Contents

• Inspections
• Routine Matters
• Non Routine Matters
• Regulatory Activity

---

Foreword

This report is issued as part of the Health and Safety Executive's commitment to make information about inspection and regulatory activities relating to the above site available to the public. It is for distribution to members of the AWE Local Liaison Committee (LLC) and covers activities associated with the regulation of safety at the Aldermaston and Burghfield. These reports are distributed quarterly and are also available on the HSE’s web site at http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/llc/index.htm. Site Inspectors of HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate usually attend LLC meetings and will respond to questions raised there by members of the LLC. Any other person wishing to enquire about matters covered by this report may contact the HSE’s Nuclear Directorate on 0151-951-3484/3290.

Nuclear Directorate
Health and Safety Executive
Redgrave Court
Merton Road
Bootle
Merseyside
L20 7HS

---

[Back to top]

Inspections

1In order to provide as much information to the LLC as soon as possible, significant regulatory events through to 4 April 2008 have been included.

A total of 21 NII inspectors visited the Aldermaston and Burghfield sites during the quarter.  There were also visits from other HSE inspectors in relation to conventional safety and explosives.

NII inspections were made on the following dates:

January	7-11, 17, 21-25
February	13,14,18-22, 25
March	3-7, 10-13

[back to top]

---

Routine matters

Inspections are undertaken for the purpose of monitoring compliance with (i) the conditions attached by HSE to the nuclear site licences, and (ii) other relevant provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, including the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999.  NII assesses the licensee’s compliance2 by undertaking inspections of its corporate arrangements and the implementation of these across the facilities.  The complexity and extent of the arrangements and operations being controlled usually means that only a number of them can be sampled and examined on each occasion.  In this period routine planned inspections, against the nuclear site licence conditions, were carried out in a variety of buildings/ facilities, and included:

• Incidents on the Site – 13 facility inspections were carried out, of which 9 were considered to be adequate, 4 exhibited some weaknesses but showed the fundamental requirements had been met. 
• Modification or Experiment on existing plant  – 1 facility inspection was carried out indicating some weaknesses but showing that the fundamental requirements had been met.
• Control and Supervision of Operations –  5 facility inspections were carried out, of which 2 were considered to be adequate and 3 exhibited some weaknesses but showed the fundamental requirements had been met.
• Operating Rules – of 10 facility inspections carried out, 2 were considered to be adequate, 8 exhibited some weaknesses but showed the fundamental requirements had been met.
• Operating Instructions – of 6 facility inspections carried out, 5 were considered to be adequate, 1 exhibited some weaknesses but showed the fundamental requirements had been met.
• Examination, Inspection, Maintenance and Testing –  1 facility inspection which was considered to be adequate.
• Commissioning – 1 facility inspection was carried out and considered to be adequate.
• Control of organisational change - 7 facility inspections were carried out, 3 were considered to be adequate, 1 exhibited some weaknesses but showed the fundamental requirements had been met.  A corporate inspection was undertaken indicating some weaknesses but showing the fundamental requirements had been met.
• Duly Authorised and Suitably Qualified Persons – 6 facility inspections were carried out, 4 were considered to be adequate. 2 exhibited some weaknesses but showed the fundamental requirements had been met.
• Documents and Records – 2 facility inspections were carried out, 1 was considered adequate and 1 exhibited some weaknesses but showed the fundamental requirements had been met.  A corporate inspection was undertaken indicating some weaknesses but showing the fundamental requirements had been met.
• Training  - 4 facility inspections were undertaken, 3 were considered to be adequate, 1 exhibited some weaknesses but showed the fundamental requirements had been met.  A corporate inspection was undertaken indicating some weaknesses but showing the fundamental requirements had been met.
• Emergency Arrangements - 1 inspection was undertaken which focused on mustering and personnel accountancy, some weaknesses were identified but fundamental requirements were met.
• Safety Documentation – 1 corporate inspection was undertaken which was considered to be adequate.
• Periodic Review – 2 facility inspections were undertaken, 1 was considered to be adequate, 1 exhibited some weaknesses but showed the fundamental requirements had been met.  
• Quality Assurance – 1 facility inspection was undertaken which exhibited some weaknesses but showed the fundamental requirements had been met.  
• Safety Mechanisms, Devices and Circuits – 1 corporate inspection was undertaken which exhibited some weaknesses but showed the fundamental requirements had been met.
• Operational Records – 2 facility inspections were undertaken, 1 was considered adequate, 1 exhibited some weaknesses but showed the fundamental requirements had been met.  1 corporate inspection was undertaken which exhibited some weaknesses but showed the fundamental requirements had been met.
• Accumulation of Radioactive Waste – 2 facility inspections were undertaken which were considered adequate.
• Disposal of Radioactive Waste – 2 facility inspections were undertaken which were considered adequate.
• Leakage and Escape of Radioactive Materials etc. – 2 facility inspections were undertaken which were considered adequate.
• Ionising Radiations Regulations – 1 facility inspection was undertaken which exhibited some weaknesses but showed the fundamental requirements had been met.

Where potential improvements were identified, during the above inspections, these were brought to the attention of the licensee and these are now being actively pursued.  In some cases discussions with the licensee have been underway for some time.

2 The conditions attached to the Nuclear Site Licence require the licensee to make and implement “adequate” arrangements.  Since this is the word used in the legislation it is therefore the word normally used by NII inspectors to indicate that the requirements of the law have been met.  It should not therefore be construed as meaning a poor or barely acceptable performance has been achieved.

---

[Back to top]

Non-routine matters

Periodic Review of Safety

In accordance with our procedures, NII has provided AWE with the findings of its assessment of the A45 Periodic Review of Safety (PRS) before it issues its decision on the assessment outcome.  We continue to monitor progress in the implementation of reasonably practicable improvements identified in the PRS and will take this into account in our decision.

Burghfield

Inspections undertaken at AWE Burghfield showed substantial improvements being noted for compliance against LC 7, incidents on the site.

Progress with addressing PRS shortfalls is continuing.  In line with its permissioning strategy, NII has issued a Licence Instrument to permission AWE to undertake live operations in certain identified buildings at Burghfield following demonstration of satisfactory progress against a schedule of agreed deliverables.

Improvement notice

Following two recent breaches of criticality Operating Rules, NII served an Improvement Notice on AWE on 3rd April 2008.  In order to achieve the necessary improvement in criticality Operating Rules and Operating Instructions NII has been in discussion with AWE.  These discussions identified improvements for a number of key processes needed to be made and a completion date of January 19th 2009 was set.  NII is satisfied that there is no immediate risk from criticality at AWE and continues to ensure that the risks from all activities are maintained As Low As Reasonably Practicable.

VIPER

Viper was shutdown on 31/10/07 for refuelling and to undertake safety enhancements identified by the Periodic Review of Safety ;(PRS). Subsequent to this NII was informed that AWE had taken the decision, as part of the strategic options review, that Viper would not restart and and as a result work on the safety improvements identified in the PRS and safety case has effectively ceased. However in the meantime facility management at Viper has been given the opportunity to present a business case for continued operation as part of the options study.  We understand this is expected to take between 3 to 6 months to complete. NII has written to AWE, reiterating some of the important issues identified by the PRS that need to be considered in the business case. If the facility does remain shutdown discussions will be held to determine options and timescales for decommissioning.

---

[Back to top]

Regulatory activity

As part of its regulation under the nuclear site licences NII issues formal regulatory documents called Licence Instruments.  These utilise the primary licence condition powers of `Consent', 'Approval', 'Direction', 'Specification', 'Notification' and 'Agreement' as well as those powers derived from the licensee's arrangements.  The following Licence Instrument was issued during the period of this report.

LI509  Agreement was given to undertake live operations within a facility at Burghfield.  4/4/2008