General Electric Refused To Build Falmouth Wind Turbines

According to the domestic manufacturer,General Electric, the Town’s proposed construction site would not meet the manufacturer’s internal setback requirement distances

THE TOWN OF FALMOUTH MASSACHUSETTS LIED ON THE PROJECT WAIVER TO GET 6 MILLION IN FEDERAL STIMULUS FUNDS -NO SPECIAL PERMIT 240-166 AS STATED IN WAIVER APPLICATION

In 2010 the Town of Falmouth filed a waiver of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) . The waiver was filed because General Electric would not build smaller 1.5 megawatt commercial wind turbine in Falmouth because of setback issues.

Falmouth could only buy foreign made turbines from Vestas to avoid the setback issues. The point here is this is more evidence the Town of Falmouth was aware of setback issues prior to 2010 .

The Town of Falmouth then hid a noise warning that the larger 1.65 megawatt Vestas turbines were 6 + decibels louder than the General Electric wind turbine.

There was study for the GE turbines but no study for the Vestas wind turbines that generate 110 decibels of noise.

The warning letter :

http://www.windaction.org/posts/41357-vestas-raises-concerns-about-turbine-noise-letter#.Ve9oyhFVikp

Here is the most important part of the waiver :

Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 80 /Tuesday, April 27, 2010 /Notices Page 22129

Notice of a Regional Project Waiver of Section 1605 (Buy American) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) to the Town of Falmouth, MA

In column number 3 of the waiver :

The Town of Falmouth has thoroughly researched available domestic and foreign wind turbine manufacturers.

According to the Town, there was only one domestic manufacturer that produces a wind turbine that appears to meet project design and performance specifications.

However, the identified domestic manufacturer is not willing to supply a wind turbine for installation at the Falmouth Wastewater Treatment Plant, nor is it willing to support a warranty and service agreement for another available unit that it has already manufactured.

According to the domestic manufacturer, the Town’s proposed construction site would not meet the manufacturer’s internal setback requirement distances to mitigate the risks associated with potential ice throws from the turbine blades.

The domestic manufacturer’s internal siting considerations recommended that, for safety in the event of icing, a setback distance of 1.5 times the hub height and rotor diameter—in this case, 646 feet—be maintained from occupied structures,roads, property lines and public access areas.

The proposed wind turbine would be set back approximately 552 feet from the property line, 646 feet from the nearest public road (Route 28), and 1,150 feet from the nearest residential structure.

Thus, the siting would provide sufficient setback distances for the road and residential structures but not the property line.

The domestic manufacturer cited the setback distance to EPA’s national contractor as the basis for its refusal to make its product available for this project.

However, the domestic manufacturer’s internal siting considerations also provided for other possible mitigation techniques for properties that do not meet these setback considerations, but the manufacturer did not offer to make its product available based on the potential application of such techniques at this site,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-04-27/pdf/2010-9751.pdf