Hinkley Point B - Planned Intervention
- Site: Hinkley Point B
- IR number: 14-003
- Date: June 2014
- LC numbers: 10, 15, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 34
Purpose of intervention
This was a planned inspection at EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Ltd's (NGL's) Hinkley Point B power station, undertaken as part of the planned intervention strategy for the Civil Nuclear Reactor Programme (CNRP) of the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR).
The work was carried out in line with the planned inspection programme contained in the Hinkley Point B Integrated Intervention Strategy (IIS).
Interventions Carried Out by ONR
I carried out a system inspection (reactor auxiliary cooling and pressure vessel cooling water) and compliance inspections against licence conditions 25 (operational records) and 15 (periodic review). I also reviewed the ONR issues database, met with the NGL internal regulator and held information exchange meetings with site personnel.
Explanation of Judgement if Safety System Not Judged to be Adequate
The auxiliary cooling and pressure vessel cooling water systems were judged to meet the requirements of the safety case and were adequate.
Key Findings, Inspector's Opinions and Reasons for Judgements Made
I carried out a system inspection of the reactor auxiliary cooling water and pressure vessel cooling water systems at Hinkley Point B power station and concluded that:
- For LC10 (training). I was satisfied that activities were effectively controlled such that work on the site was carried out by suitably qualified and experienced persons. I concluded that the licensee had developed a structured, in depth and well controlled training and mentoring programme for its staff. I therefore assigned an IIS rating of 2 (good) to this inspection.
- For LC23 (operating rules). I concluded that there was good evidence to support the underpinning of the safety case into the operating rules (Technical Specifications) for the reactor auxiliary cooling and pressure vessel cooling water systems and that compliance with the operating rules was demonstrated. I therefore assigned an IIS rating of - 2 (good) to this inspection.
- For LC24 (operating instructions). I was satisfied that site had followed procedures and developed well written instructions which covered a range of instructions. I therefore assigned an IIS Rating of - 3, (adequate) to this inspection.
- For LC27 (safety mechanisms, devices and circuits) I noted that a common definition of these systems was being developed by NGL and ONR. Overall I was satisfied that safety mechanisms devices and circuits were being appropriately addressed. I therefore assigned an IIS rating of - 3 (adequate) to this inspection.
- For LC28 (examination, inspection, maintenance and testing) I was satisfied that good arrangements were in place to ensure that the reactor auxiliary cooling and pressure vessel cooling water systems met the nuclear safety requirements as set out in the plant safety case. I therefore assigned an IIS rating of - 2 (good) to this inspection.
- For LC34 (leakage and escape of radioactive material and radioactive waste) I was satisfied that the licensee had adequate mechanisms in place to detect radioactive leaks in the reactor auxiliary cooling and pressure vessel cooling water systems and I therefore assigned an IIS rating of - 3 (adequate) to this inspection.
- Overall, I judged that the reactor auxiliary cooling and pressure vessel cooling water systems met the requirements of the safety case and were adequate.
- For LC25 (operational records), I was satisfied that site had developed adequate procedures and facilities for the making and retention of records relating both to operational matters and for radioactive material on the site. I therefore assigned an IIS rating of - 3, (adequate) to this inspection.
- For LC15 (periodic review) I found that a number of periodic reviews were being performed on site. I sampled three of these (annual review of safety, Periodic Safety Review (PSR) 2 and progress with PSR3). I concluded that the reviews were being carried out in a clear, consistent and appropriate manner. I therefore assigned an IIS rating of - 3 (adequate) to this inspection.
- I met with the site internal regulator to discuss recent events on the site, ongoing inspections and future intervention topics.
- The ONR issues database was reviewed and each issue was discussed. Progress with a number of issues was noted and some issues will be closed shortly. My plan is to review the issues database on a quarterly basis.
- Finally I held information exchange meetings with station staff on a range of topics including future licence instrument requirements, commissioning of the gas circulator lube oil foam system and permissioning of the new Nitrogen plant.
The intervention was performed in line with ONR's guidance requirements (as described in our technical inspection guides) in the areas inspected.
Conclusion of Intervention
There are no findings from this inspection that could significantly undermine nuclear safety. No actions were raised during this inspection.