|Aspect||Exiting Control||Current Risk||Improvement Opportunity||Cost||Target Risk|
|Ground-water contamination from leaky below-ground fuel lines||Integrity of below ground lines. Annual pressure testing of lines||C||4||Extreme||Eliminate below-ground fuel lines.||$10k||D||2||Low|
|Failure to achieve a stable landform on eroding spoil dumps||Existing waste dump contouring. Material characteristics of spoil.||C||4||Extreme||Recontour the waste dumps.||$1 million||C||3||High|
|Community outrage from excessive plant noise||Proximity of neighbours. Existing noise emissions. Existing activity scheduling.B3HighInstall silencers on machinery. Schedule high-noise activities for day-light hours$200K$10k (indirect)DD33ModerateModerate|
|Land contamination from metallic dust fall-out||B||3||High||Do nothing.
Installation of sprinkler system on conveyor point sources.
Enclose material in a shed
With the above examples it is clear that spending $10,000 on lifting below-ground fuel lines above ground is sensible. The million dollars for stabilising the waste dumps would probably be deferred for a couple of years.
The Do Nothing option for metallic dust fall-out actually escalates the risk because ongoing dust fall-out will continue to contaminate the soil.
C = Consequence
See Risk Standards for an explanation of the code