Veritec water metering report.pdf
-
Upload
aaporlando -
Category
Documents
-
view
614 -
download
4
description
Transcript of 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
Page 1 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.
Page 2 of 7
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 93 of 202Page 93 of 202Page 93 of 202Page 93 of 202
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
Page 3 of 7
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 94 of 202Page 94 of 202Page 94 of 202Page 94 of 202
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.
Page 4 of 7
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 95 of 202Page 95 of 202Page 95 of 202Page 95 of 202
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.
Page 5 of 7
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 96 of 202Page 96 of 202Page 96 of 202Page 96 of 202
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
Verified Flow Meters to feed analysis
$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
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 – $136,300
Figure 5 – Projected Water Loss Control Strategies and Costs.
Page 6 of 7
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 97 of 202Page 97 of 202Page 97 of 202Page 97 of 202
5. OPTIONS
5.1. City Council may adopt the three reports and recommend implementation of the recommendations into the five year financial plan
5.2. City Council may receive the report and recommend verification of system meters prior to implementing a full district metering and leak detection program
5.3. City Council may recommend incorporating the water loss management strategy into the five year financial plan and implement the plan over a greater number of years than indicated in the report.
5.4. City Council may recommend some of the water loss strategies recommended, but not all at this time.
5.5. City Council could recommend that a portion of 2015 Gas Tax funding be utilized to implement the recommendations in the report.
Page 7 of 7
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 98 of 202Page 98 of 202Page 98 of 202Page 98 of 202
City Revelstoke
Water Meter Feasibility Study
Final Report
Water Savings Assessment –
Cost:Benefit Analysis of Metering
September 2013
SUBMITTED BY:
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 99 of 202Page 99 of 202Page 99 of 202Page 99 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 1 of 39
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 4
2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 9
3 Task #3 – Water Savings Assessment from Metering .......................................................... 10
3.1 Water Production Savings ($) ........................................................................................ 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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 100 of 202Page 100 of 202Page 100 of 202Page 100 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 2 of 39
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 101 of 202Page 101 of 202Page 101 of 202Page 101 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 3 of 39
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 102 of 202Page 102 of 202Page 102 of 202Page 102 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 4 of 39
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)
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 103 of 202Page 103 of 202Page 103 of 202Page 103 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 5 of 39
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 104 of 202Page 104 of 202Page 104 of 202Page 104 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 6 of 39
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
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 7 of 39
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 106 of 202Page 106 of 202Page 106 of 202Page 106 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 8 of 39
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 107 of 202Page 107 of 202Page 107 of 202Page 107 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 9 of 39
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 108 of 202Page 108 of 202Page 108 of 202Page 108 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 10 of 39
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 109 of 202Page 109 of 202Page 109 of 202Page 109 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 11 of 39
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 110 of 202Page 110 of 202Page 110 of 202Page 110 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 12 of 39
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 111 of 202Page 111 of 202Page 111 of 202Page 111 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 13 of 39
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 112 of 202Page 112 of 202Page 112 of 202Page 112 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 14 of 39
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.
7 Source: water wastewater energy consumption.xls
8 Source: Water Operating Budget 2010-2012.pdf
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 113 of 202Page 113 of 202Page 113 of 202Page 113 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 15 of 39
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
eportPage 114 of 202Page 114 of 202Page 114 of 202Page 114 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 16 of 39
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 115 of 202Page 115 of 202Page 115 of 202Page 115 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 17 of 39
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 116 of 202Page 116 of 202Page 116 of 202Page 116 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 18 of 39
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 117 of 202Page 117 of 202Page 117 of 202Page 117 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 19 of 39
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 118 of 202Page 118 of 202Page 118 of 202Page 118 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 20 of 39
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 119 of 202Page 119 of 202Page 119 of 202Page 119 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 21 of 39
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 120 of 202Page 120 of 202Page 120 of 202Page 120 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 22 of 39
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 121 of 202Page 121 of 202Page 121 of 202Page 121 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 23 of 39
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 122 of 202Page 122 of 202Page 122 of 202Page 122 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 24 of 39
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 123 of 202Page 123 of 202Page 123 of 202Page 123 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 25 of 39
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 124 of 202Page 124 of 202Page 124 of 202Page 124 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 26 of 39
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
eportPage 125 of 202Page 125 of 202Page 125 of 202Page 125 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 27 of 39
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 126 of 202Page 126 of 202Page 126 of 202Page 126 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 28 of 39
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 127 of 202Page 127 of 202Page 127 of 202Page 127 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 29 of 39
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 128 of 202Page 128 of 202Page 128 of 202Page 128 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 30 of 39
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 129 of 202Page 129 of 202Page 129 of 202Page 129 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 31 of 39
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 130 of 202Page 130 of 202Page 130 of 202Page 130 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 32 of 39
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 131 of 202Page 131 of 202Page 131 of 202Page 131 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 33 of 39
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 132 of 202Page 132 of 202Page 132 of 202Page 132 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 34 of 39
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;
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 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.
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 133 of 202Page 133 of 202Page 133 of 202Page 133 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 35 of 39
7 Appendix A
AgendaItem#7c.
AgendaItem#7c.
AgendaItem#7c.
AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec R
eportPage 134 of 202Page 134 of 202Page 134 of 202Page 134 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 36 of 39
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 135 of 202Page 135 of 202Page 135 of 202Page 135 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 37 of 39
Universal Metering
District Metering & Leak Detection
Capital & Maintenance Costs
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 $2,219,587.01
Operational Cost Savings
Year
Customer Demand
Reduction Water
Production Savings
Customer Demand
Reduction Watewater
Treatment Savings
NRW Reduction
Water Production
Savings
1 -$ -$ -$
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 $15,864.85
189,584.08$ Total NPV of Savings
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 136 of 202Page 136 of 202Page 136 of 202Page 136 of 202
Final Report Meter Feasibility Assessment
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 38 of 39
Capital & Maintenance Costs
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 $140,747.52
Operational Cost Savings
Year
Customer Demand
Reduction Water
Production Savings
Customer Demand
Reduction Watewater
Treatment Savings
NRW Reduction
Water Production
Savings
1 -$ -$ -$
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 $103,832.55
103,832.55$ Total NPV of Savings
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 137 of 202Page 137 of 202Page 137 of 202Page 137 of 202
City Revelstoke
Water Loss & Metering Project
FINAL Technical Memorandum #1
Task#2 Current Situation Analysis – Water Balance 2011 Only
MAY 2013
SUBMITTED BY:
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 138 of 202Page 138 of 202Page 138 of 202Page 138 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 1 of 30
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 139 of 202Page 139 of 202Page 139 of 202Page 139 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 2 of 30
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
ICI Industrial, Commercial, Institutional
ILI Infrastructure Leakage Index
IWA International Water Association
l/conn/d Litres per Service Connection per Day
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 140 of 202Page 140 of 202Page 140 of 202Page 140 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 3 of 30
Lcd Litres per Capita per Day
LHA Local Health Area
Lps Litres Per Second
ML Megalitres
NRW Non Revenue Water
PCC Per Capita Consumption
PRV Pressure Reducing Valve
RMR Revelstoke Mountain Resort
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
for Issue by Alain Lalonde P.Eng. Principal, Veritec Consulting Inc.
Circulation
list
City of Revelstoke
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 141 of 202Page 141 of 202Page 141 of 202Page 141 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 4 of 30
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%.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 142 of 202Page 142 of 202Page 142 of 202Page 142 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 5 of 30
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 143 of 202Page 143 of 202Page 143 of 202Page 143 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 6 of 30
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 144 of 202Page 144 of 202Page 144 of 202Page 144 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 7 of 30
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 145 of 202Page 145 of 202Page 145 of 202Page 145 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 8 of 30
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 146 of 202Page 146 of 202Page 146 of 202Page 146 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 9 of 30
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 147 of 202Page 147 of 202Page 147 of 202Page 147 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 10 of 30
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 148 of 202Page 148 of 202Page 148 of 202Page 148 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 11 of 30
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 149 of 202Page 149 of 202Page 149 of 202Page 149 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 12 of 30
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 150 of 202Page 150 of 202Page 150 of 202Page 150 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 13 of 30
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 151 of 202Page 151 of 202Page 151 of 202Page 151 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 14 of 30
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 152 of 202Page 152 of 202Page 152 of 202Page 152 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 15 of 30
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)
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 153 of 202Page 153 of 202Page 153 of 202Page 153 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 16 of 30
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 154 of 202Page 154 of 202Page 154 of 202Page 154 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 17 of 30
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 155 of 202Page 155 of 202Page 155 of 202Page 155 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 18 of 30
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 156 of 202Page 156 of 202Page 156 of 202Page 156 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 19 of 30
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 *
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 157 of 202Page 157 of 202Page 157 of 202Page 157 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 20 of 30
Figure 10 – Minimum Night Flows –
November 15th
2013 2-4am
AgendaItem#7c.
AgendaItem#7c.
AgendaItem#7c.
AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec R
eportPage 158 of 202Page 158 of 202Page 158 of 202Page 158 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 21 of 30
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 159 of 202Page 159 of 202Page 159 of 202Page 159 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 22 of 30
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 160 of 202Page 160 of 202Page 160 of 202Page 160 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 23 of 30
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 161 of 202Page 161 of 202Page 161 of 202Page 161 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 24 of 30
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
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 162 of 202Page 162 of 202Page 162 of 202Page 162 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 25 of 30
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 163 of 202Page 163 of 202Page 163 of 202Page 163 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 26 of 30
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 164 of 202Page 164 of 202Page 164 of 202Page 164 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 27 of 30
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 165 of 202Page 165 of 202Page 165 of 202Page 165 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 28 of 30
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 166 of 202Page 166 of 202Page 166 of 202Page 166 of 202
CITY OF REVELSTOKE TECH MEMO – CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS – WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 29 of 30
Figure 14 – Revelstoke & Nelson Footprints from Google Maps
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 167 of 202Page 167 of 202Page 167 of 202Page 167 of 202
City Revelstoke
Water Loss & Metering Study
Water Loss Planning
Final Report
September 2013
SUBMITTED BY:
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 168 of 202Page 168 of 202Page 168 of 202Page 168 of 202
Final Report Water Loss Planning
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 1 of 20
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 169 of 202Page 169 of 202Page 169 of 202Page 169 of 202
Final Report Water Loss Planning
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 2 of 20
Glossary of Terms
COR City of Revelstoke
DMA District Metered Area
FF Fire Flow
ICI Industrial, Commercial, Institutional
ILI Infrastructure Leakage Index
Lps Litres Per Second
MNF Minimum Night Flow
ML Megalitres
NFA Night Flow Analysis
NPV Net Present Value
NRW Non Revenue Water
PMA Pressure Management Area
PRV Pressure Reducing Valve
RMR Revelstoke Mountain Resort
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
for Issue by Alain Lalonde P.Eng. Principal, Veritec Consulting Inc.
Circulation
list
Penny Page-Britton City of Revelstoke
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 170 of 202Page 170 of 202Page 170 of 202Page 170 of 202
Final Report Water Loss Planning
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 3 of 20
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 171 of 202Page 171 of 202Page 171 of 202Page 171 of 202
Final Report Water Loss Planning
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 4 of 20
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.
Less chlorinated water running
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 172 of 202Page 172 of 202Page 172 of 202Page 172 of 202
Final Report Water Loss Planning
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 5 of 20
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.
Less chlorinated water running
uncontrolled into the water table.
Lower risk of back siphonage
leading to contamination.
Less chlorinated water running
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 173 of 202Page 173 of 202Page 173 of 202Page 173 of 202
Final Report Water Loss Planning
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 6 of 20
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.
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
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 174 of 202Page 174 of 202Page 174 of 202Page 174 of 202
Final Report Water Loss Planning
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 7 of 20
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 175 of 202Page 175 of 202Page 175 of 202Page 175 of 202
Final Report Water Loss Planning
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 8 of 20
0
50
100
150
200
250
ML/
mo
nth
COR Forecast Demands with District Metering
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 176 of 202Page 176 of 202Page 176 of 202Page 176 of 202
Final Report Water Loss Planning
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 9 of 20
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
5 Source: water wastewater energy consumption.xls
6 Source: Water Operating Budget 2010-2012.pdf
7 The variable cost to produce water
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 177 of 202Page 177 of 202Page 177 of 202Page 177 of 202
Final Report Water Loss Planning
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 10 of 20
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;
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. 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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 178 of 202Page 178 of 202Page 178 of 202Page 178 of 202
Final Report Water Loss Planning
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 11 of 20
Figure 4 – Potential District Meter Sectors
Current
Proposed Permanent or Temporary Config.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 179 of 202Page 179 of 202Page 179 of 202Page 179 of 202
Final Report Water Loss Planning
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 12 of 20
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 180 of 202Page 180 of 202Page 180 of 202Page 180 of 202
Final Report Water Loss Planning
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 13 of 20
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.
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 181 of 202Page 181 of 202Page 181 of 202Page 181 of 202
Final Report Water Loss Planning
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 14 of 20
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 182 of 202Page 182 of 202Page 182 of 202Page 182 of 202
Final Report Water Loss Planning
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 15 of 20
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 183 of 202Page 183 of 202Page 183 of 202Page 183 of 202
Final Report Water Loss Planning
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 16 of 20
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
Night Flow Analysis in
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
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
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 184 of 202Page 184 of 202Page 184 of 202Page 184 of 202
Final Report Water Loss Planning
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 17 of 20
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
Night Flow Analysis in
shoulder seasons $10,000 $0 $0 $0
Step Testing $3,000 $0 $3,000 $0
Sonic Surveys & Acoustic
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
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 185 of 202Page 185 of 202Page 185 of 202Page 185 of 202
Final Report Water Loss Planning
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 18 of 20
6 Appendix A – November 2012 Night Flow Analysis Results
AgendaItem#7c.
AgendaItem#7c.
AgendaItem#7c.
AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec R
eportPage 186 of 202Page 186 of 202Page 186 of 202Page 186 of 202
Final Report Water Loss Planning
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 19 of 20
7 Appendix B – Sewerin Acoustic Leak Detection Equipment
Stethophone 06
Wireless Amplified
Listening Device
SeCorrPhon06 Combined correlator
and electro-acoustic water leak
detector
AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.AgendaItem#7c.
Veritec ReportPage 187 of 202Page 187 of 202Page 187 of 202Page 187 of 202