The three-line pipeline package, document by document
Everything held for pipe, valves, fittings, flanges, coating and third-party certification — arranged in the order of the document review, so each required record has one place to look.
Sixteen prerequisite rows. One is genuinely open.
Eleven documents arrived from the works on 10 September — six from the valve and fitting works, including the induction bend procedure that had been the hardest row on the list, and five from the pipe mill later the same day. Three rows closed with them, among them the ISO renewal that was the only item on the list marked action required. The rest are either in the folder today, completed on site during the audit, or issued only once steel is rolled against this order. The distinction matters more than the count.
Eleven folders, in review order
The structure follows the required-records list, so a record type maps to exactly one folder. One of them is still empty by nature — the welding records inside it do not exist until the casing is produced.
The pre-visit checklist, row by row
Each row from the prerequisites sheet, against what the dossier holds today and what still has to arrive.
Every document, filterable
Filter by product family or search by standard — API 6D, NORSOK, ISO 12944, EN 10204. Every card opens the live file.
What is actually outstanding
One record that arrived but does not answer what was asked, one scope item with nothing technical behind it yet, one type approval that cannot be issued as things stand, one disclosure made on 10 September that changes how the coating evidence should be read, and the decisions that sit on the client side. Everything else is either held or on a normal collection path.
Valve shell-strength and seat-tightness test procedure
What arrived on 10 September under this heading is a copy of API Standard 598 itself, eleventh edition, not the works’ own written test procedure. The standard says what the test must achieve; the works’ procedure says how this works performs it — pressures, hold times, gauge calibration, who signs. The sample certificate now in folder 07 shows the regime being applied correctly, which makes this a documentation gap rather than a capability one.
Polypropylene wrap — 4 mm on 2,202 m of 8″
This has been in the client’s own material list since 5 March and was restated in the 28 July minutes: everything painted except the 8″ SCH 40 line, which carries a 4 mm polypropylene wrap in place of the C5 system. It was quoted on that basis throughout, and the wrap is applied by a specialist coating works rather than at the pipe mill. The quantity is settled: 2,202 m, unchanged since May — the 1,884 m in the audit scope is the figure to correct. Polyethylene was never an alternative offered here; the only polyethylene in the March list is a separate run of 560 mm HDPE PE100 pipe. What was never collected is the technical side — no standard has ever been named. Four millimetres implies a three-layer system, normally ISO 21809-1 or DIN 30678, and until that is written down there is nothing to buy against or to audit: no layer structure, no application procedure, no material certificate and no named applicator.
C5 type approval for the exact 80 / 150 / 80 build
Two third-party corrosion reports are held on adjacent systems from the same paint manufacturer, one tested to ISO 12944-6 C5-High TR1. An applicator cannot issue a type approval for a coating system; it comes from the paint manufacturer. A written system confirmation is being sought from them.
The paint that would actually be applied is not certified
The works have stated that all three of them spray a domestically produced paint. They say its quality, chemical composition and chemical test data meet the C5 requirement, but it carries no C5 certification of its own; a certified imported system can be specified instead, at a materially higher coating cost. This changes how the evidence in folder 09 should be read — both third-party reports there were run on an imported manufacturer’s systems, so they describe the certified route, not the domestic one. Nothing here suggests the domestic paint is unsuitable; the point is that the paperwork and the paint have to describe the same product. The practical next step is to obtain the domestic paint’s brand, product code, technical data sheet and chemical test report so that Dor’s own people can judge the equivalence, and for Dor to say which route it wants before the coating procedure is written.
Coating schedule · paint route · SGS appointment · 3.2 scope · PSL confirmation
The signed line-by-line coating schedule has been outstanding since 3 August and is the one that unlocks the rest: it fixes which lines are painted, which carry the polypropylene wrap and which ship bare, and the coating procedure and type approval all hang from it. Alongside it: which coating evidence is accepted; formal appointment of the third-party inspection body, without which the project ITP cannot be issued; whether EN 10204 Type 3.2 is per heat or per lot, which drives witnessing scope and the ITP itself; and the PSL level for the 1″, 2″, 14″ and 20″ lines, still shown as to be confirmed in the audit scope — PSL 2 makes Charpy testing mandatory, so the answer changes which records apply. And now one more: whether the coating is bought on the certified imported system or the domestic one. One reconciliation goes with it: the pipe schedule totals 7,336 m, the audit scope totals 5,952 m.