ROSEMEAD – In July 2013, Southern California Edison (SCE) filed a Notice of Dispute with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in an attempt to recover all damages caused by what the power giant is calling as “Mitsubishi’s failed design and manufacture” of the San Onofre Replacement Steam Generators (RSGs) that led to the shutdown of the plant.
Part of the dispute resolution process is for both parties to undergo a ‘contractually mandated audit’ that will help regulatory bodies to determine what went wrong in the first place. However, according to SCE, Mitsubishi has repeatedly refused all requests for auditing.
Following Mitsubishi’s repeated refusals to submit to audit, Edison announced on Tuesday that they have formally demanded Mitsubishi to agree to undergo the audit on design and manufacturing of the RSGs for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).
An independent study by the Nuclear Regulatory Commissoin (NRC) concluded on Sept. 20 that Mitsubishi’s computer model contained a flaw that ultimately led to the failure of the RSGs. According to SCE’s statement, the NRC’s investigation also found that internal Mitsubishi consultant materials expressed concerns about their computer model.
SCE submitted their latest audit demand in a letter from SCE president Ron Litzinger. In the letter, SCE claimed that “officials and lawyers have made this [audit] request on at least three prior occasions, but
Mitsubishi has steadfastly refused to submit to this audit.”
Litzinger said that he is appealing again to Mitsubishi because their “repeated refusal to agree to such an audit is harmful to the public, regulators and our entire industry, as it hinders efforts to understand and learn from the RSGs’ failures.”
SCE local public affairs vice president Veronica Gutierrez echoed Litzinger’s sentiments in a separate press briefing held on Wednesday. Gutierrez said that the nuclear power industry prioritizes safety above everything else, and as such, it is important for Mitsubishi to cooperate in the audit process. This way, the entire industry can learn from this experience and avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future.
The SCE’s demand letter said that the contractual language that requires Mitsubishi to undergo the audit process “cannot be clearer.”
“Section 1.9.6 of the contract gives [SCE] the right to ‘examine and copy’ Mitsubishi’s ‘books, accounts, relevant correspondence, specifications, time cards, drawings, designs, and other documentation, to the extent that these are related and relevant to the Work under the Purchase Order,” Edison officials wrote.
According to SCE, in the refusal to submit to the audit, Mitsubishi argued that this provision in the contract only applies to financial information necessary to support invoices. This reasoning, according to the SCE demand letter, is “disappointing.”
SCE went further to say that it “will only confirm the suspicion that Mitsubishi refuses to be transparent.”
Litzinger said that SCE is ready to begin with the audit process “as soon as Mitsubishi advises that it will abide by the straightforward terms of the contract.”
SCE also maintained in an announcement that they reserve all of its rights as to any and all legal remedies available against Mitsubishi.
(www.asianjournal.com)
(LA Weekend October 12-15, 2013 Sec A pg.4)
