MULTINATIONAL DESIGN EVALUATION PROGRAMME
2008 ANNUAL REPORTJUNE 2009

N U C L E A R •E N E R G Y• A G E N CYMDEP ANNUAL REPORTFOREWORDThe Multinational Design Evaluation Programme (MDEP) is a multinational initiative todevelop innovative approaches to leverage the resources and knowledge of the national
regulatory authorities who will be undertaking the review of new reactor power plant designs.
MDEP is organized under the Nuclear Energy Agency, which performs the technical secretariat
function for the programme.
Under MDEP, nuclear regulators are aiming to enhance safety worldwide through increased
co-operation. The enhanced co-operation among regulators will improve the efficiency and theeffectiveness of the design review process, aiming at increased convergence of regulatory
practices. A Steering Technical Committee (STC), formed of senior level representatives of theten participating regulatory authorities, implements the MDEP activities that were initiated to work
towards convergence of regulatory requirements and enhanced cooperation among regulators.
This report discussed the goals and accomplishments of the MDEP programme of work after its
first year of implementation.
Significant progress has been made over the past year on the overall MDEP goals of
increased cooperation and enhanced convergence of requirements and practices.
Accomplishments to date provide confidence that the MDEP structure and process is an effective
method of accomplishing increased cooperation in regulatory design reviews. The progress thathas already been achieved demonstrates that a broader level of cooperation and convergence isboth possible and desirable.
The Policy Group is chaired by Mr. André-Claude Lacoste (ASN, France) and member
countries include Canada, China, Finland, France, Japan, Republic of Korea, RussianFederation, South Africa, United Kingdom, and the United States.

2

MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Paris, 30 June 2009

The Multinational Design Evaluation Programme (MDEP) is one of the most ambitious initiatives
taken at multinational level to develop approaches to pool resources and knowledge of thenational regulatory authorities who will be undertaking the regulatory review of new reactor power
plant designs. Launched on the basis of the existing cooperation between United States (Nuclear
Regulatory Commission - NRC) and France (Nuclear Safety Authority – ASN), this initiative, todate, brings together Canada, China, Finland, France, Japan, Russia, South Africa, South Korea,
the United Kingdom and the United States.
Under MDEP, national regulatory authorities are aiming at increasing the protection of the public
and of the environment. In particular, through this enhanced cooperation, regulators will improvethe efficiency and effectiveness of the design review process and will increase convergence ofregulatory practices.
This first MDEP annual report covers MDEP activities from March 2008 to March 2009 and theprogramme, goals, accomplishments to date and plans for the future.
Conclusions of the MDEP pilot project have been confirmed during this first full year of work of
MDEP. First outcomes show that convergence on Reference Regulatory Practices is aworthwhile and achievable goal. To this end, MDEP has to be considered as long-term
programme, beyond its current two year mandate, with measurable and significant interim
results. During its last meeting held on March, 12th, the MDEP Policy Group decided to extend
the programme of work to a minimum of 5 years and to review periodically results obtained.
MDEP has also identified other organizations that have initiated programmes related tointernational cooperation on new reactors such as the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) and theWestern European Nuclear Regulators’ Association (WENRA). Even if MDEP scope is focusedon short-term activities related to specific design reviews conducted by the member countries,and efforts to harmonize specific regulatory practices and standards, MDEP will strive to moreinteract with these organizations to share results and to ensure that efforts are not duplicated.
MDEP has also noticed the interest of nuclear industry and other regulators not participating in
the programme activities and working group results. On September 10-11 2009, MDEP willorganize a specific conference to present them outcomes obtained so far by MDEP and by othergroups supported by industry.

3

MDEP ANNUAL REPORT4

MDEP ANNUAL REPORTTABLE OF CONTENTSFOREWORD ............................................................................................................................... 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 6
1.0 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 6
2.0 PROGRAMME GOALS AND OUTCOMES ............................................................................ 7
3.0 PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................... 8
4.0 CURRENT ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................... 12
5.0 NEW ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................ 24

5

MDEP ANNUAL REPORTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Multinational Design Evaluation Programme (MDEP) is a multinational initiative todevelop innovative approaches to leverage the resources and knowledge of mature, experienced
national regulatory authorities who are, or will shortly be, undertaking the review of new reactor
power plant designs. Current MDEP members are: Canada, China, Finland, France, Japan,
Korea, Russian Federation, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States. In addition
the IAEA takes part in the work of the MDEP. The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)
performs the Technical Secretariat function in support of MDEP. MDEP incorporates a broad
range of activities including enhancing multilateral cooperation within existing regulatory
framework; and increasing multinational convergence of codes, standards, and safety goals. A
key concept throughout the work of MDEP is that national regulators retain sovereign authority
for all licensing and regulatory decisions.
The original programme of work consisted of 10 activities which were chosen because they could
be accomplished in the near term, and would result in significant benefits while requiring
minimum resources. Working groups are implementing the activities in accordance with
programme plans with specific activities and goals, and have established the necessaryinterfaces both within and outside of the MDEP members. This report provides a status of the
programme after its first year of implementation.
Significant progress is being made on the overall MDEP goals of increased cooperation andenhanced convergence of requirements and practices. Particularly noteworthy accomplishments
include: coordinated performance of vendor inspections, establishment of the MDEP library,development of common positions in the area of digital instrumentation and controls, anddevelopment of a comparison table which will identify the similarities and differences between the
Korean, Japanese, and French codes for class I pressure vessels as they compare to the ASME
code.
MDEP has developed a process for identifying common positions on specific issues among themember countries which may be based on existing standards, national regulatory guidance, bestpractices, and group inputs. These common positions will be endorsed by the MDEP members
as MDEP Reference Regulatory Practices. The endorsed practices would become goodpractices, recommended by the MDEP.
Two design specific working groups have been formed to facilitate the MDEP programme goal ofenhanced cooperation. The EPR working group currently consists of the regulatory authorities ofFrance, Finland, U.S., UK, China, and Canada. The EPR Working Group has been successful in
identifying issues that were addressed by one country but not fully considered in other countries.
In the future, the working group plans to send joint questions to, or hold joint meetings with thevendor to discuss specific technical issues. Three expert subgroups are currently interacting on
specific technical issues and additional subgroups have been proposed.

6

MDEP ANNUAL REPORTThe AP1000 design specific working group was established in November 2008. Members
include Canada, China, United Kingdom, and the United States. At the first meeting of theworking group in February 2009, the members agreed on three areas that the working groupshould focus on initially: control rod drive mechanisms, civil engineering, and squib valves.
The Vendor Inspection Cooperation Working Group is well established and succeeding at
enhancing vendor inspection activities. The first parallel vendor inspection resulted in sharing of
insights by both groups of inspectors and an observer and was useful in understanding
differences in inspection techniques and in scope between the regulators. The Working Grouphas developed a matrix that identifies the scope of inspections in each country. Understanding
which inspection areas are covered by each regulator will help the MDEP countries to coordinate
inspections, and will provide each regulator a better understanding of the applicability ofinspection findings by other countries. Near term actions include: performing more frequentvendor inspections to continue to enhance the understanding of each other’s inspection
procedures and findings, develop and implement the common processes needed to adapt thescope of vendor inspections to take into account the needs of other member countries; anddevelop a framework that takes into account other regulators’ vendor inspections.
The Digital I&C working group has reached agreement on common positions that are underreview by the MDEP Steering Technical Committee as proposed Reference Regulatory
Practices. The DICWG will also make recommendations to the I&C standards organizations ofareas that it believes would be appropriate to consider for convergence of standards.
The Codes and Standards working group has made significant progress in comparing class 1
pressure vessel standards. After completion of the code-comparison table, the working groupwill identify significant differences and examine potential paths for reconciliation of the code
differences including identifying those that should be pursued for potential convergence. Oncean understanding is gained of the differences between the codes, each MDEP participant could
endorse, in whole or in part, the pressure boundary codes and standards of other countries. The
STC will consider the value of expanding the scope of this working group to additional topics
including Class 1 piping, pumps and valves (Phase 2) and eventually Class 2 and 3 vessels,
piping, pumps and valves.
The MDEP library has been established and is functional. The library serves as a central
repository for all documents associated with the MDEP project. The electronic library includes afolder structure and provides for 2 levels of access which are password protected: (1) MDEP
member countries, and (2) member countries participating in design specific working groups.
NEA has issued a guidance document detailing library functions, access, and use.
Accomplishments to date provide confidence that the MDEP structure and process is an effective
method of accomplishing increased cooperation in regulatory design reviews. The progress thathas already been achieved demonstrates that a broader level of cooperation and convergence isboth possible and desirable. It has become clear that the programme needs to continue beyond
the original two year mandate to fully achieve the established goals. Therefore, MDEP will beconsidered a long term programme with interim results. The duration of the programme will be
periodically evaluated. The MDEP Policy Group approved to extend the programme of work as aminimum to 5 years for setting specific expectations, goals, and programme plans for its
activities. MDEP will consider additional areas where new activities would contribute significantly
to meeting the MDEP programme goals.

7

MDEP ANNUAL REPORTMULTINATIONAL DESIGN EVALUATION PROGRAMME

1.0

Background

The Multinational Design Evaluation Programme (MDEP) is a multinational initiative todevelop innovative approaches to leverage the resources and knowledge of mature, experienced
national regulatory authorities who are, or will shortly be, undertaking the review of new reactor
power plant designs. MDEP has evolved from primarily a design evaluation program to a
multinational cooperation program that includes inspection activities and generic issues. The
MDEP incorporates a broad range of activities including: Enhancing multilateral cooperation within existing regulatory framework.
 Increasing multinational convergence of codes, standards, and safety goals.
 Implementing MDEP products and regulatory practices to facilitate licensing reviews of
new reactors, including those being developed by the Generation IV International
Forum.
A key concept throughout the work of MDEP is better informing the decisions of regulatory
authorities through multinational cooperation while retaining sovereign authority for all licensing
and regulatory decisions.
The idea for the programme was initiated in 2005, and a planning meeting of the original 10participating countries and IAEA was held in June 2006. Initial efforts consisted of multilateral
cooperation on the European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR) design reviews, and a pilot
project to assess the feasibility of enhancing multinational cooperation and convergence ofcodes, standards, and safety goals within existing regulatory frameworks. The multilateral
cooperation on the EPR expanded on bilateral interactions that had already been establishedbetween France and Finland. A structure for the programme was developed consisting of a
Policy Group to oversee the programme, and a Steering Technical Committee with Working
Groups to implement the programme with the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) serving as theTechnical Secretariat. Terms of Reference for the programme were approved in September
2006.
A one year pilot project began in the fall of 2006 to assess the feasibility of the programme. The
project consisted of two working groups. The first group was tasked with evaluating thesimilarities and differences in the licensing basis, scope of design review and safety goals of theparticipating countries. The second group was tasked with assessing the regulatory requirements
and review associated with the manufacturing processes for components for use in nuclear
power plants. The project was to assess both the regulatory requirements and programmes
associated with licensing new nuclear plants. To facilitate completing this task within one year,
the project was focused on three selected areas, namely, Severe Accidents, Emergency Core
Cooling System performance, and Digital Instrumentation and Control (I&C) Systems. The study

8

MDEP ANNUAL REPORTof these selected areas provided insights into these specific areas, and more broadly, the overall
licensing basis, scope of design review, and use of safety goals in the participating countries. By
considering a broad range of vendor, utility, and regulator activities for each of these three topics,a sufficiently broad understanding of the regulatory activities in each country was developed.
The pilot project was completed in late 2007. The project demonstrated that there is a significant
benefit in continuing a multilateral effort to cooperate on new reactor reviews, and resulted in
specific areas for enhanced cooperation among regulators. The pilot project identified 10 specificrecommendations that would result in significant benefits, while requiring minimum resources.
The recommendations and a proposed structure of MDEP were approved by the Policy Group at
its meeting in March 2008. A report dated May 2008, ―Multinational Design Evaluation
Programme – Pilot Project and Assessment‖ discusses how the pilot project was implemented,
its conclusions, and the resulting programme of work and revised structure of MDEP going
forward.
This report provides a status of the programme after its first year of implementation (March 2008
– March 2009).

2.0

Programme Goals and Outcomes

The main objective of the MDEP effort is to enable increased cooperation and establish
reference regulatory practices to enhance the safety of new reactor designs. The enhanced
cooperation among regulators will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory
design reviews, which are part of each country’s licensing process. The programme focuses oncooperation and convergence of regulatory practices that will lead to convergence of regulatory
requirements. Cooperation will allow a better understanding of each other’s processes toencourage and facilitate eventual convergence. Convergence will be pursued on specific
Reference Regulatory Practices. The goal of MDEP is not to independently develop new
regulatory standards, but to build upon the similarities already existing and existingharmonization in the form of IAEA and other safety standards. In addition, the Reference
Regulatory Practices developed in MDEP will be shared with IAEA for consideration in the IAEA
standards development programme.
MDEP is meeting its goal of enabling increased cooperation through the activities of the working
groups. MDEP has been very successful in providing a forum for regulatory bodies to cooperate
on design evaluations and inspections. In addition to organizing working groups, MDEP has
provided each regulator with peer contacts who share information and discuss issues informally.
For example, the design specific working group members have benefitted significantly from thesharing of questions from the regulator, and seeing differences in the designs in each country,
resulting in more informed regulatory decisions.
MDEP members have also been highly
successful in coordinating theirvendor inspections in which the regulators shared observations
and insights. MDEP has made improvements in communicating information regarding themembers’ regulatory practices through development of an MDEP website, and an MDEP librarywhich serves as a central repository for all documents associated with the MDEP project.
MDEP is meeting its goal of establish reference regulatory practices through the activities of theissue specific working groups. The groups are making comparisons of the regulatory practices in
the member countries, identifying differences, and developing common positions. These
common positions will be formalized as reference regulatory practices. The working groups arealso working with codes and standards organizations to identify differences and propose areas of9

MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
convergence. MDEP has identified similarities and differences in inspection practices, and plans
to develop a common MDEP vendor inspection procedure that could be used for vendor
inspections.
Progress towards harmonised regulatory practices and requirements for Generation IV reactor
design will be a natural outgrowth of this programme, as the participating regulatory authorities
find that multinational cooperation and convergence of regulatory practices become routine
elements of their planning and execution of new design evaluations. It is noteworthy that 6 of the
7 countries actively participating in the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) are also MDEP
participants.
MDEP has been successful in meeting the expected outcomes as defined in the MDEP Terms ofReference by: increasing knowledge transfer, identifying similarities and differences in theregulatory practices; increasing stakeholders’ understanding of regulatory practices; andenhancing the ability of regulatory bodies to cooperate in reactor design evaluations, vendor
inspections, and construction oversight, leading to more efficient and more safety-focused
regulatory decisions.

3.0

Programme Implementation

3.1

Structure

Participation in the Policy Group and Steering Technical Committee is intended for mature,experienced national safety authorities of interested countries that already have commitments for
new build or firm plans to have commitments in the near future for new reactor designs. Current
MDEP members are: Canada, China, Finland, France, Japan, Korea, Russian Federation, South
Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States. In addition the IAEA takes part in the work of
the MDEP.
The programme is governed by a Policy Group (PG), made up of the heads of the participatingorganizations, and implemented by a Steering Technical Committee (STC) and its working
groups. The STC consists of senior staff representatives from each of the participating nationalsafety authorities plus a representative from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The Policy Group provides guidance to the STC on the overall approach, monitors the progressof the programme; and determines participation in the programme.
The Steering Technical Committee manages and approves the detailed programme of work
including defining topics and working methods, establishment of technical working groups, andnomination of experts; approves procedures and technical papers developed by the working
groups; establishes interfaces with other international efforts to benefit from available work andavoid duplication; develops procedures for the handling of information to be shared in the Project;reports to the Policy Group; and establishes additional Working Groups of experts for specifictopics.
The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) performs the Technical Secretariat function in supportof MDEP.

10

MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Two lines of activities have been established to carry out the work.
Design specific activities. Working groups for each new reactor design will share
information and cooperate on specific reactor design evaluations and construction
oversight. Participants in these working groups would be the countries who are
actively reviewing, or preparing to review, or constructing the specific reactor design.
A design specific working group is formed when three or more countries express
interest in working together. An ―Observer‖ level of engagement is available forregulatory bodies engaged in regulatory action based on interest expressed bygovernmental authority and/or by a utility for exploring the potential for licensing new
nuclear power plants of certain designs. Observers can participate in the meetings aslong as appropriate controls regarding the use and discussion of proprietary
information are established. This status is temporary with expectations thatcircumstances and the necessary agreements that will allow full participation willdevelop in a short time period. Under the design specific working groups, subgroups
have been formed to address specific technical issues.
 Issue-specific activities. Working groups are organized for the technical andregulatory process areas within the programme of work. These currently include, but
are not limited to, vendor inspections, pressure boundary component codes andstandards, and digital instrumentation and control standards. Membership in issue
specific working groups is open to all MDEP participating countries and the IAEA
representatives.

The chart below illustrates how the programme is organised.
Policy Group

Steering TechnicalCommittee

DI&CWG

PSA

Accidents &Transients

EPR Working Group

Digital I&C Standards
Working Group

SevereAccident
Codes and Standards
Working GroupSquib
valvesControl rod drive
mechanism

AP1000 Working Group

Vendor Inspection
Cooperation Working Group

Civil
engineering
MDEP Library

11

MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
3.2

Interactions

Other organizations have initiated programmes to facilitate international cooperation on newreactors. MDEP recognizes that because of its limited membership, other avenues should beavailable to countries interested in new build that do not meet the criteria for entrance to MDEP.
MDEP strives to maintain an awareness of, and interact with, these other groups to ensure thatthey do not duplicate efforts, to benefit from the results of these activities, and to communicate
MDEP activities and results to other regulators. To ensure that efforts are not duplicatedbetween the groups, MDEP scope is focused on short-term activities related to specific design
reviews being conducted by the member countries, and efforts to harmonize specific regulatory
practices and standards.
MDEP is preparing for a conference to be held in fall 2009 with non-MDEP regulators, industry,
international organizations, and standards organizations. The meeting should provide
opportunities to present results obtained so far by MDEP and by other groups supported byindustry.
Brief descriptions of these other programmes and their interfaces with MDEP are below.
3.2.1 NEA Committee on Nuclear Regulatory Activities (CNRA) WGRNR
The Working Group on Regulation of New Reactors (WGRNR) examines the regulatory issues ofthe siting, licensing and regulatory oversight of Generation III+ and Generation IV nuclear
reactors. The WGRNR will focus in particular on construction inspection issues. The WGRNR
co-ordinates its work with the work performed by MDEP such that it utilises its outputs and does
not duplicate its efforts, and extends the results of MDEP to other CNRA members. MDEP
interacts with the CNRA Working Groups on the Regulation of New Reactors and Working Groupon Inspection Practice through the NEA staff who also serve as the Technical Secretariat for the
CNRA. In addition, the chairs of CNRA WGRNR and MDEP STC meet frequently to discuss ongoing activities and plans. WGRNR will be the focal point of interactions between MDEP and the
CNRA and its working groups and will assist in coordinating communications and requests
between the two activities.
3.2.2 IAEA
IAEA participates in the work of MDEP, in particular through participation in the Policy Group and
STC meetings and issue specific working groups. In addition, the Reference Regulatory
Practices developed in MDEP will be shared with IAEA for consideration in the IAEA standards
development programme.
3.2.3 Western European Nuclear Regulators Association (WENRA),WENRA is a non-governmental organisation comprised of the Heads and senior staff membersof nuclear regulatory authorities of European countries with nuclear power plants. The main
objectives of WENRA are to develop a common approach to nuclear safety, to provide an
independent capability to examine nuclear safety in applicant countries and to be a network ofchief nuclear safety regulators in Europe exchanging experience and discussing significant safetyissues. A Reactor Harmonisation Working Group (RHWG) issues common reference levels withthe objective of attaining a common approach to nuclear safety within Europe. Three membersof the MDEP Policy Group are also members of WENRA. The MDEP STC has had the benefit ofpresentations on WENRA activities at two meetings. In addition, WENRA documents are
12

MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
recognized as a valuable source of information and insights and can assist the MDEP STC in
selecting future topics.
3.2.4 Generation IV International Forum Risk and Safety Working Group
MDEP interacts with GIF through the NEA staff who also serve as the Technical Secretariat for
GIF. In addition, the chairman of the STC has met with chairman of the GIF Risk and Safety
working group to discuss activities of mutual interest, and a member of the RSWG is a memberof the MDEP STC. In addition, the MDEP STC Chairman will participate in the next Risk andSafety Working Group meeting scheduled in May 2009.
3.2.5 Industry groups
The World Nuclear Association CORDEL group has expressed interest in the MDEP activities.
Although the group is not a regulatory organization, and could not participate directly in MDEP,
there are possible areas of common interest. The CORDEL group is interested, for example, inthe standardization of industry practices for new reactors and this could influence theeffectiveness of MDEP efforts to establish reference regulatory practices.
Preliminary
discussions have occurred but no formal meetings have been planned. The STC will continue tomonitor CORDEL activities to identify opportunities for effective cooperation.
In addition, several Codes and Standards organisations have expressed interest in benefitingfrom the harmonization efforts. The MDEP working groups have been interfacing extensively
with these organisations including enlisting their help in performing comparison exercises.
3.3

Process

MDEP has developed a process for identifying common positions on specific issues among
the member countries which may be based on existing standards, national regulatory guidance,
best practices, and group inputs using the agreed upon process. These ―common positions‖ will
be endorsed by the MDEP members as MDEP Reference Regulatory Practices. After a common
position is developed by a working group, it is presented to the STC for endorsement, and then to
the Policy Group for approval. Upon approval by the PG, the common positions will be publishedin an MDEP status report as Reference Regulatory Practices and will be made publicly available
on the NEA MDEP website. Those endorsed practices would become good practices,
recommended by the MDEP. There is no obligation on the part of any regulatory body to follow
them. If a regulatory body chooses to adopt a Reference Regulatory Practice, it would bethrough that country’s normal processes. In addition, the Reference Regulatory Practices
developed in MDEP will be shared with IAEA for consideration in the IAEA standards
development programme.

13

MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

4.0

Current Activities

In March 2008, the MDEP Policy Group approved the report that discussed the conclusions of
the MDEP pilot project and endorsed all 10 recommendations of the pilot project. The
recommendations were implemented under design specific working groups, issue-specificworking groups, or through activities pursued by a lead country or NEA. This section provides
progress against the original 10 recommendations, accomplishments, and planned future
actions.
WORKING GROUPS

Five working groups currently exist under the STC, each of which is responsible for implementing
one of the recommended actions. Each working group has a lead and co-lead country
designated, and has developed a programme plan which identifies specific activities, schedules
and contacts.
Terms of Reference for the design-specific and issue -specific working groups have beendeveloped.
4.1

Recommendation 1: Share information and cooperate on specific reactor design
evaluations under current reviews

4.1.1

EPR Design-Specific Working GroupThe EPR working group currently consists of the regulatory authorities of France, Finland, U.S.,
UK, China and Canada. This working group was established in January 2006 as phase 1 of
MDEP. Numerous meetings and technical exchanges have taken place to exchange informationon the reviews being conducted in each country: Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) which is under construction in
Finland; Flamanville 3 which is under construction in France; and the US version of the EPR
which was submitted for design certification in the United States on 11 December 2007, and isreferenced by 4 combined license applications currently under review.
In November 2008,
China and the UK were added as members. UK/NII is performing a Generic Design Assessmentof the UK- EPR at the joint request of EDF and Areva. The design is essentially the same as the
French design being constructed by EDF at Flamanville. Canada- CNSC and AREVA recently
signed a Service Agreement and began a pre-project design review in February 2009. The EPR
DSWG chair is Finland, which is in the process of constructing an EPR; and France, as thecountry of the design originator, is the vice-chair. The goals of the working group are to reachconvergence in aspects of the review of the EPR design where possible and find areas where
member countries can cooperate.
Accomplishments
The EPR Working Group has been successful in identifying issues that were addressed by one
country but not yet fully considered in other countries. For example: STUK and ASN haveshared portions of the detailed design of the EPR I&C system. This will assist countries such as
the U.S. and the U.K. that have not seen the detailed design at this time. In addition, STUK
shared its letter to AREVA outlining the I&C issues identified in their review. Other regulators plan
14

MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
to issue similar documents in the first part of 2009. The working group has also shared theresolution of issues by one country that may not have been fully considered in other countries.
For example, the U.S. shared its interim staff guidance for independence of data communications
between various I&C systems that was developed last year with the other regulators.
The working group members have also discussed tools and methods used in their reviews that
may be useful to other members. For example, NII discussed the use of statistical software
testing as demonstration for software meeting a particular software reliability goal that can beused in the overall plant PRA. This tool may be useful to other regulators. Additionally, STUK’scontractor provided a presentation of a software modeling tool that was used to evaluate the OL3
software and identified some requirements/design specification issues. This tool may be of value
to other regulators when the software for the plants they are reviewing is under development.
The working group is maintaining in the MDEP library a listing of EPR Technical Issues that havebeen identified and are currently being evaluated by each of the participating regulators. The
library provides a synopsis of the issues, the status within each technical body, and links torelevant documents.
Three technical expert subgroups have been formed to address specific issues in the design
review. The status of these groups is discussed below.
EPR Digital I&C subgroup
All participating regulators and AREVA see I&C as the major licensing issue for EPR. The
countries are progressing with similar schedules (principal decisions are to be made in mid-2009
in all of the countries). Issues being addressed include defense-in-depth, diversity and cybersecurity. The digital I&C subgroup held 3 meetings in 2008 and the participating countries
continue informal discussions via email. The EPR I&C Working Group will issue a final report at
the end of two years outlining the information shared between regulators
EPR Probabilistic Safety Assessment Subgroup
The EPR PSA subgroup members are comparing their level 1 PSAs. STUK provided a summaryof the EPR PSA to NRC for review. Based on the interactions and review of materials, the NRC
identified additional questions for the applicant. These questions were shared with STUK and
ASN to assist in their review.
The participating countries provided global overviews of their PSA and assessment program.
Technical areas discussed include fire PSA, external hazards, and common cause failures.
Additional topics and documentation were identified for future information exchange.
The working group members continue discussions of the differences between the French,
Finnish, and U.S. designs and regulatory approaches. In particular, they are working tounderstand the differences in HVAC design and system interdependencies, and diesel generator
battery design capacity.
EPR Containment and Accident Analysis subgroup
The EPR containment subgroup members have discussed current issues and the status of theircontainment reviews, and identified areas where information sharing would be beneficial. For
example, STUK shared two reports on containment heat removal, ASN made a presentation on

15

MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
the assessment of methodologies used for transient analysis, and NRC made a presentation on
issues associated with the US EPR LOCA mass and energy release and containment mixing andheat removal. The working group has interest in cooperating in the areas of post-LOCA
Containment Heat Removal, Mass and Energy Release (including hot leg injection), Sump
clogging (specifically down stream effects), and Combustible Gas Control.
Future activities for the subgroup include sharing the following information: long-term mass andenergy releases to containment calculated by different tools (RELAP, CATHARE, and TRACE);
insights on containment mixing studies; studies generated by VTT (STUK and NRC); andevaluations performed by different regulatory authorities.
EPR Working Group Future Actions
New expert subgroups were proposed and will be formalized at the next EPR WG meetingscheduled for June 2009. New expert subgroups may include: radiation protection and fire
protection.
4.1.2

AP1000 design specific working group

The AP1000 design specific working group was established in November 2008 with initial
participation by China, United Kingdom, and the United States. Canada was added as a member
in March 2009. China (NNSA) is preparing to issue a construction permit in March 2009; 4
AP1000 units are planned for China. The US is reviewing Revision 16 and 17 to the AP1000
design certification and is concurrently reviewing combined license applications for 12 AP1000
units. UK is performing a generic design assessment of the AP1000 design. The AP1000
DSWG chair is the United States, the country of the design originator; and China, with plans tobe the first country to begin the construction of an AP1000 in early 2009, is the vice-chair.
Accomplishments
Several preliminary meetings and discussions were held between US/NRC and UK/NII, andbetween US/NRC and China/NNSA during 2007 and 2008. A videoconference between NNSA,
and the US/NRC was held on 8 July 2008. During the conference, the NRC and NNSA agreed to
exchange documents related to their respective reviews of the AP1000 design, and agreed on
the details of future workshops and technical meetings. The NRC conducted a two-weekworkshop on the AP1000 design in China in October 2008. NNSA and the NRC held detailed
technical meetings February 9-13, 2009, in the U.S. Several documents related to the AP-1000
design review have been shared by the member countries through the MDEP library.
A meeting of NNSA, UK, US and Canada was held in February 2009 for the purpose of further
defining the specific technical issues that the working group will address. At the meeting themembers agreed on three areas that the working group will focus on: control rod drive
mechanisms, civil engineering, and squib valves.
4.2

Recommendation 2: Undertake a multinational vendor inspection programme(Vendor Inspection Cooperation issue specific working group)

A Working Group on Component Manufacturing Oversight was established as part of the
MDEP Pilot Project to assess the regulatory requirements and review associated with the
manufacturing processes for components for use in nuclear power plants. The working group
16

MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
met with the design code bodies from the U.S., France, Japan, and Korea, and found thatcomponent manufacturing is currently subject to multiple inspections and audits similar in scopeand in safety objectives, but conducted by different organisations. The pilot project concluded
that the formation of multi-national regulatory teams to perform inspections of component
manufacturers will improve effectiveness and efficiency in the regulatory assessment of highest
safety class components.
A working group was established to continue the work of the pilot project to identify areas ofcommonality and differences between regulatory practices of participating countries in the area ofvendor inspection programmes. ASN chairs this working group. The primary objective of theworking group is to facilitate continued dialogue between the participating countries regarding
vendor performance, to increase the understanding of commonalities and differences in vendor
oversight practices used by the participating regulators, and to identify opportunities forobservation or participation in each others vendor inspections. The working group will develop
an overall framework and timeline for the conduct of inspections of vendors, and a protocol forsharing results among national regulatory bodies. Longer term, the working group will develop
common processes to adapt the scope of vendor inspections to take into account the needs ofparticipating countries; and to develop a framework that addresses participating regulators’
vendor inspection requirements to support the shared use of inspection results.
The group identified its scope and objectives, and a detailed project plan for 2008-2010. The
scope of the group is initially focused on pressure retaining components for reactor coolant
systems. As experience is gained, the scope may be increased to other areas. The working
group identified two objectives: (1) Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of vendor inspections
by building on other regulator(s) work; and (2) sharing the results of vendor inspection to allow
the participating countries to take into account vendor inspections performed by others.
Accomplishments
The MDEP countries completed surveys for the purpose of identifying areas of commonality anddifferences in the regulatory inspection practices, and to facilitate sharing information (programs,
reports, etc.). Results of the survey indicate that there are areas where the regulatory
frameworks are aligned. For example, all participating countries include the concept of holding
the license holder or facility owner responsible for assuring the quality of all of the safety-related
components used in the construction of their plants. In addition, all of the participating countries
document their inspection activities in a report, require corrective actions for identified
deficiencies, used documented inspection procedures or plans, and can conduct inspections
without requiring permission from the inspected organization.
A key area of difference is in the scope of inspections. The scope ranges from focusing on
assuring the licensees are effectively overseeing vendor activities without direct regulatory
inspection of vendor activities, to requiring regulator witness and hold points in the fabrication of
products. The participating countries were divided into three categories associated with different
controls for vendor oversight. Based on the survey results, the working group agreed that future
observation, participation, and coordinated inspections should focus primarily on the quality
assurance program inspections.
The Working Group will develop a matrix that identifies the scope of inspections in each country.
Understanding which inspection areas are covered by each regulator will help the MDEP
countries to coordinate vendor inspections, and will provide each regulator a better
understanding of the applicability of inspection findings by other countries.
17

MDEP ANNUAL REPORTThe first parallel vendor inspection was held during the week of 26 May 2008. Both the Korean
Regulator (KINS) and the NRC conducted independent, simultaneous inspections of Doosan
Heavy Industries. Insights from both groups of inspectors were shared each day during theinspection. In addition to the interactions between KINS and the NRC, an ASN representative
observed the inspections and shared insights on his observations during the inspection.
Consistent with the Working Group’s project plan, the NRC and KINS inspection reports will bemade available to all MDEP countries. The participating countries found this parallel inspection
useful in understanding differences in inspection techniques and in scope between theregulators. For example, as a result of observing KINS and ASN inspections, the NRC plans to
expand its use of technical experts in future inspections.
The member countries have begun to share information by providing other countries with a list of
currently scheduled vendor inspections, and samples of recent inspection reports, experiences,and lessons learned. At its most recent meeting, the working group identified sevenopportunities for participating countries to observe or participate in vendor inspections being
conducted by other regulators, and two opportunities to conduct parallel inspections.
Future Actions
A subgroup consisting of the United Kingdom, South Korea, and the U.S. are developing draft
guidelines for the observation of or participation in vendor inspections conducted by otherregulators, and for the conduct of parallel vendor inspections. The draft guidelines will be
discussed at the next working group meeting.
The working group has initiated an activity that could lead to harmonising quality assurance
requirements of the regulatory bodies.
The group is conducting a new survey on quality
assurance requirements used in the oversight of vendors. The results of the survey should beavailable in April 2009.
In 2009, the working group plans to perform more vendor inspections in which one regulatory
carries out the inspection and multiple other regulators are invited to observe This will continue
to enhance the exchange of information between the different regulators to better understandinspection scopes and safety findings and how these findings may be utilized. In 2010, the groupplans to develop and implement the common processes needed to adapt the scope of vendor
inspections to take into account the needs of other member countries; and to develop aframework that takes into account other regulators’ vendor inspections.
Longer term, the working group may develop a common MDEP vendor inspection procedure that
could be used for vendorinspections.
The working group also plans to explore expanding their activities beyond pressure boundary
components into areas such as electrical and mechanical components, concrete, and examine
modular construction as an area where vendor inspections can be useful to MDEP members.
4.3

Recommendation 3: Converge on codes and standards for pressure boundary
components (Pressure Boundary Codes and Standards issue specific working
group)The primary goal of the Codes and Standards Working Group (CSWG) is to achieve
convergence of regulatory requirements in the area of component design. A major initial step18

MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
towards this goal is establishing a retrievable data base of the similarities and differences among
the codes and standards used in the design of pressure boundary components. The initial effort
will emphasize similarities and differences among the codes and standards used in the U.S.
(ASME), France (RCCM), Japan (JSME), Canada (CSA), and Korea (KEPIC). Future efforts are
anticipated to address codes and standards in other countries including possibly the RussianFederation and China. The working group’s goal is to perform an assessment of the similarities
and differences for the ASME, RCCM, JSME, CSA, and KEPIC codes and standards and identify
the most beneficial areas for convergence. Changes in codes and standards can only be madeby the standards development organizations (SDOs) themselves and therefore, the role of theworking group in this area is to assist in identifying and resolving important differences. The
SDOs are performing a Code-comparison project in conjunction with the working group’s efforts.
The goal of both the SDOs and the CSWG is to achieve global harmonization of pressureboundary design codes for nuclear power plants.
Accomplishments:
The CSWG has interacted with standards development organisations (SDOs) which have formeda steering committee composed of the representatives of ASME, JSME, KEPIC, AFCEN, CSA,
vendors, and utilities.
The CSWG is represented on the steering committee by the
representative from the US NRC. The SDOs are preparing a comparison table of the followingpressure boundary codes for Class 1 pressure vessels: ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code, RCC-M, JSME S NC1, and KEPIC. This assessment is being accomplished throughcorrespondence and joint meetings between the working group and SDOs. The initial effort
focusing on pressure vessel codes will result in a database which will identify the similarities anddifferences between the Korean, Japanese, and French codes as they compare to the ASME
code. The project is designed to use the ASME code as the basis for the comparison since mostof the codes under review originated from the ASME codes. The source of the differences in thecodes such as regulatory requirements or code organization approach will also be addressed.
The SDOs have made good progress in developing their Code-comparison table. On October
29-30, 2008, the CSWG met with the SDOs to discuss the preliminary results of their Codecomparison project. Each SDO presented the status of its Code-comparison activity, discussed
examples of Code differences, and described how the significance of Code differences would be
addressed. The SDOs noted that the Code-comparison table will discuss the source of thedifferences (e.g., regulatory, technical, industry practice, etc.) and will address specific reasonsfor the differences. At this time, the goal of the Code-comparison project is harmonization rather
than convergence of Code requirements. The key to achieving harmonization is to understandthe source of and reasons for the differences in order to assess their significance. The firstphase of the Code-comparison project is comparing Code requirements for Class 1 (reactor
coolant pressure-boundary) vessels. In the next phase, the SDOs will include other Class 1
components (i.e., piping, pumps and valves). At a meeting in February 2009, the SDOs
discussed in more detail technical Code differences, consistency in table format, and significanceof Code differences. This meeting was attended by representatives of the CSWG.
At this time, the Phase 1 Code-comparison activity for KEA’s KEPIC Code is complete. The firstdraft of JSME’s S-NC1 Code-comparison table, and the first draft of AFCEN’s RCCM Codecomparison is complete. The final Code-comparison document is scheduled to be issued in May
2009.
The working group made several observations based on information collected to date: First,
many significant differences arise over time with those Codes that were based on an earlier
19

MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
versions of the ASME Code (i.e., JSME’s S-NC1 and AFCEN’s RCCM Codes), in part, due toindustry practices and regulatory policy. Those Codes that were based on later versions of the
ASME Code—or continue to adopt subsequent ASME Code editions and addenda—will see only
minor differences. Those Codes that were developed independently from the ASME Code will
likely see the most significant differences. Second, each country’s standard industry practices fordesign and construction plays a large role in the development of each country’s Coderequirements. Consequently, some Code requirements for one country might not be applicable
to nor appropriate for another country. Lastly, many other documents beyond the Code itself,
often plays a major role in the final component (e.g., other industry standards, regulatory
guidance, and manufacturer’s specifications).
Next Steps:
After completion of the code-comparison table, the working group will identify significant
differences and examine potential paths for reconciliation of the code differences including
identifying those that should be pursued for potential convergence. Once an understanding is
gained of the differences between the codes, each MDEP participant could endorse, in whole orin part, the pressure boundary codes and standards of other countries. Alternatively, each
MDEP participant could initiate their national process to endorse the codes and standards ofother countries as they see appropriate.
Russia has initiated a Code-comparison effort and expects to complete its Phase 1 activity in
mid-2009. After Russia is included in the project and identifies its Code differences, its results
will be amended to the Phase 1 Code-comparison results of Korea, Japan, and France.
The overall CSWG project is extensive. The expansion of the Phase 1 task (Class 1 vessels) toinclude Russia and, possibly, Canada will extend the overall Phase 1 schedule to mid-to-late2009. The schedule to expand the scope to include Class 1 piping, pumps and valves (Phase 2)
has not yet been established. Currently, plans to further expand the scope of work to include
Class 2 and 3 vessels, piping, pumps and valves will need to discussed at the next CSWG
meeting (July 2009) and will depend on the success of Phases 1 and 2.
4.4

Recommendation 4: Evaluate the similarities and differences in other codes andstandards, beginning with a comparison of the digital instrumentation and control
standards (Digital I & C Standards issue specific working group)

In moving towards convergence, the codes and standards used in design, manufacture,
installation and construction of new reactor designs are fundamental. The goal of thisrecommendation is to perform a comparison, identify the similarities and differences, and perform
an evaluation to determine whether the differences are significant, or merely different ways of
expressing essentially the same requirements. The comparison will first be performed on the
Digital I & C standards. The goals of this working group are to perform a comparison exercise,analyze the results, and identify which differences should be rated as priority for increased
convergence work. The WG first identified agreed upon areas of interest, followed byexamination of similarities and differences in regulatory requirements applicable to these areas.
Subsequently, the members determined if there are enough similarities and overlap in theregulatory approaches of each member to develop a common position.

20

MDEP ANNUAL REPORTAs a long term goal, the working group will interact with the relevant standards organisations withthe aim of getting increased convergence. The working group will also identify areas of interest
where there are no established standards.

Accomplishments:
The working group engaged the I&C standards organizations (IEC and IEEE) regarding their
participation in a comparison exercise of the standards and increased coordination related todigital instrumentation and controls. A detailed comparison table has been developed andreviewed by the working group. The working group has also interfaced with several equipment
designers and manufacturers to discuss their concerns and challenges with differences instandards and regulatory requirements.
The working group identified the member countries’ most significant technical issues regarding
standards and regulatory guidance. This list was used to better understand the main issues andto determine priorities for the working group. The top two issues were determined to be defensein-depth and diversity, and data communications.
The DICWG developed a process for identifying common positions on specific issues among themember countries which may be based on the existing standards, national regulatory guidance,
best practices, and group inputs using the agreed process/framework. To date, the working
group has identified two areas for potential convergence and has drafted proposed common
positions: software common cause failure, and software tools. The WG expects to finalize these
positions by mid-2009.
Next steps:
The DICWG will make recommendations to the standards organizations of areas that it believes
would be appropriate to consider for convergence of standards. These recommendations will be
communicated to the standards organizations in a letter.
The working group has identified potential areas that should be explored for future common
positions.
The working group will develop specific protocols to communicate with the design specificworking groups for digital instrumentation and controls in order to increase efficiency andeffectiveness.
INTERACTION WITH OTHER ACTIVITIES

4.5

Recommendation 5: Complete the evaluation of the similarities and differences in
the overall scope of the regulatory review and analysis for severe accidents anddevelop a draft reference scope of review

The pilot project expert group on severe accidents concluded that a significant degree ofsimilarity exists in the regulatory processes for reviews performed to ensure that design
requirements have been met, and independent analyses and calculations performed by the21

MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
regulators to verify and/or validate the acceptability of the design. Many countries follow the basic
objectives defined in IAEA Safety Guide GS-G-1.2, ―Review and Assessment of Nuclear
Facilities by the Regulatory Body.‖ All participating countries perform detailed reviews of thesafety analysis to various extents, including independent confirmatory analyses and calculations.
The group also noted that there is a general level of design requirements that is in line with the
IAEA Safety Requirements in applying a deterministic approach, for example defence in depth,
single failure criteria, and safety margins. Likewise, there are similarities in the application ofprobabilistic methods in complementing the deterministic approach.
The experts concluded that some degree of similarity exists regarding the Severe Accident
qualitative requirements, including the scope, level of defence-in-depth approach, supporting
principles, deterministic analysis, and probabilistic safety assessment quality, scope andmethodology. However, it was concluded that the numerical safety goals were different.
The goal of this recommendation is agreement by the MDEP members on a reference level ofthe overall scope of the regulatory review and analysis. A long term goal is a harmonized scopeof the regulatory review and analysis in the area of severe accidents.

Next steps:
The MDEP members believe that this issue is important and worth pursuing. Because theparticipating regulatory authorities in MDEP represent three quarters of the operating reactors
and most new reactors under review, the MDEP STC is in a unique position to contribute to otherharmonization efforts. The STC will identify technical experts who will further explore the issue
and monitor ongoing work in this area by other groups including IAEA, NEA/CSNI and WENRA.
The experts will report back to the STC with recommendations on how MDEP can provide
assistance to the work being performed in this area.
This issue is also being addressed by MDEP through the design specific working groups.
4.6

Recommendation 6: Compare how top level safety goals are derived, expressed,
achievement is judged among the participating countries, and determine the extent
to which they can be considered equivalent.

The goal of this recommendation is to enhance cooperation by having a better understanding of
how decisions have been reached by other regulators. To do this, regulators must have a goodunderstanding of the top level safety goals and the extent to which they are equivalent. The top
level goals are expressed differently in each country, and it is not obvious if they are equivalent.
It is noted that work is currently in process by other groups such as NEA/CSNI/WGRisk and IAEA
in this area.
Accomplishments:
Technical experts from NII, NEA, NRC and IAEA identified work that is already on-going in thesafety goal and severe accident areas; and provided recommendations on whether MDEP should
move forward in establishing Reference Regulatory Practices on these topics.
The subgroup considered the following as key issues in the evaluation of safety goals:
 Optimization and balancing of requirements
 Traceability from the low level goals to the top level goals
22

MDEP ANNUAL REPORT Top level goals can be probabilistic
 Goals should cover the entire set from normal operation, abnormal operation andaccidents.
 Derivation of the safety goals and how they are used to determine lower level goals
The experts noted that WENRA appears to be working on a similar task and the MDEP subgroupwill interact with WENRA and other selected organizations involved in probabilistic safety goals
and applications. This approach offers the potential to achieve harmonization beyond theWENRA countries with minimal potential for duplication
Next Steps:
The MDEP Policy Group considered this issue at its meeting in March 2009, and concluded thatthe most appropriate path forward was to continue to evaluate the issue with experts that include
a broader representation of the MDEP members. This evaluation will include interactions withWENRA, Gen IV, IAEA, WGRisk, WGRNR to discuss the work that is being performed in theseother groups. The experts will make recommendations to the STC on how MDEP can contributeto the ongoing work that NEA and IAEA are performing in this area.
4.7

Recommendation 7: Compare the approaches used for taking account of operating
experience in regulatory reviews for new reactors

All new reactor designs claim to be improvements on previous/current designs in terms of safety
and effects on the environment. An important factor in demonstrating this improvement is toconsider the operational experience feedback (OEF) from similar plants, other reactors andrelevant non-nuclear facilities, both within the country and internationally. The pilot project
evaluation in this area showed a wide range of approaches used in different countries. It isnecessary to understand these differences and how they affect the regulatory review process if
use is to be made of other regulators reviews. A particular issue is the approach used byregulators when considering completely new types of reactor designs for which no direct
operating experience is available. Even though there may be no directly relevant operating
experience available, insights gained from operating events will still have relevance and can beused to probe the design’s robustness against operational occurrences.
Specific aspects of OEF that would be evaluated include: whether the regulators specify the
database(s) to be considered or this is left to the designers; how regulators require the designers
to demonstrate that they have taken account of OEF; how new OEF is used to modify designs
which are being or have been reviewed.
Accomplishments:
The MDEP secretariat monitored the activities of the CNRA Working Groups on Operating
Experience (WGOE) and on Regulation of New Reactors (WGRNR). The chair of the
CNRA/WGRNR and the chair of the MDEP STC meet several times during 2008 to discuss
coordination of activities. The WGOE published a report in January 2008 on international
operating experience feedback (IOEF) and developed an implementation programme to address
the report’s recommendations.
Next Steps:
WGRNR will act as the nodal point for interactions of the CNRA with MDEP, and will take thelead in coordinating the overall work within NEA in relation to new build including requests to and
23

MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
from the CSNI and CNRA working groups. The WGRNR will determine how to use the results of
the WGOE for new reactor reviews. This task was discussed at the WGRNR meeting in March
2009, and the WGRNR will report back to the STC in June 2009. MDEP will then determine
whether the WGRNR task meets the goal of this recommendation.
4.8

Recommendation 8: Develop a programme to collect, share, and use construction
experience feedback in regulatory reviews

New plant construction is currently underway in several countries and several are in the processof reviewing applications or assessing new reactor designs. The STC determined that sharing
information concerning construction experience and inspection among the MDEP members
would be helpful. The STC noted that the CNRA Working Group on the Regulation of New
Reactors (WGRNR) is implementing a task related to construction experience.
Based on the CNRA initiative, a specific MDEP working group that would duplicate the efforts of
the WGRNR was not created. The MDEP secretariat monitored the activities of the WGRNR andprovided a forum for communicating information between the MDEP members and the WGRNR.
WGRNR is developing a data base that will allow regulators to share experience during thecoming new phase of construction which can be incorporated into their regulatory oversight andimproving their construction inspection programmes. The database will be compatible with the
IRS data base. WGRNR also proposed near and longer term activities that include interaction
with MDEP and CNRA working groups. The STC supports the CNRA WGRNR activities related
to construction inspections practices and experiences.
Next Steps:
The STC agreed that the collection of construction experience is adequately addressed by the
CNRA WGRNR initiative, and is more appropriate handled by the CNRA because it is a longterm initiative. The STC will continue to interface with the WGRNR to ensure that information isadequately communicated to, and meets the needs of, MDEP members. Therefore, thisrecommendation is considered closed.
NEA SECRETARIAT ACTIVITIES

4.9

Recommendation 9: Develop a legal framework and the necessary agreements thatwill support the free exchange of information

In order for MDEP to be successful at fulfilling its goal of leveraging the work of peer
regulators in the licensing of new nuclear power plant designs, a framework must be developedthat will facilitate the sharing of technical information among MDEP participants. Because eachcountry has its own unique policies and requirements regarding the release/sharing of
information, including security considerations, a framework needs to be developed that is
acceptable to all participating MDEP regulators.
Status:Terms of Reference (ToR) have been developed for the design specific working groups. The ToR
includes the legal agreements for MDEP. The NEA secretariat will develop a document
containing existing relevant information from the MDEP ToR, the Design Specific Working Group
ToR, and the Issue Specific Working Group ToR, with the addition of explanatory text. This

24

MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
document will provide the necessary basis for the MDEP framework. Following endorsement of
this document by the member countries, this recommendation will be considered closed.
4.10

Recommendation 10: Establish a “library” to collect and share regulatory
documents

Enhanced cooperation can be fostered through the use of modern information technology,
such as, the creation and maintenance of an interactive, regulatory knowledge management
system, available to all MDEP participants, for collecting and sharing information relevant to newreactor design evaluations. Such cooperation should take the form of sharing regulatory
documents of common interest describing design requirements and guidance, the review
process, and the inspection programme for new reactors. These documents should be provided
by, and accessible to, the participating regulatory authorities. This recommendation addresses
the MDEP Policy Group expectations for increased knowledge transfer among regulatory
authorities.
Accomplishments:
The NEA led the effort to establish the library with oversight by the STC. NEA provided thetechnical support for development and maintenance of the website. The website includes afolder structure and provides for 2 levels of access which are password protected: (1) MDEP
member countries, and (2) member countries participating in design specific working groups.
NEA created user accounts for access to the library based on requests of the STC member foreach participating country. In the near term, the working groups will send documents to NEA to
add to the library. Rights to upload documents may be granted to working groups leads in the
future. Publicly available documents related to MDEP are available on the MDEP page of the
NEA website.
The library is ready to receive documents from all members. Each member has designated acontact within their regulatory organisation with the responsibility to identify documents to be
included into the library, track library status and associated activities, and maintain contact with
the NEA librarian. NEA has issued a guidance document detailing library functions, access, anduse. The library documents are either in English or include an abstract in English describing thecontents. NEA is pursuing a process for translating documents.
Next Steps:
Based on the successful implementation of the library and issuance of a User’s Manual, thisrecommendation is considered closed. The STC, through the secretariat, will continue to add
documents and make enhancements to improve its effectiveness. In the future, the STC will
evaluate whether to make portions of the library available to all NEA countries, and which
portions should be made available to the general public.

25

MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
5.0

New Activities

In March 2009, the MDEP Policy Group agreed that the programme needs to continue
beyond the original two year mandate to fully achieve the established goals. Therefore, MDEP
will be considered a long term programme with interim results. The duration of the programme
will be periodically evaluated. The MDEP will use a five year horizon for setting specificexpectations, goals, and programme plans for its activities. MDEP has begun to consider the
addition of new topics to be addressed by the program. The criteria that will be used in evaluating
whether an activity should be undertaken as part of MDEP include:(1)

the activity is of generic interest and of safety significance to the licensing of new reactors
in MDEP member countries(2)

the approach followed by the MDEP regulators is not completely similar(3)

successful completion of the activity would likely result in increased harmonization/
convergence in regulatory practices or increased cooperation within a reasonable
timeframe and resource expenditures(4)

any new MDEP activity should not duplicate similar efforts that are already ongoing or areplanned to be undertaken by other more –appropriate organizations such as the
CNRA/WGRNR (or other NEA WGs), IAEA, GIF, WENRA, etc. except where MDEP could
contribute to the ongoing work of these groups(5)

each new activity should have a lead country willing to take an active leadership role, andshould have a defined product

The MDEP STC and Policy Group held discussions on potential new activities in February andMarch 2009. These discussions concluded that, in the near-term, the programme should focus
primarily on the current MDEP topics (i.e., the two design specific working groups and the threeissue-specific topics of digital instrumentation and controls, codes and standards, and vendor
inspections). The Policy Group agreed:(1)

No need at this time to establish any new Working Group for specific designs.

(2)

PG members interested in proposing a new working group should prepare a white paper
describing how the ToR principles are met. The paper should be submitted to the STC for
its review and further report to the PG, which will take the decision to move forward. One
new topic, high temperature gas cooled reactors was recognized as needing near-term
attention. It was agreed at the March 12 Policy Group meeting that a paper describing this
proposal will be prepared.

In addition, a number of topics have been identified in which MDEP can play a significant,positive role by cooperating with current efforts in other organizations. This includes the topics ofsevere accidents and safety goals as discussed earlier. Therefore, the MDEP STC will searchout areas where it can act as a catalyst for enhanced regulatory cooperation and convergence inother forums. The MDEP is in a unique position to effect positive change because it includes theregulatory authorities of over three quarters of the reactors world-wide and represents thoseagencies at the highest levels. The MDEP is using its influence to initiate change and willcontribute to the success of other initiatives including those of IAEA, NEA, and WENRA.

26

More information can be found under:
www.nea.fr/mdep