ML20216C184

Comment Opposing Proposed GL Addressing Issue of Yr 2000 Readiness as Published in FR,980129,volume 63,number 19,pp 4498 Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment.Nsp Suggests That Draft Ltr Not Be Issued

ML20216C184
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	03/02/1998
From:	Voth M NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.
To:	Meyer D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
FRN-63FR4498 63FR4498-00025, 63FR4498-25, IEIN-96-070, IEIN-96-70, NUDOCS 9803130313
Download: ML20216C184 (1)

Text

1 DSof N. (/)/jzppa}

& QA< 1798 JOs. N $N RF.CEIVED No@em States Power Company e

V/4h 1998 na -? PH 1: 25 y=,"C; *"*''"a ""'

Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9637 RUES & D!R. BRANCH March 2,1998 US NRC Mr. David L. Meyer Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T6-D69 Washington, DC 20555-0001 n i

Reference:

Federal Register, January 29,1998, Volume 63, Number 19, Page 4498, " Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment" l

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed generic letter l

addressing the issue of Year 2000 (Y2K) readiness as published in the above-referenced Federal Register. T."e issue is certainly one of potential impact and worthy of addressing and resolving in a pro-active manner. 1 Like other licensees of nuclear power facilities, we have been aware of the generic and plant-specific implications of the Y2K issue and have taken steps to address it in a timely manner. Information Notice 96-70, which provided additionalinformation on the NRC's unique Y2K concerns related to nuclear power facilities, was factored into our program. We have followed the dialog between the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on this matter and are implementing the NEl program as defined in i NEl/NUSMG 97-07. f l

l In a letter dated March 2,1998 Mr. James W. Davis of NEl commented on the O draft generic letter. We concur with the statements in that letter. In light of the significant activity in progress by the nuclear industry we believe that a generic letter would do little to improve nuclear safety. - The reporting called for by the draft generic letter would require additional effort which would be of limited value l relative to what NRC resident inspectors assigned to nuclear power facilities )

could ascertain. Finally, we find the July 1,1999 deadline to be arbitrary and 1 premature. Therefore, we suggest that the draft letter not be issued. '

C '

Yours ve trul 3 QlA-2V fL[c L i

1 Marcus H. Voth Project Manager, Monticello Plant Licensing 9003130313 980302 k PDR I&E .

MISC PDR j