Representative Town Meeting (RTM) - Minutes - 10/02/2023

FIFTEEN ROPE FERRY ROAD
WATERFORD, CT 06385-2886
PHONE: 860-442-0553
www.waterfordct.org
tr
€
|
=
MINUTES
REPRESENTATIVE TOWN MEETING
Regular Meeting
October 2, 2023
Moderator Paul Goldstein called the October 2, 2023 Regular Meeting of the Representative Town
Meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Kyrah Augmon-Bossa, Michael Bono, Mary Childs, Harry Colonis, Thomas J. Dembek, Susan
Driscoll, Timothy Fioravanti, Nick Gauthier, Kevin Girard, Paul Goldstein, Kristin Gonzalez, Ryan Healy,
Richard Holmes, Cheryl Larder, Theodore Olynciw, Dan Radin, Michael Rocchetti(7:13 PM), David
Sugrue, David Welch
ABSENT: Jennifer Bracciale, Timothy Condon, Steve Garvin, Lindsay Khan, Jennifer Kohl, Danielle
Steward-Gelinas.
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: First Selectman Robert J. Brule, Selectman Richard Muckle
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair of the Board of Education Pat Fedor, Chair of the Board of Finance
Glenn Patterson
ALSO PRESENT: Town Clerk David L. Campo, Town Attorney Robert Avena, Town Attorney Nicholas
Kepple, and Finance Director Kim Allen
AGENDA ITEM C — August 7, 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes
MOTION by Bono, seconded by Dembek, to approve the August 7, 2023 Minutes as presented with the
following correction submitted by Town Clerk David Campo: The vote in Section C should have included
an abstention by Cheryl Larder.
MOTION PASSED: Unanimous
AGENDA ITEM D - CORRESPONDENCE:
The following items were received for correspondence: A committee report from Public Health,
Recreation and Environment Standing Committee Chair Michael Bono. A project status report on the
Oswegatchie Fire House Building Committee from RTM Member Ted Olynciw. A letter from RTM
Member Dan Radin in regard to the proposed Data Center. A letter from Police Chief Marc Balestracci in
regard to a potential ordinance to regulate illegal use of ATVs and dirt bikes. “Fire Services Review
Special Committee Interim Report, January 2023” from Chair Robert Tuneski. Committee report from
the Legislation & Administration Standing Committee Chair Thomas Dembek. A letter from RTM
1 RTM MINUTES 10/02/2023

Member Cheryl Larder to the Public Health and Recreation Standing Committee in regard to its work on
a review of the town’s noise ordinance. A letter fram RTM Member Susan Driscoll in regard to the
increasing the roster size of the Police Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The following members of the public spoke in opposition to the proposed Data Center: Laurette Saller, 4
Gun Shot Rd; Kathleen Pavlick(See Attachment), 11 Race Rock Rd; Judi Leary, 6 Maple Terrace; John
Valliere, 294 Millstone Rd E.(See Attachment); Bryan Sayles, 54 Wintergreen Dr(See Attachment);
Michele Lewis-O’Donnell(See attachment), no address provided; Robert Perry, 35 New Shore Rd; J. Thad
May, 18 Jordan Cove Circle; Robin Schechtel, 14 Huntley Rd, Niantic; Lucas, last name and address not
provided; Deb Roberts, 4 Jordan Cove Circle(See Attachment); Lynn MacMarrow, 10 4" St; Next speaker
provided name or address; Michele Caulkins, 9 Lanyard Ln; JoAnn Harper, 1 Betty St (See Attachment).
The following members of the public spoke in support of the proposed Data Center: Keith Brothers, 268
Thames Rd, Groton; Jim Denning, 14 Old Mill Rd, Quaker Hill; Erica Weborg, 13 Main St, town unknown;
Chris Prevost, 17 Knollwood Rd, Niantic; David Jarvis, address unknown; Joseph Toner, 11 Old Mill Rd,
Quaker Hill.
AGENDA ITEM F— COMMITTEE REPORTS AND REFERRALS
It was noted that committee reports received would be discussed under New Business.
RTM Member Olynciw left the room.
CALL ITEM 1 ~ Old Norwich Road Pump Station
PRESENTATION: Director of the Utility Commission Jim Bartelli
MOTION by Bono, seconded by Dembek, to approve a recommendation from the Board of Finance for
an additional appropriation in the amount of $755,369 from the Undesignated Fund Balance Line of the
Capital Nonrecurring Expenditure Fund (CNR) Line #205-31520 to Line #20531-57816 (Old Norwich
Road Pump Station).
MOTION by Larder, seconded by Childs, to amend the motion to reduce the request by $66,385 fora
new total of $688,984
Discussion ensued
VOTING IN FAVOR: Augmon-Bossa, Childs, Driscoll, Gauthier, Larder
VOTING AGAINST: Bono, Colonis, Dembek, Fioravanti, Girard, Goldstein, Gonzalez, Healy, Holmes, Radin,
Rocchetti, Sugrue, Welch
MOTION FAILED: 5-13
ORIGINAL MOTION PASSED: 17-1-0
CALL ITEM 2 ~ Revaluation
MOTION by Bono, seconded by Girard, to approve a recommendation from the Board of Finance for an
appropriation in the amount of $6,547.47 from the Undesignated Fund Balance Line of the Capital
Nonrecurring Expenditure Fund (CNR) Line #205-31520 to Line #20501-57639 (Revaluation).
MOTION PASSED: Unanimaus
RTM Member Olynciw returned.
2 RTM MINUTES 10/02/2023

CALL ITEM 3 — NE Edge Data Center Update
PRESENTATION: NE Edge Attorney William McCoy
Attorney McCoy provided an update on the project and answered questions from the body.
CALL ITEM 4 — Executive Session
MOTION by Dembek, seconded by Fioravanti, to go into executive session to discuss security matters
pertaining to Waterford Town Buildings and Schools at 8:58 PM and invite the following: First Selectman
Robert Brule, Town Attorney Nick Kepple, Police Chief Marc Balestracci, Fire Director Mike Howley, !T
Manager Jeff Robillard, Finance Director Kim Allen, Superintendent of Schools Thomas Giard, BOE
Finance Director Joe Mancini, BOE IT Director Mark Geer, Planning Director Jon Mullen.
MOTION PASSED: Unanimous
MOTION by Girard, seconded by Dembek, to come out of Executive Session at 9:55 PM.
MOTION PASSED: Unanimous
CALL ITEM 5 — Safety Measures for Town and School Facilities
PRESENTATION: None
MOTION by Bono, seconded by Dembek, to approve a recommendation from the Board of Finance for
an additional appropriation in the amount of $1,982,900 from the Undesignated Fund Balance Line of
the Capital Nonrecurring Expenditure Fund (CNR) Line #205-31520 to Line #20560-57842 (School
Security) for safety measures for town and school facilities.
MOTION by Bono, seconded by Dembek, to amend the motion to read as follows: To consider and act
upon a recommendation from the Board of Finance for an additional appropriation in the amount of
$1,982,900 from the from the Unassigned General Fund Balance to Line #20560-57842 (School
Security) for safety measures for town and school facilities.
MOTION WITH AMENDMENT PASSED: Unanimous
RTM Member Sugrue left the room and did not return.
NEW BUSINESS:
MOTION by Dembek, seconded by Olynciw, to accept the Legislation and Administration committee’s
report (See Attachment} on the EDC issue and recommendation that the RTM take no action.
MOTION PASSED: 17-1-0 (Larder voted no)
MOTION by Bono, seconded by Rocchetti, to accept the Public Health, Recreation & Environment
committee’s report on the review of the town’s noise ordinance and accept the recommendation of the
committee.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Augmon-Bossa, Bona, Childs, Colonis, Dembek, Fioravanti, Girard, Goldstein, Healy,
Holmes, Olynciw, Rocchetti, Welch
VOTING AGAINST: Driscoll, Gauthier, Gonzalez, Larder, Radin
MOTION PASSED: 13-5-0
MOTION by Bono, seconded by Rocchetti, to send the subject (ATV and Dirt Bike Ordinance
Consideration) of Chief Balestracci’s letter to the Public Protection & Safety Committee.
MOTION PASSED: Unanimous
3 RTM MINUTES 10/02/2023

MOTION by Driscoll, seconded by Gauthier, to move the issue of expanding the Police Commission to
seven members to the Legislation & Administration Committee.
MOTION PASSED: Unanimous
RTM Member Olynciw discussed his submitted Oswegatchie Fire Station Building Committee report
Brief discussion ensued.
RTM Member Olynciw stated that he would discuss his vacant properties report at a future meeting.
MOTION by Rocchetti, seconded by Colonis, to adjourn passed unanimously at 10:28 P.M.
ectfully Submitted,
David L. Campo, CCTC
Town Clerk
4 RTM MINUTES 10/02/2023

CEIVED FOR RECORD
ne WATERFORD, CT
RTM Kathleen Sv liclc
\l Race Rock fe
Werte 1% hh CO
Money, Money, Me ney °
1 J normally would cme up and rend) something L wrahe
1Qbeuet my Concern Fer He env iTonmewt of Waterford
0 Tne ason TL purchased) a hame heve wis because oF
"tie tecaush Wl, peace Ful views of wetter anc) natures all
| Aoe'be lost +o “the pollucton From cela cewlers, Burt, I've
bden repeatedly as Kino, cc every chan@, for enuirewnental
impact studies to he clone beGve hiss development Qeey
ony Further, to no avail,
S0_TLim oping to tale abeuk Yho one Issue that
Cvevyone seems +o cove about in Vus srtneclen
instead)s- MONEVs money; money,
“Eb all otartes! when Yarmel \wvestmere} banker, David)
Lekman anc Co Vener Lamoyt AS5ec) a bi{) quickly,
Under “emergency” provisions, wrtheueb any Committee
eviews, eC Public heari eae) exempt new datar ceners
From Pay' ND) Ct toxes. Similiar ty WabrPorede cush
mre) Sign a host agreement far data centers whet
nehice or Publle heat Ne, ;
En a quote From Ho New Lendin De » Daviel Collins said
Ot turns out another ugly component of his lous fes} _
Fer date cercters, which, by He way, don"t employ, alet
202
of geople, ot generate much other econsmic dew lopment,
\othat Prey wart +e make private dass Ac discounts.
on. Whe rales Prey pay Fer el They use alah”
Sd, we as homeowners in Wetector, 5, Will pay mow FOr

Our electvicity Than deta cents 9 end be seeonclin ine.
+o receive thet ener, ater We dala centers, ws no
have a “behind Ve. meter” agtee mer, and will use.
Calling also wrote % The Day “the Re hey pay 1
lieu o& taxes isa prance com Pavec) ty whet Would)
be. clue in Faxes on buildings Pull af tens oF
millions oF dollars worn of com prteds bai tt an
SS acres af lane). Othe Fees axe contractual, un \ Ke
taxesy for Which Vere. 1S an established) ancl simple
legal Procedure at liens ancl % (eclosuve fer tie “TOW
tm use in the emt of NonPay ert.” Romises, PMI RS ;
Companies Pepesing Hese cata cerrexs haue vevey-
ipui lt ohne. hele. erty we ase trash ng hem with He
Future oF Water Gels, land, environmen, estclents,
wild) Ie ancl econo mys Other towns have. ejected
Hein based on quest Morals bj whegrty: Wall aa, Fe reD
Counc lo C5 andr Said) “ he wes concernee) Viclatays
could Find it mare economieally fasrble te aceept
lazing Mm violation o€ \ecal egerlestiong anc) pay Anes
without making changes JL Vhese sound uel’ ave
thew. chow, hein they're just asing be Fined ane!
pay Ho Ping” t's all about the meneyyoanc| Nhe casind 6g

John C. Valliere, Esq.
Attorney At Law
294 Millstone Road East Phone (860) 442-1294
Waterford, CT 06385 Fax (860) 442-1295
Attorney Valliere@aol.com
Via Email and Priority Mail
September 6, 2023
Pad
Melanie A. Bachman, Executive Director a S
State of Connecticut 2
Connecticut Siting Council t
Ten Franklin Square £
New Britian, CT 06051 =i)
RE: PETITION # 1586 from Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, bit a
ou
Dear Ms. Bachman and Members of the Siting Council:
This is written requesting the Siting Council deny the Petition (#1586) from Dominion
Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc (DENC), DENC is seeking a declaratory ruling
regarding the Dominion property on Millstone Road (off Rope Ferry Road) in Waterford.
While there are dozens of reasons why almost 20 percent of the site’s north unallocated
land should not be leased out and be used for data center projects. | will highlight a few.
First, as you are aware, this properly was specifically designed over 50 years ago to
accommodate nuclear reactors. Frankly, that plan and the critical thinking put into it 50
years ago, has been a success and has enabled the property to host 3 nuclear reactors and
generate 50% of Connecticut’s energy for many years.
The plan 50 years ago enabled the facility to have large swaths of land around it,
presumably for safety, security, and to offer a large buffer to protect the surrounding
neighborhoods and communities, including Waterford and East Lyme.
The current site plan allows the reactors, personnel working in the facility, and the
surrounding community to remain safe. The site, with its large tracts of land, allows the
energy producing equipment to be free from outside interlopers (including but not limited
to, domestic terrorists and ill-intentioned persons) and allows the energy producing
equipment to be the sole equipment on the property.
In terms of security, the long-term design for the property greatly assists Dominion to
keep the reactors from harm, The reality of domestic terrorism in today’s world is real.
The current plan and layout of the property allows Dominion to control and secure the
important nuclear reactors by keeping them at a significant distance from the public and
Page | 1
A13038
id
GUOISY US

public thoroughfares, (It was only about 20 years ago when military Humvees with
military personnel were stationed outside the entrances of the property to protect the
property during the 9-1} crisis). Allowing other outside entities to develop.on the
property complicates the ability to keep the reactors safe and secure. Given the proposal
in the Petition, there will be a much smaller buffer to keep the reactors isolated, safe, and
secure, reducing the buffer from about a mile down to a little over 1000 feet.
Protection of the surrounding community is also part of the Jong~planned design of the
property. The site as it currently sets. has done a great job of buffering the negative
effects of the power plant from the surrounding neighborhoods. Allowing data centers on
leased Jand on the Dominion property does not follow that plan. The data center projects
have not been well publicized to the surrounding neighborhoods, and the ill effects,
including but not limited to low level hum noise and environmental damage, have not
been explained nor publicized. There is growing opposition to the plan as it becomes
known,
Issuing a declaratory ruling without any stated long-term plan and allowing data centers
takes away Dominion’s (or any future owner's) ability to develop the land for energy
generation. The property should be used exclusively for the gencration of nuclear enerpy
as it was designed and intended, Although reactor #] has completed its planned mission,
there are opportunities for newer nuclear reactor technologies to replace it, technologies
that are smaller and more efficient than #1 ever was, Dismantling # 1 and building
smaller and more efficient reactors, as is being done in Wyominy, is the type of
construction that should be occurring on the Dominion site, not energy drawing data
ceniers. Building nuclear reactors is what the site logically should be used for and fits
into the past and future long-term plans.
ifthe Siting Council allows the 50-year plan to be destroyed and allows leasing for non-
energy producing entities, where will it stop? Currently, the plan is for 2 data centers,
one 1.132 million square feet (// tines the size of the average full scale data center) and
a second 428,000 square feet in size (4 fies the size of the average full scale data
center). Although it is not outwardly shown, there is a plan for an additional 2 more data
centers on the site in the future, If the Siting Council allows for one or two, it would be
easier to then request for number three and four. The Siting Council would lose control
of the ability to limit other “industrial uses” if it allows the data centers to start to grow
on the property.
Issuing a declaratory judgment allowing the leasing and building of data centers on the
Donrinion site with no specifics of how the data center will affect the future of energy
generation at the property is imprudent. There is no plan or documents offered on how
the construction of the massive data centers and their long-term placement on the
property affects the current operation of the facility as a power generator. Dominion is
asking your permission to allow a company to lease and build data centers 4 and 11 times
the normal size of average centers by a company that is less than 2 years old and has
never successfully built a data center. In fact. at least three other towns have rejected the
project, even though it would sot have been placed in such a sensitive and secure location
Page | 2

as the Dominion site. This project should not just to be allowed to be developed on the
Dominion site just by asking a simple declaratory ruling.
Enclosed, please find pictures of the site as Exhibits | and 2. In contrast to the map
provided by Dominion as their Exhibit |, the enclosed Exhibits | & 2 demonstrate the
proximity to the neighborhoods and recreational sports fields, the significant amount of
trees, vegetation and woods that would be cleared and destroyed, and the proximity to a
large pond on the property, with no study of how this project will affect the numerous
osprey nests at that pond as well as other wildlife on the property as a whole.
Also, of concerning note, is the August 30, 2023 responses to interrogatories by
Dominion, which some at best are disingenuous and at worst misleading.
Question | and 2°s Responses about the Town's expressed concerns and received
comments are misleading. This project appears to be spearheaded. by Waterford’s First
Selectman Robert Brule, who ironically is quoted by a local newspaper as saying he
would not want a data center near his residence given the data center's extreme noise
generation. As stated herein, this project has had very litte publicity, as has Waterford’s
entering the Municipal Host Fee Agreement with NE Edge: The “unanimous” vote from
the Board of Selectmen and the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) members was
done, as some would say,” under the radar.”
Enclosed as Exhibit #3 is an email thread between RM member Dan Radin and myself
regarding this project. Coming from one of the RTM’s own members, he states on page
One in paragraph # 4 about the approval being “purely ceremonial” and about “optics” as
opposed to the proposed project being thoroughly explained to town residents and vetted.
He further expressed the lirst Selectman Brule could have signed the Agreement without
any approval from the Board or RTM.
Even more disturbing is Dan Radin’s assertion in Paragraph #6 that the meeting was
“poorly publicized” and “held on short notice.” This unprecedented, massive project was
well in the works long before thai meeting and yet the document to start the project was
“approved” and entered into with litte public comment or any reasonable nolice to the
Town residents, especially and including to the surrounding neighborhoods. If such a
project was truly good for Waterford and the Dominion site, why the secrecy and lack of
candor fo the public and allowance for real public review and response early on? ‘There
will be mounting opposition to this project ag more details are given to the Town's
residents. Even with the mounting opposition, certain town officials continuc to be not
forthcoming with information and deadlines, including this Siting Council Petition and
the ability to offer comment. This is concerning on many levels,
Question 3°s Response is also concerning in that there is:no way to know the impact on
safety. Nobody knows or has demonstrated the effects of removing the large, long
planned buffer of land or what placing non-energy generating buildings on the property
will do to safety, but there is one thing for sure: it will take away any plamed safety
margin in the site’s design.
Pape [3

Question 9°s Response regarding the plan at the end of the Jease term (or the end of the
useful life of the data centers) shows the lack.of planning and forethought as given to the
original site plan of 50 years ago. Although the data center is supposed to be a 30-year
lease, given the speed of technology, there is no guarantee the data centers will be viable
for that long. As pointed out by RTM member Dan Radin, just think back to the
technology from 30 years ago as opposed to today. Who gets the cleanup mess if NE
Edge abandons the project early and is gone?
Question 14, 15 and 16’s Responses in relation to the number of megawatts the data
centers will consume is quite telling, and disturbing. Yanking out 300 MW of power
from the ISO-NE grid would be minimally disastrous. There is alveady energy insecurity
in Connecticut, New England and the country, given the current demand (especially at
peak (imes) and the known large future increases in demand in the years ahead. Once the
data centers are plugged in, they will continue to.suck out 300 megawaits per year and
run 24/7 no matter what the other demands ate for Connecticut and New England.
Unlike residential and business consumers, data centers cannot cut back on their energy
use when electricity demand is at its peaks in summer and winter. The data centers will
continue to draw and have the need. Such a draw will lead to higher prices overall for the
residential and business consumers, as simple supply and demand economics occur, Ag
stated earlier, the Dominion site should be used for future power generation. Leasing
large swathes of land only detracts from this ability and does not allow for good future
planning of energy generation versus energy draining and depletion endeavors.
Question 17's Response leaving any emergency planning to NE Edge is also eye opening.
This is a company that is less than 2 years old, with no previous experience building data
centers, including no completed projects, and is looking to build minimally 2 hyper-sized
data centers in a sensitive nuclear site, Any data projections, including in Response #23,
are just that--projections. The Dominion site should not be gambled with in hopes of
gelting it right. especially with no fiture oversight from the Siting Council,
Given the foregoing, it is respectfully requested the Siting Couneil deny Petition #1586
for a declaratory ruling for the Dominion property.
Sincerely
John C Valliere, Esq.
Page | 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
| hereby certify that on the 6th day of September 2023, a copy of the foregoing was sent,
via email mail to:
Robert A. Avena. Waterford Town Attorney
Nicholas F. Kepple, Waterford Town Attorney
Suisman Shapiro
20 South Anguilla Road
P.O, Box 1445
EE.COM
wheg.com
Robert J. Brule, First Selectrnan
Town of Waterford
15 Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385
firstsel@waterfordct.org
Kenneth C. Baldwin, Attorney. for Dominion
Robinson & Cole
280 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT 06103
kbaldwi
Page [5

YRORIeUUSD
Weapny,


Re: Proposed Data Center at Millstone
From Dan Radin (dan.radin. waterford @gmail.com}
To. attorneyvalliere@aol.corn
Date Friday, August 25, 2023 at 12:14 PM EOT
Attorney Valliere —-
Thank you for your note, My apologies for the tardy response.
Attached is my memo to the RTM and Board of Selectrnan from February when the Special Meeting was held on this
fopic. | believed the time—and still do—that there are significant financial benefits to the dala center if the portfolio of
risks is mitigated. | further raised concerns about noise control, deal term, and the competence of the devetoper in the
Special Meeting. .
Before purchasing our horne, my family lived in a house we rented in Millstone Point. | know the quiet, peaceful.
beachfront way of life for tha neighborhoods surrounding Millstone because I've lived there.
My understanding of the role of the RTM in the Special Meeting, based on guidance from Town Attorney Kepple, is that
the body's vote was purely ceremonial, and that the Board of Selectman did not need RTM approval to authorize the
Firs: Selectman to sign. In other words, the RTM's vate, and the joint meeting, was about optics.
Attorneys alsa informed us that signing the MOU was the first step in a lengthy, complex process of subsequent
approvals and checkpoints on the path toward the data center getting built, and thal its signing did nol constitute a
binding agreement io build; rather it opened the possibility that it might be built,
l agree that the Special Meeting was poorly publicized and held on short notice; and | agree with concerns that sufficient
safeguards are not in place to proteci the peaceful character of the MPA neighborhood. However, as the RTM, ar more
directly as a single representative, we and | jack authority.
{have reinforced my concerns and the concerns shared with me by other Millstone Point neighbors with the First
Selectman. He has not responded in any substantive way across a number of occasions. f wholeheartedly encourage
you and your neighbors to advocate strongly with him. He has decision authority.
Thanks,
Dan Radin
475 470 6535
On Aug 20, 2023, al 12:42 PM, attorneyvailiere@aol.com wrote:
Dear 4th District RTM members:
Hive in the 4th district at Millstone Point and am writing to get your positions on the
proposed data center at Dominion Power Plant.
My understanding is that the MOU was unanimously approved by the RTM and the
Selectboard.
This is written to get your position cn if the data center should really go forward, and
what you are.doing to actively protect our district, and specificaily the Millstone Paint

neighborhood, from the ii ramifications this project will cause.
Many feel that this project process was started with litte fanfare and is now being
pushed given the millions being offered in payments.
| look forward to your expedient response.
Thank you.
John C. Valliere, Esq.
[ Q Waterford RTM Data Centers Memo Feb 2023.paf
925k

Re: Proposed Data Center at Millstone
Froum Dan Radin (dan.radin waterford@gmail.com}
fo. attorneyvailiere@aal.com
Dabs Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 04:45 PM EDT
Dear Attorney Valliere —
Thank you again for sharing your delailed and thoughtful insights.
As the October meeting will be my last on the RTM, | intend to submit a memo to the RTM and Board of Selectmen
summarizing the consistent voice of District 4 residents in opposition to the data center project.
{have reinforced my concerns and the concerns shared with me by you and other neighbors with the First Selectman. |
wholeheartedly encourage you and your neighbors to advocate strongly with fim. He has decision authority.
Sincerely,
Dan Radin
On Aug 26, 2023, at 9:36 PM, attorneyvalliere@aol.com wrote:
Dear Mr. Radin:
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my email. Sadly, only you and Mr. Bono showed
any consideration of a response to this point. Maybe the other four 4th District RTM
members are on vacation this week and will reply in due time.
| have read your email and your statement about the data center. You raised some points
which | did not think about, the most important one being the data center's potential
obsolescence in 30 years (or less). My similar thought was that if the licenses for Dominion's
reactors 2 and 3 are not renewed in the upcoming decades, where will the data centers
obtain the necessary 300 megawatts per year? (And they say there is a shortage of
electricity now especially in the summer! Can't wait for those future bills given the lack of
supply and the huge demand!!)
{also think your analysis about the guaranteed money is also on track. (This is not even
taking into consideration the viability of the developer whose company is 20 months old).
There is a lot to unpack on the data center issue.
Here are some of my many concerns about this project (the proverbial tip of the iceberg):
1. Who drafted the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)? | have read it and found quite
of few flaws that do not protect the Town of Waterford and leaves Waterford open to future
ligation. There are other MOU sections that leave Waterford in the lurch, especially if the
slate Legislature changes the law regarding data centers. This legislative change is prone
given the changing technology and given the fact the current legislation is flawed in itself and
subject to change.

2. Did all RTM members and Board of Selectmen read the MOU, or just rely on Town
Attorney Nick Kepple's opinion of it? How much questioning was brought forth fram the RTM
and BOS and what changes were made [rom that questioning before voting? | know that
complex contracts take a long time especially if many eyes are reviewing it and making
constructive and beneficial comments. The collective eyes and knowledge of our
representatives should have perfected this MOU.
3. fam guessing that NE Edge drafted the MOU because of how Section 8 regarding Sound
Analysis was written.
a. Why is there only a week's worth of testing? Does sound not change in seasons, weather
and in vegetation cycles (ie leaves on trees)?
b, Should there not be yearlong analysis so the proper sound baseline can be created?
c. Why are the current levels of sound being used as the baseline as outlined in the MOU?
AS you may be aware, Dominion can be very noisy at times (in violation of Waterford's noise
ordinances.) Why should the Millstone neighborhood have to endure additional noise and
additional violations of the noise ordinances?
cl. Will the passing trains through Millstone (which take 12 seconds on average) be allowed
to increase the average decibel levels of sound allowed for the data centers? The 7 minutes
a day of passing trains (35 X 12 seconds) should not be the basis for allowing the same
sound level of 24/7 hum of data center fans.
What is interesting (and very disturbing) is that FS Brule went to a data center in Manassas,
Virginia and is on record as saying he didn’t need the decibel reader he had, saying he could
hear the data center noise clearly, and also stated he wouldn't want that next to his house.
That center in Virginia is about 135,000 square feet. N & Edge’s proposal for the first
building is about 10 times that Virginia plant. | have not seen what bulfer exists for the VA
cata center but the buffer for the proposed data center at Millstone is about 2000 feet from
the Millstone Road neighborhood.
Has the sound issue also been thought out for the Waterford families who enjoy the
recreational sports fields in the Millstone area? My guess is that parents and families that
enjoy the youth’s games would not really want to hear the data centers humming in the
background.
4, How will low level hum of the data centers effect the Millstone neighborhood and the
environment? There is nothing in the MOU about this. This is a problem at other data
centers and low-level humm has been shown to be detrimental to humans and animals alike.
&. lt understand N E Edge is dangling lots of money to Waterford and town officials' eyes
shine green, bul has anyone really assessed the whole situation and thought it through?
Has anyone from Waterford spoken with Montville Mayor Ronald McDaniel? { know he has
extensive Knowledge about the development of data centers and developers of data centers
end their progeny. My understanding is that there is a lot of talk but very little in substance
from the data center developers. A major concer nixing the project in Montville was the
potential sale of the centers to another company. This makes sense in that a 20-month-old
company starts the process, and then at some point of more viability, the project is sold to
snother. The MOU has no assurances that N E Edge will make sure any future purchaser
will follow through. Waterford could potentially have to deal with some unknown entity or
potentially be left holding the bag.
Has anyone spoken to any of the other towns who rejected data centers to find the issues?

G, Does Waterford think it can outmaneuver and outsmart Montville, Groton, Norwich,
Griswold, Wallingford and Bozrah and bring success to a 20-month-old company thal has yet
to build any data center? The MOU says there is no litigation that would affect the company
from completing its outlined duties in the MOU. | think a $30 billion lawsuit may have some
impact and make the MOU assertion false. Is every selectperson and RTM member sure
that the $30 billion dollar suit will just go away and won't affect N E Edge? Or just because
i's written in the MOU it must be true?
7. The current MOU allows for 2 data centers (a 1.1 million SQFT and a 350 thousand
SQFT). The MOU does not allow Waterford to stop the second if the first goes awry. Why
cid not one town official raise thal issue (or not include it in the MOU)?
Additionally, it's been alleged, there are plans for data center number 3 and 4 and N E Edge
will be looking for a bigger break on those from Waterford. Building these data centers as
proposed is just like eating chips....once you have one and two, you just can't stop.
& Lastly, in response to your email below, | am quite disappointed that you and others of the
RTM all voted yes in the "purely ceremonial" vote and that it was done just for “optics.” Why
even vote on it if FS Brule can just sign the MOU? Why does there need to be optics
portraying something that is not accurate? Trying to create optics leads me to believe that
something is amiss. in my opinion, doing so just shows the RTM and the Board of Selectman
have no independent thought, but rather going through the motions and approving a plan
that is not very well thought out.
| would also disagree that the RTM, and specifically one member, would not have made a
difference. in fact, | think by rubber stamping the MOU unanimously gives Waterford
residents the wrong impression as to whether this project is truly good for the Town, and
specifically, good for the 4th District.
in closing, | am not sure if you represent the 4th District directly or just a member at large of
the RTM who is from the 4th District. If you do direct representation, | suggest a serious
discussion with all 4th District residents to see their feelings on this project.
Again, just like you, | am pro-growth and want the Town to have a solid economic base,
which will hopefully lead to a solid tax base and continued great town services at.reasonable
taxes. However, thal growth must be done prudently and not at the cost to the 4th District's
quiet enjoyment, quiet enjoyment that you know from experience.
Given how this project has been handled to this point, including, but limited to, the severe
lack of information and total lack of candor from town representatives (as you have honestly
admitted to (and which is appreciated), | am not confident at ail the issues affecting the
quality of life in the 4th District (and Waterford as a whole) will be properly dealt with and that
town representatives will be concerned about the Millstone neighborhood and its property
values.
| would request that you oppose the further development of this project and actively advocate
that opposition to FS Brule and the rest of the RTM on behalf of the 4th District.
Thank you for your time in reading this. Please feel free to contact me if you have any
questions about my position.

John C. Valliere, Esq.
Gn Friday, August 26, 2023 at 12:14:43 PM EDT, Dan Radin <dan.radin.waterford@gmail.com> wrote:
Attorney Valliere —
Thank you for your note. My apologies for ihe tardy response.
Attached fs my rnemo to the RTM and Board of Selectman from.February when the Special Meeting was held on
this topic. | believed the time—-and still do—that there are significant financial benefits to the data center if the
portfolio of risks is mitigated. { further raised concerns about noise control, deal term, and the competence of the
daveloper in the Special Meeting.
Before purchasing our horne, my family lived in a house we rented in Millstone Point. | know the quiet, peaceful,
bsachifront way of life for the neighborhoods surrounding Millstone because I've lived there,
My understanding of Ite role of the RTM in the Special Meeting, based on guidance from Town Attorney Kepole, is
that the body's vote was purely ceremonial, and that the Board of Selectman did not need RTM approval to
authorize the First Selectman to sign. In other words, the RTM's vote, and the joint meeting, was about optics.
Allorneys also informed us that signing the MOU was the first step in a tengthy, complex process of subsequent
approvals and checkpoints on the path toward the data center getting bull, and that its signing did not constitute a
binding agreement to build; rather it opened the possibility that it might be built.
| agree that the Special Meeting was poorly publicized and held on short notice: and | agree with concerns that
sufficient safeguards are not in place to protect the peaceful character of the MPA neighborhood. However, as the
RTM, or more directly as a single representative, we and | lack authority.
have reinforced my concerns and the concerns shared with me by other Millstone Point neighbors with the First
Selectman. He has not respanded in any substantive way across a number of occasions. | wholeheartedly
encourage you and your neighbors to advocate strongly with him. He has decision authority.
Thanks,
Dan Radin
475 470 6535
On Aug 20, 2023, al 12:42 PM, attorneyvalliere@aol.com wrote:
Dear 4th District RTM members:
| live in the 4th district at Millstone Point and am writing to get your positions on the
proposed data center at Dominion Power Plant.
My understanding is that the MOU was unanimously approved by the RTM anid the
Selectboard.
This is written to get your position on if the data center should really go forward, and what
you are doing to actively protect our district, and specifically the Millstone Point
neighborhood, from the ill ramifications this project will cause.
Many feel that this project process was started with little fanfare and is now being pushed
given the millions being offered in payments.

| look forward to your expedient response.
Thank you.
John C. Valliere, Esq.



October 2, 2023
RTM Meeting
Rope Ferry Rd.
Waterford, CT 06385
Subject: NE Edge, LLC Waterford Gantt Chart
Dear Mr. Goldstein,
Attached, is a NE Edge, LLC document named WATERFORD GANTT CHART. A few questions if |
may:
1. ) Task three: “Zoning Text Amendment:” Is this a reference to Dominions Petition No.
1586? Are there any other requests for zoning changes related to a data center being
built anywhere in Waterford?
2. Tasks four and five: “DECD Modification/DECD Approval:” What is the DECD and what
are they modifying and approving and why? Where can the public have access to that
process and outcome?
3. Task six: “Site Plan Review/Footprint Plan:” Where are the plans and will they be on
public display for a reasonable amount of time much like the proposed town center
development map?
4. Which of the remaining tasks on the NE Edge, LLC Gantt chart are in development?
5. Which of the remaining tasks are incomplete as of today?
va Sayles
s4 interereen Dr.
Queker Hill, CT 06375

eee
eee
eee
ee
eee
ee
Pee
PPE
P
ELE
ER
ERE
ER
ERE
ae
NE
EDGE
LLC
WATERFORD
GANTT
CHART
‘
=
>)
Gommenea
Project
,
{
|
MOU and
Host
Fee
Agreement
MilV
andifant
lagoon
al
|
mi
+]
Zoning Tot
Amondiment
—
est
Teal
Auntie
DECD
Netfiation
Q
|
:
|
ECL
Approval
»
|
|
Ste
Plan
Ravine
{FooipintPtan
if
|
Indand
Wetlands
Fling
ra
|
#]
Planing and
Zoning
&
|
|
a]
ornesp
q
=
'}
Federal
Air
Quality
wv
_
(SO-NE
Peering
a
*|
Architectural
Work
J
|
|
fling
Patt
if
I
41
D0
Construction
ir
(
Substalens
and
Itereenrectons
>
;
LI

TO: FIRST SELECTMAN ROBERT BRULE
We, the undersigned resident, voter, and/or property owner in the town of Waterfo
immediate Town Meeting for information on the Data Center projects at the Domini
property.
rd, request an
on Power Plant
NAME (Print}
Anes je ¥ peck)
SIGNATURE
L?2WePDLANA DP
Linden “Hla NS
(S Tin Bled
thitd me
Gy y tAwtic Raver IED
So Fiz zee
W Corder Gn Cote Wea %O-46 ~7874
Dawn Griswold Dou Quswolal 5 Declge Cook Niante $0 -A815493) towne viswold @ ilo! Eee
Doralun aha: | Qyralpn Ma? —_ |r Tanelcky WI-Gl 809 03,5594 d
Récer Stawne Kabot Senge | 4 Waple Tenses elds. Mr B¥zp

TO:
FIRST
SELECTMAN
ROBERT
BRULE
We,
the
undersigned
resident,
voter,
and/or
property
owner
in
the
town
of
Waterford,
request
an
immediate
Town
Meeting
for
information
on
the
Data
Center
projects
at
the
Dominion
Power
Plant
property.
SIGNATURE
STREET
ADDRESS
CMH
YS
No
Walelyc's
CAEL
ZY
H.
bncncy
sscarail
hip.
Crile
\
a:
iJ
BLO
Fo$
10)
[
a3
Kew
Me
O40
S
Daniel,
Ace
tndse
LY
860
£28
Rol
“
“r
LEMS
Cogertsa
urns
Cort
ln
78
_(ittSrove
kao
VArenfi
Np GiO372-4
cm
as
/
eo
4SO_
C
LoBENTSO
CHYO,
con

TO:
FIRST
SELECTMAN
ROBERT
BRULE
We,
the
undersigned
resident,
voter,
and/or
property
owner
in
the
town
of
Waterford,
request
an
immediate
Town
Meeting
for
information
on
the
Data
Center
projects
at
the
Dominion
Power
Plant
property.
&
3rd
Are
bike
200-29|
Cega
krwf2r
@
ane
oa
Le
|S
2S
fue
fei
gare
[REN
OLard
doif
35
3%
tye,
FeO
-235
7
Ne
Chg
A(O
comcatie
\72
BE"
ACL
172
BAO
Ae
lore
|
tog,
|
—
ce
76
or
(kelly)
GS
Ave
Waterfud
|
SE,
|
MWJevrzize
..,
Damis
EGalin
Ahern
—
*
:
"
"
\
vs
LAREY
MOA
Zit,
bw
Déaddls
We
B06
5O'-YysD
THEY
HESLE
dod
yal
Mies
Connvahan,
iboats,
|\LO
Diarels
Avene
us
BIT"
oe
SOE
Mateus
Mose
|
Byun
Debhd,
26
Danwls
Fue
_|ytat-52/
ppp
Taney
gee
lg?
Sad
Veen
Baer
Spun
(CB
PO
THIRD
AVE
[G2
460
35/9
ier
un
Lon
W
i
lant
LS
ed
One
Webvfa]]
203 Abi
4Y0S]
cebeccu
en,
lo
Garmal.os
vler
boxton
Tydin
feat
11S
ack
Wor
Yd
BS52494]
4510
24M
See
9
tobe!ef
~coUnessne
Pog
14
Gerd
Are
lhehd
Rooreael
Der
ay
COKE
Ido!
wel
Noun
ged
|Wktba7
E>
90
pillstme
5b
Wea
99/
(3.90
Renu
Bait
@faho.car

‘TO:
FIRST
SELECTMAN
ROBERT
We, the undersigned resident, voter, and/or property owner in the town of Waterford, request an
immediate Town Meeting for information on the Data Center projects at the Dominion Power Plant
property. 7
NAME (Print) SIGNATURE STREET ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL
Lan
A
Megn
&
4k
meishwe
a
4G
4A)
(e ee
ill
SPY
&
ins
S lLawcn Gt
Crore uw Paw
Ja
b
he
lens
an
1. Noor Ave
{
j O Abe
Cibliven@?sloc.gls
bobin€
8 = farsery SF.
wwhrsen
leh
eMatt
he
Terex
foselmao
ST
esomn
Sh
cesctyoecth
net
Hee
Fi
Vee
ac
Aigices7oAle
pA
a
Ses
DRoddel
1
Cleaner
2\
ane
SCs
SL
MU
Wane
Kel
fe
eR
rsfave
©
ste
an
Forres,
Kanes
57
Mil !
(stone
“Kd
ree
T.
Pinney
keaer
Fee
gel Nazis Se 7 ek 7
Bale, Davee moc les fa g
SUD
ACS
ISS
deaere C burps eh.
23 Trp Ane Cok Cj ete
S66.15-
28
BOE.
&
nydye,
Cove
|,
4
Sige
O-FH- Sd
a S

RTM Oct 2"4, 2023, Town of Waterford
For Public comment and meeting minutes
Good evening, Town Council members and fellow residents.
lam a Pleasure Beach resident concerned about the lack of citizen input and involvement
regarding the proposed Data Center at the Dominion Power Plant at Millstone which
appears to be moving forward. Personally, | need more information to understand how it
benefits the town of Waterford and if these benefits outweigh the potential downsides. So
at the moment | am opposed to the center and request that a town-wide information
meeting be organized to allow listening and discussion with residents of Waterford as well
as neighboring communities that are directly impacted, in particular East Lyme.
There are well known concerns about data centers, including noise pollution, threat to
wildlife, risk of fires (reported at other data centers), and a large carbon footprint. Lesser
known, but emerging research also raises concerns about human health and well-being. In
addition, the massive scale of the proposed buildings on the Millstone site may occupy the
land needed in the future for small modular reactors.
Thank you for your attention and for considering this request,
Michele Lewis-O'Donnell, PsyD
19 Nichols Lane
Waterford, CT 06385
O 202
4
J
8E2dh-!l

October 2, 2023
To the members of the RTM
From Deborah Roberts, homeowner
4 Jordan Cove Circle RECEIVED FOR RECORD
Waterford WATERFORD, CT
2023 OCT -y P 2 38
lam writing to state my concerns regarding the data center Ee pae entered
into by our town representatives and NE Edge.
1. The decision seems to have been made without input romt e ‘community,
especially those of us who live close to the proposed site, and there
continues to be a lack of transparency as to the plan.
. The payment to the town in lieu of taxes is shortsighted. The huge building
may not prove to be useful for future data needs as technology is ever-
changing. The town would be stuck with the building long after the
company has pulled out, for they would have no incentive to do anything
with it.
. The land for the power plant is specifically deeded for power generation. If
more land is needed for that purpose in the future, especially since there is
no current plan for moving spent fuel offsite, it would not be available.
For such a major project one would expect multiple proposals with bids
going out and research done to evaluate the companies’ background and
record.
. lam concerned that the developer has no experience with this type of
development, and in fact has multiple lawsuits being filed against them.
. The agreement would take power directly from Dominion/Millstone
Nuclear power plant. | have concerns about why that power would be
allocated directly to a private company as opposed to regular rate paying
users. What exactly does this agreement entitle them to? What happens
during shutdowns? Will they bear responsibility for security and
environmental impacts?
Will an environmental impact study be done? | am concerned about storm
water runoff into surrounding watercourses and wetlands, possible blasting
of bedrock and the disruption of the ecosystem.
. Noise from fans to cool the computers in these large data centers has
proven to be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of people and
animals. We have no guarantee that noise will be kept to a reasonable
level, if there even IS an established one for the kind of low frequency hum
which would be produced.

Od, J. 2023
ol ell bbe. to gat ow
| ~ nce to q WO (mypee
hive ma Lamia
Bc Ln— i MAL rr ARS
#2 S & a ny baedte “to iid bye =
| ye modula, A am ep posed. y
"earned SH at Ahir
- RGSZ UL LALLA -
a Weacare Z
litter (20 cpa