DOCSLIB.ORG

Remedial Investigation Report for J-Field, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Remedial Investigation Report for J-Field, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland ANL/EAD/TM-80 Remedial Investigation Report for J-Field, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland Volume 1: Remedial Investigation Results Environmental Assessment Division ' Argonne National Laboratory / /Q Operated by The University of Chicago, under Contract W-31-109-Eng-38, for the United States Department of Energy Argonne National Laboratory Argonne National Laboratory, with facilities in the states of Illinois and Idaho, is owned byThe United States Government', and operated by the University of Chicago under the-provisions of a contract with the Department of Energy. This technical memo is a product of Argonne's Environmental Assessment - Division (EAD). For information on the division's scientific andengineering activities, contact: • , '""'-• Director, Environmental Assessment Division . , Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, Illinois 60439-4815 / . ' Telephone (630) 252-3107 ,, Presented in this technical memo are preliminary results of ongoing work or work that is more limited in scope and depth than that described in formal reports issued bytrie EAD. • _ Publishing support services were provided by Argonne's Information , and Publishing Division (for more information, see IPD's home page: \ http://www.ipd.anl.gov/). s , ' Disclaimer - This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency , thereof, nor The University of Chicago, nor any of their employees or officers, makes anywarranty, express or implied, or assumes any legalTiability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, .- . apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,- process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation,-or • favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and' opinions of document authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect , .those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, Argonne National Laboratory, or The University of Chicago. " - Available electronically at http://www.doe.gov/bridge Available fora processing fee to U.S. Department of . Energy and its contractors, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Energy \ : Office of'Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 ' phone: (865)! 576-8401 . • fax:(865)576-5728 - , 1 email: [email protected] ANL/EAD/TM-80 Remedial Investigation Report for J-Field, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland Volume 1: Remedial Investigation Results by C.R. Yuen, L.E. Martino, R.P. Biang, Y.S. Chang, D. Dolak, R.A. Van Lonkhuyzen, T.L Patton, S. Prasad, J. Quinn, D.H. Rosenblatt, J. Vercellone, and Y.Y. Wang Environmental Assessment Division, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439 November 1999 Work sponsored by U.S. Army, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Directorate of Safety, Health, and Environment (A A ) This report is printed on recycled paper. DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. FOREWORD This document presents the results of a remedial investigation (RT) conducted at J-Field in the Edgewood Area of Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), a U.S. Army installation located in Harford County, Maryland. The RI was carried out for the U.S. Army under the direction of the Environmental Conservation and Restoration Division, Directorate of Safety, Health, and Environment at APG, pursuant to the requirements outlined under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended. This report comprises Volume 1 of a three-part series of documents that were prepared to describe the comprehensive evaluation of the site conditions, nature and extent of contamination, and risks to human health and the environment. Volume 2 of this series, prepared by ICF Kaiser Engineers, provides the results of the human health risk assessment. Volume 3, prepared by Argonne National Laboratory, provides the results of the ecological risk assessment. More information on the APG, including J-Field, may be obtained by visiting the APG Web site at www.apg.army.mil. An earlier version of Volume 1 was released by the U.S. Army in 1998. This document has been reviewed by the U.S. Army (the project sponsor) and assigned the following: Distribution restriction statement: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited OP-SEC Control No. 2685-A-3 This page is intentionally left blank. CONTENTS FOREWORD iii NOTATION xiii SUMMARY S-l 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Purpose of Report 1-1 1.2 Site Background 1-1 1.2.1 Site Description 1-1 1.2.2 Site History 1-7 1.2.3 Disposal and Decontamination Procedures 1-10 1.3 Previous Site Investigations 1-11 1.4 Report Organization 1-12 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2-1 2.1 Surface Features 2-1 2.2 Climate 2-1 2.3 Surface Water Hydrology 2-1 2.4 Geology and Soils 2-4 2.4.1 Geology 2-4 2.4.2 Soils 2-4 2.5 Hydrogeology 2-11 2.5.1 Surficial Aquifer 2-14 2.5.2 Leaky Confining Unit 2-17 2.5.3 Confined Aquifer 2-17 2.5.4 Potomac Group Aquifer 2-18 2.6 Land Use and Demography 2-18 2.7 Ecology 2-19 3 TECHNICAL APPROACH 3-1 3.1 Chemical Agent Screening and Air Quality 3-2 3.1.1 Chemical Agent Screening 3-2 3.1.2 Air Quality 3-5 3.2 Quality Assurance and Control Activities 3-7 3.2.1 Field and Laboratory Audits 3-10 3.2.2 DataReview and Validation 3-11 3.2.3 Data Quality Evaluation 3-13 3.3 Evaluation of Data 3-25 CONTENTS (Cont.) 4 SITE DESCRIPTIONS 4-1 4.1 Toxic Burning Pits AOC 4-1 4.1.1 Main Burning Pits 4-5 4.1.2 VX and Mustard Burning Pits 4-6 4.1.3 Storage Area 4-6 4.1.4 Liquid Smoke Disposal Pit 4-6 4.1.5 Southwestern Suspect Burning Area 4-7 4.1.6 Square Pit 4-7 4.1.7 High Explosives Demolition Ground 4-7 4.2 White Phosphorus Burning Pits AOC 4-7 4.3 Riot Control Burning Pit AOC 4-9 4.4 Prototype Building AOC 4-13 4.5 South Beach Demolition Ground AOC 4-13 4.6 South Beach Trench AOC 4-18 4.7 Robins Point Demolition Ground AOC 4-18 4.8 Robins Point Tower Site AOC 4-20 4.9 Site XI PAOC 4-20 4.10 AreaAPAOC 4-21 4.11 AreaB PAOC 4-22 4.12 AreaCPAOC 4-23 4.13 Ruins Site PAOC across from the White Phosphorus Burning Pits AOC 4-23 4.14 AreaDPAOC 4-25 4.15 Craters PAOC 4-25 5 DATA EVALUATION 5-1 5.1 Toxic Burning Pits AOC 5-1 5.1.1 Soil 5-1 5.1.2 Groundwater 5-10 5.1.3 Surface Water and Sediment 5-13 5.2 White Phosphorus Burning Pits AOC 5-14 5.2.1 Soil 5-14 5.2.2 Groundwater 5-17 5.2.3 Surface Water and Sediment 5-17 5.3 Riot Control Burning Pit AOC 5-17 5.3.1 Soil 5-17 5.3.2 Groundwater 5-18 5.3.3 Surface Water and Sediment 5-18 5.4 Prototype Building AOC 5-22 5.4.1 Soil 5-22 5.4.2 Groundwater 5-22 5.4.3 Surface Water and Sediments 5-22 CONTENTS (Cont) 5.5 South Beach Demolition Ground AOC 5-25 5.6 South Beach Trench AOC 5-25 5.6.1 Soil 5-25 5.6.2 Groundwater 5-28 5.6.3 Surface Water and Sediment 5-28 5.7 Robins Point Demolition Ground AOC 5-28 5.7.1 Soil 5-28 5.7.2 Groundwater 5-28 5.7.3 Surface Water and Sediment 5-33 5.8 Robins Point Tower Site AOC 5-33 5.8.1 Soil 5-33 5.8.2 Groundwater 5-33 5.8.3 Surface Water and Sediment 5-33 5.9 Other Sites 5-35 5.9.1 Site XI PAOC 5-35 5.9.2 Area APAOC 5-37 5.9.3 AreaB PAOC 5-38 5.9.4 AreaC PAOC 5-38 5.9.5 Ruins Site PAOC across from the White Phosphorus Burning Pits AOC 5-38 5.9.6 AreaD 5-40 5.9.7 Craters PAOC 5-40 6 CONCEPTUAL EXPOSURE MODEL 6-1 6.1 Fate of the Contaminants 6-1 6.1.1 Metals 6-1 6.1.2 Chloride and Nitrite 6-5 6.1.3 Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 6-5 6.1.4 Aromatic Hydrocarbons 6-7 6.1.5 Polychlorinated Biphenyls 6-9 6.1.6 Chemical Agents and Degradation Products 6-9 6.1.7 Riot Control Agents 6-13 6.2 Potential Migration Pathways and Receptors 6-14 6.2.1 Primary Sources 6-14 6.2.2 Primary Release Mechanisms and Secondary Contamination Sources 6-14 6.2.3 Secondary Release Mechanisms and Contaminated Media 6-16 6.2.4 Potential Exposure Routes and Receptors 6-18 7 REFERENCES 7-1 8 LIST OFPREPARERS 8-1 vn CONTENTS (Cont.) APPENDIX A: Detailed Data Summary A-i APPENDIX B: Sample Log of Waste Sent to J-Field B-l TABLES S. 1 Summary Table of Contaminant Categories Identified in Each AOC orPAOC at J-Field S-4 1.1 Summary of Disposal/Destruction Activities at J-Field 1-8 2.1 Results of Slug Tests 2-14 3.1 National and Maryland State Ambient Air Quality Standards and 1993 Air Quality Conditions in the Vicinity of Aberdeen Proving Ground 3-6 3.2 Estimated Maximum Ambient Concentrations of Selected EPA Target Compounds at the Toxic Burning Pits Area and the Site Boundary 3-8 3.3 Interlaboratory Duplicate Groundwater Sample Summary 3-15 3.4 Duplicate Summary Table for Groundwater Sample Duplicates 3-16 3.5 Duplicate Summary Table for Surface Water Sample Duplicates 3-18 3.6 Duplicate Summary Table for Sediment Sample Duplicates 3-19 3.7 Duplicate Summary Table for Soil Sample Duplicates 3-20 3.8 Analytes in Sediment 3-27 3.9 Regional Background Levels of Analytes in Soil 3-30 3.10 Analytes in Surface Water 3-31 5.1 Summary of RI Samples Collected at the TBP AOC 5-2 5.2 Summary of RI Samples Collected at the WPP AOC 5-15 5.3 Summary of RI Samples Collected at the RCP AOC 5-19 Vlll TABLES (Cont.) 5.4 Summary of RI Samples Collected at the PB AOC 5-23 5.5 Summary of RI Samples Collected at the SBDG AOC 5-26 5.6 Summary of RI Samples Collected at the SBT AOC 5-29 5.7 Summary of RI Samples Collected at the RPDG AOC 5-30 5.8 Summary of RI Samples Collected at the RPTS AOC 5-34 5.9 Summary of Samples Collected at the Site XI, Area A, Area B, Area C, Ruins Site, and Craters PAOCs 5-36 6.1 Measured Half-Lives of Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons Undergoing Abiotic and Anaerobic Biological Transformation 6-6 6.2 Potential for Biotransformation of Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons as a Primary Substrate or through Cometabolism 6-8 FIGURES S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Medical Management of Biological Casualties Handbook
    USAMRIID’s MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF BIOLOGICAL CASUALTIES HANDBOOK Sixth Edition April 2005 U.S. ARMY MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES FORT DETRICK FREDERICK, MARYLAND Emergency Response Numbers National Response Center: 1-800-424-8802 or (for chem/bio hazards & terrorist events) 1-202-267-2675 National Domestic Preparedness Office: 1-202-324-9025 (for civilian use) Domestic Preparedness Chem/Bio Helpline: 1-410-436-4484 or (Edgewood Ops Center – for military use) DSN 584-4484 USAMRIID’s Emergency Response Line: 1-888-872-7443 CDC'S Emergency Response Line: 1-770-488-7100 Handbook Download Site An Adobe Acrobat Reader (pdf file) version of this handbook can be downloaded from the internet at the following url: http://www.usamriid.army.mil USAMRIID’s MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF BIOLOGICAL CASUALTIES HANDBOOK Sixth Edition April 2005 Lead Editor Lt Col Jon B. Woods, MC, USAF Contributing Editors CAPT Robert G. Darling, MC, USN LTC Zygmunt F. Dembek, MS, USAR Lt Col Bridget K. Carr, MSC, USAF COL Ted J. Cieslak, MC, USA LCDR James V. Lawler, MC, USN MAJ Anthony C. Littrell, MC, USA LTC Mark G. Kortepeter, MC, USA LTC Nelson W. Rebert, MS, USA LTC Scott A. Stanek, MC, USA COL James W. Martin, MC, USA Comments and suggestions are appreciated and should be addressed to: Operational Medicine Department Attn: MCMR-UIM-O U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) Fort Detrick, Maryland 21702-5011 PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION The Medical Management of Biological Casualties Handbook, which has become affectionately known as the "Blue Book," has been enormously successful - far beyond our expectations.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD
    Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD FACT SHEET as of February 2018 Background: Fort Detrick encompasses approximately 1,200 acres divided among three areas in Frederick, Md. Area A is the largest, comprised of approximately 800 acres, and the primary area of construction activity. Most of the Fort Detrick facilities, tenants, post housing, and community facilities are located in Area A. The Forest Glen Annex, Silver Spring, Md., also falls under the operational control of Fort Detrick. The current Corps of Engineers design/construction program on Fort Detrick is approximately $724 million, featuring the $678-million U.S. Army Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) Replacement project, the only Department of Defense high-containment biological laboratory. Fort Detrick, originally named Camp Detrick until 1956, was established in 1931 as a military training airfield named after Maj. Frederick Detrick, a squadron surgeon. In 1943, the U.S. Biological Laboratories were established, pioneering efforts in decontamination, gaseous sterilization and agent purification. In 1969, Fort Detrick’s biological warfare research center mission was terminated and 69 acres of the installation were transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct cancer research. The installation has now matured into a multi-interagency campus (four cabinet level tenants) focusing on advanced bio-medical research and development, medical materiel management, and long-haul telecommunications for the White House, Department of Defense, and other governmental agencies. The National Interagency Biodefense Campus (NIBC) is currently the focal point of all activities on the installation, and the new USAMRIID project is the cornerstone of the campus. Names and phone numbers for significant installation points of contact are as follows: Congressional Rep (D-6th) John Delaney Congressional Rep (D-8th) Jamie Raskin Installation/MRMC Commander MG Barbara R.
    [Show full text]
  • Nov03 POSTER1106.Indd
    The National Cancer Institute Ft. Detrick’s 60th Anniversary story on page 3. News from the NCI-Frederick NOVEMBER 2003 Offi ce of Scientifi c Operations IN THIS ISSUE This year we celebrate the 60th Owned-Contractor Operated (GOCO) Ft. Detrick’s 60th Anniversary 3 anniversary of Fort (Ft.) Detrick. facility. Ft. Detrick’s roots can be traced to The fi rst employees of the NCI- Major Construction Projects 4 a small municipal airport known as Frederick (then known as the Detrick Field1, The Field was named Frederick Cancer Research Center) Building 470 Update 5 to honor Major Frederick L. Detrick, appeared on campus in June 1972 and who served in France during World numbered around 20 by the end of Scientifi c Publications, War I. The fi rst military presence at that month. By 1976 these numbers Graphics & Media News 6 the airfi eld was in 1931 when the had grown to about 750 individuals, Maryland National Guard established and by 1987 the staff numbered over Awards 6 a cadet pilot training center at Detrick 1,400 with a budget of nearly $100 Field and subsequently Platinum Publications 8 changed the name to Camp Detrick. Poster-Script 11 As we pause to think about the history of Ft. Did You Know? 12 Detrick and the many contributions that the Transfer Technology Branch 14 staff of Ft. Detrick has made in the areas of Community Outreach 15 infectious disease and national defense, it Offi ce of Diversity and seems that now is an Employee Programs 16 appropriate time to also look back at the history Environment, Health, and Safety of the NCI here at Ft.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioterrorism, Biological Weapons and Anthrax
    Bioterrorism, Biological Weapons and Anthrax Part IV Written by Arthur H. Garrison Criminal Justice Planning Coordinator Delaware Criminal Justice Council Bioterrorism and biological weapons The use of bio-terrorism and bio-warfare dates back to 6th century when the Assyrians poisoned the well water of their enemies. The goal of using biological weapons is to cause massive sickness or death in the intended target. Bioterrorism and biological weapons The U.S. took the threat of biological weapons attack seriously after Gulf War. Anthrax vaccinations of U.S. troops Investigating Iraq and its biological weapons capacity The Soviet Union manufactured various types of biological weapons during the 1980’s • To be used after a nuclear exchange • Manufacturing new biological weapons – Gene engineering – creating new types of viruses/bacteria • Contagious viruses – Ebola, Marburg (Filoviruses) - Hemorrhagic fever diseases (vascular system dissolves) – Smallpox The spread of biological weapons after the fall of the Soviet Union •Material • Knowledge and expertise •Equipment Bioterrorism and biological weapons There are two basic categories of biological warfare agents. Microorganisms • living organic germs, such as anthrax (bacillus anthrax). –Bacteria –Viruses Toxins • By-products of living organisms (natural poisons) such as botulism (botulinum toxin) which is a by- product of growing the microorganism clostridium botulinum Bioterrorism and biological weapons The U.S. was a leader in the early research on biological weapons Research on making
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Background of the US Biowarfare Program
    Historical Background of the US Biowarfare Program In light of the current FBI/Patriot Act investigations against Critical Art Ensemble (CAE), it is worthwhile to point out two moments from the history of the US government’s involvement in biowarfare. The first concerns the specific issue of access to knowledge, education, and resources in the life sciences. The second concerns the general backdrop of US biodefense ideology. All of this information has been confirmed by several sources, and has been in the public domain for some time (see the references below). Needless to say, this is not meant to be a comprehensive “history” of biowarfare. Instead, it is a perspective on biowarfare from the vantage point of US involvement. What is evident is that the US government’s involvement in biowarfare raises far more substantial questions than the investigation of dissenting artists. - Eugene Thacker ([email protected]) 1. US Biological Warfare Program Simulant Field Tests, 1949-68 Although the particulars of the investigation against CAE have not been made clear, the charges made against them surround particular strains of bacteria which Steve Kurtz was culturing: Serratia marcescens and Bacillus globigii. As has been noted, both bacteria are non-lethal, commonly found in wind-blown dust or the soil, and are often used for educational purposes in biology labs across the US. They have also been used by the US biological warfare program. A short chronology follows: 1942: The War Research Service is created to oversee the creation of a US biological warfare program, partially in response to intelligence concerning possible biowarfare programs in Germany and Japan.
    [Show full text]
  • Adventists and Biological Warfare
    Adventists and Biological Warfare Spectrum magazine, vol. 25, no. 3 (Mar. 1996), pages 35-50. © 2002 Spectrum/AAF. All rights reserved. By Krista Thompson Smith Krista Thompson Smith is currently pursuing graduate studies in political science at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. She originally wrote this essay for the history seminar at Walla Walla College, led by Professor Terrell Gottschall. For 20 years, Seventh-day Adventist noncombatant servicemen participated in defensive biological warfare research for the United States Army. The program, based at Fort Detrick, Maryland, was known as Project Whitecoat. Approximately 2,200 Adventists volunteered for medical research experiments. Another 800 assisted in the program as laboratory technicians, ward attendants, and clerks.1 Both the Adventist Church and the Army praised this project highly. Members of Congress, scientists, and the press criticized the Adventist Church’s involvement. Some of the questions raised about this largely forgotten project remain unanswered. Was Project Whitecoat a humanitarian program, devoted solely to the development of vaccines and treatment for disease? Or were critics correct when they charged that the Adventist Church collaborated with the U.S. Army, risked the health of its members, and even supported the development of offensive weapons for conducting germ warfare? Project Whitecoat continues to raise concretely the issue of how the Adventist Church should relate to government and its use of science. In 1953 and 1954, human volunteers participated in a study of Q-fever, known as the CD- 22 program. The success of this project, and the authorization to use volunteers for defensive studies, cleared the way for the establishment of Project Whitecoat.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Detrick 60Th Anv. 2003
    Special Honored Guests COL Arthur O. Anderson Dr. Morris R. Bonde Mr. Orley Bourland Dr. Kenneth Bromfield Dr. Vernon D. Damsteegt Dr. Harry Dangerfield Mr. Ronald Defelice Dr. George Demuth Dr. John Ezzell Ms. Linda Foltz Dr. Richard French Dr. Arthur Friedlander Mr. Glen Gincley COL James E. Gordoll Roscoe G. Bartlett, Jr. Dr. Henry Hearn Ms. Ruth Herring Mr. George E. Hildebrand COL Mark Hoke Dr. John Huggins Presents a Congressional Mr. Kenneth DoJones Mr. Hubert Kaempf Dr. Richard Kenyon Forum to recognize the Dr. Charles Kingsolver Dr. Frances LattereU COL George Lewis Mr. Kenneth Lindsey COL Robert Massey 60thAnniversary Of Dr. Robert McKinney Ms. Helen MiUer-&ott Fort Detrick Dr. Patricia Modrow LTC Harry Modrow Mr. Tommy Morris Mr. William Patrick Mr. Robert Peel Saturday LTC Phillip Pittman Mr. Sheldon Shealer October 4, 2003 Dr. Leonard Smith Mr. Ronald E. Stuhlemmer 2:00pm Mt. St. Mary's College Emmitsburg, Maryland Arrival of Official Party Presentation of Colors ...FortDetrickAll ServiceColorGuard The Honorable Michael Cady Vice President National Anthem .Ms.ViolaWhielden Frederick County Commissioners PledgeofAllegiance MajorBruceE.Bell PresentationofProclamations. FederalBureauof Investigation Company B 4thLight Armored Reconnaissance Battalion Defense Sciences Office 4thMarine Division Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Invocation ... Dr.JanPaulsen Centers for Disease Control and Prevention President . Seven~-day Adventist World Church National Center for Infectious Diseases Welcome ..Dr.ThomasH.Powell Southwest Research Foundation President MountSaintMary's College American Society for Microbiology WelcomeHome to DeployedPersonnel TheHonorableRoscoeBartlett FeaturedProclamation......... ...... .....Dr.AnthonyS.Fauci Director. Introduction of SpecialGuests Mr.TommyGronwell National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Musical Interlude Receipt of Proclamations Major General Lester Martinez-Lopez Commanding Gene~l HistoryofFort Detrick..
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Aspects of Biological Warfare
    Tularemia Chapter 11 TULAREMIA † ‡ MATTHEW J. HEPBURN, MD*; TODD M. KIJEK ; WENDY SAMMONS-JACKSON, PhD ; ARTHUR M. FRIEDLANDER, MD§; and ZYGMUNT F. DEMBEK, PhD, MS, MPH, LHD¥ INTRODUCTION INFECTIOUS AGENT THE CLINICAL DISEASE Epidemiology Pathogenesis Clinical Manifestations Diagnosis Treatment PROPHYLAXIS Postexposure Prophylaxis Vaccination With Live Vaccine Strain ISSUES FOR LABORATORY WORKERS USE OF TULAREMIA AS A BIOLOGICAL WEAPON SUMMARY *Colonel, MC, US Army; Program Manager, Biological Technologies Office, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), 675 North Randolph Street, Room 08-140, Arlington, Virginia 22203-2114; formerly, Clinical Research Unit Lead, US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, 1425 Porter Street, Fort Detrick, Maryland †Major, Medical Service Corps, US Army; PhD candidate and Chief, Molecular and Translational Sciences Department, US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, 1425 Porter Street, Fort Detrick, Maryland 21702; formerly, Research Microbiologist, Bacteriology Division, US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, 1425 Porter Street, Fort Detrick, Maryland ‡Lieutenant Colonel, Medical Service Corps, US Army; Military Deputy, Science and Technology Department, US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, 810 Schreider Street, Suite 103, Fort Detrick, Maryland 21702; formerly, Deputy Director, Military Infectious Diseases Research Program, Fort Detrick, Maryland §Colonel (Retired), Medical Corps, US Army; Senior Scientist, Bacteriology Division,
    [Show full text]
  • Tularemia Fact Sheet
    Peachtree Street NW, 15th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3142 Georgia Department of Public Health www.health.state.ga.us TULAREMIA (Rabbit fever, Deer‐fly fever, Ohara disease, Francis disease) Fact Sheet Agent: Francisella tularensis, a small non‐motile gram‐negative coccobacillus. Human disease is primarily associated with 2 of 4 subspecies. The highly virulent F. tularensis subspecies tularensis (type A) is found only in North America. F. tularensis subspecies holarctica (type B) is less virulent and found throughout the Northern hemisphere. Brief Description: The symptoms of this disease are highly variable. Disease begins with fever, headache, malaise, and anorexia, and can be followed by symptoms that fall into six categories. Subspecies and site of entry determine the type/category of disease. Ulceroglandular disease: characterized by an indolent ulcer appearing at the site of infection, accompanied by lymphadenopathy, Glandular disease: suppurative lymphadenopathy that follows infection without ulcer or in which an ulcer was not recognized, Typhoidal disease: primarily septicemia, with a highly fatal course, Pleuropneumonic disease: organisms localize in the lungs and pleura, Oropharyngeal disease: typified by a painful cough and sore throat, accompanied by watery diarrhea, and Oculoglandular disease: the conjunctiva are the site of invasion; disease is usually unilateral, with painful purulent conjunctivitis and regional lymphadenopathy. Reservoir: Numerous wild animals, including rabbits, hares, voles, muskrats, beavers, and various hard ticks. A rodent‐mosquito cycle of subspecies holarctica has been identified in the former Soviet Union. Mode of Transmission: Transmission can occur by tick or insect vector, including the wood tick, Dermacentor andersoni, and the dog tick, D. variabilis, among others.
    [Show full text]
  • Unclasslfl ED PART I ADMINISTRATION
    HEADQUARTERS CHDIICAL CCHPS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMNAND DWAKTPENT UE' THE ARMY WASHINGTON 25, D. C. HISTORICAL REPORT 1 APFUL 1956 . to 30 JWl3 1956 . Reports Control Symbol CMLHO-194 GLADYS P. SIZBER Historian \Znable to dnt?rmine regrading date This document consists of 34- nunbered pages Copy No. L of 4 Copies, ttA1r UNCLASSlFl ED PART I ADMINISTRATION A. Mission and Responsibilities. No change. B. Acquisition of Physical. Facilities. No change. C. Organization. No change. c D. Development of Administrative Procedures. i No change. I 1 PART I1 FISCAL This portion appropriately will be submitted by the OCCmlO Comptroller. t 2 PART I11 rnS0NNEL A, Key Personnel. The assignment and transfer of key personnel in Headquarters, CmlC Research and Development Command are as follows: EXf ect ive Date Name and Status Authority 10 June 1956 Dr. C. Grant Ash, Physical Civil Service Science Administrator, GS-2.4, Appointment assigned to Job No. 922, t- Research Division 18 June 1956 Colonel Uoyd E. Fellenz, CmlC, Par 1, SO 37, attached for duty as Acting Hq, .SDCOM Deputy Commander during temporary absence of Colonel Joseph F. Escudef 28 June 1956 Mr. Daniel J. Shearin desig- par 1, so 39, nated Executive Officer (vice Hq, RDCOM Lt. Col, Rhett G, Harris re- assigned as U,S. Technical Representative, Porton, Ebg- land, effective 2 July 56) B. Personnel Strength. By letter dated 5 June 1956, CMLWM-M-11, subject: "Military and Civilian Manpower Authorization, Voucher No, OCCmlO 56-85,1~the CmlC Comptroller advised that subject authorization for Headquarters, CmlC Research and Development Command as of 1 June 1956 was eight (8) and thirty-four (34) respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • 97 STAT. 757 Public Law 98-115 98Th Congress an Act
    PUBLIC LAW 98-115—OCT. 11, 1983 97 STAT. 757 Public Law 98-115 98th Congress An Act To authorize certain construction at military installations for fiscal year 1984, and for Oct. 11, 1983 other purposes. [H.R. 2972] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That this Act may Military be cited as the "Military Construction Authorization Act, 1984'\ Au'thorizSn Act, 1984. TITLE I—ARMY AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may acquire real property and may carry out military construction projects in the amounts shown for each of the following installations and locations: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES COMMAND Fort Bragg, North Carolina, $31,100,000. Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $15,300,000. Fort Carson, Colorado, $17,760,000. Fort Devens, Massachusetts, $3,000,000. Fort Douglas, Utah, $910,000. Fort Drum, New York, $1,500,000. Fort Hood, Texas, $76,050,000. Fort Hunter Liggett, California, $1,000,000. Fort Irwin, California, $34,850,000. Fort Lewis, Washington, $35,310,000. Fort Meade, Maryland, $5,150,000. Fort Ord, California, $6,150,000. Fort Polk, Louisiana, $16,180,000. Fort Richardson, Alaska, $940,000. Fort Riley, Kansas, $76,600,000. Fort Stewart, Georgia, $29,720,000. Presidio of Monterey, California, $1,300,000. UNITED STATES ARMY WESTERN COMMAND Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, $31,900,000. UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, $1,500,000. Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, $5,900,000.
    [Show full text]
  • 8. References
    2,4,6-TRINITROTOLUENE 139 8. REFERENCES *ACGIH. 1993. Threshold limit values and biological exposure indices for 1993-1994. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Cincinnati, OH. Agarwal DP, Goedde HW. 1986. Pharmacogenetics and ecogenetics. Experientia (Basel) 42(10):1148-1154. *Ahlborg G Jr, Bergstroem B, Hogstedt C, et al. 1985. Urinary screening for potentially genotoxic exposures in a chemical industry. Br J Ind Med 42:691-699. *Ahlborg G Jr, Einisto P, Sorsa M. 1988a. Mutagenic activity and metabolites in the urine of workers exposed to trinitrotoluene (TNT). Br J Ind Med 45(5):353-358. *Ahlborg G Jr, Ulander A, Bergstrom B, et al. 1988b. Diazo-positive metabolites in urine from workers exposed to aromatic nitro-amino compounds. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health (Int Arch Occup Environ Health) 60(1):51-54. Albanbauer J, Kraatz A, Megges G. 1983. [Forensic chemistry studies following detonation of explosives.] Arch Kriminol 171(3-4):89-96. (German) *Almog J, Kraus S, Basch A. 1983. Determination of TNT metabolites in urine. Arch Toxicol [Suppl] 6:351-353. Alvarez M, Hanners JL, Botsford J, et al. 1991. Enzyme catalyzed transformation of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene. In: 91st General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, Dallas, Texas, May 5-9, 1991. Abstr Gen Meet Am Soc Microbial 91:217. Amas SA, Yallop HJ. 1966. The identification of industrial blasting explosives of the gelignite type. J Forensic Sci Soc 6(4):185-l 88. Amerkhanova NN, Naumova RP. 1978. 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene as a source of nutrition for bacteria. Mikrobiologiya 47(3):393-395.
    [Show full text]