Champaign County, Ohio
Wind Turbine Study Group
“To inform the
decision-makers”
May 2008
Jon Berry, Champaign
County Farm Bureau
Jason Dagger, Champaign County Farm Bureau
Hon. Grant Johnson, Wayne Township Trustee
Julie Johnson, Union Neighbors United
Diane McConnell, Union Neighbors United
Mike Pullins, Everpower Renewables Corp.
Hon. Nick A. Selvaggio, Champaign County Prosecuting
Attorney
Hon. Fereidoun Shokouhi, Champaign County Engineer
Mike Speerschneider, Everpower Renewables Corp.
Hon. Jim Virts, Union Township Trustee
Christopher A. Walker, Esq., Union Neighbors United
Foreword
BACKGROUND
OF THE WTSG
In May 2007, a
local citizen’s group, Union Neighbors United, called upon
its Champaign County, Ohio elected officials to provide a
forum from which discussion could be held on issues
surrounding proposed wind turbine development in their
township. This group of citizens wanted to explore
acceptable approaches to wind energy regulation to ensure
that wind energy development would have the least amount of
impact on the health, safety and welfare of Champaign
County residents and its surrounding habitat.
In the months that followed, farmers and owners of
undeveloped lands solicited their local governmental
leaders for equal opportunity to engage in dialogue that
would enable them to voice support for wind turbine
placement. These groups of citizens felt strongly that this
type of renewable resource would provide the prospects of
clean energy, jobs and economic development to Champaign
County.
In September 2007, the Champaign County Prosecutor’s Office
agreed to facilitate a series of weekly community meetings.
Participants would be culled from a balanced set of primary
stakeholders for the purpose of sharing information,
exchanging ideas and exploring areas of mutual agreement
regarding the potential placement of wind turbines in
Champaign County.
The result was the formation of the Champaign County Wind
Turbine Study Group (WTSG). Champaign County Prosecutor
Nick A. Selvaggio solicited named representatives from
Champaign County Farm Bureau, Champaign County Township
Trustees Association, Everpower Renewables Corp.,
Logan-Union-Champaign Regional Planning Commission, and
Union Neighbors United to critically debate the merits and
consequences of wind energy development in Champaign
County. Although participation in the discussions would be
limited to named WTSG members, the WTSG felt that by having
its meetings open to the public, it would guarantee
transparent access to materials studied and viewpoints
debated.
For twenty-four weeks, members of the WTSG were given the
opportunity to present research materials from a previously
developed list of agreed upon topics. Upon the completion
of one presentation, the other stakeholders were given the
opportunity to present similar or alternative viewpoints
and materials on the same topic. Meeting notes were taken
and a compilation of materials presented were retained for
bibliographical reference and possible future use.
MISSION OF THE WTSG
The stated
mission of the WTSG was “to inform the decision-makers.”
Specifically, the WTSG wanted to acquire, organize and
assess relevant topical information on a variety of wind
energy issues. Using the acquired resources, the WTSG would
seek to provide input and formulate recommendations to
local decision-makers who might be considering a
governmental response to potential wind energy development
in their region of Champaign County.
WTSG members were mindful that Ohio law places governing
responsibility for electrical generation projects over 50
megawatts on the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO)
and its Power Siting Board. WTSG members considered whether
their informational gathering role should result in
formulating regulatory guidelines to local leaders. WTSG
members decided that they would not draft model ordinances
for local governments to consider. Instead, the WTSG chose
to develop a report based on informational assessments and
recommendations of multiple issues related to wind energy
development.
The WTSG was not created by Ohio statutory law. The WTSG
has no formal or statutory
rule-making authority. The WTSG is comprised of an informal
group of concerned community stakeholders that were
assembled to study the merits of wind energy development.
But for WTSG industry representatives, the members of the
WTSG have no specialized knowledge or training in wind
energy development. Thus, this document is limited in its
ability to be an authoritative guideline on wind energy
development due to the educational limitations of its
membership.
Yet, WTSG members were vigilant in acquiring information
from a variety of sources. They discovered an overwhelming
amount of information available from government agencies,
private companies, consultants and organizations from
proponents and opponents of wind energy. In addition, news
articles and anecdotal stories were found available for
review. The materials collected by the WTSG are available
in total and can be assessed, with the report, at the
Champaign County Public Library.
For every document discovered, there were
many others not retrieved for review. As such, any cited
materials herein should not be considered to be an
exhaustive list of available resources. To the extent that
readers of this document wish to consider additional
information to assess and weigh the credibility of the
information and conclusions set forth in this report,
readers are cautioned to consider relevant research and
data from qualified experts.
In addition to reviewing this document and reading other
materials, the WTSG encourages local decision-makers
studying wind energy development to visit operating wind
farms and consult with other local officials who have
previously studied similar issues in their own communities.
FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WTSG
The findings and
recommendations of the WTSG are topically organized as
follows:
The WTSG studied
fourteen (14) different wind energy development topics:
Aesthetics, Blade Throw, Decommissioning, Economics,
Environmental Impacts, FAA Lighting, Fire/Emergency
Response, Ice Shed/Throw, Noise, Road Infrastructure,
Shadow Flicker, Telecommunications, Turbine Collapse and
Vandalism. The findings and recommendations of the WTSG are
topically presented in alphabetical order.
The reader will notice that there are varying page lengths
of discussion to some of the topics presented herein.
The WTSG cautions the reader not to infer that a higher
priority or significance was allocated to a topic
simply based on the resulting “page length differential.”
The WTSG considers each topic equally important to
forming a healthy, safe, efficient and economically
viable wind energy development plan for our community.
Instead, the WTSG trusts that the reader will recognize
that a topic’s resulting page length
was attributable to the WTSG's finding that certain
topics merited more vigorous debate based on the nature and
content of the material available for review and analysis.
For each topic covered, the WTSG defines the problem or
issue involved. A summary assessment of the information
presented is then provided. The WTSG concludes a review of
the topic by offering recommendations for the
decision-maker on how to mitigate any potential adverse
impact that the particular problem may have on the local
community. Where the WTSG failed to reach unanimity on a
particular subject, the alternative viewpoint(s) were
provided for the reader’s consideration.
A complete bibliography of information as chronologically
presented to and considered by the WTSG is included in the
appendix.
In summary, consideration should be given to balancing the
positive and negative impacts of wind energy on host
properties, nonparticipating properties, and the overall
community. Decision-makers should take into account
cumulative impacts of wind energy projects in the context
of other development in the region. Residents, businesses
and entities in the vicinity of proposed sites can benefit
from a transparent governmental review process in which
occasions to voice support, opposition or concern may be
made. Opportunities exist to mitigate the negative impacts
of wind turbine developments through zoning ordinances and
use of scientifically accepted methodology.
The WTSG recognizes there are practical arguments for
encouraging the WTSG to continue its study of the issues
through the coming months and even years. As technology
evolves and more research is published and peer reviewed,
calls for further debate will most certainly ensue.
However, the WTSG recognizes that perpetuating the
discussion only serves to delay the delivery of information
to Champaign County’s leadership. At some point, the
findings must translate into action. It is hoped that this
document and its referenced materials will assist our
governmental representatives in formulating an action plan
that will serve the public good of Champaign County, Ohio.
- Nick A.
Selvaggio, WTSG Chair
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
PAGE
1.
Aesthetics………………………………………………………………………………………1
2. Blade Throw……………………………………………………………………………………3
3. Decommissioning………………………………………………………………………………5
4. Economics………………………………………………………………………………………7
5. Environmental Impacts………………………………………………………………………..10
6. FAA Lighting…………………………………………………………………………………....11
7. Fire/Emergency
Response……………………………………………………….................12
8. Ice Shed/Throw………………………………………………………………………………...13
9. Noise…………………………………………………………………………………………….14
Characteristics
of Wind Turbine
Noise…………………………………………………………….....................................14
Effects of Wind Turbine
Noise…………………………………...................................18
Measurement of Wind Turbine
Noise……………………………................................22
Mitigation of Wind Turbine
Noise…………………………………................................23
10. Road
Infrastructure…………………………………………………………………………….27
11. Shadow Flicker…………………………………………………………………………………28
12. Telecommunications……………………………………………………………………………32
13. Turbine Collapse………………………………………………………………………….........32
14. Vandalism………………………………………………………………………………………..33
APPENDICES
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………..A
Opinion of
Champaign County Prosecuting Attorney, April 22,
2006……………….................B1.
Aesthetics:
Definition of Issue:
• Aesthetics has
been raised as a concern about wind-energy projects.
While some people think turbines are pleasing to view,
others likely will not agree.
Taking care to place the turbines in a manner that takes
aesthetics into account will
help the project fit more harmoniously with the
community.
Information Assessment:
• There are a
number of reasons why proposed wind-energy projects evoke
aesthetic concerns.
Modern wind turbines are relatively new to the United
States. Some of the early projects were built in
remote areas, but increasingly they are being built in or
proposed for areas that are close to residential
and recreational uses, and often in areas never before
considered for wind power uses. The turbines
are often taller than any local zoning ordinance, and they
are impossible to screen from view.
The movement of the blades makes it more likely that they
will draw attention. National Research Council,
“Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy
Projects”, May
2007 at p. 143.
• One commentator suggests that communities with a rural
setting and a history of farming might accept
harvesting of wind energy as an acceptable use of their
land. Ben Hoen, Impacts of Windmill Visibility on
Property Values in Madison County, NY (April 2006)
(attached as Appendix B to Faulkner, David,
Community Improvement Corporation of Champaign County,
“Economic Impact Study of Wind Farm
Development in Champaign County, Ohio”, November 13, 2007).
Recommended Action:
• Local
decision-makers should require an aesthetic impact study as
part of local jurisdictions’ siting and
compliance review process. One option for an aesthetic
impact study is to require wind developers to
provide a visual simulation that depicts how the project
would look from different vantage points throughout
the project area. The study should specifically address
sensitive areas around the project as defined by
the local jurisdiction and taking into account, among other
things, the policies and designations of the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
• The National Research Council publication,
Environmental Impacts of
Wind-Energy Projects (2007),
contains an extensive discussion of how aesthetic impacts
can be evaluated in connection with the
implementation of projects. National Research
Council, “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy
Projects”,
May 2007 at p. 173-78, 360-75. This publication may be
purchased or accessed online at http://www.nap.edu.
Follow the “Energy and Energy Conservation” link.
• Aesthetic impacts can be mitigated by ensuring the
project has visual order and uniformity, using
turbines and towers of consistent height and design,
requiring removal of non-operating structures
(as appropriately defined), minimizing the visibility of
transmission lines and ancillary structures,
minimizing erosion during project construction and
operation, requiring turbines to be painted white or grey,
and prohibiting turbine use for telecommunication antennas,
billboards, and signs. Gipe, Paul,
“Design As
If People Matter: Aesthetic Guidelines for a Wind Power
Future”
(referenced in J. Johnson presentation materials Jan. 29,
2008.)
• Utilizing the above considerations, in combination with
setbacks as warranted, can result in a
wind project that is compatible with most existing land
uses.
• Some, but not all, of the members of the WTSG agree with
Paul Gipe that most existing land uses
include rural residential, row crops, grazing, commercial,
schools, religious sites, some parks,
outdoor recreation, tourism, cycling, walking and jogging.
Paul Gipe Ag Workshop Powerpoint,
Community Wind.
• Members of the WTSG believe that the following questions
could help evaluate the potential
for undue cumulative aesthetic impacts associated with new
wind turbine projects or
expansions of existing wind turbine projects. (All of the
following considerations are from
National Research Council, “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy
Projects”, May
2007 at p. 150-51.)
• Are the turbines at a scale appropriate to the landscape?
• Are turbine types and sizes uniform within the area?
• How great is the offsite visibility of infrastructure
(for example, substations and transmission lines)?
• Have areas that are inappropriate for wind projects (due
to terrain, important scenic, cultural,
or recreational values) been identified and evaluated?
• If the project is built as proposed, would the area
retain any undeveloped scenic vistas?
• Members of the WTSG acknowledge that there may be
difficulty in the interpretation and implementation
of the above considerations.
• Some, but not all, of the WTSG members recommend that
consideration be given to the potential
aesthetic impact of wind turbine projects on populated
areas such as cities or villages.
Definition of Issue:
• Wind turbine
blades can fail resulting in blades or blade fragments
coming free and being
thrown from the turbine.
Information Assessment:
• According to
Garrad Hassan Canada, Inc.:
•
The main causes of blade failure are human interface with
control systems,
lightning strike or manufacturing
defect;
• Evidence suggests
that the most common cause of control system failure is
human error.
Many manufacturers have reduced that risk by limiting the
human adjustment that can be made in the
field;
•
Lightning strike does not often lead to detachment of blade
fragments. Lightning protection systems have
developed significantly over the past decade, leading to a
significant reduction in structural damage
attributable to lightning strikes;
•
Improved experience and quality control, as well as
enhancement of design practices,
has resulted in a significant diminution of structural
defects in rotor blades; and
•
Garrad Hassan is not aware of any member of the public
having been injured by a
blade or blade fragment from a wind
turbine.
Garrad
Hassan Canada, Inc., “Recommendations for Risk Assessments
of Ice Throw and Blade Failure in
Ontario”, May 31,
2007 at p. 12-13 (included in Champaign County Farm Bureau
report 12/11/07).
•
Blade failure can occur in high wind-speed conditions.
Ubarana, Vinicius & Giguere,
Philippe, General Electric Energy, “Extreme Wind Speed – Risk and
Mitigation”,
October 2007.
According to GE Energy:
• The mode of
failure of a wind turbine due to an extreme wind event
cannot be generalized
and depends on the turbine type and configuration, as well
as the specifics of the extreme
wind event and site conditions. Examples of possible
failure scenarios include blade failure
or a tower buckling or overturning. When winds are above
the cut-out speed, the wind
turbine should have its blades idling in a position
creating minimal torque on the rotor.
This is the only safety mechanism other than the yaw
control. If a grid failure were to occur in
conjunction with an extreme wind event—which is a likely
scenario—the yaw control will
become inactive. The loss of yaw control could increase the
likelihood of damage/failure in the case
of an extreme wind event. Also, the grid
components/structures could also be part
of the potential windborne debris. At this time, GE has no
modeling capability in
place that can predict the impact made to a wind plant if
an extreme wind event occurs.
Ubarana, Vinicius & Giguere, Philippe, General Electric
Energy,
“Extreme Wind
Speed – Risk and Mitigation”, October 2007.
• The safety system
must have two mutually-independent braking systems capable
of
bringing the rotor speed under control in the event of grid
failure (as required through
IEC specifications). Garrad Hassan Canada, Inc.,
“Recommendations
for Risk Assessments
of Ice Throw and Blade Failure in
Ontario”, May 31,
2007 at p. 12-13
(included in Champaign County Farm Bureau report 12/11/07).
•
Professor Terry Matilsky of the Department of Physics and
Astronomy,
Rutgers University, has calculated that it is physically
possible for broken blades
to be thrown up to 1,680 feet horizontally. Matilsky,
Terry, Rutgers University,
“Part I – Basic
Kinematics” at p.
2.
Recommended Action:
• Members of the Study Group had differing views as to the
degree of setback that is
warranted to protect against blade throw.
• Some WTSG members are of the view that the precautions
and setbacks employed
for protection against ice throw (that is, 1.5 x (hub
height + blade diameter) from occupied structures,
roads and public use areas) are also adequate to protect
against blade failure.
This view is based on risk-based calculations done for
icing situations which consider
the frequency of occurrence and the potential travel
distance. Wahl, David & Giguere, Philippe,
General Electric Energy, “Ice Shedding and Ice Throw – Risk and
Mitigation”,
April 2006. Using the
recommended setback for ice is appropriate because the
physics of anything breaking off the blades,
including the blades themselves, is similar. Matilsky,
Terry, Rutgers University,
“Part I – Basic
Kinematics” at
p. 1.
• Other
WTSG members are of the view that a minimum setback of
1,680 feet is warranted based
on the potential for broken blades to be thrown that
distance. To protect safety and property on
adjacent property, these members also believe that this
setback should be measured from
the adjacent property line.
3.
Decommissioning:
Definition of Issue:
• Once the
operational life of the turbines has ended, arrangement
must be in place that would
ensure the removal of the structures.
Information Assessment:
• Lease
Agreements between wind developers and landowners normally
include provisions
for decommissioning, though these provisions are not
necessarily uniform from project to
project.
• In practice, decommission generally consists of removal
of above-ground and subsurface
structures to a depth of at least 36 inches, grading and
re-seeding of the surface,
unless directed otherwise by the
landowner.
Recommended Action:
•
Local decision-makers should enact zoning to require that
the developer or operator decommission
(i.e., dismantle and remove) wind turbines and
ancillary structures—
• At the end of the turbine’s useful life (as appropriately
defined), or
• if the turbine is determined to be unsafe or
detrimental to health, or
• If the turbine is in significant violation of applicable
zoning requirements.
Local
decision-makers may wish to consider different timelines
and remedies for decommissioning under the different
circumstances set forth above.
At the landowner’s election, roadways and pads may remain
in place.
• Local zoning
should require the developer and operator to post a surety
bond or other financial
assurance that is at least 115% of decommissioning costs
(less salvage value) as calculated and
certified by a registered professional engineer.
Calculation of the decommissioning and salvage should
be updated every few years and the fund amount adjusted
accordingly.
• Local zoning should specify that wind turbines and
ancillary structures that are not
decommissioned in accordance with zoning requirements are
to be deemed a public nuisance.
• Upon decommissioning, all above-ground and subsurface
structures should be removed to
a depth of at least thirty-six inches (36”) and the site
returned, as closely as possible,
to its previous state (unless otherwise directed by the
landowner).
•
Some, but not all, WTSG members believe that the leasing
landowner should be jointly obligated
with the developer and operator to ensure decommissioning
since the leasing landowner is a participant
in the wind turbine development. These members also believe
that decommissioning is consistent
with townships’ zoning authority for the purpose of
preventing nuisance, protecting public safety,
and addressing community aesthetics.
•
WTSG members requested a legal opinion from the Champaign
County Prosecutor regarding township
authority to require decommission bonding or funding. That
opinion is attached in Appendix B.
•
Some WTSG members believe that the Pennsylvania Model
Ordinance for Wind Energy
Facilities provides a good example of decommissioning
language for zoning documents.
4.
Economics:
Definition of Issue:
• Wind energy
projects have the potential to impact the local economy in
the form of capital investment,
jobs, patronization of local businesses, lease payments to
host landowners, tax revenue, and property values.
Information Assessment:
• David Faulkner
of the Champaign County Improvement Corporation conducted a
study examining
the potential economic benefits to the community. Faulkner,
David, Community Improvement
Corporation of Champaign County, “Economic Impact Study of
Wind Farm Development in
Champaign County, Ohio”, November 13, 2007. The study
utilized an economic model that
was developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) specifically to estimate
the economic benefits from a new wind-energy facility. This
model, the JEDI-WIND model,
calculates the direct, indirect, and induced economic
benefits of new wind energy facilities.
National Research Council, “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy
Projects”, May
2007 at p. 166-67.
• The JEDI-Wind model employs economic data developed from
numerous operating US wind farms
and provides for the use of national statistics or the
tailoring of the model to local economic circumstances.
The case of the Champaign County Economic Study utilized
both national statistics and specific local
input data to calculate the economic benefits of the
project.
• Based on input from wind developers active in the
area, the Champaign County Economic Study
estimates a capital investment of $190 Million to $570
Million, based on wind generation of 100-300
megawatts in the county. Faulkner, David, Community
Improvement Corporation of Champaign
County, “Economic Impact Study of Wind Farm Development in
Champaign County, Ohio”,
November 13, 2007 at p. 3.
• The Champaign County Economic Study predicts that
this investment in the area will result in
significant jobs, economic activity, and tax revenue during
both construction and operation.
• Some, but not all, WTSG members question the CIC’s
findings and conclusions about local
economic benefit on the ground that although the report
refers “local” economic impacts,
the supporting model utilized default data that reflects
statewide economic impacts.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/
windpoweringamerica/docs/jedi_wind_model.xls
(FAQ). Although the model provides an option for inputting
county or regional data to run a county
or region-specific analysis, the utilization of county or
regional data in the Economic
Study was limited and unsupported. Furthermore, to estimate
the secondary effects of a
wind-energy project on a region’s economy, the region must
be geographically defined.
National Research Council, “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy
Projects”,
May 2007 at p. 166. The Champaign County Economic Study
does not adequately
define the geographic region over which new jobs, spending,
and other economic
impacts are being distributed. For these reasons and other
reasons, these members
believe that the report’s projections of “local” job and
spending generation are meaningless.
•
Some, but not all, WTSG members feel that the CIC findings
are representative of
Champaign County and the neighboring counties. The results
represent general economic
impacts based on the JEDI methodology and Faulkner’s
knowledge of the local economy.
See Faulkner, David, Community Improvement Corporation of
Champaign County,
“Economic Impact Study of Wind Farm Development in
Champaign County, Ohio”, November 13, 2007 at p. 3.
•
On the subject of the impact of wind turbine development on
local property values, the Champaign
County Economic Study report concludes, “The only safe
conclusion one can draw from the body
of work done on this is that there is no definitive
understanding or conclusion on the impact wind
power development has on property values.” Faulkner, David,
Community Improvement Corporation
of Champaign County, “Economic Impact Study of Wind Farm
Development in Champaign County, Ohio”,
November 13, 2007 at 5.
• In addition, a number of other organizations have made
general conclusions about the economic
impacts of wind energy:
• According to Environment Ohio:
• “In 2001 Ohio spent $29 billion on energy, $16 billion of
which was exported to other states or nations.
A homegrown clean energy strategy would reduce Ohio’s
exposure to price spikes, supply distribution,
and other repercussions of our reliance on fossil fuels.”
Environment Ohio & Environment Ohio
Research and Policy Center, “Ohio’s Wind Energy
Future”, November
2006 at p. 10.
• “Ohio has the infrastructure to be a leading manufacturer
of wind energy technologies.
With a national investment in renewable energy and energy
efficiency, Ohio could potentially
gain more than 22,000 manufacturing jobs. Over 13,000 of
these manufacturing jobs would
result from an investment in wind power, which is more of a
job gain than any other state besides California.
The installation and maintenance of wind turbines is a
homegrown industry, one that can provide more
and better jobs than coal-fired power plants. Over 1,000
companies, located throughout the state,
would benefit from increased wind energy production.”
Environment Ohio & Environment Ohio Research
and Policy Center, “Ohio’s Wind Energy
Future”, November
2006 at p. 11.
• Figure 7 of the Environment Ohio report estimates that
Champaign County has the potential to
gain 50-99 jobs as a result of a nationwide investment in
renewable energy. The same figure
estimates that the six surrounding counties have the
potential to gain a total of 800-1,744 jobs as
a result of a nationwide investment in renewable energy,
most of which are predicted for Miami County.
• “Farmers with good wind resources could increase the
economic yield of their land by 30 to 100 percent.
This could make the difference between insolvency and
survival for many Ohio family farmers.”
Environment Ohio & Environment Ohio Research and Policy
Center, “Ohio’s
Wind Energy Future”,
November 2006 at p. 12.
• “If Ohio were to take advantage of only 20 percent of
[areas with wind speeds high enough to
support commercial-scale wind farms,] wind energy could
provide 20 percent of Ohio’s electricity
needs in 2020 (or about 37,000 GWh per year.) The wind
turbines would cover only 0.03 percent
of Ohio’s total land area, allowing farmers to grow crops
right up to the turbine base.” Environment
Ohio & Environment Ohio Research and Policy Center,
“Energizing Ohio’s
Economy,
Creating Jobs and Reducing Pollution with Wind
Power”, August
2007 at p. 21.
o According to the
American Farmland Trust, for every dollar of tax generated
by residential property, there is a cost to service those
residences of $1.16. By comparison, the cost to service
commercial and industrial property is $0.27 for each dollar
of tax revenue generated. Faulkner, David, Community
Improvement Corporation of Champaign County,
“Economic Impact
Study of Wind Farm Development in Champaign County,
Ohio”, November
13, 2007 at p. 11.
o According to the American Wind Energy
Association’s (hereinafter “AWEA”) “Wind Energy and
Economic Development: Building Sustainable Jobs and
Communities,” the European Wind Energy Association has
estimated that, in total, every MW of installed wind
capability directly and indirectly creates about 60
person-years of employment and 15 to 19 jobs. The rate of
job creation will decline as the industry grows and is able
to take advantage of economies of scale. AWEA, “Wind Energy
and Economic Development: Building Sustainable Jobs and
Communities,” cited in National Research Council,
“Environmental Impacts of
Wind-Energy Projects”, May 2007 at p. 166.
Recommended Action:
• To fully
understand and evaluate the economic impacts of any wind
energy project, local decision-makers should require wind
developers to provide an economic impact assessment
prepared with input from appropriate development agencies
such as the Ohio Department of Development and/or the
Champaign County Community Improvement Corporation.
5.
Environmental Impacts:
Definition of
Issue:
• Wind projects, as
all human development, can have an impact on local wildlife
and wildlife habitat.
Information
Assessment:
• There are a number
of federal, state, and local agencies that have primary
jurisdiction over these issues. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources
has jurisdiction over Ohio wildlife species. They are
currently developing and adapting measures that will help
wind turbine projects avoid or minimize species impacts.
U.S. EPA, Ohio EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
other agencies have jurisdiction over wetlands, stormwater
and surface water impacts, and other potential
environmental impacts from wind turbine developments.
Champaign Soil & Water Conservation District oversees
drainage and erosion issues.
Recommended
Action:
• Local
decision-makers should coordinate with the above agencies
concerning potential environmental impacts from wind
turbine projects.
6.
FAA Lighting:
Definition of Issue:
• The FAA
requires wind turbines and other tall structures to utilize
pulsing lighting for aviation safety.
Information Assessment:
• Wind turbine
lighting will be visible in the night sky and will be
similar in character to the lighting used for communication
towers and other tall structures. This lighting may raise
aesthetic concerns. National Research Council,
“Environmental Impacts of
Wind-Energy Projects”, May 2007 at p. 143.
Recommended
Action:
• Obstruction lighting
must follow FAA requirements. Local decision-makers should
consider requiring the project to use the minimum lighting
required. All lighting should be synchronized within the
development and, if possible, with other nearby wind power
developments.
7. Fire/Emergency Response:
Definition of Issue:
• As an
operating turbine and a workplace, accidents can occur that
will result in damage to the facilities and/or worker
injury. Accidents
involving maintenance and operation staff are unlikely, but
possible and would require local response
capabilities.
Information
Assessment:
• A turbine fire
generally represents a risk only to the structure itself.
Response units should be able to handle a turbine fire
should it occur by alerting neighbors and protecting the
area for ground level fires that may
result.
Recommended
Action:
• Local governments
should request the turbine operator and construction crews
to work with emergency crews to be prepared to handle a
turbine-related incident. In general, if a fire in the
structure occurs, the appropriate course of action is to
allow the turbine to burn out while the fire brigade
prevents ground based fires from developing. Training for
tower rescues should also be included in any emergency
preparedness plan. The resources and training for emergency
and fire response should be facilitated by the
owner/operator of the facility.
• Access to the turbine interior should be secured and
strictly limited to authorized personnel.
• Each turbine should have a first responder designation to
assist emergency personnel in locating the turbine in the
event of an emergency.
• Local decision-makers should consult with providers of
emergency medical airlift services to determine whether a
wind turbine proposal will affect helicopter access to the
project site and surrounding area.
8.
Ice Shed/Throw:
Definition of Issue:
• Wind turbines
can accumulate ice under certain atmospheric conditions.
Shedding of this ice from blades and other surfaces
presents a safety concern, particularly below the turbine,
that should be considered during project development and
operation. In the event that icing sensors fail, ice can be
thrown from the rotating blades and can travel a distance.
Wahl, David & Giguere, Philippe, General Electric
Energy, “Ice
Shedding and Ice Throw – Risk and
Mitigation”,
April 2006, at p. 2.
Information Assessment:
• Under normal
operations, when icing occurs, the turbine will be shut
down either automatically or manually. The ice will then
shed from the turbine blades before the turbine is
re-started. When the turbine is shut down, the risk is
confined to an area close to the turbine tower.
Recommended
Action:
• Appropriate safety
concerns should be addressed by means of a setback. GE
Energy, a major manufacturer of wind turbines, suggests a
implementing a safe distance equal to 1.5 times the sum of
the hub height and the rotor diameter. GE notes also that
the actual “safe distance” depends on turbine dimensions,
rotational speed, and other factors. Some consulting groups
have the capability to provide risk assessment based on
site-specific conditions. Wahl, David & Giguere,
Philippe, General Electric Energy, “Ice Shedding and Ice Throw – Risk and
Mitigation”,
April 2006, at p. 2.
• Wind turbines should be designed with redundant safety
mechanisms and procedures to protect themselves by shutting
down, either automatically or manually, when icing
conditions occur.
• Safety can be further promoted by utilizing appropriately
placed signs and other public education efforts warning the
public of the dangers associated with wind turbines in
winter weather.
• Maintenance staff should also be trained to recognize
icing conditions and should confirm that shut down occurs
when conditions dictate.
• Some, but not all, WTSG members recommend that because of
the potential for injury or property damage on neighboring
properties, the above “safe distance” recommendation should
also be applied from the boundary of any adjacent
nonparticipating property.
9.
Noise:
Definition of Issue:
As with any
machine involving moving parts, wind turbines generate
noise during operation. Noise from wind turbines arises
mainly from two sources: (1) mechanical noise caused by the
gearbox and generator, and (2) aerodynamic noise caused by
interaction of the turbine blades with the wind. Wind
turbine noise can be generally classified as being of one
of three types: broadband, tonal, and low frequency.
National Research Council, “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy
Projects”, May
2007 at p. 157.
Information
Assessment:
Characteristics of
Wind Turbine Noise:
• Sound from
wind turbines is generally classified as mechanical sound
or aerodynamic sound. Mechanical sounds are generally
“tonal” in character, while aerodynamic sound from turbines
is generally “broadband.” The tonal sounds are generated by
the machinery in the nacelle, including the generator,
gearbox, etc. Aerodynamic sounds result from the air
flowing over the blades and represent the characteristic
“swish” or “whoosh.” Aerodynamics sounds generally compose
the most dominant type of wind turbine sound. National
Research Council, “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy
Projects”, May
2007 at p. 158.
• Under certain conditions, aerodynamic noise from wind
turbines has been described as having a swishing, clapping,
beating, or thumping character with a modulation that is
not well-masked by background noise. Van den Berg, G.
P., Do Wind
Turbines Produce Significant Low Frequency
Sounds?, 2004 at
p. 4, 8; Pedersen, Eja, Noise Annoyance from Wind Turbines—A
Review, 2003 at
p. 5, 22. In a stable atmosphere, such as at night, this
noise is louder than at daytime and (in the case of one
cited wind turbine project) can be heard at distances of at
least up to 1 kilometer. In the case of multiple wind
turbines, the pulses can synchronize, leading to still
higher levels of sound. Van den Berg, G. P.,
Do Wind Turbines Produce
Significant Low Frequency Sounds?, 2004 at p. 4, 8.
• In addition to the above areas of agreement, different
WTSG members felt that the following information was
relevant and informative:
o Some, but not all, WTSG members offered the following:
• Dr. Geoff Leventhall, sound engineer (hereinafter
“Leventhall”), states categorically that there is no
significant infrasound from current designs of wind
turbines. Memorandum of AWS Truewind, “Wind Energy and Low Frequency
Noise”, March 6,
2006, at p. 2.
♣
Rebuttal--Although Leventhall
insists that there is no significant infrasound from wind
turbines, he does concede that wind turbine noise includes
a low-frequency component and that such low frequency noise
can be audible under certain circumstances. Leventhall,
Geoffrey, “How the
‘Mythology’ of Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise related
to Wind Turbines Might Have
Developed”, First
International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise: Perspectives
for Control, October 17-18, 2005 at p. 14. Thus, denying
the presence of “significant infrasound” in wind turbine
noise does not excuse the need to model and monitor for low
frequency noise from wind turbines.
• Research done by
Hepburn Explorations has shown that low frequency sound
pressure levels are often lower when the turbines are on
than when off. This is a result of the turbines converting
the energy in the wind to electricity. Memorandum of AWS
TrueWind, March 6, 2006, at p. 1.
• Ambient baseline sound levels will be a function of such
things as local traffic, industrial sounds, farm machinery,
barking dogs, lawnmowers, children playing and the
interaction of the wind with ground cover, buildings,
trees, powerlines, etc. It will vary with time of day, wind
speed and direction and the level of human activity. As one
example, background sound levels measured in the
neighborhood of the Hull High School in Hull Massachusetts
on March 10, 1992 ranged from 42to 48 dB(A) during
conditions in which the wind speed varied from 5 to 9
MPH(2-4m/s). Rogers, Anthony, PhD, et al.,
“Wind Turbine
Acoustic Noise”,
Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, June 2002, Amended
January 2006 at p.18.
♣
Rebuttal--References to
background noise measurements from urban areas are not
necessarily representative of rural background noise, which
can be at levels in the range of 20-25 dB. James, Richard,
E-Coustic Solutions, “Comments in Response to Everpower
Critique of Richard James
Presentation”,
March 17, 2008 at p. 2.
• Recent improvements in mechanical design of large wind
turbines have resulted in significantly reduced mechanical
sounds from both broadband and pure tones. Today, the sound
emission from modern wind turbines is dominated by
broadband aerodynamic sounds. Rogers, Anthony, PhD, et al.,
“Wind Turbine
Acoustic Noise”,
Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, June 2002, Amended
January 2006 at p. 13.
• As reported by the NRC, in 2004 there were 17,000
turbines in operation in the United States. NRC,
Environmental Effects of
Wind-Energy Projects 42 (2007).
• Everpower Renewables Corp. sponsored a trip to Bowling
Green, Ohio so farmers and landowners could get first hand
knowledge of the scope and sound of the turbines. The
Champaign County Farm Bureau sponsored a trip to Leroy,
Illinois to visit a large wind turbine project. The public
was invited to attend the trip.
o As a result, some, but not all, WTSG members believe we
have plenty of local and first hand knowledge on whether
the turbines make a sound and if that sound would be an
issue.
o Other WTSG members offered the following:
• A good overview of the nature of sound in general and
sound from wind turbines can be found in a report by
Anthony Rogers, Ph. D. Rogers, Anthony, PhD, et al.,
“Wind Turbine
Acoustic Noise”,
Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, June 2002, Amended
January 2006. This report includes an informative sample
noise assessment for a wind turbine project.
• The misunderstanding on low frequency noise may be
associated with the “swish-swish” which is typical for wind
turbines. The swish is a modulation of a higher frequency
and does not contain low frequencies or infrasound.
• Dr. Geoff Leventhall has stated, “I can state quite
categorically that there is no significant infrasound from
current designs of wind turbines. British Wind Energy
Association, “Low
Frequency Noise and Wind Turbines, Technical
Annex”, February
2005 at p. 8.
• Numerous studies have shown that low frequency sound
output from wind turbines does not significantly exceed
background levels, and measures no more than 50-60 dB.
Leventhall, Geoffrey, “How the ‘Mythology’ of Infrasound and
Low Frequency Noise related to Wind Turbines Might Have
Developed”, First
International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise: Perspectives
for Control, October 17-18, 2005, at p. 13-14; Hessler,
David, Hessler Associates, Inc., Speerschneider, Michael,
Everpower Renewables Corp., “Comments in Response to Richard James
Presentation”,
March 3, 2008, at p. 2.
• From analysis on existing wind turbines it seems that
there is no tendency that the larger wind turbines is
creating an excessive amount of low frequency noise
compared to the overall noise level. Sondergaard, Bo &
Hoffmeyer, Dan, “Low Frequency Noise from Large Wind
Turbines”, Second
International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, September
20-21, 2007 at p. 21.
• Frequencies produced by wind turbines below 40 Hz cannot
be distinguished from background noise due to wind.
Leventhall, Geoffrey, “How the ‘Mythology’ of Infrasound and
Low Frequency Noise related to Wind Turbines Might Have
Developed”, First
International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise: Perspectives
for Control, October 17-18, 2005 at p. 14.
o Yet other WTSG members offered the following:
• Wind turbine noise includes a low-frequency component
that, although inaudible (per NRC) or barely audible (per
Leventhall), is still perceptible by humans. Leventhall,
Geoffrey, “How the
‘Mythology’ of Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise related
to Wind Turbines Might Have
Developed”, First
International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise: Perspectives
for Control, October 17-18, 2005 at p. 14; National
Research Council, “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy
Projects”, May
2007 at p. 158-59. This low-frequency component is less
diminished by building walls or other structures, and
individuals sense or perceive low frequency noise in
different ways. Leventhall, Geoffrey, “A Review of Published Research on Low
Frequency Noise and its Effects, Report for
DEFRA”, May 2003
at Sections 8.2.4, 13.2. Low frequency noise from wind
turbines may be audible under certain circumstances.
Leventhall, Geoffrey, “How the ‘Mythology’ of Infrasound and
Low Frequency Noise related to Wind Turbines Might Have
Developed”, First
International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise: Perspectives
for Control, October 17-18, 2005 at p. 14. For these
reasons, this low-frequency component is important to
assess.
♣
Rebuttal - Leventhall has
conducted extensive research on infrasound and low
frequency sound in the community and is a leading expert.
There are sources of community noise that have generated
substantial low frequency sound and infrasound. Concerns
about efficient propagation and diminished attenuation are
legitimate concerns when taken in the context of
significant emitters of low frequency sounds. The DEFRA
report does not focus on wind turbine sound, but Leventhall
makes it clear in his other work where he does address wind
turbine sound that low frequency sound and infrasound from
wind turbines is, in general, not an issue. Leventhall,
“How the
“mythology” of infrasound and low frequency noise related
to wind turbines might have developed”,
First International Meeting
on Wind Turbine Noise: Perspectives for Control, October
17-18, 2005 at p. 13-14; British Wind Energy Association,
“Low Frequency
Noise and Wind Turbines, Technical
Annex”, February
2005 at p. 2.
♣
Rebuttal - Leventhall’s
characterization of wind turbine noise indicates that
infrasound and low frequency noise components are not
problematic. Aside from saying definitively that infrasound
is not a problem (Leventhall, Geoffrey,
“How the
‘Mythology’ of Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise related
to Wind Turbines Might Have
Developed”, First
International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise: Perspectives
for Control, October 17-18, 2005 at p. 14), he states; “The
concerns of the WHO on low frequency noise require us to
look carefully at low frequency noise from wind turbines.
In general, there is not a problem, although the mythology
is that wind turbine noise has a substantial low frequency
component.” Leventhall, Geoffrey, “How the ‘Mythology’ of Infrasound and
Low Frequency Noise related to Wind Turbines Might Have
Developed”, First
International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise: Perspectives
for Control, October 17-18, 2005 at p. 13. The data
presented by Leventhall to make even these diminutive
statements regarding wind turbine sound are based on
measurements taken just 65 meters (213 feet) from a
turbine. Leventhall, Geoffrey, “How the ‘Mythology’ of Infrasound and
Low Frequency Noise related to Wind Turbines Might Have
Developed”, First
International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise: Perspectives
for Control, October 17-18, 2005 at p. 14.
• Although wind turbines may generate low-frequency noise
at levels of 55 dB, rural background noise can be
considerably quieter (e.g., in the range of 20-25 dB).
James, Richard, E-Coustic Solutions, “Comments in Response to Everpower
Critique of Richard James
Presentation”,
March 17, 2008 at p. 2.
♣
Rebuttal - There have been a
number of studies which have shown that measured low
frequency sound from wind turbines are comparable to rural
background levels absent of wind turbines. Leventhall,
Geoffrey, “How the
‘Mythology’ of Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise related
to Wind Turbines Might Have
Developed”, First
International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise: Perspectives
for Control, October 17-18, 2005 at p. 13-14; in Hessler,
David, Hessler Associates, Inc., Speerschneider, Michael,
Everpower Renewables Corp., “Comments in Response to Richard James
Presentation”,
March 3, 2008 at p. 2. According to Sondergaard, “It seems
that there is no tendency that the larger wind turbines is
[sic] creating an excessive amount of low frequency noise
compared to the overall noise level.” Sondergaard, Bo &
Hoffmeyer, Dan, “Low Frequency Noise from Large Wind
Turbines”, Second
International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, September
20-21, 2007 at p. 21. Mr. James’ measurements showing
background levels of 20-25 dB should be treated with
caution as his methodology is not defined and they are not
substantiated and do not agree with any published reports
on wind turbine measurements or rural background sound
measurements.
• The variability of background noise
levels in different environments is why a thorough,
unbiased pre-construction study of community sound is
needed. James, Richard, E-Coustic Solutions,
“Comments in
Response to Everpower Critique of Richard James
Presentation”,
March 17, 2008 at p. 2.
• Turbine noise is usually most critical within a half-mile
of a project. National Research Council,
“Environmental Impacts of
Wind-Energy Projects”, May 2007 at p. 153.
♣
Rebuttal--While it has been
suggested that potential noise on nearby residents may be
less important outside of ½ mile, this does not indicate
that noise impacts will be important within ½ mile.
Effects of Wind
Turbine Noise:
• Different WTSG
members felt that the following information was relevant
and informative:
o Some, but not all, WTSG members offered the following:
• Modern wind turbines that utilize upwind blade
orientations have dramatically reduced tower interaction
effects, and the generation of high levels of low frequency
noise by wind turbines. British Wind Energy Association
(hereinafter BWEA), “Low Frequency Noise and Wind
Turbines, Technical Annex”, February 2005 at p. 1-2.
• There are no direct health effects from noise at the
level of noise generated by wind turbines. British Wind
Energy Association, “Low Frequency Noise and Wind
Turbines, Technical Annex”, February 2005.
• There is no scientific evidence that noise at the levels
generated by wind turbines could cause health issues other
than annoyance. Pedersen, Eja, Noise Annoyance from Wind Turbines—A
Review, 2003 at
p. 5.
♣
Rebuttal: While it may be
disputed whether low frequency noise from wind turbines
causes public annoyance, it has been documented that wind
turbine noise can cause public annoyance. Pedersen,
Eja, Noise
Annoyance from Wind Turbines—A Review,
2003 at p. 22.
♣
Rebuttal: Although Pedersen
concludes that wind turbine noise does not directly cause
any physical health problems, his conclusion continues,
“There is not enough data to conclude if wind turbine noise
could induce sleep disturbance or stress-related symptoms.”
Pedersen, Eja, Noise Annoyance from Wind Turbines—A
Review, 2003 at
p. 22.
• Wind turbines produce low frequency sounds, but it has
not been shown this is a major factor contributing to
annoyance. Van den Berg, G. P., Do Wind Turbines Produce Significant
Low Frequency Sounds?, 2004 at p. 1
• Non-sound-related factors also influence individual
responses to wind turbines. British Wind Energy
Association, “Low
Frequency Noise and Wind Turbines, Technical
Annex”, February
2005 at p. 4. This makes it more important that the
community is involved in the planning process and is aware
of the benefits that will result from the project.
• Research conducted in low frequency noise on modern wind
turbines has shown that the levels of low frequency noise
have been below thresholds of perception and is therefore
not a problem. British Wind Energy Association,
“Low Frequency
Noise and Wind Turbines, Technical
Annex”, February
2005 at p. 8.
♣
Rebuttal: The above report of
the British Wind Energy Association cites no specific
“accepted” thresholds with which to compare low frequency
noise from wind turbines. According to the National
Research Council, “More needs to be understood regarding
the effects of low-frequency noise on humans.” National
Research Council, “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy
Projects”, May
2007 at p. 158-59.
• The Danish Wind Industry Association and the Danish
Environmental Agency confirm that low frequency noise from
wind turbines has not been an issue and there have been
very few complaints from the general public in the past 20
years. British Wind Energy Association,
“Low Frequency
Noise and Wind Turbines, Technical
Annex”, February
2005 at p. 6.
♣
Rebuttal: The cited
information from the report of the Danish Wind Industry
Association gives no indication of the number of turbines
installed in populated areas of Denmark or the distance of
those turbines from residences.
• The German Wind Energy Association has confirmed that no
impacts to human health have been proved from low frequency
noise from wind turbines in German Studies. British Wind
Energy Association, “Low Frequency Noise and Wind
Turbines, Technical Annex”, February 2005 at p. 6.
o Other WTSG members offered the following:
• Low frequency noise can be annoying or distressing to
people who are sensitive to its effects. Leventhall,
Geoffrey, “A
Review of Published Research on Low Frequency Noise and its
Effects, Report for DEFRA”, May 2003 at p. 8.2.4; Pedersen,
Eja, Noise
Annoyance from Wind Turbines—A Review,
2003.
♣
Rebuttal: The Leventhall
report cited above does not focus on wind turbine sound and
primarily addresses the impacts of low frequency sound at
levels much higher than is generated by wind turbines.
• Public annoyance from wind turbine noise occurs to a
higher degree at low levels than noise annoyance from other
sources of community noise such as traffic. Pedersen,
Eja, Noise
Annoyance from Wind Turbines—A Review,
2003 at p. 22.
• A report for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
cites statistics that at wind turbine noise ranges of 37.5
to 40 dBA, 20% of 356 respondents were very annoyed with
the noise. At above 40 dBA, the percentage of highly
annoyed respondents increased to 36%. Pedersen, Eja,
Noise Annoyance from Wind
Turbines—A Review, 2003 at p. 13.
♣
Rebuttal: It should be
recognized that, in addition to the Swedish study reviewed
by Pedersen, his report includes review of other research.
The Swedish report is the only one that showed a
statistical correlation of annoyance to wind turbine sound
pressure levels, and leads him to conclude that wind
turbine noise is “to a degree correlated to noise
exposure.” Pedersen, Eja, Noise Annoyance from Wind Turbines—A
Review, 2003 at
p. 22.
• Low-frequency vibration and its effects on humans are not
well understood. Sensitivity to such vibration resulting
from wind-turbine noise is highly variable among humans. It
has recently been stated (Pierpont, Nina, MD, PhD,
“Wind Turbine
Syndrome: Noise, Shadow Flicker and Health”, August 1, 2006
/ “Health Effects of Wind Turbine
Noise”, March 2,
2006) that “some people feel disturbing amounts of
vibration or pulsation from wind turbines, and can count in
their bodies, especially their chests, the beats of the
blades passing the towers, even when they can’t hear or see
them.” National Research Council, “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy
Projects”, May
2007 at p. 158-59.
• Several studies and reports suggest that certain adverse
health effects may be associated with long-term exposure to
wind turbine noise, including the infrasound and
low-frequency component. E.g., Harry, Amanda Dr., “Wind Turbines, Noise and
Health”, February
2007; Pierpont, Nina, MD, PhD, “Vibro-Acoustic
Disease”, June 9,
2007 (summarizing research conducted in Portugal).
• Noting the need for further scientific data on this
subject, in 2006 the French National Academy of Medicine
recommended that wind turbines be sited no closer than 1.5
kilometers (0.93 miles) from residences “while waiting for
precise studies of the risks connected with these
installations.” C-H
Chouhard, Le
retentissement du fonctionnement des eoliennes sur la sante
de l’homme (Repercussions of wind turbine operations on
human health),
Panorama du Medecin (March 20, 2006), quoted in Frey and Hayden, “Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines
Installed Near Homes: Effect on
Health”, 2007 at
p. 5.
o Yet other WTSG members offered the following:
• Using available internet search engines, Vibro Acoustic
Disease or Wind Turbine Syndrome was not listed as an
ailment in any of the following associations or
organizations that list known diseases:
♣ Medicine Net
♣ National Institutes
of Health (Office of Rare Diseases)
♣ Wikipedia (Internet
Encyclopedia)
♣ National
Organization for Rare Disorders
♣ Mayo Clinic
• In an effort to evaluate
the health and safety risks associated with other forms of
electrical generation, these presenting members offered the
following information regarding the coal industry.
♣ In Ohio the burning
of coal leads to the premature deaths of 1,700 people per
year. Environment Ohio, “Clean Up Power
Plants”, 2007 at
p. 2. In the United States according to the American Lung
Association (2004 Study) 24,000 premature deaths are
attributed each year due to power plant pollution.
♣ The ALA notes that
research estimates over 550,000 asthma attacks, 38,000
heart attacks, and 12,000 hospital admissions are caused
annually by power plant pollution. In the last century more
than 100,000 deaths have been a result of mining coal, with
over 200,000 black lung deaths. This is part of the burden
of coal. TXU Corporate Presentation included in Champaign
County Farm Bureau materials dated 1/15/08.
♣ In 1997 the World
Health Organization estimated that nearly 700,000 deaths
are related to air pollution and that about 8 million
avoidable deaths will occur worldwide by 2020. Cifuentes,
Luis, et al., “Climate Change: Hidden Health
Benefits of Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation”,
Science Magazine, August 17, 2001, vol. 293: 1257-1259 at
p. 1.
• Rebuttal: It is impossible from the above statistics to
determine the extent to which the installation of a local
wind power facility will offset those impacts, or how those
offsets might compare with other potential local impacts
(such as nuisance, safety, and health) discussed throughout
this report.
• According to Leventhall, infrasound and its companion low
frequency noise now occupy a special position in the
national psyche of a number of countries where they lie in
wait for an activation trigger to re-generate concerns of
effects on health. Earlier triggers have been defense
establishments and gas pipelines. A current trigger is wind
turbines. Leventhall, Geoffrey, “How the ‘Mythology’ of Infrasound and
Low Frequency Noise related to Wind Turbines Might Have
Developed”, First
International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise: Perspectives
for Control, October 17-18, 2005.
Measurement of Wind
Turbine Noise
• Different WTSG members felt that the
following information was relevant and informative:
o Some, but not all, WTSG members offered the following:
• Low-frequency noise is not adequately measured using an
“A-weighted” sound measurement (dBA). A-weighted
measurements underestimate the levels of low-frequency
noise. Leventhal, Review of Published Research on
Low-Frequency Noise and Its Effects
at 8.2.4 (2003) (prepared for
British Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA)). Since A-weighting underestimates the sound
pressure of noise with low-frequency components, a better
assessment of health effects would be to use C-weighting.
Frey and Hayden, “Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines
Installed Near Homes: Effect on
Health”, 2007 at
p. 36, quoting World Health Organization Guidelines for
Community Noise S.3.8 (1999). Both A- and C-weighted
measurements are necessary to adequately assess noise from
wind turbines. James, Richard, E-Coustic Solutions,
“Champaign County
Ohio Noise Questions Powerpoint
Presentation”,
February 6, 2008.
♣
Rebuttal: The Leventhall
review cited above is a thorough examination of low
frequency noise from a variety of sources. It is recognized
that low frequency noise can be an issue in some higher
sound level environments, and that using an A-weighted
measurements can be inadequate in those environments. This
report, however, does not focus on wind turbine noise, and
Leventhall has reported repeatedly that low frequency sound
at the levels produced by wind turbines is not problematic.
Leventhall, “How
the “mythology” of infrasound and low frequency noise
related to wind turbines might have developed”,
First International Meeting
on Wind Turbine Noise: Perspectives for Control, October
17-18, 2005 at p. 13-14; British Wind Energy Association,
“Low Frequency
Noise and Wind Turbines, Technical
Annex”, February
2005 at p. 2.
o Other WTSG members offered the following:
• Low frequency sound from wind turbines is comparable to
natural ambient levels of low frequency sounds. Leventhall,
Geoffrey, “How the
‘Mythology’ of Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise related
to Wind Turbines Might Have
Developed”, First
International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise: Perspectives
for Control, October 17-18, 2005, at p.
13-14.
According to Sondergaard, “It
seems that there is no tendency that the larger wind
turbines is [sic] creating an excessive amount of low
frequency noise compared to the overall noise level.”
Sondergaard, Bo & Hoffmeyer, Dan, “Low Frequency Noise from Large Wind
Turbines”, Second
International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, September
20-21, 2007 at p. 21. Measuring the C-weighted component of
wind turbine noise will not help mitigate sound impacts in
communities. The C-weighted measurement is generally only
useful for environmental sound when the absolute magnitude
exceeds about 70-75 dBC. Below this threshold low frequency
sound is largely imperceptible and inconsequential.
Hessler, David, Hessler Associates, Inc., Speerschneider,
Michael, Everpower Renewables Corp., “Comments in Response to Richard James
Presentation”,
March 3, 2008.
o Yet other WTSG members offered the following:
• At the present time there are no common international
noise standards or regulations for sound pressure levels.
Rogers, Anthony, PhD, et al., “Wind Turbine Acoustic
Noise”, Renewable
Energy Research Laboratory, June 2002, Amended January 2006
at p. 21.
• Sample Noise Assessment for a Wind Turbine Project, taken
from Rogers, Anthony, PhD, et al., “Wind Turbine Acoustic
Noise”, Renewable
Energy Research Laboratory, June 2002, Amended January 2006
at p. 22.
1. An estimation
or survey of existing ambient background noise levels.
2. Prediction of noise levels from the turbines at and near
the site.
3.
Identification of a model for sound propagation (sound
modeling software will include a propagation model)
4. Comparing
calculated sound pressure levels from wind turbines with
background sound pressure levels at the locations of
concern.
Mitigation of Wind
Turbine Noise:
Different WTSG
members felt that the following information was relevant
and informative:
o Some, but not
all, WTSG members offered the following:
• Efforts to reduce potential noise impacts on nearby
residents may be most important within one-half mile.
National Research Council, “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy
Projects”, May
2007 at p. 153.
♣
Rebuttal: While it has been
suggested that potential noise on nearby residents may be
less important outside of ½ mile, this does not indicate
that noise impacts will be important within ½ mile.
Recommended
Action:
• The Wind Turbine Study Group recommends
a noise standard +5dB above pre-construction background
(L90)
to mitigate potential noise impacts from wind turbines in
Champaign County. Wind turbine noise should not cause the
sound levels at any receptor site to exceed 5 decibels
above pre-construction background (L90).
This standard should be used in siting determinations as
well as to assess ongoing operation of wind turbines.
o Some, but not all, WTSG members recommend that a standard
include a threshold level of 40-45 dB (based on World
Health Organization (WHO) community sound guidelines which
recommend sound levels outside a bedroom do not exceed 45
dB to avoid sleep disturbance). If the sound from turbines
exceeds this level, the limit should be +5dB above
pre-construction background (L90).
The sound standards referenced above are designed to
minimize possible adverse impact to residents in their
homes and are much more stringent than typical outdoor
noise standards. It would be appropriate, therefore, to
maintain these standards at the residence and not at other
parts of the property. The National Research Council study
recommends that good practice for dealing with potential
impacts of noise includes maintaining a minimum distance
between the nearest turbine and a residence. National
Research Council, “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy
Projects”, May
2007 at p. 176.
♣ Some, but not all,
WTSG members believe that the proposed noise standard
threshold of 40-45 dB is unacceptable because—
• It would allow wind turbine facilities to significantly
increase community noise levels to, or above, the 30 dB
threshold for sleep deprivation as recognized by the
WHO, see Frey and Hayden, “Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines
Installed Near Homes: Effect on
Health”, 2007 at
p. 34;
• The WHO has recognized that a lower limit is appropriate
where there is a significant low-frequency noise component
or where a throbbing or pulsating noise is present (all of
which are present in wind turbine noise), Frey and Hayden,
“Noise Radiation
from Wind Turbines Installed Near Homes: Effect on
Health”, 2007 at
p. 35; and James, Richard, E-Coustic Solutions,
“Champaign County
Ohio Noise Questions Powerpoint
Presentation”,
February 6, 2008 at slide 33, and
• High levels of public annoyance have been documented at
wind turbine noise levels above 40 dB. Pedersen,
Eja, Noise
Annoyance from Wind Turbines—A Review,
2003 at p. 13.
♣
Some, but not all, WTSG
members state that the WHO guideline for community noise
related to sleep disturbance of 30 dB described above
applies inside the
bedroom. The same
guideline indicates that sound pressure level of 45 dB at
the outside façade, with an open window, is adequate to
prevent sleep disturbance. Frey and Hayden,
“Noise Radiation
from Wind Turbines Installed Near Homes: Effect on
Health”, 2007 at
p. 35.
o Some, but not all, WTSG members recommend that compliance
with wind turbine noise standards be determined using both
A- and C-weightings.
♣
Some, but not all, WTSG
members believe that measuring the C-weighted component of
wind turbine noise will not help mitigate sound impacts in
communities. Below the absolute magnitude of 70 or 75 dBC,
low frequency sound is largely imperceptible and
inconsequential. Hessler, David, Hessler Associates, Inc.,
Speerschneider, Michael, Everpower Renewables Corp.,
“Comments in
Response to Richard James
Presentation”,
March 3, 2008, at p. 2.
• The WTSG recommends that wind turbine noise standards be
implemented as follows:
o The L90
sound level is a background
noise measurement representing that sound level which is
exceeded 90 percent (90%) of the time.
o The background level should be established by a qualified
and experienced sound engineer.
♣ Some, but not all,
WTSG members recommend that background noise samples should
be at least 10 minutes in length. Background noise should
be measured during late evening or nighttime conditions
using pre-construction computer modeling to determine
representative receptor sites. James, Richard, E-Coustic
Solutions, “Champaign County Ohio Noise Questions
Powerpoint Presentation”, February 6, 2008 at slides 37, 47.
o Compliance with the L90+5dB standard should be evaluated through
computer modeling as a part of pre-construction project
review and approval. This modeling should be based in part
on an IEC certified sound power level that represents the
sound level originating from the turbine. A qualified sound
engineer should then use that sound power level, along with
the characteristics of the project area to model the sound
propagation through the proposed project area. The modeled
sound impact at any particular spot should be evaluated
against the noise standard recommended above.
o Modeling sound from wind turbines and predicting its
impact in the community is complicated by the varying noise
levels from both the wind turbine and the ambient
background noise that will mask the turbine noise. A
qualified sound engineer experienced in modeling wind
turbine sound should be utilized for this study.
o Some, but not all, WTSG members recommend that compliance
should be determined at the property lines of adjacent
non-participating landowners. Determining compliance at
existing residences and businesses does not take into
account the potential for future development of adjacent
parcels.
o Some, but not all, WTSG members state that the sound
standards referenced above are designed to minimize
possible adverse impact to residents in their homes and are
much more stringent than typical outdoor noise standards.
It would be appropriate, therefore, to maintain these
standards at the residence and not at other parts of the
property. The National Research Council study recommends
that good practice for dealing with potential impacts of
noise includes maintaining a minimum distance between the
nearest turbine and a residence. National Research
Council, “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy
Projects”, May
2007 at p. 176.
o If multiple turbines are proposed, their combined noise
effects on neighboring properties should be considered as
part of the computer modeling. Computer models should
reflect conservative assumptions for operating conditions
and meteorological conditions. All assumptions should be
disclosed in the modeling report.
o WTSG members had differing views as to the recommended
methods to be used to assess compliance with wind turbine
noise standards.
♣
Some, but not all, WTSG
members recommend that compliance with the recommended
noise standard should be assessed using both dBA and dBC
measurements and in accordance with American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards S12.9, S12.17, and
S12.18.
♣ These members
further state that because low-frequency noise from wind
turbines is audible under certain circumstances, it should
be measured by use of C-weighted noise measurements.
♣ Some, but not all,
WTSG members recommend using appropriate methods used by
the acoustic engineering industry working in the field of
community sound impacts of wind energy projects. These
members believe that there are a number of acceptable
methodologies that are employed to measure compliance, that
the ANSI standards listed above are not specific to wind
turbine sound measurements, that it is not clear that they
would be appropriate for all situations, and that they
should not be adopted without further examination of their
appropriateness.
o Some, but not all, WTSG members recommend that local
decision-makers should assess from the developer a project
application fee sufficient to enable the township to engage
its own noise consultant for assessing sound modeling and
future operational compliance with the sound standard.
10.
Road Infrastructure:
Definition of
Issue: The road
infrastructure must physically support both traffic
patterns and loads associated with wind turbine
installation projects.
Information Assessment:
• Construction
of the project will require heavy traffic and overweight
carriers. This traffic will create temporary congestion in
some areas and local roads may be damaged. Oversight of
road infrastructure is within the purview of the Champaign
County Engineer and necessary regulations, permitting and
oversight are currently in place to protect local highway
infrastructure during construction.
• The Champaign County
Engineer requires any activity under special permit for
oversized/over-load to submit a transportation plan,
engineered road assessments, and completion of adequate
roadway improvements before work can
begin.
•
Some roadway and intersection upgrades will likely be
necessary. Again, the Champaign County Engineer would
oversee this work to ensure that it is done
properly.
Recommended
Action:
• Local
decision-makers should request a transportation route and
work with the developer to make sure the community and
school districts are aware of activity on local
roads.
• Prior planning
with the developer and county engineer or township trustees
is imperative. Prior to construction the developer should
provide a turbine site plan and transportation route
associated with construction of the project.
• The roads after the
construction should be as good as or better than they were
previously.
•
The Natural Resource Conservation Service has “best
management practices” that have been written to mitigate
negative impacts to the environment, and must be
considered.
11.
Shadow Flicker:
Definition of Issue:
• Shadow flicker
describes the effect caused by wind turbine blades passing
between the sun and an observer. Rotation of turbine blades
in sunny conditions results in moving shadows on the
ground, which results in alternating changes in light
intensity. Shadow flicker is different from a related
strobe-like phenomenon that is caused by intermittent
chopping of the sunlight behind the rotating blades. Shadow
flicker is a function of several factors, including the
location of people relative to the turbine, the wind speed
and direction, the diurnal variation of sunlight, the
geographic latitude of the location, the local topography,
and the presence of any obstructions. National Research
Council, “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy
Projects”, May
2007 at p. 160. Shadow flicker is also a function of tower
height and rotor diameter.
Information Assessment:
• According to
the National Research Council, shadow flicker is not
important at distant sites (for example, greater than 1,000
feet from a turbine) except during the morning and evening
when shadows are long. However, sunlight intensity is also
lower during the morning and evening when shadows are long.
This tends to reduce the effects of shadows and shadow
flicker. National Research Council, “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy
Projects”, May
2007 at p. 160.
• Turbines on elevated ridges may cast very long shadows
into the adjacent valleys. For example, for a 700’ high
north-south ridgeline and a 262 foot nacelle, the 300’
diameter rotors will cast over a two-mile shadow when the
sun is at 5 degrees. Bolton, R.H., “Evaluation of Environmental Shadow
Flicker, Analysis for ‘Dutch Hill Wind Power
Project”, January
30, 2007 at p. 9. Although 700’ ridgelines are not
representative of topography in Champaign County, Ohio,
this example illustrates how topography can affect the
length of shadows cast by wind turbines. The length of the
shadow and potential exposure to shadow flicker should be
calculated based on local topography.
o Some, but not all, WTSG members believe that since
elevation changes in Champaign County, Ohio, are roughly
200’ with much more gradual slopes than those used in the
calculations referenced in the Bolton example above, the
above example does not provide an accurate representation
of potential impacts in Champaign County, Ohio.
• According to the National Research Council, while shadow
flicker can be a nuisance to people living near a
wind-energy project, in the United States shadow flicker
has not been identified as causing even a mild annoyance.
National Research Council, “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy
Projects”, May
2007 at p. 160.
o In Northern Europe because of the higher latitude and the
lower angle of the sun, especially in winter, shadow
flicker can be a problem. National Research Council,
“Environmental Impacts of
Wind-Energy Projects”, May 2007 at p. 160.
o Some, but not all, WTSG members believe that the
experience with shadow flicker in the United States may be
different from that in Europe because large wind-energy
facilities in populated areas are relatively new in the
United States.
• According to one publication, people and animals (for
example, dairy cattle) directly under the shadow flicker
cast by a bright sun will both be highly affected by shadow
flicker from wind turbines by the rapid dimming and
brightening. This has not been experienced by most people
or livestock ever before and will be a completely new
phenomenon. Bolton, R.H., “Evaluation of Environmental Shadow
Flicker, Analysis for ‘Dutch Hill Wind Power
Project”, January
30, 2007 at p. 10.
o Some, but not all, WTSG members feel that the Bolton
statement above is opinion and not based on science,
expertise, or experience. These members are not aware of
any evidence of negative impact to livestock associated
with shadow flicker from wind turbines around the world.
Other than the report referenced above, according to Mr.
Bolton’s statement of experience, his experience in wind
industry is limited to one analysis of wind turbine noise
of unknown content or influence. The report referenced
above is an evaluation of shadow flicker assessment made by
another firm.
o Some, but not all, WTSG members note that the author of
the Bolton report has at 23 years of professional
experience as a project engineer (Eastman Kodak) and
physics faculty member (Rochester Institute of Technology).
Mr. Bolton has prepared evaluations concerning at least two
wind power facilities. Furthermore, these members assert
that the determination whether shadow flicker may
constitute a nuisance is determined by what a reasonable
person would consider an unacceptable impact, and is not
solely a scientific matter.
• To the WTSG’s knowledge, there are no U.S. or global
uniform standards for mitigation of shadow flicker. In
Denmark, it is generally recommended that there be no more
than 10 hours per year when shadow flicker is experienced.
One wind-energy project in Germany is subject to a
restriction of 30 hours per year of shadow flicker on a
neighbor’s property; that restriction pertains to hours
when the neighboring residents are present and awake.
National Research Council, “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy
Projects”, May
2007 at p. 161. The NRC publication does not specify the
underlying assumptions and methodologies used in the
Denmark and Germany examples cited above.
• It is sometimes difficult to work in a dwelling if there
is shadow flicker on a window. Even in the worst
situations, shadow flicker only lasts for a short time each
day, rarely more than a half hour. National Research
Council, “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy
Projects”, May
2007 at p. 161.
o Some, but not all, WTSG members also believe that shadow
flicker can be a nuisance outside of a residence, for
example, in outdoor recreation contexts.
• If a turbine is close to a highway, the movement of the
large rotor blades and possible resulting shadow flicker
can also distract motorists. National Research
Council, “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy
Projects”, May
2007 at p. 161. A recent compilation of wind industry
related accidents reports that three fatalities have been
attributed to driver distraction on a circular road in
Germany where turbines become visible to drivers. Craig,
David,