Story Index | Area 51 Photos | Area 51 Maps

Group sues EPA over Groom Lake

A Washington, D.C., attorney filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the Environmental Protection Agency claiming it failed to inspect the Air Force's secret Groom Lake base in Lincoln County where workers have said they were injured by toxic fumes.

The lawsuit was filed by Jonathan Turley, George Washington University law professor, on behalf of six plaintiffs. The lawsuit names EPA Administrator Carol Browner as defendant.

EPA spokeswoman Wendy Butler said agency attorneys are reviewing the court papers "and have no comment at this time."

The plaintiffs, former workers at the base, 35 miles west of Alamo, are identified by fictitious names because "they may be subject to extrajudicial retaliation, harassment, and even physical harm as a result of their seeking judicial relief," said a court document that accompanied the complaint.

Turley, director of the pro bono Environmental Crimes Project at the university's National Law Center, said, "We believe we have compelling evidence of incineration of extremely hazardous materials at Groom Lake."

He said the materials include, but are not limited to, dioxins, trichloroethylene and dibenzofurans _ suspected cancer-causing agents linked to physical disorders ranging from liver damage to skin problems.

Other hazardous materials that former base workers have said were disposed illegally in open-air burn pits include methyl ethyl ketone, solvents, resins, coatings, electronic equipment, tires, hardeners, paints and scrap metals.

The former workers have said trucks hauling more than 3,000 partially filled barrels of liquid chemicals _ thought to be wastes from Stealth coatings knownas radar-absorbing materials _ routinely were hauled to the base during the 1980s, dumped in 300-foot-long trenches, doused with flammable liquids and ignited.

Helen Frost, the widow of a contract worker at the base, has claimed her husband's death in 1989 was hastened from his exposure to toxic fumes from the burn pits while he worked atop buildings at the base, also known as Area 51.

In his lawsuit, Turley said base workers were denied requests for protective clothing, including gloves, when they handled hazardous wastes.

Turley confirmed he has met with Air Force officials at the Pentagon during

the past five months to discuss resolving the case "and the underlying problems

at Groom Lake."

"The filing of this action obviously reflects my conclusion that legal action will be required to force the Air Force and other agencies to take adequate measures to protect current and former workers at Groom Lake from exposure to hazardous materials," Turley said in a telephone interview.

He said one of the central issues in the case is the Air Force's use of national security "to shield governmental misconduct, even potential crimes, from public disclosure or judicial review."

The Air Force has declined to comment about the base or acknowledge that it

exists though it has been reported by the aviation industry to be a test site for hypersonic spy planes and other high-speed, high-altitude aircraft paid for by "black budget" government funds.

Turley said the lawsuit is aimed at establishing that secrecy agreements do

not pre-empt environmental protections.

"We want to establish that workers at secret bases should not be forced to rely on the arbitrary protections of the military but should be able to go to court to receive remedies for violations," he said.

In one court paper, Turley claims that naming his clients would put them under "substantial danger, subject to retaliation by the government or possible physical attack and harassment from third parties in Nevada."

"Workers are further told that their telephones would be subject to government interception during and after their employment at the Groom Lake base," Turley said.

"This rarefied environment of secrecy and seclusion fostered abuses at the Groom Lake base among individuals who believed that they were beyond operations of the law," he said in the document that accompanied the complaint.

Rep. Jim Bilbray, D-Nev., a member of the House Select Intelligence Committee that oversees secret government installations, said he has been assured by Air Force officials that no hazardous or dangerous materials were disposed of at the base and that "EPA laws of the time were followed."

"Actually, what they did say to me is that they did not dispose of those items (radar-absorbing materials) while the Air Force was running the facility," Bilbray said.

But, Bilbray said he has not asked Air Force officials where waste materials from Stealth coatings were disposed.

"We never asked it because we never thought about it," Bilbray said. "When they denied that they were disposed at the site, I presumed they were disposed at another classified site (that) I presumed to be closer" to where the materials were produced, he said.

However, Bilbray noted that "the military is not above covering up mistakes

they've made."

He said he thinks the Air Force would resist allowing an independent group to collect soil samples from the base to discover if the open-pit burning occurred.

"I'm sure they can find people in the EPA who are qualified to go in," Bilbray said.