Oooops. Who eats the $7.5B loss on California nuclear plant?

[kristopher]

U.S. nuke plant operator files $7.57 billion case against MHI
July 29, 2015
By KEIKO NANNICHI/ Staff Writer

A U.S. nuclear plant operator has demanded that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. pay $7.57 billion (930 billion yen) in compensation for the failure of a steam generator that resulted in the decommissioning of reactors, The Asahi Shimbun learned.

Southern California Edison Co. (SCE), operator of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in San Diego County, asked the Paris-based International Chamber of Commerce’s International Court of Arbitration on July 27 to mediate a settlement with MHI.

MHI described SCE’s demand as “unreasonable” and its claim as “gratuitous” on the grounds that the ceiling of compensation is set at $137 million in their contract. The company said it will contest that point in court.

The San Onofre nuclear plant suspended operations after water leaks were detected in steam generator pipes that were manufactured by MHI in January 2012. Pipes of another steam generator under regular maintenance were also found to be worn.

SCE had to decommission the reactors...

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201507290047

[djean111]

1. I am guessing that, after the lawyer dust settles, it will be the American taxpayer. As is usual.

[House of Roberts]

2. "the Paris-based International Chamber of Commerce’s International Court of Arbitration"

There's the problem right there.

[oldandhappy]

3. we the people, smile, as always

[AtheistCrusader]

4. The interesting part is, in this case the reactors are fine.

One would think this is fixable, but apparently not cost-effectively.

Good to get a couple of that older design out of production though. If nothing else it was constructed in a VERY bad location.

[FBaggins]

5. A victory in court would be split evenly between the ratepayers and utilities

I'd assume that it's pretty clear that Mitsubishi HI is liable for the faulty part. The open question is what the dollar amount of the damages should be. I can't see it going as high as the in the title since much of that loss is due to the decision to retire the plant.

My guess is that actual liability couldn't exceed the cost to manufacture new steam generators and replace them - which has to be less than half of that amount.