Companies square off in bid for Yucca contract

Ed Koch and Mary Manning

Monday, July 3, 2000 | 11:54 a.m.

The battle lines have been drawn on Yucca Mountain as two companies that have long held the major contract are splitting up and have formed other alliances to secure a $3.1 billion, five-year pact to design and build a nuclear waste dump.

The companies that have had the contract since 1991 -- TRW Environmental Safety Systems Inc. and Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) -- are parting ways. They have announced they are linking up with other firms to bid for the project that could bring a high-level nuclear waste repository to Nevada.

TRW has joined forces with Parsons Nevada Inc., Parallax Inc. and Dominion Energy Inc. SAIC has aligned with Bechtel, which has been the management and operations contractor at the Nevada Test Site since 1995.

A third group that includes Morrison Knudsen, Westinghouse Electric Co., Raytheon Co., Framatome COGEMA Group and TetraTech also is vying for the project.

The new companies are calling themselves TRW Parsons Management and Operations LLC, Bechtel SAIC Company LLC and MK Nevada LLC.

Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is the only site being studied as a permanent burial place for 77,000 tons of highly radioactive wastes from throughout the nation. Scientific studies are still determining whether the site is suitable.

"Whoever is awarded the contract will conduct studies and do the construction, operations and licensing applications for the site," said Gayle Fisher, spokeswoman for the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain Project.

"There is no question, this is a major project," said Mike Kidder, spokesman for Bechtel National, the parent company for Bechtel Nevada.

Fisher said the contract has options for five more years, so the winner may not only get to start building a repository on the site if it is approved by Congress, but also see its completion.

All three entities submitted proposals by the June 8 deadline, Fisher said. The contract is expected to be awarded in late summer or early fall.

However, there is no guarantee that a repository will be built. Even if the energy secretary and Congress approve Yucca as a repository, the DOE still has to win a license from Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC licensing process could take up to four years.

If it is approved, a repository could be up and running by 2010 at the earliest, Fisher said.

TRW and SAIC, which maintain the contract through the end of the year, are helping the DOE prepare a site recommendation report -- basically a report card to Congress -- due in November. The formal site recommendation is expected to be made next year after important ground water and earthquake studies are completed.

George Dials, general manager of the current contractor and general manager of the new company, TRW Parsons, says TRW "provides program continuity" for the project.

Parsons, he said in a news release, "brings nuclear facility, subsurface design and construction management expertise to the program."

Under the current tenure of TRW and SAIC, the contractors said that the program has addressed health and safety performances, has delivered a viability assessment to the DOE and continues the exploratory studies for the facility.

But the contractors have been embroiled in controversy.

A rival law firm sued the DOE for awarding a $16.5 million contract to Winston & Strawn of Chicago, which represents TRW. The suit alleges a conflict of interest, given that the contract is for a final review of the TRW work.

In addition, three Nevada politicians in April returned contributions from SAIC after reports that they had accepted money from Yucca Mountain contractors. Senate candidate John Ensign returned $1,000, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., gave back $4,000, and Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., returned $1,000. Gibbons also received $1,500 from TRW.

Nevada's congressional delegation oppose using Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste graveyard. A poll done by the University of Nevada, Reno, in 1998 showed 85 percent of Nevada residents oppose a repository as well.

Critics cite evidence that Yucca is not safe, because, among other things, there are earthquake faults and ground water moving through Yucca that could contaminate off-site water supplies with radiation.