United States Nuclear Power

Federal Regulations, Codes, & Standards

Users Group ©


Bill Lazear Interview

Site Updates


Introduction

Guest Name: William M. (Bill) Lazear

Company: Southern California Edison

Plant Name: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 & 3

Position or Title: Codes & Welding Engineer

ASME Section XI/OM Code of Record: ASME XI - 1989 Edition, No Addenda (except for Containment which is 1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda); OM 1987 Edition, 1989 Addenda

ASME Section XI/OM Inspection Interval and Period: Second Interval; Third Period

E-Mail Address: lazearwm@songs.sce.com

Phone Number: (949) 368-9010


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.?

Lazear: We are organized such that personnel have varied duties, not all of which are full-time directly related to ISI, IST, Repair/Replacement, etc. Our organization charts show 14 personnel assigned under these functions, including a full time ISI engineer and a full time IST engineer, but the number of personnel directly involved at any one time varies with the work load.

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?

Lazear: The actual ISI NDE is performed almost exclusively by outside vendors. The exception to the ISI NDE is for visual examinations which are performed by certified on-site personnel. Other NDE, including RT, required as a result of Repair/Replacement activities is typically performed by our on-site NDE - QC personnel.

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

Lazear: We have recently reorganized our engineering division and consolidated several functions such that responsibility for certain ASME related activities have the same reporting responsibility.

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

Lazear: We are implementing numerous Code Cases, but the most beneficial of these are probably N-491 (Alternative exams for supports); N-498 (Alternative to 10 year hydrostatic test); N-416-1 (System leakage test vs. hydrostatic test); N-509 (Alternative rules for selection/examination of integrally welded attachments). Regarding relief requests, we have received relief from several of the IWE/IWL examinations required by the 1992 Edition, 1992 Addenda of ASME XI.

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?

Lazear: Our training consists mostly of in-house training, supplemented by organizational instruction and attendance at conferences and technical meetings. Currently, we have no plans to attend any ISI/NDE in the near future.

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?

Lazear: Not yet. In advance of the implementation date for our third interval (Aug. 2003) we will be reviewing our program(s) and updating them accordingly.

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?

Lazear: For the most part, we have not had difficulties with code classification or boundaries. The boundaries were fairly well defined originally and have been maintained through our configuration control process.

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

Lazear: Initially, individuals responsible for ASME work activities had difficulty recognizing the requirements for this work vs. work outside the ASME boundaries. For example, maintenance personnel were having difficulty acknowledging ASME items and requirements specific to those items. To resolve this, we instituted an electronic ASME data base that can now be directly accessed and incorporated into the work documents.

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?

Lazear: No, currently we are planning to implement the Edition/Addenda that will be mandated by 50.55a when our third interval commences.

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?

Lazear: Our ISI workload continues to be manageable. Our staff remains consistent and experienced. Pre-planning and direct involvement in the execution of the ISI activities allows for timely completion. If staff augmentation is required at all, it is done from within our site organization.


 Home Page

 

 

 Copyright Disclosure