vault backup: 2026-10-16 01:25:00

60 - PLACES/MILITARY_INSTALLATIONS/Area 51.md

@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ relations:
     role: "citizen suit against the Environmental Protection Agency over inspection and disclosure of reports on the site"
     fn: 2
 created: 2026-10-01
-updated: 2026-10-03
+updated: 2026-10-15
 ---
 
 Area 51 is the map designation, used in the Central Intelligence Agency's history of the U-2 and OXCART programs, of the strip at Groom Lake in [[Lincoln County, Nevada|Lincoln County]], Nevada. The government's own phrase in court and in presidential determinations is "the Air Force's operating location near Groom Lake."[^1][^2] The CIA's history of the program was released in a less redacted form in 2013.[^3]
@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ Title XXX of Public Law 106-65, the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999 (113 S
 
 ### Frost v. Perry and Kasza v. Browner
 
-Helen Frost, the widow of a former worker, and others proceeding as Does, who had worked at a classified operating location near Groom Lake, brought a citizen suit under the [[Resource Conservation and Recovery Act]] against the Air Force, [[Frost v. Perry]]; Stella Kasza and Does sued the [[Environmental Protection Agency]] for failing to inspect, inventory and disclose, [[Kasza v. Browner]]. The Air Force refused nearly all discovery as privileged, and Secretary of the Air Force [[Sheila Widnall]] invoked the military and state secrets privilege over categories of information including "security sensitive environmental data," with an unclassified declaration and a classified declaration reviewed by the court in camera; the court also reviewed a classified declaration of Air Force Vice Chief of Staff General [[Thomas S. Moorman Jr.]] The district court entered summary judgment for the Air Force because the privilege barred evidence on whether hazardous waste had been generated, stored or disposed of at the location. Frost argued on appeal, among other things, that the Secretary could not have personally reviewed all the information withheld and suggested that the privilege was used to cover up environmental crimes at the location. The EPA inspected the location from December 6, 1994 to March 10, 1995, after Kasza was filed; the court ruled that the statute contained no exception for classified information but that the President could exempt a facility, and EPA then obtained a presidential exemption. Cox News Service reported on August 16, 1994, in the [[St. Louis Post-Dispatch]], that [[Jonathan Turley]], a law professor at the George Washington University National Law Center, had sued the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to enforce environmental laws at a secret air base in Nevada. According to the report, Turley said he represented unidentified current and former workers at "Area 51," and the suit alleged that the burning of hazardous and toxic wastes at the base caused serious injuries to employees and at least one death, and that employees who handled hazardous wastes were refused protective clothing. The report said Turley would ask the United States District Court in Washington to force the EPA to inspect and monitor the base, that the complaint was under seal pending a ruling on the use of fictitious names for complainants who feared retaliation, and that an EPA spokesman said he had no information. It described the base as also known as "Dreamland," on the edge of Groom Dry Lake about 90 miles north of Las Vegas inside a restricted Air Force range, and quoted Turley as saying, "We want to establish that workers at secret bases should not be forced to rely on the arbitrary protections of the military." The portion read does not mention EG&G.[^22] The plaintiffs were represented by Turley and [[Joan Manley]] of George Washington University; the government by lawyers of the [[Department of Justice]]; and KLAS, Inc. appeared as amicus. The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit]] affirmed on January 8, 1998, remanding only attorney's fees and a sealing order, applying the privilege as defined in [[United States v. Reynolds]] (1953), and approved the "mosaic theory" under which seemingly innocuous information that is part of a classified mosaic may be withheld.[^2]
+Helen Frost, the widow of a former worker, and others proceeding as Does, who had worked at a classified operating location near Groom Lake, brought a citizen suit under the [[Resource Conservation and Recovery Act]] against the Air Force, [[Frost v. Perry]]; Stella Kasza and Does sued the [[Environmental Protection Agency]] for failing to inspect, inventory and disclose, [[Kasza v. Browner]]. The Air Force refused nearly all discovery as privileged, and Secretary of the Air Force [[Sheila Widnall]] invoked the military and state secrets privilege over categories of information including "security sensitive environmental data," with an unclassified declaration and a classified declaration reviewed by the court in camera; the court also reviewed a classified declaration of Air Force Vice Chief of Staff General [[Thomas S. Moorman Jr.]] The district court entered summary judgment for the Air Force because the privilege barred evidence on whether hazardous waste had been generated, stored or disposed of at the location. Frost argued on appeal, among other things, that the Secretary could not have personally reviewed all the information withheld and suggested that the privilege was used to cover up environmental crimes at the location. The EPA inspected the location from December 6, 1994 to March 10, 1995, after Kasza was filed; the court ruled that the statute contained no exception for classified information but that the President could exempt a facility, and EPA then obtained a presidential exemption. Cox News Service reported on August 16, 1994, in the [[St. Louis Post-Dispatch]], that [[Jonathan Turley]], a law professor at the [[George Washington University]] National Law Center, had sued the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to enforce environmental laws at a secret air base in Nevada. According to the report, Turley said he represented unidentified current and former workers at "Area 51," and the suit alleged that the burning of hazardous and toxic wastes at the base caused serious injuries to employees and at least one death, and that employees who handled hazardous wastes were refused protective clothing. The report said Turley would ask the United States District Court in Washington to force the EPA to inspect and monitor the base, that the complaint was under seal pending a ruling on the use of fictitious names for complainants who feared retaliation, and that an EPA spokesman said he had no information. It described the base as also known as "Dreamland," on the edge of Groom Dry Lake about 90 miles north of Las Vegas inside a restricted Air Force range, and quoted Turley as saying, "We want to establish that workers at secret bases should not be forced to rely on the arbitrary protections of the military." The portion read does not mention EG&G.[^22] The plaintiffs were represented by Turley and [[Joan Manley]] of George Washington University; the government by lawyers of the [[Department of Justice]]; and KLAS, Inc. appeared as amicus. The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit]] affirmed on January 8, 1998, remanding only attorney's fees and a sealing order, applying the privilege as defined in [[United States v. Reynolds]] (1953), and approved the "mosaic theory" under which seemingly innocuous information that is part of a classified mosaic may be withheld.[^2]
 
 President [[Bill Clinton]] signed Presidential Determination No. 95-45 on September 29, 1995: "I hereby exempt the Air Force's operating location near Groom Lake, Nevada from any Federal, State, interstate or local provision respecting control and abatement of solid waste or hazardous waste disposal that would require the disclosure of classified information concerning that operating location to any unauthorized person." It states that the exemption "shall be effective for the full one-year statutory period" and was published in the Federal Register on October 10, 1995.[^2][^23] The authorizing statute, 42 U.S.C. 6961(a), limits any such exemption to one year, and the Federal Register carries a renewal for each year from 1995 through 2003: Presidential Determination 96-54 of September 28, 1996 (published October 8, 1996), 97-35 of September 26, 1997 (October 8, 1997), a determination of September 25, 1998 reported in an Air Force notice of October 23, 1998, Presidential Determination 99-37 of September 20, 1999 (Air Force notice of October 26, 1999), 2000-30 of September 19, 2000 (October 5, 2000), 2001-27 of September 18, 2001 (October 4, 2001), 2002-30 of September 13, 2002 (Air Force notice of December 24, 2002) and 2003-39 of September 16, 2003 (October 21, 2003). Each text describes the location as the subject of litigation in Kasza v. Browner (D. Nev. CV-S-94-795-PMP) and Frost v. Perry (D. Nev. CV-S-94-714-PMP).[^24] The Federal Register's index returns no further document with the phrase "Groom Lake" after October 21, 2003.[^24]