Laserfiche WebLink
12803301 <br /> 4. Discussion of Findings <br /> 4.1 Sound Level Monitoring <br /> Review of the findings and observations found the following: <br /> • Seven of the nine monitoring locations exceed the 70 dBA <br /> ' standard during one or both monitoring events. <br /> • When information was adjusted for noise originating from <br /> activities not related to the equipment inside the MRF, only <br /> locations N1 and N5 exceeded the 70 dBA standard. <br /> • Walls and earthen berms have been constructed around the site <br /> ' to reduce the amount of noise impacting the adjacent areas. <br /> Some of these structures are directly on or further out from the <br /> property lines. The San Joaquin County Development Title 17 <br /> states that the noise monitoring must be conducted on the <br /> property line, thus requiring locations N1 through N6 to be <br /> positioned within these walls and berms. Therefore, the <br /> attenuating effect of these structures on noise levels was not <br /> realized in the N1 thorough N6 monitoring results. <br /> • Noise levels at monitoring locations outside of the walls and <br /> berms were less than 70 dBA. The sound walls and berms <br /> would appear to be working as designed to reduce the noise <br /> outside of the site. <br /> 4.2 Particulate Sampling and Visual Observation <br /> The following was observed after review of the data and visual <br /> observations: <br /> • With the exception of one sample (location 4 collected on the first <br /> day of sampling), all results were greater than the California 24- <br /> hour PM10 standard. <br /> • All samples in the presumed upwind direction (locations 1 and 4 <br /> shown in Figure 2) were less than the concentration of the <br /> samples in the downwind direction. <br /> • Visible levels of dust were not observed migrating from the MRF. <br /> • During the second sampling event, visible dust was observed in <br /> the ambient air throughout the Lodi area. The source of this dust <br /> was most likely the strong winds on the day of the sampling <br /> ' entraining dust from the surround agricultural areas. This could <br /> be a possible explanation of why the PM10 results were higher <br /> ' Noise,Particulate,and Vibration Report WM-CVWS <br /> Project 128-03 Page 7 October 30,2002 <br />