.23  BROOME COUNTY COMCERMED RESIDENTS  PO Box 213. Windson NY 13865 * Tel:6074672619 * BCcRWindegnal.com  Whene Eagles  From the desk Anne Lawrence March 29, 2019  Fly  of  Via Email  Honorable Kathleen H. Burgess Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New. York 12223-1350 Via Email Hon. Judge Mullany Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223-1350  Secretary NYS Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment  Hon. Judge O'Connell Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York. 12223-1350  Re: Case No. 16-F-0559: Application of Bluestone Wind, LLC for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant to Article 101 for Construction of the Bluestone Wind Farm Project Located in  the Towns of Windsor and Sanford, Broome County Dear Secreatry Burgess, Hon. Judge Mullany, Hon. Judge O'Connell, Issues for Litigation in the above-referenced proceeding.  On behalf of the Broome Country Concerned Residents (BCCR), enclosed pleased find BCCR's Statement of This list is not final. Given the limited time the residents have had to study the application, we reserve the right to amend this statement as more research is done, or to bring up other concerns that might become evident out of the case or from the proceeding, or in the event that further issues in controversy arise. This may result in BCCR also requests that the DPS would consider assigning a Settlement ALJ and that subsequent settlement hearings will be held, to determine if any or all oft these issues could not be resolved through further settlement hearings, rather then litigation. The agenda and schedule set by the applicant for the two previous settlement hearings was very aggressive and had unrealistic deadlines: for us. BCCR has had limited opportunity to properly participate in the design process and we don't want to be dragged prematurely into long and costly litigation processes ift this can be avoided. We believe other parties willl be amenable to such a proposal as well. Lastly, lapologize fori the rough presentation of this list. We trust you willl look at the content and not thet formatting  removing issues if they are later resolved or adding to thei issues identified hereinafter.  oft these issues. Respectfully submitted, Anne Lawrence Co-chair BCCR    BCCR list ofIssues for Litigation  Pursuant to the Examiners' Ruling on Procedural Schedule, issued March" 7, 2019, Broome County Concerned Residents (BCCR) submits this Statement of] Issues for Litigation concerning the Application ofBluestone Wind, LLC (Applicant) for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant to Article 10 for Construction oft the Bluestone Wind Farm Project Located int the Towns of Windsor and Sanford, Broome County (Project). BCCR may eliminate or narrowi issues depending on the outcome of ongoing settlement negotiations with the Applicant and other parties. BCCR also reserves the right to supplement this list with additional items, if other relevant issues are identified or ifiti is necessary tod develop an adequate record to support a decision under Article 10 oft the Public Service Law (PSL). This project and the time pressure to approve the application stems from a political need, not an immediate energy need. We need to recognize and be realistic and fair about this aspect oft the project. Ifit is deemed a public need that we need to switch to renewable' energy, this still has tol be done right, shall not be rushed at every cost and to the point it constitutes safety hazards, nor should it be at an unreasonable cost: and disproportional burden to the host community and receptors' of the project. Additionally, when we. speak. of'green, energy and/or environmental friendly energy, all efforts (and associated costs) should be made ensure the true and utmost environmental neutrality of this project. Ift the project cannot meet these to  requirements, the project itself or the siting should. be reconsidered.  1E Environmental! Impacts of Construction and Operation and other environmental concerns 1.1 Negative Impacts to forest, wetlands, groundwater, rivers, aquifers and wells from construction, 1,2 Negative Impacts to forest, wetlands, groundwater, rivers, aquifers and wells from potential accidents  blasting and pile driving. and: spills 1.3 Blasting plan:  Better vault analysis and hydrological studies; study what the effects will be on the Concerns about disturbance ofwater tables, water quality. Measure pre-existing conditions: existing testf for  cracks  iron, sulphur, and radon  1.4. Negative effects from forest clearing and habitat fragmentation. 1.5 Risk of erosion, flooding, and road damage. Some roads are unsuitable for the vehicles. Some bridges and culvert might cave. 1.6 The need for this project to be truly as green' or environmentally responsible as possible. In order to do this, the final proposal needs toi include: least toxic compounds possible should be chosen  construction heavy  Full disclosure ofall chemicals used for hydraulic oil and de-icing oft the blades etc. etc. and the The disturbance of 5000-some acres needs tol be compensated with a net benefit in CO2 emission: olivine (green sands) needs to be used throughout the project and where feasible for access roads to sequester CO2, to compensate fors said soil disturbance, tree clear-cutting and the massive amounts of concrete to be used. The concrete itself also has to be as carbon neutral and non-toxic/non- Calpine needs to: finance a new winter study, where they will specifically focus on identifying the wintering golden eagles, as the existing study has too many data gaps. Net benefit plan needs tol be in place for golden eagles and bats (especially the northern  caustic as possible  1.7 Negative impacts to avian species, especially eagles and bats.  bat) beforé aj permit can be issued. 1.8 Storm-weather plan, curtailment 1,9 Construction spoils from the site must be removed 1.11 Battery storage is a problem.  long-eared  1.10 Construction issues arising from building on steep slopes inadequately addressed 1.12 Concrete Batch plant: Better. Environmental study specifically for the mobile concrete batch  Including water draw &c water discharge and noise  plant.    Regarding Procedure and timing: no bulldozing or tree clearing shall be allowed until the final project approval is done and all permit conditions have been met. This is not until all hearings andj possibly  re-hearings have taken. place. 2.Health Concerns  The project involves many health issues, both identified and some likely unidentified. The project contains inadequate setbacks and noise limits to successfully protect public health, safety and welfare. This includes adverse health effects and impacts from noise, shadow, shadow flicker, annoyance, vibration, EMF, stray voltage, risk of blade throw, ice throw, tower collapse and fire.  2.1 Noise  We find there is questionable noise modeling in the PNIA, elevated L90 ambient monitoring results, lack ofdata regarding final turbine selection, wind shear and turbulence data for review. Design goals are not 2.1.1 Need to update noise studies based on final hub height, takingi into account turbulence and' real wind shear factors at hub height and the amplifying effect oft the valley. We are at a very high risk of amplitude modulation, 35 dB max from property line needs to be the standard,  protective for residents,  which means design goals 32 dB from property lines. 2.1.2 Noise protection. No exception based on maximum noise' 2.1.3 Electromagnetic interférence inadequately addressed  2.1.4 Infrasound needs tol be addressed using latest reséarch. and whichever WHO standards are most protective. Need protective setbacks for non-participating residents from property lines 2.1.6 Ambient sound: we need a true ambient baseline. The ambient noise in the study is deliberately inflated. New measuring points needi to be established that measure the ambient sound in the middle oft the proposed clusters, based on the final plans with actual locations of 2.1.7 Construction noise: needs to be better regulated including noise complaint 2.1.8 Noise complaint resolution protocol inadequate: Distance from nearest turbine to filea çomplaint; number of complaints 'allowed" and/or costs born by residents; new residents in same location; environmental factors can change etc tec. Ifr no immediate mitigation should be possible: turbines need to be stopped or alternative housing needs to be provided until levels  2.1.5 Lower short-term limits  the turbines  are back to approved health standards  2.2 Flicker  2.2.1 Flicker study: some residents are not included. Flicker study needs to get redone/updated 2.2.2 Too mâny non-participating residents with unacceptable flicker hours 2.2.3 Vegetation on non-participating residençies should not be allowed to bring the modeled numbers down: non-participating residents should be free to expand their gardens, cut trees  based on final turbine selection  for fire wood or log their land for timber, 2.2.4 Shadow flicker détecting system at alll locations  2.2.5 Inadequate complaint resolution: Respond time should be 1-2 days max 2.2.6 Ifnoi immediate mitigation should be possible: turbines need to be stopped or alternative housing will be provided until levels are back to approved health standards  2.3 Life Flight  Life flight restrictions because of nearby turbines: residents cannot get an airlift by helicopter that may be  2    necessary either because ofr road. obstructions, winter road conditions or when immediate and essential time-critical care is needed. The non-participating residents should not be put at risk, beingi in a non-flight  zone.  3.1 Economic impacts  3.1 Decreased property values from wind project.  3.2 Loss oft tourism and amenity: reasonable compensation for businesses suffering loss from lack of clientele: F.ex but not limited to: campgrounds, golf course, fishing outfits 3.3 Negative impacts on tourism, which the towns depend on 3.4. Increased Costs for the town: roads, Fire, Police 3.5 Economic loss and decreased agriculture yields due to increased bat mortality. 3.5 Increased property taxes because overall tax base declines after re-assessment.  4.Decommision  Inadequate planning for decommissioning. Applicant must guarantee al bond for full & realistic costs of project removal and pre-existing conditions restoration. Bond needs to be in place, with adjustment for inflation. Letter of credit is not acceptable from an LLC. An estimate for decommisiong needs tol be done  by independent agency. Present cost analysis is way under budget.  5.Light pollution  Inr recognition oft the WHO standards, which acknowledge that nuisance from external factors contributes to aj person's health, as well as it being an economic risk, as well as it being an environmental negatively issue, we like to separately address the issue oflight pollution and the permanent destruction oft the sky To this extend, the Visual Impact Statements need tol be redone to include a nighttime simulation night based on the actual turbinès of choice. Al lighting plan needs tol be designed and approved before the project is build, with the design goal being a minimal impact for residents. Infrared light should be used where feasible and possibly FAA can. help redirect certain flights at night or impose ar no-flight zone at night for low-flying aircraft so there would be no need for blinking red lights every 4 seconds, all night long.  6. Additional risks and concerns  6.1 In case of unacceptable temporary noise and dust from construction, alternative housing should be 6.41 Pre-construction: effects on local roads. Widening roads especially as it impact non-participating 6.5 Lack of experience and lack ofs safety data: Calpine has no experience building a windmill this nor is there any real data for turbines this high in this setting. We need tol have safety data park based on scale, the final turbine of choice and: regarding sound/ / decibel levels, and other noise or flicker. 6.6 Emergency plan: al better plan for power outage for emergency. lighting etc. 3rd party to be paid by Calpine to look after lighting maintenance.  offered and cleaning service afterwards 6.2 Risk to nearby major gas pipelines: too close 6.3 Risk oft tornados: 2.1 have hit this exact area in thel last 2 decades  residents  6.7 Transmission lines underground, guaranteed  3    7.Liabilityconcerns  Participating property owners need to be mandatory educated about the liability their lease contains vis avis their non-participating: neighbors and they need to be made aware this may include the right oft their neighbors tos sue them for damages, that this means they, would incur legal fees and that the applicant will not help them out financially. They need to be educated by an independent lawyer, not one selected by Calpine, and they need to hear the liability clauses explained as well as the easement clauses as well as being informed of the final height oft the turbines, an element that is presently lacking in their leases and that has We are especially troubled by the clause (vi) regarding "Wake and Other Effects., A non-exclusive easement for audio effects, visual effects, view, flicker, noise, shadow, vibration, air turbulence, wake effects, electromagnetic interference, ice or other weather created hazards, and any other effects attributable to any Project or operations (a) located or conducted on the Property or (i) located or conducted by Lessee ori its Affiliates on other adjacent properties. The foregoing. grant includes the right to cast shadows or flicker onto the Property, to impact view or visual effects from the Property, to cause or emit noise, vibration, and electromagnetic interference on or to any portion oft the Property on a 241 hours per day, 7 days a week basis" Property owners thatwant to break their lease based on this actual and fair presentation oft the facts should  been misrepresented to many leaseholders at the moment ofs signing the contract.  have the opportunity to back out of their leases without punishment. B.Future updates to facilityand maintenance guarantec  The residents seek assurance that just because this facility was once planned, designed or built with the up- to-date knowledge oft the industry's 'best practices', that doesn't mean wes can't learn and change that opinion, and this caution needs to be reflected in the wording and design of the facility. All uncertain areas in the application and in the mitigation solutions should be treated with a view toward thel health and safety ofthe residents, erring on the side of caution to protect those residents first and foremost, and economic implications on the side of the applicant coming second. Ifin any future point in time additional technology becomes available for impact mitigation, all applicable parts oft the facility should be  retroactively equipped with such technology.  4