References: AS2885.6 Section 2 Classification of Locations
Were there any thoughts on aligning AS2885 Location Classification with state planning scheme zones? This would aid current works with councils to manage developments.
(James Czornohalan) It was considered, but difficult in practice because we aren't writing legislation.
(Peter Tuft) The APGA Pipeline Corridor Committee encouraged a serious attempt to consider whether this was possible, because the desirability is obvious. However the rationale for pipeline locations classes is so different from the rationales used by planners that the Corridor Committee accepted that it was not going to work. The "house counting" guidance that has now been added to the descriptions of R2 and T2 arose partly out of this thinking.
Explain why the secondary location class "W" has been removed in the 2018 version? And what should be done with existing "W" designated areas? "
(Susan Jaques) The committee was not aware of any much usage of the W secondary class and so decided to remove it. And anyway the section didn’t really explain what to do if you did apply the W class. These areas are managed as you would normally for a watercourse crossing (and designed as such) and managed to negate the effects of buoyancy and trench erosion in areas of inundation or flooding. Watercourse crossings are unique and specific enough have their own design requirements that are covered elsewhere in the Standard. Buoyancy and erosion should be considered and designed for at watercourse crossings.
When reviewing Location Classes in the future, the areas with "W" classification should be reviewed for absorption into the primary location class, as there is no reference to "W" in the latest published version. The typical threats at watercourses should be assessed for credibility and controlled where required (erosion, loss of cover, landslip, anchor drag, etc).