 |
| Spruce Mountain...before (L. Ballweber photo) |
Spruce Mt. Wind neighbors complain of "aircraft"
sound
By ALISON ALOISIO
Jul 26, 2012 12:00 am
Woodstock property owners near the Spruce Mountain Wind
turbines – particularly camp owners on Shagg and Concord ponds - said at a
public informational meeting last week that noise from the towers is louder
than expected, because it carries over water and bounces off nearby hills.
Its effects, some said, include sleepless nights and
headaches, as well as general annoyance.
As for documenting the noise produced, one camp owner said
he was told by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection that there is
little hard data available from a noise-monitoring device maintained by the
wind project owners, because the wires were chewed through by mice.
The 10 towers on Spruce Mountain have been operational since
last December.
SMW’s state permit calls for noise limits of 55 decibels
during the day and 45 at night, at either the property boundary or 500 feet
from a residence (or "receptor").
Because Woodstock does not have a wind ordinance, a town
committee was established last year to craft an ordinance for townspeople to
consider to guide future wind projects.
The committee held a public informational and feedback
meeting last Thursday, to present information and receive comment. About 20
people attended.
Chairman Bob Elliott, noting that the committee was
considering a recommendation of a one-mile setback for properties near future
wind turbines, displayed a topographical map on which he had plotted a one-mile
distance from most of the existing towers.
The line ran through the middle of Shagg Pond.
Several people said based on their experiences, one mile was
not enough, at least not at the currently allowed decibel level. They likened
the sound to a passing aircraft.
A woman with a camp on Shagg Pond said that on the Friday
before July 4th holiday, “The noise was so horrific at my camp that I couldn’t
stay outside,” she said, saying she had suffered headaches. “It sounded like an
airplane that never left the top of my house.”
She added that she had driven five hours to attend the
meeting because “I love this town, and I don’t want to see this happen to
someone else.”
She said she was not formally notified of the pending
project because she was not an abutter.
Elliott also read several letters submitted by camp owners
and residents near the ponds.
Craig Urquhart, an electrical engineer who owns a camp on
Shagg Pond, said the sound resembled the low, deep rumble of a freight train in
combination with a passing jet aircraft.
He said that before the towers were built, when the review
process for the project was getting underway, “I read everything available,
including the noise propagation study, to prepare myself for the coming shift.
I am a retired paper mill electrical engineer, so technology is something I understand and appreciate.”
But when the turbines came online, he said, he felt
“discouraged.”
The noise has disturbed the tranquility of the pond, he
said, and while he said he must accept the project, he favors an ordinance to
provide protection in the future.
A homeowner near Shagg Pond, Eric Black, wrote that after
watching construction of the towers last fall, “It must have been one day in
late November or early December of 2011 that my wife and I were inside the
house and she asked me if I heard something.
After listening, I replied that it was a jet plane. We didn’t think much about it until
the next day when one of us heard what we thought was
another jet. But this time we kept listening and the noise never went
away. We realized it couldn’t be a jet
unless it was circling the area. We went
outside and listened. It was
constant. It took a few moments and then
it dawned on us that the sound was the wind turbines.
“Having lived with the turbines now for several months, it
has become clear that the noise is loudest to us when the turbines are faced
Northwest and the wind is coming from that direction. Our home is in that path and I guess that’s
why. The wind comes over the blades
directly toward us. What is most interesting
to me is that they seem
loudest on the calmer days.
That is, if the wind is barely existent, I can really hear them
roaring.”
Elliott said the committee had received more than a dozen
letters of concern about the impact of the project.
Monitor problems
Concord Pond resident Bob Moulton said he had requested data
from a permanent noise monitor placed near the turbines by SMW, in compliance
with a Department of Environmental Protection permit requirement.
According to DEP, the monitor is about 2,000 feet away from
the last turbine on SMW’s eastern property boundary, between the last two
turbines, a cluster of houses and Shagg Pond.
It was placed downwind of the turbines, in the direction of the
predominant wind.
But, Moulton said, he was told it had not been working
because a mouse chewed the wiring.
He also said SMW had applied to DEP to have the
permanent-monitor requirement removed, and be replaced by a plan to simply send
out an acoustical expert with a monitor in response to specific complaints.
After learning the current monitor was not functioning, on
July 15 Moulton requested DEP provide one at his home. A technician arrived
July 17.
“Somehow between Sunday and Tuesday, they determined the
wind and turbines would be identical to Sunday evening at 5:30,” he said. But
the noise during the test, said Moulton, “was not even close to what it was
Sunday,” and the measurement was within the required limits.
And, according to Moulton, the technician told him they
would not come back if they did not hear from anyone else.
Ordinance ideas
Elliott said the committee is considering an ordinance
requirement for future projects for an escrow account arrangement, to provide
funds for the town to hire its own independent experts and specialists for each
phase of the project, such as acoustical engineers, construction engineers,
geologists, or others as needed. The ordinance could also stipulate that
information from a wind company’s own monitor be provided to the town
periodically.
And given the feedback from property owners, he said, the
committee’s idea to use a one-mile setback would need to change, to either a
greater setback or lower decibel requirement, or a combination of the two.
The committee has been looking at ordinances, ranging from
less to more restrictive on decibel levels and setbacks, from other towns.
A straw poll conducted at the end of the meeting offered
choices of no ordinance (use state law only); moderate ordinance; mid-level
ordinance; and strict ordinance. Of 17 responses, 16 favored mid-level or
strict. Two comments favored taking terrain into account, and a 2-mile setback.
Elliott said he had joined the committee to prevent further
negative impacts on property owners.
“To me it’s unconscionable what’s happened to these folks,”
he said.
After the meeting Elliott said the committee is now working
on a second draft for an ordinance, “which we hope to have done by mid-August.
It will still need work. We'd like to have the finished product to the
Selectmen by the end of September, but finishing it
might take a little longer than that.”
Townspeople are expected to vote on it at the 2013 town
meeting.
The committee meets the second and fourth Tuesday of each
month at 6 p.m. at the town office.
DEP response
Dawn Hallowell, DEP’s Licensing & Compliance Manager for
the region, responded Friday to some of the issues discussed at the meeting:
“Earlier today, SMW withdrew its minor amendment application
to remove the condition for permanent sound monitoring at the facility. As such, SMW is still obligated to operate
and maintain the sound monitoring equipment per the Department’s permit.
“To set the record straight, the department hired
TechEnvironmental to investigate a complaint filed by Mr. Moulton on July
15. As required, SMW submitted the
complaint to the department, when I asked for the monitoring data SMW said it
could not provide it because a mouse had chewed through the wires. The department determined that in this instance it was appropriate to send its expert to Mr.
Moulton’s property (with his permission) to monitor sound under similar
conditions (which happened to occur July 17th).
SMW cooperated in that it provided TechEnvironmental with SCADA data for
both July 15 and July 17 so that TechEnvironmental could do an analysis. “TechEnvironmental wrote a report for the
Department analyzing the data and the sound monitoring it did on July 17 and
found that the project was operating in compliance with its permit.
The wind conditions on the ridge were slightly stronger on
the 17th than the 15th and the turbine data shows that they were
operating at a slightly greater power on the 17th. Wind was blowing in the same direction and
the conditions were favorable for the monitoring. The data was analyzed to omit for background
noises like barking dogs, construction crews and birds. And it was determined that the project is
operating in compliance with its permit (55 dBA during the day and 45 dBA at
night). There are no further planned
efforts to monitor sound other than the permanent sound monitor that SMW will
maintain.
“Testimony from noise experts at the Board of Environmental Protection’s hearings on Chapter 375 (10)(I) Noise Regulations http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/06/096/096c375.doc indicated that at distances greater than 1 mile, the sound
heard from the turbines will be in compliance with the regulations. Mr. Moulton’s camp is 1.5 miles away from the
turbines. Part of the reason the
department authorized the investigation was to see if the pond and terrain
could be reflecting sound, making it louder.
“As part of its mission to protect the environment, the
Department takes all complaints seriously.
There is a procedure in place to file an official complaint, the Hotline
number is 1-800-854-4990. SMW is
obligated to inform the department when it receives a complaint and provide the
Department with the data. The department
will determine what actions are necessary to follow up on that complaint.
“SMW’s annual compliance data indicates that the project is
operating in compliance. To date
investigation into the two complaints
filed have indicated that the project is operating in compliance. Considering
this information, the department will not require the placement of a second
sound monitoring device on Concord Pond.
(The first complaint was filed for Feb. 17 – 19 from a
residence near the project’s eastern property boundary and Shagg Pond
Road. The department hired its
consultant to review the data from that time period and determined that the
project was operating in compliance, according to Hallowell.)
SMW on the weather
As for the effect of weather conditions, in the conclusion
of SMW’s original project permit application to DEP, the applicants addressed
the subject in this way:
“Operation of the project may result in periodically audible
sound at receptor locations under certain operational and meteorological
conditions. Specifically, the project will be audible at the closest receptors
in relation to the project, when background sound levels are low, and wind
speeds are high enough for WTG operation on the ridgeline. Residents outside
their houses and with a direct line of sight to an operating WTG may hear a
gentle swooshing sound characteristic of wind energy projects. At more distant
receptor locations, during meteorological conditions favorable to sound
propagation and very quiet background ambient sound conditions, WTGs may be
periodically audible but will be well within the criteria limits to avoid the
potential for adverse noise impacts on public health and safety.”
No comments:
Post a Comment