Research
Please stop in often. We are in the process of reformatting and uploading a substantial number of documents. Below is the first of many entries to follow. Click any numbered item to navigate to the associated document.
Shear Wind noise analysis misuses standards
Documents:
1.EAS Critique of Shear Wind Noise Study as Submitted to EDPC Development Officer
2.HGC Engineering Noise Report on Pubnico Point Wind Park
Beginning in September 2008, public input allerted Shear Wind to problems in their noise modeling during the public input phase of their original provincial environmental assessment and again during the review of their addendum in January of 2009. Nova Scotia Environment approved their project without comment on the problems raised.
Subsequently, during Antigonish County's public hearing on rezoning for Shear Wind's project, the council was informed that the staff report upon which the rezoning depended, relied upon false and misleading noise information in Shear Wind's provincial environmental assessment. Regardless, the council summarily passed the rezoning without further investigation.
Finally, during the final permitting stage, EAS presented the Eastern District Planning Commision's development officer with a nine page critique [1] of Shear Winds noise study. This critique detailed nine points of deficiency in the study including misuse of the modeling software and flawed input data. The critique also provided the development officer with a field study commissioned by Natural Resources Canada and performed by Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Limited of Ontario at the Pubnico Point Wind Farm in Nova Scotia [2]. Said study demonstrates that the software and methods used by Shear Wind underpredict actual operational noise levels by more than 5 dB(A). This fact alone would put Shear Wind's project in violation of the Antigonish bylaw limit of 40 dB(A). Regardless, the development officer granted the permits without any counter evidence or rebuttal to the issues raised.
Although EAS has been trying since autumn of 2008 to obtain answers to these problems with Shear Wind's noise analysis, to date, neither Shear Wind nor any branch of government has responded with any counter-evidence and/or counter-argument to the issues raised.
Investigation into Shear Wind false statements
Documents:
1. Nova Scotia Environment Section 115 Investigation Application
2. Shear Wind Plagiarism
3. Nova Scotia Environment Response
4. Nova Scotia Environment Technical Review
March 31, 2009, EAS applied [1] for Nova Scotia Environment (NSE) to conduct an investigation under Section 115 of the Environment Act into false and misleading statements made by Shear Wind in their environmental assessment registration documents as well as extensive plagiarism [2]. In one example, Shear Wind cites a medical study wherein adverse medical symptoms in residents are reported up to 1.5 km from wind facilities. However, Shear Wind falsely reports this distance as only 457 meters. While there are no homes within 457 meters of their proposed wind project, there are 7 homes within 1.5 km and these residents are at risk for suffering the same symptoms.
While the statutory period for reporting progress on the investigation is 90 days, EAS did not receive a final response [3] from NSE until after 7 months. The response did not dismiss the allegations and did allow that a prosecution could proceed. However, NSE determined that conviction was unlikely.
Through the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection act, EAS discovered that NSE had one of their professional engineers prepare an internal technical review [4] of the allegations; this was completed almost 6 months before EAS received NSE's response. In the copy of this document that EAS received through the FOIPOP act, all the critical sections containing their engineer's findings had been blanked out. EAS suspects that this deleted information contradicts NSE's decision and so on February 17, 2010, EAS submitted arguments to the Review Officer to have this material released. However, to date (over a year), EAS has only received acknowledgment of the application for review. (To top)