Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-218-84 - BOEING - SATELLITE ANTENNABOEING COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT 17501 SOUTHCENTER PY EPIC- 218 -84 • • NOTICE OF ACTION BY THE CITY OF TUKWILA Pursuant to the provisions of chapter 43.21C RCW, notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila did on February 23, 1984 take the action described below. Any action to set aside, enjoin, review, other otherwise challenge such action on the grounds of noncompliance with the provisions of chapter 43.21C RCW (State Environmental Policy Act) shall be commenced within 30 days or be barred. The action taken by the City of Tukwila notice of which is hereby given, was: Final Declaration of Nonsignificance for Conditional Use Permit for an earth satellite antenna. Said action pertained to property: 17501 Southcenter Parkway Pertinent documents may be examined during regular business hours at the office of the Planning Department located at 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, City Hall, City of Tukwila. Filed by Brad Collins, Planning Director Published: Record Chronicle, March 25, 1984 A F F IOA V IT OF D I S T R I O J T I O N I, Becky L. Kent hereby declare that: 1 1 Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting 1 1 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit 11 Declaration of Significance and Scoping Notice. Proposed Declaration of Nonsignificance 1 X1 Notice of Action was mailed to each of the following addresses on February 23, 1984. J.J. Nelson P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 J.A. Benaroya Co. 5601 Sixth Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98108 Spring Ridge Investment, Inc. c/o Jones & Grey & Baily P.S. 36th Fl. One Union Scare Seattle, WA 98101 Shamatsu, Akiko Trustee 16813 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Iverson, Harold R. 950 Andover Park East Tukwila, WA 98188 Grice, Ted Accounting Department Hayden Island, Inc. 909 N. Tomahawk Island Dr. Portland, OR 97217 Castello Land Co. 3400 Phinney Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98103 Anderson 13849 18th Ave. S.W. Seattle, WA 98166 Wiese, William C.L. 13119 42nd Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98168 Union Pacific Corp. PO Box 2500 Broomfield CO 80020 J.C. Penney Co. Attn: Nat Standing PO Box 4015 Beuna Park, CA 90624 McCann Development Corp. 950 Andover Park EAst Tukwila, WA 98188 Levitz Furniture Corp. 212 High St. Pottstown, PA 19464 Name of Project Boeing Antenna Signature File Number EPIC - 218 -84 WAC 197 -11 -1350 • DECLARATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal Microwave Earth, Satellite Antenna Proponent Boeing Commercial Aircraft Co. Location of proposal 17501 Southcenter Parkway Lead agency City of Tukwila File No. EPIC - 2.18 -84 This proposal has been determined not to have a probably significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS). is not required under RCW 43- 21C.020(c). Thisdecision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead.agency. This information is available to the public on request. Responsible official Rick Beeler Position /title Address and phone Date Ac,tingaPlanning Director 6200. Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA 9.x•8 413 -1845 2_ /206 Signature Published: Record Chronicle, March 21, 1984 AFF•AVIT OF DISTRIOUTION I, Becky L. Kent hereby declare that: (-I Notice of Public Hearing I� Notice of Public Meeting [ I Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit IX 1 II Declaration of Significance and Scoping Notice. Declaration of Nonsignificance was mailed to each of the following addresses on February 14, 1984. J.J. Nelson P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 J.A. Benaroya Co. 5601 Sixth Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98108 Spring Ridge Investment, Inc. c/o Jones & Grey & Baily P.S. 36th F1. One Union Sgare Seattle, WA 98101 Shamatsu, Akiko Trustee 16813 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Iverson, Harold R. 950 Andover Park East Tukwila, WA 98188 Grice, Ted Accounting Department Hayden Island, Inc. 909 N. Tomahawk Island Dr. Portland, OR 97217 Castello Land Co. 3400 Phinney Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98103 Name of Project Boeing Antenna Anderson 13849 18th Ave. S.W. Seattle, WA 98166 Wiese, William C.L. 13119 42nd Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98168 Union Pacific Corp. PO Box 2500 Broomfield CO 80020 J.C. Penney Co. Attn: Nat Standing PO Box 4015 Beuna Park, CA 90624 McCann Development Corp. 950 Andover Park EAst Tukwila, WA 98188 Levitz Furniture Corp. 212 High St. Pottstown, PA 19464 File Number EPIC - 218 -84 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROU G FORM PERMIT NUMBERfT%G-26'3q CONTROL NUMBER 4fy -033 TO: [i BLDG. Q PLNG. [: P.W. FIRE Ei POLI.CE a P. & R. PROJECT ,15001/9 ADDRESS /7523/ SSG Aledf, (�L, l./ / DATE TRANSMITTED i/(9 /g RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 2 / /giey C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR jqiik tialP2) RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN .IS NOTED: 1 ( [ S p t c ; j / ire Code, Pe r- It fa L 79, ''1 S P --o,/, 4tic s r' g c,, 14t /// / /-e f y r e for /4 c, a 3oo 91/ /9,-0,41e. )A,)/. a a a a a . a 0 a a 0 a a a D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED 0 PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED 0 PLAN APPROVED g PLAN CHECK DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. FORM 2 IENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUT NG FORM TO: a BLDG. (J PLNG. GT, P.W. a FIRE 1VILICE 1-7 : P. Sr R. g PROJECT ,� 'fig ADDRESS /7'0/ #0/.„ DATE TRANSMITTED 2l6 /eq RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 2 /Igig y C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR ,60, Bite- ) RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: a a Q pLA.s4 (,Li Lra.4) a. 0 0 ..a. .a� 0 0 0 El 0 0 a 0 0 0 a D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED E] PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED El PLAN APPROVED [I PLAN CHECK DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. FORM 2 CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT NUMBER )%G-G%: `i CONTROL NUMBER 94i Q33 CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - RO1G FORM `T0: [j BLDG. a PLNG. kirek P.W. a FIRE a POLICE a P. & R. PROJECT /500/9 ADDRESS /757)/ ,d5C 450/, DATE TRANSMITTED 2l(7 /ey RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 2 / /gley C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR A?iik, 601g4) RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED is PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED 0 PLAN APPROVED 0 PLAN CHECK DATE `Z COMMENTS PREPARED BY 1 C.P.S. FORM 2 CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT NUMBERNP %6- 213-5ti CONTROL. NUMBER ty D,33 CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - TO: a BLDG. a PROJECT ,//I9 ADDRESS 175DJ aG jabuici, DATE TRANSMITTED 2A/4(4 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY ROU•G FORM PLNG. P.W. a FIRE a POLICE & R. C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR t5eA RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH: APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN :IS NOTED: 0 0 a a a D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED [] PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED El PLAN APPROVED [� J1-41-4444_44( DATE P--- 7 =-r COMMENTS PREPARED BYj- -�„___ C.P.S. FORM 2 CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT NUMBER CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUG FORM TO: -26-2511 NUMBER 91-4033 BLDG. a PLNG. P.W. a FIRE EJ POLICE a P. & R. PROJECT 6/9 ADDRESS 7 DATE TRANSMITTED RESPONSE REQUESTED BY C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR 611.Lg/) RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED 0 PLAN CHECK DATE 2.'(6-�l PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED J COMMENTS PREPARED BY PLAN APPROVED C.P.S. FORM 2 CITY 0/ TUKWILA PERMIT NUMBER %, -274 / CONTROL NUMBER ipi D33 • CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROURG FORM TO: [/BLDG. a/PLNG. L P.W. ( FIRE [POLICE P. & R. PROJECT 60/ICJ ADDRESS /70/ jfC; pia/Li, DATE TRANSMITTED i(���1./ / RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 2 / /3'igy C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR AiA, 0144) RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED [] PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED El PLAN APPROVED a PLAN CHECK DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. FORM 2 CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Gn- 1.N -033 MEM FEB 31984 CITY OF TLIKvfILA PLANNING DEPT. This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed. A fee of $60.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire to cover costs of the threshold determination. I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: BOEING MILITARY AIRPLANE COMPANY 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: J. J. NELSON, DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES P. O. BOX 3707 SEATTLE, WA. 98124 etc- 2-48- 84 3. Date Checklist Submitted: JAN. 31, 1984 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: CITY OF TUKWILA 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: EARTH SATELLITE ANTENNA 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal .(including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): EARTH SATELLITE ANTENNA PROJECT AREA REQUIRED .36' x 62' OR TOTAL OF 2232 SQ. FT. 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im- pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under- standing of the environmental setting of the proposal): PARKWAY PLAZA PARKING LOT (SEE MAP) AREA REQUIRED 36' x 62' OR TOTAL OF 2232 SQ. FT. 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: 7/84 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local): (a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. YES # NO (b). King County Hydraulics Permit YES NO# (c) Building permit - YES # NO YES MAYBE NO (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? # (f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Explanation: Installation of the foundation for the Earth Satellite Antenna Project. 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? (b) The creation of objectionable odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Explanation: 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? -3- • • YES MAYBE NO (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the . ground waters? # (1) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail- able for public water supplies? Explanation: 4. Flora. . Will the proposal result in: . (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? # (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? # (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Explanation: Landscaping to be added. 5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Explanation:. YES MAYBE NO . Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? # Explanation: 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Explanation: 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: Change from parking use to this use. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? # Explanation: 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi- ation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Explanation: • • (d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit (e) Sewer hook up permit (f) Sign permit (g) Water hook up permit (h) Storm water system permit (i) Curb cut permit (j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) (k) Plumbing permit (King County) (1) Other: YES NO # YES NO # YES NO # YES NO # YES NO # YES NO # YES # NO YES NO # 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: NO. 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: NO. 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: NONE. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover- ing of the soil? (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea- tures? (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? -2 YES MAYBE NO 11. Population. Explanation: • • Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Explanation: 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Explanation: Deletion of some parking: 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: (a) Fire protection? (b) Police protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? YES MAYBE NO • • YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? # - Explanation: 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Explanation: 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? # (b) Communications systems? # (c) Water? # (d) Sewer or septic tanks? # (e) Storm water drainage? # (f) Solid waste and disposal? # Explanation: Will require Electrical Power. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental' health)? Explanation: See attached report. • • 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically of- fensive site open to public view? Explanation: 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? Explanation: 20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a signifi- cant archeological or his- torical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: YES MAYBE NO I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Signature and Title Date # • ; " • • Lorarmo LAN 31 1984 CITY OF TUKvIN-A PLANNING. DEPT. • tez,rJcH �O 05W. • • • t3' x 101 GONG. rOUNP. a).3 M 1.5tZ. FAiz H 411.-n oN ANTE NN A .is'- Io"x. t8' -io "x 2` owe CONG2E'fE • i A - P.. Fa L5 ! 1 L jJRri 31 1984 CITY OF TUK V ■LA PLANNING, DEPT. 1., • • / S O U `r 4CAt -el I" 15' CITY OF i UKWILA PLANNING DEPT. 1 • ::•'1•'••.• ..:-!... -: ".. .: ';•,. --.._, ----___..______'_-" __ _ ..____-•-----L---- • .- .tf,- - • •s.,.:._. . ,..:7-7.. --_::------... • . ,...----------v,....•;----- ,,.. ..._----;,...-_,--,..,.7..,,,... i.7'.1....:1;. .z+1.-4,.....•::::."?,9i7 - ., !;-:-.= ,....., ...-••A'S 1 e • . • - ."... . 1, • 11 .-.7::::■7-:..F.t:.- .;....\k \-, _,, ..:.2., . ,,,........ -.;): , - . -,... -1 • ..;-...÷,.. •„..-_,-- -,..,-, \ , .._ ,........,...,-,., ,.. a . . ' ,71. . • r'' • Le • aFtAlt 517&tioni : i■•••41.' •••• 4. 0......0110 (0) 7110.0 9. 02.(1.) ?Ulf cre, A. 0,40 0/Q•7. C•&04 1 0210uel• 143 RAU. 0. :01.10••• -10• 0004. Arf• •CIrstrital O. •••• rte. •••., orig.. ...rag, • 1. 00 10. • IV Ger C. 003,I11% a.DI10C811PTIoN That .111•• •• lov.est %of Om %or Sett. N. ,o•••• 3.16 • no.. Itorge • [rt. 110.. r4 ro ...cost 4 17 Us I •• SectIco II, Iwo... II ... ••••• 4 last. P.P.. 31.4 (not, : • Mgt.... la• at 0.• 11..■••st cam, et lel* .0.11 4 s, Do •••.I.It 61' il ' Ma. brIA 5045•57...1 410.11, Om •0310 I. of .04 •Iortb•eit 9.? 141 .......1,1..1 4...•14,..11.[:,nro,5.7 .411...1.04.!••■ 0 0....t 1..913 •1 6.....1 . ' theme bet/. 116611•IY 1.4 •Igag WI Ws( mtg.* a Cll.**, 41.77 0311 , O.* o• 1K45••Sr 11,4 • 411 tw• of 173.11 7••t 10.• 3.00 4Z0Ir .6 411 ••,••• 6. 7416, ,Ins, to • I I . 1.151 ••• • 11,4.1. 2, 9.8 •••• See.selIs•ly 00 t,•• f rrrrr II. •I. • 11 f. n7739114 One,. •stsblt.. 37 ',Or.. re,033.4 L., 1•00 I1•* •.•••.•.. 0..•D•, 0 •1..•o • •„... •. c0b•.o. •0. ••• .•311 t1e.0 e 1 0n•1• . 1 .•••.6•1II 0 87I V4 . O • t6S •qt e7• s4• It 1 24. trly 0131 • 11 .,t• c•o I••:l •• • ,I0 ,4 5. o Vcr nemsn et e eIn .It•• • I t , 1 1.a1 n•d .64 1 •60 4• . h 4o61 1t11 ,, . 1 4111 111 .. 4,14 ,14 snto. 114 61 feet. ••• 31 1133. I8 170Ra,t311.. "14 I04te•2Si • Dere bet. 10.SS- Melt ateng tad Frth Ilne •011ti.te .. 0 f14.1, ., se In.. 19 a nt.l so 1 II** AttI. P••11,, •I4 4.4 r.0 ,•4t •11.tely of 13t c•neer I. of • I f•6 1•11.6 101@38R14.30 6Iet 6;!:! rl.1:"::..!:7:ti4:; „,• ::,1j tr■P .1. ••• . S• • a. i. :::...e:b rimb •••a.d s., aulto,s Me .. t7133 $6. :.W7O 50011. O% a100• 5014 •616.•• 6111.331 rrrrrr lbw 77. 18. d • 1• . . Ub 0110.71'. 54 .::::rh L11•1• lat 610.6 0 .5 5.00.0 0.. of 300.1•. ta51 411*88o8468.31.357. 8.4 6 I. 4. • • • : ./i . 1 • 1 i .,s..,:.....-7.....--...-- . - .- .... ...."1"..... ".5!...tD" .'.."., ..-- ..... 1 50.4 5. 0. (0., of Im■••11• • I ! .' I ., ---. C.,,,,/„...--• ......., ........, ... / ... ......,, . • .4•••■1,6"....-... 000 10001 R•4• MAO. 4-011 .0,10..../0 0.00 • ,-•••••••• LI- _ TU!ILA K‘, . 7 NNING DEPT • . • . . . 00•00 1.0.0.0t 011 0/...0. . 00 ......./.0 ite. 0.. 0,1 01 01.A.2w-0 ' - . / P103:3411 s• i Liiiiiii,iiii1Prtaliiiir:lir77-:::::,..19r. arrni. ,f • ...: •- . . - .. ..,... . . , ' . • . ..• • • 1 .1 ' ; "•ii •I Mr: • Orr oso 907wa4U4 • • • • 14344..4 !,(J 3 ,411 wfaI..ra 1 .,144. 41f q. 11YS .3.t Y of lKaw N. tow. Y. 1f31.11.,.4111Int. 4....r4Nb.s*nt 4.f a 11.34..3!! of pt. Y. lows., fl Mutt, Iwo 1 411. Y.. , flog Gooey. 3101141*. ose0.6.6 Y 11114•: V01.00.01.1 w .'14.11 .10111.1/• Afte43r, N tAl I .1.I t.1. brae.. 3'11.4 ***1411 3.. pars of 111.14 feel 14 N 434 0.1.1• of 340¢1•4*. ,.wua O. pn1 Powo w. .1 owool Iwo Oro w*w* br1% 1f1U•1i Iwo . ro 111. 17.31.11, Ip 1w. *111.11 In11 1.11.110. Ion WOO 11 11.1 h *. 1Yl.l. of s* enn• t low to .I 111 1o.1111.11. men.. at.311s141f Intlrwoot nts•YI ✓Yr lw.1. ** III* b.*.334441 an* .waet* .loot . I W told 1. 11 14.38 01 pnl.l ER sold 1.w 111 1* p In1. G Iwe 131•.1 Ilse, 1114 Atllr 141 u 00,01.07. a d'*., 1414 too l.w. .e :01111• a.ep tett, r . 11..1 w Ion 1... It .e•anel l.p 4.1 A.0 1*el b•b.p.r14 N 1* co. 11.* 41' a 1 411144.. we.t 4etwlls.. • 14'.. woof na. e1 w!• 1401fer•1 Ill* b. 1111f13'3*r pro* 0..s 1111.•44• Int aloof 1.11 /pallet And If 11.1. 034 11 us., • 0.s •• 10 o 0 . 0 0 0 . • 4 SAO 41 • •.,4*b•3* 10114,13'34.,'•! 114.1 wi. A.G.., r ow, *,!11II. : M 1341. le N tat 110 •1 11,*4.u11n,t % *I *.t feue43tt1♦ .f�1.0 ^I • • fool. Kt s* ;Fir: R1'a• 4.11114.)! .Ids 111. YNl wl 31311 M4Nwtp I.nw.1 i t0 ll•lf'll' lnl *..3.344 *at w.G 14/.14 G a .3 poke .• w1.wfMt f . Su... 4 N 114 001..113, Mw4 of 114. *tau of 0asl.ww. . • 1 I,GGG14J7 (-7..;•:;) R4pye„ 011I04.f t1(V3 •FJJ• : I.4.0.I0F.. L40.1b 110460. YT[� I... '(.) 116.04.e64 'ij1G3 . r01'4W ^.0, ('prat. oar jr !lb l i.'-, fi:rr,_vt1 rat•, NY G• OL• .11111...n4 VI..4.'JI LIAA.h .e' 04, 4 JJJ•Pr. . 6' 06 �a>rIJ • .. .. i J \' _ vy l� • .i,„ .. • jet • e..Oe •r-.4 =e ♦11.�uu.< 1.- 0.+•11341 010,s.rer/ 1 3/'•I.4• PAAKINa RII21JIl1 If 0. 1116. STALLS o/ PA/MINTS •:lovlo,pt '947j OYALPA/MINTS / w' • v4 . r-.ti.9.i L°- .. P A..1Alk.1 1 ti , •, _ • 19OUTHCENTER .: PARKWAY.) . 3i -. 1 .. .. 6 ..._..... 2 3 . • • MEASUREMENTS OF RADIO FREQUENCY POWER DENSITY IN THE VICINITY OF THE AMERICAN SATELLITE COMPANY EARTH STATION AT VERNON NEW JERSEY As Prepared By HAMILTON COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS, INC. May, 1983 HN 31 1984 CITY OF i-iik vfLA PLANNING DEPT. MEASUREMENTS OF RADIO FREQUENCY POWER DENSITY IN THE VICINITY OF THE AMERICAN SATELLITE COMPANY EARTH STATION AT.VERNON NEW JERSEY SUMMARY American Satellite Company engaged Hamilton Communications Consultants, Inc. to conduct a microwave power density survey at its Sammis Road earth station in the Town of Vernon, N.J. Measurements were taken at eighteen locations in the area on and about the site, on May 2 and May 5, 1983. The mea- surements taken within the fenced site area, and its peri- meter, were taken at locations which produce the highest levels of exposure for any person at or within the fence line of the antenna area. Measurements taken outside of the fenced area were taken at points which are typical of the exposures applicable to the general public. The actual measured microwave power densities at all measurement points are listed in Table 1 of this report. The corres- ponding locations at which the measurements were taken are illustrated on Figures 1 and 2 of the report. The highest . level of exposure, at the fence line surrounding the antennas, is .13 microwatts per square centimeter at Location "C" of Figure 1. This level is lower than the applicable hazard threshold of 5000 microwatts per square centimeter by a factor of 38,000, where the hazard level -2 - is defined in A.N.S.I. Standard C95.1. This level is also more than 70 tidies smaller than the most stringent standards adopted world -wide. It must also be noted that this maxi -. mum exposure value of .13 microwatts per square centimeter applies only to a person who would trespass well within the property to the inner fence line. Radiation power densities along the public road are generally very much lower than the above indicated maximum value. The highest value measured along the northwest shoulder of Sammis Road is at a location labeled 8 -A. At this location, a power density level of .003 microwatts per square centimeter was measured. This is lower than the limit of, the standard by a factor of 1.6 million. Radiation levels in the school areas south of Sammis Road are extremely low, on the order of one millionth of the resting human bodies natural thermal radiation level. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS The basic nature of radio transmissions from the American Satellite Co. space oriented antennas is different from that of other satellite communications companies. A.S.C. operations utilize multiple low power radio carriers for voice and data transmission, and one moderately powered carrier for very high speed data transmission. None of these radio carriers approach the saturated carrier level. The total composite radio power currently delivered to the 10 meter antenna is less than 30 watts. The total com- posite radio power delivered to-the 13 meter antenna is less than 65 watts. The elevation angles of these antennas are 41.9° and 39.5° respectively. The combination of relatively low total radiated power, and relatively high elevation angles results in very low levels of scattered and diffracted energy at ground level in the vicinity of the site. This logical expectation is supported by the actual measurement of composite radio energy at many locations around the site. These measured levels are given in Table 1 of this report. In addition to the 6000 megaherz satellite transmissions, A.S.C. also uses an 11,000 megaherz line -of -sight micro- wave link to connect this site, through a repeater at Belleville, N.Y.; to New York City. The transmission path for this link passes about 45 feet above the intersection of Sammis Road and the site access driveway. This radiation is from an 8 foot diameter parabolic antenna fed with a maximum composite power of 4 watts. Measurements of power density were taken along this path at locations #1 and #9 pn the site map. Predicted measurements for this 11,000 megaherz signal are also very low, and these predictions are borne out by the measured values shown on Table 1. MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES Two basic accepted techniques are available for making accurate measurements of: microwave signal power density. These are; a) Composite total power is measured using a standard gain horn antenna, a sensitive thermistor bridge detector, and a calibrated power indicating meter. This instrument arrangement is illustrated in Fig. 3. b) Individual radio carrier powers are measured using a standard gain horn, and a spectrum analyzer. With an appropriate mathematical summing technique, the individual. carrier powers may be added to find the composite microwave power at any location. This instrumentation is illustrated in Fig. 4. Both of these methods were used in the 6 GHz measure- ments made at the A.S.C. site at Vernon. The highest value of several measurements made at each location listed were recorded in Table 1. The nature of the signals at A.S.C. Vernon, and their relatively low level, is such that method (a) yields slightly higher and more accurate results in tabulating composite sum powers. These values are used in the table of results. Overall accuracy of the results are estimated to be + 15 %. The sensitivity of both of the instrumentation systems used is such that composite power levels can be measured with reasonable accuracy down to about .01 nanowatt per square centimeter. This is lower than the hazard limit proposed in A.N.S.I. specification C -95.1 by a factor of 50,000,000. DESCRIPTI-ON 'OF' THE" MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS The locations where measurements were made, were care- fully selected to include those points at which maximum levels are expected, and other locations that would define a radia- tion level profile for persons travelling or occupied in the vicinity of the site. The following comments give the reasons for choosing these locations; 1) Locations "A ", "D ", and "C ", are the fence line locations where trespassers might make their closest approach to the antennas along bearings that will produce the highest radiation levels. 2) Locations "B ", "E ", "F ", and "G ", are locations where A.S.C. employees might be frequently exposed. 3) Locations "4 ", "6" and "7 ", are areas of maximum exposure where trespassers could approach the station outside the fence line. 4) Locations 1 through 5, and 8 through 10, are locations that are normally traversed by the local population. Note that locations 8, and 8A were chosen to determine . the maximum levels along Sammis Road for casual exposure of the. general population. MEASUREMENT RESULTS The results of all measurements are listed in Table 1. It is immediately seen from these values, that the highest composite radiation levels are in the immediate area of the antennas, and that the highest power density measured is less than .2 microwatts per square centimeter under the edge of the 13 meter antenna. The highest level at the fence line is less than .15 microwatts per square centimeter at location "C ". Outside of the fence line, on the upper edge of the land cut surrounding the site, all radiation. levels are less than .03 microwatts per square centimeter. Along the shoulder of Sammis Road, the maximum level of radiation is reached in the vicinity of point 8A, at a level less than .0035 microwatts per square centimeter. In areas 9 and 10 on the school grounds south of Sammis Road, a number of measurements were made at each location until the location of the maximum was located. It is seen from the Table that these levels range from .00022 to .000024 micro- watts per centimeter squad.* Th'ase levels in the school areas are lower than the A.N.S.I. standard for hazard threshold by a factor of more than 20,000,000. CONCLUSIONS It is reasonable to conclude from the microwave power densities measured, that no current radiation hazard exists anywhere in the vicinity of the American Satellite Company site at Vernon as delineated by. the A.N.S.I. C95.1 specifi- cations. The maximum values measured inside the fence, within a few feet of the antennas, are lower than the established U.S. hazard limit by a factor of several thousand. These maximum levels are also lower than the most stringent eastern European standards by a factor of more than 50. The levels measured outside the fence line are insignificant from a hazard point of view, and are generally one hundred to one thousand times lower than the composite non - ionizing radiation levels normally found in urban areas. If one were to project radiation levels several times higher than those currently existing, which could result from additional future transmission equipment at this site, there would still be no reason to assume that any hazard existed. In areas further removed from the site than the actual .measurement locations, the expected radiation levels will be lower yet by'a factor,gf 10 to 100.. These levels remote from the site are below the total natural level of microwave radiations emanating from the sun, and make no significant addition to the natural environmental radiation present. Location * Table No. 1 Measured Values Of Microwave Power Density At American Satellite Co. Vernon Site Total Powek Density... @ 6000 MHz Band • Total Power Density @ 11,000 MHz Band A B C D E F G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8A 9 10 . 08 AW /cm2 ** .17 .13 " . 032 . 084 " .00025 . 00055 " . 00014 4(W /cm2 .00035 " .00096 . 0033 .0015 .023 .027 . 0023 . 0031 Not Measurable .00013 " " " " " " * Locations described in Figures 1 and 2.. ** Not applicable .0035 AW /cm2 .00048 .000038 " .000014 Not Measurable` " " " .00022101/m12 .000024 " Measured Radiation Units in microwatts per centimeter squared. .■ • -••■•••■■•••■••ONIII•1IINMSIII■O FIGURE 3 TEST EQUIPMENT BLOCK DIAGRAM MICROWAVE STANDARD GAIN HORN WAVELINE TYPE 5999 >c THERMISTOR BRIDGE H . P. MODEL 8484 A CD -.000 ZPOWER METER H.P. 4358 HAMILTON COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS, INC. ROOM 4545 ONE WORLD TRADE CENTER NEW YORK, N.Y. 10048 235 MAIN ST. ORANGE, N.J. 07050 FIGURE 4 TEST EQUIPMENT BLOCK DIAGRAM MICROWAVE STANDARD (GAIN HORN WAVELINE TYPE 5999 SPECTRUM ANALYZER TEKTRONIX MODEL 492P HAMILTON COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS, INC. ROOM 4545 ONE WORLD TRADE CENTER NEW YORK, N.Y. 10048 235 MAIN ST. ORANGE, N.J. 07050 FF:Or w:i FCC "IL. LE • T. D4LE flsz re 5 %c1O../ I ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY/INTERPRETATION 5014 — egot_ ••td.;rg sele-tedL cipfes iefrarAt. -f�tis r�ar� I)4// te3 4`• / �o VERNON EART14 STATION Vernon Township, New Jersey AMERICAN SATELLITE COMPANY Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. pgmyq JUN201983 JOAN GRIFFIN ASC LEGAL DEPT, dune 1983 i:L:_± 1984 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT II. INVENTORY OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. NOISE ENVIRONMENT B. AIR QUALITY C. LAND USE AND ZONING D. TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY F. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE G. AESTHETICS AND HISTORICAL /CULTURAL RESOURCES III LICENSES, PERMITS, AND OTHER APPROVALS IV. PREDICTED ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CAN OT BE AVOIDED V. MITIGATION MEASURES VL ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT REFERENCES LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title 1 Location Map 2 Land Use Map Page 0 1 1 4 10 11 16 17 19 2 7 • 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The proposed project is installation of a third earth station antenna on approximately 6 acres of the 31 -acre property operated by American Satellite Company, located in Vernon Township, Sussex County, New Jersey. The project site, as shown on Figure 1, is located in proximity to County Route 517 and fronts on Sammis Road. The project site gently slopes west to a wooded lowland associated with Lounsberry Hollow Brook and is surrounded by rural residential and public land uses amid large tracts of vacant la.td. Construction of an 8- foot -high terraced embankment is required to support the 13- meter -high earth station antenna. Access to the construction site will be provided by a stone - surfaced access road from Sammis Road. The estimated year of project completion is 1983, with construction duration expected to be approximately two to three months. • D. INVENTORY OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS II.A. NOISE ENVIRONMENT 1;I.A.1. Existing Conditions The project site is an existing earth station facility, with Sammis Road providing access to it via County Routes 517 and 94. Traffic along Routes 517 and 94 is characterized by through traffic and some local trips, while Sammis Road accommodates the few daily employee and delivery trips to the project site and the auto /bus activity related to nearby public schools. It is assumed, therefore, that existing noise levels in the project vicinity are mainly Influenced by roadway traffic unrelated to the project site. 7/ project Implementation. No emissions of odorous matter In such quantities as to be offensive would occur. Potential radiation effects from the proposed facility have been evaluated in a report prepared by Hamilton Communications Consultants, Inc.I This report concluded from the microwave power densities measured, that no current radiation hazard exists anywhere In the vicinity of the American Satellite Company site at Vernon as delineated by the ANSI C95.1 Specifications. Q.C. LAND USE AND ZONING B.C.I. Eadstln& Conditions The area in proximity to the project site is characterized by open space to the south and west, low- density residential development to the north, and two adjoining public schools directly across Sammis Road to the east. Existing land use on and adjacent to the project site is shown on Figure 2. The project site itself (Block 82, Lot 16.02) is already partially developed as an earth station, constructed In 1973. The protect site is located within an area currently zoned A -2, Residence and Agriculture, as are surrounding lands.2 Uses generally permitted In this zone Include agriculture, single- family residences, public buildings and institutions, and office - studios for professionals. The 1971 Vernon Township Zoning Map and Ordinance Is presently being revised, and official adoption Is anticipated for late July 1983.2 II.G2. Probable Impacts The project would lie within the north - central portion of the Township, in an area proposed In the municipal Land Use Plan Element3 for "low - density residential" land use. In this case, such activity would generally Involve low - density residential use of less than one dwelling unit per acre. Public Lands associated with municipal school properties Ile to the south and east of the existing ASC facility. 0 . C r • l • ♦ • . ! • O (e.g., the 22 -inch caliper maple) would be avoided, as feasible. Following construction of the proposed project, the site would be revegetated with landscaped plantings where feasible. Such plantings would meet the landscaping requirements of Vernon Township for a development In the A -2 zone. At this time It Is envisioned that the embankment slopes of the finished site would be covered with a suitable ground cover, e.g., turf grass species, crown vetch. It may also be feasible to plant trees and /or shrubs along the top or toe of slope of the earth embankment supporting the antenna.. ll.F 2(b) Wildlife - Site development would eliminate limited (less than 0.5 total acres) of open field and successional upland and wetland wildlife habitat. The few small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians that may be present would be displaced to the extensive undeveloped sections of the overall 31 acres containing the subject site. Some limited wildlife usage of the developed landscaped site would be expected. From even a local perspective, such wildlife impacts associated with the subject project would not be considered a significant Issue. B.G. AESTHETICS AND HISTORICAL /CULTURAL RESOURCES II .G.1. E)d stingC and ti ons II.G.1(a) AesthrtICs - Relative to its overall setting In the topographically diverse Pochuck Mountain- Vernon Valley landscape, the project site offers a moderate degree of visual Interest. The existing building and two antennas, modest landscaping, and lack of mature trees to break sight lines, preludes this site from being considered aesthetically valuable. The physical scale of adjacent developments along Sammis Road (Lounsberry Hollow School, Rolling Hills School, and nearby residences) are essentially low -rise (1 -2 stories) with modest landscaping, and visually separated from the project site by a roughly 6- foot -high earthen berm. II.G.1(b) Historical and Cultural Resources - According to the latest editions of the New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places, no historic sites of State or National significance are present adjacent to or In the general vicinity of the project site.13 -13- �/a 114.2 Probable Impacts • II.G.2(a) Aesthetics - The proposed site development would neither destroy an aesthetically valuable resource nor conflict with the physical scale of existing adjacent developments. The final total height (51 feet) of the 8 -foot high earth embankment topped with a 43- foot -high antenna would be greater than the height of adjacent school and residential buildings, but would be buffered by distance to nearest development (approximately 400 feet) and by the roughly 50 -foot differential between the base of the antenna and adjoining properties. Following construction, the antenna site would be landscaped with appropriate plantings of turf and other ground cover, and shrub species, to enhance the physical appearance of the site. II.G.2(b) Historical and Cultural Resources - No impacts to any known historical and cultural resources would result from project site development. LICENSES. PERMITS, AND OTHER APPROVALS The following permits and approvals from Municipal, County, State, and Federal agencies have been identified as potentially applicable to the project: Munldpal (Vernon Township, New Hersey) • Site Plan Approval • Zoning Use Variance Approval • Building Permit State (New 3ersey) New 3ersey Department of Agriculture (Sussex Soil Conservation District) - Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Certification -14- • Federal • • • •• . ?/8 Federal Communications Commission - Construction Permit and Operating License. IV. PREDICTED ADVERSE ENVIRONIVENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED This section includes those adverse environmental impacts presented in Section II that would not be reduced to acceptable levels through use of reasonable corrective or abatement measures. Also included are Irreversible and irretriev- able damage and commitments of resources. N.A. NOISE ENVIRONMENT Construction- related short -term noise impacts would be expected to occur during site development, resulting primarily from the introduction of construc- tion- vehicle traffic onto Sammis Road and equipment on the project site The degree of noise impact during construction would be relatively slight due to the limited duration of construction and the type and quantity of equipment expected to be utilized. N .B. AIR QUALIf Y Short-term impacts on air quality would be anticipated during project construc- tion associated with: 1) excavation and earthwork, which would result in dust and particulate pollution; and 2) emissions resulting from fuel oonsurnption by construction vehicles and equipment, and traffic congestion caused by construc- tion activity. N.C. TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOiILS No significant soils or geological resources would be removed or lost from the project site. Any existing soil material stripped from the site which proves to -15- rr;n .._C. •Vc.'''AL 1 4111111'1•:.11.1.- 1 7 1 rr. be unsuitable for embankment construction would be temporarily stored for use as topsoil for final grading and landscaping. No significant adverse impacts to Local aquifer recharge and groundwater levels would be anticipated. N.D. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Site clearance required by earth station development would eliminate a total of 0.5 acres of the existing disturbed immature vegetation. The limited numbers of small mammal, songbird, and reptile and amphibian species that potentially utilize the site would be displaced as a result of project development. The developed landscaped site, however, should offer some wildlife habitat for transient species in turf, shrubs and shade tree planting areas. V. MITIGATION MEASURES Described in Section it of this report, the following measures are recommended to minimize predicted adverse environmental Impacts during construction and operation of the proposed earth station. • Noise - Construction procedures and equipment would be In accordance with any applicable State, County or municipal regula- tions. On a Long -term basis, the earthen berm fronting the existing ASC facility would serve to shield noise from existing air conditioners, water pumps, and de -icer blowers In support of the antenna Itself from nearest sensitive receptors. • Alr Quality - Fugitive dust from truck spillage should be controlled as prescribed in the New jersey Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.14 Other site- related mitigation measures would Includes ▪ minimizing soil erosion and topsoil removal and covering exposed areas with dust- suppressant materials such as hay or quid' - growing grass. -36- FR�jl,,gjC • ROCKUILLE 81 AMERICAN] SATELLITE O Not RQBb►RLM pyi jyARN ROCIMU.2.616ftw lORMOP11M ` 7DstLE. FtsAER.. .......„---..... a1tMo fIV-KR- (16 U„ ►V. OF wASN. aob- 543- toil '83.11.21 •r Elzonticprt. E NG t0E0 13toizal 10' • E.iEz' WrTPESS FofL CAIN Csou nIcAL •RE Pryt►JG. • pod Owe - Esr*ieD Four 12f444c t) attLE • LAS ---02DIrre CIEK L. v JP, EDu cAl c on) ,,'SOtJ Fob coOtJciL . From the desk of: LYNN FISCHER 16$11 JAN 31 1984 CITY OF TUK■AtiLA PLANNING DEPT. Technical Statement Don 1. Justessn, Ph.D. In the written summary of ay testimony, which was:providsd American Satellite's counsel earlier, I alluded to published studies that have an evidential bearing on thresholds of biological effects of microwaves and other non - ionising radiation of the radio- frequency electromagnetic (SEEM) spectrum. In this statement, I shall provide citations to and brief summarise of published, experimental reesarcb that bears on the factors of carrier frequency, modulation, field intensity, and duration of exposure. Car ri_ Frequency. Nearly all U.S. standards in force or under development for limiting human exposure to RFEM fields are carrier- frequency dependent (see, e.g., 1, 2). This dependency derives from the well-established datum that the quantity of energy absorbed by the human body from an SEEM field is maximal at frequencies in the Very High Frequency (VHF), shortwave band (3, 4). At the higher frequencies of the Super Sigh Frequency (SHF) band associated with American Satellite's 6-is microwave uplink, the rate of energy absorption by for example, a small child in a field of a given power density is, under worst -case conditions, nearly seven times less than that from a VHF Channel -11 television broadcast (3). This comparison is not intended to disparage commercial TV broadcasts -- which, with commercial FM broadcasts, constitute the dominant sources of manmade RFE<i energy in the U.S. environment -- because the field intensities associated with them are generally such below the most restrictive exposure standards in the world (3). The point I wish to make is that relatively little RFEM n v w r n y y.n v{ L V p W6 Technical Statemlii, Don 1. Justesen, p. 2 1114• 6 6 . 4 6 L W . • energy from microwave uplinks is incident on human populations,•even those in proximity to .transmitting antennae, because of the upward - directed nature of the beam and because of the relatively low operating powers involved. Many FM and TV transmitters operate at power levels of 100,000 watts and higher, which levels exceed those of the uplinks by more than s hundredfold. Experimental studies of primates in which thresholds of reversible behavioral incapacitation have been determined reveal that YHF (200 -Mhs) irradiation at a power density of only 10 aid /cm2 (10,000 l+W /cm2) produces disruption of behavior. In contrast, the same animals exposed by the same investigators (6, 7) to a 5.8 -{gis, SHF, microwave field do not exhibit disrupted behavior until power densities near 140 mil /cm2 (140,000 yW /cm2) are reached. A final point regarding the difference between VHF (shortwave) and Sid' (microwave) radiation in the matter of depth of penetration is that the former are absorbed by tissues and organs deep in the body while SHIP fields are absorbed superficially by the skin, ae are the infrared radiations emitted by the sun and by conventional sources of heating (cf. 8, 9, 10). Modulation. Sharply pulsed microwaves (i.e., spikes of radiation at peak values of power densities much higher than the average power density) are audible to the human being and to the experimental animal with normal hearing (e.g., 11, 12, 13). Because the average power density at the threshold of hearing is relatively low --on the order of 1 eW /eat (1000 v W /cm2) at frequencies near 6-GHz --and because the hearing phenomenon does implicate an interaction of the field v.tb the bead and its brain, concern has rightfully arisen regarding long -term effects of Technical Statement, Ton K. Justesen, p. a • • 00.11.41 3014E exposure to weak but pulsatile microwave fields. Recent studies of laboratory animals exposed chronically to pulsed microwave fields have yielded no behavioral (14) or physiological (15, 16) .evidence of impairment at power densities that range from 500 y W /cm2 to 6.7 mW /cm2 (6,700 u W /cm2). Although American Satellite's operation does not sake use of pulsed microwaves, the experiments referred to above (14, 15, 16) are pertinent to the hygienic question of human exposure to microwave fields on at least two counts: 1) biological thresholds are lower with pulsed fields; and 2) in spite of the pulsed modulation, untoward effects of chronic exposure were not observed at average intensities hundreds of times higher than those associated with American Satellite's operation. Another class of modulation was noted in my summary statement, that associated with amplitude modulation of the carrier. Dr. Boss Adey and colleagues of the Loma Linda VA Medical Center have published results of studies in which isolated chick brain and intact cats have exhibited changes of brain chemistry ( "efflux" of calcium ions) during or after brief exposures to sinusoidally (amplitudinally) modulated shortwaves and microwaves (see, e.g., 17, 18, 19). This work has been confirmed and extended by Blackman and colleagues (20, 21). Once again, evidence of field -brain interactions has given rise to hygienic concerns, but also once again, there are qualifications that exempt American Satellite's operation from the cloud of suspicion: 1) the depth of amplitude modulation incumbent with the 6-Gs uplink is leas than that found by Dr. Adey to be associated with changes of brain chemistry; 2) the frequency of modulation is thousands of times higher than that associated with the calcium - efflux phenomenon; and 3) the intensities of the fields necessary to produce the effect are hundreds of times higher GD �RyR M.1L Ry FViLLC O1 Technical ItateLm , Don x. Jupteaen, p. • '00.11.$1 • 10144 than those associated with American Satellite's operation (cf. 17 18, 19, 20, 21). Exposure, Duration. The experiments involving chronic microwave exposure of laboratory animals (14, 15, 16), which rare cited earlier, are only two in number (15 and 16 refers to ths.same long -term study). There have been other experiments that have explored long -term effects of microwave irradiation (e.g., 22, 23), but these were predicated on intermittent exposures of animals to highly intense fields, not continuous exposure at low intensities. Most of the pertinent reports, whether fields were relatively weak or intense, reveal, however, a tendency for irradiated animals to live longer than non- irradiated controls. I have discussed this effect on longevity elsewhere (24), and shall not discuss it beyond noting that enhanced longevity seems incompatible with the thesis that weak fields can produce physiological insult of the sort associated with birth defects and malignancies. Those. who conjecture morbid outcomes of exposure to waak..fields apparently believe that microwaves are akin to X rays and other forms of ionising radiation in posing a cumulative effect. There is indeed evidence of cumulation of damaging effects of intermittent microwave irradiation (25), but only when fields are highly intense (greater than 100,000 0/co2), and only when animals are exposed on a near -daily basis for a sizable period of time (1 to 2 hours). In these experiments, the eyes were heated to vary high temperatures, but not high enough so that a single exposure resulted in cataracts. When several exposures, each at a 24 -hour interval, were sustained by the animals (rabbits), most developed cataracts. When each of the same number of exposures at the same intensities and duration was separated by a 72 -hour interval, cataracts were not produced. The investigator, Dr. Russell Carpenter, Technical States", Don R. Justesen, p. 5 • O i . i 1 . t 1 i O r 4 7 concluded that each exposure produced reversible insult to the eye, and that cataracts formed only because the short 1-day interval between exposures added insult to previous injury -- injury that did heal when longer intervals were used. The import of Dr. Carpenter's studies is 1) that demonstrable injury to the eye only occurred to irradiation at very high intensities; 2) that cumulation did not occur at high intensities when acute injury to the eye was allowed to heal; and 3) that no evidence of ocular injury occurred when fields were below 50,000 sW /ca2 irrespective of the fre- quency of exposures or of the interval between exposures. Field Intensity. Not a single verified report among the 6000 -plus that constitute the body of the scientific literature on biological effects of microwaves provides evidence of harm to mammals by exposure to microwave fields at the low intensities associated with American Satellite's operation. By the canons of both scientific and legal logic, a negative cannot be proved. Thus, neither I nor anyone else can state that any environmental agent at any level is safe. All that one who is knowledgeable of the literature can candidly state is that there is no scientific warrant to impute harmful effects to the fields generated by the 6-GHa transmitter in question so far as the citizens of Vernon are concerned. In reaching this conclusion I refer the reader to the voluminous review of the literature prepared by scientists of the EPA's Health Effects Research Laboratories in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (2). Because this document is under peer review, matters of. policy and interpretation cannot be made a matter of record at this ties. However, the data that have been reported in archival journals ars compactly summarised in the document, and do confirm my conclusion Technical Statement Don Q. Justesen, p. 6 i • W4.3 i. s 1 AV. i V that evidence cannot be summoned to support the proposition that American Satellite's microwave operation poses a probable source of injury to the citiasns of Vernon, Nev Jersey. Don 1. Justesen Grandview, NO September 18, 1983 • I. V n M? V R V L K V 1 L L L' c 1 • Technical Statemeill Don R. Juotesen, p. 7 References • 0 J. 1 1• L& 4 0 0[ r 1 ANSI (American National Standard Institute), "American National Standard Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 300 Ms to 100 CHs. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: New York, 1982. 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Biological effects of radiofre- quency radiation: Review draft. Office of Research and Development: Research Triangle Park, NC, 1983, Vols. 1, 2, 3. 3 C.H. Durney, C.C. Johnson, Y.N. Barber, H. Massoudi, M.P. Iskander, J.L. Lords, D.K. Ryser, S.J. Allen, and J.C. Mitchell, Radiof requency radiation dosimetry handbook (2nd. Ed.), No. SAM- TR- 78 -22. U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine: Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, 1978. 4 C.H. Durney, M.F. Iskander, H. Massoudi, S.J. Allen, and J.C. Mitchell, Radiof requency radiation dasimetry handbook, db =, U.S. Air Force School of Medicine: San Antonio, TX, 1980, 3rd edition. D.E. Janes, Jr., Radiation surveys -- Measurement of leakage emissions and potential exposure fields. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 1979, 55, 1021 -1041. 6 J.0. de Lorge, The thermal basis for disruption of operant behavior by microwaves in three species. In (E.R. Adair, Ed.) Microwaves and thermoregulation, Academic Press: New York, 1983, pp. 379 -399. 7 J.O. de Lorge, Operant behavior and colonic temperature of Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) exposed at frequencies near and above whole -body resonance. Bioelectromagnetics, 1983, In Press. rIrVn web •'VVRVILLt. Ol Technical Stateme Don R. Justesen, p. 8 • 00.13•dl 10.40 8 R.P. Cook, The pain threshold for microwave and infrared radiations. J. of Physiology, 1952, 114, 1 -11. 9 E. Randier, J.D. Hardy, and D. Murgatroyd, Skin beating and temperature sensation produced by infrared and microwave irradiation. In (J.D. }Lardy, Ed.), Tesperature, Measurement and Conte trol in Science ence and Industry, Rheinhpld: New York, 1983, pp. 211 -230. 10 D.R. Justesen, E.R. Adair, J.C. Stevens, and V. Bruce-Wolfe, A comparative study of human sensory thresholds: 2450411i: microwaves vs. far-infrared radiation. Bioelectromagnetics, 1982, 3, 117 -125. 11 A.R. Frey, Behavioral biophysics. Psychological. Bulletin, 1965, 63, 322 -337. 12 D.A. Justesen, Microwaves and Behavior. American Psychologist, 1975, 60, 391 -401. "C.-K. Chou and A.W. Guy, Auditory perception of radio - frequency electromagnetic fields. Journal of Acoustics Society of America, 1982, 7171 =, 1321 -1334. Labovitz, Prolonged microwave irradiation of rats: Effects on concurrent operant behavior. Bioeleetronagnetics, 1981, 2, 169- 185. 15 A.W. Guy, J. Wallace, and J.A. McDougal, Circularly polarised 2450 -i*I: vaysguide system for chronic exposure of small animals to microwaves. Radio Science, 1979, 14/6S, 63-74. 1" R.x. f RV'n w'i',. RVVN V J LVL Oi Technical Statsme. Don R. Justsssn, p. 9 • 7ir t• 40147 16R.B. Johnson, L.L. Eons, C. -X. Chou, and A.M. Guy, Biological evaluation of rats exposed to long -term low-level pulsed radio- frequency radiation. Abstracts, Fifth Annual Nesting of the Biosleetromagnetics ,Society. The Bioelectromegnetica Society: Gaithersburg, MD, 1983, p. 76. 17S.M. Bawin, L.K. Yacsmarek, and W.R. Adey, Effects of modulated VHF fields on the central nervous system. Annals of the New York Academy, of Sciences, 1875, 247, 74 -80. 18W.R. Arley, Neurophysiologic effects of radiofrequsncy and microwave radiation. Bulletin of the New York Academy ,of Medicine, 1979, 55, 1079 -1093. 19W.R. Adey, Tissue. interactions with nonionising electromagnetic fields. Physiological Reviews, 1979, 61, 435 -514. 20C.F. Blackman, J.A. Elder, C.M. Weil, S.G. Benue, D.C. Bichinger, and D.E. Rouse, Induction of calcium -ion efflux from brain tissue by radio - frequency radiation: Effects of modulation frequency and field strength. Radio Science, 1979, 14/68, 93-98. 21C.F. Blackman, B.G. Banana, W.T. Joines, M.A. Hollis, and D.E. House, Calcium -ion efflux from brain tissue: Power- density versus internal- field - intensity dependencies at 50-MHz radiation. Bioelectromagnstics, 1980, 1, 277 -283. 22 S. Prausnits and C. 80sskind, Effects of chronic microwave radiation on mice. IRE Transactions: Biomedical Electronics, 1962, O-9, 104 -108. 1e5 Technical Stateent, Don R. Justesen, p. to 243. 5.8. 24 D. R. 2SR.L. / 7 "04. 11. ‘1 10,4V • • Preskorn, W.D. Edwards, and D.R. Justesen, Retarded tumor growth and augmented longevity in mice after fetal irradiation by 2450 - MHs microwaves. Journal of Surgical _Oncology„ 1978, 10, 483 -492. Justesen, "The brain is the organ of longevity ": Introduction to G.A. Sacher's free-energy hypothesis of life -span enhancement. In E.R. Adair (Ed.), Microwaves and thermoregulation. Academic Press: New York, 1983, pp. 461 -480. Carpenter, Experimental radiation cataracts induced by microwave radiation. In Proceedings, Second Tri- Service Conference on Biological Effects of Microwave Energy, Rome Air Dev. Ctr., Air Res. and Dev. Command, Rome, NY, ASTIA Doc. No. AD 13 -477, 1958, 146 -168.