Laserfiche WebLink
12803301 <br /> on the second sampling day and why the upwind sample <br /> ' concentrations were in excess of the PM10 limits. <br /> Given the above observations, background concentrations of PM10 <br /> ' could be elevated, even above PM10 standards. Data from the <br /> California Air Resources Control Board web site (see <br /> http://www.arb.ca.gov) shows that this could be a possibility since this <br /> ' has occurred at other times of the year. Samples collected daily from <br /> the Stockton-Hazelton Street monitoring site show that PM10 values <br /> exceeded the standard ten times from July 2001 to August 2002. The <br /> ' values ranged from 52 to 97 4g/m3. Note: PM10 monitoring information <br /> is only available at this time through July 2002. <br /> If the upwind sample values are assumed to represent the ambient <br /> PM10 concentration, they could be subtracted from the downwind <br /> values. With one exception, sample results from locations 2 and 3 <br /> (downwind sample locations) met the PM10 standard if corrected for <br /> upwind values. <br /> 4.3 Vibration Monitoring <br /> ' Evaluation of the data and observations made during the monitoring <br /> found the following: <br /> ' • The vibration requirements were only exceed during five events. <br /> This was a small number of events given that the site was <br /> ' monitored for a total of two days. <br /> • Three of these five events occurred during the time the MRF was <br /> operating. Therefore it is known that two of the events were not <br /> associated with MRF operations. The source of these events <br /> could also be the cause of the three vibration events occurring <br /> during MRF operations rather than the MRF being the source. <br /> • There did not appear to be a pattern to the events. If the <br /> equipment in the MRF were the source of vibration, it would be <br /> 1 expected that there might be a pattern to the vibration events <br /> caused by the periodic motion of the equipment. <br /> • The type of equipment in the MRF consisted mainly of conveyor <br /> belts, rollers, star wheel shredders, and other low speed rotating <br /> equipment. Vibration is not inherently associated with rotating <br /> equipment when it is in good working order as would be expected <br /> for this equipment since it new. <br /> • Activities in the MRF did not consist of dropping heavy objects on <br /> ' to the working surfaces or other activities that might create <br /> vibrations. <br /> ' Noise,Particulate,and Vibration Report WM-CVWS <br /> Project 128-03 Page 8 October 30,2002 <br />