April 2014

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

2

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORTTABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword................................................................................................................................................... 5
Executive summary .................................................................................................................................. 6
1.

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 82.

Programme goals and outcomes ................................................................................................... 83.

Programme implementation ........................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Membership ................................................................................................................................ 9
3.2 Organisational structure .............................................................................................................. 9
3.3 MDEP Library ...................................................................................................................... ….11
3.4 Common Positions ................................................................................................................... .11

4.

Interactions with other organisations ......................................................................................... .11

5.

Current activities .......................................................................................................................... 13
5.1 EPR Working Group (EPRWG) ............................................................................................... 15
5.2 AP1000 Working Group (AP1000WG) ..................................................................................... 25
5.3 APR1400 Working Group (APR1400WG) ............................................... ………………………33
5.4 VVER Working Group (VVERWG) .......................................................................................... 37
5.5 ABWR Working Group (ABWRWG) ........................................................................................ 43
5.6 Vendor Inspection Cooperation Working Group (VICWG) ....................................................... 45
5.7 Codes and Standards Working Group (CSWG) ...................................................................... 47
5.8

Digital Instrumentation & Controls Working Group (DICWG) .................................................. 48

6.

Interim results ............................................................................................................................... 54

7.

Next steps – Future of the programme ........................................................................................ 54

Appendices
Appendix 1 – List of abbreviations and acronyms ............................................................................... 55
Appendix 2 – MDEP Documents and Publications [March 2013 – April 2014] .................................... 59

3

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORTth

7 Policy Group meeting, 15 March 2013, Washington, DC, United States.

th

20 STC meeting, May 2013, Helsinki, Finland.

4

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
strong interest in MDEP on the part of countries withemerging nuclear power programs.

FOREWORD FROM THE POLICY GROUPCHAIRMAN
Washington, D.C., 16 April 2014
I am pleased to report that after my first full year as
Chairman of the MDEP Policy Group, theorganization continues to be a positive force inassisting countries involved in nuclear new build
activities to leverage the experience of multiple
nations to support their regulatory activities. The
contents of this report demonstrate anothersuccessful year for MDEP, in which the program
continues its collaborative work on both designspecific and generally-applicable issues.
We are now three years removed from the
Fukushima Daiichi accident. Nuclear regulators fromaround the world remain engaged in addressing thelessons learned from this event. To the extent that
there are design lessons to be learned from thisexperience, the MDEP community must continue toensure that we share the lessons learned andcollaborate to address these lessons in our work on
new plant designs. I am pleased to note that thedesign-specific working groups are working diligently
to that end and specifically to highlight the EPR
Working Group’s common position on Fukushima
lessons learned.
There are a number of important initiatives
underway that are providing direct benefit to all
MDEP countries. The design-centered working
groups continue to provide for increased cooperationand improved convergence of requirements andpractices. During the past year, MDEP initiated two
new design-specific working groups, one for the
VVER design and one for the ABWR design. The
growing family of designs being addressed under
MDEP illustrates the continuing interest in newreactor design and construction worldwide.
Additionally, this highlights the importance thatcountries considering nuclear power are placing on
the experience of MDEP member nations.
In the past year, MDEP has welcomed two newmembers. We have gained insight from the Swedish
Radiation Safety Authority, which has already begun
participating in its first MDEP activities. We havealso welcomed the Turkish Atomic Energy Agency(TAEK) as an Associate Member. TAEK’s
participation, and in particular, the creation of a new
design-specific working group to address issues
specific to the VVER reactor design, demonstrates a5Over the last year, we have had a number ofsuccesses. For example, the members cooperated
on twelve witnessed vendor inspections and one
joint inspection, developed common quality
assurance criteria for a multinational vendor
inspection, issued several technical reports on
harmonization of codes and standards for pressure
boundary components, and issued four new
common positions on digital instrumentation andcontrols for new reactors.
In the coming year, we expect this good work tocontinue. We will continue our cooperation onlessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi
accident, which has direct impact on both operating
and new reactor programs. We will continue tobenefit from sharing information in the designspecific working groups as construction of these
designs moves into the commissioning phases.
MDEP has begun to explore how we can learn fromeach other during oversight of pre-operational andstartup testing and commissioning. I see benefits incontinuing cooperation through all phases of newreactor development. In addition, MDEP is prepared
to conduct its first multinational inspection in 2014.
MDEP
outreachtootherinternationalorganizations,standards
development
organizations, and industry groups such as theWorld Nuclear Association CORDEL group has
proven beneficial to both MDEP and these groups.
Overall, MDEP continues to function smoothly, inno small measure due to the support of the NEA as
the MDEP secretariat. We owe a significant debt ofgratitude to Mr. Luis E. Echávarri who recently
retired from his position as Director General of the
NEA, a post he held for over sixteen years, in which
he achieved considerable success. I wish him well inretirement.
Dr Allison Mcfarlane
MDEP Policy Group Chairman

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
regulatory authorities of Canada, People’s Republicof China, Sweden, the United Kingdom and theUnited States. The APR1400 working group includes
the regulatory authorities of Finland, Republic ofKorea, the United Arab Emirates and the UnitedStates. New working groups were established in2013 for the VVER design (members include
regulators from Finland, India, Russian Federation
and Turkey) and the ABWR design (members
include regulators from Finland, Japan, Sweden, theUnited Kingdom and the United States). The
DSWGs have been successful in sharing informationand experience on the safety design reviews withthe purposes of enhancing the safety of the designs
and enabling regulators to make timely licensing
decisions, and of promoting convergence oftechnical requirements. The EPRWG and theAP1000WG have actively started to cooperate oncommissioning activities, holding meetings in
People’s Republic of China and sharing theregulators’ views and requirements. Both groups
have met with the vendors and utilities to discusscommissioning programmes and issues such as
FPOT (first plant only tests) and FOAK (first of a kind)
tests. The other DSWGs have worked on identifying
the technical topics which need in-depth discussions
involving subject matter experts, such as digital I&C
and severe accidents.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Multinational Design Evaluation Programme(MDEP) is a multinational initiative to leverage theresources and knowledge of national regulatory
authorities who are, or will shortly be, undertaking
the review of new reactor power plant designs. The
MDEP members are national regulators from thefollowing countries: Canada (CNSC), People’s
Republic of China (NNSA), Finland (STUK), France(ASN),India(AERB),
Japan(NRA),
Republic of Korea (NSSC), Russian Federation(Rostechnadzor), South Africa (NNR), Sweden(SSM), the United Kingdom (ONR) and the UnitedStates (US NRC). In addition to these members, thenational regulators of the United Arab Emirates(FANR) and Turkey (TAEK) have been accepted asassociate members. The International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) also takes part in the work of
MDEP and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency(OECD/NEA) performs the Technical Secretariat
function in support of MDEP. MDEP incorporates abroad range of activities including enhancing
multilateral cooperation within existing regulatory
frameworks,
andincreasing
multinational
convergence of codes, standards, guides, andsafety goals. A key concept throughout the work of
MDEP is that national regulators retain sovereignauthority for all licensing and regulatory decisions.

The Vendor Inspection Cooperation Working
Group (VICWG) has achieved its short-term goals
and continues to focus on maximising information
sharing, joint inspections (multiple regulators
inspecting to the regulatory requirements of one
country), and witnessing of other regulators’
inspections, as well as preparing for the firstmultinational
inspection(multiple
regulators
inspecting to a common set of quality assurance
requirements). A total of twelve witnessed and joint
inspections were conducted through MDEP in 2013.
The VICWG is also interfacing with Standards
Development Organisations (SDOs) to encourage
and explore harmonisation of quality standards. The
working group continues to make progress towards
achieving its long-term programme goal of
harmonising a significant portion of the quality
assurance inspection procedures.

Working groups are implementing the activities inaccordance with programme plans with specificactivities and goals, and have established thenecessary interfaces both within and outside of the
MDEP members. In the past year, MDEP has
expanded to include cooperation on the VVER and
ABWR designs and additional members have begun
participating in the programme to share theirexperiences on these design reviews.
This report provides the current status of the
programme. Significant progress is being made on
the overall MDEP goals of increased cooperationand enhanced convergence of requirements andpractices. In addition, the lessons learnt from the
11 March 2011, events at the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear power plant are being incorporated into
MDEP activities through the programme plans ofdesign-specific working groups (DSWG). On this
topic, the EPR Working Group has issued a common
position which will be supplemented by five technicalappendices by the end of 2014. Other DSWG are in
the process of drafting such common positions.

The Digital Instrumentation and Controls Working
Group (DICWG) has identified twelve topics forwhich it is pursuing the development of common
positions based on the existing standards, national
regulatory guidance, best practices, and groupinputs using an agreed upon process andframework. To date, the DICWG has published nine
generic common positions that describe methods
that all DICWG member states find acceptable tosupport safety justification for digital I&C systems. In
addition, the DICWG members jointly research andFive DSWGs’ are facilitating the MDEP
programme goal of enhanced cooperation. The
EPRWG consists of the regulatory authorities ofPeople’s Republic of China, Finland, France, India,
Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The AP1000 working group consists of the6

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
comment on proposed IEC, IEEE, and IAEA
standards that are relevant to the regulatory review
of digital instrumentation and control systems.
The Codes and Standards Working Group(CSWG) is working closely with SDOs and the World
Nuclear Association’s working group on Cooperation
in Reactor Design Evaluation and Licensing(CORDEL)toattempt
code
requirements
harmonisation and reconcile code differences. The
CSWG has issued technical reports on lessons
learnt on achieving harmonisation of codes andstandards, the regulatory framework for use ofcodes, and fundamental attributes for the design andconstruction of pressure-boundary components, aswell as a common position on findings from code
comparisons and establishment of a global
framework
towards
pressure-boundarycode
harmonisation.

Accomplishments to date provide confidence that
the MDEP membership, structure and processes
provide an effective method of accomplishingincreased cooperation in regulatory design reviews.
The interim results for 2013 and early 2014 include:•

Commissioning workshops within the EPR
and AP1000 working groups to begin
considering how to cooperate on preoperational testing and commissioning
oversight.

•

Common position addressing Fukushima
related issues related to the EPR design.

•

A series of phone seminars with US NRC
and CNSC on selected topics of their Phase
two review, to learn from the alreadycompleted NRC design certification review.

•

Exchanges of letters between US NRC andNNSA containing questions and responses
related to design and construction issues for
the AP1000 in each country.

7•

Establishment of VVER and ABWR DSWGs
and prioritised topics for future discussion.

•

Cooperation on twelve witnessed vendor
inspections and one joint inspection.

•

Technical Report on “Common QA/QM
Criteria for the Multinational Vendor
Inspection”.

•

Technical
Reports
on“Regulatory
framework for the use of nuclear pressureboundary codes and standards in MDEP
countries”, “Lessons learnt on achieving
harmonisation of codes and standards forpressure boundary components in nuclear
power plants” and “Fundamental attributes
for the design and construction of pressure
boundary components”.

•

Common position on “Findings from code
comparisons and establishment of a global
framework towards pressure-boundary code
harmonisation”.

•

Fourcommonpositionsondigitalinstrumentation and controls for new
reactors in the areas of: treatment ofcommon cause failures resulting fromsoftware, treatment of Hardware Description
Language (HDL) programmed devices foruse in nuclear safety systems, digital I&C
system pre-installation and initial on-site
testing, and use of automatic testing incomputer based systems as part ofsurveillance testing.

•

Revision of several common positions
related to digital I&C to take into accountrecent developments and new members’
views.

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
inspections. In addition to organising working
groups, MDEP has provided each regulator withpeer contacts who share information, discuss issues
informally, and disseminate information rapidly. For
example, the design-specific working groupmembers have benefitted significantly from thesharing of questions among the regulators, resulting
in more informed, and harmonised, regulatory
decisions. MDEP members have also been highly
successful in coordinating vendor inspections inwhich the regulators share observations andinsights. MDEP has made improvements incommunicating information regarding the members’
regulatory practices through development of an
MDEP library which serves as a central repository
for all documents associated with the programme.

1. INTRODUCTION
The Multinational Design Evaluation Programme(MDEP) is a multinational initiative that develops
innovative approaches to leverage the resources
and knowledge of national regulatory authorities whoare, or will shortly be, undertaking the review of newreactor power plant designs. MDEP has evolved
from primarily a design evaluation programme for
two new reactor designs to a multinational
cooperation programme involving several newreactor designs and issues related to new reactor
challenges.
A key concept throughout the programme is that
MDEP will better inform the decisions of regulatory
authorities through multinational cooperation, while
retaining the sovereign authority of each regulator to
make licensing and regulatory decisions.

MDEP is meeting its goal of convergence ofregulatory practices by establishing common
positions in both the issue-specific and designspecific working groups. The working groups aremaking comparisons of the regulatory practices in
the member countries, identifying differences, anddeveloping common positions. The working groups
are also working with codes and standards
organisations to identify differences and propose
areas of convergence.

Working groups are implementing the activities inaccordance with programme plans with specificactivities and goals, and have established thenecessary interfaces both within and outside of the
MDEP members. Significant progress has been
made over the past year on the overall MDEP goalsofincreased
cooperation
andenhancedconvergence of requirements and practices.
Accomplishments to date provide confidence that
the MDEP membership, structure and processes
provide an effective opportunity for increased
cooperation in regulatory design reviews.

MDEP has been successful in meeting the
expected outcomes as defined in the MDEP Termsof Reference by: increasing knowledge transfer;
identifying similarities and differences in theregulatory practices; and enhancing the ability of
regulatory bodies to cooperate in reactor design
evaluations, vendor inspections, and construction
oversight, leading to more efficient and more safetyfocused regulatory decisions. In 2012, MDEP
performed a thorough self-assessment of the
programme and identified several recommendations.
In 2013, MDEP began implementing therecommendations by taking the following actions:

2. PROGRAMME GOALS AND OUTCOMES
The main objectives of MDEP effort are to enable
increased cooperation and establish mutuallyagreed upon practices to enhance the safety of newreactor designs. The enhanced cooperation among
regulators will improve the effectiveness andefficiency of the regulatory design reviews, which
are part of each country’s licensing process. The
goal of MDEP is not to independently develop new
regulatory standards, but to build upon thesimilarities
already
existing,
andexisting
harmonisation in the form of IAEA and other safety
standards. In addition, the common positions
developed in MDEP are shared with IAEA andSDOs for consideration in their respective standards
development programme.

MDEP is meeting its goal of enabling increased
cooperation through the activities of the working
groups. MDEP has been very successful inproviding a forum for regulatory bodies to cooperate
on design evaluations, construction overview and

8•

It Developed an agreed upon definition of
convergence to be used for MDEP
activities, in the form of a revision to theTerms of Reference.

•

It developed a communication plan that
identifies
stakeholders
andspecificcommunication products.

•

It enhanced interactions with IAEA
counterparts to identify areas in which
MDEP can provide useful input to IAEA
safety standards under development.

•

It identified completion strategies for theissue-specific working groups.

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
programme; and determines participation in the
programme. In March 2013, the chairmanship of the
PG was transferred to the Chairman of the US NRC,
Dr. Allison M. Macfarlane.

•

It developed plans to continue the activitiesof the DSWGs through the construction
and commissioning phase.

•

It acted quickly to implement new DSWGs(consistent with the existing Rule of Threefor forming design specific working
groups).

3. PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION
3.1

Membership

Participation in the Policy Group (PG) and Steering
Technical Committee (STC) is intended for mature,experienced national safety authorities of interested
countries that already have commitments for newbuild or firm plans to have commitments in the near
future for new reactor designs. Full MDEP members
are: Canada, People’s Republic of China, Finland,
France, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, RussianFederation, South Africa, Sweden, United Kingdom
and the United States. In addition the IAEA takes
part in the work of MDEP.
MDEP associate members are national
regulatory authorities without previous licensing
experience that have been invited by the MDEP PG
to participate in selected MDEP design-specificactivities based on evidence that the organisation is
actively involved in new reactor design review
activities relevant to MDEP. Such a regulatory
authority would be from a country that has taken afirm commitment in the near term to proceed withsafety design review activities and is willing andready to contribute to specific MDEP activities. It is
expected that the associate member would be in aposition to exchange information with MDEP
members to enhance information sharing andexperience in relevant design safety reviews.
In December 2013, the PG invited the Turkish
Atomic Energy Authority (TAEK) to join MDEP as an
associate member. As such, TAEK participates in
the newly formed VVER working group, observes
meetings of the STC and is invited to participate in
the MDEP issue-specific working groups (ISWGs).

3.2 Organisational structure
The programme is governed by a PG, made up of
the heads of the participating organisations, andimplemented by a STC and its working groups. The
STC consists of senior staff representatives fromeach of the participating national safety authorities
as well as a representative from the IAEA.
The PG provides guidance to the STC on theoverall approach; monitors the progress of the

9

The STC manages and approves the detailed
programme of work including: defining topics andworking methods, establishing technical working
groups, and nomination of experts; approving
procedures and technical papers developed by theworking groups; establishing interfaces with otherinternational entities to benefit from available workand avoid duplication; developing procedures for thehandling of information to be shared in the project;reporting to the PG; identifying new topics for the
programmetoaddress;andestablishingsubcommittees of the STC to study specific topics.
The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA)
performs the Technical Secretariat function in
support of MDEP.
Two lines of activities have been established tocarry out the work.
• Design-specific activities. Working groups
for each new selected reactor design share
information on a timely basis and cooperateon specific topics regarding reactor design
evaluations,construction,andcommissioning activities. Participants inthese working groups are the regulatory
authorities that are actively reviewing,
preparing to review, or overseeing
construction of the considered reactor
design. A DSWG is formed when three ormore MDEP member countries express
interest in working together. Under the
DSWGs, expert subgroups are formed toaddress specific technical issues.

• Issue-specific activities. Working groups
are organised for the technical andregulatory process areas within the
programme of work. These currently include
vendorinspections,pressure-boundary
component codes and standards, and digital
instrumentation and control. Membership in
ISWGs is open to all MDEP participating
regulators,
theirtechnical
supportorganisations and the IAEA representatives.
The following criteria are used to evaluate
whether a proposed activity should beundertaken as part of MDEP.

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT(1)

The activity is of generic interest
and of safety significance to thelicensing of new reactors in
MDEP member countries.

(2)

The approach followed by the
MDEP
regulatorsisnotcompletely similar.

(3)

Successful completion of theactivity would likely result inincreasedharmonisation/
convergenceinregulatory
practicesorincreased
cooperation within a reasonable
timeframeandresource
expenditures.

(4)

Any new MDEP activity should
not duplicate similar efforts thatare already ongoing or areplanned to be undertaken by
other
more
appropriateorganisations such as the NEA
Committee on Nuclear Regulatory
Activities (CNRA) Working Groupon the Regulation of New
Reactors (WGRNR) (or other
NEA working groups), the IAEA,
Generation IV International Forum(GIF), the Western European
Nuclear Regulators Association(WENRA), etc. except where
MDEP could contribute to theongoing work of these groups.

(5)

Each new activity should have alead country willing to take anactive leadership role, and shouldhave a defined product.

102013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
3.3

MDEP library

MDEP information is communicated among themembers through the MDEP library which serves asa central repository for all documents associatedwith the programme. NEA provides the technicalsupport for development and maintenance of the
MDEP library on a secured password protectedwebsite. The website provides for two levels ofaccess which are: (1) general access open to every
member, and (2) restricted area for each DSWG withaccess to member countries participating in thatspecific group. Publicly available documents related
to MDEP are available on the MDEP page of the
NEA website (http://www.oecd-nea.org/mdep/). The
STC, through the secretariat, manages themaintenanceof
thelibrary
andmakes
enhancements to improve the effectiveness of thelibrary.
In order for MDEP to be successful at fulfilling its
goal of leveraging the work of peer regulators in thelicensing of new NPP designs, a framework wasdeveloped to facilitate the sharing of technicalinformation among MDEP participants which attimes may include the sharing of proprietary andother types of sensitive information. As a generalrule, the information exchanged as part of the MDEP
in meetings and the MDEP library is for the use onlyby the participating national regulators. The
members of the DSWG also have a communication
protocol to share new information related to newreactors with other members in advance of its
release to the public. A large portion of theinformation shared may not be proprietary or
sensitive; however, all participating members must
protect and properly handle the information that an
originator claims to be proprietary or sensitive.

3.4 Common positions
MDEP has developed a process for identifying
and documenting common positions on specificissues among the member countries which may bebased on existing standards, national regulatory
guidance, best practices, and group member inputs.
Design-specificcommonpositionsdocument
common conclusions that each of the working groupmembers have reached during design reviews.
Discussions among the members and sharing of
information in these areas help to strengthen theindividual conclusions reached. Because of the need
to issue these statements more quickly, andbecause responsibility for these decisions rests withthe regulators who are performing the design
reviews, design-specific common positions require
only agreement by the working group members.

11

Generic common positions apply to more than
one reactor design. Generic common positions
document practices and positions that each of theworking group members find acceptable. The
common positions are intended to provide guidance
to the regulators in reviewing new or unique areas,
and will be shared with IAEA, and other standards
organisations, for consideration in standards
development programmes. After a generic common
position is agreed to by a working group, it ispresented to the STC for endorsement. Upon
endorsement by the STC, the proposed genericcommon positions are made publicly available on
the NEA MDEP website for external stakeholder
information and comment. Those common positions
will become best practices, recommended by the
MDEP. There is no obligation on the part of any
regulatory body to follow them. If a regulatory bodychooses to adopt a generic common position, it
would be through that country’s normal processes.

4. INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER
ORGANISATIONSMDEP strives to maintain an awareness of, andinteractions with, other organisations that are
implementing programmes to facilitate international
cooperation on new reactors. Interactions arefocused on ensuring that MDEP does not duplicate
efforts, benefitting from the outputs of theseorganisations, and communicating MDEP activities
and results to other organisations. To ensure thatefforts are not duplicated between the groups,
MDEP scope is focused on short-term activities
related to specific design reviews being conductedby the member countries, and efforts to harmonise
specific regulatory practices and standards.
The WGRNR examines the regulatory issues ofsiting, licensing and regulatory oversight of new
nuclear reactors. The current focus areas of the
WGRNR are construction experience, siting issues
and licensing structure of regulatory staff andregulatory licensing process. The WGRNR coordinates its work with the work performed by MDEP
such that it utilises its outputs, does not duplicate its
efforts, and extends the results of MDEP to other
CNRA members. To avoid overlap of activities
between the groups, the WGRNR focuseson generic activities, procedures and guidance,
while MDEP focuses on design-specific issues.

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORTMDEP interacts with the WGRNR and Working
Group on Inspection Practices mostly through the
NEA staff who also serves as the technicalsecretariat for the CNRA. The WGRNR is the focal
point of interactions between MDEP and the CNRA
and its working groups, and will assist incoordinating communications and requests between
the two activities.

differences among the EPR designs being
licensed in each country.

The IAEA participates in the work of MDEP
through participation in the PG and STC meetings,
and issue-specific working groups. In addition, theGeneric Common Positions developed in MDEP areshared with the IAEA for consideration in the IAEA
standards development programme.
The WNA CORDEL group acts as one industry
counterpart to MDEP. CORDEL has initiated task
forces to address many issues, including thosebeing addressed by the MDEP issue specificworking groups. Members of the MDEP STC meetwith CORDEL periodically, and CORDEL has been
invited to participate in meetings of the MDEP
Codes
and
Standards,
Vendorinspection
cooperation and digital I&C working Groups.
MDEP has interacted with the Generation IV
International Forum to keep informed ofmultinational cooperative activities in the area ofadvanced reactors. In January 2014, representativesof GIF met with the MDEP STC to discuss its Safety
design criteria for generation IV sodium-cooled fast
reactor.
The MDEP STC met with a representative of
WENRA to discuss the development of WENRA
safety objectives and a recent report on the safety of
new nuclear power plant designs (issued on March2013).
The MDEP working groups are very interested inunderstanding the perspectives of reactor design
vendors, codes and standards organisations, andcomponent manufacturers, and the challenges they
face in dealing with numerous regulators andregulatory systems. The MDEP working groups
occasionally invite industry groups to participate inselective portions of meetings and other activities.
For example:•

The Codes and Standards Working Group
interacts with a committee of SDOs (ASME,
JSME, KEPIC, AFCEN, NIKIET and CSA) ina code comparison project.

•

The EPR working group meets regularly withrepresentatives of AREVA, EDF, and other
EPR-licensees, applicants, and potential
applicants to discuss similarities and

12•

The AP1000 working group meets regularly
with Westinghouse and the AP1000
applicants and licensees.

•

The APR1400 working group met withrepresentatives of the licensee for the
Barakah NPP, an APR1400 underconstruction in the United Arab Emirates.

•

The DICWG interacts frequently withapplicable standards organisations, IEC andIEEE, by inviting their representatives in
MDEP meetings, attending IEC and IEEE
meetings, and involving them in thedevelopment of common positions.

•

The VICWG meets with SDOs and WNA
CORDEL representatives to discuss QA/QM
standardsformanufacturing
nuclearcomponents.

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

5. CURRENT ACTIVITIESThe current activities of MDEP are being implemented through design-specific and issuespecific working groups. The members of the DSWGs share information and cooperate on
specific reactor design evaluations and construction oversight. Issue-specific working groups
are organised for the technical and regulatory process areas within the programme of work.
Each working group has a lead and co-lead country designated, and has developed aprogramme plan which identifies specific activities, schedules and contacts.
Design-specific working groups (DSWGs)
The DSWGs leverage national regulatory resources by sharing information and experience on
the regulatory safety design reviews with the purposes of enhancing the safety of the designand enabling regulators to make timely licensing decisions to ensure safe designs through:•exchanging experience on licensing process and design reviews, lessons learned, anddesign-related construction, commissioning, and operating experience;•

working to understand the differences in regulatory safety review approaches in eachcountry to support potential use of other regulators safety design evaluations, whereappropriate;•

looking for opportunities to provide input to ISWGs on potential topics of significant
interest;•

identifying and understanding key design differences including those originating from
regulatory requirements and then documenting the reasons for differences in regulatory
requirements;•

documenting MDEP common positions on aspects of the review;•communicating and coordinating communications on MDEP views and common
positions to vendor and operators regarding the basis of safety evaluations andstandardisation;•

discussing design changes following lessons learned from the Fukushima accident anddocumenting them in common positions specific to each design.

132013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

5.1 EPR Working Group (EPRWG)
The EPR design-specific working group includes theregulatory authorities of People’s Republic of China(NNSA), Finland (STUK), France (ASN), India(AERB), Sweden (SSM), the United Kingdom(ONR), and the United States (NRC). Finland ischairing the working group and France is the vicechair. Numerous meetings and technical exchanges
have taken place to exchange information on thereviews being conducted in each country: Olkiluoto 3
which is under construction in Finland; Flamanville 3
which is under construction in France; Taishan units
1 and 2 which are under construction in People’s
Republic of China; the US version of the EPR whichis under review for design certification in the UnitedStates and is referenced by three combined license
applications; and the UK-EPR which has undergone
a Generic Design Assessment in the United
Kingdom and is planned at the Hinkley Point C site.
The working group currently includes four
technical experts’ subgroups (TESG) that are
addressing information on specific technical issues:
Accidents and Transients, Digital Instrumentation
and Controls, Probabilistic Safety Assessment, andSevere Accident. The subgroups meet regularly to
exchange information on relevant aspects of thedesign review status, share relevant evaluations
when they become available, produce technicalreports to identify and document similarities anddifferences among designs, regulatory safety review
approaches and resulting evaluations.
The
EPRWG
meets
regularlywithrepresentatives of AREVA, EDF, and other EPRlicensees, applicants, and potential applicants todiscuss similarities and differences among the EPR
designs being licensed in each country.

Accomplishments
The Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA)TESG is working on identifying the design
differences and modifications affecting risk and themain differences in PSAs. In 2013, the group has
moved forward with the comparison of selected
initiators within the PSA of Olkiluoto 3 NPP in
Finland, Flamanville 3 NPP in France, UK EPR
design, and US EPR design. The objective of thisPSA comparison was to identify differences in themodelling aspects and results of EPR PSAs, as wellas to assess the rationale for these differences. The
comparison covered various types of initiators
challenging a broad scope of safety functions.

15

The outcomes and lessons learned from the EPR
PSA comparison have been used to facilitate theregulatory reviews and assessment work of various
EPR designs and to enhance the scope, level ofdetail, and quality of EPR PSA models anddocumentation. An internal comparison report will be
issued in 2014, as well as a public version notincluding any proprietary information.
The Accidents and Transients TESG is working
on identifying differences in regulatory criteria andapproaches among the member countries. It has
conducted a survey of the regulatory approaches toanalysis of accidents and transients and drafted aReport on “Approaches and Criteria used in the
Analysis of Accidents and Transients in MDEPCountries”. The subgroup also developed anappendix related to the “management of primarycircuit residual heat removal and sub-criticality” tothe EPR common position addressing Fukushimarelated issues.
The MDEP EPR I&C TESG has drafted atechnical report on the EPR I&C system designs that
includes (1) an overview of the generic EPR I&C
design, (2) similarities and differences of the EPR
designs in all member countries, (3) technical issues
and their resolutions, (4) lessons learned frominteractions, and (5) summary and conclusions. The
technical report also includes common positions on
several EPR I&C design issues. Besides, the I&C
TESG has come up with an appendix related to“long-term loss of electrical power” to the EPR
common position addressing Fukushima-related
issues.
The severe accident TESG has submitted areport on ‘’Containment Heat Removal System(CHRS) / Severe Accident Heat Removal System(SAHRS) in accident conditions.” The subgroup also
developed a technical report on IRWST pH control in
accident conditions. The Severe Accident and
Accidents
andTransients
technical
expertsubgroups collaborated on a draft common position
on “Containment gas mixing” and sharedpresentations related to the post-Fukushima
strategies for EPR. The group has been tasked by
the EPRWG to draft two appendices to the EPR
common position addressing Fukushima-related
issues, on “Management of pressure in containment
during severe accidents” and “Reliability andqualification of instrumentation and control in severe
accident conditions”. The first one has been drafted.
In July 2013, the EPRWG issued a common
position paper addressing Fukushima-related
issues. This paper identifies common preliminary
approachestoaddress
potential
safetyimprovements for EPR plants as related to lessons
learned from the Fukushima Daiichi accident or
Fukushima-related issues. The common position has

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
been updated in early 2014 including appendices 1
on long-term loss of electrical power and 5 onmanagement of primary circuit residual heat removal
and sub-criticality. Additional appendices will be
added as the EPRWG TESGs finalise their relative
positions and the working group will update thispaper periodically as regulators complete theirreviews. To develop this position paper, the EPRWG
held several discussions on the response by each of
the member countries to the Fukushima accidents.
The working group also met with AREVA and the
EPR applicants (also known as the EPR Family) ineach country to discuss their common approach to
Fukushima lessons learned. After the safety reviewsof the EPR design applications that are currently inreview are completed, the working group plans to
update the common position to reflect their safetyconclusions regarding the EPR design and how thedesign has been and could be further enhanced toaddress Fukushima lessons learned.

•

The EPRWG has drafted a report on“Consideration of Commissioning Related Issues in
MDEP”. This proposal is based on the experiencesfrom the AP1000 WG and EPRWG and experiencefrom the other DSWG will be sought to complement
it. The report proposes that the MDEP DSWGs
address commissioning activities related to issues
specific to DSWGs considered designs, when one ormore countries enter the commissioning phase. The
following topics should be discussed: phasing of thecommissioning proposed by the plant vendor andinspection programmes; first plant only tests and testof first of a kind features; major tests which should
be closely watched by other countries; and lessons
learned during commissioning that could result inchanges to design, commissioning procedures orregulatory practices.

The EPRWG began cooperating on oversight ofplant commissioning (tests aiming at confirming thatthe construction and operation meet the design
regarding safety). As several of the member
countries get closer to the late stages of construction
and preparations for operation, MDEP will consider
how it can cooperate to share experience in latestage construction tests leading to fuel load andoperations. Tasked by the PG with a pilot project oncommissioning activities, to explore the value ofconsidering commissioning as part of MDEP, theworking group held a workshop on commissioning
cooperation in June 2013 in People Republic ofChina with part-time participation of representativesof the EPR family. The commissioning workshop
consisted of discussions on 8 topics:•

vendor role;•

operating organisation role;•national
regulationscommissioning;•

link between assessment of commissioning
tests and safety assessment alreadyperformed;•

regulatoryorganisation
tooversee
performance of commissioning tests;•

specific EPR issues already identified andpotential initiatives to ease experience
feedback exchange;•

regulatoryorganisation
tooverseecommissioning test preparation: documents
submitted by licensee, hold points,
inspections;

in

force

regulatory
processtoincorporate
commissioning tests results in the licensing
process (potential updates) and verify
compliance with the licensing basis;

for

16

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Flamanville site—EPR construction (unit 3) and 2 1300MW operating units, France, August 2013 (EDF, Alexis Morin).

Flamanville Unit 3—EPR, France, February 2014 (EDF, Alexis Morin).

17

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Flamanville Unit 3—Reactor vessel arrival, EPR, France, January 2014 (AREVA, DIKDAK).

Flamanville Unit 3—Reactor vessel installation, EPR, France, January 2014 (EDF, Alexis Morin).

18

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Olkiluoto Unit 3—Fitting of reactor pressure vessel
closure head equipped with control rods
mechanisms, EPR, Finland, August 2013 (TVO).

Olkiluoto Unit 3—Reactor Vessel Head from below,
EPR, Finland, August 2013 (AREVA).

19

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Olkiluoto Unit 3—Turbine island, EPR, Finland, June 2013 (TVO).

Olkiluoto Unit 3—Reactor building and RPV pool, EPR, Finland, December 2013 (TVO).

20

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Taishan Unit 1—EPR, China, August 2013.

21

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Taishan Unit 1—Pumping Station, EPR, China, August 2013.

22

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Taishan Unit 1—Turbine installation, EPR, China, October 2013.

23

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

5.2 AP1000 Working Group (AP1000WG)
The AP1000 design-specific working group includes
the regulatory authorities of Canada (CNSC),
People’s Republic of China (NNSA), Sweden (SSM),
the United Kingdom (ONR), and the United States(NRC). The United States is chairing the working
group and People’s Republic of China is vice-chair.
A total of four AP1000 units are under constructionin China at Sanmen and Haiyang sites. The NRC
has certified the AP1000 design and is reviewing
applications for combined licenses for six AP1000
units. Four units are under construction in the UnitedStates at Vogtle and Summer sites after receiving
combined licenses. ONR issued an interim Generic
Design Assessment of the AP1000 design in 2011,
and in January 2014 began preparing for a potential
continuation of its review of the AP1000 for licensing
in the United Kingdom. CNSC is performing a prelicensing assessment of the AP1000. In June 2013,
CNSC completed Phase 2 of its AP1000 prelicensing design evaluation.

Accomplishments
The working group members have shared design
information, application documents, and preliminary
findings, and identified the most significant review
issues as well as construction challenges. As theworking group members transitioned to different
stages of their design reviews, the group reevaluated the scope of the working group topics,
and the issues to be addressed. In 2013, theworking group discussed several technical topics
including: squib valve design and factory testing;containment condensate return to the IRWST designchange; and reactor coolant pump testing. The
working group has also exchanged information andbegan drafting a common position on how the
AP1000 design addresses the findings from the
Fukushima accident.
The
AP1000WG
meets
regularlywithrepresentatives of Westinghouse to discuss
similarities and differences among the designs being
licensed in each country and to discuss postFukushima safety reviews. In 2013, the working
group toured plants under construction inUnited States and People’s Republic of China andmet with the licensees.
The US NRC held a series of phone seminars
with CNSC on selected topics of their Phase 2
review to learn from the already completed NRC
design certification review. The seminars helped
alleviate some of the challenges the unique AP1000
passive design presented to the CNSC reviewers
under a compressed review schedule. The phoneseminars have added high value to CNSC because

25

large chunks of NRC AP1000 review were able to becredited by CNSC specialists. This reduced theirworkload and also the discussions provided
additional insight to the CNSC staff on AP1000
design. CNSC plans to continue the phone seminars
in the future during their Phase 3 and construction
license application reviews.
There have been several exchanges of letters
between US NRC and NNSA containing questions
and responses related to design and construction
issues in each country. The documents were sharedwith the other working group members through the
MDEP library. This exchange of information was theresult of engagement of upper managements of thetwo regulators.
Since the September meeting, the NRC has heldbi-lateral exchanges with SSM on specific technicalissues. SSM, as a relatively new member of theworking group, is becoming fully integrated in thegroup’s activities. SSM plans to send two inspectors
to the NRC in fall 2014.
As the working group members move into theconstruction phase, they have begun to share
information on construction experience. Because
Sanmen Unit 1/2 and Haiyang Unit 1/2 are the first
four AP1000 units in the world, NNSA will pay
particular attention to the commissioning of Sanmen
Unit 1 which is scheduled to start in 2014. The
commissioning tests will be key to verifying theAP1000 safety performance. The US NRC provided
NNSA with NRC’s inspection procedures and will
make inspectors available to observe thecommissioning activities. In addition, NNSA has
assembled
experts
in
NPP
designandcommissioning to plan a strategic approach for thecommissioning inspections.
In July 2013, the NRC, NNSA, CNSC, and NEA
met in People’s Republic of China to discuss
cooperation on pre-operational testing and initial test
program activities. The outcomes of the workshop
included:•••extensive discussions on the licensing andinspection of AP1000 commissioning
activities, including pre-operational testing
and the development of pre-operational
testing procedures;
NRC shared with NNSA recently developed
inspection procedures to inspect the preoperational test programme and its
implementation;
NRC explained the inspector planning tool
developed to inspect commissioning
activities and provided a copy at the next
meeting in September 2013;

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
•

•

•

•

timely exchanges of information related toAP1000 component manufacturing anddesign issues;
NNSA offered to share NNSA inspection
findings from both construction andoperating plants;
detailed discussion of the use of
Inspections,Tests,
Analyses,andAcceptanceCriteria(ITAAC)
duringpreoperational testing to help focus theinspection effort;
continued exchanges of inspectors.

The 8th meeting of the AP1000WG was conducted in
Atlanta, Georgia, USA at the headquarters of NRC’s
Region II that has oversight responsibility for the
AP1000s reactors under construction at the Vogtle
and Summer sites. The AP1000WG met with
Westinghouse, the AP1000 licensees and applicants
and toured the construction activities at the Vogtle
site. The AP1000WG also met with the resident
inspectors to better understand how the NRC
oversees construction activities.

Haiyang Unit 1—Dome Installation, AP1000, People’s Republicof China, December 2013.

PAGE GAUCHE METTRE PHOTOS & PAGE
DROITEA follow-up meeting on pre-operational testing
issues is planned for September 2014.

Haiyang Unit 1—Dome Installation, AP1000, People’s Republic of China, December 2013.

26

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Haiyang Unit 1—Installation of CB20 module, AP 1000, People’s Republic of China, March 2014.

Haiyang Unit 1—Installation of CB20 module, AP 1000, People’s Republic of China, March 2014.

27

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Vogtle Unit 3—Setting of CA20, AP 1000, United States, March 2014 (GA Power).

28

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Summer Unit 2—Reactor Vessel delivery, AP1000, June 2013, United States (SCANA).

29

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Summer Unit 2—Nuclear Island circa, AP1000, United States, November 2013 (SCANA).

Summer Unit 3—Basemat concrete placement, AP1000, United States, November 2013 (SCANA).

30

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORTSanmen site—AP1000, People’s Republic of China, February 2014.

Sanmen Unit 2—AP1000, People’s Republic of China, February 2014.

31

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

5.3 APR1400 Working Group (APR1400WG)
The APR1400 design-specific working group wasestablished in August 2012 with the participation of
Republic of Korea (NSSC), Finland (STUK), theUnited Arab Emirates (FANR), and the United States(NRC). The APR1400 DSWG chair is Republic ofKorea, the country of the design originator; andUnited Arab Emirates, as the second country to
begin the construction of an APR1400, is the vicechair.
Four APR1400 units are under construction and two
additional units are under preliminary safety
evaluation report review in Republic of Korea.
USNRC received a design certification application in
September 2013 and started the review of a numberof topical reports in early 2013. Two units are underconstruction in the United Arab Emirates at the
Barakah site. FANR received the construction permit
application for the next 2 units, in 2013. STUK has
completed a preliminary safety assessment of the
APR1400 which includes information regarding
design feasibility, organisational capability, and theplant site.
In 2013, the working group agreed on the formationof a technical expert subgroup to focus on severe
accidents evaluation. The working group also
drafted a Post-Fukushima action table and a design
differences table comparing the design of the
APR1400 in Europe, the Republic of Korea, theUnited Arab Emirates, and the United States. The
group held its third meeting in Abu Dhabi in order tovisit Barakah construction site.

Barakah site—APR1400, United Arab Emirates, April 2013 (ENEC).

33

Shin-Hanul site—APR1400, Republic of Korea, February 2014, (KHNP).

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT34

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Barakah unit 1—CLP installation, APR1400, United Arab Emirates, November 2013 (ENEC).

Shin-Hanul Unit 1—Reactor Vessel Hydrostatic Test, APR1400, Republic of Korea, March 2014 (KHNP).

35

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

5.4 VVER Working Group (VVERWG)
The VVER Working Group includes Finland(STUK), India (AERB), Russian Federation(Rostechnadzor) and Turkey (TAEK).
In 2013, the PG officially endorsed the formationof a working group to share information andcooperate on the VVER Russian reactor design. At
the same period, Turkey has been welcomed as a
new associate member of MDEP to join this group.
The kick-off meeting was held in Moscow on
21-22 January 2014, when Rostechnadzor’s
representative was elected as chair of the group and
TAEK’srepresentativeasvice-chair.
Representatives of the Russian designer and utility
organisations participated in part of the working
group meeting and provided descriptions of thedifferent recent VVER designs being built or
reviewed. The members provided recommendations
for topics to be addressed by technical subgroups.
The major areas of cooperation for this newly formedgroup were narrowed to severe accidents, safetysystems and reactor pressure vessel and primarycircuit. The group also explore ways of ensuring fullexchange of information regarding potential
proprietary and protected commercial information. In
2014, the working group will decide on subgroup
discussion topics and finalise a comparison table ofthe technical differences among VVER designs ineach country.

Akkuyu NPP Project—VVER, Turkey (TAEK).

Akkuyu NPP Site—VVER, Turkey, (TAEK).

37

Novovoronezh II – VVER, Russian Federation, February 2014 (Rosatom).

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

38

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Kudankulam—VVER, India, August 2013 (NPCIL).

Leningrad II—VVER, Russian Federation, March 2014 (Rosatom).

39

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Novovoronezh II—VVER, Russian Federation, March 2014 (Rosatom).

Novovoronezh II—Arrival of reactor vessel, VVER, Russian Federation, November 2013, (Rosatom).

40

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Novovoronezh II—Gateway installation, VVER, Russian Federation, November 2013 (Rosatom).

VVERWG—First meeting, Moscow, Russian Federation, January 2014.

41

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

5.5 ABWR Working Group (ABWRWG)
The ABWR working group includes the regulatory
authorities of Finland (STUK), Japan (NRA), Sweden(SSM), the United Kingdom (ONR), and the UnitedStates (NRC). The formation of this working group
was approved in 2013 and its first meeting was heldin January 2014. The United Kingdom will chair andthe United States was selected as the vice-chair.
There are four different ABWR designs underconsideration in members’ countries: General
Electric (GE)-Hitachi, Hitachi-GE, US Toshiba andFinnish Toshiba. The working group developed acomparison matrix of the key design features with
input from the vendors. The following topics wereidentified for formation of technical subgroups:
Fukushima lessons learned, instrumentation andcontrols, and severe accidents. The vendors will be
invited to a future meeting to discuss the use of
proprietary information by the members.

ABWRWG—First meeting, Issy-les- Moulineaux, France, January 2014.

43

(

%

)

"

*#+ %,%! ! #$% !#!

-#$% &'.%/-'

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
5.6 Vendor Inspection Cooperation Working
Group (VICWG)

Accomplishments

BackgroundIn 2013, the working group focused on
maximising information sharing, joint inspections,and witnessing of other regulators’ inspections. The
VICWG also worked with SDOs to encourage andexplore harmonisation of QA/QM standards.

The goals of the VICWG are to:•maximise the use of the results obtained
from other regulator’s efforts in inspecting
vendors;•

understand the similarities and differences
between
MDEP
national
regulators’
Quality Assurance/Management (QA/QM)
Requirements in order to reach a consensus
on the potential for harmonisation;•

facilitate the adoption of good vendor
oversight practices by national regulators;•

harmonise the vendor inspection practices
among MDEP regulators for inspections
under the MDEP protocol;•

continue joint and witnessed inspections andperform multinational inspections of vendors
accordingtothecommonQA/QM
requirements;•

consider the establishment of an NEA
working group for vendor oversight at theclosure of MDEP activities.

The working group enhances the understandingof each regulator’s inspection procedures andpractices by coordinating witnessed inspections ofsafety related components and quality assurance
inspections. Witnessed inspections consist of one
regulator performing an inspection to its criteria,
observed by representatives of other MDEP
members. The benefits to the observing countries
include additional information and added confidence
in the inspection results. MDEP regulators are using
the experience gained during conduct of VICWG
witnessed inspections in their inspection planning.
Joint inspections consist of one regulator
conducting an inspection according to its own
regulatory framework with the active participation of
one or more other regulators. This would allow theparticipating members to use the results of theinspection that are applicable to their regulations.
The working group maintains a list of inspections
from the MDEP VICWG regulators for opportunities
to witness inspections, and shares inspection results
through a database maintained in the MDEP library.
This database includes not only the reports of
witnessed and joint inspections, but all inspections
that may be of interest to the MDEP members.

45

A total of twelve witnessed and joint inspections
were conducted pursuant to VICWG inspection
protocol in 2013, as detailed in table 1. In the lastyear, there has been an increase in the number ofjoint and observed inspections, primarily driven by
the United Arab Emirates and Republic of Korea
collaboration on inspection of components for
APR1400 reactor.

th

VICWG 12 Meeting—Paris, 5-7 November 2013.

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
Table 1. 2013 Witnessed and joint inspections
VendorLocation Inspecting MDEP type of Date(Country) regulator
inspection:
witnessed(W)or joint(J)Participating Scope
regulator(s)

WEC

USA

FANR

W

October
2013

KINS

EC

USA

FANR

W

October
2013

KINS

EDF

FranceASN

W

October
2013

STUK

DoosanRepublicof Korea

FANR

W

September
2013

KINS

USA

NRC

J

June 2013

KINS

CanadaNRC

W

June 2013

CNSC

UAE andRepublic of
Korea

BNPP site,
HSJV,
KEPCO

FANR

W

May 2013

KINS

Hyosung
Goodsprings

Republicof Korea

FANR

W

April 2013

KINS

Stern Labs

Canada

NRC

W

March
2013

CNSC

UAE and
South Korea

UAE

FANR

W

January
2013

KINS

WEC

USA

CNSC
CanadaW

January
2013

NRC

QualTech
NP
B&W
Canada46

Verify implementation of theWestinghouse quality assurance
programme. Inspection scope
primarily focused on the test Control(during Reactor Coolant Pump
[RCP] prototype testing)
Verify implementation of theWestinghouse (Cranberry) Quality
Assurance
Verify storage conditions andpreparation to welding of pressure
equipments at Flamanville 3
construction site
Verify implementation of the
Doosan’s Quality Assurance,
Handling
Mechanical and Electrical EQ,
Seismic Qualification, CGD
Replacement steam generators for
Davis Besse/ MHI Follow-up
Structural steelwork fabrication,
Containment liner fabrication,
Control of Processes, Design
Control, Corrective Action
Organisation, QAP, Design,
Procurement, Purchased Items andServices, Control of Items, Special
Processes, Nonconforming Items,
Corrective Action
Design certification testing(NuScale)
Structural steelwork fabrication,
Containment liner fabrication,
concrete placement, Control ofProcesses, Packaging, shipping,receiving, storage and handling ofitems, QA records, Instructions,procedures and drawings
Canada Design Review

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORTSaint-Marcel manufacturing plant—Steam generator fabrication, Introduction of the wrapper, EPR, Chalon, France, 2007 (AREVA,
Moreau Charlene).

47

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORTIn 2013, the working group has completed atechnical report on “Common QA/QM Criteria for theMultinational Vendor Inspection.” This VICWG
document provides the “Common QA/QM Criteria”
which will be used in multinational vendor
inspections. These criteria were developed inconformity with international codes and standards
such as IAEA, ISO and others that MDEP member
countries adopted. As a result of the information
obtained, a comparison table between codes andstandards (IAEA GS-R-3, ISO 9001:2008,10CFR50
Appendix B and ASME NQA-1) has been developed
to inform the development of “Common QA/QM
Criteria.”

In support of its long term goal of understanding
the similarities and differences between MDEP
national regulators’ QA/QM Requirements and to
facilitate the adoption of good vendor oversightpractices by national regulators, the group added
two new actions in its Programme Plan: (1) develop
a list of good practices for vendor oversight and (2)conduct a survey of vendor inspector training. The
group has incorporated an attribute to its inspectionplans to address issues related to Counterfeit,
Fraudulent, and Suspect Items (CFSI).
In the area of harmonisation of quality standards,
the VICWG members accepted a task to review a
proposal by CORDEL to identify barriers to NSQ-100
as a potential internationally acceptable quality
standard.

Future actions

The United Kingdom, the United States and France
are preparing for the first multinational inspection to
be conducted in 2014. Multinational inspections are
conducted by a team of inspectors from multiple
countries using common inspection criteria andselected criteria that are unique to their countries. A
draft inspection plan has been prepared.

Saint-Marcel manufacturing plant—Heavy component assembly bay, AREVA, Chalon,
France, January 2012 (AREVA, Sirand Tracy).

48

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
requirements and the reasons for their differences.
The SDOs compared requirements of their pressureboundary codes and standards including JSME’s SNC1 Code (Japan), AFCEN’s RCC-M Code(France), KEA’s KEPIC Code (Korea),

Flamanville unit 3—Preparation for hydraulic test of the reactor vessel, EPR, August 2010
(AREVA, SIRAND Tracy).

5.7 Codes and Standards Working Group(CSWG)
BackgroundThe goal of the Codes and Standards Working
Group (CSWG) is harmonisation of code
requirements for design and construction ofpressure-retaining (pressure-boundary) components
in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiencyof the regulatory design reviews, increase quality ofsafety assessments, and to make each regulator
stronger in its ability to make safety decisions.
The CSWG recognised early on that the first stepto achieving harmonisation is to understand theextent of similarities and differences amongst thepressure-boundary codes and standards used invarious countries. The CSWG encouraged SDOs to
conduct full scope code comparisons, study thesimilarities and differences between codes, anddevelop a strategy and process for achieving code
harmonisation
andpreventionoffurtherdivergences. The SDOs formed a steeringcommittee composed of the representatives of
ASME, JSME, KEPIC, AFCEN, CSA, vendors, andutilities which performed a comparison of theirpressure-boundary codes and standards to identify
the extent of similarities and differences in code

49

The SDOs compared requirements of theirpressure-boundary codes and standards including
JSME’s S-NC1 Code (Japan), AFCEN’S RCC-M
Code (France), KEA’s KEPIC Code (Korea), CSA’s
N285.0 standard (Canada) and NIKIET’s PNAE G-7
Code (Russia) against the requirements of Section
III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
(United States) for Class 1 vessels, piping, pumps
and valves.
The results enabled the CSWG to understandfrom a global perspective how each country’spressure-boundary code or standard evolved into its
current form and content. In January 2012, theSDOs from Canada, France, Japan, Republic ofKorea, and the United States issued their CodeComparison report for Class 1 Nuclear Power Plant
Components that was prepared for MDEP. In
December 2012, the SDOs published revision 1 that
included a comparison with the Russian code.
The work of the CSWG showed that code
harmonisation should first be sought by SDOs. As aresult of interactions between the CSWG and theSDOs, the SDOs formed a Code Convergence
Board whose objective is to limit divergence andachieve convergence on individual requirements
where realistic and practical. Although a voting
member of the Board, MDEP has observer status2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
and a member of the CSWG attends most meetings.
The industry formed task groups within CORDEL tomirror CSWG activities and try to propose converged
code provisions (or requirements) to SDOs throughanalyses of code differences on selected topics.
The CSWG is working closely with SDOs and
CORDEL to converge code requirements andreconcile code differences.

Next steps
In 2014, the CSWG plans to continue its initialstated goals and work on code harmonisation andon issuance of its final reports. The working groupwill continue to interact with CORDEL and SDOs
and support their respective aforementioned
initiatives. The CSWG will work with CORDEL tocontinue efforts with its pilot project to achieve
convergence of selected code gaps or differencesand ensure that the Industry and SDOs can followup on this effort.

Accomplishments
In September 2013, the CSWG issued its first
technical report TR-CSWG-01 on the “Regulatory
Framework for the Use of Nuclear PressureBoundary Codes and Standards in MDEP Countries”
This document describes each MDEP country’spressure-boundary code or standard, the regulations
and national practices governing the use of nuclear
pressure-boundary codes and standards in each
MDEP country, and what regulatory practices might
be needed for foreign nuclear codes and standards
to be used.
The CSWG issued a technical report on “Lessons
Learnt on Achieving Harmonisation of Codes andStandards for Pressure Boundary Components inNuclear Power Plants”. This report documents thefindings and overall conclusions of the CSWG
pertaining to (1) the sufficiency in ensuring NPP
safety of several MDEP member country’s pressureboundary codes and standards and (2) the potential
for harmonisation of those pressure-boundary codesand standards based on the code-comparison work
performed by the SDOs from April 2008 to
December 2012. This report also documents astrategy and process proposed by the SDOs forachieving code harmonisation.
The working group issued a common position
CP-CSWG-01 on “Findings from Code Comparisonsand Establishment of a Global Framework towards
Pressure-Boundary Code Harmonisation.” Thedocument is a compilation of common positions
identified by the CSWG in its pursuit of harmonising
the requirements in codes and standards governing
the design, materials, fabrication, examination,
testing and over-pressure protection requirements ofpressure-boundary components such as vessels,
piping, pumps and valves typically found in large,
light-water-reactor NPPs.

Flamanville unit 3—Reactor vessel for site, Welding of
the final weld, manufacturing plant, EPR, Chalon St
Marcel, France, June 2010 (AREVA, SIRAND Tracy).

Finally, the working group has issued a technicalreport TR-CSWG-03, on “Fundamental Attributes forthe Design and Construction of Pressure-Boundary
Components.”This
document
establishes
fundamental attributes that are high-level guidancefor pressure-boundary codes and standards used in
the design and construction of nuclear components.

50

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Instrumentation and control Teleperm XS—Erlangen,Germany, 2009 (AREVA).

51

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Accomplishments

5.8 Digital Instrumentation and Controls
Working Group (DICWG)

The DICWG identified twelve topics for genericcommon positions which were selected based on
the safety implications of the issue, and the need todevelop a common understanding from theperspectives of regulatory authorities. DICWG
generic common positions are not intended to cover
all issues associated with the digital I&C technicaldisciplines, but only those of most value to themembers.

Background
The DICWG works to increase collaboration,
cooperation and knowledge transfer among
members and with other stakeholders to achieve thefollowing primary goals:••

Facilitate timely and efficient mechanisms
for sharing of knowledge and experienceamong members, thus allowing more
effective safety reviews;
Work jointly to develop common positions
among members for issues of significance,
which may be based on a review of theexisting standards, national regulatory
guidance, best practices, and group inputs.

The DICWG has published nine generic common
positions that describe methods and evidence thatall DICWG member states find acceptable to support
safety justification for digital I&C systems. The
published common positions include:

•

IAEA,
the
International
ElectrotechnicalCommission (IEC) and the Institute of Electrical andElectronics Engineers (IEEE) representatives areinvited to participate in working group meetings andactivities. Industry is represented via the IEC andIEEE and through specific invitations by the DICWG
to share information and give presentations on
topics of interest.

•

•

•
•

•
•

•
18th meeting—DICWG, Paris, France, March 2014.

•

Generic Common Position 1—Treatment ofCommon Cause Failures Resulting from
SoftwareGeneric common position 2—Software
Tools for the Development of Software for
Safety Systems
Generic Common Position 3—Verification
and Validation Throughout the Life Cycle of
Digital Safety Systems
Generic
CommonPosition
4—DataCommunications Independence
Generic Common position 5—Treatment ofHardware Description Language (HDL)
Programmed Devices for Use in Nuclear
Safety Systems
Generic Common Position 6—Simplicity in
DesignGeneric Common Position 8—Impact ofCyber Security Features on Digital I&C
Safety Systems
Generic Common Position 11—Digital I&C
System Pre-Installation and Initial On-Site
Testing
Generic Common Position 12—Use ofAutomatic Testing in Computer Based
Systems as part of Surveillance Testing

These common positions have been madepublicly available on the MDEP website. In 2013,
DICWG revised common positions 2, 3 and 6, andissued common positions 1, 5, 11, and 12.
Generic Common Position 1, “Treatment ofCommon Cause Failure (CCF) caused by software
within digital safety systems” states that NPPs

52

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
should be protected from the effects of common
cause failures caused by software in DI&C safetysystems. This common position provides guidance
for the assessment of the potential for CCF forsoftware.
Generic Common Position 5, “Treatment ofHardware Description Language (HDL) programmed
devices for use in nuclear safety systems” provides
principles for the design process and selection ofpre-developed items for HDL-Programmed Devices.
Generic Common Position 11, “Digital I&C
system pre-installation and initial on-site testing,”
provides principles on performing both preinstallation and initial on-site testing for digital I&C
systems and details the aspects that should be
included in the pre-installation testing stage and theinitial on-site testing stage.
Generic Common Position 12, “Use of automatic
testing in Digital I&C systems as part of surveillance
testing” provides principles on the use of automatic
testing and special considerations when automatic
tests are used in lieu of or to reduce the frequency of
manual tests.
The working group continues to implement aformal “Quick Inquiry” process to generate andprocess inquiries from member countries to promote
an efficient and structured information exchange andprovide for storing this information in a retrievabledatabase.
The DICWG
maintains frequent
communication with the DSWG, particularly with the
EPR digital instrumentation and controls TESG.
Instrumentation and control Teleperm XS—Erlangen,Germany, 2009 (AREVA).

Next steps

Three additional common positions are underdevelopment. The working group has prioritised theremaining issues and has identified schedules fordevelopment, review, and issuance of each common
position, which is described in the DICWG
programme plan.
The working group will communicate specificsuggestions to the SDOs and IAEA for considerationof harmonisation in a timely manner when they are
identified during its activities.
The working group will continue to engage digital
instrumentation and control vendors and utilities toshare experience and insights toward developing
common positions that are based on a broad
spectrum of inputs.
Under its current schedule, the working group plans
to complete the identified common positions in 2017.

53

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
6. INTERIM RESULTS

7. NEXT STEPSPROGRAMMEMDEP is considered a long-term programme withinterim results. Interim results are those productsthat document agreement by the MDEP member
countries and are necessary steps in working
towards increased cooperation and convergence.
The interim results for 2013 and early 2014 include:

•

•
•

•

•

•
•
•

•

•

•

–

FUTUREOFTHE

At its meeting in May 2012, the MDEP Policy Groupendorsed the extension of the planning window for
MDEP activities from March 2013 to March 2018.
MDEP still remains a mid and long term programmethat focuses on interim results. The PG members
stressed that they will review this issue at least
within three years to determine if the planningwindow is still appropriate.

Commissioning workshops within the EPR
and AP1000 working groups to begin
considering how to cooperate on preoperational testing and commissioning
oversight.
Common position addressing Fukushima
related issues related to the EPR design.
A series of phone seminars with US NRC
and CNSC on selected topics of their Phase
2 review to learn from the already completed
NRC design certification review of theAP1000.
Exchanges of letters between US NRC andNNSA containing questions and responses
related to design and construction issues for
the AP1000 in each country.
Establishment of VVER and ABWR design
specific working groups with prioritisation oftechnical topics for future discussion.
Cooperation on twelve witnessed vendor
inspections and one joint inspection.
Technical Report on “Common QA/QM
Criteria for Multinational Vendor Inspection”.
Common position on “Findings from CodeComparisons and Establishment of a Global
Framework towards Pressure-Boundary
Code Harmonisation”.
Technical report on the “Regulatory
Framework for the Use of Nuclear PressureBoundary Codes and Standards in MDEPCountries”.
Technical report on “Lessons Learnt on
Achieving Harmonisation of Codes andStandards
for
Pressure
Boundary
Components in Nuclear Power Plants”.
Fourcommonpositionsondigitalinstrumentation and controls for new
reactors in the areas of: treatment ofcommon cause failures resulting fromsoftware,
TreatmentofHardwareDescription Language (HDL) Programmed
Devices for Use in Nuclear Safety Systems,
Digital I&C System Pre-Installation andInitial On-Site Testing, and Use of Automatic
Testing in Computer Based Systems as partof Surveillance Testing.

The results of the MDEP self-assessment indicatedthat MDEP should maintain a relatively small
number of topics and keep them closely connected
to topics relevant to new reactor designs. It was also
recognized that the most effective aspect of MDEP
is the cooperation and exchange of information it
facilitates for design reviews. Therefore, MDEP willact quickly to approve the formation of new design
specific working groups (consistent with the existing
Rule of Three for forming design specific working
groups).
The DSWGs will continue cooperation andexchanging feedback on design issues at least
through the construction phase. After design review
activities are completed for a majority of members,
the working group format and goals may change to a
type and level of activity that would be appropriate tocontinue to exchange information. Meanwhile, they
continue to work on technical topics as they identify
such items needing discussions. Several technicalreports are presently being drafted. The impact of
the Fukushima accident on new reactor designs willcontinue to be discussed within DSWGs meetings
and Common positions addressing Fukushimarelated issues will be issued, following the EPR one.
The current ISWGs will continue until they complete
the goals and activities specified in their programplans. However, the work of the ISWG should
eventually be transferred to other organisations suchas CNRA or IAEA, as their widely recognised added
value and work should not be lost when they stop.
The working groups have identified completion
strategies (including final products, recommendations to SDOs or other organisations forfollow-up activity) which will be added in theirworking group programme plans.

54

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORTAppendix 1
List of abbreviations and acronyms

55

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORTAERBAtomic Energy Regulatory Board (India)

AFCEN

Association Française pour les règles de Conception, de construction et desurveillance en exploitation des matériels des Chaudières Electro Nucléaires (French
SDO)

ASME

American Society Mechanical Engineers

ASN

Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (Nuclear Safety Authority from France)

CCF

Common Cause Failure

CNRA

Committee on Nuclear Regulatory Activities (from the NEA)

CNSC

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

CORDEL

Cooperation in Reactor Design Evaluation and Licensing

CSA

Canadian Standards Association

CSWG

Codes and Standards Working Group

DICWG

Digital Instrumentation and Controls Working Group

DSWG

Design-Specific Working Group

FANR

Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation (United Arab Emirates)

I&C

Instrumentation and Control

IAEA

International Atomic Energy Agency

IEC

International Electro technical Commission

IEEE

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IRWST

In-containment Refueling Water Storage Tank

ISWG

Issue-Specific Working GroupISOInternational Organization for Standardization

ITAAC

Inspections, tests, analyses and acceptance criteria

JSME

Japanese Society of Mechanical Engineers

KEPIC

Korean Electric Power Industry Code

KINS

Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

MDEP

Multinational Design Evaluation Programme56

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
NEA

Nuclear Energy Agency

NIKIET

Scientific Research and Design Institute of Energy Technologies (Russian SDO)NNSA

National Nuclear Safety Administration (China)

NPP

Nuclear power plant

NRA

Nuclear Regulatory Authority (Japan)

NRC

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (United States)

OECD

Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation

ONR

Office for Nuclear Regulation (United Kingdom)

PG

Policy Group

PSA

Probabilistic safety assessment

SDO

Standard Development Organisation

SSMStrålsäkerhetsmyndigheten (Swedish Radiation Safety Authority)

STC

Steering Technical Committee

STUK

Säteilyturvakeskus (Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland)

TAEK

Türkiye Atom Enerjisi Kurumu (Turkish Atomic Energy Authority)

TESG

Technical Experts Subgroup

TOI

Typical optimised informatised (VVER design)

VICWG

Vendor Inspection Cooperation Working GroupWGRNRWorking Group on the Regulation of New Reactors (from the NEA/CNRA)WENRA

Western European Nuclear Regulators Association

WNA

World Nuclear Association57

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT58

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORTAPPENDIX 2MDEP documents and publications [March 2013—April 2014]
http://www.oecd-nea.org/mdep/

59

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
Revised documents and publications
MDEP Terms of Reference
MDEP Design-Specific Working Groups Terms of Reference
MDEP Issue-Specific Working Groups Terms of Reference
Working Groups Programme Plans
Common Position DICWG-02 on software tools for the development of software for safety systems
Common Position DICWG-03 on verification and validation throughout the life cycle of digital safety systems
Common Position DICWG-06 on principle on simplicity in design
VICWG-01 Witnessed, Joint, and Multinational Vendor Inspection Protocol
New documents and publications
MDEP STC Self-Assessment Report
Common Position DICWG-01 on the treatment of common cause failure caused by software within digital safetysystems
Common Position DICWG-05 on the treatment of Hardware Description Language (HDL) programmed devices foruse in nuclear safety systems
Common Position DICWG-12 on the use of automatic testing in digital I&C systems as part of surveillance testing
EPRWG Common Position addressing Fukushima-related issues for the EPR design
Technical report TR-CSWG-01 on regulatory frameworks for the use of nuclear pressure-boundary codes andstandards in MDEP countries
Technical report TR-CSWG-02 on lessons learnt on achieving harmonisation of codes and standards for pressure
boundary components in nuclear power plants
Technical report TR-CSWG-03 on the Fundamental Attributes for the design and construction of reactor coolant
pressure-boundary components
Common position CP-CSWG-01 on findings from code comparisons and establishment of a global framework
towards pressure-boundary code harmonisation
Technical report VICWG-03: Common Quality Assurance / Quality Management (QA/QM) Criteria for Multinational
Vendor Inspection60

2013-2014 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Cover photos:

Front cover: Olkiluoto Unit 3—EPR, Finland, March 2014 (TVO).
Back cover: Taishan EPR construction site—EPRWG visit, People’s Republic of China, June 2013.
Vogtle construction site—AP1000WG visit, United States, September 2013.

61

Issued by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency for the Multinational Design Evaluation Programme
April 2014www.oecd-nea.org/mdep