“Stuff happens” making a NextEra wind project

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

… again and again for this corporation of incompetents.

You won’t be surprised to hear of another ‘accident’ in NextEra’s Jericho project located in Lambton Shores .  This time it was an excavator in the ditch on Thomson Line, west of Arkona Road.  It is becoming a common occurrence while driving home from work to come across NextEra’s mishaps, which is why I never leave home without with my ipad!

The roll-over must have just occurred as only the operator and another worker were present.  When I approached the overturned vehicle to take pictures, the operator said to me, “Stuff happens.” Unfortunately for our community this type of occurrence seems to be happening all too often.  It looked like the wheels of the machine got too close to the soft edge of the ditch which gave way causing the excavator to roll.  I asked the workers if they were okay and both said yes.  When I was departing I passed several construction vehicles speeding towards the accident to quickly cover-up, er, clean up the mess.

Why is this happening so often?  Who is monitoring the frequency of accidents in this project and others?  Is NextEra using unqualified and/or inexperienced operators in their efforts to complete projects in record breaking time, so the profits can begin to flow in sooner?

What will the next time bring?  Injuries to workers or a community member?  Damage to private property?

There seems to be no end to this nightmare for rural Ontario.

Marcelle Brooks

17 thoughts on ““Stuff happens” making a NextEra wind project

  1. Inexperienced workers!! Many of them came back to work for the wind companies after being retired for many years, there are equipment operators that are in their 70s. Also many workers (I heard 60) are army guys that got some time off to work for the wind companies and once projects are completed they will return to the army.

  2. Can’t help but noting this is the same Next Terror that put up the leaning towers of Bornish, Ont’s answer to Pisa. Any word on dismantling of those towers, how is that coming along?

    As noted many times here, no one in Ont’s construction inspection regime seems to be paying any attention to the slapping up of these wind towers.We are told over and over how safe and reliable wind turbine plants are; this evidence suggests otherwise.

  3. Maybe the MOE should have been called… for possible spill of diesel/oil??? LOL!!!! like they would ever enforce any rules when it comes to wind.

  4. Human failure caused Elliot Lake mall collapse, inquiry finds
    QMI Agency | Oct. 15, 2014

    ‘[excerpt] “Some engineers forgot the moral and ethical foundation of their vocation and profession — to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public. They occasionally pandered more to their clients’ sensitivities than to their professional obligation to expose the logical and scientific consequences of their observations,” Paul Belanger, who headed the inquiry into the Algo Centre Mall collapse, wrote in a report released Wednesday.

    Some public officials “simply lacked competence,” he added while others “preferred strict adherence to, and narrow interpretation of, practices, rules and bylaws rather than conduct based on a meaningful interpretation of their spirit and intent.” […]

    Robert Wood, the engineer who last inspected the mall, has been charged with two counts of criminal negligence causing death and one count of criminal negligence causing bodily harm. […]

    He also admitted to altering his inspection report at the client’s request.

    His engineering licence was revoked by the Professional Engineer’s Association of Ontario in 2011.’

  5. Great photos to add to the collection of what’s happening in rural Ontario.

    And sometimes photos reveal other things in the photo backgrounds as well.

  6. ‘ “Some engineers forgot the moral and ethical foundation of their vocation and profession — to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public. They occasionally pandered more to their clients’ sensitivities than to their professional obligation to expose the logical and scientific consequences of their observations,”
    My question is with no one from any government department responsible for the inspection of the installation of the industrial wind turbines, the engineers are being paid by the wind industry, so who would they report any questionable observations to?

  7. The government reps. say that they must “assume” the work is being done correctly, unless something is brought to their attention. NO Accountability!

  8. Look at all this FRAUD posted by/for Sarah Paul:

    ‘[excerpt]
    Ministry of the Environment
    and Climate Change
    Environmental Approvals
    Access and Service
    Integration Branch

    2 St. Clair Avenue West
    Floor 12A
    Toronto ON M4V 1L5
    Tel.: 416 314-8001
    Fax: 416 314-8452

    ENV1283MC-2014-1748

    September 18, 2014

    […]

    I am in receipt of your August 11, 2014 letter to the Minister of the Environment and Climate
    Change.
    […] O. Reg. 359/09, which was put in place to protect human health and the
    environment. When the MOECC first receives an application for a REA, it undergoes initial
    screening through a completeness check to ensure that all the content required by the O. Reg.
    359/09 has been included. […]

    If the application meets all the information requirements
    set out in O. Reg 359/09, the MOECC will deem the application complete and the detailed
    technical review phase will commence.

    Each REA application accepted for technical review is reviewed by a team of inter-ministerial
    experts that includes project evaluators, engineers, scientists and technical experts. During the
    review, the MOECC may request additional information or clarification from the proponent to
    ensure that the application meets regulatory requirements and all comments submitted to the
    MOECC are considered, prior to making a decision on the application.
    […]
    O. Reg. 359/09 establishes clear rules that proponents must follow to protect natural heritage,
    including birds and their habitat.
    […]
    Environment Canada also has requirements for proponents to meet regarding potential
    impacts to migratory birds.
    […]
    The MNRF’s
    guidelines require the proponent to identify and evaluate bird habitat, address the potential
    negative effects to birds and their habitats;
    […]
    If a renewable energy facility is issued a REA and is found to be operating out of compliance
    with its REA conditions, the MOECC can use a suite of enforcement tools as appropriate to
    bring the facility into compliance. This includes both voluntary and mandatory abatement
    measures. The manner in which a compliance matter is addressed may vary from site to site
    depending on the specific issues to be addressed.

    With respect to your question regarding infrasound, the MOECC retained a consulting firm with
    expertise in noise, vibration and acoustics, to analyze the latest findings on low frequency sound
    and infrasound from wind turbines. The consultant reviewed current science and best practices
    from other jurisdictions, and provided specific recommendations for low frequency noise and
    infrasound. The consultant’s report “Low Frequency Noise and Infrasound Associated with
    Wind Turbine Generator Systems: A Literature Review” found there is no direct health risk from
    wind turbine sound, including low frequency and infrasound, at the province’s regulated setback
    distance of 550 metres. The report also found that the province’s rules to control wind turbine
    sound are rigorous, and that Ontario should continue to monitor this evolving science’s technical
    developments, and any emerging regulatory policies introduced in other countries.

    The MOECC has learned that in 2012 Denmark became the only jurisdiction in the world to
    enact a low frequency noise regulation specific to low frequency noise from wind turbines.
    Ontario is learning about the implementation of this new regulation via on-going discussions
    with regulators in Denmark and from published case studies. To date all Danish wind farms that
    comply with the conventional sound level limits that are similar to Ontario also comply with the
    new low frequency noise limits. Another recent development in 2013 from Australia showed
    that the level of infrasound at houses near wind turbines is no greater than that experienced in
    other urban and rural environments and that the contribution of wind turbines to the measured
    infrasound levels is insignificant in comparison with the background level of infrasound in the
    environment from other sources.

    The MOECC continues to review emerging scientific and jurisdictional studies pertaining to low
    frequency noise and infrasound to ensure Ontario’s rules for wind turbines continue to reflect
    the best available science. Should new information come to light, we will review and amend our
    requirements as appropriate. For a full copy of the consultant’s report, or for other related
    scientific research, visit: http://www.ontario.ca/energyapprovals.

    Thank you for your interest in the REA process.

    Yours sincerely,

    [signature for]

    Sarah Paul
    Director
    Environmental Approvals Access and Service Integration Branch’

    • Another literature review with the same conclusion as the health study done by Dr Arlene King – no direct health effects ????
      consultant’s report “Low Frequency Noise and Infrasound Associated with Wind Turbine Generator Systems: A Literature Review” found there is no direct health risk from wind turbine sound, including low frequency and infrasound, at the province’s regulated setback distance of 550 metres.
      The report also found that the province’s rules to control wind turbine sound are rigorous, and that Ontario should continue to monitor this evolving science’s technical
      developments, and any emerging regulatory policies introduced in other countries.
      Hopefully, the MOE has wandered too far in the use of denial as a defense for their continued support for this political initiative.

      • Sorry – I thought this was a new Low Frequency study done by the MOE but Sarah Paul is referring to the 2011 literature review. Denial, denial, denial works as long as you never have to be accountable for the damage you do.

    • At Clear Creek, Norfolk County, Ontario, Canada, some of Mr. Mike Crawley’s victims, who have testified at Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal hearings, have homes located LESS THAN 550 metres from IWTs (plural).

      MOECC intentionally neglects these people.

  9. Maybe Sarah Paul will try this defense?

    ‘[excerpt] Leclair says he will show that Magnotta was in the grips of such a severe mental illness he couldn’t appreciate what he was doing or know that it was wrong, and thus should be found not criminally responsible.’

    Thanks for Christie Blatchford
    “Blatchford: Luka Magnotta had ‘his wits about him while on the lam’ in Paris and Berlin”
    Postmedia News | October 15, 2014

  10. It’s most unlikely that anyone would go to jail over IWT health issues but it is possible for other issues involving IWTs.

    • Well, at the least, the developer who erected the 18 IWTs within 3 km around my house should be sentenced to sleep in this house for a year; I’ll pray it will be the windiest year ever.

  11. From the Criminal Code of Canada:

    ‘[excerpt] Criminal Negligence
    219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
    (a) in doing anything, or
    (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
    shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

    Definition of “duty”
    (2) For the purposes of this section, “duty” means a duty imposed by law.
    R.S., c. C-34, s. 202.

    Causing death by criminal negligence
    220. Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
    (a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
    (b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.
    R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 220;
    1995, c. 39, s. 141.’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *