A (Very Basic) Introduction to
the
Kansas City Plant
Jay Coghlan,
Executive Director, Nuclear Watch New Mexico
October 2007
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 curb the proliferation of
nuclear weapons.
• For much more information, including the Kansas City Plant, see
www.nukewatch.org.
KCP and the
Nuclear Weapons Complex
KCP’s 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.”
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
Primary Manufacturer of
Non-Nuclear Components
From “official” KCP power point
KCP Capabilities
From “official” KCP power point
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 nonweapons $$!). 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.
The Monthly Workload
• KCP claims that it is the “NNSA’s highest rated production
facility.”
• 5,000 nuclear weapons components packages are shipped
monthly to other NNSA sites.
• In all, 104,000 components were shipped in 2006.
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 until 2015.
Relocating the Plant
NNSA wants to build a new half billion dollar, 1.5 million square foot plant
in the Kansas City area.
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
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… DOE’s 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.
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 with 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 requirements emerge, strategic
investments [by KCP] will be identified…”
• “As a minimum the plan will address 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 Plans
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 back to GSA, and NNSA
subleases it from GSA.
• While the future nuclear weapons complex is being 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?
Where’s 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 known
presence of VOCs & PCBs in
soil and groundwater, NNSA
asked Congress for just $3.7
million in FYs 2007 and 2008.
Map of contamination plumes in
groundwater at KCP https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/Re
medy/Kansas/ksplnt02.html
• Should the new plant be built,
what federal agency will be
responsible for final cleanup of
the old plant?
There’s a pattern here……
• The Kansas City Plant is excluded from national review of
transforming the nuclear weapons complex.
• The new KCP is given a lesser “environmental assessment” rather
than a more comprehensive “environmental impact statement.”
• Private financing will likely avoid congressional review.
• Current cleanup is underfunded. Long-term cleanup is in doubt.
• GSA/NNSA plans to silence the public by not holding a hearing for
the draft assessment expected this November.
Get active and stop the pattern!
Clean up, don’t build up the nuclear weapons complex!