FEDS FORCED TO ACT ON GROOM LAKE

The government must either declassify an EPA report about the base 
or seek a formal exemption.

Las Vegas Review-Journal, Sept. 2, 1995

By Warren Bates

A federal judge is forcing the government to either declassify an 
Environmental Protection Agency inspection of the U.S. Air Force's 
operating location near Groom Lake or seek a presidential 
exemption that would keep the information secret.

The ruling, filed in federal court Friday by U.S. District Judge 
Philip Pro, stems from a lawsuit filed by workers against the EPA 
for noncompliance with environmental standards at the Lincoln 
County base, 35 miles west of Alamo.

Jonathan Turley, the attorney handling the case, said Pro's 
decision would have national significance in part because 
government agencies will no longer be able to arbitrarily decide 
what is and is not classified material.

"We believe this establishes a precedent that goes beyond this 
case ... national security (claims) do not trump domestic laws," 
Turley said. "The government can no longer have nameless, faceless 
bases.

"Today these workers were vindicated."

Government lawyers, in arguing that the case should be thrown out 
entirely, had contended that classified information from the EPA's 
March inspection of the base was not required to be made public 
under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

The EPA had given its report to the Air Force, which promptly 
termed the information a potential threat to national security, 
putting it under wraps. Government lawyers said it should remain 
there and refused to say anything other than the base was 
compliance with EPA requirements.

U.S. Department of Justice lawyers Richard Sarver and Russell 
Young had argued that if the information was made available under 
the Resource Act, it would essentially repeal executive orders 
restricting the public's access to national security information.

Pro noted it is a felony to spill national secrets and that 
repealing executive orders is something courts generally shy away 
from.  But he said the Resource Act language was clear and if the 
military wanted to get around it, they could always seek a 
presidential exemption.

The judge gave the EPA until Oct. 2 to decide whether it would 
declassify the information or seek the exemption.

Government spokesman Jim Sweeney could not be reached late Friday 
for comment and Air Force spokesman, Col. Tom Boyd, was on 
assignment in Japan.

"On Oct. 2, citizens will learn they have a new federal facility," 
Turley said of the base, which he claims is known widely within 
government circles as Area 51, an allegation the military denies. 
"The president will now have to
personally exempt this facility by name, or order the military to 
operate it under the same rules as other (bases)."

The lawsuit claimed that for years, environmental crimes such as 
open pit burning of chemicals were taking place without any type 
of monitoring by the EPA. The March inspection, Pro said, was 
conducted "no doubt because of this litigation."

The United States prevailed on its request to throw out part of 
the lawsuit on grounds that because the inspection was done, the 
workers' claims were moot. Government lawyers said the Resource 
Act only covered current or future environmental operations and 
because the facility was in compliance with EPA inspection 
standards, the workers had no claim.

Turley had argued that part of the lawsuit should remain alive 
because there were still factual issues in dispute, such as the 
contentiousness over the name of the base or the completeness of 
the inspection.

Pro, in the ruling, acknowledged that Turley had not seen much of 
the classified documents. He said his own access was "not so 
limited" and that a review of sealed material showed there were 
"no genuine issues of fact" in dispute.

Turley said he is not bothered by the possibility the government 
might simply go to President Clinton and get its exemption.

"If the president wishes to deprive the public of environmental 
information or allow the military to circumvent the law, he will 
have to do so publicly and face the political consequences," he 
said. "He will have to do so in dozens of cases."

The law professor at George Washington University said the 
government has vigorously fought the idea of asking for an 
exemption because if one was needed for the Groom Lake facility, 
others would have to be obtained for other federal facilities that 
are in noncompliance with environmental standards.

Turley has a similar suit pending against the U.S. Air Force that, 
unlike the EPA case, seeks monetary damages on behalf of workers 
who allegedly contracted injuries or disease because of 
environmental waste violations.

He said he believed Pro's ruling strengthened the chances that 
case surviving government challenges.

###

REPRODUCED WITHOUT PERMISSION