- Site: Urenco UK Ltd
- IR number: 21-030
- Date: June 2021
- LC numbers: 32, 33, 34
Executive summary
Purpose of Intervention
This inspection on the Urenco UK Ltd licensed site of activities undertaken by its tenant Urenco Nuclear Stewardship was part of a programme of planned interventions as outlined in the Urenco Capenhurst inspection plan for 2021/22. The scope of the inspection is aligned to the ONR Decommissioning, Fuel and Waste sub-division strategy and focussed on the effective management of radioactive waste. The inspection was carried out jointly with the Environment Agency.
Interventions Carried Out by ONR
During this inspection, I examined the arrangements made under Licence Conditions (LCs): 32 accumulation of radioactive waste; 33 disposal of radioactive waste; and 34 leakage and escape of radioactive material and radioactive waste.
I sought to gain evidence that:
- The licensee minimises waste accumulations on site, from operations and decommissioning activities, it adopts the established hierarchy for waste.
- The site has an up-to-date Integrated Waste Strategy.
- Effective radioactive waste management safety cases are in-place.
- Proposals for Waste Package design, where relevant, should align with relevant good practice.
- The licensee actively includes multi-agency dialogue on radioactive waste strategy.
The site visit concluded with a handover from the ONR Tails Management Facility Commissioning Project Officer to the ONR Site Inspector as the facility completes commissioning and becomes operational.
Explanation of Judgement if Safety System Not Judged to be Adequate
Not applicable.
Key Findings, Inspector's Opinions and Reasons for Judgements Made
I found that the licensee, Urenco UK Ltd, and the tenant, Urenco Nuclear Stewardship, were able to demonstrate adequate compliance through their procedures and written arrangements for LC32, LC 33 and LC 34.
The licensee and the tenant were able to provide a clear link between the local working instructions for LC 32 and the Urenco UK Ltd management arrangements for Capenhurst.
A physical inspection of the arrangements as implemented by both licensee and tenant were deemed to be adequate. The personnel interviewed were open, knowledgeable, and competent in their areas. The physical walk-downs showed a high-level of management control over operations: and good housekeeping, access control and signage.
The tenant is contracted by the licensee to manage the majority of radioactive waste on site and has a radioactive waste management safety case which was assessed as being adequate and uses waste package designs which were aligned with relevant good practice.
The licensee and the tenant were able to demonstrate that they minimise waste accumulations on site, from operations and decommissioning activities, they adopt the established hierarchy for waste based on defined disposal routes and waste acceptance certification for disposal. The site also has an up-to-date Radioactive Waste Management Case and an Integrated Waste Strategy.
The tenant and licensee were able to answer questions from both the ONR and the Environment agency in a clear and coherent manner and demonstrated their ability to undertake multi-agency dialogue on radioactive waste strategy.
Conclusion of Intervention
In my opinion, from the arrangements examined, the personnel interviewed, and the plant inspected, the licensee's arrangements for compliance with LC32, LC 33 and 34 were adequate, as was the licensee's oversight of its tenant’s activities and compliance with these licence conditions. I conclude that there are no matters that may impact significantly on nuclear safety.