Dissenting Report by Senator John Madigan and Senator Nick Xenophon
Introduction
1.1 The Senate Economics Committee’s referral of the
Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill
2012 (‘the Bill’) to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
(‘the committee’) gave an opportunity for an examination of the Bill, albeit
with a constrained hearing schedule and time frame which affected communities
expressed concern to us about. Given the continuing public and scientific
debate surrounding the impacts of noise generated by wind farms, this inquiry
was an opportunity to examine the current state of evidence from communities,
scientists and wind farm operators alike.
Noise Regulations
1.2 In our Dissenting Report to the Senate Economics
Committee’s inquiry into the Bill (attached) we raised concerns regarding the
adequacy of current noise guidelines. We take this opportunity to affirm these
concerns and add the following comments to this particular and critical aspect
of the debate.
1.3 The Bill seeks to establish a definition of
“excessive noise”:
(6) For the purposes of this Act, a wind farm creates
excessive noise if the level of noise that is attributable to the wind farm
exceeds background noise by 10 dB(A) or more when measured within 30 metres of
any premises:
(a) that is used for residential purposes;
or
(b) that is a person’s primary place of
work; or
(c) where persons habitually congregate.
1.4 As explained by Mr Steven Cooper, a leading and
well respected acoustician and Principal of The Acoustic Group:
excessive noise, which relates to the first part of the bill,
may be identified in various planning documents and wind farm guidelines but is
not defined. The purpose of the bill gives a methodology for defining excessive
noise.
1.5 The importance of having a nationally applicable
definition of excessive noise was discussed by Dr Bob Thorne during the public
hearing:
Dr Thorne: The thing that none of us has is a consistency
across all states. That leads to my mind to the most important function of this
bill: it gives a consistent approach to excessive noise throughout all of
Australia, whereas each individual state could and does have completely
different criteria, different standards. Back in the old days, there was a
competition policy process whereby one state could not disadvantage the other
states by having different criteria. In the days when I was working with it, we
were dealing with environmental noise. We tried to get a consistency of
approach through all the different states—this was back in the mid-nineties.
This is where I would see the benefit of this particular bill in that it
provides a certainty of approach to all states, it provides a certainty of
approach to the industry and it gives a clear definition to all the different
states' legislation.
1.6 The benefits of a definition of excessive noise
that applies to all states and territories are twofold: it provides clarity and
consistency of application throughout Australia. Those who live close to wind
farms can therefore be assured the wind farms are required to operate in
accordance with established noise guidelines so that any disturbance caused by
wind farm noise is minimised.
The impact of noise on sleep and health
1.7 The committee acknowledged sleep disturbance is
the most commonly reported complaint in relation to the operation of wind
farms. Dr Nissenbaum, a radiologist at the Northern Maine Medical Centre in the
United States, discussed the potential consequences of chronic sleep disturbance:
Senator Madigan: Dr Nissenbaum, why is chronically impaired
sleep a health problem?
Dr Nissenbaum: When one has chronically impaired sleep... (it)
will result in adverse health effects through stress mediated effects on the
hormonal systems in the body. This will result in all sorts of stress related
illnesses, as well as cardiovascular effects, as well as changes in cognition
and mental health in a pretty significant subset of individuals.
Dr Nissembaum continued:
Some people are more immune than others, but we have to take
people as they come, and a significant proportion of people will be affected in
a negative way when there is chronic sleep disturbance. It is important to
recognise that fact. Once we recognise that fact, the question becomes: do
industrial wind turbines that are sited too close to people result in sleep
disturbance? If we can prove that is correct, then we will know that over time
very serious adverse health effects will develop.
1.8 Significantly, Dr Nissenbaum identified the need
for further research to be undertaken in relation to the link between noise
generated by wind farms and sleep disturbance. The impact of night time noise
on sleep disturbance was discussed in the World Health Organisation’s
‘Guidelines for Community Noise’:
If negative effects on sleep are to be avoided the equivalent
sound pressure level should not exceed 30 dBA indoors for continuous noise. If
the noise is not continuous, sleep disturbance correlates best with LAmax and
effects have been observed at 45 dB or less. This is particularly true if the
background level is low. Noise events exceeding 45 dBA should therefore be
limited if possible.
1.9 These guidelines relate to residential areas in
European urban environments. Therefore it is not unreasonable that the Bill
seeks to require that wind farms operate within lower noise limits so as not to
disturb the sleep of residents in quiet, rural Australian environments.
1.10 The committee has recommended that “specific noise
measurements, thresholds and measuring locations not be included in
legislation, as there is insufficient consensus on these elements of the
proposal.” We fundamentally disagree with the committee’s finding in this
respect. The Bill is taking a conservative approach by only referring to dB(A),
even though there is a mounting body of scientific evidence to suggest other
spectrums should be considered.
1.11 The committee refers to recent research entitled
‘Can expectations produce symptoms from infrasound associated with wind
turbines?’ by Crichton, Dodd, Schmid, Gamble & Petrie regarding the ‘nocebo
effect’. The report concludes:
Results suggest psychological expectations could explain the
link between wind turbine exposure and health complaints.
1.12 The research by Crichton, Dodd et al specifically
refers to infrasound which is not a subject addressed by this Bill.
Furthermore, the research excludes audible sound which is the subject of the
Bill. Excessive noise levels set by the Bill are not related to infrasound and
as such the research of Crichton, Dodd et al is not relevant. With respect to
the overall health effects of wind turbines the research by Crichton, Dodd et
al suggests ‘psychological expectations could explain the link...’ However in
medical research other factors must be eliminated before making such a
diagnosis, which is premature and pre-emptive.
1.13 Correspondence provided by Dr Nissenbaum stated:
On 'nocebo', if a physician provides the diagnosis of
'nocebo' (a psychologically mediated effect analogous to a 'psychosomatic
illness/response'), medical protocols dictate that it be done subsequent to a
process of thoroughly excluding the possibility of any pathophysiological
pathways that are plausible, more likely, or more important (because of serious
downstream implications) to consider.
Dr Nissenbaum continued....
The 'nocebo' concept is inapplicable and it would be
irresponsible to apply it as an explanation for the chronic sleep disorders
which are the result of often unremembered nighttime arousals related to noise.
1.14 The committee received a range of evidence regarding
possible links between noise produced by wind farms and health effects. This
debate is continuing however the body of evidence demonstrating the impact of
sleep disturbance and sleep deprivation on health continues to grow.
1.15 We are concerned that the current literature review
underway by the NH&MRC is just that: a review of the literature rather than
actual research into the relationship between wind farms and human health.
While it is true that Federal Government grants are available for research
purposes, given community concerns and the likelihood that more wind farms will
be built in Australia near homes we believe the Federal Government should
establish and fund an independent expert panel in order to conduct further
research. This is imperative given the Federal Government’s ongoing financial
support of wind farms to achieve the Renewable Energy Target.
Recommendation
The Federal Government establish and fund an independent
expert panel in order to conduct research into the impact of noise generated by
wind farms on human health.
Reporting of wind speed and noise data
1.16 In order to test compliance, it is necessary for
wind speed data to be made available:
Mr Cooper... the noise emission for the wind farm is expressed
in terms of a DBA level versus the wind at the hub height. So the only way you
can do a compliance check is to measure the noise at the residence and compare
it with the wind at the hub height. If you cannot get the wind at the hub
height, you cannot determine acoustic compliance. So you need that information.
It is not available. The wind proponents or the authority will not supply the
material.
Senator Xenophon: To use one of Senator Cameron's classic
phrases, there is some information asymmetry here with respect to that?
Mr Cooper: Yes. It is impossible for anybody to do a
compliance check without this data.
Senator Xenophon: So it is a catch-22. You cannot work out
whether there is compliance or not for a particular development without this
data?
Mr Cooper: As it is expressed in terms of a noise limit
versus the speed. If there were an absolute limit full stop it would be a
different kettle of fish. But because the wind farms are expressed relative to
the background level and the wind speed you have to do the compliance with
respect to that criteria.
1.17 The committee has recommended ‘where there is
ongoing debate over noise compliance issues for particular wind farms, that
governments consider making data for those operations available to an
independent authority for review of compliance’.
1.18 We agree with and are encouraged by the intention of
this recommendation, however we believe it could be made stronger in a number
of ways.
1.19 Firstly, the recommendation relates only to ‘ongoing
debate over noise issues for particular wind farms’ (emphasis added). The Bill
is intended to apply to all wind farms and as such noise and wind speed data
should be made available by all wind farms.
1.20 Secondly, the recommendation relies on ‘governments’
making the data available. This makes the assumption that governments already
have access to the data. We believe this assumption needs to be addressed by
including an explicit requirement that wind farm operators must make data
available to an independent authority directly.
1.21 Lastly, the recommendation does not specify when the
data should be made available. We would suggest that wind and noise data be
supplied to the independent authority at regular intervals (for example every
three months) as well as on request in the event a specific complaint has been
made. Data held by the independent authority should be publically accessible
under defined protocols.
Recommendation
Where there is ongoing debate over noise compliance
issues for wind farms, wind farm operators are required to provide data
(including wind and noise data) to an independent authority every three months
as well as on request in the event a specific complaint has been made.
1.22 We would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge
that Pacific Hydro’s offer to provide data to an independent statutory body
under strict confidentiality with the data’s use restricted by well-defined
protocols. It is our understanding this offer to provide wind data is the
first of its kind by a wind farm operator and believe Pacific Hydro should be
given credit for setting an example for the rest of the industry.
Conclusion
1.23 This bill will ensure there are mechanisms in place
to enable the monitoring of noise generated by wind farms and that where wind
farms are shown to have created excessive noise, they are unable to receive
Large Scale Renewable Energy Certificates for the electricity generated. We
believe it is not appropriate for wind farms to be financially rewarded through
these Certificates when they are shown to be non-compliant with noise
guidelines. Therefore wind farm operators that are compliant have nothing to
fear from the requirement that they must not create excessive noise.
Recommendation
The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive
Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012 be passed.
Senator
Nick Xenophon
South Australia |
Senator John Madigan
Victoria |
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page