The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) undertakes all regulatory interactions with Sellafield Limited (SL, the site licensee) against a strategy defined by the ONR Sellafield Programme. My planned inspection schedule for the current regulatory year (covering April 2015 – March 2016), the content of which is guided by that strategy, identifies the Licence Conditions (LCs) that will be inspected over this period.
This intervention was undertaken to determine if SL is adequately implementing its site-wide processes for compliance with Licence Condition 16 (site plans, designs and specifications). This inspection was undertaken within ONR’s Sellafield Infrastructure inspection plan to reflect the site-wide nature of this particular licence condition.
Licence Condition 16 (LC16) requires the licensee to submit to ONR an adequate plan of the site showing the location of the boundary of the licensed site and every building or site which may affect safety. Furthermore the licensee has to submit a schedule giving particulars of each such building and plant thereon and the operations associated with these.
My inspection, which comprised discussions with SL staff, and a physical tour of sampled parts of the site, focussed on the following areas:
Not applicable; this was not a Safety System inspection.
I consider that SL has met the requirements for compliance with LC16. There were a number of areas of good practice, and a number of improvements that could reasonably be made, all of which were accepted by SL.
I consider the licensee’s implementation of its arrangements for LC16 is good in many respects. For instance SL has a good Information Technology (IT) system to capture and maintain the site plan and site register, and through this has access to a significant amount of information important to safety. This observation is offset by improvements which I suggested could be made to formalise SL’s processes and procedures, and to ensure the accuracy and fidelity of recorded information. This is particularly in regard to ongoing construction and demolition work on the site. For these reasons, on balance, I consider this inspection merits an IIS rating of 3 (Adequate) against LC16.
I identified a small number of minor shortfalls in the licensee’s implementation of its LC16 arrangements. Having reviewed these, I am content that none present any safety concern.
My findings were shared with, and accepted by the licensee. No ONR Regulatory Issues were raised as a result of this inspection.