Date(s) of inspection:
Aim of inspection
The aim of this intervention was to seek assurance on the adequacy of the implementation of the safety case at the Advanced Gas Reactor Storage Pond.
Subject(s) of inspection
- LC 10 – Training – Rating: GREEN
- LC 23 – Operating rules – Rating: GREEN
- LC 24 – Operating instructions – Rating: GREEN
- LC 27 – Safety mechanisms, devices and circuits – Rating: GREEN
- LC 28 – Examination, inspection, maintenance and testing – Rating: GREEN
- LC 34 – Leakage and escape of radioactive material and radioactive waste – Rating: Not Rated
- Overall Inspection Rating – Rating: GREEN
Key findings, inspector’s opinions and reasons for judgement made
I, the Site Inspector for the Spent Fuel Services (SFS) Operating Unit, supported by specialist Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Fault Studies Inspectors, undertook a system based inspection (SBI) of the Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor Storage Pond (AGRSP) at the Sellafield Site. The AGRSP primarily stores spent AGR fuel ahead of transfer to long term interim storage elsewhere on the Sellafield Site. I found that SFS has implemented the safety case for the facility; for five of the licence conditions (LCs) inspected I have awarded Green ratings; however, for LC34 (Leakage and escape of radioactive material and radioactive waste), there was not enough evidence to rate this LC as there were no claims made on structures, systems or components at the plant; however I had no concerns about this LC in relation to Sellafield’s ability to contain radioactive material at this facility and detect any such escape. Regulatory advice was provided in several areas in relation to training requirements and compliance with the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998; and a level 4 (lowest level) regulatory issue has been raised to address a shortfall where system health reports had not completed their due process. Overall I awarded an inspection rating of Green (no formal action) for the SBI.
I am of the opinion that SFS has adequately implemented the safety case within the AGRSP; for five of the LCs I have awarded a Green rating (no formal action). For LC34 I have not rated the intervention as there were no claims made on structures, systems or components at the plant; however I had no concerns about this LC in relation to Sellafield’s ability to contain radioactive material at this facility and detect any such escape. I have raised one Level 4 regulatory issue (lowest level) in relation to the system health reports at the facility not completing due process as required by the Sellafield Ltd arrangements.