Public Reactions – 5/23/12 – “Model Malfunction”
The former Chairperson of the Falmouth Board of Selectmen made this ‘obtuse’ observation to the press, after the review of the DEP’s Wind 1 Noise Study ~ “the noise violation is only at one house and is only in violation between 1 and 4 am.”
A Letter to the Falmouth Editor from a Woods Hole Scientist followed – May 22, 2012
….Some have commented that “only one house failed.” This misses the point. Only one house in that area was tested. The purpose of testing is to collect a representative sample. There are two houses west and one east of the one that failed. All are closer to Wind 1 than the house that failed. It seems likely that all of these would fail, if the testing equipment was set up on those properties.
But the real issue is that the sound modeling has failed. According to the model, the house in question should have passed. So the modeling is wrong at that location. If the model is wrong there, why should we believe it’s correct elsewhere? There is no practical way to test every house in every wind condition, so we depend on modeling to insure that the noise is not excessive. Clearly, the model is inadequate.
News – Fal E – 5/22/12 – Turbine Consensus Committee Formed Affected Neighbors Refuse To Participate;
First Meeting May 30
By BRENT RUNYON
Falmouth Board of Selectmen announced last night it will go forward with a consensus-building process to solve the problems created by the town wind turbines, with or without the neighbors negatively affected by the turbines.
Selectmen announced the names of residents who applied for a new Wind Turbine Option Analysis Committee last night, but that list did not include any of the neighbors who complained about the turbines. “We have yet to receive any applications from residents who live near the turbines,” said Kevin E. Murphy, who was elected unanimously as the new chairman of the board of selectmen. Even though the residents did not apply, there will be seats left open at the table should they decide to participate in the process, Mr. Murphy said. “We would like to leave open five positions for affected residents, if and when they want to come to the table,” Mr. Murphy said. Consultant Stacie N. Smith from the Consensus Building Institute in Cambridge, asked that the spots on the committee be left open for the neighbors.
But Mr. Murphy said, even if the neighbors decide not to participate in the process, the town will still move forward with the consensus-building process. “With or without the neighbors, we will try to move forward with a solution,” Mr. Murphy said.
At a meeting last month, neighbors said they would not participate in the process unless the turbines were turned off. Two weeks ago selectmen voted to turn the turbines off from 7 PM to 7 AM every night. One of the neighbors, Mark J. Cool of Firetower Road, read a prepared statement explaining why they will not participate in the process.
“The selectmen’s turbine operation plan has made what appears to be a helpful offer in turning them off at night,” said Mr. Cool. “Sadly, selectmen do not appreciate the gravity of the situation. An agreement between two opponents to stop harm, for a certain time is the definition of a truce. A truce is an opportunity for a de-escalation of opposing sides to conduct meaningful dialogue. Continuing negative health assaults during the day, and removal of the curtailment, does nothing to de-escalate. It serves only to control “when” harm will resume and increases the severity of the harm caused.
“The board seemingly believes the timing of the harm upon residents to be acceptable for the fiscal stability of the town. Town meeting thought this wrong even before the revised turbine curfews, and afflicted neighbors certainly believe this wrong.
“Entering into a process without the selectmen’s commitment that Wind 1 and 2 will be off during consensus building there is no good faith effort toward meaningful dialogue, and without the commitment to a short term deadline, prior to Fall Town meeting, selectmen deny the town’s legislative branch any opportunity to weigh in on the consensus building progress,” Mr. Cool read.
“For the health, well being and harmony of the community, I and my neighbors hold steadfast to the principals of a truce, and a time sensitive process dead-line line,” he read.
Selectmen did not respond to Mr. Cool’s remarks directly, but did discuss the makeup of the rest of the committee. Selectman Mary (Pat) Flynn volunteered to act as a liaison between the committee and the board of selectmen. Ms. Flynn said she now has more time to devote to the committee after stepping down as chairman of the board of selectmen.
New selectman, Douglas H. Jones, said he would like to attend some of the meetings and participate in the process. Mr. Murphy said he was glad to hear that at least one member of the board of selectmen will be at the meetings, and other selectmen can go to the meetings as well, he said. The process may be intense at times, he said.
The meetings will be televised by Falmouth Community Television, he said, but sometimes the camera does not capture the mood of the room.
Selectman David Braga asked why the word abutter was taken out of the description of residents who live near the turbines. The description now reads, “residents primarily concerned with adverse impacts on neighbors of and economic impacts and residential and commercial abutters.” Mr. Jones said the word abutter has specific legal implications, and was likely taken out because they did not want to exclude anyone who wanted to participate.
Ms. Smith will hold the first meeting on May 30 at the Falmouth Public Library. She will meet with stakeholders from 5 to 6 PM and then hold the first meeting of the committee from 6 to 9 PM.
Mr. Murphy said Ms. Smith will review the applications to see that everyone fi ts into the category for which they applied and then lead the applicants through a self-selection process for the committee.
The 15-member committee will be divided into six stakeholder groups, including five residents primarily concerned with the adverse impacts on neighbors. There will be two residents primarily concerned with implementing Falmouth’s climate action protection plan to reduce the use of fossil fuel. Resident Shaun A. Hunt, and members of the Falmouth Energy Committee Anastasia K. Karplus, Megan C. Amsler and Richard L. Koehler, applied for those spots.
There will be two taxpayers primarily concerned with maintaining the fiscal benefits provided by the turbines. Stephen S. Fassett, a member of the Falmouth Finance Committee, and Kathy Driscoll applied for those positions.
There will be two residents with strong empathy for all perspectives primarily concerned with a fair and effective process that can lead to an amicable outcome that can reunite the town. Jeffrey W. Oppenheim, Linda Davis, John Carlton-Foss, Judith Fenwick, Christina C. Rawley, Samuel McMurtrie and Kenneth M. Reed applied for those positions.
There will be three employees from relevant town departments. Those spots will be fi lled by Robert Shea, the GIS coordinator, David Bailey, director of assessing, and Karen M. Cardeira, director of human services. The wind turbine committee will attempt to work through the problems created by the town-owned turbines at the Falmouth wastewater treatment plant on Blacksmith Shop Road. Both are 1.65-megawatt Vestas turbines and are 262-feet tall to the hub, and located within a quarter-mile of the nearest neighbor
News – Fal E – 5/22/12 – Meeting Set To Determine Whether Turbines Constitute Health Emergency
Meeting Set To Determine Whether Turbines Constitute Health Emergency
By BRENT RUNYON
Falmouth Board of Health will hold a public hearing to determine whether wind turbines are causing a health emergency and if action should be taken. The hearing will be held Thursday at 7 PM in the selectmen’s meeting room in Falmouth Town Hall.
If the board determines there is a health emergency, it could create new regulations to stop the turbines from operating in Falmouth.
Residents are invited to speak about health effects they have experienced related to the wind turbines in Falmouth. Presentations will be limited to three minutes each and a written summary of the remarks is also required. In addition, written testimony from residents will be accepted until Meeting Set To Determine Whether Turbines Constitute Health Emergency that all the complaints received on this topic are not confidential and are public records. “The Board of Health is soliciting information from the public to assist it in making a public policy decision and to determine whether to invoke its considerable regulatory powers,” he wrote. “This is the essence of the public process. The information the board is seeking will be submitted voluntarily. There is no mandatory reporting requirement such as with certain communicable diseases.”
Complaints about the wind turbines are highly personal, he wrote, but are being submitted to influence the board of health about whether to potentially shut down the wind turbines. For that reason, the complaints should be public, he wrote. “Where information is submitted voluntarily to a public body to influence its decision making on a matter of public interest, I believe that public disclosure outweighs the privacy interest. There is neither a reasonable expectation of nor an unwarranted invasion of privacy under the circumstances,” he wrote. “I would remind the board that in courts of law, individuals must publicly reveal very intimate details about their physical and mental health when the issue is related to damages. The same is true when people testify before state legislatures and congress to secure the passage of legislation relating to health or safety issues,” he wrote.
Last night, board of health members said they still had questions about the confi dential status of health complaints, and asked health agent David W. Carignan to contact the Massachusetts Attorney General for clarification about the law.
While some viewed the board of health hearing as positive, others have been critical. Daniel H. Webb, the owner of the Notus turbine, wrote a letter to the board of health last week, expressing his concerns about the hearing, which was scheduled at a board of health meeting two weeks ago. Mr. Webb wrote that the Notus turbine was permitted by the Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals in 2008, and is sited responsibly.
“The project passed an exhaustive permitting process at local, state and federal levels,” he wrote. “The turbine is located in an industrial park and has zero residential abutters.” The nearest neighbor is 1,680 feet away from the Notus turbine, compared to 1,303 feet to Wind 1 and 1,138 feet to Wind 2, he wrote.
There have been studies about the health effects of wind turbines, including one by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection released in January that concluded there is no health risk associated with wind turbines, he wrote. “In view of the reliable opinions of mainstream science and recent DEP report by independent experts, the Board was hasty in calling the May 24 hear- ing and should cancel it,” Mr. Webb wrote.
The Notus turbine has been operating continuously for 21 months, he wrote. “I’m confi dent that a review of the medical and scientific facts will show that there is no justification for an emergency shutdown of the Notus wind turbine, or indeed for the Board to determine there is any kind of emergency,” Mr. Webb wrote.
The hearing is just the latest development regarding wind turbines in Falmouth. Selectmen have hired the Consensus Building Institute of Cambridge to form a Wind Turbine Option Analysis Committee to determine what should be done about the town-owned turbines.
But Mr. Andersen said he and the other neighbors have decided not to participate in the consensus-building process, opting instead to rely on the board of health to respond to their complaints. Mr. Andersen is responsible for the signs along Route 28 which read: “Support Our Neighbors. Stop the turbines now!” He purchased 300 signs at $3 a piece and placed them along Route 28 attached to trees on both sides of the highway and along Route 28 going toward Mashpee.
Yesterday, he said he was disturbed to fi nd that many of the signs have been stolen or vandalized. Someone changed eight of the signs to read, “Support Earth. More turbines now!” he said. Despite the vandalism, Mr. Andersen said the momentum seems to be swinging in the favor of the residents who are disturbed by the turbines. He said he was encouraged by a story in The Boston Globe on Monday that reported the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection was considering more stringent noise regulations about siting wind turbines near residences in response to the situation in Falmouth.
But Department of Environmental Protection spokesman Edmund Coletta said the Globe reported what was announced in January when a DEP independent expert panel released a report on the health effects of wind turbines. The DEP does not have any new wind turbine regulations at the ready, Mr. Coletta said.
Last week, Selectman Mary (Pat) Flynn announced that Wind 1 would be shut off for 30 days after the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection found that sound levels taken this past February and March exceeded thresholds permitted by state law. In Massachusetts any 10-decibel increase above a particular location’s ambient noise level is considered a violation, which Ms. Flynn said occurred with Wind 1 between the hours of 1 AM and 4 AM. Because the Department of Environmental Protection has no data on the sound levels of Wind 1 during the day, Ms. Flynn said, it will conduct additional tests over the next month while the machine is off. After the 30 days, Ms. Flynn said, Wind 1 will resume operation from 7 AM to 7 PM, the same hours that Wind 2 will be turned on. Selectmen voted to curtail the operation of the machines to those hours at their meeting two weeks ago at the same time the board of health scheduled the emergency hearing on wind turbines.
The controversy about wind turbines spilled over to another board meeting in Falmouth last week. At the Water Quality Management Committee meeting Stephen D. Rafferty, a member of both the board of health and the water quality committee, re- sponded to a comment that the board of health had scheduled the emergency hearing meeting without properly posting it on the agenda. Mr. Rafferty said that the board did not take any new testimony about the health effects of wind turbines and simply scheduled 
a meeting based on information that came up during a discussion of a letter to the board about turbine health effects.
News – CCT – 5/22/12 – Turbine abutters refuse to ‘build consensus’
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120522/NEWS11/120529917
Turbine abutters refuse to ‘build consensus’
Neighbors of Falmouth’s town-owned wind turbines balked at the town’s compromise in turbine operation and refused to participate in a consensus-building process until they stop spinning.
Reading a letter he wrote to selectmen at their Monday night meeting, Mark Cool, an abutter to the turbines, said the board’s vote two weeks ago in favor of shutting off one of Falmouth’s two 1.65-megawatt turbines at the wastewater treatment plant on Blacksmith Shop Road 12 hours each day falls short of “a good-faith effort toward meaningful dialogue.
“They’re already on record of saying that by doing this 12 hours on and 12 hours off, they’ve met a compromise,” Cool said Tuesday. “Do you actually compromise or negotiate with one’s well-being or one’s health?”
Cool’s letter represents the stance of more than 70 neighbors in 40 households near the turbines who say they cause health issues including vertigo and headaches, he said.
Next week, a group of town officials, residents and other stakeholders begin regular meetings to gauge opinions and possible solutions to problems associated with the turbines. On May 30, the Consensus Building Institute – a Cambridge-based firm that Falmouth hired to mediate talks – is scheduled to begin nominating people to serve on a committee responsible for making recommendations for solutions to selectmen.
Selectmen’s curtailment of the “Wind 1” turbine between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. each day and their recent agreement with the state Department of Environmental Protection to turn it off completely for 30 days – following the release of a sound study that concludes Wind 1 exceeds noise levels appropriate for residential neighborhoods at night – demonstrate their commitment to abutters, said Selectman Kevin Murphy, chairman of the board, on Tuesday.
“The board believes that is a good-faith gesture and we hope the neighbors participate (in consensus building talks),” Murphy said. “But the exercises will move forward with or without the neighbors.”
Murphy added that five spots on the committee that are reserved for people negatively affected by the turbines will remain open to them throughout the consensus-building process in case they change their minds.
Board of selectmen Vice Chairman Brent Putnam said he recognizes why turbine opponents are boycotting the talks.
“I sympathize with them and I understand their reasons for doing it,” Putnam said Tuesday.
The turbine foes attempted to compromise on their demand that both turbines be shut down throughout the duration of the consensus-building meetings, but negotiations broke down, said Todd Drummey, one of the abutters not participating in talks.
Drummey said a few weeks ago, after hearing the town’s offer of powering off the turbine half of each day, abutters said they would join consensus talks if the town also limited blade speeds to 23 mph. But the selectmen, through a Consensus Building Institute official, never agreed to the stipulation.
“We probably would have been able to move forward on that” agreement, Drummey said. “It’s been a very difficult decision for the neighbors.”
Agreeing with Murphy, Falmouth Wastewater Superintendent Gerald Potamis, who oversees the turbines, said the town already made a number of concessions to turbine abutters.
“The town actually went from a three- to four-hour shutdown to a 12-hour shutdown,” Potamis said Tuesday. “It acknowledges the concerns residents had.”
News – CCT – 5/22/12 – State agency weighs new turbine regulations
State agency weighs new turbine regulations
steehan@capecodonline.com
May 22, 2012
State environmental officials may introduce new regulations to avoid placing wind turbines that exceed the state’s acceptable noise threshold near residential neighborhoods. But ideas for possible new rules are far from concrete and have not yet been fully explored by officials at the Department of Environmental Protection. ”It is under consideration, but there’s been nothing written,” said Ed Coletta, a DEP spokesman. “Everything is still under review.”
DEP Commissioner Kenneth Kimmell did not have time on Monday to speak with a Times reporter, Coletta said.
DEP officials are exploring rules that would require turbine manufacturers to provide estimates of turbine noise levels and would require towns to consider the topography surrounding them, what kind of weather conditions they would likely face and how far they would be from the nearest homes, Coletta said. DEP officials have not officially proposed any of these ideas, he said.
Falmouth Selectman Mary Pat Flynn said she had not had any communication with the state about possible new regulations.
POINT OF INTEREST – 30 june, 2011 (Note the date) MassDEP had in fact communicated with Falmouth Selectmen Chairperson (Ms. Flynn and the Falmouth Health Agent). I HAVE A COPY OF THE LETTER Her observation about having had ‘no communications with the state about possible new regulations’ is suspect. From the 30 June letter -
“Accordingly, we (MassDEP) appreciate the Town of Falmouth’s and HMMH’s effort to work with MassDEP as we update our sound evaluation/noise compliance guidance to specifically address Wind Turbines.” Pg2 of the letter
“MassDEP is in the process of updating its guidance for conducting sound surveys to specifically address sound emissions from wind turbines.” Pg3 of the letter.
Article continues-
The DEP started kicking around ideas to increase vigilance during the planning phase of turbine projects after a state-appointed panel in January found no evidence that noise and shadow flicker from turbines directly affect abutters, Coletta said.
POINT OF INTEREST – The DEP spokesman is incorrect. The state-appointed panel in January specifically cited ‘sleep disturbance‘ and ‘annoyance‘ as identified ‘direct effects’ from “some wind turbines.” Some wind turbines is the panels terminology defining “improperly sited wind turbines too close to people.”
Article continues-
Several residents decried the January report when it came out. But Falmouth residents who oppose wind turbines felt vindicated last week when the DEP announced a separate study of noise created by “Wind 1″ — one of Falmouth’s two 1.65-megawatt turbines at the wastewater treatment plant on Blacksmith Shop Road — found it created more sound than allowed under state law.
State law limits turbine noise to 10 decibels above ambient noise in an area. For example, on the study’s first night, ambient noise at 211 Blacksmith Shop Road was measured at 29 decibels. The sound from the turbine reached just under 41 decibels, which meant the sound was about 2 decibels higher than the extra 10 decibels allowed. In light of the study, Falmouth’s selectmen agreed to shut off Wind 1 for 30 days while DEP officials test the turbine’s decibel level during the day.
POINT OF INTEREST – Falmouth’s wind turbine noise violation is indicative of the MassDEP sentiments relayed in the June 30, 2011 letter. The 10 dBA system is a systemic failure in the assessment of noise levels and sound characteristics emanating from wind turbine installations. From the June 30, 2011 letter -
“The current MassDEP Noise Sampling Guidance was developed to be generally applicable to industrial noise sources that typically exhibit fairly steady emission signatures with relatively little frequency and octave variation.” Pg3 of the letter
Malcolm Donald, a turbine abutter and outspoken opponent of the turbines, said state officials and manufacturers should take greater steps to avoid building turbines that disturb neighbors. He said turbines in Fairhaven and Kingston that recently began spinning should also be studied for possible excessive noise.
“The people in Fairhaven are actually closer to their turbines than we are to ours,” Donald said. “How on earth they didn’t think it was going to be a problem over there when it was a problem here is beyond me.”
The state may conduct sound studies at turbines in Fairhaven and Kingston if they receive enough complaints, Coletta said. The DEP received some complaints from turbine neighbors in Kingston but not from Fairhaven residents, Coletta said. However, Coletta said, they have no immediate plans to test decibel levels at either site.
The DEP isn’t the only state agency looking into turbine regulations. Next week, the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives will receive a bill that would direct the DEP to establish statewide turbine siting standards. The standards would not be regulations, but could be used by communities as guidelines for the turbine building process.
The bill marks a stark change from a previous bill being considered by the state Legislature’s Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee that, in addition to creating siting standards, would have also expedited the permitting process for turbines in an effort to encourage more green energy. That bill was killed by the committee in January to allow standards to be set before permits are streamlined, according to committee staffers.
Coletta said the DEP does not currently review turbine projects before they are built unless they are being constructed on landfills or wetlands.
“In those cases we have to review and give them a permit for building on those locations, but that review isn’t concerned with sound,” Coletta said. “We are mainly looking at if the landfill can support the weight of the turbine or if the wetland will be damaged in the construction process.”
“There is nothing on the books that says we have to review turbines for sound or infrasound or flicker,” he added. “A bill from the state Legislature would give us more rights to do that.”
Ariel Wittenberg from The Standard-Times contributed to this report
Letter – 5/20/12 – Mass DEP Complicit in Neglect
Mass DEP Complicit in Neglect
Falmouth’s wind turbine noise violation represents only the next community, globally, to be subjected to a systemic failure in the prediction of noise levels and sound characteristics emanating from wind turbine installations. The MassDEP noise level criterion is woefully inadequate. This fact was admitted by the agency in a June30, 2011 letter to selectmen.
The noise elements emitted by a wind turbine too close to residents are those same ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ passively employed on terrorist detainees in GITMO. Does the DEP test for low frequency or amplitude modulation impact? No. Symptomatic health complaints made by resident are similar to victims enduring prolonged exposure to these type elements.
Salus aegroti suprema lex is Latin for the ‘wellbeing of the patient is the most important law’. The Falmouth Health Board understands. Without attention to the accurately defined and pronounced concern, the Board has no option but to carry out it’s charge.
Regardless of who owns or operates a turbine in Falmouth, if any turbine should subject residents to real, or scientifically valid risks of health harm, the Board’s sworn duty is to prevent such conditions until scientifically appropriate, reliable wind turbine sound survey protocol dictates otherwise.
News – Bos Globe – 5/16/12 – Mass. moves to shut turbine over noise levels
Mass. moves to shut turbine over noise levels
Step may boost wind-power foes
By David Abel
| GLOBE STAFF MAY 16, 2012
DAVID L. RYAN/GLOBE STAFF
One wind turbine in Falmouth will be turned off, officials said, while the other will continue to operate during the day.
- For the first time since the state began promoting wind power, environmental officials have recommended shutting down a wind turbine because of elevated noise levels that they described as unacceptable to local residents.
The state Department of Environmental Protection, in a long-awaited response to Falmouth residents’ complaints about noise from two turbines, released a report Tuesday finding that one turbine less than 1,500 feet from the nearest home repeatedly exceeded allowable noise levels.
The findings give ammunition to increasingly vocal opponents of wind power, who have sought to slow the Patrick administration’s efforts to produce 2,000 megawatts of wind power – three-quarters of it from offshore sources – by 2020, up from about 45 megawatts available today. The Falmouth turbines produce a total of 3 megawatts of power.
“Obviously, we take these findings extremely seriously,’’ said Kenneth Kimmell, the state environmental protection commissioner. “But I don’t think we should jump to conclusions that the experience here can be generalized to other locations.’’
He said numerous other turbines operate in similar proximity to residential areas, such as those in Fairhaven, Hull, and Kingston. Residents in those areas have also fought vigorously to shut down turbines in their communities.
‘People have been complaining about . . . health effects almost as soon as the first turbine began operating.’
Jeffrey Butts John Jay College of Criminal Justice
“I think [this report] demonstrates that Massachusetts DEP calls balls and strikes in an impartial way and holds wind turbines to the same standards as we apply to other industries,’’ Kimmell said. “But there are other turbines operating in residential areas, which have not led to similar complaints. So these results do not implicate turbines everywhere.’’
The agency recommended that the Falmouth turbine that regularly increased noise by more than 10 decibels at the closest home be turned off immediately, for at least 30 days, while the state conducts further studies. The other turbine will be switched off at night but be allowed to remain in operation during the day, pending the additional studies.
Town officials said they have been working closely with state officials over recent months to assess the complaints. They said they decided to stop the turbines from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. several weeks ago, and that they have agreed to shut down one of the turbines until state officials complete their testing.
“My first reaction to this report is it’s about time,’’ said Eleanor Tillinghast, a steering committee member of Windwise ~ Massachusetts, which has opposed wind projects around the state. “People have been complaining about severe health effects almost as soon as the first turbine began operating. The effects have been severe and chronic. . . . This is happening all over the world.’’
The DEP findings come several months after a panel of independent scientists and doctors convened by the agency found little to no evidence that wind turbines pose a risk to the health of residents living near them.
That panel concluded that there is no rigorous research showing that churning turbines or the resulting flickering light and vibrations produce dizziness, nausea, depression, or anxiety – a set of symptoms that critics of wind power call “wind turbine syndrome.’’
The panel found limited evidence that a “very loud wind turbine could cause disrupted sleep, particularly in vulnerable populations, at a certain distance, while a very quiet wind turbine would not likely disrupt even the lightest of sleepers at that same distance.’’
“But there is not enough evidence to provide particular sound-pressure thresholds at which wind turbines cause sleep disruption,’’ it added.
The wind power critics cite a host of anecdotal evidence of dangers to residents living less than a mile from large turbines, such as those in Falmouth, where the first one was erected three years ago at a local waste treatment facility. They say the whirring of turbines can result in symptoms such as migraines, vertigo, motion sensitivity, and inner-ear damage, particularly in abutters who are 50 years old or older.
In Falmouth, where the wind project cost local residents $5 million and state and federal taxpayers another $10 million, neighbors said they were relieved by the results of the report.
Annie Cool, 53, a real estate broker who lives about 1,600 feet from the turbines, said she has trouble sleeping at night because the whirring sounds like “a boot in a dryer.’’
“This report is a long time in coming,’’ she said. “The town of Falmouth made a quick decision to place those turbines in a residential area, and when they realized it may have not been the best decision, rather than doing the right thing and moving the turbines, they went into a long, exhausted financial exercise to prove that the neighbors were crazy.’’
She added: “Do I feel a little vindicated by the report? Yes, because it shows we’re not crazy. But do I trust that the town and the state will do the right thing? Not on your life.’’
Todd Drummey, 48, a financial planner who lives 3,000 feet from the closest turbine in Falmouth, compared the noise of the turbines to jets and pile drivers, depending on the weather. He said shutting them down, at least temporarily, was a good first step. “But what I would really love to see is that they’re moved,’’ he said, adding he also has trouble sleeping at night.
The turbine being shut down will be turned on occasionally for testing, officials said. The other turbine will continue to operate during the day.
“I absolutely think this makes sense,’’ said Mary Pat Flynn, chairwoman of the Falmouth Board of Selectmen.
She said town officials could move the turbines, provide financial compensation to abutters, or consider ways to blunt the sound. “We have options besides shutting them down,’’ she said.
Kimmell noted that the Falmouth turbines are of an older generation than other turbines being installed around the state. He said their age, as well as their location, may make them louder than other turbines.
In a statement, state Senate President Therese Murray, a Plymouth Democrat, said she hopes the agency’s report brings residents relief, noting that the turbines have divided the community.
“As I’ve said in the past, I believe that industrial-size wind turbines do not belong in residential neighborhoods, but we should not remove wind energy from the renewable energy mix in Massachusetts,’’ she said. “Wind energy has the potential to provide our cities and towns with many environmental and cost-saving benefits. But we need to site these projects responsibly.’’
