DOCSLIB.ORG

Installation Restoration Program Basewide Record

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Installation Restoration Program Basewide Record SDMS DOCID# 1106888 INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM BASEWIDE RECORD OF DECISION FORMER NORTON AIR FORCE BASE SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 2005 FINAL Prepared by EARTH TECH, INC. 1461 E. COOLEY DRIVE, SUITE 100 COLTON, CA 92324 CONTRACT NO. FY1624-00-D-8023 DELIVERY ORDER NO. 004 Prepared for AIR FORCE REAL PROPERTY AGENCY NORTON OPERATING LOCATION MCCLELLAN, CALIFORNIA Jerry Bingham CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EXCELLENCE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION DIVISION BROOKS CITY-BASE, TX 78235-5363 INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM BASEWIDE RECORD OF DECISION FORMER NORTON AIR FORCE BASE SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 2005 FINAL Prepared by EARTH TECH, INC. 1461 E. COOLEY DRIVE, SUITE 100 COLTON, CA 92324 CONTRACT NO. FY1624-00-D-8023 DELIVERY ORDER NO. 004 Prepared for AIR FORCE REAL PROPERTY AGENCY NORTON OPERATING LOCATION MCCLELLAN, CALIFORNIA Jerry Bingham CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EXCELLENCE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION DIVISION BROOKS CITY-BASE, TX 78235-5363 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 DECLARATION ................................................................................................................ 1-1 2.0 DECISION SUMMARY.................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION...............................................................2-1 2.1.1 History of Norton Air Force Base ...........................................................................2-1 2.1.2 Physical Setting .......................................................................................................2-5 2.1.3 Sensitive Ecosystems...............................................................................................2-7 2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES ......................................................2-8 2.2.1 Summary of Previous Investigations .......................................................................2-8 2.2.2 Sites Closed by Previous Investigations..................................................................2-9 2.3 BASEWIDE FEASIBILITY STUDY....................................................................................2-9 2.3.1 Human Health Risk Assessment..............................................................................2-9 2.3.1.1 Identification of Chemicals of Concern...............................................2-38 2.3.1.2 Exposure Assessment ..........................................................................2-38 2.3.1.3 Toxicity Assessment............................................................................2-42 2.3.1.4 Risk Characterization...........................................................................2-56 2.3.1.5 Uncertainty Analysis ...........................................................................2-57 2.3.2 Ecological Risk Assessment ..................................................................................2-58 2.3.3 Basis for Remedial Action Objectives...................................................................2-59 2.3.4 Description of Alternatives....................................................................................2-59 2.3.4.1 No Further Action................................................................................2-60 2.3.4.2 Institutional Controls ...........................................................................2-60 2.3.4.3 Containment.........................................................................................2-66 2.3.4.4 Removal...............................................................................................2-66 2.3.5 Evaluation Criteria.................................................................................................2-66 2.3.5.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment.................2-67 2.3.5.2 Compliance with ARARs ....................................................................2-67 2.3.5.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence .........................................2-68 2.3.5.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment ........2-68 2.3.5.5 Short-Term Effectiveness ....................................................................2-68 2.3.5.6 Implementability..................................................................................2-68 2.3.5.7 Cost......................................................................................................2-68 2.3.5.8 State Agency Acceptance ....................................................................2-70 2.3.5.9 Community Acceptance.......................................................................2-70 2.4 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION......................................................................................2-70 2.5 SITE-SPECIFIC EVALUATIONS......................................................................................2-71 2.5.1 IRP Site 1 – Industrial Waste Lagoons..................................................................2-71 2.5.1.1 Site History ..........................................................................................2-71 2.5.1.2 Current and Potential Future Site Use .................................................2-73 2.5.1.3 Summary of Site Risk..........................................................................2-73 2.5.1.4 Remedial Action Objectives ................................................................2-73 2.5.1.5 Analysis of Alternatives.......................................................................2-73 2.5.1.6 Description of Selected Remedy..........................................................2-74 i Final Basewide ROD September 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page 2.5.1.7 Summary of Rationale for the Selected Remedy.................................2-74 2.5.1.8 Expected Outcome of the Selected Remedy........................................2-75 2.5.2 IRP Site 2 – Landfill No. 2 ....................................................................................2-75 2.5.2.1 Site History ..........................................................................................2-75 2.5.2.2 Current and Potential Future Site Use .................................................2-76 2.5.2.3 Summary of Site Risk..........................................................................2-76 2.5.2.4 Remedial Action Objectives ................................................................2-76 2.5.2.5 Analysis of Alternatives.......................................................................2-77 2.5.2.6 Description of the Selected Remedy....................................................2-78 2.5.2.7 Summary of Rationale for the Selected Remedy.................................2-79 2.5.2.8 Expected Outcome of the Selected Remedy........................................2-79 2.5.3 IRP Site 5 – Fire Protection Training Area No. 2..................................................2-80 2.5.3.1 Site History ..........................................................................................2-80 2.5.3.2 Current and Potential Future Site Use .................................................2-81 2.5.3.3 Summary of Site Risk..........................................................................2-81 2.5.3.4 Remedial Action Objectives ................................................................2-81 2.5.3.5 Analysis of Alternatives.......................................................................2-83 2.5.3.6 Description of the Selected Remedy....................................................2-84 2.5.3.7 Summary of Rationale for the Selected Remedy.................................2-84 2.5.3.8 Expected Outcome of the Selected Remedy........................................2-85 2.5.4 Small Arms Range.................................................................................................2-85 2.5.4.1 Site History ..........................................................................................2-85 2.5.4.2 Current and Potential Future Site Use .................................................2-86 2.5.4.3 Summary of Site Risk..........................................................................2-86 2.5.4.4 Remedial Action Objectives ................................................................2-86 2.5.4.5 Analysis of Alternatives.......................................................................2-86 2.5.4.6 Description of the Selected Remedy....................................................2-89 2.5.4.7 Summary of Rationale for the Selected Remedy.................................2-89 2.5.4.8 Expected Outcome of the Selected Remedy........................................2-90 2.5.5 IRP Site 7 – IWTP Sludge Drying Beds................................................................2-90 2.5.5.1 Site History ..........................................................................................2-90 2.5.5.2 Current and Potential Future Site Use .................................................2-92 2.5.5.3 Summary of Site Risk..........................................................................2-92 2.5.5.4 Remedial Action Objectives ................................................................2-93 2.5.5.5 Analysis of Alternatives.......................................................................2-93 2.5.5.6 Description of the Selected Remedy....................................................2-95 2.5.5.7 Summary
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Public Law 161 CHAPTER 368 Be It Enacted Hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the ^^"'^'/Or^ C ^ United States Of
    324 PUBLIC LAW 161-JULY 15, 1955 [69 STAT. Public Law 161 CHAPTER 368 July 15.1955 AN ACT THa R 68291 *• * To authorize certain construction at inilitai-y, naval, and Air F<n"ce installations, and for otlier purposes. Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the an^^"'^'/ord Air Forc^e conc^> United States of America in Congress assembled^ struction TITLE I ^'"^" SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army is authorized to establish or develop military installations and facilities by the acquisition, con­ struction, conversion, rehabilitation, or installation of permanent or temporary public works in respect of the following projects, which include site preparation, appurtenances, and related utilities and equipment: CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES TECHNICAL SERVICES FACILITIES (Ordnance Corps) Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: Troop housing, community facilities, utilities, and family housing, $1,736,000. Black Hills Ordnance Depot, South Dakota: Family housing, $1,428,000. Blue Grass Ordnance Depot, Kentucky: Operational and mainte­ nance facilities, $509,000. Erie Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Operational and maintenance facilities and utilities, $1,933,000. Frankford Arsenal, Pennsylvania: Utilities, $855,000. LOrdstown Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Operational and maintenance facilities, $875,000. Pueblo Ordnance Depot, (^olorado: Operational and maintenance facilities, $1,843,000. Ked River Arsenal, Texas: Operational and maintenance facilities, $140,000. Redstone Arsenal, Alabama: Research and development facilities and community facilities, $2,865,000. E(.>ck Island Arsenal, Illinois: Operational and maintenance facil­ ities, $347,000. Rossford Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Utilities, $400,000. Savanna Ordnance Depot, Illinois: Operational and maintenance facilities, $342,000. Seneca Ordnance Depot, New York: Community facilities, $129,000.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Air Force and Its Antecedents Published and Printed Unit Histories
    UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AND ITS ANTECEDENTS PUBLISHED AND PRINTED UNIT HISTORIES A BIBLIOGRAPHY EXPANDED & REVISED EDITION compiled by James T. Controvich January 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTERS User's Guide................................................................................................................................1 I. Named Commands .......................................................................................................................4 II. Numbered Air Forces ................................................................................................................ 20 III. Numbered Commands .............................................................................................................. 41 IV. Air Divisions ............................................................................................................................. 45 V. Wings ........................................................................................................................................ 49 VI. Groups ..................................................................................................................................... 69 VII. Squadrons..............................................................................................................................122 VIII. Aviation Engineers................................................................................................................ 179 IX. Womens Army Corps............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NSIAD-95-139 Military Bases B-261073
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee GAO on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, Committee on Governmental Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives August 1995 MILITARY BASES Case Studies on Selected Bases Closed in 1988 and 1991 GAO/NSIAD-95-139 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 National Security and International Affairs Division B-261073 August 15, 1995 The Honorable William H. Zeliff, Jr. Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice Committee on Governmental Reform and Oversight House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: As part of an earlier review of 37 bases closed by the first two base realignment and closure rounds, we reported in late 1994 on expected revenues from land sales, resources requested from the federal government, and issues delaying reuse planning.1 As requested in your letter of March 21, 1995, we collected more recent information on reuse planning and implementation at the 37 bases. Specifically, we are providing updated summaries on the planned disposal and reuse of properties, successful conversions, problems that delay planning and implementation, and assistance provided to communities. We are also including a profile of each of the 37 installations in appendix III. Under current plans, over half of the land will be retained by the federal Results in Brief government because it (1) is contaminated with unexploded ordnance, (2) has been retained by decisions made by the base realignment and closure commissions or by legislation, or (3) is needed by federal agencies. Most of the remaining land will be requested by local reuse authorities under various public benefit transfer authorities or the new economic development conveyance authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 85-325-Feb
    72 ST AT. ] PUBLIC LAW 85-325-FEB. 12, 1958 11 Public Law 85-325 AN ACT February 12, 1958 To authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to establish and develop certain [H. R. 9739] installations for'the national security, and to confer certain authority on the Secretary of Defense, and for other purposes. Be it enacted Ify the Senate and House of Representatives of the Air Force instal­ United States of America in Congress assembled^ That the Secretary lations. of the Air Force may establish or develop military installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, converting, rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, including site prep­ aration, appurtenances, utilities, and equipment, for the following projects: Provided^ That with respect to the authorizations pertaining to the dispersal of the Strategic Air Command Forces, no authoriza­ tion for any individual location shall be utilized unless the Secretary of the Air Force or his designee has first obtained, from the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, approval of such location for dispersal purposes. SEMIAUTOMATIC GROUND ENVIRONMENT SYSTEM (SAGE) Grand Forks Air Force Base, Grand Forks, North Dakota: Admin­ Post, p. 659. istrative facilities, $270,000. K. I. Sawyer Airport, Marquette, Michigan: Administrative facili­ ties, $277,000. Larson Air Force Base, Moses Lake, Washington: Utilities, $50,000. Luke Air Force Base, Phoenix, Arizona: Operational and training facilities, and utilities, $11,582,000. Malmstrom Air Force Base, Great Falls, Montana: Operational and training facilities, and utilities, $6,901,000. Minot Air Force Base, Minot, North Dakota: Operational and training facilities, and utilities, $10,338,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf 15780.Pdf
    FOREWARD Your Air Force Reserve is a combat- ready force, composed of more than 70,000 proud reservists, stationed locally throughout the United States, serving globally for every Combatant Command around the world. We provide our Nation with operational capability, strategic depth and surge capacity whenever America needs us. We are an integrated Total Force partner in every Air Force core mission: Air and Space Superiority, Global Strike, Rapid Global Mobility, Intelligence, Surveillance, James F. Jackson, and Reconnaissance, and Command Lt Gen, USAF and Control. In an increasingly limited fiscal environment, reservists remain efficient and cost-effective solutions to our nation’s challenges. The majority of our Citizen Airmen serve part time, making us a highly efficient force, averaging about a third of the cost of active duty Airmen. Perhaps our greatest strength is we retain ‘Airmen for life,’ preserving the considerable investments and expertise of our Airmen beyond their Cameron B. Kirksey, active duty service. In times of crisis, we Command CMSgt can call upon our strategic depth of an additional 785,000 Airmen from the Individual Ready Reserve, Standby Reserve, Retired Reserve and Retired Active Duty. To meet future challenges, the Air Force Reserve works as a member of the “Total Force”, alongside active duty and Air National Guardsmen. This strong, three-component team is ready for combat or humanitarian relief operations worldwide. Since 2012, the Air Force Reserve can also be mobilized to respond to domestic requirements here at home. 01 Dual-use capabilities such as airlift, aeromedical evacuation and personnel recovery are equally valuable, both in-theater and for homeland support.
    [Show full text]
  • 166 Public Law 86-500-.June 8, 1960 [74 Stat
    166 PUBLIC LAW 86-500-.JUNE 8, 1960 [74 STAT. Public Law 86-500 June 8. 1960 AN ACT [H» R. 10777] To authorize certain construction at military installation!^, and for other pnriwses. He it enacted hy the Hemite and House of Representatives of the 8tfiction^'Acf°^ I'raited States of America in Congress assemoJed, I960. TITLE I ''^^^* SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may establish or develop military installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, con- \'erting, rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, including site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and equip­ ment, for the following projects: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES I'ECHNICAL SERVICES FACILITIES (Ordnance Corps) Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: Training facilities, medical facilities, and utilities, $6,221,000. Benicia Arsenal, California: Utilities, $337,000. Blue Grass Ordnance Depot, Kentucky: Utilities and ground improvements, $353,000. Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey: Research, development, and test facilities, $850,000. Pueblo Ordnance Depot, Colorado: Operational facilities, $369,000. Redstone Arsenal, Alabama: Community facilities and utilities, $1,000,000. Umatilla Ordnance Depot, Oregon: Utilities and ground improve­ ments, $319,000. Watertow^n Arsenal, Massachusetts: Research, development, and test facilities, $1,849,000. White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico: Operational facilities and utilities, $1,2'33,000. (Quartermaster Corps) Fort Lee, Virginia: Administrative facilities and utilities, $577,000. Atlanta General Depot, Georgia: Maintenance facilities, $365,000. New Cumberland General Depot, Pennsylvania: Operational facili­ ties, $89,000. Richmond Quartermaster Depot, Virginia: Administrative facili­ ties, $478,000. Sharpe General Depot, California: Maintenance facilities, $218,000. (Chemical Corps) Army Chemical Center, Maryland: Operational facilities and com­ munity facilities, $843,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Five Year Review
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street Sa n Francisco, CA 941 05-3901 September 30, 2010 Jerry W. Bingham, YD-02 Program Manager/COR AFCEEJEXC 2261 Hughes Ave, Suite 155 Lackland AFB, TX 78236 Re: Final Third Five-Year Review Report fo r Former Norton Air Force Base Dear Mr. Bingham: We have received the Final Third Five-Year Review Report!or Fonner NOrlon Air Force Base, San Bernardino County, California, dated September 2010 (5YR Report). EPA reviewed the 5YR Report along with other supporting documents and concurs with the findings, recommendations, and protectiveness statements of the 5YR Report. We agree that the current remedy for CBA OU Component 1 is prOleclive in the short term since there is no exposure to contaminated groundwater, and in the long term due 10 the presence of institutiona1 controls to prevent use of groundwater as a drinking source. Nonetheless, the 5YR confirms the uncertainty regarding the relationship between long term management of the groundwater table and remaining vadose zone contamination, ifany. As documented in the 5YR and other site reporting, there has been a general decline in groundwater elevation attributed to an extended period of drought and continued production of groundwater for municipal uses. As a result of this decline, monitoring wells that previously had shown contamination above ARARs have gone dry and are no longer able to provide information on remedy effectiveness. We are concerned about the potential that remaini ng vadose zone contamination could be mobilized to groundwater if the groundwater table returns to historic levels at some point in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-05-614 Military Base Closures: Observations on Prior and Current
    United States Government Accountability Office Statement GAO Before the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission For Release on Delivery Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT Military Base Closures Tuesday, May 3, 2005 Observations on Prior and Current BRAC Rounds Statement of Barry W. Holman, Director Defense Capabilities and Management a GAO-05-614 May 3, 2005 MILITARY BASE CLOSURES Accountability Integrity Reliability Highlights Observations of Prior and Current BRAC Highlights of GAO-05-614, a statement Rounds before the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The Defense Base Closure and DOD indicates that recommendations from the previous BRAC rounds were Realignment Act of 1990, as implemented within the 6-year period mandated by law. As a result, DOD amended, authorized a new round estimated that it reduced its domestic infrastructure by about 20 percent; of base realignment and closures about 90 percent of unneeded BRAC property is now available for reuse. (BRAC) in 2005, the fifth such Substantial net savings of approximately $29 billion have been realized over round in recent years but the first since 1995. The legislation requires time. Most communities surrounding closed bases are continuing to recover the Secretary of Defense to submit from the impact of BRAC and faring well compared with average U.S. rates his list of bases recommended for for unemployment and income growth. In examining DOD’s proposed closure and realignment to an closures and realignments, the Commission may want to ensure that all independent BRAC commission by proposed closure and realignment actions can be implemented within the May 16, 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Invitations (1958)
    Reproduced at the National Archives at San Francisco GUESTS Reproduced at the National Archives at San Francisco EXPECTED -A'.rl'ENDANCE AT NACA .AMES TRIENNIAL INSPECTION July 14, 1958 ABRAK)V!TZ' M, Bureau of Aeronautics Western District He­adquarters 4oo Douglas Street El Segundo, California AGOOTON, Dr. George A. Senior Chemical -Engineer Stanford Research Institute Menlo Park, California AlCHINGER, G. Wright Air Development -Center Wright-Patterson Air 'Force Base, Ohio .ALHE:RT, Alan D. Electronic Engineer Link Aviation, Incorporated 530 University Avenue Palo Alto, California ALBRACHT, Carl Pub~ic ·Relations Manager Westinghouse -Electric ­ Corporation lno Bush Street San Francisco, California ALDRIN, Edwin E. Aviation Consultant 18o Walnut Street Montclair, New Jersey ALLEN, Ron . John J. M/C (California) ALTHOUSE, J. Wright Air Development Center. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio ANDERSON, Prof. Ernest W. He~, Department of Aero. Iowa State College Engineering Ames, Iowa ANDERSON, Hon. H. Carl M/C (Minnesota) Reproduced at the National Archives at San Francisco .ANDERS.ON, Jack G. Manager, Public Relations and .Ma.tqu.a.rdt Airc:taf"t Company Advertising 16555 Saticoy Street Van Nuys, CaJ.ifornia -ANDERSON, s. M. Air Safety Engineer, Chairman United -Air LiEes Air Lines Pilots' Association Ban :Francisco International Airport San Francisco 28, C~i:fornia .ANDRE.'WS 1 Allen ~er, Development Planning Eocketdyne 6633 Canoga .Avenue Canoga Park, Cali:fornia .APPLE, Maj. J. Jo Executive Officer 'Directorate .of FJ,ight and .All-Weather "Testing Wright Air 'Development Center Wright-Patterson .Air For-ee Base, Ohio ARENZ, ,Rev. Robert J., s. J. Professor, Engineering Mechanics College ,of ·Engineering Loyola University 7101 W.
    [Show full text]
  • The Advent of Jointness During the Gulf
    As seen from back seat of Fighter Squadron 41 F-14A Tomcat aircraft, pilot brings aircraft in for arrested landing on flight deck of USS Theodore Roosevelt during Operation Desert Storm (DOD/Parsons) t has been three decades since the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols The Advent of I Department of Defense Reorganiza- tion Act of 1986, a piece of legislation that changed how the Department of Jointness During the Defense (DOD) functions and how the military conducts operations. By adopting the concept now known as Gulf War “jointness,” it restricted the Services to an administrative and organizational role as force providers, while combatant A 25-Year Retrospective commanders held operational author- ity with a chain of command leading By Christopher G. Marquis, Denton Dye, and Ross S. Kinkead directly to the Secretary of Defense and the President.1 The intent of the legisla- tion could be compared to that of the Constitution supplanting the Articles of Confederation, which drew the rela- tively independent states into a more closely centralized political body. Major Christopher G. Marquis, USAF, is an Instructor in the Joint Warfighting Department at the Air Less than 5 years after its passage, Command and Staff College. Lieutenant Colonel Denton Dye, USA, is a Member of the Interoperability Goldwater-Nichols encountered its first and Standardization Team at North Atlantic Treaty Organization Headquarters, Supreme Allied big test when Saddam Hussein’s forces Command Transformation. Major Ross S. Kinkead, USA, is a Member of the Directorate for Intelligence at the Joint Intelligence Center, U.S. European Command, following his most recent assignment as the invaded Kuwait in August 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • “GONE but NOT FORGOTTEN” on 22 February 2007 We Lost a True
    Rotorwash A Newsletter for Air Force Rotorheads Issue 2007/1 Jan-Mar 2007 Published Quarterly By ROTORHEADSRUS Contact: [email protected] On 22 February 2007 we lost a true friend and valued member of our group. Charles “Chuck” Severns passed away as the result of a long struggle with Cancer. Chuck will be missed but never forgotten. If you would like to pay tribute to Chuck we have a “Final Flight” section on our website honoring our helicopter family members and friends. Send the info to [email protected] Col. James (Jim) R. Murtha, age 69, U.S. Air Force retired, died March 1, 2007, at his home in Fort Walton Beach, Fla., following a courageous battle with cancer. Born July 1, 1937, in New York City to the late James E. and Mabel H. (Smith) Murtha, he moved to Bennington, Vt., as a young boy. He graduated from Bennington High School in 1955. A winter laboring on the St. Lawrence Seaway inspired him to return to school and in 1960 he earned an economics degree from St. Michael’s College Burlington, Vt., and an officer’s commission in the U.S. Air Force. During his 24-year military career, which included Vietnam service, he traveled the world — Europe to Asia to Africa. He was a Command Pilot flying sea planes and “GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN” 1 helicopters for Air Rescue. He was awarded Vietnam combat decorations and many personal awards. Prior to retirement, he served as Chief, Resource Management Division, Directorate of Maintenance, Robins Air Force Base, Ga. Though proud of his career, he was most proud of the opportunity to work with so many outstanding military professionals.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Airlift Command Air Passenger Terminals (Project No
    )._ t, INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 400 ARMY NAVY DRIVE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202·2884 REPORT NO. 90-046 March 7, _1990 MEMORANDUM FOR ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (PRODUCTION AND LOGISTICS) ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT) ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT) ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND COMPTROLLER) ·,'.. : SUBJECT: Report on the Survey of Military Airlift Command Air Passenger Terminals (Project No. 9ST-0040) Introduction This is our final Report on the Survey of Military Airlift Command (MAC) Air Passenger Terminals for your information and use. We made the survey from May through October 1989 at the request of the Deputy Inspector General, DoD. The survey objectives were to determine whether staffing levels and associated costs were limited to those necessary to support workload requirements at MAC's air passenger terminals; if readiness requirements and costs warranted the simultaneous operation of military and commercial air passenger terminals; and if operations were consistent with the conclusions in General Accounting Office (GAO) Report No. GAO/NSIAD-85-60, "Operating Chartered Flights From Commercial Airports Has Not Reduced Transportation Costs," June 24, 1985. In FY 1988, MAC processed about 1.6 million passengers through 53 military and 5 commercial air passenger terminals worldwide. During FY 1988, about 671,000 passengers (42 percent) were processed through military air passenger terminals and about 925,000 passengers (58 percent) were processed through commercial air passenger terminals. Scope of Survey We visited MAC Headquarters at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, and obtained FY 1988 cost data and workload statistics for eight military air passenger terminals (five in CONUS and three outside CONUS [OCONUS]) and five commercial air passenger terminals.
    [Show full text]