At the second wind committee workshop February 6, 2010, Bill Elliot of Cavanaugh Tocci gave a presentation about understanding what sound is and how it is perceived .
Additionally he explained that the methods Hessler , Acciona’s consultant was using to evaluate the turbine noise was problematic and would result in inaccurate results. Mr Elliot explained that Hessler uses a Regression analysis, the averaging of individual sound level positions to predict typical background sound .
The regression line method approximates typical conditions averaging together sound levels for all locations. This method results in levels at quieter locations exceeding NYSDEC recommended margins of 5dba (for a total post construction sound level 6dba higher than the pre- existing ambient ) nearly all the time , while at nosier locations sound levels will be compliant. Using the regression line method to predict noise - 50% of the time, it will over predict and 50% of the time it will under predict the sound levels.
Additionally, Kris Dimmick of Bernier Carr, added - We had concerns with Hessler's predictions when he said their predictions were anywhere from 1/2 as much to 2X as much as their prediction.
~~~~~~
Note: Cavanaugh Tocci Associates (CTA) has been firm in their criticism of using regression analysis to predict average background sound. Although the PB's attorney worked diligently to change CTA's critique, they remained firm up to this point in their contention that wind speed should not be a factor in the estimation of background sound levels.
Additionally Mr.Elliot said that they recommend ignoring wind speeds. If you use wind speed at met towers how does it relate to sound locations if its miles away and at different heights.
What was remarkable is that the members of the PB and members of this wind Committee who had both direct conflicts of interest (monetary compensation) and a bias toward the financial incentives, all viewed the recommendations of the town's consultant as just another competing viewpoint from an acoustic consultant, whose recommendation they all realized could reduce the number of turbines. There was never the feeling that PB members should rely on CTA's recommendations principally because they were hired to advise the PB. They always viewed them as an equivalent, the low-ball estimate. Their conflicts and bias toward the wind, projects undoubtedly fostered their view.
This workshop resulted in a decision concerning sound and setbacks for wind turbine zoning.
The decided requirements for turbines ~ that they be placed no closer than 2,500 feet south of Route 12E between the village and Clayton, and east from County Route 6; and no closer than 3,000 feet from the village boundaries .The turbines would not be allowed to raise the sound levels more than 8 decibels above the background noise at non-participating residents' property lines.
Eight of the 10 members of the Town Council, Planning Board and wind committee present agreed on the requirements. But the dissenters, Supervisor Urban C. Hirschey and Councilman Brooks J. Bragdon, viewed the sound requirement as not protective enough.
~~~~~
Beth A. White, a proponent of wind power in the town who served on the wind committee, said, "We carefully discussed each of these setbacks as a committee last year. I just think we already have enough restriction."
5 comments:
As always K., thanks for your incredible record keeping and documentation.
The Hessler sound study presentation to the Cape citizens was nothing more than a sales pitch for a faulty product.
Hessler claimed to be a sound expert. But no sound expert of good intent demeans people who are uncomfortable with noise around them, which is exactly what Hessler did when he tried to make us believe that there were few complaints about wind turbine noise.
I remember that he said of those who have complained, "Some people are just like that".
Key in all this is that those who sign wind lease agreements and good neighbor agreements sign away their rights to complain to the wind developer.
If you look at item 11 in the Draft Article X regulations for noise (p.66), notice the open door for Hessler and his windy ilk. Without detailed, protective specs, which the draft regulation lacks, then we are back to the battle of acoustic experts we've seen for the last six years.
Hessler and the wind industry will be promoting their own brand of fuzzy acoustic methods for measuring background sound in order to cram turbines up our pie hole. It is hard to know how all of this will go until it starts to go. The first of the Art. X applications will provide us with some insight into what it all means. Otherwise, we are all speculating, and by all I mean both communities and wind developers.
My comment does not diretly pertain to this post. But I am going to insert here anyway, because I believe to be timely and important. I made the same comment over on the JLL Blog earlier this morning.
The nature and purpose of a blog and the time and trouble to which the author goes to keep the blog up and fresh has become misunderstood with some.
The owner/authors (let me repeat that – the owners!) of Jefferson leaning Left and Pandora’s Box of Rocks have generously fostered discussion and invited opinions contrary to their own -- all very wisely and in the spirit of good honest dialogue.
But apparently it needs to be pointed out that you operate a blog to advocate for certain outcomes -- and that it is YOUR blog. The OWNERS are the AUTHORS and the AUTHORS are the OWNERS! They are not simply administrators of a wide open electronic community bulletin board. They have a purpose in maintaining these blogs. The voice (purpose) of the author of a blog is nothing to retreat from or apologize for.
Some people have mistakenly come to think of the local Cape Vincent blogs almost as public property with 1st Amendment rights and all. No. They try to be fair, of course, but you are perfectly free to be partisan and control your content to that end as you see fit. Blog owners are under no obligation to give space to a point of view that they consider to be reckless, unwise or false, or which undermine the purposes for which they get up in morning to get THEIR word out.
It is a free country (despite what some fringe dwellers suggest here). You can go to town meetings and ask to be recognized and speak. You can start your own blog where you can say (almost) whatever the hell you want . But nobody has any right or should have any expectation to have unrestricted access to a private platform owned and operated by someone else.
When you write a letter to the Watertown Daily Times, or any newspaper, they may print it or not as they see fit. It is no different for a blog owner. Blog owners print comments as a courtesy. The word “censorship” has no place here. A blog owner has the ultimate right , and responsibility, to control content.
Anon 9:24
Yup, right on and we all know who you are directing your comment to, for the most part. I appreciate JLL and Pandora for allowing my comments to be posted and if they remove any of my comments then my reaction is not outrage at the nerve of Rick and K, but to review what I said and to consider that maybe what I said was over the top and inconsiderate. We are all so fortunate for the dedication and passion of the Cape's foremost wind warriors.
Post a Comment