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.

LC26 and LC28 Inspection on Sellafield site-wide Infrastructure; Package Management and Railways, on Sellafield Ltd’s Nuclear Licensed site at Sellafield, Cumbria

Executive summary

Purpose of intervention

The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) undertakes all regulatory interactions with Sellafield Limited (SL, the site licensee) against a strategy defined by the ONR Sellafield Programme.  My planned inspection schedule for the current regulatory year (covering April 2015 – March 2016), the content of which is guided by that strategy, identifies the Licence Conditions (LCs) that will be inspected over this period. 

This planned intervention was undertaken to determine if the Infrastructure organisation is adequately implementing SL’s site-wide arrangements for compliance with Licence Condition 26 (Control and supervision of operations), and Licence Condition 28 (Examination, inspection, maintenance and testing). The intervention targeted the implementation of Sellafield Ltd.’s arrangements within Package Management and Railways (PM&R). PM&R encompasses the movement of spent fuel flasks within the Sellafield site as well as the maintenance of these flasks to support their use to transport spent fuel from nuclear power stations within the UK to the Sellafield licensed site for reprocessing. PM&R also maintains other flasks and packages used to transport radioactive materials within the licensed site. This inspection is complementary to inspection activity undertaken by ONR transport inspectors who focus on compliance with the Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2009.

Interventions Carried Out by ONR

Licence Condition 26 (LC26) requires the licensee to ensure that no operations are carried out which may affect safety except under the control and supervision of suitably qualified and experienced persons appointed for that purpose by the licensee. 

My inspection, which comprised discussions with SL staff, and examination of plant documentation, focussed on the following areas:

Licence Condition 28 (LC28) requires the licensee to make and implement adequate arrangements for the regular and systematic examination, inspection, maintenance and testing (EIM&T) of all plant which may affect safety.

My inspection, which comprised discussions with SL staff, examination of plant documentation, and physical inspection of the facility, focussed on the following areas:

Explanation of Judgement if Safety System Not Judged to be Adequate

Not applicable; this was not a Safety System inspection.

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

I consider that SL’s arrangements for compliance with LC 26 have been effectively implemented within the PM&R organisation. There were a number of areas of good practice, and a number of minor improvements that could reasonably be made, all of which were accepted by the licensee.

I consider the organisation’s implementation of the site’s arrangements for LC26 is good in many areas.  For instance, there was good evidence of compliance with SL’s site wide arrangements including clear links to the safety case, allocation of competent resource, and adequate training, within the facility which I targeted for my inspection. This is, however, offset by some minor areas for improvement such as further work needed to develop the Plant Operational Control Centre (POCC) boards. For these reasons, on balance, I consider the inspection merits an IIS rating of 2 (Good Standard), against LC26.   

I consider that SL’s arrangements for compliance with LC 28 have been effectively implemented within the PM&R organisation. There were a number of areas of good practice, and a number of minor improvements that could reasonably be made, all of which were accepted by the licensee.

 I consider the organisation’s implementation of the site’s arrangements for LC28 is good in many areas. For instance, there was a good demonstration of compliance with the Plant Maintenance Schedule across all parts of PM&R. This is, however, offset by some minor areas for improvement relating to the recording of tasks undertaken by individual maintenance team members. For these reasons, on balance, I consider the inspection merits an IIS rating of 2 (Good Standard), against LC28.    

Conclusion of Intervention

My findings were shared with, and accepted by, the licensee as part of normal inspection feedback. No ONR Regulatory Issues were raised as a result of this inspection.