ML19208A893
| ML19208A893 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1979 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Brown H PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19208A894 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909180215 | |
| Download: ML19208A893 (2) | |
Text
.r g
[%,
UNITED STATES 2
o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
+*
AUG 10 1979
%,s The Honorable Harold Brown Pennsylvania House of Representatives 1220 Linden Street Readirg, PA 19604
Dear Mr. Brown:
In response to your Mailgram of August 4,1979, there has been no decision as to enforcement action t..at may be taken against Metropolitan Edison Company as a result of the incident at Three Mile Island Unit 2.
We recognize your concern about the possible " pass-through" of civil penalties to customers of the penalized utility; however, such matters are not within the purview of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Such functions are solely within the province of the State.
Any decision as to the " pass-through" of penalties to customers of a utility would be under the jurisdiction of the state public utility regulatory agency.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement and Office of State Programs have surveyed the States to find out how NRC civil penalties are handled in utility rate cases.
A copy of the results of that survey is enclosed foryour information.
You will note that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a formal policy on " pass-through" and does not permit " pass-through" unless the utili'ty's solvency is threatened.
We trust that this is responsive to your concern.
Sincerely, c.M VictorStel15 Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Results of-Survey of States on Treatment of NRC Civil Penalties
' /3.012 6
7 9 0918 07t c
Results of Survey of States on Treatment of flRC Ci.vil Penalties Slate Formal Policy is Pass :Through Permitted?-
Remarks on Pass-Through i
of IIRC Penalty],
Yes flo Maybe Unknown Arkansas tio x
If no neglect or imprudent management Cal i fornia llo x
If utCity acted in good faith Colorado llo x
Connecticut Yes......... x.........
PUC policy Florida Yes x
PUC policy Illinois Yes lx Kansas flo x
Case-by-case basis Kentucky flo
..x......
Case-by-case basis Louisiana Yes x
PUC policy Maine Yes x
PFC policy Maryland flo x
Massachusetts flo
.......... x.........
!!!chigan lio x
Montana Yes x
PUC policy
/
ilebraska ilo x
tiew Jersey flo
.........x.......,.
Ilew flexico tio x
flew York Yes x
Small fine could " sneak through" liorth Carolina Yes x
PUC policy Ohio llo x
Gregon lio x
Case-by-case basis Pennsylvania Yes x
Unless utility's solvency threatened South Carolina Yes x
PUC policy South Dakota flo Texas flo x
x t.4 Vermont flo x
~-[
Virginia Yes x
PUC policy Wisconsin Yes x
,C Wyoming Yes x
If utility acted reasonably p
9 IOTALS 0
18 6
5 p g.. g t op i....
..............v.....
..in 9