TITLE:  NATIONAL SECURITY DEFENSE CUT FROM GROOM LAWSUIT

PUBLICATION:  Las Vegas Review-Journal

DATE:  Nov. 11, 1994

AUTHOR:  Keith Rogers

Government attorneys retreated Thursday [Nov. 10] from their plan 
to use national security as a defense to prevent two lawsuits from 
proceeding against the secret Groom Lake air base in Lincoln 
County.

In a conference hearing in Las Vegas, U.S. District Judge Philip 
Pro granted a request by Justice Department lawyer Richard Sarver 
to withdraw the government's defense, which was based on the 
military and state-secrets privilege.

It was the first time the government has tried to dismiss a case 
on jurisdictional grounds, said plaintiff's attorney Jonathan 
Turley, a George Washington University law professor who directs 
the Environmental Crimes Project at the university's National Law 
Center.

Sarver acknowledged during the hourlong, pretrial conference that 
invoking the privilege was premature, because no evidence had been 
presented that could be challenged on the grounds it needs 
protection for national security reasons.

Sarver, as he was leaving the Foley Federal Building, declined to 
comment on his strategy change.  He offered only a general 
comment, saying the United States supports and abides by all 
environmental laws at its federal facilities.

He also declined in court proceedings to acknowledge the existence 
of the base, sometimes called Area 51, 35 miles west of Alamo on 
the Groom Dry Lake bed.

Pro asked Sarver, "What about the existence of the facility?"

Sarver replied, "That is a subject probably better taken up at 
another time.  This it not the right time to do it."

Air Force officials, however, released a statement Thursday 
saying, "There is an operating location near Groom Dry Lake," but 
some operations in the Nellis Range Complex "remain classified and 
cannot be discussed."

Sarver also told Pro that the government's negotiations with 
Turley for an out-of-court settlement were "almost DOA"--dead on 
arrival--for Thursday's pretrial conference.

Turley said, "The admission of the Department of Justice that the 
use of the privilege was premature will clear the way for 
discovery."

As for Sarver's comments about all government facilities abiding 
by the nation's environmental laws, Turley said, "I have 
plaintiffs with injuries who would strongly disagree. The injuries 
were not brought about by compliance with federal laws.

Turley represents the family of Helen Frost, a Las Vegas widow of 
one former Groom Lake base worker, and six other former workers at 
the base.  The former workers, who the court has allowed to use 
fictitious names, claim they were injured from toxic chemicals 
that were burned at the base during the 1980s in defiance of 
environmental laws that prohibit open-pit burning of hazardous 
wastes.

The first case, described in court papers as "the EPA case," was 
filed Aug. 2 in federal court in the District of Columbia on 
behalf of six John Does.  It names U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency Administrator Carol Browner as a defendant, claiming she 
failed to inspect the base for compliance with the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act.

The other lawsuit, "the Air Force case," filed Aug. 15 in federal 
court in Las Vegas, names as defendants Defense Secretary William 
Perry, National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, and Air Force 
Secretary Sheila Widnall.  It claims these official used secrecy 
to hide hazardous waste violation that resulted in injuries to 
Frost's late husband, Robert, and six John Does.

At Thursday's conference, Pro denied Sarver's request to postpone 
the EPA case even though Sarver suggested the government could 
"render the EPA case moot" by performing the inspections Turley 
had requested.

Sarver said he intends to file a motion to dismiss the EPA case.

Pro set a May 10 deadline for the parties to complete discovery.  
He also referred Sarver and Turley to U.S. Magistrate Judge Roger 
Hunt to schedule a settlement conference and gave the government 
an extension until Wednesday to respond to Turley's change-of-
venue motion.

[End of article]

 ----

Note:

"Turley's change-of-venue motion" refers to his request to have 
the trial moved back to Washington, closer to both the defendants 
and Turley.

--psychospy@aol.com

###