MG: Hi, you’re listening to the Fairewinds Energy Education podcast hosted by the Fairewinds crew. I’m Maggie Gundersen, and welcome to the show. Today we’re interviewing Clay Turnbull, and he’s a staff member and trustee of New England Coalition in Brattleboro, Vermont. New England Coalition has been instrumental in pushing back against Entergy Corporation regarding its Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. They are the original stakeholders and interveners in all the cases before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the State Public Service Board and communications regarding their take on Vermont Yankee and its safety violations in front of the NRC and all of the reliabilities issues that we’ve all focused on in front of the State Legislature. So Clay is here to talk with us. Clay, welcome on board.
Clay: I’m glad to be here.
MG: So thank you, first off, to the New England Coalition for inviting Arnie and I to speak at your annual meeting. We’re really looking forward to that. Our subject matter is The Flawed Myth of Nuclear Power. We have a lot to share with all of you. And it was in our discussion about what was happening behind the scene at New England Coalition that made me decide to want to do this podcast with you. I understand that you were arrested at the Vermont Yankee fence line back in March, 2016. All of our crew members know that many, many people over the years have been arrested at Vermont Yankee. The Affinity Group constantly chained themselves to the gates, and even got in – no guards stopped them – and walked into one of the buildings and they sat down in the conference room and started to have a meeting. So we know that Vermont Yankee hasn’t been really good about security. With that in mind, I was shocked to hear not only did they arrest you for being at the fence line, but they’re pressing charges and moving ahead with a case against you personally. So let’s go back in time to March. Why were you at the fence line, Clay?
Clay: I was gathering evidence for the case before the Public Service Board where Entergy’s expert witness had told the board you would not be able to see the dry casks storing high-level waste. You would only see them from out in the middle of the Connecticut River or across the river in New Hampshire. I was in Vermont making photographs to show the Public Service Board the visibility of the casks in proposed location.
CP: Why is the visibility an issue?
Clay: Well, in front of the Public Service Board, there’s different criteria than in front of the NRC and the general public. In front of the Public Service Board, the visibility is a factor in terms of aesthetics. Would people enjoying a hike along the riverbank find it offensive to come upon these 20-foot-tall, 16-foot-diameter, concrete silos – or would it be better if they were shielded any number of ways. So in Vermont, the question is aesthetics. How will they look aesthetically? And the other issue is land use. Is putting this high-level waste dump, call it interim storage if you like – is the best place to store this high-level nuclear waste 200 feet from the Connecticut River? And from a land use perspective, NEC contends there were better options. So that’s how the visibility impacts the state regulations and permitting process.
MG: Tell our audience why wasn’t New England Coalition looking at the safety ramifications, too? I mean those casks are along the river, and to me that’s a safety concern. And they’re next door to a school. Why didn’t you talk to the Public Service Board about safety?
Clay: The Public Service Board is prohibited from making regulatory decisions based on safety.
MG: So one of the articles that was in the paper tells me that when you were arrested, they alleged that you crossed fence line and walked across posted land. Tell us what happened.
Clay: Well, I am very familiar with the Vermont Yankee site. As an intervener, I’ve visited the site with my badge and having passed security. And so I know the place from the inside. To see it from the outside, I am familiar with the land surrounding the plant. I’ve never had a view looking in through the chain link fence from the location that I was arrested. But it was pretty clear from my previous on-site visits that I would get a good shot of the proposed cask location. So I parked the car at the end of a non-marked dirt road with a farm field on one side and Delco transmission lines on the other side. And I walked along the river. As I approached the vantage point to take my picture from the direction of the Connecticut River, I came up a riverbank, I came upon a chain-link fence with a sign that said essentially “Don’t come beyond this point, we’re authorized to shoot you.” I stayed on the outside of that fence.
CP: Clay, how easy was it to get to that chain link fence?
Clay: I was surprised to be arrested where I was because I was shocked that I got as far as I did. I could not believe how close I was to the belly of the beast almost. If you look at an aerial photograph of the site and see the vent stack, I was feet from that. It was very easy. It’s not yet central to this criminal trespass case. We actually haven’t gone into trial. We’re still in pretrial proceedings
CP: I’d love to hear more about sort of what set off the motion cameras and the experience of being detected, if you will.
Clay: The day I was arrested, my first knowledge of not being welcome was two Windham County Deputy Sheriffs approaching me with their hands – not on their guns, their guns weren’t drawn, but their hands were either resting on their gun or I think they were nearby. This is the day I approached from the river, stopped at the sign and the fence, was taking pictures and then my dog, Chiclet, barked. And I turned around and there were two sheriffs with their hands nearby their guns and clearly, in looking at video footage after the fact and audio recordings between the dispatchers and the plant and the guys in the car that came to arrest me – they were approaching with some grave concern. It’s pretty clear. They’re slow and methodical. And I am glad that the older of the two seemed to be the lead.
AG: Clay, I have another question here. Were you dressed in camouflage and had your face all muddy and had you put a camouflage vest on Chiclet or were you wearing your street clothes when you went in?
Clay: I was wearing my street clothes. I’m a member of the public approaching this facility with my camera to document where these dry casks are going to be. If I took those photographs from a vantage point that I knew was illegal, it would have no value in the court in Montpelier, in the court of the Public Service Board. So I wasn’t dressed in disguise or camouflage. I was in a big puffy down coat because it was chilly. And my dog, Chiclet, was with me, and she wasn’t in disguise, either. As part of charging me with criminal trespass, the State’s prosecutor must provide the defendant with the evidence they’re using to prosecute. And that evidence included surveillance camera video footage from – I don’t know, 5 different camera angles. And some were – I’m not sure of the technical term, but daylight video recording – what we all think of as having sunlight allows you to record. And some of the cameras were infrared. So it’s this kind of black-and-white image. So we’re in the courtroom; my attorney, Jean Keywell, has made a Motion to Dismiss, essentially based on lack of evidence. The State put on their case for two hours showing lots and lots of videotape from the day. The security supervisor who is the one that made the initial call to the sheriff, is the lead person for the company in the prosecution. He said – it took forever for the video to queue up – it was one of those embarrassing moments where the state prosecutor’s fussing with the computer trying to get it to show out the projector. It was a classic high-tech nightmare for anyone that does presentations. So by the time he gets it working, everybody in the courtroom is sitting on the edge of their seat, like, oh, what is this going to be. And he opens with the video and says now this is the first that the security staff was alerted to an intruder – a potential intruder. And the image on the screen, it’s a static image – day and night the camera is aimed on that one location, and it can tell if there’s something unusual coming into the field of view. And the first indication that there was an intruder or something out of the ordinary was my dog, Chiclet, a Chihuahua Corgi running along the fence line back and forth looking for mice or chipmunks. She loves chasing mice and chipmunks and she often finds those along straight lines like that – building, fence, whatever. And it was just comical that this grand scheme was foiled by my Chihuahua Corgi chasing mice. The whole situation is absurd in the sense that if there was a sign that said no trespass – well, when there was a sign that said No Trespassing Beyond This Point – I stopped. I didn’t go beyond that point. If there was a sign closer to the river that said No Trespassing, that’s as far as I would have gone. It’s absurd because if either security or the sheriff said, hey, you’re on private property, we’re asking you to leave, I would have gone. That’s Vermont law. Either post the land and tell people no trespassing or you tell them you’re not welcome here. Simple. Case done. Clay leaves, the state saves I don’t know how many thousands of dollars through this prosecution.
CP: That’s also an excellent point, Clay. I mean I think any common person would agree on that in the most basic level. If you see a sign posted that says don’t go beyond this point – and you do – if charges are pressed against you, it makes sense. But if you don’t see that sign - if it’s a farm, if it’s a private road, if you don’t see that sign, it is something that I think the average person would assume they would just be asked to leave the land, not prosecuted.
Clay: Yes, I think the average person can understand the basic concept of – if you see a sign that says No Trespassing and you don’t go beyond it, you’re probably okay, particularly if you’re approaching a site that expert witnesses for Entergy in previous testimony over a span of years, going back to the first dry cask storage case in I think 2004 or 5 – in that neighborhood –I’m approaching the site from public lands and crossed no barrier, no fence, passed no sign that said No Trespassing. So I think the common person would say, yeah, all right, tell the guy to leave and if he doesn’t leave, then there’s a problem. If he leaves, fine. He’s gone.
AG: So Clay, let me ask a question. You took some pictures and – on a camera?
Clay: Yup. They were not on a wifi connected, instant upload. They were on a kind of an older digital camera and the images were on a chip in the camera.
AG: So then they had you destroy any evidence that would support your claim. Because as I understand it, the state had you destroy those photographs you took.
Clay: It’s unclear who instructed me to delete the images. I deleted them under duress for sure. I was told that if they pressed charges, I would either need to delete the images or forfeit the camera. I didn’t trust that. I don’t remember clearly. When you look at the video footage, the people circled around the camera as I’m deleting the images is the security staff from VY. The sheriff never looked at the camera, never had any concern with it.
AG: So Entergy had you destroy evidence that would support your claim and now is prosecuting you in court with - and now you can’t defend yourself because they had you destroy the evidence.
Clay: That’s correct. And I’ve agreed to keep a 300-foot distance from their property. So I think I would really be pushing my luck to go back and try – however, in reviewing the case before our call today, I realized that I have not asked the state – and probably I wouldn’t do this until the case moves onto the next phase – is to ask the state to grant permission for me to go back to that location and take those photographs and provide them to the state. Or for the state – it seems like the judge would be able to grant me access to the route that I took to get to the point where I was arrested.
MG: Clay, I think that’s a really serious concern for the state’s case that Entergy, who alleges the trespass, forced you to destroy the evidence that showed what you were doing, and now they’re pushing for prosecution, which to me is very vindictive based upon the fact that you have spent years with New England Coalition intervening on numerous cases. I know that I first met you in your work back in 2003. So I just find it appalling that they would use valuable state resources. It costs an enormous amount of money to put on a trial like this. I can only imagine what Entergy is spending on the case, but I do know that when Arnie Gundersen, my husband and Chief Engineer for Fairewinds was sued as a nuclear whistleblower and we were involved in that case, pretrial they spent between $50,000 and $70,000 a week against us. And we had one pro se attorney, Arnie, our son, working on the case, and I was working two jobs. And I see that right now the Coalition has launched a fundraising campaign in an attempt to pay the $4,000 in legal bills that you’ve already gotten. I think it’s sweet you’re calling it the Chiclet Legal Defense Fund in honor of Chiclet’s role in this, but I mean this is such an absurd use of power, such vindictiveness and a terrible mishandling at the state. I understand from Ray Shadis, New England Coalitions’ Technical Advisor, that neither you nor Chiclet set foot on posted land or crossed any fences. And Entergy VY’s insistence on prosecuting this matter in his words is not only legally out to lunch, it’s dishonest, petty and spiteful. And my addition to that quote is that it’s taking valuable resources from all Vermonters who need to access our courts. I was a mediator in Small Claims Court. I know what it takes to get into court. I know what the time costs. I know what the judge’s rates are and what cases expense charges. Who’s going to pay for this? Are they going to try and sandbag you – well, he trespassed so then Mr. Turnbull is responsible for all of these costs in a made-up case? And separately, from a security standpoint – and I want to ask Arnie to jump in here – Fairewinds have objected and Arnie and I have objected and talked considerably about what it means as an attraction to terrorists if the casks can be seen.
Clay: The security person who called the sheriff and identified me as trespassing and has been Entergy’s prime witness, he’s worked at the plant for two years. He came from out of state. I question how well he knows the property boundaries. I wonder if he’s even walked the property boundary. I wonder if he’s even just walked the path that I took from the river up to the fence line. If Entergy’s security staff has only been there for two years, this guy’s a supervisor and I don’t believe he’s knows their property well.
AG: You exposed a flaw in their security system and we now know that they had 5 cameras, some infrared, some normal light – that whenever a citizen asks about the security at a nuclear plant, they always say, oh, we can’t tell you, it’s top secret. But here we have a citizen who works for a nuclear power watchdog and is just doing his job and they’re willing to put all of their security system on public display to basically force you to admit that what you did is wrong. How can they release all that security data? As a terrorist, now you know where all five cameras are because you could triangulate the pictures. And given that, they’re exposing weaknesses in their own security system that it just amazes me should be made public in a farcical defense like the one they’re running.
Clay: That’s an excellent point, Arnie. I couldn’t believe that they were showing video footage from their cameras and narrating this camera angle and what that camera is seeing and what the guy in the guard tower is seeing. I was dumbfounded. I was as dumbfounded to see their security secrets, if you will, put out there in front of the world – I was as surprised to see that as I was to walk up from the river and find myself in the belly of the beast. I was dumbfounded. I can take pictures, I’m still outside the boundary, and I’m this close – my God. This is amazing. I really would like to go back and take those same photographs again, but without Chiclet and myself walking out into the open, to stay within the tree line where I believe their cameras would not have seen us.
CP: And there’s something about that exposure that you uncovered and that they themselves uncovered in showing those videos that’s astounding. And just to piggyback on what you said earlier about the security guards having only been there for two years and probably not walking the property, I see that as a huge decommissioning issue as well if you plan on decommissioning over the course of 60 years. You’re going to constantly have an influx of these security guards that don’t know. Maybe in 20 years, it’s a new group and they don’t do the same thing. It’s a constant issue when you think about this plant remaining indefinitely really with the waste storage. But also throughout the decommissioning process, if it’s that long, you’re going to have security staff turnover. So it’s an exposure of their blind spots that – it really lasts that 60 years.
Clay: And when I was taking my pictures, Chiclet barked and alerted me to something unusual and I turned around and here’s the sheriffs approaching as they kind of like in the movies – I guess this is how people get arrested. I’ve never been arrested in my life. Slowly put your hands behind your head and slowly turn and walk up to the fence and as he’s frisking me, I said, hey, wait a minute, am I being arrested. Because I’ve seen enough on YouTube, ask if you’re being detained. Ask if you’re being arrested; if not, then I’m out of here. And he said I was being detained because they were conducting an investigation. I think it would have been appropriate for the sheriff to ask me why I was there or to say, they’re charging you with trespass, what’s your side of the story. Perhaps the sheriff would not have written a citation if he understood that there was a pretty good chance that the security staff was incorrect in making the call that I was trespassing. The security staff by all means, I think, has every right to ask the sheriff to come tell me or anyone else standing where I was, you’re not welcome here, leave. But I don’t think they have the right to say “Arrest that person” and not have that questioned by the sheriff.
MG: Do I understand correctly that you’ve looked at some of the property maps?
Clay: I have looked at the tax maps for the Town of Vernon and it shows that the land that I was standing on is owned by TransCanada, the energy company from Canada. The state came back with minutia buried in the text that they had granted an easement or right of way – something to that effect –
MG: They’ve granted a right of way and an easement, but that’s a whole nuther legal wormhole.
Clay: Well, it’s not clear. I’m not a land lawyer, but the State came with documents to our hearing to dismiss, armed with real documents from the Town Clerk in Vernon – I imagine it was Entergy provided that material to the sheriff. It’s hard for me to believe the sheriff would take their time to go down to Vernon and research tax maps and quit claim deed. It’s sad for me to think of the state prosecutors spending their time doing that.
AG: This is really a David-and-Goliath story. And of course, Maggie and I fought a David-and-Goliath story so we can appreciate what you’re up against. The money on the other side of this argument has to be tens of thousands of dollars. And here you’ve got the Chiclet Legal Defense Fund trying to pay for your attorney. Doesn’t the State have better things to do than prosecute Chiclet and you?
Clay: Well, I think that’s pretty well demonstrated that they would have better things to do. I believe Entergy has the opportunity to tell the state, eh, we don’t want to continue with the charges.
MG: It’s criminal trespassing, so the state prosecutor could make the decision the state doesn’t want to spend its resources this way and doesn’t want to get involved. It’s really a concern that this is what our state is doing. You were asked to do this by your employer, this was a logical process because of the testimony their experts gave. This is a vile misuse of prosecutorial responsibility and state resources that’s disgusting to me.
AG: You know, around the nation citizens groups have argued that the dry cask storage for spent nuclear fuel is not safe. I know I argued it in Vermont and people in California are presently arguing it. And it’s important to get it either off site or underground. That’s what they do in Europe and yet in America we have these things standing upright like a forest. With high-powered weaponry that’s available to a terrorist, that terrorist could cause a situation that could evacuate half of New England. So actually you’re doing a public service by identifying how easy it is to get incredibly near to spent fuel. And frankly, I think you deserve an award and not a criminal trespass investigation.
Clay: Well, thank you, Arnie. Our case before the Public Service Board that I was gathering evidence for wasn’t about safety. However, putting up a screen, a wall, an urban berm, any number of things that would shield those casks from a direct line of sight, would have the advantage of aesthetically not having to look at those casks, and incidentally, would be a protective measure against projectiles being shot at the casks. You know, Arnie, maybe you know from your experience in the industry why they’re so adamant about not shielding these, not putting up a visual barrier. Is it to prove that they really believe there’s no chance these things are ever going to breach?
AG: We at Fairewinds have been saying this for years: Follow the money. They’ve got the cheapest casks possible there. And rather than harden them and spend more, the NRC just says well, we’ve licensed them, there’s no need to go any further. So it’s just one more example of that adage that Fairewinds has been saying for years: Follow the money.
MG: And they’d rather make a public spectacle using our tax dollars to prosecute you than do the right thing and berm that site or put a bermed wall up so that terrorists couldn’t access it and people wouldn’t see it. It boggles the mind. A prosecutor could have said this is absurd; we’re not pressing these charges. This man wants his record expunged and he didn’t do these things. It’s up to the prosecutor. And I want to know where’s the rest of the State Judiciary on this issue. Where’s our State’s Attorney? Who’s overseeing this? What the hell is going on.
CP: I think they want to make an example of you, Clay. I think that they’re humiliated that potentially if you had those pictures that they could have been shown and I think now they’re in this state where they’re like we have all the money, we can press these charges, we can move it forward. And it’s almost like look, if you try to come on our land, if you try to check out what really can be seen, we’re going to press charges. It’s vindictive and petty and it also shows how distant they are from the community that they are in.
MG: It’s a total abuse of power and money and it’s using our state judiciary and our courts to wield power and abuse it. I really want to thank you for coming on Fairewinds podcast and being with us and sharing this news, and doing a really valuable public service. Thank you, Clay Turnbull. Thank you very much.
Clay: You’re very welcome. I’m glad that you can appreciate the work. For many of our members and the general public in the area, they support Clay and the Coalition’s position on principle without knowing all the intricacies. For people further abroad or the security folks at the airport when I go to get an airplane ticket, they don’t understand. They don’t see the benefit in pointing out these weaknesses in their security, although that wasn’t the intent. I’ve never had to go have a mug shot and fingerprinted for any reason and just on principle, I’m opposed to that. It was one of the reasons I wanted to oppose this from the very beginning. I’m not a criminal. It was a shame that I’m standing there in handcuffs with three security guys from Entergy and two deputies, and I can’t tell them some of the other weaknesses that I saw. Because they don’t want to hear it. They don’t want to hear a peep from me. Just arrest him. They called someone higher up who made the decision to prosecute. There’s an area where the soil has washed out from under a chain-link fence. It’s a very big hole. It’s big enough for a football player to climb in. Maybe when I am proven innocent, I’ll give them a call and tell them about it. So I do thank you for having me on the show. If folks want to make a donation to the Coalition, the website is newenglandcoalition.org and you can donate using PayPal or a credit card, or you can mail a check to us at P.O. Box 545 in Brattleboro, Vermont 05302. We are about halfway to our initial fundraising goal, and that will probably increase dramatically unless the judge – that’s what we’ve accrued to date. And if we go to trial, it’s going to – I’ll be back. Thank you again to everyone at Fairewinds. You folks do an incredible job. I think that people all over the globe are watching you for the information that they should know. So thank you for what you all do.
MG: You’re welcome, Clay, and thank you for joining us. And to our listeners, we’ll keep you informed.
