SAVING WATER THROUGH AUDITING AND METERING

The Experience of Liverpool John Moores University
Adam van Winsum, Peter Hopkinson and Peter James
University of Bradford

Table of Contents

Executive Summary
Background
The Initiative
Benefits
The Process
Key Learning Points

HEEPI is a project funded under the Good Management Practice initiative of the Higher Education Funding Council. It involves a partnership of four universities - Bradford (the project leaders), Gloucestershire, Leeds Metropolitan and UMIST - together with the Yorkshire Universities Association and the Joint Procurement Policy and Strategy Group. It also has close links with the Association of University Directors of Estates. The project began in September 2001 and will run until August 2003. It aims to improve the environmental performance of higher education institutions by a) stimulating environmental benchmarking, for example by collecting energy and water data for individual buildings and b) by developing the capacity of staff with environment-related responsibilities to achieve positive environmental change within their institutions (through workshops, best practice case studies and other means). See www.heepi.org.uk or contact the project officer Adam van Winsum at a.vanwinsum@Bradford.ac.uk for more information.

Executive Summary

Like most universities in the 1990s Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) had no detailed information on water consumption and simply paid the provider's invoice when it was received. However in 1998 it was noticeable that water costs were approaching those for gas. The outcome was a detailed analysis of previous year's invoices which revealed many anomalies. These included continued billing for sites which the university no longer owned, and very excessive consumption at one site which was eventually traced to a large underground leak.

The generation of this detailed information eventually resulted in the university receiving a repayment of over £80,000 from the supplier. It also stimulated a joint programme to ensure that each building was separately metered at a single supply point. The information, which these new meters have provided, highlighted opportunities for - and soon resulted in the implementation of - water efficiency measures, many with paybacks of 2-3 years or less. These included dams in cisterns; urinal controls, percussion taps, inline restrictors and replacement showerheads.

The net result of these measures was a reduction of consumption from 268,168 cubic meters in early 1998 to 72,053 cubic meters in early 2001, with a fall in annual costs over the same period from £257,288 to £95,842. These benefits were gained with an investment of £75,000.

Because water has been neglected in most HEIs there are great opportunities to achieve this level of savings in other universities. The starting point is a thorough audit of consumption, followed by a metering strategy to build a more detailed picture of consumption. The greatest gains are also likely to be achieved by a continuous improvement programme rather than occasional one-off measures.

1. Background

The UK HE sector consumes a vast amount of water/water for sewerage on their estates. Recent figures from the Estates Management Statistics indicate that the 72% of UK HEI's, which they cover, have water costs in excess of £28m per annum. In some cases this means that water bills are almost as great as heating bills. Despite this, many HEI's do not actively manage and conserve water.

One exception to this rule is Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU). Since 1997 it has achieved dramatic savings in the cost and consumption of water as the result of simple efficiency improvements and rigorous financial management. LJMU's energy manager, Les Richards, has driven the initiative and received industry-wide recognition for his achievements.

2. The Initiative

On an annual basis, Les Richards produces annual utility expenditure reports that are presented to senior management. These reports analyse both cost and consumption of utilities across all 31 sites of the university, which covers 45 buildings being occupied on average by 22,000 students and 2,500 staff.

It was when preparing the 97/98 report that Les noticed that water costs were approaching those of other utilities, particularly gas. Table 1 summarises the costs of water and gas as a percentage of the utilities budget in this and subsequent years:

Table 1 Water and Gas Expenditure at LJMU

Year Water % Gas %

96/97 8% (estimated) /

97/98 17% 17%

98/99 13% 14%

00/01 6% 20%

This prompted an investigation. Although Les Richards was unsure what level water costs should be, the figures "rang alarm bells with me as the university doesn't have a high volume of student residences, catering establishments or water-intensive research." Out of the 45 sites, only 2 are classed as water intensive. These are the I.M.Marsh campus with a swimming pool, sports hall, home economics and student accommodation, and the James Parsons Building (pharmacy department), which has several stills for research purposes. The remaining sites are all office-based teaching and support, where water is only used for toilets and catering.

Conducting a Water Audit

The first step, in early 1998, was to work with the university's water supplier in conducting an intensive water audit. This began with careful checking of the previous three years of invoices. Each invoice was recorded in a computer database, TEAM, in order to establish patterns of consumption, standing charges and estimates versus actual billings.

An analysis of the TEAM data revealed many interesting anomalies, including the following:

A high proportion of estimated readings over a long period of time
LJMU was billed for three sites it didn't own
LJMU wasn't billed for two sites it was occupying.

An immediate action was therefore to request that all meter invoices were supplied with an actual meter reading, and estate colleagues were deployed to conduct their own monthly readings for cross-referencing.

The next stage was an actual audit/inspection of all water meters, which identified several additional problems. Some meters were found to be unused, inaccurate or leaking. Several sites were found to have more than one water meter, and in some cases more than one supplier. This meant that the university was paying for water it was not in fact consuming, and also paying excessively high standing charges (which are based on the size of the meter and diameter of the supply pipes at the meter point). At that time, the standing charge for a 50 mm supply was £125 per month, whilst a 100mm supply was £700 per month.

One particularly important discovery was a major leak at the James Parsons Building, Byrom Street site - later calculated at 147,518 cubic meters of water over a period of 31 months up to May 1999. The leaks were not picked up because the supplier was providing estimated readings, and there was no physical evidence because the building is built on easily permeable sand. Once discovered, the fractured pipe work was repaired immediately, reducing consumption from 3,800 cubic metres in the month preceding the repairs to 1,300 in the one following.

Armed with the additional information, Les Richards then initiated three actions:

Negotiations with the water supplier about over-payment
Water meter rationalisation
Supply network downsizing.

Negotiations with the water supplier

A quick agreement was made to only charge LJMU for the sites it was occupying, and to refund the payments for water supply to buildings not occupied by the university. The claim for reimbursement of over-payments made because bills were estimated inaccurately took longer to resolve, and was eventually taken to the water industry regulator. The final result was that LJMU was repaid over £80,000 - almost all the amount it was originally claiming.

Water meter rationalisation

The first stage was to ensure that each building had only a single supply point and meter, so that only one standing charge was incurred. During 1999, all meters on the 43 sites were fitted with pulsed outputs so that they could be connected to a TREND building energy management system. The pulsed meter is interfaced with computer software known as State of The Art Eco Warrior. Via a modem, real-time data at 60-second intervals is transmitted to a main computer. This allows early warnings of excessive consumption, which could indicate a leak and helps to continue the water management initiatives. Water consumption at four key buildings (I M Marsh Swimming Pool, Aldham Robarts Learning Resource Centre, Peter Jost Enterprise Centre and North Western Halls Student Accommodation) are also monitored continuously.

Supply network downsizing

In order to reduce standing charges, the water inputs to most of the university's 43 buildings were downsized to better match the scale of demand. This was done in several ways (inserting a reducer, modifications to supply pipe work or changing the meter). The water company must carry out the downsizing within strict guidelines. There are safety issues to consider such as whether the supply feeds a fire hydrant and general loss of pressure for equipment.

In conjunction with the metering and financial improvements, water reduction methods were introduced across the site. These improvements focussed on 'quick win', short-term paybacks. Improvements included dams in cisterns; urinal controls, percussion taps, inline restrictors and replacement showerheads to further reduce water consumption.

The showerhead restrictors alone cut down consumption drastically. Across LJMU site, the average water flow was 22 litres per minute. All showers in halls of residence, sports facilities and staff changing facilities were updated. This resulted in a reduced water flow of 6.5 litres per minute per showerhead across the campus.

3. Benefits

The university has documented a number of financial and environmental gains arising from its utilities management policies (see http://cwis.livjm.ac.uk/est/Ewpolicy.htm). In the case of water, in February 1998, the university consumed 268,168 cubic meters of water at a cost of £257,288. Following the improvements, in April 2001, the university's annual water consumption was confirmed at 72,053 cubic meters, costing £95,842.

The total cost for the water efficiency programme was £75,000 over the 3 years. This included:

Repair to underground leaks
Disconnection of redundant supplies
Replacement of meters
Downsizing supply meters
Condensing supplies to a common source
Urinal controls, WC dams, push control taps, inline restrictors and replacement showerheads
Team Energy Accounting Software Programme
New Pulsed meters
Interfacing with TREND BEMS.

A breakdown of costs associated with the improvement programme over the 3-year period can be seen below:

Setting up database & software £4,000
Training £1,000
Computer equipment £3,000
Administration £5,000
Installation costs £54,000
Maintenance costs £3,000
Consultant reports £5,000

The main funding for these initiatives has been the £20-30,000 that has been regularly set aside from the annual energy management budget of approximately £70,000. Les Richards believes that "all the improvements I achieved were restricted within my budget. If the money was available outside of the budget, these savings could have been realised a lot sooner, probably in six to nine months".

4. The Process

Les Richards continually carries out awareness raising and training to promote energy and water conservation with building occupants. This includes training courses, water conservation displays and publications on energy efficiency guidelines. He also regularly liases with all departments. This helps build a rapport, which is useful when action is needed - "I still have improvements to make around the site, especially in a couple of buildings that use stills for water based research. I need to carefully consult the department heads to make sure that I can achieve water savings but still allow the research to function at its best."

Les also recognises the importance of involving students in water efficiency improvements and has spent a lot of time with third year architectural students, where he is able to disseminate his experiences to the future building designers. He comments that "More work needs to be done to increase communication between energy managers/engineers and the building designers. Too often, simple efficiency measures can be ignored. By educating LJMU students, hopefully they will begin to see the benefits of designing in simple energy and water efficiency measures, at the least."

5. Key Learning Points

Water costs are a growing proportion of utilities expenditure but most people are unaware of their size - hence building awareness is necessary to achieve action.

Because water has been neglected in most HEIs there are great savings opportunities from simple efficiency measures.

The starting point is a thorough audit of consumption, followed by a metering strategy to build a more detailed picture of consumption.

The greatest gains are likely to be achieved by a continuous improvement programme rather than occasional one-off measures.

Figure 1 - Water Consumption Reduction at LJMU 1999-2001