Executive summary
Date(s) of inspection
- September 2026
Aim of inspection
In accordance with the Office for Nuclear Regulation’s (ONR’s) Sellafield Strategy, each year ONR performs a series of planned inspections to seek assurance of compliance against selected licence conditions, targeted at those facilities with significant importance to nuclear safety, security and safeguards. One such inspection was undertaken at Special Nuclear Materials Value Stream South facilities (SNM (S)) on the Sellafield site in West Cumbria specifically focusing on the receipt operations of packages from MOX Demonstration Facility (MDF) Lab L to the Dounreay Exotics Storage Facility (DESF) in Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP).
This was a joint nuclear safety, safeguards (compliance with The Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (NSR19)), and security inspection (The Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003 (NISR 2003) Regulation 7 (maintenance of security)). This inspection record covers the nuclear safety aspect of the inspection which sampled evidence of implementation of Sellafield Limited's arrangements for compliance with Licence Condition (LC) 6 (Documents, records, authorities and certificates), 24 (Operating instructions), 25 (Operational records) and 26 (Control and supervision of operations) in order to inform a regulatory judgement regarding the licensee’s compliance with its legal duties under the nuclear site licence.
Separate inspection records cover the other purposes.
Subject(s) of inspection
- LC6 - Documents, records, authorities and certificates - Rating: Amber
- LC24 - Operating instructions - Rating: Amber
- LC25 - Operational records - Rating: Amber
- LC26 - Control and supervision of operations - Rating: Green
Key findings, inspector's opinions and reasons for judgement made
The inspection was undertaken on 16 and 17 September 2026 by the SNM site inspector, a human and organisation capability specialist inspector, a safeguards inspector and a security inspector. The inspection was also attended by the deputy head of operations for Sellafield Operations.
This was a joint inspection with nuclear safety, safeguards and security purposes. This inspection record captures the salient points of the nuclear safety inspection pertinent to DESF receipt operations of packages from Lab L. The inspection records for the safeguards and security purposes are captured in IR-54708 and in IR-54162, respectively.
The planned inspection targeted compliance against Licence Condition (LC) 6 (Documents, records, authorities and certificates), 24 (Operating instructions), 25 (Operational records) and 26 (Control and supervision of operations), specifically for receipt operations of packages from Lab L to DESF.
The inspection involved a planning phase and a site visit, which included discussions with relevant Sellafield Limited personnel, review of records, sampling of information, and a plant walkdown.
From a mixture of sampling records and discussions with Sellafield Limited personnel, I concluded the following:
No significant matters were identified that required immediate regulatory attention.
In relation to LC6, I judge that the lack of a Quality Plan to define the controlling documentation, operational records for each safety significant process step, and responsible personnel is a gap against LC6 (1) and (2). I, therefore, am of the opinion that the required standard of compliance with the expectations of LC6 have not been met and I will seek improvement in this area.
In relation to LC24, I judge that the use of the current Operator Instructions can be confusing and misleading to the operators and potentially set pitfalls that could contribute to future operator errors. I, therefore, am of the opinion that the required standard of compliance with the expectation of LC24 (1) and (4) have not been met and I will seek improvement in this area.
In relation to LC25, I judge that the Can Database provides suitable records of the amount and location of radioactive material in DESF. However, there were no records available for various safety significant operations. I, therefore, am of the opinion that the required standard of compliance with the expectation of LC25 (1) have not been met and I will seek improvement in this area.
In relation to LC26, I was assured that the Control and Supervision Organisation Baseline has completed its due process at properly constituted meetings of the local MSC. I sampled the certificate of appointments of those delivering control and supervision on the inspection dates and confirmed that those undertaking control and supervision activities have been appropriately appointed. Notwithstanding the shortfalls identified against LC6, 24 and 25, I obtained assurance from the rostered duty DAP that all receipt operations from Lab L are appropriately controlled and supervised.
The licensee responded positively to the findings of the inspection and immediately initiated work to address the shortfalls.
Conclusion
On the basis of the evidence sampled, at the time of the inspection, I found several significant anomalies with regard to LC6, 24, and 25 specific to receipt of packages from Lab L to DESF operations.
Taking all of the above into account, and noting the ONR guidance on inspection ratings, it is my opinion that, on balance, inspection ratings of Amber for LC6, 24 and 25, and Green for LC26 are merited here.
For the LC6, 24 and 25 Amber rating, I will raise an enforcement letter to seek improvement in this area (see ENF-01106).
The licensee responded positively to the findings of the inspection and immediately initiated work to address the shortfalls.