Initial Site-Specific De-Inventory Report for Big Rock Point Report No.: RPT-3014537-002
this manner, a safety SME’s preferences on the safety-related metrics were afforded higher weight than those of a cost SME. An alternative approach will have been to let each SME separately perform a pairwise comparison on only the metrics within the SME’s discipline(s). However, by having a team assessment, productive discussions can take place on each metric, which may change, challenge, concur, etc., on the evaluation of the metric. Furthermore, by acting as a team, the rationale for the pairwise comparisons preferences can be established and this will lend itself to ensuring a fairly consistent basis in the selection of the preferences (e.g., this may temper extreme assessments in cases where differences in a metric may not be that significant on a relative basis). Before performing this pairwise comparison between the tangible metrics for a route against those of each of the other routes, some cursory/preliminary data is required for each of the routes to inform this assessment. Section 3.0 contains some of this information, but a summary of the cursory/preliminary data used to perform this comparison by metric is provided here. 5.3.3.1 Infrastructure Improvement Costs For the infrastructure improvement costs, the seven routes to be evaluated basically fall into two categories based on conveyance mode from the BRP site: HHT and barge. The infrastructure improvement costs associated with HHT (e.g., the setting up of a transload to rail facility) are expected to be much cheaper than those for barge, as some minimum land clearing and potential dredging activities would be necessary to support barging from the site and the spoils of the dredging, if performed, are likely required to be disposed of by an authorized recipient. No tangible differences were established between the HHT routes, although clearances for each of the routes would need to be established prior to their use to verify this assessment, considering this assessment is temporal. 5.3.3.2 Labor and Permitting Costs For the labor and permitting costs, the seven routes to be evaluated basically fall into two categories: shorter HHT routes and longer HHT routes. The labor and permitting costs for the shorter HHT routes are expected to be somewhat cheaper than the longer HHT routes, due to the higher labor costs associated with the longer durations and the expected higher permitting costs associated with the longer routes as more local jurisdictions are crossed. The barge route to Milwaukee, WI is not expected to have labor and permitting costs measurably higher than the HHT routes. Additional details of the labor and permitting costs for HHT are addressed in Section 7.0. 5.3.3.3 Transport to Rail Class I Costs For the transport to rail costs, each of the seven routes was evaluated by the team to have a cost benefit or cost penalty relative to the other routes based primarily on composite costs associated with rental of barges, tugs, and HHTs and number of transload activities. For barge routes, the costs are associated with: (1) the rental of barges and tugs that will ship one TS125 at a time placed on specialty racks on the barge or left on the HHT trailer (rolled on), (2) a HHT to move the one TS125 from the BRP ISFSI to the barge landing site, and (3) the rental of a crane(s) and a trailer(s) to move the TS125 from the barge directly to a rail car. For HHT routes, the costs are
Page 5-17
Initial Site-Specific De-Inventory Report for Big Rock Point May 10, 2017
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker