Non-Revenue Water Reduction an International Update
Roland Liemberger
Topics of the Presentation:
S choosing the right performance indicator
S outsourcing of NRW reduction – the Selangor
(Malaysia) example
S brief notes on the IWA leakage conference in
Cyprus
2
Around the globe one and the same problem ...
3
too much precious water
is lost
4
great engineers since ever wanted
to build huge schemes .....
5
... and politicians always enjoy
opening ceremonies!
6
7
8
that's why we have a major
problem:
NRW
(Non-Revenue Water)
9
IWA Standard Water Balance
Authorised
Billed
Authorised
Consumption
Billed Metered Consumption
Billed Unmetered Consumption
Revenue
Water
Consumption
Unbilled
Authorised
Consumption
System
Input
Apparent
Losses
Volume
Water
Losses
10
Real
Losses
Unbilled Metered Consumption
Unbilled Unmetered Consumption
Unauthorised Consumption
Non
Customer Meter Inaccuracies
Revenue
Leakage on Transmission and
Distribution Mains
Leakage and Overflows at
Storage Tanks
Leakage on Service Connections
up to point of Customer Meter
Water
Traditional PIs for Real Losses
S per property per day
11
Traditional PIs for Real Losses
S per property per day
S per km of mains per
day
12
Traditional PIs for Real Losses
S per property per day
S per km of mains per
day
S per service connection
per day
13
Traditional PIs for Real Losses
S per property per day
S per km of mains per
day
S per service connection
per day
S percentage of system
input volume
20%
80%
Consumption
14
Losses
Real Losses as % of System Input
VIENNA
(Austria)
8.5 %
15
Real Losses as % of System Input
LEMESOS
(Cyprus)
12.5 %
16
Real Losses as % of System Input
DUSHANBE
(Tajikistan)
16.2 %
17
Real Losses as % of System Input
BRISTOL
(UK)
16.8 %
18
Real Losses as % of System Input
PHILADELPHIA
(USA)
25.8 %
19
Real Losses as % of System Input
MAKKAH
(Saudi Arabia)
31.6 %
20
The Infrastructure Leakage Index
S a better Indicator
S describes the quality of infrastructure
management
S is the ratio of Current Annual Real Losses to
Unavoidable Annual Real Loses
ILI = CARL / UARL
S being a ratio, it has no units
21
The 4 Components of a Successful
Leakage Management Policy
Pressure
Management
Speed and
Quality of
Repairs
Unavoidable
Annual Real
Losses
Potentially
Recoverable
Real Losses
Pipeline and
Assets
Management
22
Selection
Installation
Maintenance
Rehabilitation
Replacement
Active Leakage
Control
Current
Annual
Volume of
Real Losses
The 4 Components of a Successful
Leakage Management Policy
Pressure
Management
Speed and
Quality of
Repairs
Potentially
Recoverable
Real Losses
Pipeline and
Assets
Management
23
Selection
Installation
Maintenance
Rehabilitation
Replacement
Active Leakage
Control
Current
Annual
Volume of
Real Losses
ILI and the Economic Level of
Leakage (ELL)
Unavoidable
Annual Real
Losses
Economically
Recoverable
Real Losses
Economic Level of Leakage
Current Annual Volume of
Real Losses
24
ILI from 1 to . . . . . . .?
25
ILI from 1 to . . . . . . .?
26
Comparing ILI to Percentages
Real Losses [% of System Input]
60
50
40
Holy City of Makkah
30
Philadelphia
20
Bristol
10
Lemesos
Dushanbe
Vienna
0
1
27
10
ILI
100
1000
What's the problem?
S NRW Reduction is 'not a nice job'
S Difficult to do for a public company (limited
funds, limited manpower, limited options to
motivate staff)
S Could be outsourced very efficiently
S Utility would supervise/monitor the contractor
28
The Solution:
Performance Based
NRW Reduction Contracts
29
Performance Based
NRW Reduction Contracts
An all-inclusive contract with
contract payments directly related to target
achievement,
where the contractor has to reduce NRW in an
agreed area
by an agreed unit rate per volume NRW reduced
(e.g. m3/d).
30
From Theory to Practice
NRW Reduction Project in Selangor,
Malaysia
31
SELANGOR
32
Selangor Water Supply
- basic facts
S Water is produced by privatised bulk
water suppliers
S Water is distributed by Selangor State
Waterworks Department
S Area covered includes Kuala Lumpur
Ø~ 800,000 hectares
Ø ~ 13,000 km of water mains
Ø ~ 5 million population
33
Overall Water Situation
Demand (Mm3/day)
7
6
Extraction
Limit
5
4
3
2
1
0
2000
34
2010
2020
NRW Situation in Selangor
S NRW ~ 40% of Total Supply
S ~ 280 million cubic metres per year
S ~ 821 litres per connection per day
S if reduced by 50%: enough to supply an extra
1.8 million people
35
Water Balance Selangor
Apparent Losses
(95 Mm3/yr)
Consumption (520
Mm3/yr)
NRW
(290 Mm3/yr)
Real Losses (195
Mm3/yr)
36
Physical Losses Selangor
Excess Losses
Physiacal Losses
195 Mm3/yr
Reported Bursts
Background
Leakage
37
Selangor NRW Reduction Contract
S A Performance Target Based NRW
Reduction Contract in 2 Phases
S Phase 1 09/98 – 03/00 “Pilot Project”
S Phase 2 commenced April 2000 “Statewide Project” (9 years)
38
Phase 1 Contract Characteristics
Duration
18 months
Start
15 September 1998
Completion
14 March 2000
Contract value RM 17.1 M (US$ 4.5 M)
Performance Targets
Ø physical losses reduction
10,450 m 3/day
Ø meter accuracy improvement 6,400 m3/day
Ø Overall NRW Reduction 18,540 m3/day
39
The contract price includes
S Planning, engineering, leak detection,
construction supervision
S Repair materials, meters, equipment
S All required civil, repair and installation works
40
Physical Loss
Reduction Programme
S establishment of NRW zones
S installation of bulk meters and Pressure
Reducing Valves
S Component based leakage modelling
S replacement of all leaking service
connections
S leak repair
S pressure management
41
42
22:00
20:00
18:00
16:00
14:00
12:00
10:00
08:00
06:00
04:00
02:00
00:00
Flow Rate (l/s)
60
30
50
25
40
20
30
15
20
10
10
5
0
0
Pressure (m)
Example from Selangor:
43
22:00
20:00
18:00
16:00
14:00
12:00
10:00
08:00
06:00
04:00
02:00
00:00
Flow Rate (l/s)
60
30
50
25
40
20
30
15
20
10
10
5
0
0
Pressure (m)
Inflow, pressure and leakage
44
22:00
20:00
18:00
16:00
14:00
12:00
10:00
08:00
06:00
04:00
02:00
00:00
Flow Rate (l/s)
60
30
50
25
40
20
30
15
20
10
10
5
0
0
Pressure (m)
Leakage components
45
22:00
20:00
18:00
16:00
14:00
12:00
10:00
08:00
06:00
04:00
02:00
00:00
Flow Rate (l/s)
60
30
50
25
40
20
30
15
20
10
10
5
0
0
Pressure (m)
After leak repair
46
22:00
20:00
18:00
16:00
14:00
12:00
10:00
08:00
06:00
04:00
02:00
00:00
Flow Rate (l/s)
Consumption - before and after
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Meter Accuracy
Improvement Programme
S selection of meters to be replaced
S Installation of new meters
S detection of illegal connections and report
to JBAS
47
Monitoring
S Flow and pressure measurements PRIOR to
any activities
S Measurements to be repeated AFTER
completion
S Meter records of replaced meters compared
with a three month reading of new meters
48
Phase 1 Achievements
Performance Targets
Achieved:
Ø physical losses reduction
10,450 m 3/day 11,429 m 3/day
Ø meter accuracy improvement 6,400 m3/day 9,212 m3/day
Ø Overall NRW Reduction
18,540 m 3/day 20,898 m3/day
49
Phase 2 Contract Characteristics
Duration
9 years
Start
April 2000
Completion
April 2009
Contract value RM 398 M (US$ 105 M)
Performance Targets
Ø reduce physical losses by minimum 97,500 m 3/day
Ø improve meter accuracy by minimum 81,450 m 3/day
Ø Overall NRW Reduction
198,900 m 3/day
50
Annualised Savings
51
IWA Leakage Conference
Cyprus, Nov. 2002
S 3-day specialised conference
S attracted participants from 27 countries
S has facilitated new advances and concepts to
stretch the current thinking on
Øreal and apparent losses evaluation and
Østrategic solutions
52
Most interesting topics (I):
S Component based apparent loss modelling
(Julian Thornton, WSO)
S Latest findings from North America (AwwaRF
study) (Paul Fanner, WSO)
S Introducing DMAs in North America (Ken
Brothers, Halifax Regional Water Commission)
S New Water Balance Software, 'Aqualibre'
www.aqualibre.info
53
Most interesting topics (II):
S Tactical planning of leakage reduction (Alex
Rizzo, Malta Water Services Corporation)
S Practical experience in applying the ILI (Allan
Lambert)
S Water loss reduction in Italy and Greece
S Pressure Reduction in South Africa (Ronnie
McKenzie, WRP)
54
IWA Water Loss Taskforce
S ~ 40 Members from around the world
S Chair: Ken Brothers, Halifax Regional Water
Commission (Canada)
S Teams were formed to do further research:
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Real Water Losses (including ILI/ ELL ) (Leader: Paul Fanner, USA)
Apparent Losses (Leader: Alex Rizzo, Malta)
PI and International benchmarking (Leader: Ronnie McKenzie, SA)
Leak Detection Practices (Leader: Richard Pilcher, UK)
District Metered Areas (Leader: John Morrison, UK)
Pressure Management Team (Leader: Julian Thornton, USA)
S Next important IWA Leakage Event: World
Water Congress 2004, Marrakech (Morocco)
55
The Way Forward ??
S is it likely that politicians and media (and the
Bank?) will stop using percentages???
S a new indicator is needed which
Øis simple, ideally using percentages
Øtakes ECONOMICS into account
S ENE – the Economic Network Efficiency
56
Calculate the ENE
S step 1: determine CARL
S step 2: calculate the economic level of
leakage, express as EARL
(Economic Annual Real Losses)
S step 3: calculate the Economic Leakage
Index ELI = CARL / EARL
S step 4: calculate the ENE:
ENE [%] = 1 / ELI
57
Economic Network Efficiency
58
Thank you.
www.waterlosses.com
59