Resource Documents: Noise (375 items)
Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.
Click here to send in ordinances, contracts, research, testimony, presentations, etc.
Author: Kouwen, Nicholas
This report outlines the findings of an informal wind turbine noise assessment at the Weaver residence at 7624 Wellington Road 12 just south of Arthur, ON, February‐March 2013.
The Weaver property abuts the 22.92 MW Conestogo Wind Farm in Mapleton Township near Arthur, ON. The wind farm consists of 9 Siemens AG2.3 MW IWT’s and 1 Siemens AG 2.221 MW wind turbine. A location diagram is located in Appendix A. The Weaver residence is shown as receptor 65 where the “worst case” IWT sound levels were predicted to be 39.2 dBA by the proponent.
The investigation suggests that the IWT generated noise does not comply with the MOE noise guidelines ~50% of the time and that SPLs are above the predicted “worst case” ~59% of the time.
A journal of the quality of life and health problems experienced by the occupants of the home is attached as Appendix B.
The equipment and methodology for the study is the same as that described in detail in my Grey Highlands 2012 Wind Turbine Noise Survey.
In the following part of the report, the results are paired for the two sites shown in Figures 1 & 2. Figure 1 shows the microphone location at the Weaver residence and Figure 2 shows the microphone location as a similar background site, approximately 10 km from the nearest IWT.
There are four separate comparisons:
- The time series of the A weighted sound pressure levels (SPLs) (dBA) along with the 10m wind speed in m/s and wind direction as well as ground wind speed.
- The A weighted SPL (dBA) covering all data versus 10 m wind speed.
- The A weighted SPL (dBA) versus 10 m wind speed for night time 1‐5 am only.
- The L50 versus 10m wind speed. Unweighted SPLs (dBZ) are also plotted.
In the following report, the MOE noise limits are those in NPC‐232 “Sound level limits for stationary sources in Class 1 & 2 Areas (Rural)”
When referring to the MOE protocol for determining compliance NPC‐103 “Compliance Protocol for Wind Turbine Noise” the methodology in this protocol is noted but is replaced by the more objective and workable approach adopted herein.
Author: Elma-Mornington Concerned Citizens
Invenergy is proposing to construct a wind turbine project in North Perth and Perth East southeast of Listowel. The project area is one of the best farming areas in Ontario as it is largely made up of Class 1 Agricultural land. The project area produces approximately 3% of Ontario dairy milk and also is home to intensive beef, pork and chicken operations. The impact of wind turbines on intensive agricultural operations and rural hamlets has not been given sufficient consideration in the REA process reviewing wind turbine projects and the Elma-Mornington Concerned Citizens have looked to the other nearby communities where turbines have been operating for some time to understand the impact.
The following report on the Ripley Wind Turbine project is part of this research process. It documents the situations and current status of 12 properties within the Ripley project area. The Ripley Wind Power Project began operation in December 2007. The project consists of 38 Enercon E82 wind turbines rated at 2 MW. The project also included approximately 26 kilometers of overhead collector lines and a sub-station located on Sideroad 25 south of Concession 6.
Prior to the construction of the wind turbines, this area of Huron-Kinloss Township southwest of the village of Ripley was largely used for cash cropping but also included a large beef operation and two horse farms. Both livestock operations are now gone.
Many homes had been separated from the adjoining farmland and sold as rural retreats or small hobby farms. Many of these homes are now vacant or demolished.
Property #1 – Concession 4 and Sideroad 25. House owned by Suncor/Acciona and now abandoned. Before the construction of the wind farm, this was the home farm for a family beef operation of about 500 head of cattle. Of those, approximately 200 head were located on this farm. When the operator could no longer live here, the operation closed.
Property #2 – Concession 2 and Sideroad 25. Before the wind turbine project was constructed, this house and barn were occupied by the son of owner of Property #1. The barn once housed 100 head of cattle. Property #2 was purchased by Suncor/Acciona and the house and barn where recently demolished. The only remaining sign of the former livestock operation is the OFA member tag on hydro pole and the 911 number lying in the grass.
Property #3 – Concession 2 between Sideroads 20 and 25. Before the construction of the wind project, this barn was leased by the owner of Property #1 for 200 head of cattle but it is now empty. Land owned by corporate farm operation. House to the right of the barn is separately owned.
Property #4 – Sideroad 30 at Concession 6. Former owner trained horses who were bothered by shadow flicker and turbine noise. Electrical issues documented as ‘House 3’ by Dr. Magda Havas and David Colling in September 2011 Bulletin of Science and Technology peer-reviewed article. House purchased by Suncor/Acciona and subsequently resold.
Property #5 – corner of Sideroad 30 and Concession 6. Owner is reportedly ill and has moved to Manitoba to farm. House is currently for sale.
Property #6 – Sideroad 30 north of Concession 6. Owners had health problems linked to electrical pollution that could not be totally resolved. House and farm purchased by a cash crop farmer. The house was severed from the farm and sold separately. The land was used for cash crops prior to the wind project and this use continues.
Property #7 – Concession 6 east of Sideroad 30. House owned by Suncor/Acciona and now abandoned as it cannot be sold. Previous owners trained horses that were bothered by shadow flicker and noise. House experienced electrical issues as well as excessive levels of noise measured at 74 dBA in master bedroom.
Property #8 – Concession 6 between Sideroads 25 and 30. House is located on a separate property from adjoining farmland. It was previously rented but family left due to health issues. The house is now vacant and for sale.
Property #9 – Concession 6 at Sideroad 25. House is on a separate property from adjoining farmland. House exposed to noise levels over 40 dDB from substation 1000 metres to the south. House owned by Suncor/Acciona and now abandoned.
Property #10 – Concession Road 6 east of Sideroad 25. Property owner is reporting health issues and testing show electrical contamination. Resolution is still to be determined.
Properties #11 and #12 – Concession Road 6 between Sideroads 20 and 25. Owners of two adjoining houses reporting are health problems. Preliminary assessment indicates problems with electrical contamination. Testing continues at these sites.
Impact on Leaseholders
The turbine locations were largely leased from non-resident owners of large areas of farmland. A few resident leaseholders continue to live in the area. Information from the community suggests that they are experiencing health problems but are not publicly disclosing these due to restrictive clauses in the turbine leases.
Leaseholder #1 – Concession 2 between Sideroads 20 and 25. This property is owned by a leaseholder who continues to occupy the house. Reports of health issues (including teenage daughter) are not confirmed due to restrictive clauses in the turbine leases. Contaminated hydro distribution lines terminate at this property.
Leaseholder #2 – Concession 4 between Sideroads 20 and 25. This property is also owned by a leaseholder. Problems with excessive infrasound are reported when winds are from the southeast and noise bounces off of barn and hits house. When this happens, the owners move to another house that they have in Paisley.
Impact of wind turbine sound on annoyance, self-reported sleep disturbance and psychological distress
Author: Bakker, R.H.; Pedersen, E.; van den Berg, G.P.; Stewart, R.E.; Lok, W.; and Bouma, J.
PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH: The present government in the Netherlands intends to realize a substantial growth of wind energy before 2020, both onshore and offshore. Wind turbines, when positioned in the neighborhood of residents may cause visual annoyance and noise annoyance. Studies on other environmental sound sources, such as railway, road traffic, industry and aircraft noise show that (long-term) exposure to sound can have negative effects other than annoyance from noise. This study aims to elucidate the relation between exposure to the sound of wind turbines and annoyance, self-reported sleep disturbance and psychological distress of people that live in their vicinity. Data were gathered by questionnaire that was sent by mail to a representative sample of residents of the Netherlands living in the vicinity of wind turbines
PRINCIPAL RESULTS: A dose-response relationship was found between immission levels of wind turbine sound and self-reported noise annoyance. Sound exposure was also related to sleep disturbance and psychological distress among those who reported that they could hear the sound, however not directly but with noise annoyance acting as a mediator. Respondents living in areas with other background sounds were less affected than respondents in quiet areas.
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS: People living in the vicinity of wind turbines are at risk of being annoyed by the noise, an adverse effect in itself. Noise annoyance in turn could lead to sleep disturbance and psychological distress. No direct effects of wind turbine noise on sleep disturbance or psychological stress has been demonstrated, which means that residents, who do not hear the sound, or do not feel disturbed, are not adversely affected.
Science of the Total Environment. 2012 May 15;425:42-51
Department of Applied Research in Care, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Halmstad University and Environmental Psychology, Department of Architecture and Built Environment, Lund University, Halmstad, Sweden
G.P. van den Berg
GGD Amsterdam Public Health Service, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Department of Community & Occupational Health, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Department of Health Care, Science shop, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Comparison between exposure-response relationships for wind turbine annoyance and annoyance due to other noise sources
Author: Janssen, Sabine; Vos, Henk; Eisses, Arno; and Pedersen, Eja
Surveys have shown that noise from wind turbines is perceived as annoying by a proportion of residents living in their vicinity, apparently at much lower noise levels than those inducing annoyance due to other environmental sources. The aim of the present study was to derive the exposure-response relationship between wind turbine noise exposure in L(den) and the expected percentage annoyed residents and to compare it to previously established relationships for industrial noise and transportation noise. In addition, the influence of several individual and situational factors was assessed. On the basis of available data from two surveys in Sweden (N=341, N=754) and one survey in the Netherlands (N=725), a relationship was derived for annoyance indoors and for annoyance outdoors at the dwelling. In comparison to other sources of environmental noise, annoyance due to wind turbine noise was found at relatively low noise exposure levels. Furthermore, annoyance was lower among residents who received economical benefit from wind turbines and higher among residents for whom the wind turbine was visible from the dwelling. Age and noise sensitivity had similar effects on annoyance to those found in research on annoyance by other sources.
J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Dec;130(6):3746-53
Sabine A. Janssen
Department of Urban Environment and Safety, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research, Delft, The Netherlands
Arno R. Eisses
Department of Acoustics and Sonar, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research, The Hague, The Netherlands
Ecology and Environmental Science, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden