To inspect the Licensee’s arrangements for the monitoring of the direct radiation dose (neutron and gamma) arising from activities at Urenco’s UK (UUK) Capenhurst site, and to assess the adequacy of the Licensee arrangements for estimating radiation doses to the public.
The intervention was undertaken as part of the Cross ONR Programme’s work to deliver ONR’s core purpose. As part of this programme, each year ONR carries out interventions to assess the adequacy of UK licensees’ arrangements for the measurement and management of radiation fields at their perimeter fences. These interventions allow ONR to gain assurance that licensees are complying with the law (Regulation 8 of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999).
The first part of the intervention was a discussion of UUK’s arrangements for the management and oversight of radiation fields and its arrangements for ensuring that any public exposures arising from these radiation fields are kept as low as is reasonably practicable (ALARP), in compliance with Regulation 8 of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999.
The second part of the inspection comprised a walk around the site perimeter fence to inspect the arrangements for measuring dose rates.
From the intervention I have formed the following opinions:
A revised habit survey recently undertaken by their contractor (CEFAS Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science) in 2014, has enabled UUK to better define the “Representative Person” used as a surrogate for public exposure.
UUK are actively seeking to reduce radiation doses to the public. Overall I am satisfied that public exposure due to direct radiation exposure from the site is ALARP.
For these reasons I am satisfied that UUK have adequate arrangements in place to assess public exposure to direct radiation from the site.
The Licensee has adequate arrangements in place for the management and oversight of radiation fields measurable around its site. The License has adequate arrangements in place to ensure that public exposure to direct radiation shine arising from activities on the site is ALARP.
I judge that a rating of ‘Good Standard’ for the intervention is appropriate on the basis of the adequacy of the arrangements and the behaviour and attitudes of the UUK staff.
In my opinion no further regulatory action is required.