Executive summary
Date(s) of inspection
- July 2026
Aim of inspection
The aim of this inspection is to gain assurance that Spent Fuel Services (SFS) has implemented the Sellafield Ltd arrangements for LC24 (Operating instructions) and is compliant with the requirements of the nuclear site licence for this licence condition.
Subject(s) of inspection
- LC24 - Operating instructions - Rating: Amber
Key findings, inspector's opinions and reasons for judgement made
I, the Site Inspector for the Spent Fuel Services Operating Unit at the Sellafield Site in Cumbria, supported by a Human Factors Inspector undertook a Licence Condition 24 (Operating instructions) inspection at the Spent Fuel Services Operating Unit, focussing on the management of, and use of operating instructions at the facility. The inspection comprised a review of related documentation, interrogation of the learning management system in relation to relevant qualifications, compliance with safety cases, observation of a task on plant, condition reports and assurance.
I found that there were shortfalls in how the Spent Fuel Services Operating Unit had implemented the Sellafield Ltd arrangements for the licence condition, resulting in the under categorisation of operating instructions. I am also of the opinion that the extant Sellafield Ltd arrangements do not appropriately consider relevant good practice in relation to the type, continuous or reference use, of instruction to be used. I have rated this inspection Amber, and will seek improvement from Sellafield Ltd.
Conclusion
I am of the opinion that the Spent Fuel Services Operating Unit is resourced, and has implemented the review arrangements for written instruction within its area of responsibility. However, there are shortfalls in how Spent Fuel Services has interpreted the arrangements made by Sellafield Ltd under the requirements of LC24. The shortfalls I identified in the areas sampled are in relation to the under categorisation of the documents (category 1 versus category 2) and also how the documents are used (continuous versus reference use). Furthermore, there was no evidence presented of assurance checks, and a significant condition report related to LC24 has not yet been actioned. Of the three pillars (plant, people and processes) related to operations, the processes pillar has been weakened. Having also reviewed the Sellafield Ltd LC24 arrangements, I am also of the opinion that they require improving to meet the expectations of relevant good practice. I therefore rate the inspection as Amber, and will seek improvement.