Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06a Jerry Smith Road_Noise Report_5.27.26 May 27, 2026 File No. 12.0078319.00 Alex Reilly Director, Energy Storage Nexamp, Inc. 361 Madison Avenue, 18th Floor New York, New York 10016 Re: Noise Study Results Jerry Smith Road BESS Lansing, New York Dear Mr. Reilly, As requested, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA) has completed ambient noise monitoring, CadnaA Acoustic Modeling, and an evaluation of local noise requirements for the proposed Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) development located at 339 Jerry Smith Road, Lansing, New York(Project Site). Our work and the findings described herein are subject to the limitations included in Attachment A. PROJECT SCOPE GZA understands that Nexamp, Inc. plans to develop the Project Site as a single site on a parcel of land located at 339 Jerry Smith Road, Lansing, NY. The proposed system is to include six(6)Tesla MegaPack B2 XL systems.The Project Site is shown in Figure 1 below. Copyright©2024 GZA GeoEnvironmental,Inc. An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/V/H May 27, 2026 t Project No. 12.0078319.00 Jerry Smith Road BESS—Noise Study Page 2 Figure 1—Project Site Location • 1 j V i i III i i i Ill~ �a . a ' ` t 4 • i i { M 4 11 r � w ! In11i CLY xl.11r 1_{ ' LEGEND '* PkOiECT SITE May 27, 2026 Project No. 12.0078319.00 Jerry Smith Road BESS—Noise Study Page 1 3 NOISE REQUIREMENT FINDINGS The local noise code is set forth in the Town of Lansing Code, Chapter 270. Town of Lansing §270-35. Special Conditions. T) Large-scale battery energy storage systems special conditions, including site plan review. 1) Building and electrical permits shall be required for all battery energy storage systems. A development review application must be accompanied by all the appropriate application fees,forms,and number of copies of all plans and supporting documentation, including but not limited to the following: a) A State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") environmental assessment form, substantially completed, with accompanying data, schedules and mappings as reasonably requested by the Town. New York DEC Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts Since the Town of Lansing Code requires that large-scale battery energy storage systems(defined as systems with an aggregate energy nameplate capacity greater than or equal to 280 kWh) complete a SEQRA application, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Program Policy for Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts is applicable to the Site. Below is the language from Section C of the New York DEC guidance document titled Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts. C. Thresholds for Significant Sound Pressure Level Increases The goal for many permitted operations is to minimize perceptible increases in sound pressure level (LP) above ambient at chosen points deemed sensitive receivers. Increases ranging from 0-3 dB should have no appreciable effect on receptors. Increases from 3-6 dB may have potential for adverse noise impact only in cases where the most sensitive of receptors are present.Sound pressure increases of more than 6 dB may require a closer analysis of impact potential depending on existing levels and the character of surrounding land use and receptors. SPL increases approaching 10 dB result in a perceived doubling of loudness because they are measured on a logarithmic scale. An increase of 10 dB deserves consideration of avoidance and mitigation measures in most cases.The above thresholds as indicators of impact potential should be viewed as guidelines subject to adjustment as appropriate for the specific noise impact analysis. Establishing a maximum SPL at the point of reception can be an appropriate approach to addressing potential adverse noise impacts. Most humans find a sound level of 60 - 70 dB(A) as beginning to create a condition of significant noise effect (EPA 550/9-79-100, November 1978). In general, the EPA's "Protective Noise Levels" guidance found that ambient noise levels 55 dBA L(dn)was sufficient to protect public health and welfare and, in most cases, did not create an annoyance (EPA 550/9-79-100, November 1978). In non-industrial settings the SPL should not exceed ambient noise by more than 6 dB(A) at the receptor as an increase of 6 dB(A) may cause complaints. There may be occasions where an increase in SPL of greater than 6 dB(A) might be acceptable. The addition of any noise source,in a non-industrial setting,should not raise the ambient noise level above a maximum of 65 dB(A). This would be considered the "upper end" limit since 65 dB(A) allows for undisturbed speech at a distance of approximately three feet. Some outdoor activities can be conducted at a SPL of 65 dB(A). Still lower ambient noise levels may be necessary if there are sensitive receptors nearby. These limits and guidance are outlined in NYSDEC:Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts. May 27, 2026 Project No. 12.0078319.00 Jerry Smith Road BESS—Noise Study Page 14 Increase Over Ambient Effects and Guidance Increase in Sound Pressure Level in d6 Effect/Guidance 0-3 No appreciable effect on receptors 3-6 Potential for adverse noise impact only in cases where the most sensitive of receptors are present More than 6 May require a closer analysis of impact potential depending on DEP-00-1rev.2/2/01 Approaching 10 Deserves consideration of avoidance and mitigation measures in most cases MODELING STANDARDS This acoustic model was completed using the CadnaA acoustic modeling software, based on the standard ISO 9613-2:2024 for outdoor acoustic propagation.The method conservatively predicts the equivalent continuous A- weighted sound pressure level under meteorological conditions favorable for downwind propagation or propagation under a moderate ground-based temperature inversion. It accounts for worst possible wind and temperature gradient conditions in the model. The standard was approved by ISO/TC 43/SC 1 and has been recognized and adopted by American professional organizations such as the Acoustical Society of America (ASA) and Institute of Noise Control Engineering of the USA(INCE-USA). MODELED SOUND SOURCES The acoustic sources that were included in the model were six(6)Tesla Megapack 2 XL units (Option Code FN03), each equipped with a five-fan cooling system, and two (2) medium power Eaton transformers. Acoustic source details are provided in Table 1. Table 1—Source Details Quantity Type Product Name Source of Data 6 Battery Energy Tesla Megpack 2 XL 4H 5 Megapack 2 XL Option code Storage System Fan - FN03 Option FN03 Sound Data Report 2025 2 Medium Voltage Dry Eaton LNY0027509-012 Eaton 2025 Spec Sheet and Type Transformer GZA Measurements SENSITIVE RECEIVERS The nearest sensitive receivers to the Site that were analyzed were 340 Jerry Smith Road, 339 Jerry Smith Road, 361 Jerry Smith Road, 383 Jerry Smith Road.The sensitive receivers are shown in Table 2 and Figure 2 below. Table 2—Sensitive Receiver Details Receiver ID Sensitive Receiver Address 1 Residential Property 340 Jerry Smith Road 2 Residential Property 339 Jerry Smith Road 3 Residential Property 361 Jerry Smith Road 4 Residential Property 383 Jerry Smith Road May 27, 2026 Project No. 12.0078319.00 Jerry Smith Road BESS—Noise Study 901 Page 5 Figure 2—Noise Sensitive Receivers • f F^ 'ir y l 1 - - _ - - of o - IY #! r lb •4 #` r 22Y LEGEND RECEIVERS May 27, 2026 Project No. 12.0078319.00 Jerry Smith Road BESS-Noise Study Page 1 6 BACKGROUND SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Monitoring was conducted for 24 hours on Wednesday May 20, 2026, through Thursday May 21, 2026. The weather was dry and wind speeds were moderate during all monitoring periods. It is noted that the Site has an existing solar array. GZA conducted noise monitoring using a Larson Davis 821 Sound Expert Type I sound level meter with wind screen. The monitor was placed on a tripod at a height of approximately five feet above the ground, away from any other noise-reflective surfaces. The monitor calibration was confirmed prior to and following the monitoring session. Back up data is provided as Attachment B, and noise meter calibration data may be provided upon request. The 24-hour noise monitoring data is presented below in Table 3. A photo of the noise monitoring location is shown in Photo 1 below.The noise monitoring location is shown in Figure 3 below. Table 3-24-Hour Noise Monitoring Data in dB Start Date&Time LAeq LASmin LASmax LAS 10% LAS 50% LAS 90% 05/20/202613:18 54.4 31.3 79.8 46.3 39.0 34.0 05/20/202614:18 47.0 32.3 72.7 45.8 40.6 36.7 05/20/202615:18 57.3 30.0 83.5 49.1 38.8 34.2 05/20/202616:18 41.8 31.5 56.4 44.8 39.5 35.4 05/20/202617:18 42.4 30.7 58.4 44.8 39.5 34.8 05/20/202618:18 51.8 31.4 76.8 53.3 43.4 36.3 05/20/202619:18 44.2 24.4 67.1 47.6 36.0 29.6 05/20/2026 20:18 34.2 21.9 47.3 36.9 30.7 27.2 05/20/2026 21:18 31.6 20.1 49.3 33.0 28.1 22.6 05/20/2026 22:18 33.1 19.2 55.4 28.4 23.0 20.4 05/20/2026 23:18 24.5 18.9 37.7 27.1 22.6 20.1 05/21/2026 00:18 23.3 18.1 31.6 25.8 22.2 20.2 05/21/2026 01:18 25.5 18.7 44.0 27.9 22.8 20.0 05/21/2026 02:18 24.7 18.2 44.2 25.5 21.5 <20.0 05/21/2026 03:18 30.5 22.0 42.7 33.1 28.4 25.7 05/21/2026 04:18 36.4 23.8 57.5 40.5 30.1 26.5 05/21/2026 05:18 42.5 27.9 65.4 44.4 36.2 31.6 05/21/2026 06:18 36.8 28.1 51.6 39.7 34.6 31.4 05/21/2026 07:18 39.0 28.9 54.6 41.4 36.0 32.2 05/21/2026 08:18 37.6 26.6 60.6 40.2 34.0 29.8 05/21/2026 09:18 42.3 26.6 66.9 40.8 34.1 30.7 05/21/202610:18 44.9 26.6 66.9 45.8 35.5 31.1 05/21/202611:18 36.7 27.5 54.4 39.2 35.0 30.9 05/21/202612:18 37.6 25.7 55.9 39.5 33.9 29.8 May 27, 2026 Project No. 12.0078319.00 Jerry Smith Road BESS—Noise Study Page 7 Figure 3—Noise Monitoring Location A i I Ili 6 t a Al Ir�N I I I I �R lb I I I 1 i i s r li MM pir l LEGEND ..;' PROJECT SITF NOISE MONITORING LOCATION May 27, 2026 Project No. 12.0078319.00 Jerry Smith Road BESS—Noise Study Page 8 Photo 1—24-Hour Noise Monitoring Location gr � I@ .ya a aG r. c The Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) assigns a single value of sound level for a period of time in which varying levels of sound are experienced.The Leq value provides an indication of the effects of sound on people and characterizes the ambient sound levels at a potential noise source. The average daytime (7 am — 10 pm) Leq sound level was 42.9 dB(A).The average nighttime (10 pm—7 am) Leq sound level was 30.8 dB(A).The average nighttime level was selected as an ambient baseline for analysis as it the lowest of the two, so it represents a worst-case scenario (lowest sound level). May 27, 2026 Project No. 12.0078319.00 Jerry Smith Road BESS—Noise Study Page 19 NOISE MODELING/EXPECTED SOUND LEVELS Noise emissions were estimated for the proposed BESS using CadnaA acoustical modeling software.The scenarios and iterations are described below. If revisions to the Site Plan, layout, and/or barriers are made, GZA can revise the acoustical model accordingly. The anticipated maximum the BESS will operate at in this region is 40% based on climate, and therefore,sound levels meeting the noise code at 40% load are considered an acceptable result. Modeling Scenarios Four separate scenarios were modeled for the Site. In all scenarios, the 5-fan units and the transformers were modeled. In the first scenario,the units were modeled at 100%load with no sound barriers. In the second scenario, the units were modeled at 100% load with a 10' acoustifence sound barrier on the fence along the northern and eastern boundary of the BESS equipment yard, between the equipment and the closest sensitive receptors. In the third scenario,the units were modeled at 40% load with no sound barriers. In the fourth scenario,the units were modeled at 40%load with a 10' acoustifence sound barrier on the fence along the northern and eastern boundary of the BESS equipment yard.A sketch of the layout of the sound barriers modeled is shown as Figure 4.The results of Iteration 1 are shown below in Table 4. Static (constant) sound sources are assumed at the Site and therefore the values in Table 4 are sound pressure levels with no statistical metrics. Figure 4—Barrier Location Sketch 10' Acoustifence 0 May 27, 2026 Project No. 12.0078319.00 Jerry Smith Road BESS-Noise Study Page 1 10 Table 4-Modeling Results in dB(A) 40% 40% 100% 100% Receiver Floor Operation Operation Operation Operation w/o Barrier with Barrier w/o Barrier with Barrier 1: 340 Jerry Smith Road (Residential Fagade) GF 27.4 27.1 39.6 39.3 Increase over Nighttime Ambient at Receiver 1 1.6 1.5 9.3 9.1 2: 339 Jerry Smith Road (Residential Fagade) 2 FI 30.4 30.3 39.2 39.0 Increase over Ambient at Receiver 2 2.8 2.8 9.0 8.8 3: 361 Jerry Smith Road (Residential Fagade) 2 FI 35.9 33.9 47.6 44.8 Increase over Ambient at Receiver 3 6.3 4.8 16.9 14.2 4: 383 Jerry Smith Road (Residential Fagade) F2 FI 31.7 29.9 43.3 40.5 Increase over Ambient at Receiver 4 1 3.5 2.6 12.7 10.1 NOISE CODE ANALYSIS The noise monitoring results showed that there was an average ambient sound level of 42.9 dB(A) during the day and 30.8 dB(A) during the night. With each unit operating at 40% load with no sound barriers as described, modelling suggests that the proposed BESS would increase the ambient noise levels by up to 6.3 dB(A) at neighboring properties(Receiver 3).This increase of more than 6 dB(A)over ambient levels suggests the need for mitigation per the New York DEC Program Policy for Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts. With each unit operating at 40% load with the 10' acoustifence sound barriers as described, modelling suggests that the proposed BESS would increase the ambient noise levels by up to 4.8 dB(A) at neighboring properties (Receiver 3) and would therefore meet the requirements of the New York DEC Thresholds for Significant Sound Pressure Level Increases. There are no octave band requirements listed in the Town of Lansing Code, so octave band sound levels were not evaluated for the proposed BESS. Model spectra output is included in the model calculations and can be provided upon request. May 27, 2026 Project No. 12.0078319.00 Jerry Smith Road BESS—Noise Study Page 1 11 CLOSING In summary, the acoustic model indicates that the Project with each unit operating at 40%with 10' Acoustifence sound barriers as described would be in compliance with the local noise code. Therefore, no adverse impacts related to noise are anticipated as a result of the proposed BESS. We appreciate this opportunity to assist Nexamp, Inc. with this matter and look forward to working with you as this important project progresses. Should you have any questions regarding the information provided herein, please contact Gene Bove at 973-534-4090. Sincerely, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Gene Bove, INCE Victoria Curran Senior Project Manager Assistant Project Manager J Kevin Williams, AICP, PP James Heineman Principal Consultant Reviewer Attachments: Attachment A—Limitations Attachment B—Noise Monitoring Backup(Excel Attached Separately) Attachment C—Excel Modeling Results(Attached Separately) Attachment A— Limitations LIMITATIONS Page / 1 USE OF REPORT 1. GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA) has prepared this report on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Client for the stated purpose(s)and location(s) identified in the Report. Use of this report, in whole or in part, at other locations,or for other purposes, may lead to inappropriate conclusions; and we do not accept any responsibility for the consequences of such use(s). Further, reliance by any party not identified in the agreement, for any use, without our prior written permission, shall be at that party's sole risk, and without any liability to GZA. STANDARD OF CARE 2. The conclusions presented in this report were based solely upon the services described in this report, and not on scientific tasks or procedures beyond the scope of described services or the time and budgetary constraints imposed by Client. Conditions at the facility are subject to change, therefore the compliance status at any given time could differ from the status at the time of ourreport. 3. This report describes the compliance status with respect to the environmental regulatory program(s) outlined in the report. Compliance with regulatory programs or specific regulatory requirements other than the program(s) outlined in this report have not been evaluated. 4. Information pertaining to the facility, structures, and operations and activities conducted at the facility was provided to GZA by Client as indicated within the report. In performing the services described oin the report,GZA has relied on the information provided by Client, including the accuracy and completeness thereof. 5. The purpose of this study was to review the regulatory compliance of current operations and activities conducted at the facility within the limits of the objective and scope of work described in our proposal and/or report. We did not attempt to assess the compliance status of present or past owners or operators of the facility. 6. Unless otherwise specified in the report, GZA did not perform testing or analyses to determine the presence or concentration of any chemicals, oils, asbestos, or polychlorinated biphenyls at the site, within site buildings, or in the environment at the site. Where such analyses have been conducted by an outside laboratory, GZA has relied upon the data provided, and has not conducted an independent evaluation of the reliability of these data. COMPLIANCE WITH CODES AND REGULATIONS 7. The regulatory compliance status described in this report has been evaluated based on our interpretation of regulations, and where appropriate, the interpretations provided by the applicable regulatory authority personnel at the time of our study. In some cases, these interpretations require subjective judgment and we cannot guarantee that all applicable regulatory authority personnel will interpret the regulations in the same manner as we have, or in the manner that the agency personnel we may have spoken to have. Applicable regulatory authorities' interpretations, requirements, and enforcement policies vary from district office to district office, from state to state, and between federal and state agencies. In addition, statues, rules, standards, and regulations may be legislatively changed and inter-agency and intra-agency policies may be changed from present practices from time to time. 8. In preparing this report,GZA has relied on certain information provided by federal,State,or local applicable regulatory authorities and other parties referenced herein, and on information contained in the files of federal, State, and/or local applicable regulatory authorities available to GZA at the time of our compliance study. Although there may have been some degree of overlap in the information provided by these various sources, GZA did not attempt to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of all information reviewed or received during the course of the study. Where information provided by Client was not complete, representations regarding the regulatory compliance of such operations and activities has not been made. LIMITATIONS Page /2 INTERPRETATION OF DATA 9. GZA's work was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same geographical area, and GZA observed that degree of care and skill generally exercised by other consultants under similar circumstances and conditions. GZA's findings and conclusions must be considered not as scientific certainties, but rather as our professional opinion concerning the significance of the limited data gathered during the course of the study. No warranty, express or implied, is made. Specifically,GZA does not and cannot represent that the Site contains no hazardous material, oil, or other latent condition beyond that observed by GZA during its study. Additionally, GZA makes no warranty that any response action or recommended action will achieve all of its objectives or that the findings of this study will be upheld by an applicable regulatory authority. NEW INFORMATION 10. In the event that the Client or others authorized to use this report obtain information on environmental regulatory compliance issues at the facility not contained in this report, such information shall be brought to GZA's attention forthwith. GZA will evaluate such information and, on the basis of this study, may modify the conclusions stated in this report. Attachment B — Noise Monitoring Backup (Excel Attached Separately) Attachment C — Excel Modeling Results (Attached Separately)