New welding standards on the way for pipelines and energy distribution?

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration might be looking to alter welding standards for pipeline and energy distribution. Berkut_34/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The federal agency responsible for assuring pipeline and energy distribution equipment safety is considering a new welding performance standard that would be a significant upgrade over the current standard and that likely will require additional investment from industry.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) snuck that announcement into a plainly written proposed rule that, if finalized, would create federal regulations that call for updated, voluntary, and noncontroversial industry welding standards—at least for the most part. What would be controversial is if the PHMSA adopts the 22nd edition of API 1104: Standard for Welding Pipelines and Related Facilities published in July 2021. It includes extensive changes and expanded requirements. The 20th edition is now the basis for compliance in industry. PHMSA proposed adopting the 21st edition in 2021, but the organization never finalized that action.

The PHMSA said it is only thinking about adopting the 22nd edition and wants to hear from industry on what would be "substantive" changes. Here are a few of the agency notes regarding the changes:

The 22nd edition also modifies the welder qualification section to include procedure qualification, qualification thickness ranges, filler metal groups, a gas metal arc welding process statement, and a documentation requirement for procedure adherence during the qualification weld.

Otherwise, the proposed rule simply adopts the latest versions of API Spec 12F, 13th Edition: Specification for Shop-Welded Tanks for Storage of Production Liquids and ASTM A372/A372M-20e1: Standard Specification for Carbon and Alloy Steel Forgings for Thin-Walled Pressure Vessels.

One has to wonder whether the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed new Clean Air emission standards for electric arc steel makers will throw a ratchet into the domestic steel market. The proposed rule would establish new and revised standards of performance for electric arc furnaces (EAF) and argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessels in the steel industry. The agency's proposed action would establish one set of draconian rules (called section AAb) for furnaces constructed in the future and another for those that exist currently (called sections AA and AAa).

"If adopted as proposed, the costs to [Specialty Steel Industry of North America] companies and other EAF steel mills would be significant—potentially tens of millions of dollars to redesign melt shops and install new pollution controls," said Joseph J. Green, the association's counsel. "It is unclear how that may affect steel prices, but it's hard to imagine that there would not be an effect. It's hard to gauge because the proposed EPA rule was poorly crafted and did not include even basic cost estimates beyond a rudimentary analysis for subpart AAb facilities that excluded major cost elements."

Of particular significance is what the EPA is referring to as the "subpart AAb" 0% shop opacity limit that would only affect new or reconstructed facilities in the future. The three main steel making trade groups aren't happy with the limitations saying in comments to the EPA that the agency is being "impractical" and that the rule expectations do not reflect the results that can be delivered from "best system of emission reduction" technologies currently available.

According to the EPA, total annual costs for subpart AAb, based on nine new facilities in the first 10 years after proposal, are $180,000 per year for three small facilities, $3.2 million per year for four medium-sized facilities, and $8 million per year for two large facilities.

The EPA downplayed the impact of its proposed regulatory changes on the existing 88 EAFs in the U.S. The preamble to the proposed rule characterizes these revisions to existing AA and AAa standards as "minor" and "editorial and clarifying changes." The steel associations counter: "This is not an accurate description of the proposed revisions, which are, in fact, dramatic deviations from the current standards and would require substantial and costly additional modifications to a melt shop facility and furnace operations."

In addition to the SSINA, the two other signatories to the comments were the Steel Manufacturers Association and the American Iron and Steel Institute.