United States Nuclear Power

Federal Regulations, Codes, & Standards

Users Group ©

Roy Hall Interview

Site Updates


Guest Name: Roy E. Hall

Company: American Electric Power

Plant Name: Donald C. Cook

Position or Title: Inservice Inspection Program Owner

ASME Section XI/OM Code of Record: 1989 Edition

ASME Section XI/OM Inspection Interval and Period: 3rd Internal, 1st Period

E-Mail Address: rehall1@aep.com

Phone Number: (616) 465-5901, X3584


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?

Hall: Generally, all liquid penetrant, VT-1, 2, and 3 and thickness (UT). We bring in contractors to perform eddy current, ultrasonics, and radiography.

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?

Hall: ASME Section XI meetings are a must to stay abreast of changes and bases for those changes.

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?

Hall: We rely upon the vendors to supply all the necessary personnel, procedures and equipment to meet PDI requirements. Itís just too expensive otherwise.

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

Hall: Explaining to various disciplines on a daily bases what the scope of ASME Section XI is and when it applies.

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

Hall: Being recognized as knowledgeable of code requirements and industry issues.

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?

Hall: This usually arises with skid mounted equipment or components that service/component cooling water flows through, but the component does not perform a safety function (a reactor vessel support cooler is a good example). We generally take the position that the inlet and outlet are the class boundaries [assuming automatic closure of the inlet and outlet valves or valves capable of closure (check valve)].

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?

Hall: Yes, the 2000 Addenda or later. Having one document to apply requirements is much easier than having 15 or 20 relief requests or code cases.

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?

Hall: We rely upon the vendor to supply this and it often differs.

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?

Hall: No.

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

Hall: We are doing some examinations on line and plan to implement risk-informed ISI in the future.

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?

Hall: Absolutely. We still struggle with modifications. Particularly the addition/deletion of welds. Maintenance may receive the routing in a design document but the number and location of welds are not always captured in the as-built drawing (ISO) for sometime. I am working on a solution where the as-built must be updated within 60 days and routed to ISI for verification and sign off.

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?

Hall: WinISI is the current program developed by a vendor. It does not meet my needs. It is simply a repository of information with limited capabilities to search, schedule and determine compliance with code percentages and weld counts. It has no planning functions or interface with other business processes.

 Home Page



 Copyright Disclosure