Initial Site-Specific De-Inventory Report for Big Rock Point Report No.: RPT-3014537-002
4) HHT from BRP ISFSI to potential transload site on Washington Street in Petoskey, MI and rail via Annpere, MI to GCUS (Option 2). 5) HHT from BRP ISFSI to potential transload site in Gaylord, MI and rail via Flint, MI to GCUS (Option 1). 6) HHT from BRP ISFSI to potential transload site in Gaylord, MI and rail via Bay City, MI and Durand, MI to GCUS (Option 2). 7) Barge from BRP ISFSI to Milwaukee, WI and rail to GCUS. 5.3 Evaluation of Routes To evaluate each of these seven routes, attributes used to define an ‘ideal’ route and associated shipping activities were identified, and for each attribute, metrics were identified that describe the performance measures and allow for the quantification of the assessment through pairwise comparisons. With these seven routes in mind, the metrics were evaluated to identify those that are tangibly different between two or more routes. These tangibly different metrics were then pairwise compared against one another to identify a level of importance for each metric (i.e., a metric hierarchy) and provide a range of values against which sensitivity analyses were performed. An additional pairwise comparison was performed between the tangible metrics for each route, and using the metric hierarchy, a hierarchy for the routes was established. Finally, sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the impact changes to the weighting of the metrics had on the route hierarchy. 5.3.1 Identification of Attributes and Metrics The attributes identified that can characterize the ‘ideal’ route are identified in Table 5-1 (Step 3). These attributes were established based on solicitation of the members of the de-inventory team and also based on the large body of past MUA activities having been performed on nuclear waste management evaluations [32-35] . For each attribute, one or more performance measures (metrics) was established (Step 4). These metrics provide a means for estimating how well each route performs against each attribute, defined in terms that can be evaluated by technical experts and compared meaningfully by decision makers. Table 5-1 also lists the identified metrics per attribute. To minimize the number of evaluations performed in the next set of MUA activities, the team was surveyed to establish which metrics identify a potentially tangible difference between one or more of the remaining seven routes (Step 5). Table 5-1 shows the results of this survey and some subsequent team discussions. Those metrics identified as having the potential to differentiate between one or more of the routes are identified in Table 5-1 with a “yes.” Comments are provided in the last column of the table to indicate how the “applicable metric” assessment was performed/concluded. The results of this assessment identified at least one metric for each attribute, with the exception of the Resource Requirements and Waste Generation attributes, for which no tangible differences in the resources and waste production were identified between the routes (e.g., the waste generated during the de-inventory activities, such as personnel protection equipment, is considered to essentially result in the same quantity and type of waste and hence, will not identify a tangible difference between the evaluated routes). A total of 15 metrics will be evaluated for each route and contrasted against the other routes.
Page 5-5
Initial Site-Specific De-Inventory Report for Big Rock Point May 10, 2017
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker