Portsmouth council recommends denial of after‑hours noise variance for South Coast Wind; asks EFSB to cap nighttime noise

The Portsmouth Town Council issued an advisory opinion recommending denial of South Coast Wind Energy LLC’s request for after‑hours construction work, voting 6–1 after a multi‑hour hearing that included company presentations, acoustic modeling and sustained public comment.

Michael Mano, an attorney for South Coast Wind, framed the request as an advisory opinion to the Rhode Island Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) and said the company sought flexibility for select construction activities that may need to continue past 9 p.m. for safety and continuity. “This is a temporary construction project with no permanent above‑ground apparatus that will be making noise once it’s completed,” Mano said during the presentation.

Company witnesses outlined construction methods and why limited overnight activity might be needed: Helen Terry (identified in the record as the company’s external affairs manager) showed routing and community commitments; Kelly Smith, the onshore package manager, described horizontal directional drilling (HDD) and linear trenching phases and said HDD pipe pullbacks and certain dewatering or cable‑pull operations can require uninterrupted shifts. Tom Feconi from Michael’s Trenchless described HDD equipment and phases; he said drilling rigs and associated pumps are industry standard and that pipe pullback must sometimes be continuous to avoid equipment failure.

WSP acoustics expert Eric Tollhammer summarized a conservative noise model using CadnaA, noting worst‑case assumptions (all equipment at full power, no shielding and favorable winds) and predicted nighttime construction levels of roughly 61 dB at the nearest residential boundary for one HDD site and about 58 dB at the other. Tollhammer said the modeling included mitigation commitments such as premium silencers, newer low‑noise equipment where available, careful placement of generators and pumps, and avoiding night work wherever practical.

Public comment was strongly mixed: several residents urged denial, citing concerns about sleep disturbance, health effects, impacts on children and pets, vibration and long‑term quality of life. Sarah Dunn, a resident, told the council the potential of “continuous noise levels of 55 to 70 decibels, potentially 24 hours a day” would “destroy the peace of our community” and asked the council to oppose the variance. Other commenters with acoustical or construction experience questioned the modeling assumptions and urged strict monitoring if night work is allowed.

Supporters with technical credentials, including a resident who reviewed the study, said the modeling was conservative and the mitigation measures are standard industry practice; one supporter noted prior comparable projects with minimal reported residential impacts. Several speakers asked the council to include specific numerical caps, time limits on the number of nights allowed and mandatory monitoring/enforcement conditions.

After debate the council adopted a motion recommending denial of the variance; the motion further requested that if the EFSB nevertheless grants a variance the EFSB set a maximum noise limit of 70 dB at the nearest residential property boundaries discussed in the hearing. The motion carried 6–1.

What happens next: the council’s advisory opinion will be submitted as part of the EFSB’s advisory‑opinion record. The EFSB, which has permitting authority for the project under state law, will make the ultimate decision on any noise variance and may set conditions or numerical limits. Councilors and members of the public were told the EFSB advisory‑opinion window closes in early February and that a formal EFSB hearing will follow the collection of advisory opinions.