This intervention was to inspect the asset care arrangements in place in Sellafield Site Remediation and Decommissioning Projects (SR&DP), to verify that the arrangements are adequate and implemented appropriately. The intervention is identified on the Sellafield PP3 Inspection Plan which covers the Decommissioning Division
This inspection was carried out in accordance with ONR's inspection guidance for Licence Condition 28 (LC28) for Examination, inspection, maintenance and testing (EIM&T) as defined in NS-INSP-GD-028. During the inspection we reviewed the implementation of site arrangements for compliance with LC28 and inspected a number of the key facilities associated with the Site Remediation and Decommissioning Projects to observe the current condition of the assets and plans for ongoing care and maintenance of these assets.
N/A - this was not a Safety System inspection.
Sellafield Limited initially had difficulty in clearly presenting its overall arrangements and how these fit together to meet the requirements of the safety case and the licence conditions. However on closer examination of the outputs and the material provided, it became evident that the work being undertaken on asset care was adequate, and in most areas was judged to be appropriately comprehensive.
Sellafield Limited's Asset Lifecycle Model was judged to be a good tool to support compliance to the new site arrangements, and clearly demonstrated how Sellafield Limited applies governance to the implementation of Systems Engineering & Technical Basis of Maintenance (TBoMs) in SR&DP.
Sellafield Limited demonstrated good arrangements for the prioritisation of plants and systems for the planned implementation of Systems Engineering and Technical Basis of Maintenance (TBoMs) in SR&DP. The 'Condition Monitoring Priority/Progress List' is considered a useful tool to track and present how progress has been made in delivering the programme.
During the plant inspections it was encouraging to see the visible improvements which had been made to the solvent recovery building and THORP miniature pilot plant.
I considered that records for the sentencing of recommendations from civil inspections could be improved. Whilst the resolution for some issues could be traced through a work request form, for other issues where no further action was taken, there was no record to verify that this was a conscious decision to accept the condition.
Condition assessments for the Analytical Services buildings were reviewed and I highlighted two areas where I considered additional inspection was required. It was agreed that the licensee would review these areas for further assessment.
Overall I judged compliance with LC28 to be adequate, but made minor recommendations to improve aspects as identified within the body of this report or for Sellafield Limited to provide further clarification on certain aspects where requested. These will be followed up during routine regulatory interactions.
The findings from a previous LC28 inspection were also reviewed and closed out during this inspection.