randacousticsllc review harvest wind 190401 · 2019-04-30 · rand acoustics re deuel harvest wind...
TRANSCRIPT
RobertW.Rand,ASA,INCERANDACOUSTICS,LLC65MerePointRoadBrunswick,ME04011
E-mail:[email protected]: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