Recently the Wisconsin Public Service Commission rejected a wind project based on a noise study conducted at the Shirley
Wind farm.
Four consultants participated in the Shirley study. Hessler Associates, Dr.Paul Schomer,Bruce Walker and Rob Rand.
The Shirley Wind farm study demonstrated conclusive evidence that Low Frequency Noise (LFN) is a significant emission from industrial wind turbines.
In the direct testimony before the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Dr. Paul Schomer [1]said that it is fair to say that the range of acceptable noise limits of 33.5 dBA as recommended by me and 39.5dBA as recommended by Hessler for the Highland Project should be considered a target range for promoting the health and safety of Town residents and definitely should not be exceeded.
OFFICIAL FILING BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN
|
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF TOWN OF FOREST PAUL D.SCHOMER,
P.D. ON IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHIRLEY STUDY
|
Q. Please state your name, employer and business address.
A .Paul D. Schomer,
Schomer and Associates Inc., 2117 Robert Dr., Champaign, Illinois, 61821.
Q. Have you previously filed testimony in this docket?
A. Yes.
Q. what is the purpose of your testimony today?
A. The purpose of my testimony is to report findings of the
Shirley wind farm study that I performed with four (4) other acousticians which
was completed and signed by all the scientists on December 21, 2012.
Q. what was the purpose of that study?
A. The study was a collaborative effort funded by the PSC,
Forest Voice and the Town of forest to attempt to measure levels of infrasound
at the Shirley Wind Farm for the purpose of correlating health impacts
experienced by the three (3) Shirley families that have abandoned their homes and
to make recommendations to the PSC with respect to the implications of the
Highland Project.
Q. Are there similarities between the Shirley Wind Farm and
the Highland in project?
A. Yes. The most striking similarity is the fact that
Highland is proposing to use turbines very similar or identical to those
employed at Shirley, which have a generating capacity of about 2.5 MW.
Q. Why is the size of the wind turbine significant?
A. Recent studies have shown that as turbines grow larger,
the amount of sound and infrasound energy increases. In general, this increase
is a function of the turbine rotor diameter. In other words, the bigger the
turbine, the more energy that it generates, and coupled with increases in electrical
power generation are corresponding increases in the acoustic energies and a
lowering of the acoustic spectra. Attached as Exhibit 10 is a recent paper by
Moller and Pederson which documents this phenomena.
Q. Why is this significant?
A. Although the science is developing in this area with
respect to wind turbines, there is clear correlation between the infrasound
produced by wind turbines and the health effects experienced by people in the vicinity
of wind turbines – health effects such as nausea, headaches, dizziness, feeling
not well, drowsiness, fatigue and insomnia.
Q. What was your investigative approach for the Shirley
testing?
A. The first thing we did was agree to work on a
collaborative basis. Each of the acousticians brought a great deal of wind
turbine and general low – frequency noise expertise, including expertise in
health effects. We all found ourselves contributing significantly to a
collaborative approach on this complex topic. We all agreed that we would make
our best efforts to sign a joint report with as much consistency as possible so
the PS C would get a consensus rather than conflicting opinions.
Q. How were you able to work collaboratively?
A. Five consultants representing four firms worked together
performing the testing as Shirley from December 4 through December 7, 2012. It
became clear that two consultants, George Hessler on behalf of Hessler
Associates and I, were going to play a greater role than the others in making
recommendations with respect to the Highland project. George Hessler took the
lead in developing the main report that also includes appendices by each of the
four firms. This was and iterative process where George would send out drafts
to all the acousticians and we would make suggested changes until everyone was
in agreement.
Q. Was there a point at which you and the other acousticians
signed a document that was the full
extent of your evaluation, research and recommendations?
A. Yes. It is attached as Exhibit 11 that was finalized on
December 21, 2012. I considered it a final report subject to revision is new
information came to light.
Q. After signing this document, did anyone ask you to remove
or delete any information in the report?
A. Yes. I received an e-mail from Katie Nekola of Clean Wisconsin
requesting the acousticians to delete our reports because it contained
confidential information. See Exhibit 12.
Q. Did your report contain any confidential information?
A. No.
Q. Did you delete your report as requested?
A. No, I did not. Since it was a final document I had
already sent it to the other attorneys.
Q. After the report was signed, did anyone ask you to edit or
reject the recommendations made by you and George Hessler on the Highland
project?
A. No.
Q. Are you aware that Clean
Wisconsin requested that the Highland recommendations made by you and George
Hessler be deleted?
A. Yes, I am. I understand that Clean Wisconsin requested a
redaction of the Highland recommendation.
Q. Did you agree with this modification of the signed
report?
A. No.
Q. Are the opinions you expressed in the report the same
opinions you hold today with respect to the Highland project?
A. Yes.
Q. In the report it indicates that one of the firms is more
conservative than the other. Can you explain?
A. In the report, I am taking the more conservative stance
because of my belief that if the Highland project is approved as proposed, the
same problems that have occurred at Shirley will likely occur in the Town of
Forest. My work with infrasound in other contexts convinces me that this will
probably happen. I believe that George Hessler is less concerned because he has
not encountered problems like those in Shirley in other wind turbine project. I
think it is fair to say that the range of acceptable noise limits of 33.5 dBA
as recommended by me and 39.5 dBA as recommended by Hessler for the Highland
project should be considered a target Range for promoting the health and safety
of town residents and definitely should not be exceeded.
Q. When the study was conducted did you interview the
residence?
A. Yes. The two most significant things the residents told
us were as follows:
1.
The
direction and orientation of the wind turbines with respect to the home did not
noticeably change the adverse health effects experienced by residents, and
there was little to no change in the health effects experienced by a resident,
from one location in a house to another location in a house, and;
2.
Except the residents of the closest home, most
residents did not hear the turbines. Rather, they were able to sense when they
were on or off by the physical reactions of their bodies.
Q. why is this significant?
A. This is significant for two reasons.
First the residence found only small variations in the health affects the
experience with respect to their location in their house or any changes of
orientation or operation of the wind turbine itself, other than shutting down
or going to very low power. This indicates that the source of the problem is at
very low frequency – less than five Hz. Second, their response indicates that
they are experiencing physical effects caused by low – frequency infrasound –
not audible noise. This indicates that there is no “noise annoyance” that could
be a contributing factor to the health effects that they have experienced.
Q. Are there any attributes possessed by those
who suffer from the health effects of wind turbines from infrasound?
A. Yes. It appears that most individuals,
who are sensitive to infrasound, also suffer from motion sickness.
Q. How do symptoms of motion sickness
compared to the symptoms of individuals that suffer from the health effects caused
by low – frequency infrasound?
A. The symptoms from both seasickness and
infrasound are almost identical. Exhibit 13 compares the symptoms of seasickness
and low-frequency infrasound sickness from published literature, which are
strikingly similar. The only real difference is that the extent of the sickness
at sea can be so great that there is frequent vomiting, sweating, pallor, and
increase in salivation. So essential symptoms do not change, but the intensity
may differ. In addition to nausea and vomiting, the effects from both
seasickness and exposure to low frequency sound includes dizziness, headache,
drowsiness and, fatigue, and not feeling well.
Q. Did you confirm the presence of
low-frequency sound in the testing at the three residences?
A. Yes. The testing conclusively showed
very low- frequency infrasound beginning at the blade passage frequency of
about 0.5 to 0.7 Hz (more typically 0.7Hz) and harmonic tones at multiples of
0.7 Hz (i.e., 1.4, 2.1, 2.8,3.5,4.2, 4.9, etc.). The energies generally die
away above 8Hz.
Q. Why is this significant?
A.
Studies by the Navy, attached as Exhibit 14, show that accelerations below 1Hz
mark the onset of seasickness – like health problems. It is termed the
nauseogenic region. In this situation, the proposal for Highland is to use Nordex
N100 wind turbines, which would be identical to those in Shirley or to use a
quite similar alternate in the 2.5 MW range. Because of the size and rotational
speed of the wind turbines , which in the Highland and Shirley cases are among
the largest ever placed in residential areas , the lowest- frequencies
generated are down in the 0.5 to 0.7 Hz range, mainly 0.7 Hz . The important
point is that at 0.5 to 0.7 Hz, the turbines are going deep into the
nauseogenic region established by the Navy. It is these larger wind turbines
that were used at Shirley, and are proposed for use in Forest, that present the
greatest threat. Smaller turbines, generally with a smaller rotor diameter,
turn more quickly, and therefore produce higher frequency sounds that, from experience,
and from the data in the Navy report, should not cause the kinds of problems
encountered in Shirley.
Q. The joint report indicates that more
research at Shirley is needed. What do you recommend?
A. My first recommendation would be to seek
the cooperation of Duke Energy which has the ability to turn the turbans on and
off. This will help clearly identify the infrasound coming from the turbines
and should be used to test the assertion by the affected residents that they
can sense the turbines turning on and off.
Q. Is there any other research you feel is appropriate?
A. Yes. It would be relatively easy to
conduct an experiment by first exposing residents who are more sensitive to
wind turbine noise to low-frequency noise in a laboratory setting. If the
testing produces results that duplicate those found in Shirley then field
testing should be done using volunteers.
Q. Is it important that sound be heard for
it to be hazardous to your health?
A. No. Similar to the experiences at Shirley,
referred research by Dr. Alec N. Salt has established that infrasound can be
hazardous to your health whether it can be herd or not. (Exhibit15). Like at Shirley,
the low-frequency infrasound is “sensed” but not heard.
Q What are your final conclusions from your
study at Shirley and your knowledge of the design of the Highland Wind Farm?
A. It is my opinion that the residents
living near the Shirley project are experiencing the adverse health effects of very
low- frequency infrasound generated by the 2.5 MW turbans in the project. The
physical reactions to infrasound are well- known and have been occurring at
other low- frequency infra- sound sites since the 1980s or earlier, as I have
testified previously. It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty
that if the Highland project is approved as designed, it is very likely that a
significant number of nearby residents will suffer the same adverse health
problems as those in Shirley.
Q. Does this mean that the Applicant,
Emerging Energies is without any options to build a wind farm in the Town of
Forrest?
A. No, not at all. The sound levels that
George Hessler and I recommended in the final report can be achieved by using
smaller turbines which produces substantially less infrasound.
Q. Are all of your opinions given to a
reasonable degree of certainty?
A. Yes.
Schomer's findings in Cape Vincent contradict the studies done by Hessler Associates Inc.
5 comments:
All of this Wisconsin Highland Wind Farm testimony needs to become part of the Cape Vincent PSC's record.
BP will have a tough time dancing around all of this because their main-man Hessler was s part of the Highland condemnation party.
Give it up VFW, Trieste, Chandler and BP. The handwriting is on the NY PSC's wall thanks to our friends in Wisconsin.
Schomer says 33.5 dBA.
Hessler says 39.5 dBA.
Cape Vincent says 35 dBA.
What's unreasonably burdensome about the noise restriction in Cape Vincent's zoning law?
Answer: Nothing!
The Wisconsin study will only add more evidence to the pile that shows Cape Vincent's law is rational, reasonable and backed by good science.
BP will have a tough time tossing this part of the Cape's law.
No toss here.
We also have the sound gate papers that seem to show that the Edsall PB may not have been listening to their own experts....thus the wind developer friendly resolution.
6:18 Shomer says 33.5 db
Hessler says 39.5 db
Cape Vincent says 35 db
You left out the only one that matters in the end- What does Cuomo and his fascist siting board say?
Its not up to BP to toss any part of our law. Its up to the siting board, whose purpose and reason for being ,is to site industrial turbines in New York, not Wisconsin.
When will you understand who is in the drivers seat on this issue.
It is Andrew Cuomo, future presidential candidate, running on the dem. ticket promoting renewable energy for America.
As for Cuomo...it is always good to have a high ranking appointed person around a pet project who does not let ethics or love of thy neighbor get in the way of helping out his boss.
Post a Comment