PUBLICATION: Las Vegas Review-Journal
DATE: May 24, 1995 (Page 7B)
AUTHOR: Warren Bates

[Reproduced without permission.]

The U.S. government is asking a federal judge to toss out a law suit filed by former workers at the Pentagon's operating location near Groom Lake, saying an environmental inspection has rendered workers' claims moot.

U.S. Department of Justice lawyers Russell Young and Richard Sarver argue that issues in a suit brought on behalf of former base workers and their families have been addressed now that an inspection has been done.

The families contend the Environmental Protection Agency violated federal law by failing to monitor the open-pit burning of hazardous chemicals at the facility, which is 35 miles west of Alamo in Lincoln County.

Their attorney, Jonathan Turley, said Tuesday that while his clients are willing to claim victory as a result of the inspections, issues of the lawsuit have not been addressed.

The EPA's inspection occurred between December and mid March. The government says the results are classified and is not disclosing details.

In an affidavit submitted to U.S. District Judge Philip Pro on Monday, Barry Breen, director of the EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office, termed the inspection thorough and said a final report was issued April 19.

"The Air Force has classified the EPA inspection report for national security reasons," Breen's statement read. "EPA has made the ... report available to appropriately cleared officials of the state of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources."

On Friday, Breen said, the EPA and the Air Force entered an agreement "setting forth future compliance" with environmental and national security laws at Groom Lake.

The agreement says the Air Force will submit an inventory to EPA every other year and will allow access to the base and classified information to the EPA "for purpose of administering the environmental laws of the U.S."

Annual inspections under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act will be conducted at the operating location, according to the agreement.

The act, Young and Sarver argued in court briefs filed Monday, does not require public disclosure of classified inspection and inventory information. Previously, U.S. Secretary of the Air Force Sheila Widnall said if environmental data were released, it would be a threat to national security.

But Turley said the government's move will be opposed.

"We are obviously pleased with the military's announcement that they will comply with federal law," Turley said. "The devil, however, is in the details. Since they refuse to even confirm the specific facility in the case, it remains wholly unclear which facility has been inspected and inventoried.

"The refusal to disclose any confirming evidence or documents is unprecedented and excessive under federal law," he said. "The law requires all federal facilities to make public reports of this information. A secret public report is something of an oxymoron."

Turley said the inspection was the first of its kind and done only in response to the lawsuit. The lack of prior inspections, he said was essentially an admission by the government of wrongdoing and the suit seeks compensation for injuries suffered for past injuries to workers.

"The military now acknowledges full responsibility but refuses any accountability. It is astonishing that the government can admit to federal crimes but refuse to release information on such conduct while prosecuting private individuals for similar offenses," Turley said.