Reptile & Amphibian Forums

EPA Fines Army Over Nerve Gas Release

2 hours, 57 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - The U.S. Army and a contractor were fined nearly $52,000 for releasing a deadly chemical weapon on a wildlife sanctuary in the Pacific Ocean, federal environmental officials announced Wednesday.

An unknown quantity of VX nerve agent was released in August 2002 at a chemical weapons disposal facility on Johnston Atoll, the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites)'s office in San Francisco said. The release occurred when a tray holding remnants of a VX shell was improperly loaded into an incinerator.

Exposure to the agent can cause paralysis and death within minutes, but there were no known exposures or reports of harm to any person or any wildlife, said Dean Higuchi of the EPA.

The atoll, located 825 miles southwest of Honolulu, is a national a bird sanctuary. It also held more than 6 percent of the nation's stockpile of chemical weapons — 412,000 different types of explosives, mustard and nerve agents. Congress ordered the weapons destroyed in 1986.

Disposal began in 1990 at a facility jointly operated by the Army and its contractor, Washington Group International of Boise, Idaho. Neither the Army nor Washington Group admitted wrongdoing as part of the fine.

The Army had agreed to pay nearly $400,000 for previous violations in 1994 and 2000 involving VX and sarin gas.

More than 4 million pounds of chemical weapons and agents have been destroyed on Johnston Atoll since 1990. The Army has dismantled the facility and is in the process of restoring the site to its natural role as a wildlife refuge.

There were no death or illness, and they received a fine? How do they know there was an "illegal" release when there were no "results" of that release? And if nothing was harmed in any way, why were they being fined? And who gets the money from the fine? Do I get some of my tax money back?

Let's see, I pay taxes to the govt. They give some money to the military. The military gets fined? Does that money now go back into the general fund? And if so, how is that a penalty for the military exactly? Did someone in the military not get their paycheck? If so, $400,000 is a lot of missed pay checks! (At least this helped the military to spend all of their funds that year, so they can get more money next year.)

That must be one of the strangest stories I have ever read.

Rodney

In Phoenix it is illegal to shoot a gun into the air. If they catch you, they fine you. They don't check to see if you killed someone, they just fine you. The only thing that is truely bizarre is your inability to comprehend even the most simple of things.

So, do they fine you if no gun shot is heard, no shell is found, but the only evidence they have is that you have a gun in your possesion? I doubt it!

I moved some cash from my savings account into my checking account today, I guess I can consider that the same thing as a fine on the military. My savings was "fined", and my checking got the funds! I am soooo poor now, after having that fine. No, wait! I still have the same amount of cash! Phew!--LOL.

Money was moved to the military, then it was moved from the military, big deal.

How do you fine a government agency as a punishment, when no one in the government is really hurt by the fine? Another reason the private sector is always so much more efficient and successful than any govt. agency. They not only care about their business succeeding, but they have to compete with someone else to survive. Think this fine hurt the military in any way?

And then there is the liberal media bias raising its ugly head again. Who cares that this occured on an island that is a bird sanctuary? They are basically saying that nothing bad happened, and they then try to say how bad this nothingness is because it occured in a sanctuary, to try and get public sympathy for nothing bad happening?

Rodney

Nothing harmed?? That's the part about this thatI just don't get. Birds are notoriously susceptable to poisons.

I know this because my mother (who took in hundreds of wild birds as part of a rescue group) lost 16 one time because Orkin sprayed (a so called harmless spray)in her house.

That quantity of gas should have resulted in a massive kill, unless the birds weren't present in the sanctuary and the gas had an extremely short life.

They would know how much was lost from leakage though because the amounts are carefully monitored...Unless the loss only occured on paper (math error).

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

As you know, I raise birds for a living, so I know quite a bit about them. (and reptiles and insects as a side business). Birds have been used for a very long time to detect airborne chemicals due to their sensitivity, primarily due to their enormous lungs and air sac system, extremely effective respiratory system, high respiratory rate, and high metabolism, etc. This enormous efficiency/gas transfer rate, is need to supply oxygen to their enormous muscles when flying. We all know about the canary in the mine shaft to detect gas.

What bothers me is, not only is what is probably the most sensitive animal to gasses and poisons not effected at all by this "release" in a sanctuary, but the article states that an "unknown quantity was released", there were no effects seen--to any person or animal, and someone got fined when they can't even prove that "any" was released? And since they have no idea of the quantity, how do they really know that any was released in the first place? Just sounds like another environmentalist scare story to me. Someone is trying to make another newstory where none exists.

Rodney