JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO
8-K/A, 1995-10-27
ELECTRIC SERVICES
Previous: JACO ELECTRONICS INC, 10-C, 1995-10-27
Next: KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC CO /KS/, 10-Q, 1995-10-27









                          SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                               WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

                                 ___________________

                                   FORM 8-K/A No. 1

                          PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
                         THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934




          Date of Report (date of
          earliest event reported):               October 17, 1995


                         JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
                  (Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)


             New Jersey            1-3141                21-0485010        
          (State of              (Commission          (IRS Employer
           Incorporation)        File Number)       Identification No.)




                   300 Madison Avenue, Morristown, NJ 07960-1911           
            (Address of principal executive offices)           (Zip Code)




        Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (201) 455-8200<PAGE>





        ITEM 5.   OTHER EVENTS

                  Item  5 of the Form  8-K dated October 17,  1995 ("Form 8-

        K") is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

                  As  previously reported, as a result of  the 1979 accident

        at  Unit No.2 of  the Three  Mile Island  Nuclear Generating Station

        (TMI-2) and  its aftermath, individual  claims for alleged  personal

        injury (including claims  for punitive damages), which are  material

        in  amount, have  been  asserted against  General  Public  Utilities

        Corporation  ("Corporation")  and  Jersey  Central  Power  &   Light

        Company,  Metropolitan  Edison  Company  and  Pennsylvania  Electric

        Company ("Subsidiaries").   Approximately 2,100  of such claims  are

        pending in the United States District  Court for the Middle District

        of Pennsylvania. At  the time of  the accident, as  provided for  in

        the   Price-Anderson  Act  (which,  among   other  things,  provides

        liability  limitations for  accidents involving  commercial  nuclear

        reactors), the Subsidiaries had (i) primary financial protection  in

        the form  of insurance policies  with groups  of insurance companies

        providing an  aggregate of $140 million  of primary  coverage,  (ii)

        secondary  financial protection  in the  form of  private  liability

        insurance under an industry retrospective rating plan providing  for

        up to  an aggregate of  $335 million in  premium charges  under such

        plan and  (iii) an  indemnity agreement  with the  NRC for up  to an

        aggregate of  $85 million, bringing the total primary, secondary and

        tertiary financial protection  up to an  aggregate of  $560 million.

        Under  the  secondary  level,  the Subsidiaries  are  subject  to  a

        retrospective premium  charge on  a pro  rata basis,  which   in the

        aggregate will  not exceed  $15 million,  as their  portion of  this

        level  of financial protection.   In  March 1994,  the defendants in

                                         1<PAGE>





        the  TMI-2 litigation  and  the  insurers agreed  that the  insurers

        would  withdraw their  reservation of  rights  with respect  to  any

        award of punitive damages.



              On October 17, 1995, the U. S. Court  of Appeals for the Third

        Circuit ruled that the federal Price-Anderson Act provides  coverage

        under  its primary  and secondary  levels  for  punitive as  well as

        compensatory  damages,  but  that  punitive  damages  could  not  be

        recovered against the Federal Government which, as described  above,

        provides the third level of financial  protection. In so doing,  the

        Court referred to the "finite fund"  to which plaintiffs must resort

        to get compensatory as well as punitive damages.

              The  Court of Appeals, in  a related action,   also found that

        the standard  of  care owed  by the  defendants to  a plaintiff  was

        determined  by the specific  level of  radiation which  was released

        into the environment, as measured at  the site boundary, rather than

        as measured  (as the GPU defendants  proposed) at  the specific site

        where the plaintiff  was located at the time  of the accident.   The

        Court  also   held,  however,   that  each   plaintiff  still   must

        demonstrate exposure to  radiation released during the TMI  accident

        and that such exposure had resulted in their injuries.  

             The GPU  defendants believe that  any liability  to which  they

        might be  subject by reason  of the  TMI-2 accident and  these Third

        Circuit decisions will  not exceed their financial protection  under

        the  Price-Anderson Act.   A  trial of ten  allegedly representative

        cases is scheduled to begin in June 1996.

                  A copy of a related news release is annexed as an  exhibit

        to the Form 8-K.

                                         2<PAGE>



                                     SIGNATURE



                  PURSUANT TO  THE REQUIREMENTS OF  THE SECURITIES  EXCHANGE

        ACT OF  1934,  THE REGISTRANT  HAS DULY  CAUSED  THIS  REPORT TO  BE

        SIGNED ON ITS BEHALF BY THE UNDERSIGNED THEREUNTO DULY AUTHORIZED.


                                      JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY


                                      By:                                 
                                         T. G. Howson, Vice President
                                           and Treasurer


        Date:  October 27, 1995<PAGE>





                           EXHIBIT TO BE FILED BY EDGAR


             Exhibit:

                  1.   GPU News Release, dated October 17, 1995<PAGE>





                                                                  EXHIBIT 1

                           (GPU NEWS RELEASE LETTERHEAD)

                  Gordon Tomb   
                  (717) 948-8197                     October 17, 1995
                  Carol Clawson                      95-033
                  (201) 316-7706


                  IMMEDIATELY


        APPEALS COURT RULES THAT TMI-2 PLAINTIFFS MAY SEEK PUNITIVE DAMAGES



             PARSIPPANY, N.J., October 17, 1995 -- General Public  Utilities

        Corporation  (NYSE:GPU)  announced today  that  the  U.S.  Court  of

        Appeals for  the Third Circuit has  ruled that  plaintiffs who claim

        they were injured as a result of the 1979 accident at Unit  No. 2 of

        the Three Mile  Island Nuclear Generating  Station may seek punitive

        damages.  In so  doing, the Court  referred to the "finite fund"  to

        which  plaintiffs  must  resort  to  get  compensatory  as  well  as

        punitive  damages.   Pursuant  to the  Federal  Price-Anderson  Act,

        primary  financial protection  is provided in the  form of insurance

        policies  with  a  group  of  insurance  companies,  and   secondary

        financial  protection in  the form  of private  liability  insurance

        under an industry retrospective rating plan.  The  Court said that a

        third  layer provided by the Federal government could not be used to

        pay punitive damage awards.

             The GPU  defendants believe that  any liability  to which  they

        might be  subject  by reason  of the  TMI-2 accident  and the  Third

        Circuit  decisions will not  exceed the  sum of  their insurance and

        secondary protection under the Price-Anderson Act.

             In a related  action, the Court of  Appeals also found that the

        standard of  care  owed by  the  defendants  to the  plaintiffs  was

        determined by the specific  level of radiation  permitted by Nuclear<PAGE>



        Regulatory  Commission   regulations  to   be   released  into   the

        environment, as measured at the site boundary.   The plaintiffs  had

        argued  that  an "as  low  as  reasonably  achievable" standard  was

        proper.    Because those levels were exceeded, plaintiffs' remaining

        burden  is to  show that  the injuries they  claim to  have suffered

        were caused by those emissions.

             The trial of the  first 10 of the 2,100 pending claims has been

        scheduled  for 1996. TMI-2  is owned  by GPU's  three public utility

        subsidiaries.

                                        ###<PAGE>


© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission