Prince William supervisors, residents press for enforceable data-center noise rules as testing continues

Residents near large data centers urged the Prince William County Board of Supervisors on June 10 to move faster on a revised noise ordinance after years of complaints about low-frequency, 24/7 industrial noise.

The most immediate focus of public comment and the board’s technical briefing was noise attributed to clustered data centers near the Great Oak neighborhood. Residents and members of the county’s Data Center Ordinance Advisory Group (DCOAG) said tests and health research show persistent low-frequency sound that “shakes our walls, rattles our windows, causes our pets to go off their food, or frightens our children,” as DCOAG member Catherine Kulick, Vice Chair of the HOA Roundtable, put it.

County staff described a months-long technical effort that has included multiple consultants, field testing and follow-up analysis. Wade Hu, deputy county executive for mobility, economic growth and resiliency, told the board that Prince William retained JMT to draft ordinance language, later retained acoustics expert David Nelson for detailed measurement and analysis, and added enforcement-consulting input from Rutgers University specialist Eric Zwerling. Staff said JMT and Nelson recommended measuring low-frequency “octave bands” — a more technical approach than the county’s current A-weighted decibel standard — so enforcement can distinguish industrial low-frequency sound from other ambient noise.

Why it matters: DCOAG members and residents say the issue is not theoretical. Great Oak residents said only a few of the data centers in the surrounding cluster are fully operational but that the county already hosts dozens of planned or permitted facilities. Kevin Coyle, a member of the advisory group, told the board the county is reviewing nearly 90 million square feet of proposed data center space — “about twice as many as Loudoun County,” he said — and urged the board to adopt standards aligned to World Health Organization recommendations and Rutgers measurement methods.

What staff reported: Hu summarized the history of the advisory group (first meeting 07/07/2023 after BOCS directive 22-28) and the consultants’ work: a draft framework presented June 26, additional acoustics testing by Nelson (including a January 30 site visit and multiple long-duration monitors in Great Oak), and coordination with the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office on enforcement options. Hu said a recent set of nighttime readings left consultants uncertain whether a single measurement can always “isolate” a data-center source from nearby traffic and other low-frequency sources; staff ran a new set of tests overnight before the meeting and planned immediate follow-up.

Board concerns and next steps: Several supervisors pressed staff to finish testing and return with a clear enforcement plan. Board members expressed a shared desire to protect nearby homes and schools but also cautioned that an enforceable program must be defensible in court. County Attorney Roble reminded the board that state law limits how localities may classify noise violations; she said many jurisdictions rely on civil enforcement but the Virginia code currently restricts civil penalties for business operations on industrial-zoned property, which would affect how an ordinance could be applied to some data-center sites.

Staff told the board it would not finalize numeric thresholds until the consultants review the latest test data. Hu said he expects either (a) one more round of focused testing using the Rutgers-recommended isolation techniques and then a firm numeric recommendation, or (b) if the new tests are inconclusive, staff will propose an alternate measurement/enforcement approach and return with a recommended timeline. He told supervisors the county intends to continue the work and report back; staff and consultants also discussed a likely target timeframe of the fall for bringing a near-final recommendation to the board.

Public comment highlights: Speakers from Great Oak and other neighborhoods recounted multi-year monitoring and described health and sleep impacts. Raymond Kowalski (Heritage Hunt DCOAG representative) said advisory-group briefings by the late Dr. John Liver contained the “best science available” and warned that “what he called pen-and-ink changes to the noise ordinance would not solve the problem.” Several DCOAG members asked that the county place the burden of noise control on data-center operators rather than on affected residents.

What was not decided: The board did not adopt numeric noise levels or a final enforcement scheme at this meeting. Supervisors directed staff to continue testing and to coordinate with the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office on evidence and prosecutorial standards. Staff cautioned that if the county pursues criminal penalties for industrial sources (the route currently allowed by state law for industrial-zoned operations), the enforcement program will need trained officers, calibrated equipment and clear procedures to survive court review.

Ending note: Residents asked for a timetable and clearer interim protections. Staff said additional testing and legal review would continue over the summer and that the board would receive an update and a proposal on an ordinance next quarter.