Office for Nuclear Regulation

Hunterston A – Inspection ID: 52018

Executive summary

Date(s) of inspection:

  • November 2022

Aim of inspection

To assess the quality of the duty holder’s internal regulator, when they audit the consignment aspect of class 7 Dangerous Goods Transport.

Subject(s) of inspection

  • Transport (Nuclear) 1 Management Systems – Rating – Green

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

An evaluation of the process and rigour of a Class 7 Dangerous Goods audit was carried out at Hunterston A over the space of two days. The first day provided an understanding of the Magnox integrated management system, the relevant company standards and associated procedures, and the basis of the audit system the company use to check compliance with the said standards and procedures. The second day’s observation of the audit process, and subsequent analysis of the completed audit report allowed the manner in which the company carried out an audit of compliance with the relevant standard to be evaluated.

The inspection resulted in an opinion that the audit process was good, and through the audit Magnox could be assured that compliance at Hunterston A with the company consignment standard for the transport of Class 7 radioactive goods was ‘adequate’.

The following observations were made; there was evidence that transport is only considered at the latter part of project planning at site; pedestrian walkways and crossing points on the site are not adequately marked, giving rise to a risk of injury caused by vehicle movements. Magnox Radioactive Materials Transport (RMT) were also advised that the text of the audit checklist used to standardise transport audits across Magnox should be reviewed to check the correct use of open and closed questions, and that multiple questions should not be used.


I have formed the opinion that the audit was carried with sufficient rigour to justify the IO’s subsequent assessment of compliance with the company standard as being ‘adequate’. His assessment was justified by evidence collected both during the two days, and subsequent follow up work. I would rate the work of the IO as being ‘good’.

I am satisfied that the audit process carried out at Hunterson A was rigorous enough for the company to hold the opinion that the assurance standard for the Management and Implementation of the Company Audit, Inspection, and Review Programme (CAIR) was being followed during the audit.  Also, that Hunterston A was able to demonstrate that they were meeting the company standard for the transport of class 7 dangerous goods.