Initial Site-Specific De-Inventory Report for Big Rock Point Report No.: RPT-3014537-002
routes used for past hazardous shipments and hence, these routes are likely more prepared for this shipment than barge route. 5.3.3.15 Security Vulnerability of Route For the metric on security vulnerability of the route, all routes were considered to be capable of being secured; however, some minor advantages of one route over another were identified and these advantages are related to a combination of duration of the shipment, distance traversing urban versus rural regions, number of transload activities, and the lower vulnerability associated with barge routes. The barge route was judged to be the more favored security route over the HHT routes due primarily to the security associated with the barging activity over the HHT activity. In addition, the shorter routes to Petoskey, MI were mildly favored over the Gaylord, MI routes. 5.4 Route Recommendations Utilizing the metric information identified for the routes listed in the previous section, the de- inventory team held a conference call and internet meeting to perform a pairwise comparison of each of the tangible metrics for each of the routes identified in Section 5.2 (Step 7). This team evaluation, unlike the individual assessments performed for the tangible metrics, ensured that the SMEs’ preferences were properly weighted (i.e., higher) against the preferences of the other members of the team, while at the same time allowing those knowledgeable of the routes to provide beneficial inputs and all team members the opportunity to provide feedback to the discussion related to the evaluation of the route and metric. Figure 5-12 provides an example of the pairwise comparison performed by the de-inventory team for the metric related to the Number of Sensitive Environmental Areas Nearby Route (as denoted on the far-left column). “Column A Routes” (2 nd column on left) are subsequently compared against “Column B Routes” (last column on right) for the Number of Sensitive Environmental Areas Nearby Route metric. The favorability scale listed in this figure is the same as identified for the pairwise comparison of the tangible metrics (see Figure 5-2). As an example, the fourth row of the evaluation (excluding the header row) shows that the HHT to Petoskey, MI using the Clarion Avenue Option 1 route is mildly favored over the HHT to Petoskey, MI using the Washington Street Option 2 route for the metric related to the number of environmental sensitive areas nearby the route, which is reflective of the information provided in the prior section showing in Table 5-4 the Clarion Avenue Option 1 route runs through fewer square miles of environmentally sensitive areas than the Washington Street Option 2 route. With 15 tangible metrics and 7 routes to be evaluated, the team performed 315 pairwise evaluations. Attachment C shows the entire pairwise evaluation for these metrics. Using the same weighting scheme as described in Section 5.3.2 and the relative weighting of the tangible metrics identified in Table 5-2, Figure 5-13 shows the resulting relative weighting of the routes in order of the highest rated (HHT to Clarion Avenue (Option 1) in Petoskey, MI) to the least rated (Barge to Rail in Milwaukee, WI). Table 5-9 shows the numerical values associated with each of the routes for multiple different weighting schemes: 1. The “Unweighted” results, which are based on each metric having an equal weight.
Page 5-26
Initial Site-Specific De-Inventory Report for Big Rock Point May 10, 2017
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker