Argument A1.2.2.1.7.1.1 A hazard identification and analysis has been performed supported by the use of simulation models as necessary to identify possible accident sequences. Worst case consequences have been identified.

• Supports Claim: C1.2.2.1.7.1 The hazards relating to operation of the robot have been identified as far as is reasonably practicable (AFAIRP) and their analysis is conservative

Child nodes:

• Has evidence Evidence: E1.2.2.1.2.1 Hazard identification, security and analysis report

The following hazards have been considered for workers (on-site) and the public (off-site) and the relevant hazards identified and analysed according to RGP and high level principles:

• Criticality
• Direct Radiation
• Inhalation
• Contaminated Wound
• Ingestion

The hazards have been analysed in the context of the bow ties diagram:

The identified hazards consequence prevention largely lie in the Occurrence and Protection barrier regime.

However, a collision has the potential to cause a splash of pond liquor on to the side of the pond. It is estimated that the quantity of liquor will not exceed <x> mL and it will not exceed <x> mSv. A method has been established for remediation of the contaminated area which is tolerable and ALARP as it can and will be carried out by a suitably qualified and experienced person (SQEP) with appropriate PPE and common hand tools. The hand tools chosen can and will be decontaminated following use, the extracted material and swabs will be placed in medium level waste (MLW). 

It is estimated that the likelihood of this consequence has been reduced to tolerable and ALARP by the presence of a SIF.

The technical basis for the consequence assessments have been understood and endorsed by stakeholders (Hazard Identification and Analysis has been signed off by the key stakeholders).