References: AS2885.6 Clause 3.5.2 Severity Analysis AS2885.6 Appendix G Consequences Assessment
Q: Have there been any fatalities from non-ignited loss of containment events?
There has never been a fatality in Australia from failure of an operating pipeline, ignited or otherwise. I'm unable to comment on overseas data. (Peter Tuft)
Q: Where there is no fatality and no loss of supply, would you consider asset damage in the same category as risk to people?
(Jeff Jones/Susan Jaques) The AS2885.6 SMS and risk assessment process does not explicitly focus on asset damage but it may be relevant in assessing threats having Supply consequences, or threats with delayed failure (gouge/dents). Otherwise it's probably an issue for the owner/operator in terms of business or commercial outcomes, and that is very much not the intended domain of AS2885.
If the threat is excavator penetration with a leak, what is the assessment within different location classes e.g. in T1 versus R2. How do Major versus Catastrophic assessments apply?
(Jeff Jones) Regardless of the location class defined in the context of the threat description, the consequences of the threat impact scenario need to be defined, and then selected from the risk assessment Severity Table in Part 6. i.e. - just because you have a threat scenario in a T2 location, doesn't mean the threat consequence is automatically a "Catastrophic" (multiple fatalities) consequence.
See Also High Consequence Recognition
Shouldn’t the ‘supply’ consequence be a commercial decision by the licensee and not be dictated by the standard?
(Peter Tuft) That is correct if the supply consequences are in fact purely commercial. However for a pipeline that is the major or sole source of supply to a community, the loss of supply can be highly disruptive to the community, and it is those community consequences that AS 2885 is concerned about. Just ask anyone who was in Melbourne when the Longford gas plant exploded in 1998 (not a pipeline failure, but consequences for Melbourne were the same).