Multinational Design Evaluation Programme (MDEP)

2nd MDEP Conference on New
Reactor Design Activities
Paris, France
15-16 September 2011

Conference Proceedings© OECD 2011
NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENTThe OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 34 democracies work together to address the
economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts tounderstand 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 good practice andwork to co-ordinate domestic and international policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan,
Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, theSlovak Republic, Slovenia, 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 and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its
members.
This work is published on the responsibility of the OECD Secretary-General.
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 1 February 1958. Current NEA
membership consists of 30 OECD member countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, theNetherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission 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 peaceful purposes, as well as– to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues, as input togovernment decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD policy analyses in areas such asenergy and sustainable development.
Specific areas of competence of the NEA include the safety and regulation of nuclear activities, radioactive
waste management, radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technical analyses of the nuclear fuelcycle, 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, the NEA 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.
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any
territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or
area.
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found online at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.
© OECD 2012
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases andmultimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of
the OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted torights@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.

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Foreword

The Multinational Design Evaluation Programme (MDEP) is a unique eleven-nation initiative being
undertaken by national regulatory authorities from Canada, China, Finland, France, India, Japan, Republicof Korea, the Russian 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 toharmonise and converge on safety licensing review practices and requirements. The OECD NEA has beenchosen to provide the technical secretariat support. The International Atomic Energy Agency participatesin many of the MDEP activities.
Started in 2007 with co-operation on various pilot project issues, the MDEP’s expected outcomes are:(1) improved effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory safety design reviews, (2) increased quality ofsafety assessments, and (3) identified areas for the convergence of regulatory requirements and practices.
Making each regulator stronger in its ability to make sovereign safety decisions is a key objective that cuts
across all MDEP activities.
In 2008, the top regulators from each national authority met as the MDEP Policy Group and adopted
the present structure and programme of work for the MDEP, including the pursuit ofco-operation on specific safety design reviews and pursuing closer co-ordination on harmonisation andconvergence issues such as digital instrumentation and control, mechanical codes and standards, andvendor inspections. The MDEP is currently a long-term programme that focuses in near term and interim
results to share within MDEP and with other stakeholders.
With effective communications in mind, the MDEP Policy Group directed the NEA to co-ordinate thesecond conference on New Reactor Design Activities with the purpose of communicating to a wide
spectrum of stakeholders worldwide as to the program of work and accomplishments of the MDEP, andsoliciting feedback and input from these stakeholders regarding recommendations on how to co-operate
more efficiently on new reactor design reviews and to encourage standardisation and harmonisation on
regulatory requirements and practices. Another key aspect of this conference was to allow the various
industry stakeholders to share their activities on new reactor designs and standardisation efforts. These
stakeholders included non-MDEP regulators, vendors, licensees, reactor applicants, industry organisations,standards development organisations, etc. The conference was held on 15-16 September 2011 at OECD
Headquarters in Paris. These conference proceedings contain the details of the various sessions and the
topics discussed as well as specific presentations given by panel members

3

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

4

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Table of contents

Foreword............................................................................................................................................

3

Session 1

Welcome and opening of conference...............................................................................

9

Chair: A.-C. Lacoste, Chair, MDEP Policy Group (PG), Chair, Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire
(ASN), France
Session 1 summary ........................................................................................................... 11
Welcome and introductory remarks............................................................................... 13
L. Echávarri, Director-General, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
Introductory remarks and overview of MDEP.............................................................. 15
A.-C. Lacoste, Chair, MDEP Policy Group, Chair, ASN, France
Session 2(Part I)MDEP activities and accomplishments on design-specificworking groups (EPR and AP1000 working groups) .................................................... 25
Chair: B. Tang, China PG member, Deputy Director-General, National Nuclear Safety
Administration (NNSA)
Session 2 (Part I and part II) summary .......................................................................... 27
EPRWG ............................................................................................................................. 29
P. Tiippana, Chair of the EPRWG, STC member, Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety
Authority (STUK), Finland
AP1000WG ....................................................................................................................... 37
G. Holahan, AP1000WG, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC),
Deputy Director of the Office of New Reactors, Chair of the MDEP Steering TechnicalCommittee (STC), USA

Session 2(Part II)

Design-specific activities panel ........................................................................................ 41
Chair: J. Laaksonen, Finland PG member, Director-General, STUK, Chair, Western
European Nuclear Regulators Association (WENRA)
Session 2 (Part II) summary ............................................................ (see session 2 part I)
MDEP representatives:
T. Houdré, France STC Member, Director of the Nuclear Power Plants Department, ASN
D. Newland, Canada STC Member, Director of the New Major Facilities Licensing
Department, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)
Industry representatives:
F. Bouteille, Senior Vice-President Safety & Licensing, AREVA .................................... 43
S. Rupprecht, Vice-President, AP1000 Product Delivery Systems,
Westinghouse Electric Company ....................................................................................... 49
C. Bakken, Project Director – Hinkley Point C, Nuclear New Build
Operations, EDF Energy .................................................................................................... 53
D. Hu, Director, Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture Co. (TNPJVC) Paris Office ........ 57
5

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Session 3

MDEP activities and accomplishments on the Digital Instrumentation
and Control Working Group (DICWG) ........................................................................ 77
Chair: P. Tiippana, Finland STC member, STUK
Session 3 summary ........................................................................................................... 79
Presentation on activities and accomplishments ........................................................... 81
D. Santos, Chair of the DICWG, US NRC, United States
MDEP representatives:
B. Jennings, United Kingdom DICWG member, Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR)
Industry and standards development organisations (SDOs) representatives:
J.-P. Bouard, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), IEC SC45A secretary .. 89
K.H. Kim, Vice-President, Doosan Heavy Industries and Constructions .......................... 93

Session 4

MDEP activities and accomplishments of the mechanicalCodes and Standards Working Group (CSWG) ........................................................... 99
Chair: P. Bester, South Africa PG representative, National Nuclear Regulator (NNR)
Session 4 summary ........................................................................................................... 101
Presentation on activities and accomplishments:
X. Wei, Chair of the CSWG, CNSC ................................................................................... 103
MDEP respresentatives:
K. Abe, Japan STC member, Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organisation (JNES)
B. Tang, China STC member, NNSA ................................................................................ 115
Representatives from SDOs:
R. Swayne, Vice-President, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) ........... 129
M. Morishita, Deputy Director-General, Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA), Japan
Society of Mechanical Engineers (JSME) representative .................................................. 137
C. Laugier, President, French Association for the rules governing the Design,
Construction and Operating Supervision of the Equipment Items for Electro
Nuclear Boilers (AFCEN) .................................................................................................. 143
World Nuclear Association Working Group on Co-operation in Reactor Design
Evaluation and Licensing (WNA/CORDEL) representative:
N. Prinja, Technical Director, AMEC/Hindustan Construction Company (HCC) ............ 149

Session 5

Fukushima-related issues................................................................................................. 163
Chair: M. Weightman, United Kingdom PG member, HM Chief Nuclear Inspector, ONR
Session 5 summary ........................................................................................................... 165
Presentation and update on the Fukushima accident and recovery:
K. Nakamura, Japan PG member, Deputy Director-General, Nuclear and Industrial Safety
Agency (NISA) .................................................................................................................. 167

6

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

MDEP representatives:
G. Jaczko, United States PG member, US NRC Chair ...................................................... 183
J. Laaksonen, Finland PG member, Director-General, STUK, Chair, WENRA ............... 185
Y.-W. Park, Korea PG representative, President, Korea Institute of
Nuclear Safety (KINS) ....................................................................................................... 189
K. Allars, United Kingdom PG representative, ONR
World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) representative:
L. Stricker, Chair, WANO .................................................................................................. 197
Session 6

MDEP activities and accomplishments of the Vendor
Inspection Co-operation working Group (VICWG) ..................................................... 203
Chair: T. Jamieson, Canada PG Member, Vice-President, CNSC
Session 6 summary ........................................................................................................... 205
Presentation on activities and accomplishments:
S. Yang, Chair of the VICWG, KINS ................................................................................. 207
MDEP representatives:
Y. Melstov, FSUE VO “Safety”, Russia STC representative and VICWG member .......... 215
S. Crombez, France STC and VICWG member,
Director of the Nuclear Pressure Equipment Department, ASN
Vendor representatives:
T. Nakamura, General Manager of nuclear energy department, Japan Steel Works, Ltd.
(JSW).................................................................................................................................. 223
S.-K. Kim, Vice-President, NPP Quality Control, Doosan Heavy Industries
and Construction ................................................................................................................ 231

Session 7:

Industry initiatives on new reactor designs.................................................................... 239
Chair: M. Micklingoff, Chair, WNA/CORDEL
Session 7 summary ........................................................................................................... 241
CORDEL activities:
R. Zemdegs, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) and CORDEL member forinternational industry licensing survey ............................................................................... 243
C. Raetzke, Co-chair of the WNA task force on licensing and permitting ......................... 249
T. Froemel, E.On and representative of the joint FORATOM-ENISS
and WNA/CORDEL........................................................................................................... 257
Industries activities:
G. Holahan, Deputy-Director, Office of New Reactors, US NRC .................................... 267
P. Bester, South Africa STC member, NNR ...................................................................... 271
M. Mustonen, OL3 Nuclear Safety Manager and Director of Construction, TVO ............ 275
J. Head, Senior Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy ............ 279
X. Pouget-Abadie, Senior Safety Advisor, EDF................................................................. 281
7

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Session 8

Concluding Panel.............................................................................................................. 285
Chair: G. Jaczko, United States PG member, US NRC
Session 8 summary ........................................................................................................... 287
MDEP PG representative:
A.-C. Lacoste, MDEP PG Chair
Reactor vendors representative:
P. Knoche, Chair and CEO, AREVA
Licensees representative:
D. Lagarde, Director of New Nuclear engineering, EDF
SDOs representative:
M. Morishita, Deputy Director-General, JAEA and JSME representative
Regulatory authorities representative:
S. Bajaj, Chair, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) .............................................. 289
WENRA representative:
J. Laaksonen, Chair WENRANEA representative:
L. Echávarri, Director-General, OECD/NEA
Conclusion and closing of the conference....................................................................... 295
A.-C. Lacoste, MDEP PG Chair, Chair, ASN .................................................................... 297

Appendix A List of participants ........................................................................................................... 301

8

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

SESSION 1
WELCOME AND OPENING OF CONFERENCE

9

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201110

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

SESSION 1 SUMMARY

Luis Echávarri, Director-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s(OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), opened the second Multinational Design Evaluation Programme(MDEP) Conference on New Reactor Design Activities by welcoming all attendees to the OECD
Headquarters in Paris. Over 120 guests representing 23 countries and 11 international organisations
attended the Conference. After having expressed his solidarity with the Japanese people, Mr. Echávarriemphasised the stress the Fukushima accident has put on organisations which are related to decision
making in the nuclear field all over the world. In that context, Mr. Echávarri expressed that he believed
MDEP, as one of the international initiatives that have proved to efficiently enhance overall safety, willplay a role addressing post-Fukushima issues, notably thanks to the co-operation it achieves between
regulators and at some level with external stakeholders.
André-Claude Lacoste, President of ASN and Chair of MDEP’s Policy Group, also welcomed theattendees and provided information about MDEP’s current status. Mr. Lacoste underlined the goals of
MDEP, detailed the accomplishments to date for each of the working groups and highlighted the effort ofcommunication with stakeholders, which is fundamental for MDEP to maintain and improve. In addition,
Mr. Lacoste pointed out the evolution of MDEP’s terms of reference which was carried out to facilitate theintegration of further members including full members, associate members, and candidates.
This session concluded with brief remarks by MDEP Policy Group members from Canada, China,
Finland, France, Japan, the Russian Federation, South Africa, the UK and the US. Regarding the issue
related to the Fukushima accident, the PG members agreed that the MDEP will review the relevant issues
and decide how to incorporate them into MDEP activities, as appropriate. Most likely this will beaccomplished through the design-specific working groups and the Steering Technical Committee (STC)
discussions.
During comments made at the Policy Group roundtable, the STC Chair, Gary Holahan, mentioned theintent of the STC to undertake a comprehensive self assessment of the MDEP that will include internal andexternal stakeholder input. The expected output of this effort is a report to the PG regarding any necessarychanges to the MDEP in order to ensure the goals, objectives, and expected outcomes as documented in the
MDEP Terms of Reference are being met.

11

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

12

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Welcome and introductory remarks
Luis Echávarri
Director-General, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen and welcome to the Second Multinational
Design Evaluation Programme (MDEP) Conference on New Reactor Design Activities.
With the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident, the Conference comes in a challenging time for all of us,
national regulators, reactor vendors, licensees, and others in the nuclear field. My primary thoughts go to
our Japanese colleagues to whom I wish to express our solidarity in their recovery from the devastating
earthquake and Tsunami that occurred on the 11th of March and the subsequent nuclear accident.
We will devote some of our time during the next two days on the accident which has impacted thework of all of our organisations. This includes obviously the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; all the
programmes of work of its Committees are being amended to draw the lessons from it. The next NEA
Steering Committee policy debate on 27 October will be focused on the accident as it is the highest topic
on the agenda of the international nuclear community and will probably remain so in the coming years.
The Fukushima Dai-ichi accident has once again illustrated the global character of the nuclear sector.
The need for a global nuclear safety has clearly emerged from this event, with implications in terms of
harmonisation of approaches and practices; it has become a broad demand from the Public and theGovernments, as expressed at the G8-NEA Ministerial Seminar and Forum of Regulators that we organisedwith the French Government on 7 and 8 June.
This also came out clearly from the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Fukushima on 24 June and we
expect an action plan to be presented very soon on the occasion of the IAEA General Conference held next
week in Vienna.
The question is as always: how to proceed, given the technicality of nuclear rules and regulations, thevarious technologies, the responsibility of national authorities? How to go beyond basic standards, which
are necessary but, as their names indicate, remain basic? I trust the MDEP is a case in point in terms of
methodology and it is also why it increasingly attracts new country regulatory bodies, willing toparticipate.
For the last four years, the MDEP has gathered the main regulators concerned with licensing newreactors, from Canada, China, Finland, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation,
South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. They have continued to work diligently on thismultinational initiative, on concrete reactors construction projects with the experts in their field.
The MDEP has contributed to improve the existing significant and lasting relationships between
national regulators. Since the last MDEP Conference two years ago, much progress has been made by thedesign-specific and issue-specific working groups of the MDEP. This Conference is an opportunity tocommunicate about this, the products associated with co-operation on new reactor safety reviews andexploring the potential next steps in the harmonisation of regulatory requirements and practices.

13

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

The work to date already includes input from industry standards development organisations such as
IEC, AFCEN, ASME, JSME and KEPIC, reactor vendors including Westinghouse and Areva, licensees
worldwide, IAEA and WENRA, and other industry groups such as WNA and WANO. Industry
representatives will share with us the efforts that they are undertaking to encourage standardisation.
Finally, let me stress that the NEA, acting as technical secretariat of the MDEP, give a high priority to
its work in this area and would like to thank its members for their continued trust. The MDEP is reallywithin the scope of the Agency’s objectives and missions, assisting its member countries in pooling theirtechnical expertise.
In fact, at the origin of the MDEP, the size of nuclear programmes worldwide, today with 65 reactors
under construction, as well as the limited industry and regulatory resources were strong drivers for national
regulators to pool their resources, to be more efficient. We don’t know yet the impact of the Fukushima
accident in new build, but to achieve harmonisation of designs and to arrive to an efficient design licensing
process, will certainly help to face the new challenges ahead.
I believe your contributions in the MDEP Conference will be keys in improving the efficiency of the
new reactor safety evaluation processes and the strategy of the MDEP in this regard. I also hope you willtake all the possible benefit of this Conference and I wish you a good work.
I would like now to welcome Mr. André-Claude Lacoste, President of the French Nuclear Safety
Authority and Chairman of the MDEP Policy Group. He has been at the outset of the MDEP initiative andhe has provided excellent guidance and forethought to the MDEP organisation over the years. I leave thefloor to him.
Thank you for your attention.

14

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Welcome and opening of conference
André-Claude Lacoste, Chair, ASN
Chair, MDEP PG

15

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201116

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201117

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201118

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201119

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201120

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201121

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201122

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201123

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201124

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

SESSION 2 (PART I)
MDEP ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS ON DESIGN-SPECIFICWORKING GROUPS (EPR AND AP1000 WORKING GROUPS)

25

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201126

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

SESSION 2 SUMMARY (PART I AND PART II)

The following participants made remarks and presentations on the status of the design-specificworking groups on AREVA’s EPR design (EPRWG) and Westinghouse Electric Company’s AP1000
design (AP1000WG):
Bo Tang, National Nuclear Safety Administration, China (NNSA), Deputy Director General, andChair of Session 2, Part 1

Petteri Tiippana, Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) and Chair of the
EPRWG



Gary Holahan, NRC, Deputy Director of the Office of New Reactors and Chair of the MDEP
Steering Technical Committee (STC)

The following participants took part in the Panel Session on Design-Specific Activities after thepresentations:

Jukka Laaksonen, STUK, Director-General, MDEP Policy Group Member, and Chair of theSession 2, Part 2

Thomas Houdré, French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN), Director Nuclear Power Plants
Department, Member of the STC



Dave Newland, Canadian Nuclear Safety Council (CNSC), Director New Major Facilities
Licensing Department, and Member of the STC

Francois Bouteille, Senior Vice-President Safety & Licensing, AREVA

Sandy Rupprecht, Vice-President AP1000 Product Delivery Systems, Westinghouse ElectricCompanyChristopher Bakken, Project Director, Hinckley Point C Nuclear New Build, EDF EnergyDingjin Hu, Director, Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture Co. (TNPJVC) Paris Office

After the presentations by the chairs of the EPRWG and AP1000WG on the status andaccomplishments of each working group, the Panel Session was conducted to discuss the activities that aregoing on pursuant to MDEP work on design-specific issues. Members of the panel included those from theregulators participating in MDEP as well as representatives from the companies who have designed and arelicensing reactors in several MDEP countries. The Session 2, Part 2, Panel Chair, Mr. Laaksonen, provided
brief introductory remarks and invited each panel member to say a few words about their views of MDEP
design-specific activities. Each panel member discussed the role that their respective organisations areplaying in licensing and constructing new reactors around the world. Some common themes emerged in27

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

these comments and in the questions and answers that followed. The industry representatives emphasisedthat they are embracing standardisation to address new reactor issues and they would hope and recommendthat the regulators do also. Both Westinghouse and AREVA described their efforts in maintaining astandard design as much as possible to gain efficiencies in licensing, constructing, and operating new
nuclear power plants worldwide. Some differences in designs may be driven by differing regulatory
requirements or practices or perceptions of regulation requirements and practices by the licensees.
The MDEP representatives on the panel agreed that they do value standardisation for safety reasonsand that, as part of the design-specific working groups, the MDEP participants are sharing documents andevaluations to help leverage resources and make licensing design reviews more safety focused. They
thought that co-operation between diverse regulators can enhance safety and standardisation/harmonisationof regulations had the potential to enhance stability, predictability, and efficiency.

28

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

EPR Working Group
Petteri Tiippana, Chair of the EPRWG, STUK29

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201130

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201131

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201132

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201133

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201134

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201135

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201136

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

AP1000 Working Group
Gary Holahan, Chair of the STC, US NRC

37

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201138

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201139

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201140

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

SESSION 2 (PART II)
DESIGN-SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES PANEL

41

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201142

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

AREVA
François Bouteille, Senior Vice-President, Safety & Licensing

43

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201144

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201145

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201146

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201147

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201148

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Westinghouse
Sandy Rupprecht, vice-president AP1000 product delivery systems

49

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201150

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201151

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201152

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

EDF Energy
Christopher Bakken, Project Director – Hinkley Point C

53

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201154

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

55

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201156

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011TNPJVCDigjin Hu, Director, TNPJVC, Paris Office57

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201158

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201159

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201160

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201161

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201162

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201163

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201164

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201165

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201166

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201167

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201168

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201169

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201170

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201171

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201172

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201173

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201174

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201175

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201176

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

SESSION 3
MDEP ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE DIGITAL INSTRUMENTATIONAND CONTROL WORKING GROUP (DICWG)

77

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201178

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

SESSION 3 SUMMARY

Mr. Petteri Tiippana, Finland STC member, STUK, chaired this session. The following persons maderemarks and/or gave presentations on the status of the issue-specific working groups on Digital
Instrumentation and Control (DICWG):Dan Santos, US NRC, chair of the DICWG, gave a presentation of the current status of the
DICWG work and its perspectives;

Jean-Paul Bouard, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), IEC SC45A secretary, gavea presentation of the IEC and nuclear I&C standards;



Kook Hun Kim, vice-president of Doosan Heavy Industries and Construction, gave a presentationof Doosan and their work on DI&C;

Bob Jennings, Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), UK STC member, made remarks on someissues in digital I&C system design from the perspectives of both the MDEP STC member andthe UK regulator.

Included in the presentation regarding the DICWG work was the current status of the thirteencommon positions, three of which were published on the NEA’s MDEP public website: on simplicity,
software tools and communications. Close interactions were achieved with IEC, the Institute of Electricaland Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to maximise theimprovement and the convergence of digital instrumentation and control standards regarding the DICWG
positions.
The IEC representative presented the overall IEC background, highlighting the high number ofcountries participating in their work and the wide range of topics covered. He also mentioned that theinteractions of the international entities with the MDEP demonstrated the effort toward the harmonisationof I&C standards.
The Doosan representative gave a description of its experience in digital instrumentation and control
in terms of R&D projects and manufacturing of the reactors under construction. He concluded with stating
the benefits of setting up common regulatory positions and the negative consequences of divergences ofstandards.
Bob Jennings mentioned the importance of operational profile on the performance of I&C system, andalso stressed the importance of safety classification issue. He concluded his remarks with acknowledgmentof the benefits from the contributions made by the US on AP 1000 as well as the contributions by Finlandand France on EPR.
There were questions and answers between the audience and panelists on the following: MDEP
initiatives for safety classification issue; possibility of common position on integrity of supply chains ofdigital I&C components; efforts to develop standards to capture a new technology; verification of software
reliability during operational phase.

79

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

As to the safety classification issue, MDEP’s input to draft IAEA safety guide dealing with the issue
was mentioned. The DICWG’s on-going efforts to establish common positions on integrity of digital I&C
components, software reliability throughout life cycle, and new technologies was addressed. In terms ofsetting safety guides on new technologies, it was noted that the MDEP common positions, unlike SDOs’
detailed technical standards, were fundamental safety principles in nature.

80

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Digital Instrumentation and Control Working GroupDan Santos, Chair of the DICWG, US NRC

81

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201182

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201183

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201184

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201185

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201186

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201187

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201188

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

IEC SC45A
Jean-Paul Bouard, IEC SC45A Secretary, IEC

89

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201190

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201191

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201192

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Doosan Heavy Industries and Construction
Kook Hun Kim, Vice-President, Doosan Heavy Industries and Construction

93

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201194

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201195

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201196

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201197

MDEP Conference Proceedings 201198

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

SESSION 4
MDEP ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE MECHANICAL CODES AND
STANDARDS WORKING GROUP (CSWG)

99

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011100

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

SESSION 4 SUMMARY

Mr. Peter Bester, South African Policy Group representative chaired this session. The following
persons made remarks and/or gave presentations on the status of the issue-specific working groups on
mechanical Codes and Standards Working Group (CSWG):

Xuejun Wei, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), Chair of the CSWG, gave apresentation on the work of the CSWG;

Dr. Kiyoharu Abe, Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organisation (JNES), Japan STC member;

Bo Tang, National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA), China PG and STC member, gave apresentation on the use of codes and standards in China;

Rick Swayne, vice president of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), gave apresentation on the SDOs code comparison project;

Masaki Morishita, deputy director general of Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA), Japan
Society of Mechanical Engineers representative (JSME), gave a presentation on JSME
perspective on the code comparison project;

Cécile Laugier, president of the French Association for the rules governing the Design,
Construction and Operating Supervision of the Equipment Items for Electro Nuclear Boilers(AFCEN), gave a presentation on the code comparison perspectives;

Nawal Prinja, technical director of AMEC/Hindustan Construction Company (HCC),
WNA/CORDEL representative, gave a presentation of WNA and the code comparison projectfrom the CORDEL point of view.

The presentation given regarding the CSWG status outlined the ultimate goal of the working group toachieve harmonisation of code requirements for design and construction of pressure-retaining components.
Steps to be taken are at first the establishment of fundamental attributes, then their development into
essential safety references (since renamed to essential performance guidelines of pressure boundary
components) and finally the convergence of the code and standards, with the major involvement of thestandard development organisations. The CSWG already drafted the fundamental attributes and essential
elements and the essential safety references documents. A great benefit of the MDEP CSWG work wasbringing together the SDOs who conducted a comparison of each country’s code with the ASME code,
thus setting strong basis to further move toward harmonisation of codes. The presentation highlighted theeffort of the CSWG for preventing further divergence of the codes and for reconciling current codes andregulatory practices.
The representative of NNSA presented how mechanical codes and standards are used in licensing
Chinese power plants. At first, nuclear power plants and their components were built according to foreigncodes in force in the countries of vendors and to codes related to non nuclear facilities. Presently, French

101

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

RCC-M code is used for the construction of CPR1000 NPPs, which are derived from French NPPs, and for
EPR NPPs, and ASME is used for the construction of AP1000 NPPs. Concern is given to the use of several
codes in the same power plant, e.g. when RCC-M is followed for the construction and ASME for the
manufacturing of components, notably when there are interfaces between the two. Another example iswhen a component is manufactured according to RCC-M and must be inspected following ASME.
Furthermore, China will develop its own codes and standards.
The presentation on the SDOs project on the comparison of codes from ASME, AFCEN, JSME,
KEA, CSA and NIKIET, initiated by the VICWG, first highlighted the goal of identifying the differences
between the codes for manufacturing class 1 components. The final report is planned to be available inearly 2012. Secondly the comparison identified the major differences between ASME and others codes,
such as the scope of application of the codes, the quality assurance requirements (ASME NQA-1, ISO and
IAEA for RCC-M), and the specification of Canadian code for the specific types of reactors. The
representative from JSME narrowed the comparison to the conclusions regarding JSME versus ASME.
Differences are mainly that some ASME topics are not addressed in JSME and there are different
references for quality assurance. The presentation concluded that next steps, harmonisation of existingcodes and preclusion of further divergence, need the continuation of regular meetings and discussions
between SDOs, the CSWG and WNA CORDEL.
The AFCEN representative also emphasised the fact that harmonisation would be beneficial forallowing compatibility in practices and acceptance of components worldwide. As some codes are updatedwith regulator inspection results and utilities involvement, cultural and legal differences were found to be
dominants. Therefore, safety authorities will have to play a significant role in allowing mutual recognitionof different codes and standards.
The WNA CORDEL representative presented the World Nuclear Association organisation andunderlined the economic advantages and additional safety layers that would follow from harmonisation ofinternational requirements and standards. Through its 2011 programme plan, CORDEL supported MDEP
and the SDOs effort toward their goal. After examination of code comparison to date, CORDEL proposed
to set up a pilot project focused on codes and standards related to technical design, such as stress allowable
and analysis methods, and personnel qualifications.
MDEP representatives congratulated the SDOs on the codes comparison work and urged timely
publication of the report and associated comparison tables. The MDEP representatives also encouraged
close communication between the SDOs, WNA CORDEL, and the CSWG regarding the steps being taken
for harmonisation and to limit significant future code divergences.

102

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Codes and Standards Working Group
Xuejun Wei, Chair of the CSWG, CNSC

103

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

104

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

105

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011106

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011107

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011108

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011109

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011110

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011111

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011112

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011113

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011114

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Japan National Nuclear Safety Agency (NNSA)Bo Tang, Member of the PG, Deputy Director General, NNSA

115

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

116

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

117

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

118

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

119

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011120

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

121

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

122

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011123

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011124

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011125

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011126

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Thank You127

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011128

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Rick Swayne, Vice-President, ASME

129

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011130

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011131

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011132

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011133

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011134

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011135

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011136

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers (JSME)
Masaki Morishita, Deputy Director-General, JAEA, JSME representative137

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011138

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011139

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011140

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011141

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011142

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

French Association for the rules governing the Design,
Construction and Operating Supervision of the Equipment Items
for Electro Nuclear Boilers (AFCEN)
Cécile Laugier, President, AFCEN

143

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

144

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

145

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011146

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011147

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

148

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

World Nuclear Association (WNA)

Nawal Prinja, Technical Director, AMEC/Hindustan Construction
Company, WNA/CORDEL representative149

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011150

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011151

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011152

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

153

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

154

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

155

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011156

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

157

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011158

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

159

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011160

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011161

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

162

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

SESSION 5
FUKUSHIMA-RELATED ISSUES163

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011164

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

SESSION 5 SUMMARY

André-Claude LACOSTE, MDEP PG Chair, replaced Mr. Mike WEIGHTMAN as chair of thissession. The following persons made remarks and/or gave presentations on the Fukushima related issues:Koichiro Nakamura, Japan PG member and deputy director general of NISA, gave a presentationof the current status and efforts regarding the TEPCO Fukushima Dai-ichi accident;

Gregory Jaczko, United States PG member and chair of the US NRC, gave a presentation on the
US NRC’s actions following the Fukushima accident;Jukka Laaksonen, Finland PG member and chair of STUK and WENRA, gave a presentation on
the design issues to be considered on the basis of Fukushima lessons;Youn-Won Park, Korea PG member and president of KINS, gave a presentation of Korea
response to Fukushima related issues

Kevin Allars, United Kingdom PG member;

Laurent Stricker, chair of WANO, gave a presentation on new reactors vendors’ and licensees’
responses to the Fukushima related issues.

The presentation by Mr. Nakamura of the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident summarised the short term(months) efforts undertaken to gain control of the situation and the mid (3 years) and long term ones thatremain toward the decommissioning, with the roadmap detailed. Also were presented the monitoring of theenvironment and the exposure of residents and workers, with measurements of dose rates, setting of
evacuation areas and surveillance of agricultural products. The regulatory framework will evolve toincorporate lessons learnt regarding emergency preparedness and design reviewing. The major step will be
the creation of a regulatory body independent from the ministry of industry in early 2012.
Then, a presentation was given regarding the US NRC immediate response to the accident and thedetails about the near term task force work and recommendations. MDEP’s role as an opportunity to shareregulatory evolutions regarding these issues was underlined.
Concerning the design issues raised after the Fukushima accident, the presentation addressed that thecurrent international safety standards need to be consolidated with site specific hazards and features andcommon cause failures reassessment (physical protection and separation, redundancy, increased diversity,connections for mobile equipment).
The Korean inspections carried out to NPPs following the Fukushima accident were detailed in thepresentation of the Korean representative. Focuses were the design in light of potential natural disasters,
severe accidents and emergency preparedness. Several improvements were identified, such as theavailability of power supplies and water in case of any events and the need to address issues regarding
multiple units on the same site. Korea hosted the first IRRS mission following the Fukushima accident.
Follow up issues were included in each of the topics forming the review. To conclude, a major step in the165

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

nuclear regulation of Korea will be the creation of a new organisation, the Nuclear Safety and Security
Commission, not under the responsibility of the ministry of industry anymore.
WANO issued a SOER in March 2011, to which 100% of WANO members answered. Gaps that need
to be addressed were identified in emergency preparedness of each utility in term of procedures, equipment
availability and training. Concerning WANO, commitment was taken to reinforce the emergency team andthe co-ordination with international organisations.
Mr. Lacoste stated that after the Fukushima accident, each country is undertaking its action plan toaddress the safety issues and some countries are pursuing regional action plans such as in Europe. The
MDEP representatives will stay aware of the evolving issue and incorporate as necessary the relevant
topics into MDEP activities.

166

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Japan Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA)
Koichiro Nakamura, Member of PG, Deputy-Director General, NISA

167

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011168

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011169

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011170

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011171

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011172

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011173

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011174

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

175

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011176

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011177

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011178

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011179

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011180

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

181

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

182

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC)
Gregory Jaczko, United States PG Member, Chair, US NRC

183

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011184

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Western European Nuclear Regulators’ Association (WENRA)
Jukka Laaksonen, Finland PG Member, Director-General, STUK185

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011186

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011187

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011188

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS)
Youn-Won Park, Korea PG representative,
Director of International Nuclear Safety, KINS

189

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011190

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

191

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011192

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011193

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011194

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

195

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011196

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO)
Laurent Stricker, Chair, WANO

197

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011198

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011199

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011200

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011201

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011202

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

SESSION 6
MDEP ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE
VENDOR INSPECTION CO-OPERATION WORKING GROUP (VICWG)

203

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011204

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

SESSION 6 SUMMARY

Terry Jamieson, Canadian Policy Group member chaired this session. The following persons maderemarks and/or gave presentations on the Fukushima related issues:Sungho Yang, Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS), chair of the VICWG, gave apresentation on the status of the VICWG;



Tsuyoshi Nakamura, General manager of nuclear energy department, Japan Steel Works, Ltd.,gave a presentation on JSW and its experience in manufacturing components;

Sukkwan Kim, Vice-President, NPP quality control, Doosan Heavy Industries and Construction,
provided a presentation on Doosan and its experience in vendor inspections;

Sébastien Crombez, France STC member, ASN, made some remarks on vendor inspection
activities in the context of both VICWG and French regulation;Yury Meltsov, FSUE VO “Safety”, Russia STC representative, VICWG member, gave apresentation on the Russian process of vendors inspections.

The chair of the VICWG presented the status of the VICWG, detailing the near term goals,
identifying similarities and differences in the use of quality assurance standards in regulatory inspections,and the long term goal of carrying out multinational inspections of vendors. He also highlighted theexperience gained through the 30 witnessed inspections conducted since 2008, procedures for sharing
inspection results, inspection protocol, and the comparison of quality assurance regulatory requirements.
After a presentation of JSW’s manufacturing experience, the JSW representative expanded to the useof codes and standards: different codes apply regarding the reactor design and the country (ASME for the
AP1000 and RCC-M for the EPR for example). On top of that, specific country requirements also must be
taken into account. Interest of JSW was expressed for harmonisation of codes and standards for equipment
manufacturing and manufacturer qualification.
Doosan’s manufacturing experience was developed by the Korean representative, mentioning the 11
on-going projects, mainly AP1000 in the USA and China. Then were highlighted inspections aiming atverifying the implementation of vendor’s quality assurance programme by KINS, the US NRC, NNSA and
FANR, concluding that the criteria were quite similar as based on ASME and NQA-1. Further expectations
regarding MDEP are that inspections are conducted by multiple regulators or that regulators rely on others’
inspections to fulfil their respective programme, so as to optimise resources.
According to the presentation by Mr. Yury Meltsov, inspections are conducted in Russia to assess theorganisation and the quality assurance of the manufacturer. When assessing a foreign vendor,
implementation of international and national standards will be examined and compared to the Russianstandards. Gathering information about foreign vendors, regarding a minimal list of pre-determined tests,
would enable the sharing of information between countries on the assessment of vendors, as well as easier
co-operation.

205

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Some members of industry suggested that MDEP inspections should include co-operation on
inspection of civil works and other issues so that the regulators could co-operate in such areas.
The MDEP VICWG will likely invite the relevant quality assurance/management standards
development organisations (ASME, AFCEN, IAEA, ISO) to a subsequent meeting to discuss ideas ofpotential harmonisation on QA/QM requirements.

206

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Vendor Inspection Co-operation Working GroupSungho Yang, Chair of VICWG, KINS

207

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

208

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011209

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

210

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011211

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011212

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

VICWG

■ Questions/Comments

2nd MDEP Conference – September 2011

213

12

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011214

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Vendor Inspection Co-operation Working Group
Yury Meltsov, Executive Director, FSUE VO “Safety”

215

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011216

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011217

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011218

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011219

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011220

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

221

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011222

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Japan Steel Works, Ltd.
Tsuyoshi Nakamura, General Manager of Nuclear Energy Dept., JSW

223

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

224

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

225

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011226

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011227

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011228

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011229

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011230

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Doosan Heavy Industries and Construction
Suk Kwan Kim, Vice-President, NPP Quality Control, Doosan Heavy Industries and Construction

231

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011232

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011233

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011234

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

235

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011236

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011237

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011238

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

SESSION 7
INDUSTRY INITIATIVES ON NEW REACTOR DESIGNS

239

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011240

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

SESSION 7 SUMMARY

Michael Micklinghoff, E.on, WNA/CORDEL, led this session. The following persons made remarks
and/or gave presentations on the Fukushima related issues:

Raidis Zemdegs, AECL, CORDEL member for international industry licensing survey, gave apresentation of COREL activities and perspectives;



Christian Raetzke, co-chair of the WNA task force on licensing and permitting, gave apresentation of the task force;Thomas Fröhmel, E.On, representative of the joined Foratom-Eniss and WNA/CORDEL group,
gave a presentation of the industry proposals for IAEA safety guide on safety classification of
SSCs in NPPs;



Gary Holahan, US NRC, Deputy Director of the Office of New Reactors, Chair of MDEP STC,
gave a presentation of MDEP thoughts on the industry proposal;Peter Bester, South Africa national Nuclear Regulator (NNR), STC member, gave a presentationof the benefits for small regulators to have standardisation;

Marjo Mustonen, TVO, Olkiluoto 3 nuclear safety manager and director of contruction, gave apresentation of ;

Jerry Head, GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, senior vice-president, regulatory affairs;



Xavier Pouget-Abadie, EDF, senior safety advisor, gave a presentation of EDF perspective on
standardisation.

It was announced that Mr. Jerry Head was, just days prior to the conference, chosen as the new chairof WNA CORDEL replacing Mr. Micklinghoff.
One of WNA CORDEL’s main goals is to promote standardisation and the working group is divided
into several task forces. Through these task forces, interaction with MDEP is sought mainly in areas ofcodes and standards (to interact with MDEP’s CSWG), probabilistic safety goals, licensing and permitting(multinational approach) and design change management (benefits of a standard fleet throughout life cycleof reactors). A survey has been answered by utilities and being used to set up an “effective change
management and design authority” in charge of maintaining standard designs in time, spreading bestpractices and chosen modifications on all of the reactors based on the same design. Future plans for
CORDEL are to contribute to MDEP’s work on I&C, comment on regulatory views on post-Fukushimaactions concerning new builds and review probabilistic methods for demonstrating seismic adequacy.
The second WNA CORDEL presentation focused on the licensing and permitting task force actions,aiming principally at supporting the WNA members when facing licensing of new reactors. The CORDEL
survey was detailed. It mainly dealt with the interaction of regulatory processes with the industry’scommercial activities such as procurement, contracting and finance. Acknowledging that regulatory
practices differ globally, questions were asked about which one were preferred and how they connect with241

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

different structures of contracting vendors and manufacturers: multiple steps licensing, pre-licensing basedon early design, overall contract approach, long lead items ordering, etc. The survey report is planned to be
drafted in April 2012.
Then a presentation was given on the status of the IAEA safety guide on safety classification of
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) in nuclear power plants (NPPs) (IAEA Draft safety guide DS
367). The framework, as detailed in the presentation, is set by the IAEA SSR 2/1 which requires thefulfilment of fundamental safety functions, through the action of items important to safety that need tooperate under a set of events. All items important to safety shall be identified and classified, according totheir safety significance. From the industry point of view, some issues remain in the last drafted document.
Agreeing with the overall approach, the industry still suggests that it should not be reactor specific.
Besides, the scope of the verification steps should be expanded and the industry proposed a specificapproach to deal with operational SSCs that could perform safety functions with the assignment ofprovisions against failure. To conclude, elaboration of test cases is proposed prior to the IAEA consultancy
meeting in November 2011 to stress this very new approach and demonstrate its effectiveness.
The MDEP STC chair presented the participation of MDEP in international harmonisation ofpractices: CSWG encouragement for the mechanical codes and standards comparison, DICWG’s cooperation with IEEE and IEC and involvement of the IAEA. He responded to WNA/CORDEL’s
proposition by reminding that MDEP members retained the full responsibility of the regulation of theircountry’s nuclear activities and by pointing out that MDEP means to interact with the drafting of the IAEA
standard through the country members’ participation.
In his presentation, the South Africa representative emphasised that standardisation of reactors andharmonisation of standards would also help small regulators to deal with the review reactor designs,
modifications or operation, as they must face the same issues than bigger regulators, but with fewer
resources.
TVO’s representative presentation started with underlining the benefits of standardised reactors: forsafety through a better operating experience and also from an economic point of view with the vendor
optimisation through manufacturing of more similar components. This can be achieved only with strong
multinational co-operation (regulators and utilities) toward harmonised licensing procedures. TVO pays
attention to these efforts in the on-going process of selecting the reactor type for Olkiluoto 4.
The representative of GE-Hitachi gave remarks about the need of a regulatory framework to achieve
standardisation of designs for improving safety.
EDF representative presented EDF involvement in EPR’s constructions over the world. He gave EDF
thoughts about the advantages of standardisation, which is not necessarily equivalent to duplication of areactor but have to rely on the experience feedback and synergies between projects. He also insisted on theessential regulatory co-operation but moreover highlighted the efforts already undertaken by specificorganisations like ENISS or the EPR family and the strong interaction between EPR licensees.

242

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

World Nuclear Association (WNA) / CORDEL
Raidis Zemdegs, AECL and CORDEL member

243

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011244

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011245

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

246

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011247

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011248

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

World Nuclear Association (WNA) / CORDEL
Christian Raetzke, Co-chair of the WNA task force on licensing and permitting

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011250

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011252

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011254

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011256

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

FORATOM-ENISS and WNA/CORDEL Group
Thomas Froehmel, CORDEL representativeMDEP Conference Proceedings 2011258

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011260

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

262

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011264

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

266

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC)
Gary Holahan, Deputy-Director, Office of New Reactors, US NRCMDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

268

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011270

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

South Africa’s National Nuclear Regulator (NNR)
Peter Bester, South Africa STC member, NNR

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011272

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011274

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

Olkiluoto 3 Project
Marjo Mustonen, OL3 Nuclear Safety Manager and Director of Construction, TVOMDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

276

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

278

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy
Jerry Head, Senior Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy

In this role, I am responsible for managing our licensing team and providing leadership and strategic
guidance for all the nuclear licensing activities in our business (New Plants, Services, and Fuel). I manage
the business relationship with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, co-ordinate related industry interfaces
with organisations such as NEI and INPO, and provide expert knowledge about the US NRC rules andregulations. I also lead international licensing efforts for the business.
My experience in the nuclear industry started with research reactor operations followed by initialstartup testing of a BWR. Since that time, I have spent over 26 years in the commercial nuclear powerindustry in engineering roles of increasing responsibility involving both PWR and BWR reactor
technology. My experience includes core design, Operations, probabilistic and deterministic safety
analysis, plant system and design engineering, and support of numerous plant licensing efforts including
power uprates and license extensions.
I have Bachelors and Masters degrees in Nuclear Engineering from Texas A&M University and I ama licensed Professional Engineer.
Remarks:
Regulatory stability, internationally and within a specific country, is a key concept when designing
the next generation of nuclear power plants. Standardisation of design provides safety, schedule, and costbenefits in construction and subsequent operation. Standardisation of design requires, where possible, astandard but, more importantly, a stable regulatory framework. It is recognised that significant lessons
learned such as the Japan earthquake must be addressed in licensing regimes. To do anything less would beirresponsible. However, it is important that the regulators of the world work together to appropriatelybalance technical adequacy, political environments, and risk-benefit to quickly arrive at the appropriate
regulatory framework going forward. Note the singular context, I didn’t say frameworks, as I am an
optimist that the work underway here is moving us in that direction.

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011280

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

EDF
Xavier Pouget-Abadie, Senior Safety Advisor, EDF

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011282

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011284

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

SESSION 8
CONCLUDING PANELMDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

286

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

SESSION 8 SUMMARY

Gregory Jaczko, U.S.A. Policy Group member chaired this session. The following persons provided
views and/or presentations regarding conclusions from conduct of this conference:

André-Claude Lacoste, MDEP Policy Group Chair;Philippe Knoche, Chief Operating Officer of AREVA who replaced Mr. Luc Oursel, President
and Chief Executive Officer, AREVA;

Dominique Lagarde, Director of New Nuclear Engineering, EDF;



Masaki Morishita, Deputy Director General, Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA);Satinder Singh Bajaj, Chair, India’s Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB)Jukka Laaksonen, Chair, Western European Nuclear Regulators’ Association (WENRA)

Luis Echávarri, Director General, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency

All panel members agreed that MDEP efforts fostered positive and productive relationships among
the regulators and that the goals of harmonisation and convergence of regulatory requirements, when asafety benefit is a result, are desirable. Also the discussions during the preceding 2 day-conference werealso very conducive to opening the dialogue between MDEP members and other stakeholders such as nonMDEP regulators and industry organisations.
MDEP members on the panel expressed the challenging work on harmonisation of regulatory
requirements and also stressed the role that industry has in standardising and harmonising designs andindustry requirements.
Industry representatives expressed a desire to maintain open lines of communication with MDEP, thatthey have seen increased interactions with MDEP regulators, and encourages mutual recognition of otherregulator’s findings, as appropriate and with a focus on safety.
Mr. Morishita, as a mechanical Standards Development Organisation representative, highlighted thework of the SDOs in comparing the various codes and the progress being made as a result and that the
SDOs support MDEP activities and goals.
Mr. Bajaj highlighted the benefits of MDEP activities and sharing information with non-MDEP
regulators. MDEP activities are relevant to India’s AERB because of the developments of nuclear powerin India. And there are other countries that may benefit also from increased exchanges with MDEP. Korea
and Russia mentioned the desire to potentially form design-specific working groups on the APR1400 andadvanced VVER designs, respectively.

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

As WENRA representative, Mr. Laaksonen, encouraged keeping the working groups functioning
efficiently, especially in the areas of co-operating on specific designs.
Mr. Echávarri expressed OECD NEA’s support for MDEP activities and the importance of MDEP asa unique multinational initiative.
Mr. Jaczko, as Chair of this concluding panel, acknowledged the progress being made on MDEP
activities since the last MDEP conference in September 2009 and generally opened the floor to comments
and questions by rhetorically asking what might be accomplished or what issues might be addressed within
MDEP between now and a potential 3rd MDEP Conference in late 2013.
Mr. Lacoste cautioned to go step by step in the harmonisation area of requirements and tocommunicate with key stakeholders. Vendor inspections and the final work of the VICWG wer
highlighted as a needed area to focus on by Mr. Laaksonen.
Industry representatives agreed that the safety classification of structures, systems, and components is
an area in which MDEP may be able to work to encourage harmonisation of approaches. And generally
working on processing to allow recognition of other regulator’s work should be pursued.
Other areas of interest expressed included exploring the scope of the work of the design specificworking groups perhaps to include commissioning and operational issues.
Other topics discussed included the desire from non-MDEP regulators to be included in MDEP
activities whether through membership expansion or observation of MDEP activities. The importance ofincorporating relevant lessons learnt from Fukushima was a common theme.
It was also expressed by MDEP members that MDEP is a unique long term programme that focuseson interim results such as key events like this Conference in communicating MDEP activities and common
positions. The Policy Group will decide how long the MDEP will last. The Policy Group also looks
forward to seeing the STC self assessment report in a timely manner that will address some of the issues
broached during this session. Mr. Jaczko agreed that MDEP should focus on a few safety issues andaddress those subjects in a comprehensive and relevant manner.
Generally the Panel like the idea of conducting a 3rd MDEP Conference on New Reactor Design
Activities in late 2013.

288

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

AERB
S.S. Bajaj, Chair, AERBMDEP Conference Proceedings 2011290

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011292

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011294

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

CONCLUSION AND CLOSING OF CONFERENCE

Mr. André-Claude Lacoste, MDEP Policy Group Chair provided his concluding presentation andremarks at the end of the Conference.
Mr. Lacoste provided his views of the Conference and the status of the MDEP including addressing
the following areas:


MDEP expected outcomesThe status of MDEP after four years in its current programme structure

MDEP perspectives and challenges including the work towards harmonisation, potential
expansion of membership in MDEP, the expected self assessment report and recommendations
from the Steering Technical Committee, incorporating lessons learnt from the Fukushima
accident

Expectation from Industry stakeholders including the need for active involvement from theindustry, standards development organisations, and licensee

It was again mentioned the possibility of holding a 3rd MDEP Conference on New Reactor Design
Activities in approximately two years.

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

296

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

ASN
André-Claude Lacoste, Chair, ASN
MDEP Policy Group (PG) ChairMDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

298

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011300

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

APPENDIX A
LIST OF PARTICIPANTSMDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

BELGIUM

TIIPPANA, Petteri
Director
Radiation and Nuclear Safety
Authority (STUK)
E-mail: petteri.tiippana@stuk.fi

BERDAL, Robert
Head of Nuclear Process and Systems
Tractebel Engineering GDF SUEZ
E-mail: robert.berdal@gdfsuez.com

FRANCECANADA

BOUTEILLE, François
Vice-President
Project and Technology/Safety
and Licensing
AREVA NPE-mail: francois.bouteille@areva.com

JAMIESON, Terry
Vice-President
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
E-mail: terry.jamieson@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca
NEWLAND, David
Director
New Major Facilities Licensing
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
E-mail: david.newland@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca

CLOS, Adeline
Senior Executive
International relations Department
Autorité de sûreté nucléaire (ASN)
E-mail: adeline.clos@asn.fr

WEI, Xuejun
Technical Specialist
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
E-mail: xuejun.wei@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca

CROMBEZ, Sébastien
Director
Nuclear Pressure Equipment Department
Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire
E-mail: sebastien.crombez@asn.fr

ZEMDEGS, Raidis
Director of Safety & Licensing
Office of Chief Engineer
Atomic Energy of Canada
E-mail: zemdegs@aecl.ca

DEBES, Michel
Head of International Relations
Electricité de France (EDF)
E-mail: michel.debes@edf.fr

CZECH REPUBLICDECOBERT, VéroniqueEngineering Director
Westinghouse Electrique France
E-mail: decobev@westinghous.com

STULLER, Jan
Director
Division for Licensing New Nuclear
Facilities
State Office for Nuclear Safety (SUJB)
E-mail: jan.stuller@sujb.cz

DURIN, Michel
Program Manager
Innovation and Nuclear Support Division
CEA/DEN/DISN/Gen II & III
E-mail: michel.durin@cea.fr

FINLANDLAAKSONEN, Jukka
Director General, STUKRadiation and Nuclear Safety Authority
E-mail: jukka.laaksonen@stuk.fi

EVRARD, Jean-Michel
Co-ordinator for Research Programmes
IRSN/Direction de la Stratégie
E-mail: jean-michel.evrard@irsn.fr

MUSTONEN, Marjo
OL3 Nuclear Safety Manager andDirector of Construction
Teollisuuden Voima Oy (TVO)
E-mail: marjo.mustonen@tvo.fi

GILLET, Guillaume
DirecteurInternational Relations Department
Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN)
E-mail: guillaume.gillet@asn.fr

302

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

HOUDRÉ, Thomas
Director
Nuclear Power Plant Department
Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN)
E-mail: thomas.houdre@asn.fr
KNOCHE, Philippe:
Chief Operating Officer
AREVA
E-mail: philippe.knoche@areva.com
LACOSTE, André-Claude
Président
Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire
E-mail: andre-claude.lacoste@asn.fr
LAGARDE, Dominique
Directeur de l'Ingénierie Nouveau
Nucléaire
Electricité de France (EDF)
E-mail: dominique.lagarde@edf.fr

GERMANYJANSEN, FlorianTechnical Assistant to the CEO
Gesellschaft Für Anlagen-und
Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH
E-mail: florian.jansen@grs.de
KOHLPAINTNER, Willibald
Senior Vice-President
E.ON Kernkraft GmbHE-mail: willibald.kohlpaintner@eon-ene
ZIPPER, Reinhard
Head of Project Management
Gesellschaft für Anlagen-und
Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH
E-mail: reinhard.zipper@grs.de

HUNGARY

LIGNINI, Franck
Reactor & Services - Safety & Licensing
AREVA
E-mail: franck.lignini@areva.com

RONAKY, Jozsef
Director General
Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority
E-mail: ronaky@haea.gov.hu

MAYOUSSE, Martine
New Builds Licensing Manager
AREVA
E-mail: martine.mayousse@areva.com

VEGH, Janos
Head of Department
KFKI Atomic Research InstituteE-mail: vej@aeki.kfki.hu

MOURLON, Sophie
Deputy Director-General
Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN)
E-mail: Sophie.Mourlon@asn.fr
POUGET-ABADIE, Xavier
Senior Safety Advisor
EDF Nuclear Engineering Division
E-mail: xavier.pouget-abadie@edf.fr
POULAT, Bernard
Products and Technologies
Nuclear Safety
E-mail: bernard.poulat@areva.com
ROUSSELOT, Olivier
International Survey
Electricité de France (EDF)
E-mail: olivier.rousselot@edf.fr

INDIA
BAJAJ, Shri S. S.
ChairmanAtomic Energy Regulatory Board
E-mail: ssbajaj@aerb.gov.in
MAZUMDER, Sandip Kumar
Minister (Science)
Embassy of India
E-mail: tlm3@wanadoo.fr

JAPAN
ABE, Kiyoharu
Counseling Expert
Japan Nuclear Energy Safety
Organisation (JNES)
E-mail: abe-kiyoharu@jnes.go.jp

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

AKIMOTO, Seiichi
Counselling Expert
Japan Nuclear Energy Safety
Organisation
E-mail: akimoto-seiichi@jnes.go.jp

NAKAMURA, Tsuyoshi
General Manager
Japanese Steel Works
E-mail: tsuyoshi_nakamura@jsw.co.jp
WATANABE, Masaaki
Senior Staff
Japan Nuclear Energy Safety
Organisation (JNES)
E-mail: watanabe-masaaki@jnes.go.jp

HARUEI, Miyaguchi
Assistant to President
Vice-chair of Main Committee on
Power Generation Facility Codes
Nuclear Power Operations
IHI Corporations
E-mail: haruei_miyaguchi@ihi.co.jp

KOREA (REPUBLIC OF)
KIM, In-Goo
Head of New Reactor Department
Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS)
E-mail: igkim@kins.re.kr

KAMADA, ToshihikoFirst Secretary, Science and Technology
Permanent Delegation of Japanto the OECDE-mail: toshihiko.kamada@mofa.go.jp

KIM, Kookhun
Senior Vice President of Nuclear I&C
DOOSAN Heavy Industries &Construction
E-mail: kookhun.kim@doosan.com

KAMEYAMA, Naoto
Director
Japan Electric Power Information Center
E-mail: kameyama@jepic.fr

KIM, Sukkwan
Vice-President
Nuclear Power Plant BusinessGroup Quality Control & EHS
DOOSAN Heavy Industries &Construction
E-mail: sukkwan.kim@doosan.com

KASAI, Shigeru
The Institute of Applied Energy
E-mail: skasai@iae.or.jp
KOYAMA, Masaomi
Principal Deputy Director
Nuclear and Industrial Safety
Ministry of Economy, Trade andIndustry (METI)
E-mail: koyama-masaomi@meti.go.jp

PARK, Youn Won
Director
International Nuclear Safety
Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS)
E-mail: pyw@kins.re.kr

MORISHITA, Masaki
Deputy Director-General
Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA)
E-mail: morishita.masaki@jaea.go.jp

YANG, Sungho
Head, Quality Evaltuation Department
Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS)
E-mail: shyang@kins.re.kr

NAGATA, Tetsuya
Senior Technical Staff Engineer
Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy, Ltd.
E-mail: tetsuya.nagata.fa@hitachi.com

LITHUANIAKIMTYS, Evaldas
Head of Safety Analysis Division
State Nuclear Power Safety Inspectorate
E-mail: e.kimtys@vatesi.lt

NAKAMURA, Koichiro
Deputy Director-General
Nuclear Safety and Industrial
Safety Agency
E-mail: nakamura-koichiro1@meti.go.jp

304

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

NETHERLANDSRUSSIAN FEDERATIONBOXMAN, Engelbertus Wilhelm
Kernysische Dienst
E-mail: hubert.boxman@minvrom.nl

BOGDAN, Sergey
Deputy Director
SECNRS
E-mail: bogdan@secnrs.ru

Mr Joseph JEHEE
Nuclear Licensing Engineer
DELTA Energy B.V.
E-mail: jjehee@delta.nl

MALYSHEV, Vladimir
Assistant to the Chairman
Federal Environmental, Industrial andNuclear Supervision Service of Russia
E-mail: v.malyshev@gan.ru

VAN AERNSBERGEN, Lodewijk Maarten
Project Leader
New Nuclear Power Plant in the
Netherland
E-mail: l.vanaernsbergen@minez.nl

P.R. OF CHINA
HU, Ding Jin
Director
Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture
Co.Ltd. (TNP JVC) Paris OfficeE-mail: hudingjin@cgnpc.com.cn
TANG, Bo
Deputy Director
National Nuclear Safety
Administration (NNSA)
E-mail: Tangbo200@sina.com
ZHANG, Qinghao
Taishan Nuclear Power
Joint Venture Co.Ltd. (TNPJVC)
E-mail: zhangqinghao@cgnpc.com.cn

POLANDJURKOWSKI, Maciej
Vice-president
Chief Nuclear Regulatory Inspector
National Atomic Energy Agency (PAA)
E-mail: maciej.jurkowski@paa.gov.pl
ZAGRAJEK, Marcin,
Director
National Atomic Energy Agency (PAA)
E-mail: zagrajek@paa.gov.pl

MELTSOV, Yury
Executive Director
FSUE VO "Safety"
E-mail: Meltsov@vosafety.ru
SOKOLOVA, Irina
Head,International Relations Department
Federal Environmental, Industrial andNuclear Supervision Service of Russia
E-mail: i.sokolova@gosnadzor.ru
SPEVAKOVA, Irina
FSUE VO “Safety”
Interpreter
E-mail: safety@gan.ru

SLOVAK REPUBLIC
LISKA, Peter
Director of the Nuclear Safety Division
VUJE, a.s.
E-mail: liska@vuje.sk
VIDLICKA, Ruben
VUJE a.S.
E-mail: zuzana.belokostolska@vuje.sk

SOUTH AFRICA
BESTER, Peter
Special Nuclear Projects Co-ordinator
National Nuclear Regulator
E-mail: pbester@nnr.co.za

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

SWINBURN, Richard
Head of Technology
Rolls-Royce plc
E-mail: richard-swinburn@rolls-royce.c

SWEDENLANSAKER, Pär
Nuclear Safety Senior Advisor
Vattenfall AB
BU Nuclear PowerE-mail: par.lansaker@vattenfall.com

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CLAYTON, Scott
Vice-President, Nuclear
Invensys
E-mail: clayton.scott@invensys.com

WALLIN, Lovisa
AnalystDepartment of Nuclear Power Plant
SafetySystem Assessment
Swedish Radiation Safety Authority
E-mail: lovisa.wallin@ssm.se

DOANE, Margaret
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
E-mail: margaret.doane@nrc.gov
DUDES, Laura
Director
Office of New Reactors
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
E-mail: Laura.Dudes@nrc.gov

TURKEY
AKBAS, Tahir
Vice-President
Turkish Atomic Energy Authority
E-mail: tahir.akbas@taek.gov.tr

HEAD, Jerald Glen
Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC
E-mail: jerald.head@ge.com

UNITED ARAB EMIRATESHOLAHAN, Gary
Deputy Director, Office of New Reactors
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
E-mail: gary.holahan@nrc.gov

ELTAWILA, Farouk
Chief Scientist
Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation
United Arab Emirates
E-mail: farouk.eltwila@fanr.gov.ae

JACZKO, Gregory B.
Chairman
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
E-mail: gbj@nrc.gov

TRAVERS, William
Director-General
Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation
E-mail: hayam.alsouliman@fanr.gove.ae

RUPPRECHT, Sandy
Vice-President
Westinghouse Electric Company
AP1000 Process Delivery Systems
E-mail: ruppresd@westinghouse.com

UNITED KINGDOMALLARS, Kevin
Director of Nuclear New Build
Office for Nuclear Regulation
E-mail: kevin.allars@hse.gsi.gov.uk

RUSS, Paul
Director
AP1000 International Licensing
Westinghouse Electric Company
E-mail: russpa@westinghouse.com

BAKKEN, III, A. Christopher
Director of Operations, Safety &Licensing
EDF Energy
E-mail: chris.bakken@british-energy.co

SANTOS, Daniel
Senior Technical Advisor
Digital Instrumentation and Controls
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
E-mail: Daniel.Santos@nrc.gov

JENNINGS, Bob
Superintending Inspector
Office for Nuclear Regulation
E-mail: bob.jennings@hse.gsi.gov.uk

306

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

VIET NAM
HAI, Luu Nam
Director of the Nuclear Safety Division
VARANS
E-mail: lnhai@varans.vn

KAIJANEN, Mika
Technical Project Officer
Seconded National Expert Clearinghouseon OEF for NPPs
E-mail: mika-johannes.kaijanen@ec.europa.eu
FORATOM ENISSInternational Organisations
Association Française pour les règles deConception, de construction et desurveillance en exploitation des matériels desChaudières Electro Nucléaires (AFCEN)FAIDY, Claude
Senior Consultant Engineer
EDF
E-mail: claude.faidy@edf.fr
LAUGIER, Cécile
Président AFCEN
Conseillère
Cabinet du Président/EDF
E-mail: cecile.laugier@edf.fr
MALOUINES, Philippe
RCC M Chairman
AFCEN
E-mail: philippe.malouines@areva.com
American Society of Mechanical Engineers(ASME)SWAYNE Rick
Vice-President
Nuclear Codes and Standards
ASME
E-mail: rswayne@reedyeng.com

BERGER, Jean-Pierre
Director
FORATOM ENISS
E-mail: jean-pierre.berger@foratom.org
International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA)
KANG, Ki-Sig
Technical Head (PLiM/LTO)
Nuclear Power Engineering Section
Division of Nuclear PowerInternational Atomic Energy Agency
E-mail: k.s.kang@iaea.org
International Electrotechnical Commission(IEC)
BOUARD, Jean-Paul
Division Systèmes Electriques
EDF. - SEPTEN
E-mail: Jean-Paul.Bouard@edf.fr
Japan Society of MechanicalEngineers (JSME)MORISHITA, Masaki
Deputy Director-General
Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA)
E-mail: morishita.masaki@jaea.go.jp

European Commission (EC)
BUCALOSSI, Andrea
Policy Officer
European Commission – Joint ResearchCentreE-mail: andrea.bucalossi@ec.europa.eu
GLOCKLER, Oszvald
Senior Researcher
European Commission Joint ResearchCentreE-mail: oszvald.glockler@ec.europa.eu

Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)
BURKHART,Larry
Project Officer - Multinational Design
Evaluation ProgrammeOECD Nuclear Energy Agency
E-mail: Larry.Burkhart@oecd.org
CAMERON, Ron
Head, Nuclear Development Division
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
E-mail: Ron.Cameron@oecd.org

MDEP Conference Proceedings 2011

DUJARDIN, Thierry
Deputy Director and Head of Data BankOECD Nuclear Energy Agency
E-mail: Thierry.Dujardin@oecd.org

FROEHMEL, Thomas
E.ON Kernkraft GmbHE- mail: thomas.froehmel@eon.com

DUNN LEE, Janice
Deputy Director-General
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
E-mail: Janice.Dunnlee@oecd.org

MICKLINGHOFF, Michael
Senior Advisor
E.ON Kernkraft GmbHE-mail: michael.micklinghoff@eon-energ

ECHAVARRI, Luis
Director-General
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
E-mail: Luis.Echavarri@oecd.org

PAULY, Jan
E.ON Kernkraft GmbHE-mail: Jan.Pauly@eon.com
PRINJA, Nawal
Technical Director
AMEC Nuclear
E-mail: nawal.prinja@amec.com

KIM, Byung-Soon
Nuclear Safety Analyst
OECD Nucler Energy Agency
E-mail: Byung-Soon.Kim@oecd.org

RAETZKE, Christian Peter
Rechtsanwalt/Lawyer
CONLAR-Consultuing on Nuclear Law
E-mail: christian.raetzke@conlar.de

NAKOSKI, John
Nuclear Safety Analyst
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
E-mail: John.Nakoski@oecd.org

WADDINGTON, John Geoffrey
Director of Strategy
CORDEL GroupE-mail: johnwadd@magma.ca

OKYAR, H. Burcin
Administrator, Radiation Protection DivisOECD Nuclear Energy Agency
E-mail: Halilburcin.Okyar@oecd.org
WEI, LI
Engineer
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
E-mail: Li.Wei@oecd.org
YOSHIMURA, Uichiro
Deputy Head
Safety and Regulation
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
E-mail: Uichiro.Yoshimura@oecd.org
World Association of Nuclear
Operators (WANO)STRICKER, Laurent
Chairman of WANO
E-mail: stricker@wanocc.org
World Nuclear Association/CORDEL
BORYSOVA, Iryna
Project Manager
World Nuclear Association
E-mail: borysova@world-nuclear.org

308