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.

Rosyth compliance inspections, annual review of safety and SDP RIF

Executive summary

Purpose of Intervention

This report covers an inspection of the Rosyth Royal Dockyard Limited (RRDL) licensed site at Rosyth undertaken as part of a series of planned interventions in accordance with the IIS Strategy and Plan.

Interventions Carried Out by ONR

The intervention consisted of an inspection of the licensee's compliance with Licence Conditions 2 (Marking of the Site Boundary), 3 (Control of Property Transactions), 10 (Training), and 16 (Site Plans, Designs and Specifications).

The Licence Condition compliance inspections were undertaken by the ONR Site Inspectors 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 Dock Number 2 facilities and Active Waste Accumulation Facility.

Additional to Licence Condition compliance inspections, the ONR Superintending Inspector and ONR Site Inspectors participated in the Annual Review of Safety (ARoS) and undertook a familiarisation visit to all relevant areas of the licenced site. The ONR Site Inspectors also participated in a routine regulatory interface forum for the Submarine Dismantling Project (SDP).

Explanation of Judgement if Safety System Not Judged to be Adequate

N/A

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

The compliance arrangements for LC2, 3, 10 and 16 were found on inspection to comply with legal duties and relevant good practice was generally met. No shortfalls were identified and an example of good practice was identified. On this basis I have rated the inspection as adequate for each of these Licence Conditions.

I undertook physical inspections at a number of locations at the site in support of the LC compliance inspections and ONR Superintending Inspector familiarisation visit. 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 these inspections.

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.

In overall summary, the ARoS provided a comprehensive review of safety and it is clear that the site understands the attributes of top performing nuclear operators with clear examples from the ARoS, all pointing towards a mature licensee organisation.

The SDP regulatory interface meeting provided a forum for SDP project representatives to update regulators in relation to the project and for regulatory bodies to provide clarity in relation to regulatory expectations.

Conclusion of Intervention

On the basis of the information provided and evidence obtained during this intervention, I concluded that the licensee has effective arrangements under Licence Conditions 2 (Marking of the Site Boundary), 3 (Control of Property Transactions), 10 (Training), and 16 (Site Plans, Designs and Specifications).