TE51100-final revised-addendumLet-28Apr09-gb-cjy.doc AMEC Earth & Environmental, a division of AMEC Americas Limited 25 Waggoners Lane Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 2L2 Tel + 1 (506) 458-1000 Fax + 1 (506) 450-0829 www.amec.com April 28, 2009 TE51100 Mr. Greg Gaudet, P.Eng. Director of Municipal Services City of Summerside 94 Ottawa Street Summerside, PE C1N 1W3 Dear Mr. Gaudet: Re: Project Design Addendum (Revised) for City of Summerside Wind Farm Project, Summerside, Prince County, PE This revised project design addendum presents the latest turbine configuration and updates the project description including responses to regulatory review comments received on April 02 regarding the draft addendum (dated January 20, 2009). As a result of additional technical analyses (shadow flicker and noise modelling) it has been determined by the design engineers that it is desirable to relocate two of the turbines. Also, there has been a change in the power interconnection design. Due to these design changes there will be a significant decrease in total project footprint. The revised project layout is shown in Figure 1.1. The proposed design changes are detailed below. Project Description Turbine 1 (T1) has been relocated approximately 75 m West-southwest of the former location. Turbine 4 (T4) has been relocated approximately 750 m northwest of the former location. Thus, the water treatment facility grounds will no longer be involved in the project. Also, the collector line and access road to the new T4 location will be significantly shorter. The new turbine locations were compared to the 200 m migratory bird exclusion zone provided by regulators on April 02, 2009 (see Figure 1.2) in order to ensure that they are not inside the zone, There has been no significant change in the locations of Turbine 2 (T2) or Turbine 3 (T3). In September 2009, a visual survey of T3 resulted in the identification of two historic archaeological sites that are now registered with the province (Sites CcCw-2 and CcCw-3); which will require on-site monitoring during construction. Any subsurface activities conducted in the field in which Turbine 3 is proposed shall be monitored by a licensed archaeologist. An archaeological procedural protocol shall be adopted and followed in the event of an unexpected archaeological discovery during construction or operation. The proposed interconnection voltage has changed from 69 kV to 34.5 kV line (i.e., from transmission voltage to distribution voltage). The distribution power line route is shown in Figure 1.3. This change was made in response to the general public concern about locating another transmission power line in the local area, and because of difficulty in obtaining a construction corridor. Also, because of this change, the construction of a new local substation will no longer
124
Embed
Re: Project Design Addendum (Revised) for City of ...City of Summerside 94 Ottawa Street Summerside, PE C1N 1W3 Dear Mr. Gaudet: Re: Project Design Addendum (Revised) for City of Summerside
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
TE51100-final revised-addendumLet-28Apr09-gb-cjy.doc AMEC Earth & Environmental, a division of AMEC Americas Limited 25 Waggoners Lane Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 2L2 Tel + 1 (506) 458-1000 Fax + 1 (506) 450-0829 www.amec.com
April 28, 2009
TE51100
Mr. Greg Gaudet, P.Eng. Director of Municipal Services City of Summerside 94 Ottawa Street Summerside, PE C1N 1W3
Dear Mr. Gaudet:
Re: Project Design Addendum (Revised) for City of Summerside Wind Farm Project, Summerside, Prince County, PE
This revised project design addendum presents the latest turbine configuration and updates the project description including responses to regulatory review comments received on April 02 regarding the draft addendum (dated January 20, 2009). As a result of additional technical analyses (shadow flicker and noise modelling) it has been determined by the design engineers that it is desirable to relocate two of the turbines. Also, there has been a change in the power interconnection design. Due to these design changes there will be a significant decrease in total project footprint. The revised project layout is shown in Figure 1.1. The proposed design changes are detailed below.
Project Description Turbine 1 (T1) has been relocated approximately 75 m West-southwest of the former location. Turbine 4 (T4) has been relocated approximately 750 m northwest of the former location. Thus, the water treatment facility grounds will no longer be involved in the project. Also, the collector line and access road to the new T4 location will be significantly shorter. The new turbine locations were compared to the 200 m migratory bird exclusion zone provided by regulators on April 02, 2009 (see Figure 1.2) in order to ensure that they are not inside the zone, There has been no significant change in the locations of Turbine 2 (T2) or Turbine 3 (T3). In September 2009, a visual survey of T3 resulted in the identification of two historic archaeological sites that are now registered with the province (Sites CcCw-2 and CcCw-3); which will require on-site monitoring during construction. Any subsurface activities conducted in the field in which Turbine 3 is proposed shall be monitored by a licensed archaeologist. An archaeological procedural protocol shall be adopted and followed in the event of an unexpected archaeological discovery during construction or operation. The proposed interconnection voltage has changed from 69 kV to 34.5 kV line (i.e., from transmission voltage to distribution voltage). The distribution power line route is shown in Figure 1.3. This change was made in response to the general public concern about locating another transmission power line in the local area, and because of difficulty in obtaining a construction corridor. Also, because of this change, the construction of a new local substation will no longer
Mr. Greg Gaudet April 28, 2009 Page 2 be required. The new routing was specifically chosen in order to remain within municipal limits throughout. A final decision has been made regarding the location of distribution lines underground or overhead, as follows. Distribution lines will be located underground from each turbine to the edge of the public road and then will be located overhead for the remaining part of the route to the substation in Summerside (Figure 1.1, and Figure 1.3).
Significance of Design Changes In the paragraphs below we have discussed the significance of these design changes for the results of previous assessments and follow-up field studies to date. The most recent follow-up field studies include the Fall (2008) Flora Survey results (letter dated November 25, 2008) and the Heritage Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) - 2008 Field Season Investigations – Final Report (dated March 31, 2009) for the September 17, 2008 turbine locations. Also, the AMEC report: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation – Proposed Wind Turbine Number 4 is presented below in Attachment 1. These studies were requested by regulators as part of EIA approval follow-up. Turbine 1 (T1) The placement of Turbine 1 (T1) has been moved approximately 75 metres (m) West-southwest of the previous (September 17) placement. This area was visually surveyed during the September field examination for placement of T1 and its associated laydown area and access road (which have not changed). The relocation of the turbine at T1 does not impact the results of the Heritage Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) conducted to date. Therefore, no further HRIA investigations are required for this location. The habitat at the revised T1 location is identical to the September 17 placement. Due to the very minor change in location at this site, there is no change in potential impacts on terrestrial wildlife or migratory birds. There is no potential for impacts on watercourses, wetlands, or species at risk. Turbine 4 (T4) The placement of Turbine 4 (T4) has changed significantly since the field survey was conducted. Initially it was placed on the south side of Lyle Road, in the vicinity of a sewage lagoon. It has been moved to a proposed location between T1 and T2, approximately 250 m north of Lyle Road (Figure 1.1). On September 17 a small portion of this area, adjacent to Lyle Road, was surveyed for the collector line routing between T1 and T2. Therefore, the entire impact area for the revised location for T4 (and its associated laydown and access areas) has not been visually surveyed for potential heritage resources. A 1935 aerial photograph of this location indicates a cluster of building structures (likely a house and barn) between Lyle Road and the proposed location for T4. In 1990 there was still a structure located on this site. Presently, this area is an overgrown apple orchard, with no apparent structure on it. Therefore, while the new location for T4 does not appear to impact this potential heritage resource, the potential impacts of the access road and laydown area have yet to be determined. The areas with known potential for historic heritage resources on the immediate north side of Lyle Road should be avoided to the extent possible during the placement of the access road and laydown area for T4. In addition, a visual field survey of the entire impact area for T4 is required to fulfill regulatory requirements.
Mr. Greg Gaudet April 28, 2009 Page 3 The habitat at the revised T4 location has been described in the EIA and follow-up studies as overgrown apple orchard. The new turbine location is near the northern limit of this habitat close to the boundary with shrub swamp wetland. The overgrown apple orchard habitat does not represent unique or critical habitat for any species at risk or migratory birds; however, the wetland boundary must be more precisely identified prior to clearing or construction, in order to avoid any impacts on wetlands. The revised location of the T4 footprint appears to be located more than 50 m west of the nearest watercourse. The revised location for the collector line and access road for T4 is 60% smaller than previously and avoids a watercourse crossing. Therefore, potential impacts on wildlife and migratory birds will be significantly minimized by the latest design. Geotechnical testing at T4 in January 2009 indicated the presence of buried waste (see Attachment 1). During a meeting on April 02, 2009, regulators identified that the location for the T4 turbine may also have been used in the past for incineration of waste material. Therefore, the potential exists for disturbed soil to be contaminated. There is also the remote potential for buried waste to be encountered during ground disturbing activities near T1 (related to the St. Eleanor’s land fill). Therefore, site specific mitigation will be required including controlling all locally disturbed overburden so that it remains on the current property. Special mitigation will be included in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) including control of potentially contaminated material. Wildlife Prior to construction, biophysical field surveys (i.e., wetlands, species at risk, migratory bird nests, etc.) will be required in and within 30 m of the footprint of any turbine, lay-down area, or other project component that has been relocated since September 17, 2009. Field results will be provided to regulators for review. If any sensitive flora or fauna populations are identified, the locations will be marked in the field and avoided during construction. Site specific mitigation measures would be identified in the project EMP. A post construction follow-up monitoring program might also be identified in the EMP, depending on the nature of the sensitive population and the precise location relative to the project. Noise and Shadow Flicker Frontier Power Systems has provided a new noise model report and addendum report; which compares noise levels from the approved turbine configuration to the new turbine configuration (see Attachment 2). In general the proposed layout reduces the level of noise impact on nearby dwellings. The predicted noise level is reduced at 26 of the 39 receptors, with several being reduced by over 3 dBA. The predicted noise level is increased at 13 of the receptors with the largest increase at 0.28 dBA. The average change in the predicted noise level for the group is a decrease of 0.58 dBA. Frontier Power Systems has provided a new shadow flicker model report and addendum report; which compares shadow flicker levels from the approved turbine configuration to the new turbine configuration (see Attachment 3). In general the proposed layout significantly reduces the amount of shadow flicker on nearby dwellings. The theoretical maximum amount of flicker is reduced at 34 of the 49 receptors, with an average reduction of 16 hours of flicker per year per receptor. The theoretical maximum amount of flicker is increased at 6 of the receptors with the largest increase of 8 hours of flicker per year. In total, the proposed layout will reduce the de-rated (realistic) amount shadow flicker on the 49 receptors by over 300 hours per year.
Closing Remarks Precise locations of the access roads and the arrangement of Site Layout components are shown in Attachment 4. There is no change in the type of impacts or mitigation that has previously been assessed for this project due to the relocation of T1 and T4. In fact, the revised locations significantly reduce the project footprint and require one less watercourse crossing. An additional field survey will be required at the revised T1 and T4 locations to confirm the potential impacts on Heritage Resources and to ensure that the project avoids identified wetlands to the immediate north of T4 or any other sensitive habitat. The field survey will also include the proposed routes of underground power lines (Figure 1.1). This survey cannot be conducted before June 1st, 2009 due to vegetative seasonality. If you require clarification on anything contained herein, please do not hesitate to contact me at 450-8855 (471-0616). Sincerely,
Janet Blackadar, M.Sc.F, CEPIT Project Manager Direct Tel.: 1.506.450.8855 Direct Fax: 1.506.450.0829 E-mail: [email protected] GB/cjy Attachments:
!.
!.
!.
#*
2
4
1
April 28, 2009Drawn by S. TurnerProjection: NAD83 PEI StereographicFile Name: DistributionLine_28Apr2009.mxdJob No.: TE51100
±
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 km1:20,000
Legend#* Existing Substation!. Turbine Site
Distribution Line
Figure 1.3Electrical Distribution Line (34.5 kV)
Summerside Wind Farm, PEI
ATTACHMENT 1
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED WIND TURBINE NUMBER 4
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WIND TURBINE NUMBER 4
SUMMERSIDE PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Submitted to: City of Summerside
Submitted by:
AMEC Earth & Environmental,
A Division of AMEC Americas Limited 1133 St. George Blvd. Moncton, NB E1E 4E1
January 2009
TE51100
City of Summerside Proposed Wind Turbine Number 4 Geotechnical Investigation Summerside, PEI January 2009
APPENDIX A Borehole Record General Report Notes APPENDIX B Limitations APPENDIX C Figure 2 – Borehole Location Plan
City of Summerside Proposed Wind Turbine Number 4 Geotechnical Investigation Summerside, PEI January 2009
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AMEC Earth & Environmental, a Division of AMEC Americas Limited, was retained by the City of Summerside to conduct a preliminary geotechnical investigation for proposed wind turbine number 4 to be located in Summerside, PEI. The purpose of the investigation was to provide preliminary geotechnical design data. This report was prepared with the condition that the design will be in accordance with applicable standards and codes, regulations of authorities having jurisdiction, and good engineering practices. Further, the recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are only applicable to the proposed project as described above. Since all details of the design may not be known, we recommend that we be retained during the final design stage to verify that the design is consistent with our recommendations, and that the assumptions made in our analysis are valid. In addition, there should also be an ongoing liaison with AMEC during both the design and construction phases of the project to help ensure that the recommendations in this report have been interpreted and implemented correctly. Also, if any further clarification and/or elaboration are needed concerning the geotechnical aspects of this project, AMEC should be contacted immediately. AMEC’s memo, dated October 7, 2008, formed the basis for this assignment.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The location of the proposed wind turbine is shown on the attached figure in Appendix C. The area is clear of trees and the structure is to be located at the site of a former landfill.
3.0 INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES
The investigation program consisted of drilling one borehole using a truck-mounted auger drill. AMEC personnel performed supervision of the fieldwork. Soil sampling was carried out in the borehole, and Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were completed at each sample attempt. The results of these tests are presented on the attached Borehole Log in Appendix A. Soil samples were placed in moisture tight containers for subsequent examination and classification.
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
4.1 Fill
The surface soil layer consisted of 0.9 m of loose brown sand fill, followed by 3 m of a heterogeneous mixture of soil, organic material and refuse.
4.2 Sand and Sand with some gravel, trace clay
The fill is underlain by a 4.0 m thick layer of sand with some gravel and traces of clay. The N values within the sandy layer ranged from 8 near the layer surface to 27 with depth, indicating the compactness condition of the soil to be loose to compact.
City of Summerside Proposed Wind Turbine Number 4 Geotechnical Investigation Summerside, PEI January 2009
2
4.3 Cemented Fine Sand/Sandstone Bedrock
At the 7.9 m depth, cemented fine sand or very poor quality sandstone bedrock was encountered. Auger drilling continued for 0.5 m in this formation. During final investigations for the turbine, it is recommended that rock coring be carried out to better define the rock quality for design purposes.
4.4 Groundwater
Groundwater was observed in the borehole at the 1.5 m depth on January 6, 2009. However, groundwater may be found at higher levels during periods of heavy precipitation or during the spring melt season.
5.0 TURBINE FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Wind Turbine Foundations
The soils within the upper 6 m are too loose to provide support for the foundation loads from the wind turbine. Thus, it will be necessary to either:
• Remove the loose soils, backfill with compacted granular material and use gravity base foundation,
• Excavate to bedrock and place gravity base foundation on the bedrock, or • Use a pile foundation.
The depth of excavation is quite deep for the first two options, and the final choice should be determined on the relative costs of foundation types. Once preliminary design has been carried out as to the most feasible foundation type, detailed geotechnical foundation design information will be prepared. Reference is also made to AMEC’s October 2008 report titled:
That report contained preliminary geotechnical design information for wind turbine number 1 foundation, and that data would also apply here, on a preliminary basis.
6.0 EXCAVATIONS
It is expected that the sides of excavations for foundation preparations will initially stand vertically. Any excavations will have to conform to the regulations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of the Province of Prince Edward Island, and sloping of the sides of the excavations will be required. At no time should workers enter deep excavations (i.e., greater than 1.2 m) without the aids of trench boxes or sloping the sides of the excavation. Temporary side slopes of 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical should be stable.
City of Summerside Proposed Wind Turbine Number 4 Geotechnical Investigation Summerside, PEI January 2009
3
7.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Summerside or their agents for specific application to the development described within this report. Any use that a third party makes of this report, or any reliance or decisions based on this report are the sole responsibility of the third party. Should additional parties require reliance on this report, written authorization from AMEC will be required. With respect to third parties, AMEC has no liability or responsibility for losses of any kind whatsoever, including direct or consequential effects on transactions or property values, or requirements for follow-up actions and costs. The report is based on data and information collected during the geotechnical study conducted by AMEC. It is based solely on the conditions of the Site encountered during the field investigations conducted on January 6, 2009. Except as otherwise may be specified, AMEC disclaims any obligation to update this report for events taking place, or with respect to information that becomes available to AMEC after the time during which AMEC conducted the field work. AMEC makes no other representations whatsoever, including those concerning the legal significance of its findings, or as to other legal matters touched on in this report, including, but not limited to, ownership of any property, or the application of any law to the facts set forth herein. With respect to regulatory compliance issues, regulatory statutes are subject to interpretation and change. Such interpretations and regulatory changes should be reviewed with legal counsel. This Report is also subject to the Limitations contained in Appendix B. This factual report was prepared by Messers Lee MacWilliams, P.Eng. and Paul Belyea, P.Eng. Respectfully submitted, AMEC Earth & Environmental A Division of AMEC Americas Limited
Lee MacWilliams P. Eng. Senior Engineer
APPENDIX A
Borehole Record General Report Notes
9
29
3
12
2
50 for75 mm
8
8
9
27
50 for50 mm
28 50for 50mm
50 for50 mm
250
250
75
75
125
75
200
275
225
175
0
75
0
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
AU
SS
AU
SS
SS
AU
SS
SS
AU
SS
AU
SS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Loose brown SAND, trace silt. FILL.
Very loose heterogeneous mixture of soil,organic material, and refuse. FILL.
Loose brown fine grained SAND
Loose grading to compact brown fine grainedSAND with some gravel, trace clay.
Cemented brown fine sandstone BEDROCK
End of Borehole @ 8.6 m
WP
STANDARD PENETRATION TESTBlows/0.3m
LIQUIDLIMIT
PLASTICLIMIT
OTH
ER
TES
TS
20 40 60 80WATER CONTENT (%)
SAMPLES20 40 60 80
10 20 30RE
CO
VE
RY
(mm
)
W WL
NATURALMOISTURECONTENT
ELEVATION:
DATUM:
METHOD:
DIAMETER:
WATER LEVEL:
CONTRACTOR:
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH(kPa)
---
Auger
150 mm
1.52 m / 01-06-09
Boart Longyear
N-V
ALU
Eor
RQ
D%
STR
ATA
PLO
T
WA
TER
LE
VE
L
TYP
E
NU
MB
ER
L O G O F B O R E H O L E 02TE51100
City of Summerside
Proposed Wind Turbine - Preliminary Investigation
Summerside, PEI
1-6-09
L. Sharpe
PROJECT No.:
CLIENT:
PROJECT NAME:
LOCATION:
DATE DRILLED:
LOGGED BY:
SHEET 1 OF 1
0
ELE
VA
TIO
N(m
)
DE
PTH
(m)
STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
GE
OTE
CH
NIC
AL
BO
RE
HO
LE C
ITY
OF
SU
MM
ER
SID
E.G
PJ
AM
EC
HA
LIFA
X.G
DT
1/2
0/09
GENERAL REPORT NOTES
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) The standard penetration values are recorded on the Borehole Records as N values. The N values are the number of blows required to advance a standard, 51 mm diameter, split spoon sampler a distance of 305 mm into the soil using a 63.5 kg hammer freely falling a distance of 760 mm. DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST (DCPT) This is a similar procedure to that used in driving a standard 51 mm split spoon sampler except that a cone is driven rather than a soil sampler. A variety of cones can be used. Often the cones are 51 mm diameter with a 60 degree taper from the tip. SAMPLE TYPE ABBREVIATION USED ON BOREHOLE LOGS SS Split spoon ST Shelby tube WS Wash sample AU Auger sample RC Rock core Push Sample pushed SOIL DESCRIPTION The standard terminology to describe cohesionless soils includes the compactness condition as generally determined by the SPT. The standard terminology to describe cohesive soils includes the consistency, which is based on various methods of determining undrained shear strength, and by SPT.
Cohesionless Soils Cohesive Soils
Compactness condition
N values
Consistency Undrained shear strength (kPa)
Very loose 0 – 4 Very soft < 12.5 Loose 4 – 10 Soft 12.5 – 25 Compact 10 – 30 Firm 25 – 50 Dense 30 – 50 Stiff 50 – 100 Very dense > 50 Very stiff 100 – 200 Hard > 200
NOTE The soil conditions, profiles, comments, conclusions and recommendations found in this report are based upon samples recovered during the field work. Soils are heterogeneous materials, and, consequently, variations may be encountered at site locations away from where the samples were obtained. During construction, competent, qualified personnel should verify that no significant variations exist from those described in the report.
APPENDIX B
Limitations
Limitations
The conclusions and recommendations given in this report are based on information determined at the borehole locations. The information contained herein in no way reflects on the environmental aspects of the project, unless otherwise stated. Subsurface and groundwater conditions between and beyond the boreholes may differ from those encountered at the borehole locations, and conditions may become apparent during construction, which could not be detected or anticipated at the time of the site investigation. It is recommended practice that the Geotechnical Engineer be retained during the construction to confirm that the subsurface conditions across the site do not deviate materially from those encountered in the boreholes. The design recommendations given in this report are applicable only to the project described in the text, and then only if constructed substantially in accordance with the details stated in this report. Since all details of the design may not be known, we recommend that we be retained during the final design stage to verify that the design is consistent with our recommendations, and that assumptions made in our analysis are valid. The number of boreholes may not be sufficient to determine all the factors that may affect construction methods and costs. For example, the thickness of surficial soil layer may vary markedly and unpredictably. The contractors bidding on this project or undertaking the construction should, therefore, make their own interpretation of the factual information presented and draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect their work. This work has been undertaken in accordance with normally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty is expressed or implied. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. AMEC Americas Limited accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.
APPENDIX C
Figure 2 – Borehole Location Plan
!!.
!.
!.
!.
! (
M a l p e q u e B a y
Lyle RD
Car
rie D
R
Nor
th D
R
Dek
ker R
D
Com
pton
RD
Delaney RD
T3
T4
T2
T1
BH-02
®1:10,000
0 100 200 300 400 500m
January 20, 2009Drawn by S. Turner/D. McCoyProjection: NAD83 PEI StereographicFile Name: Figure2_20Jan2009.mxdJob No.: TE51100
Legend! ( Borehole Location
! Substation
Access Road
Laydown Area
") Dwelling
Public Road
Transmission Line
Collector Line
!. Turbine Site
Figure 2 Map Identifying Location of the
Summerside Wind Farm Borehole Location
Project Site
N o r t h u m b e r l a n dS t r a i t
G u l f o f S t . L a w r e n c e
PrinceEdwardIsland
®
N.T.S.
LOCATOR MAP
ATTACHMENT 2
ADDENDUM NOISE REPORT
Page 1 Summerside Wind Farm Addendum to Noise Modelling for Environmental Assessment Prepared for the City of Summerside Prepared by Frontier Power Systems April 24, 2009 Background The City of Summerside is developing a wind farm for electrical energy generation. The wind turbine locations and operating modes have changed numerous times throughout the planning and environmental assessment processes. As a result the noise model and predicted noise levels have also changed. This report compares the turbine layout and predicted noise levels, which were originally approved through the EA process, to the layout currently proposed. The noise model for the current layout was set up with identical parameters and noise receptors to those used in the EA approved model to allow a direct comparison of the predicted noise levels for each receptor. Turbine Locations and Operating Modes Table 1 provides the coordinates and operating mode for each turbine in both the EA approved layout and the proposed layout. Figure 1 shows the turbine layout and noise receptors in the EA approved layout. Figure 2 show shows the turbine layout and noise receptors in the proposed layout. The location of turbine 1 in the EA approved layout has moved approximately 50m to the south west. The location of turbine 2 in the EA approved layout has moved approximately 75m to the west. The location of turbine 3 in the EA approved layout has not changed. The location of turbine 4 in the EA approved layout has moved approximately 780m to the east north east. There are 3 different operating modes available, with varying sound power levels, for the selected turbine type. Mode 0 is the loudest with a sound power level of 109.4 dBA, mode 1 has a sound power level of 107.8 dBA, and mode 2 is the quietest with a sound power level of 106.8 dBA. The EA approved turbine configuration was composed of 1 turbine in mode 0, 1 turbine in mode 1, and 2 turbines in mode 2. The proposed layout is composed of 1 turbine in mode 0, and 3 turbines in mode 2. The operating modes and sound power levels are summarized in table 1.
EA Approved Turbine Configuration Proposed Turbine Configuration
All Coordinates are UTM zone 20 NAD83 Table 1: Turbine Locations and Operating Modes
Page 2
Figure 1 – EA approved turbine layout
Page 3
Figure 2 – Proposed layout
Page 4 Noise Receptors The noise receptor group for the proposed layout is identical to that used for the EA approved layout. The noise receptors are shown in figure 1 and figure 2. Table 2 provides the coordinates of the noise receptors. It is important to the note that the noise receptor group is not an exhaustive list of all the dwellings that may be impacted by noise from the wind farm, but it does accurately represent the dwellings nearest the turbines which will experience the highest noise levels. For example, there are numerous houses in the area of receptors 18 – 22 on North Drive, which are not individually represented by a receptor. Similarly receptors 34 and 35 do not represent individual dwellings but were included to provide an indication of the noise levels in the area south of the wind plant near highway 2. No receptors were included in the area of the housing sub-division in Slemon Park to the west, but this area is over 1000m from the wind farm and the noise impact is expected to be very low compared to those living nearer the wind farm. Also worth noting is that receptor 16 is an apartment building, which has been represented by a single receptor at the corner of the building nearest the turbines.
Eastings Northings Eastings Northings Dwelling ID (m) (m)
Page 5 Noise Model Parameters The noise model for the current layout was set up with identical parameters to those used in the EA approved model. The noise model parameters are summarized below:
• Form of noise model used Complex (ISO9613) General • Ground Effect Porous Ground • Ground Effect ISO9613 General • Ground factor around turbines 0.80 • Ground factor everywhere else 0.80 • Meteorological correction factor Co 0.00 dB • Other attenuations to be considered 0.00 dB • Relative to background noise 0.00 dB(A) • Calculation grid spacing 10.00 m • Height above ground for noise mapping 2.00 m • Use DTM height data Yes • Octave Spreading Yes
The atmospheric attenuation coefficients used in the noise model are summarized in table 3.
Table 3: Atmospheric Attenuation for Octave Bands of Noise The sound power data for the V90 wind turbine in modes 0, 1, and 2 operation was provided by Vestas, the turbine manufacturer. Tables 4, 5, and 6 summarize the octave sound power levels for each operating mode. The sound power data is representative of the wind shear conditions encountered at this site.
Table 6: Sound Power Level for Vestas V90 (3.0 MW) - Mode 2 (106.8dBA)
Page 7 Predicted Noise Levels The predicted noise levels from the EA approved layout and the proposed layout are compared in table 7. In general the proposed layout reduces the level of noise impact on nearby dwellings. The predicted noise level is reduced at 26 of the 39 receptors, with several being reduced by over 3 dBA. The predicted noise level is increased at 13 of the receptors with the largest increase at 0.28 dBA. The average change in the predicted noise level for the group is a decrease of 0.58 dBA. Figure 3 shows the predicted noise contours for the EA approved layout. Figure 4 shows the predicted noise contours for the proposed layout. EA Approved Layout Proposed Layout
Noise prediction Noise prediction Change Dwelling ID (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (dB(A))
GH WindFarmer Report City of Summerside Wind Plant
Noise Analysis Summerside_FinalLayout_240409.wow
24 April 2009
GH WindFarmer
24 April 2009 Summerside_FinalLayout_240409.wow
2
1 General report information WindFarmer version v3.6.1.0 C:\FPS Work\Current Projects\Summerside\Summerside_2009\FinalLayout\Summerside_FinalLayout_240409.wow April 24, 2009
2 Project: Summerside Project Summerside Number of turbines 4 Site capacity 12.0 MW
3 Project: Summerside - Turbines Table
Turbine ID Turbine label Turbine type name
Hub height (m) Rotor diameter (m)
Capacity (kW)
1 Vestas V90 (3.0 MW) - Mode 2
(106.8dBA)
80.0 90.0 3000
2 Vestas V90 (3.0 MW) - Mode 0
(109.4dBA)
80.0 90.0 3000
3 Vestas V90 (3.0 MW) - Mode 2
(106.8dBA)
80.0 90.0 3000
4 Vestas V90 (3.0 MW) - Mode 2
(106.8dBA)
80.0 90.0 3000
Table 1 - Turbines Table - Part 1
Turbine ID Eastings (m) Northings (m) Height of base (m)
1 44.65 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 2 43.60 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 3 42.73 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 4 38.19 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 5 36.31 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 6 35.86 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 7 35.80 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 8 35.65 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 9 36.08 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable
10 36.82 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 11 37.48 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 12 36.79 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 13 39.45 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 14 39.80 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 15 41.02 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 16 42.09 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 17 44.61 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 18 40.19 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 19 39.61 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 20 38.84 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 21 38.05 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 22 35.97 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 23 41.83 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 24 44.20 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 25 43.94 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 26 43.54 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 27 41.10 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 28 42.24 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 29 40.94 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 30 40.02 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 31 39.55 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 32 38.09 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 33 36.64 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 34 36.26 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 35 36.02 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 36 33.69 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 37 33.71 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 38 33.77 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable 39 33.77 Absolute 45.00 Not applicable Not applicable
6 Workbook noise options Form of noise model to be used Complex (ISO9613) General Ground Effect Porous Ground Ground Effect ISO9613 General Ground factor around turbines 0.80 Ground factor everywhere else 0.80 Meteorological correction factor Co 0.00 dB Other attenuations to be considered 0.00 dB Initial default noise limit to use when placing dwellings 45.00 dB(A)
GH WindFarmer
24 April 2009 Summerside_FinalLayout_240409.wow
7
Relative to background noise 0.00 dB(A) Calculation grid spacing 10.00 m Height above ground for noise mapping 2.00 m Use DTM height data Yes Octave Spreading Yes
Table 5 - Atmospheric Attenuation for Octave Bands of Noise
7 Project: Summerside - Turbine types Turbine type Vestas V90 (3.0 MW) - Mode 0 (109.4dBA) Diameter 90.0 m Hub height 80.0 m Number of blades 3 Air density for power curve 1.225 kg/m^3 Power regulation Pitch Cut-In windspeed 4.0 m/s Cut-Out windspeed 25.0 m/s Turbine Classification: Certification according to None Turbine Class None Sub-Class None V mean 0 m/s V ref 0 m/s Design Turbulence 0 % Slope parameter - a 0
Table 7 - Sound Power Level for Vestas V90 (3.0 MW) - Mode 0 (109.4dBA) Specify absolute sound power level Yes Specify variation of sound power level with wind speed No Turbine type Vestas V90 (3.0 MW) - Mode 1 (107.8dBA) Diameter 90.0 m Hub height 80.0 m Number of blades 3 Air density for power curve 1.225 kg/m^3 Power regulation Pitch Cut-In windspeed 4.0 m/s Cut-Out windspeed 25.0 m/s Turbine Classification: Certification according to None
GH WindFarmer
24 April 2009 Summerside_FinalLayout_240409.wow
9
Turbine Class None Sub-Class None V mean 0 m/s V ref 0 m/s Design Turbulence 0 % Slope parameter - a 0
Table 9 - Sound Power Level for Vestas V90 (3.0 MW) - Mode 1 (107.8dBA) Specify absolute sound power level Yes Specify variation of sound power level with wind speed No Turbine type Vestas V90 (3.0 MW) - Mode 2 (106.8dBA) Diameter 90.0 m Hub height 80.0 m Number of blades 3
GH WindFarmer
24 April 2009 Summerside_FinalLayout_240409.wow
10
Air density for power curve 1.225 kg/m^3 Power regulation Pitch Cut-In windspeed 4.0 m/s Cut-Out windspeed 25.0 m/s Turbine Classification: Certification according to None Turbine Class None Sub-Class None V mean 0 m/s V ref 0 m/s Design Turbulence 0 % Slope parameter - a 0
Table 11 - Sound Power Level for Vestas V90 (3.0 MW) - Mode 2 (106.8dBA)
GH WindFarmer
24 April 2009 Summerside_FinalLayout_240409.wow
11
Specify absolute sound power level Yes Specify variation of sound power level with wind speed No
ATTACHMENT 3
ADDENDUM SHADOW FLICKER REPORT
Page 1 Summerside Wind Farm Addendum to Shadow Flicker Modelling for Environmental Assessment Prepared for the City of Summerside Prepared by Frontier Power Systems April 24, 2009 Background The City of Summerside is developing a wind farm for electrical energy generation. The wind turbine locations have changed numerous times throughout the planning and environmental assessment processes. As a result of these changes, the shadow flicker modelling has also changed. This report compares the amount of shadow flicker from the layout which was originally approved through the EA process, to the layout currently proposed. The shadow flicker model for the current layout was set up with identical parameters and shadow receptors to those used in the EA approved model to allow a direct comparison of the results for each receptor. Turbine Locations Table 1 provides the coordinates and operating mode for each turbine in both the EA approved layout and the proposed layout. Figure 1 shows the turbine layout and noise receptors in the EA approved layout. Figure 2 show shows the turbine layout and noise receptors in the proposed layout. The location of turbine 1 in the EA approved layout has moved approximately 50m to the south west. The location of turbine 2 in the EA approved layout has moved approximately 75m to the west. The location of turbine 3 in the EA approved layout has not changed. The location of turbine 4 in the EA approved layout has moved approximately 780m to the east north east.
EA Approved Turbine Configuration Proposed Turbine Configuration
Coordinates are UTM zone 20 NAD83 Table 1: Turbine Locations
Page 2
Figure 1 – EA approved turbine layout
Page 3
Figure 2 – Proposed layout
Page 4 Shadow Flicker Receptors The shadow receptor group for the proposed layout is identical to that used for the EA approved layout to allow direct comparison of the shadow flicker at each receptor. The shadow receptors are shown in figure 1 and figure 2. Table 2 provides the coordinates of the shadow receptors.
Table 2: Shadow Receptor Coordinates
Eastings Northings Eastings Northings Dwelling ID (m) (m)
Page 5 Shadow Flicker Model Parameters The shadow flicker model for the current layout was set up with identical parameters to those used in the EA approved model. The shadow model parameters are summarized below:
• Turbine hub height 80 m • Turbine rotor diameter 90 m • Latitude 46 deg 26 min North • Longitude 63 deg 47 min West • Calculation time interval 10 Min • Maximum distance from turbine 1000 m • Height above ground level 2 m • Minimum sun elevation 3 deg • Year of calculation 2007 • Model the sun as a disc Yes • Consider distance between rotor and tower Yes • Turbine orientation Sphere around rotor centre • Terrain and visibility Turbine and sun visibility considered • Visibility algorithm checks every 10.0 m
The shadow flicker model determines a theoretical maximum amount of shadow flicker, in total hours of flicker per year. The amount of shadow flicker determined by the model is a theoretical maximum or “worst case” amount due to the following set of conditions:
• Every day is sunny and cloudless • The turbines are always operating • The rotor plane is always perpendicular to the line of sight from the receptor to the sun • There are no obstacles such as trees or walls between the receptors and the turbines • The limits of human perception of changing light intensity are not considered
The theoretical maximum hours of shadow flicker per year can then be de-rated to be statistically representative of actual or realistic conditions using the following climatological data:
• Monthly wind speed frequency distribution at hub height • Sunshine hours from long term monthly reference data
The de-rated hours of shadow flicker per year are still conservative as there is no consideration given to the presence of blocking obstacles, the intensity of the flicker, or the directional wind distribution (rotor plane is always considered perpendicular to the receptor).
Page 6 Shadow Flicker Results The shadow flicker results from the EA approved layout and the proposed layout are compared in table 3. In general the proposed layout significantly reduces the amount of shadow flicker on nearby dwellings. The theoretical maximum amount of flicker is reduced at 34 of the 49 receptors, with an average reduction of 16 hours of flicker per year per receptor. The theoretical maximum amount of flicker is increased at 6 of the receptors with the largest increase of 8 hours of flicker per year. In total, the proposed layout will reduce the de-rated (realistic) amount shadow flicker on the 49 receptors by over 300 hours per year. Figure 3 shows the shadow flicker contour map for the EA approved layout. Figure 4 shows the shadow flicker contour map for the proposed layout.
Figure 2 – Shadow flicker contours for EA approved layout
Page 9
Figure 4 –Shadow flicker contours for proposed layout
GH WindFarmer
24 April 2009 Summerside_FinalLayout_ShadowFlicker_240409.wow
1
GH WindFarmer Report City of Summerside Wind Plant - Shadow Flicker
Summerside_FinalLayout_ShadowFlicker_240409.wow
24 April 2009
GH WindFarmer
24 April 2009 Summerside_FinalLayout_ShadowFlicker_240409.wow
2
1 General report information WindFarmer version v3.6.1.0 C:\FPS Work\Current Projects\Summerside\Summerside_2009\FinalLayout\Summerside_FinalLayout_ShadowFlicker_240409.wow April 24, 2009
2 Project: Summerside Project Summerside Number of turbines 4
3 Project: Summerside - Turbines Table
Turbine ID Turbine label Turbine type name
Hub height (m) Rotor diameter (m)
Capacity (kW)
1 Vestas V90 (3.0 MW) - Mode 2
(106.8dBA)
80.0 90.0 3000
2 Vestas V90 (3.0 MW) - Mode 0
(109.4dBA)
80.0 90.0 3000
3 Vestas V90 (3.0 MW) - Mode 2
(106.8dBA)
80.0 90.0 3000
4 Vestas V90 (3.0 MW) - Mode 2
(106.8dBA)
80.0 90.0 3000
Table 1 - Turbines Table - Part 1
Turbine ID Eastings (m) Northings (m) Height of base (m)
24 April 2009 Summerside_FinalLayout_ShadowFlicker_240409.wow
6
5 Shadow Flicker Data WindFarmer Site Shadow Flicker Report 3.6.1.0 File name:Summerside_FinalLayout_ShadowFlicker_240409.wow C:\FPS Work\Current Projects\Summerside\Summerside_2009\FinalLayout\Summerside_FinalLayout_ShadowFlicker_240409.wow Date: April 24, 2009 Latitude 46 deg 26 min North Longitude 63 deg 47 min West Calculation time interval 10 Min Maximum distance from turbine 1000 m Minimum sun elevation 3 deg Year of calculation 2007 Model the sun as a disc Yes Consider distance between rotor and tower Yes Turbine orientation Sphere around rotor centre Terrain and visibility Turbine and sun visibility considered Visibility line of sight algorithm checks every 10.0 m
GH WindFarmer
24 April 2009 Summerside_FinalLayout_ShadowFlicker_240409.wow
7
6 Project: Summerside
Shadow Flicker – Cumulative Hours/yr (Theoretical Maximum) Receptor ID Turbine 1 Turbine 2 Turbine 3 Turbine 4 All Turbines