- Site: Sellafield
- IR number: 21-069
- Date: August 2021
- LC numbers: 28
Executive summary
Purpose of Intervention
In accordance with the Office for Nuclear Regulation’s (ONR’s) Sellafield Strategy, each year ONR performs a series of planned compliance inspections of selected licence conditions, targeted at those facilities with significant importance to nuclear safety.
This record describes the outcome from a planned compliance inspection at the Highly Active Liquor Evaporation and Storage (HALES) facility on the Sellafield Site. The purpose of the inspection was to confirm Sellafield Ltd’s compliance to its corporate arrangements for Licence Condition (LC) 28 (Examination, Inspection, Maintenance and Testing (EIMT)).
Interventions Carried Out by ONR
On 11 August 2021, I, a mechanical engineering specialist inspector, carried out a planned licence condition compliance inspection of the Highly Active Liquor Evaporation and Storage (HALES) Plant. The purpose of this inspection was for the ONR to determine the adequacy of implementation of the licensee’s formal arrangements for compliance with LC 28 (examination, inspection, maintenance and testing). This inspection comprised of discussions with Sellafield Ltd staff and reviews of plant records and other documentation.
Explanation of Judgement if Safety System Not Judged to be Adequate
This was not a system based inspection, and therefore no judgement has been made of the adequacy of implementation of any part of the safety case.
Key Findings, Inspector's Opinions and Reasons for Judgements Made
Prior to the LC 28 inspection, I undertook a review of the relevant Sellafield procedure against the ONR guidance document for LC 28, NS-INSP-GD-028 Revision 5. From the areas sampled, I did not identify any shortfalls in the licensee’s overall LC28 arrangements .
To judge the adequacy of the implementation of these arrangements, I asked Sellafield Ltd to explain how the facility manages non-delivery of scheduled maintenance. The maintenance manager was able to clearly articulate the process documented within the Sellafield Ltd procedures.
I was provided with the current list of non-delivered maintenance and sampled the justifications for key plant items. Sellafield Ltd was able to explain why these items had not been delivered and provided appropriate justification to demonstrate the continued safe operation of the plant.
I requested the training recorded for personnel involved in the approval of Plant Maintenance Schedule (PMS) non-delivery. Sellafield Ltd were unable to demonstrate that the persons who are currently responsible for preparing and justifying non-delivery had undertaken the required training. Therefore, I raised L4 regulatory issue 8937.
I requested an overview of the asset management arrangements. Sellafield Ltd demonstrated how identified risks are incorporated within the asset management strategy. Sellafield Ltd detailed the processes undertaken to implement asset management. Sellafield Ltd provided evidence of how it is addressing identified asset risk. However, the Sellafield Asset Management database (SAMdb) was not kept up to date and did not consider the whole plant life cycle. I considered the findings represent a relatively minor deficiency. Therefore, I deemed regulatory advice appropriate.
Conclusion of Intervention
Based on the intervention evidence sampled at HALES in relation to LC 28, I judged that the licensee had effectively implemented its arrangements for compliance with the licence condition and have assigned an inspection rating of GREEN (no formal action required).