the following meter reading technology options were included for

evaluation;

i. Manual Read

ii. Touchpad

iii. Drive-By/Walk-by

iv. Fixed Network

The District Metering with Leak Detection has the largest demand savings available as shown in

the table below. The 14% reduction in demand from Universal Metering is a result of weighting

a 15% reduction in residential consumption and a 10% reduction in non-residential consumption.

Table 1: Demands and Reductions by Meter Coverage Categories

The following graphs illustrate the Total Sustained Demand Savings (ref. table above) to allow a

visual comparison of what 2011 COR demands would have looked like with each of the meter

coverage scenarios in place - referenced against what the 2011 demands actually were.

Figure 1 – 2011 Demand Profiles Across Meter Coverage Scenarios

ML/yr % % ML/yr

Universal Metering 950.5 -14% -5% 234.4

Unmetered ICI 180.2 -10% 0% 18.0

Water Loss 1008.8 0% -30% 302.6

Categories

Volume In

Category - 2011

Water Balance

Sustained

Reduction in

Customer

Consumption

Sustained

Reduction in

Water Loss

Total Sustained

Savings





Water Loss Customer Consumption Baseline Gross Demand

0

50

100

150

200

250M

L/m

on

th

COR 2011 Baseline Demands

0

50

100

150

200

250

ML/

mo

nth

COR Demand Forecasts with ICI Metering

0

50

100

150

200

250

ML/

mo

nth

COR Demand Forecasts with Universal Metering

0

50

100

150

200

250

ML/

mo

nth

COR Forecast Demands with District Metering

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

Veritec R

eportPage 105 of 202Page 105 of 202Page 105 of 202Page 105 of 202



A Net Present Value analysis allows for the time series value of money to be accounted for over

the lifetime of the scenarios. Money’s buying power reduces over time. A 5% discount cash

flow rate was selected to reflect the cost of borrowing the capital to fund the project. Costs and

Cost Savings are discounted with the same rate. A 16 year life time was selected to allow for 1

years implementation then 15 years use from the meter units. Any residual asset value remaining

(e.g. well maintained Fixed Area Network infrastructure) is included as a positive in the final

year.

Figure 2 – NPV Results

The least expensive Universal Metering read option is the Manual Read. It offers the lowest

overall cost for system purchase and installation and meter reading costs. This is driven by the

low capital supply and installation cost for manually read meters. The least expensive ICI

Metering read option is a Drive-by RF. The manual read option becomes less efficient when

working with dispersed nodes.

The District Metering coverage emerges as the only positive NPV. The same scenario also

emerges with the largest annual demand savings available. District Metering with leak

detection is the most pragmatic and cost effective option available and therefore is the clear

preferred option at this time for demand savings.





The District Metering activities, which include meter verification of the supply meters, would

also verify the baseline water balance and night flow analysis results reported in Revelstoke

Water Loss & Metering Tech Memo #2 Current Situation Analysis.pdf. This report delineated

water loss and customer demands from the gross system demands and formed the baseline data

for this evaluation.

If the preferred District Metering option moved forward the following outcomes are possible

considering the fact that supply and distribution meter accuracy is not validated at this time;

Verification showed that the supply and distribution meters were over reading. This

over-estimation of water loss would be corrected leading to lower reported water losses.

Verification showed that supply and distribution meters were under-reading. This under-

estimation of water loss would strengthen the case further for Water Loss Management.

Verification showed that the supply and distribution meters were within permissible

accuracy limits. The baseline data which fed the water balance and night flow analysis is

robust and the District Metering program has already achieved its first milestones through

the meter verifications.

These points further support the roll out of the District Metering & Leakage Detection

option.

The key factors which influence the results obtained in this assessment are;

a) Very high water loss levels.

b) Low marginal cost to treat and distribute water.

c) No capital cost reduction or deferral available.

A re-run of this study should be considered when water infrastructure capital projects are under

consideration which have components that can be reduced or deferred through demand

reduction.





2 Introduction

In 2013 The City of Revelstoke (COR) engaged Veritec Consulting to perform a Meter

Feasibility and Water Loss Planning study. A previous water conservation study in 2007 called

for a detailed analysis of metering scenarios. The City wishes to explore different meter

coverage scenarios in order to plan water use efficiency.

As well as metering many Columbia Basin communities have also tackled water losses as a cost

effective demand reduction option. Veritec have supported water loss planning and reduction in

Sparwood, Nelson, Cranbrook, Montrose, and several additional smaller Columbia Basin

communities. To the best of our knowledge Fernie and more recently Nelson considered

customer metering options. Sparwood is already almost universally metered.

This report represents the main body of work for the Meter Feasibility Study. The deliverables

in this report are the findings from the Water Loss and Meter Feasibility Project in terms of;

Water Savings Assessment, and

Cost:Benefit Analysis of Metering.

Initially a Meter Current Situation Analysis was conducted as an exercise in collating, reviewing

and analyzing the demand categories, customer meters, customer types, relevant reports,

financial statements, operating budgets and planning forecasts for the water distribution system.

The wastewater system was analyzed to a lesser extent in order to be able to quantify reduced

wastewater loading from potable water demand reduction scenarios.

This study draws on baseline data from the Water Balance and Night Flow Analysis Current

Situation Analysis reported in Revelstoke Water Loss & Metering Tech Memo #2 Current

Situation Analysis. It was a data collation and analysis exercise focused on a standardized

IWA/AWWA water audit methodology to assign demand to categories. Some key outputs from

this study were;

Water losses emerged as being very high (meters not verified).

ICI customer consumption is a small portion of the gross water supplied; 9%2 in 2011.

2 Result of an un-validated water audit.





Residential consumption is not excessive at 304 Lcd3. In fact this is below the Canadian

average (329 Lcd) and BC average (426 Lcd). This is likely driven by generous

precipitation rates and small lot sizes as the community is hemmed in by water on one

side and mountains on the other.

A small number of customer meters already exist; 20 single-family residential and 4

multi-family residential and non-residential. Only one of these, the Sutton Place Hotel, is

on a user pays tariff. The other meters were installed in 2002 as a result of a

recommendation from a 1998 Water Use Efficiency Study by Dayton & Knight Ltd.

Existing customer meters are the Sensus TouchRead system.

Water supply points are metered and some distribution meters also exist. For general system

information please also refer to Revelstoke Water Loss & Metering Tech Memo #2 Current

Situation Analysis. section 2.1.

3 Task #3 – Water Savings Assessment from Metering

It is widely recognized that introducing customer metering leads to reduced consumption through

behavioral changes and greater uptake of more efficient fixtures and fittings. The exact

magnitude of the consumption reduction, and how much is sustained, depends on a multitude of

factors including; billing frequency, tariff structure, climate factors and rebate programs.

Western Canadian communities exist across the spectrum of customer metering penetration with

a bias towards residential customers being unmetered. Eastern Canada has a much higher

penetration rate of universal metering.

District metering, to facilitate pro-active water loss management, has a low penetration across

Canada mainly due to; average younger age of water mains, maintaining circulation and looping

for water quality, and maintaining fire flows. Some Canadian municipalities both large and

small have adopted district metering, and notably temporary district metering, to facilitate

required water loss management. In the U.K. for example District Metered Area (DMA)

coverage is almost universal across the private and public water utilities to facilitate economic

leakage level performance required by regulatory bodies. The distribution system configurations

3 Verified with measured data from other CBT communities without customer meters namely; Nelson and

Cranbrook.





there are however more dendritic (tree and branch configuration) and do not have the same fire

flow capacity constraints as in N. America.

In order to explore the range of meter coverage required by the RFP, and what is pertinent to

COR, the following metering coverage scenarios have been explored in this study;

a) Universal Customer Revenue Metering.

b) Industrial, Commercial, Institutional (ICI) only Customer Revenue Metering.

c) District Metering for Water Loss Management.

COR already has a small number of metered customers who are not billed (with the exception of

1) based on the metered volumes. It is assumed that the customers with meters already installed

(20 residential and 4 non-residential) will be inelastic; i.e. they won’t reduce their consumption

in line with the newly metered customers. This helps to conservatively estimate the forecast

demand savings. The Water Savings Assessments from metering is a projection from the

baseline condition measured in the Water Balance 2011 and reported in the Revelstoke Water

Loss & Metering Tech Memo#3 Current Situation Analysis.

Reducing the different demand categories (customer consumption & water loss/Non Revenue

Water) accrues the following benefits;

Customer Metering to Reduce Customer Consumption

Tangible

Benefits

Reduced Water Produced

Intangible

Benefits

More accurate

consumption data to feed

network modeling and

system optimization

activities

Reduced Distribution Pumping

Reduced Wastewater Treatment

Reduced Wastewater Pumping at Lift Stations

District Metering to Reduce Water Loss

Tangible

Benefits

Reduced Water Produced

Intangible

Benefits

Less holes in the linear

infrastructure which present a

risk of back siphonage and

potable water contamination.

Also less risk of undermining

property and municipal

infrastructure such as roads.

Reduced Distribution Pumping

On the flip side to the benefits of Customer Metered Demand Reduction is the added complexity

of maintaining adequate revenue from water rates when a user-pay tariff is in place. As demand





profiles change revenue disappointment through leveraged efficiency or weather spikes needs to

be avoided through robust financial forecasting.

Putting aside the consumption volumes from 2011 of the already metered customers leaves the

following volumes which would be captured by the meter coverage scenarios a-c.

Table 2: Demands by Meter Coverage Categories

Having defined the demands which can be influenced by new meters going in analysis was

undertaken to apply these to the selected meter coverage scenarios. It is well documented that

when water metering is first introduced into the residential sector with a user-pay billing

structure that water use will drop. The impact of metering depends on the response of these

customers. Domestic water demand typically drops by up to 30% when meters are first

introduced. With time, domestic customers become more complacent and water usage increases.

A final reduction of up to 15% can be expected. Non-residential customers are, on average, less

elastic than residential e.g. fixed volume process use at a factory, or fixtures and fittings being

used in a hotel where the visitor doesn’t pay the meter based bill. For this customer base a final

reduction of 10% has been applied.

The table below summarizes the demand reductions and associated cost savings which can be

expected from the tangible benefits previously listed for the three meter coverage scenarios

under consideration. The following working assumptions apply in these forecasts;

15% sustained demand reduction achieved for residential customer base.

10% sustained demand reduction achieved for non-residential customer base.

Universal metering also reduces Water Loss by 5% through;

o Quicker identification of customer side leaks.

o Tighter distribution system water balances.

o Customer consumption data from minimum night flow periods can be used in

localized night flow analysis.

District Metering (coupled with active leakage activities) will achieve a 30% demand

reduction but it will take five years to fully achieve, and will only be sustained if the

ML/yr

Universal Metering 950.5

Unmetered ICI 180.2

Water Loss 1008.8

Categories

Volume In

Category - 2011

Water Balance





active leakage program is maintained. The full cost of active leakage control is laid out

in the Water Loss Planning.pdf report.

The 14% reduction in demand from Universal Metering is a result of weighting a 15% reduction

in residential consumption and a 10% reduction in non-residential consumption.

Table 3 - Demands and Reductions by Meter Coverage Categories

It can be seen from the figures above that the greatest volume available for savings is in the

District Metering category which directly reduces water loss. The meters themselves do not

pinpoint the leak locations but they do allow for local activities such as night flow analysis and

step testing which will make leak location activities more efficient and successful. Also they

allow for ongoing monitoring for quick identification of increased leakage in sectors.

3.1 Water Production Savings ($)

The only pumped water in the COR system is through the Arrow Heights (AH) Station and the

Golf Course Well (Greeley WTP does not pump). The variable electricity costs4 and chemical

costs5 from these facilities have been applied to their respective 2011 annual volumes of water to

produce a Marginal Cost to treat and distribute Water6 of 0.03$/m3 (33.8$/ML). This is the unit

value of water which would be directly reduced through demand reduction.

4 Source: water wastewater energy consumption.xls

5 Source: Water Operating Budget 2010-2012.pdf

6 The variable cost to produce water

% % ML/yr ML/yr ML/yr

Universal Metering -14% -5% -184.0 -50.4 234.4

Unmetered ICI -10% 0% -18.0 0.0 18.0

Water Loss 0% -30% 0.0 -302.6 302.6

Effect on

Water Loss

Volume

Total

Sustained

Demand

Savings

Categories

Sustained

Reduction in

Customer

Consumption

Sustained

Reduction in

Water Loss

Effect on

Customer

Consumption

Volume





3.2 Wastewater Treatment Savings ($)

It is expected that the reductions in potable water consumption will translate into a 70%

reduction of that volume as reduced wastewater treatment loading. Reductions in leakage do not

result in any reduction in wastewater treatment loading as it is assumed that this water drains to

the water table. The variable electricity costs7 and materials costs

8 have been applied for the lift

stations and the waste water treatment plant to produce a Marginal Cost to treat and convey

Wastewater of 0.06$/m3 (59.5$/ML). A key assumption for the electricity cost calculation was

that all waste water goes through a Lift Station once and then collectively all gets pumped at the

treatment plant.

With the volume and dollar savings now quantified from water and wastewater these can now be

applied to the different metering coverage scenarios. The table below contains these results.







Table 4 - Demand & Cost Reductions from Meter Coverage Scenarios

It emerges that the Universal Metering option has the largest dollar value of water savings of $15,589 (in today’s money) but is

sure to have the highest price tag as well.

The graphs on the following page have been created to illustrate what the effect of the sustained demand savings would look like when

applied to the 2011 annual demand profile for COR; delineated between water loss and customer consumption.

Figure 3 – 2011 Demand Profiles Across Meter Coverage Scenarios

Water Wastewater

ML/yr % % ML/yr ML/yr ML/yr Water Wastewater

Universal Metering 950.5 -14% -5% -184.0 -50.4 234.4 -$7,932 -$7,657 $15,589

Unmetered ICI 180.2 -10% 0% -18.0 0.0 18.0 -$610 -$750 $1,360

Water Loss 1008.8 0% -30% 0.0 -302.6 302.6 -$10,239 $0 $10,239

Annual Total

Value of

Savings; Water

& Wastewater

Categories

Volume In

Category - 2011

Water Balance

Sustained

Reduction in

Customer

Consumption

Sustained

Reduction in

Water Loss

Effect on

Customer

Consumption

Volume

Effect on

Water Loss

Volume

Total

Sustained

Demand

SavingsChange in Annual

Operating Costs

Universal Metering Option a Blend of;

15% reduction in residential use.

10% reduction in non-residential use.

Takes into account;

Reduced chemical treatment cost.

Reduced system pumping cost.

Takes into account;

Reduced lift station pump cost.

Reduced treatment cost.

Universal metering brings about 5% NRW reduction through;

Quicker identification of customer side leaks.

Tighter distribution system water balances.

Customer consumption data from minimum night flow

periods can be used in localized night flow analysis.

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

Veritec R




Water Loss Customer Consumption Baseline Gross Demand

0

50

100

150

200

250M

L/m

on

th

COR 2011 Baseline Demands

0

50

100

150

200

250

ML/

mo

nth

COR Demand Forecasts with ICI Metering

0

50

100

150

200

250

ML/

mo

nth

COR Demand Forecasts with Universal Metering

0

50

100

150

200

250

ML/

mo

nth


AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

Veritec R




4 Meter Reading Alternatives Discussion

There is a key variable which requires inclusion for analyzing the customer metering scenarios -

the evaluation of meter read technology options. The following bullet points list the options

which have been selected as being both common in Canada and pertinent to the COR. They are

followed by a synopsis of each option:

(1) Manual read,

(2) Remote read (Touchpad)9,

(3) Drive-by / Walk-by radio frequency (RF) read7,

(4) Fixed Area RF Network10

,

1) Manual

The successful completion of meter reading remains contingent on the ability for the reader to

have access notwithstanding snow, landscaping and the presence of pets or other obstructions.

Experience shows that some estimated reads will be as a result of meter readers choosing not to

read for the purposes of productivity. Estimated reads from manual reading routes are

commonplace.

2) Remote Read (Touchpad)

The touch pad technology employs the use of a small black pad mounted on the outside of the

customers building and requires a wire to be installed within the customer’s home leading from

the meter to the touch pad itself in order for the unit to successfully provide an accurate read of

the register head. In addition to this it is noted that the trend of more homeowners renovating

and finishing their basements is presenting more and more challenges for running the necessary

wires from the meter to the touch pad. It is noted that the meters installed in 2002 are

Sensus TouchRead which are a touchpad technology.

9 Advanced Meter Reading (AMR) technology

10 Advanced Meter Infrastructure (AMI) technology





3) Drive-by & Fixed Area Network

With more advanced AMR and AMI, such as drive-by or Fixed Area Network technologies,

nearly all of the human element is removed as there is no need for a person to enter onto a

property once the technology is installed. In addition there is no need for a person to enter data

into a hand held device which eliminates the opportunities for errors in key punching.

With both AMR and AMI technology there are opportunities to employ units that require no

wiring. A simple antenna affixed to the register head provides the ability to send the required

data to the receiver. The absence of the wire makes it a very attractive option for installation of

meters in finished basements or in areas where the wire may continually get damaged. This

technology eliminates the opportunity for customers who deliberately cut to the wires to do so.

The implementation of AMR and to a greater degree AMI provides a much more reliable, timely

and beneficial resource for system optimization efforts than rudimentary manual read and billing.

The ability to acquire targeted and timely water consumption data in a focused area greatly

benefits efforts to quantify water loss and in turn support the development of comprehensive leak

detection programs.

Many of the AMR and AMI products currently available offer the opportunity for customers to

view their water consumption on line in a timely manner, not months after they have used the

water. This is a sophisticated and effective Demand Side Management (DSM) tool. What

follows is a detailed explanation of the workings of the Drive-by and Fixed Area Network

options.

4.1 Water Meter Reading by Radio Frequency (RF)

A mobile system operates by having a utility billing/mainframe computer send a request (an

ASCII file) to a Route Management Software. The routes are assigned to meters or vice-versa

and sent to walk-by or drive-by laptop or handheld computers. The meter data is collected from a

distance using radio technology by either a person walking nearby with a handheld terminal

outfitted with a RF interface (walk-by system), or by a moving vehicle with a RF receiver-

equipped computer (drive-by technology).

Once the reading of the routes is completed, the walk-by or drive-by unit uploads directly or at a

later time its data to the Route Management Software where the completed routes are merged

into an export file. This file is then sent to the mainframe/billing computer. Once the data is

resident within the utility, the meter, and other retrieved information can then be shared with

customer service or other utility department systems.

Advantages:

Reduces meter reading costs.

Increases meter reading efficiency.





Monthly reading possibility.

Fully eliminates “hard to access” meter reading.

Fully eliminates hazardous meter reading conditions.

Improves customer service.

Improves fraud detection.

Reduces percentage of estimated bills.

Reduces read to bill time.

Disadvantages:

Requires battery change-outs.

RF may be subject to interferences.

Environmental factors affect radio frequencies propagation.

May require RF band license.

Cost of equipment and training.

4.2 Water Meter Reading by Fixed Area Network (FAN)

Contrary to mobile systems, RF fixed network benefit from a “fixed” infrastructure enabling

more frequent readings and the implementation of advanced services (water profiling, leak

detection, on-demand etc.). Depending on the technology and the meter data type (meter reading

or alarm), the transfer of the meter data to the utility may be instantaneous or stored in

intermediate network nodes for later transmission. Fixed network technology is typically

composed of a hierarchy of tightly integrated networks: a wide area network (WAN) responsible

for moving data directly to the host computer/network controller from the meter interface unit (if

no intermediate local area network), or from the local area network collecting data from meter

interface units. The WAN may be any variety of data networks, including private data services or

public data networks. Once the data is resident within the utility, the meter and other retrieved

information can then be shared with other points on the system, including a customer service

representative's PC or the central billing computer.

Advantages:

Utility controls network if private technology.

Daily or more frequent meter reading ability.

Provides near real-time meter and tamper detection capability.

Enables additional cost savings and introduction of advanced and revenue generator

services (on-demand read, real-time tampering, profiling, point or system leak detection).

Improves customer service.

Reduces meter reading costs.

Increases meter reading efficiency.

Fully eliminates “hard to access” meter reading.

Fully eliminates hazardous meter reading conditions.

Reduces percentage of estimated bills.





Reduces read to bill time.

Disadvantages:

Requires battery change-outs.

RF may be subject to interferences.

Environmental factors affect radio frequencies propagation.

May require RF band license.

Coverage determined by RF technology and power.

RF propagation effort may be significant depending on technology.

High cost of network infrastructure if private network.

Less control over traffic, support, and maintenance for public network.

Cost of equipment and training.

5 Task #4 Cost / Benefit Analysis

The method for analyzing the overall cost of the metering scenarios as called for in the RFP is a

Net Present Value (NPV) evaluation. This is a common method deployed as a way to evaluate

the tangible benefits of projects which include capital, operational and maintenance elements,

revenue and cost savings, which all need to take into account the time series value of money.

Money’s buying power reduces over time. The rate of borrowing can be included into the NPV.

With the water and wastewater savings quantified the capital and maintenance costs for the meter

scenarios needs built up. What follows is the detailed itemizing of each capital, operational and

maintenance cost component to cover each meter scenario. Costs are independently laid out for

Residential and Non-residential categories.

5.1 Supply & Installation of Residential Meters (5/8” x 3/4")

There are considered 2,996 domestic accounts to be metered initially. This includes replacing

the 22 existing residential meters which are currently 11 years old. Although the meters may

still be operating well, including these provides for a higher cost estimation and hence a more

conservative evaluation. Cost estimates for new residential water meters are based on the widely

used 5/8” x 3/4” positive displacement water meter. The supply cost covers the water meter

purchase and installation, and where appropriate, the meter interface unit (MIU) or Touchpad

used for AMR. As well as the option to manually read meters the AMR technologies considered

here include:

(1) Remote read (Touchpad),

(2) Drive-by / Walk-by radio frequency (RF) read,

(3) Fixed Area RF Network.





A meter equipped with a register/encoder compatible with a Meter Interface Unit can be used

with any AMR technology. However, as we go from touchpad read technology to fixed network

technology, the MIU cost increases.

The prices used in this evaluation are based on information provided by water meter

manufacturers and suppliers as well as our experience and knowledge of actual prices bid on

similar projects.

The installation and supply cost estimates for new water meters are presented in the table below

and are based on a turnkey supply and installation contract being selected as the preferred

alternative for the COR. The costing assumptions utilized for the table are as follows:

Average Cost of Water Meter supply is $90.00 each

+ Average Cost of Touchpad Unit at $70.00 each, or

+ Average Cost of MIU for Drive-by / Walk-by at $120.00 each, or

+ Average Cost of MIU for Fixed Network at $130.00 each.

Average Cost of Water Meter Installation is $175.00 each.

+ Average Cost of Water Meter Installation for Outside Touchpad at $225 each, or

+ Average Cost of Water Meter Installation for Drive-by / Walk-by at $225 each, or

+ Average Cost of Water Meter Installation for Fixed Network at $225 each.

Table 5: Cost estimates for the supply and installation of Residential meters

Cost Component Manual Read Touchpad Drive-by / Walk-by Fixed Network

Water meter $269,640 $269,640 $269,640 $269,640

Meter interface unit $0 $209,720 $359,520 $389,480

Installation $524,300 $674,100 $674,100 $674,100

Total $793,940 $1,153,460 $1,303,260 $1,333,220

5.2 Supply & Installation of Non-Residential Meters (3/4”- 6”)

There 313 non-residential unmetered accounts which would be required to be metered.

Additional to this is the existing revenue meter at the Sutton Place Hotel. Cost estimates for new

non-residential water meters are based on requiring a spread of meter sizes to cover the water use

categories in the COR customer base. A list of the Non-residential customer was provided from

the Finance Department in the file UB Data From MAIS – Water Customer List.xls. This list

reveals a spread of users typical for a community of the size of COR which is a recognized stop

on a major trunk road and tourist town i.e. a high number of hotel rooms. Each account was





reviewed for their Name and Charge Code Description and a meter size was estimated. The

results are shown in the table below;

Table 6: Cost estimates for the supply of Non-residential meters

Meter Size 5/8" X 3/4" 3/4" X 3/4" 1" 2" 3" 4" 6"

Count 82 130 18 57 23 1 2

Cost to Purchase Each $90 $100 $150 $350 $750 $2,000 $2,500

The weighted average cost to purchase a Non-Residential meter is $215. Installation is

additional. The following costing assumptions were utilized to generate the values in the table

below:

Average Cost of Water Meter supply is $215.00 each

+ Average Cost of Touchpad Unit at $70.00 each, or

+ Average Cost of MIU for Drive-by / Walk-by at $120.00 each, or

+ Average Cost of MIU for Fixed Network at $130.00 each.

Average Cost of Water Meter Installation is $290.00 each.

+ Average Cost of Water Meter Installation for Outside Touchpad at $370 each, or

+ Average Cost of Water Meter Installation for Drive-by / Walk-by is $370 each, or

+ Average Cost of Water Meter Installation for Fixed Network is $370 each.

Table 7: Cost estimates for the supply and installation of Non-residential meters.

Cost Component Manual Read Touchpad Drive-by / Walk-by Fixed Network

Water meter $68,452 $68,452 $68,452 $68,452

Meter interface unit $0 $21,980 $37,680 $40,820

Installation $91,060 $116,180 $116,180 $116,180

Total $159,512 $206,612 $222,312 $225,452

5.3 Meter Reading System Deployment Costs

In addition to water meter and MIU supply and installation costs, there are other

elements/components specific to the Manual and each AMR technology to consider such as data

collectors, installation of hardware/software, user licensing, application software, maintenance,

and professional services. The cost of these elements varies with the technology. As we go from

the manual to the touchpad system to the advanced technologies, the supply cost increases and

more maintenance and professional services are needed to keep the system working properly.

For each technology we evaluated the cost of turnkey system supply, installation and start-up.

Depending on the technology the supplied system may include handheld computers, data





management software, route management software, data collectors, and an IT system. The cost

estimates of each technology are based on supplier information.

Table 8: Equipment, installation, and start-up costs for Universal Metering

Cost Component Manual Touchpad Drive-by/Walk-by Fixed Network

Data collectors, Data

Repeaters $0 $10,000 $7,000 $60,000

Software $0 $7,000 $8,000 $12,000

IT system $0 $0 $0 $10,000

Installation, training, start up $0 $7,000 $7,000 $45,000

Total $0 $24,000 $22,000 $127,000

5.4 Meter Reading Yearly Operating & Maintenance Costs

Annual meter reading operating and maintenance (O&M) costs include equipment maintenance,

meter reading staff, sample meter accuracy testing, customer billing, and overhead costs.

Reading cost will depend on reading frequency. We have assumed quarterly reading and billing

for residential customers and monthly for non-residential customers. Quarterly reads do increase

the time periods for identifying problems with meters but this reading frequency is sufficiently

frequent to maintain the water efficiency benefits of metering. Key full cost11

rates have been

estimated as the following:

Staff costs - $25/hr for meter reading and $75,000/year for professional staff.

Staff overhead costs of 30%.

Vehicle costs at $100 per day operating costs (rental, insurance, gas).

AMR system maintenance – 5% of the annual investment cost.

The manual meter reading option considers that the 3,310 meters could be read by a single

member of staff reading 140 a day.

11 Includes allowances for benefits etc.





Table 9: Yearly meter reading operating and maintenance cost estimates

Cost Component Manual Touchpad Drive-by / Walk-by Fixed Network

System maintenance $0 $1,505 $828 $1,067

Meter Reading Staff $9,21212 $4,31213 $45614 $0

Meter Reading Vehicles $6,074 $2,894 $281 $0

Management staff $2,88515 $2,88515

$4,32716

$4,32716

IT license and technical

support $1,000 $4,000 $4,000 $7,000

Meter Maintenance & Testing $1,504 $1,504 $3,004 $3,004

Total annual cost $20,675 $17,099 $12,895 $15,397

12 It is calculated that one part time meter reading staff member will be required to undertake the reading and billing

cycle and test and maintain meters to the equivalent of 15 full working days per quarter. 13

It is calculated that one part time meter reading staff member will be required to maintain reading and billing

cycle to the equivalent of 7 full working days per quarterly cycle. 14

It is calculated that one part time meter reading staff member will be required to maintain reading and billing

cycle to the equivalent of 1 full working days per quarterly cycle 15

It is assumed that one management staff will require input for 10 days per year for these meter reading

technologies. 16

It is assumed that one management staff will require input for 15 days per year for these meter reading

technologies.





5.5 Supply & Installation of DMA Meters

Distribution system flow metering which is targeted towards water loss management activities is

often termed District Metering. The primary concept of District Metered Area (DMA)

monitoring is to isolate and monitor minimum night flows into distinct zones of the distribution

system. Night flows are monitored by using a system of import and export district flow meters,

as is required, to acquire the net flow into a zone. DMAs are small areas of the system (typically

between 1,000 and 5,000 connections) with supply flows into the DMA of sufficient scale so that

flows can be analyzed to distinguish components of normal consumption from leakage rates.

Having undertaken a mass water balance water audit and night flow analysis for the COR a good

preliminary understanding of the existing flow meters in the distribution network has been

garnered. Meters are instruments which can suffer accuracy depreciation from in-situ hydraulic

or mechanical conditions. Maintenance, verification and calibration are required to maintain

accuracy over time. Some issues with existing flow meters are already known to operations staff

at the following sites; Arrow Heights to Z1, Arrow Heights PRV IN.

District meters don’t themselves reduce water losses but they do aid more efficient and effective

water loss reduction activities. They can reveal when unreported leaks have occurred. They can

be used as the reference meter into a zone, or sub-zone, for step testing. It is possible to set

targets and intervention levels for each DMA and compare future night flows against these

levels.

Designing DMAs is a detailed task involving meter selection, meter station design, zone

boundary design, pressure monitoring and fire flow analysis. Veritec has used its experience of

meter verification activities and DMA design to conceive a basic district meter program for

introducing DMA style flow monitoring on the existing COR system configuration. The costs of

this are presented in the table on the following page.

As the table shows the DMA program makes provision for;

Calibration of some existing meters,

Replacement of some existing meters,

Introduction of one new meter station.

The costs include power and communication at the one new flow meter station.

A system schematic showing the meter locations and night flow analysis from Revelstoke Water

Loss & Metering Tech Memo#3 Current Situation Analysis.pdf can be found in Appendix A.





Table 10: DMA Program – Flow Meter Costs

Existing Meters

Meter

Calibration

Required

Average

Cost of

Meter

Calibration

Replacement

Meters

Required

Average

Cost of

Meter

Unit

New

Meters

Required

Average Cost of

New Meter &

Chamber with

Power &

Communication

Overall

DMA

Metering

Cost

6

Existing

District

Meters

TCH Res. Out 10"

TCH Res. Out 12"

TCH Res. In

AH to Z1

AH P.S. to Res.

AH PRV IN

2 $1,000 2 $6,000 1 $30,000 $44,000

District meters do not require the same level of accuracy as custody transfer/revenue meters. Meters which can be considered for

district metering include;

Full bore electromagnetic meters.

Insertion meters; electromagnetic or turbine.

Valve flow metering using valve position and pressure difference measurements.

Venturi throat.

Ultrasonic meters.

To realize the forecast water loss savings from District Metering the pinpointing and fixing of leaks is also required. Capital budget

has therefore been included for 1 amplified listening device and 1 correlator. Veritec recommends the following Sewerin leak

detection equipment; the Stethophone 06 Wireless and the correlator is the SeCorrPhon06. The total cost for these is circa $20,000.

Therefore the capital cost for District Metering and Acoustic Leak Detection Equipment is $64,000.

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

Veritec R




5.6 DMA Meter Yearly Operating & Maintenance Costs

Maintenance of DMA meters should be undertaken bi-annually and monitored throughout the

year for changes and anomalies. Just as important to water loss management is maintaining the

accuracy of supply metering. The annual maintenance costs have been built up assuming the

following:

7 District meters and the 3 Supply meters (1 Greeley, 2 Golf Course Well) included in the

bi-annual verification program.

Meter verification is $800.00 per meter.17

One meter will need calibrated each year at a cost of $1,000.00.

Power and communications at the one new station costs $300.00 annually.

+ Total Annual Maintenance Costs emerge as $5,300.00.

In order to achieve the forecast water loss savings the district metering program needs to be

supported by night flow monitoring, step testing and leak pinpointing. No separate budget has

been created for these activities as it is assumed that operations staff will absorb this work as part

of their existing routine and activities. Leak repair costs are also not considered an additional

expense as these leaks would have been discovered at some point in the future and been repaired

regardless. Pro-active leak detection has just brought the repair date forward. A more targeted

district metering configuration may be required once the “hot” areas in the system have been

identified.

5.7 Opportunities for Capital Costs Deferral

A common driver for Demand Side Management implementation, and therefore an important

cost benefit for inclusion, is to be able to defer or reduce infrastructure capital project costs. To

this end water system expansion is elastic when considered through the prism of DSM.

Customer metering is often the most expensive, most sophisticated, and most effective demand

reduction tool available.

17 Discounted rate to the $1,000 per meter in the costs table as a regular annual program should be able to command

a better rate.





When we refer back to Water Savings Assessment section, Customer Metering in COR cannot

save as much water as the District Metering with Leak Detection simply because there is so

much leakage. Savings available;

Universal Metering 234.4 ML/yr,

District Metering 302.6 ML/yr.

In Revelstoke the Greeley WTP annual peak day flow has been on a decreasing trajectory since

2002 as can be seen in the chart below. This is either genuine or an issue with the flow meter

(not verified or calibrated) which is under-reading over time. As a reference per capita

consumption is on a natural decline across N. America due to more conscientious consumer

behavior and greater availability of efficient appurtenances.

Regardless of the decreasing trend the average flow seen on the Peak Day in the last 5 years was

10,987 m3/d (127 Lps). Greeley WTP has 175 Lps capacity and the Golf Course Well at least

75 Lps18

. The Water license for Greeley Creek is for approximately 210 Lps with an allowable

quantity of 6,637,291.4 m3/year. So plenty of head room appears to exist at the moment for

peak day and annual Greeley water abstraction. A peak hour water demand analysis would need

to be undertaken to determine if the supplies were being taken close to their capacity during peak

hours.

18 COR 2011 Annual Water Report





Figure 4 – Greeley WTP Peak Day Flow Chart 2002-2012

In Revelstoke build out has recently been accomplished, including potable water service, for the

Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR). This embodied all of the water distribution capacity

increases which were in the planning pipeline. No further plans exist for further capital water or

waste water system capacity increases. Therefore there is no capital deferral available through

reduced demands at this time. The NPV evaluation therefore does not contain a cost savings

component from capital costs deferral. If major RMR build out does materialize then the

inclusion of capital costs deferral should be brought into the NPV cost savings side of the

evaluation.

5.8 Net Present Value (NPV) Introduction

The RFP calls for a Net Present Value (NPV) analysis. A NPV analysis allows the time series

value of money to be accounted for over the lifetime of the meter coverage scenarios. The

discount cash flow rate has been used to reflect the cost of borrowing the capital to fund the

project at 5%. The discount rate reflects that money’s buying power reduces over time. The

Costs and Cost Savings are discounted with the same rate. These two streams are built up

separately with a Present Value calculated for each year. To be a sound investment the NPV

should be greater than zero.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Flo

w (

m3

/ d

ay)

Year

WTP Annual "Peak Day" Flow





5.9 Cost NPV

All the cost items for supplying, installing, reading and maintaining each type of meter are

included as per the earlier parts of Section 6. This includes meter reading and maintenance staff

time, management time, hardware, software, meter testing, billing.

2996 Residential services to be metered in year 1 including replacing the existing meters.

314 Non-residential services to be metered in year 1 including replacing existing meters.

Without major RMR build out it is expected that 40 new meters will be required for new

water service connections each year.

Operations and maintenance costs start in year 2 and increase by 3% annually to account

for inflation.

1 year implementation followed by 15 year life cycle.

This results in NPV for Costs after 16 years as shown in the table below.

Table 11: NPV Costs

Manual Read Touchpad Drive-By/Walk-by Fixed Network

Universal Metering Cost NPV $461,092.23 $465,925.33 $418,154.11 $509,404.95

Discount Rate 5%

ICI Metering Cost NPV $1,154,757.31 $1,522,208.12 $1,627,758.25 $1,789,138.51

DMA & Leak Detection Cost NPV $ 140,747.52

5.10 Cost Savings NPV

1 year implementation, followed by15 year life cycle.

NRW (leakage) reduction fully achieved over 5 years and then sustained throughout.

Wastewater treatment loading is reduced by 70% of the forecast customer demand

reduction.

Water production and wastewater treatment costs will increase 3% annually to account

for inflation.

No scope for deferral of water or wastewater system capital project costs.

Residual asset values included for certain AMR meter reading infrastructure.

This results in NPV for Cost Savings after 16 years as shown in the table below.

Table 12: NPV Cost Savings

Customer Demand

Reduction - Water

Production Savings

Customer Demand

Reduction -

Watewater Treatment

Savings

NRW Reduction -

Water Production

Savings

Total NPV of

Cost Savings

Universal Metering $84,532.71 $89,186.52 $15,864.85 $189,584.08 Discount

Rate 5% ICI Metering $7,279.07 $8,949.68 $0.00 $16,228.75

District Metering $0.00 $0.00 $103,832.55 $103,832.55





5.11 NPV Conclusions

The tables showing the Cost and Cost Savings for each year can be found in Appendix B. The

final NPV of the net Costs and Savings of each of the 16 years is represented on the chart below.

Figure 5 – NPV Results

The least expensive Universal Metering read option is the Manual Read. It offers the lowest

overall cost for system purchase and installation and meter reading costs. This is driven by the

low capital supply and installation cost for manually read meters. The least expensive ICI

Metering read option is a Drive-by RF. The manual read option becomes less efficient when

working with dispersed nodes.

We already know that the District Metering with Leak Detection equipment has the largest

demand savings available. It also emerges as the scenario with the only positive Net Present

Value. District metering with leak detection is the most pragmatic and cost effective option

available and therefore is the clear preferred option at this time for demand savings.

It should be noted that district metering has different non-tangible benefits from customer

metering.





Customer Metering Non-tangible benefits;

Better data for system optimization and planning.

District Metering Non-tangible benefits;

Community will see the utility leading by example in water conservation.

Less holes in pipes which run the risk of back siphonage and contamination.

Veritec strongly recommends that pro-active water loss management and District Metering

are rolled out in the City of Revelstoke.

5.12 COR Water Distribution System Operational Costs & Revenues

In order to provide additional context to the results from the NPV assessment the following are

COR 2010 & 2011 water distribution system Operational Costs and Revenues.

Table 13: COR Annual Costs & Revenues for water distribution system

Source:

Water Budget

Revenue

2010 2011

Connection Charges $50,000 $50,000

Water Rates/User Fees $1,269,892 $1,294,080

Total Revenue $1,319,892 $1,344,080

With universal meter coverage scenarios ranging in NPV from -$2.1M to -$1.6M depending on

the meter reading technology, these investments would be in excess of a year’s water revenue.

Source:

COR 2011 Water Report

Operational Costs

2010 2011

Admin $154,146 $162,081

Transmission/Distribution $480,129 $560,293

Interest $276,548 $290,409

Capital Costs

2010 2011

Debt Principal $137,678 $137,678

Reserve Fund Transfers $300,000 $300,000

Total Costs $1,358,501 $1,650,463





5.13 Over-arching Assumptions

The results from the Water Balance 2011 are taken as the baseline demand data for this meter

assessment part of the study. This was an un-valited water balance in some respects but is

validated in other:

o System Input Meters not validated.

o Residential customer consumption validated as COR measured sample exists and

is in line with similar CBT community (Nelson).

o Water Loss was the result of a November 2012 Night Flow Analysis (NFA) not

validated.

The night flow (legitimate use & water loss) was evaluated as 35.5 Lps in the November 2012

NFA. The working assumption is that the meters are accurate.

5.14 Water Demand Evaluation Assumptions

Single-Family residents consume at the same rate as Multi-Family residents.

Multi-Family residential connections get a 5/8 X 3/4 meter as well as the SF connections.

Water lost through leakage drains to the water table and does not make its way into the

sewer collection system and subsequently treated.

70% of the potable water saved through customer consumption reduction is carried

forward as reduced wastewater flows.

5.15 NPV Assumptions

Charge Code Description: Water minimum charge & Water no charge accounts remain

unmetered

Deployment of the meters and read systems is split evenly over the first year.

Advanced meter reading system maintain 50% of their useful life after the 15 year life of

the meter.

There are anticipated to be approximately 40 new water billing accounts to be added each

year.

Final and special reads have not been specifically accounted for as a cost in the NPV

analysis.

No capital works planned at this time which includes no plan to merge with the Big

Eddy.

Meters 3” and greater to be installed on a by-pass.





6 Conclusions

The key factors which influence the results obtained in this assessment are;

a) Very high water loss levels.

b) Low marginal cost to treat and distribute water.

c) No capital cost reduction or deferral available.

The cornerstone of many demand side management programs, designed to deliver significant

water savings sustained over a period of time, is universal metering of customers. The caveat to

this is the scenario where water loss levels are very high and proactive targeting of this leakage

offers greater water savings than customer metering.

For the City of Revelstoke the only scenario with a positive Net Present Value over a 1 year

implementation and 15 year life cycle is the District Metering with Leak Detection. This option

also yields the largest demand savings of 302.6 ML/yr. It therefore emerges as the preferred

option. If the preferred District Metering option moved forward the following outcomes are

possible considering the fact that supply and distribution meter accuracy is not validated at this

time;




estimation of water loss would strengthen the case for Water Loss Management.




the meter verifications.

These points further support the roll out of the District Metering & Leakage Detection

option.

A re-run of this study should be considered when water infrastructure capital projects are under

consideration which have components which can be reduced or deferred through demand

reduction.





7 Appendix A

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

Veritec R




8 Appendix B – NPV Tables

ICI Metering

Capital & Maintenance Costs

Year Manual Read Touchpad Drive-By/Walk-by Fixed Network

1 159,512.00$ 218,612.00$ 233,312.00$ 288,952.00$

2 22,706.58$ 19,731.30$ 15,727.45$ 18,269.47$

3 23,326.81$ 20,244.28$ 16,114.31$ 18,731.40$

4 23,965.66$ 20,772.64$ 16,512.78$ 19,207.18$

5 24,623.67$ 21,316.86$ 16,923.20$ 19,697.23$

6 25,301.42$ 21,877.41$ 17,345.94$ 20,201.99$

7 25,999.50$ 22,454.77$ 17,781.36$ 20,721.89$

8 26,718.53$ 23,049.45$ 18,229.84$ 21,257.39$

9 27,459.12$ 23,661.98$ 18,691.77$ 21,808.95$

10 28,221.94$ 24,292.88$ 19,167.57$ 22,377.06$

11 29,007.63$ 24,942.70$ 19,657.63$ 22,962.21$

12 29,816.90$ 25,612.03$ 20,162.40$ 23,564.92$

13 30,650.45$ 26,301.43$ 20,682.31$ 24,185.70$

14 31,509.00$ 27,011.51$ 21,217.82$ 24,825.11$

15 32,393.31$ 27,742.89$ 21,769.40$ 25,483.71$

16 33,304.15$ 28,496.22$ 22,337.52$ 8,662.06$

NPV over 16 yrs $418,711.09 $576,120.35 $515,633.29 $600,908.28

Operational Cost Savings

Year

Customer Demand

Reduction Water

Production Savings

Customer Demand

Reduction Watewater

Treatment Savings

NRW Reduction

Water Production

Savings

1 -$ -$ -$

2 610.00$ 750.00$ -$

3 628.30$ 772.50$ -$

4 647.15$ 795.68$ -$

5 666.56$ 819.55$ -$

6 686.56$ 844.13$ -$

7 707.16$ 869.46$ -$

8 728.37$ 895.54$ -$

9 750.22$ 922.41$ -$

10 772.73$ 950.08$ -$

11 795.91$ 978.58$ -$

12 819.79$ 1,007.94$ -$

13 844.38$ 1,038.18$ -$

14 869.71$ 1,069.32$ -$

15 895.81$ 1,101.40$ -$

16 922.68$ 1,134.44$ -$

NPV over 16 yrs $7,279.07 $8,949.68 $0.00

16,228.75$ Total NPV of Savings





Universal Metering

District Metering & Leak Detection


Year Manual Read Touchpad Drive-By/Walk-by Fixed Network

1 953,452.00$ 1,384,072.00$ 1,547,572.00$ 1,685,672.00$

2 32,196.66$ 33,535.21$ 31,331.36$ 34,233.39$

3 32,816.89$ 34,048.19$ 31,718.23$ 34,695.31$

4 33,455.74$ 34,576.56$ 32,116.69$ 35,171.09$

5 34,113.75$ 35,120.78$ 32,527.12$ 35,661.15$

6 34,791.50$ 35,681.32$ 32,949.85$ 36,165.91$

7 35,489.58$ 36,258.69$ 33,385.27$ 36,685.81$

8 36,208.60$ 36,853.37$ 33,833.75$ 37,221.30$

9 36,949.20$ 37,465.89$ 34,295.69$ 37,772.87$

10 37,712.01$ 38,096.79$ 34,771.48$ 38,340.97$

11 38,497.71$ 38,746.62$ 35,261.55$ 38,926.13$

12 39,306.98$ 39,415.94$ 35,766.32$ 39,528.83$

13 40,140.53$ 40,105.34$ 36,286.23$ 40,149.62$

14 40,999.08$ 40,815.42$ 36,821.74$ 40,789.03$

15 41,883.39$ 41,546.81$ 37,373.31$ 41,447.62$

16 42,794.23$ 42,300.14$ 37,941.43$ 7,125.97$

NPV over 16 yrs $1,268,657.54 $1,948,639.08 $2,063,952.03 $2,219,587.01


Year

Customer Demand

Reduction Water

Production Savings

Customer Demand

Reduction Watewater

Treatment Savings

NRW Reduction

Water Production

Savings

1 -$ -$ -$

2 7,084.00$ 7,663.60$ 341.38$

3 7,296.52$ 7,893.51$ 619.69$

4 7,515.42$ 7,893.51$ 906.35$

5 7,740.88$ 8,130.31$ 1,209.41$

6 7,973.10$ 8,374.22$ 1,529.38$

7 8,212.30$ 8,625.45$ 1,866.75$

8 8,458.67$ 8,884.21$ 1,922.75$

9 8,712.43$ 9,150.74$ 1,980.44$

10 8,973.80$ 9,425.26$ 2,039.85$

11 9,243.01$ 9,708.02$ 2,101.05$

12 9,520.30$ 9,999.26$ 2,164.08$

13 9,805.91$ 10,299.24$ 2,229.00$

14 10,100.09$ 10,608.21$ 2,295.87$

15 10,403.09$ 10,926.46$ 2,364.75$

16 10,715.19$ 11,254.25$ 2,435.69$

NPV over 16 yrs $84,532.71 $89,186.52 $15,864.85







Year DMA & Leak Equip.

1 64,000.00$

2 5,300.00$

3 5,459.00$

4 5,622.77$

5 5,791.45$

6 5,965.20$

7 6,144.15$

8 6,328.48$

9 6,518.33$ 10 6,713.88$

11 6,915.30$

12 7,122.76$

13 7,336.44$

14 7,556.53$

15 7,783.23$

16 8,016.73$

NPV over 16 yrs $140,747.52


Year

Customer Demand

Reduction Water

Production Savings

Customer Demand

Reduction Watewater

Treatment Savings

NRW Reduction

Water Production

Savings

1 -$ -$ -$

2 -$ -$ 2,044.90$

3 -$ -$ 4,273.84$

4 -$ -$ 6,631.00$

5 -$ -$ 9,120.22$

6 -$ -$ 11,745.46$

7 -$ -$ 12,097.82$

8 -$ -$ 12,097.82$

9 -$ -$ 12,460.75$

10 -$ -$ 12,834.58$

11 -$ -$ 13,219.61$

12 -$ -$ 13,616.20$

13 -$ -$ 14,024.69$

14 -$ -$ 14,445.43$

15 -$ -$ 14,878.79$

16 -$ -$ 15,325.16$

NPV over 16 yrs $0.00 $0.00 $103,832.55




City Revelstoke

Water Loss & Metering Project

FINAL Technical Memorandum #1

Task#2 Current Situation Analysis – Water Balance 2011 Only

MAY 2013

SUBMITTED BY:



CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY


Table of Contents

1 Current Situation Analysis - Water Balance ........................................................................... 4

1.1 Tech Memo Introduction .................................................................................................. 4

1.2 Water Balance Executive Summary ................................................................................. 4

2 Top Down IWA/AWWA Water Audit ................................................................................. 10

2.1 General System Information .......................................................................................... 11

2.2 95% Confidence Limits and Variance Analysis ............................................................ 12

2.2.1 Normal Distributions .............................................................................................. 12

2.3 System Input Volume ..................................................................................................... 13

2.4 Billed Authorized Consumption..................................................................................... 14

2.4.1 Billed Authorized Consumption Metered ............................................................... 15

2.4.2 Billed Authorized Consumption Unmetered - Residential ..................................... 15

2.5 Water Losses – Night Flow Analysis ............................................................................. 18

2.6 Limitations of Current Night Flow Analysis.................................................................. 21

2.6.1 Billed Authorized Consumption Unmetered - ICI .................................................. 22

2.7 Unbilled Authorized Consumption Unmetered ............................................................. 22

2.8 Infrastructure Information .............................................................................................. 22

2.9 Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 23

2.10 Water Loss Performance Indicators ........................................................................... 24

2.11 Summary of IWA/AWWA Water Audit Findings ..................................................... 24

3 Appendix 1 – Water Balance Results ................................................................................... 27

4 Appendix 2 – Average Pressure Calculation ........................................................................ 27

5 Appendix 3 – Climate Data & Parcel Size ............................................................................ 28





Table of Figures

Figure 1 – Water Balance Components 2011 with Confidence Intervals ....................................... 5

Figure 2 – NRW as % of System Input Volume, Canadian Sample in Blue .................................. 6

Figure 3 – Infrastructure Leakage Index, Canadian Sample in Blue .............................................. 7

Figure 4 – AWWA Guidelines For Setting an ILI Target .............................................................. 8

Figure 5 – IWA Standard Water Balance Components ................................................................ 10

Figure 6 – Normal Distribution..................................................................................................... 13

Figure 7 – 2011 Components of System Input Volume Graph .................................................... 14

Figure 8 – Minimum Night Flow Components............................................................................. 18

Figure 9 – System Input Volume M3/Month 2009-2012 ............................................................. 19

Figure 10 – Minimum Night Flows – November 15th

2013 2-4am .............................................. 20

Figure 11 – Results of Minimum Night Flow Delineated ............................................................ 21

Figure 12 – AWWA Guidelines For Setting an ILI Target .......................................................... 25

Figure 13 – WBI Target Matrix Real Loss Action Plan ............................................................... 26

Figure 13 – Cranbrook & Nelson Footprints from Google Maps ................................................. 29

Glossary of Terms

AWWA American Water Works Association

BACU Billed Authorized Consumption Unmetered

BACM Billed Authorized Consumption Metered

CARL Current Annual Real Losses

FCM Federation of Canadian Municipalities



IWA International Water Association

l/conn/d Litres per Service Connection per Day





Lcd Litres per Capita per Day

LHA Local Health Area


ML Megalitres


PCC Per Capita Consumption



SCADA Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition

SIV System Input Volume

UACM Unbilled Authorized Consumption Metered

UACU Unbilled Authorized Consumption Unmetered

UC Unauthorized Consumption

UARL Unavoidable Annual Real Losses

Document Control

Version Date Authored by Graham Waley C.Eng. Project Manager, Veritec Consulting

Inc.

2.0 09/05/2013 Approved


Circulation

list

City of Revelstoke





1 Current Situation Analysis - Water Balance

1.1 Tech Memo Introduction

Veritec is providing this Technical Memorandum to report the water balance findings only of

Task#2 Current Situation Analysis of the Water Loss & Metering Feasibility Project. After a

project initiation which included site investigation and data acquisition, Water Audit and Night

Flow Analysis were undertaken in order to be able to delineate gross annual demands into the

primary constituent categories of Residential, ICI and Water Losses. Performance Indicators

could then be put to the water loss levels. The different demand categories can then later be

carried forward for feasibility analysis on different levels of metering coverage. The

IWA/AWWA Water Audit is a “top down” assessment with average volumes built up over the

calendar year 2011. The Night Flow Analysis (NFA) is from the “bottom up” and is a snapshot

of minimum flows when leakage is at its highest proportion of overall system flow from

November 2012.

1.2 Water Balance Executive Summary

System Input Volume; is the aggregate of the measured flows through Greeley Creek WTP and

those estimated through the Golf Course Well. The Well water goes into distribution or can be

diverted solely to the Golf Course for irrigation. Unfortunately the 2011 well flow data was not

available due to an issue with the historian. The data for 2012 is in an unusable format with

seconds to 3 decimal places and could not me manipulated out of a text string to be analyzed.

a) Greeley WTP – Measured 1,928.0 Ml/yr ± 10.0%.

b) Golf Course Well – Estimated daily cycle into distribution – 39.4 Ml/yr ± 100%.

c) Golf Course Well – Estimated summer off peak to golf course – 39.4 Ml/yr ± 100%.

This resulted in a 2011 Total SIV of 2,006.8 Ml/yr ± 10.0%.

Billed Authorized Consumption Metered; is from the Sutton Hotel only which is within the

Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR). This single Industrial, Commercial, Institutional (ICI)

customer with a revenue meter accounted for 17.5 Ml/yr ± 3.0%.





Billed Authorized Consumption Unmetered Residential; was developed from measured

consumption from the 20 Single Family residences from the study group which received meters

in 2002. The estimated annual consumption for 2011 emerges as 304 litres/per capita/day from

this small sample. This multiplied by a population of 6,420 resulted in 712.4 Ml/yr ± 25%. This

result is comparable to the residential consumption rate Veritec is tracking in the City of Nelson

B.C. (321.4 Lcd in 2011) and the Canadian average residential Per Capita Consumption rate of

(329 Lcd.

Billed Authorized Consumption Unmetered Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional; To assign

estimated consumption to this category the Top Down Water Audit was used to solve for BACU

ICI with the Water Loss calculated from the NFA. This resulted in;

BACU ICI 180.2 Ml/yr ± 30%.

The water balance table below lays out the water balance components with confidence intervals

for 2011.

Figure 1 – Water Balance Components 2011 with Confidence Intervals

to

0 Ml 0 Ml 0 Ml +/- 0.0%

+/- 0.0% +/- 0.0%

968 Ml

2007 Ml 968 Ml +/- 18.5% +/- 18.5%

+/- 10.0% 968 Ml

993 Ml +/- 18.5% 0 Ml +/- 24.3%

+/- 18.1%

0 Ml +/- 50.0%

25 Ml

+/- 50.0% 25 Ml +/- 50.0%

2007 Ml 2007 Ml

+/- 10.0% +/- 10.0% 5 Ml +/- 100.0%

5 Ml

0 Ml +/- 100.0% 1039 Ml

+/- 0.0% 1014 Ml 0 Ml +/- #DIV/0! +/- 25.9%

+/- 26.5%

1009 Ml

+/- 26.7%

Real Losses Overflow on storages, and

leakage on storages, mains

and service connections up

to point of metering

Water Losses

Apparent LossesUnauthorised Consumption

Customer Meters under-

registration and data handling

errors

Revenue

Water

Water Supplied

Other Billed

Authorised

Consumption

Billed Metered

Billed Unmetered

Unbilled

Authorised

Consumption

Unbilled Metered

Non- Revenue

Water

Volume from

Own Sources

System Input

Volume

Water Exported

Authorised

Consumption

(includes Water

Exported)

Water Exported Billed Water Exported

Unbilled Unmetered

Water

Imported

City of Revelstoke

Whole

Distribution

Network

for period 01/01/2011 31/12/2011 365 days





The primary volumes were combined with secondary volumes and infrastructure information to

produce the IWA recommended performance indicators (PI) for the assessment of water losses.

The findings are shown below.

Real Losses: Best Estimate = 1,008.8 ML/year, 2.76 ML/day, +/- 26.7%

Lower Estimate = 739.5 ML/year

Upper Estimate = 1,278.1 ML/year

Real Losses = 880 l/connection/day +/- 28.9%

Non-Revenue Water = 51.8% of System Input Volume +/- 27.7%

Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI): Best Estimate = 9.6 +/- 27.7%

Lower Estimate = 6.94

Upper Estimate = 12.3

The ILI result reveals that the best estimate currently available shows real losses are over 9 times

what is achievable within the system. The chart below shows the best estimate COR Non

Revenue Water as a percentage of System Input Volume. The lower and upper estimates can

also be seen. Overlaid are other N. American systems best estimate results with a sample of

Canadian systems in blue.

Figure 2 – NRW as % of System Input Volume, Canadian Sample in Blue

The water balance is only as reliable as the data it is uses. The Greeley WTP provides the

majority of the System Input Volume. It’s meter would need to be tested in situ in order to

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27

No

n R

eve

nu

e W

ate

r %

NRW as % of System Input Volume: Sample N. American Spread, Canadian data in blue

Lower estimate Best estimate Upper estimate





increase the confidence in the water balance. The Golf Course Well flow meters are not

reporting reliably. This would need to be rectified in order to increase confidence in future

water balance results. The reliance on estimated consumption also contributes to the water loss

performance indicators existing within wide error bands. With unmetered communities this is

always the case. We do however have a sample metered group to use and some verification

methods available from data from local communities.

The chart below shoes the best estimate COR Infrastructure Leakage Index. The lower and

upper estimates can also be seen. Overlaid are other N. American systems best estimate results

with a sample of Canadian systems in blue.

Figure 3 – Infrastructure Leakage Index, Canadian Sample in Blue

So what do the water loss results which have emerged mean? The World Bank has laid out an

Action Plan based on calculated ILI and the AWWA has guidelines for setting an ILI target. The

target setting matrix is shown below in Figure 4.

0123456789

101112131415

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27

Infr

astr

uc

ture

Le

akag

e In

dex

ILI: Sample N. American Spread, Canadian data in blue

Lower estimate Best estimate Upper estimate





Figure 4 – AWWA Guidelines For Setting an ILI Target

The World Bank Institute has produced a target matrix for Real Loss management performance

based on ILI. COR ILI of 9.6 puts it in Band D. The recommended Action Plan for this band

emerges as:

1. Review Asset Management Policy

2. Deal with deficiencies in manpower, training and communications

3. 5-year plan to achieve next lowest band

4. Fundamental peer review of all activities.

Veritec recommends that the relevance of these guidelines should not be overlooked as being

generic and perhaps not totally relevant to a rural Canadian system. They have been created by

specialist professionals who have been working in this field internationally for as many as 30

years in some cases. International data sets have been carefully collated, studied, calibrated and

normalized in order to robustly inform strategies for real loss management across developed and

developing countries. Veritec can verify that the high level Action Items above are relevant to

the City of Revelstoke water distribution system.

Target ILI

Range

This

System ILIC

1.0 - 3.0

3.0 - 5.0

5.0 - 8.0 6.4

Greater

than 8.0

GUIDELINE 2: The AWWA Water Loss Committee general guidelines for setting a target ILI (in lieu of having a determination of a system-specific

economic level of leakage). Source of information: Table 7 in the AWWA Water Loss Committee Report in the AWWA Journal, August 2003

Note: since this table was published, simplified methods of calculating an economic frequency of intervention for active leakage control by regular survey have been

developed and are included in the ALCCalc software. This has allowed the development of the ELLCalc software to calculate short-term ELL for an active leakage control

policy of regular survey. Data from England & Wales (where many Water Companies are recognised as having achieved ELL) suggests that in developed couintries, the

ELL (in terms of ILI) is unlikely to exceed 3.0, even where water is plentiful and inexpensive.

Water Resources Considerations Operational Considerations Financial Considerations

Available resources are greatly limited

and are very difficult and/or

environmentally unsound to develop

Operating with system leakage above this

level would require expansion of existing

infrastructure and/or additional water

resources to meet the demand

Water resources are costly to develop or

purchase; ability to increase revenues via

water rates is greatly limited because of

regulation or low ratepayer affordability

Water resources are believed to be

sufficient to meet long-term needs, but

demand management interventions

(leakage management,water

conservation) are included in the long-

term planning

Existing water supply infrastructure

capability is sufficient to meet long-term

demand as long as reasonable leakage

management controls are in place

Water resources can be developed or

purchased at reasonable expense; periodic

water rate increases can be feasibly

imposed and are tolerated by the customer

population

Water resources are plentiful, reliable,

and easily abstracted

Superior reliability, capacity and integrity

of the water supply infrastructure make it

relatively immune to shortages

Cost to purchase or obtain/treat water is

low, as are rates charged to customers

Although operational and financial considerations may allow a long-term ILI greater than 8.0, such a level of leakage 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.9.6





With the split between Water Loss and ICI Demand heavily dependent on the accuracy of

the in system bulk meters these require verification, and possibly calibration, in order to

provide validated historic flow data and robust future data. The System Input Metering

also requires verification including the reporting to SCADA leg. In terms of assessing the

feasibility for different levels of metering there are already some priorities for action emerging

relating to accuracy of current flow meters and their reporting.





2 Top Down IWA/AWWA Water Audit

In March 2003 “the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and National Research

Council (NRC) joined forces to deliver the National Guide to Sustainable Municipal

Infrastructure: Innovations and Best Practices”1. One of the guides, Water Use and Loss in

Water Distribution Systems, promotes the use of the International Water Association’s (IWA)

Standard Water Balance, shown in Figure 5 below, and the standardized definitions which are

associated with it. More recently the AWWA has also adopted the Standard Water Balance and

it has been incorporated into the M36 manual Water Audits & Loss Control Programs.

Figure 5 – IWA Standard Water Balance Components

1 National Guide to Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure 2003, Water Use and Loss in Water Distribution System,

Issue No. 1.0, March 2003





Notably the Standard Water Balance accounts for all the water input into the system. Current

best practices discourage the use of the term “unaccounted-for-water” (UFW) even if only

estimates are available to assign a volume of water lost to, for example, Unbilled Authorized

Consumption. In this way all water is accounted-for and the key distinction refers to Revenue or

Non-Revenue Water (NRW).

2.1 General System Information

The City’s potable water distribution system provides water to approximately 6,4202 permanent

residents which excludes the CSRD Area “B” and Big Eddy. 2,996 residential service

connections exist to service this “occupied by usual residents” population as well as the portions

of the transient seasonal population who occupy residential dwellings: 5263 in this category.

There are 310 Institutional, Commercial and Institutional water connections. Some of these are

motels, hotels, B&Bs etc which offer approximately 2,850 beds with occupancy significantly

driven by seasonal tourist population. There is also a Mill and a Brewery. Visitors come to

COR for general recreation in the summer and snow sports in the winter, most notably snow

mobiling.

Water is supplied primarily from Greeley Creek WTP which is approximately 8km East of the

City. Also a secondary supplementary source, the Golf Course Well groundwater field, is

available during peak times. It is at least cycled each day with the water going into the

distribution system. At peak times priority is given to this source supplying the City while at off

peak times, during the summer, it can be diverted for the golf course for irrigation. 2 storage

reservoirs are in use; the Trans Canada (TCH) and Arrow Heights (AH). Pumping occurs to the

2 (7,720-600-700)* = 6,420 *sensus projected RLHA – estimate of Big Eddy – estimate of CSRD Area “B”.

3 This figure actually applies to the whole Revelstoke Local Health Area but as no data is available to delineate how

many of these are connected to the COR distribution system the whole number has been carried forward in this

analysis. This figure is part of the global 2,996 residential connections.





AH Res. and into Zone1 through a PRV. Otherwise the system is gravity fed and utilizes a small

number of Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) Stations.

2.2 95% Confidence Limits and Variance Analysis

All input items of the water balance are assigned a 95% confidence limit, which is calculated

wherever possible. Where it is not possible to calculate a 95% confidence limit, these values are

estimated, based on experience and engineering judgment. The 95% confidence limits of all

values calculated in the water balance are calculated based on the 95% confidence limits of the

input data using variance analysis. Variance analysis is used to derive weighted average values

with upper and lower 95% confidence limits. The variance analysis is based on standard

statistical principles of normal distribution and uses the RMS (root-mean-square) method for

accumulation of error on derived values.

2.2.1 Normal Distributions

Normal distributions are an important class of statistical distributions. All normal distributions

are symmetric and have bell-shaped density curves with a single peak. To speak specifically of

any normal distribution, two quantities have to be specified: the mean μ where the peak of the

density occurs, and the standard deviation σ, which indicates the spread or girth of the bell curve.

Different values of μ and σ yield different normal density curves and hence different normal

distributions.

The normal density can be specified by means of an equation. The height of the density at any

value x is given by:

Although there are many normal curves, they all share an important property, which is often

referred to as the Empirical Rule:

68% of the observations fall within 1 standard deviation of the mean, that is, between μ-σ

and μ+σ.





95% of the observations fall within 2 standard deviations of the mean, that is, between μ-

2σ and μ+2σ.

99.7% of the observations fall within 3 standard deviations of the mean, that is, between

μ-3σ and μ+3σ.

Thus, for a normal distribution, almost all values lie within 3 standard deviations of the mean as

can be seen in the diagram below.

Figure 6 – Normal Distribution

When we say 95% confident ± XY% we are saying that 19 times out of 20 this parameter has ±

XY% uncertainty

2.3 System Input Volume

The majority of the water entering the COR water network comes through the Greeley WTP

which is 8km from the City to the East and is metered through a single full bore mag meter. The

facility and meter are 13 years old. In the summer the Golf Course Well is utilized as a

supplementary supply into distribution and the golf course. It is also cycled daily. This well

volume is metered but there are issues with the availability of data and the format of the data.

The City estimates the well use in the “Greeley WTP - Daily Flow Totals.xls” spreadsheet which

for each day of the year is 108 m3/d; built up from a delivery rate of 15 Lps for 2 hours. In the

absence of useable flow data the same annual volume which is estimated to be put into

distribution from the well is also assigned to account for the diversion to the Golf Course

irrigation but spread across the months of May to September only.





The gross demand on the system is termed System Input Volume (SIV). The 3 components

which make up this are:

a) Greeley WTP Flow - 1,928.0 Ml/yr ± 10.0%.

b) Golf Course well – Estimated daily cycle into distribution and peak demand

supplement - 39.4 Ml/yr ± 100%.

c) Golf Course well – Estimated summer off peak times to golf course for irrigation -

39.4 Ml/yr ± 100%.

The graph below shows how these components contribute to the annual volume.

Figure 7 – 2011 Components of System Input Volume Graph

Daily total measured and estimated volumes were accrued to give:

2011 Total System Input Volume of 2,006.8 Ml/yr ± 10.0%.

2.4 Billed Authorized Consumption

In 2002 the COR conducted a customer metering study. At that time 23 predominantly

residential connections were metered but never billed by the measured volumes. Under this

project 2 of these were identified by their name as non-residential customers and 1 as a multi-

family residential by its consumption volume. The Finance department provided the meter read

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

m3/

mo

nth

COR 2011 System Input Volume Components

Golf Course Diversion toIrrigation Est. m3/month

2011 Greeley incl. GolfWell Est. m3/month

Golf Course Well IntoDistribution Est. m3/month





data and calculated volumes from current back to 2002. The COR only has one customer who is

currently billed based on their metered volume; the Sutton Place Hotel in the RMR. This meter

is generally read monthly with the others generally read quarterly.

2.4.1 Billed Authorized Consumption Metered

The only customer in this category is the Sutton Place Hotel.

BACM = 17.51 ± 3.0%.

2.4.2 Billed Authorized Consumption Unmetered - Residential

Residential Dwelling – Occupied by Usual Residents including Long Term Rental

The measured consumption from the 20 Single Family residences from the study group were

compiled from the meter reads taken from 2002 until present. Individual meter reads were used

to build the average daily consumption between reads and assign volumes to the audit year 2011.

The average consumption per connection was 790.4 l/d. Applying the average occupancy rate

of 2.64 gives a residential Per Capita Consumption (PCC) of 304 Lcd. This is good data in

that it is system specific however the sample size is small and therefore vulnerable to skewing.

As a benchmark the CBT reports that the Canadian average residential consumption is 329 Lcd

and the British Columbia average is 426 Lcd. Caution needs to be applied to these estimates as

the methodology used in the calculations is not known and a mix of metered and unmetered

customers is in play.

4 Usual Resident Population divided by #connections to usual resident dwellings 6420/(2996-526)





Verification

Now that a COR specific residential PCC has been calculated it needs a method of verification.

Veritec is currently undertaking a 5 year Water Loss Control program with the City of

Cranbrook (2010-2015) and delivering some elements of a Water Loss Program with the City of

Nelson. Water audits were required in both those projects but no residential meters were present.

Nelson already had a pressure zone containing only residential customer fed through a single

metered line. In Cranbrook a residential consumption monitor was established under the water

loss project. The analyses Veritec undertook for residential PCC in 2011 for these two

communities are given below.

City of Nelson

In Nelson an 8” mag meter at Fort Shepard PRV Station already existed going into

Pressure Zone 1 with data reporting to SCADA. This data was available for the whole of

2011. The resident population in this zone was estimated by taking the city wide

occupancy rate of 3.6 (9,783/2,647) residents per property and applying it to the

estimated number of residential properties within the zone. This resulted in a Zone 1

population of 639 people.

The total flow into the zone, minus leakage estimate, for the year was then divided by the

estimated population which gave a residential PCC of 321.4 Lcd for 2011.

City of Cranbrook

In Cranbrook the methodology for collecting unmetered residential consumption data was

to establish a flow monitored zone on a distinct portion of the water distribution network.

It is predominantly, but not solely, residential single family customer connections. Cla-

val 133VF flow meters were installed onto Zone inflow (PR#13) and outflow (PR#11) as

they could be readily metered using these existing above ground PRV stations. A leak

sweep was performed to identify and remove any unreported leaks. The zone covered is

mostly made up of the Mount Royal area. Properties were identified and counted from

ariel photography. Flow data availability began in early March 2011. A residential

PCC of 387.6 Lcd was calculated for 2011.





The significant difference may be explained by the parcel footprint in Nelson being significantly

smaller than in Cranbrook. Also the Cranbrook zone was not solely residential connections and

an unmetered City park was present so uncertainty in this calculation is higher. For the purposes

of estimating consumption, and without getting into soil type and moisture retention, Veritec

feels that Revelstoke has more in common with Nelson than with Cranbrook namely;

Closer proximity

Populations

Climate5 (Nelson being slightly hotter and drier then Revelstoke)

Significant transient population based around summer and snow sports recreation

Parcel size restricted as communities boundaried by water and mountain features

Therefore using Nelson Residential PCC of 321.4 as the reference, the COR PCC of 304 is close

enough to provide some validation that the COR measured consumption at the small sample of

20 residential properties is locally representative of unmeasured residential consumption rates.

Residential BACU = PCC X Population

= 304 X 6,420

= 712.4 ML/yr ± 30.0%

Residential Dwelling – Transient Occupants

Within the residential customer base connected to COR water system there are properties who’s

primary mailing address is out of town. For the Revelstoke LHA this is 526 properties. These

are assumed to be owned by non-residents. The actual occupancy of these units is impossible to

know at this time. To handle the occupancy of these dwellings 2 categories have been used with

long term renters included in the category calculated above;

5 Climate data from http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca to support this can be found in the Appendix





a) Residential dwelling seasonal worker accommodation

b) Residential dwelling seasonal visitor, owner or otherwise

A blend of available information and engineering judgment has been used to assign 325 workers

for 70% of the year to category a) at the average occupancy rate. 226 properties at average

occupancy for 50% of the year for category b).

This results in the following annual volumes:

a) Res. dwelling seasonal worker = 25.3 ML/yr ± 50%.

b) Res. dwelling seasonal visitor = 32.6 ML/yr ± 50%.

2.5 Water Losses – Night Flow Analysis

In order to assess water losses an independent means of calculating leakage was deployed in a

Night Flow Analysis (NFA). This was required as with the customer bases being unmetered

there are too many unknowns to solve for Water Losses from the top down water balance.

The NFA is commonly referred to as a “bottom up” leakage calculation. It involves delineating

the Minimum Night Flow into consumption and leakage as illustrated below.

Figure 8 – Minimum Night Flow Components

The SIV from the previous few years reveals that the significant seasonal recreational population

is not drawing potable water in November as can be seen in Figure 9 below. This was therefore

chosen as the best NFA period as demand on the system is at a minimum and water loss is at its

largest proportion of system flows.

Measured Minimum

Night Flow

Night Leakage Rate on mains and service

connections up to

customer meters

Assessed Recoverable Leakage

Background Leakage on mains and service

connections up to customer meters

(Unrecoverable Leakage)

Customer Night

Consumption

Background leakage on service

connections and properties after customer

meters

Exceptional Night Use

Assessed Night Use





The mill and the brewery were contacted to inquire if they were using water through the night

between 2 and 4am in November and had to be accounted for as Exceptional Night Users. They

were not.

Figure 9 – System Input Volume M3/Month 2009-2012

Reports were obtained from the City SCADA system for flows and change in reservoir levels for

the whole of November 2012. The early hours of Thursday 15th

Nov were selected to run the

NFA. The flow data which emerged can be seen overlaid onto a schematic below.

Two of the system bulk meters were ascribed low confidence for this analysis:

o Arrow Heights Pump to Zone 1 Meter

o SCADA records data based on a dead band for this meter. The granularity of the

data through the early hours of Minimum Night Flow is poor.

o Arrow Heights PRV Inlet Meter

o This meter had previously gone out of calibration. It was then roughly re-

calibrated to the AH Pump to Zone 1 Meter

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Wat

er C

on

sum

pti

on

(m

3)

Month

Monthly Water Consumption By Year

2009 *

2010 *

2011 *

2012 *





Figure 10 – Minimum Night Flows –

November 15th

2013 2-4am

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

Veritec R




The MNF could not just be taken directly from the Greeley WTP as this will not take into

account the filling or emptying of the TCH and AH Reservoirs. The flows aggregated to give the

MNF were determined to be;

+TC ut 10

= 35.5 Lps

Future years Night Flow Analysis should also be done in November when seasonal demand

loading is not present.

The MNF was delineated into its constituent parts with the results shown in Figure 11 below.

Figure 11 – Results of Minimum Night Flow Delineated

Zone

Minimu

m Night

Flow

Lps

Assessed Night

Use

(based on usual

resident

population

only) Lps

Exceptional

Night Users

(Customer with

more than 0.5 Lps

average use

through the night)

Lps

Recoverable Leakage

Estimate

(allowance made for

Legitimate Night Uses

and Background

Leakage)

Lps

Background

Leakage

Estimate

(determined by

infrastructure

condition and

driven by

pressure) Lps

Whole City

of Revelstoke

System

35.5 3.5 0 24.9 7.1

The result is that total leakage of 32 Lps exists with 24.9 Lps of recoverable leakage. This

equates to 1008.8 ML/year.

Annual Water Losses from Night Flow Analysis = 1,008.8 Ml/yr ± 25.0%.

2.6 Limitations of Current Night Flow Analysis

The accuracy of the bulk meter at the WTP and others within the system is not known.

The use of dead bands recording on the SCADA introduces problems as the true Minimum Night

Flow is much harder to determine and correlate across different instruments than, say, 1 minute

data providing for common time stamps.





2.6.1 Billed Authorized Consumption Unmetered - ICI

All the Institutional, Commercial and Industrial (ICI) customers other than the Sutton Place

Hotel are considered unmetered so they fall into the BACU category. This includes all the

motels and hotels as well as the brewery and the mill. To assign estimated consumption to the

unmetered ICI group the top down Water Audit was used to solve for BACU ICI with the Water

Loss calculated from the NFA and the Residential Consumption from the PCC (Lcd) and

population.

The methodology was to subtract Water Loss, Residential Consumption and Other uses from the

System Input Volume. This results in:

ICI BACU = 180.2 ML

Therefore Total BACU (Residential + ICI) = 950.5 ML ± 30.0%

2.7 Unbilled Authorized Consumption Unmetered

With no specific data on this and not much use of customer bleeding in recent years the common

default of 1.25% of System Input Volume has been applied. It is worth noting that no street

cleaning uses municipal water.

UACU = 25.1 ML ± 50%.

2.8 Infrastructure Information

Total length of water mains including transmission: 98.0 km

Number of fire hydrants: 321

Average length of fire hydrant lead: 3m

Length of supply pipe : 4m

Average system pressure: 86.0psi/60.5m (calculation sheet can be found in Appendix)

SYSTEM INPUT

VOLUME

RESIDENTIAL CONSUMPTION

ICI CONSUMPTION

WATER LOSS

OTHER USE





2.9 Assumptions

Single Family residents consume at the same rate as Multi Family residents.

The only owners of residential dwellings who short term rent to workers and visitors are

from out of town.

Unauthorized Consumption is estimated using the recommended default 0.25% of SIV =

5.0 Ml ± 100%.

We have assumed the ratio of billed service connections to billed properties is 1:1. In

other words every customer accounts has an individual service connection to the water

main.

Specific assumptions are used to identify Unavoidable Annual Real Losses that represent

“the lowest achievable annual Real Losses for a well-maintained and well-managed

system.”6 Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL) are calculated based on the

equation:

UARL Litres/day = (12.8 * Lmh + 0.57 * Nt + 17.8 * Lp) * P

where,

Lmh = the Total Length of Mains + Hydrant Leads, (km)

Nt = Total Number of Service Connections,

Lp = Total Supply Pipe Length (km) and

P = Average System Pressure (psi)

COR UARL = (12.8 * 98 + 0.57 * 3,141 + 17.8 * 12.56) * 87.2 = 284999.1 L/d = 104 ML/yr

6 Equations for calculating UARL for individual systems were developed and tested by the IWA Water Losses Task

Force





2.10 Water Loss Performance Indicators

The following sections highlight the water loss performance indicators (PI) calculated. These

allow us to take into consideration key system parameters and subsequently report IWA

recommended PIs.

Financially the recommended basic PI is to reference Non-Revenue Water as a % of SIV.

Non-Revenue Water equal 51.8% of SIV +/- 27.7%

Operationally the recommended basic PI is to reference Real Losses as a volume of water

expressed in terms of litres/service connection/day.

Real Losses equal are equal to 880 l/conn/d +/- 28.9%.

The Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) is a detailed PI defined as “a performance indicator of

how well a distribution network is managed (maintained, repaired, rehabilitated) for the control

of real losses, at the current operating pressure. It is the ratio of Current Annual volume of Real

Losses (CARL) to Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL). ILI = CARL / UARL.”

The calculated ILI for the City is 9.65 (+/- 27.7%) which reveals that real losses are over 9

times what is achievable within the system, allowing for a given amount of losses from main

breaks, service leaks, background losses etc.

2.11 Summary of IWA/AWWA Water Audit Findings













The water balance is only as reliable as the data it is uses. The Greeley WTP provides the

majority of the System Input Volume. It would need to be tested in situ in order to increase the

confidence in the water balance. The Golf Course Well flow meters are not reporting reliably.

This would need to be rectified in order to increase confidence in future water balance results.

The reliance on estimated consumption also contributes to the water loss performance indicators

existing within wide error bands. With unmetered communities this is always the case although

it is compounded in Revelstoke due to the seasonal tourist loading. We do however have a

sample metered group to use and some verification methods available from data from local

communities.

So what do the water loss results which have emerged mean? The World Bank has laid out an

Action Plan based on calculated ILI and the AWWA has guidelines for setting an ILI target. The

target setting matrix is shown below in Figure 12.

Figure 12 – AWWA Guidelines For Setting an ILI Target

The World Bank Institute has produced a target matrix for Real Loss management performance

based on ILI. This can been seen below in Figure 13.

Target ILI

Range

This

System ILIC

1.0 - 3.0

3.0 - 5.0

5.0 - 8.0 6.4

Greater

than 8.0

GUIDELINE 2: The AWWA Water Loss Committee general guidelines for setting a target ILI (in lieu of having a determination of a system-specific

economic level of leakage). Source of information: Table 7 in the AWWA Water Loss Committee Report in the AWWA Journal, August 2003

Note: since this table was published, simplified methods of calculating an economic frequency of intervention for active leakage control by regular survey have been

developed and are included in the ALCCalc software. This has allowed the development of the ELLCalc software to calculate short-term ELL for an active leakage control

policy of regular survey. Data from England & Wales (where many Water Companies are recognised as having achieved ELL) suggests that in developed couintries, the

ELL (in terms of ILI) is unlikely to exceed 3.0, even where water is plentiful and inexpensive.

Water Resources Considerations Operational Considerations Financial Considerations

Available resources are greatly limited

and are very difficult and/or

environmentally unsound to develop

Operating with system leakage above this

level would require expansion of existing

infrastructure and/or additional water

resources to meet the demand

Water resources are costly to develop or

purchase; ability to increase revenues via

water rates is greatly limited because of

regulation or low ratepayer affordability

Water resources are believed to be

sufficient to meet long-term needs, but

demand management interventions

(leakage management,water

conservation) are included in the long-

term planning

Existing water supply infrastructure

capability is sufficient to meet long-term

demand as long as reasonable leakage

management controls are in place

Water resources can be developed or

purchased at reasonable expense; periodic

water rate increases can be feasibly

imposed and are tolerated by the customer

population

Water resources are plentiful, reliable,

and easily abstracted

Superior reliability, capacity and integrity

of the water supply infrastructure make it

relatively immune to shortages

Cost to purchase or obtain/treat water is

low, as are rates charged to customers

Although operational and financial considerations may allow a long-term ILI greater than 8.0, such a level of leakage 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.

9.6





Figure 13 – WBI Target Matrix Real Loss Action Plan

COR ILI of 9.6 puts it in Band D. The recommended Action Plan is therefore:

1. Review Asset Management Policy

2. Deal with deficiencies in manpower, training and communications

3. 5-year plan to achieve next lowest band

4. Fundamental peer review of all activities.

Veritec recommends that the relevance of these guidelines should not be overlooked as being

generic and perhaps not totally relevant to a rural Canadian system. They have been created by

specialist professionals who have been working in this field internationally for 30 years in some

cases. International data sets have been carefully collated, studied, calibrated and normalized in

order to robustly inform strategies for real loss management. Veritec can verify that the contents

of the WBI matrix above does provide the top level Action Items relevant to the many Canadian

systems we have worked on.

With the split between Water Loss and ICI Demand heavily dependent on the accuracy of

the in system bulk meters these require verification, and possibly calibration, in order to

provide validated historic flow data and robust future data. The System Input Metering

also requires verification including the reporting to SCADA leg. In terms of assessing the

feasibility for different levels of metering there are already some priorities for action emerging

relating to current flow meters and their reporting.

Less than 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 or more

Investigate pressure management options Yes Yes Yes

Yes

ILI for system in developed country

5-year plan to achieve next lowest band Yes Yes

Fundamental peer review of all activities

Review asset management policy Yes Yes Yes

Deal with deficiencies in manpower, training and

communicationsYes Yes

Assess Economic Leakage Level Yes Yes

Review break frequencies Yes Yes

Introduce/improve active leakage control Yes Yes Yes

Identify options for improved maintenance Yes Yes

Investigate speed and quality of repairs Yes Yes Yes

Check economic intervention frequency Yes Yes

WBI Recommendations for BANDS A B C D





3 Appendix 1 – Water Balance Results

4 Appendix 2 – Average Pressure Calculation

Driving Head Type TWL TWL Zone 1 PRV TWL PRV PRV

TWL 535 595 PRV Elevation 560 TWL 586

Res. Height 10 Res. Height 6 PRV Elevation 497 Res. Height 6

BWL 525 BWL 589 PRV Setting 63 BWL 580

Res. Depth 7.8 Res. Depth 5.0 Res. Depth 4.6

HGL 532.8 HGL 594.0 HGL 560.0 HGL 584.6

Max Service Elevation 506 Max Service Elevation 567.0 Max Service Elevation 510 Max Service Elevation 557

Min Service Elevation 440.0 Min Service Elevation 500.0 Min Service Elevation 487.0 Min Service Elevation 482.0

Ave Service Elevation 473 Ave Service Elevation 533.5 Ave Service Elevation 498.5 Ave Service Elevation 519.5

Min Service Pressure 26.8 Min Service Pressure 27.0 Min Service Pressure 50.0 Min Service Pressure 27.6

Max Service Pressure 92.8 Max Service Pressure 94.0 Max Service Pressure 73.0 Max Service Pressure 102.6

"eyeball"

Average Pressure (m) 59.8 Average Pressure (m) 60.5 Average Pressure (m) 61.5 Average Pressure (m) 65.1

Average Pressure (psi) 86.3 Average Pressure (psi) 87.2 Average Pressure (psi) 88.7 Average Pressure (psi) 93.9

Length of Mains (m) 73,902.0 18,582.00 5,795.0 Length of Mains (m) 9,775.0

"have their centriod in" "have their centriod in"

Average Pressure (m) 60.5

Average Pressure (psi) 87.2

RMR Booster Station PRVTCH Res TWL (m) Greely WTP Clear Well TWL (m) Birch Drive PRV (m) Arrow Heights Reservoir TWL (m) Monashee Estates PRV





5 Appendix 3 – Climate Data & Parcel Size

Nelson Climate Data 2011

Revelstoke Climate Data 2011

Climate Data Summary Nelson Revelstoke

Average High Temp C 14.1 11.8

Daily Mean Temp C 7.9 6.9

Average Low Temp C 1.6 2.0

Average Annual Precipitation

(Inches) 33.6 37.2





Figure 14 – Revelstoke & Nelson Footprints from Google Maps



City Revelstoke

Water Loss & Metering Study

Water Loss Planning

Final Report

September 2013

SUBMITTED BY:



Final Report Water Loss Planning


Table of Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3

2 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 3

3 Water Losses ........................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Current Water Loss Levels ............................................................................................... 6

3.2 Scope for Water Loss Reduction ...................................................................................... 7

4 Water Loss Management Practices Relevant to Revelstoke ................................................... 9

4.1 Bulk Meter Verification ................................................................................................... 9

4.2 Annual Water Audits ...................................................................................................... 10

4.3 Night Flow Analysis/District Metering .......................................................................... 10

4.4 Step Testing .................................................................................................................... 13

4.5 Sonic Surveys ................................................................................................................. 13

4.6 Pressure Management .................................................................................................... 14

5 Projected Water Loss Control Strategy Costs 2014-2015 .................................................... 16

5.1 Water Loss Control Costs Break Down 2014-2015 ....................................................... 17

6 Appendix A – November 2012 Night Flow Analysis Results .............................................. 18

7 Appendix B – Sewerin Acoustic Leak Detection Equipment ............................................... 19

Table of Figures

Figure 1 – Water Balance Components 2011 with Confidence Intervals ....................................... 7

Figure 2 – 2011 Theoretical Demand Profiles With District Meter Coverage ............................... 8

Figure 3 – Veritec Toronto Supply Meter Verifications 2013 ........................................................ 9

Figure 4 – Potential District Meter Sectors................................................................................... 11

Figure 5 – Components of Minimum Night Flow ........................................................................ 12

Figure 6 – Diurnal Leakage Profile .............................................................................................. 12

List of Tables

Table 1: Demands and Reductions by Meter Coverage Categories ............................................... 8





Glossary of Terms

COR City of Revelstoke

DMA District Metered Area

FF Fire Flow




MNF Minimum Night Flow

ML Megalitres

NFA Night Flow Analysis

NPV Net Present Value


PMA Pressure Management Area



WTP Water Treatment Plant

WLM Water Loss Management

Document Control

Version Date Authored by Graham Waley C.Eng. Manager, Veritec Consulting Inc.

1.1 22/09/2013 Approved


Circulation

list

Penny Page-Britton City of Revelstoke





1 Introduction

This report is the final in the series generated under the Water Meter & Water Loss project

undertaken by Veritec in 2013. It draws heavily on the contents and findings of the previous

three reports:

1) Current Situation Analysis - Water Balance 2011

2) Water Savings Assessment – Cost:Benefit Analysis of Metering

3) Water Loss Strategies - Best Practices

Results from the first report point towards significant leakage being present. The accuracy of

this finding is tied to the accuracy of the supply and distribution metering. Results from the

second report found that there is not a positive business case for reducing demands through

customer metering. Metering for water loss reduction is significantly less cost intensive and did

deliver a positive business case. These factors mean that this Water Loss Planning report

emerges as a key strategy document from the whole study.

2 Executive Summary

The Infrastructure Leakage Index reveals that the best estimate of real losses is that they are over

9 times what is achievable within the system. Veritec recommends that COR should be targeting

an ILI of between 3 and 5. However before any program were to be developed supply and

distribution meters would require verification and potentially calibration.

Having the District Metering Coverage Scenario, which emerged as the preferred option in

the meter feasibility analysis, supports the majority of the water loss control techniques

recommended within this strategy:

a) Meter Verification

b) Night Flow Analysis/District Metering

c) Step Testing

d) Pressure Management Assessment

District metering coverage does not directly reduce water loss but it provides key support to

these efforts in order to make them efficient and successful. The 30% forecast reduction in

NRW/Water loss would net a $10,239 annual savings, in today’s money, through reduced

electricity and chemical costs. Forecasts for a 2 year program are summarized below.

Contractor Costs Equipment Costs Contractor Costs Equipment Costs

2014 2015

$57,000 $45,000 $36,300 $100,000

$102,000 $136,300





A 30% water loss reduction = circa 15% gross demand reduction. Based on the current gross

consumption in COR a successful water loss reduction program would create supply head room

for an extra population of approximately 9631 permanent residents. This is a very basic analysis

however as it uses Average Day Demand data and not Peak Day Demand.

When the marginal cost of water is cheap, at just a few cents per cubic meter, there is often not a

financial Return On Investment for water loss reduction. It is however under the banner of the

Triple Bottom Line that water loss reduction should be considered valuable.

1 current pop. X 15%

Environmental Stewardship

Less water diverted from source.

Less chlorinated water running

uncontrolled into the water table.

Lower risk of back siphonage

leading to contamination.


unchecked into the water table.

Increased available fire flow as

baseline flows reduced.

The water distribution system

should underpin a community’s

prosperity as opposed to

presenting a risk to property and

infrastructure.

Improved security of supply

through increasing supply head

room.





3 Water Losses

Water losses can be considered a symptom where infrastructure condition is the problem and

asset management is the solution.

3.1 Why Reduce Water Loss?

A 30% water loss reduction = circa 15% gross demand reduction. Based on the current gross

consumption in COR a successful water loss reduction program would create supply head room

for an extra population of approximately 9632 permanent residents. This is a very basic analysis

however as it uses average demand data. It is Peak Day and Peak Hour which actually governs

the system capacity and hence the population it can serve. A 15% annual demand reduction will

actually translate to <15% peak demand reduction3.

When the marginal cost of water is cheap, at just a few cents per cubic meter, there is often not a

financial Return On Investment for water loss reduction. It is however under the banner of the

Triple Bottom Line that water loss reduction should be considered valuable. The graphic below

highlights some of the key reasons to reduce water losses.

2 current pop. X 15%

3 Furthermore this analysis doesn’t take into account where on the system the growth would be concentrated.

Environmental Stewardship

Less water diverted from source.


uncontrolled into the water table.

Lower risk of back siphonage

leading to contamination.


unchecked into the water table.

Increased available fire flow as

baseline flows reduced.

The water distribution system

should underpin a community’s

prosperity as opposed to

presenting a risk to property and

infrastructure.

Improved security of supply

through increasing supply head

room.





3.2 Current Water Loss Levels

A standardized IWA/AWWA Water Audit for Calendar 2011 and a Night Flow Analysis for

November 2012 were undertaken in order to be able to delineate gross annual demands into the

primary constituent categories of Residential, ICI and Water Losses. The IWA/AWWA Water

Audit is a “top down” assessment with average volumes built up over the calendar year. The

Night Flow Analysis (NFA) is from the “bottom up” and is a snapshot of minimum flows when

leakage is at its highest proportion of overall system flow.

The key Water Balance components are shown below.

2011 Total SIV of 2,006.8 Ml/yr ± 10.0%.

Billed Authorized Consumption Metered; 17.5 Ml/yr ± 3.0%.

Billed Authorized Consumption Unmetered Residential; 712.4 Ml/yr ± 25%.

Billed Authorized Consumption Unmetered ICI4; BACU ICI 180.2 Ml/yr ± 30%.

The Water Balance Performance Indicators which emerged are below.









In order to reduce the confidence intervals/uncertainty in these results the water supply and

distribution meters require verification and the analysis run again.

4 Industrial, Commercial, Institutional





Figure 1 – Water Balance Components 2011 with Confidence Intervals

The Infrastructure Leakage Index reveals that the best estimate of real losses is that they are over

9 times what is achievable within the system. Veritec recommends that COR should be targeting

an ILI of between 3 and 5 based on World Bank guidelines. However before any program were

to be developed supply and distribution meters would require verification and potentially

calibration.

3.3 Scope for Water Loss Reduction

The scope for water loss reduction was studied in the Meter Feasibility report. It can be seen in

the table below lifted from this report that Water Loss supported by District Metering could

achieve a 30% reduction in 2011 reported water loss levels. District metering coverage does not

directly reduce water loss but it provides key support to these efforts in order to make them

efficient and successful.

to

0 Ml 0 Ml 0 Ml +/- 0.0%

+/- 0.0% +/- 0.0%

968 Ml

2007 Ml 968 Ml +/- 18.5% +/- 18.5%

+/- 10.0% 968 Ml

993 Ml +/- 18.5% 0 Ml +/- 24.3%

+/- 18.1%

0 Ml +/- 50.0%

25 Ml

+/- 50.0% 25 Ml +/- 50.0%

2007 Ml 2007 Ml

+/- 10.0% +/- 10.0% 5 Ml +/- 100.0%

5 Ml

0 Ml +/- 100.0% 1039 Ml

+/- 0.0% 1014 Ml 0 Ml +/- #DIV/0! +/- 25.9%

+/- 26.5%

1009 Ml

+/- 26.7%

Real Losses Overflow on storages, and

leakage on storages, mains

and service connections up

to point of metering

Water Losses

Apparent LossesUnauthorised Consumption

Customer Meters under-

registration and data handling

errors

Revenue

Water

Water Supplied

Other Billed

Authorised

Consumption

Billed Metered

Billed Unmetered

Unbilled

Authorised

Consumption

Unbilled Metered

Non- Revenue

Water

Volume from

Own Sources

System Input

Volume

Water Exported

Authorised

Consumption

(includes Water

Exported)

Water Exported Billed Water Exported

Unbilled Unmetered

Water

Imported

City of Revelstoke

Whole

Distribution

Network

for period 01/01/2011 31/12/2011 365 days





0

50

100

150

200

250

ML/

mo

nth


Water Loss Customer Consumption Gross System Input Volume

Table 1: Demands and Reductions by Meter Coverage Categories

The following graph illustrates the Total Sustained Demand Savings from Water Loss Control

with the support of District Metering in place. It is designed to allow a visual comparison of

what 2011 COR demands would have looked like with the forecast water loss savings achieved -

referenced against what the 2011 demands actually were.

Figure 2 – 2011 Theoretical Demand Profiles With District Meter Coverage

ML/yr % % ML/yr

Universal 950.5 -14% -5% 234.4

Unmetered ICI 180.2 -10% 0% 18.0

Water Loss 1008.8 0% -30% 302.6

Demand Categories

Volume In

Category - 2011

Water Balance

Sustained

Reduction in

Customer

Consumption

Sustained

Reduction in

Water Loss

Total Sustained

Savings





Meter verification is best undertaken from a secondary

verification flow meter. This comprises deployment of

a suitably sited temporary verification strap-on

ultrasonic or insertion mag-meter (or combinations of

multiple of these). The meter verifications would be

performed at different flow rates across the operating

range of the Meter Under Test (MUT). Reservoir drop

tests can also be considered.

Where pumps are in line with a meter a

thermodynamic pump tests which measures flow

through the pump can be considered although it is

expensive at over $5,000 per site. This technique

measures energy in, change in pressure and heat loss

across the pump to produce a flow calculation to ±2%.

A first pass analysis of a metered pump line can be

undertaken by comparing the head and flow from the

pump curve to the flow recorded by the MUT.

The variable electricity costs5 and chemical costs

6 from system facilities have been applied to

their respective 2011 annual volumes of water to produce a Marginal Cost to treat and distribute

Water7 of 0.03$/m3 (33.8$/ML). This is the unit value of water which would be directly reduced

through water loss reduction. The 30% forecast reduction in NRW/Water loss would net a

$10,239 annual savings, in today’s money, through reduced electricity and chemical costs.

4 Water Loss Management Practices Relevant to Revelstoke

4.1 Bulk Meter Verification

Figure 3 – Veritec Toronto Supply Meter

Verifications 2013



7 The variable cost to produce water





If the District Metering option which emerged as the preferred option in the Water Savings

Assessment – Cost:Benefit Analysis of Metering.pdf report moved forward the following

outcomes are possible considering the fact that supply and distribution meter accuracy is not

validated at this time;




estimation of water loss would strengthen the case further for Water Loss Management.




the meter verifications. Find and fix activities can proceed quickly.

Confidence in meters is an integral component of any water loss control program.

4.2 Annual Water Audits

Annual water audits, following the methodology laid out in the Current Situation Analysis -

Water Balance 2011 report, should be completed after the turn of the year when the data sets

become complete. Consultant support should be sought to update methodologies or provide

review, particularly if system changes are implemented.

4.3 Night Flow Analysis/District Metering

A Night Flow Analysis was already undertaken using data from November 2012. It disregarded

the flow meters which COR Operations had low confidence in. The results can be found in

Appendix A.

The illustrations below show how a boundary change would be theoretically possible between

the TCH Reservoir Pressure Zone 1 and the Arrow Heights Boosted Line/PRV into Zone 1 in

order to create new distinct zones for NFA. This boundary can theoretically go in without any

pressure regime changes as the Hydraulic Grade Line on both side is the same; 535m. At least

two independent supply lines are available on both sides for fire flows and redundancy.





Figure 4 – Potential District Meter Sectors

Current

Proposed Permanent or Temporary Config.





Measured Minimum

Night Flow

Night Leakage Rate on mains and service

connections up to

customer meters

Assessed Recoverable Leakage

Background Leakage on mains and service

connections up to customer meters

(Unrecoverable Leakage)

Customer Night

Consumption

Background leakage on service

connections and properties after customer

meters

Exceptional Night Use

Assessed Night Use

The Night Flow Analysis (NFA) technique is to measure the Minimum Night Flow (MNF)

within a sector at night and then account for all night use. The balancing item therefore becomes

the water loss level in the sector. To be effective this may have to be conducted outside the

irrigation season. It is known as the “bottom up” method for assessing leakage levels. Once the

MNF measurement is achieved then it needs to be broken down into its component parts, with

leakage (or recoverable leakage8) emerging as illustrated below.

Figure 5 – Components of Minimum Night Flow

The graph below shows how the MNF leakage measured at night can be coupled with the diurnal

pressure profiles in the zone to create a diurnal leakage profile. The leakage profile can then be

delineated from the net sector flow to give the customer consumption diurnal profile for the

zone. Changes in diurnal pressure will often be caused by head losses.

Figure 6 – Diurnal Leakage Profile

8 Background leakage such a weeping from joints is not counted as recoverable as it cannot be detected by

traditional leakage survey methods.





4.4 Step Testing

An important step to assessing leak locations within high MNF areas is by completing controlled

valve closures known as “Step Tests”. By further isolating various sub-sections within the sector

it is possible to determine the associated flow reduction, i.e., a large reduction in flow indicates a

high potential for leakage in an area. Step testing is normally conducted during the night and the

various steps are isolated for only a few minutes to minimize disruption. Using step testing it is

possible to locate leaks in ‘difficult’ areas or on non-metallic mains. Once a leak has been

identified and quantified through step testing, its location is pinpointed using proven sonic and

noise-correlation techniques.

A preliminary discussion with operations staff reveals that the operability of some distribution

main valves is not good. The anecdote provided was of a main break in the downtown grid

which required in excess of 20 valves to be shut for the repair. This was because inoperable

valves close to the preferred isolation leg had to be disregarded and operable valves used further

and further out into the system. This would present a significant challenge to a step testing

program but would be revealing in terms of the actual condition of these assets.

4.5 Sonic Surveys

The exact details of the type of survey will depend on the materials of the distribution system,

ground conditions, water table level and ambient noise levels. On an all-metallic system, it

should be sufficient to only sound on hydrants, valves and other fittings because it should be

possible to hear service pipe leaks running through these fittings. On a fully non-metallic

system, it will certainly be necessary to sound on every curb stop and above the mains at regular

intervals with a geophone to detect the presence of service line and mains leaks. Ideally all

sounding should be undertaken at night to minimize the impact of ambient noises, particularly

traffic noise, and noises due to legitimate use, but it is possible to sound effectively in quiet areas

during the day. As the COR system is relatively small any difference in resource effort on the

metallic and non-metallic portions will not alter the overall program significantly.

Zone flow analysis techniques, discussed previously in the Night Flow Analysis section, enable

more effective deployment of sounding teams. The City should purchase the recommended

Sewerin acoustic equipment for City staff to use however specialist leak detection contractors

should also be used until City staff have had the chance to develop a high level of competence.

Appendix B has details of the recommended listening equipment.





4.6 Pressure Management

The same configuration presented in the Night Flow Analysis section could be relevant to

creating a new Pressure Management Area in the orange TCH Zone shown below.

Current

Draft Proposed PMA/DMA

A dedicated Pressure Management Assessment would be required to assess the cost of new

pressure controls for this zone versus the reduction in leakage flow rate. The latter would be





revealed from the NFA assessment. The assessment would require pressure data logging and fire

flow testing. This would likely need to be undertaken outside freezing winter conditions.

Why Consider Pressure Managing the TCH Reservoir fed portion of Zone 1?

The Water balance identified the average pressure in this zone as 86.3 psi. The full system

calculation is shown below. This is excessive pressure driven by the pressure zone having to

supply the higher elevations up by the reservoir (535m AOD9) and the city’s grid lower down

towards the river (~450m AOD).

Why Pressure Management In general?

It is capital intensive but it will deliver sustained savings over an extended period of time. It

will reduce the frequency of new leaks. If the system is as fragile as the water loss levels

suggest then increases in pressure, from successful leak repair, will cause the next weakest

parts of the system to fail. i.e. water loss savings will not be kept for long. Pressure

management is a catch-all in that it reduces all types of leakage;

Background

Reported

Unreported

9 Above Ordnance Datum

Driving Head Type TWL TWL Zone 1 PRV TWL PRV PRV

TWL 535 595 PRV Elevation 560 TWL 586

Res. Height 10 Res. Height 6 PRV Elevation 497 Res. Height 6

BWL 525 BWL 589 PRV Setting 63 BWL 580

Res. Depth 7.8 Res. Depth 5.0 Res. Depth 4.6

HGL 532.8 HGL 594.0 HGL 560.0 HGL 584.6

Max Service Elevation 506 Max Service Elevation 567.0 Max Service Elevation 510 Max Service Elevation 557

Min Service Elevation 440.0 Min Service Elevation 500.0 Min Service Elevation 487.0 Min Service Elevation 482.0

Ave Service Elevation 473 Ave Service Elevation 533.5 Ave Service Elevation 498.5 Ave Service Elevation 519.5

Min Service Pressure 26.8 Min Service Pressure 27.0 Min Service Pressure 50.0 Min Service Pressure 27.6

Max Service Pressure 92.8 Max Service Pressure 94.0 Max Service Pressure 73.0 Max Service Pressure 102.6

"eyeball"

Average Pressure (m) 59.8 Average Pressure (m) 60.5 Average Pressure (m) 61.5 Average Pressure (m) 65.1

Average Pressure (psi) 86.3 Average Pressure (psi) 87.2 Average Pressure (psi) 88.7 Average Pressure (psi) 93.9

Length of Mains (m) 73,902.0 18,582.00 5,795.0 Length of Mains (m) 9,775.0

"have their centriod in" "have their centriod in"

Average Pressure (m) 60.5

Average Pressure (psi) 87.2

RMR Booster Station PRVTCH Res TWL (m) Greely WTP Clear Well TWL (m) Birch Drive PRV (m) Arrow Heights Reservoir TWL (m) Monashee Estates PRV





5 Projected Water Loss Control Strategy Costs 2014-2015

Notes Dependencies

Capital/Initial

Costs

Ongoing Annual or

Year 2 Costs

Bulk Meter Verification

& District Metering

+ve Net Present

Value.

$44,000 $5,300

Annual Water Audits

In House, then some

consultant support.

Verified Flow

Meters to feed

analysis

In House $3,000


shoulder seasons

Sessions in 2

shoulder seasons

Verified Flow

Meters to feed

analysis

$10,000 In House

Step Testing Operational

Main Valves $3,000 $3,000


Equipment Purchase

Start using contractor

then transition to in

house once

procedures

established and

equipment is

understood.

$25,000 $5,000

Pressure Management

Assessment

Verified Flow

Meters to feed

analysis

$20,000

Unknown at this time.

Cost:Benefit analysis

required after detailed

assessment. Forecast

$120,000 for design and

commissioning of 1 new

PRV station to implement

Pressure Managed Area.

Leak Repairs

Service Repair is

approximately

$3,500 each. Mains

Repair

approx.$9,000 each.

NA NA

2014 -

$102,000

2015 –

$136,300





5.1 Water Loss Control Costs Break Down 2014-2015

Contractor

Costs

Equipment

Costs

Contractor

Costs

Equipment

Costs

2014 2015

Bulk Meter Verification &

District Metering $19,000 $25,000 $5,300 $0

Annual Water Audits $0 $0 $3,000 $0


shoulder seasons $10,000 $0 $0 $0

Step Testing $3,000 $0 $3,000 $0


Equipment Purchase $5,000 $20,000 $5,000 $0

Pressure Management

(Assessment 2014)

(Implementation 2015)

$20,000 $0 $20,000 $100,000

Annual Costs $57,000 $45,000 $36,300 $100,000

Leak Repairs

No specific budget as these leaks are considered

to need repair at some point anyway.

Gross Annual Costs $102,000 $136,300

Total Costs 2014-2015 $238,300





6 Appendix A – November 2012 Night Flow Analysis Results

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

AgendaItem#7c.

Veritec R




7 Appendix B – Sewerin Acoustic Leak Detection Equipment

Stethophone 06

Wireless Amplified

Listening Device

SeCorrPhon06 Combined correlator

and electro-acoustic water leak

detector



veritec water metering report.pdf

Documents

water balance

water consumption

water use

water systems

water metering feasibility

water loss detection

water loss management

nonrevenue water