Documents / Official release
This file holds unclassified internal emails dated February 8 and March 18, 1996, from James E. Baker to public affairs and other staff, with brief replies. They give press guidance on a Wall Street Journal article and a 60 Minutes story about lawsuits over hazardous waste at the Air Force's operating location near Groom Lake, Nevada, which the media called Area 51. The emails report that on March 6 the district court dismissed the suit against Perry, Lake and Widnall on state secrets grounds, and they describe President Clinton's disclosure exemption for the site.
Page 3 of 3 •’A’’ BACKGROUND FYI ONLY: Please call if you need further background. I also have press briefing sheets (a few weeks old) from the USAF. 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. 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 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. 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 sanctions, I am at a loss as to the theory by which plaintiffs (driven by a local law school professor) can seek to undertake the Government's role as enforcement authority in the area of criminal sanctions. Moreover, as noted above, the court has ruled that the inventory and inspection requirements, (to the extent they are applicable), have been completed. 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. 314D9FFA.FIN
Not linked to a story yet.
Official release, from the nara collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. 13 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.