Saturday, April 20, 2013

DPS Staff Comments regarding BP's PSS ~ Noise and Vibration

  
  Sec. 2.6.1 Setback Requirements and/or Recommendations- Applicant Specifications

"Noise studies should be conducted pursuant to Town of Cape 
Vincent Zoning Law Section 6.7 and any noise mitigation plans 
must be submitted along with the application."


2.19 Noise and Vibration (1001.19 Exhibit 19: Noise and Vibration) (pp.68-73)

1. The scope of studies should provide details including the criteria to be used for selection of background and ambient noise level measurement locations and identification of proposed sampling or measurement locations.

2. Tonal noise analysis mentioned at 2.19.1 (pg. 68) and 2.19.3 (at 5th bullet) should be performed for the proposed substation as well as for wind turbines. High voltage transformers are likely to exhibit tonal characteristics during operations. The scope should identify the analysis methodology, definitions and terminology, and applicable standards for performing the tonal characteristics analysis.

3. Noise analysis of wind turbines should be based on turbine model(s) selected for installation at the project. The PSS statements about turbine models being selected at some future time is problematic for modeling noise emissions, predicting tonal character, and making findings regarding probable environmental impacts. Staff recommends that CVWP provide additional information regarding its proposal for studying turbine and project impacts of unspecified turbine make or model and provide more complete characterization of the classes of turbines under consideration, the range of turbine make(s) and model(s) within those classes, and representative data to demonstrate that it‟s proposal is responsible and will result in credible record information. Staff recommends that follow-up discussions be planned to address this and related topics with interested parties in attendance before the applicant advances to final scoping or application phases.

4. The scope of Noise and Vibration studies should be revised to include:
(a) a glossary of terminology and abbreviations used, so there is no misunderstanding by reviewing agencies or parties; and,
(b) copies of any reference standards that will be relied upon in study methodologies.

5. The position stated in section 2.19.3 at the second bullet that, “there are no plans at this time to carry out a survey of background sound levels during summertime conditions” as per the regulations at 16 NYCRR 1001.19(b), (f)(2) and (f)(5), will require that the applicant request a waiver from the application requirements.

6. The PSS should be supplemented with a description of the scope and methodology that will be used to develop and perform the “evaluation of construction sound levels at potentially impacted and representative noise receptors” (Section 2.19.3, at third bullet). Describe how representative noise receptors will be selected and indicate specific representative receptors that may have already been selected or studied to support the application. This selection of representative noise receptor locations should include consideration of interested parties.

7. The PSS does not specifically address any intent to study or otherwise address low-frequency noise or vibration. Staff advises that the applicant should propose a scope of studies to demonstrate a responsible approach to analyzing potential health impacts of low-frequency sound and vibration, including a thorough literature review, analysis of background conditions, report on the current known state of scientific analysis ongoing
at the time of application, and provide an analysis of potential project effects in the project study area. Original study analyzing reported problems of low-frequency or infrasound and relation of problem locations to operating wind energy projects is recommended, including reporting on potential health effects.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Voters for Wind were more than willing to allow 50 Decibel. They went public with it in their wind law participation. Their suggesting was pulled from a green bag and was the same that Madden brought to the wind lease conflicted planning board. If such a sound level is forced upon our town and does not work out, hopefully the voters for wind and past wind lease holding officials who approved what now is some of Bee Pee's work will be held legally accountable. Remember that two town board conflicted wind lease holders tried to impeach Urban Hirschey because he released documents that showed hanky panky regarding the noise issue. Voters for
Wind were in on that one, too. If Bee Pee does steamroll our community the Cape will become one big gold mine for the legal profession. Perhaps someone should start a business in Cape Vincent serving claims.

Anonymous said...

Every agency commenting thus far has completely supported our town officials and committees. That should say something to the pro wind and the pro wind Democrats and Citizens for Fair Government who think they should take back the Cape and give it to British Petroleum.