MULTINATIONAL DESIGNEVALUATION PROGRAMME
Annual Report
April 2014-April 2015
June 2015

A(M

MULTINATIONAL DESIGNEVALUATION PROGRAMME
Annual Report
April 2014-April 2015

1

MDEP Policy Group Meeting, Bethesda, Maryland, United States, 13 May 2014.

MDEP Steering Technical Committee Meeting, Visit of Barakah APR1400 construction site, United ArabEmirates, 17 February 2015.

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

FOREWORD FROM THE POLICY GROUPCHAIRMANIn January 2015, I was honoured to become
the new Chairman of the MDEP PolicyGroup. I have participated in many activitiesof the programme since its beginning. It is agreat pleasure now to assume this role withan initiative I know has been very successful
in providing a forum for regulators involvedin activities related to new reactors so as toefficiently co-operate and share informationand practices.
Over the last year, significant progress wasachieved toward those goals. The threelatest design-specific working groups formed
within MDEP, where design issues related to
APR1400, VVER and ABWR reactors arebeing discussed, have started to work on
specific technical issues with the inception ofeight new technical experts’ subgroups. The
EPR and AP1000 working groups,
foundation of MDEP since its creation, have
stepped into the preparation of commissioning activities as the construction of newreactors is ongoing in several countries.
The design-specific working groups of
MDEP continued to assess the lessons
learnt from the TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi
accident. The EPRWG has updated its
common position addressing Fukushima
Daiichi related issues with technicalappendices such as the management of thecontainment pressure during a severe
accident. The other groups are aiming torelease common positions in the comingyear.
New milestones were reached by issuespecific working groups. The first multinational inspection was carried out under theframework set up by the Vendor Inspection
Co-operation Working Group, and thefeedback will be set in the form of bestpractices. The Codes and Standards
Working Group has finalised its technicalreports and common positions documenting
the full picture and experience of the regulators on the harmonisation of pressure
boundary components codes and standards.

This group has now given the keys forconverging those codes to the industry andstandard development organisations, andplans to support them. The Digital Instrumentation and Controls Working Group isprogressing toward the completion of its setof common positions, with ten published andthree remaining.
MDEP is regularly interacting with its
stakeholders, international organisations ofregulators, industry or standard development
organisations. In May 2014, MDEP
organised its third conference on newreactor design activities, when 150 participants could have a fruitful open discussion
with MDEP. Their opinions are and will betaken into account in order to improve theefficiency of the international co-operation in
the whole range of MDEP objectives.
This year MDEP will have to think about its
future as it is meeting challenges posed by
the recent expansion of its membership andscope, such as the management andtransfer of knowledge. To inform those strategic discussions to be held in June 2015,
member regulators have answered, in late2014, a questionnaire on MDEP’s achievements and mid- and long-term development.
I value MDEP activities and I believe evenmore benefits will be visible next year as
MDEP continues to act as one of the major
driving forces of the international initiatives
to increase the safety of new reactors aswell as the effectiveness of regulatory
reviews.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge theuseful guidance that Dr Allison Macfarlane,
former PG Chairman, has given to MDEP. It
is to be recognised that she played a keyrole in leading the programme to meet its
successful accomplishments over the last
couple of years.
Petteri Tiippana
MDEP Policy Group Chairman

3

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 7
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 10
2. PROGRAMME GOALS AND OUTCOMES ............................................................................ 10
3. PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................... 11
3.1 Membership .................................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Organisational structure .................................................................................................. 11
3.3 MDEP Library ................................................................................................................. 12
3.4 Common positions .......................................................................................................... 13
4. INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER ORGANISATIONS .............................................................. 13
5. CURRENT ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................ 15
5.1 EPR Working Group (EPRWG) ...................................................................................... 16
5.2 AP1000 Working Group (AP1000WG) ............................................................................ 20
5.3 APR1400 Working Group (APR1400WG) ....................................................................... 22
5.4 VVER Working Group (VVERWG) .................................................................................. 23
5.5 AVBWR Working Group (ABWRWG) ............................................................................. 24
5.6 Vendor Inspection Co-operation Working Group (VICWG) ............................................. 25
5.7 Codes and Standards Working Group (CSWG) .............................................................. 27
5.8 Digital Instrumentation and Controls Working Group (DICWG) ....................................... 28
6. INTERIM RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 31
7. NEXT STEPS – FUTURE OF THE PROGRAMME .............................................................. 32
APPENDIX 1 – LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................. 35
APPENDIX 2 – REVISED DOCUMENTS AND PUBLICATIONS ............................................... 39
APPENDIX 3 – PHOTOGRAPHS OF REACTORS CONSIDERED WITHIN MDEP .................. 43

5

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The
Multinational
DesignEvaluation
Programme (MDEP) is a multinational
initiative to leverage the resources andknowledge of national regulatory authorities
who are, or will shortly be, undertaking thereview of new reactor power plant designs.
The MDEP members are national regulatorsfrom the following countries: Canada(CNSC), People’s Republic of China (NNSA),
Finland (STUK), France (ASN), India (AERB),
Japan (NRA), Korea (NSSC), the RussianFederation (Rostechnadzor), South Africa(NNR), Sweden (SSM), the United Kingdom(ONR) and the United States (US NRC). In
addition to these members, the national
regulators of Turkey (TAEK) and the United
Arab Emirates (FANR) have been accepted
as associate members. The International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also takes partin the work of MDEP and the OECD Nuclear
Energy Agency (OECD/NEA) performs theTechnical 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
seventh 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 (NPP) continue to beappropriately incorporated into MDEP
activities in the design-specific working
groups’ (DSWGs) programme plans. On this
topic, the EPR Working Group (EPRWG)
has revised its common position and has
published two new appendices to it, with one
to be added before the end of 2015. OtherDSWGs are in the process of drafting suchcommon positions.
Five DSWGs are facilitating the MDEP
programme goal of enhanced co-operation.
The 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 ofFinland, Korea, the United Arab Emirates
and the United States. The VVER Working
Group (VVERWG) includes the regulatory
authorities of Finland, India, Russia andTurkey. The ABWR Working Group(ABWRWG)
includestheregulatory
authorities of Finland, Japan, Sweden, theUnited Kingdom and the United States. The
DSWGs have been successful in sharing
information and experience on the safety
design reviews with the purposes ofenhancing the safety of the design andenabling regulators to make timely licensing
decisions, and of promoting safety andstandardisation of designs through MDEP
co-operation.
The Vendor Inspection Co-operation Working
Group (VICWG) continues to achieve its
short-term goals and with the completion of
the first multinational inspection in 2014,
completed a major step towards achieving its
long-term programme goals. The VICWG
continues to focus on maximising information
sharing, joint inspections (multiple regulators
inspecting to the regulatory requirements of
one country), and witnessing of other7

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

regulators’ inspections. A total of ten multinational, witnessed and joint inspections
were conducted through MDEP in 2014. The
VICWG is also interfacing with Standards
Development Organisations (SDOs) to
encourage and explore harmonisation ofquality standards.
The Digital Instrumentation and Controls
Working Group (DICWG) has issued ten
common positions based on the existing
standards, national regulatory guidance,
best practices, and group inputs using anagreed upon process and framework. These
common positions describe methods andevidence that all DICWG member states findacceptable to support safety justification for
digital I&C systems. In addition, the DICWG
members jointly research and comment on
proposed IEC, IEEE, and IAEA standards
that are relevant to the regulatory review ofdigital instrumentation and controls systems.
The Codes and Standards Working Group(CSWG) continues to work closely with
SDOs and the World Nuclear Association’s
working group on Co-operation in Reactor
Design Evaluation and Licensing (CORDEL)
to attempt code requirements harmonisation
and reconcile code differences. The CSWG
has issued a technical report on theessential performance guidelines for thedesign and construction of pressure
boundary components, which is the lastreport as initially planned in the group’s
programme of work. The CSWG has pushed
the industry and the SDOs to move forward
and work co-operatively and will continue tosupport their initiatives by regularlyinteracting with them.
On 14-15 May 2014, MDEP held its third
conference on new reactor design activities
in Bethesda, Maryland (US). The purpose ofthis conference was to provide a forum
where MDEP could share the results
obtained with its stakeholders, and provide
them opportunities to present ongoing
activities related to new reactor licensing aswell as give their feedback on MDEP
activities and future. A total of 150 people
attended the conference. Representatives
from a broad range of national regulators,
8

international organisations, nuclear industry,including vendors, designers, licensees andapplicants, and standard development
organisations, participated in the two-day
conference. Seven expert panel sessions,covering major topics of interest among
member regulators were conducted. In eachof these sessions, the accomplishments andstatus of MDEP and related international
initiatives were discussed. MDEP stakeholders
stressed the need to continue the work on
harmonisation of the regulation andinternational practises and to anticipate
upcoming new reactor reviews to beundertaken in the future, notably by taking
benefit from knowledge already acquired
through MDEP. Messages from thestakeholders will be considered by MDEP to
inform its future.
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
results for 2014 and early 2015 include:•

ten MDEP-co-ordinated vendor inspections including a multinational inspection
with participation by the US NRC, France
ASN, and the UK ONR, two joint
inspections with participation by theUnited States and Korean regulators, andseven additional witnessed inspections;•completion of the first multinational
inspection of a vendor using the common
Quality Assurance/Quality Management(QA/QM) requirements;•

completion of all five planned documents
for the CSWG with issuance of its
technical report on the “essential
performance guidelines for the design andconstruction ofpressure retaining
components”;•

common position on digital instrumentation and controls for new reactors in
the area of the “selection and use ofindustrial digital devices of limited
functionality”;

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report••a paper on “insights from Probabilistic
Safety Assessment (PSA) comparison in
evaluation of EPR designs”, presented by
the Chairman of the EPR technicalexperts subgroup on PSA at the
PSAM12 June 2014 meeting;common positions on the EPR:
- containment heat removal system in
accident conditions,- in-containment refuelling water storagetank (IRWST) pH control in accident
conditions,- containment mixing;•a survey on the regulatory approaches
and criteria used in the analysis of
accidents and transients in MDEPEPRWG member countries;•

a revision of the EPR common position
addressing Fukushima Daiichi related
issues for the EPR design, with theaddition of two appendices on the:•establishment of ABWR technical expert
subgroups on the topics of severe accident prevention and mitigation, andinstrumentation and controls;•

a comparison matrix of the key design
features of the various ABWR designs;•

establishment of VVER technical expert
subgroups in the areas of severe accidents, Fukushima Daiichi lessons learnt,
and reactor pressure vessel and primarycircuit specificities;•

a comparison table of differences in the
VVER designs.

- pressure management of containment during severe accidents;- reliability and qualification of severe
accident management instrumentation;•a workshop between the US NRC andNNSA and several exchanges of letters
containing questions and responses
related to design and construction
issues for the AP1000 in China and theUnited States, all opened to MDEP
members;•

establishment of an AP1000 Digital I&C
technical expert subgroup that began
exchanging information on the standard
design safety review, licensing, testing,and construction of the digital I&C systems for AP1000 projects;•

an updated table of post-Fukushima
Daiichi actions for the APR1400, and adesign differences table comparing thedesign of the APR1400 in Europe,
Korea, the United Arab Emirates, andthe United States;
9

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

MULTINATIONAL DESIGN EVALUATIONPROGRAMME

1. INTRODUCTION
The
Multinational
DesignEvaluation
Programme (MDEP) is a multinational initiative that develops innovative approaches toleverage the resources and knowledge ofnational regulatory authorities who are, or will
shortly be, undertaking the review of newreactor power plant designs, and overseeing
those construction and commissioning activities. 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 through multinational co-operation,
while retaining the sovereign authority ofeach regulator to make 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. Significant
progress has been made over the past year
on the overall MDEP goals of increased
co-operation and enhanced convergence of
requirements and practices. Accomplishments to date provide confidence that the
MDEP membership, structure and processes provide an effective method ofaccomplishing increased co-operation in
regulatory design reviews.
MDEP was established in 2008 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. This reportprovides a status of the programme after its
seventh year of implementation.

10

2. PROGRAMME GOALSAND OUTCOMES
The main objectives of MDEP effort are toenable increased co-operation and establish
mutually agreed upon practices to enhance
the safety of new reactor designs. The
enhanced co-operation among regulators
will improve the effectiveness and efficiencyof the regulatory design reviews, which arepart of each country’s licensing process. The
goal of MDEP is not to independently
develop new regulatory standards, but tobuild upon the similarities already existing,and current harmonisation in the form of
IAEA and other safety standards. In addition,
the common positions developed in MDEP
will be shared with the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) for consideration inits standards development programme.
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 for regulatory bodies to co-operate on design
evaluations and inspections. In addition toorganising working groups, MDEP has
provided each regulator with peer contacts
who share information, discuss issues
informally, and disseminate information
rapidly. For example, the design-specificworking group members have benefited
significantly from the sharing of questions
among the regulators, resulting in more
informed, and harmonised, 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.
MDEP is meeting its goal of convergence ofregulatory practices by establishing common
positions in both the issue-specific anddesign-specific working groups. The working
groups are making comparisons of the regulatory practices of the member regulators,

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

identifying differences, and developing
common positions. The working groups arealso working with codes and standards
organisations to identify differences andpropose areas of convergence.

3. PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION
3.1 Membership
Participation in the Policy Group (PG) andSteering Technical Committee (STC) is
intended for mature, experienced nationalsafety authorities of interested countries that
already have commitments for new build or
firm plans to have commitments in the near
future for new reactor designs. Full MDEP
members are CNSC (Canada), NNSA
(China), STUK (Finland), ASN (France),
AERB (India), NRA (Japan), NSSC (Korea),
Rostechnadzor (Russia), NRR (South
Africa), SSM (Sweden), ONR (United
Kingdom) and the US NRC (United States).
In addition, the IAEA takes part in the workof MDEP.
MDEP associate members are national
regulatory authorities without previous
licensing experience that have been invitedby the MDEP PG to participate in selected
MDEP design-specific activities based onevidence that the organisation is actively
involved in new reactor design review
activities relevant to MDEP. Such aregulatory authority would be from a country
that has taken a firm commitment in the nearterm to proceed with safety design review
activities and is willing and ready tocontribute to specific MDEP activities. It is
expected that the associate member would
be in a position to exchange information with
MDEP members to enhance sharing andexperience in relevant design safety reviews.
Associate members include the Turkish
Atomic Energy Authority (TAEK) and theUnited Arab Emirates’ Federal Authority for
Nuclear Regulation (FANR). The latterparticipates in the APR1400 working groupand TAEK participates in the VVER working
group.

3.2 Organisational structure
The programme is governed by a PolicyGroup, made up of the heads of theparticipating organisations, and implemented
by a Steering Technical Committee and its
working groups. The STC consists of seniorstaff representatives from each of theparticipating national safety authorities, plus
a representative from the IAEA.
The PG provides guidance to the STC on theoverall approach; monitors the progress ofthe programme; and determines participationin the programme. In January 2015, thechairmanship of the Policy Group wastransferred to Mr. Petteri Tiippana, thedirector general of the Finnish Radiation and
Nuclear Safety Authority, STUK.
The STC manages and approves thedetailed programme of work including:• defining topics and working methods,
establishing technical working groups,
and nomination of experts;• approving procedures and technicalpapers developed by the working
groups;• establishing interfaces with otherinternational efforts to benefit fromavailable work and avoid duplication;• developing
procedures
forthehandling of information to be shared in
the project;• reporting to the PG;• identifying
new topics
programme to address;

for

the

• establishing subcommittees
STC to study specific topics.

of

the

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 and11

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

co-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 members
express interest in working together.
Under the design-specific working groups,
expert subgroups have been formed toaddress specific technical issues.
• Issue-specificactivities.
Workinggroups are organised for the technicaland regulatory process areas within the
programme of work. These currently
include vendor inspections, pressure
boundary component codes andstandards, and digital instrumentationand controls. Membership in issuespecific working groups is open to all
MDEP participating regulators and the
IAEA representatives. The following
criteria are used to evaluate whether a
proposed activity should be undertaken
as part of MDEP:
1) the activity is of generic interest and ofsafety significance to the licensing of
new reactors by MDEP members;2) the approach followed by the MDEP
regulators is not completely similar;3) successful completion of the activity
would likely result in increased harmonisation and convergence in regulatory
practices or increased co-operation
within a reasonable timeframe andresource expenditures;
4) any new MDEP activity should not
duplicate similar efforts that are
already ongoing or are planned to beundertaken by other more appropriateorganisations such as the NEA, theIAEA, GIF, WENRA, etc., except
where MDEP could contribute to theongoing work of these groups;5) each new activity should have a leadcountry willing to take an active

12

leadership role, and should have adefined product.
3.3 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 to
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 ageneral 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. 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. The members of the DSWG also
have a communication protocol to share new
information related to new reactors withother members in advance of its release to
the public.

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

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 organisations, for consideration in standards development programmes.
After a common position is agreed upon aworking group, it is presented to the STC for
endorsement. Upon endorsement by the
STC, the proposed common positions are
made publicly available on the NEA MDEP
website for external stakeholder informationand comment. 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
regulatory body chooses to adopt a common
position, it would be through that country’s
normal processes.

4. INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER
ORGANISATIONSMDEP strives to maintain an awareness of,and interactions with, other organisations
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 theseorganisations, and communicating MDEP
activities and results to other organisations.
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 regulators, and efforts toharmonise specific regulatory practices andstandards.
The CNRA Working Group on theRegulation of New Reactors (WGRNR)
examines the regulatory issues of siting,licensing and regulatory oversight of new
nuclear reactors. The current focus areas of
the WGRNR are construction experience,
siting issues and licensing structure of
regulatory staff and regulatory licensing
process. The WGRNR co-ordinates its workwith the work performed by MDEP such that
it utilises its outputs, does not duplicate its
efforts, and extends the results of MDEP toother CNRA members. To avoid overlap ofactivities between the groups, the WGRNR
focuses on generic activities, proceduresand guidance, while MDEP focuses ondesign-specific issues.
In 2014, MDEP and CNRA agreed to a
proposed framework regarding commissioning activities (hot-functional and start-up
testing), in which MDEP addresses activities
specific to a design and WGRNR tackles
generic ones. Lessons learnt from MDEP
commissioning activities will be transferred
to WGRNR for it to pursue the work on a
generic basis, with participation open to awider range of regulators. A joint
MDEP/WGRNR workshop on commissioning activities will take place early 2016.
Also, when a new generic issue is raised
and an international response is deemed ofinterest, MDEP and WGRNR share theirviews and discuss the best way to achieve
the goals.

13

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

MDEP interacts with the CNRA WGRNR
and working group on Inspection Practices
mostly through the NEA staff who also
serves as the technical secretariat for the
CNRA. WGRNR is the focal point ofinteractions between MDEP and the CNRA
and its working groups. The NEA technicalsecretariat will assist in co-ordinating
communications and requests between the
two activities.
The IAEA participates in the work of MDEP
through participation in the PG STC, andissue-specific working groups meetings. In
addition, the generic common positions
developed in MDEP are shared with the
IAEA for consideration in its standards
development programme.
The World Nuclear Association CORDEL
group acts as one of the industry
counterparts to MDEP. CORDEL has
initiated task forces to address many issues,
including those being addressed by the
MDEP issue-specific working groups.
Members of the MDEP STC meet with
CORDEL yearly, and CORDEL has been
invited to participate in meetings of the
MDEP CSWG, VICWG and DICWG. In
February 2015, CORDEL has published aposition paper to express its views of MDEP
including proposals on the future of MDEP
and its interaction with CORDEL.
MDEP has interacted with the Generation IV
International Forum to keep informed ofmultinational co-operative activities in thearea of advanced reactors.
The MDEP STC meets periodically with arepresentative of the Western Europe
Nuclear Regulators Association (WENRA) todiscuss the development of WENRA safety
objectives and reports. The WENRA Reactor
Safety Working Group welcomes MDEP
input when developing its documents.
The MDEP working groups are very
interested in understanding the perspectivesof the design vendors, codes and standards
organisations, as well as component manufacturers in the MDEP activities, and thechallenges they face in dealing withnumerous
regulators
andregulatory
14

systems. The MDEP working groups interact
with, and invite industry groups to participate
in selective portions of meetings and otheractivities. For example:•

The CSWG interacted with a committee ofstandards development organisations(SDOs) (ASME, JSME, KEPIC, AFCEN,
and CSA) in a code comparison project.

•

The EPRWG meets regularly with representatives of the EPR operators owners’
group to discuss similarities anddifferences among the EPR designs being
licensed in each country.

•

The AP1000WG meets with Westinghouseand the AP1000 applicants and licensees.

•

The APR1400WG met with representatives of the licensee for the Barakah NPP,a site with four APR1400 reactors underconstruction in the UAE.

•

The ABWRWG meets with ABWR Plant
makers, such as GE-Hitachi, Hitachi-GE
and Toshiba.

•

The DICWG interacts frequently withapplicable SDOs. IEC and IEEE representatives attend MDEP DICWG meetings, and are involved in the developmentof common positions.

The VICWG met with SDOs and WNA
representatives to discuss QA/QM
standards for manufacturing nuclear
components.
With effective communications in mind,
MDEP held its third conference on New
Reactor Design Activities in May 2014 in the
United States. The goal of the conference
was to communicate to a wide spectrum of
stakeholders worldwide the programme ofwork and accomplishments of MDEP, and tosolicit feedback and input from these stakeholders regarding recommendations on cooperating more efficiently on new reactor
design reviews, and encouraging standardisation and harmonisation in regulatory
requirements and practices. Another key goalof this conference was to allow the various
industry stakeholders to share their activities
on new reactor designs and standardisation
efforts. These stakeholders included non-•

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

MDEP regulators, vendors, licensees, reactor
applicants, industry organisations, standards
development organisations, etc. Conference
sessions included discussions on: MDEP
design-specific working groups, commissioning activities, vendor inspections, digital
instrumentation and controls, new reactor
activities related to the Fukushima Daiichi
accident, and codes and standards
harmonisation. The approximately 150 participants from external organisation representatives noted the positive impact of MDEP on
encouraging harmonisation and voiced
support for continuation of MDEP’s activities.

•

looking for opportunities to provide input toissue-specific working groups on potential
topics of significant interest;•

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

documenting common MDEP positions on
aspects of the review;•

documenting their activities with technicalreports to ensure knowledge transfer;•communicating and co-ordinating communications on MDEP views and common
positions to vendors and operators
regarding the basis of safety evaluations
and standardisation.

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 areorganised for the technical and regulatory
process areas within the programme ofwork. Each working group has developed aprogramme plan which identifies specificactivities, schedules and contacts.
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 andcommissioning experience;
working to understand the differences inregulatory safety review approaches ineach country to support potential use ofother regulators safety design evaluations,where appropriate;

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 amongst themselves. Two such
topics are commissioning activities andFukushima Daiichi lessons learnt.
Commissioning activities
Members of design-specific working groups,
especially EPRWG and AP1000WG, havealready started discussions and arepresently devoting resources to co-operationon commissioning of first of a kind (FOAK)
features. 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. The
time frame for getting feedback from thisframework is expected to be two years.
Fukushima Daiichi lessons learnt
All the DSWGs have been tasked to discuss
lessons learnt from the Fukushima Daiichi
accident and the impact on new reactor
designs:•

The EPR working group has been the firstgroup to propose a common position“addressing Fukushima Daiichi related
15

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Reportissues” concerning the EPR design. This
common position, which includes fivetechnical appendices (from long term lossof offsite power to management of asevere accident), is publicly available (fourout of five appendices, the last remaining
will be published in 2015).
•

The AP1000WG and APR1400WG follow
the EPRWG in that they are planning torelease common positions following the
EPRWG template.

•

The ABWRWG is following a different
path, believing that the considered ABWR
design has to take into account different
challenges than the other reactors. A
common position is also being prepared.

•

The VVERWG has chosen to form atechnical experts’ subgroup to discussdesignenhancements
relatedto
Fukushima Daiichi lessons learnt. This
group will release a common position on
the issue.

When the results of all DSWGs discussions
will be available, the STC expects commonalities (if any) to be extracted into a common
MDEP position.
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), the United Kingdom(ONR) and the United States (US NRC). In
2014, chairmanship of this working group was
turned over from STUK to ASN.
Numerous
meetings
andtechnical
exchanges have taken place to exchange
information on the reviews being conductedin each country: Olkiluoto 3, which is underconstruction in Finland; Flamanville 3, whichis under construction in France; Taishanunits 1 and 2, which are under constructionin China. In the United States, the EPR
Design Certification (DC) application review
has been suspended following a requestfrom AREVA to the US NRC. The combined
license applications have been put on holdas well; and the UK-EPR which has
16

undergone a Generic Design Assessment in
the United Kingdom and is planned currently
at the Hinkley Point C site, where early
preparatory earthworks have started.
The working group currently includes four
technical expert subgroups (TESGs) that are
addressing information on specific technicalissues: Accidents and Transients (A&T),
Digital Instrumentation and Controls (DI&C),
Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA), andSevere Accident (SA). The subgroups meet
regularly to exchange information on relevant aspects of the design review status,
share relevant evaluations when they
become available, produce technical reports
to identify and document similarities anddifferences among designs, regulatory
safety review approaches and resulting
evaluations.
The EPRWG meetsregularlywithrepresentatives of AREVA, EDF, and other
EPR-licensees, applicants, and potential
applicants to discuss similarities and differences among the EPR designs being
licensed in each country, as well as issuesof common interest.
Accomplishments
The PSA TESG is identifying the design
differences and modifications affecting risk
and the main differences in PSAs from EPR
applications in different countries. In 2014, the
TESG continued to work on the comparison of
selected initiators within the PSA of Olkiluoto 3
NPP in Finland, Flamanville 3 NPP in France,
UK EPR design, and US EPR design. The
objective of this PSA comparison was to
identify differences in the modelling aspects
and results of EPR PSAs, as well as to assess
the rationale for these differences. The
comparison covered various types of initiators
challenging a broad scope of safety functions.
A paper on the insights from the PSA
comparison in the evaluation of EPR designs
has been presented by the Chairman of the
TESG at the PSAM12 June 2014 meeting,giving an international recognition of thegroup’s accomplishments to date.

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

The PSA TESG is striving to continue theco-operation with the EPR operators owners’
group and other EPRWG TESGs to discuss
topics such as: internal hazards, modellingof HVAC systems, modelling of I&C
systems, and modelling of a reactor coolant
pump seal loss of coolant accident in the
EPR PSAs. The TESG seeks also to have a
deeper understanding of the main design
differences in different countries’ EPR
designs which can affect the risk. Finally, the
TESG will explore results and modelledscenarios within spent fuel pool PSAs.
The A&T TESG is identifying differences inregulatory criteria and approaches among
the member countries. It has published asurvey of the regulatory approaches toanalysis of accidents and transients andissued a report on “approaches and criteria
used in the analysis of accidents andtransients in MDEP countries”. The group ispursuing discussions on inherent boron
dilution and failure of electrical systems after
a design basis accident.
The MDEP EPR I&C technical expert
subgroup has written a technical report on
the EPR I&C system designs that includes
1) an overview of the generic EPR I&C
design, 2) similarities and differences of the
EPR designs in all concerned countries,3) technical issues and their resolutions, and
4) lessons learnt from interactions. This
report is endorsed as an interim reportinternal to MDEP and the EPR Industry forthe time being. When all of the member
regulators will have closed their review of
the EPR I&C, the report will be updated withthe aim of a public release. The EPR I&C
subgroup identified a concern with spurious
actuations that is considered not specific to
EPR, and thus should be considered at ahigher level than the TESG. It wastransferred to the DICWG to develop acommon position. On a design-specific level,
once regulators have finalised their assessment of this issue, the DI&C TESG will
update its 2010 common position on the
EPR I&C.

The SA TESG finalised three common
positions, which have been published early
2015, on the following topics:•

containment heat removal system (CHRS)
in accident conditions;•in-containment refuelling water storagetank (IRWST) pH control in accident
conditions;•

EPR containment mixing.

Future work for this subgroup includes acomparison of source terms and dose
evaluations in case of severe accidents.
An ad-hoc Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) TESG
developed a final draft of the Fukushima
Daiichi common position appendix on longterm cooling of the spent fuel pools. This
common position paper is expected to be
published in mid-2015.
In October 2014, all of the four TESGs held
their meetings in Beijing, which were
followed by a visit of the Taishan EPR
construction site. This opportunity was used
to carry out joint sessions between some of
the TESGs, when some of the issues they
discuss are cross-cutting, as well as toensure maximum interaction with theirChinese expert counterparts.
In August 2013, the EPRWG issued acommon position addressing Fukushima
Daiichi related issues, specific to the EPR
reactors. This paper identifies common
approaches to address potential safety
improvements for EPR plants as related tolessons learnt from the Fukushima Daiichi
accident. In 2015, the EPRWG revised thecore of the common position and added two
appendices addressing the management ofpressure in the containment and thereliability and qualification of severe accident
management instrumentation. The lastremaining appendix, on the long-term coolingof the fuel pools, will be finalised andpublished in mid-2015. After 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 the17

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Reportdesign has been and could be further
enhanced to address Fukushima Daiichi
lessons learnt.
The EPRWG began co-operating on theoversight of plant commissioning (preoperational and start-up testing). As severalof the licensees from member regulators’
countries get closer to the late stages of
construction and preparations for operation,
MDEP has considered how it can co-operate
to share experience in late-stage construction
tests (e.g. hot functional tests) leading to fuelload and operations. The working group helda workshop on commissioning co-operationin June 2013 in China that included representatives of AREVA and the EPR operators’
owners group. The EPRWG has drafted areport on the consideration of commissioningrelated issues in MDEP. This proposal was
based on the experiences from the EPRWG
and AP1000WG. The report was shared with
the CNRA and its WGRNR. An agreement
then followed up between the Chairmen of
MDEP PG and CNRA, stating that:•

MDEP is the adequate place to tackle
design-specific issues including commissioning topics that could have an impact
on design and is acknowledged as aninternational forum where practical issues
can be handled in an effective manner andwhere sharing protected commercial
information is possible. MDEP should
focus on specific observations related tothe commissioning of a first-of-a-kind plant.

•

CNRA/WGRNR is intended to undertake
generic commissioning-related tasks suchas national regulatory practices, oversightand regulation of construction and commissioning phases.

MDEP scope has been extended to include
commissioning activities by the PG. This has
been reflected in the terms of reference
which were updated in April 2014.
The EPRWG is in the process of finalising acommon position on First Plant Only Tests(FPOT). This common position is intended toaddress how a regulator would credit in thecommissioning programme proposed for thereactors in its country a test performed on a18

reactor in another country. The EPRWG has
already informed the EPR operators owners’
group about the early draft, in order for the
Industry to get insights on what to get
prepared for in case they want to conductFPOT.

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

EPRWG – Olkiluoto 3 site visit, Olkiluoto, Finland, June 2014.

EPR TESG – Taishan Unit 2 EPR construction site visit, China, October 2014.

19

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

5.2 AP1000 Working Group (AP1000WG)
The AP1000WG includes the regulatory
authorities of China (NNSA), United
Kingdom (ONR), United States (US NRC),
Sweden, and Canada (CNSC). A total offour AP1000 units are under construction in
China at the Sanmen and Haiyang sites.
The US NRC has certified the AP1000
design and has received applications for
combined licenses for twelve AP1000 units.
Four units are under construction in the
United States at the Vogtle and Summer
sites. In 2011 ONR issued an interim
Generic Design Assessment of the AP1000
design, and in March 2015, publishedrevised resolution plans in response to fiftyone outstanding GDA Issues. In Canada,
CNSC is performing a pre-licensing assessment of the AP1000, and in June 2013,
completed Phase 2 of its pre-licensing design
evaluation. Sweden began participation in theworking group in 2013.
Accomplishments
The working group members have shareddesign information, application documents
and preliminary findings, and identified themost significant review issues as well as
construction challenges. As the working
group members transitioned to different
stages of their design reviews, the group reevaluated the scope of the working group
topics, and the issues to be addressed. In
2014, the working group discussions
focused on issues identified with the designof the plants under construction in the US
and China including condensate return
design change, and main control room doseand heat up. The working group also shared
information and experience on vendor
issues such as squib valve design andtesting, reactor coolant pump testing, anddigital instrumentation and controls. The
working group has also exchanged
information on how the AP1000 design
addresses the findings from the Fukushima
Daiichi accident and drafted a common
position paper.
20

The AP1000 working group met regularly
with representatives of Westinghouse to
discuss similarities and differences among
the designs being licensed in each country
and to discuss post-Fukushima Daiichi
safety reviews. In 2014, the working group
toured plants under construction in China
and met with the licensee.
The first meeting of the AP1000 Digital I&C
TESG was held in China in October 2014.
The meeting was successful in exchanging
information regarding the standard design
safety review, licensing, testing andconstruction of AP1000 projects. The
technical findings, issues, and challenges
facing the AP1000 projects in member
countries which were shared during themeeting will be valuable for the regulatory
oversight of those AP1000 projects.
The US NRC and ONR held bi-lateral
discussions to support information exchange
associated with closing out issues identified
in the Generic Design Assessment Step 4
for the AP1000. These discussions focusedon the topics of squib valve design andtesting, and Fukushima Daiichi lessons
learnt.
The United States and China exchanged
several letters containing questions andresponses related to design and construction
issues in each country. The documents wereshared with the other working groupmembers through the MDEP library. This
exchange of information was the result ofengagement of upper managements of thetwo regulators. On 3-4 November 2014, theUS NRC and NNSA held a workshop to
exchange information on topics regarding
design changes such as inorganic zinccoating, condensate return, reactor coolant
pumps, squib valves, and equipment
qualification, as well as discussions on
Fukushima Daiichi lessons learnt andprevention and mitigation of severe
accidents.
As China and the United States progress inconstruction and move into the commissioning

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Reportphase, they have begun to share informationon commissioning. The US NRC provided
NNSA inspection procedures and will makeinspectors available to observe the commissioning activities. In addition, NNSA has
assembled experts in NPP design andcommissioning to plan a strategic approachfor the commissioning inspections. In July
2013, the working group members from theUnited States, China and Canada met in

China to discuss co-operation on preoperational testing and initial test program
activities. Following this meeting, theUS NRC and NNSA continued discussions
and correspondence on this issue since then(including at AP1000 working group meetings). A follow-up meeting on pre-operational
testing issues is planned for late 2015 in
China.

th

AP1000WG – 10 Meeting, Sanmen construction site visit, China, September 2014.

21

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

5.3 APR1400 Working Group(APR1400WG)
The APR1400WG was established in August2012 with participation by the regulatorsfrom Korea, Finland, the United ArabEmirates, and the United States. Four
APR1400 units are under construction andtwo additional units are under preliminary
safety evaluation report review in Korea. The
United States is reviewing an application for
design certification that was submitted in
December 2014. Two units are underconstruction in the UAE at the Barakah site.
FANR received the construction permit
application for the next two units, in 2013.
STUK has completed a preliminary safetyassessment of the APR1400 which includes
information regarding design feasibility,
organisational capability, and the plant site.

th

In 2014, the working group updated its tableof post-Fukushima Daiichi actions, andcompleted a design differences tablecomparing the design of the APR1400 in
Europe, Korea, the United Arab Emirates,
and the United States.
The working group established a TESG on
severe accidents which held its first meetingin October 2014. The TESG drafted tables
showing differences in 1) severe accident
regulatory
positionsofparticipating
regulators and 2) provisions for prevention
and mitigation of severe accidents in
APR1400 designs proposed or implemented
in participating countries.
The working group also includes a TESG toco-operate on accidents and transients. It
planstoincludediscussionsofcommissioning activities in future meetings.

APR1400WG – 4 Meeting, Rockville, USA, 5 May 2014.

22

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

5.4 VVER Working Group (VVERWG)
The VVERWG includes the regulatory
authorities of Finland, India, Russia andTurkey. The members are at various stagesof review:• the Russian regulator is reviewing
applications for a siting license, operating
licenses, and overseeing commissioning
activities;• in Finland, pre-licensing design review isongoing;• India is overseeing commissioning
activities for two units at Kudankulam(KK-1&2), and reviewing application for
construction of two additional units(KK-3&4);• a siting license is under review in Turkey.

Formation of this working group was
approved in 2013 and the working groupheld its first meeting in January 2014. Two
TESGs are co-operating in the areas ofsevere accidents and Fukushima Daiichi
lessons learnt. The TESG on severe
accidents is drafting a technical report on theregulatory requirements for severe accidents
applicable to the VVER. The TESG on
Fukushima Daiichi lessons learnt is drafting
a common position on this topic. A TESG on
reactor pressure vessel and primary circuit
new VVER specificities was formed in early2015 and held its first meeting in March2015. The working group drafted acomparison table of differences in the VVER
designs.

rd

VVERWG – 3 Meeting, Issy-les-Moulineaux, France, 18 December 2014.

23

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

5.5 ABWR Working Group (ABWRWG)
The ABWRWG includes the regulatory
authorities of Finland, Japan, Sweden, theUnited Kingdom, and the United States. The
formation of this working group was approvedin 2013 and the first meeting of the working
group was held in January 2014. There are
four different ABWR designs underconsideration by the working group members:
GE-Hitachi, Hitachi-GE, US Toshiba andFinnish Toshiba.

Two TESGs are co-operating on the topics
of severe accident prevention and mitigation,and instrumentation and controls. The
working group developed a comparison
matrix of the key design features with input
from the vendors, and is drafting a common
position on Fukushima Daiichi lessons
learnt.

ABWRWG – Shimane Unit 3 site visit, Shimane, Japan, 5 September 2014.

24

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

5.6 Vendor Inspection
Working Group (VICWG)

Co-operation

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

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

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

harmonise the vendor inspection practices
among MDEP regulators for inspections
under the MDEP protocol; and•implement joint and witnessed inspections
and perform multinational inspections ofvendors according to the common QA/QM
requirements.

The
workinggroup
enhancestheunderstanding of each regulator’s inspection
procedures and practices by coordinating
witnessed inspections of safety related
components and quality assurance inspections. Witnessed inspections consist of one
regulator performing an inspection to its
criteria, observed by representatives of other
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 would allow the participating members
to use the results of the inspection that are
applicable to their regulations.
The working group maintains a list of
inspections from the MDEP VICWG regulators for opportunities to witness inspections, and shares inspection results througha database maintained in the MDEP library.

This database includes not only the reportsof witnessed and joint inspections, but all
inspections that may be of interest to the
MDEP members.
Accomplishments
The MDEP VICWG continues to achieve its
short-term goals. With the completion of thefirst Multinational Inspection in July 2014 at
Valinox Nucléaire, a French steam generator
tube manufacturer, VICWG achieved amajor step towards its long-term programme
goals. For this first multinational inspectionof a vendor, the participating regulators usedthe common Quality Assurance/Quality Management (QA/QM) requirements developedby the VICWG. These criteria were developed in conformity with International Codesand Standards such as IAEA, ISO andothers that MDEP members adopted. The
core requirements are consistent with both
IAEA safety standard and ISO standard, thecommon requirements in the US 10CFR50
Appendix B used to the survey programme
were used as a guideline of essential
elements. The VICWG also drafted a reportof lessons learnt from this inspection. As the
VICWG moves forward, the group willattempt to increase the number of multinational inspections in addition to continuing
joint inspections (multiple nations inspecting
to the regulatory requirements of one
country), and witnessing of other regulators’
inspections.
In 2014 the members conducted ten MDEP
related inspections. This included the multinational inspection with participation by the
US NRC, French ASN, and the UK ONR,
two joint inspections with participation by theUnited States and Korea, and sevenadditional witnessed inspections.
In November 2014, the group met withrepresentatives for the NSQ-100 quality
standard. The representatives explained thestatus of the standard and their vision of how
it could be implemented as a single quality
standard for nuclear activities. The NSQ-100
plan calls for certification of suppliers thus
reducing the burden for industry to review
25

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

the suppliers programme. It was noted thatpurchasers would still need to provide
oversight of technical requirements related
to the qualification of suppliers. The VICWG
will continue to work with the Standards
Developing Organisations to encourage andexplore harmonisation of QA/QM standards.
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 group added two
new actions in its Programme Plan:th

VICWG – 13 Meeting, Busan, Korea, June 2014.

26• Develop a list of good practices forvendor oversight.
• Conduct a survey of vendor inspector
training. The group also agreed to add
an attribute to its inspection plans toaddress issues related to Counterfeit,
Fraudulent, and Suspect Items (CFSI).
Regarding the future of the working group,
the members believe that working group
activities are productive and should continue. The current plan is for the co-ordinationof inspections to remain within MDEP. The
generic process issues and QA standards
harmonisation efforts could be transferred toanother organisation at some point in the
future.

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

5.7 Codes and Standards Working Group(CSWG)The goal of the CSWG is harmonisation ofcode requirements for design and construction of pressure-retaining (pressureboundary) components in order to improvethe effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory design reviews, increase quality ofsafety assessments, and to make eachregulator stronger in its ability to make safety
decisions.
The CSWG recognised early on that the firststep to achieving harmonisation is tounderstand the extent of similarities anddifferences amongst the pressure-boundary
codes and standards used in various
countries. The CSWG encouraged SDOs to
conduct full scope code comparisons, study
the similarities and differences between
codes, and develop a strategy and process
for achieving code harmonisation andprevention of further divergences. The SDOs
formed a steering committee composed of
the representatives of ASME, JSME, KEPIC,
AFCEN, CSA, vendors, and utilities which
performed a comparison of their pressureboundary codes and standards to identify
the extent of similarities and differences incode requirements and the reasons for theirdifferences.
The SDOs compared requirements of theirpressure-boundary codes and standards
including JSME’s S-NC1 Code (Japan),
AFCEN’S RCC-M Code (France), KEA’s
KEPIC Code (Korea), CSA’s N285.0
standard (Canada) and NIKIET’s PNAE G-7
Code (Russia) against the requirements ofSection III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code (United States) for Class 1
vessels, piping, pumps and valves.
The results enabled the CSWG to understand from a global perspective how eachcountry’s pressure-boundary code or
standard evolved into its current form andcontent. In January 2012, the SDOs from
Canada, France, Japan, Korea, and theUnited States issued their Code Comparison
report for Class 1 Nuclear Power Plant
Components that was prepared for MDEP.

In December 2012, the SDOs publishedrevision 1 that included a comparison with
the Russian code.
The work of the CSWG showed that code
harmonisation should be sought jointly by
SDOs, the industry and the regulatory
authorities. As a result of interactions
between the CSWG and the SDOs, theSDOs formed a Code Convergence Board
whose objective is to limit divergence andachieveconvergenceonindividual
requirements where realistic and practical.
Although a voting member of the Board,
MDEP has observer status and a member of
the CSWG attends most meetings. The
industry formed task groups within CORDEL
to mirror CSWG activities and try to propose
converged code provisions (or requirements)
to SDOs through analyses of code
differences on selected topics. The CSWG is
working closely with SDOs and CORDEL toconverge code requirements and reconcile
code differences.
Accomplishments
The CSWG finalised its fifth document: atechnical
reportonthe“essential
performance guidelines for the design andconstructionofpressureretaining
components”. These guidelines provide
qualitative performance descriptions of therules and practices derived from the codesand standards, which can be considered as
essential and are described in most of thecodes and standards in the MDEP member
countries. These essential guidelines cangovern most of the pressure boundary codesand standards but not necessarily all ofthem. They will therefore be regarded as
guides or recommendations. As theseguidelines represent commonalities between
the codes and standards of MDEP member
countries they should not be used as astand-alone.
The full sets of documents initially planned in
the CSWG programme of work are now
issued. The CSWG now plans to hold one
meeting per year going forward to support
the activities of CORDEL and the SDOs in
27

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Reporttheir code convergence efforts. Indeed, in
this area, the effort to achieve concrete
harmonisation, convergence or limitation offurther divergence lies now in the hands ofthe industry and SDOs.
This CSWG set of documents is as follows:•

technical report TR-CSWG-01 on theregulatory frameworks for the use of
nuclear pressure boundary codes andstandards in MDEP countries;•

technical report TR-CSWG-02 on thelessons learnt on achieving harmonisation of codes and standards forpressure boundary components innuclear power plants;•

technical report TR-CSWG-03 on thefundamental attributes for the design andconstruction of pressure-boundary components;•

technical Report TR-CSWG-04 on theessential performance guidelines for thedesign and construction of pressure
retaining components.

The working group has successfullycompleted its goal and mandate to identify
the challenges in harmonising codes andstandards and to lay ground for a framework
destined to facilitate convergence of codesand standards in the near future. The group
has pushed the industry and the SDOs tomove forward and work co-operatively. The
remaining outstanding mandate of the
CSWG is continuing to interact with theindustry, and provide them with the support
they seek from the regulators side andmaintain
thisuniquecommunication
channel.
Next StepsIn February 2015, the CSWG completed its
stated goals and issued its final reports. The
working group will continue to interact with
the CORDEL and the SDOs. In the near
future, the group will follow-up on CORDEL’s
initiative as a first step of harmonisation in
the field of NDE qualification methodologies.

28

5.8 Digital Instrumentation and Controls
Working Group (DICWG)
The DICWG works to increase collaboration,
co-operation and knowledge transfer among
members and with other stakeholders toachieve the following primary goals:•

facilitate timely and efficient mechanisms
for sharing of knowledge and experienceamong members, thus allowing more
effective safety reviews;•

work jointly to develop common positions
among members for issues of significance,
which may be based on a review of theexisting standards, national regulatory
guidance, best practices, and group inputs.

The IAEA, the International ElectrotechnicalCommission (IEC) and the Institute ofElectrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
representatives are invited to participate inworking group meetings and activities.
Industry is represented via the IEC and IEEEand through specific invitations by the
DICWG to share information and give presentations on topics of interest.
Accomplishments
The DICWG identified thirteen topics forgeneric common positions which wereselected based on the safety implications of
the issue, and the need to develop acommon understanding from the perspectives of regulatory authorities. DICWG
generic common positions are not intended
to cover all issues associated with the digital
I&C technical disciplines, but only those of
most value to the members.
The DICWG has published ten genericcommon positions that describe methods
and evidence that all DICWG member statesfind acceptable to support safety justification
for digital I&C systems. The publishedcommon positions include generic common
positions numbered:1)treatment of common cause failurecaused by software within digital safetysystems;

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

The working group continues to implement aformal “Quick Inquiry” process to generate
and process inquiries from member
regulators to promote an efficient and structured information exchange and provide forstoring this information in a retrievabledatabase. The DICWG maintains frequent
communication with the DSWG, particularly
with the EPR digital instrumentation andcontrols TESG.

2)

software tools for the development ofsoftware for safety systems;

3)

verification and validation throughout
the life cycle of safety systems using
digital computers;

4)

data communications independence;5)

treatment of hardware description
language (HDL) programmed devices
for use in nuclear safety systems;

6)

simplicity in design;

7)

selection and use of industrial digital
devices of limited functionality ;One of the industry counterpart to MDEPDICWG is CORDEL’s Digital I&C Task
Force. CORDEL’s stated objectives for thetask force include:8)

impact of cyber security features on
digital I&C safety systems;

1) management of design changes for
digital I&C;

11) digital I&C system pre-installation andinitial on-site testing;2) development of a common understanding of what is expected by industry
and regulators;

12) use of automatic testing in computer
based systems as part of surveillance
testing.
These common positions have been madepublicly available on the MDEP website. In
2014, the DICWG issued common position 7.
This common position, on the selection anduse of industrial digital devices of limited
functionality, gives insights on how to assess
the necessary suitability and correctness ofindustrial digital devices for their intended
functions, to be consistent with the plantsafety.
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 experts’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. Members agreed withthe potential safety concerns and the needto address the topic generically. The DICWG
plans to develop a draft common position on
spurious actuations for future work and will
collaborate with the MDEP EPR I&C
subgroup to address this topic.

3) promotion of the development ofinternational standards. As part of theirnear term tasks, CORDEL intends toprovide white papers on the following
topics: safety I&C classifications, diversity and common cause failures, andcriterion on the use of Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) in nuclear
applications.
Next steps
The DICWG has made significant progressin increasing harmonisation of digital I&C
standards by developing generic common
positions that have been or are planned forincorporation into regulations and regulatory
guidance of many member states.
Three common positions are still being
drafted and should be finalised in the coming
year, on the following issues:•

safety design principles for the overall I&C
architecture;•systematic demonstration of safety forsystems important to safety;•

spurious actuations of important to safety
I&C systems.

29

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

As the planned generic common positions
are nearing completion, the working group
and STC have considered the DICWG’s
future. The members desire to continueinteraction in some format that provides ath

DICWG – 18 Meeting, Paris, France, March 2014.

30

forum to share information among theregulators, as well as an interface withstandard development organisations (e.g.
IAEA, IEC, IEEE) and industry to promoteharmonisation.

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

6. INTERIM RESULTS
MDEP is considered a long-term programmewith interim results. Interim results are those
products that document agreement by the
MDEP members and are necessary steps inworking towards increased co-operation andconvergence. The interim results for 2014
include:• ten MDEP-co-ordinated vendor inspections including a multinational inspection
with participation by regulators from
France, the United Kingdom and theUnited States, two joint inspections withparticipation by the regulators from theUnited States, and Korea, and sevenadditional witnessed inspections;•completion of the first multinational
Inspection of a vendor using the common
Quality Assurance/Quality Management(QA/QM) requirements;•

completion of all five planned documents
for the CSWG with issuance of Technical
Report 4 on the “essential performance
guidelines for the design and constructionof pressure retaining components”;•

common position on digital instrumentationand controls for new reactors in the areasofsafety design principles andsupporting information for the overall I&C
architecture;••a report on insights from the Probabilistic
Safety Assessment comparison in theevaluation of EPR designs. Technicalreport on the EPR I&C system designs that
includes similarities and differences of the
EPR designs in all member countries,
and technical issues and their resolutions.
Common positions on the containment
heat removal system in accident
conditions, and IRWST pH control in
accident conditions. A report on“consideration of commissioning related
issues in MDEP”;•

a revision of the EPR common position
addressing Fukushima Daiichi related
issues for the EPR design, with theaddition of two appendices on the:- pressure management of containment during severe accidents;- reliability and qualification of severe
accident management instrumentation;•

establishment of an AP1000 Digital I&C
technical expert subgroup that began
exchanging information on the standard
design safety review, licensing, testing,and construction of the digital I&C systems
for AP1000 projects;•

an updated table of post-Fukushima
Daiichi actions for the APR1400, and adesign differences table comparing thedesign of the APR1400 in Europe, Korea,
the United Arab Emirates, and the UnitedStates;•establishment of ABWR technical expert
subgroups on the topics of severe accident
prevention and mitigation, and instrumentation and controls;•

a comparison matrix of the key design
features of the various ABWR designs;•

establishment of VVER technical expert
subgroups in the areas of severe
accidents, Fukushima Daiichi lessons
learnt and Reactor Pressure Vessel andPrimary Circuit;•

a comparison table of differences in the
VVER designs.

a workshop between US NRC and NNSA
and several exchanges of letters containing questions and responses related todesign and construction issues for the
AP1000 in China and the United States;
31

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

7. NEXT STEPS – FUTURE
OF THE PROGRAMME
In 2014, at the request of the Policy Group,
MDEP conducted a data collection of its
members to solicit information on MDEP’s
added value and their views on the future of
MDEP. The results of this effort will be used
to help inform the future of MDEP.
The results of the MDEP self-assessment
conducted in 2012 indicated that it should
maintain a relatively small number of
topics and keep them closely connected to
topics relevant to new reactor designs. It
was also recognised that the most effective
aspect of MDEP is that it facilitates the cooperation and exchange of information for
design reviews. Therefore, MDEP will act
quickly to approve the formation of new
design-specific working groups as appropriate (consistent with the existing Rule ofThree for forming design-specific working
groups).
The design-specific working groups willcontinue co-operation and exchanging feedback on design issues at least through theconstruction phase. After design review
activities are completed for a majority ofmembers, the working group format andgoals may change to a type and level ofactivity that would be appropriate to continue
to exchange information. At its meeting inMay 2014, the PG agreed that MDEP has
proved a useful and efficient forum to share
information on the review, construction andcommissioning of new reactors, and thatsome kind of interaction at the operation
stage may be discussed. In 2015, the STC
and PG will explore the pros and cons ofextending the MDEP framework to consideration of operating stages for considered
reactors.
The current issue-specific working groups
will continue until they complete the goals
and activities specified in their programmeplans. However, the generic aspects ofthese working groups could eventually betransferred to other organisations such as
32

CNRA or IAEA. The working groups haveidentified completion strategies that include
products, schedules, and recommendations
ensuring continuation of the interactions
among the regulators, and between regulators and external stakeholders.

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Appendix 1
List of abbreviations and acronyms

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

HDL

Hardware Description Language

I&C

Instrumentation and controls

IAEA

International Atomic Energy Agency

IEC

International Electro Technical Commission

IEEE

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

35

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

36

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 and Design Institute of Energy Technologies (Russian
SDO)

NNSA

National Nuclear Safety Administration (China)

NPP

Nuclear power plant

NRA

Nuclear Regulatory Authority (Japan)

NRC

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (United States of America)

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

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Appendix 2
New and revised MDEP documents[May 2014-April 2015]
www.oecd-nea.org/mdep/

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

APPENDIX 2REVISED DOCUMENTS AND PUBLICATIONSRevised documents and publications•

Working groups programme plans.

•Common position EPRWG-02 addressing Fukushima Daiichi related issues, with the additionof the two following technical appendices on:--

the management of pressure in the containment;
the reliability and qualification of severe accident management instrumentation.

New documents and publications•

Common position DICWG-07 on the selection and use of industrial digital devices of limited
functionality.

•

EPR accident and transients technical experts’ subgroup technical report on the regulatory
approaches and criteria used in the analysis of accidents and transients in MDEP EPRWG
member countries.

•

EPR probabilistic safety assessment technical experts’ subgroup paper on the insights fromPSA Comparison in Evaluation of EPR Designs, presented by the Chairman at the PSAM 12
meeting in June 2014.

•

Common position EPRWG-03 on the EPR containment mixing.

•

Common position EPRWG-04 on the EPR containment heat removal system in accident
conditions.

•

Common position EPRWG-05 on the EPR in-containment refuelling water storage tank pH
control in accident conditions.

•Technical report TR-CSWG-04 on the essential performance guidelines for the design andconstruction of pressure retaining components.

39

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Appendix 3
Photographs of reactors considered within MDEPMDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

APPENDIX 3
PHOTOGRAPHS OF REACTORS CONSIDERED WITHIN MDEPTaishan Units 1 and 2 – EPR, China, March 2015 (provided by NNSA).

Taishan Unit 1 – EPR, China, September 2014.
(provided by NNSA).

Taishan Unit 2 – EPR, China, September 2014.
(provided by NNSA).

43

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Flamanville 3 – Construction site from the hill, EPR, France, 24 March 2015 (© EDF Médiathèque Alexis Morin –Antoine Soubigou/All rights reserved. Aménagement Flamanville 3, Communication).

Flamanville 3 – Installation of steam generator 4, EPR, France, 24 March 2015 (© EDF Médiathèque Alexis Morin– Antoine Soubigou/All rights reserved. Aménagement Flamanville 3, Communication).

44

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Olkiluoto 3 – Construction site, EPR, Finland, 23 February 2015 (Hannu Huovila/TVO).

Hinkley Point C – Formation of the southern heavy haul road and construction of the Holford Culvert, EPR, United
Kingdom, January 2015 (© EDF Energy 2015).

45

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Vogtle Unit 3 – Nuclear island and cooling tower, AP1000, United States, April 2015
(2015 Georgia Power Company, all right reserved).

Vogtle Unit 4 – Containment vessel lower ring, AP1000, United States, March 2015 (2015 Georgia Power
Company, all right reserved).

46

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

V.C. Summer – Units 2 and 3 nuclear construction project, AP1000, United States, December 2014
(SCE&G, all right reserved).

V.C. Summer Unit 2 – Installation of 180k-Pound CA05 Module, AP1000, United States, 6 December 2014
(SCE&G, all right reserved).

47

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Sanmen Units 1 and 2 – Construction site, AP1000, China, 23 October 2014 (provided by NNSA).

Sanmen Unit 2 – Inside nuclear island, AP1000, China,
3 December 2014 (provided by NNSA).

48

Sanmen Unit 2 – Reactor vessel hoisting, AP1000, China,
25 August 2014 (provided by NNSA).

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Haiyang Unit 1 – Construction site, AP1000, China, 13 February 2015 (provided by NNSA).

Haiyang Unit 1 – Steam generator, AP1000, China, 27 December 2014 (provided by NNSA).

49

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).

50

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

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

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

51

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Barakah Unit 1 – Overview, APR1400, United Arab Emirates, 18 January 2015 (property of ENEC).

Barakah Unit 1, 2 and 3 – Overview of the construction site, APR1400, United Arab Emirates, 3 February 2015
(property of ENEC).

52

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Leningrad 2 – Overview of the construction site, VVER, Russia, September 2014.

Leningrad 2 – Installation of the 4 ECCS accumulators, VVER, Russia, 9 October 2014.

53

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Novovoronezh 2 – Installation of the Unit 2 dome, VVER, Russia, 15 November 2014.

Novovoronezh 2 – Installation of Unit 2 reactor
pressure vessel, VVER, Russia, 30 March 2015.

54

MDEP 2014-2015 Annual Report

Kashiwazaki-Kariwa 5, 6 and 7 (from far side), July 2013, ABWR, Japan, Copyright Tokyo Electric Power Company.

Cover photos credit: Haiyang Unit 1 and 2 Overview, Haiyang Unit 1 and 2 – Construction site,
AP1000, China, 24 December 2013 (provided by NNSA); Hinkley Point C, PC3000 excavator and
100 tonne dump truck, EPR, United Kingdom, February 2015 (© EDF Energy 2015).

55

www.oecd-nea.org/mdep

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