Citing Safety Concerns, Selectmen Want

VRAD Box Installations Stopped

By John Voket

One of the most dire concerns first brought to light by Republican Selectman Paul Mangiafico, about explosion and fire hazards tied to AT&T VRAD terminals, has been addressed. But he and his fellow selectmen still have sufficient concern to unanimously request the global telecommunications company halt installations of the refrigerator-sized information delivery boxes in town until other questions have been answered.

Approximately two months ago, residents began contacting both Mr Mangiafico and The Newtown Bee about the proliferation of the so called VRAD (video ready access device) terminals popping up around town. These huge, camel-colored metal boxes are either installed along roadsides on concrete pads, or are being suspended a few feet off the ground on utility poles.

On July 7, Mr Mangiafico raised numerous concerns to his board and requested First Selectman Joe Borst to look into the matter, to keep the item on the board’s agenda, and to contact the telecommunications company and request a representative appear before the board to answer questions about the boxes.

Mr Mangiafico’s most imminent concern was over reports of four incidents, two explosions and two fires, that had occurred in other states at the sites of the terminals. He concurrently requested that the town attorney determine whether or not AT&T was in violation of local or state laws because the company had apparently not sought, or received, authorization to install the VRAD boxes around town.

Following up with the first selectman during the board’s July 21 meeting, Mr Mangiafico was frustrated to learn that Mr Borst had not yet taken up the matter with the utility company, and reiterated his requests, asking that they be revisited in August.

This week, Mary Pat Healy, an external affairs representative from AT&T was on hand to answer questions, but said she was not fully prepared to get into the level of detail Mr Mangiafico was pursuing. She was able to ensure the board that lithium batteries that were suspect in the fires and explosions had been replaced in every existing terminal here in Connecticut.

On August 19, Newtown Fire Marshal William Halstead told The Bee that he was satisfied that AT&T had addressed the fire and explosion hazards by replacing the suspect lithium batteries manufactured by the now-defunct company Avestor.

Following the fire and explosion incidents, AT&T announced that it will be using nickel cadmium batteries from Saft “to provide battery back-up service for parts of its wire-line network.” Saft is a former unit of Alcatel, AT&T’s lead equipment integrator for its fiber-to-the-node network and IPTV services. Saft’s batteries, the company says, are “optimized for long life under extreme temperature conditions and will survive without maintenance for up to ten years.”

While Ms Healy was able to assuage concerns about fires and explosions, she could not speak to certain details about siting the boxes.

Ms Healy explained that her company, and related issues with the VRAD boxes and service they provide to customers, was under the jurisdiction of the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC). She said per DPUC directives, notices are sent to both municipalities and to homeowners who live adjacent to the boxes. The circulation of those notices are further stipulated based on whether the boxes are pad or pole mounted, she said.

“Safety is a priority,” Ms Healy told the board, “especially in cities where neighborhoods are much more dense and there is less land [available for the installations].”

The AT&T rep said the rollout of the company’s U-Verse entertainment and television delivery system has presented challenges, and the company has been amenable to changing the process by which the related terminals are sited. Ms Healy said the company is in the process of setting up meetings with mayors and first selectmen to better explain the project and its related installations.

“We’re working with a lot of cities and towns,” Ms Healy said. “We want to bring in the service, but we have to work with property owners.”

Ms Healy said AT&T has made an interim decision to keep the VRAD boxes already installed in place unless there are “major safety issues” related to specific sites. She explained that moving or removing boxes can compromise phone, Internet, and U-Verse television service to existing customers, because those services radiate out from each terminal to subscribers’ homes in proximity to the boxes.

She said AT&T engineers were busy at work redesigning the boxes, but it was unclear if any new designs would be significantly smaller. Ms Healy said in the case of Newtown, the company did send a letter to the town engineer announcing the company would be performing installations going forward.

But this did not sit well with Mr Mangiafico.

“As far as I’m concerned, I want the installations to stop,” he said. “I think they are unsightly, and block the right of way.”

Democratic Selectman Herb Rosenthal said he started hearing about concerns across the state when he was serving as president of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities.

“A number of municipalities are concerned,” Mr Rosenthal said. “Not so much with the pad-mounted boxes, but the pole-mounted ones.”

Mr Rosenthal pointed out that one of the boxes, directly across from Newtown Middle School, overhangs the sidewalk.

“If you’re walking along and not paying attention, you could walk right into it,” he said.

Ms Healy said while she was not an engineer, she understood that for other safety reasons, the manufacturer would not permit the boxes to be hung higher up on the poles. “We’re going to remove it if it’s a safety issue,” she added.

Returning to the issue of siting permission, Ms Healy reiterated that if the DPUC ruled the utility was required to seek permission to install the boxes, AT&T would seek that permission as directed.

Town engineer Ron Bauman was on hand at the meeting for other business, but mentioned that several other installations were scheduled, including one on Sugar Street in the coming days.

Mr Mangiafico replied that on behalf of the residents in the area, and those in any other neighborhoods where the boxes were scheduled for installation, he was in favor of blocking the work until the board of selectmen received a ruling on siting jurisdiction.