Fiscal Year 2005 Department of the Army Financial Statements and Notes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Chemical Weapons Conventions at 1
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. -
Letter L-Biographical and Necrological Index Cross Co., Ark
Letter L-Biographical and Necrological Index Cross Co., Ark. by Paul V.Isbell, Mar.2,2013 Index:Partial Abair, Flossie, 180 Davis, Shelia, Mrs., 66 Armstrong, Mary, Mrs., 142 Dennett, Sarah Ann m.Lackey, Mrs. Barksdale, Steven, 159 d.1902, 14 Batchelor, Nellie Ruth m.Loyd, Mrs., 180 Douglas, Tracie m.Lawrence, Mrs., 47 Betts, John Logan d.1924, 80 Draffen, Temfy b.1863-, 114 Betts, Sarah Lavina Boyd, Mrs. d.1918, 80 Dunlap, Jessie m.Lackey, Mrs. d.1984, 14 Bibens, Kenny, 159 Eskew, Judy Jacqueline m.Lindley, Mrs., Blake, Julia m.Like, Mrs., 112 117 Blaylock, Jeannie, Mrs., 110 Evans, Douglas, 53 Boone, Darlene m.Like, Mrs., 112 Fecho, Lisa m.Lamb, Mrs., 20 Brock, Rena Mae m.Lamb, Mrs., 22 Feyen, Carolyn McAllister, Mrs., 110 Burnett, Peggy, Mrs., 142 Flippo, Margaret m.Leverett, Mrs., 91 Butler, Ann, Mrs., 66 Funston, Bernice m.Lawrence, Mrs., 48 Cantrell, Pam m.Leverette, Mrs., 91 Gaar, Catherine Jane Blandenbaker, Mrs. Casteel, Mamie m.Logan, Mrs. d.1949, 138, d.1872, 138 140 Gaar, Staunton Wilhoite d.1869, 138 Castle, Juanita, Mrs., 143 Gaddis, Bob, 84 Chambers, Monroe, 143 Ginesta, Deborah m.Love, Mrs., 154 Chance, Lodusky Jane m.Lackey, Mrs. Graddy, Thelma Louise m.Larue, Mrs. d.1971, 14 d.1998, 37 Cheney, Emma m.Loveless, Mrs., 159 Green, Maude m.Couch, Mrs., 105 Compton, Myrtle m.Larue, Mrs. d.1985, 37 Harris, Delanie m.Massey, Mrs., 137 Cook, Jo m.Martin, Mrs., 66 Hastings, Anne m.Loveless, Mrs., 159 Cook, Mattie Virgie m.Logan, Mrs. d.1947, Heindselman, Ralph, 111 140 Henderson, Raymond, 111 Couch, Bernice Dunn, Mrs., 105 Henderson, Willie Francis, Mrs., 23 Couch, John H., 105 Hendrix, Sherry Ann m.Lindley, Mrs., 117 Couch, W. -
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT NOTICE OF PROPOSED RENEWAL OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY PERMIT UNDER THE ALABAMA HAZARDOUS WASTES MANAGEMENT AND MINIMIZATION ACT (AHWMMA) AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS PUBLIC NOTICE – 421 CALHOUN COUNTY Anniston Army Depot of Anniston, Alabama submitted to ADEM an application for renewal of its Hazardous Waste Facility permit for the 3 ANMC Conventional Waste Munitions Storage Igloos, 3 ANAD Industrial Waste Storage Buildings ,1 Roll-off Storage Building, 1 Open Burning Unit, 1 Open Detonation Unit, 1 Static Detonation Chamber (SDC), 3 SDC Service Magazines, 34 SDC Conventional Waste Munitions Storage Igloos, 1 Thermal Treatment Closed Disposal Process (TTCDP), 1 Energetic Treatment Unit (Flash Furnace), and 3 Rocket Motor Fire Units which are used to manage hazardous waste at its facility (EPA I.D. Number AL3 210 020 027 located at 7 Frankford Avenue, Anniston, Alabama 36201. The Department has determined the facility’s renewal application to be complete and has prepared a draft permit in accordance with State regulations. Anniston Army Depot operates a facility that treats and stores hazardous waste. The United States Department of the Army, Anniston Army Depot (Facility Owner, Facility Co-Permittee, Facility Operator); the United States Department of the Army, Anniston Munitions Center (Facility Co-Permittee, Facility Co- Operator (ANMC operations)); the United States Department of the Army, Anniston Field Office (AFO) (Facility Co-Permittee, Facility Co-Operator (Static Detonation Chamber (SDC) Site); and Washington Demilitarization Company LLC (Facility Co-Permittee, Facility Co-Operator (SDC site)) are the operators of the hazardous waste storage and treatment facility. The proposed permit renewal incorporates updates to the previous permit to reflect changes made to Part I thought IX of the AHWMMA permit. -
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. -
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, California Contract DACA05-97-D-0013, Task 0001
CALIFORNIA HISTORIC MILITARY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES INVENTORY VOLUME I: INVENTORIES OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ON CALIFORNIA MILITARY INSTALLATIONS Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, California Contract DACA05-97-D-0013, Task 0001 Prepared by: FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION Sacramento, California 95834 and JRP JRP HISTORICAL CONSULTING SERVICES Davis, California 95616 March2000 Calirornia llisloric Miliiary Buildings and Structures Inventory, \'olume I CONTENTS Page CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... i FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ ii TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... viii SERIES INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1 I. I Purpose and Goals ...................................................................................................... -
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. -
Dod 4000.24-2-S1, Chap2b
DOD 4LX)0.25-l -S1 RI RI CODE LOCATION AND ACTTVITY DoDAAD CODE COOE LOCATION ANO ACTIVITY DoDAAD COOE WFH 94TH MAINT SUP SPT ACTY GS WE 801S7 SPT BN SARSS-I SARSS-O CO B OSU SS4 BLDG 1019 CRP BUILDING 5207 FF STEWART &! 31314-5185 FORT CAMPBELL KY 42223-5000 WI EXCESS TURN-IN WG2 DOL REPARABLE SARSS 1 SARSS-1 REPARABLE EXCHANGE ACTIVITY B1OG 1086 SUP AND SVC DW DOL BLOC 315 FF STEWART GA 31314-5185 FORT CARSON CO 80913-5702 WFJ 226TH CS CO WG3 MAINTENANCE TROOP SARSS-1 SUPPORT SQUAORON BLDG 1019 3D ARMORED CALVARY REGIMENT FT STEWART GA 31314-5185 FORT BLISS TX 79916-6700 WFK 1015 Cs co MAINF WG4 00L VEHICLE STORAGE SARSS 1 SARSS-I CLASS N Iv Vll BLDG 403 F7 GILLEM MF CRP SUP AND SVC OIV 00L BLDG 315 FOREST PARK GA 30050-5000 FORT CARSON CO 80913-5702 W-L 1014 Cs co WG5 DOL ECHO OSU .SAFfSS 1 SARss-1 EXCESS WAREHOUSE 2190 WINIERVILLE RD MF CRP SUP ANO SVC DIV 00L BLOG 315 ATHENS GA 30605-2139 FORT CARSON CO 80913-5702 WFM 324TH CS BN MAINT TECH SHOP WG6 SUP LNV DOL CONSOL PRDP ACCT SARSS-1 MF CRP SUP AND SVC DIV DOL BLDG 315 BLOC 224 FORT CARSON CO 80913-5702 FT BENNING GA 31905-5182 WG7 HQS ANO HQS CO OISCOM SARSS2A WFN 724TH CS BN CA A DSU CL9 1ST CAV OW OMMC SARSS-I BLDG 32023 BLDG 1019 FORT HOOD TX 76545-5102 FF STEWART GA 31314-5185 WG8 71OTH MSB HSC GS WFP STOCK RECORD ACCT . -
Table 2: 1960 - 2017 Historic Hospital List by COUNTY
Table 2: 1960 - 2017 Historic Hospital List by COUNTY County Code Hospital Name/Address City Zip ALAMEDA 1 013 ACMC-HIGHLAND CAMPUS 1411 E. 31ST ST OAKLAND 94602 1 001 ALAMEDA HOSPITAL 2070 CLINTON AVE ALAMEDA 94501 1 002 ALTA BATES HOSPITAL AT ALBANY 1247 MARIN AVENUE ALBANY 94706 1 003 ALTA BATES MEDICAL CENTER 2450 ASHBY AVENUE BERKELEY 94705 1 004 BOOTH MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 2794 GARDEN STREET OAKLAND 94701 1 005 CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL 51ST & GROVE STREETS OAKLAND 94609 1 006 CIVIC CENTER HOSPITAL FOUNDATION 390 40TH STREET OAKLAND 94609 1 008 EDEN MEDICAL CENTER 20103 LAKE CHABOT RD CASTRO VALLEY 94546 1 009 ESKATON DOCTORS HOSPITAL OAKLAND 4600 E FAIRFAX AVENUE OAKLAND 94601 1 010 FAIRMONT HOSPITAL 15400 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SAN LEANDRO 94578 1 011 HAYWARD HOSPITAL 770 'A' STREET HAYWARD 94541 1 012 HERRICK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 2001 DWIGHT WAY BERKELEY 94704 1 015 KAISER HOSPITAL: OAKLAND 275 W. MACARTHUR BLVD OAKLAND 94611 1 014 KAISER HOSPITAL: SAN LEANDRO 2500 MERCED STREET SAN LEANDRO 94577 1 017 NAVAL HOSPITAL: OAKLAND 8750 MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD OAKLAND 94627 1 018 OAKLAND HOSPITAL CORPORATION 2648 EAST 14TH STREET OAKLAND 94601 1 019 OGORMAN INFANT 2587 - 35TH AVENUE OAKLAND 94601 1 020 PERALTA HOSPITAL 450 - 30TH STREET OAKLAND 94609 1 025 PHYSICIANS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 2800 BENEDICT DRIVE SAN LEANDRO 94577 1 007 SAN LEANDRO HOSPITAL 13855 E 14TH STREET SAN LEANDRO 94578 1 023 ST. PAUL'S HOSPITAL 813 J STREET LIVERMORE 94550 1 022 ST. ROSE HOSPITAL 27200 CALAROGA AVE HAYWARD 94540 1 021 SUMMIT MEDICAL CENTER 3100 SUMMIT STREET OAKLAND 94623 1 016 SUMMIT MEDICAL CENTER - HAWTHORNE 350 HAWTHORNE AVENUE OAKLAND 94609 1 781 THE BIRTH HOME 4441 RAILROAD AVE PLEASANTON 94566 1 024 VALLEYCARE MEDICAL CENTER 5555 W. -
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.