WIPAC Monthly May 2019

WIPAC MONTHLYThe Monthly Update from Water Industry Process Automation & Control
www.wipac.org.uk Issue 5/2019- May 2019

In this Issue
WIPAC Monthly is a publication of the Water Industry Process Automation & Control Group. It is produced by the group
manager and WIPAC Monthly Editor, Oliver Grievson. This is a free publication for the benefit of the Water Industry and please
feel free to distribute to any who you may feel benefit. However due to the ongoing costs of WIPAC Monthly a donation website
has been set up to allow readers to contribute to the running of WIPAC & WIPAC Monthly, For those wishing to donate then
please visit https://www.patreon.com/Wipac all donations will be used solely for the benefit and development of WIPAC.
All enquires about WIPAC Monthly, including those who want to publish news or articles within these pages, should be directed
to the publications editor, Oliver Grievson at olivergrievson@hotmail.com
From the editor............................................................................................................. 3
Industry news..............................................................................................................
Highlights of the news of the month from the global water industry centred around the successes of a few
of the companies in the global market.
4 - 11
Smart Metering in the Water Industry: A small step or a giant leap..............................
This month’s feature article is based upon the +Add Strategy smart metering workshop that was sponsored by
Diehl. The workshop discussed strategies for the adoption of smart meters across the water industry, The progress
that companies have made so far and what strategies will see smart meters adopted more widely
12-14
Security, complexity & Huawei - Protecting the UKs telecoms network ........................
In a blog produced by the UK government this month this is an article about the complexity of a telecoms network
and the security measures that are employed within it. The article also explains the actual risk that Huawei poses
to the UK telecoms network
15-18
The resistance to instrumentation: A look at why there is resistance to use modern
instrumentation to its full benefit.................................................................................
In this article which was the second of the WIPAC White papers that was published in 2013 we look at the
phenomenon of the resistance to the effective use of instrumentation in the water industry
19-22
Taming the anthropogenic water cycle..........................................................................
In our second article from we look at the anthropogenic water cycle and how we are really in a system of systems
within the larger hydrological cycle that we all learnt at school. This article looks at the different aspects of the
cycle from water through the customer and back to water and looks at a potential measurement scenario and
what we could do to make this intelligent
23-27
Workshops, conferences & seminars............................................................................
The highlights of the conferences and workshops in the coming months. 28-29

From the Editor
This month we celebrated 8 years of the Water Industry Process Automation & Control group and if we look back all
that time ago we can see that the Water Industry has, at least in some areas, come on along way. I remember a few
years ago sitting on a panel at the WWT Smart Water Network conference and being challenged about “Smart Wastewater
Networks” being a pipe dream that had been talked about for many years and was never really going to happen. It was
a great challenge from a great mind in the water industry as it hadn’t happened and had been a concept for many years.
Its taken quite a few years since that challenge but the concept is starting to become a reality. We are seeing intelligent
solutions being put into the wastewater collection network, we are seeing the potential for novel techniques such as
fibre-optic cable being permanently routed into the sewer along with some associated measurement techniques. The
journey to a smart water industry has come on along way in the past 8 years.
It was at a workshop run by +Add Strategy earlier this month where the industry witnessed the potential of what we
can do with some well-placed sensors and a lot of back-room analytics to extract the worth of the smart water industry
out in what can really be called the most prevalent vertical segment of the smart water industry. There were some fantastic quotes from the day which are
summarised in this month’s feature article but for me at least there was one crucial quote that if anyone is having doubts about Smart Water Meters should
listen too – “Smart Meters allow better (customer) service”
This is of course just one of the benefits from collecting data to feed leakage models and event management systems, to detecting leaks in the customers
homes all the way to interacting with the customer to help them manage their water usage and lowering per capita consumption.
The Water Industry faces some huge targets over the next few years and it is the “Smart” Water Industry that can help as a tool to address these challenges.
Non-Revenue Water has been the first of the vertical segments to be addressed as it is the easiest one to justify from a capital investment point of view
however there are already more vertical segments underway.
As I am in a reflective mood I have gone back a few years in this month’s issue and included two of the WIPAC papers that were produced in the first couple of
years the first one I’ve put in is the “Resistance to the effective use of instrumentation” and secondly the “Anthropogenic water cycle paper,” what they two
paper demonstrate is that the industry needs to be working in a “System of Systems approach” and also the fact that data and the associated instrumentation
are a vital part of the “Smart” water approach. What this shows is that the Smart Water Systems approach has been around and been thought about for many
years what is important is that it does not have to be complicated and some of the most successful projects to date have been in taking small steps along a very
long journey....the use of data and the associated instrumentation is the first step in those very small steps from smart water meters to the basic operational
parameters that we collect each day, the important thing though is that the data is accurate. The fundamental basis of the smart water industry that we are
developing towards is the instrumentation.
Have a good month,
Oliver

Asset optimisation key to fighting future challenges
The water sector should shift focus away from capex spending and fully concentrate on optimising its existing assets, UKWIR chief executive Steve Kaye told
Utility Week Live. Kaye was speaking as part of the Water Company of the Future session at the event in Birmingham today (21 May), which is part of Utility
Week’s new campaign to explore how utilities may need to adapt to cope with the many difficulties they face. He said challenges such as climate change and
population growth should be seen as an opportunity to improve.
“We’ve got an opportunity to mitigate climate change and our effect on the environment, an opportunity to use water in a better way, an opportunity to change
ageing assets into ageless assets, and an opportunity to change the culture so that we are more accepting of innovation,” Kaye told delegates. “Ofwat are taking
a positive position in my eyes at the moment in terms of encouraging innovation.”
He said it will be important for the industry to abandon its reliance on building its way out of trouble, suggesting the existing asset base may be able to contend
with the growing pressures if it is managed more intelligently.
“The way the industry has been regulated and funded has to me been very capex-biased,” he said. “Whenever we’ve had a problem, like population growth or
a change in standards at a treatment works, we’ve built new assets. “The opportunity we’ve got is: How do we make better use of our existing assets?”
Emphasising the tight opex budgets that companies contend with, he said there needs to be a shift towards making better use of sensors and data to analyse
asset condition and carry out proactive maintenance.
“My gut feel is that we probably have enough assets to last maybe 10 years without building anything new,” he said.
“The financial mechanism that supports the water industry has got to allow that to happen. To do that, we might end up spending a lot more opex. It might be
on sensors. It might be on data management. It might be on more people with different skills.
“You’ve got to be very open-minded about how we look at building new assets and how we optimise and maintain the existing assets, and that’s a real
opportunity for innovation.”
Kieran Brocklebank, head of innovation at United Utilities, agreed that asset optimisation is a vital factor going forward and cited examples of how the company
has started to utilise technology to detect problems before they happen and intervene as part of a wider ‘systems thinking’ approach.
“Every water company has millions and millions of assets,” he said. “Steve’s probably right. Can we use them better? Can we design, buy and store them better
and run them better than ever?”
United Utilities, which last year became the first water company in the UK to introduce large-scale artificial intelligence into its operational systems, was moved
to improve its processes after a sinkhole in Liverpool caused significant issues in 2017.
“There was a huge collapse and we had to close that part of a very busy road,” he said. “We had to close that down for six weeks to diagnose the problem, make
the repair and make it safe. That cost us a lot of money and downtime for customers, and we were in customers’ faces causing them a problem.
“We asked ourselves whether we could have done that any differently. We didn’t mean whether we could react more quickly and cheaply. What we meant was
whether we could have avoided it altogether.
“What we found was the technology existed already and we had access to lots of information. A satellite analysis of the ground condition around that hole
showed the movement in the soil. We could have spotted that with an artificial intelligence system that would have seen the deviation and alerted us.
“That was one that got away, but it showed us there is a business case for the systems thinking approach.”
He said the company had subsequently established an in-house team to look at data analytics.
“We realised we had loads of sensor readings, but it was very tricky to find any insights,” he said. “We did some research in this space and developed an in-house
model that can do what I mentioned – trying to find the normal signature of the network and spotting deviations as they occur. It’s a really powerful model and
it allows us to do things faster and in a preventative fashion.”
United Utilities is already enjoying success with the analytical technology and sees it as an important part of the systems thinking approach, which it aims to
develop significantly over the coming AMP periods loads and loads of ideas out there – you just need to adopt them faster,” Brocklebank said. “Our way of
adopting them faster is by putting the systems in to deliver on all these things.”
Page 4
Industry News

A data-led approach to clearing FOG
Water utilities have a major challenge working with local food businesses to prevent fats, oils and grease entering the sewer network, but a combined data and
marketing approach could be the answer. Fats, oils and grease (FOG) in the sewer network are a £90 million a year headache for water utilities in England and
Wales. While giant fatbergs get all the press coverage, there are hundreds and thousands of smaller blockages that the water companies are tasked with clearing
day in, day out.
Growing urban populations and denser concentrations of food outlets, along with legacy sewer networks, are all contributing to FOG build-up in the network.
And while larger food production facilities have to comply with environmental trade effluent regulations, unlike in the US and Ireland, no such rules exist for the
500,000 food service establishments (FSEs) in the UK.
In an ideal world, the problem would be solved if every FSE installed a grease-trap. Correctly sized, well-maintained equipment is the first step to prevention.
Capturing FOG at source and at scale would also provide the opportunity to generate significant biofuel resources, providing a stimulus to circular economy
initiatives.
SwiftComply is working closely with UK utilities in combined digital and face-to-face education and engagement programmes. One of the aims is to collate data
to better understand the food businesses using the sewerage networks.
Yorkshire Water has partnered with SwiftComply and, with support from City of York Council, to deliver a food service engagement pilot in the York city area to
tackle an increase in issues relating to FOG and fatbergs. SwiftComply will engage both digitally and physically with around 1,000 food businesses to assess and
improve their onsite FOG management practices.
The project campaign will involve SwiftComply establishing and publishing a website and digital media campaign to engage with food businesses. Further to
this, food businesses will be provided with the opportunity to opt into an onsite FOG Risk Audit, carried out by the SwiftComply team. Food businesses will be
provided with a report detailing areas they can improve and reduce their FOG Risk, along with support to manage these changes.
Initially, above-ground data on the number of restaurants, their GPS coordinates, cuisine type and contact details are collected using specially designed cloud-
based software. This information can then be expanded by finding out more about onsite FOG management from site visits, telephone interviews and digital
questionnaires.
The questions being asked include: Is a grease-trap installed? Is it correctly sized and fit-for-purpose? How is it maintained? Where is the captured grease
disposed to?
The data builds up a valuable resource for the utilities to tap into, facilitating much more robust decision-making around effective FOG education programmes
with local business owners. The FSEs are also provided with digital and paper educational materials promoting best practice kitchen grease management.
This includes washing-up practices such as advice on the dry-wiping of greasy cookware, crockery and equipment, along with guidance on safe storage of waste
oil, with the rule of thumb being to remove as much oily waste as possible before it comes into contact with water.
Steve Wragg, flood risk manager at City of York Council, says: “As a flood risk officer, I see first-hand what problems fat, oil and grease create on our sewer
network system. We’re pleased to support this campaign with Yorkshire Water. Anything we can do to highlight the problems this causes, including fatbergs or
other environmental damage, is a positive step.”
The historically light regulation of FSEs in the UK means water companies have a greater task in changing food business behaviour than in parts of the world
where licensing for their discharges to sewerage exists. A useful step forward would be for water utilities to agree terms for a national standard on best practice
in commercial kitchen grease management, so that all businesses are working to the same code.
The regulatory drive for cost efficiency in the water industry should lead to a nationwide utility-led grease prevention initiative, which would carry greater clout
than localised schemes. With or without regulatory change, combined technology and marketing approaches like the one being trialled in York are ideally suited
to addressing this complex and costly challenge.
WRc launch WRc Academy
The water industry faces a whole host of challenges over the next few decades, ranging from; climate change impacting on the quality and resilience of resources,
increasing customer challenges in terms of acceptability, affordability and appreciation for the value of water, ageing assets needing replacing or renovation on a
more frequent basis than currently planned and an ageing workforce with a decreasing pool of young people studying STEM subjects, WRc has created training
modules that will enhance senior staff knowledge and support junior staff training in subjects they need to know.
WRc has accumulated an unrivalled legacy of 92 years of water sector and environmental knowledge. How do we ensure that this knowledge is shared with
those people who want (and need) to know in readiness for AMP7 and beyond?
Our answer is to offer thirty eight training modules on subjects that are very relevant to the existing water and wastewater community of today, as they are to all
new entrants joining this exciting world of water. Our mission is to build greater expertise and capability within the water sector through sharing our knowledge.
The full brochure of training services is available to download by clicking here.
Page 5

Northumbrian Water trialling ‘Barnacle’ smart sensor
Northumbrian Water is trialling the first prototype of its ‘Barnacle’ smart sensor for toilets. An automatic toilet-like test rig has been purpose-built by Reece
Innovation to help develop and test the device, which is intended for use inside customers’ toilet cisterns to identify potential issues with supply such as leaky
loos.
Flushing automatically every 10 minutes using recycled water, researchers can alter the flow, pressure and temperature of the water in the test rig to check if
Barnacle, which gathers data at every flush, will detect a difference from the norm.
If it detects a difference, this could indicate there is a problem with either the customers’ water supply, or potentially even a bigger issue on the wider water
network, alerting customers before they’re even aware there’s a problem.
The idea for it came out of a design sprint facilitated by global IT and business consulting firm CGI and held at Northumbrian Water’s Innovation Festival in 2018,
where industry experts and academics looked at ways to use smart technology to improve customers’ lives.
Leaking toilets are serious water wasters, losing up to 215 litres a day as well as adding around £200 per year to a metered water bill. They can be hard to detect
as the water often runs from the toilet cistern into the back of the pan.
Barnacle could help customers save water and money by acting as an early warning system for problems that could affect a home. The device will also be able
to detect discoloured water and identify risks of freezing pipes, by effectively gathering data on the water inside the toilet.
Following the testing process, Northumbrian Water plans to identify an area in the North East to roll out a pilot project on a number of Barnacles.
Eddie Wrigley, Northumbrian Water’s innovation facilitator, said: “We’ve taken a really clever idea from the Innovation Festival and turned into a physical object,
a prototype that we’re actually testing now, using a purpose-built test rig.
“It’s so exciting to see it brought to life and to see this test rig in action, knowing that Barnacle is fitted inside and monitoring the data all the time, ready to let
us know when we change the parameters of the water.
“Put into a real-life situation, this could prove massively beneficial to our customers, alerting them to leaky loos, saving them water and money, as well as any
other potential problems we might experience on our network.
“Testing is going well so far and I’m looking forward to identifying an area that we can really put it to the test.”
Andy Baynes, CGI’s director, consulting services, said: “This is a great example of how today’s smart technology can be leveraged to help tackle one of the water
industry’s hardest challenges.
“Partnering with Northumbrian Water to take one of the exciting ideas from last year’s Innovation Festival and develop a working prototype has been a
rewarding experience for all involved.
“With longer term water shortages becoming a cause for increasing concern, it is tremendous to be able to apply technology in a way that is so beneficial not
only to Northumbrian Water customers but also to wider society.”
Northumbrian trials new street-level sensors to cut leakage
New street-level sensors that detect and report burst pipes as soon as they happen are being trialled by Northumbrian Water, as part of the company’s efforts
to find and fix leaks faster. The new technology has been developed in collaboration with Invenio Systems, a company that specialises in providing innovative
solutions for the water industry. The sensors are fitted to the outside of the pipe network, and the data they transmit can be used to assess the rate of flow of
water passing through the pipes.
When there is a burst on the network, the sensors will detect the change in the flow of water and the details will be passed on to Northumbrian Water’s leakage
detection team to investigate further.
The idea for a street-level sensor to help with leak detection was first explored at Northumbrian Water’s Innovation Festival in July 2017. Following that the
water company has been working with Invenio Systems to develop and trial the system. The next step will be to run a pilot project to test the performance of
the sensors on the Northumbrian Water network.
Joe Butterfield, Northumbrian Water network performance specialist, said: “This is another example of how we are using innovation to combat leaks and reduce
the amount of water that goes to waste from our pipe network.
“We have been working closely with Invenio Systems to develop this concept since the 2017 Innovation Festival, and we are excited to see how it performs. This
technology could make a real difference, helping us to detect leaks as soon as they happen so we can get out to fix them with minimal water going to waste, and
minimal disruption to our customers.”
Stuart Trow, Invenio Systems director, said: “We believe this is the first time anywhere in the world that this type of sensor has been used on a live water
distribution network to understand patterns of flow and to detect leaks. We are very excited to test our sensors in this way and we appreciate the support
provided by Northumbrian Water.”
The use of street-level sensors is one of a number of approaches that Northumbrian Water is currently working on to reduce leakage, including the use of satellite
technology to capture images which can be used to detect leaks, and the use of sniffer dogs to detect the scent of leaks. The company has also introduced a new
interactive online map to help customers report leaks quickly and track progress with repairs.
Page 6

Exciting time for water sensors, says Ofwat director
It is an exciting time for the roll-out of sensors in the water industry, Ofwat associate director Alison Fergusson has said, in advance of her appearance at the
Sensing in Water conference. Sensing technologies are set to become integral to the digitisation of the UK water industry and AMP7, the next regulatory asset
management period (2020-25) for England and Wales.
Speaking ahead of the fifth Sensing in Water conference, where she will deliver a keynote speech, Fergusson said, “The cost of monitoring and having real-time
data has really come down. Now the water industry has a chance to use the information that we’ve got on assets that have been out there for a while, but which
up till now have just been invisible.”
Sensing in Water 2019 is organised by the Sensors for Water Interest Group (SWIG) and the biennial event takes place in Nottingham on 25-26 September 2019.
Fergusson, whose role with the water industry regulator includes identifying cost efficiencies in water company business plans, will speak on the opening day.
“We’restartingtoseeopportunitiescomingthroughmonitoring,seeingdatacomeintoasensorysystemandthenminingthatdatatogetsomeusefulinformation
out of it. By putting that to use, companies can start to manage their systems more efficiently.”
Fergusson says that one of the challenges is knowing where to focus because there is so much that could be done, “I can’t think of a place where water
companies wouldn’t want to have a bit more information, be able to communicate with customers and let them know that they really understand what’s going
on, right down to their locality.”
She reflects on a sensor-based system that’s been installed in New Zealand, “It’s telling people where it’s safe to swim. Machine learning means they can predict
combined sewer overflow spills even before they happen - where the beaches will be clean and where they will be less clean.
“That sort of information gives customers real choice about what they do, even in their leisure time. By understanding systems better I believe we will get to
new and exciting places.”
Fergusson says more industry trials could help bring together some of the ideas, along with more collaboration to drive the innovation. Wastewater is one
area where much less is known, she says, “There have got to be massive benefits in terms of quantity, quality, system behaviour - there’s definitely room for
improvement. I think it’s an exciting time.”
Looking ahead to Sensing in Water, she says, “I hope it’s going to be somewhere where you can get exciting collaboration and that spark of innovation. I’m
looking forward to people coming together with their collective brain power to really think about how we can take these giant leaps forward and see the radical
changes that can be brought about by this new ability to get hold of data and do something with it.”
Sensing in Water 2019 brings together water companies, regulators, the supply chain and academia to discuss the potential of sensor technology in the water
industry. Sessions will include catchment monitoring, drainage infrastructure, distribution network monitoring and data analytics. There’s been a lot of promises
about 5G made in the past year. You can’t visit a news site without hearing about how 5G is going to make everything better. From downloading your favourite
Siemens And BuntPlanet To Declare A Cooperation — Reduce
Water Losses, Secure Water Supply And Increase Efficiency
Siemens and BuntPlanet have signed a sales distributorship agreement. With this agreement, the two companies provide a comprehensive portfolio on
equipment, software and services offering advanced solutions for the water industry, especially for the water leakage detection. This will amplify to reduce
water losses, secure the water supply and increase efficiency significantly. With this cooperation, both partners will make a major contribution towards securing
sustainable water supplies worldwide.
To ensure economic success, the water industry must meet today’s challenges, such as avoiding water losses, security of supply and operational efficiency.
Siemens provides the crucial foundation for this with innovative, needs-based technical solutions for electrification, automation and digitalization throughout
the water cycle rounded off by comprehensive services – ranging from desalination to the treatment of drinking, wastewater and industrial wastewater. Siemens
is the partner of choice when it comes to solutions in the water industry.
“As a result of the partnership with BuntPlanet, Siemens customers will be able to detect and localize leakages of any size quickly and precisely within water
distribution networks to stop water losses promptly when they occur and to safeguard seamless security of supply in a cost-efficient manner. We are delighted
to welcome BuntPlanet as our partner since this allows us to further strengthen our comprehensive digital offering for the Water Industry, particularly in the
area of leakage detection within water distribution networks;” said Markus Lade, Head of Siemens Water and Wastewater Industry.
BuntPlanet is a high-tech engineering company located in San Sebastian. They develop smart technology solutions based on Artificial Intelligence for the water
sector, which allow to detect and locate small leaks in water supply networks swiftly and with a high degree of accuracy. The company has been awarded funding
from EU Horizon 2020 SME Instrument fund and works with leading water utilities in Spain, Portugal, Germany, UK, South and North America. “At BuntPlanet
we want to reduce water losses around the world. This agreement will speed up the implementation of Artificial Intelligence to solve this global problem,” said
Ainhoa Lete, CEO of BuntPlanet.
For the water and wastewater industry Siemens provides comprehensive solutions from a single source: hardware and software for the complete life cycle
and all levels of the plant – from process instrumentation, industrial communication, and power supply systems to drive and protection technology as well as
automation and process control technology. From seawater desalination to the treatment of drinking water, wastewater, and industrial wastewater, all the way
to the management of water networks, the integrated portfolio covers the full life cycle of the entire plant from planning to maintenance towards lowering
energy consumption, minimizing water losses and reducing life cycle costs.
Page 7

Why we have to keep the 5G promise for rural communities
film in seconds to VR enabled surgery, 5G offers faster and more efficient services. Everyone from consumers to businesses will be able to benefit from the
technology. So far, so good then?
Not quite.
The problem with many of the promises made is that they often only apply to urban environments that have the required connectivity and infrastructure in
place. The promise does not stretch as far as rural communities, which struggle to even reach 4G standards in many instances. But the truth is that the 5G
promise is not only valid for urban environments, it can actually be fulfilled just as impressively in rural communities. Especially as 17% of UK economy comes
from rural areas and 27% of Scotland’s comes from rural areas.
This is crucial as 5G should not be something that only makes a difference to some people, it should make a difference to everyone. But for this to be successful,
then we need to be involving rural communities now and not putting them behind in the queue.
The grass is just as green on the other side
Agriculture in the United Kingdom uses 69% of the country’s land, yet the majority of people live in more condensed urban locations. One of the reasons that
connectivity has been an issue in rural areas is that there has not been the necessary financial incentives for companies in place. With 3G and 4G, the benefits
of faster data uploads and downloads are attractive for consumers, but often not applicable to industrial technologies. This means that many companies have
focused on delivering better connectivity to cities where there is more data to work with.
This is where 5G is different. In the 5G era, we are not only looking at connecting people, but millions of sensors covering everything from farmland to livestock.
This means that businesses are not just counting people to connect, they are counting every single thing that generates data.
The difficulty is gaining the knowledge of these new potential applications, then showcasing the potential for 5G to make a real difference. It’s one thing to have
all of this data, but what can we do with it?
As part of the DCMS funded 5G testbeds and trials programme, 5G RuralFirst is looking at the specific applications of 5G in rural locations, through a series of
trials in Orkney, Somerset and Shropshire across industries including agriculture, broadcasting, tourism and utilities. The purpose has been to show the value for
everyone from the end-user to the mobile operators.
5G can make a difference now and the future
Rural communities are facing a series of challenges across their councils, local businesses and daily lives of citizens. From shrinking government budgets to
increasingly stretched resources on farms, any way in which costs can be saved and efficiencies gained needs to be explored and implemented. This will not only
benefit these communities, but the UK as a whole.
The first phase of our trials showed that 5G can be one of the solutions to these challenges. We saw the potential for it to power drones capable of analysing
soil nutrition in real-time; the BBC broadcast in on the 5G Rural First network for the first time in Orkney; farmers monitor livestock through connected collars;
and the world’s first deployment of a CUPS based packet core, which has implications for rural deployments of IoT globally. These have shown that the promise
of 5G is not something that is going to take years to realise, but something the industry can act on now.
There is still a lot of work to be done if we are to fulfil the 5G promise, but we know that it’s a promise that can be kept.
Collaboration to adapt digital twin strategy for water utilities
This years SWAN Annual Conference, the 9th in the series, was held in Miami and attracted over 340 attendees from all over the globe, including 48 unique
utilities, and covered navigating the smart water journey: from leadership to results.
In particular, at this year’s conference, a new working group on Digital Twins in the Smart Water Industry was launched. The group is headed up by Colby
Manwaring of Innovyze. The Digital Twin Group was launched at a pre-conference workshop, with details available by clicking here. The goal of the group is To
develop a common strategy for developing Digital Twin technology for global water utilities that will provide a means for managing operations and assets in
real-time for greater operational efficiency, enhanced lifecycle asset management, and reduced costs. “Active Members” of the Work Group will help identify
and develop a common understanding of the role of: the hydraulic model, asset management, diverse data sets (GIS, IoT, SCADA, CMMS, etc.) in both real-time
and historical data, machine learning algorithms, and application integration for the calibration and use of the Digital Twin. The objectives are to:
• Identify key challenges for utilities utilizing the hydraulic model in operational mode
• Identify key challenges with data accuracy and data normalization across multiple systems
• Develop a holistic view of a water system via the culmination of digital technologies: IoT,
• VR/AR, mobility, machine learning, cloud computing, drones, etc.
• Identify and develop best practices for hydraulic model calibration including the utilization of real-time data from consumption meters, GIS,
SCADA, CMMS, and other IoT sensors
• Identify and develop best practices for aggregating digital twin subsystems (i.e. a pump digital twin)
• Identify and develop best practices for utilizing machine learning to help accurately model the water system
• Develop best practices for accessing data from the various silos of systems, applications, and IoT
• Develop best practices for application integration and application mobility
• Develop best practices for the collaboration of IT and OT in utilities
Page 8

From the most advanced water systems in the largest cities to the smallest systems in rural America,
the same scenario plays out daily. As demand peaks in the morning hours, system pressures drop. As
demand decreases throughout the evening hours, system pressures creep up, hitting their highest
levels in the early morning hours when most customers are asleep. This cycle exhibits the shift all
water utilities undergo as they transition from dynamic to static pressure conditions.
The continuous change from high pressure to low pressure strains utility assets, especially utilities
with aging infrastructure. System piping is exposed to a ballooning effect, expanding during the
higher pressures at night and contracting during the lower daytime pressures. This ballooning effect
is one reason it is common to see leaks in the middle of the night. Utilities utilizing permanent leak-
monitoring systems can see this while monitoring points of interest (POI). Background leaks that
start small grow over time until they finally surface or become critical failures. Another reason for
midnight water breaks is that the pressure is generally higher, spreading throughout the system
until it finds a “weak link in the chain.”
Flow-Based Pressure Management Solutions
So, what can be done to combat pressure fluctuations caused by changing
demands? A question utility operators should be asking is, “Do I really need
to run my system at maximum pressures when demand is low?” It is feasible
to knock the pressure down during off-peak hours using flow-based pressure
management techniques. Pressure management valves are standard pressure-
reducing valves (PRVs) with two additional pilots. The valve automatically
switches to the high-pressure pilot when flow demand is high or fire flow is
needed. The action is reversed to the low-pressure pilot when flow demand
drops, all the while keeping the downstream pressure steady. Adding pressure
management valves can both stabilize and reduce the overall pressure in a
system, thereby reducing the frequency of breaks, the time in between breaks,
and the volume lost due to breaks. This frees up resources to be deployed
elsewhere so water distribution system managers can be more proactive than
reactive.
Technology Advancements = Improved ROI
More robust electronics and telemetry are now being included in control valves as well. This
means there is a better business case for many water utilities to invest in the technology.
A common strategy for utilities to identify and combat water loss is the implementation of
district metered areas (DMAs). DMAs consist of dividing a system into several smaller areas
and closely monitoring the flows in and out of the area to identify non-revenue water rates.
DMAs typically contain a PRV and flow meter at their inlet.
Advanced valves are being manufactured that include flow metering and pressure monitoring
in the valve. When coupled with a solenoid-controlled pilot system and programmable logic
controller (PLC), you now have a fully automated control system able to control multiple inputs
(flow, pressure, valve position, etc.). Connect the valve to a SCADA system and you have a
smart valve that can monitor and make complex decisions in real time.
Motor-driven pilot controls offer another simple and cost-efficient way for utilities to automate
their automatic control valves. By installing a slow-speed motor actuator drive on a pressure-
reducing pilot, for example, utilities can adjust the pressure settings of a valve based on system
demands. In this application, an end user can run lower pressures during night-time flows
and higher pressures during daytime peak demand. Pilot motors respond to 4-20mA inputs,
making them easily controlled locally by a PLC or remotely through SCADA.
Pressure Management Programs Reduce Water Loss
Control valves touch every part of a water system, and there is one that can address nearly every problem that arises.
The four principle leakage reduction methods (as defined by the International Water Association) include pressure management, active leakage control, pipeline
and asset management, and speed of repairs. Having a comprehensive pressure management plan throughout your system will reduce the volumes lost through
background leakage; reduce the number of breaks, ultimately extending asset life; and extend time between breaks, allowing for more efficient operations.
Water distribution system managers face a daily battle to deliver a safe, quality product as efficiently as possible. Advanced control valves, when considered in
a wider variety of situations, offer an opportunity for them to improve operations and be more proactive.
Using Advanced Control Valves To Prevent Broken Mains And
Reduce Water Loss
Page 9

Smart Asset Management for Water Companies
Smart asset management is expected to drive significant improvements in water companies’ operations, but is the industry ready to embrace cutting-edge
analytical technology? As the water sector faces up to a wide variety of challenges, such as climate change, the skills gap and growing customer expectation, the
industry must find ways to work more effectively. Smart asset management, including artificial intelligence, could play an important role in driving improvements
and, while there are questions over the sector’s readiness for technological transformation, there is little doubt that such approaches are likely to be required
sooner rather than later.
Representatives from a range of UK water companies gathered to discuss the topic at WWT’s round table in Birmingham on May 1st, which was held in
association with Black & Veatch. Asked to define smart asset management, participants agreed that it involves having the ability to make informed, reliable
decisions with accurate information – not just making predictions but making them confidently. It was also argued that the concept involves looking beyond
maintenance to the whole lifecycle – knowing when assets will break down and when they need to be replaced, and enabling asset owners to make the right
decisions at the right time.
“The best form of asset management is the one where you don’t build anything,” one attendee said. “The priority is to do more with what you’ve got. If you
can’t do that, enhance it. If you can’t do that, then you replace it.”
Others raised the point that smart asset management facilitates a systematic approach that can find synergies between issues like leakage, bursts and water
quality and seek to address them as a group, pointing out that companies simply do not have the resources to tackle each challenge individually.
Data quality
Successful analytics relies on good information, though, and there were concerns that the industry is currently drowning in data, with the vast majority of it
providing little in the way of insight. The level of data is set to increase hugely in the coming years, too, with a raft of sensors being installed and, unless greater
efforts are made to separate good data from bad, that could prove counterproductive.
“Probably 99 per cent of the data collected may as well be in the bin because we don’t use it,” an attendee said. “It’s about data quality as well – if you put
garbage in, you get garbage out. We have a lot of that in the water industry. Some companies have made a lot of progress on that, but the first piece we have to
do is look at what data we need to be collecting, from CEOs down to the guys on the ground.”
Smart asset management systems promise to help separate the wheat from the chaff, automatically sifting data to determine patterns and anomalies and then
flag up issues as required, and participants said such technologies will be required to meet the demands of the future.
While the longest-serving members of staff might already be able to anticipate problems through intuition or listening to an asset, such insights are the result of
extensive experience and – particularly in light of the industry’s skills gap – will be extremely hard to replicate in the years to come.
For many staff, though, there is understandable hesitancy to embrace automation as it carries an implied threat to jobs. It was noted that the transition to smart
is viewed as “difficult and uncomfortable”, and that the pace of development is such that, by the time people are comfortable with any aspect of it, it tends to
have transformed again.
Attendees emphasised that smart systems require human intervention to both guide and interpret the analysis, and that their introduction should mean a
change in staff roles rather than a reduction in head count. Part of the answer, they said, is to show staff how they can benefit from embracing smart technology:
if it allows them to carry out the most boring parts of the job more quickly and easily, that frees them up to do the interesting and more creative parts, which
brings added value to the company.
“We need to stop saying it’s going to be hard,” one said. “We should be saying it’s going to be fun.”
In addition, it was argued that while humans assessing data might ultimately come to the same decision as the smart technology, they will frequently take far
longer to do so. Similarly, several attendees highlighted the need for the industry to change its mindset and adopt a more agile, fast-thinking approach.
“To achieve what we need to achieve for our customers, we have to embrace automation and retrain,” a participant said. “We need to free our minds.”
Workforce challenges
There was also a question raised about whether the industry has the right people in place to achieve its aims, with one attendee saying the required balance of
analytical and creative qualities is lacking at present. It was also suggested that adopting a more forward-thinking, technological approach could help to bring in
the required talent, with digital-first youngsters likely to be attracted by the idea of utilising AI to maximise their potential.
Some companies have already taken strides towards smart technology and are seeing positive results. One attendee said their company was now in a position
to make predictions, although not always with confidence, highlighting the vast number of false alarms that occurred during their earliest experiments. As they
gained more experience, though, the number of false alarms has fallen to a level where the technology is starting to deliver useful insights.
Even so, there were doubts as to whether the industry is ready to step up as a whole. Challenges from Ofwat, not least the 15 per cent leakage reduction target
for AMP7, are forcing companies to reassess the way they do things and explore new ideas, but attendees noted that there has not been universal enthusiasm.
“We have the resources and we have the technology,” one said. “What we’re refusing to do is to use everything we have. A regulator should never push you. In
any other industry, the companies are pushing too hard and the regulator is pulling you back.”
-The WWT round table ‘Smart Asset Management for Water Companies’ took place in Birmingham on May 1st and was sponsored by Black & Veatch
Page 10

PortsmouthWaterMDsaysAI,machinelearninganddataanalytics
set to propel leakage management capability to new level
Bob Taylor. Chief Executive Officer of Portsmouth Water discusses the strategic issues for leakage management ahead of the 10th Global Leakage Summit taking
place in London next month, which he will be chairing. The water company has recently committed as a business to further reduce its leakage levels by 20% over
the next 5 years and is active in harnessing the latest technology.
The 2019 Summit will be the fourth you have chaired since 2015 – during those Summits you will have seen a range of agendas, all addressing the ‘hot topics’
and leakage issues of the day. But have you observed any significant differences, or changes in emphasis, in the agenda topics over the years? And have the
attitudes of water industry practitioners to dealing with leakage changed?
Bob Taylor :-”I have maintained an active interest in leakage management since my early days in the industry and the focus on leakage management today has
never been greater.
From a global perspective the concerns about water scarcity in the face of climate change, urbanisation and population growth have been growing steadily
stronger – illustrated clearly by the fact that water crises have featured in the World Economic Forum’s top 5 global risks (in terms of impact) for each of the last
5 years as a societal risk.
In response, it is clear that governments and regulators are starting to understand more clearly the role that good leakage management can play in meeting
these challenges and water operations managers globally are under pressure to take action.
From a technological perspective, it is clear that knowledge of the techniques available to leakage practitioners is becoming globalised and truly inspirational
success stories are emerging from all over the world. And the impact of technology, particularly in the fields of artificial intelligence, machine learning and data
analytics is set to propel leakage management capability to a new level.
You will be chairing two very timely and relevant panel sessions on Day 1 of the conference. They deal with the specific challenges, regulatory, political and
economic, as well as operational challenges, facing the UK and European water industry at the moment. What questions would you like to see addressed by
the senior water company practitioners leading the presentations?
Leakage management certainly in the UK is moving away from an economic balance between leakage reduction effort and water saved to becoming a moral,
societal and environmental necessity – and as leakage levels reduce the cost of every unit saved typically increases. Therefore the pressure for technology and
innovation to deliver increasingly cost effective leakage reduction strategies has never been greater and amongst all of the emerging options and technologies
we need to identify those that work most efficiently to keep continuous downward pressure on the costs of leakage reduction.
Several sessions during the day address zero leakage, and the question of it ever becoming a reality. In the light of how water networks are configured, are
advances in innovative technologies – to manage incoming data - sufficient to reduce leakage to anywhere near zero? Or do we need to look at the networks
themselves?
There is no question as to whether zero leakage is achievable – in some parts of the world water companies are already close to this. The question is whether
it can be sustainably achievable at costs which our customers are willing to bear; there is no doubt that we need to accelerate the pace of innovation and
technological development to deliver the leakage improvements, particularly in older legacy networks, at reasonable cost.
This means that we need to focus not only on the traditional areas of detection and repair but look more widely at the way we design, install and operate our
networks. Even today, with the huge emphasis globally on leakage management, we often take a short sighted approach to network design and our target should
be to be able to design, build and operate networks that are leak free for their entire lives.
What are you most looking forward to at the 10th Global Leakage Summit in June?
It is always a great inspiration to learn about the success stories from companies around the world. The fact that leakage practitioners travel huge distances to
share their experiences at this annual event bears testimony to the spirit of collaboration and knowledge sharing which is very prevalent in our industry. I am
looking forward to hearing more success stories,learning about new and emerging technologies and meeting old and new friends from across the sector.
Anything else to add?
I would encourage all participants to engage with the debates and discussions – the challenges we face in our industry today are largely global in nature and the
greater the diversity in the views and experiences we share, the more useful the sessions will be to us all.
Page 11

Feature Article:
Smart Metering in the Water Industry:
A slow step or a giant leap
Introduction
Smart Water Meters have been on the agenda of the water industry for a number of years but the big question is whether smart metering is a technological
step too far or is something that is badly needed within the water industry. In the UK in recent months we have heard about the water industry approaching the
“jaws of death” with the potential for the country running out of water within 25 years and water resource management amongst other measures becoming a
necessity rather than something that is optional. Water companies have signed up to a social contract to reduce both the per capita consumption and leakage
down to record low levels. There are a number of methods that the water companies are going to employ to reach these record low levels and one of them is
the use of Smart Meters.
So, what is a smart meter and how does it differ to what is done now? Traditionally water meters have been dumb insofar as they have been relatively cheap
mechanical solutions that somebody physically visits once or twice a year to read, very much like most utility meters. The next generation of water meters
communicated one way and relied upon somebody either walking past a flow meter and collecting the consumption data this way or doing it more rapidly by
driving past. Some cities worldwide by combining this “data collection” with other services such as refuse
collection or other “regular visitors” to domestic properties. This walk or drive by solution is common in
the UK market at the current time on properties that are metered but how many properties are actually
metered. The answer to this is that it depends upon the water company with some achieving universal
(or 100%) metering and some significantly less with an average meter penetration in the UK of around
46%. Meter penetration is something that the water industry is addressing with companies like Thames
Water set to deliver 100% smart metering by 2030.
True smart metering, in its current form, is designed to deliver a lot more data and so can be used
for not just revenue collection but improving the service to the customer by leveraging the data that
is collected. In order to deliver more data the methodology of the data collection has to move from
manual collection (either by physical checking or walk/drive-by methods) to automated communication
methods. Data is the key but it is also a tool to improve operational efficiency so that the water companies
are aware of what water is where within the distribution network and how it is being used and also a
tool to serve the customer and add value to the service that they are given. In this regard revenue
collection, although a hugely important factor, almost becomes a secondary consideration. To quote a
water company representative at the recent +Add Strategy workshop on Smart Water Meters “Smart
Meters are essential to allow better customer service,” but also allow non-revenue water reduction
and of course revenue collection (meter to cash). It is a huge area of development and research by
IHT MarkitTM shows in 2019 alone the global market will ship 169 million communicating flow meters
across the utillities industries. In 2017 for the water industry alone 64.3 million communicating water
meters where shipped, a number which is expected to double by 2024.
The question to ask currently is “where is the water industry and where does it want to be moving forward?”
The drivers for smart metering
Apart from finding out how much customer’s water consumption and collecting money what are the driver’s for smart water meters, in short, why bother? In
the water industry there are the pressures that the industry normally faces, this are the somewhat unpredictable that are on the mind of every person in the
water industry:
Climate Change – From a water resources perspective it’s a case of – “do we have enough water to see us through a dry summer and a dry winter?” How long
can we last with the resources that we have?
Population Growth – All of the local planning tells us that we are going to have x% more people move into our region. Do we have enough resources to satisfy
this demand? This as well as climate change!
Non-revenue water – Not just leakage on the water company’s pipes but it could also be customer-side leakage as well as illegal connections, meter error and
of course, yes, leakage. This all feeds into
C-MEX – Or the measure of customer satisfaction. Are our customers happy about the service that the water company provides them? Are the customers
happy that it represents a good value for money? This used to be measured both quantitatively and qualitatively through the Service Incentive Mechanism (or
SIM) which used to survey customers who rung up the water company for some reason or another. With C-MEX it applies to all customers and their overall
satisfaction with the water company and its performance. Smart Water meters can be used to predict the customers needs but also influencing the customer
to use water more efficiently.
Operational Efficiency – Water Company distribution networks alone usually measure into the tens of thousands of kilometres and are a complex network of
pumps, pipes and valves which can be running in differing directions depending upon the needs of the system. Although DMAs are in place any additional data
such as customer usage can be useful in (a) detecting water needs in a particular distribution area and limiting water put into that area by pump scheduling and
(b) the detection of non-revenue water losses by using a mass balance approach to water into the system and the water used by customers.
At the moment there is one over-arching driver in the water industry which has been well highlighted by Sir James Bevan, the so-called “Jaws of Death” that
water resources are facing in the water industry caused by demand out-stripping the supply of water. In reality for the water industry to avoid what South Africa
faced with its very own Day Zero there are a raft of actions that can be taken including the installation of Smart Water meters that experience has shown can
reduced customer consumption by up to 18% by keeping the customer informed but by also using smart water meters to reduce customer-side leakage which
Figure 1 - The key areas of use for a smart water meter
(Source: IHT MarkitTM)
Page 12

previously has been a hidden leakage within the industry. Anglian Water is looking to reduce this customer-side leakage by up to 80% which is, to coin their own
term, a Big Hairy Audacious Goal but a very laudable target.
Delivering in stages?
The discussions that took place at a recent +Add Strategy
Workshop thatwassponsoredbyDiehl lookedatthepotential
of where the industry is on the use of smart metering in the
United Kingdom. Three stages of delivery in the next five
years were actively discussed ranging from a strategy which
is designed to deliver a core service based on optimising
existing operations, to an adjacent strategy which is designed
to significantly enhance what a company currently has to a
transformational strategy which is based upon developing
breakthroughs that don’t even exist yet. The stage at which
the water industry is at will very much depend upon the
company’s needs and drivers. For example companies in the
South-East of England where water resources are particularly
stressed have a need to take a more transformational strategy
whereas those area of the UK which have a lesser issue with
water stress can afford to take a more measured approach
and instead of adopting the larger risks of a transformational
strategy can afford to take a more investigative approach
trialling technologies in the next five years leading to a more
core focused approach. However what do these strategies
look like?
Core strategy
The core strategy is a step change over existing operations but
a measured one. The discussions at the workshop mirror what
has either been delivered by some of the water companies
who are taking a more advanced approach in the next Asset
Management Period or who are planning to in the near future.
The initial brainstorming (figure 2) produced a Proof of Concept
(PoC) approach with some interesting thoughts and variations
on the usual themes that are seen within the Water Industry.
The brainstorming session identified the need for a business
case on the initial Proof of Concept trial which needed a control
based upon the benefits, in the case discussed a reduction in
leakage and a reduction in PCC but there are of course many
other benefits as already mentioned. The point of the proof of
concept is to:
1. baseline current performance
2. identify and trial the current sensors
3. identify and trial the current communications
techniques
4. identify and test the benefits and quantify the costs
that are involved.
This does match what some of the water companies are doing
and it was reported that trials ranged from meter deployments
in the thousands to meter deployments in the tens of thousands.
The discussion at the workshop went a step further in most
projects that have been delivered so far by looking at allocating
the sample based upon not only factors such as water stress but
also socio-economic factors determined by a regions ACORN
score. By taking a stepped approach the benefits of delivering
a targeted meter penetration potentially means that there are
targeted benefits based upon the main reason for the Proof of
Concept trial. What this in essence means is that the drivers will
all have an idealistic meter penetration and this will differ based
upon the driver. This leads to an ideal level of meter penetration
and location of meter penetration for each individual area.
What does this Proof of Concept look like though? Figure 3
shows the key stakeholders, who they are and their functions
in the process
The core strategy is low risk and is a stage of learning the benefits
Figure 3: The Proof of Concept key stakeholder delivery model (source: +Add Strategy workshop on Smart
Water Metering)
Figure 2: Brainstorming a core strategy (source: +Add Strategy workshop on Smart Water Metering)
Figure 4: The timescale of the Proof of Concept within the core strategy (source: +Add Strategy workshop on
Smart Water Metering)
Page 13

and challenges of a smart-water programme before the more advanced techniques come into force with more potential of leveraging the data. The key factor in
the discussions that were the unknown in the core strategy were the benefits and how they are going to be delivered. It is all very well collecting data on water
consumption but to turn this into useable information is a step further and is not really part of a core strategy. For this reason the core strategy does not stack up
in terms of return of investment on its own as the full benefits are not know. The brainstorm of the benefits and when they’ll be realised can be seen in figure 4.
As a result either a leap of faith has to be taken by the Water Company or alternative funding mechanisms have to be leveraged. Hopefully more benefits will
come from any Proof of Concept trial and from the modelling that is required to identify idealistically meter penetration but in reality something, eventually,
something more widespread is required for the benefits of smart metering to be beneficial to both the water company and the customer. This leads to more
advanced strategies.
Adjacent strategy
The Adjacent Strategy is a step on from the core strategy and is focused on taking the existing operations and in essence “super-charging” them. It’s not a
transformational change but is still a big change for the water company. The main drivers behind the strategy are:
• The customer
• The avoidance of waste
• Increasing efficiency of operations
• Starting to get insights from the data that is collected.
In order for this to happen the investment is large and runs
into the millions if not tens of millions of pounds. It will
require new ways of working, with new teams and new
processes and systems including the development of new
skills within the business. An adjacent strategy is the start
of a transformational change with the realisation that this
change won’t necessarily happen within the next five years
but maybe the next ten. It is installing the smart meter asset
base and then gathering everything together to provide
the benefits afterwards. It is a more risky proposal to start
with as some of the technologies are unknown but with the
correct partnership approach it can be realised. One of the
main barriers with smart water metering is around Level
2 of any Smart Water programme, the instrumentation
& sensing and Level 3 the communications system. In
the current time there are smart water meters that only
work with certain communication methods and there are
communication methods that only work with some types
of metering technology. The fear within the workshop was
that companies didn’t want to choose “the Betamax option
over the VHS option,” it as only later on in the workshop
that a presentation by British Telecom (BT) dispelled some
of this fear.
In this presentation the reality of the Internet of Things was aptly communicated. It is ideal, when looking at the water industry, for smart metering. The
disadvantage right now is that there are lots of different technologies from NB IoT, SigFox and of course 5G which is on it’s way. In the future the communication
method is not necessarily limited to just one of these technologies and the use of multiple communications methodologies will limit the technology risk
Transformational strategy
It is only through time and risk that the value of a true transformational strategy can be realised. There is a path to be taken and there are elements of the
industry that still have to be understood and realised. The transformational strategy is all about “unpacking the value proposition” and getting to the heart of
what smart water metering can bring. This is about data, it is about operational efficiencies, it is about addressing water resource issues and then taking a giant
leap forward in everything that a water company does. Some of the presentations throughout the day revealed some of the aspirations including:
• The reduction of customer-side leakage to 80%
• Customer education to reduce the per capita consumption in-line with industry targets which aims to reduce this down to 100 litres per head per day
as a maximum PCC.
• The use of gamification and customer information programmes which although already successful in the water industry at the moment has got plenty
more that can be done by utilising modern technology and by informing the customer.
• Leakage and operational efficiency by knowing the mass balance through the water distribution system all the way to the customer consumption
Discussion
The use of smart meter on the water distribution network is one of the obvious aspects of the water industry. There is a natural business case insofar as it does
the business as usual task of revenue collection, but it also has multiple other benefits. As one of the first vertical segments within the smart water industry it
also has the disadvantage of being the main aspect that is being used to digitally transform the water industry and taking the cost of transforming the horizontal
segments of layers 3-5 in the water industry smart water model. This will have the disadvantage of increasing the risk of delivery within this area. This area is
part Core services and part of transformational with investigations into what exactly can be done by the water industry not only in smart metering but multiple
different areas of the business too. By taking time and starting with core services and moving forward through to a transformational strategy (figure 6) the water
industry can offset some of the risks that need to be taken. However if the risks are to be taken then the benefits to both the company and the customer is also
very large from improving customer service, reducing leakage and ultimately putting off Sir James Bevan’s Jaws of Death, at least in part.
Figure 5: A broad comparison of Low Power Wide Area Network Methodologies (source: BT)
Page 14

Article:
Security, complexity and Huawei -
protecting the UK’s telecoms networks
We all rely on our telecoms services more than we realise. We expect fast connectivity everywhere we go, something that would have looked like magic only 50
years ago. Ubiquitous connectivity has enabled new ways for people to interact, the apps we use every day, and new ways of building systems. However, very few
people know how these telecoms services work, or how they’re built. So as we start talking about 5G and the next generation of fixed and mobile connectivity,
I thought it’d be useful to explain how UK operators, regulators and government works to protect these critical services.
This blog is supposed to be accessible, but it inevitably contains some scary-sounding terminology. However, as is often the case with cyber security, the
concepts behind them are quite straightforward. For example, there’s some really clever technologies involved in sending as much data as possible down fibre,
one of which is ‘dense wave division multiplex’. This is a techy way of saying that we can use different colours of light for different streams of data down the same
fibre. We can guarantee they won’t interfere with each other in the fibre and then we can split them out at the other end using (effectively) a prism like you did
in physics lessons at school. So, you can use one physical glass fibre for lots of different data streams, and keep them separate.
Most people should be able to understand most of the concepts involved in this blog, even if not the deep detail. Where the technical details are unavoidable,
I’ll explain what they mean, so please keep reading. It’s also worth remembering that this blog deals almost exclusively with data, because in modern networks,
voice is really transported as data.
Firstly, it’s worth talking about security. There are no absolutes in cyber security, and there’s no such thing as a 100% secure system. In the end, cyber security
is all about risk management, judgement, and trying to make your adversaries’ lives harder.
For telecom services, think of it like this. Nationally, we set a bar at a particular height, and if the adversary can jump over the bar undetected, they get to do
what they want - whether that’s ‘disrupt a service’ or ‘snoop on calls’. The NCSC looks for attackers successfully jumping over the bar to help manage risk in the
UK. It’s for ministers to set the height of the bar, and then for operators overseen by Ofcom and DCMS (and helped by NCSC) to try to make the networks meet
that expectation. We know that the bar isn’t currently met in some places in the UK, and there’s a long-term piece of work already running to try to fix that. You
can’t just patch a national telecoms network like you can your home PC; when you’re talking about national scale systems, changes take time.
Architecture and amorphous blobs
It’s also worth laying out how a telecoms network is structured. It’s not just a set of amorphous blobs; there’s a lot of architecture behind it, with different layers
within it all performing separate (but related) tasks.
The first is the transport layer. This is the physical wires and fibres (and sometimes other technologies like microwave) that move the bits we need between two
points. There’s some really clever technology involved here in getting as much data as possible down a particular link. But basically, the job of the transport layer
is to push the bits between two fixed points (or nodes) as fast as possible in the most reliable way possible. This layer doesn’t know much about the traffic it’s
passing, and it certainly doesn’t look at content - it’s much too busy pushing the bits around. Transport nodes only care about the directly adjacent nodes that
they’re physically connected to.
The next important bit is the routing and switching. This takes the node-to-node links in the transport layer and links them together in an intelligent way. So, you
can ask for bits to go from London to Leeds, and this layer will use the transport links in the most efficient way possible at that moment to make that happen.
If someone puts a digger through a bundle of fibre, that’s not a problem, because this layer will sort out an alternative route for your data. It knows a bit more
about the context of the data it’s passing, and the ways to get around the network. It can look at the content, but generally speaking doesn’t need to.
The access layer is how customers access the network. The access layer is sometimes called the ‘edge’, because it forms the edge of the providers’ network
where they interface with their customers. The access layer knows something about who’s accessing the network and (by definition) has access to the data that’s
sent to (and from) the customer that’s connected to it.
Fixed and mobile access
When domestic broadband users, businesses and data centres connect to the internet, it’s known as fixed access. Think of this as the kit between your local
telephone exchange and your home router. There are obviously many different types of fixed access, but they all work in broadly the same way:
• package up bits from the customer in a well-understood way
• tag them with some service information
• shove them into the network for processing
Fixed access networks are pretty simple - relatively speaking - as each customer has their own physical link with known characteristics. For example, the copper
wires that go into people’s homes can get about 40Mbps speed. You know roughly when that link is likely to be used, and roughly how busy it’ll be at different
times, and exactly where it is so you can plan capacity.
For mobile, it’s much more complicated. Mobile access has to cope with many more devices per geographic area, doing very different things. The physics that
allows millions of people, all moving around (and all trying to share the same bit of radio spectrum) is really complex. People demand higher and higher data
rates which pushes the envelope of both the physics and the technology. In terms of infrastructure, this consists of the radio antennae, the base stations (which
work out what to transmit and receive) and the things that control them. Mobile access infrastructure knows quite a bit extra about users of the network (where
they are and what device they’re using, for example).
Page 15

Services and management
Once you’re in the network, something needs to decide where your bits are going to go, what services you’re going to get, work out who you are, and ensure
you’re billed properly ;-). Generically, that’s called the core, although the actual things in the core are very different between different mobile systems, and
between mobile and fixed.
Then you’ve got the things that users really care about: the services. These could be as simple as your voice service or text messages, or as complex as using a
catch-up service to watch your favourite sports channel on your mobile whilst on the train. There’s also a bunch of services that help keep the network running
and provide other functions that users hardly ever see, but are really important.
Sitting on top of all this is something called the management plane. This is the stuff that the operator uses to make sure all this works together as intended, alerts
them to faults, and allows them to manage and optimise their network. These networks are incredibly complicated and subject to random events such as JCBs
digging through fibre ducts, fires in exchanges, and people nicking copper wire out of the ground. Oh, and cyber attacks. So these networks need daily loving
care to make sure they’re working at their best, and so problems can be found and fixed quickly.
Running resilient networks
Obviously, it’s going to be important how you build and run all this stuff. There are three big sets of things we care about.
The first is vendor selection, or who makes the equipment you use to build your network. Equipment – regardless of who makes it – will always have vulnerabilities
because hardware and software are complex systems built by people, and people make mistakes. So, it’s a sensible design principle to:
1. Assume that every box in your network will fail in the worst possible way.
2. Design the system so that it’s not the end of the whole network when it does.
Of course, you still want to have defence in depth, so you should prefer vendors who have a track record of minimising:
• the vulnerabilities they have through a secure development life-cycle
• the impact of any vulnerabilities that remain through good product design
• the harm caused through a predictable and well-practised patching process
That brings us onto architecture, or how you connect these different things together to build a functional telecoms network. You can have the most secure boxes
in the world, but if your management plane is connected to the internet, you’re still stuffed.
If you design your network to be completely flat so that a compromise anywhere gets the attacker full access to everything, you’re stuffed. So, we try to design
networks so that a single failure (be that accidental or deliberate exploitation of a vulnerability) isn’t the end of the whole system. One of the other ways we try
to manage systemic risk is by trying to have multiple vendors in each bit of the network, so that a vendor-specific vulnerability doesn’t easily propagate across
the whole network. It’s not always possible for all cases, but it’s a good principle to aspire to.
Finally, how you run the network really matters.
• If your passwords are all system defaults, it doesn’t matter whose kit you use, you’re stuffed.
• If you don’t monitor the system for changes, you’re stuffed.
• If you don’t manage privilege properly, you’re stuffed.
If you allow a third party to run your network and have no in-house capability to audit what they’re doing, you’re stuffed. Large scale telecoms networks need
to be actively managed and monitored by competent people. Different operators have different approaches to security, but they’re all expected to meet some
standards set by Ofcom. There’s actually very little incentive for operators to do more security than is strictly necessary. For example, have you ever considered
the security of the provider when you buy broadband? Would you ever think ‘Hmmm, I’ll pay an extra fiver a month because that provider’s MPLS network has
well secured P-nodes’ ? No, didn’t think so. To be fair, neither do I.
Last year, the NCSC publicly attributed some attacks on UK networks, including telecoms networks, to Russia. As far as we know, those networks didn’t have any
Russian kit in them, anywhere. The techniques the Russians used to target those networks were looking for weaknesses in how they were architected and run.
This shows why the bar for security needs to be raised on our networks to make them more resilient, regardless of whose equipment is used in the network.
5G networks and security challenges
As you’ll probably have heard, there’s a new technology for mobiles coming soon, called 5G. In the future, 5G networks will enable lots of new and interesting
use cases because of four characteristics:
1. It can push more data over the airwaves to terminals (so mobile phones, tablets and driverless cars).
2. It can support many more terminals in any given area.
3. It can support very low latency communications.
4. You can ‘slice’ a 5G network into chunks that don’t interact with each other.
Together, these characteristics enable a whole host of new uses like smart cities, autonomous vehicles, telemedicine, and other things we’ve not even thought
of yet. But it’s not fundamentally different to existing technology, and it’s certainly not some sort of magic that undermines all the cyber security knowledge and
techniques we have at our disposal. 5G networks are still divided up into roughly the same chunks as described previously, but there are some differences. For
a start, they use more modern architecture, based on more commodity technology. The most obvious change is the radio protocols which push bits over the air
much more efficiently to enable higher speeds.
Page 16

One thing that does change, is the scale of the mobile access layer. Current mobile systems are broadly based around a relatively small number of macrocells
which each cover a relatively big area of the country; anything up to a few tens of miles in rural areas, but obviously much smaller in densely populated areas.
To cover mainland UK, you need about 25,000 cell sites today. Now, as you increase the data rates, you need to push more power into the radio signal and you
need a *lot* of power to increase data rates over those distances because of the inverse square law. Also, each operator has a specific set of frequencies that
they’ve bought from Ofcom, and so each cell can serve a limited number of devices because it has to divide those frequencies into chunks for each device to use.
So, 5G uses many, many more cells, each with a much smaller coverage radius. These small cells end up in weird places, like on the top of lampposts, in buildings
and even in some home set top boxes. So, we can’t assume that all base stations are physically secure. That’s a change, but we’ve been going down this route
for a while (with things like in-building 4G coverage using small cells), so it’s not completely new.
Then there’s the core. The biggest change here is that it moves from being big, shiny, proprietary boxes to being software called Virtual Network Functions
(VNFs), running in virtualised infrastructure, called the Network Function Virtualisation Infrastructure (NFVI). The NFVI is managed by the Management and
Network Orchestration function (MANO). The NFVI and MANO, together with some supporting stuff, is often called the virtualisation layer. That’s a lot of jargon,
so think of it as moving from old mainframes to running stuff in the cloud.
It’s important to note that the ‘cloudy infrastructure’ here is physically in the operator’s network, and is controlled by them. We’re not into running national
networks in public cloud quite yet, and it’s certainly not true that your 5G equipment vendor runs your virtual core in their data centre. A positive here is that
the cyber security community knows a lot about how to secure virtualised platforms, and how to provide good separation of things running in there. Also,
there are lots of tools available for this commodity technology. The flipside of this, is that there are many capable security researchers who know about these
technologies. So, we’re likely to see skilled researchers probing systems because they have much more experience with this sort of technology. Operators are
going to have to train in this new area, and be ever more vigilant in their running of the networks.
The other difference with 5G concerns architecture. Today, architecture is defined by where you physically plug wires in. In a virtualised core, it’s the configuration
on the vSwitch (think of it as virtual wiring) in the virtualisation layer that defines architecture. So, if you’re using architecture to contain impact from risky
vendors, it follows logically that none of those vendors can supply your virtualisation layer or the thing that orchestrates it while running. We’re looking at
controls around the supply of the NFVI and MANO in the supply chain review. In other words, with 5G, some equipment needs to be more trustworthy than
ever, but probably not all.
With 5G, the interfaces between the core and other parts of the network are different. It becomes a modern, service-based architecture which provides both
opportunities and challenges for security. Again, the community knows a lot about how to secure a service-based architecture because that’s how many of the
modern internet services are built. There’s also the possibility of having ‘one core to rule them all’, converging your fixed and wireless cores into a single set of
services. Done well, that could be really positive for security.
Close to the edge
Earlier I mentioned very low latency communications, which is critical to some of the more advanced use cases that 5G makes possible. The system latencies
that we’re talking about put some very tight constraints on the time it takes to communicate between individual bits of the system - in the order of a couple
of microseconds. At this level, the speed of light matters and starts to limit the physical distance between key bits of kit. That means that geography starts to
have an effect on where you put various bits of stuff. You need to move some of the core services closer to the edge, so those messages can get around quickly
enough.
Of course, when you push core services closer to the edge, you can also push out the security services that support and protect them. This is the ‘mobile edge
compute’ part of 5G. Now, in theory, you could push those services to the very edge of the network (that is, to each individual base station). That would be
utterly crazy though, since it would be a massive pain to run the network, you couldn’t secure it properly and - more importantly - there’s no use case currently
anticipated that would require it. In the UK, we currently reckon that we’ll push core services out maybe as far as large metropolitan areas. Securing those should
be broadly the same as the way we secure things today, you just have to do it more often. So, again, 5G changes things in interesting ways from the way we do
things today, but not in a way that fundamentally breaks all our current security principles and paradigms.
It’s also worth talking about the different ways to build a 5G network. There’s two deployment models; standalone (SA) and non-standalone (NSA - a poor choice
of acronym). An SA deployment is as it sounds; it’s a separate network that may share transport and routing and switching with the existing networks, but
you’re effectively doing a green field deployment. The NSA deployment model means you piggy-back the 5G stack on top of your existing 4G stack. Despite the
standards existing for interoperability, it’s much easier to stick with your 4G vendor for your initial 5G roll-out for NSA deployments. This somewhat constrains
deployments in the UK, so we’re working in the supply chain review to understand what the long-term network split looks like. What happens over the next year
or two is important to this long-term architecture, but taking some short-term pain to get the long-term architecture right for the country may be necessary.
No-one currently buys telecoms services based on how secure they are
The final thing to think about is the various market dynamics involved. All the UK operators are commercial companies that exist to provide a service and
make money. So, they’re going to prefer cheaper kit if it helps them provide the service they need (absent of any other considerations). No-one currently buys
telecoms services based on how secure they are, so a company wouldn’t get rewarded if they invested more than their competitors in making a more secure
service. That leads to a weird situation where you don’t get rewarded for doing the right thing, which makes it hard to do, long term.
The government’s supply chain review, led by DCMS, intends to really understand the market to make sure we have better cyber security in the equipment and
software used, and can continue to have a diverse and vibrant vendor base in telecoms equipment supply. It’s also looking at how we could set objective security
characteristics for UK telecoms operators, and ensure a higher priority is placed on security in decision making processes. There’s a lot to do here to make sure
we get the security we need in the future networks, as we begin to rely on them more and more.
The laws of physics still apply to attackers
Now let me take you from the future of communications back to 2003. In 2003, most people connected to the internet by letting a modem squeal down their
home phone line, getting (if they were lucky) about 56kbps, which is roughly 1/150th of an average broadband connection speed today. The really lucky couple
Page 17

of million could get ‘basic broadband’ (which gave them 128kbps), and fewer still could get ‘high speed broadband’ (256kbps). And you paid £23 a month, on
average, for basic broadband.
It was around this time that BT started planning for the biggest ever network upgrade in history (21st Century Network) to set the foundations for the services
we enjoy today. They were consulting with government and happened to mention they wanted to use a Chinese company called Huawei as part of the build
out. We already had a definition of ‘risky vendors’ (not just based on country), and a framework in which to manage them. Cabinet Office coordinated a cross
Whitehall response to look at the options available, which ranged from do nothing, through to mitigating the risk, to a full ban. In the end, the decision was
taken to mitigate the risk.
In mitigating, we were talking about harmonising risk, regardless of vendor. Remember the metaphorical bar we talked about earlier? Well, the idea is to try to
make the bar broadly the same height for the Chinese state, irrespective of whether we use Huawei kit in the UK. And yes, we assumed in the decision process
that the Chinese state:
• could compel anyone in China to do anything (which they’ve now codified in their National Intelligence Law)
• would carry out cyber attacks against the UK at some point (which we’ve recently publicly confirmed)
Remember, no attackers are omnipotent and omniscient; the laws of physics still apply to them. The mitigation formed a set of principles that BT still follow to
this day, although they’ve evolved a bit as technology matures. They include things like:
• every chunk of the network should have multiple vendors, noting there’ll be exceptions due to practicalities
• keep more risky vendors out of sensitive functions (like some of those in the core and anything to do with lawful intercept)
• architect the networks to be tolerant to exploitation of any device (regardless of vendor)
• have enhanced monitoring
• no use of the equipment in sensitive networks
BT and CESG (one of NCSC’s precursors) also had a joint team to research the equipment from risky vendors, which would feed back into the risk management
carried out by BT on their network.
This was going fine until about 2008, when other operators wanted to use Huawei. It made no sense to try to get every operator to replicate the work BT had
done, so we came up with a different model, which expanded the principles a little and required the establishment of the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation
Centre (HCSEC). HCSEC is a common security team created to analyse and give information to operators to help them do their risk management well when using
Huawei kit.
The way we engage with a vendor is based on risk and potential impact, so there are obviously differences. We don’t have an equivalent of HCSEC for any other
vendor, but we do have relationships with all the major ones, and understand their kit in a similar way. Negotiation with Huawei happened and then the whole
thing was launched in 2010, including the opening of HCSEC. In 2012, the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) was worried about the arrangements and
asked the National Security Adviser (NSA) to look into them. He published his review in late 2013 and recommended some enhanced oversight. We then created
the Huawei Oversight Board in early 2014, chaired by NCSC CEO Ciaran Martin, which has to report each year to the NSA, the ISC, parliament and the public.
That model has worked pretty well for the past 8 years. It’s not perfect; not every operator that uses Huawei kit follows the principles or uses HCSEC to get
information, but most of the big ones do. Last year’s Oversight Board report raised some serious concerns about Huawei’s software engineering and cyber
security capabilities. This year’s report will expand on that but, because of this mitigation model, the UK operators that use HCSEC have unparalleled information
to help them manage the risk of using Huawei kit. However, this long-term risk management of Huawei’s poor security and engineering takes sustained effort
over the life of the system, and is only possible if supported by strong architecture and operational management. Management of the national security risks
takes sustained effort as well.
How Huawei (and other vendors) are used in the UK’s 5G build out will be determined by the government’s telecoms supply chain review, which is gathering
evidence at the moment and will report to ministers in spring. That review is the only policy vehicle for making decisions on how future telecoms networks in
the UK will be built and run, in line with strong security principles.
The devil really is in the detail
The idea behind publishing this blog is to help people understand the steps we take to protect telecoms networks in the UK, even though there’s a lot of
complexity and subtlety in telecoms network security. That’s true of any technology, but especially true in the 5G networks we’re just starting to build, as
potential impacts of something going wrong in 5G warrant more attention. These new networks will evolve over time as the standards mature and the new uses
come online, but there are some principles we can see are already necessary.
An approach that ignores the detail of how these networks actually function won’t work. The details are very important and security implications of certain
decisions will be different across different countries, and even different networks in the same country. One thing is for sure, though. If 5G is going to be the
engine of growth and change for the UK economy that people expect, we need our implementations to be secure enough to enable that. That will need many
things, not least a diverse and sustainable supply base, better cyber security in the equipment and software used, and uplifting the basic security of the networks
we have today as they evolve to support a safe, digital future.
Page 18

Executive Summary
The modern instrument is a very powerful tool whether it is looking at the quality parameters that a treatment plant is producing or it is measuring the state
of a drive or the level in a channel. For the sake of this paper I am going to call them all the same. When integrated together they measure how the treatment
plants operate whether they are producing drinking water or treating wastewater. They monitor 24 hours a day, seven days a week and hopefully, if installed and
operating correctly give the operator and the wider business a view on how a system is operating.
However if operating correctly and if they are integrated into the system, the modern digital instrument can give so much more but this potential is never
realised. This paper will look at the potential uses for the modern instrument and look at how it can be used and what resistance to realise that potential is. It
will cover the traditional “battle” between the visions, wants and needs of the operator –v- engineer relationship and go further touching on how the views from
the operational level affect the corporate level and also touch upon the future need for the potential of instrumentation to be realised.
Introduction
The modern digital instrument in the water and wastewater treatment plants of the world is a very powerful tool that has, in general, not fully realised its
potential, whether it be the quality instrument that is put on the outfall of a treatment works measuring the quality of the potable water treated or the
wastewater discharged to river or it is the pressure sensor or the backwash to a sand filter or on the aeration pipework of an activated sludge plant.
For the sake of this paper an instrument can be defined as:
Instrument: A device that measures the performance or state of a treatment process.
The instruments that we install on the treatment process that we construct are typically controlled on-site by programmable logic controllers (PLCs) and
monitored by Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems. It is in the integration of these systems that is vitally important in how a treatment
works is programmed to run and how the data is collected to allow for the collection of the correct data and information for an operator, engineer or company
to run a treatment works.
Within the potable water treatment works this is typically performed relatively well because of the importance of the product, namely drinking water, that is
produced. Any error in operation can have grave consequences. Wastewater treatment, in general, seems not to be as important and thus the opportunities for
optimisation is all the greater.
However, there seems to be a barrier or barriers to this approach insofar as there is a resistance to the use of instrumentation to its full potential within the
water companies. Samples are still taken manually on a daily basis. This sampling burden turns the operators of the average treatment works into sampling and
analysis technicians, which although is a noble profession in itself belays the point of a treatment plant operator. The next question is simply, why?
This paper shall attempt to highlight the reasons to the resistance to the most basic functions that an instrument is designed to do and highlight the potential for
instrumentation in the future. Most of what I am going to cover is already done and the power of LinkedIn and professional networking sites has highlighted
the pioneers in the industry who have implemented uses for instrumentation in isolated pockets but these good practises are only now starting to be given the
coverage that they so rightly deserve.
The potential for instrumentation
So, what is the potential for instrumentation if properly integrated into a treatment process. This is of course dependent largely on the treatment process
that you have, the instrumentation that you have installed and then how it is integrated. The data that you produce is of course largely dependent upon what
you collect from your instrumentation and how that data is analysed and turned into useful information. Taking a bottom up approach into the analysis of
instrumentation and process control the first and most basic use of instrumentation is the capture of data from the treatment process.
The data capture function includes the most basic information that an instrument is designed to capture. In the instance of a quality or controlling instrument
this can vary from level, pressure, flow, or a quality parameter going into or within or going out of a treatment process. The instrumentation sometimes used for
data only and sometimes used for control of a process. This leads to the second primary function of an instrument i.e., as a controlling device
Instrumentation as a controlling device occurs in most modern treatment works where the instrument will give a PLC a figure and the PLC will use this figure
in a control function. An example of this in a wastewater treatment works would be a sludge blanket level device to lower an actuated bell-mouth in a final
settlement tank to lower the blanket if a high level is reached.
This level of instrumentation and process control is commonly implemented across most modern treatment plants although it has to be said that there is some
disparity between the data that is collected, perhaps trended on SCADA or RTS and the data that is turned into useful process information to enable a true
picture of how a wastewater treatment works is operating.
An example of this is how many wastewater treatment plant SCADA systems calculate the sludge age and display this on average basis, a relatively simple
calculation that allows control of the wastewater biomass that tends not to be used for process based control as an automated control function. This is simple
Looking back article:
The resistance to instrumentation: A
look at why there is resistance to
use modern instrumentation
to its full benefit
Page 19

WIPAC Monthly May 2019

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to WIPAC Monthly May 2019

Similar to WIPAC Monthly May 2019 (20)

More from Water Industry Process Automation & Control

More from Water Industry Process Automation & Control (17)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

WIPAC Monthly May 2019