Petition for Disclosure of Certain Documents Provided to Special Federal Grand Jury 89-2 opposed by US DOJ

On January 10, 2019 Ms. Pat Mellen, Esquire, of Pat Mellen Law LLC, filed a Petition on behalf of Alliance of Nuclear Workers Advocacy Groups (ANWAG); Rocky Flats Downwinders; Candelas Glows/Rocky Flats Glows; Environmental Information Network (EIN), Inc.; Rocky Flats Neighborhood Association; Rocky Flats Right to Know (RFR2K); and, Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center (RMPJC).

Leaders of the above Rocky Flats community groups filed a legal Petition in U.S. District Court at Denver calling on the government to unseal records from the 1989 -1992 Special Federal Grand Jury investigation into criminal actions at the former Denver-area nuclear weapons plant. The petitioners argue that the documents may provide evidence of unreported and unaddressed residual plutonium contamination and other ongoing environmental dangers at Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge and  the adjoining Superfund site. They say this information is critical to resolving policy controversies, such as construction of the Rocky Flats Refuge trails and visitor center, Jefferson Parkway, Rocky Mountain Greenway, and fracking permits.’

Petition for Disclosure of Certain Documents Provided to 89-2

Exhibit 1 – Table of Waste Disposal Sites

Exhibit 2 – Special Federal Grand Jury Subpoenas

On April 2, 2019 Respondent, U.S. Department of Justice, filed its Motion to Dismiss.

On April 23, 2019 Petitioners filed their Response Opposing the Motion to Dismiss. In addition Petitioners included the March 26, 1992 USA v. Rockwell International Plea Agreement, 92-CR-107: Plaintiff’s Sentencing Memo 1 of 2; Plaintiff’s Sentencing Memo 2 of 2; Defendant’s Sentencing Memo; and Plaintiff’s Supplemental Sentencing Memo of May 26, 1992.

The above Petitioners’ Response Opposing the Motion to Dismiss highlights include:


 “[T]he documents reviewed by the Special Grand Jury 89-2 confirmed and substantiated the multiple felony environmental crimes to which Rockwell pled guilty.” (Id. at page 8);

 “Respondent [US Department of Energy] also ignores its own pleadings and findings in the Special Grand Jury 89-2 investigation that Rockwell actively covered up its activities in its efforts to avoid criminal and civil liability.” (Ibid. at page 10); 

“b.  “Throughout this period, from 1987 to 1989, ROCKWELL exercised little control over spray irrigation. While a review of the company’s policy documents and written procedures would have led one to believe that a number of significant controls were in place, in fact they weren’t. For instance, a number of documents indicated that the B-3 Pond was sampled and analyzed before it was spray irrigated, but that in fact wasn’t the case. Rockwell documents also indicated that one of the company’s environmental mangers had to approve spray irrigation (in writing) on each occasion it was practiced. In fact, it was rarely done. There were also written requirements that the spray fields be closely monitored, but the inspections were minimal and not very thorough. Instead, the company’s standing order was to spray irrigate as much and as often as possible, sometimes for twelve or more hours a day and late at night.” (Ibid at page 12).