CATASTROPHIC TURBINE FAILURE AT VERMONT WIND FARM

Full release with pictures: http://www.windaction.org/releases/18394

CATASTROPHIC TURBINE FAILURE AT VERMONT WIND FARM
RAISES DOUBT ABOUT TURBINE SAFETY, LONGEVITY

NEW HAMPSHIRE (October 16, 2008). Turbine #10 at the Searsburg wind energy facility in Searsburg, Vermont experienced a catastrophic failure when one of the blades came in contact with the turbine’s tower causing it to buckle during high winds. This turbine’s 28-ton nacelle and 3-blade rotor assembly crashed to the ground scattering debris several hundred feet from the structure. Approximately 20-gallons of heavy oil spilled from the unit when its fluid reservoirs were damaged. The 11-turbine Searsburg facility was brought online in 1997 and according to preconstruction documents, the Zond Z-P40-FS turbines had an expected lifespan of 30-years[1].

[To see photos, click http://www.windaction.org/pictures/18387 and http://www.windaction.org/pictures/18386 ]

Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group’s executive director, Lisa Linowes, was not surprised by the failure. “The Searsburg towers are located at an elevation of nearly 3000-feet in some of the harshest weather conditions in New England. Performance issues and blade failures have plagued this project for some time, “ she said pointing to incidences in May 2006[2] and again in May 2008[3].

While the eleven-year old Searsburg turbines are failing, newer models have not improved the safety record. “Wind developers today tout life expectancies of industrial wind turbines that exceed 20 years,” Linowes said, “but the fact remains that estimates of the functional lifespan of modern utility-scale wind turbines are speculative and cannot be substantiated since so far very few have been operating for ten years.” Unfortunately, unless a person or property is damaged in a turbine failure, there is no obligation for the owner of an industrial wind turbine to report the incident. Information on the number and types of failures is sparse and poorly reported, and thus this vital data is not adequately incorporated into estimates of turbine longevity. The Searsburg failure occurred on September 15th.

“What’s more ominous," Linowes said, “is that reports of turbine failures in the United States are increasing. These failures include blade throws, oil leaks, fires, and collapse.” IWA attributes the increase in reporting to the fact that the machines are more visible, being erected close to where people live, and also due to the growing interest in wind energy development. In the last year alone, IWA has tracked catastrophic failures in Idaho, Minnesota, California, New York, Pennsylvania and elsewhere, raising concerns about public safety.

While weather conditions and climate are taking a toll on the machines, reports from the industry indicate the rush to erect industrial wind turbines is being accomplished at the expense of quality assurance and safe installation practices. Business Week published a report[4] in August 2007, which found, “The facilities may not be as reliable and durable as producers claim. Indeed, with thousands of mishaps, breakdowns and accidents having been reported in recent years, the difficulties seem to be mounting.” A report this year found that turbine owners were not conducting regularly scheduled maintenance necessary to ensure the mechanical towers remain in good operating condition. An informal survey of approximately seventy-five wind farm operators in the United States found as many as sixty-percent were behind in their maintenance procedures[5].

“Public safety should be paramount when siting industrial wind turbines,” Linowes said, adding “there’s a perception that the 400-foot structures can safely be erected merely a few hundred feet from property lines, public areas and rights-of-way.” She pointed to a private high school in Massachusetts[6] as an example where a massive turbine was installed just feet from the school’s driveway. Barrington, Rhode Island is deliberating on the location of an even larger turbine that will stand within 200-feet of the public high school building[7], although that turbine might be relocated in response to parents and residents raising concerns over noise and safety. In both cases, the turbines exceed the size of the destroyed Searsburg tower.

Manufacturers recommend a safety zone with a radius of at least 1300 feet from a wind turbine, and that children be prohibited from standing or playing near the structures[8]. “Green energy should not override common sense,” Linowes said.

-----------
About IWA: Industrial Wind Action Group seeks to promote knowledge and raise awareness of the risks and damaging environmental impacts of industrial wind energy development. Information and analysis on the subject is available through its website, www.windaction.org. To subscribe to the IWA weekly newsletter, visit http://www.windaction.org/subscribe .

###


[1] Green Mountain Power wind power project development, http://www.windaction.org/?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=79

[2] http://www.windaction.org/pictures/2185

[3] http://www.windaction.org/pictures/15942

[4] The dangers of wind power, http://www.windaction.org/news/11519

[5] Maintaining the wind turbine revolution, http://www.windaction.org/news/17512

[6] School’s wind turbine rises 262 feet, http://www.windaction.org/news/18175

[7] Barrington school committee delays vote on wind turbine, http://www.windaction.org/news/18228

[8] Vestas mechanical operating and maintenance manual V90-3.0MW turbine

Barrington windmill foes produce video

01:00 AM EDT on Friday, October 17, 2008

Barrington windmill foes produce video

BARRINGTON — The battle to block a wind turbine on town-owned land in hopes of saving on Barrington’s electric bill has gone multimedia.

Opponents have begun circulating a professional-quality 16-minute video blasting the $2.4-million proposal, accusing the town of rushing into the project without fully assessing the costs and benefits. It also asserts that the spinning blades, high on a peninsula at Brickyard Pond near the East Bay Bike Path, will generate too much noise for neighbors and kill birds.

The committee developing the project, which has posted its analysis in detail at BarringtonEnergy.com, says the nearest home would be 1,000 feet from the turbine, the noise will be no louder than a bubbling brook, the blades will kill fewer than five birds per year, and the town stands to save $3.9 million in energy costs — and possibly a lot more — over the next 20 years.

Tony Caner, a member of Citizens Wind Watch of Barrington, said the group produced the anti-windmill video, called “Throwing Caution to the Wind,” because the town committee’s presentation has been slanted in favor of the turbine. The video is available on YouTube.com and will be aired Monday at 6:30 p.m., and at other times throughout the week, on Channel 9 of the Full Channel cable system.

The Town Council has scheduled a hearing on the proposal for 7 p.m. Tuesday in the high school auditorium.

— C. Eugene Emery

Ron Russo's comments to Town Council 10/6/08

Ronald D. Russo

October 8, 2008

Barrington Town Council

Barrington Town Hall

County Road

Barrington, RI 02806

RE: Comments Given at October 6, 2008 Town Council Meeting

(CREB recommendation meeting)

Dear Town Council Members,

Per the request of council member June Speakman, the following is a brief summary of my comments made at the October 6, 2008 Town Council meeting. Also included is supporting documentation.

Regards,

Ronald D. Russo

OCTOBER 6, 2008 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING

COMMENTS

I. INFORMATION ABOUT LUMUS

I (Ron Russo) asked the CREB Chairman a number of questions and the CREB Chairman confirmed the following:

1. Lumus Engineering (an approved bidder) was the sole bidder to come in under the $2.4 million approved amount.

2. Lumus provided a bid for a 600kw turbine from Elecon, an off shore Indian manufacturer.

3. To date, Lumus has never supplied and has never constructed this model turbine.

4. Lumus has not conducted any engineering studies at the Legion Way site to confirm the suitability of this turbine to the needs of Barrington.

Lumus states:

“wind projects are very involved. ‘One size fits all’ units do NOT fit all. All factors must be taken into consideration. Wind studies….etc. must be carefully planned.” (see attached Exhibit 1).

I stated that hard actual wind studies are necessary to confirm:

a) a wind turbine makes economic sense at a particular location

b) savings will actually occur

c) proper type and model of turbine will fit that wind profile

II. INFORMATION ABOUT ELECON

While Elecon Engineering is a manufacturer of industrial gear boxes in India, press releases say:

1. “After a sabbatical of six years from the wind energy sector, Elecon is now re-entering this business (see December 2007 press release Exhibit 2).”

2. “Elecon will begin expansion of wind turbine manufacturing by April 2008.”

(see attached Exhibit 2)

3. “Up to March 31, 2008, the company has supplied four wind turbine generators.” (see attached Exhibit 3)

4. “Elecon has entered into a new business – wind turbines.” (see Aug 2008 press release attached Exhibit 4)

5. “Elecon has yet to forge a technical tie up.” (see Aug. 2008 press release attached Exhibit 4)

6. “Elecon has recently signed an agreement with the Centre for Wind Energy Technology for certification of 600kw windmills” Note, the CWET is an Indian government agency. (see attached Exhibit 5)

When testing for survivability in a cyclone/hurricane conditions, 14 out of 14 Elecon turbines were destroyed. The units failed testing. (see attached Exhibit 6)

From all of this it’s apparent Lumus does not have an extensive track record of building and testing this equipment. As such I have limited confidence in this equipment.

III. ELECON HIGH WIND SPEED TURBINE

The TurboWinds (Elecon) power curve graph (see attached) confirms that this unit has a cut-in speed of 8 mph. Below that speed it does not generate any electricity. Likewise, according to Elecon, even if the turbine ran constantly at the 13.4 mph speed projected yet not confirmed by actual wind studies this unit would produce only 100kw per hour which is only about 17% of its efficiency. (see attached Exhibit 7)

As wind speeds progress above 13.4 mph, the turbine becomes more efficient. As such this turbine (which Barrington received a bid on) is most efficient at around 25 mph.

This appears to be a high wind speed turbine. It seems to be an “off land”, in the ocean, or oceanside piece of equipment.

If most of the wind at Legion Way proves to be at low speed year round (0 up to 13.4 mph) then another type of turbine may prove to be more efficient with a greater return to taxpayers.

My point is: we simply do not know which turbine is most appropriate for any site unless reliable year round wind studies are conducted. Only then will we have greater confidence that we have selected the right equipment prior to spending taxpayers’ money.

IV. SUZLON ENGINEERING

I’ve included a recent article on Suzlon Engineering (see attached Exhibit 8). This is the largest off-shore Indian turbine company. They have quality problems.

One must understand that these off-shore manufacturers are under license from more mature and expensive European companies, and as such they apparently have learning curve and quality problems.

Lumus is being certified and trained to install Elecon units. This does not mean the Elecon units have a long track record of quality and sustainability.

V. SETBACKS

Lastly, I know Council member Schwartz has been particularly concerned with setbacks for land based turbines. Attached is a report from March 2006 from the French Academy of Medicine regarding the harmful effects of sound related to wind turbines. The French Academy recommends:

“Halting wind turbine construction closer than 1.5km (4,900 feet) from residences”. (see attached Exhibit 9)

Meanwhile, the CREB suggests 1,000 feet is an OK setback at Legion Way.

Click to enlarge objects.

Resident raises numerous questions about turbine

Resident raises numerous questions about turbine project
Council will hold public workshop on Oct. 21

<>

Next >

• 
  
  Ron Russo recently raised some new questions about the proposed wind turbine project on Legion Way.
• 
  
  Ron Russo recently raised some new questions about the proposed wind turbine project on Legion Way.
• 
  
  Ron Russo recently raised some new questions about the proposed wind turbine project on Legion Way.

By Josh Bickford

Five months ago Ron Russo said he was concerned that the town was rushing through the approval process for installing a wind turbine generator.

While it now appears the council will be spending more time studying the issue, Mr. Russo has shifted his focus and is worried that officials may be making a mistake with the vendor they’ve chosen to build the turbine and the company that manufactures the unit. He also re-examined the bond resolution taxpayers voted on at the financial town meeting in May and said there’s a clear problem with the language.

“I got a hold of a copy of the resolution,” Mr. Russo said, “and it only pertains to the Barrington High School site. The money is specific to the high school.”

Initially, officials proposed the wind turbine for the high school location. They have since selected Legion Way as their optimal spot, all but eliminating the high school location because of set-back concerns. Mr. Russo pointed to a copy of the resolution from the May financial town meeting.

It reads: “Appropriating an amount not to exceed $2,400,000 to finance a wind turbine at the Barrington High School, including but not limited to, costs of acquisition, site preparation and installation and all other costs incidental or related thereto ...”

Mr. Russo said the final recommendation from the Committee for Renewable Energy for Barrington removed the high school site from consideration. In fact, the first page of the report, under “Site Selection,” states that “The High School is not an appropriate location for this project due to a lack of available setbacks and the value of the property.”

“I was just thinking about the financial town meeting and it came to me,” he said. “It was a flash of genius.”

Advertisement

Barrington Town Council President Jeff Brenner said it was a simple oversight — he said Mr. Russo was looking at a copy of the minutes from the May financial town meeting. He said the warrant itself lists “all town property.” Barrington Town Manager Peter DeAngelis verified that statement.

Objections

Mr. Russo attended the Oct. 6 council meeting and offered comments regarding the proposed wind turbine generator. He later compiled a packet with detailed information questioning the company recommended for the installation of the wind turbine (Lumus Construction, Inc.), and the manufacturer (Elecon).

“I think it was kind of embarrassing for the council. I was asking these questions and they (CREB) didn’t know the answers,” Mr. Russo said. “They’re supposed to have the answers.”

Mr. Russo said he had concerns about using a contractor that “never supplied and has never constructed this model turbine.” He also said Elecon has not produced wind turbine generators for the last six years, according to information he researched. Mr. Russo also produced documents that showed how Elecon wind turbines fared in cyclones — 14 out of 14 tested were destroyed, while other companies’ turbines performed better.

“Listen, in these trying economic times you don’t spend taxpayers’ money without having all the data,” Mr. Russo said. “The town hasn’t even done wind studies. There’s no hard data.”

Mr. Russo also questioned the efficiency of the turbine model being recommended by CREB. The committee’s report included a 600 kilowatt wind turbine generator that reportedly works most efficiently when winds are between 20 and 25 miles per hour. Projections from wind map data show that Legion Way — the proposed site for the turbine — will likely see winds averaging 13.4 mph. Mr. Russo said that means the Elecon turbine will be functioning at around 17 percent efficiency.

The turbine’s cut-in speed, he said, is around 8 mph. Mr. Russo added that other turbine models would be better suited for Barrington’s proposed location.

Barrington recommends Mass. company to build wind turbine

Barrington recommends Mass. company to build wind turbine

01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, October 7, 2008

By C. Eugene Emery Jr.

Journal Staff Writer

BARRINGTON — The wind energy committee last night recommended that the town pay a Woburn, Mass., company to build and maintain an Elecon wind turbine at the end of Legion Way at a cost of about 10 percent below the $2.4-million limit set by the council.

“The proposal submitted by Lumus Construction Inc. represents the best buy for the town,” said members of the Committee for Renewable Energy for Barrington. “They meet our technical and financial requirements and have demonstrated their ability to perform the work on similar projects.”

The company is erecting a similar turbine in Newburyport, Mass.

The Town Council, at its meeting last night, voted to hold a workshop on the proposal later this month, probably at the high school. The exact date will depend on the availability of the auditorium.

“It’s going to take time, as a council, to digest all of this,” said Councilman John T. Lazzaro.

Critics of the plan continued to attack the turbine last night, even though the original proposal to put it at the high school is now off the table.

Ronald Russo, one of the most vocal opponents, charged that the Elecon turbine “is not a proven unit” and questioned Lumus’ experience for installing it. The company has yet to complete an installation in the United States.

Barrington has been moving quickly on the turbine proposal under the belief that it must issue bonds by the end of the year or risk losing a $2.1-million interest-free loan for the project from the Internal Revenue Service.

But last night, council members were told that the federal $840-billion economic bailout package passed by Congress and signed by President Bush last week appears to allow a one-year extension of that deadline, giving the town more time to consider the proposal.

David Baum, the chairman of the energy committee, said the Lumus bid is only good through the end of the year and a final price has not been negotiated.

The committee’s report is the result of months of deliberation and debate over the feasibility, safety and noise issues surrounding a turbine. The project was originally proposed for the high school, but the favored location changed to Legion Way next to Brickyard Pond when state law was revised to allow a town to generate energy at one site and realize the savings in another.

Lumus was the only company whose bid was below the $2.4-million threshold, although its offer included a below-the-limit price for a different turbine brand.

According to the committee’s report, the 292-foot-tall wind Elecon turbine generator (WTG) “has been used extensively in Europe and India for years. It has two speeds, maximizing its power generation capability in low wind conditions, while minimizing its sound profile.”

Russo challenged that statement yesterday, saying the company has produced very few units.

“Where is the track record of reliability? It’s not there,” he said.

Noise has been an issue at both proposed sites, with neighbors concerned that they will be subjected to a constant low drone, even though houses closest to the Legion Way site would be at least 1,000 feet from the structure.

One reason an Elecon unit was selected, according to the committee report, was that “it produces less noise overall than the comparable Vestas and Fuhrlander turbines. . . . One major contributor to the lower noise is the dual speed design. In low wind conditions, the Elecon WTG rotates at half the speed of the other WTGs.”

The committee predicted that “at the distances involved at Legion Way, indications are that the WTG would be virtually inaudible inside residences, even with the windows open.”

When it comes to hearing the turbine from outside, winds above 8 miles per hour will produce an increase in background noise. Waves on the surface of Brickyard Pond will scatter the noise of the turbine, the report predicted.

The blades would not spin at all when wind speeds dropped below 8 mph, which means the turbine would generate no noise about 20 percent of the time, according to the report.

Russo said the fact that the unit needs at least 8 mph to function is, itself, a problem, and asserted that the Elecon unit is not very efficient at low speeds. He suggested that it might be better to have a German unit that can generate power with winds as low as 3 miles per hour.

“If you’re going to spend $2.4 million of the taxpayer’s money, you have to make sure this is the right kind of unit” that will give a good return on the investment, Russo told the council.

Baum declined to respond to specifics of some of the objections last night, except to say, “My committee members and I don’t feel they were all perfectly correct.”

Another reason the committee said it was favoring the Legion Way site is economics.

“In the near term, the net savings at the high school site would be about 30 percent less than the numbers given for the Legion Way site, due to lower winds,” according to the report.

If built at Legion Way, the turbine should produce the equivalent energy of 1,333 barrels of oil each year, according to the report.

Even if the state Department of Education decides against financing part of the turbine, the unit should save $3.9 million over the next 20 years if energy prices increase by only 3 percent per year, say the authors of the report.

If energy prices rise 6 percent annually, the 20-year savings would be $6.3 million.

The actual increase over the last decade has been 9 percent per year.

Wind speeds have not been measured directly at either site; the estimates are based on computer projections, which critics have questioned.

That became an issue again last night, as council president Jeffrey Brenner said the group is going to need to decide soon whether to erect an instrument tower to get real-time wind measurements.

But one member of the committee cautioned that even the results from a test tower will not give conclusive findings because average wind speeds can vary from year to year. The committee used computer models based on 20 years of wind data.

The report says that operating costs for maintenance and insurance will be less than $20,000 per year.

Other conclusions from the Baum committee:

ICING: Although critics have contended that ice flying off the spinning blades would pose a serious hazard, the report says there has only been one injury from flying ice since 1975 “despite the fact that many of the world’s turbines operate in cold climates.”

The safe setback is 730 feet, so that should not be a problem for the Legion Way site, according to the report.

FLICKER: The spinning blades can produce annoying flicker on sunny days. “The Legion Way site would have only a few residences that may experience at most 12 hours per year [of flicker], and even less if vegetation blocks their view of the turbine,” the Baum team concluded.

WILDLIFE: Although there’s a potential for birds and bats being struck by the spinning blades, turbines actually kill only about 4 birds and 30 bats per year.

VISUAL POLLUTION: The turbine “will generally be visible only across relatively clear, open spaces,” said the committee, noting that the WPRO radio towers at 100 Acre Cove are 111 feet taller than the turbine.

The full report, along with supporting documents, is available at the committee’s Web site, BarringtonEnergy.com.

gemery@projo.com

Information on the project

Citizens Wind Watch of Barrington Needs Your Help

STOP the Town Council from prematurely approving an expenditure of $2.4 million of taxpayer money for a wind turbine based on inaccurate, misleading and unsubstantiated findings

Fact 1: On June 7, 2007, the Barrington Exploratory Wind Power Committee recommended 7 initial steps the Town should take to determine if a wind turbine should be considered. They determined - The most crucial step to be… “Obtaining accurate wind data”.
http://www.barringtonenergy.com/files/reports/Recommendations_to_Town_Council_for_Outreach.3.pdf

As of September 15, 2008, the Committee for Renewable Energy in Barrington (CREB) has stated they do not feel wind studies are necessary for any site within the Town. Of the remaining 6 steps presented, the Town failed to complete; conducting Energy Audits on all owned properties, investigating aggregation opportunities with East Bay communities, obtaining the services of a skilled, professional energy consultant, and have not completed education and outreach efforts.

Fact 2: The CREB was created by the Town Council to investigate all renewable energy options available.

However, as soon as the Town received notice that we were approved for the zero interest LOAN from the IRS, the CREB’s charge has been to plow ahead with plans for a turbine. The tunnel vision exhibited by the CREB has ignored any challenge or objection presented with the sole intent of utilizing this funding source. They have lost sight of what their true mandate was. Every document produced by the CREB appears biased and self-serving in favor of a wind turbine without regard for community impact.
http://www.barringtonenergy.com/future_projects

Fact 3: No external, third party professional reports, environmental impact, noise, economic, or health and safety, have been contracted or presented to the community.
www.windaction.org/faqs/16499

Current potential sites range from our High School to environmentally sensitive areas around Town. One site listed as “The Legion Way site” is really the Brickyard Pond Conservation Area. A portion of the site is a capped land fill that was used by our DPW and the Newth Rubber Company until the 1950’s. Since then, this site has blossomed into a habitat for wildlife including water fowl, birds of prey, fish and woodland animals. However, the pond is still stressed with low oxygen and poor water quality.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/R1/npl_pad.nsf/f52fa5c31fa8f5c885256adc0050b631/B9F1A8850271A2F585256B42006067C3

Fact 4: The presented economic and financial analysis has not been validated for accuracy by any un-affiliated, non-biased third party experts.

Fact 5: CREB states that at the Brickyard Pond Site, outdoor noise at the nearest home will be 41 dBA, resulting in sound levels that are well within World Health Organization (WHO) standards both for day and night.

CREB does not cite known research which quotes the WHO stating “sound levels during nighttime and late evening hours should be less than 30 dBA during sleeping periods to protect children’s health. “When sound levels are 45 dBA outside a home, we expect that the interior sound levels will not drop to the 30 dBA level needed in sleeping areas. This is because the low frequency content of the noise can penetrate the homes walls and roof with little power reduction.”

Another study referenced found some residents living 1.86 miles from a wind farm complain of sleep disturbance from the noise. Many residents living 984 feet from the wind farms experience major sleep disruption and other serious medical problems.
http://www.windaction.org/documents/17229

For more information, please go to http://www.citizenswindwatch.blogspot.com/ or http://www.windaction.org/

Turbine Maintenance Trouble, 9/5/08

Survey Says 60% of US Wind Turbines May Be Behind in Maintenance
California, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

Frontier Pro Services has released the results of an informal survey of approximately 75 wind farm operators in the United States. Designed to assess the specific operation and maintenance service needs of wind energy operators, the survey reveals what could be serious threats to wind farms largely because of the industry-wide shortage of qualified turbine technicians, Frontier said.

According to the findings, many wind farm operations and maintenance teams are so resource constrained that they are barely able to keep up with the unscheduled maintenance repairs their wind turbines require to continue generating electricity. Even regular, scheduled preventative-maintenance like oil changes and gearbox lubrication (services that are often still under warranty) are falling behind as manufacturers face similar resource struggles related to the shortage of qualified technicians. Gearbox failures account for the largest amount of downtime, maintenance, and lose of power production. These costly failures can total 15-20% of the price of the turbine itself, making wind turbine and gearbox maintenance a high priority. “Most gearbox failures are preventable,” said Jack Wallace, lead technical advisor for Frontier Pro Services. “Most gearboxes fail as a direct result of improper lubrication and lack of routine maintenance. With so many turbines behind on inspections and regular service, there is real cause for concern here,” Mr. Wallace continued. If oil is not properly monitored and replaced as needed, bearing and gear wear will lead to more serious and costly damage to the drive train. According to Frontier, when a US $1,500 bearing fails unnoticed, it can lead to production loss and revenue loss including an unscheduled replacement of a US $100,000 dollar gearbox and a unscheduled crane cost of up to US $70,000 to access the failed components. The Frontier Pro Services Operations & Maintenance survey was conducted through a combination of informal phone interviews and in-person meetings with operations and maintenance technicians, wind farm operators, and wind farm owners during the first six months of 2008. The results of this survey come as earlier this year a 200-foot Vestas wind turbine near the city of Århus in Denmark disintegrated in high winds when a blade came loose and hit the central tower, causing the whole structure to collapse. Two days later a blade broke off of a turbine near Sidinge, Denmark.

Barrington resident challenges zoning of wind turbine

Barrington resident challenges zoning of wind turbine

An abutter to Barrington High School believes the town may be violating a number of zoning ordinances with its siting of the proposed wind turbine. Kathleen Shafer, who lives at 210 Lincoln Ave., recently requested a zoning certificate regarding the wind turbine, which is slated to be built on the school's campus. The certificate would act to clarify the project with respect to any zoning implications of the proposed use.

Barrington Building Official Robert Speaker replied to the request by stating that the high school property — and all other town-owned property — was exempt from town zoning ordinances. He said the town has never had to apply for permits for construction projects or renovations to town-owned buildings on town property. "It's exempt," he said.

Still, Ms. Shafer said she will appeal the building official's decision at a July 17 zoning board meeting.

Ms. Shafer, whose home is located just west of the high school, is one of an apparent growing number of residents concerned about the wind turbine project (see box for project details). Some people opposing the location of the wind turbine have started a group called Citizens' Wind Watch of Barrington, which has its own website, citizenswindwatch.blogspot.com.

Others have filed letters to the editor or spoke at public meetings.

"It's not just neighbors close to the school," wrote Ms. Shafer in a recent e-mail. "It includes parents of students who are concerned about the impacts to the school and learning environment, the athletic fields, etc. from all over town."

In a recent letter to the editor, Ron Russo, who lives on Candleberry Road, wrote that visual flicker and strobe effects could be caused by the wind turbine. He cited studies that showed negative physiological effects — sleep disorders, headaches and dizziness — for people living near wind turbines. "Do we want to subject students, teachers and residents to these negative health effects?" wrote Mr. Russo.

Jill Cuzzone, who lives on Lincoln Avenue, wrote a letter questioning different aspects of the project, including an apparent fast-tracking of the approval process. "Other municipalities interested in harnessing wind power have conducted local wind studies and analyses for many years — Ipswich, Mass., four years. The Barrington energy committee first met six months ago, and while I commend them for their efforts, it seems they have not truly had enough time to consider all the information nor addressed all the issues."

Newell Thomas, who lives on Nayatt Road and has been working in the wind and solar energy business for three decades, said the town has taken the first step toward constructing a wind turbine, but "the work that has been completed is just the beginning of the effort required to make this project a reality. Now the serious work must begin."

Officials respond

Town officials say the wind turbine project has been an example of the government not working slowly, something it has been criticized for in the past.

Peter DeAngelis, the town manager, said a number of factors have weighed into the decision of where to place the wind turbine. For starters, the high school is the largest consumer of electricity for any public building in town. Officials say there may be better sites for harnessing wind power in town, but there are currently restrictions from putting the tower in one location and transferring the electricity to the high school.

Officials have also stated a desire to be a leader in utilizing renewable energy sources, which has been an initiative for the governor.

Jim Bride, the former chairman for the renewable energy committee in town, said he understands the concerns of residents, but also recognized the importance of this project.

"The whole issue of sustainability is so important," he said in an interview earlier this month. "Our energy costs are going up. If there's anything we can do to mitigate this ... this was an opportunity for Barrington to take the lead on this issue."

Zoning issue

In a document drafted by her attorneys at the firm Blish and Cavanagh, Ms. Shafer states the construction of a wind turbine in excess of 300-feet on the site is unlawful and not permitted for a number of reasons:

First, because the high school property is zoned open space-active recreation and wind turbines are not permitted in that zoning; second, because the wind turbine would far exceed height limitations for both principal structures (35 feet) and accessory structures (18 feet) stated in the dimensional regulations table of the Barrington Zoning Ordinance; third, because no provision of the town's zoning ordinance exempts the town from compliance; and fourth, because the town has no authority to amend the zoning ordinance in order to exempt itself from the necessary requirements.

The building official disagrees. He pointed to the town's zoning ordinances, chapter 185, section 4 — "Compliance required." The section includes the provision: "The Town of Barrington itself, both as to land owned by the Town and to governmental activity and use, shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter."

Mr. Speaker said he will wait to see what zoning board decides after hearing the appeal, adding that the appeal to the zoning board may be acting as a necessary step in order to take the case to the courts.

Mr. Speaker also said that Ms. Shafer's request of a zoning certificate on property other than her own was a bit unorthodox. "We give certificates on property that people own and want a ruling on, confirming or denying the legal status ... we don't speculate," he said.

Project details

At the Barrington Financial Town Meeting in May, voters approved a $2.4 million bond to fund the production of a 246-foot wind turbine. The proposed location — between the varsity football and baseball fields at the high school — has become a point of contention. Here are some details regarding the project:

Height: The proposed tower's height is 246 feet, with blade lengths of 80 feet, offering a total height of 326 feet.

Fall zone: The current location selected by officials places the tower less than 200 feet from the school building, which is well within the listed fall zone.

No interest loan: The town received approval for a $2.1 million no interest loan through the IRS, which may be site specific, meaning that if any location other than the high school is used the loan may be unavailable.

Behind the meter: The high school is reportedly the largest consumer of electricity for all public buildings. This proposed turbine would supply power directly to the school.

— By Josh Bickford

Did town rush into turbine project?

The vote over the proposed wind turbine in town has been cast, but that hasn’t stopped one man from raising concerns over the project. While the majority of people attending last week’s Financial Town Meeting voted in favor of a 264-foot wind turbine at Barrington High School, Ron Russo believes the project has too many problems for it to continue as proposed.

He pointed to the overall height of the tower, its proximity to the high school’s athletic fields and main building, some unclear information that could have confused voters, and said the project appeared to be fast-tracked by local town officials and the committee assigned to study the work.

Mr. Russo, a Candleberry Drive resident, attended the Financial Town Meeting on May 28 and even proposed an amendment to the wind turbine bond. He asked people to approve the construction of a wind turbine with the stipulation that it not be built at the high school. Voters defeated that request.

“I was late to this issue. I wasn’t paying that much attention. I wasn’t even planning on attending the town meeting. When I found out how high the tower was going to be at its location, I was surprised,” Mr. Russo said. “Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against building a wind turbine, but I feel like the high school is the wrong location for it.

“I feel like this was a rush to judgment. I think it’s the wrong size and the wrong location.”

Mr. Russo believes the deadline placed on this project pushed officials to fast-track the approval process. Barrington Town Manager Peter DeAngelis held a different perspective.

“People are used to government working slowly,” Mr. DeAngelis said. “Maybe this is an example where government is not working slowly. Last year council gave me three weeks to put together application.”

The application for a $2.1 million no interest loan through the Internal Revenue Service was filed, granted and officials later created a renewable energy committee. Jim Bride was named the chairman.

“When the committee formed at end of 2007 we were given this great opportunity. The town gave us a timeline to work with. They wanted us to make sure the citizens of Barrington, the school committee, and the town council were all on board,” Mr. Bride said.

Mr. Bride said on Monday that he is moving out of town in the near future.

“I can’t say enough about the people on this committee,” Mr. DeAngelis said. “These are good, knowledgeable people. The reason we were able to accelerate this project is because of the people who were on this committee and the work they did.”

Mr. Russo said a project of this magnitude, affecting the landscape dramatically, should not have moved as quickly.

“My feeling is that I think there was a rush to judgment to get this money,” Mr. Russo said. “I think they looked at the fact that they could get a no interest loan. They saw the money, put the application together, and they didn’t think through the impact. What about those people who own homes near the school. Their properties aren’t going to be worth dirt.”

Images questioned

Mr. Russo said the height of the tower was not correctly shown to residents and he added that the images used during the Financial Town Meeting presentation may have misled voters.

He said there was never a clear profile sketch provided to people, one that compared the heights of the wind turbine tower against existing structures like the high school building and the lights at the football field.

“The picture they showed of the tower was coming over the White Church Bridge. It was 5,000 feet away. There was no comparison drawing of what you’d see coming down County Road,” Mr. Russo said. “I think the (Barrington) Times was remiss by not showing how tall this was going to be.

“We’re going to be the laughing stock of the state. People are already laughing at Barrington for other reasons.”

Mr. DeAngelis said there were plenty of opportunities for people to get involved in the discussion process. He said there were open meetings, at which people did voice concerns and some changes were made.

“We had two public outreach sessions. At the first one we invited people who lived within 800 feet of the site. The second one was open to the public,” Mr. DeAngelis said. “We listened to what they wanted. They changed the location. Now the NIMBY [not in my back yard] crowd is bringing it about the school.”

Mr. Bride acknowledged that there were problems with the images presented at the meeting.

“I’ve heard feedback is that the image was hard to make out. I’m not denying that. We tried to do the best we could do,” he said.

Other issues

The information included in the Barrington Exploratory Wind Power Committee’s siting subcommittee report has also been brought into question.

A graphic included in the report shows the apparent minimum setback around the tower at 492 feet (drawn as a circle over the existing structures). The committee used an estimate of 500 feet for the graphic, but the scale appears off. In fact, the circle designating the setback appears closer to 300 feet rather than 500.

When asked about the graphic, Mr. Bride said he would take another look to see if the scale was inaccurate.

The fall zone for the tower is set at 328 feet, and while there are no private residences within 500 feet of the tower, the high school is less than 200 feet from the proposed tower’s base — well within the fall zone.

“These are not designed to fall down,” Mr. Bride said. “I know people have concerns, but there is a lot of engineering that goes into these projects.”

Patrick Guida, the chairman for the Barrington School Committee, said the board has studied the project and discussed it numerous times.

“Right now, based on what has been explained to us, we don’t believe safety is an issue,” he said. “From our perspective, there are different time frames when an accident would be more or less likely to occur.”

He said construction of the turbine could prove to be a dangerous period, especially when crews are moving the turbine blades into place.

“We have to be sure that the site would be cordoned off,” Mr. Guida said. “Could that be readily addressed and enough precautions taken during that period of time? Once it becomes operation, what are the concerns? If there were too great a wind, and if there was any malfunction, or if there were a problem because of an ice factor, that might also create an issue.”

Mr. Guida said much of his concerns and those of other school committee members were quelled by officials involved with the project. He said the committee will continue to monitor the proposed project closely.

“We approved this conditionally,” he said. “Number one, we had to have guaranteed a maximum price contract, no overrides. And it had to be able to operate in a manner where there would be safety in the face of vandalism or daredevil acts. Who knows what some student might dream in relation to the turbine?”

Mr. Bride said he understood the concerns raised, but wanted to emphasize the fact that there are approximately 180,000 wind turbines operating across the world. He said the benefits of creating a renewable energy source — one that would likely provide the high school with all its required electricity — should not be overlooked.

“The whole issue of sustainability is so important,” he said. “Our energy costs are going up. If there’s anything we can do to mitigate this … this was an opportunity for Barrington to take the lead on this issue.”

Can the wind turbine be relocated?

Barrington residents concerned with the proposed location of a wind turbine in town were told at the Financial Town Meeting last week that sites other than the high school could be explored, as long as the bond was voted through that night and pending legislation at the statehouse was approved. According to Barrington Town Manager Peter DeAngelis, there may be one other factor to consider. Mr. DeAngelis said the no interest loan from the Internal Revenue Service may be site specific.

n Legislation: If approved by lawmakers, the legislation would allow for the transfer of energy from a different site to the high school, the town’s biggest energy consumer.

n Loan: Mr. DeAngelis said the $2.1 million no interest loan from the IRS may not be applicable if the site for the wind turbine was changed. The high school was listed as the location in the loan application.

By Josh Bickford

www.eastbayri.com

4 June 2008

Wind-watch.org recognizes Barrington’s concern.

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2008/06/25/barrington-resident-challenges-zoning-of-wind-turbine/

An abutter to Barrington High School believes the town may be violating a number of zoning ordinances with its siting of the proposed wind turbine. Kathleen Shafer, who lives at 210 Lincoln Ave., recently requested a zoning certificate regarding the wind turbine, which is slated to be built on the school’s campus. The certificate would act to clarify the project with respect to any zoning implications of the proposed use.

Barrington Building Official Robert Speaker replied to the request by stating that the high school property — and all other town-owned property — was exempt from town zoning ordinances. He said the town has never had to apply for permits for construction projects or renovations to town-owned buildings on town property. “It’s exempt,” he said.

Still, Ms. Shafer said she will appeal the building official’s decision at a July 17 zoning board meeting.

Ms. Shafer, whose home is located just west of the high school, is one of an apparent growing number of residents concerned about the wind turbine project (see box for project details). Some people opposing the location of the wind turbine have started a group called Citizens’ Wind Watch of Barrington, which has its own website, citizenswindwatch.blogspot.com.

Others have filed letters to the editor or spoke at public meetings.

“It’s not just neighbors close to the school,” wrote Ms. Shafer in a recent e-mail. “It includes parents of students who are concerned about the impacts to the school and learning environment, the athletic fields, etc. from all over town.”

In a recent letter to the editor, Ron Russo, who lives on Candleberry Road, wrote that visual flicker and strobe effects could be caused by the wind turbine. He cited studies that showed negative physiological effects — sleep disorders, headaches and dizziness — for people living near wind turbines. “Do we want to subject students, teachers and residents to these negative health effects?” wrote Mr. Russo.

Jill Cuzzone, who lives on Lincoln Avenue, wrote a letter questioning different aspects of the project, including an apparent fast-tracking of the approval process. “Other municipalities interested in harnessing wind power have conducted local wind studies and analyses for many years — Ipswich, Mass., four years. The Barrington energy committee first met six months ago, and while I commend them for their efforts, it seems they have not truly had enough time to consider all the information nor addressed all the issues.”

Newell Thomas, who lives on Nayatt Road and has been working in the wind and solar energy business for three decades, said the town has taken the first step toward constructing a wind turbine, but “the work that has been completed is just the beginning of the effort required to make this project a reality. Now the serious work must begin.”

Officials respond

Town officials say the wind turbine project has been an example of the government not working slowly, something it has been criticized for in the past.

Peter DeAngelis, the town manager, said a number of factors have weighed into the decision of where to place the wind turbine. For starters, the high school is the largest consumer of electricity for any public building in town. Officials say there may be better sites for harnessing wind power in town, but there are currently restrictions from putting the tower in one location and transferring the electricity to the high school.

Officials have also stated a desire to be a leader in utilizing renewable energy sources, which has been an initiative for the governor.

Jim Bride, the former chairman for the renewable energy committee in town, said he understands the concerns of residents, but also recognized the importance of this project.

“The whole issue of sustainability is so important,” he said in an interview earlier this month. “Our energy costs are going up. If there’s anything we can do to mitigate this … this was an opportunity for Barrington to take the lead on this issue.”

Zoning issue

In a document drafted by her attorneys at the firm Blish and Cavanagh, Ms. Shafer states the construction of a wind turbine in excess of 300-feet on the site is unlawful and not permitted for a number of reasons:

First, because the high school property is zoned open space-active recreation and wind turbines are not permitted in that zoning; second, because the wind turbine would far exceed height limitations for both principal structures (35 feet) and accessory structures (18 feet) stated in the dimensional regulations table of the Barrington Zoning Ordinance; third, because no provision of the town’s zoning ordinance exempts the town from compliance; and fourth, because the town has no authority to amend the zoning ordinance in order to exempt itself from the necessary requirements.

The building official disagrees. He pointed to the town’s zoning ordinances, chapter 185, section 4 — “Compliance required.” The section includes the provision: “The Town of Barrington itself, both as to land owned by the Town and to governmental activity and use, shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter.”

Mr. Speaker said he will wait to see what zoning board decides after hearing the appeal, adding that the appeal to the zoning board may be acting as a necessary step in order to take the case to the courts.

Mr. Speaker also said that Ms. Shafer’s request of a zoning certificate on property other than her own was a bit unorthodox. “We give certificates on property that people own and want a ruling on, confirming or denying the legal status … we don’t speculate,” he said.

Project details

At the Barrington Financial Town Meeting in May, voters approved a $2.4 million bond to fund the production of a 246-foot wind turbine. The proposed location — between the varsity football and baseball fields at the high school — has become a point of contention. Here are some details regarding the project:

Height: The proposed tower’s height is 246 feet, with blade lengths of 80 feet, offering a total height of 326 feet.

Fall zone: The current location selected by officials places the tower less than 200 feet from the school building, which is well within the listed fall zone.

No interest loan: The town received approval for a $2.1 million no interest loan through the IRS, which may be site specific, meaning that if any location other than the high school is used the loan may be unavailable.

Behind the meter: The high school is reportedly the largest consumer of electricity for all public buildings. This proposed turbine would supply power directly to the school.

— By Josh Bickford

eastbayri.com

25 June 2008

approved legislation, projo article june 25, 2008

ills would widen sites for turbine

01:00 AM EDT on Wednesday, June 25, 2008

By C. Eugene Emery Jr.

Journal Staff Writer

BARRINGTON -- Both the House and Senate have separately approved legislation that would allow communities to erect wind turbines where they can generate the most electricity, and not just in locations where the power will be used, Sen. David Bates, R-Barrington, said yesterday.

At least one of those bills must be signed by Governor Carcieri before they become law.

In Barrington, the change would mean that the town would no longer have to put its proposed wind turbine at the high school, where it would be adjacent to some of the athletic fields and the school building.

The school property was selected as the best site because it has enough wind to make the turbine economical and the school is the town's biggest consumer of electricity. The current law only makes wind power profitable if communities that generate electricity use it at the site.

The new legislation would remove that limitation by establishing what is known as a "net metering" system, where the town can generate power at one location and get credit for the electricity it produces at other town-owned buildings.

Town Manager Peter DeAngelis said one site that has been discussed is at the end of Legion Way, on a small peninsula that extends into Brickyard Pond.

Climate maps show the average wind speed there to be faster than at the high school site.

The town is getting an interest-free federal loan to finance most of the project.

DeAngelis said yesterday that he has contacted federal officials to see if the town could shift the location of the turbine without losing the loan.

"Our initial conversations have been favorable," he said.

DeAngelis said the Legion Way site would put the turbine about 1,000 feet from any residence.

But that may not be enough for some of the wind-power critics who have tried to rally local opposition since voters overwhelmingly approved the 328-foot-tall turbine at last month's Financial Town Meeting.

Members of a group calling itself Citizens' Wind Watch of Barrington have begun handing out ! fliers s aying that no turbine of that size should be constructed within 1 1/4 mile of "homes, schools and other places where people learn, live or sleep."

Although the group claims it supports renewable energy, that restriction would prohibit the construction of any large wind turbine in Barrington, which is less than five miles from Nockum Hill to Rumstick Point.

The handout suggests, without citing a source, that up to 1 in 100 turbines lose at least one blade per year, posing a safety hazard.

In addition, the group cites unnamed "independent medical experts" who say the turbines can cause headaches, sleep disturbances, dizziness, nausea, heart problems, irritability, ringing in the ears, memory problems, concentration problems, and "a sense of penetrating vibration, or pulsation inside the human body, especially the chest, and these sensations can be accompanied by anxiety, compulsion to flee the environment, and even night terrors in young children."

And there's more.

The group says that sunlight flashing through the blades can produce a stroboscopic effect that "can cause body disharmony" and may lead to nausea, dizziness, disorientation and seizures.

To back up their claims, the group cites the Web site of Nina Pierpont, a New York pediatrician who says she discovered "Wind Turbine Syndrome" and recommends that turbines, in some cases, be located as far as three miles from homes.

Scientists are usually regarded as experts in a field only after they have authored studies that have been published in scientific or medical journals, where other experts have reviewed the findings for accuracy.

But Pierpont's four-page résumé lists no research articles on turbines or their effect on health.

Barrington's wind-energy committee, in contrast, has repeatedly insisted that the turbines are safe, citing their widespread use.

Barrington's Citizens' Wind Watch group, most of who live near the high school, was handing out the flier at Thursday's School Committee meeting.

During the meeting, with a ! ceiling fan rapidly spinning above their heads, they urged committee members to withdraw their permission to erect the turbine at the high school because of the danger it could pose.

"This is going to have a profound negative effect on the students," predicted critic Ron Russo, who said last night he was unfamiliar with the medical issues but objects to a 328-foot-tall structure being just 190 feet away from a school.

School Committee chairman Patrick "Buzz" Guida said his group had been assured by the town's wind-energy committee that the location would not pose a safety problem, but would reconsider if the site continues to be the high school and if real evidence of a hazard surfaces.

gemery@projo.com

Reply

Forward

Potential Legion site

FAQ (new!)

Why? What’s the problem with a wind turbine on the high school property?
Because, the site is NOT physically large enough to locate the wind turbine so that it adheres to the wind turbine manufacturers’ & the State of Rhode Island’s recommended setback distances for safe operation and maintenance. Please click on the Wind Turbine Safety Links, on our homepage, to get specific information. You can also read the various letters to the media, posted on our homepage, that cite some of the important & specific safety guidelines that the Town of Barrington RI is choosing to ignore.

Isn’t Citizens Wind Watch just a group of NIMBY’s that are trying to ruin the town of Barrington’s opportunity to have a renweable energy to offset the high schools electrical energy costs?
No. We are not just a group of NIMBY’s, many members of our coalition are non-abutters to the proposed wind turbine site at the Barrington High School. Again, Citizens Wind Watch is not anti-wind power.

Why would the Town Council choose to locate a wind turbine on the high school property, if that site is not actually large enough to meet the manufacturers’ & state’s safety guidelines?
That is one our primary questions as well – every individual that has this question should directed that question to the Barrington RI Town Council during the public comment portion of the upcoming Town Council meeting on 7/7/08, which begins at 7:30 pm at the Barrington, RI Town Hall.
You can also email this important question to the Town Council: TownCouncil@barrington.ri.gov

Is the Barrington High School site the optimum location for a wind turbine?
No. There is at least one other site in the town of Barrington that the town’s Renewable Energy Committee, which reports to the Town Council, has publically stated would be a better location in terms of:
Available wind, per statistical wind maps.
Meeting the manufacturers’ & State’s safety guidelines.
Construction management & maintenence, in that the other site is NOT on school property and would allow for year-round access, without interfering with school activities, etc.

Why isn’t the Town of Barrington proposing the “better” site?
Because the financing that they have applied for, is site-specific to the High School, due to a piece of legislation which (although very likely to pass), has not yet been passed by both houses of government at the state level.

Why not just wait for that legislation to pass, then explore the alternate, better site?
That is one our primary questions as well – every individual that has this question should directed that question to the Barrington RI Town Council during the public comment portion of the upcoming Town Council meeting on 7/7/08, which begins at 7:30 pm at the Barrington, RI Town Hall.
You can also email this important question to the Town Council: TownCouncil@barrington.ri.gov

Speaking of exploring viable sites for a wind turbine, has the Town of Barrington done site specific feasibility studies, such as those enumerated in the 6/18/08 letter to the editor of the Barrington Times entitled: “Town Needs Detailed Wind Feasibility Study”?
No.

OK, I’ve read through the health and safety concerns and now have this question: Considering that the proposed wind turbine is on the grounds of the Barrington High School, what are the core responsibilities of the Barrington School Committee, as a publically funded educational facility in the State of Rhode Island?
We can attempt to answer that with the following quotation:
RI GENERAL LAW: TITLE 16
SECTION 16-2-9
16-2-9 General powers and duties of school committees:
(8) To provide for the location, CARE, CONTROL, and MANAGEMENT of school facilities and equipment.

Hmmm. If the Barrington School Committee agrees to allow the Town of Barrington to locate a 328’ industrial wind turbine on the grounds of the public High School, wouldn’t they be going against the specific and clear wording of this law?
We the people of the Citizens Wind Watch, believe that would be for the courts to decide. We are not the judge, or jury in this matter. We are just concerned citizens that do CARE about people that attend, work in and visit, the facilities known as Barrington High School.

I now understand the physical damage and health & safety risks involved with these large wind turbines. What impact might an industrial wind turbine located on the grounds of the high school have on the insurance policy, and or the insurance premiums that cover the high school building and its occupants?
We the people of the Citizens Wind Watch do not know the answer to that, but believe that in the rush to push this project through, these issues may not have been evaluated by the Town Council, or explored by the School Committee. every individual that has this question should directed that question to the Barrington RI Town Council during the public comment portion of the upcoming Town Council meeting on 7/7/08, which begins at 7:30 pm at the Barrington, RI Town Hall. You can also email this important question to the Town Council: TownCouncil@barrington.ri.gov

Beyond the facility and its occupants, the proposed wind turbine location is close to some busy streets and power lines. Is that a good idea?
Based on our research, we the people of the Citizens Wind Watch, do not think that it is safe to have an industrial wind turbine close to power lines and streets.

Who owns those streets and power lines and do they know about and approve of the wind turbine on the grounds of the Barrington High School?
County Road (Route 114) is a State Highway and that Federal Road is a Town of Barrington Road. We do not know what entity actually owns the power lines. We do not know if the owners of these infrastructural roads and utility lines are aware of, or approve of an industrial, 328’ tall wind turbine in close proximity to their property & equipment, or if they do, what liability the Town of Barrington, or the even School Committee, as the manager of the Barrington High School facility might face if there were an accident involving the proposed wind turbine that caused damage to the property of others.

What about the Wind Turbine manufacturer? What do they say about such large scale industrial equipment in close proximity to a public school?
The following is from one wind turbine manufacturer’s owner’s manual:
"Stay and Traffic by the Turbine. Do not stay within a radius of 400 m (1300 ft.) from the turbine unless it is necessary. If you have to inspect an operating turbine from the ground, do not stay under the rotor plane but observe the rotor from the front.
Make sure that children do not stay by or play nearby the turbine.
If necessary, fence the foundation. The access door to the turbine must be locked in order to prevent unauthorised persons from stopping or damaging the turbine due to mal-operation of the controller."

Did Town Rush Into Turbine Project?

BARRINGTON TIMES

June 4, 2008

By Josh Bickford

www.eastbayri.com

“DID TOWN RUSH INTO TURBINE PROJECT?”

The vote over the proposed wind turbine in town has been cast, but that hasn’t stopped one man from raising concerns over the project. While the majority of people attending last week’s Financial Town Meeting voted in favor of a 264-foot wind turbine at Barrington High School, Ron Russo believes the project has too many problems for it to continue as proposed.

He pointed to the overall height of the tower, its proximity to the high school’s athletic fields and main building, some unclear information that could have confused voters, and said the project appeared to be fast-tracked by local town officials and the committee assigned to study the work.

Mr. Russo, a Candleberry Drive resident, attended the Financial Town Meeting on May 28 and even proposed an amendment to the wind turbine bond. He asked people to approve the construction of a wind turbine with the stipulation that it not be built at the high school. Voters defeated that request.

“I was late to this issue. I wasn’t paying that much attention. I wasn’t even planning on attending the town meeting. When I found out how high the tower was going to be at its location, I was surprised,” Mr. Russo said. “Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against building a wind turbine, but I feel like the high school is the wrong location for it.

“I feel like this was a rush to judgment. I think it’s the wrong size and the wrong location.”

Mr. Russo believes the deadline placed on this project pushed officials to fast-track the approval process. Barrington Town Manager Peter DeAngelis held a different perspective.

“People are used to government working slowly,” Mr. DeAngelis said. “Maybe this is an example where government is not working slowly. Last year council gave me three weeks to put together application.”

The application for a $2.1 million no interest loan through the Internal Revenue Service was filed, granted and officials later created a renewable energy committee. Jim Bride was named the chairman.

“When the committee formed at end of 2007 we were given this great opportunity. The town gave us a timeline to work with. They wanted us to make sure the citizens of Barrington, the school committee, and the town council were all on board,” Mr. Bride said.

Mr. Bride said on Monday that he is moving out of town in the near future.

“I can’t say enough about the people on this committee,” Mr. DeAngelis said. “These are good, knowledgeable people. The reason we were able to accelerate this project is because of the people who were on this committee and the work they did.”

Mr. Russo said a project of this magnitude, affecting the landscape dramatically, should not have moved as quickly.

“My feeling is that I think there was a rush to judgment to get this money,” Mr. Russo said. “I think they looked at the fact that they could get a no interest loan. They saw the money, put the application together, and they didn’t think through the impact. What about those people who own homes near the school. Their properties aren’t going to be worth dirt.”

Images questioned

Mr. Russo said the height of the tower was not correctly shown to residents and he added that the images used during the Financial Town Meeting presentation may have misled voters.

He said there was never a clear profile sketch provided to people, one that compared the heights of the wind turbine tower against existing structures like the high school building and the lights at the football field.

“The picture they showed of the tower was coming over the White Church Bridge. It was 5,000 feet away. There was no comparison drawing of what you’d see coming down County Road,” Mr. Russo said. “I think the (Barrington) Times was remiss by not showing how tall this was going to be.

“We’re going to be the laughing stock of the state. People are already laughing at Barrington for other reasons.”

Mr. DeAngelis said there were plenty of opportunities for people to get involved in the discussion process. He said there were open meetings, at which people did voice concerns and some changes were made.

“We had two public outreach sessions. At the first one we invited people who lived within 800 feet of the site. The second one was open to the public,” Mr. DeAngelis said. “We listened to what they wanted. They changed the location. Now the NIMBY [not in my back yard] crowd is bringing it about the school.”

Mr. Bride acknowledged that there were problems with the images presented at the meeting.

“I’ve heard feedback is that the image was hard to make out. I’m not denying that. We tried to do the best we could do,” he said.

Other issues

The information included in the Barrington Exploratory Wind Power Committee’s siting subcommittee report has also been brought into question.

A graphic included in the report shows the apparent minimum setback around the tower at 492 feet (drawn as a circle over the existing structures). The committee used an estimate of 500 feet for the graphic, but the scale appears off. In fact, the circle designating the setback appears closer to 300 feet rather than 500.

When asked about the graphic, Mr. Bride said he would take another look to see if the scale was inaccurate.

The fall zone for the tower is set at 328 feet, and while there are no private residences within 500 feet of the tower, the high school is less than 200 feet from the proposed tower’s base — well within the fall zone.

“These are not designed to fall down,” Mr. Bride said. “I know people have concerns, but there is a lot of engineering that goes into these projects.”

Patrick Guida, the chairman for the Barrington School Committee, said the board has studied the project and discussed it numerous times.

“Right now, based on what has been explained to us, we don’t believe safety is an issue,” he said. “From our perspective, there are different time frames when an accident would be more or less likely to occur.”

He said construction of the turbine could prove to be a dangerous period, especially when crews are moving the turbine blades into place.

“We have to be sure that the site would be cordoned off,” Mr. Guida said. “Could that be readily addressed and enough precautions taken during that period of time? Once it becomes operation, what are the concerns? If there were too great a wind, and if there was any malfunction, or if there were a problem because of an ice factor, that might also create an issue.”

Mr. Guida said much of his concerns and those of other school committee members were quelled by officials involved with the project. He said the committee will continue to monitor the proposed project closely.

“We approved this conditionally,” he said. “Number one, we had to have guaranteed a maximum price contract, no overrides. And it had to be able to operate in a manner where there would be safety in the face of vandalism or daredevil acts. Who knows what some student might dream in relation to the turbine?”

Mr. Bride said he understood the concerns raised, but wanted to emphasize the fact that there are approximately 180,000 wind turbines operating across the world. He said the benefits of creating a renewable energy source — one that would likely provide the high school with all its required electricity — should not be overlooked.

“The whole issue of sustainability is so important,” he said. “Our energy costs are going up. If there’s anything we can do to mitigate this … this was an opportunity for Barrington to take the lead on this issue.”

Can the wind turbine be relocated?

Barrington residents concerned with the proposed location of a wind turbine in town were told at the Financial Town Meeting last week that sites other than the high school could be explored, as long as the bond was voted through that night and pending legislation at the statehouse was approved. According to Barrington Town Manager Peter DeAngelis, there may be one other factor to consider. Mr. DeAngelis said the no interest loan from the Internal Revenue Service may be site specific.

On Legislation: If approved by lawmakers, the legislation would allow for the transfer of energy from a different site to the high school, the town’s biggest energy consumer.

On Loan: Mr. DeAngelis said the $2.1 million no interest loan from the IRS may not be applicable if the site for the wind turbine was changed. The high school was listed as the location in the loan application.