HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01141997 - C93 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS = Contra
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON is Costa
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT county
o
srq c`...`�
DATE : January 14, 1997
SUBJECT: Ratification of the Zoning Administrator's Decision Regarding Shell Oil
Company's Compliance with Conditions of Approval #23 (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
Delayed Coker Unit .
2 . Ratify the Zoning Administrator' s decision that Shell Oil
Company has complied with Condition 35B for the Heavy Gasoline
Hydrotreater (including the Vent Gas Treater and the Caustic
Regeneration (CR-2) units) .
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 January 13, 1997 . Any comments received at the meeting
will be forwarded to the Board.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE lel,,�P-
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO ITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _� OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
/ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
J 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: Debra Sanderson (510/335-1208) ATTESTED � 14 , 17?
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PAkL BA HELD , CLERK OF
Health Services Department: Haz Mat THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Shell Oil (via CDD) AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
DRS\aw
J:\aw\1-14sh1.bo
Ratification of the ZA's Decision Regarding Shell Oil
Co. Compliance with COA #23, and #35B (LUP 2009-92)
January 14, 1997
Page Two
Condition of Approval #23 -- 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.
One June 11, 1996, the Board of Supervisors ratified the Zoning
Administrator' s finding that Shell had completed the required
hazards and operability studies for the Delayed Coker Unit. These
studies identified certain measures that Shell was required to
implement prior to start up of this unit.
As specified by Condition #23, County Health Services staff has
field checked this unit to verify that each of the measures
identified in the approved studies has been implemented.
On November 6, 1996, County Health Services Department confirmed in
writing that Shell Oil Company had implemented measures detailed in
its approved hazards operability study and its accident consequence
analysis for the Delayed Coker Unit.
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 Heavy Gasoline Hrdrotreater identified in
Recommendation #2 meets the noise standards .
cod;
Contra Costa County - VIO(q 76 _
Health Services Departmen
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION !'5 NOV -6 pH 3: 42
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
1lLCj,;? LT
DATE: November 6, 1996
TO: Catherine Kutsuris, County Zoning Administrator, Community Development
Department
ATTN: Debra Sanderson '
FROM: Lewis G. Pascalli, Jr.
Deputy Director •
Health Services Dep azardous Materials Division
SHELL REFINERY CLEAN FUELS PROJECT
CONDITION #j23 COMPLIANCE
DELAYED COKER UNIT
s*ss**.•*•*�**.�.*..*.**.***�«.«***.+s•*ss•sssrts*.,�*.*ss**s«ss*ss*tss*sss*ss
The Contra Costa County Health Services Departnent (CCCHSD) Hazardous Materials Risk
Management and Prevention Program team has completed pre-startup reviews for the Shell
Refinery's Delayed Coker Unit 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. Shell anticipates starting up the Delayed Coker Unit
during the last week of November or the first week of December of this year.
4333 Pad'ow Boulevard Uartmez,Caftomia 94553 • (510)646-2286
• / • Ifr
5=i�wtr:
NOV 1 41,9961 .
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ArP (CATION&PERMIT CENTER P.O.BOX 711
C Kwft 9450-W71
H OLOT
November 12, 1996
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 are submitting the operational noise measurements for the Heavy Gasoline
Hydrotreater(HGHT). These report is 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,
j. C
E.T. Swiesuz, Staff Engfileer
Environmental Affairs
Enclosure:
� a • �F
OPERATING NOISE MEASUREMENT REPORT
FOR
THE HEAVY GASOLINE HYDROTREATER UNIT
SHELL MARTINEZ MANUFACTURING COMPLEX
CLEAN FUELS PROJECT-BECHTEL JOB NO.22500
Report Prepared By: Date: Noise Measurement Made By: On:
2-1 &f.
1116,
Frank
/10 1�—p
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.
1 C.
SHELL MARTINEZ MANUFACTURING COMPLEX
CLEAN FUELS PROJECT-BECHTEL JOB NO.22500
OPERATING NOISE MEASUREMENT REPORT FOR
THE HEAVY GASOLINE HYDROTREATER UNIT(HGHT)
1. INTRODUCTION
Measurements of operating noise from the Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater Unit (H%M of the
Clean Fuels Project at Shell Martinez Refinery were made on 12 September 1996. The HGHT
includes the Vent Gas Treater (VGT) and the Caustic Regeneration (CR-2) Units. These are
small sub-units located on the west end of the overall Unit. The purpose of the noise
measurements was to demonstrate that the HGHT 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. These measurements show that the HGHT
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 LSp,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 HGHT Unit. All
measurements were made 5 feet above the grade of the HGHT Unit. Since the HGHT Unit is
relatively quiet and noise levels around the Unit were significantly affected by noise from
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. Measurements were made at the
following distances from the Equipment Perimeter:
Distance
from
Equipment
Side of Perimeter
Unit (feet) Comments
South 35 or 50 Much of the space to the south of the HGHT is occupied by trailers,
containers and other construction facilities. To obtain a clear line of
sight,measurements were made less than 100 feet to the south of the
Equipment Perimeter.
East 22 To reduce the effect of noise levels from the operating Clean Fuels
Units to the east and southeast, measurements were made consid-
erably less than I00,feet to the east of the Equipment Perimeter.
m:\asok\noiserep.HGH Page 1 of 5 October 29, 1996
V
L
North 40 To the north, Clean Fuels Units were under construction. Measure-
ments were made at the north edge of a pipe rack and less.than 100
feet from the Equipment Perimeter to avoid obstructions and to facili-
tate future measurements for these units.
West 100 The only nearby facility to the west is a pipe rack for the Clean Fuels
Project. Measurements were made under the pipe rack.
3. INSTRUMENTATION
The following instrumentation was used in making the noise measurements:
o Hewlett Packard 35694 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 HGHT was operating normally at new rated capacity. The Cracked Gasoline Depentanizer
(CGDP) was located to the southeast. The Isomerization Unit (ISOM), the Distillates
Hydrotreater Unit (DHT), and the Hydrogen Plant (IIP-3) are located to the east. The Delayed
Coker Unit (DCU) and Coke Barn are located to the north. To the west the only facility near the
HGHT was a pipe rack, which is part of the Clean Fuels Project. All of these adjacent Units
were operating normally during the measurements, except for the DCU and Coke Barn (under
construction during the measurements) and the DHT(construction was essentially complete, but
the unit was not yet operating). Construction activities where judged to have a negligible impact
on the measured noise levels.
5. MEASUREMENTS
Measurements of total noise levels during operation of the Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater Unit
were made on 12 September 1996 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 accor-
dance with the Protocol. The levels measured were recorded directly on the analyzer as an LSO.
Instruments were calibrated both before and after the measurements. Measurements were made
Friday night to minimize the effects of construction noise.
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.
m:lasoklnoiserep.HGH Page 2 of 5 October 29, 1996
l
7. RESULTS
Both the measured background and operational noise levels are given in Table 1. 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. While correction of data
for background levels is permitted in the Protocol, the data in Table 1 were not corrected for
background.
On the southeast, east, and northeast sides, noise from adjacent units significantly affected the
measured levels, and the levels from the HGHT Unit are significantly lower than those measured
(see Section 8). Construction noise was judged to have a negligible impact on the measured
levels.
S. CONCLUSION
On each of the four sides of the HGHT, the average noise levels from the plant meet the
County's noise performance standard of 77 dBA at 100 feet or less from the Equipment Perime-
ter and S feet above grade with the Unit operating normaly. This limit has been met at distances
of less than or equal to the required 100 feet on four sides. Even though the measured levels are
affected by noise from adjacent units,they are still low enough that 77 dBA limit is met.
m:lasoklnoiserep.HGH Page 3 of 5 October 29, 1996
0, q3
r
TABLE 1 Measured Operational Noise Levels for the Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater Unit
Side Distance Sound Pressure Level in dBA
Of From Measurement Measured Total Average Operational
Unit EP* Location Operational for Side
South 50 ft 1 70.6
2 70.5
3 72.4
4 732
5 72.1
6 77.6
Logarithmic Average 73.5
East 22 6 77.6
7 75.9
8 74.0
9 74.9
Logarithmic Average 75.8
North 40 ft. 9 74.9
10 74.1
11 762
12 76.9
15 77.5
16 68.6
Logarithmic Average 75.5
West 100 ft. 16 68.6
17 68.6
18 71.9
1 70.6
Logarithmic Average 70.2
i
* EP=Equipment Perimeter
m:\asoklnoiserep.HGH Page 4 of 5 October 2 9, 1996
7
asp... -_- f• - . ... .. - � .. - •- ^ L/"#
�.� W 'V
�r
_�� ..»..» .;»..»»»rte.. r »............... } t •tp ! C' ...»............... ...... ... t
:�fr � C � ?► � � Cf
%pill$ IN
•.�t w• j '
L 7 4+ rid
i r
! _-
IS I
N
I gate
# F1 �83 .4�
HH!
H!139 fir. •� +.• •• :}. ♦ aAA `'•.
Vt
It
' r` tl �..«..� •i errglj
; ,
ARK
ot
3 �i r•.aeat
i 'R i♦®��� � � "� ""_`_` '' a �.
A �
t;•.C� �� � +� ».......,...........�..»��+`rCai�a�itisIt »»»..�..».I..»..»..»» .. "�...-.
= I
.................
i =lip ip
rL
s �` �►1 ?
i rq ' t
All
�s l �
eHI