News & Articles

KNOXVILLE, Tennessee — Your Nukewatch reporter is observing the ongoing federal trial of three nuclear weapons opponents, one of whom is from Duluth, who face three decades in prison if convicted of sabotage and damage to property for their symbolic action at the Y-12  nuclear bomb-building complex — “the Fort Knox of uranium” — in Oak Ridge, Tenn.

Sr. Megan Rice, 82, Greg Boretje-Obed, 57, and Michael Walli, 62, admit they traipsed undetected for 1.5 hours through the so-called “high-security” complex last July 28. They cut through chain-linked fences, spray-painted anti-nuclear slogans, strung “crime scene” tape, poured blood on the walls and hammered on a corner of the new Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility (HEUMF), and still had time to light candles, sing songs and break bread before being discovered by a guard.

The guard, Kirk Garland, testified that he’d called in his tardy discovery by saying, “I’ve got three peace protesters.” He was later fired for not having drawn his weapon on the pacifists.

Monday May 6 was spent choosing a 12-person jury from a pool of 70 prospects. During four hours of questioning by U.S. Dist. Judge Amul Thapar, the prospective jurors all answered that they had no strongly held opinions. Only one had ever participated in a political demonstration. Of the 70 prospects, 47 personally had or had family who had military backgrounds and/or employment with the Dept. of Energy. The Energy Dept., via the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), runs the Y-12 facility. The NNSA builds, maintains and certifies the prompt attack capability of deployed nuclear weapons.

By 7 p.m., a jury panel of eight white men and four white women, including two alternates, had been selected. None of the four African Americans in the pool made the cut.

On Tuesday May 7, the prosecution’s case was presented by five witnesses who were questioned by Assistant US Dist. Attorneys Melissa Kirby and Jeff Theodore. Defense attorneys Chris Irwin and Bill Quigley for Michael Walli, Francis Lloyd for Sr. Rice, and Greg Boertje-Obed, representing himself, cross examined the government witnesses. The testimony showed that the July 28 breach of fences and the amount of time the three occupied the compound unobserved, were an enormous shock to and a humiliating embarrassment for the nuclear weapons establishment. A 15-day “stop work” period ensued at Y-12, which made world-wide headlines and precipitated two congressional hearings.

The prosecutor’s first witness was Steven Erhart, head of the NNSA at Y-12. Erhart called himself the “Head Fed” at Y-12 and its “Mr. NNSA.” Erhart testified that Y-12’s mission is to produce the US hydrogen bomb’s “secondary,” the part made from uranium, hydrogen and tritium that turns a crude, single-stage Hiroshima- or Nagasaki-type device into a modern “super” or H-bomb.

Erhart testified that Y-12 builds “W76” warheads for the Navy’s ballistic missile submarines, but under cross examination he claimed he could not recall the explosive power of the warheads he produces. In fact, the 475 kiloton “W76” has 38 times the explosive force of the 12.5 kT bombs used against Japan, weapons that instantly turned 210,000 people in the two cities to powder and ash. Asked by defense attorney Quigley, “Do you know how many died at Hiroshima or Nagasaki?” Mr. Erhart said, “No.”
The prosecution needs to prove that the protesters “intended to injure, obstruct or interfere with national defense,” which is an essential element of the sabotage charge. Erhard claimed that the breach of security “did harm to the national defense,” but cross examination by Mr. Quigley revealed that the intervention by three unarmed senior citizens showed up the nearly complete ineptitude of the professional security team charged with protecting the 400 tons of highly enriched uranium at Y-12.

Under withering questioning by Quigley, Erhart answered “Yes” to a series of inquiries about a scathing report issued by NNSA’s Inspector General last August. “The I.G.’s report says that the causes of the breach of security included ‘multiple systems failures on several levels.’ Do you agree?” Quigley asked “Yes,” Mr. Erhart admitted. “‘Troubling examples of ineptitude’?” “Yes.” “‘Failure to maintain security equipment’?” “Yes.” “‘Misunderstanding of security protocols’?” “Yes.” “‘Substantial backlog of inoperable security equipment’?” “Yes.” “‘Poor communications’?” “Yes.” “‘Weaknesses in contract and resource management’?” “Yes.” “‘Fractured management structure’?” “Yes.” “‘Failure to identify breakdowns’?” “Yes.”

Mr. Quigley pointed to a September 2012 report by the Energy Department’s Deputy Secretary Daniel Poneman which declared that Y-12 managers had created a “security culture of complacency.” Asked if this was true, Erhart haltingly said, “A better term” (to describe the systematic failures) would be that we had a ‘normalization of the deviation from the optimum.’”

Other prosecution witnesses included fired security guard, a sergeant of the guard service, a retired Brig. General in charge of site security and another senior security officer.

The prosecution rested around 5 p.m., and Sr. Rice testified in her own defense, but that story will have to be continued. The case is expected to go to the jury by Thurs. May 9.   
— John LaForge works for the Wisconsin environmental watchdog group Nukewatch and edits its quarterly newsletter.