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.

Hartlepool Power Station - System Based Inspections

Executive summary

Purpose of intervention

This was a planned inspection of EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Ltd’s (NGL’s) Hartlepool power station, undertaken as part of the planned intervention strategy for the Civil Nuclear Reactor Programme (CNRP) of the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR).

The work was carried out in line with the planned inspection programme contained in the Hartlepool Integrated Intervention Strategy (IIS).

Interventions Carried Out by ONR

I (ONR Electrical Specialist Inspector) with the ONR Hartlepool Site Inspector and an Electrical Technical Specialist from AMEC Foster Wheeler carried out a System Based Inspection (SBI) on the No‑Break Electrical System.  In addition to the SBI, I also carried out a pre-outage meeting to discuss the 2016 Statutory Outage of Unit 2 and this is included in this report, but does not form part of the SBI.

Explanation of Judgement if Safety System Not Judged to be Adequate

This system based inspection judged that the arrangements and their implementation, associated with the No-Break Electrical System, met the requirements of the safety case and are adequate.

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

From the system based inspection on the No-Break Electrical System we concluded that:

LC 10 (Training) – We examined the role profile and training records for the No-Break Electrical System Engineer and for the Central Control Room Duly Authorised Persons.  Evidence sampled identified the essential training requirements for each role profile and we found that all essential training was in date.  A system to track competencies was in use.  We therefore assigned an IIS rating of 3 (adequate) for this Licence Condition.

LC 23 (Operating Rules) – The licensee’s operating rules were contained within its technical specifications and were well defined for the No-Break Electrical System we sampled, with a clear alignment between the Safety Case and the technical specifications.  We found that technical specification compliance was well controlled and monitored, with availability and surveillance requirements specified for all major No-Break Electrical System components. We therefore assigned an IIS rating of 3 (adequate) for this Licence Condition.

LC 24 (Operating Instructions) – We asked the licensee for the operating and maintenance procedures for the dual inverters as well as the maintenance schedules, procedures and selected records for the 440V dc batteries.  The supplied documentation was of a good quality and followed the standard formatting and layout.  The dual inverter operational instructions were adequately detailed and the battery maintenance instructions were clear and concise.  The station personnel demonstrated a sound understanding of the equipment and the operational and maintenance requirements.  We assigned an IIS rating of 3 (adequate) for this Licence Condition.

LC 27 (Safety Mechanisms, Devices and Circuits) – We judged that the No‑Break Electrical System was properly connected and in good working order.  We considered that the documentation accurately reflected the as-built plant and that the plant was being regularly monitored, inspected and maintained.  In particular, we observed the use of an action tracking log to manage technical specification compliance.  We noted that the No-break Electrical System performance statistics indicated a reliable system and following discussions with plant personnel it was clear that obsolescence was being adequately managed.  We therefore assigned an IIS rating of 3 (adequate) for this Licence Condition.

LC 28 (Examination, Inspection, Maintenance and Testing) – We found good alignment between the technical specifications and the maintenance schedule, with key system components present on the schedule.  We sampled maintenance work instructions and work orders for a sample 440V dc battery discharge and found the documents and associated records to be of good quality.  After the plant walkdown we concluded that housekeeping in the areas we visited was very good.  There has been investment in new dual inverters and associated cabling and electrical panels to replace ageing motor alternator sets.  We noted the information technology systems that are used to plan, track, execute, record the results and derive trends and system health statistics.  We assigned an IIS rating of 3 (adequate) for this Licence Condition.

LC 34 (Leakage and Escape of Radioactive Material and Radioactive Waste) – We established that LC34 was not applicable to the No-Break Electrical System, and therefore no assessment was made against this Licence Condition.

The intervention was performed in line with ONR’s guidance requirements (as described in our technical inspection guides) in the areas inspected.

Conclusion of Intervention

After considering all the evidence sampled during this inspection against LCs 10, 23, 24, 27 and 28, we considered that the No-Break Electrical System met the requirements of the safety case.

No significant compliance issues were identified and opportunities for improvement were communicated to the licensee.  There are no findings from this inspection that could significantly undermine nuclear safety.