Response to Draft WEDG

The revisions to the Wind Energy Development Guidelines (WEDG) proposed by the Department of the Environment Community and Local Government have ignored the views and concerns expressed by CREWE and others in relation to the impact of wind energy developments on local communities. Although the public were only given two weeks in which to make their submissions in relation to the Focused Review of the Wind Energy Guidelines, the Department received a significant response from local communities, who raised genuine issues regarding WEDG06, particularly in relation to the issues of noise, shadow flicker and setback from dwellings. It is of concern that these submissions were not published, particularly given the lack of public confidence in the SEAIs oversight of the guideline review process. The lack of transparency in relation to the formulation of the draft WEDG is compounded by the failure to include the Best Practice Guidance to be contained in Appendix 1. In the interests of transparency and public interest we include the submission made by CREWE on the Focused Review of the Wind Energy Guidelines as part of this submission.

1. Key Objective The stated objective of the Draft WEDG is to achieve a balance between the protection of residential amenity and facilitating national renewable energy targets. This objective is readily achievable through the proper environmental assessment of all wind energy projects in compliance with the 1985 EIA Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, Directive 2003/35/EC, and Directive 2009/31/EC, now consolidated as Directive 2011/92/EU. The EIA Directive applies to all threshold wind farm projects in Ireland.

In terms of noise assessment, best practice on the assessment of noise requires consideration of the following issues: Sensitivity of location (e.g. existing land uses, Noise Management Areas, Quiet Areas); Existing noise level and predicted change in noise level; Character (tonal, impulsivity etc), duration, the number of occurrences and time of day of the noise that is likely to be generated; Absolute level and possible dose-response relationships e.g. health effects.

The draft WEDG propose an absolute limit for wind turbine noise. While this approach does offer some clarity on the maximum acceptable level of wind turbine noise, the application of a one size fits all limit to all environments, including Quiet Areas, without consideration of background noise levels, is in conflict with the objectives of the EIA Directive, which are to protect both the environment and the quality of life of individuals. 1|Page

The proposed application of an absolute noise limit for wind turbine noise, irrespective of background noise levels, is also in conflict with the EPA Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact Statements (2002).1 These statutory guidelines set: statutory criteria for the presentation of the characteristics of potential impacts These include an assessment of the magnitude and complexity of the impact of any development (p.23) including in the case of threshold wind farms, noise. It is internationally accepted that an increase of 5dB in background noise levels arising from any development is significant and may have the potential to have a substantial adverse impact.2 It is worth noting that in the case of Strategic Infrastructure, such as the proposed DART underground project, the following comment was made in relation to noise impact:3 The emphasis at night should be mainly on the pre-existing ambient levels outside peoples bedrooms. Internal noise ambient levels, at night, in many houses, both rural and suburban around Dublin are of the order of 18-25LA90, and even in daytime are not much higher. External levels of 32-35 LA90 are commonplace, in calm weather. Since the proposed fixed plant will operate for many years to come, it is very important that the noise due to the plant does not cause undue discomfort or any significant sleep disturbance. It is clear that due cognisance is to be taken of the existing ambient noise levels and that the increase in this is to be minimised. Our recommendation is that a maxiumum increase of 3dBA, on the lowest reoccurring LA90 5mins, should be the objective. [emphasis added] The draft WEDG fail to take due account of existing ambient noise levels. This inconsistency in approach in relation to wind energy projects, by contrast with comparable projects such as the DART underground project, must be addressed if a balance is to be achieved between protection of residential amenity and facilitating national renewable energy targets

2. Sound and Noise Noise is not simply an unwanted sound. As the UK Health Protection Agency has highlighted: noise is sound that is perceived as unwanted, annoying or disturbing.4 Contrary to the assertion in the draft WEDG that given the unwanted component it can have a strong subjective aspect there is a wealth of evidence outlining the noise characteristics, social and environmental factors that contribute to the perception of sound as noise, with obvious implications for human health.5
1 2

Available at http://www.epa.ie/pubs/advice/ea/guidelines/epa_guidelines_eis_2002.pdf. Tecnhical Advice Note Assessment of Noise, available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/343341/0114220.pdf. 3 A study of the Airborne Noise Aspects of the Proposed Dart Underground Railway Development , available at www.pleanala.ie/news/NA0005/Inspector's_Report.pdf. 4 UK Health Protection Agency, Environmental Noise and Health in the UK (2010). 5 See, for example, World Health Organization, Guidelines for Community Noise (1999); Stansfeld and Matheson, Noise pollution: non-auditory effects on health (British Medical Bulletin); National Academy of Engineering of the

2|Page

This issue was addressed by the Department of Healths Deputy Chief Medical Officer in her response to the Departments request for feedback on the targeted review of WEDG06 , with specific reference to the risk that industrial wind turbines pose for certain people. The Draft WEDG must take account of the Deputy Chief Medical Officers advice given by the Department of Health in relation to the: consistent cluster of symptoms related to wind turbine syndrome which occurs in a number of people in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines. There are specific risk factors for this syndrome and people with these risk factors experience symptoms. Given this assessment by one of the States chief public health experts, it is important that the Draft WEDG take seriously the objective health effects of wind turbines rather than treating peoples response to wind turbine noise as a subjective reaction to unwanted noise.

3. Wind Turbine Noise The Marshall Day Report highlighted the need to deal with the following special audible characteristics of wind turbine noise6, including: Amplitude modulation Impulsiveness Infrasound Low frequency noise Tonality The failure to include the Best Practice Guidance to be contained in Appendix 1 reflects the inadequacy of the Draft WEDG and prompts the need for a further round of public consultation to determine the public response to the environmental protection measures proposed in this guidance.

4. Setback We concur with the finding of the Marshall Day report that setback distance is not an appropriate approach to take solely as a means of noise control. As noted in the Draft WEDG setback distance is also required: in order to provide for other amenity considerations e.g. visual obtrusion.

Recent independent studies on the impact of wind turbines on property values confirm the on-theground experience of property auctioneers and valuers that wind turbines adversely impact property values.7
National Academies, Committee on Technology for a Quieter America, Technology for a Quieter America (Washington DC, 2010); van den Berg, Effects of wind turbine noise on people in Bowdler and Leventhall (eds) Wind Turbine Noise: How it is produced, propagated, measured and received (Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd, 2011); Driscoll, Stewart and Anderson Community Noise in Berger (ed) The Noise Manual (American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2003), pp.602-636; and Fields Effect of personal and situational variables on noise annoyance in residential areas (1993) 93(5) Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, pp.2753-2763. 6 Marshall Day, SEAI Report, p.111.

3|Page

The most recent independent study undertaken over a 12 year period by the London School of Economics (which is due to be published in March 2014)8 looked at over one million sales of properties within close proximity of 150 wind farm sites in England and Wales. The results of this survey confirm that homes within 2km of wind turbines will experience the greatest devaluation, on average 11%, but the study also finds that homes 4km from a wind farm site also experience a diminution in property value of 3%. The Marshall Day report highlighted that a significant number of the 550 submissions received during public consultation on the Wind Energy Guidelines Focused Review supported mandatory setbacks that were: generally significantly higher than the 500 m separation referenced in WEDG06 (p.99). Despite this, the draft WEDG have maintained a setback distance of 500m: because of the lack of correlation between separation distance and wind turbine sound levels. This approach is in conflict with the requirements of the EIA Directive, which as the EU Court of Justice confirmed in Case C-420/11, EU Jutta Lethv Republik sterreich the prevention of pecuniary damage, in so far as that damage is the direct economic consequence of the environmental effects of a public or private project, is covered by the objective of protection pursued by Directive 85/337. When considering setback, the Draft WEDG have failed to consider or assess the relationship between proximity to wind energy developments and diminution of residential amenity and property values. The draft WEDG also ignore the findings of the Marshall Day Report that setbacks: may be required for other reasons, such as occupational health and safety buffer zones (p.61). Separation distances are not only required to avoid adverse noise and shadow flicker impacts, but because of the enhanced safety risk arising from blade failure or turbine collapse. The throw distances of debris from a falling turbine can be confirmed by calculation, but debris is documented as travelling distances of over 1km. Evidence of the throw distance from the turbine collapse in Donegal in March 2013 should be considered in the context of appropriate setback distances, to ensure the public safety of those living in close proximity to wind energy developments.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2114216

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/10597785/Wind-farms-proven-to-cut-house-prices-by-11-says-LSEreport.html

4|Page

5. Absolute noise limit We acknowledge that an absolute noise limit is easier to understand and apply, but there is no evidence for the assertion in the draft WEDG that it is the most appropriate method to control noise impacts from wind energy developments in proximity to noise sensitive properties. As discussed above, the determination of the impact of any development, including a wind farm must be assessed with reference to pre-existing background noise levels, to determine the magnitude of impact that it will have. While CREWE supports the adoption of an upper noise limit, this must be relevant to the existing noise environment.

6. Noise Sensitive Properties The omission of commercial premises from the definition of noise sensitive properties in the draft WEDG needs to be addressed. In terms of areas of special amenity value, the 2002 END Directive 2002/49/EC requires measures to be put in place to protect the amenity value of Quiet Areas in Open Country. These areas, identified in the EPA and SWS Noise in Quiet Areas Report (2000),9 have not been considered in the draft WEDG.

7. Absolute noise limit chosen The adoption of an upper limit for wind turbine noise is appropriate and consistent with the approach adopted internationally for wind energy developments. CREWE also supports the application of a single appropriate upper limit for both day and night time noise, to protect residential amenity. However, the choice of a noise limit of 40dB LA90 10 min is questionable. As Dick Bowdler notes in his submission,10 this proposed limit is actually significantly higher than most other jurisdictions , contrary to the statement in the draft WEDG (p.7) that this proposed limit is in the lower end of the range of limits applied internationally. Furthermore, there is no basis for the assertion that the draft WEDG limit of 40dBA LA90 10 min : takes into account World Health Organisation findings in relation to night time noise. In fact, the use of the LA90 10 min indicator, which is adopted primarily in Commonwealth countries to measure wind turbine noise, cannot be compared to the LAeq based indicator used by the World Health Organization and most other EU member States for wind turbine noise unless the correct minus 2dB correction is made. To achieve an LA90 night noise level equivalent to the WHO night noise limit of 40dB would require a 38dB LA90 10 min limit.

10

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/research/land/EPA_noise_in_quiet_areas_ERTDI17_synthesis.pdf

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PublicConsultations/Submission s-WindEnergy/Unspecified/FileDownLoad,35130,en.pdf

5|Page

There is no evidence suggested or provided in either the Marshall Day report or the Draft WEDG to support the use of the LA90 indicator for the measurement of wind turbine noise. LA90 is essentially a determinate of the minimum noise level in the receiving environment and is commonly used to measure background noise or minimum environmental noise levels. As Marshall Day highlight in their report, the measured LA90 noise level reflects the noise level that is exceeded for 90% of the measurement survey period.

Neither is there any evidence that the 40dB LA90 10min limit meets WHO standards or provides reasonable protection for residential amenity. On the contrary, there is mounting evidence that the use of the LA90 10 min indicator may not be appropriate for the measurement wind turbine noise.1112 The AECOM Report for Defra on Wind Farm Noise (2011) confirms that there are few if any standards that set noise limits using this index. Additionally it is argued that because the LA90 10 min index focuses on the quietest periods in the measurement period it is relatively insensitive to rapid fluctuations in noise level where the noise varies rapidly over a short periods e.g. as with aerodynamic/amplitude modulation, and the impact of such characteristics can be underestimated using the LA90,t noise index [emphasis added].

This view is supported by the University of Salford Report on Health Impacts of Wind Turbines study which states (p.19) that: the LAeq, t index is more sensitive to the modulating (time varying) nature of WT noise).
11

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69222/pb-13584-windfarmnoise-statutory-nuisance.pdf 12 http://usir.salford.ac.uk/29183/1/HealthEffects_Final_IQ1-2013_20130410.pdf

6|Page

There is also sufficient evidence to show that wind turbine noise is more noticeable, annoying and disturbing than other industrial noise sources, such as rail, airway and road traffic noise due to its duration, modulation and low frequency noise content.13 As the most recent JRC and WHO report for European authorities14 notes (p.46) wind farms are among: a growing list of noise sources which fall into the scope of the END and may have a substantial health impact, but for which exposure reporting to the European Commission is not required. Health Impact studies in relation to the impact of wind turbine are currently being undertaken in Canada, Denmark, Germany, while a further study of low frequency noise from wind farms was recently announced in Australia. Research from the ongoing Japanese study into the health impact of wind turbines undertaken by Seong et al (2013)15 suggests that the most appropriate indicator to measure wind turbine noise in the context of health impact is the LAmax noise parameter. This is consistent with the approach suggested by the WHO (1999) for modulating noise sources. Specifically, as far back as 1999, the WHO Guidelines for Community Noise (1999) state (p.58) that: If the noise is not continuous, LAmax or SEL are used to indicate the probability of noise-induced awakenings. Effects have been observed at individual LAmax exposures of 45dB or less. Consequently, it is important to limit the number of noise events with a LAmax exceeding 45dB. Therefore, the guidelines should be based on a combination of values of 30dB LAeq, 8h and 45 dB LAmax. To protect sensitive persons, a still lower guideline value would be preferred when the background level is low. Sleep disturbance from intermittent noise events increases with the maximum noise level. Even if the total equivalent noise level is fairly low, a small number of noise events with a high maximum sound pressure level will affect sleep. Given the growing body of evidence in relation to the adverse impact of wind turbine noise16 the lack of any evidence-based approach in the draft WEDG to the setting or assessment of wind turbine noise limits is of concern.

13

See, for example, World Health Organization, Night Noise Guidelines for Europe (2009); Pedersen Health aspects associated with wind turbine noise - results from three field studies 59(1) Journal of Noise Control Engineering (2011) pp. 47-53; Pedersen et al Response to noise from modern wind farms in The Netherlands 126(2) Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (2009) pp. 634-643; Shepherd et al Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health-related quality of life 13(54) Noise and Health (2011) pp.333-339; Moeller and Pedersen Low-frequency noise from large turbines 129(6) Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (2011) pp. 3727-3744; Janssen et al A comparison between exposure-response relationships for wind turbine; Suter Noise and Its Effects, Administrative Conference of the United States, 1991; http://www.cfp.ca/content/59/5/473.full; BMJ 2012;344:e1527 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e1527 (published 8 March 2012). 14 http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/179117/Methodological-guidance-for-estimating-theburden-of-disease-from-environmental-noise-ver-2.pdf 15 http://docs.wind-watch.org/internoise-2013-0595.pdf 16 Bakker RH, Pedersen E, van den Berg GP, Stewart RD, Lok W, Bouma J. Impact of wind turbine sound on annoyance, self-reported sleep disturbance and psychological distress. Science of the Total Environment 2012 May 15;425:42-51; Janssen SA, Vos H, Eisses AR, Pedersen E. A comparison between exposure-response relationships for wind turbine annoyance and annoyance due to other sources. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2011; 130(6):3746-53; Krogh C, Gillis L, Kouwen N, Aramini J. WindVOiCe, a self-reporting survey: adverse health effects, industrial wind turbines, and the need for vigilance monitoring. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society

7|Page

8. Shadow Flicker Control We agree that no existing dwelling or other accepted property should have to endure shadow flicker. We accept that at distances greater than 10 rotor diameters, the potential for shadow flicker is extremely low in flat terrain, but this is not the case where wind turbines are sited on elevated hills and ridges. Incidences of shadow flicker are occurring at dwellings further than 10 rotor diameters from large turbines. This issue needs to be addressed in the draft WEDG. While modern wind turbines have the facility to reduce or stop turbine rotation when shadow flicker is likely to occur, these mechanisms are currently not being employed at many locations. Unless there is a mandatory provision in the draft WEDG to prevent shadow flicker from occurring at nearby homes, we believe that wind turbines will continue to cause considerable distress to those in close proximity to these developments.

Conclusion: Local communities will not accept a wind turbine noise limit that does not adequately measure the actual level of wind turbine noise experienced and which is wholly unrelated to their pre-existing noise environment. If the DOECLG is serious in its intent to strike a balance between protection of residential amenity and sustainable wind energy development, then it must address the shortcomings identified in the draft WEDG during the public consultation process and assure the public concerned that the setback distance applied to protect residential amenity is evidence based.

2011;31:334-9; Mller M, Pedersen C. Low frequency noise from large wind turbines. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 2010; Nissenbaum M, Aramini J, Hanning C. Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health. Noise & Health 2012 September-October;14:237-43; Nissenbaum M, Aramini J, Hanning C. Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines: a preliminary report. Proceedings of 10th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN), 2011, London, UK. Curran Associates, 2011; Pedersen E. Effects of wind turbine noise on humans. Proceedings of the Third International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Aalborg, Denmark, 17-19 June 2009; Pedersen E. Health aspects associated with wind turbine noise results from three field studies. Noise Control Engineering Journal 2011;59:4753; Pedersen E, Larsman P. The impact of visual factors on noise annoyance among people living in the vicinity of wind turbines. Journal of Environmental Psychology2008;28(4):37989; Pedersen E, Persson Waye K. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise a dose-response relationship. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 2004;116:346070; Pedersen E, Persson Waye K. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise a dose-response relationship. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 2004;116:346070; Pedersen E, Persson Waye K. Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and well-being in different living environments. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2007 Jul;64(7):480-6; Pedersen E, Persson Waye K. Wind turbines low level noise sources interfering with restoration? Environmental Research Letters 2008;3:015002; Pedersen E, van den Berg F, Bakker R, Bouma J. Can road traffic mask sound from wind turbines? Response to wind turbine sound at different levels of road traffic sound. Energy Policy 2010;38:2520-7; Phillips C. Properly interpreting the epidemiologic evidence about the health effects of industrial wind turbines on nearby residents. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 2011;31:303-8; Salt AN, Hullar TE. Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines. Hearing Research 2010; 268:1221; Salt A, Kaltenbach J. Infrasound from wind turbines could affect humans. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 2011;31:296303; Shepherd D, McBride D, Welch D, Dirks K, Hill E. Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health related quality of life. Noise & Health 2011;13:3339; van den Berg GP. Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound. Journal of Sound and Vibration 2003;277:95570; van den Berg G, Pedersen E, Bouma J, Bakker R. Project WINDFARMperception. Visual and acoustic impact of wind turbine farms on residents. FP62005-Science-and-Society-20. Specific support action project no 044628, 2008.

8|Page