Office for Nuclear Regulation

Torness - SBI05 Seawater Systems and Fuel Route Improvement Plan

Executive summary

Purpose of Intervention

The purpose of this intervention  was to undertake a system-based inspection (SBI) which was supported by a structural integrity specialist inspector of the seawater systems at Torness power station in accordance with the ONR inspection plan for the site.

I the nominated site inspector carried out a reactive unplanned LC28 inspection with EDF’s Independent Nuclear Assurance (INA), on the Torness Fuel Route Improvement Plan.

Interventions Carried Out by ONR

The SBI, carried out by an ONR Structural Integrity Specialist together with the Site Inspector for Torness, inspected the licensee’s arrangements for compliance with the following license conditions (LCs):

I judged that for the LC34 (leakage and escape of radioactive material and radioactive waste) element of the SBI was not relevant to this inspection. The licensee has confirmed that the seawater systems of Torness do not contain radioactive materials.

Based on our sampled examination of documents supplied by the licensee before the inspection, I determined that the inspection would focus on the reactor seawater (RSW) system. This is due to the greater significance of that system to nuclear safety, compared with other Torness seawater systems.

Additionally, the Site Inspector carried out a reactive unplanned LC28 compliance inspection  with INA to review the Torness Fuel Route Improvement Plan. This comprised a review of relevant operating experience, discussion of the plan with leaders of a number of work streams, and with relevant Operations and Maintenance teams.

Explanation of Judgement if Safety System Not Judged to be Adequate

Not applicable.

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

For the SBI,  I examined records associated with each LC considered in this inspection and observed the condition of the RSW system for the following areas:- :

I found satisfactory evidence of adequate compliance in each case.  I undertook a plant walkdown, from which no significant adverse findings resulted. Based on evidence sampled, in my opinion the RSW system is operated and maintained in accordance with the safety case.

The joint review of the Fuel Route Improvement Plan found on the basis of the sample that the plan’s intentions were compatible with safety at the site, and that there was adequate governance and control of safety in changes to maintenance. During my examination of the improvement plan I offered  some informal advice on opportunities to improve it.  I have therefore  rated this inspection as  ‘green’ for LC28.


I conclude that, for the RSW system, the licensee has met its legal duties  to satisfy LCs 10, 23, 24, 27 and 28. I therefore rated the  inspection ‘green – no formal regulatory action’ is required.

For my reactive unplanned inspection of the licensees LC28 arrangements for its Fuel Route Improvement Plan also warranted a rating of  ‘green’