Document

Record Hill wind project appeal: Appellants' Position

On December 10, 2009, Attorney Rufus Brown made this filing to the Maine Board of Environmental Protection in the appeal of the Record Hill Wind Project. ...As part of this filing, Attorney Brown submits newly discovered evidence of correspondence between Dora Mills, M.D., Director of the Maine Center for Disease Control ("MCDC") and the Maine DEP, which he states suggests "the review input from MCDC in the Record Hill permitting process was tainted with a political agenda rather than being from an objective evaluation for the protection of public health."

On December 10, 2009, Attorney Rufus Brown made this filing to the Maine Board of Environmental Protection in the appeal of the Record Hill Wind Project. Attorney Brown represents the citizen group Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury and other aggrieved parties in their appeal of development permits granted Record Hill Wind, LLC by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP").

As part of this filing, Attorney Brown submits newly discovered evidence of correspondence between Dora Mills, M.D., Director of the Maine Center for Disease Control ("MCDC") and the Maine DEP, which he states suggests "the review input from MCDC in the Record Hill permitting process was tainted with a political agenda rather than being from an objective evaluation for the protection of public health."

Exhibit 4 Parts I and II, which can be accessed at the bottom of this page, include e-mail communications between Dr. Mills and representatives at DEP.

Attorney Brown describes these e-mails as follows:

The e-mail train begins February 10, 2009, after MCDC Director Dora Mills, M.D. received a telephone call and an e-mail from a Dr. Albert Aniel of Rumford, Maine forwarding an open letter from the medical staff of the Rumford Hospital Medical staff, together with links to articles, asking Dr. Mills for support for a moratorium on new permits for wind turbine projects until further research could be done on possible health effects of wind turbines. Maine Freedom of Access Act ("FOAA") #1 and #12.

Dr. Mills had three immediate responses to this communication. One was to admit that she was not familiar with the issue ("this is a new topic for me", FOAA #5 and #8), second she took an advocacy position against the health concerns (from the outset she was looking for help "to refute the claims made by the Rumford medical staff", FOAA #5 and #8) and three, she looked to DEP Commissioner David Littell and others at DEP involved in the reviewing requests for wind turbine projects (Andrew Fisk, Mike Mullen, James Cassida) for assistance in refuting the health concerns of Dr. Aniel. FOAA #11, #15 ("[a]ttached is a vetted and edited version of your talking points on wind noise"), #s 16-30, #31, and #35-6. At the same time Dr. Mills sought to advocate against consideration of the public health concerns from wind turbine noise, she was concerned about the adequacy of DEP's noise regulations to address the specific issue of wind turbine noise.

Additional e-mails recount how Dr. Aniel took his public health concerns about the need for a moratorium on new wind projects to the Maine Medical Association for support and that "Dr. Mills asked [DEP] Commissioner Littell for help on February 25, 2009 in refuting this effort because she was having

 'a hard time addressing the DEP regulations on noise levels, essentially being 45 dbl (sic.) at the property line in rural areas, and the fact that these regulations did not protect residents in Mars Hill who are perceived by some to be living too close from an annoyance perspective from the wind farm there.' FOAA #40.

In her next e-mail, Dr. Mills anxiously asks Andrew Fisk for updates on "how the DEP is addressing noise issues" because "[t]his issue seems to be gaining traction."

The full filing can be accessed by clicking on the links at the bottom of this page.

Exhibit_1_thumb
Exhibit 1

Download file (304 KB) pdf

Exhibit_2_thumb
Exhibit 2

Download file (276 KB) pdf

Appellants_27_position_on_record_on_appeal_of_the_record_hill_wind_project_thumb
Appellants 27 Position On Record On Appeal Of The Record Hill Wind Project

Download file (273 KB) pdf

Exhibit_3_thumb
Exhibit 3

Download file (143 KB) pdf

Exhibit_4_-part_i-_thumb
Exhibit 4 (Part I)

Download file (1.05 MB) pdf

Exhibit_4_-part_ii-_thumb
Exhibit 4 (Part Ii)

Download file (900 KB) pdf

DEC 10 2009
http://www.windaction.org/posts/23655-record-hill-wind-project-appeal-appellants-position
back to top