STATE OF VERMONT

PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD

Petition of Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

for a Certificate of Public Good, pursuant to 30
V.S.A. § 248, to install and operate a Biornass
Energy Facility and an integrated wood pellet
Docket No
manufacturing facility located north of the old
Green Mountain Racetrack in Pownal, Vermont,
to be known as the “Pownal Biomass Project”

PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF
EDDIE DUNCAN

ON BEHALF OF
BEAVER WOOD ENERGY POWNAL, LLC

November 2, 2010

The purpose of the pre-filed testimony of Mr. Duncan is to demonstrate that the proposed
Pownal Biomass Project will comply with certain provisions of 30 V.S.A. § 248 (b) (5),
namely those pertaining to aesthetics and more specifically noise.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Irnroduction 1

2. Summary of Findings 3

3. Conclusion 6

EXHIBITS

Petitioner’s Exhibit ED-i Résumé of Eddie Duncan

Petitioner’s Exhibit ED-2 RSG Noise Impact Study

 STATE OF VERIvIONT
PUBLIC SERVICE BOAR])

Petition of Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

for a Certificate of Public Good, pursuant to 30
V.S.A. § 243. to install and operate a Biomass
Energy Facility and an integrated wood pellet ) Docket No
manufacturing facility located north of the old )
Green Mountain Racetrack in Pownal, Vermont,
to be known as the “Pownal Biomass Project” )

PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF
EDDIE DUNCAN

ON BEHALF OF
BEAVER WOOD ENERGY POWNAL, LLC

1 1. Introduction

2 Ql. Please state your name. business address and employment.

3 Al. My name is Eddie Duncan. and I am a Senior Associate at Resource Systems

4 Group (RSG), which is headquartered at 55 Railroad Row, White River Junction,

5 Vermont.

6 Q2. Please describe your educational background and professional experience.

 Pownal Biomass Project, P58 Docket No.
Prefiled Testimony of Eddie Duncan
November 2, 2010
Page 2 of 6

1 A2. I have consulted in acoustics for over 7 years. In this time, I have worked on a

2 dozens of Act 250 cases, and several Section 248 cases. I have testified before

3 District Commissions and local planning boards and have conducted

4 environmental noise and architectural acoustics studies in the power production.

5 power transmission, aggregate, manufacturing, transportation, commercial retail,

6 residential, sports, and entertainment industries. I have also published papers on

7 noise mapping, and various issues related to noise from wind power and

8 aggregate projects.

9 I am Board Certified through the Institute of Noise Control Engineering and am a

10 member of the Acoustical Society of America through which I serve on a number

11 of technical committees and acoustical standards working groups. I have

12 extensive experience in the monitoring and analysis of acoustical data and

13 modeling of outdoor sound propagation. Ihold a B.S. in Engineering Science

14 from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and am currently enrolled in the M.S. in

15 Environmental Studies program at Green Mountain College. My full resumé is

16 provided as Petitioner’s Exhibit ED-I.

17 Q3. What is the purpose of your testimony?

18 A3. The purpose of my testimony is to demonstrate that the Pownal Biomass Project

19 (the “Project”) satisfies the requirements of 30 V.S.A. § 248(b)(5) as it pertains

20 to aesthetics and specifically noise impacts.

21 Q4. Have you testified previously before the Board?

 Pownal Biomass Project, PSB Docket No.
Prefiled Testimony of Eddie Duncan
November 2, 2010
Page 3 of 6

1 A4. I have not previously testified before the Public Service Board. However, I have

2 worked on projects that have come before the Board including Lowell Mountain

3 Wind Project (Docket #7628), Georgia Mountain Community Wind (Docket

4 #7508), Deerfield Wind (Docket #7250), Velco Gorge (Docket #7460), and the

5 Northwest Reliability Project (Docket #6860), among others. I have provided

6 testimony to District Commissions in a number of Act 250 cases including

7 Zaluzny Gravel Pit (Case #2W0577-4) and Chaves Londonderry Gravel Pit (Case

8 #2W1275), among others.

9 2. Summary of Findings

10 Q5. Based upon your evaluation and analyses, does the Project comply with Section

11 248?

12 AS. Yes. As discussed in Petitioner’s Exhibit ED-2. the Environmental Protection

13 Agency and the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines each provide

14 relevant noise criteria for a project of this type. Given the scientific evidence

15 regarding sleep disturbance and other impacts that were reviewed by the WHO,

16 we have proposed that the Project meet a standard of 45 dBA (8-hour average

17 sound pressure level, Leq(g)), which is averaged over the entire night (11 pm to 7

18 am) outside of residences. T his noise limit is both protective of human health and

19 addresses quality-of-life concerns.

20 During the day, we have proposed that the Project meet a standard of 50 dBA (16-

21 hour average sound pressure level, Leq( 16). which is averaged over the entire day
 Pownal Biomass Project, PSB Docket No.
Prefiled Testimony of Eddie Duncan
November 2, 2010
Page 4 of 6

1 (7 am to 11 pm) outside of residences. This level is recommended by the WHO

2 to protect against moderate annoyance.

3 These recommended limits are stricter than EPA guidelines. That is, if the Project

4 meets these recommended limits, it will also meet the EPA guideline of 55 dBA

5 Ldn.

6 As discussed in Petitioner’s Exhibit ED-2, the Project also meets the limits set

7 forth in the Pownal zoning bylaws at residences and the property line limits

8 within the.

9 Q6. Briefly describe how you came to your conclusions.

10 A6. A noise impact study is typically composed of four steps: (1) monitoring existing

11 background sound levels at the proposed site, (2) inventorying noise sources from

12 the proposed project. (3) modeling the projected sound ‘evels surrounding the

13 project area, and (4) developing mitigation to reduce impacts.

14 As discussed in detail in Petitioner’s Exhibit ED-2, we conducted background

15 monitoring at three locations for approximately one week. The locations were

16 representative of various residential areas around the Project site. At the three

17 sites, monitoring results showed that the average equivalent daytime sound

18 pressure levels were between 57 and 62 dBA. and the average equivalent

19 nighttime sound pressure levels were between 56 and 60 dBA.

20 An inventory of potential noise sources from the proposed Project was developed.

21 The inventory included sources from the wood processing operations, on-site
 Pownal Biomass Project, PSB Docket No.
Prefiled Testimony of Eddie Duncan
November 2, 2010
Page 5 of 6

1 truck traffic and deliveries, the turbine building, the boiler building, the integrated

2 pellet plant, and associated mechanical equipment.

3 To be conservative, we modeled the maximum daytime and nighttime 1-hour

4 average sound pressure levels (Leq(lhour)) from the Project. If the modeled

5 maximum daytime and nighttime Leq(IhQUfl is 50 and 45 dBA or less, respectively,

6 then the Project will also meet the recommended standard limits.

7 Model results show that the highest daytime level at a nearby residence from the

8 Project is 49 dBA 0 , and the average of 336 modeled residences is 38

(LeqUh
)

9 dBA. These are within the previously mentioned daytime limit.

10 The highest modeled nighttime level at a nearby residence is 45 cIBA ),

00
(Leqh

11 and the average of 336 modeled residences is 34 cIBA. These are within the

12 previously mentioned nighttime limit.

13 Q7. How do these levels compare against the background sound levels in the area?

14 A7. While these standards are not relative to existing background noise. it is worth

15 noting that the projected sound pressure levds from this proposed facility as

16 detailed in Petitioner’s Exhibit ED-2 are at or below the existing equivalent

17 average daytime and nighttime background sound pressure levels.

18 Q8. What are the existing sources of background noise?

19 AX. Existing sources of background noise include traffic on US 7 and local roads,

20 railway noise, and biogenic sources. The highest levels from existing sources are

21 up to 100 dBA at nearby residences due to train horns.

22 Q9. Does the Project need any noise mitigation to meet the suggested noise standard?
 Pownal Biomass Project, PSB Docket No.
Prefiled Testimony of Eddie Duncan
November 2, 2010
Page 6 of 6

1 A9. Most of the noise sources will be located indoors. To meet the previously

2 mentioned limits, a number of mitigation measures have been recommended and

3 are listed in detail in Petitioner’s Exhibit ED2. These mitigation

4 recommendations include noise reduction technologies on specific pieces of

5 mechanical and power equipment from the power plant and integrated pellet plant

6 operation, managed truck operations, and the design of high performance

7 enclosures for all wood processing equipment and much of the equipment

8 associated with the power plant and integrated pellet plant. T he best way to

9 mitigate noise is often right at the source of noise itself. That is what is being

10 done for this Project by implementing noise reduction technologies into the

11 design of the equipment.

12 3. Conclusion

13 Q10. What is the final conclusion of your noise study?

14 AiD. Based on the study provided in Petitioner’s Exhibit ED-2, I find that this Project

15 will have no undue adverse impact on aesthetics with regard to noise.

16 Q1 1. Does this conclude your testimony?

17 All. Yes.
 STATE OF VERMONT

PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD

Petition of Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

for a Certificate of Public Good, pursuant to 30
VS.A. § 248. to install and operate a Biomass
Energy Facility and an integrated wood pellet ) Docket No
manufacturing facility located north of the old
Green Mountain Racetrack in Pownal. Vermont, )
to be known as the ‘Pownal Biomass Project” )

PREFILED TESTIMONY OF
EDDIE DUNCAN

Exhibit BWEP -ED- 1

Resumé
 or
,fl..OkJ INC
RE 5OU RCF SYST Ms RU’ P. Is’:,

Edward C.D. Duncan, INCE BD. CERT., ASA

Senior Associate
Environment, Energy and Acoustics

Biographical Summary
Mr. Duncan practices in the firm’s Environment Energy, and Acoustics division. He has been with the firm for
six years. At Resource Systems Group, Mr. Duncan is involved in all aspects of environmental noise and
architectural acoustics projects including measurement, analysis, modeling, design, testimony, and
management. He has extensive experience in computer modeling and monitoring of environmental noise and
has conducted noise analysis for projects from many different industries, some of which include the
aggregate industry, wind power projects and other utilities, transportation, commercial developments, and
residential developments. He also has extensive experience in computer modeling of architectural acoustics
and has conducted room acoustic analysis on 3-dimensional computer models for many different types of
projects, some of which include worship spaces, theaters, gymnasiums, and arenas. Mr. Duncan also provides
educational programs to professionals and students through sponsored courses and lectures.

Education
• MS. Environmental Studies, Green Mountain College, 2012 (expected)
• B.S. Engineering Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2003

Experience
2004- present Senior Associate, Resource Systems Group, Inc.
2003- 2004 Acoustical Consultant Environmental Acoustics, Inc.
Summer 2002 Acoustics Intern, Acentech, Inc.

Selected Responsibilities and Relevant Engagements

• Kansas Wind Farm Conducted sound propagation modeling for a proposed 100 MW wind farm in Kansas.
Measured background sound levels at several locations around the proposed site. Calibrated the sound
model using measurements at an operating wind farm in Kansas. Prepared a report comparing the impacts
to a noise standard and suggested mitigation necessary to meet the standard.
• Pennsylvania Wind Farm Developed a survey to gather information from residents living near an existing
-

wind farm in Pennsylvania. Measured background sound levels at several locations around the proposed
site. Compared monitored data to survey results to look at detailed noise perception issues.
Southern Vermont Wind Farm Impact Study Conducted pre-construction monitoring at multiple locations
—

for a proposed 30 to 45 MW wind farm in southern Vermont Correlated ridgeline wind speeds with
monitored background sound levels. Constructed a computer model to predict future sound levels with
various meteorological conditions.
• Northern Vermont Wind Farm Impact Study Conducted pre-construction monitoring at multiple locations
—

around the site of a proposed five turbine wind farm in northern Vermont. Modeled future sound levels of
the proposed wind farm. Prepared a report comparing the modeled impacts to the applicable noise
standard. The report also included a discussion of construction impacts and recommendations to meet the
standard.
• Velco Y-25 Interconnect, VT— Conducted pre-construction monitoring as part of the Bennington Y-25
Interconnect project. Measurements were made at the existing transformers in two cooling modes using
IEEE measurement protocols. Additional sound levels measurements were taken 50 feet away from the
transformers and at the fence-line.

eduncan@rsginc.com Page 1
www.rsginc.com
Insights and Solutions fora Better World Edward Duncan
Senior Associate

Michigan Wind Farm Ordinance Review Reviewed and critiqued a proposed wind farm ordinance in
—

northern Michigan. Provided testimony to the local planning commission regarding the content of the
proposed ordinance.
Pennsylvania Wind Farm Post Construction Monitoring Study Developed a survey to gather information
— —

from residents living near an existing wind farm in Pennsylvania. Measured background sound levels at
several locations around the proposed site in the winter and spring. Compared monitored data to survey
results to look at detailed noise perception issues. Provided a report comparing monitoring results with
applicable noise standards.
New England Post Construction Wind Farm Monitoring Study Conducted post-construction monitoring at
- —

a wind farm in northern New England for a developer as part of their permit conditions. Monitoring was
conducted in both the winter and summer. Provided a report comparing post-construction monitoring
results with pre-construction monitoring results.
• Lowe’s Home Centers Analyzed noise impacts for many Lowe’s Home Centers proposed throughout the
—

northeastern U.S., including New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine.
Conducted measurements and modeling to determine community noise impacts from rooftop mechanical
systems, vehicle noise, loading activities, and other sources.
• Rochester Sand and Gravel, VT Monitored background sound levels and a crushing plant for a proposed
—

gravel pit in Rochester, Vermont Modeled sound levels at nearby residences and the noise attenuation due
to berms and other mitigation measures.
• Material Fabrication Facility Conducted measurements and analysis of various industrial noise sources at
—

a material fabrication facility including CNC machines, dust collection systems, band saws, hood air
handlers, sand blasters, circular saws, compressed air nozzles, and various compressor powered tools.
Developed recommendations to help meet OSHA regulations by reducing noise build-up in the workspace,
screening equipment operators, and reducing noise at the source with specific equipment modifications.
• Acoustics Lab Room Designed and supervised the construction ofan acoustics lab which would be used to
—

conduct material testing and acoustic experiments with sound pressure levels up to 120 decibels. Modeled
the modal response of the room prior to construction. Met with lab users to define their testing
requirements including background sound levels, testing sound levels, and reverberation times.
Collaborated with the contractor and other consultants to ensure proper sound isolation from the rest of
the building.
• Pierce Hall Conducted background sound level and reverberation time measurements in the main hail.
—

Measured the noise reduction of the floor/ceiling assembly between the hall and meeting spaces below.
Built a computer model of the hall to analyze the effect of planned renovations on the acoustics and make
recommendations for acoustical improvements. Produced auralization demonstrations so the board of
directors could listen to the acoustical differences prior to renovations.
• Rotary Band Shell Modeled sound propagation from a park band shell to study sound coverage and
—

attenuation. Designed walls and canopy for proper acoustic spread and on-stage mixing. Utilized early
reflections from the band shell to support music and speech.
• Thetford Elementary School Gymnasium Room Acoustics Study, VT Measured the background sound levels
—

and reverberation times in the gymnasium Constructed a computer model of the gymnasium to study the
rapid speech transmission index, reverberation time, and other various acoustical parameters. Designed a
suspended reflector system to project sound from a stage area out to the audience. Developed auralization
demonstrations so the school board could listen to the acoustical differences prior to renovation.
• Rollins Chapel Organ Acoustics, Hanover, NH Conducted various acoustical measurements throughout the
—

chapel with the organ. Built a detailed computer model of the chapel to study the acoustical effects of
various recommendations to increase the reverberation time and clarity. Created a mockup of the chapel
ceiling and tested its acoustic characteristics in RSGs reverberation room. Developed auralizations for the
Dartmouth organist and other staff to listen to the acoustical differences prior to renovation.

n!cr Page2
fl.3 hJNc
aa.
Insights and Solutions for a Better World Edward Duncan
Senior Associate

Selected Publications
Duncan, F., and Kaliski, K., A Case Study in Cooperation: A Gravel Pit and It’s Community, Proceedings of the
2010 Institute of Noise Control Engineers NOISE-CON 2010
Kaliski, K., and Duncan, li., Calculating Annualized Sound Levels for a Wind Farm, Proceedings of Meetings
on Acoustics (POMA), Vol. 9-159th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America/NOISE-CON 2010.
• Kaliski, K., and Duncan, E., Propagation Modeling Parameters for Wind Power Projects,’ Sound & Vibration
Magazine, Vol.42 No. 12, December 2008.
• Kaliski, K., and Duncan, E., Propagation Modeling Parameters for Wind Turbines, Proceedings of the 2007
Institute of Noise Control Engineers NOTSECON 2007.
• Kaliski, K., Duncan, E., and Cowan, J, “Community and Regional Noise Mapping in the United States,” Sound
& Vibration Magazine, Vol.41 No.9, September 2007.
• Duncan, E., Kaliski, K., Collier, R., and Maher, M., Design ofa Small Reverberation Room for Use in ANR and
Other Testing, Proceedings of the 2006 Institute of Noise Control Engineers INTER-NOISE 2006.

Selected Presentations
• Duncan, E., and Kaliski, K., improving Sound Propagation Modeling for Wind Power Projects, joint Meeting of
the Acoustical Society of America (ASA) and the European Acoustics Association (EAA) Acoustics’08.
• Duncan, E., and Kaliski, K., Design and Construction ofo Small Sound Testing Room in an Office Building, 4th
Joint Meeting of the Acoustical Society of American and the Acoustical Society of Japan, November 2006.

Memberships/Affiliations
• Institute of Noise Control Engineering
• Acoustical Society of America
• Standards Committee S3/SC1/WG4 —Ambient Sound in Parks, 2010 Current
—

• Member of the Technical Committee on Architectural Acoustics, 2007-Current

• Co-Chair of Structured Session: NSO5 Noise from Wind Power Prolects, Acoustics ‘08
—

• Chair of Technical Session: Acoustics of Modular Construction, 154

th Meeting
of the Acoustical Society of
America, November 2007

Page3
R S Gi,:
 STATE OF VERMONT

PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD

Petition of Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

for a Certificate of Public Good, pursuant to 30
V.S.A. § 248, to install and operate a Biomass
Energy Facility and an integrated wood pellet
Docket No
manufacturing facility located north of the old
Green Mountain Racetrack in Pownal. Vermont, )
to be known as the “Pownal Biomass Project” )

PREFILED TESTIMONY OF
EDDIE DUNCAN

Exhibit BWEP -ED -2

Noise Impact Study

 fl
fl[O_kJiNC.
r[ -NVIRONMENT, ENERGY, & ACOUSTICS

Noise Impact Study

Beaver Wood Energy’s
Biomass Plant and
Wood Pellet Facility:
Pownal, Vermont

November 2010

DATA • ANAlYSIS • SOLUTfONS

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTIoN .1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .1
3.0 A NOISE PRIMER 2
3.1 what is Noise
2 2
3.2 How is Sound Described
2 3
3.3 what is the Difference between Sound Pressure Levels and Sound Power Levels
7 3
3.4 How is Sound Modeled’ 3
3.5 Description of Terms S
3.5.1 Equivalent Average Sound Level Leq- 6
3.5.2 Percentile Sound LevelS Ln 6
3.5.3 Lmin and Lmax 7

4.0 NOIsE STANDARDS 7

4.1 Local and State Standards 7
4.2 world Health Organization 7
4.3 Federal Standards and Guidelines 8
4.4 Public Service Board Precedents 9
4.5 Noise Threshold Goals for the Pownal Biomass Plant 9

5.0 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT 10

5.1 Background Monitoring Areas 10
5.2 Background Sound Monitoring 10
5.2.1 MonitorA — US 7& Southeast of the ProjectArea 13
5.2.2 Monitor B — Green Mountain Mobile Home Park 14
5.2.3 Monitoring Location C— Northwest Hill Road 15
5.2.4 Overall Sound Monitoring Results 16

6.0 SOuND MODELING 16

6.1 Modeling Software & Setup 16
6.2 Maximum Daytime 1-Hour Average Sound Pressure Levels 17
6.3 Maximum Nighttime 1-Hour Average Sound Pressure Levels 19

7.0 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 22

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 23
9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 25

F Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver wood Energy Pownal, LLC

3 November 2010 Page i
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Proposed Project and Surrounding Area 2

Figure 2: Basic Theory: Common Sounds in Decibels 4
Figure 3: Example of Noise Measurement over Time and Descriptive Statistics 6
Figure 4: Map of Background Sound Monitor Locations 11
FigureS: Average and Gust Wind Speed (mph) at a Ground Level Station (10-minute periods) 12
Figure 6: Temperature (°F) and Relative Humidity (%) at a Ground Level Station (10-minute periods) 12
Figure?: Location of Monitor A 13
Figure 8: Sound Pressure Levels (1-hour, dBA) at MonitorA 13
Figure 9: Location of Monitor B 14
Figure 10: Sound Pressure Levels (1-hour, dBA) at Monitor B 14
Figure 11: Location of Monitor C — Facing East toward the Proposed Site 15
Figure 12: Sound Pressure Levels (1-hour, dRA) at Monitor C 15
Figure 13: Map of Daytime Noise Sources 18
Figure 14: Model Results of the Average Daytime Sound Pressure Level (Leq 1-hour, dBA) 19
Figure 15: Map of Nighttime Noise Sources 21
Figure 16: Model Results of the Average Nighttime Sound Pressure Levels (Leq 1-hour, dBA) 22

r_k Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC
3 November 2010 Page ii
 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Beaver Wood Energy is proposing to construct a 29.5 MW biomass power plant and fully integrated wood
pellet production plant in Pownal, Vermont This study assessed the affects of the facilities’ equipment
and operations on sound levels in the surrounding area. The report includes:
1) A description of the Project site
2) A noise primer
3) A discussion of applicable noise limits
4) The results of background sound level monitoring
5) The results of computer propagation modeling
6) Summary and conclusions

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed Project is located approximately 575 feet west of US 7 at the north end of the former Green
Mountain Race Track in Pownal, Vermont. A Pan Am Railways track runs parallel to the eastern property
boundary between US 4 and the Project area. The Hoosic River runs along the western side of the Project
area. The access road to the site is located approximately 660 feet south of B Hill Road.
The closest residences are to the northeast at the Green Mountain Mobile Home Park which is
approximately 190 feet from the Project property line and 380 feet from the nearest facility structure.
Approximately 900 feet to the east there are residences along US 7. Further east there are residences up
B Hill Road approximately 1,100 feet from the Project houndary. To the west, there are residences along
Northwest Hill Road approximately 780 feet from the Project site.
The operation will use two sources of wood: waste wood and low lumber value logs. The waste wood will
be brought to the site and used as a fuel source for the power plant. Low lumber value logs will also be
brought to the site. The logs will be stripped of their hark in the debarker and continue into a wood
chipper. After the hark is stripped, it will go into a bark grinder, and eventually into the power plant as a
fuel source. The wood chips from the logs and additional wood chips that will be brought to the site will
be used to make wood pel’ets in the fully integrated pe1et p’ant. Noise sources from the operation
include a debarker, wood chipper, bark grinder, truck dump hydraulics, cooling tower, truck traffic,
conveyors, interior noise from the power plant and fully integrated pellet plant equipment to move the
logs around, and various fans associated with the two plants and other buildings.
A map of the Project area is provided in Figure 1.

VAV
P fl Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Powna!, LLC
as. 3 November 2010 Rage 1
 Figure 1: Proposed Project and Surrounding Areo

3.0 A NOISE PRIMER

3.1 What is Noise?

Noise is defined as “a sound of any kind, especially when loud, confused, indistinct, or disagreeable.”
1
Passing vehicles, a noisy refrigerator, or an air conditioning system are sources of noise which may be

“The American Herftage Dictionary of the English Language,” Houghton Mifflin company, 1981.

‘V Resource Sy5tems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

3 November 2010 Page 2
bothersome or cause annoyance. These sounds are a part of generally accepted everyday life, and can he
measured, modeled, and, if necessary, controlled.

3.2 How is Sound Described?

Sound is caused by variations in air pressure at a range of frequencies. Sound levels that are detectable by
human hearing are defined in the decibel (dB) scale, with 0 dE being the threshold of human hearing, and
135 dB causing pain and permanent damage to the ear. Figure 2 shows the sound levels of typical
activities that generate noise.
The decibel scale can be weighted to mimic the human perception of certain frequencies. The most
common of these weighting scales is the ‘A’ weighting, and this scale is used most frequently in
environmental noise analysis. Sound levels that are weighted by the “A” scale have units of dSA or d8(A).
To account for changes over time, a weighted average sound level called the equivalent’ sound level
(Leq) is often used. Leq averages sound pressure rather than decibels, and results in weighting loud and
infrequent noises more heavily than quieter and more frequent noises. For example, a train passing by
for one minute out of an hour could produce sound levels around 90 dBA while passing by, but the
equivalent sound level for the entire hour would be 72 cIBA. Leq is also often used in environmental noise
analysis.

3.3 What is the Difference between Sound Pressure Levels and

Sound Power Levels?
Both sound power and sound pressure levels are described in terms of decibels, but they are not the
same thing. Sound power is a measure of the acoustic power emitted or radiated by a source. The sound
power level of a source does not change with its surrounding conditions.
Sound pressure level is observed at a specific location and is related to the difference in air pressure
above or below atmospheric pressure. This fluctuation in air pressure is a result of the sound power of a
source, the distance at which the sound pressure level is being observed, and the characteristics of the
path and environment around the source and receiver. When one refers to sound level, they are generally
speaking of the sound pressure level.
For example, a coffee grinder will have the same sound power whether or not it is grinding indoors or
outdoors. The amount of sound the coffee grinder generates is always the same. However, if you are
standing six feet away from the coffee grinder indoors, you would experience a higher sound pressure
level than you would if you were six feet away from the coffee grinder outdoors in an open field. The
reason for this is that the sound being emitted from the coffee grinder would bounce off walls and other
surfaces indoors which would cause sound to build up and raise the sound pressure level.
Sound power cannot be directly measured. However, since sound pressure and sound power are related,
sound power can be calculated by measurements of sound pressure or sound intensity. It can be helpful
to note that over soft ground outside, the sound pressure level of a small source observed 50 feet away is
roughly 33dB lower than its sound power level.

3.4 How is Sound Modeled?

The decibel sound level is on a logarithmic scale. One manifestation of this is that sound power increases
by a factor of 10 for every 10dB increase. However, for every 10dB increase in sound pressure level, we

Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

3 November 2010 Page 3
 Figure 2: Basic Theory: Common Sounds in Decibels
Occ.spto,,.J Nois Dec eis (d BA)
Pe,oepfk,u, lkwaed a1 the a.,’ Ersqday Mole. r,.uamtion NoJn
Near a jet .ng In.

Of Paw,
— :130 I
‘ Deafening

Hard Rock Band 120 I

Chain,aw 410

Tablesaw
Circular saw S
Bandsaw
impact Wrench Auto horn at 10 feel 100

Electric hand dril Very Loud

Sno.m,obO
Riding lawn ITwer. a’ ear N
SIt..t Sweeper
$hcip-vac. at ear. ou1doors
Truastby OOnwha(SCbet

Trnck pesaby 30 mph .150 feel

Vacutin, claret, at 51
Loud
Playground r.c.a (54) Inside car, windows closed. 85 mpPi

C.rpa.Wy. 3OiTwh. at 50 le.t -

Urban Area
ConversatuQnal Speech TV in ‘fuel rooue ‘44
I
Microwave ovens’ 25 feet
Car pataby 30 mph .1100 feet
Mode rale

risen ldn car at 50 7.

Office, with computer
Suburban area and HVAC

Refng.ratorat3f.et : •
Library
Fain

Quiet rural area. rio wind. —

insects or traffic

O,se, Winiei night. wddeffiass

ares. 00 insect, flific Or

N very PalM
I.

Threshold f audt.ikty at }
1000Hz -

--

Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

Sa 3 November 2010 Page 4
 perceive an approximate doubling of loudness. Smal] changes in sound pressure level, below 3dB, are
generally not perceptible.
For a point source, sound level diminishes or attenuates by 6 dB for every doubling of distance due to
geometrical divergence. For example, if an idling truck is measured at 50 feet as 66 dSA, at 100 feet the
level will decline to 60 dBA. and at 200 feet, 54 dRA. assuming no other influences. From a line source,
like a gas pipeline or from closely spaced point sources, like a roadway or string of wind turbines, sound
attenuates at approximately 3 dB per doubling distance. These “line sources” transition to an attenuation
of 6 dB per doubling at a distance of roughly a third of the length of the line source.
Other factors, such as intervening vegetation, terrain, walls, berms, buildings, and atmospheric
absorption will also further reduce the sound level reaching the listener. In each of these, higher
frequencies will attenuate faster than lower frequencies. Finally, the ground can also have an impact on
sound levels. Harder ground generally increases and softer ground generally decreases the sound level at
a receiver. Reflections off of buildings and walls can increase broadband sound levels by as much as 3 dB.
If we add two equal sources together, the resulting sound level will be 3dB higher. For example, if one
machine registers 76 dBA at 50 feet, two co-located machines would register 3 dB more, or 79 dBA at that
distance. In a similar manner, at a distance of SO feet, four machines, all operating at the same place and
time, would register 82 dBA and eight machines would register 85 dBA. If the two sources differ in sound
level then 0 to 3 dB will be added to the higher level as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: DecibelAdditian

If Two Sources Differ By Add

0-1dB 3dB
2-4dB 2dB
5-9dB 1dB
>9dB 0dB

3.5 Description of Terms

Sound can be measured in many different ways. Perhaps the simplest way is to take an instantaneous
measurement, which gives the sound pressure level at an exact moment in time. The level reading could
be 62 dB, but a second later it could 57 dB. Sound pressure levels are constantly changing. It is for this
reason that it makes sense to describe noise and sound in terms of time.
The most common ways of describing noise over time is in terms of various statistics. Take, as an
example, the sound levels measured over time shown in Figure 3. Instantaneous measurements are
shown as a ragged grey line. The sound levels that occur over this time can be described verbally, but it is
much easier to describe the recorded levels statistically. This is done using a variety of “levels” which are
described below.

F Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

3 November 2010 Page 5
 Figure 3: Example of Noise Measurement over Time and Descriptive Statistics

70 -

Lm ax
65 -

60 -

t
55 110

1
a, Leq
-J
a,
In
‘a
a,
50
1 JA)\\
/V -
150
45 •,
1.90
0.
0
C 40
0
pd — 1mm
35

30 p I p

0 20 40 60 80 100
Time

3.5.1 Equivalent Average Sound Level Leq -

One of the most common ways of describing noise levels is in terms of the continuous equivalent sound
level (Leq). The Leq is the average of the sound pressure over an entire monitoring period and expressed
as a decibel. The monitoring period could be for any amount of time. It could he one second (Leq 1-c),
one hour (Leq), or 24 hours (Leq). Because Leq describes the average pressure, loud and infrequent
124
noises have a greater effect on the resulting level than quieter and more frequent noises. For example, in
Figure 3, the median sound level is about 47 dBA, but the equivalent average sound level (Leq) is 53 dBA.
Because it tends to weight the higher sound levels and is representative of sound that takes place over
time, the Leq is the most commonly used descriptor in noise standards and regulations.
Other forms and averaging periods of the equivalent average sound level Leq) are used in some federal
and world guidelines. For example, a day-night equivalent level (Ldn) is the equivalent average sound
level over a 24 hour period with a 10 dBA penalty applied to the nighttime levels (10 PM to 7AM). An
annual daytime average (Lday) is the equivalent average sound level during the day over the course of a
year, and an annual nighttime average (Lnight) is the equivalent average sound level during the night
over a course of a year.

3.5.2 percentile Sound Level Ln -

Ln is the sound level exceeded n percent of the time. This type of statistical sound level, also shown in
Figure 3, gives us information about the distribution of sound levels over time. For example, the L10 is
the sound level that is exceeded 10 percent of the time, while the L90 is the sound level exceeded 90% of
the time. The L50 is exceeded half the time. The L90 is a residual base level which most of the sound
exceeds, while the L10 is representative of the peaks and higher, but less frequent levels. When one is
trying to measure a continuous sound, like a wind turbine, the L90 is often used to filter out other short-
term environmental sounds that increase the level, such as dogs barking, vehicle passbys, wind gusts, and
talking. That residual sound, or L90, is then the sound that is occurring in the absence of these noises.

‘V Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, ILC

3 November 2010 Page 6
 3.5.3 1mm and Lmax
Lmin and Lmax are simply the minimum and maximum sound level, respectively, monitored over a
period of time. These are shown in Figure 3.

4.0 NoisE STANDARDS -

4.1 Local and State Standards

The Town of Pownal has a quantitative noise performance standard within Section 8.8.2 of the zoning
bylaws. It states,
‘The maximum sound pressure level radiated on a continuous basis by any use or facility at the
property line shall not exceed 70 DB(A) after 6:00 AM. and before 10:00 P.M., and shall not
exceed 60 DB(A) after 10:00 P.M. and before 6:00 AM.’
There are no state statutes or regulations that establish quantitative noise standards which are
applicable to this Project

4.2 World Health Organization

The United Nation’s World Health Organization (WHO) has published “Guidelines for Community Noise”
(1999) which uses the most current research on the health impacts of noise to develop guideline sound
levels for communities. The forward of the report states, “The scope of WHO’s effort to derive guidelines
for community noise is to consolidate actual scientific knowledge on the health impacts of community
noise and to provide guidance to environmental health authorities and professionals trying to protect
people from the harmful effects of noise in non-industrial environments.”
The WHO guidelines suggest a daytime and nighttime protective noise level. During the day, the levels are
, that is, an average over a 16-hour day, to protect against serious annoyance and 50 dEA
55 dBA Leqi
63
1161 to protect against moderate annoyance.
Leq
During the night, the WHO recommends limits of4S dBA Leq(s) and an instantaneous maximum of 60
dBA LAfmax (fast response maximum). These are to be measured outside the bedroom window. These
guidelines are based on the assumption that sound levels indoors would be reduced by 15 dRA with
windows open. That is, sound level inside the bedroom that is protective of sleep is 30 cIBA Leq[s). So long
as the sound levels outside of the house remain at or below 45 dBA, sound levels in the bedroom will
remain below 30 dBA. Given the climate in this region, this is essentially a summertime standard, since
residents are less likely to have their windows open during other times of the year. By closing windows,
an additional --10dB of sound attenuation will result.
Table 4.1 of the WHO’s “Guidelines for Community Noise” (1999) provides guideline values for
community noise in specific environments. This table is provided in the Appendix.
In October, 2009, WHO Europe conducted an updated literature review and developed guidelines for
nighttime noise in Europe. They expanded on the 1999 WHO guidelines by adding an annual average
nighttime guideline level to protect against adverse effects on sleep disturbance. This guideline is 40dB
Lnight, outside.

Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

3 November2010 Page7
4.3 Federal Standards and Guidelines
There are no federal noise standards that apply to biomass power projects on private land. Many federal
agencies have adopted guidelines and standards that apply to other types of facilities. A summary of some
of these standards is shown in Table 2. Note that these standards are in terms of Leq, Ldn, or LI 0. The
Leq is the pressure weighted average sound level, over a specified period of time. The Ldn is the A-
weighted day-night Leq, where a penalty of 10dB is applied to nighttime sound. The L10 is the 10th
percentile sound level. It is the level that is exceeded 10% of the time, and thus represents the higher
sound levels over a period of time.

Table 2: Summary of Federal Guidelines and Standards far Exterior Noise

Agency Applies to Standard (dBA)

Environmental Protection Agency
Bureau of Land Management (eLM)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC)
Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)
Federal Interagency Task Force
Guideline to protect public health and 55dB Ldn
welfare with an adequate margin of
safety
Guidelines for the development of Refers to the EPA 55dB Ldn guideline.
wind turbines on federal lands
managed by BLM
Compressor facilities under FERC 55dB Ldn
jurisdiction
Federally funded highway projects. For 57 dBA Leq or 60 dBA L10 during the
“Lands on which serenity and quiet are peak hour of traffic. Either standard
of extraordinary significance and serve can be used, but not both.
an important public need and where
the preservation of those qualities is
essential if the area is to continue to
serve[tsintendedpurpose.”
For “residential” and “active sports 67 cIBA Leq or 70 dBA L10
areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums,
campgrounds, cemeteries, day care
centers, hospitals, libraries, medical
fdcilities, parks, picnic areas, places of
worship, playgrounds, public meeting
rooms, public or nonprofit institutional
structures, radio studios, recording
studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f)
sites, schools, television studios, trails,
and trail crossings”
For “Hotels, motels, offices, 72 dBA Leq or 75 dBA L10
restaurants/bars”
This Taskforce is set up to develop 55 to 65 dB Ldn for impacts on
consistency of noise standards among residential areas
federal agencies

Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

3 November 2010 Page 2
 4.4 Public Service Board Precedents
The Public Service Board (PSB) has not reviewed an application for a biomass facility for over 15 years.
There are several recent cases though, where the PSB considered other renewable energy projects
including Georgia Mountain Community Wind (Docket 7508) and Deerfield Wind (Docket 7250). The P58
applied the following conditions related to noise for the Georgia Mountain project:
23. GMCW shall construct and operate the Project so that it emits no prominent discrete tones
pursuant to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards at the receptor locations;
and Project-related sound levels at any existing surrounding residences do not exceed 45 dRA
(exterior)(Leq)(1 hr) or 30 dBA [interior bedrooms)(Leq)(1 hr).
24. In the event noise from the operation of the Project exceeds the maximum allowable levels,
the Petitioner shall take all remedial steps necessary to bring the sound levels produced by the
turbine(s) into compliance with allowable levels, including modification or cessation of
turbine(s) operation.
25. GMCW shall submit, for Board approval, a noise monitoring plan to be implemented during
the first full year of operation. The plan shall establish a monitoring program to confirm under a
variety of seasonal and climatic conditions compliance with the maximum allowable sound levels
described above. Parties will have three weeks, from the date this plan is filed with the Board, to
comment on the plan. GMCW cannot commence operations until the plan is approved.”
The standard applied to the Deerfield case is very similar.

4.5 Noise Threshold Goals for the Pownal Biomass Plant

The EPA Guidelines and the WHO Guidelines each provide relevant noise criteria for a project of this type.
Given the scientific evidence regarding sleep disturbance and other impacts that were reviewed by WHO,
we propose that the Project should meet a standard of4S dBA Leq(e)
, which is averaged over the entire
1
night (11 PM to 7 AM) outside the residence. This would not apply to areas that have transient uses such
as driveways, trails, farm fields, and parking areas. This standard is more stringent than all of the lederal
guidelines mentioned ahove and will be well below the level that can cause hearing impairment. This
noise limit is both protective of human health and prevents any quality-of-life concerns.
During the day, we propose that the Project meet a standard of SO dBA Leq(lo), which is averaged over the
entire day (7AM to 11 PM) outside of residences. This is the level recommended by the WHO to protect
against moderate annoyance.
If the Project meets both the daytime and nighttime recommended limits, it will also meet the EPA
guidelines.
The Project should also not exceed 70 dnA or 60 dnA on a continuous basis at the property line during
the day and night, respectively to comply with the Pownal zoning bylaws.

‘The sleep disturbance standard used here is based on a windows-open condition. During the seasons when windows are generally
closed, the standard is 10 dB higher, to account for the additional attenuation of closed windows

WA,, Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC
3 November 2010 Page 9
 5.0 ExIsTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT

5.1 Background Monitoring Areas

Background sound level monitoring was conducted at three ]ocations around the Project to characterize
the existing noise environment. The three locations were chosen based on proximity to the proposed
Project and are representative of area groupings of residences. The three monitored locations are shown
in Figure 4 and are meant to he representative of the following areas:
1. Monitor A is representative of the residences along US 7 and southeast of the Project area.
2. Monitor B is representative of the residences at the Green Mountain &Alta Gardens Mobile
Home Parks.
3. Monitor C is representative of the residences across the Hoosic River along Northwest Hill Road.
Detailed information about each Monitor is provided is Section 5.2.

5.2 Background Sound Monitoring

Monitoring was conducted from June10 to June 17, 2010. All sites were monitored with ANSI Type 2
Rion NL-22 sound level meters set to log equivalent average sound levels every second. Each sound level
meter was calibrated before and after the monitoring period and was fitted with a seven-inch water
resistant windscreen. The windscreens reduce the self-noise created by wind passing over the meter’s
microphone. Each microphone was placed between 1.0 and 1.4 meters above the ground. In each case,
the ground was considered “soft”, that is, it was suitable for the growth of vegetation. The sound level
meter model, start time, and end time for each monitoring location are shown in Table 3.
During the monitoring period, wind speed, temperature, and relative humidity were collected at a ground
level station near the center of the race track south of the Project area as shown in Figure 4. Average and
gust wind speeds during the monitoring period are shown in Figure 5 and temperature and relative
humidity are provided in Figure 6. There was a period of moderate to heavy rain from approximat&y
2:45 PM to 7:40 PM on June 10 and again on June 12 from 2:35 PM to 5:00 PM. These periods are noted
in the monitoring results.

fl Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLc

3 November 2010 Page 10
 Figure 4: Map of Background Sound Monitor Locations

Table 3: Background Sound Monitor Summory

I Monitor Meter Start Time End Time

A Rion NL22 6/10/10 10:58AM 6/17/10 12:58 AM
B Rion NL22 6/10/10 11:12 AM 6/17/10 2:34 PM
C Rion NL22 I 6/10/10 11:51 AM 6/16/10 5:51 PM

‘V Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

3 November 2010 Page 11
 FigureS: Average and Gust Wind Speed (mph) at a Ground Level Station (10-minute periods)

20
18
16
14
.0.
E 12
10
•0.
-V 8
C
6

•1 ii

—
4
2
_1
Al UVJ 1
11iLdt1
0
6/10/10 6/11/10 6/12/10 6/13/10 6/14/10 6/15/10 6/16/10 6/17/10 6/18/10
—Average Wind Speed Gust Wind Speed

Figure 6: Temperature (°F) and Relative Humidity (%) at a Ground Level Station (10-minute periods)

90 100
90
80 80
U 70
U,
70 60 -U
4-I
E
50 z
0 a)
0 60 40 >
E
30
So 20
10
40 0
6/10/10 6/11/10 6/12/10 6/13/10 6/14/10 6/15/10 6/16/10 6/17/10 6/18/10
—Temperature Relative Humidity

rv Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

3 November 2010 Page 12
 5.2.1 Monitor A — US 7 & Southeast of the Project Area
Monitor A was located southeast of the Project area next to the south access road to the former Green
Mountain Race Track. The monitor was set back from US 7 by approximately 250 feet and is shown in
Figure 7. The monitoring results are provided in FigureS. The primary sources of background noise at
Monitor A were traffic on US 7, railway noise, and biogenic sources (i.e. wind, animal calls, etc.). The
highest sound levels are caused by train horns at a nearby railroad crossing.

Figure 7: Location ofMonitorA

r- .

I
-$:- 11
_—
- -

-
ZII!$j
•-

is
a
- J4r_- -
-t,i--% 1%
-ri,- -.$-
-
•0
-
—. ;- --w - - --

Figure 8: Sound Pressure Levels (1-hour, dBA) at Monitor A

110 Lmax(1-hr)

100 — Leq (1-hr)

90 L1O(1-hr)
‘O ISO (1-hr)
@3
80
L90 (1-hr)
70
@3
z
‘a‘a 60
a,
I
0-
0 so
C
3
C 40
‘a
30

20
6/10/10 6/11/10 6/12/10 6/13/10 6/14/10 6/15/10 5/16/10 6/17/10 6/18/10

‘V Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

3 November 2010 Page 13
 5.2.2 Monitor B — Green Mountain Mobile Home Park
MonitorS was located at the southwest corner of the Green Mountain Mobile Borne Park in the tree tine
south of the park, approximately 520 feet west of US 7. A picture of the monitor is shown in Figure 9, and
the monitoring results are shown in Figure 10. The primary sources of background noise at Monitor B
were traffic on US 7, railway noise, activities in and around the mobile home park, and biogenic sources.
The highest sound levels are caused by train horns at a nearby railroad crossing.

Figure 9: Location of Monitor B

Figure 10: Sound Pressure Levels (1-hour, dBA) at Monitor B

110 Lmax (1-hr)

100 Leq (1-hr)

90 L10 (1-hr)
0 — L50(1-hr)
a, 80
‘I
— L90 (1-hfl
3 70
C,
I

‘I,
‘I, 60
C,
a.
0 50
C
0
‘I,
40

30

20
6/10/10 6/11/10 6/12/10 6/13/10 6/14/10 6/15/10 6/16/10 6/17/10 6/18/10

‘V Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

3 November 2010 Page 14
 5.2.3 Monitoring Location C — Northwest Hill Road
Monitor C was located west of the Project area at a Christmas tree farm on Northwest Hill Road. It was set
back approximately 90 feet west of Northwest Hill Road. The monitor is shown in Figure 11 and the
results are shown in Figure 12. The primary sources of noise at Monitor C were traffic on US 7 and
Northwest Hill Road, railway noise, and biogenic sources.

Figure 11: Location of Monitor C — Facing East toward the Proposed Site

Figure 12: Sound Pressure Levels (I-hour, dBA) at Monitor C

110 Lmax(1-hr)
Rain
100 Leq (1-hr)

90 L10(1-hr)
0
80 a JJAAR A L50(1-hr)
C,

70
I i V Al V n L90(1-hr)

C, 60:
a
so *h1w
-

C
0 40
In

30

20
6/10/10 6/11/10 6/12/10 6/13/10 6/14/10 6/15/10 6/16/10 6/17/10 6/18/10

‘V Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

3 November 2010 Page 15
 5.2.4 Overall Sound Monitoring Results
The overall results are summarized in Table 4. Five different levels are shown: the Lmax, Leq, L10, L50,
and L90. As mentioned in Section 3.5, the Lmax is the maximum sound pressure level that occurred
during the given monitoring time. As discussed in Section 3.5, the Leq is the equivalent average sound
level. This measure weights louder sounds more than quieter sounds because it is based on a logarithmic
average. The L90, L50, and L10 are the sound levels exceeded 90%, 50%, and 10% of the time,
respectively.

Table 4: Background Monitoring Results Summary (dBA)

Daytime Nighttime
Monitor
tniax Leq 110 ISO LO Lmax Leq 110 ISO ISO
A 97 60 64 53 46 100 60 53 42 39
0 99 57 54 47 41 97 56 48 35 26
c 98 62 61 52 44 86 57 55 44 36

6.0 SOUND MODELING

6.1 Modeling Software & Setup

Modeling was completed for the Project using Cadna A acoustical modeling software. Made by Datakustik
GmbH, Cadna A is an internationally accepted acoustical model, used by many other noise control
professionals in the United States and abroad. The software has a high level of reliability and follows
methods specified by the International Standards Organization in their ISO 9613-2 standard, “Acoustics —

Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors, Part 2: General Method of Calculation.” The ISO
standard states,
“This part of ISO 9613 specifies an engineering method for calculating the attenuation of sound
during propagation outdoors in order to predict the levels of environmental noise at a distance
from a variety of sources. The method predicts the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound
pressure level under meteorological conditions favorable to propagation from sources of
...

known sound emissions. These conditions are for downwind propagation or, equivalently,
...

propagation under a well-developed moderate ground-based temperature inversion, such as

commonly occurs at night”
The model takes into account source sound power levels, surface reflection and absorption, atmospheric
absorption, geometric divergence, meteorological conditions, walls, barriers, berms, and terrain. Model
input data including source and receiver coordinates, sound power levels, and modeling assumptions are
provided in Appendix A.
A 30 by 30 meter grid of receivers was set up covering approximately 1,25 square miles around the site.
In addition, 336 discrete receivers were placed at surrounding residences in an area approximately 3
square miles around the site.

F Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

3 November 2010 Page 16
6.2 Maximum Daytime 1-Hour Average Sound Pressure Levels
To be conservative, we have modeled the maximum daytime 1-hour average sound pressure levels
j) from the proposed Project. If the modeled maximum daytime Leqhour) is 50 dBA or less, then
0
(Leq.h
the Project will also meet the recommended daytime threshold goals in Section 4.5. The maximum
daytime Leq(1.hourJ was calculated by modeling all of the daytime sources for a certain operational time.
Figure 13 shows the location of all the daytime sources in the model which are the:
• boiler building ventilation fans
• broadband backup alarm
• cooling tower
• pellet dryer fans
• fans associated with the boiler and fully integrated pellet plant
• fly ash dust collector
• lDfan
• chip processing building fans
• transformer
• truck dump hydraulics
• turbine building fan
• allconveyors
• trucks driving on site
• interior sources in the wood processing building, wood chip processing building, turbine
building, and boiler building, including the debarker, wood chipper, and bark grinder among
other interior sources
The amount of time each source is operating out of an hour in the model is provided in Appendix A.
Of the 336 receivers at the surrounding residences, the highest daytime average sound pressure level is
49 dBA and the average sound pressure level is 38 dilA. The highest daytime levels occur at the
southwestern edge of the Green Mountain Mobile Home Park. A map of the maximum daytime 1-hour
average sound pressure levels is provided in Figure 14.
These model results show that the Project will meet the daytime noise threshold goal of 50 dBA Leq(
.
16
hour) at residences and 70 dBA at the Project property line. They are also well below the average existing
daytime background sound levels shown in Table 4. Results for each residential receiver are provided in
Appendix B.

Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LIC

3November2Ol0 Pagel7
Figure 13: Mop of Daytime Noise Sources

• Residential
Sources

+ Boiler Building Fan

* Broadband Backup Alarm
+ Cooling Tower Fan
Pellet Dryer Fan
+ Fan Intake & Breakout
El Fly Ash Dust Collector
ID Fan Breakout

4 Chip Processing Building Fan

Transformer
Truck Dump Hydraulics
Turbine Building Fan
Truck Routes
Conveyors

Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

3 November 2010 Page 18
 Figure 14: Model Results of the Average Daytime Sound Pressure Level (Leq 1-hour, dBA)

4 Residential
— Conveyors
—.——— Rail Line
— Roads
Onsite Buildings
Silos, Tanks, Stacks
Site Details

6.3 Maximum Nighttime 1-Hour Average Sound Pressure Levels

To be conservative, we have modeled the maximum nighttime 1-hour average sound pressure levels
(Leqhour)) from the proposed Project lithe modeled maximum nighttime Leq(1hur) is 45 dnA or less
then the Project will also meet the recommended nighttime threshold goals in Section 4.5. The maximum
nighttime Leqçiho) was calculated by modeling all of the daytime sources for a certain operational time.
Figure 15 shows the location of all the nighttime sources in the model which are the:
• boiler building ventilation fans
• cooling tower

‘V Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

3 November 2010 Page 19
 • pellet dryer fans
• fans associated with the boiler and fully integrated pellet plant
• fly ash dust collector
• IDfan
• chip processing building fans
• transformer
• turbine building fan
• reclaim conveyor
• interior sources in the wood chip processing building, turbine building, and boiler building
The amount of time each source is operating out of an hour in the model is provided in Appendix A.
Modeling shows the highest nighttime average sound pressure level at a residence is 45 dBA and the
average sound pressure level across all 336 modeled residences is 34 dBA. As shown in Figure 16, the
highest sound levels occur at the southwest corner of the Green Mountain Mobile Home Park.
These model results show that the Project will meet the nighttime noise threshold goal of 45 dBA Leq(
0
hour) at residences and 60 dBA at the Project property line. They are also well below the average existing
nighttime background sound levels shown in Table 4. Results for each residential receiver are provided
in Appendix B.

Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

3 November 2010 Page 20
 Figure 15: Map of Nighttime Noise Sources

• Residential
Sources
± Boiler Building Fan

+ Cooling Tower Fan

Pellet Diver Fan
+ Fan Intake & Breakout
Fly Ash Dust Collector
O ID Fan Breakout

* Chip Processing Building Fan

• Transformer

* Turbine Building Fan

— Conveyor

‘V Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LIC

3 November2010 Page 21
 Figure 16: Model Results of the Average Nighttime Sound Pressure Levels (Leq 1-hour, dBA)

7.0 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

Construction related to the biomass power plant and fully integrated pellet production plant will be
primarily located at the proposed site. While there may be activity closer to residences for road
construction and utility work, such work will be of relatively short duration.
Major construction will take place during normal business hours. Nighttime construction work, if any,
will not involve the use of heavy earth moving equipment or cranes. Structural steel work will not occur
at night. Nighttime work, if employed, will consist of activities such as extended concrete pours
(outdoors), and pipe welding, electrical work, and similar indoor activities.

n Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

3 November 2010 Page 22
 Equipment used for construction will vary. Examples of some of the louder pieces of equipment are
shown in Table S along with the approximate maximum sound pressure levels at 400 feet and 1000 feet
distances which are similar to surrounding residences.

Tables: Maximum Sound Levels from Various Types of Construction Equipment’ Assuming No Attenuation from Trees or
Terrain

MAXIMUM SOUND PRESSURE MAXIMUM SOUND PRESSURE

EQUIPMENT
LEVEL AT 400 FEET (dBA) LEVEL AT 1,000 FEET (dBA)
M-250 Liftcrane 50 42
22SOS3Liftcrane 46 38
Excavator 53 45
Dump truck being loaded 58 50
Dump truck at 25 mph accelerating 45 37
Tractor trailer at 25 mph accelerating 50 42
concrete truck 49 41
Bulldozer 53 45
Rock drill 60 52
Loader 45 37
Backhoe 45 37

Near the end of major construction the piping to the steam turbine is cleaned using steam. This
process generates significant bursts of noise despite the use of silencers but only occurs over a short
period. Neighbors will be notified in advance of this event.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the above analysis, we recommend the following mitigation measures which have been
implemented in our acoustical analysis:
1) All on-site equipment requiring backup alarms should have broadband, variable loudness,
radar-type, or light backup alarms installed to the extent permissible by OSHA. A broadband
backup alarm with a sound power level of 107 dRA was used in the model. Broadband
backup alarms are often found to be less annoying because they do not have the pure tonal
qualities of regular backup alarms. They are also more directional and attenuate more over
distance. Broadband backup alarms emit a sound that is often described as being similar to
static.
2) The wood processing operation (debarker, wood chipper, and grinder) should be housed in
a wood processing building.
a) The building should have the interior walls and/or ceiling lined with exposed
acoustically absorptive material to prevent the build-up of noise within the structure.

‘Assumes hard ground around the construction site and 150 9614-2 propagation with no vegetation reduction. Actual sound levels will
likely be lower given the prevalence of vegetation and soft ground round the site.

WV Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

3 November 2010 Page 23
 b) Air vents to the building should utilize acoustical louvers to minimize the sound —

transmission through the openings.

c) The building construction should have an acoustical rating of approximately Sound
Transmission Class (STC) 30 or above. The reduction at each octave band frequency
used in the model is provided in Appendix A.
3) Prolonged idling of chip, pellet, and log trucks should be prohibited. Drivers can be
instructed with signage and verbal instructions.
4) Layout truck routes such that the use of backup alarms will be minimized.
5) The raw wood, bark, reclaim, and stackout conveyors should be housed in a structure that
connects to the buildings at each end of the conveyors. This will help limit breakout noise
from the wood processing building, wood chip processing building and boiler building
where the conveyors enter those structures. The reduction of the conveyor enclosure used in
the model is similar to that provided by 24 gauge steel and is provided in Appendix A.
Alternatively, the conveyors do not need to be enclosed provided each one meets a total
sound power rating of 70 dBA, and the conveyor openings into the boiler building, wood
processing building, and wood chip processing building are covered with two layers of vinyl
sound barrier. These could be heavy transparent vinyl sound barriers with offset slits that
allow material to flow through. Without slits, the material should have an STC rating of 25 or
greater.
6) Air vents for the boiler, turbine, and wood chip processing buildings should utilize acoustical
louvers to minimize the sound transmission through the openings.
a) The wall construction of the turbine, boiler, and wood chip processing buildings should
have an acoustical rating of approximately STC 30 or above. The reduction at each
octave hand frequency used in the model is provided in Appendix A.
7) Noise reduction technologies should be utilized on various pieces of equipment to reduce
sound emissions. The equipment requiring these technologies and the resulting sound
power of each piece of equipment used in the model is provided below. The sound power
level of all sources by octave band is provided in Appendix A.
a) ID fan casing breakout noise limited to 106 dBA.
b) Intake noise from the three fans next to the precipitator associated with the boiler and
pellet plant limited to 101 cIBA each. Breakout noise from these fans limited to 104 dRA
each.
c) Intake and breakout noise from the dryer fans limited to 98 and 100 dBA, respectively.
d) Main power transformer limited to 98 dRA.
e) Fly ash dust collector limited to 100 dBA.
B) Noise reduction technologies should also be incorporated into the cooling tower
specification to reduce sound emissions from inlets and the fans, The total sound power
levels of the inlet and fans used in the model are 97 dBA each. In addition to the cooling
tower specifications, a barrier should be constructed parallel to the north edge of the cooling
tower. The height of the barrier should be approximately 1.25 times the height of the cooling
tower inlets. The barrier used in the model is located 22 feet north of the cooling tower and
is 65 feet in length. Alternatively, the sound emissions from the inlets could be further
reduced through design so long as each inlet has a total sound power of 93 dBA or less.

--
-

P Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLc

As. 3 November 2010 Page 24
 Other mitigation measures maybe substituted for these recommendations provided they produce
equivalent results.

9.0 SUMMARYANDCONCLUSIONS_-___
Beaver Wood Energy is proposing to construct a 29.5 MW biomass power plant and fully integrated wood
pellet production plant in Pownal, Vermont This assessment evaluated the potential noise impacts by
predicting sound levels at residences throughout the surrounding area with a sound propagation model
in accordance with ISO 9613-2 and comparing the modeled levels with the existing background levels
around the site and the noise threshold limit goals developed through review of local, state, national, and
world guidelines including recent PSB decisions.

From this assessment the following can be concluded:

1) Projected sound levels at nearby residences will be at or below the average existing
background levels for daytime and nighttime.

2) Projected sound levels at nearby residences will be at or below the Project noise
threshold limit goals o145 dBA Leq(ehour) at night and 50 dBA leq(l6I,our) during the day.
This stricter than the EPA guideline of 55dB Ldn.

3) Projected sound levels at the Project property line will meet the requirements of the
Pownal zoning bylaws by being at or below 60 dBA Leq(lhour) at night and 70 dBA Leqg
hour) during the day.

4) Major construction will take place during normal business hours. With the exception of
extended concrete pours, nighttime construction work, if any, will involve primarily
indoor work. Aside from possibly road construction or utility work, construction will
take place on-site, away from the nearest residences, and thus will have a minimal
impact on noise levels.

Near the end of construction the steam turbine will be cleaned, producing bursts of
noise over a short duration. Neighbors will be contacted in advance of this event.

5) Potential noise emissions from the Project will be significantly mitigated through
specification of noise reduction technologies in on-site equipment managed truck
operations, and design of high performance enclosures as outlined in Sections.

As a result, the Pownal biomass power plant and fully integrated wood pellet production plant can be
constructed in such a way as to have no undue adverse impact on aesthetics with regard to noise.

P Resource Systems Group, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC

3November2oao Page 25
 APPENDIX A

MODEL INPUT DATA

‘V
 ib_ — — — ‘1 —, —— 0
Q Q
•
0 0ia’.0.

a’
I
a —
W0a’Nfl0tbC
a’ — a’ 00
0:
0 0 a’a’a’a’a’Na’ 0 ooNa’.Oa’a’a’a’Na’NNa’,fl00
3 N N a’ CO a’ a’ 0 — 0 a’a’a’0a’_• 0 a’ CC a’ CO CO a’ CO a’ a’a’hna’tC CON CO WOO N
a’ —. a’ a’ a’ a’ OCa’ a’ a’ — 0 0 a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’

— — ————

a’OqI(1W 01
a’ a’ONNa’Na’0000a’a’JC fla’m CO a’ 0 00 a’ N a’ 3000 a’ 0 0W’4a’a’a’a’a’r-. a’
£
V
E
—
000000000
a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’
N N
a’ 0000
N CC
a’
0
a’
00
a’
a’ 00 a’
a’ a’ a’
0000
a’ a’
N
a’
a’
CO
NW
a’ a’
0000000 NO a’
a’ a’ a’ a’ CO a’ N
N
N
a’
a’
a’ 0 a’ a’
a’ a’ a’ a’
00 a’
a’ a’ a’
N
CO
a’
a’
x ‘C a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ 0’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’
a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’

Vt Vt Vt a’ Vt t a’ Vt Vt a’ a’ a’ at a a a a a at ta’ ta’ vt tt ta’ tt

a’ 00000000000 0000CC 00000000000000 000000 a a

22 2222
SS2SSSS2SSS

a’ 1fli
a’._ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ CC a’ a’ a’a’a’NN0000a’OCCa’a”a’ 000000 a’ a’ a’ Ca’ CCC a’ Ca’a’ COO a’ a’ a’ a’
z C, -.

‘
q
CIa’
. . . .

.00.00

zi
IC
--------

a
° aS
00000000000
O COW COW COW 000000
0
00
0
00
0000000000000000
00 00 00 00 00 0000 0 000000000 a’ a’ 0000000000
000000000000000
E
C’
22_C
o, a’

5a’

CCCCCCCCCC a’
a’2
3 222 2222222 a’
2222222222 a Vt Vt Vt t Vt Vt Vt vt
&
0
0
H
a

0
CC

C -.j 00
a’a’ia’
o
0
ocoooo..QO.
0:
a’a’a’,a’a’a’,a’a’a’rna’ 00 0 o oooaoooo
C
Cj

0
$
0 E
0
——
CcCCCc0000
000———a’a’a’ C C 0
C.oo.ooo.tflC.CZ—.—i a’ a’ CO — — a’ — a’ a’ 0000 bOa’
0 a’
C 2 a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ a’ •C a’ a’
00. .0 .0 a’ccCCcc
2 EEEEEE0SSS t
a’ tttttttta’.
-.4 000

0 ±±4.2.
00 000CC 0 CO CC0.0.•-0-,a’a’ ?o 000 00 2
 ci’
DaDa,.———— 00 00
<C<<<< 0 •0 — -
ga• ft ft
V 0o•0 0 tat o 000000 Ot0
N
IIII I!! I 2,
ft
0
mt-n I_fl
to,
= = = = = a
m:w
000000
0
aaaaaa0
2ZZsDz 2
0
C
0 cg 0
00 00 00 00 00 00 0 2 2 00 R
ft ft
ft Li
‘Oat tot rot at 0
2 2222
0 0 0 0 0 0
00
222 2 ft
0000 0
(Ott ft
V
51 00
. —
C
:b. flflr5rra
0
0 U00S0
V0
L
U
1 n
0 0
to, <o<<<II_00_ 0 1 0
0 anL0 L0000
w0000_w0w_;.%J0.JIfJa,w_a 0
ft
ft
ft aa
ri m
0
%Q 0.
ot ft
00
HH
a a a. a. a a a. a - a a a a a 30 G’
t
ra_00.; —
C 3
0000000000000000 00 00000000 0.. E
0
0
0 0.0 0.0 0Jk0
a a C
a a -
-ti IWW 00
g 8-
w a, at otto ott, .v C
000000
1
— —
iI ii • 00
it
00000
a
000000 Ott
88
. ;4
m00
to, U’ H
at o’ 0000 atOt
3 0 XI,
at 0’ 00 at a’ at at a, 00000000 at t
0000000000000000000
to
— —
— 00 a a a a a a 31
000000
z
3 3a
a
0 00
0 00
. 000_I ‘Ii
 1 S’
00 00. n’_,ar W — ft
>
nn’°°’ ft 0 . It OO
0 to
p C
C
; N
0 n
ft
t
SO z2. °S ft
n
p N
ft
I ft
ft
0P rWa0
I
a a tq -‘
ft S —
ECCCC
ii
fto.naoco-°oo totob&oob°°°ox
-JOto9°PPNNOU,P9’ 9°hatotoooatoJft”°
a,SUOfttftU, -oOO
—to—mtoNwo°
jtoLj 00
to0 totok.bobOOoaOW
— — 0- — — - — N
00 — 00fr t- 0 000
0 Oft 9° 9° NP’ to. . 0. 0 —jto>o’ - 0000
b.wob°b-Mtt

EEEEE—EEEH 0000
ao—t--U,b. 000 0ç 0ft. 00000
o
0 0
—-a
co a a - to — CC to -J 0 0 CC CC to to
u,_tUJ%J oaa 0.. 0’_ 0° a° 29° flJ r
tb,otototo0o00LOaaoboO00ao
, tJ a — — CC U’ 0000 Li U’ a CC 000000 a o
to a aft, -j to -J tft a, to too to-i-U--i-U JO CC
o9°9°r°9°9°NP9°o9NY9°29°9°’P’9°
-j
o to U’ a a to , 0000 0 a, 0 ta 000000 aD’.
-.i a o N 9° 90 — to 9’ i-i a 0’ to to to a, U’ 0 90 o 0 00 —
fififi flfl000 U’ 00000000
coo..!flfl?oo I flflflfl
CC 3
3
]oPCCo
3
- 33 t%flCC000000CC
-ft
— — 00 00 2.2. “00000000
° — — aDO 0. — - tIC
P-P- —
C ‘
<-JaEoo&nos
22
00
-1
0
SO SOQ -
0 0 -,
-
p
 0
< aam0 srats mX-,

i 9
tt.ororn aomEtamt20E
9
a a — = = = a m 2,
mm m S 000 a a
C a aa
S a
rr -

U,

‘S

I-’,
0
I,
ppp99pp0pppp00ppppppp0pppp0
wwwwwwcwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwW
tm
fl.

- & & ‘) pm
O,,tfl•,,4->C
coo a a a a a, o, a a 0 . -J — o —
0

t
C

0
0
 APPENDIX B

FULL MODEL RESULTS & RECEIVER INPUT DATA

‘V
 11
Iii

I
I I

‘I
Ill
II

I”
El
FE’
 APPENDIX C

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, GUIDELINES FOR COMMUNITY NOISE

TABLE 4.1— GUIDELINE VALUES FOR COMMUNITY NOISE IN SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTS

‘V
Table 4.1: Guideline values for community noise in specific environments.
Specific Critical health effect(s) LAeq Time LAmax,
environment jdBJ base fast
-
[hoursi IdRI
Outdoor living area Serious annoyance, daytime and evening 55 16 -

Moderate annoyance, daytime and evening 50 16 -

Dwelling, indoors Speech intelligibility and moderate 35 16

annoyance, daytime and evening
Inside bedrooms Sleep disturbance, night-time 30 8 45
Outside bedrooms Sleep disturbance, window open (outdoor 45 8 60
values)
School class rooms Speech intelligibility, disturbance of 35 during -

and pre-schools. information extraction, message class

indoors communication
Pre-school Sleep disturbance 30 sleeping 45
Bedrooms, indoors -time
School, playground Annoyance (externaL source) 55 during -

outdoor play
Hospital, ward Sleep disturbance, night-time 30 8 40
rooms, indoors Sleep disturbance, daytime and evenings 30 16 -

Hospitals, treatment lntcrfcrcnce with rest and recovery #1

rooms, indoors
Industrial, Hearing impairment 70 24 110
commercial,
shopping and traffic
areas, indoors and
Outdoors
Ceremonies. festivals Hearing impairment (patrons:<5 times/year) 100 4 110
and entertainment
events
Public addresses, Hearing impairment 85 1 110
indoors and outdoors
Music through Hearing impairment (free-field value) 85 #4 I 110
headphones/
Earphones
Impulse sounds from Hearing impairment (adults) - - 140 #2
toys, fireworks and
firearms Hearing impairment (children) - 120 #2
Outdoors in parkland Disruption of tranquiLlity #3
and conservation
areas

#1: as low as possible:

#2: peak sound pressure (not LAmax, fast). measured 100 mm from the ear:
fl3: existing quiet outdoor areas should be preserved and the ratio of intruding noise ro natural background sound
should be kept low;
#4: under headphones. adapted ro free-field values

65