esther wrightman - adelaide-kerwood ert appeal

7/30/2019 Esther Wrightman - Adelaide-Kerwood ERT Appeal

1/11

ERT Case No.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TRIBUNAL

B E T W E E N:

ESTHER WRIGHTMAN

- and -

DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

NOTICE OF APPEAL OF

ESTHER WRIGHTMAN

August 16, 2013 ESTHER WRIGHTMAN

1516 Napperton Dr.

Kerwood, ON N0M 2B0

Tel: (519) 247 3541

Email: [email protected]

TO: APPELLATE BODY:Secretary, Environmental Review Tribunal

655 Bay Street, Floor 15

Toronto, ON M5G 1E5

Tel.: (416) 314-4600

Fax: (416) 314-4506


AND TO: ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO:

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario1075 Bay Street, Suite 605

Toronto, ON M5S 2B1

Tel.: (416) 325-3377

Fax: (416) 325-3370

E-mail: [email protected]


2/11

2

AND TO: APPROVAL AUTHORITY:

Vic Schroter

Director, Section 47.5 Environmental Protection Act

Ministry of the Environment

2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A

Toronto, ON M4V 1L5

Tel.: (416) 314-8573

Fax: (416) 314-8452


AND TO: APPROVAL HOLDER:

Kerwood Wind Inc.

390 Bay Street, Suite 1720

Toronto, Ontario

M5H 2Y2

(i) Contact Information

(a) Name and contact information of the Appellant

Esther Wrightman

1516 Napperton Dr.

Kerwood, ON N0M 2B0

Tel: (519) 247 3541


(ii) Renewable Energy Approval Being Appealed

1. The Appellant is appealing the decision of the Director to issue a Renewable Energy Approval to KerwoodWind Inc. (the Proponent) to engage in the Adelaide Wind Energy Centre in respect of a Class 4 wind facility

consisting of the construction, installation, operation, use and retiring of up to thirty-seven (37) turbines, rated at

1.6 MW generating output capacity, with a total name plate capacity of 59.9 MW in the Municipality of North

Middlesex and the Township of Adelaide-Metcalfe, County of Middlesex, Ontario (the Project).

2. A copy of the instrument decision notice under appeal is attached, being Renewable Energy ApprovalNumber 6465-8XGLQT, issued August 1, 2013 to the Proponent - EBR Registry Number 011-7625, posted to

the Registry on August 1, 2013.

(iii) Portions of the Renewable Energy Approval being Appealed

3. The portions of the Renewable Energy Approval that the Appellant is appealing are the following sections:a. Terms and Conditions:

i.A General A1 and A8.


3/11

3

ii.C - Noise Performance Limits C1, C3 and C4.iii.D Acoustic Audit Immission and Emission (Transformer Substations) D1iv.E Acoustic Audit - Emmission (Wind Turbines) E1 and E2v.F Acoustic Audit Immission (Wind Turbines) F1

vi.K Natural Heritage and Pre and Post Construction Monitoring K1 K15vii.O - Operation and Maintenance O1, O2 and O3.

viii.P - Record Creation and Retention P3.b. Schedule A Facility Descriptionc. Schedule B Adelaide wind farm and Parkhill interconnect substation Coordinates of the Equipment

and Noise Specifications

d. Schedule C Noise Control Measurese. Reasons 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14.

(iv) How Engaging in the Renewable Energy Project in Accordance with the Renewable Energy Approval

will Cause Serious and Irreversible Harm to Human Health and Human Habitat; and Plants, Animals, and

the Natural Environment.

Wind turbines DO cause harm to human health

4. Industrial Wind Turbines produce exceptional amounts of noise that is unlike any other noise in ourexperience. The source of the noise is outside in quiet rural countryside. It is located 100-130m above ground and

produces a repetitive, persistent pulse, that continues on through the entire day, and long into the night.

5. People living in wind turbine zones that are exposed to the noise, become severely ill after the windturbines are installed and begin to operate.

6. What is certain and compelling is that when wind turbines cease operation, or affected residents travelaway from their home by the turbines (e.g., go on vacation, or move elsewhere), their symptoms disappear now that

they are not subject to the constant noise and flicker.

7. This set of circumstances has been proven around the world, as well as locally throughout rural Ontario, forthousands of people. Just like seasickness, not everyone gets sick. As with any illness, people vary in their reactions

at different distances from the IWTs too. But consistently a significant number of people become profoundly ill,

when wind turbines are installed, and it is these people who will suffer severe and irreversible harm to their health.


4/11

4

Wind turbines can, and do, shatter lives.

Precautionary principle is not being followed

8. What has happened in Ontario, is that the burden of proof has been foisted on rural Ontario residents. Wemust prove, literally with our lives, with our childrens lives, with our livestock and our wildlifes lives, that we

have severe and irreversible harm done to us by IWTs. Are there any willing volunteers out there for this job? Is

this not the purpose of human rights and health/safety laws in Canada to prevent humans from being used in

scientific experiments against their will? Even with hundreds of people already affected in this province, begging for

help, it is still just considered anecdotal, and unverified. Residents suffering are not considered scientific

enough evidence to halt construction.

9. Using the precautionary principle, we do not need to know the mechanism that it is causing harm near windturbines to know that there is a cause and effect relationship. If wind turbines were instead, a medication, or a food

at a supermarket, and people who were taking/eating these products were becoming severely ill, the government

would remove them instantly and halt distribution. But with wind turbines, the opposite occurs in Ontario. Instead,

more wind turbines are put up, more people become ill and residents are told by the government to prove exactly

what and how these turbines are harming them.

10. We do not even know how far the damage from wind turbines extends. Two kilometers may be enough forsome, five kilometres for others, more than ten kilometres for others still. We all have different levels of tolerance,

different weaknesses that make us susceptible to different illnesses. No short, simple one setback will protect all

people. The incredibly small Ontario setback of 550m leaves many people vulnerable to illnesses caused by wind

turbines. All this is explained and documented in Dr. Nina Pierponts peer-reviewed, scholarly book, Wind Turbine

Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment (2009).

11. This industrial noise affects many people, and yet is not understood by our government and therefore lacksmeaningful regulation under the Green Energy Act, a politically influenced law, sympathetic to wind turbine

proponents.

12. The cause of the harm done in rural communities by wind turbines is not in question. The Thamesville ERTstated that wind turbines can cause harm to human health. How this damage to health is done should be studied. For

us to know this harm is occurring, and what the harm is from, it is impossible to justify installing another wind


5/11

5

development, knowing that someone in its vicinity will suffer the ill effects. It could be my child, it could be my

neighbor, father, or someone Ive never met before. Surely no one the Director has met, but that shouldnt matter.

Just because we do not fully understand the mechanism and cannot accurately predict the full extent of the damage,

does not mean we should knowingly allow the harmful machines to be installed where they are capable of creating

more severe and irreversible harm to their health.

13. Keep in mind that this is industrial development the industrialization of rural communities, in andamong peoples homes, schools, and so forth. The wind developers like to paper over this stark and alarming fact by

calling them farms. They are not farms; they are wind plants. Industrial plants. Huge industrial machines that

generate not only electricity but generate (we now know, conclusively) pulsed, tonal, amplitude modulated

infrasound with huge sound pressure levels. Yes, all this has been amply demonstrated in Ontario, the USA, and

abroad by certified noise engineers. I intend to demonstrate this to the ERT. It is outrageous to place these

industrial machines next to my home and my childrens school. Dr. Pierpont, Dr. Amanda Harry, Dr. Sarah Laurie,

Dr. David Iser --all of them being physicians, clinicians have documented the health impacts of wind turbine

infrasound on the human vestibular (otolith) organs and other balance/motion/position sense organs. There is no

reasonable debate on this matter. Pierponts research was recently spectacularly confirmed for wind turbine

infrasound by the celebrated American noise engineer, Dr. Paul Schomer, who will be presenting his work in

Denver, CO, later this month at the Wind Noise Conference. I intend to present Schomers evidence to the ERT.

14. 5-30% of the population in wind projects report the same list of symptoms (in variation): sleep disturbance,headache, tinnitus, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia, irritability, problems with

concentration, memory and panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering when awake

or asleep, excessive tiredness, loss of quality of life and the further impacts that these effects can lead to, these being

increased morbidity and significant chronic disease and health effects.

15. Dr. Nina Pierpont surveyed residents in a wind turbine site and asked the residents to describe theirsymptoms. Her peer reviewed study alerted the world to the escalating problem she saw with industrial wind

turbines near humans. Dr. Pierpont also noted the limitations of her study (modest sample size) and encouraged

others to reproduce her studies to validate her findings. Other researchers have validated her findings, and no

researcher has invalidated her conclusions, so the studies continue and the reality of Wind Turbine Syndrome grows

larger.


6/11

6

16. These health effects are caused by exposure to infrasound, low frequency noise, audible noise, visualimpact, shadow flicker, stray current and/or electromagnetic fields. The pulsed tonality and lack of nighttime

abatement are factors which also contribute to negative health impacts.

17. These health effects occur at sound levels starting at approximately 30 dbA, which is lower than the levelspermitted by the Renewable Energy Approval for the Project. These effects are also known to occur at distances of

up to 10 kilometres, which is much greater than the set-backs prescribed for the Project of 550m.

18. If between 5% and 30% of individuals at points of reception experience the health effects enumeratedabove, the impact of the Project on human health will be serious, and even catastrophic to a community. For a

second, lets try and imagine 30% of Toronto becoming ill from an industrial development.

19. The Adelaide Wind Energy Centre will surround the Adelaide W.G. MacDonald elementary school, where216 students, including my two children, attend. Eleven turbines will be located within two kilometres of the school.

According to Pierpont (2009), 5-30% of these students will have their health negatively impacted by the wind

turbines. Not just while they are at school, but when they return home, as by far the majority of the students will

have turbines behind their homes, 24/7. They will be living and physiologically maturing in this acoustically toxic

environment. The harm that this development will cause these children will be severe and irreversible, according to

Pierpont (2009). Sleep disturbance alone will affect their ability to concentrate and learn. When did it become

acceptable to impose noisy, flickering machines on young children, day after day? My children will not be the

Ontario governments guinea pigs for this green energy experiment.

20. The approval of this development abuses the right to use and enjoy ones home and property without oneshome & property being made uninhabitable and unusable by direct and demonstrable health effects from wind

turbines. Alongside is the stress of fractured community, families (through conflict and separation) that may never

resolve.

Safety is a health concern

21.

The approval of the Adelaide Wind Energy Centre will pose serious safety issues that will cause serious

harm to human health.

22. Transmission line poles will be located too closely to roads, increasing the risk of serious harm if a vehicleleaves the roadway.

23. At the distance from property lines and roads wind turbines are planned in the Adelaide Wind Energy


7/11

7

Centre, ice throw, blade throw and tower collapse from the turbines can cause serious harm to humans.

24. Wind turbines catch fire frequently, putting human health and safety at risk of severe harm. As well,wildlife, livestock, natural areas and crop land are at risk of severe harm with the large, uncontrollable fires rage on,

to high for fire equipment to reach.

25. Collector transmission lines will be buried without cement casing, increasing the likelihood of risk tohuman health and safety when workers are digging in the area.

26. Shadow flicker will cover major highways and roads, as well as residences, farms and businesses. Forpeople sensitive to flickering light (e.g., people with a seizure disorder and migraineurs), the likelihood of serious

harm to human health and safety caused by the reaction to this flicker is present.

Animals health, safety and habitat at risk

27. The Adelaide Wind Energy Centre poses serious and irreversible harm to wildlife, livestock, and householdpets in the project area and outside of the project area when cumulative impacts are taken into consideration. Bats,

eagles, and other flora and fauna are at risk from the development of the wind turbines, transmission lines,

substations, access roads and other general destruction and disruption made by the wind company.

28. The Parkhill Interconnect Substation in the Project is proposed to be 187m from an active bald eagle nest.This is too close by provincial standards. The nest was missed by the Proponent when surveying the wildlife in the

Adelaide-Parkhill area. This is not the first time NextEra has missed locating a large eagle nest. The proponent

missed surveying a bald eagle nest in their project in Haldimand County, and its solution was to cut down the nest

on January 5, 2013. With only 56 active eagle nests in southwestern Ontario, this one corporation has the ability to

cause serious and irreversible harm if it continues with this development, especially when the cumulative impacts of

destruction and habitat loss are weighed. With over 280 wind turbine planned for the area surrounding this eagle

nest, the idea that the pair can easily and safely locate elsewhere has become next to impossible (Wiegand, personal

communication).

29.

Bats, raptors, and songbirds have been shown to be slaughtered in significant, even catastrophic (in terms

of species survival), numbers by IWTs. Its also been shown that all manner of wildlife, besides avian species, will

simply leave the affected area. For wildlife, leaving a habitat is tantamount to a death sentence (Pierpont 2009).

Appellant also includes any other issues that the community feels would cause harm to human health and safety, and

the Plants, Animals and the Natural Environment.


8/11

8

Human habitat at risk

30. The close proximity and inadequate setbacks of Next Eras proposed turbines from numerous occupiedhomes (including mine) plus an elementary school, most definitely constitute an impairment of the quiet use and

enjoyment of the indoor living environment and outdoor living space of homeowners and occupants, along with the

quiet use and enjoyment and proper learning environment for school children in the MacDonald School. This

impairment can and does take many forms of bona fide nuisance and/or trespass, ranging from visual intrusion of

flicker to audible and sub-audible noise impacts, as well as the real estate stigma based on an increasing level of

public knowledge and understanding of the relationship between various forms or types of sound and health

impacts. Setbacks are not only a land-use compatibility issue, they are inextricably intertwined with the local

environment, from a real estate appraisal and consulting perspective. Beyond public safety and health, the welfare of

a community or area can, in part, be measured economically, and any loss of property value due to any natural or

human caused changes in the local environment can be considered a significant environmental impact.

31. There is another concern. A review of the website, www.windturbinesyndrome.com, amply demonstratesthat many people in Ontario (and scores more in the USA, Australia, the UK, and Europe) have been forced to

abandon their homes literally, walk away from them, leaving them unsold and unused) because the occupants are

suffering from what is commonly called in the media and medical literature, wind turbine syndrome (Pierpont

2009). Many more people here in Ontario and Nova Scotia and around the world have been forced to sell their

homes at up to 40% devaluation simply to leave these, now, acoustically toxic places of residence of habitat, if

you will. And many have been bought out by the wind developers for undisclosed sums and under undisclosed

terms undisclosed because of the routine gag clauses insisted upon by the wind developers.

32. Human beings are creatures, not unlike wildlife. Ones home is ones habitat where one actually lives, eats,sleeps, thrives, makes a living, nurtures a family, grows old, and so forth. To be driven from ones habitat (home &

property) by the intolerable effects of wind turbine syndrome, discussed above, constitutes an environmental

catastrophe for such victims. In short, being forced to abandon or sell at catastrophic prices ones habitat and move

away to a different habitat (away from community, from ones job, from schools, churches, etc.) is, by definition, an

environmental catastrophe for such individuals. It is equivalent to loss of habitat for wildlife.

33. For this reason, it is essential to consider what is commonly called property devaluation in this hearing,since property devaluation is merely a different way of acknowledging and measuring (quantifying) habitat


9/11

9

destruction for human beings.

34. And any such further facts and grounds as the Appellant may advise.

(v) Issues and Material Facts

(a) Issues

Issue #1: Will the project as approved cause serious harm to human health?

Sub-issue #1(a) - Will the project as approved cause serious harm to human health of non-participants?

Sub-issue #1(b) - Will the project as approved cause serious harm to human health if the Approval Authority is

unable to properly predict, measure or assess sound from the facilities including audible noise, low frequency noise

and infrasound?

Issue #2: Will the project as approved cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural

environment?

(b) Material Facts

Issue 1(a) Serious Harm to Human Health

35. The Appellant repeats and relies upon the material facts set out in paragraphs 1 through and includingparagraph 35 above.

36. In addition, the Appellant states and the fact is that previous projects approved using the same or similarsound levels (30 dbA and above) and distance setbacks (550m to 10km), in Melancthon, Kingsbridge I, Talbot

Wind, Kruger Energy Port Alma, Clear Creek, Wolfe Island, Ripley, Kent-Breeze MacLeod, Enbridge Ontario

Wind Farm, Proof Line One, and Zephyr in Ontario, Pubnico Point in Nova Scotia, Mars Hill, Vinyl Haven and

Falmouth, Massachusettes (the Previous Projects) have caused serious harm to human health. In addition human

health has been devastated in Australia, New Zealand, Scandinavia, the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, and other

regions of the world where Industrial Wind Turbines are in operation near homes.

37. The Project as approved will operate at sound levels and setback distances that have been demonstrated tohave caused serious harm to human health at the Previous Projects (Pierpont 2009). The same negative impacts will

undoubtedly occur throughout this Project (Pierpont 2009).

Issue 1(b) Noise Prediction and Measurement

38. Previous Projects have demonstrated that the noise modeling used is inaccurate and under-estimates the


10/11

10

sound levels measured in dbA. Previous Projects have also demonstrated exceedances of approved audible sound

levels.

39. In this case, the Approval Authority has no ability to accurately predict or control exceedances in relationto the Project, thereby allowing serious harm to human health to be caused by the Project.

40. Regarding low frequency and infrasound, Previous Projects have also demonstrated that approvalauthorities do not consider and are unable to predict these noise levels.

41. In this case, the Approval Authority has no ability to predict or accurately measure low frequency andinfrasound, and has no standards to apply, thereby allowing serious harm to human health to be caused by the

Project.

42. The safety of humans, wildlife, domestic animals and pets in the vicinity of wind turbine developments isput at risk. The Adelaide Wind Energy Centre will see transmission lines placed along the major roadways in both

Adelaide-Metcalfe Township and the Municipality of North Middlesex, greatly increasing the risk of impact if a

driver leaves the roadway in an accident. Wind turbines are too close to roadways and property lines to prevent harm

in the event of a tower collapse, blade throw, or ice throw. Extensive shadow flicker will be present on major

highways such as HWY 402 and the Kerwood Rd, subjecting drivers to strobing flicker, which can severely

negatively affect some individuals by triggering migraines and seizures.

Issue 2 - Serious harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment

43. The Appellant repeats and relies upon the material facts set out in paragraphs 1 through and includingparagraph 43 above.

44. The Appellant states that the wind turbine development and its related infrastructure will cause serious andirreversible harm to the wildlife populations, as an individual project and cumulatively with other wind

developments in rural Ontario. Safeguards are demonstrably inadequate to protect wildlife from wind turbine

development in Ontario.

(vi) Relief Requested

The Appellant requests that the Environmental Review Tribunal revoke the decision of the Director to issue a

Renewable Energy Approval to the Proponent to engage in the Project.


11/11

11

(vii) The Appellant Will Seek a Stay

The Appellant will be seeking a stay of the decision.

esther wrightman - adelaide-kerwood ert appeal

Documents