I had a great chat with AS2885 legend Peter Tuft last week.  We reminisced on the creation of Part 6 during the revision of Part 1 from 2013 to publication in 2018.  Oh how different the pipeline world was in 2013!  No talk of hydrogen.  No talk of “energy transition” nor “shut down the fossil fuel industry”.  Back then it was go go go, and then some.  And oh it was fun.  This enthusiasm and expansion of the industry was particularly because of the LNG export pipelines being built in Queensland at the time; our first foray into 42” pipelines in Australia.  Those were the days, eh.  And it was only ten years ago…

So anyway, back then it made a lot of sense to separate the SMS (safety management study) process out of Part 1, which is the Design and Construction part of the AS2885 series. 

The SMS process, previously simply referred to as “pipeline risk assessment” when it first appeared in the 1997 version of AS2885.1, had evolved enormously over the years. 

We were especially pleased, as we congregated in early days of the revision, to discuss the application of the process to more than just detail design. 

It was proving to be an extremely useful tool to apply for operating pipelines as well, to review and confirm the safe operational practises of existing pipelines. 

This is why the separation of the process out of the Design and Construction document, into its own document (Part 6), made so much sense at the time.

In 2013 through to 2018, we also still used paper copies of the Standard mostly.  Usage of online or electronic versions of the documents was not the norm.  Many, maybe even most, of us out in the wilds of the industry were still using hard copy versions of the Standard through those years (and even now, I’ll admit). 

I will capitulate, though, that Peter Tuft himself has used exclusively electronic versions only, for many, many years – since about 2015 or earlier, I’ll bet. 

All this preamble to say thanks to Peter for all his work to separate the Parts.  Now we’re going to undo all that work, and put them together again! 😊 

Guidance Words / Appendices.

Peter and I also talked about the fact that probably half of the ~1000 pages of AS2885 are guidance words, contained in the Informative appendices. 

We talked about whether all that guidance and informational text needs to be, or should be, (shall be?) in the one-part Standard. 

This question comes up for discussion within the Main Committee every few years.  I’m always willing to listen to the arguments – take it out or leave it in – but usually land in the same place:  if we take it out of the Standard, how do we ensure that users of AS2885 actually utilise the guidance to help with using the Standard.  If it’s in a separate document, I can almost guarantee that it won’t be sourced to be read, particularly by those who need it most: those in a hurry to just figure it out in our ‘just in time’ style of engineering these days.

So while we contemplate the one-part AS2885 Standard, we need to consider how much of that guidance we include.  And how it’s included. 

If we consider the online / electronic approach, then I like to imagine a style similar to the Canadian CSA Z662 approach:  they have hyperlinks to the guidance within the pdf.  Now that’s an elegant solution. 

(So far, Standards Australia isn’t on board with this type of document.  But our publication date is still years away, so here’s hoping for that evolution before we publish).

I also have another vision of the future use of complex Standards like AS2885:

We ask the document “AI” to produce a collated bespoke Standard that addresses the issue we need resolved at that moment. 

For example: “Produce for me an AS2885 Standard for road crossings”, or “Produce an AS2885 Standard for Location Classification”.  And the AI (c’mon, it’s inevitable) crawls through the 1000 pages and just ‘prints’, or returns, the relevant requirements to that issue along with all the guidance and explanatory text.  But of course then we lose the context and flavour that the poor ole standards writers have agonised over during the five years spent writing the darn thing.  So I’m also hesitant to say that’s a good way for the future.  But alas, it might be inevitable.

So when you’re thinking about Standards this week, think about how much guidance and explanatory text should really be included in a Standard.  The Standard is meant to set out the minimum requirements.  If we stick to that definition, perhaps there should only be shall statement in the document, and everything else should not be in the Standard, but found in separate guidance documents.  There’s fighting words.

Susan
September 16, 2024