# SOLAR ARRAY DEVELOPER FINED $1.14 MILLION



## mark handler (Feb 24, 2021)

SOLAR ARRAY DEVELOPER FINED $1.14 MILLION FOR WETLANDS DAMAGE IN MASSACHUSETTS
A Pennsylvania-based solar array developer will pay approximately $1.14 million to settle allegations of federal storm water requirement violations. 

A Pennsylvania-based solar array developer has agreed to pay approximately $1.14 million to settle allegations that it violated federal storm water requirements. 

The alleged violations occurred during the company’s 2018 construction of a 4-megawatt, 17,000-panel solar energy project at a former sand and gravel pit at 103 Briar Hill Road.

The allegations include damaging protected wetlands and polluting the West Branch of the Mill River in Williamsburg, according to state Attorney General Maura Healey, reported the Daily Hampshire Gazette.

The consent decree was filed in the U.S. District Court and settles the April 2020 lawsuit filed by Healey's office. 

The suit alleges that Dynamic Energy Solutions LLC disregarded pollution control requirements for construction sites under federal and state law when it constructed an 18.5-acre solar array on a steep hillside above the West Branch Mill River, according to the Daily Hampshire Gazette. 
for more:




__





						StackPath
					





					www.estormwater.com


----------



## cda (Feb 24, 2021)

Interesting!!!


Anyone here that solar panels have to replaced after so many years?????

And what do you do with the used ones????????


----------



## e hilton (Feb 24, 2021)

Sounds like one of 3 things: completely rogue developer who ignored all rules; gross miscommunication; vendetta.  

The article says they altered 97,000 sf of wetland including 41,000 ft of riverfront (that’s a huge amount of riverfront) and they caused the river to turn brown.  Also says it was a former sand & gravel pit ... that should have been a plus.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 24, 2021)

e hilton said:


> The article says they altered 97,000 sf of wetland including 41,000 ft of riverfront (that’s a huge amount of riverfront) and they caused the river to turn brown.


How does that happen without anyone noticing? The plans weren't at the job site, I suspect? Blame on Covid?


----------



## Keystone (Feb 24, 2021)

Help me understand, they settle a 1.14million great. Now what? 

The panels stay in wetlands? 
What happens when they need to be serviced and changed out? 
Why not mandate removal, have monitoring in place and attach disturbance fine?


----------



## e hilton (Feb 24, 2021)

I’m thinking the $1.14 was a penalty and a signal to other developers to follow the rules.  And I’m thinking the river and wetlands returned to normal before the judge dropped the gavel.  Maintenance and replacement should not be a problem, they should not be doing much, if any, site work.


----------



## tmurray (Feb 24, 2021)

it happened in 2018, so not COVID related.

The title uses the word "Fine", but the article indicates it was a settlement. Maybe a little of both? The article indicates the settlement is to restore the damages caused and to fund land acquisition.


----------



## Keystone (Feb 24, 2021)

The solar array is built in wetlands and they settle on a $1.14 million dollar fine. 

Why would the array be allowed to remain? 
Why not order array removed with monitoring and fine?
What happens when the array must be serviced or the panels require replacement?


----------



## tmurray (Feb 24, 2021)

Keystone said:


> The solar array is built in wetlands and they settle on a $1.14 million dollar fine.
> 
> Why would the array be allowed to remain?
> Why not order array removed with monitoring and fine?
> What happens when the array must be serviced or the panels require replacement?


I'm not sure the panels themselves are located in the wetland.

The article states the following for the location of the panels:


> The suit alleges that Dynamic Energy Solutions LLC disregarded pollution control requirements for construction sites under federal and state law when it constructed an 18.5-acre solar array on a steep hillside above the West Branch Mill River, according to the Daily Hampshire Gazette.



And the following for the alleged damages:



> The complaint filed in 2020 alleges that Dynamic caused storm water filled with sediment to flow in extreme amounts off of the array site. This eroded the hillside, uprooted trees and destroyed stream beds, which filled in wetlands with sediment.


----------



## Keystone (Feb 24, 2021)

The journalism for this article is lacking. 

Kid finds rock, kid throws rock, kid gets caught, kid cries.


----------



## e hilton (Feb 24, 2021)

Keystone said:


> The solar array is built in wetlands and they settle on a $1.14 million dollar fine.
> 
> Why would the array be allowed to remain?
> Why not order array removed with monitoring and fine?
> What happens when the array must be serviced or the panels require replacement?


You’re a little hung up on those 3 questions, aren’t you?   The damage is done, and probably rectified, the array is generating power without causing additional harm to the environment ... why remove it?   Servicing will be infrequent and relatively simple.  Would you prefer a nuclear plant in the neighborhood?   Tall wind turbines?


----------



## steveray (Feb 24, 2021)

It's the hills of Western Massachusetts....Not known as a Journalism hub....


----------



## e hilton (Feb 24, 2021)

steveray said:


> It's the hills of Western Massachusetts....Not known as a Journalism hub....


Actually ... so much “news” today is reported by people who don’t know how to collect or develop decent stories.  They are like a bunch of internet influencers ... collecting snippets from facebook and twitter, and regurgitating.


----------



## steveray (Feb 24, 2021)

e hilton said:


> Actually ... so much “news” today is reported by people who don’t know how to collect or develop decent stories.  They are like a bunch of internet influencers ... collecting snippets from facebook and twitter, and regurgitating.


Much regurgitating as no one feels the need to earn knowledge anymore....


----------



## Keystone (Feb 25, 2021)

e hilton said:


> You’re a little hung up on those 3 questions, aren’t you?   The damage is done, and probably rectified, the array is generating power without causing additional harm to the environment ... why remove it?   Servicing will be infrequent and relatively simple.  Would you prefer a nuclear plant in the neighborhood?   Tall wind turbines?



“Damage is done, probably rectified”, okay then interesting stance...
If it wasn’t such a big deal then why was the company sued? 
 What was the point of placing it in a protected state to begin with?   
Imagine if we as building officials/ plan reviewers/ inspectors took that same logic with the enforcement of bldg codes.


----------



## TheCommish (Feb 25, 2021)

more  in depth article https://www.wwlp.com/news/local-new...and-wetlands-polluting-river-in-williamsburg/

looks like the developer was reckless


----------



## e hilton (Feb 25, 2021)

Keystone said:


> What was the point of placing it in a protected state to begin with?
> Imagine if we as building officials/ plan reviewers/ inspectors took that same logic with the enforcement of bldg codes.


1.  Apparently there wasn’t a problem locating the array there, the problem was the developer didn’t follow proper construction procedures.  
2.  But you do use the same logic.  If someone constructs a building with proper permits, and something is found to be non-compliant, do you hold your breath until you turn purple, stomp your little feet like a child, and make them remove the entire building because you feel offended?   Most people don’t, they make the contractor correct the errors.


----------



## Keystone (Feb 25, 2021)

e hilton said:


> 1.  Apparently there wasn’t a problem locating the array there, the problem was the developer didn’t follow proper construction procedures.
> 2.  But you do use the same logic.  If someone constructs a building with proper permits, and something is found to be non-compliant, do you hold your breath until you turn purple, stomp your little feet like a child, and make them remove the entire building because you feel offended?   Most people don’t, they make the contractor correct the errors.



It’s not an error if it was intentional. 

Structures are required to be removed when they are built within unpermitted areas and varying other reasons, shame that’s  so difficult to grasp.


----------



## e hilton (Feb 26, 2021)

You seem to be the one having difficulty grasping the facts.  
1.  How do prove intent?  
2.  Nothing is suggesting the array was built without a permit.  
3.  Nothing is suggesting the array was built in the wrong place. 
4.  The fine was based on the consequences of their means and methods.  

If you disagree with any part of items 2, 3, or 4 please cut & paste from the linked articles.


----------



## Keystone (Feb 28, 2021)

e hilton said:


> You seem to be the one having difficulty grasping the facts.
> 1.  How do prove intent?
> 2.  Nothing is suggesting the array was built without a permit.
> 3.  Nothing is suggesting the array was built in the wrong place.
> ...



My line of thinking until the second article clarified, the array wasn’t built within wetlands without permission. That point is mute.


----------



## e hilton (Mar 1, 2021)

Keystone said:


> , the array was built within wetlands without permission.


The article does not say that.  You ignored my request to cut-n-paste, clearly because you can’t.  You are altering the facts to support your position.


----------



## Keystone (Mar 1, 2021)

e hilton said:


> The article does not say that.  You ignored my request to cut-n-paste, clearly because you can’t.  You are altering the facts to support your position.


There was no altering, you clearly have difficulty grasping it was assumed because it wasn’t clear in the first article. As far as your article copy n paste that again is mute.


----------



## Keystone (Mar 1, 2021)

e hilton said:


> The article does not say that.  You ignored my request to cut-n-paste, clearly because you can’t.  You are altering the facts to support your position.



Correction made. It was supposed to read “the array “ wasn’t “ built in wetlands without permission. 

I use an iPad half the time and many times it auto corrects to what it wants and I don’t always catch it.


----------



## e hilton (Mar 1, 2021)

Correct.  It was built in a location specified on the approved plans, and fully permitted.  So what’s you problem?  You want to tear it down why?


----------

