United States Nuclear Power

Federal Regulations, Codes, & Standards

Users Group ©


Jim Connor Interview

Site Updates


Introduction

Guest Name: Jim Connor (Also Contact Dajun Song on 919-362-3117)

Company: Progress Energy

Plant Name: Shearon Harris

Position or Title: Supervisor of Equipment Performance

ASME Section XI/OM Code of Record: 1989 Edition

ASME Section XI/OM Inspection Interval and Period: Second Interval, Second Period

E-Mail Address: jim.connor@pgn.com

Phone Number: (919) 362-2005

Interview

Question: How many personnel do you have in your ISI/IST organization and how are the responsibilities distributed between the ISI/NDE, Risk Informed, Pump and valve, Containment, System Pressure Test, Snubber, Repair/Replacement Programs, etc.?

Connor: Shearon Harris is currently aligned as follows:

1 program manager for Pressure Testing who is also our RT and UT NDE Level III

1 program manager for FAC

1 program manager for Welding and Section VIII repairs (North Carolina is a Code State)

1 program manager for Appendix J and Filter Testing

1 program manager for the ISI Weld Inspection Program also Backup Level III

1 program manager for the MOV Program

1 program manager for the IST Program

1 program manager for Repair and Replacement Program

1 program manager for the AOV Program

1 program manager for the Snubber and IWE/IWL programs

Question: How much of the NDE is actually performed by your organization, if any, in lieu of utilizing outside vender support, and if so, what savings have you recognized by using your in-house personnel?

Connor: Any on-line exams that are required are typically performed in-house. These are relatively rare. All outage work is contracted.

Question: What changes have you made in your organizational structure or reporting functions that you have found to be beneficial?

Connor: None recently.

Question: What issues proved to be very difficult, costly, or troublesome to resolve, and what would you recommend to avoid those issues in the future?

Connor: None recently. The leak at V.C. Summer will likely pose some challenges. Harris is the same configuration as Summer.

Question: What code cases or relief requests have you implemented that have proven to be very helpful and cost effective?

Connor: None recently.

Question: Has your organization implemented a risk informed ISI or IST program, and if so, what Code Cases or methodology did you incorporate and what benefits and savings have you realized? What was the scope of the program and the approximate costs to develop the program? Were there any unexpected problems encountered while developing the program? Did you receive any requests for additional information from the NRC and has your program been approved?

Connor: Harris will implement Risk Informed ISI in 2002. We are currently planning to limit it to Class 1 but may consider Class 2 and HELB if possible.

Question: What form of training has proven to be the most successful for your group; in-house instruction, vendor instruction, organizational instruction (EPRI, NSSS, etc.), conferences, technical meetings, online learning, etc.? What ISI/NDE training seminars are you considering for attendance in the near future?

Connor: Since we are close to the EPRI NDE Center we find it fairly easy to take advantage of the training offered there.

Question: What new NDE techniques, technology, or special NDE situations have you encountered recently and was it successful?

Connor: None recently.

Question: Has your organization implemented the requirements for ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII, of the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda. Did you utilize the recommended EPRI format for relief requests, and if so which ones? What is the approval status of your relief requests and what problems or successes have you encountered in implementing Appendix VIII?

Connor: We have implemented Appendix VIII. We have not found it necessary to submit any relief's yet.

Question: What do you find to be the most difficult part of your job?

Connor: Doing "More with Less".

Question: What do you find to be the most rewarding part of your job?

Connor: Doing "More with Less".

Question: What have you found to be the most humorous experience on the job?

Connor: Doing "More with Less".

Question: Have you had any difficulties or questions regarding the code classification of system components or establishing the code classification boundaries? If so, what difficulties or questions did you encounter and how did you resolve the issues? What technical positions did you take?

Connor: We have had some difficulty in cases where it appeared that the systems were upgraded from non-class to class as an option by the owner. We have been able to pull the construction documents and determine the guidelines used to classify systems and resolve the issue.

Question: Have you had any difficulties or questions applying the Section XI Repair/Replacement Rules to components, spare parts, etc.. If so, what difficulties or questions did you encounter and how did you resolve the issues? What technical positions did you take?

Connor: No difficulties. Membership and attendance at Section XI meetings really helps here.

Question: Does your organization plan to implement a Section XI edition and/or addenda that is later than currently required in 10 CFR 50, and if so, what benefits do you anticipate?

Connor: No current plans to upgrade.

Question: Do your NDE procedures include a methodology for calculating the examination coverage for limited examinations, and if so, how is this calculation performed and what considerations are included?

Connor: No. Coverage calculation methods are defined and reviewed by our Level III.

Question: Does your plant share any calibration blocks on a regular basis with other plants outside of your organization, and if so, what types of blocks do you share and who do you share them with?

Connor: We do share blocks. We share within our corporation and with other utilities. DM welds for BWR Core Spray and PWR Pressurizer Sprays come to mind.

Question: As outages become shorter and shorter, how are you able to handle your ISI work load during the outage? Are you supplementing your staff with additional temporary personnel or are some tasks getting deferred?

Connor: So far we have not experienced severe problems. We typically schedule to complete all exams within 10 to 14 days to allow time to respond to discovery. Limiting the exam period reduces the impact of outage duration changes.

Question: Has your current or prior organization ever lost accountability of their ISI/IST program due to inadequate record keeping, non-documented plant modifications, etc.? What activities were lacking that led to the situation? What efforts were required to reconcile, verify, and/or validate the database to get the program back to a state of confidence? What controls were put in place to ensure that such an incident would not occur again?

Connor: N/A

Question: What type of software do you use to track and analyze ISI program commitments and inspection data? Was the software developed by your organization or purchased from a vender? Does it adequately meet your needs? If not, why not?

Connor: Raytheon's ISI Data Base. It is difficult to use.


 Home Page

 

 

 Copyright Disclosure