George Washington University
Office of University Relations
Washington, DC 20052

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                   MEDIA CONTACT: NORA KELLEY
   November 1, 1994                         (202) 994-3087


GW LAW PROFESSOR JONATHAN TURLEY FILES 
FOR CHANGE OF VENUE FROM NEVADA TO WASHINGTON, D.C. 
IN GROOM LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME CASE

             Turley Cites Violation of Plaintiffs' 
Fifth Amendment Rights and
Lists Witnesses/Sources for Trial
 
     Washington, D.C. -- The George Washington University
National Law Center Professor of Environmental Law Jonathan
Turley, consonant with actions filed against the EPA, Department
of Defense and National Security Advisor, filed a motion today
for a change of venue in the case involving environmental crimes
at Groom Lake, a top-secret Air Force base in Nevada.  The change
of venue would nullify the court's earlier, unexpected decision
to relocate the case from Washington, D.C. -- where it was filed 
originally -- to Nevada.  The Project for Government Oversight,
another public interest group, is assisting Turley in his
investigation of the case.

     "The district of Nevada has only one tangible connection to
the basis of this suit: the location of Groom Lake Base, which is
over 100 miles from Las Vegas," says Turley.  "Since this base is
closed to both the court and the public, the advantage of having
the trial in Nevada is remote at best.  The prohibitive burden
for the Plaintiffs, however, may allow the government to avoid
accountability for egregious conduct through simple forum
selection."

     Turley argues that the D.C. District Court has jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the action and that the majority of
witnesses the Plaintiffs intend to call for deposition and trial
testimony reside within a 100-mile radius of the United States
District for the District of Columbia.  Since the case centers on
legal questions under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
the John Doe Plaintiffs themselves will not testify at trial.

     "There is certainly precedent for locating the trial in
D.C.," says Turley, "It has been recognized by the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia that when a case touches
upon policy decisions of federal agencies which are headquartered

                           -- more --
in Washington, D.C., and testimony from policy makers is
required, the convenience of having the case tried in the
District of Columbia should be considered."  Specifically, the
Plaintiffs must call senior officials and several government
employees including the EPA administrator, the secretary of the
Department of Defense, the secretary of the Air Force, the
national security advisor and the White House counsel.

     In making a motion for venue, Turley is forced to "show his
hand" early and detail his expected witnesses and sources in this
first action against a top-secret "black program."  Perhaps most
surprising, Turley has listed a senior Russian embassy official
and former intelligence officials as potential witnesses.  In his
motion, Turley states that "in the absence of willing
representatives from the United States government, Plaintiffs
will call on these [Russian] witnesses to inform the court of the
existence of this base in order to assist them in securing
judicial relief."  

     "While the United States Government refuses to acknowledge
the existence of this base to the American public, the Russian
government recently declassified much of its intelligence
information as part of a new openness policy following the fall
of the communist regime and the adoption of democratic process." 
Turley informs the court that he will also submit Russian
satellite pictures of the base.

     In addition to the Russians, Turley lists two experts on the
so-called Open Skies Treaty, signed by the United States last
year.  Turley will show that this treaty not only obligates the
United States to allow other countries to photograph the base,
but, if necessary, even supply the planes and cameras.  "The
government's continued refusal to acknowledge the existence of
Groom Lake base and the threats against citizens who attempt long
distance photographs stands in direct contradiction of a large
and growing public record abroad."

     "The central element motivating a transfer of this case to
Nevada appears to be the presence of Groom Lake base in this
judicial district," says Turley.  "The Groom lake base, however,
is completely sealed from review, inspection, or access by
governmental agencies....Counsel for the government is unwilling
to give the names of people with access to, or experience with,
Groom Lake base.  Consequently, only the military and
intelligence witnesses that are known to have the knowledge and
access to Groom Lake base can answer basic environmental
questions posed at trial.  These military and intelligence
witnesses are located in Washington, D.C., the Plaintiffs'
original choice of forum."



                           -- more --

     Turley's suit against Groom Lake -- also known as Dreamland
or Area 51 -- alleges that the Environmental Protection Agency
failed to live up to its duties to inspect the base for
violations of federal environmental laws and cites serious 

injuries, and at least one death, to employees due to the burning
of hazardous and toxic wastes at the facility.  His suit further
alleges that workers were denied requests for protective clothing
-- including gloves -- in handling hazardous wastes, and that
hazardous wastes were intentionally trucked in by a California-
based defense contractor in order to be disposed at the site. 
"We have compelling evidence that the government and its
contractors have used the secrecy of Groom Lake not to protect
national security but to shield the illegal disposal of hazardous
waste," says Turley.

     In his original complaint, Turley alleged that the
activities conducted at the Groom Lake base have involved the use
of hazardous waste and material producing hazardous wastes when
burned -- including hardeners, plastics, solvents, sealants and
paint wastes -- and that these wastes are stored on site at the
base.  Plaintiffs allege that these hazardous wastes -- including
wastes releasing dioxins, and methyl ethyl ketone,
trichloroethylene and dibenzofurans -- were thrown into open,
unlined trenches at Groom Lake base, doused with jet fuel or
other inflammable substances and then ignited.      

     The plaintiffs claim they were required to be in close
proximity to the burning wastes and that some workers had to
enter the trenches to ignite the wastes; stand around the trench
to secure the area during incineration; or work next to, or down
wind from, the trenches.  After incineration, defendants or their
agents allegedly instructed workers to enter the trenches and
sort through the residue to guarantee complete destruction of
classified materials.  Workers complain of a number of 
symptoms -- blackouts, skin rashes, headaches, respiratory
problems and eye irritations.  They allege that requests for
protective clothing, respirators and gloves were denied.

                           -- 30 --