Additional Army Installations Being Assessed for PFAS Release.Xlsx
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Defense Transportation and Logistics Community Will Be There
The Defense Transportation and Logistics Community Will Be There MAXIMIZE YOUR VISIBILITY. NETWORK WITH KEY DECISION MAKERS. ENHANCE YOUR VALUE. Sponsor and Exhibit at the 2017 NDTA Fall Exposition Make plans to join us in St. Louis, Missouri October 10 - 13 for the 2017 NDTA Fall Exposition. This is the only venue focused directly on network- ing with top level government and industry decision makers in transporta- tion, logistics, distribution, passenger services, and related industries. Develop and Strengthen Your Brand Establish industry positioning. Demonstrate your latest equipment, products and services. Gain a Competitive Edge Participation as a sponsor and exhibitor illustrates your company’s prod- ucts and services are aligned with the vision and objectives of NDTA and its members. Interact with Decision Makers and Key Influencers With more than 1,300 projected attendees from the military and govern- ment as well as industry, the NDTA Fall Exposition provides opportunities to develop new business leads while enhancing existing relationships, enabling you to provide the ideas and solutions needed to address ongo- ing challenges to our nation’s defense. Build and strengthen relationships with top and mid-level managers in industry and military and government. Interact with your military and government customers, including the com- manders and leaders of those organizations. Troubleshoot with other key players. The NDTA Fall Exposition provides a cost-effective way to meet face-to- face with the influencers and decision makers who are critical to meeting your goals, while at the same time reinforcing your company image with representatives from a wide array of industries, including: airlines, rail- roads, motor carriers, ocean shippers, transportation consultants, cyber security, security, travel and hospitality, express companies, technology, household goods carriers, labor unions, port authorities, and 3PLs. -
Francisella Tularensis Blue-Grey Phase Variation Involves Structural
Francisella tularensis blue-grey phase variation involves structural modifications of lipopolysaccharide O-antigen, core and lipid A and affects intramacrophage survival and vaccine efficacy THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Shilpa Soni Graduate Program in Microbiology The Ohio State University 2010 Master's Examination Committee: John Gunn, Ph.D. Advisor Mark Wewers, M.D. Robert Munson, Ph.D. Copyright by Shilpa Soni 2010 Abstract Francisella tularensis is a CDC Category A biological agent and a potential bioterrorist threat. There is no licensed vaccine against tularemia in the United States. A long- standing issue with potential Francisella vaccines is strain phase variation to a grey form that lacks protective capability in animal models. Comparisons of the parental strain (LVS) and a grey variant (LVSG) have identified lipopolysaccharide (LPS) alterations as a primary change. The LPS of the F. tularensis variant strain gains reactivity to F. novicida anti-LPS antibodies, suggesting structural alterations to the O-antigen. However, biochemical and structural analysis of the F. tularensis LVSG and LVS LPS demonstrated that LVSG has less O-antigen but no major O-antigen structural alterations. Additionally, LVSG possesses structural differences in both the core and lipid A regions, the latter being decreased galactosamine modification. Recent work has identified two genes important in adding galactosamine (flmF2 and flmK) to the lipid A. Quantitative real-time PCR showed reduced transcripts of both of these genes in the grey variant when compared to LVS. Loss of flmF2 or flmK caused less frequent phase conversion but did not alter intramacrophage survival or colony morphology. -
WRP Utah Military Asset List (MAL)
WRP Utah Military Asset List (MAL) Within the Western Regional Partnership (WRP) region, there are significant military testing and training installations and ranges. WRP developed summaries from all of the Services and the National Guard, describing the history, missions, and importance of these assets. These summaries use only publicly available information and are written for the policy maker new to military issues and the military savvy person needing specific military information. It is our hope that WRP Partners use these summaries as a tool for land use planning efforts to encourage compatible growth and ensure future mission viability. Incompatible development (encroachment) comes in many forms but for the military, it means those issues that affect their ability to fulfill their mission on land, in the sea, or in the air. These military summaries are for general planning purposes. Attached Utah MAL summaries: Air Force: • Hill Air Force Base • Utah Test and Training Range Army: • Dugway Proving Ground • Tooele Army Depot National Guard: • Utah Air National Guard • Utah Army National Guard Military Asset List 2016 U.S. Air Force: HILL AFB : UTAH Hill Air Force Base is an Air Force Materiel Command base located in northern Utah. Hill is the Air Force's third largest base by population and size. The base is home to many operational and support missions, with the host organization Above: Hill AFB is the largest single-site employer in Utah. (Associated Press being the 75th Photo) Air Base Wing. Left: Two F-16s taxi on runway at Hill AFB. (U.S. Air Force photo) Hill AFB traces its history to when the Army attempted to establish an airmail station in the area MISSION STATEMENT Provide mission-ready Airmen and in the 1930s. -
The History of Chemical and Biological Warfare: an American
History of Chemical and Biological Warfare: An American Perspective Chapter 2 HISTORY OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE: AN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE JEFFERY K. SMART, M.A.* INTRODUCTION PRE–WORLD WAR I DEVELOPMENTS WORLD WAR I THE 1920S: THE LEAN YEARS THE 1930S: THE GROWING THREAT OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE THE 1940S: WORLD WAR II AND THE NUCLEAR AGE THE 1950S: HEYDAY OF THE CHEMICAL CORPS THE 1960S: DECADE OF TURMOIL THE 1970S: THE NEAR END OF THE CHEMICAL CORPS THE 1980S: THE RETURN OF THE CHEMICAL CORPS THE 1990S: THE THREAT MATERIALIZES SUMMARY *Command Historian, U.S. Army Chemical and Biological Defense Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010-5423 9 Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare INTRODUCTION Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines or biological warfare went virtually unnoticed by the term “chemical warfare,” first used in 1917, the U.S. Army. By the end of World War I, the situ- as “tactical warfare using incendiary mixtures, ation had drastically changed. Chemical warfare smokes, or irritant, burning, poisonous, or asphyx- had been used against and by American soldiers iating gases.” A working definition of a chem- on the battlefield. Biological warfare had been used ical agent is “a chemical which is intended for covertly on several fronts. In an effort to determine use in military operations to kill, seriously injure, what had gone wrong with their planning and train- or incapacitate man because of its physiological ing, U.S. Army officers prepared a history of chemi- effects. Excluded from consideration are riot con- cal and biological warfare. To their surprise, they trol agents, chemical herbicides and smoke found numerous documented cases of chemical and and flame materials.”1(p1-1) Chemical agents were biological agents having been used or proposed to usually divided into five categories: nerve agents, influence the outcome of a battle or campaign. -
Public Law 90-110 an ACT October 21, 1967 to Authorize Certain Construction at Military Installations and for Other Purposes
81 STAT.] PUBLIC LAW 90-1 10-OCT. 21, 1967 279 Public Law 90-110 AN ACT October 21, 1967 To authorize certain construction at military installations and for other purposes. [H.R. 11722] Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Represent at wen of the United States of Amerha in Congress assembled. Military con- •' ^ 1 struction Au thorization Act, TITLE I 1968. SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may establish or develop mill- ^'''"y- tary installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, converting, rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, including site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and equipment for the following projects: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES . , . UNITED STATES CONTINENTAL ARMY COMMAND r'ii _ (First Army) Fort Belvoir, Virginia: Operational and training facilities, and re search, development, and test facilities, $3,210,000. Fort Devens, Massachusetts: Maintenance facilities, and utilities, $1,304,000. Fort Dix, New Jersey: Hospital facilities, $2,585,000. Fort Eustis, Virginia: Training facilities, maintenance facilities, and utilities, $976,000. Fort Hamilton, New York: Operational facilities, $127,(M)(). A. P. Hill Military Reservation, Virginia: Training facilities, suj)- ply facilities, troop housing, and utilities, $4,893,000. Fort. Holabird, Maryland: Administrative facilities, $588,000. Indiantown Gap Military Reservation, Pennsylvania: Training facilities, $581,000. Fort Knox, Kentucky: Training facilities, and utilities, $3,325,000. Fort Lee, Virginia: Maintenance facilities, medical facilities, and utilities, $1,646,000. Fort George G. Meade, Maryland: Hospital facilities, and adminis trative facilities, $4,510,000. Camp Pickett, Virginia: Training facilities, maintenance facilities, and supply facilities, and ground improvements, $329,000. ?f ^' (Third Army) Fort Penning, Georgia: Troop housing and utilities, $3,769,000. -
Cover Page for PDF 8.5X11
Review Comments for the Revised Draft Final SWMU 13 Corrective Measures Study Work Plan and Report Tooele Army Depot – South Area Dated February 2016 Section, No. Page Comment Response Paragraph Name, Organization: Dave Larsen, Utah DSHW, March 8, 2016 Responses to State comments on the CMS Work Plan and Report 1 Notwithstanding the information in Section 3.3.6.1 While the Rust 1997 RFI did not completely define the about sample reanalysis, the information in Section area impacted by several non-fuel spill related VOCs in 3.3.6 about agent breakdown products (ABPs) and the groundwater, sufficient information has been collected to information in Figures L.1 and L.4 showing select a corrective measure for the fuel-impacted area and chloroform and TCE plumes outside the main release the recommended corrective measures will address area, the responses to Division comments five and six remediation of all contaminants within the fuel-impacted indicate additional dissolved groundwater related area. work will not be needed. The Division does not concur with this response and suggests the need for It is acknowledged that non-fuel constituents were additional wells or borings to define the dissolved identified in groundwater during the CMS data gap plumes and contamination in the deeper groundwater investigation outside of the fuel release area. While system. In addition, the presence of contamination in delineating the lateral extent of chloroform and TCE is not the deeper groundwater seems to verify a hydraulic part of a CMS, these constituents will be monitored in connection between the shallow and deep systems. -
Rudderless: the Chemical Weapons Convention at 1 ½
Rudderless: The Chemical Weapons Convention At 1 ½ Amy E. Smithson Report No. 25 September 1998 Copyright© 1998 11 Dupont Circle, NW Ninth Floor Washington, DC 20036 phone 202.223.5956 fax 202.238.9604 http://www.stimson.org email [email protected] Rudderless: The Chemical Weapons Convention At 1 1/2 Amy E. Smithson INTRODUCTION On the 29th of April 1997, the majority of the world’s nations joined to activate an arms control and nonproliferation accord that will gradually compel the elimination of one of the most abhorred classes of weapons of all times. Previously, the international community had fallen short of the mark in efforts to try to abolish poison gas, despite the opprobrium following its widespread use in World War I.1 The new Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) extends the no use-prohibitions of the 1925 Geneva Protocol2 to outlaw the development, acquisition, production, transfer, and stockpiling of chemical weapons as well. The CWC requires the destruction of chemical weapons production facilities and arsenals over a ten-year period, and countries will witness the shrinking numbers of poison gas factories and munitions. A less tangible function of the CWC, but one that may turn out to be equally valued over the long term is that the CWC will help redefine how states assure their national security. The CWC requires nations to declare activities that were previously considered state secrets and private business information. The treaty authorizes routine and challenge inspections to monitor compliance with its prohibitions. Instead of building large caches of arms, the CWC’s verification processes give governments reason to be confident that managed transparency—a limited waiver of state sovereignty—can enhance national and international security. -
Authorized Abbreviations, Brevity Codes, and Acronyms
Army Regulation 310–50 Military Publications Authorized Abbreviations, Brevity Codes, and Acronyms Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC 15 November 1985 Unclassified USAPA EPS - * FORMAL * TF 2.45 05-21-98 07:23:12 PN 1 FILE: r130.fil SUMMARY of CHANGE AR 310–50 Authorized Abbreviations, Brevity Codes, and Acronyms This revision-- o Contains new and revised abbreviations, brevity codes , and acronyms. o Incorporates chapter 4, sections I and II of the previous regulation into chapters 2 and 3. o Redesignates chapter 5 of the previous regulation as chapter 4. USAPA EPS - * FORMAL * TF 2.45 05-21-98 07:23:13 PN 2 FILE: r130.fil Headquarters Army Regulation 310–50 Department of the Army Washington, DC 15 November 1985 Effective 15 November 1985 Military Publications Authorized Abbreviations, Brevity Codes, and Acronyms has been made to highlight changes from the a p p r o v a l f r o m H Q D A ( D A A G – A M S – P ) , earlier regulation dated 15February 1984. ALEX, VA 22331–0301. Summary. This regulation governs Depart- m e n t o f t h e A r m y a b b r e v i a t i o n s , b r e v i t y Interim changes. Interim changes to this codes, and acronyms. regulation are not official unless they are au- thenticated by The Adjutant General. Users Applicability. This regulation applies to el- will destroy interim changes on their expira- ements of the Active Army, Army National Guard, and U.S. -
Biological Weapons During the Cold War
Biological Weapons During the Cold War Lecture No. 4 1. Outline • At the end of World War II – Slides 2 - 3 • The US Programme – Slides 4 - 11 • The Anti-Crop Aspect of US Activities – Slides 11 - 16 • The Soviet Programme – Slides 17 - 20 2. At the End of the War • Canadian concerns – “…in the spring of 1944…intelligence reports indicated that the German military had added botulinus toxin to its arsenal…” – “…Canada’s military leaders were also impressed by …experiments which had demonstrated why botulinus toxin was an effective weapon…” 3. Botulinum Toxin as a Biological Weapon • “Botulinum toxin is the most poisonous substance known….the toxin is a zinc proteinase that cleaves 1 or more of the fusion proteins by which neuronal vesicles release acetylcholine into the neuromuscular junction.” • “…In a large outbreak of botulism, the need for mechanical ventilators, critical care beds, and skilled personnel might quickly exceed local capacity and persist for weeks or months…” 4. Stages of the US Programme • Research and Planning (1946 – 49) • Expansion during the Korean War (1950 – 53) • Reorganisation (1954 – 58) • The Limited War Period (1959 – 62) • Adaptation to Counter insurgency (1963 – 68) • Disarmament and Phased Down (1973 – 77) 5. 1946 - 1949 • “When World War II ended, the CWS (Chemical Warfare Service) had as its major mission preparedness for CW and BW in the context of a policy of retaliation only…” • …Activities were concentrated on BW agent research and defensive aspects; some applied research on dissemination devices; the collation and digestion of the large scale R&D effort carried out during World War II; and the formation of sound research and development program frameworks...” 6. -
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. -
Disposal of Chemical Weapons: Alternative Technologies (Part 4 of 8)
Chapter 2 The Army’s Chemical Weapons Disposal Program Percentage THE U.S. ARMY’S CHEMICAL Site Iocation of total WEAPONS STOCKPILE Tooele Army Depot, UT,. 42.3 Pine Bluff Arsenal, AR. 12.0 Umatilla Depot, OR... 11.6 Geography and Distribution Pueblo Depot, CO. 9.9 Anniston Army Depot, AL.. 7.1 The chemical weapons (CW) stockpile is located Johnston Island, South Pacific . 6.6 on Army bases at eight continental U.S. sites (see Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 5.0 Newport Army Ammunition Plant, IN...... 3.9 figure 2-1) and at Johnston Island in the Pacific Lexington-Blue Grass Army Depot, KY. 1.6 Ocean (717 nautical miles southwest of Hawaii). It is distributed as follows (by percentage of chemical The stockpile includes chemical agents stored in agent): bulk containers without explosives and propellants, as well as rockets, land mines, mortars, cartridges, Figure 2-1—U.S. Chemical Weapons Stockpile Distribution I Newport Army I Ammunition Plant I VX - TC / (3.9%) Umatilla Depot HD - TC GB -P, R, B VX - P, R, M, ST (1 1.6%) Tooele Army Depot Lexington- H-P Blue Grass Army HD -C, P, TC HT -C, P GB -C, P, R, B, TC GB - P, R, TC (42.3%) VX -P, R (1 .6%) Pueblo Depot HD -C, P Anniston Army HT - C Depot (9.9%) Pine Bluff HD -C, P, TC Arsenal HT - C HD -C, TC GB -C, P, R GB, VX, H, HD, HT = Chemical agents. HT - TC VX -P, R, M GB - R (7.1%) TC = Ton container VX - R, M R = Rockets (12.0%) M = Mines ST= Spray tanks B = Bombs C = Cartridges P = Projectiles SOURCE: U.S. -
![82 Stat. ] Public Law 90-408-July 21, 1968 367](https://docslib.b-cdn.net/cover/3002/82-stat-public-law-90-408-july-21-1968-367-4083002.webp)
82 Stat. ] Public Law 90-408-July 21, 1968 367
82 STAT. ] PUBLIC LAW 90-408-JULY 21, 1968 367 (2) Section 5814 of such title is amended by striking out paragraph 5°us*c's3^i^ 40, and by inserting in lieu thereof the following new paragraph: "'(40) Deputy Director, National Science Foundation." (3) Section 5316 of such title is amended by striking out paragraph ^° ^*^* '*^'^' (66), and by inserting in lieu thereof the following new paragraph: "(66) Assistant Directors, National Science Foundation (4)." (4) The amendments made by this subsection (and the amendments Effective date. made by sections 3 and 4 of this Act insofar as they relate to rates of basic pay) shall take effect on the first day of the first calendar month which begins on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. (b) Section 902(c) of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 ^ ^'^^ l^^^- is amended by striking out "$50" and inserting in lieu thereof "$100". SEC. 16. Except as otherwise specifically provided therein, the amendments made by this Act are intended to continue in effect under the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 the existing offices, pro cedures, and organization of the National Science Foundation as provided by such Act, part II of Reorganization Plan Numbered 2 of 1962, and Reorganization Plan Numbered 5 of 1965. From and after ^^ ^t^' 1254. the date of the enactment of this Act, part II of Reorganization Plan note. ^^^'^ Numbered 2 of 1962, and Reorganization Plan Numbered 5 of 1965, 79 stat. 1323. shall be of no force or effect; but nothing in this Act shall alter or ^^ "^^ ^^^^ affect any transfers of functions made by part I of such Reorganiza note.