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.
Late last year, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC), the state's development agency for renewable energy, awarded a $474,340 grant to Mark Richey Woodworking and Design, Inc. of Newburyport MA, for the construction of a single 600KW (292-foot) industrial-scale wind turbine to be sited adjacent to the business.
Months later, in April 2008, the Town of Newburyport amended its zoning ordinance to allow wind turbines up to 400-feet tall with minimum setbacks of 150 feet from abutting property lines and 300-feet from residential zoning districts. The Richey turbine proposal was submitted to the town shortly thereafter and a special permit was approved in August paving the way for the turbine to be erected. The location of the turbine is 319-feet from the public pedestrian rail trail, 350-feet from heavily-traveled U.S. Route 1, and 800-feet from the nearest residence.
During the town's review hearing on the project, the developer addressed the risk of ice-shed as follows: "[the turbine] was a long way from the rail trail and if the ice did shed it would be directly below on the Richey property."
Wind turbine manufacturers disagree. According to GE Energy's Wind Application Engineering Group "wind energy production in cold climate provides the following formula for calculating a safe distance: 1.5 * (hub height + rotor diameter)". Based on this formula, the proposed turbine could fling ice 560-feet away, well into the area of the rail trail and traffic on Route 1. This e-mail characterizing ice-shed at the Searsburg, Vermont wind facility provides some insight into the problem. (Note: the turbines at Searsburg are 100-feet shorter than that planned for Newburyport).
Blade failure is another safety factor. Scott Larwood, who researched the history of turbine setbacks in California and the probabilities of rotor and blade failures, told Windaction.org that turbines slightly larger than the Richey tower should have a "safe" setback of 300 meters (987-feet). Turbine manufacturer, Vestas, writes in its Mechanical Operating and Maintenance Manual for the V90 3.0MW turbine that a "radius of 400m (1300 ft) from the turbine" is necessary to ensure safety.
Blade failures, fire, and turbine collapse do happen and turbine debris can fly considerable distances beyond the setbacks established in the Newburyport ordinance.
When Windaction.org confronted MTC on this issue, public information officer Emily Dahl replied: "Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust's goal is to support the installation of renewable energy projects and expansion of the clean energy industry in Massachusetts for a cleaner environment and stronger economy. The Trust evaluates projects at a high level and seeks to support projects that have a high likelihood of success and are deemed suitable by the communities in which they are located. The Trust is not a permitting agency; rather, permitting decisions for wind turbines are in the hands of each community."
Windaction.org has found a consistent pattern across the U.S. of small communities approving wind turbine proposals with little consideration, or apparent understanding, of the serious safety risks of erecting towers near public areas, rights-of-way, and residences. Windaction.org is particularly critical of MTC for its public advocacy in seeding projects like the Newburyport wind turbine while shirking responsibility for informing the communities of these risks.
(Note: The distances referenced in this editorial pertain to the risks of flying debris from operating turbines. Setbacks to mitigate for turbine noise, shadow flicker and visual impacts are not considered.)
Last month, Barrington, RI voters approved plans to fund and erect a $2.4 million wind turbine to power the local high school. Town leaders anticipate the 600 KW turbine to supply a substantial portion of the school's energy demand. Windaction.org tried to determine a cost breakdown, expected electric generation, and suggested payback period but documentation on the Town's website showed numbers to be inconsistent and difficult to reconcile. For example, documents put the turbine cost at $1.4 million installed with published annual capacity factors varying between 19% and 25%. Further, no wind studies were done to gauge whether the marginal area winds meshed with periods of high demand.
Financials aside, Windaction.org is most concern with the suggested placement of the turbine. According to published reports, the base of the 328-foot structure will be located roughly 200-feet from the high school building, between the football and baseball fields and at 500-feet (or less) from the nearest residence. Town reports justify the minimal setbacks with rhetoric like "In order to attract investment, this new industry cannot afford any failures so the machines have to be designed to meet extremely high safety standards and have thereby enjoyed an excellent safety record ..."
Windaction.org encourages Barrington residents to demand a more thorough investigation into the risks of placing turbines so close to where people gather. Turbine collapse, blade throw, ice drop, and fire are a few of the accidents reported in the US just in the last 10 months. See also: http://www.windaction.org/faqs/14347 . Turbine manufacturer Vestas recommends no less than 1,300-feet clearance for technicians. And noise is another important factor. The noise level of the 600 KW machine at hub height is 98 decibels, only slightly lower then the turbines installed at Mars Hill, ME.
Last month, Oregon's Occupational Safety and Health Division (OR-OSHA) released its report on the wind turbine collapse at the Klondike III wind facility that left one worker dead and another seriously injured. Oregon OSHA fined Siemens Power Generation Inc. $10,500 for safety violations and multiple errors in Seimens' training and procedures.
Now that safety problems have been identified at one site, it's reasonable to question whether similar deficiencies exist at other Seimens sites or even nationwide, regardless the companies involved. Windaction.org encourages each reader to send a copy of the OR-OSHA citation to your State OSHA office along with a list of wind projects proposed or under construction in that State. Recent press reports highlighting the lack of trained personal to work at wind sites warrants a pro-active stance by OSHA State offices.
Last Friday, a Vestas wind turbine in Denmark was caught on video blowing apart in high wind conditions. It's been reported that the braking system failed on the unit causing the blades to speed out of control.
In August 2007, a catastrophic failure at the Klondike III wind farm in Oregon killed one person and injured another. Preliminary reports found the turbine went into "over speed operation" before collapsing.
These failures were two of several in the last six months. Others include:
1) Fenner blade break (NY)
2) Turbine blade shredded (PA)
3) Turbine burns (Iowa)
4) Steelwinds wind farm disabled (NY)
5) Turbine collapse (UK)
Six months ago, Business Week published "The Dangers of Wind Power". The article opened with: "As wind turbines multiply around the globe, the number of dangerous accidents is also climbing, causing critics to question overall safety." As developers race to install turbines closer and closer to where people live, the cost of such accidents are certain to grow. Still, wind proponents continue to press for limited setbacks from residences.
A retired EMS pilot in Wisconsin was interviewed by the Calumet County ad hoc committee regarding emergency medical transport within the vicinity of industrial wind turbines. The pilot substantiates several warnings including:
Ms. Ann Younger-Crandall, program manager for ThedaStar Air Medical in Wisconsin indirectly confirmed some of these warning in her Dec 8, 2007 letter to the local paper, but ends with assurances that "no one in Calumet County should be denied air medical transport because of the construction of wind turbines within the county." Ms. Younger-Crandall's use of the word "should" is interesting, but unconvincing. As the pilot stated in his interview, "Do you want to be the one who has to tell the parents why their child is going to die? Because you can't fly into an area anymore to safely pick them up."
[ Structural Failure | South Dakota ]
[ Impact on People | Indiana ]
[ Impact on People | Indiana ]
[ Structural Failure | Germany ]
[ Structural Failure | Germany ]
[ Structural Failure | New York ]
[ Europe ]
[ Structural Failure | Illinois ]
[ Structural Failure | Illinois ]
[ Structural Failure | New York ]
[ Structural Failure | New York ]
[ Structural Failure | New York ]
[ Structural Failure | New York ]
[ Impact on Views | Impact on People | Massachusetts ]
