Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697634772252.pdf (Australia)
From: To: Subject: Date: Committee, Wind Turbines (SEN) Submission to the Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines Saturday, 21 March 2015 4:40:32 PM Gunther Wilhelm Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines…....to inquire into and report on the application of regulatory governance and economic impact of wind turbines, ....... Summary to Submission.

This submission deals with (e) The adequacy of monitoring and compliance of wind farms.

Complaints.

The current system of complaints is a farce.


There is an urgent need to ensure complaints are dealt with by an independent and transparent authority.

It is unacceptable that this industry is self regulating.

Example of treatment of complainants behind closed doors.

The current contemptuous attitude of wind developers towards complainants does not allow for constructive dialogue to resolve, inquire or recognise that there might be a problem.
I use as an example the letter I wrote to David Clarke, Acciona Senior Manager, Stakeholders and Community Relations summarising a meeting held at a neighbour's residence.

The memory of tobacco and asbestos lingers strongly here.

Shoot the messenger.

Select Committee on Wind TurbinesSubmission 198 I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Senators who instigated this inquiry.

It is pleasing that the 'disaffected' people are being listened to and acknowledged .

Introduction.
Introduction.

I live in on the northern edge of the Waubra Wind Facility (WWF).

The closest turbines are just over 3.25 kilometres from my home and workplace.

There are thirty turbines, each between 110 and 120 metres high that straddle the hills and valley to the south/south west.

I did not object to the development and construction of the Waubra Wind Facility.
Like many people locally, I believed what the wind developers, politicians and government departments told us - that it is good for the environment, good for the economy, good for the community and that there would be minimal noise or adverse impacts.

I had faith in what I was told, until the WWF commenced operation, I then realised how we, the community, the stake holders and the general public had been deceived and lied to.
The references I am using below are a few years old, however, the problems are the same and still present.

The complaint structure is fundamentally flawed and the people living next to wind farms are still severely affected by noise and adverse health problems.

And, there is a gross unwillingness of government to intervene or rectify the problems.

The problem.

The noise, the whooshing, the swish and thump, the vibration from the Waubra Wind Farm wakes me, or prevents me from falling asleep.
I had thought that I would adjust, but the particularity of the noise, when the weather conditions and wind direction conjoin, makes it impossible to get a good, sound night's sleep.

The noise can be described as roar, a rumble, a plane that never passes, a heavy diesel truck idling outside the bedroom window.

It is a noise that one cannot get accustomed to.


Prior to moving to this area I lived in inner Melbourne, an area with many varieties of noise to which once one got accustomed to, presented no sleep problems.

The wind farm noise is unique in itself, a noise that is impossible to get accustomed to.

It certainly is not the 'sound of a household refrigerator' as the wind industry claims.
Other health issues that are present are:- ear aches/pressure, head aches, tachycardia, tinnitus, head pressure, increased blood pressure, sinus attacks, disrupted sleep and abrupt waking.

Select Committee on Wind TurbinesSubmission 198 Going into the sixth year of full operation of the WWF, 6 years of disrupted sleep, my health and quality of life, my ability to function has been severely negatively impacted.

Complaints.
Complaints.

Over the past six years we have complained to:- Acciona; Pyrenees Shire Council; Work Safe; DPCD; EPA; Department of Health, Minister for Finance, Minister for Health, Minister for Planing, and other state and federal politicians.

Sometimes we received return correspondence but not everyone chooses to respond.

Often the response avoids answering the issues and questions posed.
Complaints therefore are acknowledged, but nothing is actually done, besides the ubiquitous return letter that acknowledges the complaint.

The classic is – I note your concern, or, I will get back to you on that one.

And so it goes.

Acciona's Complaint Procedure.

Acciona's complaint procedure is entirely unsatisfactory.

When we and our neighbours began making complaints, no Incident Report Reference Number was provided.
Initially we made phone complaints but when we realised that Incident Report Numbers were not being issued, we proceeded to complain via email so as to have an official record of our complaint.

On 1 June, 2010, my partner requested an official complaint form and an outline of the complaints procedure, only to be told there was no complaints procedure – just to respond within 48 hours to a complaint.
Yet in the Operational (stage 2) Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) Version1.1 February 2008 of Acciona’s Permit, there is a Complaint Procedure outlined.

It was not until I requested and continued to request that an Incident Report Number be provided that it was.

On 6 June, 2010, I was sent an email by Acciona’s Community Liaison Officer, in response to my request for an official Incident Report Reference Number.

I was issued Incident Report Number 1 (email available on request).
I emailed back and asked if this was my personal complaint log and was told that this Incident Report Reference Number was not personal and applied to all complaints lodged.

What had happened to all the complaints lodged by phone or email from April 2009 – June 2010, all prior to Incident Report Reference Number 1 being issued?

We know that many of our neighbours either complained by phone, or dropped into the Acciona office.

They were not issued Incident Report Reference numbers.
No wonder Acciona could claim so few complaints!

At no stage has Acciona made any attempt to site visit our property to evaluate, monitor for noise or discuss health concerns.
The only response we have had are two letters from the Director – Generation Acciona Energy (letters available on request), stating that they are operating within the permit conditions and that the location of our property falls outside of the 1.5 km monitoring area and therefore not considered a relevant location, that they are confused as to whether we are complaining about audible or inaudible noise, then going on to misquote the NHMRC Rapid Review.
Then suggesting we consult a health professional for further advice should our concerns persist.

I fail to understand what Acciona means by our property falling outside of a ‘relevant’ location.

There is no mention of ‘relevant’, or for that matter, irrelevant locations in its’ OEMP, but there is an obligation on Acciona’s part in the complaint procedures, to ‘investigate the cause and potential factors that may have contributed to the area of concern’.
The noise and infrasound does not suddenly stop at 1.5km as the Director – Generation Acciona Energy is suggesting, nor does the problem go away at that point.

Acciona is in violation of its OEMP, sections 3.4.3 & 4.4, in not assessing complaints.

Since being issued with Incident Report Reference Number 1, 6 June 2010, we have complained to Select Committee on Wind TurbinesSubmission 198 Acciona a total of 311 times to 30 April, 2013, with less than satisfactory responses to each of these complaints.
This does not count the phone complaints to which we were issued no reference numbers, or, the complaints that were ignored.

Basically, Acciona issues an Incident Report Reference Number, and that is the end of the matter.

I discontinued lodging complaints with Acciona after April 2013 as I considered it an insult to one's intelligence that Acciona should consider that issuing complaint numbers constitutes compliance with their planning permit.
I have continued to maintain a personal record of adverse health and noise problem days to the present time.

The Manner In Which Complaints Are Dealt With.

There have been numerous meetings with Acciona, always in the presence of a number witnesses, to ensure transparency.

During larger meetings, Acciona staff are professional in their manner, in smaller more intimate meetings their behaviour has been 'casual' sometimes to the point of offence.
I would like to present a letter I wrote to David Clarke, the Senior Manager Stakeholders and Community Relations after a meeting that was hosted at the Thomas residence in September 2011.

This letter basically puts into a nut shell the prevailing attitude of Acciona to complainants, and nothing has changed to date.

It indicates the unwillingness of Acciona to treat complaints of noise and health seriously.

Summary of meeting with David Clarke at the Thomas residence, Stud Farm Rd.

Sept 9, 2011.
Sept 9, 2011.

Dear David, I spoke with the Thomas’s after our meeting on September 9, 2011 and for the record, we would like to make comments with reference to that meeting, and raise further questions concerning noise and adverse health effects from the Waubra Wind Farm.

Questionable community liaison skills.

To the foremost, we were somewhat distressed by your limited communication skills and community liaison training.
The repeated shaking of your head, shrugging of your shoulders and dismissive waving of your arms did not contribute to a positive dialogue, indeed it closed down the possibilities for genuine conversation.

It certainly did not provide answers to our questions and concerns in a satisfactory manner.

It certainly wasn’t going to contribute to a resolution.
Which brings me to my next point, I think I would be right in saying that you experienced an emotional hijacking when you resorted to calling us a bunch of whinging activists and the noise/health problems only exist in our heads.

Name calling the community members you are meeting with does little to further a genuine resolution to our concerns or our engagement with Acciona.

Considering your position with Acciona we expected a more professional approach to negotiation than what you demonstrated.
Maybe you should consider some professional development in this area.

Refusal to accept that there might be a serious problem.

That you considered frequent/regular disrupted sleep not a serious problem, exemplified by your statement ‘everybody experiences disrupted sleep, and ‘so what, get over it’ attitude, disturbed us greatly.

Disrupted sleep is a serious issue and leads to serious health problems.

I don’t think that you are in a professionally qualified position to comment on that.
Maybe that should be left to the health professionals rather than community relations officers.

Your comment equating the noise coming from the Thomas’s stove to wind turbines and then asking, ‘are we getting head aches, ear pressure, hypertension etc etc’ at the best is Select Committee on Wind TurbinesSubmission 198 provocative and insulting, and at the least, demonstrates your lack of understanding of an issue you are supposed to be totally conversant with.
It also demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to the people that are hosting your meeting.

Not much community liaison training being demonstrated here David.

Also, how do you arrive at the conclusion that all the adverse health effects we are suffering are in our heads and our imagination?

Are you a medical professional with comprehensive training and experience in this field?

What is your training?


There was an adamant refusal by you to accept that the adverse health effects could be attributed to the wind farm.

Continuously telling us that there is no peer reviewed scientific evidence to link wind farms to adverse health effects and therefore the problems only exist in our heads and are not real, raise serious concerns about your level of logic.
I don’t think I need to expand on this greatly, the jury is still out for either position and the recommendation is that a precautionary approach be adopted and more comprehensive scientific studies need to be undertaken.

Your approach that there is no evidence to link wind farms and adverse health effects, therefore there is no problem, is vastly flawed.

You demonstrated the typical wind developer approach of shooting the messenger.
I think everybody now agrees that much more research needs to be done in this area.

A dismissive attitude to these concerns is no longer an intelligent approach.

We also raised the question of noise prediction modelling, you stated that 23 house were monitored within a 1.5 km.

zone of the turbines.

Donald Thomas asked why his parent’s house was not in the monitoring zone to which you responded that the house was 1800m from the nearest turbine therefore outside of the monitoring zone.
Donald Thomas disagreed with you on that distance, you however, insisted repeatedly on the 1800m distance and you would send Donald a map.

This blatant refusal by you to accept Donald’s claim of an approximate distance of 1100m channeled the conversation away from noise monitoring at that residence and you refused to further engage in that conversation.
Is it not correct that you phoned Donald later that afternoon to apologise for being wrong about the distance between The Stud Farm Road house and the nearest turbine and the distance was actually 1250m?

If your adamant claim to be right on distance is flawed, could not also other claims you are making be flawed?

Got to get your facts right David, no good stamping your feet at the time then apologising later.
So, considering this lack of rigour, could other modelling Acciona claims to be true also be seriously flawed?

Which then brings me to our next point, house locations on maps.

House locations on maps.

We have in our possession an Acciona planning map given to us by previous Acciona staff, and , showing the wind turbine locations and the house locations around the WWF.

Is it not strange that a map used for planning permits and noise prediction modelling should have so many houses absent from that map?
We can now understand why the Thomas residence is not included in any noise monitoring, it simply does not exist, although it has been there for over 50 years, nor does my house exist, although that has been there for over 30 years, nor do any of the houses in Brown’s Rd., plus a large proportion of other houses in the area are absent from that map.

David, you don’t think that his might create flawed modelling?

Or is it just very convenient to have those houses left out?

NH&MRC.
NH&MRC.

You consistently asked if I thought that the NH&MRC was wrong and whether I believed in their findings or not.

I thought that I made quite an in depth response to that in my last email to you, along with quotes from Warwick Anderson, CEO of the NH&MRC, I suggest you read that email again (a repeated request).
The general drift was the wind developers were cherry picking the Rapid Review and not using it in its entirety, read my email, I don’t intend wasting energy responding to such unintelligent, provocative comments when I have already stated my view.

Select Committee on Wind TurbinesSubmission 198 Operational (Stage 2) Environmental Management Plan.

During the meeting I stated Acciona was in breach of its OEMP, you denied this, I stated again that it was contravened; you insisted that I was wrong.
When I pointed out there had been no resolution to our problems, and the OEMP, states if there is no resolution to a dispute, an arbiter be appointed to find a resolution between the two parties.

This has not occurred.

Your silence spoke volumes, and you finally conceded that Acciona was in breach of its OEMP.

Again David, misinformation, you need to get your facts right.

None of us have a satisfactory resolution to our complaints and no arbiter has been appointed.

Complaints.
Complaints.

You stated that there are only a hand full of people complaining, and that the complaints being lodged are from the same disgruntled people.

We pointed out this is incorrect, that within the community complaints are rife and the reason people do not complain directly to Acciona is because of Acciona’s dismissive attitude and inaction upon receiving complaints.
At the meeting I made you an offer of organising a meeting at the Evansford Community Centre for you to meet and talk to all those people who are suffering noise issues and adverse health effects.

In your role as Senior Manager Stakeholder and Community Relations I repeat, would you be interested in participating in such a meeting?

We could also invite members of the Pyrenees Shire and the DPCD to monitor.

I am sure you would see some new faces, rather than the same handful of whinging activists.
Turning turbines off at night, or, in noise reduction mode.

Our request that some of the offending wind turbines be turned off at night, or, at least go into noise reduction mode when certain weather and wind conditions make it impossible to sleep and cause adverse health effects, was met with a shrug of the shoulders and a shake of the head.

On being pressed on this issue, you stated that was not going to happen and you had doubt it would make any difference.
We then quoted an off the record conversation with , the engineer who designed the Waubra Wind Farm, after a meeting in Beaufort in 2010. stated that a 20% reduction in operating performance would reduce the pulsing and modulation of the turbines thus creating relief to those affected by the turbines.

But it would also mean a 20% reduction in output, thus profit.
Joe Helper, State MP for Ripon was present and became very interested in the conversation when he learned that the noise problems could actually be diminished by a simple reduction in output.

became concerned when it was pointed out to him that some wind turbines were not constructed to their planned location but were moved to suit access or siting conditions.
also response was that you cannot move turbines without redesigning the placement of the adjacent turbines, maybe this is one of the reasons so many problems exist with the wind farm.

Your comment that you don’t know of output would work and besides, that was before your/Acciona’s time demonstrates gross ignorance and a massive inattention to duty of care.

Maybe your engineering qualifications are superior to doubt it.
Which then came to our comment, wouldn’t it be nice if Acciona was a good corporate citizen and neighbour and practiced a precautionary approach to these issues rather than an approach of name calling, insulting and belittling those who have genuine concerns.

.

Which brings me to my next point, Provocation.

and you are entitled to make such comments, but, I somehow , you doubted that 20% reduction Provocation.
We got the distinct impression you were deliberately trying to provoke us by making inflammatory comments about our characters and behaving in an arrogant, antagonistic manner.

Again, we don’t consider this appropriate behaviour of a community relations officer, particularly a senior manager.

But then, goading is a well recognised tool to get people to say things or behave in a manner they may regret later.

Good effort, but it didn’t work.

Emails.


Select Committee on Wind TurbinesSubmission 198 I sent you an email August 9 asking you further questions, you responded on August 14 & 19 stating you were considering my questions and would get back to me in due course.

To date, I have not had a response from you and am still waiting for such.

You did not answer any of my email questions at the meeting of September 9, so I still assume you will respond.

Finally.
Finally.

We are extremely disappointed by your/Acciona’s attitude in trying to find a way to move forward on these complex issues.

You demonstrated total lack of support in trying to find a suitable outcome or a genuine desire for resolution to our very serious concerns.

Therefore we have all decided unanimously that we have no further meetings with you/Acciona until a genuine desire at finding a suitable resolution can be arrived at.
Also, David, do not have the audacity and further insult us by claiming that you engaged in constructive dialogue with us, no community consultation tick box on this meeting please.

Also, for the record, you asked Donald for the meeting, he didn’t ask you.

Put all this misinformation together and it looks like you’re doing your job Looking forward to your response to our questions.

Yours Sincerely Gunther Wilhelm On behalf of:- Summary.
The above letter demonstrates the contempt that Acciona has towards complainants behind closed doors, when the gaze of the public, or governmental departments is not upon them.

You may think this letter abrasive, but after the contempt and public name calling that has been directed towards complainants over the years, I think the average person would be 'abrasive'.
Interestingly I received a reply to this letter from Brett Wickham, Director, Generation Acciona Energy, stating that his colleague had conducted the meeting in an absolutely professional and courteous manner, but, went on to apologise for his colleagues' use of inappropriate expressions and hoped no offence was caused.

Mr. Wickham was not present at the meeting.

I was further asked not to copy our communication to external sources, that communication be solely addressed to David or himself.
Acciona claims to pride itself in its communication and consultation with the community.

How is this different and why is Acciona suddenly concerned about limiting transparency?

There is an old saying …...'getting away with blue murder'.

It is time that the wind developers were made accountable for the imposition of noise and adverse health effects they impose on the neighbours of their industrial complexes.

It is obvious that this Complaints Procedure is a farce.
There is an obvious conflict of interest, in registering complaints with the Company that you are complaining about.

Especially when those complaints could demonstrate that the Company is in breach of its Planning Permit.

There has not been an independent arbitrator - no level of government has been interested in hearing that there may be problems.

Who is monitoring and regulating this industry?

There needs to be a well funded complaint procedure, independent of the Wind Developer.
This independent monitor cannot be a tokenistic toothless tiger, it must have the authority and power to be able to impose penalties, fines, or even be able to shut a facility down should that facility be in breach of regulations or permits.

Wind farms create excessive noise that have detrimental impact on the health and quality of life on those people living close by.
Select Committee on Wind TurbinesSubmission 198 The Industry and government agencies are not addressing the concerns and complaints of affected people.

There needs to be an independent and transparent means to monitor noise, in real time, to ensure that there is complete transparency and accountability.

Planning permits that stipulate a complaint procedure are not adhered to – and what recourse is there?
There must be a procedure in place that calls to account, makes companies responsible for the effects their industry has on their neighbours.

This must be done with complete transparency – a real time account of sound monitoring, wind, weather etc.

This must be a process where transparency, accountability and responsibility meets, free from political agendas.

Recommendations.
Recommendations.

There needs to be a dramatic shift in the archaic mindset by wind developers, governments - state & federal, health departments, planning authorities & legislators to accept that there might actually be a problem with wind farms.

The current system of complaints is a farce.

There is an urgent need to ensure complaints are dealt with by an independent and transparent authority.
It is unacceptable that this industry is self regulating.The complaint system must be taken away from the wind developer, as this has proven to be riddled with self interest.

Establish an Independent body to monitor and review Wind Farms.
This would include: monitoring adherence to Planning Permit; real time and publicly accessible sound monitoring; a system of dealing with and addressing complaints; This independent body needs to be well resourced and with the authority to impose penalties for non- compliance.

With the development of wind turbine size, the current guidelines are outdated and no longer relevant, they need to be thoroughly reviewed.

Regulation needs to be updated to keep up with technology, as you would in any industry.
Independent medical research into health affects is urgently required.

Gunther Wilhelm Select Committee on Wind TurbinesSubmission 198