MULTINATIONAL DESIGN EVALUATION PROGRAMME
2009 ANNUAL REPORT
June 2010
2010

N U C L E A R

E N E R G Y

A G E N C YTABLE OF CONTENTSFOREWORD ............................................................................................................................... 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 5
1.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 82.

PROGRAMME GOALS AND OUTCOMES ........................................................................ 8

3.

PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................... 9
3.1 Membership ................................................................................................................. 9
3.2 Organisational Structure ............................................................................................ 10
3.3 MDEP Library............................................................................................................. 11
3.4 Common Positions ..................................................................................................... 11

4.

INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER ORGANISATIONS ......................................................... 12
4.1 NEA Committee on Nuclear Regulatory Activities (CNRA) ......................................... 12
4.2 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) ............................................................... 12
4.3 Western European Nuclear Regulators Association (WENRA) .................................. 12
4.4 Generation IV International Forum (GIF) Risk And Safety Working Group (RSWG) ... 13
4.5 Industry Groups ......................................................................................................... 13
4.6 MDEP Conference ..................................................................................................... 145.

CURRENT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................... 15
5.1 EPR Working Group................................................................................................... 16
5.2 AP1000 Working Group ............................................................................................. 19
5.3 Vendor Inspection Co-operation Working Group ........................................................ 21
5.4 Codes and Standards Working Group ........................................................................ 23
5.5 Digital Instrumentation & Controls Working Group ..................................................... 25
5.6 Safety Goals .............................................................................................................. 28

6.

INTERIM RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 29

7.

NEXT STEPS – FUTURE OF THE PROGRAMME .......................................................... 291

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORTIn addition to the PG, which gives overall
objectives and guidance to the Programme,
MDEP‟s organisational structure includes theSteering Technical Committee (STC), which
implements MDEP activities and directs thevarious working groups such as the two designspecific and three issue-specific working groups.

FOREWORD FROM THE POLICY GROUPCHAIRMAN

The design-specific working groups include
the EPRWG and the AP1000WG which cooperate on the safety reviews of EPR and
AP1000 designs, respectively. The EPR Working
Group includes regulators from China, Canada,
Finland, France, the United Kingdom, and theUnited Sates. The AP1000 Working Groupinvolves the regulators facing reviews of thatdesign from Canada, China, the United Kingdom,
and the United States. Key accomplishments inthese groups included continued exchanges onsafety review issues and the sharing of safety
evaluations to facilitate timely decisions by
national regulatory authorities.

MDEP is a unique ten-nation initiative being
undertaken by regulators from Canada, China,
Finland, France, Japan, Republic of Korea, theRussian Federation, South Africa, the United
Kingdom, and the United States with the
purposes of co-operating on safety design
reviews of new reactors and indentifying
opportunities to harmonise and converge on
safetylicensingreviewpracticesandrequirements. The OECD Nuclear Energy
Agency provides the technical secretariat
support. The International Atomic Energy Agency
participates in many of MDEP‟s activities. This
Annual Report highlights the activities andaccomplishments of MDEP in its second year.

The issue-specific working groups arecharged with studying the similarities anddifferences in regulatory requirements andpractices in generic safety areas. For instance, in
the Codes and Standards Working Group,
MDEP‟s regulators are working with the various
mechanical codes and standards development
organisations to study why and how codes differ
among MDEP countries. Similar efforts are
ongoing as part of the Digital Instrumentation andControl Working Group, but in the field of digital
control and safety systems. The Vendor
Inspection Co-operation Working Group is coordinating
inspectionsofreactorparts
manufacturers
amonginterested
MDEP
countries. Key accomplishments in these groups
include agreements with standards development
organisations regarding identifying potential
areas for possible convergence of mechanicalcodes, development of common positions on
digital instrumentation and controls issues, andco-ordinating over 15 witnessed inspections ofreactor vendors in five different countries.

MDEP‟s expected outcomes are as follows:
improved effectiveness and efficiency ofregulatory safety design reviews; increased
quality of safety assessments; and identified
areas for the convergence of regulatory
requirements and practices. Making eachregulator stronger in its ability to make sovereignsafety decisions is a key objective that cuts
across all MDEP activities.
At its March 2009 annual meeting the PolicyGroup (PG), which comprises the heads of theten national regulators, approved the conversion
of MDEP to a long-term programme that focuseson specific interim results. Among otherobjectives, the PG also directed MDEP tocommunicate its activities, including results andachievements, to other stakeholders such asindustry and non-MDEP regulators. On 10 and
11 September, the first “MDEP Conference on
New Reactor Design Activities” was organised at
OECD headquarters to support the effort tocommunicate MDEP activities to important
stakeholders including non-MDEP regulators andindustry representatives from reactor vendors,
operators
andstandards
development
organisations. Over 170 people attended from 23
different countries and eleven internationalorganisations, which showed a great interest in
MDEP activities.

In 2009, MDEP continued to make progresson sharing design-review information to enhance
the safety of new reactor designs. In addition,
MDEP efforts are important to understanding
differences and similarities among regulatory
review and licensing requirements and practices,
and are helping to identify opportunities forfurther harmonisation and convergence of
licensing approaches. MDEP also encourages

3

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
the industry‟s efforts in achieving standardisation,
this issue being considered as an important one
for safety. MDEP looks forward to continuing its
interaction with industry in order to improvestandardisation of reactor designs and further
convergence of regulatory approaches

André-Claude LACOSTE
MDEP Policy Group Chairman

March 2010 – MDEP Policy Group meeting42009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORTMDEP has developed a process for
identifying common positions on specific issues
among the member countries which may bebased on existing codes, standards, national
regulatory guidance, best practices, and groupinputs. These common positions may beendorsed by MDEP members and would become
good practices, recommended by MDEP.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The
Multinational
DesignEvaluation
Programme (MDEP) is a multinational initiative todevelop innovative approaches to leverage theresources and knowledge of mature, experienced
national regulatory authorities who are, or will
shortly be, undertaking the review of new reactor
power plant designs. Current MDEP members
are: Canada, China, Finland, France, Japan,
Korea, the Russian Federation, South Africa, theUnited Kingdom and the United States. In
addition the IAEA takes part in the work of
MDEP. The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency(NEA) performs the Technical Secretariat
function in support of MDEP. MDEP incorporates
a broad range of activities including enhancing
multilateral
co-operation
withinexisting
regulatory
frameworks,
andincreasing
multinational convergence of codes, standards,
guides, and safety goals. A key concept
throughout the work of MDEP is that national
regulators retain sovereign authority for all
licensing and regulatory decisions.

Two design-specific working groups are
facilitating MDEP‟s programme goal of enhanced
co-operation. The EPR working group consists of
the regulatory authorities of France, Finland, theUnited States, the United Kingdom, China, andCanada. The EPR Working Group has beensuccessful in identifying issues that wereaddressed by one country but not fully
considered in other countries. In the MDEP
library, the working group maintains a listing of
EPR Technical Issues that have been identified
and are currently being evaluated by each of theparticipating regulators. The library provides asynopsis of the issues, the status within eachtechnical body, and links to relevant documents.
Four expert subgroups are currently interacting
on specific technical issues and additional topics
have been proposed. The AP1000 designspecific working group consists of the regulatory
authorities of Canada, China, the United
Kingdom, and the United States. Three expert
subgroups have been formed in the areas ofcontrol rod drive mechanisms, civil engineering,and squib valves.

The programme of work consists of activities
chosen because they could be accomplished in
the near term, and would result in significant
benefits while requiring minimum resources.
Working groups are implementing the activities inaccordance with programme plans with specificactivities and goals, and have established thenecessary interfaces both within and outside of
MDEP‟s membership. This report provides a
status of the programme after its second year of
implementation.

The Vendor Inspection
Co-operation
Working Group is well-established andsucceeding at enhancing vendor inspection
activities. The group co-operated on 13 vendor
inspections in 2009, in which one regulator
performed an inspection to its criteria, observedby representatives of other MDEP countries. The
lead country has the benefit of discussion,
insights, and suggestions from the observing
countries. The benefits to the observing countries
include additional information and added
confidence in the inspection results. The working
group developed an MDEP Vendor Inspection
Protocol document with guidelines for witnessed
and joint inspections. This document will facilitate
inspections that are observed and attended bymultipleregulators. The
working groupconducted a survey on quality assurance
requirements used in the oversight of vendors to
identify those areas where the various regulators
have common regulatory frameworks.

Significant progress is being made on theoverall MDEP goals of increased co-operationand enhanced convergence of requirements andpractices.
Particularly
noteworthy
accomplishments include: completion of 13
vendor inspections with multinational cooperation, drafting of generic common positionsin the area of digital instrumentation and controls,
agreements
withstandards
development
organisations regarding co-operation in pursuing
convergence, and completion of a comparison of
the Korean, Japanese, and French codes forclass I pressure vessels against the ASME code.

52009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORTThe Digital Instrumentation and Controls
Working Group identified proposed genericcommon positions on specific issues among themember countries which are based on theexisting standards, national regulatory guidance,
best practices, and group inputs using an agreed
upon process and framework. To date, theworking group has identified a number of areasfor potential convergence and is drafting
additional common positions. The working group
continued to achieve the objective of efficient andstructured information exchange by developing aformal process to generate and process inquiries
from member countries. The working groupengaged the International ElectrotechnicalCommission (IEC) and Institute of Electrical andElectronics Engineers (IEEE), as well as IAEA,
regarding their increased co-ordination. The
group issued letters recommending thecontinued participation of IEC and IEEE in theworking group activities, suggested that thestandards organisations consider the MDEP
common positions when revising their standards,
and recommended that the organisations
increase their co-operation to achieve enhanced
harmonisation of relevant standards.

of Class 1 piping, pumps and valves and may
eventually expand to include Class 2 and 3
vessels, piping, pumps and valves. In addition,
the CSWG has established an agreement inprinciple
thatstandards
development
organisations will consult with each other andconsider the affect of future changes on
harmonisation.
Accomplishments to date provide confidence
that MDEP‟s structure and process is an effective
method of accomplishing increased co-operationin regulatory design reviews. The progress thathas already been achieved demonstrates that a
broader level of co-operation and convergence isboth possible and desirable. MDEP is considereda long-term programme with interim results.
Interim results are products that documentagreement by the MDEP member countries andare necessary steps in working towards
increased co-operation and convergence. Theinterim results for 2009 include: Issuing technical expert subgroup
technical reports that identify anddocument similarities and differencesamong designs, regulatory safety review
approaches and resulting evaluations;

The Codes and Standards Working Grouphas made significant progress in comparing
Class 1 pressure vessel standards. The initialeffort focusing on pressure vessel codes resulted
in a database which identified the similarities anddifferences between the Korean, Japanese, andFrench codes and the ASME code. Based on the
results of the comparison exercise, the CSWG
has concluded that, while full convergence of the
ASME, JSME, KEPIC and RCCM codes is not
feasible, harmonisation is. “Harmonisation,” inthis sense, means that there is no substantial
difference from a safety perspective between
each country‟s Code used in the design andconstruction of pressure-boundary components.
The working group will identify, from thecomparison tables, sections of the codes that areequivalent or identical, and the sections that are
not equivalent. For sections that are notequivalent, the working group will identify
significant differences and examine potential
paths for reconciliation of the code differences
including identifying those that should be
pursued for potential convergence. Once anunderstanding is gained of the differences
between the codes, each MDEP participant could
endorse, in whole or in part, the pressure
boundary codes and standards of othercountries. The SDOs have begun a comparison

 Maintaining a listing of EPR TechnicalIssues that are currently being evaluatedby each of the participating regulators,
including a synopsis of the issues, thestatus within each technical body, andlinks to relevant documents;
 Establishing a preliminary set of technicalconsiderations to be used for novel civilengineering
construction(such asmodular steel composite structures) andtechnical guidelines for the design,qualification, and in-service inspection/
testing of explosive-actuated valves;
 Maintaining a Vendor Inspection Planning
Table with a list of scheduled vendor
inspections to assist the member
regulators in identifying opportunities toobserve an inspection, or obtain the
results of an inspection carried out byanother member; Publishing an MDEP Vendor Inspection
Protocol document with guidelines forwitnessed and joint inspections tofacilitate inspections that are observed
and attended by multiple regulators;

6

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT Co-operatingon
thirteen
vendorinspections, in which one regulator
performs an inspection to its criteria,
observed by representatives of other
MDEP countries; Identifying six common positions in thearea of digital instrumentation andcontrols: software common cause failure,
software tools, independent verificationand validation, data communication,
simplicity in design, and complex
electronics;

 Completing an evaluation of the quality
assurance requirements used in theoversight of vendors including thoseareas where the various regulators havecommon regulatory frameworks;

 Establishing a formal process togenerate and process inquiries frommember countries to promote an efficientand structured information exchange.

 Completing a comparison table of the
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,AFCEN‟s RCCM Code, JSME S NC1,
and KEPIC code for Class 1 pressure
vessels; Reaching agreement by the SDOs thatthey will work together to reduce
additional divergence of the codes;

MDEP Steering Technical Committee

7

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
Policy Group to oversee the programme, and a
Steering Technical Committee with Working
Groups to implement the programme with the
Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) serving as theTechnical Secretariat. In addition the IAEA takes
part in the work of MDEP. Terms of Reference
for the programme were approved in September
2006.

MULTINATIONAL DESIGN EVALUATIONPROGRAMME

1.

The original programme of work consisted often activities which were chosen because they
could be accomplished in the near term, andwould result in significant benefits while requiring
minimum resources. Working groups are
implementing the activities in accordance with
programme plans with specific activities andgoals, and have established the necessaryinterfaces both within and outside of MDEP‟smembership. Significant progress has been
made over the past year on the overall MDEP
goals of increased co-operation and enhanced
convergence of requirements and practices.
Accomplishments to date provide confidence that
the MDEP structure and process is an effective
method of accomplishing increased co-operationin regulatory design reviews. The progress thathas already been achieved demonstrates that a
broader level of co-operation and convergence isboth possible and desirable. In March 2009, the
MDEP Policy Group agreed that the programmemust continue beyond the original two year
mandate to fully achieve the established goals.
Therefore, MDEP is considered a long term
programme with interim results. Interim results
are those products that document agreement by
the MDEP member countries and are necessary
steps in working towards increased co-operationand convergence.

INTRODUCTION

The Multinational Design Evaluation Programme(MDEP) is a multinational initiative to develop
innovative approaches to leverage the resources
and knowledge of mature, experienced national
regulatory authorities who are, or will shortly be,
undertaking the review of new reactor power
plant designs. MDEP has evolved from primarily
a design evaluation program to a multinational
co-operation program that includes inspection
activities and generic issues. MDEP incorporates
a broad range of activities including: Enhancing multilateral co-operation within
existing regulatory frameworks;
 Increasing multinational convergence ofcodes, standards, and safety goals;
 Implementing MDEP regulatory practices
and products to facilitate licensing reviewsof new reactors, including those being
developed by the Generation IV
International Forum.
A key concept throughout the programme isthat MDEP will better inform the decisions ofregulatory authorities through multinational cooperation, while retaining the sovereign authorityof each regulator to make licensing andregulatory decisions.

This report provides the programme‟s status
after its second year of implementation.

The idea for the programme was initiated in
2005, and a planning meeting of the original ten
participating countries and the IAEA was held in
June 2006. Initial efforts consisted of multilateral
co-operation on the European Pressurised Water
Reactor (EPR) design reviews, and a pilot project
to assess the feasibility of enhancing multinational
co-operation and convergence of codes,
standards, and safety goals within existing
regulatory frameworks. The multilateral cooperation on the EPR expanded on bilateralinteractions that had already been establishedbetween France and Finland. A structure for the
programme was developed; it consists of a

2.

PROGRAMME GOALS AND OUTCOMES

The main objectives of the MDEP effort are
to enable increased co-operation and establish
mutually agreed upon practices to enhance thesafety of new reactor designs. The enhanced cooperation among regulators will improve theeffectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory
design reviews, which are part of each country‟slicensing process. As stated in MDEP‟s Terms ofReference, the programme focuses on cooperation and convergence of regulatory
practices that will lead to convergence of82009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
regulatory requirements. Co-operation will allow
a better understanding of each other‟s processes
toencourage
andfacilitate
eventual
convergence. The goal of MDEP is not to
independently develop new regulatory standards,
but to build upon the similarities already existingand existing harmonisation in the form of IAEA
and other safety standards. In addition, thecommon positions will be shared with the IAEA
for consideration in the IAEA standards
development programme.

harmonisation is not practical, the working groupmembers will work to understand the differences
to facilitate more efficient and effective design
reviews.
MDEP is meeting this goal by making
comparisons of the regulatory practices in themember countries, identifying differences, anddrafting common positions. The working groups
are also working with codes and standards
organisations to identify differences and propose
areas of convergence. MDEP has identified
similarities and differences in inspection
practices, and plans to develop a common
MDEP vendor inspection procedure to be used
for multinational vendor inspections.

MDEP is meeting its goal of enabling
increased co-operation through the activities of
the working groups. MDEP has been very
successful in providing a forum for regulatory
bodies to co-operate on design evaluations andinspections. In addition to organising working
groups, MDEP has provided each regulator withpeer contacts who share information, discuss
issues informally, and disseminate information
rapidly. For example, the design-specific working
group members have benefitted significantly fromthe sharing of questions among the regulators,
resulting in more informed, and harmonised,
regulatory decisions. MDEP members have also
been highly successful in coordinating vendor
inspections in which the regulators shareobservations and insights. MDEP has madeimprovements in communicating information
regarding members‟ regulatory practices throughdevelopment of an MDEP library which serves asa central repository for all documents associatedwith the programme.

Progress towards harmonised regulatory
practices and requirements for Generation IV
reactor designs will be a natural outgrowth of thisprogramme, as the participating regulatory
authorities find that multinational co-operationand convergence of regulatory practices becomeroutine elements of their planning and executionof new design evaluations. It is noteworthy thatnine of the ten MDEP member countries are also
members of the Generation IV International
Forum (GIF).
MDEP has been successful in meeting the
expected outcomes as defined in the MDEP
Terms of Reference by: increasing knowledgetransfer, identifying similarities and differences in
the regulatory practices; increasing stakeholders‟
understanding of regulatory practices; andenhancing the ability of regulatory bodies to cooperate in reactor design evaluations, vendor
inspections, and construction oversight, leading
to more efficient and more safety-focused
regulatory decisions.

As stated in the MDEP Terms of Reference,enhanced co-operation is “facilitated byestablishing reference regulatory practices” (nowcalled Common Positions) which are identified
through the following process: MDEP members
increase knowledge transfer through theexchange of information on regulatory practices
used by member countries in their design
reviews. MDEP identifies similarities anddifferences in the regulatory practices, andobtains insights to understand the basis for thedifferences. The MDEP members can thenchoose to move towards harmonisation byidentifying best practices among the member
countries, engaging each regulatory authority inits decision making process, including reachingout to external stakeholders on possible changes
to regulatory processes, and ensuring that eachworking group member has obtained the supportof his regulatory authority on an agreed upongeneric common position. For areas where

3.

PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION

3.1 Membership
Participation in the Policy Group andSteering Technical Committee is intended forthe mature, experienced national safety
authorities of interested countries that alreadyhave commitments for new build or firm plans tohave commitments in the near future for new
reactor designs. Current MDEP members are:Canada, China, Finland, France, Japan, Korea,
Russian Federation, South Africa, the United

92009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
Kingdom and the United States. The IAEA also
takes part in the work of MDEP.

level of engagement is available for MDEP
regulatory bodies engaged in regulatory action
based on interest expressed by governmental
authority and/or by a utility for exploring thepotential for licensing new nuclear power plantsof certain designs. Observers can participate in
the meetings as long as appropriate controls
regarding the use and discussion of proprietary
information are established. This status is
temporary with expectations that circumstances
and the necessary agreements that will allow fullparticipation will develop in a short time period.
Under the design-specific working groups,
subgroups have been formed to address specifictechnical issues.

3.2 Organisational Structure
The programme is governed by a PolicyGroup (PG), made up of the heads of theparticipating organisations, and implemented by
a Steering Technical Committee (STC) and its
working groups. The STC consists of senior staff
representatives from each of the participating
national safety authorities, plus a representativefrom the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA).

Issue-specific activities

The Policy Group provides guidance to the
STC on the overall approach; monitors the
progress of the programme; and determines
participation in the programme.

Working groups are organised for thetechnical and regulatory process areas within the
programme of work. These currently include, but
are not limited to, vendor inspections, pressure
boundary component codes and standards, anddigital instrumentation and control standards.
Membership in issue-specific working groups isopen to all MDEP participating countries and the
IAEA representatives.

The Steering Technical Committee manages
and approves the detailed programme of work
including: defining topics and working methods,
establishing technical working groups, andnomination of experts; approving procedures andtechnical papers developed by the working
groups; establishing interfaces with otherinternational efforts to benefit from available workand avoid duplication; developing procedures forthe handling of information to be shared in the
project; reporting to the Policy Group; identifying
new topics for the programme to address; andestablishing subcommittees of the STC to study
specific topics.

The following chart illustrates how the
programme is organised.

The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)
performs the Technical Secretariat function in
support of MDEP.
Two lines of activities have been establishedto carry out the work: design-specific activities
and issue-specific activities.
Design-specific activities
Working groups for each new reactor design
share information on a timely basis and cooperate on specific reactor design evaluations
and construction oversight. Participants in theseworking groups are the regulatory authorities thatare actively reviewing, preparing to review, or
constructing the specific reactor design. A
design-specific working group is formed whenthree or more MDEP member countries express
an interest in working together. An “Observer”

102009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
3.3 MDEP Library

regulators in the licensing of new nuclear power
plant designs, a framework was developed tofacilitate the sharing of technical information
among MDEP participants, which at times may
include the sharing of proprietary and other typesof sensitive information. As a general rule, theinformation exchanged during the MDEP
meetings and in the MDEP library is intended forthe sole use of the participating national
regulators. The members of the design-specificworking groups also have a communication
protocol to share MDEP positions on topics withother members before releasing this information
into the public domain. A large portion of theinformation shared may not be proprietary or
sensitive; however, all participating members
must protect and properly handle the informationthat an originator claims to be proprietary or
sensitive.

MDEP information is communicated among
the members through the MDEP library which
serves as a central repository for all documents
associated with the programme. The NEA
provides the technical support for thedevelopment and maintenance of the MDEP
library on a website. The website includes afolder structure and provides two levels of accessboth of which are password protected:(1) MDEP member countries, and (2) member
countries participating in design-specific working
groups. Access to the library is determined by
the STC and implemented by the NEA. Publicly
available documents related to MDEP areavailable on the MDEP page of the NEA website.
Each
MDEP
membercountry has
designated a contact within their regulatoryorganisation who is responsible for identifying
documents to be included in the library, track
library status and associated activities, andmaintain contact with the NEA librarian. The NEA
has issued a guidance document detailing libraryfunctions, access, and use. The library
documents are either in English or include an
abstract in English describing the contents. The
NEA is pursuing a process for translating
documents.

3.4 Common Positions
MDEP has developed a process for
identifying and documenting common positions
on specific issues among the member countries
which may be based on existing standards,
national regulatory guidance, best practices, andgroup member inputs. Design-Specific Common
Positions will document common conclusions
that each of the working group members havereached during design reviews. Discussions
among the members and the sharing of
information in these areas help to strengthen theindividual conclusions reached. Because of theneed to issue these statements more quickly,
and because responsibility for these decisions
rests with the regulators who are performing thedesign reviews, Design-Specific Common
Positions require only agreement by the working
group members.

The STC, through the secretariat, willcontinue to add documents and makeenhancements to improve the effectiveness of
the library. In the future, the STC will evaluate
whether to make portions of the library available
to all NEA countries, and if so, which portions
should be made available to the general public.
The Digital Instrumentation and Controls
Working Group uses the library to process
inquiries from member countries. This “Quick
Inquiry” process is used to promote the efficientand structured exchange of information andprovide for its storage in a retrievable database.

Generic Common Positions may be draftedby issue-specific working groups or designspecific working groups, but would apply
generically rather than only to one design.
Generic Common Positions document practices
and positions that each of the working groupmembers find acceptable. The common positions
will be shared with the IAEA, and other standards
organisations, for consideration in standards
development
programmes.
Draft
Generic
Common Positions will be made available toexternal stakeholders as appropriate during theapproval process. After a Generic Common
Position is agreed to by a working group, it is

In the MDEP library, the EPR working group
maintains a listing of EPR Technical Issues thathave been identified and are currently being
evaluated by each of the participating regulators.
The library provides a synopsis of the issues, thestatus within each technical body, and links torelevant documents.
In order for MDEP to be successful at
fulfilling its goal of leveraging the work of peer

112009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
presented to the STC for endorsement, and thento the Policy Group for approval. Upon approvalby the PG, the Generic Common Positions are
published in the MDEP annual report and will bemade publicly available on the NEA MDEP
website. There is no obligation on the part of any
regulatory body to follow them. If a regulatory
body chooses to adopt a Generic Common
Position, it would be through that country‟snormal processes.

4.

WGRNR and MDEP STC meet frequently to
discuss on-going activities and plans. The
WGRNR is the focal point of interactions
between MDEP and the CNRA and its working
groups, and will assist in co-ordinating
communications and requests between the two
activities.
4.2 International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA)The IAEA participates in the work of MDEP
through participation in the Policy Group and
STC meetings and issue-specific working
groups. In addition, the Generic Common
Positions will be shared with the IAEA for
consideration in the IAEA standards development
programme.

INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER
ORGANISATIONSMDEP recognises that other organisations
are implementing programmes to facilitate
international co-operation on new reactors.
Because of MDEP‟s limited membership, theseother avenues should be available to countries
who are interested in new build, but do not meetthe criteria for entrance to MDEP. MDEP strives
to maintain an awareness of, and interact with,these other groups to ensure that it does not
duplicate efforts, to benefit from the results ofthese activities, and to communicate MDEP
activities and results to other organisations. To
ensure that efforts are not duplicated between
the groups, MDEP‟s scope is focused on shortterm activities related to specific design reviews
being conducted by the member countries, andefforts to harmonise specific regulatory practices
and standards.

4.3 Western European Nuclear Regulators
Association (WENRA)WENRA is a non-governmental organisation
comprised of the heads and senior staff
members of nuclear regulatory authorities ofEuropean countries with nuclear power plants.
The main objectives of WENRA are to develop acommon approach to nuclear safety, to provide
an independent capability to examine nuclear
safety in applicant countries and to be a networkof chief nuclear safety regulators in Europe
exchanging
experienceanddiscussing
significant safety issues. The WENRA Reactor
Harmonisation Working Group (RHWG) issues
common reference levels with the objective of
attaining a common approach to nuclear safety
within Europe. Reference Levels for Existing
Reactors have been issued and are in theprocess of being implemented in WENRA
countries. The RHWG is developing objectives
for new reactors. MDEP will interact withWENRA on these objectives. Three members of
the MDEP Policy Group are also members of
WENRA. The MDEP STC has had the benefit ofpresentations on WENRA activities at meetings.
In addition, WENRA documents are recognised
as a valuable source of information and insights
and can assist the MDEP STC in selecting future
topics. In the area of safety goals, MDEP
recognises the work already underway by the
WENRA RHWG in this area, and has reached
out to WENRA to initiate a dialog between MDEP
and RHWG specialists, including attendance by
the chairman of the RHWG at a meeting of the
MDEP Safety Goals subcommittee. MDEP and
WENRA have agreed to provide each other an

Brief
descriptions
of
these
other
programmes and their interfaces with MDEP are
below.
4.1 NEA Committee on Nuclear Regulatory
Activities (CNRA)
The CNRA Working Group on theRegulation of New Reactors (WGRNR) examines
the regulatory issues of siting, licensing andregulatory oversight of Generation III+ andGeneration IV nuclear reactors. The current
focus areas of the WGRNR are construction
experience and siting issues. The WGRNR coordinates its work with the work performed by
MDEP such that it utilises its outputs and does
not duplicate its efforts, and extends the resultsof MDEP to other CNRA members. MDEP
interacts with the CNRA WGRNR and Working
Group on Inspection Practices through the NEA
staff who also serve as the Technical Secretariat
for the CNRA. In addition, the chairs of CNRA

12

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
opportunity to review and comment on eachother‟s reports.

invite industry groups to participate in selective
portions of meetings and other activities. For
example:4.4 Generation IV International Forum (GIF)
Risk And Safety Working Group (RSWG)

 The EPR Working Group invited AREVA
to make a presentation on variations
among EPR Designs in the United
Kingdom, the United States, France andFinland at a working group meeting.

MDEP interacts with GIF through the NEA
staff who also serve as the Technical Secretariat
for GIF, as well as through the UK representative
to the MDEP STC who is an observer at all
RSWG meeting. The MDEP Safety Goals
Subcommittee has held discussions with the
RSWG. The chairman of the STC has also met
with the chairman of the GIF Risk and Safety
working group, and the GIF Policy Group, todiscuss activities of mutual interest.

 The Codes and Standards Working
Group is interacting with a committee ofstandards development organisations(SDOs) ( ASME, JSME, KEPIC, AFCEN,
and CSA) in a code comparison project.
A representative from the US NRC
represents the CSWG on the steeringcommittee. .

4.5 Industry Groups

 The Vendor Inspection Co-operation
Working Group heard presentations by
EDF, South Texas Nuclear Operating
Company, Westinghouse, AREVA, Korea
Electric Power Company and Mitsubishi
Heavy
Industries.
They
providedvendors‟ perspectives regarding theregulatory requirements of pressure
containing components at the working

MDEP‟s working groups are very interested
in understanding the perspectives of the design
vendors, codes and standards organisations, andcomponent manufacturers in MDEP activities,
and the challenges they face in dealing withnumerous regulators and regulatory systems.
MDEP working groups interact with, and2009 MDEP Conference – OECD Headquarters

13

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
group meetings.

regulators reinforced the importance of strong,
independent national regulators who aresupported in their decision making throughenhanced co-operation with other regulators.

 The Digital Instrumentation and Controls
Working Group issued letters to IEC andIEEE encouraging their continued cooperation on MDEP initiatives.

Some of the conclusions that came out of theconference were: The World Nuclear Association CORDEL
group presented a proposal for the
harmonisation of regulations at the
September 2009 MDEP Conference.
MDEP responded to CORDEL‟s proposal;
the STC will continue to monitor
CORDEL‟s activities in order to identify
opportunities for effective co-operation.

 MDEP is an effective and efficientmethod of pooling experts from different
countries. It improves the design reviewsand enhances the safety level, and its
efforts should be continued.
 Stakeholders have great expectations of
MDEP.

4.6 MDEP Conference The definition of “harmonisation” must be
better articulated.

In addition to the interactions discussed
above, MDEP held its first conference on 10-11
September, 2009, in Paris. The conference wasorganised by the NEA to communicate the goals,
achievements and plans of MDEP to regulatory
authorities not participating in MDEP and to otherinterested parties including the nuclear industry,
standards development organisations, and othermultinational organisations including IAEA. The
conference was attended by about 170
individuals from 23 countries and 11 internationalorganisations.

 The design-specific working groups
should focus on achieving a form ofstandardisation, which is as similar as
possible.
 MDEP should improve how information isdisseminated to external stakeholders.

At the opening session, Luis Echávarri(Director General of NEA), André-Claude
Lacoste (Chairman of ASN and Chairman of the
MDEP Policy Group), and several other headregulators all expressed support for MDEP as animportant element of the much neededinternational co-operation on new reactors.
The conference included presentations andpanel discussions on the activities of each MDEP
working group, industry initiatives for new reactor
designs, and international organisation initiatives.
The participants in the panel discussions
included MDEP participants, other regulators,
standards organisations, and representatives
from industry. Broad support for the efforts madeby MDEP was expressed by all participants.
Several participants presented their views or
specific proposals for expanding MDEP‟s scope
and for increasing communications with outsideorganisations. Some regulators of small nuclear
programs and several representatives of industry
expressed their desire for some type ofinternational or multinational approval of newreactor designs. Other regulators of small
nuclear programs and all MDEP participating14

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT5.

CURRENT ACTIVITIESThe current activities of MDEP were
initiated as a result of the MDEP pilot project,
and are being implemented through design
specific working groups, issue-specific working
groups, and subcommittees of the STC. The
members of the design specific working groups
share information and co-operate on specificreactor design evaluations and construction
oversight. Issue-specific working groups areorganised for the technical and regulatory
process areas within the programme of work.
Each working group has a lead and co-leadcountry designated, and has developed aprogramme plan which identifies specificactivities, schedules and contacts.

15

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
5.1 EPR Design-Specific Working Group

construction in France; and the US version of the
EPR which is under review for design
certification in the United States and isreferenced by four combined license applications
currently under review. In November 2008, China
and the UK were added as members. China NNSA issued a construction permit for an EPR at
the Taishan site in August 2009.

Highlights
With the purpose of leveraging technicaland regulatory resources, members of the
EPRWG worked together on emerging issues
related to safety of the EPR designs that areunder review in Canada, China, Finland, France,
the United Kingdom. and the United States.

UK/NII is performing a Generic Design
Assessment of the UK-EPR at the joint requestof EDF and Areva. The design is essentially thesame as the French design being constructed by
EDF at Flamanville. Canada- CNSC is in the firstphase of its review of the EPR design
application.

Most notably the group exchanged
information and co-operated on the reviews of theDigital Instrumentation and Controls safetysystems. This effort has enabled the regulators toprovide a united front on addressing the mostsafety significant issues in this area.

The EPR DSWG chair is Finland, which is in
the process of constructing an EPR; and France,as the country of the design originator, is thevice-chair. The goals of the working group are toreach convergence in aspects of the the EPR
design review where possible and find areas
where member countries can co-operate. The
working group currently includes four subgroups:
Accidents and Transients, Digital Instrumentation
and Controls, Probablistic Safety Assessment,
and Severe Accidents.

The EPRWG exchanged information onother topics important to the safety design
reviews of the EPR including the areas of Severe
Accidents, Accidents and Transients, andProbabilistic Safety Assessments. These efforts
again have helped focus limited regulatory andtechnical resources on the most challenging andsafety significant issues facing each regulator inlicensing and construction reviews.

Accomplishments
The EPR Working Group has beensuccessful in identifying issues that wereaddressed by one country, but not yet fully
considered in other countries. For example:
STUK and ASN have shared portions of thedetailed design of the EPR Instrumentation andControl system. This was useful to countries
such as the US and the UK that had not seen thedetailed design at that time. In addition, STUK
shared its letter to AREVA outlining the
instrumentation and control issues identified intheir review. The working group has also shared
the resolution of issues by one country that may
not have been fully considered in other countries.
For example, the US shared its interim staff
guidance for the independence of data
communications among diverse instrumentationand control systems.

The EPR working group currently consists of
the regulatory authorities of France, Finland, theUnited States, the United Kingdom, China andCanada. This working group was established in
January 2006 as multilateral co-operation
between France, Finland and the United States.
Numerous meetings and technical exchanges
have taken place to exchange information on thereviews being conducted in each country:
Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) which is under construction in
Finland; Flamanville 3, which is under

The working group members have also
discussed tools and methods used in theirreviews that may be useful to other members.
For example, NII discussed the use of statisticalsoftware testing as demonstration for software
meeting a particular software reliability goal that16

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
can be used in the overall plant PRA.
Additionally, STUK‟s contractor provided apresentation of a software modelling tool thatwas used to evaluate the OL3 software andidentified some requirements/design specification
issues. This tool may be of value to otherregulators when the software for the plants they
are reviewing is under development.

on technical issues. In many areas
regulators‟ safety positions are consistent.

theOne notable accomplishment of thissubgroup is the work the members completed in
identifying a potential single failure issue which
led to design changes by AREVA. This is notablebecause the identification of the problem wasmade and shared pursuant to MDEP efforts anddirectly resulted in design changes. As a next
step, the subgroup plans to co-ordinate audits of
the I&C design process to evaluate theverification and validation process during thedesign phase.

In the MDEP library, the working group
maintains a listing of EPR Technical Issues thathave been identified and are currently being
evaluated by each of the participating regulators.
The library provides a synopsis of the issues, thestatus within each technical body, and links torelevant documents.
The status of the technical expert subgroups
is discussed below.
EPR Digital Instrumentation and Controls
subgroup
All participating regulators and the design
vendor view instrumentation and controls as amajor licensing issue for the EPR. Independenceof Digital I&C systems is a common theme withevery MDEP regulator involved in the reviews of
the various EPR designs. The member
regulators have also come to a common
conclusion regarding sufficiency of the level ofdesign detail provided. The benefits ofinteractions of this group include a common
understanding of each of the regulators‟ positions

Flamanville 3 under construction © EDF 2010.

17

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORTEPR Probabilistic Safety Assessment
Subgroup

Other topics
Other topics under discussion by the working
group include fire protection: (rules andregulations, fire analysis and fire protection
issues), human factors (control room design),
radiation protection, grouted tendons in civil
structures, operational safety and design-related
construction experience.

The EPR PSA subgroup members havecompared their level 1 PSAs, and are beginningto compare level 2 PSA reviews. STUK provided
a summary of the EPR PSA to NRC for review.
Based on the interactions and review ofmaterials, the NRC identified additional questions
for the applicant. These questions were sharedwith STUK and ASN to assist in their review.
Technical areas discussed by the subgroup
include fire PSA, external hazards, and common
cause
failures.
Additional
topicsanddocumentation were identified for future
information exchange.
The working group members continue
discussions of the differences between the
French, Finnish, and US designs and regulatory
approaches. In particular, they are working tounderstand the differences in HVAC design andsystem interdependencies, and diesel generator
battery design capacity.
EPR Severe Accident subgroup
The severe accident subgroup has
discussed the use of the two-room concept in thecontainment response evaluation and molten
core cooling system and structures. The
subgroup compared the use of the codes thatwere utilised for various parameters anddetermined that there are some significant
similarities, and some differences, among theapproaches. The subgroup considers that the
Operating Strategies for Severe Accident(OSSA) review is an important subject becauseof the new items specific to EPR (and not tocurrently operating PWRs).
EPR Accidents and Transients subgroup
The first topics discussed in this subgroup
have been containment response evaluations,accident analyses methodologies, and criticality
safety during outages. The subgroup willcontinue to discuss containment response
evaluations and the containment sump design
issues (resolution of the generic safety issue andissues such as chemical effects on sump
performance). Other issues that may be added
include fuel burnup.

18

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
5.2 AP1000 Design-Specific Working Groupto go into construction in the US. NII has
completed Step three of the four-step genericdesign assessment process of the AP1000
design. CNSC has started the pre-project review
on the potential choices for new reactor
construction, including the AP1000. The AP1000
DSWG chair is the United States, the country ofthe design originator; and China, as the first
country to begin the construction of an AP1000,is the vice-chair.

Highlights
The working group has shared design
information, application documents, andpreliminary findings within the group, andidentified the most significant review issues.
Subgroups of experts have been formed toaddress specific technical issues that wereidentified by all participants as being
significant because they involve unique or
unresolved
designfeatures.
Current
subgroups include: Shield building, squib
valves, and control rod drive mechanisms.

A status of the expert subgroups follows.
Shield Building Subgroup
The shield building design was selected forfurther discussion by an expert subgroup due tothe uniqueness of the design as well as the factthat there are currently outstanding questions
regarding the modular construction techniques tobe used and the use of former plates, rather that
rebar in the design of the concrete retaining
walls. This expert group is led by the US.

Other topics to be discussed may
include: the methodology, knowledge andresults of Inspection, Tests, Analyses andAcceptance Criteria (ITTAC); Radiation
protection; instrumentation and controls; andhuman factors.

The subgroup members compared results of
their separate reviews of the shield building
design and came to similar conclusions regarding
fundamental concerns. The discussions were
helpful in confirming conclusions alreadyidentified by the regulators. In the absence of
applicable design standards for concrete
composite structures, the expert subgroupdeveloped a preliminary set of technicalconsiderations to be used for novel civilengineering construction (such as modular steel
composite structures). These considerations may
be used to propose a code case to the standards
organisations for modular construction.
Squib Valve Subgroup

The AP1000 design-specific working group
was established in November 2008 with initial
participation by China (NNSA), the United
Kindom (NII), and the United States (NRC).
Canada (CNSC) was added as a member inMarch 2009. NNSA issued a construction permit
in March 2009 for two AP1000 units at theSanmen site, and issued another construction
permit in September 2009 for two AP1000 units
at the Haiyang site. A total of four AP1000 units
are being constructed in China. The NRC isreviewing Revisions 16 and 17 to the AP1000
design certification and is concurrently reviewing
combined license applications for 12 AP1000
units. The Vogtle plant, for which the NRC has
issued an early site permit and Limited Work
Authorisation, is expected to be the first AP1000

The in-containment refuelling water storagetank injection valves (squib valves) were selected
because of the uniqueness of these valves andtheir relative risk significance. Such valves are
not currently in existence and will require a new
design and associated qualification programs.
The squib valves to be used on the AP1000 aremuch larger than those used in existing nuclear
applications. Questions have also been raised
regarding the adequacy of the current in-service
testing requirements for such valves, since there
is little to no operating experience. The members
agreed that the lack of experience with largesquib valves requires particular care in thedesign, qualification, and in-service inspection/

19

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
testing of these valves. This expert group is led
by NII. The Squib Valve subgroup has prepared
an initial draft of technical guidelines for thedesign, qualification, and in-service inspection or
testing of explosive-actuated valves. The
guidelines are intended to be helpful toregulators and the nuclear industry inunderstanding the technical issues associatedwith large explosive-actuated valves used in
AP1000 reactors and other reactor designs.

Control Rod Drive System Subgroup
The control rod drive system was selected
because its safety classification (classified as
non-safety) has been questioned by NNSA,
particularly the classification of the latch
mechanisms and the adequacy of any
associated testing or analysis to show that thelatch mechanisms can perform their intended
safety function. This expert group is led by NII.

AP1000 under construction, Sanmen, China; © SNMPC 2010.

20

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
5.3 Vendor Inspection Co-operation Issuespecific Working GroupASN chairs this working group. The long term
objectives of the working group are to maximise
the use of the results obtained from otherregulators‟ efforts in inspecting vendors, and to
perform multinational inspections of vendors
according to common quality assurance
requirements.

Highlights
With the purpose of maximising the use ofeach other‟s inspection results and to learn more
about each regulator‟s requirements andpractices regarding vendor inspections, the
VICWG co-ordinated 13 witnessed inspections infive different countries and involving sevendifferent national regulatory authorities.

To improve the usefulness of other‟sinspection results, the working group willcontinue enhancing the understanding of eachregulator‟s inspection procedures and practices
by co-ordinating witnessed inspections of safety
relatedmechanicalpressureretaining
components (Class 1) such as pressure vessels,
steam generators, piping, valves, pumps, etc.,
and quality assurance (QA) inspections. The
working group plans to develop and maintain aprocess to share inspection results including alibrary of all inspection results. In the long term, aprocess will be developed to adapt the scope of
an inspection according to the need of otherregulators

The VICWG produced an inspection
protocol document to clearly define the roles ofparticipants in MDEP VICWG inspections tomaximise the efficiency of such interactions.
The VICWG completed a Quality Assurancecomparison table among the ten participating
countries to facilitate understanding of quality
assurance (QA) requirements for vendors.
The VICWG produced an inspection
planning table for 2010 to continue its efforts insharing vendor inspection experience.

Accomplishments
The VICWG developed matrices that identify
the scope of inspections in each country.
Understanding which inspection areas arecovered by each regulator helps the MDEP
countries to co-ordinate vendor inspections, andwill
provideeach
regulatorabetterunderstanding of the applicability of inspection
findings by other countries.

BackgroundA
WorkingGrouponComponent
Manufacturing Oversight was established as partof the MDEP Pilot Project to assess theregulatory requirements and review associatedwiththemanufacturing
processes
forcomponents for use in nuclear power plants. The
working group met with the design code bodies
from the United States, France, Japan, andKorea, and found that component manufacturing
is currently subject to multiple inspections andaudits similar in scope and in safety objectives,
but conducted by different organisations. The
pilot project concluded that the formation of multinational regulatory teams to perform inspectionsof component manufacturers would improve
effectiveness and efficiency in the regulatory
assessment of the highest safety classcomponents.

The group is currently performing witnessed
inspections, which consist of one regulator
performing an inspection to its criteria, observedby representatives of other MDEP countries.
Thirteen such inspections were conducted in
2009, in five countries and with the involvementof seven regulatory bodies. The VICWG
maintains a Vendor Inspection Planning Table
with a list of scheduled vendor inspections toassist the member regulators in identifying
opportunities to observe an inspection, or obtain
the results of an inspection carried out byanother member.
The benefits to the observing countries
include additional information and added
confidence in the inspection results. As an
example, the CNSC representative, who
observed an NRC inspection at Doosan (which
was also observed by a representative of KINS),
found the witnessed inspection especially helpful

A working group was established tocontinue the work of the pilot project to identify
areas of commonality and differences between
the regulatory practices of participating countries
in the area of vendor inspection programmes.

21

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORTThe next planned phase is „joint‟ inspections
which consist of one lead regulator and other
MDEP members participating. This would allow
the participating members to use the results of
the inspection that are applicable to theirregulations. To implement this, the WG will
update the protocol for conducting joint
inspections and identify training needs to support
joint inspections. MDEP plans to organise atleast two or three joint inspections by the end of
2011.

since CNSC has not inspected such facilities inten years and will probably perform suchinspections in the future. The thorough nature of
the NRC inspection may be a good basis for
CNSC‟s acceptance of the inspected vendors
and CNSC may augment the scope of the NRC‟sinspection by doing a more detailed desktop
review of the vendor‟s programs and procedures.
The working group developed an MDEP
Vendor Inspection Protocol document withguidelines for witnessed and joint inspections.
This document facilitates inspections that are
observed and attended by multiple regulators.

In the long term, the working group may
develop a common MDEP vendor inspection
procedure that could be used for vendor
inspections.

The working group has initiated an activity toidentify common quality assurance requirementsof the regulatory bodies. The group conducted asurvey on quality assurance requirements usedin the oversight of vendors to identify those areas
where the various regulators have common
regulatory frameworks. A comparison table has
been drafted and will be finalised in 2010.

The working group will explore expanding
their activities beyond pressure boundary
components into areas such as electrical andmechanical components, concrete, and examine
modular construction as areas where vendor
inspections can be useful to MDEP members.

Future Actions
In 2010, the working group plans increase
the number of witnessed vendor inspections.
This will continue to enhance the exchange of
information between the regulators and provide
better understanding of the inspection scopes
and safety findings and how these findings may
be utilised. In order to improve the process forsharing inspection results, the WG will write aprocedure to share inspection results, andimprove the MDEP library to include aninspection results data base.
In 2010, the group plans to develop andimplement the common processes needed toadapt the scope of vendor inspections to take
into account the needs of other member
countries; and to develop a framework that willallow MDEP members to take into account otherregulators‟ vendor inspections.
The WG plans to identify common quality
assurance requirements that could be acceptable
to MDEP regulators. The long term goal of the
WG is to harmonise a significant portion of thequality assurance inspection procedures so thatthe results of an inspection conducted by one
member could be used by the other members,
requiring that other member countries only
inspect that portion of their requirements notcovered by the common inspection procedure.

22

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
5.4 Codes and Standards Working Groupand therefore, the role of the working group is toassist the SDOs in identifying and resolving
important differences. The goal of both the SDOs
and the CSWG is to achieve global
harmonisation of pressure-boundary designcodes for nuclear power plants.

Highlights
The CSWG worked closely with the various
Standards Development Organisations (SDOs) from
France, Korea, Japan, and the United States. toessentially complete and fully comprehend the natureof the differences among these various mechanicalcodes and standards for Class 1 pressure vessels.
The group also started the code comparisons forClass 1 pumps, pipes, and valves.

Accomplishments
The CSWG has interacted with standards
development organisations (SDOs) which haveformed a steering committee composed of therepresentatives of ASME, JSME, KEPIC,
AFCEN, CSA, vendors, and utilities. The CSWG
is represented on the steering committee by the
representative from the US NRC. The SDOs are
performing a Code-comparison project inconjunction with the working group‟s efforts. The
first phase consists of a comparison of each
Code‟s requirements for Class 1 pressure
vessels with those of ASME Code, Section III.
This comparison includes the material, design,
fabrication, examination, testing, over-pressure
protection and general requirements. The SDOs
have prepared a comparison table of thefollowing pressure boundary codes for Class 1
pressure vessels: ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code, AFCEN‟s RCCM Code, JSME S
NC1, and KEPIC. This assessment was
accomplished through correspondence and joint
meetings between the working group and SDOs.
The initial effort focusing on pressure vessel
codes resulted in a database which identified thesimilarities and differences between the Korean,
Japanese, and French codes as they compare to
the ASME code. The project was designed touse the ASME code as the basis for thecomparison since most of the codes underreview originated from the ASME codes. The
source of the differences in the codes, such as
regulatory requirements or code organisation
approach, are also addressed. The Phase 1
Code-comparison activity for KEA‟s KEPIC
Code, JSME‟s S-NC1 Code, and AFCEN‟s
RCCM Code comparison is complete. Canada
recently agreed to join the Phase 1 task andperform a comparison of its CSA N-285 standard
to the requirements of the ASME Code, Section
III for Class 1 vessels. Russia has also initiated a
Code-comparison effort.

The CSWG worked closely with the SDOs from
Canada and Russia to commence the code
comparisons for these countries.
The CSWG achieved agreement in principle with
the SDOs to pursue options to preclude further
divergence among the various Codes and Standards.
The CSWG proposed several options forpotential code convergence where possible toencourage harmonisation and standardisation.
The CSWG is exploring regulatory options toenable the use of foreign codes in the licensing of
new reactors.

Background
The primary goal of the Codes andStandards Working Group (CSWG) is to achieve
convergence of regulatory requirements in thearea of component design. A major initial step
towards this goal is establishing a retrievabledata base of the similarities and differencesamong the codes and standards used in thedesign of pressure boundary components. The
initial effort emphasised the similarities anddifferences among the codes and standards
used in the United States (ASME), France(RCCM), Japan (JSME), and Korea (KEPIC).
Future efforts will address codes and standards
in other countries including Canada (CSA) and
the Russian Federation. The working group‟sgoal is to perform an assessment of thesimilarities and differences for the codes andstandards, and identify the most beneficial areas
for convergence. Changes in codes andstandards can only be made by the standards
development organisations (SDOs) themselves

Based on the results of the comparison
exercise, the working group has concluded thatthe complete convergence on every aspect ofpressure-boundary codes on an international
scale is not currently feasible because of the23

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
large differences in the scope of the different
designs, each country‟s design and construction
practices,
regulatory
requirements
andprocesses, cultural patterns, and the manner inwhich Codes are adopted by regulatory
agencies. It was determined that harmonisation
is feasible. “Harmonisation,” in this sense, meansthat there is no substantial difference from asafety perspective between each country‟s Codeused in the design and construction of pressureboundary components. “Convergence,” isdefined as each country‟s Code using identical
Code requirements. The key to achieving
harmonisation is to understand the source of andreasons for differences of Code requirements inorder to assess their significance from a safety
and risk perspective.

pressure boundary codes and standards of othercountries. Also, the working group will continue
discussions with the SDOs for finding potential
paths for harmonisation of the differences in theClass 1 vessel codes.
Plans to further expand the scope of work to
include Class 2 and 3 vessels, piping, pumps
and valves will depend on the success of Phases
1 and 2. Ultimately, MDEP will expand the codesand standards harmonisation effort to areas
beyond pressure boundary components.

Using the comparison results of Class 1
pressure vessels, the working group has begun
discussions to identify the sections of the codesthat are equivalent or identical, and the sections
that are not equivalent, and to examine potential
paths for reconciliation of the differences in thecodes including identifying those that should be
pursued for potential convergence.
As an interim measure, the working group
has obtained a commitment in principle from the
SDOs to work together to minimise further
divergence of code requirements. At the working
group meeting held in November 2009, the issue
of preventing further divergence of code
requirements was discussed with the SDOs. The
working group will pursue a more formal
commitment to keep the future changes, duringcode updates, in the direction of global
conversion.
Next Steps
The SDOs are continuing their Codecomparison effort for Class 1 piping, pumps andvalves (Phase 2). This next phase is expected to
be much simpler than Phase 1 because thegeneral requirements and technical requirements
for materials, fabrication, examination, testing,and over-pressure protection, which are being
completed in Phase 1 for Class 1 Vessels arealso applicable to Class 1 piping, pumps, andvalves.
Once an understanding is gained of thedifferences between the codes, each MDEP
participant could choose to initiate its national
process to endorse, in whole or in part, the242009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
5.5 Digital Instrumentation & Controls
Working Groupthe working group. Representatives from IEEE,
IEC, and IAEA participated in most of theworking group meetings, and both IEC and IEEE
allowed a number of their standards relevant todigital I&C to be made available in the MDEP
library for use by the working group members.
The IEC formalised an agreement with the
OECD/NEA to facilitate co-operation between thetwo organisations.

Highlights

Based on the results of the comparison
exercise, the working group issued letters
to IEC and IEEE recommending that thestandards organisations consider the
MDEP common positions when revising
their standards and increase their cooperationtoachieveenhancedharmonisation of relevant standards.

The working group also interfaces withequipment designers and manufacturers to share
their experience in, and challenges with, thedifferences in standards and regulatory
requirements. For example, representatives of
AREVA, Invensys, and Lockheed Martin met withthe working group and made presentations. The
working group also visited the Rolls-Royce digitalmanufacturing facility in France, the APR1400
simulator, and the construction of Shin-Korinuclear power plants in Korea, and discussed
issues relevant to the working group. The
working group plans to engage additional
vendors and utilities for information exchange inthe future meetings and opportunities.

The DICWG developed common positions
on specific issues among the member
countries. Two common positions on
software common cause failure andsoftware tools are complete.
The working group developed a formal“Quick Inquiry” process to generate andprocess inquiries from member countries
to promote an efficient and structured
information exchange and provide forstoring this information in a retrievabledatabase.

Accomplishments
The working group identified the member
countries‟ most significant technical issues
regarding standards and regulatory guidance
related to digital instrumentation and controls.
This list was used to better understand the main
issues and determine priorities for the working
group and is reviewed on a periodic basis. The
working group performed a comparison exercise
to identify the similarities and differences inregulatory requirements applicable to theseareas, and prioritised the differences that should
be addressed for increased convergence work.
In particular, the working group evaluated the key
differences between the regulatory framework
established in accordance with the IAEA
guidance and IEC standards, and with the NRC
requirements and IEEE standards. In all of thepriority areas, the working group identified that
there were significant similarities and overlaps in
the regulatory approaches.

Background
The objective of the digital instrument andcontrols working group (DICWG) is to identify
opportunities for convergence of applicablestandards. The working group‟s activities include:
identifying and prioritising the member countries‟
challenges, practices, and needs regarding
standards and regulatory guidance regarding
digital instrumentation and controls; identifying
areas of importance and needs for convergenceof existing standards and guidance ordevelopment of new standards; sharing of
information; and identifying common positions
among the member countries for areas ofparticular importance and need.
To enhance co-operation with the standards
organisations, a member of the working group
participated
in
IEEE
and
International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) general
meetings, and presented an overview and statusof the working group. Both organisations
expressed a significant interest in DICWG andexpressed their commitment to co-operate with

The working group compared the list of IEC
standards and IEEE standards relevant to digital
instrumentation and controls. A detailed
comparison table has been developed andreviewed by the working group. This comparison
resulted in significant findings regarding thestandards in terms of the development status,

25

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
scope and details as well as the differences andsimilarities at a high level. The working groupengaged IEC and IEEE, as well as IAEA,
regarding their participation in a comparison
exercise of the standards and increased coordination related to digital instrumentation andcontrols. Based on the results of the comparison
exercise, the working group issued letters to IEC
and IEEE recommending that the standards
organisations consider the MDEP common
positions when revising their standards andincrease their co-operation to achieve enhanced
harmonisation of relevant standards.

The working group continued to achieve theobjective of sharing of valuable information. The
working group developed a formal “Quick Inquiry”
process to generate and process inquiries frommember countries to promote an efficient andstructured information exchange and provide forstoring this information in a retrievable database.
The working group also continued to exchange
information regarding the status of and issues
associated with licensing of new reactor digital
instrumentation and control. The DICWG
communicates frequently with the design-specificworking groups, mainly with the EPR digital
instrumentation and controls subgroup.

The DICWG drafted common positions on
specific issues which are based on the existing
standards, national regulatory guidance, bestpractices, and group inputs using an agreed
upon process and framework. Two common
positions on software common cause failure andsoftware tools are drafted, and additional ones
are under discussion. The common positions
under
discussion
include:independent
verification and validation, data communication,
simplicity in design, and complex electronics.
Additional topics will be identified as the working
group completes these common positions.

Next steps
The working group will continue to draft
additional Generic Common Positions astechnical issues are identified.
The working group will communicate specificsuggestions to the standards organisations and
IAEA for consideration of harmonisation in atimely manner when they are identified during its
activities.
The working group will continue to exchange

DICWG visiting the APR1400 Simulator in Korea

26

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
information among members to contribute toefficiency and effectiveness of the licensing of
new reactor digital instrumentation and controls.
The working group will continue to engage
digital instrumentation and controls vendors andutilities to share experience and insights on abroad spectrum of inputs.

27

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
5.6 Safety Goals

framework paper, based on the Defence-inDepth concept and probabilistic considerations.
This framework can be useful for development ofsafety goals and support of safety decisions bysafety authorities and the designers. The
following have been identified as key issues inthe evaluation of safety goals:

Highlights

The subcommittee is developing aframework paper, based on the Defencein-Depth
concept
andprobabilistic
considerations. This framework can be
useful for development of safety goals andsupport of safety decisions by safety
authorities and the designers.

 Optimisation as well as balancing of
requirements;
 Traceability from the low level goals to
the top level goals;
 Top level goals can be probabilistic,
deterministic, or qualitative; Goals should cover the entire set fromnormal operation, abnormal operation
and accidents;

Background:
One of the original ten recommendations of
the MDEP Pilot Project was to compare how top
level safety goals are derived, expressed, andachievement is judged among the participating
countries, and to determine the extent to which
they can be considered equivalent. MDEP has
recognised that the route to harmonisation ofsafety goals must start with high level, mainly
qualitative goals, which will be not dependent on
the reactor technology considered. This
understanding is expected to enhance cooperation in using other regulators‟ assessments
and the understanding of how decisions havebeen reached.

 Derivation of the safety goals and how
they are used to determine lower levelgoals.
The subcommittee has identified work that isalready on-going in the safety goal and severe
accident areas by other groups such as WENRA,
NEA/CSNI/WGRisk and IAEA. The subcommittee
noted that WENRA appears to be working on asimilar task and the MDEP subgroup will interact
with WENRA and other selected organisations
involved in probabilistic safety goals andapplications. This approach offers the potential toachieve harmonisation beyond the WENRA
countries with minimal potential for duplication ofeffort.

This issue is being addressed through asmall subcommittee consisting of STC members
or their representatives with technical expertisein the safety goals arena. The objective of thesubcommittee is to determine: 1) how various
countries describe the desired level of safety toprotect public health and safety and theenvironment, 2) the role of deterministic andprobabilistic considerations, and 3) other groups
and organisations that are involved in similar or
related work. The subcommittee has held
discussions with other groups including
CSNI/WGRisk, WENRA RHWG, and Gen IV
Risk and Safety Working Group. Significant input
was received from relevant developments in the
IAEA‟s International Safety Group (INSAG).

Next Steps
After the framework paper is finalised,
MDEP plans to meet with other organisations
and finalise its recommendations for high levelsafety goals in a position paper. The
subcommittee‟s work with be complete upon
issuance of the position paper (scheduled for fall2010). MDEP‟s recommendations related to highlevel safety goals will form the basis for MDEP
contributions to the work being performed in thisarea by WENRA, NEA/CNRA, and IAEA.

Accomplishments
One of the major outcomes of thesubcommittee‟s work is increased understandingof the origin of the safety goals in several
countries. The subcommittee is developing a28

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
6.

 Completing a comparison table of the
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,AFCEN‟s RCCM Code, JSME S NC1,
and KEPIC code for Class 1 pressure
vessels;

INTERIM RESULTSIn March 2009, the MDEP Policy Groupagreed that the programme must continue
beyond the original two-year mandate to fully
achieve the established goals. Therefore, MDEP
is considered a long term programme withinterim results. Interim results are those productsthat document agreement by the MDEP member
countries and are necessary steps in working
towards
increased
co-operation
andconvergence. The interim results for 2009
include: Reaching an agreement whereby the
SDOs work together to reduce additional
divergence of the codes;
 Drafting six common positions in the areaof digital instrumentation and controls:
software common cause failure, softwaretools, independent verification andvalidation, data communication, simplicity
in design, and complex electronics;

 Developing technical expert subgroup
technical reports that identify anddocument similarities and differencesamong designs, regulatory safety review
approaches and resulting evaluations; Establishing a formal process togenerate and process inquiries frommember countries to promote an efficientand structured information exchange;

 Maintaining a listing of EPR TechnicalIssues that are currently being evaluatedby each of the participating regulators,
including a synopsis of the issues, thestatus within each technical body, andlinks to relevant documents;

 Issuing a paper on the “Structure andApplication of High Level Safety Goals”.

7.

 Establishing a preliminary set oftechnical considerations to be used fornovel civil engineering construction (suchas modular steel composite structures)and technical guidelines for the design,qualification, and in-service inspection/
testing of explosive-actuated valves;

NEXT STEPS – FUTURE OF THE
PROGRAMMEMDEP has begun to consider the addition of
new topics and how they could be addressed by
the program. The criteria that will be used in
evaluating whether an activity should beundertaken as part of MDEP include: Maintaining a Vendor Inspection Planning
Table with a list of scheduled vendor
inspections to assist the member
regulators in identifying opportunities toobserve an inspection, or obtain the
results of an inspection carried out byanother member; Determining whether the activity is ofgeneric interest and of safety significanceto the licensing of new reactors in MDEP
member countries; Publishing an MDEP Vendor Inspection
Protocol document with guidelines forwitnessed and joint inspections tofacilitate inspections that are observed
and attended by multiple regulators;

 Determining whether the successful
completion of the activity is likely to resultin increased harmonisation/convergencein regulatory practices or increased cooperation within a reasonable timeframe
and resource expenditures; Determining whether the approach
followed by the MDEP regulators is notcompletely similar; Completing 13 witnessed inspections, inwhich one regulator performs aninspection to its criteria, observed byrepresentatives of other MDEP countries;

 Ensuring that any new MDEP activity
does not duplicate similar efforts that are
already ongoing or are planned to beundertaken by other more appropriateorganisations such as the CNRA/WGRNR(or other NEA Working Groups), IAEA,
GIF, WENRA, etc. except where MDEP

 Completing an evaluation of the quality
assurance requirements used in theoversight of vendors including thoseareas where the various regulators havecommon regulatory frameworks;29

2009 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
could contribute to the ongoing work ofthese groups;

GIF Risk and Safety Working Group) andIAEA/INPRO.

 Each new activity should have a leadcountry willing to take an active
leadership role, and a defined product.

In the absence of broader interest, therepresentatives from the United States andSouth Africa are developing a program plan tocontinue to co-operate on technical andregulatory issues in anticipation of reviewing
applications to license HTGRs and otheradvanced reactors. The United Kingdom hasoffered to share their experience with gas-cooled
reactor technologies with this group. This cooperation may eventually be formalised in an
MDEP working group if a broader level of interest
develops. This would support the MDEP goal toco-operate on licensing issues for Generation IV
reactors, and provide a formal mechanism forinterfacing with the Generation IV International
Forum.

In addition, a number of topics have been
identified in which MDEP can play a significant,positive role by co-operating with current efforts
in other organisations. This includes the topics ofsevere accidents and safety goals as discussed
earlier. Therefore, the MDEP STC will search out
areas where it can act as a catalyst for enhanced
regulatory co-operation and convergence in otherforums. MDEP is in a unique position to effectpositive change because it includes theregulatory authorities of over three quarters of
the reactors world-wide and represents thoseagencies at the highest levels. MDEP is using its
influence to initiate change and will contribute to
the success of other initiatives including those of
IAEA, NEA, and WENRA.
Advanced Reactor Activities
At its meeting in March 2009, the MDEP
Policy Group discussed a potential new issuespecific working group on high temperature gascooled reactors. The STC developed a
discussion paper on this subject that provided
the technical and regulatory issues to beaddressed as well as a proposed plan of work.
The proposed justification for MDEP taking on
this issue is that (1) there are currently limited
multinational programs or forums for regulatory
bodies to share information on HTGR designs,
and (2) this effort would support MDEP‟s goal of
harmonisation on approaches to design reviews
for Generation IV reactors.
Through MDEP, the member regulators
would share information on policies and positions
on the licensing issues and establish areas of cooperation in terms of regulatory research anddevelopment. Regulators would co-operate on
evaluations of specific technical issues related to
HTGR and other advanced reactor technologies
with a goal of maximising interactions and cooperation on various reactor design reviews
among experts to make technical analysis morerobust, and to optimise the resources needed toperform national assessments. MDEP would
provide regulatory authorities with a common
regulatory point-of-contact for non-regulatorygroups working on HTGR and on other advanced
reactor technologies, such as GIF (through the30

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENTThe OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 31 democracies work together to address the economic, social andenvironmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to
new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The
Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify goodpractice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission
takes part in the work of the OECD.
OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social andenvironmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members.

This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The
opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official
views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.

NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCYThe OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1st February 1958 under the name of the OEEC European Nuclear
Energy Agency. It received its present designation on 20th April 1972, when Japan became its first non-European full member. NEA
membership today consists of 28 OECD member countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, theSlovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of the European
Communities also takes part in the work of the Agency.
The mission of the NEA is:–

to assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international co-operation, the scientific,
technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentally friendly and economical use of nuclear energy for peacefulpurposes, as well as–

to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues, as input to government decisions on
nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD policy analyses in areas such as energy and sustainable development.

Specific areas of competence of the NEA include safety and regulation of nuclear activities, radioactive waste management,
radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technical analyses of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear law and liability, and public
information.
The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear data and computer program services for participating countries. In these and related tasks, theNEA works in close collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, with which it has a Co-operation Agreement, as
well as with other international organisations in the nuclear field.

Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.

© OECD 2009
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents,
presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use andtranslation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright
Clearance Center (CCC) at info@copyright.com or the Centre français d'exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) contact@cfcopies.com.

Photo credits for cover: Flamanville-3, France (EDF). AP1000 Sanmen, China (SNMPC). Page 6: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, UnitedStates (NRC). Page 9: OECD Conference Centre France (MDEP Steering Technical Committee). Page 15: OECD Conference Centre, France(2009 MDEP Conference). Page 19: Flamanville-3, France (EDF). Page 22: AP1000 Sanmen, China (SNMPC). Page 28: AP1400, Korea(MDEP Digital I & C Working Group).

OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
Le Seine Saint-Germain – 12 Boulevard des Iles
F-92130 Issy-les-Moulneaux, France
www.nea.fr/mdep