| Aspect | Exiting Control | Current Risk | Improvement Opportunity | Cost | Target Risk | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L | C | Risk | L | C | 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 |
0 $20k $500k |
B C D |
4 3 2 |
Extreme High Low |
|
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.
L =Likelihood
C = Consequence
See Risk Standards for an explanation of the code