Telecommunications Impact Assessment
White Rock Wind Farm – 2010
Author: Anthony Micallef BE (Electrical)
EPURON PTY LTD (ABN 70 104 503 380)
Level 11, 75 Miller St
NORTH SYDNEY, NSW 2060
Office: (02) 8456 7400 Int’l: +61 (2) 8456 7400
Fax: (02) 9922 6645
Int’l: +61 (2) 9922 6645
www.epuron.com.au
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Executive summary ................................................................................................................................3
2
Glossary of technical terms.....................................................................................................................4
3
Existing environment..............................................................................................................................5
3.1
4
5
6
Television and radio broadcast services..................................................................................................7
4.1
Existing services and facilities .....................................................................................................7
4.2
Television broadcasting................................................................................................................9
4.2.1
Interference and impact analysis..............................................................................................9
4.2.2
House and television tower locations ....................................................................................12
4.3
Mitigation measures ...................................................................................................................13
4.4
Satellite pay television................................................................................................................13
4.5
Radio broadcasting .....................................................................................................................13
4.6
MF sound broadcasting ..............................................................................................................14
Mobile phone services ..........................................................................................................................14
5.1
Existing services and facilities ...................................................................................................14
5.2
Interference and impact analysis ................................................................................................16
5.3
Mitigation measures ...................................................................................................................17
Radio communication services .............................................................................................................17
6.1
Existing services and facilities ...................................................................................................17
6.2
Interference and impact analysis ................................................................................................20
6.3
Radio communication links ........................................................................................................21
6.4
Other radio communication ........................................................................................................24
6.4.1
Two way mobile ....................................................................................................................24
6.4.2
CB radio.................................................................................................................................24
6.4.3
Wireless broadband ...............................................................................................................25
6.5
7
Impact assessment ........................................................................................................................7
Mitigation measures ...................................................................................................................25
Electric and magnetic fields..................................................................................................................25
7.1
What are electric and magnetic fields?.......................................................................................25
7.2
When do electric and magnetic fields occur? .............................................................................25
7.3
What are the electromagnetic field implications of wind farming?............................................26
7.4
Mitigation measures ...................................................................................................................27
8
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................27
9
Turbine co-ordinates .............................................................................................................................27
10
Fresnel zone calculation ..................................................................................................................29
11
Correspondence...............................................................................................................................30
2
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this report is to investigate the potential impacts of the White Rock wind farm on
existing telecommunication services in the vicinity of the proposal and to propose appropriate
mitigation strategies for any impacts identified. An assessment of possible electric and magnetic
fields associated with wind farms and their implications on human health is also presented.
Telecommunication services, including television and radio broadcasts, mobile phone services
and point to point microwave radio communication services occur in proximity to population
centres and often utilise the same ridgelines that provide optimum locations for wind turbines.
Theoretically, as with any large structure, wind turbines have the potential to cause interference
with such signals.
In general, VHF and UHF frequency band radio signals and digital voice based technologies such
as GSM mobile are essentially unaffected by wind turbines. This includes land mobile repeaters,
radio, the audio component of analogue television and mobile phones. 1
For broadcast signals which are usually omni-directional (or point to area), interference can
generally be avoided by locating wind turbines distant from the broadcast tower. A clearance of at
least 500m is recommended, although a distance of 1km is preferred. 2
No broadcast or communications towers have been identified within 500m of the White Rock
wind farm project. Therefore the development of the proposed wind project is not expected to
have any widespread adverse backscatter affect from being near to broadcast or communications
towers.
Aviation navigation services such as radar may also potentially be affected by wind turbines
depending on the location of the wind farm with respect to the position of radar installations and
airports. This issue is likely to be overcome in the future, as aviation authorities across the world
increasingly move towards the use of multilateration (MLAT) technology. At the time of writing,
no objection to the proposal has been raised by Airservices Australia.
Following a review of the communication services near the wind farm site, the nature of potential
interference and consultation with license holders and service providers, it is considered that the
proposed wind farm would have minimal impact on existing telecommunications and aviation
navigation services. Where applicable, mitigation strategies are proposed to ensure any identified
impacts can be managed appropriately.
The electromagnetic fields associated with generation and export of electricity from a wind farm
does not pose a significant threat to public health.
Consequently, no adverse electromagnetic interference issues are anticipated from the wind farm.
1 http://www.dungog.nsw.gov.au/files/2142/File/GreenpowerEMIAnalysisIssue.pdf
2 ibid
3
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
2
GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
ABA
ACMA
Band 111
CB Radio
CDMA
EMI
FM
Fresnel Clearance
GSM
ITU
LF
MF
UHF
UHF Channels
VHF
VHF Channels
Australian Broadcasting Authority
Australian Communications & Media Authority
VHF TV Channels 5A - 12
Citizens Band Radio
Code Division Multiple Access cellular mobile system
Electromagnetic Interference
Frequency Modulation
Clearance to obstructions from the ray line on a radio path
which does not produce any additional loss above free space loss
Global Systems Mobiles
International Telecommunications Union
Low Frequency
Medium Frequency
Ultra High Frequency (300MHz - 3GHz)
TV Channels 28 - 69 (526 - 820 MHz)
Very High Frequency (30MHz - 300MHz)
TV Channels 0 to 12 (45 - 230 MHz)
4
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
3
EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
Figure 1 - White Rock wind farm site locality
5
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
The White Rock wind farm is located approximately 20km west of Glen Innes, NSW (between
Glen Innes and Inverell) as shown in Figure 1. A review of the telecommunication technologies
in use in the vicinity of the proposed White Rock wind farm identified the following:
¾
TV and radio broadcasting
¾
Mobile phone services provided by telecommunication companies
¾
Radio communication systems, including point to point microwave links, licensed by the
Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
¾
Other radio links including mobile radio, CB radio; and
¾
Aircraft navigation systems
Electromagnetic interference (EMI) has the potential to cause degradation or total loss of signal
strength and may cause poor TV reception and/or “ghosting” effects. EMI may also result in a
reduction in the coverage of mobile phone, radio and aircraft navigation communications in
certain instances. There are three principal mechanisms by which wind turbines may cause EMI:
reflection or scattering, diffraction and near field effects. 3
Reflection or scattering
When a signal sent between a transmitter and receiver becomes obstructed by an object
located within the path of a signal, reflection and/or scattering may occur. If the rotating
blade of a wind turbine receives a primary transmitted signal, a scattered time delayed (or
out of phase) signal may be produced and transmitted to the receiver. The out of phase
signal will be distorted in relation to the primary signal, causing EMI. 4
Diffraction
In some instances when an object is located in the path of a signal wave front, the object
can both reflect and absorb the signal. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as
diffraction. 5
Near field effects
Wind turbines may cause interference to radio signals due to the electromagnetic fields
emitted by the generator and the switching components within the turbine nacelle. This is
referred to as a near field effect. 6
Due to advances in technology and compliance with the Electromagnetic Emission
Standard, EN 61000-6-4 (AS/NZ 4251.2:1999) Emission standard for industrial
environments, modern wind turbines will not cause active EMI due to near field effects.
The level of EMI produced by a wind turbine due to reflection or scattering, diffraction and near
field effects is dependant on a number of factors, including placement of the wind turbine in
relation to the signal path/s; the signal frequency; the characteristics / composition of the wind
turbines rotor blades; the receiver characteristics; and the propagation characteristics of the radio
wave in the local atmospheric conditions. 7
3 D. F. Bacon, A Proposed Method for Establishing an Exclusion Zone around a Terrestrial Fixed Link outside of which a Wind Turbine will cause Negligible Degradation of the Radio Link, Radiocommunications
Agency UK Report Ver 1.1, 28 Oct 2002
4 URS Woodlawn Wind Farm Environmental Impact Statement 2004
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
6
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
While the site proposed for the development of the wind farm is a rural area, a number of
communications links and broadcast networks are present in the surrounding region.
As with any large structure, there may be circumstances where wind turbines can cause disruption
to the electromagnetic signals used in a variety of commonly used radar, navigation and
telecommunications services.
The following approach was adopted to identify the impact of the proposal on
telecommunications:
¾
Identify radio license holders within a 25km radius of the proposed wind farm site, and
point to point microwave radio links in the vicinity of the site, using information sourced
from the ACMA RADCOM database 8 ;
¾
Provide notification of the wind farm proposal and seek comments from each license
holder identified via the ACMA RADCOM database within a 25km radius of the site;
¾
Record and review all responses received to identify any issues raised by license holders;
¾
Discuss any issues raised with relevant license holder with the aim to resolve or identify
mitigation options;
¾
Carry out an assessment of the “Fresnel zone” associated with each fixed point to point
microwave communications link crossing the site;
¾
Determine appropriate exclusion zones for proposed turbine layout based on Fresnel zone
calculations and advice from relevant license holders;
¾
Confirm that all turbines (including blades) are located outside the calculated exclusion
zone;
¾
Determine appropriate additional mitigation measures which may be required.
3.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The possible impact of the proposed wind farm on the four most common communications
services has been investigated separately. These services are television and radio broadcast
services, mobile phone services, microwave radio point to point communication services and
aircraft navigation services.
Any impacts would be confined to the construction and operational phases of the wind farm.
Various measures are available to help mitigate potential impacts and are discussed below.
4
TELEVISION AND RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
4.1 EXISTING SERVICES AND FACILITIES
The ACMA issue apparatus licences under the Radio communications Act 1992. The ACMA is
the federal government authority responsible for regulation and management of the radio
communications spectrum. It was formed in July 2005 by the merging of Australian Broadcasting
Authority (ABA) and the Australian Communications Authority (ACA).
The ACMA authorises licensees to operate radio communications devices such as transmitters
and receivers. In effect, they are licences to use specific segments of the radiofrequency spectrum
for particular purposes. A system of apparatus licence types are used to apply common licence
conditions and fee structures to categories of radio communications service.
8 April 2010 data
7
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
The ACMA RADCOM database lists the following broadcasters for television and radio, under
postcode 2370, Glen Innes, NSW.
Television broadcasting
Northern New South Wales TV1: ABC, NBN, NEN, NRN and SBS
Remote Central and Eastern Australia TV1: ABC, IMP and SBS
Remote Central and Eastern Australia TV2: QQQ
Radio broadcasting
Deepwater RA1: 2CBD
Inverell RA1: 2ABCRN, 2ABCRR, 2GEM, 2GL, 2NZ, 2PNN
Remote Commercial Radio Service North East Zone RA1: 2ABCRN, 2ABCRR, 2ABCRN,
4ABCRR, 4BRZ, 4JK, 4QCC, 4RBL, 4TI, 4WP and ABC.
The closest transmitter of television programs is at Carpenters Hill located about 4 kilometres
North West of Glen Innes. Transmission from Carpenters Hill is at low power (400 watts) and
only serves Glen Innes and its immediately surrounding areas. Most properties immediately west
of Waterloo Range do not receive the transmission from Carpenters Hill due to the topographic
shielding by Waterloo Range. Residents to the east of Waterloo Range have indicated that they
have good reception from the Carpenters Hill transmitter. 9
Mt Dowe (Mt Kaputar), near Narrabri has strong transmission (72 kW to 600kW). The quality of
reception of the Mt Dowe signals was much poorer in the Wellingrove Valley. Nevertheless,
some residents in parts of Wellingrove Valley indicate that they receive signals from Mt Dowe.
Reception of signals from Mt Dowe is expected to be poor immediately to the east of Waterloo
Range and that area is more likely to use the Carpenters Hill service. 10
Inverell also has a local television service that transmits at low power (25, 50 and 600 watts). The
four Inverell channels transmitted at 600 watts were able to be received on top of Waterloo
Range. However, these were not detected during brief testing at two locations in Wellingrove
valley. The Inverell channels are unlikely to be received to the east of Waterloo Range. 11
The Armidale source broadcasts at high power ranging from 30kW to 120kW. Signal strength
measurements undertaken on the top of Waterloo Range indicated that Armidale signals are not
well received at the top of Ross Hill. This is considered to be due to the elevated area of Ben
Lomond that presents a physical barrier to these signals. 12
Satellite based television services are also received at various locations throughout the area.
These services may either be used where local services are not able to be received or may be
accessed as additional program content to complement local services. They are not subject to the
same topographic screening that can affect the land based TV transmissions. Due to the distance
of residences from the wind farm it is very unlikely that satellite based television services would
be subject to interference due to the wind farm’s operation. 13
9 Glen Innes Wind Farm Environmental Assessment – Telecommunications interference October 2008, Connell Wagner.
10 Glen Innes Wind Farm Environmental Assessment – Telecommunications interference October 2008, Connell Wagner
11 ibid
12 ibid
13 ibid
8
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
Transmitter
Location
Broadcaster
Call Sign /
Channel
Band
Frequency (MHz)
Carpenters Hill
(mainly received east
of Waterloo Range)
NBN
NBN41
UHF
618.198
Southern Cross Ten
NRN44
UHF
638.198
Prime
NEN47
UHF
660.198
ABC
ABUN50
UHF
681.198
SBS
SBS53
UHF
702.198
ABC (digital)
ABUN59
UHF
746.5
SBS (digital)
SBS65
UHF
788.5
Note: All above channels broadcast with vertical polarisation and at 400 watts.
Mt Dowe (mainly
received west of
Waterloo Range
where not limited by
topographic
screening)
ABC
ABUN7
VHF
182.24
ABC (digital)
Prime
ABUN8
VHF
191.625
NEN9
VHF
196.24
Prime (digital)
NEN9a
VHF
205.625
SBS
SBS28
UHF
527.198
SBS (digital)
SBS36
UHF
585.5
NBN
NBN31
UHF
548.198
Southern Cross Ten
NRN34
UHF
569.198
Southern Cross Ten
(digital)
NRN40
UHF
613.5
Figure 2 - “Free to Air” television broadcast services available around the wind farm facility 14
License holders identified via the ACMA RADCOM database within a 25km radius of the wind
farm were notified of the proposal in relation to potential impacts and asked to provide
comments.
Consultation with Mr Greg Williams, Broadcast Engineering Manager at NBN Television
revealed that the translator site at Carpenters Hill (which services Glen Innes town) receives its
input signal from the parent site at Mt Dowe (ACMA site ID 35653). The input signal passes
through the area proposed for the White Rock wind farm. However on further investigation, the
wind turbines locations proposed were shown to be to the south and clear of the transmission
corridor and therefore signal interference to the Carpenters Hill translator by the White Rock
proposal is not expected.
At the time of writing, no other concerns had been raised from the license holders contacted
regarding possible impacts to television or radio broadcasting services. The proponent will work
with organisations to resolve issues, should any be identified.
4.2 TELEVISION BROADCASTING
4.2.1
Interference and impact analysis
Television Interference (TVI) is dependent on a range of factors including environmental factors
(topography, direct signal strength, transmitter type, receiver type etc) and wind farm design
factors (turbine elevation, rotor size and orientation, speed of rotation, blade material and pitch).
14 Glen Innes Wind Farm Environmental Assessment – Telecommunications interference October 2008, Connell Wagner
9
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
TVI caused by the operation of wind turbines is characterised by video distortion, while the audio
component of the signal is not affected. 15 Due to the variability of local conditions and the
characteristics of antennae used in particular installations, there is a degree of uncertainty
regarding predicted levels of interference.
The level of TVI may be influenced by a number of factors including:
¾
Where the receiver is located relative to the TV transmitter and the wind farm;
¾
The frequency of the transmitted TV signal;
¾
Whether there are any other tall structures in the vicinity of the receiver;
¾
The direction of the rotor blades and blade material;
¾
The nature of the receiving aerial e.g. design, height, directionality, power.
In general, the potential for interference at receiver locations can increase with distance of the
receiver from the transmitter, as signal strength decreases with increasing distance from the
source. As such, a wind farm in an area of already poor signal strength may potentially have a
greater impact on reception than the same wind farm in an area of relatively strong signal
strength. In addition, reception in the vicinity of the wind farm can vary with the degree of
topographic obstruction of the signal.
A wind turbine has the potential to scatter analogue television waves both forward and back.
Forward scatter will only occur if a wind turbine is located approximately between the dwelling
and the broadcast site. The forward scatter region is as shown in the figure below, and generally
does not extend further than 5 km for the worst combination of factors. Interference may extend
beyond 5 km if the dwellings are screened from the broadcast tower, but do have line of sight to
the wind turbines. The effect of the forward scatter is to potentially cause the brightness of the
television picture to vary with the rotation of each blade. Modern television sets usually
incorporate Automatic Gain Compensators (AGC) which act to lessen or eliminate variations in
picture gain or brightness. 16
Figure 3 - Schematic diagram of potential analogue television signal interference zones around a wind turbine
(Courtesy of CanWEA Guidelines V8.0)
15 David E Spera, Wind Turbine Technology, Chapter 9 ASME Press 1994
16 http://www.dungog.nsw.gov.au/files/2142/File/GreenpowerEMIAnalysisIssue.pdf
10
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
The zone of potential interference for a wind farm is the resultant total of the effects from the
individual turbines. The International Telecommunications Union Recommendation ITU-R
BT.805 states that impacts beyond 5 kilometres are unlikely.
It also indicates that interference may extend beyond 5km where the receiver location is shielded
from the direct signal, but in direct line of sight to the turbine. The form of interference, if
experienced, will depend on the relative positions of the wind farm, the transmitting station and
the receiver.
Television interference can take the form of either a “ghost” image that pulsates horizontally at
the “blade pass” frequency or a fluctuation in picture brightness, also at the “blade pass”
frequency. 17
There are approximately 57 houses within 5km of the proposed wind farm site. The location of
the wind farm with respect to the Carpenters Hill, Mt Dowe, Inverell and Armidale TV
transmitters can be seen in Figure 4.
17 Connell Wagner Delta Electricity Gunning Environmental Impact Statement 2004
11
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
4.2.2
House and television tower locations
Figure 4 - Houses within 5km of the White Rock wind farm site
12
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
It is difficult to assess the likely impact on these specific house locations and once the wind farm
is operational it is possible that analogue television reception could be affected at some of these
locations unless some form of mitigation is introduced. However, houses further than 5km from
the site are unlikely to be affected.
4.3 MITIGATION MEASURES
In the design of the project, the proponent will carry out the following mitigation measures to
help minimise TVI:
¾
Use of primarily non-metallic turbine blades;
¾
Use wherever practical of equipment complying with the Electromagnetic Emission
Standard, AS/NZS 4251.2:1999;
Once the wind farm is operational, the proponent will offer to undertake a monitoring program of
houses within 5km of the wind farm to determine any loss in television signal strength, if
requested by the affected resident. In the event that TVI is experienced by existing receivers in
the vicinity of the wind farm, the source and nature of the interference will be investigated by the
proponent.
Should investigations determine that the cause of the interference is genuinely attributable to the
presence of the White Rock wind farm; the proponent will put in place mitigation measures at
each of the affected receivers in consultation and agreement with the residents.
Notwithstanding the above, specific mitigation measures available are:
¾
Modification to, or replacement of receiving antenna;
¾
Provision of a land line between the affected receiver and an antenna located in an area of
favourable reception;
¾
Improvement of the existing antenna system;
¾
Installation of a digital set top box or,
¾
In the event that interference specifically attributable to the wind farm cannot be
overcome by other means, negotiating an arrangement for the installation and
maintenance of a satellite receiving antenna with the affected landowner may be
considered.
4.4 SATELLITE PAY TELEVISION
Some homes in the area may have satellite pay TV service antenna installations.
Unless a particular subscriber’s antenna reception direction and elevation is aligned with a
turbine, no impacts on TV reception are likely. 18
4.5 RADIO BROADCASTING
The level of radio broadcast interference experienced can be influenced by a variety of variables
including:
¾
Abnormal weather conditions;
¾
Multi-path distortion (reception of a signal directly from a transmitter and also a reflected
signal from hills, structures etc.);
¾
Overloading (occurs when an FM receiver receives too strong a signal);
18 Lawrence Derrick & Associates Bannister Wind Farm – Investigation of possible impacts on broadcasting and Radio communication Services September 2003
13
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
¾
Electrical interference from household appliances etc;
4.6 MF SOUND BROADCASTING
Wind farm effects on MF radio are highly unlikely and therefore the stations serving the area
have not been listed. 19
Overseas and recent local experience indicates that radio reception and the audio component of
television reception are unlikely to be affected by operating wind farms. In regard to the Blayney
Wind Farm that was commissioned in 2000, testing of radio reception for Council and RFS
signals in the area around the operational wind farm showed that radio reception was not affected
at the locations tested. The locations tested included situations where the radio signal
transmission path passed through the operating wind farm. 20
5
MOBILE PHONE SERVICES
5.1 EXISTING SERVICES AND FACILITIES
This section covers GSM services. High frequency point to point communications links used for
mobile transmission networks are discussed in the next section: Radio Communication Services.
Figures below show the existing local mobile phone coverage from the three providers at the time
of writing. (Source: company websites)
Figure 5 - Telstra 3G and GSM Coverage
19 Ibid
20 Connell Wagner Glen Innes Wind Farm Environmental Assessment – Telecommunications interference October 2008
14
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
Figure 6 - Telstra Next G Network Coverage
Figure 7 - Vodafone GSM Network Coverage
15
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
Figure 8 - Optus GSM (3G) Coverage
5.2 INTERFERENCE AND IMPACT ANALYSIS
A mobile phone network consists of a system of adjoining zones called ‘cells’, which vary in size
with a radius of 2 - 10 km. Each cell has its own base station that sends and receives radio signals
throughout its specified zone. Mobile phone antennas need to be mounted clear of surrounding
obstructions such as buildings to reduce ‘dead spots’ and allow the base station to effectively
cover its intended cells. 21
Mobile phone coverage is available in much of the area around Glen Innes but is patchy further
away from Glen Innes and the main highways and where topography limits coverage. During site
investigations for the environmental assessment of the Glen Innes wind farm by Connell Wagner,
mobile phone coverage was observed to be available for elevated locations on Waterloo Range
and most areas between Waterloo Range and Glen Innes. However, coverage was absent or
intermittent in the valleys to the west of the Glen Innes wind farm site. 22
Advice obtained from mobile phone service providers indicates that mobile phone services in
these rural areas are mainly focussed on the main transport routes such as the New England and
Gwydir Highways. In view of the separation distance between the base antennas and turbine
structures and the wind farm location relative to areas of existing coverage, transmission of
mobile phone signals may not be significantly affected by the operating wind farm. 23
21 URS Crookwell II Wind Farm Environmental Impact Statement ,
22 Glen Innes Wind Farm Environmental Assessment – Telecommunications interference October 2008, Connell Wagner
23 ibid
16
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
The ACMA RADCOM database identified three mobile phone companies as using base stations
within the vicinity of the proposed wind farm. The table below lists the companies and ACMA
site ID numbers.
Mobile Phone Companies
ACMA Site ID No.
Optus Mobile Pty Ltd / Singtel Optus Pty Ltd
130216, 130217
Telstra Corporation Ltd
6905, 6910, 6948, 9007743
Vodafone Network Pty Ltd
6955, 130216
All companies were contacted by EPURON regarding potential impacts and asked to provide
feedback as to any potential conflicts with their existing networks. No objections were received.
5.3 MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional mitigation measures are required.
6
RADIO COMMUNICATION SERVICES
6.1 EXISTING SERVICES AND FACILITIES
The ACMA issues radio communications licenses in accordance with Part 3.5 of the
Commonwealth Radiocommunications Act 1992. The ACMA issues licenses to use specific
segments of the radio broadcasting frequency spectrum for different purposes and maintains a
register (the ACMA RADCOM Database) of all the licenses issued.
The register allows the ACMA to create a ‘density’ classification of areas across Australia as
high, medium or low depending on the number of licenses in operation in a particular area.
According to the ACMA RADCOM database, the area in the vicinity of the proposed wind farm
is classified as a “Low Density Area”.
License holders operate a range of radio communications services, including fixed link
microwave communication and mobile communication systems within a 25km radius of the
proposed wind farm. Multiple license holders use some sites, while sole users employ others.
Radio communications sites within a 25km radius are listed below.
17
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
18
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
ACMA Licence Holder
ACMA Site ID No.
2KY Broadcasters Pty Ltd
6955
Airservices Australia
6931
Ambulance Service of NSW
6909
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
6941, 6955
Church Communities Australia Ltd
9004089
Country Energy
6909, 6939, 6943, 35679
David E Jones
9009206
Deepwater Districts Community FM radio
34912
Dept of Environment Climate Change and Water
6837, 6898
Digital Distribution Australia
6910, 6948
Glen Innes and District Amateur Radio Club
250676
Glen Innes Radio Cabs
34912
Glen Innes Severn Council
34847
19
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
ACMA Licence Holder
ACMA Site ID No.
Guyra Shire Council
6898
Guyra Volunteer Rescue Association
6898
Loanaoks Pty Ltd
280220
NBN Ltd
6955, 151348
Northern Broadcasters
35679
Northern River Television Pty Ltd
6898, 151348
Northern Tableland UHF users committee
6892
NSW Fire Brigades
6889, 34847
NSW Police Force
6909
NSW Rural Fire Service
6898, 34912
NSW State Emergency Service
51302, 250676, 9008678
NSW Volunteer Rescue Association
34847
Optus Mobile / Singtel Optus
130216, 130217
Origin Energy Holdings
280046
Prime Television (Northern)
151348
Radio 4GG Gold Coast Pty Ltd
136792
Roads & Traffic Authority
204416
Soul Pattinson Telecommunications
6863, 6948, 205033
Special Broadcasting Service Corporation
6955
St John Ambulance
306347
Sundown Pastoral Company
404373
Telstra
6905, 6910, 6948, 9007743
TransGrid
6909
Vertical Telecoms Pty Ltd
6898
Vodafone Australia Pty Ltd
6955, 130216
United Christian Broadcasters Australia Ltd
34847
Figure 9 - Radio communication license holders within 25km of the White Rock wind farm site
6.2 INTERFERENCE AND IMPACT ANALYSIS
A fixed link microwave radio transmission is a point to point transmission path typically between
two elevated topographical features. The transmission path may become compromised if a wind
farm is located within the direct line of sight or what is known as the ‘Fresnel Zone’ around the
line of sight between the sending and receiving antennae.
The potential impact zone will vary with the distance between the transmitter and receiver,
frequency of transmission and the location of any particular point along its path. Communications
20
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
are only likely to be affected if a wind farm is in the line of sight between two sending and
receiving antennae or within a zone of the line of sight of these antennae.
Where a potential exists for interference to line of sight links, an obstruction analysis can be
undertaken to ensure that no part of a wind turbine assembly will enter the Fresnel Zone of the
microwave link. The maximum extent of the Fresnel zone occurs at the midpoint along the path
of the microwave link.
6.3 RADIO COMMUNICATION LINKS
EPURON identified and mapped all point to point communication links existing in the vicinity of
the proposed wind farm site at the time of writing to establish the line of sight paths. Figure 10
provides details of the location of fixed microwave links crossing the site. (Based on data
contained in the ACMA RADCOM database, April 2010.)
21
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
Figure 10 - Point to point radio links in the vicinity of the White Rock wind farm site (original turbine layout)
22
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
MAP_ID LINK_ID ACCESS_ID FREQUENCY CLIENT_NO
174412
1252330
42710000
12138
1
174412
1252329
44710000
12138
LICENSEE
TransGrid
TransGrid
Length (m)
119100
119100
Figure 11 - Licensee list
In order to ensure that obstruction to the signal transmission path does not occur; calculations of
the 2nd Fresnel zone of the point to point communications link crossing the site were undertaken.
It is suggested that beyond the 2nd Fresnel zone, the power of a scattered signal from a structure
such as a wind turbine would be small enough such that it would not result in significant
interference at the receiver. 24 .
Completion of an obstruction analysis showed that a number of turbines were located within the
2nd Fresnel zone or close to the direct line of sight path of the point to point link crossing the site.
Accordingly, Mr. Michael Freeburn from TransGrid, the corresponding link license holder, was
notified and provided with details of the White Rock wind farm proposal for assessment on 10-810. At the time of writing, a response from TransGrid had not been received by EPURON.
Research of recent literature suggests that interference to VHF links (i.e. in the 30MHz - 300MHz
frequency range) by wind turbines is not likely. The TransGrid link crossing the site operates with
a frequency of 42.7MHz and so falls within this range.
Auswind best practice guidelines states: “The communications systems most likely to be affected
(by wind turbines) are those which operate at super high frequencies (particularly microwave
systems operating at frequencies above 300MHz)”
Garrad Hassan’s “Assessment of Electromagnetic Issues for the proposed Berrybank Wind
Farm”, insists that only frequencies greater than UHF range (300MHZ - 3GHz) may potentially
experience interference from wind turbines. 25
The same view was also taken by Energreen Wind Pty Ltd in their Black Springs Wind Farm
EMI assessment dated 26-7-2006:
"UHF and VHF voice services have been found not to be affected by wind turbines unless
the turbines are in the immediate vicinity of an antenna such that “near field” issues
occur. The Blayney wind farm, south west of Sydney, NSW lies directly in the path of a
VHF link and there has reportedly been no discernable interference as a result of the
development." 26
Therefore, based on:
¾ The results of the above literature research,
¾ A high level, preliminary assessment and verbal advice from Garrad Hassan in
relation to the TransGrid link (pers. comments Sherrin Yeo 20-8-10),
¾ The frequency of the link being in the low VHF range (30MHz - 300MHz) and
¾ The fact that the wind farm is not in the vicinity of an antenna,
24 D. F. Bacon, A Proposed Method for Establishing an Exclusion Zone around a Terrestrial Fixed Link outside of which a Wind Turbine will cause Negligible Degradation of the Radio Link,
Radiocommunications Agency UK Report Ver 1.1, 28 Oct 2002
25http://www.unionfenosa.com.au/BB_Application_Report/BB_Appendix_9_Telecommunications_Assessment.pdf (page 3/23)
26http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/files/1887/Appendix%20G%20Electromagnetic%20interference%20study.pdf
23
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
Interference to the existing point to point communication link from the White Rock wind farm is
not expected.
EPURON previously contacted all organisations identified as operating radio communication
licences (including fixed link communications) within 25km of the Cullerin Range wind farm
proposal, which is now operational and without communications issues in the area.
Each license holder was asked to provide independent comment on the wind farm development
with respect to possible impacts to communication links. At that time, no organisation within the
25km radius raised concerns.
Optus, Vodafone and Telstra provided general guidelines to assist in the planning of wind farm.
In response to these enquiries, the following comments were noted,
"Provided wind turbines are located well outside the 2nd Fresnel zone of the point to point
microwave links, no interference to communications is expected" (pers. comm. Mr. Trong Ho,
Optus Mobile) 27
“Clearance criteria is the same for all carriers. Please use the same criteria as proposed by
Optus” (pers. comm. Mr. Ganesh Ganeswaran, Senior Engineer / Transmission, AAP
Communications Services 22/11/05) 28
“Provided wind turbines are greater than 100m away from Mobile tower (or in the case of
directional panel antennae) not in direct line of sight for panel antennas, wind turbines will have
minimal effect on existing coverage.” (pers. comm. Mr. Ivan D’Amico, Area Team Manager
(Country) - NSW&ACT, Telstra Services, Wireless Access Solutions, Mobile Coverage
Delivery) 29
The above suggestions have been considered in the planning of the White Rock wind farm
proposal.
6.4 OTHER RADIO COMMUNICATION
6.4.1
Two way mobile
A small number of mobile bases exist in the area surrounding the wind farm site. These bases
potentially provide cover to mobiles in a 360 degree arc from their bases. No significant impact
from the wind farm on base coverage beyond normal mobile operational performance is predicted
in view of the geographic separation between the base antennas and the turbine structures. Of
course a mobile unit communicating with a base station when the mobile is located within metres
of the wind turbine structures (or indeed near any large building, silo, tower etc) may experience
some very local performance change, however moving a short distance would restore
performance to normal. 30
6.4.2
CB radio
CB radios are not individually licensed, the equipment being subject to class licensing only.
Therefore, no records of location or operators of CB radios exist, and the channels are shared
without any right of protection from interference. No impact from the wind farm is predicted
27 Taurus Energy - Cullerin Range Wind Farm Environmental Assessment Report 2006
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 Lawrence Derrick & Associates Bannister Wind Farm – Investigation of possible impacts on broadcasting and Radio communication Services September 2003
24
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
except perhaps for very local effects to portable or mobile units in the immediate vicinity of the
turbines which could be avoided by a small location change of the unit. 31
6.4.3
Wireless broadband
From studies in other areas such as Mahinerangi, NZ 32 it is concluded that the minimum
separation required between wind turbines and mobile broadband transmitters is approximately
240m. Turbines will be located outside this distance to avoid any impacts on mobile broadband
services where possible.
6.5 MITIGATION MEASURES
As a result of the exclusion zones established in planning the wind farm, the possibility of
impacts to existing point to point communication links is reduced. However, in the unlikely event
that interference is observed, the proponent is confident that impacts will be able to be mitigated
using the following techniques:
7
¾
Modifications to or relocation of the existing antennae
¾
Installation of a directional antennae to reroute the existing signal
¾
Installation of an amplifier to boost the signal and/or
¾
Utilisation of onsite optical cable to reroute the original signal.
ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS
7.1 WHAT ARE ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS?
The existence of electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) has been recognised since electricity was
discovered, and their characteristics have been the subject of thousands of scientific studies
around the world. Research conducted over the past 25 years has significantly enhanced our
knowledge of EMFs.
Electric fields are produced every time a voltage exists across a conductor. The higher the
voltage, the stronger the electric field. Electric fields are strongest closest to the conductor and
their level reduces quickly with distance. Most materials act as a shield or barrier to electric
fields. The level of electric fields is measured in thousands of volts per metre (kV/m).
Magnetic fields are produced by the flow of an electric current through a conductor. The higher
the current, the greater the magnetic field. The strength of magnetic fields is measured in
milliGauss (mG). Like electric fields, magnetic fields are highest closest to the conductor and
their level reduces quickly with distance. Most materials will not act as a shield or barrier to
magnetic fields.
7.2 WHEN DO ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS OCCUR?
Electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) occur both naturally and from man made sources and are not
unique to high voltage power lines.
31 Ibid.
32 Mahinerangi Wind Farm Compatibility with radio services April 2007 - Kordia
25
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
Natural EMFs are associated with such things as lightning, solar activity or the earth’s magnetic
field. All living organisms, including humans, have natural electric charges, currents, electric and
magnetic fields.
Man made EMFs occur whenever electricity is being used in any form of electrical equipment or
wiring. Most people will be exposed to a wide variety of EMF sources throughout their daily
lives.
As electricity use is so widespread in modern society, questions about its possible effects on
health are important to everyone.
Biological and occupational health research on EMFs began in the early 1960s. Since that time
many national and international review panels, such as the World Health Organisation, the US
National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences and the UK National Radiological
Protection Board have evaluated the research to assess the likelihood of health effects being
associated with exposure to electric and magnetic fields. In Australia, the relevant health authority
is the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), an arm of the
Commonwealth Department of Health. In response to a recent report, the CEO of this agency
said:
“It is also important not to fixate on the location of external power lines, including high voltage
transmission lines, as the prime cause of exposure. Exposure to ELF magnetic fields can arise
from ground currents, internal household wiring and the use of electrical appliances as much as
from exposure to external powerlines.”
Government Agencies such as ARPANSA have also monitored international research on the
topic, concluding that,
“On balance, the scientific evidence does not indicate that exposure to EMF’s found around the
home, the office or near power lines is a hazard to human health” 33
7.3 WHAT ARE THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD IMPLICATIONS
OF WIND FARMING?
There are four potential sources of EMF associated with wind farming. These are:
¾
¾
¾
¾
The grid interconnection power line
The wind turbine generators
Any electrical transformers
The underground collector network cabling
The interconnection with the existing grid is usually made above ground and is no different from
any other power line used in the network. The EMF levels are comparable to typical household
appliances i.e. negligible.
The electrical generator windings are close together and surrounded by conductive metal housing
so the electromagnetic fields are effectively zero.
33 http://www.transgrid.com.au/she/swp/Documents/EMF%20Brochure.pdf
26
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
The switchyard transformer, which will carry the entire output of the wind farm, is generally
located in the central part of the switchyard and the protective fencing means it is not possible for
members of the public to come close enough to be exposed to appreciable EMF.
The collector network, which connects the various turbine generators of a wind farm operates at
typical distribution voltages and is buried at least 750mm below ground level. Because of the
closeness of the phase conductors within the cables and the screening of the cables, the
electromagnetic fields are balanced out to be effectively zero.
The electromagnetic fields associated with generation and export of electricity from a wind farm
does not pose a significant threat to public health. Consequently, no serious or adverse EMF or
interference issues are anticipated from a wind farm. 34
7.4 MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required.
8
CONCLUSION
Conflicts between point to point radio systems and the wind turbines are not expected. Also,
mobile radio and other radio communication services in the area are not expected to be impacted
by the wind farm or its operation.
Analogue TV transmission is currently planned to be phased out by 2013 and replaced by digital.
Digital TV is not susceptible to visible “ghosting” degradation. Any impact of reflections from
the turbines would be a minor reduction of coverage at the limit of the service area.
For any confirmed wind farm interference problems where TV antenna system improvements are
unsuccessful, the use of the digital TV services in the area may be the best solution, requiring the
provision of a digital set top converter.
Interference to MF and FM sound broadcasting is not expected.
Overseas experience indicates that electrical interference from wind farm generators and controls
is not a problem with established and reputable wind turbine manufacturers and therefore no
electrical noise measurements are warranted.
Obstacle lighting is not expected to be a requirement at this site.
A detailed site assessment of the most sensible option in relation crop dusting and top dressing
would need to be made by the involved landowner and the proponent with the advice of
appropriately licensed contractors once the project has been completed.
9 TURBINE CO-ORDINATES
WTG_ID
WRK_002
WRK_003
WRK_004
Easting
367453.73
367103.67
367115.43
Northing
6693821.45
6697103.65
6697506.42
WTG_ID
WRK_065
WRK_066
WRK_067
34 http://www.wind.appstate.edu/reports/BP10_EMC&EMF.pdf
27
Easting
360165.8
360061.4
361694.9
Northing
6698737
6699431
6703606
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
WRK_005
WRK_006
WRK_007
WRK_008
WRK_009
WRK_010
WRK_011
WRK_012
WRK_013
WRK_014
WRK_015
WRK_016
WRK_017
WRK_018
WRK_019
WRK_020
WRK_021
WRK_022
WRK_023
WRK_024
WRK_025
WRK_027
WRK_028
WRK_029
WRK_030
WRK_031
WRK_032
WRK_033
WRK_034
WRK_035
WRK_036
WRK_037
WRK_038
WRK_039
WRK_040
WRK_041
WRK_042
WRK_043
WRK_044
WRK_046
WRK_047
WRK_048
WRK_049
WRK_050
WRK_051
WRK_053
WRK_054
WRK_055
366016.9
365568.24
365617.81
365710.01
366143.71
365149.51
364716.4
361627.81
361818.4
366558.27
366869.1
363005.3
363030.1
364654.6
362954.21
362879.61
362828.5
364715
364727.11
363365.51
362981.91
362597.41
362373.01
362545.59
362644.8
362612.4
362412.8
362470.02
362560.7
362184.94
362238.02
362002.83
362176.39
361547.85
361525.05
361551.85
361753.6
361382.31
361427.83
361404.69
361291.1
361030.87
361311.31
361440.1
361422.49
361319.96
360956.11
361201.76
6694075.5
6694818.52
6694558
6694282.5
6693813.49
6695285
6695348
6698554.44
6698224.5
6698404.99
6698144.49
6695983.5
6695660.5
6695615.5
6696286.5
6696840.5
6696559.5
6696372
6696087.5
6694909
6695387
6690520.99
6690279.49
6697147.06
6697511.26
6697809.5
6698644.5
6698378.16
6698099.84
6695344.47
6695084.85
6697628.33
6697368.52
6699356.53
6699085.42
6698813.93
6692602.92
6692764.5
6696617.21
6696366.07
6691510.49
6691290.99
6691034.5
6695212.5
6695759.05
6696045.64
6697318.42
6697069.21
WRK_068
WRK_069
WRK_070
WRK_071
WRK_072
WRK_073
WRK_074
WRK_075
WRK_076
WRK_077
WRK_078
WRK_080
WRK_081
WRK_082
WRK_083
WRK_084
WRK_085
WRK_086
WRK_087
WRK_089
WRK_090
WRK_091
WRK_092
WRK_093
WRK_094
WRK_095
WRK_096
WRK_097
WRK_098
WRK_099
WRK_100
WRK_101
WRK_102
WRK_103
WRK_104
WRK_105
WRK_106
WRK_107
WRK_108
WRK_109
WRK_110
WRK_111
WRK_112
WRK_114
WRK_115
WRK_116
WRK_117
WRK_118
28
361718
361686.4
361725.1
361645.2
361545.3
361127
361423.4
361205.9
361286.8
361250.5
360319.3
359908.5
360345.4
360235.7
359905.8
359992.8
359907.6
359863.1
359898.7
360166.3
359600.1
359685.8
359665.2
359663.8
359658
359246.8
359202.9
359169.5
359422.4
359468.8
359176.4
359252.7
359455.5
359376.9
359186.2
359242.5
362683.3
359210.1
359852.6
359023.6
361431.3
362968.9
366959.2
367053.1
366767.4
365255.7
364364.6
362014.9
6703255
6702678
6702938
6702414
6702150
6701687
6701163
6700913
6701426
6703057
6702379
6701419
6702053
6701775
6700772
6701137
6700489
6699736
6700199
6702721
6703621
6703353
6704433
6704162
6703876
6704867
6702484
6702205
6701317
6700831
6701055
6701580
6700147
6705707
6705126
6704577
6690796
6705405
6703104
6701878
6695495
6695085
6693853
6698762
6696860
6695022
6695828
6697924
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
WRK_056
WRK_057
WRK_058
WRK_059
WRK_060
WRK_061
WRK_062
WRK_063
WRK_064
360825.43
360436.61
360405.3
360809.61
360248.1
360512.86
360200.51
359822.21
360174.81
6697676.98
6693254
6692983.5
6692793.5
6698186.99
6697920.1
6698467.5
6699192.5
6699010
WRK_119
WRK_120
WRK_122
WRK_123
WRK_124
WRK_125
WRK_135
WRK_136
366975.6
360404.6
364441.9
364626.5
364458.6
368091.1
359318.8
358792.3
6698466
6701025
6697003
6696645
6697276
6696553
6699188
6699215
10 FRESNEL ZONE CALCULATION
Link ID 174412 - Licence 1251917
Link length 119100m
d1 (m)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
110000
119100
d2 (m)
119100
109100
99100
89100
79100
69100
59100
49100
39100
29100
19100
9100
0
Frequency (MHz)
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
29
Fresnel Zone (2nd) metres
0
358.7717031
483.5680871
561.5717939
610.9758501
638.4543243
646.8076869
636.7890297
607.4900641
555.8704097
474.7035621
343.6551413
0
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
11 CORRESPONDENCE
From: SULLIVAN, BYRON [mailto:BYRON.SULLIVAN@casa.gov.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 17 August 2010 8:38 AM
To: Anthony Micallef
Subject: White Rock Wind Farm near Glen Innes NSW. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Anthony,
Thank you for your e-mail and attached letter dated 13 August 2010.
2.
At this time, CASA has no specific authority to direct action relating to structures, including Wind Farms,
located away from aerodromes. You should undertake the following consultation to assess the potential hazard
posed to aviation by the proposed development.
2.1.
Identify any aerodrome within 30 km of the boundaries of the proposed wind farm and consult with the
aerodrome operator to determine any impact on Obstacle Limitation Surfaces at such aerodromes. Penetration of
these surfaces is likely to pose a hazard to normal aviation operations at the aerodrome.
2.2.
Consult with Airservices Australia (02 6268 4111 - Ms Michelle Bennetts) to have them assess any
potential impact on instrument approach procedures at aerodromes, navigational aids, communications facilities or
surveillance facilities.
2.3.
Contact the Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia (02 6241 2100 - Mr Phil Hurst) to advise him of
the proposal and gain comment on the potential hazards to aerial application and related operations in the area.
3.
You advise that the maximum height reached by the turbine blades is likely to be up to 150 m. Aircraft are
permitted to fly as low as 500 ft, which is equivalent to 152 m. This being only 2 m above the height reached by
the proposed turbine blades, and allowing for probable tolerances in aircraft altitude, the proposed turbines are
likely to be a hazard to aircraft traversing the area. It is recommended that you consider your duty of care in
deciding whether or not the wind farm should be obstacle lit or other wise marked.
4.
The location, extent and height of the wind farm is to be advised to:
Aeronautical Data Officer
RAAF AIS (VBM-M2)
Victoria Barracks
St Kilda Road, Southbank,
VIC,
3006
E-mail: ais.charting@defence.gov.au
Thank you for your interest in Aviation Safety.
Byron N SULLIVAN.
Aerodrome Engineer - (Aerodrome Lighting)
Airways and Aerodromes Branch
From: TRIPCONY, Bill [mailto:BTripcony@ambulance.nsw.gov.au]
Sent: Thursday, 19 August 2010 11:27 AM
To: Anthony Micallef
Subject: RE: White Rock Wind Farm - Ambulance Service of NSW
Anthony, The wind farm as proposed will not interfere with Ambulance Service radio communications. Bill Tripcony Telecommunications Manager 9320 7830 30
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
-----Original Message----From: Greg Williams [mailto:gwilliams@nbntv.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 20 August 2010 1:26 PM
To: Anthony Micallef
Cc: ghird@nbntv.com.au
Subject: Emailing: Dowe to Glen Innes Path.pdf
Hi Anthony,
Thank you for contacting us in regards to the proposed White Rock wind farm.
As we discussed, we are concerned that there will be significant impact on the television reception in Glen
Innes.
The translator site at Carpenters Hill receives its input signal from the parent site at Mt Dowe (ACMA site ID
35653). As shown in the attached pdf it passes through the area proposed for the wind farm. While our CSIRO
data is based on scattering interference caused by wind turbines much closer than 25km I believe that you
need to take this possible interfernce into account as it has the potential to disrupt commercial television
reception to the whole town of Glen Innes, not just individual viewers.
We need to identify these issues before any construction starts because the remedy, if required, will take
several months to implement.
The broadcasters concerned are NBN, Southern Cross Broadcasting (Macquarie Southern Cross Media) and
Prime.
Regards,
Greg
Greg Williams
Broadcast Engineering Manager
NBN Television
11 - 17 Mosbri Cres
Newcastle 2300
02 4929 2933
0428 503 678
gwilliams@nbntv.com.au
From: HONG John [mailto:John_HONG@rta.nsw.gov.au]
Sent: Monday, 23 August 2010 5:48 PM
To: Anthony Micallef
Cc: COOK Ron (IM&IT)
Subject: RE: White Rock Wind Farm - Roads and Traffic Authority
Anthony,
I have no concern of your proposed wind farm project, as this would generate insignificant noise impacts
to the RTA radio communication services in the Glen Innes vicinity.
Regards
John Hong
Radio System Manager
Transport Management Centre
25 garden St,
Eveleigh NSW 2015
tel: 83961626
From: Jayantha Wickramasinghe [mailto:Jayantha.Wickramasinghe@optus.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 24 August 2010 9:53 AM
To: Anthony Micallef
Cc: Trong Ho; Maxi Victoria
Subject: RE: White Rock Wind Farm - Singtel Optus
Dear Anthony
31
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
The proposed White Rock wind farm development has no impact on existing or planned Optus network
infrastructure.
Regards
Jayantha
From: David Boundy [mailto:david.superair@iinet.net.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 24 August 2010 10:23 AM
To: Anthony Micallef
Cc: 'Carol @ Superair'
Subject: WIND TURBINES
Anthony hi,
Following is a response to the letter dated 16 August 2010 from you in relation to the proposed White Rock Wind farm.
There are 2two letters, one from us putting our position forward and one that was submitted by the Aerial Agricultural
Association of Australia to the General Purpose Standing Committee which is still relevant.
If you have any questions of either response please don’t hesitate to call.
Regards David
24-08-2010
EPURON
Level 11, 75 Miller st
North Sydney,NSW,2060
Ph 02 8456 7400
Fax 02 9922 6645
Attention;- Anthony Micallef
Dear Anthony
32
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
Superair Australia’s position on the proposed wind farm is that we “OBJECT”, unless measures are put into place to allay our
concerns regarding what we feel could be negative impacts on our business.
Firstly some background, I am presently the manager of Superair Australia which was established in 1964 in Armidale. Since then we
have grown to become the largest aerial topdressing company in Australia. We have bases in Glen Innes, Armidale, Tamworth, and
Scone. We employ 22 local staff which comprises aircraft engineers, commercial pilots, truck drivers and administration persons. We
operate a fleet of over 10 aircraft and loader trucks.
These wind farms will become a huge obstacle in performing our main occupation as an aerial topdressing company. These wind
turbine structures are approximately 110 metres above ground level. As you may or may not be aware we carry out our flying
operations between 20-30 metres above ground. The problems that we face would be quite apparent from these figures.
We have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that these towers will decrease our safety margins, which may ultimately lead to a
negative effect on our turnover. This could contribute to a loss in local jobs. I hope I am proven to be wrong.
Until the towers are in place we do not know from a safety aspect or quality of work that if in fact we will be able to continue aerial
fertilizing in these areas as we have done for the previous 44 years. The Ben Lomond and Glen Innes area contribute a large amount of
monies to our turnover and to lose this through no fault of our own is going to make it a lot harder for survival in a high overhead
profession and business that we operate.
There are other wind farms in Australia and aerial agricultural operations take place near them. The problem is that these wind towers
are erected in a totally different topographical location, be it, altitude, topography, local wind strength, local wind shear, dwellings,
airstrip locations, and several other factors dictate the ability to carry out low level aerial operations safely and cost effectively.
Therefore each proposed wind farm has to be treated on a case by case basis and not just from an overall view of how interested
parties such as the aerial agricultural industry are considered in the overall planning and assessment of the proposal.
I have had meetings with the developers of the wind farms, mostly positive at the time. What I find frustrating is that each couple of
years the developers seem to change through company restructuring or takeovers from another company. Any agreement we may have
had seems to fall by the wayside and we start over again from the beginning. Also I am not sure how legally binding any agreement is
between the parties.
The following is an extract from previous correspondence that I have sent to our aerial fertilizer clients that will be affected by having
wind turbines erected on their properties or adjoining landholders that are affected as well. It explains in some detail the problems that
we will and may encounter once the wind turbines are erected.
As I have said before, we can not foresee all problems that may be encountered with something that you can not see at the present
moment and have to try and visualise, as well as all the variables that we try to deal with in our present operation, being mainly the
weather & terrain.
What I can say though, and this is definite, is that these wind turbines will – (this applies to both the property with the towers as well
as the adjoining properties without towers)
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Decrease our safety
Decrease our productivity
Decrease accuracy of the fertiliser deposits
Decrease productivity of the pastures to the landholder
Increase costs to the landholder
Decrease our revenue
I will try to expand on the points I have raised –
ƒ
ƒ
Decreased Safety – the average height that we fly to aerial top dress pastures is between 20-30metres. These towers are in
the vicinity of 110 metres in height. Therefore the safety aspect is self explanatory.
Decreased productivity – when we carry out the aerial operation we attempt to fly a grid pattern in straight lines. The
flight lines, directions & spacings, are influenced by the
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Safe operation of aircraft
Topography
Layout of the property or the section being treated
Co-efficient of variation of the deposition pattern
Weather conditions existing at the time
If any or all of the factors influence too heavy on safety or productivity, we may not be able to carry out the aerial
topdressing at all. A set of towers will effectively change the topography. They will also change our line directions causing
a decrease in productivity (eg. Shorter runs, more turns). To enable productivity to be as high as possible we carry as much
pay load as is safe to do so. If we have to climb an extra 100 metres or greater, our pay load will have to be decreased,
therefore causing a decrease in productivity. This cost would have to be borne by the landowner in increased charges. One
major factor that would not be measurable until the towers are in place is the turbulence generated by the structures. If this
33
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
was too great, the operation may have to cease. Another decrease in productivity, whereas before it would have not been a
problem.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Decreased accuracy of fertiliser deposits – commonly referred to as co-efficient of variation. We as pilots fly anywhere
between 20-30 meters depending on several factors – safety, topography, size of treatment area & shape of treatment area.
If we have to fly at 110 metres or greater, we can not accurately determine or would not give guarantees as to the accuracy
of fertiliser deposits on to the property, or that we would even maintain them within the boundaries at all times. I would
feel that there would be areas that we could not treat at all.
Decreased productivity to the landowners – because of the accuracy being compromised and sections of land not
being able to be treated properly, the growth rate of pastures would be effected, therefore decreasing productivity on that
property
Increased cost to landholders – there will be an increased cost to landholders because of the explained above. This
could be anywhere from $5 per hectare, bearing in mind if we are able to do the job at all.
Decreased Revenue – what I can see but hope it would not happen is that because of our decreased accuracy, some of
our landholders may look to get fertiliser applied by different means eg. Ground spreading. This means our income would
be directly affected and properties that we have traditionally done for many years we would lose to alternative application
methods.
These towers are a massive obstacle to our operation. We, as agricultural topdressing pilots, already have a high concentration level
with the associated risks that we presently deal with. These towers will add another dimension to our occupation, which I can honestly
say we would not welcome for obvious reasons. .
I am only too happy to offer an insight into our operations and complexities that do not exist in another form of commercial flying
operations in the world. I would offer to take anyone interested for a simulated topdressing flight in our aircraft at a time & place
convenient to both parties. It may be only then that a somewhat minor understanding of what our occupation entails would be
achieved by the developers of these wind turbines, and then they may realise the adverse effects on our business.
“If the following suggestions could be agreed too with developers before construction occurs, then it would go a long way to
alleviating our concerns about the whole wind farm development in our operational areas.”
Increased flying time & costs
Where a surcharge for additional flying time for aerial operations is incurred by a landowner with wind turbines located on
his/her land due to the presence of those turbines, the developer shall meet the full cost of this surcharge. This may include
adjoining properties with not wind turbines on that land, but proximity of the turbines causes flight path changes to
complete aerial operations
The surcharge shall be calculated by the aerial operation as a fair charge for additional flying time.
The developer or the controlling body shall pay the surcharge directly to the aerial operator upon receipt of an invoice and
sufficient information to justify the surcharge.
It is believed that a fair surcharge rate per hectare per property, independent of weather conditions, could be negotiated in Year 1 & 2
and applied to each subsequent aerial operation to save detailed cost justification of every operation on each property. This agreement
would have to last the natural life of the wind turbines.
Decreased accuracy of fertiliser spreading
It is understood that a decrease in fertiliser spreading accuracy is likely to only occur over a proportion of the properties being
considered for wind farm development, depending upon the configuration and proximity of turbines. Specifically fertiliser spreading
accuracy along property boundaries appears to be the most critical issue, avoiding fertiliser application on the neighbours land.
In response to this, the following is proposed:
An additional 5-10% of fertiliser by volume will be purchased by the developer or controlling body for each fertiliser
spreading operation on each property that is likely to incur spreading inaccuracy along a property boundary or adjoining
property boundaries. With the additional flying time incurred to spread this additional amount of fertiliser, the associated
cost will be met by the developer or controlling body.
Those properties where spreading inaccuracy is likely to occur along a boundary will be identified in the first application
of Aerial operations after the turbines are in place. This agreement would have to last the natural life of the wind turbines.
Decreased Revenue
If we were to lose traditional customers to alternative means of fertiliser application, eg:-( ground spreading operations).
We would like to see a clause in the development consent or approval that, “ IF ANY PARTIES ARE ADVERSLY
AFFECTED AND MAY LOOSE REVENUE THROUGH CONSTUCTION OF A WIND FARM, EVEN THOUGH
34
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
THEY MAY NOT BE THE LAND OWNER,THAT THERE A PROCESS OR AGREEMENT DOCUMENTED FOR
COMPENSATION TO THESE BUSINESSES.”. This would have to last the natural life of the wind turbines.
To sum up, I can see our business being adversely affected through no fault of our own by these wind turbines. All I am asking for is a
fair outcome for us or any other parties that may be affected as well. I can be contacted on any of the numbers listed at any time if
there are any questions that anyone may have. If we all communicate and address the problems that we have raised I can only see
positives coming out of these types of developments.
Kind regards David Boundy.
Manager Superair Australia
AERIALAGRICULTURAL
ASSOCIATIONOFAUSTRALIA
LTD.
ABN 13 002 501 886 • ACN 002 501 886
21 August 2009
The Director
General Purpose Standing Committee Number 5
Parliament House
Macquarie Street
Sydney NSW 2000
By email: gpscno@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Dear Director
AAAA Submission to Inquiry into Rural Windfarms
The Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia (AAAA) represents Australia’s aerial application industry, including crop protection
spraying, fertilizer application and firebombing.
Aerial application is heavily regulated by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and pilots and operators are licenced to at least
Commercial Pilots Licence standard and undergo ongoing professional development conducted by AAAA.
AAAA works closely with CASA and industry members on safety promotion, training, regulatory development and identifying
emerging threats to aviation safety and appropriate responses.
A key emerging threat to aviation safety both in Australia and overseas is developing windfarm infrastructure. In particular, wind
monitoring towers are a critical threat to low level aviation safety.
There are two quite distinct issues arising from windfarms that affect aerial application:
• safety of the aircraft and pilot and
• economic impact on aerial applicators.
Safety Impacts
AAAA view is that the case of Sheather v Country Energy (NSW Court of Appeal) clearly established that anyone with infrastructure
posing a threat to aviation must consider the risks that infrastructure poses to aviation safety and respond appropriately through
marking or 2 other measures to safeguard aviation operations. This precedent is of critical relevance to windfarm developers.
There are also a range of activities currently underway that are important to the consideration of the impact of windfarms and potential
directions for the future. These include:
• Commonwealth’s Aviation White Paper (Department of Infrastructure etc)
• Commonwealth Inquiry into Safeguards for Airports and the communities around them (Department of Infrastructure etc)
• CASA consultancy on safety implications of tall structures not in the vicinity of airports
• Relatively recent review and release of the Australian Standard AS3891 - Air Navigation - Cables and their supporting structures Marking and safety requirements AAAA has made submissions to each of these processes and has consistently raised the need for
appropriate risk management of windfarms and wind monitoring towers in an aviation context.
For example, the AAAA submission to the Commonwealth Government’s Aviation White paper included the following
recommendation:
• Establish and fund a national database of powerlines, wind monitoring and power generation towers and other obstacles so as to
address this significant threat to lowlevel aviation. Despite the best efforts of AAAA, such information is not made available from any
power companies and most wind farm developers.
35
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
This proposal is expanded on in the attached recent submission to the Commonwealth Government on Safeguards for Airports which
is at Attachment A.
AAAA has done a lot of work to make it easier to mark guy wires and powerlines – including on wind monitoring towers – through
amendment of the national standard on marking of ires so as to use a new marker developed by Country Energy with the cooperation
of AAAA.
There is now little practical reason why wind towers and especially wind monitoring towers should not to be marked at least.
In addition, AAAA has attempted to provide relevant information to any developer through the Wind Energy Association, but this
process is voluntary and consequently will not provide coverage of all developers.
AAAA also passes on information to members that has been provided to it by wind farm developers on the physical location of wind
monitoring towers. However, only a few developers provide this information and again there is little doubt that many towers are going
up unmarked and unknown until hopefully spotted by pilots during pre-application inspections.
More comprehensive safeguards must include a national system of communication the position of all wind monitoring towers and the
inclusion of this on a national database accessible by low level pilots. This is a very real issue for topdressing and firebombing
operations, as wind monitoring increases, so does the threat to legal aviation activities.
Economic Impacts
Safety is not the only consideration that is imposing additional risk and consequences on the aerial application industry.
The placement of wind farms in areas of highly productive agricultural land is leading to reductions in treatment areas of aerial
application companies with no compensation for this externalization of costs by wind farm developers.
For example, placement of a wind farm may affect flight lines and application height or even whether the application can be conducted
at all - leading directly to either an increase in cost or a reduction in income - and sometimes both - for aerial application operators.
AAAA’s submission to the Commonwealth Inquiry into Safeguards at Airports (Attachment A) makes a number of points regarding
land planning issues that are equally relevant to the development of wind farms regardless of whether they are near airports or in
agricultural land that may be treated by air.
In particular, AAAA is concerned that not enough consideration is being given through the State planning processes to the impacts of
windfarms on productive agricultural land and the aerial application industry, remembering that it may not only be the land footprint
where the windfarm is sited, but also land surrounding that for some kilometers where aircraft may have to maneuver to conduct aerial
application.
At the very least, windfarm developers should be required to pay compensation to aerial applicators where it can be reasonable
established that there will be an economic impact imposed on the aerial application company by the wind farm developer.
Further information
If you require any further information or would like AAAA to expand on or further explain any of the issues raised in this submission,
please do not hesitate to contact the Association’s CEO, Mr Phil Hurst on 02 6241 2100 or email: phil@aerialag.com.au
Yours sincerely
Phil Hurst
CEO - AAAA
David Boundy
Superair
PO Box 76
Armidale NSW 2350
Australia
superair@iinet.net.au
Ph 02 6772 5055
Fax 02 6772 5931
From: Britto Tam [mailto:tam1bri@police.nsw.gov.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 25 August 2010 12:45 PM
To: Anthony Micallef
36
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
Cc: Palitha Kuruppuarachchi
Subject: [Update] Fw: Radio Impact Assessment for proposed White Rock wind Farm site and NSW Police services
Hi Anthony,
NSW Police Force would like to inform you that, after conducting radio impact assessment on its licensed radio services at ACMA
site ID #6909 - Pacific Grid Site Trig Point Ben Lomond, the proposed White Rock wind farm location (with coordinates and
boundary as indicated in your email dated 23-August-2010) would not affect our (NSW Police Radiocommunications) services.
Kind Regards,
Britto Tam
NSW Police Force
Tel: 02-9265-4702
Fax: 02-9285-3710
Email: tam1bri@police.nsw.gov.au
From: Stephen Carter [mailto:fas@stjohn.org.au]
Sent: Monday, 6 September 2010 11:11 AM
To: Anthony Micallef
Subject: Proposed White Rock Wind Farm
Hello Anthony,
In reply to you letter dated 16 August 2010 regarding the proposed White Rock wind farm and its potential impact on site
306347 (Wilson Park, Taylor Street, Glen Innes).
My apologies for the tardy reply – one of the people I needed to consult with has been unavailable over the last couple of
weeks.
We do not believe that the proposed wind farm development will have an adverse impact on this site for the purposes of
St John Ambulance Australia.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require additional information and/or clarification.
Cheers, Stephen
37
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
38
Telecommunication/ and Electromagnetic Interference Impact Assessment – White Rock Wind Farm
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - WHITE ROCK WIND FARM SITE LOCALITY
FIGURE 2 - “FREE TO AIR” TELEVISION BROADCAST SERVICES AVAILABLE AROUND THE WIND FARM
FACILITY
FIGURE 3 - SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF POTENTIAL ANALOGUE TELEVISION SIGNAL INTERFERENCE ZONES
AROUND A WIND TURBINE
FIGURE 4 - HOUSES WITHIN 5KM OF THE WHITE ROCK WIND FARM SITE
FIGURE 5 - TELSTRA 3G AND GSM COVERAGE
FIGURE 6 - TELSTRA NEXT G NETWORK COVERAGE
FIGURE 7 - VODAFONE GSM NETWORK COVERAGE
FIGURE 8 - OPTUS GSM (3G) COVERAGE
FIGURE 9 - RADIO COMMUNICATION LICENSE HOLDERS WITHIN 25KM OF THE WHITE ROCK WIND FARM
SITE
FIGURE 10 - POINT TO POINT RADIO LINKS IN THE VICINITY OF THE WHITE ROCK WIND FARM SITE
(ORIGINAL TURBINE LAYOUT)
FIGURE 11 - LICENSEE LIST
39
5
9
10
12
14
15
15
16
20
22
23