2
2
0
Air Force agrees to $219,000 fine in alleged mercury cover-up
Salt Lake Tribune - Online, The
Workers at the military base mishandled waste mercury in ways that allowed 60 pounds of the volatile metal to leak seven years ago — and then covered up the misconduct.
State regulators tagged the base with a notice of violation in March 2012, alleging various violations associated with improper storage, labeling and handling of mercury, a dangerous neurotoxin.
Base managers formally contested the allegations, but last month reached a settlement that is subject to public comment through Oct. 27 and approval of the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Control Board.
The proposed settlement says the Air Force admits no wrongdoing.
Hill officials declined comment while the proposed settlement remains under review.
"We are committed to complying with environmental laws and regulations and being a good environmental steward and community neighbor," said spokeswoman Barbara Fisher of the 75th Air Base Wing. "We will continue to work closely with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality to finalize this issue."
DEQ considered the alleged violations "major" deviations from the base's waste-handling permit because they could have threatened the health of the public and workers. The mercury spilled inside a base building and on the ground, potentially endangering groundwater.
A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency investigation found the waste was put in a container and buried before being moved into another building.
"Because the spill was not reported, HAFB's spill-response plan was not followed, potentially exposing personnel to mercury vapors and liquid mercury," states a report prepared by the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste. "There was no evidence that workers who cleaned up this spill wore protective gear or that the spill was properly cleaned up."
Environmental activists Wednesday were unhappy with what they say is a lack of transparency in how the mercury case and other notices of violations are settled with environmental regulators.
"There's such a lag between these violations of the permit and by the time any consequences are bought to bear. It has much less impact than it should have," said Brian Moench, president of Utah Physicians for a Health Environment. "Two-hundred thousand dollars is a drop in the bucket. These settlements don't get publicized. That's part of the problem. The process doesn't engage the public like it should."
After a whistleblower disclosed the spill at the base in 2011, investigators found mercury "hidden" in two buildings not permitted for storing such a hazardous chemical, according to DEQ documents. Moreover, the mercury was stored in inappropriate bottles that were not labeled or dated.
Most of the negotiated penalty payment, to be signed by the 75th's commander, Col. Ronald Jolly, could be credited toward two environmental projects at the base. One is a conversion of a vapor degreaser to a cleaner washing system and the other is a household hazardous waste collection program for base residents.
Salt Lake Tribune - Online, The
Workers at the military base mishandled waste mercury in ways that allowed 60 pounds of the volatile metal to leak seven years ago — and then covered up the misconduct.
State regulators tagged the base with a notice of violation in March 2012, alleging various violations associated with improper storage, labeling and handling of mercury, a dangerous neurotoxin.
Base managers formally contested the allegations, but last month reached a settlement that is subject to public comment through Oct. 27 and approval of the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Control Board.
The proposed settlement says the Air Force admits no wrongdoing.
Hill officials declined comment while the proposed settlement remains under review.
"We are committed to complying with environmental laws and regulations and being a good environmental steward and community neighbor," said spokeswoman Barbara Fisher of the 75th Air Base Wing. "We will continue to work closely with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality to finalize this issue."
DEQ considered the alleged violations "major" deviations from the base's waste-handling permit because they could have threatened the health of the public and workers. The mercury spilled inside a base building and on the ground, potentially endangering groundwater.
A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency investigation found the waste was put in a container and buried before being moved into another building.
"Because the spill was not reported, HAFB's spill-response plan was not followed, potentially exposing personnel to mercury vapors and liquid mercury," states a report prepared by the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste. "There was no evidence that workers who cleaned up this spill wore protective gear or that the spill was properly cleaned up."
Environmental activists Wednesday were unhappy with what they say is a lack of transparency in how the mercury case and other notices of violations are settled with environmental regulators.
"There's such a lag between these violations of the permit and by the time any consequences are bought to bear. It has much less impact than it should have," said Brian Moench, president of Utah Physicians for a Health Environment. "Two-hundred thousand dollars is a drop in the bucket. These settlements don't get publicized. That's part of the problem. The process doesn't engage the public like it should."
After a whistleblower disclosed the spill at the base in 2011, investigators found mercury "hidden" in two buildings not permitted for storing such a hazardous chemical, according to DEQ documents. Moreover, the mercury was stored in inappropriate bottles that were not labeled or dated.
Most of the negotiated penalty payment, to be signed by the 75th's commander, Col. Ronald Jolly, could be credited toward two environmental projects at the base. One is a conversion of a vapor degreaser to a cleaner washing system and the other is a household hazardous waste collection program for base residents.
Environment
Ethics
Leadership
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
Seems like an internal Air Force investigation (Army would call it a 15-6 or a Commander's Inquiry, I believe) might be in order to get to the bottom of who did what and when. Willful negligence should be addressed. Covering up an accident should be addressed. It seems that the Air Force (base managers) contested the allegations (per the story).
I'm somewhat torn on this because, on the one hand, if there is a cover-up, that's just plain wrong. On the other hand, environmental "activists" can carry things a bit far. The actual truth is probably somewhere in the middle of it all.
Bottom line is that the Air Force should have been up front from the start.
I'm somewhat torn on this because, on the one hand, if there is a cover-up, that's just plain wrong. On the other hand, environmental "activists" can carry things a bit far. The actual truth is probably somewhere in the middle of it all.
Bottom line is that the Air Force should have been up front from the start.
(3)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
CW5 Montgomery--yes sir! AR 15-6..however, like many IG findings, can be no action taken at descretion of cdr...hence another "cover up"
(0)
(0)
SSG William Patton
Mr. Montgomery, I have to agree the true is somewhere between the two positions. The tree huggers go way beyond outrage over the most simple violations. Some E-2 may have been involved in disposing of the mercury, spilled it and paniced. I saw that happen in Utah where WMBs were tested. A gun crew member dropped a 105mm shell with Sarin gas and it sprang a leak. We were all in full chemical gear, so no one was hurt. The shell was placed in a special container to prevent the gas from contaminating the air and the mission continued. I was never interviewed about the incident, which is far more hazardous than mercury. I can only assume the incident went unreported, but then this was well before we had the EPA or any state agency involved with hazardous materials. Accidents do happen and people who are not well trained are sometimes involved and do not know what to do.
(3)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
SSG Patton...interesting....how long ago was that (I was involved in destruction of such weapons).
(0)
(0)
SSG William Patton
SGM Coberly, That was in 1968 at Dugway Proving Grounds, Utah. Every Thursday was CBR day for all sorts of dignitaries from our government and our NATO allies. We tested all sorts of nasty things, guaranteed to kill you graveyard dead. I have had growths come up on different parts of my body for the last 46 years and stay awhile before going away. No one has a clue what they are and according to my medical records from that period, nothing happened. I know of soldiers who were killed by that crap during testing, but the WMDs were never the reason for the death. Also, I would not be surprised if we did not have some of those weapons stashed away for just in case we need them.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
First of all, I think the commander did what was necessary. I don't have all the info, but what I've read, it sounds like the base commander let the investigation run it's course and owned up to what was found/discovered.
As to the coverup - they're never worth it. It always costs more to coverup than to fess up.
As to the coverup - they're never worth it. It always costs more to coverup than to fess up.
(1)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
CPL Radzinski...Unofficially, it seems that nearly any military base around the world has similar issues, not just in the US. When we moved into former soviet areas in Croatia it was a real toxic dump; you should see former East Germany--they just buried or left 50 gal drums of toxics, never had real sewers--vodka not only numbed their brains but helped to disinfect their bodies....at least that was the theory they told us.
(2)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
P01 Medley--Bingo, you win a prize. Always better to go ugly early and take the air out of the argument. It's never wrong, it's never to late to do the right thing!
(0)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
SGM (Join to see) I appreciate the complement. I've always said it's better to be open about such things. Hiding the issue or trying to cover up something that was covered up to start with is never a good thing. In the first place the press can smell B.S. faster than a church lady smells a fart in the back pews during services.
I see this all the time when dealilng with the public during a Presidentially Declared Disaster - someone asks a question and our guy doesn't know the answer and he punts with some tired cliche' or the totally wrong answer - and it always blows up in our face. If you talk openly and honestly it's obvious to everyone you're talking to. One does not have to give the answers they want, but you never lie, you never try to cover up, you never promise something you can't provide or do. If you can do that, the public and the press will give you a break if you stumble on something like pronouncing someone's name horribly, using the wrong town's name in a speech or really screwing the pooch on something. Try covering something up...you always get caught.
I see this all the time when dealilng with the public during a Presidentially Declared Disaster - someone asks a question and our guy doesn't know the answer and he punts with some tired cliche' or the totally wrong answer - and it always blows up in our face. If you talk openly and honestly it's obvious to everyone you're talking to. One does not have to give the answers they want, but you never lie, you never try to cover up, you never promise something you can't provide or do. If you can do that, the public and the press will give you a break if you stumble on something like pronouncing someone's name horribly, using the wrong town's name in a speech or really screwing the pooch on something. Try covering something up...you always get caught.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
There is no such animal as a "Situational" cover up of any type.
As a former SA, there would be an investigation under AR15-6.
AR15-6 is: An investigation conducted by a single investigating officer (IO) using informal procedures
If called to assist I'd worked as an assistance to the IO.
But, depending on what is or may be found during the informal investigation there could be UCMJ violation noted too.
The punishment phase comes from the Post Commander
As a former SA, there would be an investigation under AR15-6.
AR15-6 is: An investigation conducted by a single investigating officer (IO) using informal procedures
If called to assist I'd worked as an assistance to the IO.
But, depending on what is or may be found during the informal investigation there could be UCMJ violation noted too.
The punishment phase comes from the Post Commander
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google