MULTINATIONAL DESIGN EVALUATION PROGRAMMEANNUAL REPORTMARCH 2011 – MARCH 2012
June 2012

N U C L E A R

E N E R G Y

A G E N C Y

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Table of contents

Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
Executive summary ....................................................................................................................................... 7
1.

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 92.

Programme goals and outcomes....................................................................................................... 93.

Self-assessment ................................................................................................................................ 10

4.

Programme implementation ............................................................................................................. 10
4.1 Membership ................................................................................................................................... 10
4.2 Organisational structure ................................................................................................................ 11
4.3 MDEP Library ................................................................................................................................ 125.

Interactions with other organisations ............................................................................................. 12
5.1 NEA Committee on Nuclear Regulatory Activities (CNRA) ......................................................... 12
5.2 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) ................................................................................ 13
5.3 Second MDEP Conference on New Reactor Design Activities ................................................... 13
5.4 Interactions with industry groups ................................................................................................. 13

6.

Current activities ............................................................................................................................... 15
6.1 EPR Working Group (EPRWG) ................................................................................................... 16
6.2 AP1000 Working Group (AP1000WG) ........................................................................................ 19
6.3 Vendor Inspection Co-operation Working Group (VICWG) ......................................................... 21
6.4 Codes and Standards Working Group (CSWG) .......................................................................... 23
6.5 Digital Instrumentation & Controls Working Group (DICWG) ...................................................... 25
6.6 Safety classification .................................................................................................................... 26

7.

Interim results .................................................................................................................................... 27

8.

Next steps – Future of the programme ........................................................................................... 27

Appendices
Appendix A – Summary of MDEP products made available: March 2011 – March 2012 ..................... 29
Appendix B – Table of acronyms ............................................................................................................... 323

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
convergence of codes, standards, guides,
practises and safety goals. Working groups are
implementing the activities in accordance with
programme plans with specific activities andgoals, and have established the necessaryinterfaces both within and outside of MDEP
members. All reports and guidance documents
issued in the frame of this programme are sharedinternationally beyond MDEP membership.

FOREWORD FROM THE POLICY GROUPCHAIRMANIt has to be stressed that various otherorganisations are involved in MDEP programmesuch as IAEA and the OECD Nuclear Energy
Agency (NEA), which performs the Technical
Secretariat function. MDEP also encourages thestrengthening of sustainable exchanges withutilities and others concerned organisations.

Paris, 22 May 2012
On 11 March 2011, the Fukushima Daiichi
accident, triggered by an earthquake and atsunami on an exceptional scale, confirms that,
despite any precaution taken in the design,
construction and operation of nuclear reactors,
an accident can never be completely ruled out.
These tragic events understandably shined abrighter spotlight on the safety of nuclear power
plants (NPPs) worldwide, both for operating and
new NPPs and the need to strengtheninternational co-operation.

In order to assess the progress that MDEP has
made towards achieving its goals, a
programmatic self-assessment was initiated by
the STC in September 2011, soliciting input fromboth MDEP members and external stakeholders.
Initial results indicate that MDEP is meeting theobjectives
oftheprogramme
andrecommendations for improvements will beconsidered in setting future programme direction.

Since its creation in 2006, the Multinational
Design Evaluation Programme (MDEP) has been
devoted to harmonising and improving safety
objectives for every new design. The main goalof this multinational initiative is 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 original ten MDEP members
are regulators from following countries: Canada,
China, Finland, France, Japan, Korea, theRussian Federation, South Africa, the United
Kingdom and the United States. In addition tothese original members, the national regulator for
India, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board(AERB), has recently been accepted as an
MDEP member becoming the first new member
in MDEP since its inception in 2006. As a full
member, AERB will contribute to MDEP’s
strategic decisions taken within the Policy Group(PG), which comprises the heads of all national
regulators involved in the programme andparticipate in the implementation of theseguidance by the Steering Technical Committee(STC) which directs the various MDEP’s working
groups such as the two design-specific and threeissue-specific working groups.

Significant progress is being made on the overall
MDEP goals and, in addition, the lessons learnt
from 11 March 2011, events at the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear power plant are being
appropriately incorporated into MDEP activities
such as considering extreme events including
floods, earthquake or total loss of electricalsupply.
So far, two design-specific working groups,
dedicated to AP1000 and EPR designs, arefacilitating MDEP programme goal of enhanced
co-operation. These groups have the common
goal to share information and experience on thesafety design reviews with the purpose ofenhancing the safety of the design and enabling
regulators to make timely licensing decisions,and of promoting safety and standardisation ofdesigns.
Fruitful co-operation is also carried out in theframe of issue-specific working groups charged
with studying the similarities and differences inregulatory requirements and practises in genericsafety areas. As an example, seven witnessed
and joint inspections have been conductedduring the past year in the frame of the Vendor
Inspection
Co-operation
WorkingGroup(VICWG) and several common positions havebeen issued by the Digital Instrumentation andControls Working Group (DICWG) (verification

Pooling the resources of these 11 nuclear
regulatory authorities, MDEP incorporates abroad range of activities including enhancing
multilateral co-operation within existing regulatory frameworks, and increasing multinational

5

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORTand validation practises and safety and security
interface). Another main achievement was thecompletion of an evaluation of a pressure vessel
codes comparison performed by the Standards
Development Organisations.

In 2012 and in the coming years, MDEP will haveto maintain its high-level expertise exchange
capacity and at the same time face several
challenges. A first one is to take into account thefull experience feedback of the Fukushima
accident and to promote an appropriate cooperation with all stakeholders including the
IAEA, national regulators and operators. A key
challenge for MDEP programme lies also in the
integration of new members as India’s AERB,
and ensuring that all members (full or
associated) remain fully involved in the
programme, enabling to achieve further
remarkable achievements. The fact that otherregulators have already expressed their interest
to join MDEP is proof of the dynamism of thisinitiative.

MDEP organised the second Conference on New
Reactor Design Activities on 15-16 September
2011 in Paris. More than 120 persons attended
the conference representing 23 national
regulators along with technical support
organisations, multinational organisations suchas the IAEA, WENRA, WANO, major reactor
vendors and mechanical and electrical Standards
Development Organisations. This event has
been a unique opportunity to share and discuss
MDEP outcomes and to improve our own workby taking into account the main findings of thisconference. It has already been decided toorganise a new conference in 2013.

André-Claude LACOSTE
MDEP Policy Group Chairman

All MDEP accomplishments in 2011, as well as
significant work completed in early 2012,
presented in detail in the present report provide
confidence that MDEP membership, structure
and processes provide an effective method ofaccomplishingincreased
co-operationinregulatory design reviews.

May 2012 – MDEP Policy Group meeting62011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORTand 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 appropriately
incorporated into MDEP activities.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In order to assess the progress that MDEP
has made towards achieving its goals, a
programmatic self-assessment was initiated in
September 2011. Input was solicited from both
MDEP members and external stakeholders.
Initial results indicate that MDEP is meeting theobjectives of the programme and recommendations for improvement will be considered insetting future programme direction.

The
Multinational
DesignEvaluation
Programme (MDEP) is a multinational initiative toleverage the resources and knowledge ofnational regulatory authorities who are, or will
shortly be, undertaking the review of new reactor
power plant designs. The original ten MDEP
member countries are: Canada, China, Finland,
France, Japan, Korea, the Russian Federation,
South Africa, the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates. In addition to these original members, thenational regulator for India, the Atomic Energy
Regulatory Board (AERB) has recently been
accepted as an MDEP member. The IAEA also
takes part in the work of MDEP and the OECD
Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) performs theTechnical Secretariat function in support of
MDEP. MDEP incorporates a broad range ofactivities including enhancing multilateral cooperation within existing regulatory frameworks,
and increasing multinational convergence ofcodes, standards, guides, and safety goals. A
key concept throughout the work of MDEP is thatnational regulators retain sovereign authority for
all licensing and regulatory decisions.

Two design-specific working groups are
facilitating MDEP programme goal of enhanced
co-operation. The EPR Working Group(EPRWG) consists of the regulatory authorities ofFrance, Finland, US, UK, China, and Canada.
The EPRWG has been successful in sharing
information and experience on the safety design
reviews of the EPR with the purposes ofenhancing the safety of the design and enabling
regulators to make timely licensing decisions,and of promoting safety and standardisation ofdesigns through MDEP co-operation. Four expert
subgroups are currently interacting on specifictechnical issues and additional topics have been
proposed. The AP1000 Design-specific Working
Group consists of the regulatory authorities ofCanada, China, United Kingdom, and the UnitedStates. Three expert subgroups addressed theareas of control rod drive mechanisms, civilengineering, and squib valves.

The programme of work consists of activities
which were chosen because they could beaccomplished in the near term, are relevant to
new reactor evaluations and would result insignificant benefits while requiring minimum
resources. Working groups are implementing theactivities in accordance with programme plans
with specific activities and goals, and haveestablished the necessary interfaces both within
and outside of MDEP members. In January
2011, additional levels of MDEP membershipwere approved: MDEP associate members will
be national regulatory authorities without
previous licensing experience, invited toparticipate in selected MDEP design-specificactivities; MDEP candidates will be countries thathave an experienced nuclear regulatoryorganisation and have mid- to long-term plans topursue new reactor licensing and construction.
This report provides a status of the programme
after its fourth year of implementation.

The Vendor Inspection Co-operation Working
Group (VICWG) has achieved its short-termgoals and continues to focus on maximisinginformation sharing, joint inspections (multiple
regulators
inspecting
totheregulatory
requirements of one country), and witnessing ofother regulators’ inspections. A total of sevenwitnessed and joint inspections were conductedpursuant to VICWG activities in 2011. The
VICWG will also work 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 program goals toharmonise a significant portion of the quality
assurance inspection procedures so that theresults of an inspection conducted by one
member could be used by the other members.
The Digital Instrumentation and Controls
Working Group (DICWG) has identified 12 topics

Significant progress is being made on theoverall MDEP goals of increased co-operation7

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT Updating and finalising a comparison
survey on quality assurance requirements
used in the oversight of vendors;

for which it will pursue the development ofcommon positions based on the existing
standards, national regulatory guidance, bestpractices, and group inputs using an agreed
upon process and framework. To date, theworking group has published five common
positions on software tools, communication
independence, simplicity in design, verificationand validation and safety and security interface.
In 2011, the group finalised the latter two
common positions. Those common positions
have been made publicly available on MDEP
website. The DICWG is enhancing its cooperation with the standards organisations, theInstitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers(IEEE) and the International ElectrotechnicalCommission (IEC). In addition, the DICWG
members jointly research and comment on
proposed IEC, IEEE, and IAEA standards thatare relevant to the regulatory review of digital
I&C systems.

 Interacting with the mechanical standards
development organisations (SDOs) tocomplete and issue a comparison report
including tables of the ASME’s Boiler andPressure Vessel Code, AFCEN’s RCCM
Code, JSME S NC1, CSA’s Code, and
KEPIC’s code for Class 1 pressure vessels,
piping, pumps, and valves; Identifying a complete list of 12 technicalissues in the area of digital instrumentationand control that will be pursued by MDEP
for the development of common positions; Finalising common positions, on verificationand validation throughout the life cycle ofdigital safety systems, and on the impact of
cyber
security featureson
digitalinstrumentation and control safety systems;

The Codes and Standards Working Group(CSWG) has completed an evaluation of thecode comparison performed by the standards
development organisations (SDOs). The SDOs,
with the encouragement and support of theworking group, compared the Class 1 pressure
vessel codes and developed a database that
identified the similarities and differences between
the Canadian, Korean, Japanese, and French
codes, and the ASME code. The CSWG works
closely with the SDOs to converge code
requirements and reconcile code differences.
The CSWG also developed several work
products separate from the SDOs code
comparison activity.

 Drafting a report “Fundamental Attributes of
Mechanical Codes” that establishes highlevel requirements or fundamental concepts
for codes and standards. Drafting “Essential
Performance Guidelines” and a “Descriptionof MDEP Regulators’ Practices in Using
Mechanical Codes and Standards.”
 Successful conduct of the Second MDEP
Conference on New Reactor Design
Activities held 15–16 September 2011 inParis. This event helped communicate
MDEP activities and other issues to manyof the external stakeholders.

This report provides information on MDEP
accomplishments in 2011 as well as significant
work completed in early 2012. Accomplishments
to date provide confidence that MDEP
membership, structure and processes provide aneffective method of accomplishing increased cooperation in regulatory design reviews. Theinterim results include: Drafting common positions on theevaluation of containment circulation andmixing, and mass and energy releases incontainment for the EPR; Co-operating on six witnessed vendor inspections and one joint vendor inspection;

8

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
accomplished in the near term, and would resultin significant benefits while requiring minimum
resources. Working groups are implementing theactivities in accordance with programme plans
with specific activities and goals, and haveestablished the necessary interfaces both within
and outside of MDEP members. 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 todate provide confidence that MDEP membership,
structure and process provide an effective
method of accomplishing increased co-operationin regulatory design reviews. The progress thathas already been achieved demonstrates that a
broader level of co-operation and convergence isboth possible and desirable.

MULTINATIONAL DESIGN EVALUATIONPROGRAMME

1.

INTRODUCTION

The
Multinational
DesignEvaluation
Programme (MDEP) is a multinational initiativethat develops innovative approaches to leverage
the resources and knowledge of national
regulatory authorities who are, or will shortly be,
undertaking the review of new reactor power
plant designs. MDEP has evolved from primarily
a design evaluation program to a multinational
co-operation program that includes inspection
activities and generic issues.

This report provides a status of the programme after its fourth year of implementation in2011 and significant events in early 2012.
2.

A key concept throughout the programme isthat MDEP will better inform the decisions ofregulatory authorities through multinational cooperation, while retaining the sovereign authorityof each regulator to make licensing andregulatory decisions.

PROGRAMME GOALS AND OUTCOMES

The main objectives of MDEP effort are toenable increased co-operation and establish
mutually agreed upon practices to enhance thesafety of new reactor designs. The enhanced cooperation among regulators will improve theeffectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory
design reviews, which are part of each country’s
licensing process. The programme focuses on
co-operation and convergence of regulatory
practices that will lead to convergence of regulatory requirements. Co-operation will allow abetter understanding of each other’s processes
to encourage and facilitate eventual convergence. The goal of MDEP is not to independently
develop new regulatory standards, but to build
upon the similarities already existing, andexisting harmonisation in the form of IAEA andother safety standards. In addition, the common
positions developed in MDEP will be shared with
the IAEA for consideration in the IAEA standards
development programme.

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
co-operation on the European Pressurised Water
Reactor (EPR) design reviews, and a pilot project
to assess the feasibility of enhancing
multinational co-operation and convergence ofcodes, standards, and safety goals within
existing regulatory frameworks. The multilateral
co-operation on the EPR expanded on bilateralinteractions that had already been establishedbetween France and Finland. In March 2008, thePolicy Group (PG) that oversees the programmeapproved the structure for MDEP consisting of
the Policy Group and the Steering TechnicalCommittee that implements the programme withissue specific and design specific Working
Groups. The Organisation for Co-operation andDevelopment’s (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency(NEA) serves as the technical secretariat. In
addition the IAEA takes part in the work of
MDEP. In March 2009, the Policy Groupapproved MDEP as a long term programme thatshould focus on interim results.

MDEP is meeting its goal of enabling
increased co-operation through the activities of
the working groups. MDEP has been very
successful in providing a forum for regulatory
bodies to co-operate on design evaluations andinspections. In addition to organising working
groups, MDEP has provided each regulator withpeer contacts who share information, discuss
issues informally, and disseminate information
rapidly. For example, the Design-specific

The programme of work consists of activities
which were chosen because they could be9

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
3. SELF-ASSESSMENT

Working Group members have benefitted
significantly from the sharing of questions among
the regulators, resulting in more informed, andharmonised,
regulatory
decisions.
MDEP
members have also been highly successful in coordinating vendor inspections in which theregulators share observations and insights. MDEP
has made improvements in communicating
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.

In order to assess the progress that MDEP
has made towards achieving its goals ofenhancing the safety of new reactor design
reviews and promoting the harmonisation ofregulatory requirements, a programmatic selfassessment was initiated in September 2011.
The goal of the self-assessment was to evaluate
if MDEP activities are meeting the goals of eachstakeholder, and to identify improvements andadjustments to current and future MDEP
activities. Input was solicited from both MDEP
members and external stakeholders to get acomprehensive picture of stakeholders’ views.
The survey responses indicated that MDEP
members view MDEP as a unique and usefulforum to connect with experts from otherregulators. MDEP members strongly agreed that
MDEP is meeting the goals and outcomes statedin the Terms of Reference (TOR), and bothinternal and external stakeholders believe thatthe most effective aspect of MDEP is the cooperation and exchange of information it
facilitates for design reviews. Based on survey
responses, MDEP will develop recommendations
to address issues such as the goals and scope of
the program, internal and external communications, the future of the current working groups, andpotential new topics to be addressed. The resultsof the self-assessment will be considered by the
MDEP Policy Group (PG) in setting future
programme
directionandimplementation
guidance.

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,and developing common positions. The working
groups are also working with codes andstandards organisations to identify differences
and propose areas of convergence.
Progress towards harmonised regulatory
practices and requirements for Generation IV
reactor designs will be a natural outgrowth of thisprogramme, as the participating regulatory
authorities find that multinational co-operationand convergence of regulatory practices becomeroutine elements of their planning and executionof new design evaluations. It is noteworthy thatnine of the 11 MDEP member countries are also
members of the Generation IV International
Forum (GIF).
MDEP has been successful in meeting the
expected outcomes as defined in MDEP (TORs)
by: increasing knowledge transfer, identifying
similarities and differences in the regulatory
practices;increasing
stakeholders’
understanding of regulatory practices; andenhancing the ability of regulatory bodies to cooperate in reactor design evaluations, vendor
inspections, and construction oversight, leading
to more efficient and more safety-focused
regulatory decisions.

4.

PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION

4.1 Membership
Participation in the Policy Group (PG) andSteering Technical Committee (STC) is intended
for mature, experienced national safety
authorities of interested countries that alreadyhave commitments for new build or firm plans tohave commitments in the near future for new
reactor designs. Original MDEP members are:Canada, China, Finland, France, Japan, Korea,
the Russian Federation, South Africa, the United
Kingdom and the United States. In addition the
IAEA takes part in the work of MDEP. The PolicyGroup has discussed the potential expansion of
MDEP membership. Several national regulatory
authorities have expressed interest in joining
MDEP. In June 2011, MDEP Policy Groupdiscussed a proposal for the Indian nuclear
regulator to join MDEP as a full member. In order

The events of 11 March 2011, at the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant further
highlight the need to continue this effort, and thelessons learnt from Fukushima are being
appropriately incorporated into MDEP activities.

10

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
to fully inform the PG decision on this issue, theIndian regulator (AERB) documented how they
address the criteria to be considered forassessing prospective MDEP membership andfull membership was confirmed by the PG inearly 2012.

The Policy Group (PG) provides guidance to theSteering Technical Committee (STC) on theoverall approach, monitors the progress of the
programme and determines participation in the
programme.
The Steering Technical Committee (STC)
manages and approves the detailed programmeof work including: defining topics and working
methods, establishing technical working groups,
and nomination of experts; approving procedures
and technical papers developed by the working
groups; establishing interfaces with otherinternational efforts to benefit from available workand avoid duplication; developing procedures forthe handling of information to be shared in the
project; reporting to the Policy Group (PG);
identifying new topics for the programme toaddress; and establishing subcommittees of the
STC to study specific topics.

In January 2011, MDEP Policy Group(PG)approved additional levels of MDEP
membership. MDEP associate member will be anational regulatory authority without previous
licensing experience that has been invited by the
MDEP Policy Group to participate in selected
MDEP design-specific activities based onevidence 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 a firm
commitment in the near term to proceed withsafety design review activities, has proprietary
agreements with the vendor, and is willing andready to contribute to specific MDEP activities. It
is expected that the associate member would bein a position to exchange information with MDEP
members to enhance information sharing andexperience in relevant design safety reviews.

The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)
performs the technical secretariat function in
support of MDEP.
Two lines of activities have been establishedto carry out the work.

The MDEP Policy Group (PG) also
recognises that there are other national
regulatory authorities that may also benefit fromclose interaction with MDEP. For example, there
are several countries that have an experienced
nuclear regulatory organisation, are alreadyregulating nuclear power plants and also havemid- to long-term plans to pursue new reactor
licensing and construction. Such regulators could
clearly benefit from interacting now with MDEP
and, in the near future, could be clear candidates
to become MDEP members or associate
members. It is, therefore, the intent to invite
some experienced regulators to become MDEP
candidates with the purpose of theseorganisations benefiting from the issue-specificand generic aspects of MDEP.

 Design-specific activities. Working groups
for each new reactor design share
information on a timely basis and co-operateon specific reactor design evaluations andconstruction oversight. Participants in theseworking groups are
the regulatory
authorities that are actively reviewing, preparing to review, or constructing the specificreactor design. A design-specific working
group is formed when three or more MDEP
member countries express interest in
working together. An “Observer” level of engagement is available for MDEP regulatory
bodies engaged in regulatory action basedon interest expressed by governmental
authority and/or by a utility for exploring thepotential for licensing new nuclear power
plants of certain designs. Observers canparticipate in the meetings as long as
appropriate controls regarding the use anddiscussion of proprietary information are
established. This status is temporary withexpectations that circumstances and thenecessary agreements that will allow fullparticipation will develop in a short time
period. Under the design-specific working
groups, expert subgroups have been formed
to address specific technical issues.

4.2 Organisational structure
The programme is governed by a PolicyGroup (PG), made up of the heads of the participating organisations, and implemented by aSteering Technical Committee (STC) and its
working groups. The STC consists of senior staff
representatives from each of the participating
national safety authorities, including a representative from the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA).

11

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT Issue-specific activities. Working groups
are organised for the technical and regulatory process areas within the programme ofwork. These currently include, but are notlimited to, vendor inspections, pressure
boundary component codes and standards,
and digital I&C standards. Membership in
issue-specific working groups is open to all
MDEP participating countries and the IAEA
representatives.

enhancements to improve the effectiveness of
the library.
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 was developed tofacilitate the sharing of technical information
among MDEP participants, which at times may
include the sharing of proprietary and other typesof sensitive information. As a general rule, theinformation exchanged as part of MDEP in
meetings and the MDEP Library is for the soleuse of participating national regulators. The
members of the design-specific working groups
also have a communication protocol to share
MDEP positions on topics with other members inadvance of release of this information into the
public domain. A large portion of the information
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.

The chart below illustrates how the programmeis organised.

5.

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

4.3 MDEP Library
MDEP information is communicated among
the members through the MDEP Library which
serves as a central repository for all documents
associated with the programme. The NEA
provides technical support for development andmaintenance of the MDEP Library on a website.
The website includes a folder structure and provides for two levels of access which are password protected: (1) MDEP member countries,and (2) member countries participating in designspecific working groups. Access to the library isbased on requests by the STC member for eachparticipating country and generally consists of
the STC members and members of the working
groups. Publicly available documents related to
MDEP are available on the MDEP page of the
NEA website. The STC, through the secretariat,
will continue to add documents and make

5.1 NEA Committee on Nuclear Regulatory
Activities (CNRA)
The CNRA Working Group on the Regulationof New Reactors (WGRNR) examines the regulatory issues of siting, licensing and regulatory
oversight of Generation III+ and Generation IV
nuclear reactors. The current focus areas of the
WGRNR are construction experience and siting
issues. The WGRNR co-ordinates its work withthe work performed by MDEP such that it utilises

122011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
its outputs and does not duplicate its efforts, andextends the results of MDEP to other CNRA
members. MDEP interacts with the CNRAWGRNR and Working Group on Inspection
Practices (WGIP) 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 on-going
activities and plans. WGRNR is the focal point ofinteractions between MDEP and the CNRA and
its working groups, and will assist in coordinating communications and requests between the two activities.

and seeks input from industry stakeholders,when appropriate.
Challenges include the inherently longprocess of convergence of regulatory practices
due to establishing national norms and legal
issues. The self-assessment which was undertaken by the Steering Technical Committee(STC) should address some of these challenges.
MDEP is also a very efficient forum to
discuss important emerging issues such as thoserelated to lessons learnt from the Fukushima
accident, although MDEP will not take the leadon such issues. The MDEP design-specificworking groups can discuss these relevant
issues for the AP1000 and EPR.

5.2 International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA)

Potential membership expansion will beconsidered as appropriate to ensure the safety of
the world’s new nuclear fleet.

The IAEA participates in the work of MDEP
through participation in the Policy Group (PG)
STC meetings, and issue-specific working
groups. In addition, the Generic Common Positions developed in MDEP will be shared with the
IAEA for consideration in the IAEA standards
development programme.

5.4 Interactions with industry groups
The MDEP working groups are very
interested in understanding the perspectives ofthe design vendors, codes and standards
organisations, and component manufacturers in
MDEP activities, and the challenges they face indealing with numerous regulators and regulatory
systems. The MDEP working groups interact
with, and invite industry groups to participate in,selective portions of meetings and otheractivities. For example:

5.3 Second MDEP Conference on New
Reactor Design Activities
In an effort to communicate MDEP activities toimportant external stakeholders, MDEP conducted
the Second MDEP Conference on New Reactor
Design Activities 15-16 September 2011 at theOECD headquarters in Paris. The status of MDEP
working groups was discussed as well as the
Fukushima accident and industry initiatives on
new reactor designs. Over 120 persons attended
the conference representing 23 national regulatorsand technical support organisations, multiple
multinational organisations such as the IAEA,WENRA, WANO, EUR, Foratom-ENISS, WNA,
major reactor vendors, and mechanical andelectrical standards development organisations.

 The Codes and Standards Working Group(CSWG) interacted with a committee ofStandards
Development
Organisations(SDOs) (ASME, JSME, KEPIC, AFCEN, andCSA) in a code comparison project.
 The EPR Working Group (ERPWG) meetsregularly with representatives of AREVA,
EDF, and other EPR-licensees, applicants,
and potential applicants to discuss similarities
and differences among the EPR designs
being licensed in each country.

In his summary of the MDEP Conference, thePolicy Group (PG) Chair highlighted the
expected outcomes that are being met by MDEP
including improving the effectiveness andefficiency of regulatory design reviews,
increasing safety assessment quality and thesafey level of new reactors, and facilitating
convergence of regulatory requirements. This isbeing accomplished because MDEP is aneffective and efficient network of regulatory andtechnical experts from different countries – a
network that has undertaken a comprehensive
programme of work, published useful products,

 The Digital Instrumentation and Controls
Working Group (DICWG) interacts frequently
with applicable standards organisations, IEC
and IEEE, by including representatives of
IEC and IEEE in MDEP meetings, attending
IEC and IEEE meetings, and involving themin the development of common positions.
The working group communicates specificsuggestions to the standards organisations
and the IAEA for consideration of13

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
harmonisation in a timely manner when they
are identified during its activities.
 The World Nuclear Association CORDEL
group met with members of the MDEP
Policy Group (PG) and the Codes andStandards Working Group (CSWG), andactively
participated
in
the
MDEP
Conference. Both MDEP and CORDEL seesome benefits in collaborating in the areasof codes and standards harmonisation andsafety classification.

14

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT6.

CURRENT ACTIVITIESThe MDEP carries out its work in issue-specific anddesign-specific working groups as well as the steering
technical committee and its subcommittees.
The members of design-specific working groups shareevaluations and other information about the relevant
designs to ensure more safety focused design reviews.
The issue-specific working groups share information
about regulatory requirements and practices in order toinform potential harmonisation efforts.
The Steering Technical Committee (STC) addresses
many issues including ensuring consistent approaches, asapplicable, among the working groups and addresses
issues within its subcommittees.
The MDEP working group activities are documented intheir programme plans.

15

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
6.1 EPR Design-specific Working Grouphas issued an interim Generic Design
Assessment of the EPR design and has madepublic a suite of technical assessment reports.
Canada (CNSC) review of the EPR design wasplaced on hold at the request of AREVA.

Highlights
The MDEP EPRWG national regulators
continued close co-operation on the design
safety reviews of AREVA’s EPR in Canada,
China, Finland, France, the United Kingdom,
and the United States. The group
incorporated discussions with the reactor
vendor and applicable licensees andoperators about the EPR design andFukushima-related issues.
The EPRWG exchanged information in
the following areas: accidents andtransients, digital I&C, severe accidents,
probabilistic safety assessments, internal
hazards, technical specifications, and thespent fuel cask loading device.
Members of the EPRWG visited the
Okiluoto 3 construction site in Finland as
well as the Cattenom nuclear power stationin France to discuss EPR design issues with
AREVA, EDF, TVO, TNPJVC, UniStar, andEDF Energy.

Accidents andTransients
Probabilistic
SafetyAssessment

EPR Working
Group

DigitalInstrumentation andControls

The working group currently includes four
subgroups that are addressing information on
specific technical issues: Accidents and Transients, Digital Instrumentation and Controls,
Probabilistic Safety Assessment, and Severe
Accidents. 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. In
addition to the four standing technical expert
subgroups, the EPRWG has ad hoc subgroups
to address important issues and to support
design safety review decision-making, such asradiation protection, technical specifications, andinternal hazards. The EPRWG provides
recommendations, when appropriate, to issuespecific working groups for considering possible
items such as a topic to address generically (forexample, common positions on digital I&C,
separationofsafetyandnon-safety
communications, and issues on hydrogen
management and core melt cooling identified by
the EPR Severe Accident Subgroup).
Accomplishments

Severe Accidents

The EPRWG has published a common
position on the EPR Digital Instrumentation andControl reactor protection system design andhas drafted common MDEP positions on(1) containment mass and energy release and(2) containment response during design basis
and severe accidents (the latter two common
positions are not yet publicly available). The
EPRWG participants addressed aspects of thereview to enhance safety and standardisation ofdesigns, co-ordinated communications on MDEP
views and common positions to vendors andoperators; drafted technical reports to identify
and document similarities and differences among
designs, regulatory safety review approaches
and resulting evaluations, and shared lessons
learned from design reviews and design issues
faced during construction. The EPRWG
developed a communications plan that covers
publishing significant documents

The EPR Working Group currently consistsof the regulatory authorities of France, Finland,
United States, United Kingdom, China andCanada. This working group was established in
January 2006 as multilateral co-operation withFrance, Finland and the US. Numerous meetings
and technical exchanges have taken place toshare information on the reviews being
conducted in each country: Olkiluoto 3 (OL3)
which is under construction in Finland; Flamanville3 which is under construction in France; and the
US version of the EPR which is under review for
design certification in the US and is referenced
by four combined license applications. In
November 2008, China and the UK were added
as members. China (NNSA) issued construction
permits for two EPRs at the Taishan site, andconstruction is well underway. UK/ONR has
completed the current phase of its review and16

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORTThe EPRWG met and communicatedfrequently with representatives of AREVA, EDF,
and other EPR-licensees, applicants, andpotential applicants to have them explain
similarities and differences among the EPR
designs being licensed in each country. The
areas of differences include the categories of (1)differing analysis; (2) differing mechanical system
features; (3) differing electrical system features;(4) differing I&C system features; and (5)differing building and ventilation features.
Reasons for such differences included utility andoperator needs, industrial practices andregulatory requirements.

September/October 2012 timeframe. At thisevent several topics will be discussed including(1) differences in modelling of reactor coolant
pump seal loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA),
calculation of loss of cooling chain (LOCC)
initiating event frequencies, and update of EPR
PRA modeling differences. The subgroup plans
to produce a draft comparison report by late
2012/early 2013.
EPRWG Accidents and Transients Subgroup
The Accidents and Transients Subgroup is
identifying differences in regulatory criteria andapproaches among the member countries. The
subgroup addressed the following topics:

The EPRWG also met with AREVA and other
EPR licensees and applicants to discuss postFukushima safety reviews. AREVA representatives
discussed the robustness of the EPR design thatis already being licensed in MDEP countries, aswell as actions AREVA/EDF is taking as a resultof the Fukushima accident to identify possible
improvements and to strengthen defense-indepth. It was agreed that the EPRWG and the
EPR family (a forum of organisations involved in
the design and licensing of the EPR in several
countries) via AREVA will continue tocommunicate regarding this issue.

(1) comparison of regulatory criteria andapproaches to analysis, (the subgroup has
produced a draft document on EPRWG
approaches);(2) comparison of evaluation methodologies forthese analyses (the subgroup will choose one
specific accident and investigate that issue
further as a pilot project);(3) availability of safety evaluations to share,(the subgroup developed a list of evaluations inthis area to share among the subgroupmembers);

EPRWG Probabilistic Safety
Assessment Subgroup(4) evaluation of containment circulation andmixing (common position drafted);

The
Probabilistic
SafetyAssessment
Subgroup is identifying the design differences
and modifications affecting risk and the maindifferences in PSAs. The issues being addressedby the subgroup include: potential loss of two
safety divisions, fire risks, I&C, level 2 PSA andsevere accidents, and use of a simplified
probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) model. The
subgroup plans to produce a technical report
documenting the differences among the designs
being reviewed in each country that affect risk
assessment, and the main differences in the PSA
results and risk profiles. The approach is being
carried out in a “top-down” approach in threephases. Currently the subgroup is in Phase 1 –Collection of initial set of information. As part ofthis phase, the subgroup conducted a web
conference in October 2011. Phases 2 and 3
involve detailed comparisons of selected internal
events, and drafting of the PRA comparison
report. As part of Phase 2, the EPRWG members
conducted a workshop in April 2012 to discuss
the detailed comparison of selected initiating
events. A future workshop to which AREVA andEDF are planned to be invited will be held in the(5) mass and energy releases in containment(common position drafted);(6) comparison of the design of control rods
(discussed with AREVA/EDF);(7) containment sump design and performance(group continues to discuss sump test
specifications and test results);(8) monitoring criticality during fuel loading(regulatory approaches were discussed, may
produce a common position on this issue);(9) heterogeneous
boron
dilution
events(regulatory approaches were discussed, may
produce a document describing the approaches
by the regulators);(10) departure from nucleate boiling ratio
methodologies (discuss further in order tounderstand the basis for the different critical heat
flux correlations).

17

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORTEPRWG Digital Instrumentation and Controls
Subgroup

In addition, the subgroup will address
lessons learned from Fukushima for EPR severe
accidents.

The Digital Instrumentation and Controls
Subgroup focused on the following five coreareas of the EPR I&C design: I&C System Independence (particularly for data communications);
Information Security; Level of Detailed Design
specifications; Levels of Defence in Depth andDiversity; and Verification and Validation of Software. Progress is being made by all countries on
the EPR digital I&C reviews, and most countries
are currently concentrating on close-out oftechnical questions in the digital I&C area. The
main technical issues raised were consistently
the independence of systems and thequalification of the SPPA T2000 platform. The
WG issued a common position documenting
aspects of the EPR design where the countries
had common agreement. The Common Position
was finalised and made public on 15 March 2011
on the MDEP public website. The subgroupplans to produce a technical report that will
identify differences and similarities among the
EPR designs and the major outcomes of
EPRWG interactions.

EPRWG ad hoc subgroup issues
In addition to the expert subgroups, the
EPRWG also held meetings and teleconferences
to discuss other issues of interest including:
Radiation Protection, Technical Specifications,Internal Hazards, and Grouted Tendons in Civil
Structures. The WG is developing a source term
survey with the goals of (1) understanding how
the source term has been defined for the various
EPR designs, (2) identifying differences andexplain their origin, and (3) sharing common
positions on this issue. A draft questionnaire wasdrafted by France, which will be sent to all
EPRWG members and co-ordinated with the
Severe Accidents and Accidents and Transients
Subgroups, and a report will be prepared basedon the results in 2013. In addition, in October
2011, EDF hosted a visit at its Cattenom site sothat EPRWG members could learn more about
the Spent Fuel Cask Loading Device that is partof the various EPR designs and is in operation inseveral French and Belgian nuclear plants.

EPRWG Severe Accidents Subgroup
The Severe Accident Subgroup has achieved
its goal of identifying and understanding thedifferences among the designs, and singled out
specific design differences for further internal
exchanges among its members. As a result of
the exchanges and further discussions by the
subgroup members, the Severe Accidents
Subgroup will focus on the following topics in the
future:sacrificial concrete composition in thereactor pit;

containment heat removal system active
flooding;debris ingression into valve compartments
near the core catcher spreading area;

pH control in the in-containment reactor
water storage tank and the drawbacksof passive pH control;dual use of the Primary Depressurisation
System (feed and bleed and severe
accidents);containment venting/filtration system.

18

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
6.2 AP1000 Design-specific Working Groups

Units 2 and 3. The NRC is reviewing applications
for an additional eight AP1000 units. The first
AP1000 in the US is expected to begin safetyrelated construction in early 2012. UK/ONR has
completed the current phase of its review andhas issued an interim Generic Design
Assessment of the AP1000 design and madepublic a suite of technical assessment reports.
CNSC completed phase 1 of its pre-project
design review on the potential choices for new
reactor construction, including the AP1000 in
January 2010. The purpose of the Phase 1
review is to determine whether the design intent
in the safety areas is compliant with the CNSC
requirements and expectations for the design of
new nuclear power plants in Canada. No further
activities are planned by CNSC in the near
future. The AP1000 DSWG chair is the US, thecountry of the design originator; and China, as
the first country to begin the construction of an
AP1000, is the vice-chair.

Highlights
The AP1000WG shares insights andevaluations of safety reviews of theAP1000 designs that are being
considered or licensed in Canada,
China, the United Kingdom, and theUnitedStates.
This
past
year,
construction has started on AP1000s in
the United States which joined the twosites in China where AP1000s are being
built.
Possible continued co-operation forthis working group are Fukushimarelated issues and operational testing aswell as other issues identified in the
Generic Design Assessment by theUnited Kingdom’s HSE/ONR, the various
AP1000 design certification amendment
requests in the US, as applicable, andissues that may be identified by China’s
NNSA.

A co-operation initiative has been set up
between NNSA and the US NRC regarding
inspector exchanges. The US NRC sent two
resident inspectors for three months and anotherinspector as a technical reviewer for one month,and one Chinese inspector trained in the NRC’s
Region II for six months. The US NRC and the
UK ONR have been sharing the results of theirreviews and resolution of significant technicalissues in the lead up to completion of major partsof their design reviews in 2011.

The AP1000 Design-specific Working Groupwas established in November 2008 with initial

The AP1000 Working Group addressed three
specific design features of the AP1000 throughexpert subgroups: civil engineering (focusing on
the design of the AP1000 shield building), squib
valves, and control rod drive mechanisms.
Accomplishments
The working group has shared design
information, application documents, and preliminary findings within the group, and identified themost significant review issues. The members
have also shared information on construction
experience. The WG members also shared information on how Fukushima lessons learned
were being addressed in each country, and thepotential impact on their review of the AP1000
design.

participation by China (NNSA), UK (ONR), andUS (NRC). Canada (CNSC) was added as amember in March 2009. A total of four AP1000
units are under construction in China at theSanmen and Haiyang sites. The NRC completed
its review of the AP1000 design and issued anamendment to the design certification in
December 2011. The NRC issued combined
construction and operating licenses to four
AP1000 units in early 2012 and construction isunderway at Vogtle Units 3 and 4 and Summer

AP1000WG Civil Engineering Subgroup
The civil engineering subgroup was formed
primarily to address the unique design of the19

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
shield building, and outstanding questions
regarding the modular construction techniques tobe used. The subgroup members comparedresults of their separate reviews of the shieldbuilding design and came to similar conclusions
regarding fundamental concerns. The discussions were helpful in confirming conclusions
already identified by the regulators. In theabsence of applicable design standards forconcrete composite structures, the expert
subgroup developed a preliminary set oftechnical considerations to be used for novel civilengineering construction (such as modular steel
composite structures). These considerations may
be used to provide input to the standards
organisations in developing a code case formodular construction.

AP1000WG ad hoc subgroup issues
In addition to the expert subgroupinteractions, WG members shared information on
the digital I&C system and spent fuel pool
design.

AP1000WG Squib Valve Subgroup
The AP1000WG Squib Valve Subgroup wasformed to address the unique design of the incontainment refueling water storage tankinjection fourth-stage depression valves (squib
valves). The squib valves to be used on the
AP1000 are much larger than those used inexisting nuclear applications. The members
agreed that the lack of experience with largesquib valves required particular care in thedesign, qualification, and in-service inspection/testing of these valves. The Squib Valve
Subgroup issued a common position on technicalguidelines for the design, qualification, and inservice inspection/testing of explosive-actuatedvalves. The guidelines are intended to be helpful
to regulators and the nuclear industry inunderstanding the technical issues associatedwith large, explosive-actuated valves used in
AP1000 reactors and other reactor designs.
AP1000WG
Subgroup

Control

Rod

Drive

SystemThe Control Rod Drive System Subgroup
was formed to address the safety classification,
particularly the classification of the latch mechanisms and the adequacy of any associatedtesting or analysis to show that the latch mechanisms can perform their intended safety function.
The subgroup members compared informationon the design and the reasons for theirconclusions on safety classification.

20

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
6.3 Vendor Inspection Co-operation Issuespecific Working Groupof the requirements, and develop an MDEPQA/QM inspection procedure.
The VICWG enhances the understanding ofeach regulator’s inspection procedures andpractices by co-ordinating witnessed inspectionsof safety related mechanical pressure retaining
components (Class 1) such as pressure vessels,
steam generators, piping, valves, pumps, etc.,
and quality assurance (QA) inspections. In
addition, they share inspection results through adatabase. Longer term, a process will be
developed to adapt the scope of an inspection
according to the need of other regulators.

Highlights
To move toward its goal of carrying out
multinational inspections of vendors ofreactor components, the MDEP VICWG coordinated six witnessed inspections and one
joint inspection, in 2011. The experience
gained through these common inspections
has begun to be processed to extract thebest practices and find out the impediment
to be overcome. Moreover, the VICWG is
working to identify a common set of quality
assurance criteria to be used as
requirementsformultinational
QA
inspections.

Accomplishments
The VICWG has achieved its short-termgoals and continues to make progress towards
achieving its long-term programme goals. For theintermediate term, emphasis will be placed on
maximising information sharing, joint inspections(multiple nations inspecting to the regulatory
requirements of one country), and witnessing ofother regulators’ inspections. The VICWG will also
work with standards developing organisations(SDOs) to encourage and explore harmonisation of
QA/QM standards.

The VICWG finalised its survey on
quality assurance programme requirements
which details how each country performs its
inspections of vendor activities. To go one
step further in the understanding of different
countries inspection practices, the VICWG
also decided to update and complement its
2008 survey on vendor inspection practices.
The VICWG shares through the MDEP
Library their up-to-date inspection programmes for inspections to be opened towitnessing or participation.

A total of six witnessed inspections and one
joint inspection were conducted pursuant to the
VICWG Programme Plan in 2011. Witnessed
inspections consist of one regulator performing
an inspection to its criteria, observed byrepresentatives of other MDEP countries. The
benefits to the observing countries include
additional information and added confidence in
the inspection results. MDEP regulators areusing the experience gained during conduct of
VICWG witnessed inspections in their inspection
planning.

Background
The Vendor Inspection Co-operation Working
Group (VICWG) was formed because component
manufacturing is currently subject to multiple
inspections and audits similar in scope and insafety objectives, but conducted by different
regulators to different criteria. The primary goalof the VICWG is to maximise the use of theresults obtained from other regulator’s efforts in
inspecting vendors.

Joint inspections consist of one regulator
conducting an inspection according to its own
regulatory framework with the active participationof one or more other regulators. This would allow
the participating members to use the results of
the inspection that are applicable to theirregulations. One joint inspection of Doosan washeld with participation by KINS and NRC. It was
found to be a worthwhile experience andproductive to all involved. Overall the joint
inspection was deemed a success at saving
resources
andcontinuing
exchangeofinformation among VICWG members.

Long-term goals of the working group include
harmonisation of quality assurance/management(QA/QM) requirements and standards; harmonisation of vendor inspection practices among
MDEP regulators; and performing multinational
inspections of vendors according to the common
QA/QM requirements. To achieve these goals,
the VICWG is working to identify and document a
set of common QA requirements, agree on an
acceptable method to assess the implementation

The VICWG maintains a vendor inspection
planning table with a list of scheduled vendor

21

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
inspections to assist the member regulators in
identifying opportunities to observe an inspection
or obtain the results of an inspection carried out
by another member.

from multiple regulators on a vendor against acommon set of requirements) is under discussion
by the WG. Conducting joint inspections andformulating common QA/QM criteria are
informing the issue of conducting multinational
inspections.

In order to improve the process for sharing
inspection results, the WG developed aprocedure to share inspection results, andimproved the MDEP Library to include aninspection results database. This databaseincludes not only the reports of witnessed andjoint inspections, but all inspections that may beof interest to MDEP members. Based on lessons
learned from conducting witnessed and joint
inspections, the WG continues to update theprocedure for sharing inspection results, andimproves the library to make the inspection
results database more user-friendly.

The WG plans to identify common quality
assurance requirements from 10 CFR 50
Appendix B, IAEA GS-R-3, and ISO 9001+ that
could be acceptable to MDEP regulators. The
long-term goal of the WG is to harmonise asignificant portion of the quality assurance
inspection procedures so that the results of aninspection conducted by one member could be
used by the other members, requiring that othermember countries only inspect that portion of
their requirements not covered by the common
inspection procedure. The working group willinteract with the standards development
organisations (ASME, JSME, AFCEN, KEA,
CSA, NIKIET) to start discussing ideas about
potential harmonisation of standards. Longer
term, the working group is consideringdeveloping a common MDEP vendor inspection
procedure that could be used for multinational
vendor inspections.

The working group conducted a survey on
quality assurance requirements used in theoversight of vendors to identify those areas wherethe various regulators have common regulatory
frameworks. A comparison table was analysed,
and a QA/QM Criteria Comparison Report written.
The survey results are available on the MDEP
website as MDEP VICWG-02 Technical Report.
Using this comparison, the WG will pursue
identifying MDEP Core QA requirements byaugmenting
thecomparison
with
those
requirements used by MDEP regulators from 10
CFR Part 50 Appendix B, IAEA GS-R-3, and ISO
9001+. This activity supports the identification ofcommon QA requirements that could be
acceptable to MDEP regulators and that could
eventually support multinational inspections.
Future Actions
The participating regulators have gainedmuch experience in each other’s inspection
processes through MDEP witnessed and joint
inspections conducted since 2008. Therefore, theworking group will continue to co-ordinate
witnessed inspections and will increase its focus
on joint inspections in 2012. This will continue toenhance the exchange of information between
the regulators and provide better understandingof the inspection scopes and safety findings andhow these findings may be utilised. The WG goal
is to hold at least two joint inspections in 2012. In
addition, the working group will consider
conducting a joint inspection with more than two
regulators to help inform the process of preparing
for multinational inspections. The issue of
conducting multinational inspections (defined as
an inspection that is carried out by inspectors

22

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
6.4 Codes and Standards Working Group

committee composed of the representatives of
ASME, JSME, KEPIC, AFCEN, CSA, vendors,
and utilities which performed a comparison of
their pressure-boundary codes and standards toidentify the extent of similarities and differencesin code requirements and the reasons for theirdifferences
(this
group
was
eventuallyaugmented by representatives from Russia’s
NIKIET). The CSWG was represented on thesteering committee by the representative fromthe US NRC. The SDOs compared requirementsof their pressure-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
and issued a report. The results enabled the
CSWG to understand from a global perspective
how each country’s pressure-boundary code or
standard evolved into its current form andcontent.

Highlights
The goals of the MDEP CSWG include
promoting harmonisation of mechanical codesand standards, where possible, for important
reactor pressure boundary components. With
those goals in mind, the CSWG has worked
closely with the various standards development
organisations (SDOs) in Canada, France, Japan,
Korea, Russia, and the United States, as well as
industry representatives interested in piloting
harmonisation through the World Nuclear
Association’s (WNA) Working Group on Cooperation in Reactor Design Evaluation andLicensing (CORDEL).
The SDOs achieved a major milestone bycompleting the initial version of the CodeComparison report which can be used by the
CSWG, SDOs, and the industry as a basis to
move forward with harmonisation efforts.
The CSWG will work with the SDOs in theformulation and execution of their planned Code
Convergence Board and with WNA/CORDEL to
explore harmonisation efforts. The CSWG willcontinue to finalise its common positions on theplan for code harmonisation, and thefundamental
attributes
andessential
performance guidelines for pressure boundary
components.

The CSWG will work closely with SDOs and
WNA/CORDEL to converge code requirements
and reconcile code differences. The CSWG isalso working with the SDOs to develop a strategy
to prevent, minimise or limit future code
divergences (the SDOs have proposed formationof an SDO Code Convergence Board to limit
future code differences and explore opportunities
for harmonisation of existing code requirements).
Other objectives of the WG include exploring
ways to evaluate acceptability of componentsthat are designed and manufactured using
foreign codes and standards, and evaluating thedifferences in codes applications on the quality
and safety of nuclear power plants.

BackgroundThe ultimate goal of the Codes andStandards
WorkingGroup(CSWG)
isharmonisation of code requirements for designand construction of pressure-retaining (pressure
boundary) components in order to improve theeffectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory
design reviews, increase quality of safetyassessments, and to make each regulator
stronger in its ability to make safety decisions.

Accomplishments
The code comparison report and tables were
finalised and were made publicly available on the
ASME website (in the form of an ASME Standard
Technical Publication) and the NEA’s MDEP
public website. Although the comparison of theRussian Code (NIKIET’s PNAE G-7 Code)against the ASME Code has been completed,
there was not sufficient time to include thiscomparison into the current report. The Russian
Code comparison will be included in Revision 1
to the report in 2012, along with some changes
to the JSME comparison. The SDOs’ CodeComparison report does not make any

The CSWG recognised early on that the firststep to achieving harmonisation is to understandthe extent of similarities and differences amongst
the pressure-boundary codes and standards
used in various countries. The CSWG encouraged
standards development organisations (SDOs) to
conduct code comparisons, study the similarities
and differences between codes, and develop a
strategy and process for achieving code
harmonisation. The SDOs formed a steering

23

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
long-term goals and the SDOs’ code comparison
effort and proposed to take harmonisation to thenext level by trying to converge on selected code
differences that have the most impact and are
relatively easy to achieve. CORDEL has
proposed a pilot project regarding exploration ofpotential harmonisation among the various
codes. Based on the results of the SDOs’ code
comparison, CORDEL and the SDOs areplanning to select a few specific code rules
where differences have the most important
industrial impact and convergence is relatively
easy to achieve. CORDEL plans to choose
independent technical experts to propose a“harmonised” version of the code differences orto demonstrate equivalence of these differences.
The proposed pilot project will be co-ordinatedand funded by CORDEL, and will be conductedin co-ordination with the CSWG. WNA/CORDEL
is in the process of creating a survey to send toits members, SDOs, and MDEP to inform thechoice of topics for potential code harmonisation.

conclusions about the comparisons. The CSWG
will evaluate the report and make conclusions on
the code-comparison and harmonisation ofpressure-boundary codes and standards.
The results provided a significant amount of
information about the comprehensiveness andtechnical adequacy of each country’s pressureboundary codes and standards and produced awealth of useful information about the technicaland programmatic similarities and differences
between each country’s codes including thereasons for these differences. Consequently, theresults will enable regulators as well as otherusers of the code comparison report to determine
the impact of those differences and their safetysignificance as well as provide insights into thelevel of effort needed to reconcile thosedifferences.
The WG developed several work products
separate from the SDOs’ code comparison
activity. These documents will eventually takeform as CSWG common positions. An overallplan for harmonisation document is being
discussed by the CSWG. A Fundamental
Attributes of Mechanical Codes document wasdrafted that establishes high-level requirements
or fundamental concepts for codes andstandards. The WG also drafted a Essential
Performance Guidelines document, and a
Description of MDEP Regulator’s Practices inUsing Mechanical Codes and Standards. The
WG plans to seek input on this documents frominternal and external stakeholders in the middleof 2012 and then to finalise and issue thesecommon positions.

The WG will explore ways to evaluate theacceptability of components that are designed
and manufactured using foreign codes andstandards, and to evaluate the differences incodes applications on the quality and safety of
nuclear power plants.
Plans to further expand the scope of work to
include Class 2 and 3 vessels, piping, pumps
and valves will depend on the success of the
project for Class 1 components. Ultimately,
MDEP will consider expanding the codes andstandards harmonisation effort to areas beyondpressure boundary components.

Next steps
The results of the code comparison project
enabled the CSWG to take the next steps
towards harmonisation of codes and standards.
The CSWG will keep engaged with the SDOs’
efforts in forming an SDO Code Convergence
Board and its commitment to limit future
significant code divergence and exploring
opportunities to harmonise existing requirements.
In addition, the CSWG has been interacting with
the World Nuclear Association’s Working Groupon the Co-operation in Reactor Design
Evaluation and Licensing (WNA/CORDEL)
regarding its plans for achieving international
standardisation of reactor designs, the CORDEL
Group identified an urgent need for theinternational harmonisation of standards andcodes. CORDEL is supportive of the CSWG’s

24

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
6.5 Digital Instrumentation and Controls
Working Group

IAEA standards that are relevant to the regulatory review of digital I&C systems. They makesuggestions to, and share observations and insights learned with, standards development
organisations regarding harmonisation andconvergence of standards.

Highlights
A goal of the MDEP Digtial
Instrumentation and Control Working
Group(DICWG)istoexploreharmonisation of national and international
codes and standards in the area of digital
instrumentation and control of reactor
safety systems. In 2011, the DICWG
documented two additional common
positions addressing the areas of the
impact of cyber security features on safetysystems in nuclear power plants and on
digital instrumentation and control safetysystems in the areas of verification andvalidation of digital control systems.

The DICWG facilitates timely and efficient
sharing of knowledge and experience among
members, thus allowing knowledge transfer andmore effective safety reviews. The WG also
engages a broad spectrum of utilities andequipment vendors to exchange relevant
information and lessons learned relevant to theworking group’s efforts.
Accomplishments
The working group has identified 12 topics
for which it will pursue the development ofcommon positions. The priority for developing
each common position is assessed through (1)the level of effort for development of the common
position, based on the scope of the guidance andthe perceived or actual consensus of theposition, and (2) the technical significance of thecommon position, based on the significance ofthe regulatory need for the common position.

The DICWG interacts routinely with
the IAEA, IEC, and IEEE in encouraging
harmonisation of digital instrumentationand control requirements.

BackgroundTo date, the working group has finalised fivecommonpositionson
SoftwareTools,
Communication Independence, Simplicity in
Design, the Verification and Validation of Digital
Safety Systems, and the Impact of Cyber
Security Features on Digital Safety Systems andthose common positions have been madepublicly available on the MDEP website. These
positions have been provided to the MDEP
Steering Technical Committee for approval.
Seven additional common positions are underdevelopment. The common positions underdevelopment include:

The primary goals of the Digital Instrumentation and Controls Working Group are to develop
generic common positions for the digital
instrumentation and control issues of significance, and to make substantial progress
toward harmonisation of digital instrumentationand control standards. The DICWG works toincreasecollaboration,
co-operation,andknowledge transfer among members and withother stakeholders to achieve the goals above.
The DICWG is enhancing its co-operation
with the standards organisations, Institute ofElectrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) andInternational Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).
Both organisations expressed a significant
interest in DICWG and expressed theircommitment to co-operate with the working
group. Representatives from IEC, and the IAEA
participate in most of the working groupmeetings, and IEC allowed a number of theirstandards relevant to digital I&C to be madeavailable in the MDEP Library for use by theworking group members. The IEC formalised anagreement with the OECD to facilitate cooperation between the two organisations. In
addition, the DICWG members jointly researchand comment on proposed IEC, IEEE, and the Software Common Cause Failures in Safety
Systems
 Complex Electronics
 Qualification of Industrial Digital Devices ofLimited Functionality for Use in Safety
Applications
 System Architecture Considerations for
Systems Classified at the Highest Safety
Level Configuration Management for Software
 Factory and Site Acceptance Testing Surveillance and Periodic Testing25

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
6.6

The DICWG reviewed the new IAEA Safety
Guide for I&C Systems in Nuclear Power Plants(DS-431) and identified recommendations for
how the draft guide should be modified to beconsistent with the five MDEP common positions
that have been or are close to issuance. In
December 2011, the Chair of the DICWG
participated in an IAEA technical meeting toreview the Draft I&C Safety Guide, representing
MDEP’s position. The IAEA embraced MDEP’s
recommendations, and incorporated nearly all of
MDEP’s comments.

Safety classification

Highlights
In 2011 the STC decided to coordinate MDEP views and input to the
IAEA revision of draft safety guide 367,
“Safety Classification of Structures,
Systems, and Components of Nuclear
Power Plants.” Members of thisSubcommittee have attended several
IAEA consultancy meetings on thissubject and plan to continue to interact
with the IAEA and other stakeholders inthis process to provide MDEP input.

The working group continued to achieve theobjective of sharing of valuable information. The
working group continues to implement a formal“Quick Inquiry” process to generate and process
inquiries from member countries to promote anefficient and structured information exchange
and provide for storing this information in a
retrievable database. The DICWG maintains
frequent communication with the design-specificworking groups, particularly with the EPR Digital
Instrumentation and Controls Subgroup.

Background
Several of the MDEP working groups raised
concerns regarding challenges encountered by
the use of different safety classification schemes
by MDEP members. A subcommittee of the STC
was formed to explore the issues association
with safety classification which focused its efforts
on providing input to a draft IAEA standard
DS367, “Safety Classification of Structures,
Systems and Components in Nuclear Power
Plants”.

Next steps
The working group will work to finalisecommon positions for the remaining issues. The
working group has prioritised the issues and has
identified schedules for development, review,
and issuance of each common position.

On 14-18 November 2011, representatives ofthree MDEP members, US, Canada, andFinland, participated in a consultancy meeting at
the IAEA on the DG-367, “Safety Classification of
Systems, Structures, and Components.” Theparticipants presented their organisation’scomments and positions, as well as shared anddiscussed the perspectives from MDEP on thesubject. Additional consultancy meetings will benecessary to address the comments and finalise
DS-367. The participants will keep MDEP
informed of the DS-367 development status andpath forward.

The working group will communicate specificsuggestions to the standards organisations andthe IAEA for consideration of harmonisation in atimely manner when they are identified during its
activities. For example, MDEP may be able tohelp co-ordinate the development of cybersecurity standards by serving as the focal point
for harmonising the IAEA, ISO, IEC, and IEEE
cyber security standards development.
The working group will continue to engage
digital I&C vendors and utilities to shareexperience and insights toward developing
common positions that are based on a broad
spectrum of inputs.

.

.

26

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
7.

 Provided consolidated MDEP recommended
modifications to the IAEA for a draft Safety
Guide on I&C Systems in Nuclear Power
Plants (DS-431) consistent with MDEP
common positions, which were well
accepted and incorporated.

INTERIM RESULTS

MDEP is considered a long-term programmethat focuses on interim results. Interim results are
significant events that communicate MDEP
activities and those products such as common
positions that document agreement by MDEP
member countries and are necessary steps inworking towards increased co-operation andconvergence. The interim results for 2011
include: Co-ordinated MDEP views and communications about the revision of DS-367, “Safety
Classification of Structures, Systems, andComponents of Nuclear Power Plants.
 Although the STC Subcommittee’s work on
safety goals was completed in 2010 with the
documentation of its safety goals position
paper, members of the subcommittee were
key players in the IAEA’s workshop on
safety goals in April 2011.

 Conducted the Second MDEP Conference
on New Reactor Design Activities to further
communicate MDEP activities to important
stakeholders including non-MDEP regulatorsand industry
 Drafted common positions on the evaluationof containment circulation and mixing, andmass and energy releases in containment
for the EPR.

8.

NEXT STEPS – FUTURE OF THE
PROGRAMME

The results of the self-assessment,
discussed in section 3.0, will be used as an input
to determining (1) when current activities andworking groups should be considered complete,(2) the process of closing out activities, ortransferring them to other organisations, (3) therole of design-specific working groups after
completion of the planned design reviews and (4)possible new topics to be addressed by the
programme.

 Co-operated on six witnessed vendor
inspections and one joint inspection.
 Updated and finalised a QA/QM Criteria
Comparison Report survey on quality
assurance requirements used in theoversight of vendors.
 Interacted with the standards development
organisations to complete and issuecomparison tables of the ASME Boiler andPressure Vessel Code, AFCEN’s RCCM
Code, JSME S NC1, NIKIET’s PNAE G-7
Code, CSA’s N285.0 Code,and KEPIC code
for Class 1 pressure vessels, piping, pumps,
and valves.

MDEP will use the following criteria toevaluate whether a proposed activity should beundertaken as part of MDEP (in the form of aworking group for a new generic topic or a
subcommittee of the STC): Identified a complete list of 12 technicalissues in the area of digital I&C that will be
pursued by MDEP for the development ofcommon positions.
 Finalised common positions, on verificationand validation throughout the life cycle ofsafety systems using digital computers, andon the impact of cyber security features on
digital safety systems.
 Drafted common positions on “Harmonisationof Mechanical Codes for Pressure Boundary
Components,” “Fundamental Attributes of
Mechanical Codes” that establishes highlevel requirements or fundamental concepts
for codes and standards, and ”Essential
Performance Guidelines” and a technicalreport on “Description of MDEP Regulator’s
Practices in Using Mechanical Codes andStandards.”

27

(1)

the activity is of generic interest and ofsafety significance to the licensing of newreactors in MDEP member countries;(2)

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

the successful completion of the activity
would
likelyresultinincreasedharmonisation/convergence in regulatory
practices or increased co-operation withina reasonable timeframe and resource
expenditures;(4)

any new MDEP activity should not
duplicate similar efforts that are alreadyongoing or are planned to be undertaken
by other more appropriate organisations
such as the CNRA/WGRNR (or other NEA
WGs), the IAEA, GIF, WENRA, etc. except

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT
where MDEP could contribute to theongoing work of these groups;(5)

any new activity should have a leadcountry willing to take an active leadershiprole, and should have a defined product.

MDEP can play a significant, positive role byco-operating with current efforts in otherorganisations, and will search out areas where it
can act as a catalyst for enhanced regulatory cooperation and convergence in other forums.
MDEP is in a unique position to effect positivechange because it includes the regulatory
authorities of over three quarters of the reactors
world-wide and represents those agencies at thehighest levels. MDEP is using its influence toinitiate change and will contribute to the successof other initiatives including those of the IAEA
and NEA.

28

Appendix A
Summary of MDEP products: March 2011-March 201229

Summary of MDEP products: March 2011-March 2012

The MDEP Steering Technical Committee approved the following documents which were
issued during the period March 2011 – March 2012. They are available on the MDEP
website, http://www.oecd-nea.org/mdep/.
Generic Common Position DICWG No 3: Common Position on Verification andValidation throughout the Life Cycle of Digital Safety Systems
The Digital I&C Working Group developed this common position to provide guidance on how
validation and verification should be implemented for nuclear power plant safety systems.
The position applies to V&V activities for digital safety systems throughout their life cycles
and encompasses both software and hardware for such systems. The position provides
guidance on confirming compliance with the system functional performance and interface
requirements; the qualification of individuals performing V&V, documentation of information;use of pre-developed software, and change control.
Generic Common Position on Verification and Validation:
1) V&V should confirm that the products of each development phase fulfil therequirements or conditions imposed by the previous phase, and confirm compliancewith the system functional performance and interface requirements.
2) In the digital safety system’s life cycle, all relevant processes should be defined.
V&V should be conducted in accordance with the V&V plan.
3) V&V should be performed by technically qualified individuals in an appropriately
independent group who has not been engaged in design & development of thesystem.
4) All information and processes required for V&V should be properly documented.
5) Pre-developed software should be in accordance with the V&V plan
6) Change control should be implemented throughout the life cycle
Generic Common Position DICWG No 8: Common Position on the Impact of Cyber
Security Features on Digital I&C Safety Systems
This common position documents the member countries’ agreement that implementation of
cyber security features should not adversely impact the performance (including responsetime), effectiveness, reliability or operation of safety functions. It is recognised that a cybersecurity program may be implemented at nuclear facilities to protect against cyber attacks,
and the implementation of such a cyber security program may vary based on site specificrequirements and each country’s regulatory frameworks. This common position is intended
to only apply to systems classified to the highest level of safety. Generic Common Positionon the Impact of Cyber Security Features:30

1) Implementation of cyber security features should not adversely impact theperformance (including response time), effectiveness, reliability or operation of safetyfunctions.
2) Implementation of cyber security features directly in the safety system should be
avoided when practical.
3) If cyber security features are implemented in safety system displays and controls,
they should not adversely impact the operator’s ability to maintain the safety of theplant.
4) If cyber security features need to be implemented on digital I&C safety systems,
adequate measures should be taken to ensure that these features do not adversely
affect the ability of a system to perform its safety functions
5) Cyber security features included in safety systems should be developed and qualified
to the same level of qualification as the system these features reside in.
VICWG-02 Technical Report - Survey on Quality Assurance Program Requirements
This survey was prepared by the Vendor Inspection Co-operation Working Group tocompare the quality assurance program requirements of the MDEP regulatory bodies. The
survey was prepared using the format of the U.S. requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFRPart 50, “Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing
Plants.” These requirements form the basis upon which the U.S. NRC oversees the activities
of vendors providing parts and services to the commercial U.S. nuclear power industry. The
survey of each MDEP member’s requirements is divided into the 18 basic criteria of
Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50. Within each criteria there are individual requirements thathave been identified as separate and distinct elements that are covered during theinspection of vendor activities.

31Appendix B
Table of acronyms

32

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORT

Table of acronyms

AP1000WG

Advanced Pressurised Reactor Working Group (MDEP)

AFCEN

French Society for Design and Construction and in-Service Inspection Rules /Association Française pour les règles de Conception, de construction et desurveillance en exploitation des matériels des Chaudières Electro Nucléaires

ASME

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

CNRA

Committee on Nuclear Regulation (NEA)

CNSC

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

CORDEL

Co-operation in Reactor Design Evaluation and Licensing

CSA

Canadian Standards Association

CSWG

Codes and Standards Working Group (MDEP)

DI&C

Digital Instrumentation and Control

DICWG

Digital Instrumentation and Control Working Group (MDEP)EDFElectricité de France

EPR

Evolutionary Pressurised Reactor

EPRWG

Evolutionary Pressurised Reactor Working Group (MDEP)

GIF

Generation IV international Forum

GS-R-3

IAEA Safety Standards/the Management System for Facilities andActivities/Safety Requirements

IAEA

International Atomic Energy Agency

I&C

Instrumentation and Controls

IEC

International Electro-technical CommisstionIEEE

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

INSAG

International Nuclear Safety GroupISOInternational Standards Organisation

JSME

Japan Society of Mechanical Engineering

KEA

Korean Electronic Association

KEPIC

Korea Electric Power Industry

MDEP

Multinational Design Evaluation Programme

MHI

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

NEA

Nuclear Energy Agency

33

2011-2012 MDEP ANNUAL REPORTNIKIET

Russian Research and Development Institute of Power Engineering

NNSA

National Nuclear Safety Administration (China)

NPEC

Nulcear Power Engineering Committee

NRC

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (United States)

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OL3

Olkiluoto-3

ONR

Office for Nuclear Regulation (UK)PNAE G-7

Russian Rules for Deisgn and Safety Operation of Equipment and Piping of
Nuclear Installations

PG

Policy Group (MDEP)

PSA

Probabilistic Safety Assessment

QA

Quality Assurance

RCC-M

Design and construction rules for mechanical components of PWR nuclear
islands (Règles de conception et de construction des matériels mécaniques desîlots nucléaires des REP)

RHWG

Reactor Harmonisation Working Group

RSWG

Risk Safety Working Group

SDO

Standards Development Organisations

S-NCI

Japanese Standards for Nuclear Power Generation Equipment: Design andConstruction Standards

STC

Steering Technical Committee (MDEP)STUKRadiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (Finland)

TOR

Terms of Reference

VICWG

Vendor Inspection Co-operation Working GroupWENRA

Western European Nuclear Regulators Association

WNA

World Nuclear Association

WGRNR

Working Group on the Regulation of New Reactors (NEA)

34

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENTThe OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 34 democracies work together to address the economic, socialand environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help
governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and thechallenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy
experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international
policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission takes part in the work of theOECD.
OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic,
social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members.

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

NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCYThe OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1 February 1958. Current NEA membership consists of
30 OECD member countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and theUnited States. The European Commission also takes part in the work of the Agency.
The mission of the NEA is:– to assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international co-operation, thescientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentally friendly and economical use of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as well as– to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues, as input to government
decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD policy analyses in areas such as energy and sustainable
development.
Specific areas of competence of the NEA include the safety and regulation of nuclear activities, radioactive waste
management, radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technical analyses of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear law
and liability, and public information.
The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear data and computer program services for participating countries. In these andrelated tasks, the NEA works in close collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, with which it
has a Co-operation Agreement, as well as with other international organisations in the nuclear field.

© OECD 2012
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia
products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of the OECD as source
and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for
permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at
info@copyright.com or the Centre français d'exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) contact@cfcopies.com.

Photo credits for cover: Taishan EPR, China (TNPJVC), Olkitluoto-3, Finland (TVO). MDEP DICWG, Paris (OECD/NEA).
Page 6: Policy Group meeting, Paris (OECD/NEA). Back Cover: Taishan EPRs, China (TNPJVC), OL3, Finland (TVO),MDEP Policy Group 2nd MDEP Conference, Paris, France (OECD/NEA)

35

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