Wind Concerns Ontario is a province-wide advocacy organization whose mission is to provide information on the potential impact of industrial-scale wind power generation on the economy, human health, and the natural environment.
The St. Thomas Times-Journal has reported that the Oneida First Nation in the London area of Ontario is not happy with the approval process for a wind power project that saw them left out of the consultation process entirely, while the Chicago-based power developer went to other First Nations, one as far away as north of Lake Superior, near the Manitoba border.
Oneida Chief Randall Phillips says the wind power approval process in Ontario is “not straight up” and is rife with flaws.
The First Nations that did lend their support to the Dutton Dunwich project claimed that they have few if any opportunities to participate in renewable energy projects, and that they saw the project as a way to enrich their community. Meanwhile, members of the First Nation that would be affected by the project were not even made aware it was being proposed.
The Ontario government, as the Crown, has a legal obligation to consult with Aboriginal peoples when it contemplates decisions that may adversely affect Aboriginal or treaty rights.
In 2014, the Fort William First Nation took legal action to show that both the wind power developer and Ontario had failed in their duty to consult over a proposed wind power project. The project was eventually not approved, for a variety of reasons, not least of which were First Nations concerns about consultation and environmental impact.
The “Strong Breeze” project by U.S. power developer Invenergy has gone through the formal application process and is now waiting for Renewable Energy Approval (REA) by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. #MOECC . A referendum held by the municipality showed that 84 percent of resident opposed the project but the Ontario government proceeded with the application-approval process anyway.
A Prince Edward County community group seeking a Judicial Review of decisions made by government to push forward an unwanted and unneeded wind power project has had all motions dismissed by an Ottawa court. They’re not stopping …
February 13, 2018
The County Coalition for Safe Appropriate Green Energy (CCSAGE-Naturally Green Inc.) last year filed for a Judicial Review of decisions behind the White Pines power project in Prince Edward County, and on the relationship between government and wind power developers.
Here is the latest news, from John Hirsch, CCSAGE director.
Status of CCSAGE Judicial Review Application
Asreaders may recall, CCSAGE filed motions at the Superior Court in Ottawa last June 14 and 15 regardingtheir Judicial Review Application. The motions sought to protect CCSAGE from costs, and to compel the government agencies to produce the records of their decisions regarding the approval of wpd White Pines and the transmission lines. A motion was filed by OEB regarding their removal from the case.
In his decision on these Motions, issued on January 9, 2018, Justice Labrosse essentially denied all ofCCSAGE’s requests but did allow OEB to be removed from the case.
CCSAGE has studied Justice Labrosse’s decisions and found them to contain numerous errors and misunderstandings.
Consequently,CCSAGE is appealing all the negative decisions to the Divisional court.The appeal is in the form of a “Notice of Motion to Vary”.
CCSAGE believes their arguments are sound and thatthe Judicial Review application is more important than ever.
Of special interest to Wind Concerns Ontario members, Ontario’s rural residents, and rural communities is the statement by Mr. Justice Marc Labrosse that the motion to have the case proceed as a matter of “general interest” was denied because — you won’t believe this — “It appears that the GEA and REA process have taken their place in this province without significant opposition throughout rural Ontario. I am left to infer that this is a local issue in Prince Edward County and that it is not of general importance.”
A “local issue”? The facts are:
almost every single wind power project in Ontario since 2009 (and some before that) faced an appeal by members of the ‘host” community
116 Ontario municipalities, or about one-quarter of the total, have passed resolutions at Council demanding a return of the local land-use planning powers that were stripped by the Green Energy Act
More than 90 Ontario municipalities have officially designated themselves “unwilling hosts” to wind power projects
Several municipalities have engaged in legal battles with the government and wind power developers to retain rights under the Municipal Act, in order to protect their citizens
Several academic articles appearing in peer-reviewed journals (Stewart Fast et al, 2016) have noted the Ontario government’s failure to respond to community concerns over wind power projects
Wind Concerns Ontario is a coalition with about 30 member community groups and hundreds of individual and family members, that has been active since 2009
This decision, and the various machinations of the parties involved, can be seen in no other way but an attempt to see that once again, justice is denied to Ontario’s rural citizens.
Of course, one expects there to be a certain amount of upset when a community is in the midst of construction, especially such a huge project as the (unwanted, unneeded) wind power project on Amherst Island.
But residents there are deeply concerned over unscheduled road closures, road blockages and more. On Tuesday, a resident reports, roads were closed so that people could not leave their properties at all—questions were raised about access by emergency vehicles, should they have been needed.
In a recent report by Global News, residents state that unscheduled road closures have meant missed ferry trips to the mainland, but there is more. The local mayor says the wind power developer is actually out of compliance with agreements and contract conditions.
Loyalist Township Mayor Bill Lowry says he’s exhausted and frustrated that promises that were made to the municipality have been broken. He says residents are voicing their concerns to council but their patience is running out.
“How long do we have to take this, how long does the island have to take this? It’s been far too long, we’ve been three months of being out of compliance,” Lowry, told Global News.
“I’m in communication last week and this week with the IESO, which is the Independent Electricity System Operations, which are basically responsible for the construction of these energy projects. I’m so frustrated with the province in the fact that they don’t have a ministry that’s coming to our aid.”
In a statement to CKWS News, Windlectric Inc. says in part, “there is an agreed upon Operations Plan that sets out how to best build the project in a way that is minimally disruptive for area residents. Our goal is for all aspects of the project to run smoothly.”
Where is the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change? Where is the IESO? Where is the Ontario Ministry of Labour?
Where are the government assurances of a better, safe environment for the people of Amherst Island?
“Black Water” in wells in nearby North Kent has residents concerned about water safety and wind turbine construction. The lesson from Walkerton is that the MOECC is responsible for water quality, they say
February 5, 2018
Citizens’ group Water Wells First is calling the Ontario government decision to allow temporary water tanks to be removed from North Kent homes without water supply is “cold-blooded.”
Last week, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) informed residents that the results of the Ministry’s own testing of the water that is so sediment-laden some samples appear black, showed that water quality has “deteriorated” but that there is no association with wind turbine construction and pile driving.
“It’s a strong arm tactic,” said Water Wells First Kevin Jakubec at a news conference held this afternoon at one local farm that has been without water for months.
Residents in nearby Wallaceburg are extremely concerned as the proposed Otter Creek wind power project will be on the same Kettle Point Black Shale geology as the North Kent project.
“The Ministry response to the damaged well in North Kent is not good enough,” says Violet Towell, spokesperson for community group Wallaceburg Area Wind Concerns. “The deterioration of water quality in these wells didn’t just happen. As Mr Justice O’Connor confirmed in his 2002 report on the Walkerton water tragedy, the MOECC has responsibility for ensuring a safe water supply in Ontario — they should not stop investigating until they find out what is going on here.”
The Wallaceburg group says that the Otter Creek project should not receive a Renewable Energy Approval until the well water situation in North Kent is “thoroughly investigated and resolved,” says Towell.
It is a condition of Renewable Energy Approvals that “adverse effects” must be prevented; these are described in the Environmental Prevention Act, Section 1 (1) and include “adverse effect on the health of any person,” “impairment of the safety of any person,” “rendering any property or plant or animal unfit for human use,” and “loss of enjoyment of the normal use of property.”
There were so many people attending the hearing at the Ontario Superior Court in Belleville Monday that there was a half-hour delay in the proceedings so a larger courtroom could be found.
That was just the beginning of the changes that day, as the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC) took on the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) over its awarding a new contract to Germany-based wind power developer wpd Canada and the White Pines project. The power project was diminished from 29 to 27 then nine turbines in various citizens’ appeals, and it was thought since the power developer had not only missed all its milestones stipulated in the contract it also now failed to meet the 75% of power required, the contract might be null and void.
That’s where things changed.
The public has “no right” to know what’s in multi-billion-dollar contracts that are the result of public policy. Not in Ontario. Not where “wind is green, wind is good” and citizens’ voices don’t matter, nor do communities, or democracy. No: instead, the IESO simply cut the developer a new contract. And the public? You have “no right” to know anything.
Our favourite quote of the day came from APPEC lawyer Eric Gillespie who said, “The contract [for White Pines] was made public, but some pretty important changes weren’t.”
Here is a formal report by APPEC.
APPEC Report on
APPEC v. IESO and WPD
Belleville Superior Court
January 29, 2018
Mr. Justice Kershman presided over the hearing of final submissions at the Belleville Courthouse. The turn-out was excellent with Mayor Quaiff, Councillor Ferguson, Wind Concerns Ontario President Jane Wilson and about 75 County residents attending. In fact, the Court Clerk was forced to find a larger courtroom to accommodate the crowd.
APPEC Final Submissions
Eric Gillespie began by pointing out that this case raises broader public policy issues of access of information from the IESO. On June 12, 2017 APPEC contacted the IESO for information about the status of WPD’s FIT contract. The IESO indicated in its reply that it could not disclose this information, citing confidentiality. Mr. Gillespie argued that this information should have been disclosed for the following reasons: (1) the IESO describes the FIT program as a standardized, open and fair process; (2) APPEC and Ontario communities are affected by the FIT Program; and (3) the information APPEC was seeking, and the IESO withheld, could not have been confidential at all as it was ultimately disclosed to the Court in November 2017.
Mr. Gillespie clarified that contrary to what the IESO contends, this is not about how to interpret clauses in the FIT contract. The clauses are negligent misrepresentation, in that APPEC was led to believe that the generation capacity of the White Pines project could not go below 75% of the generation contracted for in 2010, when the FIT contract was signed. The central issue for APPEC is that information that became known to the IESO was not made publicly available. The IESO had a choice, when it became clear that WPD could not meet the 75% condition in the contract. It could have said that things had changed, that WPD’s FIT contract would need to be amended, that WPD was in default of contractual milestone dates, etc. Mr. Gillespie noted that it’s what the IESO and WPD did with their choices that has brought us here today. WPD’s first public announcement that it was proceeding with the 9-turbine project was September 21, 2017. The IESO informed Councillor Ferguson that it had agreed to amend the FIT contract on October 12, 2017. APPEC only obtained the information it had sought in June when the IESO disclosed it to the Court on November 30.
IESO and WPD Closing Submissions and APPEC’s Reply
Alan Mark, IESO’s legal counsel, criticized APPEC’s “assumption” that it has some right to insert itself into the contractual relationship between the IESO and WPD. Mr. Mark stated that any rights are owed exclusively to WPD, the IESO’s contractual partner; there’s nothing in the statutory framework that gives APPEC “the right to anything”. Mr. Mark went on to suggest that a contract is just a statement at a point in time with no guarantee that it won’t change in the future and members of the public don’t need to know about that either. Mr. Mark added that “with all respect to APPEC, APPEC is just made up of members of the public that feel strongly about wind power projects.”
Mr. Mark indicated that the IESO has made no representations to APPEC at any time, so it could not have made a negligent representation. When Judge Kershman asked whether APPEC’s allegation is that the IESO made a representation in 2010 that the Project would not be able to proceed if the project’s generation capacity fell below 75%, Mr. Mark responded that this isn’t the case APPEC is making.
Mr. Mark noted a statement in the Skypower Decision that the FIT contract is a bilateral commercial contract between two parties. Mr. Gillespie noted that in the same Skypower Decision, Judge Nordheimer rejects this characterization of the FIT program, and says that the suggestion that this is a commercial nature entirely and not a matter of public policy is fictional.
Mr. Mark said that APPEC had all the information it needed and ignored this information at its peril. In reply, Mr. Gillespie asked why APPEC would base its ERT appeal rights on a complete unknown, i.e., would the IESO amend the FIT contract, or not?
Patrick Duffy, legal counsel for WPD, also took up the argument that APPEC had no right to insert itself into the contract between the IESO and WPD. Mr. Gillespie replied that if that was so, then why did the IESO make FIT contracts available on its website for public viewing in the first place? Mr. Duffy stated that the terms “open” and “transparent” only apply to FIT Program Applicants, not to members of the public to which Mr. Gillespie replied that we still have not been told what there was about the information APPEC sought that was privileged. Mr. Duffy noted that FIPPA (Freedom of Information and Privacy Act) is the law that applies to disclosure. However, Judge Kershnan reminded Mr. Duffy that Mr. Gillespie had already noted in his submissions how long the FIPPA process takes. Mr. Gillespie also noted that there was nothing in any of the other Party’s materials about FIPPA.
Mr. Gillespie concluded by noting the right of County residents to natural justice and procedural fairness. The IESO has not told the whole story to the community that will be affected by the White Pines wind project.
Justice Kershnan thanked the Parties and stated that he would reserve his decision. The hearing was adjourned at about 5:30 p.m.
Following the announcement last Thursday that four citizens’ groups* in Ontario are taking legal action against the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) over the noise from planned wind power projects, the groups involved have issued statements relative to each of their own local situations.
“We’re not taking this step lightly,” commented Bonnie Rowe, spokesperson for Dutton Dunwich Opponents of Wind Turbines, the applicant in this suit. “We estimate that these five proposed wind power projects will be out of compliance with noise levels as soon as they go online. In the Dutton Dunwich case, the majority of the proposed turbines, as well as the transformer, will likely produce noise over the MOECC maximum allowable levels. That is just unacceptable, especially to the many citizens living nearby, who will be forced to endure that noise.”
“The Concerned Citizens of North Stormont are in complete support of this legal challenge,” said spokesperson Margaret Benke. “Protection of the health and safety for more than 1,200 local residents is our main concern. We feel that the MOECC must be held to account.”
Julie Leroux, spokesperson for Save the Nation, says “By allowing the construction of the Eastern Fields project and using only outdated noise regulations, the MOECC would deny protection of health and wellbeing for hundreds of local residents, for the next 20 years. We strongly feel that this is unacceptable.”
“Based on what information the public has been provided so far, it appears most of the turbines [in the Otter Creek project] will be out of compliance” said Wallaceburg Area Wind Concerns spokesperson, Violet Towell. “We believe many Wallaceburg and area citizens will suffer unnecessary hardship if this project is allowed to continue, and we fully endorse this judicial review.”
For more information on the legal action, contact lawyer Eric Gillespie at 416-436-7473 (phone/text)
Four community groups say the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change knows its wind turbine noise regulations were inadequate, so they changed them. Why now, are the five newest projects not subject to stricter regulation? Hundreds of people will be exposed to noise emissions from turbines that will likely be non-compliant as soon as they begin operating.
TORONTO, Jan. 25, 2018 /CNW/ – A judicial review application has been filed against the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (“MOECC”) in the Divisional Court in Toronto. The application alleges Ontario regulations and directives limit the amount of noise any residence in the province should have to tolerate from a wind project. Modelling is used to predict these impacts.
The MOECC has admitted previous guidelines resulted in underestimates of the noise at nearby homes. However, without any evidence that this was necessary, the MOECC has allowed companies promoting at least five large-scale wind projects to ignore new government guidelines. The result is hundreds of Ontario residents near these planned turbines could be living next to turbines that produce noise out of compliance with government regulations. If these projects, located in various parts of Ontario, were required to comply with the new guidelines, it is estimated up to three-quarters of these turbines would have to be relocated or removed.
“The government knows the modeling done by wind companies is wrong. However, the government now doesn’t require them to follow the proper process. It’s not surprising people from across Ontario are joining together to vigorously oppose this,” said Eric Gillespie, legal counsel for the court applicant.
“We do not take this step lightly,” commented Bonnie Rowe, spokesperson for Dutton Dunwich Opponents of Wind Turbines, applicant in this suit. “But we estimate that these five proposed wind power projects will be out of compliance with noise levels as soon as they go on-line. In the Dutton Dunwich case, the majority of the proposed turbines, will likely produce noise over the MOECC maximum allowable levels. That is just unacceptable, especially to the many citizens living nearby, who will be forced to endure that noise. We appreciate the collaborative efforts in this application, of citizens in the other affected communities in Ontario – North Stormont, La Nation, and Wallaceburg.”
SOURCE Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation
For further information: Eric Gillespie, legal counsel, 416-436-7473 (phone/text); Bonnie Rowe, Dutton Dunwich Opponents of Wind Turbines, 519-639-5415 (phone/text); Margaret Benke, Concerned Citizens of North Stormont, 613-558-9236 (phone/text); Julie Leroux, Save the Nation, 613-307-1499 (phone/text); Violet Towell, Wallaceburg Area Wind Concerns, 519-350-1829 (phone/text)
With few details on how a fragile geology will be affected by wind turbine construction, and no information on noise assessments of turbines that are just prototypes, citizens are worried about water supply, health and safety
January 21, 2018
Wallaceburg Area Wind Concerns
Community Group demands a reset of the Otter Creek application
Citizens’ group Wallaceburg Area Wind Concerns (WAWC) has asked the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) to halt the Otter Creek application process until all the missing data is complete, to follow the REA process for public input, and to hold another public meeting to present this information to the community.
The group sent a letter to the MOECC Tuesday via its lawyer.
Executive members of WAWC met with representatives of power developer Boralex and members of CK council December 7. At that meeting, WAWC learned that the noise assessment data for the as yet untested Enercon turbines was not complete, and there was no timetable for when it would be available. Boralex also indicated that the developer is considering another option for the turbine foundations, and that geo-technical testing was being planned, but again there was no date for the testing.
“We’re very concerned that there is not enough information for two critical aspects of this power project, noise and the foundations,” says Violet Towell , WAWC spokesperson. “We have asked repeatedly for the facts about the effect of the noise from these huge turbines on residents, and what the impact on water wells will be from construction and vibration during operation.”
In spite of the lack of information that is clearly required for the Renewable Energy Approval for this power project, requests for a public meeting have been denied.
Last week, residents in the Wallaceburg area were shocked to learn that pile driving had begun at a number of sites for the Otter Creek project. The developer had sent letters to a handful of residents with limited information and even more limited notice. Most of the larger community was uninformed of the activity by Boralex.
WAWC has questioned the choice of project site in an area where the soil conditions are not conducive to wind turbine construction, and also so near a town of 10,000 people. The developer’s response to WAWC was to confirm that the site was “far,far from ideal” but the company proceeded because Chatham-Kent was so accommodating.
“The Otter Creek power project must not be approved until residents of our community have accurate information about this project,” says Towell. “There are many compelling questions not answered, key information that is missing, and changing project details. In order to protect our health, our homes and our community, we want answers now.”
The collapse yesterday of a wind turbine in South Kent, in Chatham-Kent made for stunning photographs and multiple news stories (even in Toronto!).
The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change is said to be monitoring clean-up of the turbine site, to make sure the hazardous chemicals in the turbine are disposed of properly; the Ontario Ministry of Labour is also said to be looking into the incident.
Meanwhile, amid claims of how rare the incident is, the U.S.-based owner/operator is investigating the cause.
The wind power trade association and lobbyist, the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) weighed in, saying Canada has thousands of wind turbines and such incidents are rare.
But the collapse of the CK turbine has raised questions. Especially when several other news stories appeared the same day such as a report from an international website that monitors wind turbine accidents which says many countries are considering new setbacks for safety. And, a report from the U.S. notes that wind turbines require more maintenance as they age: soon, the average age of U.S. turbines will be 11 years.
Why was the collapse not detected by the operator? It is rumoured that someone passing by saw the destroyed turbine and reported it.
What sort of maintenance is mandated for these huge power generators, and were there routine inspections?
What public reporting is there for wind turbine incidents? The companies are required by their Renewable Energy Approval to report any incidents such as blade failure or fire to the Ontario government and the appropriate municipality, but when there was a fire in the K2 project in 2017, the municipality was not notified until some time after — a news report at the time said a company representative did not know which turbine had burned, and was driving around with his car window open, trying to find it.
In another project in Ontario, the wind turbine was visibly leaning “off plumb” and was eventually secured with guy wires, prior to foundation repairs.
There is apparently a report that a turbine blade went through the roof of a house in Chatham-Kent in 2009 (we’re looking for that).
As for fires, the wind industry’s own journal, NA Windpower, published an article some years ago titled, “It’s not ‘if’ it’s when,” referring to the frequency of wind turbine fires.
Clearly, these incidents are not as “rare” as the wind industry would have you believe.
The Caithness accident report from Europe says that between 2013 and 2017, there were 167 accidents per year, including fires, broken blades, and injuries/deaths among workers. Blade failure is the most common incident, followed by fires.
Some countries are finally accepting that industrial wind turbines can pose a significant public health and safety risk. In June 2014, the report of the Finnish Ministry of Health called for a minimum distance of 2 km from houses by concluding: “The actors of development of wind energy should understand that no economic or political objective must not prevail over the well being and health of individuals.” In 2016 Bavaria passed legislation requiring a minimum 2km distance between wind turbines and homes, and Ireland are considering a similar measure.
The Ontario government continues to dodge its responsibility on wind turbine noise by relying on computer models and its notion of compliance, despite growing evidence and thousands of complaints of noise and vibration.
With yesterday’s event, the government needs to assure Ontario’s rural citizens that it is doing everything it can in the area of safety.
Other questions relate to the technical aspects of the wind “farm” approvals:
What sort of design safety margins are required with regards to the material properties?
What kind of stress, natural frequency and fatigue analysis is required to be submitted for these when an application is drawn up?
Who reviews the technical part of the application? What are the qualifications of the reviewer? Are those applications ever farmed out to professional engineers who have the appropriate experience to conduct the review?
What inspection procedures are used during installation and afterwards during operation? Who conducts these inspections? What inspection reports are filed and where are they filed? What are the qualifications of those who review the inspection reports?
How often do IWT inspections need to be done…. and how are they being done after it is up and running so that relevant data is actually acquired?
How many IWTs are out there of this design or similar?
What design specifications are being followed for the design and manufacturing? For example, do they require x-ray weld non-destructive examination for all tower welds?
The Ministry of Labour is now reported to be involved in the Chatham-Kent turbine failure. If this IWT failed for a reason that can’t be readily identified, what position has the Ministry of Labour taken (or needs to take) on behalf of all the workers who install and maintain these things?
Does it mean that these are unsafe for people to be anywhere near both during construction and afterwards during operation until such time as the root cause failure analysis is completed?
A group of municipal officials sent a formal letter to the supervisor of the Owen Sound office of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) following a presentation by the MOECC on the subject of wind turbine noise, noise reports, and adverse health effects.
While thanking manager Rick Chappell for his presentation, Stewart Halliday and Mark Davis, deputy mayors speaking on behalf of the group, said it was disappointing, and designed to mislead the public into thinking there are not problems with wind turbine noise in Ontario.
It’s time to stop denying the health effects, the Multi-Municipal group said, and get on to the business of alleviating the real suffering.
The letter follows.
M U L T I – M U N I C I P A L W I N D T U R B I N E W O R K I N G G R O U P
Owen Sound, Ontario N4K 0A5 Dear Mr. Barton and Mr. Chappell,
RE: Your presentation to our meeting of 14 December, 2017
Thank you for taking the time to make your presentation to the Multi-municipal Wind Turbine Working Group.
As councillors, we have had ongoing complaints from a significant number of residents living near wind turbines in our area who are suffering harm to their health. The video we presented to you documents the experience of some of those affected. It will also help you to understand the widespread anger and disillusionment with the MOECC’s failure to act on their behalf.
Much of the suffering could have been avoided had the local MOECC offices identified to their standards division that the public were adversely impacted (as confirmed by complaints and field monitoring) even when the turbines might have been compliant with the A weighted limits, since those limits were not appropriately corrected for the cyclical nature of the sound that is unmatched in nature, the tonality, the frequency spectrum, and the dominance of the sound above the local environment, and the other special characteristics of the wind turbine sound.
As recently revealed in FOI disclosure, there have been hundreds of complaints. Failure to resolve them, declining to shut down problematic arrays, and relying on proponent estimates of noise emissions only creates growing distrust of the MOECC.
Your presentation was disappointing. It appeared to be designed to mislead the public into thinking there are no health problems. You presented a rosy picture of a government that is busy working on our behalf. But our experience shows that it is not.
You admitted at the meeting that you are aware that some people living near wind turbines are getting sick. You agree that IWTs cause annoyance and that leads to health issues. It is time to accept this and move forward— to protect the public so that they are not adversely impacted.
The urgent need for action is confirmed by the recent decision of Australia’s Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that declared: “We accept that the evidence points to an association and a plausible pathway between WTN and adverse health effects (of a physical nature) mediated by annoyance, sleep disturbance and/or psychological distress”.
The Ministry’s commitment to the Statement of Environmental Values (SEV) under the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) (1994) stipulates that it will use “a precautionary, science-based approach in its decision-making to protect human health and the environment” and that “it will place priority on preventing pollution [in this case harmful noise emissions] . . . minimizing the creation of pollutants that can adversely affect the environment. . . . The Ministry will ensure that staff involved in decisions that might significantly affect the environment is aware of the Ministry’s Environmental Bill of Rights obligations”.
You can no longer justify continued inaction by falsely assuming that “components of wind turbine sound including infrasound and low-frequency sound have not been shown to present unique health risks to people living near wind turbines”.
Scientific, peer reviewed work carried out on infrasound and wind turbines by NASA under the direction of the highly respected Dr. Neil Kelley between 1981 and 1988 demonstrated the infrasound component of wind turbine emissions and its adverse effect on nearby residents. The World Health Organization has issued warnings that “the evidence on low frequency noise is sufficiently strong to warrant immediate concern”; “low-frequency noise . . . can disturb rest and sleep even at low sound pressure levels”; “other primary physiological effects can also be induced by noise during sleep, including increased blood pressure; increased heart rate; … vasoconstriction; …cardiac arrhythmia”.
Ambrose and Rand (2011, 2012), Basner et al. (2014), Cooper (2014), James (2013), and Nissenbaum (2012) all related measurements of wind turbine emissions (including infrasound) directly to diarized symptoms reported by those living nearby. Thorne’s study (2013), which took place over seven years, collected acoustic data at a number of homes so that cumulative exposures could be estimated. It concluded that health is “seriously and adversely affected”. Swinbanks paper presented in Glasgow in 2015 did not support your position. The MOECC failed to refer to published peer reviewed documentation by Tachibana and Kuwano in the Noise Control Engineering Journal 62(6) 503-520 (2015): “Wind Turbine Noise (WTN) generally has dominant low frequencies and is easily transmitted into buildings, causing residents psycho-acoustical annoyance and sleep disturbance”.
We would be happy to provide you with these documents.
How did it get to this state of affairs that local residents have a greater understanding of the problems than the people whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers to protect us? We await some timely, responsible, diligent enforcement action from your office to alleviate the suffering of our residents.
Stewart Halliday, Deputy Mayor Municipality of Grey Highlands, Chair
Mark Davis, Deputy Mayor Municipality of Arran-Elderslie, Vice-chair