Veritec Water Metering Report PDF

AgendaItem#7c.
City of Revelstoke
Committee Report
Date: To: From: Subject: October 10, 2013 Development Services Committee Mike Thomas, Director of Engineering & Development Services 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
Veritec Report
Page 92 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
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.
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 Apparent Losses 5 ML Water Losses 1014 ML+/-26.5% Real Losses 1008 ML+/- 27% Unbilled Unmetered Cconsumption 25 ML Apparent Losses Non-Revenue Water 1039 ML+/- 26.7%
Real Losses
Leaks, breaks and overflows on mains, etc.
Figure 1- City of Revelstoke 2011 Water Balance with Confidence Interval
Page 2 of 7
Veritec Report
Page 93 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
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.
Volume in Category - 2011 Water Balance ML/yr Universal Metering ICI Metering District Metering/Water Loss 950.5 180.2 1008.8 Sustained Reduction in Customer Consumption % -14% -10% 0% Sustained Reduction in Water Loss % -5% 0% -30%
Categories
Total Sustained Savings ML/yr 234.4 18.0 302.6
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.
Page 3 of 7
Veritec Report
Page 94 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
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 todays 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
Veritec Report
Page 95 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
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
Veritec Report
Page 96 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Notes
Bulk Meter Verification & District Metering Annual Water Audits Night Flow Analysis in shoulder seasons Step Testing Start using contractor then transition to in house once procedures established and equipment is understood. +ve Net Present Value. In House, then some consultant support. Sessions in 2 shoulder seasons
Dependencies
Capital/Initial Costs
$44,000
Ongoing Annual or Year 2 Costs

$5,300
Verified Flow Meters to feed analysis Verified Flow Meters to feed analysis Operational Main Valves
In House
$3,000
$10,000
In House
$3,000
$3,000
Sonic Surveys & Acoustic Equipment Purchase
$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
Figure 5 Projected Water Loss Control Strategies and Costs.
2015 $136,300
Page 6 of 7
Veritec Report
Page 97 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
5. OPTIONS 5.1. City Council may adopt the three reports and recommend implementation of the recommendations into the five year financial plan 5.2. City Council may receive the report and recommend verification of system meters prior to implementing a full district metering and leak detection program 5.3. City Council may recommend incorporating the water loss management strategy into the five year financial plan and implement the plan over a greater number of years than indicated in the report. 5.4. City Council may recommend some of the water loss strategies recommended, but not all at this time. 5.5. City Council could recommend that a portion of 2015 Gas Tax funding be utilized to implement the recommendations in the report.
Page 7 of 7
Veritec Report
Page 98 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
City Revelstoke
Water Meter Feasibility Study Final Report
Water Savings Assessment Cost:Benefit Analysis of Metering
September 2013
SUBMITTED BY:
Veritec Report
Page 99 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Meter Feasibility Assessment
Table of Contents
1 2 3 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 9 Task #3 Water Savings Assessment from Metering .......................................................... 10 3.1 3.2 4 Water Production Savings ($) ........................................................................................ 13 Wastewater Treatment Savings ($) ................................................................................ 14
Meter Reading Alternatives Discussion................................................................................ 17 4.1 4.2 Water Meter Reading by Radio Frequency (RF) ........................................................... 18 Water Meter Reading by Fixed Area Network (FAN) ................................................... 19 Supply & Installation of Residential Meters (5/8 x 3/4") ............................................. 20 Supply & Installation of Non-Residential Meters (3/4- 6) ......................................... 21 Meter Reading System Deployment Costs..................................................................... 22 Meter Reading Yearly Operating & Maintenance Costs ............................................... 23 Supply & Installation of DMA Meters ........................................................................... 25 DMA Meter Yearly Operating & Maintenance Costs ................................................... 27 Opportunities for Capital Costs Deferral ....................................................................... 27 Net Present Value (NPV) Introduction .......................................................................... 29 Cost NPV........................................................................................................................ 30 Cost Savings NPV ...................................................................................................... 30 NPV Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 31 COR Water Distribution System Operational Costs & Revenues .............................. 32 Over-arching Assumptions ......................................................................................... 33 Water Demand Evaluation Assumptions .................................................................... 33 NPV Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 33
Task #4 Cost / Benefit Analysis............................................................................................ 20 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15
6 7 8
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 34 Appendix A ........................................................................................................................... 35 Appendix B NPV Tables ................................................................................................... 36
Table of Figures
Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 1 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 100 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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 AMR CBT COR DSM FAN ICI ILI Lcd Lps Advanced Metering Infrastructure Advanced Meter Reading Columbia Basin Trust City of Revelstoke Demand Side Management Fixed Area Network Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Infrastructure Leakage Index Litres per Capita per Day Litres Per Second Page 2 of 39
Veritec Consulting Inc.
Veritec Report
Page 101 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
ML MIU NPV NRW PCC PRV RF RMR SCADA WTP
Megalitres Meter Interface Unit Net Present Value Non Revenue Water Per Capita Consumption Pressure Reducing Valve Radio Frequency Revelstoke Mountain Resort Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition Water Treatment Plant
Document Control Version Date 1.5 10/09/2013 Authored by Approved for Issue by Graham Waley C.Eng. Alain Lalonde P.Eng. Penny Page-Britton Circulation list Manager, Veritec Consulting Inc. Principal, Veritec Consulting Inc. City of Revelstoke
Page 3 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 102 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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
Interchangeable with Industrial, Commercial, Institutional (ICI)
Page 4 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 103 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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. ii. iii. iv. Manual Read Touchpad Drive-By/Walk-by 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
Categories
Volume In Category - 2011 Water Balance ML/yr 950.5 180.2 1008.8
Sustained Reduction in Customer Consumption % -14% -10% 0%
Sustained Reduction in Water Loss % -5% 0% -30%
Total Sustained Savings
Universal Metering Unmetered ICI Water Loss
ML/yr 234.4 18.0 302.6
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
Page 5 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 104 of 202
ML/month
150 100 50 0
ML/month
ML/month
150 100 50 0
ML/month
Veritec Report
250 200
Final Report
COR 2011 Baseline Demands 250 200 150 100 50 0
COR Demand Forecasts with ICI Metering
COR Demand Forecasts with Universal Metering
COR Forecast Demands with District Metering
250 200
250 200 150 100 50 0
Page 105 of 202

AgendaItem#7c.
Water Loss
Customer Consumption
Baseline Gross Demand
Page 6 of 39
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
A Net Present Value analysis allows for the time series value of money to be accounted for over the lifetime of the scenarios. Moneys 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.
Page 7 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 106 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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 underestimation 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.
Page 8 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 107 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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.
Result of an un-validated water audit.
Page 9 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 108 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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
Verified with measured data from other CBT communities without customer meters namely; Nelson and Cranbrook.
Page 10 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 109 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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 wont 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 Reduced Water Produced Tangible Benefits Reduced Distribution Pumping Reduced Wastewater Treatment Reduced Wastewater Pumping at Lift Stations District Metering to Reduce Water Loss Reduced Water Produced Tangible Benefits Reduced Distribution Pumping 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. Intangible Benefits More accurate consumption data to feed network modeling and system optimization activities
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 Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 11 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 110 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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
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 doesnt 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 Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 12 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 111 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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
Categories
Effect on Customer Consumption Volume ML/yr -184.0 -18.0 0.0
Effect on Water Loss Volume ML/yr -50.4 0.0 -302.6
Total Sustained Demand Savings ML/yr 234.4 18.0 302.6
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$/ML). This is the unit value of water which would be directly reduced through demand reduction.
4 5
Source: water wastewater energy consumption.xls Source: Water Operating Budget 2010-2012.pdf 6 The variable cost to produce water
Page 13 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 112 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
3.2 Wastewater Treatment Savings ($)

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 costs8 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 8
Source: water wastewater energy consumption.xls Source: Water Operating Budget 2010-2012.pdf
Page 14 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 113 of 202
Veritec Report
Categories
Final Report
Universal Metering Option a Blend of; 15% reduction in residential use. 10% reduction in non-residential use.
Table 4 - Demand & Cost Reductions from Meter Coverage Scenarios
Sustained Reduction in Customer Consumption % -14% -10% 0% Effect on Customer Consumption Volume ML/yr -184.0 -18.0 0.0
Takes into account; Reduced chemical treatment cost. Reduced system pumping cost.
Volume In Category - 2011 Water Balance ML/yr
Sustained Reduction in Water Loss
Effect on Water Loss Volume ML/yr -50.4 0.0 -302.6
Total Sustained Demand Savings ML/yr 234.4 18.0 302.6
Water
Wastewater
Change in Annual Operating Costs Water -$7,932 -$610 -$10,239 Wastewater -$7,657 -$750 $0
Annual Total Value of Savings; Water & Wastewater
950.5 180.2 1008.8
% -5% 0% -30%
$15,589 $1,360 $10,239
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.
Takes into account; Reduced lift station pump cost. Reduced treatment cost.
It emerges that the Universal Metering option has the largest dollar value of water savings of $15,589 (in todays 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
Page 114 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Page 15 of 39
ML/month
150 100 50 0
ML/month
ML/month
150 100 50 0
ML/month
Veritec Report
250 200
Final Report
COR 2011 Baseline Demands 250 200 150 100 50 0
COR Demand Forecasts with ICI Metering
COR Demand Forecasts with Universal Metering
COR Forecast Demands with District Metering
250 200
250 200 150 100 50 0
Page 115 of 202

AgendaItem#7c.
Water Loss
Baseline Gross Demand
Page 16 of 39
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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) (2) (3) (4) Manual read, Remote read (Touchpad)9, Drive-by / Walk-by radio frequency (RF) read7, 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 customers 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.
10
Advanced Meter Reading (AMR) technology Advanced Meter Infrastructure (AMI) technology
Page 17 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 116 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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 receiverequipped 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. Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 18 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 117 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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. 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.
Disadvantages:
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. Page 19 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 118 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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. Moneys 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.
Page 20 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 119 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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 Water meter Meter interface unit Installation Total
Manual Read $269,640 $0 $524,300 $793,940
Touchpad $269,640 $209,720 $674,100 $1,153,460
Drive-by / Walk-by $269,640 $359,520 $674,100 $1,303,260
Fixed Network $269,640 $389,480 $674,100 $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
Page 21 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 120 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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 Count Cost to Purchase Each
5/8" X 3/4"
3/4" X 3/4"
1" 18 $150
2" 57 $350
3" 23 $750
4" 1 $2,000
6" 2 $2,500
82 $90
130 $100
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 Water meter Meter interface unit Installation Total
Manual Read $68,452 $0 $91,060 $159,512
Touchpad $68,452 $21,980 $116,180 $206,612
Drive-by / Walk-by $68,452 $37,680 $116,180 $222,312
Fixed Network $68,452 $40,820 $116,180 $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 Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 22 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 121 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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 Data collectors, Data Repeaters Software IT system Installation, training, start up Total
Manual $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Touchpad $10,000 $7,000 $0 $7,000 $24,000
Drive-by/Walk-by $7,000 $8,000 $0 $7,000 $22,000
Fixed Network $60,000 $12,000 $10,000 $45,000 $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.
Page 23 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 122 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Table 9: Yearly meter reading operating and maintenance cost estimates
Cost Component System maintenance Meter Reading Staff Meter Reading Vehicles Management staff
Manual $0 $9,21212 $6,074 $2,88515
Touchpad $1,505 $4,31213 $2,894 $2,88515 $4,000 $1,504 $17,099
Drive-by / Walk-by $828 $45614 $281 $4,32716 $4,000 $3,004 $12,895
Fixed Network $1,067 $0 $0 $4,32716 $7,000 $3,004 $15,397
IT license and technical $1,000 support Meter Maintenance & Testing $1,504 Total annual cost $20,675
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.
Page 24 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 123 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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 dont 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.
Page 25 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 124 of 202
Veritec Report
Final Report
Table 10: DMA Program Flow Meter Costs
Existing Meters
Meter Calibration Required
Average Replacement Cost of Meters Meter Required Calibration
Average New Cost of Meters Meter Required Unit
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.
Page 125 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Page 26 of 39
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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.
Page 27 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 126 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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
Page 28 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 127 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Figure 4 Greeley WTP Peak Day Flow Chart 2002-2012
WTP Annual "Peak Day" Flow

15,000
10,000
Flow (m3 / day)
5,000
0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year 2009 2010 2011 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 moneys 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.
Page 29 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 128 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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 Universal Metering Cost NPV ICI Metering Cost NPV DMA & Leak Detection Cost NPV $461,092.23 $1,154,757.31 Touchpad $465,925.33 $1,522,208.12 $ Drive-By/Walk-by $418,154.11 $1,627,758.25 140,747.52 Fixed Network $509,404.95 $1,789,138.51 Discount Rate 5%
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 Universal Metering ICI Metering District Metering $84,532.71 $7,279.07 $0.00 Customer Demand Reduction Watewater Treatment Savings $89,186.52 $8,949.68 $0.00 NRW Reduction Water Production Savings $15,864.85 $0.00 $103,832.55 Total NPV of Cost Savings $189,584.08 $16,228.75 $103,832.55 Discount Rate 5%
Page 30 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 129 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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.
Page 31 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 130 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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: COR 2011 Water Report Admin
Operational Costs 2010 $154,146 $480,129 $276,548 Capital Costs 2010 Debt Principal Reserve Fund Transfers $137,678 $300,000 Transmission/Distribution Interest
2011 $162,081 $560,293 $290,409 2011 $137,678 $300,000 $1,650,463
Total Costs $1,358,501
Source: Water Budget Connection Charges Water Rates/User Fees
Revenue 2010 $50,000 $1,269,892 2011 $50,000 $1,294,080 $1,344,080
Total Revenue $1,319,892
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 years water revenue. Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 32 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 131 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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.
Page 33 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 132 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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 underestimation 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.
Page 34 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 133 of 202
Veritec Report
Final Report
7 Appendix A
Page 134 of 202

AgendaItem#7c.
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
8 Appendix B NPV Tables

ICI Metering
Capital & Maintenance Costs Year Manual Read 1 $ 159,512.00 2 $ 22,706.58 3 $ 23,326.81 4 $ 23,965.66 5 $ 24,623.67 6 $ 25,301.42 7 $ 25,999.50 8 $ 26,718.53 9 $ 27,459.12 10 $ 28,221.94 11 $ 29,007.63 12 $ 29,816.90 13 $ 30,650.45 14 $ 31,509.00 15 $ 32,393.31 16 $ 33,304.15 NPV over 16 yrs $418,711.09
Operational Cost Savings Year Customer Demand Reduction Water Production Savings 610.00 628.30 647.15 666.56 686.56 707.16 728.37 750.22 772.73 795.91 819.79 844.38 869.71 895.81 922.68 $7,279.07 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Customer Demand Reduction Watewater Treatment Savings 750.00 772.50 795.68 819.55 844.13 869.46 895.54 922.41 950.08 978.58 1,007.94 1,038.18 1,069.32 1,101.40 1,134.44 $8,949.68 16,228.75 NRW Reduction Water Production Savings $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $0.00
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Touchpad 218,612.00 19,731.30 20,244.28 20,772.64 21,316.86 21,877.41 22,454.77 23,049.45 23,661.98 24,292.88 24,942.70 25,612.03 26,301.43 27,011.51 27,742.89 28,496.22 $576,120.35
Drive-By/Walk-by $ 233,312.00 $ 15,727.45 $ 16,114.31 $ 16,512.78 $ 16,923.20 $ 17,345.94 $ 17,781.36 $ 18,229.84 $ 18,691.77 $ 19,167.57 $ 19,657.63 $ 20,162.40 $ 20,682.31 $ 21,217.82 $ 21,769.40 $ 22,337.52 $515,633.29
Fixed Network $ 288,952.00 $ 18,269.47 $ 18,731.40 $ 19,207.18 $ 19,697.23 $ 20,201.99 $ 20,721.89 $ 21,257.39 $ 21,808.95 $ 22,377.06 $ 22,962.21 $ 23,564.92 $ 24,185.70 $ 24,825.11 $ 25,483.71 $ 8,662.06 $600,908.28
1 $ 2 $ 3 $ 4 $ 5 $ 6 $ 7 $ 8 $ 9 $ 10 $ 11 $ 12 $ 13 $ 14 $ 15 $ 16 $ NPV over 16 yrs Total NPV of Savings
Page 36 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 135 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Universal Metering
Capital & Maintenance Costs Year Manual Read 1 $ 953,452.00 2 $ 32,196.66 3 $ 32,816.89 4 $ 33,455.74 5 $ 34,113.75 6 $ 34,791.50 7 $ 35,489.58 8 $ 36,208.60 9 $ 36,949.20 10 $ 37,712.01 11 $ 38,497.71 12 $ 39,306.98 13 $ 40,140.53 14 $ 40,999.08 15 $ 41,883.39 16 $ 42,794.23 NPV over 16 yrs $1,268,657.54
Operational Cost Savings Year Customer Demand Reduction Water Production Savings 7,084.00 7,296.52 7,515.42 7,740.88 7,973.10 8,212.30 8,458.67 8,712.43 8,973.80 9,243.01 9,520.30 9,805.91 10,100.09 10,403.09 10,715.19 $84,532.71 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Customer Demand Reduction Watewater Treatment Savings 7,663.60 7,893.51 7,893.51 8,130.31 8,374.22 8,625.45 8,884.21 9,150.74 9,425.26 9,708.02 9,999.26 10,299.24 10,608.21 10,926.46 11,254.25 $89,186.52 189,584.08 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ NRW Reduction Water Production Savings 341.38 619.69 906.35 1,209.41 1,529.38 1,866.75 1,922.75 1,980.44 2,039.85 2,101.05 2,164.08 2,229.00 2,295.87 2,364.75 2,435.69 $15,864.85
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Touchpad 1,384,072.00 33,535.21 34,048.19 34,576.56 35,120.78 35,681.32 36,258.69 36,853.37 37,465.89 38,096.79 38,746.62 39,415.94 40,105.34 40,815.42 41,546.81 42,300.14 $1,948,639.08
Drive-By/Walk-by $ 1,547,572.00 $ 31,331.36 $ 31,718.23 $ 32,116.69 $ 32,527.12 $ 32,949.85 $ 33,385.27 $ 33,833.75 $ 34,295.69 $ 34,771.48 $ 35,261.55 $ 35,766.32 $ 36,286.23 $ 36,821.74 $ 37,373.31 $ 37,941.43 $2,063,952.03
Fixed Network $ 1,685,672.00 $ 34,233.39 $ 34,695.31 $ 35,171.09 $ 35,661.15 $ 36,165.91 $ 36,685.81 $ 37,221.30 $ 37,772.87 $ 38,340.97 $ 38,926.13 $ 39,528.83 $ 40,149.62 $ 40,789.03 $ 41,447.62 $ 7,125.97 $2,219,587.01
District Metering & Leak Detection Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 37 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 136 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
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 $0.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Customer Demand Reduction Watewater Treatment Savings $0.00 103,832.55 NRW Reduction Water Production Savings $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,044.90 4,273.84 6,631.00 9,120.22 11,745.46 12,097.82 12,097.82 12,460.75 12,834.58 13,219.61 13,616.20 14,024.69 14,445.43 14,878.79 15,325.16 $103,832.55
Page 38 of 39
Veritec Report
Page 137 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
City Revelstoke
Water Loss & Metering Project FINAL Technical Memorandum #1
Task#2 Current Situation Analysis Water Balance 2011 Only
MAY 2013
SUBMITTED BY:
Veritec Report
Page 138 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
TECH MEMO CURRENT SITUATION ANALYSIS WATER BALANCE 2011 ONLY
Table of Contents
1 Current Situation Analysis - Water Balance ........................................................................... 4 1.1 1.2 2 Tech Memo Introduction .................................................................................................. 4 Water Balance Executive Summary ................................................................................. 4
Top Down IWA/AWWA Water Audit ................................................................................. 10 2.1 2.2 General System Information .......................................................................................... 11 95% Confidence Limits and Variance Analysis ............................................................ 12 Normal Distributions .............................................................................................. 12
2.2.1 2.3 2.4
System Input Volume ..................................................................................................... 13 Billed Authorized Consumption..................................................................................... 14 Billed Authorized Consumption Metered ............................................................... 15 Billed Authorized Consumption Unmetered - Residential ..................................... 15
2.4.1 2.4.2 2.5 2.6
Water Losses Night Flow Analysis ............................................................................. 18 Limitations of Current Night Flow Analysis.................................................................. 21 Billed Authorized Consumption Unmetered - ICI .................................................. 22
2.6.1 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 3 4 5
Unbilled Authorized Consumption Unmetered ............................................................. 22 Infrastructure Information .............................................................................................. 22 Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 23 Water Loss Performance Indicators ........................................................................... 24 Summary of IWA/AWWA Water Audit Findings ..................................................... 24
Appendix 1 Water Balance Results ................................................................................... 27 Appendix 2 Average Pressure Calculation ........................................................................ 27 Appendix 3 Climate Data & Parcel Size............................................................................ 28
Page 1 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 139 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
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 BACU BACM CARL FCM ICI ILI IWA l/conn/d American Water Works Association Billed Authorized Consumption Unmetered Billed Authorized Consumption Metered Current Annual Real Losses Federation of Canadian Municipalities Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Infrastructure Leakage Index International Water Association Litres per Service Connection per Day
Page 2 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 140 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
Lcd LHA Lps ML NRW PCC PRV RMR SCADA SIV UACM UACU UC UARL
Litres per Capita per Day Local Health Area Litres Per Second Megalitres Non Revenue Water Per Capita Consumption Pressure Reducing Valve Revelstoke Mountain Resort Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition System Input Volume Unbilled Authorized Consumption Metered Unbilled Authorized Consumption Unmetered Unauthorized Consumption Unavoidable Annual Real Losses
Document Control
Version Date Authored by Approved for Issue by Graham Waley C.Eng. Project Manager, Veritec Consulting Inc. Principal, Veritec Consulting Inc. City of Revelstoke Circulation list
2.0
09/05/2013
Alain Lalonde P.Eng.
Page 3 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 141 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
1 Current Situation Analysis - Water Balance

1.1 Tech Memo Introduction
Veritec is providing this Technical Memorandum to report the water balance findings only of Task#2 Current Situation Analysis of the Water Loss & Metering Feasibility Project. After a project initiation which included site investigation and data acquisition, Water Audit and Night Flow Analysis were undertaken in order to be able to delineate gross annual demands into the primary constituent categories of Residential, ICI and Water Losses. Performance Indicators could then be put to the water loss levels. The different demand categories can then later be carried forward for feasibility analysis on different levels of metering coverage. The IWA/AWWA Water Audit is a top down assessment with average volumes built up over the calendar year 2011. The Night Flow Analysis (NFA) is from the bottom up and is a snapshot of minimum flows when leakage is at its highest proportion of overall system flow from November 2012.
1.2 Water Balance Executive Summary

System Input Volume; is the aggregate of the measured flows through Greeley Creek WTP and those estimated through the Golf Course Well. The Well water goes into distribution or can be diverted solely to the Golf Course for irrigation. Unfortunately the 2011 well flow data was not available due to an issue with the historian. The data for 2012 is in an unusable format with seconds to 3 decimal places and could not me manipulated out of a text string to be analyzed. a) Greeley WTP Measured 1,928.0 Ml/yr 10.0%. b) Golf Course Well Estimated daily cycle into distribution 39.4 Ml/yr 100%. c) Golf Course Well Estimated summer off peak to golf course 39.4 Ml/yr 100%. This resulted in a 2011 Total SIV of 2,006.8 Ml/yr 10.0%. Billed Authorized Consumption Metered; is from the Sutton Hotel only which is within the Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR). This single Industrial, Commercial, Institutional (ICI) customer with a revenue meter accounted for 17.5 Ml/yr 3.0%.
Page 4 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 142 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
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
City of Revelstoke Whole Distribution Netw ork
for period
01/01/2011
to
31/12/2011
365
Water Exported Volume from Own Sources 0 Ml +/- 0.0% Authorised Consumption (includes Water Exported)
Water Exported 0 Ml +/- 0.0% Other Billed Authorised Consumption 968 Ml +/- 18.5% Unbilled Authorised Consumption 25 Ml +/- 50.0%
Billed Water Exported 0 Ml +/0.0%
Rev Wa
Billed Metered 968 Ml 0 Ml +/+/18.5% 24.3%
968
2007 Ml +/- 10.0%
System Input Volume Water Supplied 993 Ml +/- 18.1%
+/
Billed Unmetered
Unbilled Metered 0 Ml +/50.0%
Unbilled Unmetered 25 Ml +/50.0% Unauthorised Consumption 5 Ml +/100.0% Customer Meters underregistration and data handling errors 0 Ml +/#DIV/0! Overflow on storages, and leakage on storages, mains and service connections up to point of metering
Non- R W
Water Imported
2007 Ml +/- 10.0%
2007 Ml +/- 10.0% Water Losses
Apparent Losses 5 Ml +/- 100.0% 1014 Ml +/- 26.5%
0 Ml +/- 0.0%
1039
+/
Real Losses 1009 Ml +/- 26.7%
Page 5 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 143 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
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
NRW as % of System Input Volume: Sample N. American Spread, Canadian data in blue
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
Non Revenue Water %
Lower estimate
Best estimate
Upper estimate
The water balance is only as reliable as the data it is uses. The Greeley WTP provides the majority of the System Input Volume. Its meter would need to be tested in situ in order to Veritec Consulting Inc.
Page 6 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 144 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
increase the confidence in the water balance. reporting reliably.
The Golf Course Well flow meters are not
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
ILI: Sample N. American Spread, Canadian data in blue
Infrastructure Leakage Index
15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
Lower estimate
Best estimate
Upper estimate
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.
Page 7 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 145 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
Figure 4 AWWA Guidelines For Setting an ILI Target

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. Target ILI This Water Resources Considerations Operational Considerations Financial Considerations C Range System ILI Available resources are greatly limited and are very difficult and/or environmentally unsound to develop Water resources are believed to be sufficient to meet long-term needs, but demand management interventions (leakage management,water conservation) are included in the longterm planning Water resources are plentiful, reliable, and easily abstracted 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 can be developed or purchased at reasonable expense; periodic water rate increases can be feasibly imposed and are tolerated by the customer population
1.0 - 3.0
3.0 - 5.0
Existing water supply infrastructure capability is sufficient to meet long-term demand as long as reasonable leakage management controls are in place
5.0 - 8.0
6.4
Superior reliability, capacity and integrity Cost to purchase or obtain/treat water is of the water supply infrastructure make it low, as are rates charged to customers relatively immune to shortages
Greater than 8.0
9.6
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.
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.
Page 8 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 146 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
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.
Page 9 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 147 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
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 Practices1. One of the guides, Water Use and Loss in Water Distribution Systems, promotes the use of the International Water Associations (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
National Guide to Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure 2003, Water Use and Loss in Water Distribution System,
Issue No. 1.0, March 2003
Page 10 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 148 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
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 Citys 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 3
(7,720-600-700)* = 6,420 *sensus projected RLHA estimate of Big Eddy estimate of CSRD Area B. 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.
Page 11 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 149 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
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 where the peak of the density occurs, and the standard deviation , which indicates the spread or girth of the bell curve. Different values of and 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 - and +.
Page 12 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 150 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
95% of the observations fall within 2 standard deviations of the mean, that is , between 2 and +2.
99.7% of the observations fall within 3 standard deviations of the mean, that is, between -3 and +3.
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. Veritec Consulting Inc.
Page 13 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 151 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
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
COR 2011 System Input Volume Components

250000 200000 Golf Course Diversion to Irrigation Est. m3/month 2011 Greeley incl. Golf Well Est. m3/month Golf Course Well Into Distribution Est. m3/month
m3/month
150000 100000 50000 0
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 multifamily residential by its consumption volume. The Finance department provided the meter read Veritec Consulting Inc.
Page 14 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 152 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
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.
Usual Resident Population divided by #connections to usual resident dwellings 6420/(2996-526) Page 15 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 153 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
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. Claval 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.
Page 16 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 154 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
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 whos 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;
Climate data from http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca to support this can be found in the Appendix Page 17 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 155 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
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
Assessed Recoverable Leakage Background Leakage on m ains and service
connections up to custom er m eters
Night Leakage Rate

on m ains and service connections up to custom er m eters
(Unrecoverable Leakage) Background leakage on service connections and properties after custom er m eters
Measured Minimum Night Flow Customer Night Consumption
Exceptional Night Use Assessed Night Use
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. Veritec Consulting Inc.
Page 18 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 156 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
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
300,000
Monthly Water Consumption By Year
Water Consumption (m3)
250,000 200,000 2009 * 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2010 * 2011 * 2012 *
Month
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. calibrated to the AH Pump to Zone 1 Meter It was then roughly re-
Page 19 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 157 of 202
Veritec Report
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
Figure 10 Minimum Night Flows November 15th 2013 2-4am
Page 158 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Page 20 of 30
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
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 = 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
ut 10
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 24.9
Background Leakage Estimate (determined by infrastructure condition and driven by pressure) Lps 7.1
Whole City of Revelstoke System
35.5
3.5
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.
Page 21 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 159 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
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. RESIDENTIAL CONSUMPTION SYSTEM INPUT VOLUME ICI CONSUMPTION WATER LOSS
OTHER USE
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) Veritec Consulting Inc.
Page 22 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 160 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
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 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 Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL) are calculated based on the
Equations for calculating UARL for individual systems were developed and tested by the IWA Water Losses Task
Force
Page 23 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 161 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
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 Veritec Consulting Inc.
Page 24 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 162 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
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
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. Target ILI This Water Resources Considerations Operational Considerations Financial Considerations C Range System ILI Available resources are greatly limited and are very difficult and/or environmentally unsound to develop Water resources are believed to be sufficient to meet long-term needs, but demand management interventions (leakage management,water conservation) are included in the longterm planning Water resources are plentiful, reliable, and easily abstracted 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 can be developed or purchased at reasonable expense; periodic water rate increases can be feasibly imposed and are tolerated by the customer population
1.0 - 3.0
3.0 - 5.0
Existing water supply infrastructure capability is sufficient to meet long-term demand as long as reasonable leakage management controls are in place
5.0 - 8.0
6.4
Superior reliability, capacity and integrity Cost to purchase or obtain/treat water is of the water supply infrastructure make it low, as are rates charged to customers relatively immune to shortages
Greater than 8.0
9.6
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.
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.
Page 25 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 163 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
Figure 13 WBI Target Matrix Real Loss Action Plan

WBI Recommendations for BANDS Investigate pressure management options Investigate speed and quality of repairs Check economic intervention frequency Introduce/improve active leakage control Identify options for improved maintenance Assess Economic Leakage Level Review break frequencies Review asset management policy Deal with deficiencies in manpower, training and communications 5-year plan to achieve next lowest band Fundamental peer review of all activities Yes A Yes Yes Yes Yes B C Yes Yes D
ILI for system in developed country Less than 2
2 to < 4
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
4 to < 8 8 or more
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
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. Veritec Consulting Inc.
Page 26 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 164 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
3 Appendix 1 Water Balance Results
4 Appendix 2 Average Pressure Calculation

TCH Res TWL (m) Driving Head Type TWL Res. Height BWL Res. Depth HGL Max Service Elevation Min Service Elevation Ave Service Elevation Min Service Pressure Max Service Pressure "eyeball" TWL 535 10 525 7.8 532.8 506 440.0 473 26.8 92.8 Res. Height BWL Res. Depth HGL Max Service Elevation Min Service Elevation Ave Service Elevation Min Service Pressure Max Service Pressure Greely WTP Clear Well TWL (m) TWL 595 6 589 5.0 594.0 567.0 500.0 533.5 27.0 94.0 Zone 1 Birch Drive PRV (m) PRV PRV Elevation 560 PRV Elevation 497 PRV Setting 63 HGL Max Service Elevation Min Service Elevation Ave Service Elevation Min Service Pressure Max Service Pressure 560.0 510 487.0 498.5 50.0 73.0 Arrow Heights Reservoir TWL (m) TWL Res. Height BWL Res. Depth HGL Max Service Elevation Min Service Elevation Ave Service Elevation Min Service Pressure Max Service Pressure TWL 586 6 580 4.6 584.6 557 482.0 519.5 27.6 102.6 Monashee Estates PRV PRV RMR Booster Station PRV PRV
Average Pressure (m) 59.8 Average Pressure (psi) 86.3

Length of Mains (m) "have their centriod in" 73,902.0

18,582.00

5,795.0

Average Pressure (m) Average Pressure (psi)
60.5
87.2
Page 27 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 165 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
5 Appendix 3 Climate Data & Parcel Size

Nelson Climate Data 2011
Revelstoke Climate Data 2011
Climate Data Summary Average High Temp C Daily Mean Temp C Average Low Temp C Average Annual Precipitation (Inches)
Nelson 14.1 7.9 1.6 33.6
Revelstoke 11.8 6.9 2.0 37.2
Page 28 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 166 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE
Figure 14 Revelstoke & Nelson Footprints from Google Maps
Page 29 of 30
Veritec Report
Page 167 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
City Revelstoke
Water Loss & Metering Study Water Loss Planning Final Report
September 2013
SUBMITTED BY:
Veritec Report
Page 168 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Water Loss Planning
Table of Contents
1 2 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 3 Water Losses ........................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 3.2 4 Current Water Loss Levels ............................................................................................... 6 Scope for Water Loss Reduction ...................................................................................... 7
Water Loss Management Practices Relevant to Revelstoke ................................................... 9 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Bulk Meter Verification ................................................................................................... 9 Annual Water Audits ...................................................................................................... 10 Night Flow Analysis/District Metering .......................................................................... 10 Step Testing .................................................................................................................... 13 Sonic Surveys ................................................................................................................. 13 Pressure Management .................................................................................................... 14
Projected Water Loss Control Strategy Costs 2014-2015 .................................................... 16 5.1 Water Loss Control Costs Break Down 2014-2015 ....................................................... 17 Appendix A November 2012 Night Flow Analysis Results .............................................. 18 Appendix B Sewerin Acoustic Leak Detection Equipment ............................................... 19
6 7
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
Page 1 of 20
Veritec Report
Page 169 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Water Loss Planning
Glossary of Terms
COR DMA FF ICI ILI Lps MNF ML NFA NPV NRW PMA PRV RMR WTP WLM City of Revelstoke District Metered Area Fire Flow Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Infrastructure Leakage Index Litres Per Second Minimum Night Flow Megalitres Night Flow Analysis Net Present Value Non Revenue Water Pressure Management Area Pressure Reducing Valve Revelstoke Mountain Resort Water Treatment Plant Water Loss Management
Document Control Version Date 1.1 22/09/2013 Authored by Approved for Issue by Graham Waley C.Eng. Alain Lalonde P.Eng. Penny Page-Britton Circulation list Manager, Veritec Consulting Inc. Principal, Veritec Consulting Inc. City of Revelstoke
Page 2 of 20
Veritec Report
Page 170 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Water Loss Planning
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) b) c) d) Meter Verification Night Flow Analysis/District Metering Step Testing 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 todays money, through reduced electricity and chemical costs. Forecasts for a 2 year program are summarized below. Contractor Costs Equipment Costs Contractor Costs Equipment Costs
2015 $36,300 $100,000 $136,300
2014 $57,000 $45,000 $102,000
Page 3 of 20
Veritec Report
Page 171 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Water Loss Planning
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.
Environmental Stewardship Less water diverted from source. Less chlorinated water running uncontrolled into the water table.
The water distribution system should underpin a communitys prosperity as opposed to presenting a risk to property and infrastructure. Improved security of supply through increasing supply head room.
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.
current pop. X 15%
Page 4 of 20
Veritec Report
Page 172 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Water Loss Planning
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. Environmental Stewardship Less water diverted from source. Less chlorinated water running uncontrolled into the water table.
The water distribution system should underpin a communitys prosperity as opposed to presenting a risk to property and infrastructure. Improved security of supply through increasing supply head room.
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.
2 3
current pop. X 15% Furthermore this analysis doesnt take into account where on the system the growth would be concentrated.
Page 5 of 20
Veritec Report
Page 173 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Water Loss Planning
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.
Industrial, Commercial, Institutional
Page 6 of 20
Veritec Report
Page 174 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Water Loss Planning
Figure 1 Water Balance Components 2011 with Confidence Intervals

City of Revelstoke Whole Distribution Netw ork
for period
01/01/2011
to
31/12/2011
365
Water Exported Volume from Own Sources 0 Ml +/- 0.0% Authorised Consumption (includes Water Exported)
Water Exported 0 Ml +/- 0.0% Other Billed Authorised Consumption 968 Ml +/- 18.5% Unbilled Authorised Consumption 25 Ml +/- 50.0%
Billed Water Exported 0 Ml +/0.0%
Rev Wa
Billed Metered 968 Ml 0 Ml +/+/18.5% 24.3%
968
2007 Ml +/- 10.0%
System Input Volume Water Supplied 993 Ml +/- 18.1%
+/
Billed Unmetered
Unbilled Metered 0 Ml +/50.0%
Unbilled Unmetered 25 Ml +/50.0% Unauthorised Consumption 5 Ml +/100.0% Customer Meters underregistration and data handling errors 0 Ml +/#DIV/0! Overflow on storages, and leakage on storages, mains and service connections up to point of metering
Non- R W
Water Imported
2007 Ml +/- 10.0%
2007 Ml +/- 10.0% Water Losses
Apparent Losses 5 Ml +/- 100.0% 1014 Ml +/- 26.5%
0 Ml +/- 0.0%
1039
+/
Real Losses 1009 Ml +/- 26.7%
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.
Page 7 of 20
Veritec Report
Page 175 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Water Loss Planning
Table 1: Demands and Reductions by Meter Coverage Categories
Demand Categories
Total Sustained Savings
Universal Unmetered ICI Water Loss
ML/yr 234.4 18.0 302.6
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
COR Forecast Demands with District Metering 250
200
ML/month
150
100
50
Water Loss
Gross System Input Volume
Page 8 of 20
Veritec Report
Page 176 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Water Loss Planning
The variable electricity costs5 and chemical costs6 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 todays money, through reduced electricity and chemical costs.
4 Water Loss Management Practices Relevant to Revelstoke

4.1 Bulk Meter Verification
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.
Figure 3 Veritec Toronto Supply Meter Verifications 2013
5 6
Source: water wastewater energy consumption.xls Source: Water Operating Budget 2010-2012.pdf 7 The variable cost to produce water
Page 9 of 20
Veritec Report
Page 177 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Water Loss Planning
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 underestimation 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.
Page 10 of 20
Veritec Report
Page 178 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Water Loss Planning
Figure 4 Potential District Meter Sectors
Current
Proposed Permanent or Temporary Config.
Page 11 of 20
Veritec Report
Page 179 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Water Loss Planning
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
Night Leakage Rate
on m ains and service connections up to custom er m eters
Assessed Recoverable Leakage Background Leakage on m ains and service

connections up to custom er m eters
(Unrecoverable Leakage) Background leakage on service connections and properties after custom er m eters
Measured Minimum Night Flow Customer Night Consumption
Exceptional Night Use Assessed Night Use
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
Background leakage such a weeping from joints is not counted as recoverable as it cannot be detected by traditional leakage survey methods.
Page 12 of 20
Veritec Report
Page 180 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Water Loss Planning
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.
Page 13 of 20
Veritec Report
Page 181 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Water Loss Planning
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 Veritec Consulting Inc. Page 14 of 20
Veritec Report
Page 182 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Water Loss Planning
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 citys grid lower down towards the river (~450m AOD).
TCH Res TWL (m) Driving Head Type TWL Res. Height BWL Res. Depth HGL Max Service Elevation Min Service Elevation Ave Service Elevation Min Service Pressure Max Service Pressure "eyeball" TWL 535 10 525 7.8 532.8 506 440.0 473 26.8 92.8 Res. Height BWL Res. Depth HGL Max Service Elevation Min Service Elevation Ave Service Elevation Min Service Pressure Max Service Pressure Greely WTP Clear Well TWL (m) TWL 595 6 589 5.0 594.0 567.0 500.0 533.5 27.0 94.0 Zone 1 Birch Drive PRV (m) PRV PRV Elevation 560 PRV Elevation 497 PRV Setting 63 HGL Max Service Elevation Min Service Elevation Ave Service Elevation Min Service Pressure Max Service Pressure 560.0 510 487.0 498.5 50.0 73.0 Arrow Heights Reservoir TWL (m) TWL Res. Height BWL Res. Depth HGL Max Service Elevation Min Service Elevation Ave Service Elevation Min Service Pressure Max Service Pressure TWL 586 6 580 4.6 584.6 557 482.0 519.5 27.6 102.6 Monashee Estates PRV PRV RMR Booster Station PRV PRV


18,582.00

5,795.0

Average Pressure (m) Average Pressure (psi)
60.5
87.2
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
Above Ordnance Datum
Page 15 of 20
Veritec Report
Page 183 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Water Loss Planning
5 Projected Water Loss Control Strategy Costs 2014-2015

Notes
Bulk Meter Verification & District Metering Annual Water Audits +ve Net Present Value. In House, then some consultant support. Sessions in 2 shoulder seasons Verified Flow Meters to feed analysis Verified Flow Meters to feed analysis Operational Main Valves Start using contractor then transition to in house once procedures established and equipment is understood. Verified Flow Meters to feed analysis Pressure Management Assessment $20,000
Dependencies
Capital/Initial Costs
$44,000
Ongoing Annual or Year 2 Costs

$5,300
In House
$3,000
Night Flow Analysis in shoulder seasons Step Testing
$10,000
In House
$3,000
$3,000
Sonic Surveys & Acoustic Equipment Purchase
$25,000
$5,000
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
Page 16 of 20
Veritec Report
Page 184 of 202
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Water Loss Planning
5.1 Water Loss Control Costs Break Down 2014-2015

Contractor Costs
Bulk Meter Verification & District Metering Annual Water Audits Night Flow Analysis in shoulder seasons Step Testing Sonic Surveys & Acoustic Equipment Purchase Pressure Management (Assessment 2014) (Implementation 2015) Annual Costs
Equipment Costs
Contractor Costs
2015
Equipment Costs
2014 $19,000 $0 $10,000 $3,000 $5,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $5,300 $3,000 $0 $3,000 $5,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$20,000 $57,000
$0 $45,000
$20,000 $36,300
$100,000 $100,000
Leak Repairs
No specific budget as these leaks are considered to need repair at some point anyway.
Gross Annual Costs Total Costs 2014-2015
$102,000 $238,300
$136,300
Page 17 of 20
Veritec Report
Page 185 of 202
Veritec Report
Final Report
Water Loss Planning
6 Appendix A November 2012 Night Flow Analysis Results
Page 186 of 202

AgendaItem#7c.
AgendaItem#7c.
Final Report
Water Loss Planning
7 Appendix B Sewerin Acoustic Leak Detection Equipment
Stethophone 06 Wireless Amplified Listening Device
SeCorrPhon06 Combined correlator and electro-acoustic water leak detector
Page 19 of 20
Veritec Report
Page 187 of 202

Veritec Water Metering Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Veritec Water Metering Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Veritec Water Metering Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AgendaItem#7c.

Water Meter Feasibility Report Water Loss Planning Report

Billed Unmetered Consumption 950.5 ML

Revenue Water 968 ML +/- 18.5%

Leaks, breaks and overflows on mains, etc.

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

Total Sustained Savings ML/yr 234.4 18.0 302.6

Figure 2 Water Savings Assessment for different Metering Scenarios

Figure 3 Net Present Value results of different metering scenarios

Figure 4 Water Loss and a Triple Bottom Line approach

Ongoing Annual or Year 2 Costs

Sonic Surveys & Acoustic Equipment Purchase

Pressure Management Assessment

Verified Flow Meters to feed analysis $20,000

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

Meter Feasibility Assessment

Page 100 of 202

Meter Feasibility Assessment

Veritec Consulting Inc.

Page 101 of 202

Meter Feasibility Assessment

ML MIU NPV NRW PCC PRV RF RMR SCADA WTP

Veritec Consulting Inc.

Page 102 of 202

Meter Feasibility Assessment

Interchangeable with Industrial, Commercial, Institutional (ICI)

Veritec Consulting Inc.

Page 103 of 202

Meter Feasibility Assessment

Volume In Category - 2011 Water Balance ML/yr 950.5 180.2 1008.8

Sustained Reduction in Customer Consumption % -14% -10% 0%

Sustained Reduction in Water Loss % -5% 0% -30%

Total Sustained Savings

Universal Metering Unmetered ICI Water Loss

ML/yr 234.4 18.0 302.6

Figure 1 2011 Demand Profiles Across Meter Coverage Scenarios

Veritec Consulting Inc.

Page 104 of 202

Meter Feasibility Assessment

COR 2011 Baseline Demands 250 200 150 100 50 0

COR Demand Forecasts with ICI Metering

COR Demand Forecasts with Universal Metering

COR Forecast Demands with District Metering

250 200 150 100 50 0

Page 105 of 202

Baseline Gross Demand

Meter Feasibility Assessment

Veritec Consulting Inc.

Page 106 of 202

Meter Feasibility Assessment

Veritec Consulting Inc.

Page 107 of 202

Meter Feasibility Assessment

Result of an un-validated water audit.

Veritec Consulting Inc.

Page 108 of 202

Meter Feasibility Assessment

3 Task #3 Water Savings Assessment from Metering

Veritec Consulting Inc.