The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) undertakes all regulatory interaction with the Sellafield site licensee (Sellafield Limited, SL) against a strategy defined by the ONR Sellafield, Decommissioning, Fuel and Waste (SDFW) Programme. In accordance with that strategy, a Licence Condition (LC) compliance inspection at the Magnox Operating Unit (OU) was carried out, as planned, in December 2016.
The purpose of this intervention was for ONR to determine the adequacy of implementation of the licensee's formal arrangements for compliance with LC 28 (examination, inspection, maintenance and testing) in the Magnox OU. I focused on the evidence of compliance within all the main facilities within the OU, as the maintenance of design intent for system performance and the timely delivery of longer term asset care are central to continued safe operations.
LC 28 requires that the licensee implements adequate arrangements for the regular and systematic examination, inspection, maintenance and testing of all plant which may affect safety. On 1 December 2016, I carried out a planned, one-day, on-site LC 28 compliance inspection within the Magnox OU. The inspection comprised discussions with SL staff and reviews of plant records and other documentation. In carrying out this inspection, the following ONR guidance was used:
This was not a system based inspection, and therefore no judgement has been made of the adequacy of implementation of any part of these safety cases.
I examined evidence of the licensee's compliance with its arrangements for delivery of maintenance, inspection and testing with a focus on: the current status of planned maintenance delivery across the OU, the management of statutory inspection and the mechanisms for ensuring that the maintenance undertaken is appropriate.
I sampled evidence of completed maintenance, and consider that the licensee has undertaken this in a manner that is adequate, and in accordance with the site's written arrangements. There were no shortfalls, and only very minor observations in respect of SL's completion of related documentation.
Additionally, the licensee is delivering, as part of a site-wide initiative, a programme of systematic review against current maintenance to confirm that what is delivered will be sufficient to maintain the expected design performance, whilst identifying and removing inefficient activities. Whilst I consider that the review quality is adequate, I have identified that the lead management teams within the OU will need to maintain their current expectations for delivery, such that the benefits of such reviews can accrue in a timely manner.
I consider that the licensee is compliant with its legal duties under LC 28, and that there are only limited opportunities for further ALARP improvements. Therefore, it is my opinion that an inspection rating of Green (no formal action) is merited.
From those areas sampled, I did not identify any significant shortfalls in the licensee's formal arrangements for compliance which would prompt a further inspection of those arrangements earlier than currently planned.
There are no matters to be taken forward arising from my LC 28 compliance inspection.