Date(s) of inspection:
Aim of inspection
The purpose of this intervention is for ONR to seek assurance on the adequacy of the implementation of the safety case at the Fuel Handling Plant for Pond and Civil Structure Containment.
Subject(s) of inspection
- LC10 - Training - Rating - Green
- LC23 - Operating rules - Rating - Amber
- LC24 - Operating instructions - Rating - Green
- LC27 - Safety mechanisms, devices and circuits - Rating - Green
- LC28 - Examination, inspection, maintenance and testing - Rating - Green
- LC34 - Leakage and escape of radioactive material and radioactive waste - Rating - Green
Key findings, inspector's opinions and reasons for judgement made
The Fuel Handling Plant (FHP) at Sellafield is managed by the Spent Fuel Services Operating Unit. The pond (which comprises multiple ponds) within FHP is used to store various types of spent fuel including remnant MAGNOX and Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) fuel; the former for a (long term) interim period prior to final disposal, and the latter before and after dismantling and prior to interim storage elsewhere at Sellafield. The pond is a large structure (circa 27,000m3) and the scope of this system-based inspection was to determine the adequacy of the implementation of the safety case for the pond and pond hall structures.
I found that personnel were trained and appointed where necessary, and operating instructions were adequate (with some minor issues) and had been maintained in accordance with the site's established arrangements. Safety mechanisms, devices and circuits had been identified in the safety case and were being maintained. The pond is generally in good condition and leak detection and secondary containment systems are available. Civil inspections are being undertaken and Sellafield Ltd is acting upon the recommendations within the resultant reports.
However, there was no evidence that Sellafield Ltd has identified all the conditions and limits necessary in the interests of safety for the pond. I was unable to identify pond temperature and level requirements within the safety case (relevant to the pond structure), and there was ambiguity amongst operators on what the appropriate conditions and limits were in these areas. Consequently, I have rated one element of the inspection (LC23 - Operating rules) as Amber (seek improvement) and will follow up on this by way of a regulatory issue.
While on plant, I identified that housekeeping was below the standard I expect, and I have provided advice on this matter to the Licensee.
The majority of the safety case sampled for this inspection covered engineered preventative measures, and I was satisfied that these had been implemented; as a result, I am satisfied that overall, the structures and associated systems adequately fulfil the requirements of the safety case.
Conclusion
I am content that for LCs 10, 24, 27, 28 and 34 a Green rating (no further action) is appropriate; for some minor observations regulatory advice was provided. However, for LC23 I found that Sellafield Ltd was not meeting relevant good practice and have rated this element of the inspection as Amber (seek improvement); a Level 3 regulatory issue (RI) has been raised and the shortfalls will be managed by way of this RI.
The majority of the safety case sampled for this inspection covered engineered preventative measures, and I was satisfied that these had been implemented; as a result, I am satisfied that overall, the structures and associated systems adequately fulfil the requirements of the safety case.