Regulating Data Center Acoustic Noise: 

An Opportunity for Spartanburg County to Lead

 

What communities across America are learning about sound measurement, monitoring, transparency, and responsible development

SpartansFirst— Technology and Public Policy Review — October 24, 2026

A New Infrastructure Opportunity for Spartanburg

Spartanburg County has an opportunity to become a leader in establishing practical, technically sound standards for the development and operation of large data centers.

The proposed development agreement for the NorthMark/Valara high-performance computing facility at 4000 South Pine Street provides a timely opportunity to examine how this rapidly growing category of infrastructure should be regulated, how neighboring communities should be protected, and how developers and local governments can establish lasting relationships based on measurable performance and public accountability.

This is not simply a question of whether a data center should be permitted. It is a question of how a community can welcome substantial investment while establishing the operating standards necessary to protect surrounding properties throughout the useful life of the facility.

Data centers are becoming essential infrastructure for artificial intelligence, cloud computing, scientific research, communications, and the digital economy. Their development creates opportunities for substantial capital investment, tax revenue, improved infrastructure, and regional economic growth.

They also introduce engineering and operational considerations that differ from many traditional commercial and industrial developments.

Large computing facilities may operate continuously, use substantial electrical power, require extensive cooling systems, and incorporate transformers, generators, turbines, and other equipment capable of producing persistent sound.

These characteristics call for regulations that address not only the design of a facility but also its actual performance after construction and throughout its operating life.

Spartanburg County has already taken steps to address these issues. The opportunity now is to build upon that work using the experience and regulatory practices being developed elsewhere in the United States.

SpartansFirst Began This Work Earlier in 2026

During the first half of 2026, SpartansFirst researched data center development, environmental impacts, community concerns, and regulatory approaches being adopted across the country.

That research led to publication of a proposed Comprehensive Data Center Ordinance on June 16, 2026, followed by a revised proposal on June 27.

The purpose was to stimulate informed public discussion and provide a practical starting point for developing appropriate local regulation.

The proposal was never intended to establish that every suggested numerical limit, measurement interval, or administrative procedure represented the only acceptable solution.

Instead, it offered a framework that County Council, county staff, developers, engineers, neighboring property owners, and interested citizens could evaluate and improve.

We invited suggestions and alternatives that might make the ordinance more practical, technically accurate, effective, or economical to administer.

The amount of substantive feedback was limited. Although data center development has generated considerable public discussion, relatively few participants offered specific technical improvements or alternative regulatory language.

That experience reinforces the value of creating a more structured process for public participation.

A productive discussion should move beyond whether someone supports or opposes a particular development and examine what measurable conditions would allow that development to operate responsibly.

The objective is not necessarily to establish lower sound limits, require more expensive equipment, or create additional paperwork.

It is to identify requirements that are meaningful, measurable, technically justified, practical to implement, and enforceable when necessary.

What the Proposed NorthMark Agreement Establishes

On October 22, 2026, Spartanburg County Council considered the first reading of an ordinance authorizing a development agreement with Numara LLC and Valara Holdings LLC for the NorthMark facility.

The proposed agreement describes a high-performance computing development of approximately 457 megawatts on 293.637 acres, with anticipated investment of at least $2.756 billion.

The agreement contains several provisions directly related to acoustic performance.

Article V incorporates noise requirements from the Spartanburg County Performance Zoning Ordinance. It also requires a noise study demonstrating that modeled post-construction operating sound levels will not increase by more than 10 decibels at designated locations.

The agreement states that the company submitted a noise plan and acoustic study and that the county reviewed and accepted them.

Article VII requires the operator to maintain installed noise-mitigation components and other equipment so that the facility continues to comply with applicable noise limits.

Article XI provides for periodic county compliance reviews, while Article XII incorporates county enforcement procedures for violations involving noise, lighting, and landscaping.

These provisions establish a foundation for regulating acoustic impacts.

The important question is whether that foundation contains the measurement, verification, reporting, and corrective-action mechanisms needed for a large facility operating over many years.

The Difference Between Predicting Noise and Measuring Actual Performance

Acoustic engineering commonly begins with predictive modeling.

Engineers identify expected sound sources, estimate their sound-power levels, evaluate distance and environmental conditions, and calculate the sound expected at neighboring properties.

This is an appropriate and useful part of development review.

However, a model is a prediction based on assumptions about equipment, installation, operating conditions, and environmental characteristics.

Once a facility begins operating, actual measurements provide evidence of whether the completed installation performs as predicted.

Several jurisdictions have incorporated this distinction directly into their data center regulations.

Limerick Township, Pennsylvania, requires acoustic studies at multiple development stages, including post-occupancy verification.

Montgomery Township, Pennsylvania, has adopted detailed requirements for pre-construction studies, post-construction testing, and additional evaluation following certain complaints or equipment changes.

Fairfax County, Virginia, has incorporated pre-construction and post-construction noise studies into its data center zoning requirements.

Columbia County, Georgia, has been identified as requiring operational sound testing before issuance of certificates of occupancy.

These examples demonstrate an approach in which acoustic modeling establishes expected performance and subsequent measurements verify the result.

The October 22 NorthMark agreement describes an accepted predictive study but does not expressly establish a corresponding post-construction field-verification requirement.

Adding such a requirement could provide useful assurance to both the developer and neighboring property owners.

It would also establish a reliable record of the facility's actual acoustic performance when operations begin.

Why Low-Frequency Sound Deserves Particular Attention

Sound is not adequately described by a single decibel number in every circumstance.

Different sources produce different combinations of frequencies, intensities, and operating patterns.

A-weighted sound measurements, commonly expressed as dBA, are widely used in environmental noise regulation. They approximate aspects of human hearing sensitivity by reducing the contribution of lower frequencies to the reported measurement.

They are useful, standardized measurements, but they do not fully describe every potentially important acoustic characteristic.

Large data centers may contain equipment capable of producing substantial low-frequency or tonal sound, including electrical transformers, cooling machinery, large fans, combustion turbines, generators, and associated mechanical systems.

Low-frequency sound can propagate differently from higher-frequency sound and may be less effectively attenuated by some conventional barriers and building components.

A facility may therefore satisfy a general A-weighted sound limit while still producing identifiable low-frequency hum or tonal characteristics that warrant additional evaluation.

This does not mean that every data center will create an unacceptable low-frequency noise problem.

It means that the measurement method should be appropriate for the equipment and surrounding environment.

Montgomery Township, Pennsylvania, provides an example of regulations incorporating both A-weighted and C-weighted sound limits.

C-weighting retains more of the low-frequency contribution than A-weighting.

The Montgomery and Chester County Planning Commissions' 2026 Data Center Ordinance Guide also discusses frequency-spectrum analysis, including octave-band evaluation and low-frequency sound.

These techniques can help identify which equipment contributes to particular frequencies and which mitigation methods may be effective.

The proposed NorthMark agreement does not expressly require C-weighted measurements, octave-band analysis, one-third-octave-band measurements, or separate low-frequency limits.

The underlying noise study may contain some of this information, but the study was not included in the publicly available agreement.

Making the study available would help establish whether these issues have already been evaluated and whether additional analysis would be useful.

Sound Changes as Equipment Ages

Acoustic regulation should also recognize that the sound produced by mechanical and electrical equipment may change over time.

Bearings wear, fans become unbalanced, vibration isolators deteriorate, equipment enclosures loosen, silencers lose effectiveness, and cooling systems may operate under conditions different from those anticipated during initial design.

Not every aging component becomes louder. Appropriate maintenance can preserve or improve performance.

Nevertheless, equipment condition is an important variable in long-term acoustic management.

A sound study conducted before construction cannot establish that the facility will remain within its operating limits five, ten, or fifteen years later.

That requires a continuing method of verification.

The NorthMark agreement appropriately requires maintenance of noise-mitigation equipment.

A complementary requirement for periodic sound measurements would provide evidence that those maintenance obligations are achieving their intended result.

Such monitoring need not be unnecessarily burdensome.

The appropriate frequency could depend on facility size, equipment characteristics, proximity to residences, historical performance, and whether significant equipment modifications have occurred.

A reasonable program might establish more frequent measurements during initial operation, followed by periodic verification and additional testing when operating conditions materially change or substantiated complaints arise.

The objective would be to identify problems early, correct them efficiently, and maintain a reliable performance history.

Nighttime Noise and Residential Exposure

Continuous operation is another important characteristic of data centers.

Sound that is relatively unobtrusive during daytime activity may become more noticeable at night when background sound levels decline.

Several jurisdictions address this distinction by establishing separate daytime and nighttime limits.

Examples include Floyd County, Georgia; Limerick Township, Pennsylvania; and Montgomery Township, Pennsylvania.

Federal environmental noise guidance provides additional context.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development uses the day-night average sound level, commonly called DNL or Ldn, in evaluating environmental noise exposure for covered housing activities.

This method adds a 10-decibel adjustment to sound occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., reflecting the greater sensitivity of residential environments during nighttime hours.

HUD identifies 65 dB DNL or below as Acceptable under its site-classification system, while also recognizing lower environmental noise objectives.

The Environmental Protection Agency's 1974 environmental noise report identifies 55 dB Ldn outdoors and 45 dB Ldn indoors as protective reference levels for residential environments.

These federal references are not automatically enforceable sound limits for NorthMark.

They do, however, provide established methodologies for examining residential sound exposure over time.

A comprehensive local ordinance could consider nighttime measurements and cumulative sound exposure alongside conventional maximum sound limits.

The appropriate numerical requirements should be developed through technical evaluation, rather than selected simply because another jurisdiction uses them.

 The Importance of Publicly Available Baseline Studies

One of the most useful improvements to the regulatory process would be establishing a clear public-disclosure schedule for the technical studies supporting major development agreements.

The proposed NorthMark agreement states that the county has reviewed and accepted a noise study.

However, that study was not included in the publicly available October 22 agreement package.

As a result, interested citizens cannot independently examine the baseline sound measurements, receptor locations, equipment assumptions, predicted sound levels, or proposed mitigation methods from that package alone.

This is an opportunity to improve the public review process without assuming that any party intended to withhold information.

A comprehensive ordinance could require that major supporting technical studies be made publicly available at least 30 days before the first public hearing or initial substantive Council consideration.

That period would give residents, engineers, developers, and other interested parties time to examine the material and submit informed questions.

It would also allow county officials to receive technical comments before final decisions are made.

The proposed 30-day period is a policy recommendation, not an assertion that South Carolina law currently requires that exact period.

Reasonable confidentiality protections could remain available for genuinely sensitive information, while the environmental measurements and conclusions necessary for public understanding could be disclosed.

The goal is to make public participation more informed and useful.

Monitoring and Reporting Should Continue Throughout Facility Operation

The proposed NorthMark agreement requires annual reporting of capital investment, construction status, utility demand, employment, and applicable community contributions.

These are meaningful indicators of the project's economic and operational development.

However, acoustic measurements and noise compliance results are not expressly included.

The June 27 SpartansFirst proposal addresses this issue through provisions for pre-operational baseline sound studies, quarterly monitoring, and public reporting.

Section 14.4 calls for a baseline study by a qualified acoustical engineer.

Section 14.3 establishes a deadline for quarterly monitoring reports.

Section 15 includes noise monitoring results among the information to be reported regularly to the county.

These requirements were proposed as a starting point for discussion.

A county might reasonably determine that quarterly reporting is appropriate for some facilities, while a different schedule is sufficient for others.

The important principle is that monitoring and reporting should be defined in advance, rather than depending entirely on whether a complaint occurs.

A well-designed reporting system could include measured sound levels, frequency characteristics where relevant, monitoring locations, operating conditions, equipment changes, complaints, exceedances, and corrective actions.

Reports could be made available through an accessible public record, subject to legitimate security and confidentiality protections.

This would provide a factual basis for evaluating facility performance over time.

It could also protect responsible operators from unsupported allegations by providing independent evidence of compliance.

Corrective Action Is as Important as the Initial Standard

An effective regulation must explain not only what performance is required but also what happens when measurements show that a facility is operating outside an established limit.

Spartanburg County already possesses enforcement mechanisms through its zoning and general regulatory authority.

The proposed agreement incorporates Performance Zoning Ordinance enforcement provisions for noise violations and establishes obligations to maintain acoustic mitigation equipment.

These are useful foundations.

A more comprehensive approach could connect measurements, reporting, and corrective action into a defined process.

When an exceedance is identified, the process could establish how it is verified, how the responsible equipment is identified, how quickly corrective action must begin, and how the effectiveness of the correction is confirmed.

Possible remedies might include equipment maintenance, changes in operating schedules, improved silencers, acoustic enclosures, barriers, vibration isolation, or other engineering controls.

The appropriate remedy should be selected based on the actual cause of the problem.

A continuing monitoring record would help determine whether the corrective action worked.

This is an important distinction between regulation intended primarily to punish violations and regulation designed to maintain acceptable performance.

The latter creates an opportunity for continuous improvement.

Learning From Other American Communities

The regulatory approaches identified in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, and other states demonstrate that local governments are developing more detailed methods for managing data center acoustic impacts.

Montgomery Township provides an example of combined A-weighted and C-weighted limits and post-construction testing.

Limerick Township illustrates staged acoustic studies and nighttime limits.

Fairfax County demonstrates integration of noise studies into data center development review.

Floyd County provides a Southeastern example of separate daytime and nighttime limits and equipment-related mitigation.

Woodfin, North Carolina, offers another approach involving equipment-related sound requirements and acoustic barriers.

Other jurisdictions have developed project-specific commitments through development approvals and enforceable conditions.

These examples should not be treated as interchangeable.

Their numerical limits, measurement methods, property classifications, and legal procedures differ.

Some requirements are contained in enacted ordinances, others in individual project approvals, and still others in model ordinances or proposals.

The appropriate lesson is that Spartanburg County can examine these approaches, understand their practical experience, and select provisions suited to local circumstances.

The objective should be effective regulation rather than copying the most restrictive provision available.

 

An Opportunity to Build a Comprehensive County Framework

The NorthMark development agreement addresses one project.

A comprehensive data center ordinance would establish a consistent framework for future projects throughout the county.

Such a framework could define how acoustic studies are prepared, what information must be disclosed, how sound is measured, how operating performance is verified, how monitoring continues, and how corrective action is administered.

It could also establish predictable procedures for developers.

Predictability matters.

Companies making substantial infrastructure investments need to understand applicable requirements before committing capital.

Residents need confidence that measurable standards will protect surrounding properties.

County officials need regulations they can administer with available resources and enforce when necessary.

These interests are compatible.

A well-designed ordinance can reduce uncertainty, improve public confidence, and make responsible development easier.

South Carolina has an opportunity to develop additional data center infrastructure as computing demand grows.

Spartanburg County could contribute to that opportunity by demonstrating a regulatory approach that combines investment, environmental protection, technical competence, and accountability.

The experience gained could become useful to other South Carolina communities considering similar developments.

An Invitation to Improve the Proposal

SpartansFirst published its initial Comprehensive Data Center Ordinance in June 2026 and revised it later that month after receiving feedback.

We continue to regard that proposal as a working framework.

We welcome suggestions from County Council, county staff, developers, professional engineers, neighboring residents, business organizations, universities, and anyone else interested in developing effective requirements.

A proposed sound limit may be too restrictive, too permissive, or simply expressed using an inappropriate measurement method.

A reporting interval may be unnecessarily frequent or insufficient for a particular facility.

A technical requirement may need modification to reflect actual equipment characteristics or accepted engineering practice.

These are questions that benefit from evidence and professional discussion.

The goal is not to defend every number or provision in the SpartansFirst proposal.

The goal is to develop requirements that work.

That means identifying legitimate community concerns, evaluating the engineering evidence, selecting measurable performance standards, establishing practical verification procedures, and providing appropriate corrective mechanisms.

The result should be a regulatory framework that supports investment while maintaining public confidence.

Conclusion: Leadership Through Measurable Performance

The proposed NorthMark development agreement contains meaningful acoustic protections, including compliance with referenced county standards, a modeled noise-increase criterion, maintenance obligations, and enforcement provisions.

The research also identifies regulatory practices used elsewhere that are not expressly included in the publicly available agreement: post-construction acoustic verification, low-frequency measurements, separate nighttime evaluation, periodic monitoring, public acoustic reporting, and defined retesting procedures.

The absence of these provisions from the agreement does not establish that the county or developer has failed to consider them. Some may be addressed in technical studies or permit conditions not yet available for public review.

Making those documents available would help establish what has already been evaluated and where additional requirements might be useful.

The broader opportunity is to create a comprehensive regulatory framework that serves both the community and the growing data center industry.

SpartansFirst supports responsible development of this infrastructure and believes that practical, technically sound regulation can help make additional projects possible throughout South Carolina.

The objective is straightforward: welcome innovation, establish measurable operating requirements, monitor actual performance, disclose meaningful information, and correct problems when evidence demonstrates that correction is necessary.

Spartanburg County can help lead this effort by bringing developers, technical experts, public officials, and citizens together to develop standards that are practical, transparent, and effective throughout the operating life of these facilities.


Principal References

1. Spartanburg County Council, Proposed Numara LLC and Valara Holdings LLC Development Agreement, October 22, 2026. https://sc-spartanburgcounty.civicplus.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_10222026-2051

2. Spartanburg County, Performance Zoning Ordinance, Sections 2.3.70–2.3.83 and 9.4.00 et seq. https://www.spartanburgcounty.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13682/Performance-Zoning-Ordinance

3. Spartanburg County, Data Center Information and Resources, including Ordinance O-26-26. https://www.spartanburgcounty.gov/1452/Data-Center-Information-Resources

4. South Carolina Local Government

SpartansFirst: responsible innovation builds safer technology-enabled communities.