Talk:Bechtel/Archives/2014

Bechtel employee looking for help to improve this article

Hi, I am an employee of Bechtel, and am hoping to work with editors here on Wikipedia to update and improve this article.

I am getting some advice from experienced Wikipedia editors about what I should and shouldn't do, and want to make it clear that I will not be making any changes to this article directly. I will instead propose any change here, so that editors can discuss what I suggest before it is implemented.

I also understand that an editor named Kevin Gorman recently removed much of the content of this article, due to the article being biased. I am aware of Wikipedia's guidelines regarding maintaining a neutral point of view, and will strive for that goal in any suggestions that I make, though I am certainly open to feedback from more experienced editors.

I am still working on preparing a short initial section, specifically a broad overview of the company, and will be back soon to share that. In the meantime, though, I noticed that the "infobox" in the article has the number of employees from 2010 (52,700). However, our 2012 annual report is already cited in the article as reference 1, which gives the number of employees as 53,000. I realize the difference is small, but it still seems the infobox should have the most up-to-date information available. Could an editor make this update?

Best regards, M at Bechtel (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

done. Dormskirk (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! M at Bechtel (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• The type of stubbing that I did to this article is something that I very rarely do - I can think of maybe two previous times where I've deleted quite that much content. However, the article's former state was just unacceptable. Bechtel has received plenty of criticism over the years, and per WP:NPOV, that criticism will have to be in the final versional of the article at due weight, however the former version of the article was pretty much a hit piece. I rarely work on business-related articles (this one had been pointed out to me by someone,) but I'll try to pop by here occasionally and lend a hand crafting a new, neutral article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Contractor Misconduct

I am adding text which says in part, "Not surprisingly for a company that has completed tens of thousands of projects in over 100 countries, ... the work itself has sometimes generated controversy, including over a dozen cases of contractor misconduct in the United States in the past decade ."

Further information on these cases is given here, since it has not been placed in the article itself. Some cases may be small or unimportant. However, case #19 dealt with the procurement of inferior pipes (the "black cell pipes") which could not be serviced over a planned 40 year lifespan should they break, because of the radioactivity levels of their contents. That incident made headlines and attracted Congressional attention. Items #18 and #2 deal with retaliation against employees who pointed out problems needing attention, a response of Bechtel managers to criticism seen in more than these two situations.

1. Big Dig Tunnel Collapse Wrongful Death Lawsuit
The family of Milena Del Valle, who was killed in July 2006 when a portion of the Big Dig tunnel ceiling collapsed, settled a wrongful death lawsuit for more than $28 million with 15 defendants, including Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff. More:
http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=1104

2. Jensen v. Bechtel BWXT Idaho (Retaliation Against Worker Complaints)
Bechtel Babcock and Wilcox settled a case that alleged retaliation against a worker who complained of hazardous working conditions at INEEL. Clint Jensen “raised concerns that he was exposed to Depleted Uranium and other substances at work that may have caused his own Gulf War Syndrome-like symptoms. He suggested that the Industrial Hygiene program was deficient, that he had been ordered to burn substances other than DU in the oxidation oven – in violation of the oven’s permit, and that his uranium exposure levels soared after he looked down to find himself standing in DU-laden water…. Rather than truly investigating Mr. Jensen’s concerns or compensating him for his illness, his employer attempted to silence him and keep him out of the workplace.” More:
http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=12

3. Construction Mismanagement on the Boston Central Artery/ Tunnel Project
Bechtel/ Parsons Brinckerhoff’s construction work on the Boston Central Artery/ Tunnel Project (aka the "Big Dig") has been the subject of 11 Massachusetts Inspector General investigations over the past several years. The investigations focus on faulty waterproofing, poor design, paving, and many other examples of construction mismanagement that have increased the cost of the project. ... In a July 2007 report on the Boston Big Dig tunnel ceiling collapse, the National Transportation Safety Board partly blamed the accident on mistakes made by Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff. ... In January 2008, Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff entered into a global agreement with the United States and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, agreeing to pay $407 million ($357.1 million of which will come from Bechtel) to resolve all criminal and civil liabilities in connection with the tunnel collapse and other issues pertaining to the project. In addition, Bechtel and Parsons Brinckerhoff will be required to enact corporate ethics and compliance programs designed to prevent similar lapses from occurring on future public construction projects. See related Bechtel Corporation misconduct instance “NTSB Report on July 2006 Big Dig Tunnel Ceiling Collapse.” More:
http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=13
http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=703

4. EEOC v. Bechtel Corp (Discrimination on the Basis of National Origin)
“The Philadelphia District Office filed a Title VII lawsuit alleging that Bechtel, an international construction company, subjected charging party to a hostile work environment and discriminatory terms and conditions of employment because of his Iraqi national origin. . . The Commission alleged that following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks charging party was harassed by coworkers (including physical attacks and offensive and degrading comments about his national origin), excluded from meetings, isolated, and denied work assignments. Charging party's complaints were ignored and he was discharged in June 2002.”..
http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=14

5. Hazardous Waste Violations
... fined $5,000 for hazardous waste violations... . The violations by Energy and Bechtel Hanford Inc. were based on Washington Department of Ecology inspections last fall of cleanup involving the four 183-H Solar Evaporation Basins, located along the southern shore of the Columbia River in the Hanford Site's north-central area.”... More:
http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=15

6. Keiffer v. Bechtel (Age Discrimination)
In this age discrimination case, the plaintiff “had been with Bechtel for 27 years when management reorganized his department and selected a 30 year old male as the new supervisor. Not long after, based on Keiffer's reduced workload and high salary, Bechtel terminated him as part of a reduction in force.” See 65 Cal. App. 4th 893 (1998)... More:
http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=16

7. See Big Dig item 3 above.

8. Violations of CFC and Asbestos Emissions Laws (Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Lab)
Bechtel was fined for violations of federal asbestos and CFC emission laws at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. “EPA found that at various times from June 15, 1997, to July 1, 2000, no records were kept of what service was performed and how much refrigerant was added to comfort cooling systems at the Idaho Nuclear Technical and Engineering Center (INTEC) at INEEL. In addition, EPA found that comfort cooling systems with annualized leak rates greater than 15% were not repaired within 30 days.”
More: http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=18

9. Violation of DOE Radioactive Waste Policies (Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Lab)
Bechtel BWXT was fined for... “noncompliances associated with the July 17, 2003, waste stack-toppling event at the Subsurface Disposal Area (SDA) [at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL)]. During the event, a column of low-level radioactive waste containers toppled over, with several coming to rest on the forklift being used to stack the waste. In addition to the potential radiological consequences of the event, the event had serious occupational safety implications and constituted a “near-miss.”... More:
http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=19

10. Violation of DOE Safety Procedures (Hanford)
In violation of Department of Energy safety procedures, “workers [at the Hanford, WA plutonium plant] unwrapped a highly contaminated Filter Press without utilizing appropriate engineering and/or administrative controls. As a result, an Airborne Radioactivity Area was created which was not adequately recognized, posted, or controlled.” The base civil penalty for the violations was $165,000, which the Department of Energy mitigated by half.. More:
http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=20

11. Violations of Wetlands and Water Quality Laws
Bechtel paid a fine for violating New Hampshire’s wetlands and water quality laws in the construction of a gas pipeline. “PNGTS [Portland Natural Gas Transmission System] began building the 68-mile-long gas pipeline through Coos County in the spring of 1998, with Bechtel acting as general contractor for the project. During construction, DES inspectors discovered many violations of state environmental laws and permit conditions, .. . . more
http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=21

12. Violations of Rules and Procedures at INEEL
The Department of Energy issued a preliminary notice of violation (PNOV) to Bechtel BWXT Idaho LLC, which operates the Idaho National Engineering Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), for violations of rules and procedures during drum venting activities at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex and a breakdown in work procedures during a cooling change-over at the Advanced Test Reactor. The drum venting event resulted in a proposed civil penalty of $41,250. . . . More:
http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=1587

13. Hanford Waste Treatment Plant (Nuclear Safety Violations)
The Department of Energy assessed a civil penalty of $198,000 (reduced from an aggregate base civil penalty of $330,000) against Bechtel for violating nuclear safety requirements at the Hanford waste treatment plant. The preliminary notice of violation noted infractions that occurred during design and construction between May 2002 and September 2005 including failure to abide by building safety design codes and failure to adhere to inspection requirements for waste-processing tanks... More:
http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=292

14. Cila v. Bechtel (Big Dig Wrongful Death)
The widow of Vincent Cila, who died in an accident in the Boston Big Dig tunnel system in July 2005, filed a lawsuit against the state turnpike authority, Bechtel and other construction companies alleging his death was caused by defectively-designed handrails that line about 6 miles of the tunnels. Cila, a Massachusetts state trooper, hit a handrail post in a motorcycle crash and died from his injuries. In November 2010, it was reported that the case settled out of court for $9 million... More: http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=1304
See also Item 1, the family of Milena Del Valle's Wrongful Death suit.

15. Kanawi v. Bechtel (ERISA Class Action)
Bechtel Corp. agreed to pay $18.5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging that the fees charged to employees in its 401(k) retirement plan were too high. The plaintiffs, Bechtel employees in California, alleged the company should have negotiated lower expenses for the more than 17,000 people in its 401(k) plan....More:
http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=1440

16. Deficient Oversight of Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Suppliers
Bechtel National agreed to pay a $170,000 to settle a Department of Energy (DOE) investigation into Bechtel National’s oversight of its vendors’ implementation of their commercial grade dedication programs during the construction of the Hanford, Washington Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. Deficiencies identified by DOE Office of Health, Safety and Security’s Office of Enforcement included inadequacy in determining the critical characteristics of materials and components, sampling techniques and lot formation that were not properly conducted, and methods used for material and component acceptance and acceptance testing that were not clearly defined. The deficiencies did not result in the receipt or installation of materials or components that did not meet established requirements and specifications... More:
http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=1439

17. Violations of Nuclear Safety Regulations (Hanford)
The Department of Energy will fine Bechtel National Inc. $165,000 for violations of nuclear safety regulations at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant located at the Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. The violations, which occurred during the design and construction of the site between 2001 and 2006, included “(1) deficiencies in the implementation of design changes to radiation shielding of wall penetrations called joggles; (2) deficiencies in implementing a commercial grade dedication (CGD) program; (3) deficiencies related to the review and acceptance of supplier submittals; and (4) deficiencies in the procurement and testing of Integrated Control Network (ICN) system software.”...
http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=814

18. Violation of the DOE Contractor Employee Protection Program (Hanford)
The Department of Energy fined Bechtel National $41,250 for laying off an employee who raised concerns in 2005 about the safety of the Hanford vitrification plant. The DOE Office of Enforcement later found that one of the employee's concerns about the software that controls the plant was valid and issued a notice of violation to Bechtel about it in 2007 (see Bechtel instance, “Violations of Nuclear Safety Regulations (Hanford)”)
http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=991

19. Price-Anderson Violations at Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant
The U.S. Department of Energy issued a Preliminary Notice of Violation (PNOV) to Bechtel National, Inc. for nuclear safety violations at the DOE’s Hanford Site near Richland, Washington. Bechtel National is constructing the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) at the Hanford Site. According to the DOE, “[s]everal thousand feet of piping intended to be used in sections of the WTP ‘black cell’ areas - areas in which no entry is planned over the 40-year life of the facility - were procured and fabricated in a manner that failed to meet the enhanced requirements stated in design documents, and BNI failed to correct known problems in the procurement and fabrication of the piping.” The DOE proposed a civil penalty of $385,000
http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=1028

So, "Not surprisingly for a company that has completed tens of thousands of projects in over 100 countries, ... the work itself has sometimes generated controversy, including over a dozen cases of contractor misconduct in the United States in the past decade."

Bechtel is a great company. The managerial skill and power needed to bring projects on Bechtel's scale to conclusion speaks for itself. It would not be misplaced to compare Bechtel to Pieter Kiewit and Sons for the incentive and accountability practices that draw out uncommon leadership and performance from managers mentored to the top. It would not be off-topic to compare the freedom to bring long-range wisdom to a company's trajectory when the organization remains private vs. when corporate governance follows a public model (incorporation and public stock).

My challenge to Bechtel is to be great enough to show that a company of men experiences all of Man's failings. The truly great, competent, and proudest among those companies has always dealt openly with the failings in man's nature and in the societies (corrupt? dysfunctional?) he forms . . and then found ways to transcend them all.

This is the added paragraph "Lobbying Efforts, Misconduct Cases" as first added, early 2014. The community must extend what I have written. It only deals with the USA, it only scratches the surface.

Not surprisingly for a company that has completed tens of thousands of projects in over 100 countries, Bechtel maintains both a Political Action Committee [7] and a lobbying program [8], while the work itself has sometimes generated controversy, including over a dozen cases of contractor misconduct in the United States in the past decade [9]. Several of these misconduct cases concern projects for the vitrification of liquid radioactive waste at the Hanford, WA nuclear site, where 56 million gallons of radioactive waste has been leaking out of some of the 177 storage tanks, 149 of them built with only a single steel wall [10]. Senator Ron Wyden has complained about both procurement misconduct on the project and the push-back of completion dates from July 2011 to November 2019 [11]. The project's transparency to the citizens who are paying for it has been impeded by Bechtel's retribution against whistle-blowers [12], for which Bechtel has been cited by the Department of Energy [13].
Jerry-VA (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jerry - I agree with you that many of the cases you mention deserve mention in the article, and since the paragraph you added is *way* less of a hitpiece than the article was as it originally stood, I'm going to leave it in with some minor rewrites - mostly for formatting and style. A couple of the links you used were also dead (I'll find alternative sources for the same claims,) and a couple were not reliable sources - specifically, contractormisconduct.org. A company of Bechtel's size has certainly generated it's fair share of controversy (and potentially more than that,) the original version of the article was just problematic because basically every sentence in the article was an attack on Bechtel. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at it further, I also actually removed the mention of Bechtel's PAC and lobbying efforts. Bechtel's lobbied to the tune of $300k last year - something worth mentioning in a full article about Bechtel, but something that seems a bit undue weight in what is basically still a stub. If you build further content out, I'd encourage you to both use the cite templates from the dropdown menu (they are much prettier) and also not to focus entirely on Bechtel's wrongdoing. What might be due weight on Bechtel's past wrongdoing in a full article can really rapidly become undue if it's the only thing in the article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kevin Gorman

I'll be in my grave long before this article teaches readers how to understand and appreciate Bechtel!!

First, we send an American company to complete a huge project (airport; oil-field development; multi-suburbs and roads; large fraction of a nation's generating capacity and grid) in a country with a largely corrupt, semi-illegitimate government that pays our American company in money obtained with a large measure of injustice and economic exploitation (one religious group against another, one ethnic group against another). It is an injustice to Wikipedia readers to merely celebrate (chronicle, list) project completion.

Second, in this century of globalization, there is much to criticize of empire, privatization, ruling elites and degenerate democracy. Bechtel, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, are at the center of the signature trends of our time, at the centers of political and economic power. It is for this reason that I think you were wrong to delete the documented existence of Bechtel's Political Action Committee (PAC) and Bechtel's lobbying program. I want these facts in as the foundation for exploring how Bechtel moves and fits into the society it serves. Can you make the statement of a PAC and several hired federal lobbying firms sound matter-of-fact enough to be reputation-neutral for the company? Let me know.

Third, there is an understanding of Bechtel itself. I wrote above, here in TALK, "Bechtel is a great company. The managerial skill and power needed to bring projects on Bechtel's scale to conclusion speaks for itself. It would not be misplaced to compare Bechtel to Pieter Kiewit and Sons for the incentive and accountability practices that draw out uncommon leadership and performance from managers mentored to the top. It would not be off-topic to compare the freedom to bring long-range wisdom to a company's trajectory when the organization remains private vs. when corporate governance follows a public model (incorporation and public stock)." In short, there needs to be a managerial style, business-school-case-study paragraph which compares similarities/diffs between Bechtel and Kiewit and Sons. Great projects only succeed with great managers, and herein lie the secrets of how Bechtel grows them. Next, there needs to be an economic/legal paragraph which compares two forms of corporate organization and governance: private and public incorporation. Private companies like being non-public to withhold information from the public, but that is a detail for great companies like Bechtel. A company working on decades-long projects does not run from quarter to quarter, and "private" may be what it takes to control a different corporate trajectory.

Against what is missing, compared to what could be, this page is still a failure. Alas.

Surely Bechtel has a corporate historian. When is she going to take us out to lunch? In the mid-50s, sailing first class on the South Atlantic route from Europe and still in diapers of course, one of the kindly gentlemen to take an interest in me was a Bechtel manager taking a break from building out Aramco oil fields in Saudi Arabia. It was horse racing night in the main lounge on Promenade Deck, and I won five dollars with the money he gave me to play one more race.

Jerry-VA (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention that the article remain simply little more than a list of completed projects, for more than the period of time necessary for folks (including myself and anyone else interested) to rewrite a history of Bechtel. However, I'm also not okay with the article being a coatrack that does nothing but rag on Bechtel's wrongdoing, which is what the article was before I stepped in and stubbed most of it. I fully agree with you that mention of Bechtel's lobbying efforts deserves mention once the page has been rebuilt and is more than a couple paragraphs long, but until the article becomes longer (which it will,) I think that mentioning Bechtel's lobbying efforts is a bit undue - laying out 300k in a year is very little for a company of Bechtel's size. For what it's worth, I'm not at all in love with Bechtel, and actively desire its Wikipedia article to document its wrongdoings - but we have policies that forbid articles from being nothing but attack pages (which is why I stubbed the article in the first place.) Case studies of the manner you describe are inappropriate on Wikipedia generally though unless they are also found in reliable sources - you may want to read our policy about original research. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Updating CEO Information and Corporate Overview

Hi, I have prepared a new section for the beginning of this articled titled Corporate overview. This new section covers basic information about Bechtel, including company headquarters, employees, business structure, leadership financials and rankings. It is very straightforward, but let me know if there are any questions about the facts or sources I have included. The full section can be found in my userspace here.

I would also like to note that changes were recently announced in Bechtel's leadership, including the CEO position. Riley Bechtel has stepped down as CEO, and Bill Dudley has taken this position. I have included this change in the new Corporate Overview section, but I would like to ask that an editor correct the information in the infobox on this article as well. Here is a third-party source covering the information.

Could an editor please make these changes if they think everything looks in order? Because of my conflict of interest as a Bechtel employee, I do not make any edits to articles myself. Best regards, M at Bechtel (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

done. Dormskirk (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dormskirk, thank you for making these edits.

I'm curious about your replacement of the introduction with the single sentence from the "Corporate overview" section, though. I felt like the previous introduction provided a better overall sense of what Bechtel is and does than the current single sentence. Do you have specific concerns about the previous intro that I could work to address rather than simply removing it?

Also, I'm actually working on a more detailed overview of the company's operations that I was planning on titling simply "Operations". I looked at articles for various companies, and there doesn't seem to be a standard way to do this, but I was hoping "Corporate overview" would be a very high-level overview, while "Operations" would be more specific and detailed. What do you think about changing this section title back to "Corporate overview"?

Best regards, M at Bechtel (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi - The lead section should be a summary of the article. My concern was that it was not balanced: it included the positive matters on rankings but none of the criticisms. I have now restored the previous version of the lead but still think it could do with an additional sentence summarising the misconduct matters. As regards the section headings I find the term "corporate overview" too much like marketingspeak and prefer the more neutral headings of "history" and "operations". Dormskirk (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Dormskirk. Thanks for restoring the introduction. I do agree that it should be a summary of the article, and I certainly intend to make some suggestions to improve it after I have worked with editors here to improve and update the rest of the article.

In terms of naming the "Corporate overview/Operations" section, I think your suggestion is fine, though I will be curious to hear your thoughts about what to call the next section I plan to propose, which will provide more detail about the company's operations.

Thanks again! Best regards, M at Bechtel (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Updating Annual Report / President information

Hi, Bechtel has released new corporate information that is now available through the annual report. Here is a link to the Annual Report for editors to review. Below I’ve outlined the items currently in the article that need to be updated, and provided the more up-to-date information:

• Revenue: $39.4 billion (2013)
• Employee numbers: 53,000 (2013)
• President and COO: Brendan Bechtel
• CEO: Bill Dudley
• Chairman: Riley Bechtel

In addition, the leadership of the company was changed. I'd like to ask that an editor update the information in the infobox and in the Company section on this article, adding Brendan Bechtel as President and COO, and Bill Dudley as CEO. Here is a third-party source covering the leadership change.

Could an editor please make these changes? Because of my conflict of interest as a Bechtel employee, I don't make any edits to articles myself. Best regards, M at Bechtel (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dormskirk. Thank you for making these changes so quickly. Would it be possible to also update the revenue and year in the article's introduction? The sentence should read "As of 2013, Bechtel had $39.4 billion in revenue."

Additionally, the Management section still states that Bill Dudley is president. I drafted a rewrite of the section based on Brenden Bechtel's recent promotion to president and chief operating officer. Here's the draft using the source I mentioned in my last message:

Bill Dudley is CEO and Brenden Bechtel is president and chief operating officer. Bechtel is the fifth generation of the Bechtel family to lead the company. Riley P. Bechtel is chairman of the board, after stepping down as CEO in 2013. Mike Adams has been chief financial officer since 2012.

Let me know if you're able to make these changes and many thanks for updating everything else. Best regards, M at Bechtel (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

We probably don't need to refer to revenue in the lead paragraph. I have updated the management section. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft for updated History section

Hi, a few months ago I mentioned I was working on a section about Bechtel's history and notable projects. I have now completed a draft that I'd like editors to review. Covering over 100 years of information has made it so the draft is quite lengthy, so I've put the draft on my user space here.

You'll see that I avoided going too in depth on any one project for the sake of space. My goal was to include just a few details about all major work and link to articles of well-known projects for readers who want to know more about subjects such as the Hoover Dam or The Big Dig.

Along with replacing the History section, I'd like to propose removing the Alleged misconduct section. I incorporated in my draft the two issues currently mentioned in the section: the Hanford Site and the 2000 Cochabamba protests. For Cochabamba, I linked to more details about the protests and also expanded the information to include the end results for Bechtel. In the case of Hanford, I retained just about everything currently mentioned in the article, along with adding more context and a more complete overview of the issues that have come up with the project. I did, however, remove the following points:

• Bechtel's failure to conduct safety reviews of the equipment they used led to at least some underground tanks leaking radioactive waste in to nearby groundwater.

I removed this because tanks are not in Bechtel's scope and the source itself doesn't claim that any work done by Bechtel has led to leaks.

• Senator Ron Wyden has alleged that Bechtel fired a whistleblower at the Hanford site, and expressed concern that this would discourage further whistleblowers from coming forward.

I removed this because the source notes that he was an employee of URS Corp, not Bechtel. I have, however, kept other sources on this matter, which I’ve used to include references to Bechtel’s involvement with the broader set of controversies regarding rising costs, nuclear safety and quality, and whistleblower allegations.

I also included several other controversies involving Bechtel that made the news in the 2000s. I'm aware of the discussion among editors earlier this year about incorporating some of these controversies and tried to be mindful of those suggestions.

I'd appreciate any feedback others might have on this draft and my suggestion to remove the Alleged misconduct section. If the draft is adequate, I ask that another editor also assist in moving it to the live article so I can avoid making direct edits myself. Best regards, M at Bechtel (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This does make sense: I have made the changes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Welltech

Bechtel did a takeover with Hanna Mining of Welltech in 1979 (Bechtel and Hanna Mining each took a 50% interest). Welltech turned into a disaster and basically collapsed. Does anybody know why it collapsed so spectacularly? Do you know of any links? I have heard that it was because the books were cooked before they bought into it, and the mess only got exposed as oil prices declined. Does anybody know what happened? Thanks in advance.2.98.158.1 (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)