The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 12161997 - C120 r.. .T .s..9.. � /2d Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS � �„„ Costa FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP or County COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: DECEMBER 16, 1997 SUBJECT: Ratification of the Zoning Administrator's Decision Regarding Shell Oil Company's Compliance with Conditions of Approval #35B for Seven Process Units (LUP 2009-92) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Ratify the Zoning Administrator's decision that Shell Oil Company has complied with Condition #35B for the Following units: Delayed Coking Unit (DCU), the Distillate Hydrotreater (DHT), the Coke Handling Facility, the Cooling Water Tower, the Isom Unit (including the Decyclohexanizer (DCH) Tower), the Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater (HGHT), and Sulfur Recovery Unit#4 (SRU-4). 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 December 15, 1997. Any comments received at the meeting will be forwarded to the Board. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE s , RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD OMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S): ACTION OF BOARD ON /2 — L - /9 cf 7 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Debra Sanderson, CDD (510/335-1208) ATTESTED cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLER OF Shell Oil (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY C. DEPUTY DS/:aw She11\12-16shl.bo Ratification of the Zoning Administrator's Decision Regarding Shell Oil Company's Compliance with Conditions of Approval #3513 and Seven Units (LUP 2009-92) December 16, 1997 Page 2 Condition of Approval #3513 - 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 has submitted noise monitoring reports for the following seven units on the dates specified. The purpose of these reports is to demonstrate that the unit meets the noise performance standard: • Delayed Coking Unit (DCU), 7/30/97 • Distillate Hydrotreater (DHT), 7/30/97 • Coke Handling Facility, 8/25/97 (replaces 4/23/97 report) • Cooling Water Tower (update), 9/8/97 • Isom Unit (including the Decyclohexanizer (DCH) Tower) (update), 9/8/97 • Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater (HGHT) (update), 8/4/97 & 9/8/97 • Sulfur Recovery Unit#4 (SRU-4), 9/23/97 • Responses to Staff Questions (several units) 11/11/97. Reports for the Cooling Water Tower, the Isom/DCH unit, and the Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater are updates of earlier reports. The initial reports evaluated noise levels shortly after the units began operating when they were not at full capacity; they were previously approved by the Board of Supervisors. These update reports evaluate noise levels again, now that these units are at full capacity. Staff has evaluated these noise monitoring reports, submitted by Shell on the dates specified above, and find them consistent with the noise monitoring protocol previously approved for this project. Staff concurs with the reports which demonstrate that these seven units meet the noise performance standard for this project. coA 3s8 EXHIBIT A 6Z_ 07 ,-0- 17 , --- 0CLI ORT Ali. lit Shell Martinez 131 PM 4: 0 0 Refining Company i °—"•1=' 'i' / P.O. Box 711 r�_ n' Iy ; a:,n,T �(�_ — Martinez,California 94553-0071 �� i P; la L I Telephone: (510)313-3000 Z July 30, 1997 '-N4 Ms. Debbie Sanderson Contra Costa County Community Development Depart. Administration Building, North Wing, 2nd Floor 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Ms. Sanderson, SUBJECT: SHELL OIL COMPANY CLEAN FUELS PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE MONITORING REPORTS FOR DELAYED COKIN UNIT AND DISTILLATE HYDROTREATER (COUNTY FILE NUMBER 2009-92) In compliance with the Clean Fuels Project Land Use Permit Condition #35B and Mitigation Measure 10-4, we have enclosed copies of the Noise Monitoring Reports for the Delayed Coking Unit and the Distillate Hydrotreater. These reports were prepared by Bechtel Corporation If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me at (510) 313-3695. Very truly yours, E. T. Swieszcz, Staff En neer Environmental Affairs enclosures OPERATING NOISE MEASUREMENT REPORT FOR THE DISTILLATE HYDROTREATER SHELL MARTINEZ MANUFACTURING COMPLEX CLEAN FUELS PROJECT - BECHTEL JOB NO. 22500 Report Prepared By: Date: Noise Measurement Made By: On: asT 1, 2s�uly 199 l�l9� Frank H. Brittain,Ph.D.,Member INCE Frank H. Brittain,Ph.D.,Member INCE Principal Engineer, Principal Engineer, Noise Control Engineering, Noise Control Engineering, Bechtel Corp. Bechtel Corp. SHELL MARTINEZ MANUFACTURING COMPLEX CLEAN FUELS PROJECT- BECHTEL JOB NO. 22500 OPERATING NOISE MEASUREMENT REPORT FOR THE DISTILLATE HYDROTREATER 1. INTRODUCTION Measurements of operating noise from the Distillate Hydrotreater Unit of the Clean Fuels Project at Shell Martinez Refinery were made on 8 and 9 July 1997. The purpose of the noise measure- ments was to demonstrate that the Distillate Hydrotreater Unit meets Condition No. 35A from the Contra Costa County's Land Use Permit No. 2009-92. These measurements were made accord- ing 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. These measurements show that the Distillate Hydrotreater Unit complies 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 six 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 Distillate Hydrotreater (DHT) Unit. All measurements were made 5 feet above the grade of the DHT Unit. Since adja- cent Units were less than 200 feet away and noise levels around the DHT were significantly affected by adjacent Units, measurements on three sides were made at substantially less than 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter. The Equipment Perimeter is a straight line along each side of the Unit so that the equipment on that side falls inside the line. The Equipment Perimeter has the shape of a rectangle. Measurements were made at the following distances from the Equipment Perimeter: Distance from Side of Equipment Unit Perimeter Comments (feet) South 35 or 55 Since noise from the ISOM Unit to the south affected the total noise levels and there was less than 200 feet between the two Units, meas- urements were made closer than 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter. East 100 There are no refinery units to the east. North 35 Since noise from HP-3 to the north affected the total noise levels and there was less than 200 feet between the two Units, measurements were made closer than 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter. m:\noiserep.DHT Page 1 of 6 24 July 1997 West 65 or 95 Since noise from the DCU and HGHT to the west affected the total noise levels and there was less than 200 feet between the two Units, measurements were made closer than 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter. 3. INSTRUMENTATION The following instruments were 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 Distillate Hydrotreater Unit was operating normally and at 100 percent of rated capacity during the measurements. The adjacent units — Isomerization (ISOM) to the south, Hydrogen Plant Number 3 (HP-3) to the north, Delayed Coker Unit (DCU) to the west, and Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater (HGHT) to the southwest — were operating normally and at rated capacity during the measurements. Clean fuels construction was complete, and there were no noticeable construction activities during the measurements. 5. MEASUREMENTS Measurements of total noise levels during operation of the Distillate Hydrotreater Unit were made on 8 and 9 July 1997 by Frank Brittain of Bechtel, a member of INCE (Institute of Noise Control Engineers) with 26 years of experience in noise control engineering. Henry Hall assisted with part of the measurements. Dr. Brittain also prepared this report. Instruments used in making the noise measurements were in accordance with the Protocol. Each A-weighted L5o was measured during a 5-minute period, and recorded directly on the analyzer. Instruments were calibrated both before and after the measurements. Without special provisions, operating noise from the adjacent ISOM, HP-3, DCU, and HGHT Units would significantly affect the levels measured on the south, north, and west sides. To reduce noise from these adjacent Units, an "anechoic wedge baffle" was used to reduce the contribution of noise from adjacent Units. The baffle is shown in Figure 2. The microphone is positioned on the side of the baffle with the anechoic wedges. The side of the baffle with the anechoic wedges and the microphone is placed toward the source being measured. Noise coming from the opposite side (rear of the baffle) is largely blocked by the plywood sheets, to which the anechoic wedges are attached, and has little or no effect on the levels measured by the micro- phone. The anechoic wedges prevent reflections by the front face of the plywood so that meas- ured levels are more accurate. Any disturbance of the sound field caused by the baffle (reflections from the anechoic wedges and diffraction of noise from the Unit behind the baffle) will add slightly to the measured level. Thus, the measured levels will not reduce noise from DHT, and are an accurate representation of noise from the DHT. m:\noiserep.DHT Page 2 of 6 24 July 1997 The baffle was used for measurements at Locations 12 through 14. The angle between the two halves of the baffle was 900 at all Locations. The line of sight from the microphone to the entire HP-3 was not blocked by the edges of the baffle. Since the microphone is placed 12 to 18 inches in front of the anechoic wedge tips, the angle that has unobstructed lines of sight to DHT is greater than the 900 angle of the baffle. 6. DEVIATIONS FROM PROTOCOL Measurements were made according to the Protocol. For reasons indicated in Section 2, meas- urements on three sides were made closer than 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter. Noise levels measured closer than 100 feet are expected to be higher than would be measured at 100 feet. 7. RESULTS The measured A-weighted sound pressure levels are given in Table 1. The.levels in Table 1 are A-weighted L50 sound pressure levels measured for a 5-minute period. On the south, east, and west sides, noise from adjacent units significantly affected the measured levels, and the levels from the DHT only are lower than those measured. As indicated in Section 2, measurements were made closer than 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter. Levels were extrapolated from the measurement location to the Equipment Perimeter as allowed in the Protocol. For the corners, measurements are extrapolated in one direction only. The results are logarithmically averaged for each side as specified in the Protocol. While correction of data for background levels is permitted in the Protocol, the data in Table 1 were not corrected for background. 8. CONCLUSION Measurements were made while the Distillate Hydrotreater Unit was operating normally and at rated capacity. On each of the four sides of the DHT, the average noise levels from the plant meet the County's noise performance standard of 77 dBA at 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter and 5 feet above grade. On three sides of the DHT noise was extrapolated from the measurement Locations to the Equipment Perimeter as allowed in the Protocol. m:\noiserep.DHT Page 3 of 6 24 July 1997 TABLE 1 Measured Operational Noise Levels for the Distillate Hydrotreater Unit Side Distance Operational Sound Pressure Level in dBA Of Measurement From Corrected For Average Of Cor- Plant Location EP* (ft.) Measured Distance** rected Levels South 1*** 35 74.9 71.6 2 35 78.0 74.7 3 35 80.8 77.5 4 35 76.4 73.1 5 35 73.2 69.9 6 55 71.3 69.2 Logarithmic Average 73.7 East 6 100 71.3 7 100 71.0 8 100 72.4 9 100 73.4 Logarithmic Average 72.1 North 9 35 73.4 70.1 10 35 78.2 74.9 11 35 81.4 78.1 12t 35 79.3 76.0 131 35 77.5 74.2 14***t 35 73.8 70.5 Logarithmic Average 74.9 West 14***t 65 73.8 70.5 15 65 79.2 77.6 16 95 78.3 78.1 1*** 65 74.9 71.6 Logarithmic Average 75.7 * EP is the Equipment Perimeter ** Data has been corrected for distance from the measurement Location to the 100 foot perimeter *** Data extrapolated at Location 1 to the south only and at 14 to the north only t Measured using the anechoic baffle to block noise from adjacent units m:\noiserep.DHT Page 4 of 6 24 July 1997 tutu �t{t ' 1 • i C • Q OdOb dQO� b?ly3»1ceoAN.-._._._.-._-_._._._--._._._---- ............ - - - - - -�- - -- - - -- --- - - -- - -•-•-._._. .0=061L .'? i - t 0 "111i j } .0-.0911 '3 11►1!l Atl311Y9wr � � �� i i j' Pi J t ! v+ ead p W 1 t•1 —�a 1� W s i cr W i~ ii P Ell i I i i e i 1 1 � 1 I 4 ' 1 ' t i of i ~ t lo. 1i i 1 nt0 1 ( r;. tl, th i N I U 1vi L4 --�- Q1 _ O I ON1AVd d •H �� c' 1mumu.•• ; t ' i )I5Y15 30 401 i -0.-900 I r ; y •*.. i 1 t I v �,J i��••t W a: i Vit A I li v - --- 1- to v jz ---- tK==1 8tt6it•3� I i �.r I dCL) ►t6t1-3 I Y Y1 T. . Z06C 1-A, (w V ! isf ---------- >leE �, *y` I * i 1 1 + If •_•_•_•_ I '�- 1131. 4, � I ' ---'—' 126;!'-31 -•-•-tr•�•- - - ---- \♦0/1 !�� t :,_ SM trod i0 t _ � � '•' 1 ( i{- rte. ' �.� oi ! o = �• a Ind n 1� :.�; In �' \ ►L 1• a d i t ., {{5906 I tt-t� _ 1 - — " 8 £1-A t- 16i Ij z C6 tl d i = ! it �=•�ZZ6[I� I� I -0� _@� �. b il-A tBott-d ( i -`"..Io ......... A �1 �? 1 ! i SS300Y Y3n91 aim ; lora j 1 1 \ ., N AYd 'd 'Noc 1 H; 1 1 ! ofz diol o<b I m 31j9 1 3AlYA j W Y1 �J018 1 W l AM�11Y— m co ; i 1 i i �.._.._.._.....«._.._.._..«._.._....._..-..�..�.._..-..�.._.. J--.O-.6999 •3 11M11 Aa?11Y9 i 0--L9.9 ) 1 ! y i I I i AVMY"danNY33 99 •-•— o— ----- --t--- ------ ------_� o c u a n W � If' f V e ` OF FIGURE Photograph Of Micr11 1 1 Anechoic Wedge Baffle Used In Measurements To Block 1ise From Adjacent m:\noiserep.DHT r. '' 6 of 6 24 July 1997 OPERATING NOISE MEASUREMENT REPORT FOR THE DELAYED COKER UNIT SHELL MARTINEZ MANUFACTURING COMPLEX CLEAN FUELS PROJECT - BECHTEL JOB NO. 22500 Report Prepared By: Date: Noise Measurement Made By: On: 2S fl Zs � 2H. y Brittain,Ph.D.,Member INCE /9 j 7 Frank H. Brittain,Ph.D., Member INCE X99 7 Principal Engineer, Principal Engineer, Noise Control Engineering, Noise Control Engineering, Bechtel Corp. Bechtel Corp. SHELL MARTINEZ MANUFACTURING COMPLEX CLEAN FUELS PROJECT- BECHTEL JOB NO.22500 OPERATING NOISE MEASUREMENT REPORT FOR THE DELAYED COKER UNIT 1. INTRODUCTION Measurements of operating noise from the Delayed Coker Unit of the Clean Fuels Project at Shell Martinez Refinery were made on 7 and 9 July 1997. The purpose of the noise measurements was to demonstrate that the Delayed Coker Unit meets 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. These measurements show that the Delayed Coker Unit complies 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 six 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 Delayed Coker Unit (DCU). All measurements were made 5 feet above the grade of the DCU Unit. Since adjacent Units were less than 200 feet away and noise levels around the DCU were significantly affected by adjacent Units, measurements on three sides were made at substantially less than 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter. The Equipment Perimeter is a straight line along each side of the Unit so that the equipment on that side falls inside the line. The Equipment Perimeter has the shape of a rectangle. Measurements were made at the following distances from the Equipment Perimeter: Distance from Side of Equipment Unit Perimeter Comments (feet) South 30 Since noise from the HGHT Unit to the south affected the total noise levels and there was less than 200 feet between the two Units, meas- urements were made closer than 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter. East 0 to 35 Since noise from DHT and HP-3 to the east affected the total noise levels and there was less than 200 feet between the two Units, meas- urements were made closer than 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter. Location 9 (at the northeast corner) was located inside the Equipment Perimeter, because of an embankment, but assumed to be on the Equipment Perimeter. m:\noiserep.DCU Page 1 of 6 24 July 1997 North 0 or 100 There are no refinery units to the north. Location 9 (on the northeast corner) was constrained by an embankment. West 28 to 100 Since noise from the Coke Barn to the west affected some of the total noise levels and there was less than 200 feet between the two Units, measurements were made closer than 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter. 3. INSTRUMENTATION The following instruments were 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 Delayed Coker Unit was operating normally and at 100 percent of rated capacity during the measurements. The adjacent units — Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater (HGHT) to the south, Distil- late Hydrotreater (DHT) and Hydrogen Plant Number 3 (HP-3) to the east, and Coke Barn to the west — were operating normally and at rated capacity during the measurements. Clean fuels construction was complete, and there were no noticeable construction activities during the measurements. 5. MEASUREMENTS Measurements of total noise levels during operation of the Delayed Coker Unit were made on 7 and 9 July 1997 by Frank Brittain of Bechtel, a member of INCE (Institute of Noise Control Engi- neers) with 26 years of experience in noise control engineering. Henry Hall assisted with part of the measurements. Dr. Brittain also prepared this report. Instruments used in making the noise measurements were in accordance with the Protocol. Each A-weighted 1,50 was measured during a 5-minute period, and recorded directly on the analyzer. Instruments were calibrated both before and after the measurements. Without special provisions, operating noise from the adjacent HGHT, DHT, HP-3, and Coke Barns Units would significantly affect the levels measured on the south, east, and west sides. To reduce noise from these adjacent Units, an "anechoic wedge baffle" was used to reduce the contribution of noise from adjacent Units. The baffle is shown in Figure 2. The microphone is positioned on the side of the baffle with the anechoic wedges. The side of the baffle with the anechoic wedges and the microphone is placed toward the source being measured. Noise coming from the opposite side (rear of the baffle) is largely blocked by the plywood sheets, to which the anechoic wedges are attached, and has little or no effect on the levels measured by the micro- phone. The anechoic wedges prevent reflections by the front face of the plywood so that meas- ured levels are more accurate. Any disturbance of the sound field caused by the baffle (reflections m:Vnoiserep.DCU Page 2 of 6 24 July 1997 from the anechoic wedges and diffraction of noise from the Unit behind the baffle) will add slightly to the measured level. Thus, the measured levels will not reduce noise from DCU, and are an accurate representation of noise from the DCU. The baffle was used for measurements at Locations 5 and 6. The angle between the two halves of the baffle was 900 at all Locations. The line of sight from the microphone to the entire DCU was not blocked by the edges of the baffle. Since the microphone is placed 12 to 18 inches in front of the anechoic wedge tips, the angle that has unobstructed lines of sight to HP-3 is greater than the 900 angle of the baffle. 6. DEVIATIONS FROM PROTOCOL Measurements were made according to the Protocol. For reasons indicated in Section 2, meas- urements on three sides were made closer than 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter. Noise levels measured closer than 100 feet are expected to be higher than would be measured at 100 feet. 7. RESULTS The measured A-weighted sound pressure levels are given in Table 1. The levels in Table 1 are A-weighted L50 sound pressure levels measured for a 5-minute period. On the south, east, and west sides, noise from adjacent units significantly affected the measured levels, and the levels from the DCU only are lower than those-measured. As indicated in Section 2, measurements were made closer than 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter. Levels were extrapolated from the measurement location to the Equipment Perimeter as allowed in the Protocol. Location 9 is inside the east Equipment Perimeter, but was assumed to be on the east Equipment Perimeter when extrapolating (a conservative assumption). For the corners, measurements are extrapolated in one direction only. The results are logarithmically averaged-for each side as specified in the Protocol. While correction of data for background levels is permitted in the Protocol, the data in Table 1 were not corrected for background. 8. CONCLUSION Measurements were made while the Delayed Coker Unit was operating normally and at rated capacity. On each of the four sides of the Delayed Coker Unit, the average noise levels from the plant meet the County's noise performance standard of 77 dBA at 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter and 5 feet above grade. On three sides of the DCU, noise was extrapolated from the measurement Locations to the Equipment Perimeter as allowed in the Protocol. m:\noiserep.DCU Page 3 of 6 24 July 1997 TABLE 1 Measured Operational Noise Levels for the Delayed Coker Unit Side Distance Operational Sound Pressure Level in dBA Of Measurement From Corrected For Average Of Cor- Plant Location EP* (ft.) Measured Distance** rected Levels South 1*** 30 77.3 74.6 2 30 79.2 76.5 3 30 77.3 74.6 4*** 50 75.5 72.8 Logarithmic Average 75.0 East 4*** 15 75.5 72.8 5t 35 74.5 72.1 Q 15 75.8 72.4 7 0 79.8 75.7 8 0 77.7 73.6 9♦ 0 73.3 69.2 Logarithmic Average 73.0 North 9♦ 0 73.3 10 100 68.0 11 100 67.8 13 100 64.3 Logarithmic Average 69.6 West 13 100 64.3 64.3 15 100 65.2 65.2 16 35 75.5 73.1 17 28 72.4 69.7 18 35 78.4 76.0 1*** 35 77.3 74.6 Logarithmic Average 72.4 * EP is the Equipment Perimeter ** Data has been corrected for distance from the measurement Location to the 100 foot perimeter *** Data for Locations 1 and 4 has been corrected to the south only t Measured using the anechoic baffle to block noise from adjacent units ♦ Measured 30 feet inside EP, and conservatively assumed to be on EP for extrapolation m:\noiserep.DCU Page 4 of 6 24 July 1997 t 1 • `foo, Oftmo v _ o v M I .` . .Y X � X �, o -t•. V qj � Q l a • w • bow �• lb LE li��a • • • W144 PIZ • to$.0 • • ► w as �• � c. Nee mud IryI wila +u4 nn I ram •0141 V. I 0 � iya • I 1 1 • Mw or E J -� I j ri I I ms►� H : � I • ` o� . Ef- A /�/ r • • • ••.� �• vX . ..• • f •..+r.• Ph •,lu • 1 1 • l YOI lr Q, i ..._. . . ... rp ' • V 1 100 o m envIo-ol .i 7 ` s� ins I / r • 1 h"m n v ids ..•.cam _ a=s: .__ _ gem I � W Jr c' s " r .............. r I _ ITO Tr 101 may..: � _� E_. • � � 1 1 ` 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 �• i . 1 I i 1 1 1 1 - CA1A ' EXHIBIT B • 08-�S-4 M5M ` CN P.O.Box 711 Martinez,California 94553-0071 Telephone: (510)313-3000 August 25, 1997 Ms. Debbie Sanderson Contra Costa County Community Development Depart. Administration Building, North Wing, 2nd Floor 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Ms. Sanderson, SUBJECT: SHELL OIL COMPANY CLEAN FUELS PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE MONITORING REPORTS FOR COKE HANDLING FACILITY(COUNTY FILE NUMBER 2009-92) In compliance with the Clean Fuels Project Land Use Permit Condition #35B and Mitigation Measure 10-4, we have enclosed a copy of the Noise Monitoring Report for the Clean Fuels Project Coke Handling Facility. This report was prepared by H. C. Reeder. For your information, the VGT referenced in Section 2 of the report is the Vent Gas Treater. 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 Note s"s'11.1 i dl enclosure Apr,I d3 1447 Yt or fi . Carfle, �q,,� 1 r o d71llZ, _ lvl.��l4� �r OPERATING NOISE MEASUREMENT REPORT FOR COKE HANDLING FACILITY SHELL MARTINEZ MANUFACTURING COMPLEX CLEAN FUELS PROJECT AFD PROfF� soon OREGON EXPinES i2-31- 9� Report Prepared By: Date: Noise Measurement Made By: On: Harry C. Reeder, P. E. Aug. 21, 1997 Harry C. Reeder, P. E. Aug. 12, 1997 SHELL MARTINEZ MANUFACTURING COMPLEX CLEAN FUELS PROJECT OPERATING NOISE MEASUREMENT REPORT FOR COKE HANDLING FACILITY 1. INTRODUCTION Measurements of operating noise from Coke Handling Facility(CHF) of the Clean Fuels Project at Shell Martinez Refinery were made on August 12, 1997. The purpose of the noise measurements was to demonstrate that CHF meets the noise levels specified in Condition No. 35A of 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. These measurements show that CHF complies 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 Plant. The 77 dBA limit is defined in the Protocol to be an A-weighted sound pressure level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time during a sampling period, (Lso)• 2. MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS Four to six measurement locations were selected for three sides of the Plant. These locations are shown on Figure 1, a plot plan showing the layout of CHF. All measurements were made 5 feet above the grade of CHF. Noise levels around CHF were significantly affected by noise from adjacent Units, and measurements on one side was made at less than 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter. Measurements were made at the following distances from the Equipment Perimeter: Distance from Equipment Side of Perimeter Plant (feet) Comments South 100 The Virgin Gas Treater (VGT) is south of CHF, and the two Equipment Perimeters overlap. To determine the noise component from each of the two units, measurements were made with both units operating and with just the VGT operating. East 100 There was no distance between the Delayed Coker Unit (DCU) and the CHF, so no measurements were made on the east side as permitted by the Protocol. c:\wp\noise0l.chf Page 1 of 5 21 August 1997 North 100 There are no units to the north,but the DCU noise could be heard and measured at locations near the east end of the north end. West 25, 56, There is a steep slope at the north end of the west side of the CHF 70 & 77 that gradually lessens to the south allowing the measurement distance to increase. The VGT unit contributed to the measured levels at the south end. 3. INSTRUMENTATION The following instrumentation were used in making the noise measurements: o Quest 155, Sound Level Analyzer with Octave Bands o Bruel and Kjaer 4132, Microphone o Quest CA- 22, Acoustic Calibrator o Windscreen 4. OPERATING CONDITIONS DURING MEASUREMENTS The CHF was operating normally and at rated capacity during the measurements, except when stopped to get background measurements. The VGT and DCU were operating normally during the measurements. There was no construction during the measurements. Measured noise levels on the south, west and north sides all were below the 77 dBA limit at the measured distances. 5. MEASUREMENTS Measurements of noise levels during operation of CHF were made on August 12, 1997 by Harry C. Reeder, a registered professional acoustical engineer with 33 years of experience in noise control engineering. Chris Hutchings assisted in making the measurements. Mr. Reeder also prepared this report. Instruments used in making the noise measurements were in accordance with the Protocol. The levels measured were recorded by Mr. Reeder who then determined the L50 value. Instruments were calibrated both before and after the measurements. 6. DEVIATIONS FROM PROTOCOL Measurements were made according to the Protocol. For reasons indicated in Section 2, measurements on one side was made closer than 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter. Noise c:\wp\noise0l.chf Page 2 of 5 21 August 1997 levels measured closer than 100 feet will be higher than would be measured at 100 feet. Measurements were made on three sides only because the adjacent DCU Unit equipment perimeter overlaps the CHF perimeter. This is allowed by the Protocol. 7. RESULTS The measured noise levels are given in Table 1. The levels in Table 1 are A-weighted L50 sound pressure levels measured during a 5-minute period. The results are logarithmically averaged for each side as specified in the Protocol. While correction of data for background levels is permitted in the Protocol, the data in Table 1 were not corrected for . background, except for measurement at locations 12, 13 and 14 where the background levels were subtracted from the total measured noise to determine the CHF noise. S. CONCLUSION Measurements were made while CHF was operating normally and at full capacity. The adjacent VGT and DCU Units were operating normally. When corrected for background levels on the south side, the average noise level on each side of CHF meets the County's noise performance standard of 77 dBA at 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter and 5 feet above grade. This limit has been met at distances of less than or equal to the required 100 feet on three sides. c:\wp\noise0l.chf Page 3 of 5 21 August 1997 TABLE 1 Measured Operational Noise Levels for Coke Handling Facility Side Distance Operational Sound Pressure Level Ls,in dBA Of Measurement From Average of Plant Location EP* (ft.) Measured Measured Levels North 1 100 67.1 2 100 68.3 3 100 68.4 4 100 70.1 Logarithmic Average 68.6 West 5 25 59.5 6 25 59.4 7 56 60.9 8 70 62.0 9 70 63.1 10 77 69.2 Logarithmic Average 64.0 South 11 100 76.2 12 100 74.6 13 100 74.0 14 100 74.3 Logarithmic Average 74.9 East No measurements made on east side * EP is the Equipment Perimeter \► Cor M& d �Ur �XtI qr c:\wp\noise0l.chf Page 4 of 5 21 August 1997 err --- --'--- ----------- - : /�00 Fa 0T MIT I ------- ------- ._ .4rr._ .4�ilP_ �uT g--- ------ ----7777.------7777------------------._._-- .._. �O � rt�iPPiti d _ 70 4(c 4 y ---_.-zl 2507 f- CCt� Burt SmUTll F- CorwFYDr� 8C-a0Q —� � i I r 6147M m T RUSHER o t-T �( r y11 1 _ \ ow. ec—00 / II d \ C� z �VFHIC.s WASH -- — STA7ICJ+CS -- � •� ��J f NtlHg.S'2 �'CYP' P_r/DuE C'E'1J4C7 iO�J 02✓E V r--, o 0 JIG F16cltzE � ----"- MEA. l9LCREHIENT LOCATi049 c:\wp\noise0l.chf Page 5 of 5 21 August 1997 CSA 3S_ EXHIBIT C CS 4xCRO8 R76- w w (� p � COo AT�Q 0S fi 9'I SEP 10 PM 5: 08 P.O. Box 711 Gr 0[A U-NIT Y Martinez,California 94553-0071 DEVELOPI''iEN T DEPT Telephone: (510)313-3000 September 8, 1997 Ms. Debbie Sanderson Contra Costa County Community Development Depart. Administration Building, North Wing, 2nd Floor 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Ms. Sanderson, SUBJECT: SHELL OIL COMPANY CLEAN FUELS PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE REVISED MONITORING REPORT FOR COOLING WATER TOWER - CWT (COUNTY FILE NUMBER 2009-92) ---------- In compliance with the Clean Fuels Project Land Use Permit Condition #35B and Mitigation Measure 10-4, we have enclosed a copy of the Revised Noise Monitoring Report for the Clean Fuels Project Cooling Water Tower. The original report and the revised report were prepared by Dr. Brittain of Bechtel Corporation. A minor editorial change was made in the third paragraph of the first page. We have enclosed the a copy of the revised page. Please replace the first page of the original report. We apologize for any inconvenience that this may have caused. 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 SHELL CLEAN FUELS 21 August 1997 Job 22500-600 Review of Noise from the Cooling Tower for Compliance with Shell Clean Fuels Project Land Use Permit Conditions The Contra Costa Land Use Permit Conditions for the Shell Clean Fuels Project stipulate that noise levels from all equipment shall not exceed 77 dBA, when measured five feet above the ground and 100 feet from the equipment perimeter. This limit is contained in Condition No. 35A from the Contra Costa County's Land Use Permit No. 2009-92. The purpose of this review is to demonstrate that the Cooling Tower complies with the County's noise limit while operating normally. The previous noise verification report, dated 18 October 1995, indicated compliance with the County's noise limit, but the Cooling Tower was not oper- ating at full capacity during the measurements. Measurements were repeated on 18 August 1997, with the Cooling Tower operating normally and at 100 percent of rated capacity. With one exception, measurements were made in compliance with the Protocol. A 60-second Le, (A-weighted energy average level) was measured at each location instead of an Lso(A-weighted level exceed 50 percent of the time) as specified in the measurement Protocol approved by the County on 14 June 1994. For relatively constant and continuous noise levels, such as those from the Cooling Tower, L,,q>Lso, and using an Lam,instead of an Lso is conservative. Further, other measurements at Shell Clean Fuels indicate that the L,,q is usually less than one dB higher than the L50 at a given location. Measurements were made on 18 August 1997 at the same locations used in the previous Cooling Tower measurements. One additional measurement Location,Number 20, was used. The meas- urement locations are shown in Figure 1. The results of these measurements are shown in Table 1. Levels were corrected for the distance from the measurement Location to the 100 foot perimeter, as allowed in the Protocol. Measured levels at all locations were contaminated with noise from other Clean Fuels Units or existing equipment, particularly at Locations 14 and 15 on the south side. Additional details are provided in the previous report. Clean Fuels construction was complete, and there was no noticeable construction noise. These measurements show that while operating normally and at rated capacity, the Cooling Tower meets the County's noise limit of 77 dBA at 100 feet from equipment at 5 feet above grade of the Cooling Tower. The cooling tower also meet the County's noise limit without correcting measured levels for distance. Report Prepared By: Date: Noise Measurement Made By: Date: Frank H. Brittain,Ph.D., Member INCE 1997 Frank H. Brittain,Ph.D., Member INCE X99 7 Principal Engineer, �✓SG�I Principal Engineer, � Noise Control Engineering, S +'�, Noise Control Engineering, S �° Bechtel Corp. 1999 Bechtel Corp. /1?7 TABLE 1 Measured Operational Noise Levels For The Cooling Tower Side Distance Operational Sound Pressure Level in dBA Of Measurement From Corrected For Average Of Cor- Plant Location EP* (ft.) Measured Distance** rected Levels North 1*** 30 73.5 68.9 2 30 75.3 70.7 3 30 75.7 71.1 4 30 76.3 71.7 5 30 73.2 68.6 6 30 70.4 65.8 7*** 30 70.4 65.8 Logarithmic Average 69.5 East 7*** 55 70.4 65.8 8 55 69.1 66.4 9 55 68.4 65.7 10 55 68.3 65.6 ll*** 55 67.5 64.8 Logarithmic Average 65.7 South ll*** 90 67.5 64.8 12 90 67.8 67.3 13 90 69.5 69.0 14 90 78.9 78.4 15 90 73.3 72.8 20*** 90 6&.6 68.1 Logarithmic Average 72.7 West 20*** 70 68.6 68.1 16 70 67.9 66.2 17 70 68.3 66.6 18 70 69.4 67.7 19 70 72.2 68.9 Logarithmic Average 67.6 * EP is the Equipment Perimeter ** Data has been corrected for distance from the measurement Location to the 100 foot perimeter *** Data extrapolated at Locations 1 and 7 to the north only,\ at 11 to the east only, and at 20 to the south only m:noiserep.CWT Page 2 of 3 21 August 1997 I �[ x Fl uY filif _j tz Y J>. e8-1 J ti �S is w S HEI vv '� 'x- yVa� �aa� ¢ o0U3 {3� < �zg- a�•_. �u ,{ y§ ... 2 Z �� v¢1 K �2 � 2 x � 3 .r X 2 2 ¢"' S J W � f�7a• � � a J J `� S o091ti�� Y3bb No - o g Y6ti� Tl � � � S i t z ' to Q W� - n n,�-, r^i n n n r^i rN•, n r, r�i r, rte-, arG,,•,aYr-Gf rf rYYf r� /•,N /V�r d d. d a d d M1 > > na a 1� b w 4 X r� I Ln r Oo Ic 04 A-Aa69 '3 -^ 146 I 1 IFm No sszl-A 0 X0 i � to ' � I � �.�' '•� Ie Sim _•= i � �� Sj� d"' I o li Ali 1 °XV F, _ __ _ 1 I A � ' j d I I I I m I MS B EI-)a Tzrr-a E I AL L N j Al i I 1 1 1 I ♦ 1 I I 1 I L------------------------ ------A-'S199- avow � 0 l✓ 51� t 11C'T4 97 27. •. PM 3 p - P.O. Box 711 ;��(! '`j r Y Martinez,California 94553-0071 D E VL L V P"T E N T DEPT Telephone: (510)313-3000 August 22, 1997 Ms. Debbie Sanderson Contra Costa County Community Development Depart. Administration Building, North Wing, 2nd Floor 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Ms. Sanderson, SUBJECT: SHELL OIL COMPANY CLEAN FUELS PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE MONITORING REPORTS FOR COOLINW WATER TOWER - CWT(COUNTY FILE NUMBER 2009-92) In compliance with the Clean Fuels Project Land Use Permit Condition #35B and Mitigation Measure 10-4, we have enclosed a copy of the Noise Monitoring Report for the Clean Fuels Project Cooling Water Tower. This report was prepared by Bechtel Corporation. If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me at (510) 313-3695. Very truly yours, E. T. Swieszcz, gineer Environmental Affairs enclosure X513 EXHIBIT D M -o:ctos—q I} 97 SPP !0 Phi 5: 09 P.O. Box 711 �,/r C0Mit",[��.y Martinez,California 94553-0071 'DF-VELOP BMEN I DEPT Telephone: (510)313-3000 September 8, 1997 Ms. Debbie Sanderson Contra Costa County Community Development Depart. Administration Building, North Wing, 2nd Floor 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Ms. Sanderson, SUBJECT: SHELL OIL COMPANY CLEAN FUELS PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE REVISED MONITORING REPORT FOR ISOMERIZATION UNIT-ISOM (COUNTY FILE NUMBER 2009-92) (3.v%c ud" b C�CA COTu 14A MJ In compliance with the Clean Fuels Project Land Use Permit Condition #35B and Mitigation Measure 10-4, we have enclosed a copy of the Noise Monitoring Report for the Clean Fuels Project Isomerization Unit. This report was prepared by Dr. Brittain of Bechtel Corporation. 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 SHELL CLEAN FUELS 3 September 1997 Job 22500-600 Review of Noise from the CS/C6 Isomerization Unit for Compliance with Shell Clean Fuels Project Land Use Permit Conditions The Contra Costa Land Use Permit Conditions for the Shell Clean Fuels Project stipulate that noise levels from all equipment in a Unit shall not exceed 77 dBA,when measured five feet above the ground and 100 feet from the equipment perimeter. This limit is contained in Condition No. 35A from the Contra Costa County's Land Use Permit No. 2009-92. The purpose of this review is to demonstrate that the C5/C6 Isomerization Unit or ISOM (which includes the Isomerization Unit and the Decyclohexanizer Column and related equipment) complies with the County's noise limit while operating normally. The previous noise verification report, dated 18 October 1995, indicated compliance with the County's noise limit, but ISOM was operating at"about 65 percent of capacity including recirculation of product." Measure- ments were repeated on 25 August 1997, with ISOM operating with about 93 percent of normal feed (ISOM is not normally run beyond 60 percent of rated capacity due to insufficient feed). The Decyclohexanizer(DCH) was operating at about 96 percent of normal feed (DCH is not normally run beyond 85 percent of rated capacity due to insufficient feed). The ISOM was operating normally and at nearly normal feed rate. There was no recirculation during the measurements. With one exception, measurements were made in compliance with the measurement Protocol, which was approved by the County on 14 June 1994. A 60-second Leq (A-weighted energy aver- age level) was measured at each location instead of an L50 (A-weighted level exceeded 50 percent of the time) as specified in the Protocol. For relatively constant and continuous noise levels, such as those from the ISOM, Lam,> L5o, and using an L�instead of an L50 is conservative. Further, other measurements at Shell Clean Fuels indicate that the Leq is usually less than one dB higher than the L5o at a given location. Locations of measurements made on 25 August 1997 are shown in Figure 1. On the north and west, measurements were made closer to the ISOM than previous measurements, because of operating noise from adjacent Clean Fuels Units (Cooling Tower to the south, Distillates Hydrotreater to the north, and Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater and Cracked Gasoline Depentanizer to the west). The results of these measurements are shown in Table 1. Levels were corrected for the distance from the measurement Location to the 100 foot perimeter, as allowed in the Protocol. Measured levels at most locations were contaminated with noise from adjacent Clean Fuels Units, particu- larly at Locations 10 and 11 on the north side. Additional details are provided in the previous report. Clean Fuels construction was complete, and there was no noticeable construction noise. Report Prepared By: Date: Noise Measurement Made By: Date: �p zz�,- S At J s Frank H. Brittain,Ph.D., Member INCE Frank H. Brittain,Ph.D., Member INCE 1917 Principal Engineer, Principal Engineer, Noise Control Engineering, Noise Control Engineering, Bechtel Corp. Bechtel Corp. These measurements show that while operating normally and at nearly normal capacity, the C5/C6 Isomerization Unit meets the County's noise limit of 77 dBA at 100 feet from equipment at 5 feet above grade of ISOM. The Isomerization Unit also meets the County's noise limit on each side of the Unit without correcting measured levels for distance. m:noiserep.ISM Page 2 of 4 3 September 1997 TABLE 1 Measured Operational Noise Levels For The Isomerization Unit Side Distance Operational Sound Pressure Level in dBA Of Measurement From Corrected For Average Of Cor- Plant Location EP* (ft.) Measured Distance** rected Levels South 1*** 40 74.4 71.2 2 40 76.2 73.0 3 40 74.4 71.2 4*** 40 70.8 67.6 Logarithmic Average 71.2 East 4*** 55 70.8 67.6 5 55 75.6 73.3 6 55 75.4 73.1 7 55 75.8 73.5 8 55 74.5 72.2 9*** 55 75.4 73.1 Logarithmic Average 72.5 North 9*** 20 75.4 73.1 10 20 79.1 74.5 11 20 77.3 72.7 12*** 20 74.8 70.2 Logarithmic Average 72.9 West 12*** 35 74.8 70.2 13 35 74.5 71.0 14 35 75.7 72.2 15 35 76.1 72.6 16 35 75.9 72.4 1*** 35 74.4 71.2 Logarithmic Average 71.7 * EP is the Equipment Perimeter ** Data has been corrected for distance from the measurement Location to the 100 foot perimeter *** Data at Locations 1 and 4 has been corrected to the south only, at 9 to the east only, and at 12 to the north only m:noiserep.ISM Page 3 of 4 3 September 1997 `,• G Q 7 � O Ir� l [e �_. . t t S9:�o N I i1 � 31AA § 175 Q Qd up Nt_ u O Z Y >t i! 1t•3 3 t f1 9-nil O 2 p t h 3 i s � ' o r'i J y �i3 g z N Q Y � Ps _j 219 W Vi IJ all v N 6 ► $ i, lu a Q i a orf ►= o � LZ O C A v N • QUI �-�-T N-€ - �_G4 � � l ♦ i Ui 'vies. Ee11 � � 8 _ s m F Q 'W W W •„+I O o W 4In 1 O O •DNT 7 QQ. �W pW J 1]I.Qy(I 7 1 yal J \L AJ W _N OW W?QWWO 1.- '•-' p6�=< r,•I CZ••• , <,uR= QJ W a N NOF ; �6 N Y6 q p( q a YY p F •1� � !7{ < � � i I oo p J mm aS n 'L 1q.� - 4vi < a 7 7�3 p a °' F 1 3 ■1� SJ _N -I.IQ 3Qp2 �77y�I'77 j4 =6CO� 9 pFO W U V a 6 R.-•.' ./U-F ,r '�6 ". , JG IJ < ,W`N 1 O�F,•' qq3773 66 7 J 6 p N L < < R R r V L 2 O/¢U-• Z `j Q,U003 OON 0 W�,�, S S¢ ZN <7 jZ �•'•m < 13 pa =0000 j j�` ,•'3 W M q O I-1-f• ./,y� 1-N 7 Ip<V aa•�aL Q¢'•I K R W¢¢Qq y�yy,II >Y <W m t0�`J�(J�tJ C1],QOq'J'1 Q 6lF)O_o•W R=$82 4�j 1,.JI�1.•y� j j 4..- �oo V 1Vy 1- N N 7 i S 6 W QOO�Z Z W O 7 N U N J N N Q po W N Ft'S- W W W V{� FpI.10 '•'OQ ,�,D O PJ +`U V r,1. 3 7Omm 6'alUU�vU W <x NOOOR 0or;:00R 1. ,n F 3 LN£ R66¢U>•.'fIOSm¢V~ ZZ Z ZIJ W `Ft ZF.W. 7IW-1. V V Oj 777 Z< Z Z { L.L1-hF...� 7 Z 3 FW. . ,OIO 1-.1- ZyNN6 6 IW-F 3syy6V�Cy 1-W NNN 7e << v, 6 3 W J OO , 66Q,QJ 7 J J7 7 Y V VUVRW R-RV I,A j� J .�V N yN<<t p,1 y y V V._ < J,.,11 J JJ JJ JJ 1y p 1�a W a'z Zl]t Z ZJ•I' Z vl �� Q F'3K'j F� SNNNN ud00 00 O 2�5� W •00 �Ipp p7` saWv _NO= yFI�- �Q"• ` ( ` �J�J u ISJ.�J(J `y U U•91U UU> l 3 1_F- N N NR¢Q:'! _N NN N 000 00 O U �7 m y 1� 1. N m tD III m m V V O J f f f bN•~N Vf1•'IN•FII�O mq0'�'-mO,n�N N mOO fpp o f NV Fs AO-N f Nry f Nb O NO ryry f'A V Fm PO-Nn fNmmOIO Nn 0F.202 !2Iy f UI NNb YtNN NNY,NNNN NNb,.tlF FFFF m Try N Nn n.•I mmm "• O1A twTTT00000 0 -N N O tlV V V W bFFF FFF O0- OO Nry N N A S�) � NNN '� NNNNNNNNN_NryNNN ��NNN�."� INNNNNVVbIbbFNN�n NNNNNNNNNNNNbbVtl.-FNN'N,N.'In N N ry ry ry N ry N n n n n n_n N N ry,fV N N N•'I. f'1 N ry ry N N N N N N N N n n n N N ry!-V ry ry ry N N_N N_N N_ _N N N n n n a ry R U V V >>>>>>>>>>>>>>j>>>>>>>>>>>>> W W W W WWW W•r1A W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W 6 6 6 a 6 6 a 6 a a 6 a a a a a 6 6 6 6 6 6 a 6 b L N • V Y LA .._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._ _._._._._._._._._._._._ -_. i- .. .n.MAa•i nv!1M - .- i �. -.._..-..-.._.._.._.._.._.._..-.._.._..-.._.:?';;_3z�nvxalo,3x�w..-..-.=:�a.. tmn....-..-r._.._ -..-..-.._.._.....- .-..-.._..-..-........ 1 UI]nnN]SNI I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I t l 1 Ir 1dJdAJfl d I1 IJ ertI1 o .1.JJnldq •J 0,4 d -t d .1 .i 14 a I dFI 1 _ a�!R � ic nM'! 1 � _m NN e]°divn°/s�W 111>I&M b1 W >I 9`-1 Q1 '4 !°i W>1'4" '<]1 1 �I >I >I >I '1 �al '1° W>1 Mli411N -' N�_- i i „ j.i_� i i i i i i l i i i•' I• lirjijy 1£axr +1l1 •0--o-0-o- •il - ;• .It i ; W V -3�zr� + i p ;'t •I i t ; i I i t . i i �t 1? . i 'I i ' I � i �` 1- � I ''t'� � 1 I i� s'.• ', I I 1,.I,• �, 1 � 1N I ! N STI 1 I '.`_ ti I I 1.• ='�• I 1 Iry. N I Iv IIY I 1 '- �• 1 i .' I I! /I.A• I I W 1 1W� IW�� p'1• �• '> � ! j 1 t.,_.fit �._.__¢i-_-__1�y_ i _ _._. _.�. _1 _. .1._ -._ __�.J: .�. �• \ � _� !- \ �• l _1_._._.i.._ _.B'i.�9.7�.. Q I IT- 41• L-_ -� .�._... �- 1 _ Cll rr]te� j•♦ i•• •�> � :0 .I F� I elft -t �, •�•' '�. .I 1 _ 1 111 1 1 1 I � 3 1 �(('fi�]ltt, �._•_._ -d-p•- i =1 r �j �.�:2eZ d.�_.-•--Y'-� M•_ � ,,,; I(J._t. i t 1 1 1 III �_� `� I ! i 1 i , 1 t"'� >j2tre�ttYC -J-•-•-•�•-r• �.. s; l i • i i ill i i i i i i i •i 1 i i i �•• _.._. -tiitl _.• •-• i i 1 � � � W Q• j l � NI^I 1 1 1 I I ! I I I 1 1 I 1 I j I 1-._ �2trettmC�J-._. 7' 1 �• ob Tw' ' °�.�. I 1 I I `a'I $I ul pt it it ml ; { • I 1 FF r -/'�e•1' N.vs N F• N. n• Nl. � � { I ryIN r•I N,/1 w J'.•!'� ".1 °'I ryt '^I _I rvl 'VI nlm 1 .-.-.-•-• 1 >s I�1'� a.> w• m W U. W. >. >. < s� �•a• d .I.Z .: L L 1. �. 1 1 Ivll$ 1 foz i= i 1 �� J _ l._ r'_ �_:r.�.�_:�:- r _t_'•_.y. ..i......�..�..�..�......-..a..�9�i�i iinii ................................................ i ------ --•---- ------ ------------ -•--- a ?=•--_._.-----.-}_-L._._-_l_._._.1.-._ _/-•---.J.-•-.-.L.- -�-•---.� _ _ -l-•---. .-.-._.L._._.J.-.-.- I , 1 T i 1 { 1 %0 �` 1 _._._ _ EXHIBIT E 3sg P.O. Box 711 Martinez,California 94553-0071 Telephone: (510)313-3000 THo90�-41 116 6"T September 8, 1997 Ms. Debbie Sanderson Contra Costa County Community Development Depart. Administration Building, North Wing, 2nd Floor 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Ms. Sanderson, SUBJECT: SHELL OIL COMPANY CLEAN FUELS PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE REVISED MONITORING REPORT FOR HEAVY GASOLINE HYDROTREATER - HGHT(COUNTY FILE NUMBER 2009-92) In compliance with the Clean Fuels Project Land Use Permit Condition #35B and Mitigation Measure 10-4, we have enclosed a copy of the Revised Noise Monitoring Report for the Clean Fuels Project Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater. The original report and the revised report were prepared by Dr. Brittain of Bechtel Corporation. A minor editorial change was made in the third paragraph of the first page and error in the average noise level on the east side was corrected on page 2. We have enclosed copies of the revised pages. Please replace these pages in the original report. We apologize for any inconvenience that this may have caused. If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me at (510) 313-3695. Very truly yours, E. T. Swieszcz, Staff Enginee Environmental Affairs enclosure SHELL CLEAN FUELS 31 July 1997 Job 22500-600 Review of Noise from the Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater for Compliance with Shell Clean Fuels Project Land Use Permit Conditions The Contra Costa Land Use Permit Conditions for the Shell Clean Fuels Project stipulate that noise levels from all equipment shall not exceed 77 dBA, when measured five feet above the ground and 100 feet from the equipment perimeter. This limit is contained in Condition No. 35A from the Contra Costa County's Land Use Permit No. 2009-92. The purpose of this review is to demonstrate that the Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater(HGHT) complies with the County's noise limit while operating normally. The previous noise verification report dated 29 October 1996 indicated compliance with the County's noise limit, but the related Caustic Regen and Vent Gas Treater (VGT) sections were not operating normally. Measure- ments were repeated on 29 July 1997,with the entire HGHT operating normally. Specifically the HGHT was operating at 100 percent of rated capacity, and the Caustic Regen and Vert Gas Treater (VGT) were operating at 65 and 50 percent of rated capacity, respectively. However, the Caustic Regen and VGT were oversized, and their outputs are considered normal. With one exception,measurements were made using the Protocol. The exception is an 60-second Leq (A-weighted energy average level) was measured at each location instead of an L50 (A- weighted level exceed 50 percent of the time) as specified in the measurement Protocol approved by the County on 14 June 1994. For relatively constant and continuous noise levels, such as those from the HGHT, Leq >L5o, and using an L,,q instead of an L50 is conservative. Further, other measurements at Shell Clean Fuels indicate that the Leq is usually less than one dB higher than the Lso at a given location. Locations for the measurements were made on 29 July 1997, and are the same locations used in the previous HGHT measurements. Due to noise from adjacent Clean Fuels Units on three sides of the HGHT, measurements on those sides were made closer than 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter. Measurement locations are shown in Figure 1. The results of those measurements are shown in Table 1. Except on the west side, levels were extrapolated from the measurement Location to the 100 foot perimeter, as allowed in the Protocol. Additional details are provided in the previous report. Clean Fuels construction was complete, and there was no noticeable construction noise. These measurements show that while operating normally and at normal output the entire HGHT, including the related Caustic Regen and VGT sections, meet the County's noise limit of 77 dBA at 100 feet from equipment at 5 feet above grade of the HGHT. Report Prepared By: Date: Noise Measurement Made By: Date: 31`7'►+! Y�/ 3l duly Y /447 rank H. Brittain,Ph.D., M ". &A�_ember INCE /9`17 Frank H. Brittain,Ph.D., Member INCE Revis'A Principal Engineer, P6-�S-4 Principal Engineer, S 5y64 Noise Control Engineering, s Noise Control Engineering, Bechtel Corp. Bechtel Corp. /9`19 TABLE 1 Measured Operational Noise Levels For Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater Side Distance Operational Sound Pressure Level in dBA Of Measurement From Corrected For Average Of Cor- Plant Location EP* (ft.) Measured Distance** rected Levels South 1*** 35 67.2 63.9 2 50 67.5 65.1 3 50 69.9 67.5 4 50 71.7 69.3 5 50 71.7 69.3 6*** 50 74.5 72.1 Logarithmic Average 68.7 East 6*** 22 74.5 72.1 7 22 74.2 70.1 8 22 76.1 72.0 9*** 22 77.5 73.4 Logarithmic Average 72.0 North 9*** 40 77.5 73.4 10 40 78.4 . 75.4 11 40 79.8 76.8 12 40 78.8 75.8 14 40 77.2 74.2 16*** 40 74.3 71.3 Logarithmic Average 74.8 West 16*** 100 74.3 71.3 17 100 73.8 73.8 18 100 70.2 70.2 1*** 100 67.2 63.9 Logarithmic Average 71.0 * EP is the Equipment Perimeter ** Data has been corrected for distance from the measurement Location to the 100 foot perimeter *** Data extrapolated at Locations 1 and 6 to the South only, at 9 to the East only, and at 14 to the North only m:noiserep.HGHT Page 2 of 3 31 September 1997 TABLE 1 Measured Operational Noise Levels For Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater Side Distance Operational Sound Pressure Level in dBA Of Measu ment From Corrected For Average Of Cor- Plant Locati EP* (ft.) Measured Distance** rected Levels South 1*** 35 67.2 63.9 2 50 67.5 65.1 3 50 69.9 67.5 4 0 71.7 69.3 5 5 71.7 69.3 6*** 50 74.5 72.1 Logarithmic Average 68.7 East 6*** 22 74.5 72.1 7 22 74.2 70.1 8 22 76.1 72.0 9*** 22 7.5 73.4 Logarithmic Average 75.8 North 9*** 40 77.5 73.4 ; 10 40 78.4 75.4 11 an 79.8 76.8 12 40 78.8 75.8 c 14 40 77.2 74.2 16*** 40 74.3 71.3 Logarithmic Average 74.8 a�u West 16*** 100 74.3 7 .3 �--- 17 100 73.8 73. 18 100 70.2 70.2 1*** 35 67.2 63.9 Logarithmic Average 71.0 * EP is the Equipment Perimeter ** Data has been corrected for distance from the measurement Location to the 100 foot perimeter *** Data extrapolated at Locations 1 and 6 to the South only and at 9 to the East East only, and 14 to the North only m:noiserep.HGHT Page 2 of 3 31 July 1997 {21601 SLSI 'tl wrr w�'12lt li cr .0•.199 l 1 1 g �1 • �� • w a_ at a � W14 j OL - r - _ - - — - - - - _._._._._._._._.L._._._ _ _ _ _ _LrnYyrd.Si3nj_Nr)1J_ _ _ _ _._._._._._._.-._._._ v SIJ -0•. 1�� 3 1 = x v N z i 971 .0-. , '3 11MI1 11l311r9 , � �+► > a i �- i Q pN Q _ ; w i W j qu N r ' # A3-S 1 o 7i0 JI4-T a 0 v io Oz Z � { W 2 2 J C a ry 14 p o • ? a .- ------------------- a o ;MI1. v 1 ? v x{ ;x:O - 1 i�TA ai 1 J 1 Q 1 I . ! ¢ l �• ` 1' i 60r •rr i W o 10 'r jT MYT ; ffSZ I- v. 1 .� 1 i �. ' I i --------- ; 33Nrd �;-- FTT CZUt •3 w- W W W 4 + o P T1ir 30Y OLS = cl g o o < - rnao I .� ICO I•d I� — iW .. .-. ... 0 1-l� �` •r. z 1 0 i "T e W W -A-A 1 ^ u- 0335 1rOJ 3 nln3 i aFr-_ 1. I L Oi 11 101.3 '+O 11)nO 3H 3 0IS38 4C0 t• I�8glii o ttt? r {r 1 T 1 Iizo I- �� k h IH o91r 19lot I 3 j w - 0 I•, \ 0 0 0 ao 00► -A i W I _ _ x i 1 X ION i s i W 1 1 14–o =N fox! Z•n i I = ; J'� •g1f9 Z'CS^ �i 2 O , 7 1 4 N T m I W Or0!! SSi Y`r .a'_V§1 LO J O .C919 '] 'o) , 3 i I, ; 1 1 1 1 9 6Ci�T•ll �.! $ S - ii W al mow!• O J i �� 4 i '–r–r S _•.- i - _ N z W = r:0. �Z .Zr Z� I ! f. Yom' z - N w _ �f ml o - •/ � .0—.0809� U Z ; r r � (Z W LLJ :D lop 1 � D ------- ----- --INS _ 0`- x x �-� .4 • SHELL CLEAN FUELS 31 July 1997 Job 22500-600 Review of Noise from the Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater for Compliance with Shell Clean Fuels Project Land Use Permit Conditions The Contra Costa Land Use Permit Conditions for the Shell Clean Fuels Project stipulate that noise levels from all equipment shall not exceed 77 dBA, when measured five feet above the ground and 100 feet from the equipment perimeter. This limit is contained in Condition No. 35A from the Contra Costa County's Land Use Permit No. 2009-92. The purpose of this review is to demonstrate that the HGHT complies with the County's noise limit while operating normally. The previous noise verification report dated 29 October 1996 indicated compliance with the County's noise limit, but the related Caustic Regen and Vent Gas Treater (VGT) sections were not operating normally during the measurements. Measurements were repeated on 29 July 1997, with the entire HGHT operating normally. Specifically the HGHT was operating at 100 percent of rated capacity, and the Caustic Regen and Vent Gas Treater (VGT) were operating at 65 and 50 percent of rated capacity, respectively. However, the Caustic Regen and VGT were oversized, and their outputs are considered normal. With,one exception, measurements wbce made using the Protoco . The exception is an 60-second Leq (A= ighted energy average level) as measured at each loc ion instead of an Lso (A- weighted le exceed 50 percent of the tim as specified in the measu ent Protocol approved by the County o 4 June 1994. Since, by def ' ' n, Leq < Lso, it is cons ative to use an Leq. Further, measureme at Shell Clear. Fu& indicate t so is unusually less t . one dB higher than the Leq at a given to on. Measurements were made on 29 July 1997, at the same locations used in the previous HGHT measurements. Due to noise from adjacent Clean Fuels Units on three sides of the HGHT, meas- urements on those sides were made closer than 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter. The results of those measurements are shown in Table 1. Except on the west side, levels were ex- trapolated from the measurement Location to the 100 foot perimeter, as allowed in the Protocol. The measurement locations are shown in Figure 1. Additional details are provided in the previous report. Clean Fuels construction was complete, and there was no noticeable construction noise. These measurements show that while operating normally and at normal output the entire HGHT, including the related Caustic Regen and VGT sections, meet the County's noise limit of 77 dBA at 100 feet from equipment at 5 feet above grade of the HGHT. Report Prepared By: Date: Noise Measurement Made By: On: j� CA—'I )Ao,�, Frank H. Brittain,Ph.D.,Member INCE /777 Frank H.Brittain,Ph.D.,Member INCE j 9y 2 Principal Engineer, Principal Engineer, Noise Control Engineering, Noise Control Engineering, Bechtel Corp. Bechtel Corp. 3S � 6 PM 2: 27, IN& P.O. Box 711 COT DEPT Martinez, California 94553-0071 Telephone: (510)313-3000 August 4, 1997 N �� Ms. Debbie Sanderson Contra Costa County Community Development Depart. Administration Building, North Wing, 2nd Floor 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Ms. Sanderson, SUBJECT: SHELL OIL COMPANY CLEAN FUELS PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE MONITORING REPORTS FOR HEAVY GASOLINE HYDROTREATER - HGHT(COUNTY FILE NUMBER 2009-92) In compliance with the Clean Fuels Project Land Use Permit Condition #35B and Mitigation Measure 10-4, we have enclosed a copy of the Noise Monitoring Report for the Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater- HGHT. This report was prepared by Bechtel Corporation. If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me at (510) 313-3695. Very truly yours, i E. T. wieszcz, Staf m r Environmental Affairs enclosures EXHIBIT F 3S,B P.O. Box 711 Martinez,California 94553-0071 Telephone: (510)313-3000 F-a- o9a3-47 sR u-4 September 23, 1997 Ms. Debbie Sanderson Contra Costa County Community Development Depart. Administration Building, North Wing, 2nd Floor 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Ms. Sanderson, SUBJECT: SHELL OIL COMPANY CLEAN FUELS PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE REVISED MONITORING REPORT FOR SULFUR RECOVERY UNIT- 4 (SRU-4) (COUNTY FILE NUMBER 2009-92) a In compliance with the Clean Fuels Project Land Use Permit Condition #35B and Mitigation Measure 10-4, we have enclosed a copy of the Noise Monitoring Report for the Clean Fuels Project Sulfur Recovery Unit - 4 . This report was prepared by Dr. Frank Brittain of Bechtel Corporation. This is the last Project Element to be tested. No future reports are planned. If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me at (510) 313-3695. Very truly yours, E. T. Swieszcz, Staf ngr eer Environmental Affairs enclosure OPERATING NOISE MEASUREMENT REPORT FOR THE SULFUR RECOVERY UNIT NUMBER FOUR SHELL MARTINEZ MANUFACTURING COMPLEX CLEAN FUELS PROJECT - BECHTEL JOB NO. 22500 Report Prepared By: Date: Noise Measurement Made By: Date: yz S��. ZZ.Sof. Frank H. Brittain,Ph.D.,Member INCE i g Frank H. Brittain,Ph.D., Member INCE 7 Principal Engineer, Principal Engineer, Noise Control Engineering, Noise Control Engineering, Bechtel Corp. Bechtel Corp. SHELL MARTINEZ MANUFACTURING COMPLEX CLEAN FUELS PROJECT - BECHTEL JOB NO. 22500 OPERATING NOISE MEASUREMENT REPORT FOR THE SULFUR RECOVERY UNIT NUMBER FOUR 1. INTRODUCTION Measurements of operating noise from the Sulfur Recovery Unit No. 4 of the Clean Fuels Project at Shell Martinez Refinery were made on 28 August and 15 September 1997. The purpose of the noise measurements was to demonstrate that the Sulfur Recovery Unit No. 4 meets 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. These measurements show that the Sulfur Recovery Unit No. 4 complies 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 Five or six measurement locations were selected for each side of the Unit. These locations are shown on Figure 1, a plot plan showing the layout of the Sulfur Recovery Unit No. 4 (SRU-4). All measurements were made 5 feet above the grade of the SRU-4. Choice of measurement loca- tions was difficult due to the proximity of adjacent Units. To the west, Hydrogen Plant No. 2 (HP-2) is between 40 and 80 feet from the entire west edge of SRU-4. To the north, the Dimer- sol Plant was surrounded by SRU-4 on three sides with a separation of less than 10 feet. Parts of the Dimersol Plant are located in a narrow strip just north of the pipe rack on the north edge of SRU-4. To the south, Sulfur Recovery Unit No. 3 (SRU-3) is partially surrounded by and within 20 feet of SRU-4. The locations of SRU-3 and the Dimersol Plant are shown on Figure 1. Due to the proximity of adjacent equipment, noise from near-by equipment, and the complexity of the Equipment Perimeter, Measurement Locations were chosen carefully. Measurement locations were selected outside of the Dimersol Plant and SRU-3. This approach is conservative. Noise from the Dimersol Plant and SRU-3 add to the total noise levels. On all sides, except the north, measurements were made at less than 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter. The Equipment Perimeter is a straight line along each side of the Unit so that the equipment on that side falls inside the line. Measurements were made at the following distances: Distance from Equipment Side of Perimeter Plant (feet) Comments South 70 or 75 Buildings cover most of the south edge of SRU-4. Measurements more than about 75 feet to the south were not feasible. m:\noiserep.SRU Page 1 of 6 22 September 1997 East 35 There is a pipe rack to the east with a ditch underneath. Beyond the pipe rack, the pipe rack partially blocks the line of sight to SRU-4. There are no refinery units and only a few scattered pieces of equip- ment immediately east of the pipe rack. North 100 To the north, the cooling tower is more than 200 feet north of SRU-4. West 20 or 45 HP-2 is between 40 and 80 feet from the entire west edge of SRU-4 3. INSTRUMENTATION The following instruments were 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 Anechoic baffle o Windscreen. 4. OPERATING CONDITIONS DURING MEASUREMENTS The Sulfur Recovery Unit No. 4 was operating normally and at rated capacity on 28 August ar d 15 Sept.°1997, respectively. On both'days, SRU-3'was "operating and HP-2 was operating in turned-down mode (operating at minimum output, so the plant was available, if needed). On 28 August, the Dimersol Plant was operating, while on 15 Sept. the Plant was shut down for repair. Clean fuels construction was complete, and there were no noticeable construction activities during the measurements, except for repair of the Dimersol Plant. 5. MEASUREMENTS Measurements of total noise levels during operation of the Sulfur Recovery Unit No. 4 were made on 28 August and 15 Sept. 1997 by Frank Brittain of Bechtel, a member of INCE (Institute of Noise Control Engineers) with 26 years of experience in noise control engineering. Dr. Brittain also prepared this report. Instruments used in making the noise measurements were in accordance with the Protocol. Each A-weighted Lso was measured during a 5-minute period, and recorded directly on the analyzer. Instruments were calibrated both before and after the measurements. Without special provisions, operating noise from the adjacent HP-2 would significantly affect the levels measured on the west side. To reduce contaminating noise from HP-2, an "anechoic baffle" was used to reduce the contribution of noise from HP-2. The baffle is shown in Figure 2. The microphone is positioned on the side of the baffle with the anechoic wedges. The side of the baffle with the anechoic wedges and the microphone is oriented toward the Unit being measured. Noise coming from the opposite side (rear of the baffle) is largely blocked by the plywood sheets, to which the anechoic wedges are attached, and has little or no effect on the levels measured by the microphone. The anechoic wedges prevent reflections by the front face of the plywood so m:\noiserep.SRU Page 2 of 6 22 September 1997 that measured levels are more accurate. Any disturbance of the sound field caused by the baffle (reflections from the anechoic wedges and diffraction of noise from the Unit behind the baffle) will add slightly to the measured level. Thus, the measured levels are an accurate and slightly conservative representation of noise from the SRU-4. The baffle was used for measurements at Locations 16 through 20. The angle between the two halves of the baffle was 900 at all Locations. The line of sight from the microphone to the entire SRU-4 was not blocked by the edges of the baffle. Since the microphone is placed 12 to 18 inches in front of the anechoic wedge tips, the angle that has unobstructed lines of sight to SRU-4 is greater than the 900 angle of the baffle. 6. DEVIATIONS FROM PROTOCOL Measurements were made according to the Protocol. For reasons indicated in Section 2, meas- urements on three sides were made closer than 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter. Noise levels measured closer than 100 feet are expected to be higher than would be measured at 100 feet. Also, SRU-3 and Dimersol were located inside the Measurement Perimeter, for reasons described in Section 2. 7. RESULTS The measured A-weighted sound pressure levels are given in Table 1. The levels in Table 1 are A-weighted L50 sound pressure levels measured for a 5-minute period. On the south and east, noise from near-by units located outside the Measurement Perimeter (SRU-3 is inside) have a small effect on measured levels. On the north, noise from the cooling to.rer and the Dimersol Plant significantly contributed to the measured levels. On the west, noise from HP-2 was effec- tively blocked by the anechoic baffle. Levels on three sides were extrapolated from the measure- ment location to the Equipment Perimeter as allowed in the Protocol. For the corners, measure- ments are extrapolated in one direction only. The results are logarithmically averaged for each side as specified in the Protocol. While correction of data for background levels is permitted in the Protocol,the data in Table 1 were not corrected for background levels. 8. CONCLUSION Measurements were made while the Sulfur Recovery Unit No. 4 was operating normally and at rated capacity. On each of the four sides of the SRU-4, the average noise levels from the plant meet the County's noise performance standard of 77 dBA at 100 feet from the Equipment Perimeter and 5 feet above grade. On three sides of the SRU-4, noise was extrapolated from the Measurement Locations to the Equipment Perimeter as allowed in the Protocol. The County's noise limit is met on three sides of SRU-4 without correction for distance. m:\noiserep.SRU Page 3 of 6 22 September 1997 TABLE 1 Measured Operational Noise Levels for the Sulfur Recovery Unit No. 4 Side Distance Operational Sound Pressure Level in dBA Of Measurement From Corrected For Average Of Cor- Plant Location EP* (ft.) Measured Distance** rected Levels South 1 75 76.2 75.1 2 75 77.6 76.5 3 75 78.2 77.1 4 75 76.9 75.8 5*** 70 74.3 73.0 Logarithmic Average 75.8 East 5*** 35 74.3 73.0 6 35 75.3 72.3 7 _ 35 75.9 72.9 8 35 78.1 75.1 9 35 74.7 71.7 10*** 35 72.6 69.6 Logarithmic Average 72.7 North 10*** 100 72.6 69.6 1.1 1.00 71.2 71..2 12 100 73.9 73.9 13 100 75.8 75.8 14 100 79.6 79.6 15*** 100 72.6 72.6 Logarithmic Average 75.1 West 15*** 45 72.6 72.6 16t 20 80.9 76.9 17t 20 80.4 76.4 18t 20 81.3 77.3 19t 20 79.6 75.6 20# 20 72.4 68.4 Logarithmic Average 75.4 * EP is the Equipment Perimeter ** Data has been corrected for distance from the measurement Location to the 100 foot perimeter *** Data were extrapolated at Locations 1 and 5 to the south only and at 10 to the east only. Data at Location 15 was not extrapolated. t Measured using the anechoic baffle to block noise from adjacent unit m:\noiserep.SRU Page 4 of 6 22 September 1997 0 UC in 6b, r c e 0 1 Z, L ODI �136iq too -Z to wl --- Lns"CCM SC.1-A ru %SSI'A a� < --p v A fil 71� z ZI ZW __j CISW)' MI.1-A+,_' I "Iti-is qO CJ 09:1.3 7 � W-a LL _2A c� CC) CD cD V) MWA I M 11 rl V) —----- I I w 1-1 -831 IVA A <: V) LLJ ITS Lou E I- A bL to I co"I: m I SMI-) l (Mill, 909,1-, 1 TZ S11w,-1 k?J311VS tt's vx AS— V)w <