Should supply disruption be considered when developing a fracture control plan? E.g. time to repair long fracture in R1 may mean shorter arrest required?
Definitely. There is a subtle hint about this in Table 5.3.2 which specifies required fracture arrest lengths. For R1 the arrest length is "5 pipes unless otherwise justified in the SMS". It is conceivable that propagating fracture in a remote area may have negligible safety consequences but major supply consequences. The required arrest length should be considered through the SMS process by looking at both safety and supply impacts and the implications of time to repair.
This is also touched on in Part 3 (as at Feb 2020 in public comment draft) which requires fracture resistance assessment for existing pipelines that do not have a fracture control plan complying with AS 2885.1(2007) or later. A note mentions that in a remote area (no safety consequences) adequate mitigation for long-running fracture may be to ensure there is sufficient stock of spare pipe to allow rapid restoration of supply. (Peter Tuft)