HomeMy Public PortalAboutExhibit MSD 63D - Project Monetized Prioritization Rulebook Technical Memorandum
Limitations:
This is a draft memorandum and is not intended to be a final representation of the work done or recommendations made by Brown and Caldwell. It
should not be relied upon; consult the final report.
This document was prepared solely for the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District in accordance with professional standards at the time the services
were performed and in accordance with the contract between the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District and Brown and Caldwell dated April10, 2015.
This document is governed by the specific scope of work authorized by the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District it is not intended to be relied upon by
any other party except for regulatory authorities contemplated by the scope of work. We have relied on information or instructions provided by the
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District and other parties and, unless otherwise expressly indicated, have made no independent investigation as to the
validity, completeness, or accuracy of such information.
4700 Lakehurst Court
Suite 100
Columbus, OH 43016
Prepared for: St. Louis MSD
Project Title: Plant Asset Management Services
Project No.: 147884
Technical Memorandum
Subject: Risk Quantification Tool Rulebook
Date: September 11, 2018
To: Chris Pfeuffer
From: Matthew Gregg, Brown and Caldwell
Lorena Croucher, Brown and Caldwell
Prepared by: Lorena Croucher, EIT
Matthew Gregg, P.E.*
*Licensed in the state of Idaho
Reviewed by: Jeff Theerman, P.E.
Risk Quantification Tool Rulebook
A-1
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.
Monetized Prioritization Rulebook Final 09112018
Section 1: Introduction
The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) is in the process of implementing an asset management pro-
gram. This program is intended to enhance the effective and efficient management of MSD resources to
minimize overall risk to the utility. As such, a key component of the program implementation is understand-
ing the risks posed by the existing assets. This allows MSD to systematically align project investments with
risk reductions.
MSD elected to develop a risk quantification tool to support the overall asset management program. This
tool is meant to provide a consistent methodology for assessing risks across various types of projects. The
tool was built from utility-specific data and setup to match the intended uses within MSD. The tool was devel-
oped through a series of workshops with the Engineering Steering Committee (ESC). These workshops were
focused on identifying the risks typically experienced by the utility, developing utility-specific approaches to
quantifying these risks, and validating these quantifications through the application of the risks to potential
projects.
The ESC envisioned that the use of the tool will be included in the CIRP Prioritization and Scheduling busi-
ness process workflow described in Table 7-1 of the SAMP. In general, Operations staff will define a project
need as part of the Business Case Evaluation (BCE) process. The BCE form will detail the reasons for the
project and the risks and benefits which will be provided. When approved by the Director of Operations, the
project will be evaluated using the monetized prioritization process. In general, the intent is for all projects
to be evaluated with this tool to determine which will move forward for preliminary engineering to develop
detailed project scope and cost or budget supplement. Prior to inclusion in the actual CIRP, projects will be
re-evaluated using the tool with updated cost and scope. The BCE tool does not provide an absolute ranking
for the prioritization of projects; rather, it provides a relative score compared to the other projects being con-
sidered.
This technical memorandum (TM) serves both as a documentation of the tool development process as well
as a working guide for effectively and consistently using said tool. This guidance is intended to be a living
document and updated as MSD implements the tool into the prioritization process and additional insights
are gained. Maintenance of the tool and the reference information on a periodic basis (potentially annually)
is the responsibility of the Engineering Department Program Planning Division.
Section 2: Risk Quantification Approach
Risks quantifications allow planners, operators, engineers, and management staff to objectively evaluate the
consequences associated with a specific event. Risks are quantified as the product of the consequence of
an event occurring and the probability that this event occurs. For example, if there is a 50-percent probability
of a pump failing and that pump failure would cause $100,000 in costs for MSD, the risk of this pump failing
is $50,000. While this is a simple example, being able to consistently express risk across varying types of
assets and failure events is a powerful tool for a utility.
The risk tool is configured to represent a risk cost at a snapshot in time; therefore, it is important for the user
to consider timing when applying a failure probability. It takes MSD about approximately 3 to 5 years to initi-
ate and complete a project. To be conservative with this planning outlook, it is recommended that MSD con-
sistently consider the assets probability of failure in 5 years. This tool will predominately be used to evaluate
asset replacement type projects, and as such, assets at the end of their useful life can be represented with a
linear failure curve.
Risk Quantification Tool Rulebook
A-2
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.
Monetized Prioritization Rulebook Final 09112018
For the purposes of MSD’s risk quantification tool, risk quantifications are built from three primary factors.
First, monetizing bases were established for common costs associated with risks (e.g., hourly costs for em-
ployee time, permit violations, loss of capacity, etc.). These bases were then used to build ‘risk blocks’, which
are the accumulation of these individual risk costs to represent common events experienced by MSD. Fi-
nally, these ‘risk blocks’ were scaled based on the utility’s understanding of the severity of the risk posed by
the asset or project being considered. The development of each of these components of the risk quantifica-
tions are described in the following sections.
2.1 Monetizing Bases
A series of unit costs specific to MSD were developed through a collaboration of utility input and consultant
recommendations. These unit costs are the basis of all subsequent risk blocks, discussed further in section
2.2. The unit costs are intended to provide a consistent method for quantifying risk across multiple projects.
As such, unit costs should not be adjusted on a project-by-project basis; rather, updates should be made on
a programmatic basis (i.e., assessed and updated at a set time interval such as annually or quarterly). Up-
dating on a project-by-project basis opens up the need to potentially revisit previous decisions; therefore, it
should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. All emails referenced herein are provided for reference in
Attachment A.
The monetizing bases presented in Table 1 are meant to capture the current costs for each metric. It is ex-
pected that these costs will change over time as a result of economic factors, changes in operation, and
other drivers. Therefore, it is recommended that these bases be revisited periodically by the Engineering Pro-
gram Planning to verify they are still accurate representations of costs. During the initial use of this tool, it is
appropriate to review these costs annually. This programmatic cost update should not trigger the review of
projects in delivery or previously approved for consent decree compliance, as previous prioritization deci-
sions would have been made using the best available information at the time.
Table 1. Monetizing Basis Support Summary
Metric Unit Cost Unit
Labor Rates:
Loaded labor rates for internal groups
Labor cost, admin $35.99 /hr
Labor cost, trade $43.92 /hr
Labor cost, professional $53.03 /hr
Labor cost, management $81.72 /hr
Labor rates for external groups
labor cost, consultant $150.00 /hr
labor cost, contractor $75.00 /hr
Lost time, public $28.73 /hr
Lost time, businesses $2,284 /hr
Violations and Fees:
Cost of statutory fines for permit violations $50,000 /day
Risk Quantification Tool Rulebook
A-3
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.
Monetized Prioritization Rulebook Final 09112018
Table 1. Monetizing Basis Support Summary
Metric Unit Cost Unit
Emergency contract costs $50,000 $, placeholder
Cost of consent decree stipulated penalty amounts $4,000 /day
Cost of statutory fines for air permit violation $50,000 /day
Local Product Values (Retail):
Unit cost of electricity $0.07 /kW-hr
Unit cost of natural gas $0.49 /Therm
Unit cost for water $1.77 /100 ccf
Safety and Insurance:
Health and Safety - Fatality $9,600,000 /person
Health and Safety - Injury $28,800 /claim
WBU (water back-up) $6,220 /claim
Vehicle damage claims $3,046 /claim
Public Relation Costs:
PR costs, public notification $500.04 /notification
PR costs, public meeting $9,082.88 /public meeting
PR cost, long-term event $250,000.00 /event
Miscellaneous Items:
Bypass pumping $5,000 per 5 MGD/day
Reduction in Available Capacity $12,307,692.31 /MGD
Moratorium on growth $133,062.00 /capita
Temporary housing costs $150 /day per home
Cost of sewer backup $1,915 /claim
2.2 Risk Blocks
Through the ESC meetings conducted to develop the risk quantification tool, it became apparent that risks
are often described in terms of an event, in which many different costs or components could be incorporated
Risk Quantification Tool Rulebook
A-4
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.
Monetized Prioritization Rulebook Final 09112018
to describe a single risk cost. These events centered around easily identifiable consequences such as build-
ing backups or permit violations. Therefore, the ESC recommended that the monetizing bases described in
Section 2.1 be combined into common risk events, which are called ‘risk blocks.’
This list of risk building blocks is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, the risks included herein are in-
tended to represent the larger risk events that MSD is susceptible to. The goal is to describe the larger risk
events that would make up the majority of the risk costs. The identified risk blocks include:
• NPDES permit violation. Describes the costs associated with exceeding an NPDES permit
limit at an MSD treatment facility. Incorporates costs for permit prescribed fees for violation
as well as additional labor and administrative costs for responding to the violation event.
• Consent decree violation. Describes the costs associated with violating MSD’s consent de-
cree stipulations. Includes costs for penalty amounts as well as additional labor and adminis-
trative costs associated with responding to an event.
• Sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) event. Describes the costs associated with violating MSD’s
SSO stipulations. Includes costs for penalty amounts as well as additional labor and adminis-
trative costs associated with responding to an event.
• Air permit violation. Describes the costs associated with exceeding an air permit limit at an
MSD treatment facility. Incorporates costs for permit prescribed fees for violation as well as
additional labor and administrative costs for responding to the violation event.
• Building back-up. Describes the costs associated with an event where a break in service
(likely caused by a blockage or break in a collection system pipe) and consequently
wastewater backing up into a user’s home or business. The block is comprised of insurance
claims costs as well as lost time and additional administrative work to respond to the event.
• Asset failure event (at treatment facility). Describes the costs associated with an event where
an asset fails at an MSD treatment facility. The risk block includes costs for regulatory viola-
tion fees and associated administration tasks, additional labor and maintenance for facility
staff, health and safety considerations, as well as costs associated with issuing a public re-
sponse.
• Asset failure event (at pump station). Describes the costs associated with an event where a
pump fails at a pump station within the MSD collection system. Costs are included for emer-
gency bypass pumping to maintain service, as well as additional labor and maintenance for
facility staff and health and safety considerations. It is assumed that MSD will continue to
pump water by extraordinary means, if necessary, which is reflected in the cost.
• Asset failure event (for a pipe break). Describes the costs associated with an event where a
pipe breaks in the utility collection system. Costs are included for emergency bypass pump-
ing to maintain service, as well as additional labor and maintenance for facility staff, health
and safety considerations, building back-up insurance claims, and public lost time.
• Capacity loss. Describes a scenario where a proposed project does not sufficiently address
system capacity demands. Costs are developed based on the cost of service per million gal-
lons per day (MGD) based on the utility’s hook-up fee rate structure. The economic impact
due to a moratorium on growth is also incorporated for larger events. This risk block should
be considered in plant expansion projects or major pump station projects only; this risk ap-
plies only if there is a connection moratorium if a facility is not built. This risk block is not in-
tended to capture short-term capacity loss in the case of asset failure, but rather, to describe
Risk Quantification Tool Rulebook
A-5
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.
Monetized Prioritization Rulebook Final 09112018
the long-term implications of capital projects that address system-wide hydraulic or treat-
ment capacity limitations. For example, if a secondary clarifier is the limiting unit process at a
wastewater treatment facility, then the evaluation of an additional clarifier would leverage
this risk block.
• Complaint response. Describes the costs associated with an event that results in an increase
of public complaints. Administrative response time, public lost time, and additional mainte-
nance for facility staff are incorporated into the risk block.
• Efficiency loss (additional costs). Describes the physical resources (i.e., electricity, natural
gas, water, materials/chemicals) as well as the labor resources utilized by MSD. This risk
block should be scaled to a scenario to describe any inefficient utilization of resources
caused by the implementation of the proposed project.
• Efficiency gains (reduced costs). Describes the physical resources (i.e., electricity, natural
gas, water, materials/chemicals) as well as the labor resources utilized by MSD. This risk
block should be scaled to a scenario to describe any resources saved by the implementation
of the proposed project.
• Project partnership/coordination (benefit). Describes the potential project savings associated
with partnering with outside organizations due to shared administrative, construction, etc.
costs.
• Grants/loans. Describes the potential project savings associated with pursuing projects that
may qualify for grant or attractive loan funding.
In addition to the prescribed risk blocks, an “other” category is included in the “Risk Building Block” tab
should any of the defined blocks not apply. The “other” risk block includes a line item for every possible unit
cost and can be tailored to the specific evaluation. If the “other” risk block is used, the user should be cau-
tious to not double count the same risk event/costs that might be applied in another risk block.
2.3 Risk Severity
Many of the risk blocks described can occur at various scales depending on a number of asset-specific fac-
tors. For instance, a small pipe failing in a subdivision may cause building backups in several homes
whereas a major sewer interceptor failure may cause building backups in hundreds or thousands of homes.
While the result of each of these failures is the same (i.e. building backups), The scale of the impact can vary
greatly. Therefore, different risk scales or severities have been considered and built into the overall tool.
Many of the risk building blocks include a range of input quantity assumptions to describe minor, moderate
or major risk events. The assumed input quantities for the monetizing bases for the various risk blocks and
severities are included in Attachment B. The selection of risk event scale should occur in the “Risk Quantifi-
cation” tab of the tool spreadsheet. Again, should one of the prescribed input quantity scale assumptions
not accurately describe the given project evaluation, then the user can adjust the inputs. If an adjustment is
made, then the user should add a comment to explain why the adjustment was made within the “Input
Quantity Assumptions” column (H) under the tab “Risk Building Blocks” of the risk quantification spread-
sheet, as shown below.
Risk Quantification Tool Rulebook
A-6
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.
Monetized Prioritization Rulebook Final 09112018
Section 3: Tool Application
During the final ESC workshop, MSD participants tested a beta version of the risk quantification tool. This
section documents the use of and common troubleshooting procedures for the risk quantification tool given
the current iteration. This section may be updated as the tool and usage within MSD business processes
evolves.
3.1 Functionality
The following section provides a step-by-step guide to using the ‘MSD Risk Quantifications” spreadsheet. Us-
ers will primarily interact with the ‘Risk Quantification’ tab, which can be used to determine the risk associ-
ated with a specific alternative. The following provides a step-by-step guide to developing risk costs for each
project alternative.
Step 1 – Select which risk building blocks and severities are appropriate for the project or project alterna-
tive. Note that the spreadsheet is setup for users to input either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ in these cells via the dropdown
menu.
Risk Quantification Tool Rulebook
A-7
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.
Monetized Prioritization Rulebook Final 09112018
If the “adjusted” severity is selected, go to the “Risk Building Block” tab in the workbook and enter quanti-
ties in the “Adjusted” column within the desired risk block.
Select which risk building blocks
and severities (i.e., minor, moder-
ate, major, or adjusted) are appro-
priate for the alternative being
considered.
Adjust input quantities for the de-
sired risk block here, if required.
Risk Quantification Tool Rulebook
A-8
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.
Monetized Prioritization Rulebook Final 09112018
Step 2 – Enter the appropriate risk likelihood for each of the risk building blocks. The likelihood is based on
the probability that the event captured in the risk building block will occur for the alternative under
consideration. Once the risk likelihood is entered, the adjusted risk cost for the risk building block will be
automatically calculated. Note that Column F (‘Likelihood Assumption Notes’) can be used to document any
comments or assumptions on how the likelihood was developed. In the interest of consistency between
evaluations, it is recommended that a library of probability or likelihoods for specific types of events be
maintained internally by MSD. This will allow MSD staff to refer to previous evaluations and provide
consistency between evaluations.
Enter the likelihood of this
risk being experienced for
this alternative.
Note any comments or assumptions
on how this likelihood was developed.
Risk Quantification Tool Rulebook
A-9
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.
Monetized Prioritization Rulebook Final 09112018
Step 3 – After applying all the applicable risk building blocks and likelihoods, the total risk cost for the
alternative is automatically calculated by the spreadsheet. This value represents the risk cost for this
alternative. The user can then enter the project capital cost (in cell E71) to calculate a monetized
benefit/cost ratio. If applicable, the user can also input the original priority points ranking and B/C ratio for
comparison. This can be used in the capital planning or alternatives evaluation process.
3.2 Troubleshooting: Common Challenges and Solutions
While the risk quantification spreadsheet has been developed with the end-user in mind, there are several
common challenges that may be experienced. These are:
• Several of the risk blocks include benefits. These benefits are assigned negative values in the spread-
sheet to maintain the convention of costs being positive values. Therefore, the inclusion of a benefit,
such as external funding or cost sharing, will reduce the overall risk value for a project. While this is tech-
nically correct, it will change the benefit to cost (B/C) ratio (see Section 4.3). Therefore, when benefits are
applied to a project, which is uncommon, the B/C ratio should be hand calculated using the equation de-
scribed in Section 4.3. The risk blocks that include benefits, and thus require extra scrutiny, are as fol-
lows:
• Efficiency Gains
• External Opportunities
• Other
• Each of the risk building blocks includes an ‘Adjusted’ severity level that allows for user input. Users can
input the quantities of each type of risk costs in the “Input Quantities Assumptions – Adjusted” (column
The Total shown in Row 67
represents the annual risk
cost for this alternative based
on the user inputs.
Risk Quantification Tool Rulebook
A-10
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.
Monetized Prioritization Rulebook Final 09112018
G) on the ‘Risk Building Blocks’ tab. The format for information to be entered should match the “Mi-
nor/Moderate/Major” input quantity assumptions (columns D, E, and F) in the same tab. This function
should rarely be used and only when the established severity levels cannot accurately represent the risk
associated with a proposed project. Using the ‘Adjusted’ severity level should also increase the scrutiny in
the review process to verify that the calculated risk matches the actual risk.
• The ‘Monetizing Basis Support’ tab includes documentation on the quantification of each risk cost. These
values should remain constant until organizational updates on the tool are conducted by MSD. Note:
When an update occurs, all current projects under evaluation that used updated data fields will need to
be rescored for prioritization comparison. It is not necessary to rescore projects that have already been
prioritized and are in the execution phase.
In addition, there are several common MSD-specific considerations for the application of the tool, including:
• Efficiency loss vs. efficiency gains: in any given evaluation, efficiency can be looked at as ei-
ther a risk or a benefit, not both. Consistency within an evaluation is imperative. For con-
sistency between evaluations, it is recommended that the status quo alternative (i.e. do noth-
ing) be looked at as the baseline for assessing efficiency loss/gain. If a proposed project
would increase efficiency from the status quo, it would be counted as efficiency gain. Con-
versely, if a proposed project would decrease efficiency from the status quo, it would be
counted as efficiency loss.
• Building back-up vs. asset failure (pipe break): If a pipe break contributes to a building back-
up event, the cost associated with insurance claims should be counted in the asset failure
risk block only.
• The risk of NPDES permit violations could be double-counted depending on the risk blocks
selected. The primary means of accounting for this risk is the ‘NPDES Permit Violations’ risk
block. If this risk block has been selected, the user should verify that other risk blocks do not
also capture the consequences of this risk.
• The risk of capacity loss is meant to capture the long-term effects of losing system capacity.
This risk should generally not be used for short-term (i.e. less than one month) capacity
losses. Rather, it is intended to capture the consequences of system capacity loss that could
affect the management and operation of the system and have negative consequences on the
overall community.
Section 4: MSD ‘Rules’ for Risk Quantification Tool
It is important that the risk quantification approach supports the overall capital planning and project prioriti-
zation process. Therefore, each utility should have a unique approach used to account for risks in their deci-
sion-making process. The risk quantification approach for MSD has noteworthy aspects including the ap-
proach to likelihood percentages, the integration of risk costs in the capital planning process, and the
acceptable payback periods for various assets. The following sections describe each of these aspects of the
MSD risk quantification process. Several other best practices are also noted in this section along with a dis-
cussion of how previous events can be used as a reference for the risk quantification.
4.1 Double Counting Costs
The tool includes several instances of risks that captured in multiple risk blocks. For example, the ‘Asset Fail-
ure (at Treatment Facility)’ risk block includes costs for permit violations and public relations. Therefore,
Risk Quantification Tool Rulebook
A-11
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.
Monetized Prioritization Rulebook Final 09112018
these costs should not be counted separately under the ‘NPDES Permit Violation’ risk block. As part of the
internal review process, the review team should review the detailed risk block information to ensure risks
are not double counted.
4.2 Application of Probability Percentages
Time is not incorporated into the current iteration of the risk quantification tool. As such, when a user is con-
sidering a proposed project, one should evaluate the probability of risk at the point in time of the analysis or
when the project is being consider for implementation. Given the time it takes to initiate and complete a pro-
ject, it is recommended the user consider the probability of failure five years from the time the evaluation is
conducted. The probability of asset failure can be derived from a number of sources including the estimated
remaining useful life of the asset, field observations, or experience with past failure events for similar assets.
As the asset management program continues to evolve, the likelihood of asset failure may be connected to
statistical data on the likelihood of asset failure for MSD specific assets.
4.3 Development of Benefit Cost Ratios
Mitigated project risk costs can then be compared to preliminary capital costs to determine a B/C ratio,
which can be compared across a multitude of projects. Once a project’s adjusted risk cost has been deter-
mined, a benefit to cost ratio can be calculated for the proposed project by dividing the adjusted risk cost by
the proposed project capital cost. If benefit costs are included in the evaluation, these should also be fac-
tored into the B/C ratio. The equation for calculating the B/C ratio is shown below. Note that because bene-
fits are presented as negative values in the tool for sign convention, they must be subtracted from risk costs.
The reason the benefit costs need to be subtracted is as follows: when we think about capital costs, one
usually thinks about the value as a positive value, even though the money is technically being spent and
would have a negative sign convention associated with it. Similarly, if we keep thinking about costs with this
sign convention (where capital and risk costs are presented as a positive value), then the benefit costs
would be presented as a negative (i.e., value that the project cost is being reduced by). In this manner, the
inclusion of a benefit increases the B/C ratio and thus the viability of the project.
𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑛 𝐵𝑛𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛=𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘 𝐵𝑛𝑠𝑠−𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑠𝑠
𝐵𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑎𝑘 𝐵𝑛𝑠𝑠𝑠
In this manner, capital projects can be directly compared and projects with a higher benefit to cost ratio (i.e.,
higher risk mitigated for capital dollars invested) can be prioritized over those with less risk implications. On
a project-specific level, the risk cost buy-back period for a given investment can be calculated by taking the
inverse of the benefit cost ratio, calculated either by dividing the overall project cost by the adjusted risk cost
or by taking 1 divided by the B/C ratio. This value represents the number of years it would take before the
capital cost would be justified given the annual mitigated risk cost value. Short of developing a full life-cycle
analysis and incorporating time into the project evaluations, the B/C ratio and determining the risk buy-back
period allows for the user to incorporate time into the decision-making process.
4.4 Payback by Asset Type
As previously discussed, the risk payback period can be calculated for any given project by taking the inverse
of the benefit cost ratio, calculated either by dividing the overall project cost by the adjusted risk cost or by
taking 1 divided by the B/C ratio. This value represents the number of years it would take before the capital
Risk Quantification Tool Rulebook
A-12
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.
Monetized Prioritization Rulebook Final 09112018
cost would be justified given the annual mitigated risk cost value. This risk payback period can then be com-
pared to the anticipated asset service life of the equipment or infrastructure being considered in a project
evaluation. If the risk payback period is less than the projected asset service life, then the project should be
considered further. Alternatively, if the risk payback period exceeds the projected asset service life, then the
project in question may not be viable and should be reevaluated. A list of industry standard service life book
values for typical utility assets are included for reference in Table 2 below. The Finance Steering Committee
(FSC) has determined that MSD will utilize their historical experience in developing a standard asset service
life. This standard will be used for asset depreciation schedules for the District’s financials and can be incor-
porated here for payback determinations when it is developed.
Table 2. Asset Service Life
Asset Service Life (yrs)
Pressure Pipe - Ductile Iron 60
Pressure Pipe - Cast Iron 60
Pressure Pipe - PVC 60
Pump 30
Submersible Pump 15
Other Mechanical 30
Electrical 30
Reservoirs 60
Structures 60
Chlorination 15
4.5 Reference Events
Past events can and should be used as a comparison for the risk quantifications developed using the risk
quantification tool. While the circumstance of past events may vary from the projects under consideration,
their overall magnitude can serve as validation for the results generated by the tool. For example, the costs
incurred as a result of the last similar pump station failure should be used to validate the risk quantification
developed through the use of this tool. This provides a means of validating the risk magnitude so that risks
are not over or under-represented. A summary of past events and their consequences are included in Attach-
ment C. This list is meant to be updated periodically to maintain a database of events for comparison.
Risk Quantification Tool Rulebook
A-13
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.
Monetized Prioritization Rulebook Final 09112018
Attachment A: Monetizing Basis Support Sources and
Emails
Table A-1. Monetizing Basis Support Sources
Metric Source
Labor Rates:
Loaded labor rates for internal groups
Labor cost, admin Updated at 10/17/17 ESC workshop, Direct Labor + Benefits costs for Grade A
employees
Labor cost, trade Updated at 10/17/17 ESC workshop, Direct Labor + Benefits costs for Grade B
employees
Labor cost, professional Updated at 10/17/17 ESC workshop, Direct Labor + Benefits costs for Grade C (below
8) employees
Labor cost, management Updated at 10/17/17 ESC workshop, Direct Labor + Benefits costs for Grade C (above
8) employees
Labor rates for external groups
labor cost, consultant hourly rate assumption
labor cost, contractor hourly rate assumption
Lost time, public hourly wage based on median household income ($59,755) for St. Louis County, MO.
(US Census Bureau)
Lost time, businesses Calculated as weighted hourly value from 2012 Economic Census Data
Violations and Fees:
Cost of statutory fines for permit violations NPDES Permit
Emergency contract costs Assumption
Cost of consent decree stipulated penalty amounts Consent Decree Case: 4:07-cv-01120-CEJ Doc. #: 159 Filed: 04/27/12 Page: 67 of 97
PagelD #: 1581
Cost of statutory fines for air permit violation Email per MSD (via Jeff Theerman) on 10/25/17
Local Product Values (Retail):
Unit cost of electricity Current cost of electricity for MSD
Unit cost of natural gas Current cost of natural gas for MSD
Unit cost for water Current cost of water for MSD
Safety and Insurance:
Health and Safety - Fatality
EPA Value of a Statistical Life.
https://cms.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016%20Revised%20Value%20of%20
a%20Statistical%20Life%20Guidance.pdf
Health and Safety - Injury Assumes EPA statistical value for Minor injury (.003 * Value of a Statistical Life)
WBU (water back-up)
Assumes $1,900 per claim payout plus $4,320 per claim for administrative costs for
liability policy ($349,164/year in 2017) and third party risk claims administration
($514,800). Based on assumption of 200 claims per year.
Vehicle damage claims Email from MSD on 10/11/17
Table A-1. Monetizing Basis Support Sources
Metric Source
Public Relation Costs:
PR costs, public notification Assume 4 hours of professional labor rate and 8 hours of admin labor
PR costs, public meeting Assume 24 hours of management time, 80 hours of professional time, and 80 hours of
admin time
PR cost, long-term event Assumed 1,000 hours of management time, 4,000 hours of professional time, and
8,000 of admin time
Miscellaneous Items:
Bypass pumping Email from MSD (Bart Hager) on 8/29/17
Reduction in Available Capacity assumption - 2.5 users per home, 65 gal/day/person
residential hook-up fee = $2,000
Moratorium on growth 2012 Economic Census Data - Value of total business transactions ($374B) divided by
the population of St. Louis Metro Area (2.81M ppl)
Temporary housing costs Email from MSD on 10/11/17
Cost of sewer backup Email from MSD on 10/11/17
1
Lorena Croucher
From:Cindy Cullen <ckretzer@stlmsd.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 26, 2017 9:24 AM
To:Bart Hager
Subject:RE: Additional Risk Information
Bart,
I found some air violation fee information in the Missouri CSR under 10 CSR 10-6.230. MDNR will assess the severity of
the violation and apply penalties using this fine matrix:
The total penalty cannot exceed $10,000 per day per violation. However, MDNR can add on additional fines if any
violations resulted from economic benefit gained from the violation. MDNR has an economic benefit formula to
calculate this amount, and I don’t think there is a cap on that number. (I found some correspondence from the EPA,
here, stating that MDNR needs to better define it’s fine calculation process.) I think MDNR tends to negotiate a
settlement if a penalty is warranted.
Additionally, while MDNR is the delegated authority to enforce air regulations in Missouri, I believe the EPA is also
authorized to immediately bring suit or to take other action necessary against persons or facilities causing an imminent
and substantial endangerment to public health or the environment. The penalty can be up to $37,500 per day and
cannot exceed $295,000 unless the EPA and the Department of Justice decide a higher fine is appropriate. I think this
only happens in extreme cases.
I’m not sure that I can define the penalty process any further. If Brown & Caldwell needs more information, I can reach
out to our environmental lawyer consultant, Ryan Kemper.
Thank you,
Cindy
From: Cindy Cullen
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 1:52 PM
To: Bart Hager
Subject: RE: Additional Risk Information
2
Sorry – I didn’t get a chance to really look through the permits for fees. I’m wrapping up a couple DEC tasks (it’s my last
week here), but I can dig in to this later this week or early next week.
From: Bart Hager
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 1:28 PM
To: Cindy Cullen
Subject: RE: Additional Risk Information
Violation fees don’t seem to be addressed in these permits, unless I’m missing something…where would we find those,
and what are they?
From: Cindy Cullen
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:23 PM
To: Bart Hager
Subject: RE: Additional Risk Information
Hi Bart,
I attached MSD’s three Title V permits. Note that Bissell and Lemay are currently undergoing a permit renewal. The
biggest change to these permits is compliance with 40 CFR 60, Subpart MMMM. We have some Stage I vapor recovery
permits for some of our fueling areas too (not attached).
Let me know if I can help Matt with finding any more information on violation fees.
Thanks,
Cindy
Cindy Cullen, P.E.
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Engineering Department - Environmental Compliance
10 East Grand Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63147-2913
(314) 436-8702
From: Bart Hager
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:37 AM
To: Cindy Cullen
Subject: FW: Additional Risk Information
Good Morning! Please see below, a follow up from the meeting last week with Operations…is this something you could
help with?
From: Matt Gregg [mailto:mgregg@BrwnCald.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:25 AM
To: Bart Hager
Cc: Jeff Theerman; Lorena Croucher
Subject: RE: Additional Risk Information
3
Bart – We’re looking for information about the stipulated penalties for any air permit violations. It might be easiest if
you could just track down the actual permit, which we weren’t able to find online, and we can sift through it to find the
violation costs. --Matt
Matthew Gregg, P.E.
Brown and Caldwell | Boise, ID
mgregg@brwncald.com
T 208.389.7717 | C 208.870.9684
Professional Registration in Specific States
From: Bart Hager [mailto:BXHAGE@stlmsd.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 6:19 AM
To: Matt Gregg <mgregg@BrwnCald.com>
Cc: Jeff Theerman <JTheerman@BrwnCald.com>; Lorena Croucher <lcroucher@BrwnCald.com>
Subject: RE: Additional Risk Information
What exactly are you looking for on the “Air permit information for any facilities”?
From: Matt Gregg [mailto:mgregg@BrwnCald.com]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 5:45 PM
To: Bart Hager
Cc: Jeff Theerman; Lorena Croucher
Subject: Additional Risk Information
Bart,
We’re working to update the risk quantifications coming out of our workshop last week. We had a couple more items
that we were hoping you could track down for us:
1. Insurance premium information and third-party administration costs for the insurance payouts noted in the risk
(e.g. property damage, vehicle damage, property damage)
2. Air permit information for any facilities.
Thanks! --Matt
Matthew Gregg, P.E.
Brown and Caldwell | Boise, ID
mgregg@brwncald.com
T 208.389.7717 | C 208.870.9684
Professional Registration in Specific States
Get water industry news delivered to your desktop, free, from BCWaterNews.com Sign up now!
1
Lorena Croucher
From:Jeff Theerman
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 8:45 AM
To:Matt Gregg; Anne Kennedy
Cc:Lorena Croucher
Subject:RE: Asset Management effort - data needed on average claims/costs
Over charged mains are building backups as a result of insufficient capacity during wet
weather.
Blocked mains are building backups as a result of a blockage of roots, grease, etc. during either
wet or dry weather.
Back flush claims are where water enters the building as a result of sewer hydroflushing, by
MSD crews. This doesn’t happen a lot and when it is a result of contractor sewer cleaning it is
the responsibility of the contractor.
Something we may be missing is that when a building is prone to overcharged conditions MSD
will provide and maintain a backflow prevention device in the lateral to avoid future
overcharged conditions. We might want to include that cost because when it is applied it
results in more cost but not in overcharge claims. I’ll ask if they have a number for the
backflow prevention approach per home.
Jeff
Jeff Theerman PE
Vice President
Senior Utility Performance Consultant
Brown and Caldwell | St. Louis
JTheerman@brwncald.com
C 314.323.4344
From: Matt Gregg
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 9:16 AM
To: Jeff Theerman <JTheerman@BrwnCald.com>; Anne Kennedy <akennedy@BrwnCald.com>
Cc: Lorena Croucher <lcroucher@BrwnCald.com>
Subject: FW: Asset Management effort - data needed on average claims/costs
Jeff and Anne
2
Can you explain the difference between the following two scenarios? Are these just a difference in the degree of the
sewer backup?
· Average Sewer Back Up claim which includes overcharge, blocked main: $1,914.71
· Property Damage Claims: which includes back flush claims is $4,779.89
Thanks! –Matt
Matthew Gregg, P.E.
Brown and Caldwell | Boise, ID
mgregg@brwncald.com
T 208.389.7717 | C 208.870.9684
Professional Registration in Specific States
From: Jeff Theerman
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 10:19 AM
To: Matt Gregg <mgregg@BrwnCald.com>
Subject: Fwd: Asset Management effort - data needed on average claims/costs
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bart Hager <BXHAGE@stlmsd.com>
Date: October 11, 2017 at 12:05:16 PM EDT
To: "Jeff Theerman (JTheerman@BrwnCald.com)" <JTheerman@BrwnCald.com>
Cc: Bruce Litzsinger <BLITZSIN@stlmsd.com>
Subject: FW: Asset Management effort - data needed on average claims/costs
Jeff, following is the rest of the info requested…
From: Michael Grace
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 11:01 AM
To: Bart Hager
Cc: Bruce Litzsinger
Subject: RE: Asset Management effort - data needed on average claims/costs
Bart:
Information that you requested is based upon a fiscal period as opposed to a calendar year.
Average Workers Compensation Claim is $15,487.28
Average General Liability Claim which is bodily injury claims is : $1,080.44
Auto Liability Claim $1,598.43
Auto Physical Damage Claim $1,965.42.
Total Auto average exposure = $3,045.86
Average Sewer Back Up claim which includes overcharge, blocked main: $1,914.71
Property Damage Claims: which includes back flush claims is $4,779.89
Lodging if and when occurs is approximately up $150 per day as result of a claim that result of system
failure such as gate failure.
3
From: Bart Hager
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 3:06 PM
To: Michael Grace
Cc: Bruce Litzsinger
Subject: FW: Asset Management effort - data needed on average claims/costs
Mike, see below for Mr. Theerman’s input on your questions. If that is adequate, please let us know
what numbers we should use.
From: Jeff Theerman [mailto:JTheerman@BrwnCald.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 2:49 PM
To: Bart Hager
Cc: Bruce Litzsinger; Matt Gregg
Subject: RE: Asset Management effort - data needed on average claims/costs
So for all of these we are trying to use an average number. See my specific
guidance below.
Jeff Theerman PE
Vice President
Senior Utility Performance Consultant
Brown and Caldwell | St. Louis
JTheerman@brwncald.com
C 314.323.4344
From: Bart Hager [mailto:BXHAGE@stlmsd.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 1:17 PM
To: Jeff Theerman <JTheerman@BrwnCald.com>
Cc: Bruce Litzsinger <BLITZSIN@stlmsd.com>
Subject: FW: Asset Management effort - data needed on average claims/costs
Jeff, Mike Grace has some questions, see below…please provide feedback at your convenience.
From: Michael Grace
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 11:29 AM
To: Bart Hager
Cc: Kurt Bussmann; Bruce Litzsinger
Subject: RE: Asset Management effort - data needed on average claims/costs
Bart:
I would need some additional clarification.
Typical cost of injury for employee: Is this a loss time injury , no loss time injury?
Workers Comp benefits or scheduled benefits, however medical cost will vary depending on severity.
This should be the average cost of injuries. So look at an average year of injuries based on
costs. Include both lost time and non-lost time. Total all costs during this average year and divide by
the number of injuries (lost time and non-lost time). This should yield a rough average cost of an
injury. That will be precise enough for our purpose.
4
Whereas bodily injury in a general liability setting, (public) will vary based on severity. Same
approach. Use an average year based on costs. Divide total cost by number of general liability claims
which should yield an average dollars per claim.
Should be able to give you estimate cost on property damage claims resulting from Sewer Back up from
overcharge and blocked main.
Overcharge max recovery is $3,000 minus $100 deductible. Overcharge would be range of $2,300 per
claim. This is what we want.
Blocked main should be able to obtain estimate. Same method as above.
Temporary housing which we very seldom provide could be as high as $150 a day.
Give us an estimate of the average cost when you provide this.
From: Bart Hager
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 10:57 AM
To: Michael Grace; Kurt Bussmann
Cc: Bruce Litzsinger
Subject: Asset Management effort - data needed on average claims/costs
As part of the asset management effort with Operations, we are trying to develop a new benefit cost
system to prioritize projects.
Certain cost factors are needed for this system. Can you provide the following information, if at all
possible by the end of next week?
Requested Risk Cost Information Notes
Typical cost for injury claim for employee or the
public
Risk management group might have some
information. Alternatively, we could use an EPA
value for this injury
Typical cost of property damage claim Risk management group should have information
on average property damage claim resulting from
sewer backup.
Typical cost of vehicle damage claim Risk management group should have information
on average claim for
Cost of providing temporary housing to
customer
This cost was identified as a potential result of
major sewer backups. Risk management group
might have information.
1
Lorena Croucher
From:Bart Hager <BXHAGE@stlmsd.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 12:32 PM
To:Matt Gregg; Carole Willis
Cc:Lorena Croucher; Jeff Theerman; Bruce Litzsinger; Bonnie S Hubert
Subject:RE: Risk Quantification Follow-Up
Attachments:MSD Internal Quantifications Info Bart data.xlsx
Bypass pumping costs are in, please see attached updated spreadsheet.
From: Bart Hager
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 1:52 PM
To: 'Matt Gregg'; Carole Willis
Cc: Lorena Croucher; Jeff Theerman; Bruce Litzsinger; Bonnie S Hubert
Subject: RE: Risk Quantification Follow-Up
Attached is what I have so far, with separate tabs for each answer created in the spreadsheet. Let me know if you have
any questions. Still working on bypass pumping costs.
From: Matt Gregg [mailto:mgregg@BrwnCald.com]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 11:32 AM
To: Carole Willis; Bart Hager
Cc: Lorena Croucher; Jeff Theerman
Subject: Risk Quantification Follow-Up
Bart and Carol,
It was great talking to you last week about the upcoming risk quantification work. We really appreciate your support in
tracking down some of this internal information. In the attached table I’ve tried to capture the information we were
hoping to track down, the person responsible, and then any other notes we captured from our discussion. Our target to
collect this information is August 28th. Please let me know if you have any questions or are having trouble finding
anything. Thanks! –Matt
Matthew Gregg, P.E.
Brown and Caldwell | Boise, ID
mgregg@brwncald.com T 208.389.7717 | C 208.870.9684
Professional Registration in Specific States
Get water industry news delivered to your desktop, free, from BCWaterNews.com Sign up now!
Prorated based off bypass pumping costs for the Coldwater Tank C project:
daily $1,441/MGD/1000 feet of bypass
weekly $19,780/MGD/1000 feet of bypass
Cost Duration Distance Flow
75,000 2.5 days 1400 ft 23 CFS or 14.87 MGD
1 MGD / day 75000/2.5*14.87*1.4 $1441/MGD/1000 feet of bypass daily
1 MGD /week $10090/MGD/1000 feet of bypass weekly
Risk Quantification Tool Rulebook
B-1
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.
Monetized Prioritization Rulebook Final 09112018
Attachment B: Risk Blocks and Risk Severities
Minor Moderate Major Adjusted
Regulatory Violation Note to User: Add comments on why standard assumptions have been adjusted if needed.
NPDES Permit Violation
Cost of statutory fines for permit violations $50,000 /day 1 7 30
Regulatory Reporting, labor $53.03 /hr 20 40 360
Environmental remediation, labor $43.92 /hr 80 320
Additional maintenance, labor $43.92 /hr 80 320
Additional maintenance, parts 1 $, placeholder $1,500 $6,000
Emergency contract costs 1 $, placeholder $50,000
Cost for executing projects on an accelerated timeframe 10% $, % applied to placeholder $1,000,000
PR costs, public notification $500.04 /notification 2 10 20
PR costs, public meeting $9,082.88 /public meeting 2 4
PR costs, long-term event $250,000.00 /event 1
TOTAL: $52,061 $383,815 $1,999,532 $0
Consent Decree Violation
Cost of consent decree stipulated penalty amounts $4,000 day 1 7 30
Regulatory Reporting, labor $53.03 /hr 40 120 360
Environmental remediation, labor $43.92 /hr 80 320
Additional maintenance, labor $43.92 /hr 80 320
Additional maintenance, parts 1 $, placeholder $1,500 $6,000
Emergency contract costs 1 $, placeholder $50,000
Cost for executing projects on an accelerated timeframe 10% $, % applied to placeholder $1,000,000
PR costs, public notification $500.04 /notification 2 10 20
PR costs, public meeting $9,082.88 /public meeting 2 4
PR costs, long-term event $250,000.00 /event 1
TOTAL: $7,121 $66,057 $619,532 $0
Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO)
Cost of SSO stipulated penalty amounts $50,000 day 1 7 30
Regulatory Reporting, labor $53.03 /hr 40 120 360
Environmental remediation, labor $43.92 /hr 80 320
Additional maintenance, labor $43.92 /hr 80 320
Additional maintenance, parts 1 $, placeholder $1,500 $6,000
Emergency contract costs 1 $, placeholder $50,000
Cost for executing projects on an accelerated timeframe 10% $, % applied to placeholder $1,000,000
PR costs, public notification $500.04 /notification 2 10 20
PR costs, public meeting $9,082.88 /public meeting 2 4
PR costs, long-term event $250,000.00 /event 1
TOTAL: $53,121 $388,057 $1,999,532 $0
Air Permit Violation
Cost of statutory fines for air permit violation $50,000 day 1 7 30
Regulatory Reporting, labor $53.03 /hr 40 120 360
Environmental remediation, labor $43.92 /hr 80 320
Additional maintenance, labor $43.92 /hr 80 320
Additional maintenance, parts 1 $, placeholder $1,500 $6,000
Emergency contract costs 1 $, placeholder $50,000
Cost for executing projects on an accelerated timeframe 10% $, % applied to placeholder $1,000,000
PR costs, public notification $500.04 /notification 2 10 20
PR costs, public meeting $9,082.88 /public meeting 2 4
PR costs, long-term event $250,000.00 /event 1
TOTAL: $53,121 $388,057 $1,999,532 $0
Building Back-up
WBU (water back-up)$6,220 /claim 1 50 150
Lost time, public $28.73 /hr
20 1000 3000
Moderate assumes 1,000 vehicles per day (residential street) delayed by 15 minutes. Major assumes 31,000
vehicles per day (4 lane road) delayed by 15 minutes
Lost time, businesses $2,284 /hr 20 200
Temporary housing costs $150 day per home 100
Additional maintenance, labor $43.92 /hr 10 500 1500
TOTAL: $7,234 $407,360 $1,556,785 $0
Asset Failure (at treatment facility)
Additional maintenance, labor $43.92 /hr 40 120 120
Additional maintenance, parts 1 $, placeholder $2,000 $10,000 $10,000
Health and Safety - Injury $28,800 /claim 0.01 0.1 0.1
Health and Safety - Fatality $9,600,000 /person 0.0001 0.0001
external labor cost, consultant $150 /hr
external labor cost, contractor $75 /hr
Labor cost, admin $35.99 /hr
Labor cost, trade $43.92 /hr
Labor cost, professional $53.03 /hr
Labor cost, management $81.72 /hr
Lost time, public $28.73 /hr
Lost time, businesses $2,284 /hr
Cost of statutory fines for permit violations $50,000 /day 1 7 7
Regulatory Reporting, labor $53.03 /hr 40 120 120
Environmental remediation, labor $43.92 /hr 80 80
PR costs, public notification $500.04 /notification 2 10 10
PR costs, public meeting $9,082.88 /public meeting 2 2
Reduction in Available Capacity $12,307,692.31 /MGD 5
TOTAL: $57,166 $402,154 $61,940,615 $0
Asset Failure (pump station)
Bypass Pumping $5,000 per 5 MGD/day Scale to scenario
Additional maintenance, labor $43.92 /hr 40 160 1440
Additional maintenance, parts 1 $, placeholder $2,000 $1,000 $50,000
Health and Safety - Injury $28,800 /claim 0.25 1
Health and Safety - Fatality $9,600,000 /person 0.001
external labor cost, consultant $150 /hr
external labor cost, contractor $75 /hr
Labor cost, admin $35.99 /hr
Labor cost, trade $43.92 /hr
Labor cost, professional $53.03 /hr
Labor cost, management $81.72 /hr
Lost time, public $28.73 /hr
Lost time, businesses $2,284 /hr
TOTAL: $3,757 $15,227 $151,645 $0
Input Quantity AssumptionsInput Quantity Assumptions Monetizing Basis Unit Cost Units
Minor Moderate Major Adjusted Input Quantity AssumptionsInput Quantity Assumptions Monetizing Basis Unit Cost Units
Asset Failure (pipe break)
Bypass Pumping $5,000 per 5 MGD/day scale to scenario
Additional maintenance, labor $43.92 /hr 10 320
Additional maintenance, parts 1 $, placeholder $500 $10,000
Health and Safety - Injury $28,800 /claim 0.1
Health and Safety - Fatality $9,600,000 /person 0.0001
external labor cost, consultant $150 /hr
external labor cost, contractor $75 /hr
Labor cost, admin $35.99 /hr
Labor cost, trade $43.92 /hr
Labor cost, professional $53.03 /hr
Labor cost, management $81.72 /hr
WBU (water back-up)$6,220 /claim
Lost time, public $28.73 /hr
500 77500
Minor assumes 1,000 vehicles per day (residential street) delayed by 15 minutes for two days. Major
assumes 31,000 vehicles per day (4 lane road) delayed by 15 minutes fo 10 days
Lost time, businesses $2,284 /hr 800 Major assumes 10 businesses impacted for 10 days)
TOTAL: $15,303 $4,081,223 $0
Capacity Loss
Reduction in Available Capacity $12,307,692 /MGD 1 5
Moratorium on growth $133,062 /capita 100
TOTAL: $12,307,692 $74,844,662 $0
Complaint Response (Odor)
Labor cost, calls and response $35.99 /hr 50 200
Equipment costs 1 $, placeholder $500 $5,000
Lost time, public $28.73 /hr 5 20
Lost time, businesses $2,284 /hr 20
TOTAL: $2,443 $58,445 $0
Efficiency Loss
Unit cost of electricity $0.07 /kW-hr Scale to scenario
Unit cost of natural gas $0.49 /Therm Scale to scenario
Unit cost for water $1.77 /100 ccf Scale to scenario
Materials/Chemicals 1 $, placeholder Scale to scenario
Labor cost, admin $35.99 /hr Scale to scenario
Labor cost, trade $43.92 /hr Scale to scenario
Labor cost, professional $53.03 /hr Scale to scenario
Labor cost, management $81.72 /hr Scale to scenario
TOTAL:$0
Efficiency Gains
Unit cost of electricity $0.07 /kW-hr Scale to scenario
Unit cost of natural gas $0.49 /Therm Scale to scenario
Unit cost for water $1.77 /100 ccf Scale to scenario
Materials/Chemicals 1 $, placeholder Scale to scenario
Labor cost, admin $35.99 /hr Scale to scenario
Labor cost, trade $43.92 /hr Scale to scenario
Labor cost, professional $53.03 /hr Scale to scenario
Labor cost, management $81.72 /hr Scale to scenario
TOTAL:$0
External Opportunities
Project Partnership/Coordination
Project Savings, professional $53.03 /hr 10 100 1000
Organization Partnering, saved project costs 10% $, % applied to placeholder $10,000 $100,000 $1,000,000
TOTAL: $1,530 $15,303 $153,030 $0
Grants/Loans
Grant Value -1 $, placeholder
Scale to scenario. Note that grant funding should be included as a negative number as costs are represented
as positive values.
Cost of grant administration, labor $35.99 /hr 10 100 1000
TOTAL: $360 $3,599 $35,990 $0
Minor Moderate Major Adjusted Input Quantity AssumptionsInput Quantity Assumptions Monetizing Basis Unit Cost Units
Other
Note to User: This section is meant to capture any other costs that may be associated with the evaluation
using the same risk quantification basis as the other sections.
Labor cost, admin $35.99 /hr
Labor cost, trade $43.92 /hr
Labor cost, professional $53.03 /hr
Labor cost, management $81.72 /hr
Environmental remediation, labor $43.92 /hr
Additional maintenance, labor $43.92 /hr
Regulatory Reporting, labor $53.03 /hr
external labor cost, consultant $150 /hr
external labor cost, contractor $75 /hr
Cost for executing projects on an accelerated timeframe 10% $, % applied to placeholder
Lost time, public $28.73 /hr
Lost time, businesses $2,284 /hr
Cost of statutory fines for permit violations $50,000 /day
Emergency contract costs 1 $, placeholder
Cost of consent decree stipulated penalty amounts $4,000 day
Cost of SSO stipulated penalty amounts $50,000 day
Cost of statutory fines for air permit violation $50,000 day
Unit cost of electricity $0.07 /kW-hr
Unit cost of natural gas $0.49 /Therm
Unit cost for water $1.77 /100 ccf
Health and Safety - Injury $28,800 /claim
Health and Safety - Fatality $9,600,000 /person
WBU (water back-up)$6,220 /claim
Vehicle damage claims $3,046 /claim
Bypass pumping $5,000 per 5 MGD/day
Reduction in Available Capacity $12,307,692 /MGD
Moratorium on growth $133,062 /capita
Temporary housing costs $150 /day per home
Cost of sewer backup $1,915 /claim
Labor cost, calls and response $35.99 /hr
PR costs, public notification $500 /notification
PR costs, public meeting $9,083 /public meeting
PR costs, long-term event $250,000.00 /event
Additional maintenance, parts 1 $, placeholder
Equipment costs 1 $, placeholder
Materials/chemicals 1 $, placeholder
Project Savings, professional $53.03 /hr
Organization Partnering, saved project costs 10% $, % applied to placeholder
Grant Value 1 $, placeholder
Cost of grant administration, labor $35.99 /hr
TOTAL:$0
Risk Quantification Tool Rulebook
C-1
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.
Monetized Prioritization Rulebook Final 09112018
Attachment C: Example Risk Events