Is it at all possible for people to try and accept certain realities? Can we acknowledge that there are actually certain facts which exist?
Fact one, people can't agree on the facts
Fact two, because people who live in proximity to the turbines do not want them there, does not make them evil incarnate; neither does it make people who live in proximity to the turbines who do not find the turbines objectionable evil incarnate. Setting aside the proper "proximity, for which there probably is never going to be an agreed fact, being opposed to or supporting the turbines also does not make any person evil incarnate.
Fact three, the turbines are up, the turbines are operating (1/2 the time for the moment).
Fact four, even Einstein had a mistaken theory or two.
Fact five, the rules of logic are the same for any side of an issue.
Fact six, a swinging pendulum does just that, it swings.
Fact seven, of which there should be no dispute, the turbines make noise. The DEP study proves that. You want to move the argument along as to whether the noise generated is acceptable or not, fine. But they do make noise.
Fact eight, there are existing noise standards. You again may want to move the argument along as to whether the noise standards are acceptable or not, fine. But there standards.
Fact nine, there are laws, regulations, and administrative procedures.
Fact ten, believing you are right doesn't make you right. Moving that along, believing you have a right to do something, doesn't always make it the right thing to do.
I wouldn’t yet say we have a study that proves the turbines are creating noise. That’s the problem. Impatience has led to premature action and that will work against the town, in my opinion. The testing is preliminary and cut short and I doubt DEP would put their 100% on the results, to this point. So what else is there? Complaints? OK which ones?
ReplyDeleteNow we all understand why other power generation is under sole authority of the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board, because otherwise we would be lighting by candles this evening and only ones that could be endlessly proven not to cause harm harm. We could never build power plants, electric grid easements, gas easement, etc. They couldn’t even trim the trees if the minority had their way. It looks like the State is moving forward to take it out of our hands and our town will be their proof enough. Good old Fairhaven and Falmouth.
The nonsense arguments that it’s only about the money and being thrown under the bus will not work at the next level. Neither will crying, spitting in the face and threatening officials.
If the operator adjusts the “cut in” speed, and further testing shows 100% compliance, I am not aware of other facts that would trump. If the BOH locked themselves in a room and threatened to never come out, it won’t be enough. I suppose if town meeting was asked to pony up $2 million to remove them and compensate the operator for his trouble, that would work, but that is going to take quite a bit more spitting and crying…
I'd just like to point out that as John wrote, the turbines do make noise.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is whether the noise constitutes "noise pollution" per the regs/policy, or if it's a "nuisance."
These things need to be proven with data, and should be applied in a fashion that has been established by some precedent.
The important issues with the turbines is to look for what information is not being presented to the general public. There are two sides to every story and to have a story you need all the facts.
ReplyDeleteIn order to install the two Fairhaven turbines there must have been data available from the wind turbine manufacturer and engineering plans for noise and shadow flicker.
The acoustic (noise) study should have included analysis and addendum which conforms with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection noise regulation 310 CMR 7.10 and Mass DEP noise policy. This information would be required in the permit process.
During 2011 a local Cape Cod engineering firm completed site plans which included acoustic and shadow flicker studies. The plans were presented to the Fairhaven Town Planning Board. The acoustic study was part of the permitting process between the Town of Fairhaven and the wind turbine project. If the noise study did not conform with Mass DEP noise regulations the turbines would not have built.
So here are the facts today. The preliminary interim tests from Mass DEP show the turbines are out of compliance. The turbines have been shut off 12 hours a day.
At some point and time in the near future the public is going to want to look at the acoustic noise study and
addendum that was presented to the Fairhaven Planning Board.
The interim state study shows the turbines out of compliance so what is the next question ? Are the acoustic studies flawed or was the information provided by the wind manufacturer flawed ?
This now leaves the question of should these turbines been built in this location in the first place ?
The interim state study you reference shows the turbines were out of compliance some of the time, not all of the time. It shows noncompliance at specific time periods under specific wind conditions, not all of the time.
DeleteThose are the facts as exist at present.
Whether by agreement or court order, if I had to bet the farm, I would be betting those 12 hrs. are going to get cut by at least 1/2; and, the developers are going to be given the opportunity to run the turbines to prove compliance.
As to your last question, it is not the only question that is left after everything else.
Assume solely for the sake of argument that the answer is an unqualified no. Then what?
What is your solution to what is and how do we accomplish it?
Alternatively, assume solely for the sake of argument that the turbines, at those specific times found to have been out of compliance and under the specific conditions found can be brought into compliance. Then what?
The turbines were out of compliance at around twenty percent of the sample sites. My bet is an independent acoustic engineer in the future will find a much higher percentage. An independent acoustical engineer is going to place the noise data collection points where the noise complaints are the highest. The collection points will be on the side of the turbines where the noise is the loudest.
DeleteNow assume the wind turbines should not have been built at this location ,What now ?
You have a two fold problem : The Department of Environmental Protection Deputy Commissioner Martin Suuberg said :
"There is a different quality of noise generated by turbines."
In other words the state is aware of the problems with low frequency sound or the annoyance noise in addition to the regulated old state regulations.
The residents around the turbines are well versed in both types of noise .The Fairhaven turbines have international attention over the noise issues .
The future looks like there will be many Peer-reviewed scientific studies on the impacts of low frequency sound from commercial wind turbines. The state has already changed from Ad Hoc installations of megawatt turbines to setbacks of 2000 feet and who knows may go out to 2500 feet.
The residents living around the turbines seem to be happy with the 12 hour shut down every day . The town board of health voted for the 12 hour shut down.
I think the 12 hour shut down is reasonable.
The wind turbine contractor needs to go back to the wind turbine manufacturer and present the findings of the state. The manufacturer could make the changes to the turbine. The suggestions would be change the blades to smaller shorter blades or change to smaller Kilowatt turbines that don't have noise issue.
Let's look at it this way if you had a motorcycle that made too much noise would the town tell the owner just run it a little slower and people won't complain or would that make the owner replace the muffler.
The turbines need a mechanical/part change to comply with the state law or keep the turbines shut down 12 hours a day
That's ultimately the only two choices before along drag out through the Massachusetts court system for the next 5 to 8 years .
Everyone seems to be willing to ignore the fact the what the wind turbine contractor needs to do and what you/me/others want it to do are two separate things. The contractor need only do what the law and contract require, both of which, whether you accept it or not, allow for attempts at mitigation.
ReplyDeleteAs to your comment:
1. Who picks the independent acoustical engineer?
2. My personal level of confidence in our Town's Board of Health is exactly the same presently as it has been for some time. Draw from that exactly what you wish.
3. What you or I consider reasonable isn't going to determine the result. I personally think I am one of the most reasonable persons in the world. I doubt however that is universally accepted.
4. Seriously, you want to compare the solution to changing a muffler on a motorcycle?
5. You note: "Deputy Commissioner Martin Suuberg said:
'There is a different quality of noise generated by turbines.'
In other words the state is aware of the problems with low frequency sound or the annoyance noise in addition to the regulated old state regulations." The use of the phrase "in other words" is your interpretation. Is it noted somewhere that this is in fact the state's position? The S-T on Feb. 8, 2013 ran a story with that exact quote from him, and it is pretty clear from that story what he he was discussing. No need for anyone to explain what the man was saying, unless he is the one who wants to explain it.
6. The most recent peer reviewed study that has come out (earlier this month) would seem to indicate a real need for legitimate study, since it indicates there hasn't been any on the infrasound affects from turbines. (Google: ANZJPH Vibroacoustic Disease).
7. What is the basis for your suggestion that your choices are the only two choice?
Ultimately there are many choices that face all parties involved.
The basis for only two choices. One a mechanical/part change of blades/turbines or keep them off for 12 hours is this.
Delete1.The turbines exceed the Massachusetts DEP noise requirements which means that are too big and too loud and should never have built in this location. Permits should never have been granted.
2.The residents around the wind turbines have already paid a high price for lack of sleep and health issues resulting for well over a year and one half. Now it's time for the wind turbine contractor to pony up and make some real mechanical changes or keep the turbines off 12 hours a day.
In 2005 the state was aware of the two types of noise : The two types of noise are A. Regulatory compliance and B. Human annoyance., Aside from regulatory noise regulations residential homes must be taken into consideration .
Also in the 2005 study for the Fairhaven wind turbines it actually says there could be a problem with noise in some of the neighborhoods. The section and quote from that section is next.
Fairhaven Wind Turbine Feasibility Study 2005
http://register.masstech.org/Project%20Deliverables/Comm_Wind/Fairhaven/Fairhaven_Feasibility_Study.pdf
Section 5.6 page 17 Noise
Noise propagation should not be an issue for the prevailing winds (summer from the southwest to west and winter from the northwest), as they will blow toward the less populated coastal edge of the property. Noise may present a concern to be further studied during less frequent northeast winds, as
they would blow towards residences southeast of the site. These northeast winds are also more prevalent during the winter months, which coincide with limited foliage “barrier” of the deciduous trees. The positive aspect is, residences tend to be more closed in the colder months, and inhabitants
spend less time outside. The closest turbine on the northern parcel will be sited approximately 750 feet from the nearest residence and therefore, based on the distance and prevailing winds, it is likely it will not be audible or in a worst case minimally audible and not present noise interference issue.
The final design will specify the number of turbines, locations and noise performance characteristics
at which time conformance with the DEP Guideline and town zoning by-law will be examined further.
So there is no basis other than you personal opinion, which is fine; but that is all it is, an opinion.
DeleteLet's look at the record and go from there.
DeleteLets take another view of the wind turbines and what we do know. Let's look at the big picture.
The wind turbine contractor built four Sinovel 1.5 Megawatt turbines in Massachusetts . One in Charlestown for the MWRA, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority . Another in Scituate and two in Fairhaven.
Turbine #1 Charlestown, the turbine foundation sank in the ground breaking bolts off the foundation. The repair costs and down time over six months
Turbine # 2 & 3 Fairhaven - over 400 noise complaints.
Turbine # 4 Scituate - noise complaints residents appealing to state and federal officials.
To put it bluntly : Houston, We've got a problem
No one ever said wind turbines were going to be silent when operating. They are ALWAYS audible across the spectrum when running. In Fairhaven they only can be called “noise” if they violate:
Delete198-24. Good luck using this. Sorry.
198-29.5 D. (12) in the former bylaw. Greater than 60dB measured at nearest property line, unless the setback is greater than 600 feet. The turbines both exceed 600 feet so that regulation is moot on these two turbines. Sorry.
Mass DEP 310 CMR 7.00. Not a law, but a regulation. It’s OK to make audible sounds except for pure tones, which these turbines don’t, as long as the sound remains under 10dB over ambient. Then and only then does it become unwanted “noise”. Sorry again.
If the 3 or 4 times of actual measured “noise” can be corrected with cut in speed adjustment, then there is no more “noise”, only sounds. They don’t shut down uses emitting sounds you simply don’t want or else they would be in all your yards, parades and streets. Sorry once more.
There is also no Special Permit in hand on these turbines since the owner chose to exercise their State right to operate without one. One was issued, but returned unwanted. So sorry.
If they dont run we pay,its that simple.The contracts we signed are pretty clear,and since the noise problems have not been fully proven to be a health hazard they are free to spin.All the new changes to turbine regulations do not apply,the reg.they used to install an run them are not being violated.
ReplyDelete310 CMR 7.52 Enforcement Provisions
ReplyDelete"Any police department, fire department, board of health officials, or building inspector or his designee acting within his jurisdictional area is hereby authorized by the DEP to enforce, as provided in M.G.L. c. 111, S 142B, any regulation in which specific reference to 310 CMR 7.52 is cited."
Noise is defined in the Regulations as "...sound of sufficient intensity and/or duration as to cause or contribute to a condition of air pollution."
Local boards of health in Massachusetts are required by state statutes and regulations to perform many
important and crucial duties relative to the protection of public health, the control of disease, the
promotion of sanitary living conditions, and the protection of the environment from damage and
pollution. These requirements reflect the legislature’s understanding that many critical health problems
are best handled by the involvement of local community officials familiar with local conditions.
Nuisances: Investigate nuisances which in the board’s opinion may be injurious to health. The board
shall destroy, prevent or remove such nuisances, and shall make regulations relative to
nuisances. M.G.L. c.111, s.122.
Community Sound Level Criteria
A source of sound will be considered to be in compliance with the DEP noise regulation 310 CMR 7.10(1) if the source does not:
Increase the broadband sound level by more than 10 dB(A) above ambient, or
Produce a pure tone condition.
One cannot simply pick certain provisions of regulations while ignoring everything else contained in those regulations.
DeleteSkimming through the hundreds of pages of applicable DEP regs. one should be able to read provisions that would provide certain procedures, standards, and even rights applicable to the developer.
You also cannot ignore the fact that the agency which promulgated the regulations publicly stated enforcement isn't warranted. Perhaps this might just be because of one or few things contained within the entire code section that people continue to simply cherry pick their way through.
The powers to a local board of health are in fact broad, but are not limitless and are not without certain administrative requirements.
Some people feel everything done has been and is somehow magically beyond reproach. So be it.
Will our present Board of Health be so bold and wield its duly authorized power elsewhere to solve complaints in other sections of town?
Time will tell.
Fact eleven, tomorrow's another day. And in this little town it has the potential to be an interesting one, around 5:30.
ReplyDeleteFact twelve, Tuesday is election day. It's a good day to give our poll crews practice for the upcoming BOH retake. So even if you don't have a favorite Senate candidate, there's still good reason to go to the polls and vote. Be counted? Let's hope so this time.