CONTACTS: Joseph F. Williams, NRR/DNRL

(301) 415-1470

Jeffrey B. Jacobson, OIP

(301) 415-2977

POLICY ISSUE

INFORMATION

June 8, 2006 SECY-06-0133

FOR: The Commissioners

FROM: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT: MULTINATIONAL DESIGN APPROVAL PROGRAM STAGE 1

PURPOSE:

This paper informs the Commission of activities and plans associated with Stage 1 of the

Multinational Design Approval Program (MDAP).

SUMMARY:

Stage 1 of the MDAP is focused on new light water reactor designs where the vendor is seeking 

design certification in accordance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s)

regulations, and where the same or similar reactor design is being reviewed by the NRC’s

regulatory counterparts for licensing in other countries. In Stage 1, participating regulatory

authorities will share results of their design review activities. Collaborative reviews and

research of identified issues will also be considered, as applicable. In reviewing design

certification applications filed with the NRC, the NRC will use its current design certification
The Commissioners 2

process, as specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 52,

incorporating expertise of other national regulatory bodies into its reviews. Other governments

participating in Stage 1 of the Multinational Design Approval Program (MDAP) will be free to

utilize the NRC’s outputs to support their own national licensing processes.

MDAP Stage 1 will first be applied to the AREVA NP, Inc. (AREVA), Evolutionary Power

Reactor (EPR). The first EPR is currently under construction in Finland, with additional reactors

planned for France and the U.S.

The NRC staff believes that a meaningful opportunity exists to leverage the technical work of its

counterparts in the NRC’s EPR design review, based on initial discussions with its counterparts

and AREVA. MDAP Stage 1 should increase the focus on key safety issues, and efficiency and

effectiveness of the EPR review. Additional coordination between NRC, its counterparts, and

AREVA is needed to ensure the program implementation is properly planned with consideration

of all stakeholder interests, including the public.

BACKGROUND: 

The primary objective of the MDAP, as stated in Chairman Diaz’s July 22, 2005, proposal to the

Commission (COMNJD-05-0006, ADAMS Accession No. ML052150282), is to enhance

protection of public health and safety and the environment for the beneficial civilian use of

nuclear energy. The MDAP will increase and formalize the level of multinational cooperation in

upcoming design certification reviews, building on prior experience where the NRC staff has

held discussions and shared research information with its foreign counterparts. The

Commission approved MDAP Stage 1 in a September 8, 2005, Staff Requirements

Memorandum for COMNJD-05-0006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML052510752). 

MDAP Stage 1 will leverage resources across national regulatory bodies in the design reviews

of new near-term power reactors. Participation in Stage 1 of the MDAP will focus on new light

water reactor designs for which a vendor is seeking a U.S. design certification and for which the

same or similar reactor design is being reviewed by our foreign regulatory counterparts for

licensing in their respective countries. In the U.S., the NRC will incorporate information from

other national regulatory bodies into its technical reviews as part of the 10 CFR Part 52 design

certification process. 

MDAP Stages 2 and 3 will focus on efforts to more closely align differing national regulatory

frameworks, eventually applying those frameworks to licensing of Generation IV reactors. 

These activities will be described in subsequent Commission papers. 

The document summarizing Chairman Diaz’s “U.S. Proposal for a Multinational Design

Approval Program,” dated March 28, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML060900337) provides an

overview of all three stages currently envisioned for the program. 

DISCUSSION:

During MDAP Stage 1, the multinational technical exchange will be focused on technical areas

where the knowledge transfer can occur considering national differences in codes, standards,

and regulations. The actual review of the design certification application through rulemaking

will remain the sole responsibility of the NRC, as will the site-specific reviews required as part of
The Commissioners 3

the 10 CFR Part 52 process. Similarly, other nations will retain responsibility for licensing

activities within their borders.

As stated above, MDAP Stage 1 is first being applied to regulatory reviews of the AREVA EPR

reactor design. The EPR is a large pressurized water reactor of evolutionary design, with a

design output of about 1,600 MWe. Design features include four divisions of 100-percent

capacity active engineered safety features, a large dry containment, and a “core catcher” for

containment and cooling of core debris for severe accidents that result in reactor vessel failure. 

The containment, two of the four engineered safety features divisions, the spent fuel pool, and

the control room are surrounded by a shield building for additional protection against external

hazards. 

Application of MDAP Stage 1 to the regulatory design reviews of other reactor designs such as

the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The staff

will inform the Commission of other opportunities to apply MDAP Stage 1 if and when they

arise. 

The first EPR is currently being built at the Olkiluoto site in Finland, with commercial operation

projected for 2009. In France, it is expected that EPRs will be first built at the Flamanville site. 

AREVA has also submitted a bid for EPR construction in China.

AREVA informed the NRC of its intent to initiate pre-application discussions for the EPR in a

December 2, 2004, letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML043410096). Additional information

regarding AREVA’s pre-application plans were provided in a February 8, 2005, letter (ADAMS

Accession No. ML050420257). AREVA met with NRC staff on several occasions in 2005 and

early 2006 to familiarize the NRC staff with the EPR and to determine the scope of topics to be

addressed in the pre-application review. This initial planning phase was completed in early

2006. 

In its letter to the NRC dated February 3, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML060440560), AREVA

described a proposal for detailed pre-application discussions. The NRC staff accepted this

proposal in an April 7, 2006, letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML060900021), noting that NRC’s

planning will include consideration of cooperation with foreign counterparts via the MDAP. 

Meetings between AREVA and the NRC staff on EPR technical topics began in April 2006 and

will continue throughout the pre-application review. The staff expects the first EPR

pre-application reports will be submitted by AREVA for staff review later this year. 

Pre-application topics will include NRC review of AREVA submittals addressing various

technical topics, including quality assurance, safety analysis methodology, probabilistic risk

assessment, severe accidents, instrumentation and controls, human factors, and physical

security. AREVA has stated that it plans to apply for NRC certification of the EPR design in late

2007. 

Stage 1 of the MDAP has begun with the NRC staff obtaining information on the breadth and

depth of the EPR design reviews already completed and planned by the French and Finnish

regulatory agencies. Insights from AREVA regarding the process being used to convert the

European EPR design to U.S. design standards will also be used to inform decisions regarding

the attainable level of cooperation and use of information. 
The Commissioners 4

Initial bilateral meetings were held in late January and early February 2006 between NRC staff

and counterparts in Finland and France, STUK and ASN, respectively. The main objectives of

the trip were to obtain insights regarding the Finnish and French licensing processes as applied

to the EPR, including schedules and outputs, obtain preliminary information regarding the

breadth and depth of French and Finnish regulatory design reviews of the EPR, provide an

overview of the MDAP and the U.S. licensing process to the French and Finnish regulators, and

to discuss logistical issues relative to the implementation of Stage 1 of the MDAP. STUK and

ASN representatives both indicated willingness to cooperate in the EPR review. NRC’s

counterparts have also expressed interest in personnel exchanges to facilitate EPR

cooperation. Based on preliminary information gathered during this trip, the NRC staff

confirmed a meaningful opportunity exists to leverage the technical work of its counterparts in

the NRC’s EPR design review, increasing the focus on key safety issues, and efficiency and

effectiveness of the review. 

NRC staff representatives traveled to AREVA offices in Lynchburg, Virginia, on April 25, 2006,

to discuss AREVA’s process for converting the Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) EPR engineering design to

U.S. codes, standards, and regulatory requirements. AREVA presently has about 200

engineers in the U.S. working on the design conversion. This conversion is intended to

demonstrate explicit compliance with U.S. regulatory requirements. AREVA does not intend to

demonstrate that evaluations conducted for other regulatory authorities are adequate to fulfill

U.S. requirements.

AREVA intends to maintain a high degree of similarity between the EPR designs planned for

deployment in Finland, France, the U.S., and other parts of the world. The basic plant

configuration, such as four trains of engineered safety features and shielded containment, is

the same for all EPRs. The designs are very similar at the level of detail described in design

piping and instrumentation drawings.

Differences between the designs are found in other design parameters. For example, AREVA

expects the U.S. EPR to be rated at 4,590 MWt vs. 4,300 MWt for OL3. There are differences

in seismic design in all countries, with the U.S. design requirement being most severe in terms

of ground acceleration. The electrical system design in the U.S. will be based on the

60 cycle/second grid, using 3 bus voltages, while European systems will be based on

50 cycles/second with 2 bus voltages. The different electrical systems lead to different

specifications for motors and other components throughout the plant, along with different

electrical distribution systems, resulting in somewhat greater space requirements for the U.S.

design. The EPR at Olkiluoto will include an analog instrumentation and control system as a

backup to the primary digital system, and a containment vent; these features are not included in

the French or U.S. designs.

Based on its knowledge of the differences between the EPR designs, AREVA suggested that

cooperation between regulators be focused on severe accident features, probabilistic risk

assessment, and digital instrumentation and controls. AREVA indicated that OL3 is expected to

have technical specifications similar to the U.S. EPR; therefore, cooperation on this topic may

be possible, as well. 

The ability to share information and review results between the NRC and its counterparts will

depend on the similarity of the designs submitted to the respective regulatory bodies. As

discussed above, at a coarse level of detail, the EPR being constructed in Finland is configured
The Commissioners 5

the same as those planned for construction in France and the U.S. However, at finer levels of 

detail, the designs differ. The greater the design differences at a regulatory level of detail, the

more difficult it will be to utilize work completed by a foreign counterpart in the NRC’s review.

The ability to utilize a counterpart’s regulatory products is also affected by differences in

regulatory requirements. In some cases, such as loss-of-coolant accident analyses, the NRC’s

regulations prescribe evaluation methodology and give very explicit acceptance criteria. Other

regulatory approaches address this topic in somewhat different ways. However, review of the

technical reports from NRC’s foreign counterparts will increase the staff’s confidence in its

safety conclusions when its evaluations against NRC regulations reach similar conclusions,

even in cases where differences in regulatory requirements limit the direct use of information. 

Additional factors affecting internal NRC work processes and interactions with counterparts

include coordination of milestones between the NRC and its counterparts, public access to

information, and processes for resolution of discrepancies in regulatory review results. 

Effective multinational cooperation will require coordination of review project milestones and

schedules between the NRC and its counterparts. That is, if the NRC intends to use

information obtained from a counterpart in a safety review, that information needs to be

completed in time for the NRC staff to evaluate it as part of the NRC’s review. The schedules

should reflect any discussions between NRC staff and counterparts which are necessary for the

staff to thoroughly understand the information provided. Similarly, the NRC will need to fulfill

any schedule agreements to provide information supporting a counterpart’s regulatory activities. 

Failure to meet schedule milestones can delay completion of regulatory products. Planning for

the EPR design certification review will identify topics where MDAP information will be used. 

During the certification review, the staff will monitor progress towards receipt of this information

as part of its ongoing project management. Potential delays will be identified as soon as

possible and compensatory measures taken to minimize effects on the overall project schedule.

MDAP Stage 1 planning will also need to address the handling of information shared between

counterpart regulators. It is expected that information used to inform an NRC safety decision

will be publicly available, except as provided by 10 CFR 2.390. This regulation allows the NRC

to withhold information when it is submitted in confidence by a foreign source. However, if

information provided by a counterpart is used to reach a safety conclusion, withholding that

information from public disclosure reduces the ability of the public to understand the basis for

the NRC’s conclusion, and may be inconsistent with the agency’s strategic goal for openness in

its regulatory processes. Therefore, the NRC and its counterparts will need to agree upon

processes for handling shared information, including public disclosure of that information, as

appropriate.

Furthermore, to effectively use information provided by foreign counterparts, the staff may need

to review information submitted by license applicants to other regulatory authorities to verify that

the design being reviewed by the NRC staff is the same as that submitted for review and

accepted by our counterpart. The NRC and its counterparts will need to agree upon processes

for handling shared information, including public disclosure of that information, including

additional stakeholders (i.e., license applicants) in these discussions, as appropriate. 

MDAP working arrangements should also address protocol for resolution of safety issues

identified during review of a counterpart’s work product. Expectations for documentation and
The Commissioners 6

tracking of any issues, notification of counterparts, and a resolution process will need to be

established. While such problems are expected to be rare, it should be anticipated that some

small number of issues might arise, given the large scope of a reactor design review. The

nature of issues that can arise could range from discrepancies due to differences in regulatory

requirements to previously undetected errors in an applicant submittal. Identification and

resolution of these issues will contribute to a safer design and provide insight regarding

differences in national regulatory schemes that may be useful for MDAP Stage 2. 

As the NRC begins its EPR review efforts, the quantity and scope of EPR information available

from our foreign counterparts is far greater than the NRC can provide in return. Therefore, the

NRC’s foreign counterparts have expressed interest in cooperation on topics outside the scope

of the EPR design review as a means to ensure an equitable exchange of technical information.

Proposals to share information on these topics will need to address issues described above,

such as schedule coordination.

As part of planning for the EPR design certification review, the staff plans to develop an MDAP

Stage 1 cooperation table that includes each technical review area, references to relevant

regulator technical reviews (planned and completed), review schedules, and specific

opportunities for technical cooperation. The staff is also considering conducting a trilateral

meeting with Finnish and French counterparts to discuss this table and other MDAP Stage 1

logistics.

Initially, this planning will address cooperation during the EPR pre-application review. As

cooperative topics are identified, the staff will also establish a process governing how work from

foreign counterparts will be used in pre-application activities. Prior to utilizing the technical

inputs obtained from the foreign regulators, the NRC staff will ensure the information being

used is applicable to the EPR design to be submitted for NRC certification and relevant to

NRC’s regulatory requirements. The staff will revise the process as experience is gained from

initial counterpart interactions during the EPR pre-application review to provide appropriate

guidance for later cooperative efforts which will take place during the course of the design

certification review starting in late 2007.

A preliminary list of planned MDAP Stage 1 milestones is provided in the enclosure.

COMMITMENTS:

Listed below are the staff’s commitments from this paper:

1. The staff will inform the Commission of interest in application of MDAP Stage 1 to reactor

designs other than the EPR if such opportunities arise. 

2. The staff will inform the Commission if Finland or France request payment for their services.

CONCLUSION:

Through cooperation with the Agency’s international counterparts, MDAP Stage 1 can improve

the safety focus, and efficiency and effectiveness of the NRC’s reviews of new reactor designs. 

NRC’s international counterparts can receive similar benefits from cooperation with the NRC. 

Implementation of MDAP Stage 1 will require additional coordination with the NRC’s
The Commissioners 7

international counterparts and with reactor designers to ensure the interests of all stakeholders,

including the public, are appropriately considered.

RESOURCES:

The FY 2006 enacted and FY 2007 President’s Budget include a total of 2 full-time equivalent

(FTE) for all aspects of MDAP, with 1 FTE in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)

and 1 FTE in the Office of International Programs (OIP). The FY 2007 budget for

implementation of MDAP Stage 1 for NRR is 0.5 FTE for project management and staff effort to

coordinate with the NRC’s counterparts and review foreign regulatory products. An additional

0.5 FTE was budgeted to cover NRR Stage 2 efforts. With respect to OIP resources, 1 FTE

was budgeted for FY 2007 to cover Stage 1 and 2 activities.

For FY 2008, 1 FTE was requested to support NRR’s efforts in managing MDAP including

supporting the U.S. EPR design certification review which is expected to commence in

December 2007. The assumption is that these resources will be split between Stage 1 and 2

activities. One FTE of OIP resources were also requested for FY 2008. The Stage 1 activities

should result in improved focus and efficiency of the staff’s review. The staff will consider the

potential effects of MDAP Stage 1 as it develops the EPR review schedule and budget

estimates. 

COORDINATION:

This paper has been coordinated with the Office of International Programs and with the 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer. The Office of General Counsel has no legal objection to

the contents of this paper.

/RA/

Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director

 for Operations

Enclosure:

MDAP Stage 1 Preliminary Milestones
The Commissioners 7

international counterparts and with reactor designers to ensure the interests of all stakeholders,

including the public, are appropriately considered.

RESOURCES:

The FY 2006 enacted and FY 2007 President’s Budget include a total of 2 full-time equivalent

(FTE) for all aspects of MDAP, with 1 FTE in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)

and 1 FTE in the Office of International Programs (OIP). The FY 2007 budget for

implementation of MDAP Stage 1 for NRR is 0.5 FTE for project management and staff effort to

coordinate with the NRC’s counterparts and review foreign regulatory products. An additional

0.5 FTE was budgeted to cover NRR Stage 2 efforts. With respect to OIP resources, 1 FTE

was budgeted for FY 2007 to cover Stage 1 and 2 activities.

For FY 2008, 1 FTE was requested to support NRR’s efforts in managing MDAP including

supporting the U.S. EPR design certification review which is expected to commence in

December 2007. The assumption is that these resources will be split between Stage 1 and 2

activities. One FTE of OIP resources were also requested for FY 2008. The Stage 1 activities

should result in improved focus and efficiency of the staff’s review. The staff will consider the

potential effects of MDAP Stage 1 as it develops the EPR review schedule and budget

estimates. 

COORDINATION:

This paper has been coordinated with the Office of International Programs and with the 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer. The Office of General Counsel has no legal objection to

the contents of this paper.

/RA/

Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director

 for Operations

Enclosure:

MDAP Stage 1 Preliminary Milestones

ADAMS ACCESSION NO. ML061280274 *via email W200500339

OFFICE PM:NAPB Tech Editor LA:NAPB BC:NAPB PMAS

NAME JWilliams HChang* PMagnanelli SCoffin CCarpenter

DATE 05 / 10 /2006 05/05/2006 05/09/2006 5/10/2006 05/16/2006

OFFICE DD:DNRL OIP OCFO OGC

NAME WBeckner J Dunn Lee MSchofer* DReddick

DATE 05 /18 /2006 05 / 26 /2006 05/17/2006 05 /24/2006

OFFICE OD:NRR EDO

NAME JDyer (Holahan Acting For) LReyes

DATE 06 /01 /2006 06/08/2006

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
MDAP STAGE 1

PRELIMINARY MILESTONES

January 31 and

February 4, 2006

(complete)

Conduct fact finding visit with Finnish and French regulators to

discuss logistics and scope of EPR review

April 25, 2006

(complete)

Conduct fact finding visit to AREVA to discuss EPR design conversion

process and design differences

June 15, 2006 U.S. - Finland bilateral meeting to discuss lessons learned from STUK

review of the EPR, and MDAP Stage 1 course of action and working

arrangements

Summer 2006 MDAP Stage 1 meeting to confirm working arrangements and

establish MDAP Stage 1 technical topics for cooperation during EPR

pre-application review

starting Fall 2006

(tentative)

NRC personnel travel to Finland or France for familiarization with

counterparts’ EPR review activities and to exchange regulatory

outputs

End of 2006 Establish processes for incorporation of counterparts’ review products

in NRC EPR pre-application evaluations

2007 Incorporate MDAP Stage 1 planned information exchanges and

lessons learned into planning for EPR design certification 

Enclosure