Page 329 - Water Loss Control

298 Cha pte r Se v e ntee n

17.2.2 Reducing Location Time
The time it takes a utility to locate a known leak depends on the tools and skills of the
leak detection crew in pinpointing the exact location of the leak source. The location
time can be reduced by making more crews available for leak pinpointing and by mak-
ing sure that the crews are well-trained, motivated, and equipped. Leak detection crews
that utilize state-of-the-art leak correlators will typically respond faster and more accu-
rately in pinpointing leaks than crews that only utilize mechanical sounding equip-
ment. The policy decision on how fast the utility responds to a leak it is aware of should
be evaluated using benefit to cost analysis. The higher the value of the water lost
through running leaks the quicker the utility should respond in locating a leak.
17.2.3 Optimizing Repair Time
The time it takes a utility to repair a leak depends upon a number of factors. The number
of repair crews available to address leaks, their level of training and motivation, and
how well they are equipped are primary factors. Water utility policy also has a strong
bearing on the average repair time to address leaks. Water utilities may have set per-
formance targets for how fast a service line leak, a mains leak, and the like need to be
repaired. Nevertheless, there are significant differences in leak repair time from utility
to utility. Top performing water utilities repair leaks on an average within 12 to 24 hours
once they are aware of the leak. Other utilities may take weeks to months to repair leaks
that are not causing supply disruptions or infrastructure damage.
A significant factor in overall leak repair time is the type of policy that water utili-
ties accord to customer service line leaks. It is standard practice in many water utilities
worldwide to require customers to own and maintain at least a portion of the service
line that extends from the water distribution main to the customer premises. A small
number of utilities require customers to own the entire length of service line, while a
majority of systems require the customer to own the section between the property line
or curb stop to the customer premise. Requiring customers to arrange for repairs of
known leaks on their service lines has been found to be a highly inefficient leakage
management policy, since customer inherently responds in much slower fashion than
utility crews would in effecting leakage repairs. It is very feasible for water utilities to
operate service connection repair programs that efficiently implement repairs in 2 to
4 days after a leak is discovered. For most customer-arranged repairs, response time
typically averages several weeks. The longer leaks run, the greater the leakage losses.
In order to operate efficient leakage control programs, and to save customers the
effort and aggravation of arranging leak repairs, many water utilities operate service
connection insurance or warranty programs. For a small additional fee included in their
regular billing, customers can rely upon the water utility to make all arrangements for
service connection repair or replacement when leaks arise, and pay no additional costs.
These approaches generally handle service connection leaks more efficiently than
customer-arranged repairs, and help to improve customer relations. Water utilities
should track response and repair times and, if they require customers to arrange repairs,
consider reevaluating this approach as a means to reduce the duration of customer
service leaks occurring in their system.
Another important factor to consider in leak repair efficiency is the effectiveness of
the work order management in the water utility. Water utilities should employ a robust
work order management information system to track and archive information on cus-
tomer complaints and utility-generated work orders. Sound work order tracking is