HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09101996 - C144 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -s -= Contra
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDONn.
Costa
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
cosr... ........�
DATE : September 10, 1996
SUBJECT: Ratification of the Zoning Administrator's Decision Regarding Shell Oil
Company's Compliance with Conditions of Approval (LUP 2009-92)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . Ratify the Zoning Administrator' s decision that Shell Oil
Company has complied with Condition of Approval #23 for the
Vent Gas Treater, the Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater, and the
Caustic Regeneration Unit No. 2 ..
2 . Ratify the Zoning Administrator' s decision that Shell Oil
Company has complied with Condition of Approval #35B for the
Cogeneration Unit.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
When the Board of Supervisors approved the Land Use Permit for
Shell Oil Company's Clean Fuels Project (County LUP #2009-92) , the
Board specified that the Zoning Administrator' s decision regarding
several conditions of approval be placed on the Board' s consent
calendar for ratification. As directed by the Board at the October
4, 1994 meeting, the County Zoning Administrator decisions
discussed herein have been placed on the Zoning Administrator' s
agenda for September 9, 1996. Any comments received at the meeting
will be forwarded to the Board.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE / `-
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI TEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON September 10 , 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Debbie Sanderson (510/335-1208) ATTESTED September 10 , 1996
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Shell Oil (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
D CoUN ADMINISTRATOR
BY J , DEPUTY
cox\aw
ck(2)\sh19-10.bo
Board Order
September 10, 1996
Page 2
Condition of Approval #35B - Compliance with Noise Standards :
Permit Condition #35A requires the submittal of detailed noise
level calculations to demonstrate that the unit to be constructed
will comply with the noise performance standard (77 dBA when
measured five feet above the ground and 100 feet from the
equipment) . Permit condition #35B requires that once a unit is
operational, additional noise monitoring be completed to verify
that noise from the operating unit meets the standard. Shell Oil
has submitted the results of their noise monitoring which
demonstrated that the Cogeneration Unit identified in
Recommendation #2 meet the noise standards.
Condition of Approval 423 -- Implementation of measures in its
hazards and operability studies :
Condition #23 requires Shell to demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the County Health Services Department that the measures detailed in
the approved hazard and operability studies are implemented prior
to the start up of any unit.
On April 16, 1996, the Board of Supervisors ratified the Zoning
Administrator' s finding that Shell has completed the required
hazards and operability studies for the Vent Gas Treater, the
Caustic Regenerator Unit No. 2 and the Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater.
These studies required Shell to implement certain measures or to
start up of each unit.
As required by Condition #23, County Health Services staff has
field checked these three units and has verified that each of the
measures detailed in the approved studies have been implemented.
County Health Services Department has recently confirmed that Shell
Oil Company has implemented measures detailed in its approved
hazards operability studies and its accident consequence analyses
for the Vent Gas Treater, the Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater, and the
Caustic Regeneration Unit No. 2 (permit Condition #23) .
COK\aw
j:\sh19-l0.bo
ATTACHMENT A
Contra Costa County
's Health Services Department
��
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION . PM •
4
ra coun`�i HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Coll,,
DE y �v•
LOPMENT DEr-T.
DATE: July 12, 1996
TO: Catherine Kutsuris, County Zoning Administrator, Community Development
Department
FROM: Lewis G. Pascalli, J
Deputy Director
Health Services Departure , Hazardous Materials Division
SHELL REFINERY CLEAN FUELS PROJECT
CONDITION #23 COMPLIANCE
• VENT GAS TREATER
• HEAVY GASOLINE HYDROTREATER
• CAUSTIC REGENERATION UNIT NO. 2
The Contra Costa County Health Services Department (CCCHSD) Hazardous Materials Risk
Management and Prevention Program team has completed pre-startup reviews for the Shell
Refinery's Vent Gas Treater (VGT), Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater (HGHT), and Caustic
Regeneration Unit No. 2 (CR#2) as required by Condition No. 23. We find that mitigations
cited by Shell in the approved HAZOP studies have been implemented and recommend Board of
Supervisors ratification of Condition 23 for these units..
The VGT and HGHT are currently in their start-up/testing period and the start-up/testing period
for CR#2 will begin about July 15, 1996.
4333 Pacheco Boulevard • Martinez, Califomia 94553 9 (510) 646-2286
ATTACHMENT B
�rm-wzm
Shell Martinez
Refining Company
P.O.Box 711
Martinez,Califomia 94553-0071
Telephone: (510)313.3000
LO
August 5, 1996 T r. C—
G-)
G 1
Ms. Catherine Kutsuris 0_ 0 "
Contra Costa County Community Development Depart.
Administration Building, North Wing, 2nd Floor =
651 Pine Street J i:3
Martinez, CA 94553-0095 —{ rn
Dear Ms. Kutsuris,
SUBJECT: SHELL OIL COMPANY CLEAN FUELS PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE
MONITORING REPORTS FOR Congenration Unit(BLR-6) (COUNTY FILE
NUMBER 2009-92)
In compliance with the Clean Fuels Project Land Use Permit Condition #35B and Mitigation
Measure 10-4, we are submitting the operational noise measurements for the Congeneration Unit.
These reports are consistent with the Monitoring Protocol previously approved and demonstrate that
these elements comply with the requirements defined in Condition 35A. We understand, according
to the Land Use Permit General Condition #4 that the Zoning Administrator's decision regarding
this submittal shall be placed on the Consent Calendar of the Board of Supervisors' meeting for,
ratification. We would appreciate your assistance on having these operational noise calculations
expeditiously reviewed and placed on the Board's Consent Calendar.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me at (510) 313-3695.
Very truly yours,
E. T. Swieszcz, Staff Engineer
Environmental Affairs
Enclosure:
OPERATING NOISE MEASUREMENT REPORT
FOR
THE COGENERATION UNIT
SHELL MARTINEZ MANUFACTURING COMPLEX
CLEAN FUELS PROJECT - BECHTEL JOB NO. 22500
Report Prepared By: Date: Noise Measurement Made By: On:
��' 3) TuJy
y
Frank H. Brittain, Ph. D., Member INCE Frank H. Brittain, Ph. D., Member INCE
Engineering Specialist, Engineering Specialist,
Noise & Vibration Services, Noise&Vibration Services,
Bechtel Corp. Bechtel Corp.
SHELL MARTINEZ MANUFACTURING COMPLEX
CLEAN FUELS PROJECT-BECHTEL JOB NO.22500
OPERATING NOISE MEASUREMENT REPORT FOR
THE COGENERATION UNIT
1. INTRODUCTION
Measurements of operating noise from the Cogeneration Unit of the Clean Fuels Project at Shell
Martinez Refinery were made on 21 May 1996. The purpose of the noise measurements were to
demonstrate that the Cogeneration Unit meet Condition No. 35A from the Contra Costa County's
Land Use Permit No. 2009-92. These measurements were made according to the Shell Martinez
Clean Fuels Project Protocol For Verifying Noise Emissions From Individual Process Units,
dated 27 April 1994 (hereafter called the Protocol) that was approved by the Contra Costa Board
of Supervisors on 14 June 1994. Measurements of background noise levels were made on 22 and
25 October 1995 when the Cogeneration Unit was not operating. When corrected for back-
ground levels, measurements of operating noise show that the Cogeneration Unit complied with
the County's noise performance standard of 77 dBA at 100 feet from equipment and 5 feet above
grade on all four sides of the Unit. The 77 dBA limit is defined in the Protocol to be an L50, the
A-weighted sound pressure level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time during a sampling
period.
2. MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
Four to nine measurement locations were selected for each of the four sides of the Unit. These
locations are shown on Figure 1, a plot plan showing the layout of the Cogeneration Unit. All
measurements were made 5 feet above the grade of the Cogeneration Unit. Where feasible,
measurement locations on each side were selected on a straight line 100 feet from the Equipment
Perimeter of the Unit, as described in the Protocol. The Equipment Perimeter is a straight line
along each side of the Unit so that the equipment on that side falls inside the line. These
measurement lines are located at distances from the Equipment Perimeter as stated below:
Distance
from
Equipment
Side of Perimeter
Unit (feet) Comments
South 100 Measurements were made on a straight line located 100 feet south of
the Equipment Perimeter.
East 45 There is less than 100 feet between the Cogeneration Unit and the
adjacent Nitrogen Supply System, the Clean Fuels Control Room,
and the Boiler Feedwater Treatment Unit. Measurements were made
as far east as feasible without the line of sight being blocked.
m:\asok\noiserep.CGN Pagel of 5 July 29, 1996
North 12 to 65 North of the Unit, there is an embankment that drops off sharply.
Measurements were made along the edge of the embankment.
West 65 West of the Unit, a hill rises sharply. Measurements were made as
far west as feasible still keeping the microphone 5 feet above grade.
3. INSTRUMENTATION
The following instrumentation was used in making the noise measurements:
o Hewlett Packard 3569A, Sound Level Analyzer with Octave Bands
o Bruel and Kjaer 4134, Microphone
o GenRad P42, Preamplifier
o Bruel and Kjaer 4230, Acoustic Calibrator
o Windscreen.
4. OPERATING CONDITIONS DURING MEASUREMENTS
The Cogeneration Unit was operating normally at about 100 percent of design capacity. To the
south, there is a piperack supporting piping that transmits noise. The Boiler Feedwater
Treatment Unit, the Nitrogen Supply System and the Clean Fuels Control Room are to the east.
On the north there is an embankment leading down to tanks, but no nearby equipment. On the
west there is a steep hillside with tanks on top, and on the southwest corner of the site there are
existing equipment, pipe rack, and the Logistics Control Center. All of the nearby equipment
and piperacks were operating and generated significant noise. The adjacent equipment was
operating similarly during the measurements of background noise.
During the measurements, there were no observable construction activities in the Cogeneration
Unit. However, there were some construction and vehicular activities around the Cogeneration
Unit. To the south, an arc welding machine and to the southeast a delivery truck prevented
meaningful measurements in a number of locations.
5. MEASUREMENTS
Measurements of total noise levels during operation of the Cogeneration Unit were made on 21
May 1996 by Frank Brittain of Bechtel, a member of INCE (Institute of Noise Control Engi-
neers) with 26 years of experience in noise control engineering. Dr. Brittain also prepared this
report. The total noise level included both the background noise level from other sources and
operating noise from the Cogeneration Unit. Instruments used in making the noise measure-
ments were in accordance with the Protocol. The levels measured were recorded directly on the
analyzer as an L;o. Instruments were calibrated both before and after the measurements.
Background noise measurements were made by Dr. Brittain on 22 and 25 October 1995 before
the Cogeneration Unit was started up. These background measurements are used to correct the
measured total noise levels as described in Section 7. Noise from construction equipment and a
delivery truck prevented total noise from being measured at some of the measurement locations
m:\asok\noiserep.CGN Page 2 of 5 July 29, 1996
used for the background measurements. However, background measurements had been made at
more locations than were needed to satisfy the Protocol in case operating measurements could
not be made as some locations.
6. DEVIATIONS FROM PROTOCOL
Measurements were made according to the Protocol. All measurements were made at or closer
than 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter, as described in Section 2. Noise levels measured
closer than 100 feet are expected to be higher than would be measured at 100 feet. On the south
side construction equipment (outside of the Cogeneration Unit) and near the southeast corner a
delivery truck prevented measurements at many locations. Further, in the southwest corner, the
background levels were sufficiently high that the total levels could not be corrected for back-
ground. Thus, only 2 valid measurements of total noise were made on the south side. The devia-
tions from the Protocol are considered minor, and the results of the measurements are judged to
be valid.
7. RESULTS
Both the measured background and operational or total levels are given in Table 1. A dash indi-
cates that no measurement was made. The levels in Table 1 are A-weighted L50 sound pressure
levels measured for a 5 minute period. The results are logarithmically averaged for each side as
specified in the Protocol.
Except on the north side of the Unit, background noise levels had a significant impact on the
measured levels. This impact was effectively eliminated, as shown in Table 1, by computing the
noise from the Cogeneration Unit by logarithmically subtracting the background level from the
total level as described in the Protocol. Because operational measurements could not be made at
some locations, noise from the Cogneration Unit only could not be computed for many of the
locations where background measurements had been made. At locations 1 and 2, the background
level is so close to the total noise level, correction to get the computed level is not valid. In those
cases, the contribution from the Cogneration Unit appears to be< 77 dBA.
8. CONCLUSION
Measurements were made while the Cogeneration Unit was operating normally and substantially
at its normal operating capacity. (As stated in Section 4 of this report, the operating condition of
100 percent of rated capacity at the time of measurements is considered to be the normal operat-
ing condition.) On each of the four sides of the Cogeneration Unit, the computed noise levels
from the plant meets the County's noise performance standard of 77 dBA at 100 feet or less from
the Equipment Perimeter and 5 feet above grade. This limit has been met at a distance of less
than the required 100 feet on three sides. On the south side valid measurements were made at
only 2 locations. This is judged to be acceptable for two reasons: first, the levels from the
Cogeneration Unit only clearly meet the noise limit of 77 dBA, and, second, according to the
Protocol the 77 dBA limit need be met only on three sides of the Unit.
m:\asok\noiserep.CGN Page 3 of 5 July 29, 1996
Table 1. Measured Operational Noise Levels for the Cogeneration Unit
Sound Pressure Level in dBA
Side Distance Measurement Measured Measured Computed Average Operational
of from Location Background Total Operational for Side
Unit EP'
South 100 ft 1 80.5 81.5 <77.0 *
2 80.1 80.2 <77.0 *
3 75.6 78.4 75.2
4 75.1 - -
5 75.5 78.9 76.2
6 63.8 - -
7 79.5 - -
8 83.0 - -
Logarithmic Average 75.7
East 45 ft 8 83.0 - -
9 75.8 - -
10 72.8 75.4 71.9
11 69.7 - -
12 66.4 77.9 77.6
13 66.3 78.4 78.1
14 70.3 78.7 78.0
15 67.8 - -
29 70.8 75.5 73.7
Logarithmic Average 77.0
North 12 to 29 70.8 75.5 73.7
65 ft 16 64.1 73.0 72.4
17 -** 73.2 73.2
18 - ** 76.3 76.3
21 60.8 71.8 71.4
22 64.0 71.9 71.1
Logarithmic Average 73.4
West 65 ft 22 64.0 71.9 71.1
23 - ** 76.0 76.0
24 71.1 75.9 74.2
25 72.3 74.7 71.0
26 75.9 - -
27 79.9 - -
Logarithmic Average 73.6
EP = Equipment Perimeter
* The two levels are sufficiently close that logarithmic subtraction is not accurate.
** Since no ambient was measured, no correction for ambient was made.
m:\asok\noiserep.CGN Page 4 of 5 July 29, 1996
J N N tJ
N
NI
----------------------- -----------------------'------------------------------ ---
a,
- a"=l
- i
MY
COKTAIkK NY CUA
' ❑ ;r x SH n�sn�L,:;a,an.a ei� /1 .� --' � ---._
a
i
s _
—I- I LJICCESS
LIIL•]__l
—i�„ +.�. race \1�B4i �• J X
CO
LJ a
--�.I
= I � _sD . � I _ I _ •J�It� r_'
X -
W �I"� __ - - e� —IFS—�—O�tJ� •_ -- _ e�.,tz-,i�I�_ �_�: :� '
LM
pit
i1 t ue [
,
LLh
T(
e.TME.
no•o
___._._._._._._._._ _._._._._._._._._.-._._._._._._._._._.__ ___. 1^_ _.__._
2.
XX X
FE],'�j x _ Rckk X— X
�j,-.
,17,
C-0
Ul
7 -
l