DOCSLIB.ORG

Radiological Survey Rept for Site Closure Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Radiological Survey Rept for Site Closure Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant - - ._ . - . _ - - . - . - _ . - . - . _ . - - _ . - - - . - - . _ . 1- ! ; * * ; GENERAL DYNAMI' ', , Land Systems Division i ! ! ! ! : i ! - RADIOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT : FOR SITE CLOSURE ' : 1 ' : i : DETROIT ARSENAL TANK PLANT (DATP) i BUILDING 4 i 28251 VAN DYKE : i ' WARREN, MICHIGAN 48090 i ; ! ; i ! ! ! i . ! i , . REFERENCE: t U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) ; . RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE ' i No. 21-21068-01, Amendment No.10 ; Docket No. 030-19731 i 9703120167 970305 PDR ADOCK 03019731 , C PDR - - . _ _ _ _ _. _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . W . I- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ; , Declining tank production rates and lower defense spending caused the 1995 Base ' Realignment Closure Commission to recommend that the Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant i , (DATP), a Government Owned Contractor Operated (GOCO) facility, be shut down. For I the years that General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) has produced tank systems at DATP (since 1982), tank production operations were specific to Building 4 of the plant, Bays K & L. Extensive radiological wipe testing was conducted in these areas in an I effort to quantify any removable radiological contamination that may have been present as a result of GDLS's use of sealed tritium (H-3) sources in the tank's fire control system; ! specifically the Muzzle Reference Sensor (MRS). Results by liquid scintillation analysis 4 indicate a level of removable tritium contamination much lower than (by a factor of | approximately ten (10)) the NRC's unrestricted release limit (1000 disintegrations per ' minute (dpm) per 100 cm2 ). ' Four (4) areas showed levels of removable contamination near or at the Department of the Army's release limit (100 dpm/100 cm'). These areas , were decontaminated to "no detectable activity" (NDA). No other radiological contaminants were observed. Contingent on the review and approval of this report by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), DATP's Building 4 will be released to the ; Department of the Army (DoA) for unrestricted use. L 1 ! a j. | 4 u ; i i J , _ - , _ , - ._ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _. ___._. _ _. ._. - _ . _ . : , 4 ; TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 SECTION 3 TITLE PAGE ; 1.0 BACKGROUND 1 2.0 1 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL 3 | 2.1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) LICENSING 3 2.2 DEPARTMENT of the ARMY (DoA) PERMIT AUTHORIZATION 3 3.0 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS 5 3.1 RADIOLOGICAL SURVEYS - GRID DEVELOPMENT 5 ; 3.2 - ESTABLISHING SITE BACKGROUND LEVELS S 1 { 3.3 TRITIUM (H-3) CONTAMINATION EVALUATION 6 i ' 3.3.1 BAYS K & L 6 | 3.3.0. OTHER POTENTIAL AREAS OF H-3 CONTAMINATION 6 : 3.4 i THORIUM / DEPLETED URANIUM CONTAMINATION EVALUATION 7 3.5 RADIOLOGICAL INSTRUMENTATION 8 ; 3.5.1 LIQUID SCINTILLATION METHOD 8 | 4.0 PRELIMINARY RESULTS 9 4.1 TRITIUM CONTAMINATION 9 : ; 4.1.1 CONFIDENCE LEVEL of the SURVEY 9 ! 4.2 THORIUM / DEPLETED URANIUM CONTAMINATION 10 ' 4.3 ARMY REGULATION AR385-11 11 ; 5.0 CHARACTERIZATION ANALYSIS 12 ; 6.0 FINAL ANALYSIS 13 4 6.1 DECONTAMINATION EFFORTS 13 . , 6.2 FINAL SURVEY 13 , 7.0 CONCLUSIONS 14 8.0 RECORD MAINTENANCE 15 9.0 REFERENCES 16 i n ; i .. -. -- .. 1 | I TAI 3LE OF FIGURES ' FIGURE TITLE PAGE 1 STANDARD SAMPLING PATTERN FOR GRID SURVEY OF FLOOR 6 2 CHARACTERIZATION SURVEY TECHNIQUE 12 | l TABLE OF TABLES TABLE TITLE PAGE 1 TRITIUM / THORIUM / DEPLETED URANIUM DECAY : p' EMISSIONS 7 TABLE OF APPENDICES APPENDIX TITLE PAGE I DATP BAYS K & L SAMPLING GRID 17 II PRELIMINARY SURVEY DATA 18 III H-3 CONTAMINATION DETECTED vs. " UNRESTRICTED USE" LIMIT 19 IV LIQUID SCINTILLATION GENERATED DATA 20 V H-3 CONTAMINATION DETECTED vs. DoA "AR385-11" LIMIT 21 VI CHARACTERIZATION SURVEY DATA 22 VII FINAL SURVEY DATA 23 VIII DEPARTMENT of the ARMY PERMIT AUTHORIZATION 24 - ~ . - - - . -.. - - - - - . - - - - - .-- . - - 4 ! | 1.0 BACKGROUND . : During World War II, specifically the summer of 1940, the Nazi offensive relentlessly j pushed the allies from the European continent. As a result of this, the War Department, known today as the Department of Defense (DoD), began to address large scale [ production of all types of weapons, including thousands of tanks. It became apparent that 2 the growing demand of high volume tank production would require a new plant specifically designed and equipped to build tanks. In September -1940,'the construction of the Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant (DATP) in i Warren, Michigan began. By late summer 1941, the construction of the plant had been ' ' completed. When DATP actually opened, the United States government issued a contract ! to Chrysler Corporation to build 1,400 M3 Grant tanks. During World War II (from 1941 . through 1945), a total of 22,234 tanks were produced at DATP. : ? From 1946 through 1951, the DATP became a tank development and modification center operated by.the government. During this period it produced prototype systems, modified and remanufactured existing tanks, and conducted an extensive M46 tank conversion program. During this five (5) year period, DATP was the United States' only active tank manufacturing facility. In 1955, new tank production was temporarily ceased at the plant. From 1956 through 1960, DATP supported various tank production facilities (i.e. American Locomotive, GM Fisher Body, Ford Motor Company, and the Delaware Tank Plant) with machined component parts. In 1960, with the introduction of the M60 tank, | DATP again became the United States' only active main battle tank producing facility, a , position retained for the next twenty (20) years. Production of the M60 series tank was ' concluded in 1987. In addition to the accelerated production effons at DATP in 1973, manufacturing of the XM1 prototype tank was initiated. The XM1 was a totally new, next generation tank with a 1500 hp gas turbine engine and improved armor protection, stuvivability, speed, and mobility. In order to successfully meet new contractual requirements, several commodities were integrated into the Abrams which utilized radioactive material, both exempt and licensable quantities. These commodities included the Muzzle Reference Sensor (MRS) (tritium), optical coatings in the thermal imaging system (Thorium Fluoride), the combustor liner assembly in the turbine engine (Nickel Thoria), and eventually the incorporation of depleted uranium armor. Section 2.0 (Radioactive Material) provides tne specific details surrounding the types and uses of these materials. Prior to actual production of the M1 Abrams tank at DATP, machining of M1 Abrams component parts began here in 1979, with the first delivery to the Lima Army Tank Plant '(LATP) in the spring of that year. In October 1981, assembly of the M1 Abrams tank began at the DATP. By.1982, Chrysler Corporation's Tank Production Division was purchased by General Dynamics. Furthermore, in March of that year, the first two (2) "DATP produced" M1 Abrams tanks were delivered to the United States Army, in 1 _ _. _ _ _ _ ... ____ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .--__ __- _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ J h 1.0 3 BACKGROUND (continued) ' August 1985, DATP delivered the first production M1 A1 Abrams tank. This tank system I i ! ' was an evolutionary product improvement of the original M1 Abrams tank. Significant changes included a 120 mm smooth bore cannon system, a nuclear biological chemical 4 (NBC) crew protection system, and improved armor. The last MI Al Abrams built at the I DATP was delivered to the U.S. Army in September 1991. , Following the last M1 A1 delivered from the DATP in 1991, the plant continued M1A1 | component parts machining. Shortly thereafter, Ml A2 component parts machining was 3 added to the plant's responsibilities. From December 1993 through September 1996, ' DATP also served as a modification center for Abrams tanks sold to the Kingdom of i Saudi Arabia and Government of Kuwait. < . Despite decades of successful operation, the combination of declining tank production rates and lower defense spending over recent years caused the 1995 Base Realignment i and Closure Commission to recommend that the DATP be shut down. In December j 1996, General Dynamics Land Systems phased out its manufacturing operations at the J DATP. By mid January 1997, all remaining General Dynamics produced Abrams Tank ' Systems located at DATP were taken possession of by the Department of the Army. 4 . W 4 e 2 ._ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 2.0 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL 2.1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Licensing | | i With the evolution of the M60 into the XM1, came the incorporation of the Muzzle I Reference Sensor (MRS) into the tank's fire control system. This unit is installed on the ! main weapon of the Abrams tank system. The purpose of the MRS is to provide the tank's gunner with a means for correcting fire control solutions to compensate for gun tube bend caused by the uneven heating and cooling effects of solar radiation, wind, rain, and main gun firing. The MRS system permits bore sight correction whenever the gunner | suspects gun tube movement and he aligns the primary sight reticle with the muzzle l mounted MRS reticle. The gunner enters necessary changes semi-automatically into the vehicle's fire control ballistic computer. Originally, each MRS contained a sealed source , filled with seven (7) Curies (Ci) of a high purity tritium gas encapsulated under 40 psi | pressure. As optical improvements became necessary over the years, a 10 Ci tritium source was required. The interaction of the F emissions from the tritium gas and the phosphor coated glass capsule which contains it, provides illumination of the MRS l collimator reticle with the Gunner's Primary Sight (GPS) reticle (aiming reticle) during periods of no or low light conditions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program
    Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program PROJECT 95-10092 FORGING THE SWORD Defense Production in the Cold War Dr. Philip Shiman July 1997 This document is unclassified and may be released to the public. FORGING THE SWORD: DEFENSE PRODUCTION DURING THE COLD WAR DR. PHILIP SHIMAN USACERL Special Report 97/77 July 1997 A Study Jointly Sponsored by: United States Air Force Department of Defense Legacy Air Combat Command Program, Cold War Project FOREWORD The Department of Defense (DOD) Legacy Resource Management Program was estab- lished in 1991 to “determine how to better integrate the conservation of irreplaceable bio- logical, cultural, and geophysical resources with the dynamic requirements of military missions.” One of Legacy’s nine task areas is the Cold War Project, which seeks to “inven- tory, protect, and conserve [DOD’S] physical and literary property and relics” associated with the Cold War. In early 1993, Dr. Rebecca Hancock Cameron, the Cold War Project Manager, assisted by a team of DOD cultural resource managers, formulated a plan for identifying and documenting the military’s Cold War era resources. They adopted a two-pronged approach. The first phase was to conduct a series of studies documenting some of the nation’s most significant Cold War era sites. The second step had a much broader focus. Recognizing the need to provide cultural resource managers and historians with a national framework for future Cold War studies, the Cold War Project recommended con- ducting a series of theme and context studies that would examine the impact of promi- nent military weapon systems and missions on the American landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Analysis of Options for Preserving the Tank Industrial Base
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 1993-03 A comparative analysis of options for preserving the tank industrial base Hernandez, Juan J. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/39862 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California AD-A264 952 DTIC 9 ELECTE l MAY 2 81993 0 E THESIS A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS FOR PRESERVING THE TANK INDUSTRIAL BASE by Juan J. Hernandez March 1993 Principal Advisor: Thomas H. Hoivik Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 93 5 92' 02 !93-12019 Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE la. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION l b RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS Unclassified 2a SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3 DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF REPORT Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 2b DECLASSIFICATION'DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE 4 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) S MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 6a NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b OFFICE SYMBOL 7a NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION Naval Postgraduate School (If applicable) Naval Postgraduate School 55 6c aDDRESS (City, State, andZIPCode) 7b ADDRESS (City, State, andZIP Code) Monterey, CA 93943-5000 Monterey, CA 93943-5000 Ba NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING 8b OFFICE SYMBOL 9 PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ORGANIZATION (if applicable) 8c. ADDRESS (City, State, andZIPCode) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS Program Element No Project No TaskNo Work Unit Accession Number 11. TITLE (Include Security Classfication) A Comparative Analysis of Options for Preserving the Tank Industrial Base 12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S) Hernandez, Juan J. 13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b TIME COVERED 14 DATE OF REPORT (year,month, day) 15 PAGECOUNT Master's Thesis From To March 1993 168 16 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S Government.
    [Show full text]
  • Armored Fighting Vehicals Preserved in the United States
    The USA Historical AFV Register Armored Fighting Vehicles Preserved in the United States of America V3.1 20 May 2011 Neil Baumgardner with help from Michel van Loon For the AFV Association 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 3 ALABAMA.......................................................................................................... 5 ALASKA............................................................................................................. 12 ARIZONA...........................................................................................................13 ARKANSAS........................................................................................................ 16 CALIFORNIA......................................................................................................19 Military Vehicle Technology Foundation................................................. 27 COLORADO........................................................................................................ 36 CONNECTICUT...................................................................................................39 DELAWARE........................................................................................................ 41 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA................................................................................... 42 FLORIDA..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives for the U.S. Tank Industrial Base
    CBO PAPERS ALTERNATIVES FOR THE U.S. TANK INDUSTRIAL BASE February 1993 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE CBO PAPERS ALTERNATIVES FOR THE U.S. TANK INDUSTRIAL BASE February 1993 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE SECOND AND D STREETS, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 NOTES All costs are expressed in 1993 dollars of budget authority. All years, unless otherwise noted, are fiscal years. Numbers in tables may not add to totals because of rounding. PREFACE The U.S. military has no plans to purchase new tanks after 1992. Without U.S. sales, tank production in this country might cease, leaving in question the ability of U.S. tank manufacturers to produce tanks should they be needed during a crisis. This paper, prepared at the request of the House Committee on Armed Services, explores various options for maintaining the U.S. tank industrial base. The options differ widely in terms of their cost and the insurance they provide against an unforeseen need for new U.S. tanks. This information may be useful to the Congress as it debates the fate of the defense industrial base in this time of fiscal constraint. In keeping with the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO's) mandate to provide objective analysis, the paper makes no recommendations. Frances M. Lussier prepared this paper under the general supervision of Robert F. Hale and R. William Thomas. William P. Meyers of CBO's Budget Analysis Division provided cost analyses. The author wishes to thank Wayne Glass for his assistance, as well as Sherry Snyder, who edited the report, and Cynthia Cleveland, who prepared it for publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Administration of Donald J. Trump, 2019 Remarks At
    Administration of Donald J. Trump, 2019 Remarks at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, Ohio March 20, 2019 Audience members. U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! The President. Well, you'd better love me; I kept this place open, that I can tell you. They said, "We're closing it." And I said, "No, we're not." And now you're doing record business. The job you do is incredible. And I'm thrilled to be here in Ohio with the hard-working men and women of Lima. And this is some tank plant. There's nothing like it in the world. You make the finest equipment in the world. You really know what you're doing. They just gave me a little briefing on a couple of those tanks. I want to get into them, but then I remember when a man named Dukakis got into a tank. [Laughter] And I remember, he tanked when he got into the tank. [Laughter] He tanked—I never saw anybody tank like that. So I said, maybe I'll—but I'm a little bigger than him; I think it probably would work out okay. How would I look in a tank? Okay? Audience members. Yeah! The President. Yes, not bad. Not bad. The helmet was bigger than he was. That was not good. [Laughter] We're here today to celebrate a resounding victory for all of you, for Northwest Ohio, and for our great military and for our entire country. Incredible victory. After so many years of budget cuts and layoffs, today, jobs are coming back and pouring back, frankly, like never before.
    [Show full text]
  • The M1 Abrams Tank: a Case Study in Major Weapon Systems Acquisition and Program Management
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 1995-06 The M1 Abrams tank: a case study in major weapon systems acquisition and program management Millspaugh, Kevin C. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/31470 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA iLat ibat Etsm \ä JL Lug) f , 1 JAN 1 6 1996 ^ 31 -- 'I ET 1 THESIS THE Ml ABRAMS TANK: A CASE STUDY IN MAJOR WEAPON SYSTEMS ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT by Kevin C. Millspaugh June 1995 Principal Advisor: David F. Matthews Associate Advisor: Mark W. Stone Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 19960104 000 iÄÜJü fcgyJs^iÄü'^ iiÄJöyj^WUäüJ o REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED June 1995 Master's Thesis TITLE AND SUBTITLE The Ml Abrams Tank: A Case Study in Major FUNDING NUMBERS Weapon Systems Acquisition and Program Management 6. AUTHOR(S) Kevin C. Millspaugh 7.
    [Show full text]
  • TACOM LCMC Unites All of the Organizations That Focus on Soldier and Ground Systems Throughout the Entire Life Cycle
    DCN: 11674 Program Executive Officer for Ground ombat Systems (GCS) Who we We serve as the "System of Systems Integrator" of the Ground Combat Systems for the armed forces and lead the Army Transformation toward future systems as we evolve to the Objective Force while maintaining a current combat ready force. Our Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Paladins provide battlefield superiority in Iraq. The Future Combat Systems, the Stryker family, the Joint Lightweight 155mm Howitzer and Unmanned Ground Vehicles are evolving toward the Stryker and Objective Forces. We maintain an armed forces perspective in managing the development, acquisition, testing, systems integration, product improvement and fielding required to ensure programs meet cost, schedule and performance goals. What We Do 0 Provide resources (time, personnel, budget authority, space and information products) for subordinate PM program efforts. 0 Implement DoD policies for acquisition reform and streamlining. 0 Optimize development, acquisition and logistics business processes. 0 Understand and anticipate user needs and translate those needs into effective project offices fully capable to provide acquisition direction and execution. 0 Minimize time required to translate operational requirements into validated and verified operational capabilities. 0 Foster the infrastructure necessary to provide ready, responsive, reliable and cost effective support to meet higher command and supported user community needs and exceed their expectations. 0 Recruit, develop, train and
    [Show full text]
  • 11.15.18-Tanks-Vital-To-Defense.Pdf
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2013, a year before Russia invaded Ukraine, workforce required to support a resurgent indus- the United States came within months of shut- trial base has to be rebuilt after years of decline. tering the last plant in the Western Hemisphere capable of building main battle tanks. The Obama The Trump Administration recognized the need Administration, believing that the United States to revitalize the Army, restore the relevant indus- no longer faced the threat of conflict with a major trial base and create many hundreds of skilled land power, sought to save money by terminating jobs for American workers. In the Fiscal Year the Abrams upgrade program and closing for 2019 defense budget, the administration fund- four years the factory, called the Joint Systems ed the Army for the production of 135 Abrams Manufacturing Center (JSMC), at Lima, Ohio.1 upgraded with the state-of-the-art System En- hancement Package Version 3 (SEPv3). Overall, Now, great-power competition is back and with the JSMC has received nearly $2 billion in new it the need to deter large-scale conventional ag- orders for Abrams tanks and Stryker vehicles. As gression in Europe and Asia. Russia, for example, a result, a workforce that had shrunk to just 400 has been engaged in a decade-long program to during the recession is likely to top 1,000 again.3 modernize its conventional forces, and now it poses a threat to NATO. According to the Chief A robust Abrams upgrade program benefits of Staff of the Army, General Mark Milley, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • BRAC 95 Installation Assessment Narratives (Data Call U4)
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE Of THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY DCN 1267 WASHINOTON,DC 30310-0101 DACS-TABS 18 April 1994 KEMORANDUH FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION SUBJECT: BRAC 95 Installation Assessment Narratives (Data Call U4) 1. Reference: Memorandum, The &my Basing Study, 6 April 1994, Subject: BRAC 95 Installation Assessment (U)Program. 2. Installation Assessment Narratives are an irportrnt part of tho Array's BRAC 95 rocrwndation ruhirrioa. tb'e nrrrativo f provides a brief ruaury of an in8tallatlon'r lo~atlon,hirtory, mirsion, joint rynergy, and unique facilitier and, location. mi8 t .,'. , , information ir used by the collllirsion ataft in tboir proparation t...., , *.. for briefings and viaitr. i 0 - , 3. Zhir =raachm prorider inrtructionr to rction rddra8"rr on the proparation and rubrirrlon of the Arry'a BMC 95 Inrtallatioa Asror-t krrativer. Annex A lists the inrtallations included .. in thir roquort. Anaox B idontitior, tho mrrativo olrwntr rquirmd tor oach iartallation. , ..$ ' ., .a,% 4. Data will be ruhittod in threo printod copier with wordprocessing diskettes. The susmnse for this data all la 15 June 1994. 1,:; .* 5. OSD has determined that blank data -118 will not bo ro1~8.d to the public until the Socrotary or Dofume forwar& a11 . :L. -. recamendations to the Comirrion on 1 Urch 1995. Shiluly, inforution rubmitted in rorpomo to ruch data calls must ruofve carparable protection from dirclorure. Accordingly, p.r#onnel that hand10 this info~tionrhould be rrindd to protoct it from premature dirclorure by marking and Wingdocumontr aa CWSE HOLD. 6. The Defense Base Closure and Realignnent Act of 1990, 8s ..mended, requires certification of the accuracy and corplateness of a11 information provided to the Commission and the Secretary of Defense.
    [Show full text]
  • The Unstoppable Abrams
    This is America’s last tank plant. Located just suppliers and subcontractors. “The United States outside Lima, Ohio, the Joint Systems Manufactur- has been in continuous tank production since 1941 The Unstoppable Abrams ing Center (JSMC) is an exceptional place, defined – more than 70 years – and the Abrams tank will by size and superlatives: 1.6 million square feet of be a vital component of the U.S. Army’s combat Defense cuts threaten to close America’s industrial space in 47 buildings that stand on a forces for another four decades,” she said. triangle of 370 acres. The JSMC has its own steam Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, joined the argu- last tank plant, but local support and plant and railroad system, including two locomo- ment, adding, “Ending the Abrams production line allies in Congress keep it alive. tives that nudge the gargantuan fighting machines would jeopardize our national security, the safety toward their distant battlefields. of our men and women in uniform, and the highly The government-owned manufacturing equip- skilled workforce in Lima – not to mention that BY DOUG WISSING ment includes some of the most advanced cutting, eliminating this program would be more costly to tooling, welding and testing equipment ever made. taxpayers than continuing it. That’s why I will The plant is one of the top two titanium users in continue to push to ensure that the Abrams the country, rivaled only by Callaway Golf. The program remains intact in the years to come.” Lima testing grounds form a veritable gantlet of The Lima business community rallied around tank challenges: a two-mile track, deep-water the economically important plant.
    [Show full text]