ML14111A147, Screening and Prioritization Results

Screening and Prioritization Results Regarding Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Seismic Hazard Re-Evaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Tearm Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident

May 9, 2014

ML14111A147

On March 12, 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a request for information pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (10 CFR), Section 50.54(f) (hereafter referred to as the 50.54 (f) letter) (Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning, in part, the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine whether licenses should be modified, suspended, or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 1.5 years from the date of the letter for central and eastern United States (CEUS) nuclear power plants, and within 3 years for western United States (WUS) plants. For CEUS plants, the date to submit the report was extended to March 31, 2014, by NRC letter dated May 7, 2013. Further, the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and prioritization indicating deadlines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant response to the re-evaluated seismic hazard.

Additionally, by letter dated February 20, 2014, the NRC provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals including guidance on reportability and operability. The purpose of this letter is to inform licensees of the NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic risk evaluations described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter.

To respond to the 50.54(f) letter, all addressees committed to follow the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Report, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, " as supplemented by the EPRI Report, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" (referred to as the Expedited Approach). The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-evaluated seismic hazards.

Licensees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards or letter of intent to provide the hazard for their sites by letters dated March 2014 (references are provided in Enclosure 3 of this letter).

The NRC staff conducted the screening and prioritization review of the submittals by assessing each licensee's screening evaluation and hazard analysis utilizing the endorsed SPID guidance.

INTERIM EVALUATIONS

The 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees provide "interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher seismic hazard relative to the design basis, as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds the seismic design basis, licensees stated they will provide interim evaluations to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated seismic hazard while the longer term seismic risk evaluations are ongoing. In support of licensee interim evaluations, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) by letter dated March 12, 2014, provided an EPRI study that estimated fleetwide seismic risk and provided a discussion of the inherent seismic design margins for structures, systems, and components (SSCs).

The March 12, 2014, EPRI fleetwide study calculated seismic risk following the approach the NRC staff used in 2010 for the Safety/Risk Assessment conducted as part of Generic Issue (GI)-199, "Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern United States on Existing Plants". The EPRI study concluded that "site-specific seismic hazards show that there [ ... ] has not been an overall increase in seismic risk for the fleet of U.S. plants" based on the re-evaluated seismic hazards. As such, the "current seismic design of operating reactors continues to provide a safety margin to withstand potential earthquakes exceeding the seismic design basis." Lastly, the March 12, 2014, NEIIetter provided "Perspectives on the Seismic Capacity of Operating Plants," which (1) assessed a number of qualitative reasons why the design of SSCs inherently contain margin beyond their design level, (2) discussed industrial seismic experience databases of performance of industry facility components similar to nuclear SSCs, and (3) discussed earthquake experience at operating plants.

In their March 2014 submittals, licensees confirmed that the conclusions of the EPRI fleetwide study apply to their plants. The submittals also discussed completing plant seismic walkdowns as part of NTTF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current plant configuration is consistent with the licensing basis. In addition, licensees described any insights gained from previous seismic evaluations.

To assess each licensee's interim evaluations, the NRC staff reviewed the fleetwide study as well as each licensee's plant-specific discussion. The results of the staff's independent review confirm that fleetwide seismic risk estimates are consistent with the approach and results used in the Gl-199 safety/risk assessment. As a result, the staff has confirmed that the conclusions reached in Gl-199 safety/risk assessment remain valid and that the plants can continue to operate while additional evaluations are conducted.

The interim evaluation is a first step in the near-term assessment of the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. Also in the near-term, by December 2014, plants with a higher re-evaluated hazard will complete an "Expedited Approach" to evaluate and identify reinforcements, if necessary, for certain equipment to ensure a safe shutdown pathway can withstand the higher seismic ground motion.

SCREENING PROCESS

As defined in the 50.54(f) letter and the SPID guidance, the seismic hazard re-evaluations were conducted using current analysis methods and guidance. The licensees' responses to the 50.54(f) letter provided seismic hazard re-evaluation results, which were the focus of the NRC staff's initial screening and prioritization review.

Although the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distribution of ground motions that occur over a range of spectral frequencies. This results in a curve of ground acceleration over frequency. The ability of equipment and structures in the plant to withstand the effects of ground motions is frequency specific. For the purposes of the licensees' analyses and NRC staff's review, the SPID guidance identifies three frequency ranges that are of particular interest: 1-10 Hz, a low frequency range of <2.5 Hz, and a high frequency range of >1 0 Hz. The different ranges have been identified due to the different types of structures and equipment that may be impacted by ground motions in that range. For example, large components generally are not affected significantly by high frequencies (i.e., >10Hz). The frequency range 1-10Hz is the focus for this portion of the risk evaluation, as this range has the greatest potential effect on the performance of equipment and structures important to safety. For other frequency ranges, discussed below, limited-scope evaluations will be conducted, when appropriate.

In accordance with the SPID and Expedited Approach guidance, the re-evaluated seismic hazard determines if additional seismic risk evaluations are warranted for a plant. Specifically, the re-evaluated ground motion response spectra (GMRS) in the 1-10Hz frequency range is compared to the existing SSE:

• If the re-evaluated GMRS, in the 1-10 Hz range, is less than the plant's existing SSE, then the plant screens out of conducting further seismic risk evaluations.

• If the GMRS, in the 1-10 Hz range, is greater than the existing SSE, then the plant will complete the Expedited Approach (including the Interim Evaluation). Most plants that meet this criterion also screen in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and have committed to conduct high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations.

• The SPID guidance provides criteria for a plant with a GMRS above the SSE, but bounded by the Individual Plant Examination for External Events (I PEE E) capacity spectrum. To use the IPEEE capacity spectrum to screen out of conducting a seismic risk evaluation, the licensee needed to demonstrate the adequacy of the plant's IPEEE evaluation by meeting the criteria in the SPID. If the IPEEE capacity is greater than the GMRS in the 1-10Hz range, the plant screens out of conducting a seismic risk evaluation. However, these plants have committed to evaluate the spent fuel pool at the re-evaluated hazard level, as spent fuel pools were not analyzed in the IPEEE program.

In addition, if the GMRS meets the low hazard threshold, which is described in the SPID, and only exceeds the SSE below 2.5 Hz, the licensee will perform a limited evaluation of equipment potentially susceptible to low frequency motions. Similarly, if the GMRS exceeds the SSE only above 10 Hz, then the licensee will perform an evaluation of the equipment or structures susceptible to that specific range of ground motion.

Enclosure 2 provides the staff's determination of priority for plants that screen in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation, and identification of plants to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency). Additionally, the enclosure identifies plants that screen out of any further evaluations.

CONDITIONAL SCREENING

As discussed in public meetings and a February 20, 2014 letter, the staff anticipated the possibility of not being able to complete the determination for conducting a seismic risk evaluation for some plants in the 30-day review period under certain circumstances. For example, if a licensee provided a unique submittal or deviated from the SPID guidance, additional time for the review might be needed. For other submittals, the staff's independent GMRS assessment could differ from the GMRS provided in the March 2014 submittals, and these differences need to be better understood before determining if a plant would screen out from further evaluation. Accordingly, during the NRC screening and prioritization process, the staff did identify some plants for which a determination could not be made and interactions with the licensees are needed to reach resolution. The staff determined these plants are "conditionally screened-in" for the purposes of prioritizing and conducting additional evaluations.

Plants identified as "conditional screen-in" should submit the Expedited Approach by December 31, 2014 and, until a final determination is made, conduct a seismic risk evaluation as prioritized in Enclosure 2. Those plants identified as "conditional screen-in," which based on their screening assessment, did not submit an interim evaluation in the March 2014 submittal, should complete the interim evaluations, identify any associated actions, and submit the results to the NRC by no later than June 6, 2014.

For plants identified as "conditional screen-in", after interactions with licensees have occurred, the staff will make a final screening and prioritization determination and provide a letter to each impacted licensee. If the plant remains screened in, the final screening letter also will affirm or update the plant priority for further evaluations. If the plant screens out, the final screening letter also will determine if the plant needs to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency).

PLANT PRIORITIZATION

The NRC grouped the "screened in" (including those conditionally screened in) plants into three groups, which (i) reflects the relative priority for conducting a seismic risk evaluation that compares each plant's current capabilities to the re-evaluated seismic hazard, and (ii) accounts for the appropriate allocation of limited staff and available expertise for reviewing and conducting seismic risk evaluations. During the prioritization review, the staff considered each licensee's re-evaluated hazard submittals, seismic risk insights from Gl 199 "Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern United States on Existing Plants," and the staff's confirmatory analysis of the seismic hazard.

Enclosure 2 provides the plant prioritizations for completing the seismic risk evaluations. To prioritize the plants, staff examined certain key parameters such as (1) the maximum ratio of the new re-evaluated hazard (GMRS) to the SSE in the 1-10Hz range; (2) the maximum ground motion in the 1-10Hz range; and (3) insights from previous seismic risk evaluations. As such, Group 1 plants are generally those that have the highest re-evaluated hazard relative to the original plant seismic design basis (GMRS to SSE) as well as ground motions in the 1-10Hz range that are generally higher in absolute magnitude. Group 1 plants are expected to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and submit it by June 30, 2017. Group 2 plants are also expected to conduct a seismic risk evaluation, which should be submitted by December 31, 2019.

Enclosure 2 also provides a list of Group 3 plants. Group 3 plants have GMRS to SSE ratios that are greater than 1, but the amount of exceedance in the 1-10 Hz range is relatively small, and the maximum ground motion in the 1-10Hz range is also not high. Given the limited level of exceedance of the Group 3 plants, staff is evaluating the need for licensees to conduct a seismic risk evaluation in order for the staff to complete its regulatory decision making.

However, the staff has had insufficient review time with the recently submitted seismic hazard submittals to reach a conclusion. After further review of the seismic hazard re-evaluations and the Expedited Approach submittals, the staff will decide which Group 3 plants need to complete a risk evaluation. Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by December 31, 2020.

NEXT STEPS

For plants that screen in to conduct a risk evaluation, the licensees should finalize and submit each plant's Expedited Approach no later than December 31, 2014. In accordance with the endorsed guidance, the staff acknowledges that the December 2014 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathwal) evaluations and modifications, as necessary, prior to submitting the plant seismic risk evaluations.

Additionally, the schedule milestones and content of limited-scope evaluations will require additional development and coordination with stakeholders. For example, for the high frequency evaluation, an industry study of the effects for sensitive equipment is currently in progress. Furthermore, recent assessments by the NRC staff and related decisions by the Commission may justify revisions to the existing guidance regarding the limited-scope evaluations of spent fuel pools at some sites. As needed, the NRC staff will initiate discussions 9 Section 3 of the Expedited Approach guidance (ADAMS No. ML13102A142) provides a process to identify a single seismically robust success path using a subset of installed plant equipment, FLEX equipment and connection points.

with stakeholders in the near future as part of the development of any revised guidance documents. Given the generic nature of the limited-scope evaluations, it is expected that these evaluations will be completed for plants within the next two years.

This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the seismic hazard submittals for the purposes of screening and prioritizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such, the NRC staff will continue its review of the submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations, and may request additional plant-specific information to support this review. The staff has placed a high priority on this review for the early identification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations.

Initial interactions with licensees will occur as soon as practicable. The NRC staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic hazard once each review is completed in approximately 12 to 18 months.

If you have any questions on this matter, please contact your NRC licensing Project Manager.

Sincerely, Eric J. Leeds, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations

2. Screening and Prioritization Results

3. List of Licensee March 2014 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals

4. List of Addressees

Glossary of Evaluations

Associated with Near

Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations Interim Evaluation or Actions- An immediate licensee and NRC review of the re-evaluated hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that, based on the licensees'

interim evaluations and actions, all central and eastern United States (CEUS) plants are safe for continued operations. Interim evaluations and actions are provided in Section 5.0, "Interim Actions," of the licensee submittals.

Expedited Approach

A near-term licensee evaluation to be completed by December 31, 2014, for CEUS plants whose re-evaluated hazard exceeds the current design basis for the safe shutdown earthquake hazard level. The evaluation looks at the systems and components that can be used to safely shut down a plant under the conditions of a station blackout (i.e., no alternating current power is available) and loss of ultimate heat sink. The expedited approach will either confirm that a plant has sufficient margin to continue with a longer-term evaluation without any modifications, or confirm the need to enhance the seismic capacity to assure they can withstand the re-evaluated hazard. The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System under No. ML 13102A142.

Seismic Risk Evaluation

Longer-term seismic risk evaluation provides the most comprehensive information to make regulatory decisions, such as whether to amend a plant's design or licensing basis or make additional safety enhancements. These evaluations provide information to make risk-informed decisions. The staff will use this information in conjunction with the existing regulatory tools, such as backfit analysis, to decide on further regulatory actions. The longer-term seismic risk evaluations could be either a Seismic Margins Analysis or a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment, depending on the magnitude of the exceedance.

Limited-Scope Evaluations

These include i) Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation, ii) High Frequency Evaluation, and iii) Low Frequency Evaluation. Respectively, these evaluations are focused on the following: i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and iii) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks).

Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident Seismic Risk Evaluations Screening and Prioritization Results for Central and Eastern Reactor Sites

Seismic Risk Limited

scope Evaluations Screening Expedited Evaluation Plant Name High Low Spent Fuel Result Approach (Prioritization Frequency Frequency Pool Evaluation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Callaway Plant, Unit 1 In X 1 X X

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, In X 1 X X Units 1 and 2 Indian Point Nuclear Generating In X 1 X X Unit Nos. 2 and 3 North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 In X 1 X X Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, In X 1 X X 2, and 3 Peach Bottom Atomic Power In X 1 X X Station Units 2 and 3 Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, In X 1 X X Unit No. 1 H. B Robinson Steam Electric In X 1 X X Plant, Unit No. 2 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, In X 1 X X Units 1 and 2 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 In X 1 X X Beaver Valley Power Station, In X 2 X X Units 1 and 2 Enclosure 2 I

Expedited Seismic Risk Limited

scope Evaluations Plant Name Screening Approach Evaluation High Low Spent Fuel Result Evaluation

(Prioritization Frequency Frequency Pool Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units In X 2 X X 1, 2, and 3 Dresden Nuclear Power Station, In X 2 X X Units 2 and 3 Fermi, Unit 2 In X 2 X X Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, In X 2 X X Units 1 and 2 LaSalle County Station, Units 1 In X 2 X X and 2 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Conditional In X 2 X X Station Palisades Nuclear Plant In X 2 X X Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, In X 2 X X Unit 1 Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 In X 2 X X and 2 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 In X 2 X X and 2 Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 Conditional In X 3 X X and 2 Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, Units 1 In X 3 X X and 2 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Conditional In X 3 X X Units 1 and 2 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, In X 3 X X Units 1 and 2 Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 Conditional In X 3 X X Cooper Nuclear Station Conditional In X 3 X X

---

---··--

Seismic Risk Limited

scope Evaluations Screening Expedited Evaluation High Low Spent Fuel Plant Name Result Approach

(Prioritization Frequency Frequency Pool Evaluation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Davis-Besse Nuclear Power In 3 X X Station, Unit 1 X I Duane Arnold Energy Center Conditional In X 3 X X James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Conditional In 3 X X I Power Plant X Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1 Conditional In X 3 X X Limerick Generating Station, Units Conditional In X 3 X X 1 and 2 William B. McGuire Nuclear In 3 X X Station, Units 1 and 2 X Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 Conditional In X 3 X X Monticello Nuclear Generating Conditional In X 3 X X Plant Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 In X 3 X X Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 In X 3 X X and 2 Quad Cities Nuclear Power Conditional In 3 X X Station, Units 1 and 2 X Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Conditional In X 3 X X Units 1 and 2 Seabrook, Unit 1 In X 3 X X Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 Conditional In X 3 X X and 2 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, In X 3 X X Unit 1 Wolf Creek Generating Station, In X 3 X X Unit 1

Expedited Risk Limited

scope Evaluations Screening Evaluation High Low Spent Fuel Plant Name Result Approach

(Prioritization Frequency Frequency Pool Evaluation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Conditional In Station X 3 X X Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 Out X Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 Out X, X X Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Out Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Out X X Units 1 and 2 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Out X Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Out Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Out X Hope Creek Generating Station Out X Millstone Power Station, Unit 3 Out x1 X X Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Out X Units 1 and 2 Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Out X Plant, Units 1 and 2 River Bend Station Out X St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2 Out South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 Out Susquehanna Steam Electric Out x1 X Station, Units 1 and 2 Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4 Out Waterford Steam Electric Station, Out X Unit 3 --------- --- 1 Re-evaluated hazard is greater than plant licensing basis safe shutdown earthquake. Licensee has demonstrated IPEEE plant capacity consistent with endorsed guidance bounds the re-evaluated hazard. Expedited approach evaluation will provide a demonstration of safe shutdown capability at a greater hazard level.

March 2014 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Central and Eastern United States Reactor Sites

Licensee Facili_!}f_ Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2 March 28, 2014 (M L 14092A021 ) Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2 March 31, 2014 (ML14090A143) Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 March 31, 2014 (ML14098A478) Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 March 31, 2014 (ML14091A243) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 March 31, 2014 (ML 14098A478l Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 March 31,2014 (ML14106A461) Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 March 31, 2014 (ML 14091A010) Callaway Plant, Unit 1 March 28, 2014 (ML 14090A446) Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and March 31, 2014 (ML 14099A196) 2 Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 March 31, 2014 (ML 14099A184) Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 March 31, 2014 (ML 14091A011l Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 March 27, 2014 (ML 14099A197) and 2 CooQ_er Nuclear Station March 31, 2014 (ML 14094A048)_ Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 March 31, 2014 (ML 14090A143) Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 March 27, 2014 (ML 14092A327l Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 March 31, 2014 (ML14091A012) Duane Arnold Energy Center March 28, 2014 (ML 14092A331) JoseQ_h M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 March 31, 2014 (ML 14092A020l Fermi, Unit 2 March 31, 2014 (ML 14090A326) James A FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant March 31, 2014 (ML 14090A243) Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1 March 31, 2014 (ML 14097A087) R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant March 31, 2014_{_ML14099A196) Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 March 31, 2014 (ML 14090A098) Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 March 27, 2014 (ML 14090A441) Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 March 31, 2014 (ML 14092A017) Hope Creek Generatin_g_ Station March 28, 2014 (ML 14087A436)_ Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 March 31,2014 (ML14099A110 and and 3 ML 14099A111) LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 March 31, 2014 (ML 14091A013) Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 March 31, 2014 (ML 14090A236) William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 March 20, 2014 (ML 14098A421) and 2 Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3 March 31, 2014 (ML 14092A417) Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant March 31, 2014 (ML 14090A297) and April3, 2014 (ML 14093B361) Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 March 31, 2014 (ML 14099A196) Enclosure 3

Licensee Facility Date of letter(ADAMS Accession Nos.) North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 March 31,2014 (ML 14092A416) Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 March 31, 2014 (ML 14092A024) Oyster Creek Nuclear Generatino Station March 31, 2014 (ML 14090A241) Palisades Nuclear Plant March 31, 2014 (ML 14090A069) Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 March 31, 2014 (ML 14090A247) and 3 Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 March 31, 2014(ML 14090A143) Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 March 31, 2014 {ML 14092A023) Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 March 31, 2014 (ML 14090A275) Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units March 27, 2014 (ML 14086A628) 1 and 2 Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 March 31, 2014 (ML 14090A526) and 2 River Bend Station March 26, 2014 (ML 14091A426) H. B Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. March 31, 2014 (ML 14099A204) 2 St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2 March 31, 2014 (ML 14099A 1 06) Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 March 31, 2014 (ML 14090A043) and 2 Seabrook, Unit 1 March 27, 2014 (ML 14092A413) Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 March 31, 2014-(ML 14098A478) South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 March 31, 2014 (ML 14099A235) Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 31, 2014 (ML 14092A414) Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 March 26, 2014 (ML 14086A163) and 2 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 March 31, 2014 (ML 14090A271) Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4 March 27, 2014(ML 14106A032) Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1 March 26, 2014 (ML 14092A250) Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station March 12, 2014 (ML 14079A025) Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 March 31, 2014 (ML 14092A019) Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 March 27, 2014(ML 14086A42i) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 March 31, 2014 (ML 14098A478) Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1 March 31, 2014(ML 14097A026)

LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES AND HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS IN ACTIVE OR DEFERRED STATUS

with stakeholders in the near future as part of the development of any revised guidance documents. Given the generic nature of the limited-scope evaluations, it is expected that these evaluations will be completed for plants within the next two years.

This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the seismic hazard submittals for the purposes of screening and prioritizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such, the NRC staff will continue its review of the submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations, and may request additional plant-specific information to support this review. The staff has placed a high priority on this review for the early identification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations.

Initial interactions with licensees will occur as soon as practicable. The NRC staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic hazard once each review is completed in approximately 12 to 18 months.

If you have any questions on this matter, please contact your NRC licensing Project Manager.

Sincerely, /RA by Jennifer Uhle for/ Eric J. Leeds, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations

2. Screening and Prioritization Results

3. List of Licensee March 2014 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals

4. List of Addressees Distribution: See next page

ADAMS Accession No.: ML 14111A147 *Via E-mail OFFICE NRR/JLD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/PMB/BC NRO/DSENRGS2/BC NAME NDiFrancesco SLent MMitchell DJackson DATE 04/22/2014 04/22/2014 04/30/2014 05/05/2014 OFFICE NRO/DSEND OGC NRR/DORL/D NRR/D NAME SFianders EWilliamson MEvans ELeeds (JUhle for) DATE 05/06/2014 05/02/2014 05/06/2014 05/9/2014 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY NRR/JLD/D OS keen 05/06/2014 Letter to All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status from Eric J. Leeds dated May 9, 2014.

SUBJECT: SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS OF REQUEST FOR INFORMATION PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54(f) REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF INSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA DAI-ICHI ACCIDENT DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC