Executive summary
Date(s) of inspection:
February 2026
Aim of inspection
The aim of this inspection was to examine the licensee’s implementation of arrangements for maintaining the seismic qualification of relevant structures, systems and components (SSCs).
Subject(s) of inspection
- LC10 - Training - Rating: Green
- LC28 - Examination, inspection, maintenance and testing - Rating: Green
Key findings, inspector's opinions and reasons for judgement made
The aim of this inspection was to examine the licensee’s implementation of arrangements for maintaining the seismic qualification of relevant structures, systems and components (SSCs) under Licence Condition 28 (LC28). Amongst this we also considered whether the personnel responsible for maintaining these items of plant, from a seismic perspective, were a suitably qualified and experienced person (SQEP) under Licence condition 10 (LC10).
The inspection focused on following, where possible, each of the systems from start to end with an aim of understanding how the systems were seismically qualified and maintained whilst also considering any modifications, degradation and newly introduced interaction hazards.
The inspection sample comprised of three seismically qualified systems:
- High Pressure Back-Up Cooling (HPBUC) System
- Low Pressure Back-Up Cooling (LPBUC) System
- Secondary Shutdown (SSD) System
The plant sampled during the walkdown was generally in reasonable condition and system engineers demonstrated evidence of undertaking proactive maintenance and understanding the seismic aspects of their system. Labelling/identification of seismically qualified plant for the benefit of other personnel, leading to a number of minor housekeeping aspects being identified that could create an interaction hazard during a seismic event, however, the licensee agreed to address these.
Three minor regulatory issues have been raised to be raised for follow up, these relate to training and guidance of system engineers, sentencing and recording of defects and recording justification for plant walkdown periodicity.
Conclusion
Overall, I identified some minor deficiencies, however, I judged the resulting risk gap is not significant and appropriate action has been undertaken by the site, I therefore rated the inspection as “Green” for both LC28 and LC10. Three regulatory issues have been raised pertaining to the three areas identified above:
Regulatory issue related to ensuring ongoing seismic withstand of systems through sufficient suitably qualified and experienced persons (SQEP).
Regulatory issue relating to records of the sentencing and closure of findings/defects related to independent seismic walkdown reports.
Regulatory issue raised to follow up recording of formal plant walkdown periodicity.