Executive summary
Date(s) of inspection:
April 2025
Aim of inspection
To determine how the duty holder's arrangements manage the construction activities within and around B242 with respect to conventional health and safety and LC26 (Control and Supervision of Operations).
Subject(s) of inspection
- CDM 15 (Construction Health) - Rating: Green
- Health & Safety at Work Act, Section 6 (General duties of manufacturers) - Rating: Green
- LC26 - Control and supervision of operations - Rating: Green
Key findings, inspector's opinions and reasons for judgement made
Conventional Health and Safety
This part of the compliance inspection entailed a sampled inspection of the duty holder's arrangements to comply with Part 2 and 3 of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM). In particular details of the CDM dutyholders appointed by Sellafield Ltd. and the conventional health and safety risks associated with operating in the floc retrieval tanks.
The inspection also involved a visit to the test facility at Leconsfield , this enabled me (NSH&S Specialist inspector) to see how the floc removal will be carried out without having to enter contaminated areas.
Documents provided in advance were reviewed before the meeting.
There is a positive health and safety culture on site which was demonstrated by the creation of the mock-up of the retrieval tanks to identify potential issues and prove the proposed methodology.
There is positive worker engagement on site.
Suitable arrangements are in place to manage the floc removal activity in the tanks including use of air-fed suits and operator welfare.
This part of the inspection was rated green with no formal action taken.
LC26
This element of the inspection sampled compliance with nuclear site licence condition 26 – control and supervision. “The licensee shall ensure that no operations are carried out which may affect safety except under the control and supervision of suitably qualified and experienced persons appointed for that purpose by the licensee.”
The competency of all the individuals we spoke to was clear both from direct conversation and a sampling of training records. As part of the inspection we observed a pre-job briefing which was adequate - notably the engagement of the operators who demonstrated an understanding of the hazards. A post job review of the previous day was included and the Shepley Group Pre Job Brief form had useful key questions to prompt discussion. As part of this inspection, we also observed a safety reset briefing which was undertaken as part of the pre job brief. The interface of the project with Sellafield Ltd. was sufficient with mention of stakeholder meetings and daily “war room” meetings which provided a good opportunity for all parties to discuss and prioritise work. These meetings are carried out informally but it was advised that there may be some benefit to formalising these and incorporating them into project governance.
There are a number of work packages on the project which cross boundaries of DAP ownership which complicates the work. Regulatory advice was given to the project to consider efficiencies in cross boundary working particularly as the project develops in complexity and pace.
This part of the inspection was rated green with no formal action taken.
Conclusion
In my opinion the conventional health and safety and LC26 arrangements are adequate and I have rated the inspection green with no formal action taken.