Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L98-0011 - US WEST WIRELESS - CONDITIONAL USE
L98 -0011 US WEST WIRELESS CONDITIONAL USE So. 109t" St. & Beacon Ave. So. (CUP) A F F I D A V I T Needy &di 0 Notice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting Board of Packet O Board of Packet Adjustment Agenda Appeals Agenda fl Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on -f ��---�� O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: 0 Determination of Non - significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action E] Official Notice 54/ther t Other . Name of .Project US 5-f e n'Im. Signature 'File. Number l--% 0(:) 1 1 rrn,.. rn,,,u • ,. ..s- met7r■✓tP. '!*-,; :'szY,2��,:i'1 v'« =r�A`.�ii';??1 »i:''w.'•�`;P�2 s"OiL^nwne,.. ._ ....._...._...:...,,w...w:..... z re 2 6 JU; U0' CO cn w: w= —I I—, w0 g Q' = w' zF-. _; �.; 1-0 w UCO W 1 U' Z; z CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT MAA.,.,INGS ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. ( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( ) K.C. WATER POLLUTION CNTRL SEPA OFFCL ( ) S CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARIES ( ) RENTON LIBRARY ( ) KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( U S WEST SEATTLE CITY LIGHT WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT TCI CABLEVISION OLYMPIC PIPELINE KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( ) PUBLIC WORKS ( ) POLICE PLANNING PARKS & REC. ( ) CITY CLERK ( ) FIRE ( ) FINANCE ( ) BUILDING ( ) MAYOR ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( ) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE ( ) DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE ( ) VALLEY DAILY NEWS 12/24/97 C:WP51DATA \CHKLIST Kv.,6k auun\J y '-�= '�i:':- ?':;w ?�:�'�a?•�E�i �,.v.�i %x *1rk;�.al: ;*�':u.'.,;�izW':f n7jf " ��. iS. t{ tsi� ;'+i�rtid:a.Y`a's4i�.iL�CiSia:`. ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. 4(- �) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIV Y� DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL * SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS ( ) HEALTH DEPT ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE ( ) K.C.DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ( ) SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT #20 WATER DISTRICT #125 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS RAINIER VISTA SKYWAY CITY AGENCIES ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT ( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER ( ) SEATTLE OFFICE OF MGMNT & PLANNING* * NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV. OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE A ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES 94 SEATTLE TIMES z-beb50e__ Lc‘ce -nip tsar . WRit ;: Z z. . W R' U O' • N 0. •W =. N wo J: u_ 4t: • = W I— o' Z H. W W` • 2.D: D 0• O N`. W W ; - o Z• =' z ' r PARTIES OF RECORD L98-0011 v John W. Merriam 506 Second Avenue, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98104 Harry and Maida Miller 10901 51st Avenue South, Apt A. Seattle, WA 98178 coLOt —Re)oec c.o. icL w•A- V0,4c, l‘ac () Uve_s+ 450 ■.\.0-6 t Qnr\ Per6le,u oL ct,o04- Ncs-I-- Cowy), Po [30)( WP\ r,. .1; : ;.• 14ri City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF DECISION April 24, 1998 To: US West Communications, Applicant Rebecca Slick, W &H Pacific, Inc. King County Assessor, Accounting Division State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division Parties of Record This notice is to confirm the decision reached by the Planning Commission at the April 23, 1998 public hearing. The Commission voted to approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit based on the findings and conclusions in the staff report dated April 9, 1998. This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approvals. File Number: L98 -0011 Conditional Use Permit Associated Files: N/A Applicant: U.S. West Communications Request: Approval for installation of Personal Communications Services (PCS) antennae on an existing 127' Seattle City Light transmission tower. Up to 9 antennae will be installed near the top of the tower but will not exceed the 127' height. Associated ground- mounted operating equipment will be installed in cabinets near the tower base. Location: South 109th Street and Beacon Avenue South SEPA Determination: Exempt Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at: Tukwila Department of Community Development; 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100; Tukwila, WA 98188 Monday through Friday; 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. The planner managing the project is Deborah Ritter, who may be contacted at 431 -3670 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 w,. iTYt' S t'lu;isi ' �•4�lWeO.Y1 4347: . 2 �Z. • 'r: 0 0' O o' w =- J H. w • .ua'. co d'. 1- _. z .. • .F-0 Z �. w. 0 N: :0 ww - • - LI0: • wz CO 0 Notice of Decision April 24, 1998 Page 2 The time period for appeals is 14 days starting from the date of this Notice of Decision, April 24, 1998. The Planning Commission decision is appealable to the Tukwila City Council pursuant to TMC 18.104.010(E). Appeal materials shall contain: 1.. The name of the appealing party. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision. The Notice of Appeal shall state specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. The public notice sign must be removed from the site by the applicant after the appeal period has expired, unless an appeal is filed with the City. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mt Department of Community Development STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION PREPARED APRIL 9, 1998 HEARING DATE: April 23, 1998 Steve Lancaster, Dire NOTIFICATION: Staff posted and mailed Notice of Application to surrounding properties on March 24, 1998. Notice of Hearing was posted and mailed to surrounding properties on April 9, 1998. Notice of Hearing published in Seattle Times on April 9, 1998. FILE NUMBER: L98 -0011 (Conditional Use Permit) APPLICANT: U.S. West Communications OWNER: Seattle City Light REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit approval for installation of Personal Communications Services (PCS) antennae, on an existing 127' Seattle City Light transmission tower. Up to nine antennae will be installed near the top of the tower but will not exceed the 127' height. Associated ground mounted operating equipment will be installed in cabinets near the tower base. LOCATION: ASSOCIATED PERMITS: South 109th Street and Beacon Avenue South Development Permit SEPA DETERMINATION: Exempt COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (LDR) ZONE DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (LDR) STAFF: Deborah Ritter ATTACHMENTS: A. Plan Sheets: Site Plan (SheetT -1) Existing Site Survey (Sheet C -1) Enlarged Site Plan (Sheet A -1) Exterior Elevations (Sheet A -2) B. Applicant's Conditional Use Project Narrative C. Photosimulations of development D. Letter from Seattle City Light dated March 25, 1998 E. Letter from BRC Acoustics dated April 2, 1998 F. Letter from Harry and Maida Miller G. Letter from John Merriam H. Letter from W &H Pacific dated April 8, 1998 Documentation regarding Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 fig- ,., . �.. -. •••. •••• ) SbRtla1£ S= YL �S: �RK�' RI�iKe! A%' AM4!! R. v !h."i1!'!!SQ➢!Ik!:Nh�kRenenwnac . atwxrcwr�vys .v.�tc�RklR}A, ^.'.Yti.�- MCS MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD. ATTENTION The next image may be a duplicate of the previous image. 1J Please disregard previous image. Please disregard previous 2 images. Please disregard previous 3 images. fl Other: City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION PREPARED APRIL 9, 1998 HEARING DATE: April 23, 1998 Steve Lancaster, Director NOTIFICATION: Staff posted and mailed Notice of Application to surrounding properties on March 24, 1998. Notice of Hearing was posted and mailed to surrounding properties on April 9, 1998. Notice of Hearing published in Seattle Times on April 9, 1998. FILE NUMBER: L98 -0011 (Conditional Use Permit) APPLICANT: U.S. West Communications OWNER: Seattle City Light REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit approval for installation of Personal Communications Services (PCS) antennae, on an existing 127' Seattle City Light transmission tower. Up to nine antennae will be installed near the top of the tower but will not exceed the 127' height. Associated ground mounted operating equipment will be installed in cabinets near the tower base. LOCATION: South 109th Street and Beacon Avenue South ASSOCIATED PERMITS: Development Permit SEPA DETERMINATION: Exempt COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (LDR) ZONE DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (LDR) STAFF: Deborah Ritter ATTACHMENTS: A. Plan Sheets: Site Plan (Sheet T -1) Existing Site Survey (Sheet C -1) Enlarged Site Plan (Sheet A -1) Exterior Elevations (Sheet A -2) B. Applicant's Conditional Use Project Narrative C. Photosimulations of development D. Letter from Seattle City Light dated March 25, 1998 E. Letter from BRC Acoustics dated April 2, 1998 F. Letter from Harry and Maida Miller G. Letter from John Merriam H. Letter from W &H Pacific dated April 8, 1998 Documentation regarding Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 . x ;: `': }!�N' ;` •'... 4 '41 ,ii:),,b1104T. Gti'oY'�t'is{'a'a."4.�ii`S z 1---w re 2 6 � J0: 00: rn�- cnw WI. J H: LL W 0. ,= Z I- a Z 0 ca. .0 0 -' W W' F-- u' 4.. z: LIJ 0- 0H. z Staff Report to the Planning Commission L98 -0011 US West PCS Tower S. 109th St. and Beacon Avenue S. FINDINGS Vicinity /Site Information z Project Description ~ w O. U O' w =. —1 Associated operating equipment will initially be installed at the base of the transmission tower on a 2 6 foot by 6 -1/2 foot concrete pad. The operating equipment will be housed in two cabinets affixed g Q• to the concrete pad. These self- contained cabinets are approximately 5 feet tall. An additional co concrete pad measuring 4 feet by 6 -1/2 feet will be installed adjacent to this pad (at a later date) to = w accommodate two additional cabinets. An additional, adjacent 3 -1/2 foot by 2 -1/2 foot pad Z H containing emergency power equipment will also be installed at a later date. All of this equipment ; O will be enclosed by a gated and locked 6 foot tall chain link fence (enclosing an area measuring 11 z feet by 21 feet) which will be accessed by a locked gate and equipped with privacy slats. j w Existing Development o The site is currently in use as a Seattle City Light Utility right -of -way. = vI Surrounding Land Uses Li-- z U� 0 The applicant is requesting Conditional Use permit approval to install a Personal Communication Services (PCS) base station on an existing Seattle City Light transmission tower in the Seattle City Light right -of -way. The applicant is proposing an initial installation of two antennae mounted on three separate arrays for a total of six antennae. The applicant has designed the base station to accommodate three antennae on the three arrays, for a proposed total of nine antennae. The properties immediately to the north and south of the development are zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) and contain single family residences. Beacon Avenue South is adjacent to the property on the east and the Seattle City Light right -of -way continues to the west. BACKGROUND The LDR zone has a building height standard of 30 feet maximum under TMC 18.10.060. The existing Seattle City Light transmission tower has a height of 127 feet, which does not conform to the height regulations in this zone. However, as the proposed location of the antennae at a maximum height of 127 feet does not alter the non - conforming aspect of the structure, under TMC 18.70.050(1) (Non- conforming Structures) the antennae may be located below the apex of the tower. TMC 18.70.050(1) reads as follows: Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption of this title that could not be built under the terms of this title by reason of restrictions on area, lot coverage, height, yards or other characteristics of the structure, it may be continued so long as the structure remains otherwise lawful subject to the following provisions: 1. No such structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its degree of non - conformity. Alterations, additions or enlargements may be allowed as long as the work done does not extend further into any required yard or violate any other portion of this title. Complete plans shall be required of all work contemplated under this section. •,.- ci:i.`rb�'.`.3:' �' 4. �r.+' Y• 1��,. ww: a' �x4:, 5' i::>+ i`?' ti, i;' �.. FJ= i�i l:�it):h�t�^ +�aY4`.��a�v�.'::� z Staff Report to the Planning Commission CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA L98 -0011 US West PCS Tower S. 109th St. and Beacon Avenue S. The proposed project must conform with criteria detailed in TMC 18.64.050, (1 -5), concerning Q Conditional Use Permits: _1. CL al (1) The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to 6 V the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which U O the subject property is located. ; co W w= The applicant has included an existing site survey and the elevations of the structure (Attachment '' H A) that show the proposed location of the antennae and its mounting in relation to the site. N 0 Attachment C shows photosimulations of the type of antennae and mounting that will be used for 2 ?-. this site. These photographs are presented as representations showing how other antennae g - mounted on these facilities have been implemented. The proposed antennae and related u_ Q. equipment are telecommunications equipment that fall within the safety parameters set by the = D a American National Standards Institute (ANSI). All operating equipment will be located under the f- _ tower and enclosed in an area fenced with chain link. ? F-; I- O Z F-. (2) The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in w w U� The antennae will be a maximum height of 127 feet in a zone where the height maximum is 30 O I, . D 1-; feet. As referenced above, the proposed location of the antennae does not alter the w w nonconforming height of the existing 127 foot transmission tower. H H The tower has four footings. The northeast footing and the southeast footing are approximately 7 11J Z feet from the front property line (which places both footings within the 20 foot front setback). All o four footings are well within the 5 foot side setbacks and the 10 foot rear setback. The location of 0 H' the antennae does not increase or alter the front setback non - conformance. No other Z development standards apply to this project. the district it will occupy. (3) The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design. As with similar uses, the PCS system will generate trips during the construction period. Following the completion of construction up to one trip per month will be generated for maintenance with no other impacts to pedestrian or transportation movements anticipated. (4) The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are listed as follows: 12.1.34. Actively coordinate project implementation with individual utilities based upon Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. The applicant will be sharing infrastructure with an existing utility (Seattle City Light) instead of seeking to erect a separate monopole or other new support structure. By co- locating these uses, impacts to surrounding properties will be minimized. iikvariarair- '1,649ie y 4 '11M 6'1M1 ..rt4:14''"4 Staff Report to the Planning Commission L98 -0011 US West PCS Tower S. 109th St. and Beacon Avenue S. The applicant has entered the final stages of a Lease Agreement for the right to use the Seattle City Light transmission tower and its right -of -way for this base station. A copy of a letter documenting this is attached as Exhibit D. There will be no construction at this site until the Lease Agreement has been finalized and all necessary City of Tukwila permits have been issued. The applicant will secure telephone and electrical services. 12.1.36. Encourage utilities to consolidate facilities and minimize visual impacts of facilities where technically feasible. Implementation strategies for this policy include the use of shared infrastructure and the use of existing structures. The applicant is securing the right to locate on an existing transmission tower instead of erecting a monopole or other support structure. To minimize the visual impacts of the antennae, the antennae will be mounted on the tower and the ground equipment will be screened behind a secured fence. 5) All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. The applicant has proposed the location of the antennae on an existing transmission tower, in a utility right -of -way. The existing tower provides both a support structure and partial screening of the antennae. The operating equipment are located under the tower behind a secure gated and screened area. The City's Noise Ordinance (TMC 8.22) requires any noise generated and received in a residential zone within the City limits cannot exceed 55 dB(A). An acoustical report for the proposed facility was prepared by BRC Acoustics on April 2, 1998 (Attachment E). The report predicts a "worst case" sound level of 39 dB(A) at the adjacent, residential property line. This is well within the standards of TMC 8.22. Attachment G is a letter from John Merriam expressing concern about the effect of low level electromagnetic fields. Attachment H describes the preliminary analysis which was conducted by US West for the proposed site. The analysis measured worse case exposure levels associated with radio- frequency (RF) electromagnetic field emissions from the proposed facility. The analysis indicates that the RF emissions from the proposed facility will be well below all Federal guidelines. CONCLUSIONS The Planning Commission, pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 18.108.040, hereby makes the following findings and conclusions under the City's Conditional Use Permit criteria (TMC 18.64.050). (1) The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare... Potentially hazardous operating equipment is inaccessible to the public. The associated technology is within federal safety guidelines. The antennae will be placed on an existing transmission tower in a utility right -of -way. The antennae will appear to be part of the existing tower and will not substantially alter any public views. 4 JJ.f:Eur Staff Report to the Planning Commission L98 -0011 US West PCS Tower S. 109th St. and Beacon Avenue S. (2) The proposed criteria shall meet or exceed the performance standards... z The location of the antennae is allowed under TMC 18.70.050 (Nonconforming Structures) as it does not z �'. increase the non - conforming height of the tower. There are no other applicable standards for the project. w. CL 2 (3) The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding... -J 0' U O: Traffic generated during development and operation is minimal. The ground equipment will be screened .u) w: from public view. The antennae are located on an existing transmission tower in a utility right -of -way and , -1 t- will not substantially alter public views. N w w O; (4) The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies... g m. u. The project will have the necessary electrical and telephone services for its operation. The applicant will N d be sharing infrastructure with an existing utility. Visual impacts to surrounding properties are minimized by H w locating on the existing transmission tower. z H; F-O (5) All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts... w w. All ground operating equipment will be contained in a secured and screened area. The antennae will be v CI located on an existing transmission tower and will appear to be a part of that tower. The noise generated `o H' by the facility will be less than the maximum and minimum allowed within a residential zone, under the uj City's Noise Ordinance (TMC 8.22). The RF. emissions analysis conducted by US West indicates that i v emissions from the proposed facility will be well below all Federal guidelines and will not present a health u_ ~O hazard for the surrounding neighborhood. .. z ILI UN RECOMMENDATIONS - H, z Staff recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved. 5 S•>.�...u.. ��n. ,rt�.,ia.h. .s,n.uK.....nb. %i.G ia>4'aY.:CinfX'..' .. 1 «. A F F I D A V I T Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting El Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet fl Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Shoreline Management Permit Determination of Non - significance ❑ Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action Official Notice Other Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on a Name of Project LL - Lu66 -t- 1,111�,i File Number 1— 1 —C)01 1 C Signature z : z mow. 6 • U 0, . CO • w, w =.. CO LL°. w 2 'N�:. = a. • z� 1— O'. • .Z uf U� '0 w —O LLI .O z .h CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT MA1..INGS ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE ( ( ( ( ( OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ) DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. ( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( ) K.C. WATER POLLUTION CNTRL SEPA OFFCL ( ) S CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARIES ( ), RENTON LIBRARY () KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY U S WEST SEATTLE CITY LIGHT WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT TCI CABLEVISION OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: NO PUBLIC WORKS y (,Q FIRE ( ) POLICE ( ) FINANCE (' PLANNING ( ) BUILDING ( ) PARKS & REC. ( ) MAYOR ( ) CITY CLERK ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( ) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE ( ) DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE ( ) VALLEY DAILY NEWS 12/24/97 C:WP51DATA \CHKLIST ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. ( ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIV ( ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL * SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES K.C. DEPT OF PARKS HEALTH DEPT PORT OF SEATTLE K.C.DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT K C PUBLIC LIBRARY SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT #20 ) WATER DISTRICT #125 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS RAINIER VISTA SKYWAY CITY AGENCIES ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT ( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER ( ) SEATTLE OFFICE OF MGMNT & PLANNING* * NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCI S ( ) METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV. OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE MEDIA ( I) HIGHLINE TIMES Q SEATTLE TIMES V/ aad P \us DclAtte5 c cL V54- a s ✓ ueSt.e. `:;;r4E 5 - ika% ;...e. PV',6A.14415:.; :1416:404. +1)*), ieTei4.6.1asiii1e' 1 a ' 14*. 'A*. iSCl.sk' i4 Z rQQ tiv JU • 0 CO = J � WO J I • H W =, .Z Z �. W OCO! • '0 W 1— W C; Z. Cu • I. ~ • z PARTIES OF RECORD L98 -0011 John W. Merriam 506 Second Avenue, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98104 v Harry and Maida Miller 10901 51st Avenue South, Apt A. Seattle, WA 98178 :z 41,.. M. X' 1".: V>.' tY&. critigi : >.::+::tL�..55.i.:�iKJ:.�i4i; • ..._.- «- ....i« ....rw «»......«rw.ra..YV�w srt...- ..- ...... r................:.l4i.l : w,1∎,, -n .:11,,,str:filr ^ z + 44114. ' 4R. MM!•./ MP!. ew .04lr'n+0,,,,tY..- w..._..: «•::: ;c**ic*** ;k *** ; ** ** ;c *** ,cac** ;c**)c**** ****ai*V. ycac*ac**>,c**ac>;c*sc* ** , tac*sc3 ,c*>,c***;4**** ,c**sc*scic** * BATCH NUMBER: DH * CUSTOMER NAME JOHN HELMER 335240- 0004 -06 MARTIN F C 10618 51ST AVE S SEATTLE WA 335240-0010 -08 GUY DENNIS M +EMILLIA P 10610 51ST AVE S SEATTLE WA 335240- 0020 -06 ANDERSON LUCILLE L 5125 S BANGOR ST SEATTLE WA COMMENTS . t?rti!e4c Ric.4fi',-1:1t�' '4fr ±c"rtctri'r {.{ ”1; if<ftltft” ” (M,: fttc+i' r�S 98178 639999 98178 709999 98178 335240- 0005-05 YOUNG MARCELLA J 10612 51ST AVE S SEATTLE WA 799999 98178 ' 335240 - 0015 -03 SCHOONMAKER GEORGE 301034 3210 FIRST INTERSTATE CENTER SEATTLE WA 98104 335240-0025 -01 SAMPLE MADISON 5119 C S BANGOR ST SEATTLE WA 679999 98178 z Z. ne J C). U O co W = co up W O. g =w O: Z.H: ut 2 D Q UJ u. O' t11 Z U N- Z 00 33p240-0030-04 GRAHAM ROBERT F +JOANN" DEL509999 5137 S BANGOR ST SEATTLE WA 98178 44 335240- 0075 -00 FOX COLLETTE MARY ELIZABETH 0578 5136 S HAZEL ST SEATTLE WA 98178 335240-0085-08 JELINEK MARY 10204 JARMEL NW ALBUQUERIUE NM 335240- 0115 -02 CARTER JUDITH A 5118 S HAZEL ST SEATTLE WA 335240- 0125 -00 4 DECHAINEAU ELLEN 10620 51ST AVE S SEATTLE WA • • 069999 87114 769999 98178 641601 98178 335240-0350 -06 HARTWIG CLARENCE W +SHANTA P559999 5103 S HAZEL STREET SEATTLE WA 98178 335240- 0352 -04 ALLAN LORELEI 10718 51ST AVE S SEATTLE WA 335240- 0360 -04 BIER LYNN D 5111 SO HAZEL. SEATTLE WA 335240- 0370 -02 WEST JOSEPH C 5127 S HAZEL ST SEATTLE WA 547620- 0097-04 BOUCHER EOGAR +MARILYN 10350 51ST AVE S SEATTLE WA 547620-0105 -04. HAMMACK DOUGLAS +REBECCA 5118 S CRESTON ST SEATLE WA 547620-0110 -07 BLUMENSHEIN 5122 S CRE• ON SEATTLE RY JO 1174 98178 749999 98178 439999 98178 729999 98178 409999 98178 209999 98178 335240- 0072 -03 JENKINS.- ,RANK +YVONNE A 9718 421 S SEATTLE WA 335240-0080-03 GILBERT DIANA LYNN 5130 S HAZEL SEATTLE WA 335240- 0090 -01 SMITH CALVIN P +SHERLEY A 5124 SO HAZEL SEATTLE WA 335240 - 0116 -01 TAMURA FUMIO +MIYUKI 5112 SOUTH HAZEL ST SEATTLE WA 589999 98118 109999 98178 609999 98118 809999 98178 335240 - 0126 -09 HUTCHINSON ALLEN R +SANDRA A709999 10636 51ST AVE S SEATTLE WA 98178 335240- 0351-05 ALLEN LEONARD N 10712 51ST AVE S SEATTLE WA 335240 - 0355 -01 BIER STEVEN J 5109 S HAZEL ST SEATTLE WA 335240- 0365 -09 BALES FAMILY TRUST 5121 S HAZEL ST SEATTLE WA 98178 0578 98178 339999 98178 547620 - 0096 -05 BENNETT JAMES J +VERONICA'M.769999 1830 41ST AVE E SEATTLE WA 98112 547620-0098 -03 FORTNEY WENDY JOYCE 5106 S CRESTON ST SEATTLE WA 547620 - 0108-01 BLUMENSHEIN MARY J 5122 S CRESTON STREET SEATTLE WA 769999 98178 909999 98178 547620- 0195 -05 . MABUNGA MO ROGELIO F +LORENZ159999 OE LA CRUZ 5130 S BANGOR ST SEATTLE WA 3. c�?:rr, ;osn 98125 z J U� UO i w w wI wO lz co a H= z I- O w~ O- 0 I- CU F, U' Liz O: Z U= 0 z 547620- 0196 -04 FOURNIER ROSALYNE E BASS 651751 5406 18TH AVE 5 SEATTLE WA 98108 547620-0200 -08 SCHMIDT ELMER 4503 48TH S SEATTLE WA 547620-0205 -03 PICH LENG 5120 S BANGOR ST SEATTLE WA 547680- 0110-04 BILL FRANK 4737 S 107TH SEATTLE WA 547680-0122-00 THUERK DONAVON H 4735 S 107TH ST SEATTLE WA 547680-0131-09 MERRIAM JOHN 11527•4TH AVE NE SEATTLE WA 547680- 0140 -08 BISHOP ROY E 1600 4TH AVE N SEATTLE WA 547680- 0151 -04 YERABEK CHIN THI 5245 5 MAYFLOWER SEATTLE WA 547680-0170-01 BABULA MARTHA E 10405 BEACON AVE S SEATTLE WA 547680- 0180-09 WYATT CLIFTON 10349 51ST AVE S TUKWILA WA 547620- 0197-03 MURRAY MICHAEL 0 5129 S CRESTON SEATTLE WA E0381 98178 54762.0- 0201 -07 0580 RAMOS SALVADOR G + BELLA R 179999 209 E GRAVES AVE 98118 MONTEREY PARK CA 91754 409999 547620- 0210 -06 COPE PERRY R 2125 1ST.. AVE 01502 98178 • SEATTLE WA 289999 98118 C0480 98178 1NO380 98125 2D2564 98109 1N9999 98118 329999 98178 339999 98178 547680-0200 -05 WOOD DAVID H & CHARLOTTE E 740015 4904 S 107TH ST TUKWILA WA 547680- 0210-03 RAVENHILL JOHN +CYNTHIA 4910 SOUTH 107TH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 929999 98178 547680- 0120-02 THUERK OONAVON H 4735 S 107TH ST SEATTLE WA 547680- 0130-00 MEYER DEBORAH M 4905 SOUTH 107TH ST SEATTLE WA 547680- 0132-08 QUACH LOAN HONG ET:AL 10710 49TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 547680- 0150-05 THOMSON HECTOR G 4925 S 107TH SEATTLE WA 129999 98121 C0480 98178 8N9999 98178 509999 98178 98178 547680-0160-03 GEGANTENIO GERONIMO T 801169 5738 37TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 547680- 0171-00 BABULA MARTHA E 10405 51ST AVE S SEATTLE WA eik1 A i 98118 012613 98178 547680-0181-08 ENG GIM FON (DIANE) +ET AL 269999 3121 12TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 547680- 0201 -04 MOORE WILSON E 4920 SO 107TH ST TUKWILA WA 547680- 0221-00 MILLER JULIE A +ET AL 4900 S 107TH ST SEATTLE WA 98144 r.' 120796 98178 189999 98178 • 4 ok z z re ~w 6 JU UO N W = J N ti w0 w =C�' w _, z�. F- 0 Z 1- D 0 U -. O 0H =U ! O. .z w = 0 z.. _. 74. /bdU-U305-O9 'CITY OF SEATTLE TRANS LN R/W CAUSE 46,'57 7& ( 687420-0006 -00 SINGH HARNOOP +JUDY D 5008 S 109TH ST SEATTLE WA 4�. 687420-0025 -07 SINGH HARN 5008 S SEAT WA 0 H ST DY D 687420- 0115 -08 WILLEY MARY A KELLY 5016 S 109TH ST SEATTLE WA 687420- 0170 -00 SIMMONS JAMES W P E 2706 CHELSEA. TERRACE BALTIMORE MD 687420-0200-04 KING COUNTY 500 KC AD N BLDG SEATTL A 687420 - 0265 -06 RIVERS EFFIE 10834 48TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 637420-0285-02 SIMMONS JAM 2706 CH 8A A TERRACE ORE MD 687420- 0295 -0(: TOBUBU'THO AS E 10806 4= AVE S SEAT WA 687420-0325-04 KING COUNTY 500 KC ADMIN'BLOG SEATTLE WA 687420-0360-00 HUDSON M C E BETTIE 4118 37TH S SEATTLE WA 687420 - 0375-03 SEATTLE CITY'LIGHT PM ;230403- 4-3066 1015 THIRD AVE SEATTLE WA 809999 98178 809999 98178 579999 98178 Z0378 21216 240860 98104 687420 - 00(.)1)-01 SINGH H?`'NOOP +JUDY D 5008 S _ 9TH ST SEATTLE WA 687420- 0007 -09 CARTER JUDITH A 5118 S HAZEL SEATTLE WA 687420- 0027 -05 NUEZCA LORENZO +ERLINDA S 10821 BEACON AVE SOUTH SEATTLE WA 687420 - 0135 -04 G00DWIN KEN & KELLY. PO BOX 2612 WOODINVILLE WA 687420- 0195-01 KING COUNTY 500 KC AO_KIN " BLDG SEATTLE-4A 687420 - 0250 -03 GARRETT P M 473 MCGRAW ST SEATTLE WA 809919 98178 74A011 98178 932078 98178 350178 98072 240860 98104 C0579 98109 687420- 0275-04 L C C DYNASTY LIMITED PARTN759999 PO BOX 798 98178 SNOQUALMIE WA 98065 21216 941808 98178 240860 98104 705227 98118 090350 98104 687420- 0290 -05 SIMMONS JAMES W 2706 CHELSEA TERRACE BALTIMORE MD 687420 - 0320 -09 TOBUBU THOMAS E 10806 48TH AVE S SEATTLE WA' 687420 - 0330-07 TOBUBU THOMA •RILYN 10806 48T. •VE 5 TUKWI WA 68742.0-0370-08 CITY OF SEATTLE 687420 - 0855 -02 . HINTON HAZEL S 952 SHEPHERD ST NW WASHINGTON DC 21216 941808 98178 719999 98178 '617777 692447 20011 z cc II J V. 00. W = J 1- CO W w 0. g Q, N a z F. 1- 0: zi- 2 uj U0 ON. H W I r uiz, U N. O z 687420-0865-00 FRANKLIN MARY F 11101 49TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 687420 - 0930 -01 NGUYEN THAI VAN 4409 S •'SAW ST SEAT WA 687420 - 0960 -04 CLAYSON L V 10908 49TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 687420 - 0980 -00 ARWINE MILDRED 10904 50TH S SEATTLE WA 687420- 1045 -01 RAL DEVELOPMENT ENTURE CO 779999 1420 NW GILMA BLVD V2206 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 769999 98178 779999 98118 652087 98178 687420 - 0928 -05 NGUYEN THANH VAN 4409 S WARSAW ST SEATTLE WA 687420- 0955-01 NGUYEN THAN ••N 4409 S W AW ST SEATT WA 687420 - 0970 -02 LEE KAY C 3134 W GRANDVIEW SPOKANE WA 779999 98118 779999 98118 740793 98224 687420- 0985-05 ARWINE RUSSELL H +MILDRED G 759999 10904 50TH S 98178 SEATTLE WA 687420-1065 -06 RAL DEVELOPM &VENTURE CO 779999 1420 NW GI AN BLVD V2206 ISSAQUAH ^A 98027 687420- 1085 -02 ARWINE MILDRE 10904 50TH SEATTLE 687420- 1120-09 EPPS SAMSON L 10905 51ST AVE S SEATTLE WA 687420- 1143-02 RAL DEVELOPMENT &V URE CO 779999 1420 NW GILMAN VD V2206 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 0880 98178 729999 98178 687420 - 1145-00 HARW00D BEN 19641 S E 189TH PL RENTON WA F0575 93055 000000 - 0000 -00 *************************4******* ;c a; c)jc)<);c)c)c* ;c ;c>c);ca;c);c ;c); tic *** *);ca c);c)t);C);c)c><)c* );c : *); cis); c** is); c); c);c*);c*)<)i*isac*);c)i);c)i ,iac)4)c ,c);c)C);c)}c t>c);c);c)c *)c* ** )C)C c);c *) :c) :c ,c*** *,c)C);c); * *>c*** 98178. 687420 - 1050 -03 RAL DEVELOPMENT &VENTURE C0'779999 1420 NW GILMAN.BLVD V2206 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 687420- 1075 -04 ARWINE MIL D E RUSSELL'H 481302 10904 5. AVE S SEAT WA 98178 687420-1110-01 MILLER HARRY E 10901 51ST AVE S APT A SEATTLE WA R0476 98178 687420 - 1130 -07 KUBOTA GARDEN FOUNDATION 749999 P 0 BOX 12646 SEATTLE WA 687420-1144-01 RAL DEVELOP ANT &VENTURE CO 779999 1420 NW LMAN BLVD ;2206 ISSAQU WA 98111 687420- 1170 -0 CITY OF •TTLE TRANS kN R/W CAUSK�469557.69 98027 1: • :av rev; City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Db'e,_ for APRIL 9, 1998 . CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF HEARING PROJECT INFORMATION US West Communications has filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (Number L98 -0011) for placement of nine panel antennas mounted near the top of an existing City Light power tower with associated ground mounted operating equipment for wireless communications at South 109th Street and Beacon Avenue South (on an existing City Light power tower). You are invited to comment on the project at the public hearing scheduled for April 23, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. before the Planning Commission. The hearing will take place at City Hall in City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Blvd. To confirm the time and date before the hearing, call the Department of Community Development at 431 -3670. For further information on this proposal, contact Deborah Ritter at 431 -3663 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Permits applied for include: • Conditional Use Permit Other known required permits include: • Development Permit FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the permit counter of the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Application Filed: , Notice of Completeness Issued: Notice of Application Issued: March 3, 1998 March 19, 1998 March 24, 1998 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 8 (206) 431 -3670 0 Fax_ (206) 431-3665 :i:: ;.i i+ n—:. rk. 1C ;.h:M9:a.il�ik�E.tint:5!.a "�io: tr+dt �•`'k'3iIw�'i.�id1.`.4.' .> z Z 6 ~w 00 N cow. W =; J Ht co w o. = a z� zo o. o I- w W uiz o�` z .. W1I April 8, 1998 Creative Solutions ... Superior Servir. PACIFIC US West Wireless 450 -110th Ave. NE, #209 Bellevue, W A 98004 (425) 451-6043 Ms. Deborah Ritter Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, STE 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: L98 -001 RF Emission Levels Dear Deborah: The proposed US West PCS facility is well below all Federal guidelines; approximately 6807 times below the allowable RF exposure limit (please see attached memo from US West radio frequency engineer). In addition, there is a large body of scientific evidence which does show that the power level of cellular antenna facilities is far too low to produce any health hazards for people living or working in the general area of such a facility. The proposed antennas will be mounted at the top of an existing Seattle City Light tower at approximately 125 feet above ground level, above existing power lines which operate at 230 KV. The US West facility operates at a power Ievel of approximately 150 Watts. The emissions from each facility is different; the transmission tower produces electric and magnetic fields (EMFs), whereas the cellular equipment produces non - ionizing radiation (RF emissions) RF emissions are regulated by the FCC and NEPA and are addressed in the radio frequency engineer's memo. If you would like further information on the Seattle City Light tower, please call Fred Ojima, Systems Engineer at 206 - 684 -3556. Therefore, in response to Mr. John Merriam's letter dated March 31, 1998 and based on current available information on RF emissions (please see attachments), there are no potential health hazards for the surrounding neighborhood as a result of the proposed US West facility. In addition, the PCS facility does not produce electromagnetic fields, but the existing transmission tower does. Finally, the emissions that the antennas do produce, RF emissions, is negligible and very insignificant when measured against existing federal standards. For your additional information, I am attaching the FCC OET Bulletin 65 (August 1997), Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines, and two other informational documents for your review. If you need any further information, please let me know. Thank you for your attention to this application. Sincerely, Rebecca L. Slick Project Planner attachments (4) aiSd Engineering • Landscape Architecture • Environmental Services Planning • Surveying and Mapping Washington ♦ Oregon • Idaho ATTACHMENT H To: City of Tukwila From: Yuwu Zhang cc: Rebecca slick Ralph Long Jim Verseman Glenn Waddell Date: April 8, 1998 RF Engineer, U S WEST Wireless W &H Pacific USWW USWW USWW [I1 U S WEST Power Density and Maximum Permissible Exposure calculations U S WEST RF Engineering has completed an preliminary RF emission analysis on SEA003 and has determined that the U S WEST PCS site antenna system does comply with the FCC Rules and Regulations (Part 47, section 1.107(b) ) regarding the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - RF Emissions Hazard Considerations. The FCC's governing doctrine on RF environmental effects, section 1.107(b), states that the RF exposure limit for the general population /uncontrolled exposure environment in the PCS bands shall be less than 1 mW /cm2. The RF engineering analysis follows the guidelines established in FCC Bulletin OET 65 (dated August 1997). Based on worst case analysis on a U S WEST PCS CDMA base station and antennas, a maximum power density of 0.0001469 mW /cm2 will occur at a 225 feet horizontal distance from the center of the antenna . This value is 6807 times below the allowable RF exposure limit 1.0 mW /cm2 and 0.01469% MPE which is well below the 100% MPE. The following table and attached spreadsheet provides details on calculated power density measurements and MPE values at varying distances. Table 1 Power Density Calculation Site Name: sea003 US West System Angle down Ant pattern from Horiz (dBd) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14.32 13.96 13.26 12.16 10.61 8.51 5.66 1.6 -5.01 -30.9 Ant pattern attenuation 0 -0.36 -1.06 -2.16 -3.71 -5.81 -8.66 -12.72 -19.33 -45.22 Structure: Address: Distance to ground (feet) infinity 7448.8 3725.0 2484.0 1863.6 1491.6 1243.7 1066.7 934.1 831.0 Power Tower S. 109th and Beacon Ave. FCC Flux Density ( mW /cm "2 ) 8.526E -06 2.902E -05 5.066E -05 6.298E -05 6.062E -05 4.524E -05 2.414E -05 6.873E -06 2.237E -08 w,. % MPEu 8.52580E -04 0.000290177 0.000506553 0.000629787 0.000606201 0.00045237 0.000241442 6.87283E -04 2.23712E -06 - ,---, 10 -8.53 -22.85 748.6 4.757E -06 4.75735E -04 11 -3.91 -18.23 681.3 1.664E -05 0.000166426 12 -2.33 -16.65 625.3 2.843E -05 0.000284304 13 -2.26 -16.58 577.9 3.382E -05 0.000338221 14 -3.35 -17.67 537.4 3.044E -05 0.000304351 15 -5.65 -19.97 502.3 2.051E-05 0.000205124 16 -9.68 -24 471.6 9.198E -06 9.19816E -04 17 -17.64 -31.96 444.6 1.655E -06 1.65537E -04 18 -27.58 -41.9 420.7 1.875E -07 1.87495E -05 19 -15.41 -29.73 399.3 3.430E -06 3.43011E-04 20 -12.43 -26.75 380.1 7.518E -06 7.51845E -04 21 -12.23 -26.55 362.8 8.643E -06 8.64337E -04 22 -14.45 -28.77 347.0 5.665E -06 5.66468E -04 23 -21.59 -35.91 332.7 1.191E-06 1.19064E -04 24 -24.52 -38.84 319.6 6.571E-07 6.57130E -05 25 -13.13 -27.45 307.6 9.771E-06 9.77060E -04 26 -8.37 -22.69 296.6 3.146E -05 0.000314564 27 -5.6 -19.92 286.3 6.384E -05 0.000638437 28 -3.93 -18.25 276.9 1.003E -04 0.001002867 29 -3.05 -17.37 268.1 1.310E -04 0.001309686 30 -2.82 -17.14 260.0 1.469E -04 0.001468807 31 -3.2 -17.52 252.4 1.428E -04 0.001427919 32 -4.22 -18.54 245.3 1.195E -04 0.00119521 33 -6.02 -20.34 238.7 8.341E-05 0.000834146 34 -8.94 -23.26 232.5 4.489E -05 0.000448898 35 -14.03 -28.35 226.6 1.463E -05 0.000146288 36 -28.62 -42.94 221.2 5.339E -07 5.33903E -05 37 -18.71 -33.03 216.0 5.482E -06 5.48215E -04 38 -12.04 -26.36 211.2 2.665E -05 0.000266507 39 -8.94 -23.26 206.6 5.685E -05 0.00056855 40 -7.28 -21.6 202.2 8.693E -05 0.00086928 41 -6.51 -20.83 198.2 1.081E-04 0.001081211 42 -6.4 -20.72 194.3 1.154E -04 0.001153577 43 -6.88 -21.2 190.6 1.073E -04 0.001072979 44 -7.96 -22.28 187.1 8.681E-05 0.000868095 45 -9.73 -24.05 183.8 5.984E -05 0.000598404 46 -12.49 -26.81 180.7 3.280E -05 0.000328014 47 -17 -31.32 177.8 1.200E -05 0.000120027 48 -27.12 -41.44 174.9 1.206E -06 1.20551E-04 49 -26.33 -40.65 172.3 1.491E-06 1.49137E -04 50 -17.67 -31.99 169.7 1.129E -05 0.000112858 51 -13.99 -28.31 167.3 2.710E -05 0.000271038 52 -11.94 -26.26 165.0 4.468E -05 0.000446775 53 -10.78 -25.1 162.8 5.994E -05 0.000599407 54 -10.23 -24.55 160.7 6.981E-05 0.000698136 :tEr"J"z?4(01414.V.5t 1`tiL•i 4,t1p0 iK .Z • .1- Z, mow. U . U O: u3 wI �w.. w O; J w = = W. z� Z 0: • U N'i • pF .w w: H U r. - O. Z •w I; O~ z j. a 55 -10.16 -24.48 158.7 7.274E -05 0.000727367 56 -10.49 -24.81 156.8 6.905E -05 0.000690515 57 -11.22 -25.54 155.0 5.973E -05 0.000597321 58 -12.34 -26.66 153.3 4.719E -05 0.000471917 59 -13.93 -28.25 151.7 3.343E -05 0.000334315 60 -16.09 -30.41 150.1 2.075E -05 0.000207532 61 -19.09 -33.41 148.6 1.061E-05 0.000106087 62 -23.62 -37.94 147.2 3.810E -06 3.80973E -04 63 -32.53 -46.85 145.9 4.986E -07 4.98639E -05 64 -36.76 -51.08 144.6 1.916E-07 1.91578E-05 65 -26.49 -40.81 143.4 2.073E -06 2.07289E -04 66 -22.58 -36.9 142.3 5.182E -06 5.18185E -04 67 -20.45 -34.77 141.2 8.592E -06 8.59166E -04 68 -19.22 -33.54 140.2 1.157E -05 0.000115706 69 -18.57 -32.89 139.2 1.362E -05 0.000136247 70 -18.35 -32.67 138.3 1.452E -05 0.00014521 71 -18.47 -32.79 137.5 1.430E -05 0.000143009 72 -18.89 -33.21 136.7 1.314E -05 0.000131352 73 -19.59 -33.91 135.9 1.130E -05 0.000113036 74 -20.56 -34.88 135.2 9.135E -06 9.13499E -04 75 -21.81 -36.13 134.6 6.917E -06 6.91691E-04 76 -23.36 -37.68 134.0 4.885E -06 4.88464E -04 77 -25.27 -39.59 133.4 3.173E -06 3.17302E -04 78 -27.6 -41.92 132.9 1.870E -06 1.86997E -04 79 -30.52 -44.84 132.4 9.614E -07 9.61431E-05 80 -34.31 -48.63 132.0 4.043E -07 4.04322E -05 81 -39.73 -54.05 131.6 1.168E -07 1.16752E -05 82 -50.08 -64.4 131.3 1.083E -08 1.08276E -06 83 -53.01 -67.33 131.0 5.540E -09 5.54021E-07 84 -44.71 -59.03 130.7 3.761E-08 3.76057E -06 85 -42.24 -56.56 130.5 6.664E -08 6.66367E -06 86 -41.8 -56.12 130.3 7.394E -08 7.39446E -06 87 -42.78 -57.1 130.2 5.913E -08 5.91335E -06 88 -45.33 -59.65 130.1 3.292E -08 3.29227E -06 89 -50.82 -65.14 130.0 9.309E -09 9.30877E -07 90 -52.23 -66.55 130.0 6.730E -09 6.73015E -07 Max Density 1.469E -04 mW /cm ^2 which is much small than 1.0 mW /cm2 260 feet from the antenna and 225 feet from the base of the structure. a 41b %)..Yk 'r a, is4 =C`. kKi3 n,r v'szFS.;r n5r� '��tS bt:::llrLc�LY �e 55iS4 d Slks 5as 3 ra t'uP ? tk p .:$ 1 vi+:Ye Cv +t 'T140 -` c} ?C d Fkc'ildttT etS:M li:4} vifN iB :ih' z Z, re 2 ua1O J U; U O' N CI: rn w W N w O`. g▪ ` N a• : = w I- 0 Z 1-•: 11J ur O N "0H: LU ,, - 0- U O Z Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering & Technology Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields OET Bulletin 65 Edition 97 -01 August 1997 u: 1:: r1:` 7 ;+ q;✓: 2ii�Yfi'?' f_ ft*? im` E& te�o:,;. it�r Y3' s` �i ?,:k.;tc ^37x;f {i: ^r,,'.,;,'F`r ATTACHMENT 1 'uatin1 'eles fo iofrequenc 55 an ar ev.e opmen ranc (locations and StandardsDivision ice of Engineering and Technology leralt.Commumcations Commissi ii5,;!i+::tii;i•`.'i!�,ks�.. a �Fififurti; -VFW r��'tla•'.•d :i'ae�rri°ui.ne.w..... i�'�+a"st,,.w:i i4�t'. u�; rtiC?= i;` �raG`: lf± k�.> �% �d; :i:'t',�r,'io•4�.'•f;:tltii�t� .S%S "Su�.t+??'t:i.4ti The first edition of this bulletin was issued as OST Bulletin No. 65 in October 1985. This is a revised version of that original bulletin. NOTE: Mention of commercial products does not constitute endorsement by the Federal Communications Commission or by the authors. • • OWIED:GEMENTS: The following individuals and organizations from outside the FCC reviewed an early draft of this bulletin. Their valuable comments and suggestions greatly enhanced the accuracy and usefulness of this document, and their assistance is gratefully acknowledged. Joseph A. Amato, Maxwell RF Radiation Safety, Ltd. Edward Asian, Lockheed Martin Microwave (Narda) Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc. Dr. Tadeusz M. Babij, Florida International University Dr. Quirano Balzano, Motorola David Baron, P.E., Holaday Industries, Inc. Howard I. Bassen, U.S. Food and Drug Administration Clarence M. Beverage, Communications Technologies, Inc. Dr. Donald J. Bowen, AT &T Laboratories Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association Dr. C.K. Chou, City of Hope National Medical Center Jules Cohen, P.E., Consulting Engineer Dr. David L. Conover, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C. Robert D. Culver, Lohnes and Culver Fred J. Dietrich, Ph.D., Globalstar Electromagnetic Energy Association Professor Om P. Gandhi, University of Utah Robert Gonsett, Communications General Corp. Hammett & Edison, Inc. Norbert Hankin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency James B. Hatfield, Hatfield & Dawson Robert Johnson Dr. John A. Leonowich Dr. W. Gregory Lotz, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health Frederick O. Maia, National Volunteer Examiners (Amateur Radio Service) Ed Mantiply, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Robert Moore Dr. Daniel Murray, Okanagan University College Dr. John M. Osepchuk, Full Spectrum Consulting Professor Wayne Overbeck, California State University, Fullerton Personal Communications Industry Association Ronald C. Petersen, Lucent Technologies David B. Popkin Kazimierz Siwiak, P.E. Richard A. Tell, Richard Tell Associates, Inc. Rory Van Tuyl, Hewlett- Packard Laboratories Louis A. Williams, Jr., Louis A. Williams, Jr. and Associates Contributions from the following FCC staff members are also acknowledged: Kwok Chan, Errol Chang, William Cross, Richard Engelman, Bruce Franca and Jay Jackson i : ^;:ii,'�,,,,M; t..,,rti:.+`' :vr,:ah.tbig iax!'S v?fic1.:»w4 ., '` a "Sid ed .Kati= _5.'�.aSVY.nsaw�?;rr� %i 'l.' .1A1^4Uid„F„�r.'a'�.'.r•`'; gin;. t .d d'si ' .Prl�'id:fi'i.$t<V `�3 0 :z z w • .u6 5 JU'. U O; • u) w •.w=: • • JH: w 0; u Q' = d, _ Z 1— O; Z H, D 0 •FO co w UJ • = U • Z UN. Z INTRODUCTION 1 DEFINITIONS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS 2 Section 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION 6 FCC Implementation of NEPA 6 FCC Guidelines for Evaluating Exposure to RF Emissions 7 Applicability of New Guidelines 12 Mobile and Portable Devices 14 Operations in the Amateur Radio Service 15 Section 2: PREDICTION METHODS 18 Equations for Predicting RF Fields 19 Relative Gain and Main -Beam Calculations 22 Aperture Antennas 26 Special Antenna Models 30 Multiple - Transmitter Sites and Complex Environments 32 Evaluating Mobile and Portable Devices 40 Section 3: MEASURING RF FIELDS Reference Material 44 Instrumentation 45 Field Measurements 49 Section 4: CONTROLLING EXPOSURE TO RF FIELDS 52 Public Exposure: Compliance with General Population/Uncontrolled MPE Limits 52 Occupational Exposure: Compliance with Occupational/Controlled ii y:ir 7g,::;-P• ?Y.Ctnwwo... ...._..........,.r...aa-' +.rte... -. atoa' it$ ci,. aAti, rn, t. nar.evgkaa *:Nti'g1.va��k+4:.;a:s7N.,.. c Q HW re 2 6 U O v� w; W =? W 0,, w ¢: =• a, • W ZE 1-0 w ~' R• o D F- ;W W W uiZ. U N 0 r- MPE Limits 55 iii REFERENCES 60 APPENDIX A: RF Exposure Guidelines 64 APPENDIX B: Summary of 1986 Mass Media Bureau Public Notice on RF Compliance 77 FIGURES FIGURE 1: Main -Beam Exposure (No Reflection) 24 FIGURE 2: Main -Beam Exposure (With Reflection) 25 FIGURE 3: Cassegrain Antenna 26 FIGURE 4: Single tower, co- located antennas, ground -level exposure (at 2 m) 38 FIGURE 5: Antennas on multiple towers contributing to RF field at point of interest 38 FIGURE 6: Single roof -top antenna, various exposure locations 39 FIGURE 7: Single tower, co- located antennas, on -tower exposure 39. iv F.m. !l,`.54f,,,,<AQ.7s *,, ^w.f w.:s`,"'1tiA :lr :'Ya:i`r'G= .1.7:± c5f':1: �.: rS:A" ?�Si+`.:li$'c`�'v''a C•1Y�1 INTRODUCTION This revised OET Bulletin 65 has been prepared to provide assistance in determining whether proposed or existing transmitting facilities, operations or devices comply with limits for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) fields adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The bulletin offers guidelines and suggestions for evaluating compliance. However, it is not intended to establish mandatory procedures, and other methods and procedures may be acceptable if based on sound engineering practice. In 1996, the FCC adopted new guidelines and procedures for evaluating environmental effects of RF emissions. The new guidelines incorporate two tiers of exposure limits based on whether exposure occurs in an occupational or "controlled" situation or whether the general population is exposed or exposure is in an "uncontrolled" situation. In addition to guidelines for evaluating fixed transmitters, the FCC adopted new limits for evaluating exposure from mobile and portable devices, such as cellular telephones and personal communications devices. The FCC also revised its policy with respect to categorically excluding certain transmitters and services from requirements for routine evaluation for compliance with the guidelines. This bulletin is a revision of the FCC's OST Bulletin 65, originally issued in 1985. Although certain technical information in the original bulletin is still valid, this revised version updates other information and provides additional guidance for evaluating compliance with the the new FCC policies and guidelines. The bulletin is organized into the following sections: Introduction, Definitions and Glossary, Background Information, Prediction Methods, Measuring RF Fields, Controlling Exposure to RF Fields, References and Appendices. Appendix A provides a summary of the new FCC guidelines and the requirements for routine evaluation. Additional information specifically for use in evaluating compliance for radio and television broadcast stations is included in a supplement to this bulletin (Supplement A). A supplement for the Amateur Radio Service will also be issued (Supplement B), and future supplements may be issued to provide additional information for other services. This bulletin and its supplements may be revised, as needed. In general, the information contained in this bulletin is intended to enable an applicant to make a reasonably quick determination as to whether a proposed or existing facility is in compliance with the limits. In addition to calculations and the use of tables and figures, Section 4, dealing with controlling exposure, should be consulted to ensure compliance, especially with respect to occupational/controlled exposures. In some cases, such as multiple - emitter locations, measurements or a more detailed analysis may be required. In that regard, Section 3 on measuring RF fields provides basic information and references on measurement procedures and instrumentation. For further information on any of the topics discussed in this bulletin, you may contact the FCC's RF safety group at: +1 202 418 -2464. Questions and inquiries can also be e- mailed to: rfsafety @fcc.gov. The FCC's World Wide Web Site provides information on FCC decision documents and bulletins relevant to the RF safety issue. The address is: xnwr.Tarmt trirximorf crwmtsrrrsAt w.rTr :u #?TiiY�+ '21v:410a :r.•...4 z JU 00: N 0 W =' J H N U_ . w0 g Q. CO :. �w Z= zo uj .0 H U O. wz U= 0 z 1 www.fcc.gov /oet/rfsafety. DEFINITIONS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS The following specific words and terms are used in this bulletin. These definitions are adapted from those included in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 1992 RF exposure standard [Reference 1], from NCRP Report No. 67 [Reference 19] and from the FCC's Rules (47 CFR § 2.1 and § 1.1310). Average (temporal) power. The time - averaged rate of energy transfer. Averaging time. The appropriate time period over which exposure is averaged for purposes of determining compliance with RF exposure limits (discussed in more detail in Section 1). Continuous exposure. Exposure for durations exceeding the corresponding averaging time. Decibel (dB). Ten times the logarithm to the base ten of the ratio of two power levels. Duty factor. The ratio of pulse duration to the pulse period of a periodic pulse train. Also, may be a measure of the temporal transmission characteristic of an intermittently transmitting RF source such as a paging antenna by dividing average transmission duration by the average period for transmissions. A duty factor of 1.0 corresponds to continuous operation. Effective radiated power (ERP) (in a given direction). The product of the power supplied to the antenna and its gain relative to a half -wave dipole in a given direction. Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP). The product of the power supplied to the antenna and the antenna gain in a given direction relative to an isotropic antenna. Electric field strength (E). A field vector quantity that represents the force (F) on an infinitesimal unit positive test charge (q) at a point divided by that charge. Electric field strength is expressed in units of volts per meter (VJm). Energy density (electromagnetic field). The electromagnetic energy contained in an infinitesimal volume divided by that volume. Exposure. Exposure occurs whenever and wherever a person is subjected to electric, magnetic or electromagnetic fields other than those originating from physiological processes in the body and other natural phenomena. Exposure, partial -body. Partial -body exposure results when RF fields are substantially nonuniform over the body. Fields that are nonuniform over volumes comparable to the human body may occur due to highly directional sources, standing- waves, re- radiating sources or in the near field. See RF "hot spot ". Wit;. :'g�; - ;,ttiiti- 'iiiit`c,;.: Sin .p�:,lisa�aL'ais�'•i. \'�U7Mr ...... • 3 z �z mow. U 0 N 0 w= • LL W 0 2 a. —• 0 Z� I— 0; Z t- � 0. O co O —. CI ZU wz co g. 0 ~' Far -field region. That region of the field of an antenna where the angular field distribution is essentially independent of the distance from the antenna. In this region (also called the free space region), the field has a predominantly plane -wave character, i.e., locally uniform distribution of electric field strength and magnetic field strength in planes transverse to the direction of propagation. Gain (of an antenna). The ratio, usually expressed in decibels, of the power required at the input of a loss -free reference antenna to the power supplied to the input of the given antenna to produce, in a given direction, the same field strength or the same power density at the same distance. When not specified otherwise, the gain refers to the direction of maximum radiation. Gain may be considered for a specified polarization. Gain may be referenced to an isotropic antenna (dBi) or a half -wave dipole (dBd). General population/uncontrolled exposure. For FCC purposes, applies to human exposure to RF fields when the general public is exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general public always fall under this category when exposure is not employment - related. Hertz (Hz). The unit for expressing frequency, (f). One hertz equals one cycle per second. Magnetic field strength (H). A field vector that is equal to the magnetic flux density divided by the permeability of the medium. Magnetic field strength is expressed in units of amperes per meter (A/m). Maximum permissible exposure (MPE). The rms and peak electric and magnetic field strength, their squares, or the plane -wave equivalent power densities associated with these fields to which a person may be exposed without harmful effect and with an acceptable safety factor. Near -field region. A region generally in proximity to an antenna or other radiating structure, in which the electric and magnetic fields do not have a substantially plane -wave character, but vary considerably from point to point. The near -field region is further subdivided into the reactive near -field region, which is closest to the radiating structure and that contains most or nearly all of the stored energy, and the radiating near -field region where the radiation field predominates over the reactive field, but lacks substantial plane -wave character and is complicated in structure. For most antennas, the outer boundary of the reactive near field region is commonly taken to exist at a distance of one -half wavelength from the antenna surface. 4 ���s•�'+7t';:Sri!��riA,tC >;!: fit«' ut�N. Z? �+. i3a�r3' t` uia; `zx'+;�;�4�ea;vx�:�:G ?�:;i�',' �V:,iisL"£usitdS twvcne• -�^- Occupational/controlled exposure. For FCC purposes, applies to human exposure to RF fields when persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general population/uncontrolled limits (see definition above), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means. Peak Envelope Power (PEP). The average power supplied to the antenna transmission line by a radio transmitter during one radiofrequency cycle at the crest of the modulation envelope taken under normal operating conditions. Power density, average (temporal). The instantaneous power density integrated over a source repetition period. Power density (S). Power per unit area normal to the direction of propagation, usually expressed in units of watts per square meter (W /m2) or, for convenience, units such as milliwatts per square centimeter (mW /cm2) or microwatts per square centimeter (µW /cm2). For plane waves, power density, electric field strength (E) and magnetic field strength (H) are related by the impedance of free space, i.e., 377 ohms, as discussed in Section 1 of this bulletin. Although many survey instruments indicate power density units ( "far -field equivalent" power density), the actual quantities measured are E or E2 or H or H2. Power density, peak. The maximum instantaneous power density occurring when power is transmitted. Power density, plane -wave equivalent or far -field equivalent. A commonly -used terms associated with any electromagnetic wave, equal in magnitude to the power density of a plane wave having the same electric (E) or magnetic (H) field strength. Radiofrequency (RF) spectrum. Although the RF spectrum is formally defined in terms of frequency as extending from 0 to 3000 GHz, for purposes of the FCC's exposure guidelines, the frequency range of interest in 300 kHz to 100 GHz. Re- radiated field. An electromagnetic field resulting from currents induced in a secondary, predominantly conducting, object by electromagnetic waves incident on that object from one or more primary radiating structures or antennas. Re- radiated fields are sometimes called "reflected" or more correctly "scattered fields." The scattering object is sometimes called a "re- radiator" or "secondary radiator ". 5 z w ce U: O 0: • . Nom: w =, J 1: Nu. w0 �w z �. Co z i-- n • o O — o ff 'w w -• O 111 Z 0.F z 1 RF "hot spot." A highly localized area of relatively more intense radio - frequency radiation that manifests itself in two principal ways: (1) The presence of intense electric or magnetic fields immediately adjacent to conductive objects that are immersed in lower intensity ambient fields (often referred to as re- radiation), and (2) Localized areas, not necessarily immediately close to conductive objects, in which there exists a concentration of RF fields caused by reflections and/or narrow beams produced by high -gain radiating antennas or other highly directional sources. In both cases, the fields are characterized by very rapid changes in field strength with distance. RF hot spots are normally associated with very nonuniform exposure of the body (partial body exposure). This is not to be confused with an actual thermal hot spot within the absorbing body. Root- mean - square (rms). The effective value, or the value associated with joule heating, of a periodic electromagnetic wave. The rms value is obtained by taking the square root of the mean of the squared value of a function. Scattered radiation. An electromagnetic field resulting from currents induced in a secondary, conducting or dielectric object by electromagnetic waves incident on that object from one or more primary sources. Short -term exposure. Exposure for durations less than the corresponding averaging time. Specific absorption rate (SAR). A measure of the rate of energy absorbed by (dissipated in) an incremental mass contained in a volume element of dielectric materials such as biological tissues. SAR is usually expressed in terms of watts per kilogram (W/kg) or milliwatts per gram (mW /g). Guidelines for human exposure to RF fields are based on SAR thresholds where adverse biological effects may occur. When the human body is exposed to an RF field, the SAR experienced is proportional to the squared value of the electric field strength induced in the body. Wavelength (2.). The wavelength (X,) of an electromagnetic wave is related to the frequency (f) and velocity (v) by the expression v =ft.. In free space the velocity of an electromagnetic wave is equal to the speed of light, i.e., approximately 3 x 108 m/s. 6 •z JU: • U o' Nom: ' co W. w =, w J �,_ 19..o =W 1-4 . I- o z I-. n 0. io • wW =U ,L1: Z U N'. O Section 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION FCC Implementation of NEPA The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires agencies of the Federal Government to evaluate the effects of their actions on the quality of the human environment.' To meet its responsibilities under NEPA, the Commission has adopted requirements for evaluating the environmental impact of its actions.2 One of several environmental factors addressed by these requirements is human exposure to RF energy emitted by FCC - regulated transmitters and facilities. The FCC's Rules provide a list of various Commission actions which may have a significant effect on the environment. If FCC approval to construct or operate a facility would likely result in a significant environmental effect included in this list, the applicant for such a facility must submit an "Environmental Assessment" or "EA" of the environmental effect including information specified in the FCC Rules. It is the responsibility of the applicant to make an initial determination as to whether it is necessary to submit an EA. If it is necessary for an applicant to submit an EA that document would be reviewed by FCC staff to determine whether the next step in the process, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement or "EIS," is necessary. An EIS is only prepared if there is a staff determination that the action in question will have a significant environmental effect. If an EIS is prepared, the ultimate decision as to approval of an application could require a full vote by the Commission, and consideration of the issues involved could be a lengthy process. Over the years since NEPA implementation, there have been relatively few EIS's filed with the Commission. This is because most environmental problems are resolved in the process well prior to EIS preparation, since this is in the best interest of all and avoids processing delays. Many FCC application forms require that applicants indicate whether their proposed operation would constitute a significant environmental action under our NEPA procedures. When an applicant answers this question on an FCC form, in some cases documentation or an explanation of how an applicant determined that there would not be a significant environmental effect may be requested by the FCC operating bureau or office. This documentation may take the form of an environmental statement or engineering statement that accompanies the application. Such a statement is not an EA, since an EA is only submitted if there is evidence for a significant environmental effect. In the overwhelming number of cases, applicants attempt to mitigate any potential for a significant environmental effect before submission of either an environmental 1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. Section 4321, et seq. 2 See 47 CFR § 1.1301, et seq. 7 z �z 0w. 6 J U. U O' t W w w =. J � w 0. co F_ w z� I--0 z LIJ 'O -: w w' u. 0 alz U N., O z statement or an EA. This may involve informal consultation with FCC staff, either prior to the filing of an application or after an application has been filed, over possible means of avoiding or correcting an environmental problem. FCC Guidelines for Evaluating Exposure to RF Emissions In 1985, the FCC first adopted guidelines to be used for evaluating human exposure to RF emissions.3 The FCC revised and updated these guidelines on August 1, 1996, as a result of a rule- making proceeding initiated in 1993.4 The new guidelines incorporate limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) in terms of electric and magnetic field strength and power density for transmitters operating at frequencies between 300 kHz and 100 GHz. Limits are also specified for localized ( "partial body ") absorption that are used primarily for evaluating exposure due to transmitting devices such as hand -held portable telephones. Implementation of the new guidelines for mobile and portable devices became effective August 7, 1996. For other applicants and licensees a transition period was established before the new guidelines would apply .5 The FCC's MPE limits are based on exposure limits recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP)6 and, over a wide range of 3 See Report and Order, GEN Docket No. 79 -144, 100 FCC 2d 543 (1985); and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 58 RR 2d 1128 (1985). The guidelines originally adopted by the FCC were the 1982 RF protection guides issued by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). a See Report and Order, ET Docket 93 -62, FCC 96 -326, adopted August 1, 1996, 61 Federal Register 41,006 (1996), 11 FCC Record 15,123 (1997). The FCC initiated this rule- making proceeding in 1993 in response to the 1992 revision by ANSI of its earlier guidelines for human exposure. The Commission responded to seventeen petitions for reconsideration filed in this docket in two separate Orders: First Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 96 -487, adopted December 23, 1996, 62 Federal Register 3232 (1997), 11 FCC Record 17,512 (1997); and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 97 -303, adopted August 25, 1997. 3 This transition period was recently extended. With the exception of the Amateur Radio Service, the date now established for the end of the transition period is October 15, 1997. See Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket 93 -62, adopted August 25, 1997. Therefore, the new guidelines will apply to applications filed on or after this date. For the Amateur Service only, the new guidelines will apply to applications filed on or after January 1, 1998. In addition, the Commission has adopted a date certain of September 1, 2000, by which time all existing facilities and devices must be in compliance with the new guidelines (see Second Memorandum Opinion and Order). 6 See Reference 20, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," NCRP Report No. 86 (1986), National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), Bethesda, MD. The NCRP is a non - profit corporation chartered by the U.S. Congress to develop information and recommendations concerning radiation protection. 8 ,'� r-=a2=40. Y4.71.1 4 It :ek.s.0 t�L'ia:t: frequencies, the exposure limits developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., (IEEE) and adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to replace the 1982 ANSI guidelines! Limits for localized absorption are based on recommendations of both ANSI/IEEE and NCRP. The FCC's new guidelines are summarized in Appendix A. In reaching its decision on adopting new guidelines the Commission carefully considered the large number of comments submitted in its rule- making proceeding, and particularly those submitted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal health and safety agencies. The new guidelines are based substantially on the recommendations of those agencies, and it is the Commission's belief that they represent a consensus view of the federal agencies responsible for matters relating to public safety and health. The FCC's limits, and the NCRP and ANSI/1EEE limits on which they are based, are derived from exposure criteria quantified in terms of specific absorption rate (SAR) .8 The basis for these limits is a whole -body averaged SAR threshold level of 4 watts per kilogram (4 W/kg), as averaged over the entire mass of the body, above which expert organizations have determined that potentially hazardous exposures may occur. The new MPE limits are derived by incorporating safety factors that lead, in some cases, to limits that are more conservative than the limits originally adopted by the FCC in 1985. Where more conservative limits exist they do not arise from a fundamental change in the RF safety criteria for whole -body averaged SAR, but from a precautionary desire to protect subgroups of the general population who, potentially, may be more at risk. The new FCC exposure limits are also based on data showing that the human body absorbs RF energy at some frequencies more efficiently than at others. As indicated by Table 1 in Appendix A, the most restrictive limits occur in the frequency range of 30 -300 MHz where whole -body absorption of RF energy by human beings is most efficient. At other frequencies whole -body absorption is less efficient, and, consequently, the MPE limits are less restrictive. MPE limits are defined in terms of power density (units of milliwatts per centimeter squared: mW /cm2), electric field strength (units of volts per meter: V /m) and magnetic field strength (units of amperes per meter: A/m). In the far -field of a transmitting antenna, where the electric field vector (E), the magnetic field vector (H), and the direction of propagation can be See Reference 1, ANSI/IEEE C95.1 -1992, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." Copyright 1992, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York, NY. The 1992 ANSI/IEEE exposure guidelines for field strength and power density are similar to those of NCRP Report No. 86 for most frequencies except those above 1.5 GHz. 8 Specific absorption rate is a measure of the rate of energy absorption by the body. SAR limits are specified for both whole -body exposure and for partial -body or localized exposure (generally specified in terms of spatial peak values). WAVAKSOIS 9 considered to be all mutually orthogonal ( "plane- wave" conditions), these quantities are related by the following equation .9 Install Equation Editor and double - click here to view equation. (1) where: S = power density (mW /cm2) E = electric field strength (V /m) H = magnetic field strength (A/m) In the near -field of a transmitting antenna the term "far -field equivalent" or "plane -wave equivalent" power density is often used to indicate a quantity calculated by using the near -field values of E2 or H2 as if they were obtained in the far- field. As indicated in Table 1 of Appendix A, for near -field exposures the values of plane -wave equivalent power density are given in some cases for reference purposes only. These values are sometimes used as a convenient comparison with MPEs for higher frequencies and are displayed on some measuring instruments. The FCC guidelines incorporate two separate tiers of exposure limits that are dependent on the situation in which the exposure takes place and/or the status of the individuals who are subject to exposure. The decision as to which tier applies in a given situation should be based on the application of the following definitions. Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general population/uncontrolled limits (see below), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means. As discussed later, the occupational/controlled exposure limits also apply to amateur radio operators and members of their immediate household. General population /uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general public would always be considered under this category when exposure is not employment - related, for example, in the case of a telecommunications tower that exposes persons in a nearby residential area. Note that this equation is written so that power density is expressed in units of mW /cm . The impedance of free space, 377 ohms, is used in deriving the equation. 10 z Lt UO 0. W W =• J I- w O. -d �w z� I-O z F- Ill a 2p U :O N '0H w w. H U: - O: z U =, z For purposes of applying these definitions, awareness of the potential for RF exposure in a workplace or similar environment can be provided through specific training as part of an RF safety program. Warning signs and labels can also be used to establish such awareness as long as they provide information, in a prominent manner, on risk of potential exposure and instructions on methods to minimize such exposure risk.10 However, warning labels placed on low -power consumer devices such as cellular telephones are not considered sufficient to achieve the awareness necessary to qualify these devices as operating under the occupational /controlled category. In those situations the general population/uncontrolled exposure limits will apply. z �z re w UO wI A fundamental aspect of the exposure guidelines is that they apply to power densities or N the squares of the electric and magnetic field strengths that are spatially averaged over the body � 0 dimensions. Spatially averaged RF field levels most accurately relate to estimating the whole - body averaged SAR that will result from the exposure and the MPEs specified in Table 1 of u_ ?' Appendix A are based on this concept. This means that local values of exposures that exceed the = d: stated MPEs may not be related to non - compliance if the spatial average of RF fields over the 1- _ body does not exceed the MPEs. Further discussion of spatial averaging as it relates to field Z I-' measurements can be found in Section 3 of this bulletin and in the ANSI/IEEE and NCRP z 1- ui reference documents noted there. 2 D;. U a. Another feature of the exposure guidelines is that exposures, in terms of power density, • o E2 or H2, may be averaged over certain periods of time with the average not to exceed the limit w w` for continuous exposure.l t As shown in Table 1 of Appendix A, the averaging time for 1 occupational/controlled exposures is 6 minutes, while the averaging time for general — Z population/uncontrolled exposures is 30 minutes. It is important to note that for general w co' population/uncontrolled exposures it is often not possible to control exposures to the extent that -± averaging times can be applied. In those situations, it is often necessary to assume continuous z exposure. As an illustration of the application of time - averaging to occupational /controlled exposure consider the following. The relevant interval for time - averaging for occupational/controlled exposures is six minutes. This means, for example, that during any given six - minute period a worker could be exposed to two times the applicable power density limit for three minutes as long as he or she were not exposed at all for the preceding or following three minutes. Similarly, a worker could be exposed at three times the limit for two minutes as long as no exposure occurs during the preceding or subsequent four minutes, and so forth. to For example, a sign warning of RF exposure risk and indicating that individuals should not remain in the area for more than a certain period of time could be acceptable. Reference [3] provides information on acceptable warning signs. " Note that although the FCC did not explicitly adopt limits for peak power density, guidance on these types of exposures can be found in Section 4.4 of the ANSI/IEEE C95.1 -1992 standard. 11 This concept can be generalized by considering Equation (2) that allows calculation of the allowable time(s) for exposure at [a] given power density level(s) during the appropriate time - averaging interval to meet the exposure criteria of Table 1 of Appendix A. The sum of the products of the exposure levels and the allowed times for exposure must equal the product of the appropriate MPE limit and the appropriate time - averaging interval. Install Equation Editor and double - click here to view equation. where: (2) Sexp = power density level of exposure (mW /cm2) Si;,„;, = appropriate power density MPE limit (mW /cm2) texp = allowable time of exposure for Sup tavg = appropriate MPE averaging time For the example given above, if the MPE limit is 1 mW /cm2, then the right -hand side of the equation becomes 6 mW- min/cm2 (1 mW /cm2 X 6 min). Therefore, if an exposure level is determined to be 2 mW /cm2, the allowed time for exposure at this level during any six - minute interval would be a total of 3 minutes, since the left side of the equation must equal 6 (2 mW /cm2 X 3 min). Of course, many other combinations of exposure levels and times may be involved during a given time - averaging interval. However, as long as the sum of the products on the left side of the equation equals the right side, the average exposure will comply with the MPE limit. It is very important to remember that time - averaging applies to any interval of tavg. Therefore, in the above example, consideration would have to be given to the exposure situation both before and after the allowed three - minute exposure. The time - averaging interval can be viewed as a "sliding" period of time, six minutes in this case. Another important point to remember concerning the FCC's exposure guidelines is that they constitute exposure limits (not emission limits), and they are relevant only to locations that are accessible to workers or members of the public. Such access can be restricted or controlled by appropriate means such as the use of fences, warning signs, etc., as noted above. For the case of occupational/controlled exposure, procedures can be instituted for working in the vicinity of RF sources that will prevent exposures in excess of the guidelines. An example of such procedures would be restricting the time an individual could be near an RF source or requiring that work on or near such sources be performed while the transmitter is turned off or while power is appropriately reduced. In the case of broadcast antennas, the use of auxiliary antennas could prevent excessive exposures to personnel working on or near the main antenna site, depending on the separation between the main and auxiliary antennas. Section 4 of this bulletin should be consulted for further information on controlling exposure to comply with the FCC guidelines. �F ✓a. is ::�ieiti;iii:i'll7zor "2.',usta�i ;wr;?t1.7Y f;uiS�iW'L:C: {3�'.c?�lis'` B '.:' f6ei.l,`6i'd:C�:f$1 12 < 4 4aitOe Vrararia. Seita : ua t? Applicability of New Guidelines The FCC's environmental rules regarding RF exposure identify particular categories of existing and proposed transmitting facilities, operations and devices for which licensees and applicants are required to conduct an initial environmental evaluation, and prepare an Environmental Assessment if the evaluation indicates that the transmitting facility, operation or device exceeds or will exceed the FCC's RF exposure guidelines. For transmitting facilities, operations and devices not specifically identified, the Commission has determined, based on calculations, measurement data and other information, that such RF sources offer little potential for causing exposures in excess of the guidelines. Therefore, the Commission "categorically excluded" applicants and licensees from the requirement to perform routine, initial environmental evaluations of such sources to demonstrate compliance with our guidelines. However, the Commission still retains the authority to request that a licensee or an applicant conduct an environmental evaluation and, if appropriate, file environmental information pertaining to an otherwise categorically excluded RF source if it is determined that there is a possibility for significant environmental impact due to RF exposure.12 In that regard, all transmitting facilities and devices regulated by this Commission that are the subject of an FCC decision or action (e.g., grant of an application or response to a petition or inquiry) are expected to comply with the appropriate RF radiation exposure guidelines, or, if not, to file an Environmental Assessment (EA) for review under our NEPA procedures, if such is required. It is important to emphasize that the categorical exclusions are not exclusions from compliance but, rather, exclusions from performing routine evaluations to demonstrate compliance. Normally, the exclusion from performing a routine evaluation will be a sufficient basis for assuming compliance, unless an applicant or licensee is otherwise notified by the Commission or has reason to believe that the excluded transmitter or facility encompasses exceptional characteristics that could cause non - compliance. It should also be stressed that even though a transmitting source or facility may not be categorically excluded from routine evaluation, no further environmental processing is required once it has been demonstrated that exposures are within the guidelines, as specified in Part 1 of our rules. These points have been the source of some confusion in the past among FCC licensees and applicants, some of whom have been under the impression that filing an EA is always required. In adopting its new exposure guidelines, the Commission also adopted new rules indicating which transmitting facilities, operations and devices will be categorically excluded from performing routine, initial evaluations. The new exclusion criteria are based on such factors as type of service, antenna height, and operating power. The new criteria were adopted in an attempt to obtain greater consistency and scientific rigor in determining requirements for RF 12 See 47 CFR §§ 1.1307(c) and (d). 13 evaluation across the various FCC - regulated services. Routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure is required for transmitters, facilities or operations that are included in the categories listed in Table 2 of Appendix A or in FCC rule parts 2.1091 and 2.1093 (for portable and mobile devices). This requirement applies to some, but not necessarily all, transmitters, facilities or operations that are authorized under the following parts of our rules: 5, 15, 21 (Subpart K), 22 (Subpart E), 22 (Subpart H), 24, 25, 26, 27, 73, 74 (Subparts A, G, I, and L), 80 (ship earth stations), 90 (paging operations and Specialized Mobile Radio), 97 and 101 (Subpart L). Within a specific service category, conditions are listed in Table 2 of Appendix A to determine which transmitters will be subject to routine evaluation. These conditions are generally based on one or more of the following variables: (1) operating power, (2) location, (3) height above ground of the antenna and characteristics of the antenna or mode of transmission. In the case of Part 15 devices, only devices that transmit on millimeter wave frequencies and unlicensed Personal Communications Service (PCS) devices are covered, as noted in rule parts 2.1091 and 2.1093 (see section on mobile and portable devices of Appendix A). Transmitters and facilities not included in the specified categories are excluded from routine evaluation for RF exposure. We believe that such transmitting facilities generally pose little or no risk for causing exposures in excess of the guidelines. However, as noted above, in exceptional cases the Commission may, on its own merit or as the result of a petition, require environmental evaluation of transmitters or facilities even though they are otherwise excluded from routine evaluation. Also, at multiple - transmitter sites applications for non - excluded transmitters should consider significant contributions of other co- located transmitters (see discussion of multiple - transmitter evaluation in Section 2). If a transmitter operates using relatively high power, and there is a possibility that workers or the public could have access to the transmitter site, such as at a rooftop site, then routine evaluation is justified. In Table 2 of Appendix A, an attempt was made to identify situations in the various services where such conditions could prevail. In general, at rooftop transmitting sites evaluation will be required if power levels are above the values indicated in Table 2 of Appendix A. These power levels were chosen based on generally "worst- case" assumptions where the most stringent uncontrolled/general population MPE limit might be exceeded within several meters of transmitting antennas at these power levels. In the case of paging antennas, the likelihood that duty factors, although high, would not normally be expected to be 100% was also considered. Of course, if procedures are in place at a site to limit accessibility or otherwise control exposure so that the safety guidelines are met, then the site is in compliance and no further environmental processing is necessary under our rules. Tower - mounted ( "non- rooftop ") antennas that are used for cellular telephone, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) operations warrant a somewhat different approach for evaluation. While there is no evidence that typical installations in these services cause ground - level exposures in excess of the MPE limits, construction of these towers has been a topic of ongoing public controversy on environmental grounds, and we believe it necessary to ensure that 14 w,'i9LHKvtNi.): H+UHa!MC'rrc�rcta z �w re 6 00. u) 0 w= w 0. J u_a: =• d F- _ z� I- 0. Z~ w U 0 0- -0E- -. w ui . • 0 O ..z w 0 O I— z there is no likelihood of excessive exposures from these antennas. Although we believe there is no need to require routine evaluation of towers where antennas are mounted high above the ground, out of an abundance of caution the FCC requires that tower - mounted installations be evaluated if antennas are mounted lower than 10 meters above ground and the total power of all channels being used is over 1000 watts effective radiated power (ERP), or 2000 W ERP for broadband PCS.13 These height and power combinations were chosen as thresholds recognizing that a theoretically "worst case" site could use many channels and several thousand watts of power. At such power levels a height of 10 meters above ground is not an unreasonable distance for which an evaluation generally would be advisable. For antennas mounted higher than 10 meters, measurement data for cellular facilities have indicated that ground -level power densities are typically hundreds to thousands of times below the new MPE limits. In view of the expected proliferation of these towers in the future and possible use of multiple channels and power levels at these installations, and to ensure that tower installations are properly evaluated when appropriate, we have instituted these new requirements for this limited category of tower - mounted antennas in these services. For consistency we have instituted similar requirements for several other services that could use relatively high power levels with antennas mounted on towers lower than 10 meters above ground. Paging systems operated under Part 22 (Subpart E) and Part 90 of our rules previously have been categorically exempted from routine RF evaluation requirements. However, the potential exists that the new, more restrictive limits may be exceeded in accessible areas by relatively high - powered paging transmitters with rooftop antennas 14 These transmitters may operate with high duty factors in densely populated urban environments. The record and our own data indicate the need for ensuring appropriate evaluation of such facilities, especially at multiple transmitter sites. Accordingly, paging stations authorized under Part 22 (Subpart E) and Part 90 are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure if an antenna is located on a rooftop and if its ERP exceeds 1000 watts. Mobile and Portable Devices As noted in Appendix A, mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the Personal Communications Services (PCS), the General Wireless Communications Service, the Wireless Communication Service, the Satellite Communications services, the Maritime Services (ship earth stations only) and Specialized Mobile Radio Service authorized, respectively, under Part 22 (Subpart H), Part 24, Part 25, Part " For broadband PCS, 2000 W is used as a threshold, instead of 1000 W, since at these operating frequencies the exposure criteria are less restrictive by about a factor of two. '{ For example, under Part 90, paging operations in the 929 -930 MHz band may operate with power levels as high as 3500 W ERP. 15 26, Part 27, Part 80, and Part 90 of the FCC's Rules are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use. Unlicensed PCS, NII and millimeter wave devices are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use. All other mobile, portable, and unlicensed transmitting devices are normally categorically excluded from routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure (see Section 2 and Appendix A for further details). For purposes of these requirements mobile devices are defined by the FCC as transmitters designed to be used in other than fixed locations and to generally be used in such a way that a separation distance of at least 20 centimeters is normally maintained between radiating structures and the body of the user or nearby persons. These devices are normally evaluated for exposure potential with relation to the MPE limits given in Table 1 of Appendix A. The FCC defines portable devices, for purposes of these requirements, as transmitters whose radiating structures are designed to be used within 20 centimeters of the body of the user. As explained later, in Section 2 and in Appendix A, portable devices are to be evaluated with respect to limits for specific absorption rate (SAR). Operations in the Amateur Radio Service In the FCC's recentReport and Order, certain amateur radio installations were made subject to routine evaluation for compliance with the FCC's RF exposure guidelines 15 Also, amateur licensees will be expected to demonstrate their knowledge of the FCC guidelines through examinations. Applicants for new licenses and renewals also will be required to demonstrate that they have read and that they understand the applicable rules regarding RF exposure. Before causing or allowing an amateur station to transmit from any place where the operation of the station could cause human exposure to RF radiation levels in excess of the FCC guidelines amateur licensees are now required to take certain actions. A routine RF radiation evaluation is required if the transmitter power of the station exceeds the levels shown in Table 1 and specified in 47 CFR § 97.13(c)(1).1 Otherwise the operation is categorically excluded from routine RF radiation evaluation, except as a result of a specific motion or petition as specified in Sections 1.1307(c) and (d) of the FCC's Rules, (see earlier discussion in Section 1 of this bulletin). The Commission's Report and Order instituted a requirement that operator license 15 See para. 160 of Report and Order, ET Dkt 93 -62. See also, 47 CFR § 97.13, as amended. 16 These levels were chosen to roughly parallel the frequency of the MPE limits of Table 1 in Appendix A. These levels were modified from the Commission's original decision establishing a flat 50 W power threshold for routine evaluation of amateur stations (see Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket 93 -62, FCC 97- 303, adopted August 25, 1997). 16 z . z CL 6 2. U0 cno w =, H :CO Ili 0: 2 .50_ =: . d z z0 2 D. o -13 1H wuj _Z . w N, OF: examination question pools will include questions concerning RF safety at amateur stations. An additional five questions on RF safety will be required within each of three written examination elements. The Commission also adopted the proposal of the American Radio 17 TABLE 1. Power thresholds for routine evaluation of amateur radio stations. 18 1,14:01A • r., . ai ssx� � 5i v4�ur= Y�6alScca :wr ; Relay League (ARRL) that amateur operators should be required to certify, as part of their license application process, that they have read and understand our bulletins and the relevant FCC rules. When routine evaluation of an amateur station indicates that exposure to RF fields could be in excess of the exposure limits specified by the FCC (see Appendix A), the licensee must take action to correct the problem and ensure compliance (see Section 4 of this bulletin on controlling exposure). Such actions could be in the form of modifying patterns of operation, relocating antennas, revising a station's technical parameters such as frequency, power or emission type or combinations of these and other remedies. In complying with the Commission'sReport and Order, amateur operators should follow a policy of systematic avoidance of excessive RF exposure. The Commission has said that it will continue to rely upon amateur operators, in constructing and operating their stations, to take steps to ensure that their stations comply with the MPE limits for both occupational /controlled and general public /uncontrolled situations, as appropriate. In that regard, amateur radio operators and members of their immediate household are considered to be in a "controlled environment" and are subject to the occupational/controlled MPE limits. Neighbors who are not members of an amateur operator's household are considered to be members of the general public, since they cannot reasonably be expected to exercise control over their exposure. In those cases general population/uncontrolled exposure MPE limits will apply. In order to qualify for use of the occupational /controlled exposure criteria, appropriate restrictions on access to high RF field areas must be maintained and educational instruction in RF safety must be provided to individuals who are members of the amateur operator's household. Persons who are not members of the amateur operator's household but who are present temporarily on an amateur operator's property may also be considered to fall under the occupational/controlled designation provided that appropriate information is provided them about RF exposure potential if transmitters are in operation and such persons are exposed in excess of the general population/uncontrolled limits. Amateur radio facilities represent a special case for determining exposure, since there are many possible antenna types that could be designed and used for amateur stations. However, several relevant points can be made with respect to analyzing amateur radio antennas for potential exposure that should be helpful to amateur operators in performing evaluations. First of all, the generic equations described in this bulletin can be used for analyzing fields due to almost all antennas, although the resulting estimates for power density may be overly- conservative in some cases. Nonetheless, for general radiators and for aperture antennas, if the user is knowledgeable about antenna gain, frequency, power and other relevant factors, the equations in this section can be used to estimate field strength and power density as described earlier. In addition, other resources are available to amateur radio operators for analyzing fields near their antennas. The ARRL Radio Amateur Handbook contains an excellent section on analyzing amateur radio facilities for compliance with RF guidelines (Reference [4] ). Also, the z ~w 6 O 0� CO • 0 u� w W= W • O J' � _ z�. �-O z !- U.1 uj D 0: O- 0I wW LL' O' wz U =. O~ z FCC and the EPA conducted a study of several amateur radio stations in 1990 that provides a great deal of measurement data for many types of antennas commonly used by amateur operators (Reference [ 10] ). Amateur radio organizations and licensees are encouraged to develop their own more detailed evaluation models and methods for typical antenna configurations and power /frequency combinations. The FCC is working with the amateur radio community to develop a supplement to this bulletin that will be designed specifically for evaluating amateur radio installations. For example, the supplement will contain information on projected minimum exclusion distances from typical amateur antenna installations. The supplement should be completed soon after release of this bulletin. Once the amateur radio supplement is released by the FCC it will be made available for downloading at the FCC's World Wide Web Site for "RF safety." Amateur radio applicants and licensees are encouraged to monitor the Web Site for release of the supplement. The address is: www.fcc.gov /oet/rfsafety. Information on availability of the supplement, as well as other RF- related questions, can be directed to the FCC's "RF Safety Program" at: (202) 418 -2464 or to: rfsafety @fcc.gov. Section 2: PREDICTION METHODS The material in this section is designed to provide assistance in determining whether a given facility would be in compliance with guidelines for human exposure to RF radiation. The calculational methods discussed below should be helpful in evaluating a particular exposure situation. However, for certain transmitting facilities, such as radio and television broadcast stations, a specific supplement to this bulletin has been developed containing information and compliance guidelines specific to those stations." Therefore, applicants for radio and television broadcast facilities may wish to first consult this supplement that concentrates on AM radio, FM radio and television broadcast antennas. Applicants for many broadcast facilities should be able to determine whether a given facility would be in compliance with FCC guidelines by simply consulting the tables and figures in this supplement. However, in addition, with respect to occupational/controlled exposure, all applicants should consult Section 4 of this bulletin concerning controlling exposures that may occur during maintenance or other procedures carried out at broadcast and other telecommunications sites. Applicants may consult the relevant sections below, which describe how to estimate field strength and power density levels from typical, general radiators as well as from aperture " Supplement A to OET Bulletin 65, Version 97 -01, Additional Information for Radio and Television Broadcast Stations. This supplement can be downloaded from the FCC's RF Safety World Wide Web Site: www.fcc.gov /oet/rfsafety. For further information contact the RF safety program at: +1 (202) 418 -2464. 20 ..A . ! #±BIiCPff!rranww >,....,......_. .._.—_ .......... .......+...MN'r+tlyT�.•nf.CP1+S SM�RWM. 1pwt��. .T.mnYM!!tIPYP.1ftgi1AV7�ir 'v rrft W'yyr44.,1V,,00(..�7!? z �=' z JU UO v)w III w0 LQ =a w z� �O z F- uj U O O H' ww H U. u. 0, • Z U w ~O +' z antennas such as microwave and satellite dish antennas. The general equations given below can be used for predicting field strength and power density in the vicinity of most antennas, including those used for paging and in the commercial mobile radio service (CMRS). They can also be used for making conservative predictions of RF fields in the vicinity of antennas used for amateur radio transmissions, as discussed earlier. Equations for Predicting RF Fields Calculations can be made to predict RF field strength and power density levels around typical RF sources. For example, in the case of a single radiating antenna, a prediction for power density in the far -field of the antenna can be made by use of the general Equations (3) or (4) below [for conversion to electric or magnetic field strength see Equation (1) in Section 1]. These equations are generally accurate in the far -field of an antenna but will over - predict power density in the near field, where they could be used for making a "worst case" or conservative prediction. Install Equation Editor and double - click here to view equation. where: S = power density (in appropriate units, e.g. mW /cm2) P = power input to the antenna (in appropriate units, e.g., mW) G = power gain of the antenna in the direction of interest relative to an isotropic radiator R = distance to the center of radiation of the antenna (appropriate units, e.g., cm) or: Install Equation Editor and double- click here to view equation. where: EIRP = equivalent (or effective) isotropically radiated power (4) When using these and other equations care must be taken to use the correct units for all variables. For example, in Equation (3), if power density in units of mW /cm2 is desired then power should be expressed in milliwatts and distance in cm. Other units may be used, but care must be taken to use correct conversion factors when necessary. Also, it is important to note that the power gain factor, G, in Equation (3) is normally numeric gain. Therefore, when power gain is expressed in logarithmic terms, i.e., dB, a conversion is required using the relation: 21 .z z!. re .JU. U 0, w W. :W 0 Via'. z� z o. .0 0 H' W 1J.1 = U; • u Z. • U O7 • z Install Equation Editor and double - click here to view equation. For example, a logarithmic power gain of 14 dB is equal to a numeric gain of 25.12. In some cases operating power may be expressed in terms of "effective radiated power" or "ERP" instead of EIRP. ERP is power referenced to a half -wave dipole radiator instead of to an isotropic radiator. Therefore, if ERP is given it is necessary to convert ERP into EIRP in order to use the above equations. This is easily done by multiplying the ERP by the factor of 1.64, which is the gain of a half -wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. For example, if ERP is used in Equation (4) the relation becomes: Install Equation Editor and double - click here to view equation. (5) For a truly worst -case prediction of power density at or near a surface, such as at ground - level or on a rooftop, 100% reflection of incoming radiation can be assumed, resulting in a potential doubling of predicted field strength and a four -fold increase in (far -field equivalent) power density. In that case Equations (3) and (4) can be modified to: Install Equation Editor and double - click here to view equation. (6) In the case of FM radio and television broadcast antennas, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed models for predicting ground -level field strength and power density [Reference 11]. The EPA model recommends a more realistic approximation for ground reflection by assuming a maximum 1.6 -fold increase in field strength leading to an increase in power density of 2.56 (1.6 X 1.6). Equation (4) can then be modified to: .... `.I:'. ...: %,:iif`.:�:•+.t;,!'3w'. �.e�.':�3k3".ii� "�tri>i�.f�xi:{ s�L?: u` 0` rkc tii.'F�'.v�s:l��k;�;r`.r:i7.., ss?.ti 22 v. �:,�` a yi:;(y:,;.d'v' :ira' = ?S <f<x Ctie au1e5' !t; 'k;st ti6 SSi'.d'N %L:re:?tiriG�a�'�:�'4 &' i1�/= vi', Ita' SG:. �i' ��'.': isatF'` I".!M �..%..,. ..dtsC.ti`,d'1v�3`:aCF4�F%'w�C' z• �. z: WQ � Wn. UO` • cnw z; 'J H WO'. •J V. j. N d • _,. • Z t—O z •iO Ni • ° I- ww Z: v • • o�= z • Install Equation Editor and double - click here to view equation. If ERP is used in Equation (7), the relation becomes: Install Equation Editor and double - click here to view equation. (8) (7) It is sometimes convenient to use units of microwatts per centimeter squared (µW /cm2) instead of mW /cm2 in describing power density. The following simpler form of Equation (8) can be derived if power density, S, is to be expressed in units of tW /cm2: Install Equation Editor and double- t click here to view equation. where: S = power density in 11W /cm2 ERP = power in watts R = distance in meters (9) An example of the use of the above equations follows. A station is transmitting at a frequency of 100 MHz with a total nominal ERP (including all polarizations) of 10 kilowatts (10,000 watts) from a tower - mounted antenna. The height to the center of radiation is 50 meters above ground - level. Using the formulas above, what would be the calculated "worst- case" power density that could be expected at a point 2 meters above ground (approximate head level) and at a distance of 20 meters from the base of the tower? Note that this type of analysis does not take into account the vertical radiation pattern of the antenna, i.e., no information on directional characteristics of signal propagation is considered. Use of actual vertical radiation pattern data for the antenna would most likely significantly reduce ground -level exposure predictions from those calculated below (see later discussion), resulting in a more realistic estimate of the actual exposure levels. From simple trigonometry the distance R can be calculated to be 52 meters [square root of: (48)2 + (20)2], assuming essentially flat terrain. Therefore, using Equation (9), the calculated conservative "worst case" power density is: 23 Install Equation Editor and double - click here to view equation. By consulting Table 1 of Appendix A it can be determined that the limit for general population/uncontrolled exposure at 100 MHz is 0.2 mW /cm2 or 200 µW /cm2. Therefore, this calculation shows that even under worst -case conditions this station would comply with the general population/uncontrolled limits, at least at a distance of 20 meters from the tower. Similar calculations could be made to ensure compliance at other locations, such as at the base of the tower where the shortest direct line distance, R, to the ground would occur. Relative Gain and Main -Beam Calculations The above - described equations can be used to calculate fields from a variety of radiating antennas, such as omni - directional radiators, dipole antennas and antennas incorporating directional arrays. However, in many cases the use of equations such as Equations (3) and (4) will result in an overly conservative "worst case" prediction of the field at a given point. Alternatively, if information concerning an antenna's vertical radiation pattern is known, a relative field factor (relative gain) derived from such a pattern can be incorporated into the calculations to arrive at a more accurate representation of the field at a given point of interest. For example, in the case of an antenna pointing toward the horizon, if the relative gain in the main beam is 1.0, then in other directions downward from horizontal the field may be significantly less than 1.0. Therefore, radiation from the antenna directly toward the ground may be significantly reduced from the omni - directional case and a more realistic prediction of the field can be obtained for the point of interest. For example, in the calculation above, it can be shown from trigonometry that the depression angle below horizontal of the vector corresponding to the distance, R, is about 68 °. For purposes of illustration, assume that the antenna in this example has its main beam pointed approximately toward the horizon and, at a depression angle of 68°, the field relative to the main beam (relative gain) is -6 dB (a factor of 0.5 in terms of field strength and 0.25 in terms of power density). In that case the calculation above can be modified giving a more accurate representation of the power density at the ground -level point of interest, as follows. 24 Install Equation Editor and double- click here to view equation. where: F = the relative field factor (relative numeric gain) In general, Equation (9) can be modified to: Install Equation Editor and double- click here to view equation. (10) where: S = power density in µW /cm2 F = relative field factor (relative numeric gain) ERP = power in watts R = distance in meters When the point of interest where exposure may occur is in or near the main radiated beam of an antenna, Equation (3) or its derivatives can be used. In other words, the factor, F, in such cases would be assumed to be 1.0. Such cases occur when, for example, a nearby building or rooftop may be in the main beam of a radiator. For convenience in determining exposures in such situations, Equation (3) has been used to derive Figures 1 and 2. These figures allow a quick determination of the power density at a given distance from an antenna in its main beam for various levels of ERP.' Intermediate ERPs can be estimated by interpolation, or the next highest ERP level can be used as a worst case approximation. Figure 1 assumes no reflection off of a surface. However, at a rooftop location where the main -beam may be directed parallel and essentially along or only slightly above the surface of the roof, there may be reflected waves that would contribute to exposure. Therefore, Figure 2 was derived for the latter case using the EPA - recommended reflection factor of (1.6)2 = 2.56 (see earlier discussion), and the values shown are more conservative. When using Figures 1 or 2 a given situation should be considered on its own merits to determine which figure is more appropriate. For rooftop locations it is also important to note that exposures inside a building can be expected to be reduced by at least 10 -20 dB due to attenuation caused by building materials in the walls and roof. 18 To convert to EIRP use the relation: EIRP = ERP X 1.64. INgraPPEPPowinimw 25 Z ~ W _. re m, ug p; U; U O: • W • W= to t1- w O; d 1--.w. Z: . Z 0N. HIM w, 1--U •:O~ z... • ,..,. .. _am.c.a:;:.el%J�uv:::. 'S�.,,nel?�:u�•.,k,s'..rd.c : {.<sc} >. a...1 ,. �,h ..y-; �;4, a6�zk ::s.,7a.,,c.<,uH;....:ts�ki� -yy 'avi<. .''v.ttniyviisi.J .,,. d.a.i....k•c: Aperture Antennas Aperture antennas include those used for such applications as satellite -earth stations, point -to -point microwave radio and various types of radar applications. Generally, these types of antennas have parabolic surfaces and many have circular cross sections. They are characterized by their high gain which results in the transmission of power in a well - defined collimated beam with little angular divergence. Systems using aperture antennas operate at microwave frequencies, i.e., generally above 900 MHz. Those systems involved in telecommunications applications operate with power levels that depend on the distance between transmit and receive antennas, the number of channels required (bandwidth) and antenna gains of transmit and receive antennas. The antennas used typically have circular cross sections, where antenna diameter is an important characteristic that determines the antenna gain. With regard to some operations, such as satellite -earth station transmitting antennas, the combination of high transmitter power and large antenna diameter (high gain) produces regions of significant power density that may extend over relatively large distances in the main beam. Many "dish" type antennas used for satellite -earth station transmissions utilize the Cassegrain design in which power is fed to the antenna from a waveguide located at the center of the parabolic reflector. Radiation from this source is then incident on a small hyperbolic sub - reflector located between the power feed and the focal point of the antenna and is then reflected back to the main reflector resulting in the transmission of a collimated beam. An example of this is illustrated in Figure 3. Feed Parabolic Reflector yperbol c Sub - Reflector • Focal Point Collimated Beam FIGURE 3. Cassegrain Antenna Because of the highly directional nature of these and other aperture antennas, the likelihood of significant human exposure to RF radiation is considerably reduced. The power .,. � x.4'1 :. ,.:`r;:..., 1,: i. �tl��. d����.,:: i��.+' i,": �: cw, i:: X•!.;:? ki;',: 4' is�.: z5' R' i;;.{ ii&. W�'< iLS (}.o`'a.'S"r*.Eilkam.�.....__ z F-w D JU UO? .u) w: CO uJ o; -J • �a = d• w • F- _, • zt— •O N;. • w W. oi • O. Z, w oI- • z densities existing at locations where people may be typically exposed are substantially less than on -axis power densities. Factors that must be taken into account in assessing the potential for exposure are main -beam orientation, antenna height above ground, location relative to where people live or work and the operational procedures followed at the facility. Satellite -earth uplink stations have been analyzed and their emissions measured to determine methods to estimate potential environmental exposure levels. An empirical model has been developed, based on antenna theory and measurements, to evaluate potential environmental exposure from these systems [Reference 15]. In general, for parabolic aperture antennas with circular cross sections, the following information and equations from this model can be used in evaluating a specific system for potential environmental exposure. More detailed methods of analysis are also acceptable. For example, see References [18] and [21]. Antenna Surface. The maximum power density directly in front of an antenna (e.g., at the antenna surface) can be approximated by the following equation: Install Equation Editor and double - click here to view equation. where: S, „,,,a = maximum power density at the antenna surface P = power fed to the antenna A = physical area of the aperture antenna Near -Field Region. In the near- field, or Fresnel region, of the main beam, the power density can reach a maximum before it begins to decrease with distance. The extent of the near -field can be described by the following equation (D and X in same units): Install Equation Editor and double - click here to view equation. (12) where: R„r = extent of near -field D = maximum dimension of antenna (diameter if circular) X = wavelength The magnitude of the on -axis (main beam) power density varies according to location in the near - field. However, the maximum value of the near - field, on -axis, power density can 31 z f- Z U: UO: Cl) o; rn w; • ' C u.: w O; • a n. J' IL Q • - w. • Z Z w w' z -L6 0. UN • :01 • z be expressed by the following equation: Install Equation Editor and double - click here to view equation. where: Sar = maximum near -field power density rl = aperture efficiency, typically 0.5 -0.75 P = power fed to the antenna D = antenna diameter (13) Aperture efficiency can be estimated, or a reasonable approximation for circular apertures can be obtained from the ratio of the effective aperture area to the physical area as follows: Install Equation Editor and double - click here to view equation. (14) where: 11 = aperture efficiency for circular apertures G = power gain in the direction of interest relative to an isotropic radiator = wavelength D = antenna diameter If the antenna gain is not known, it can be calculated from the following equation using the actual or estimated value for aperture efficiency: Install Equation Editor and double - click here to view equation. (15) where: 11 = aperture efficiency G = power gain in the direction of interest relative to an isotropic radiator = wavelength A = physical area of the antenna Transition Region. Power density in the transition region decreases inversely with distance 32 from the antenna, while power density in the far -field (Fraunhofer region) of the antenna decreases inversely with the square of the distance. For purposes of evaluating RF exposure, the distance to the beginning of the far -field region (farthest extent of the transition region) can be approximated by the following equation: Install Equation Editor and double - click here to view equation. where: RR = distance to beginning of far -field D = antenna diameter = wavelength (16) The transition region will then be the region extending from Rnf, calculated from Equation (12), to Rif. If the location of interest falls within this transition region, the on -axis power density can be determined from the following equation: where: St = power density in the transition region Install Equation Editor and double - click here to view equation. (17) = maximum power density for near -field calculated above Rot = extent of near -field calculated above R = distance to point of interest Far -Field Region. The power density in the far -field or Fraunhofer region of the antenna pattern decreases inversely as the square of the distance. The power density in the far -field region of the radiation pattern can be estimated by the general equation discussed earlier: Install Equation Editor and double - click here to view equation. (18) where: SR = power density (on axis) P = power fed to the antenna G = power gain of the antenna in the direction of interest relative to an isotropic radiator R = distance to the point of interest Sr;y�i{1�: ?h;�w',,: :is�z`•�',^ lii.; Yet.', 1i': s: isisa' 1:: t1' �aiuu= i, �+, t; aG: s: iGk�i: 1X:'. 'r''Mk��+�,.��:k.;�'s�i'c�n+(t 33 •a• I+ J U; Ut.o; 'n o, wit J t-: Wo. a I- W: • t=•• •E-0: .z wW • 1Q�'. ';0 W W' . • w�. •V =. • o ~: z In the far -field region, power is distributed in a series of maxima and minima as a function of the off -axis angle (defined by the antenna axis, the center of the antenna and the specific point of interest). For constant phase, or uniform illumination over the aperture, the main beam will be the location of the greatest of these maxima. The on -axis power densities calculated from the above formulas represent the maximum exposure levels that the system can produce. Off -axis power densities will be considerably less. For off -axis calculations in the near -field and in the transition region it can be assumed that, if the point of interest is at least one antenna diameter removed from the center of the main beam, the power density at that point would be at least a factor of 100 (20 dB) less than the value calculated for the equivalent distance in the main beam (see Reference [ 15] ). = Z, 6 UO CO C • fnuj w z' J � N w w O. For practical estimation of RF fields in the off -axis vicinity of aperture antennas, use of �. the antenna radiation pattern envelope can be useful. For example, for the case of an earth u. Q. station in the fixed- satellite service, the Commission's Rules specify maximum allowable gain w d for antenna sidelobes not within the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit, such as at ground - _; level.19 In such cases, the rules require that the gain of the antenna shall lie below the envelope z 1- defined by: z 0 LLJ o -` • o I- ww Where: 0 = the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe t=— 2 dBi = dB relative to an isotropic radiator u- O. t!J Z U Use of the gain obtained from these relationships in simple far -field calculations, such as z Equation 18, will generally be sufficient for estimating RF field levels in the surrounding environment, since the apparent aperture of the antenna is typically very small compared to its frontal area. 32 - {25logio(0)} dBi for 1° < 0 < 48° and: -10 dBi for 48 °< 0 < 180° Special Antenna Models There are various antenna types for which other models and prediction methods could be useful for evaluating the potential for exposure. To discuss models for each of the numerous types of antennas in existence would be beyond the scope of this bulletin. However, some specific cases and applications will be mentioned. In addition, a model that was developed for FM radio broadcast antennas is discussed in Supplement A to this bulletin.2° 19 20 See 47 CFR 25.209 (a)(2). Additional Information for Radio and Television Broadcast Stations, Supplement A to OET Bulletin 65, Version 97 -01. This supplement will be made available for downloading from the FCC RF Safety Web Site: ._Arq,` -M- orfO%ttrOW.4•;4•4,4.:!xc"*ir' "cY'' -3S. Yap ': ii511. i1 'u�.''a?'wYJ.- atiiiaignizie,' 34 Prediction methods have been developed for certain specialized antennas used for paging, cellular radio and personal communications services (PCS). In 1995, a study was performed for the FCC by Richard Tell Associates, Inc., that included developing prediction methodology for RF fields in the vicinity of such antennas, particularly those that may be located on rooftops (see References [29] and also [22] ). In that study it was found that at distances close to these antennas a power density model based on inverse distance was more accurate than predictions based on the typical far -field equations such as Equations (3) and (4) above. In other words, in these equations the factor R could be substituted for the factor R2 for a more realistic approximation of the true power density close to the antennas. The distance over which this relation holds appears to vary with the antenna under study, but can extend for several meters according to the Tell study. Tell has observed that the use of a cylindrical model can be useful in evaluating RF fields near vertical collinear dipole antennas similar to those used for cellular, PCS, paging and two - way radio communications 2' This model can also be used in estimating near -field exposures adjacent to television and FM radio broadcast antennas where workers may be located during tower work. In general, this model is a more accurate predictor of exposure very close to an antenna where "far- field" equations, such as Equation 1, may significantlyoverpredict the RF environment. However, as one moves away from an antenna the cylindrical model becomes overly conservative and the far -field model becomes more accurate. The exact distance ( "crossover point ") where this occurs is not a simple value but depends on characteristics of the antenna such as aperture dimension and gain. One can determine this crossover point by calculating and plotting power densities using a far -field model and the cylindrical model described below and finding the distance where the predictions coincide. For Tell's cylindrical model, spatially averaged plane -wave equivalent power densities parallel to the antenna may be estimated by dividing the net antenna input power by the surface area of an imaginary cylinder surrounding the length of the radiating antenna. While the actual power density will vary along the height of the antenna, the average value along its www.fcc.gov /oet/rfsafety. Otherwise contact the FCC RF Safety Program at: (202) 418 -2464. 21 Tell, Richard A. (1996). EME Design and Operation Considerations for Wireless Antenna Sites. Technical report prepared for the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, Washington, D.C. 20036. 35 z t—Z 6 U 00 CD w, w =. J CO: O. ga CO zd t-0. Z 2a ;O O` w w;• tiiz; of z length will closely follow the relation given by the following equation. Install Equation Editor and double - click here to view equation. where: S = power density P,K, = net power input to the antenna R = distance from the antenna h = aperture height of the antenna (19) For sector -type antennas, power densities can be estimated by dividing the net input power by that portion of a cylindrical surface area corresponding to the angular beam width of the antenna. For example, for the case of a 120 - degree azimuthal beam width, the surface area should correspond to 1/3 that of a full cylinder. This would increase the power density near the antenna by a factor of three over that for a purely omni - directional antenna. Mathematically, this can be represented by Equation (20) in which the angular beam width, OBw, can be taken as the appropriate azimuthal "power dispersion" angle for a given reflector. For example, a conservative estimate could be obtained by using the 3 dB (half - power) azimuthal beam width for a given sectorized antenna. Install Equation Editor and double - click here to view equation. (20) where:. S = power density = net power input to the antenna °BW = beam width of the antenna in degrees R = distance from the antenna h = aperture height of the antenna Equation (20) can be used for any vertical collinear antenna, even omni- directional ones. For omni - directional antennas, 0Bw would be 360 degrees and Equation (20) reduces to the simpler Equation (19) above. Multiple- Transmitter Sites and Complex Environments It is common for multiple RF emitters to be co- located at a given site. Antennas are often clustered together at sites that may include a variety of RF sources such as radio and television broadcast towers, CMRS antennas and microwave antennas. The FCC's exposure guidelines are 36 F•;t' .- ,.Jib 11 ", i ?AV:,..,t:nt,.. ia.,..,W4Y'-":VtaSS'a .:Zhii.tAi M:M i...'f4v?iillaI FS: z i w 6 D -J C.) U O` NWi ' W =: J i- wO g d. w :z�-; z0 w; • .0 'W W. 2 O. wz U 0 = 0I '.Z meant to apply to any exposure situation caused by transmitters regulated by the FCC. Therefore, at multiple- transmitter sites, all significant contributions to the RF environment should be considered, not just those fields associated with one specific source. When there are multiple transmitters at a given site collection of pertinent technical information about them will be necessary to permit an analysis of the overall RF environment by calculation or computer modeling. However, if this is not practical a direct measurement survey may prove to be more expedient for assessing compliance (see Section 3 of this bulletin that deals with measurements for more information). The rules adopted by the FCC specify that, in general, at multiple transmitter sites actions necessary to bring the area into compliance with the guidelines are the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce field strengths or power density levels at the area in question in excess of 5% of the exposure limit (in terms of power density or the square of the electric or magnetic field strength) applicable to their particular transmitter 22 When performing an evaluation for compliance with the FCC's RF guidelinesall significant contributors to the ambient RF environment should be considered, including those otherwise excluded from performing routine RF evaluations, and applicants are expected to make a good -faith effort to consider these other transmitters. For purposes of such consideration, significance can be taken to mean any transmitter producing more than 5% of the applicable exposure limit (in terms of power density or the square of the electric or magnetic field strength) at accessible locations. The percentage contributions are then added to determine whether the limits are (or would be) exceeded. If the MPE limits are exceeded, then the responsible party or parties, as described below, must take action to either bring the area into compliance or submit an EA. Applicants and licensees should be able to calculate, based on considerations of frequency, power and antenna characteristics the distance from their transmitter where their signal produces an RF field equal to, or greater than, the 5% threshold limit. The applicant or licensee then shares responsibility for compliance in any accessible area or areas within this 5% "contour" where the appropriate limits are found to be exceeded. The following policy applies in the case of an application for a proposed transmitter, facility or modification (not otherwise excluded from performing a routine RF evaluation) that would cause non - compliance at an accessible area previously in compliance. In such a case, it is the responsibility of the applicant to either ensure compliance or submit an EA if emissions from the applicant's transmitter or facility would result in an exposure level at the non - complying area that exceeds 5% of the exposure limits applicable to that transmitter or facility in terms of power density or the square of the electric or magnetic field strength. For a renewal applicant whose transmitter or facility (not otherwise excluded from routine evaluation) contributes to the RF environment at an accessible area not in compliance with the guidelines the following policy applies. The renewal applicant must submit an EA if u See 47 C.F.R. 1.1307(b)(3), as amended. ::�i.:1:i s'r'•'s ; tr a� o �ska tss<s �t u: t,;�rW r �'a gym`., e itfins<3C 's�;i 37 z =Z CC oo LLI Ill I x N� cn w; w o. < co 1. w z Z O. w uj n o O N o w w. LI O Z' U W z emissions from the applicant's transmitter or facility, at the area in question, result in an exposure level that exceeds 5% of the exposure limits applicable to that particular transmitter in terms of power density or the square of the electric or magnetic field strength. In other words, although the renewal applicant may only be responsible for a fraction of the total exposure (greater than 5 %), the applicant (along with any other licensee undergoing renewal at the same time) will trigger the EA process, unless suitable corrective measures are taken to prevent non - compliance before preparation of an EA is necessary. In addition, in a renewal situation if a determination of non - compliance is made, other co- located transmitters contributing more than the 5% threshold level must share responsibility for compliance, regardless of whether they are categorically excluded from routine evaluation or submission of an EA. z • z> re 6 O O' CO 0 • w w: w I, JF.. Therefore, at multiple - transmitter sites the various responsibilities for evaluating the RF w 0 environment, taking actions to ensure compliance or submitting an EA may lie either with a g newcomer to the site, with a renewal applicant (or applicants) or with all significant users, j. depending on the situation. In general, an applicant or licensee for a transmitter at a multiple- = d transmitter site should seek answers to the following questions in order to determine compliance I- _. z� responsibility. O z ►-. ww (1) New transmitter proposed for a multiple- transmitter site. 2 a • Is the transmitter in question already categorically excluded from routine evaluation': o wui • If yes, routine evaluation of the application is not required. �. u" O. • If not excluded, is the site in question already in compliance with the FCC guidelines? v • If no, the applicant must submit an EA with its application notifying the Commission z of the non - compying situation, unless measures are to be taken to ensure compliance. Compliance is the responsibility of licensees of all transmitters that contribute to non- complying area(s) in excess of the applicable 5% threshold at the existing site. If the existing site is subsequently brought into compliance without consideration of the new applicant then the next two questions below apply. • If yes, would the proposed transmitter cause non - compliance at the site in question? • If yes, the applicant must submit an EA (or submit a new EA in the situation described above) with its application notifying the Commission of the potentially non - complying situation, unless measures will be taken by the applicant to ensure compliance. In this situation, it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance, since the existing site is already in compliance. • If no, no further environmental evaluation is required and the applicant certifies compliance. 38 7xr.'txkw+!9rw?:R15^Ft!�'f (2) Renewal applicant at a multiple- transmitter site • Is the transmitter in question already categorically excluded from routine • If yes, routine evaluation of the application is not required. • If not excluded, is the site in question already in compliance with the FCC guidelines? • If no, the applicant must submit an EA with its application notifying the Commission of the non - compying situation, unless measures are taken to ensure compliance. Compliance is the responsibility of licensees of all transmitters that contribute to non- complying area(s) in excess of the applicable 5% threshold. • If yes, no further environmental evaluation is necessary and the applicant certifies compliance. The Commission expects its licensees and applicants to cooperate in resolving problems involving compliance at multiple - transmitter sites. Also, owners of transmitter sites are expected to allow applicants and licensees to take reasonable steps to comply with the FCC's requirements. When feasible, site owners should also encourage co- location and common solutions for controlling access to areas that may be out of compliance. In situations where disputes arise or where licensees cannot reach agreement on necessary compliance actions, a licensee or applicant should notify the FCC licensing bureau. The bureau may then determine whether appropriate FCC action is necessary to facilitate a resolution of the dispute. The FCC's MPE limits vary with frequency. Therefore, in mixed or broadband RF fields where several sources and frequencies are involved, the fraction of the recommended limit (in terms of power density or square of the electric or magnetic field strength) incurred within each frequency interval should be determined, and the sum of all fractional contributions should not exceed 1.0, or 100% in terms of percentage. For example, consider an antenna farm with radio and UHF television broadcast transmitters. At a given location that is accessible to the general public it is determined that FM radio station X contributes 100 pW/cm2 to the total power density (which is 50% of the applicable 200.tW /cm2 MPE limit for the FM frequency band). Also, assume that FM station Y contributes an additional 50 pW /cm2 (25% of its limit) and that a nearby UHF -TV station operating on Channel 35 (center frequency = 599 MHz) contributes 200 tW /cm2 at the same location (which is 50% of the applicable MPE limit for this frequency of 400 µW /cm2). The sum of all of the percentage contributions then equals 125 %, and the location is not in compliance with the MPE limits for the general public. Consequently, measures must be taken to bring the site into compliance such as restricting access to the area (see Section 4 of this bulletin on controlling exposure). As noted above, in such situations it is the shared responsibility of site occupants to take whatever actions are necessary to bring a site into compliance. In the above case, the allocation of responsibility could be generally based on each station's percentage contribution to the overall power density at the problem location, although such a formula for allocating responsibility is not ':.a:ii.t.l'.V�Y. S'• . ISD •.iF �i�C✓J1 .e 39 ∎frasamPrAn'!./•k:1j.:Y�ry evaluation': an FCC requirement, and other formulas may be used, as appropriate. When attempting to predict field strength or power density levels at multiple transmitter sites the general equations discussed in this section of the bulletin can be used at many sites, depending on the complexity of the site. Individual contributions can often be determined at a given location using these prediction methods, and then power densities (or squares of field strength values) can be added together for the total predicted exposure level. In addition, time - averaging of exposures may be possible, as explained in Section 1 of this bulletin. For sites involving radio and television broadcast stations, the methods described in Supplement A for broadcast stations can be used in some circumstances when a site is not overly complex. Also, for wireless communications sites, some organizations have developed commercially- available software for modeling sites for compliance purposes 23 When considering the contributions to field strength or power density from other RF sources, care should be taken to ensure that such variables as reflection and re- radiation are considered. In cases involving very complex sites predictions of RF fields may not be possible, and a measurement survey may be necessary (see Section 3 of this bulletin). The following example illustrates a simple situation involving multiple antennas. The process for determining compliance for other situations can be similarly accomplished using the techniques described in this section and in Supplement A to this bulletin that deals with radio and television broadcast operations. However, as mentioned above, at very complex sites measurements may be necessary. In the simple example shown in Figure 4 it is desired to determine the power density at a given location X meters from the base of a tower on which are mounted two antennas. One antenna is a CMRS antenna with several channels, and the other is an FM broadcast antenna. The system parameters that must be known are the total ERP for each antenna and the operating frequencies (to determine which MPE limits apply). The heights above ground level for each antenna, H1 and H2, must be known in order to calculate the distances, Rland R2, from the antennas to the point of interest. The methods described in this section (and in Supplement A for FM antennas) can be used to determine the power density contributions of each antenna at the location of interest, and the percentage contributions (compared to the applicable MPE limit for that frequency) are added together as described above to determine if the location complies with the applicable exposure guidelines. If the location is accessible to the public, the general/population limits apply. Otherwise occupational/controlled limits should be used. Another type of complex environment is a site with multiple towers. The same general process may be used to determine compliance as described above, if appropriate. For example, the following two U.S. companies have recently begun marketing such software: (1) Richard Tell Associates, Inc., telephone: (702) 645 -3338; and (2) UniSite, telephone: (972) 348 -7632. • 40 -40 h.7 far z Z. oc 2 00 cn w =. w: w0 Q.. CI'. I— w Z Z �. 0 Z - w uj • O. o — ..O t w w.. H H`. z' I. 0 ~' z c Distances from each transmitting antenna to the point of interest must be calculated, and RF levels should be calculated at the point of interest due to emissions from each transmitting antenna using the most accurate model. Limits, percentages and cumulative percent of the limit may then be determined in the same manner as for Figure 4. Figure 5 illustrates such a situation. Another situation may involve a single antenna that creates significant RF levels at more than one type of location. Figure 6 illustrates such a situation where exposures on a rooftop as well as on the ground are possible. The same considerations apply here as before and can be applied to predict RF levels at the points of interest. As mentioned previously, with respect to rooftop environments, it is also important to remember that building attenuation can be expected to reduce fields inside of the building by approximately 10 -20 dB. Situations where tower climbing is involved may be complicated and may require reduction of power or shutting down of transmitters during maintenance tasks (also see Section 4 of this bulletin on controlling exposure). Climbing of AM towers involves exposure due to RF currents induced in the body of the climber, and guidelines are available for appropriate power reduction (see Supplement A, Section 1, dealing with AM broadcast stations). For FM, TV and other antennas that may be mounted on towers, the highest exposures will be experienced near the active elements of each antenna and may require shutting off or greatly reducing power when a worker passes near the elements. The equations in this section can also be used to calculate worst -case RF levels either below or above antennas that are side - mounted on towers. In the example shown in Figure 7, a more complicated situation arises when a worker is climbing an AM tower on which are side - mounted two other antennas. In this case the safest and most conservative approach would be to consult Supplement A, Section 1, for the appropriate AM power level to use and then to ensure that the transmitters for the other antennas are shut down when the climber passes near each side - mounted antenna's elements. : ,.;eta: ^.•i:� .,.... r',. �r:. k? �; l` v:'?., 2;.. ri,'% r.., 3, �; �x�r :::iNiSe<:;i�.�'.i :�a�!�i�^5'�3 41 z �z • 6 D. JU' U.O. .0 o w =: w o: 1 LL -a h-=. z� .1- O. .z D o, O co; W .1-- H! O: w z' U co, • z Figure 4. Single tower, co- located antennas, ground -level exposure (at 2 m). Antenna 2 FIGURE 5. Antennas on multiple towers contributing to RF field at point of interest. 42 X1 Point of In1 r 4 2m Antenna FIGURE 6. Single roof -top antenna, various exposure locations. Antenna 1 Mama a 3 (AM tour) —► Mt aflame 43 rest .^? use'.sli'a+ui+:yi,•.H,r�a,llbi. �.i-F ;y.15':i`�::L��iarzau: lid.' tir,;. �y :,- ,.�•�'t�Yi1�'?ni4irY <.:,;t: '�"'t FIGURE 7. Single tower, co- located antennas, on -tower exposure. 44 Evaluating Mobile and Portable Devices Portable and mobile devices present something of a special case with respect to evaluating RF exposure. The user of such a device would most likely be in the near vicinity of the RF radiator, and the predictive methods described above may not apply in all cases. Therefore, evaluation of exposure due to these devices requires special consideration. The FCC's rules for evaluating portable and mobile devices for RF compliance are contained in 47 CFR § §2.1091 and 2.1093 (see Appendix A). The new FCC guidelines differentiate between devices according to their proximity to exposed persons. In that regard, "portable" devices are defined as those devices that are designed to be used with any part of the radiating structure of the device in direct contact with the body of the user or within 20 cm of the body of the user under normal conditions of use. This category would include such devices as hand -held cellular telephones that incorporate the radiating antenna into the handpiece. "Mobile" devices are defined by the FCC as transmitting devices designed to be used in other than fixed locations that would normally be used with radiating structures maintained 20 cm or more from the body of the user or nearby persons. In this context, the term "fixed location" means that the device is physically secured at one location and is not able to be easily moved to another location. Examples of mobile devices, as defined above, would include transportable cellular telephones ( "bag" phones), cellular telephones and other radio devices that use vehicle- mounted antennas and certain other transportable transmitting devices. Transmitting devices designed to be used by consumers or workers that can be easily re- located, such as wireless devices associated with a personal computer, are considered to be mobile devices if they meet the 20 centimeter separation requirement. Evaluation of exposure from a portable or mobile device depends on how the device is to be used. With respect to portable devices, both the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard and the NCRP exposure criteria, upon which the FCC guidelines are based, permit devices designed to be used in the immediate vicinity of the body, such as hand -held telephones, to be excluded from compliance with the limits for field strength and power density provided that such devices comply with the limits for specific absorption rate (SAR). Therefore, portable devices, as defined by the FCC, are to be evaluated with respect to SAR not MPE limits. For most consumer -type devices, such as hand -held cellular telephones, the appropriate SAR limit is 1.6 watt/kg as averaged over any one gram of tissue, defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube (see Appendix A for details). The selection of the 20 -cm value for differentiating between "portable" and "mobile" devices is based on the specification in the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard that 20 cm should be the minimum separation distance where reliable field measurements to determine adherence to MPEs can be made.24 Therefore, although at closer distances a determination of SAR is 24 Although ANSI/IEEE does not explicitly state a rule for determining when SAR measurements are preferable to MPE measurements, we believe that the 20 cm distance is appropriate based on Sec. 4.3(3) of ANSI/IEEE C95.1- z 1=— Z . re w 0 W =. J1-, w u_ Q. z o zr W o *o1 iL w O ti.z u) = OH z normally a more appropriate measure of exposure, for "mobile" devices, as defined above, compliance can be evaluated with respect to MPE limits, and the generic equations of this section, such as Equations (3) and (4), can be used for calculating exposure potential. For portable devices SAR evaluation is routinely required by the FCC prior to equipment authorization or use for the following categories: (1) portable telephones or portable telephone devices to be used in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service authorized under Part 22, Subpart H of the FCC's rules or to be used in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services for SMR systems under Part 90 of our rules; (2) portable devices to be used in the Personal Communications Services (PCS) authorized under Part 24; (3) portable devices that operate in the General Wireless Communications Services or the Wireless Communications Service authorized under Parts 26 and 27; (4) portable devices to be used for earth- satellite communication authorized under Part 25 and Part 80; and (5) portable unlicensed PCS, portable unlicensed NII and portable millimeter -wave devices authorized under Part 15 of our rules (see Appendix A for specific rule parts). Mobile devices, as defined above, are to be evaluated with respect to the MPE limits specified in Table 1 of Appendix A (and in 47 CFR § 1.1310). Evaluation prior to equipment authorization or use is routinely required for the following mobile transmitters if the operating frequency is 1.5 GHz or below and the effective radiated power (ERP) of the station, in its normal configuration, will be 1.5 watts or greater, or if the operating frequency is above 1.5 GHz and the ERP is 3 watts or more: (1) mobile telephones or portable telephone devices to be used in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service authorized under Part 22 Subpart H of the FCC's rules or to be used in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services for SMR systems under Part 90 of our rules; (2) mobile devices to be used in the Personal Communications Services (PCS) authorized under Part 24; (3) mobile devices that operate in the General Wireless Communications Services or the Wireless Communications Service authorized under Parts 26 and 27; (4) mobile devices to be used for earth- satellite communication authorized under Part 25 and Part 80; and (5) unlicensed PCS, unlicensed NII and millimeter -wave mobile devices authorized under Part 15 of our rules. Although the FCC's exposure criteria apply to portable and mobile devices in general, at this time routine evaluation for compliance is not required for devices such as "push -to- talk" portable radios and "push to talk" mobile radios used in taxicabs, business, police and fire vehicles and used by amateur radio operators. These transmitting devices are excluded from routine evaluation because their duty factors (percentage of time during use when the device is transmitting) are generally low and, for mobile radios, because their antennas are normally mounted on the body of a vehicle which provide some shielding and separation from the user. This significantly reduces the likelihood of human exposure in excess of the RF safety guidelines due to emissions from these transmitters. Duty factors associated with transmitting devices that are not "push -to- talk," such as transportable cellular telephones ( "bag" phones) or cellular 1992. .,.��:�:i',�iti i;�i::i:a..: ,fkA1�k:�CG:: eukY'ix�,� �:�±il' %Tf:e! pry.:;:;. ire +n'ai.�✓.i��?'1i7��x'E:SiFd 46 r'r ', r ma#i ' •.. t ' telephones that use vehicle- mounted antennas, would be generally higher, and these devices are subject to routine evaluation. Although we are not requiring routine evaluation of all portable and mobile devices, under Sections 1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d) of the FCC's Rules, 47 CFR 1.1307(c) and (d), the Commission reserves the right to require evaluation for environmental significance of any device (in this case with respect to SAR or compliance with MPE limits). The following guidelines should be used to determine the application of the exposure criteria to portable and mobile devices in general. First of all, devices may generally be evaluated based on whether they are designed to be used under occupational/controlled or general population/uncontrolled conditions. Devices that are designed specifically to be used in the workplace, such as many hand -held, two -way portable radios, would be considered as operating in an occupational /controlled environment and the applicable limits for controlled environments would apply. On the other hand, devices designed to be purchased and used primarily by consumers, such as cellular telephones and most personal communications devices, would be considered to operate under the general population/uncontrolled category, and limits for uncontrolled environments would apply. Devices that can be used in either environment would normally be required to meet uncontrolled exposure criteria. In situations where higher exposure levels may result from unusual or inappropriate use of a device, instructional material should be provided to the user to caution against such usage. With regard to mobile devices that are not hand -held, labels and instructional material may be useful as when a minimum separation distance is desired to be maintained. For example, in the case of a cellular "bag" phone a prominent warning label as well as instructional information on minimum required distances for compliance would be an acceptable means of ensuring that the device is used safely. With respect to evaluating portable devices, various publications are available that describe appropriate measurement techniques and methods for determining SAR for compliance purposes. The use of appropriate numerical and computational techniques, such as FDTD analysis, may be acceptable for demonstrating compliance with SAR values. Studies have indicated that such techniques can be used to determine energy absorption characteristics in exposed subjects (e.g., see Reference [24]). However, in order for numerical techniques to be valid the basic computational algorithm and modeling of the portable device should be validated, and appropriate models of the human body should be used which will provide reasonable accurate estimates of SAR. Accurate models of the adult human body exist at the present time, but developing models of devices may be more problematic. In general, numerical device and antenna models should represent the actual device under test and should be confirmed accordingly, e.g., with appropriate techniques, analytical data, published data or far -field radiation patterns. 25 For example, see sections of ANSIIIEEE C95.3 -1992 and NCRP Report No. 119, discussed below, that describe SAR evaluation techniques. Also, see References [5], [7], [12], [13], [14], [16], [17], [23] and [24]. Other organizations are developing information on SAR evaluation procedures, and SAR evaluation services and systems are commercially available. For purposes of evaluating compliance with localized SAR guidelines, portable devices should be tested or evaluated based on normal operating positions or conditions. Because of the location of the antenna, the antenna may be closer to the body, e.g., the head, when the device is held against the left side of the head or body versus when it is held against the right side. In such cases, there will be differences in coupling to the body resulting in higher SARs when the device is held on one side rather than the other. Since various users may hold these devices in either position, both positions should be tested to determine compliance. Industry groups and other organizations are expected to develop product performance standards and other information to ensure compliance with SAR criteria in the future. This effort will be very helpful in facilitating the provision of compliance guidelines and services to manufacturers and others. In that regard, a sub - committee sponsored by the IEEE has been recently formed to develop specific and detailed recommendations for experimental and numerical evaluation of SAR from portable devices.26 FCC staff participate as members of this sub - committee, and it is expected that the FCC will be able to use the recommendations made by this group to provide future guidance on SAR evaluation 27 In the meantime, the FCC expects to periodically issue statements or guidance on compliance with SAR requirements pending the issuance of any recommended protocols or guidelines from the IEEE or other organizations. Inquiries with respect to FCC requirements for SAR evaluation should be directed to the FCC's laboratory in Columbia, Maryland, telephone: (301) 725 -1585. For portable devices operating at frequencies above 6 GHz special considerations are necessary. The localized SAR criteria used by the FCC, and specified in the ANSI/IEEE 1992 standard, only apply at operating frequencies between 100 kHz and 6 GHz 28 For portable devices that operate above 6 GHz (e.g., millimeter -wave devices) localized SAR is not an appropriate means for evaluating exposure. At these higher frequencies, exposure from portable devices should be evaluated in terms of power density MPE limits instead of SAR. Power density values can be either calculated or measured, as appropriate. If power density is to be measured at these higher frequencies to show compliance of portable devices, a question arises as to an appropriate minimum distance at which to make such a measurement. The ANSI/IEEE 1992 standard specifies 20 cm as a minimum separation distance for such measurements. The guidelines delineated in NCRP No. 86 indicated that 26 IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 34 (IEEE SCC34), sub - committee II. For further information contact the IEEE at 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855 -1331. 27 It should also be noted that in February 1997 the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization released a CENELEC document entitled, "Considerations for Human Exposure to EMFs from Mobile Telecommunications Equipment (MTE) in the Frequency Range 30 MHz - 6 GHz." This document contains information and guidance on techniques for evaluating SAR compliance for RF devices. 28 ANSI/IEEE C95.1 -1992, Section 4.2. 48 Fr V.10, tralt, z a • �z va. w QQom. JU U0 N �. CO w: J N_LL wO g. u- = 0' �w z �. I- 0. Z I—' w uj UC.1 'O N'. CI 1- ww H w Z .‘2. O H, z INTRODUCTION The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for licensing or authorizing many of the transmitting devices in the United States that use radiofrequency (RF) radiation to provide a variety of important telecommunications services. Because of its responsibilities in this regard the FCC often receives inquiries concerning potential health risks from exposure to the RF radiation emitted by these transmitters. Recent years have witnessed increasing interest and concern on the part of the public with respect to this issue. The expanding use of RF technology has resulted in speculation concerning the alleged "electromagnetic pollution" of the environment and the potential dangers of exposure to non - ionizing radiation. This publication is designed to provide factual information to the public by answering some of the most commonly asked questions about this complex and often misunderstood topic. WHAT IS RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION? Radiofrequency (RF) radiation is one of several types of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation consists of waves of electric and magnetic energy moving together through space. These waves are generated by the movement of electrical charges. For example, the movement of charge in a transmitting radio antenna, i.e., the alternating current, creates electromagnetic waves that radiate away from the antenna and can be picked up by a receiving antenna. Electromagnetic waves travel through space at the speed of light. Each electromagnetic wave has associated with it a wavelength and frequency which are inversely related by a simple mathematical formula: (frequency) times (wavelength) = the speed of light. Since the speed of light is a fixed number, electromagnetic waves with high frequencies have short wavelengths and waves with low frequencies have long wavelengths. The electromagnetic "spectrum" includes all of the various forms of electromagnetic radiation ranging from extremely low frequency (ELF) radiation (with very long wavelengths) to X -rays and gamma rays which have very high frequencies and correspondingly short wavelengths. In between these extremes lie radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light, and ultraviolet radiation. The RF part of the electromagnetic spectrum is generally defined as electromagnetic radiation with frequencies in the range from about 3 kilohertz to 300 gigahertz. One "hertz" equals one cycle per second. A kilohertz (kHz) is one thousand hertz, a megahertz (MHz) is one million hertz, and a gigahertz is one billion hertz. The diagram below illustrates the electromagnetic spectrum and the approximate relationship between the various forms of electromagnetic radiation. WHAT IS MICROWAVE RADIATION? Microwave radiation is a high - frequency form of RF radiation. Micro- wave frequencies occupy the upper part of the RF electromagnetic spectrum, usually defined as the frequency range from about 300 MHz to 300 GHz. The most familiar use of microwave radiation is in household microwave ovens which rely on the principle that microwaves generate heat throughout an object rather than just at the surface. Therefore, microwave ovens can cook food more rapidly than conventional ovens. Other uses of microwaves are: the transmission of telephone and telegraph messages through low -power microwave relay antennas, military and civilian radar systems, the transmission of signals between ground stations and satellites, and the transmission of signals in certain broadcasting operations. Certain medical devices use microwave frequencies in therapeutic applications of RF radiation. WHAT ARE TYPICAL USES OF RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION? Many uses have been developed for RF energy. Familiar applications involving telecommunications include AM and FM radio, television, citizens band (CB) radio, hand -held walkie- talkies, amateur radio, short -wave radio, cordless telephones, and microwave point -to -point and ground -to- satellite telecommunications links. Non - telecommunications applications include microwave ovens and radar, as mentioned above. Also important are devices that use RF energy in industrial heating a nd sealing operations. The latter devices generate RF radiation that rapidly heats the material being processed in the same way that a microwave oven cooks food. These RF heaters and sealers have many uses in industry, including molding plastic materials, gluing wood products, sealing items, such as shoes and pocketbooks, and processing food products. Medical applications of RF radiation include a technique called diathermy that takes advantage of RF energy's ability to heat tissue below the body's surface rapidly. The term "hyperthermia" is used in reference to therapeutic RF heating of cancerous tumors. RF energy is also used in the stimulation of bone healing. WHAT IS NON - IONIZING RADIATION, AND HOW DOES IT DIFFER FROM IONIZING RADIATION? The energy associated with electromagnetic radiation depends on its frequency (or wavelength); the greater the frequency (and shorter the wavelength), the higher the energy. Therefore, x- radiation and gamma radiation, which have extremely high frequencies, have relatively large amounts of energy; while, at the other end of the electromagnetic spectrum, ELF radiation is less energetic by many orders of magnitude. In between these extremes lie ultraviolet radiation, visible light, infrared radiation, and RF radiation (including microwaves), all differing in energy content. Of the various forms of electromagnetic radiation, x- radiation and gamma radiation represent the greatest relative hazard because of their greater energy content and corresponding greater potential for damage. In fact, X -rays and gamma rays are so energetic that they can cause ionization of atoms and molecules and thus are classified as "ionizing" radiation. Ionization is a process by which electrons are stripped from atoms and molecules, producing molecular changes that can lead to significant genetic damage in biological tissue. Less energetic forms of electromagnetic radiation, such as microwave radiation, lack the ability to ionize atoms and molecules and are classified as "non- ionizing" radiation. It is important that the terms, "ionizing" and "non- ionizing," not be confused when referring to electromagnetic radiation, since their mechanisms interaction of the human body are quite different. Biological effects of (non- ionizing) RF radiation are discussed in a later section. HOW IS RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION MEASURE? Since radiofrequency radiation has both an electric and a magnetic component, it is often convenient to express intensity of radiation field in terms of units specific to each component. The unit "volts per meter" (V /m) is used for the electric component, and the unit "amperes per meter" (A /m) is used for the magnetic component. We often speak of an electromagnetic "field," and these units are used to provide information about the levels of electric and magnetic "field strength" at a measurement location. Another commonly used unit for characterizing an RF electromagnetic field is "Power density." Power density is most accurately used when the point of measurement is far enough away from the RF emitter to be located in what is referred to as the "far field" zone of the radiation pattern. In closer proximity to the transmitter, i.e., in the "near field" zone, the physical relationships between the electric and magnetic components of the field can be complex, and it is best to use the field strength units discussed above. Power density is measured in terms of power per unit area, for example, milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2). When speaking of frequencies in the microwave range and higher, power density is usually used to express intensity since exposures that might occur would likely be in the far field zone. A detailed discussion of the physics of RF fields and their measurement can be found in Reference 1. WHAT BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS CAN BE CAUSED BY RADIATION? There is a relatively extensive body of published literature concerning the biological effects of RF radiation. The following discussion only provides highlights of current knowledge in this area. Detailed information on this topic can be found in References 2 -14. It has been known for some time that high intensities of RF radiation can be harmful due to the ability of RF energy to heat biological tissue rapidly. This is the principle by which microwave ovens cook food, and exposure to high RF power densities, i.e., on the order of 100 mW/cm2 or more, can result in heating of the human body and an increase in body temperature. Tissue damage can result primarily because of the body's inability to cope with or dissipate the excessive heat. Under certain conditions, exposure to RF power densities of about 10 mW /cm2 or more could result in measurable heating of biological tissue. The extent of heating would depend on several factors including frequency of the radiation; size, shape, and orientation of the exposed object; duration of exposure; environmental conditions; and efficiency of heat dissipation. Biological effects that result from heating of tissue by RF energy are often referred to as "thermal" effects. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, can be particularly susceptible to heating by RF energy because of the relative lack of available blood flow to dissipate the excessive heat load. Laboratory experiments have shown that short -term exposure to high levels of RF radiation (100 -200 mW /cm2) can cause cataracts in rabbits. Temporary sterility, caused by such effects as changes in sperm count and in sperm motility, is possible after exposure of the testes to high -level RF radiation. It should be emphasized that environmental levels of RF radiation routinely encountered by the public are far below the levels necessary to produce significant heating and increased body temperature. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that 98 -99% of the population in seven U.S. urban areas studied is exposed to less than 0.001 mW/cm2 (Reference 15). However, there may be situations, particularly workplace environments, where RF safety standards are exceeded and people could be exposed to potentially harmful levels of RF radiation. In addition to intensity, the electromagnetic frequency of RF radiation is important in determining the relative hazard. At a distance of several wavelengths from a source of RF radiation, whole -body absorption of RF energy by humans will occur at a maximum rate when the frequency of the radiation is between about 30 and 300 MHz. Because of this "resonance" phenomenon, RF safety standards take this frequency dependence into account. Therefore, as discussed in a later section, the most stringent standards are in this frequency range of maximum absorption. At relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, i.e. , field intensities lower than those that would produce significant and measurable heating, the evidence for production of harmful biological effects is less clear . A number of reports have appeared in the Russian and East European literature claiming a wide range of low -level biological effects. The low - level effects on animals and humans reported in the Soviet and East European literature have included behavioral modifications, effects on the blood forming and immunological system, reproductive effects, changes in hormone rP�aWRS 'tzwerrrrmrzw,+ +em :°jR4?(n[,Pu �7IN;9t"r+t% .:+v mAr.vr'$ F7t !r xs+aevm..m levels, headaches, irritability, fatigue, and cardiovascular effects. However, further research is needed to confirm the existence of these effects and to determine whether they might constitute a health hazard, particularly with regard to long -term exposure. In recent years some Western scientists have also reported biological effects after exposure of animals and animal tissue to relatively low levels of RF radiation. These effects, often referred to as "non-thermal" effects, have included changes in the immune system, neurological effects, behavioral effects, evidence for a link between microwave exposure and the action of certain drugs and compounds, and a "calcium efflux" effect in brain tissue (discussed below). Experimental results have also suggested that microwaves might be involved in cancer "promotion" under certain conditions. However, contradictory experimental results have also been reported in many of these cases, and further experiments are needed to determine the generality of these effects and whether they constitute a threat to human health. It is possible that "non- thermal" mechanisms exist that could cause harmful biological effects in animals and humans exposed to RF radiation. However, whether this is the case remains to be proven. One of the "non- thermal" biological effects that appears to be re- producible is the "calcium efflux" effect. This effect can be described as the observation that the release of calcium ions from animal brain tissue is enhanced after exposure to certain low intensities of RF radiation under discrete conditions of frequency and signal modulation. This effect has been observed at RF levels well below those necessary to produce heating of tissue . The extent to which this effect might indicate a hazard is not presently known, and further research is needed to determine the relevance, if any, of this phenomenon to human health. Another RF biological effect that has received attention is the so- called microwave "hearing" effect. Under certain specific conditions of frequency, signal modulation, and intensity, it has been shown that animals and humans can perceive an RF signal as a buzzing or clicking sound. Although a number of theories have been advanced to explain this effect, the most widely- accepted hypothesis is that the microwave signal produces thermoelastic pressure within the head that is perceived as sound by the auditory apparatus within the ear. It is important to emphasize that the conditions under which this effect occurs would not normally be encountered by members of the general public. WHAT ARE SAFE LEVELS FOR EXPOSURE TO RADIOFREQUENCY/ MICROWAVE RADIATION? There is disagreement over exactly what levels of RF radiation are "safe," particularly with regard to low levels of exposure. In the Soviet Union and several Eastern European countries occupational and population exposure standards are generally more restrictive than existing or proposed standards in most Western countries. This discrepancy may be due, at least in part, to the likelihood that Russian and East European standards are based on levels where it is believed no biological effects of any sort would occur, rather than where recognized hazards exist. Western standards generally are based on levels where hazards are known to exist, and a safety factor is then incorporated to provide sufficient protection. In the United States there is currently (early 1989) no official, mandatory federal standard for protection of the public or workers from potentially hazardous exposure to RF radiation. There is a performance standard established by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for microwave ovens, but that standard is an emission standard (as opposed to an exposure standard) that only defines acceptable levels of RF energy that can be radiated from microwave ovens. Until recently the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was developing federal guidelines ( "Federal Guidance ") for exposure of the public to RF radiation. However, the EPA recently stated its intention to defer that activity indefinitely. A federal RF radiation protection guide for workers was issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in 1971 but it was later ruled to be advisory only. This protection guide was based on an earlier RF exposure standard recommended by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a non - government organization that develops recommended standards for a variety of applications. To date, OSHA has not updated its 1971 guideline, although its sister agency, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), has been working on a recommended worker standard for RF exposure for several years. There is currently no indication that NIOSH will issue a recommendation in the near future. In 1982, ANSI issued revised RF protection guidelines based on more recent data on the interaction of RF radiation with the human body. The ANSI protection guide is probably the most widely used and technically supportable exposure standard available today. As discussed in a later section of this bulletin, the FCC now uses the ANSI protection guides for purposes of evaluating environmental impact from the RF transmitters it regulates. The 1982 ANSI guidelines recommend frequency- dependent exposure limits covering RF frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz (Reference 16). The guidelines Incorporate data showing that the human body absorbs RF energy at some frequencies more efficiently than at others. The most restrictive limits are in the frequency range of 30* -300 MHz where maximum levels of 1 mW /cm2, as averaged over any six minute period of exposure, are recommended. The ANSI standard was developed over a period of several years by scientists and engineers with considerable experience and knowledge in the area of RF biological effects and related issues. The recommendations were based on a determination that the threshold f *br hazardous biological effects was approximately 4 watts per kilogram (4 W /kg) [ "W /kg" is an expression for the rate of energy absorption in the body given in terms of the "specific absorption rate" or "SAR "]. A safety factor of ten was then incorporated to arrive at the final recommended protection guidelines. In other words, the protection guides can be correlated with an SAR threshold of about 0.4 W /kg. The guidelines are intended to apply to non - occupational as well as to occupational exposures. However, ANSI states that because of "limitations in the biological effects data base" the guide indicates upper limits of safe exposure, particularly for the general public. It should be noted that ANSI is currently (early 1989) in the process of revising its 1982 standard in light of more recent data on biological effects. Therefore, a new ANSI recommendation may be forthcoming in the next one or two years that could be more restrictive with respect to some exposure situations. In particular, the new guidelines could differentiate between exposure of workers and exposure of the general public using an approach similar to that followed by other standard - setting organizations (see later discussion). The 1982 ANSI guidelines are summarized in the following table. Note that recommended exposure levels are given in terms of the squares of the electric and magnetic field strengths as well as in terms of power density. For the lower frequencies listed, intensities are best expressed in terms of field strength values, and the indicated power density is essentially a "far field equivalent" power density. At higher frequencies, and when one is in the "far field" of a radiation source at any frequency, the actual power density is an appropriate unit to use. It is important to remember that the ANSI standard is a "time- averaged" standard, i.e., it is permissible to exceed the recommended limits for short periods of time as long as the average exposure (over 6 minutes) does not exceed the limits. AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI) 1982 RADIOFREQUENCY PROTECTION GUIDE Electric Field Magnetic Field Frequency Strength Strength Power mmmm m tmetm40: vrni to,Wn , "1" R7!! mF miWtr"..K 4.10 iYRAW... Range E2 (MHz) (V' /m') H2 Density (A' /m1) (mW/cm2) 0.3 -3 400,000 2.5 100 3 -30 4,000(900/f2) 0.025(900/f2) 900 /f2 30 -300 4,000 0.025 1.0 300 -1500 4,000 (f /300) 0.025(f/300) f /300 1500 - 100,000 20,000 0.125 5.0 Note: f = frequency in megahertz (MHz) E2 = electric field strength squared H2 = magnetic field strength squared V2 /m1 = volts squared per meter squared A2/m2 = amperes squared per meter squared mW/cm2 = milliwatts per centimeter squared The 1982 ANSI RF protection guide excludes radiating devices with input powers of seven watts or less that operate at frequencies between 300 kHz and 1000 MHz (1 GHz). The guidelines also state that the exposure limits may be exceeded if exposure conditions can be shown to produce specific absorption rates below 0.4 W /kg, as averaged over the whole body, or below 8 W /kg, as averaged over any one gram of tissue. Other organizations besides ANSI have issued health and safety standards for RF radiation. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) is a nonprofit corporation chartered by the U.S. Congress to develop information and recommendations concerning radiation protection, radiation measurements, and related issues. In 1986, the NCRP issued a report (Reference 11) that contained a review of the literature on biological effects of radiofrequency radiation as well as specific recommendations for exposure of workers and the general public. The NCRP exposure guidelines differ from the 1982 ANSI protection guide in that separate exposure levels are recommended for workers and for the general public. The NCRP recommendations for worker exposure are essentially the same as the ANSI recommendations. However, NCRP recommended that the average exposure limits for the public be generally one-fifth that of the limits recommended for workers, although the averaging time specified for public exposure was 30 minutes rather than the 6- minute period for worker exposure. The NCRP noted that its two - tiered recommendation was more traditional and consistent with past NCRP practice in differentiating between occupational and public exposure by providing for a greater margin of safety for the general public. Exposure guidelines have also been issued by the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) and by the American Council of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). The IRPA guidelines (Reference 17) are similar to the NCRP recommendations in that a greater degree of protection is recommended for the general public than for workers. The ACGIH guidelines (Reference 18) are basically a modified version of the 1982 ANSI guidelines and only apply to workers. Largely because of the lack of guidelines from the Federal Government, some local and state jurisdictions have adopted, or have considered adopting, population and /or occupational standards for RF radiation. Local or state RF standards have been established or proposed in Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey. Many of these standards are more restrictive than the 1982 ANSI standard for exposure of the general public. HOW SAFE ARE MICROWAVE OVENS? The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), a part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, has regulated radiation from microwave ............., K sr.±ofmw 000tri sxonn4shtlivia �5f^. AS%? 1404?'k .11 p, Z W. 000 0 • W I, J LL. •W O.• LL Q. co = a.. F Z� I-0 Z H. •W 0 •O . W U1 �- - O. 111 Z OH Z ovens since 1971. CDRH has established a radiation performance standard for microwave ovens that allows leakage (measured at five centimeters from the oven surface) of 1 mW /cm2 at the time of manufacture and a maximum level of 5 mW /cm2 during the lifetime of the oven. The standard also requires ovens to have two independent interlock systems that prevent the oven from generating microwaves the moment that the latch is released or the door of the oven is opened. On the basis of current knowledge about microwave radiation, CDRH believes that ovens that meet its standards and are used according to the manufacturer's recommendations are safe for use. IS IT SAFE TO USE AN ELECTRONIC CARDIAC PACEMAKER NEAR A RADIOFREQUENCY DEVICE SUCH AS A MICROWAVE OVEN? In the past there may have been occasional problems due to signals from RF devices interfering with the proper operation of certain implanted electronic pacemakers. Because pacemakers are electronic devices, they can be susceptible to electromagnetic signals that could cause them to malfunction and thereby incorrectly regulate a user's heartbeat. However, it is doubtful that signals from a microwave oven would be strong enough to cause such interference. This situation has now been largely remedied by the incorporation of electromagnetic shielding into the design of modern pacemakers. This shielding prevents undesirable RF signals from being picked up by the electronic circuitry in the pacemaker. The potential for the "leads" of pacemakers to pick up RF radiation has also been of some concern, but this does not appear to be a serious problem. Patients with pacemakers should consult their physician if they believe that they may have a problem related to RF interference. However, there should be no problem of electromagnetic interference from a properly maintained and operated microwave oven. HOW SAFE IS THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION EMITTED BY RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCASTING ANTENNAS? Radio and television broadcast stations transmit their signals via RF electromagnetic waves. These signals can be a significant source of RF energy in the environment since there are currently over 11,000 radio and TV stations on the air in the United States. Broadcast stations transmit at various RF frequencies, depending on the channel, ranging from about 550 kHz for AM radio up to about 800 MHz for some UHF television stations. Frequencies for FM radio and VHF television lie in between these two extremes. Ground -level intensities of the RF electromagnetic fields resulting from broadcast transmissions depend on several factors, including the type of station, design characteristics of the antenna being used, power transmitted to the antenna, height of the antenna, and distance from the antenna. Calculations can be performed to predict what field intensity levels would exist at various distances from an antenna. Since energy at some frequencies is absorbed by the human body more readily than energy at other frequencies, the existence of a possible hazard would depend on the frequency of the transmitted signal as well as the intensity. Public access to broadcasting antennas is normally restricted so that individuals cannot be exposed to high -level fields that might exist near an antenna. Measurements made by EPA and others (References 15 and 19) have shown that RF radiation levels in inhabited areas near broadcasting facilities are generally well below levels believed to be hazardous. There have been a few situations around the country where exposure levels have been found to be higher than those recommended by applicable safety standards (e.g., Reference 20). But such cases are relatively rare, and few members of the general public are likely to be routinely exposed to excessive levels of RF radiation from broadcast towers. In unusual cases where exposure levels pose a problem, there are various ;pi +. Is steps a broadcast station can take to ensure compliance with safety standards. For example, high- intensity areas could be posted and access to them could be restricted by fencing or other appropriate means. In some cases more drastic measures might have to be considered, such as redesigning an antenna, reducing power, or station relocation. Maintenance workers are occasionally required to climb antenna struc- tures for such purposes as painting, repairs, or beacon replacement. Both the EPA and OSHA have reported that in these cases it is possible for a worker to be exposed to hazardous levels of RF radiation if work is performed on an active tower or in areas immediately surrounding a radiating antenna (References 21 and 22). Therefore, precautions should be taken to ensure that maintenance personnel are not exposed to hazardous field intensities. Such precautions could include temporarily lowering power levels while work is being performed, having work performed only when the station is not broadcasting, using auxiliary antennas while work is performed on the main antenna, and establishing work procedures that would specify the minimum distance that a worker should maintain from an energized antenna. IS THERE ANY DANGER FROM POINT -TO -POINT MICROWAVE RELAY ANTENNAS? WHAT ABOUT DISH ANTENNAS USED FOR SATELLITE -EARTH COMMUNICATION? Point -to -point microwave relay antennas transmit and receive microwave signals across relatively short distances. These antennas are usually rectangular or circular in shape and are normally found mounted at the top or midway up a supporting tower. These antennas have a variety of uses such as transmitting telephone and telegraph messages and serving as links between broadcast or cable -TV studios and their broadcast antennas. The microwave signals from these antennas travel in a directed beam from a transmitting antenna to a receiving antenna, and dispersion of microwave energy outside of the relatively narrow beam is minimal or insignificant. In addition, these antennas transmit using very low power levels, usually on the order of a few watts or less. Such levels are much lower than power levels used, for example, by broadcast stations. Measurements have shown that ground -level power densities due to microwave directional antennas are normally a thousand times or more below recommended safety limits. In fact, an individual would likely have to stand directly in front of such an antenna for a significant period of time in order to be exposed to microwave levels that might be considered harmful. In addition, as an added margin of safety, microwave tower sites are normally made inaccessible to the general public. Satellite -earth stations consist of parabolic "dish" antennas, some as large as 10 to 30 meters in diameter, that are used to transmit or receive microwave signals via satellites in orbit around the earth. The satellites receive the signals beamed up to them and, in turn, retransmit the signals back down to an earthbound receiving station. These signals allow a variety of communications services to be performed, including long distance telephone service. Since earth - station antennas are directed toward satellites above the earth, the transmitted beams point skyward at various angles of inclination, depending on the particular satellite being used. Because of the longer distances involved, power levels used to transmit these signals are relatively great when compared to those used for the microwave point -to -point relay links discussed above. However, as with the microwave relay links, the beams used for transmitting earth -to- satellite signals are relatively narrow and highly directional. In addition, public access to a station site would normally be restricted. For these reasons it would be unlikely that a transmitting earth - station antenna could expose members of the public to hazardous levels of microwaves. Some earth station antennas are used only to receive RF signals. Since these antennas do not transmit any signals, there would, of course, be no danger of exposure from them. ostatu WHAT ABOUT PORTABLE RADIO TRANSMITTERS? IS THERE MY RISK FROM EXPOSURE TO RF RADIATION FROM HAND -HELD WALKIE- TALKIES, CELLULAR TELEPHONES, VEHICLE MOUNTED ANTENNAS, OR CORDLESS TELEPHONES? "Land- mobile" communication refers to a variety of communications systems which involve the use of portable RF transmitters. Police radio, business radio, and cellular radio are a few examples of these communications systems. They have the advantage of providing communications links between various fixed and mobile locations. Cordless telephones are consumer products that also make mobility possible in communication, although over shorter distances. There are basically three types of RF transmitters associated with land - mobile systems: base - station transmitters, vehicle- mounted transmitters, and hand -held transmitters. The antennas used for these various transmitters are adapted for their specific purpose. For example, a base station transmitter must transmit to a relatively large area, and, therefore, its antenna would generally be more powerful than a vehicle - mounted or hand -held radio transmitter. Although base - station antennas usually operate with higher power levels than the other types of land - mobile antennas, their powers are still quite a bit lower than high- powered transmitters such as most radio and television broadcast stations. Land - mobile base - station antennas are normally in- accessible to the public since they must be mounted at significant heights above ground to provide for adequate signal coverage. Also, many of these antennas transmit only intermittently. For these reasons, base - station antennas have generally not been of concern with regard to possible hazardous exposure to RF radiation. Transmitting power levels for vehicle- mounted antennas are generally less than those used by base - station antennas but higher than those used for hand -held units. At least one manufacturer recommends that users and other nearby individuals maintain a distance of a few feet from a vehicle- mounted antenna during transmission. However, studies have shown that this is probably a conservative precaution, particularly when the "duty factor" (percentage of time the antenna is actually transmitting) is taken into account since safety standards are "time- averaged." The extent of any possible exposure would also depend on the actual power level and frequency used by the vehicle - mounted antenna. In general, there is no evidence that there is any safety hazard associated with RF exposure from vehicle- mounted antennas. Hand -held portable radios such as walkie- talkies and cellular radios are generally low- powered devices used to transmit and receive messages over relatively short distances. Because of the low power levels used (usually only a few watts or less) these radios would normally not be considered as possible sources of hazardous exposure to RF fields. However, questions relating to the safety of these devices have arisen because the RF signal is emitted in the immediate vicinity of the user's head and some of these radios use microwave frequencies. At least one manufacturer has conducted extensive tests of hand -held radios operating at various frequencies in order to determine the amount of RF energy that might be absorbed in the head of an individual using one of these devices. The only potential hazard found could occur in the unlikely event that the antenna tip was placed directly at the surface of the eye. Other studies (e.g., Reference 23) have concluded that during routine use of hand -held radios exposures would normally be in compliance with accepted safety guidelines. Significant absorption might occur if the transmitting antenna of the radio were placed within a distance of about 1 -2 centimeters (less than an inch) from the head or eye. However, this would be a very unlikely user position, and even if it occurred the overall time-averaged exposure would probably be acceptable. Therefore, if hand -held radios are used properly there is no evidence that they could cause hazardous absorption of RF a .� ?;'etibi ieis74;v iYaauJii twv I. Am rt�rwxarr. energy. Cordless telephones are consumer products that use RF energy to com- municate with a telephone "base" unit. These devices operate at very low power levels, and there is no evidence that users experience any significant RF exposure. WHICH FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO HEALTH EFFECTS OF RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION? Several agencies in the Federal Government have been involved to various degrees in investigating or controlling human exposure to RF radiation. By authority of the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) develops performance standards for the emission of radiation from electronic products including X -ray equipment and other medical devices, television sets, microwave ovens, and sunlamps. As discussed previously, CDRH has established a radiation safety standard for microwave ovens that limits the amount of radiation that an oven can leak throughout its lifetime. However, leakage standards have not been issued for other RF- emitting devices. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of the U.S. Department of Labor is responsible for protecting workers from exposure to hazardous chemical and physical agents. In 1971, OSHA issued a protection guide for exposure of workers to RF radiation [29 CFR 1910.97]. The guide, covering the frequency range between 10 MHz and 100 GHz, stated that exposure of workers should not exceed a power density of ten milliwatts per square centimeter (10 mW /cm') as averaged over any 6- minute period of the workday. However, this guide was later ruled to be only advisory and not mandatory. Moreover, it was based on an earlier (1966) American National Standards Institute (ANSI) RF protection guide that has been superseded by revised versions in 1974 and 1982 (see previous discussion of standards). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has for some years been considering issuing a recommendation for occupational exposure to RF radiation that would be transmitted to OSHA for consideration in establishing an exposure standard for workers. However, at the present time (early 1989) there is no indication from NIOSH as to when such an official recommendation might be forthcoming. There is currently no official federal standard for exposure of the general public to RF radiation. It is generally agreed that federal responsibility for developing national guidelines for public exposure to non - ionizing radiation rests with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Until recently, EPA was developing "Federal Guidance" for RF radiation that would have recommended safe levels of exposure for the public. If approved, such a recommendation would have been transmitted to other federal agencies for implementation. However, as noted previously, EPA has apparently decided to abandon that effort and to "defer" indefinitely its program dealing with non - ionizing electromagnetic radiation due to budgetary constraints and a lack of resources. At press time it was unclear whether that decision might be reversed. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE FCC IN EVALUATING POTENTIAL RADIOFREQUENCY HAZARDS? The FCC licenses and approves equipment and facilities that generate RF and microwave radiation. Although the FCC would not knowingly authorize a facility or device that resulted in a health hazard, the FCC's primary jurisdiction does not lie in the health and safety area. Therefore, the FCC must rely on other agencies and organizations for guidance in these matters. 9i+s ;;:t;a�� �r, �dii�k' ��4: iuiri3' ���fl�3.i�.ti�x$t, «�ct�x:iY✓ie�;ti The issue of potential hazards due to RF radiation emitted by FCC regulated facilities was first addressed by the Commission in a 1979 Notice of Inquiry. Subsequently, several other items related to RF radiation hazards have been approved by the Commission. The FCC's basic policy was outlined in a 1985 Report and Order [50 Fed. Register 11151, 1985]. As an agency of the Federal Government, the FCC has certain re- sponsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to consider whether its actions will "significantly affect the quality of the human environment." Therefore, FCC approval and licensing of facilities and operations must be evaluated for significant impact on the environment. The 1985 FCC Order made clear that human exposure to RF radiation emitted by FCC - regulated entities is one of several factors that must be considered in such environmental evaluations. In making the determination that environmental RF radiation would be evaluated, the Commission decided to specify the 1982 ANSI RF radiation protection guides (see earlier discussion of standards) for use in determining safe levels of exposure for the public and for workers. It was decided that, in view of the lack of an official standard issued by a federal agency such as EPA, the FCC must use what it considered to be the best available standard at the time. The 1982 (non - government) ANSI standard was chosen because it was considered to be widely accepted and technically supportable. Because of the 1985 FCC Order and subsequent adopted items, major RF transmitting facilities under the jurisdiction of the FCC, such as radio and television broadcast stations, satellite -earth stations, and experimental radio stations, are subject to environmental evaluation for compliance with the identified RF health and safety guidelines. Failure to comply with these guidelines could lead to preparation of a formal Environmental Impact Statement and possible rejection of an application for a transmitting facility. Facilities and operations that operate with lower power levels or are judged to offer insignificant environmental risk from RF radiation have been categorically exempted from these requirements. The FCC's rules on evaluation of environmental RF radiation are found in Section 1.1307(b) of the FCC's Rules and Regulations [47 CFR 1.1307(b)]. Guidelines for compliance with the FCC's rules can be found in an FCC technical bulletin (OST Bulletin No. 65, Reference 24). Subsequent FCC items adopted since the first Order have dealt primarily with which RF sources are subject to the RF environmental rule and which are excluded [52 Federal Register 13240, 1987; 52 Federal Register 49032, 1987; 53 Federal Register 28223, 1988; 53 Federal Register 40918, 1988]. WHERE CAN FURTHER INFORMATION BE OBTAINED REGARDING RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION AND RELATED MATTERS? Within the Federal Government the number of individuals assigned to this area is relatively small, and some agencies are reducing or eliminating personnel in this field. Nevertheless, it is usually possible to obtain at least some basic information concerning RF transmitters or problems. The following federal agencies should be able to provide some information and assistance in this area. FDA: Questions about radiation from microwave ovens and other consumer and industrial products can be directed to: Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD 20857. EPA: The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Radiation Programs (401 M. St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460 or P.O. Box 98517, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193 -8517) studies exposure of the public to RF radiation. However, at the present time (early 1989) EPA has apparently decided to phase out the Washington office that deals with RF exposure and to limit future EPA activities in this area to its Las Vegas office. OSHA /NIOSH: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Health Response Team (390 Wakara Way, P.O. Box 8137, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108) has been involved in studies related to occupational exposure to RF radiation in the past. However, OSHA has limited involvement in this area at the present time. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) maintains a limited program for studying exposure of workers to non - ionizing radiation. The address is: NIOSH, Physical Agents Branch, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. FCC: The FCC maintains a limited program in this area. Questions regarding potential RF hazards from FCC - regulated transmitters can be directed to the Spectrum Engineering Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, FCC, Washington, D.C. 20554. In addition to federal agencies, there are other sources of information and possible assistance regarding environmental RF energy. A few states maintain non - ionizing radiation programs or, at least, some expertise in this field. These state activities are usually part of a department of public health or environmental control. Also, the list of references at the end of this bulletin should be consulted for detailed information on specific topics related to RF exposure. A non - government source of information on RF energy is the Electro- magnetic Energy Policy Alliance (EEPA), an organization that provides educational and other services in this field. EEPA is an association of manufacturers and users of electronic and electrical systems. The group's self - described purpose is "to work for a responsible and rational public policy regarding electromagnetic energy." EEPA's address is: 1255 23rd St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037. REFERENCES [Reports with NTIS Order Numbers are U.S. Government publications and can be ordered for a fee from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, (800) 336 - 47001] (1) "Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields; Properties, Quantities and Units, Biophysical Interaction, and Measurements," NCRP Report No. 67, 1981. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Purchasing information: NCRP Publications, 7910 Woodmont Ave., Suite 1016, Bethesda MD 20814; (301) 657 -2652. (2) "Symposium on Health Aspects of Non - ionizing Radiation, "Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. 55 (11), December 1979. (3) "Biological Effects and Medical Applications of Electromagnetic Energy," Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 68 (1), January 1980. (4) Gandhi, O.P., "Biological Effects and Medical Applications of RF Electromagnetic Fields," IEEE Transactions on 30(11):1831 (1982). (5) Cleary, S. F., "Microwave Radiation Effects on Humans," BioScience, 33(4): 269 (1983). (6) Petersen, R.C., "Bioeffects of Microwaves: A Review of Current Knowledge," Journal of Occupational Medicine, 25(2): 103 (1983). (7) Lerner, E.J., "The Drive to Regulate Electromagnetic Fields," IEEE Spectrum, March 1984, p. 63. (8) Steneck, N.H., Ed., Risk /Benefit Analysis: The Microwave Case, 1982, San Francisco Press, San Francisco, CA 94101. w�a- evrwvaanMaxlw...nck'M�WWMra 9n!Y•C�Fi•••i Z 1-- W: re 2 0 0. tO U) W WI (0 LL, WO W N ❑: 1— W Z� H O. Z F-. U ❑' :O N ❑ H. W LU: U. H O. z U =' O~ Z } (9) "Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation," Report No. EPA- - 600/8-83-026F, 1984, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NTIS Order No. PB85- 120848. (10) Steneck, N.H., The Microwave Debate, MIT Press, 1984, Cambridge, MA. (11) "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electro- magnetic Fields," NCRP Report No. 86, 1986. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Purchasing information: NCRP Publications, 7910 Woodmont Ave., Suite 1016, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 657 -2652. (12) Foster, K.R., and A.W. Guy, "The Microwave Problem," Scientific American, 255(3): 32 (September 1986). (13) Gandhi, O.P. (ed.), "Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation," IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology," 6(1): 14 -58 (March 1987). (14) Yost, Michael G., "Non- ionizing Radiation Questions and Answers," 1988. San Francisco Press. Copies may be purchased from: San Francisco Press, Inc., Box 6800, San Francisco, CA 94101 -6800. ( 15) Athey, T.W . , et al. , " Radiofrequency Radiation Levels and Population Exposure in Urban Areas of the Eastern United States," Tech. Report EPA - 520/2-77 -008, 1978, U. S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, [NTIS Order No. PB 292 855). (16) "American National Standard Safety Level with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 300 kHz to 100 Ghz," ANSI C95.1 -1982. American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018. Purchasing information: (212) 354 -3300. (17) "Guidelines on Limits of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 100 kHz to 300 GHz, "Health Physics, 54(1): 115 -123 (1988). (18) "Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances in the Work Environment Adopted by ACGIH for 1983 -1984; Radiofrequency /Microwave Radiation." American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 1983. ACGIH, 6500 Glenway Ave., Bldg. D -5, Cincinnati, Ohio 45211. (19) Tell, R. A., and E. D. Mantiply, "Population Exposure to VHF to UHF Broadcast Radiation in the United States," Technical Note ORP /EAD 78 -5, June 1978, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency [NTIS order No. PB 284 637]. (20) "An Investigation of Radiofrequency Radiation Levels on Lookout Moun- tain, Jefferson County, Colorado," Electromagnetics Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV 89114, February 1987. (21) Curtis, Robert A., "Occupational Exposures to Radiofrequency Radiation from FM Radio and TV Antennas," in Non - Ionizing Radiation: Proceedings of a Topical Symposium, 1980, ACGIH, Cincinnati, OH 45201. (22) Tell, R. A., "A Measurement of RF Field Intensities in the Immediate Vicinity of an FM Broadcast Station Antenna," Technical Note ORP /EAD -76 -2, 1976, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, [NTIS order No. PB 284 637). (23) Cleveland, R.F., Jr., and T. W. Athey, "Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in Models of the Human Head Exposed to Hand -Held UHF Portable Radios," Bioelectromagnetics, Volume 10(2), 1989 (in press). (24) "Evaluating Compliance with FCC - Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation," OST Bulletin No. 65, 1985, Federal Communi- cations Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. NTIS Order No. PB86- 127081. Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health 1 1 of 26 http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/toc.htt -;Donn C' ayloulaer;-Yf, lT t • 1 ' F 'rofessorof .RadiationiOncolo Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health Version: 1.9.3 Last - modified: 11- Feb -98 Maintainer: jmoulder @its.mcw.edu This FAQ addresses the issue of whether base station transmitter /antennas for cellular phones, PCS phones, and other types of portable transceivers are a risk to human health. Issues surrounding the phones (transceivers) themselves are discussed only indirectly. Many aspects of the FAQ are also relevant to other types of broadcast antennas. Specific technical and regulatory sections have a US bias, but the basic engineering and biology are relevant to any country. Where possible notes have been added to help readers outside the US relate this information to their national systems. Such notes are color coded. An Australian- specific version of this FAQ is now available at: http:/ /www.amta.org.au/issues/faq.htm The Australian version may also be of use to New Zealand residents as the technology and the regulatory structures in the two countries are similar. There are two related FAQs: - - Powerlines and Cancer FAQs (http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop /powerlines- cancer - FAQ /toc.html) - Static Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer FAQs (http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop /static - fields- cancer - FAQ / toc.html) This FAQ was designed for Netscape v3; if you encounter problems with other browsers, please notify jmoulder @its.mcw.edu about the problem. Table of Contents 1. Are there health hazards associated with living, working, playing, or going to school near a cellular phone or PCS base station antenna? 2. Is anyone seriously concerned about possible health risks from cell phone and PCS base station antennas? 3. Do the differences between cell . hones PCS . hones and other t . es of . ortable . hones matter when evaluating the potential impacts of base station antennas on human health? 4. Do the differences between PCS base station antennas and other types of radio and TV broadcast antennas matter when evaluating their potential impacts on human health? 5. Do cell phone and PCS base station antennas produce radiation? 6. Is the non - ionizing radiation (radiowaves) from cell phone and PCS base station antennas similar to ionizing radiations such as X -rays? 7. Are the radiowaves from cell phone and PCS base station antennas similar to the "EMF" produced by power lines? 3/26/98 2:34 PM Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc/ cop /cell- phone - health- FAQ /toc.hu 8. Are there safety standards for cell phone and PCS base station antennas? 9. "EW• Is there a scientific basis for these radiofrequency safety standards? 10. Are all the safety standards the same? 11. Does the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) have safety guidelines? 12. Can cellular phone and PCS base station antennas meet the safety standards? 13. Are there circumstances where cellular phone and PCS base station antennas could fail to meet the safety standards? 14. What siting criteria are required to ensure that a cellular phone and PCS base station antenna will meet safety standards? A. What are some general siting criteria? B. How can you tell the difference between a high -gain (sector) antenna and a low -gain (whip) antenna? C. What is the difference between the RF patterns for high -gain and low -gain antennas? D. Is it safe to live on the top floor of a building that has a cell phone or base station antenna on it? 15. Does everyone agree with the current RF safety standards? A. Is it true that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency thinks that the current safety standards for cellular and PCS phones are inadequate? B. Hasn't an Australian group claimed that there is evidence that living near TV broadcast towers causes an increase in childhood leukemia? C. Hasn't an Israeli epidemiologist claimed that there is evidence that low -level RF exposure causes a variety of health effects? D. Hasn't a British group reported excess leukemia and lymphoma around a high -power FM/TV broadcast antenna? 16. Will planning for cellular and PCS base antennas be disrupted by the FCC's adoption of a safety standard other than the current ANSI standard? 17. Are use restrictions or "set- backs" required around cellular phone or PCS base station antenna sites? 18. Are there groups (such as children or the elderly) that are more sensitive to the effects of radiowaves? 19. Will cellular phone and PCS base station antennas affect medical devices such as cardiac pacemakers? 20. Do radiowaves produce biological effects? 21. Is there any replicated evidence that radiowaves can cause cancer? 22. Is there any evidence that radiowaves can cause miscarriages or birth defects? 23. What do the most recent scientific studies of radiowaves and human health show? A. What do recent reports from scientific meetings say? B. What do recent reports from scientific journals say? C. What about the new report that exposure of mice to cell phone radiation causes cancer? D. Has anyone else exposed rodents to cell phone radiation to see if they got cancer? E. ;NEW: What about the new report that exposure of mice to cell phone radiation causes damage to the DNA in their brain cells? 24. Where can I get more information? 25. Who wrote these Questions and Answers? Revisions (v1.9.3, Feb -98): Discussion of the scientific basis for radiofrequency safety standards expanded (Q9). 2 of 26 3/26/98 2:34 PM Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc/ cop /cell - phone- health - FAQ /toc.hu A new study [41b1 showing the absence of genotoxic injury in human blood cells exposed to intense RF added to Q23E. Information on European, Australian, and New Zealand systems and regulation expanded in technical notes 2 and 12. (v1.9.2, Dec -97): Pointer added to an Australian- specific version of this FAQ. Q has been reworded to make it more international in scope, and a cautionary note was added P3] A comparison with the power of FM/TV antennas added to Q4 •Reference added to a new study of measured RF fields in the general and work environment [54]. 015 reworded. Two papers by Malyapa et al [49a, 49b] that fail to confirm Lai & Singh's report F311 that RF exposure cause DNA stand breaks in the brains of mice have now been published. A web address was added for the Australian standard. Some specific details on Canadian and Australian systems and regulations added to technical notes 2 and 12. Organizational Notes Cross references to other questions are indicated by the letter Q followed by the question number; for example, (Q9) indicates that further information is found in Question 9. Technical references are shown in brackets; for example, [,] is a reference to technical note 2. "International notes" are appended to regular technical notes, so [International note 2] is a section within technical note 2. Technical notes follow the main FAQ. 1) Are there health hazards associated with living, working, playing, or going to school near a cellular phone or PCS base station antenna? No. The consensus of the scientific community, both in the US and internationally, is that the power from these base station antennas is far too low to produce health hazards as long as people are kept away from direct access to the antennas (see 013 and 014 ). 2) Is anyone seriously concerned about possible health risks from cellular phone and PCS base station antennas? Not really. There are some reasons.to be concerned about human health effects from the hand -held cellular and PCS phones themselves (although it is not certain that any risks to human health actually exist). These concerns exist because the antennas of these phones can deliver large amounts of radiofrequency energy to very small areas of the user's body. Base station antennas do not create such "hot spots ", so the potential safety issues concerning the phones have no real applicability to the base station antennas. For further discussion of health issues related to hand -held phones see the ICNIRP report on this issue W. 3 of 26 • s$L,'Yx? ;crw i 4 � Sri,S2 as ' a ak:`14 : f%xs Rwr�.; l d'`k 44 httk 3/26/98 2:34 PM Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc/ cop /cell - phone - health - FAQ /toc.htr 3) Do the differences between cell phones, PCS phones, and other types of portable phones matter when evaluating the potential impacts of base station antennas on human health? 4of26 No. There are many technical differences between cell phones, PCS phones, and the types of "cell" phones used in other counties [2, also see international note 2]; but for evaluation of possible health hazards, the only distinction that matters is that they operate at slightly different frequencies. The radiowaves from some base stations (e.g., those for the cell phones used in the U.S.) may be absorbed by humans somewhat more than the radiowaves from other types of base stations (e.g., those for the PCS phones used in the U.S.) [23]. However, once the energy is absorbed the effects are the same. 4) Do the differences between base station antennas and other types of radio and TV broadcast antennas matter when evaluating their potential impacts on human health? Yes and no. The radiowaves from some antennas (particularly FM and UHF -TV broadcast antennas) are absorbed more by humans than the radiowaves from other sources (such as cellular phone or PCS base station antennas); but once the energy is absorbed the effects are basically the same. In addition, FM and TV antennas are 100 to 5000 times more powerful than base station antennas, but are mounted on much higher towers (typically 800 to 1200 ft). 5) Do cellular phone and PCS base station antennas produce radiation? Yes. Cellular and PCS phones and their base station antennas are radios, and produce radiofrequency (RF) radiation [3]; that's how they work. This radiofrequency radiation is "non- ionizing ", and its biological effects are fundamentally different from the "ionizing" radiation produced by x -ray machines [seeQ6]. 6) Is the non - ionizing radiation (radiowaves) from cellular phone and PCS base station antennas similar to ionizing radiations such as X -rays? No. The interaction of biological material with an electromagnetic source depends on the frequency of the source [4]. X -rays, radiowaves and "EMF" from power lines are all part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the parts of the spectrum are characterized by their frequency. The frequency is the rate at which the electromagnetic field changes direction and is given in Hertz (Hz), where one Hz is one cycle (change in direction) per second, and 1 MegaHertz (MHz) is one million cycles per second. Electric power in the US is at 60 Hz. AM radio has a frequency of around 1 MHz, FM radio has a frequency of around 100 MHz, microwave ovens have a frequency of 2450 MHz, and X -rays have frequencies above one million MHz. Cellular phones operate at 860 -900 MHz, and PCS phones operate at 1800 -2200 MHz [see international note 2]. At the extremely high frequencies characteristic of X -rays, electromagnetic particles have sufficient energy to break chemical bonds (ionization). This is how X -rays damage the genetic material of cells, potentially leading to cancer or birth defects. At lower frequencies, such as radiowaves, the energy of the particles is much too low to break chemical bonds. Thus radiowaves are "non- ionizing ". Because non - ionizing radiation cannot break chemical bonds, there is no similarity between the biological effects of ionizing radiation (x -rays) and nonionizing radiation (radiowaves) [4]. Yei* 64:41422'1t:3.t;As 3/26/98 2:34 PM 'W ntielNIVinatvcr..^sk, Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health 5 of 26 http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/toc.hu The Electromagnetic Spectrum static power AM FM radio microwave heat tanning field line radio N � en lamp b �th 106 o4 10 2 1 10.2 1114 10.6 10.8 1 1 t 1 1 medical x-rays T 1010 10 -12 Wavelength (meters) Frequency (Hz) 102 104 106 ELF c Radio (R F) 108 r 101'%x, 1012 1 Y 1016 1018 10 20 , Micro,, Infrared s Utraviolet X-ray NMI) (IR) a3 (UV) •,/ L �1., E 005a Non- Ionizing Non- thgrmal ' Thermal Low induced cur-ents • ;y ? ? ?? 3001m High induced currents Heating Electrof!c exc tat ior Photochemical efts Ionizing Broken bonds DNA Damage AM VHF -TV UHF -TV MW oisren radio FM radio 300m 30m 3m 30 cm T 3,cm i t Wavelength Frequency 1 t 100 kHz 1000 kHz 10 MHz 100 MHz 1000 Hz 10GHz "CB" "cordless" "cellular~ "PCS° phones phones phones phones e 1997, JE Mouade r 7) Are the radiowaves from cellular phone and PCS base station antennas similar to the "EMF" produced by power lines? No. Power lines produce no significant non - ionizing radiation, they produce electric and magnetic fields. In contrast to non - ionizing radiation, these fields do not radiate energy into space, and they cease to exist when power is turned off. It is not clear how, or even whether, power line fields produce biological effects; but if they do, it is not in the same way that high power radiowaves produce biological effects L, 53]. There appears to be no similarity between the biological effects of power line "EMF" and the biological effects of radiowaves. 8) Are there safety standards for cellular phone and PCS base station antennas? Yes. There are national and international safety guidelines for exposure of the public to the radiowaves produced by cellular phone and PCS base station antennas. The most widely accepted standards are those developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and American National Standards 3/26/98 2:34 PM z w: 6 UO wi. J w La tn� =d. z� I— 0. ZH 111 w 2 p. uJ W' .f— U. .z. H =. O~ z Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc/ cop /cell - phone - health- FAQ /toc.hti n Institute ( ANSI/IEEE) [5], the International Commission on Non - Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) [6], and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) [7]. These radiofrequency standards are expressed in "plane wave power density ", which is measured in mW /cm -sq (milliWatts per square centimeter) [8]. For PCS antennas, the 1992 ANSI/IEEE exposure standard for the general public is 1.2 mW /cm -sq. For cellular phones, the ANSI/IEEE exposure standard for the general public is 0.57 mW /cm -sq [9]. The ICNIRP standards are slightly lower and the NCRP standards are essentially identical [10]. In 1996 the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released radiofrequency guidelines for the frequencies and devices they regulate, including cellular phone and PCS base station antennas [11]. The FCC standards for cellular phone and PCS base station antennas are essentially identical to the ANSI/IEEE standard [12]. The public exposure standards apply to power densities averaged over relatively short periods to time, 30 minutes in the case of the ANSI/IEEE, NCRP, and FCC standards (at PCS and cellular phone frequencies). Where there are multiple antennas, these standards apply to the total power produced by all antennas [13]. See international note 12. 9) Is there a scientific basis for these radiofrequency safety standards? Yes. When scientists examined all the published literature on the biological effects of radiowaves they found that the literature agreed on a number of key points [see 1, 5, 6, 7, 14 and 53 for details]: The research on radiowaves is extensive [15], and is adequate for establishing safety standards. Exposure to radiowaves can be hazardous if the exposure is sufficiently intense. Possible injuries include cataracts, skin burns, deep burns, heat exhaustion and heat stroke. Biological effects of radiowaves depend on the rate of energy absorption L8]; and within a broad range of frequencies (1 to 10,000 MHz), the frequency matters very little. Biological effects of radiowaves are proportional to the rate of energy absorption; and the duration of exposure matters very little. No effects have been reproducibly shown below a certain rate of whole body energy absorption [16]. Based on this scientific consensus, different agencies and countries took different approaches to setting safety standards. A typical approach was that used by ANSI/IEEE E] and the FCC [11]. ANSI/IEEE and FCC applied a 10 -fold safety margin to establish occupational exposure guidelines. They then applied an additional 5 -fold safety margin for continuous exposure of the general public. Finally, detailed studies were done to establish the relationship of power density, which can be routinely measured, to energy absorption, which really matters [8]. The result was a highly conservative public exposure guideline that was set at a level that is only 2% of the level where replicated biological effects have actually been observed. 10) Are all the safety standards the same? No. There are differences between the standards. ANSI, ICNIRP, NCRP and FCC all use the same biomedical data, and the same general approach to setting safety guidelines. However, there are differences in the models used by the different groups, and hence there are slight differences in the final numbers [17]. 6 of 26 3/26/98 2:34 PM z • w J C) 00 N� wI J 1.- N LL w O < =0 z�. Z • 0 w ❑. 0 I-- wW - rz II O Z U52 O~ z Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/toe.htr No biological significance should be associated with these slight differences. Other standards, such as the Australian standard [international note 12], are different because larger safety margins are used. See international note 17. 11) Does the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) have safety guidelines? Yes. Until recently the FCC used an out -dated (1982) ANSI standard that was really designed for occupational, rather than public exposure. In August of 1996, the FCC proposed a new standard that [1 1] is based on the newer (1992) ANSI standard, but which is not identical to it [1.2]. This new FCC standard applies to all new transmitters licensed after 15- Oct -97, but existing facilities have until year 1- Sept -2000 to demonstrate compliance. 12) Can cellular phone and PCS base station antennas meet the safety standards? Yes. With proper design, cellular phone and PCS base station antennas can meet all safety standards by a wide margin. A PCS and/or cellular base station antenna, mounted 60 ft off the ground and operated at the maximum possible intensity, might produce a power density as high as 0.02 mW /cm -sq on the ground near the antenna site; but ground level power densities will more often be in the 0.0001 to 0.005 mW /cm -sq range 1.571. These power densities are far below all the safety standards, and the standards themselves are set far below the level where potentially hazardous effects have been seen. Within about 500 ft of the base of the antenna site, the power density may be greater at elevations above the base of the antenna site (for example, at the second floor of a building or on a hill). Even with multiple antennas, and with both cellular phone and PCS antennas on the same tower, power densities will be less than 2% of the guidelines at all heights and at all distances of more than 170 feet from an antenna site. Further than about 500 ft from the antenna site power density does not rise with increased elevation. Power density inside a building will be lower by a factor of 3 to 20 than outside [54]. 13) Are there circumstances where cellular phone and PCS base station antennas could fail to meet the safety standards? Yes. There are some circumstances under which an improperly designed cellular phone and PCS base station antenna could violate safety standards. Safety standards for uncontrolled (public) exposure could be violated if antennas were mounted in such a way that the public could gain access to areas within 20 feet of the antennas themselves L]. This could arise for antennas mounted on, or near, the roofs of buildings. Safety standards for controlled (occupational) exposure could also be violated if antennas were mounted 7 of 26 3/26/98 2:34 PM fc6 Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc/ cop /cell- phone - health- FAQ /toc.hti 8 of 26 on a structure where worker access to areas within 10 feet the antennas is required [18]. 14) What siting criteria are required to ensure that a cellular phone and PCS base station antenna will meet safety standards? While specific recommendations require a detailed knowledge of the site, the antenna, and the mounting structure, some general criteria can be set. z mi..: 14A) What are some general siting criteria? u6 rt D JU U O: Antenna sites should be designed so that the public cannot access areas that exceed the 1992 ANSI [5] or co W FCC [11] standards for public exposure. As a general rule, the uncontrolled (public) exposure standard cannot be exceeded more than 20 feet from an antenna [18]. u) LL If there are areas accessible to workers that exceed the 1992 ANSI [ ] or FCC [ 11] standards for 2 uncontrolled (public) exposure, make sure workers know where the areas are, and what precautions need to 4a be taken when entering these areas. In general, this would be areas less than 20 feet from the antennas L]. u. <: If there are areas that exceed the 1992 ANSI [5.] or FCC [111 standards for controlled (occupational) = a. exposure, make sure that workers know where these areas are, and that they can (and do) power -down (or 1- 1' shut down) the transmitters when entering these areas. Such areas may not exist; but if they do, they will ~O be confined to areas within 10 feet of the antennas [18]. z t- ill If there are questions about whether these guidelines are met, compliance should be verified by 2 D; Mo measurements done after the antennas are activated. 0 in CI— The FCC guidelines [ 111 require detailed calculations and/or measurement of radiofrequency radiation for = Ill w some high -power rooftop transmitters, and some high -power transmitters whose antennas are mounted on �. low towers [19]. L z° tU UN In general, the above guidelines will always be met when antennas are placed on their own towers. 0 I. Problems, when they exist, are generally confined to: z Antennas placed on the roofs of buildings; particularly where multiple cellular and/or PCS base station antennas for different carriers are mounted on the same building; Antennas placed on structures that require access by workers (both for regular maintenance, and for uncommon events such as painting or roofing). See international note 19. 14B) How can you tell the difference between a high -gain (sector) antenna and a low -gain (whip) antenna? Because siting criteria for high- and low -gain antennas are different it is important to be able to tell them apart. Fortunately, the antennas look rather different: .iz� -3•?i'.ert�`sz:r�tyy�. vier i* .fi�«L�'risl�vt,TCiC.3Ca'TSY.E9V8 3/26/98 2:34 PM Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health 9 of 26 http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/toc.htt 2 -10 feet 44 2 -6 inches 6 -12 inches Low-gain Omni - directional Usually in 3's 4 -5 feet (1 transmt artenna and 2 receive artennas) Low -Gain (whip) Antenna ®JE Maulde r 'L6 -8 inches High -gain 90 -120° sector Usual in 9's (3 sectors wth 1 transmit artenna and 2 receive artennas per sector) High -Gain (sector) Antenna Even from a distance the site (towers) for high - and low -gain antennas look different. When high -gain antennas are mounted on buildings, they may not be obvious, particularly if they are mounted to the sides of building, or more commonly to the sides of penthouses. 14C) What is the difference between the RF patterns for high -gain and low -gain antennas? The RF patterns for the two different types of antennas are very different. For a low -gain (whip) antenna of the type used by most cell phone bases stations, the pattern looks like this: 3/26/98 2:34 PM er41,1; ^ :_441.. to y v w a c v ; ��ias, s az a o ;adg a 4l4M; r-s u 44.1,44 .11%;t rr v.. z Q • .1— z`, w• uI Jo C.) 0; t .N o_ .u,w; W =. J CO LI- w 0, �Q• D El 0 z� •F— O . z 17: wuy L w Z Off`. •z Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health 10 of 26 http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/toc.htr RF Emissions from a 1000W (ERP) Low-Gain Antenna (Typical Cellular Phone Base Station Antenna) Vertical 0.001 mW/cm2 contour (side view) Horizontal (top view) 273 350 4/111111111p 60 80 30 ft100 ft ft 333 44111111P Par I I dial I 11 240 210 150 150 et 100 (t O. 010 mW/cm2 contour eJE Novi& r Very close to a low-gain antenna (in what is technically known as the "near field"), the power density around an antenna looks like this: RF Emissions from a 10000/ (ERP) Low-Gain Antenna (Top View of the Patter DensLy Close to the Antenna) 20ft Oft 2011 0.60 MW/Cm2 0 MVOCm2 2 rnWicm2 0.06 MW/CM2 401t 20ft Oft 20ft eUniSte, Ie (adapted with pe mission) 40ft The data for the above figure were adapted (with permission) from drawings provided by UniSite Inc. of Richardson, Texas (http://www.unisite.com). For a high-gain (sector) antenna of the type used in PCS base stations, the pattern looks like this: 3/26/98 2:34 PM 17F-42r1ffgria*M-SaSer. Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health 11 of 26 http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/copkell-phone-health-FAQ/toc.htr RF Emissions from a Single 1000W (ERP) High -Gain Antenna (Typical PCS Base Station Antenna) Vertical (side view) 33 270 Horizontal (top view) 0.001 mW /cm2 contour 100 ft 300 80ft 90 240 120 210 so 0.010 mW /cm2 contour oJE Mouide r Keep in mind that a typical PCS base station will use 3 (or occasionally 4) of these transmission antennas, all pointing in different directions. Very close to a single high -gain antenna (in what is technically known as the "near field "), the power density around an antenna looks like this: RF Emissions from a 1000W (ERP) High-Gain Antenna (fop View of the Power Densly Close to the Antenna) 40 ft 20 It O It 20 It 40ft ,44% Oft 20ft 0.60 mWWcm2 0.30 mWlcm2 ter_ -0.12 mW1cm2 --� 0.06 mWcm2 0.006 mWtcm2 GUni2ie, Inc 40 ft (adapted wiapennission) The data for the above figure were adapted (with permission) from drawings provided by UniSite Inc. of Richardson, Texas (http: / /www.unisite.com). 14D) Is it safe to live on the top floor of a building that has a cell phone or base station antenna on a, 9;.';". i.. u' it°. i�++' iY. r;»., i§>> i5itsfstt :�x`'.nfi"Fa'uz:%FSlrat{� .. 3/26/98 2:34 PM Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc/ cop /cell - phone - health- FAQ /toc.htr it? In general this will not be a problem. First, as can be seen from the antenna patterns shown in 014C, neither high- or low -gain antennas radiate much energy straight down. Second, the roof of the building will absorb large amounts of the RF energy. Typically a roof would be expected to decrease signal strength by a factor of 5 to 10 (or more for a reinforced concrete or metal roof). Third, FCC will require RF evaluations of all but the most low- powered roof -top transmitters (see 014 and note 11 and 19). Fourth, even a worst -case calculation predicts that power density on the floor below an antenna will meet all current RF safety standards [55]. 15) Does everyone agree with the current RF safety standards? Not everyone. Even among scientists there are a few people who claim that there is evidence that low level exposure to RF is hazardous (see, for example, Q15B and Q15C). However, not even these scientists would argue that power densities as low as those found around properly- designed base station antenna sites are hazardous. 15A) Is it true that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency thinks that the current safety standards for cellular and PCS phones are inadequate? No. The EPA asked the FCC to adopt parts of the 1986 NCRP guidelines L] rather than the entire 1992 ANSI guidelines [5]. This the FCC did [11]. Currently there is no indication that the EPA is unhappy with the new FCC radiofrequency exposure guidelines. 15B) Hasn't an Australian group claimed that there is evidence that living near TV broadcast towers causes an increase in childhood leukemia? Yes. Hocking and colleagues [28] published an "ecological" epidemiology study that compares municipalities "near TV towers" to those further away. No RF exposures were actually measured, but the authors calculate that exposures in the municipalities "near TV towers" were 0.0002 to 0.008 mW /cm -sq. No other sources of exposure to RF are taken into account, and the study is based on only a single metropolitan area. The authors report an elevated incidence of total leukemia and childhood leukemia, but no increase in total brain tumor incidence or childhood brain tumor incidence. "Ecological" epidemiology studies are considered to the weakest of all types of epidemiology 02, and there is no way to know whether the differences in leukemia rates observed in this study have anything to do with RF emissions from the towers. Unless this study is replicated in other area and/or replicated with properly designed case - control or cohort studies it will carry little weight. In fact, more detailed epidemiology studies of FM/TV antennas have not found evidence for a cancer connection (see 015D). 15C) Hasn't an Israeli epidemiologist claimed that there is evidence that low -level RF exposure causes a variety of health effects? Yes. In an article labeled an "opinion piece ", Goldsmith (29] argues that there is evidence that RF exposure is associated with mutations, birth defect, and cancer. This review is based largely on what the author 12 of 26 'u :ru !irN??MtiMEC' t ', -17,4m 4'.,,t =, "= At-A kue tir iti 41.774 3/26/98 2:34 PM Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc/ cop /cell- phone - health - FAQ /toc.htr. 13 of 26 admits to be "non -peer- reviewed sources ", most of which are stated to be "incomplete" and to lack "reliable dose estimates ". The author further states that "no systematic effort to include negative reports is made; thus this review has a positive reporting bias ". Few scientists agree with the opinions expressed by Goldsmith (see, for examples the reviews of the RF epidemiology in 1, 5, 6, 7, 14, 53); and even fewer would be willing to base a conclusion on the types of data sources that Goldsmith relies on. 15D) Hasn't a British group reported excess leukemia and lymphoma around a high -power FM/TV broadcast antenna? 6 v 0O: Yes and no. Dolk and colleagues [34] investigated a reported leukemia and lymphoma cluster near a N high -power FM/TV broadcast antenna at Sutton Coldfield in the UK. They found that the incidence of L adult leukemia and skin cancer was elevated within 2 km of the antenna, and that the incidence of these w 1L' cancers decreased with distance. No associations at all were seen for brain cancer, male or female breast w0 cancer, lymphoma or any other type of cancer. J ll. =: Because of this finding, Dolk and colleagues [35] extended their study to 20 other high -power FM/TV = d broadcast antennas in the UK. Cancers examined were adult leukemia, skin melanoma and bladder cancer, z tux and childhood leukemia and brain cancer. No elevations of cancer incidence were found near the antennas, and no declines in cancer incidence with distance were seen. This large study does not support the results w o ui found in the much smaller studies by the same authors at Sutton Coldfield [34] or by Hocking et al [28] in Australia. o cn' DI- LL] W` standard other than the current ANSI standard? 0` .z w U -. Not seriously. For PCS and cellular phone frequencies, the new FCC standards are essentially identical to the 1992 ANSI standard. Most new PCS antennas will be exempt from any need for detailed RF calculations [19]. z <w • lY 2 10 Will planning for cellular and PCS base antennas be disrupted by the FCC's adoption of a safety 17) Are use restrictions or "set- backs" required around cellular phone or PCS base station antenna sites? No. Radiofrequency safety guidelines do not require either setbacks or use restrictions around cellular or PCS base station antenna sites, since power levels on the ground are never high enough to exceed the guidelines for continuous public exposure (see Q8 and Q12). As discussed in Q13 and 014, there may be circumstances where use restrictions will have to be placed around the antennas themselves. 18) Are there groups (such as children or the elderly) that are more sensitive to the effects of radiowaves? Possibly. Some groups in the general population might be more sensitive to the effects of radiowaves than others, but no such groups have actually been found. The possible existence of such sensitive individuals is 3/26/98 2:34 PM Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop /cell - phone- health - FAQ /toc.htr one of the main reasons that an additional 5 -fold safety margin is added to the public exposure guidelines (see Q). 19) Will cellular phone and PCS base station antennas affect medical devices such as cardiac pacemakers? No. Cellular phone and base station antennas will not interfere with cardiac pacemakers or other implanted medical devices as long as exposure levels are kept within the ANSI standard for uncontrolled exposure (see 08 and 023). It is possible that PCS phones themselves might interfere with pace makers if the antenna is placed directly over the pacemaker. This problem is reported to occur with only some types of PCS phones and some types of pacemakers 1461. 20) Do radiowaves produce biological effects? Yes. If exposure is sufficiently intense, radiowaves can cause biological effects. Possible injuries include cataracts, skin burns, deep burns, heat exhaustion and heat stroke. Most, if not all, of the known biological effects from exposure to high -power radiofrequency sources are due to heating 2j_0]. The effects of this heating range from behavioral changes to eye damage (cataracts) [see refs in 1, 5, 6, 7 and 14]. Except possibly within a few feet of the antennas themselves [18], the power produced by cellular phone and PCS base station antennas is too low to cause heating. There have been scattered reports of effects [21] that do not appear to be due to heating, the so called non - thermal effects [20]. None of these effects have been independently replicated, and none have any obvious connections to human health risks. 21) Is there any replicated evidence that radiowaves can cause cancer? No. Even at high levels of exposure, there is no substantial evidence that radiowaves can either cause or contribute to cancer (for an opinion to the contrary see the reports discussed in Q 15B and O15C). Although research in this area has been extensive, there is no replicated laboratory or epidemiological evidence that radiowaves at the power levels associated with public exposure to radiowaves from cellular phone and PCS base station antennas are associated with cancer [see refs in 1, 5, 6, 7 and 14 for details]. There are two recent laboratory reports that RF exposure might produce cancer, or cancer - related injuries in animals. These studies are discussed in O23C and O23E. Both studies use RF levels far above those found in publicly - accessible area near base station antennas, and neither study has been replicated. 22) Is there any evidence that radiowaves can cause miscarriages or birth defects? Indirectly, yes. Exposure to levels of radiowaves sufficient to cause whole body heating can cause miscarriages or birth defects. The power produced by cellular phone and PCS base station antennas is far too low to cause such heating. There is no laboratory or epidemiological evidence at all that radiowaves at the power levels associated with public exposure to radiowaves from cellular phone and PCS base station antennas are associated with miscarriages or birth defects [see refs in 1, 5, 6, 7 and 14 for details]. 14 of 26 3/26/98 2:34 PM .h,. aaeHnx+��Mnn wnt9a.m?,11. Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc /cop /cell- phone - health - FAQ /toc.htr 23) What do the most recent scientific studies of radiowaves and human health show? There is a constant flow of new information. This section will attempt to summarize this new information. Studies which attract major attention will often get their own sections, such as the epidemiological studies discussed in 015B, 015C and 015D, the mouse studies discussed in 023C and Q23E, and the DNA strand break studies discussed in Q23E. ~ w. 23A) What do recent reports from meetings say? 6 v Uo At the June 1996 meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS), the principle meeting where w = biological and health effects of radiowaves are discussed), there were over 80 papers that dealt with N 1. radiowaves and/or personal communication systems. Similarly, at the 2nd World Congress of Electricity w 0 and Magnetism in Medicine and Biology in June 1997, there were nearly 100 papers that dealt with radiowaves and/or personal communication systems. None of these papers reported replicated results that g ¢. would suggest that radiowave exposure at levels allowed by the 1992 ANSI standard [ ] would pose any health risk to humans. F w z I- A very large number of the reports at both meeting dealt with dosimetry issues for the hand -held phones z o themselves. The only dosimetry study directly relevant to base station antennas was: w w Tell and Cleveland [22]: A survey of cellular phone base stations showed that antennas on free - standing D o towers produced levels of radiowaves that were "typically thousands of times below safety standards in p �; publicly accessible areas "; but that roof -top antennas could produce exposure levels high enough to require that access to portions of the roof be controlled. = v. A number of reports at both meeting dealt with electromagnetic interference issues, but none of these Cu z. reports add much to the information presented in the publication by Hayes et al [46]. 0 i 0� Among the biological studies reported at the 1996 BEMS meeting, those with the greatest relevance to the Z issue of possible human health effects of radiowaves were: •Adey et al [241: See 023D. .Fitzner et al [261: Exposure to 900 or 1800 MHz RF had no effect on the growth of human leukemia cells. Dooley et al [27]: Wideband RF exposure did not cause birth defects in rats. Among the biological studies reported at the 1997 World Congress, those with the greatest relevance to the issue of possible human health effects of radiowaves were: Gos et al [47]: Exposure of yeast cells to a digital phone signal at 900 MHz (0.13 and 1.3 W/kg) produced no genotoxic injury. Szmigielski [48]: Polish military personnel with exposure to radiofrequency and microwave radiation were reported to have excess rates of certain kinds of cancer. Malapaya et al [49]: See 023E. .Adey et al [501: See Q23D. Shirai et al [51]: Exposure of rats to a 929 MHz digital phone signal at 1.7 -2.0 W/kg did not increase the incidence of liver cancer induced by a chemical carcinogen. d'Ambrosio et al 5[^2]: Exposure of human white blood cells to 1748 MHz RF at 5 W/kg produced no genotoxic injury. 3/26/98 2:34 PM 1�1 Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc/ cop /cell - phone- health - FAQ /toc.htr r � 23B) What do recent reports from journals say? 16of26 Relevant peer- reviewed publications include: JK Grayson [33.]: US air force personnel exposed to RF had an increased incidence of brain cancer, but the increase did not correlate with the level of exposure. Hocking et al [28]: See Q15B. Dolk et al [34 & 351: See 015D. •Repacholi et al [E]: See Q23C. z Lai & Singh [31]: See O23E. _ Maes et al [32]: See Q23E. w ct Scarfi et al [36]: See Q23E. 6 n Vijayalaxmi et al [41]: See 023E. v p: Cain et al [42]: See Q23E. , co 0 Toler et al [45]: See 023D. w w. =;. •Malyapa et al [49]: See 023E. u. w 23C) What about the new report that exposure of mice to cell phone radiation causes cancer? <. co Ta A 1997 study [37] reports that lymphoma -prone mice exposed for 18 months to strong, but intermittent, I- _ radio - frequency fields of the type used by digital cellular phones have an increased incidence of z I.- lymphomas. No increases in the incidence of other types of tumors were found. The field intensities used z �' are above the guidelines for public exposure recommended in the ANSI/IEEE standard (Q8), and are far 2 D above those that exist in publicly - accessible areas near cellular phone and PCS base station antennas [16]. 0 N. 0 .o1— While this study is very interesting, its impact on regulation of RF exposure of the general public is quite w w unclear: 1— It cannot be determined from this study whether lymphomas can be induced in normal (as opposed to u_ O' cancer- prone) animals by exposure to RF. w N It cannot be determined from this study whether other types of tumors can be induced by exposure to RF. o I` It cannot be determined from this study what exposure level is required for induction of lymphoma in these Z mice. Clearly the study will need to be repeated with both normal and lymphoma -prone mice. If the effect can be replicated, it will be critical to determine the dose - response relationship for lymphoma induction, and to determine whether the effect occurs for other tumors and/or in other species. See the Technical notes for the reference [2], quotes from the authors' abstract 3[_8], quotes from the authors' discussion D2], and for further technical details [40]. Several questions have been repeatedly asked about this study: • Does this study mean that cell phones or PCS phones cause cancer? No. Before this study can be related to human risk assessment: - it must be replicated, - a similar study must be done with normal mice, - the exposure- response relationship for the effect must be known, - the induction of other types of tumors must be studied. ''.,: 7d ..t. 4164 u"1 -ti i lf,'ro'�'. }ii : YJDEi'::,'rxfi iiliit%,15e'"d�'bSJt il'P xfi .`.r�tilar 3/26/98 2:34 PM `. "` Aat`A, : ... `'ek'iF"9k` �r �`•i fAIN i tiu`+'h''- 'iiza` ",•41e, ;.100 Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc /cop /cell - phone- health - FAQ /toc.htr • If it is so difficult to extrapolate from these cancer -prone mice to humans, why were they used? When you want to know whether something might cause cancer, you usually start with a sensitive strain of animals and a high dose of the agent. This maximizes your chance of finding something. If you find nothing under these circumstances, then you can be fairly confident that the agent does not cause this cancer. If you do find excess cancer, you then need to determine whether this will also happen in normal animals and/or at more reasonable doses. If you first do normal animals at low doses, and you find no excess cancer, you still would need to test cancer -prone animals at high doses. w 6 An additional problem with using normal mice and low doses of RF to study induction of 0 lymphoma, is that lymphoma is rare in normal mice (1 -3% lifetime incidence). To detect a 50% w increase in this normal rate would require over 2000 mice. w • Do we know whether exposure to cell phone radiation causes lymphoma in normal animals? w o There are at least 6 other studies of long -term exposure of rodents to radiofrequency radiation. None of these 6 studies used lymphoma -prone mice and none have reported excess lymphoma. See 023D N d for details.-- _. Z �. • Why is the level of RF exposure in this study so poorly - defined? w O. w It is not easy to expose animals to uniform levels of RF. If animals are unrestrained in cages, the RF c.) dose (the SAR [8]) varies with the position of the animal, with its orientation to the antenna, with • o F the presence of other animals, and with the animal size. To get well - defined RF doses, the animals = w must be confined in small holders, and the daily handling and confinement this requires can produce �.. biological effects all by itself. Even under these conditions, the SAR may change as the animals L-- z increase in size. Basically, the experimenter has a choice: treat free - running animals with minimal v �'. disturbance and accept uncertain dosimetry, or get good dosimetry and risk artifacts due to handling E:- and confinement. Either choice is open to criticism. z 23D) Has anyone else exposed rodents to cell phone radiation to see if they got cancer? There are at least 6 other studies of life -time exposure to rodents to RF, three published and three that have only been presented at meetings. In 1992, Chou et al [43] published a study of 100 normal rats that were exposed to pulsed 2450 MHz RF at 0.15 -0.40 W/kg [8] for 21.5 hrs /day and 25 months. No effects were observed on life -span or cause of death. An increase in total cancer was seen in exposed group, with no effect on survival. The malignancy rates in the controls was unusually low for this strain, and no increase in benign tumors were observed. Two primary lymphomas were seen in the exposed animals, and two in the controls. No benign or malignant brain tumors were seen in either exposed or control rats. The authors concluded: "Microwave exposure... showed no biologically significant effects on general health... The findings of an excess of primary malignancies in exposed animalsis provocative. However, when this single finding is considered in light of other parameters, it is conjectural whether the statistical difference reflects a true biological influence. The overall results indicate that there are no definitive, biologically significant effects... ". In 1994, Wu et al [56] published a report on 26 mice that were exposed to a chemical carcinogen plus 17 of 26 3/26/98 2:34 PM .eL�1W..4%riRC¢S 4N zn•FSa¢, Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc /cop /cell - phone- health - FAQ /toc.htr 2450 MHz RF at 10 mW /cm -sq (10 -12 W/kg). Exposure continued for 3 hrs /day, 6 days /week for 5 months. The chemical carcinogen is one that causes colon cancer. No difference in colon cancer rates were seen between animals treated with the carcinogen alone and the animals treated with the carcinogen plus RF. In 1997, Toler el [45] published a report on 200 mammary- tumor -prone mice exposed to pulsed 435 MHz RF at 1.0 mW /cm -sq (0.32 W/kg). Exposure continued for 22 hrs /day, 7 days /week for 21 months. The authors reported no differences in survival or mammary tumor incidence. The authors reported that there z was no difference in the rates of any types of tumors between the exposed and the control group. On _ 1 particular note, there was no difference in the lymphoma rate between the exposed and the control group. w In their 1997 paper Toler et al [45] refer to a second paper as "in press in Bioelectromagentics ". This is 0 clearly the study presented by Frei et al at a meeting in 1996 [44]. In this study, 100 mammary -tumor prone co mice were exposed to 2450 MHz RF at a SAR of 0.3 W/kg. Exposure was for 20 hrs /day, 7 days /week for w I 18 months. According to Toler et al, the study found no difference in tumor incidence or survival between n the exposed and the control group. uj 0 At the 1996 BEMS meeting, Adey et al [24] reported on 118 rats that were exposed to pulsed 837 MHz u RF. RF exposure started with continuous exposure of pregnant rats and continued through weaning. At = 8 weaning mice were treated with a chemical brain tumor carcinogen and/or with RF to the head (2 hrs /day, 1— _. 7.5 min on, 7.5 min off). RF treatment continued for 22 months. SARs ranged from 0.1 to 0.8 W/kg. The z ~— authors reported that the number of brain tumors was less in the RF- exposed groups than in the z o sham- exposed groups. This decrease was seen in both rats treated with RF alone, and in rats treated with uj RF plus the chemical brain tumor carcinogen. v t7 0N. At the 1997 World Congress, Adey et al [50] reported on a similar study that used an 800 MHz = w frequency - modulated signal. The authors reported that there was no difference in brain tumor incidence or 1— u_ between the rats what were exposed to RF and those that were not. It is not publicly known u_ 0 whether any other types of tumors were found in either the exposed or control animals. The two Adey et al tii studies are believed to be under review for publication. } I—: 0 z Thus it would appear that induction of lymphoma, and tumors in general, by life -time exposure of rodents to RF is not a general phenomena. However, as three of the seven relevant studies are not yet published, a firm conclusion is somewhat premature. 1 23E) What about the new report that exposure of mice to cell phone radiation causes damage to the I DNA in their brain cells? i 18of26 Agents that can damage the DNA of cells are presumed to have carcinogenic potential [4]. Agents that can damage DNA are called genotoxins, or are referred to as having genotoxic activity. In general, studies of cells exposed to RF have not found evidence for genotoxicity unless the SAR was high enough to cause thermal (heat) injury [5, 6, 7, 14]. In 1995 and 1996, Lai & Singh [31] reported that RF caused DNA damage (genotoxic injury) in rats. In these experiments, rats were exposed to 2450 MHz RF at 0.6 and 1.2 W/kg. After exposure, the animals were killed, and their brain cells were analyzed for DNA injury. The authors reported an increase in DNA stand breaks 4 hours after exposure. The work of Lai & Singh [31] has failed independent attempts at replication. Malyapa et al f49a, 49b1 aarztssf 3/26/98 2:34 PM Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop /cell - phone - health- FAQ /toc.htr 19 of 26 reported that they could not detect the effect seen by Lai & Singh, but there were some differences between the studies. At the World Congress meeting in 1997, Malyapa et al [49cl reported that they could not detect the effect seen by Lai & Singh in an exact replicate. Three other recently published studies on the genotoxic potential of RF have reported no evidence for genotoxicity: .11E4: - Vijayalaxmi et al [41a, 41b] found no evidence for genotoxic injury in the blood cells of mice exposed to 2450 MHz RF for 18 months at 1 W/kg, or in human lymphocytes exposed in cell culture to 2450 MHz RF at 12.5 W/kg. w - Cain et al [42] found no effect of 836 MHz RF exposure at 0.015 W/kg on neoplastic cell transformation re 2w in animal fibroblasts. 6 ci 0 O'. CO Two other recently published studies found some evidence for RF genotoxicity under special conditions: • w w LIJ - Maes et al [32] reported, that exposure of human blood cells to 954 MHz RF at 1.5 W/kg did not cause chromosome damage, but increased the amount of chromosome damage produced by a chemical carcinogen. g 0 - MR Scarfi et al [361 reported that exposure of animal white blood cells to 9000 MHz RF at 70 W/kg 1 P P g � Qi produced caused genotoxic injury and enhanced the genotoxic injury caused by a chemical carcinogen. However, the SAR in this experiment was high enough to cause thermal (heat) injury, so the relevance to i v LLI real -world human exposure is unclear. Z I- O z I- 24) Where can I get more information? o o -' The documentation of the various radiofrequency standards [5, 6, 7 and 14] contain extensive references. • o LLI The most up -to -date review of this area is the recent ICNIRP publication on hand -held phones [l]. = - v u- O. 25) Who wrote these Questions and Answers? v N` r` This FAQ sheet was written by Dr. John Moulder, a Professor of Radiation Oncology, Radiology and z Pharmacology/Toxicology at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Dr. Moulder has taught, lectured and written on the biological effects of non - ionizing radiation and electromagnetic fields for nearly two decades. The original version of this FAQ was written in 1995 under a contract with the City of Brookfield, Wisconsin. Parts of this FAQ are derived from two peer- reviewed publications: JE Moulder and KR Foster: Biological effects of power - frequency fields as they relate to carcinogenesis. Proc Soc Exper Biol Med 209:309 -324, 1995. KR Foster, LS Erdreich & JE Moulder: Weak electromagnetic fields and cancer in the context of risk assessment. Proc IEEE 85:731 -746, 1997. Dr. Moulder maintains similar "FAQ" documents on "Powerlines and Cancer" and "Static EM Fields and Cancer ". Technical Notes: 1. International Comrnission on Non - Ionizing Radiation Protection: Health issues related to the use of 3/26/98 2:34 PM Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc/ cop /cell - phone - health- FAQ /toc.htr hand -held radiotelephones and base transmitters. Health Physics 70:587 -593, 1996. 2. PCS (Personal Communication Systems) phones are hand -held radiotelephones that use a digital, rather than the analog transmission system used by most cellular phones. In the U.S., cellular phones operate at 860 -900 MHz, while PCS phones operate at 1800 -2200 MHz. In appearance, cellular and PCS phones and their base station antennas are similar. In the U.S., "cordless" phones operate at 46 -60 MHz and "citizens band (CB)" transceivers operate at about 27 MHz. :PPI International note: Around the world a variety of other frequencies are used for both analog and digital hand -held transceivers and mobile radios. and other names are given to the systems. The most common frequencies for "cellular" systems are 800 -900 MHz (analog and digital) and 1800 -2000 MHz (digital), but hand -held transceivers exist that use frequencies from as low as 25 MHz to as high as 2500 MHz. Power output from hand -held units seldom exceeds 5 W, but power output from vehicle - mounted units such as those used by law enforcement personnel can be as high as 100 W. Canada: Analog and digital phones operate at 824 to 849 MHz. A 2000 MHz digital system (similar or identical to PCS service in the US) is coming soon. Australia: The analog AMPS phones operate at 825 -890 MHz and the digital GSM phones operate at 890 -960 MHz. Europe: Analog systems at about 900 MHz, and both analog and digital (GSM) systems at about 1800 MHz. 3. The specific frequencies used by cellular and PCS phones can be called either microwaves (1\4W), radiofrequencies (RF), or radiowaves. For the discussion of health effects the distinction between radiowaves and microwaves is semantic, and the term radiowaves (or radiofrequency or RF) is used in this document for all frequencies between 3 kHz and 300 GHz. 4. For a detailed discussion see: JE Moulder and KR Foster: Biological effects of power - frequency fields as they relate to carcinogenesis. Proc Soc Exper Biol Med 209:309 -324, 1995. 5. IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 28 on Non - Ionizing Radiation Hazards: Standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz (ANSI/IEEE C95.1- 1991), The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, 1992. 6. International Commission on Non - Ionizing Radiation Protection: Electromagnetic fields (300 kHz to 300 GHz). Environmental Health Criteria 137. World Health Organization, 1993. 7. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements: Biological effects and exposure criteria for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. NCRP Report No. 86, 1986. 8. The biological effects of radiowaves depend on the rate at which power is absorbed. This rate of energy absorption is called the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and is measured in Watts/kilogram (W/kg). SARs are difficult to measure on a routine basis, so what is usually measured is the plane wave power density. Average whole body SARs can then be calculated from the power density exposure. Note that some documents express power density as µW /cm -sq, where 1000 pW /cm -sq equals 1 mW /cm -sq. 9. The power density standards are stricter for cellular frequencies than for PCS frequencies because humans absorb radiowaves more at 860 MHz than at 1800 MHz, and it is the amount of power absorbed that really matters [a]. 10. Specifically, the ICNIRP standard is 0.43 mW /cm -sq for cellular phone frequencies and 0.90 20 of 26 3/26/98 2:34 PM Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health 21 of 26 http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/toc.htr mW /cm -sq for PCS phone frequencies, while the NCRP guideline is 0.57 mW /cm -sq for cellular phone frequencies and 1.00 mW /cm -sq for PCS phone frequencies. 11. Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation (FCC 96 -326), Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C., 1996. Available from the FCC web page. 12. Specifically, the new FCC standard is 0.57 mW /cm -sq for cellular phone frequencies and 1.0 mW /cm -sq for PCS phone frequencies. •NEW International note: A number of countries have their own regulations. While these regulations generally follow the same patterns and rationales used by ANSI /IEEE [5] and . ICNIRP L], they do differ. Australian standard: Standards Australia (1990): AS2772.1 -1990 Radiofrequency radiation, Part 1: Maximum exposure :levels -100 kHz to 300 GHz including Amendment No. 1/1994. Standards Association of Australia. In this Australian standard the allowable general public exposure limit for the frequencies used by mobile phone services is 0.2 mW /cm -sq; this is a factor of 2 - 6 lower than the ANSI /IEEE, ICNIRP and NCRP standards. This standard is currently under revision, and the allowable general public exposure limits in the new draft appear to be 0.45 mW /cm -sq at 900 MHz and 0.90 mW /cm -sq at 1800 MHz New Zealand standard: NZS 9901.1:1990 with title and contents identical to the Australian standard. Canadian standard: Health Canada: Limits of exposure to radiofrequency fields at frequencies from 10 kHz - 300 GHz Safety Code 6, Canada Communication Group, Ottawa, Canada, (1993). At the frequencies of relevance to base stations the Canadian standard appears to be identical to the FCC standard. UK standard: The UK standard [14] is 0.57 mW /cm -sq at 900 MHz and 1.00 mW /cm -sq at 1800 MHz. 13. Where there are multiple transmitting antennas at different frequencies, the method for assuring adherence to the ANSI [Si or FCC [11] standards is complex. However, there is also an easy way to check adherence under these conditions: add the power densities of all the antennas and apply the strictest power density standard. Anything which passes this easy check will pass the more stringent and complex test. Something that fails this easy check must be analyzed by the more stringent and complex method described in the ANSI standard. 14. National Radiation Protection Board: Restrictions on human exposure to static and time varying electromagnetic fields and radiation. Doc NRPB 4:1 -69, 1993. 15. The 1992 ANSI standard [5], for example, is based on the review of 321 papers from the peer- reviewed literature; and the NCRP guidelines [2] are based on a review of nearly 1000 reports. 16. Specifically, no potentially- hazardous effects have been reproducibly shown below a SAR of 4 W/kg. At cellular and PCS phone frequencies it would require a power density of 20 -100 mW /cm -sq to achieve a SAR as high as 4 W/kg. Under worst -case assumptions, the SAR of a human in publicly - accessible locations near cellular phone or PCS base stations would be less than 0.005 W/kg. Under realistic conditions the SAR to a human near such a base station, would be less than 0.0005 W/kg. 17. ANSI, ICNIRP and NCRP all agree that whole body exposure should be kept below a whole body SAR of 0.4 W/kg. Where the standards disagree is about the specific relationship of SAR to power- density,_a relationship that is determined from a combination of dosimetry and biophysical modeling. International note: As a result of differences between approaches and frequencies used, world -wide standards for the continuous exposure of the public to RF from base station antennas ranges from 0.20 to 3/26/98 2:34 PM Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc/ cop /cell - phone - health - FAQ /toc.htr. 1.20 mW /cm -sq. 18. For the "panel" antennas used by most PCS base stations, the area of concern is only at the front of the antennas. For the "whip" style antennas used in many cellular base station antennas, the area of concern would be in all directions. This differences becomes clearer after an examination of the RF patterns from each type of antenna (see Q14C). These general statements about minimum safe distances assume that total ERPs per sector for base station antennas will not exceed 2000 W. In the U.S., this is generally the case; and under the U.S. FCC guidelines, sites with total ERPs above 2000 W will require specific site evaluations [see note 19]. International note: More powerful antennas may be used elsewhere. in which case the minimum safe distances would be larger. Minimum safe distances will also be larger when there are multiple antennas broadcasting in the same sector. 19. Specifically, the FCC will require evaluations for: non- rooftop PCS base station antennas less than 10 meters (30 feet) off the ground and with a total ERP of greater than 2000 W (3280W EIRP); rooftop PCS base station antennas with a total ERP of greater than 2000 W (3280W EIRP). non- rooftop cellular phone base station antennas less than 10 meters (30 feet) off the ground and with a total ERP of greater than 1000 W (1640W EIRP); •rooftop cellular phone base station antennas with a total ERP of greater than 1000 W (1640W EIRP) "rooftop" is defined as: "the roof or otherwise outside, topmost level or levels of a building structure that is occupied as a workplace or residence and where either workers or the general public may have access." I would assume that a mount on a water tower would be considered "non- rooftop" "total power" is defined as: "the sum of the ERP or EIRP of all co- located simultaneously operating transmitters of the facility. When applying the [exclusion] criteria, radiation in all directions should be considered. For the case of transmitting facilities using sectorized transmitting antennas, applicants and licensees should apply the criteria to all transmitting channels in a given sector, noting that for a highly directional antenna there is relatively little contribution to ERP or EIRP summation for other directions." International note: Strictly speaking, these criteria only apply in the U.S. Nevertheless, they are useful criteria for determining what types of antenna sites are most likely to violate RF standards. For example, sites that are exempted from measurement requirement under the FCC rules should also easily meet the stricter Australian standard. 20. One distinction that is often made in discussions of the biological effects of radiowaves is between "nonthermal" and "thermal" effects. This refers to the mechanism for the effect: non - thermal effects are a result of a direct interaction between the radiowaves and the organism, and thermal effects are a result of heating. There are some reported biological effects of radiowaves whose mechanisms are unknown, and it is difficult (and not very useful) to try to draw a distinction between "thermal" and "nonthermal" mechanisms for such effects. 21. These effects have included changes in the electrical activity of the brain, changes in enzyme activity, and changes in calcium ion transport across membranes [1, 5, 6, 7 and 14]. 22. RA Tell and RF Cleveland: An Investigation of Radiofrequency Fields Near Base- Station Antennas Used for Cellular Radio. BEMS, Victoria, June 1996. 23. The increased human absorption at 900 MHz (U.S. cell phone frequency) versus 2000 MHz (U.S. PCS 22 of 26 y r �i;° ciF;. 1' t• �tF. n.;: ai:; �: n' F�'. G':f l% ;a�.L':�MA.k.u�t:o'i+Y:'.�Y��.1 '�%+S�Af1+� :w3 3/26/98 2:34 PM z • 1 ▪ w 0 0' u) w. J (w w 0 � J Nd =w F-_ z� � o z1`- � • 0 O -. 0 I- W W' • 0 u-- o. .z w O~ z Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop /cell - phone - health - FAQ /toc.htr 23 of 26 phone frequency) applies to whole body exposure at a distance from the antenna (the case for public exposure near a base station antenna site). This difference may not apply to partial body exposures in very close proximity to an antenna. 24. WR Adey, CV Byus et al: Brain Tumor Incidence in Rats Chronically Exposed to Digital Cellular Telephone Fields in an Initiation - Promotion Model. BEMS, Victoria, June 1996. 25. See note 49. 26. R Fitzner, E Langer et al: Long -Term Influence of High Frequency Electromagnetic Fields on Growth Behavior of HL60 Cells to Investigate Cancer Promoting Effects. BEMS, Victoria, June 1996. 27. MP Dooley, BL Cobb et al: Development of Rat Embryos Exposed to an Ultrawideband Electromagnetic Field. BEMS, Victoria, June 1996. 28. B Hocking, IR Gordon et al: Cancer incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers. Med J Austral 165:601 -605, 1996. 29. JR Goldsmith: Epidemiologic evidence of radiofrequency (microwave) effects on health in military, broadcasting, and occupational studies. Int J Occup Environ Health 1:47 -57, 1995. 30. A discussion of the problems with interpreting ecological epidemiology studies is beyond the scope of document. For discussion of this issue see: S Piantadosi, DP Byar et al: The ecological fallacy. Am J Epidemiol. 127(5):893 -904, 1988. S Schwartz: The fallacy of the ecological fallacy: the potential misuse of a concept and the consequences. Am J Public Health. 84(5):819 -24, 1994. 31. H Lai & Singh: Acute low- intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single -strand breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromag 16:207 -210, 1995; H Lai and NP Singh: Single- and double- strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 69:513 -521, 1996. 32. A Maes, M Collier et al: 954 MHz microwaves enhance the mutagenic properties of mitomycin C. Environ Molec Mutagen 28:26 -30, 1996. 33. JK Grayson: Radiation exposure, socioeconomic status, and brain tumor risk in US Air Force: A nested case - control study. Amer J Epidemiol 143:480 -486, 1996. 34. H Dolk, G Shaddick et al: Cancer incidence near radio and television transmitters in Great Britain I. Sutton Coldfield Transmitter. Amer J Epidemiol 145:1 -9, 1997. 35. H Dolk, P Elliott et al: Cancer incidence near radio and television transmitters in Great Britain. II. All high power transmitters. Amer J Epidemiol 145:10 -17, 1997. 36. MR Scarfi et al: Genotoxic effects of mitomycin-C and microwave radiation on bovine lymphocytes. Electro Magnetobio 15:99 -107, 1996. 37. MH Repacholi, A Basten et al: Lymphomas in Ep -Pim1 Transgenic Mice Exposed to Pulsed 900 MHz Electromagnetic Fields. Rad Res 147:631 -640, 1997. ;> :i:::' Y *:N t3;c= .a ±:zrnJ vadYii: 3ur+ rrx»"• Y'de�knsN:`.3zlMateSiJAIr'.:£�5 :'�: Y' S "tr"sdirkA�aSt3b1� ,. 3/26/98 2:34 PM z ~w 6 2. JU 00 N o: w= J F-- w0 • J LL Q. co =w z� :z 0 LLI D D 0 . N. U H 2-: z ui 0~ z Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc/ cop /cell - phone - health - FAQ /toc.htr. 24 of 26 38. Quotes from the abstract of Repacholi et al [37] : "...One hundred Ep -Piml mice were sham - exposed and 101 were exposed for two 30 -min periods per day for up to 18 months to plane wave fields of 900 MHz with a pulse repetition frequency of 217 Hz and a pulse width of 0.6 ms. Incident power densities were 2.6 -13 W /m -sq [0.26 -1.3 mW /cm -sq] and [average SAR was] 0.13 -1.4 W/kg. Lymphoma risk was found to be significantly higher in the exposed mice than in the controls (OR =2.4, p= 0.006, 95% CI= 1.3- 4.5)... Thus long -term intermittent exposure to RF fields can enhance the probability that mice carrying a lymphomagenic oncogene will develop lymphomas ". 39. Quotes from the discussion in Repacholi et al [37] "A number of previous attempts to discern effects of RF exposure on lymphoid cells in vitro have been documented... [the literature] does not seem to offer a mechanism by which RF field exposure... could increase the incidence of lymphoid malignancy" "While the increase in the incidence of lymphoma found here was highly significant statistically, and the exposure conditions were designed to mimic the fields generated by a digital mobile telephone, the implications of the study for risk of carcinogenesis in humans are unclear. It is difficult to extrapolate directly from mice to humans due to differences in their absorption of energy from RF fields." "It seems important in light of the present results to determine the relationship between exposure dose and lymphoma incidence" "We would not interpret these studies as indicating that RF -field exposure would be specifically lymphomagenic in normal animals." "That is not imply that any humans at all are necessarily at increased risk of cancer as a consequence of exposure to RF fields. No single experiment on animals can allow such a conclusion." 40. Further technical notes concerning Repacholi et al [37]: Mice used in these studies are transgenic animals that are born with an activated oncogene that predisposes them to develop lymphoma. By the age of 10 months 5 -10% of these mice develop lymphomas, and by 18 months (quite old for a mouse) about 15% develop lymphomas. The incidence of lymphoma in normal mice is very much lower. The data analysis was blinded; that is, the experimenters determining which animals developed lymphoma did not know which animals had been exposed and which had not. The exposures themselves were not completely blinded; during the course of the experiments the investigators knew which mice were being exposed and which were not, but the people caring for the animals did not. Mice were exposed in the far- field. The 900 MHz field was pulse modulated at 217 Hz. This simulates the type of digital phones used in Australia, The RF field was not uniform in the exposure room, and the animals were allowed to move freely in their cages during the exposure. As a result, the actual exposure levels of the animals are not known. All that is known is that the SAR range was 0.007 to 4.3 W/kg and that the average SAR for the mice was 0.14 to 1.4 W/kg. The ANSI/IEEE standard for exposure of the general public to RF is based on keeping exposures below 0.08 W/kg. The ANSI/IEEE standard for occupational exposure to RF is based on keeping exposures below 0.4 W/kg. The SAR level in publicly - accessible locations near cellular phone of PCS base stations is in the 0.0005 -0.005 W/kg range 16]. Thus the exposure levels used in this mouse study are well above those to which people are actually exposed. The SAR levels, even at their extreme, do not appear high enough to cause thermal stress, and the authors report no evidence of thermal stress. Because the animals used in the study are genetically predisposed to lymphoma it is difficult to decide whether this should be viewed as a test for genotoxic activity or a test for epigenetic activity (see the powerline- cancer FAQ for a discussion of the distinction). 41a. Vijayalaxmi et al: Frequency of micronuclei in the peripheral blood and bone marrow of cancer -prone r- rd^$a�s4fc�{!ta`- 141113,1,1. ', 47k..rl 3/26/98 2:34 PM Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http: / /www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop /cell - phone - health - FAQ /toc.htr mice chronically exposed to 2450 MHz radiofrequency radiation. Radiat Res 147:495 -500, 1997. • • 25 of 26 NEW 41b. Vijayalaxmi et al: Proliferation and cytogenetic studies in human blood lymphocytes exposed in vitro to 2450 MHz radiofrequency radiation. Int J Rad Biol 72:751 -757, 1997. 42. CD Cain et al: Focus formation of C3H/10T1 /2 cells and exposure to a 836.55 MHz modulated radiofrequency field. Bioelectromag 18:237 -243, 1997. 43. CK Chou et al: Long -term, low -level microwave irradiation of rats. Bioelectromag 13:469 -496, 1992. 44. MR Frei et al: Long -term exposure of cancer -prone mice to low -level 2450 -MHz radiofrequency radiation. Aerospace Medical Association, Atlanta, 1996. 45. JC Toler et al: Long -term low -level exposure of mice prone to mammary tumors to 435 MHz radiofrequency radiation. Radiat Res 148:227 -234, 1997. 46. DL Hayes et al: Interference with cardiac pacemakers by cellular telephones. New Eng J Med 336:1473 -1479, 1997. 47. P Gos et al: Mobile -phone type electromagnetic fields do not influence genetic stability in yeast. 2nd World Congress, Bologna, 1997. 48. S Szmigielski: Analysis of cancer morbidity in Polish career military personnel exposed occupationally to radiofrequency and microwave radiation. 2nd World Congress, Bologna, 1997. 49a. RS Malyapa et al: Measurement of DNA damage following exposure to 2450 MHz electromagnetic radiation. Radiat Res 148:608 -617, 1997. 49b. RS Malyapa et al: Measurement of DNA damage following exposure to electromagnetic radiation in the cellular communications frequency band (835.62 and 847.74 MHz). Radiat Res 148:618 -627, 1997. 49c. RS Malyapa et al: Measurement of DNA damage by the alkaline comet assay in rat brain cells after in vivo exposure to 2450 MHz electromagnetic radiation. 2nd World Congress, Bologna, 1997. 50. WR Adey et al: Brain tumor incidence in rats chronically exposed to frequency- modulated (FM) cellular phone fields. 2nd World Congress, Bologna, 1997. 51. T Shirai et al: Lack of promoting effects of the electromagnetic near -field used for cellular phones (929 MHz) on rat liver carcinogenesis in medium -term bioassay. 2nd World Congress, Bologna, 1997. 52. G d'Ambrosio et al: Preliminary results on human lymphocytes exposed in vitro to cellular telephone microwave frequency. 2nd World Congress, Bologna, 1997. 53. KR Foster, LS Erdreich & JE Moulder: Weak electromagnetic fields and cancer In the context of risk assessment. Proc IEEE 85:731 -746, 1997. 54. Measurements show that signal strength in a building is anywhere from 5% to 40% of the level measured in the street outside. In general, signal attenuation is greater at ground level than higher up in the building; and attenuation is less at higher (PCS) frequencies than at lower (cell phone) frequencies (JD Parsons, The Mobile Phone Propagation Channel, Wiley & Sons, NY, 1992). 55. A worst -case calculation (2000 W ERP low -gain antenna mounted directly on a low- attenuation root) t War)7Lili=21;* P:.el., FitA'.:3LS;:iZ:."ri:uS14 -toi 3/26/98 2:34 PM { z ~w 6 00 to mow: J= u_ . wO ga cn I- w z� t- 0 z H. ;0 w w` z H - ui UN 1= I. z 1 Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/toc.htr predicts a power density of less than 0.10 mW /cm -sq on the floor below. A calculation for a more typical roof -top mount (1000 W ERP high -gain antenna, mounted 6 feet above a typical roof) predicts a power density of less than 0.001 mW /cm -sq on the floor below. 56. RY Wu et al: Effects of 2.45 GHz microwave radiation and phorbol ester 12 -O- tetradecanoylphorbol -13- acetate on dimethylhydrazine - induced colon cancer in mice. Bioelectromag 15:531 -538, 1994. 57. ED Mantiply et al: Summary of measured radiofrequency electric and magnetic fields (10 kHz to 30 GHz) in the general and work environment. Bioelectromag 18:563 -577, 1997. Copyright Notice This FAQ is Copyright (©), 1996 -1998 by John Moulder and the Medical College of Wisconsin, and is made available as a service to the Internet community. Permission is granted to copy and redistribute this document electronically as long as it is unmodified. Notification of such redistribution would be appreciated. This FAQ may not be sold in any medium, including electronic, CD -ROM, or database, or published in print, without the explicit, written permission of John Moulder. 26 of 26 •f1%s.11:!V'F. ^T+r 3/26/98 2:34 PM : <3e .:2;:er 4 :471tG: k s '44.03:071; Z, • r2 6 V!. 00 N0, w' = CO LL; w 0' =I tom•. CO D _, Z I- 0 Z w w; pl :D 0 01 .io �. —O ui 0H Z . \VH April 2, 1998 Creative Solutions ... Superior Servia-' -, PACIFIC US West Wireless 450 -110th Ave. NE, #209 Bellevue, W A 98004 (425) 451-6043 Ms. Deborah Ritter Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, STE 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: L98 -001 Additional information requested on April 1, 1998 Dear Deborah: Please find attached the information you requested in our phone conversation of April 1, 1998, as follows: 1. Photo Simulation and map representing from where the photos were taken. 2. The fence will have a gate that is locked at all times. 3. The acoustical engineer will have a completed letter regarding site specific noise information by end of today. This letter will be faxed to you this afternoon and copies will be provided to you at 8:00 a.m. Friday, April 3`1. 4. From your message, the letter from Seattle City Light will be sufficient to proceed to a public hearing. A copy of the fully executed lease will be provided to you once it is received. If you need any further information, please let me know. Thank you for your attention to this application. cerely, Rebecca L. Slick Project Planner Ci2 Engineering • Landscape Architecture • Environmental Services Planning • Surveying and Mapping Washington • Oregon • Idaho ..r= ti,Pi' . :• +?,�.+z>::i':: ?.v: ,. �x. Yrr?% cz�rin' Lk�J;' so- �r.' 4t '.RSt:�cr.'cts�a•�ei.�srrwvnr,r u.1,u4/yo 14:uo rota J. GUv OGO U1/4 BRC acoustics April 2; 1998 Mr. Nfike Unger W&IH Pacific 3025 112th Avenue, NE Bellevue Washington 98009 ant, Al.Vt.iJ111,J .Re: Acoustical Report Site: Beacon Avenue & 109th Avenue Dear Mike: WIUUl BRUCK RICHARDS CHAUDIERE INC. This is a report of a predicted noise survey performed in the immediate vicinity of the proposed telecommunications facility at the transmission tower located at Beacon Avenue and 109th Avenue, Tukwila, Washington. The study area extends from the proposed site location on parcel number 587420 - 1170 -80 to the property lines (Enclosure 1). The purpose of this report is to document the extent and impact of the acoustical change due to the proposed facility. This report contains data on the existing and predicted noise environments, impact criteria, an evaluation of the data as they relate to the criteria, and recommendations for improvement if appropriate. The existing noise environment at the proposed site is primarily the result of vehicular traffic along I -5 to the west of the site. A scale frequency weighted sound level measurements were made during the day of April 2, 1998 to document the contribution of this source. Sound level measurements were taken using a Larson -. Davis 2900 real -time spectrum analyzer at the eastern property line nearest the proposed facility site in accordance with the State of Washington code for Maximum. Environmental Noise Levels (WAC 173 -60 -020). The ambient sound level 'during typical daytime traffic was 57 dBA. • ' t Sound pressure levels of the proposed fan unit were derived from measurements recorded on an identical unit located at the Texico Station, 16300.Renton/Issaquah Road. These measurements were taken, at 5 feet with the blower operating: A scale frequency - weighted sound level measurements were made during the -day April 2, 1998 to document the contribution of this source. Sound level measuremeuts.were r taken using a Larson -Davis 2900 real -time spectum analyzer. The: operating sound level of the unit adjacent to the fan was 59 dBA at five feet • APR 02 '98 14:08 �i�.f sl3�r.:1': .•isk�.`d "YntiltiG )2d /i4.4 +'1�:v;SSA:iYM‘4&'.�sk`Fis,S;. .9f • Creating Sound Environments Architectural Acoustics Environmental.Noise Mechanical Noise Corm], SoundSystcm and Multi -Media Design Vibration Analysis 3205 15th Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 Tel. 2061270 :8910 or 8001B43-452.4 •. fax 2062768690 brceseanet.com • : ATTACH` rerca 1 206 523 0174 PAGE.01 215^ j�ik z ~ • w' J O O 0 CO W =.I J LL w 0 LL Q: CO ±_ d. Z �. I— 0' Z I-.. uj Do U o N w , =U r� 0 111 z: U2. 0 I- z .U4/UL/U0 Lei :u / rA.1 1 LUO OLO U1 /4 DA. Al,UUJIIW w_luuz BRUCK RICHARDS CHAUDIERE INC. Without any additional losses to ground, obstructions or foliage, the predicted sound pressure will propagate in a hemispherical pattern in accordance with the equation: Lp2 = Lpl - 201og (r2 /r1) dBA Lpl = Sound pressure level at known reference distance Lp2 = Sound pressure level at desired distance rl = Reference distance where Lpl was measured r2 = Distance for which sound pressure level Lp2 is being calculated Based on the lozown sound pressure levels of the equipment, the sound level will be 39 dBA at the property line to the south, which is zoned residential. The distance was measured to be greater than 50 feet from the side of the new enclosure to the property line. The resulting sound level value at the property line is based on the "worst •case" of sound propagation from the side of the enclosure while the blower is operating. Additional attenuation will be achieved at the site from foliage, terrain and objects within the sound path The measured background noise level is 57 dBA at the site. A sound level of 39 dBA at the adjacent property line is within the noise limit of 52 dBA established by King County for noise sources during the day zoned rural and residential receivers. This facility also meets requirements established for nighttime operation (42 dBA) between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The planned telecommunications facility at the Beacon Avenue and 109th Avenue will be within the standards set by King County, Maximum Environmental Noise Levels (Chapter 12.88). . If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, BRUCK RICHARDS CHAUDtE, INC. William Stewart Acoustical Consultant APR 02 '98 14:08 1 206 523 0174 PAGE.02 .44 IL. +VI4�� 'Aoitcsw;,ik SIIi:44iwii*.te' z � -1 U'. U 0 i CO � i J = H CO u: w 0. g u_ ¢; a I- • la z�. HO z�— o ui • 0. p. w w` -0 wz rz . o 0. U•4 /UL /Wi 14 :U6 kAL 1 'LUIS aAJ U1 /4 tsxl. AI:UL'Jrl(:5 • tp�UU4 LARSON -DAVIS 2900 RTA A4.50 Date and Time: 02 APR 98 13:26 Data Type: SPL spectra Recalled from file: USWEST, record: 1 02 AAPPR 13 :26:13 NORMAL 60 40 20 LOC 00 USWEST ROOMS vsRPM STAT Itc.SPec F.TRIG ®®IMMIDERSIORDIMMEM®O®®®®®® ®®ID® 47. OA Imo® Lew MIN MAX SEL DISPLAY 'note DETECTR Note:TEXCO SITE FAN ON 5 LINEAR SINGLE 60.0808 Input 1 LINEAR 20Hz -28kHz RESET 02 APR 98 11:00:32 FILTER #14 25.0 Hz L/3_ ;C110;1 1 8A -1 grim PHONS= 58.2 TRCH= 0.0 SPEED= 0.0 *dotted crsr SETUP FILES AUTOSTR RDID®ND Qom;' IL<r' MORBID Data Type: SPL spectra Recalled from file: USWEST, record: 1 Note: TEXCO SITE FAN ON 5 FT CHANNEL 1 • FREO DISP -dB RMS -d8 FRED DISP -d8 RMS -de ( FREQ DISP -d8 NMS -dB FRED DISP -dA RMS -dB 14 25.0 Hz 50.7 50.7 15 31.5 Hz 55.9 55.9 16 40.0 Hz 51.0 51.0 17 50.0 Hz 54.8 54.8 18 63.0 Hz 55.8 55.8 19 80.0 Hz 57.4 57.4 20 100 Hz 49.3 49.3 21 125 Hz 53.8 53.8 22 160 Hz 53.0 53.0 23 200 Hz 52.7 52.7 24 250 Hz 52.6 52.6 25 315 Hz 48.0 48.0 26 400 Hz 46.1 46.1 27 500 Hz 50.6 50.6 28 630 Hz 48.8 48.8 29 800 Hz 46.2 46.2 30 1.00kHz 45.1 45.1 31 1.25kHz 44.4 44.4 32 1.60kHz 41.0 41.0 33 2.00kHz 38.4 38.4 34 2.50kHz 35.1 35.1 35 3.15kHz 34.1 34.1 36 4.00kHz 32.1 32.1 37 5.00kHz 24.6 24.6 38 6.30kHz 21.0 21.0 39 8.00kHz 17.7 17.7 40 10.0kHz 15.2 15.2 41 12.5kHz 13.4 13.4 42 16.0kHz 11.3 11.3 43 20.0kHz 9.0 9.0 SUM : 65.0 65.0 A- WEIGHT 55.1 APR 02 '98 14:09 +? " >si •: �r.' 1r: ?6 Si:,, d. }'r;i,7� t:1 �;1.S:i�;..,- e'x •:',Y!'7a5.•'; >ti: t4,L•�[ +s-i ✓i�'F;: f;'u..�•:a: :;11�%ii1.� 1 206 523 0174 PAGE.04 Q. I=- W 5; J V�. U OH Np. • .N W z; N LL: W O' • u_ 4t, H W Z Z �•: W; • p; Wi • • � p! -.ay z: . :0• , Z • ,04/U2/96 14:U4 YAA 1 GUtl 424 U174 MO ACOUSTICS ..w 41 005 LARSON -DAVIS 2900 RTA A4.50 Date and Time: 02 APR 98 13:26 Data Type: SPl spectra Recalled from file: INITIAL, record: 1 02 AAPPR 13 :26:42 NORMAL Lew MIN MAX SEL DISPLAY note DETECTR 66 40 20 L0008 Note:AMBIENT I -5 AT5TOIAE LINEAR SINGLE 60.6000 Input 1 LINEAR 20Hz -20kHz RESET *14 APR 25.0 Hz:3L/3 d= Ch5nnee1 1 of_1 NORMAL ■ PHONS= 69.8 TACH= 8.0 SPEED= 0.0 INITIAL- ROOMS usRPM STAT Mx.5PecF.TRIG SETUP FILES AUTOSTR IDID®® '�®ID®IDIEM®®®ID®®MIBB '�SOID®®INN®ND i, ®®®®ID " B® Data Type: SPL spectra Recalled from file: INITIAL, record: 1 Note: AMBIENT I-5 AT TOWER OVER OVER OVER CHANNEL 1 FRED DISP -dB RMS -de FREO DISP -dB RMS -dS FREO DISP -d8 RNS -dB FRED DISP -d6 RMS -d8 14 25.0 Hz 59.9 59.9 15 31.5 Hz 59.4 59.4 16 40.0 Hz 58.6 58.6 17 50.0 Hz 58.5 58.5 18 63.0 Hz 57.1 57.1 19. 80.0 Hz 57.4 57.4 20 100 Hz 58.9 58.9 21 125 Hz 56.6 56.6 22 160 Hz 53.6 33.6 23 200 Hz 53.2 53.2 24 250 Hz 49.9 49.9 25 • 315 Hz 46.0 46.0 26 400 Hz 47.1 47.1 27 500 Hz 49.9 49.9 28 630 Hz 49.3 49.3 29 800 Hz 49.7 49.7 30 1.00kHz 50.5 50.5 31 1.25kHz 48.0 48.0 32 1.60kHz 43.8 43.8 33 2.00kHz 39.0 39.0 34 2.50kHz 35.7 35.7 35 3.15kHz 34.0 34.0 36 4.00kHz 34.5 34.5 37 5.00kHz 32.0 32.0 38 6.30kHz 30.6 30.6 39 8.00kHz 30.2 30.2 40 10.0kHz 28.7 28.7 41 12.5kHz 26.2 26.2 42 16.0kHz 29.7 29.7 43. 20.0kHz 19.9 19.9 SUM 68.3 68.3 A- WEIGHT 57.1 APR 02 '98 14:10 r•, ..,: ;ti:r,:> n <`f';. r.�v,: «; s:' n'i�':Y«'.�eJ.Siv���Giz�ti:�i�hi �f.:3S ..i• >'Ls:iv»_ .f f`'11,17,3,"2.4a52 Tr'i!tav .wr 1 206 523 0174 PAGE.05 ti JOHN W. MERRIAM • ATTORNEY AT LAW 2300 SMITH TOWER 506 2ND AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 223 -4002 FAX (206) 682 -9937 • March 30, 1998 Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 -2559 RE: Conditional Use L98 -0011 Placement of US West Antennas Dear Sir or Madame: I own vacant property immediately adjacent to the City Light power towers upon which US West proposes to place additional equipment. I object to any further development with antennas or other operating equipment. The effect of low level electromagnetic fields is still not completely known to medical • science. Until those effects are known, the US West application should be denied. TWM /bgb sf Very truly yours, ohn Merriam, Atty. at Law RECEIVE() MAR 31 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENT G '•i��,4;,. v, :?, r ::f.h `w jeE ;.i:; ,.idn�,;. 'i�e5:.t ts:,,t xtr �" S�4tiY (!+`.i��(iFir::u4': r..:.+1?�e�: wlk:. ';+,5i1fi::a: t!:i'Cic�;J C rich �',�ti� "s; k,¢8ibaY'fi.G� tF . `d' Li.G'. INA:,::14:7 A'ul`ge03kitiE'o;i�T1'.` "h WH 'Creative Sdlutions ... Superior Servic ""4, PACIFIC March 31, 1998 US West Wireless 450 -110th Ave. NE, #209 Bellevue, WA 98004 (425) 451-6043 Ms. Deborah Ritter Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, STE 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: L98 -0011 Additional information requested on March 23, 1998 Dear Deborah: Please find attached the information you requested in your letter dated March 23, 1998, as follows: 1. The plans have been revised to include a slatted fence surrounding the equipment cabinets. 2. US WEST does not yet have a fully executed agreement with Seattle City Light for this site. I have included a letter from Seattle City Light stating that we are in the final stages of lease negotiations. A copy of the fully executed agreement will be supplied to the City as soon as it is complete. 3 The photo simulations of the site are not yet complete. I expect them in by the end of this week (4/3). I have included two photographs of an existing facility mounted to a similar BPA tower. The photo simulations will be provided to you as soon as I receive them. The plans have been revised to show "proposed route of power and telco ". Two documents have been provided describing the noise that will be generated from the site, 1) A report done by Lucent, the manufacturer of the equipment, dated August 19, 1996 and 2) A recent report by BRC Acoustics prepared for a specific site, dated January 16, 1998. The noise generated is extremely minimal. If you need any further information, please let me know. Thank you for your attention to this application. Rebecca L. Slick Project Planner Engineering • Landscape Architecture • Environmental Services Planning • Surveying and Mapping Washington • Oregon • Idaho RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA MAR 3 1 1998 PERMIT CENTER JOHN W. MERRIAM ATTORNEY AT LAW 2300 SMITH TOWER 506 2ND AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 223 -4002 FAX (206) 682 -9937 March 30, 1998 Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 -2559 RE: Conditional Use L98 -0011 Placement of US West Antennas Dear Sir or Madame: I own vacant property immediately adjacent to the City Light power towers upon which US West proposes to place additional equipment. I object to any further development with antennas or other operating equipment. The effect of low level electromagnetic fields is still not completely known to medical science. Until those effects are known, the US West application should be denied. JWM/bgb Very truly yours, ohn Merriam, Atty. at Law RECEIVED MAR 31 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5:;,9t4 IgMettf41114761. f�\ CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS) State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila I TO M AC ("`1 (Print Name) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I certify that on 3 - a y " & the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at f3en 62).0 A tit S Cs 6* o� 5- 1?,144) so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way providing primary vehicular access to the property for application file number 1- 4l - b b \\ A Ian (Applicant Si ature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of,--5. , 19 Z NOT residing My commission expires on UBLIC in and e State of Washington ,,1;;'' 4i■ MAR 31 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT cvn?k t?Vi%bz }i t %4 L� _� �w J U0 N W = CO U- J p-, w O: g Q: a` H =` 0: co CI I- - I"' u.I — O: .Z co F:0 O Z - -. -S 1 4 vvr City of Seattle Paul Schell, Mayor Seattle City Light Gary Zarker, Superintendent March 25, 1998 Deborah Ritter Assistant Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tulcwila, WA 98188 Post•It• Fax Note •- . 7671 r.1 /1 RE: L98-0011 (Seattle City Light Tower DU' 2/7 S) Dear Ms. Ritter. Seattle City Light and US WEST Wireless are in the final stages of entering into a Lease Agreement for the above - referenced' Site. US WEST Wireless has previously been given authorization by Seattle City Light to submit a land use application on Seattle City Light's behalf. Upon full execution of the aforementioned lease agreement between these two parties, a copy will be forwarded to you for your files. There will be no construction at this Site until this Lease Agreement has been finalized and all necessary City of Tukwila permits have been issued. If you have any questions as it relates to this transaction, please feel free to call me at (206) 684 -3327. Sincerely, Stephen E. Hagen Manager, Real Estate Services MM /SEH:seh RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA MAR 3 1 1998 PERMIT CENTER 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3100, Seattle, WA 98104 -5031 Tel: (206) 625.3000,'II?YITDD: (206) 684-3225, Fax: (206) 625-3709 An equal employment opportunity, affumative action employer, Accommodations for people with disabilities provided upon request. MAR 26 '98 12:56 0, : -.t i',:2 t. t1 z3 -:&`v 1`+u:!lint[4*.d 441,14044,- 3At : x 206 233 2760 PAGE.01 •z •ww: U: Uo 4 CO o, W • H, wo g a. f- _. o. Z I- w Uo U w W'. U -o • uiz: co •o 1' z• A F F I D A V I T Plkh4 O Notice of Public Hearing El Notice of Public Meeting ❑ Board of Packet Board of Packet 0 Planning Packet Adjustment Agenda Appeals Agenda Commission Agenda L Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit LI Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Determination of Non - significance El Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice ONotice of Action 110f ficial Notice ther 4617 4I/ // lCCtd - 0-v‘ L Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on 3 --(9.t-% -90 Name of Project t( .$ Q k n'td File Number L `e -tell ignature ifsW '05 'rR,+tr z. :mow. • JLY O 0 ■ No. w:. • LL w 0. =3 � w r • z , • I- O, z �- O N� w I 01 I- • i z' • • • Uu O z CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT MAiu2NGS ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ) DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE ( ( ( FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES, K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FIRE DISTRICT #11 FIRE DISTRICT #2 K.C. WATER POLLUTION CNTRL SEPA OFFCL S CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT TUKWILA LIBRARIES RENTON LIBRARY KENT LIBRARY CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY U S WEST SEATTLE CITY LIGHT WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT TCI CABLEVISION OLYMPIC PIPELINE KENT PLANNING DEPT TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS �) POLICE ( .) PLANNING ( ) ( ) PARKS & REC. ( ) ( ) CITY CLERK FIRE FINANCE BUILDING MAYOR PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE ( ) DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE ( ) VALLEY DAILY NEWS 12/24/97 C:WP51DATA \CHKLIST -p1 \'s 1c09 -e. s (r,A-c \ . ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. ( ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIV ( ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL * SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES LIS -O0(i fu c �( K.C. DEPT OF PARKS HEALTH DEPT PORT OF SEATTLE K.C.DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT K C PUBLIC LIBRARY SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES ( ( ( ( ( ( CITY PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT #20 WATER DISTRICT #125 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS RAINIER VISTA SKYWAY AGENCIES ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT ( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER ( ) SEATTLE OFFICE OF MGMNT & PLANNING* * NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV. OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE )IA ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ***.:1***********************************)***************************************4' OATCH NUMba: OH CUSTOMEF NAME JOHN HELMER COMMENTS 4 335240-0004-06 335240-0005-05 MAFTIN F C YOUNG MARCELLA J .799999 10613 51ST AVE S 10612 51ST AVE S SEATTLE WA 98178 SEATTLE WA .98178 335240-0010-08 GUY DENNIS M+EMILLIA P 10610 51ST AVE S. SEATTLE WA 335240-0020-06 ANDERSON LUCILLE L' 5125 S BANGOR ST SEATTLE WA 639999 98178 709999 98178 335240-0030-04 GRAHAM ROBERT F+JOANNNA.DEL509999 5137 S BANGOR ST SEATTLE WA 98178 335240-0075-00 FOX COLLETTE MARY ELIZABETH 5136 S HAZEL ST SEATTLE WA .335240-0085-08' JELINEK MARY 10204JARMEL•NW ALBUQUERQUE. NM 335240-0115-02 .CARTER.JUDITH A 5118 S HAZEL ST SEATTLE WA 335240-0125-00 DECHAINEAU ELLEN 10620 51ST AVE S SEATTLE WA • 335240-0015-03 SCHOONMAKER ,GEORGE 301034 3210 FIRST'INTERSTATE:CENTER, SEATTLE WA 98104, 335240-0025-01 SAMPLE MADISON • 5119 C S BANGOR ST:. SEATTLE WA. :679999' 98178 • 335240-0072-03 JENKINS FRANK+YVONNE:A 589999 9718 42ND S SEATTLE WA 98118 .335240-0080-03 .0578 GILBERTADIANA"LYNN, 5130 S HAZEL: 98178 SEATTLE WA 069999 87114 769999 98178 641601 98178 335240-0350-06 HARTWIG CLARENCE W+SHANTA P559999 • • 5103 S HAZEL STREET SEATTLE WA 98178 109999 98178 335240-0090-01 SMITH CALVIN P+SHERLEY:A' '609999 5124 SO HAZEL. SEATTLE WA 98118 335240-0116-01 TAMURA FUMIO+MIYUKI 5112. SOUTH HAZEL ST SEATTLE WA .809999 98178 . • • .335240-0126-09 HUTCHINSON ALLEN!R+SANDRVA709999, 10636:51ST.AVE S SEATTLE WA, 98178 335240-0351-05 ALLEN:LEONARD'N- 10712 51ST AVE S SEATTLE WA 98178 j• .33.j2/10-02-04 1LLAN, L[R`:LEI 10718 51.S i' AVE S SEATTLE W\ 335240- 03")0-04 .:IER LYNN 0 5111 SO HAZEL SEATTLE WA 335240-0370-02 `JEST JOSEPH C 5127 S IAZEL ST SEATTLE WA 547620 - 0037-04 BOUCHER EDGAR +MARILYN 10350 51ST AVE S SEATTLE WA Olik 1174 547620- 0105 -04 HAMMACK DOUGLAS +REBECCA 5116 S CRESTON ST SEATLE WA 547620- 011C-07 BLUMENSHEIN MARY . J0 5122 S CRESTON SEATTLE YEA 547620-0196 -04, FOURNIER ROSALYNE E BASS 5406 18TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 547620 - 0200-08 SCHMIDT ELMER 4503 48TH S SEATTLE WA 547620- 0205-03 PICH'LENG 5120 3 BANGOR ST SEATTLE WA .547680-0110-04 BILL FRANK 4737 S 107TH SEATTLE WA 547630-0122-00• THUERK OONAVON H 4735 S 107TH ST SEATTLE WA 547680- 0131 -09 MERRIAM JOHN 11527 4TH AVE NE SEATTLE WA 96178 749999 98178 439999 98178 729999 98178 409999 98178 209999 98178 651751 98108 0580 98118 409999 98178 289999 98118 C0480 98178 1N0380' 98125 335240- 0355 -01 BIER STEVE) 5109 S HAZt.., ST SEATTLE WA 335240- 0365-09 BALES FAMILY TRUST: 5121 S HAZEL ST SEATTLE WA 0578 98178 339999 98178 54762.0- 0096 -05 BENNETT JAMES :J +VERONICA -M 769999 1830 41ST AVE E SEATTLE WA '98112 547620- 0098-03 FORTNEY.WENDY..JOYCE 5106 S CRESTON ST, SEATTLE WA 547620- 0108-01 BLUMENSHEIN MARY:) 512.2 S CRESTON STREET. SEATTLE WA 547620- 0195-05 MABUNGA MD ROGELIO DE LA CRUZ 5130 S BANGOR ST SEATTLE WA 547620-0197 -03 MURRAY MICHAEL 0 5129 S CRESTON ,SEATTLE WA 769999 '98178 9D9999 98178 F +LORENZ159999 98125 -E0381' 98178 547620-0201 -07 RAMOS SALVADOR G:+ BELLA•R 179999 209 E GRAVES AVE MONTEREY PARK CA 91754 547620 - 0210-06 COPE PERRY R 2125 1ST AVE V.1502• SEATTLE WA 547680- 0120-02 THUERK DONAVON H. 4735 S 107TH ST SEATTLE WA 547680-0130 -00 MEYER DEBORAH .M 4905 SOUTH 107TH ST.. SEATTLE WA 547680-0132 -08, QUACH LOAN HONG ET :.AL' 10710 49TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 129999 -98121 C0480 98178 8N9999 98178 509999. 98178 ti. . .�11k wwiW ti1Y±.PY 041`.4 .+ yeI. v.'�tM44•.r„1.v��P:9Y^w«.-t.+:j w.wr,'1'n+w- iS' ^. —.�1.. .- ...+.n�uT..tw1 ^'Lw217l— h• 547680-0140-t08 BISHOP . ROY`: E 1600. 4TH:`: AVE .N SEATTLE :WV 202564- 98109 547680-01'51-04'• YERABEK CHIN` THI • 5245 SMAYFLOWER SEATTLE` -WA : 547680-0170-01 BABULA:'MARTHA'E• 10405 • BEACON. AVE S SEATTLE: WA: 547680- 0180 -09, WYATT:CLIFTON 10349:.51ST;:.AVE S. TUKWILA''WA=. 1N9999 98118 •547680-0150 -05 :THOMSON HECTOR G 4925 S_107TH SEATTLE WA f 547680-0160 -03 GEGANTENIO GERONIMO T .,5738 37TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 339999 98178 547680-0200:-05 WOOD 0AV•I D t H : & CHARLOTTE E : 74C015 4904 1:07.TH??: ST :: TUKWILA'.WA'; '48178 • 547680-0:2,10-03: 'RAVENHILL ?:JOHN +CYNTHIA 4910 SOUTH'107TH SEATTLE, WA` 547680 - 0305 -09: CITY OF SEATTL' E' TRANS LN. R/W :CAUSE 469557 78 f' 5476.80- 0221 -00 .'MILLER.'JULIE !A +ET:AL: 4900'S 107TH:ST SEATTLE.WA• •547680-0171-00 BABULA- MARTHA E • 10405 51ST ,AVE S .SEATTLE WA 98178 801164 98118 01261.?. 98178 547680- 0181 -08' 'ENG GIM FON (DIANE) +ET AL 269999 ,312112TH AVE'S SEATTLE WA 547680- 0201-04 'MOORE WILSON.-E 4920 SO 107TH`ST 'TUKWILA.WA. 687420 - 0006-00' SINGH..HARNOOP +JUDY 0 809999 5008 S!1.09TH:: ST SEATTLE.:`WA' 687420 - 0025 =07' SINGH'HARNOOP +JUDY D 5008 S1 :1091HrST: SEATTLEWAz, 141 r 687420 70115 =08' WIL'•LEY :MARYA.: KELLY: 5016 S <'.104TW.ST SEATTLE.-•WA- 687420 - 017,0.. -00, • SIMMONS':'JAMES -W' P E f.2706•CHECSEATERRACE BALTIMORE MDR —98178. 809999 98178 579999 ?—' 41587420.7020004!7 KING.COUNTY 500' KC: ADMIN:.BLOG • SEATTLE :WA;° s•' 1.;!' 687420-0027-05 r .NUEZCA :LORENZO +ERLINDA S 932078 10821 BEACON•AVE SOUTH 'SEATTLE WA• 98178 687420-0005-01• • -..S INCH 'HARNOOP +JUDY : 0 —5008 S:109TH ST SEATTLE WA 687420 - 0007 -09 CARTER'JUDITH'4 :5118 S :HAZEL SEATTLE WA 98144 12.0796 98178 189999 :98178 809999 98178 744011 -98178 •687420- 0135 -04! 1 HGOODWIN KEN S KELLY: :PO BOX.2612 98178. *WOODINVILLE WA' '.Z0378 21216 240860 98104 687420- 0195-01. KING COUNTY •500 KC-ADMIN BLDG SEATTLE WA 687420 - 0250 -03 GARRETT • P M :473 MCGRAWST SEATTLE WA 350178 98072 240860 98104 C0579 98109 RIVERS EFFIE 10834 48TH AVE S WATTLE WA 687420-0285-02 SIMMONS JAMES W' 2706 CHELSEA TERRACE 3ALTIMORE MD 687420-0295-00 TOBUBU THOMASE 10806 48TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 687420-0325-04 KING COUNTY! 500 KC ADMIN BLDG SEATTLE WA 98178 •: 687420-0275-04 Lit&!,C DYNAAkYLIMITEDPARTN759999 ! PO BOX 798 . •,••• . " •,,• ..• , SNOQUALMIE WA !.-• • • ! • :2'1', 98065 •-• • 687420-0290-05. SIMMtJNSJ4MESW S 2706 CHELSEA TERRACE, 21216 !!J :BALTIMORE MO • • •• , .„. .„ .„ •,. •!! 21216 : aiH! !,i• • 687420-0320-09 941808 TOBUBLYTHOMAS•E' 10806 48TH AVE • S.: 98178 !!!! SEATTLE WA 687420-0330-07 !. 240860 • ''•!! TOBUBU THOMAS+MARILYN! 171.9999:; ! • 10806 48TH AVE S • TOKWILA.WA :!!! • 1:17", 2.72:1s:: , • • • • 941808!' •91=1178.: 98104 687420-0360-00 HUDSON M C & BETTIE 4118 37TH SEATTLE WA 667420-0375-03 SEATTLE CITY LIGHT! PM 0230403-4-3068 1015 THIRD AVE SEATTLE WA 687420-0865-00 , FRANKLIN MARY:F. • 11101 49TH.AVES: SEATTLE WA 687420-0930-01 NGUYEN THAW:NAN 4409 5 WARSAW•ST. SEATTLE WA , 667420-0960-04 CLAYSON L V 10908 49TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 687420-0980-00 ARWINE MILDRED 10904 50TH.S SEATTLE WA 705227 98118 • 090350 !. 98104 687420-0370-08 .CITY OF SEATTLE - ! • . •• • • • !,!• • • • ' 98178. • 687420-0855-02 HINTON.HAZEL S. 952-SHEPHERD ST NW WASHINGTON DC • 687420-0928-05 . • • 769999 • .:•NGUYEN'THANH:VAN::' ! •!!• 4409!S.WARSAW ST:: • 98178 1,1,1 SEATTLE,WA. • 779999 • 98118 • = 1 687420 -0955 -01- 692443Fi •!!!! -!" • ":.-; • • i! . 200111 I .A71-: • ••■ • NGUYEN.THANH:VAN-.!! ..!4409 S.WARSAW!ST:.! • SEATTLE .WA 687420-0970-02 .652087 . "!1 LEEA<AY:C • •3134:WGRANDVIEW. 981.78 :4 -SPOKANEWA 687420-0985-05 • , • •;! •• ' • ARWINERUSSELL!H+MILDRED.;.994,k. 10904 50TH S • 98178 , !SEATTLE WA :::..- 9817.8'.: • . . :. • 687420-1045-01 RAL DEVELOPMENT&VENTURE;CO:779999 1420 NW GILMAN.BLVD :142206' ! ISSAQUAH WA- ! • • 98027 687420-1065-06 RAL DEVELOPMENT&VENTURE!C0779999 1420 NW GILMAN BLVD!02206 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 ).. !!! 687420-1050-03 • ,!1 -RALDEVELOPMENT&VENTURECO1,779999: - •1420•NW•GILMAN BLVD 2206 ISSAQUAH WA ' 98027 - • J-•!. . ,!•; • • . , . 687420-1075-04 'ARWINE.MILDRED.G RUSSELL1-1481302. 10904 50:AVE: S SEATTLE WA '687420-1110 -01' MILLER;HARRY'E 10901i51ST`.AVES:'APT:A SEATTLE..WA ^■87420=.1143 -02 s, RAL*VELOPMENTOIENTURE CO.779999 •4420_ {;NW GILMAN::•BLVD . ;2206 . I SSAQUAH -..WA°' • 98027 0880 .98178 •.729999 98178 • 87420-1145 -00 HARW0OD"''BEN ?;. .1964:0s E:,189TH.t PL RENTON.WA, 00000 - 0000'' =00;! . . a i�;c fc��i >1i'isijc�4a4*icic >cati*ac ;c***'*,c,c>;cxac><,c,c ;c*>c* ' • (c** *, c2;;c>c***a<a *4 6ca4**>;c*>;c ;4*>;c>,c*** ,c** ** )C)( )i4.4 4> cijt*ai*i( i'; cocaiacic***a c>cs<sc*>c>;c*>c* ,c*>c • >4 * **ik ec *>Cc* **iik * **;c i* 4 * * ,c i<* *>c *** s4 * * * F0575 98055 in . •__ • .__. ._..... _. 687420- 1130 -07: KUBOTA•GARDENFOUNDATION -P 0 BOX .12646 • SEATTLE WA 80476 98178 749'999 98111 687420 - 1144-01: .RAL DEVELOPMENTCVENTURE CO 779999 1420 NW GILMANBLVD.;�22C6 ISSAQUAH.WA 98027 f:{ 687420-1170 -08.. CITY "OF SEATTLE 'TRANS•LN R/W 'CAUSE 46955769 Lacs - oo k \ CHECKLIS'. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT N tNGS ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE EEDEBAL AGENCIES ( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. •, K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FIRE DISTRICT #11 FIRE DISTRICT #2 K.C. WATER POLLUTION CNTRL SEPA OFFCL ( ) S CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARIES ( ) RENTON LIBRARY ( ) KENT LIBRARY • ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY U S WEST SEATTLE CITY LIGHT WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS HIGHLINE. WATER DISTRICT SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT TCI CABLEVISION OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: (V) PUBLIC WORKS ()Q FIRE ( ) POLICE ( ) FINANCE ()4011) PLANNING ( ) BUILDING ( ) PARKS & REC. ( ) MAYOR ( ) CITY CLERK ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( ) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE (. ) DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE ( ) VALLEY DAILY NEWS 12/24/97 C:WP51DATA \CHKLIST ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. ( ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIV ( ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL * SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES K.C. DEPT OF PARKS HEALTH DEPT PORT OF SEATTLE K.C.DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT K C PUBLIC LIBRARY SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT RENTON'SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGFIT VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT #20 WATER DISTRICT 0125 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS RAINIER VISTA SKYWAY CITY AGENCIES ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT ( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER ( ) SEATTLE OFFICE OF MGMNT & PLANNING* * NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES P \, s Dovate 5 ct(:a ( ) METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV. OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE MEDIA HIGHLINE TIMES SEATTLE TIMES 115 -\- a r A -�►� �St�.` t' dA;!} s• �n:bto'i(R't�c�i:viki't`SX?'.Y. ,:',.' ,!Y.�:':.. -... SiiLsi' b3P3ad11$-° satxddfid`{zh.u''b�":�Y35:s1,�+' �7:ffCGlif ' r¢e'� ��1kGk� :3'�..7�K,:JS.,�'S�7{'+'iE`'" �• 3.tie� .4 PARTIES OF RECORD L98 -0011 John W. Merriam 506 Second Avenue, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98104 Harry and Maida Miller 10901 51st Avenue South, Apt A. Seattle, WA 98178 : �'` FCSy, r��-; i, 5�.... a: b,. h. u.. w. rl. v. r1". i, :.C::�l:$1iiC:L�nio'3ss.::.:�Sr r-c (:. ,..: :.`.t:.dr..y .,�.!i 'f H. 4�i%!i . ?.�J:i��:.y:•CR44�., v�'-}� > tt, >p..i i P`:'.y .,'sn"ew.,"'�a i,X"`1r'%1��.�... "Rh'•y�i Hz' J U :U O; "CO 0,. w' w ! ww O' D` Z I' Z1-, W. W;, D o. ;0 N : OM. L2: 01 iW tlJS Z' D-i 1- 1_1, City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development NOTICE OF APPLICATION . DATED MARCH 24, 1998 Steve Lancaster, Director RECEIVED MAR 3 0 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The following application has been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development for review and decision. APPLICANT: U.S. West Communications LOCATION: S. 109th Street and Beacon Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington (on existing City Light power tower) FILE NUMBERS: . L98 -0011 (Conditional Use Permit) PROPOSAL: Placement of nine panel antennas mounted near the top of an existing City Light power tower with associated ground mounted operating equipment for wireless communications. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Development Permit These files can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., 0100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on this application. Y.ou must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on April 7, 1998. If you have questions about this proposal contact Deborah Ritter, the Planner in charge of this file at (206) 431- 3663. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. etz, �-� e t,k_fLet. / (a-o -� c.� �-_ °`- "--12-wt) ATTAC T F q1 C72(- -c:da.: C-c..t -c. a: r:+s.1 rtieii'l+;xu�Cei:.x tau.'?;y41..kCA''aVAg...V;dhiik, 4 .;.x“div Z. Jo • oo w� tu J= H U LL O; IL o wuJ o_. iii z: UN • O z CHECKLI; '.(, ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (•) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( )DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE • ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT, INGS OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ) DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. ) DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE FUERAL AGENCIES ( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FIRE DISTRICT #11 FIRE DISTRICT $2 K.C. WATER POLLUTION CNTRL SEPA OFFCL ( ) S. CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARIES ( ) RENTON LIBRARY ( ):KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( ) U.S WEST SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ( ) WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS ( ) HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE.WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) TCI CABLEVISION OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ).KENT PLANNING DEPT TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( 4) PUBLIC WORKS ) POLICE ( ) PLANNING ( ) ( ) PARKS & REC. ( ) ( ) CITY CLERK FIRE FINANCE BUILDING MAYOR PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE ( ) DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE ( ) VALLEY DAILY NEWS 12/24/97 C:WP51DATA \CHKLIST DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIV DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL * SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS ( ) HEALTH DEPT ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE ( ) K.C.DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT K C PUBLIC LIBRARY SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT ##20 WATER DISTRICT #125 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS RAINIER VISTA SKYWAY cart AGENCIES RENTON PLANNING DEPT CITY OF SEA -TAC CITY OF BURIEN TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER SEATTLE OFFICE OF MGMNT & PLANNING* * NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES -p1 os nn\ 1(0(7).01 rQn ( METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV. OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE MEDIA ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) SEATTLE TIMES - Co (1 Z = H' H W. 6 • JU. C o, W='. J � 0'. CO Q H =, Z H0 Z W D. ..0 W; H -- ll.Z'. W co 0 Z c City of Tukwila Department of Community Development NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED MARCH 24, 1998 John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director The following application has been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development for review and decision. APPLICANT: U.S. West Communications LOCATION: S. 109th Street and Beacon Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington (on existing City Light power tower) FILE NUMBERS: L98 -0011 (Conditional Use Permit) PROPOSAL: Placement of nine panel antennas mounted near the top of an existing City Light power tower with associated ground mounted operating equipment for wireless communications. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Development Permit These files can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on April 7, 1998. If you have questions about this proposal contact Deborah Ritter, the Planner in charge of this file at (206) 431- 3663. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 o Rix (206) 't31 -3615 !':�' ',j`i; ?:t ''.. ..a.. eli;..` -<nf: vr': 1�` F. S :•ris:�;si.!7:�:r"A:F+sw+.eraw« • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director March 23, 1998 Ms. Rebecca Slick W &H Pacific, Inc. c/o US West Wireless 450 110th Avenue N.E., Room 209a Bellevue, Washington 98004 RE: Application for Conditional Use Permit (L98 -0011) Placement of nine panel antennas on existing City Light tower with associated ground mounted operating equipment for wireless communications located at South 109th Street and Beacon Avenue South Dear Rebecca: • z 1-•z 6 R. JU; oo N 1. • W=• H • w o'. g� u. Q' to =a _. z1._ z 0'. w w ow 0 H. The Department of Community Development has completed a detailed review of your 'w w' Conditional Use Permit (L97- 0011). Certain additional information is needed from you to - ensure that the project meets the substantive requirements of the City and to complete = o our review process. A listing of the required information is provided below. �. o 1. The submitted plans should be revised to reflect the installation of a fence around z the ground equipment. Please also indicate the type of fence and the fact that it will be gated and locked. Please indicate whether or not it will provide visual screening (such as privacy slats) in additional to physical enclosure. These revisions should appear on all four plan sheets (T -1, C -1, A -1 and A -2). 2. A dated and fully executed lease agreement between US West Wireless and the City of Seattle for use of the power tower. Please include any exhibits or referenced attachments. 3. Photo simulations showing a minimum of two views from the surrounding residential area. 4. Revise Sheet T -1 to show the "Underground Route and Power and Telco" as work that is proposed. Please be advised that any utility work performed in the Tukwila right -of -way will require a separate permit from Tukwila's Public Works Department. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax. (206) 431 -3665 '" ,..2.45 ..�.n f} g.44 X541 Ms. Rebecca Slick W &H Pacific, Inc. March 23, 1998 L98 -0011 Page 2 Please provide documentation describing which components will generate noise, how often or when this noise is likely to be generated as well as the levels of dB(A) that will be received in the residential areas surrounding the site. Please provide the requested information by April 1st, so we may continue processing your application. As you know, we have tentatively scheduled your application for an April 23, 1998 hearing. We will provide you with a Notice of Hearing in early April, to be posted on or before April 9th. If you should have any questions regarding the within, please do not hesitate to contact me. As a reminder, I will be out of the office from March 27th through March 31st. In my absence, if you have any questions or concerns, please contact Michael Jenkins, Assistant Planner at 206 -431 -3685. Sincerely, -N„6,-,19„ R46e_ Deborah Ritter Assistant Planner • cc: Joanna Spencer, Public Works Nick Olives, Fire Department iiil2tis:.`,.it'li .A'r.: V03; 14<G :.;f::..�;,"�<tii;ei�k: • ti City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION DATED MARCH 19, 1998 Ms. Rebecca Slick W &H Pacific, Inc. c/o US West Wireless 450 110th Avenue N.E, Room 219a Bellevue, Washington 98004 Re: Conditional Use Permit (L98 -0011) Placement of nine panel antennas on existing City Light tower with associated ground mounted operating equipment for wireless communications located at S. 109th Street and Beacon Avenue South Dear Ms. Slick: Your application, on behalf of your client, US West Wireless, for the above - referenced Conditional Use Permit has been found to be complete on March 19, 1998 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The project has been assigned to Deborah Ritter and is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on April 23, 1998. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, you may obtain them at the Department of Community Development (DCD). Also, you must obtain a laminated copy of the Notice of Application to post on the board. This notice is also available at DCD. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you need to return the signed Affidavit of Posting to the our office. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. I will be contacting you soon to discuss this project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at 431- 3663. Sincerely, Deborah Ritter Assistant Planner cc: Reviewing City Departments 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 H. r';. ,�'4_•r. .-1., rrr : is t"sG `� ...x+. W.G'dt <! j:t%Ci'•I, Jai :3',Uti'rd x:.:ic 2irS�SL7±Lka CITY O, TUKWILA DEPARTMc.IJT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPM T 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (P -CUP) APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE :ONLY ':<: lanne File Numbe Receipt Numt ProJect File #, ❑ . Application Complete (Date. 0 Appiicatlon incomplete "(Date I. PROJECT BACKGROUND A. NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT :i, Seattle City Light PCS Site - USWEST Wireless B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: STREET ADDRESS: S. 109th Street and Beacon Avenue S. ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 687420-1170-08 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: see attached Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. CONTACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME: Rebecca Slick ADDRESS: 450 110th Avenue NE Bellevue WA 98004 PHONE: 425 -451 -6059 ' "7 C f ' t ; f r"} SIGNATURE: / 1 t. C N-c- C kIP DATE: 3/ 2--/ 98 CUPCKLST.DOC 7/5/96 �3rc'Gic��f4'C1 'a. Crri f; :: ATTACHMENT B II. A. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: Seattle City Light right -of -way B. PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED (FROM LIST IN YOUR ZONING DISTRICT): 18.10.040 (7) Radio, television, microwave, cellular or observatic ^ti -ra- ct ,pr...tenjora C. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE (FOR EXAMPLE, DESCRIBE THE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES USED, WHOLESALE /RETAIL/WAREHOUSE FUNCTIONS, OUTSIDE STORAGE OF GOODS OR EQUIPMENT OR OTHER INFORMATION WHICH WILL FACILITATE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ACTIVITIES YOU PROPOSED TO DEVELOP ON THIS SITE): see attached proposal D. WILL THE CONDITIONAL USE BE IN OPERATION AND /OR A BUILDING TO HOUSE THE USE BE STARTED WITHIN A YEAR OF ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT? Yes E. ON A SEPARATE SHEET, DESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR REQUEST FOR AN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILL SATISFY EACH OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN TMC 18.64.030. 1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which the subject property is situated. 2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the district it will occupy. 3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design. 4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. 5. All measures shall be taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. CLIPCKLST.DOC 7/5196 �i:: i� "'f�: {i�.i= •z�r,i'.Jroi`r,'.4, �.. +"4J%,�I'e:•y;�i �i3�a*'r.k: °� <,f,�>= �:.r;�: . .002 "iMC`. `41%:,u.N.:.4k n z ur 6 J U' UO: co CV COW W =. LL: W u-Q N � 4 Z _ z �- •.Z O� AU ill 'O N' wW. H U. Fz•.. .O z D. PROPERTY OWNER DECLARATION The undersigned makes the following statements based upon personal knowledge: • am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. • All statements contained in the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. • I understand that conditions of approval, which the City and applicant have jointly agreed may not be completed prior to final approval of the construction (e.g., final building permit approval) will be incorporated into an agreement to be executed and recorded against the property prior to issuance of any construction permits. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct. EXECUTED at r: (city), , 1995? . (state), on .q -G4/ (Print Name) ` (Address) 064- j� 7 (Phon= umber) (Signature) Use additional sheets as needed for all property owner signatures. a�i:? r. i. a." tiE !v1.ziSf�d ±Ye::WJ,ii'ci't�.'�;^ ;'p'�.t;•- p�;C�"... .ti, y.�.. >", f• .:�i� .i�. ,r.: aEiAhl'lSktiA61,CT.�iYrl�� +kb.Y� 't::+:`G .IA.MiA,�A:dti�l '. S I�k4�YYl��+�'' 1SR ..1" *AA. ,_6 ?r = ;e AhiyuTil+(ti: CITY Or-TUKWILA DEPARTMEN T OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Department. Please contact the Department if you feel certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. The initial application materials allow starting project review and vesting the applicant's rights. However, they in no way limit the City's ability to require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. Department staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206 - 431 -3670. TURN`THIS CHECKLIST WITH YOUR APPLICATI APPLICATION FORMS: Application Checklist -a Application Form (12 copies) ID Conditional Use Fee - $850 ❑ Other permits applied for: ('r; (: I!: 'LAP ; .� ❑ Complete Environmental Checklist and fee ($325) j 1� ❑ Design Review application and fee ($900) (if applicable) n I PLANS (12 copies): `©, Site plan at 1 "= 30' or 1" = 20', with north arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the license stamp of the architect. The following information must be contained on the plan (details may be included on additional drawing sheets): '‘ Property lines and dimensions, lot size(s), and names of adjacent roads O. Location and setbacks of existing and proposed structure(s) with gross floor area O Location of driveways, parking, loading, and service areas, with parking calculations O Location and design of dumpster /recycling area screening and other exterior improvements O Location and type of exterior lighting O Location and classification of any watercourses or wetlands, and 200' limit of Shoreline Overlay District `O- Existing and proposed grades at 2' contours, with the slope of areas in excess of 20% clearly identified O Location of closest existing fire hydrant; location and size of utility lines; location and size of utilities or street/sidewalk easements or dedications O Description of water and sewer availability from provider of utility (note which utility district or City) O Other relevant structures or features, such as rockeries and fences. O Location of outdoor storage areas and method of screening PERMIT CENTER CUPCKLST.DOC 7/5/96 El Landscape /planting p' at the same scale as site plan, with " "" 'th arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the license stamp c•. the landscape architect. The following it horrnation must be contained on the plan: O Property lines and names of adjacent roads O Location of the following: proposed structure(s), vehicle and pedestrian circulation areas, A- dumpster /recycling area, site fumiture, any proposed public outdoor art O Existing trees over 4" in diameter by size and species, and any trees to be saved 0 Proposed landscaping, including size, species, location and spacing. Building elevations of all building facades at a scale of 1/8" = 1' or 1/4" = 1', with graphic scale and z date. Include on the elevations: z O Dimensions of all building facades and major architectural elements 2. O Materials to be used - o O Location and type of exterior building lighting o o 0 Location of mechanical units and proposed screening where necessary. t w =. - H' One (1) "PMT" (photomaterial transfer, or photostat) each of the plan set, reduced to 8.5 x 11 inches. N o w ❑ OTHER MATERIALS: 17-1. Other documentation and graphics in support of the proposal may be included as appropriate, such as N �. color renderings, perspective drawings, photographs or models. If other materials are to be considered, = W twelve (12) copies of each must be submitted (except models). Color drawings or photos may be Z '-: submitted as 8.5 x 11 -inch color photocopies. ❑ Certificate of Water Availability if the site is served by a water purveyor other than the City. w~ w El Site percolation data approved by the Seattle -King County Department of Environmental Health if the o site is proposed for development using a septic system, or a Certificate of Sewer Availability from the o • sewer utility purveyor (if other than the City). ❑ Proof that the lots are recognized as separate lots pursuant to the provisions of TMC Title 17 and RCW 0. Ch. 58.17. o z ❑ Any Sensitive Area studies required by TMC 18.45. 111 ❑ A list of existing environmental documents known to the applicant or the City that evaluate any aspect o of the proposed project. z ❑ A list of any permits or decisions applicable to the development proposal that have been obtained prior to filing this application, or that are pending before the City or any other govemmental entity. El A storm water design which meets the requirements set forth in the Surface Water Design Manual adopted pursuant to TMC 16.54.060(D). ❑ A soils engineering report for the site. ❑ Traffic study or studies, if required pursuant to TMC 9.48.070. PUBLIC NOTICE: King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 feet of the subject property. Two (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents or businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. (Note: Each unit in multiple - family buildings - -e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks- - must be included.) See Attachment A. ❑ A 4' x 4' public notice board will be required on site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received. See Attachment B. CLIPCKLST.DOC 715/96 reAteete " Th Conditional Use Permit Application for Seattle City Light PCS Site A Proposal Submitted to the City of Tukwila Prepared for USWEST Communications 450 - 110th Avenue NE, Room 219a Bellevue, WA 98004 Prepared by W&H Pacific, Inc. C/O USWEST Wireless 450 - 110th Avenue NE, Room 219a Bellevue, WA 98004 February 25, 1998 USWEST Communications Conditional Use Permit Application for Seattle City Light PCS Site L PROPOSAL SUMMARY INFORMATION USWEST Site: SEA -003D Applicant: Preparer for Applicant: Property Owner: 5 Request: USWEST Communications 450 - 110''' AVE, NE Room 209a Bellevue, WA 98004 Contact: Ralph Long (425) 451 -6181 Rebecca L. Slick W &H Pacific, Inc. 450 - 110`h AVE, NE Room 209a Bellevue, WA 98004 (425) 451 -6059 Seattle City Light 700 5'h Avenue, Suite 3100 Seattle, WA 98104 -5031 Installation'of nine panel antennas mounted to the top of an existing Seattle City Light transmission tower. Three equipment cabinets will be placed at the base of tower. Site Location: S. 109`h Street and Beacon Avenue S., Tukwila, WA Legal Description: See attached legal description Assessor's Parcel Number: 687420 Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR) W&H Pacific, Inc. 1 December 5, 1997 .. � , ri. -c P" ^`h r ��t�µaY M rr T,•;'� r; 't,...,,. �; `(' ?" r;,+' Td: �; �;rr rw ?.:� i w {�- � t ��rwld�Uifiir��3;Crd:<77ak��a . fi: 1`.' cMr.-' �V2% Y' f�: li✓. �, s'> �Krat( GN>`, r, W." G�;. "'i.�a ;�`.�Yt'�Ti�'NY.fl�iF�SAe �h�.SYF:� iYx�N". �i�, f. <It.�.'it'.�1��Kn4>'U�a's�>'k. �ti �.nh'.Tyr'.t. USWEST Communications Conditional Use Permit Application for Seattle City Light PCS Site II. INTRODUCTION USWEST Communications is in the process of developing a new cellular telephone system called Personal Communication Services, or PCS. PCS is a unique combination of telecommunication services that will provide the public with the next generation of wireless devices, such as: compact cellular telephones with paging and voice -mail service, wireless fax machines and fax modems, and an array of other customized mobile equipment. When fully developed, PCS will allow for an all -in -one telecommunications device combining multiple services in a single wireless telephone. PCS uses new digital technology to produce a higher quality transfer of voices and data versus the older analog /digital systems that are currently being used by many wireless telephone service providers. This digital technology also accommodates the transfer of data and graphics. In addition, PCS operates at a higher frequency, around 1,900 megahertz, and broader frequency band than conventional cellular. This allows for more simultaneous callers. In order to provide these services, USWEST is developing a PCS network in Seattle. PCS works by splitting a region into smaller geographic areas called cells, each cell is served by a transmitter and receiver or base station. As a caller moves across the landscape, the call is passed or "handed -off' from one base station to another. Each base station is connected to a mobile telephone switching office, which is linked to the land based phone network serving your home or office. Individual base station site locations, such as the proposed site, are selected based on a number of considerations related to topography, distance from other base stations, proximity to traffic corridors, and other technical features. USWEST engineers utilize computer modeling and radio testing to determine potential sites. Because PCS base stations consist of very low powered transmitters, which cover a relatively small geographic area, there is limited flexibility in site selection. USWEST tries to locate its sites where the impact to local residents is minimal, such as the existing Seattle City Light transmission tower. This proposed PCS base station facility located on South 109`'' and Beacon Avenue S. is designed to provide PCS service to this portion of Tukwila, including portions of I -5. When developed, this facility will connect to other neighboring facilities in the network allowing for uninterrupted PCS service in Tukwila. USWEST is committed to providing quality PCS service to this area for years to come. W &H Pacific, Inc. 2 December 5, 1997 z =z 6 ~w J0. o0. N W I J H CO.. wO 12! w w. wz z USWEST Communications Conditional Use Permit Application for Seattle City Light PCS Site III. REQUESTED LAND USE REVIEW The applicant requests the following land use review from the City of Tukwila for the placement of nine panel antennas mounted to the parapet of an existing building and associated equipment for wireless communications: = Z' D Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Section 18.10.040.7 of the Tukwila Municipal tx Code (TMC). 6 v'. UO CO W; IV. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION w' w O, The proposed PCS facility consists of the installation and operation of antennas and associated equipment cabinets for USWEST wireless personal communications service network. The g ¢ antennas will be collocated on an existing 127 -foot tall transmission tower and will not exceed W the overall height of the tower. A total of six panel antennas will be mounted vertically on three E- i support arms (two antennas per arm). Each panel antenna is approximately three and a half feet ? !— tall and four inches wide. A small GPS antenna will also be attached to the existing tower. z In addition to the antenna array, there will be a set of three steel equipment cabinets containing v the electronic equipment necessary to transmit the signal. These self - contained cabinets are o approximately five feet tall and will be mounted to a concrete pad measuring approximately 12 w w: feet by 10 feet at the base of the tower. H 2; The site is located at S. 109th Street and Beacon Avenue S. within a Settle City Light right -of- v way. The property and the surrounding property to the South and West are zoned Low Density O Residential (LDR). The property to the North and East are in King County. The facility meets Z... all applicable development standards of the zone, including height limitations and setback requirements. The proposed facility is conditionally permitted pursuant to Section 18.10.040.7 of the TMC. The facility will be accessed from Beacon Avenue S. The facility is unmanned and following construction there will be only monthly visits by a service technician to ensure that equipment is functioning properly. V. RESPONSE TO CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Requirements of TMC18.64.050 The following criteria shall apply in granting a conditional use permit: 1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the W &H Pacific, Inc. 4,4*.ia.' '''•'�51r`c +l i te'�.eki'bz:.':ok,' ' "' ••a�:Rit�2aL 3 December 5, 1997 USWEST Communications Conditional Use Permit Application for Seattle City Light PCS Site property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use in the district in which the subject property is situated; The facility is designed to have a minimum visual impact. The antennas will be mounted on an existing Seattle City Light transmission tower and the equipment cabinets are to be placed at the base of that tower. During operation the site will be inaccessible to the public and unmanned, and it will generate only one visit per quarter for maintenance purposes. The facility does not emit harmful rays, noxious odors, heat, excessive noise or pollutants. The public will be unaffected by this site. 2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the district it will occupy; The maximum allowed height in the LDR zone is 30 feet, however, the exiting transmission tower is 127 feet. The location of the USWEST antennas will not exceed the existing height of the transmission tower. There are no other performance standards that would apply. 3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design; The proposed use requires only one maintenance visit per quarter which will generate no measurable amount of traffic to the property or surrounding district. The antennas will be mounted to an existing tower located in an existing transmission tower right -of -way. The facility will have minimal visual impact and is compatible with the existing use. 4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan; Policies for non -city owned utilities: 12.1.34 Actively coordinate project implementation with individual utilities based upon Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and Development regulations. Based upon the nature of this project, implementation is consistent with Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and Development regulations and does not require further coordination with individual utilities due to type of facility and location. The site has been located in such a position so as not to interfere with existing communication facilities. 12.1.36 Encourage utilities to consolidate facilities and minimize visual impacts of facilities where technically feasible. USWEST seeks to collocate with other wireless telecommunications providers when project scheduling, design and construction feasibility are possible. This location uses an existing structure instead of building a new monopole. This site maximizes the use of an existing W &H Pacific, Inc. 4 December 5, 1997 z �z 0 0' s co mil w0 uQ d �w Z '-. Z o'. Ld 0- ' 0 I-' ww. H V. li. ~' 0- .z. 1= O z USWEST Communications Conditional Use Permit Application for Seattle City Light PCS Site structure without negatively impacting the community. The facility is optimum from the standpoint of the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan in consolidating utility facilities. 5. All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. z ice: 1.-w USWEST proposes to locate the equipment cabinets and antennas in the existing Seattle City g 2' Light right -of -way. The location should have no impact on the surrounding district. The 0i o t transmission tower is the tallest structure within the surrounding area and meets the engineering s :u) w' requirements. , -J �, w 0 Maintenance visits to the site will be only once a month, and therefore, will not affect the 2 surroundings. PCS uses low power and operates at a frequency that meets all requirements for g: the health and safety of the community. This is a very suitable location for this installation and it to m will have minimal impact on adjoining properties. = w' z E-.. 1-.0 z i- VI. CONCLUSION w a USWEST Communications - Wireless requests a Conditional Use Permit to build a wireless O co . 0 1—'. telecommunications facility at 109`h Avenue S. and Beacon Avenue S. The Seattle City Light w w Transmission tower is the most inconspicuous location for this installation. Due to the terrain and i=. 0 surrounding structures this location is the only spot that can fulfill design and engineering u- O; requirements. Additionally in order to meet the needs of the community it is vital to be located al 0. in this area. This tower is the tallest structure in the neighborhood and gives us the opportunity p I to use an existing structure without having to build a separate monopole to attain necessary z coverage. The facility will not have a negative impact on the surrounding community, rather it is being placed there to serve it. W &H Pacific, Inc. 5 December 5, 1997 Fidelity National Title Company of Washington ALTA Commitment, Page 2 Order No. 0107803 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, Block 1, POTTERY WORKS ADDITION, recorded in Volume 5 of King County Plats, at Page 86, records of King County, Washington, lying within the limits of the following descriptions: Beginning at the Northwest corner of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 2, Township 23 North, Range 4 East W.M.; THENCE North 87 °26'51" West 30.00 feet to a point on the East line of Block 1, which point is also the point of beginning of this description; THENCE continuing North 87 °26'51" West 20.51 feet; THENCE South 5 °59'01" East 122.15 feet; THENCE South 88 °32'59" East 3.95 feet; THENCE North 1 °48'29" East 120.71 feet to the true point of beginning; ALSO beginning at a point on the Westerly line of Block 1, which is 155.89 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof; THENCE North 74 °06'30" East 175.08 feet; THENCE North 5 °59'01" West 144.59 feet to the North line of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 4 East W.M.; THENCE North 87 °26'51" West along said North line 147.20 feet; THENCE South 1 °48'29" West 198.39 feet to the place of beginning. Situate in the County of King, State of Washington. NOTE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: The following may be used as an abbreviated legal description on the documents to be recorded, per amended RCW 65.04. Said abbreviated legal description is not a substitute for a complete legal description within the body of the document. Ptn Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, Block 1, POTTERY WORKS ADDITION z • (42: uj oO' U) C3 N W;. W = J Wo u_ D: �a zF.. z o,, .DD :0 H! uj = U! F- r, L-6 o, z L o z H 11 Fidelity National Title Company of Washington A4° ORDER NUMBER r) (C _ S?O 5 PLAT MAP VOLUME S PAGE V. w 0 14 4 15' 18: oOf 17' IL% ilr! ,d 20' 1. a .j .... *' l 3 :Miff ELK 11.99 ..P W G a • • .. .. .. '• 7�!'Y',j� .15�a ..L.S� v4S: 4�. �YA�-' E.:! �i1rN�A'% �. FYi:ti$YAFI�'1Th�i;Ai3aELWtJ:�f lN['.�' , �irj , fi',�..`TS. +;:j�;v ^at_,. i' H t i.`.' k •. 4 11 34 to ° 23 1 24, W Ito • 12 61'4‘16 1— "7.1 14 Sao I. Id y _t,\. / _,_ ., 101069 tit° _ • 8 7 liegP 18 q?l°r' 18 03o 2!0 21 22� III 23 • 4 4 24 This sketch k provided as a courtesy only by Fidelity National Title Company of Washington, ll ithout charge. for your intormation. It is not intended to be a Plat of Survey to show all matters relating to the property (including, but not limited to, area, dimensions, easements, encroachments or location of boundaries). It is not a part of, nor does it modify. the 1 itic Commitment or Policy I■ which it is attached. The Company n5511111es NO I I. \ISII frl' for the c,mcctneas of any tooter related to this sketch. Reference should be m.nle t,..111 .Accurate survey for further inh+rtniuion. "fast' V . '7441iain+3 `? V F Z. rew U O' W W W =: J F. WO U.? = d; I— _ Z Z0 W 2 O N O I—. W W• L-!-- '8 Z w U =, O~ z BRUCK RICHARDS CHAUDIERE INC. a c o u s t i c s BRC January 16, 1998 Mr. Mike Unger W &H Pacific 3025 112th Avenue, NE Bellevue Washington 98009 Re: Acoustical Report Site: Timber Lake Lane Dear Mike: This is a report of a predicted noise survey performed in the immediate vicinity of the proposed telecommunications facility at Timber Lake Lane, King County, Washington. The study area extends from the proposed site location on parcel number 864870 - 0550 -00 to the property lines (Enclosure 1). The purpose of this report is to document the extent and impact of the acoustical change due to the proposed facility. This report contains data on the existing and predicted noise environments, impact criteria, an evaluation of the data as they relate to the criteria, and recommendations for improvement if appropriate. The existing noise environment at the proposed site is primarily the result of vehicular traffic along West Lake Sammamish Parkway SE. A -scale frequency- weighted sound level measurements were made during the day ofJanuary 15, 1998 to document the contribution of this source. Sound level measurements were taken using a Larson-. Davis 2900 real -time spectrum analyzer at the southwest property line nearest the proposed facility site in accordance with the State of Washington code for Maximum Environmental Noise Levels (WAC 173 -60 -020). The ambient sound level during typical daytime traffic was 65.1 dBA. Sound pressure levels of the proposed fan unit were derived from measurements recorded on an identical unit located at the Public Boat Launch at I -90, Mercer. These measurements were taken at 3 feet with the blower operating. A -scale frequency- weighted sound level measurements were made during the day ofJanuary 15, 1998 to document the contribution of this source. Sound level measurements were taken using a Larson -Davis 2900 real -time spectrum analyzer. The operating sound level of the unit adjacent to the fan was 65.5 dBA at three feet. ti .., 'h � ;4.'•. y�. _ _ _} rx =�: r1 'Ft . :d 4�� i <fSrtiii`�'3c±^r;:ili�'-in::.�t� "1�9� ;V it :401:i4@ 401414i414.6: 4.1;. Yk '. "•vi 9%a OL% Creating Sound Environments Architectural Acoustics Environmental Noise Mechanical Noise Control Sound System and Muti -Media Design Vibration Analysis 105 NE 56th Street Seattle, WA 98105 Tel. 206/523 -3350 or 800/843 -4524 Fax 206/523-0174 brc@seanet.com www.seattle.net/-brcacoustics z w. re 2 J0 U O'. N0. cDw W =: J �. CD IL Ili 0: g Q. zd w z� 1-0: z D • o, O co '0I w W; • 0. -O ui z Uw E. 0 z BRUCK RICHARDS CHAUDIERE INC. Without any additional losses to ground, obstructions or foliage, the predicted sound pressure will propagate in a hemispherical pattern in accordance with the equation: Lp2 = Lpl - 20log (r2 /r1) dBA Lpl = Sound pressure level at known reference distance Lp2 = Sound pressure level at desired distance rl = Reference distance where Lpl was measured r2 = Distance for which sound pressure level Lp2 is being calculated Based on the known sound pressure levels of the equipment, the sound level will be 37.5 dBA at the property line to the northeast, which is zoned residential. The distance was measured to be greater than 75 feet from the corner of the new enclosure to the property line. The resulting sound level value at the property line is based on the "worst case" of sound propagation from the side of the enclosure while the blower is operating. Additional attenuation will be achieved at the site from foliage, terrain and objects within the sound path. The measured background noise level is 65.1 dBA at the site. A sound level of 37.5 dBA at the adjacent property line is within the noise limit of 52 dBA established by King County for noise sources zoned rural and residential receivers. If the site is zoned residential, a noise limit of 55 dBA would be applicable. The planned telecommunications facility at the Timber Lake Lane will be within the standards set by King County, Maximum Environmental Noise Levels (Chapter 12.88). If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, BRUCK RICHARDS CHAUDIERE, INC. William Stewart Acoustical Consultant z i w n: 2 -J C.) U O N0. W W W I J � w 0; Jr LL Q, co _: Z I 0, Z ,O N, .0 1- w w` = V. IL I- O. Z. W u) Netwodc syrwms - Product ReaIt:aliart Center ATTACHMENT B Wars Tad= 0 subjsce Bacon, Requirement TA-NWT -000487 Section 3.29 (R49) Acoustical Noise .Suppression Test Report Mere orandutn for Record date: August 19,1996 tram: Stephen Baron JC01132220 1G3M (201)426-139g A PCS CDMA Miiueell was tested far acoustical noise supression on December 14,1995 at the Lucent Technologies Mt Olive facility as pa Bellcore TA-NW-000487, Tama, June 1991 ( Genetic Requirements for Equipment Cabinets) with the fallowing people present P Giatznoglau and R. Pauliao. Atthe time itwu documented that the Kunkel! had exceeded the Bellcore requirement R -89 by a ldB(A) margin. An investigation into the predueiperforrnaaca and Bellaire specification indicated that product performance was not affected ,and that the circumstances under which the unit exceeded the limit was un1ikIy to occur in actual opor r au. In addition, changes to the Bellcore specifications were underway in this area.- The final copy has came out which confirms that the specification 3.28(R3 -157) Cabinets, equipped with taleco umicetionn equipment and associated cooling fans, shell aupprr.ss acoustical mite ro a level of 65d8(A) at a distance of 1.5m (SR) from the cabinet with the doors closed dining times of maximum noise generation within the cabinet. In cansidering the performance of the Miniccll and the revised Bellcore specification, tbo revised zrsult is that the Minicell passes the Acoustic Noise test with a 4dB(A,) maw and no retest is planned. copy to: B.Arm PRC K Baru PRC D. Bic= PRC A. Corsica PRC R. Denies VB S. GbaodasaaLmdeb WH P. GLumealu Vg D, Lee PRC Attachment C tn�''��eSti "' EXISTING WIRELESS FACILITY (I -5 @ HWY 18) • Z =.H W _r O 00 CO 0 cow W N LL. W 0. gQ •N D : = d I--W Z = I- I— O Z I- W W U0 O N. 0 I-, W W• 0 u. O W O ~ z. U= Z ��,....� rix' isi.,N^ n'. i:-:. y: il: r -0:�ti'!.:'d`Ir:'rii;'.:fid`, :,Y: t7;i+fi +i%f�lJV'fiiR'i'4�ii�• 32icSiH,s"JF3fir`�o` -µ :'35n.if•'�xr Vg• Lrimr WI -At EXISTING WIRELESS FACILITY z =H • Z 1� JU UO WI J H: WO • J = d W Z z�. F- O z l- 2 U 0. 022 ,o H W W' �o U 0 W z. U =` O oU z SEMMINS q' H ATTACHMENT C ,q?.- ; ?t' {+ ?apha- ?.';L;; 3'fi;n �' i�:1Y`i'i ";jl� gyp. ,..,,;..�h ?�;1 ";d,:�` *` . 7-i. '`. ""'L t. F . r. jW .� `�' 4 ,ti�!>_Y }, r .'.tt .� `•4s '�y : _ � 5: ;.: ::[� •; �TPT. . Z I--• Z ce W QQ � JU O 0 Co CO LU W I-- � LL W 0 • Q. ▪ d F, W Z= F- I- 0 Z I- W U • � 0- O I- WW I- --- L1- O Z W U= O I- Z 11.1.1/1/EST® W&H PACIFIC Communications - Wireless LOT (3 6) . I \------- ---1 1 N , ,- ''-, . .. I, , ,„ . v , , \ ` \ \ ' , , -- \ \ \ , , ..,..‘ \ ..,..,,, ,..,. ONO 1. IRON PIK ,TAG IN MIER sco` / I \ \ 1 \ \ I \ \\\ACCES4f RE \\Caril 11\\V . ■ \ 1 \ EQUIPMENT\ .6.0 \ \ \ 1 \ 1 1 '1 \\ CON616.1CTIDN' ORE TO E ST. \ \ \ 1/4 \ \ "rr -13.5 '6LAIRD \ / HOUSE • WHEN T. 16 C1Il.TE , .•••••• --cfERE-7-1r PIVPOSED4CI.1 /PAD 41.11? MON / •-, ONIAr.E (1,ERNIT-I3.) \„,,% siwz! // LINE C RECURRED 6ETDACK.'rrr. (1/2 MONOPOLE VE1GHT) // I \ / / 1 , ,o).:1----/- „ , / \ / 1 \ ----- 1 / 1\ ••••.— . . i. .....4......".... / 6.......„..„,44.-- .,,,.• . 0 ‘ ,, li / > V . \\\ \ .-.'r.....•■ \ ' A : \ \\V. \\ *-4 X •., \\ • ..\%\\I, .. \ / •,<•I'l • •••• / ..:1-• ,‘\\\,,V \ .\ /•-•'•-;':' , ,01,,\ \ Vs ,1.4. X, \OA. \ ' / .• / if '.::..... •j \\Ili ,,1, .., •,...... ,•KNIIIT AU ; • \ \ ,. s. '';.. • •...-•"*.- '4„i•Aattlatizoi, SITE PLAN r.2o. '11.44/' 'SW ',el 444.-#4a1gitigifivo. ',0•A&114.. 11 E0.3Odd pzie szs 90E I r.0 U) 60:17T 86. E0 ggadd Wa `4t 2 IA i1 • r 1 n. 4 .4 I, iry .sr t WA 3 3 IR zat p i L i�ld�r ib i thi Lf le.I s•f�r 8 Ala .0; la.S6 OP ill gni AM .mit I asd l ,faha is39? ¢fa`u�'k�+iLj#1.�`Wrt�ktWY.�W.•k 1'. pyii'�}:i'n� S'. c'1 T T c ri rr V Iva ,ITn C7C an7 T VV.7 ln:rT CR /7n /rn- d �. W: 6 aU. UO: N0 W= W u. WO g Q. u) d. = W Z Z O. W u) O CI H. WW H U u. 0 .. Z' U --. 0• z .. 1 a M O C0 17 7I ,12 0 z w x CO co 0 a e Ag await @§ v sA a§ 0 i CC 0 6 8 a?i& �'3 9 U a. a ir S_- ,wt .RC w n 1 a III 111119111i IileP 1111 fil 1,111 i al. 1 I,: .0 ..eils 1 1 :.. .:.:: ! 7 III 11111! hill i lklill 1, .sill 11111 lu littl 1.111 I clhtui ..tc :..cs I Di �li�111 ilia hill 111111 filli1911 !a!I 115 sa.li a iaas aalli +ii.: n _a.ldat eb. co I 0 } co w z 0 :c "ri4itin+rt+: : .iii <hi7.ifF.. eklGo= F.Asid:f.,. Yi r.t�"- r�Ss:tSM.S1a'l4-�'S;S. 1608M V U 11 PR..1(mf1,.,$»Sfl 1 z Z 6 W UO W = W O. 1 W z� z0 W N I— W 0. 1— ~ LI O. llj z, O~ z ij a 2 z U 1 0 O z 8Ik AZ _ 1 i ° r —fir —r-1 ,OJ — 0 0 z 1 Y:w„' .- ;:,.i;;S...,,ar£ pt.ix:`..a ciimx.„;,t.{ ,4r'...j, r; %`,i'wai:i210iFFIS1L a'a"aiii-- ilovige 15'4.04 w» eAf 9 kVriai4`akft XhµiaYKJ .: 1_1 1 X fi lifdltifl If Cr II 1■0[00.70111$11.1SF9II I ...,931Avokikviizihrp4P, ,teriw 401 kksztA.A6',Wei...,551:44/Ak•'.' ' (ttv`..' ? fr. :!1 !1;,, 6 g 6 ‘,1 c■I 4 16 fi WA 0 .11.4n •1•01.:4■1 1,01. 3 z CD 0 GC II eracaq.15,■.incm 1 h446,4AWA'6: AU. z I-- Z. re LLI2' 6 —J 0 0 . w 0, CO W. —J UL- uj 0, =J. u.. < COD r,' I- la z 1- 0: z ui 2 n' .o w z w • O El: 17- O 17 z [Rip dill i �ss 5 5 PL. TOC 10 IC SCUM 000000 10 PC10 BMW aka OT ANT (7070-0073 WON POP 000DTTTG u 103. P.M us 000006 TOO KT •0001( an 01.07 00TC VOSS 000St WIZ 1 .suu 17U0110 .o WwOS • at.. 00 00f ar0n 100000000 1..m 9070.071•1000 70700 n «• Mt tmz v •011101 r1..r1) . Irl .tS ml 1000 • +s CA. l . .00 w00 r+.".r • Tt¢I EA 67 M.7. 0 W W1 VI 1. .� 070...00 ro u.r. 0100 s10 mnroln 00.0 ar. wwa n 00 .1 .tx. OCT. .n F. 000.0 .uzvrz 00.001 r•• m: 0.0.0 F.010.00,00100.1 00.1!0 h 000000 0°6.1.07 .•ucr 00.0..1 0x...7.0717 z:rs 1o. u •aT• rt..rnvas 010•0000. CR..i. Mar 0•001 .10.01.16.0}4 0700 4: •000711 NO 0 BE TirGT-00 0010717 00. 0.0.00 .07 0000 TO TB 10.0010 011.03 .r1 TYZmPao tun. a0wt0 Baca 0.101 *Pa 60.04 07.0~100!. 7. a r.Lr 06101 rot 061 CAM 00C(0 PT x 5 vLLE .R7 *00.71 wnr cal m1S1/10 .0,10 00.. 51L41f5 •c •0.7 1.1104 Saa .T 00007 • tI.•1.171..7....0 000006 w 16:...3 v01P W fNl Rt10RE 101 01G .1.i 1. sY d 1? Y 4 7' A 14 Y � G gP pct? A ua : a2 r ' ow a y 7t5 Sd4 1• ib Y 6X2' r a,r a43. 1;c $ Yaa azXYR'4 82S2iY 6 A a ;r X- inlgVaifg 5 wAi E } A b t °: A-. I A ; 1� t 03 ,�= Ki,, ate — - .. -.. h r 4g 1 q ' ye &e 4 ' t, E a M :X s L '� T ; i Y: y i bb n U eyr� §Q g ;;{iG C G t n 9 "g G _ 4 is 3 A" {Y I e/ , i � a e 8 i 6c % 1.i BA 651 t[ 46 Pi 4 • i r qq a g gyp o A' § wwn II y ' .k 1 I !i F3 .I 1 ,,, ; }mot a F 2.. ` O A\ PPoWRT 1.7M -CELL LAYOUT S0[. K. 1121 \ lit 91a ° a ZAy riggli . ii0V1 0000000 / i F;zj see® o.o� nn ��) . • r " *......3 %a ...5';:.�'rs. <."t,.,.�b7r.'��, y u�.,, e&' �lfi. ra�. r�t��iiiri: is�nt ,.�:f;sfL'.'F,+.'rPsi9i:iw>f ��i�%11d"r;�f�e�r,te;w�ti'�air: �d w m a, wnrto nnommWW.sr.+, , Fe' s i4.3k Eel , '(: - 'SWv 3i�t"b. z {L W 6 JU O 0: 0. W • LL W 0, g Q ▪ W Z1 1— 0 • Z I—! U O. lO °• L% W W. 1— -; W Z. U =; 0 z 1 g fit 66 1 7." 5 3 7 a 1 0 :14 2 9 NH s 9 Ni4 A. 2 • ESlV+TEO EEI.CT“ F.C4 Ar &3 E 2r O.VATON F.CLD ESir1EER TO URO<TE ON AS BAT DRLH,.IGS. 1 5 9 •7i---- ' o. • N 'a 414191 iti/1g 1,307.(..1.15.7, • 4 6 1 0 0 o o UJ Id < g 0 0 < ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN LJ E § ; sglitgi3 tgigtggsr 2 z T 2 0 ddh a t �®®�y 40 :46 lg d 0 _ 1 a 1 •/ ( I L/.. ,---) I --------------t-----1----------------11--------------3 B i i I )5 I / I I i I 1 1 I g 4macAii,44AW4A40.:4" 1g 4 pn 0 0 UJ tn Cs1 w ;:ne:s tlx.y, 1 4.1,eo 9'4f-i-415.*;;;..::1.1b-Z z.‘ ;we, k 4, • c ezie enuuk 44itecto et9 *47 ti t Yt9;144 ; 84 W p y 3g F A .1 ., Ils x t, 1 4, u gcs A . . ,.. . i ... — a 1 : ... i d ‘, . g tz' .. : ,,y -3 %le 53:g.-; _ 5 a . -2,nmii, a TYPIC LAMO(i GROOIOWG LAYOUT `rni LC- x..51201 1 Z. I h qi pi A g . '. - - - " • gf - - • - - - \ 1 I L. ; -i '; ., ° 1 .J. x mno , t• V '. ■EIEOKOIS 'MUM .It AWAy■ V.3111 -If L a. \.1_ 2 10 t 3 i 0 171-117-71114. E5 El a 't,-. g ••• .7 1 • .1,.- - - \ -. it . . _... g 1 • , __ __ __ __T , i 13 1 '' , ! , 1 g / W f 0 v A 4 — __Aila \MII, VIF % / N X g IP i i Ir R 1 tl ___-----' LA iiiDg im§wwn. . W rAl v 1 ! t, 1H ill11 Igi /e i i i4 g!s' ' -67 X liiih 8 i 1 \ P U/ I 1 N 11 i 1 gli i i 9 h sg a i ..,.w . g g i i 3 Vg , g.,1 4 1 rii 0 eZe .= ell 1-=Ag g: EL\ R2b0 qr 14 IgegY 11 I It! /le hi -.w s ' 4 Irl q L■-,-.-.°7-7-7- --_ ig :0 . 0 .,, ----'81R M RP 11 11111 n 1 1;S9." 11111° ;t1,.8 1 113 3= 41g s, i ; !i i v ... g- D % .-e 4 ,R gi gi ..9 gi J 1 3, 1 1 I g ez-d-f. A . , — --0111/M p9. Neipt 01/40q 101,0i3; p mn.8.2; IN f ...... , , I 1 'UT j ,--.; - ti 1 .__ 1 1 P .. iiiii iii .,„ i .. T 7 MIS % . 2 111 in! 01 , irgcg 1 . id ;:ne:s tlx.y, 1 4.1,eo 9'4f-i-415.*;;;..::1.1b-Z z.‘ ;we, k 4, • c ezie enuuk 44itecto et9 *47 ti t Yt9;144