Office for Nuclear Regulation

This website uses non-intrusive cookies to improve your user experience. You can visit our cookie privacy page for more information.

Planned participation in a joint intervention with the Environment Agency, inspecting asset management and maintenance at Capenhurst

Executive summary

Purpose of intervention

Planned participation in a joint intervention with the Environment Agency, inspecting asset management and maintenance at Capenhurst.  The intervention formed part of the 2015/16 ONR intervention programme at the Urenco UK Limited licensed site at Capenhurst.

Interventions Carried Out by ONR

The outgoing and incoming nominated site inspectors for Capenhurst undertook a two day joint intervention, with Environment Agency inspectors, to inspect asset management and maintenance at Capenhurst.  The implementation of arrangements at each of the enrichment facilities operated by the licensee, at the licensee’s uranium hexafluoride transport cylinder rafts storage areas, together with a number of the uranic materials storage facilities operated by the Capenhurst Nuclear Services Limited (CNS) tenant organisation, were inspected.

Explanation of Judgement if Safety System Not Judged to be Adequate

No safety system inspection was made during this intervention.

Key Findings, Inspector's Opinions and Reasons for Judgements Made

The licensee readily acknowledged a range of shortfalls in asset management, across the licensed site and significant resource was now being applied by the licensee to address these shortfalls.

In summary, the inspection of the enrichment facilities and raft storage areas provided a degree of regulatory confidence that the assets were being managed and maintained, but recognised there was a significant amount of work, time and investment required, to implement the proposed asset management improvement programme.  It remained clear that the ‘alarm management’ project at the largest enrichment facility still had a great deal of work outstanding.  The maintenance of the crane on Raft 8 was acknowledged as a shortfall by the licensee.

The regulators jointly sampled aspects of the CNS asset management arrangements and followed these up with site inspections.  The CNS licence condition 28 arrangements had recently been reviewed and updated.  The new arrangements were implemented and judged by me to be adequate, comprehensive and in line with regulatory expectations.

Conclusion of Intervention

On balance, an intervention rating of “3”, adequate, was warranted for licence condition 28, (Examination, Maintenance, Inspection and Testing) when inspecting asset management by both the licensee and the CNS tenant organisation.