1/10/09 K is for Kamperman and James: A look at some of the documents about turbine noise which were used in creating the Town of Union Large Wind Ordinance

 K is for Kamperman and James


George W. Kamperman and Richard R. James are community noise experts who have created guidelines for siting industrial wind turbines with a focus on preventing health risks due to sound emissions from the turbines.Their findings were used by the Town of Union when creating their ordinance.

(Download the Town of Union Large Wind Ordinance by clicking here)

(Download a PDF of the Kamperman and Jame's  guidelines for siting industrial wind turbines by clicking here)

Author: Kamperman, George; and James, Rick

Paper presented at Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) NOISE-CON 2008, July 28-31, 2008

  • George W. Kamperman, INCE Bd. Cert. Emeritus, INCE Kamperman Associates, Inc., george@kamperman.com
  • Richard R. James, E-Coustic Solutions, rickjames@e-coustic.com

Rev. 1.0, July 27, 2008

Industrial scale wind turbines are a familiar part of the landscape in Europe, U.K., and other parts of the world. In the U.S., however, similar industrial-scale wind energy developments are just beginning operation.

The presence of industrial wind projects will increase dramatically over the next few years given the push by the Federal and state governments to promote renewable energy sources through tax incentives and other forms of economic and political support.

States and local governments in the U.S. are promoting what appear to be lenient rules for how industrial wind farms can be located in communities, which are predominantly rural and often very quiet.

Studies already completed and currently in progress describe significant health effects associated with living in the vicinity of industrial grade wind turbines.

This paper reviews sound studies conducted by consultants for governments, the wind turbine owner, or the local residents for a number of sites with known health or annoyance problems. The purpose is to determine if a set of simple guidelines using dBA and dBC sound levels can serve as the “safe” siting guidelines.

Findings of the review and recommendations for sound limits will be presented. A discussion of how the proposed limits would have affected the existing sites where people have demonstrated pathologies apparently related to wind turbine sound will also be presented.

…Our review covered the community noise studies performed in response to complaints, research on health issues related to wind turbine noise, critiques of noise studies performed by consultants working for the wind developer, and research/technical papers on wind turbine sound immissions and related topics.

The papers are listed in Tables 1-4.

Table 1 — List of Studies Related to Complaints

Table 2 — List of Studies Related to Health

Table 3 — List of Studies That Review Siting Impact Statements

Table 4 — List of Research and Technical papers Included in Review Process

  • Anthony L. Rogers, James F. Manwell, Sally Wright, “Wind Turbine Acoustic Noise,” Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, Dept. of ME and IE, U of Mass, Amherst, amended June 2006
  • ISO. 1996. Acoustics — Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors — Part 2: General method of calculation. International Organization of Standardization. ISO 9613-2. p. 18
  • G.P. van den Berg, “The Sounds of High Winds — the effect of atmospheric stability on wind turbine sound and microphone noise,” Ph.D. thesis, 2006
  • Fritz van den Berg, “Wind Profiles over Complex Terrain,” Proceedings of Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyons, France, Sept. 2007
  • William K. G. Palmer, “Uncloaking the Nature of Wind Turbines — Using the Science of Meteorology,” Proceedings of Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyons, France, Sept. 2007
  • Soren Vase Legarth, “Auralization and Assessment of Annoyance from Wind Turbines,” Proceedings of Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyons, France, Sept. 2007
  • Julian T. and Jane Davis, “Living with aerodynamic modulation, low frequency vibration and sleep deprivation — how wind turbines inappropriately placed can act collectively and destroy rural quietitude,” Proceedings of Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyons, France, Sept. 2007
  • James D. Barnes, “A Variety of Wind Turbine Noise Regulations in the United States — 2007,” Proceedings of Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyons, France, Sept. 2007
  • M. Schwartz and D. Elliott, “Wind Shear Characteristics at Central Plains Tall Towers,” NREL 2006
  • IEC 61400 “Wind turbine generator systems, Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement techniques,”.rev:2002

After reviewing the materials in the tables; we have arrived at our current understanding of wind turbine noise and its impact on the host community and its residents.

The review showed that some residents living as far as 3 km (two (2) miles) from a wind farm complain of sleep disturbance from the noise.

Many residents living one-tenth this distance (300 m. or 1000 feet) from a wind farm are experiencing major sleep disruption and other serious medical problems from nighttime wind turbine noise.

The peculiar acoustic characteristics of wind turbine noise immissions cause the sounds heard at the receiving properties to be more annoying and troublesome than the more familiar noise from traffic and industrial factories.

Limits used for these other community noise sources do not appear to be appropriate for siting industrial wind turbines.

The residents who are annoyed by wind turbine noise complain of the approximately one (1) second repetitive swoosh-boom-swoosh-boom sound of the turbine blades and “low frequency” noise.

It is not apparent to these authors whether the complaints that refer to “low frequency” noise are about the audible low frequency part of the swoosh-boom sound, the one-hertz amplitude modulation of the swoosh-boom sound, or some combination of both acoustic phenomena.

To assist in understanding the issues at hand, the authors developed the “conceptual” graph for industrial wind turbine sound (Figure 1).

This graph shows the data from one of the complaint sites plotted against the sound immission spectra for a modern 2.5 MWatt wind turbine; Young’s threshold of perception for the 10% most sensitive population (ISO 0266); and a spectrum obtained for a rural community during a three hour, 20 minute test from 11:45 pm until 3:05 am on a windless June evening in near Ubly, Michigan a quiet rural community located in central Huron County. (Also called: Michigan’s Thumb.) It is worth noting that this rural community demonstrates how quiet a rural community can be when located at a distance from industry, highways, and airport related noise emitters.

During our review we posed a number of questions to ourselves related to what we were learning. The questions (italics) and our answers are:

Do National or International or local community Noise Standards for siting wind turbines near dwellings address the low frequency portion of the wind turbine’s sound immissions?

No! State and Local governments are in the process of establishing wind farm noise limits and/or wind turbine setbacks from nearby residents, but the standards incorrectly presume that limits based on dBA levels are sufficient to protect the residents.

Do wind farm developers have noise limit criteria and/or wind turbine setback criteria that apply to nearby residents?

Yes! But the Wind Industry recommended residential wind turbine noise levels (typically 50-55 dBA) are too high for the quiet nature of the rural communities and may be unsafe for the nearest residents. An additional concern is that some of the methods for implementing pre-construction computer models may predict sound levels that are too low. These two factors combined can lead to post-construction complaints and health risks.

Are all residents living near wind farms equally affected by wind turbine noise?

No, children, people with pre-existing medical conditions, especially sleep disorders, and the elderly are generally the most susceptible. Some people are unaffected while some nearby neighbors develop serious health effects caused by exposure to the same wind turbine noise.

How does wind turbine noise impact nearby residents?

Initially, the most common problem is chronic sleep deprivation during nighttime. According to the medical research documents, this may develop into far more serious physical and psychological problems

What are the technical options for reducing wind turbine noise immission at residences?

There are only two options: 1) increase the distance between source and receiver; and/or 2) reduce the source sound power immission. Either solution is incompatible with the objective of the wind farm developer to maximize the wind power electrical generation within the land available.

Is wind turbine noise at a residence much more annoying than traffic noise?

Yes, researchers have found that “Wind turbine noise was perceived by about 85% of the respondents even when the calculated A-weighted SPL were as low as 35.0-37.5 dB. This could be due to the presence of amplitude modulation in the noise, making it easy to detect and difficult to mask by ambient noise.” [JASA 116(6), December 2004, pgs 3460-3470, "Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise-a dose-relationship" Eja Pedersen and Kerstin Persson Waye, Dept of Environmental Medicine, Goteborg University, Sweden]

Why do wind turbine noise immissions of only 35 dBA disturb sleep at night?

This issue is now being studied by the medical profession.The affected residents complain of the middle to high frequency swooshing sounds of the rotating turbine blades at a constant repetitive rate of about 1 hertz plus low frequency noise.

The amplitude modulation of the swooshing sound changes continuously. The short time interval between the blade’s swooshing sounds described by residents as sometimes having a thump or low frequency banging sound that varies in amplitude up to 10 dBA. This may be a result of phase changes between turbine emissions, turbulence, or an operational mode..

The assumptions about wall and window attenuation being 15 dBA or more may not be sufficiently protective considering the relatively high amplitude of the wind turbine’s low frequency immission spectra.

What are the typical wind farm noise immission criteria or standards?

Limits are not consistent and may vary even within a particular country. Example criteria include:

  • Australia: the lower of 35 dBA or L90 + 5 dBA
  • Denmark: 40 dBA
  • France: L90 + 3 (night) and L90 + 5 (day)
  • Germany: 40 dBA
  • Holland: 40 dBA
  • United Kingdom: 40 dBA (day) and 43 dBA (night) or L90 + 5 dBA
  • Illinois: 55 dBA (day) and 51 dBA (night)
  • Wisconsin: 50 dBA
  • Michigan: 55 dBA

Note: Illinois statewide limits are expressed only in nine contiguous octave frequency bands with no mention of A-weighting for the hourly leq limits. Typically, wind turbine noise just meeting the octave band limits would read 5 dB below the energy sum of the nine octave bands after applying A-weighting. So the Illinois limits are approximately 50 dBA (daytime 7 AM to 10 PM) and 46 dBA at night, assuming a wind farm is a Class C Property Line Noise Source.

What is a reasonable wind farm sound immission limit to protect the health of residences?

We are proposing an immission limit of 35 dBA or L90A + 5 dBA, whichever is lower, and a C-weighted criteria to address the affected resident’s complaints of wind turbine low frequency noise: For the proposed criteria the dBC sound level at a receiving property shall not exceed L90A + 20 dB. In other words, the dBC operating immission limit shall not be more than 20 dB above the measured dBA (L90A) pre-construction nighttime background sound level. A maximum not-to-exceed limit of 50 dBC is also proposed. … The World Health Organization and others have determined a sound emitter’s noise that results in a difference between the dBC and dBA value greater than 20 dB will be an annoying low frequency issue.

Is not L90A the minimum dBA background noise level?

This is correct, but it is very important to establish the statistical average background noise environment outside a potentially affected residence during the quietest (10 pm to 4 am) sleeping hours of the night. This nighttime sleep disturbance has generated the majority of the wind farm noise complaints throughout the world. The basis for a community’s wind turbine sound immission limits would be the minimum 10 minute nighttime L90A plus 5 dB for the time period of 10 pm to 7 am. This would become the Nighttime Immission Limits for the proposed wind farm. This can be accomplished with one or several 10 minute measurements during any night when the atmosphere is classified stable with a light wind from the area of the proposed wind farm. The Daytime Limits (7 am to 7 pm) could be set 10 dB above the minimum nighttime L90A measured noise, but the nighttime criteria will always be the limiting sound levels.

A nearby wind farm meeting these noise immission criteria will be clearly audible to the residents occasionally during nighttime and daytime. Compliance with this noise standard would be determined by repeating the initial nighttime minimum nighttime L90A tests and adding the dBC (LeqC) noise measurement with the turbines on and off. If the nighttime background noise level (turbines off) was found to be slightly higher than the measured background prior to the wind farm installation, then the results with the turbines on must be corrected to determine compliance with the pre-turbine established sound limits.…

Including wind as a masking source in the criteria is one method for elevating the permissible limits. Indeed the background noise level does increase with surface wind speed. When it does occur, it can be argued that the increased wind noise provides some masking of the wind farm turbine noise emission.

However, in the middle of the night when the atmosphere is defined as stable (no vertical flow from surface heat radiation) the layers of the lower atmosphere can separate and permit wind velocities at the turbine hubs to be 2 to 2.5 times the wind velocity at the 10m high wind monitor but remain near calm at ground level. The result is the wind turbines can be operating at or close to full capacity while it is very quiet outside the nearby dwellings.

This is the heart of the wind turbine noise problem for residents within 3 km (approx. two miles) of a wind farm. When the turbines are producing the sound from operation it is quietest outside the surrounding homes. The PhD thesis of P.G. van den Berg “The Sounds of High Winds” is very enlightening on this issue. See also the letter by John Harrison in Ontario “On Wind Turbine Guidelines.”…

The simple fact that so many residents complain of low frequency noise from wind turbines is clear evidence that the single A-weighted (dBA) noise descriptor used in most jurisdictions for siting turbines is not adequate.

The only other simple audio frequency weighting that is standardized and available on all sound level meters is the C-weighting or dBC. A standard sound level meter set to measure dBA is increasingly less sensitive to low frequency below 500 Hz (one octave above middle-C). The same sound level meter set to measure dBC is equally sensitive to all frequencies above 32 Hz (lowest note on grand piano). It is well known that dBC readings are more predictive of perceptual loudness than dBA readings if low frequency sounds are significant.

We are proposing to use the commonly accepted dBA criteria that is based on the preexisting background sound levels plus a 5 dB allowance for the wind turbine’s immissions (e.g. L90A +5) for the audible sounds from wind turbines. But, to address the lower frequencies that are not considered in A-weighted measurements, we are proposing to add limits based on dBC. The Proposed Sound Limits are presented in the text box at the end of this paper.

For the current industrial grade wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3 MWatt range, the addition of the dBC requirement will result in an increased distance between wind turbines and the nearby residents. For the generalized graphs shown in Figure 1, the distances would need to be approximately double the current distance. This will result in setbacks in the range of 1 km or greater for the current generation of wind turbines if they are to be located in rural areas where the L90A background sound levels are 30 dBA or lower. In areas with higher background sound levels, turbines could be located somewhat closer, but still at a distance greater than the 305 m (1000 ft.) or less setbacks commonly seen in U.S. based wind turbine standards set by many states and used for wind turbine developments.

(Click on the image below to hear the noise from an industrial wind turbine during the day)


Proposed Wind Turbine Siting Sound Limits

  1. Audible Sound Limit
    1. No Wind Turbine or group of turbines shall be located so as to cause an exceedance of the pre-construction/operation background sound levels by more than 5 dBA. The background sound levels shall be the L90A sound descriptor measured during a pre-construction noise study during the quietest time of evening or night. All data recording shall be a series of contiguous ten (10) minute measurements. L90A results are valid when L10A results are no more than 15 dBA above L90A for the same time period. Noise sensitive sites are to be selected based on wind development’s predicted worst-case sound emissions (in LeqA and LeqC) which are to be provided by the developer.
    2. Test sites are to be located along the property line(s) of the receiving nonparticipating property(s).
    3. A 5 dB penalty is applied for tones as defined in IEC 61400-11.
  2. Low Frequency Sound Limit
    The LeqC and L90C sound levels from the wind turbine at the receiving property shall not exceed the lower of either:
    1. LeqC − L90A greater than 20 dB outside any occupied structure, or
    2. A maximum not-to-exceed sound level of 50 dBC (L90C) from the wind turbines without other ambient sounds for properties located at one mile or more from State Highways or other major roads or 55 dBC (L90C) for properties closer than one mile. These limits shall be assessed using the same nighttime and wind/weather conditions required in 1.a. Turbine operating sound immissions (LeqA and LeqC) shall represent worst case sound immissions for stable nighttime conditions with low winds at ground level and winds sufficient for full operating capacity at the hub.
  3. General Clause
    Not to exceed 35 dBA within 30 m. (approx. 100 feet) of any occupied structure.
  4. Requirements
    1. All instruments must meet ANSI or IEC Precision integrating sound level meter performance specifications.
    2. Procedures must meet ANSI S12.9 and other applicable ANSI standards.
    3. Measurements must be made when ground level winds are 2m/s (4.5 mph) or less. Wind shear in the evening and night often results in low ground level wind speed and nominal operating wind speeds at wind turbine hub heights.
    4. IEC 61400-11 procedures are not suitable for enforcement of these requirements except for the presence of tones.

Download “Simple guidelines for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks”

NOTE from the BPRC Research Nerd: Something you'll often hear wind developers say is that Industrial Wind Turbines are no louder than a refrigerator. The quote has been traced back to an employee of the American Wind Energy Association who seems to move his refrigerator around more than most of us do.


Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2009 at 04:28PM by Registered CommenterThe BPRC Research Nerd | Comments Off

1/9/08 J is for Jursidiction: A step by step look at how a Wisconsin township came to create one of the best large wind ordinances in the state.

 

J is for Jurisdiction

ju·ris·dic·tion

(Merriam-Webster)

1: The power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
2 a: The authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate b: the power or right to exercise authority : control
3: The limits or territory within which authority may be exercised

In spite of what wind developers and lobbyists may tell residents and members of town and county government, the state of Wisconsin does indeed allow towns and counties to restrict and regulate wind energy systems—(commonly known as wind farms) for reasons of human health and safety.

The state also allows towns and counties to declare a moratorium on all aspects of wind energy systems construction in order to give the township or county time to work on creating a wind ordinance.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE TOWN OF UNION?

(Download the Town of Union Large Wind Ordinance By Clicking Here)

April of 2007: A wind developer attends a Plan Commission meeting to tell the commissioners his company is looking to site industrial wind turbines in the town of Union.

A representative of the utility, Wisconsin Public Power Inc., also attends. He tells the commissioners of the relationship WPPI has already established with the wind developer.

At this point the town has a choice: Should it develop its own wind ordinance, go with the draft model wind ordinance provided by the state, or do nothing at all?

The Town of Union decides to declare a moratorium and appoint a citizen's study committee to do research for the creation of a large wind ordinance. The Citizen's study committee decides to use the State's draft model wind ordinance as a starting point.

An open records request to the state from the town of Union soon reveals the state's draft model ordinance is based on no scientific or medical data. Instead, it appears to be written with the help of wind developers, utilities, and lobbyists.

(Source: Town of Union Final Report)

It should be noted that since the time of the Town of Union's open records request, the state's draft model ordinance has been pulled from the state's website with no reason given.

Better Plan, Wisconsin, has contacted the Governor's office, the Public Service Commission, the Department of Administration, the Legislative Reference Bureau and several legislators to find out when and why the once readily available ordinance was pulled. No one was able to give an answer and a few of the officials we contacted told us they had no record of this ordinance.

(We still have a copy of the state's draft model wind ordinance on our website: To download a copy of the now-missing State ordinance, click here)

So what is a township to do when developers and utilities come calling?

The town of Union decided to create their own ordinance.

TOWN OF UNION LARGE WIND ORDINANCE: History, Creation and Content:

APRIL 2007-NOVEMBER 2008

SOURCE: Public Record of Meeting Minutes, Town of Union Website.

Better Plan, Wisconsin has collected and summarized information found in the Town of Union's meeting minutes from April 2007 to November 2008 into a comprehensive document which charts the creation of the Union ordinance from start to finish. Our intention is to present this information in an easily accessible way for citizens and members of local government who want to follow a township's step-by-step process of creating and adopting a large wind ordinance.

We've excerpted a few pages below:

(You can download a PDF of the entire document by clicking here)

UNION TOWNSHIP, ROCK COUNTY, WISCONSIN

April 26 2007

A wind developer tells the Town of Union Plan commissioners his company is looking for a wind turbine site in the township.

A representative of the utility, Wisconsin Public Power Inc. tells the commissioners of the relationship WPPI has already established with the wind developer.

The Plan Commission Chairman A. F. says the Commission will have to look at an ordinance to handle commercial and personal wind turbines in order to address concerns such as turbine fall zone, height, footings, insurance and other health and safety issues.

Commissioner K.G. moves to postpone further discussion on this until the next meeting to provide time for members to review literature provided this evening.

There is discussion about writing a draft of an ordinance prior to the next meeting.

Commissioner M.E. says he will call the Wisconsin Department of Administration (DOA) regarding single wind turbine ordinance language.

Motion approved by unanimous voice vote.

May 31, 2007

Commissioner M.E. states he’s been in contact with town residents regarding an ordinance on wind energy.

Commissioner K.G. reads from State Statute Subchapter IV Regulation 66.0401 regarding the state’s narrowing the town’s discretion over denying wind towers to only health and safety issues.

Chairman A.F. opens the meeting to public comment with 3 minute limit per person.

Chairman A.F. also says he has been approached by the wind developer to have a wind generator installed on his property.

A resident asks if the Plan Commission has read the Town of Lincoln report.

[Note: The Town of Lincoln Report includes the results of a survey meant to assess the impacts of the 22 turbines which went online in June, 1999 in the Town of Lincoln, WI. Download this report by clicking here]

In 2001 a survey was sent out to all property owners residing in Lincoln township. Each household received one vote. The results were presented on July 2, 2001, to the town board, two years after the wind factory construction. The survey included questions about
a. Shadows from the blades
b. TV reception
c. Blinking lights from on top of the towers
d. Noise
e. Other problems
-increased lightning strikes
-hazardous traffic conditions during and after construction
-being awaken by sound of wind turbines
-how close would you consider buying or building a home?
Wind developers (WPSC)’s buyout offers
Property values
Stray Voltage

A few of the Union P&Z Commissioners said they had read the survey. The resident urged the others to read it. He noted damage to aquifers and problems with stray voltage as well as concerns about maintenance.

Another resident emphasized the town’s ability to make a wind tower ordinance as strict as they want regarding health and safety.

The wind developer told the town the Lincoln Study was ten years old. He recommended visiting a website that promoted wind farms, and said had a study by the Public Service Commission that he was willing to share. [Note: the developer is mistaken here. The Lincoln survey was six years old at the time of this meeting]

A resident in a neighboring township who has signed a deal with the wind developer to host a met tower on her land says she’s done research and spoken to people living near wind turbines and found favorable response.

The representative for WPPI stated that turbine related trouble in Lincoln Township is an anomaly and much improvement has been made in wind towers since.

P&Z Commissioner M.E. asked what would be the ramifications to the township for not having an ordinance on the books.

The Town’s Attorney said he would have to research this issue before giving a final opinion.

The wind developer said with the size project proposed, they do not have to seek PSC approval nor are they legally required to complete an environmental impact study.

Commissioner D.Z. asked if the town could require an environmental impact study.

The wind developer was asked how many wind turbines are being proposed for the town of Union. He stated three to five.

Commissioner M.E. asked if the town could explore enacting a moratorium against building wind towers.

The Town’s Attorney said he needed to check on the possibility of doing this.

Commissioner M.J. moved to recommend to the town board to seek legal council to review whether or not the Town can enact a moratorium on large scale wind turbines pending further review and development of regulations. Motion approved by unanimous voice vote.

JUNE 7 2007

At the regular town of Union meeting, it was stated a moratorium on large wind generation can be enacted so that an ordinance can be developed without pressure of applications. Motion by Town Chairman K.S. to have the attorney draft a large wind generation moratorium language.
Motion passed by unanimous voice vote.

June 28, 2007

Resolution adopting Moratorium on Large Wind Energy Systems

Town’s Attorney distributed copies of the proposed ordinance.

A key issue he brought to attention was the short duration of this ordinance. This ordinance would end August 9, 2007 which allows the Town Board to hold public hearings and adopt a more formal ordinance which has a better estimate of a length of time needed to complete a revision to the zoning ordinance regarding the health and safety issues associated with installations of large wind energy systems. There will be Class two notices for meetings of the Plan Commission (July 26, 2007) and the Town Board. (August 2, 2007) Motion by Town Chairman to accept ordinance 2007-01 as prepared by the Town’s attorney to put a temporary stay until a stay can be established with the public hearing process. Motion approved by unanimous roll call vote.

JUNE 28 2007

Plan and Zoning Chairman A.F. recuses himself. He states a conflict of interest. [Note: This is because he is considering an offer by the developer to place a wind turbine on his land.]

Vice-Chair D.Z. becomes acting chairman.

The Towns attorney asks the Commission to prepare to provide:

1. An estimate of how long it will take to create a wind ordinance.
2. The extent to which the township should have in place a further stay [moratorium] on tower construction.
3. What type of process to follow in creating the ordinance, i.e., informational meetings,
research, public input, business input, etc.

He also asks the Commission to educate themselves on what rights they have in governing
control over wind construction.

Commissioner M.E. asks about creating a separate committee to collect information.
They need to find out: What are the issues, what do we need to consider about the issues, and how long will it take?

Discussion on an Ordinance for Wind Powered Electrical Generation Equipment.
No additional discussion was had on this issue as the Town Board already passed an ordinance staying construction of large wind towers. A public hearing regarding the process of developing an ordinance will be held at the July 26, 2007 Plan Commission meeting and another public hearing at the Town Board meeting on August 2, 2007.

JULY 26 2007
Plan Commission meeting

Public Hearing for the proposed extended stay on construction of Large Wind Energy Systems to give Town time to develop permanent regulations relating to the construction of Large Wind Energy Systems.

Chairman A.F. removes himself, due to conflict of interest. [Note: He is considering an offer from the wind developer to host a turbine on his land.]

Vice-Chair D.Z. explains the purpose of the hearing and asks all questions and comments be addressed to the vice-chairman.

Public Hearing Opened 7:55 p.m.

Representative of the utility, WPPI, presents an overview of the state requirements regarding renewable energy. Recommends adoption of an existing ordinance developed by another township/municipality, to save time for the board.

Wind Developer also asks town to adopt an existing ordinance, and suggests addingspecific conditions as needed to address specific concerns.

Resident #1 feels the Town should write their own ordinance, and review health & safety concerns. The Town should not rush into something that impacts everyone’s future.

(Former) Resident #2 says the Town should take all the time it needs to review this issue. Locally impacted residents should be taken into consideration and input sought in this issue.

Resident #3 .: Feels the Town should look at other ordinances, learn from what other towns and municipalities have done, and do research on the issue.

Resident #4: says the Town should take as much time as needed to develop ordinances specific to this area. Other ordinances used by other towns are not specific to this area/land. Subcommittee should be formed to review this issue, as it will have a large impact on heath/safety of residents.

Resident #5 wants lengthy stay, says the Town has no full time staff to devote to issue. The issue needs research and other sites should be visited. Wants Town chairman to appoint

citizen committee to review issue, propose ordinances. Says, there are long term effects of these decisions.

Resident #6: Agrees with comments of others. Issue is complex; she has been compiling ordinances and likes idea of committee. Feels at least a year is needed for research, etc before any decisions are made.

Resident #7 Just heard about this issue, and is unhappy with the idea that wind turbines could be placed next to her land that she has worked hard to obtain. Feels the whole issue needs further review.

Resident #8 Feels wind turbines will dominate the landscape, and negatively affect property values.

Resident #9: Agrees with her neighbors. Wants to make sure everyone is fully aware of how this will affect our area.

Resident #10: Feels moratorium should be extended at least 18 months. A committee should be formed and participants chosen by Plan Commission.

Resident #11: Supports neighbors’ comments, but need to keep in mind the state law which mandates renewable energy and the reason the Wind Developer is looking at these sites. Feels the Town should look at other ordinances to see what else has been done.

Resident #12: Agrees with all comments, feels the Town needs to take time as it has done with all other issues and fully research this issue.

Public Hearing Closed at 8:09 p.m.

Town’s Attorney provides draft ordinance and comments; recommended adopting it with changes outlined in memo. Noted that the moratorium must be as legally defensible as possible, and the timeline must be appropriate and defensible.

Recommended making the duration as short as possible considering the work to be done, and making a reasonable effort to get it done in time.

Commissioner M.E. states he likes idea of citizen committee, it allows for public input, and could perhaps include Plan Commission members as well.

Commissioner K.G. recommended the Plan Commission handle development of ordinance, as members have committed a lot of time and energy thus far on this issue, and can accomplish it in a shorter timeframe and are relatively unbiased.

Commissioner M.J. agrees, feels the Plan Commission should write ordinance with public input.

Commissioner M.E. wants clarification on who will actually do the work/writing?

Commissioner K.G. feels the Town attorney should actually write the ordinance.

Commissioner M.E. feels strongly that public should be included, as they are willing to help & participate.

Town’s Attorney outlines the stages identified in the ordinance:

basic investigation;

identify issues & solutions

drafting ordinance stage;

legal review;

back to Plan Commission for review prior to recommendation to Town Board;

public hearing.

Commissioner M.E. stresses the importance of listening to the public, getting their opinions, and the need to have public meetings.

Commissioner E.L. requested clarification, would the public would be involved at investigation stage, then scale back in next stages to Plan Commission only?

Town’s Attorney states that’s a possible approach, was not sure how much public input will be needed or be appropriate.

Commissioner M.E. suggests collecting information in specific areas from individuals and using that info at Plan Commission to craft ordinance.

Acting Chairman D.Z. expresses concern about how many more meetings the Plan Commission can handle, as more may be needed depending upon the process decided upon. He feels the additional resources available outside the Plan Commission are a resource that should be taken advantage of.

The Town’s Attorney proposes the following process:

Publish the scope of the process in the paper/on Town of Union website.

Town Board develops a citizen committee to research the issue and present a
report to the Plan Commission.

Plan Commission meets to review the report with legal counsel.

Legal counsel drafts ordinance, presents at Plan Commission meeting for review and finalization prior to presentation to Town Board.

Public hearing conducted prior to presentation of ordinance to Town Board.

Public hearing conducted by Town Board prior to adopting ordinance.

Timeline for above process:

Assemble citizen committee: 1 month.

Research and development of ordinance by citizen committee: 5 months.

Plan Commission review of ordinance/work sessions/legal counsel review/public hearing: 1-3 months.

Suggestion by Town’s attorney is to allow 12 months total for entire process to be completed.

Motion to recommend process as outlined by Towns attorney
Motion to approve carried by a 5-1 vote.

Town’s attorney says he will forward details of process to Town Clerk prior to August 2 Town Board meeting.

(Continues--)

(TO READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT, CLICK HERE)

(Download the Town of Union Large Wind Ordinance By Clicking Here)


Posted on Friday, January 9, 2009 at 12:16PM by Registered CommenterThe BPRC Research Nerd | Comments Off

12/30/08 I is for ICE THROW-- Video of iced turbine in the Town of Byron, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin and When Lightning Strikes Turbines, what can happen?

ICE THROW UPDATE--

This video was sent to us by a resident of Byron in Fond du Lac County who lives inside of the wind farm there. He tells us he was out plowing his driveway when he saw a piece of ice the size of a bedsheet come from the turbine.

He got his video camera and sent us this. There’s no flying ice, but the turbine blades clearly have ice and snow on the blades- except for the one where the big chunk fell off.

ALSO! According to this landowner, ice isn't the only thing turbines can throw:

When Lightning Strikes Wind Turbines

Kate Galbraith
NEW YORK TIMES
December 29, 2009
CLICK HERE TO READ AT SOURCE

Lightning

With snow, ice and frigid weather, winter creates complications for renewable energy, as I wrote last week. But for Ralph Brokaw, a Wyoming rancher with both cows and wind turbines on his land, the worst hazard is not the ice that his blades can throw off in the winter.

Rather, it is lightning strikes on the towers, which usually occur in summer when there are more storms.

The effect is spectacular — and scary. “It will explode those blades, and they’ll throw chunks of blade several hundred feet,” Mr. Brokaw, a member of his local fire department, told me over the telephone.

As the chunks fall, the firefighters douse them with water. Otherwise, “There’s really not much you can do with a turbine that’s 200 foot tall and on fire,” he said.

Mr. Brokaw said that in the past five years he has been called to help put out two or three turbine fires. He said that “there’s oil and gearboxes and a tremendous amount of wiring” in the generator — so even though the turbines are very well-grounded, they can sometimes light up.

Posted on Monday, December 29, 2008 at 01:10PM by Registered CommenterThe BPRC Research Nerd | Comments Off

12/28/08 I is for ICE THROW: Part Nine in our look at the history and contents of the Town of Union's Large Wind Ordinance

I is for ICE THROW

click on the images below to watch video shot by two different residents of the same wind farm in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin and hear what they have to say about ice and snow build up on turbine blades:


Why does the town of Union's large wind ordinance have a 2640 foot setback?

Noise and shadow flicker aren't the only problems to be considered when siting industrial wind turbines near homes.

Dangers from ice throw and blade throw must be considered as well.

Here's what the Union ordinance says about ice throw and blade throw. (Download the entire ordinance by clicking here)

"Wind turbines have been known to throw ice and debris from the turbine blades. According to Professor Teny Matilsky from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Rutgers University, ice throws from large wind turbines can reach up to a distance of 1750 feet and blade throws can reach 2500 feet."

Some residents of Rock County still bristle when they recall the wind developer who denied there was any danger of ice throw from turbines. "He talked to us like we were stupid," remembers one resident, "He said, 'You country people don't understand how ice falls. In Chicago, people live with ice falling from buildings all the time."

Though wind developers continue to insist that ice throw isn't a problem, people who live near wind turbines are beginning to tell a different story.

A December 4th, 2008 news story began like this: "Residents complained when the 260ft wind generator began hurling shards of ice, some measuring two feet long, after the cold snap over the weekend."

The headline?

"Wind turbine closed after showering homes with blocks of ice"

(Click here to read it at its source):

A December 2nd article about the same incident began like this:

"Wind Turbine's Deadly Ice Shower"

"Residents were left fearing for their safety after shards of melting ice fell on homes and gardens from the blades of a giant wind turbine."

(click here for source)

Here are some quotes from those who witnessed it:

"Somebody is going to get killed. There was huge lumps of ice shooting off and landing everywhere."

"No one wants to leave the house because they are frightened and worried about the ice falling."

"The ice makes such a loud noise when it shatters we thought a bomb had gone off in the yard."

"We were assured that ice could only cause a problem in severe weather conditions... and two days later we got javelins thrown at us.

"I am worried about the safety of my family and everyone in the area, we should not have to put up with this."

"It's worrying. Ice froze on the blades and, when it started moving, it started throwing it all over."

And this from a New York Times article that ran on December 26, 2008

(Click here to entire article at the source)

"Winter may pose even bigger safety hazards in the vicinity of wind turbines. Some observers say the machines can hurl chunks of ice as they rotate.

'It’s like you throw a plate out there and that plate breaks,' said Ralph Brokaw, a cattle rancher in southeast Wyoming who has 69 wind turbines on his property. When his turbines ice up, he stays out of the way.'

What do the experts say?

This email was sent from John Zimmerman, the president of VERA to some members of the American Wind Energy Association.

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.

Because of what he has witnessed in regard to ice throw from wind turbines, Mr. Zimmerman seems to suggest the same setback as that in the Union Ordinance of .5 miles or 2640 feet.

The following email was written in January of 2000

Subject: Ice Shedding from Turbines and Public Safety

Dear [AWEA 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

Without an ordinance, wind developers can site 400 foot tall turbines 1000 feet from homes in your township. And until someone is seriously injured, they will continue to deny there are problems with ice throw. Unfortunately, the drive for profit among wind developers is so strong that even death or serious injury may not stop them from continuing to making the claim that there is no danger from turbine ice throw.

Wondering how to help your township work on an ordinance? Contact us by clicking here.

Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2008 at 10:53AM by Registered CommenterThe BPRC Research Nerd | Comments Off

12/27/08 H is for HELP! ---What Did the EMS Helicopter pilot say about rescues near wind turbines?

H is for HELP!

400 Foot Wind Turbines and EMS helicopters

CLICK HERE to read the Flight for Life memo which let Fond du Lac residents know that if they live in the wind farms in Fond du Lac county, Flight for Life emergency medical helicopters will no longer be landing there.

Why? The 400 foot turbines make it too dangerous.

Today we take a break from our look at the history and content of the Town of Union's Large Wind Ordinance to post this question and answer session with Ray Slavik EMS pilot, retired.

 (CLICK HERE TO READ AT SOURCE)

The following is an excerpt from an interview with retired EMS pilot Ray Slavik was submitted to the Calumet County Ad Hoc Committee researching proposed ordinances governing the placement of wind turbines in the county.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE INTERVIEW

The interview provides important insight into controling an aircraft in the vicinity of utility-scale turbines.

 Ray Slavik is a retired EMS Pilot who has flown for 20 Years as a pilot before retirement.

He is currently working as instructor for new helicopter pilots, checks pilot flight capabilities for insurance companies and completes pilot certification. He has also has a fixed wing pilots rating for both private and commercial aircraft.

He was employed as an EMS pilot in Buffalo New York for about 2 years, than transferred to work as a relief pilot through out WI.

Ray worked for Theda Clark Hospital as an EMS pilot for over 16 years making numerous EMS flights into and out of Calumet County before retirement. He has also served as a pilot for the search and rescue helicopter service in Green Bay and the surrounding counties.

We opened our conversation with Ray asking. "Why is this information important to you and who has asked to get this information?"

I explained to Ray that I am a Co-Chairman for the Township of Chilton's WES advisory committee and also a member of the Calumet County Ad Hoc committee appointed to help the county review and come up with information and recommendations on proposed Ordnances and any changes that may need to be made. I have been appointed by the Chairman of the Calumet County Board and also Chairman of the Ad Hoc committee to research the EMS flight information.

Do you feel that an EMS pilot would be able to land near a Large Wind Turbine if they shut them off?

Don't kid yourself, they will most likely not land anywhere in the County where these turbines are located, I have arrived at many accident scenes before the sheriffs dept. We (helicopter and crew) are often ¾ of the way to an accident scene before the sheriff's Department or other people in authority arrive on the scene. The 1st responders often make the first call and we are on the way. Time is the important issue and that is the reason for the EMS flights. The sooner we arrive for transport the better the chance of saving that life. Remember the reason we are there is to be able to transport the patient to the nearest Trauma Center as quickly as possible. If the patient needs to be transported by ground to a location free of Turbines or to the Calumet Medical Center instead of direct pick up from the accident scene valuable time is lost and that is what the EMS helicopter program is all about.

What are the EMS flight regulations for maximum altitude when flying into Calumet County because of all of the current air traffic?

EMS ceiling for Flight: they may go as high as 10,000 ft. Above that oxygen is needed, which is not carried on board. Current part 135 of the FAA regulations require ½ mile of ground visibility and a 300 foot ceiling. However the operation specifications for each flight program is usually higher than FAA minimums. If the visibility or ceiling falls below the operational specifications for that flight program the pilot cannot legally accept the flight.

A pilot would need a minimum of 500 feet above a known object to fly safely over it. So if an object is 500 feet tall an EMS helicopter would need to be 1,000 feet off the ground to fly over it. This would limit flights to days when there is a cloud ceiling of 1,000 feet or greater. The FAA regulations allow for flight with a ceiling of 300 feet, this would greatly limit the available days for Flights into and out of the Chilton Hospital.

Pilots are more comfortable flying over areas that they know obstruction heights day and night, however they are limited by their operation specifications on how low they can fly. Other factors depend on the type of weather such as low cloud ceiling verse rain, sleet or snow.

When flying VFR (Visual Flight Rules) in a helicopter it is important to have visual clues at all times. The books say that if you lose control of the helicopter because of clouds or visibility you would have about 20 seconds to gain control and fly by the instruments.

The flight weather reports are only good for 5 nautical mile radius of the airport which is giving out that information. As a pilot you don't know what may be out further in your route. You may leave knowing you have good flight data but the weather may change and push you closer and closer to the ground as you are flying.

I have often left my home base when the weather is ok but had to spend 3 to 5 hours on the ground waiting for a baby with health problems to be born so I can transport them to a neonatal center. Do you want to be the one who has to tell the parents why their child is going to die? Because you can't fly into an area anymore to safely pick them up.

Flight helicopter

What type of effect would this turbulence have on a helicopter?

Being that the lift is provided by the large overhead rotor, the tail rotor counteracts the torque of the main rotor which keep the aircraft flying straight Any interference with the tail rotor system could cause the aircraft to yaw left or right or even spin. Since it would be most affected by turbulence from the side of the aircraft, your corridor must be wide enough so that any turbulence side would not have any adverse affect on the tail rotor. If the turbulence did affect it, your aircraft would start to spin in rotation with the large overhead rotor causing a major loss of flight control. Turbulence will also affect the main rotor. It is this large rotor that provides the lift, but it does not do this by rotating on a level plan. The rotors flap as they rotate around the center or hub. It is this flapping that causes the lift that allows the helicopter to fly. If turbulence interferes with this it would cause the helicopter to lose it's lift and it's ability to remain in the air.

Enough turbulence will cause you to lose control of the aircraft.

What distance is needed to make a safe normal speed turn?

That would depend on several factors, on a clear day with very little wind a 30 degree bank turn may require only ¼ to ½ mile to make. But when you are affected by low visibility from a low cloud ceiling or it is night time you would be required to make a more gentle turn to keep from losing altitude and your visible horizon location. This would require that a maximum 20 degree banked turn be made. This turn would require at least a ½ mile of safe clearance to safely turn the aircraft around. Other factors such as bad weather conditions may require an even larger area.

If you get disorientated due to low visibility, low ceiling height and/or turbulence and you lose the horizon you have 20 seconds to get your craft under control or it will crash!

What other problems would these turbines present to an EMS pilot?

I have often used the (Night Sun light) on my helicopter to locate an obstacle or tower to be able to fly in close to make a safe landing or have safe passage around it. The problem with the Wind Turbine is the turbulence would not allow you to fly in close enough to use the (Night Sun light) to properly navigate and protect your own life, as well as those you are responsible for aboard your aircraft.

What about the way that the warning lights are designed on the Wind Turbines?

I have studied how these are placed in the FAA manuals and have a great concern about how these lights are place. They are placed at the top of the tower on the generator housing and than a blade can extend 100 to 200 feet beyond this without any lighting showing their maximum height. It would be impossible to make a safe passage through an area where there could be 50 or 100 of these Wind Turbines. So it could become a no fly zone for on the scene EMS helicopter services. This would limit EMS helicopter transports through such an area. This same problem would happen if a low cloud ceiling height did not provide enough safe clearance over the rotor tips. I would say this would require at least 500 to 600 feet of clearance above the rotor tips...

What would be your prespective on this issue?

I would compare this to my experience of many on site EMS helicopter transports from rural car accidents scenes.

Often when you have an uncontrolled intersection in the country and there are a series of accidents there, you will then turn around and put up a stop sign to solve the problem. I have been unable to find any data that supports the fact that these Turbines would not cause any problems, so think about putting up that stop sign before the accident happens.

Look at protecting what you currently have as far as the EMS services are concerned.

With the information that you have been provided on the current size and type of wind turbine, what would you consider to be a safe travel corridor width needed to allow for the EMS helicopter service to safely fly to and from Calumet Memorial Hospital?

One Nautical Mile would be to narrow. It would not allow for safe flight path even down the middle because of the influence of turbulence created by the Wind Turbines on either side. Even without the influence that air turbulence would have on the aircraft. You must provide room for safe travel, as well as to allow for a safe normal speed turn to be made. I would say that a clear flight path corridor should be a minimum of 1 ½ nautical miles, with 2 miles being the preferred distance.


Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2008 at 04:52PM by Registered CommenterThe BPRC Research Nerd | Comments Off
Previous 5 Entries | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | Next 5 Entries