ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 21, 1984
SHELL OIL COMPANY,
)
Petitioner,
V.
)
PCB 83—24
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by ~J.D.
Dumelle):
On February 28
1983,
Shell Oil Company (SheU)
filed a
petition for variance from 35
Ii..
Adm. Code 901.102(a)
and
901.103
(old Rules 202 and 204 of Chapter 8) Noise Pollution,
for
noise emissions from its petroleum refinery located in Wood River
Township in Madison County.
The Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (Agency)
filed a Recommendation that variance be granted
subject to certain conditions on May 11, 1983.
Shell responded
to that recommendation on May 18,
1983 and
the Agency amended its
recommendation, altering two of the conditions on February 3,
1984.
Shell responded again, indicating agreement with the
recommendation and waiving hearing on February 27,
1984.
No
hearing has
been
held in this matter.
Shell owns and operates a petroleum refining complex, with a
crude oil processing capacity of 295,000 barrels per operating
day.
Crude oil
is supplied from fields in various states,
including Louisiana,
Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico,
as well as Middle Eastern and other foreign countries. Refined
oil products are principally propane, motor gasolines, aviation
fuels, diesel and heating oils, lubricating oils, heavy fuel oil
and asphalt.
Sections 901.102(a)
and 901.103 were adopted by the Board on
July 26, 1973.
Shell filed a petition for variance with respect
to those noise limitations on November 28,
1977, and was granted
a
five year variance on May 25, 1978
(see PCB 77—306,
30 PCB
289).
The Board
found that Shell had made a good faith attempt
to comply with the Noise Regulations and approved a compliance
plan which required reducing the noise emissions from six process
heaters, evaluating the costs
and
benefits of reducing the noise
emissions from
a seventh process heater, and semi—annual
reporting on progress towards these objectives.
Shell has
fulfilled all the requirements of the compliance plan.
57-161
2
At the time of the granting of the variance in 1978,
Shell
believed that silencing of three major noise sources would sign!—
ficantly reduce the noise levels in the surrounding community.
These sources are the process heaters of the Catalytic
Reformer
Number Three
(CR-3), the Hydrodesulfurizer Unit Number Two (HDU—2)
and the Catalytic Reformer Number
Two
(CR-2).
pursuant to the Board’s Order,
Petitioner filed semi—annual
reports with the Agency detailing progress under the compliance
plan.
In the fourth semi—annual report dated
May
13, 1980,
Shell
demonstrated that the multiple—source background noise in the
refinery had more of an impact than predicted by the point source
computer model used to calculate the effect of silencing the
major noise sources.
The predicted improvements in the community
noise levels from silencing the CR—3/HDU—2 heaters did not mater-
ialize as those improvements simply unmasked the multiple—source
background noise problem.
The actual noise surveys showed only
marginal improvement in the noise levels in South Roxana.
In response to the inadequacies in the first model, Shell
developed a second model to predict noise emissions into the
South Roxana area based on contour areas within the refinery
rather than specific sources as was the case with the first
model.
This second model confirms that noise penetration into
South
Roxana is a result of
multi—source,
general background
noise.
Shell argues that silencing the multitude of background
sources is economically and technically infeasible.
To achieve a
real reduction in noise levels would require application of the
state-of—the—art noise control technology to almost all of the
background sources in the refinery estimated to number approxi-
mately 140 air cooler fans,
18 cooling water towers, 48 compres-
sors,
71. process heaters and boilers,
2,000 motors, 2,500 pumps,
10,000 control valves and almost 300 miles of piping which can
transmit noise.
Shell estimates that approximately 75.0 million 1983 dollars
would be required to apply state-of—the—art noise control tech-
nology to all of these components, and believes that the best
manner in which Shell can reduce its noise emission in South
Roxana to achieve compliance is the employment of state—of—the—art
noise technology in the course of normal recapitalization (replac-
ing or modifying existing equipment).
Even then, compliance with
the present noise limitations may be years away.
The sound levels emitted by the refinery are continuous and
nearly steady through the entire day, changing slightly with
local meteorology and plant operating conditions.
One analysis
tool for determining the effects of this noise on people is the
energy equivalent sound level, Leq, which gives an average value
for a changing sound level.
The United States Environmental
57-162
3
Protection Agency has identified an Leq of 70 dB at residential
property as adequate to protect against hearing loss.
Currently,
there appears to be a limited land area exterior to the Shell
plant affected by an Leq of 61 dB, and, therefore,
no hearing
damage
is expected due to refinery noise.
This data, coupled with the fact that only one complaint has
been
received during the last two years regarding noise emissions
resulting from the operation of the facility, leads the Board to
find that the adverse environmental impact of granting variance
is not great and clearly does not outweigh the huge cost of
compliance.
The Board,
therefore, concludes that denial of
variance would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
Shell’s difficulty in attaining compliance with the appli-
cable noise limitations has been recognized ever since those
rules were first adopted on July 26, 1973 in R72—2.
In its
Opinion in support of the adoption of those rules, the Board
stat.ed that “Shell’s situation is unique
in that not only is it a
very large refinery,
but
it
abuts the residential community of
South Roxana, allowing only the width of a street for noise
attenuation.
Rather than basing a regulation on this unique
situation,
this could be handled in
a variance proceeding”
(8 PCB
726).
However, the propriety of granting the present variance is
not nearly as clear as it was when the rules were adopted or when
the previous variance was granted in PCB 77—306.
In the past
Shell,
the Agency and the Board concluded that compliance with
the present rules was attainable within a five year term of
variance.
That no longer appears
to be the case since the con-
trol program which was expected to result in compliance has
proven ineffective, and compliance is now “years away.”
In fact,
the record fails to demonstrate that compliance will ever be
attained.
While the Board will grant this variance based upon the
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship and the good faith attempts
toward compliance,
the Board notes that site—specific regulatory
relief may be more appropriate than additional variance exten-
sions.
Conditions,
upon which both Shell and the Agency have
agreed,
will be imposed on the variance to assure that all reason-
able steps toward compliance will be taken.
This
Opinion
constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
Shell
Oil Company is hereby granted variance from 35 Ill.
Mm. Code 901.102(a) and 901.103 as they apply to its petroleum
refinery located in Wood River Township in Madison County, sub-
ject to the following conditions:
4
1~O
4
1.
This variance shall terminate March 21,
1989;
2.
Shell shall continue to employ state—of—the—art noise
technology in the course of normal recapitalization
through replacing or modifying existing equipment;
3.
Shell
shall report yearly to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (Agency) describing the progress of
normal recapitalization.
Such report shall
include a
listing of such activity by Shell,
including an equip-
ment description and projects costs.
Shell
shall also
submit to the Agency its engineering guidelines and
specifications relative to specific procedures and
requirements for considering and limiting noise emis-
sions in all new installations of noise generation
equipment, including but not limited to, motors, pumps,
fans and furnaces.
4.
Shell shall employ state—of-the—art noise technology on
all new equipment processes and facilities installed at
its Wood River refinery.
In no event may the sound
emitted from any new equipment process,
or facility,
if
taken alone, exceed the limitations of 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
901.102(a) and
(b)
of any Class A Land Use or
Section 901.103 of any Class B Land Use.
5.
Within
45 days of the date of this Order,
Shell Oil
Company shall execute a Certificate of Acceptance and
Agreement to be bound to all terms and conditions of
the variance.
Said Certification shall be submitted to
the Agency at 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,
Illinois 62706.
The forty—five day period shall
be
held in abeyance during any period that this matter is
being appealed.
The form of the certificate
shall he
as follows:
CERTIFCATE
I,
(We),
,
having
read the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in
PCB 83-24, dated March 21,
1984, understand and accept said Order,
realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and conditions
thereto binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
57-164
5
IT IS
SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
was adopted on the
~l
day of
/?)ILt.4AL)
,
1984 by a
vote of
~‘
Christan
L.
Mof~é~t,Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
57-165