# Why would two federal agencies be in a hostile standoff? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 5, 2015, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-two-federal-agencies-be-in-a-hostile-standoff/729979 "2015-09-05T02:44:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2015, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-two-federal-agencies-be-in-a-hostile-standoff/729979/1 "2015-09-05T02:44:22Z")
> **[Rocky Flats Plant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats_Plant)** > > The Rocky Flats Plant was a United States manufacturing complex that produced nuclear weapons parts in the western United States, near Denver, Colorado. The facility's primary mission was the fabrication of plutonium pits, which were shipped to other facilities to be assembled into nuclear weapons. Operated from 1952 to 1992, the complex was under the control of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), succeeded by the Department of Energy (DOE) in 1977. > Plutonium pit production was halted in ... > [@](#): > > Investigation by FBI and EPA[edit] > Insiders at the plant started to covertly inform the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about the unsafe conditions in 1987. Late that year the FBI commenced clandestine flights of light aircraft over the area and noticed that the incinerator was apparently being used late into the night. After several months of collecting evidence both from workers and via direct measurement, the FBI informed the DOE on June 6, 1989 that they wanted to meet to discuss a potential terrorist threat. When the DOE officers arrived, they were served with a search warrant. Simultaneously, the FBI and EPA raided the facility. They discovered numerous violations of federal anti-pollution laws, including limited[3] contamination of water and soil. In 1992, Rockwell was charged with environmental crimes including violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Clean Water Act. Rockwell pled guilty and paid an $18.5 million fine. This was the largest fine for an environmental crime to that date. > > Dubbed “Operation Desert Glow”, the DOJ-sponsored raid began at 9 a.m. on June 6, 1989[12] after the FBI got past the DOE’s heavily armed, authorized to shoot-to-kill security—whose armament included surface-to-air missiles—under the ruse of providing a terrorist threat briefing and served its search warrant to Dominick Sanchini,[13] Rockwell International’s manager of Rocky Flats, who as it happened died the next year in Boulder of cancer.[14][15] > > After the June 1989 FBI raid of Rocky Flats, federal authorities used the subsequent grand jury investigation to gather evidence of wrongdoing and then sealed the record. The court allowed the Rocky Flats operators to withhold from the public data about the nature and extent of contamination on and off the site. In October 2006, DOE announced completion of the Rocky Flats cleanup without this information being available.[16] There is mention elsewhere on the page of the EPA fining the DOE for violations. Am I naive in finding this odd? Why would two federal agencies be in a hostile relationship like this? ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2015, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-two-federal-agencies-be-in-a-hostile-standoff/729979/2 "2015-09-05T02:50:49Z")
The FBI’s job is to investigate crimes. Apparently some people at the DOE were committing crimes. This doesn’t seem very complicated to me. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2015, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-two-federal-agencies-be-in-a-hostile-standoff/729979/3 "2015-09-05T02:56:07Z")
> [@grude](#): > > [Rocky Flats Plant - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats_Plant) > > There is mention elsewhere on the page of the EPA fining the DOE for violations. Where does it say that? I’m just missing it. I see the part about the DOE indemnifying the contractor for liability at the site, which makes total sense to me. I doubt any contractor could purchase insurance to operate a nuclear weapons production facility, so the government would essentially have to be the insurance company, in a sense. ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2015, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-two-federal-agencies-be-in-a-hostile-standoff/729979/4 "2015-09-05T03:38:03Z")
What hostile standoff? ---
**Author:** ![smithsb](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smithsb/32/12107_2.png) [@smithsb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smithsb)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2015, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-two-federal-agencies-be-in-a-hostile-standoff/729979/5 "2015-09-05T03:43:10Z")
DoD gets fined by EPA for spills and emissions. DoD gets fined by the DOT for Hazmat violations. ---
**Author:** ![burpo\_the\_wonder\_mutt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/burpo_the_wonder_mutt/32/365_2.png) [@burpo\_the\_wonder\_mutt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burpo_the_wonder_mutt)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2015, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-two-federal-agencies-be-in-a-hostile-standoff/729979/6 "2015-09-05T04:25:00Z")
Because Gibbs and Fornell were married to the same chick. ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2015, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-two-federal-agencies-be-in-a-hostile-standoff/729979/7 "2015-09-05T12:09:32Z")
> [@grude](#): > > Am I naive in finding this odd? Why would two federal agencies be in a hostile relationship like this? because going after the lower ranked individual is recognized as being too often merely scapegoating… Its like "Excuse me, sir, when you took on a high paying job , you also took on the responsibility to not breach any law or agreement… We gave you indemnity on X and Y, and we continue to see improvements by working with you on them, But Z ? We didn’t give you indemnity on that, and you hid it from us all the time ! " You see what I am saying about Indeminity ? If you are allowing a contractor to risk/damage the environment, you want the EPA to give/approve … I mean make effective…the indemnity… The investigation then starts at the top level, where the top level would then have to provide solid evidence to show an underling WAS at fault… If you start with the scapegoat, they can’t get access to the evidence to say "no not my fault , they told me to do it "… ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2015, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-two-federal-agencies-be-in-a-hostile-standoff/729979/8 "2015-09-05T12:39:19Z")
> [@Fubaya](#): > > What hostile standoff? > [@](#): > > Dubbed “Operation Desert Glow”, the DOJ-sponsored raid began at 9 a.m. on June 6, 1989[12] after the FBI got past the DOE’s heavily armed, authorized to shoot-to-kill security—whose armament included surface-to-air missiles—under the ruse of providing a terrorist threat briefing and served its search warrant to Dominick Sanchini,[13] Rockwell International’s manager of Rocky Flats, who as it happened died the next year in Boulder of cancer.[14][15] Why would the FBI with search warrant in hand need to “sneak” past armed guards? I assumed the Executive Branch ultimately has control of federal agencies, so they weren’t really able to fight or block investigations by agents of the government. Federal agencies levying fines on other federal agencies also seems sort of laughable. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2015, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-two-federal-agencies-be-in-a-hostile-standoff/729979/9 "2015-09-05T13:28:57Z")
Each group has conflicting missions vs. conflicting authorities. Conflicting orders. The FBI is entitled to serve and execute warrants anywhere a judge authorizes. Military guards are required to keep out anyone not permitted by their superiors, from whom they take orders. So normally, until the higher-ups sort out the details, it’s a stand-off. The judge may not have the authority to override military security; the warrant may not be correct; these may be terrorists posing as FBI agents; etc. These are questions that have to be bumped up the chain of command. Meanwhile, holding a weapon with authorization to use it is a pretty definitive assertion of authority. The FBI were outgunned. Meanwhile, government agencies still have to obey laws. Just as postal trucks have to obey the rules of the road, departments have to obey EPA laws. A fine will certainly ensure that the department whose budget is impacted takes note of this necessity, just as with a private firm, and the people who ordered the law ignored will somehow face consequences - or at least stop. Ultimately, the decision how to resolve this may have to be made where the two authorities converge - between cabinet secretaries or by the president. Generally, the civil servants in the wrong may figure out a way to avoid bring too much of their superiors’ attention to this. If anything is completely “wrong” here, it’s the use of national security to sweep unpleasant things under the rug. Lucky that doesn’t happen nowadays, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2015, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-two-federal-agencies-be-in-a-hostile-standoff/729979/10 "2015-09-05T15:17:17Z")
> [@grude](#): > > Why would the FBI with search warrant in hand need to “sneak” past armed guards? I don’t see how that’s a hostile standoff. They just called and got an appointment with the people they wanted to serve the warrants to and showed up and went through security like normal. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2015, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-two-federal-agencies-be-in-a-hostile-standoff/729979/11 "2015-09-05T15:30:40Z")
> [@grude](#): > > Why would the FBI with search warrant in hand need to “sneak” past armed guards? If you read the source for the allegation of “sneaking past armed guards,” the phrase appears to be more of an exaggeration. The source says the FBI had an arranged meeting on another topic with the site director, at which point they served him with the search warrant. The “sneaking past armed guards” phrase may imply that the FBI may have thought they would have to fight their way in. From the source material, the intent isn’t clearly stated, but it is more implied that they didn’t want to have the director tipped off in advance and thereby give him time to destroy some documents he had. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2015, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-two-federal-agencies-be-in-a-hostile-standoff/729979/12 "2015-09-05T17:10:59Z")
> [@grude](#): > > Federal agencies levying fines on other federal agencies also seems sort of laughable. From a overall, broad financial sense it’s absurd, but in a pragmatic sense it motivates agencies to comply with the law. Of course they should, but of course _everyone_ should comply with the law. Hitting an agency in its budgetary pocketbook will have a great motivating factor to ensure compliance. ---
**Author:** ![burpo\_the\_wonder\_mutt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/burpo_the_wonder_mutt/32/365_2.png) [@burpo\_the\_wonder\_mutt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burpo_the_wonder_mutt)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-two-federal-agencies-be-in-a-hostile-standoff/729979/13 "2015-09-06T15:25:34Z")
Is Ziva withholding Mossad intel again? ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-two-federal-agencies-be-in-a-hostile-standoff/729979/14 "2015-09-10T19:42:47Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Each group has conflicting missions vs. conflicting authorities… Yes. It’s unfortunate to have two Federal agencies going head-to-head like this, and certainly not ideal, but it happens. Sooner or later, best to have the head of one agency send a memo to the President and cc: the head of the other agency. Lay the problem, in full detail, before the President and ask for a decision. As Truman said, “The buck stops here.” ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-two-federal-agencies-be-in-a-hostile-standoff/729979/15 "2015-09-11T14:03:25Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > From a overall, broad financial sense it’s absurd, but in a pragmatic sense it motivates agencies to comply with the law. Of course they should, but of course _everyone_ should comply with the law. Hitting an agency in its budgetary pocketbook will have a great motivating factor to ensure compliance. There’s the actual loss of budget, but there’s also the embarrassment. If EPA fines an Army base, the base commander probably is a lot less worried about his budget than about what his superior is going to say. The fine makes it clear this isn’t just a ticky-tack thing, but something EPA takes seriously. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-two-federal-agencies-be-in-a-hostile-standoff/729979/16 "2015-09-11T17:01:11Z")
This is the kind of thing that conspiracy nuts who talk about “the government” don’t get. There is no “the government.” I can’t speak to other governments, but the United States has checks and balances - intra-governmental conflict - written right into our Constitution. We have federal, state, county and city jurisdictions. At a low-level, we’ll appoint a government prosecutor to argue a case before a government judge against a government public defender. Every agency has its own function, and it pursues that function even (especially, we would hope) when it finds that another agency is doing something wrong. I just don’t know how we could look at the current example as anything other than evidence that the system is working. OK, sure, it might be better if no one in any government agency ever did anything wrong, or if they just admitted it and fixed the problem when you asked them about it… but in a real world full of real people, the best we can hope for is that one agency holds another accountable and uncovers the wrong-doing. ---
**Author:** ![sitchensis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sitchensis/32/4892_2.png) [@sitchensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sitchensis)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-two-federal-agencies-be-in-a-hostile-standoff/729979/17 "2015-09-11T21:39:56Z")
Am I missing something? The site was being guarded by the DOE but was being run by Rockwell International, a private contractor. The contractor, a fortune 500 company, was doing the shady business and was fined. The DOE officers were not scientists they were guards. They didn’t know anything bad was going on, but had to be informed that the FBI could legally enter the site. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Call_Me.Tim)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2015, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-two-federal-agencies-be-in-a-hostile-standoff/729979/18 "2015-09-12T01:30:27Z")
I’m surprised it hasn’t been mentioned yet, but on a DoE nuclear facility, it’s likely that some areas formally required a security clearance- you’re going to need some kind of DoE issued credential to get past the front lobby, in fact. Guards at a DoE nuclear facility are essentially guarding state secrets, it’s not just a matter of jurisdiction. Letting someone into a secure area normally requires specific documents issued by the DoE. A warrant would make things tricky but letting non-DoE staff into a sensitive area is not something DoE would want to do even if there were no wrongdoing whatsoever happening on the site. I can totally imagine that the FBI had trouble getting proper security clearances from the DoE for the officers. DoE security clearances are on sort of a different track than other classified secrets - for example a DoE ‘Q’ clearance very roughly corresponds to a top secret clearance but they’re on very different tracks and one doesn’t get you access to the other.