7.2 Risk mitigation Measures proposed to mitigate risks should be subject to review by all concerned parties.

All mitigation measures need to be adequate to reduce the level of risk to a tolerable residual level. If in the opinion of the reviewers this is not achievable then the proposed methods or sequence of construction should be revised to provide a construction solution for which residual risks are tolerable. The committee should monitor and review the identified risks and their related timeframes, mitigation and implementation actions. The methodology for carrying out the Risk Review Meetings may for larger projects involve decentralization for management purposes. 7.3 Risk register review meeting procedure The Agenda should cover the following items: Identification of New Risks Review of Risk Register to confirm status of mitigation for Active Risks Status of action statements from previous meeting Present for discussion risk management performance indictor statistics Confirm action statements from the current meeting Discuss performance measurement of risk management success Other actions 8. SUMMARY OF TYPICAL RISKS AND MITIGATIONS FOR THE HILMALAYS The following analysis has been prepared taking into account Risk Registers prepared for several Himalayan projects. Risks have been selected to be typical of those that can be anticipated for tunneling in such extreme terrain and geological conditions. Space does not permit publication of the Risk Register and its specific format hence only the Risk Summary Report for high level risks is included in Table 4. 9. TUNNELLING COSTS VS ROCK MASS CONDITIONS Figure 2 after Hoek (2001) give comparable costs for drill and blast tunnel excavation and support (excluding linings and fittings) for different span tunnels in varying geological conditions. When highlights the large impact geological conditions have on costs. It also shows back analysis of costs and rates for excavation and support carried out by the writer for the 1.5km long 16.5m span Cheung Ching Highway tunnels in rock in Hong Kong for different IMS Rock Classes (see McFeat-Smith, 1998). This shows a similar trend illustrating that advance rates/week decrease to about 1/30th and costs increase by a factors of over 10 fold respectively as tunnelling progress from competent

hard rock to poor rock to fault gouge materials (IMS classes 1-6). The cost data on both sets of data are compatible. The message to Client bodies in India from these trends is quite clear for tunneling in variable terrain high quality site investigations are a necessity and should be considered as an investment for Clients hoping to complete the works on time, within budget and without years of litigation. Table 4. Summary of typical high level risks for tunnelling in the Himalayas Risk Description Possible Mitigation Measures Insufficient area for temporary and permanent works at portals 1. Identify potential conflicts 2. Conduct VE workshop with Engineer 3. Redesign as required Anticipated access difficulties to district/works areas due to road blockages from slope/ snow falls 1. Plan logistics of supply and camp locations 2. Expect to use additional resources for clearing access to working areas 3. Request support from Client for clearances Unexpected avalanche directions/ slope instability/ debris flow at portal due to high rainfall 1. Review risks of slope instability 2.Carry out additional SI and analysis as required 3. Conduct VE workshops 4. Propose alternative layouts