Executive summary
Date(s) of inspection:
August 2025
Aim of inspection
The aim of the inspection was to sample evidence to demonstrate Heysham 1’s compliance with the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER) by confirming how the site manage risks associated with lifting operations and use of lifting equipment (including accessories) along with the related aspects of LC12.
Subject(s) of inspection
- LC12 - Duly authorised and other suitably qualified and experienced persons - Rating: Not Rated
- Lifting / LOLER - Rating: Green
Key findings, inspector's opinions and reasons for judgement made
The inspection was targeted at how EDF Nuclear Generation Limited (NGL) are complying with the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations (LOLER) 1998, by confirming how the Heysham 1 site manages risks associated with lifting operations and the use of lifting equipment (including accessories). The inspection also aimed to target the implementation of EDF NGL’s Licence Condition (LC) 12 (Duly Authorised and other Suitably Qualified and Experience Persons) arrangements, specifically in the context of LOLER roles.
The inspection involved a day and a half on site. This consisted of a site tour, discussions in the office around the competency management system for LOLER roles, and how defects of lifting equipment and accessories were managed. The site tour focused on:
The lifting equipment stores (including pile cap satellite store and the heavy rigging store);
- The auxiliary boiler house; and
- The radiation controlled area (RCA).
EDF NGL provided an overview of LOLER arrangements and how the LC12 arrangements are applied in the LOLER context.
Given that the inspection centred around station’s LOLER arrangements and individuals competencies in LOLER associated roles it would be inappropriate to rate against stations LC12 arrangements.
Two regulatory issues requiring resolution were raised. These were with regard to storage of heavy lifting equipment, and ensuring there are physical controls such that equipment classes as “inactive” cannot be used. These will be tracked through to resolution through normal business overseen by the nominated site inspector. Further advice for consideration was also given.
Conclusion
I judge that Heysham 1 have arrangements in place to ensure that they are compliant with LOLER (1998). Their site specific arrangements are articulated via Code of Safe Practice 24. They were able to demonstrate that they had resilience in those roles required to carry out a lifting operation safely. They have robust procedures in place for ensuring individuals have the appropriate training. For EDF personnel, completion of the required training as well as a mentor guide or task performance evaluation is required to demonstrate competence. For a contractor to carry out a lifting role as a minimum they are required to have a ‘blue’ card which denotes they are a ‘competent operator.’ ‘Red card’ operators, those who are trained require supervision by a blue card ‘competent operator’. Demonstration of competence is required prior to individuals being able to carry out the requirements of their lifting role independently. This is controlled through the TRAKA system and operatives access passes not allowing them to access the rigging stores unless authorised.
The process for checking out lifting equipment could be simplified and improved, as there are clear error traps with the current system. However of the areas sampled there was no example of equipment being checked out incorrectly. Despite this, the management of heavy rigging equipment does require improvement. This was demonstrated through a forklift attachment being left outside of the lifting stores and therefore its use being uncontrolled.
Through the use of the AMS Heysham 1 were able to demonstrate that they have the maintenance history of their lifting equipment and accessories demonstrating a mature management system for identifying trends in relation to damage of lifting equipment and accessories. They are also able to utilise this system to highlight existing and resolved defects. On paper they were able to demonstrate what equipment is in service and what equipment should not be in service. However a regulatory issue was raised relating to the physical control of inactive equipment.