report signed: for golder associates ltd....
TRANSCRIPT
Review Report of Concerns
Identified In
Arran Wind Energy Project
Draft Project Description Report
As Submitted to the Director, Environmental Approvals Branch
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Identified as:
Report No. 09-1112-6081
Dated April 2010
Prepared by: Golder Associates
For Arran Wind Project ULC
Report Signed:
For Golder Associates Ltd. by:
Ian Callum, Golder Project Manager
and Danny da Silva, Associate, Golder Project Director
For Arran Wind Project ULC by:
Joanna Szarek, Development Officer, Leader Resources Services Corp.
and Charles Edey, President, LRS Corp
This Review Report dated July 2010 Prepared by:
William K.G. Palmer P. Eng.
TRI-LEA-EM RR 5
Paisley, ON NOG 2N0
Copies Sent to:
Joanna Szarek, Leader Resources [email protected]
Ian Callum, Golder Associates [email protected]
Director EAAB, MoE Ontario [email protected]
Duncan Moffett, Golder Associates [email protected]
Mayor and Council Saugeen Shores c/o Town Clerk [email protected]
Mayor and Council Arran-Elderslie c/o Town Clerk [email protected]
2
Background:
On June 29, 2010, an advertisement was posted in he Shoreline Beacon of Saugeen
Shores and other area newspapers of a “Notice of Public Meeting and Proposal to Engage
in a Renewable Energy Project” titled, “Arran Wind Energy Project.” The advertisement
stated, “A written copy of the Draft Project Description Report will be made available at
the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie and the Town of Saugeen Shores municipal offices
… on July 5, 2010.” The Clerk at both Arran Elderslie and the Deputy Clerk at Saugeen
Shores stated that the report was not made available to them until the afternoon of July 6.
Initially a copy of the report was reviewed at the municipal offices in Saugeen Shores.
The clerk stated that specific instructions had been given by representatives of Leader
Resources that a citizen was only allowed to read the report, and no copies were to be
made of the report. At the same time, an e mail request made to Golder Associates
returned a .pdf copy of the report within less than 10 minutes, an interesting discrepancy
in availability for citizens to be able to study and comment on the report.
Scope of This Review Report:
The Draft Project Description Report itself is a very general report. Although it opens in
its first line to state, “This Project Description Report has been prepared to provide
details of the Arran Wind Energy Project,” the report barely provides a rudimentary
sketch of the project. Nowhere does the report provide specifics as to the location of the
turbine generators, it only identifies that the project will consist of 46, 2.5 MW General
Electric wind turbine generators located “in Saugeen Shores and Arran-Elderslie.” The
“Project Location Map” (Figure 2, on page 44) only locates the project boundaries, but
not the turbine locations. One might make a judgment that the turbines will be located in
the white areas of the map, as they are not identified as a “constraint setback area” but it
leaves the reader wondering. It makes it very difficult to provide specific comments on
the document.
In the description of noise (section 4.6) the report states, “The operation of the wind
turbines and the Project substation will generate noise. As required by O. Reg. 359/09
turbines will be located at a minimum of 550 metres from receptors.” The Project
Description which states it will provide “details of the project” provides no details of the
sound power levels for either the source turbines, or the transformer station, nor locations
of either. The report only states, “Predictive modeling will be provided in the Project‟s
Noise Assessment Report, and will demonstrate that the operation of the project complies
with the MOE noise guidelines.” The report goes on to state categorically, “Through
adherence with to MOE Noise Guidelines, operations-related noise that may be perceived
to nearby residents will not represent a significant adverse effect.” Will Golder
Associates please provide a detailed justification of their statement? Neither the
MOE “Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms” (October 2008) nor the Project Description
demonstrate any evidence to prove that an A-weighted sound level limit for the cyclical
sound of a wind turbine which has a significant low frequency component, (as found at
3
other Ontario wind power developments) “will not represent a significant adverse
effect.”.
The “details of the Arran Wind Energy Project” do not even clearly describe the size of
the turbines. Table 5 of the “Turbine Technical Specifications” in section 3.4 of the report
fails to even identify the most fundamental and obvious fact, the wind turbine tower
height. It is only by careful reading of the “Site Layout Considerations” (Section 3.2) that
one learns the turbine tower height will be 100 metres when the report states this will be
the minimum turbine setback to non-participating property lot lines. Conducting a web
search for details of the GE 2.5 MW XL wind turbine generators shows the options for
tower hub height are 75m, 85m, and 100m, confirming that the tip of the 100 metre rotor
diameter turbine blades will be some 150 metres above grade. Will Golder Associates
please ensure the “details” of the Wind Energy Project are actually provided?
The main scope of this review report is the issue of public health and safety, as well as
noise, all of which are outlined in section 4.9 of the Golder Associates – Arran Wind
Energy Project Draft Project Description Report.
Detailed Comments Related to Public Health and Safety:
a) Setbacks
It is curious that the Golder Report refers to the County of Bruce Setback
Requirements for Wind Turbines in section 4.7.3, and to the Municipality
of Arran-Elderslie Zoning Bylaw in section 4.7.4, but fails to recognize
that the Saugeen Shores Official Plan and Zoning ByLaws as put in place
following an appeal to the OMB (decision PL 060733 dated December 7,
2007) required minimum setbacks from wind turbines to any receptor of
650 metres, and from a wind turbine to a lot line or road equal to the
height of the wind turbine tower plus the blade length (150 metres for the
turbines in this proposal.)
b) Ice Throw
The Golder report lists a number of references related to ice throw:
Seifert, Weserheiling, Kroning (2003) Risk Analysis of Ice Throw from
Wind Turbines, paper presented at BOREAS, 2003
Wahl, Giguere (2006), Ice Shedding and Ice Throw – Risk and Mitigation,
by GE Energy (the manufacturer of the turbines proposed for the Arran
Wind Energy Project)
Morgan, Bossanyi (1996) Wind Turbine Icing and Public Safety – A
Quantifiable Risk? (early work from the Wind Energy Production in Cold
Climates) – The text refers to a report by Morgan et al of 1998, but does
not list the reference.
4
Garrad Hassan Canada (2007) Recommendations for Risk Assessments of
Ice Throw and Blade Failures in Ontario (prepared for the Canadian Wind
Energy Association.)
Using these references, the Golder Report comes to conclusion without showing
the justification, that states, “the turbines have a minimum setback from sensitive
Points of Reception of no less than 550 m and 60 m from roads, which
considerably reduces the risk of injury from ice throw or falling ice.”
Please provide a detailed assessment for the justification that a setback of 60
metres from roads considerably reduces risk of injury from ice throw or
falling ice. This request is made since the cited references show a different story:
Wahl, Giguere “Ice Shedding and Ice Throw” the recommendation of the
manufacturer states categorically, “GE suggests that the following actions,
which are based on recognized industry practices, be considered when
siting turbines to mitigate risk for ice prone project locations.” It goes on,
“Locating turbines a safe distance from any occupied structure, road, or
public use area. Some consultant groups have the capability to provide
risk-assessment based on site specific conditions that will lead to
suggestions for turbine locations, in the absence of such as assessment,
other guidelines may be used. Wind Energy Production in Cold Climates
provides the following formula for calculating a safe distance, 1.5 x (hub
height + rotor diameter). While this guideline is recommended by the
certifying agency Germanischer Lloyd as well as the Deutsches
Windenergie- Institut (DEWI), it should be noted that the actual distance
is dependant upon turbine dimensions, rotational speed and many other
potential factors.”
The referenced paper by Seifert, also shows the same simplified formula
of 1.5 x (hub height + rotor diameter) and concludes “as a general
recommendation, it can be stated that wind farm developers should be
very careful at ice endangered sites in the planning phase and take ice
throw into account as a general issue.”
The referenced paper by Garrad Hassan shows that at the Bruce
Information Centre, located in the same climatic region as the proposed
wind energy project, during monitoring during early operation of the
demonstration Tacke TW600 wind turbine, with a 50 metre tower and 21
metre blades, icing of the turbine blades was detected on at least 13
occasions over a survey period from 1995 to 2001, with pieces of ice up to
12 inches by 2 inches by 2 inches found at a distance of up to 100 metres
from the turbine base, and pieces up to 5 inches by 2 inches by 2 inches
scattered up to 100 metres from the tower on another occasion, when it
was estimated that 1 ton of ice was found on the ground.
The Garrad Hassan referenced paper also shows that for the generic 2 MW
turbine, with an 80 metre hub height and an 80 metre rotor diameter (a
blade tip height of 120 metres) “From these results it would appear that
there is a critical distance of approximately 220 metres from a turbine …
the critical distance can effectively be regarded as a safe distance …”
5
That calculated 220 metre “safe distance” is comparable to the 1.5 x (hub
height + rotor diameter) value estimated by the Wind Energy Production
in Cold Climates recommended by the manufacturer, referenced above
which would be 1.5 x (80m + 80 m) = 240 metres.
For the turbines proposed for this case, with a 100 metre hub, and a 100
metre rotor diameter, the estimated “safe distance” would be 1.5 x (100m
+ 100m) = 300 metres. The Golder Associates conclusion that a setback of
60 metres from roads “considerably reduces risk of injury from ice throw
or falling ice” is not consistent with the referenced documents. For Golder
Associates to come to this conclusion rather than openly admitting the
facts shown in the references used is a significant concern.
Figure 1: Ice Throw Distances, Known, Recommended by Manufacturer, and Proposed
Elsewhere, the Golder Report also states the mitigating measure of placing
fencing and/or warning signs. Please explain exactly how will a warning sign
protect the public traveling on the public highway, given that the report shows
that a minimum setback to roads of 60 metres will be used, or how will the sign
protect a non-participating neighbour, for a minimum setback to lot lines of 100
metres? The proposal is increasing the risk on roads or on the property of
neighbours above the risk identified by the references quoted. Following this
criteria of “posting signs” results in the situation shown in Figure 2, where signs
placed alongside a highway warn the public to stay at a distance of greater than
305 metres during potential icing conditions, even though the sign is at the road
setback of 120 metres in that case, or will be at a setback of 60 metres in the case
of the Arran Wind Energy Project.
6
Figure 2: Sign on roadside warning road traffic to stay back 305 metres.
7
Yet further on, the Golder Report notes the recommendation for deactivating the
turbines when ice accumulation is detected. Figures 3 and 4 show actual examples
on GE turbines in Ontario that this recommendation does not occur consistently.
These photos were taken January 19th
, 2010 in the Melancthon Wind Power
Development. They show a school bus passing down the highway between two
turbines that have ice on the blades. The turbine on the left (T18) is stopped, as
shown by the “furled” blades. The turbine on the right (T22) was still running at
normal speed. No stop signal had been given as the blades are not “furled.” Yet,
figure 4, a close up of the blades of the turbine on the right (T22), shows that the
blades were clearly ice crusted, and further show evidence that some ice had
already fallen from the blades. In yet another example, citizens living on Bruce
Township Concession 8 in the Enbridge Wind Power Development stated that in
the winter past, on a night that icing conditions were occurring (they were having
difficulty driving due to ice accumulation on their car windshield) the turbines
near their home continued running, and in fact were making more noise than they
had ever heard. Ice (or other roughness) on the moving blades produces a
significant change in acoustical noise, a well known fact. It is clear that turbine
deactivation does not occur consistently when icing conditions exist.
Figure 3: A School Bus passing between Melancthon Turbines T18 and T22, Jan. 2010
8
Figure 4: Melancthon Turbine T22 in January 2010 – Operating with ice on Blades
9
The Golder Report goes on to identify restrictive actions to protect maintenance
staff (not providing public safety protection) that restricts access to a setback
greater than the setback recommended for public safety.
It is incredible that the Golder Report identifies that the 60 metre setback from
roads “considerably reduces risk of injury from ice throw or falling ice” given the
overwhelming evidence that the manufacturer recommends larger setbacks for
public protection, for maintenance staff protection, and evidence that turbines
continue to operate with ice on the blades.
c) Catastrophic Failure
Section 4.9.2.2 of the Golder Report admits that “Any tall structure has the potential
to collapse. There is also a limited potential for blade detachment during severe blade
conditions.” However, the next statement is made without justification, “Although
both of these scenarios are highly unlikely … “ Please provide a detailed
justification for the statement that these scenarios are “highly unlikely”
compared to the probability of accident considered to be acceptable for other
generating system accidents.
Appendix 1 provides a listing of known wind turbine failures in 2008 and
2009 showing at least 35 known cases of accidents resulting in turbine blades
on the ground due to either a tower collapse or a blade loss. The 35+ known
blade failures that resulted in blades on the ground occurred over a world
wind turbine experience exposure of about 160,000 wind turbine years of
experience. It is noted that many countries with numerous wind turbines do
not report turbine failures, such as India or China. However, even assuming
this list constitutes all failures, it is a failure rate of 219 x 10-6 failures per
turbine year of operation.
To the end of 2009, Ontario has seen two incidents in about 1200 turbine
years of operation where portions of a wind turbine blade have fallen to the
ground. One on a GE turbine the Port Burwell Wind Farm reported by A
Channel News in April 2007, and the second also on a GE turbine at Prince
Wind Farm reported by the Sault Star in January 2008. There was also one
blade failure at a wind turbine at Belwood, ON, in Sept 2006 where a failed
600 pound blade traveled 100 metres, which is not counted in these failure
figures. 2 failures in Ontario‟s total 1200 turbine years of experience is a
failure rate of 1700 x 10-6 failures per turbine year, considerably higher than
the world average.
The Golder Report continues, “In the highly unlikely event of structural
collapse or blade detachment, equipment will fall within a very small diameter
due to the weight of the equipment (over six tones for the turbine blades). In
addition, the turbines have been sited away from roads and residences
(minimum distance of 60 metres from roads and 550 metres from noise
receptors).” This statement is not consistent with the referenced reports in the
Golder Report. The Garrad Hassan report acknowledges, “Documented blade
failures and distances were reported in the handbook (Dutch handbook
10
covering experience to 2001) with a maximum distance reported for an entire
blade as 150 m and for a blade fragment 500 m.” Similarly, evidence
documented for losses of blades or part blades in 2008 and 2009 (Appendix 1)
show part blades traveling 150 m, 200 m, and up to 500 metres. Given the
conflict between the material in the reference quoted by Golder Associates,
and the evidence of actual failures at a failure rate of up to 1700 x 10-6
failures per turbine year in Ontario, please provide a detailed explanation of
how the Golder Report comes to a conclusion that a 60 metre setback to
roads and a 100 metre setback to lot lines provides public safety
protection. Making statements such as the Golder Report does without
justification is a significant cause for concern when the unjustified statement
is not consistent with either the quoted reference or actual experience
observed.
d) Electric and Magnetic Frequencies
Section 4.9.2.3 of the Golder Report presents arguments that “The generation of
electrical fields from underground transmission lines from the Project will be shielded
by the wire‟s insulation and the surrounding ground but will still generate magnetic
fields.”
However, section 3.4 of the report identifies as a Project Component “34.5 kV
gathering lines, underground on agricultural land “ yet Table 6 of Section
3.5.1.3 identifies “The collection system will be a mixture of approximately
93 km of overhead lines and underground generator lines and will be
constructed using standard utility poles and Aluminum Conductor Steel
Reinforced (ACSR) conductors.” Since the overhead ACSR conductors are air
insulated, it is clear that the statement in section 4.9.2.3 regarding shielding of
the generation of electrical fields will not apply to the collector lines
constructed using standard utility poles.
The Manufacturer‟s literature for the GE 2.5 MW XL wind turbines states
“the electrical system design of the 2.5 MW wind turbine consists of a
permanent magnet generator and full power conversion. In the lower tower
section, the power module efficiently converts the energy from the permanent
magnet generator into power that provides frequency and voltage control
required by transmission system operators.” Field measurements conducted
near the overhead conductors of the General Electric wind turbines of the Port
Burwell Wind Power Development, which also incorporate a power
conversion module, show that this configuration generates a significant radio
frequency interference signal that is carried and transmitted by the collector
lines. For example, the radio frequency interference completely overwhelms
even strong AM radio signals in the standard broadcast band, and show
continuous high noise from below 200 kHz to over 2 MHz.
It is unacceptable that the Golder Report comments on the shielding of
electrical fields from underground collector lines on the agricultural portions
of the project, but is completely silent on shielding of electrical fields on the
11
majority of the project where overhead collector lines are proposed to exist, in
particular since the report is silent on the fact that the GE 2.5 MW XL turbines
incorporate a power conversion module, when similar GE 1.5 MW turbines
are shown to produce very high level of Radio Frequency noise from below
200 Hz to over 2 MHz.
Please provide a rationale as to why the Golder Report failed to review
the lack of shielding of electrical fields on the majority of the project
overhead collection lines, and the radio frequency interference shown to
overwhelm broadcast communication frequencies, in contravention of
Industry Canada regulations.
The report summarizes that “Levels of EMF from all Project components will
be significantly below this voluntary provincial guideline (of 3 kV/m in
Ontario). Please provide an assessment of what is meant by the term
“significantly below this voluntary provincial guideline” in particular for
members of the public with homes adjacent to the overhead 34.5 kV
collector lines.
e) Shadow Flicker
Section 4.9.2.4 of the Golder Report discusses “shadow flicker” and makes the
statement “The closest receptor to the turbines is located no closer than approximately
550 m in the project area, therefore the effects of shadow flicker would be
negligible.”
Please provide an assessment of what is meant by saying the effects of
shadow flicker would be negligible. The fact that the Danish Wind Industry
Shadow Plot Calculator shows significant shadow at 550 metres from a
turbine with a 100 m hub height and a 100 m rotor can exist for any sunny day
for every month of the year except June. (See attached printouts in Appendix
2, for the months of June, through December – the first 6 months of the year
will be similar.) Additionally since the turbines will be located at a setback of
as close as 60 metres from roadways, the calculator outputs shows that
shadow flicker at a distance of 60 metres from the tower can exist of hours
every month of the year, impacting drivers on roadways.
f) Wind Turbine Syndrome and Acoustic Effects
Section 4.9.2.5 of the Golder Report lumps the issues of noise, shadow flicker,
annoyance, and adverse health effects together into one section. The comments I will
provide on this section will principally be focused on the technical aspects of the
question, and the subject of health effects will only be discussed to the extent of
quoting reports of those individuals qualified to comment on that subject.
The Golder Report opens the section with the statement “„Wind Turbine
Syndrome‟ has been identified as symptoms that are the same as those seen in
the general population due to stresses of daily life.” Curiously, this statement
is made without defining either the source of the term “wind turbine
12
syndrome” or without making any specific reference to the fact that the term
was extensively described by Dr. Nina Pierpont MD, PhD in the publication
“Wind Turbine Syndrome, A Report on a Natural Experiment” (available
from Amazon.com) published in 2009. The book notes review comments by:
Robert M. May, PhD, President of the Royal Society (2000-
05), Chief Scientific Advisor to the United Kingdom
government (1995-2000).
F. Owen Black, MD, FACS, Senior Scientist and Director of
Neuro-Otology Research, Legacy Health System, Portland,
Oregon.
Christopher Hanning, MD, FRCA, MRCS, LRCP. Recently
Retired Director of the Sleep Clinic and Laboratory at
Leicester General Hospital, one of the largest sleep disorder
clinics in the United Kingdom.
Robert Y, McMurtry, MD, FRS (C), FACS. Former Dean of
Medicine and Dentistry at the Schulich School of Medicine and
Dentistry, University of Western Ontario.
Please explain the clinical reviews that Golder Associates used to
identify that the cluster of symptoms identified by Dr. Pierpont
which appeared when the individual was first exposed to wind
turbines, which disappear if the person leaves the environment of
the wind turbines, and which reappear when the person is re-
exposed to wind turbines are the same as those seen in the general
population due to stresses of daily life?
The Golder Report quotes from the literature review conducted by the
AWEA / CANEA Panel which did not actually investigate by speaking
to any of the individuals reporting adverse effects. It is thought
provoking that by choosing to not actually speak to any of the
individuals who are reporting adverse effects, the panel were able to
conclude “there is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds
emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological
effects.” At the same time, researchers like Dr. Nina Pierpont, Dr.
Amanda Harry, and Dr. Michael Nissenbaum have each concluded
after examination or interview of individuals who reported adverse
effects after they were exposed to wind turbines that these was a link.
The Golder Report quotes from the CANWEA / AWEA Panel report,
that “The sounds emitted by wind turbines are not unique.” However
the Golder Report fails to reference the HGC Engineering Document,
“Wind Turbines and Sound” Review and Best Practice Guidelines”
prepared for CANWEA, which identifies, “The frequency content (or
spectrum) is the property we perceive as pitch, which gives a sound its
unique character.” That report goes on to note, “The character of a
sound (does it buzz, rattle, hum, whine, swoosh or thump) can also
significantly affect the audibility and potential annoyance.”
What we find is one CANWEA report stating that the sound from
wind turbines is not unique, while another CANWEA report identifies
13
that the factors of a sound (such as „swoosh‟) which can “significantly
affect the audibility and potential annoyance” and give the sound its
unique character.
Similarly reports such as the “Environmental Noise Assessment for the
Pubnico Point Wind Farm” prepared by HGC Engineering for
NRCanada repeatedly describes the “characteristic” sound that wind
turbines make as on page 15 which begins, “In summary, the
measurements and observations can be described as having the
characteristic „swoosh‟ sound typical of wind turbine generators.”
Elsewhere the same HGC Report states, “The „swoosh‟ makes
identification of the wind turbine sound fairly easy,” suggesting that
they certainly are “characteristic.”
Figures 5 and 6 on the next 2 pages compare the frequency content (or
spectrum) of the sound levels outside homes in a similar environment
of Bruce County located near to wind turbines, and distant from wind
turbines. By comparison, a number of observations can be made.
Sound levels at frequencies of 150 Hz and less (generally
considered as low frequency) are between 10 to 30 dB higher
at the home near turbines (as turbines go from very low power
to high power).
Even at about 250 Hz (“middle C” on a piano is 256 Hz ) on
the same night, with the same ambient wind conditions, and
turbines at a moderate power level of about 25% the sound
level at the home near wind turbines is about 17 dB higher than
the sound level at the home distant from wind turbines.
The low frequency sound level at the home over 5000 metres
from wind turbines increases as the turbines increase in output
above the value measured when turbines are at low power.
Sound levels at higher frequencies of about 8000 Hz are similar
near and distant to turbines, as high frequencies are more
attenuated in propagation through the atmosphere than low
frequencies.
While the CANWEA/AWEA Panel report states that sounds
from wind turbines are “not unique,” the measurements show
that the sound levels at homes near wind turbines are distinctly
different as the low frequency sound levels are remarkably
higher.
The charts of sound level and frequency do not show the
characteristic cyclical repetitive “swoosh” heard near the
turbines, which is recognized even by the HGC Engineering
Best Practices for Wind Turbines prepared for CANWEA as,
which can “significantly affect the audibility and potential
annoyance.”
Considering the facts presented, would Golder Associates please
comment on their choice of the statement “the sounds emitted by
wind turbines are not unique?”
14
Figure 5: Sound levels outside homes distant from (top) and near to (bottom) wind turbines.
15
Figure 6: Sound levels on log scale (top) and low frequency linear scale (bottom)
16
The Golder Report makes several statements regarding annoyance from wind
turbines attributed to studies by Pedersen et al, relating annoyance to noise and
shadow flicker, and concludes that shadow flicker is not of concern. This
conclusion fails to accurately extract from the Pedersen “annoyance” works that
show repeatedly that three factors are in play, noise, flicker, and the constant
movement of the blades. For example quoting from the Pedersen, Hallberg, Waye
report “Living in the vicinity of wind turbines – a grounded theory study”
published in the Journal Qualitative Research in Psychology ,“The informants
were, to different extents, affected by the swishing noise, flickering light, and
constant movement of the turbines‟ rotor blades.” Would Golder Associates
please explain why they chose to report only on noise and shadow flicker,
excluding the issue of the constant motion of the turbines’ rotor blades, since
clearly the annoyance by shadow flicker depends on the relative siting of the
turbine and the observer’s position relative to the sun’s position in the sky. Making conclusions based on only partial information is a concern.
Considering that the Golder Report refers to 3 papers by Dr. Eja Pedersen, (the
reference list actually double lists one paper) and 1 paper by Dr. Kristen Persson-
Waye all on the subject of annoyance from wind turbines, it is indeed curious that
the Golder Report chooses as it‟s “bottom line” for a long paragraph beginning
“attitudes toward the visual impact of the turbines were related to the level of
annoyance reported,” to quote from an early 2003 paper, “there is no scientific
evidence that noise at levels created by wind turbines could cause health
problems other than annoyance.”
o This was a curious choice, since anything beyond a cursory inspection of
the other referenced reports, would have found that the 2007 quoted report
includes statements such as “Compared to other sources of community
noise such as road traffic, where respondents were seldom annoyed at A-
weighted sound pressure levels below 40-45 dB, many respondents in this
study unexpectedly reported annoyance with wind turbine noise at A-
weighted sound pressure levels below 40 dB. For example, 20% of 40
respondents living in an area exposed to noise of 37.5 to 40 dBA stated
that they were „very annoyed‟ by the wind turbine noise on a five-point
scale, ranging from „do not notice; to very annoyed‟” The report went on
to note that because of the small sample size – since few people were
actually exposed to that level of noise, the 95% confidence interval was
fairly large. The Arran Wind Power Project may expose more people to
sound levels above 37.5 dBA just by itself, compared to all the individuals
surveyed in Sweden.
o The 2007 quoted report recognized that wind turbines were unique, in that
the noise is a relatively continuous condition in the environment, and went
on, “The sound from wind turbines is amplitude-modulated, which means
that the sound varies rhythmically in intensity with the rotor blade
movement. Wind turbines are typically placed in a rural environment with
low background sound pressure levels. They are also very large objects,
which impact on the landscape. All of these facts make wind turbines
atypical objects.”
17
o The report did not dismiss the fact that wind turbines created annoyance,
and thus might impact health effects, and the penultimate paragraph in the
report begins, “Little is known of the long-term consequences on health of
low-level ambient stressors, such as those described in this study.” The
last line of the conclusions notes, “Future studies should concentrate on
how further wind power developments do not intrude into peoples living
environment and lead to unnecessary adverse effects.”
Had the Golder Associates study progressed beyond their conclusion of the “no
scientific evidence” line, they would have found that the Doctoral Dissertation for
Dr. Pedersen, titled “Human Response to Wind Turbine Noise” from 2007 begins
in its introduction to state, “The probability of adverse reactions to wind turbine
noise in relation to noise levels, with all it’s implications, should carefully be
taken into account in the planning process.” In the conclusion of that document,
Dr. Pedersen states, “In this work, wind turbine noise induced annoyance at
SPLs below those known to be annoying for other sources of community noise,
The noise was easily perceived due to the special sound character but probably
also due to the moving rotor blades demanding visual attention, making it
difficult to ignore the noise. The audible and visual exposure from wind turbines
was experienced as an intrusion of the private sphere and therefore evoked severe
reactions, among them noise annoyance, The results indicate that wind turbine
noise could reduce possibilities of psychophysical restoration, and adverse effects
on health and well-being can therefore not be excluded.”
A review beyond the conclusion chosen by Golder Associates in their report
would have found that while the researchers were unable to “put a finger” on
exactly how all of the special characteristics of wind turbines interact to produce
annoyance, adverse reactions, and possible adverse effects on health and well-
being, they do not dismiss the cluster of effects as trivial.
Considering the more recent evidence available from the same researcher,
Dr. Eja Pedersen, calling for more study since “adverse effects on health and
well-being can therefore not be excluded”, please comment on why the Golder
Associates report chose to use as it’s “bottom line” words from this
researcher documented 7 years ago that there was no evidence that wind
turbines could cause health problems other than annoyance.
The Golder Report chooses to state, “An independent review report prepared from
the Ontario Ministry of the Environment found the noise associated with the wind
farms does not contain significant LFN and/or infrasonic components.” A search
of the entire “Wind Turbine Facilities Issues Report” prepared for the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment, (Ramakrishnan, 2007) shows that nowhere are the
terms “LFN and or infrasonic” used. Nowhere can any statement be found that
wind farms do not contain significant low frequency noise and/or infrasonic
sound. Since the independent review report appears to have made no
statement that wind farms do not contain significant LFN and/or infrasonic
components, and that report was made without actually doing any
measurements, in light of the information regarding low frequency noise
differences near and far from wind turbines shown on the previous pages,
18
would Golder Associates please provide specific references for the statement
in your report?
The Golder Report chooses to note from the discussion paper published by
Leventhall in the journal Canadian Acoustics “that modern wind turbines are
associated with insignificant levels of infrasound and low levels of LFN under
normal conditions,” yet fails to accurately note the key point of that report about
the cyclic sound from wind turbines, since quoting from the abstract of that paper,
“Statements on infrasound from objectors are considered and it is shown how
these may have caused avoidable distress to residents near wind turbines and also
diverted attention from the main noise source, which is the repeating sound of
the blades interacting with the tower. This is the noise which requires attention,
both to reduce it and to develop optimum assessment methods.” Will Golder
Associates please explain why the material extracted from the paper by
Leventhall failed to even mention what Leventhall describes as the main
noise source? It is a concern when the Golder Report fails to even mention the
main point in quoted reports.
The Golder Report makes the statement, “High levels of LFN and/or infrasound
may cause physiological health effects, but to-date, there has been no definitive
proof in peer-reviewed journals or information provided by governments that
indicates high levels of LFN and/or infrasound can be associated with wind farms.
Epidemiological studies, in conjunction with acoustic studies, would be necessary
to definitely confirm a link between these physiological effects and wind farms.”
This is a very interesting statement, in that while it states the link between LFN
and health effects, it questions the link between LFN and wind farms. In light of
the information provided on the previous pages showing the increase in low
frequency noise at homes near wind turbines, would Golder Associates please
comment on the apparent conclusion that your statement would lead to?
As a logical progression, would Golder Associates please comment on the
request for an epidemiological study, which has repeatedly been made by
medical doctors, and the desirability to proceed with development of more
wind power developments before such a study is conducted? Such a request
was made by Dr. Robert McMurtry to the Standing Committee of the Ontario
Legislature where he stated, “Authoritative guidelines must be developed, and the
only way to do that is a well designed epidemiological study conducted by arm‟s
length investigators, mutually agreeable to all sides. That must be done – as well
as check for low frequency noise. In the meantime, let us listen to and help the
victims. Anything else would be an abandonment of responsibility by the
government.”
Summary of Questions to Golder Associates, re the Arran Wind Project Description:
1. The Golder Report states categorically, “Through adherence with to MOE Noise
Guidelines, operations-related noise that may be perceived to nearby residents
will not represent a significant adverse effect.” Will Golder Associates please
19
provide a detailed justification of their statement? Neither the MOE “Noise
Guidelines for Wind Farms” (October 2008) nor the Project Description
demonstrate any evidence to prove that an A-weighted sound level limit for the
cyclical sound of a wind turbine which has a significant low frequency component
(as found at other Ontario wind power developments) “will not represent a
significant adverse effect.”
2. Will Golder Associates please ensure the “details” of the Wind Energy
Project are actually provided?
3. Please provide a detailed assessment for the justification that a setback of 60
metres from roads considerably reduces risk of injury from ice throw or
falling ice.
4. Please provide a detailed justification for the statement that these scenarios
are “highly unlikely” compared to the probability of accident considered to
be acceptable for other generating system accidents.
5. Please provide a detailed explanation of how the Golder Report comes to a
conclusion that a 60 metre setback to roads and a 100 metre setback to lot
lines provide public safety protection.
6. Please provide a rationale as to why the Golder Report failed to review the
lack of shielding of electrical fields on the majority of the project overhead
collection lines, and the radio frequency interference shown to overwhelm
broadcast communication frequencies, in contravention of Industry Canada
regulations.
7. Please provide an assessment of what is meant by the term “significantly
below this voluntary provincial guideline” in particular for members of the
public with homes adjacent to the overhead 34.5 kV collector lines.
8. Please provide an assessment of what is meant by saying the effects of
shadow flicker would be negligible.
9. Please explain the clinical reviews that Golder Associates used to identify
that the cluster of symptoms identified by Dr. Pierpont which appeared when
the individual was first exposed to wind turbines, which disappear if the
person leaves the environment of the wind turbines, and which reappear
when the person is re-exposed to wind turbines are the same as those seen in
the general population due to stresses of daily life?
10. Considering the facts presented, would Golder Associates please comment on
their choice of the statement “the sounds emitted by wind turbines are not
unique”?
11. Would Golder Associates please explain why they chose to report only on
noise and shadow flicker, excluding the issue of the constant motion of the
turbines’ rotor blades, since clearly the annoyance by shadow flicker
depends on the relative siting of the turbine and the observer’s position
relative to the sun’s position in the sky?
12. Considering the more recent evidence available from the same researcher,
Dr. Eja Pedersen, calling for more study since “adverse effects on health and
well-being can therefore not be excluded”, please comment on why the Golder
Associates report chose to use as it’s “bottom line” words from this
20
researcher documented 7 years ago that there was no evidence that wind
turbines could cause health problems other than annoyance.
13. Since the independent review report appears to have made no statement that
wind farms do not contain significant LFN and/or infrasonic components,
and that report was made without actually doing any measurements, in light
of the information shown regarding low frequency noise differences near and
far from wind turbines shown on the previous pages, would Golder
Associates please provide specific references for the statement in your
report?
14. Will Golder Associates please explain why the material extracted from the
paper by Leventhall failed to even mention what Leventhall describes as the
main noise source? 15. The Golder Report states, “High levels of LFN and/or infrasound may cause
physiological health effects, but to-date, there has been no definitive proof in
peer-reviewed journals or information provided by governments that indicates
high levels of LFN and/or infrasound can be associated with wind farms.” In light
of the information provided showing the increase in low frequency noise at
homes near wind turbines, would Golder Associates please comment on the
apparent conclusion that your statement would lead to?
16. Would Golder Associates please comment on the request for an
epidemiological study, which has repeatedly been made by medical doctors,
and the desirability to proceed with development of more wind power
developments before such a study is conducted? Your report states,
“Epidemiological studies, in conjunction with acoustic studies, would be
necessary to definitely confirm a link between these physiological effects and
wind farms.”
21
Appendix 1
Known Industrial Size Turbine Failures – Resulting in Blades on the Ground
Jan2008 to Dec 2009 (24 month period)
List Compiled From Public Records
Dec. 2009, all blades are removed from 25 Gamesa 2 MW turbines in the
Kumeyaay Wind Project due to damage. Photos show one-third to one-half of
some blades lost. California USA (counted as only 1 failure due to lack of detail.)
Dec 2009, 1.5 MW GE wind turbine in New York State (Fenner Wind Farm)
collapses after loss of power. Cause under investigation. USA.
Nov 2009, 2.1 MW Suzlon wind turbine at Siif Energies Praia Formosa
development “exploded” loosing a blade, Brazil.
Nov 2009, 1.5 MW turbine at Acciona – Aibar Wind Development, nacelle,
blades, and top third of prototype concrete tower collapse, Spain.
Nov 2009, Vestas V47 turbine failure one blade lands on path used by hikers,
(Falkenberg) Sweden.
Nov 2009, Wincon turbine in Denmark (Esbjerg) – defective axle causes all
blades of 40 m high turbine to come loose, one hit a power transformer – article
notes that since 2000, Denmark has had 27 incidents of wind turbines loosing
blades,
Oct 2009, Vestas V90 turbine failure, braking fails in winds of 30 metres/sec,
Sweden.
Sept 2009, blade failure, second in 15 months, 56 m turbine, Sheffield U, UK.
July 2009, GE 1.5 MW turbine looses blade after lightning strike, Montana, USA.
Jul 2009, Vestas V80 turbine looses blade after lightning strike, broken blade
parts travel 150 metres, Germany.
Jun 2009, GE 1.5 MW turbine blade failure following lightning strike, MO, USA.
May 2009, Wind turbine blade falls off and onto highway A6, Lelystad, the
Netherlands.
May 2009, Vestas turbine overspeeds and collapses, North Palm Springs, CA,
USA.
April 2009, wind turbine failure, and collapse, CA, USA.
Mar 2009, GE 1.5 MW turbine blade failure in Illinois, USA.
Mar 2009, GE 1.5 MW turbine collapses at Noble Environmental NY State site
when blades spin out of control, USA.
Feb 2009, turbine collapses at Waverly Idaho when under construction as blades
spin out of control, USA.
22
Jan 2009, Enercon turbine looses one 20 m blade (bolt failure) and second blade
damaged, UK.
Dec 2008, Vestas V90 turbine blade damage - pieces travel to home 490 m away,
PEI, Canada
Oct 2008, 42 m long blade breaks off turbine, Illinois, US.
Oct 2008, turbine blade contacts tower, buckles it, collapses VT, US.
Jun 2008, blade failure, 2 months after in service, 56 m turbine, Sheffield U, UK.
May 2008, blade failure Vestas V47 turbine - full 23 m long blade broke off,
passes over road, the Netherlands.
May 2008, Suzlon turbine fire, blades come off in fire. Minn, USA.
Apr 2008, 2 turbines each loose 37 m long blades in storm, Japan.
Mar 2008, 10 metre section breaks off wind turbine blade, flies 200 metres, Italy.
Mar 2008, Lagerway turbine collapse, the Netherlands.
Feb 2008, Vestas turbine looses blade - travels 100 m, Denmark.
Feb 2008, (another) Vestas turbine blades contact tower, tower collapses, blade
pieces travel up to 500 m Denmark.
Feb 2008, Nordex turbine blade failure Norway.
Feb 2008, Vestas turbine looses blade, travels 40 metres – Sweden.
Feb 2008, turbine collapse, Island of Texel, Northern the Netherlands.
Jan 2008, GE 1.5 MW blade failure in winter storm - Prince Wind Farm, ON,
Canada.
Jan 2008, Vestas turbine collapses, Cumbria, UK.
This list does not tabulate turbine fires in the same period, unless they resulted in blades
falling to the ground. Tabulated fault data shows at least 15 wind turbine fires have
occurred in the same period, which can result in falling burning fiberglass and oils.
The 35+ known blade failures that resulted in blades on the ground occurred over a world
wind turbine experience exposure of about 160,000 wind turbine years of experience. It is
noted that many countries with numerous wind turbines do not report turbine failures,
such as India or China. However, even assuming this list constitutes all failures, it is a
failure rate of 219 x 10-6 failures per turbine year of operation.
Ontario has seen two incidents in about 1200 turbine years of operation in this period
where portions of a wind turbine blade have fallen to the ground. One on a GE turbine
the Port Burwell Wind Farm reported by A Channel News in April 2007, and the second
also on a GE turbine at Prince Wind Farm reported by the Sault Star in January 2008.
There was also one blade failure at a wind turbine at Belwood, ON, in Sept 2006 where a
failed 600 pound blade traveled 100 metres, which is not counted in these failure figures.
23
2 failures in Ontario‟s total 1200 turbine years of experience is a failure rate of 1700 x
10-6 failures per turbine year, considerably higher than the world average.
24
Appendix 2
Shadow Flicker for June 21 through Dec 21 for a plot 1100 metres by 1100 metres.
25
26
27
28
29
30