How would you handle a cover up situation?

2014-10-09T11:38:49-04:00

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.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2014 11:53 AM

2014-10-09T11:53:20-04:00

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.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2014 11:54 AM

2014-10-09T11:54:19-04:00

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.

Response by SGT Keith Boettcher made Jan 5 at 2016 8:56 PM

2016-01-05T20:56:46-05:00

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