Executive summary
Date(s) of inspection:
September 2025
Aim of inspection
To judge the adequacy of DRDL's asset management arrangements and their implementation including reviewing the condition of the physical assets. The intervention with also consider site arrangements for compliance with the Pressure System Safety Regulations (PSSR) 2000.
Subject(s) of inspection
- Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations - Rating: Not rated
- Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) - Rating: Not rated
- PSSR - Rating: GREEN
Key findings, inspector's opinions and reasons for judgement made
The purpose of the inspection was to judge the adequacy of Devonport Royal Dockyard Limited’s (DRDL) asset management arrangements, its implementation of them and a review of the condition of its physical assets. The intervention also considered site arrangements for compliance with the Pressure System Safety Regulations (PSSR) 2000.
DRDL provided evidence that its asset management system is risk-informed and considers competing demands from different on site facilities alongside its financial constraints, to enable prioritisation of asset improvement activities.
DRDL demonstrated that its asset management system includes adequate provision to maintain operability of identified assets. I also saw evidence that it had made efforts to improve the physical condition of its plant, as demonstrated by the new diesel generator farm. However at the time of my inspection its extant long term asset management programme, was subject to recent budgetary changes and was soon to be replaced by an organisation wide asset management programme. Although development of the new programme is in its infancy, DRDL demonstrated that it had considered appropriate RGP and it had a proposed deployment schedule.
Due to the immaturity of DRDL’s asset management arrangements and therefore the limited nature of sampling I was able to undertake during the inspection, I did not have sufficient evidence to form a meaningful regulatory judgement and for this reason I provided ‘no rating’ to the inspection. To give regulatory confidence that the asset management improvement programme is being developed and implemented, a regular L4 engagement will be established.
I was satisfied that DRDL had effective arrangements in place to manage their immediate plant husbandry needs, they applied a risk based system that allotted resources to plant that was the highest risk, I am of the opinion this approach aligns to good practice.
As a result of regulatory intelligence suggesting pressure equipment management and PSSR compliance may be an industry wide weakness, I sampled DRDL’s arrangements. I found that the matters I sampled, including arrangements for implementation and control of plant isolations and senior management oversight of pressure equipment ownership, aligned with my regulatory expectations, therefore I judged DRDL’s pressure equipment management arrangements to be adequate.
Conclusion
The inspection findings were presented to DRDL at the close of the inspection. I judged that it was appropriate to assign ‘no rating’ to the inspection.
This is because the evidence sample size was insufficient to allow me to arrive at an adequately informed regulatory judgement. The limited evidence I did sample, including the SGDS, demonstrated that when applied, DRDL’s asset management arrangements could adequately manage risks to an identified asset’s capability to support reliable and safe operation. However due to recent and future changes to DRDL’s asset management arrangements, I was unable to obtain sufficient additional evidence of how DRDL’s asset management arrangements, were or were not aligned with my regulatory expectations.
In terms of pressure system management from the sampling undertaken I consider that the duty holder has provided adequate evidence that it has suitable and sufficient arrangements to demonstrate compliance with the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations.