A Very Basic Introduction to the Kansas City Plant

1
A (Very Basic) Introduction to the Kansas City
Plant

• Jay Coghlan,
• Executive Director, Nuclear Watch New Mexico
• October 2007

2
Mission Statement
Provide timely and accurate information to the
public on nuclear weapons issues.
Empower effective citizen action.
Promote greater safety and environmental
protection. Promote federal policy changes that c
urb the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
For much more information, including the Kansas
City Plant, see www.nukewatch.org.
3
KCP and the Nuclear Weapons Complex
4
KCPs Official Vision
To be the most admired team within the NNSA
National Nuclear Security Administration for
our relentless drive to convert ideas into the
highest quality products and services for
national security by applying the right
technology, outstanding program management and
the best commercial practices.
5
Turning Science into Reality
As the most comprehensive manufacturing facility
within the nuclear weapons complex, the KCP plays
an important role by taking designs from the
national labs and turning science into reality.
-Kansas City Plant website
6
Primary Manufacturer of Non-Nuclear Components
From official KCP power point
7
KCP Capabilities
From official KCP power point
8
Nuclear Weapons Spending and KCP
More than 98 of the budget for the Kansas City
Plant is nuclear weapons-related
The yearly totals follow fluctuations in the
overall NNSA budget (look closely to see
non-weapons !). Sources NNSA Congressional
Budget requests.
KCP officials state that the Plant receives
another 130 million annually in Work for
Others, but virtually all of that is for nuclear
weapons as well.
9
The Monthly Workload
KCP claims that it is the NNSAs highest rated
production facility. 5,000 nuclear weapons comp
onents packages are shipped monthly to other NNSA
sites. In all, 104,000 components were shipped
in 2006.
10
Pace Projected to Continue
KCP is currently producing components for all of
nuclear warhead types depicted above.
KCP is currently having its heaviest workload in
20 years. This pace is projected to continue unti
l 2015.
11
Relocating the Plant
NNSA wants to build a new half billion dollar,
1.5 million square foot plant in the Kansas City
area.
12
KCP Is Barred from the Ongoing Review of the
Future Nuclear Weapons Complex
NNSA believes that it is appropriate to separate
the analyses of the transformation of non-nuclear
production from the Transformation Supplemental
PEIS because decisions regarding non-nuclear
activities would neither significantly affect nor
be affected by decisions regarding the
transformation of nuclear production activities.
- KCP Notice of Intent, May 1, 2007
13
Yet KCP Was in a 1996 Transformation Study
two alternatives are being considered that
would meet the needs of the Program downsizing
the facilities that presently perform this
mission at KCP and 2) transferring the KCP
nonnuclear fabrication mission to LANL Los
Alamos, LLNL Lawrence Livermore and SNL
Sandia Decision The relocation of this
mission to SNL, LANL or LLNL would entail
environmental impacts associated with the
construction and operation of new facilities
DOEs decision is to downsize the existing
facilities at the KCP. But now NNSA wants to
move the Plant anyway, yet excludes it from the
growing national debate.
14
KCP Is Central to New Nuclear Weapons
NNSA proposes to design and build future
Reliable Replacement Warheads (RRW) to
transform and revitalize its nuclear weapons
complex, which would directly affect KCP.
The KCP is continuing on the path to work wit
h the NNSA to transition from protecting the
capabilities of the past to creating the
responsive infrastructure RI of the future
As the Reliable Replacement Warhead requireme
nts emerge, strategic investments by KCP will
be identified As a minimum the plan will a
ddress the following interim RI responsive
infrastructure goals for 2012.. Adapt weapons
for new capabilities 24 months and Warhead
design, development, and initial production - 48
months. - From KCP 2006 2007 Ten-Year Site Plan
s
15
Third Party Construction Funding
(as far as we can figure out)
NNSA decides it wants a new Kansas City Plant
and asks its current landlord, the General
Services Administration (GSA), for help.
GSA bids out construction in a build-to-suit
leasing arrangement. The winning developer raises
private financing for construction.
The private developers lease the new plant ba
ck to GSA, and NNSA subleases it from GSA.
While the future nuclear weapons complex is be
ing hotly debated, can it be possible that a new
half billion dollar Kansas City Plant will be
built not subject to overview by Congress and the
power of its purse?
16
Wheres the Money for Cleanup?
Internal KCP strategic plans state that 20
million dollars in funding was needed for cleanup
in FYs 2007 2008. Despite that, and the kno
wn presence of VOCs PCBs in soil and
groundwater, NNSA asked Congress for just 3.7
million in FYs 2007 and 2008. Should the new
plant be built, what federal agency will be
responsible for final cleanup of the old plant?
Map of contamination plumes in groundwater at KCP
-https//www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/Re
medy/Kansas/ksplnt02.html

17
Theres a pattern here
The Kansas City Plant is excluded from national
review of transforming the nuclear weapons compl
ex. The new KCP is given a lesser environme
ntal assessment rather than a more comprehensiv
e environmental impact statement.
Private financing will likely avoid congressio
nal review. Current cleanup is underfunded. L
ong-term cleanup is in doubt.
GSA/NNSA plans to silence the public by not ho
lding a hearing for the draft assessment expecte
d this November.
Get active and stop the pattern!
Clean up, dont build up the nuclear weapons
complex!