Executive summary
Date(s) of inspection:
July 2025
Aim of inspection
RI-11266 is the highest level and profile fire safety RI. It is planned that this is closed during 2025. This intervention will either follow or closely precede close out and will focus on the demonstration of sustained strategic improvement at Sellafield.
Subject(s) of inspection
- LC 10 - Training - Rating: Not rated
- LC 28 - Examination, inspection, maintenance and testing - Rating: Not rated
- LC 36 - Organisational capability - Rating: Not rated
- Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 - Rating: Not rated
Key findings, inspector's opinions and reasons for judgement made
In this themed intervention I sought to gather and assess evidence of the successful implementation of strategic fire safety improvements at Sellafield Ltd. In doing so, the output of this intervention will support a decision on the closure of regulatory issue RI-11266 – Fire Safety Improvement Plan.
Sellafield Limited has previously provided evidence packs as part of its response to RI-11266 that address the key themes identified by ONR as areas where improvement was required (2025/12559 and 2025/12568). While this evidence was judged sufficient to close the related actions under the RI, and additional action and this intervention were judged to be appropriate given the level of the issue. This intervention approach seeks to gain sufficient confidence that the largely strategic and corporate level changes referred to in the evidence packs are implemented and understood at the facility operational level.
I have considered the sampled evidence of fire safety improvement implementation in the context of Regulatory Issue RI-11266. My key findings are summarised as follows:
I observed that the DAPs with whom I spoke demonstrated an understanding of their fire safety responsibilities and were able to explain the escalation routes and support available to them for significant fire safety issues.
I am content that building managers are effectively applying the improved checklist and that they understand the importance of the items included with respect to fire safety.
I’m satisfied that building managers are sufficiently empowered to action findings and that they are aware of the escalation routes available and are supported in escalating where required. I note that in both cases control of contractor work and actions related to this pose an ongoing challenge, but this was understood and well managed in the facilities I sampled.
It is clear that the fire protection team in its new organisation is able to provide ongoing support to facilities and I am content that this is understood to be technical support, not passing of accountabilities by building managers and facility leadership.
The span of control of infrastructure building managers remains a challenge. Given my positive observations of infrastructure managed buildings on this inspection, IR-52967 and IR-53968 I am content that this is being adequately managed.
I judge that building managers generally understand the FRA process and are able to support this. I found that the descriptions of the RAG ratings are not consistently understood and that this has the potential to impact response to FRAs. I’m satisfied that Sellafield Ltd has already taken steps to address this ambiguity.
I have seen sufficient evidence to judge that Sellafield Ltd engineering and maintenance has made good progress in better prioritising projects and delivering projects in a more fit-for-purpose and pragmatic manner.
I have seen sufficient evidence of strategic improvements in the engineering and project delivery space being developed and implemented to support Sellafield Ltd’s claims in this area.
I have seen adequate evidence of improved the availability of tools including dashboards, fire risk assessments, assurance activities and building manager findings to those with fire safety accountabilities to allow them to identify, correct and mitigate risks associated with fire protection. I am also satisfied that Sellafield Ltd has implemented improvements to escalation routes and visibility for fire protection issues.
Finally, I judge that NIO has a good understanding of the fire safety status at Sellafield and of the actions required to sustain improvement. The resource challenges facing NIO are a risk, but as a sampling function this can be mitigated through more targeted intervention. NIO is clear on its view that Sellafield Ltd has built a strong foundation for sustainable improvements through the fire protection team and the work done to improve building manager capability, capacity and effectiveness. This aligns with my findings elsewhere in this inspection and provides additional confidence to support a positive judgement on closure of the regulatory issue.
While the RR(FS)O and LCs 10, 28 and 36 informed the scoping of this intervention, it is more appropriate to instead rate regulatory issue RI-11266. I judge the above evidence supports a rating of GREEN for the RI and that the evidence sampled is supportive of closing RI-11266. A decision on the regulatory issue forward plan will be made following the rearranged session with the Sellafield Ltd SHEQ director.
Conclusion
I have considered the sampled evidence of fire safety improvement implementation in the context of Regulatory Issue RI-11266. My key findings are summarised as follows:
The DAPs with whom I spoke demonstrated an understanding of their fire safety responsibilities and were able to explain the escalation routes and support available to them for significant fire safety issues.
I observed that building managers are effectively applying the improved checklist and that they understand the importance of the items included with respect to fire safety.
I’m content that building managers are sufficiently empowered to action findings and that they are aware of the escalation routes available and are supported in escalating where required. I note that in both cases control of contractor work and actions related to this pose an ongoing challenge, but this was understood and well managed in the facilities I sampled.
It is clear that the fire protection team in its new organisation is able to provide ongoing support to facilities and I am content that this is understood to be technical support, not passing of accountabilities by building managers and facility leadership.
The span of control of infrastructure building managers remains a challenge. Given my positive observations of infrastructure managed buildings on this inspection, IR-52967 and IR-53968 I am content that this is being adequately managed.
I found that building managers generally understand the FRA process and are able to support this. I found that the descriptions of the RAG ratings are not consistently understood and that this has the potential to impact response to FRAs. I’m satisfied that Sellafield Ltd has already taken steps to address this ambiguity.
I have seen sufficient evidence to judge that Sellafield Ltd engineering and maintenance has made good progress in better prioritising projects and delivering projects in a more fit-for-purpose and pragmatic manner.
I have seen sufficient evidence of strategic improvements in the engineering and project delivery space being developed and implemented to support Sellafield Ltd’s claims in this area.
I have seen adequate evidence of improved the availability of tools including dashboards, fire risk assessments, assurance activities and building manager findings to those with fire safety accountabilities to allow them to identify, correct and mitigate risks associated with fire protection. I am also satisfied that Sellafield Ltd has implemented improvements to escalation routes and visibility for fire protection issues.
Finally, I judge that NIO has a good understanding of the fire safety status at Sellafield and of the actions required to sustain improvement. The resource challenges facing NIO are a risk, but as a sampling function this can be mitigated through more targeted intervention. NIO is clear on its view that Sellafield Ltd has built a strong foundation for sustainable improvements through the fire protection team and the work done to improve building manager capability, capacity and effectiveness. This aligns with my findings elsewhere in this inspection and provides additional confidence to support a positive judgement on closure of the regulatory issue.
While the RR(FS)O and LCs 10, 28 and 36 informed the scoping of this intervention, it is more appropriate to instead rate regulatory issue RI-11266. I judge the above evidence supports a rating of GREEN for the RI and that the evidence sampled is supportive of closing RI-11266.