[02/08/1996 - 03/18/1996]: 24194021-20060527F-001-004-2023

Page 3 of 4«»
Heads Up
BACKGROUND FYI ONLY:
Please call if you need further background. I also have press briefing
sheets (a few weeks old) from the USAF.
Plaintiffs, have more recently sought to argue that the Government was
hiding criminal conduct behind the state secrets privilege. The court on
January 31 denied plaintiffs motion to conduct discovery on this allegation,
without comment. While the applicable environmental law has criminal
The article presents the plaintiffs perspective of the case and is likely
the result of the district court's rulings against the plaintiffs. Among
other things the district court has ruled that the EPA has (subsequent to
the litigation) completed an inspection of the location in question and the
Air Force had conducted an inventory rendering at least one of the cases
moot, i.e., the Government has done what plaintiffs asked. The court has
also upheld the Air Force's assertion of the state secrets privilege over
information plaintiffs sought to discover and disclose -- the third aspect
of the suits.
The WSJ on page one has a lengthy article about ongoing litigation against
the Government at a classified Air Force facility in Nevada known as "the
operating location near Groom Lake." The article incorrectly refers to
"Area 51." We may get some inquiries, because as the article notes in the
very last paragraph, consistent with the applicable statutes. President
Clinton exempted the "operating location near Groom Lake" from any federal
or state laws governing solid and hazardous waste that would require the
disclosure of classified information. BUT NOTE: The President expressly
stated in his exemption that it was not intended to "limit the applicability
or enforcement of any requirement of law applicable to the Air Force's
operating Icoation near Groom Lake, Nevada, except thouse provisions, if
any, that would require the disclosure of classified information."
The two civil suits in question are "citizens suits" against the EPA and
against Secretary Perry, the Secretary of the Air Force and Tony Lake. In
essence, the suits challenge the Government's compliance with environmental
laws involving the storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste.
The article is grossly inaccurate and appears to have been planted in
response to recent rulings adverse to plaintiffs, including the dismissal of
one of the two companion lawsuits. It will, however, be difficult for you
to respond without knowing a great deal about the case, the Government's
position, and the signficant state secrets at stake. I recommend that you
refer all press inquiries to DOJ press person Jim Sweeney, 514-2008. He is
familiar with the case.
Subject: WSG Article on Groom Lake [UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Thursday, February 08, 1996 10:41 AM
314DB577.FIN