Decision D Alberta Ltd. (BluEarth) Bull Creek Wind Power Project Noise Complaints

Transcription

1 Decision D Alberta Ltd. (BluEarth) Bull Creek Wind Power Project Noise Complaints January 17, 2018

2 Alberta Utilities Commission Decision D Alberta Ltd. (BluEarth) Bull Creek Wind Power Project Noise Complaints Proceeding Applications A001 to A003 January 17, 2018 Published by the: Alberta Utilities Commission Fifth Avenue Place, Fourth Floor, 425 First Street S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3L8 Telephone: Fax: Website:

3 Alberta Utilities Commission Calgary, Alberta Alberta Ltd. (BluEarth) Decision D Bull Creek Wind Power Project Proceeding Noise Complaints Applications A001 to A003 1 Introduction 1. On March 19, 2017, Mr. D. Bonnefoy, on behalf of himself and Mrs. T. Bonnefoy and their four children (the Bonnefoys), filed a noise complaint with the Alberta Utilities Commission under Rule 012: Noise Control, regarding the noise at their residence arising from the Bull Creek Wind Power Project owned by Alberta Ltd., a subsidiary of (BluEarth). He made a second noise complaint on April 6, 2017, regarding the noise at his place of work. On April 10, 2017, Mr. A. Hager, Ms. C. Hager, Mr. B. Hager, and Ms. D. Hager (the Hagers) jointly filed a noise complaint relating to noise from the same Bull Creek Wind Power Project. 2. On April 20, 2017, all of the above-mentioned noise complaints from the Bonnefoys and the Hagers (the complainants), were registered on the Commission s efiling System under Proceeding to be considered jointly. 3. As a result of joining these complaints and because of the nature of the complaints, the Commission, in this decision, must decide only whether the Bull Creek Wind Power Project meets the permissible sound level as determined in accordance with Rule 012 at the residences of the complainants. Based on the evidence on the record of this proceeding, the Commission finds the Bull Creek Wind Power Project to be in compliance with the permissible sound level at the residences of the complainants and, therefore, dismisses the complaints. 2 Background 4. On June 18, 2012, BluEarth filed an application with the AUC to construct and operate a 46 turbine, 115-megawatt power plant designated as the Bull Creek Wind Power Project (the Bull Creek Wind Power Project or the wind farm), in the Provost, Alberta area. The Commission held a hearing to consider the application and the wind farm was approved in Decision (Errata), 1 Approval U and Permit and Licence U One landowner group, the Killarney Lake Group, intervened in that hearing, and retained a number of experts, including noise consultants. Mr. A. Hager, Ms. C. Hager, Mr. B. Hager, 4 Mr. D. Bonnefoy and Mrs. T. Bonnefoy were part of the Killarney Lake Group and appeared before the Commission at the hearing. 1 Decision (Errata): Alberta Ltd. Bull Creel Wind Project, Proceeding 1955, Application , March 10, Power Plant Approval U , Proceeding 1955, Application , February 20, Substation Permit and Licence U , Proceeding 1955, Application , February 20, Mr. B. Hager s now wife, D. Hager, is not listed as a participant in the Killarney Lake Group. Decision D (January 17, 2018) 1

4 5. In its approval of the Bull Creek Wind Power Project, the Commission placed a number of conditions on the wind farm including Condition 7, which states: 7. The applicant shall: a) Conduct baseline (pre-construction or post-construction with no turbines operating) and post-construction comprehensive noise studies, including an evaluation of low frequency noise, at receptors R086, R141 and the receptor located in NW W4M under representative conditions, in accordance with Rule 012: Noise Control. b) File all studies and reports relating to the pre-construction and post-construction noise surveys with the Commission within one year of connecting the power plant to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System. 6. Receptors R086 and R141 are the residences of the Bonnefoys and Mr. A. and Ms. C. Hager. 7. BluEarth subsequently filed an amendment to its wind farm from 46 turbines to 17 turbines totalling 29.2 megawatts. The Commission approved the amendment and issued Approval 3520-D (Errata), which included the condition listed above. 5 The wind farm was constructed and as of January 5, 2016, has been operational. 8. BluEarth, in accordance with Condition 7 listed above, filed post-construction comprehensive sound level surveys (sound level surveys) with the Commission and the Commission convened Proceeding to consider the results of those sound level surveys. Mr. A. Hager, Ms. C. Hager, Mr. D. Bonnefoy and Mrs. T. Bonnefoy were granted standing and participated in that proceeding and these participants retained FDI Acoustics Inc. as their noise consultant to review the sound level surveys and related documents filed by BluEarth. In Proceeding 22270, the Commission found that the sound level surveys submitted indicated that the noise from the Bull Creek Wind Power Project, which was measured cumulatively to include the ambient sound level and noise from existing energy-related facilities, did not exceed the permissible sound levels specified in Rule Noise complaints 9. In this proceeding, the Bonnefoys have made a noise complaint with respect to their residence as well as Mr. D. Bonnefoy s place of work. Mr. D. Bonnefoy confirmed in his complaint that their residence is located in the northeast quarter of Section 10, Township 41, Range 1, west of the Fourth Meridian. It alleges that at 3:20 a.m. on March 19, 2017, the Bonnefoys experienced sleep disruption due to noise related to the wind farm. On March 23, 2017, the Commission set up Proceeding to investigate this complaint. 10. Mr. D. Bonnefoy made a second complaint on April 6, 2017, with respect to noise from the wind farm around the facility where he works. 6 On April 10, 2017, the Commission set up Proceeding to investigate this complaint. 5 Power Plant Approval 3520-D (Errata), Proceeding 3520, Application , April 29, Exhibit X0007, Bonnefoy to AUC. 2 Decision D (January 17, 2018)

5 11. On April 10, 2017, the Hagers filed a noise complaint with respect to the wind farm. They indicated that they were concerned with noise from the wind farm that was observed while feeding cattle on the southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 41, Range 1, west of the Fourth Meridian and the southeast quarter of Section 1, Township 41, Range 1 west of the Fourth Meridian and while working outdoors in the yards close to the residence on the southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 41, Range 1, west of the Fourth Meridian. On April 10, 2017, the Commission set up Proceeding to investigate this complaint. 12. As the above complaints all related to the Bull Creek Wind Power Project, on April 20, 2017, the Commission merged Proceeding and Proceeding into Proceeding to consider the complaints jointly. 13. The Commission requested that the complainants, if they had not already done so, contact BluEarth to discuss and endeavour to resolve their concerns. 7 Further, the Commission requested that complainants complete part 1 of the noise complaint investigation form as well as keep an event log listing the details related to the sound from the wind farm that was causing them annoyance and to upload both documents to the proceeding as soon as they were able to do so. 14. Mr. A. and Ms. C. Hager submitted a completed noise complaint investigation form and event log, dated April 22, Mr. B. and Ms. D. Hager submitted a completed noise complaint investigation form and event log that was uploaded May 10, On May 11, 2017, the Commission held an information session in Provost, Alberta, to provide interested persons with information about the Commission s noise complaint process. 16. In correspondence from Mr. D. Bonnefoy dated May 30, 2017, 8 Mr. D. Bonnefoy stated that he would be uploading further documents relating to the noise complaints filed. In this , Mr. D. Bonnefoy stated that his family was moving because they could not tolerate the wind turbines any longer and were exhausted from not sleeping. 17. The Commission issued a process letter to deal with the complaints on May 31, In its letter, the Commission acknowledged sound level surveys had already been filed on the record of Proceeding for the Bonnefoys and Mr. A. and Ms. C. Hager residences, and requested that BluEarth confirm that it did not object to those surveys and related information request responses, being filed on the record of this proceeding. The Commission also directed BluEarth to file a copy of the sound level survey completed for the Mr. B. and Ms. D. Hager residence on the record of this proceeding. 18. On June 16, 2017, BluEarth responded that it did not object to having the sound level surveys and related information requests responses filed as part of this proceeding. 19. On July 5, 2017, BluEarth submitted the sound level survey for the Mr. B. and Ms. D. Hager residence, Receptor R BluEarth also submitted responses to the noise 7 Exhibit X0004 and in Exhibit X Exhibit X0016, Bonnefoy . 9 Exhibit X0049, R103 post-construction sound level survey. Decision D (January 17, 2018) 3

6 complaints filed by Mr. A. and Ms. C. Hager, Mr. B. and Ms. D. Hager, and a response to two noise complaint filings made by the Bonnefoys. 10, 11, The Commission issued information requests to BluEarth on August 8, 2017 with respect to the sound level survey submitted for the Mr. B. and Ms. D. Hager residence, as well as BluEarth s responses to the noise complaints. On August 25, 2017, BluEarth provided a response to the information requests. 21. On September 3, 2017, the Bonnefoys submitted a large volume of s. Due to the nature of the information submitted, there was a delay in uploading these documents to the proceeding. The s and corresponding attachments were uploaded to the efiling System on September 13, The Bonnefoys also requested more time to submit information requests to BluEarth On September 14, 2017, the Commission granted a time extension to all parties to provide information requests to BluEarth and set the due date to do so as September 22, The Commission set the due date for information request responses from BluEarth as September 29, 2017, and the date for final submissions from complainants as October 3, On September 20, 2017, 16 Ms. C. Hager requested more time to submit information requests to BluEarth and to file further information pertaining to the complaints. Ms. C. Hager explained that the reason for her request was due to the time demands of their harvesting operations, which she expected to be completed by October 31, On September 27, 2017, before ruling on Ms. C. Hager s time extension request, the Commission invited submissions from BluEarth regarding the time extension request by September 29, BluEarth responded that it was opposed to the time extension request on the basis that it was unreasonably long and unclear when Ms. C. Hager proposed to file information requests and evidence Ms. C. Hager later withdrew her time extension request 19 and filed the majority of her submissions by the October 3, 2017 deadline, an additional 13 exhibits on October 5, 2017, and two additional exhibits on October 19, The Commission considers the close of record for this proceeding to be October 19, Exhibit X0046, Post-Construction Acoustic Audit for the Bull Creek Wind Project at R141 Complaint Conditions. 11 Exhibit X0047, Post-Construction Acoustic Audit for the Bull Creek Wind Project at R103 Complaint Conditions. 12 Exhibit X0048, Post-Construction Acoustic Audit for the Bull Creek Wind Project at R86 Complaint Conditions. 13 Exhibit X0057 to Exhibit X Exhibit X0057, Bonnefoy to AUC 9/3/ :09 PM. 15 Exhibit X0123, AUC Ruling on time extension. 16 Exhibit X0124, Hager request for time extension Exhibit X0125, AUC letter to parties re Response to time extension request. 18 Exhibit X0126, Bluearth letter to AUC re further time extension request. 19 Exhibit X0127, AUC to Ms. Hager re withdrawal of time extension. 4 Decision D (January 17, 2018)

7 4 Authority to investigate noise complaints 27. The Commission enacted Rule 012 to govern the noise emissions from power plants. Rule 012 also contains a process for noise complaints. As per Section 5 of Rule 012, if a noise complaint is filed by a resident of a dwelling near the facility 20 after the facility is in operation, the licensee must meet the permissible sound level as determined in accordance with the rule. When a noise complaint is filed with the Commission, the Commission may require the licensee to conduct a comprehensive sound level survey to determine compliance with this rule. 28. If a facility is found to be non-compliant, the licensee must provide both a detailed noise control mitigation plan and a timeline as to when compliance will be met. When the facility meets the requirements in this rule, the Commission investigation is complete. If conditions at the facility change, a new complaint may be filed. 29. When a noise complaint has been filed, licensees must first attempt to resolve the issue through direct contact by way of telephone calls or meetings with the complainant(s) to understand the concerns and establish a dialogue. Licensees must make every reasonable attempt to resolve any noise complaint in a timely manner. 30. Rule 012 states the requirements for noise control as they apply to all operations and facilities under the jurisdiction of the Commission. The rule also provides background information and describes an approach to deal with noise emissions. Rule 012 attempts to take a balanced viewpoint considering the interests of both the nearby residents and the licensee. It does not guarantee that a resident will not hear noises from a facility; rather, it aims to not affect indoor noise levels adversely for residents near a facility. 5 The Bonnefoys noise complaint 31. The Bonnefoys submitted two noise complaints with respect to the wind farm one with respect to their residence, and one with respect to Mr. D. Bonnefoy s location of work. 32. With respect to the noise complaint relating to their residence, the Bonnefoys submitted a completed noise complaint investigation form dated March 19, The form stated noise is a problem during both daytime and nighttime and the noise is annoying both inside and outside their residence. With respect to weather conditions, the form noted extreme cold and hot temperatures and all directions of wind when the noise is most noticeable. Furthermore, the form stated frozen conditions and spring thaw/freeze seem to be conditions that make the noise effects worse. With respect to representative conditions of their noise complaint, the Bonnefoys conveyed that all wind directions, wind speeds and directions were representative of their concerns. 33. On September 13, 2017, the Bonnefoys filed 65 exhibits that contained submissions relating to the Commission s process, event logs, as well as diary entries on noise and health-related concerns. 20 Facility is defined in Rule 012 to include power plants. 21 Exhibit X0005, Noise complaint investigation form. Decision D (January 17, 2018) 5

8 34. Exhibits 67 to 73 include event logs listing the details relating to the sound from the wind farm and contained specific times that the Bonnefoys were concerned with or annoyed by the noise. The event logs capture the time period of March 18, 2017 to May 12, 2017, and the time, noise characteristics, weather and ground cover conditions during this period when noise was annoying to the Bonnefoys. The event logs state that during the dates and times when noise was most annoying, the ground cover was wet or frozen at night. 35. The evidence submitted also included diary entries completed by Mr. D. Bonnefoy from March 15, 2017 to May 14, These diary entries relate to the family s sleep quality and health-related concerns, as well as including turbine operating conditions and weather conditions experienced on specific days. 36. With respect to health-related concerns, on March 21, 2017, Mr. D. Bonnefoy wrote: Today I had eye pressure, ear aches, chest pressure, jaw tension and pain and dizziness / nausea. I felt physically ill most of the day. 22 And on May 5, 2017, Mr. D. Bonnefoy wrote: Still exhausted Everyone is. We never sleep well anymore. Kids are getting sick more often. Tired of being tired. Don t even know which end is up anymore. Living in a fog. 23 On May 14, 2017, the last diary entry uploaded, Mr. D. Bonnefoy stated: We are done with this started moving to town The details of the noise complaint filed by Mr. D. Bonnefoy regarding noise from the wind farm around the facility where he works were contained in an to the Commission. In his , Mr. D. Bonnefoy stated that his work is located in Legal Subdivision 15, Section19, Township 41, Range 1, west of the Fourth Meridian and the closest wind turbine is located approximately 260 metres from the office where he works. He stated: When I am at work I often get head aches, nausea, ear aches, ears ringing, eye pressure, tightness in my chest, shaking, and dizziness. I have tried wearing ear plugs and the way I feel does not change. Specifically I am complaining about the noise level and how the turbines were making me feel on April 5, The wind was from the South East and the turbines were very loud and spinning fast BluEarth s response to the Bonnefoys noise complaint 38. BluEarth responded to the Bonnefoys March 19, 2017 and April 4, 2017 noise complaints in a summary of the noise complaint investigation prepared by its noise consultant, Aercoustics Engineering Limited. The summary stated: Acoustic measurements at receptor location R86 spanned from June 15 to July 6, Results of the acoustic audit are detailed in the report entitled Bull Creek Wind Power Project Post-Construction Comprehensive Noise Survey and dated December 9, Aercoustics was provided the operational data and on-site wind conditions for the wind project by BluEarth Renewables for each period of time there was a Noise Complaint 22 Exhibit X0081, Bonnefoy image attachment Exhibit X0115, Bonnefoy image attachment Exhibit X0122, Bonnefoy image attachment Exhibit X0007, Bonnefoy to AUC. 6 Decision D (January 17, 2018)

9 reported. Aercoustics has reviewed the date, time and landowner observations during complaints as well as the on-site operational data and wind conditions. This information was then used for a comparison with conditions measured during the acoustic survey. It was concluded that complaint conditions were captured during the post-construction acoustic audit at receptor location R86. The measured sound levels during complaint conditions are consistent with those reported. Based on these results, all indications are that the Bull Creek Wind Project are compliant with the sound level limits at this receptor The Hagers noise complaint 39. On April 10 and April 13, 2017, the Hagers filed noise complaints with respect to the noise from the wind farm. The April 10th noise complaint related to noise while feeding cattle on the southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 41, Range 1, west of the Fourth Meridian and in the southeast quarter of Section 1, Township 41, Range 1, west of the Fourth Meridian and stated: While working outdoors in the yards close to the residences on SE W4 and SW W4 the noise is awful. By 9 am., I, Charlene Hager, was experiencing eye pain/pressure and headache. The April 13th noise complaint related to noise while feeding cattle on the southeast quarter of Section 3 and the northeast quarter of Section 3, Township 41, Range 1, west of the Fourth Meridian, feeding cattle on the northwest quarter of Section 1, Township 41, Range 1, west of the Fourth Meridian, checking the fence on the east side of the southwest quarter of Section 2, Township 41, Range 1, west of the Fourth Meridian. The noise complaint further stated that inside Mr. B. and Ms. D. Hager s house (Receptor R103), with an open window the turbines are clearly audible and in the yard of Mr. A. and Ms. C. Hager (Receptor R141), the turbines are clearly audible as well. 40. Mr. A. and Ms. C. Hager submitted a completed noise complaint investigation form and event log on April 22, The noise complaint investigation form was dated April 10, 2017, and stated that noise is a problem both daytime and nighttime, the noise is annoying both inside and outside and further described the noise. The form stated: Turbines are clearly audible in our yards, houses when the windows are open and fields when feeding cattle and doing general work on our farm. Experiencing eye pain, headache, jaw tension, woke several times in night. 41. Mr. B. and Ms. D. Hager submitted two noise complaint investigation forms and event logs, uploaded on May 10, The first noise complaint investigation form was dated April 28, 2017, and stated noise is a problem during the daytime, the noise is annoying outside and further described the noise. The event log for the April 28th complaint detailed that sound from the facility was annoying to them at 7:30 a.m. while feeding horses north of the house. The second noise complaint investigation form was dated May 4, 2017, and stated noise is a problem during the nighttime, the noise is annoying outside and further described the noise. The event log for the May 4th complaint detailed that sound from the wind farm was annoying to them at 11 p.m. while working outdoors. 26 Exhibit X0048, Bull Creek - Post-Construction Acoustic Audit Letter - Complaint Conditions - R Exhibit X0013, Hager - noise investigation form - April 26, Exhibit X0015, Ben and Deandra Hager noise complaint investigation forms and event logs. Decision D (January 17, 2018) 7

10 42. On September 20, 2017, Ms. C. Hager requested more time to submit information requests to BluEarth and to file further information pertaining to the complaints. Ms. C. Hager explained that the reason for her request was due to the time demands of their harvesting operations, which were expected to be completed by October 31, Ms. C. Hager later withdrew her time extension request and filed the majority of her submissions, 12 exhibits, on October 3, 2017, an additional 13 exhibits on October 5, 2017, and two additional exhibits on October 19, Ms. C. Hager s submissions included the following: diary entries regarding weather, noise and health concerns; 29 articles, press releases and presentations on wind turbine noise and human health, animal health and vegetation (research documents); 30 correspondence between Ms. C. Hager and her noise consultant, James Farquharson of FDI Acoustics Inc., 31 correspondence explaining the late filing of documents; 32 and indexes for her submissions including an index with comments relating to the research documents Ms. C. Hager s diary entries spanned from January 24, 2017 to February 6, 2017, and April 10, 2017 to June 20, 2017, and included details such as the time, place, weather conditions, turbine operating conditions and health-related concerns pertaining to the specific date when noise was a concern. 45. The documents submitted by Ms. C. Hager, containing correspondence between her and James Farquharson of FDI Acoustics Inc., including results from a micro barometer survey set up in her home in In the correspondence, James Farquharson stated: The results from the micro barometer survey indicate the presence of tones when the wind turbines were in operation. The tones correlate closely to expected blade pass frequency of the wind turbines in the area when those turbines are in operation. 46. Research articles submitted by Ms. C. Hager included topics such as health impacts of wind turbines, infrasound and turbine noise assessments. 47. In her index for her submissions, Ms. C. Hager concluded with the following final statement: To date there has been no meaningful suggestions to remedy the consequences that Bluearth Renewables Inc. have knowingly imposed upon the families of the Killarney Lake Group-(BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE OTHER THAN SHUTTING THE TURBINES DOWN) Included in the group are Heather and Doug Buck, who left their home before the turbines were operational because of a pre-existing medical condition, that they could not risk becoming worse and now carry two mortgages because no one will buy their acreage in the vicinity of the Bull Creek wind project. Dan and Tracey Bonnefoy and their four children had to leave their home because of unbearably severe health impacts that this project has imposed on them. They now carry two mortgages and have yet to sell their property. 29 Exhibits to 139 and Exhibits to Exhibits and Exhibit , Hager re Submission Part Exhibits and Decision D (January 17, 2018)

11 My journal of experiences living near the wind project lists the adverse health effect I have had imposed upon me. Our family now includes two new additions, which are particularly vulnerable, and there is considerable anxiety about the risk that this project imposes upon them. To make matters worse, Benjamin and Deandra Hager(receptor 103 at SE w4), the new parents, are 1182 meters from the nearest turbine. They are the residents CLOSEST TO WIND TURBINES IN THE WHOLE PROJECT BluEarth s response to the Hagers noise complaint 48. BluEarth responded to the April 10, 2017 noise complaint at Mr. A. and Ms. C. Hager s residence (Receptor R141). BluEarth retained its noise consultant, Aercoustics Engineering Limited, to provide a summary of the noise complaint investigations at receptor R141 during the reported complaint conditions. That summary provided: Acoustic measurements at receptor location R141 spanned from June 15 to July 6, Results of the acoustic audit are detailed in the report entitled Bull Creek Wind Power Project Post-Construction Comprehensive Noise Survey and dated December 9, Aercoustics was provided the operational data and on-site wind conditions for the wind project by BluEarth Renewables for each period of time there was a Noise Complaint reported. Aercoustics has reviewed the date, time, landowner observations during complaints as well as the on-site operational data and wind conditions. This information was then used to compare conditions measured during the acoustic survey. It was concluded that complaint conditions were captured during the post-construction acoustic audit at receptor location R141. The measured sound levels during complaint conditions are consistent with those reported. Based on these results, all indications are that the Bull Creek Wind Project are compliant with the sound level limits at this receptor In response to the Hagers submissions, BluEarth referenced its letter dated September 28, 2017, which stated: Health concerns were extensively considered during the hearing for the Project from October 28 to November 22, During the hearing, the AUC considered the evidence submitted by BluEarth and intervenors (including the Applicants). On March 10, 2014, the AUC issued a decision concluding that adherence to AUC Rule 012, and the project s 40 dba Leq nighttime permissible sound level (PSL) will protect nearby residents, including children, the chronically ill and the elderly from sleep disturbance and other health effects related to turbine noise. To ensure compliance with AUC Rule 012 and the PSL, the AUC included conditions for noise monitoring. 34 Exhibit X0157, Hager Submission Part Exhibit X0046, Post-Construction Acoustic Audit for the Bull Creek Wind Project at R141 Complaint Conditions. Decision D (January 17, 2018) 9

12 With respect to pre and post-construction noise, the AUC considered submissions from BluEarth and interveners (including the Applicants) in Proceeding On June 29, 2017, the AUC concluded that the post-construction sound level survey indicates that the noise from the Project measured cumulatively does not exceed the permissible sound level specified in Rule 012. As a result, the AUC confirmed that BluEarth fulfilled its approval condition to conduct preconstruction and post-construction sound level surveys for the Project BluEarth further stated that the Commission s March 10, 2014 decision and approval for the project also considered the potential effects on vegetation and animals and, in BluEarth s view, the above decision reasonably addressed Ms. C. Hager s health and noise-related concerns. 51. BluEarth responded to the April 10th, April 28th and May 4, 2017, noise complaints at Mr. B. and Ms. D. Hager s residence (Receptor R103). Aercoustics Engineering Limited provided the following summary of the noise complaint investigations at receptor location R103 during reported complaint conditions: Acoustic measurements at receptor location R103 spanned from June 15 to July 6, Results of the acoustic audit are detailed in the report entitled Bull Creek Wind Power Project Post-Construction Noise Survey R103 and dated March 20, Aercoustics was provided the operational data and on-site wind conditions for the wind project by BluEarth Renewables for each period of time there was a Noise Complaint reported. Aercoustics has reviewed the date, time and landowner observations during complaints as well as the on-site operational data and wind conditions. This information was then used to compare conditions measured during the acoustic survey. It was concluded that complaint conditions were captured during the post-construction acoustic audit at receptor location R103. The measured sound levels during complaint conditions are consistent with those reported. Based on these results, all indications are that the Bull Creek Wind Project are compliant with the sound level limits at this receptor. 37 Commission findings 9 Evaluation of the post-construction comprehensive sound level surveys 52. For the reasons that follow, the Commission finds that the sound level surveys completed for the Bonnefoy s and Mr. A. and Ms. C. Hager s residences met the regulatory requirements of Rule 012 and were adequate in the circumstances. As stated above, the Commission concluded in Decision D that the sound level surveys completed for these residences demonstrated that noise levels from the Bull Creek Wind Power Project met the daytime and nighttime permissible sound levels. The Commission notes that the turbine technology is the same that was applied for and approved by the Commission and any modification to the wind 36 Exhibit X0126, BluEarth Letter to AUC re further time extension request. 37 Exhibit X0047, Post-Construction Acoustic Audit for the Bull Creek Wind Project at R103 Complaint Conditions. 38 Decision D : Alberta Ltd. (BluEarth) Bull Creek Wind Power Project Pre-and Post-Construction Sound Level Surveys, Proceeding 22270, Application A001, June 29, Decision D (January 17, 2018)

13 turbines that would materially affect their sound emissions would require Commission approval. The Commission, therefore, finds that the only question that it must address in this proceeding regarding the sound level surveys completed for the Bonnefoys and the Mr. A. and Ms. C. Hager residences, is if the sound surveys submitted were appropriate for the purposes of this complaint proceeding. 9.1 The Bonnefoy s noise complaint 53. The Commission reviewed the noise investigation forms completed by the Bonnefoys as well as the additional evidence submitted by the Bonnefoys to determine whether or not the sound level survey completed by Aercoustics Engineering Limited at this residence captured conditions of the noise complaint. 54. The Commission acknowledges the statements from the Bonnefoys that noise from the wind farm is audible at their residence and notes that prior to the wind farm s construction, the sound levels in the area were quieter. However, in assessing whether the complaint should be dismissed, the only factor that the Commission can consider in this proceeding is whether the requirements of Rule 012 have been met. To do otherwise, by imposing additional conditions upon a project that has already been approved following a full hearing and decision process would amount to a collateral attack on the original decision to approve the project With respect to ground conditions, the Commission notes that the Bonnefoys had listed ground conditions as freeze/thaw for some of the times when noise was most annoying to them. When the ground is covered in water, and the water freezes during the nighttime, this provides ideal conditions for the sound of the wind turbines to be reflected by the ground and can lead to an increase in noise at a receptor. The Commission notes Rule 012 provides an adjustment in such circumstances. Specifically, in the case of a wintertime noise complaint, a +5 dba Leq adjustment may be used in determining the permissible sound level; and wintertime conditions are defined as: if there is snow, ice, or frozen ground cover and temperatures below zero degrees Celsius. As such, during wintertime conditions, the Commission recognizes that residences may experience a change in what they hear from a facility due to a change in ground cover conditions and Rule 012 includes an adjustment to the permissible sound level to account for wintertime conditions. As a result, the Commission is not persuaded by the evidence submitted that noise from the wind farm is greater than the permissible sound level for wintertime conditions. 56. Although not determinative, the Commission notes the Bonnefoys did not dispute the conditions of the sound level survey completed at their residence as not representative of their complaint. As such, the Commission accepts the results of the sound level survey, which were completed during summertime weather conditions, as required in Rule 012 for noise monitoring. 57. Based on the above, the Commission finds that the sound level survey completed at the Bonnefoy residence captured representative conditions of the Bonnefoys noise complaint relating to their residence and, therefore, may be used to determine the compliance of the Bull Creek Wind Power Project for this noise complaint proceeding. 39 To re-open the original decision requires an application for a review under Rule 016: Review of Commission Decisions. The Commission has the discretion to hear an application for a review notwithstanding that the timeline specified in that Rule has passed. Decision D (January 17, 2018) 11

14 58. With respect to the Bonnefoys work-related noise complaint, the purpose of Rule 012 is to ensure noise from a facility, measured cumulatively with noise from other energy-related facilities, does not exceed the permissible sound level calculated in accordance with the rule. A permissible sound level is determined for a dwelling, and does not apply to work places. The Commission has the discretion to place conditions on a project s approval if it was determined that such conditions were in the public interest. However, in this case, no further conditions were placed on the wind farm s approval in Decision 3520-D (Errata) The Hagers noise complaint 59. In its review of the evidence as filed on the record of this proceeding, the Commission notes that the Hagers found the wind farm noise most annoying during the daytime period and while outside of their homes. While the Commission has not specified the noise level that may be present in yards, the Commission considers that compliance with the permissible sound level should offer some protection to landowners working in and around their yards. The Commission considers that in Decision 3520-D (Errata), there were no additional conditions with respect to noise levels, beyond the requirements of Rule 012. Therefore, the Commission dismisses the complaint relating to the Hagers yard sites. 60. Taking into account the concerns raised, the Commission accepts BluEarth s submissions that the sound level survey completed at Mr. A. and Ms. C. Hager residence (Receptor R141), which took place from June 15, 2016 to July 7, 2016, captured representative conditions of the Hagers noise complaints. The Commission, therefore, finds that this survey may be used to determine the compliance of the Bull Creek Wind Power Project for this noise complaint proceeding. 61. The Commission must also determine if the sound level survey completed at the Mr. B. Hager and Ms. D. Hager residence meets the regulatory requirements of Rule 012 as this sound level survey has not been previously evaluated by the Commission. 62. In the sound level survey completed at Mr. B. and Ms. D. Hager residence (Receptor R103), which took place from June 15, 2016 to June 23, 2016, the minimum amount of valid data required by Rule 012, three hours, was collected during a single nighttime period. On June 19, 2016, a total of 5.0 hours of valid data was obtained during the nighttime period with a resultant isolated sound level of 37.0 dba Leq, which is below the nighttime permissible sound level of 40 dba Leq. On June 21, 2016, a total of 3.1 hours of valid data was obtained during the daytime period, with a resultant isolated sound level of 47.1 dba Leq, which is below the daytime permissible sound level of 50 dba Leq. The Commission finds that the evidence on record for this proceeding shows that the measured cumulative sound level of the Bull Creek Wind Power Project is below the permissible sound level for both the daytime and nighttime periods at the Mr. B. and Ms. D. Hager residence. 63. Based on the above, the Commission finds that the sound level survey completed at the Mr. B. and Ms. D. Hager residence meets the regulatory requires of Rule 012 and captured representative conditions of the Hagers noise complaints and, therefore, may be used to 40 Errata to Decision 3520-D , Alteration to Bull Creek Wind Project, Proceeding 3520, Application , April 29, Decision D (January 17, 2018)

15 determine the compliance of the Bull Creek Wind Power Project for this noise complaint proceeding. 9.3 Health-related issues 64. With respect to health-related issues raised by both the Bonnefoys and the Hagers, health concerns were considered during the hearing for the wind farm from October 28, 2013 to November 22, During the hearing, the Commission considered the evidence submitted by BluEarth and interveners, which included expert evidence on the correlation between noise and health. Ms. C. Hager s medical conditions was the subject matter of that expert evidence. On March 10, 2014, the Commission issued Decision (Errata) with a number of findings with respect to health effects from audible wind turbine noise including the following, in paragraph 399: Having regard to the foregoing, the Commission finds that adherence to the 40 dba Leq nighttime PSL for the project will protect the members of the community surrounding the project, including children, the chronically ill and the elderly, from health effects related to audible noise produced by the project. The 40 dba Leq PSL is practically consistent with the WHO 2009 guidelines of lowest observable adverse effects for nighttime noise and is also generally consistent with the nighttime noise levels set in other Canadian and international jurisdictions. 65. The evidence on the record of this proceeding was anecdotal evidence pertaining to alleged health effects. For clarity, no expert evidence was tendered in support of this position. The Commission finds that anecdotal evidence relating to noise and health cannot be relied upon. Therefore, the Commission is not persuaded by the evidence filed with respect to health in this proceeding. Decision D (January 17, 2018) 13

16 10 Decision 66. For the above reasons, the Commission finds the Bull Creek Wind Power Project is operating in compliance with Rule 012 requirements at the Bonnefoy residence, the Mr. A. and Ms. C. Hager residence and the Mr. B. and Ms. D. Hager residence and dismisses the noise complaints in this proceeding. Dated on January 17, Alberta Utilities Commission (original signed by) Henry van Egteren Commission Member 14 Decision D (January 17, 2018)