DOCSLIB.ORG

Record of Decision (Rods)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Record of Decision (Rods) Whiteman Air Force Base Environmental Restoration Program Final Final Record of Decision Decision for Southwest Ramp Expansion Area Sites FT-02, LF-11, LF-12, and SS-44 USAF Contract No. F41624-03-D-8595 Project No. YWHG2005-7020/7020A Task Order 0220 Prepared for Whiteman Air Force Base Missouri April 2005 Environmental Restoration Program Remedial Investigation for Whiteman Air Force Base Record of Decision Sites FT-02, LF-11, LF-12, and SS-44 April 2005 Prepared for 509 CES/CEVR, Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri and HQ ACC/CEVR, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia Prepared by CH2MHILL 727 North First Street, Suite 400 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 USAF Contract No. F41624-03-D-8595 Project No. YWHG2005-7020/7020A Task Order 0220 Copyright 2005 by CH2M HILL, Inc. Reproduction and distribution in whole or in part beyond the intended scope of the contract without the written consent of CH2M HILL, Inc. is prohibited. Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................v 1. Declaration Summary ..............................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Site Name and Location ..........................................................................................1-1 1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose .............................................................................1-1 1.3 Assessment of the Site .............................................................................................1-2 1.4 Description of Selected Remedy ............................................................................1-2 1.4.1 Sites FT-02, LF-12, and SS-44.......................................................................1-3 1.4.2 Site LF-11........................................................................................................1-4 1.5 Statutory Determinations........................................................................................1-5 1.6 ROD Data Certification Checklist..........................................................................1-6 1.7 Authorizing Signatures ...........................................................................................1-6 2. Decision Summary....................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Site Name, Location, and Description...................................................................2-1 2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities ..............................................................2-2 2.2.1 Site FT-02........................................................................................................2-2 2.2.2 Site LF-11........................................................................................................2-2 2.2.3 Site LF-12........................................................................................................2-3 2.2.4 Site SS-44 ........................................................................................................2-4 2.3 Community Participation .......................................................................................2-4 2.4 Scope and Role of Response Action ......................................................................2-5 2.4.1 Sites FT-02, LF-12, SS-44 ..............................................................................2-5 2.4.2 Site LF-11........................................................................................................2-5 2.5 Site Characteristics...................................................................................................2-5 2.5.1 Geology ..........................................................................................................2-6 2.5.2 Hydrogeology ...............................................................................................2-6 2.5.3 Surface Water ................................................................................................2-7 2.5.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ........................................................2-7 2.5.5 Fate and Transport of Contaminants.......................................................2-10 2.5.6 Conceptual Site Model...............................................................................2-11 2.6 Current and Potential Future Land and Resource Uses...................................2-13 2.6.1 Land Use ......................................................................................................2-13 2.6.2 Surface Water Resources ...........................................................................2-13 2.6.3 Groundwater Resources ............................................................................2-13 2.7 Summary of Human Health Risks.......................................................................2-13 2.8 Summary of Ecological Risks ...............................................................................2-14 2.9 Basis for Action.......................................................................................................2-14 2.10 Remedial Action Objectives..................................................................................2-14 2.10.1 Sites FT-02 and LF-12 .................................................................................2-15 2.10.2 Site SS-44 ......................................................................................................2-15 2.10.3 Site LF-11......................................................................................................2-15 2.10.4 Remediation Goals .....................................................................................2-15 MKE\052210002 III Whiteman Air Force Base ROD April 2005 RECORD OF DECISION 2.11 Description of Alternatives .................................................................................. 2-15 2.11.1 Sites FT-02, LF-12, and SS-44 .................................................................... 2-16 2.11.2 Site LF-11 ..................................................................................................... 2-17 2.12 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives ............................................................... 2-17 2.12.1 Sites FT-02, LF-12, and SS-44 .................................................................... 2-18 2.12.2 Site LF-11 ..................................................................................................... 2-20 2.13 Principal Threat Waste.......................................................................................... 2-20 2.14 Selected Remedy and Performance Measures................................................... 2-20 2.14.1 Remedy for Sites FT-02, LF-12, and SS-44: ICs (Supported by Groundwater Monitoring)..................................................................... 2-21 2.14.2 Remedy for Site LF-11: ICs........................................................................ 2-22 2.14.3 Additional Performance Measures to Maintain, Monitor, and Report on ICs for Sites FT-02, LF-11, LF-12, and SS-44...................... 2-22 2.14.4 Five-Year Review ....................................................................................... 2-23 2.15 Statutory Determinations ..................................................................................... 2-24 2.16 Documentation of Significant Changes.............................................................. 2-24 3. Responsiveness Summary ...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Stakeholder Comments and Lead Agency Responses ....................................... 3-1 3.2 Technical and Legal Issues..................................................................................... 3-1 4. References.................................................................................................................................. 4-1 Appendixes A Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements B Cost Estimates for Monitoring, Sites FT-02, LF-12, and SF-44 C Cost Estimates for Monitoring and Site Improvements, Site LF-11 Table 2-1 Summary of Site Contaminants ........................................................................................ 2-8 Figures 2-1 Base Location Map 2-2 Site Location Map 2-3 Site Features Map 2-4 Site FT-02 Chemicals Exceeding Screening Levels in Groundwater 2-5 Site LF-11 Chemicals Exceeding Screening Levels in Soil and Groundwater 2-6 Site LF-12 Chemicals Exceeding Screening Levels in Soil and Groundwater 2-7 Site SS-44 Chemicals Exceeding Screening Levels in Groundwater 2-8 Institutional Control Boundaries for Sites FT-02, LF-12, and SS-44 2-9 Presumptive Remedy Boundaries for Site LF-11 Waste Trenches IV ROD Sites FT-02, LF-11, LF-12, and SS-44 April 2005 Acronyms and Abbreviations AFB Air Force Base AFCEE Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements BEHP bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate CALM Cleanup Levels for Missouri CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations COC chemical of concern COPC chemical of potential concern 1,2-DCA 1,2-dichloroethane 1,2-DCE 1,2-dichloroethene DPT direct-push technology ERP Environmental Restoration Program FPTA Fire Protection Training Area FS Feasibility Study ft/yr feet per year HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment HQ ACC/CEVR Headquarters Air Combat Command, Environmental
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Brigadier General William R. Brooksher
    BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM R. BROOKSHER Retired Aug. 1, 1981. Brigadier General William R. Brooksher is Air Force chief of security police and commander of the Air Force Office of Security Police, Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M. He manages the employment of more than 40,000 security police deployed throughout the world. General Brooksher was born in Turkey, Ark., in 1930. He graduated from Yellville-Summit High School, Yellville, Ark., in 1948 and received his bachelor's degree from the University of Colorado in 1958 and his master's degree in business administration from the University of Missouri in 1970. He is also a graduate of the Air Command and Staff College and the National War College. General Brooksher entered the Air Force in January 1950as an enlisted member. He served as an instructor at the clerk typist technical school and as sergeant major in the Department of Administrative and Supply Training at Francis E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo. In March 1953 he entered Officer Candidate School at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, and was commissioned a second lieutenant in September 1953. He next attended the Personnel Officer School at Scott Air Force Base, Ill. After completion in January 1954, he was assigned to the 75th Air Installation Squadron, Chinhae Korea, as adjutant. He later assumed command of the unit. General Brooksher was adjutant for the 6th Weather Squadron (Mobile), Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., from March 1955 until December 1956. For the next 18 months he was a student at the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo., in the Air Force Institute of Technology program.
    [Show full text]
  • House Resolution No. 2966
    SECOND REGULAR SESSION House Resolution No. 2966 98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE HOSKINS. 6915H.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk WHEREAS, the F-35A Lightning II is the Air Force's newest generation fighter that 2 represents an enduring, long-term mission for the Air Force; and 3 4 WHEREAS, the United States Air Force announced in April 2016 it will be considering 5 where to locate its first Air Force Reserve F-35A Lightning II mission; and 6 7 WHEREAS, the Air Force announced it will consider four locations — Davis-Monthan 8 AFB, Arizona; Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida; Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, Fort 9 Worth, Texas; and Whiteman AFB, Missouri — as candidates to host the Air Force Reserve F- 10 35A; and 11 12 WHEREAS, the Air Force expects to select the preferred and reasonable alternatives in 13 the fall of 2016 with aircraft slated to begin arriving at the first location by the summer of 2023; 14 and 15 16 WHEREAS, the 442nd Air Force Reserve Fighter Wing currently operates the A-10 17 close air support fighter aircraft and has served numerous deployments with the utmost 18 distinction and dedication; and 19 20 WHEREAS, 2023 is when the Air Force Reserve is planning to first operate the F-35 21 which extends well beyond the planned mission conversion from the currently operated A-10 22 Thunderbolt; and 23 24 WHEREAS, the state of Missouri is committed to ensuring that the incredible men and 25 women of the 442nd Air Force Reserve Fighter Wing have an enduring mission; and 26 27 WHEREAS, the state
    [Show full text]
  • United States Air Force Abbreviated Aircraft Accident Investigation Board Report
    UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ABBREVIATED AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION BOARD REPORT MQ-1B, T/N 07-3207 20TH RECONNAISSANCE SQUADRON 432D WING CREECH AIR FORCE BASE, NEVADA LOCATION: CENTCOM AOR DATE OF ACCIDENT: 28 APRIL 2015 BOARD PRESIDENT: LT COL CHRISTOPHER M. OLSEN Abbreviated Accident Investigation, conducted pursuant to Chapter 11 of Air Force Instruction 51-503 United States Air Force Abbreviated Accident Investigation Board Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION MQ-1B, T/N 07-3207 CENTCOM AOR 28 April 2015 On 28 April 2015, at approximately 0116 hours Local (L), the mishap remotely piloted aircraft (MRPA), an MQ-1B Predator, tail number 07-3207, assigned to the 432d Wing, Creech Air Force Base, Nevada, and operated by personnel from the 20th Reconnaissance Squadron at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, exited the runway during initial takeoff from an airbase in the United States Central Command Area of Responsibility. The MRPA sustained extensive damage after it exited the runway and came to rest. Damage to the MRPA was estimated at $4.66 million. No injuries, deaths or damage to private property were reported from the mishap. On 27 April 2015, the mishap crew (MC) reported for duty, received a pre-mission brief, and was assigned two missions for their shift. The MC conducted a successful landing of a remotely piloted aircraft for their first mission. The MC stepped for their second mission at approximately 0030L (28 April 2015) to launch the MRPA. After establishing initial link communication with the MRPA on the default ‘wake-up’ frequency, the mishap pilot did not switch to the assigned operating frequency.
    [Show full text]
  • 94. Otis Air National Guard Base, MA, Lambert St. Louis International Airport Air Guard Station, MO, and Atlantic City Air Guard Station, NJ (AF 25) A
    DCN: 12053 94. Otis Air National Guard Base, MA, Lambert St. Louis International Airport Air Guard Station, MO, and Atlantic City Air Guard Station, NJ (AF 25) a. Realign Otis ANGB, MA. Distribute the fifteen F-15 aircraft assigned to the 102~ Fighter Wing's (ANG) to meet the Primary Aircraft Authorizations (PAA) requirements established by the Base Closure and Realignment recommendations of the Secretary of Defense, as amended by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. The 253d Combat Communications Group, and 267" Communications Squadron will remain in place at Otis, with 104" Fighter Wing at Barnes providing administrative support as the parent wing. An air sovereignty alert (ASA) facility will be constructed at Barnes Municipal Airport Air Guard Station, MA.' Firefighter positions from Otis will move to Barnes Municipal Airport Air Guard Station, MA. If the Commonwealth of Massachusetts decides to change the organization, composition and location of the 102~Fighter Wing (ANG) to integrate the unit into the Future Total Force, all other personnel allotted to the 102~Fighter Wing (ANG) will remain in place and assume a mission relevant to the security interests of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and consistent with the integration of the unit into the Future Total Force, including but not limited to air mobility, C4ISR, Information Operations, engineering, flight training or unmanned aerial vehicles. Where appropriate, unit personnel will be retrained in skills relevant to the emerging mission. This recommendation does not effect a change to the authorized end-strength of the Massachusetts Air National Guard. The distribution of aircraft currently assigned to the 102*Fighter Wing (ANG) is based upon a resource-constrained determination by the Department of Defense that the aircraft concerned will better support national security requirements in other locations and is not conditioned upon the agreement of the commonwealth.
    [Show full text]
  • Whiteman Airforce Base
    SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 2062 Whereas, the F-35A LighteningUnofficial II is the Air Force's newest generation fighter that represents an enduring, long-term mission for the Air Force; and Whereas, the United States Air Force announced in April 2016 it will be considering where to locate its first Air Force Reserve F-35A Lightening II mission; and Whereas, the Air Force announced it will consider four locations — Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona; Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida; Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, Fort Worth, Texas; and Whiteman AFB, Missouri — as candidates to host the Air Force Reserve F-35A; and Whereas, the Air Force expects to select the preferred and reasonable alternatives in the Fall of 2016 with aircraft slated to begin arrivingResolution at the first location by the summer of 2023; and Whereas, the 442nd Air Force Reserve Fighter Wing currently operates the A-10 close air support fighter aircraft and has served numerous deployments with the utmost distinction and dedication; and Whereas, 2023 is when the Air Force Reserve is planning to first operate the F-35 which extends well beyond the planned mission conversion from the currently operated A-10 Thunderbolt; and Whereas, the State of Missouri is committed to ensuring that the incredible men and women of the 442nd Air Force Reserve Fighter Wing have an enduring mission; and Whereas, the State of Missouri has shown its resolve and commitment to support the military's missions and personnel, having passed a seriesCopy of military family support initiatives, personnel
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2013 Working Copy Layout 1
    ANNUAL REPORT 2013 Adjutant General’s Department • KANSAS ARMY NATIONAL GUARD • KANSAS AIR NATIONAL GUARD • KANSAS DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • KANSAS HOMELAND SECURITY • CIVIL AIR PATROL ContentsContents Summary . 3 Agency History . 4 Overview 2013 . 7 Deployments . 11 Fiscal and Personnel . 12 Adjutant General’s Department Offices. 17 Sam Brownback Maj. Gen. Lee Tafanelli Governor of Kansas The Adjutant General State Offices . 19 Homeland Security . 20 Kansas Division of Emergency Management . 23 Special Programs and Facilities . 34 Joint Forces Headquarters Kansas . 38 Joint Offices . 41 Kansas Army National Guard . 47 KSARNG Offices . 61 Kansas Air National Guard. 71 Civil Air Patrol . 82 Index. 83 Adjutant General’s Department http://kansastag.gov/facebook.asp Kansas Army National Guard Kansas Air National Guard http://kansastag.gov/twitter.asp Joint Army/Air Public Affairs Office Phone: 785-274-1192 2722 S. Topeka Blvd. Cell: 785-806-4063 Rm 108 Email: [email protected] Topeka, KS, 66611 www.kansastag.gov Dear Reader, We invite you to read the latest edition of our agency annual report, which summarizes our department’s accom- plishments in 2013 and provides an overview of our agency structure, our leadership across the state, and our overall economic impact in Kansas. Our goal through this publication each year is to showcase the commitment of the men and women of this de- partment who are dedicated to doing their best for the state of Kansas. Our National Guard members and emer- gency management staff work hard to fulfill our mission of protecting life and property through planning, coordination and synchronization of state and federal resources and providing a ready military, emergency man- agement and homeland security capability for our state and nation.
    [Show full text]
  • US Air Force Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Sustainment, Modernization
    U.S. Air Force Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Sustainment, Modernization, and Recapitalization: Background and Issues for Congress -name redacted- US Air Force Fellow June 24, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R44103 U.S. Air Force ICBM Sustainment, Modernization, and Recapitalization Summary Determining the future role of U.S. nuclear weapons within the U.S. national security strategy is currently a topic of much debate. Many senior leaders are determined to design a strategy that defines a new role for U.S. nuclear weapons and makes those weapons responsive and relevant in today’s global threat environment. The current U.S. nuclear enterprise consists of a triad of options: Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs), and long-range bombers. All three legs of the nuclear triad are aging, since they were largely built to counter the threat of the Soviet Union. Policymakers in Congress and the Executive Branch are now deciding whether to modernize or replace parts of each leg. The Obama Administration’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) outlines its approach to reducing nuclear dangers and pursuing the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, while simultaneously advancing broader U.S. security interests. In his April 2009 speech in Prague, President Obama highlighted the current nuclear dangers in the global environment and declared the United States will “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” The Nuclear Posture Review provides the roadmap for implementing President Obama’s agenda for reducing nuclear risks to the United States, U.S. allies and partners, and the international community.
    [Show full text]
  • Gao-20-296, Defense Nuclear Enterprise
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees March 2020 DEFENSE NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE Systems Face Sustainment Challenges, and Actions Are Needed to Effectively Monitor Efforts to Improve the Enterprise GAO-20-296 March 2020 DEFENSE NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE Systems Face Sustainment Challenges, and Actions Are Needed to Effectively Monitor Efforts to Improve Highlights of GAO-20-296, a report to the Enterprise congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found In 2014, the Secretary of Defense The Department of Defense (DOD) continues to make progress in implementing directed two reviews of DOD’s recommendations to improve the nuclear enterprise. These recommendations nuclear enterprise. These reviews stemmed from DOD’s 2014 internal and independent nuclear enterprise reviews, made recommendations to address a U.S. Strategic Command 2014 memorandum, and an internal DOD 2015 report problems with leadership, on nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3). Since GAO last organization, investment, morale, reported—in November 2018—an additional five of the 247 sub- policy, and procedures, as well as recommendations from the 2014 reviews have been closed; 91 remain open. In other shortcomings that adversely that time, DOD has also closed two more of the 13 recommendations from the affected the nuclear deterrence 2015 review; six remain open. However, the key tracking tools DOD uses to mission. In 2015, DOD conducted a provide visibility on the status of the recommendations do not provide current and review focused on NC3 systems, which resulted in additional complete information. For example, for those items that are behind schedule, recommendations to improve NC3. many of the expected completion dates have not been updated to reflect when the items are now expected to be completed.
    [Show full text]
  • Brandon Clinic Expanding to Better Serve - Page 8
    Vol. 47, No. 4 Thursday, January 24, 2019 Commentary: page 2 Honoring Martin Luther King Brandon Clinic expanding to better serve - page 8 News/Features: page 3 Special warfare center opens News/Features: page 3 Virtual training tool at work Week in photos: page 4 Images from the week Photo by Airman 1st Class Frank Rohrig The Brandon Clinic will relocate to a new, larger facility in April to better serve more than 95,000 regional joint service Community: page 14 members, families and retirees. Events, Chapel, more... MACDILL THUNDERBOLT u Thursday, January 24, 2019 u WWW.MACDILLTHUNDERBOLT.COM u 1 COMMENTARY Continuing the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by Airman 1st Class Caleb Nunez 6th Air Mobility Wing Public Affairs “I have a dream…” When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke these famous words to that crowd of over 250,000 civil rights supporters from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, he delivered a speech that has captivated generations since with its vision of racial equality. As the third Monday of January approaches and we take a day to recognize and honor Dr. King and his philosophies, we must remember his dream of existing in a diverse society where the benefits of equality are enjoyed by all, re- gardless of race or circumstance. As I reflect upon this, I question myself: “Why does this speech continue to resonate almost 60 years later?” For me, it is because it captures the spirit of hope, even during difficult times, which remains as relevant as ever. From national security concerns to winning the fight, the challenges we face today as a coun- try are significant and the consequences of fail- ure are dangerous.
    [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]
  • For Black Airmen, Disparities Persist in USAF Life, Culture, and Promotions | 28
    Faster Pilot The Goldfein Years 37 | Long-range Strike 46 | Spaceplanes, Then and Now 55 Training 16 BLACK AND AIR FORCE BLUE For Black Airmen, disparities persist In USAF life, culture, and promotions | 28 July/August 2020 $8 Published by the Air Force Association STAFF Publisher July/August 2020. Vol. 103, No. 7 & 8 Bruce A. Wright Editor in Chief Tobias Naegele Managing Editor Juliette Kelsey Chagnon Editorial Director John A. Tirpak News Editor Amy McCullough Assistant Managing Editor Chequita Wood Senior Designer Dashton Parham Pentagon Editor Brian W. Everstine Tech. Sgt. Jake Barreiro Sgt. Jake Tech. Digital Platforms DEPARTMENTS FEATURES Senior Airman Editor 2 Editorial: Power 8 Q&A: The Future of the Expeditionary Force Cody Mehren Jennifer-Leigh Plays and signals to a B-2 Oprihory Competition Lt. Gen. Mark D. Kelly, incoming head of Air Combat Spirit bomber during a refuel- Senior Editor By Tobias Naegele Command, speaks with John A. Tirpak about the Rachel S. Cohen changes coming to USAF. ing stop at An- 3 Letters dersen Air Force Production Base, Guam. Manager 4 Index to 28 Leveling the Field Eric Chang Lee Advertisers By Rachel S. Cohen Photo Editor 7 Verbatim The Air Force has room for improvement in Mike Tsukamoto 10 Strategy & Policy: addressing racial bias in the promotion process. The Big Fighter 33 Black Airmen Speak Out Contributors Gamble John T. Correll, By Rachel S. Cohen Robert S. Dudney, 12 Airframes Mark Gunzinger, In a force where color shouldn’t matter, inequalities 16 World: Rebuilding Jennifer Hlad, persist. Alyk Russell Kenlan, the forge; Meet the LaDonna Orleans new CMSAF; Space 37 The Goldfein Years Force organization; Russian Intercepts; By John A.
    [Show full text]
  • Superstitions & Tradition
    Vol. 39 No. 1 Spring 2021 In this issue: - 13th CoC - 509th CoC - Gold Star Children - Gunners of the 13th Superstitions & Tradition Spring 2021 and presented him with an association challenge coin as he gave Charlie his membership information. Also, one of my most enjoyable activities at these changes of command is talking to the young squadron members in the squadron lounge and swapping stories. As mentioned in the last Invader, the board agreed to postpone the reunion to Spring 2022. Bob Parks thinks the early-mid April time frame would be best weatherwise, and before conficts with school graduations. We want to be able to attend a basic training graduation at Lackland AFB and those are held every third week. San Antonio’s “Fiesta Days” when hotel rates would spike, are usually held in April, so Bob needs to get frm dates on those events before frming up and recommending a reunion date to the board. We are still hopeful that a B-2 fy over can be arranged for the BMT graduation with our Bob Koehne association being recognized in the bleachers. Welcome to our 2021 Spring Invader. I know it’s I would like to note the recent passing of two running somewhat late, but I had asked Don to hold association members. Don Kassen was remembered off because of the pending 13th Bomb Squadron in our Winter Invader issue. Don and his wife Betty change of command at Whiteman AFB on May 21st. were regular attendees at our reunions for years, and Bob Parks and Charlie Breitzke, joined Carole and I to Don usually handcrafted very nice wooden gifts represent our association at the ceremony.
    [Show full text]