Wind turbine health concerns for people, wildlife addressed: details from Enbridge engagement event, part 2 – DiscoverWeyburn.com

A number of concerns related to the long-term health effects of wind turbines for humans and wildlife were able to be addressed by a panel of experts at the town hall style community engagement event held Wednesday night at McKenna Hall by Enbridge, the proponents of the Seven Stars Energy project. 

The project seeks to install turbines within the R.M.s of Weyburn and Griffin for a 200-megawatt wind energy project. The concerns expressed by the audience regarding biological health impacts of wind turbines were given responses based on researched-based information from Christopher Ollson, Ph.D., Senior Environmental Health Scientist, Ollson Environmental Health Management, and Lillian Knopf  M.Sc., Terrestrial and Wetland Biologist, Natural Resource Solutions Inc.

Ollson said he has been working in the renewable energy sector for 15 years involved in research, reviewing the literature and all of the epidemiology studies from Health Canada, Europe, Australia, and other studies conducted around the world related to renewables. 

“There are certainly older projects, primarily in the U.S., some in Canada, where turbines were, quite frankly, sited too close. So in the past, especially in the U.S., you would look at 1,000 feet, not 1,000 meters, but 1,000 feet, less than a quarter mile from people’s homes. There were sound limits that used to be that you could use 55 decibels 60 decibels sound limits. You could have shadow flicker of hundreds of hours a year. You have five turbines to the east, five to the west, and you’re getting a lot of these issues.”

He said research conducted throughout early European projects also verifies this close-proximity siting did lead to health concerns. However, over the last 20 years, there has been more research done to inform the industry on what proper setbacks and proper selection look like.

“Health Canada back in 2012 to 2014 spent over $2,000,000 of our taxpayer money, it was under a Tory government at the time, a Harper government. Pierre Poillievre

is actually the one who sponsored that study as the MP. That study basically helped us to inform us,” he noted. “Then ultimately in the last 10 years there’s been over 100 other studies around the world on what constitutes a properly-sited project for all the issues. Infrasound, low-frequency noise, audible sound, shadow flicker.”

Ollson said Saskatchewan is the only province that does not have a sound limit for wind projects. 

“The sound limit that is common across Canada is 40, no more than 40 decibels outside of somebody’s home. I stop talking for a second… just the hum in the room, the fans going, the furnace, and everything else, give or take, we’d be in the sort of 50 decibel range here, so we’re less than half the sound limit of that.”

To this point, he said the setback distances of 1,500 metres, “or one mile give or take”, is the furthest set back distance he has seen of any project proposed in North America. 

“I’ve worked in over 26 states, and every province developing wind projects. Typically, 750 metre or a half-mile was a typical set back distance. We’re seeing about a kilometer. So when you put all of these things together your R.M.s actually have the most stringent sound set back standards of any project that I can dream up,” he explained.  

Ollson said it had previously been unheard of to have such a berth for a set back as there wouldn’t be enough room to hold enough turbines to make it worthwhile

“The last especially 10 years of research has shown us how to properly site these projects. So the turbines, yes, are getting taller, but we, by the stringent setbacks and all the other requirements that we’re confident that if this project was moved forward in your community, it will be without health impacts to the local residents.” 

He said the vast majority of the studies around the world have not been actually paid for by the wind industry, but rather are funded largely by governments. However, the findings from all over the world, he noted, “are remarkably similar, which is why we can take heart, knowing that when we stay within these stringent set backs and these very low sound levels, that’s what constitutes a good project.” He went on to cite numerous research connections excluded from this article for the sake of brevity, but which can be found below in the audio file.

As for concerns about BPA leeching into the air and soil, Ollson differentiated between the two different types of epoxies that form fiberglass, one of which is bound in a form that can’t contaminate groundwater. This is the one used for making wind turbines.

“Even if you had a blade failure accident, […] and you had a blade on the ground, it’s not going to be released. It’s not going to impact people. Absolutely, BPA can cause cancer and other health impacts if it’s improperly used, if it’s sourced into the environment in an inappropriate way, so we certainly make sure that the way the blades are manufactured that they’re not shedding all of this material into the neighboring fields. You’re not going to have impacts on the soil. You’re not going to impact the wheat. You’re not going to impact cattle. You’re not going to impact dairy.”

He referred to a study out of Norway that had been admittedly misused, listen for more details in the audio file below.

Concerns about bird fatalities were addressed by Lillian Knopf, who said the research has been going on since last August. 

“A big part of taking into consideration the concerns from wildlife, including birds, is the siting of the project. So we’ve been conducting a lot of wildlife surveys, including vegetation surveys, wetland assessments, at the project area since last August. We’ve been providing that feedback to Enbridge to the results of our monitoring program. Enbridge has taken those results into consideration when they are siting the turbines, so they’re avoiding sensitive species observations.”

“So for example, if we see a breeding species of a particular bird that requires a set back to make sure it’s not harmed, they adjust the turbine locations if needed to try and avoid those breeding observations.”

Knopf stated that they generally see very low levels of fatality in waterfowl such as snow geese or Canada geese.

“They migrate at very high heights, so even though these turbines are tall, the birds are migrating at much higher heights than the turbines will be spinning at. They also tend to migrate during the day, so they have an easier time of avoiding the turbines because they can see them and avoid them that way too.”

She said the post-construction monitoring program, with staff on-site, walking beneath the turbines to see if there are bird fatalities.

“We do expect that there will be low levels of bird fatalities on the project. It is inevitable with wind projects, but generally the levels of bird fatality is quite low. So the project would have something called an adaptive management. So that means that at different levels of fatality, various mitigation measures or monitoring programs would kick in. So we wouldn’t anticipate low levels, but if a high fatality event did occur or if there were certain sensitive species that were found beneath the turbines, various mitigation measures would apply to the project. So that’s how that can kind of be taken care of post construction, is by using that adaptive management process.” 

She noted the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment holds the wind power industry accountable to a three-tier system, and based on what tier of fatality one might see, there would be different mitigation measures or monitoring protocols kicked into place, such as habitat compensation for a particular species or other various processes. 

Knopf’s explanations are also included in the audio file below.