DOCSLIB.ORG

Eielson Air Force Base Operable Unit 1 Record of Decision

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Eielson Air Force Base Operable Unit 1 Record of Decision OD-1 •anora a< Oaolatoa ll«l«an Alx roroa Baa* . Lb Eielson Air Force Base Operable Unit 1 Declaration of the Record of Decision Site Name and Location Operable Unit I Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska statement of Basis and Purpose This decision dociunent presents the selected remedial actions and no action decisions for Operable Unit i (OUl) at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, chosen in accordanc?: with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, mid Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfitnd Amendments ami Reaiithonzation Act (SARA), the May 1591 Federal Facility Agreement Under CERCLA Section 120 entered into by the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and. - the State of Alaska, and to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan. This decision is based on the administrative record file for this operable unit. The State of Alaska concurs with the selected remedies and the no action decisions. Assessment of the Sites in Operable Unit 1 OU1 consists of eight source areas that have been combined because of commonalty in contamination that is mainly caused by leaks and spUls of fiiels. The QUI source areas are • ST20 E-7, E-8, and E-9 Complexes (RefueUng Loop) • ST48 Power Plant Area • ST49 Alert Hanger • SSSO Blair I^es Vehicle Maintenance • SS51 Blair Lakes Ditch • SS52 Blair Lakes Diesel SpiU • SS53 Blair Lakes Fuel SpUl • DP54 Blair Lakes Dnun Disposal Site Three ofthe source areas (ST49, SS53, and DPS4) wUl receive no further remedial action because they present Uttle risk to human health and the environment. The no further action detemiination was made based on a remedial investigation/feasibUity study and a basewide draft ecological assessment. Although 1 USEPA SF AR 1. 1042361 O0-1 •aoord o£ Daolalan Blalaon Jklx raroa Baa* no fiirther action is required, the groundwater at ST49 wiU continue to be monitored as part ofthe Sitewide Program to confirm the results of die remedial investigation. ST20 (E-7, E-8, and E-9), ST48, SS50, SS51, and SS52 wUl be remediated. Actual or threatened releases and e^qiosure of people to hazardous substances from ST20 (E-7, E-8, and E-9), ST48, SS50, SS51, and SS52 within OUl, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this record of decision, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfere, or the environment. Description of the Selected Remedy A feasibihty sttidy was conducted for ST20 (E-7, E-8, and E-9), ST48, ST49, SS50, SS51, and SS52. Sites within ST20 were separated into E-7, E-8, and E-9 based on their distance and source areas SS50, SS51, and SS53 were combined into one site (Blair Lakes) because of dieir proximity. Three remedial alternatives were considered in detaU for each site. They are: Altemative 1 No action Alternative 2 In Situ Altemative Alternatives Removal Altemative Alternative 2 is the selected remedy for aU fif die source areas for which treatment is recommended (E-7, E-8, E-9, ST48, SS50, SS51 and SS52). It addresses die threats posed to human health and die environment by reducing the source of groundwater contamination at each source area. This remedy is intended to achieve groimdwater cleanup through source removal. The major components ofthe selected remedy include the foUowing: • Continue to operate the passive skimming system at SSS1. • InstaU passive skimming systems to ronove fuel floating atop the groundwater if the product is sufficiendy mobUe to be recoverable. • InstaU a bioventing/soil vapor extraction (SVE) system to remediate soil contamination that poses a direat to groundwater dirough leaching at ST20 (E-8 Conq)lex), SSSO, SS51, and SS52. This system may include air injection within the upper part ofthe groundwater table and the smear zone to volatilize and promote bioremediation ofthe contaminants. This entire system is also anticipated to reduce fuel floating atop the groundwater. The eflect of a bioventing system on the permafi-ost at Blair Lakes wUl be evaluated prior to implementation. • Expand the bioventing/SVE systems currentiy operating under the interim remedial action (OU 1B) at ST20 (E-7 and E-9 Complexes) and ST48 to remediate soU contamination that poses a threat to groimdwater through leaching. This system expansion may include air injection within the upper part ofthe groundwater table and the smear zone to volatilize and pranote biomnediation ofthe contamin­ ants. This entire system is also anticipated to reduce fuel floating atop the groundwater. OO-l a*oaxA ot Daelalan • laia«w> JLlx roxoa U*M» • Monitor groundwater at ST20 (E-7, E-8, and E-9 Complexes), ST48, SS50, SS51, and SS52, including increased monitoring (e.g., increased frequency, additional monitoring wells) near base water supply wells, to evaluate contaminant fate and transport until remediation levels are achieved. • Notify the regulatory agencies of proposed dewatering activities, and evaluate their potential for impacting areas of groundwater contamination. • Implement institutional controls to prevent exposure to contaminated groundwater. In the event of base closure, any remaining contaminated source areas will be addressed in accordance with CERCLA Section 120. • Perform supplemental soU and groundwater sampling in the vicinity of weU 50M05 (Blair Lakes) to confirm that no significant contamination remains. Altemative 2 reduces risk substantiaUy through treatment ofthe principal sources of groundwater contamination—fuels on top ofthe groundwater and sod contamination. Gtoundvrater monitoring and institutional controls to restrict the use of groundwater wiU continue in the source areas. Institutional land use controls wiU be designed to prevent exposiu^ to contaminated groundwater and will involve prohibiting the installation and use of any weU for drinking water that could extract contaminated groimdwater or affect the movement of contaminated groundwater. Site maps wUl be developed showing areas currentiy and potentiaUy in^J^cted by groundw^er contaminants. This information can be referenced during base permitting procedures. To ensure long-term integrity ofthe above land use controls, the Air Force wUl ensure that, to the extent that groimdwater contamination remains above unacceptable levels, deed restrictions or equivalent safeguards will be implemented in the event that property containing such contamination is transferred by the Air Force. statutory Determination The selected remedies protect human health and the environment, comply with federal and state requirements that are legaUy appUcable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial actions, and are cost efiective. The remedies use permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable and satisfy the stamtory preference for remedies that enqjloy treatment that reduces toxicity, mobiUty, or volume as a principal element. Because this remedy wiU result in hazardous substances remaiining on-site above health-based levels, reviews wiU be conducted at ST20 (E-7, E-8, and E-9 Complexes), ST48, SSSO, SSS 1, and SS52 widiin S years after commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human healdi and the environment. m SEP-27-1994 14:50 PROM ftF/CEUR TO 919073773357 P. 02 OU-1 Ktcard afDedsioii DdsoB Air Forae Base Eielson Air Force Base - Record of Decision Signature and Support Agency Acceptance of the Remedy for OUl -^ "^k^ U / ^! /-^/^ (T^ - 1'' lOMAS W. L. McCALL. Jr. Date Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Air Force (Enviromnent, Safety, and Occupational Health) IV Ol'-l Kecord of DecisioD EieKnn .\ir Force lia->* Eielson Air Force Base - Record of Decision Signature and Support Agency Acceptance of the Remedy for GUI ^^;i // ^/^ 9/^7/9^ 7ILLIAM D. McGEE Date Regional Administrator Northem Regional Office Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation OU-1 Record of Decision Eielson Air Force Base Eielson Air Force Base - Record of Decision Signature and Support Agency Acceptance of the Remedy for QUI AyQHUCK CLARKE Date ( Regidnal Administrator Region 10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency VI OO-l lannril o£ Oaolalon Mlaiann JUJT raroa Baa* Contents Declaration ofthe Record of Decision i Signature and Support Agency Acceptance ofthe Remedy iv 1.0 Site Name, Location, and Description l.l 2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities 2.1 3.0 Highlights of Community Participation 3.1 4.0 Scope and Role of Operable Unit 4.1 S.O' Summary of Site Characteristics S.l 5.1 Source Area ST20 RefiieUng Loop (Er7, E-8, and E-9 Complexes) S.8 5.1.1 SoU Contamination at die E-7 Con^jlex 5.10 5.1.2 Groundwater Contamination at the E-7 Complex ".. 5.10? 5.1.3 Floating Fuel at the E-7 Complex 5.10 5.1.4 Source Area Hydrology at the E-7 Complex 5.10 5.1.5 SoU Contamination at the E-8 Complex 5.12 5.1.6 Groundwater Contamination at the E-8 Complex 5.12 5.1.7 Floating Fuel at die E-8 Complex 5.12 5.1.8 Source Area Hydrology at the E-8 Complex 5.14 5.1.9 SoU Contamination at the E-9 Conq)lejc 5.14 5,110 Groundwater Contamination at tiie E-9 Complex 5.14 5.1.11 Floating Fuel at the E-9 Complex 5.14 5.1.12 Source Area Hydrology at the E-9 Complex 5.17 5.2 Source Area ST48 Power Plant Area i 5.17 5.2.1 SoU Contamination at ST48 5.19 5.2.2 Groundwater Contamination at ST48 5.19 5.2.3 Floating Fuel at ST48 5.21 5.2.4 Source Area Hydrology at ST48 5.21 5.3 Source Area ST49 Alert Hanger 5.22 5.3.1 SoU Contamination at ST49 5.22 5.3.2 Groundwater Contamination at ST49 5.24 5.3.3 Floating Fuel Contamination at ST49 5.24 5.3.4 Source Area Hydrology at ST49 5.25 vu OO-l Baonrd at Daelalaa llalaoo Alx Voroa Baa* 5.4 Blair Lakes Target FacUity (Source Areas SSSO, SS51, SSS2, SS53, and DP54) 5.25 5.4.1 SoU Contamination for Blair Lakes Target FacUity 5.26 5.4.2 Groundwater Contamination for Blair Lakes Target FacUity 5.28 5.4.3 Floating Product at Blair Lakes Target FacUity.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Joint Land Use Study
    Fairbanks North Star Borough Joint Land Use Study United States Army, Fort Wainwright United States Air Force, Eielson Air Force Base Fairbanks North Star Borough, Planning Department July 2006 Produced by ASCG Incorporated of Alaska Fairbanks North Star Borough Joint Land Use Study Fairbanks Joint Land Use Study This study was prepared under contract with Fairbanks North Star Borough with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content reflects the views of Fairbanks North Star Borough and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment. Historical Hangar, Fort Wainwright Army Base Eielson Air Force Base i Fairbanks North Star Borough Joint Land Use Study Table of Contents 1.0 Study Purpose and Process................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Study Objectives ............................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Planning Area................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Participating Stakeholders.............................................................................................. 4 1.5 Public Participation........................................................................................................ 5 1.6 Issue Identification........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Letter 2 (PDF)
    SARAH PALIN, GOVERNOR 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 303 Post Office Box 111800 DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER Phone: 907-465-5066 Fax: 907-465-5070 www.dec.state.ak.us October 20, 2008 Elin Miller, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Mail Code: RA-140 Seattle, WA 98101-3140 Dear Ms. Miller: The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has reviewed your th August 18 letter regarding EPA’s PM2.5 designations for Alaska and the nonattainment boundaries for the communities of Fairbanks and Juneau. We have carefully considered the available data and analyses. ADEC believes the available scientific evidence does not support EPA’s boundary recommendations which substantially expand upon those recommended by us. ADEC believes public health will be protected and the applicable legal requirements met by taking the actions described in this letter, which include a proposed nonattainment boundary for the Fairbanks area that is larger than originally proposed by ADEC, but smaller than proposed by EPA. For Juneau, we are requesting EPA revisit certain assumptions and include data from 2008 before making a final decision on whether a nonattainment designation is warranted, and if so, the appropriate boundaries of the nonattainment area. Protecting public health is a goal we share with EPA. As you are already aware, we are proactively and expeditiously working with the local governments to address identified PM2.5 concerns in Fairbanks and Juneau. To this end, ADEC does not believe EPA’s proposed boundaries will ultimately assist in protecting public health.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Download (PDF)
    Q&A: JCS Vice Roles and Missions Reboot? 48| Pilot Training 44| Cost-Per-E ect Calculus 60 Chairman Gen. John Hyten 14 THE NEW ARCTIC STRATEGY Competition Intensifies in a Critical Region |52 September 2020 $8 Published by the Air Force Association THOSE BORN TO FLY LIVE TO WALK AWAY ACES 5®: Proven and ready Protecting aircrew is our mission. It’s why our ACES 5® ejection seat is the world’s only production seat proven to meet the exacting standards of MIL-HDBK-516C. Innovative technologies and consistent test results make ACES 5 the most advanced protection for your aircrew. Plus, we leverage 40 years of investment to keep your life-cycle costs at their lowest. ACES 5: Fielded and available today. The only ejection seat made in the United States. collinsaerospace.com/aces5 © 2020 Collins Aerospace CA_8338 Aces_5_ProvenReady_AirForceMagazine.indd 1 8/3/20 8:43 AM Client: Collins Aerospace - Missions Systems Ad Title: Aces 5 - Eject - Proven and Ready Filepath: /Volumes/GoogleDrive/Shared drives/Collins Aerospace 2020/_Collins Aerospace Ads/_Mission Systems/ACES 5_Ads/4c Ads/ Eject_Proven and ready/CA_8338 Aces_5_ProvenReady_AirForceMagazine.indd Publication: Air Force Magazine - September Trim: 8.125” x 10.875” • Bleed: 8.375” x 11.125” • Live: 7.375” x 10.125” STAFF Publisher September 2020. Vol. 103, No. 9 Bruce A. Wright Editor in Chief Tobias Naegele Managing Editor Juliette Kelsey Chagnon Editorial Director John A. Tirpak News Editor Amy McCullough Assistant Managing Editor Chequita Wood Senior Designer Dashton Parham Pentagon Editor Brian W. Everstine Master Sgt. Christopher Boitz Sgt. Christopher Master Digital Platforms Editor DEPARTMENTS FEATURES T-38C Talons Jennifer-Leigh begin to break 2 Editorial: Seize 14 Q&A: The Joint Focus Oprihory the High Ground away from an echelon for- Senior Editor By Tobias Naegele Gen.
    [Show full text]
  • BUILDING 92___HABS No. TX
    BUILDING 1190 (FAI-01531) Eielson Air Force Base Fairbanks North Star Borough Alaska PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA REDUCED COPIES OF MEASURED DRAWINGS State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Office of History and Archaeology 550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1310 Anchorage, AK 99501 NOSE DOCK HANGAR (Building 1190 at Eielson Air Force Base) Location: Eielson Air Force Base, Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska Present United States Air Force Owner: Present Hangar is currently not in use Occupant: Significance: Building 1190 (FAI-01531) is a small hangar with a wooden segmented bow arch roofline constructed in 1947 to service modified B-29 bombers. It was one of four identical hangars constructed along the flightline and the last to remain standing. By 1958, Building 1190 was used as an Air Terminal Operations Center (ATOC) to ship supplies to locations throughout the world. It continued in this capacity until 2013, when it was acquired by the Alaska Air National Guard and used for storage. Due to the deteriorated condition of the wooden structure, it is scheduled for demolition. The hangar is significant for its distinctive bow arch construction, its association with the first wave of construction that supported U.S. reconnaissance activities against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and its later mission as an international air freight terminal. Historian: Charissa W. Durst, AIA, LEED AP Organization: Hardlines Design Company 4608 Indianola Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43214 Tel: 614-784-8733 Fax: 614-784-9336 FAI-01531 Page 1 Part I. The Physical Setting of Building 1190 Building 1190 (built in 1947) is located along the main runway of Eielson Air Force Base, which was originally a satellite of Ladd Field (completed in October 1940).
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Restoration Program Elelson Air Force Base, Alaska
    C(4e (!)C)-S Hr File: 180 Further disseimination only as directed by Manager, Environmental Restoration Program D.B Directorate, Ejelson Air Force Base, February 19,93, or higher DoD authority United States Air Force Environmental Restoration Program Elelson Air Force Base, Alaska Site Management Plan Elelson Air Force Base, Alaska April 1993 Site Management Plan Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska April 1993 Prepared for U.S. Air Force Eielson Air Force Base * ~~~~~~~Environmental Restoration Program Fairbanks Alaska under Contract DE-ACO6-76RL0 1830 Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for Environmental Management Operations under a Related Services Agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Management Operations Richland, Washington 99352 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .. .. .......................... ................ 1 2.0 OPERABLE UNIT INVESTIGATIONS. .. ...... ...................... 17 3.0 SOURCE EVALUATION REPORTS. .. ............................... 30 4.0 TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS. .. ............................... 34 5.0 SITE-WIDE INVESTIGATION. .. ............................ .... 35 6.0 REFERENCES .. .. .......................... ................. 40 APPENDIX A: FIELD SAMPLING PLAN .. ........ .................... A.1 APPENDIX B: QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN. .. ........ ..........B.1 APPENDIX C: HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN .. .. ........................ C.1 LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Summary of IRP Investigations and Reports .. .. ...... ........ 5 1.2 Source Area Descriptions. .. .. ...... .. ...... ............
    [Show full text]
  • 89 STAT. 546 PUBLIC LAW 94-107—OCT. 7, 1975 Public Law 94-107 94Th Congress an Act Uct
    89 STAT. 546 PUBLIC LAW 94-107—OCT. 7, 1975 Public Law 94-107 94th Congress An Act Uct. /, 1975^ rpQ authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other purposes. [S. 1247] Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the Military United States of America in Congress assenibled^ construction and guard and reserve TITLE I—ARMY forces facilities authorization acts, 1976. SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may establish or develop mili­ Military tary installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, converting, Construction rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, Authorization including land acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, Act, 1976. and equipment for the following acquisition and construction: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES COMMAND Defense Support Activity (Fargo Building), Boston, Massachu­ setts, $8,000,000. Fort Bragg, North Carolina. $13,214,000. Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $13,680,000. Fort Carson, Colorado, $10,732,000. Fort Hood, Texas, $46,281,000. Fort Sam Houston, Texas, $870,000. Fort Lewis, Washington, $31,861,000. Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, $2,892,000. Fort Ord, California, $32,209,000. Fort Polk, Louisiana, $54,361,000. Fort Richardson, Alaska, $1,685,000. Fort Riley, Kansas, $14,879,000. Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia, $39,480,000. UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND Fort Benning, Georgia, $44,212,000. Fort Eustis, Virginia, $633,000. Fort Gordon, Georgia, $6,945,000. Fort Jackson, South Carolina, $14,546,000. Fort Knox, Kentucky, $42,898,000. Fort Lee, Virginia, $719,000. Fort McClellan, Alabama, $41,090,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Samurai Gate Sept.29, 2017
    A fully-armed U.S. Air Force F-15 Eagle receives fuel from a KC-135 Stratotanker over the Pacifi c Ocean, Sept. 23. Through air refueling operations, U.S. Air Force and allied aircraft have the capability to eliminate threats and promote security across the Indo-Asia-Pacifi c region. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman John Linzmeier) By Cheryl Pellerin by ours, and would lose any arms race Defense Media Activity or confl ict that it initiates.” 9/26/2017 - WASHINGTON — Air Commitment to Defense Force B-1B Lancer bombers from Th is fl ight was in response to North Bombers, Guam and Air Force F-15 Eagle fi ghter Korea’s escalatory launch of intercon- escorts from Okinawa, Japan, fl ew in tinental ballistic missiles on July 3 and international airspace over the waters July 28, intermediate range ballistic east of North Korea, Sept. 23, Defense missile launches over Japan on Aug. Department spokesman Army Col. 28 and Sept. 14, and a nuclear test on fighters Rob Manning said, Sept. 25. Sept. 2, Manning said, all of which In a show of force, Manning told violate many U.N. Security Council Pentagon reporters, the aircraft fl ew resolutions. north of the Demilitarized Zone, North Korea must choose to stop the farthest north any U.S. fi ghter or isolating itself and stand down its fly in bomber has fl own off North Korea”s nuclear weapons program, the colonel coast in the 21st century, underscoring added. the seriousness of North Korea’s “reck- “As always, our commitment is to less behavior.” the defense of our allies and our part- He added, “Th e United States seeks ners and remains ironclad,” he said.
    [Show full text]
  • Lineage and Honors of the Operational Weather Squadrons
    Air Force Weather Heritage Series Lineage and Honors of the Operational Weather Squadrons Anticipate & Exploit the Weather for Battle Air Force Weather History Office — Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska March 2003 Lineage and Honors of the Operational Weather Squadrons In the mid-1990s, Air Force Weather began a major re-engineering effort to better organize itself to meet the challenges of modern military support in the 21st century. Air Force Weather re-engineering including the activation of eight regional weather “hubs,” the operational weather squadrons, in 1999-2000. This brochure outlines the official lineage, assignments, stations, emblems, and honors of the operational weather squadrons. TABLE OF CONTENTS 11th Operational Weather Squadron 1 15th Operational Weather Squadron 5 17th Operational Weather Squadron 9 20th Operational Weather Squadron 11 25th Operational Weather Squadron 15 26th Operational Weather Squadron 17 28th Operational Weather Squadron 19 USAFE Operational Weather Squadron 21 Lineage and Honors of the Operational Weather Squadrons 11th Operational Weather Squadron Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska Lineage Constituted as Air Corps Detachment, Weather, Alaska, on 15 Nov 1940 Activated on 11 Jan 1941 Redesignated 11th Air Corps Squadron, Weather (Regional Control) on 26 Feb 1942 Redesignated 11th Weather Squadron on 6 Jan 1944 Inactivated on 20 Apr 1952 Activated on 20 Apr 1952 Inactivated on 18 Nov 1957 Activated on 18 Jun 1958 Inactivated on 1 Jun 1992 Redesignated 11th Operational Weather Squadron on
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 6, Issue 3 • Fall the Official Publication of The
    THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE WISCONSIN NATIONAL GUARD VOLUME 6, ISSUE 3 • FALL 7 2013 NGB Media Contest winner Wisconsin Guard members Fall 2014 join Guardsmen across U.S. Volume 6, Issue 3 on the cover Official Newsletter of the for Patriot Exercise 2014 Wisconsin Army and Air National Guard Master Sgt. Daniel Plantiko, an Airman with the 128th Security Forces Squadron, http://dma.wi.gov low-crawls through an obstacle as part of The Adjutant General: the 128th SFS Defender Challenge Aug. Maj. Gen. Don Dunbar 9. The event tests security forces mem- Deputy Adjutant General Army: bers’ endurance, career field knowledge, and team work. 128th Air Refueling Wing Brig. Gen. Mark Anderson 10 photo by Staff Sgt. Jenna V. Lenski Deputy Adjutant General Air: Runway renovations prompt Brig. Gen. Gary Ebben Deputy Adjutant General, Civil Support: 115th Fighter Wing to take 3 FROM TAG 4 DETACHMENT 52 SUPPORTING Brig. Gen. John McCoy THE MISSION IN AFGHANISTAN 5 REALIGNING Director of Public Affairs: its show on the road UNITS AND ARMORIES ACROSS THE STATE Maj. Paul Rickert 11 VITAL EXPERIENCE GAINED AT RED FLAG At Ease Editor: 12 COMMO SUPPORT FOR NORTHERN STRIKE Vaughn R. Larson 14 54th CST TRAINS CIVILIAN HAZ-MAT TEAMS Joint Force Headquarters Public Affairs 15 BUILDING FOBS AT FORT McCOY 16 1158th 112th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment 32 TRANSPORTATION HITS THE TANK TRAIL 17 115th FIGHTER WING BASE GETS A BOOST 32nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team Youth Camp provides MARKSMEN TEAM ON TARGET INSIDE THE Public Affairs 18 20 avenue for Guard kids
    [Show full text]
  • For Publication. the Version of the Proposed Rule R
    This document has been submitted to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for publication. The version of the proposed rule released today may vary slightly from the published document if minor editorial changes are made during the OFR review process. The document published in the Federal Register will be the official document. Appendix A to part 802- List of Military Installations Part 1 Site Name Location Adelphi Laboratory Center Adelphi, MD Air Force Maui Optical and Supercomputing Maui, HI Site Air Force Office of Scientific Research Arlington, VA Andersen Air Force Base Yigo, Guam Army Futures Command Austin, TX Army Research Lab – Orlando Simulations Orlando, FL and Training Technology Center Army Research Lab – Raleigh Durham Raleigh Durham, NC Arnold Air Force Base Coffee County and Franklin County, TN Beale Air Force Base Yuba City, CA Biometric Technology Center (Biometrics Clarksburg, WV Identity Management Activity) Buckley Air Force Base Aurora, CO Camp MacKall Pinebluff, NC Cape Cod Air Force Station Sandwich, MA Cape Newenham Long Range Radar Site Cape Newenham, AK Cavalier Air Force Station Cavalier, ND Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station Colorado Springs, CO Clear Air Force Station Anderson, AK Creech Air Force Base Indian Springs, NV Davis-Monthan Air Force Base Tucson, AZ Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Arlington, VA Eareckson Air Force Station Shemya, AK Eielson Air Force Base Fairbanks, AK Ellington Field Joint Reserve Base Houston, TX Fairchild Air Force Base Spokane, WA Fort Benning Columbus, GA Fort Belvoir Fairfax County, VA Fort Bliss El Paso, TX Fort Campbell Hopkinsville, KY Fort Carson Colorado Springs, CO Fort Detrick Frederick, MD Fort Drum Watertown, NY Fort Gordon Augusta, GA Fort Hood Killeen, TX 129 This document has been submitted to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Fighting Fire
    FREE RECYCLED an edition of the Recycled material is used in the making of our ALASKAHome of the Arctic WarriorsPOST newsprint Vol. 6, No. 26 Fort Wainwright, Alaska July 3, 2015 Innovative system revolutionizes Northern Edge 2015 battlespace, maximizes training capability Master Sgt. Karen J. Tomasik combining with live partic- Matthew Mendenhall, the 354th Fighter Wing PAO ipants, we can now provide 353rd CTS chief of command 10 threats and herds of oth- and control operations. “It High in the skies over the er aircraft waiting to con- allowed us to ensure our Joint Pacific Alaska Range tinue the fight. We’ve added lines of communication were Complex from June 11 to 26 defense and depth to maxi- functioning properly before viewers might see multiple mize the OPFOR [opposition Northern Edge 2015. This contrails circling each other force] piece, which provides is the first exercise to com- in close proximity; these con- a more robust training sce- pletely integrate the various trails are a glimpse into some nario for the blue force.” elements and is the largest of the live action in Northern In this system, virtual LVC integration seen to date Edge 2015, the largest mili- doesn’t mean computer-gen- in any of the services. tary training exercise sched- erated forces; virtual aircraft “Virtual asset pilots will uled in Alaska this year. and various platforms are see the mountains, terrain What most people won’t operated by actual pilots, and features of their sector see are the dozens of addi- battlespace managers, and of the Joint Pacific Alaska tional assets the live pilots controllers participating in Range Complex, and control- and controllers work with in the same airspace as their lers will see the battlespace the virtual and constructive live counterparts.
    [Show full text]
  • Hoefler Consulting Group APPENDIX a Inventory Preparation Plan
    Hoefler Consulting Group APPENDIX A Inventory Preparation Plan Alaska Air Toxics Inventory June 2001 Alaska Air Toxics Emission Inventory Preparation Plan prepared for: Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation June 2000 prepared by: Hoefler Consulting Group 701 Sesame Street Ste 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 (907) 563-2137 and Sierra Research, Inc. 1801 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 444-6666 Alaska Air Toxics Emission Inventory Preparation Plan Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 2. On-Road Mobile Sources ...................................................................................... 2 3. Off-Road Mobile Sources ..................................................................................... 6 4. Area Sources ....................................................................................................... 10 5. Point Sources........................................................................................................ 12 6. Gridding ............................................................................................................... 13 7. Quality Assurance Plan ........................................................................................ 15 1. INTRODUCTION This inventory preparation plan (IPP) has been compiled in accordance with EPA requirements and is designed to serve as both a work plan that documents analysis objectives and a quality assurance plan that identifies review
    [Show full text]