Opinion ID: 1996165
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sound Level Assessment

Text: [¶ 18] Title 38 M.R.S. § 484(3)(B) provides that [i]n determining whether a developer has made adequate provision for the control of noise generated by a commercial or industrial development, the department shall consider board rules relating to noise. . . . Pursuant to regulations, as relevant to the Rollins Project, the hourly sound levels resulting from the routine operation of the development may not exceed fifty-five dBA during the day and forty-five dBA at night. 2 C.M.R. 06 096 375-7 § 10(C)(1)(a)(v) (2001). Five dBA must be added to observed levels of short duration repetitive sounds that result from routine operation of the development for purposes of determining compliance with the above sound level limit. 2 C.M.R. 06 096 375-8 § 10(C)(1)(e) (2001). [¶ 19] As FOLL argues, the sound prediction model, CADNA/A (operating in ISO 9613-2) may not be designed specifically for wind turbine projects. The Department consultant ultimately concluded, however, that the sound assessment was essentially reasonable and technically correct, except for its failure to consider the potential for SDR sounds. The consultant's recommendation that the project be monitored post-construction for SDR sounds and compliance with sound level limits was adopted. See 2 C.M.R. 06 096 375-10 § 10(E) (2001). [7] FOLL did not offer an alternative sound prediction model, and the Board could conclude that FOLL failed to demonstrate that the use of the CADNA/A model was unreasonable or inappropriate. [8]