ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
29, 1990
SHELL OIL COMPANY,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 88—188
(Variance)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.D. Dumelle):
This matter comes before the Board on Shell Oil Company’s
(“Shell”) petition for
a noise variance seeking relief from
35
Ill. Adm.
Code Sections 901.102(a)
and 901.103.
This petition
was originally
filed on November
16, 1988,
but the decision date
was waived several times by the Petitioner.
Shell subsequently
filed an amended variance petition on April
13,
1990.
Hearing
was held
in Alton, Madison County, on September
18,
1990.
The
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”)
filed
its
recommendation that the variance be granted subject
to certain
conditions on November
1,
1990.
Shell filed
its response on
November
13, 1990.
BACKGROUND
The Shell facility
is located
in Roxana,
Illinois and is the
largest refinery in the State.
The facility processes crude oil
into propane motor gasolines, aviation fuels, diesel and heating
oils, lubricating oils, heavy fuel oil
and asphalt.
In doing so
the manufacturing process
includes over 250 pieces of heavy
equipment including heaters,
boilers, cooling water
tower
fans,
air coolers, process compressors and other
industrial
equipment.
The facility also contains approximately 2,000
motors,
2,500 pumps and 10,000 control valves
(R.
2).
The
combination of these processes result
in a great deal
of noise.
Noise
is also generated by the transport
of. fluids, especially
where the pressure
is rapidly changing
(R.
23).
This occurs
primarily at the control valves where steam and air are
inspirated or
vented in order
to produce a certain end—product.
The location of
this large industrial complex
is directly
across the street from the residential neighborhood of South
Roxana,
leaving only the width of
the street between the noise
source and the impacted community.
As
a result of this
situation,
Mr. Gregory Zak, Noise Technical Advisor for the
Agency,
testified that he has received “more complaints directed
at the Shell
facility than all other facilities
in the state”
(R.
116—227
—2—
161).
Mr. Joseph Brewster, Manager
of Environmental Conservation
for Shell, testified that the company had received
31
comolaints
in 1989
(R.
56) and 89 complaints from January until September
18,
in
1990
(R.
57).
Shell maintains that all of these noise
complaints came from just nine households.
(Pet.
Brief pg.
8)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
To date,
Shell has received two variances in regards to
noise excursions from its Wood River facility.
In PCB 77—306,
the Board found
that the nature of Shell’s operation in
conjunction with its location made it virtually impossible
for
the facility to secure compliance within the short
term.
(See
also R72—2,
Opinion and Order Pg.
24, July
31,
1973).
Shell
pursued another variance
in PCB 83—24.
In this case the Board
granted the variance, but noted that the situation was so complex
that site specific relief may be warranted.
Although Shell
was
found to be retrofitting its facility with noise abatement as a
significant consideration, because of the size of the site in
addition
to the proximity of the adjacent community,
the Board
found
that compliance may be
“years away”.
(PCB 83—24 at pg.
3).
In the amended petition filed
in the instant case,
however,
Shell asserts
that
it can come into compliance with the
applicable noise regulations by December
21,
1991.
In
1988,
Shell hired Mr. George Kamperman,
P.E.
a noise expert,
to inspect
its facility and recommend a compliance plan.
Shell has already
implemented some of Mr. Kamperman’s suggestions and has submitted
its compliance plan
(Pet.
Ex.
10).
This plan will be
incorporated
in
the Order section of this Opinion.
Mr. Kamperman
testified that
if
Shell undertook
these specific changes,
it
was
his belief that the facility would conform to the regulations
set
forth
in
35 Iii.
Adm. Code 901.102(a) and 901.103.
(R.
90,
See
also Pet.
Ex.
6).
Shell estimates these
costs to be $5,600,000.
(R.
36, 38).
Mr. Kamperman also stated that
if Shell did not
conform to
the standards after the completion of these three
projects, further evaluation would
take place.
(R.
91).
DISCUSSION
Testimony at hearing revealed that
for Shell to comport with
the state noise regulations,
it
would have
to shut down at least
a part,
if not the entire facility.
Thus the Board
finds that
for Shell to immediately meet the applicable noise regulation
given its existing processes would be an unreasonable or
arbitrary hardship.
At the same time however, the Board notes
that Shell has made an effort to formulate a viable plan
to
reduce
its noise pollution.
The initiation of its Environmental
Division, under the direction of
Mr.
Brewster, indicates Shell’s
good faith in terms
of community relations as well as its efforts
to comply with State regulations.
This
is also manifested by the
work of Mr. Kamperman
who,
in tandem
with
the Betchel
116—228
—3—
Corporation,
is attempting
to formulate a plan whereby Shell can
co-exist with the surrounding community.
One problem with the figures provided by Shell
remains that
the Board
is unable to distinguish how much is being
spent
to
reduce noise pollution as opposed to how much would be spent
anyway as
a result of normal retrofitting costs.
Part of this
is
understandable in that when rebuilding
a complicated
manufacturing process,
costs become overlapping.
Put another
way, where a company can easily document the cost between two
compressors, when that compressor
is one of twenty interrelated
parts, options become limited and costs intertwine.
(R.
at 136).
More important than the costs, however,
is the result.
At
hearing,
for example,
ten citizens were present, seven of whom
testified.
Taken
as a whole,
a pattern emerged whereby residents
complained
that extreme noise comes
in intervals of anywhere from
two to four days.
(R.
177,
193,
201—02).
There was also
testimony that because of
the noise coming from the facility,
doors and windows must be shut, people did not go outside,
housing values were reduced, etc.
(R.
175—206).
In spite of
the
fact that there was testimony indicating that
the noise levels
present
in South Roxana were not severe enough to cause
a loss of
hearing,
the Board finds that other,
long term environmental
effects are a distinct possibility.
If one cannot enjoy one’s
backyard
or
is forced to
take medication in order
to sleep,
these
are undoubtedly environmental effects.
(See
Ill. Rev.
Stat.
Chap.
111—1/2, Section 1023).
The Board does not view these
allegations as proven, but merely notes
these are deep concerns
which should be alleviated by Shell’s compliance plan.
Accordingly,
the Board will add
a condition whereby Shell ~ill be
required to seek regular input from the affected citizens.~ In
this way,
the Agency will possess some documentary evidence by
which
it can evaluate the concerns of the affected community
should Shell feel compelled to petition for any further relief.2
Aside from the conditions which the Agency and Shell have
essentially agreed upon,
the Agency has petitioned the Board to
impose further requirements upon the company.
Specifically, the
Agency requests
that Shell
be precluded from using its intercom
1This will not pose an undue burden as Shell has expressed a
willingness
to engage its affected neighbors.
(Pet.
Ex.
#10).
Moreover, Shell has represented
that the affected area
is
“believed to contain less than
50 homes.”
(R.
33, Pet. Ex.
5).
2Forrest and Doris Dhue were citizens present
at
the hearing
and played
a recorded tape.
They submitted this to the Board,
but
it
was unable
to consider
it for
evidentiary reasons.
Put
another way, the Board is prevented from considering tape
recordings which are not scientifically calibrated.
1L—229
—4—
system absent an emergency.
Moreover,
the Agency suggests that
evergreen trees be planted
in the buffer zone between the
facility and the resj~dentia1 community.
Insofar as the intercom
system is concerned,’ Shell’s reply
brief has demonstrated its
necessity.
While Shell does employ a pager system
in addition to
its intercom,
the latter controls the entire facility whereas the
former
is used within certain control units.
Moreover,
Shell has
realigned the speakers so that they face away from South
Roxana.
In short,
the Board finds that the complexity of Shell’s
operation at the Wood River facility and the safety concerns
inherent in such an operation require that Shell’s discretionary
use of the intercom system not be
curtailed.
In regards to a buffer zone consisting
of trees, the Board
is reluctant
to impose such a condition at this late date.
Had
Shell or
the Agency implemented such
a program in the early
1970’s the problem might
not be so severe today.
Yet Shell has
embarked on a program which commits
to the revamping
of three
major noise sources at an estimated cost of $5,600,000.
To
concurrently require the company to install
a buffer zone would
not be appropriate
in
this case,
especially when Mr. Kamperman
has projected minimal results
relative to the entire situation.
(See Attachment
1,
Pet. Reply Brief, November
13,
1990).
Accordingl~,the Board will undertake neither of the Agency’s
late—filed
suggestions.
Another important issue raised
in this proceeding was the
difficulty of obtaining
a one hour
t’Leq” value as required by the
Board
in General Motors Corporation (Proposed Amendments
to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 900.103 and 901.104, January
22,
1987).
Both Mr.
Kamperman and Mr.
Zak testified as to the difficulties
in
securing a valid measurement of
the noise from the plant during
the daytime.
Normal everyday sounds such as sirens,
insects,
railroads,
road traffic,
etc. undermine the accuracy of measuring
the sounds from the plant.
In addition to this,
there was some
concern by the Agency that
it should be notified
48 hours in
advance of any testing.
Because there was unrebutted testimony that the plant
operates at
the same level
24 hours per day, the Board sees no
reason why testing cannot occur at night when extraneous sounds
are limited.
The Board notes,
however,
that all of
the data
considered
in the instant case has been put forth by the
Petitioner.
While the Board accepts the data supplied by Shell,
it notes
that
it would be advantageous
if
some independent
3Between 1985 and 1989,
Shell
received three complaints
regarding intercom noise.
(Respondent’s Reply Brief
at
3).
4Shell’s Reply Brief correctly notes that the Agency’s
filing did not comport
with
the Hearing Officer’s Order.
116—230
—5—
evidence had been supplied by the Agency.
Because Shell’s
~
River facility
is the largest generator of noise complaints
within the State,
it
is not unreasonable
to expect that insuring
the reduction of pollution from this source would be a high
priority.
In other words,
even th~ughShell will be required to
conduct quarterly tests,
the Agency
is free to obtain data
anytime in the future and
is encouraged to do so.
CONCLUSION
After
three variances in a thirteen year period,
the Board
accepts Shell’s compliance date of December
21,
1991.
To do
otherwise (i.e.,
force immediate compliance) would subject the
company to an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
The Board also
accepts Shell’s compliance plan, but will make some additions to
reflect the concerns of the adjacent community,
the Agency and
the Board
itself.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s finding
of
facts and
conclusions
of law in this matter.
ORDER
Shell Oil Company’s Wood River facility
is hereby granted a
variance from 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 901.102(a) and 901.103 beginning
March 21,
1989.
This variance expires on December
21,
1991.
1.
Shell Oil Company shall
complete the following noise
abatement projects
by December
21,
1991:
PROJECT NO.
1
PROCESS
NOISE
NOISE ABATEMENT
UNIT
SOURCE
CR—l
H—l Burners
Replace
12 burners,
air plenum,
inlet air duct,
and inlet air damper
H—2 Burners
Replace
12 burners,
air plenum,
inlet air duct, and inlet air damper
H—3 Burners
Replace
6 burners,
air plenum,
inlet
air duct, and inlet air damper
H—4 Burners
Install inlet air duct silencer
H—5 Burners
Install inlet
air duct silencer
H—7 Burners
Install inlet
air duct silencer
DHT
Heater
Replace
6 burners and air plenum,
Burners
install inlet
air duct and air
flow
controls
HCU
H—l Burners
Replace
16 burners,
air plenum,
inlet air duct, and inlet air damper
116—231
—6—
H—2 Burners
Replace
16 burners, air plenum,
inlet air duct,
and inlet air
dampler
H—3 Burners
Install an air inlet duct silencer
KHT
Heater
Replace 32 burner fuel orifices and
Burners
add air silencing mufflers
to 32
burners
PROJECT NO.
2
PROCESS
NOISE
NOISE ABATEMENT
UNIT
SOURCE
CR—3
ID Fan
Install outlet duct silencer,
replace
fan,
replace seals on APH
H—2 Burners
Restart air preheat system when ID
fan noise controls installed
H—4 Burners
Restart air preheat system when
ID
fan noise controls installed
H—5 Burners
Restart air preheat system when ID
fan noise controls installed
H—6 Burners
Restart air preheat system when
ID
fan noise controls installed
PROJECT NO.
3
PROCESS
NOISE
NOISE ABATEMENT
UNIT
SOURCE
HDU—2
H—l Burners
Restart air preheat system
As the engineering specifications of these projects are
finalized,
Shell will submit the information with its quarterly
progress reports required under condition No.
2.
2.
Shell Oil Company shall prepare and submit quarterly progress
reports on implementation of the Compliance plan in Condition
No.
1.
These
reports will
be submitted
in the month
following the end of each calendar quarter.
The first
quarterly report will
be
for
the fourth quarter of 1990.
The
reports will be submitted as follows
to:
1)
the General
Counsel,
2)
the Manager
of the Division of Land Pollution
Control, and
3)
the Noise Technical Advisor.
These persons
are all at the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
2200
Churchill Road,
P.O. Box 19276,
Springfield,
Illinois
62794—
9276.
3.
Shell Oil Company shall maintain documentation for
items
involved in the noise control projects
in Condition No.
1 of
this variance
in
conformance with its internal procedures.
116—232
—7—
These internal procedures are described in the document dated
July,
1985,
and titled ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-
NOISE or
otherwise known as Section
24 of its Engineering Guides and
General Specifications
(EGGS).
Shell will supply IEPA with
copies of the relevant portions of any written
internal
policies throughout the pendency of this variance which
change the noise policies expressed
in their EGGS relating
to
documentation and are applicable
to the Wood River
Manufacturing Complex.
Shell shall also submit documentation
required by these EGGS with the quarterly progress reports
required in Condition No.
2.
If Shell
so requests, and the
Board approves, this information will
be held as
CONFIDENTIAL.
4.
Shell Oil Company shall submit AUTHORITY FOR EXPENDITURE
(AFE)
documents and their attachments with the quarterly
progress reports required
in Condition No.
2 for noise
control projects approved after September
1,
1990.
Shell
shall also submit vendor brochures and data on noise control
equipment installed as a part
of these projects.
If Shell so
requests, and the Board approves, this information will
be
held as CONFIDENTIAL.
5.
Shell Oil Company shall take noise measurements
in South
Roxana at least once during each quarter starting
the fourth
calendar quarter of 1990.
The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency shall be notified at
least 48 hours
in
advance of any testing.
These measurements shall be made
in
the vicinity of Madison and Southard Streets,
and
in the
vicinity of Park and Melrose Streets.
The measurements shall
include one—hour Leq results
in accordance
with
Board
Procedures at
35
Ill. Adm. Code Section 900.103.
Measurements shall
be made between 10:00
p.m.
to 5:00 a.m.
at
each location.
Shell
shall also attempt
to describe
background noise levels and to describe identifiable noises
deriving from exempt sources and sources other
than Shell
during
the one—hour measurement periods.
Shell
shall also
measure a one—minute Leq during the one—hour periods.
Shell
shall submit all
of these measurements with each quarterly
report required
in Condition No.
2.
Shell shall also submit
with each quarterly report any other
no.ise reports generated
regarding the facility relevant
to this variance.
6.
Shell shall design a questionnaire, which shall be approved
by the Agency,
to be sent to the affected households
in
South
Roxana identified
in Petitioner’s Exhibit
#5.
Shell
shall be
required
to do this
in four month intervals during the course
of the variance.
The results of this survey shall be
submitted in the appropriate quarterly report to the Agency
as required in condition
2.
Included
in this questionnaire
shall be questions pertaining
to patterns, duration,
loudness, dates and times of noise levels which preclude the
116—233
—8—
affected households of normal living patterns.
The
questionnaire shall include questions which address whether
these affected households have experienced
a reduction
in
noise pollution.
Shell
shall also provide space
for
a
narrative statement for other factors not anticipated here.
7.
Within 45 days
of the date of the Board’s Order,
Petitioner
shall execute a Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement which
shall be sent to Gregory Zak at the address
indicated
pursuant
to condition
2.
This variance shall
be void if Petitioner fails
to execute
and forward the certificate within the forty—five day
period.
The forty—five day period shall be held in abeyance
during any period that this matter
is being appealed.
The
form of said Certification shall
be as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I.
(We),
Shell Oil Company, having read the Order of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board,
in PCB 88—188, dated November
29,
1990, understand and accept the said Order,
realizing that
such acceptance renders all terms and conditions thereto binding
and enforceable.
Petitioner
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
Section 41
of the Environmental Protection Act, Ill.
Rev.
State.
1985 ch.
111—1/2 par.
1041, provides for appeal
of final
Orders of the Baord within
35 days.
The Rules of
the Supreme
Court of
Illinois establish filing requirements.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy
14.
Gunn, Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board hereby~~rtifythat th
above Opinion and Order was adopted
on the
~
day of
___________________
,
1990 by a vote
of
—0
.
Dorothy M.
9/inn, Clerk
Illinois P&lution Control Board
.1
1 6—23
4