JTMcC, I`ve welded pipline myself ,before I got in to inspection and I have done inspection work on pipeline jobs. When you open your API 1104 Standard you will will see the first paragraph on page 1 states the differtent processes allowed, smaw,saw,gtaw,gmaw and oaw. As you may know with the exception of smaw these processes are very capable of internal reinforcement greater than .125. So API could in fact address this issue, instead of leaving it up to the owner of the equipment to detail a spec not allowing internal rienforcement greater than,say, .125. A large % of the pipeline work is still performed using the old E6010+,E7010,E8010 etc. These rods are fast freezing and will burn through and wash out the landing and the wall before exessive penetration is a factor. Maybe that`s why API has not added this to the accept/reject criteria. As far as the tungsten inclusion issue is conserned ,tungsten allthough it is metal, it is the "wrong metal" and is considered a foriegn object such as sand and many other materials that are not spelled out in API 1104 as a cause for rejection. Tungsten inclusion is often considered a volumetric imperfection and is accepted or rejected accordingly.