On March 27, 2009, residents of Mars Hill living within 3600 feet of First Wind's wind facility filed a civil complaint in Maine's Superior Court seeking relief from the "significant harm" caused by First Wind and others by the construction and operation of the site. Medical professionals recognize the health problems related to the turbines at Mars Hill are valid.

The past two and one-half years have been a trying and difficult time for the families of Mars Hill and their decision to file the suit was not an easy one. But it is also clear to Windaction.org that the State of Maine has washed its hands of Mars Hill, placing its pursuit of wind energy development ahead of the health, welfare, and safety of its residents. And the State's continuing down this path in Roxbury, Maine.

Here's the history: Shortly before the Mars Hill wind project went online in March 2007, problems of intrusive sound levels were reported despite repeated assurances by developer, First Wind, and town officials that there would be no noise. Andrew Fisk of the Bureau of Land & Water Quality at the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME-DEP), the agency which approved the facility, responded by requiring First Wind to conduct sound surveys during four seasons of operation to determine whether the project was in compliance with its permit. The permit allows the project to produce nighttime noise levels of 50 decibels at sensitive receptors near the homes. Resource Systems Engineering (RSE), who designed and conducted the pre-construction noise modeling study for First Wind was also engaged to conduct the subsequent monitoring studies.

When RES delivered its first sound survey report in June 2007, the residents, and others, raised questions related to the protocols used. ME-DEP hired Warren Brown of EnRad Consulting to peer-review and validate the survey work. Mr. Brown identified problems with the methodology employed by RSE but determined the findings to date were still substantially in compliance with the permit conditions.

RSE implemented some adjustments and the last two surveys were conducted in winter and spring 2008. It was not until December 5, 2008 that Warren Brown issued his final report to the State; the families received their copy of Brown's report on December 17, 2008 one day prior to a face-to-face meeting scheduled between the Mars Hill residents, First Wind representatives and Andrew Fisk to discuss Brown's findings. Other attendees at the meeting included Richard James of E-Coustic Solutions , an acoustics engineer engaged by the families to help sort through the noise issues, and Lisa Linowes of Windaction.org.

Despite having only one day to review Brown's findings, the families were well aware that doubts about the project's compliance remained. Even in his vaguely worded report, it was apparent Brown still had concerns:

"It is the opinion of the reviewer that this 4th assessment of the project demonstrates compliance at nearly all bordering protected locations, except the protected location adjacent MP-8, as established in the Control of Noise rules and the variance given in Department Order L-21635-26-A-N/L-21365-TG-B-N, dated June 1, 2004. ...In instances where operation levels approach or exceed regulatory limits testing methodologies have not been sufficiently refined to adequately isolate operation sound levels."

And Rick James raised the point that RSE's sampling of turbine noise at 5 second intervals, outside the protocol defined under Maine State law which requires 1/8 of a second intervals, would mute, or even mask short duration repetitive sounds (thumping, whooshing, popping) generally accepted as a characteristic of all modern industrial wind turbines.

Despite these and other serious questions regarding the adequacy of the sound surveys, Fisk announced at the outset of the December 18 meeting that he had approved and mailed on that day, a letter to First Wind notifying the developer that the project was in compliance with its permit.

We disagree with Mr. Fisk.

And it's quite possible so does Mr. Brown. Meeting minutes taken during a March 5, 2009 conference call with Maine's Public Health Director Dr. Dora Mills, Andrew Fisk, Warren Brown and others reveals a very different situation. Here, Mr. Brown highlights concerns with existing studies and states "Wind turbine noise needs more investigation!" (exclamation included).

What's more intriguing from the meeting minutes are the statements by Dr. Mills who appears to be quarreling with Brown over whether turbine noise has any adverse health effects. While Mr. Brown is steadfast in raising his concerns, it is disconcerting to see how Dr. Mills carefully scripted her June 21 public comments after knowing what she was told just three months before.

Today we learned that the Record Hill wind energy facility in Roxbury Maine received conditional approval by the Maine DEP to proceed. Based on the brief glimpse afforded us by the meeting minutes, we can only guess what the internal debates were like within ME-DEP prior to ‘green-lighting' this project. What is obvious, however, is that Maine has picked its sides, and we can expect Roxbury to be a repeat of Mars Hill.

Back to top

The divide between wind energy proponents and those seeking to protect the health and welfare of individuals from the ill-effects of the towers is increasing.

News accounts are published almost daily from around the world highlighting the serious problems of turbine noise and related adverse health effects, yet wind proponents like Ryan Schryver of Clean Wisconsin insist such reports are the work of a small, but vocal minority of people hell-bent on keeping turbines out of their viewshed. In an interview with Wisconsin Public Radio's Joy Cardin, Schryver dismissed health and safety concerns as exaggerated and argued that the focus on the issue was merely a tactic by wind power opponents in Wisconsin to encumber future proposals.

Perhaps Mr. Schryver is unaware that the health problems reported are not limited to Wisconsin. Or worse, he may believe there is a worldwide underground effort to coordinate the voices of those harmed by the turbines. We hate to disappoint, but there is no grand conspiracy in the works. The fact is there are legitimate problems with turbines sited too close to where people live. And the failure of governmental permitting agencies to acknowledge and address the issues will not silence those seeking to protect their families and communities.

Back to top

Earlier this month, Dr. Michael A. Nissenbaum, a radiologist at the Northern Maine Medical Center, conducted interviews with fifteen people living near the industrial wind energy facility in Mars Hill, Maine. The purpose of the interviews was to investigate and record the health effects on those living within 3500-feet of industrial-scale turbines.

On March 25, 2009, Dr. Nissenbaum presented his preliminary findings before the Maine Medical Association. The data, which he characterized as alarming, suggest the residents are experiencing serious health problems related to shadow flicker and noise emissions from the turbines near their homes. The onset of symptoms including sleep disturbance, headaches, dizziness, weight changes, possible increases in blood pressure, as well as increased prescription medication use, all appear to coincide with the time when the turbines were first turned on (December 2006).

Every individual interviewed by Dr. Nissenbaum reported that his or her quality of life had been negatively affected by the turbines. The residents all expressed new or increased feelings of stress, anger, irritability, depression, anxiety, and hopelessness. Quotes cited in the presentation included "Nobody will help us", "No one cares", and "It's very hard watching my child suffer".

While some deficiencies exist in the study as Dr. Nissenbaum details in his presentation, aspects of his findings stand out as being immediately significant. In an interview with Windaction.org, Dr. Nissenbaum asserted "The results for sleep disturbance, headaches, anger, feelings of hopelessness, and incidence of depression symptomatology in this group are so high that despite the small number, and the lack of a control and tests of statistical significance, they jump out at physicians as obviously being significant. The statistical significance tests would just be confirmatory in this case - gilding the lily, if you will".

He added "I did not even get into the issue of the sixteen children who live there. The WHO (World Health Organization) has identified children, along with the elderly, as being particularly susceptible. This would require a fair amount of time, and special expertise, as children manifest in many ways besides, or instead of, simple sleep disturbance including disturbed learning, acting out, etc."

The Medical Staff of Northern Maine Medical Center released a statement in March 2009 calling for the careful siting of wind turbines. Dr. Nissenbaum included an excerpt from that statement in his presentation as follows: "The State of Maine has a vast, unpopulated hinterland. There is little need to site industrial wind developments in proximity to residential communities if there is a risk of negative health effects. Quality of life, quality of place, and a healthful environment should be the right of all residents of Maine, including those of the rural north".

On December 18, 2008, Andrew Fisk of Maine's Department of Environmental Protection informed the residents the State had sent a letter to First Wind stating the wind facility was “currently in compliance with the Control of Noise rules". The State of Maine has washed its hands of the problems of Mars Hill, leaving the families to suffer. 

Back to top

In the last ten years, wind industry representatives have successfully laid the groundwork for expedited project review and approval in many States in the US. Reaching out to legislators and State agency directors, the industry argued that existing laws governing siting of electric power plants were unduly onerous when applied to wind facilities. After all, operating wind turbines do not produce air emissions or use/discharge water, the basis for these stricter laws.

To allay concerns over shortened review periods, developers proactively worked with environmentalists and large landowners to help establish guidelines governing the siting of wind plants. The guidelines, or model ordinances, were then presented to State officials with assurances that if developers adhered to them, projects would be safe for residents living near the turbines and less impacting on the natural environment. Although the guidelines did not carry the weight of law, they also helped provide continuity for wind projects subject to local review at the town or county level.

In theory, this proactive teamwork could have worked. But all is not "green" roses.

Wind energy developers count on the fact that few people have "experienced" a wind energy facility and thus cannot imagine the enormity of the towers even from one-mile away. At the same time, these developers know that turbines operate at a noise level that far exceeds the background noise of the rural zones in which they're erected.

We need only look at a few of the 'guidelines' in place to understand how consistent these model ordinances are from state to state and in all cases skewed in favor of wind.

In Michigan, the State Task Force working under the Department of Labor and Economic Growth, recommended in its "Siting Guidelines for Wind Energy Systems" that noise limits be set at 55 dBA or L90 + 5 dBA, whichever is higher. The setback distance from the property is the height of the tower including the blade in the vertical position, which for most turbines today would be about 400-feet. 

In Wisconsin, the State Task Force recommended 50 dBA for noise levels and tower setbacks of 1000-feet from the wall of a residence. And in Pennsylvania, the model ordinance, which carried the Gamesa stamp of approval, set noise limits at 55 dBA outside the home and setbacks of 1.1x the height of the turbine as measured at the wall of an occupied building.

In a recent questionnaire submitted to wind developers by Union Township in Wisconsin, the respondents defended these specifications with statements like:

"Turbines are sited to have maximum sound level of 45dBA, well below levels causing physical harm. Medical books on sound indicate sound levels above 80-90dBA cause physical (health) effects. The possible effects to a person's health due to "annoyance" are impossible to study in a scientific way, as these are often mostly psychosomatic, and are not caused by wind turbines as much as the individuals' obsession with a new item in their environment."

Community noise experts Kamperman and James took issue with this and published a formal response to the questionnaire, highlighting major deficiencies in the wind developers' statements, including:

* The tone and context of the statement implies that 45 dBA is fully compatible with the quiet rural community setting.

* No acknowledgement is made of the dramatic change this will be for the noise environment of nearby families.

* No mention is made of how the wind facility, once in operation, will raise evening and nighttime background sound levels from the existing background levels of 20 to 30 dBA to 45 dBA.

* There is no disclosure of the considerable low frequency content of the wind turbine sound; in fact, there are often claims to the contrary.

* They fail to warn that the home construction techniques used for modern wood frame homes result in walls and roofs that cannot block out a wind turbine's low frequencies.

* They do not disclose that the International Standards Organization (ISO) in ISO 1996-1971 recommends 25 dBA as the maximum night-time limit for rural communities. Sound levels of 40
dBA and above are only appropriate in suburban communities during the day and urban communities during day and night. There are no communities where 45 dBA is considered acceptable at night.

* Making statements outside their area of competence, wind industry advocates, without medical qualifications, label complaints of health effects as "psychosomatic" in a pejorative manner that implies the complaints can be discounted because they are not "really medical" conditions. Such a response cannot be considered to be based in fact.

So how do these model ordinances pass the muster and get approved?

The "stakeholders" involved were largely wind energy proponents, environmentalists, and landowners who might see turbines on their land. A significant group of stakeholders, the residents of targeted communities, likely had no idea such meetings were happening. If these model ordinances were to be reconsidered, it's a certainty that many people would step up and make their thoughts known.

Windaction.org strongly encourages States to revisit their guidelines and model ordinances now that we have experience with the effects of turbines built close to where people live. But in a next go around, the guidelines must be grounded in science and empirical evidence and not on data provided by the very people financially and ideologically vested in the outcome. While everyone is interested in seeing renewable energy get built, no one has the right to harm the health, safety, and welfare of others.

Back to top

PPM Energy's Horse Creek Wind Farm proposal, now suspended while NY State officials evaluate the potential high bat mortality from the turbines, is the center of a sobering debate concerning preconstruction sound study reports. The proposed project consists of sixty-two industrial wind turbines spanning the towns of Clayton and Orleans in upstate New York. Over 1000 residents reside within the project's proposed footprint.

In January 2007, shortly after the Town of Clayton adopted its Wind Energy Facilities Ordinance (Local Law 1) governing placement of turbines in the town, PPM released its Noise Analysis report on the project prepared by Global engineering giant CH2M HILL. The report's summary states: "The facilities steady state noise levels are predicted to comply with the Town of Clayton's Wind Energy Facilities Ordinance limit of 50 dBA at offsite residences." It further adds "the facilities noise level may exceed the existing levels by 6 dBA at lower wind speeds but maintains compliance with the Town of Clayton's Wind Energy Facilities Ordinance limit of 50 dBA". New York State guidelines suggest that sound level increases over existing background should not exceed 6 dBA. 

Serious and substantial complaints filed by Clayton residents regarding possible excessive and harmful noise impacts from the turbines prompted the Planning Board to hire acoustic engineering firm Cavanaugh Tocci Associates (CTA) of Sudbury MA to evaluate the CH2M HILL report. CTA was specifically requested to "re-evaluate noise impact per NYSDEC guidelines and Town of Clayton Local Law 1 2007 Wind Energy Facilities".

The completed CTA report was received by Clayton officials, Town Supervisor Justin Taylor and Planning Board Chairman Roland Baril, on or around February 15, 2008 but never released to other Planning Board members or the public. Apparently, CTA's report was deemed "too complicated" for review. Three Freedom of Information requests were filed with the town, including one from the local newspaper, and all were denied. Clayton Supervisor Mr. Taylor announced through the Town's engineering consultants Bernier & Carr Associates that CTA's report was sent back with the request that an executive summary be provided to help explain CTA's findings. CTA complied and delivered a 2-page summary on August 25. This summary was again held by Taylor and Baril.

During the Oct 1 regular meeting of the Clayton Planning Board, Planning Board Chairman Baril informed the attending residents as well as the Planning Board that it was the recommendation of Bernier & Carr Associates that CTA's report again be refused as too technical for public review and that CTA's executive summary would be the ONLY document released to other Board members. Taxpayers were welcome to a copy of the summary via a Freedom of Information request submitted to the Clayton Town Clerk.

According to the CTA executive summary, there are serious problems with the methodology employed by CH2M HILL in conducting its noise analysis whereby estimated background sound levels were overestimated. CTA also makes clear that participating property owners, those who've entered into lease agreements with PPM, should update their real estate deeds to reflect noise easements. CTA is clear that noise emanating from the turbines, even if compliant with Clayton's Local Law 1, will affect future property owners who might occupy a dwelling.

The problem of Wind Turbine noise is becoming more pronounced as turbines are built close to where people live. Windaction.org is tracking noise issues in numerous locations including Mars Hill, ME, Lowville, NY, Brownsville, WI, McLean County, IL, and Blair County and Meyersdale, PA, in the UK and Canada. In each of these cases, the question of noise was either never raised prior to the towers being erected or the residents were informed there would be no issue. It's remarkable the lengths PPM and some Clayton officials are going to just to avoid the question. Denying a problem exists in the face of growing evidence is unproductive and will ultimately harm the wind industry and its proponents.

Update: At Clayton's town board meeting on Oct 8, Supervisor Justin Taylor announced the CTA report would now be released to the public.

Back to top

The State of New Hampshire, long recognized for respecting local governance, stepped over the bounds last month when the Governor signed into law HB 310, a statute oddly described as “allowing municipalities to regulate small wind energy systems”. In fact, the law is designed to deliberately remove authority from municipalities by establishing prohibitions on what a community can and cannot regulate.

HB 310 asserts that any “ordinances or regulations adopted by municipalities to regulate the installation and operation of small wind energy systems shall not unreasonably limit such installations or unreasonably hinder the performance of such installations”. The statute defines unreasonable limits as those including:

1) restricting tower heights through a generic ordinance that does not specifically address small wind energy systems.

2) establishing turbine setbacks from property lines larger than 1.5x the system height (tower plus blade).

3) defining noise level limits lower than 55 decibels, as measured at the property line, or not allowing for limit overages during utility outages and severe wind storms.

In an apparent attempt to show its “green” credentials, the State of New Hampshire demonstrated surprising ignorance of the facts and arrogance in its authority. Had the bill’s sponsors bothered to look, they would have found a large body of stories nationwide detailing cases where other States wrestled with small wind systems. 

Consider these four recent news reports: 

Coming soon to a neighbor near you, a 200-foot wind tower? 
 
Wind turbines found to cause sickness
 
Neighbor's windmill lowers property value, civil board rules 
 
Trees Block Solar Panels, and a Feud Ends in Court 

The last article tells the story of a California man who sued his neighbors because their redwoods cast shadows on his solar panels. The court found in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the trees cut. Similar wording in HB 310 could easily create similar unfortunate circumstances.
 
Windaction.org has no issue with small wind systems if properly regulated and the health, safety, and welfare of surrounding property owners protected. As written, the State failed to comprehend the implications of HB 310 at the peril of New Hampshire residents. But worse, the State’s actions portend comparable reckless efforts to force industrial-scale wind turbines on rural New Hampshire communities.

Back to top

Logan County, IL is conducting public hearings on the 67-turbine Rail Splitter wind facility proposed by Horizon Wind. During hearings last week, public testimony was presented by Ed and Nancy Knittle, a couple now living within the view shed of Horizon's massive 240-turbine Twin Grove site in neighboring McLean County.

Prior to building their new home, the Knittle's testified they were assured by Horizon (then Zilkha Renewable Energy) the turbines "wouldn't be a disturbance" and that no more than one turbine would be visible from their home.

Based on these assurances, the Knittles signed an easement agreement with the developer, purchased a house lot, and built their new home. The agreement offered the Knittles $1000 per year and in exchange, Horizon secured permission to create "audio, visual, view, light, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electromagnetic, ice or other weather created hazards or other effect of any kind whatsoever resulting directly or indirectly" from the turbines over the Knittle's property. A confidentiality clause prohibited disclosure of the terms of the agreement.

At the hearing last week, the Knittles spoke out. "We can hear turbines while brushing our teeth. And we see flickering lights on our fireplace. It's extremely upsetting. ...They [Horizon] never told us about blade flicker or red flashing lights ... it's devastating. ...We were falsely misguided. I tried to honor and respect the company and keep this confidential, but I just can't do it anymore." 

Back to top

Last August, DeWayne and Elaine Wilkie purchased a home in Jefferson County in upstate New York, moving back to the area of Mrs. Wilkie's youth. They decided to move for medical reasons, as the constant noise and attendant vibrations surrounding Mr. Wilkie in his former community, Fort Lauderdale, FL, might negatively affect the pace maker/defibrillator inserted in his chest.

The Wilkies learned only after moving into their new home that they lived within the Horse Creek Wind Energy project site, a wind farm proposed by Iberdrola/PPM. The 130 megawatt, 62 wind turbine project is slated to span 11,800 acres in the towns of Clayton and Orleans.

No one disclosed to the Wilkies that their new home would be surrounded by turbines. While feeling betrayed and financially limited in their options, the Wilkies have not faced their biggest fear-- and the fear of their doctors.

Mr. Wilkie's doctors consulted with electrophysiologist Dr. Osman, as Mr. Wilkie's medical report states : "[Dr. Osman] has concerns that low frequency noise range of these wind turbines could interfere with the proper functioning of Mr. Wilkie's AIC defibrillator leading to shutting down of the device".

The American Wind Energy Association dismisses the hazard, stating it "does not have scientific information to prove and establish that it [low-frequency noise] is a widespread problem".

Windaction.org asserts the comments by the electrophysiologist pertaining to Mr. Wilkie's pace maker cannot and should not be ignored. Without established legislation regarding wind turbine noise, vibration, and other possible turbine emissions, reviewing boards should take great care in determining setback distances between wind turbines and human occupied buildings. The town boards of Clayton and Orleans are now aware of Mr. Wilkie's situation. The question is whether they will knowingly allow the wind turbines to be sited within harms way and become life threatening to Mr. Wilkie and others like him.

Back to top

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and wind energy developers insist a modern wind facility at a distance of 1000 feet produces a sound no louder than a kitchen refrigerator. This comparison is recited over and over in public hearings throughout the U.S. and worldwide. The residents of Mars Hill, Maine have pages of documentation from UPC Wind highlighting the developer's assertion that the 42MW, 28-turbine facility would not produce noise.

Having now "lived" with the turbines for four full seasons of the year, the Mars Hill residents within 3000 feet of the turbines have a consistent refrain: "Noise is a real problem". Residents of Mars Hill recently submitted letters to the towns of Byron and Roxbury Maine, who were considering changes to their land use regulations to permit turbines.

• Todd Letter
• Fletcher Letter
• Boyd Letter
• Harris Letter
• Cowperthwaite Letter
• Burtchell Letter 

The developers proposing the Byron/Roxbury wind facility made similar statements to those of UPC Wind in Mars Hill ("Wind turbines are usually audible only within a few hundred feet." )

Windaction.org encourages everyone to read these letters, written by people who would have no reason to publicize their plight except to inform others who may learn from the mistakes made by the Mars Hill community.

In a recent press article, Paul Gaynor, CEO and president of UPC Wind stated: "I know there was an expectation [in Mars Hill] about what these were going to sound like. These are big structures and they do make sound." We wonder if Mr. Gaynor understands that it was UPC who set the expectation about sound. It is now time for Mr. Gaynor to accept responsibility for the problems at Mars Hill, to proactively resolve the issues and to speak publicly about the risks in building turbines too close to where people live.

Back to top

Several important studies pertaining to noise and utility-scale wind turbines are listed below. Others can by found on www.windaction.org by searching on the keyword 'noise'.

Health effects of wind turbine noise - Dr. Nina Pierpont, March 2006

The sound of high winds: the effect of atmospheric stability on wind turbine sound and microphone noise - G. P. van den Berg, May 2006

Wind Turbine Syndrome: Noise, shadow flicker, and health - Dr. Nina Pierpont, June 2006 (see pages 7-14 out of 20)

Location, Location, Location - The UK Noise Association, July 2006

Wind Turbines, Noise and Health - Dr. Amanda Harry, Feb 2007

Infrasound and low frequency noise dose responses: Contributions - Mariana Alves-Pereiraa and Nuno A. A. Castelo Branco, Aug 2007

Public health and noise exposure: the importance of low frequency noise - Mariana Alves-Pereiraa and Nuno A. A. Castelo Branco, Aug 2007

Wind Farm Noise and Regulations in the Eastern United States - Hilkat Soysal and Oguz Soysal, Sept 2007

Back to top