DOCSLIB.ORG

Transfer of the Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transfer of the Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri DOE/EA-1947 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE KANSAS CITY PLANT, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration February 2013 CONVERSION FACTORS Metric to English English to Metric Multiply by To get Multiply by To get Area Square kilometers 247.1 Acres Acres 0.0040469 Square kilometers Square kilometers 0.3861 Square miles Square miles 2.59 Square kilometers Square meters 10.764 Square feet Square feet 0.092903 Square meters Concentration Kilograms/sq. meter 0.16667 Tons/acre Tons/acre 0.5999 Kilograms/sq. meter Milligrams/liter 1a Parts/million Parts/million 1a Milligrams/liter Micrograms/liter 1a Parts/billion Parts/billion 1a Micrograms/liter Micrograms/cu. meter 1a Parts/trillion Parts/trillion 1a Micrograms/cu. meter Density Grams/cu. centimeter 62.428 Pounds/cu. ft. Pounds/cu. ft. 0.016018 Grams/cu. centimeter Grams/cu. meter 0.0000624 Pounds/cu. ft. Pounds/cu. ft. 16,025.6 Grams/cu. meter Length Centimeters 0.3937 Inches Inches 2.54 Centimeters Meters 3.2808 Feet Feet 0.3048 Meters Micrometers 0.00003937 Inches Inches 25,400 Micrometers Millimeters 0.03937 Inches Inches 25.40 Millimeters Kilometers 0.62137 Miles Miles 1.6093 Kilometers Temperature Absolute Degrees C + 17.78 1.8 Degrees F Degrees F − 32 0.55556 Degrees C Relative Degrees C 1.8 Degrees F Degrees F 0.55556 Degrees C Velocity/Rate Cu. meters/second 2,118.9 Cu. feet/minute Cu. feet/minute 0.00047195 Cu. meters/second Meters/second 2.237 Miles/hour Miles/hour 0.44704 Meters/second Volume Cubic meters 264.17 Gallons Gallons 0.0037854 Cubic meters Cubic meters 35.314 Cubic feet Cubic feet 0.028317 Cubic meters Cubic meters 1.3079 Cubic yards Cubic yards 0.76456 Cubic meters Cubic meters 0.0008107 Acre-feet Acre-feet 1,233.49 Cubic meters Liters 0.26418 Gallons Gallons 3.78533 Liters Liters 0.035316 Cubic feet Cubic feet 28.316 Liters Liters 0.001308 Cubic yards Cubic yards 764.54 Liters Weight/Mass Grams 0.035274 Ounces Ounces 28.35 Grams Kilograms 2.2046 Pounds Pounds 0.45359 Kilograms Kilograms 0.0011023 Tons (short) Tons (short) 907.18 Kilograms Metric tons 1.1023 Tons (short) Tons (short) 0.90718 Metric tons English to English Acre-feet 325,850.7 Gallons Gallons 0.000003046 Acre-feet Acres 43,560 Square feet Square feet 0.000022957 Acres Square miles 640 Acres Acres 0.0015625 Square miles a. This conversion factor is only valid for concentrations of contaminants (or other materials) in water. DOE/EA-1947 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Transfer of the Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration February 2013 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BFC Bannister Federal Complex CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1976 CFR Code of Federal Regulations CSR Code of State Regulations DCCR Description of Current Conditions Report DOE U.S. Department of Energy (also called the Department) EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FR Federal Register HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 GSA General Services Administration KCP Kansas City Plant MDNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources MHWMF Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Facility NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act, as amended NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration NOA Notice of Availability PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SWMU solid waste management unit U.S.C. United States Code UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC NOTATION NNSA has used scientific notation in this EA to express numbers that are so large or so small that they can be difficult to read or write. Scientific notation is based on the use of positive and negative powers of 10. The number written in scientific notation is expressed as the product of a number between 1 and 10 and a positive or negative power of 10. Examples include the following: Positive powers of 10 Negative powers of 10 101 = 10 × 1 = 10 10-1 = 1/10 = 0.1 102 = 10 × 10 = 100 10-2 = 1/100 = 0.01 and so on, therefore, and so on, therefore, 106 = 1,000,000 (or 1 million) 10-6 = 0.000001 (or 1 in 1 million) Probability is expressed as a number between 0 and 1 (0 to 100 percent likelihood of the occurrence of an event). The notation 3 × 10-6 can be read 0.000003, which means that there are 3 chances in 1 million that the associated result (for example, a fatal cancer) will occur in the period covered by the analysis. Contents CONTENTS Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .......................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Need for Agency Action ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2.1 NNSA Buildings .............................................................................................................. 1-3 1.2.2 Site Remediation .............................................................................................................. 1-6 1.2.3 Regulatory Compliance ................................................................................................... 1-6 1.2.4 Solicitation of Interested Parties ...................................................................................... 1-8 1.3 Overview of NEPA Activities to Date ....................................................................................... 1-8 1.4 Scope of this Environmental Assessment .................................................................................. 1-9 1.5 Public Involvement .................................................................................................................. 1-10 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ..................... 2-1 2.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 No-Action Alternative ............................................................................................................... 2-5 2.3 Future Uses Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Impact Analysis .................................. 2-6 2.3.1 Residential Use, Retail, or Parkland ................................................................................ 2-7 2.3.2 Energy Production Site per the DOE Asset RevitilIzation Initiative ............................... 2-7 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ....................................... 3-1 3.1 Land Use .................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Environmental Impacts from the Proposed Action .......................................................... 3-4 3.1.3 Environmental Impacts from the No-Action Alternative ................................................ 3-5 3.2 Aesthetics................................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.2 Environmental Impacts from the Proposed Action .......................................................... 3-6 3.2.3 Environmental Impacts from the No-Action Alternative ................................................ 3-8 3.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................. 3-8 3.3.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-8 3.3.2 Environmental Impacts from the Proposed Action ........................................................ 3-10 3.3.3 Environmental Impacts from the No-Action Alternative .............................................. 3-10 3.4 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................... 3-11 3.4.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 3-11 3.4.2 Environmental Impacts from the Proposed Action ........................................................ 3-19 3.4.3 Environmental Impacts from the No-Action Alternative .............................................. 3-19 3.5 Water Resources ...................................................................................................................... 3-20 3.5.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 3-20 3.5.2 Environmental Impacts from the Proposed Action .......................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 162/Monday, August 23, 2004
    Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Notices 51825 Format (PDF) on the Internet at the Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, and oxidation process). Other following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ SW., Washington, DC 20585; e-mail: corrections include: B&T Metals (OH) fedregister. [email protected]; toll free: (the DOE designation was in error and To use PDF you must have Adobe 1–877–447–9756; URL: http:// has been removed), Foote Mineral (PA) Acrobat Reader, which is available free www.eh.doe.gov/advocacy/. (the BE designation has been on the at this site. If you have questions about SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: program’s Web site (noted below) since using PDF, call the U.S. Government inception, but was inadvertently Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– Purpose missing from the Federal Register 888–293–6498; or in the Washington, The Energy Employees Occupational notice), Swenson Evaporator (is located DC, area at (202) 512–1530. Illness Compensation Program Act of in Harvey, not Chicago, IL) and C.H. 2000 (‘‘Act’’), Title 36 of Public Law Schnorr, PA (previously Schnoor). This Note: The official version of this document 106–398, establishes a program to is the document published in the Federal notice also deletes the listing for Ledoux Register. Free Internet access to the official provide compensation to individuals (NY) entirely because it was learned that edition of the Federal Register and the Code who developed illnesses as a result of no radioactivity was used at that of Federal Regulations is available on GPO their employment in nuclear weapons location.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Public Input
    appendix A Summary of Public Input Approximately, 80-to-100 residents participated in the first round of Summary of MetroGreen public workshops. Three drop-in format meetings were held on the evenings of April 24, 25, and 26. The workshops were located at Public Workshops the Missouri Department of Transportation office in Lee’s Summit, St. Luke’s Northland Hospital off Barry Road, and the Sylvester Powell Community Center in Mission. Three more meetings were held in June on the 25th, 26th, and 27th. These workshops were held at the Gladstone Community Building in Central Park, the Brush Creek Community Center, and the Merriam Community Center. Approximately, 50-to-70 people attended these workshops. A final public meeting was held on October 24th in downtown Kansas City. Participants viewed a short video that explains the concept of greenways, the different forms greenways take, and the many functions that they perform. Also, available for public viewing were displays produced by area agencies, highlighting local and regional trails systems, proposed and existing. Visitors were encouraged to look at, write comments, and sketch ideas on regional and county maps that were produced especially for the workshops. Workshop attendees located areas that they felt needed bicycle and/or pedestrian connections. Digital photographs of the maps and comments are printed on the following pages. A comment form was also made available to participants. Results from these forms are displayed following the workshop maps. Comments from the workshops were incorporated into subsequent drafts of the MetroGreen Map that shows potential greenway locations. In addition, MARC staff, Greenways Incorporated, Patti Banks Associates, and local representatives attended the workshops to answer questions and solicit responses.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 12 References
    Section 12 References REFERENCES Adriaens, P., J.M. Lendvay, M.L. McCormick and S.M. Dean. 1997. Biogeochemistry and dechlorination potential at the St. Joseph Aquifer-Lake Michigan interface, in In Situ and On Site Bioremediation. Vol 3, edited by B.C. Alleman and A. Lesson. Pp173-179. Battelle, Columbus, Ohio. 1997. Ahrens, L.H., 1965. Distribution of Elements in Our Planet. McGraw-Hill, New York. Albert Kahn Associated Architects and Engineers, “Aircraft Engine Plant for United Aircraft Corporation.” Job No. 1927, September 22, 1942. Files, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, MO. Plans include the Manufacturing Plant, Test Cells and Boiler House. Albert Kahn Associates, Inc. “Albert Kahn Wartime Contributions for the Corporate Sector.” January 13, 2009. Albert Kahn Associates, Detroit. “An Overview of Albert Kahn’s War Time Contributions.” N.D. Albert Kahn Associates, Detroit. Allied Signal, Inc. 1987. Kansas City Division, Unpublished data: Floor Space Utilization Summary, Chronological Summary of Bendix KCP Plant Acquisitions and Relinquishments. Kansas City, Missouri, October. National Archives and Records Administration. Pratt & Whitney of Kansas City. Memorandum: File No.2. “Sale of Personal Property at Plancor 1213. Allied Signal, Inc. 1989. City Water and Sewage Systems Evaluation and Computer Mapping. Allied Signal Aerospace, Kansas City Division, Kansas City, Missouri. Allied Signal, Inc. 1998. Abandoned Sump Removal, Interim Measures Report. Kansas City, Missouri. ALS Environmental, 2011, Bannister Complex Samples for Q19, F25, and Roof ECAI, Work Order 1108184 Architectural & Historical Research, LLC. “The Kansas City Plant: Bannister Federal Complex.” 26 May 2010. “The Architect Working in Industry.” Architectural Record. Vol. 59 No. 3. March 1941.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas City Plant FY 2016 – FY2025 Ten Year Site Plan
    Kansas City Plant FY 2016 – FY2025 Ten Year Site Plan Kansas City Plant FY 2015 – FY2024 Ten Year Site Plan Limited Update - - - This page intentionally blank. - - - 2 - - - This page intentionally blank. - - - 2 List of Abbreviations ADAPT – Advanced Design and Production Technologies AF&F – Arming, Fuzing, and Firing ALT - Alternate ATECC – Alternate Transportation Emergency Control Center ATTC – Albuquerque Transportation & Technology Center BFC – Bannister Federal Complex BMP – Best Management Practices BTA – Building Technology Associates, Inc. BTU – British Thermal Unit CBDPP – Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program CD – Critical Decision CMD -- Component Maturation and Development CME – Component and Material Evaluation CMMS – Computerized Maintenance Management System COTS – Commercial-Off-The-Shelf CRADA – Cooperative Research and Development Agreement CUP - Central Utility Plant DDC – Direct Digital Controls DM – Deferred Maintenance DMSMS – Diminishing Manufacturing Sources & Material Shortages DoD – Department of Defense DSA – Detonator Sensing Assembly DSW – Directed Stockpile Work DTRA – Defense Threat Reduction Agency EA – Environmental Assessment EIS – Environmental Impact Statement EMP – Energy Management Plan ENS – Emergency Notification System EPH – East Powerhouse ES – Enhanced Surveillance ESC – Enhanced Surveillance Campaigns ESN – Enterprise Secure Network FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation FEMP – Federal Energy Management Program FIMS – Facilities Information Management System FIRP – Facilities Infrastructure
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000; List of Covered Facilities
    6450-01-p DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000; List of Covered Facilities AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of Listing of Covered Facilities SUMMARY: The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000 (“Act”), Public Law 106-398, establishes a program to provide compensation to individuals who developed illnesses as a result of their employment in nuclear weapons production- related activities and certain other federally-owned facilities in which radioactive materials were used. On December 7, 2000, the President issued Executive Order 13179 (“Order”) directing the Department of Energy (“Department” or “DOE”) to list covered facilities in the Federal Register. This notice responds to both the Act and the Order. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Worker Advocacy, 1-877-447- 9756. ADDRESSES: The Department welcomes comments on this list. Individuals who wish to suggest additional facilities for inclusion on the list, indicate why one or more facilities should be removed from the list, or provide other information may contact: Office of Worker Advocacy (EH-8) U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 email: [email protected] toll-free: 1-877-447-9756 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1 Purpose: The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000 (“Act”), Public Law 106-398, establishes a program to provide compensation to individuals who developed illnesses as a result of their employment in nuclear weapons production-related activities and certain other federally-owned facilities in which radioactive materials were used. On December 7, 2000, the President issued Executive Order 13179 (“Order”) directing the Department of Energy (“Department” or “DOE”) to list covered facilities in the Federal Register.
    [Show full text]
  • Freight Infrastructure Investment Plan
    Freight Infrastructure Investment Plan Presented to: Mid-America Regional Council and Kansas City SmartPort Prepared by: TranSystems May 5, 2009 EXPERIENCE | Transportation Overview The Kansas City Regional Freight Outlook (RFO) was prepared to sustain existing momentum and further expand the region’s presence in transportation and logistics. The overall vision for the Kansas City RFO is to positively impact and accommodate the growth of freight transportation and logistics in the 18-county study area. The Mid-America Regional Council and Kansas City SmartPort initiated the Kansas City Regional Freight Outlook. The Kansas City RFO was developed in collaboration with the Kansas and Missouri Departments of Transportations. The overall study included a series of deliverables focused on identifying freight infrastructure needs and assessing Kansas City’s regional transportation advantages, resulting in targeted strategies and messages for the region. The following list details each of the study deliverables: • Freight Directory: Inventory of the region’s 40 freight zones including modes, volumes, existing industries and presence of foreign trade zones • Business Survey: Summary of 427 survey responses of businesses on freight topics important to the region • Focus Group Summary: Major findings from five focus groups conducted with the general public, business and elected officials • Freight Infrastructure Investment Plan: Focuses upon transportation infrastructure by freight mode and provides a set of transportation priorities for the region. • Regional Freight Assessment: A comparative of assessment of Kansas City against other cities in the U.S. in terms of freight activities and site selection characteristics. • Freight Flow Analysis: A summary of the volume and value of freight flows in, out and through Kansas City by truck, rail, air and barge.
    [Show full text]
  • April 7, 2000 Bishop C. Dale White
    April 7, 2000 Bishop C. Dale White 117 Eustis Avenue Newport, RI 02840 Dear Dale: I believe that those of us who believe that nuclear deterrence and any use of nuclear weapons are immoral should make this an election issue in 2000. We should challenge the presidential candidates to deal with this matter. We should demand that they consider the immorality of threatening innocent people and the environment in the name of nuclear deterrence. We should insist that they admit that nuclear weapons have no utility for war-fighting, as numerous military leaders have testified. The same issues could be raised with candidates for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. I would like to explore this matter with you by correspondence and to talk with you some time during the first week of General Conference. I'll be there from May 1 to 5. One possibility would be a letter from religious leaders to the presidential candidates, emphasizing the immorality of nuclear weapons and asking them to set forth a plan for global elimination of nuclear weapons within a reasonable time span. Because of the sensitive nature of church/state relations the signers might be persons like yourself who are not official representatives of religious denominations rather than asking heads of communion to sign. Such persons might include Bishop Walter Sullivan, president of Pax Christi; retired heads of communion, such as Episcopal Bishop Edmond Browning, former UCC president Paul Sherry, retired Presbyterian Stated Clerk James Andrews, etc.; Joan Brown Campbell; other prominent clergy, including other faiths. Such a letter could cite the position of various religious bodies, such as the UM bishops' In Defense of Creation, the UM resolution on Nuclear Abolition (which will be updated in Cleveland), a similar Episcopal resolution, last year's statement by Pax Christi bishops, a statement of Archbishop Martino, the Holy See representative to the UN, a statement by Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • (PER) Kansas City Plant October 1, 2005 Through September 30, 2006
    Description of document: DOE NNSA FY 2006 Performance Evaluation Report Kansas City Plant Requested date: 26-January-2007 Released date: 11-September-2007 Posted date: 15-October-2007 Title of Document Performance Evaluation Report (PER) Kansas City Plant October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006 Date/date range of document: FY 2006 Source of document: Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Service Center P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185 Freedom of Information Act U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20585 (202) 586-5955 [email protected] http://management.energy.gov/foia_pa.htm The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however, there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the governmentattic.org web site or in this file. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Service Center P. O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185 SEP 11 200t CERTIFIED MAIL - RESTRICTED DELIVERY - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED This is in final response to your Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA) request dated January 26, 2007, for "a copy ofthe most recent two annualperformance reviews for Pantex Site, Kansas City Site, Sandia Site, Los Alamos Site, Y-12 Site and Livermore Site." I contacted the Site Offices who have oversight responsibility for the records you requested, and they are enclosed.
    [Show full text]
  • Gao-14-588, National Nuclear Security Administration
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives July 2014 NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Agency Expanded Use of Some Federal Oversight Reforms, but Is Still Determining Future Plans GAO-14-588 July 2014 NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Agency Expanded Use of Some Federal Oversight Highlights of GAO-14-588, a report to the Reforms, but Is Still Determining Future Plans Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found NNSA, a separately organized agency Key reforms at the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) Kansas within DOE, has had long-standing City Plant (KCP)—a site in Missouri that manufactures electronic and other problems managing its contracts and nonnuclear components of nuclear weapons—included (1) streamlining operating projects, which GAO has identified as requirements by replacing Department of Energy (DOE) requirements with being at high risk for fraud, waste, industry standards, where appropriate; (2) refocusing federal oversight to rely on abuse, and mismanagement. Both contractor performance data for lower-risk activities; and (3) establishing clear DOE and, specifically, NNSA, contractor goals and incentives. A 2008 review of the reforms reported nearly undertook initiatives in 2002 and 2003 $14 million in cost reductions were achieved at the site by implementing these to improve contractor performance reforms. through revised federal oversight and greater contractor accountability. In NNSA and KCP federal and contractor staff identified key factors that facilitated 2006, concerned that efforts were implementation of reforms at KCP, including the following: moving too slowly, the NNSA Administrator tasked its KCP Field • High-level support from NNSA and field office leadership.
    [Show full text]
  • Board of Aldermen Agenda
    Gity of Grandview Municipal Services Building Grandview, Missouri 64030 www.grandview.org Board of Aldermen Agenda September 25,2018 - 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Session - September 11 ,2018. V AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS B. Recognition of Grandview students who won the NBA Jr. Championships v PUBLIC COMMENTS Individuals will be permitted to address the Board of Aldermen only once on any given subject and are limited to 3 mínutes per speaker. Individuals speaking must stand at the public microphone, give their names and addresses in an audible tone of voice and sign the City Clerk's log for recording in the minutes. These rules also apply to individuals addressing the Board during Public Hearings. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. A public hearing for the approval of the Grandview Village Community lmprovement Dístrict. VIII. CONSENT ITEMS D. Purchasing Manager's Report. E. Collector's Report. F. Treasurer's Report. G. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes-August 8,2018. H. Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes-August 2,2018 l. Approval of payment to the Kansas City, MissouriWater Services Department for sanitary sewer services for the months of July and August, 2018. J. Award of bid to Precision Roofing, for $221,245.00 for the installation of a TPO roof and related roofing materials at the Municipal Services Building. K. Approval of purchase for Body Worn Cameras and associated hardware/software for the Police Department. L. Approval of purchase for one Ford Transit F250 Van from the Mid-America Regíonal Council Cooperative Purchasing Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • EEOICPA PROGRAM – National Security Campus
    National Nuclear Security Administration Federal Manufacturing & Technologies EEOICPA PROGRAM – National Security Campus Stacey Eide | January 29, 2015 The Department of Energy’s National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0000622 History National Nuclear Security Administration Federal Manufacturing & Technologies • The Kansas City Plant has been operated by the same Management & Operations (M & O) contractor since 1949 • The contractor’s company has changed names through mergers or acquisitions (Bendix, Allied, Allied-Signal and now Honeywell FM&T) • Bendix began to make parts for nuclear weapons at KCP in 1949 • Original building that housed KCP was constructed in 1942 to build aircraft engines • KCP moved to a new facility in 2013 • New facility is referred to as the National Security Campus (NSC) National Nuclear Security Administration Federal Manufacturing & Technologies A Rich Site History • 1922 - Kansas City Speedway • 1942 - Building construction and occupant - Pratt & Whitney Aircraft • 1949 - The Atomic Energy Commission and the Bendix Corporation HISTORY National Nuclear Security Administration Federal Manufacturing & Technologies 2011 – The Kansas City Plant Mergers and Honeywell - - - - - - - - 1983 – 1942 - Building construction and occupant - Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Allied 1999 – Honeywell 2012 – NSC 1949 - The Atomic Energy Commission and the Bendix Corporation National Nuclear Security Administration Federal Manufacturing & Technologies
    [Show full text]
  • Draft: a Vision for Missouri's Transportation Future
    DRAFT: A VISION FOR MISSOURI’S TRANSPORTATION FUTURE Appendix November 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix A: Listening to Missourians 3 Detailed summary of On the Move Appendices B-H: District-specific feedback from 9 On the Move Central District-Appendix B 9 Kansas City District-Appendix C 18 Northeast District–Appendix D 26 Northwest District-Appendix E 34 Southeast District–Appendix F 42 Southwest District-Appendix G 50 St. Louis District-Appendix H 59 Appendix I: Economic impact case studies 66 Appendix J: The planning framework for transportation decision making 84 Appendix K: Other planning initiatives 89 Appendix L: Transportation wants, needs and projects suggested through On the Move 90 Missouri Long Range Transportation Plan | Appendix | Page 2 APPENDIX A: LISTENING TO MISSOURIANS SUMMARY “MoDOT can put Missourians in the best position by continuing to keep promises, educate the public and distribute funds evenly.” (Listening session participant) In 2013, MoDOT embarked on an unprecedented comprehensive community engagement effort called On the Move. MoDOT representatives visited every county in the state to gather direction and insights from Missourians on major transportation issues and priorities. To-date, over 12,000 suggestions have been received, including big picture ideas and requests for localized projects. Reaching out to Missourians to determine their thoughts and priorities about the state’s transportation system is the right thing to do. As a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars, MoDOT needs to know what Missourians think of the current transportation system and what they expect in the future. That input has directly shaped the development of this long term transportation plan.
    [Show full text]