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.

Compliance inspection of LC8: Warning notices, and LC28 Examination, inspection, maintenance and testing

Executive summary

Purpose of Intervention

I undertook these inspections to examine the posting of warning notices for informing people of actions to take in the event of an emergency, and the arrangements for examining, maintaining, inspecting and testing plant of which may affect safety.  This was a planned inspection at the Berkeley and Oldbury sites as detailed in ONR’s plans for the sites in 2018/19, and in support of ONR’s Decommissioning Fuel and Waste Sub-division strategy.

Interventions Carried Out by ONR

I inspected:

Explanation of Judgement if Safety System Not Judged to be Adequate

Not applicable

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

At both sites I undertook a plant walk-down of a number of key radiological facilities to examine compliance with Licence Condition 8 and found that suitable and sufficient notices are posted so that persons on the site are informed of the meaning of any warning signal, the location of emergency exits, and the measures to be taken in the event of a fire or emergency.  It is my judgement that Magnox Ltd, at both the Berkeley and Oldbury sites, is complying with LC8. 

At Oldbury site I found that Licence Condition 28 arrangements broadly meet regulatory expectations and I found the maintenance tasks that I selected for examination to have been undertaken in accordance with the arrangements.  It is my judgement that Magnox Ltd, at Oldbury site, is complying with LC28.

At Berkeley site I found that Licence Condition 28 arrangements broadly meet regulatory expectations but that a number of tasks included on a maintenance schedule had not been fully completed to time.  These same tasks were not under the control and supervision of a suitably qualified and experienced person appointed by the licensee for that purpose.  I was encouraged by the response of the site leadership team to my inspection findings in rapidly setting up a team-based fact find and being open and self-critical when providing me with their preliminary findings.  It is my judgement that Magnox Ltd, at the Berkeley site, has not fully complied with LC28.

Conclusion of Intervention

In most areas the arrangements inspected were deemed to be adequate with one exception at Berkeley in relation to implementation of the LC28 arrangements.   I advised Magnox Limited to undertake an investigation into the compliance shortfalls associated with LC 28 and to identify actions to be taken to help prevent a recurrence.  I will monitor the adequacy of the investigation and the actions to be taken by licensee during future planned inspection visits.