Skip to content

Kingston Report-more commentary

June 13, 2015

Stephen Ambrose continues his series of commentaries on the draft report presented by HMMH consultants at the Kingston Board of Health meeting on June 18, 2015.

Part three:
Distance is attenuation.
Part four:
All wind shear models are not equally valid.
noise-level-vs-distance part-4_wind-shear-Kingston
Part five:
Hub height wind shear compared
(log scale)
Part six:
Hub height wind shear compared
(linear scale)
part-5_wind-shear-hub-height part-6_wind-shear-comparison
Advertisements
2 Comments leave one →
  1. Chris Kapsambelis permalink
    June 22, 2015 8:30 am

    At the BOH hearing a question was raised as to why there was an abrupt change between 4 AM and 4:30 where KWI suddenly went from violating the state regulations to a state of compliance.

    The expert explanation was that between 4 and 4:30 AM the added traffic noise increased sharply to bring KWI into compliance.

    MassDEP’s acceptance of this explanation is in conflict with the state’s air pollution regulations which classify noise as an air contaminant, and defines a violation as any combination of contaminants that exceeds the state’s limits on air pollution.

    The traffic noise on route 3 does not limit compliance to the short period from midnight to 4:00 AM. Adding traffic noise to noise from KWI extends the period of non compliance beyond 4:00 AM and before midnight.

    MassDEP needs to be challenged on this point.

Trackbacks

  1. Peer Review Devalued | Wind Wise ~ Massachusetts

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: