MULTINATIONAL DESIGNEVALUATION PROGRAMME
Annual Report
April 2015-April 2016
May 2016

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

A(M

MULTINATIONAL DESIGNEVALUATION PROGRAMME
Annual Report
April 2015 – April 2016
May 2016

MDEP Policy Group Meeting, Issy-les-Moulineaux (Paris), France, 4 June 2015.

MDEP Steering Technical Committee Meeting, Rockville, MD, United States, 19 January 2016.

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

FOREWORD FROM THE POLICY GROUP CHAIR
It is once again my privilege to share some thoughts on the Multinational
Design Evaluation Programme (MDEP) Annual Report for 2015-2016. The
Annual Report provides an opportunity to reflect on the achievements ofcollaboration under this unique programme for regulatory activities related
to new reactors. The contents of this report demonstrate anothersuccessful year for MDEP.
This year marks the 10th anniversary of the creation of MDEP. In the pastten years, MDEP’s reputation as an effective organization for leveraging
the resources and experiences of multiple nations for regulatory review of new reactors hasgrown significantly. As a result, the portfolio of new reactor designs that are being addressed
have increased from two in 2006 to five, with a possibility of adding more new reactor designs in
the coming years. MDEP’s membership has grown from the original 10 national regulators to 15.
In 2015, I was pleased to welcome our fifteenth member, the Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority(HAEA). The HAEA’s initial focus will be to participate in the design-specific group for VVER
reactor design.
Over the past year, MDEP design-specific working groups have made significant progress
towards completing their common positions to address the impact of the Fukushima Daiichi
accident on new reactor designs. The EPR Working Group has completed its common position,
which is published on MDEP’s public website. The other four design-specific working groups
have completed their draft common positions, which are expected to be finalized and publishedin the coming months.
New reactor commissioning activities are a major part of all design-specific working groups.
Co-operation among EPR and AP1000 Working Group members are particularly active as these
two reactors are addressing commissioning issues related to a first-of-a-kind reactor in bothcases. I am also pleased to see the enhanced MDEP collaboration with the NEA Working Groupon the Regulation of New Reactors (WGRNR) on generic aspects of commissioning activities. In
March of this year, MDEP and WGRNR held their first joint workshop in Korea. During the 2-day
workshop, 68 regulators and experts from 15 countries tackled 11 major issues that wereidentified as being challenging or safety-significant during the commissioning phase.
Finally, I am happy to report that in 2015 the Policy Group made strategic decisions on the futureof MDEP to ensure continued, productive and focused engagement for years to come. Based ona thorough evaluation of data collected from member regulators in 2014, the Policy Group madea decision to extend the co-operation period from the end of 2017 to the end of 2022, focusing on
its core mission of collaborating on new reactor design-specific activities. Generic issue-specificworking groups will be terminated in MDEP with the aim of continuing the work in other NEA
committees so as to benefit more NEA member countries.
Overall, MDEP continues to function smoothly, in no small measure as a result of the support of
the NEA as the MDEP Secretariat. We owe a great deal of gratitude to Mr Javier Reig who
recently retired from his position as the Head of the NEA Division of Nuclear Safety Technology
and Regulation, a post he held for over 12 years. I wish him all the best in his well-deserved
retirement.
Petteri Tiippana,
MDEP Policy Group Chairman
3

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 7
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 9
2. PROGRAMME GOALS AND OUTCOMES .............................................................................. 9
3. PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................... 10
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

Membership .................................................................................................................... 10
Organizational structure .................................................................................................. 10
MDEP Library ................................................................................................................. 11
Common positions .......................................................................................................... 12

4. INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS .............................................................. 12
5. CURRENT ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................... 15
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8

EPR Working Group (EPRWG) ...................................................................................... 17
AP1000 Working Group (AP1000WG) ............................................................................ 20
APR1400 Design-specific Working Group (APR1400WG) .............................................. 22
VVER Working Group (VVERWG) .................................................................................. 24
ABWR Working Group (ABWRWG) ................................................................................ 26
Vendor Inspection Co-operation Working Group (VICWG) ............................................. 27
Codes and Standards Working Group (CSWG) .............................................................. 29
Digital Instrumentation and Controls Working Group (DICWG) ....................................... 31

6. INTERIM RESULTS............................................................................................................... 33
7. NEXT STEPS – FUTURE OF THE PROGRAMME ............................................................... 34
APPENDIX 1: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................... 39
APPENDIX 2: REVISED DOCUMENTS AND PUBLICATIONS ................................................. 43
APPENDIX 3: PHOTOGRAPHS OF REACTORS CONSIDERED WITHIN MDEP .................... 47

5

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The
Multinational
DesignEvaluation
Programme (MDEP) is a multinational
initiative to leverage the resources andknowledge of national regulatory authorities
that are, or will shortly be, undertaking thereview of new reactor power plant designs.
MDEP members are the regulatory
authorities of Canada (CNSC), China(NNSA), Finland (STUK), France (ASN),
Hungary (HAEA), India (AERB), Japan(NRA),Korea(NSSC),
theRussian Federation (Rostechnadzor), South
Africa (NNR), Sweden (SSM), Turkey(TAEK), the United Arab Emirates (FANR),
the United Kingdom (ONR) and the UnitedStates (NRC). The International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) also takes part in thework of MDEP and the Nuclear Energy
Agency (NEA) performs the Technical
Secretariat function in support of MDEP.
MDEP incorporates a broad range ofactivities including enhancing multilateral
co-operation within existing regulatory
frameworks, and increasing multinational
convergence of codes, standards, guides,
and safety goals. A key concept throughout
the work of MDEP is that national regulators
retain sovereign authority for all licensing andregulatory decisions.
Working groups are implementing theactivities in accordance with programmeplans with specific activities and goals, andhave established the necessary interfaces
both within and outside of MDEP. This reportprovides a status of the programme after its
eighth year of implementation.
Significant progress is being made on theoverall
MDEP
goals
of
increased
co-operation and enhanced convergence of
requirements and practices. In addition, thelessons learnt from the 11 March 2011
events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power plant are being appropriately
incorporated into MDEP activities in the
Design-specific Working Group (DSWG)
programme plans.
Five DSWGs are facilitating the MDEP goalof enhanced co-operation. The EPR Working

Group (EPRWG) consists of the regulatory
authorities of China, Finland, France, India,
Sweden, the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates. The AP1000 Working Group(AP1000WG) consists of the regulatory
authorities of Canada, China, Sweden, theUnited Kingdom and the United States. The
APR1400 Working Group (APR1400WG)
includes the regulatory authorities of Korea,
the United Arab Emirates and theUnited States. The VVER Working Group(VVERWG) includes the regulatory authorities
of China, Finland, Hungary, India, Russia andTurkey. The ABWR Working Group(ABWRWG) includes the regulatory authorities
of Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom andthe United States. The DSWGs have beensuccessful in sharing information andexperience on the safety design reviews withthe purposes of enhancing the safety of thedesign and enabling regulators to make timely
licensing decisions, and of promoting safety
and standardization of designs through MDEP
co-operation.
The Vendor Inspection Co-operation Working
Group (VICWG) continues to achieve its
short-term goals with the completion of two
technical reports on Multinational Inspection
and on Vendor Oversight Good Practices in
2015, completed a major step towards
achieving its long-term programme goals.
The VICWG continues to focus on
maximizing
information
sharing,
joint
inspections (multiple regulators inspecting to
the regulatory requirements of one country),
and witnessingofotherregulators’
inspections. A total of nine witnessed andjoint inspections were conducted through
MDEP in 2015. The VICWG is alsointerfacing with standards development
organizations to encourage and explore
harmonization of quality standards.
The Digital Instrumentation and Controls(I&C) Working Group (DICWG) has issued
11 common positions based on the existing
standards, national regulatory guidance, bestpractices, and group inputs using an agreed
upon process and framework. These
common positions describe methods andevidences that all DICWG member countries
7

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Reportfind acceptable to support safety justification
for digital I&C systems. In addition, the
DICWG members jointly research andcomment on proposed IEC, IEEE, and IAEA
standards that are relevant to the regulatory
review of digital instrumentation and control
systems.
The Codes and Standards Working Group(CSWG) is working closely with standards
development organizations to converge code
requirements related to pressure boundary
components and to reconcile code differences.
The working group has successfullycompleted its goal and mandate to achievesome harmonization and identify thechallenges in harmonizing codes andstandards. The group has pushed the industry
and the SDOs to move forward and work cooperatively. The working group has finished its
work, with its only outstanding mandate ofcontinuing to interact with the industry.
Accomplishments to date provide confidence
that the MDEP membership, structure andprocesses provide an effective method ofaccomplishing increased co-operation in
regulatory design reviews. The interim resultsfor 2015 include:
•

•

•

•

8

The VICWG conducted nine MDEPrelated inspections. This included five
joint inspections with participation by theUnited States, China and Korea, and four
witnessed inspections by the UnitedStates, Canada, UAE, France, Finland
and Korea.
The VICWG has enhanced its
co-operation in the area of risks in supply
chain management and vendor activity,
specifically Counterfeit, Fraudulent andSuspect Items (CFSIs). The groupeffectively co-operated on an emerging
issue during 2015 associated withfraudulent material certificates supplied
from a UK valve manufacturer.
The ABWR WG drafted a comparison
matrix of the key design features with
input from the vendors.
MDEP held a joint workshop with the
CNRA WGRNR on commissioning
activities in March 2016.

•

The AP1000 WG met to discuss
co-operation on pre-operational testingand initial test program activities, and the
EPR Working Group created a new
Commissioning Activities Working Groupto begin co-operating on oversight ofplant commissioning.

•

All five DSWGs have completed draft
Common Position papers on postFukushima consideration for their specificdesign and the Steering TechnicalCommittee has begun work on an
integrated MDEP Common Position
paper.

•The DICWG issued Generic Common
Position 9 on Safety Design Principles
and Supporting Information for theOverall I&C Architecture.

•

The EPR WG issued a draft Common
Position paper addressing First Plant
Only Tests (FPOT) on the EPR design.
The report provides guidance forlicensees wishing to credit a FPOT
conducted during commissioning of thefirst EPR unit to characterize theperformance and behaviour of a systemor component on follow-on units
constructed in another country.

•

The AP1000 WG continued to exchange
information about important designchanges, construction issues, andvendor issues associated with theAP1000 design, especially among theregulators of China, the United Kingdom,
and the United States.

•

The VVER WG continued to interact with
Russian nuclear industry, as well as
invite representatives of Rosatom,
Rosenergoatom and design organizations (Atomenergoproekt, Atomproekt,
Gidropress) to take part in the meetingsof the VVER WG and its subgroups toget additional information about safetysignificant design solutions.

•

The VVER WG continued to discuss anddevelop a comparison table ofdifferences in the VVER designs
implementing in MDEP countries with
input from the industry.

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

1. INTRODUCTION

2. PROGRAMME GOALS AND OUTCOMES

The
Multinational
DesignEvaluation
Programme (MDEP) is a multinational
initiativethatdevelops
innovative
approaches to leverage the resources andknowledge of national regulatory authorities
who are, or will shortly be, undertaking thereview of new reactor power plant designs.
MDEP is primarily focused on design
evaluation, but also includes inspection
activities and generic issues. A key concept
throughout the programme is that MDEP will
better inform the decisions of regulatory
authorities
throughmultinational
co-operation, while retaining the sovereignauthority of each regulator to make licensing
and regulatory decisions.

The main objectives of the MDEP effort are
to enable increased co-operation andestablish mutually agreed upon practices toenhance the safety of new reactor designs.
Theenhanced
co-operation
among
regulators will improve the effectiveness andefficiency of the regulatory design reviews,
which are part of each country’s licensing
process. The goal of MDEP is not to
independently develop new regulatory
standards, but to build upon the similarities
already existing, and existing harmonizationin the form of IAEA and other safety
standards. In addition, the common positions
developed in MDEP will be shared with IAEA
for consideration in the IAEA standards
development programme.

Working groups are implementing theactivities in accordance with programmeplans with specific activities and goals, andhave established the necessary interfaces
both within and outside of the MDEP
members. Significant progress has been
made over the past year on the overall
MDEP goals of increased co-operation andenhanced convergence of requirements andpractices. Accomplishments to date provide
confidence that the MDEP membership,
structure and processes provide an effective
methodofaccomplishingincreased
co-operation in regulatory design reviews.
MDEP was established in 2006 as amultinational initiative for a five-year period.
It was extended for another five-year period
in 2012 by the Policy Group based on thevalue gained by the members. At its meetingin June 2015, the MDEP Policy Group
determined that MDEP should continue atleast for five years following 2018, in its
current form. However, MDEP is consideringtransferring some specific activities to an
NEA committee (CNRA). This reportprovides a status of the programme after its
eighth year of implementation.

MDEP is meeting its goal of enabling
increased co-operation through the activitiesof the working groups. MDEP has been very
successful in providing a forum forregulatory bodies to co-operate on design
evaluations and inspections. In addition toorganizing working groups, MDEP has
provided each regulator with peer contacts
who share information, discuss issues
informally, and disseminate information
rapidly. For example, the Design-specific
Working Group members have benefitted
significantly from the sharing of questions
among the regulators, resulting in more
informed, and harmonized, regulatory
decisions. MDEP members have also beenhighly successful in co-ordinating vendor
inspections in which the regulators shareobservations and insights. MDEP has madeimprovements in communicating information
regarding the members’ regulatory practices
through development of an MDEP librarywhich serves as a central repository for all
documents associated with the programme.

9

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

3. PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION
3.1 Membership
Participation in the Policy Group andSteering Technical Committee is intended
for national safety authorities of interested
countries that already have commitments for
new build or firm plans to have commitmentsin the near future for new reactor designs.
MDEP members are: Canada, China,
Finland, France, Hungary, India, Japan,
Korea, Russia, South Africa, Sweden,
Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, theUnited Kingdom and the United States. In
addition the IAEA takes part in the work of
MDEP.
3.2 Organizational structure
The programme is governed by a PolicyGroup (PG), made up of the heads of theparticipating organizations, and implemented
by a Steering Technical Committee and its
working groups. The Steering TechnicalCommittee consists ofsenior staff
representatives
from
each
of
the
participating national safety authorities, plus
a representative from the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The Policy Group provides guidance to theSteering Technical Committee on the overall
approach; monitors the progress of the
programme; and determines participation in
the programme. In January 2015, thechairmanship of the Policy Group wastransferred to the Director-General of theFinnish nuclear regulator, STUK.
The Steering Technical Committee manages
and approves the detailed programme ofwork including: defining topics and working
methods, establishing technical working
groups, and nomination of experts;
approving procedures and technical papers
developedby theworkinggroups;establishinginterfaces
with
other
international efforts to benefit from available
work and avoid duplication; developing
procedures for the handling of information to
be shared in the project; reporting to the
Policy Group; identifying new topics for the
10

programme to address; and establishingsubcommittees of the STC to study specifictopics.
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.
• Design-specific activities. Working
groups for each new reactor design share
information on a timely basis andco-operate on specific reactor design
evaluations and construction oversight.
Participants in these working groups are
the regulatory authorities that are actively
reviewing, preparing to review, or
constructing the specific reactor design. A
design-specific working group is formed
when three or more MDEP member
countries express interest in working
together. Under the design-specificworking groups, expert subgroups havebeen formed to address specific technicalissues.
• Issue-specificactivities.
Workinggroups have been organized for specifictechnical and regulatory process areas
within the programme of work. These
include vendor inspections, pressure
boundary
componentcodesandstandards, and digital instrumentation andcontrol standards. Membership in issuespecific working groups is open to all
MDEP participating countries and the
IAEA representatives. These topics werechosen because the activities are ofgeneric interest and of safety significanceto the licensing of new reactors in MDEP
member countries, the approach followedby the MDEP regulators is not completely
similar; and successful completion of theactivities will likely result in increased
harmonization/ convergence in regulatory
practices or increased co-operation. At its
meeting in June 2015, the MDEP PolicyGroup determined that the programmeshould focus on design-specific activities
going forward and the issue-specificworking groups should be closed ortransferred to another organization over

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

the next few years. Any generic topics
that are proposed for consideration by
MDEP should be addressed through a
subgroup of the Steering TechnicalCommittee, transferred to another3.3 MDEP Library
MDEP information is communicated among
the members through the MDEP librarywhich serves as a central repository for all
documents associated with the programme.
The NEA provides the technical support fordevelopment and maintenance of the MDEP
library on a secured password protectedwebsite. The website provides two levels ofaccess which are: 1) general access open to
every member, and 2) restricted area foreach DSWG with access to member
regulators participating in that specific group.
Publicly available documents related toorganization to address, or addressed
within subgroups of the design-specificworking groups.
The chart below illustrates how the
programme is organized.

MDEP are available on the MDEP page of
the NEA website (www.oecd-nea.org/
mdep/). The STC, through the secretariat,
manages the maintenance of the library andmakes enhancements to improve theeffectiveness of the library.
In order for MDEP to be successful at
fulfilling its goal of leveraging the work ofpeer regulators in the licensing of new NPP
designs, a framework was developed tofacilitate the sharing of technical information
among MDEP participants which at times
may include the sharing of proprietary andother types of sensitive information. As a
11

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

general rule, the information exchanged aspart of the MDEP in meetings and the MDEP
library is for the use only by the participating
national regulatory authorities. The membersof the DSWG also have a communication
protocol to share new information related to
new reactors with other members inadvance of its release to the public. A large
portion of the information shared may not be
proprietary or sensitive; however, allparticipating members must protect andproperly handle the information that an
originator claims to be proprietary or
sensitive.
3.4 Common positions
MDEP has developed a process for
identifying and documenting common
positions on specific issues among themember regulators which may be based on
existing standards, national regulatory
guidance, best practices, and group member
inputs. Design-specific common positions
document common conclusions that each of
the working group members have reachedduring design reviews. Discussions among
the members and sharing of information inthese areas help to strengthen the individual
conclusions reached.
Generic common positions apply genericallyrather than only to one design. Genericcommon positions document practices andpositions that each of the working groupmembers find acceptable. The common
positions are intended to provide guidance
to the regulators in reviewing new or uniqueareas, and will be shared with the IAEA, andother standards organizations, for consideration in standards development programmes. After a common position isagreed to by a working group, it is presented
to the STC for endorsement. Upon
endorsement by the STC, the proposedcommon positions are made publicly
available on the NEA MDEP website forexternal
stakeholder
information
andcomment. Those common positions will
become best practices, recommended by
the MDEP. There is no obligation on the partof any regulatory body to follow them. If a
12

regulatory body chooses to adopt a common
position, it would be through that country’s
normal processes.
4. INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER
ORGANIZATIONSMDEP strives to maintain an awareness of,and interactions with, other organizations
that are implementing programmes tofacilitate international co-operation on newreactors. Interactions are focused on
ensuring that MDEP does not duplicate
efforts, benefitting from the outputs of theseorganizations, and communicating MDEP
activities and results to other organizations.
To ensure that efforts are not duplicatedbetween the groups, MDEP scope isfocused on short-term activities related to
specific design reviews being conducted by
the member countries, and efforts toharmonize specific regulatory practices andstandards.
CNRA WGRNRThe CNRA Working Group on theRegulation of New Reactors (WGRNR)
examines the regulatory issues of siting,licensing and regulatory oversight ofgeneration III+ and generation IV nuclear
reactors. The current focus areas of the
WGRNR are construction experience andsiting issues. The WGRNR co-ordinates its
work with the work performed by MDEP
such that it utilises its outputs and does not
duplicate its efforts, and extends the resultsof MDEP to other CNRA members. To avoid
overlap of activities between the groups,
WGRNR focuses on procedures andguidance, while MDEP focuses on designspecific issues.
MDEP interacts with the CNRA WGRNR
and Working Group on Inspection Practices
through the NEA staff who also serve as theTechnical Secretariat for the CNRA.
WGRNR is the focal point of interactions
between MDEP and the CNRA and its
working groups, and will assist in
co-ordinating communications and requests
between the two activities.

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

In 2014, MDEP and CNRA agreed to a
proposed framework in which MDEP
addresses commissioning activities (hotfunctional and start-up testing) specific to a
design and in which WGRNR addresses
generic commissioning activities. Lessons
learnt from MDEP commissioning activities
will be transferred to WGRNR for it to pursue
the work on a generic basis, withparticipation open to a wider range of
regulators.
In 2015, WGRNR undertook an assessmentof passive safety systems to compare
national approaches to defining andregulating the use of these systems. The
MDEP AP1000 Working Group provided
input to the assessment specific to thatdesign and the draft survey questionnaire
were provided to MDEP for formal feedback.
In March 2016, MDEP and WGRNR held ajoint commissioning workshop in Korea withwell-balanced WGRNR-MDEP participation.
The workshop consisted of three parallelsessions on commissioning management,
commissioning oversight, and cross-cutting
issues.
In accordance with Policy Group direction toclose the MDEP issue-specific working
groups by 2017, MDEP is interacting with
CNRA leadership to propose a transfer ofsome activities to the WGRNR. Although the
MDEP working groups will have completed
their current program of work, the benefits ofcontinuing co-ordination among regulatorson these topics have been recognized bothwithin and outside of the MDEP members.
Therefore, MDEP has proposed that theworking group activities, in full or a limited
scope, be transferred as a new task withWGRNR, maintaining the same members,
goals and processes during the initialtransfer period.
IAEA
IAEA participates in the work of MDEP
through participation in the Policy Group and
STC meetings, and issue-specific working
groups. In addition, the Generic Common
Positions developed in MDEP are sharedwith IAEA for consideration in the IAEA
standards development programme.
Advanced Reactor Forums
Although MDEP is not currently considering
the designs of advanced reactors, MDEP
has interacted with the Generation IV
International Forum to keep informed ofmultinational co-operative activities in thearea of advanced reactors. MDEP also
receives updates, through NEA, of the workof the NEA Group on the Safety of
Advanced Reactors, and maintains anawareness of the efforts of the IAEA Small
Modular Reactor Forum. While these groups
co-operate on the generic issues related toadvanced and small modular reactors, there
is an understanding that MDEP may form adesign-specific working group when three
MDEP member countries begin to consider
a specific advanced or SMR design.
WENRA
The MDEP Steering Technical Committee
meets periodically with a representative tothe Western Europe Nuclear Regulators
Association (WENRA) to discuss thedevelopment of WENRA safety objectives
and reports. The WENRA Reactor Safety
Working Group welcomes MDEP input whendeveloping its documents.
Industry
The MDEP working groups are very
interested in understanding the perspectivesof the design vendors, codes and standards
organizations, and component manufacturers, and the challenges they face in dealing
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:• The Codes and Standards Working
Group interacted with a committee ofstandards development organizations(SDOs) (ASME, JSME, KEPIC, AFCEN,
NIKIET and CSA) in a code comparison
project.
Afterissuing
thecodecomparison report, the SDOs formed a
Code Convergence Board to limit
13

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Reportdivergence on individual requirements,
and achieve convergence on individual
requirements
whererealistic
andpractical. Members of the MDEP CSWG
participate in meetings of the Code
Convergence Board.
• The EPR Working Group meets regularly
with representatives of AREVA, EDF, andother EPR-licensees, applicants, andpotential applicants to discuss similarities
and differences among the EPR designs
being licensed in each country.
• The AP1000 Working Group meets with
Westinghouse and the AP1000 applicants
and licensees.
• The APR1400 Working Group met withrepresentatives of the licensee for the
Barakah NPP, an APR 1400 underconstruction in the UAE.
• The ABWR Working Group interacts with
GE-Hitachi, Hitachi-GE, Toshiba, Tokyo
Electric Power Company, Horizon
Nuclear Power, Vattenfall AB, andNuclear Innovation North America.
• The VVER WG continued to interact with
Russian nuclear industry, as well as
invited representatives of Rosatom,
Rosenergoatom and design organizations(Atomenergoproekt,
Atomproekt,
Gidropress) to take part in the meetingsof the VVER WG and its subgroups to get
additional information about safetysignificant design solutions.
• The Digital Instrumentation and Controls
Working Group interacts frequently withapplicable standards organizations, IEC
and IEEE, by including representatives of
IEC and IEEE in MDEP meetings,
attending IEC and IEEE meetings, andinvolving them in the development ofcommon positions.
• The Vendor Inspection Co-operation
Working Group met with SDO and WNA
representatives to discuss QA/QM
standards for manufacturing nuclear
components.

14

World Nuclear Association
The World Nuclear Association CORDEL
group acts as the industry counterpart to
MDEP. CORDEL has initiated task forces toaddress many issues, including those being
addressed by the MDEP issue-specificworking groups. Members of the MDEP STC
meet with CORDEL periodically, and
CORDEL has participated in meetings of the
MDEP Codes and Standards and Digital I&C
Working Groups. CORDEL plays animportant role in code harmonization. They
have established a Codes and Standards
Task Force (CSTF) to converge code
requirements and technical experts fromover ten companies worldwide are working
in the CSTF.
CORDEL submitted a letter to MDEP dated
3 February 2015, transmitting a position
paper titled “CORDEL View of theMultinational
DesignEvaluation
Programme.” That paper provided an overall
statement on the future of MDEP,
recommendations on MDEP work including
collaboration with CORDEL, and several
proposals on issues. At its meeting on
4 June 2015, the MDEP Policy Groupdiscussedthepaper,
includingrecommendations from the MDEP Steering
Technical Committee, and agreed thatinteractions with industry are beneficial andshould continue. MDEP submitted a
response on 17 August 2015, responding toseven specific proposals in the report on
topics such as sharing of insights with nonMDEP regulatory authorities, a process forformal approval of codes and standards byregulatory authorities, addressing “genericissues” across all designs, and maintaining
design standardization throughout the entire
plant life cycle. MDEP discussed the
responses with CORDEL at a meeting in
September 2015.
With effective communications in mind,
MDEP holds biennial conferences on New
Reactor Design Activities. The most recent
conference was held in May 2014. The goalof the conferences is to communicate to awide spectrum of stakeholders worldwide
the program of work and accomplishments

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Reportof MDEP, and to solicit feedback and input
from
these
stakeholders
regardingrecommendations on co-operating more
efficiently on new reactor design reviews,
and encouraging standardization andharmonization in regulatory requirements
and practices. Another key goal of these
conferences is to allow the various industry
stakeholders to share their activities on newreactor designs and standardization efforts.

5. CURRENT ACTIVITIESThe current activities of MDEP are being
implemented through design-specific andissue-specific working groups. The membersof the design-specific working groups share
information and co-operate on specificreactor design evaluations and construction
oversight. Issue-specific working groups areorganized for the technical and regulatory
process areas within the programme ofwork. Each working group has a lead andco-lead country designated, and has
developed a programme plan which
identifies specific activities, schedules andcontacts.
Design-specific working groups
The design-specific working groups leveragenational regulatory resources by sharing
information and experience on the regulatory
safety design reviews with the purposes ofenhancing the safety of the design andenabling regulators to make timely licensing
decisions to ensure safe designs through:• exchanging experience on licensing
process and design reviews, lessons
learnt, and design-related construction
and commissioning experience;• working to understand the differences inregulatory safety review approaches ineach country to support potential use ofotherregulators
safetydesignevaluations, where appropriate;• looking for opportunities to provide input
to issue-specific working groups on
potential topics of significant interest;• identifying and understanding key design
differences including those originatingfrom regulatory requirements and thendocumenting the reasons for differencesin regulatory requirements;• documenting common MDEP positions
on aspects of the review;• documenting their activities with technicalreports to ensure knowledge transfer;• communicating
andco-ordinating
communications on MDEP views andcommon positions to vendors andoperators regarding the basis of safety
evaluations and standardization.
While the design-specific working groups
typically address issues specific to each
design, and that the members findchallenging, some topics are addressed byseveral working groups who share information among themselves. Two such topics
are commissioning activities and Fukushima
Daiichi lessons learnt.
Commissioning activities
Members of design-specific working groups,
especially EPRWG and AP1000WG, havestarted discussions and are presently
devoting resources for co-operation oncommissioning of first-of-a-kind (FOAK)
reactors. Lessons learnt by MDEP will betransferred to WGRNR for it to pursue thework on a generic basis, with participation
open to a wider range of regulators.
• As the United States and China progressin construction of AP1000s and move into
the commissioning phase, they have
begun
to
share
informationoncommissioning tests and activities. In
October 2015, the WG members from theUnited States, China and Canada met in
China for the third time to discuss
co-operation on pre-operational testingand initial test program activities.
• The EPR Working Group has created a
new Commissioning Activities Working
15

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

Group (CAWG) in order to begin
co-operating on oversight of plantcommissioning (pre-operational and startup testing). As several of the member
countries get closer to the late stages of
construction
andpreparationsforoperation, the new working group will
enable MDEP members to shareexperience in late-stage construction
tests (e.g. hot functional tests) leading tofuel load and operations. The firstmeeting of the working group oncommissioning activities took place inFebruary 2016, in Paris.
MDEP held a joint workshop with the CNRAWGRNR on commissioning activities inMarch 2016. The purpose of the workshop
was to stimulate co-operation and share
best practices and recent experience frominternational regulatory approaches for thecommissioning of new reactors. The
workshop focused on topics including:regulatory priorities and practices, oversightand regulation of commissioning tests andactivities, and commissioning issues which
are not design-specific. The outputs of theworkshop will be recorded in the form of areport proposing commendable practices tohelp nuclear regulatory organizations
develop their commissioning oversightarrangements, and plan and perform theircommissioning oversight activities.
MDEP co-operation in operational phases
MDEP was established primarily as a forum
to co-operate on design reviews. As thedesigns are moving into the commissioning
and eventually the operational phases, thePolicy Group and steering TechnicalCommittee have discussed the benefits andchallenges of continuing co-operation after
construction is complete and into theoperational stages. MDEP recognizes thebenefits of continuing the co-operative
relationships formed during the design
review stage, as well as the benefit to themembers of the DSWGs who are still in thelicensing phase. At its meeting in June 2016,
the MDEP Policy Group agreed that theoperational stage should not be included in
the scope of MDEP. However, the STC was
16

requested to provide the PG with the means
to ensure that operating experience that may
back fit into designs is addressed by thedesign-specific working groups.
MDEP members agree that operating
experience, when it has an impact ondesigns, should be considered. In particular,
information from the first two years ofoperation may be directly related tocommissioning. MDEP members areencouraged to stay and participate in agroup after the considered reactor begins tooperate in their country to share operating
experience.
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
Incident Lessons Learnt
Lessons learnt from the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Plant Incident are discussed by
all of DSWGs and has been incorporated intheir programme plans. MDEP recognizes that
other international initiatives are ongoing thatare focused on operating plants. Therefore, it
is important for MDEP to address such issues
for new reactors. By the end of 2015, the EPR
Working Group has completed its evaluationand published its finding in a Common
Position paper approved by all member
regulators in the working group. The other four
MDEP DSWGs have submitted their draft
Common Position papers to the STC forreview and further direction. The papers
identify common approaches to address
potential safety improvements as related tolessons learnt from the Fukushima accident.
The MDEP Policy Group directed the Steering
Technical Committee and working groups todevelop an integrated MDEP Common
Position on the lessons learnt from Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Incident. The
STC will integrate the common positions fromall five DSWGs into a single MDEP positon
paper. MDEP expects to complete thisintegrated Common Position paper in 2016.
MDEP will also be addressing the Vienna
Declaration on Nuclear Safety.

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

5.1 EPR Working Group (EPRWG)
The EPR Design-specific Working Group
includes the regulatory authorities of China(NNSA), Finland (STUK), France (ASN),
India (AERB), Sweden (SSM), theUnited Kingdom
(ONR)
and
the
United States (NRC). Numerous meetings
and technical exchanges have taken place
to exchange information on the reviews
being conducted in each country. The
following major activities are currently
ongoing: Olkiluoto 3, which is underconstruction in Finland, Flamanville 3 whichis under construction in France, the twin unit
plant at Taishan which is under constructionin China, and the twin unit plant at Hinkley
Point C which is in the early construction
phase in the United Kingdom.
The working group currently includes fivetechnical expert subgroups that are
addressing information on specific technicalissues: Accidents and Transients, Digital
Instrumentation and Controls, Probabilistic
Safety Assessment, Severe Accidents, andCommissioning Activities. The latter is a new
subgroup which first met in February 2016.
Each of these subgroups meet regularly to
exchange information on relevant aspects ofthe design review status, share relevant
evaluations when they become available,
produce technical reports to identify anddocument similarities and differences among
designs,
regulatory
safetyreview
approaches and resulting evaluations.
The EPRWG meetsregularlywithrepresentatives of AREVA, EDF, and other
EPR-licensees, applicants, and potential
applicants to discuss similarities anddifferences among the EPR designs being
licensed in each country. This included ameeting in China in June 2015 which
included a visit to the Taishan plant underconstruction.
Accomplishments
The Probabilistic Safety Assessment
subgroupisidentifying
thedesigndifferences and modifications affecting risk
and the main differences in the modelling of

the PSAs. The PSA subgroup, in
co-operation with the EPR Owners andOperators Group (OOG) and other EPRWG
subgroups, has focused on the modelling ofinternal hazards in the various EPR designs.
Similar studies will now focus on themodelling of the heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems and the
instrumentation and control systems invarious EPR designs.
The Accidents and Transients subgroup held
discussions on the use of reflective metallic
insulation for the primary circuit, andheterogeneous boron dilution with the aim oftrying to reach common positions in theseareas.
The EPR I&C technical expert subgroup has
continued to focus on the issue of spurious
actuations due to software failures although
it is recognized that this concern is not
specific to EPR, and thus is also being
considered in the DICWG. This year the I&C
subgroup has also focused on thequalification of I&C systems.
The Severe Accidents subgroup has not met
this year, as it has been awaiting themeeting of the French advisory committee
on reactors at which the French Institut deRadioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire
(IRSN) will present its assessment of thesevereaccident
analysisfortheFlammanville 3 plant. Future work for thissubgroup includes a comparison of source
terms and dose evaluations in case of
severe accidents for the EPR designs.
An EPR ad-hoc Spent Fuel Pool (SFP)
subgroup finalized and issued a Fukushima
Daiichi Common Position appendix on longterm cooling of the spent fuel pools. This
common position paper discusses the EPR
design features credited for the protection of
stored spent fuel during normal operationand following an accident scenario. With thecompletion of this work the TESG has been
disbanded.
In 2015, the EPR Working Group finalized
and issued the complete common position
paper
addressing
post-Fukushima
consideration. This paper identifies common
17MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Reportapproaches to address potential safety
improvements for EPR plants as related tolessons learnt from the Fukushima accident
or Fukushima-related issues. As the safety
reviews of the EPR design applications thatare currently in review are completed, theworking group plans to update the common
position to reflect their safety conclusions
regarding the EPR design and how thedesign could be enhanced to address
Fukushima-issues.
The EPR Working Group has created a new
Commissioning Activities Working Group(CAWG) in order to begin co-operating on
oversight of plant commissioning (preoperational and start-up testing). As severalof the member countries get closer to thelate stages of construction and preparations
for operation, the new working group will
enable MDEP members to share experiencein late-stage construction tests (e.g. hot
functional tests) leading to fuel load andoperations. The first meeting of the Working
Group on Commissioning Activities took
place in February 2016, in Paris. The
discussions included the following topics:
phasing of the commissioning proposed by
the plant vendor and inspection programs;
first plant only tests; and lessons learnt
duringcommissioning
includinganyassociated regulatory issues.
In a related activity, the EPRWG developed
a draft common position on First Plant Only
Tests (FPOT). The member countries’
requirements have been described in the
appendices of the current draft common
position. These appendices can give an
early insight to the vendors on what
requirements they will have to fulfil to makea FPOT acceptable. In November 2015 the
EPRWG held a meeting with the EPR
Owners and Operators Group (OOG) todiscuss their plans for the use of FPOTs
within the various EPR projects and toreceive their comments on the common
position paper. In response to thesecomments, minor revisions have been madeto the common position paper with theintention of providing greater clarity. Member
countries have been asked to review the18

paper with a view to finalizing it in mid-2016.
This common position addresses somespecific technical requirements, but primarily
addresses
national
requirementsforcrediting FPOT, and so is applicable to all
designs. Members of the other DSWGs arereviewing the common position to determine
relevance to their designs, with the goal ofpotentially issuing and MDEP genericcommon position on this topic.

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

EPRWG Meeting, Beijing, China, June 2015.

EPRWG – Taishan EPR construction site visit, China, June 2015.

19

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

5.2 AP1000 Working Group (AP1000WG)
The AP1000 Design-specific Working Group
includes the regulatory authorities of Canada(CNSC), China (NNSA), Sweden (SSM), theUnited Kingdom (ONR), and the UnitedStates (NRC). A total of four AP1000 units
are under construction in China at theSanmen and Haiyang sites. Four units areunder construction in the United States at
the Vogtle and Summer sites. The NRC isreviewing three other combined license
applications referencing the AP1000 certified
design for the Levy, Lee, and Turkey Pointsites (a total of six additional AP1000s).
On completion of a four step Generic Design
Assessment (GDA) process, ONR issued aninterim Design Acceptance Confirmations(iDAC) of the AP1000 design in 2011, with
51 outstanding GDA issues attached. During
2015, ONR was engaged in detailed
technical discussions with Westinghouse toaddress these issues and to re-establish thegeneric AP1000 design proposed for theUnited Kingdom, cognisant of changes to
the AP1000 design (and supporting
analyses) introduced in the United States
and China since 2011. ONR is also in early
engagement with a prospective licensee
who has plans to build three AP1000 units inthe north-west of England.
In Canada, CNSC has completed a prelicensing assessment of the AP1000, and inJune 2013, issued its Phase 2 evaluation.
Sweden began participation in the working
group in 2013 and Vatenfall is the potential
licensee in Sweden.
Accomplishments and plan of work
The working group members have shareddesign information, application documents,
evaluations and preliminary findings, andidentified the most significant review issues
as well as construction and vendor
challenges. The result of informationexchange is evident by the amount of
documents shared in the MDEP Library. As
the working group members transitioned todifferent stages of their design reviews, the20group continues to re-evaluate the scope of
the working group topics, and the issues tobe addressed. In 2015, the working group
continued discussions focused on issues
identified with the design of the plants underconstruction in the United States and China
including a change to the condensate returnsystem design, and main control room doseand heat up. An additional focus ofco-operation was in support of exchanging
information with the United Kingdom on avariety of topics that are the focus of thecontinued GDA review by ONR. The working
group also shared information andexperience on vendor issues such as squib
valve design and testing, reactor coolant
pump design and testing, and digital
instrumentation and controls. The working
group has also exchanged information on
how the AP1000 design addresses thefindings from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power plant accident and drafted a common
position paper.
The AP1000 WG meet regularly withrepresentatives of Westinghouse to discuss
similarities and differences among thedesigns being licensed in each country andto discuss post-Fukushima safety reviews. In
2015, the working group toured plants underconstruction in the United States and met
with the vendor and US licensees.
The United States and ONR held several
bi-lateral discussions to support informationexchange associated with closing out issues
identified in the Generic Design Assessment
Step 4 for the AP1000. These discussions
focused on the topics of squib valve design
and testing, human factors engineering,
spent fuel pool, and Fukushima lessons
learnt.
The United States and China exchanged
several letters containing questions andresponses
relatedtodesignandconstruction issues in each country. The
documents were shared with the otherworking group members through the MDEP
library. This exchange of information was theresultofengagementofupper
managements of the two regulators. The
United States and China continue toMDEP 2015-2016 Annual Reportexchange information on a variety oftechnical topics as a follow-on to a workshop
held
3-4 November
2014,
in
the
United States. The two regulators shared
information with the other AP1000WG
members on the discussion topics including
inorganic zinc coating, condensate return,main control room habitability, reactor
coolant pumps, squib valves, and equipment
qualification, as well as discussions on
lessons learnt from the Fukushima Daiichi
accident and prevention and mitigation ofsevere accidents.
As the United States and China progress inconstruction
and
move
into
the
commissioning phase, they have begun toshare information on commissioning tests
and activities. The US NRC provided NNSA
inspection procedures and will makeinspectors available to observe thecommissioning activities. In addition, NNSA
has assembled experts in NPP design andcommissioning to plan a strategic approachfor the commissioning inspections. In
October 2015, the working group members
from the United States, China and Canada
met in China for the third time to discuss
co-operation on pre-operational testing andinitial test program activities. The otherAP1000WG members were invited toparticipate and documents were shared in
the MDEP Library. Following this meeting,
the NRC and NNSA continued discussions
and correspondence on this issue since then(including at AP1000WG meetings). A
follow-up meeting on pre-operational testing
issues is planned for September 2016 in
October.
The United States and China have a robust
inspector and technical reviewer exchange
program ongoing with a goal of sharing
information about regulatory activities suchas commissioning, initial test program, andother regulatory responsibilities and roles ineach country.

th

AP1000WG – 12 Meeting, Rockville, MD, United States, 22-25 September 2015.

21

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

5.3 APR1400 Design-specific Working
Group (APR1400WG)
The APR1400WG was established in August2012 and current participants are theregulators of Korea, the United ArabEmirates (UAE), and the US. Korea issued
an operating license for the first APR1400 at
Shin Kori Unit 3 in 2015. Three additional
units are under construction at Shin Kori 4,
and Shin Hanul 1 and 2. In January 2014,
the government authorised constructionof Shin Kori 5 and 6 and construction is
expected to start in 2016 and 2017. The
United States is reviewing an application for
design certification that was submitted in
December 2014. Four units are underconstruction in the UAE at the Barakah site.
Finland (STUK) was originally a member ofthe working group and had completed apreliminary safety assessment of the
APR1400 which included information
regarding design feasibility, organizational
capability, and the plant site. In August
2015, TVO notified the working group that,
because TVO had decided not to submit
application for a construction license for
Olkiluoto Unit 4 (a potential site for an
APR1400), STUK would no longer
participate in the work of the APR1400WG.
Accomplishments and plan of work
In early 2016, the working group drafted acommonpositionon
APR1400
Post-Fukushima Actions. The common
position includes appendices on: mitigating
long-term loss of electrical power; reliability
andqualificationof
instrumentation;
containment pressure management; spent
fuel pool long-term cooling; and decay heatremoval and subcriticality.
The members have begun to share
information on commissioning oversightplans. Working group members participatedin the MDEP/WGRNR joint workshop on
commissioning. Using the draft First Plant
Only Test (FPOT) common position
developed by the EPRWG, the members
discussed FPOT specific to the APR1400.

22

In 2015, the working group established aTechnical Expert Subgroup on Accidents
and Transients. The immediate goal of thisgroup is to cover the regulatory experience
associated with Core Long-term Cooling(GSI-191) and the related large break loss of
coolant accident long-term cooling analysis.
The subgroup plans to issue common
positions on genetic safety issue-191(GSI-191), and specific technical reports
describing:national
approaches
toregulatory evaluations of GSI-191 resolution,
Summaries of comparison in various
resolutions of the GSI-191, and technicalissues and their resolution.
In 2014, the working group established atechnical expert subgroup on severe
accidents. The Severe Accident TechnicalExpert Subgroup drafted tables showing
differences in: 1) severe accident regulatory
positions of participating countries and2) provisions for prevention and mitigation ofsevere accidents in APR1400 designs
proposed or implemented in participating
countries. The working group has prepareda draft report on safety review findings
related to Molten Core Concrete Interaction(MCCI) performed to date. The document
will be updated as the Barakah NPP
operating license analysis is reviewed andthe NRC review of the design control
document (DCD) information related to thisissue is available.

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

APR1400WG Meeting in Busan, Korea, 12-14 May 2015.

APR1400WG Shin Kori Units 3 and 4 construction site visit.

23

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

5.4 VVER Working Group (VVERWG)
The VVER Design-specific Working Group
includes the regulatory authorities ofFinland, India, Russia, Turkey, China andHungary. China and Hungary are the newest
members of the group, joining in 2015. The
working group members are reviewing
plants at various stages of design andconstruction. In Russia, five units are underconstruction at Rostov, Novovoronezh-II,
and Leningrad-II; one unit is under review for
an operating license at Novovoronezh-II;siting licenses have been issued for four
units at Leningrad-II and Kursk-II; one unit isunder review for a construction license at
Kursk-II; and one unit at Rostov was put into
operation in 2015. In Finland, one unit isunder review for a construction license atHanhikivi. India has one unit in operationand one unit under commissioning at
Kudankulam. In Turkey, two units are being
considered at the Akkyuy site and a Site
Parameter Report is under review. In China,
two units are in operation and two units areunder construction at Tianwan. Hungary is
considering two VVER units at Paks-II and a
PSIR is under review based on genericdesign information.

construction at Leningrad-II NPP and
Novovoronezh-II NPP and to discuss safetyissues related to new VVER designs in
Russia, India, Turkey and Finland. The
meeting included a visit to Leningrad-II NP
Unit 1 which is under construction. The
members plan to make a technical visit to
Novovoronezh-II NPP Unit 1 (in the final
stage of construction) in April 2016.
In 2015, the TESG SA prepared a draft
report on regulatory approaches and criteria
used in member countries for severe
accidents analyses and management.
FutureTESG
SAactivity
includesdiscussions with representatives of Russianutility and design organizations on technicalissues related to severe accidents such as
instrumentation and controls for severe
accident conditions, long-term containment
heat removal, corium catcher aspects, andreliable methods and systems for primarypressure decrease.

The VVERWG continues to discuss acomparison table of differences in the VVER
designs. The VVERWG currently includes
three technical expert subgroups (TESGs)
that are addressing specific technical issues:
Severe Accidents (TESG SA), Fukushima
Lessons Learnt (TESG Fuku) and Reactor
Pressure Vessel and Primary Circuit
Components(TESG
RPV&PC).
The
members meet regularly to exchange
information and experience in theircountries’ regulatory activities, approaches
and legal framework related to new design
NPPs.

In 2015, the TESG Fuku focused on how
lessons learnt from the Fukushima Daiichi
NPP accident are implemented in new
designs, taking into account regulatory
approaches and identifying differencesamong the VVERWG members. In addition,
the members are sharing their experienceon technical decisions implemented in new
VVER designs. Members developed a firstdraft
Commonpositionaddressing
Fukushima-related issues that includes four
topics: accounting for external events in thedesign; reliability of safety functions
implementation; design solutions to cover
specific beyond design basis accidents(station blackout and loss of ultimate heatsink); and emergency preparedness andresponse. Future work of the subgroup
includes the detailed development of acommon position, and definition anddiscussion of new safety issues related to
Fukushima lessons learnt.

The VVERWG meeting in May 2015, held in
Sosnovy Bor (Saint Petersburg) included
participationofrepresentatives
form
Rosenergoatom and AEP (Russian utility
and design organizations) to share
information on the progress of units

In 2015, the TESG RPV&PC exchanged
information on four topics related toregulatory requirements (two more topics
were discussed in 2016), and agreed upon
the format and time schedule for the TESG
RPV&PC technical reports. The topic of the

Accomplishments and plan of work

24

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

first draft technical report is members’
regulatory approaches and oversightpractice related to reactor pressure vessel

and primary circuit components. Draft reports
for all discussed topics will be completed by
mid-2016.

VVERWG Meeting at Leningrad-II NPP, Sosnovy Bor, Russia, 19-20 May 2015.

VVERWG Meeting at Leningrad-II NPP, Sosnovy Bor, Russia, 19-20 May 2015.

25

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

5.5 ABWR Working Group (ABWRWG)
The Advanced Boiling Water Reactor
Working Group (ABWRWG) includes theregulatory authorities of Japan, Sweden, theUnited Kingdom and the United States. The
regulator of Finland previously participatedbut chose to withdraw during 2015 because
the anticipated applicant decided not toapply for a construction license for Olkiluoto
4. The formation of this working group was
approved in 2013 and the first meeting of theworking group was held in January 2014.
Several different ABWR designs, offered bydifferent vendors, are currently underconsideration by the working groupmembers: Two US-ABWR designs offered
by GE-Hitachi and Toshiba, UK-ABWR
offered by Hitachi-GE, J-ABWRs offered by
Hitachi-GE and Toshiba and EU-ABWR
offered by Toshiba. With the withdrawal of
Finland none of the current ABWRWG
members has an active EU-ABWR project.
Accomplishments and plan of work
Two technical expert subgroups are
co-operating on the topics of severe
accident prevention and mitigation, andinstrumentation and controls. The subgroups

26

are in the process of understanding anddocumenting the similarities and differencesamong designs to identify specific technicalaspects to address in detail. A work plan ofeach technical expert subgroup will beestablished during 2016.
The ABWRWG is developing a comparison
matrix of the key design features with input
from the vendors and substantial progress
was made during 2015. The ABWRWG iscurrently focusing on completing gaps andmaking the contents and level of detailconsistent. The ABWRWG plans to issue atechnical report discussing the design
similarities and differences during 2016.
ABWRWG completed a final draft common
position paper addressing issues related to
the Fukushima Daiichi accident in December
2015. It includes the context of the events at
Fukushima Daiichi NPP, a discussion on
how the various ABWR designs address
those aspects and a statement of thecommon position for different areas. In
February 2016 the common position paper
was sent to ABWR industry stakeholders forreviewoffactualaccuracy
andcompleteness.

ABWRWG Forsmark Unit 2 site visit, Forsmark, Sweden, 24 April 2015.

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

Issue-specific working groups
5.6 Vendor Inspection
Working Group (VICWG)

Co-operation

The goals of the VICWG are to:
•
•

•
•
•

•

maximize the use of the results obtained
from other regulator’s efforts in inspecting
vendors;
understand the similarities and differences
between MDEP national regulators’
Quality Assurance/Management (QA/QM)
Requirements in order to reach aconsensus
onthepotentialforharmonization;
facilitate the adoption of good vendor
oversight practices by national regulators;
harmonize the vendor inspection practices
among MDEP regulators for inspections
under the MDEP protocol;
implement joint and witnessed inspections
and perform multinational inspections ofvendors according to the common QA/QM
requirements; andfocus vendor attention on the risks ofCounterfeit, Fraudulent and Suspect Items(CFSI).

The
workinggroup
enhancestheunderstanding of each regulator’s inspection
procedures and practices by co-ordinating
witnessed inspections of safety-related
components
andqualityassurance
inspections. Witnessed inspections consistof one regulator performing an inspection toits criteria, observed by representatives ofother MDEP countries. The benefits to theobserving countries include additional
information and added confidence in theinspection results. MDEP regulators areusing the experience gained during conduct
of VICWG witnessed inspections in theirinspection planning.
Joint inspections consist of one regulator
conducting an inspection according to its
own regulatory framework with the active
participation of one or more other regulators.
This allows the participating members to use
the results of the inspection that are
applicable to their regulations.

Multinational inspections consistent of two or
more regulators performing an inspection
using the common Quality Assurance/
Quality Management (QA/QM) requirements
developed by the VICWG.
The working group maintains a list of
inspections from the member regulators to
identify opportunities to witness inspections,and shares inspection results through adatabase maintained in the MDEP library.
This data base includes not only the reportsof witnessed and joint inspections, but all
inspections that may be of interest to the
MDEP members.
The VICWG effectively informs andinfluences regulatory activities including the
adoption of good vendor oversight practices
by national regulators. The group has
developed into a strong and effective
regulatory network focused on high-risk
supply chain issues.
Accomplishments and plan of work
The
VendorInspection
Co-operation
Working Group (VICWG) continues toachieve its short-term goals with thecompletion of two technical reports on
Multinational Inspection and on Vendor
Oversight Good Practices in 2015,
completed a major step towards achieving
its long-term program goals. As the VICWG
moves forward, the group will attempt toincrease the number of multinational
inspections in addition to continuing joint
inspections, witnessing of other regulators’
inspections and sharing vendor inspection
outcomes and themes. In support of thisgoal the VICWG published a good practiceguide for vendor inspections to support
harmonization of regulatory approaches.
The VICWG has enhanced its co-operation
on an area of risk in supply chain
management and vendor activity, specificallyCounterfeit, Fraudulent and Suspect Items(CFSIs). The group effectively co-operated
on an emerging issue during 2015
associatedwithfraudulentmaterial
certificates supplied from a UK valve
manufacturer. The co-operation facilitated27

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

review of regulatory activity aimed at
mitigating the risks of CFSI entering licensee
facilities through vendors.
In 2015, the members conducted nine
MDEP-related inspections. This included five
joint inspections with participation by the US,
China and Korea, and four witnessed
inspections by the United States, Canada,
UAE, France, Finland and Korea.
In October 2015, the group met with arepresentative from AFCEN, the French
standards development organization. The
representative highlighted the development
of NSQ-100. The VICWG highlighted areasof emerging regulatory concern that theSDO may wish to consider including: CFSI
events, reverse engineering of components,
commercial grade dedication issues, andnuclear safety culture in high-risk manufacturing organizations.
Next steps
In support of its long-term goal of understanding the similarities and differences

between MDEP national regulators’ QA/QM
Requirements, and to facilitate the adoptionof good vendor oversight practices by
national regulators, the working group aims
to build on the establishment of common
arrangements for vendor inspections and toencourage the ongoing co-operation on
vendor inspection activities and sharing ofresults and emerging risks. A key focus of
the group remains, to maximize the results
obtained from regulators’ efforts in
inspecting vendors.
The group intends to increase its focus
during vendor inspections on addressing
areas of emerging risk. This is likely toinclude CFSI in the short term. The group isin a good position to react to other emerging
trends and influence appropriate mitigating
methods.
The VICWG will continue to work with theStandards Developing Organizations toencourage and explore harmonization of
QA/QM standards.

VICWG Meeting with DFHM staff and tour of the manufacturing facility, Guangdong Province,
China, 21 May 2015.

28

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

VICWG Site Visit at Le Creusot Fabrication Facility, France, 29 October 2015.

5.7 Codes andGroup (CSWG)

Standards

Working

The goal of the Codes and Standards
Working Group (CSWG) is harmonization ofcode requirements for design andconstruction of pressure-retaining (pressure
boundary) components in order to improvethe effectiveness and efficiency of theregulatory design reviews, increase qualityof safety assessments, and to make eachregulator stronger in its ability to makesafety decisions.
The CSWG recognized early on that thefirst step to achieving harmonization is tounderstand the extent of similarities anddifferences among the pressure boundary
codes and standards used in various
countries.
The
CSWG
encouraged
standards
development
organizations(SDOs) to compare the requirements in
JSME’s S-NC1 Code (Japan), AFCEN’s
RCC-M Code (France), KEA’s KEPIC Code(Korea), CSA’s N285.0 standard (Canada)
and NIKIET’s PNAE G-7 Code (Russia)
against the requirements of Section III of
the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code (United States) for Class 1 vessels,
piping, pumps and valves. The results
identified the extent of similarities anddifferences among the national codes,
provided insight into background, history,
and philosophy of each code, and provided
a basis for developing general approach forcode harmonization. The report on code
comparison was published in December
2012.
Based on the CSWG findings and the code
comparison results, the CSWG establisheda global framework of a hierarchy structure
29

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Reportfor achieving code harmonization. At the
top of the hierarchy, the Fundamental
Attributes
providesoverarchingrequirements for NPP design andconstruction. At the middle level, theEssential
Performance
Guidelines
recommends basic design and construction
rules to be included in codes, and provides
guidance for code harmonization. At thebottom level, code harmonization is
performed, which includes convergenceand reconciliation of code differences, andminimization of further code divergence.
The CSWG proposed a stepwise approachfor code convergence, and established aregularcommunication
processfor
information exchange and discussion.
The CSWG plays an important role as aninterface between the regulators andindustry efforts to harmonize codes andstandards. CSWG interacts with the WNA
CORDEL group which has established a
Codes and Standards Task Force (CSTF)
consisting of technical experts from overten companies worldwide (AREVA, Bentley,
Rolls Royce, EDF, EPRI, Westinghouse,
TVO, et al.) working to converge code
requirements. They proposed a pilot projectplan, which is consistent with CSWG
stepwise approach, to harmonize code
requirements.
CORDELCSTF
hasachieved significant accomplishments inthe areas of non-destructive examination(NDE) personnel certification and non-linear
analysis.
They
have
compared
requirements in the major nuclear designcodes, compared the current international
industrial certification practices, andrecommended a harmonized international
alternative for the certification of NDE
personnel. They have also thoroughly
reviewed the existing non-linear rules indifferent codes, and compared the scope,methods and availability of material dataneeded to perform analysis in very
technical detail; they are developing
universal new rules for non-linear analysis.
After issuing the code comparison report,
the SDOs formed a Code Convergence
Board to limit divergence on individual
30

requirements, and achieve convergence on
individual requirements where realistic andpractical. SDOs and CORDEL are working
jointly on code convergence of weld
qualification. They extensively review
worldwidepracticesin
performance
qualification, procedure qualification, andquality assurance of welding; and explore
strategy to harmonize code requirements
on weld qualification. The SDOs are also
considering including other significant
technical issues with international interest(that are not currently addressed) in theworking scope and jointly developing
universal code requirements. These include
corrosion fatigue, RPV indications, flowinduced vibration in SGs, small modular
reactors, margin under high-seismic
loadings, and the use of high-density
polyethylene piping.
Accomplishments
The CSWG has successfully completed its
goal and mandate to achieve someharmonization and identify the challenges
in harmonizing codes and standards. The
group
has
establishedaregularcommunication process for informationexchange and discussion, and has pushed
the industry and the SDOs to move forward
and work co-operatively. Five documents
have been formally issued by the working
group.
The
Fundamental
Attributes
document and Essential Performance
Guidelines document provide high-leveland middle-level guidance for code
harmonization,
respectively.
The
Regulatory Frameworks for Use of Codes
document
describes
theregulatory
practices in each country in using codes,
and provides insight on the flexibility of theregulatory framework of MDEP countries inusing foreign codes. The Lessons Learnt
document provides CSWG’s preliminary
findings on achieving code harmonization,and provides general guidance on using
foreign codes. The common position
document proposes a hierarchy structure
as a global framework for harmonization,and documents the CSWG common
positions on code harmonization.

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

Despitethechallengesofcode
convergence, with dedicated work andclose co-operation among the CSWG,
CORDEL’s CSTF, and SDOs, code
convergence is happening in several
technical areas. For example, one SDO isdeveloping its code based on the SDOs’
Code Comparison Report, and introducing
new code areas. Another regulatory
authority is using the CORDEL/SDO Weld
Qualification report to draft proposals formodifying regulatory requirements. An SDO
that requires company-based certification
has started to modify its code and to accept
the international alternative proposed in the
NDE personnel certification report.
With the continuation of the close
co-operation from the three parties, moreachievements are expected in the near
future, which will increase the efficiency ofdesign and construction of nuclear power
plants, and will enhance the safety of
nuclear power plants that may be licensed
in multiple countries.
Next steps
The working group will continue to interact
with the CORDEL CSTF and SDOs on:1) preventing further code divergence;2) converging code differences; and
3) reconciling code differences.
A code is a living document that is continuously being updated to incorporate emerging technologies, improved understanding,and accumulated operational experience.
Therefore, the CSWG will continue toencourage SDOs to communicate witheach other to minimize divergence of code
during code updates. Some countries are
considering developing their own codes.
The CSWG will encourage these countries
to study the existing codes carefully andminimize the potential differences between
new codes and the existing codes.
The CSWG will continue to encourage
CORDEL and the SDOs to converge code
requirements using two methods: 1) modify
existing code requirements that are
identified as urgent and practical for code
convergence; 2) jointly develop universal

new code requirements on significant
technical issues with international interest
that are not currently addressed in codes.
Code convergence is a very challenging
work. Even if the effort does not result inchange of code requirements, the work is
still very valuable for code reconciliation.
The CSWG will also continue exploring
strategies for reconciling code differences.
5.8 Digital Instrumentation and Controls
Working Group (DICWG)
The
DICWG
works
to
increasecollaboration, co-operation, and knowledgetransfer among members and with otherstakeholders to achieve the following
primary goals: 1) facilitate timely andefficient mechanisms for sharing of
knowledge
andexperience
among
members, thus allowing knowledge transfer
and more effective safety reviews; and2) work jointly to develop common positions
among members for issues of significance,
which may be based on a review of theexisting standards, national regulatory
guidance, best practices, and group inputs.
The IAEA, the Institute of Electrical andElectronics Engineers (IEEE) and theInternational Electrotechnical Commission(IEC) representatives are invited toparticipate in working group meetings andactivities. Industry is represented via theIEC and IEEE standards organizations andthrough specific invitations by the DICWG
to share information and give presentations
on topics of interest.
Accomplishments
The DICWG identified topics for genericcommon positions which were selectedbased on the safety implications of theissue, and the need to develop a common
understanding from the perspectives ofregulatory authorities. DICWG genericcommon positions are not intended to cover
all issues associated with the digital I&C
technical disciplines, but only those of mostvalue to the members.

31

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

The DICWG has published 11 genericcommon positions that describe methods
and evidence that all DICWG member
states find acceptable to support safety
justification for digital I&C systems. The
published common positions include:• Generic Common Position 1 – Treatmentof Common Cause Failures Resulting
from Software• Generic Common Position 2 – Software
Tools for the Development of Software for
Safety Systems• Generic Common Position 3, “Verification
and Validation Throughout the Life Cycleof Digital Safety Systems”• Generic Common Position 4 – Data
Communications Independence• Generic Common Position 5 – Treatmentof Hardware Description Language (HDL)
Programmed Devices for Use in Nuclear
Safety Systems• Generic Common Position 6 – Simplicity in
Design• Generic Common Position 7 – Selection
and Use of Industrial Digital Devices ofLimited Functionality• Generic Common Position 8 – Impact ofCyber Security Features on Digital I&C
Safety Systems• Generic Common Position 9 – Safety
DesignPrinciples
andSupporting
InformationfortheOverall
I&C
Architecture• Generic Common Position 11 – Digital
I&C System Pre-Installation and Initial OnSite Testing• Generic Common Position 12 – Use ofAutomatic Testing in Computer Based
Systems as part of Surveillance Testing
These common positions have been madepublicly available on the MDEP website.
The DICWG continues to develop Common
Position 10, hazard identification andcontrol. The working group has developed
and agreed upon a final draft of thiscommon position which is expected to bemade final in 2016.
32

The working group has begun discussions
on the topic of spurious actuations in I&C
systems that are important to safety. The
topic of spurious operation was originallyraised in the EPR I&C technical expert
subgroup. However, considering this topic
generally affects multiple I&C design
centres, it was transferred to the DICWG sothat the topic of spurious operation can behandled generically. Member countries
agreed with the potential safety concerns ofspurious actuations and the need toaddress the topic generically. DICWG plans
to develop a draft common position on
spurious actuations for future work and will
collaborate with the MDEP EPR I&C andother design-specific I&C subgroups toaddress this topic.
The working group continues to implement
a formal “Quick Inquiry” process togenerate and process inquiries frommember countries to promote an efficientand structured information exchange andprovide for storing this information in a
retrievabledatabase.
The
DICWG
maintains frequent communication with thedesign-specific working groups, particularly
with the EPR digital instrumentation andcontrols subgroup.
The industry counterpart to MDEP DICWG
is CORDEL’s Digital I&C Task Force.
CORDEL’s stated objectives for the task
force include 1) management of designchanges for digital I&C, 2) develop acommon understanding of what is expectedby industry and regulators and 3) promote
the development of international standards.
As part of their near-term tasks, CORDEL
intends to provider white papers on thefollowing topics: Safety I&C classifications,
Diversity and Common Cause Failures, andcriterion on the use of field-programmablegate
arrays(FPGAs)innuclearapplications. CORDEL plans to engage
DICWG for comments on these papers.
Next steps
The DICWG has made significant progressin increasing harmonization of digital I&C
standards by developing generic common

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

positions that have been or are planned forincorporation
into
regulations
andregulatory guidance of many member
states. The DICWG will continue to develop
one common position that is nearcompletion and another that is in the initialstages. As the planned generic common
positions are nearing completion, theworking group and steering committee haveconsidered the DICWG’s future. The
members desire to continue interaction insome format that provides a forum to share
information among the member states, aswell as an interface with standards
organizations (e.g. IAEA, IEC and IEEE)and industry (CORDEL group) to promoteharmonization.

DICWG Meeting in Helsinki, Finland, 25-27 May 2015.

6. INTERIM RESULTS
MDEP is considered a long-term programmewith interim results. Interim results are those
products that document agreement by the
MDEP member countries and are necessary
steps in working towards increased
co-operation and convergence. The interim
results for 2015 include:• The VICWG conducted nine MDEPrelated inspections. This included five joint
inspections with participation by the UnitedStates, China and Korea,••

and four witnessed inspections by theUnited States, Canada, UAE, France,
Finland and Korea.
The
VICWG
has
enhanced
its
co-operation on an area of risk in supply
chain management and vendor activity,
specifically Counterfeit, Fraudulent andSuspect Items (CFSIs). The groupeffectively co-operated on an emerging
issue during 2015 associated withfraudulent material certificates supplied
from a UK valve manufacturer.
33

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

34

The ABWRWG drafted a comparison
matrix of the key design features with
input from the vendors.
MDEP held a joint workshop with the
CNRA WGRNR on commissioning
activities in March 2016.
The AP1000WG met to discuss
co-operation on pre-operational testingand initial test program activities, and the
EPR Working Group created a new
Commissioning Activities Working Groupto begin co-operating on oversight ofplant commissioning.
In 2015, the EPRWG has completed its
evaluation of the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Plant Incident andpublished its finding in a Common
Position paper. The other four MDEPDSWGs have submitted their draft
common position papers to the STC forreview and further direction. The
Steering Technical Committee has
begun work on an integrated MDEP
Common Position paper.
All five DSWGs have completed draft
common position papers addressing
post-Fukushima consideration for their
specific design and the Steering
Technical Committee has begun work on
an integrated MDEP Common Position
paper.
The VVERWG continued to exchange
information and experience on regulatory
activities,
approaches
and
legal
framework related to new design NPPs
and important to safety design
differences,
especially
Leningrad-II,
Novovoronezh-II, Hanhikivi NPPs.
The VVERWG continued to discuss anddevelop a comparison table ofdifferences in the VVER designs
implementing in MDEP countries with
input from the industry.
In 2015, the VVERWG TESG SA
prepared a draft report on regulatory
approaches and criteria used in member
countries for severe accidents analyses
and management.

••

The DICWG issued Generic Common
Position 9 on Safety Design Principles
and Supporting Information for theOverall I&C Architecture.
The EPR WG issued a draft common
position paper addressing First Plant
Only Tests (FPOT) on the EPR design.
The report provides guidance forlicensees wishing to credit a FPOT
conducted during commissioning of thefirst EPR unit to characterize theperformance and behaviour of a systemor component on follow-on units
constructed in another country.

7. NEXT STEPS – FUTURE
OF THE PROGRAMMEMDEP was established in 2006 as amultinational initiative for a five-year period.
It was extended for another five-year period
in 2012 by the Policy Group based on thevalue gained by the members.
At its May 2014 meeting, the MDEP PG
requested a data collection to be conductedamong the members to prepare for a
discussion on MDEP’s mid and long-term
strategy. The questions focused on MDEP’s
mission and expected deliverables, use of
MDEP products, and the future of MDEP.
The results of the data collection indicatedthat the members continue to receive
significant benefits from participation in
MDEP and it should continue beyond 2017
which was the end of the current term of the
programme. The members confirmed thatthe core activity should be the designspecific working groups and identified somerecommended
improvementsindevelopment of the programmes of work,
defining the products, and ensuringknowledge transfer as reactors begin theoperational phase. These findings wereshared with the Policy Group at their June2015 meeting.
At its meeting in June 2015, the MDEP
Policy Group determined that MDEP should

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Reportcontinue for at least five years (until the endof 2022) after 2017, in its current form.
Going forward, MDEP should focus on
design-specific activities. As new crosscutting issues are identified in the future, theSTC will consider setting up specificarrangements, such as ad-hoc groups,
subcommittees, or arrangements with otherworking groups (e.g., the NEA’s WGRNR,
WGIP), to address the issues rather thancreating new issue-specific working groups.
The design-specific working groups willcontinue co-operation and exchanging
feedback on design issues through theconstruction phase. The PG has determinedthat the operational stage should not be
included in the scope of MDEP. However,there should be a means to ensure that
operating experience related to design
issues is addressed by DSWGs. MDEP willcontinue
toshare
informationon
construction and commissioning of newreactors, and incorporate feedback form
operating experience as it pertains todesign.

As the current issue-specific working groups
are completing the goals and activities
specified in their programme plans, the STC
and PG are considering transferring thegeneric activities to other organizations. The
working groups have identified completion
strategies that include products, schedules,
and recommendations for ensuring thecontinuation of the interactions among theregulators, and between regulators andexternal stakeholders when these activities
are transferred. At its meeting in June 2015,
the PG requested information on how
current ISWG could terminate their activities
within MDEP and either stop or betransferred to another framework by 2018.

35

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

Appendix 1
List of abbreviations and acronyms

37

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

APPENDIX 1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AERB

Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (India)

AFCEN

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

ASME

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASN

Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (Nuclear Safety Authority from France)

CCF

Common cause failure

CNRA

Committee on Nuclear Regulatory Activities (from the NEA)

CNSC

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

CORDEL

Cooperation in Reactor Design Evaluation and Licensing

CSA

Canadian Standards Association

CSWG

Codes and Standards Working Group

DICWG

Digital Instrumentation and Controls Working Group

DSWG

Design-specific Working Group

FANR

Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation (United Arab Emirates)

FOAK

First-of-a-kind

FPGA

Field-Programmable Gate Arrays

FPOT

First Plant Only Tests

GDA

Generic Design Assessment

HAEA

Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority

HDL

Hardware Description Language

I&C

Instrumentation and controls

IAEA

International Atomic Energy Agency

IEC

International Electro Technical Commission

39

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

40

IEEE

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IRWST

In-containment refuelling water storage tank

ISWG

Issue-specific Working Group

JSME

Japanese Society of Mechanical Engineers

KEPIC

Korean Electric Power Industry Code

KINS

Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

MDEP

Multinational Design Evaluation Programme

NEA

Nuclear Energy Agency

NIKIET

Scientific Research(Russian SDO)NNSA

National Nuclear Safety Administration (China)

NPP

Nuclear power plant

NRA

Nuclear Regulation Authority (Japan)

NRC

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (United States)

NSSC

Nuclear Safety and Security Commission

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

ONR

Office for Nuclear Regulation (United Kingdom)

PG

Policy Group

PSA

Probabilistic safety assessment

SDO

Standard development organisation

SSMStrålsäkerhetsmyndigheten (Swedish Radiation Safety Authority)

STC

Steering Technical Committee

STUK

Säteilyturvakeskus (Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland)

TAEK

Türkiye Atom Enerjisi Kurumu (Turkish Atomic Energy Authority)

TESG

Technical Experts Subgroup

VICWG

Vendor Inspection Co-operation Working GroupWGRNRWorking Group on the Regulation of New Reactors (from the NEA/CNRA)WNAWorld Nuclear Association

andDesignInstituteofEnergyTechnologies

MDEP 2015-2016 Annual Report

Appendix 2
New and revised MDEP documents[April 2015 – March 2016]www.oecd-nea.org/mdep/

41

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

APPENDIX 2REVISED DOCUMENTS AND PUBLICATIONSRevised documents and publications• Working group programme plans• Technical Report: MDEP Protocol for Witnessed, Joint and Multinational Vendor Inspections(TR-VICWG-01)• Technical Report: Survey on Quality Assurance Programme Requirements (TR-VICWG-02)• Common position addressing Fukushima Daiichi related issues, Version 6 (CP-EPRWG-02)
New documents and publications• Common Position on Hazard Identification and Controls for Digital Instrumentation and Control
Systems (DICWG-10)• Common position on Safety Design Principles and Supporting Information for the Overall I&C
Architecture (DICWG-09)• Technical Report on the Definition of Primary Coolant Source Terms Used in the Different
EPR Designs for Shielding, Radiation Zoning, DBA Consequences (TR-EPRWG-03)• Technical Report:(TR-VICWG-03)

Common

QA/QM

Criteria

for

Multinational

VendorInspection• Technical Report: Assessment of Multinational Vendor Inspection of Valinox Nuclear(TR-VICWG-04)• Technical Report: Vendor Oversight Good Practices (TR-VICWG-05)• Common Position: Establishment of Common QA/QM Criteria for the Multinational Vendor
Inspection (CP-VICWG-01)

43

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Appendix 3
Photographs of reactors considered within MDEP45

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

APPENDIX 3
PHOTOGRAPHS OF REACTORS CONSIDERED WITHIN MDEPTaishan Units 1 and 2 – EPR, China, March 2016 (provided by NNSA).

Taishan Unit 1 – EPR, China, March 2016
(provided by NNSA).

Taishan Unit 2- EPR, China, April 2016
(provided by NNSA).

47

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Flamanville 3 – Construction site aerial view, EPR, France, 24 March 2016 (© EDF All rights reserved.
Aménagement Flamanville 3, Communication).

Flamanville 3 - EPR, France, Placement of the reactor
vessel head, February 2016 (© EDF All rights reserved.
Aménagement Flamanville 3, Communication).

Flamanville 3 - EPR, France, Placement of thecofferdam in the reactor pool, February 2016(© EDF All rights reserved. Aménagement
Flamanville 3, Communication).

48

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Olkiluoto 3 – Construction site, EPR, Finland, 23 September 2015 (Source TVO).

Olkiluoto 3 – Construction site, EPR, Finland, 23 August 2015 (Source TVO).

49

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Vogtle Unit 3 and 4 – Aerial view, AP1000, United States, April 2016 (Georgia Power Company, all rights reserved).

Vogtle Unit 3 – AP1000, UnitedStates, April 2016 (Georgia Power
Company, all rights reserved).

50

Vogtle Unit 4 – AP1000, United States, April 2016 (Georgia Power
Company, all rights reserved).

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

V.C. Summer – Units 2 and 3 AP1000 Construction Site Aerial View – United States, September 2015
(SCE&G, all rights reserved).

V.C. Summer Unit 2 – Installation CA01 in containment,
AP1000, United States, 23 July 2015 (SCE&G, all rights
reserved).

V.C. Summer Unit 2 – CA01 in
Containment, AP1000, United States,
23 July 2015 (SCE&G, all rights reserved).

51

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Sanmen Units 1 and 2 – Construction site, AP1000, China, 29 December 2015 (provided by NNSA).

Sanmen Unit 1 – AP1000 China, April 2016 Installationof RCP (provided by NNSA).

52

Sanmen Unit 2 – AP1000, China, December 2015, CB20
Hoisted in Place (provided by NNSA).

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Haiyang Units 1 and 2 – Construction site, AP1000, China, 18 December 2015 (provided by NNSA).

Haiyang Unit 2 – AP1000, China, August 2015,
CVTH Installation (provided by NNSA).

53

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Shin Kori Units 3 and 4 – Overview, APR1400, Korea, March 2015 (provided by KINS).

Shin Hanul – Construction site overview, APR1400, Korea, 29 March 2015 (provided by KINS).

54

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Shin Hanul – Factory integrated system test of Shin Hanul nuclear power plant Unit 1 MMIS, APR1400,
Korea, 3 April 2015 (provided by KINS).

Shin Hanul Unit 2 – Setting of reactor vessel, APR1400, Korea, 2 April 2015 (provided by KINS).

55

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Barakah Unit 1 and 2 – Overview, APR1400, United Arab Emirates, March 2016 (property of ENEC).

Barakah Unit 2 – Overview, APR1400, United Arab Emirates, March 2016 (property of ENEC).

56

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Leningrad 2 – Overview of the construction site, VVER, Russia, 2016
(provided by Rostechnadzor).

Novovoronezh NPP-2 – Overview of the construction site, VVER, Russia, 2016
(provided by Rostechnadzor).

57

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Tianwan NPP Unit 3 and 4 – Construction Site VVER, China, 2016
(provided by Rostechnadzor).

Tianwan NPP Unit 4 – RPV lifted in position 17
March 2016, VVER, China (provided by NNSA).

58

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Kashiwazaki-Kariwa 5, 6 and 7 (from far side), ABWR, Japan,
Copyright Tokyo Electric Power Company.

Installation of Iodine filters in Kashiwazaki-Kariwa NPP, ABWR, Japan,
Copyright Tokyo Electric Power Company.

59

Cover page photo credits: Haiyang Unit 1 and 2 – Construction site, AP1000, China, December 2015 (provided by
NNSA); Vogtle Unit 3 and 4 Construction Site AP1000, United States, April 2016 (© Georgia Power Company, all rights
reserved).

www.oecd-nea.org/mdep

Printed by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency for the Multinational Design Evaluation Programme