This inspection of RRDL’s licensed site at Rosyth was undertaken as part of a series of planned interventions in accordance with the IIS Strategy and Plan for 2015/16.
The intervention consisted of an inspection of the licensee’s compliance with Licence Conditions 11 (Emergency arrangements), 27 (Safety mechanisms, devices and circuits), 28 (Examination, inspection, maintenance and testing), 29 (Duty to carry out tests, inspections and examinations), 30 (Periodic shutdown), 31 (Shutdown of specified operations) and 36 (Organisational capability). These inspections were undertaken in accordance with the relevant ONR Technical Inspection Guides and involved examination of relevant licensee documentation, targeted discussions with relevant members of the licensee’s staff and inspection of the site Active Waste Accumulation Facility.
In addition to the Licence Condition compliance inspections, I undertook a routine update of issues that had been raised at previous site inspections, held a routine scheduled meeting with site Safety Representatives and conducted an inspection of Dock Number 2.
The compliance arrangements for LC11, LC27, LC28, LC29, LC30, LC31 and LC36 were found to be adequate on inspection and complied with the relevant ONR guidance. On this basis the inspections were all judged to be rated as adequate.
I held a periodic meeting with safety representatives, to support their function of representing employees and to receive information on matters affecting their health, safety and welfare at work. There were no issues arising from this meeting.
The level 4 meeting reviewed progress against the existing issues on the ONR Issues database. On the basis of these discussions and evidence provided I am satisfied that adequate progress is being made on remaining issues.
In support of ongoing inspection of the adequacy of the licensee arrangements for the SDP project, I undertook an inspection of Dock Number 2. Significant advances have been made in relation to the capability of Dock Number 2, including installation of a new caisson, removal of redundant cranes and delivery of the main components for a new gantry crane. New access control arrangements for this area of site have also been implemented. In my opinion, standards of housekeeping were good and the licensee was demonstrably in control of the operations being undertaken on the site. No issues were raised from this inspection.
On the basis of the information provided and evidence obtained during this intervention, I concluded that the licensee has made and implemented adequate arrangements under all of the Conditions examined (i.e. LCs 11, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 36).