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.

Package Management & Railways (PM&R) - Compliance Inspection - LC10 (Training)

Executive summary

Purpose of intervention

I completed a planned compliance inspection of the Package Management and Railways (PM&R) Operating Unit (OU), part of the Infrastructure Division within the Sellafield Ltd organisation. I undertook this intervention at the PM&R site offices on the Sellafield site in West Cumbria.

The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) undertakes all regulatory interaction with the Sellafield site licensee against a strategy defined by the ONR Sellafield Programme [2014/0141419]. That strategy underpins the extant 2014/2015 regulatory inspection plan for the Waste and Effluent Disposition Directorate (WEDD) and Infrastructure Division [2014/0265339], which identifies that LC10 (Training) will be inspected in August 2014.

The purpose of this LC compliance inspection was to focus on the effectiveness and appropriateness of training that the PM&R shift teams undertake, given that they refurbish all spent fuel and waste handling flasks, and that there is the potential for safety issues to arise if that work is not completed correctly.

Interventions Carried Out by ONR

I completed an on-site inspection, which lasted half a working day. The compliance inspection was undertaken in accordance with the following ONR processes and supporting inspection guidance:

  1. Planning and Conducting Interventions.
  2. Record/Communicate Outcome of Intervention and Enforcement Decision
  3. T/AST/027, Issue 3, 22 Sep 10. Training and Assuring Personnel Competence

Explanation of Judgement if Safety System Not Judged to be Adequate

No judgement was made of Safety System adequacy.

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

I judged that training within the PM&R OU was identified, delivered and monitored in accordance with published corporate arrangements, and that regular reviews of the trained status of PM&R personnel were undertaken in order to ensure that the required training level was sustained within the OU.

I noted that there was evidence of an effective connection between an historical issue and the subsequent adaption of the training requirement to address that shortfall; this indicated the ability of the PM&R team to take a proactive approach to the continual development of effective and targeted training.

Conclusion of Intervention

The evidence presented during this intervention was sufficient to demonstrate that the PM&R training team were compliant with the arrangements for delivery of training. Therefore, I consider that an IIS rating of 3 (adequate) is appropriate.