Environmental noise from energy industry facilities in Alberta, Canada, is regulated by the province's Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) (until 2008 known as the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board [EUB]) as set out in Directive 038: Noise Control. The 2007 edition of the directive, which comprises a comprehensive policy and guide, adopts A-weighted energy equivalent sound levels (LAeq), with sound pressure level criteria, as the primary measurement system for a receptor location. With the receptor being some distance from the energy industry noise source, the high and medium frequency components can dissipate or be absorbed by air and ground conditions, leaving mostly low frequency noise (LFN). Consequently, Aweighted measurements do not reflect the full annoyance potential of the remaining industrial noise. Complaints related to LFN are often described by the affected party as a deep, heavy sound, like "humming", sometimes with an accompanying vibration. In some cases, the direction of the source of the LFN will be unknown to the receptor. However, it is the complainant that is most able to detect the presence of the LFN, signifying a particular sensitivity of the individual to the sound while others in the same family may not be able to detect the sound at all. To make a proper determination for the presence of LFN, the data must be collected during a time when environmental conditions are representative of when the sound is annoying. Residents who are impacted by LFN may suffer from sleep disturbances, headaches, and in some cases chronic fatigue. This paper examines the work undertaken by the ERCB to understand the issue, the various metrics tested to easily identify LFN, and finally the approach that would be incorporated into the new 2007 edition of Directive 038: Noise Control to address the problem.

A significant challenge for Coal Bed Methane producers is dealing with the impacts of high density development needed to effectively recover the natural gas resource. One such concern is the need to meet regulatory requirements for environmental noise as stated in the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) Directive 038: Noise Control (ERCB Directive 038) and Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGC) Aesthetic& Noise Control Regulations, Series 800 (COGCC Noise Regulations). Anyone who has ever been involved in the process of complying with regulatory noise standards will agree that it is a complex and challenging task. Some regulated companies struggle through this process often dealing with unfamiliar considerations such as trying to predict facility noise levels before it is even built, or gambling on a best guess as to what is the right, least expensive amount of noise mitigation needed to meet regulatory requirements for environmental and occupational noise. Even the best of intentioned operators fail to hit the mark, sometimes by wide margins and end up with a situation that is potentially worse than when they started. No company wants to go through a process where in the end a lot of time, resources, and public confidence have been lost not to mention now being in a regulatory non-compliant status. This paper will elucidate valuable lessons & experience learned and case histories for the successful approach to noise solutions accepted by regulatory agencies and industry clients. In addition to discussing the complexities of acoustical engineering practices this presentation will also cover the most significant points of ERCB Directive 038 and COGCC Noise Regulations.

It is essential in today’s socio-economic environment that pipeline operators adopt and utilize a comprehensive approach to managing technical, environmental, economic and public safety risks associated with their business. Clearly, this type of approach to risk management would be integrated and include a variety of considerations. For example, one is the technical assessment of the level of safety or risk inherent within the system itself. Another, is the external view held of that system. While the physical system and its associated risk can be identified, evaluated and to some extent controlled, the external view of the risk, however, is an entirely different matter. Making important decisions about risk requires that both the external and internal views be in agreement. When this is not the case, an integrated management plan needs to include a risk communication component. Simply, risk communication is the purposeful exchange of information about the existence, nature, form, severity or acceptability of risks.1 An effective risk communication strategy will be able to gauge the political and social reaction to a project. If pipeline operators try to establish what a project’s acceptable level of risk is without a purposeful exchange of information with the community the effort will likely fail. The need to look at the “big picture” is paramount. All factors which affect the outcome of the project need to be understood and, in some way, contribute meaningfully to the final product. The most overlooked aspect in risk management is the qualitative assessment of “how does the public perceive the risk?”. Risk analysts use many basic technical assumptions in their risk assessments. They allow their training and faith in the science to be sufficient indicators of the real risk. The public, on the other hand, view risk from a completely different perspective and set of values. Consequently, when attempts are made to quantitatively determine “what is an acceptable level of risk” the outcome must be viewed as incomplete, lacking the critical external input. Experience suggests that the only ones who can truly determine what is an acceptable level of risk are those who must ultimately accept that risk. This is where the power of effective risk communication can play a significant role in the risk management process. While risk analysis can help in understanding the potential of a risk, effective risk communication and public outreach are necessary in understanding the perceptions and concerns of the community. It seems ironic that corporations dedicate tremendous resources deriving a mathematical estimate of risk that most in the community cannot comprehend much less believe what the numbers are supposed to tell them. This paper will help to explain the fundamentals of risk communication, its ethical use and methods for developing a strategy for outreach programs as part of an integrated risk management plan.

Today’s new pipeline projects have to meet countless technical, regulatory, economic, or social requirements before they can go from the drawing board to reality. One of the more recent considerations is in the area of environmental noise. Environmental noise from pipeline facilities is particularly difficult to control because of the complexities of sound propagation and the subjective nature of that sound relative to some receptor. The extent of noise control from facility equipment such as compressors, coolers, piping, valves, blowdown, emergency flares, even telephone horns, therefore, becomes very difficult to estimate. There must be some understanding of baseline expectations from all interested parties. In addition, pipeline operators must treat environmental noise control as an integral part of project concept and design and not as an afterthought or additional non-core responsibility. Environmental noise control is not an additional cost, it is part of the overall cost of the pipeline transportation business.