My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03616
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3600
>
pf_03616
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 2:38:22 PM
Creation date
6/6/2006 3:59:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3616
Planning Files - Type
Interim Use Permit
Address
2880 WALNUT ST
Applicant
Shafer Contracting
Status
Approved
PIN
082923320001
Date Final City Council Action
12/28/2005
Planning Files - Resolution #
10281
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />December 23,2004 <br /> <br />Memo to: <br /> <br />The File <br /> <br />From: <br /> <br />Scott Spisak <br /> <br />Re: Pavement Recycle Crushing Noise Monitoring <br /> <br />On November 30,2004, we engaged American Engineering testing, Inc. (A.E.T.) to <br />perform noise monitoring ofIntex Corporation's crushing equipment that was recycling <br />pavement at our Johnson Pit at 12500 Rich Valley Blvd. In Rosemount. The monitoring <br />was perfoffi1ed on December 2, 2004. <br /> <br />There were no other operations being conducted on the property that day. Intex <br />equipment included a CAT 988F wheel loader, a jaw type primary cmsher, a cone type <br />secondary crusher with vibratory screens, a trailer enclosed diesel generator and several <br />belt conveyors to transfer material from the primary crusher, through the secondary <br />crusher and onto the stockpile. <br /> <br />The monitoring accounted for the "worst case", that being downwind from the secondary <br />crusher and generator with no obstructions or vegetation to mitigate the sound. <br /> <br />The test results (see report attached) indicate that under similar severe conditions we <br />would meet the MPCA Noise Classification Level 3 (Industrial & Manufacturing <br />Category) Daytime LI0 and L50 requirements at a distance of250 feet from the <br />operation. Using the MPCA's "A guide to Noise Control in Minnesota" for the same <br />conditions, we can estimate the decibel level at further distances. The test results indicate <br />that the crushing equipment behaves like a point source where doubling a given distance <br />from the source results in a 6 decibel drop in noise levels. <br /> <br />Using this method, we would meet the MPCA Noise Classification Level 2 (Retail, <br />Business, Parks category) between a distance of 600 and 800 feet from the operation. We <br />would meet the MPCA Noise Classification Levell (residential) requirements between <br />1000 and 1200 feet from the operation. <br /> <br />Of course few if any sites would have 600 to 1200 feet of clear, unimpeded sight line <br />distance in a downwind direction from this type of operation. Urban areas in particular, <br />would have obstructions such as buildings or stands of trees that would deflect, absorb or <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.