Background and objectives
The MDEP is a unique multinational initiative, leveraging the resources and knowledge of national
regulators to review new reactor designs. The programme celebrated its 10th anniversary in 2016 and isrecognised as an effective framework for regulatory co-operation and harmonisation.
Over the first 10 years of its existence, MDEP has published 24 common positions and 13 technical reports.
In 2015, the MDEP members extended the co-operation period from the end of 2017 to the end of 2022,
focusing on its core mission of collaborating on new reactor design-specific activities. The scope of MDEP
was extended in 2016 to incorporate commissioning and early phase operation as additional MDEP areas of
co-operation.
At this important first decade milestone, MDEP was willing to gather feedback on its current activities anddiscuss its future. To this end, MDEP organised its fourth MDEP conference. The event provided a forum for
MDEP stakeholders (including industry representatives, standard development organisations and otherinternational organisations) to share the results of their engagement with the programme and to deliverpresentations on ongoing activities related to new reactor licensing. The two-day conference included
sessions on codes and standards harmonisation, digital instrumentation and controls, supply chain
regulatory issues and vendor inspection co-operation, influence of MDEP interactions on reactor designs
safety, commissioning activities and perspectives for MDEP.

Organisation and participation
Participation

To maintain focus, participation was by invitation only to: industry representatives;
 international organisations and associations; countries’ nuclear regulatory organisations and their technical support organisations.
Language

All presentations and discussions were held in English.
Organising committee

The members of the organising committee were:

Mr Julien Collet, ASN, France, STC Chair, Chair of the organising committee



Mr Christian Carrier, CNSC, Canada, STC member



Mr Tapani Virolainen, STUK, Finland, STC member



Mr Gary Holahan, US NRC, USA, STC member

Ms Donna Williams, US NRC, USA, STC member

Ms Anne-Cécile Rigail, ASN, France, EPRWG Chair

Mr Lawrence Burkhart, US NRC, USA, AP1000WG ChairDr Sweng Woong Woo, KINS, Korea, APR1400WG Chair

Mr Sergei Bogdan, SEC-NRS, Russia, VVERWG ChairMr Neil Blundell, ONR, UK, ABWRWG Chair

Mr Xuejun Wei, CNSC, Canada, CSWG ChairMr Ismael Garcia, US NRC, USA, DICWG Chair

Mr Stuart Allen, ONR, UK, VICWG Chairwith the support of Aurélie Lorin, MDEP Technical Secretariat.

1

Venue and contact
The conference took place atQueen Elizabeth II Centre
Saint James room
Broad Sanctuary
Westminster, London
SW1P 3EE, United Kingdom
For any additional information, please contact mdepconference2017@oecd-nea.org.

2

Proceedings

OPENING SESSION
The Conference opened with an overview of the MDEP creation and development, its achievements for the
10 years period, and the co-operation between MDEP and the World Nuclear Association (WNA)’s Working
Group on Cooperation in Reactor Design Evaluation and Licensing (CORDEL).
Mr Lacoste, former ASN Chairman, co-founder and first MDEP Chairman (2006-2013), shared the context,
motivations and ambitions of the MDEP foundation. He noted that after a lot of frank and open discussions
between USNRC, ASN, STUK and other European regulators the MDAP (Multinational Design Assessment
Programme) had been created in 2005. The MDAP, after a one-year pilot project conducted in 2006-2007
and specific recommendations approved in 2008, was converted into a long-term programme (MDEP) in2009. He said that the initial goal of MDEP was to set up an enhanced co-operation among regulators inorder to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory design reviews, to raise the safetyassessment quality and the safety level, and to facilitate convergence of regulatory requirements. He went
on to say that, with years, the ambitions of MDEP evolved to “go as far as possible on co-operation, sharing,harmonisation and convergence of the reactor design review”.
Mr Holahan, MDEP Steering Technical Committee (STC) member, provided an overview of MDEP
achievements during the 10 years of its activities including the STC accomplishments, design-specific andissue-specific working groups benefits and past successes. Among others, mention was made of the GenericCommon Positions (Fukushima-Daiichi Accident, First-Plant-Only-Tests), working group's Common Positions
and Technical Reports, increased communications and co-operation in design evaluations as well as greater
degree of harmonisation in review practices. He also noted that STC identifies ways to work with andinfluence other programmes and organisations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
standards development organisations – American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), (French
Association for design, construction and surveillance rules of nuclear power plant components (AFCEN),
Canadian Standards Association (CSA), Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers (JSME), Korea Energy Agency(KEA), N.A. Dollezhal Scientific Research and Design Institute of Energy Technologies (NIKIET), International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) –, WNA’s
CORDEL, Western European Nuclear Regulators' Association (WENRA) and the Generation IV International
Forum (GIF). The continuing evolution of MDEP includes transition of existing issue-specific working groups
to NEA committees, creation of new design-specific working groups, as needed, increasing regulators
membership and increased co-ordination and interaction.
Ms Rising, Director General of WNA, noted in her presentation the close co-operation between MDEP and
CORDEL at different levels – CORDEL and MDEP Policy Group, MDEP Steering Technical Committee and
CORDEL Steering Committee, CORDEL task forces and MDEP issue-specific working groups. She also
highlighted that international harmonisation of regulatory requirements and standardisation of reactor
design is crucial to derive safety benefits alongside efficient delivery of nuclear energy.
In the presentations and the discussions that followed, a number of key points, commonalities andchallenges were identified by the participants. These are:
Key points
The purpose of MDEP is to:Increase co-operation between member-countries in new designs evaluation;Enhance convergence (harmonisation) of requirements and practices.

Commonalities identified
The MDEP is a very important and useful tool for regulators;The observation of commissioning activities is very important for regulators;3Interactions with external organisations developed very effectively in MDEP;The MDEP future is very important for the nuclear community.

Challenges identified

Maintaining active involvement of regulators, vendors and operators;

The need to provide innovative approaches with limited ability to define routine work;

Need a higher level of international harmonisation for digital Instrumentation and Controls (I&C)
systems.

SESSION 1
Codes and standards harmonisation
The goal of the Codes and Standards issue specific Working Group (CSWG) is to achieve harmonisation ofcode requirements for the design and construction of pressure-retaining (pressure boundary) components
in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory design reviews, increase quality ofsafety assessments, and to make each regulator stronger in its ability to make safety decisions.
The session opened with the commentary that the standard development organisations (SDOs) andnational regulatory bodies have been working together for code development and harmonisation for anumber of years and reemphasised the need for an international view on the relevant codes and standards.
It was stated that harmonisation can be achieved through convergence and reconciliation by which it ismeant that the areas of difference are identified and, for those differences, the impacts are understoodand accepted.
There are a number of challenges ahead of any code or standard harmonisation, namely:

Codes and standards are comprehensive and are typically self-contained which means it is not
feasible to select certain aspects over another;

Codes and standards consider all safety aspects and balance all safety requirements;



Codes or standards often reference other codes or standards which vary from country to country;Regulatory requirements can result in code variations and also supplement code requirements.
Each country has a unique regulatory regime.

The chair of the CORDEL Mechanical Codes & Standards Task Force (MCSTF) and the representative of the
SDO board presented CORDEL work and SDOs work on code harmonisation, respectively. They alsopresented some of the results on code comparison and code convergence.
The MCSTF chair stated that the aim of the MCSTF was to promote the convergence of nuclear mechanicalcodes and standards in order to facilitate the international standardization of reactor designs. To date, the
MCSTF has reviewed the different approaches to the certification of Non-Destructive. Examination (NDE)
personnel and proposed a harmonised international alternative for the certification of NDE personnel; theMCSTF has also compared the international practices in welding qualification and quality assurance. At thepresent time, the MCSTF is working on the harmonisation of non-linear analysis design rules. The next
phase of work is to consider the possible harmonisation of fatigue life analysis methods.
The representative from the SDOs stated that the objectives for the Nuclear Power Plant Codes andStandards group were to limit divergence on individual code requirements and to achieve convergence on
individual code requirements, where realistic and practical. It was noted that code harmonisation was
difficult where different national regulators had different regulations in force. The primary benefit of thecode comparisons is to identify the impact of differences in the codes and provide improvements that canbe made to each code or standard. The future areas of investigation for the SDOs are Fatigue, Nozzle design4and the treatment of Finite Element Analysis (FEA). It was postulated that future topics could also include
material, fabrication and quality assurance.
In terms of the national regulatory requirements, representatives from the UK’s Office for Nuclear
Regulation (ONR), VO Safety, the provider of technical services to Rostechnadzor, and China’s Institute forStandardisation of Nuclear Industry (INSI) gave presentations. In these presentations, each representative
gave a view on how code harmonisation may influence a regulatory view of codes and standards at anational level.
Within the UK, the ONR’s role is to ensure that licensees reduce risk so far as is reasonably practical(SFAIRP). ONR uses the principal of relevant good practice (RGP) and expects the licensee to justify why
those codes and standards represent RGP. In line with this approach, ONR does not specify nuclear codes
or standards to be used. ONR is cognisant of all factors which might affect RGP specifically guidance fromthe IAEA and WENRA Safety Reference Levels. The ONR representative noted that as codes and standards
evolve so does RGP and hence it is important to be aware of international codes and standards to ensurethat an appropriate definition of RGP is maintained. The final point that the ONR representative made wasthat codes and standards are not applied in isolation and components are subject to specific national
regulatory requirements. These supplement the codes and standards and hence it is important tounderstand the impact of these additional regulatory requirements.
The representative from VO safety gave a presentation on how the work of the CSWG had influenced thecode development activities in Russia. It was stated that the common positions had been used indevelopment of Russian internal procedures. The most significant benefit of the codes and standards group
was the clarification of general requirements and the identification of differences. It was stated that, in the
VO representatives’ view, full harmonisation was unlikely but that a move to increase harmonisation would
be beneficial. Specific areas where a benefit could be realised would be areas such as non-destructive
testing, manufacturing, conformity assessment and strength analysis.
The representative from China’s Institute for Standardisation of Nuclear Industry (INSI) gave an overview of
how different codes are used within China. It was noted that there is significant new nuclear construction
activity within China using different reactor technologies developed using different international codes andstandards (e.g. EPR, AP1000, VVER) as well as Chinese developed reactor design (M310 and HPR1000). Thishas presented a need to have a consistent view on the different international standards. It is the intent
within the Chinese system to develop integrated and comprehensive Nuclear Safety Standards. The
development of these Chinese standards has encountered problems due to the technology diversity. The
INSI representative stated that the work of the MDEP CSWG has helped inform the development of these
Chinese standards when these issues have arisen.
During the following panel discussion, the following points were noted:
Key points
The activities of the codes and standards working group have highlighted the difficulties of theharmonisation process. Despite these difficulties, the group has established a general approach for code
harmonisation, studied the regulatory practices in using codes, explored strategies for code reconciliation,
helped SDO's talk to each other for preventing further code divergence, and encouraged the SDO’s and the
WNA’s CORDEL to working on code comparison and code convergence including NDE certification and Nonlinear analysis.
Commonalities identified
It is the majority view that the purpose of code harmonisation is not to make all codes and standards
identical or to produce a single code or standard which would be used by all countries. However, with therise of international new nuclear build, there is a desire to understand the differences between the
different national codes and standards, and to reduce code differences in technical areas as much as
possible. MDEP has facilitated the comparison of codes and standards, helped regulators in understanding
code differences, and provided a basis for accepting or conditionally accepting their use.
Challenges identified

5

Code harmonisation is a very valuable but very challenging long-term work. This is primarily due to thefactors that:

Codes are highly integrated; a provision usually is related to, or conditioned on, many otherprovisions. Code needs to be considered as a whole package;

Human performance and industry culture may be different from country to country; and codes
embed these differences;

Codes reference many other industry standards which are different from country to country;Regulatory requirements can result in code variation, and also supplement code requirements.
Each country has a unique regulatory system;

The industry is deeply invested in current practice.

The success of code harmonisation is strongly dependent on global co-operation among the regulatory
authorities, nuclear industry (CORDEL) and SDOs.

SESSION 2
Digital instrumentation and controls: Current and emerging technicalchallenges
This session was devoted to the MDEP current activities and technical challenges related to digital
instrumentation and controls (DI&C) systems in member-countries, requirements harmonisation and safetyassurance in software systems.
Mr Garcia, chair of DICWG, presented an overview of on-going DICWG activities as well as the plans on its
transition to a permanent organisation within the NEA. He discussed the I&C technical expert subgroup
activities in the different design specific working groups, their outcomes and near-term plans. It was notedthat such issues as continual evolution in the DI&C technology implementation/use, differences inregulations, regulatory practices and national standards, and reaching agreement on common terminology
are the challenges for I&C going forward.
Mr Wardle, ONR's principal inspector, discussed the current and emerging technical challenges in the UK
related to DI&C such as I&C architecture design, use of Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) software,justification of smart devices and development of coherent safety cases which are affected on the safety
justification. Aspects of the I&C architecture design important to the safety justification of nuclear power
plants include categorisation of safety functions, classification of systems, interconnection between
systems of different safety classes, fault propagation through the architecture and security by design. It wasnoted that use of COTS software and smart devices in DI&C systems important to safety, which are typicallynot developed for nuclear application, greatly complicates the safety justification. He also underlined thatthe aforementioned challenges are not isolated to the UK, but applicable worldwide.
Mr Bouard provided information on activities of the oldest international standard body, the IEC, and its
Sub-Committee SC45A (Instrumentation, control and electrical power systems of nuclear facilities). He
outlined the structure of SC45A and described how the Sub-Committee works in relation with the IAEA in
I&C safety and security domains. Other successful collaboration efforts with the European standards
organisation, IEEE, MDEP DICWG and WNA’s CORDEL on requirements harmonisation were discussed.
Mr Pickelmann provided an update and outlook on the WNA’s CORDEL DI&C Task Force (DICTF) activities.
He discussed the WNA’s CORDEL mission and its role in the international co-operation framework as apromoter of nuclear energy as well as supporting of nuclear industries’ companies. It was noted that DICTF
has identified a number of key issues that needs to be tackled by a series of papers including safetyclassification of I&C systems, defence-in-depth and diversity, modernisation of existing I&C systems,
structures & components. The challenges and conclusions identified in these papers were presented.

6

Dr Cofer from Rockwell Collins shared some experience from the aircraft industry on safety assurance insoftware systems. He mentioned that the nuclear industry has similar concerns and challenges as the civil
aviation industry with regard to DI&C systems. It was noted that the nuclear industry can benefit fromaerospace software development and verification practices, for example, from the certification processused in civil aviation. He discussed how the aerospace industry addresses software complexity andunderlined that the use of formal methods such as complete exploration of the design can help to copewith this challenge and reduce costs while increasing confidence through early detection and elimination oferrors. He also shared the experience of using formal methods for achieving cybersecurity in real aerospacesystems. It was stated that the use of formal methods can also address cybersecurity concerns for highassurance systems.
Mr Ma from Sanmen Nuclear Power Company shared the company’s experience on I&C commissioning forthe first AP1000 unit in China. He informed that due to the delay of design finalisation and deficiencies
found during the commissioning of Sanmen NPP unit 1, several baseline design updates were required,causing an increase of workload and a delay in the commissioning schedule. It was also mentioned thatdesign changes could result in needing to change the test methods and procedures accordingly, which inturn can generate additional delay. He stated that Plant Monitoring System (PMS) is more complex and has
more functions than before, which requires higher knowledge/skill from the commissioning personnel.
Finally, he noted that the DI&C systems require better control of their operating environment duringcommissioning activities to deal with temperature, humidity, dust, etc. that would be outside the normal
operational design conditions.
In the presentations and the discussions that followed, a number of key points, commonalities, andchallenges were identified by the participants:
Key points
Collaboration between regulators and industry with the objective of convergence/harmonisation ofrequirements is valuable;



MDEP provides the possibility for interaction between regulators and vendors; andThe problem of regulations/standards convergence is not just a technical problem, it is largely ahuman/culture problem.

Commonalities identifiedThe nuclear industry could benefit from development and verification practices applied in otherindustries, e.g. aerospace;The use of formal methods may help to cope with software complexity (providing evidence forvalidation);

Formal methods may also address cybersecurity concerns for high-assurance systems; and

DI&C systems require better control of operating environment during commissioning activities(temperature, humidity, dust, etc.).

Challenges identified

Differences in regulatory practices and national standards;



DI&C architecture design including aspects such as safety classification and defence-in-depth;Use of COTS software and smart devices in DI&C systems;Modernisation of existing DI&C systems; andContinuous development in the implementation and use of DI&C systems, which creates a need forcontinuous development of assessment methodologies and certification processes.

7

SESSION 3
Supply chain regulatory issues and vendor inspection co-operation
Mr Chevet, France PG Member, ASN Chairman, provided opening remarks including an introduction of theissues at Creusot Forge. Mr Chevet observed that oversight of the supply chain is not just a concern for new
reactors but also to operating reactors.
Mr Allen, VICWG chair (ONR, UK), stated that the speakers in Session 3 would be quite diverse and would
provide their own unique regulatory perspective. In his presentation, Mr Allen provided a background of
the VICWG, the key objectives, achievements and challenges going forward.
Mr Wang, project officer, NNSA, China, discussed nuclear safety culture (NSC) for equipment vendors in
China. NNSA utilises the IAEA concept of nuclear safety culture. Mr Wang stated that human factors are amajor problem in China, particularly regarding fraudulent behaviour. NNSA has taken several actions toinspect and promote nuclear safety culture at vendor facilities. NNSA uses four evaluation methods toreview safety culture. It divided vendors based on NSC review scores and issued its own policy guidance on
NSC. NNSA also took enforcement action against vendors who did not abide by the laws and will be
developing an NSC inspection procedure in the near future.
Mr Emond, Component Manufacturing Business Unit Senior Executive Vice President, AREVA NP, France,
presented the quality audit and quality improvement plan at Areva NP Le Creusot (ACF) forging facility.
Mr Emond discussed the overall values at Areva NP and vision – high performing people and technologies
for safe and competitive nuclear plants worldwide. Mr Emond acknowledged that ACF had an NSC issue
that did not promote employees reporting issues to management. He also acknowledged that there are
deficiencies and non-conformances at ACF that need to be addressed. Mr Emond described the two issues:carbon segregation and marked files. Based on inspection of a sample of records associated with theseissues, Areva NP decided to check all the manufacturing records activities to identify any additional marked
files. There are approximately 9 000 files generated since 1965. He described the process that they areusing to review the files noting that issues identified so far have been minor deviations. Mr Emondprovided a schedule for completion of the review which includes the update of manufacturing files anddevelopment of a plan to improve NSC. Mr Emond commented on the usefulness of the MDEP inspection,i.e. multiple regulators at once versus multiple inspections, and safety culture focus training.
Mr Ivey, Supplier Quality Oversight Director, Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC), USA, presented theAP1000 Nuclear Power Plant Squib Valve Design Challenges and Regulatory Interface. Squib valve design isinnovative and first of a kind. Mr Ivey provided the key design requirements and commented on somechallenges during design qualification and testing. Mr Ivey discussed WEC decision to modify design tooperate when submerged and identified that the shear cap design was the engineer “weak link”. NRC
raised very good questions regarding margin. As a result, WEC needed to develop a testing and surveillance
programme for the actuators which did not previously exist. Based on this experience, Mr Ivey stated that
WEC encourages regulatory engagement early in the design process.
Mr Kaser, Senior Project Manager, WNA, provided an update on World Nuclear Association activities
associated with the nuclear supply chain. Mr Kaser stated that the supply chain working group was set up in2010 to share information and leading practices, and to address common issues such as supply chain
conformity, lack of consistency in regulatory oversight and customer requirements. Mr Kaser described why
communications are important such that suppliers understand why certain requirements are important fora similar component, and recognition of the importance of interface management and flow down of
requirements. WNA recommends better communication between customer and supplier (i.e. more thaninspections, hold points and surveillance) but understands the expense. Mr Kaser stated that better
integration of the management system at the top tier levels and vendor oversight is critical. Other
challenges include counterfeit, fraudulent and suspect items (CFSI), export controls, and safety culture
controls.
Mr Chevet asked where the VICWG would be in 10 years (i.e. what is the vision). AREVA was asked how it
would prevent the issue at ACF again. AREVA was asked whether lessons learnt have been shared with8

other suppliers and whether the end has been reached or whether something new and bigger will hit.
AREVA was asked to share the wider root causes of the issues at ACF (there was not one single cause – thethere were other contributory factors across the whole plant). The session presenters were asked if NSC
needs to be an issue evaluated in the supply chain. WNA suggested that you would need to educate thesupply chain on NSC and vulnerabilities.
Key points


Nuclear safety culture in the supply chain is difficult to cultivate both by the regulator and the
suppliers;

MDEP multinational inspections are useful, i.e. multiple regulators at once versus multiple
inspections;

Vendor oversight is critical, especially in the areas of CFSI, export control and nuclear safety culture.

Commonalities identified

A strong nuclear safety culture is important for safe nuclear plants worldwide;Communication between parties is the key to success.

Challenges identified

Challenges in cultivating a nuclear safety culture in the supply chain by the regulatory body and by
the suppliers;Development of nuclear safety culture policies;

Early engagement with the regulator during first of a kind design;Importance of supplier oversight and communication in order to develop a high-quality supply
chain.

SESSION 4
Influence of MDEP interactions on reactor design safety
Dr Tyobeka, South Africa PG Member, NNR CEO, introduced the topic of reactor design safety bysummarising some of the key points from the previous day’s sessions. He remarked that interactions at
MDEP may result in some regulators changing the way they provide oversight.
Ms Rigail, EPRWG chair, ASN, France, provided a brief background on one of the original design working
groups, the EPRWG. Ms Rigail stated that there are five TESG under the EPRWG which interact with theindustry at the request of the regulators on particular detailed technical issues, comments on the draft
common positions and technical reports. Ms Rigail presented high-level industry initiatives that were
presented to the ERPWG to review, i.e. FOAK and FPOT.
Dr Woo, APR1400WG chair, KINS, Korea, provided a brief background on the APR1400WG. The
APR1400WG focusses on discussing safety issues and exchange of experiences. Two TESG exist under the
APR1400WG. Commissioning issues have been shared among members.
Mr Nicaise, Nuclear Safety and Licensing Manger, AREVA NP, France (EPR), provided a status of the EPR
design and construction. There are four EPR under construction and in the last commissioning phaseworldwide. Hinkley Point 1 pre-construction report has been issued. Future plants include six EPRs in India
and four ATMEA-1 (3 loop EPR developed by MHI and AREVA) in Turkey. Mr Nicaise provided two examples
of successful interaction with MDEP (i.e. impact of the Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident on EPR design andFPOT). MDEP organisation has been efficient to support regulators to work together to permit effective
review of issues. Mr Nicaise stated that the communication between MDEP and the EPR Owner Operator
Group (OOG) is highly successful and supports the overall MDEP goal to increase multinational cooperation. Mr Nicaise provided areas that can be improved, such as actively promoting the harmonisation

9

between countries.
Mr Easterling, Vice President of Technical Services and Licensing, Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC),
USA (AP1000), stated that MDEP brings an effective review of designs. Mr Easterling provided a status on
Sanmen and Haiyang. He complimented NNSA and NRC on their interactions and the solution of the review
of issues. Mr Easterling indicated that WEC was in negotiations with India for six AP1000 and Turkey for
AP1000 and CAP1000. Mr Easterling noted wide differences in regulatory approach and difference in timing
and stage in the review. AP1000WG provides means to discuss the difference in regulatory philosophy andapproach. Mr Easterling stated that AP1000WG promotes design standardisation and plant safety.
Mr Kim, Deputy Project Manager, KHNP, Korea (APR1400), provided background on the APR1400 design
and the status construction of APR1400. Mr Kim stated that the APR1400 design was currently in phase 4
under the NRC review process. Mr Kim provided an overview of the APR1400 design. Mr Kim stated that
the APR1400 is more and more mature.
Mr Svetlov, Chief Expert for Design, JSC “ATOMPROEKT”, Russia (VVER), provided the background on thedevelopment of the VVER design and a description of the VVER 1200 design. Mr Svetlov described the
MDEP activities related to the new design.
Mr Watson, senior regulatory advisor, Nuclear Power Project, Hitachi Europe Ltd, UK (ABWR), provided a
description of the features of the ABWR design. Mr Watson stated that the ABWR was in the Generic
Design Assessment (GDA) review process by the UK nuclear regulator (ONR). The GDA is a challenging
review which examines safety, environmental protection and security, and takes significant effort.
Mr Watson stated that a nuclear license application has been made for four units at two sites in the UK.
The ABWR has undergone regulatory assessments in four countries, which has contributed to design
development and safety improvement. It has been Hitachi’s experience that MDEP has influenced the UK
regulator and their assessment under the GDA. Mr Watson stated the MDEP has been positive for gettinginternational regulators to work more closely together, ultimately encouraging international harmonisationof approaches for new reactor reviews.
Dr Tyobeka asked whether the MDEP review group would be helpful for the review of Small Modular
Reactors (SMRs). In this area, are the industry representatives receiving feedback from the design working
groups and are there areas for improvement?
Key points
Successful interactions with the industry via MDEP has been beneficial in reviewing different
reactor designs;



There are wide differences in regulatory approach including differences in timing and phased
review;

MDEP design specific working groups have focused on common safety and technical issues among
regulators, promoting design standardisation and plant safety.

Commonalities identified


MDEP common positions and technical reports are successfully encouraging international
harmonisation of approaches for new reactor assessments;



MDEP has been positive for getting international regulators to work more closely together;

Reactor designs have benefitted from multiple regulator reviews.

Challenges identified

Further work on international regulatory review harmonisation is needed.

10

SESSION 5
Commissioning activities
This session was devoted to the MDEP current activities and challenges in commissioning activities as wellas commissioning experience in member-countries.
Mr Yates, chair of EPR Commissioning Activities Technical Expert Sub-Group, presented an overview of ongoing commissioning activities in support of new designs reactor. He mentioned that MDEP provides aframework for working groups to adopt common approaches to the more challenging design specificcommissioning issues, share the more significant design specific lessons, and complement WGRNR work on
generic commissioning issues. He discussed generic and working group activities related to thecommissioning of new reactors. Among generic activities, it was noted the Common Position CP-STC-01
addressing first plant only test (FPOT) which sets out regulators pre-conditions for accepting FPOT results.
He informed that a number of working groups have a regular discussion on commissioning issues at their
meetings and EPRWG focused on regulators observing the FPOT vibrations tests which have been
performed at Taishan NPP unit 1 in March 2017. He stated that FPOT in Taishan NPP is a positive example
of MDEP supporting regulators to work together.
Mr Viktorsson, Director General of FANR, shared the commissioning experience in the United ArabEmirates. He provided general information on the establishment of regulatory authority in the UAE,
development of the regulatory framework, licensing steps for Barakah NPP and establishment of theinspection programme. Commissioning challenges were noted including the need to establish nuclear
infrastructure and to understand the established regulatory control by licensee and contractors. The
construction inspection test plan (CITP) was discussed including construction license condition,requirements for testing of key safety-related structures, systems and components, reporting on the resultsof completion of CITP items, etc. It was also stated that FANR has now reached a transition point fromconstruction oversight to nuclear commissioning and operation.
Ms Zhang from NNSA presented an overview of AP1000 commissioning inspection in China. She informedof the current status of AP1000 projects at Sanmen NPP units 1 & 2, and Haiyang NPP units 1 & 2. She
discussed the inspection issues of AP1000 commissioning paying attention to its preparation, inspection
items, inspection activities and challenges identified. It was noted the significant number of design changes
in safety case, test documents and configuration control require test impact evaluation which is a big
challenge for the regulator. She also mentioned a challenge that some tests do not have acceptance criteria
and some acceptance criteria were revised after the test has been performed. Another identified challenge
was that several pieces of equipment experienced significant deficiencies during testing.
Mr Lambert from EDF gave a presentation on Reactor Pressure Vessel Internals (RPVI) vibratory behavior
test implementation. He provided an overview of the exchanges between MDEP and the EPR OOG on EPR
commissioning. He mentioned that the EPR OOG identified 4 FPOT test sequences and RPVI vibration
measurement test was selected by licensees for the transposition to next of a kind (NOAK) units. The
description of RPVI FPOT context and a brief scheme of this test have been discussed. It was noted that allsite preparation works, sensors installation/calibration and a visual inspection of vessel internals were done
prior hot functional tests (HFT) at Taishan NPP unit 1. During an NNSA inspection scheduled at the
beginning of HFT, an observation was carried out by the overseas regulators (STUK/ASN/ONR) with thepresence of overseas licensees (TVO/EDF/NNB) of part of the RPVI test performed by AREVA/TNPJVC. He
informed that RPVI test results analysis is on-going and that the test report is under preparation by AREVA.
The regulators did not identify any fundamental reasons for not crediting Taishan NPP unit 1 FPOT results
at this stage.
Mr Lee from KHNP provided a brief overview of the APR1400 commissioning. He gave general information
on nuclear power plants in Korea, construction terms of each NPP as well as major construction schedule ofShin-Kori unit 3 (SKN 3) which was put into commercial operation in December 2016. The pre-core hot
functional test and post-core test, their objectives, acceptance criteria and results have been presented. He
shared the experience of SKN 3 commissioning and discussed background, root causes and mitigation11

options for two events – leakage of pilot operated safety relief valve and power discrepancy in SKN 3.
Mr Bezzubtsev from JSC «Concern Rosenergoatom» shared the commissioning experience of new nuclear
power units in Russia. He informed the conference that 6 units are currently under construction in Russia: 1
unit with VVER-1000, 3 units with VVER-1200 and 2 units with VVER-TOI. The generic commissioning
schedule for a VVER nuclear power unit includes four stages – pre-commissioning activities, physical startup, power start-up and pilot operation. It was mentioned that the use of commissioning experience
allowed reducing commissioning period for VVER-1000 from 649 days (Rostov NPP unit 2) till 483 days
(Rostov NPP unit 4). He also discussed commissioning experience of Novovoronezh NPP-II unit 1 and themain causes which resulted in an increase of commissioning period. He noted the key issues arising duringcommissioning of nuclear power units including organisation and planning of the activities, documentation
management, control of equipment quality and inconsistency management, as well as personnel
management.
In the presentations and the related discussions, a number of key points, commonalities and challenges
were identified by the participants:
Key points
MDEP working groups are increasing their focus on commissioning activities:

EPRWG observing the first EPR First Plant Only Test (FPOT) in Taishan NPP;FPOT in Taishan NPP is a positive example of MDEP supporting regulators to work together.

Commonalities identified

Use of resident on-site inspectors;Use of Technical Support Organisations to support inspectors (special skills, additional resource);Regulatory review of commissioning controls and processes prior to fuel load;

Shortening of commissioning period for next of a kind NPP.

Challenges identifiedThe number of design changes in safety case, test documents and configuration control;

Dealing with commissioning non-compliances;Managing handover between construction and commissioning phases.

SESSION 6
Perspectives for MDEP
Mr Nieh, Head of the Division of Nuclear Safety Technology and Regulation, NEA, opened the session andasked the panellists to address five key questions relating to the role and the future of MDEP:- What role, if any, should MDEP have for Design Specific Working Groups with operational units?
- What role could MDEP have for new technologies (e.g. SMRs, …)?
- What should be MDEP’s role in cross-cutting issues for new NPPs and what should be theassociated ambitions be regarding harmonisation?
- Is there a need to further develop the co-operation with MDEP stakeholders?
- Where do you see MDEP in 10 years from now?
The PG chair, Mr Tiippana, opened the discussion. He said that the framework of MDEP has been very
effective during the design phase and it could be useful to get a couple of years of operating experience
after commissioning of the plant. He said that the MDEP model could be useful for NEA committee’s or12other international organisations as they consider managing their future tasks, for instance SMRs and othernew technologies. Mr Tiippana observed that despite MDEP is now transferring the work of the issue
specific groups to other organisations, in the future, it could consider starting new ad-hoc groups whennecessary.
The STC chair, Mr Collet, provided his perspectives by underlining that MDEP is at the end of a cycle, forexample, EPRs and AP1000s under construction in China, France and Finland are scheduled to becommissioned in 2019 and the role of the regulators in MDEP will change at that point. Additionally, it
should be recognised that existing members need to pass the knowledge acquired to date to the newcomers. Mr Collet said that harmonisation can only happen if there is a real political will to make it happen– making the impossible become possible. Sharing practices and experience and trying to create
opportunities for harmonisation has been very effective and beneficial for MDEP regulators. He believes
that there should be more collaboration between the NEA WGs and MDEP WGs to integrate theory andpractice and that way improve harmonisation. Cross-cutting issues, like station blackout, hydrogen issues incontainment, and how each regulator addresses these issues is very beneficial to MDEP harmonisation
goal.
China PG member, Mr Hua, said that MDEP is a good platform for regulators to exchange views on safetyissues on new reactor designs and information exchange. China hopes that MDEP can continue beyond
2020 and that the members could better share tools, test facilities and results of their safety review.
Publishing technical reports for public understanding of nuclear issues could also be a worthwhile effort for
MDEP as well as creating a new design specific working group for the new HPR1000 design.
India PG member, Mr Bhardwaj, noted that MDEP has made the regulatory review process more effective,
but not necessarily more efficient. By sharing the real review work regulators can benefit more. In addition
to nuclear safety, also security could be a good topic to co-operate. From India’s perspective, MDEP isneeded for the next 10 years to support new reactor regulatory activities.
Russia PG member, Mr Ferapontov, said that there are soon several new designs, including VVERs, that arein operation and it should be discussed as to how MDEP can support this operational phase in the longer
term. For a few years now, Russia has also tried to find a way to share SMRs design experience – what new
approaches do we need to regulate the safety of SMRs? A new group concentrating on SMRs could be
useful. Mr Ferapontov sees that MDEP has a leading role in maintaining a dialogue with CORDEL. MDEP and
CORDEL should continue collaboration and harmonisation of technical standards and regulatory
requirements.
UK PG member, Mr Finnerty, provided the UK perspective. He said there is some benefit on the operating
feedback and getting that perspective while currently reviewing the designs. In terms of organisation, eachregulator in MDEP has to make their individual decisions, but having the reassurance that the regulatorsfrom other countries have approved the technology is very positive.
General Manager Sato from Nuclear Power Project in Hitachi Europe Ltd, CORDEL’s representative,
underlined that operating feedback is important for the international community and MDEP maybe theright approach. Related to MDEP collaboration for new technology, there are needs to clarify high-levelsafety objectives for SMRs. If this is accomplished in MDEP, it could be beneficial. In 10 years, it would begreat to see MDEP be able to deliver standard design approvals for new reactor designs, Mr Sato said.
Ms Cornelia Spitzer, Head of the IAEA Safety Assessment Section, said that, in the context of the new IAEA
design safety principles, systematic design evaluations are needed for new builds and safety reassessments
for NPPs in operation. MDEP has supported such assessments for new designs as well, and existing NPPs
may benefit from such experience. The principles for the implementation of the objective of theConvention on Nuclear Safety to prevent accidents and mitigate radiological consequences, the so-called
Vienna Declaration, addresses these topics too. Ms Spitzer understands well how difficult harmonisation is
because of the IAEA experience with the safety standards development in consent with member states, butsees that MDEP also offers a forum for open and frank discussion on safety requirements. Related to SMRs
and medium size reactors, Ms Spitzer sees that MDEP has a well-established framework, but is confronted
with the large number of very diverse technologies. In this regard, perhaps MDEP in the future is not a
Multinational Design Evaluation Programme but a Multi-Design Evaluation Programme, she said.

13

The audience asked how MDEP manages the situation with new comer countries that are performing theirsafety reviews after the active phase of the working group is ended and the group is perhaps not working
anymore at all. MDEP STC chair answered that the groups have documented their work and results incommon positions and technical reports and all these material is available on the MDEP library. It is not thesame as having an active WG on the design but it provides a basis for the decisions made to help newcomers. Mr Collet mentioned that going back and looking at all the lessons learnt that have been identified
during these 10 years, could be a green booklet for NEA to publish. The audience answered that there is no
final evaluation report for each design that summarises all the evaluations in a single report.
The audience commented that the codes and standards working groups cannot achieve harmonisation
because the industry is not pushing the SDOs to harmonise codes and standards. There are now many
countries developing their own codes and standards, for instance, Russia and China are now writing andupdating their own codes. The industry goal should be to avoid more divergence. PG Chair Mr Tiippana
responded that there will be a workshop in spring 2018 with CNRA, SDOs and industry to determine thebest way to proceed with the co-operation.

CLOSING SESSION
The PG Chair, Mr Petteri Tiippana concluded what he considered to be a successful conference. He noted,
in particular, the views of CORDEL for the MDEP future and would include them at the PG meeting agenda.
He recognised that harmonisation of codes and standards was not discussed only in session 1 but in several
places and concluded that regulators should play a more important role in the development of codes andstandards to make sure that the regulatory requirements are met at the end of the process. Mr Tiippana
qualified the DI&C activities as a flagship of the MDEP issue-specific activities with several technical issues
tackled and many common positions produced that have been beneficial to regulators. These activities willsoon be transferred to CNRA and serve a wider group of regulators. A lot of discussions happened about
safety culture in the supply chain and how to manage multiple interfaces. Mr Tiippana recognised that
suppliers are the users of codes and standards so these two topics are connected. He appreciated a quite
positive feedback from the industry that identified in session 4 a lot of work achieved. He highlighted that
all results cannot be wrapped up in common positions or technical documents, nor the benefit ofregulators pools of experts brought together by MDEP in different areas. The success story of the FPOT in
Taishan illustrates very well the goal of the MDEP. Timing plays a role in the success of the initiatives too.
The PG chair considered that one of the coming tasks for MDEP is to determine how to tackle challenges
related to commissioning activities. He warmly thanked the conference participants, speakers, NEA staff
and the organising committee for a very good support. He was pleased with everyone’s active participationand good discussions. He appreciated the positive atmosphere of the conference that proves MDEP is on
the right track and will keep that spirit.
Mr William Magwood the Director General of NEA concluded that if the will to co-operate exists, it ispossible. The question is to determine what we exactly want to achieve as there are divergences in themember's views who not all participate in the MDEP activities with the same objective. Some of the existing
MDEP activities need to migrate to a slightly different format with the momentum kept. The success of
MDEP is to have brought regulators, SDOs and industry, through CORDEL, together and produced someresults that have significant impacts. He considered communication of feedback to the industry should be
improved. Mr Magwood suggested capturing lessons learnt and wisdom from commissioning and testing
nuclear facilities in a strong technical document that could be a reference for the future. He guaranteedthat there is a willingness to see codes and standards activities and relations built to go forward. Some newwork should be engaged on supply chain issues. On top of evaluating DI&C systems, Mr Magwood
considered that regulators expectations should be determined precisely and this could be done in the formof some guidance or a green book. Regarding comments that were made that MDEP did not bring as muchharmonisation as expected but more proliferation of questions from the regulators, he explained that
regulators, by nature, cannot ignore questions but should go further and prioritise the questions within
MDEP. Mr Magwood also considered the emerging need to create regulatory fora for operating designs. He
was pleased to be part of this very interesting and substantive conference and had been very impressed

14with the level of dialogue that took place. He suggested the PG to consider organising conferences more
often as they allow capturing nuances. Mr Magwood thanked the organising committee, NEA staff and
Mr Tiippana for organising this event. He concluded the ten year-MDEP effort allowed to accomplish very
good things and that there are still very good things to be done in the future. He congratulated everybody
involved in this effort and stated it is NEA mission to take it forward in a sustainable and productive way.

15

Programme
Day 1 – Tuesday 12 September
9.00-9.30: Registration and welcoming coffee

9.30-10.50: Welcome and opening of the conference
Chair: Mr Petteri Tiippana, MDEP Policy Group (PG) Chair and Finland PG member, STUK Chairman

Welcome and introductory remarks
Mr Petteri Tiippana, PG Chair
Mr William D. Magwood, Director General, NEA

10 years of MDEP achievements
Mr André-Claude Lacoste, MDEP co-founder, Former ASN Chairman, France – The creation and development of MDEPMr Gary Holahan, MDEP STC member, Chief Technical Advisor to the Executive Director for Operations, NRC, USA – 10 years of MDEP
achievements
Ms Agneta Rising, Director General, World Nuclear Association – 10 years of cooperation between MDEP and CORDEL

10:50-12:35: Session 1 – Codes and standards harmonisation
Chair: Mr Peter Elder, Canada PG member, Acting Vice-President Technical Services Branch, CNSC

Introduction of the session
Panellists presentations
Mr Xuejun Wei, Chair of CSWG, CNSC, Canada – MDEP activities, achievements and challenges in codes harmonisation
Mr Shane Turner, Principal inspector, ONR, UK – Approach to codes and standards in the UK
Mr Andrey Obushev, Deputy Director for Development, VO Safety, Russia – The use of MDEP products for Russian national standards
development
Dr Nawal Prinja, Chairman of the Codes and Standards Task Force, CORDEL – Harmonising nuclear codes and standards for mechanicalcomponents
Mr Philippe Malouines, Standard Development Organisations (SDO) board member – SDO mechanical codes Convergence Board:achievements and perspectives
Mr Hongwei Zhang, Engineer, Institution for Standardization of Nuclear Industry, China – Application of nuclear codes and standards in China

Panel discussion
Closing remarks of the session
12:35-14:00: Lunch
14:00-15:45: Session 2 – Digital instrumentation and controls: Current and emerging
technical challenges
Chair: Mr Michael Knochenhauer, Sweden STC member, Director of Department of NPPs Safety

Introduction of the session
Panellists presentations
Mr Ismael Garcia, DICWG Chair, NRC, USA – Digital instrumentation and controls activities and challenges
Mr Stephen Wardle, DICWG Member, ONR, UK – Digital instrumentation and controls: current and emerging technical challenges in the UK
Mr Jean-Paul Bouard, IEC/SC45A Secretary, International Electrotechnical Commission – IEC/SC45A, standards for instrumentation, control andelectrical power systems for nuclear facilities
Mr Johannes Pickelmann, Chairman of the CORDEL Digital I&C Task Force – Current status and outlook of WNA CORDEL DICTF workloadon digital instrumentation and controls topics
Dr Darren Cofer, Fellow at the Rockwell Collins Advanced Technology Center, Aircraft Industry – Safety assurance in software systems: from
airplanes to atoms
Mr Ma Shihong, I&C Manager of Commissioning Department, Sanmen Nuclear Power Co., Ltd., China National Nuclear Cooperation –Challenges of I&C commissioning to first AP1000 unit

Panel discussion
Closing remarks of the session
15:45-16:15: Break16

16:15-18:00: Session 3 – Supply chain regulatory issues and vendor inspection co-operation
Chair: Mr Pierre-Franck Chevet, France PG Member, ASN Chairman

Introduction of the session
Panellists presentations
Mr Stuart Allen, VICWG Chair, ONR, UK – MDEP current activities and challenges in vendor inspection
Mr Dejun Wang, Project Officer, NNSA, China – The construction of nuclear safety culture for equipment vendors in China
Mr David Emond, Component Manufacturing Business Unit Senior Executive Vice President, AREVA NP, France – Quality audit and quality
improvement plan at AREVA NP Le Creusot forging facility
Mr Randy C. Ivey, Supplier Quality Oversight Director, Westinghouse Electric Company, USA – AP1000® nuclear power plant squib valve
design challenges and regulatory interface
Mr Greg Kaser, Senior Project Manager, WNA – The nuclear supply chain: an update on World Nuclear Association activities

Panel discussion
Closing remarks of the sessionth

18:00: Cocktail reception and dinner platters (Westminster room, 4 floor)

Day 2 – Wednesday 13 September
9:00-10:45: Session 4 – Influence of MDEP interactions on reactor designs safety
Chair: Dr Mzubanzi Bismark Tyobeka, South Africa PG Member, NNR CEO

Introduction of the session
Panellists presentations
Ms Anne-Cécile Rigail, EPRWG Chair, ASN, France – EPRWG: organisation and interaction with the industry
Dr Sweng Woong Woo, APR1400WG Chair, KINS, Korea – APR1400WG activities and accomplishments
Mr Norbert Nicaise, Nuclear Safety and Licensing Manager, AREVA NP, France (EPR) – MDEP and EPR design/licensing
Mr Richard J. Easterling, Vice President of Technical Services and Licensing, Westinghouse Electric Company, USA (AP1000) – Multinational
regulatory influence on new nuclear construction projects
Mr Yun Ho Kim, Deputy Project Manager, KHNP, Korea (APR1400) – APR1400 safety design features and the influence of MDEP interaction
Mr Sergey Svetlov, Chief Expert for Design, JSC «ATOMPROEKT», Russia (VVER) – New VVERs in Russia and abroad
Mr Dave Watson, Senior Regulatory Advisor, Nuclear Power Project, Hitachi Europe Ltd, UK (ABWR) – Licensing of UK ABWR in aninternational environment

Panel discussion
Closing remarks of the session
10:45-11:15: Break
11:15-13:00: Session 5 – Commissioning activities
Chair: Mr Christer Viktorsson, UAE PG Member, FANR Director General

Introduction of the session
Panellists presentations
Mr Simon Yates, EPR CATESG Chair, ONR, UK – MDEP current activities and challenges in commissioning activities
Mr Christer Viktorsson, Director General, FANR, UAE – Commissioning experience in the UAE
Ms Lin Zhang, Deputy Director of the Department of Nuclear Power Safety Regulation, NNSA, China – Overview of AP1000 commissioning
inspection in P.R. China
Mr Didier Lambert, Commissionning Expert, EDF Group, France and Mr Ke Zhang, FPOT manager, TNPJVC, China – Reactor pressure
vessel internals vibratory behaviour test implementation
Mr Sang Won Lee, Principal Technical Manager, KHNP, Korea – A brief overview of the APR1400 commissioning
Mr Valery S. Bezzubtsev, Director for Technological Development, JSC «Concern Rosenergoatom», Russia – Commissioning of new nuclear
power units in Russia

Panel discussion
Closing remarks of the session
13:00-14:30: Lunch
14:30-16:15: Session 6 – Perspectives for MDEP
Chair: Mr Ho Nieh, NEA, Head of the Division of Nuclear Safety Technology and Regulation

17

Introduction of the session
Panel discussion
Mr Petteri Tiippana, MDEP PG Chair and Finland PG Member, STUK Director General
Mr Julien Collet, MDEP STC Chair and France STC Member, ASN Deputy Director General
Mr Liu Hua, China PG Member, NNSA Administrator
Mr S.A. Bhardwaj, India PG Member, AERB Chairman
Mr Alexey Ferapontov, Russia PG Member, Rostechnadzor Deputy Chairman
Mr Michael Finnerty, UK PG Member, ONR New Reactors Programme Director
Mr Kenichi Sato, Representative of WNA CORDEL
Ms Cornelia Spitzer, Head of the IAEA Safety Assessment Section

Closing remarks of the session
16:15-16:30: Closing Session – Conclusion and closing of the conference
Mr Petteri Tiippana, PG Chair
Mr William D. Magwood, Director General, NEA

18

List of participants
Argentina __________________________________________________________________________
ARN _________________________________________________________________________________________
MASRIERA Néstor
Alejandro

President, Board of Directors

nmasriera@arn.gob.ar

Canada ____________________________________________________________________________CNSC ________________________________________________________________________________________CARRIER Christian

Director of New Major Facilities Licensing
Division/STC Member

christian.carrier@canada.ca

ELDER Peter

Acting Vice-President Technical Services
Branch/PG Member

peter.elder@canada.ca

WEI Xuejun

Specialist/CSWG Chairxuejun.wei@canada.ca

Ontario Power Generation _______________________________________________________________________LE Tho-Dien

Manager Engineering Analysis, Engineering
Strategy

thodien.le@opg.com

China ______________________________________________________________________________
CGN _________________________________________________________________________________________MAO Qing

maoqing2009@cgnpc.com.cn

CNPDC _______________________________________________________________________________________JIN Siqi

I&C Design Engineer, Project Correspondent(Design)jinsiqi@cgnpc.com.cn

LIU ManReactor Design Engineer, Lead ProjectCorrespondent (Design)liuman@cgnpc.com.cn

MA Shihong

I&C Manager of Commissioning Department

mash@smnpc.com.cn

Embassy of China in the UK _____________________________________________________________________TAN Junyao

Secondary Secretary

526264134@qq.com

YANG Yaoyun

First Secretarylfyaoyun@163.com

GNS _________________________________________________________________________________________
CHAPPELL Peter

Technical Consultant

peter.chappell@edf-energy.com

LU SenProject Correspondent (Safety Case)sen.2.lu@edf-energy.com

ZHOU Weihua

Project Correspondent (Safety Analysis)

zhouweihua@cgnpc.com.cn

NNSA ________________________________________________________________________________________HAO Xiaofeng

Deputy Director General of the Departmentof Nuclear Power Safety

hao.xiaofeng@mep.gov.cn

LIU Hua

Chief Engineer of MEP, Administratorof NNSA/PG Member

liu.hua@mep.gov.cn

LUAN Haiyan

Engineerluanhaiyan@chinansc.cn

QI Pengfei

Officerqi.pengfei@mep.gov.cn

SHEN Gang

Director of Division of Nuclear Safety
International/STC Member

shen.gang@mep.gov.cn

WANG Dejun

Project Officer

wang.dejun@mep.gov.cn

WEN Yujiao

Project Officer

wenyujiao@chinansc.cn

ZHANG Lin

Deputy Director of the Department of
Nuclear Power Safety Regulation

zhang.lin@mep.gov.cn

ZHANG Zhigang

Director Generalzhangzhigang@chinansc.cn

SNERDI ______________________________________________________________________________________
FANG Zhou

Deputy of Project Management Department

fangz@snerdi.com.cn

ZHENG Mingguang

Senior VP of SNPTC, President of SNERDI

zhengmg@snerdi.com.cn

SNPTC _______________________________________________________________________________________ZHAO Weimin

Assistant VP of SNPTC, Director of
department of project management

19

zhaoweiming@snptc.com.cn

TNPJVC ______________________________________________________________________________________ZHANG KeFPOT Manager

zhang.ke@cgnpc.com.cn

Finland ____________________________________________________________________________FENNOVOIMA _________________________________________________________________________________GERAGHTY Matthew Commissioning Manager

matthew.geraghty@fennovoima.fi

ULYANOVA Maria

Nuclear Island Project Coordinatormaria.ulyanova@fennovoima.fi

VIERIMAA Juho

Senior Licensing Specialistjuho.vierimaa@fennovoima.fi

VIITANEN Pekka

Nuclear Safety Manager

pekka.viitanen@fennovoima.fi

FORTUM _____________________________________________________________________________________
KYMÄLÄINEN OlliHead of Newbuild and Upgrades Services

olli.kymalainen@fortum.com

STUK ________________________________________________________________________________________NEVALAINEN Janne

Project Manager/VVERWG Member

janne.nevalainen@stuk.fi

TIIPPANA Petteri

Director General/PG Chairpetteri.tiippana@stuk.fi

VIROLAINEN Tapani

Deputy Director/STC Member

tapani.virolainen@stuk.fi

France _____________________________________________________________________________
AREVA NP ____________________________________________________________________________________DE BOIS Françoise

Safety and Licensing – QHSE, Engineeringand Design Authority Business Unit

EMOND David

Component Manufacturing Business Unit Senior david.emond@areva.com
Executive Vice President

MAYORAL Claude

Safety and Licensing Manager – Engineeringand Design Authority Business UnitNICAISE Norbert

Nuclear Safety and Licensing Manager,
norbert.nicaise@areva.com
Engineering and Design Authority Business UnitRODRIGUEZ Laurent I&C Senior Expert

francoise.debois@areva.com

claude.mayoral@areva.com

laurent.rodriguez@areva.com

ASN _________________________________________________________________________________________BOIVINEAU Michel

Senior Executive

michel.boivineau@asn.fr

CHEVET Pierre-Franck Chairman/PG Member

pierre-franck.chevet@asn.fr

COLLET Julien

Deputy Director General/STC Chairjulien.collet@asn.fr

RIGAIL Anne-Cécile

NPP Department Director/EPRWG Chairanne-cecile.rigail@asn.fr

Bureau Veritas ________________________________________________________________________________KUENY Laurent

Vice President Nuclear Services

laurent.kueny@bureauveritas.com

EDF__________________________________________________________________________________________BARBAUD JeanInternational Safety Delegate

jean.barbaud@edf.fr

COUFFIGNAL Cédric Nuclear Pressure Equipment Regulation
Managercedric.couffignal@edf.fr

LAMBERT Didier

Commissionning Expert

didier-externe.lambert@edf.fr

SAUVADET Fabien

Nuclear Pressure Equipment Regulation
Deputy Manager

fabien.sauvadet@edf.fr

VENEAU Tania

International Standards Advisor

tania.veneau@edf.fr

Embassy of France in the UK ____________________________________________________________________CORDIEZ Maxence

Deputy Nuclear Adviser

Misc. _________________________________________________________________________________________LACOSTE
André-Claude

Former ASN Chairman

andre-claude.lacoste@asn.fr

Germany ___________________________________________________________________________GRS _________________________________________________________________________________________EISMAR Shanna

Expert for New Reactor Concepts

20

shanna.eismar@grs.deIndia ______________________________________________________________________________AERB ________________________________________________________________________________________
BHARDWAJ S.A.

Chairman/PG Member

chairman@aerb.gov.in

Japan ____________________________________________________________________________________________
Institute of Applied Energy ______________________________________________________________________HISADA Tsukasa

Senior Researcher, NUPEC (Nuclear
Power Engineering Center)thisada@iae.or.jp

TANAKA Takanori

Managing Director

ttanaka@iae.or.jp

NRA _________________________________________________________________________________________NAGASE Fumihisa

Director of Division of Research for
System Safety/PG Member

fumihisa_nagase@nsr.go.jp

ONO Hiroshi

Principal Researcher/STC Member

hiroshi_ono@nsr.go.jp

Korea ______________________________________________________________________________
Doosan ______________________________________________________________________________________KIM Yong Kyu

Team Leader, Reactor Design

yongkyu.kim@doosan.com

KEPCO-ENC __________________________________________________________________________________HWANG Hae-Ryong

Senior Vice President

hae@kepco-enc.com

KHNP ________________________________________________________________________________________KIM Yun Ho

APR1400 Deputy Project Manager

yunho.kim@khnp.co.kr

LEE Sang Won

Principal Reseacher

sangwon.lee@khnp.co.kr

KINS _________________________________________________________________________________________WOO Sweng Woong

Senior Advisor/APR1400WG Chair

k097wsw@kins.re.kr

NSSC ________________________________________________________________________________________BAEK Min

Director General, the Nuclear Regulatory
Bureaumbaek@korea.kr

LEE Sulki

Assistant Director

jocelynlee@korea.kr

Poland _____________________________________________________________________________
PAA _________________________________________________________________________________________ZAGRAJEK Marcin

Director of Nuclear Safety and Security
Department

zagrajek@paa.gov.pl

Russia _____________________________________________________________________________FSUE VO «Safety» _____________________________________________________________________________MIKHALKIN Kirill
OBUSHEV Andrey

Deputy Director for Developmentobushev@vosafety.ru

SPEVAKOVA Irina

Interpreterivs-1957@yandex.ru

JSC «ATOMPROEKT» __________________________________________________________________________SVETLOV Sergey

Chief Expert for Design

s_svetlov@bgip2.spbaep.ru

JSC «Concern Rosenergoatom» __________________________________________________________________BEZZUBTSEV Valery

Director for Technological Development

bezzubtsev-vs@rosenergoatom.ru

KATSMAN Alexander

Deputy Director for production and NPP
operation – Director of Department for New
NPP Availability

kacman-am@rosenergoatom.ru

Rosatom _____________________________________________________________________________________PAVLOV Denis

Director of the Department of TechnicalRegulation

dvpavlov@rosatom.ru

Rostechnadzor ________________________________________________________________________________
FERAPONTOV Alexey Deputy Chairman/PG Member

a.ferapontov@gosnadzor.ru

KOLOBOV Valery

v.kolobov@gosnadzor.ru

International Relations Department Advisor

21

SOKOLOVA Irina

International Relations Department
Head/STC Member

i.sokolova@gosnadzor.ru

JSC «Rusatom Automated Control Systems» _______________________________________________________GALIEV Ilnar

I&C Engineer

iIgaliev@rasu.ru

Rusatom Overseas _____________________________________________________________________________BOLGAROV
AlexanderHead, Licensing and Technical Regulation
Division

aibolgarov@rosatom.ru

South Africa ________________________________________________________________________
NNR _________________________________________________________________________________________
PHILLIPS Orion

Executive Senior Manager/STC Member

ophillips@nnr.co.za

TYOBEKA
Mzubanzi Bismark

CEO/PG Member

bmtyobeka@nnr.co.za

Sweden ____________________________________________________________________________
SSM _________________________________________________________________________________________KNOCHENHAUER
MichaelDirector of Department of NPPs Safety/
STC Member

michael.knochenhauer@ssm.se

LILJEQUIST Karin

Analyst at the Department of Nuclear
Power Plant Safety/ABWRWG Member

karin.liljequist@ssm.se

Vattenfall AB __________________________________________________________________________________ABBT Mattheus

Technical Advisor

matheus.abbt@vattenfall.com

JOHANSSON Anders Senior Nuclear Technology Advisor

anders.r.johansson@vattenfall.com

United Arab Emirates ________________________________________________________________ENEC ________________________________________________________________________________________
ABNEY Tim

Director, Licensing and Regulatory Affairs
Project

tim.abney@enecprogram.ae

FANR ________________________________________________________________________________________
VIKTORSSON
ChristerDirector General/PG Member

christer.viktorsson@fanr.gov.ae

Nawah Energy Company ________________________________________________________________________AL SEREIDI Rayah
RashedSenior Licensing Engineer

rayah.alsereidi@nawah.ae

United Kingdom _____________________________________________________________________AMEC FW ____________________________________________________________________________________MUZIKOVA Ewa

Head of Profession for Technical Safety

EDF Energy ___________________________________________________________________________________VASLET Steve

Hinkley Point C Project Licensing Director

steve.vaslet@edf-energy.com

Hitachi Europe Ltd. _____________________________________________________________________________SATO Kenichi

General Manager, Nuclear Power Project

kenichi.sato@hitachi-eu.com

WATSON Dave

Senior Regulatory Advisor, Nuclear Power
Project

dave.watson@hitachi-eu.com

Horizon Nuclear Power _________________________________________________________________________
HOUGH Martin

Senior Nuclear Advisor

martin.hough@horizonnuclearpower.com

ONR _________________________________________________________________________________________
ALLEN Stuart

Principal Inspector, Supply Chain andQuality Regulatory Lead/VICWG Chairstuart.allen@onr.gov.uk

BLUNDELL Neil

Head of Science and Project TechnicalInspector for ABWR GDA and site
Licensing/ABWRWG Chairneil.blundell@onr.gov.uk

FINNERTY Michael

New Reactors Programme Director/PG
Membermichael.finnerty@onr.gov.uk

GLOVER Jeff

Principal Inspector – Nuclear Safety

jeff.glover@onr.gov.uk

22

INGHAM Grant

Principal Inspector – Nuclear Safety

grant.ingham@onr.gov.uk

LAVENDER Craig

Head of EPR Regulation/STC Member

craig.lavender@onr.gov.uk

PRICE Alexander

Inspector – Structural Integrity

alexander.price@onr.gov.uk

TURNER Shane

Principal Inspector/EPRWG Member

shane.turner@onr.gov.uk

WARDLE Stephen

Principal inspector/DICWG Member

stephen.wardle@onr.gov.uk

WHITHAM RobertPrincipal Inspector – Nuclear Safetyrobert.whitham@onr.gov.uk

YATES Simon

Mechanical Engineering Inspector/EPR
CATESG Chairsimon.yates@onr.gov.uk

Terrestrial Energy _____________________________________________________________________________
PLOWDENWARDLAW Louis

General Counsel and Head EMEA

United States _______________________________________________________________________
NRC _________________________________________________________________________________________GARCIA Ismael

Senior Technical Advisor, Office of New
Reactors, DEI/DICWG Chairismael.garcia@nrc.gov

HOLAHAN Gary

Chief Technical Advisor to the Executive
Director for Operations/STC Member

gary.holahan@nrc.gov

KAVANAGH Kerri

Branch Chief Office of New Reactors/
VICWG Vice-Chairkerri.kavanagh@nrc.gov

MAMISH Nader

Director of the Office of International
Programs

nader.mamish@nrc.gov

ORDAZ Vonna

Deputy Director of Office of New
Reactors/STC Member

vonna.ordaz@nrc.gov

WILLIAMS Donna

Technical Assistant, Office of New
Reactors/STC Member

donna.williams@nrc.gov

WITTICK Susan

International Relations Specialist, Officeof International Programs

susan.wittick@nrc.gov

NuScale ______________________________________________________________________________________BERGMAN Tom

Vice President, Regulatory Affairs

tbergman@nuscalepower.com

Rockwell Collins Advanced Technology Center _____________________________________________________
COFER Darren

Fellow at the Rockwell Collins Advanced
Technology Center

darren.cofer@rockwellcollins.com

Westinghouse Electric Company _________________________________________________________________
EASTERLING
Richard J.

Vice President of Technical Services andLicensingeasterr@westinghouse.com

IVEY Randy C.

Supplier Quality Oversight Director

iveyrc@westinghouse.com

International Organisations ___________________________________________________________AFCEN _______________________________________________________________________________________BEAUD Frédéric

Chairman of Editorial Committee

frederic.beaud@edf.fr

FAIDY Claude

Consultant

claude.faidy@gmail.com

MALOUINES Philippe Pressure Equipment Codes andRegulations Expert

philippe.malouines@areva.com

ASME ________________________________________________________________________________________BYK Allyson

S&C Project Engineer

byka@asme.org

IAEA _________________________________________________________________________________________SCOTTO DE CESAR
CamilleSafety Convention Consultant

c.scotto-de-cesar@iaea.org

SPITZER Cornelia

Head of the Safety Assessment Section

c.spitzer@iaea.org

IEC __________________________________________________________________________________________BOUARD Jean-Paul

IEC/SC45A Secretaryjean-paul.bouard@edf.fr

ISNI __________________________________________________________________________________________JIAO LilingEngineer

15110083549@163.com

ZHANG Hongwei

Engineerzhanghongwei07@163.com

23

NEA _________________________________________________________________________________________CHANIAL Luc

Deputy Head of the Division of Nuclear
Safety Technology and Regulation

luc.chanial@oecd.org

LORIN Aurélie

Safety Specialist

aurelie.lorin@oecd.org

MAGWOOD William D. Director General

william.magwood@oecd.org

MAUNY Elisabeth

Assistantelisabeth.mauny@oecd.org

NERETIN Victor

Safety Specialist

victor.neretin@oecd.org

NICK Kimberly

Lawyerkimberly.nick@oecd.org

NIEH Ho

Head of the Division of Nuclear Safety
Technology and Regulation

ho.nieh@oecd.org

SCHMITZ-FRAYSSE
Akane

Assistantakane.schmitz-fraysse@oecd.org

SOSA Belkys

Safety Specialist

belkys.sosa@oecd.org

SDO Board____________________________________________________________________________________
SMITH Paul

Chairmanpaul.smith@amecfw.com

WNA/CORDEL _________________________________________________________________________________
EL-SHANAWANY
MamdouhAdvisor / Professor of nuclear safety at
Imperial College London

HOFFMAN Donald

President and CEO of Excel Services/
CORDEL Vice-Chairman

donald.hoffman@excelservices.com

JOHNSON Gary

Consultant of CORDEL DI&CTF

kg6un@icloud.com

PICKELMANN
Johannes

Chairman of CORDEL DI&CTF

johannes.pickelmann@areva.com

PRINJA Nawal

Chairman of CORDEL MCSTF

nawal.prinja@amec.com

WNA/CORDEL Secretariat _______________________________________________________________________NA Byung-Chan

Director of CORDEL

byung-chan.na@world-nuclear.org

WASYLYK Andrew

Director of CORDEL MCSTF and DI&CTF

andrew.wasylyk@world-nuclear.org

WNA/Secretariat _______________________________________________________________________________KASER Greg

Senior Project Manager

greg.kaser@world-nuclear.org

LEE Kangjun

Visiting Research Officer

kangjun.lee@world-nuclear.org

LEE King

Director Harmony Programme

king.lee@world-nuclear.org

RISING Agneta

Director Generalagneta.rising@world-nuclear.org

24

25

26