( Office for Nuclear Regulation PROJEGT ASSESSMENT REPORT [Unique Document ID and [ONR-COP-PAR-16-030 eon Revco [rem et orien Proj JAsbestos management interventions at Magnox Wyjfa site: IMagnox Wyita [Basis of enforcement decision following an ONR intervention CA reviewing the arrangements for managing asbestos at the IMagnox Wylta site on the 14 December 2016 and 9 February 2017. Licence instrument No: IN applicable | applicable) Nuclear Site Licence No: Not applicable lLicence Condit Not applicable Document Acceptance and Approval for Issue / Publication es Sto 27" February 017 Reviewer 28" February 017 Jaccepied by" / arch 2017 lAporoval fr fas March 2017 Jpubicaton® Revision History car By Pee Cio PO) oy cat for peer review [28 February 2017 rg DL comments Acceptance ofthe PAR to allow release of LI * Approvals for pubicaton on ONR web-site, after redaction where relevant ‘Tenplt Ret ONR-0OC-TEMP-05 Rven 11 Page $15evo onn.cor pan-seve Fist acoepied seve Circulation (latest issue) ‘Organisation fice for Nuctear Regulation (cafe Moar Reston Name 29tn March 2017 summary ony) ICHS Regulatory Suppor for fling |SOFW Regulatory Support [Saved to TRIM folder 4.3.602.sonmnamnaayeen Asbestos management interventions at Magnox Wyifa Basis of enforcement decision following an ONR intervention reviewing the ments for managing asbestos at the Magnox Wylfa site on the 14” December 2016 and 9" February 2017. Project Assessment Report ONR-COP-PAR-16-030 ‘29th March 2017 © Office for Nuclear Regulation, 2017 I you wish to reuse this information visit wow onr.ora.uk/coovright for details. ‘For published documents, the elecronic copy on the ONR website remains the most current publicly ‘valle version and copying or printing renders this document uncontried. (oe or ce Reguston Page 3.015EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction ‘This Project Assessment Report (PAR) details ONR's basis for the enforcement decision taken following an ONR intervention reviewing the arrangements for managing asbestos at the Magnox Wylfa site on the 14th December 2016 and Sth February 2017. It is my opinion that Magnox Ltd, (MxL) has failed to ensure the written plan for managing the risk presented by any asbestos known or liable to be present at the Wyifa site includes adequate measures for ‘+ monitoring the condition of any asbestos or any substance containing or suspected of containing asbestos; and ‘© ensuring any asbestos or any such substance is properly maintained or where necessary safely removed. AAs such, asbestos materials or substances suspected of containing asbestos were observed to be in a degraded condition during plant visits in December 2016 and February 2017, Its acknowledged that MxL has established arrangements in place to manage risks arising from the presence of asbestos containing materials located at the Wylfa site. However, itis my pinion that these arrangements are not appropriate for the nature and extent of known and presumed asbestos materials located at the Wylfa site. ii, Legislative Requirements ‘The principal pieces of legislation that apply are the: + Sections 2 & 3 of the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; * Regulations 3 & 5 of the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999; + Regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 (CAR 2012). General legal requirements to assess risk and have appropriate health and safety arrangements are placed by regulations 3 & 5 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 199, This legislation requires MxL. to consider the nature of its activities when making appropriate arrangements to manage its risks. Regulation 4 CAR 2012 covers the duty to manage asbestos in non-domestic premises. It requires dulyholders to identify the location and condition of asbestos in non-domestic premises and to ‘manage the risk to prevent harm to anyone who works on the building or to building occupants. The Health & Safety Executive has also published L143 “Managing and working with asbestos - Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 - Approved Code of Practice and Guidance’. L143 is a wellknown and well-established publication that gives practical advice (on how to comply with the legislative requirements. Background On the 14 December 2016 and the 9" February 2017 known or presumed ACMs identified by MxL as ‘high risk’ were seen in a number of locations around the Turbine Hall and Reactor Building at the Wyifa site. A variety of materials were seen ranging from debris to pipe insulation in both accessible and inaccessible areas. The condition of the known or presumed ‘ACMSs was variable. Magnox Wylfa has an extensive and ongoing air monitoring programme to provide reassurance that airborne asbestos fibres are not present in these locations. Work is underway or planned to remove, repair or enclose known or presumed ACM in the Turbine Hall. However, Magnox was not in a position to articulate similar action for materials within the Reactor Building. These observations lead me to consider Magnox Ltd. is not currently taking ors‘appropriate action to ensure any known or presumed asbestos is properly maintained in a ‘good state of repair, or where necessary safely removed, Examples of materials were seen that did not reflect the designated risk scoring applied by analysts working on behalf of Magnox. Some materials were seen that were in a better ‘condition than their risk score indicated. Conversely, other materials were observed that would ‘merit high risk scores, but did not appear to be included in the site's list of high risk asbestos. materials. As a result, Magnox Wylfa cannot currently place full confidence on the scoring system used within asbestos risk assessments {6 inform risk profiling and prioritisation of actions. ‘The site has a written plan which is required to have adequate measures that need to be put into effect to manage the risk presented by known or presumed asbestos, The Wylfa asbestos management plan makes reference to inspection frequencies for ACMs classed as low and medium risk, but does not include adequate measures for monitoring the condition of materials classed as high risk. The asbestos management plan states that immediate action should be taken to reduce the risk presented by high risk ACMSs. The plan also refers to the use of restricted access areas. Examples of restricting access {0 locations where, high risk ‘ACMs are located were seen during the site visits. The use of restricted access areas does ‘not manage ACMs in accordance with the relevant legistation and does not remove the need for monitoring the condition of ACMs within these areas. Lasily, the asbestos management plan does not vary inspection frequency according to risk. Therefore, it is my opinion that the written plan for managing the risk presented by known or presumed ACMs at the Wylfa site requires reviewing and revising. Iv. Basis for Enforcement Decision CONR's Enforcement Management Model and associated guidance have been applied to the inspection shortfalls cited within the PAR. An EMM1 form has been completed and the risk gap for single casualties is identified to be ‘substantial When the legislative standards to be achieved are taken into account in conjunction with the risk ‘gap, an initial enforcement expectation of an improvement Notice’ is identified. However, Mx have relevant enforcement history at the Wyifa site as an enforcement letter regarding asbestos management was sent to MxL in 2016. As a result, the EMM indicates the ‘appropriate enforcement action should be escalated (when taking into account dutyholder factors). ‘Therefore, following application of duty holder and strategic factors, the indicated enforcement action is an Improvement Notice and consideration of prosecution. However, the Wylfa inspection forms part of ONR's ongoing Magnox corporate intervention which aims to secure long-term, sustained compliance of asbestos management. It has become clear that the nature and extent of the asbestos management challenges Magnox is facing across all of its sites is significant. Consequently, Magnox Ltd. has a significant amount of ‘catch up’ work to do in order to get into a position where it has H&S arrangements in place that are appropriate for the nature of activities and size of undertaking, ‘Therefore, it s considered that targetted enforcement below prosecution in this case provides a proportionate regulatory response which will inform the overall consideration of Magnox organisational performance, in relation to asbestos management, across al fits undertaking. This facilitates a one-ONR approach of considering any potential impacts of action on Magnox C35 plans (Le. including nuciear safety). v. Conclusions (cf Noea Reg Page otssereetnitaeas Whilst Magnex Ltd. has already committed to address some of the issues identified above, | remain concerned at the condition of some of the ACMS at the Wyifa site and that MxL. has not taken timely action to act on the specialist advice provided by its own personnel. This lack of action, despite specialist advice and previous relevant enforcement history indicates there are Underlying management issues that need to be identified and resolved. MxL has also recognised this and has instigated its own investigations to establish the root causes. | conclude that there are apparent breaches of a number of legal duties. Having applied the ONR EMM to my inspection findings, | conclude that itis appropriate to take formal enforcement action. vi. Recommendations The following action is proposed: 4. An Improvement Notice is issued citing breaches against the lagislation referred to in Section 5 ofthis report. Appendix 1 of this PAR lists the elements that should be Considered for inclusion in the Schedule. 2. The covering lett issued with the Improvement Notico seeks confirmation as to action taken, o planned by Magnox Lid. to consider how the findings of the Wyifa visit will be considered and addressed at an organisational level 3. ONR neads to engage with MxL to discuss timings for the improvements necessary to ‘comply with the Improvement Notice. Any underpinning regulatory action will need to include evidence of progress against the key actions being submitted to ONR at suitable intervals - to demonstrate progress towards full delivery ofthe Improvement Notice work by ts due date. 4, ONR needs to engage with Mxl. to establish whether action is required by Mxl. as an organisation to address any similar findings across the twelve sites. (Mix. is developing an improvement programme and action plan to set and ensure compliance with appropriate standards at the Wylfa site. The schedule attached to the Improvement Notice should take this improvement programme and action plan into account. ‘Once the review and any necessary revision is complete, the measures specified in the reviewed plan should be implemented by MxL. ONR will need to closely monitor progress on this aspect of the arrangements.sone TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1. INTRODUCTION... 2. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS... 3. _ DESCRIPTION OF OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING AN INSPECTION. UNDERTAKEN AT MAGNOX LTD.'S WYLFA SITE IN DECMEBER 2016/FEBRUARY 2017. 10 4, ACTION TAKEN BY MAGNOX LTD. At 5. IDENTIFICATION OF BREACHES. ven “M4 6 APPLICATION OF ONR’S ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT MODEL.........11 7. CONCLUSIONS, INCLUDING PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION......--.12 8 REFERENCES. 14 APPENDIX 1 15 (cer Nea Regulation4 INTRODUCTION 41.1 This Project Assessment Report (PAR) details ONR’s basis for the enforcement decision taken following an ONR intervention reviewing the arrangements for managing asbestos at the Magnox Wyifa site on the 14th December 2016 and 9th February 2017. It is my opinion that Magnox Ltd. (MxL) has falled to ensure its written plan for managing the risk presented by any asbestos known of liable to be present at the Wyifa site inciudes adequate measures for monitoring the condition of any asbestos or any substance containing or suspected of containing asbestos; and ensuring any asbestos or any such substance is properly maintained ‘or where necessary safely removed. Asbestos materials or substances suspected of containing asbestos were observed to be in a degraded condition during plant visits in December 2016 and February 2017. [Refs. 15 - 17] 1.2 It Is acknowledged that Mxl. has established arrangements in place to manage risks arising from the presence of asbestos containing materials located at the Wyla site. (Refs. 10, 11 & 14] However, itis my opinion that these arrangements are not appropriate for the nature and extent of the asbestos materials (known and presumed) located at the Wyifa site. 2 LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 2.1 The principal pieces of legisiation that apply are the: * Sections 2 & 3 of the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; Regulations 3 & 5 of the Management of Health & Safely at Work Regulations 1999; ‘= Regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 (CAR 2012). 22 General legal requirements to assess risk and have appropriate health and safety arrangements are placed by regulations 3 & 5 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Rogulations 1999. This legislation requires MxL to consider the nature ofits activities when making ‘appropriate arrangements to manage its risks. 2.3 Regulation 4 CAR 2012 covers the duty to manage asbestos in non-domestic premises. It requires dutyholders to identify the location and condition of asbestos in non-domestic premises ‘and to manage the risk to prevent harm to anyone who works on the building or to building ‘occupants. 2.4 The Health & Safety Executive has also published L143 “Managing and working with asbestos - Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 — Approved Code of Practice and Guidance’ [Ref. 1]. L143 is a well-known and well-established publication that gives practical advice on how to comply with the legislative requirements, 2.4 L143 sets out how duty holders should comply with their legal duties. If duty holders follow the ‘advice within the L143 ACOP they are considered to be doing enough to comply with the law in respect of those specific matters on which the ACOP gives advice. 2.5 The paragraphs of the L143 ACOP most relevant to this enforcement decision are paragraphs 412 (what dutyholders must do to comply with the law), 120 (Assessing the condition of ACMs), 130 (Actioning the management plan) and 143 & 144 (reviewing and updating the management plan). Paragraph 112 sets out the main legal duties with regards to asbestos management, 2.6 The requirements arising from these ACOP paragraphs are shown ‘below with the most relevant sections of the ACOP paragraphs for this particular enforcement decision identified in italics. In addition, paragraphs 121 - 128 of L143 provide guidance on assessing the potential risk from ACMs, [ACOP paragraph text fice for Neer Ropdsion12 120 (@) reasonabie steps are taken to find materials in premises likely to contain asbestos| land to check their condition; (b) materials are presumed to contain asbestos unless ther they do not; (c) a written record of the location and condition of asbestos andlor presumed ACM is| imade and that the record is kept up to date; (a) the risk of anyone being exposed to these materials is assessed, (@) a written plan to manage that risk is prepared and that the plan is put into effect to) ‘make sure that: is strong evidence that’ + any material known or presumed to contain asbestos is kept in a good state of reparr; ‘+ any material that contains or is presumed to contain asbestos is, because of| the risks associated with its location or condition, repaired and adequately| protected or, iit is in a vulnerable position and cannot be adequately repaired| or protected, itis removed; ‘+ information on the location and condition of the material is given to anyone| who is liable to disturb itor is otherwise potentially at risk. The condition of ACMs should be assessed. The assessment should take account of the] 'ype of ACM, the amount and its condition. This will determine its potential to release| lasbestos fires into the air, if disturbed. The assessment should consider the following: ‘= Is the surface of the material damaged, frayed or scratched? ‘+ Are the surface sealants peeling or breaking off? ‘+ _[s the material becoming detached from its base? (This is a particular problem with pipe and boiler lagging and sprayed coatings.) ‘Are protective coverings, designed to protect the material, missing or damaged? Js there asbestos dust or debris from damage near the material? 130 The dutyholder should ensure that the plan is implemented to manage the risks. Tho laction plan should: ‘+ prioritise the actions identified; ‘= give high priority to damaged material and materials likely to be disturbed; these Will need to be repaired, sealed, enclosed protectively or removed using trained and competent personnel 143 [As a minimum, the management plan, including records and drawings, should be reviewed| levery 12 months. it should also be reviewed if there is reason to believe tha Iciccumstances have changed (eg there is a change of use of building, work being| lundertaken, ACMs removed or repaited etc). The plan, including records and drawings, | [should then be updated accordingly. 144 [Any identified or suspected ACM must be inspected and its condition assessed| |periodically, to check that it has not deteriorated or been damaged. The frequency of inspection wil depend on the location of the ACMs and other factors which could affect their condition, og the actwvities in the building, non-occupancy ete. There will also be levents or changes, eg maintenance work, new tenants or employees, that should also| Itrigger a review of the plan. 2.8 The precautions identified in the above table clearly demonstrate that a combination of risk Control measures is required to manage asbestos risks, To meet these duties MxL already has a umber of established control measures for managing the asbestos risks at the Wyifa site. 3. DESCRIPTION OF OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING INTERVENTIONS UNDERTAKEN AT MAGNOX LTD.’S WYLFA SITE IN DECEMBER 2016 ~ FEBRUARY 2017. 3.1 Key observations (and associated ONR opinion) relevant to this enforcement decision are cited in the remainder of this section. However, ONR Contact Record ONR-COP-CR-16-317 ce fer Near Reguon PomIref. 6] and ONR Intervention Record ONR-COP-IR-16-071 ref. 7] and their supporting documents provide further detail in terms of the observations made during visits to site on the 14” December 2016 and 9” February 2017 3.2 The Wylfa site has a large inventory of materials known or presumed to be asbestos ‘containing. Approximately 75% of the items Identified are presumed to contain asbestos as they haven't been sampled, but (in accordance with CAR 2012) are designated suspected ACMs. [ref.18] 3.3 The Wylfa lead asbestos competent person has previously explained that he does not have confidence in the standard of ACM stripping carried out prior to 2005. Therefore, there are numerous presumed ACMs where asbestos residues may be present beneath more recently applied non-asbestos pipe lagging. There is a statement in the site asbestos management plan that states ‘....all applied insulation must be considered fo be asbestos or asbestos contaminated’ {ref.14i]. This approach is in accordance with the legislative requirements and is supported by ONR. However, the site's risk assessment methodology does not appear to differentiate between possible asbestos residues under non-asbestos pipe insulation and asbestos pipe insulation. This in turn impacts inventory risk profiling and MxL's ability to prioritise actions. 3.4 Examples of materials were seen that did not reflect the designated risk score applied by analysts working on behalf of Magnox. Some materials were seen that were in a better condition than ther risk score indicated. Conversely, other materials were observed that would merit a high risk score, but did not appear to be included in the site's list of high risk asbestos materials. {refs.12 and 16] In addition, validation of the risk scores does not appear to be routinely undertaken by Magnox. As a result, Magnox Wylfa cannot currently place full confidence on the scoring system used within asbestos risk assessments to inform risk profiling and prioritsation of actions. 3.5. Known or presumed ACMs classed by Magnox as ‘high risk’ were seen in a number of locations around the Turbine Hall and Reactor Building. A variety of ACMs were seen ranging from debris to pipe insulation in both accessible and inaccessible areas. The condition of the ‘ACMSs was variable. Magnox Wyifa has an extensive and ongoing air monitoring programme to provide reassurance that airborne asbestos fibres are not present in these locations. Work is underway or planned to remove, repair or enclose presumed ACMs in the Turbine Hall However, Magnox was not in a position to articulate similar action for ACMs within the Reactor Building. These observations lead me to consider Magnox Ltd. is not currently taking ‘appropriate action to ensure any known or presumed asbestos is properly maintained in a ‘good state of repair, or where necessary safely removed. 3.6 Photographs of examples of known or presumed ACMs have been taken, {rofs. 1 & 16) In addition, MxL has photographs of ACMs captured on the E-locate database used to form the asbestos register for each site. Copies of selected information have been obtained [ref.17]. Some of the photographs seen, while of variable quality, clearly show damage to ‘materials known or presumed to be ACMs. 3.7 The Wylfa asbestos management plan makes reference to inspection frequencies for ACMs classed as low and medium risk, but does not include adequate measures for ‘monitoring the condition of materials classed as high risk. The asbestos management plan states that immediate action should be taken to reduce the risk presented by high risk ACMs. However, in some instances the action taken by MxL includes restricting access to locations. where high risk ACMs are located. Several examples of areas were seen. These do not remove the need for monitoring the condition of ACMs within these areas. Lastly, the asbestos ‘management plan does not vary inspection frequency according to risk. 3.8 | consider the observations cited in 3.2 - 3.4 compromise MxL's ability to undertake ‘accurate risk profiling. This subsequently impacts on MxL's ability to identify (and implement) fice ox Net Reason Page 100115adequate measures to be taken in order to manage the risk presented by known or presumed ‘ACMs at the Wylfa site, as evidence by the observations summarised in sections 3.5 and 3.6, 4, ACTION TAKEN BY MAGNOX LTD. 4.1 ML was aware of the deficiencies relating to the condiion of ACMs prior to the ONR inspection refs. 111 and il] and has committed to improve asbestos management at both site and corporate level. A corporate improvement plan has been developed by MXL, [ref.13] A significant ‘amount of resource is also being committed by Magnox to suppor the improvement plan 4.2 The commitments provided by Mx are welcome. However, the findings previously described. are such that despite MxL’s commitments, the Enforcement Management Model (EMM) suggests that regulatory expectations should be communicated in the form of an Improvement Notice. The factors that lead me to this conclusion are summarised in the following sections. 5, IDENTIFICATION OF BREACHES 5.1 From reviewing the documents provided by MxL and my observations made on the 14” December 2016 and 9" February 2017, | have determined the following + The Wyifa asbestos management plan does not specify adequate measures for: + identifying priorities for action when managing the risks presented by known or presumed ACMs, given the number of materials located at the Wylfa site that are resumed to contain asbestos. = monitoring the condition of any asbestos or any substance containing or suspected of containing asbestos. ~ ensuring any asbestos or any such substance is properly maintained or where necessary safely removed. +A review (and where necessary revision) of the associated Magnox Wyifa asbestos management plan is required. 5.2.Asa resull, | am ofthe opinion that Mx has breached the following legislation: i. Hoaith & Safety at Work etc Act 1974, sections 2(1) and 3(1) ii, Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, regulation 4(8)(a) and (b) i, Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, regulation 6(1) APPLICATION OF ONR'S ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT MODEL 6.1 ONR’s EMM and associated guidance [Ref. 2] have been applied to the inspection ‘observations cited within this PAR. An EMM1 form has been completed. [Ref.8] 62 The ‘actual’ consequence within the EMM 1 form is considered to be ‘serious’ and the likelinood ‘remote’. HSE has published guidance for regulators that assists with determining ‘consequence and likelinood for asbestos, Operational Circular 265/50 ‘Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 - General enforcement guidance and advice’ [ref. 9] The benchmark ‘consequence (/.e. where the duty holder is supposed to be) is considered to be ‘serious’ with the ‘corresponding likelihood identified as ‘il’. The risk gap (applying the EMM table for single casualty hazards) is therefore ‘substantial 6.3 When the aforementioned legislative standards are taken into account in conjunction with this. risk gap, the intial enforcement expectation is an ‘Improvement Notice’ 6.4 The EMM requires duty holder factors relating to Magnox be considered. These may change (either increase or reduce the severity) the intial enforcement expectation. In this instance, there is Felevant recent enforcement action taken against Magnox at the Wylfa site, including an ‘enforcement letter sent in January 2016 requiring improvements to Wyifa's asbestos management fica for Nl Rein Paarrangements to be made, [ref. 5]. ONR Intervention record ONR-COP- IR-15-66 provides further dotalls regarding the observations that led to the leter being sent [ref 4] 65 The EMM identifies (after consideration of duly holder factors) that the appropriate fenforcement action prior to applying strategic factors is to consider prosecution, in addition to ‘serving an Improvement Notice. 6.8 The EMM also requires strategic factors be considered to determine whether wider factors. merit any change (to either increase or reduce the severity) in the enforcement action. 6.9 | have not been provided with any information by Magnox Ltd. or ONR that impacts on the strategic factor considerations. It is known that defueling at the Wyifa site is of key interest to ONR as it impacts on fuel reprocessing activites at Sellafeld Ltd. and in turn Sollafield Ltd.'s abiliy to deliver hazard and risk reduction activities at the Sellafield site. However, | have not seen, or been provided with any information to indicate that wider socio-political impacts arising from the enforcement action need to be taken into account. 6.10 | consider there are no EMM strategic factors that prompt a change to the indicated ‘enforcement action and the functional impact of enforcement action is judged to be acceptable. Lastly, | note the enforcement decision is consistent with HSE's enforcement approach and appears to meets ONR's Enforcement Policy Statement principles of targeting, proportionality, consistency, accountability and transparency (ref. 3]. Therefore, folowing application of EMM duty. holder and strategic factors, the indicated enforcement action is increased to an Improvement Notice and consideration of prosecution. However, the EMM strategic factors do not take into ‘account the following: ‘+ The Wyifa inspection forms part of ONR’s ongoing Magnox corporate intervention which ‘aims to secure long-term, sustained compliance of asbestos management. Ithas become: clear that the nature and extent of the asbestos management challenges Magnox is facing ‘across all ofits sites is significant - Magnox Ltd. currently has a large asbestos inventory ‘across the 12 sitos it manages and each site presents different challenges in respect of asbestos management. In the past regulatory focus has directed Magnox Ltd. to focus on bulk removal of asbestos and not holistic asbestos management according to risk. AS 2 result, Magnox Ltd, has not managed its remaining asbestos inventory with the samo rigour that i approached the bulk removal activities. Consequently, Magnox Ltd. has a significant amount of ‘catch up’ work to do — in order to get into a position where it has H&S arrangements in place that are appropriate forthe nature of activities and size of undertaking. + Therefore, it is considered that targetted enforcement below prosecution in this case provides a proportionate reguiatory response which will inform the overall consideration of Magnox organisational performance, in relation to asbestos management, across all of its Undertaking. This facilitates a one-ONR approach of considering any potential impacts of action on Magnox LC35 plans (0. including nuclear safety). Taking a holistic view of performance across ail sites requires consideration of any further, proportionate regulatory action against Magnox as an organisation, and provides room for potential escalation of such regulatory action if warranted and proportionate. A meeting is planned for the 28” March 2017 with a number of Magnox corporate personnel that will inform regulatory decision making on this point. ‘+ Additionally, this approach is commensurate with the approach of ONR prioritising limited CCHS resource towards ensuring that Magnox Lid. improves its overarching asbestos ‘management arrangements as this wil ulimately provide better protection for workers on the Magnox sites. 6.11 Further consideration as to whether regulatory action is required against Magnox Lid. as an ‘organisation is needed. A meeting is planned at the end of March 2017 with a number of Magnox corporate personnel that will inform regulatory decision making on this point. In addition, wider ‘questions arise for ONR with regards to ensuring that there is sufficient competent CHS inspectorresource to carry out one of ONR’s purposes, ie. regulate nuclear site health and safety. This is. already identified as an issue within ONR’s governance processes and remedial action is underway. However, ONR will not have sufficient CHS resource for the majority of 2017. 7. CONCLUSIONS, INCLUDING PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION 7.4 Whilst Magnox Ltd. has already committed to address some of the issues identified above, | remain concerned that the MxL. has not taken timely action to act on the specialist advice provided by its own personnel. This lack of action, despite specialist advice and previous relevant enforcement history indicates there are underlying management issues that need to be identified and resolved. MxL. has also recognised this and has instigated its own investigations to establish the root causes. 7.2 | conclude that there are apparent breaches of a number of legal duties. Having applied the CONR EMM to my inspection findings, ! conclude that itis appropriate to take formal enforcement action. The following action is proposed: 1. An Improvement Notice is issued citing breaches against the logislation referred to in Section 5 of this report. Appendix 1 of this PAR lists the elements that should be considered for inclusion in the Schedule. 2. ‘The covering letter issued with the Improvement Notice seeks confirmation as to action taken, or planned by Magnox Lid. to consider how the findings of the Wyifa visit will be considered and addressed at an organisational level 3. ONR needs to engage with Mal. to discuss timings for the improvements necossary to ‘comply with the Improvement Notice. Any underpinning regulatory action will need to include evidence of progress against the key actions being submitted to ONR at suitable intervals - to demonstrate progress towards full delivery of the Improvement Notice work by its due date. 4. ONR needs to engage with MxL to establish whether action is required by Mxl. as an ‘organisation to address any similar findings across the twelve sites, 5. Meetings to cover these points, and the impact of asbestos management on LC35 requirementsitimescales are scheduled for 27 and 28 March 2017. 7.3 As already noted, MxL is developing an improvement programme and action plan to set and ensure compliance with appropriate standards at the Wyifa site, The schedule attached to the Improvement Notice should take this improvement programme and action plan into account, 7.4 The timescales for delivery of the Improvement Notice schedule are anticipated to bo ‘approximately up to 6-9 months, due to the scale of the work required. Any related events ‘occurring during the compliance period will need to be considered by ONR on a case-by-case basis. 7.5 Onée the review and any necessary revision is complete, the measures specified in the reviewed plan should be implemented. ONR will need to closely monitor progress on this aspect of the arrangements, ce fr Niear Regn Page 130835sontbamaagee* 8, REFERENCES (including TRIM references - where applicable) 1, HSE publication L143 ‘Managing and working with asbestos - Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 ~ Approved Code of Practice and Guidance’, second edition. 2. ONR guidance document ‘The use of the Enforcement Management Model in ONR’, ON reference: NS-ENF-GD-002 Revision 5. 3, ONR’s Enforcement Policy Statement {httpshwinw.onrorg.ukldocuments/204/enforcement pokey statement. po 4, ONR Intervention record ONR-COP- IR-15-65: Inspection of arrangements for managing ACM ~ January 2016, (2016/18650) 5. Letter sent to Magnox Wylfa 25th January 2016, ONR-COP-CHS-16-23. (2016/32640) 6. ONR Contact Record ONR-COP-CR-16-317. (2016/504480) 7. ONR Intervention Record ONR-COP-IR-16-071: Magnox Ltd. Wyifa sit) Inspection of arrangements for managing asbestos containing materials. (2017/75408) 8. ONR EMMI form (February 2017), TRIM Ref, 2017/81396, 9. HSE Operational Circular 265/50 ‘Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 - General ‘enforcement guidance and advice Relevant documents provided by Magnox Lid, via e-mails and during visits June ‘16 — Febn 10. E-mail received June 2016 with Magnox Company Standard for asbestos management ref -267 attached, (2016/238650) 11. E-mail received 1 1th January 2017 with following attachments (2017/14236): |. Condition survey undertaken by Magnox Asbestos subject matter expert (SME) in March 2016; li, Condition survey undertaken by Magnox Asbestos subject matter expert (SME) in September 2016; il, Wylfa Asbostos Management improvement Plan, j2, 10.01.17 12, IM eotebook records, notebook 0171 13. E-mail received 2” February 2017 with the updated Magnox corporate improvement plan and explanatory report (2017/53271) 14. E-mail received 3rd February 2017 with following attachments (2017/62399): i. Wylfa Asbestos Management improvement Pian, vl 4.02.17: ii, Wylfa site asbestos register extract, scores 20 and above; it, Wyla asbestos management plan, issue 10. iv. Layout of nuclear licensed site, ref. SFO03, rev 66 15. Photographs taken during site visit 14” December 2016 (2017/80340) 16. Photographs taken during sto vist 9th February 2017 (2017162547 & 2017162548) 17, Scanned copy of information obtained from Magnox Wyifa E-locate asbestos register (2017/6248) 18. Schedule of presumed asbestos materials on the Magnox Wyifa site. (2017/62254) of gsi aor t5APPENDIX 1 — DRAFT IMPROVEMENT NOTICE SCHEDULE Compliance with this ntice may be achieved by completing EITHER itom 1 OR item 2: EITHER, 1 oR Review (and where necessary revise) the associated Magnox Wyifa asbestos management plan. In order to ensure the plan includes adequate measures fori. monitoring the condition of, ‘any asbestos or any substance containing or suspected of containing asbestos, and ii. ensuring any asbestos or any such substance Is properly maintained or where necessary safely ‘emoved, the review should consider (@ non-exhaustive list: (@) The nature and extont of materials located at the Wyifa site that are presumed to contain asbestos: (b) Whether a suitable and sufficient assessment of risk presented by any material known or presumed to contain asbestos is being caried out, given the numeer of materials located at the ‘Wyifa sito that are presumed to contain asbestos; Whether the plan includes adequate measures for priorities for action, given the number of materials located at the Wyfa site that are presumed to contain asbestos: ©) (@) The adequacy of current measures for keeping any material known or presumed to contain asbestos in a good stale of repair; including: |. How the measures included in the oxisting Wylfa asbestos management plan give high prionty to damaged material and materials likely to be disturbed: | How the measures included In the existing Wyifa asbestos management plan ensure that any ‘material that contains or is presumed to contain asbestos is, because of the risks associated with its location or condition, repaired and adequately protected or, if itis in a vulnerable position and cannot be adequately repaired or protected, itis removed; ©) The adequacy of measures currently within the plan to ensure any identified or suspected ACM identiied is inspected end its condition assessed periodically, to check that it has. not deteriorated or been damaged. This includes materials designated as ‘high risk notwithstanding ary action which may be taken to manage the risk. The frequency of inspection will depend on the location of the ACMs and other factors which could affect their condition, eg the activities in the bulding, non-occupancy ete. 2, Any other equally effective means of remedying the said contraventions, (fie for Nar Regt Page 160115