randacousticsllc review harvest wind 190401 · 2019-04-30 · rand acoustics re deuel harvest wind...

RobertW.Rand,ASA,INCERANDACOUSTICS,LLC65MerePointRoadBrunswick,ME04011

E-mail:rrand@randacoustics.comTelephone:207-632-1215

April1,2019To: THEPUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSIONOFTHESTATEOFSOUTHDAKOTARe: DocketNo.EL18-053 APPLICATIONBYDEUELHARVESTWIND,LLCFORAPERMITOFAWINDENERGY FACILITYANDA345-kVTRANSMISSIONLINEINDEUELCOUNTY,SOUTHDAKOTA FORTHEDEUELHARVESTNORTHWINDFARM OnrequestofChristinaKilbyIrespectfullysubmitthisprofessionalopinionoftheApplicationByDeuelHarvestWind,LLCForAPermitOfAWindEnergyFacilityAndA345-KvTransmissionLineInDeuelCounty,SouthDakotaForTheDeuelHarvestNorthWindFarm.Thisopinionincludesattachmentsandfocusesonnoiseimpactassessment.1.Documentsreviewedincluded:

• ApplicationtotheSouthDakotaPublicUtilitiesCommissionforEnergyFacilityPermits,DeuelHarvestWindEnergyLLC,BurnsMcDonnell,November30,2018.

• ApplicationAppendixD-Pre-ConstructionWindTurbineNoiseAnalysis,HankardEnvironmental,Inc.November2018.

• ApplicationAppendixD-RevisedPre-ConstructionWindTurbineNoiseAnalysis,HankardEnvironmental,Inc.January2019.

• DirectTestimonyofDavidMHessler,DocketEL18-053,dated14March2019.• DeuelCountyOrdinanceB2004-01dated6July2004.• DeuelCountyOrdinanceB2004-01-23Bdated23May2017.• DeuelCountyComprehensivePlaneffectivedate5May2004.• GeneralreviewofAdministrativeRulesofSouthDakota(ARSD).

2.Professionalopinionsummarized:Theapplicationnoiseanalysis,bothoriginalandrevised,revealsprofessionalomissionsanddoesnotassurecompliancewithregulatoryrequirementsandlimits.Theapplicationappearsincomplete.3.Breached,ARSD20:10:22.18(3):"Ananalysisofthecompatibilityoftheproposedfacilitywithpresentlanduseofthesurroundingarea,withspecialattentionpaidtotheeffectsonrurallifeandthebusinessoffarming;"3.1Theapplicationomittedassessmentofcompatibilityforoperationalnoiselevels.ApplicationSection15.1.2LandUseImpacts/Mitigationidentifiedthepresenceofrural

Ex K 1 - 1

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page2of37

residencesandnoisesensitivelanduses,yetdidnotassessfornoisecompatibility.TheApplicationSection15.1.2didnotidentifywhatorwherethenoisesensitivelandusesarenot,nordiditassessforcompatibilityforthoselanduses,normitigation.3.2Theapplicationomitsdesign-reviewassessmentofgoalsandintentintheDeuelCountyComprehensivePlan:-"Topromotecompatibledevelopmentintheruralarea."-"Promoteonlyresponsibleresidential,commercialandindustrialdevelopmentbaseduponsoundsitingcriteria."3.3TheAmericanNationalStandardsInstitute(ANSI)S12.9Parts4&5providesitingcriteriaforcompatibilityofunfamiliarintrusivenoiseinvariouslanduses.3.4ANSIS12.9Parts4&5establishthatforquietruralareas,unfamiliarintrusivenoisesareincompatiblewhentheiraveragenighttimenoiselevelsexceed35dBA(seeattachment).3.5Theapplicationpredictsaveragenoiselevelsexceeding35dBAthatbreachANSInightnoisethresholdsforruralresidentiallandusecompatibilityatmultiplenearbyruralresidentialhomes.DaytimeANSIcompatibilitylimitsareexceededatparticipatinghomes.3.6WhenassessedusingANSIstandardsfornoisecompatibility,thefacilityfallsinto"incompatibledevelopment"statusatmultipleruralresidences,breachingARSD20:10:22.18(3)andviolatingthegoalsandintentestablishedintheDeuelCountyComprehensivePlan.4.Breached,ARSD20:10:22.18(4):"Ageneralanalysisoftheeffectsoftheproposedfacilityandassociatedfacilitiesonlandusesandtheplannedmeasurestoameliorateadverseimpacts."4.1Despiteidentifying"ruralresidences"and"noisesensitivelanduses"aslanduseclassificationsoccurringwithintheprojectarea,theapplicationdidnotprovideananalysisoftheeffectsoftheproposedfacilitynoiselevelsonruralresidencesornoisesensitivelanduses,thusfailingtoidentifypotentialadverseimpacts;norwereanyplannedmeasuresprovidedtoameliorateadverseimpacts.4.2ThesolefunctionoftheapplicationAppendixDseemstohavebeentoreportpredictedsoundlevelsbasedonfinelyadjustedwindturbinelocationstojust-meettheDeuelCountysoundlevellimitsby0.1dB,adesignmarginsosmallitisdwarfedbythe+/-1-dBtoleranceofType1soundlevelmetersusedinnoisesurveys.Therewasnonoiseimpactassessment.

Ex K 1 - 2

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page3of37

TherevisedJanuary2019noiseanalysisfigureE-2issopoorlyrendered,onlythe45dBAcontourshown,astomakeassessmentofwindturbinenoiselevelsversusdistancevirtuallyimpossible.ThefigurequalityisdegradedsomarkedlyfromtheNovember2018reportastosuggestadeliberateobscuringofthefacilitynoiseinformation.4.2Theapplicationfailedtocompareexpectedprojectnoiselevelsatruralresidencestopre-existingbackgroundL90soundlevelsforassessingnoiseimpact.ThisdeficiencystemsfromtheapparentfailuretocomprehendARSD20:10:22.18(3)&(4)which,forintrusivenoise,requiresasoundsurveyoftheexistingruralbackgroundacousticalenvironment.4.3NoiseimpactassessmentisbestpracticefornoisecontrolconsultingforseveraldecadesandissupportedbyANSIandISOstandards.TheabsenceofasoundsurveyandimpactassessmentwasnotedbyPUCsoundconsultantMr.Hessler.OmittingimpactassessmentappearsonitsfacetofailtherequirementsofARSD20:10:22.18(3)&(4),andopensthequestionofancillarybreachoflawinDeuelCountyOrdinancesB2004-01,1)Section104(promotehealthandwelfare),2)Section504.5.cUtilities,withreferencetolocations,availability,andcompatibility,and3)Section504.5.g.Generalcompatibilitywithadjacentpropertiesandotherproperty.(emphasisadded).4.4TheapplicationfailedtoassessforcommunityresponseviaISOTC/43.4.5TheISOTC/43scaleforcommunityresponseisa"first-cut"analysisforprojectfitthatiswidelyusedfordecadesinprojectnoiseassessments(seeattachment).WhenassessedusingtheISOTC/43scaleforcommunityresponse,thepredictedlevelsexceeding35and40dBAfornon-participatinghomes,allthewayupto50dBAforparticipatinghomes,intrudingontotypicalquietruralbackgroundsoundlevelsof20to30dBAatnearbyruralresidences,resultinexpectedcommunityresponserangingfrom"WidespreadComplaints"to"VigorousCommunityAction".Inmyprofessionalexperienceworkingonpowergenerationnoisecontrolstartingbackin1980atStone&Webster,thislevelofadversecommunityresponsewouldneverbeallowedtogooutthedoor.Managementwouldbenotified.Noisecontrolbudgetswouldbedevelopedandappliedtoreduceexpectedcommunityresponse.4.6Forwindturbines,todatetheonlyeffectiveandreliablenoisecontroloptionpermittingfullpoweroperationatallhoursissufficientdistancescaledtosizeandpoweroutputsecuredpriortopermit.Ifthereisn'tsufficientdistanceduetopre-existingresidentialuseorotherconstraints,turbinesmustbereducedinsizeorlocatedelsewhere,orpowergenerationaccomplishedwithothertechnologythatreadilyaccommodatesorisfurnishedturnkeywithsufficientnoisecontrolstooperateatfullpowerwithcompatiblenoiselevels

Ex K 1 - 3

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page4of37

forthelocaleandnearbyresidences.

4.10TheWorldHealthOrganizationin2018publishedawindturbinenoiseguidelinenottoexceed45Lden(guidelineissuedpriortotheapplicationAppendixD).ByECDirective2002,theLdenincludesanL,nightaveragenoiseleveldefinedas10dBbelowtheLdenfigure;anightnoiseguidelinenottoexceedL,night=35dBA.4.11TheapplicationpredictsnoiselevelsthatbreachtheL,nightportionofthe45-Ldenguidelinelimitbyexceedinganighttimeaverage35-dBAnoiselevelatmultiplenearbyruralresidences.Theapplicationbreachesthe45-Ldenguidelinelimitwholeatnearbyparticipatingruralresidences,withpredictednoiselevelsashighasjustunder50dBA.

4.13ThefacilitypredictednoiselevelsexceedknownthresholdsforsignificanthighnoiseannoyanceestablishedbyHealthCanadaintheirlandmarkstudyof2014.Predictednoiselevelsexceed35dBAatmultipleruralresidences.

4.14Itisworthnotingthatobtainingnoiseeasementsisatoolusedbythewindindustrythatpermitsunfetteredwindturbinenoiseimmissionsonparticipatingproperties.Noiseeasementsdonotcontrolnoise:theypermitit.Easementsraisequestionsofprotectionforchildrenandelderlylivingonparticipatingproperties.Doestheregulatingauthorityunderstandandagreethatchildrenandelderlyonparticipatingproperties,notsignatories

1

Ex K 1 - 4

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page5of37

oneasements,maybesubjectedwithoutinformedconsentto atnoiselevelsexceedingknownimpactthresholds.

4.15TheCountyOrdinanceSectionB2004-01Section103requires,"Intheirinterpretationandapplication,theprovisionsofthisOrdinanceshallbeheldtobeminimumrequirements,adoptedforthepromotionofthepublichealth,safety,morals,orgeneralwelfare."(emphasisadded).ThisCountylawrequirementistakentomeanthatapredictednoiselevel,evenifundertheregulatorynoiselimit,

orisincompatiblewiththelanduse,shallnotbeconsideredincompliancewiththeregulationwhole;wherepublichealthandwelfareareconcerned,alowerlimitthanthemaximumstandardinthelawmaybeneededtoprotectpublic andwelfare.INCEmembersarerequiredbytheINCECanonofEthicstoholdparamountthesafety,healthandwelfareofthepublic."Paramount"means"aboveallotherconsiderations".TheapplicationAppendixDappearstohavebreachedprofessionalrequirementsandresponsibilitiesbyfailingtoreport andfailingtodesignthefacilitytopreventalikelyadversecommunityresponse.4.16TheCountyrestsitsregulatorymaximumallowedaveragesoundlevelontheA-weightedmetric.TheCountyismuteonpreventionoflowfrequencyimpactswhichcomprisethebulkofresidentialcomplaintsfromindustrialnoise.Windturbinesproducelowfrequencysoundpressuresthatoscillateintime,fromthebarometricoscillationsatbladepassratesdocumentedatShirleyWisconsinandothersurveys,upthroughtheinfrasonicrangeof8to20Hzassociatedtohouseresonancesandvibrationloading,intothelowfrequencyrangeof20to200Hz,andbeyondintomid-andhigh-frequencies.5.SummaryoffindingsDuetoprofessionalomissionsandotherdeficiencies,theapplication:1)appearscertaintoexceedregulatorynoiselimitssomeportionofthetime,2)ignoresrequirementsforcompatibledevelopmentlistedinStateandCountylaw,3)failstoassessforeffectsofnoiseonruralresidences,and4)predictsnoiselevelsexceedingthresholdsfor andadversecommunityresponsewith"WidespreadComplaints"orstrongerresponseatmultiplenearbyruralresidences.Ifregulatorspermitthisfacilityandcomplaintsoccur,theengineers,consultantsandregulatorshavefailed.

Ex K 1 - 5

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page6of37

Theapplicationreviewshowsthereisinsufficientdistancefromturbinestoneighbors.Atthistime,theonlyreliablenoisecontroloptionforlargethree-bladedwindturbinesissufficientdistanceestablishedpriortopermit.So-called"noisereductionoptions"havenotprovedreliablefornoisereductionandexacttremendousreductionsinpoweroutput.NROcontrolsweretestedextensivelywithGE'stechnicalassistanceata3x1.5MW-turbinewindfacilityinVinalhaven,Maine.Nosignificantreductioninloudnesswasobtained[2]inreal-worldoperation.IhaveseennonewsreportsortechnicalreportsanywhereinthelasteightyearsconfirmingthatNROworksreliablyinallatmosphericconditionsintherealworldoutsidetestfacilities.HowevertheDeuelCountyregulationisexacting.Noexceedanceoftheaveragelevels,regardlessofaveragingtime(averagingtimeisunspecified),ispermitted.ThisreviewanalysisisbasedinpartonrelevantAmericanNationalStandardsInstitute(ANSI)standardsandInternationalStandardsOrganization(ISO)standards,andonyearsofexperienceevaluatingpredictivemodelsandmeasuringnoiselevelsforpowergeneration,industrial,commercialandwindturbinefacilities.Professionalopinionsinthisletteraregiventoareasonabledegreeofscientificcertainty.Theseopinionsarebasedontheinformationavailableatthetimeofdraftingthisreview.Ireservetherighttosupplementorreviseshouldadditionalinformationcometolight.INCERulesofPracticerequireapprovingonlynoisecontrolengineeringstudies,reports,orworkwhich,tothebestofthereviewer'sknowledgeandbelief,issafeforpublic property,andwelfareandinconformancewithacceptedpractice.AsINCEMemberImustrecommendtheapplicationbewithdrawnorturneddownasunfitforpurposeandunresponsivetorequirementsinStateandCountylaw.Thankyouforyourconsiderationofthisletter.Ifyouhaveanyquestions,pleasecontactme.RespectfullySubmitted,________________________RobertW.Rand,ASA,INCErwr/Attachments

2BenHoenetal,"AssessingtheImpactsofReducedNoiseOperationsofWindTurbinesonNeighborAnnoyance:APreliminaryAnalysisinVinalhaven,Maine",LawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory,LBNL-3562E,June2010.https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-3562e.pdf

Ex K 1 - 6

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page7of37

ATTACHMENT1:ISO9613-2ESTIMATEDACCURACYOFCALCULATION1.1.DeuelCounty’scurrentOrdinanceB20040123B,Section1215.03,paragraph13.a)prescribessoundlimitsforwindturbineprojectsasfollows:“13.a)Noiselevelshallnotexceed45dBAaverageAweightedsoundpressureattheperimeterofexistingresidences,fornonparticipatingresidences.”(emphasisadded.)1.2.GEtypicallyhaspublisheda2dBA"uncertaintyfactor"initsIEC61400-11testreportsforturbinesinthe1.5to2MWrange.Technicallythisfactorisnota"safetymargin"butanaccountingofthevariabilityfortestresultsfromturbinetoturbine.1.3.Basedoncomparisonsofpredictedandmeasuredsoundlevels,ISO9613-2providesanestimatedaccuracyofcalculationforthelong-termaveragesoundlevel,listedinISO9613-2Table5:+/-3dBAfrom100to1000meters(328to3280feet),andnoestimateofaccuracybeyond1000meters(3280feet).ISO9613-2Table5isshownforreferencebelow.

ThebestthatoneshouldexpectfrompredictionsbasedonISO9613-2areactuallong-termsoundlevelsthatrange+/-3dBcomparedtothelong-termaveragesoundlevelcomputedusingtheISO9613-2methodfromadistanceof100to1000meters(328to3280ft).InISO9613-2Table5,anestimateofaccuracyisnotprovidedfordistances("d")greaterthanthe1000-meter(3280-ft)upperlimit.1.4.Theapplicationfailedtomentionorfactorinthe3dBAestimatedaccuracyofcalculationlistedinISO-9613-2Table5.1.5.ThereisnosupportinISO9613-2foromittingtheestimatedaccuracyofcalculationorassertingthatthemodelperfectlypredictsmeasuredlevelstoa1/10ofadecibel,orevenadecibel.AsstatedintheISO9613-2standard,theestimatesofaccuracyinISO9613-2Table5"shouldnotnecessarilybeexpectedtoagreewiththevariationinmeasurementsmadeatagivensiteonagivenday.Thelattercanbeexpectedtobeconsiderablylargerthanthevaluesintable5."Onanygivenday,theaccuracymaybemuchpoorer(noiselevelranging

Ex K 1 - 7

Height, h .. i Distance, d •1

0 <d< 100 m 100 m < d < 1 000 m

0<h<5m ±3 dB ±3 dB 5 m<h<30m ± 1 dB ±3 dB

*I his the mean height of the source and receiver. dis the distance between the source and receiver.

NOTE - These estimc1tcs have boen rnada from situations where there are no effects due to reflect1011 or attenuation due to screening.

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page8of37

muchhigherorlower)thantheestimatesinthestandard.Forthisreviewtheconcernisfornoiselevelsranginghigherthanpredicted.1.4.Omittingtheestimatedaccuracyofcalculationisaprofessionalerrorthatresultsinpredictedlongtermaveragenoiselevelsthatmayunderestimateprobablemeasuredlongtermaveragenoiselevelsbyasmuchas3dBA,ormorebeyond1000meters(3280feet).

Ex K 1 - 8

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page9of37

ATTACHMENT2:STANDARDUNCERTAINTIESINWINDTURBINESOUNDLEVELS2.1.ThepredictionstandardISO9613-2usedfornoisemodeling,referencesISOstandard1996-2."StandardUncertainties"definedinISO1996-2relatetothevariabilityexperiencedwhenacquiringanoiselevelatlocationsnearwindturbines,locationswhichmaybesomedistanceawaycomparedtotheclose-inmeasurementlocationsusedtoestablishtheLeqlongtermaveragesoundlevelinIEC61400-11.Inarguablythelargestwindturbinenoiseinvestigationtodate,StandardUncertaintiesforwindturbinenoiseemissionswereassessedandpublishedbyHealthCanadain2014.2.2.AsHealthCanadastatedin2014forcalculationsusingISO9613-2,"Thestandarduncertaintiesintheseresultsare+/-30mforthedistancestothenearestwindturbineand+/-5dBforthedBAanddBCnoiselevelsforresidencesthataresituatedupto1.6km[~1mile]totheclosestwindturbine.After1.6km,theuncertainties,evaluatedaccordingtotheISO1996-2standard,arederivedaccordingtothefollowingformula:1+d/0.4,wheredrepresentsthedistancetothenearestturbine(inkm).Assuch,theuncertaintyforadwellingthatissituated10kmaway[~32800ft]wouldbe+/-26dB."2.3.TheStandardUncertaintiesdeterminedbyHealthCanadaforwindturbinesusingISO1996-2areconsistentwithabundantresearchonlong-rangenoisepropagationandspecificallywithareportbyindustryconsultantsHesslerAssociateswithwhomIworkedin2012[3].Intheir2011reporttotheMinnesotaPublicUtilitiesCommission,HesslerAssociatesstatedthatshort-termsoundlevels"commonlyfluctuatebyroughly+/-5dBAaboutthemean"withmaximumlevelsrunning15-20dBAoveraveragenoiselevels[4].2.4.Itshouldbeunderstoodthatonceinformedoftheuncertaintiesinherentinlong-rangenoisepropagation,noreasonablepersoncouldbelievethatmeasuredsoundlevelswouldneverexceedthepredictedlong-termaveragelevelsintheapplication.Whereastheapplicantassertswithconvictionthatfacilitynoiselevelspredictedat44.9dBAwillnevereverincrease,forexample+0.2dBAto50.1dBA,or+5dBAasfoundbyHealthCanada.

3ChannelIslandsAcoustics,Camarillo,CA,Principal:Dr.BruceWalker;HesslerAssociates,Inc.,Haymarket,VAPrincipals:GeorgeF.andDavidM.Hessler;RandAcoustics,Brunswick,ME,Principal:RobertRand;SchomerandAssociates,Inc.,Champaign,IL,Principal:Dr.PaulSchomer,"ACooperativeMeasurementSurveyandAnalysisofLowFrequencyandInfrasoundattheShirleyWindFarminBrownCounty,Wisconsin",WisconsinPSCREF#:178263,December24,2012.4Hessler,D.,"AssessingSoundEmissionsfromProposedWindFarms&MeasuringthePerformanceofCompletedProjects",NationalAssociationofRegulatoryUtilityCommissioners(NARUC),DOEDE-OE-0000123,HesslerAssociates,October2011."Windturbinesoundlevelsnaturallyvaryaboveandbelowtheirmeanoraveragevalueduetowindandatmosphericconditionsandcansignificantlyexceedthemeanvalueattimes.Extensivefieldexperiencemeasuringoperationalprojectsindicatesthatsoundlevelscommonlyfluctuatebyroughly+/-5dBAaboutthemeantrendlineandthatshort-lived(10to20minute)spikesontheorderof15to20dBAabovethemeanareoccasionallyobservedwhenatmosphericconditionsstronglyfavorthegenerationandpropagationofnoise."

Ex K 1 - 9

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page10of37

ATTACHMENT3:ANSISITINGCRITERIAFORCOMPATIBILITY ThetablesbelowsummarizethecalculationutilizedtodeterminelandusecompatibilitynoisecriteriafortheproposedfacilityusingANSIS12.9Parts4&5assumingaquietruralarea."Criteria"meansthelevelthatshouldnotbeexceeded-thehighestallowablelong-termaveragenoiselevel.Thecalculationconcludesthatforunfamiliarintrusivenoiseinquietruralareas,long-termaveragenoiselevelslowerthan30dBAarecompatible;noiselevelsbetween30and35dBAare"marginallycompatible";noiselevelsexceeding35dBAatnightareincompatible.Criteriafor"Compatibility"perANSIS12.9:Factor Day-Night

SoundLevel(DNL)

DaySoundLevel:

NightSoundLevel:

AverageLevel(Leq*):

Part5FigureA.1ResidentialUrban/suburban,SingleFamilyMarginalCompatibility:

55 55 45 49

Adjust:10dBforquietruralsettings(Part4F.3.4.1):

-10 -10 -10 -10

Adjust:5dBforunfamiliarintrusivenoise(Part4F.3.4.3):

-5 -5 -5 -5

Criteriafor"Compatibility",dBA: 40 40 30 34

Criteriafor"MarginalCompatibility"perANSIS12.9:Factor Day-Night

SoundLevel(DNL)

DaySoundLevel:

NightSoundLevel:

AverageLevel(Leq*):

Part5FigureA.1ResidentialUrban/suburban,SingleFamilyMarginalCompatibility:

60 60 50 54

Adjust:10dBforquietruralsettings(Part4F.3.4.1):

-10 -10 -10 -10

Adjust:5dBforunfamiliarintrusivenoise(Part4F.3.4.3):

-5 -5 -5 -5

Criteriafor"MarginalCompatibility",dBA: 45 45 35 39*Theenergy-equivalentaveragelevel(Leq)equivalenttoaday-nightlevel(DNL)is6dBlessthantheday-nightlevelduetolevelweightingof-10dBfrom10pmto7am.

Ex K 1 - 10

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page11of37

ATTACHMENT4:ISOSITINGCRITERIAFORCOMPLAINTSAcommonlyappliedcriterionforestimatingthecommunityresponsetoanintrusivenoisesourceisfoundinthescaledevelopedbytheInternationalStandardsOrganization(ISO)[5]basedontheprojectedchangeinnoiselevels,showninthetablebelow.

Table4.1.ISOCommunityresponsetoincreasesinnoiselevels.Thiscommunityresponsescalesupportsdirectestimationofthelikelycommunityresponsetoaprojectedincreaseinnoiselevelsoverthenormallyoccurringminimumbackground(L90)soundlevel,whichisgenerallyacceptedinacousticsasthelevelassociatedtoaqualityofplacesuchasaquietruralarea.YearsofpowergenerationnoisecontrolexperiencetaughtthatsuccessfulnoisecontroldesignresultinginnocomplaintsrestsoncomparingtheexpectednoiselevelstothebackgroundL90.AtStone&Webster,thebenchmarkcriterionforcommunityresponseassessmentwasbasedon"theL90oftheL90"overayear'stime.Thebasiswastoensuredesignfortheworstcasescenarioswhenbackgroundisquiet,sothatnoisecontroldollarswereeffective.Likedesigningaroadforthewidesttypicalvehicleratherthanthenarrowest,designingtopreventcomplaintsbasedontherecurringL90ratherthanonthehighlyvariableLeqprovedtobebestpractice.InruralareassuchasDeuelCountyitisgenerallyfoundthatbackgroundsoundlevelsintheabsenceofindustrialnoise,trafficorinsectsfallsinaround35dBAorlowerduringthedayand25dBAorloweratnight.Widespreadcomplaintscouldoccurifnewandunfamiliarnoisewasintroducedatnightatlevelsof35dBAorhigherinaquietruralarea.Foranurbanresidentialarea,alreadyexperiencingahighdegreeoftransportationnoisedayandnightwithbackgroundL90sof40to45dBA,a45-dBAnoiselimitcouldbeeffectiveatlimitingadversecommunityresponse.However,aregulatorystandardof45dBAinaquietruralareawithminimumnighttimebackgroundsoundlevelsof20to30dBA,allowsa15to

5ISO150/TC43.1969.NoiseAssessmentwithrespecttoCommunityResponse.

Ex K 1 - 11

~ . Change (dBA) Category Description

0 None perceptible No observed reaction 5 Little noticeable Sporadic complaint 10 Medium Widespread complaints 15 Strong Threat of community action 20 Verv Stronq Viqorous community action

Note: 1. ISO 150frC43. 1969. Noise Assessment with respect to Community Response.

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page12of37

25dBincreaseoverthepre-existingnighttimelevels.TheISOTC/43scalepredictsacommunityreactionofWidespreadComplaintstoVigorousCommunityAction.Inaquietruralarea,anaveragesoundlevel(Leq)takenover10minutesoranhournearacountryroadwaythatincludesoccasionalcarandtruckpassbysisamuchhighernumberthanthebackgroundsoundleveloccurringwhenthereisnomomentaryintrusivenoise.Mostruralresidentshaveindicatedit'sthenaturalquietintheeveningandnightquietthatdefinestheruralqualityofplaceattheirhome,notthetraffic.Farmingnoiseoccurringgenerallyduringthedayisanacceptedpartofagriculturaluse.Similarly,anightnoisemeasurementacquiredwithfrogscroakingsomepartsoftheyearisnotrepresentativeofthequietnighttimeatotherpartsoftheyear.Thisisequallyunderstoodforsuburbanorthicklysettledsuburbanareaswheretheremaybehigherbackgroundsoundlevelsthaninruralareasbutitistypicallydiffusetransportationnoisearrivingfromsomedistanceoveralargearea.ThusthebackgroundL90,thelevelexceeded90percentofthetime,hasfordecadesrepresentedthelevelsassociatedwithwhatpeopleexpectintheacousticalcharacterofanenvirons.Mostwouldagreethatthedegreeofquietissignificantforidentifyingqualityofplace.Methodsofremovingthehighfrequencysoundsfromfrogs,birdsandotherinsectsandfaunanotactiveothertimesofyearareprovidedinANSIS12.100.

Ex K 1 - 12

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page13of37

ATTACHMENT5.WHOCRITERIAFORHEALTHANDWELFAREIn2009theWorldHealthOrganization(WHO)publishedguidelinesforoutdoornoiselevelsinresidentialareas,

Itisworthnotingthatthe"year"usedinWHOnoiseplanningwasdefinedintheEuropeanCommissionDirectiveof2002.Althoughsomeconsultantshaveassertedthatthe"year"means365daysornights,theECdefined"year"as"relevantyear",specifyingnoiseassessmentforperiodswhennoisesourceswereoperating(forexampleatratedpower,or

Ex K 1 - 13

f

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page14of37

atdocumentedtrafficflowrates)anddiscouragingmindlessaveragingoftimeswhennoisesourceswerenotoperatingwhichwouldartificiallyreducetheapparentincreaseduetotheintrusivenoise.Similarly,theECdefinedLden(day-evening-nightsoundlevel)asconsistingofthreeparts,theday,eveningandnightaveragesoundlevelsoutdoors.TheECdefinedtheL,eveningandL,nightsoundlevelsas5and10dBbelowtheLden,respectively.In2018theWHOissuedawindturbinenoiseguidelinenottoexceed45Lden.ByECDirectivedefinition,theL,nightportionoftheLden-45guidelineis10dBAbelowthe45Lden,orL,night=35dBA.Therehavebeenanumberofstudiesontheeffectsofwindturbinenoiseon andwelfare.Todate,therehasbeennoconfirmingresearchfindingthatwindturbinenoiseconveyslessnoiseimpactthantransportationnoise.Moststudieshavefoundthatwindturbinenoiseis1)moreannoyingthancars,airplanes,andtrains,2)moreaudiblethantransportationnoise(windturbinenoiseisaudibleasmuchas10dBAbelowbackground[6]).

6Bolin,K.,"WindTurbineNoiseandNaturalSounds-Masking,PropagationandModeling",DoctoralThesis,RoyalInstituteofTechnology,Stockholm,Sweden,2009.

Ex K 1 - 14

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page15of37

ATTACHMENT6.EPASITINGCRITERIAFORNOISEIMPACTASSESSMENT:COMPLAINTS6.1Noise-producingfacilitiesareusuallyrequiredtomeetcertainnoiselimitsor"criteria"whenoperatinginordertoprotectthewelfareofnearbyresidents.InmanycasescriteriaaretakendirectlyfromlocalordinancesorStateregulationsthatspecifynoiselimitsatspecificlocationssuchaspropertylotlines.However"justmeeting"theselimitsmaynotpreventanadversecommunityreaction,dependingontheapparentloudnessofthenoisesourcewhencomparedtotheexistingexpectedbackgroundsoundlevels.6.2Bynowmostpeopleareawareofthereportsofadversecommunityreactionsnearsomewindturbinefacilities.FrominvestigationsmadearoundNewEngland,adversecommunityreactionsappeartooccurmostlywhenthereareresidentialhomesinquietruralareaswithinamileorsoofawindturbinefacility.Thenoiselimitsforthesesitesarealwaysabove35dBA.Coincidence?No.6.3ManyordinancesandregulationsintheUnitedStatesdevelopedinthelastthirtyyearstooktheirguidancefromtheEPA's1974"LevelsDocument"[2]andusedsomeportionoftheEPA's"guideline"oftheLdn55(55dBAday,45dBAnight),maximumpermissiblesoundlevel(forurbanresidentialareas)asanoiselimitorcriterion,whethertheordinanceorregulationwasappliedtourbanresidential,rural,orwildernessareas.Indevelopingitsguidelines,theEPA'sprimaryfocus(asexpressedintheLevelsDocument)wasonpreventinghearinglossandspeechinterference,writingthat"Thelevelof55dB[note:Ldn-55dBAday,45dBAnight]isidentifiedasmaximumlevelcompatiblewithadequatespeechcommunicationindoorsandoutdoors.Withrespecttocomplaintsandlong-termannoyance,thislevelisclearlyamaximumservingalargemajorityofthepopulation.Howeverspecificlocalsituations,attitudesandconditionsmaymakelowerlevelsdesirableforsomelocations."

Ex K 1 - 15

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page16of37

6.4The"largemajority"thattheEPAwroteofcanbeseenbelowinFigure2.Oftheroughly214millionpeoplelivingintheUSin1974,some100millionlivedinareaswithexistingbackgroundsoundlevelsaboveLdn55.Over10millionlivedwithbackgroundsoundlevelsaboveLdn70.

6.5Forthoselivingwithelevatedbackgroundsoundlevelsinurbanareas,theEPA'sguidelineofamaximumLdn55(55day,45night)waswellpositionedtoassurenohearingloss,noranyspeechinterferencewithinareasonablespeakingdistance,andwouldbring

Ex K 1 - 16

300...---- ...----...----...----...----...----.-----.

Urban Nolte

I

I I I I I I I I I

0.01---------__,_ ___ _. ____ ._ ___ .._ ___ .............. _ ... 20 30 50 60 70 80

I.«,. ell

Figure 2 Resfdent11l Noise Env1ronnent of the Kational Popul1tlon As A Function of Exterior De.y- NightAvtrage Sound Level (Ref ILS)

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page17of37

relief.However,forthesome100millionpeoplelivingoutsideurbanareas,withexistingbackgroundsoundlevelsbelowLdn55,theEPA'sguidelinehasnoprotectiveeffect.Indeed,theuseofLdn55asa"permitted"maximumlevelcanservetodegradetheacousticenvironmentinquietruralandwildernessareasbyallowingmuchhigherintrusivesoundlevelswhereexistingbackgroundsoundlevelsweremuchlowerandcreateadversecommunityreactionsandnuisance.ThiswasnevertheEPA'sintent.Inits1977publication"TowardsaNationalStrategy,"theEPAindicatedveryclearlyitswishtopreservethelowersoundlevelsoutsidetheurbanareas:

"EncourageandassistFederal,Stateandlocalagenciesintheadoptionandimplementationofalong-rangenoisecontrolpolicydesignedtopreventsignificantdegradationofexistingnoiselevelsorexposureindesignatedareas.Sucha"non-degradation"policycouldbeincorporatedintoland-useanddevelopmentplanningprocessesinanefforttoreducepotentialincreasesofnoiselevelorexposureinareawherequietisatapremium,e.g.,hospitalzones,quietresidentialareas,andwildernessareas."

6.6HowevertheEPA'sOfficeofNoiseAbatementwasdefundedintheearly1980s,andthislong-rangenoisecontrolpolicywasneverimplemented.WhiletheNoiseControlActremainsineffecttothisday,fewifanytookthetimetofullyunderstandtheEPA'sfindingsandcautions.Countiesandtownsthattooktheliteralnumberof55dBAday,45dBAnight,withoutconsideringthecontextasaguidelinetoreduceexcessivenoiseinurbanresidentialareas,inadvertentlyadoptednoiselimitsthatexposequietruralresidentialareastolargechangesfromquietbackgroundsoundlevels,potentialdegradationoftheruralacousticenvironmentfromnaturaltoindustrialsoundsdominatingtheenvironment,adversecommunityreactions

Respondingtotheabsenceofnoiseimpactassessmentbywindindustrysoundconsultants,AmbroseandRandprovidedrecommendations[7]totheAcousticalSocietyofAmericain2015forcommunitynoiseimpactassessmentofwindturbineinquietruralareas.AsummaryoftheAmbrose/RandEPAcriteriaassessment,coupledwiththepeer-reviewedresearchfromPedersenetal2009[8],waspresentedtotheAcousticalSocietyofAmericatechnicalpanel4aNS7inPittsburghin2015.Thechartisshownbelow. 7Ambrose,S.andRand,R.,4aNS7.Whyareregulators,communities,neighbors,andacousticiansannoyedbywindturbines?https://acousticalsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Pittsburgh_Thursday_sessions.pdf.8Pedersen,E.etal,ResponsetonoisefrommodernwindfarmsinTheNetherlands,J.Acoust.Soc.Am.126(2),August2009.

Ex K 1 - 17

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page18of37

Comparing1)complaintspotentialdeterminedusingEPAcasestudiesadjustedtoquietruralareasand2)windturbinenoiseannoyance(percent"veryannoyed")fromPedersenetal2009,findsthatwidespreadcomplaintsandannoyancescaleupequallyanddefinitelyabovethemid-30sdBA.Regulatorynoiselimitsat60,55,50,45andeven40dBAatquietruralpropertylinesorhomesareunequippedtoprotect andwelfare;similartoANSI.

Ex K 1 - 18

Proposed: USE Criteria Assessment for Reaction and Annoyance

Vigorous

community action

Strong appeals to stop noise

Widespread

complaints

Percentage of community very annoyed by wind turbine noise compared to normalized EPA community reaction to intrusive noise in rural areas

CtwtC2013RW.R#ld &SE.AmbroN,Ma'Tarl'NCE.MRlghlJ~

•••••• • • -

• ••••••• • • •

• • •••••••• ••••

•• •

15

12

9 "C QI > 0 C: C:

"' c QI V - 6 ~

Sporadic

complaints

No reaction

15 20

RW Rand - SE Ambrose - © 2015

• •• •

25

• •••• •

• •••••• • •

30 35 40

dBA

■ Pedersen et al 2009, Table 2, very annoyed

■ EPA, Case studies, 550/9-74-004, 1974. Ldn normalized to: • Leq (·6)

- Year-round operation (OJ • Quiet rural community (-10) - No prior exposure to intruding noise (-5) - Pure tone or impulsive noise character (-5)

45 50 55 60 65

169th ASA Meeting - 2015 Pittsburg, PA

3

0

28

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page19of37

ATTACHMENT7.REVIEWOFHESSLERPRE-FILEDTESTIMONYAportionofMr.Hessler'stestimonyisquotedbelow."Q.Canyoupleasesummarizeyouroverallopinionofthenoiseanalysisstudysubmittedonbehalfoftheproject?A.Ingeneral,thequalityoftheworkandnoisemodelingisperfectlysatisfactoryandconsistentwithgoodindustrypractice.Iagreewiththemodelingmethodologyandbelievethatthepredictionsarerealisticandaccurate.However,Iwouldfaultthestudyforfocusingexclusivelyonregulatorycomplianceandfailingtoevaluateorassessthepotentialnoiseimpactoftheprojectonthecommunity.Forexample,itiscommon,butbynomeansuniversal,industrypracticetoperformoneormorebaselinesoundsurveysoftheexistingconditionswithinthesiteareaandthencomparetheexpectedprojectsoundlevelsatresidencestothispre-existingsoundlevel.Theamountbywhichtheprojectsoundlevelexceedsthebackgroundlevelgenerallydeterminestheproject’sperceptibilityandpotentialimpactanditisgoodpracticetoattempttominimizethisdifferential.A5dBAincreaseabovethebaselinebackgroundlevelisoftenusedasanidealdesigngoalbecauseitlimitstheprominenceandaudibilityoftheprojectrelativetothenaturalenvironmentalsoundlevel.Sucharelative,ambient-basedapproachcan,andoftendoes,leadtoanidealdesigntargetthatislowerthantheapplicableabsoluteregulatorylimit(s)."(emphasisadded)Q.Doesthatmeanyoubelieveasurveyshouldhavebeendone?A.Asurveyandasubsequentimpactanalysis,whilenotabsolutelyessentialinallcases,wouldhavedemonstratedaconcernforthecommunity’swelfareandacceptanceoftheproject.Thisapproachissometimescombinedwithoptimizationmodelingwhereturbinesareiterativelymovedoreliminatedearlyinthedesignprocesswhensignificantchangesarestillpracticalinanefforttominimizethecommunitynoiseimpactandperhapsrealizeunilaterallyadopteddesigntargets.Itisineveryone’sbestinterest,includingtheprojectowner/operator,tominimizethepotentialfornoiseissuesirrespectiveofanyregulatorynoiselimits.Q.InIntervenorJohnHoman’sresponsestoStaff’sfirstsetofdatarequestsMr.Homanoutlinesquiteanumberofconcernsabouttheprojectand,withrespecttonoise,sayshewouldliketoseeanoiselimitof35dBAatnon-participatingresidences,amongotherthings.Doyoubelievethat’sareasonableconditionthattheCommissionshouldconsiderimposingontheproject?A.No.WhileIwouldcertainlyliketoseesuchalowsoundlevelatallnon-participatingproperties,IcanonlythinkofonewindprojectthatIhavebeeninvolvedwiththatcouldhaveevermadethatnoisetargetandthatprojectwaslocatedonanuninhabitedisland.Froma

Ex K 1 - 19

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page20of37

practicalstandpoint,suchalevelcannotberealisticallyachievedatthisproject,oratvirtuallyanyprojectlocatedinapopulatedarea.Q.Bethatasitmay,doyoubelievetheprojectwillatleastmeettheCountyZoningOrdinancenoiselimit?A.Yes.ThemodelingindicatesthattheDeuelCountyZoningOrdinancenoiselimitof45dBAatnon-participatingresidenceswillbemet,althoughjustbarelyintwocaseswherethepredictedlevelis44.9dBA.Q.MichaelHankard’ssupplementaldirecttestimonyproffersandsupportsasoundconditionconsistentwithseveralpastprojectsof45dBAatnon-participatingresidencesand50dBAatparticipants.DoyoubelievetheCommissionshouldagreetothesenoiselimitsandmakeitaconditionofthepermit?A.Yes.Ithinkthat’sareasonablyfairconditionforthisprojecttakingintoaccountwhatIjustsaidaboutparticipantswithpredictedsoundlevelsabove45dBA.Ingeneral,Iwouldhavestronglypreferredtoseepredictedsoundlevelsthatdidnotrunrightuptothe45and50dBAlimits.Atthispoint,Idon’tseeanywayofsignificantlyreducingreceptorsoundlevelsshortofthinningtheturbinedensitytothepointoflikelyeconomicnon-viability.CommentsonHesslerpre-filedtestimony:7.1IagreewithMr.Hessler'sstatementthatasurveyshouldhavebeendone.Howeveritisfarmorethananoptionalstepashiswritingmightsuggest.Forfacilitieswithnosignificantexternalnoiseproducingequipment,abackgroundsoundsurveymaynotbenecessary.However:Becausewindturbinesarepowerfulandespeciallylow-frequencynoiseemitters,SouthDakotaARSD20:10:22.18(3)&(4)cannotberespondedtoadequatelywithoutabackgroundnoisesurvey,neededtosupplytherequestedinformationinthosesectionsofSouthDakotalaw.ThelackofabackgroundsoundsurveypreventscomparisonofexpectednoiselevelstoactualminimumquietruralbackgroundL90soundlevels[9],blocksassessmentofchangesinnoiselevelandbackgroundsoundscape(ruralnaturalambientto24/7industrial)andneutersproperconsiderationoftheapplicationwithregardtotheaforementionedregulatoryfilingrequirements.Theomissionssuggestatroublinglackofrespectforthelawand

welfarefromtheapplicantandtheirsoundlevelconsultantHankardEnvironmental.AsMr.Hesslerwrote,"Itisineveryone’sbestinterest,includingtheprojectowner/operator,tominimizethepotentialfornoiseissuesirrespectiveofanyregulatorynoiselimits."

9QuietruralbackgroundL90stypicallyfallintherangeof20to25dBAobtainedperANSIS12.100.

Ex K 1 - 20

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page21of37

7.2IdonotshareMr.Hessler'sapparentconfidencethatthepredictednoiselevelswillnevereverexceed44.9dBAduringfieldtesting.7.3DatafromtheMassDEPStudyshowthatshorttermnoiselevelscanexceedlongtermaveragenoiselevelsby6to11dBA.TheMassCECstudyfound5-minutemeasuredaveragenoiselevelsgenerallywereatorunderpredictedlevelsbutoccasionalnoiselevelsexceedingpredictedlevelsby1-3dBA;seenotationsonFigurebelowfor330and660metersdistance,1082and2164ft,thesamemodelingusedintheHankardreport;ISO9613-2,G=0.NeitherHankardnortheMassCECaccountedformanufacturertextuncertainties.7.4Theapplicanthaselectedtobuild"tothewire"at44.9dBA,usingtenthsofadBintheforecast,withnodesignsafetymargin.Mr.HankardhasassuredinAppendixDthatthefacilitywillneverexceed44.9dBA.Anoccasional1to3dBAexceedancemaynotseemlikemuch.HowevertheDeuelCountyregulationisexacting.Noexceedanceoftheaveragelevels,regardlessofaveragingtime,ispermitted.Isitpossiblethatthefacilitycouldbemeasuredat45.1dBA?TheMassCECstudyresultssupportthepotentialforexceeding.

Ex K 1 - 21

30 35 4() 45

" - A ) fu: ~lodclcd Monitored Sound Pre&sure Level (Leq. dBA)

B - BMu: Modclcd

• C - C Mu: Modckd

:1 ~ 45

:?. .H Om 4()

35

30 30 35 4() 50 55

Moni tored Sound Pre111ure Le,:e.l (Leq • d.BA)

• D - DMax ModcJcd

660m

30 35 4() 45 50 55

Moni1ored Sound Prusure Lenl (Leq . d.BA)

FIGURE 18: COMPARISON BETWEEN MONITORING RESULTS (FIVE-MINUTE LEQ) AND MODELING RESULTS (ISO 9613-2, G=0)

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page22of37

7.5TheCounty'sstandard"Noiselevelshallnotexceed45dBAAverage"bringsuptheissueofaverageoverwhattimeperiod.Thewindindustryhassettledon10-minuteaverages.Howeverthehumaneardoesnotwait10minutestoprocessanoiselevel.Theear'sresponsetonoiseisontheorderof1/8secondorfaster.Longeraveragingtimessuchas10-minutes,1-hour,orlongerhavetheeffectofallowinghighermodulatingwindturbinemaximumsoundlevelsoverthenoiselimittoaverageinwithlowersoundlevelsatorlowertothenoiselimit,andarriveatanaveragewhichtechnicallymeetsthelimitbutallowsmuchhighernoiselevelstoimpactthepropertyinthemeantime.ThereadingofDeuelCountyZoningOrdinance"topromotehealthandthegeneralwelfare..."wouldnormallyprecludeallowingexcessivenoiselevelsatresidences.Howeverthewindindustryuseoflong-termaveraginghidesthehighintrusivenoiselevelsemittedbytheturbines,levelswhichthelawostensiblyisintendedtoprevent.7.6IagreewithHessler'sassessmentthatpredictedlevelsatparticipantscomparewiththeregulatorylimitveryunfavorablywithexpectedaveragesoundlevelsupto49.8dBA(50dBAincommonuse)andatleastadozenresidencesabove47dBA.Inmyexperience,windturbinenoiselevelsabove40dBAandespeciallyabove45dBAoutdoorshaveledtoseriouscomplaints,appealstostopthenoiseresidentssleepingoutsideintents,orhomesvacated.Thepredictiondoesnotassessfornighttimeaudibilityindoors,physicalsensationofpressureorlowfrequencynoiseorsensationinsidehomes,allfactorsinnoisecomplaints.7.7A35-dBAnoiselimitwasdiscussedinMr.Hessler'stestimony.A35-dBAnoiselimitpreventsanincompatiblenoiseenvironmentforanintrusive,unfamiliarnoiseatruralresidentialhomes(ANSIS12.9).A35-dBAnoiselimitisconsistentwithpreventinghighannoyanceforasignificantportionofthepopulation(HealthCanada).

7.8IcanunderstandMr.Hessler'sapparentprofessionalinterestasP.E.andINCEMemberinconsideringa35-dBAnoiselimitforthisproject.ImustdisagreewithMr.Hessler'sultimaterecommendationof45and50dBA.Mr.HesslerisaMemberoftheInstituteofNoiseControlEngineeringandisrequiredbymembershipto"holdparamountthesafety,healthandwelfareofthepublic".Iunderstandthisrequirementisequallystrongorperhapsstrongerforlicensedprofessionalengineers.Theword"paramount"means"aboveallotherconsiderations";includingtheconsiderationMr.Hesslerstatedearlierinhistestimony,"Idon’tseeanywayofsignificantlyreducingreceptorsoundlevelsshortofthinningthe

Ex K 1 - 22

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page23of37

turbinedensitytothepointoflikelyeconomicnon-viability".AsINCEMemberImusttakeissuewiththisstatementbyMr.Hessler,aP.E.andINCEMember.7.9ItappearedthatMr.Hessler'sargumentforrejectinglowernoiselimitswasbasedonevaluatingtheeconomicsoftheprojectandgivingthatconsiderationsufficientweighttooverridethe andwelfareofthepublic.Iftrue,thatlineofthinkingbreachestheINCECanonnumber1,"holdparamount",andequivalentethicalrequirementsforlicensedprofessionalengineers.Itisnotuptothenoisecontrolengineertodeterminethateconomicsoutweighthepublic

andwelfaretheyarepledgedtoholdparamount.Byprofessionalunderstanding,theINCEMemberhasnoauthoritywhatsoevertorecommendpolicythatwouldresultinamemberofthepublicbeingharmedbyexcessivenoiselevels.Forthisproject,"thepublic"includeseverynearbyresident.Andindeed,Mr.Hesslerhascautionedhisclientforthisproject,theSouthDakotaPublicUtilitiesCommission,aboutexcessivenoiselevelsforecastatparticipatingproperties.ByINCERulesofPractice,theINCEMembershallholdparamountthesafety, andwelfareofthepublicintheperformanceoftheirprofessionalduties.Further,theyshall"Notifytheirclientandsuchotherauthorityasmaybeappropriate,iftheirprofessionaljudgmentisoverruledundercircumstanceswherethepublicsafety, property,orwelfareareendangered."Mr.Hessler'sclientmayelecttoprotectpublic andwelfare,or,mayoverrulecautionandapproveexcessivenoiselevels,buttheINCEMemberdoesnothavethatauthorityorprofessionallicense.Iftheprojectistoonoisyortoobigforalocale,itisnotthejobofthenoisecontrolconsultanttorecommendincreasednoiselimits.Itistheparamountjobofthenoisecontrolconsultanttoprotectpublicsafety, andwelfare,aboveallotherconsiderations.AsMr.Hesslersaid,"Itisineveryone’sbestinterest,includingtheprojectowner/operator,tominimizethepotentialfornoiseissuesirrespectiveofanyregulatorynoiselimits."10.Inthisrespect(seepoint8above),asINCEMemberIdepartfromandmustadvisestrenuouslyagainstMr.Hessler'snodto45and50dBAnoiselimitsfornon-participatingandparticipatingresidents.ThesufficientevidenceprovidedintheWHOresearchof2009,theCounty'slegalrequirementforcompatibilityinOrdinanceB2004-01Section104coupledwithANSIstandardsforcompatibility,andHealthCanada'sfindingsofhigh-annoyancerampingabove35dBAcoupledwith

presentconsistentvalidationforlowercriteriaprotectinghealthandwelfareandcomplyingwithDeuelCountylaw;alongtermaveragenottoexceed35dBA.

Ex K 1 - 23

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page24of37

ATTACHMENT8.REVIEWOFPREDICTEDLEVELSFigure8.1PredictedaveragenoiselevelsscaledintoGoogleEarth.FromNovember2018noiseanalysis.TherevisedanalysisofJanuary2019omitted50dBAnoisecontours,andclutteredthechartwithenlargedshadowedsymbols,preventingreviewoffacilitynoiselevelsversusdistance.Itisnotclearwhetherthefacilitywindturbinelocationsarefixed.Theoriginallayoutfigurewasusedforpurposesofestimatingnoiselevelversusdistance.

Ex K 1 - 24

I

J . ... ~ .•.

~ . ' 164th-St- G!) •

• -- A Grart • I I

• • • •

• 212

l, i§r, <o ~ l /t_

• , s ~ ~ • ~ •

-1= • la qu,P;,

Yt.1/row M- o - 1- I - I •

·'I: \ -: .. : (Q 2018 Googl• I (' oole earth 4.00 m, ';; L I ~ , c"I ~ 'j f r"I. t'f!l>----:-­

·~~ w

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page25of37

Figure8.2PredictedaveragenoiselevelsincludingsouthofWTs118-121,50and45dBAcontours.Reddotsarenon-participatingresidences;greendotsareparticipating.FromNovember2018analysis.Yellowarrowshowsanalysispath.

Figure8.3PredictedaveragenoiselevelsincludingeastofWT11,50and45dBAcontours.Reddotsarenon-participatingresidences;greendotsareparticipating.FromNovember2018analysis.Yellowarrowshowsanalysispath.

Ex K 1 - 25

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page26of37

Figure8.4Distancesassociatedtopredictednoiselevels.

8.1Twopathsleadingawayfromtheturbinelocations(seeFigures8.1-8.3)weremeasuredfornoiselevelversusdistanceandplottedonFigure8.4toestimatedistancesto40and35dBAlevelsfromthefacility.LevelsnearWT11arerepresentativeofthosenearasingleturbinewithmanyfurtheraway.LevelsnearWTs118-121arerepresentativeofthosenearanumberofturbinesnearbyinarow.Asapreliminaryanalysis,noiseleveldropswithdistancelinearlyonasemi-logchart.Thedistanceto40dBArangesfromroughly3800feet(2/3mile)toalittleover1mile.Thedistanceto35dBArangesfromroughly7200feet(1-1/3mile)to2miles.Thresholdsshowninclude:

• Blackdashedline:DeuelCountysoundlimits.• • Greendashedline:ANSIS12.9thresholdforincompatibilityforanunfamiliar

intrusivenoiseinaquietruralarea.8.2WindturbineLmaxmaximumlevelshavebeenmeasuredusingANSIstandardsandarereadilyavailablefromfieldstudies,exampletheMassCECStudy[10].

10RSGetal,“MassachusettsStudyonWindTurbineAcoustics,”MassachusettsCleanEnergyCenterandMassachusetts(MassCEC)DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2016.

Ex K 1 - 26

60

55

50

45

dBA

40

35

30

25

Chart Area

Harvest Wind GE 2.82-127 (108.5 dBA Lw) predicted naise levels east af WTll -...._

Deuel County: do-not-exceed 45 dBA Average dBA -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ANSI 512.9: intrusive unfamiliar noise is INCOMPATIBLE

above : 5 !!!3A_fo~ qufet~ r~I r~/dentia/ land use

Harvest Wind GE 2.82-127 (108.5 dBA Lw) predicted noise levels south of WTs 118-121

/'

Background (L90} sound levels in quiet rural areas are below 30 dBA at night ----------- --- - ·---I

I I I

20 R.W.RANO, ASA, INCE 2019

100 1000 >40 >35

10000 Distance from nearest turbine, feet

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page27of37

8.3RecenttestimonyfromwindindustryexpertsconfirmedthatwindturbineLmaxnoiselevelsareasmuchas11dBAabovethelongtermaverage(Leq,the"equivalent"noiselevelisconsideredan"average"foranoisemeasurementperiod).Inacourtcase(UnitedStatesDistrictCourt,EasternDistrictofMichiganNorthernDivision,CaseNo.17-cv-10497)evidencewassubmittedbyconsultantsforthewindindustry(RSG,Inc.andEpsilonAssociatestoTuscolaWindIII,LLC)documentingtheMassCECStudyhavingdeterminedrangesofLmaxvaluesfrom6to11dBgreaterthantheLeqandstating"Forthisstudy,tobeconservative,weareusinganadditional11dBadjustmentabovethe+2.0dBalreadymodeled."[11](Lmax=Leq+11,dBA).8.4RecenttestinginaquietruralareainVermont[12]confirmedthattheA-weightedoutdoor-to-indoorwindturbinenoiselevelreduction(OILR)canbeverypoor,ontheorderof1-3dBAwithwindowsfullyopen,andonly6dBAwithwindowspartiallyopen.Mostpeoplekeeponeormorehousewindowsatleastpartiallyopenduringmuchoftheyeartoletfreshairindoorsaspartoftheirnormaluseoftheirproperty.Fromexperience,thisistrueformanyhouseholdseveninwinter,especiallyifawoodstoveisusedforheat.8.5StandardISO9613-2providesthebasisalgorithminmodelingsoftwareusedfornoisepredictionincludingforwindturbines.Thestandardprovidesalongtermaveragenoiselevelsubjecttoinherentvariability(estimateofaccuracy)of+/-3dBAto1000meters(3280feet);anestimateofaccuracybeyond1000metersisnotprovided.8.6Windindustrynoiseresearchbeyond1000meters[13]found"Averagedfar-fieldnoiselevelsofa2 MWwindturbinevaryupto7dBAoveradiurnalcycle.Enhancedfar-fieldamplitudemodulationdepthsareobservedduringeveningandnight."8.7Thusapredictedsoundlevelof40dBAwithin1000metersofawindturbinecouldresultinalongtermaveragenoiselevelrangingasloudas43dBA(ISO9613-2uncertaintyof+/-3dBA),andanassociatedpotentialmaximumnoiselevelasloudas52dBA(Leq+11).Similarly,beyond1000meters,apredictedaveragenoiselevelof35dBAcouldbeasloudasanaverageof38dBA,withpotentialmaximumnoiselevelsof49dBA.8.8ThereisnosupportinISO9613-2forassertingthattheactualfacilitynoiselevelswillneverexceedpredictedlevels.AsstatedintheISO9613-2modelstandard,theestimatesofaccuracyinISO9613-2Table5"shouldnotnecessarilybeexpectedtoagreewiththevariationinmeasurementsmadeatagivensiteonagivenday.Thelattercanbeexpectedto 11Memo,fromKenKaliski,P.E.,INCEBd.Cert.,RSGRichardLampeter,EpsilonAssociatestoRyanRumford,NextEraEnergyResources,December22,2016.12"AcentechmeasurementsinJuly2014undersimilartestconditionsdidgenerallyagreewiththisvalue;anddependingonthemeasurementlocationwithintheroom,yieldedanOILRvalueofabout1to3dBAwiththewindowsfullyopen.",AcentechReporttoVermontPublicServiceDepartment,VermontPublicServiceBoardDocket7156,AcentechProject624219,25September2015.13Barlasetal,Variabilityofwindturbinenoiseoveradiurnalcycle,RenewableEnergyVolume126,October2018,Pages791-800.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.03.086.RenewableEnergyisthe"OfficialJournaloftheWorldRenewableEnergyNetwork".

Ex K 1 - 27

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page28of37

beconsiderablylarger..."8.9Basedonwindindustrydata[11],averagewindturbinenoiselevelsof40dBA(Leq)outsideatahomehaveapotentialmaximumnoiselevel(Lmax)asloudas51dBA.Assuminga6dBAnoisereductionoutdoorstoindoors,theLmaxnoiselevelindoorscanrangeupto45dBA;byWHOguidelinesbasedonlessannoyingtransportationnoise[14],

8.10Periodicwindturbinenoise(suchas"whumps"or"thumps"asoftenreportedbyneighbors)withalongtermaverageof35dBAoutdoorscouldresultinoutdoorsLmaxnoiselevelsasloudas46dBA,withresultingsuddenintrusivenoiselevelsindoorsasloudas40dBA

8.11WindturbineswithpitchcontrolsuchastheGE2.82-127canbemodifiedtorunatslowerspeedsandlowerpowerondemand,ostensiblyreducingnoiselevels.Thismethodofcontrolissometimesreferredtoas"NoiseReducedOperation"orNRO.Somewindturbinemanufacturersoffer1-dBto4-dBNROsettingswhichcanbeengagedorfreedwithSCADAcontrols,whichtheymarketasa1to4dBAnoisereductionforthewindturbinewhenoperatedwithinturbinedesignspecifications.DoesNROworkreliably?Itisgenerallyacceptedthatittakesa3-dBAchangeforpeopletonoticeadifference.8.12NoGuarantees:NROoperationsarenotguaranteedtoreduceloudnessattheinstalledlocationunderreal-worldconditions.NROcontrolsweretestedextensivelywithGE'stechnicalassistanceata3x1.5MW-turbinewindfacilityinVinalhaven,Maine.Nosignificantreductioninloudnesswasobtained[15]inreal-worldoperation.IhaveseennonewsreportsortechnicalreportsinthelastnineyearsconfirmingthatNROworksreliablyinallatmosphericconditionsintherealworldoutsidetestfacilities.WhereastheCountylawisunbending;averagenoiselevelsmustnotexceedthenoiselimitanytime.8.13Theapplicationdidnotassessforperceptiblevibrationatnearbyhomes.Itiswellknownfrombasicfieldresearchthatnoisecanproducevibrationsinhomesthatarehumanlyperceptible,asoutlinedbyHubbard[16].Hubbard'sFigure8providesacompositeguidelineforwholebodyvibrationperception.8.14Thereisnoevidencetodatethatwindturbinenoiseissomehowlessannoying,lowerinapparentloudness,orthatanLeq-outdoorsorLmax-indoorssoundlevelfromawindturbinemodulationislesscapableof or

14Pedersenetal.:Responsetowindfarmnoise,J.Acoust.Soc.Am.,Vol.126,No.2,August2009.15BenHoenetal,"AssessingtheImpactsofReducedNoiseOperationsofWindTurbinesonNeighborAnnoyance:APreliminaryAnalysisinVinalhaven,Maine",LawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory,LBNL-3562E,June2010.https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-3562e.pdf16Hubbard,H.,"NoiseInducedHouseVibrationandHumanPerception",NoiseControlEngineeringJournal,Volume9No.2,pp.49-55,September-October1982.

Ex K 1 - 28

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page29of37

communityresponsethannoiselevelsfromtransportationnoise ThustheWHOguidelinesprovideworking

baselinecriteriaforassessingwindturbineA-weightednoiselevels.WhiletheA-weightednoiselevelthatfiltersoutlowfrequencynoise,unfilterednoiseandvibrationlevelseitherpredictedormeasuredcanbecomparedtoknowncriteriafromHubbard.

Figure8.5Hubbard1982,Figure8;curverepresentsthecombinedresponsesofapersonineithertheupanddown,foreandaft,orsidewaysdirectionswhicheveristhemostsensitive.ThecompositeguidelinescurveofFig.8isjudgedtobethebestrepresentationoftheavailablewholebody(mostsensitiveaxis)vibrationperceptiondata(Hubbard).8.14Hubbard'sFigure9outline"perceptiblevibrations"thresholdsspanningthelow-frequencyrangefrom0.1to100Hzinone-thirdoctavebands.

Figure8.6Hubbard1982,Figure9;indicatestheoutsidesoundpressurelevelsingivenone-thirdoctavebandscausingperceptiblevibrationinsideahousestructure.

Ex K 1 - 29

ACCELERATION LEVEL, dB ,.. 1.0 JJg

0.1 100 --COMPOSITE ISO GUIDELINES

(REF. 18 AND 191

ACCELERATION, .01 so· ////RANGE OF DATA (REF. 20-25) ~ WIND TURBINE OBSERVATIONS

(REF. 26)

9rms .001

.0001

60

40

20...____.__ ____ ~------'-------' 0.1 1.0 10 100 ONE-THIRD OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY, Hz

Figure 8-Most sensitive threshold of perception of vibratory motion by humans

100

80

SOUND PRESSURE 60

LEVEL, dB

4()

20

0. 1

HOUSE ELEhlfNTS

WALLS

WINDOWS

I

PERCEIVED VIBRATIONS

EXAMPLE NO ISE SPECTRUM .../

1.0 10 ONE·THIRD OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY, Hz

100

Figure 9-Sound pressure levels sufficient to cause perceptible vibra­tions of house structure elements over a range of frequencies

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page30of37

8.15One-third-octavebandsoundlevelsacquiredoutdoorsduringpartialpoweroperation,forthewidelyspacedwindfacilitycomprisedofeight,Nordex2.5-1002.5MWturbinesatShirley,weresuperimposedontheHubbarddatainFigure1below.

Figure8.7PerceptibleVibration.Fromoutdoorsnoiselevelsacquiredatacomparablewindturbinefacility,appearscertainfortheApplication.Note:Hubbard'sFigure9indicatestheoutsidesoundpressurelevelsingivenone-thirdoctavebandsthatwillcauseperceptiblevibrationinsideahousestructure.Tothis,outdoors1/3octavebandsoundlevelsacquiredatShirley,WI2012duringpartialpoweroperationweresuperimposed(�),alongwiththemedianaudibilitythresholdlistedinISO226(range+/-12dB).Thefigureshowsthatvibrationispossiblefromwindturbinenoiseandperceivableindoorsassensationwellbelowthemedianaudiblethreshold(whichhasastandarddeviationof6+dBatlowfrequencies).8.16HowdotheselowfrequencynoiselevelsatShirleyrelatetoprobablelowfrequencynoiselevelsatthedistancesforneighborsinDeuelCounty?Itappearstheymayberoughlyequivalent,basedonanalysisbelow.

• TheApplication'sproposed2.82-127MWturbinesarelouder(A-weighted)thantheShirley2.5MWturbines.TheApplicationturbinebladesarelonger,andwithmoreturbinesthelikelihoodofinflowturbulencefromotherturbinesisincreased,withresultingincreasedlowfrequencynoiselevelsbyatleast1ormoredecibels[17,18].

• ThedatashowninFigure1isforpartialpowerconditions;duringShirleytesting,DukeEnergydidnotsupplyfullpoweroperationsdespiteapparentsuitablewind

17Møller,H.;Pedersen,C.S.Low-frequencynoisefromlargewindturbines.J.Acoust.Soc.Am.129(6),3727–3744.18Shepherd,D.;Hanning,C.;Thorne,R.Noise:Windfarms.EncyclopediaofEnvironmentalManagementDOI:10.108/E-EEM-120047802,2012.

Ex K 1 - 30

100

80

SOUND PRESSURE 60

LEVEL, dB

:t 0.1

+-Shi rley-R2-1300ft-Leq,Outside-2AM

HOUSE ELEMENTS - 1s0 226 (sine wave threshold)

1.0 10 ONE-THIRD OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY, Hz

100

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page31of37

conditions.Atfullpowerthelowfrequencynoiselevelsareexpectedtobehigher.• Unlikeforhigherfrequencynoisesources,windturbinelowfrequencynoiselevels

dropwithcylindricalpropagationbeyondakilometerwithnearandfarturbinescontributingtoprimarilylowfrequencyimmissionsatresidentialproperties.Thechartedlevelsarejudgedtoapproximatenoiselevelsfordistancestoneighborsofabouta1/2mile,remainingintherangeofperception[19].

• Windturbinesarenotsteadynoisesources;theyexhibitamplitudemodulationthatincreasesnoiselevelswellovertheaveragesoftenquoted.Peakormaximumnoiselevelscanrangemuchhigher[20],supportinggreaterperceptioninawiderrangeoffrequencies.Barometricoscillationsatbladepassfrequenciesmayexcitehousestructuralresonancesandincreasesoundlevelsindoorsthroughsuddenpressurepulsationsimpactingthehouseexterior[21].ThepeakperceptionfrequenciesinFigure1areinthefrequencyrangeofhousewallandwindowresonances.

• Theuseofso-called"LNTE"bladesappearstoprovidenolowfrequencynoisereductionintherangeassociatedtoperceptionbyHubbard.ThefigurebelowshowsacomparisonofstandardandLNTEbladetechnologiesfortheGE2.5-116[22].

Figure8.8LNTEnoisereductionlimitedtomid-frequencybands,shiftsacousticsignaturetolowfrequencies.

19Marcillo,O.,S.Arrowsmith,P.Blom,andK.Jones(2015),Oninfrasoundgeneratedbywindfarmsanditspropagationinlow-altitudetroposphericwave-guides,J.Geophys.Res.Atmos.,120,9855–9868,doi:10.1002/2014JD022821.20Memo,fromKenKaliski,P.E.,INCEBd.Cert.,RSGRichardLampeter,EpsilonAssociatestoRyanRumford,NextEraEnergyResources,December22,2016.21Ambrose,S.E.,Krogh,C.M.,Rand,R.W.,"WindTurbineAcousticInvestigation:InfrasoundandLow-FrequencyNoise--ACaseStudy",SAGEBulletinofScienceTechnology&Society201232:128.22Source,Pre-ConstructionNoiseImpactAssessmentfortheproposedCanisteoWindFarm,NYStateBoardonElectricGenerationSitingandtheEnvironmentCase16-F-0205,October23,2018.Figure3-3,GE2.5-116.

NONOISEREDUCTIONINLOWFREQUENCYRANGE.WTNOISEDOMINATEDBYLOWFREQUENCIES.

Ex K 1 - 31

120

a, 110 ~ ~ > QJ

...J ~

105 QJ

3 0

Cl..

"O C ::,

100 0 Vl

---Standard Blade 95 - - - • Low-noise Blade

90 16 32 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000

Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz)

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page32of37

8.17Threethingsareevidentfromthiscomparison:

• LNTEprovidesnonoisereductionbelow100Hzinthe16,31.5and63Hzoctavebands,

• thebulkofthewindturbinenoiseoutputislow-frequency,below200Hz,and• useofLNTEbladesshiftsthewindturbineacousticsignatureintolowerfrequencies,

thusanA-weightedpredictednoiselevelconsistsmoreoflowfrequencynoisethanforanon-LNTEturbine.

8.18Perceptionofnoisefromwindturbineswasdocumentedasoccurringsome10dBbelowambientsoundlevelsfromwindintrees[23],“Fromtheexperimentalresultsithasbeenobservedthatthemaskingthresholdoccurwhenthewindturbinenoiselevelisaround10dBlowerthantheambientsoundlevels.”Forexample,windnoisewouldhaveto55dBAtostarttomaskwindturbinenoiseat45dBA,anddoesnotassuremaskingofstronglowfrequencyperiodicwhumping.Nordoesambientwindnoisepreventwindturbinelow-frequencynoiseandpressurepulsationsfromimpingingon,penetratingandshakinghomes.

23Bolin,K.,"WindTurbineNoiseandNaturalSounds-Masking,PropagationandModeling",DoctoralThesis,RoyalInstituteofTechnology,Stockholm,Sweden,2009.

Ex K 1 - 32

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page33of37

ATTACHMENT9:BACKGROUND:WINDTURBINENOISE9.1Inthemid1980stheUSDepartmentofEnergy(Kelleyetal)foundthatlargewindturbinetechnology(2MW)producedstrongannoyanceasfarasseveralkilometersandpresentedthesefindinginpapersandtothewindindustry.Kelleyetalidentifiedimpulsepressurepulsationsatthebladepassfrequencywereconnectedto"transientstall"duringthebladepassageinfrontofthetower.Kellyetalalsoidentifiedlow-frequencynoiseasadominantfactorinannoyanceatneighborsmanythousandsoffeetaway(similartocomplaintsofthumpingandlowfrequencytonesinneighborhoodsnearlargerockconcerts).Thewindindustryquicklychangedreversedthebladedesignsothatthebladeswererotatinginfrontofthetowerratherthanbehind.Howeverthisdidnoteliminatethetransientstallimpulsepulsations,itonlyreducedthem(andsetupotherproblemsincluding,howtokeeptheturbinefacedintothewindand,preventingthebendingbladesfromstrikingthetower).Amoreeffectivewayofminimizingtheacousticpressureimpulsepulsationsandlowfrequencynoisewasneeded.9.2Inthemid1990sawindturbinenoisemeasurementstandardwasdeveloped(IEC61400-11)whichrequiredA-weightingfilteringonallmeasurements.A-weightingisusedforassessingspeechfrequenciesandhearinglossandfiltersoutlowfrequencynoise.Atthewindturbinebladepassfrequencyofaround1Hz,anA-weightedmicrophonesignalisattenuatedby-149dB,renderingitinvisibletotestingorlaterassessment.Similarlylowfrequencynoiseat10and20Hertz(arangewherehouseresonancesoccur)isattenuatedby-70and-50dB,respectively,almostimpossibletodetectorassess.AcomparisonoftheunweightedandA-weightedsoundpowerlevelsforamodernwindturbineshowshowmuchhasbeendeliberatelyhiddenbythewindindustrystandard:about99percentoftotalacousticpoweroutput.

VestasV90-3MW Unweighted(dB) A-weighted(dBA)SoundPowerLevel,dBre1pW 128.5dB 109.4dBA

Percentagetotalpower 100% 1%ItishardtoimagineacheaperandmoreeffectivewaytopreventunderstandingorproperassessmentofthelowfrequencyoutputofwindturbinesthantoA-weightthedata.C-weightinghasresponsewithin6dBat20Hzbelowwhichnoiseturnsfromaudiblesoundtosensation.C-weightingcoversabout1/4oftotalwindturbineacousticemissions.Thebulkoflargewindturbineacousticpoweroutputisinfrasonic(sensationrange).

Ex K 1 - 33

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page34of37

9.3Todate,distancehasprovedtheonlyreliablenoisecontroloptionavailableforwindturbines.Distancemustbescaledsufficientlytoturbinesizeandpoweroutputpriortopermit.Ifcomplaintsoccurduringoperation,theonlyreliablenoisecontroloptionavailableisshutdown.ThishasbeenconfirmedatmultiplesitesincludingFalmouth,Fairhaven,andKingston,Massachusetts,wheremunicipal-ownedturbineshavebeenshutdownatnightorpermanentlyshutdownundercourtorder.Inanapparentnodtowindturbinenoisecontroldeficiencies,regulatoryandoversightbodieshaveadoptedminimumdistancerequirementsforwindturbines,includingPoland,Bavaria,theCapeCodCommission,andmanyothers.9.4Itisworthnotingthatnooneisputtingaguntoanapplicant'sheadanddemandingtheyusewindturbinestogenerateelectricpower.Allotherelectricpowergenerationtechnologieshavenumerousnoisecontroloptions:enclosingnoisyequipmentinbuildings,insulatingbuildings,laggingpipingandductwork,installingairandgas-flowsilencers,erectingbarriers,andthelistgoeson.Whereaswindturbinefacilityapplicantshavevoluntarilyselectedadeficienttechnology:theonlyreliablenoisecontroloptionforwindturbinesissufficientsetbackdistancesetduringpermitting.9.5Incontrasttoallotherformsofpowergeneration,nuclear,gas,coal,oil,biomass,solar,andhydroasexamples:windturbinefacilitiesarenowelevatedhundredsoffeetintotheair.Windturbinesoperatemoreataircraftheightthangroundheight.Windturbinesmustremainexposedtothewind:additionalnoisecontrolatthesourceisnotpossible(confirmedbyVestasCEO,2011).Similarly,duetothetremendousheightofthewindturbinenoisesource,barrierwallsarenotfeasible.Andsimilarly,thepredominantlylowfrequencynoise

INFRASOUNDRANGE(SENSATION)BELOW

20HZ

LOWFREQUENCIES20-200HZ

Ex K 1 - 34

10

dB 0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50 _,

1

+ + + +

+ + + +

+ + + +

+ + ,­+

, , , ,

,.,

+ +­+­+-

+­+­+­+-

,, , ,

+-

+ + + +

+ + + +

+ + +

-Linear --- C-weighting •• •••• A-weighting

-1- ..

,

+­+­+-

+-

+-

,

t­

i­t­

i-

,, i, ,

I- -I­

I--1-

10

,, .. t

f I I IL __

t t +-+t+_:_

,, ,,, __ ...... - -­

I I

-•·· .. ····· .... ····· +--+----+-·•+-+-1-+--H----+----+--+-+-+-1-+" "' - .... ~•+· --+--+--+--+-<-+----+--+---+--+--+-+-+-+-< ------;•·••+---+-+--<'-+-+-++----+--+---+---<--+--++-H

t=:t +

H +.

l- '__ ••• 't--+---+--+-+-++-H----t--+---+-+-+-++-t-1 ---•·

.· ---

t :-~t-------+-----+---+-++t----+--+-+--+-+-+++I ~ --

--

100

Frequency, Hz

1000 10000

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page35of37

emittedbywindturbinesisnoteasilyreducedbyacousticcontrolsinhomes;lowfrequencynoiseand"whumpwhump"pulsationsfromwindturbinespenetrateandshakehomes.9.6Thissingle,inescapablenoisecontroldesigndeficiencyofwindturbinesseemstodrivetheentirecontentiouswindfacilitydesignandpermittingprocess.Windturbinehearingsaredominatedbyattorneys.Disturbingly,windsoundconsultantswhoareINCEmembersrequiredbyINCEMembershipto"holdparamountthesafety,healthandwelfareofthepublic"arenoticeablysilentaboutnoiseimpactsonpeople.Inthelastnineyearsreviewingdozensofapplications,I'mnotsureI'veseenasinglewindturbineapplicationassessfornoiseimpactonpeople.Duringapplicationhearings,windturbinesoundconsultantsprovidesoundlevelpredictions;nonoiseimpactassessment.Noiseimpactsonpeoplearehandledbypaidhealthconsultantswhoassertuniversallythattherewillbenoproblems.9.7Windindustryapplicationnoisesectionsthatdiscussregulatorynoiselimitsonly,andappeartoimplythatmeetingaregulatorynoiselimitwillpreventcomplaintsandannoyance,misleadregulators.9.8Windturbinetestingforbackgroundsoundlevelshasprovedproblematicwhereregulationsspecifyamaximumincreaseoverbackground.Ratherthandesignwithsufficientdistancetomeetregulatorylimits,windsoundconsultantshavebeenobservedobtainingsoundmeasurementsnearstreams,culverts,directlyundertrees,andonbusyroads-anythingtodrivethenumbersup.Manyreportshavelistedbackgroundsoundlevelsinthe40sdBA.Anytestsdoneforbackgroundmustbecarefullyscrutinizedunderstandingthattheprimarytaskofthewindsoundconsultantistoobtainthehighestreadingpossibleandminimizeapparentchangesinnoiselevel,ratherthancomplywithANSIstandardssuchasS12.100.

Ex K 1 - 35

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page36of37

SUPPLEMENT10:NEUTRALANALYSIS Asaneutralparty,mybackgroundisinpowergenerationnoisecontrol,communitynoiseimpactassessment,anddesigningtomeetregulationsandpreventcomplaints.IworkedforStone&WebsterfortenyearsintheNoiseandVibrationGroupandhavedesignedorreviewednoisecontrolsformostutility-scalepowertechnologiesandanumberofcommercialtechnologies.Ifsomeonewhodoesn'tknowmeandwhatIdolevelsthecharge"anti-wind",theyalsodon'tknowthatbythesamelogicthey'dhavetolabelme"anti-coal","anti-oil","anti-nuclear","anti-transformer",even"anti-backup-generator".Inmyfirm'sindependentprofessionalcapacity,thereisnoparticular"bias"orinterestinthebrandofpowergenerationbeinginvestigatedordesigned.Myfirm'sprofessionalworkisconsultationforthebestpossiblefacilitydesignensuringthatregulationsaremet,publicsafety, andwelfareareprotectedandcomplaintsareprevented.Theseareprofessionalethicsthatutility,commercialandcommunityclientshavecontractedfor.Therecommendationsandprofessionalcautionsmyfirmissuesarecarefullydevelopedfromyearsofpowergenerationexperienceandprofessionalinvestigations.Myfirm'sservicesandopinionsareusefulforutilities,regulatorsandcommunitiesalike.Iapprovetheuseofquiettechnologyandpropersiting.Withrespecttowindturbines,duetomaterialsanddesignlimitations(distancetheonlyreliablenoisecontroloption),noiselevelssuitablefromruraltourbanareasareconstrainedbyturbinesizeandoutput.Myexperienceofpowerutilitycommitmenttonoisepollutioncontrols:Powerutilityclientsovertheyearshavedemonstratedtheircommitmenttotheirshareholdersandtheiroperationsbyinvestinginnoisecontrolstopreventcomplaintsandlegalaction.Theshiftto"turnkey"systemssincethemid1990shasplacedgreaterburdenonproperspecifications.Emotionallycharged,unprofessionallabelscouldhaveundesiredeffectsofcoolingcustomerinterestinprofessionalservices.Deliberateslanderorlibelcoulddestroyfutureincome.Iamawareofworklostduetolibel.IconsiderthisaseriousmatterandexpectittobesofortheBoardsandcustomerswhoworkcooperativelywithnoiseimpactassessmentexpertstodeterminethebestactionsthatobservezoningobjectives,assurecompliancewithregulatorylimits,andmostofall,protectthesafety,healthandwelfareofthepublic.

Ex K 1 - 36

RandAcousticsreDeuelHarvestWindDocketEL18-053April1,2019Page37of37

SUPPLEMENT11:QUALIFICATIONSMr.RandisanindependentacousticinvestigatorandaMemberoftheInstituteofNoiseControlEngineers(INCE)since1993andaMemberoftheAcousticalSocietyofAmerica(ASA)withoverthirty-eightyearsofexperienceprovidingenvironmentalandtechnicalconsultingservicestopowergeneration,commerce,industry,andcommunities.Mr.Rand'sbreadthofexperienceingeneralacousticsincludesindustrialnoisecontrol,environmentalimpactassessment,interioracoustics,andelectro-acoustics,withtenyearsintheNoiseControlGroupatStone&WebsterEngineeringCorporation.Hehasconductedenvironmentalacousticanalyses;projectengineeringandcostanalyses,permittingreviews,acoustictesting,noisecontroldesignandcosting,andoperationsmonitoringactivitiesforpowergenerationandcommercialprojects.Hehasprovidedaprofessionalacousticconsultancytoindustry,commercial,regulatoryandcommunityclientssince1996.Mr.Rand'swindturbineexperiencespansthelasttenyearsfrom2009topresentdaywithinvestigationsandtestingofsoundandinfrasoundpressurepulsationsandcommunitynoiseimpactassessmentforindustrialwindturbinesatmultiplefacilities.Significanttestingreportedintheliteratureincludesindependentpeer-reviewedinvestigationsinFalmouth,MassachusettsinApril2011,andtheCooperativeMeasurementStudyinShirley,WisconsininDecember2012.Mr.Randisqualifiedtoopineon

havingunexpectedlyexperienced duringinvestigationsinFalmouth,MassachusettsinApril2011,whichtook

sometimeforrecovery.Unusualacousticcharacteristicsidentifiedduringthesurveyincludedrecurringbarometricpressureoscillationsoccurringatthebladepassfrequencyofthenearbyturbine,whichwerelargerinsidethehomeunderinvestigation.

ThebarometricoscillationsatthebladepassratewerefoundatShirleyaswellin2012.Mr.Randissusceptibletomotionsicknessandexperienced

duringinvestigationsatthreeotherindustrialwindturbinefacilities:HardscrabbleWindFacility,NewYork,July2012;VaderPietWindFacility,Aruba,October2012;andShirleyWindFacility,ShirleyWisconsin,December2012.Acopyofhisbiography,workhistory,caseswherehehasbeenacceptedasanexpertwitnessinthefieldofacoustics,andalistofpaperspublishedisavailableseparately.

Ex K 1 - 37