Better Plan, Rock County

GOT TURBINE NOISE?
We've been following this story since the the middle of January when trouble with the noise from turbines in this community was first reported. Read about it in the 1/18/08 Special Features Archive Called "Got Noise?"

Four and a half months later, the noise goes on--

Couple goes to court for windmill distress

(Click here for source) 

 
HOLLIDAYSBURG — The Juniata Township couple seeking relief from noisy wind turbines has taken their complaint to Blair County Court.
    Todd and Jill Stull, in a lawsuit filed at the courthouse, accuse Gamesa Energy USA LLC and the Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm LLC of destroying their quality of life and damaging their health. They’re seeking an injunction ordering the noise to be reduced.
    Ever since the wind turbines were built on acreage spanning Blair and Cambria counties, the Stulls say they have endured excessive noise and vibrations, causing loss of sleep, emotional distress, inconvenience and loss of property value.
    “Defendants’ wind turbines have destroyed the peaceful environment formerly enjoyed by plaintiffs and their neighbors,” the lawsuit states.
    Representatives for Gamesa Energy and Babcock & Brown, which owns the Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm, said Thursday that they had not yet received the lawsuit and declined comment.
    In April, Juniata Township supervisors commissioned a study to determine if the turbines exceed the noise level allowed by township ordinance. Solicitor Michael Routch said the information is needed if the township is to force action to reduce noise at the request of residents.
    Pittsburgh attorney Bradley S. Tupi said the Stulls’ lawsuit is based on nuisance laws applicable when a property owner uses his property in a way that interferes with how others use theirs. These laws historically surface in noise disputes between airports and neighbors, with rulings often reflecting who was there first, Tupi said.
    The Stulls have lived on their 100-acre property since 1992.
    The 30-turbine wind farm, which spans five townships and borders the Stulls’ property, went into operation in 2007.
    The lawsuit also accuses Gamesa and the wind farm of securing permits and approvals to build on the basis that the turbines would cause no noise. Based on that premise, Tupi said the Stulls raised no objections or appeals to the proposed project, but now find themselves exposed to noise, vibrations and flicker during a setting sun.
    “There is no question that the noise from these turbines are having a terrible effect on the Stulls,” Tupi said.

In the common pleas court of Blair County, Pennsylvania

TODD STULL AND JILL STULL
Plaintiff,

v.

GAMESA ENERGY USA, LLC and
ALLEGHENY RIDGE WIND FARM, LLC

Defendants

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (partial list)

14. Some of the industrial wind turbines are as close as 2,400 feet from Plaintiffs' home.

15. Before the wind turbines were erected, Plaintiff's property was a quiet, rural location where the predominant sounds were those of songbirds and leaves blowing in the wind. Defendants' wind turbines have destroyed the peaceful environment formerly enjoyed by Plaintiffs and their neighbors.

16. During windy conditions, the mechanical turbines become extremely noisy. The turbine blades make a "whooshing" sound almost like jet aircraft, except that the sound is cyclical, alternating louder and softer over short intervals. The turning of the industrial wind turbine hub housings to face the wind (or otherwise) makes a piercing, screeching, metal-on-metal noise.

17. The noises from the turning turbine blades can last many hours or even days. The noises from the turning of the hub housings are of shorter duration. The noises occur during daytime and nighttime. The noises are unpredictable and are generated without notice to Plaintiffs. The noises are audible inside Plaintiffs' home, even with windows closed.

18. The turbine noises interfere with Plaintiffs' sleep. Since the operation of the industrial wind energy facility began, Plaintiffs have not been able to sleep with their windows open, and even with windows closed Plaintiffs use an indoor fan to create "white noise" in a vain effort to cancel out the noise of the mechanical turbines outside.

19. The mechanical turbines also generate disturbing, low-frequency vibration that adversely affects the Stulls and their property. Both the audible noise and the vibrations, either individually or collectively, make Dr. Stull so uncomfortable that he often cannot sleep at night. Sometimes he goes down into an unheated cellar to try to find a quiet place to sleep.

20. Dr. Stull has experienced stress, anxiety and frequent disruptions of his sleep as a result of the noisy wind turbines.

21. The turbines' noises have a negative effect on Plaintiffs' enjoyment of their property and quality of life. The noises disrupt Plaintiffs' efforts to entertain guests on their property. The noises disturb Plaintiffs' use of their property for all outdoor family activities including hiking, hunting and other recreation.

22. Upon information and belief, the turbines' noises have diminished Plaintiffs' property value.

23. The turbine blades also create a disturbing "flicker" effect as they turn in the light of the setting sun. This also adversely affects the Stulls and their use and enjoyment of their property, including watching birds and wildlife, and hunting.

24. In order to induce state and local officials to grant permits and approvals necessary for construction of the industrial wind project, Defendants Gamesa and Allegheny represented that the wind turbines would be quiet. Those representations were false.

25. Plaintiffs relied upon Defendants' misrepresentations inter alia, by declining to oppose permits for the industrial wind energy project, by declining to appeal various local and state approvals of the project and by declining to sue to halt the project.

26. After the industrial wind energy facility was constructed, Plaintiffs complained about the turbine noises. Defendants offer various unsatisfactory explanations. Sometimes Defendants asserted that there simply were no noises. On other occasions, Defendants said that the turbine blades were defective and needed to be replaced. Defendants allegedly replaced the tape on the blades in January 2008, but the noises continued.

27. At various times, Plaintiffs have measured the noises from the turbines on Plaintiffs' property in excess of 70 decibels.

28. Defendants' conduct is ongoing, and Plaintiffs' harm is ongoing.

Count VII Injunctive Relief

55. The averments of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference.

56. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to abate the nuisance and violations caused by Defendants' design, construction and operation of the wind turbines.

57. Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits.

58. Plaintiffs are suffering immediate and irreparable harm, including ongoing personal injuries, anxiety, and emotional distress.

59. Money damages or other remedies at law are inadequate. Money damages cannot restore the peace and quiet Plaintiffs enjoyed on their property before the industrial turbines were built, and cannot free Plaintiffs from the constant anxiety and physical and emotional distress they suffer as a result of Defendants' conduct. Plaintiffs should not be forced either to continue to suffer these invasions or to move out of their home.

60. A balancing of the equities weighs in Plaintiffs' favor because, inter alia Defendants obtained permits for the industrial wind project based upon misrepresentation that the mechanical turbines would cause no noise.

61. A balancing of the equities weighs in Plaintiffs' favor because Plaintiffs relied upon Defendant' misrepresentation, inter alia, by declining to oppose permits required for the industrial wind energy project, by declining to appeal various local and state approvals of the project and by declining to sue to halt the project.

62. Consideration of the public interest weighs in Plaintiffs' favor because, inter alia, Defendants obtained permits for the industrial wind power plant complex based upon misrepresentations that the mechanical turbines would cause no noise. The industrial wind power plant complex not only affects Plaintiffs, but Plaintiffs' community.

63. Consideration of the public interest weighs in Plaintiffs' favor because Art. 1, Sec. 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that "The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment." Defendants' conduct has robbed Plaintiffs of the natural scenic and esthetic values of their environment at Pine Springs Farm.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand injunctive relief against Defendants to abate the nuisance caused by the offending industrial wind power turbines, together with costs and such other and further relief as the Court deems just.

TUCKER ARENSBERG, P.C.
Bradley S. Tupi, Esquire
William Haberstroh, Esquire

Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
Todd and Jill Stull

(Download a complete copy of the lawsuit  filed on May 1, 2008 by clicking here )

 What is Wind Turbine Syndrome?

Pediatric Physician Dr. Nina Pierpont has been researching the effects of living close to wind turbines on human health. Her completed study will be published in the next few months. Here is a summary of the report: (download a pdf of this abstract by clicking here)

    Wind Turbine Syndrome is a consistent, often debilitating, complex of symptoms which occur during residential exposure to large industrial wind turbines.
    Symptoms include sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus [ringing in the ears], ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, irritability, and problems with concentration and memory. Panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering arise in the daytime or during sleep.

Symptom intensity varies in concert with the direction turbine blades are turned, the rate of spin, or the presence of certain sounds. Panic episodes show no statistical association with previous history of anxiety or other mental health disorders and a highly significant association with pre-existing motions sensitivity [car-sickness, motion sickness]. Headache shows a significant association with preexisting migraine disorder. Secondary clusters of symptoms involve the chest and eyes. 

Methods: Case series of 10 affected families with 38 members age 0-75 exposed to turbines erected since 2004. All adults were interviewed and information obtained on all family members in a pre-exposure, during exposure, post exposure format.
Five families moved away from their homes within 6 weeks before the interviews or between the first and second interviews, one family significantly reduced its time in the home 3 months before the interviews, and other families spent periods of time away from the home during exposure.

Conclusions: Core symptoms of Wind Turbine Syndrome are best explained as a vibratory disturbance of thoracic organs creating a disturbance to position and motion sense via visceral graviceptors. Anxiety and panic arise in previously unaffected but motion sensitive people due to direct neurologic linkages between balance and position sense and brain centers mediating fear, anxiety, autonomic effects and adversive learning. There are also direct effects on ears. Secondary symptom clusters suggest other effects on tissues inside body resonant spaces, but require further research. Syndrome recognition is important for control of turbine placement and compensation of affected persons.

NOTE FROM THE RESEARCH NERD:Read what it's like to live near industrial wind turbines:   (Download a pdf of noise log of a Wisconsin family living amid industrial windturbines by clicking here) 

Visit the website of the wind developer who proposes to place 67 turbines in Magnolia township and 3 in Union township by clicking here The picture above is from their website.  

 "The situation with our son continues and the number of days a week he experiences problems increased when the turbines closest to our home came online in May.  We have learned to cope by having him use earplugs during the day and we run a fan on high at night in his room.  As for the headaches, our family has noticed a sharp decrease in them since the weather got cold. We are not outside as much and the windows are closed."

Today we feature excerpts from the story of a family we've been corresponding with in rural Illinois. In our first email from the mother of this family, we learned there were three industrial wind turbines located about 1500 feet from their home and a dozen or more half a mile away.

She writes:

We have had unofficial noise readings at the North wall of our home near 90dBA at times and have experienced headaches, sleeplessness, nausea, heart palpitations, increased blood pressure, a general feeling of being unwell, mild  depression, and extreme pressure in our ears...

...If you had even told me last fall, (the turbines near us have been operational since May, 2007), that we would be having the type of problems we are having, I wouldn't have believed it. We knew last summer their were times it was uncomfortable, but the winter weather conditions have given me a whole new perspective of what it's like to live with turbines."

   This was sent to us by Rene Taylor of Ellsworth, Illinois on February 21, 2008. She and her husband Larry have five children. They first heard of the possibility of a wind farm coming to their area in June of 2004 and attended an informational meeting presented by the developers.

        The following is an excerpt of "Our Story". It was written by Rene, and tells what her family has gone through since.    

    She writes, "Larry and I went to the table with the township map of our area to see where turbines would be in location to our home. Nothing appeared to be too close, just a few little red dots north of our property. We introduced ourselves to the gentleman at the table and told him we were buying a farm in the area in a few days and we showed him where we were going to move to on the map. He told us we would be “Neighbors” to the project and that someone would stop by and talk to us in a couple weeks.
    Knowing what we know now, warning bells should have been going off. Instead, in trusting Midwest fashion, we left feeling like this was a good thing for the community and thinking what nice people the developers were." 

  (The Taylor family received the contract for neighbors to the wind farm in September)

Rene writes, "Upon reading the documents, we were shocked to see the list of items that we would be giving easement for. We were not experts on this type of thing, but it seemed like we would be signing away a lot of our rights as property owners. Nothing in the documents said anything about where or how many turbines or other facilities would be near us. In our opinion, the money they offered, ($250 upon executing the document, $250 when construction began, and $1000 per year for 30 years), was not worth the loss of our rights.We decided not to contact the developer to have the documents put in our name as we had no intention of signing away our rights.  We decided to take a “wait and see attitude” and filed away the documents.
    In June of 2005, we received a letter from McLean County Building & Zoning letting us know that [the developer] had filed a request for permits for the Wind Farm and that a public hearing would be held in a month.  It also stated that [the developer] was requesting variances on the height and setback limits of some of the turbines.
    At the time we did not know, but these types of notices are only sent out to people within 1000 feet of a purposed project. We had never had any dealings with the zoning process and were totally ignorant about how it worked.
    About a week before the hearing, I contacted [the developer] by phone to try and find out what was going to be near us and how close it would be.  I told him up front we were trying to decide if we would be opposing the project or not.  He told me we would have one turbine 1500 feet from our home and that we would be able to see a couple more on the ridge.  I asked him about the location of the substation. I told him we did not want to live by one because of the noise and the possible health effects from electro magnetic fields.  He told me the substation was to be located near Arrowsmith, about 2 ½ miles from us. We felt a little reassured, but decided to attend the hearing to try and get a better feel for what was going on.
    The hearings were scheduled to be held over two evenings in early July. There were only a small number of objectors to the project, I believe three. We listened carefully to all sides and again felt the wind company had answered our concerns. We decided not to testify against the project. The zoning board voted to approve the project with some of the requested variances and the official number of turbines to be built was 240 in two phases."

     (In early 2006 the developer sold the project to another company and the Taylors received a notice from the Zoning Board of Appeals that the new company was requesting permission to buy a farmstead about a mile from their home to use as a visitor center and for operations and maintenance. They were also requesting to move an approved substation to much closer to the Taylor home.)       

   Rene writes, "It was at this point we became very concerned. We attended the hearing in early April, still unfamiliar with the zoning process. [The wind developer] and their local attorney [name] were sworn in and gave information on the proposed amendments to their Special Use Permit.  Some board members seemed upset that the soil scores were so high in the area of the proposed substation and even asked if they couldn’t locate the facility in an area with poorer soil. [The developer] replied they really needed to use this area as it was closer to the center of the project and that they had been working with the farmer for over a year to purchase this location.
    Larry and I were in shock. Nine months earlier we were told by this same gentleman not to worry because the substation would not be near us, now he says he’s known for more than a year they were trying to move it.  When the board was done reviewing documents and asking questions, I was allowed to ask questions.
    I asked how close the substation would be to our property line.  [The developer] responded “about ½ a mile.” I then asked what kind of noise we could expect and was told it would be unlikely we would be able to hear the substation above the wind. While we were not happy, we voiced no further objections and the board voted to approve the changes. The County Board still needed to vote to approve the project on April 18 [The developer] spoke to us after the meeting and said they would have someone do a noise study and get the information to us.
    A day or two after the zoning hearing, we observed workers staking out and area just east of our home. There was no way this area was a half mile away. Larry and I took a wheel and measured from the east edge of our property line to the west edge of the area being staked out.  The measurement was 870 feet, a big difference from the half mile we were told at the zoning hearing."

 The Taylor Family story continues--- we'll feature further excerpts in upcoming days.

GOT TURBINE TROUBLES or CONCERNS? JUST PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL 1-888-732-7234! The Coalition for Wisconsin Environmental Stewardship (CWESt) is a grass roots organization of made up of people concerned about the responsible placement of wind turbines. CWESt's primary goal is to provide a central source for both  gathering and giving out reliable information about industrial wind plant siting, issues relating to the industrial wind turbines and the effects on residents.  CWESt will take your concerns and information to our legislators in Madison. The number is good 24/7! The BPRC applauds CWESt for providing us with this very helpful resource.

What is five feet long, three feet wide, five to 6 inches thick, weighs several hundred pounds and can’t be broken by three adults jumping up and down on it?

 What roars loudly and sounds scary and makes you instinctually want to stay away?

What did the technical expert say to the turbine salesman?

Wait---is this supposed to be a joke?
Find out by reading this email!

It was sent from John Zimmerman, the president of VERA to some members of the American Wind Energy Association. The AWEA’s stated goal is to promote wind power growth through advocacy, communication, and education.

VERA provides and manages tasks and technical issues considered in commercial scale wind project development. Mr. Zimmerman’s experience is in performing technical due diligence and risk assessment across a variety of technologies.
The following email was written in January of 2000

Subject: Ice Shedding from Turbines and Public Safety

Dear [member names]
I’ve watched over the wind turbines GMP has had installed in Vermont over the last 10 years and I have several thoughts that [may] be useful to this discussion

Here in Vermont, and elsewhere in the northeastern US, the winds blow strongest at the mountain tops, where it is also the most icy. A common first question to wind developers in this region is ‘why don’t you put the wind turbines at the ski areas (where there is human development)’? The answer is because of the danger to public safety due to ice throws. Ski areas are not a good place for wind turbines.

Back in the mid 1980s one of the windy areas that was being considered for wind development was near to ski trails. Boeing and/or Hamilton Standard did some work to determine how far we must stay away from the ski trails to be safe from ice being thrown from their turbines (the MOD 5b was the [B]oeing machine at the time). Without going back to dig up those papers, and if I remember correctly, the distance was between .25 and .5 miles away, down wind. It’s a function of blade tip speed, so applicable to present day turbines too.

While the Boeing study was academic, the danger from ice being release[d] from rotor blades overhead is real—and a hard hat is not going to provide you with much comfort. I have stood near the turbines GMP had on Mt. Equinox in the early 1990’s and more recently the Zond 500 KW turbines in Searsberg VT during and after icing events. When there is heavy rime ice build up on the blades and the machines are running you instinctually want to stay away. They roar loudly and sound scarey. (sic) Probably you would feel safe within the .5 danger zone however.

One time we found a piece of ice near the base of the turbine that was pretty impressive. Three adults jumping on it couldn’t break [it] It looked to be 5 or 6 inches thick, 3 feet wide and about 5 feet long. Probably weighed several hundred pounds. We couldn’t lift it. There were a couple of other pieces nearby but we wondered where the rest of the pieces went.

In the winter, icing is a real danger and GMP therefore restricts public access to the site(s). Maintenance workers have developed protocol for working on turbines during icing conditions, though I am not familiar with the details. I’ll ‘dig into it’ if you want.

Regards,

John Zimmerman,
VERA

Note From the BPRC Research Nerd: For extra credit, read the following comment on the above. It’s from an email written by Randy Swisher, executive director of the AWEA since 1989.
This was written in February of 2004

Dear [name]

Here is a comment from John Zimmerman. He states that wind turbines don’t belong in ski areas, but I think it is really just a question of what is the appropriate setback. John describes some of the ice they have seen at the Searsburg site and it sounds pretty intimidating but manageable with proper setbacks.

I think that is the last of the information I have on the topic. It isn’t a lot but I hope you’ll find it helpful. Please let me know if you need anything else, and feel free to consult our website at www.awea.org as well.

Thanks for your interest. I hope next time I’m riding my bike in the Northeast Kingdom I will actually have a chance to see a few wind turbines!

Randy Swisher

Click here to visit the VERA website

Click here to visit the AWEA website

Click here to visit windaction.org where we found this document 

FOR EXTRA EXTRA CREDIT READ ABOUT RIME ICE:
What is it?
Hard rime is a white ice that forms when the water droplets in fog freeze to the outer surfaces of objects. It is often seen on trees atop mountains and ridges in winter, when low-hanging clouds cause freezing fog. This fog freezes to the windward (wind-facing) side of tree branches, buildings, or any other solid objects, usually with high wind velocities and air temperatures between 28 °F and 18 °F.

GOT TURBINE TROUBLES or CONCERNS? 

Call 1-888-732-7234! The Coalition for Wisconsin Environmental Stewardship (CWESt) is a grass roots organization of made up of people concerned about the responsible placement of wind turbines. CWESt's primary goal is to provide a central source for both  gathering and giving out reliable information about industrial wind plant siting, issues relating to the industrial wind turbines and the effects on residents.  CWESt will take your concerns and information to our legislators in Madison. The number is good 24/7! The BPRC applauds CWESt for providing us with this very helpful resource.