Skip to content

Sellafield - Inspection ID: 53209

Executive summary

Date(s) of inspection: September 2024

Aim of inspection

The purpose of this inspection is to gain assurance that THORP is compliant with Sellafield’s arrangements for Licence Condition 10 (Training), Licence Condition 12 (Duly Authorised and Other Suitably Qualified and Experienced Persons) and Licence Condition 36 (Organisational Capability).

Subject(s) of inspection

  • LC10 - Training - Rating: Amber
  • LC12 - Duly authorised and other suitably qualified and experienced persons - Rating: Green
  • LC36 - Organisational capability - Rating: Green
  • Leadership & Management for Safety - Rating:

Key findings, inspector's opinions and reasons for judgement made

I, the site inspector for the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP), undertook a Licence Condition (LC) 10 (Training), LC 12 (DAPs and SQEPs) and LC36 (Organisational Capability) inspection at the Sellafield site. The inspection focused on seeking assurance that Sellafield Limited is compliant with its arrangements for LC10, 12 and LC36 at THORP. Overall, I found that THORP, with the exception of one area, was compliant with the arrangements. THORP demonstrated that current DAP and SQEP staff are compliant with LC12 and that the facility is largely compliant with LC36. I found that THORP did not meet expectations for LC10.

I identified one shortfall requiring regulatory attention: THORP's training system is not fit for purpose for new DAP and SQEP operators. I have raised a Level 3 Regulatory Issue (RI-12275) to track improvement of this issue.

Conclusion

I was satisfied that THORP is compliant with the Sellafield Ltd corporate arrangements and compliant with the requirements of LC12 and LC36. For LC12 and LC36, I consider an inspection rating of Green (no formal action) to be proportionate and appropriate. I also found that THORP was not fully compliant with LC10 (training). I have raised a level 3 regulatory issue to address the matter RI-12275. As the shortfall is related to operations and the gap is considerable, I consider an inspection rating of Amber to be proportionate and appropriate. The Head of Operations accepted my findings and observations at the wash up meeting.