Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5826 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS James Dinizio, Jr.. Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer Ruth D. Oliva Michael A. Simon Leslie Kanes Weisman http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTItOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 · Fax (631) 765-9064 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 2007 Mailing Address: Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road · 1~O. Box 1179 Southold. NY 11971-0959 Office Locatkm: Town Annex/First Floor, North Fork Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue), Southold. NY 11971 vff~.~ RECEI¥~D /2',/o ZBA File No. 5826 - NEW ClNGULAR WIRELESS, PCS LLC Property Location: East Marion Fire District, 9245 Main Road, East Marion CTM 31-3-11.31 containing 3.05 acres Zone District: R-40 Low-Density Residential SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without further steps under SEQRA. In addition, the Town Planning Board has issued a Negative Declaration with a Determination of Non-Significance dated September 11,2006. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property contains 3.05 acres owned by the East Marion Fire District and improved with two Fire House structures. The East Marion Fire District (EMFD), an established special district for emergency communications, has a building permit issued for the tower, inside of which this antenna facility will be co-located. The EMFD maintains at its fire station communication transmissions to and from this site, and the wireless communications tower was determined to be in a location that provides sufficient space and height to provide an installation of a 450 Hz antenna, north of the firehouse, and sufficient land area of three acres shown on the October 25, 2005 survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application has been referred as required under the Suffolk County Administrative Code Sections A 14-14 to 23. The Suffolk County Department of Planning reply dated January 22, 2007 states that the application is considered a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. FINDINGS OF FACT APPLICANT'S REQUEST: By application received May 15, 2007, a request was filed by New Cingular Wireless, PCS LLC, applicantJlessee, for a Special Exception under Section 280-69A, based on the Building Inspector's April 18, 2007 Notice of Disapproval, concerning the proposed co- location of a wireless communications antenna on an existing approved tower. Town of Southold Chapter 280, Article XVII Wireless Communications Facility reads: Page 2 - August 16, 2007 ZFJ, File No. 5826 - New Cingular CTM No. 31-3-11.31 Any unstaffed facility for the transmission and/or reception of wireless telecommunications services or other radio transmission and/or receiving service or use usually consisting of a wireless communication facility array, connection cables, an equipment facility and a support structure to obtain the necessary elevation. The support structure is either a building, telecommunication or radio antenna or tower or other approved structure. [Added 11-12-1997 by L.L. No. 26-1997; amended 2-2-1999 by L.L. No. 3-1999] CODE ARTICLE XVII: Section 280-67 (former #100-160) of the Zoning Code allows wireless communications, and particularly telecommunication towers, to be reviewed and approved in keeping with the town's existing zoning and historic development patterns, including the size and spacing of structures and open spaces. Furthermore, the standards herein reflect two preferences: that wireless communication facilities are preferred in industrial areas and that wireless communication facilities be located on existing buildings and towers rather than on newly constructed towers. Any wireless communication facility must take into account the aesthetic aspects of the town, including open vistas, scenic byways and historic districts. In addition, the following provisions have been applied: § 280-68 (former #100-161). Scope. [Amended 12-8-1998 by L.L. No. 25-1998] The regulations of this article shall govern and control the erection, enlargement, expansion, alteration, operation, maintenance, relocation and removal of all wireless communication facilities. The regulations of this article relate to the location and design of these facilities and shall be in addition to the provisions of the Southold Building and Zoning Codes and any other federal, state or local laws or Federal Communication Commission (FCC) regulations pertaining to such facilities. Nothing herein shall be construed to, apply to, prohibit, regulate or otherwise affect the erection, maintenance or utilization of antennas or support structures by those licensed by the Federal Communications Commission pursuant to Chapter 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97, to operate amateur radio stations. §280-69 (former #100-162). Location of use. No wireless communication facility shall be used, erected or altered in the Town of Southold when located in an R-80 Residential Zone District, except by (Planning Board) site plan approval, meeting the following requirements. (1) Wireless communication facilities on buildings shall require a special exception approval pursuant to this article. Wireless communication facilities on buildings shall be no higher than 10 feet above the average height of buildings (excluding signs, fences and walls) within 300 feet of the proposed facility. The building on which the wireless communication facility is located must be located at least 100 feet from the nearest property line and 300 feet from any landmark property or district listed by federal, state or town agencies. (2) Wireless communication facilities on existing telecommunications towers shall require a special exception approval pursuant to this chapter unless otherwise allowed by the terms of a prior special exception approval. (3) Wireless communication facilities on telecommunication towers shall require special exception approval pursuant to this article and shall not project higher than 10 feet above the average height of buildings (excluding signs, fences and walls) within 300 feet of the facility or, if there are no buildings within 300 feet, these facilities shall not project higher than 10 feet above the average tree canopy height in that radius measured from ground level, if there are Page 3- August 16, 2007 Z~, File No. 5826 - New Cingular CTM No. 31-3-11.31 no buildings within 300 feet of the proposed facility site, all telecommunication towers shall be surrounded by dense tree growth to screen views of the facility in all directions. The base of the tower shall be located at least 100 feet from the nearest property line and 300 feet from a landmark property or district listed by federal, state or town agencies. (4) A wireless communication facility is a permitted use, not requiring site plan approval, if located on property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by state, federal or town government, provided that a license or lease authorizing such facility has been approved by that government. The height of such facility may be established by the public agency. (5) A wireless communication facility is a permitted use, not requiring site plan approval, if located on property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by a special district, provided that a license or lease authorizing such facility has been approved by the commissioners of the special district, and provided that it does not exceed the maximum heights specified above. Section 280-70B(1-5). Code Standards. In addition to the standards in Article XVII of this Code, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall find and determine the following: (1) The applicant is a public utility. (2) The co-location of a public utility antenna is a public necessity, in that it is required to meet current or expected demands of the telecommunications provider and to render adequate service to the public. (3) The applicant has made substantial effort to co-locate on a permitted tower. (4) The facility conforms with applicable FCC regulations. (5) There are compelling reasons, economic or otherwise, which make it more feasible to construct the proposed antenna than alternatives. OTHER CODE CONSIDERATIONS: In addition to considerations under Article XVll (Special Exceptions) of Chapter 280, the Zoning Board of Appeals has given consideration to the following in issuing a special exception approval for a wireless communication facility: (1) The antenna will be located within the tower without affecting the height, and is the minimum necessary to render adequate service. (2) The antenna for the wireless communication facility is to be situated within an existing previously approved monopole antenna and therefore will have no visual affects to residential structures, residential district boundaries and landmarks designated by town, federal or state agencies. (3) The antenna is designed and situated to be compatible with the nature of uses on adjacent and nearby property. (4) The antenna has been designed to minimize any possible visual impact. Page 4 -August 16, 2007 ZE[ File No. 5826 - New Cingular CTM No. 31-3-11.31 RESOLUTION Of THE BOARD The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on June 28, 2007 and August 2, 2007, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: 1) That the applicant is a public utility. 2) The applicant is locating (co-locating) within an existing approved monopole tower which is encouraged by the town to help mitigate the aesthetic aspects including vistas, scenic byways and historic districts. 3) The proposed antenna is compatible with the nature of uses on adjacent and nearby property, to the extent that East Marion has a commercial/industrial area, and within this area is a fire house, permitted tower for telecommunications, and New York State Highway Route 25. 4) There are compelling reasons, economic or otherwise, which make it more feasible to construct the proposed antenna than alternatives. A) The location of the previously approved tower is at the East Marion Fire House which is in the heart of the business district for this hamlet. B) Other locations within the effective range of this tower, such as inside church steeples, are not high enough and would increase the need for additional towers and antennas by decreasing the propagation footprint required to service the areas. 5) The height, at which the antenna will be installed, on the previously approved tower, will maximize the propagation footprint. The board has investigated other alternative sites within the effective range of the proposed antenna, such as church steeples and determines that (any) alternate site if chosen would increase the need to build more towers and antennas in the area. 6) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 addresses and regulates the strength of the signal emitted from telecommunications antennas for the purposes of health and safety. 7) The effect on real estate values will be minimal because the antenna will not be visible after it is installed on the inside of the previously approved tower. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Oliva, seconded by Member Page 5- August 16, 2007 ZB. File No. 5826 - New Cingular CTM No. 31-3-11.31 Goehringer, and duly carried, to GRANT, the special exception as applied for, as shown on Diagrams Z-01 ,. Z-02, Z-03, T-01 prepared 4-16-07 by Infinigy Engineering, date stamped May 4, 2007 by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Dinizio (Chairman), Oliva, Goehringer, and Weisman. Member Simon was absent. This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). Ja~s Dinizio Jr., ZBA C~airman A~proved for Filing " 8/2~/2007 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Ruth D. Oliva Gerard P. Goehringer James Dinizio, Jr. ChaJ_nnan Michael A. Simon Leslie Kanes Weisman http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 · Fax (631) 765-9064 Mailing Address: Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road · P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, North Fork Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING HELD: MARCH 8, 2007 ZB File No. 5972 -- EAST MARION FIRE DISTRICT Property Location: 9245 Main Road, East Marion Zone Districts (split): HB Hamlet Business; R-40 Low Density Residential CTM 31-3-11.31 containing 3.05 acres SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without further steps under SEQRA. In addition, the Town Planning Board has issued a Negative Declaration with a Determination of Non-Significance dated September 11, 2006. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property contains 3.05 acres owned by the East Marion Fire District and improved with two Fire House structures, as shown on the site plan prepared by Infinigy Engineering dated 8/17/06. BASIS OF APPLICATION: The applicant requests a Variance under Section 280-69 (100-162A3, A5), based on an application for a building permit and the Building Inspector's July 25, 2006 Notice of Disapproval, concerning construction of a proposed wireless communication/telecommunications monopole tower on property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by a special district approved by the commissioners of the special district. The proposed tower will exceed the code limitation - with a height greater than 10 feet above the average height of buildings within 300 feet of the facility, OR higher than 10 feet above the average tree canopy height in that radius measured from ground level if there are no buildings within 300 feet. Also, if there are no buildings within 300 feet of the proposed facility site, all telecommunication towers shall be surrounded by dense tree growth to screen views of the facility in all directions. SPECIAL DISTRICT: The applicant, East Marion Fire District (EMFD), is an established special district for emergency communications on at least 4.35 acres of land. The EMFD maintains its fire station communication transmissions to and from this site, and the wireless communications tower would be in a location that provides sufficient space and height to provide an installation of a 450 Hz antenna, north of the firehouse. SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application has been referred as required under the Suffolk County Administrative Code Sections A 14-14 to 23, and the Suffolk County Department of Planning replied in its communications dated November 24, 2006 and January 22, Page 2 - March 8, 2007 ZB File No. 5972 - East Marion Fire CTMNo. 31-3-11.31 2007 stating that the application is considered a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. TOWN CODE CHAPTER 95 (268) LWRP CONSISTENCY: This application has also been referred as required under Chapter 95 (268) of the Town Code, and LWRP Coordinator Mark Terry has issued a determination dated April 26, 2006, received October 23, 2006, stating that this application is consistent with the Policy Standards. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on November 30, 2006 and January 25, 2007, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant, East Marion Fire District, wishes to construct a telecommunications monopole tower to support public safety communications antennas, at a maximum height of 120 feet. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of alternative relief will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The site where the monopole antenna will be constructed is presently open space lying just north of the two structures that serve the community of East Marion as a firehouse. The site has been used for many years for the purposes of storing and maintaining fire fighting and associated support equipment such as fire trucks, hoses, ladders and radio equipment to communicate during actual fires. The addition of this monopole antenna will improve the reliability of the radio equipment currently in use. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The East Marion Fire District only owns one piece of real property, and it is upon this property that the monopole antenna will be erected. Security, electrical supply, and proximity to the source of dispatch demand that the principal antenna be located as close to the firehouse as possible. 3. The alternative relief granted herein is substantial. The variance sought by the applicant and the alternative relief granted herein, will increase the antenna height at least 90% over the code maximum. (The code requirement is a maximum of 60 feet in height.) Although a monopole antenna of this size will create some visual change in the area, this change must be balanced against the necessity of improving emergency communications for the community. 4. Granting of the alternative relief for a height variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The monopole antenna is designed to withstand the highest anticipated wind velocities and constructed in accordance to current engineering standards. All equipment required for powering and maintenance of the antenna will be located within a securely fenced area surrounding the base of the monopole, which Page 3 - March 8, 2007 ZB File No. 5972 - East Marion CTM No. 31-3-11.31 will be screened by native plantings. All radio transmissions will be regulated by appropriate agencies. 5. The alleged difficulty has not been self-created. It is necessary to update the means of communications as technology advances with time. The current technology requires a certain tower height in order to guarantee adequate coverage of the fire district. 6. The proposed height is not the minimum that is necessary to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The testimony presented was not sufficient to persuade that the antenna height of 120 feet is necessary to provide the desired coverage at the fire district. The Board considers the substantial alternative relief granted to be sufficient to satisfy the applicant's needs and to meet reasonable concerns of public safety. 7. Grant of the requested relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a telecommunications tower facility, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Simon, seconded by Member Oliva, and duly carried, to DENY the variance as applied for, and in the ALTERNATIVE, to GRANT a variance in the location shown on the 6-17-06 Infinigy Site Diagram (setbacks 105 feet from the north lot line, 196+/- feet set back from the westerly lot line), at a maximum antenna height of 110 feet, subject to the following conditions: 1) The covering of the monopole shall be painted a color that will make it blend into the area. The board suggests a neutral color such as gray or gray- blue. 2) No flag shall be placed upon the monopole antenna. 3) The monopole shall not be lighted except as required by law. That these ZBA conditions be written into the Bui/ding Inspector's Certificate of Occupancy, when issued. Any deviation from the variance given such as extensions, or demolitions which are not shown on the applicant's diagrams or survey site maps, are not authorized under this application when involving nonconformities under the zoning code. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. The Board reserves the right to substitute a similar design that is de minimis in nature for an alteration that does not increase the degree of nonconformity. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members, Oliva, Goehringer. Simon, and Weisman. Nay: Chairman Dinizio (in favor of requested 120 ft. hei~l~. This ResCuti~n was duly a/Copted (4-1). Ja,~'Ce~'Dinizio Jr.~C~air~n .~ 3/9/2007 ACproved for Filing NEW ci ng wU,.l sr SITE NUMBER: L1-1017 CINGULAR ID: NYCENY1017 SITE NAME: EAST MARION T01 Z01 Z02 Z03 Z04 Z05 DRAWING INDEX TITLE SHEET SITE PLAN DETAILED SITE PLAN AND DETAILS ELEVATION VIEWS CONSTRUCTION DETAILS LANDSCAPE PLAN REV 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIRECTIONS VICINITY MAP PROJECT INFORMATION SCOPE OF WORK: SITE ADDRESS: LAND OWNER: APPLICANT: TAX iD NUMBER: LATITUDE (NAD 83): LONBITUDE (NAD 83): ELEVATION (NARD 88): JURISDICTION: AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY INCLUDtND THE INSTALLATION OF OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS AND (3) PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED WITHIN UNIPOLE. 9245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 EAST MARION FIRE DISTRICT P.O. BOX t31 EAST MARION, NY 11939 NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC 15 EAST MIDLAND AVENUE PARAMUS. NEW JERSEY 07§52 41' 07' 40.1" 72' 20' 292" FIRE STATION ~_~~- ''t :' =,,.~_~T :'t ~ ~, ~.~ TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ~"f"' '~ '~ ';~' SPLIT ZONED HD AND R-40 LIPA VER~ZON SITE QUALIFICATION PARTICIPANTS NAME COMPANY NUMBER A/E JOHN STEVENS INFINIGY ENGiNEERiNG (518) 434 2288 SAC JOY MOONEY HIGHLANDER CONSULTANTS, iNC (631) 581-8105 LANDLORD DANIEL WOOD EAST MARION FIRE DISTRICT (6,31) 477-0539 CON GERRY BROCK BECHTEL (205) 335-5505 RF TARIK OUAZZANI BECHTEL (201) 755-2154 ie.n ,fnLenr,! g Y 150- 034 EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 9245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 cNE.w 'ngwUJ sr lO[SIGNED: TITLE SHEET N/F CHERYL g BONDARCHUK USE: RESIDENTIAL - 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONED: R-40 ,~.~-' N/F ANTHONY LEKAKIS USE: RESIDENTIAL VACNAT LAND ZONED: R-40 N/F DEATRAKIS & GEORGE KORTSOLAKIS \ USE: RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONED: R-40 WHITE SWAN EMLLC~ '\ \, ? SITE PLAN IS NOT TO SCALE. J J ACTUAL FIELD CONDITION OF 1 EXISTING BUILDING STRUCTURE IS NOT WHAT IS DEPICTED ON THIS PLAN. CINCUL~R COMPOUND AND TOWER SETBACK DIMENSIONS APE TRUE FROM PROPERTY LINES. N/F SYLVIA M. DALE¥ USE: 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONED: R-40 SYMBOLS AND MATERIALS DETAIL REFERENCE SEC~ONS AND DETAILS CONCRETE EARTH GBAVEL/STONE FIREHOUSE S 65'40'00" W 19.58' N/F E.M. WAR MEMORIAL ASSOC. UTILBY POLE USE: RESIDENCE ZONED: HB SITE LEGEND x x × x FENCE LINE E ELECTRIC SERVICE --T-- TELEPHONE SERVICE PROPOSED CONTOUR 50 EXISTING CONTOUR NOTE: METES AND BOUNDS ARE TAKEN FROM A SURVEY PERFORMED BY PECONIC SURVEYORS PC, UCENSED L~ND SURVEYOR. infinij engineering 150-034 EAST MARION SITE NO. L1o1017 9245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11~39 ,ngular GENERAL NOTES: 1. SITE PLAN INFORMATION WAS WAS BASED ON VARIOUS SOURCES OF INFORMATION INCLUDING FIELD NOTES & MEASUREMENTS PERFORMED BY INFINIOY ENGINEERING, PLLC OF NY. 2. THIS PROPOSAL iS FOR AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACtLITf CONSISTING OF PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED TO A UNIPOLE. PLACEMENT OF SMALL, WEATHERTIDHT RADIO EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITHIN THE SUBJECT LEASEHOLD. AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 22. 25. THE PROPOSED CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICES FACILITY WILL BE UNMANNED AND DOES NOT REQUIRE WATER OR SEWER SERVICE. THE PROPOSED CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY IS UNMANNEO, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN HABITATION AND THUS DOES NOT REQUIRE HANDICAP ACCESS. OCCUPANCY Is LIMITED TO PERIODIC MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION BY ClNGULAR WIRELESS TECHNICIANS APPROXIMATELY (2) TIMES PER MONTH. NO STROBIC UGHTING IS INCLUDED IN THIS PROPOSAL. NO NOISE. SMOKE. DUST OR ODOR WILL RESULT FROM THIS PROPOSAL. OUTDOOR STORAGE AND SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS ARE NOT PROPOSED, EXTERIOR SIGNS ARE NOT PROPOSED. NO NEW ACCESS ROAD WILL BE REQUIRED UNDER THIS APPLICATION. TOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE UNDER THIS PROPOSAL: 370 SF~ THE INCREASE IN STORM WATER RUNOFF DUE TO THE INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA IS INSIGNIFICANT. EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS WILL NOT BE ALTERED. THEREFORE. DRAINAGE STRUCTURES APe NOT PROPOSED. ALL CONSTRUCTION FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL CONFORM TO APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS, STANDAPDS. AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL OR UTILII'( AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION. ALL EXISTING ACTIVE SEWER. WATER, GAS. ELECTRIC. AND OTHER UTILmES WHERE ENCOUNTERED IN THE WORN, SHALL BE PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES. AND WHERE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPER EXECUTION OF THE WORK, SHALL BE RELOCATED AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERS. EXTREME CAUTION SHOULD BE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR WHEN EXCAVATING OR PIER DRILMNG AROUND OR NEAR UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SAFE]'f TRAINING FOR THE WORKING CREW. THIS WILL INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO A) FALL PROTECTION B) CONFINED SPACE C) ELEC1RICAL SAFETY D) TRENCHING & EXCAVATION ALL SiTE WORK SHALL BE AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWING AND STIPULATED IN THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. IF NECESSARY, RUBBISH. STUMPS, DEBRIS, STICKS, STONES AND OTHER REFUSE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF LEGALLY. THE SITE SHALL BE GRADED TO CAUSE SURFACE WATER TO FLOW AWAY FROM THE RADIO EQUIPMENT AND TOWER APEAS. THE SUBGRADE SHALL BE COMPACTED AND BROUGHT TO A SMOOTH UNIFORM GRADE PRIOR TO FINISHED SURFACE APPUCATION. ALL EXISTING INACTIVE SEWER, WATER, OAS, ELECTRIC AND OTHER UTIUTIES. WHICH INTERFERE WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK· SHALL BE REMOVED AND/OR CAPPED. PLUGGED OR OTHERWISE DISCONTINUED AT POINTS WHICH WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF ENGINEERING. THE APEAS OF THE OWNERS PROPERTY DISTURBED BY THE WORK AND NOT COVERED BY THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE RESTORED AS REQUIRED. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, IF REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION, SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL. ALL SITE WORK SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AS REQUIRED. LCoOcNTATR~CTO R ONTALCTTiEO~G pAR iLoE RR T ~ f 08 Og(TNg$6T2R~U7CgT i6C 2N .T 0 ~~ !~)) SITEPLAN I~1~1'~ AUX CA~IN~T~ SUPPORT POST + BRACKET FOR EXTENDED T HANGER BRACKE'F CHANNEL (PIROD INC OR EQUAL) ~(PIROD INC OR EQUAL) MAXIMUM CUT POST LENGTH TO SUIT BY /CABLE SPAN [wp) ~/ EQUAL) CUT ICE BRIDGE BAMMA 850/1900 BTS ~__~_~ '~ , BA~'ERY CABINET [~ ~V' CHANNEL LENGTH TO SUIT INSTALL DRIP LOOP ON ANTENNA ~A~E (1YP) ~ · ~ P~OPOS~ ONGUU, R \ \ ~.~.~ -' IN NEUTRal_ BLUE/ (SEE NOTE) (PIROD PANT CABLES AT BO]YOM OF : i NO. 852168 OR 852163) TOWER/MONOPOLE. BENDING RADIUS PER MANUFACTURER'S ANTENNA CABLES >~: ~ ARRANGEMENT COMMSCOPE BY CONTRACTOR. NOMINAL CABLE CABLE HANGER MANUF. MIN. ~. CABLE SIZE PARer PART NUMBER BEND RADIUS z FOR CABLE HANGER NUMBER o3: SEE TABLE BELOW 7/8" FXLIO7OPE 1070EZS 10' ~.~ 1 I/4" FXL14BOPE 1480EZS 15' -~-~ 1 5/8" CR1973PE 1873EZS 20" COMMSCOPE NOMINAL CABLE CABLE HANGER MANUF, MIN. CABLE SIZE PARer PART NUMBER BEND RADIUS NUMBER 7/8" FXLIOTOPE 1070EZS 10" 1 I/4" FXL14BOPE 1480EZS 15' 1 5/8" CR1973PE 1873EZS 20" CABLE~.~: ~ ICE BRIDGE DETAIL ~ -UNISTRUT PIPE/CONOUIT CLAMP P1119 OR P2558-55 (GALV.) (1YPICAL) /~//~BOLT TORQUE INCADESCENT FLOOD U~HTS e' UNISTRUT PLO01 (GA[V) /--CONTR~TORpRoViDE J ;- !- 3 PIPE (GALV) GENERAL SITE NOTES: 2. ALL EXISTING ACTIVE SEWER. WATER, GAS. ELECTRIC. AND OTHER UTILITIES ~,~ ,~.~[~ J-BOX AND PLATE WHICH INTERFERE WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK. SHALL BE REMOVED AND/OR lO·e PLAJN 4. THE SlT~ SNALL 8E G~OEO TO CAUSE SURFACE WATER TO ELOW ?~"~~ -- ?-~'7 AW^¥ ~ROM ALL EQUIPMENT AND TOWER ~EAS. ~c,~:ELEC/TELCO~, SUPPORT RACK <~ i. nn f,. i nr, j g y ..w. DETA,LED SITE PLaN SC.~IE: IDESlGN£D: I DRAWN: ~ 24897 NYCENYIO 7 Z02 Io INFINIGY ENGINEERING HAS NOT EVALUATED EXISTING TOWER FOR THIS SITE. IT IS THE CARRIER'S RESPONSIBIUTY TO INVESTIGATE AN~ LOADING CONCERNS WHEN ADDING ADDFgONAL EQUIPMENT TO THE TOWER. SECTOR 3 - CALLED NORTH~ SECTOR 1 - 30' 1PROPOSED UNIPOLE - 50' ANTENNA LAYOUT ANTENNA DETAIL MODEL KATHREIN 800 10121 PROPOSED ClNGUL~R EOUIPUENT AREA (1) ANTENNA PER SECTOR~ LOCATION OF GPS ANTENNA MOUNTED TO H-FRAME PROPOSED 6' BLACK VINYL CHAIN UNK FENCE~ GRADE 52' (AMSL) FOUNDATION D~'~GN GRADE LEVEL = O' (AGL) (BY OTHERS) FIRE DEPARqMENT ANTENNA~ PROPOSED CINGUt~ £OUIPMENT ARE~ (1) ANTENNA PER SECTOR~ PROPOSED 6' BLACK ,,z, § V1NYL CHAIN UNK FENCE T R FOUNDA110N DES10N (BY OTHERS) SOUTH ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE infinigy engineering 150-0,34 EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 9245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 mngular := WIRELESS ~: EAST ELEVATION NOT TO ~ IDE~GNED: m m t 4'-0" GATE OPENING ~OR CORNER / PAIR ~P. FOR END. GATEDETAIL + ~ ~ CHAIN LINK FENCE DETAIL (ELEVATI ~- 2. PO~, B~CES ~D ~ ~ES S~ BE SCHEDU~ ~ (~O WEIG~ PIPE. SIZES SPECIFIED ~E ~ _ engineering~ EAST MARION ~ar .~~~ CONSTRUCTION 150-054 WIRELESS ~, ~ .~s,o.s ~ :.K . m i ~ ~: )D~N~: )~: -'~ 24897 NYCENY 0 7 io NOI~:(DOUBLE S1RAND, 2 PLY ~ ~ SEq' IREE PLUMB PRIOR TO STAKING '~ ROOTBALL PIT TO ~ ~,~AKE  EXCEED DU~JETER OF I GUY WIRE RUBBER HOSE ~ :~300 SF. APPROVED MULCH WIRE~ ~ PLAN (5' SETTLED DEPTH) TREE STAKING AND GUYING 7. ALL TREES MUST BE GUYED OR STAKED AS SHOWN. LANSCAPING PLAN ,3. ~ .~ ,~L ~.~ o,£$. T~..S .~OWN O. O~OU.~S (.R,O. ~0 ~O~L ~CC~T,~C~ O~ ~ PLANT''"IVI.~ TERIALS LIST i n f i n, c.~,j g y E^S....,O. ~~cmng u lar' " -w e ,'*, g i ,~ ~ ~ r' ~ LANDSCAPE PLAN ~oo o,~ o,xs ~. SITE NO. U-1017 o ~--o7 GraCE, (5113) ssO-OT~O EAST MARION, NY 11939 J EV 1,50-034 WIRELESS o PLANT MATERIALS LIST T01 Z01 Z02 Z03 Z04 Z05 NEW cing wU,r SITE NUMBER: L1-1017 CINGULAR ID: NYCENY1017 SITE NAME: EAST MARION DRAWING INDEX TITLE SHEET SITE PLAN DETAILED SITE PLAN AND DETAILS ELEVATION VIEWS LANDSCAPE PLAN CONSTRUCTION DETAILS REV AL~. Ny 12207 150-034 A A A A A A EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 9245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 DIRECTIONS FROM C~NOULAR OFFICE TAKE 495 EAST TO OLD COUNIY ROAD (CR-58) TO MAIN ROAD (SR-25). FROM 1-495 APPROXIMATELY 25 MILES. SITE WILL BE ON THE LEFT OF MAIN ROAD. VICINITY MAP c ngular w,.ELEss PROJECT INFORMATION SCOPE OF WORK: AN UNMANNED ~ELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY INCLUOING l~E iNSTALLATION OF- OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS AND (9) PANEL ANSENNAS MOUNTED W1 TH IN FLAGPOLE. SITE ADDRESS: 9245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION. NY 11959 LAND OWNER: EAST MARION FIRE DISTRICT P.O. BOX 131 EAST MARION, NY 11939 APPLICANT: NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC 15 EAST MIDLAND AVENUE PARAMUS. NEW JERSEY 07652 31-3-11.51 41' 07' 40.1' 72' 20' 29.2" 52' AMSL TOWN OF SOUl'HOLD FIRE STAllON TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY SPUT-ZONED HB AND R-40 LIPA VERIZON TAX ID NUMBER: LA,TUBE (NAD 85): LONGITUDE (NAD 83): ELEVATION (NAVO 88): JURISDICTION: CURRENT USE: PROPOSED USE: CURRENT ZONING: ELECTRIC COMPAN~ TELEPHONE COMPAN~ SITE QUALIFICATION PARTICIPANTS NAME COMPANY NUMBER A/E JOHN STEVENS INFINIOY ENGINEERING (516) 454-2288 SAC JOY MOONEY HIGHLANDER CONSULTANTS, INC. (651) 581-8105 LANDLORD DANIEL WOOD EAST MARION FIRE DISTRICT (651) 477-0539 TITLE SHEET NYCENY1017 TO1 N/r ANTHONY LEKAKIS USE: RESIDENTIAL VACNAT LAND ZONED: R-CO N/F CHERYL L, BONDARCHUK USE: RESIDENTIAL - 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONED: R-40 PROPOSED 16'x22' ~FENCED LEASE AREA ~/ ~ ,2o' N/r GEATRAKIS & GEORGE KORTSOLAKIS USE: RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONED: R-40 N/F SYLVIA M. DALEY USE: 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONEO: R-40 ~ WHITE SWAN EMLL~:~ · ~ USE: 1 FAMILY ~ X RESIOENCE , ~ ZONED: R-40 N/F RREHOUSE SITE pLAN IS NOT TO SCALE. ACTUAL FIELD CONDITION OF EXISTING BUILDING STRUCTURE IS NOT WHAT IS DEPICTED ON THIS PLAN. CINCULAR COMPOUND AND TOWER SETBACK DIMENSIONS ARE TRUE FROM PROPERTY UNES. NOTE: METES AND BOUNDS ARE TAKEN FROM A SURVEY PERFORMED BY PECONIC SURVEYORS PC, LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR. S 65'40'00' W 19.38' SYMBOLS AND MATERIALS DETAIL REFERENCE SECTIONS AND DETAILS E.M. WAR MEMORIAL ASSOC. UT1UTf POLE USE: RESIDENCE / ZONED: HB SITE LEGEND CALLED NORTH ..... PROPERTY LINE x × x x FENCE LINE E ELECTRIC SERVICE T- TELEPHONE SERVICE --~}-- PROPOSED CONTOUR --50 EXISTING CONTOUR CONCREIE EARTH GRAVEL/STONE 150-034 EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 9245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 cmngular WIRELESS GENERAL NOTES: 1. SITE PLAN INFORMATION WAS WAS BASED ON VARIOUS SOURCES OF INFORMATION INCLUDING FIELD NOTES & MEASUREMENTS PERFORMED BY INFINICY ENGINEERING, PLLC OF NY. THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY OF PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED TO A FLAGPOLE OF SMALL, WEATHERTIGHT RADIO EQUIPMENT CABINETS HIN THE SUBdECT LEASEHOLD, AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES. 4, THE 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22, 23. ~ROPOSED CINCULAR WIRELESS SERVICES FACILITY WILL BE UNMANNED AND NOT REQUIRE WATER OR SEWER SERVICE. CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY IS UNMANNED, AND IS NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION AND THUS DOES NOT REQUIRE HANDICAP ACC IS LIMITED TO PERIODIC MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION BY CINOULAR WIRELESS TECHNICIANS APPROXIMATELY (2) TIMES PER MONTH, NO STROBIC LIGHTING IS INCLUDED iN THIS PROPOSAL. NO NOISE, SMOKE, DUST OR ODOR WiLL RESULT FROM THIS PROPOSAL, OUTDOOR STORAGE AND SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS ARE NOT PROPOSED, EXTERIOR SIGNS ARE NOT PROPOSED. NO NEW ACCESS ROAD WILL BE REQUIRED UNDER THIS APPLICATION. TOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE UNDER THIS PROPOSAL: 570 SF± THE INCREASE IN STORM WATER RUNOFF DUE TO THE INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA IS INSIGNIFICANT, EXISTING DRAINAGE PAT[ERNS WILL NOT DE ALTERED. THEREFORE, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ARE NOT PROPOSED. ALL CONSTRUCTION FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL CONFORM TO APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS, STANDARDS. AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL OR UTILITY AUTHORITIES HAVING dURISDICTION. ALL EXISTING ACTIVE SEWER, WATER, GAS, ELECTRIC, AND OTHER UTILITIES WHERE ENCOUNTERED IN THE WORK. SHALL BE PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES, AND WHERE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPER EXECUTION OF THE WORK. SHALL BE RELOCATED AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERS. EXTREME CAUTION SHOULD BE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR WHEN EXCAVATING OR PIER DRILLING AROUND OR NEAR UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SAFETY TRAINING FOR THE WORKINC CREW, THIS WILL INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO A) FALL PROTECTION B) CONFINED SPACE C) ELECTRICAL SAFETY D) TRENCHING & EXCAVATION ALL SITE WORK SHALL BE AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWING AND STIPULATED IN THE PROdECT SPECIFICATIONS. IF NECESSARY, RUBBISH. STUMPS, DEBRIS, STICKS. STONES AND OTHER REFUSE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF LEGALLY. THE SITE SHALL BE GRADED TO CAUSE SURFACE WATER TO FLOW AWAY FROM THE RADIO EOUlPMENT AND TOWER AREAS. THE SUBGBADE SHALL BE COMPACTED AND BROUGHT TO A SMOOTH UNIFORM GRADE PRIOR TO FINISHED SURFACE APPLICATION. ALL EXISTING fNACTIVE SEWER, WATER, GAS, ELECTRIC AND OTHER UTILITIES, WHICH INTERFERE WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK. SHALL BE REMOVED AND/OR CAPPED. PLUGGED OR OTHERWISE DISCONTINUED AT POINTS WHICH WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF ENGINEERING. THE AREAS OF THE OWNERS PROPERTY DISTURBED BY THE WORK AND NOT COVERED BY THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE RESTORED AS REQUIRED. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, IF REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION, SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WFFH THE LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL. ALL SITE WORK SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER OONTRACTO . , ALERT: BOO-B - gsz TO I SITE PLaN i s~[ # I D~,WINO NUMBER INYCENY, 0171 ZOt JR~V AUX ALPHA BSO/~900 BETA 850/ GAMMA 850/1900 PROPOSED GATE (1YP) ~. BUFFER PROPOSED 1B~x22' CINGULAR LEASE CINGULAR 120' FLAGPOLE CINDULAR EQUIPMENT ON APPROXIMATE 10'-O'x22'xB' DEEP PROPOSED CONCRETE PAD 2' ABOVE [XIS]]NG GRADE PROPOSED 290 SQ. FT. ClNGULAR FENCED AREA (6' BLACK VINYL COATED CHAIN UNK FENCE) OF ClNGULAR GPS ANTENNA MOUNTED TO PIPE MOUNT PROPOSED POWER/.~'~. TELCO FRAME SUPPORT POST + BRACKET FOR CHANNEL EQUAL) POsT(PIROD INC OR CUT LENGTH TO SUIT BY REMOVING UNCAPPED END (PIROD PART NO. 852168 OR HANGER BRACKET (PIROD INC OR EQUAL) MAXIMUM CABLE SPAN = 5'-0' ('PCP) (PIROD PART NO. 802262) WIDE ICE BRIDGE CHANNEL (PIROD INC. OR EQUAL) CUT ICE BRIDGE CHANNEL LENGTH TO SUIT (SEE NOTE) (PIROD PART NO. 852168 OR 85216,3) CABLES ARRANGEMENT BY CONTRACTOR. FOR CABLE HANGER SEE TABLE BELOW INSTALL DRIP LOOP ON ANTENNA CABLES AT BOTFOM OF TOWER/MONOPOLE. BENDING RADIUS PER MANUFACTURER'S STANDARDS COMMSCOPE NOMINAL CABLE MANUF. MIN. CABLE SIZE PART CABLE HANGER BEND RADIUS NUMBER PART NUMBER 7/8" FXLIO7OPE 1070EZS 10" 1 1/4" FXL148DPE 1480EZS 15" 1 5/8" CR1975PE 1875EZS 20" PIER DETAILED SITE PLAN SC, N.E: GENERAL SITE NOTES: 1. THE SUBGRADE SHALL BE COMPACTED AND BROUGHT TO A SMOOTH UNIFORM GRADE PRIOR TO FINISHED SURFACE APPLICATION, 2. ALL EXISTING ACTIVE SEWER, WATER. GAS, ELECTRIC, AND OTIHER UTILITIES WHERE ENCOUNTERED IN THE WORK. SHALL BE PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES, AND WHERE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPER EXECUTION OF THE WORK, SHALL BE RELOCATED AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERS. EXTREME CAUTION SHOULD BE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR WHEN EXCAVATING OR PIER DRILLING AROUND OR NEAR UTILmES. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SAFETY TRAINING FOR THE WORKING ENGINEER. 5. ALl EXISTING INACTIVE SEWER, WATER. GAS, ELECTRIC, AND OTHER UTILmES, WHICH INTERFERE WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK, SHALL BE REMOVED AND/OR CAPPED, PLUGGED OR OTHERWISE DISCONTINUED AT POINTS WHICH WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF AN ENGINEER. 4. THE SITE SHALL BE GRADED TO CAUSE SURFACE WATER TO FLOW AWAY FROM ALL EQUIPMENT AND TOWER AREAS. 5. GARBAGE. STUMPS. DEBRIS, STICKS, STONES AND OTHER REFUSE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF IN A LEGAL MANNER.. 6. THE AREAS OF THE OWNERS PROPERS( DISTURBED BY THE WORK AND NOT COVERED BY THE BUILDING OR DRIVEWAY, SHALL BE GRADED TO A UNIFORM SLOPE. FERTILIZED, AND SEEDED. infinij engineering 150-0,34 EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 9245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 ",'w ular .  UNISTRUT PIPE/CONDUIT CLAMP Pl119 OR P2558-BS (CALV.) (1'ePICAL) BOLTFOLLOWPOST3 1/2"/~X TORQUE MANUF.o.D. RECOMMENDATIONS 4 ' -0"" FOR SCH.40 PIPE (CALV) UNISTRUT P1001 (GALV) UNISTRUT 120V, 3 HOLE BOX, THROUGH FEED, SINGLE POLE TOGGLE SWITCH AND NEMA 5R J-BOX AND PLATE FINISHED GRADE 10"~ PLAIN CONCRETE OR SAKRETE PIER s~:ELEC/TELCO Ms SUPPORT RACK RLc~.qSIO N S By CHK P IDESIGNED: [DRAWN: DETAILED SITE PLAN AND DETAILS i SECTOR 1 - 50' ~ (TO BE SUPPUED AND FIRE DEPN~IdENT EQUIPMENT ~ INSTN_LED BY OTHERS) (TO BE SUPPLIED AND SECTOR 5 - 250' .om ANTENNA LAYOUT ANTENNA DETAIL MODEL ~ u~ vm~c C~IN LINK ~NCE ~THREIN 800 10121 ~ c~ GRADE L~L = 52 (~SL ~E FOUN~N D~IGN G~DE L~L -~' (AGL) T~ER FOUN~TION DESICN GRADE L~EL SOUTH ELEVA.ON 150-034 WIRELESS *° ~ .ms,o.s ~ c.~~', $ ED TO SET TREE PLUMB PRIOR TO ST,~KING RUBBER HOSE (2 PLY GREEN)- UY WIRE (~[~OUBLE STRAND, 2 PLY 5' APPROV[D MULCH ROOTRAU_ PIT TO EXCEED DJAMETED OF STAKE 24' DEMETER LARGER THAN ROOT BALL OR CONTNNER SECTION AI)D EXCAVATED SOIL ~S NEEDED TO BRING TREE TO RNISHED G~; TAMP TO PRD/ENT SE-~UNO TREE STAKING AND GUYING NOT TO SCALE 1. STANDARDS SET FORTH IN 'AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK', LATEST EDITION, REPRESENT OUIDEUNE SPECIFICATIONS ONLY AND SHALL CONSTITUTE MINIMUM OUALIT~ REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANT MATERIAL. 2. ALL PLANTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER'S REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER INSTALLATION. $. PRIOR TO CONSTRUC~ON, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTIUTIES AND SHALL AVOID DAMAGE TO ALL UTIETIES DURING COURSE OF THE WORN. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAiRiNG ALL DAMAGE TO UTILITIES, STRUCTURES, SITE APPURTENANCES, ETC. WHICH OCCURS AS A RESULT OF THE LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION. 4. ALL PLANTS MUST BE HEALTHY, VIGOROUS MATERIAL, FREE OF PESTS AND DISEASE. 5. NJ_ PLANTS MUST BE CONTAINER-GROWN OR BALLED AND BURLAPPED AS SPECIFIED. 6. NJ_ TREES MUST BE STRAIGNT TRUNKED, FULL HEADED AND MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED. 7. ALL TREES MUST BE GUYED OR STAKED AS SHOWN. 8. NJ. PLANTS AND PI~ITING AREAS MUST BE COMPLETELY MULCHED AS SPECIFIED. 9. THE ENGINEER'S REPRESENTATIVE WILL APPROVE THE STAKED LOCATION OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 10. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING ALL QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS BEFORE PRICING THE WORK. 11. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FULLY MNNTNNING ALL PLANTING (INCLUDING, BUT NOT UM~TED TO: WATERING, SPRAYING, MULCHING, ESRTIUZATION, ETC.) OF PLANTING AREAS UNTIL THE WORK IS ACCEPTED IN TOTAL BY THE ENGINEER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 12. AFTER BEING DUD AT THE NURSERY SOURCE, ALL TREES IN LEAF SHALL BE ACCUMATED FOR 3WO (2) WEEKS UNDER A MIST SYSq~M PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 13. ANY PLANT MATERIAL THAT DIES, TURNS BROWN OR DEFOUATES PRIOR TO TOTAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK) SHALL BE PROMPTLY REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND REPLACED WITH MATERIAL OF THE SAME SPEC ES, QUANTITY, SIZE AND MEETING ALL SPECIFICATIONS. 14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETELY GUARANTEE ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR BEGINNING AT THE DATE OF TOTAL ACCEPTANCE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROMPTLY MAKE ALL REPLACEMENTS BEFORE OR AT THE END OF THE GUARANTEE PERIOD. 50-034 EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 9245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 SF. APPSOVED MULCH (3' SEITLED DEP1H) PROPOSED 5' LANDSCAPE BUFFER LANSCAPING PLAN CALLED NORTH E~STERN RED CEDAR (1YP) TOTAL AREA OF L~D~7.~PED SI~= ~3oo SF PLANT MATERIALS LIST DUANTllY COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKS 12 EASTEEN RED CEDAR 7' MIN. HEIGHT O EQUALLY SPACED ALL PLANRNG AREAS WILL BE TILLED AND PREPAEED FOR PLAhmNG BY THE ADDEION OF APPROPR~ITE SOIL AMENITIES AND TOPPED WITH MIN. 3' APPROV/D MULCH. insular REVISIONS BY CHK P'I WIRELESS LANDSCAPE PLAN 24897 NYCENY 0 7 Z04 4'-0' GATE OPENING - / "END' OR CORNER ~ ' · 2" MESH. 9 GAUGE × / GALV. BLACK VINYL 1-1/2 PAIR INDUSTRIAL ~'PE LATCH WITH PROVISION FOR ~ /~ · MALLEABLE IRON OFFSET PADLOCK (PAGE-WILSON ~PE 75 ~ 1 1/4 ~ BRACE RAIL PIN HINGE (PAGE-WILSON - GATE LATCH ASSEMBLY OR EQUAL) ~ TOP RAIL (TYP) .-B OR EQUAL)- - ~.~. ~ 3/B"e TRUSS ROD WITH _~ ~, : 2 v2' o.o. PO~ ,-1/2-_ . 2-CROWN 7 :F,N,S. GRADE ~ 48' OR 6' BELOW FREEZE ~ . BOTTOM TENSION WIRE 2" CONC. · ~_zUJ UNE. WHICHEVER IS GREATER -- --' 'J~J ''J 1'-2" '~t JlJJ ' 12~ e FOR iF -- · '"~ I;ll;I IIII UNE POST ~Ut IUJ Il I ~ ~, SPACING (3YP.) , , 1'-2" CORNER, & GATE POSTS GATE DETAIL ~> CHAIN LINK FENCE DETAIL (ELEVA TION) ~  METAL GATE DETENT FENCE NOTES: INSTALL WITH SLOTS FINISH GRADE PARALLEL TO FENCE ~ 03 ~ e:~ 1. FENCING MATERIALS SHALL BE OF GALVANIZED STEEL. - ~ 2. POST, BRACES AND CATE FRAMES SHALL BE SCHEDULE 40 (STANDARD WEIGHT) PIPE. SIZES SPECIFIED ARE NOMINAL DIAMETER. I, -- I ,~, ~ ~ ----T,j-~ .'~. ~ 3. DOUBLE SWING GATE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH TUBULAR PLUNGER BAR, 1 LOCK KEEPER, 1 LOCK KEEPER GUIDE, 2 LATCH FORKS, L?'~ ~ ~ :::: ~ ~ I 2 FORK CATCHES, 1 CATCH FOR PLUNGER BAR, AND 2 GATE STOPS ~ ~ · LOCATED AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER. / .... ~ J 4. POSTS, CAPS AND OTHER NECESSARY FENCE FITrlNGS SHALL BE AS CONCRETE ~ ' ~ ~ MANUFACTURED BY THE FENCE MANUFACTURER OR EQUAL. HINGES SHALL BE OF GALVANIZED STEEL. 10" CONCRETE 5. POSTS SHALL BE SPACED EQUIDISTANT BUT NOT MORE THAN 10' O.C. 6. BoTroM OF FENCE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 3" ABOVE j_~o. IGRADE AT ANY SECTION. GATE DETENT DETAIL infinity ~k I~ ~ .EmW ~' 0 ~'~ ,.- e n g i n e e r i n g EASTMARIO. ~ ~/~.~'/~CONSTRUCTION Xc ngular EAST MARION, NY 11939 150-034 ~' J WIRELESS IOj ~"~ .~,o.~ .~ c,~.~.. ~o9~ ~,~, ~w..~.~..~. =REV SCALE: I DE$1GNED:I I DRAWN: 24897 NYCENY 0 7 Z05 iA FORM NO. 3 NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL 2007 DATE: April 18, 2007 TO: SBA Network Services (Cingular/East Marion Fire District) 5900 Broken Sound Parkway NW Boca Raton, FL 33487-2797 Please take notice that your application dated April 13, 2007 For permit for co-location of a wireless communications antenna on an existing approved tower at Location of property: 9245 Main Road, East Marion County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 3.~1 Block3 Lot 11.31 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed antenna is not permitted pursuant to Article XXIV, 280-69, A., which states, "In Residential and Marine Districts including A-C, R-80, R-40, R-120, R-200, R-400, AHD, fiD, RR, RO, MI and MI1, a wireless communication facility is subject to site plan approval and must meet the following requirements. "(2) Wireless communication facilities on existing telecommunications towers shall require a special exception approval pursuant to this chapter unless otherwise allowed by the terms of a prior special exception approval." Therefore, a special exception approval is required from the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. In addition, the proposed co-location requires site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Dep~?(~ now apply to these agencies directly. ~x~..~____~ed~ S i gn~-fi-r e Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: file, Z.B.A., Planning FORM NO. 3 NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: October 10, 2005 Please take notice that your application dated September 7, 2005 ~~~ For permit for construction of a telecommunications tower and equipment structure at Munley, Meade, Nielsen & Re a/c East Marion Fire District 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 Location of property: 9245 Main Road, East Marion County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 31 Block3 Lot 11.31 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed telecommunications tower and equipment structure, on this 3.05 acre parcel in the Residential R-40 District, is not permitted, pursuant to Article XVI, Section 100-162. Site plan approval is required from the Southold Town Planning Board. Special Exception approval is required from the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Applicart[ ma,~pplv to the Zoning Board of Appeals for special exception approval and The Plarming Bo0rd~or site ~lXan - Authofi ~ed Si~re _-- .... Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: file, Z.B.A. FORM NO. 3 NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL JUN 1 6 2006 DATE: October 10, 2005 RENEWED & AMENDED: June 5, 2006 TO: Munley, Meade, Nielsen & Re aJc East Marion Fire District 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 Please take notice that your application dated September 7, 2005 For permit for construction of a telecommunications tower and equipment structure at Location of property: 9245 Main Road, East Maxion Is re~ed herewith ~d disapproved on the following ~o~ds: The proposed telecommunications tower ~d equipment stmct~e, on this 3.05 acre parcel in the Residential R-40 District, is not pe~itted~ pursuit to ~icle XVI, Section 100-162. Site pl~ approval is required from the Southold Town Pla~ing Board. Special Exception approval is required from the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Applicant may apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for special exception approval and The Planning Board for site plan approval. This Notice of Disapproval was renewed and amended on June 5~ 2006 based on a new site plan submitted to tlljs-~ffice.~Vla¥ 30~ 2006. Authorized/'~at~ Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: file, Z.B.A. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL~ DATE: October 10, 2005 se ' y pp' ' P ' i /~'~ ~'J t'~'~]~/~)~ For permit for construction of a telecommunications tower and e~:nt Location ofprope~y: 9245 Main Road, East Marion County T~ Map No. 1000 - Section 3~ Block~ Lot 11.31 Is retmed herewi~ ~d disapproved on the following ~ounds: The proposed telecommunications tower ~d equipment s~ct~e, on this 3.05 acre p~cel in the Residential R-40 District, is not pe~itted, pursuit to ~icle XVI, Section 100-162. Site plan approval is required ~om ~e Southold Town Planing Board. "No wireless communication facility shall be used, erected or altered in ~e To~ of Southold exc~t as follows: A. In Residential and Marine Districts including AC, R80, R40, R120, ~00, R400, ~D, HD, ~, RO, MI and Mil, a wireless communication ficilitv is subiect to site pl~ approval ~d must meet ~e following requirements. (1) Wireless co~unication ficilities on buildings shall require a special exception approval pursuant to this ~icle. Applic~t may apply to the Zonin~ Bo~d of Appeals for special exception approval ~d The Pl~ng Board for site plan approval. ~ted M~at Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: file, Z.B.A. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ~t~ ~ Phone (631) 765-1809 Fax (631) 765-9064 APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION ~_~ Application3 No. ,~: ~ ~ I ~ ) h~eby apply to the ZON~G BO~ OF APPEALS, Southold, New York for a SPECIAL EXCEPTION in accordance with the ZON~G O~ANCE, ARTICLE ~ , SECTION 280-6~ and 280-70 SUBSECTION Owne~s)(~: East Marion Firs District MailingAddmss: 9245 Route %~, East Marion, ~ 11939 Telephone: NOTE: Ifapplic~t is not the o~er, state if applicant is o~er's a~omey, agent, architect, builder, contact vendee, ~tc. AuthorizedRepres~ta~ve: New Ctngular Wireless, PCS LLC (Applicant/Lessee) Address: 333 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, ~ 11797 Telephone: (516) 677-6503 For the below-described property for the following uses and purposes (and as shown on the attached plan drawn to scale): (attach separate sheets if needed) Public Utility Wireless Telecommunication Facility The Applicant proposes to affix public utility wireless telecommunications inside existing/approved flagpole/monopole, and install related equipment as depicted in the plans submitted herewith. A. Statement of Ownership and Interest: East Marion Fire District is (are) the owner(s) of property known and ref~rred to as 9245 Route 25, East Marion, New York (House No., Street, Hamlet) identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 31 _, Block 3 Lot(s) 11.31 , which is not (is) on a subdivision Map (Filed -- , "Ma'p of "Filed Map No. , and has been approved by the Southold Town Panning Board on as a [Minor] [Major] Subdivision). The above-described property was acquired by the owner on November 23, 1998 . B. The applicant alleges that the approval of this exception would be in harmony with the intent and purpose of said zoning ordinance and that the proposed use conforms to the standards prescribed therefore in said ordinance and would not be detrimental to property or persons in the neighborhood for the following reasons: PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT "A" C. The proper~ which is the subject of t~ds application is zoned R-40 and [ ] is consistent with the use(s) described in the Certificate of Occupency(eopy attached). [ MI is not consistent with the Certificate of Occupancy being furnished herewith for the following reason(s): [ ] is vacant land. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) SS.: STATE OF NEW YORK) Svrn to...~e me this ~ ~ dayof ~ (Si~g~fos~h~Sweet, System Development Manager ,20~ ZBA2 (rev. 2/06) LAWRENCE C. RE' Notar~ Public, State of New Yor~ No. 52-47~ Qualified in Suffolk Count~ ~ Commission Expires May 31,~ ATTACMENT "A" Application for Special Exception Town of Southhold Zoning Board of Appeals Applicant: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC The applicant, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to operate a personal wireless service system in Suffolk County and throughout much of the United States. It is considered to be a public utility for zoning purposes. The applicant is unable to provide reliable service in the vicinity of the proposed site. The East Marion Fire District has obtained all municipal approvals to erect a communications flagpole/monopole at the subject premises. In keeping with the Town's policy to encourage co-location, the applicant proposes to install its antennas inside the approved flagpole and to install equipment on the ground as depicted in the plans that have been submitted. We believe that the proposal represents the least obtrusive means for the applicant to provide reliable service to the surrounding area. Fee: $ Office Notes: __ Filed By:_ For Office Use Only Date Assigned/Assignment No. APPLICATION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOVCN BOARD OF APPEALS Parcel Location: House No. 9245 SCTM 1000 Section 91 Block3 __Street Route 25 Hamlet East Marion approximately Lot(s)~l.31 Lot Size3.0583 Zone District R-40 itcros 1 (WE) APPEAL THE WRITTEN DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED: October 10, 2005 - amended October 20, 2005 /~_.~ AI.~. a~ {j. of tgi. ~1 ican~/L~ssee: ~mx~.~l~mm~m~ New Cinqular Wireless PCS, LLC Mailing Address: 333 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, NY 11743 Telephone: 516-677-6503 Fax: NOTE: If applicant is not the owner, state if applicant is owner's attorney, agent, arclfitect, builder, contract vendee, etc. Lawrence C. Re' Authorized Representative: Munl ey~ Meade, Niel sen & Re' Address: 36 North New York Avenue, Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: 631-425-4100 Fax: 631-425-4104 Please specify who you wish correspondence to be mailed to, from the above listed names: [3 Applicant/Owner(s) X[g Authorized Representative [] Other: WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED FOR: ~l~ Building Permit [] Certificate of Occupancy [3 Pre-Certificate of Occupancy [] Change of Use [] Permit for As-Built Construction Other: Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and paragrapli of Zoning Ordinance by numbers. Do not quote the code. Article X¥I Section 100-165 Subsection Type of Appeal. An Appeal is made for: I~ A Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map. [3 A Variance due to lack of access required by New York Town Law-Section 280-A. [] Interpretation of the Town Code, Article Section [] Reversal or Other A prior appeal [] has [] has not been made with respect to this property UNDER Appeal No. Year REASONS FOR APPEAL (additional sheets may be used with applicaut's signature): Pl ease Attachment "^" AREA VARIANCE REASONS: (1) An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties if granted, because: (2) The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variauce, because: (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: (5) Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? ( )Yes, or ( )No. This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserve aud protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Check this box ( ) IF A USE VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED, AND PLEASE COMPLETE THE ATTACHED USE VARIANCE SHEET: (Please be sure to consult your attorney.) Neg/ Ci nO~l ~c ~/i r~.~S PCS, LLC S~n~ of ~lant or Authorized Agent (Agent ~ submit wriRell Authorization from Owner) Swokn to before me tbis dosE~h~S~OO~, System Deve]opment ~ana~er -% ~otary Public ~ ~ ATTACHMENT "A" Application for Variance Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Applicant: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC REASONS FOR APPEAL AREA VARIANCE REASONS The Applicant, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to operate a personal wireless service system in Suffolk County and throughout much of the United States. It is considered to be a public utility for zoning purposes. Therefore, the variance standards for this Application are the public utility variance standards. The Applicant is unable to provide reliable service in the vicinity o the proposed site. There are no existing structures of sufficient height that are suitable for use as a telecommunications antenna facility. The proposed site at the Fire District property is the most appropriate site for the installation of the antenna structure. The structure is to be designed as a flagpole and the Applicant's antennas will be enclosed in the flagpole. This design will completely conceal the Applicant's antennas and represents the least obtrusive means for the Applicant to provide its services to the surrounding area. Sworn to before ane this ~_day of.~ C . ,2005 New Cingular(~i~, LLC ~p{~h~eet .tem Development Manager ATTACHMENT "A" Application for Special Exception Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Applicant: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Response to Item B of the Application for Special Exception: The Applicant, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to operate a personal wireless service system in Suffolk County and throughout much of the United States. It is considered to be a public utility for zoning purposes. The Applicant is unable to provide reliable service in the vicinity o the proposed site. There are no existing structures of sufficient height that are suitable for use as a telecommunications antenna facility. The proposed site at the Fire District property is the most appropriate site for the installation of the antenna structure. The structure is to be designed as a flagpole and the Applicant's antennas will be enclosed in the flagpole. This design will completely conceal the Applicant's antennas and represents the least obtrusive means for the Applicant to provide its services to the surrounding area. Sw~,.~ to before/ne this .~day of ~4-~4A..~.~ . ,2005 N~t~ry' Pt~blj~' 0 New Cingula~CS, LLC S~m Development Manager BOARD OF APPEALS: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC For Special Exception Approval and Variance, pursuant to Article XVI of the Code of the Town of Southold, to install a public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the premises: At the premises: 9245 Route 25 East Marion, New York District 1000 Section 31, Block 3, Lot 11.31 STATE OF NEW YORK ) )SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) AFFIDAVIT OF CO-LOCATION JOSEPH SWEET, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am the System Development Manager, for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC i( Cingular" hereafter), applicant, and am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances hereinafter set forth. 2. The business address of Cingular is 333 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York 11797. 3. I make this affidavit pursuant to Southold Zoning Code Section 100-63D(3). 4. The flagpole/monopole proposed by Cingular and in which it seeks to install its public utility wireless telecommunications facility will be capable of accommodating co-location of additional antennas for furore users. Sworn to before me this '~ )~ay o f ...~ u.c,5~ ~, 200;, "' NOT%Y PUBL~- NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC By: Syste~evelopment Manager OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC x (we), Application N~~-%]~ ~-/z~. Date Filed: i;;t/q/~ ~ ~-~e*u.S (Applicant/Lessee) of 333 Crossways Park Drive (Residehce, House No. and Street) Woodbur¥, New York 11743 {Hamlet, State, Zip Code, Telephone Number) hereby apply to THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS for a SPECIAL EXCEPTION in accordance wit~ the ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE XVI , SECTION 100-162 , SUBSECTION A for the below-described property for the following uses and purposes the attached plan drawn to scale): Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY 11939 SCTM# 1000-31-3-11.31 (and as shown on Proposal: Public Utility Wireless Telecommunication Facility Erect flagpole/monopole, install public utility wireless telecommunication antennas therein, and install related equipment on ground as depicted on plans. A. Statement of Ownership and Interest. East Marion Fire District property known and referred [~as is(are) the owner(s) of 9245 ROUte 25. East Marion. New York (House No., Street, Hamlet) identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 31 , Block 3 , Lot(s) 11.31 , which is not (is) on a subdivision Map (Filed --~, "Map of "Filed Map No. , and has been approved by the South61d Town Planning Board on as a [Minor] [Major] Subdivision). The above-described property was acquired by the owner on November 23, 1998 B. The applicant alleges that the approval of this exception would be in harmony with the intent and purpose of said zoning ordinance and that the proposed use conforms to the standards prescribed therefor in said ordinance and would not be detrimental to property or persons in the neighborhood for the following reasons: SEE ATTACHMENT "A" C. The property which is the subject of this application is zoned R-40 [ ] J:s cQr~si~¢n~ with the use(s) described in the Certificate of Occupancy being furnished herewith. IX] is not consistent with the Certificate of Occupancy being furnished herewith for the following reason(s): and [ ] is vacant land. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) New CingularrW.ireless~x~PCS, LLC ,, , "Y:~si gnat~¢oN¢~ Sweet, System Development Manager Sworn to be re me this ~'day of - 2005 ZB2 (rev. 2/6/86) DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE January22,2007 JAN 2 5 2007 THOMAS ISLES, AICP DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Ms. Ruth Oliva, Chair Town of Southold ZBA 53085 Main Rd., P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Oliva: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the following application(s) submitted to the Suffolk County Planning ComnUssion is/are considered to be a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact(s). A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Applicant(s) Municipal File Number(s) Cingular-East Marion FD 5826 Milazzo, Rose 5859 Braun, George & Jeanne 5996 Haupt, Vicki 6000 Hall, Eleanor L. 6001 Very truly yours, Thomas Isles, AICP Director of Planning CSW:cc S/s Christopher S. Wrede Environmental Planner LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR · P.O. BOX 6100 (631} 853-5190 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788-0099 'fELECOPIER (631) 853-4044 Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, North Fork Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTItOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 Fax (631) 765-9064 January 17, 2007 Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Mr. Thomas Isles, Director Suffolk County Department of Planning P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 Dear Mr. Isles: Please find enclosed the following application with related documents for review pursuant to Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code: Appl. No. 5826 (Cingular-East Marion FD) Action Requested: Special Exce )tion Within 500 feet of: ( x ( ( If any other information State or County Road y (Bay, Sound, or Estuary) Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State, Federal land. is needed, please do not hesitate to call us. Thank you. Very truly yours, J/~IES DINIZIO, JR., CHAZFIVg~ Enclosures P~INING BOARD MEMBE~ JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND September 12, 2006 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Edward J. Boyd, Esq. 54655 Main Road P.O. Box 1468 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Proposed Site Plan for East Marion FD Telecom Located on the n/s/o NYS Route 25 approximately 494' w/o/s Stars Road known as 9245 State Route 25, East Marion SCTM # 1000-31-3-11.31 Zoning District: R-40 & HB Dear Mr. Boyd: The Southold Town Planning Board, at a meeting held on Monday, September 11,2006, adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, this site plan was for a proposed 120' cellular stealth flagpole-type tower with Cingular equipment internally installed at heights of 107' & 117'. The pole illustrates a USA flag at the top. The Fire Department antennae are externally located at heights of 120' & under 96'; all on a 3.0583-acre split-zoned parcel in the R-40 & HB Zones located on the n/s/o NYS Route 25 approximately 494' w/o Stars Road in East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-3-11.31; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, made a determination that the proposed action is an Unlisted Action and initiated the lead agency coordination process on the application submitted on December 9, 2005; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2006, the Southold Building Department issue a amended notice of disapproval for the East Marion Fire District; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 2006, the new agent Edward J. Boyd, Esq. submitted a revised site plan application indicating a change in the applicant, agent and proposed use; and WHEREAS, this site plan is for a proposed Firehouse and Public Safety Communications 120' cellular stealth flagpole-type tower with Cingular equipment internally installed at heights of 107' & 117'. The pole illustrates a USA flag at the top. The Fire Department antennae are externally located at heights of 120' & under 96'; all on a 3.0583-acre split-zoned parcel in the R-40 & HB Zones located on the n/s/o NYS Route 25 approximately 494' w/o Stars Road in East Marion. SCTM# 1000~31-3-11.31; and East Marion FD Telecom Page Two September 12, 2006 WHEREAS, on August 15, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, established itself as lead agency and continued to review this Unlisted action as revised by the new agent; be it therefore RESOLVED that, on September 11, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, performed a coordinated review of this Unlisted Action, and as lead agency makes a determination of non-significance and grants a Negative Declaration. Enclosed is a copy of the Negative Declaration for your records. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Very truly yours, B. Woodhouse Chairperson Cc: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Board Southold Town Engineer Suffolk County Planning Department New York State Dept. of Transportation File Eric: Negative Declaration PLANNING BOARD MEMBER~ JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination Non-Significant September 1 '1, 2006 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: Proposed Site Plan for the East Marion FD Telecom SCTM#: 1000-31-3-11.31 Location: On the n/s/o NYS Route 25 approximately 494' w/o Stars Road known as 9245 State Route 25, East Marion SEQR Status: Type I ( ) Unlisted (X) Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes ( ) No (X) Description of Action: This site plan is for a proposed Firehouse and Public Safety Communications 120' cellular stealth flagpole-type tower with Cingular equipment internally installed at heights of 107' & 117'. The pole illustrates a USA flag at the top. The Fire Department antennae are externally located at heights of 120' & under 96'; all on a 3.0583- acre split-zoned parcel in the R-40 & HB Zones located on the n/s/o NYS Route 25 approximately 494' w/o Stars Road in East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-3-11.31 Reasons Supporting This Determination: An Environmental Assessment Form has been submitted and reviewed and it was determined that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. SEQR Negative Declaration Page Two September 11,2006 No major change in the use of either the quantity or type of energy will occur. No known creation of a hazard to human health is expected to occur. The proposed action will not cause a substantial change in the use, or intensity of use, of land including agricultural, open space or recreational resources, or in its capacity to support existing uses. No substantial adverse change in existing air quality, ground or surface water quality or quantity, traffic or noise levels, no substantial increase in solid waste production, potential of erosion, flooding, leaching or drainage problems will occur as a result of this action. The property is zoned Hamlet Business (HB) and R-40 (Residential) and does not contain significant vegetation. No significant removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation or fauna, no substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, no significant impacts on a significant habitat area, no substantial adverse impacts on a threatened or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of such a species, and no other significant adverse impacts to natural resources will occur. The proposed action will not impair the character or quality of important historical, archaeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character. Based upon such, no significant adverse impacts to the environment are expected to occur should the project be implemented as planned. The proposed action is not in material conflict with a community's current plans or goals as officially approved or adopted. On August 24, 2006, the Suffolk County Department of Planning responded that as an interested agency they "have no objection to the Town of Southold assuming Lead Agency". On June 25, 2006 the East Marion Fire District responded that additional landscaping is recommended around the equipment compound in order to provide sufficient screening. The following was recommended by the Fire District, "A double row (staggered plantings) of larger plant material would have a greater visual effect". Based upon such, no significant adverse impacts to the environment are expected to occur should the project be implemented as planned. There has not been any correspondence received from the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals, Southold Town Building Department, Southold Town Board, Southold Town Engineer or New York State Department of Transportation in the allotted time. Therefore, it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from these agencies. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS James Dinizio, Jr., Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer Ruth D. Oliva Michael A. Simon Leslie Kanes Weisman Mailing Address: Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road · RO. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, North Fork Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 · Fax (631) 765-9064 August20,2007 By Re~lular Mail and Fax Transmission Lawrence C. Re, Esq. Munley Meade Nielsen & Re 36 N. New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 Re: File No. 5826 as Amended - Special Exception (New Cingular) Dear Mr. Re: Enclosed please find a copy of the special exception determination rendered by the Zoning Board of Appeals on August 16, 2007 Meeting. When submitting any other documentation to the Building Department for the co-location, you may want to furnish an extra copy of the enclosed decision. Thank you. Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski Encl. Copy of Decision 8/20/07 to: Building Department (Attn: Connie) SEQR Negative Declaration Page Three September 11,2006 For Further Information: Contact Person: Address: Telephone Number: Amy Ford, Senior PLanner Southold Town Planning Board 631.765.1938 Cc~ Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Board Southold Town Engineer Suffolk County Planning Department New York State Dept. of Transportation File ~/~'~'~.~_ ' /JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE -- ~/ Chair . Ei~2 KENNETH L. EDWARDS 7~ J~ JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 August15,2006 Edward J. Boyd, Esq. 54655 Main Road P.O. Box 1468 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Proposed Site Plan for East Marion FD Telecom Located on the n/s/o NYS Route 25 approximately 494' w/o/s Stars Road known as 9245 State Route 25, East Marion SCTM # 1000-31-3-11.31 Dear Mr. Boyd: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, August 14, 2006: WHEREAS, this site plan was for a proposed 120' cellular stealth flagpole-type tower with Cingular equipment internally installed at heights of 107' & 117'. The pole illustrates a USA flag at the top. The Fire Department antennae are externally located at heights of 120' & under 96'; all on a 3.0583-acre split-zoned parcel in the R-40 & HB Zones located on the n/s/o NYS Route 25 approximately 494' w/o Stars Road in East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-3-11.31; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, made a determination that the proposed action is an Unlisted Action and initiated the lead agency coordination process on the application submitted on December 9, 2005; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2006, the Southold Building Department issue~a amended notice of disapproval for the East Marion Fire District; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 2006, the new agent Edward J. Boyd, Esq. submitted a revised site plan application indicating a change in the applicant, agent and proposed use; and WHEREAS, this site plan is for a proposed Firehouse and Public Safety Communications 120' cellular stealth flagpole-type tower with Cingular equipment internally installed at heights of 107' & 117'. The pole illustrates a USA flag at the top. The Fire Department antennae are externally located at heights of 120' & under 96'; all on a 3.0583-acre split-zoned parcel in the R-40 & HB Zones located on the n/s/o NYS Route 25 approximately 494' w/o Stars Road in East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-3-11.31; be it therefore East Marion FD Telecom Page Two August 15, 2006 RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Part 617, Article 6 of the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, the Planning Board establishes itself as lead agency and will continue the review. Enclosed is the revised site plan application for your review.* If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Chairperson Cc: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals* Southold Town Building Department* Southold Town Board* Southold Town Engineer* Suffolk County Planning Department* New York State Dept. of Transportation* File Enc: *Revised site plan application date received August 3, 2006 , ~!~l~b PLANNING BOARD MEMBER JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE lA)CATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 July 27, 2006 Re: Lead Agency Coordination Request East Marion FD Telecom 9245 State Route 25, East Marion SCTM# 1000-31-3-11.31 Dear Coordinating Agency Reviewer: Please add the attached Lead Agency Coordination Request, dated July 27, 2006, to the resolution beginning the SEQRA review dated July ! 1, 2006. The Planning Board tentativelyplans on making an environmental determination at its August 14, 2006 meeting. Accordingly, we wotfld appreciate receiving your responses by August 11, 2006 in order to give ourselves adequate time to review them. Please do not hesitate to contact this office should you have any questions or need anything further. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Senior Planner Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Board Southold Town Engineer Suffolk County Planning Department New York State Dept. of Transportation File PLANNING BOARD MEMB JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND July27,2006 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Re: Lead Agency Coordination Request Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act- SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below;, 2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. Issues of concern you believe should be evaluated. Eh.closed .please find a copyof the proposal and a completed Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to asstst you m your response. Project Name: East Marion FD Telecom 9245 State Route 25, East Marion SCTM# 1000-31-3-tl.31 Zoning District: R-40/HB Requested Action: This site plan is for a proposed 120' cellular steakh flagpole-type tower with Cingular equipment internally installed at heights of 107' & 117'. The pole illustrates a USA flag at the top. The Fire Department antennae are externally located at heights of 120' & under 96'; all on a 3.0583-acre split-zoned parcel in the R-40 & HB Zones located on the n/s/o NYS Route 25 approximately 494' w/o Stars Road in East Marion. SCTM~ 1000-31-3-11.31. SEQRA Classification: ( ) TypeI ( ) Type II (X) Unlisted Contact Pets on: Amy Ford, Senior Planner/Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer (631) 765-1938 The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) on this project. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in writing whether or not you have an interest in being lead agency. Lead Agency Coordination Request Page Two July 27, 2006 Planning Board Position: (x) This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. ( ) This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. () Other (see comments below) Comments: Please feel free to contact this office for further information. Very truly yours, Jerilyn B. Woodhouse Chairperson Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Board Southold Town Engineer Suffolk County Planning Department New York State Dept. of Transportation File PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS~ JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN II. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPII L. TOWNSEND MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Date: July 11, 2006 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE JUL 1 3 2_006 ~ From: Re: Ruth Oliva, Zoning Board of Appeals Chair Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Planning Board Chairperson Appeal # 5826 Cingular Wireless (EFD) 9245 Main Road, East Marion SCTM: 1000-31-3-11.31 Zone: R-40/HB In response to your memo dated May 30, 2006 the Planning Board (PB) has reviewed the site plan for this project, last revised June 20, 2006, and offers the following comments as stated in the previous memo sent to your office dated April 25, 2006 (attached): We are site planning this project under the Building Departments Notice of Disapproval dated October 10, 2005 stating that special exception approval is required prior to Planning Board approval. The PB is currently reviewing a site plan drawing last revised June 20, 2006. The revised site plan relocates the proposed 120' flagpole cell tower and 16' x 22' equipment compound behind the existing accessory firehouse building, on the north side. The PB feels that the new location helps mitigate the visual impacts of the tower, which will now be substantially blocked bythe firehouse roof. In addition, clustering the equipment boxes behind the firehouse minimizes the lot area affected, maximizes the efficiency of the communications operations and allows for the implementation of the Hamlet Study recommendations to possibly utilize the open grass space on the north west side of the parcel for long term plans. We hope these comments will be useful to the ZBA in its review of this appeal. Cc: Planning Board members Enc: April 25, 2006 memo to ZBA regarding appeal # 5826 PLANNING BOARD MEMBE~ JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND July 11,2006 Lawrence C. Rb Munley, Meade, Nielsen & R~ 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, New York 11743 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 JUL 1 2 ZOO6 Re: Proposed Site Plan for East Marion FD Telecom Located on the n/s/o NYS Route 25 approximately 494' w/o/s/Stars Road known as 9245 State Route 25, East Marion SCTM # 1000-31-3-11.31 Dear Mr. Rb: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, July 10, 2006: WHEREAS, this site plan is for a proposed 120' cellular stealth flagpole-type tower with Cingular equipment internally installed at heights of 107' & 117'. The pole illustrates a USA flag at the top. The Fire Department antennae are externally located at heights of 120' & under 96'; all on a 3.0583-acre split-zoned parcel in the R-40 & HB Zones located on the n/s/o NYS Route 25 approximately 494' w/o Stars Road in East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-3-11.31; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Part 617, Article 6 of the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, initiates the SEQR lead agency coordination process for this unlisted action. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Very truly yours, house Chairperson Cc: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Board Southold Town Engineer Suffolk County Planning Department New York State Dept. of Transportation File PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, NY 1~971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Date: 19 June 2007 MEMORANDUM rI - To: From: Re: James Dinizio, Zoning Board of Appeals Chair Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Planning Board Chairperso~-} Cingular W'aeless (EFD) 9245 Main Road, East Marion SCTiVE 1000-31-3-11.31 Zone: R-40/HB In response to your memo dated June 13, 2007 the Planning Board has reviewed the site plan for this project, dated June 20, 2006 and last revised April 16, 2007, and offers the following comments: We are site planning this project under the Building Departments Notice of Disapproval dated April 18, 2007 stating that special exception approval is required prior to Planning Board approval. The Planning Board is currendy reviewing a site plan drawing dated June 20, 2006 and last revised April 16, 2007. The revised site plan shows the 110' unipole and 16' x 22' equipment compound behind the existing accessory firehouse building, on the north side. The Planning Board feels that the new location helps mitigate the visual impacts of the tower, which will now be substantially blocked by the firehouse roof. In addition, clustering the equipment boxes behind the firehouse minimizes the lot area affected, maximizes the efficiency of the communications operations and allows for the implementation of the Hamlet Study recommendations to possibly utilize the open space on the north west side of the parcel for long term plans. We hope these comments will be useful to the ZBA in its review of this appeal. Cc: File PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND Date: April 25, 2006 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 F~x: 631 765-3136 TOZ From: Re: Ruth Oliva, Zoning Board of Appeals Chair ~,~A J Jerilyn B Woodhouse, Planning Board Chairperson Appeal # 5826 East Marion Fire Department Cingular Wireless Telecom 29245 Main Road, East Marion SCTM: 1000-31-3-11.31 Zone: R40 HB In response to your memo dated April 3, 2006, the Planning Board (PB) has reviewed the revised site plan and offers the following comments: We are site planning this project under the Building Departments Notice of Disapproval dated October 10, 2005 attached as A-0, the notice indicates that a special exception approval is required prior to Planning Board approval. The PB is currently reviewing a site plan drawing dated March 17, 2006. See the attached drawing. The revised site plan relocates the proposed 120' flagpole cell tower behind the existing accessory firehouse building, on the north side. The NYS DOT replied by letter dated January 6, 2006 after review they "do not have any comments concerning the installation of the communication tower at this time", additionally be advised any utility work will require an application to them and the NYS DOT indicated that the "permit application should be sensitive to the unique visual and historical setting of the Long Island North Shore Heritage Area". See the letter attached. The East Marion Fire District responded on January 6, 2006 after review with the request "that the landscaping be upgraded to fully screen all fencing, including barbed wire in addition to other ground equipment and structures" and the Planning Board will require full screening. See attached letter. Prior to PB approval, this application will require the following approvals: Southold Town Building Inspector, Town Engineer, LWRP, East Marion Fire District, NYS DOT (only if utility work occurs on the NYS ROW) and the Architectural Review Committee. · The Planning Board will require a bond to be in place for tower decommissioning prior to approval and recommends the same condition to the ZBA. East Marion Fire Department Cingular Wireless Telecom Page Two April 25, 2006 In view of the Planning Board's continued concern about the visual impacts of the 120' cell tower, the new proposed tower location was discussed placing the tower as close as possible to existing Fire Department structures. The equipment boxes are now to be placed behind the Fire Department structure, and needs to be surrounded by heavy landscaping located as close to the existing structure as possible. The Planning Board feels that the new location helps mitigate the visual impacts of the tower, which will now be substantially blocked by the firehouse roof. In addition, clustering the equipment boxes behind the firehouse minimizes the lot area affected, maximizes the efficiency of the communications operations and allows for the implementation of the Hamlet Study recommendations to possibly utilize the open grass space on the north west side of the parcel for long term plans. We hope these comments will be useful to the ZBA in its review of this appeal. cc: Planning Board members attachment · ~G BOARD MEMBERS Date: JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON DEC 2 ~: 2005 il pLANNING BOARD OFFICE I ~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 23, 2005 MEMORANDUM MAII/NG ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OI~'I~ICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 ?~5-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 To: From: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Clerk for Southold Town Board Josh Horton, Southold Town Supervisor Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Engineer Mark Terry, Local Water Revitalization Program Coordinator Suffolk County Department of Health Services * New York State Department of Transportation Suffolk County Water Authority * Suffolk County Planning Department Architectural Review Committee Victor L'Eplattenier, Site Plan~ Re: Agency Referral requests required under Southold Town Code Article XXV 100-254 Review Procedure part C the Planning Board refers this site plan for concerns, comments and Jurisdiction requirements if applicable. Dear Reviewer: The site plan status is a New Active Site Plan. Below is site plan application information pertaining to the listed project: East Marion Fire District Telecom 9425 NYS Route 24, East Marion SCTM# 1000-31-3-11.31 This site plan is for a proposed 120' cellular stealth flagpole type tower with Cingular Equipment installed internally at the height of 107' & 117', the Fire Department antennas are externally located at the heights of 120' & below 96', the pole illustrates a USA flag located at the top on 3.0583 acres split zoned parcel in the R-40 & HB Zones located on the n/s/o NYS Route 25 approximately 494' wlols! Stars Road in East Marion. SCTM#(s) 1000-31-3-11.31 Attached is a copy of the site plan application for your review. Please respond on your agency's position of the above action. Thank you in advance. *Maps are enclosed for your review cc: File, attachment Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, North Fork Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTItOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 Fax (631) 765-9064 Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road EO. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Board James Dinizio, Jr., ZBA Chairman ~ June 13, 2007 Request for Comments (Site Plan Coordination -Cingular at EM) The ZBA is reviewing the following application, and enclose copies of the ZBA Legal Notice, Building Department's Notice of Disapproval, ZB application, and latest map. The Planning Board may be involved under the site plan review steps under Chapter 280 (Zoning), and your review and comments are requested at this time. The file is available for review of additional documentation at your convenience for reference if needed. NAME TAX#/ ZBA BD NOD APPLICATION PLANS PREPARER ZONE DATE DATE STAMPED CINGULAR, 31-3- 5826 4/18/07 Special 4-16-07 Infinigy SBA 11.31 Exception site plan Engineering NETWORK R40 Zone under 280-69 Co. by and site plan John from PB Stevens,P.E. Your comments are appreciated by June 26th. Thank you. Encls. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman Gerard R Goehringer James Dinizio, Jr. Michael A. Simon Leslie Kanes Weisman TO: FROM: http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 · Fax (631) 765-9064 .TOWN MEMO Planning Board Ruth D. Oliva, ZBA Chairwoman DATE: May 30, 2006 SUBJECT: Request for Comments Mailing Address: Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road · P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, North Fork Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 Our Department has received updated site maps and is reviewing the subject application. The Planning Board is involved under the site plan review steps under Chapter 100 (Zoning), and your review and comments are requested at this time concerning the site plan elements of the Zoning Code. The file is available for review of additional documentation at your convenience. NAME TAX#/ ZBA BD NOD VARIANCE .PLANS PREPARER ZONE DATE DATE STAMPED CINGULAR 31.-3-11.3 5826 10/10/05 Spec. Exception 3/22/06 John WIRELESS R-40 Wire[ess Stevens, PE (EFD) Zone Antenna on telecom, tower Your comments are appreciated as soon as possible. Thank you. Encls. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS{[~ Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman Gerard E Goehringer James Dinizio, Jn Michael A. Simon Leslie Kanes Weisman Mailing Address: Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road · P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, North Fork Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 · Fax (631) 765-9064 TOWN MEMO TO: Planning Board FROM: Ruth D. Oliva, ZBA Chairwoman DATE: April 3, 2006 SUBJECT: Request for Comments Our Department has received and is reviewing the following application, and enclose copies of the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval, and application with the applicant's latest map. The Planning Board is involved under the site plan review steps under Chapter 100 (Zoning), and your review and comments are requested at this time concerning the proposed telecommunications tower in the R-40 Zone. The file is available for review of additional documentation at your convenience. NAME TAX#/ ZBA BD NOD VARIANCE PLANS PREPARER ZONE DATE DATE STAMPED East Marion 31.-3-11.3 5826 10/10/05 Special 10/24/05 John T. FD/Cingular R-40 A&B Exception Metzger, Zone Surveyor Your comments are appreciated by 04/17/06, if possible. Thank you. Encls. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Town Hall Southold, N,Y. BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES b~NTIL FULL COMPLETION OP THE WORK AUTHORIZED) PERMIT NO. 32920 Z Date APRIL 19, 2007 Permission is hereby granted to: for : MARION FIRE DISTRICT EAST PO BOX 131 EAST MAR~ON~NY 11939 CONSTRUCTION OF AN EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS TOWER PER ZBA ~5972 AS APPLIED FOR at premises located at 9245 MAIN RD EAST County Tax Map No. 473889 Section 031 Block 0003 Lot No. ] ',21 pursuant to application dated APRIL 10, 2007 and approved by' the Building Inspector to expire on OCTOBER Fee $ 250.00 19, 2008 Rev. 5/8/02 COPY 60:0I LO, 60 AWN IOd ~ 8S3 ~A0S f OSWMO3 696G_qSL]~9 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 TEL: (631) 765-1802 FAX: (631) 765-9502 www. northfork.net/Southold/ Examined ,20__ Approved 20__ Disapproved a/c Expiration ., 20 PERMIT NO. BUILDIN~I~ERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST DonJl~u have or need the following, before applying? B 0ai-d 0fHealth 4 sets of Building Plans Planning Board approval Suryey. Check Septic Form N.Y.S.D.E.C. Trustees Contact: Lawrence C. Re' Mail to: MuM ey, Meade, Niel sen&Re' 36 N. New York Ave., Huntington, N~ 11743/ Phone: 631-425-4100 Building Inspector APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date ; 20 INSTRUCTIONS a. This application MUST be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector with 4 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule· b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to [dj oining premises or public streets or areas, and waterways. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced Before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such a permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work· e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose what so ever until the Building Inspector issues a Certificate of'Occupancy. f. Every building permit shall expire if the work authorized has not commenced within 12 months after the date of issuance or has not been completed within 18 months from such date· If no zoning amendments or other regulations affecting the property have been enacted in the inierim, the Building Inspector may authorize, in writing, the extension of the permit for an addition six months· Thereafter, a new permit shall be required. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions, or alterations or for removal or demolition as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. New Cingular WireleSs PCS, LLC (Signature of applicant or name, if a co~oratio~ 333 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, NY 11797 0Vl~l~gad&essofapplicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor,' electrician, plumber or builder Lessee Nameofownerofpnnnises East Marion Fire District f~- ~ -~ -- .-- ~e tax roll or latest deed) · . zDel~aw~re Lira ted ki ~b~ 11 tv ComPanY° Joseph swe~l;,~System DeOelopment ~lanager Builders LicenSe. Plumbers License No. Electricians License No. Other Trade's License No. 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done: 9245 Route 25 East Marion House Number Street County Tax Map No. 1000 Section Subdivision (Name) 31 Hamlet, Filed Map No. ~ Lot . 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy Firehouse and Public Safety Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building Repair Removal Demolition Intended use and occupancz Public Utility Wireless Telecommunication Facility - Unmanned 4. Estimated Cost $130,000.00 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units N/A If garage, number of cars N/A Fee Addition Alteration Other Work~U01~c Ut~ Ii tvWireless~ (Deschpfion) (TO be paid on filing this application) Number of dwelling unitS on each floor 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use. N/A 7. Dimensions o f existing structures, if any: Front Rear Depth Height Number of Stories ' Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front Depth Height Number of Stories 9. 10. DateofPurchase 11/23/98 Dimensions ofentire new construction:Front Height Number of Stories )3.05 acres Size oflot{Front Rear Rear .Depth Rear Depth Eugene Kessler, as Executor of the Estate NameofFormerOwner of Herbert R. Mandel 11. Zone or use district .... in whmhpremzses are situated R40 and HB 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation? YES NO /at limited area of construction only 13. Will lot be re-graded? YES x NO Will excess fill be removed fi-om premises? YES x NO East Marion 9245 Route 25 14. NamesofOwnerofpremises Fire District Address. East Marion PhoneNo. Name of Architect Address Phone No Name of Contractor Address Phone No. 15 a. Is this property within 100 feet of a tidal wetland or a t~eshwater wetland? *YES NO x * IF YES, SOUTHOLD TOVv-N TRUSTEES & D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. b. Is this property within 300 feet of a tidal wetland? * YES NO * IF YES, D.E.C. PERMITS IVlAY BE REQUIRED. -' 16. Provide survey, to scale, with accurate foundation plan and distances to property lines. 17. If elevation at any point on property is at 10 feet or below, must provide topographical data on survey. S ATEOFN W¥O ) doseph Sweet being duly sworn, deposes and says that (~)he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract) above named, (g)Heisthe. System Development Manager of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (Contractor, Agent, Corporate Officer, etc.) Lessee - Authori zed Agent of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and frie this application; that all statements contained in this application are hue to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application fried therewith. Sw?n to before me this :iq3 LAWRENCE C. RE' Notary Public, State of New No. 524799664 Qualified in Suffolk · Commission Expires May New Cingu~ Wireless PCS, LLC · ~ [J ,~ ~ignature of Applicant hSweet, System Development Manager I tJWl'q O.F SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 TEL: (631) 765-1802 FAX: (631) 765-9502 www. northfork.net/Southold/ Examined ,20 Approved /20/ Disapproved a/c Expiration _, 20 PERMIT NO. BUILDiNG PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST Do y~hve or need the following, before applying? Board of Health 3 sets of Building Plans Planning Board approval Survey. Cheek Septic Form N.Y.S.D.E.C. Trustees Contact: Lawrence C. Re'  1~1 to:Munley, Meade, Niel sen & Re' /' ~ N. New York Ave., Huntinqton, N~ / ~ Phone:631-425-4100 ' 11743/ ~ / 13~'~r~fi~ng Ins~ ~tor ~ ~¢", "!~ !~PLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT ~B¢'; ~. '. [ Date ,20 a. T~atlon MUST be completely filled in by t~ewdter or in i~ and sub~tted to the Building ~spector with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing locmion of lot ~d of buildings on pre~ses, relmions~p to adjoi~ng pre~ses or public streets or areas, and wate~ays. c. ~e work covered by this application may not be comnenced before issu~ce of Building Pemt. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building ~spector will issue a Building Pemt to the applicant. Such a pe~t shall be k~t on the pre~ses available for inspection t~ou~out ~e work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in pad for ~y pu~ose w~t so ever until the Building hspector issues a Ceaificate of Occupancy. f. Eve~ building p emt shall expire if the work authorized has not cemented within 12 mon~s a~er ~e date of issuance or has not been completed within 18 mon~s kom such date. If no zo~g mendments or other m~lations affecting the prope~y have been ~acted in the interim, the Building ~spector may au~o~ze, in ~ting, the extension of the pe~t for an addition six months. ~ereafter, a new pemt shall be required. ~PLICATION IS ~BY M~E to the Building D~aament for the issuance of a Building Pe~t p~su~t to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffo~ Cowry, New York, and oth~ applicable Laws, Ord~ces or Re~lations, for the construction of buildings, additions, or situations or for removal or demolkion as herein described. The applicant a~ees to comply with all applicable laws, ordi~ces, build~g code, hous~g code, ~d re~lations, ~d to a~t authorized inspectors on presses and in building for necess~ impections. New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (Signature of al~pligant or, name. if a~corporation) (A Delaware [lml~ea Liaol~lty companY/ 333 Crossways Park Drive. Woodburv, NY 11797 (Mailing address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder Lessee Nameofownerofpremises East Marion Fire District a/d:~omDeolraa~r~ok~ a,b,,i,! ],}&~c~A~s~ff~.~e~ax roll or latest deed) If applicant is By: , ~ame ~[i~e'bf~orate officer) 0oseph Swee~ ~ystem Development Manager Builders License No~ Plumbem License No. Elec~cians License No. Other Trade's License No. 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done: 9245 Route 25 House Number Street East Marion Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section Subdivision (Name) 31 Block 3 Filed Map No. Lot 11.31 Lot 2. State existing use and occupancy emises and intended use and occupancy of proposed constixi':tion: a. Existing use and occupancy Firehouse b. Intendeduseand occupancy Public Utility Wireless Telecommunication Facility - Unmanned 3. Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building Repair Removal Demolition 4. Estimated Cost $130, 000.00 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units N/A If garage, number of cars N/A Fee Addition Alteration - 'iic Utiiit ' Other Work lvpu~ c arum,, n i ca Wl nWni rFea~v (Description) (To be paid on filing this application) Number of dwelling units on each floor N/A 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use. N/A 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front Height Number of Stories Rear _Depth Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front - Depth Height Number of Stofie~ · Rear 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front Height Number of Stories Rear .Depth 9. Sizeoflot: Front 10. Date of Purchase 11/23/98 Rear .Depth Eugene Kessler, as Executor of the Estate Name of Former Owner of Herbert R. Handel 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated I~40 and HB 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation? YES__ NO__ /at limited area of construction only 13. Will lot be re-graded? YES k NO Will excess fill be removed from premises? YES x East Marion 9245 Route 25 14. NamesofOwnerofpremises Fire District Address East Marion PhoneNo. Name of Architect Address Phone No Name of Contractor Address Phone No. NO 15 a. Is this property within 100 feet of a tidal wetland or a fi'eshwater wetland? *YES NO * IF YES, SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES & D.E.C. PERiMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. b. Is this property within 300 feet of a tidal wetland? * YES NO * IF YES, D.E.C. PERIvlITS MAY BE REQUIRED. 16. Provide survey, to scale, with accurate foundation plan and distances to property lines. 17. If elevation at any point on property is at 10 feet or below, must provide topographical data on survey, STATE OF NEW YORK) ss: COUNTY OF ) Joseph Sweet being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract) above named, (~)He is the System Development Manager of New Cinqular Wireless PCS, LLC (Contractor, Agent, Corporate Officer, etc.) Lessee - Authori zed Agent of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best ofh/s knowledge and belief; and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC By: ~ "~.~x X~ plieant Josept{N}weet, System Development Manager PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Please include with Z.B.A. Application) Applicant(s): New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Owners: East Marion Fire District I. If building is existing and alterations/additions/renovations are proposed: A. Please give the dimensions and overall square footage of extensions beyond existing building: Dimensions/size: N/A Square footage:_ N/A B. Please give the dimensions and square footage of new proposed foundation areas which do not extend beyond the existing building: Dimensions/size: N/A Square footage: N/A If a sign is proposed, please: A. Give dimensions of existing sign with photograph or sketch with details. B. Give dimensions of new sign. C. Is the new sign replacing an existing sign? Yes No . If so, please explain: N/A II. If landis vacant: Please give dimensions and overall square footage of new construction: Dimension/size: Square footage:. Height: III. Purpose and use of new construction requested in this application: P u b ] i c U t i 1 i t7 W i rel e s s Tel ecommuni cati on Faci 1 i ty IV. Additional information about the surrounding contours or nearby buildings that relate to the difficulty in meeting the code requirement(s): V. Please submit seven (7) photos/sets after stakfing corners of the proposed new construction. 7/02 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer, Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. ~t is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site, By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action, it provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type I and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ~ Part1 [] Part2 ~ Part3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: ]A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared, Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared,* result in and impacts that have a significant impact on the The project may one or more large important may environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions New Cin~ular Wireless PCS, LLC at East Marion Fire District Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) website Date Page 1 of 21 PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to ass[st in determining whether the action proposed may have a' significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance, NameofAction New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC at East Marion Fire District Location of Action (include Street Address, Municipality and County) 9245 Main Road, East Marion, New York 11939, Town of Southold, Suffolk County Name of App[[cantJSponsor New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Address 333 Crossways Park Drive City / POWoodbury Business Telephone (516) 677-6503 StateNew York Zip Code 11797 Name of Owner (if different) East Marion Fire District Address 9245 Main Road City / POEast Marion Business Telephone 631-477-3071 State New York Zip Code 11797 Descdption of Action: The proposed action consists of the installation ofa 120:t:-foot above grade level (agl) "flagpole" monopole to accommodate the antennas of the East Marion Volunteer Fire Department and wireless communications antennas to be concealed therein. New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (hereinafter "Cingular") proposes six antennas to be concealed within the flagpole. In addition, ground-based equipment cabinets would be situated within a fenced 10-foot by 27-foot area on an approximate 10-foot by 22-foot by 8-inch deep concrete pad. Page 2 of 21 Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present Land Use: [] Urban [] Industrial [] Commercial Forest Residential (suburban) [] Rural (non-farm) ]Agriculture []OtherEast Marion Volunteer Fire Dceartment 2. Total acreage of project area: .008+ APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) (gravel) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) Lawn acres. *Represents location of proposed flagpole and Cingular equipment area only. PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 . acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres .002+ acres 0 acres .006± acres .008± 0 acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? a. Soildrainage: []Well drained 100 D Poorly drained I~1 % of site I I Moderately well drained % of site. % of site If any agricultural land [~volved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? "'~ acres (see 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are them bedrock outcroppings on project site? [] Yes ~;~ No a. What is depth to bedrock <535± (in feet) 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: [0-10% 100 % •lO- 15% % D15% or greater % 6. Is project substential~[.y..~ontiguous to__or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places? LJ Yes ~ No 7, Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? [] Yes r~No No DYes []No 8. What is the depth of the water table? 31-32± (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? r~JYes 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Page 3 of 21 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? DYes [] No Accordin~l to: I site inspection and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ] · I 1 2, Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project: ;ite~ (ile., cliffs, dunes, ~t~['r geoIogi~'~Jri ~;(~t:i0ns? r []Yes EINo Describe: 13, Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? []Yes []No j f ~'es, explain: 14. Does the present site include scenic views known t.o be important to the community? 15. Streams within or conUguous to proJect area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: ~Ione b. Size (in acres): IN/A ..................... ,! Page 4 of 21 17. Is the site sewed by existing public utilities? [] Yes [] No a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? [] Yes [] No b. If YES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? []Yes DNo On-site improvements 18. Is the site located in a~n agricultural district ceffified pumuant to Agricul~re and Ma~ets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? LJYes ~No 19, Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Cdtical Environmen~l Area designated pursuant to A~cle 8 of the ECL; and 6 NYCRR 6177r']Yes ~JNo 20, Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? B. 1. Project Description Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate). I~Yes ~ No a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: .008± b. Project acreage to be developed: .008± acres initially; .008:t: c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: 0 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if' appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed. N/A f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing N/A ; proposed 0 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated pern~thr: ] h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: N/A acres, Represents location of proposed flagpole and Cingular equipment area only. acres ultimately. % Unmanned facility. (upon completion of project)? To inspect equipment. One Family Two Family Multiple Family width; 10 ft. tons/cubic yards. Initially Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: 120 height; 10 j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 0 2:. How much natural material (i.e. rock. eel-th, etc.) will be removed from the site? 30+ 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed DYes DNO [] N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes [] No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes DNo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? .008± *The proposed 120-foot agl flagpole would be situated within a 10-foot by 10-foot fenced area. Page 5 of 21 Condominium length. * acres. (grass) 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? DYes ~]No 6. If single phase pm. ject: Anticipated period of construction: !'3 months, (including demolition) 7. If multi-phased: N/A a. Total number of phases anticipated ~ (number) b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1: ~ month year, (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date of final phase: ~ month ~ year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? [] Yes [] No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? [] Yes [] No 9. Number of.jobs generated: during construction 3-5 ; a~er project is complete 0 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 1 1. Will project require relocation of any project~ or facilities? ~ Yes []No If yes, explain: 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? N Yes [] No Unmanned facility e. If yes, indicate tTpO of waste {sewage, industrial, etc) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? [] Yes [] No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? DYes []No If yes, explain: 15. Is pro,ject or any portion of project located in a 100 year floed plain? 16. Will the project generate solid waste? [] Yes [] No Unmanned facility a. If yes, what is the amount per month? ~ tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? [] Yes [] No c. if yes, give n. ame ; location d, ~No Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? DYes [] No Page 6 of 21 e, If yes, explain: 17, Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? []Yes ~INo Unmanned facility. a. If yes, what is the anticipated rata of disposaJ? ~ tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? DYes [] No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? [] Yes [] No 20, Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? [] Yes [] No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? [] Yes [] No If yes, indicate type(s) Minimal electricity 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day, 0 gallons/day. Unmanned facility 24. Does proJect involve Local, State or Federal funding? [] Yes [] No If yes, explain: Page 7 of 21 25. Approvals Required: Type Submittal Date City, Town, Village Board ]Yes [] No City, Town, Village Planning Board [] Yes [] No Site Plan City, Town Zoning Board []Yes [] No Special Exception City, County Health Deparl~nent [] Yes [] No Other Local Agencies ]Yes [] No Other Regional Agencies Yes [~ No State Agencies [] Yes ~J No Federal Agencies ~ Yes [] No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? [i~]Yes [] No If Yes, indicate decision required: [] Zoning amendment [] Zoning variance [] New/revision of master plan ~ Site ptan [] Special use permit [] Resource management plan D Subdivision ~ Other Page 8 of 21 2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? IR-40 - Residential Low Density AA 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? The proposed location of the flagpole and Cingular equipment area are part of an overall property developed with the fire depart_ment ~a~nd associat~ buildings ~nd paved areas- 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? No change proposed. 5. WhaL is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? I N/A 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? [] Yes [] No 7, What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a ~ mile radius of proposed action? The predominant land uses within a 1/4 mile radius are residential and business. The zoning classifications are R-40 Residential Low Density AA and R-80 Residential Low Density A, HB-Hamlet Business and RR-Resort/Residential. 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a Y4 mile? 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? []Yes [] No a, What is the minimum lot size proposed? Page 9 of 21 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? [] Yes [] No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection? NYes []No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? [] Yes [] No 12, Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? [] Yes ~ No a. If yes, is the existing road net~vork adequate to handle the additional traffic. DYes [] No D. Infom~atlonal Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project, If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC by Freudcnthal & Elkow~tz Applicant/Sponsor Name Consulting Group, Inc. ~mny Watral Revised October 14, 2005 DateSeptember 23, 2005 Title Vice President, Planning If the acUon is in the Coastal Ama, and you am a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this Page 10 of 21 · . ,4.~-u (9/9~-9c SEQR 617..20 {~State Environmental Ouahty Review Visual EAF Addendum This form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question 11 of Part 2 of the Full EAF, (To be completed by Lead Agency) Distance Bet'ween Visibility · 1. Would the project be visible from: · A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available to the public for the use, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities? · An overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities? · A site or: structure listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places? N/A · State Parks? · The State Forest Preserve?N/A · Hational Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges?N/A · Hationa] Hatural Landmarks and other outstanding natural features? N/A · Hational Park Service lands? · Rivers designated as Hational or State Wild, Scenic or Recreational? · Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such as part of the lntersta[e System, or Amtrak?N/A · A governmentally established or designated interstate or inter-county foot trail, or one formally proposed for establishment or designation?N/A · A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated as scenic? Project and Resource (in t4iles) O-~A ~,i -V2 1/2-3 3-5 5.+ [] [] [] (3 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] O [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ..O [] · Municipal park, or designated open space? [] [] [] [] [] · County road? [] [] [] [] [] · State? [] [] [] [] [] · Local road? [] [] [] 0 [] Is the visibility of the project seasonal? (i.e., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) []Yes ~No Are any of the resources checked in question 1 used by the public during the time of year during which the project will be visible? Olio OF EXISTING VISCIAL ENVIRON/riEl'iT 4. From each item checked in question l, check those which generally describe the environment. surrounding Within *lA mile * 1 mile Essentially undeveloped [] [] --'orested [] [] Agricultural [] [] Suburban residential [] [] ndustrial N/A [] [] Commercial [] [] Urban N/A [] [] River, Lake, Pond (Orient Harbor) [] [] Cliffs; Overlooks [] [] Designated Open Space (Golf Course) [] [] Fiat [] [] Hilly .N/A '" [] [] ~lountainous N/A [] [] Other [] [] ~OTE: add attachments as needed Are there visually similar projects within: *lb mile [-]Yes [XIHo '1 miles []Yes [~Ho '2 miles [-]Yes [~No '3 miles [']Yes [~iNo * Distance from project site are provided for assistance. Substitute other distances as appropriate, 7,453 Ba~d oa i'~SDOT 2003 EXPOSORE Tr~c Volume R~port for Suffolk 6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project is Co~,. NOTE: When user data is unavailable or unknown, use best estimate. CONTEXT 7. The situation or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is FREQUENCY Holidays/ Activity Daily Weekly Weekends Seasonally Travel to and from work [] [] [] [] In recreational activities [] [] [] [] Routine travel by residents [] [] [] [] At a residence [] [] [] [] At worksite [] [] [] ' [] Other [] [] [] [] ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK In the Matter of the Application of NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, For Special Exception Approval and Variance, pursuant to Article XVI, Sections 100-163D(2) and (3) of the Code of the Town of Southold, to install a public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Route 25 East Marion, New York District 1000 Section 31.00, Block 03.00, Lot 011.031 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) SITE LOCATION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS LAUREL MOONEY, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am a Site Acquisition Specialist for Highlander Consultants, Inc., representing New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC CCingular" hereafter) in the Long Island market. In my capacity as a site consultant, I have been provided with a search ring prepared by Cingular's radio frequency engineers depicting the East Marion area within the Town of Southold for the purpose of identifying a parcel of land upon which Cingular may establish a public utility wireless telecommunications facility. I have exercised a good faith effort to secure a lease agreement for Cingular in the East Marion area to colocate on an existing tower or other available and appropriate structure, pursuant to Town of Southold Code Sections 100-163D(3). However, such location or colocation is not feasible. A large portion of the subject search ring consists of single-family residences, thereby diminishing the availability of appropriate structures upon which colocation would be feasible. The remaining portion of the search ring in question consists of mixed uses, such as bed and breakfasts, and religious establishments. Cingular considered installing antennas in the existing steeple of the East Marion Community Church, located on Main Road in East Marion. However, Cingular's radio frequency engineers determined that the height of the existing steeple is too low to eliminate the coverage gap in question. Cingular also considered installing a stealth public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the Baptist Chapel, located at 9920 Main Road in East Marion, but the existing church is not improved by a steeple. There are no other viable structures of sufficient height in the vicinity of the search ring suited to serve as a wireless facility for Cingular. Rather, in order to meet the objectives defined by Cingular's radio frequency engineers, Cingular's options are limited to building a new pole structure within the subject search ring. 2. Thus, pursuant to Town of Southold Code Section 100-163D(2), the following alternative sites were considered as locations for a new structure to support antennas in order to meet the coverage objectives of the search ring in question: 1) Suffolk County Water Authority, Rocky Point Road, East Marion; 2) Quintessentials Bed, Breakfast and Spa, 8985 Main Road, East Marion; and, 3) Arbor View Bed and Breakfast, 8900 Main Road, East Marion. The Suffolk County Water Authority was unwilling to enter into a lease agreement with Cingular for the erection of a flagpole monopole with public utility wireless telecommunications antennas affixed therein and the installation of related equipment. In addition, Cingular determined that the remaining parcels set forth above are not large enough to accommodate the installation of a flagpole monopole and related equipment. Moreover, the abovementioned East Marion Community Church and Baptist Chapel were eliminated as feasible candidates building a new support structure as well since said premises are also too small to accommodate Cingular's proposed facility. 3. The property located at 9245 Route 25, East Marion, was chosen as the optimal site for which a lease agreement could be secured while still meeting the radio frequency objectives in the subject search ring. Cingular proposes to co-locate within the proposed pole at a height of 107'-117'feet in order to satisfy such objectives. In addition, the proposal incorporates a stealth design in the form of a flagpole. Hence, utilizing the stealth design will minimize the visual impact in the area. Furthermore, the subject premises is large enough to permit the location of the proposed flagpole monopole so that the setback requirements set forth in Town of Southold Code Section are met. However, inasmuch as the parcel in question measures approximately 3.0583 acres and lies within a residential zoning district, it does not meet the minimum lot area requirement set forth in Town of Southold Code Section 100-165B and a variance is required. Swor~ to before me this _ dayof 005 80Ttflty PUBLIC-STATE OF k~EW I'0~tK I~0. 01NE802~76 GUItUF/ED I/i SUFFOLK HIGHLANDER CONSULTANTS, INC., representing NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC -LL),UaEL ~OONE¥ ~ FCC Home I Search I Updates I E-Filing I Initiatives I For Consumers I Find People Universal Licensing System FCC > WTB_ > ULS > Online Systems > License Search ULS License PCS Broadband License - KNLG502 - New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC 0% New__Seprch 0% Refine Search ~ Return to Results ~] Printable Paqe~ FCC Site Hal) [] HELP ~ Reference Coev ~," MaD _Li_c.e_o s~e Call Sign KNLG502 Radio Service CW - PCS Broadband Status Active Auth Type Regular Market Market BTA321 - New York, NY Channel Block E Submarket i Associated 001885.00000000- Frequencies 001890.00000000 (MHz) 001965.00000000- 001970.00000000 Dates Grant 06/27/1997 Expiration Effective 09/27/2005 Cancellation Buildout Deadlines 1st 06/27/2002 2nd Notification Dates 1st 05/29/2002 2nd 06/27/2007 Licensee FRN 0003291192 (View Ownership) Licensee New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC 5601:[ LEGACY DRIVE, MS: A-3 PLANe, TX 75024 A'I-FN FCC GROUP Type Limited Liability Company P: (469)229-7422 F:(469)229-7297 E: KELLYE.E.ABERNATHY~CINGULAR.COM Contact Cingular Wireless LLC I(ellye E Abernathy Esq 5601 LEGACY DRIVE, NS: A-3 PLANe, TX 75024 P: (469) 229-7422 F: (469)229-7297 E: KELLYE. E.ABERNATHY@CINGU LAR.COM http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsS earch/license.j sp?licKey=9888 12/8/2005 Ownership and Qualifications Radio Service Type Mobile Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes Alien Ownership The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions. Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Bpsic Qualification questions. Demographics Race Ethnicity Gender IJLS Help ULS Glossa~Ly - FAQ - Online Held - Technical SuPl~O~ - Licens ng Supl;Lort ULS Online Systems CORES - ULS Online Filing - Li~cense Search - _Apl~lication Search About ULS _Privacy Statement - About ULS - _ULS Hom_e Basic Search By Call Sign = FC_C_ [ WLreless I DLS [ _CORES Federal Communications Commission 445 :[2th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 _Help [ Tech Support Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) ~F'Cf: 1.-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) E-maih ~cinfo~fcc.go¥ http://wireless2, fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.j sp?licKey:9888 12/8/2005 08/22/05 16:42 FA~ ?].82~ ABSTRACTER ~NF0 07/05/0~ ~2:~5 F~ ~3~G5~43~ SouChol~, Da~ ~%1~ 18 ~002 COPY [~oo$/olo ~;~UdlOld, Ceztifi~te Of Occupancy l~.to ...................... T~ ¢~.Tlfl'~ thai ~ ~d~ .... ............. ~ ........ ~b~ ~'~' .9~ ~ ...... e~o~ ,. e! ,~, ..... ' ........... ~ .Lot No ........ ' ~~ ...... c~for~s ~sm~ly to ~ ~a~i~ for ~ ~ ~ ~d ~ ~ O~ d~ted o~ the spp~Cnb~ p~l~uns of t~ ~w. ~e'g~t~ for w~ ~ ~ ts ~u~ ~ ......... · ..................... The ~r~ ~ l~d t~ .......... ' ' ' ~uffolk ~-~"~ De~m~ ~f H~t~ ~ ..................................... ~..~=~ ~~ ~o ............................................. kev. 1/al DEC 0 ? ~UFFOI.~ fiOUNTy , 07/10 08/~8/2005 11:01 12-1@-1998 MUNLEYMEAD~LSENRE I~'~¥,[ I:'.1 ~A~I' MARION FIR~ D~TRICYI', m ~lml c.q~mdo,~, h.,,ui~, ira p~ .tm, ~l~ p~m,e.d lie ..%infield, N~. Yetis, II~l, -¢EJ ': ~ '~'~I~BUI.~ "A" AI~ACTI rD )IEII&'I~ ANg Jv~,DIC A.PAR"r N EIt~:~JIr PAGE 88/18 MUNLEYMEA~LSENRE PAGE 09/10 M~NLE~ME~DE~ENRE P~E ~0/10 Inventory of Cinqular Wireless Sites -Town of Southold L1-1017 (SubJect Site) Distance (miles) from SiteNumber SiteName ~)wner Location Address Latitude Longitude StructureT)/pe Height subject site Status L1-1017 East Madon --ast Madon FD 9395 Main Rd(Rte 25), East Madon, NY 41.12781 .72.34143 :la,qpole 120 0 Subject Site LI-735 Odent Point 3rient Point FD )-3300 Main Rd, Odent Point, NY 41.143 -72.2988 Vlonopole/Fla~pole 60 2.5 Future 225 Greenport .~reenport Water Distdct t4oore*s Lane, Greeport, NY 41.1042 -72.3742 /rater Tank 146 2.4 On Air Z29 Southold ~outhold Police Dept >econic Lane, Peconic, NY 41.0358 .72.455 _at[ice Tower 121 8.7 On Air L1-1027 Cutcho~ue 3rown Castle -~1855 CR~,8, Cutcho~ue, NY 41.0296 .72.497303 ~4onopole 85 10.6 Approved FU2 Shelter Island ~helter Island Garbage Dump Vtenantic Rd, Shelter Island,NY 41.06667 .72.3508 ~lonopole 150 4.3 On Air -I-741 East Nor~hville (eyspan 5792 Sound Ave, Jamespor[, NY 40.9896 .72.58411 -at[ice Tower 150 16 Future _1-201 Fishe¢s Island .ad¥ of Grace Catholic Chumh ~)ceanic Avenue, Fishers Island, NY 41.2611 .72.01444 3hurch Buildin,g 35 19 OnAir 228 Mat[ituck ~Cin~)ular Wireless :{te 25 & Eliiah Lane, Mat[ituck, NY 40.9969 .72.5108 ~Aonopole 100 12.6 On Air SUBJECT SiTE L1-1017 ~ FUTURE SITES · EXISTING SITES Cingular V~reless Services in the Town of $outhold QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for sale? [] Yes ~ No Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours? [] Yes ~No 1) Are there any areas that contain wetland grasses? No 2) Are the wetland areas shown on the map submitted with this application? No 3) Is the property bulkheaded between the wetlands ama and the upland building area? No 4) If your property contains wetlands or pond areas, have you contacted the office of the Town Trustees for its detennination of jurisdiction? N/A Please confirm status of your inquiry or application with the Trustees: D. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or belo~v five feet above mean sea level? No Are there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences that exist and are not shown on the survey map that you are submitting? No (Please show area of these structures on a diagram if any exist. Or state "none" on the above line, if applicable.) Do you have any construction taking place at this time concerning your premises? No If yes, please submit a copy of your building permit and map as approved by the Building Department and describe: G. Do you or any co-owner also own other land close to this parcel? the proximity of your lands on your map with this application. No If yes, please label H. Please list present use or operations conducted at this parcel F J reh ou se and proj~osed usePub] i c uti 1 i ty wi eel ess tel ecommuni cation Faci l i ty (ex~,3ples: existing: single-family; prg~Ssed: same with garage.) East ~apion F~e~istrict f Au~ized SignatUre and Date 2/05 Daniel H. Wood, Chairman Board of Commissioners APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of Town officers and employee~. The purpose of this fonu is to provide information, which can alert the Town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. YOURNAME: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (Last nmne, first name, middle initial, unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity, such as a company. If so, indicaie the other person or company nmne.) NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax Grievance Variance Change of Zone Approval of Plat Exemption from Plat or Official Map Other X If "Other", name the activity: Si te Pl an Appl i cati on Do you personally, (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business, including a partnership, in which the Town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which the Town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shams. YES NO If you answered "YES", complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold: Title or position of that person: Describe that relationship between yourself (the applicant) and the To~vn officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A through D (below) and/or describe the relationship in the space provided. The Town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): A) the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation); B) the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); C) an officer, director, partner, or employee of the applicant; or D) the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submitted t , 2005 Signature: Print Name: ~)fl~'~et, System Devol opment N~ Cingular Wireless PC~ LLC Manage' I'OWN OF SOUTHOLD 2OUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC At the premises: 9245 Route 25 East Marion, New York District 1000 Section 31, Block 3, Lot 11.31 STATE OF NEW YORK ) )ss.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) AUTHORIZATION OF OWNER DANIEL H. WOOD , being duly sworn, deposes and says: Iamthe Chairman, Board of C°mmissionqgItt~eEastMarionFh:eDistrict, owner in fee of the premises known as Section 31, Block 3, Lot 11.31 (the "Premises" hereafter), and do hereby authorize New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("Cingular" hereafter), and its representatives to bring such applications for municipal approvals as may be necessary for constructing or installing on the Premises such antennas, support structures, and related equipment as Cingular may require for the establishment of its public utility wireless telecommunication facility. As such, I will fully cooperate with Cingular and its agents in obtaining any required Approvals. EAST MARION FIRE DISTRiCT Sworn to before me this 3-6tlolay~o'~ Augus~ ,2005. NOTARY PUBLIC EDWAI~ JOHN ~O~D ~th l~lli~ ~ ~ ~ New Yorl~ 02B0037~i~ ' ,. COunty EDW~ ~HN SOlD 5th Ho~ P~ ~te ol Hew York 02Bffi376625 Suffolk County Commission ~pires April 30, 200~ APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of Town officers and employees. The purpose of this form is to provide information, which can alert the Town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. YOURNAME: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (Last name, first name, middle initial, unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity, such as a company. If so, indicate the other person or company nmne.) NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax Grievance Variance Change of Zone Approval of Plat Exemption from Plat or Official Map Other X If "Other", name the activity: Application for Special Exception and Variance to Town of Southold Zoning Code Do you personally, (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business, including a parmership, in which the Town officer or employee has even a panial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which the Town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shares. YES NO X If you answered "YES", complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold: Title or position of that person: Describe that relationship between yourself (the applicant) and the Town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A through D (below) and/or describe the relationship in the space provided. The Town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): A) the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation); _ B) the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); C) an officer, director, panner, or employee of the applicant; or D) the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submitted this .~da~, '7~17 F4 , 2005 Signature: ~N~ ,~1~ ~J~--'~-~ [ Print Name: d os'~'~'~w~_v stem g~evel opment New~ngular Wireless PCS, LLC Manager EDWAED JOHN BOYD V ATrOI{NEY AND COUNSELLOE Al LAW 54855 MAIN I{OAD P,O. BOX 1468 SOU?HOLB, NEW YOI{K 11871 (631) 765-t 555 FACSIMILE: (631) 765-5969 E-MAIL: ejb@elilaw.net Southold Town Board of Appeals Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 JUl ~ § ~0117 July 9, 2007 Re: EAST MARION FIRE DISTRICT Tax Map No. 1000-31-3 - 11.31 Greetings: At the June 28, 2007 public hearing a question was raised as to the number of"911" or emergency telephone calls to emergency service providers that come from cellular phones. 1 raised this question with Chief Cochran of the Southold Town Police who, in turn, contacted the head of the Suffolk County Public Service Answering Point (PSAP) Commission. Chief Cochran was advised that presently over 41% of the emergency calls received by Suffolk County originate from cellular phones. More locally, I spoke with PSD-2 Bryan Weingart who is the lead dispatcher for the Southold Town Police. Mr. Weingart stated that to reach an absolute accurate percentage would require an analysis of the trunk line on which each call was received, a task that the Southold Police are not staffed to accomplish. Mr. Weingart stated that in his experience over 50% of the emergency calls received by his agency originate from cellular phones. As Mr. Weingart said, "Everyone is using them; even people calling from their homes." In the private sector, I also spoke with Captain Joseph Frohnhoefer, founder and CEO of SeaTow International. Mr. Frohnhoefer stated that his company's experience showed in excess of 60% of its emergency calls being placed from cellular telephones, with that percentage reaching toward 80% in some parts of the country. I trust the above information will be of assistance to the Board of Appeals in determining the critical role that cellular telephones play in any emergency communications network and the continuing need for improved cellular telephone service in Southold Town ..... Ver~ ~ruty you[~, ................ Edward John Boyd V EJB/bv ~ ~ "~ F& t~5'~ '~ MU~EY, MEADE, NIELSEN ~,~ ATTORNEYS AT LA~,**' HEP~Y TO: [] (516) 487-6500 July 10, 2007 BY HAND Chairman James Dinizio and Members of the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 RE: Application to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Main Road, East Marion, New York District 1000 Section 31.00, Block 03.00, Lot 011.031 Dear Chairman Dinizio and Board Members: This shall serve as our response to the several issues raised during the Public Hearing for this application held on June 28, 2007. We were asked to provide information supporting our statement that approximately forty to fifty percent of all calls to 911 are made from mobile telephones. To that end, we enclose an article dated January 2006 that appeared in Consumer Reports that states that more than fifty percent of called to 911 are made from wireless phones. In addition we enclose a copy of "Wireless 911 Services FCC Consumer Facts" that states that as of March 2006, more than thirty percent of calls made to 911 are made from wireless phones and that that number was continuing to increase. In fact, the article states that nationally over fifty million calls to 911 are made per year from wireless phones. Edward J. Boyd, attorney for the East Marion Fire District, advised that he also investigated this issue and delivered to you correspondence summarizing his findings. During the Public Heating we were asked to provide the Board with a map depicting the general coverage area provided by all existing Cingular Wireless sites in the Town of Southold. To that end, we enclose a map that generally depicts the approximate existing coverage for each existing Cingular Wireless site. Chairman James Dinizio and Members of the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals July 10, 2007 Page 2 of 3 At the conclusion of the Public Heating, you advised that the Board is considering retaining a consultant to review technical data submitted and asked us to comment on whether we believe Town of Southold Zoning Code § 280-60 D (6) should apply in this case. Section 280-69D(6) states, "The Zoning Board of Appeals may retain technical consultants as it deems necessary to provide assistance in the review of the needs and site location alternatives analyses and other matters that the Board deems necessary. The applicant shall bear the reasonable cost associated with such consultation, which cost shall be assessed as an additional application fee. In no case shall the fee be more than 5% of the total project cost as determined for building permit fee assessment purposes". As you know, the instant application is one to install small panel antennas inside a pole that is to be erected by the East Marion Fire District pursuant to the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals dated March 9, 2007 and pursuant to Building Permit no.: 32920 dated April 19, 2007. As such, our client's antennas will not be visible and, therefore, will have no visual impact. Moreover, during the Public Hearing, the Board conceded that the installation of the antennas inside the approved pole would not have a negative effect on the property values in the vicinity. In addition, testimony was given that the cumulative radio frequency emissions from the East Marion Fire District's approved communications facility and Cingular's proposed wireless facility will comply with applicable FCC standards. A report was also prepared and submitted in support of the testimony given regarding radio frequency emissions. It should be noted that Town of Southold Zoning Code § 280-67 states, "It is the express purpose of this article to minimize the visual and environmental impacts of wireless communication facilities while protecting the health, safety and welfare of Southold's citizens and allowing wireless service providers to meet their technological and service objectives...Furthermore, the standards herein reflect two preferences: that wireless communication facilities are preferred in industrial areas and that wireless communication facilities be located on existing buildings and towers rather than on newly constructed towers." Cingular Wireless' proposal meets the Code objectives by utilizing an approved structure thereby reducing visual impact and the proliferation of new towers. In light of the foregoing we believe that retaining a consultant in this case is unnecessary and would be unduly burdensome to the applicant. It is beyond argument that this proposal represents the least obtrusive means to provide service to the community. Site alternative analysis under the circumstances is unnecessary. To retain an expert at this late stage to review an application that will not have a negative effect on the community would be unfair to the applicant. The applicant has, at great expense, had construction drawings and zoning drawings prepared, attended numerous Planning Board and Architectural Review Committee work sessions, provided documents to conform with application requirements and provided testimony of witnesses, all in furtherance of this application. There can be no doubt that this site is necessary; if the site were not needed to provide reliable coverage, the applicant would not have proceeded with the application and incurred all of the attendant expenses. The retaining of a consultant at this late stage would serve no purpose other than to further delay the review of the Chairman James Dinizio and Members of the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals July 10, 2007 Page 3 of 3 application. While we do not doubt that the retention of a consultant might be warranted in certain applications seeking approval of a new tower, it is certainly not warranted in this case. We are aware that the Town of Southold is considering a moratorium with respect to applications for wireless telecommunication facilities. In the event that, despite the foregoing, you intend to retain a consultant to review our client's application, we request that such review be completed promptly and that the failure of the Board of Appeals to act on this application at the time a moratorium is imposed not be used to further delay this matter. It should also be noted §280- 69D (6) limits our client's fee for review by a consultant to no more than 5 percent of the total project cost. The estimated cost of the improvements sought pursuant to this application is $70,000.00 Therefore, if such a review takes place our client's fee for a consultant's review would be limited to no more than $3,500.00. The applicant has an urgent need to provide reliable service to East Marion. Its proposal described above conforms with Town policy and will have no negative effect on the community. Moreover, it will enable users to enjoy reliable service and will enhance the emergency safety net in this area. As you know, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires that local jurisdictions review applications without delay. Accordingly we respectfully request that you promptly grant this application. Thanking you for your courtesies, we remain Very truly yours, Lawrence C. Re' LCR:jm Enclosures 23 ~ ConsumerReports Making sure 911 emergency help is there if you need it In the long aftermath of the devastating hurricanes of 2005, few questions remain more urgent than whether we can count on our phone systems in times of trouble. More than 3 million customers' phone lines were knocked out in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama by wind and water during Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. Many of the phone lines that still worked couldn't summon help because 911 call centers or the switching centers that route calls to them went down. Wireless phones also proved useless in many places, as more than a thousand cell sites and their switching centers became inoperative in the wake of the storm. Some residents of the affected areas managed to reach help using other phone services, including text messaging over their wireless phones, Voice over Internet Protocol (VolP), and satellite telephony. "Katrina proved that in emergencies you now have multiple ways of communicating," says Rick Jones of the National Emergency Number Association. "All worked in certain places, and all didn't work in certain places. Every service had its limitations." The lesson for consumers is that while a single telephone account could suffice for individual emergencies, no one service can currently be counted on to work in a widespread CRITICAL CALl_ This New Orleans police officer used his cell phone during a rescue operation. Damaged 911 call centers could not receive calls from either wired or wireless phones. calamity, For that reason, you may want to hedge your bets by subscribing to more than one type of phone service. Here's what to consider: Landlines are vulnerable. The traditional wired phone system still sets the standard for reliability in emergencies, automatically providing local 911 centers with the caller's address. That can be a lifesaver in the event of a heart attack or stroke, for example. Yet as was dramatically demonstrated by Katrina, landline service can be disrupted too. Nearly a month after the hurricane, hundreds of thousands of wired phones were still cut off from service. Most cell phones can't be located in an emergency. With more than 50 percent of all 911 calls made from wireless phones, and about one-third of cell phones purchased just for emergencies, many consumers depend on mobile telephone service in times of distress. But mobility has its price, requiring advanced technology to provide a 911 caller's position to local dispatchers. The Federal Communications Commission, which regulates interstate calls, mandated that by Dec. 31, 2005, wireless 911 callers' position information, accurate to within several hundred feet, must be available to local emergency responders. At this writing, however, the wireless E911 system has not been fully deployed, so be prepared to provide location information when calling 911, which may be tricky at night or in an unfamiliar place. You can check on local compliance at nena.ddti, net. Internet 911 is improving but still spotty. During Katrina, VoIP worked well in locations where broadband Internet connections were available. For instance, New Orleans city officials were first able to communicate with the outside world via VolP. The FCC directed VolP providers to make their services E911-compatible by Nov. 28, 2005. At this writing, some urban areas in the U.S. are supporting E91 t calls from most VolP providers, while rural areas are taking longer to comply. As a result, VolP still isn't a reliable replacement for land[ine 911 service for many consumers. Satellite phones also have drawbacks. The most consistently available emergency phone service throughout Katrina's onslaught and aftermath was satellite telephony. This service, used primarily by government, industry, and nomadic world travelers, is now generating interest as a backup option for emergencies. Handsets are somewhat bulkier than cell phones and sell for $750 to $1,500, plus the price of the calling plan. Unfortunately, satellite phones also have limitations. The phones require a clear view of the sky, making indoor use iffy, and adverse weather may also pose problems. 911 can call you. One result of the hurricanes' devastation has been greater interest in emergency community notification programs, which use automated outgoing telephone calls, e-mail, and text messages to tell residents about evacuations, environmental threats, or missing persons. This is usually referred to as Reverse 911, a trademark of Sigma Communications, the firm that originated the underlying technology. Such service is already in place in communities from Brookline, Mass., to San Diego, Carl[ Note that these systems often rely on landline numbers from phone directories; people with unlisted numbers or wireless or VolP service must provide their phone numbers to be included. WHAT YOU CAN DO Have more than one type of phone. First, keep a landline phone, even if you subscribe to the most basic level of service. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-computers/911-when-you-need-it-lO6-9... 07/09/2007 , :ConsumerReports.org - 911 when you need it 1/06:911 call, 911 eme~cy. Page 2 of 2 VolP still isn't ready to replace landline, in our view. A satellite phone may be a worthy option, but its expense will be hard to justify for most people. Keep your wireless phone's battery charged, have a spare, and/or a car charger, and also consider the following steps: Learn to use text messaging. In Katrina-battered New Orleans, wireless voice calls jammed the few remaining cell sites. But the same damaged telephone system continued to deliver text messages. If you're not familiar with creating and sending a text message, consult your phone's instruction book or the nearest teenager. Get a Iocatable cell phone. If you're using a handset that's more than two years old on the Sprint, Nextel, or Verizon wireless systems, it may not have the Global Positioning System (GPS) technology that would help a 911 operator determine your location. Look for the GPS logo in the instruction manual or on the box, or ask your carrier. If not, consider getting a new phone, just in case. ICE your cell phone. This idea, which apparently originated with a British paramedic, could assist rescue personnel if you are ever incapacitated. You simply create a contact in your cell phone's memory with the name ICE (for "In Case of Emergency"), listing the numbers of people you would want to be notified. (.)L! [ COLD9 An ICE number in your cell can aid rescuers if you're found unconscious. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-computers/911-when-you-need-it- 106-9... 07/09/2007 : X,~reless 911 Services Page 1 of 4 Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau FCC > CGB Home > Consumer Publications > Wireless 911 Services Wireic ::-: 911 Ser FCC Consumer Facts Background The number of 911 calls placed by people using wireless phones has more than doubled since 1995, to over 50 million a year. Public safety personnel estimate that about 30% of the millions of 911 calls they receive daily are placed from wireless phones, and that percentage is growing. For many Americans, the ability to call 911 for help in an emergency is one of the main reasons they own a wireless phone. Other wireless 911 calls come from "Good Samaritans" reporting traffic accidents, crimes or other emergencies. Prompt delivery of these and other wireless 911 calls to public safety organizations benefits the public by promoting safety of life and property. Unique Challenges Posed by Wireless Phones While wireless phones can be an important public safety tool, they also create unique challenges for public safety and emergency response personnel and for wireless service providers. A wireless phone is actually a radio with a transmitter and a receiver that uses radio frequencies or channels -- instead of telephone wire -- to connect callers. Because wireless phones are by their very nature mobile, they are not associated with one fixed location or address. A caller using a wireless phone could be calling from anywhere. While the location of the cell tower used to carry a 911 call may provide a very general indication of the location of the caller, that information is not usually specific enough for rescue personnel to deliver assistance to the caller quickly. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has taken a number of steps to increase public safety by encouraging and coordinating development of a nationwide, seamless communications system for emergency services that includes the provision of location information for wireless 911 calls. Because wireless 911 location information will not be available everywhere immediately, it is important for consumers calling 911 from wireless phones to remember the following: · Tell the emergency operator the location of the emergency right away. · Give the emergency operator your wireless phone number so that if the call gets http://www, fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/wireless91 lsrvc.html 06/29/2007 \~/,,ireless 911 Services Page 2 of 4 disconnected, the operator can call you back. If your wireless phone is not "initialized" (i.e., you do not have a contract for service with a wireless service provider), and your emergency call gets disconnected, you must call the emergency operator back because he or she does not have your telephone number and cannot contact you. To help public safety personnel allocate emergency resources, learn and use the designated number in your state for highway accidents or other non life-threatening incidents. Often, states reserve specific numbers for these types of incidents. For example, "#77" is the number used for highway accidents in Virginia. The number to call for non life-threatening incidents in your state can be found in the front of your phone book. Refrain from programming your phone to automatically dial 911 when one button, such as the "9" key, is pressed. Unintentional wireless 911 calls, which often occur when auto-dial keys are inadvertently pressed, cause problems for emergency services call centers. · If your wireless phone came preprogrammed with the auto-dial 911 feature already turned on, turn off this feature. Check your user manual to find out how. · Lock your keypad when you're not using your wireless phone. This action also prevents accidental calls to 911. FCC's Wireless 91 I Initiatives In addition to other efforts to promote coordinated emergency services, the FCC has adopted wireless 911 rules. These rules are aimed at improving the reliability of wireless 911 services and identifying the location of wireless 911 callers to enable emergency response personnel to provide assistance to them much more quickly. The FCC's wireless 911 rules apply to all wireless licensees, broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS) licensees, and certain Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) licensees. Basic 911 Rules The FCC's Basic 911 rules: · Require wireless carriers to transmit all 911 calls to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), regardless of whether the caller subscribes to the carrier's service or not. Phase I Enhanced 911 (E911) Rules The FCC's Phase I E911 rules: · Require wireless carriers, within six months of a valid request by a PSAP, to provide the PSAP with the telephone number of the originator of a wireless 911 call and the location of the cell site or base station transmitting the call. Phase I1 Enll Rules The FCC's Phase II E911 rules: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/wireless911 srvc.html 06/29/2007 Wireless 911 Services Page 3 of 4 · Require wireless carriers, within six months of a valid request by a PSAP, to begin providing more precise location information to PSAPs, specifically, the latitude and longitude of the caller. · This information must meet FCC accuracy standards - generally, it must be accurate to within 50-300 meters (depending on the type of technology used). The FCC's Wireless 911 rules are being implemented in stages; they are not all immediately effective. The specific conditions and schedules of Phase I, Phase II, and the revised schedules for nationwide carriers are located on the FCC Web site, www.fcc.gov/911/enhanced. Wireless carriers may comply with certain FCC E911 rules by ensuring that 95% of their customer's handsets are E911-capable (also referred to as location-capable). The FCC's E911 rules do not specify precisely how carriers may achieve this compliance. At their discretion, some carriers may provide various incentives or policies to encourage customers without location-capable phones to obtain new, location-capable phones. For instance, some carriers may offer location-capable handsets to you at a discount. Some carriers may choose to adopt policies that prevent you from reactivating older handsets that don't have E911 capability, or may adopt various other measures. The FCC's E911 rules do not require that a carrier adopt any particular one of these measures as an incentive or policy when seeking to encourage its customers to obtain location-capable phones. Even if a carrier chooses to decline to reactivate your handset if it is not location-capable, the FCC requires that it still be capable of making 911 calls (only). Note, however, that if you use a deactivated handset to make a 911 call, the carrier may not be able to accurately and automatically determine your location. And, if you decide to replace your handset, you should always check with your service provider to determine the new handset's E911 capabilities, as well as whether the replacement handset offers the same coverage as compared to your current handset. For this or any other consumer publication in an accessible format (electronic ASCII text, Braille, large print, or audio) please write or call us at the address or phone number below, or send an e-mai/to FCCSO4@fcc.gov. To receive information on this and other FCC consumer topics through the Commission's electronic subscriber service, click on http://www, fcc.gov/cgb/contacts/. This document is for consumer education purposes only and is not intended to affect any proceeding or cases involving this subject matter or related issues. 03/07/06 Federal Communications Commission * Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau. 445 12th S(, S,W. * Washington, DC 20554 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322 TTY: 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) , Fax: 1-866-418-0232 * www.fcc gov/cgb/ last reviewed/updated on 03/07/06 E-Filing I Initiatives [ For Consumers I Find People Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225- - Privacy Policy FCC Home I Search I Updates Federal Communications Commission http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/wireless911 srvc.html 06/29/2007 ¥ 'ireless 911 Services Page 4 of 4 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 More FCC Contact Information... 5322) TTY: 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835- 5322) Fax: 1-866-418-0232 E-mail: fccinfo@fcc.gov - Website Policies & Notices - Required Browser Plug-ins - Freedom of Information Act http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumer£acts/wireless911 srvc.html 06/29/2007 COVERAGE LEGEND: I Nei§hbe~ing Sites · Proposed Site L1-1017 East Marion Fire District 0 1,5 3 miles at&t SEes ~, Neighbori,~l O,4Ur Sites ~I1~ Nelghbedng Proposed Sites ~, Proposed Site Date: July 6. 2007 MUNLEY~ MEADE~ NIELSEN May 14, 2007 VIA UPS Ms. Linda Kowalski Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Application of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC For Special Exception Approval and Variance Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Main Road East Marion, NY SCTM: 1000-31.00-03.00-011.031 Dear Ms. Kowalski: Pursuant to our telephone conversation last week, we enclose herewith the original and seven (7) copies of the revised Application for Special Exception Permit and eight (8) copies of the Building Permit issued on April 19, 2007 to the East Marion Fire District for the construction of the communications pole pursuant to ZBA No. 5972. When you are ready to schedule a public hearing for this application, please call. Thanking you for your courtesies, we remain, Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & R]~ By: Lawre4, C. R& Lawrence C. R6 LCR:jn Enclosure Mr~x~rY, M~AO~, ~'~TIELSEN & 1~I~ May 4, 2007 BY HAND MAY 4 7007 Mr. James Dinizio, Chairman, and Members of the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 ?# RE: Application of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC For Special Exception Approval of Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Co-location On Approved Tower Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Main Road East Marion, NY SCTM: 1000-31.00-03.00-011.031 Dear Chairman Dinizio and Board Members: As you know we are the attorneys representing New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("Cingular"), with respect to its captioned application for Special Exception Approval of its proposed co- location on the East Marion Fire District's approved emergency communications tower (Building Permit No. 32920). Accordingly, we enclose herewith one copy of the Southold Building Department's Notice of Disapproval of Cingular's co-location application dated April 18, 2007, together with (8) sets of revised zoning drawings, including site plans and elevations, to replace those which were previously filed with your office on June 26, 2006. The documents have been revised to reflect Cingular's proposed installation on the approved pole. In view of the foregoing, we hereby respectfully request the scheduling of a Public Hearing for the captioned matter. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI~ By: L wrer C. RO Lawrence C. R6 LCR:db Enclosures MUNLEY~, MEADE, NIELSEN June 26, 2006 BY HAND Ms. Linda Kowalski Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Application of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC For Special Exception Approval and Variance ' Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Main Road ~ ' East Marion, NY SCTM: 1000-31.00-03.00-011.031 Dear Ms. Kowalski: As you know we are the attorneys representing New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, with respect to the captioned matter. Enclosed herewith are eight (8) sets of revised site plans and elevation drawings, to replace those which were previously filed with your office on May 23, 2006. The documents have been revised to reflect enhanced landscaping design and changes to the fencing to comply with the Southold Town Code. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI~ By: Locwre,w, wC. Rd., Lawrence C. R~ LCR:cp Enclosure MUNLEY~ ~IEADE, NIELSEN (516) 487-6500 (516) 487-6539 May 30, 2006 BY HAND ~IAY 3 0 200fi Ms. Linda Kowalski Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Application of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC For Special Exception Approval and Variance Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Main Road East Marion, NY SCTM: 1000-31.00-03.00-011.031 Dear Ms. Kowalski: Pursuant to your telephone conversation of May 26, 2006, with Dorothy Belard of our office, it is our understanding that the public hearing for the captioned matter has been calendared for the early afternoon of July 27, 2006. Further, as you requested, today we filed a set of the revised plans, dated March 22, 2006, with the Southold Building Department. Said plans were submitted to your office on May 22, 2006, as noted in the attached copy of our correspondence to you of that date. We will be filing an amended Building Department Building Permit Application Disapproval with your office, as soon as it is received. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & Rg By: Lcuvre w C. R& Lawrence C. R6 LCR:db Enclosure Mu~r~E¥, MEADE~ NIEI~SEN & 1~ May ;~, 2006 BY HAND Ms. Linda Kowalski Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Application of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC For Special Exception Approval and Variance Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Main Road East Marion, New York District 1000 Section 31.00, Block 03.00, Lot 011.031 Dear Ms. Kowalski: As you know, we are the attorneys for Cingular in connection with the captioned matter. Pursuant to your request, enclosed herewith are eight (8) sets of revised plans, prepared by Infinigy Engineering Co., and dated March 22, 2006. It is our understanding that the submission of the foregoing will result in Cingular's application being scheduled for the July 27, 2006 public hearing. Please confirm same at your earliest convenience. Thanking you for your courtesies, we remain Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI~ I Janine Marchese /jm~j Enclosure ~VIUNLE¥~ MEADE~ NIELSEN & 1~1~ May 1, 2006 VIA FIRST CLASS MAII~ RECE!VED MAY 0 3 2OOG .ONING BOARD Ms. Linda Kowalski Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Visual Study Crane Test for Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Proposed By New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ('Cingular') ~ Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Main Road East Marion, New York District 1000 Section 31.00, Block 03.00, Lot 011.031 Dear Ms. Kowalski: As you know, we are the attomeys for Cingular in connection with the captioned matter. Enclosed herewith is the legal notice concerning the mscheduled visual study crane test for the proposed public utility wireless telecommunications facility. Said notice shall be published in the May 4, 2006 edition of The Suffolk Times, which we understand is the Town of Southold's official newspaper for legal notices. Should you have any questions with regard to the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI~ ) Janine March~e Enclosure LEGAL NOTICE ON MAY 16, 2006, A VISUAL STUDY WILL BE PERFORMED AT THE PREMISES, 9245 MAIN ROAD, EAST MARION, NEW YORK, BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 9:00 A.M. AND 11:00 A.M., IN CONNECTION WITH AN APPLICATION BY NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, SEEKING MUNICIPAL APPROVAL FROM THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY. AS PART OF THE VISUAL STUDY, A CRANE WILL BE PLACED AT THE PREMISES TO AID IN ASSESSING THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY. IN CASE OF INCLEMENT WEATHER ON MAY 16, 2006, THE STUDY WILL INSTEAD BE PERFORMED ON MAY 17, 2006. PECEIVED MAY 0 3 2006 ~ONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 28, 2006 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL (631) 425-4100 Ms. Linda Kowalski Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Visual Study Crane Test for Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Proposed By New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Main Road East Marion, New York District 1000 Section 31.00, Block 03.00, Lot 011.031 Dear Ms. Kowalski: Pursuant to my February 16, 2006 voicemail message regarding the captioned mater, enclosed herewith is the legal notice concerning the rescheduled visual study crane test for the proposed public utility wireless telecommunications facility. Said notice shall be published in the March 2, 2006 edition of The Suffolk Times, which we understand is the Town of Southold's official newspaper for legal notices. Should you have any questions with regard to the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI~ By: i. '~,~l'x,ux~ LCJ2R4&. /jm ~; Janine Enclosure LEGAL NOTICE ON MARCH 21,2006, A VISUAL STUDY WILL BE PERFORMED AT THE PREMISES, 9245 MAIN ROAD, EAST MARION, NEW YORK, BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 9:00 A.M. AND 11:30 A.M., IN CONNECTION WITH AN APPLICATION BY NEW ClNGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, SEEKING MUNICIPAL APPROVAL FROM THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY. AS PART OF THE VISUAL STUDY, A CRANE WILL BE PLACED AT THE PREMISES TO AID IN ASSESSING THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY. IN CASE OF INCLEMENT WEATHER ON MARCH 21, 2006, THE STUDY WILL INSTEAD BE PERFORMED ON MARCH 24, 2006. MLr~LEY~ M~AO~ NI~LS~.~; & 1~ December 9, 2005 BY HAND Ruth D. Oliva, Chairperson, and Members of the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals P.O. Box 1179 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 (631) 425-4100 (631) 425-4104 Application of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC For Special Exception Approval and Variance Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Main Road East Marion, New York District 1000 Section 31.00, Block 03.00, Lot 011.031 Dear Chairperson Oliva and Board Members: We represent New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC in connection with the captioned matter. Accordingly, we submit herewith seven (7) collated sets, as follows: 1. Town of Southold Building Department Notice of Disapproval of Building Permit Application package. Please note that the original Notice of Disapproval was issued on October 10, 2005, but on October 20, 2005 Damon Peter Rallis faxed to us an amended Notice of Disapproval; 2. Application for Special Exception; ~/ 3. Application to the Southold Town Board of Appeals for Variance; 4. Application to the Southold Town Board of Appeals Project Description; 5. Application to the Southold Town Board of Appeals Questionnaire; 6. Applicant Transactional Disclosure Form; 7. Affidavit of Colocation; 8. Lease Agreement; 9. Certificate(s) of Occupancy for all existing structures; 10. Last Deed(s) of Record; 11. Filing Fee: Check in the sum of $600.00 made payable to the "Town of Southold"; Ms. Ruth D. Oliva, Cl~person, and Members of the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals December 9, 2005 Page 2 of 2 12. Inventories and corresponding maps of applicant sites within thc Town of Southold, including facilities in abutting towns which provide service to the areas within the Town of Southold and indicating distances to the proposed site; 13. Search Ring; 14. Propagation Maps; 15. Affidavit of Radio Frequency Engineer; 16. Owner's Authorization Affidavit; 17. Certified Engineering Analysis of Radio Frequency Emissions; 18. Full Environmental Assessment Form; 19. Visual EAF Addendum; 20. Written Site Location Alternative Analysis; 21. Copy of FCC License; 22. "Map of Properties Showing Land Uses at East Marion" signed and sealed by Peconic Surveyors, P.C., indicating adjacent land uses and zoning within 300 feet; 23. Survey; and 24. Site plans, including elevations and landscaping plan. Should you have any questions with respect to the foregoing, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI~ By: L~wrenle C. R& Lawrence C. R5 LCR:jm Enclosures I~EpLY TO: [] MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN ~ (631) 425-4100 (631) 425-4104 September 7, 2005 BY HAND Michael J. Verity, Chief Building Inspector Town of Southold Building Department 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Building Permit Application (for Denial) Premises: 9245 Route 25 East Marion, NY SCTM#: 1000-31-3-11.3 Dear Mr. Verity: We are the attorney's for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC in connection with the captioned application. Accordingly, we enclose the following: 2. 3. 4. Executed Building Permit Application; Owner's Authorization Affidavit; Filing fee check payable to "Town of Southold" in the amount of $35.00 (for Denial); Four (4) sets of Construction Drawings with Site Plans, signed and sealed by a New York State licensed engineer or architect. Should you have any questions with respect to the foregoing, please communicate with the undersigned. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & R]~ Jacalyn JL Fleming JF/cp Enclosures FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY~ SITE PLAN USE DETERMINATION Initial Determination Date: ¢' / /~ Project Name: Project Add ress:/4~¢,2,,¢~'-/~'/~- ~ Suffolk County Tax Map No.:1000- ._Z/ ,_,¢ -//_¢'/Zoning District: (Note: Copy of Building Permit Application and supporting documentation as to proposed use or uses should be submitted.) Initial Determination as to whether use is p,ermitted:/~5¢-- ~'~/'~/~,~:' Initial Determination as to whether site plan is required: ~/~ .~ S~at~e of Buildi~Pec~--- Planning Department (P.D.) Referral: P.D. Date Received: / / Date of Comment: / Comments: Final Determination Date: / / Decision: Signature of Planning Dept. Staff Reviewer Signature of Building Inspector ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville DATED: December 19, 2005 Zoning Appeal No. 5826 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeals No. 5826 of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC- the Application to the Southold Town Board of Appeals. Also enclosed is an Application for Special Exception,a Notice of Disapproval, a Project Description, a Questionnaire for Filing with the ZBA Application, a Tranactional Disclosure Form, an Affidavit of Co-location, a Lease Agreement, a Certificate of Occupancy for all existing structures, a last deed of record, Inventories and corresponding maps of applicant sites, a Search Ring, Propagation Maps, Affidavit of Radio Frequency Engineer, Owner's Authorization Affidavit, Certified Engineering Analysis, Full Environmental Assessment Form, Visual EAF Addendum, written Site Location Alternative Analysis, copy of FCC License, a map of properties showing land uses at East Marion, a survey and site plans, including elevations and landscaping plans. Town Of Southold P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Date: 12/19/05 * * * RECEIPT * * * ReceiptW: 198796 Transaction(s): 1 1 Application Fees Reference 5826 Check#: 198796 Total Paid: Subtotal $600.00 $600.00 Name: New, Cingular Wireless Pcs LIc 333 Crossways Park Drive Woodbury, NY 11743 Clerk ID: MICHELLE internal ID: 5826 LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 280 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971-0959, on THURSDAY~ JUNE 28~ 2007: 2:40 p.m. NEW ClNGULAR WIRELESS PCS (and EAST MARION FIRE DISTRICT) #5826. Request for a Special Exception under Sections 280-69 and 280-70, concerning installation of a proposed public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the premises by affixing wireless telecommunications antennas within an approved pole to be built, and to install related equipment as required, at 9245 Route 25, East Marion; CTM 31-3-11.31. The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular business hours and prior to the day of the hearing. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (631) 765-1809, or by email: Linda. Kowalski@Town.Southold.ny. us. Dated: June 4, 2007. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JAMES DINIZlO, JR., CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski 54375 Main Road (Office Location) 53095 Main Road (Mailing Address) P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 2!~ 15~i BRI~: 'R~U3: ~6049. 2g0-1~6~(~) ahd 280-~24~ ba~d 0n ~he ',aen~ t61~ Long IslahdiSam/d; (2):addi: tlOh at i~ss~th~a ~$ fee~ onia siagl~ side yard and: (3) deck ex sting at es~: hah 2:40p. m NEW CINGULAR WIRE: heard at each hear~g, ~d/or ~esigmted ~bove. Files are avail- ~da. #8410 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Dina Mac Donald of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1._.!__week(s), successively, c<Q~...mencing~Orrt~ 14th day of June, 2007. Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this 2007 NOTARY PUBLIC.STATE OF NEW YORK NO. 01-VO61050/50 Qugllfle~ J[q Su'~C~jj~ County Commia~l~ ~xpif~ FeDt~tY ~8, 2008 OWNER STREET ~ VILLAGE DIST. SUB. LOT ~'~ REMARKS TYPE OF BL'"D. LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE FRONTAGE ON WATER .TILLABLE FRONTAGE ON ROAD j G ~ WOODLAND MEADOWLAND SULKHEAD HOUSE/LOT ~ TOTAL COLOR TRIM . c Bath Dinette M. Bldg. Foundation c B FULL Extension Basement Cn^WL Floors Kit. SLAB Extension Ext, Walls Interior Finish ER, Extension Fire Place Heat D.R. Patio Woodstove BR. ~orch Dormer Fin. Deck Attic Breezeway Rooms 1st Floor Garage Driveway Rooms 2nd Floor OiS.. 1~--~ ~)/~ ~"~'~,~'~ ~-------L~'~ Pool OWNER LAND IMP. TOW. O. SOUT,OLD ACR. I I ' REMARKS' TYPE OF BLD. PROP. CLASS __ ~ TOTAL DATE / / ,/_ FRONTAGE ON WATER TILLABLE FRONTAGE ON ROAD DEPTH BULKHEAD WOODLAND MEADOWLAND HOUSE/LOT TOTAL 31-3-11.29 10/02 COLOR TRIM . c Bath ~ Dinette _ ~M. B~ld~b.A< ~t)~ ~ "12'11 2.~-? ~1'7~ Foundation c~ ~ - ~ ~' -- ' FULL ExtenSion ~ Basement CRAWL SLAB Floors Kit. ~n ~ ~ · ( ~ I~ ~ ~ ~O Ext. Walls Interior Finish L.R. ~ ~ Heat D.R. ~tension Fire Place ~atio ~ ~ ~ -~ Woodstove ~ BR. Porch ~/Ze~ Dormer Fin, B. ~'~ ~ Attic ~ ~- , Rooms 1st Floor Garage ~riveway Rooms 2nd Floor O.B.. Pool OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY ~OWNER STRE~ ~,f.~ V, Lb',GE D~sr.: SU~. ACR. FOYER OWNER N ~b~ E MAUb~ ,, ~, W ~PE OF BUILDING RES: S~S. VL. FARM COM~. CB. MICS. Mkt. Value ~ND ~ IMP. TOTAL DATE RE~RKS_ AGE BUILDING CONDITION N ~ NOR~L BELOW ABOVE , FA~ Acre Value Per V~lue Acre Tillable FRONTAGE ON WATER W~l~nd FRONTAGE ON ROAD ~e~dowl~d ~EPTH ~ 7 ~ ~o Hou~ ~lot , , BULKH~D Total ~ ~ DOCK COLOR TRIM /Vt. Bldg. Exter~sion Extension Porch~ Porch ' Breezew~, Garage Patio aa Bo Basement Ext. Walls Fire Place Type Roof Recreation Room Dormer Bath Floors Interior Finish Heat Rooms Ist Floor Rooms 2nd Floor Driveway Dinette LR. DR. BR. FIN. B Total 27 bIARION LAKE MAR/ON LAKE BOARD OF APPEALS: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of NEW C1NGULAR WIRELESS: PCS, LLC : : For Special Exception Approval and Variance, pursuant to Article : XVI of the Code of the Town of Southold, to install a public utility: wireless telecommunications facility at the premises: 9245 Route 25 East Marion, New York District 1000, Section 31, Block 3, Lot 11.31 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) AFFIDAVIT GEORGE TAKYI, being duly swom, deposes and says: 1. I am a radio frequency engineer and a consultant to New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, (hereafter "Cingular"). As a radio frequency engineer, I am trained to identify service deficiencies in wireless telecommunications coverage and to evaluate the ability of proposed antenna sites to remedy such deficiencies. I am fully familiar with Cingular's antenna network in Suffolk Cotmty. My professional resume is submitted herewith. I submit this affidavit in support of Cingular's application for special exception and variance. 3. Cingular is considered a public utility for zoning purposes trader the laws of the State of New York and is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to serve the public within Suffolk County and throughout much of the United States. -1- 4. The proposed public utility communication facility will consist of affixing wireless telecommunications antennas within a 120-foot flagpole monopole with related equipment located on the gronnd, all as depicted in the plans submitted to the Board. 5. Cingular strives to provide reliable service throughout its licensed coverage area. At present, Cingular is unable to provide reliable service in the vicinity of the premises in East Marion. This unreliability represents an inconvenience to users of Cingular's services and can have serious consequences during times of emergency or disaster. The proposed antenna facility will enable Cingular to remedy this problem and provide reliable service in the area in question. 6. In order to nnderstand why the proposed site at the premises is needed, it is necessary to understand how Cingular's system works from an engineering standpoint. 7. Cingular's wireless communications system is designed by strategically placing low-powered base stations at determined distances apart and at predetermined heights. The Cingular system works best if there is a clear line of sight from the antennas to the target coverage areas. Antenna heights and orientation are therefore carefully chosen during design to achieve this objective. Due to such factors as hills, valleys, trees, buildings, and other physical obstructions and due to the nature of radio waves, each coverage area is irregularly shaped. 8. Additionally, the sites require some overlap to ensure "seamless" coverage. With some overlap and sufficient signal from each base station, Cingnlar users can move through the cells and not lose their calls. The sites are engineered to cover a limited area, so that an antenna facility will cover the area surrounding it but will not interfere with other sites in the system. 9. In order to eliminate the service deficiency in a particular area, we perform propagation studies to determine the height and location of the cell site needed. -2- 10. The location and height of the antennas is determined by some or all of the following factors: drive test data, the location of existing antenna sites in the area, topography in the surrounding area, land cover features in the area such as buildings and foliage, and the results provided by computer propagation software programs that enable radio frequency engineers to predict the anticipated signal propagation at a given height and location. 11. Propagation studies were performed and it was determined that by affixing its antennas on the proposed flagpole/monopole at the height depicted on the plans, Cingular would be able to provide reliable service in this area of Southold. 12. In addition, mounting the antennas within the proposed flagpole/monopole will minimize the antennas' visual impact on the surrounding area and, accordingly, this is the least obtrusive means to achieve our goal of providing reliable service to this area of Southold. ! 3. In order to illustrate the effect that the proposed site would have on coverage in its vicinity, maps have been prepared and submitted herewith. The first map depicts the area surrounding the premises and shows coverage that currently exists in the vicinity without the proposed antenna facility. The second map superimposes on the first map the anticipated coverage afforded if the proposed site is approved. 14. As the attached maps illustrate, the proposed antenna facility is of vital importance to Cingular's efforts to provide reliable service to the area in question. Unless it is granted, Cingular will be unable to provide reliable service to East Marion. 15. The antennas proposed will not interfere with radio or television service, or public safety telecommunications in the surronnding area. -3- 16. Based on all of the foregoing, the proposed antenna facility represents an excellent choice; it will enable Cingular to provide reliable service in the East Marion area and will have minimal visual impact on the surrounding area. GE io Frequency Engineer Sworn to before me this 7 0ay-m~0 t/t~,n~._/c~, 20515. NOTARY PUBLIC ~-- -4- APPUCANPS AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Joseph Sweet being duly sworn, deposes and says that he resides at c/o 333 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury in the State of New York, and that helsUqe System DevelopmentHanager of the Cingular Nire]ess PCS, LLC (Title) (Specify / Limited Liability Company) which is hereby making application; that there are no existing structures or improvements on the land which are not shown on the Site Plan; that the title to the entire parcel, Including all rights-of-way, has been clearly established and is shown on said Plan; that no part of the Plan infringes upon any duly filed plan which has not been abandoned both as to Io~ and as to roads; that he has examined all rules and regulatJons adopted by the Planning Board for the filing of Site Plans and will comply with same; that the plans submitted, as approved, will not be altered or changed in any manner without the approval of the Planning Board; and that the actual physical Improvements will be installed in strict accordance with the plans submitted Signed New C in~d~la W~s PCS, LLC Signed Appl ~a~/Owner' s Agent SworB to me thl}~ . Owners witkin a 100 foot radius Owner: Louise Crandell Address: 9000 Route 25, East Marion, NY, 11939 Mailing Address: 27 Vestry Street, New York, NY 10013 Section 31, Block 8, Lot 2 Owner: Ernest Baxter, Wf Baxter Address: 9100 Route 25, East Marion, NY 11939 Mailing Address: Attn: Alliance Modgage C, Tax Dept, 8100 Nations Way, Jacksonville, FL 32256 Section 31, Block 8, Lot 3 Owner: Jon Rogers and Jacqueline Rogers Address: 9220 Route 25, East Marion, NY 11939 Mailing Address: PO Box 550, Easton, PA 18044-0550 Section 31, Block 8, Lot 4 Owner: Anthony AS Lekakis Address: 335 Oak Court, East Marion, NY 11939 Mailing Address: 1152 East 8th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11230 Section 31, Block 3, Lot 11.10 Owner: Cheryl L Bondarchuk Address: 350 Oak Court, East Marion, NY 11939 Mailing Address: Same Section 31, Block 3, Lot 11.11 Owner: Eastern Breezes R. E. Address: 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY 11939 Mailing Address: 54795 Main Road, PO Box 1103, Southold, NY 11971 Section 31, Block 3, Lot 11.32 Owner: White Swan Emllc Address: 9495 Route 25, East Marion, NY 11939 Mailing Address: 2 Richard Road, Selden, NY 11784 Section 31, Block 3, Lot 20 Owner: George Kortsolakis and Ors Kortsolakis Address: 8875 Route 25, East Marion, NY 11939 Mailing Address: 7901 Ridge BLVD, Brooklyn, NY 11209 Section 31, Block 3, Lot 12 Owner: Sylvia M Daley Address: 8985 Route 25, East Marion, NY 11939 Mailing Address: PO Box 574, East Marion, NY 11939 Section 31, Block 3, Lot 17 Owner: East Marion War Memorial Association Address: 9165 Main Road, East Marion, NY 11939 Mailing Address: PO Box 136, East Marion, NY 11939 Section 31, Block 3, Lot 18 Inventory of Cincjular Wireless Sites -Town of Southold L1-1017 (SubJect Site) Distance [miles) from Site Number Site Name Owner Location Address Latitude Longitude Structure Type Height subject site Status L1-1017 East Marion East Marion FD 9395 Main Rd(Rte 25), East Marion, NY ¢¢1.12781 -72.34143 Flagpole 120 0 Subject Site LI-735 Odent Point Orient Point FD 23300 Main Rd, Orient Point, NY ~1.143 -72.2988 Monopole/Fla,gpole 60 2,5 Future 225 Greenpo~t Greenpod Water District Moore's Lane, Greeport, NY ¢1.1042 472.3742 Water Tank 146 2.4 On Air 229 Southold Southold Po[ice Dept Peconic Lane Peconic, NY ~,1.0358 *72.455 La[rice Tower 121 8.7 On Air L1-1027 Cutchogue Crown Castle 21855 CR-48, Cutcho,que, NY ~,1.0296 -72.497303 Monopole 85 10.6 Approved FU2 Shelter Island Shelter Island Garbage Dump Menantic Rd, Shelter Island,NY ~,1.06667 -72.3508 Monopole 150 4.3 On Air LI-741 East NorthvHle Keyspan 5792 Sound Ave, Jamesport , NY i40.9896 -72,58411 Lattice Tower 150 16 Future LI 201 Fisher's Island Lady of Grace Catholic Church Ocean c Avenue, Fishers Island, NY ;41.2611 -72.01444 Church Buildin¢ 35 19 On Air 228 Mattduck Cingular Wire[ess Rte 25 & Elijah Lane, Mat[ituck, NY 40.9989 -72.5108 Monopole 100 12.6 On Air NOKIA Overview of Nokia UltraSite EDGE Base Station NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC Application for Town of Southold Site Plan Approval Premises: East Marion Fire District Proposed Equipment Cabinet Figure 2. Nokia UltraSite EDGE BTS Outdoor, Indoor, and Midi Indoor - an ideal solution for urban, suburban, or rural environments 770 (30.3) Outdoor NOTE: Dimensions mm(inch) 1100 (23,8) t224) t23.0) '~'~t~2.4) Indoor Midilndoor Figure 15. Dimensions of Nokia UltraSite EDGE BTSs NOTICE OF HEARING The following application will be heard by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold: NAME: CINGULAR WIRELESS #5826 MAP #: 31-3-11.31 APPEAL: Special Exception REQUEST: Public Utility-Telecomun. Use DATE: THURS., JUNE 28, 2:40 PM If you are interested in this project, you may review the file(s) prior to the hearing during normal business days between 8 AM and 3 PM. ZONING BOARD-TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 765-1809 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS~ MAILING ADDRESS and PLACE OF HEARINGS: 53095 Main Road, Town Hall Building, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 (631) 765-1809 Fax 765-9064 LOCATION OF ZBA OFFICE: Town Hall Annex at North Fork Bank Building, 1st Floor 54375 Main Road and Youngs Avenue, Southold website: ~ttp://southtown.northfork.net Ju ne.A', 2007 Re: Town Code Chapter 55 - Public Notices for Thursday, June 28, 2007 Hearing Dear Sir or Madam: Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of the Times Review newspaper. 1) Before June 11th: Please send the enclosed Legal Notice, with both a Cover Letter including your telephone number and a copy of your Survey or Site Plan (filed with this application) which shows the new construction area or other request, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, to all owners of property (tax map with property numbers enclosed), vacant or improved, which abuts and any property which is across from any public or private street. Use the current owner name and addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Town Assessors' Office located at Southold Town Hall, or Real Property Office at the County Center, Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. If any letter is returned to you undeliverable, you are requested to make other attempts to obtain a mailin.q address or to deliver the letter to the current owner, to the best of your ability, and to confirm how arran.qements were made in either a written statement, or durin.q the hearin.q, providin.q the returned letter to us as soon as possible; AND not later tha~ June 12th~.please eiiher mail or deliver to our office your Affidavit of Mailinq (form enclosed) with parcel numbers, names and addresses noted, and furnish it to our office with the white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. When the green signature cards are returned to you by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us before the scheduled hearing. If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board during the hearing and provide the card (when available). These will be kept in the permanent record as proof of all Notices. 2) Not Later June 18th, please make arrangements to place the enclosed Poster on a signboard such as cardboard, plywood or other material, posting it at your property for seven (7) days (or more) until the hearing is held. Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, no more than 10 feet from the front property line bordering the street. If you border more than one street or roadway, an extra sign is available for the additional front yard. Please deliver your Affidavit of Postinfl during the meeting. If you are not able to meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Zoning Appeals Board and Staff Encls. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-9502 Telephone (631) 765-1802 BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE TO APPLICANT A decision rendered by the Building Department may be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Should you require information on how to apply, please contact the ZBA via telephone at 765-1809 or you may to the ZBA office at the Town Hall Annex during normal working hours. .[0 , OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ONo~ Location: North Fork Bank Building_First 11o06 $4376 Main Road at Youngs A venue Ma'hng Address: 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 8outhold, NY 1197%0059 ht--tP;//southoldtown,north~ork.net . Emaih L' , _!nda, Kowals k~,, Towl~.SoqtholH n~y. u s · J a Yn e. M a din_jp_C~.Town,Southold~ - (631) 765-1809 (ext. 5012 or 5011 during recording) VIA FAX %,,, _,.Z. ~ _ office fax (631) 765-9064 M__EMO TO: DATE: RE: AUG 01 200? 22:53 FR Fax TO 916317659064 P.01/02 Organization: Fax No.: Phone No.: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PAGES: Linda Kowalski Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 631-765-9064 631-765-1809 Artemis Lekakis August I, 2007 Request for Adjournment of ~lugust 2, 2007 Heartng Re: Clngular Application to Install Cell Tower in East Marion NY 2, including cover sheet COMMENTS: If you received this transmission in error, please call 718-254-6096, OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Oftlc¢ Lobation: Norfh £ork Bank Building-First Floor, 54376 Main Road at Youngs A venue Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 http://southoldto, wn,northferk, net Email: .Linda. KowalsklC. Town.8outh~'d.ny. us ~Ja yne. Martin~Town,8outhold,ny_.us (631) 765-1.809 (ext. 5012 or 5011 during recording) office fax (631) 765-9064 M__EEMO RE: OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Office Location: NFB Building, First Floor, 54375 Main Road at Youngs Avenue Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 http://southoldtown.northfork, net emails: Linda. Kowalski(~Town. Southold. ny. us or Jayne. Martin(&~Town. Southold. nF. us (631) 765-1809 (ext. 5011 during recording) fax (631) 765-9064 TO: FROM: ~'*~* DATE: 6 I zoo7 RE: ~ / ~ 9 /07Agenda (or TRANSMITTAL SHEET MESSAGE: ~(~ ) Correspondence or related attached regarding the above for your information, Thank you. Pages a~ached: ,.~' OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ONce Location: North Fork Bank Building-First Floor, 54376 Main Road at Youngs Avenue Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 ht~tp://southoldtown,northf0rk.not Email: Linda. Kowalski~Towrl.8outhold.ny, us Javne. Martin~Town.8outhold.n~,.uc (631) 765-1809 (ext, 5012 or 5011 during recording) M..~EMO TO: DATE: office fax (631) 765-9064 OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Office Location: Town Annex-NFB Building, 54375 Main Road at Youngs Avenue $outhold, NY 11971-0959 Emails: Linda. Kowalski~,Town. Southold.ny.us Jayne. Martin~,,Town.Southold.n¥.us Lucille.Cappabianca~.Town.Southold.n¥.us http:llsoutholdtown.northfork.net (631) 765-1809 (ext. 5012, 5011 ) fax (631 ) 765-9064 Date of Building Inspector Notice ~Disapproval: ~r~ / o /~ ~: ~ (~ The application is incomplete for the reasons noted below. Please furnish seven (7) se~ of the following by mail or by hand deliver. Thank you. (~ map subm,ffed does not match the information on the ~ng Inspector ~obce Disapproval. Please submit the amendments dated Fo ~~directly to ~ Building Depa~ment for review. If an amended Notice of Disapproval is issued, please furnish seven (7) copies with a cover letter confirming that the amended relief that is being added or revised in your request for variance(s). Thank you. (~ Missing information: (~ ~ OTHER/iNFORMATION REQUESTED (7 sets with cover/transmittal sheet when submittin.q): ( ) Filing fee is $ ; Amount due (please mail): Amount paid was: ( ) Available survey showing existing property/building details, with licensed surveyor information. ( ) Architectural map or updated survey showing dimensions of existing and proposed new construction areas, setbacks to property lines, and building lot coverage calculations. ( ) Rough diagram or sketch with building height data (# of stories and distance from ground to top of ridge (and mean height, if known); ( ) elevation from all sides; ( ) landscaping in area of construction. ( ) Letter confirming status and date of review by other involved agencies for presubmission comments, or copy of up-to-date agency action. ( ) Updated single-and-separate search dated back to April 23, 1957 (Zoning Section 100-23D-4), and copies of deeds dating back to creation of original lot lines for the property in the unmerger request. ( ) Thank you. June 28, 2006 (Page 2 - Reply Form/Incomplete Notice) Re: ZBA File No. 5826 - New Submission Application for a Special Exception by New Cingular Wireless CTM 31-3-11.31 (Site Owner: East Marion Fire District) The applicant has paid a $600 filing fee, which includes $200 extra - perhaps for variance relief to be sought under Chapter 100. On June 28, 2006, our department was informed that the applicant is applying alone (rather than as a co-applicant with the Owner, the East Marion Fire District). The Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval indicates that the Fire District is the owner. Please furnish a Notice of Disapproval (issued by a Plan Reviewer, Building Permit Reviewer, or Building Inspector) for this application. A determination on the new application with amendment would be issued after review by a town official to confirm the applicant and to confirm whether the provisions of Chapter 100 have been met with respect to setbacks, height, lot size, and other applicable provisions. Please submit seven (7) sets of the above, together with the variance application which confirms the relief being sought by the applicant and applicable Section of the Zoning Code. Please provide at this time copies of all written documentation relative to cellular coverage areas and elevations, related to the use of the antennas. Thank you. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of NEW C1NGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC At the premises: 9245 Route 25 East Marion, New York District 1000 Section 31, Block 3, Lot 11.31 AUTHORIZATION OF OWNER ITATE OF NEW YORK ) )SS.: 20UNTY OF SUFFOLK ) DANIEL H. WOOD , being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am the Chairman, Board of Commi s sionoteffie East Marion Fire District, owner in fee of the premises known as Section 31, Block 3, Lot 11.31 (the "Premises" hereafter), and do hereby authorize New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("Cingular" hereafter), and its representatives to bring such applications for municipal approvals as may be necessary for constructing or installing on the Premises such antennas, support structures, and related equipment as Cingular may require for the establishment of its public utility wireless telecommunication facility· As such, I will fully cooperate with Cingular and its agents in obtaining any required Approvals. EAST MARION FIRE DISTRICT Sworn to before me this 16tld~,o'i(' August ,2005. ~BLIC ~B0037~.' ' "~ ~m~s~ ~P,,~ ~it 30, 2~ EDW~ ~HN BOYD 5th N~W P~ ~ of New Yor~ 02B~376~25 ~oik Cou~ Commission Expires April 30, 2~ .. TOW~I~F SOUTHOLD PLANNi~ ' SITE PLAN APPLICATI~)~ SECTION A: Site Plan Name and Location Application Date: / / Site PlanName:East Marion Fire District Public Safety Suffolk County Tax Map #1000- 31 CommuniCationS T.o~mr~ 3 - 11.31 ..... Other SCTM #s: Street Address: 9245 Route 25 Hamlet: East }4arion Distance t0nearestintersecti0n: Approximately 880 West of Stars Road Type of Site Plan: x New __Amended Residential If Amended, last approval date: / / SECTION B: Owners/Agent Contact Information Please list name, mailing address, and phone number for the people below: Property Owner East Marion Fire District Street 9245 Route 25, P.O. Box 131 City East Marion State New York Home Telephone 477-0163 Other Zip 11939 Applicant Street CitL Home Telephone East Harion Fire District State Zip Other Apphcant s Age ft or Representative: Contact Person(s)* Edward J. Boyd, Esq. Street 54655 Main Road, P.O. Box 1468 City. Southold State New York Zipl1971 Office Telephone 765-1555 ~ Fax 765-5969 *Unless otherwise requested, correspondence will be sent only to the contact person noted here. Page 1 of 2 10/05/05 SECTION C: Site Data P,ropose,d construction type: × New Property total acreage or square footage: __Modification of Existing Sl}~cture Change of use 3.05+ Site Plan build-out acreage or square footage: 400 ~Jsq. ft. Agficul'tural Is there an existing or proposed Sale of Development Rights on the property? Yes __ If yes, explain: No x Property Zoning District(s): R-40 Building Department Notice of Disapproval Date: r~ / 2.~// ob Is an application to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals required? Yes If yes, have you submitted an application to the ZBA? Yes No x If yes, attach a copy of the application packet. x No Show all uses proposed and existing. Indicate which building will have which use. If more then one use is proposed per building, indicate square footage of floor area per use. List all existing property uses: Public Safety - Firehouse List all proposed property uses: Other accessory uses: Public Safety - Firehouse and Public Safety Communicatic Tower Existinq accessory storaqe/qaraqe Existing lot coverage: 6.4 % Proposed lot coverage: 0.28 % Gross floor area of existing structure(s): 8 t 600 _sq. ft. Gross floor area of proposed structure(s): 400 Parking SpaceData: No changes will be made %o present parking arrangement. # of existing spaces: 39 # of proposed spaces: 0 Loading Berth: Yes No x Landscaping Details: Existing landscape coverage: 26 % Proposed landscape coverage: 0.3 % Waterfront Data: Is this property within 500" ora wetland area? Yes No ~x_ If yes explain: I, the understgned, certify that 3Pr the above information is true. Edw~_~d J. B~JC~ A~orney for East Marion Fire District Signature of Preparer: / ~ x Date: n%zq~o6 Page 2 of 2 10/05/05 SECTION A: Site Plan Name and Location Application Date: / / Site Plan Name: New Cinqular Wireless PCS, LLC at East Marion Fire DLstrict Suffolk County Tax Map #1000- 31 3 11.31 Other SCTM TOWqi F' SOUTHOLD PLANNIi BOARD 'SITE PLAN APPLICATIO Street Address: 9245 Route 25 Hamlet: _ East Marion Distance to nearest intersection: + 880' to Stars Road Type of Site Plan: X New Adnended If Amended, last approval date: / /-- R~i&ntial SECTION B: Owners/Agent Contact Information Please list name, mailing address, and £hone number for the t~eople below: Property Owner East Marion Fire District Street 9245 Route 25 City_ East Marion State New York _Zip 11939 Home Telephone 631-477-0539 Other Applicant New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Street 333 Crossways Park Drive City Woodbury State New York Home Telephone_ 516-677-6503 Other Zip~l1797 Applicant's Agent or Representative: CoutactPerson(s)* Lawrence C. Re', MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RE' Street 36 North New York Avenue City Huntington State New York _Zip 11743 Office Telephone 631-425-4100 ~}t~( Fax 631-425-4104 *Unless otherwise requested, correspondence will be sent only to the contact person noted here. Page 1 of 2 ,10/05/05 Prt~posed c ' onstructmn type: New Property total acreage or square footage: __Modification of Exis Change of use 3. 0583 _ac./~Ixflx Itructure Site Plan build-out acreage or square footage: 370 ~4sq. ft. lis there an existing or proposed Sale of Development Rights on the property? Yes If yes, explain: ~Agricultural __ No X Property Zoning District(s): R-40 Building Department Notice of DisapprovaI Date: 10 / 10 / 05 - amended on 10/20/05 Is an application to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals required? Yes If yes, have you submitted an application to the ZBA? Yes × No - If yes, attach a copy of the application packet. X _ No Show ail uses proposed and existing. Indicate which building will have which use. proposed per building, indicate square footage of floor area per use. List all existing property uses: East Marion Fire District firehouse If more then one use is List all proposed property uses: Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Other accessoryuses: Existing accessory storage / garage Existing lot coverage: 6.4' % Proposed lot coverage:_ 0.28 % Gross floor area of existing structure(s): 8,600 .sq. fl. Gross floor area of proposed stmcture(s):~370 sq._ Parking Space Data: N/A - No changes will be made to available parking. ft. # of existing spaces: 39 # of proposed spaces: 0 . Loading Berth Yes__ No Landscaping Details: Existing landscape coverage: 26 % Proposed landscape coverage: 0.3 __% Waterfront Data: Is this property within 500" of a wetland area? Yes No X__ If yes explain: I, the undersigned, certify that all the above information is true. ~MUN~LEY~3fl~t~DE, NIELSEN & RE', Attorneys for Applicant Sig?.ature of Preparer: ,~,:.~--57_~.~,.~.~ff~_~._~/~-----~- Date:_ ~/~'-LOOq LA!gR__. RE Page 2 of 2 - 10/05/05 FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY SITE PLAN USE DETERMINATION Initial Determination Date: ¢' / //-/ Project Name: Project Address: Suffolk County Tax Map Nc.:1000- _~/ ~-¢ -//~/Zoning District: Request:('.~--~z.~,/~ ~-g4/~7'~ .~¢"/'~ .Z~___~-F~ (Note: Copy of Building Permit Application and supporting documentation as to proposed use or uses should be submitted.) Initial Determination as to whether use is p?rmitted: Initial Determination as to whether site plan is required: SignOre of Buildi~pe~tor Planning Department (P.D.) Referral: P.D. Date Received:¢ / Date of Comment: Signature of Planning Dept. Staff Reviewer Final Determination Date: AUG 01 2007 22:5~ FR ARTEMIS 1367 OVIlqGTON AVENUE BROOKLYN, NEWYORK 11219 August 1, 2007 BY E~MAIL & Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals $3095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Attn: James Dinizio, Jr., Chairman T0~1765906~ P.02/02 Request for Adjournment of Aug. 2, 2007 Hearing Concerning Cingular Wireless' Application to Install A Wireless Co~m-nieations Tower In East Marlom NY Dear Chairman Dinizio and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: This letter supplements my July 26, 2007 letter requesting an adjournment of the hearing, which did not fully explain the masons for the requested adjournment. In Mdition to the masons set forth in the July 26, 2007 letter, the adjournment is necessary because my family and other neighbors are interested in retaining expeF~s who could present evidence to the ZBA as to the impact on property values (an appraisal expert) and the public necessity of the proposed installation of the wireless communications tower (an engineering expert). Both of these factors have been recognized by federal courts as appropriate and relevant grounds for local zoning authorities to consider with regards to cellular communications tower applications. See Omnipoint v. GitV of White Plains. 430 F. 3d 529, 533 (2d Cir. 2005) (affirming local board's decision to reject cell tower application for zoning variance based on ~ alia the diminution of property values and a lack of public necessity). Several of the neighbors - whose property is in plain sight of the tower - advised that they did not receive notice of the June 28, 2007 hearing. In addition, some of the neighbors are contemplating retaining an attorney to represent them with regards to this matter, but have not yet done so. B~ause these neighbors did not receive notice of the prior hearing, if the August 2, 2007 hearing is not adjourned, it would deprive these neighbors of their opportunity to be heard with regards to a decision that would have a very significant impact on them. Conwrsely, a one month delay will have a de minimis, if'any, real impact on a multi-billion dollar corporation such as Cingular/AT&T. As p~eviously noted, this the fn'st request by my family on behalf of themselves and certain other neighbors for an adjournment of this hearing. Your consideratio~n of this request is greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Artemis Lekakis cc: Ms. Linda Kowalski ** TOTAL PAGE.02 ** ARTEMIS LEKAKIS 1367 OVINGTON AVENUE BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11219 CELL: (646)fi44-7404 July 26, 2007 BY FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Attn: James Dinizio, Jr., Chairman JU~_ ~ 7 zoo; Re: Application by Cingular Wireless to Build a / Wireless Communications Tower At 9245 Route 25, East Marion~ NY Dear Chairman Dinizio and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: I write to respectfully request that the heating on this application, currently scheduled for h00 p.m. on August 2, 2007 be adjourned at least two weeks to August 16, 2007 or a date thereafter that is convenient for the Board. This request is being made because I will be out of the State of New York and it will be difficult, if not nearly impossible, for me to attend a heating on Augast 2, 2007. My family owns the property that is closest to the proposed Cingular wireless communications tower (less than 90 feet away from the proposed tower's fence) and we have a significant interest in attending, and possibly presenting evidence and testifying at this heating. If the heating is not adjourned, it would deprive us of our opportunity to be heard with regards to a decision that would have a very significant impact on us and the other neighboring property owners. This is our first request for an adjournment of this heating. There was a heating held on Thursday, June 28, 2007, at which the Board received testimony, but decided to reserve decision pending the potential retainer of an independent engineering expert to assist the Board in its analysis of the evidence. Thank you in advance Chairman Dinizio and Members of the Zoning Board for your consideration of this request. cc: Ms. Linda Kowalski ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 4:00PM MARCH 1, 2006 TOWN HALL CONFERENCE ROOM Revisit: BCB Realty Holding Corp. SCTM# 1000-45-4-8.3 This site plan is for the demolition of an existing restaurant building, proposed new construction of two buildings that includes a building on the e/s with 3,964 sq. ft. of first floor office space and a 3,706 sq. ft. second floor apartment space with three apartments, and a building on the w/s with 4,424 sq. ft. of commercial bank space with drive-up teller service on a 1.41-acre parcel in the B Zone located on the n/s/o NYS Road 25 approximately 259' w/o Moore's Lane known as 74825 Main Road in Greenport. Malon Industries, Inc. SCTM# 1000-97-5-4.5 This site plan amendment includes parking changes and a drive-up window for a bank on a 1.2356-acre parcel in the B Zone located approximately 83.35' w/o Cox's Lane, on the n/s/o NYS Road 25 known as 32845 NYS Road 25 in Cutchogue. New.' Guild Greenhouse SCTM# 1000-68-4-19 Build a new greenhouse of 34,992 sq. ft. and a greenhouse addition of 2,376 sq.ft connecting the new greenhouse to an existing graenhouse of 34,992 sq.ft.; all on a 6.0002-acre parcel in the A-C Zone located 2,646' e/o Mill Road on the n/s/o County Road 48 in Peconic. Osprey's Dominion Conservatory Add. SCTM#'s 1000.75-1-20.1 & 20.2 Alteration/expansion of existing 1,357 s.f. building to include a first floor addition of a 2,812 s.f. conservatory and a second floor storage area of 1,645 s.f. Total building area after completion will be 4,814 s.f., which will include additional parking from an existing 31 spaces to a total of 93 spaces, 59 of which will be land-banked.; all on a 50.46-acre parcel in the A-C Zone located on the n/s/o New York State Road 25 and 1,506' e/o Peconic Lane known as 44075 Main Road in Peconic. East Marion FD Telecom SCTM# 1000-31-3-11.31 Erect a 120' cellular stealth flagpole-type tower with Cingular equipment internally installed at heights of 107' & 117'. The pole illustrates a USA flag at the top. The Fire Department antennae are externally located at heights of 120' & under 96'; all on a 3.0583-acre split-zoned parcel in the R-40 & HB Zones located on the n/s/o NYS Route 25 approximately 494' w/o Stars Road in East Marion. WORK SESSION AGENDA SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD SITE PLANS For Tuesday January 17, 2006 at 4:00 PM. · Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement Action: Discussion on site plan enforcement. ·Chris Mohr Landscaping SCTM# 1000-96-1-20.1 Action: Update on review of site plan. Status: Pending final approval and or violation. Recommendation: The Planning Board review the revised site plan and indicate to staff the next step. Attachmen, J~s: none ..... ~ /~ast Marion Fire District Telecom SCTM# 1000-31-3.11.31 ~-~ction: Review of NYS DOT letter_~:a~LEMFD letter. Status.'-'~qulres ~e~lYS-[~)~o review and a site plan landscape change. Recommendation: Have the Planning Department Staff send a copy of the letters to the agent for follow up to the NYS DOT and a revised landscape schedule. Attachments: al-a3 · N & J Management SCTM# 1000-113-13-1.2 Action: Review draft letter. Status: Pending final site plan approval and satisfaction. Recommendation: None Attachments: bi · Rich's Auto Body SCTM# 1000-102-3-1 Action: Update on review of site plan. Status: Approved by ZBA under Appeal Number 5759. See the attached decision. Recommendation: The Planning Board review the revised site plan and accept it in concept form. Allow the Planning Department Staff to contact the agent on the revisions. Attachments: cl-c5 · Silver Nails Vineyard-Matabella Vineyards Holding Corp. SCTM# 1000-75-2-15.1 & 15.2 Action: Review letter from attorney for an extension. Status: Conditional approval expires on January 12, 2006 pending three conditions. Recommendation: The Planning Board considers issuing a six month extension form January 12-July 12, 2006 at the February 13, 2006 public meeting. Attachments: dl-d2 Prepared by BS 1-13-06, 2:00pm Market: Tri-State Cell Site Number: NYCENY1017 Cell Site Name: West Orient Point OPTION AND LEASE AGREEMENT THIS OPTION AND LEASE AGREEMENT ("Agreement"), dated as of the latter of the signature dates below (the "Effective Date"), is entered into by East Marion Fire District, a New York municipal corporation, having a mailing address of PO Box 131, East Marion, NY I 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "Landlord") and NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, having a mailing address of 6100 Atlantic Boulevard, Norcross, Georgia 30071 (hereinafter referred to as "Tanant"). BACKGROUND Landlord owns or controls that certain plot, parcel or tract of Iand, together with all rights and privileges arising ha connection therewith, located at Main Road, East Marion, in the County of Suffolk, State of New York (collectively, the "Property"), District 1000, Section 31, Block 3, and Lot 11.031. Tenant desires to use a portion of the Property in connection with its federally licensed communications business. Landlord desires to grant to Tenant the right to use a portion of the Property in accordance with this Agreement. The parties agree as follows: 1. OPTION TO LEASE. (a) Landlord grants to Tenant an option (the "Option") to lease a certain portion of the Property containhag approximately 350 square feet including the air space above such room/cabinet/ground space as described on attached Exhibit 1, together with unrestricted access for Tenant's uses from the nearest public right- of-way along the Property to the Premises as described on the attached Exhibit 1 (collectively, the "Premises"). (b) During the Option period and any extension thereof, and during the term of this Agreement, Tenant and its agents, engineers, surveyors and other representatives will have the right to enter upon the Property to inspect, examhae, conduct soil borings, drainage testing, material sampling, radio frequency testing and other geological or engineering tests or studies of the Property (collectively, the "Tests"), to apply for and.obtain licenses, permits, approvals, or other relief required of or deemed necessary or appropriate at Tenant's sole discretion for its use of the Premises and include, without limitation, applications for zoning variances, zoning ordinances, amendments, special use permits, and construction permits (collectively, the "Government Approvals"), initiate the ordering and/or scheduling of necessary utilities, and otherwise to do those things on or off the Property that, in the opinion of Tenant, are necessary in Tenant's sole discretion to determine the physical condition of the Property, the environmental history of the Property, Landlord's title to the Property and the feasibility or suitability of the Property for Tenant's Permitted Use, all at Tenant's expense. Tenant will not be liable to Landlord or any third party on account of any pre-existing defect or condition on or with respect to the Property, whether or not such defect or condition is disclosed by Tenant's inspection. Tenant will restore the Property to its condition as it existed at the connnencement of the Option Term (as defined below), reasonable wear and tear and casualty not caused by Tenant excepted. In addition, Tenant shall indelrmify, defend and hold Landlord hamxless from and against any and all injury, loss, damage or claims arising directly out of Tenant's Tests. (c) In consideration of Landlord granting Tenant the Option, Tenant agrees to pay Landlord the sum of One Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($1,000.00) within thirty (30) business days of the Effective Date. The Option will be for an initial term of one (1) year commencing on the Effective Date (the "Initial Option Term") and may be renewed by Tenant for an additional one (1) year upon written notification to Landlord and the payment of an additional 1,000 and No/100 Dollars ($1,000.00) no later than ten (10) days prior to the expiration date of the Initial Option Term. (d) The Option may be sold, assigned or transferred at any time by Tenant to Tenant's parent company or member if Tenant is a limited liability company or any affiliate or subsidiary of, or partner in, Tenant or its parent company or member, or to any third party agreeing to be subject to the terms hereof. Otherwise, the Option may not be sold, ass!gned or transferred without the written consent of Landlord, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. From and after the date the Option has been sold, assigned or transferred by Tenant to a third party agreeing to be subject to the terms hereof, Tenant shall immediately be released from any and all liability under tl'ds Agreement, including the payment of any rental or other sums due, without any further action. · (e) During the Initial Option Term and any extension thereof, Tenant may exercise the Option by notifying Landlord in writing. If Tenant exercises the Option then Landlord leases the Premises to the Tenant subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. If Tenant does not exercise the Option during the Initial Option Term or any extension thereof, this Agreement will terminate and the parties will have no further liability to each other. (f) If during the Initial Option Term or any extension thereof, or during the term of tkis Agreement if the Option is exercised, Landlord decides to subdivide, sell, or change the status of the zoning of the Premises, Property or any of Landlord's contiguous, adjoining or surrounding property (the "Surrounding Property," which includes (without limitation) the reminder of the structure) or in the event of foreclosure, Landlord shall immediately notify Tenant in writing. Any sale of the Property shall be subject to Tenant's fights under this Agreement. Landlord agrees that during the Initial Option Term or any extension thereof, or during the Term of this Agreement if the Option is exercised, Landlord shall not initiate or consent to any change in the zoning of the Prernises, Property or Surrounding Property or impose or consent to any other restriction that would prevent or limit Tenant from using the Premises for the uses intended by Tenant as hereinafter set forth in this Agreement. 2. PERMITTED USE. (a) Tenant may use the Premises for the transmission and reception of communications signals and the installation, construction, maintenance, operation, repair, replacement and upgrade of its commurfications fixtures and related equipment, cables, accessories and improvements, which may include a suitable support structure, associated antennas, I beams, equipment shelters or cabinets and fencing and any other items necessary to the successful and secure use of the Premises (collectively, the "Communication Facility"), as well as the right to test, survey and review title on the Property; Tenant further has the right but not the obligation to add, modify and/or replace equipment in order to be in compliance with any current or future federal, state or local mandated application, including, but not limited to, emergency 911 communication services, at no additional cost to Tenant or Landlord (collectively, the "Permitted Use"). Landlord and Tenant agree that any portion of the Communication Facility that may be conceptually described on Exhibit 1 will not be deemed to limit Tenant's Permitted Use. If Exhibit 1 includes drawings of the initial installation of the Communication Facility, Landlord's execution of this Agreement will signify Landlord's approval of Exhibit 1. Tenant has the right to install and operate transmission cables from the equipment shelter or cabinet to the antennas, electric lines from the main feed to the equipment shelter or cabinet and communication lines from the main entry point to the equipment shelter or cabinet, and to make Property improvements, alterations, upgrades or additions appropriate for Tenant's use ("Tenant Changes"). Tenant Changes include the right to construct a fence around the Premises and undertake any other appropriate means to secure the Premises. Tenant agrees to comply with ali applicable governmental laws, roles, statutes and regulations, relating to its use of the Communication Facility on the Property. Tenant has the right to modify, supplement, replace, upgrade, expand the equipment, increase the number of antennas or relocate the Communication Facility within the Premises at any time during the term of this Agreement~ Tenant will be allowed to make such alterations to the Property in order to accomplish Tenant's Changes or to insure that Tenant's Communication Facility complies with all applicable federal, state or local laws, mles or regulations. In the event Tenant desires to modify or upgrade the Communication Facility, and Tenant requires an additional portion of the Property (the "Additional Premises") for such modification or upgrade, Landlord agrees to lease to Tenant the Additional Premises, upon the same terms and conditions set forth herein, except that the Rent shall increase, in conjunction with the lease of the Additional Premises by a reasonable amount consistent with rental rates then charged for comparable portions of real property being in the same area. Landlord agrees to take such actions and enter into and deliver to Tenant such documents as Tenant reasonably requests in order to effect and memorialize the lease of the Additional Premises to Tenant. (b) Prior to the initial installation of Tenant's Changes, Tenant will supply the Landlord with plans and specifications ("Plans") to be reviewed and approved by the Landlord prior to commencement of Tenant's Changes. Landlord's approval will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed (and in no event delayed beyond ten (10) days). After Landlord's (i) failure to respond in writing to Tenant's proposed Plans within ten (10) days of their receipt; or (ii) failure to provide a written response within five (5) days of receipt of Plans revised by Tenant after comment from Landlord in accordance with this paragraph, the Plans will be deemed approved. After approval or deemed approval, the Plans will be considered incorporated in this Agreement as Exhibit 1. If the Landlord disapproves the Plans then the Tenant will provide the Landlord with revised Plans, such revisions to be within Tenant's reasonable discretion. In the event Landlord disapproves of the Plans upon a second (2nd) submission, Tenant may terminate this Agreement. Landlord will not knowingly permit or suffer any person to copy or utilize the Plans for any purpose other than as provided in tkis Agreement and will return the Plans to Tenant promptly upon request. (c)' Tenant shall install wiring and related cabling for Landlord's single-phase generator for the use by Landlord and Tenant; cost of installation shall not exceed Two Thousand Two Hundred and No/100 Dollars ($2,200.00). (d) Landlord shall provide and install the items listed in Exhibit 2 at the above mentioned Communication Facility located at District 1000, Section 31, Block 3, and Lot I 1.031. Landlord has the right to modify, supplement, replace or upgrade the equipment listed within Exhibit 2, so long as Landlord's modification do not interfere in any way with Tenant's radio frequency signal, installation as identified in Exhibit 1, and remain within the space indicated on Exhibit 2. If Landlord changes require a structural upgrade, modification to foundation or tower, changes will be at Landlord's sole cost and expense. 3. TERM. (a) The initial lease term will be five (5) years ("Initial Term"), commencing on the effective date of written notification by Tenant to Landlord of Tenant's exercise of the Option (the "Term Commencement Date"). The Initial Term will terminate on the fifth (5th) annual aranversary of the Term Commencement Date. (b) This Agreement will automatically renew for four (4) additional five (5) year term(s) (each five (5) year term shall be defined as the "Extension Term"), upon the same terms and conditions unless the Tenant notifies the Landlord in writing of Tenant's intention not to renew this Agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the existing Term. (c) If, at least sixty (60) days prior to the end of the fourth (4th) extended term, either Landlord or Tenant has not given the other wr/tten notice of its desire that the term of this Agreement end at the expiration of the fourth (4th) extended term, then upon the expiration of the fourth (4t~) extended term this Agreement shall continue in force upon the same covenants, terms and conditions for a farther term of one (1) year, and for am~ual terms thereafter until terminated by either party by giving to the other written notice of its intention to so terminate at least six (6) months prior to the end of any such annual term. Monthly rental during such annual terms shall be equal to the rent paid for the last month of the fourth (4th) extended term. If Tenant remains in possession of the Premises after the terrrdnation of this Agreement then Tenant will be deemed to be occupying the Premises on a month to month basis (the '!Holdover Term"), subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. (d) The Initial Term, the Extension Term and the Holdover Term are collectively referred to as the Term ("Term"). 4. RENT. 20050ptionLa~dL~me (a) Commencing on the f~rst day of the month following the date that Tenant commences construction (the "Rent Commencement Date"), Tenant will pay the Landlord a yearly rental payment of Eighteen Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($18,000.00) ("Rent"), at the address set forth above, on or before the fifth (5t~) day of each lease year in advance. In partial years occuning after the Rent Commencement Date, Rent will be prorated. Landlord and Tenant acknowledge that the initial Rent payment will be forwarded by Tenant to Landlord within thirty (30) days after the Rent Commencement Date. (b) In year two (2) of the Initial Term, and each year thereafter, including throughout any Extension Terms exercised, the yearly rent will increase by three percent (3 %) over the Rent paid during the previous year. (c) All Rent or other charges payable under this Agreement shall be billed by Landlord within one (1) year from the end of the calendar year in which the charges were incurred; any charges beyond such period shall not be billed by Landlord, and shall not be payable by Tenant. The provisions of the foregoing sentence shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. 5. APPROVALS. (a) Landlord agrees that Tenant's ability to use the Premises is contingent upon the suitability of the Premises for Tenant's Permitted Use and Tenant's ability to obtain and maintain all Government Approvals. Landlord authorizes Tenant to prepare, execute and file all required applications to obtain Government Approvals for Tenant's Permitted Use under th/s Agreement and agrees to reasonably assist Tenant with such applications and with obtaining and maintaining the Government Approvals. (b) Tenant has the right to obtain a title report or commitment for a leasehold title policy from a title insurance company of/ts choice and to have the Property surveyed by a surveyor of Tenant's choice. In the event Tenant determines, in its sole discretion, due to the title report results or survey results, that the condition of the Prenfises is unsatisfactory, Tenant will have the right to terminate this Agreement upon notice to Landlord. (c) Tenant may also perform and obtain, at Tenant's sole cost and expense, soil borings, percolation tests, engineering procedures, environmental investigation or other tests or reports on, over, and under the Property, necessary to determine if the Tenant's use of the Premises will be compatible with Tenant's engineering specifications, system, design, operations or Government Approvals. 6. TERMENATION. This Agreement may be terminated, without penalty or further liability, as follows: (a) by either party on thirty (30) days prior written notice, if the other party remains in default under Paragraph 15 Default and Right to Cure of this Agreement after the applicable cure periods; (b) by Tenant upon written notice to Landlord, if Tenant is unable to obtain, or maintain, any required approval(s) or the issuance of a license or permit by any agency, board, court or other governmental authority necessary for the construction or operation of the Communication Facility as now or hereafter intended by Tenant; or if Tenant determines in its sole discretion that the cost of obtaining or retaining the same is commercially unreasonable; (c) by Tenant upon written notice to Landlord for any reason, at any time prior to commencement of construction by Tenant; or (d) by Tenant upon sixty (60) days prior written notice to Landlord for any reason, so long as Tenant pays Landlord a termination fee equal to three (3) months Rent, at the then current rate, provided, however, that no such termination fee will be payable on account of the terufination of this Agreement by Tenant under any one or more of Paragraphs 5(b) Approvals, 6(a) Termination, 6(b) Term/nation, 6(c) Termination, 8 Interference, 11 (d) Environmental, 18 Severability, 19 Condemnation or 20 Casualty of tlfis Agreement. 7. INSURANCE. (a) Tenant will carry during the Term, at its own cost and expense, the following insurance: (i) "All Risk" property insurance for its property's replacement cost; (ii) commercial general liability insurance with a minimum limit of liability of $5,000,000 combined single limit for bodily injury or death/property damage arising out of any one occurrence; and (iii) Workers' Compensation Insurance as required by law. The coverage 4 afforded by Tenant's commercial general liability insurance shall apply to Landlord as an additional insured, but oaly with respect to Landlord's liability arising out of its interest in the Property. (b) Tenant shall have the fight to self-insure with respect to any of the above insurance requirements. 8. INTERFERENCE. (a) Where there are existing radio frequency user(s) on the Property, the Landlord will provide Tenant with a list of ali existing radio frequency user(s) on the Property to allow Tenant to evaluate the potential for interference. Tenant warrants that its use of the Prerrfises will not interfere with existing radio frequency user(s) on the Property so disclosed by Landlord, as long as the existing radio frequency user(s) operate and continue to operate within their respective frequencies and in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. (b) Landlord will not grant, after the date of tiffs Agreement, a lease, license or any other fight to any third party for the use of the Property, if such use may in any way adversely affect or interfere with the Communication Facility, the operations of Tenant or the fights of Tenant under this Agreement. Landlord will notify Tenant in writing prior to granting any third party the right to install and operate communications equipment on the Property. (c) Landlord will not use, nor will Landlord permit its employees, tenants, licensees, invitees or agents to use, any portion of the Property in any way which interferes with the Communication Facility, the operations of Tenant or the rights of Tenant under this Agreement. Landlord will cause such interference to cease within twenty-four (24) hours after receipt of notice of interference from Tenant. In the event any such interference does not cease within the aforementioned cure period then the parties acknowledge that Tenant will suffer irreparable injury, and therefore, Tenant will have the right, in addition to any other rights that it may have at law or in equity, for Landlord's breach of this Agreement, to elect to enjoin such interference or to terminate tiffs Agreement upon notice to Landlord. (d) The installation, maintenance and operations of the Communication Facility will not interfere with the Landlord's existing emergency equipment or operations witkin the Property. In the event Tenant's installations interfere with the Landlord's equipment or operations, Tenant will immediately cease such interference, after notice thereof until it is able to resolve the problem. If the interference cannot be resolved, either party will be entitled to terminate this Agreement and render it null and void. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. (a) Tenant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Landlord harmless from and against any and all injury, loss, damage or liability (or any claims in respect of the foregoIng), costs or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs but excluding real property or personal property taxes) arising directly from the installation, use, maintenance, repair or removal of the Communication Facility or Tenant's breach of any provision of this Agreement, except to the extent attributable to the negligent or intentional act or omission of Landlord, its employees, agents or independent contractors. (b) Landlord agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Tenant harmless from and against any and ali injury, loss, damage or liability (or any claims in respect of the foregoing), costs or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs but excluding real property or personal property taxes) arising directly from the actions or failure to act of Landlord or its employees or agents, or Landlord's breach of any provision of tiffs Agreement, except to the extent attributable to the negligent or intentional act or omission of Tenant, its employees, agents or independent contractors. (c) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, Tenant and Landlord each waives any claims that each may have against the other with respect to consequential, incidental or special damages. 10. WARRANTIES. (a) Tenant and Landlord each acknowledge and represent that it is duly organ/zed, validly existing and in good standing and has the right, power and authority to enter into this Agreement and bInd itself hereto through the party set forth as signatory for the party below. 5 (b) Landlord represents and warrants that: (i) Landlord solely owns the Property as a legal lot in fee simple, or controls the Property by lease or license; (ii) the Property is not encumbered by any liens, restrictions, mortgages, covenants, conditions, easements, leases, or any other agreements of record or not of record, which would adversely affect Tenant's Permitted Use and enjoyment of the Premises under this Agreement; (iii) as long as Tenant is not in default then Landlord grants to Tenant sole, actual, quiet and peaceful use, enjoyment and possession of the Premises; (iv) Landlord's execution and perfon2ance of this Agreement will not violate any laws, ordinances, covenants or the provisions of any mortgage, lease or other agreement binding on the Landlord; and (v) if the Property is or becomes encumbered by a deed to secure a debt, mortgage or other security interest, Landlord shall provide promptly to Tenant a mutually agreeable Subordination, Non-Disturbance and Attormnent Agreement. 11. ENVIRONMENTAL. (a) Landlord represents and warrants that the Property is free of hazardous substances as of the date of this Agreement, and, to the best of Landlord's knowledge, the Property has never been subject to any contamination or hazardous conditions resulting in any environmental investigation, inquiry or remediation. Landlord and Tenant agree that each will be responsible for compliance with any and all environmental and industrial hygiene laws, including any regulations, guidelines, standards, or policies of any governmental authorities regulating or imposing standards of liability or standards of conduct with regard to any environmental or industrial hygiene condition or other matters as may now or at any time hereafter be in effect, that are now or were related to that party's activity conducted in or on the Property. (b) Landlord and Tenant agree to hold harmless and indemnify the other from, and to assume all duties, responsibilities and liabilities at the sole cost and expense of the indemnifying party for, payment of penalties, sanctions, forfeitures, losses, costs or damages, and for responding to any action, notice, claim, order, summons, citation, directive, litigation, investigation or proceeding winch is related to (i) the indemnif3/mg party's failure to comply with any environmental or industrial hygiene law, including without limitation any · regulations, guidelines, standards or policies of any governmental authorities regulating or imposing standards of liability or standards of conduct with regard to any environmental or industrial hygiene conditions or matters as may now or hereafter be in effect, or (ii) any environmental or industrial hygiene conditions that arise out of or are in any way related to the condition of the Property and activities conducted by the party thereon, unless the environmental conditions are caused by the other party. (c) The indemnifications of this Paragraph 1 i Environmental specifically include reasonable costs, expenses and fees incurred in connection with any investigation of Property conditions or any clean-up, remediation, removal or restoration work required by any governmental authority. The provisions of this Paragraph i I Environmental will survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. (d) In the event Tenant becomes aware of any hazardous materials on the Property, or any environmental or industrial hygiene condition or matter relating to the Property that, in Tenant's sole determination, renders the condition of the Premises or Property unsuitable for Tenant's use, or if Tenant believes that the leasing or continued leasing of the Premises would expose Tenant to undue risks of government action, intervention or third-party liability, Tenant will have the right, in addition to any other rights it may have at law or in equity, to tern-dnate the Agreement upon notice to Landlord. 12. ACCESS. At all times throughout the Term of this Agreement, and at no additional charge to Tenant, Tenant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors, will have twenty-four (24) hour per day, seven (7) day per week pedestrian and vehicular access to and over the Property, from an open and improved public road to the Premises, for the installation, maintenance and operation of the Communication Facility and any utilities serving the Premises. Landlord grants to Tenant an easement for such access and Landlord agrees to provide to Tenant such codes, keys and other instruments necessary for such access at no additional cost to Tenant. Upon Tenant's request, Landlord will execute a separate recordable easement evidencing this right. In the event any public utility is unable to use the access or easement provided to Tenant then the Landlord agrees to grant additional access or an easement either to Tenant or to the public utility, for the benefit of Tenant, at no cost to Tenant. 13. REMOVAL/RESTORATION. All portions of the Commmfication Facility brought onto the Property by Tenant will be and remain Tenant's personal property and, at Tenant's option, may be removed by Tenant at any time during the Term, excluding the tower. Landlord covenants and agrees that no part of the Communication Facility constructed, erected or placed on the Premises by Tenant will become, or be considered as being affixed to or a part of, the Property, it being the specific intention of the Landlord that all improvements of every kind and nature constructed, erected or placed by Tenant on the Premises will be and remain the property of the Tenant and may be removed by Tenant at any time during the Term. Within one hundred twenty (120) days of the termination of tlfis Agreement, Tenant will remove all of Tenant's above-ground improvements and Tenant will, to the extent reasonable, restore the Premises to its condition at the commencement of the Agreement, reasonable wear and tear and loss by casualty or other causes beyond Tenant's control excepted. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Tenant will not be responsible for the replacement of any trees, shrubs or other vegetation, nor will Tenant be required to remove from the Premises or the Property any foundations or underground utilities. Upon the termination or expiration of this Agreement, whichever shall be the sooner, Tenant shall remove its equipment fi-om the tower and the parties agree that the tower will automatically become the property of Landlord. Landlord will not be required to give any additional consideration to Tenant for the transfer of ownership. Furthermore, the parties agree that no further instrument shall be required to transfer ownership of the tower to Landlord. All further obligations and responsibilities for maintaining the tower will transfer to Landlord. 14. M AINTENANCE/IJTILITEES. (a) Tenant will keep and maintain the Premises in good condition, reasonable wear and tear and damage from the elements excepted. Landlord will maintain and repair the Property and access thereto, in good and tenantable condition, subject to reasonable wear and tear and damage fi.om the elements. (b) Tenant will be responsible for paying on a monthly or quarterly basis all utilities charges for electricity, telephone service or any other utility used or consumed by Tenant on the Premises. In the event Tenant cannot secure its own metered electrical supply, Tenant will have the right, at its own cost and expense, to submeter fi.om the Landlord. When submeter/ng is necessary and available, Landlord will read the meter on a monthly or quarterly basis and provide Tenant with the necessary usage data in a timely manner to enable Tenant to compute such utility charges. Failure by Landlord to perform this function will limit utility fee recovery by Landlord to a 12-month period. Landlord will fully cooperate with any utility company requesting an easement over, under and across the Property in order for the utility company to prov/de service to the Tenant. Landlord will not be responsible for interference with, /nterruption of or failure, beyond the reasonable control of Landlord, of such services to be fum/shed or supplied by Landlord. 15. DEFAULT AND RIGHT TO CURE. (a) The following will be deemed a default by Tenant and a breach of this Agreement: (i) non- payment of Rent if such Rent remains unpaid for more than thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice fi.om Landlord of such failure to pay; or (ii) Tenant's failure to perform any other term or condition under this Agreement w/thin forty-five (45) days after receipt of written notice from Landlord specifying the failure. No such failure, however, will be deen~ed to exist if Tenant has commenced to cure such default within such period and provided that such efforLs are prosecuted to completion with reasonable diligence. Delay in curing a default will be excused if due to causes beyond the reasonable control of Tenant. If Tenant remains in default beyond any applicable cure period, Landlord will have the right to exercise any and all rights and remedies available to it under law and equity. (b) The following will be deemed a default by Landlord and a breach of this Agreement: Landlord's failure to perform any term, condition or breach of any warranty or covenant under this Agreement within forty~ five (45) days after receipt of written notice from Tenant specifying the failure. No such failure, however, will be deemed to exist if Landlord has commenced to cure the default with/n such per/od and provided such efforts are prosecuted to completion with reasonable diligence. Delay hi curing a default will be excused if due to causes beyond the reasonable control of Landlord. If Landlord remains in default beyond any applicable cure period, 7 Tenant will have the fight to exercise any and all rights available to it under law and equity, including the right to cure Landlord's default and to deduct the costs of such cure from any monies due to Landlord from Tenant. 16. ASSIGNMENT/SUBLEASE. Tenant will have the fight to assign, sell or transfer its interest under this Agreement without the approval or consent of Landlord, to Tenant's parent or member company or any affiliate or subsidiary of, or partner in, Tenant or its parent or member company or to any entity which acquires all or substantially all of the Tenant's assets in the market defined by the Federal Communications Comrmssion in which the Property is located by reason of a merger, acquisition, or other business reorganization. Upon notification to Landlord of such assignment, transfer or sale, Tenant will be relieved of all furore performance, liabilities and obligations under this Agreement.. Tenant shall have the right to sublease the Prem/ses, ha whole or in part, with Landlord's consent, which will not be uureasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Tenant may not otherwise assign this Agreement without Landlord's consent, Landlord's consent not to be uureasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 17. NOTICES. All notices, requests, demands and communications hereunder will be g/ven by fzrst class certified or reg/stered mail, return receipt requested, or by a nationally recognized overnight courier, postage prepaid, to be effective when properly sent and received,, refused or returned undelivered. Notices will be addressed to the parties as follows: If to Tenant: c/o Cingnlar Wireless LLC Attn: Network Real Estate Administration Re: Cell Site #NYCENY1017; Ceil Site Name: West Orient Point 6100 Atlantic Boulevard Norcross, GA 30071 With a copy to: Cingnlar Wireless LLC Attn: Legal Department Re: Cell Site #NYCENYI017; Cell Site Name: West Orient Point 15 E Midland Avenue Paramus, NJ 07652 Ifto Landlord: East Marion Fire District PO Box 131 East Marion, NY 11939 Either party hereto may change the place for the giving of notice to it by thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other as provided herein. 18. SEVERABILITY. If any term or condition of this Agreement is found unenforceable, the remaining terms and conditions will remain binding upon the parties as though said unenforceable provision were not contained herein. However, if the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision materially affects this Agreement then the Agreement may be terminated by either party on ten (10) business days prior written notice to the other party hereto. 19. CONDEMNATION. In the event Landlord receives notification of any condemnation proceedings affecting the Property, Landlord will provide notice of the proceeding to Tenant within forty-eight (48) hours. If a condemning authofity takes all of the Property, or a portion sufficient, in Tenant's sole determination, to render the Premises unsuitable for Tenant, this Agreement will terminate as of the date the title vests in the condemning authority. The parties will each be entitled to pursue the/r own separate awards in the condemnation proceeds, which for Tenant will include, where applicable, the value of its Communication Facility, moving expenses, prepaid Rent, and business dislocation expenses, provided that any award to Tenant will not d/mi]fish Landlord's recovery. Tenant will be entitled to reimbursement for any prepaid Rent on a promta basis. 20. CASUALTY. Landlord will provide notice to Tenant of any casualty affecting the Property within forty-eight (48) hours of the casualty. If any part of the Communication Facility or Property is damaged by £rre or other casualty so as to render the Premises unsuitable, in Tenant's sole determination, then Tenant may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice to the Landlord, which termination will be effective as of the date of such damage or destruction. Upon such termination, Tenant will be entitled to collect all insurance proceeds payable to Tenant on account thereof and to be reimbursed for any prepaid Rent on a prorata basis. If notice of term/nation is given, or if Landlord or Tenant undertake to rebuild the Communications Facility, Landlord aggress to use its reasonable efforts to permit Tenant to place temporary transmission and reception facilities on the Property at no additional Rent until such time as Tenant is able to secure a replacement transmission location or the reconstruction of the Communication Facility is completed. 21. WAIVER OF LANDLORD'S LIENS. Landlord waives any and all lien fights it may have, statutory or otherwise, concerning the Communication Facility or any portion thereof. The Communication Facility shall be deemed personal property for purposes of tiffs Agreement, regardless of whether any portion is deemed real or personal property under applicable law, and Landlord consents to Tenant's right to remove ail or any portion of the Communication Facil/ty f~om time to time in Tenant's sole discretion and without Landlord's consent. 22. TAXES. Landlord shall be responsible for payment of all ad valorem taxes levied upon the lands, improvements and other property of Landlord. Tenant shall be responsible for all taxes levied upon Tenant's leasehold improvements (including Tenant's equipment building and tower) on the Leased Property. Landlord shall provide Tenant with copies of all assessment notices on or including the Leased Property immediately upon receipt, but in no event less than seven (7) business days after receipt by Landlord. If Landlord fails to provide such notice within such time frame, Landlord shall be responsible for all increases in taxes for the year covered by the assessment. Tenant shall have the right to contest, in good faith, the validity or the amount of any tax or assessment levied against the Leased Property by such appellate or other proceedings as may be appropriate in the jurisdiction, and may defer payment of such obligations, pay same under protest, or take such other steps as Tenant may deem appropriate. This right shall include the ability to institute any legal, regdlatory or informal action in the name of Landlord, Tenant, or both, with respect to the valuation of the Leased Property. Landlord shall cooperate in the institution and prosecution of any such proceedings and will execute any documents required therefore. The expense of any such proceedings shall be borne by Tenant and any refunds or rebates secured as a result of Tenant's action shall belong to Tenant. 23. SALE OF PROPERTY. If Landlord, at any tmie during the Tenu of this Agreement, decides to sell, subdivide or rezone any of the Premises, ail or any part of the Property or Surrounding Property, to a purchaser other than Tenant, Landlord shall promptly notify Tenant in writing, and such sale, subdivision or rezoning shall be subject to this Agreement and Tenant's fights hereunder. Landlord agrees not to sell, lease or use any areas of the Property or Surrounding Property for the installation, operation or maintenance of other wireless communications facilities if such installation, operation or maintenance would interfere with Tenant's Permitted Use or communications equipment as determined by radio propagation tests performed by Tenant in its sole discretion, any such testing to be at the expense of Landlord or Landlord's prospective purchaser, and not Tenant. If the radio frequency propagation tests demonstrate levels of interference unacceptable to Tenant, Landlord shall be prohibited from selling, leasing or using any areas of the Property or the Surrounding Property for purposes of any installation, operation or maintenance of any other wireless communications facility or equipment. Landlord shall not be prohibited from the selling, leasing or use of any of the Property or the Surrounding Property for non- 9 wireless communication use. In the event the Property is transferred, the new landlord shall have a duty at the time of such transfer to provide Tenant with a completed IRS Form W-9, or its equivalent, and other related paper work to effect a transfer in Rent to the new landlord. The provisions of this Paragraph 23 shall in no way limit or impair the obligations of Landlord under Paragraph 8 above. 24. MISCELLANEOUS. (a) Amendment/Waiver. This Agreement cannot be amended, modified or revised unless done in writing and signed by an authorized agent of the Landlord and an authorized agent of the Tenant. No provision may be waived except in a writing signed by both parties. (b) Memorandum/Short Form Lease. Either party will, at any time upon fifteen (15) business days prior written notice from the other, execute, acknowledge and deliver to the other a recordable Memorandum or Short Form of Lease. Either party may record this Memorandum or Short Form of Lease at any thne, in its absolute discretion. (c) Bind and Benefit. The terms and conditions contained in this Agreement will mn with the Property and bind and inure to the benefit of the parties, their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. (d) Entire Agreement. Tiffs Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto, all being a part hereof, constitute the entire agreement of the parties hereto and will supersede ail prior offers, negotiations and agreements with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. (e) Governing Law. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the state in which the Premises are located, without regard to conflicts of law. (I') Interpretation. Unless otherwise specified, the following rules of construction and interpretation apply: (i) captions are for convenience and reference only and in no way define or limit the construction of the terms and conditions hereof; (ii) use of the term "including" will be interpreted to mean "including but not limited to"; (iii) whenever a party's consent is required under this Agreement, except as otherwise stated in the Agreement or as same may be duplicative, such consent will not be unreasonably with_held, conditioned or delayed; (iv) exhihits are an integral part of the Agreement and are incorporated by reference into this Agreement; (v) use of the terms "termination" or "expiration" are interchangeable; and (vi) reference to a default will take into consideration any applicable notice, grace and cure periods. (g) Estoppel. Either party will, at any time upon twenty (20) business days prior written notice from the other, execute, acknowledge and deliver to the other a statement in writing (i) certifying that this Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect (or, if modified, stating the nature of such modification and certifying this Agreement, as so modified, is in full force and effect) and the date to which the Rent and other charges are paid in advance, if any, and (ii) acknowledging that there are not, to such party's knowledge, any uncured defaults on the part of the other party hereunder, or specifying such defaults if any are claimed. Any such statement may be conclusively relied upon by any prospective purchaser or encumbrancer of the Premises. The requested party's failure to deliver such a statement within such time will be conclusively relied upon by the requesting party that (i) tl'fis Agreement is in full force and effect, without modification except as may be properly represented by the requesting parry, (ii) there are no uncured defaults in either party's performance, and (iii) no more than one month's Rent has been paid in advance. (h) No Electronic Signature/No Option. The submission of tl~is Agreement to any party for examination or consideration does not constitute an offer, reservation of or option for the Premises based on the terms set forth herein. Tins Agreement will become effective as a binding Agreement only upon the handwritten legal execution, acknowledgment and delivery hereof by Landlord and Tenant. (i) Legal Fees. Tenant agrees to pay Landlord's reasonable legaI fees for the review of this Agreement and in an amount not to exceed Three Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($3,000.00) upon reasonable proof of the same. 10 (j) Capital Contribution. Tenant agrees to pay Landlord a one time payment of Twenty Five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($25,000.00) upon Tenants receipt of ali Government Approvals. The payment will be forwarded by Tenant to Landlord within thirty (30) days after receipt of all Government Approvals. [SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE NEXT PAGE] 11 lIN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be effective as of the last date written below. WITNESSES: "LANDLORD" Print Name: Print Name: East Marion Fire District A New York m~ corporation Print Name: Daniel Wo/od Its: Commissioner Date: d>o~'~ "TENANT" Print Name:' Print Name:C- ¼ f~ ~ New Cingular~ Wireless PCS, LLC a Delaware/~nited liability ~mpany Pri~Nall(e: James R. Hoffmann Its:/~I~emen~) [ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEAR ON THE NEXT PAGE] 12 TENANT ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF ) COUNTY OF On the tr~ day of Ol.ta , 20~ before me personally appeared ~ ~0f~, and ac~owledged ~der oath that he is the ~ of , the named in the attached inst~ment, and as such was anthofized to execute ~s inst~ent on b~half of the LANDLORD ACKNOWLEDGMENT Notary(u~]ic: .... [ My Corka:/ission Expires: JANETTE ELISE WALBY NOTARYPu8/.iC OF NEW JERSEy MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEB. 20, 2000 INDlVDUAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF ) SSi COUNTY OF ) BE IT REMEMBERED, that on tiffs __ day of ,200__ before me, the subscriber, a person authorized to take oaths in the State of , personally appeared who, being duly sworn on h/s/her/their oath, deposed and made proof to my satisfaction that he/she/they is/are the person(s) named in the WithJ2 instrument; and I, having first made known to h/m/her/them the contents thereof, he/she/they did acknowledge that he/she/they signed, sealed and delivered the same as h/s/her/their voluntary act and deed for the purposes therein contained. Notary Public: My Comtrdssion Expires: 13 PARTNERSHIP (consisting of corporations) ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF ) COUNTY OF I CERTIFY that on __., 200~, personally came before me and th/s/these person(s) acknowledged under oath to my satisfaction, that: (a) this/these person(s) signed, sealed and delivered the attached document as [title]of [name of corporation] a corporation of the State of , wh/ch is a general partner of the partnership named in this document; (b) the proper corporate seal of said corporate general panner was affixed; and (c) this document was signed and delivered by the corporation as its voluntary act and deed as [al general partner(s) on behalf of said partnership [by virtue of authority from its Board of Directors]. Notary Public: My Commission Expires: STATE OF '~I-~ (y..,'"~ V.'q ~, ) / ) ss: ' COUNTY OF ~'~--~ ~,~o~-~L ) CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT I CERTIFY that on ,.,~'1 % 200'~ ('~--,~x. ~4. ~*~ [n~e of representative] personally came~e~fore me =d ac~ow~edged~nder oath that h~ ~h~ (a) is the 20~<~,,~ [title] of ~6¢~ ~,~c ~e,~q [n~e of co~oration], the co¢oration named in the attached instment, (b) was authorized to execute ~s instrument on behalf of the co¢orafion and (c) executed the instrument as the act of the co~oration. Notary Public: My Con-m-fission Expires: 14 .EXHIBIT 1 DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES Page 1 of 4 to the Agreement dated , 200__, by and between East Mar/on F/re District, a New York mun/cipal corporation, as Landlord, and New Cmgular Wireless PCS, LLC, a Delaware lin-dted liability company, as Tenant. The Pr~mises are described and/or depicted as follows: 1. Tiffs Exl:dbit may be replaced by a Iand survey and/or construction drawings of the Premises once received by Tenant. 2. Any setback of the Premises from the Property's boundaries shall be the distance required by the applicable govcnunental authorities. 3. Width of access road shall be the width required by the applicable govemmeatal authorities, including pohce and fire departments. 4. The type, number and mounting positions and locations of antennas and transmission lknes are illustrative o~dy. Actual types, numbers and mounting positions may vary from what is shown ab6ve. ~ ~om OVERALL SITE PLAN GRAPHIC SCALE 100' 0 100' 011~27 e n g e I n g ~/~/~ SITE I.D, U-1017 ~ ~ ~) ~", MAIN ROAD ~-o~ ~ST MARION, NY 11939 t0~27' ~D NOra SITE LAYOUT GRAPHIC SCALE APPROXIBATE SCALE: 1" 10'-0"~°~ER INm~ ~ ~j o.~7 e e , n g os/~/os SITE I.D. L1-1017 ~ ~ ~) ~ MAIN ROAD ~-~ ~ST MARION, NY 11939 SECTOR 1 - 30'  PROPOSED 120' FLAG POLE (BY OTHERS) .~ RRE DEPART~IENT E~LIIPI~ENT SECTOR 3- 250'~ ~ /pO:o~2s~D'~ ~/(TO BE__SUPPUED AND ?// INSTALLED BY OTHERS} SECTOR 2 -- lSO' j CINGULAR ANTENNA (TYP 1 PER SECTOR) PROPO$£D ¢II~'ULAR EDUIPI~/£NT A~F_4 ANTENNA FRAME PLAN VIEW PROPOSED 120' FL4GPOLE (BY OTHERS) FIRE DEPARTMENT EOUIPI~ENT (TO BE SUPPUED AND INSTALLED BY OTHERS) PROPOSED GPS iCE BRID~£ SOUTHNoT TO SCALEFLAGPOLE ELEVATION ,~o,,-~-.,,-.-'R°"~'""°':r n . . C°/ ~.O~o,,,T[: LEASE EXHIBIT PLAN ltl-~27 e n g e , n g 08/08/05 SITE I.D. Ll-1017 ~ ~, ~} ~" MAIN ROAD 1~0-o~,~ EAST MARION, NY 11939 EXHLBIT 2 East Marion Fire District Tower Specifications and Accessories Page 1 of 1 Quantity 1 1 1 Description Height Decibel 636, 8.6 fl UHF for top mounting 460.00 MHZ top of pole Low band 46.46 MHZ, RFS 1142 for side mount 40 feet Cellwave 210 UHF, 460.00 MHZ for side mount 40 feet ~tle Ram Island ,~o,: p~ pue~s cued Narro:w River Rd · In-Building coverage Town of Southold Cingular Wireless - L1-1017 existing coverage inc. proposed sites [] In-Building coverage Town of Southold Cingular Wireless - L1-1017 proposed coverage inc. proposed sites TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC At the premises: 9245 Route 25 East Marion, New York District 1000 Section 31, Block 3, Lot 11.31 STATE OF NEW YORK ) )ss.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) AUTHORIZATION OF OWNER DANIEL H. WOOD , being duly sworn, deposes and says: Iamthe Chairman, Board o£ C°mmission~-t~ieEastMarionFireDistrict, owner [n fee of the premises known as Section 31, Block 3, Lot 11.31 (the "Premises" hereafter), and do hereby authorize New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("Cingular" hereafter), and its representatives to bring such applications for municipal approvals as may be necessary for constructing or installing on the Premises such antennas, support structures, and related equipment as Cingular may require for the establishment of its public utility wireless telecommunication facility. As such, I will fully cooperate with Cingular and its agents in obtaining any required Approvals. EAST MARION FI~P,E. DISTRICT By: Sworn to before me this 16tlriay. o'f ]kugust ,2005. NOTARY PUBLIC IDWAi~ ~ ~OYD ~B~371~,,: ' ,. Cou~ ~DW~ ~HN IOYD 5th ao~ P~ ~t~ o~ New York 02Bffi376625 ~flolk County ~ommission Expiree april 30, 200~ tOWN OF SOUTHOLD '.OUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC At the premises: 9245 Route 25 East Marion, New York District 1000 Section 31, Block 3, Lot 11.31 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) AUTHORIZATION OF OWNER DANIEL H. WOOD , being duly sworn, deposes and says: I amthe Chairman, Board of Commissiongt't~e East Marion Fire District, o~vner in fee of the premises known as Section 31, Block 3, Lot 11.31 (the "Premises" hereafter), and do hereby authorize New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("Cingular" hereafter), and its representatives to bring such applications for municipal approvals as may be necessary for constructing or installing on the Premises such antennas, support structures, and related equipment as Cingular may require for the establishment of its public utility wireless telecommunication facility. As such, I will fully :ooperate with Cingular and its agents in obtaining any required Approvals. EAST MARION FLRE D1STRICTo,/ Sworn to before me this 16tlda ,6~' August ,2005. NOTARY PUBLIC ilelery pd#r ~L' · New Vofl~ i)2B0037~.' ' ,. ~ ~DW~ ~HN BOYD 5th N~ P~ ~ of New York 02Bffi376825 ~olk Coufl~ ~mmiss}on Expires ApriI 30, 2~ § 100-151 ZON-~G § 100-161 § 100-151. Conformance required. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, ne building or premises shall be used or occupied and no building or structure or part thereof shall be erected or altered in a use district unless the same conforms to the Density and Mi.lmum Lot Size Schedules and the Bulk Schedules hereinafter set forth? ARTICLE X-VI Wireless Comm,mlcation Facilities [Added 11-12-1997 by L.L. No. 26-1997] § 100-160. Purpose. It is the express purpose of this article to m/.imize the visual and environmental impacts of wireless communication facilities while protecting the health, safety and welfare of Southold's citizens and allowing wireless service providers to meet their technological and service objectives. This article allows wireless communication facilities, and particularly telecommunication towers, to be reviewed and approved in keeping with the town's existing zoning and historic development patterns, inchiaing the size and spacing of structures and open spaces. Furthermore, the standards herein re/tect two preferences: that wireless communication facilities are preferred in industrial areas and that wireless communication fadlities be located on existing buildings and towers rather than on newly constructed towers. Any wireless comm,,-icatian facility must take into account the aesthetic aspects of the town, including open vistas, scenic byways and historic districts. § 100-161. Scope. [Amended 12-8-1998 by L.L. No. 25-1995] The regulations of ~hi~ article shall govern and control the erection, enlargement, expansion, alteration, operation, mainte- nance, relocation and removal of all wireless communication § 100-161 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-162 facilities. The regulations of tiffs article relate to the location and design of these facilities and shall be in addition to the provisions of the Southold Building and Zoning Codes and any other federal, state or local laws or Federal Comrn,mication Commission (FCC) regulations pertaining to such facilities. Nothing herein shall be construed to, apply to, prohibit, regulate or otherwise affect the erection, maintenance or utilization of antennas or support structures by those licensed by the Federal Comm,~nications Commission pursuant to Chapter 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97, to operate amateur radio stations. § 100-162. Location of use. No wireless communication facility shall be used, erected or altered in the Town of Southold except as follows: A. In Residential and Marine Districts including AC, RS0, R40, R120, R200, R400, AHD, I-ID, RR, RO, MI and MII, a wireless communication facility is subject to site plan approval and must meet the following requirements. (1) W/re.lees comm~znication facilities on buildings shall requzre a special exception approval pursuant to this article. Wireless communication facilities on buildings shall be no higher than 10 feet above the average height of buildings (excluding signs, fences and walls) w/th~n 300 feet of the proposed facility. The building on which the wireless communication facility is located must be located at least 100 feet from the nearest property line/md 300 feet from any landmark property or district listed by federal, state or town agencies. (2) Wireless communication facilities on ex/sting telecommunications towers shall require a special exception approval pursuant to this chapter unless otherwise allowed by the terms of a prior special exception approval. § 100-162 ZONING § 100-162 (3) Wireless communication facilities on telecommunication towers shall require special ' exception approval pursuant to this article and shall not project higher than 10 feet above the average height of buildings (excluding signs, fences and walls) within 300 feet of the facility or, if there are no buildings within 300 feet, these facilities shall (Cont~ onpage 10096.13) 10096.12.1 § 100-162 ZONING § 100-162 not project higher than 10 feet above the average tree canopy height in that radius measured from ground level. If there are no buildings within 300 feet of the proposed facility site, all telecommunication towers shall be surrounded by dense tree growth to screen views of the facility in all directions. The base of the tower shall be located at least 100 feet from the nearest property line and 300 feet from a landmark property or district listed by federal, state or town agencies. (4) A wireless communication facility is a permitted use, not requiring site plan approval, if located on property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by state, federal or town government, provided that a license or lease authorizing such facility has been approved by that government. The height of such facility may be established by the public agency. (5) A wireless communication facility is a permitted use, not requiring site plan approval, if located on property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by a special district, provided that a license or lease authorizing such facility has been approved by the commissioners of the special district, and provided that it does not exceed the maximum heights specified above. Commercial Districts including LB, HB and B a wireless communication facility is subject to site plan approval and must meet the following requirements: ~ (1) Wireless communication facilities on buildings are a permitted use. Wireless communication facilities on buildings shall be no higher than 20 feet above the average height of buildings (excluding signs, fences and walls) within 300 feet of the proposed facility. Wireless communication facilities on buildings must be located at least 300 feet from any landmark property or district listed by federal, state or town agencies. B. In 10096.13 § 100-162 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-162 (2) Wireless communication facilities on existing telecommunication towers are a permitted use unless otherwise restricted pursuant to the terms of a prior special exception approval. (3) Wireless communication facilities on telecommunications towers are a permitted use, but shall not project higher than 20 feet above the average height of building~ (excluding signs, fences and walls) within 300 feet of the facility, or, if there are no buildings within 300 feet, these facilities shall not project higher than 20 feet above the average tree canopy height in that radius measured from ground level. If there are no buildings within 300 feet of the proposed facility site, all telecommunication towers shall be surrounded by dense tree growth to screen views of the facility in all directions. These ~rees may be existing on the subject property or planted on site. The base of the tower shall be located at least 100 feet from the nearest dwelling unit and 300 feet from any landmark property or district listed by federal, state or town agencies. (4) A wireless communication facility is a permitted use, not requiring site plan approval, if located on property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by state, federal or town government, provided that a license or lease authorizing such facility has been approved by that government. C. In Industrial Districts including LI and LIO, a wireless communication facility is subject to site plan approval and must meet the following requirements: (1) Wireless communication facilities on buildings are a permitted use, provided that the height of the wireless communication facility does not extend more than 100 feet above the existing grade and the wireless communication facility is located at least 100 feet from the nearest property line and 300 feet 10096.14 2-10-98 § 100-162 ZONING § 100-163 from any landmoxk property or district listed by federal, state or town agencies. (2) Wireless communication facilities on existing telecommunication towers are permitted unless otherwise restricted pursuant to the terms of a prior special exception approval. (3) Wireless communication facilities on telecommunication towers are a permitted use, provided that the height of the tower above grade does not exceed 100 feet above the existing grade and provided that the base of the tower is located at least 100 feet from the nearest dwelling unit and 300 feet from any landmark property or district listed by federal, state or town agencies. (4) A wireless communication facility is a permitted use, not requiring site plan approval, if located on property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by state, federal or town government, provided that a license or lease authorizing such facility has been approved by that government. § 100-163. Special exception approval. A. Authority. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall be empowered to issue a special exception approval for wireless communication facilities, subject to the provisions of this chapter. ~: ~.~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ B. Standards. In addition to the standards in Article XXVI of this Code, no special exception approval shall be granted unless the Zoning Board of Appeals specifically finds and determines the following: (1) The applicant is a public utility. (2) Construction of the proposed facility or modification of the existing facility is a public necessity, in that it is required to meet current or expected demands of 10096.15 2-10-98 § 100-163 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-163 the telecommunications provider and to render adequate service to the public. (3) The applicant has made substantial effort to locate or collocate on existing towers or, failing that, that the applicant has made substantial effort to locate on federal, state or town land and facilities. (4) The facility conforms with applicable FCC regulations. (5) There are compelling reasons, economic or otherwise, which make it more feasible to construct the proposed facilities than alternatives. Matters to be considered. In addition to the matters to be considered in Article XXVI of this Code, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall give consideration to the following in issuing a special approval for wireless communication facilities: (1) The height of the proposed tower shall be the minimum necessary to render adequate service. (2) The wireless communication facility has been situated to minimize its proximity and visibility to residential structures, residential district boundaries and landmarks designated by town, federal or state agencies. (3) The wireless communication facility is designed and situated to be compatible with the nature of uses on adjacent and nearby property. (4) The wireless communication facility has been designed to use the surrounding topography to minimize its visual impacts. (5) The wireless communication facility has been designed to use the surrounding tree, building or foliage coverage to minimize its visual impacts. 10096.16 e- ~o- 98 § 100-163 ZONING § 100-163 (6) The wireless communication facility maximizes design characteristics to reduce or eliminate visual impacts or obtrusiveness. (7) Other adequate conditions have been placed on the wireless communication facility which will minimize any adverse impacts of the facility on adjoining properties. D. Application requirements. In order to make the above- described determination, the Zoning Board shall require the following in addition to the requirements of Article XXVI: (1) Each application shall include a survey clearly indicating: (a) The location, type and height of the wireless communication facility. (b) Whether it is located on an existing structure, collocated or on a telecommunication tower. (c) On-site land uses and zoning. (d) Adjacent land uses, structures and zoning within 300 feet. (e) Distances between all structures. (t) Location of landmark listed by federal, state or town agencies within 300 feet. (g) Adjacent roadways and/or private rights-of-way. (h) Proposed means of access. (i) Setbacks from property lines. (j) Elevation drawings of the structures. (k) A long environmental assessment form with visual addendum. (l) Other information deemed by the Zoning Board to be necessary to assess compliance with this 10096.17 2-10-98 § 100-163 (2) SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-163 Each application shall include a written site location alternative analysis describing the location of other sites considered, the availability of those sites, the extent to which other sites do or do not meet the provider's service or engineering needs and the reason why the subject site was chosen. (3) The applicant shall document to the satisfaction of the Zoning Board of Appeals that a good-faith effort has been made to locate or collocate on existing towers or other available and appropriate buildings and structures, that it is not feasible to collocate on an existing facility and that the proposed location is necessary to provide adequate service to the public. The documentation shall include a notarized statement by the applicant as to whether construction of the wireless communication facility will accommodate collocation of additional antennas for future users. (4) Each application shall include a plan which shall reference all existing wireless communication facility locations in the Town of Southold, any such facilities in the abutting towns which provide service to areas within the Town of Southold, any changes proposed within the following twelve-month period, including the applicant's plans for new locations and the discontinuance or relocation of existing wireless facilities. Alternatively, at the beginning of the year the applicant may submit an annual wireless communication facility plan containing the aforementioned information for the calendar year. (5) A landscape plan showing specific landscape materials, fencing and maintenance arrangements. (6) The Zoning Board of Appeals may retain technical consultants as it deems necessary to provide assistance in the review of the needs and site location alternatives analyses and other matters 10096.18 § 100-163 ZONING § 100-163 that the Board deems necessary. The applicant shall bear the reasonable cost associated with such consultation, which cost shall be assessed as an additional application fee. In no case shall the fee be more than 5% of the total project cost as determined for building permit fee assessment purposes. (7) A copy of the deed or lease agreement establishing applicant's right to use the parcel on which the wireless communication facility is to be located. (8) An engineering analysis of the radio emissions and a propagation map for the proposed wireless communication facility. The analysis shall be prepared and signed by a New York State licensed professional engineer specializing in electrical engineering with expertise in radio communication facilities. The results from the analysis must clearly show that the power density levels of the electromagnetic energy generated from the proposed facility are within the allowable limits established by the FCC which are in effect at the time of the application. If the wireless communication facility would be collocated with an existing facility, the cumulative effects of them must also be analyzed. The power density analysis shall be based on the assumption that all antennas mounted on the proposed facility are simultaneously transmitting radio energy at a power level equal to the maximum antenna power rating specified by the manufacturer. (9) A search ring prepared, signed and sealed by a qualified radio frequency engineer registered in New York and overlaid on an appropriate background map demonstrating the area within which the wireless communication facility needs to be located in order to provide proper signal strength and coverage to the target cell. The applicant must be prepared to explain to the Zoning Board why it selected the proposed site, discuss the availability or lack thereof of a suitable structure within the search 10096.19 2- ~o-gs § 100-163 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-163 ring for collocation, and the extent to which the applicant has explored locating the proposed tower in a more intensive use district. Correspondence with other telecommunication providers concerning collocation is part of this requirement. E. Conditions. The Zoning Board shall consider the following in establishing conditions on the issuance of the special exception approval: (1) In reviewing special exception approval applications required by this section the Zoning Board of Appeals shall consider the town's policy as stated in this article. When considering appropriate height in conjunction with such applications, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall be more permissive when a facility is proposed for collocation by more than one service provider and less permissive when the facility is proposed for use by a single provider. (2) In approving a special exception the Zoning Board may waive or reduce the criteria in this article, to the extent specified below, if the Zoning Board concludes that the goals and stated purposes of this law are better served, and that doing so will have no detrimental effect on adjacent properties or on the public health, safety and welfare, and thereby: (a) Increase the height of the proposed tower up to 15 feet over the height allowed by this Code, with a maximum total height of no more than 60 feet. (b) Minimize proximity of the tower to residential structures or historic landmarks listed by federal, state or town agencies. (c) Modify the planting of surrounding tree coverage and foliage to account for existing vegetation and land contours. 10096.20 2 - 10 - 98 § 100-163 ZONING § 100-163 (d) Modify the design of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that reduce or eliminate visual obtrusiveness. (3) At the request of the Building Inspectors, which shall be no more frequently than annually, the provider shall have each wireless communication facility inspected at its own expense, and a copy of the inspection report shall be promptly transmitted to the Building Inspector. Radio emission inspections shall be performed by a New York State licensed professional engineer specializing in electrical engineering with expertise in radio communication facilities. The radio emission inspection shall describe the power density levels of the electromagnetic energy generated from the facility, including the cumulative effects of collocated antennas. In the event that the radio emission inspection indicates that the electromagnetic energy generated from the facility is above the allowable limits stated within the applicable FCC or ANSI standards or other applicable state or federal guidelines in effect, the applicant shall cease all use of the facility until such time as it proves to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector that the power density levels of the electromagnetic energy to be generated are below the applicable standards. (4) Any special exception approval granted under this article shall have a term of five years, commencing from the grant of the special exception, which may be extended for an additional five-year term upon application to the Zoning Board. On a renewal application, the applicant shall demonstrate that the wireless communication facility is in compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations and with all of the conditions of the special exception approval and site plan, that the facility is necessary to provide adequate service, and that there is no 10096.21 ~ - 10 - ~ § 100-163 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-165 reasonable alternative available to the owner which will provide adequate service without the continuing use of the facility. Subsequent special exception renewals shall be subject to review by the Zoning Board and subject to such standards that shall be included in the Town Code at that point in time. § 100-164. Historic buildings and districts. No wireless communication facility is allowed on any designated landmark property or district listed by federal, state or town agencies, except as specified below: A. Any wireless communication facility located on or within an historic structure listed by federal, state or town agencies shall not alter the character-defining features, distinctive construction methods or original materials of the building. B. Any alteration made to an historic structure to accommodate a wireless communication facility shall be fully reversible. C. Wireless communication facilities within an historic district listed by federal, state or town agencies shall be concealed within or behind existing architectural features, so that they are not visible. § 100-165. Design standards. The following design standards shall apply to wireless communication facilities installed or constructed pursuant to the terms of this chapter: A. Camouflage on buildings. When a wireless communication facility extends above the roof height of a building on which it is mounted, every effort shall be made to conceal the facility within or behind existing architectural features to limit its visibility from public ways and residential uses but still permit the facility to 10096.22 2- lo-ss § 100-165 ZONING § 100-165 perform its designated function. Facilities mounted on a roof shall be stepped back from the front facade in order to limit their impact on the building's silhouette. The wireless communication facilities shall blend in with the existing building's architecture and, if over five square feet, shall be painted or shielded with material which is consistent with the design features and materials of the building. The minimum lot size for the siting of a telecommunication tower shall be in accordance with the following. No tower can be built on a let which is nonconforming in size to the requirements set forth below: Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Area in in Residential and Minimum Lot Area in Commercial Districts Marine District~ Industrial Districts Per Bulk Schedule7 5 acres Per Bulk Schedules per zone per zone C. Setbacks. Towers and equipment facilities shall adhere to the setbacks for principal uses in the Bulk Schedule applicable to the zone in which the structure(s) are located. D. Fencing. The base area of a telecommunication tower and equipment facility shall be enclosed with a black vinyl chain-link fence not less than six feet in height. E. Signs. Signs shall not be permitted on towers except for signs displaying contact information and safety instructions. Such signs shall not exceed five square feet in surface area. F. Equipment facility. Equipment accessory to the wireless communication facility may be located within an existing builcling. In newly constructed buildings and structures an equipment facility is limited to 500 square feet in 7 Edlto~s Not~: The Bulk Schedule is iacluded at the end of this chapter. 8 Edltor'z Note: The Bulk Schedule i8 included at the end of this chapter. 10096.23 § 100-165 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-165 floor area. If the newly constructed equipment facility is designed for collocation, the facility may be up to 1,000 square feet. The equipment facility shall be constructed with a finish similar to that of adjacent structures on the property and integrated into the architectural style. Any newly constructed equipment facility shall be located in accordance with the minimum height and yard requirements of the zoning district applicable to the site, and no more than two adjacent off-street parking spaces shall be provided for service vehicles. Any regrading for stormwater retention that is required by the Town Engineer shall be accommodated on site. G. Site lighting. As independent freestanding facilities on separate sites will not be accessible to the public, the lighting permitted shall be the minimum required to protect the public welfare. Facilities sited on e~cisting developed sites shall be incorporated into the lighting and landscaping plans of those sites. H. Access. Access to tower or monopole areas shall be from established site access points whenever possible. I. Dish antennas. Dish antennas shall be colored, camouflaged or screened to the extent that they are as unobtrusive as possible, and in no case shall the diameter of a dish antenna exceed six feet. J. Electric line setback. No wireless communication facility shall be located nearer to any overhead electric transmission line carrying more than 220 volts than a distance equal to the facility's height above the roof or other permanent structure to which it is attached. K. Collocation. Wireless communication facilities shall be designed to provide for collocation by multiple providers or designed so that they can be retrofitted to accommodate multiple providers. 10096.24 REAL ESTATE REPORT CINGULAR WIRELESS Site Location: EAST MARION FIRE DISTRICT PROPERTY 9245 Main Road East Marion, New York 11931 Suffolk County Tax Map # 1000/31/3/11.31 DATE OF HEARING June 28, 2007 PREPARED FOR Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Route 25 Southold, New York 11971 PREPARED BY Mr. Michael Lynch LYNCH APPRAISAL LTD. 15 Dewey Street Huntington, New York 11743 (631) 427-1000 MICFIAEL .t LYNCH PATRICK G. LYNCH LYNCH APPRAISAL LTI REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS 15 DEWEy STREET HUNTINGTON, NEW YORK 11743 Tel: (631) a27-1000 [:ax: (631) 427-0288 June 28, 2007 REPORT SUPPLEMENTING TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL J. LYNCH REGARDING PROPOSED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY OF CINGULAR WIRELESS AT THE EAST MARION FIRE DISTRICT PROPERTY, 9245 MAIN ROAD, EAST MARION, NEW YORK 11931 1. Our firm has been retained by New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("Cingular") to study the proposed wireless communications facility (the "Communications Facility") at the East Marion Fire District Property, 9245 Main Road, East Marion, New York, and to render an opinion as to whether the site will have a negative effect on property values in the surrounding area. I am President of Lynch Appraisal Ltd. with offices at 15 Dewey Street, Huntington, New York. I am a Certified New York State General Real Estate Appraiser. I have been qualified to testify as an expert witness before the Town of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals and Town Board, Town of Oyster Bay Board of Zoning Appeals and Town Board, Town of Hempstead Zoning Board of Appeals and Town Board, Town of North Hempstead Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Babylon Zoning Board of Appeals and Town Board, Brookhaven Board of Zoning Appeals, Town of Smithtown Board of Zoning Appeals and Town Board, Town of Shelter Island Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Islip Planning Board, Town of Riverhead Town Board and Planning Board, Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southampton Planning Board, as well as numerous incorporated villages and municipalities throughout Nassau and Suffolk Counties. 2. At the request of Cingular, I inspected the proposed site located on the grounds of the East Marion Fire District, 9245 2 Main Road, East Marion, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York (the "Property"). The Property is also known and designated by Suffolk County Tax Map: District 1000, Section 31, Block 3, Lot 11.31. I am fully familiar with the Property, the neighborhood in which it lies, and I am fully familiar with the proposed Cingular Communications Facility. 3. Cingular's proposed Communications Facility consists of, without limitation, the installation of three (3) panel antennas (the "Antennas"), internally mounted within a recently approved 110' steel monopole (the "Monopole"). There will also be associated ground equipment (cabinetry) enclosed within a 6' high, 16' x 22' fenced area that will be landscaped with 7' red cedars. The Monopole, granted March 8, 2007 by the Town of Southold, is to be utilized by the East Marion Fire District for emergency and dispatch calls and will include a 10' whip antenna. 4. The Property is located along the north side of Main Road (S.R. 25), distant 880'± west of Stars Road. Total land area is approximately 3.0 acres. The Property is split-zoned with Hamlet Business (HB) and Residential (R-40) districts. It is improved with a 1-story firehouse and a newer 2-story garage/office, the later of which the Monopole will be built behind. The Property is bounded on its north by a single-family residence and vacant building lot; on its east by single-family residences; to its west by a multi-acre residence; and on its southwest by a post office, and a converted residence in use as a bed & breakfast. Opposite, along the south side of Main Road, are additional residences. In short, the property values, neighborhood character and pattern of development are well established by existing conditions and uses within the area, and the installation of this Communications Facility, consisting of concealed Antennas within a recentlY approved Monopole, will not adversely affect the community. 5. In addition we have studied the effects of the installation of wireless telecommunications on water tower sites at Langdon Road, South Farmingdale, New York; Arlington Avenue, Franklin Square, New York; and Raybor Road, Del Lane and wicks Road, Commack, NY. We have studied the effects of an existing 300' lattice tower on new luxury housing homes at Southwoods Road, Woodbury, New York. We have studied the effects of a rooftop wireless site at Glen Cove Road, East Hills, New York. We have studied the effects of monopole antenna sites at Rte. 110, Farmingdale, New York; Port Washington Boulevard, Port Washington, New York; North Country Road, Shoreham, New York; and Montauk Highway, Bridgehampton, New York. We have studied the effects of a 90' "flagpole" monopole at the Baldwin Fire Department, Grand Avenue, Baldwin, New York. And we have studied the effects of a 150' "tree pole" monopole on a housing development in Searingtown, Roslyn, New York. These studies are summarized as follows: A. Water Tower Site~ Langdon Road, South Farmingdale, New York. Wireless antennas went on-line affixed to this water tower site on April 1999. This tower is situated in a stable residential neighborhood comprised of a relatively homogenous group of split- level style, single-family dwellings. Our staff compared sale prices of homes in the immediate area (up to 3 blocks away) before and after the on-line date of the antennas. Our "before" data, which included eleven (11) sales running from 4/96 to 1/99, was compared with "after" data, which included twelve (12) sales running from 5/99 to 10/00. The average price per square foot of the homes in the before and after groups was 33% higher for the latter, but nominally similar after adjusting for market appreciation. As such, the antennas did not appear to lead to a devaluation of nearby property values around the site. B. Water Tower Site, Arlington Avenue Franklin Square, New York. Wireless antennas went on-line affixed to this water tower site on January 1998. This tower is situated in a stable residential neighborhood comprised of a relatively modest and homogenous group of single-family dwellings. Our staff compared sales data (price per square foot) of homes in the immediate area (up to 3 blocks away) before and after the on- line date of the antennas. Our "before" data, which included eight (8) sales running from 11/95 to 10/97, was compared with "after" data, which included six (6) sales running from 3/98 to 7/00. The average price per square foot of the homes in the before and after groups was 21% higher for the latter, but nominally similar after adjusting for market appreciation. As such, the antennas did not appear to lead to a devaluation of nearby property values around the site. C. Water Tower Site: Raybor Road, Del Lane and Wicks Road, Commack, NY. 213'± high existing water tank with cellular antennas and associated equipment installed mid-summer of 1999. The neighborhood studied lies to the east of the water tank, with a town park (comprised primarily of cleared and vacant land housing ball fields) sandwiched in between. This neighborhood was chosen for the study because; 1.) It is comprised of a homogenous grouping of "builders" split-level homes all constructed around the same time, and; 2.) This neighborhood has the clearest line of site to the water tank. Our staff analyzed sales data of homes from the above detailed neighborhood which included eleven "before" sales (sales occurring prior to the installation of the first cellular antennas on site in mid-summer of 1999) running from 11/94 to 6/99 as well as a grouping of "after" sales data, which included seven sales running from 8/99 to 6/04. The average price per home during the period studied from 1995 to mid-1999 (a period when residential rates of appreciation were stable to modestly upward) was $190,000. Comparing that average sale price of $190,000 to the "after" grouping of sales sampled spanning 8/99 through June 2004 with an average sale price of $390,000 indicated a total rate of appreciation over the period analyzed of 105%+ or an average annualized rate of 20%+. Upon determining the rate of appreciation for sales of homes spanning the "before" and "after" periods studied, we then compared said rates to rates of appreciation for the larger community and the region in general. Data sources included MLS of Long Island as well as other local trade and news sources. An analysis of said source data indicates that median home sales prices in Suffolk County increased at a compounded rate of nearly 16% from 10/98 though 10/01. In 2003, CNN reported that the average annualized rate of increase for residences situated in the Nassau-Suffolk region was 23%+. More recently, MLS data indicates rates of appreciation for Suffolk County during the period June 2002 through June 2004 of 17%+/annum. Finally, MLS indicates a rate of appreciation over the last year for homes situated within the Commack zip code of 11+%. In comparing the rate of appreciation indicated in our study of this neighborhood (20%+) to the rates indicated for the community of Commack and the Suffolk-Nassau region at large (11%-23%), we 5 concluded that property values in the neighborhood have not been negatively affected by the installation of a cellular antenna facility at the nearby water tank site. This is evidenced by the rate of appreciation of homes in the neighborhood studied which have kept pace with those enjoyed by the larger community and regional marketplace. Because the rate of appreciation in the neighborhood studied is in line with the larger market, it is reasonable to conclude that values in this neighborhood were not "held-down" as a consequence of any perceived negative affect of being proximate to a facility housing cellular antennas. D. 300' Lattice Tower, Southwoods Road, Woodbury~ New York. An existing 300' telecommunications tower sits along the west side of Southwoods Road, opposite Shannon Drive. Across the street from this tower is a series of housing developments of luxury homes that were built from 1994 to 1999. Many of the homes in these developments are within clear sight of the tower. In addition to researching overall sales in the Woodbury-Syosset area, we included looking at other home sales within the same developments that were not within direct sight of the tower, but otherwise similar to the affected homes. Our research indicates that the selling prices of the affected homes far exceeds the average selling prices of homes in the Woodbury-Syosset area, based on Multiple Listing sales data. Furthermore, the selling prices for the affected homes was similar to that of homes within the same developments that were not within direct sight of the tower. The following data reflects sales of homes along those streets within view of the tower, and average sales prices in the Woodbury-Syosset area: PRICE RANGE OF HOMES (FROM 1994-1997) ALONG SHANNON DRIVE, PIRONI COURT, AND CHAUNCEY PLACE: $500,000 - $747,000; AVERAGE $626,000 AVERAGE 1997 SALE PRICE IN WOODBURY BASED ON MLS DATA: $491,565 AVERAGE 1996 SALE PRICE IN WOODBURY BASED ON MLS DATA: $434,647 AVERAGE 1997 SALE PRICE IN SYOSSET BASED ON MLS DATA: $402,878 AVERAGE 1996 SALE PRICE IN SYOSSET BASED ON MLS DATA: $357,172 Our research has concluded that the presence of not had a negative effect on real estate values that are within sight of the tower. this tower has for those homes E. Rooftop Antennas, 70 Glen Cove Road, East Hills, New York. Wireless antennas were affixed to the rooftop of this 3-story office building in late 1997. This building is bordered to east, north/east and south/east by a relatively homogenous group of mid-priced single family dwellings, sharing similar appeal and utility. These include Colonial, Cape and Split-level styles, and are situated within the Red Ground Civic Association. Our staff compared sales data of homes in the immediate area (up to 3 blocks away) before and after the on-line date of the antennas. Our "before" data, which included eight (8) sales running from 10/94 to 4/97, was compared with "after" data, which included twelve (12) sales running from 1/98 to 8/00. The average price per home in the before and after groups was 35% higher for the latter, but nominally similar after adjusting for market appreciation. As such, the antennas did not appear to lead to a devaluation of nearby property values around the site. F. Monopole Antenna Site, Rte. 110, Farmingdale, New York. A 120'± monopole was erected at the south end of a retail store parking lot in approximately Fall 1999. This property is adjacent to a residential neighborhood comprised of modest- priced, detached single-family dwellings of Hi-Ranch, Cape Cod and Colonial styling, all sharing similar utility and appeal. Our staff compared sales data (price per square foot) of homes in the immediate area (up to 3 blocks) before and after the installation date of the monopole. Our "before" data, which included eight (8) sales running from 12/98 to 9/99, was compared with "after" data, which included eight (8) sales running from 6/00 to 8/01. The average price per home in the before and after groups was 28% higher for the latter, but nominally similar after adjusting for market appreciation. As such, the tower did not appear to lead to a devaluation of nearby property values around the site. G. Monopole Antenna Siter Port Washington Police Department, Port Washington Blvd., Port Washington, New York. A 100'± monopole mounted w/cellular panel and police antennas was erected on this site in approximately August 1992. This property is adjacent to a small residential development comprised of a homogenous group of mid-priced single-family dwellings. Our staff compared sales data of homes in the development before and after the installation date of the monopole. Our "before" data, which included eleven (11) sales running from 7/89 to 8/92, was compared with "after" data, which included fourteen (14) sales running from 11/92 to 12/96. The average price per home in the before and after groups was substantially similar at $306,136 vs. $303,714, a difference of less than 1.00%. The real estate market during this study period was on the decline from 1989 thru 1992, and then leveled off before beginning its ascent in 1995. On average, therefore, the 7 real estate market was essentially flat from 1989 thru 1996, based on all single-family home sales during this period within the hamlet of Port Washington as reported by Comps Inc., a local provider of real estate transaction data within Nassau and Suffolk Counties. As such, the presence of the cell tower did not appear to lead to a devaluation of nearby property values around the site. As a footnote to this study, one home at 8 Derby Road (Nassau Tax Map # 5-147-44), which is directly behind the police station and within clear view of the tower, originally sold July 1989 for $340,000, prior to the installation of the tower. It subsequently sold June 1997 for $357,000, an increase of 5% over the 1989 sale, an appreciation consistent with the overall market during noted time period. The home, according to Multiple Listing Service, received some minor updating prior to its sale, but nothing substantial. As such, the presence of the tower did not appear to affect the market value of this particular home. A second nearby home, 32 Derby Road (Nassau Tax Map # 5-147-52), originally sold 11/27/89 for $328,500 prior to the installation of the tower. It subsequently sold August 2005 for $738,000, an increase of 125% over the 1989 sale, an appreciation at or above the overall market performance during the noted time period. The home, according to Multiple Listing Service, was not updated at the time of sale. As such, the presence of the tower did not appear to affect the market value of this particular home. H. Monopole Antenna Site, Rocky Point Fire Department, North Country Road (S.R. 25A), Shoreham, New York. A 100'± monopole mounted w/cellular panel and emergency service antennas was erected on this site in approximately December 1992. This property is adjacent to a stable residential neighborhood comprised of a relatively modest and homogenous group of single- family dwellings. Our staff compared sales data of homes in the immediate area (up to 2 blocks) before and after the installation date of the monopole. Our '~before" data, which included eight (8) sales running from 2/91 to 9/92, was compared with "after" data, which included thirteen (13) sales running from 6/93 to 11/96. The average price per home in the before and after groups was nearly equal at $132,438 vs. $131,577. The real estate market during this study period was relatively level. As such, the tower did not appear to lead to a devaluation of nearby property values around the site. I. Monopole ("Tree") Site, North Hills Villaqe Hall, Shelter Rock Road, Manhasset, New York. A 150' "tree" pole telecommunications site was erected on the Village Hall property in North Hills in early 2002. Opposite the site, along the southeast corner of I.U. willits Road and Shelter Rock Road, is a 8 1970s housing development known as "Bridle Park," within the community known as Searingtown (Roslyn zip code). This development contains a homogenous group of single-family dwellings of ranch or colonial styling, sharing similar appeal and utility. Our staff compared sales data of homes in the development before and after the installation date of the tree pole. Our "before" data, which included eleven (11) sales running from 6/98 to 7/01, was compared with "after" data, which included eleven (11) sales running from 4/02 to 12/04. The average price per home in the before and after groups was 55% higher for the latter ($546,444 vs. $845,217), which breaks down to an average of 14%/year market appreciation. This figure compares favorably with the overall market appreciation of 12.27%/year tabulated from all single-family homes sales over the same time period for all of Roslyn. As such, the antennas did not appear to lead to a devaluation of nearby property values around the site. J. Flag Pole Antenna Site, Baldwin Fire Department, S/W/C Grand Avenue & Rose Blvd., Baldwin, New York. A 90'± flag pole mounted w/internal antennas was erected on this site in approximately July 1999. This property is adjacent to a stable residential neighborhood comprised of a relatively modest and homogenous group of single-family dwellings. Our staff studied eight (8) single-family properties that sold in the immediate vicinity both before and after the installation of the telecommunications facility. For the most part, the dwellings were substantially similar or received minor updating prior to their respective re-sale. The results are as follows: ADDRESS & SALE DATE SALE PR~[CE SALE DATE BALE PR[CE YEARS PRICE PRICE SALE # TAX HAP ~t BEFORE BEFORE AFTER AFTER BETWEEN DATES DIFFERENCE %/YEAR 1 575 ROSE BLVD. 12/9/94 $1B$,000 3/8/05 $392,000 10.25 [40% 13.66% 3E-210-238 9 What we found was that in each case, each property met or exceeded the Baldwin as a whole. the market appreciation of overall market change for This leads the appraiser to conclude that the antennas did not lead to a devaluation of nearby property values. K. Monopole Antenna Site, Keyspan Operations Center, Montauk Hiqhwa¥, Bridqehampton, New York. A 120'± monopole was erected at this center back in approximately Septe~er 2000. This property is surrounded by residential properties to its north, east and west, and opposite agricultural land to its south. Nearby, at the southwest corner of Montauk Highway and Newlight Lane, is a community of upper-middle priced homes that was first developed in the mid 1980s. This development is partially within view of the monopole due to the open agricultural fields to the east. Our staff compared sales data of homes in the development before and after the installation date of the monopole. Our "before" data, which included six (6) sales running from 4/97 to 5/99, was compared with "after" data, which included six (6) sales running from 2/01 to 5/04. The average price per home in the before and after groups was 128% higher for the latter ($516,167 vs. $1,179,000), which breaks down to an average of 29%/year market appreciation. This figure compares favorably with the overall market appreciation of 22%/year tabulated from all single-family homes sales over the same time period for all of Bridgehampton. As such, the antennas or monopole did not appear to lead to a devaluation of nearby property values around the site. 6. In summary, we found no correlation between the presence of wireless telecommunication antennas and declining property values in the Long Island residential communities we studied. Accordingly, it is my professional opinion that the proposed Cingular Communications Facility will not negatively affect property values in the surrounding area and will not have any adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood or the pattern of its development. Respectfully submitted, LYNCH APPRAISAL LTD. /~ VMichae~/J .~nc h N.Y.S.~ert. General R.E. Appraiser #46000001012 ADDENDUM N/F SYMBOLS AND MATERIALS SITE PLAN SITE LEGEND --£---- £L£CrEic 5£EVLC£ GENERAL NOTES: infinigv 150 054 ~EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 COMMSCOPE DETAILED SITE PLAN '~.~-~ infinigy CABLE ICE BRIDGE DETAIL s~:E-L-E- C/TELCO SUPPORT RACK.~ ~ ~(~[ngular t~ '"' J DETAILED SITE PLAN ANTENNA I-AYOUT ....... SITE NO. LI-IO~ ELEVATION VIEWS CINGULAR View of Fire District Firehouse LOOking North from Main Road View of Garage Building on Fire District Property View of Rear Gr°unds of Property Looking Northeast towards Location of Approved Monopole View of Fire District Property Looking North from Main Road View of Abutting E, Marion Post Office to west of Property View of Bed & Breakfast TWO Lots West of Property at 8985 Main Road Commercial Property Three Lots West of Property ~ 8 ~ Abutting Residence to East of Property at 9395 Main Rd. ~ ~ Abutting Residence to North of Property at 350 Oak Ct. Abutting Vacant Lot to North of Property along ~ ~ ~ ~ ReSidence Opposite Property to South at 9100 Main Rd. ~ ~ 2 ~ ReSidence to Southeast of Property at 9220 Main Rd. Oak Court NEW cing J sr SITE NUMBER: L1-1017 CINGULAR ID: NYCENY1017 SITE NAME: EAST MARION T01 Z01 Z02 Z03 Z04 Z05 DRAWING INDEX TITLE SHEET SITE PLAN DETAILED SITE PLAN AND DETAILS ELEVATION VIEWS CONSTRUCTION DETAILS LANDSCAPE PLAN REV 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIRECTIONS FROM CINGULAR OFFICE TAKE 495 EAST TO OLD COUNI'¢ ROAD (CR-SB) TO MA~N ROAD (SR-25). FROM 1-495 APPROXIMATELY 26 MILES SITE WILL BE ON THE LEFT OF MAIN ROAD VICINITY MAP PROJECT INFORMATION SCOPE OF WORK: SITE ADDRESS: LAND OWNER: APPLICANT: TAX iD NUMBER: LATITUDE (NAD 85): LONGITUDE (NAD ELEVATION (NAVD JURISDICTION: CURRENT USE: PROPOSED USE: CURRENT ZONING: ELECTRIC COMPANY: TELEPHONE COMPANY: AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION OF OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS AND (3) PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED WITHIN UNIPOLE 9245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 EAST MARION F~RE DJSTRICT P 0 BOX 131 EAST MARION, NY 11939 NEW CINGULAR WlBELESS PCS, LLC 15 EAST MIDEAND AVENUE PARAMUS, NEW JERSEY 07652 72' 20' 29.2" 32' AMSL TOWN OF BOUTHOLD F,RE B'AT, ON ,,~~~.~' SPLIT ZONED HB AND R-40 LIPA VER~ZON SITE QUALIFICATION PARTICIPANTS NAME COMPANY NUMBER A/E JOHN STEVENS INFINIOY ENGINEERING (516) 434 228B SAC JOY MOONEY HIGHLANDER CONSULTANTS, INC. (631) 581-B105 LANDLORD DANIEL WOOD BAST MARION FIRE DISTRICT (631) 477-0539 CON GERRY BROCK BECHTEL (205) 335-5505 RF TARIK OUAZZANI BECHTEL (201) 755 2154 A infinity engineering 150-034 EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 9245 MAIN ROAD EASq- MARION, NY 11939 ingUlar IDESIGNED: TITLE SHEET '\ ANTHONY LEKAKIS \ \ 1. SITE PLAN INFORMATION WAS WAS BASED ON VARIOUB SOURCES ~ USE: RESIDENTIAL VACNAT LAND \, ~ OF ~NFORMATION INCLUDING FIELD NOTEB & MEASUREMENTS ~ ZONED: R-40 .,,,..'"'"~ ~ '\ SITE PLAN IS NOT TO SCALE. PEREORMED BY INEINIGY ENGINEERING, PLLC OP NY. ~ n&<~.q~'~'' ~ \~ \ ~ ACTUAL FIELD CONDITION OF ' "~" / o~ ~ X \ X EXISTING BUILDING STRUCTURE IS 2. CONSISTINGTHIS PROPOSAL IS FOR AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILI~YoF PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED TO A UNIPOLE, N/F ~ .~ ./' \ NOT WHAT IS DEPICTED ON THIS US ~ '~d3 \ \ TOWER SETBACK DIMENSIONS ARE WITHIN THE SUBJECT LF-~EHOLD, AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES. ZONED: R-~O .. ,-e ~ \ \~ TRUE FROM PROPERI~ LINES. ~ .~ ~ ~~~6~ ~ x ~ x ~X 3. THE PROPOSED CINGU~R WIRELESS SERVICES FACILI~ WILL BE UNMANNED AND ,~.~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~_~ ~-- ~ ./~ ~ ~ N/F q~ x ~ INTENDED FOR HUMAN HABITA~ON AND THUS DOES NOT REQUIRE HANDICAP ., 6~ / I ~ ~O~ED 16 x22 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ WHITE SWAN EMLL~ ~ .~ ACCESS. ~' ~F~ED~E~ ''~ ' USE: ' FAMILY 5 ' ' 5. OCCUPANCY IS LIMITED TO PERIODIC M~NTE~NCE AND INSPECTION ~IN NEll10' UNI~B~E/ ~ . .~ /~ ~m ~ ZONED:RESIDENCER-40 ~ X,,X BY CINGU~R WIRELESS TECHNICIANS APPROXIMATELY (2) TIMES PER ~ G~Y COLOR / ~/~ ~ ~z~. ~/~ N/F ~ X x X MONTH. ~ ~ ~/~,. /%, R.E. ~X X XX X 6. NO STROBIC LIGHTING IS INCLUDED IN miS PROPO~L. ~- ~6' ~ USE; 1 FAMILY ~' '~~~ ~/ / 5" 13, ALL CONS~UCTION FOR SITE IMPRO~MENTS SHALL CONFORM TO APPLIC~LE SITE P~N ~ 18. THE SUBGmDE SHALL BE COMPAC~D AND BROUGHT TO A SMOOTH m w.,c. wiT... wo... SYMBOLS AND MATERIALS SITE LEGEND LO PRIOR ~0 CONSTRUCTION. ~ EAR~ ~ PROPOSED CONTOUR ~ ~ EAST MARION NE ' " lar ~'~''" --. ~' ~ "' ,,,o, SITE NO. L1-1017 9,..,. cmn[lU , i0 AUX OABINE~ SUPPORT POST + BRACKET FOR ~F~EXTENDED T HANGER BRACKET CHANNEL (PIROD INC OR EQUAL) /(PIROD INC OR EQUAL) MAXIMUM ALPHA 850/1900 BTS CUT POST LENGTH TO SUIT BY /CABLE SPAN = 3'-0" (~'(P) REMOVING UNCAPPED END (PIROD 24 VDC PART NO. 852168 OR 852163)/ /(PIROD PANT NO. 802262) ~ ~ CHANNEL (PIROD INC. OR ~/ EQUAL) CUT ICE BRIDGE GAMMA 850/1900 BTS ~ '~ BATTERY CABINET ~/ CHANNEL LENGTH TO SUIT INSTALL DR,P LOOP ON ANTENNA CABLES AT BOI'FOM OF : (SEE NOTE) (PIROD PART NO. 852168 OR 85216.3) TOWER/MONOPOLE. BENDING ~ L RADIUS PeR MANUFACTURER'S PROPOSED ~ ~ STANDARDS GATE OYP) / \ .~- : ~ ANTENNA CABLES ' /~_ \ ~ ARRANGEMENT COMMSCOPE · "? CABLE MANUF, MIN, U~S BlS . - ' ~ _z ~-1 I PROFOSEDCINGULAR ~ ~ r I y I I CONCRETE PIER i \ \~" IN NEUTRAL BLUE/ ~ i _LJ ~ PROPOSED LANDSCAPE GRAF COLOR D NK FENCE) /o~ P2SSS-~5 (c~_v.) OY~C~-) FOU. OW ~NUV, ~ECO~EN~^TIONS FO~ ~U~ ~0 W^~ ~ VO~ BOLT TORQUE INC~ESC[NT FLO00 5 1/2' O,D, ~, ~, DETAILED SITE PLAN POET ~ '-' x//~ CONT~C'R T° r jo; ~ o, PIPE (CALV) GENERAL SITE NOTES: j '?:_ : . --..._ WHERE ENCOUI~IERED IN mE WORK, SHALL RE PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES, - ~ ~ L ~- FINI~£D GR.~E AND WHERE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPER EXECUTION OF THE WORK, SHALL BE ~ ~ ~ ~ USED BY ~-IE CONIRACTOR WHEN EXCAVATING OR PIER DRILLING AROUND OR I~" NEAR UTILITIES. CON~CTOR SHALL PROVIDE SAFL~ ~AINING FOR THE ~ WORKING ENGINEER. ~ luI_ --. 4'AwAyTHE S,Emo.S~LLAL ~EEeU~p~G~£9 A. DTO CAUSETowE~ SU.FACE~. W^TE~ TO ~OW ELEC/TELCO SUPPORT RACK e g n i g EAST MARION NE , DETAILED SITE PLAN B JNFINIG¥ ENGINEERING HAS NOT EVALUATED TH£! EXISTING TOWER FOR THIS SITE. IT IS THE CARRIER'S RESPONSIBflJTY TO INVESTIOATE ANY LOADING CONCERNS WHEN ADDING ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT TO THE TOWER. SECTOR 3 - 250t CALLED NORlt'(~ SECTOR 1 - 50' ~E~C~21 PROPOSED UNIPOIE ANTENNA LAYOUT ANTENNA DETAIL MODEL KATHREIN 800 10121 PROPOSED CINDULAE EQUIPMENT AREA (1) ANTENNA PER SECTOR~ LOCATION OF GPS ANTENNA MOUNTED TO H-FRAME VINYL CHAIN LiNK FENCE GRADE LEVEL = O' (AGL) (BY OIHERS) m AREA (1) ANTENNA PER SECTOR% i VINYL CHAIN UNK FENCE GRADE LEVE'i!~w'T~ISL) ~ GRADE LEVEL ~ (AGL) ~ ~TO~ER FOUNOA~ON DESIGN (m' o'm~s) SOUTH ELEVATION NOT TO SCJ~LE infinij engineering 150-034 EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 9245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 cmngular WIRELESS 4~ IDE~GNED: EAST ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE I I I~[.~I R ~ ~ELEVATION VIEWS m m 4'--0" GATE OPENING - / END/ OR CORNER M-6 OR EQUAL) { Il ~ ' / )~ ~3/8"e TRUSS ROD W~ ~ ~F (~.) SEE OROUNmNC Dg. LS ~ , ~ LJ FOO~N~' 'Pm mm ~ ~ SPACING (~P.) L6- WP. FOR END. -- ~: ~ CHAIN LINK FENCE DETAIL (ELEVATI  INST~ WiTH SLOTS , ~,~ ~NOE NO~S: m 10" m G~DE AT ~Y SECTION. iengineeringnf i n i ~ ~s, MARION ~'~"~ma r co.s~.oc.o. SET TREE PLUMB PRIOR TO STAKtNG RUBBER HOSE (2 PLY GREEN) UY WIRE DRNE ROOTBALL pff TO EXCEED DIAMETER OF STAKE ROOTBALL BY SEC~ON TREE STAKING AND GUYING NOT TO SCALE APPROVED MULCH (3' SETILED DEFq~I) GE~IERN. PLANT1NG NOTES PROPOSED 5' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 1. STANDARDS SET FORTH IN 'AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK", LATEST EDITION, REPRESENT GUIDEUNE SPECIFICATIONS ONLY AND SHALL CONSTITUTE MINIMUM QUALRY REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANT MATERIAL. 2. ALL PLANTS ARE SUEklECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER'S REPRESENTATNE BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER INSTALLATION. 3. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, THE CO~OR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCAllNG ALL UNDERGROUND UllUTIES AND SHALL AVOID DAMAGE TO ALL UTILITIES DURING COURSE OF THE WORK. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REPNRING ALL DAMAGE TO UTIUTIES, STRUCTURES, SITE APPURTENANCES, ETC. WHICH OCCURS AS A RESULT OF THE LANOSCAPE CONSTRUCTION. 4. ALL PLANTS MUST BE HEALTHY, VIGOROUS MATERIAL, FREE OF PESTS AND DISEASE. 5. ALL PLANTS MUST BE CONTAINER-GROWN OR BALLED AND BURLAPPED AS SPECIFIED. 6. ALL TREES MUST BE STRAIGHT TRUNKED, FULL HEADED AND MEET ALL REQUIREUENTS SPECIFIED. 7. ALL TREES MUST BE OUYED OR STAKED AS SHOWN. 8. ALL PLANTS AND PLANTING AREAS MUST BE COMPLETELY MULCHED AS SPECIFIED. 9. THE ENGINEER'S REPRESENTANVE WILL APPROVE THE STAKED LOCATION OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 10. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING ALL QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS BEFORE PRICING THE WORK. 11, THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FULLY MAINTAINING ALL PLANqlNG (INCLUDING, BUT NOT UMITED TO: WATERING, SPRAYING, MULCHING, FERTIUZATION, ETC.) OF PLAN)lNG AREAS UNTIL THE WORK IS ACCEPTED IN TOTAL BY THE ENGINEER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 12. AFTER BEING DUG AT THE NURSERY SOURCE, ALL TREES IN LEAF SHN. I. BE ACCLIMATED FOR 'PNO (2) WEEKS UNDER A MiST SYSTEM PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 13. ~ .P, LANT MATERIAL THAT DIES, TURNS BROWN OR DEFOLIATES (PRIOR TO TOTAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE wu~(K) SHALL BE PROMPTLY REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND REPLACED WITH MATERIAL OF THE SA~E SPECIES, QUANT[~Y, SIZE AND MEE'r]NG NJ_ SPECIFICATIONS. 14. ~-IE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETELy G~E ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR BEGINNING AT THE DATE OF TOTAL ACCEPTANCE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROMPTLY MAKE ALL REPLACEMENTS BEFORE OR AT ll~E END OF THE GUANAhrl[E PERIOD. LANSCAPING PLAN infinij en~ineerin9 150-034 EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 9245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 CN.L.ED NORTH PLANT MATERIALS LIST F~ST~RN RED CEDAR gYP) NEW cing wU, sr SITE NUMBER: L1-1017 CINGULAR ID: NYCENY1017 SITE NAME: EAST MARION TO1 ~01 C02 CO~ C03 C04 C05 C06 C07 C08 C09 E01 E02 E03 E04 E05 E06 EO6A DRAWING INDEX TITLE SHEET SITE PLAN DETAILED SITE PLAN AND DETAILS GRADING, EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES REV 4 4 4 4 ELEVATION VIEWS CONSTRUCTION DETAILS CONSTRUCTION DETAILS CONSTRUCTION DETAILS CONSTRUCTION DETAILS CONSTRUCTION DETAILS LANDSCAPE PLAN EXTERIOR GROUNDING PLAN UTILITY ROUTING PLAN 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ELEC/TELCO ONE-LINE AND PANEL SCHEDULE ANTENNA SCHEMATIC AND RF SCHEDULE E911 SCHEDULE AND BILL OF MATERIALS MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS ALARM DETAILS 4 4 4 4 4 1,50-054 6 EAST MARION SITE NO~ L1-1017 DIRECTIONS FROM CINGULAR OFFICE TAKE 495 E~ST TO OLD COUNTY ROAD (CR-58) TO MAiN ROAD (SR-2S), FROM 1-495 APPROXIMATELY 26 MILES. SITE WiLL BE ON THE LEFT OF MAIN ROAD, VICINITY MAP cNE.w ngwU,] sr PROJECT INFORMATION SCOPE OF WORK: SITE ADDRESS: LAND OWNER: APPLICANT: TAX ID NUMBER: LATITUDE (NAD BS): LONGITUDE (NAD B3): ELEVATION (NAVD 88): JURISDICTION: CURRENT USE: PROPOSED USE: CURRENT ZONING: ELECTRIC COMPANY: TELEPHONE COMPANY: AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY INCLUDrNC THE INSTALLATION OF OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS AND (6) PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED SITE QUALIFICATION PARTICIPANTS NAME COMPANY NUMBER A/E JOHN STE~/ENS INFINIGY ENGINEERING (518) 454-22B8 SAC JOY MOONEY HIGHLANDER CONSULTANTS, INC. (651) 5B1-B105 LANDLORD DANIEL WOOD EAST MARION FIRE DISTR~CT (651) 477-0539 CON GERRY BROCK BECHTEL (205) 535-5505 RF TARIK OUAZZANI BECHTEL (201) 755-2154 DRAWN: TITLE SHEET 24897 NYCENY 0 7 TOt I"1 ~ la," ~" N/F ANTHONY LEKAKIS USE; RESIDENTIAL VACNAT LAND ZONED: R-40 N/F CHERYL L. BONDARCHUK USE: RESIDENTIAL - 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE '~ ZONED: R-40 N/F GEATRAKIS & GEORGE KO RTSOLAKIS USE: RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONED: R-40 N/F SYLVIA M. DALEY USE; 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONED: R-40 SYMBOLS AND MATERIALS DETAIL REFERENCE SECTIONS AND DETAILS CONCRETE EARTH DRAM~L/STONE i n,f L j g.,] eng n e i g 150-034 S 6~40'00" W 19.38' N/F E.M. WAR MEMORIAL ASSOC. USE: RESIDENCE ZONED: NB SITE PLAN SITE LEGEND PROPER1h' LINE FENCE LINE ELECTRIC SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE PROPOSED CONTOUR EXISTING CONTOUR EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 N/F ~ WHITE SWAN EMLLC ~ USE: 1 FAMILY ~ RESIDENCE \ ZONED: R-40 N/E EASTERNR.E.SREEZES USE: 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONED: R-40 ',~ ; ~,, ,,~/, -RROROSED ACCESS TNROUA '. '%(2/ JSITE PLAN IS NOT TO SCALE, AcqrUAL RE[J) CONDmON OF EXISTING BUILDING STRUCTORE IS NOT WHAT IS DEPICTED ON MIS 3LAN. ClNCUL~ COMPOUND AND TOWER SETBACK DIMENSIONS ARE TRUE FROM PROPERTY UNES. NOTE: METES AND BOUNDS ARE TAKEN FROM A SURVEY PERFORMED BY PECONIC SURVEYORS PC LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR 'I' GENERAL NOTES: 1. SITE PLAN INFORMATION WAS WAS BASED ON VARIOUS SOURCES OF INFORMATION ~NCLUD~NG FIELD NOTES & MEASUREMENTS O PERFORMED BY JNFINIOY ENGINEERING, PLLC OF NY. 2 THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSISTING OF PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED TO A FLAGPOLE PLACEMENT OF SMALL, WEATHERTIOHT RADIO EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITHIN THE SUBJECT LEASEHOLD, AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES. S. THE PROPOSED CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICES FACILITY WILL BE UNMANNED AND DOES NOT REQUIRE WATER OR SEWER SERVICE, 4, THE PROPOSED CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY IS UNMANNED, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN HABITATION ANO THUS DOES NOT REQUIRE NAND~CAP ACCESS. 5, OCCUPANCY IS LIMITED TO PERIODIC MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION BY CINGULAR WIRELESS TECHNICIANS APPROXIMATELY (2) TIMES PER MONTH. NO STROBIC LIGHTING IS INCLUDED IN THIS PROPOSAL. 7. NO NOISE, SMOKE, DUST OR ODOR WILL RESULT FROM THIS PROPOSAL. B. OUTDOOR STORAGE AND SOLID WASTE CONTAtNERS ARE NOT PROPOSED. 9, EXTERIOR S~GNS ARE NOT PROPOSED, 10. NO NEW ACCESS ROAD WILL BE REQUIRED UNDER THIS APPLICATION. t 1. TOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE UNDER THIS PROPOSAL: 370 SF~ 12. THE INCREASE IN STORM WATER RUNOFF DUE TO THE INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA IS INSIGNIFICANT. EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS WILL NOT BE ALTERED, THEREFORE, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ARE NOT PROPOSED. 13. ALL CONSTRUCTION FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL CONFORM TO APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS, STANDARDS, AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL OR UTILITY AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION. 14. ALL EXISTING ACTIVE SEWER, WATER, GAS, ELECTRIC, AND OTHER UTILITIES WHERE ENCOUNTERED IN THE WORK, SHALL BE PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES, AND WHERE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPER EXECUTION OF THE WORK, SHALL BE RELOCATED AS DIRECTED DY ENGINEERS. EXTREME CAUTION SHOULD BE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR WHEN EXCAVATING OR PIER DRILLING AROUND OR NEAR UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SAFETY TRAINING FOR THE WORKING CREW. THIS WILL INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO A) FALL PROTECTION B) CONFINED SPACE C) ELECTRICAL SAFE~ D) TRENCHING & EXCAVATION 15. ALL SITE WORK SHALL BE AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWING AND STIPULATED IN THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. 16. If NECESSARY, RUBBISH, STUMPS, DEBRIS, STICKS, STONES AND OTHER B REFUSE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF LEGALLY. 17. THE SITE SHALL BE GRADED TO CAUSE SURFACE WATER TO FLOW AWAY FROM THE RADIO EQUIPMENT aND tOWER AREAS. THE SUBGRADE SHALL BE COMPACTED AND DROUGHT TO A SMOOTH UNIFORM GRaDe PRIOR TO FINISHED SURFACE APPUCATION. lB. ALL EXISTING INACTIVE SEWER, WATER, GAS, ELECTRIC aND OTHER UTILITIES, WHICH INTERFERE WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK, SHALL BE REMOVED AND/OR CAPPED, PLUGGED OR OTHERWISE DISCONTINUED AT POINTS WHICH WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF __ ENGINEERING. 20. THE AREAS OF THE OWNERS PROPERTY DISTURBED BY THE WORK AND NOT COVERED ~Y THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE RESTORED AS REQUIRED. 21. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, IF REQUIREO DURING CONSTRUCTION, SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE W~TH THE LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL. 22. ALL SITE WORK SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AS REQUIRED. 23, CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIG ALERT: 800-962-7962 TO LOCATE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, A SITE PLAN AUX CABINF~ SUPPORT POST + BRACKET FOR EXTENDED T HANGER BRACKET CHANNEL (PIROD INC OR EQUAL) /~(PIROD INC OR EQUAL) MAXIMUM CUT POST LENGTH TO SUIT BY /CABLE~' SPAN = 3'-0' (TYP) 24 VOC PART NO. 852168 OR 852163)/(PIROD PART NO. 802262) 6ETA 850/1900 ~PS~~ - - CHANNEL (PIROD INC. OR ~ / EQUAL) CUT ICE BRIDGE x 6AT~ CABINET ~I-r"-~ CHANNEL LENGTH TO SUrF INSTALL DRIP LOOP ON ANTENNA c~ ~o/~oo m's = (SEE NO're') (P~ROD P.~r -C NO. 852168 OR 852163) TOWER/MONOPOLE. BENDING  RADIUS PER MANUFACTURER*S -C )- STANDARDS ~: ARP, ANGmENT COMMSCOPE · ~ ~ I BY CON~TOR, MANUF, MIN. ~ NOMINAL CABLE CABLE HANGER BEND RADIUS ,: - ' ' %'4 ~' [ Fo" c~,~ HANBER NUM6ER CABLE ICE BRIDGE DETAIL --I /--UNISTRUT PIPE/CONDUIT CLAMP Pll19 /OR P2558-55 (GALV.) (TYPICAL) ~_FOLLOW MANUF. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR D~N- 150 WATT 120 VOLT DETAILED SITE PLAN 8OLT TORQUE ,,C~ ~.DDO U~ 1. THE SUBGRADE SHALL BE COMPACTED AND BROUGHT TO A SMOOTH $' - ~. L n n EAST MARION NE =,~-2e-~ ~ .o. ~,~-~-~./,~ P~~ ~ DETAILED SITE PLAN ~ IDEslCNE:D: I DRAW~: 24897I INYCENY1017 C02 D 8 5 4 · 3 2 ~ I~J~ ? GRADING &: EXCAVATING NOTES: 1. ALL EXCAVATIONS ON WHICH CONCRETE IS TO BE PLACED SHALL BE SUBSTAI~riALLY HORIZONTAL ON UNDISTURBED AND UNFROZEN SOIL AND BE FREE FROM LOOSE MATERIAL AND EXCESS GROUNDWATER. DE-WATERING FOR EXCESS GROUNDWATER SHALL BE PROVIDED IF REQUIRED. 2. CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON ORGANIC MATERIAL. IF SOUND SOIL IS NOT REACHED AT 'n-lE DESIGNATED EXDAVATION DEPTH, THE UNSATISFACTORY SOiL SHALL BE EXCAVATED TO ITS FULL DEPTH AND ErlHER BE REPLACED ~ MECHANICALLY COMPACTED DRANULAR MATERIAL OR THE EXCAVATION BE FILLED YfflH CONCRETE OF T~E SAME QUALITY SPECIRED FOR THE FOUNDATION. 3. AN'( EXCAVATION O¥~R THE REQUIRED DEPTH SHALL BE FILLED WITH EITHER MECI-I~ICN. LY COMPACTED GRANULAR MATER{N- OR CONCRETE OF THE SAME QUALITY SPECIFIED FOR THE FOUNDATION. CRUSHED STONE MAY BE USED TO STABlUZE THE BOTTOM OF THE EXCAVATION, STONE, IF USED. SHALL NOT BE USED AS COMPIUNG CONCRETE THICKNESS, 4. A,=TER COMPLETION OF THE FOUNDATION AND OTHER CONSTRUC~ON BELOW GRN:)E, AND BEFORE BACKFILLING, ALL EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE CLE~N OF UNSUITABLE MATERIAL SUCH AS VEGETATION. TRASH. DEBRIS, AND SO FORTH. 5. -USE APPROVED MATERIALS CONSISTING OF EARTH, LOAM, S~DY CLAY, SAND -BE FREE FROM CLODS OR STONES OVER 2-1/2' MAXIMUM DrMENSIONS -BE PLACED IN 6' LAYERS AND COMPACTED TO 95% STANDARD PROCTOR EXCEPT IN GRASSED/LANDSCAPED AREAS, WHERE 90~ STANDARD PROCTOR REMOVE ALL VEGETATION, TOPSOIL, DEBRIS, WET AND UNSATISFACTORY SOIL MAIERL~.S, OBSTRUCTIONS, AND DELETERIOUS MATERIALS FROM GROUND SURFACE PRIOR TO PLACING FILLS. PLOW, STRIP, OR BREAK UP SLOPED SURFACES STEEPER I~N THAN 1 VERTIC, N. TO 4 HORIZONTAL SO FILL MATERIAL WILL BOND W~ EXISTING SURFACE. WHEN SUBGRADE OR EXISTING GROUND SURFACE TO RECENE RLL HAS A DENSFIY LESS THAN THAT REQUIRED FOR FILL. BRE.~ UP GROUND SURFACE TO DEPI~ REQUIRED. PULVERIZE, MOISTURE-CONDmON OR AERATE SOIL AND RECOMPACT TO REQUIRED DENSI3Y. PROTECT EXISTING GRAVEL SURFACING AND SUSGRADE IN AREAS WHERE EQUIPMENT LOADS WlM. OPERATE. USE pI~NKING OR OTHER SUITABLE MATERIALS DESIGNED TO SPREAD EQUIPMI~JT LOADS. REPNR DAMAGE TO EXISTING GRAVEL SURFACING OR SUBGRADE WHERE SUCH DAMAGE IS DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS. DAMAGED GRAVEL SURFACING SHALL BE RESTORED TO MATCH THE ADJACENT UNDAMAGED GRAVEL SURFACING AND SHALL BE OF THE SAME THICKNESS. REPLACE EXISTING GRAVEL SURFACING ON AREAS FROM WHICH GRAVEL SURFACING IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. GRAVEL SURFACING SHAL/. BE REPLACED TO MATCH EXISI~NG ADJACENT GRAVEL SURFACING AND SHALL BE OF THE SAME THICKNESS. SURFACES OF GRAVEL SURFACING SHALL BE FREE FROM CORRUGATIONS AND WAVES. EXISTING GRAVEL SURFACING MAY BE EXCAVATED SEPARATELY AND REUSED IF INJURIOUS AMOUNTS OF EARTH, ORGANIC MAI'~R, OR OTHER DELETER~3US MATERIALS ARE REMOVED PRIOR TO REUSE. FURNISH ALL ADDITIONAL GRAVEL RESURFAClNG MATERIAL AS REQUIRED. BEFORE GRAVEL SURFACING iS REPLACED. SUBGRADE SHALL BE GRADED TO CONFORM TO REQUIRED SUBGRADE ELEVATIONS, AND LOOSE OR DISTURBED MATE'RIALS SHALL BE THOROUGHLY COMPACTED. DEPRESSIONS IN THE SUBGRADE SHALL BE FILLED AND COMPACTED WIl1~ APPROVED SELECTED MATERIAL GRAVEL SURFACING MATERIAL MAy BE USED FOR FILUNG DEPRESSIONS IN THE SUBGRADE, SUBJECT TO ENGINEER'S APPROVAL. DAMAGE TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND UTILmES RESULTING FROM CONTRACTOR'S NEQUGENCE SHALL BE REPNRED/RERLACED TO OWNER'S SATISFACTION AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE CONSTRUCllON SCHEDULE WITH PROPER'~ OWNER SO AS TO AVOID INTERRUPTIONS TO PROPERTY OWNER'S OPERATIONS. ENSURE POSITIVE DRAINN~E DURING AND AFTER COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. ALL CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE MAXIMUM 2 HORIZONTAL TO 1 VER~lC.~L CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING SiTE "~HICLE TRAFFIC AS TO NOT ALLOW VEHICLES LEaVING THE SITE TO TRACK MUD ONTO PUBEC STREETS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANING PUBMC STREETS DUE TO MUDDY VEHICLES L~V]NG THE SITE. i neng !~ !Ees~r~l~ni g g~ 150-034 6 EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 GENERAL EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: 1. THE SOIL EROSION AND SEDIME],IT CONTROL ME,~SURES AND DETAILS AS SHOWN HERIN AND STIPULATED WrrHIN STATE STANDARDS SHALL BE FOLLOWED AND INSTALLED IN A MANNER SO AS TO MINIMIZE SEDIMENT LEAVING THE SITE. 2. PRIOR TO COMMENCING LAND DISTURBANCE ACTIVIT'F, THE EMITS OF LAND DISTURBANCE SHALL BE CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY DEMARCATED WITH STAKES, RIBBONS, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE MEANS. 3. EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL DE INSTALLED BEFORE GROUND DISTURBANCE OCCURS. THE LODA~ON OF SOME OF THE EROSION CONTROL DEVICES MAY HAVE TO BE ALTERED FROM SHOWN ON THE APPROVED PLANS IF DRAINAGE PATTERNS DURING CONSTRUCTION ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FINAL pROPOSED DRNN~E PATTERNS. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR*S RESPONSIBlUl¥ TO ACCOMPUSH EROSION CONTROL FOR ALL DRAINAGE PA'r~RNS CREA1ED AT VARIOUS STAGES DURING CONSTRUC'RON. ANY DIFFICULTY IN CONTROLUNG EROSION DURING ANY PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE RERORTED TO THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY. 4.. THE LOCATION OF SOME OF THE EROSION CONTROL DE%4CES MAY HAVE TO BE ALTERED FROM TI-IAT SHOWN ON THE PLANS IF DRNNAGE PAT~RNS DURING CONSTRUC'IjlON ARE DIFFE3~II' FROM THE FINAL PROPOSEO DRNNAGE PA'ITERNS. ANY DIFRCUL3Y IN CONTROLLING EROSION DURING ANY PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPOR~D TO THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONSOL ME~SURES UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATION HAS BEEN ESTASUSHED* CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAN OUT ALL SEDIMENT PONDS WHEN REQUIRED BY THE ENDINEED OR THE LOCAL JURISDiCTiON JNSPECI'OR. SONI~a, CTOR SHALL INSPECT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES ARE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMO'vE N:)CUMULATED SILT WHEN THE SILT IS WITHIN 12' OF THE TOP OF THE SiLT FENCE. 7. FNLURE TO INSTALL. OPERATE OR MAINTNN ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURER WILL RESULT IN ALL CONSTRUCTION BEING STOPPED ON THE JOB SITE UNT1L SUCH MF-~URES ARE CORRECTED. 8. SILT BARRIERS TO BE PLACED AT DOWNSTREAM TOE OF ALL CUT AND FILL SLOPES. 9. ALL CUT AND FILL SLOPES MUST BE SURFACED ROUGHENED AND VEQETATED WIthIN SEVEN (7*) DAYS OF THEIR CONSTRUCTION. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURED AFTER COMPLE~ON OF CONSTRUCTION AND ESTA~USHMENT OF PERMANENT QROUND COVER. 11. THE ESCAPE OF SEDIMENT FROM THE SITE SHALL BE PREVENTED BY THE INSTALLATION OF EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND pR~TICES PRIOR TO, OR CONCURRENT WlI~, LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES. NE ~ -~ VEGETATIVE SCHEDULE SPECIES RATE/lO00 S.F. DATE FERTILIZER MIX APPLICA~ON N, #~ACRE P2Os, ~/ACRE[K=O, #/ACRE IN, TOP D.ES~NG 2nd 60 - 3 GRADING, EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES SECTOR 1 - 3O°  PROPOS£D -- (TO BE ~JPPU~ AND c~ ~H ANTENNA LAYOUT FIR£ D~!~AR~&[N'T EQUIPMENT (tO ~ SUPPUI~ ~ID FlEE OEPARI)4~' INSTALU~) ~Y Om~S) (TO ~ SUPPU~  mS'rALL~ ANTENNA D~AIL MODEL ~ ~ ~THREIN 800 10121 SOUTH ELEVATION ~ ~ST ELEVATION ,n~:~:~ V EASTMARIONr .-,- i o ~-o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ELEVATION VIEWS e n g n g SITE NO. U-1017 e m-~ ~ ~ .~/~ ~ ~* ~ c s s 4 ~" 5 2 ALPHA BETA GAMMA BATfERY 2¢ VDC * BTS BT. S . MCPA UMTS CABINE} C 850/190C 850/190C CONCRETE AND REINFORCING STEEL NOTES: COMPACT SOIL TO MIN 95~ 1. ALL CONCREI~ WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WlI~ THE ACI .301, MODIFIED MAX DENSrTY PER ACI 318 AND THE SPECIFICATION CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRE]~. ASTM D1557 METHOD D 2. ALL CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSNE S~T~ENI3rfH OF 4000 PSi AT 28 DAYS, UNLESS NOTED OI~ERWlSE.* , ALL CONCRETE EXPOSED TO FREEZING WEATHER SHALL CONTNN ENTRAINED AiR PER ACI 211 AND TABLE 4.2.1 OF ACl 318-95. ° * I 3. REINFORCING STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO ~ A 615, GRADE 60, DEFORMED BATfERY ALPHA BETA GAMMA UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. WEi. DED WIRE FABRIC SHALL CONFORM TO CABINE} o 2¢ VDC, C 850/190CBTS 850/190CBTS MCPA UMTS A 185 WELDED STEEL WIRE FABRIC UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. SPUCES / \ ELEVATION VIEW ENGINEERING APPROVAL WHEN DRILUNG HOLES IN CONCRETE. SITE WORK GENERAL NOTES: -~ T- m m L[ THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. r ~ 2. ALL SITE WORK SHALL BE COMPLETED AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS I -I I-j -I ~- -I / -I i- s..o FIEL OR EM~M~ ~ER~ S~ eE .LACED ON mOZEN PLAN VIEW EQUIPMENT PAl:} DETAIL ~ , ~ ' engineeringc~ vm cmngular .~ CPS/BCCH ANTENNA 2 COAX CABLES (;ROUND CL.~P ~ I ! J (CPS &¢ BCCH) (SEE NOTE 4) ~ USE:  1. COMMSCOPE CONNECTOR (PART NO. SrX~MB) VALMONT MICROFLECT~ i UNNERSAL PIPE ADAPTER 2. ANCHOR MA/?INE HEATSHRINK KIT PART NO. B1534 (PART NO. 327106) EXISTIN(; ICE BRID(;E POST ~- ~'~ 2' NOMINAL DIAMETER (2.375' OR SIMILAR POST. IF NEW POST ACT. O.D.) X 2'-0" MAX. IS REQUIRED, SEE DETAIL 2/C02 SCHEDULE 40 RIGID (;ALVANIZED FOR POST AND FOUNDATION~ S3EEL PIPE NOTFS! 1. LOCATION OF ANTENNA MUST HAVE CLEAR VIEW OF SOUTHERN SKY AND CANNOT HAVE AN~ BLOCKAGES EXCEEOING 25~ OF THE CABLE DIAMETER VS. LENGTH SURFACE AREA OF A HEMISPHERE AROUND THE (;PS ANTENNA. SFX540PE (1/2-INCH) UP TO 70' 2. ALL (;PS AN]ENNA LOCATIONS MUST BE /~LE TO RECEIVE CLEAR FXLIO7OP£ (7/8-INCH) UP TO 120' SIGNALS FROM A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) SATELLI~. VERIFY WITH FXL1480PE (1 1/4-INCH) UP TO 170' HANDHELD (;PS BEFORE FINAL LOCATION OF CPS ANTENNA. CR1873PE (1 5/8-INCH) UP TO 200' NOTE: FOR LAR(;ER D~A CABLE, USE 6' 3. THE WEIGHT OF THE ANTENNA MOUNT IS 6.5 LBS. JUMPERS AT 1/2' DIA. 4. IF ICE BRID(;E OR SIMILA~ POST IS NOT (;ROUNDED, GROUND wrrH AWC ~INNED BARE COPPER WtRE EXOTHERMICALLY BONDED TO POST AND CONNECTED TO (;ROUND RIN(;. SUPPORT~: .,s FOR LMU/GPS SENSORS D 30-5/16" 30-5/! 6" 24-13/32' 24-13/32' (WP) , 35.40' 150-054 B 6 5 4 ~' 3 2 ~ ~" '~ TRANSITION ALL CONDUITS TO ,, l SUPPORT POST 5/4" LMFC AT NOKIA ETS UNITS~ (2)-1/2 DIA E911 LAST SUPPORT ................ ~/ I~--~/- ---A-T--N-O-K~-!TS ,-~-~-----M-~:~p-A-----~-- 8. MMA BTS BETA BTS ALPHA BTS I 8 I , ' , I I!.e...eeee~ , ~'~-e$"~'ee--~] -,,---~e-~---',,"%% / .... ~ I Lee~4~_e.~-%~_~::L' ,,, .ffe..~,..~ ,, ~.......<.~ ,, / I ' ' ' A J - , I, I ~ 'rl '~ ~ %~r'~,~ I-1 ~ © O) ~ f~ ~ ~ TRANSITION LMFC AT FRAME--- ', I ~ N:. , ] <= o II o ,,,, / 1- = ~ I .... Ph P~ r% ~ Ill 24VDC CABINET i CABINETS , I ' ' , -I / ti ;' r'l I I I I I I I I PI ', ~V'EAHERCO'N CONNECTORpRoOFED--I I ~) ¢ io~D [II/ iL ~ J ~i~/~40(~4P-(~ERAN[~O , ~ , // Iii!FI II II II IIPI', -# DND ' ' ',',// IlL;Il II II I1~111~ , . --= , · ,~ ,= ,=, ,, b -- o =,IHHI ,= ,=, II ILJ~lCEOR ALPHA Ts MA, N COAX~ I '~ f I i ; ,, ,, I1- ! - ~ll'"~ '= '= '= II-'tF-tMNIl TO E911 EQUIPMENT I ¢, ,, I : !':C...?%~ZT_A. x~o N I ~ / II 'i 101 , I I I I I I I I Inl I AND TVSS ALARM CABLE I ~ I I I BETA ALPHA GROUND ~ I ~ ii GROUND , 4VDC GROUND - ,,~ ~ I ' I ~l CRCUITS 6- 14- UNISTRUT ANGLE ', I ~ ' ~ I I~=~ ~ ~ '~ I FLAT PLATE ' , ', ! Ic. ,~,, ,-, ,m ~ ~ ~u,, 'l ' ' , .II ,,,, ~, ,~;1~ Illill II II IIIlll', -~ I:~_t,~,%. (SDEV, EW) F I .... ' .' ~ ~.'1 . ' ""ILV' , :.'- ...~tlllllII '-'.'¢ ~ = \ / " MCPA / Il' Il 11 ii I1~ ' "t I I a .~... GROUND L IJ U IJ LJ [J '~J BO,TS 1"C TO ELECTRIC PANEL 3-#12 / %~ 2"C TO 24VDC -2~R Fn~ MATER/AL BOLT ITPE FOR GFI AND 1-#12 FOR GROUND~ -. .... WEDGE ANCHOR W/ ALARM 6-4#8 FOR DC CONCRETE 1 1/2" MIN. EMB SUPPORT FRAME AT REAR OF NQKIA POWER CABINET STEEL M.H. CAP SCREW SUPPORT FRAME DETAIL ./~ engineering~ EASTMARION...-..: ular.-,,-o --r~.c~ ''~ CONSTRUCTION ~.~: j ~) ~,-~o., B~ ~. .o~ ~-~ ~ ,~/~..,~ ~ c~ "~ DETAILS 150-034 WIRELESS ~IE RE~SIONS BY CHK ¢P'£ JOe I~ I SITE t DR&~IN~ NL~aal!]~ m I I I ~ ~ ' ' 6X6 NEMA I k ~ ~Jll I~lJ Ir I GROUND i~ OROU~ . , GROUND L U IJ IJ I-1/2 PAlE INDUSTRIAL IIALLEASLE IRON OFFSET ~IN HINGE (PN;E-WILSON 4-'-0" GATE OPENING CHAIN UNK ~ .3-1/2' - COPPER BRAID (1PfP.) SEE GROUNDING DETNLS GATE DETAIL IRON FORK ~FPE LATCH WITH PROVISION FOR PADLOCK (PAGE-W~LSON TYPE 75 GATE LATCH ASSEMBLY OR EQUAL) SUPPORT ARM 48' OR 6' BELOW FREEEE x ~ ~END OR CORNER ~ 2 MESH, 9 GAUGE ,/,-, s,-,OE NuHEP° - I'll'J ~ IIIJ LINE P, '1'11,1' ~'-~* Nil. ~'* CHAIN LINK FENCE DETAIL (ELEVA TION) <~ SCALE: NfS L COMPOUND CONCRETE~/'~ INSTALL 7 SLOTS FENCE NOTES: 1, FENCING MATERIALS SHALL BE OF GALVANIZED STEEL. 2, POST, BRACES AND GATE FRAMES SHALL BE SCHEDULE 40 (STANDARD WEIGHT) PIPE. SIZES SPECIFIED ARE ~ 3. DOUBLE SWING GATE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH TUBULAR PLUNGER BAR, I LOCK KEEPER. 1 LOCK KEEPER OUlDE. 2 LATCH FORKS, 2 PORK CATCHES, I CATCH FOR PLUNGER BAR, AND 2 GATE STOPS LOCATED AS DIRECTED BY ?HE OWNER. 4. POSTS, CAPS AND OTHER NECESSARY FENCE FI1TINOS SHALL BE AS MANUFACTURED BY THE FENCE MANUFACTURER OR EQUAL HINGES SHALL BE OF GALVANIZED STEEL. 5. POSTS SHALL BE SPACED EQUIDISTN',rT BUT NOT MORE ll'lAN 10' O.C. 10" GATE DETENT DETAIL infinity engineering 150-034 EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 9245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARrON, NY 11939 IR J --t 3'_0* MIN MIN --WlRE REQUIREDTYPE C GILT FABRIC ON FENCE- WHERE: UPSTREAM SIDE OF FFJ~CE DIRECTION OF FLOW NOTE: 1, DIG ~ENCH 2, LAY IN FABRIC TO BOTrOM OF TRENCH 5. BACKFILL TRENCH, COVERING FABRIC SILT FENCE DETAIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES FOR FABRICATED SILT FENCE 1. WOVEN WiRE FENCE TO BE FASTENED SECURELY TO FENCE POSTS WITH WIRE TIEG OR STAPLES, 2, FILTER CLOTH TO BE FASTENED SECURELY TO WOVEN WIRE FENCE WFPH TIES SPACED EVERy 2&' AT TOP AND MID SECTION. 3. WHEN %VO SEC'RONS OF FILTER CLOTH ADJOIN EACH OTHER THEY SHALL BE OVER- LAPPED ~Y SiX INCHES AND FOLDED. MAINTENANCE SHALL BE PERFORMED AD NEEDED AND MATERIAL REMOVED WHEN "BULDGES' DEVELOP IN THE SILT FENCE. 5. ALL GILT FENCE MATERIALS MUST BE USTED ON THE CURRENT STATES. D.O.T. QUAURED PRODUCTG UST POSTS: STEEL EITHER T OR U TYPE. FENCE: WOVEN WIRE, 1~' GA. 6" MAX, MESH OPENING. AS DIRECTED BY BANKS CO. FILTER CLOTH: FILTE]~ X, MIRAR IOOX' STABILINKA T140N OR APPROVED EQUAL PREFABRICATED UNIT: GEOFAB, ENVIROFENCE OR APPROVED EQUAL i .n.f i n i gy..,., ineering 150-034 6 EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 9245 MAIN ROAD NE ~ -2e-O~ GP~DE TO DRNN AS F~NCE OF CRUSHED STONE SURFACE DP,fiN AWAY FROM TOWER YARD UARAR 500X GROUND STABIUZ~OB FABRIC PLACED ON COMPACTED SUBGRADE SECTION THROUGH COMPOUND 3 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 1 PRIOR TO STN(INO (2 PLY GREEN) -- ROOTgN.L PIT TO [XCEED O~_El~. OF r- S0tL- SECTION TREE STAKING AND GUYING NOT TO SCALE infinity engineering 150-034 EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 9245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 5 BUFFER 5' LANDSCAPE (3" SKllt~D DE~) LANSCAPING PLAN F. AS'~RN RED CEO~ CALLED NO~IH PLANT MATERIALS LIST &®m .w NE ~ -3~--~ c'ng wU,_o,_.__ __ 3 LANDSCAPE PLAN 24897 NYCENY1017 CO~ I" i ~"7'~ COIL IO-FT ~12 AWG GROUND WIRE FOR NOKIA 2 AWG GROUND ~lRE FOR MCPA & CODED DRAWING NOTES ~ TOWE~ FO~JNDAllON AND S~.N)) 3URltD AT MINIMUM 30 BELOW PROV1OE 2 COPPER GROUND RIND MIR. 1'-9' FROM, ~O~S~)DE EDGE OF wm ~ AWO. 2 AWG GROUND WIRE ~02R 24VDC CABINET & BA1TERY CAE)INET CABINET MASTER AND BOITOM~ GROUND BARS. BOND ALL COAX CABLES WITH COAX GROUND KITS (~mmmmm~ 7/19~ o o o o LEGEND 1- COPPER GROUND BAR, 1/4·X 4."X 20', NEWTON ~NSTRUMENT CO. CAT. NO. B-614-2 OR EQUAL. HOLE CEN~RS TO MATCH NEMA DOUBLE LUG CONFIGURATION. (ACTUAL GROUND BAR SIZE WILL VARY BASED ON NUMBER OF GROUND CONNECTIONS) 2- INSULATORS, NEIAFFON INSITIUMENT CAT. NO. 3061-4- OR EQUAL 3- 5/8" LOCKWASHERS, NEWTON INSTRUMENT CO. CAT. NO. 3015-8 OR EQUAL 4- WALL MOUNTING BRACKET, NEWTON INSTRUMENT CO. CAT NO. A-6056 OR EQUAL 5-- 5/8--11 X 1" HHCS BOLTS, NEWTON INSTRUMENT CO. CAT NO. 5012-1 OR EQUAL 6- INSULATORS SHALL BE ELIMINATED WHEN BONDING DIRECTLY TO TOWER/MONOPOLE SIRUCTURE. CONNECTION TO TOWER/MONOPOLE STRUCTURE SHALL BE PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS. GROUND BAR GROUNDING NOTES 1. ALL ELECTRICAL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL CODES 2. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROPERLY SEQUENCING GROUNDING AND UNDERGROUND CONDUIT INSTALLATION SO AS TO PREVENT ANY LOSS OF CONTINUITY IN THE GROUNDING SYSTEM OR DAMAGE TO THE CONDUIT. 5. ALL GROUND CONNECTIONS BELOW GRADE SHALL BE EXOTHERMIC (CADWELD) i 4. ALL GROUND CONNECTIONS ABOVE GRADE SHALL BE FORMED USING 2-HOLE LUGS AND T~/O (2) HiGH PRESS CRIMPS. 5. ALL EXOTHERMIC MECHANICAL CONNECTIONS TO THE GROUND RODS SHALL START AT THE TOP & HAVE A VERTICAL SEPARATION OF 6" FOR EVERY ADDITIONAL CONNECTION. 6. ALL EXTERIOR GROUND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE COATED WITH A CORROSION RESISTANT MATERIAL. 7. ALL EXTERIOR GROUND CONDUCTORS SHALL BE #2 SOLID AWO TIN PLATED COPPER UNLESS OTHERWISE iNDICATED. 8. IF APPLICABLE: GROUND RODS SHALL BE STAINLESS STEEL OR COPPER CLAD STEEL, 5/8"¢ lO-FT. LONG, AND SHALL BE DRIVEN VERTICALLY WITH THEIR TOPS 18" BELOW FINAL GRADE. 9. CONNECTIONS TO THE GROUND BARS SHALL NOT BE DOUBLED UP OR STACKED. BACK TO BACK CONNECTIONS ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE GROUND BAR ARE PERMII'FED. 10. USE OF 90' BENDS IN THE PROTECTION GROUNDING CONDUCTORS SHALL BE AVOIDED WHEN 4.5' BENDS CAN BE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED. ! 1. MAXIMUM RESISTANCE OF THE COMPLETED GROUND SYSTEM SHALL NOT EXCEED 10 OHMS. 12. NO UPHILL GROUND CONNECTIONS ALLOWED EQUIPMENT GROUND BAR TO GROUND RING 2 PLACES) UMTS PROPOSED FLAGPOLE ~ BOND ALL METALLIC OBJECTS TO GROUND EAR EXTERIOR GROUNDING PLAN ALBANY. Ny 12207 OFFICE:(518 454-22~ 6 EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 0245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARrON, NY 11939 5 NEW COPPER-CLAD STEEL GROUND ROD cingular WIRELESS ABBREVIATIONS ELECTRICAL SYMBOLS AWG AMERICAN WIRE GAUGE BCW BARE COPPER WIRE DWG DRAWING EMT ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING GEN GENERATOR IMC INTERMEDIATE METALLIC CONDUIT MGB MASTER GROUND BAR PCS PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEM PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE CONDUIT PVC RIGID GALVANIZED STEEL RWY RACEWAY I~KP TYPICAL 2 GROUND ROD WITH ACCESS CHEMICAL GROUND ROD GROUND ROD DISCONNECT SWITCH METER CIRCUIT BREAKER CADWELO TYPE CONNECTION COMPRESSION TYPE CONNECTION GROUNDING WIRE · REPRESENTS DETAIL NUMBER ~REF. DRAWING NUM~3ER EXTERIOR GROUNDING PLAN 24897 NYCENY10 7 EOt U~TI..LITY ROUTING PLAN ~.~ PROPERTY UNE 150-054 EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 9245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 24 V ALPHA 850/1900 BETA ~ GAMMA BTS Tls (4) BELDEN )~7919A (1) 1' PVC CONDUIT FOR ALPHA/BETA/GAMMA BTS H~A CIRCU~ (6) (5) ~12 GED. ClNGULAR ELEC. METER AND SERVICE ENll~CE CINGULAR NEMA 3R ELCO BOX 30'x30"x12' WITH 5/8' PLYWOOD BACKBOARD ~NLARGED ~:TILITY ROUTING PLAN 1' RVC CONDUIT FOR ALPHA BTS Tls (2) BELDEN ~7919 GAT5 CABLES ROUTED TO E911 EQUIPMENT iNSIDE 24VDC POWER PLANT AND ALARM CABLE BELDEN ~9566 1' PVC CONDUIT f8 AND (2) f12 GND FOR POWER TO 24VDC CABINET ELECTRICAL NOTES 1. ALL ELECTRICAL WORK SHALL DE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TIdE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE AND ALL OTHER APPMC~LE LOCAL 2. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSI8LE FOR PROPERLY SEQUENCING GROUNDING AND UNDERGROUND CONDUIT INSTALLAllON AS TO pREVENT ANY LOSS OF CONTINUll't' IN THE GROUNDING SYSTEM OR DAMAGE TO THE CONDUIT. ALL ELECTRICAL [TEMS SHALL BE U.L APPROVED OR USTED CONDUCTORS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN SCHEDULE 40 PVC CONDUITS (UNDERGROUND) AND IMC CONDUITS ABOVEGROUND. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTNN ALL PERMFIS, PAY ALL PERMIT FEES. AND SCHEDULE ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS, CONI~TOR SHALL OBTNN LOCAl. POWER AND I~LCO COMPANY APPROVAL AND COORDIHA1E WITH UTIU1Y COMPANIES SERVICE CO~TOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL LABOR AND MATERIAL DESCRIBED ON THIS DRAWING. AND ALL ITEMS INCIDENTAL TO COMPLEqlNG PRESENTING THIS PROJECT AS FULLY OPERA31ONAL, PROVIDE 2' SCHEDULE 40 PVC UNDERGROUND CONDUIT WITH PULL WIRE BL-IWEEN E)J~CTRICAL LrI1U3~' DEMARCATION POINT AND KWH ~ 6'X6' NEMA 3R ENCLOSURE ROUTE (2) 3/4-" LMFC FROM ENCLOSURE TO NOKIA 11. 12. ~ CALLE~ NORTH AS REQUIRED GRAVEL OR LAWN AREA RESTORATION TO MATCH SLOPE AND THICKNESS OF D(ISTING · ··.E.W i cmngular WIRELESS ~.~ 3 TELCO CONDUIT 2" PVC SCH. UTILITY TRENCH DETAIL COMPACTED BACKFILL BACKFILL (SAND OR NA~ SOIL) WARNING TAPE ELECTRICAL CONDUIT 2' PVC SCH. 40 UTILITY ROUTING PLAN Joe f s~ f O~N~ NU~ REV 24897 NYCENY1017 E~ 4 2) PROV1D£D I~y BECHYEL I"ST~D BY GC PANEL 'A' SCHEDULE I ~~ ~ ~AT~[~79,~ ~ ~GUS ~ ~BLE KIT P~T t0~7-112-20 PRIDED BY BECEL ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ,:2 FIN' TER'I~TION BY NOKIA. DC DISTRIBUT'O" C~LES SHALL BE (2)-2,0 AWC ~,r~ .. , 5) 24~C INSTALLER S~L PROVIDE AND 'NSTALL TELCO C~LE(S) BELDEN ELEO~ELOO,A~RMONEL,NED,AGRAM ~ ' ~~'Z~ ~ n ~ i ~ ~ ~ r i. ~ ELEC~ELCO ONE-LINE AND ~. ~ ,~o~ ~-~-~ ~ ~ ~/~ ~ ~ ~ PANEL SCHEDULE PANEL 'A' SCHEDULE D ./ 0SMt900 Tx1/Rxl/Tx2/Rx2 GSM850 TxlRxl/Tx2/Rx2 GSMB50/1900 Txl/Rxl/Tx2/Rx2 BO0 10121 SITE NUMBER: U--1017 RF SYSTEM SCHEDULE BTS I AZIMUTH EST. COAX ANTENNA BEAM ELEC DOWN MECH DOWN ~NTENNA SERIAL ~. ~J ~J CONNECTOR TYP. (ANTENNA) 2-A , 30 DEGREES KATHREIN 800 10121 ~2)-1 5/8" 107_~ 260-~ M 1900 45- DEB 2 DEB 0 ~ ~ 850 850 ~ ~1~2 ~5-DEG 0 DEG 0 DEG  -GROUND BAR (2) 1/2 ~ ~ (TOP OF TOW[~)~ ~ ~ 1900 45-DEG 2 DEG 0 DEO ~ ~/ NOTES: --GROUND BAR ~ ~ - ~ 2 B50/1900 UMTS ANTENNA ~THRE~N 800 10121 3 BECHTEL N/A 5, ~ ~ ~S ~ ~ ~D 3 1/2" TOP JUMPER W/~LE-MALE CON. (DIN) COMMSCOPE S~500 56 BECHTEL CC ~TOR FUTURE ¢~ COLOR CODE ) GREEN 3 GREEN 1 BLUE J BLUE 1 WHITE 3 WHITE YELLOW 2 ~LLOW 1900M", NOKIA SS" 850MHz NOKIA CSM I 900 UMTS 850 UMTS SCHEMATIC SITE NUMBER: L1--1017 RF SYSTEM SCHEDULE ANTENNA BTS AZIMUTH ANTENNA COAX mD EST. COAX ANTENNA BEAM ELEC DOWN MECH DOWN ~NTENNA SERIAL POSITION TYPE MODEL NO. SIZE CENTER LENGTH FUNCTION WIDTH TILT TILT NUMBER LMU N/A 00-860/1KATHREINg20/GPS (2)-1/2" N/A 15-FT ~HGPS N/A N/A N/A D BILL OF MATERIALS ITEM NO PART DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER PART NO. QUANTI~¢ SUPPLIER INSTALLER I 850/1900 GSM ANTENNA KATHREIN 800 10121 3 BECHTEL N/A 2 BSO/lgo0 UMTS ANTENNA KATHREIN 800 10121 .3 BECHTEL N/A 8 1/2" TOP JUMPER W/MALE-MALE CON. (DIN) COMMSCOPE SFXS00 36 BECHTEL GC 4 FEMALE DIN CONNECTOR COMMSCOPE 1873ADF 36 BECHTEL CC 5 MAJN COAX LINE COMMSCOPE CR1878PE 42§O-FT BECHTEL GC 6 1/2" BOTTOM JUMPERS W/MALE-MALE CON. (DIN) COMMSCOPE SFXSO0 24 BECHTEL GC 7 MHA (MAST HEAD AMPUFIEB) NOKIA CB72998.0B 6 NOKIA GC 8 MHA RFS ~TM 19801712-0 6 BECHTEL GC 9 DIPLEXER RFS :DGW5504/2C-5 6 BECHTEL BC GPS/BCCH RACK WLS pOI~d~R CORD (G15A0497-5-4) infinigo~' engineering 150-054 EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 AN~NNA CCtIN[CTORS ONLY GROUND KIT I 1/2~ e CQflDUIT (TEJ~MINA~ AT 6"X6" NEMA 14 WI~ PO~R COI~"~""-_ .~1~ N.~'~ ~ I GRAYSC~ G15AO497-5-4 I(-) NE , -2.-~ ~ ~ ~'~"'~ ~ SCHEMATIC & . c ngular ° . -~-~ .~-~ ~ .~,/~,,,..r OF MATERIALS ~' ~ WIRELESS .~,~s~o.s ~ ~. I' 3 ~ ~,.", og WHT/BLU BLU/WHT ORG/WHT WHT/GRN WHT/BRN RRN/WNT WHT/SLT RED/~LU RED/ORG RRN/RED RED/SLT SLT/RED RLK/eLU BLK/ORG GRN/BLK BLK/BRN BLK/SLT SLT/RLK YEL/BLU ORG~TEL GRN/YEL r--o o o PRE-iNSTALLEDL.C RED TEMP ALARMS JUMPER'D TOGETHER AND ROUTED TO B-~ I/O EXTENSION m MOCK ALARM ASSlGNMENTS~ i n fi n i o/Y engineering 150-034 ~I'NT"GS'ON (PRE-W'RED 'N 2,v) ~'~, 'J TEMP PRE-WIRED IN 24V) ,N*S,ON*RMS J ~F~H/LOW roMP AND ODS DISCONNECT WIRE J22 FROM N.O. (OPEN) TERM~N~ OF SW5 & CONNECT MALE 0.25" QUICK CONNECT (RED WIRE) FROM TE208 DOOR INTRUSION A~RM .m N.C.' A~RM CABLE EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 9245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 PORT "PROTECTED" R J40 (TYP) PLASTIC NOTCH LABEL PORT MARKED -- "UNPROTECTED" RJ48 (WP) TI-SURGE SUPPRESSOR ATLANTIC SCIENTIFIC NO. 90700 TO TELCO J NIU ~6 AWG STRANDED CU. THHN GREEN INSULATED GROUND W~RE BONDED TO MOB OR GROUNDED ENCLOSURE RAIL ATLANTIC SCIENTIFIC 21607 (SEE NOTE 1) COMPRESSION TERMINAL (SEE NOTE 2) NOTES: 1. MOUNT SURGE ARRESTOR ON EX~STING DIN RAIL IF AVNLABLE, OTHERWISE PROVIDE ATLANTIC SCIENTIFIC MODEL NO. 21605. 5-INCH 4-UNIT DIN RAIL, OR EQUAL. AND SECURELY MOUNT TO TELCO BOARD. 2. ATTACH GROUND WIRE TO THE DIN RAIL, SEPARATELY FROM THE RAIL MOUNTING HARDWARE, USING STAINLESS STEEL BOLT, LOCKING WASHER AND NUT OR SELF-TAPPING MACHINE SCREW THAT FIRMLY GRIPS THE DIN RAIL 3. %~5S ~AY BE ORIENTED TO SUIT SITE REQUIREMENTS. I ~ .- RED ~ T1 SURGE SUPPRESSOR ' -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IS OUS o_ IB:J ALARMS PRE-WIRED BY PURCELL J 0 NOTE; ONLY THE TOP ALARM CABLE IS SHOWN FOR CLARflY, B ALARM CABLES WILL BE PRE-INTEGRATED. DB-15 CONNECTOR TO MATCH DUAL BAND CRT A RTN GRN/BLK MdB B RTN BLK,/WHT MCPA HIGH TEMP/FAN FAIL (CBIT) 1F AMP FAULT_MCPA 1900 (CRF0 0 TEMPORARY JUMPERS (REMOVE JUMPERS AS REQUIRED WHEN MCPA MODUlE(S) ARE INSTALLED PER SECTOR./TECHNOLOGY) PERMANENT JUMPERS ('~ES ALARMS IN SERIES) MCPA MAIN ALARM BLOCK i n f ! n, ! engin e i g 150--0,:34 TO X8 ALPHA ALARM PORT 66-BLDCK .~M BLOCK INSIDE THE CINGULAR IELCO ENCLOSURE USING BELDEN ~9566 6-PR ~24UTP NOKIA PIN 2 20 3 ~og 25 NOTES: WHT/BLU BLU/WHT WHT/ORG ORG/WHT WHT/GRN GRN/WHT WHT/BRN BLT/WHT RED/BLU ORG/RED RED/GRN ORN/RED BLK/BLU BLU/BLK DRAWN: 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A ALARM DETAILS C ~m WIRELESS % -~-~~ SITE NUMBER: L1-1017 CINGULAR ID: NYCENY1017 SITE NAME: WEST ORIENT POINT DRAWING INDEX REV DIRECTIONS FROM CINGULAR OFFICE T~E 495 ~T TO O~ COU~ ROAD (CR-58) TO MNN R~D (SR-25). ~OM 1-495 I PROJECT INFORMATION ~"ROXI~LY 26 ~'LES. S'~ Wl~ BE ON ~E ~ OF ~N R~. TO1 ~TLE SHE~ 2 scoPE OF ~K: AN UNMANNED ~COMMUNICA~ FACIU~ IN~UOmNc ~E OF ~OOR E~IPMENT C~INE~ AND (6) PANEL AN~NNAS C01 SI~ P~ 2 ON A ~GP0~ ~2 D~LED SITE P~N ~D D~AILS 2 s~ ADORESS: 9395 ~N RO~ CO~ G~ING, EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES 2 ' . VICINI~ MAP ..o. aox ~3 E~ATION ~S 2 EAST MARION, NY 11959 ~ CONSTRUCTION D~AILS 2 APPUCA.~: "~ CINCU~ ~R[~S PCS. ~C ~5 CONSTRUCTION D~NLS 2 41.1278-7~.~14 TAX ID NUMBER: 31-3-11.31 C06 CONSTRUCTION D~NLS 2 ~0[ (NAD 85): 4f' 07' 40,1' LONGI~DE (NAD 83): 72' 20' 29.2" ~8 CONSTRUCTION D~NLS 2 ~ ~solc~: TO~ OF SOU~ E01 ~ERIOR GROUNDING P~ 2 ' ' PROP0~O USE: ~C0aUUNmCA~0NS FAOU~ E02 ~U~ ROU~NG P~ 2 E~cmm COMPANY: UPA E04 ANTENNA SCHEMATIC AND RF SCHEDU~ 2 , ,~'~ SITE QUALIFICATION PARTICIPANTS E05 E911 SCHEDU~ AND BILL OF MATERI~S 2 ~¢: E~ MISCEL~EOUS D~NLS 2 e n g i n e e r i n g WEST ORIENT POINT ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N/F CHERYL L. RONDAROHUK USE: RESIDENTIAL - 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONED: R--40 N/F CONC. SLAB ~ \\ ~, EDT 1 , ~' ZONED: R-40 PROPOSED 120' ,, RAGPO, ~ -- N/R GEATRAKIS &: GEORGE KORTSOLAKIS USE: RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONED: R--~O N/F SYLVIA M. DALES' USE: t FAMILY ~ ZONED: R--40 RREHOUSE S 65'40'00' W NOTE: METES AND SOUNDS ARE TAKEN FROM A SURVEY PERFORMED BY PECONIC SURVEYORS PC, UCENSED LAND SURVEYOR. SYMBOLS AND MATERIALS DETAIL REFERENCE SECTIONS AND DETAILS GRAVEL/STONE E.M. WAR MEMORIAL ASSOC. UTIUTY POLE USE: RESIDENCE ZONED: HB N ! SITE LEGEND CALLED NORTH ..... PROPERTY LINE x x x x FENCE LINE E ELECTRIC SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE --~-- PROPOSED CONTOUR 50 EXISTING CONTOUR infin! :/y 150-034 WEST ORIENT POINT SITE NO. L1-1017 ngular WIRELESS GENERAL NOTES: I. SITE PLAN INFORMATION WAS WAS ~ASED ON VARIOUS SOURCES OF INFORMATION INCLUDING FIELD NOTES & MEASUREMENTS PERFORMED BY INFINIGY ENGINEERING, PLLC OF NY, Z. THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACIL~ CONSISTING OF PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED TO A FLAGPOLE PLACEMENT OF SMALL, WEATHERTIGHT RADIO EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITHIN THE SUBJECT LEASEHOLD, AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES, 5. THE PROPOSED CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICES FACILITY WILL BE UNMANNED AND DOES NOT REQUIRE WATER OR SEWER SERVICE. THE PROROSED CiNOULAR WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY IS UNMANNED, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN HABITATION AND THUS DOES NOT REQUIRE HANDICAP ACCESS. 5. OCCUPANCY IS UMITED TO PERIODIC MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION BY CINOULAR WIRELESS TECHNICIANS APPROXIMATELY (2) TIMES PER MONTH. 6. NO STROBIC LIGHTING IS INCLUDED IN THIS PROPOSAL. 7. NO NOISE. SMOKE, DUST OR ODOR WILL RESULT FROM THIS PROPOSAL. 8, OUTDOOR STORAGE AND SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS ARE NOT PROPOSED. 9. EXTERIOR SIGNS ARE NOT PROPOSED. 10. NO NEW ACCESS ROAD WILL BE REQUIRED UNDER THIS APPLICATION. 1 I. TOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE UNOER THIS PROPOSAL: 370 SF:~ 12. THE INCREASE IN STORM WATER RUNOFF DUE TO THE INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA IS INSIGNIFICANT. EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS WILL NOT BE ALTERED. THEREFORE. DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ARE NOT PROPOSED, 13. ALL CONSTRUCTION FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL CONFORM TO APPUCABLE SPECIFICATIONS, STANDARDS, AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL OR UTILF~' AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION. 14. ALL EXISTING ACTIVE SEWER, WATER. GAS, ELECTRIC. AND OTHER UTIUTIES WHERE ENCOUNTERED IN THE WORK, SHALL BE PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES. ARB WHERE REQUIRED FOR THE PRORER EXECUTION OF THE WORK. SHALL BE RELOCATED AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERS. EXTREME CAUTION SHOULD SE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR WHEN EXCAVATING OR PIER DRILUNG AROUND OR NEAR UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SAFE~ TRAINING FOR THE WORKING CREW. THIS WILL INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO A) FALL PROTECTION S) CONFINED SPACE C) ELECTRICAL SAF~P~ D) TRENCHING & EXCAVATION 15. ALL SITE WORK SHALL SE AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWING AND STIPULATED IN ~JE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. 16, IF NECESSARY, RUDOISH, STUMPS. DEBRIS, STICKS, STONES AND OTHER REFUSE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE ANO DISPOSED OF LEGALLY. 17. THE SiTE SHALL BE GRADED TO CAUSE SURFACE WATER TO FLOW AWAY FROM THE RADIO EQUIPMENT AND TOWER AREAS, 18. THE SUBDRADE SHALL BE COMPACTED AND BROUGHT TO A SMOOTH UNIFORM GRADE PRIOR TO FINISHED SURFACE APPLICATION. 19. ALL EXISTING INACTIV~ SEWER. WATER, GAS, ELECTRIC ANO OTHER UTIUTIES. WHICH INTERFERE WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK, SHALL DE REMOVED AND/OR CAPPED, PLUGGED OR OTHERWISE DISCONTINUED AT POINTS WHICH WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK. SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF ENGINEERING. 20. THE AREAS OF THE OWNERS PROPERTY DISTURSED BY THE WORK AND NOT COVERED BY THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE RESTORED AS REQUIRED. 21. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, IF REQUIRED DURIND CONSTRUCTION. SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE LOCAL CUIOELINES FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL. 22. ALL SITE WOR COORDINATED WITH THE PROPERTf OWNER AS REQUI 2.3. CON ' LERT: B00-962-7962 TO LO~ A~R TO CONSTRUCTION. I"~'qc~l '~.\ - ~ /,~11 jo~.. II '%~ = %"~SS[ ,-'~ ;~ 24897 J NYC£NY1017 , J C01 D B A CiNGULAR FENCED LEASE AREA PROPOSED ClNEULAR 120' FLACPOLE /--UNISTRUT PIPE/CONDUIT CLAMp ?(WPiCAL) FOLLOW MANUF, _1 RECOMMENDA3]ONS FOR BOLT TORQUE 3 1/2' O.D. 6' 0~ II XY GROUT POST . - I KWiKBOLT II OR , ~ UNISTRUT PLO01 ( EQUN WITH 2 3/4" ~.r ~ UNiSTRUT 1001 GALV ~ v (BOLT HOLES = 7/8'~) 4 I ~' -- _ (GALV)I/4~xl O'xl 0~ i", COAX SUPPORT ~E~Cm~C~_ CONgUro ~ ~ GENERAL SITE NOTES: 4. ~e S~ S~ BE O~ mo ~SE SURFACE WArm TO ~OW ~ l~ / ~ CO'RED ~ ~E BUI~ING OR DR~AY. S~L BE G~ED TO A UNIFORM 2~ ~ ~ ~ ~¢/~; ,~/~ ~ SLOPE, FER~UZED, AND SEEDED. '~ ~'N~2~, L~ON OF ClNGU~ E~IPM~ ON ' ~r~ ~" ~ U--BOX~DP~ ~ ~ - - ~NISHED G~E 150-034 WIRELESS 'o GRADING & EXCAVATING NOTES: 1. ALL EXCAVATIONS ON WHICH CONCRETE IS TO BE PLACED SHALL BE SUBSTANtIALLy HORIZONTAL ON UNDISTURBED AND UNFROZEN SOIL AND BE FREE FROM LOOSE MATERIAL AND EXCESS GROUNDWATER. DEWATERIND FOR EXCESS GROUNDWATER SHALL BE PROV1DED IF REQUIRED. 2. CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON ORGANIC MATERIAL IF SOUND SOIL IS NOT REACHED AT THE DESIGNATED EXCAVATION DEPTH, THE UNSATISFACTORY SOIL SHALL BE EXCAVATED TO FrS FULL DEPI~I AND EITHER BE REPLACED WI~ MECHANICALLY COMPACTED GRANULAR MATERIAL OR THE EXCAVATION BE F'lUED win4 CONCRETE OF THE SAME QUAIJTY SPECIFIED FOR THE FOUNDATION, 3. ANY EXCAVATION OVER THE REQUIRED DEPTH SHALL BE FILLED WITH EITHER MECHANICALLY COMPACTED GRANULAR MATERIAL OR CONCRETE OF THE SAME QUALJTY SPECIFIED FOR THE FOUNDATION. CRUSHED STONE MAy BE USED TO STABILIZE THE BOITOM OF THE EXCAVATION. STONE, IF USED, SHALL NOT BE USED AS COMPlUNG CONCRETE THICKNESS, 4. AFTER COMPLETION OF THE FOUNDATION AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION BELOW GRADE, AND BEFORE BACKFILLING, ALL EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE CLEAN OF UNSUITABLE MATERIAL SUCH AS VEGETATION, '~RASH, DEBRIS. AND SO FORTH. 5. --USE APPROVED MATERIALS CONSISTING OF EARTH. LOAM, ~M~IDY CLAY, SAND --BE FREE FROM CLODS OR STONES OVER 2-1/2" kL~XIMUM DIMENSIONS -BE PLACED IN 6" LAYERS AND COMPACTED TO 95~ STANDARD PROCTOR EXCEPT IN GRASSED/LANDSCAPED AREAS, WHERE 90~ STANDARD PROCTOR REMOVE N.L VEGETATION, TOPSOIL, DEBRIS, WET AND UNSATISFACTORY SOIL MATERIALS, OBSTRUCTIONS, AND DELEIER[OUS MATERIALS FROM GROUND SURFACE PRIOR TO PLACING FILLS. PLOW, STRIP, OR BREAK UP SLOPED SURFACES 5~JcJ~ THAN THAN 1 VERTICAL TO 4 HORIZONTAL SO FILL MATERIAL WiLL BOND W~ EXISTING~ SURFACE. WHEN SUBGRADE OR EXISTING GROUND SURFACE TO RECEIVE FILL HAS A DENSITY LESS ~ THAT REQUIRED FOR FILL, BREAK UP GROUND SURFACE TO DEP~ REQUIRED, PULVERIZE; MOISTURE-CONDmON OR AERATE SOIL AND RECOMPACT TO REQUIRED 7. PROTECT EXI~I1NG GRAVEL SURFACING AND SUBGRADE IN AREAS WHERE EQUIPMENT LOADS WILL OPERATE. USE PLANKING OR OTHER SUITABLE MATERIALS DESIGNED TO SPREAD EQUIPMENT LOADS. REPAIR DAMAGE TO EXIST1NG GRAVEL SURFACING OR SUBGR~DE WHERE SUCH DAMAGE IS DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS. DAMAGED GRAVEL SURFACING SHALL BE RESTORED TO MATCH THE ADJACENT UNDAMAGED GRAVEL SURFACING AND SHALL BE OF THE SAME THICKNESS. 8. REPLACE EXISTING GRAVEL SURFACING ON AREAS FROM WHICH GRAVE]_ SURFACING tS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. GRAVEL SURFACING SHALL BE REPLACED TO MATCH EXISTING ADJACENT GRAVEL SURFACING AND SHALL BE OF THE BANiE THICKNESS. SURFACES OF GRAVEL SURFACING SHALL BE FREE FROM CORRUGATIONS AND WAVES. E3<I~TING GRAVEL SURFACING MAY BE EXCAVATED SEPARATELY AND REUSED IF INJURIOUS AMOUNTS OF EAR1H, ORGANIC MATEER, OR OTHER DEL~OUS MATERIALS ARE REMOVED PRJOR TO REUSE. FURNISH ALL ADDmONAL GRAVEL RESURFACING MATERIAL AS REQUIRED. BEFORE GRAVEL SURFACING IS REPLACED. SUBGRADE SHALL BE GRADED TO CONFORM TO REQUIRED SUBGRADE ELEVATIONS, AND LOOSE OR DISTURBED MATERIALS SHALL BE THOROUGHLY COMPACTED. DEPRESSIONS IN THE SUBGRADE SHALL BE FILLED AND COMPACTED Wl~ APPROVED SELECTED MATERtN_. GRAVEL SURFACING MATERIAL MAy BE USED FOR FILLING DEPRESSIONS IN THE SUBGRADE, SUBJECT TO ENGINEER'S APPROVAL 9. DAMAGE TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND UTILmES RESULTING FROM CONTRACTOR'S NEGLIGENCE SHALL BE REPAiRED/REPLACED TO OWNER'S SATISFACTION AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE WITH PROPERLY OWNER SO AS TO AVOID INTERRUPTIONS TO PROPERTY OWNER'S OPERATIONS. 1 I. ENSURE POSITIVE DR. NNADE DURING AND AFTER COMPLE~ON OF CONSTRUCTION. 12. AU_ CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE MAXIMUM 2 HORIZONTAL TO 1 VERTICAL. 13. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING SITE VEHICLE TRAFFIC AS TO NOT ALLOW VEHICLES LEAVING THE SITE TO I~ACK MUD ONTO PUBUC STREETS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANING PUBLIC STREETS DUE TO MUDDY VEHICLES LEAVING THE SITE. GENERAL EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: 1. THE SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AND DETAILS AS SHOWN HERIN AND STIPULATED WITHIN STATE STANDARDS SHN. L BE FOLLOWED AND INSTALLED IN A MANNER SO AS TO MINIMIZE SEDIMENT LEAVING THE SITE. 2. PRIOR TO COMMENCING LAND DISTURBANCE ACT~, THE LIMITS OF LAND DISTIJR~ANCE SHALL BE CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY DEMARCATED WITH STAKES, RIBBONS, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE MEANS. 5. EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE INSTAl IFC BEFORE GROUND DISTURBANCE OCCURS. THE LOCATION OF SOME OF THE EROSION CONTROL DEVICES MAY NAVE TO BE ALTERED FROM SHOWN ON THE APPROVED PLANS IF DRAINAGE PATTERNS DURING CONSTRUCTION ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FINAL PROPOSED DRAINAGE PATTERNS, iT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBIUTY TO ACCOMPUSH EROSION CONTROL FOR ALL CRNNAGE PAi IbI~NS CREATED AT VARIOUS STAGES DURING CONSTRUCTION. ANY ClFFICULI~ IN CON~OLUNG EROSION DURING ANY PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPOR1ED TO THE ENGINE~ IMMEDIATELy. THE LOCATION OF SOME OF THE EROSION CONI~OL DEVICES MAY NAVE TO BE ALTERED FROM 'THAT SHOWN ON THE PLANS IF DRNNAGE PAIII:J~HS DURING CONSTRUCTION ARE DIFFERENT ~'ROM THE FINAL PROPOSED DRAINAGE PATFERNS. ANY DIF~ICULIY IN CONTROLMNG EROSION DURING ~ PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION SNAIl BE REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY. §. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATION HAS BEEN ESTADESHED. CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAN OUT ALL SEDIMENT PONDS WHEN REQUIRED BY THE ~GINEER OR THE LOCAL JURISDICTION INSPECTOR, CONI~CTOR SHALL INSPECT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT THE ENO OF BACH WORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES ~RE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ACCUMULATED SILT WHEN THE SILT IS WITHIN 12' OF THE TOP OF THE SILT FENCE. 7. FAILURE 1'0 INSTALL OPERATE OR MNNTNN ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES WILL RESULT IN ALL CONSTRUCTION BEING STOPPED ON THE JOB srlE UNI~L SUCH MEASURES ARE CORRECTED. 8. SILT BARRIERS TO BE PLACED AT DOWNS~EAM TOE OF ALL CUT AND FILL SLOPES. 9, ALL CUT AND FILL SLOPES MUST BE SURFACED ROUGHENED AND VEGETATED WIll'IN SEVEN (7) BAYS OF THEIR CONSTRUCTION. 10. CONTRAC~rOR SHALL REMOVE ALL EROSION z, SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES ~l~J~ COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION AND ESTABUSHMEN'~' OF PERMANENT GROUND COVER. 11. THE ESCAPE OF SEDIMENT FROM THE SiTE SHALL BE PREVENTED BY THE INSTALLATION OF EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND PRACTICES PRIOR TO, OR CONCURRENT WITH, LAND-DISTIJRBING ACTIVES. infinity engineering ~50-034 WEST ORIENT POINT SITE NO. L1-1017 9395 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 VEGETATIVE SCHEDULE SPECIES RATE/lO00 S,F. DATE TALL FESCUE GRASS 1.0~ N~RIL 1 - OCTOBER 15 SERICEA LESPEDEZA SEED BEARING HA'f ~ 1~0 OC106ER I - MARCH 15 FERTIEZER MIX PUC^ ONN. /^CRE IP. O.. I/(.o. #/AC,E ,. 1st 60 90 1201-01802 - 120 - 180 2nd 60 120 WHEN HYDRAUUC SEEDING AND FERTliJZ~NG EQUIPMENT IS USED, NO GRADING AND SHAPING OR WITHIN ONE HOUR AFTER MIXTURE IS MADE. STRAW OR HAy MULCH AND ASPHALT EMULSION SEEDING, THE MULCH WILL BE SPREAD UNIFORMLY OVER THE AREA, LEAVING ABOUT 25 GRADE, SHAPE AND SMOOTH WHERE NEEDED TO PROVIDE FOR SAFE EQUIPMENT OPERATION AT SEEDING TIME AND FOR MNNTEN~NCE PURPOSES, THE UME AND FERTILIZER IN DRY FORM WILL BE SPRE~ UNIFORMLY OVER THE ARBA IMMEDIATELY BEFORE SEEDBED PREPARATION. A SEEDBED WILL BE PREPARED BY SCARIFYINO TO A DEPTH OF ! TO 4 INCHES AS DETERMINED BE DONE WITH CULTIPACKER-SEEDER, DRILL, ROTARY SEEDER OR OTHER MECHANICAL OR HAND MULCH WILL BE SPREAD WITH BLOWER-I~PE MULCH EQUIPMENT OR BY H~D AND ANCHORED PACKER DIS/( MAY BE USED TO PRESS THE MULCH INTO 'lHE SOIL ~GRADING, EROSION & DIMENT CONTROL NOTES SECTOR 3 -- C,~LED NOR~ SECTOR 1 - 50' 1PROPOSED FLAGPOLE ANTENNA LAYOUT PROPOSED CiNCULAR [QUIPMENT AREA (2) ANTENNA PER SECTOR SEE SHEET ED4 FOR ADDmONAL INFORMA]~ON INST~ ~ OIHERS) KATHREIN 800 10121 (BY O~HERS) DESIGN SOUTH ELEVATION infinigy e ng i n e e r J n g 1 50-034 WEST ORIENT POINT SITE NO. L1-1017 9395 MAIN ROAD ~ST MARION, NY 11939 XcNEjw mng ! F RRE DE~AEqMD~q' EQUIPMDIT (TO BE SUPPUED AND AREA (2) ANIENNA PER SECTOR RRE DEPN{qMENri' E~U[PMENT [TO BE SUPPUED AND INSTALL~ I~[ GRADE LEVEL = 52' (AMSL) GRADE LEVEL = O' (AGL) -TOWER FOUNDATION DESIGN EAST ELEVATION NOT  o~ ELEVATION VIEWS __ NYCENYI?7 C03 ..... A COMPACT SOIL TO MIN 95% MODIFIED MAX DENSRY PER ASTM D1557 ME'OD D B" THICK CONCRETE EQUIPMENT PAD~ SLOPE FINAL GRADE AWAY PROM PAD-~ B ....... A T~ERY 2 4 VDC 850/190(]ALPHA 550/1900BETA 850/1900GAMMA ~4012" O.C. EA WAY--EXCAVATE AS REQUIRED TO REMOVE CENTER OF SLAB VEGETATION AND TOPSOIL, AND PLACE MIN 4' CRUSHED STONE ELEVATION VIEW 24 VDC NOK~ PEN MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS ARGUS CABINET SET BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS MCPA l UMTS PLAN VIEW EQUIPMENT PAD DETAIL infini j engineering 150-034 WEST ORIENT POINT SITE NO. L1-1017 Xc''w gular ,n R['~SIONS CONCREte. AND REINFORCING STEEL NOTES: 1. ALL CONCRETE WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WiTh THE ACI 301, ACI 318 AND THE SPECIFICATION CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE. 2. ALL CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE S~ENGTH OF 4000 PSI AT 28 DA'~J, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.* , ALL CONCRETE EXPOSED TO FREEZING WEATHER SHALL CONTAIN ENTP~JNED AIR PER ACI 211 AND TABLE 4.2.1 OF ACI 318-95. 3. REINFORCING STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO AS3M A 615, GRADE 60, DEFORMED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. WELDED WIRE FABRIC SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A 185 WELDED STEEL WIRE FABRIC UNIFSS NOTED OTHERWISE. SPUCES SHALL BE CLASS 'B' AND ALL HOOKS SHALL BE ACl STANDARD, UNO. 4. THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM CONCRETE COVER SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR REINFORCING S~EL UNLESS SHOWN 033'[ERWlSE ON DRAWINGS: CONCRETE CAST AGAINST EARTH ........ 5 IN. CONCRETE EXPOSED TO F-ARqH OR WEATHER: ~6 AND L~GER .......................... 2 IN. !~5 AND SMALLER & WWF........1 1/2 IN. CONCRETE NOT EXPOSED TO EARTH OR WEATHER OR NOT CAST AGAINST THE GROUND: SLAB AND WALL ........................ 3/4 IN. BEAMS AND COLUMNS .............. 1 1/2 IN. 5. A 3/4' CHAMFER SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXPOSED EDGES OF CONCRETE, UNO, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACI 301 SECTION 6. INSTALLATION OF CONCRETE EXPANSION/WEDGE ANCHOR, SHALL BE PER MANUFACTURER'S WRITTEN RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE. THE ANCHOR BOLT, DOWEL OR ROD SHALL CONFORM TO MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR EMBEDMENT DEPTH OR AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. NO REBA~ SHALL BE CUT WITItOUT PRIOR ENGINEERING APPROVAL WHEN DRILMNG HOLES IN CONCRETE. SITE WORK GENERAL NOTES: 2. 3. 7. THE SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UTIL.qY LOCATING SERVICES PRIOR TO THE START Of CONSTRUCTION. ALL Sl~E WORK SHALL BE COMPLETED AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS AND PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. IF NECESSARY, RUBBISH, 5q~.lblPS, DEBRIS, STICKS, STONES AND OTHER REFUSE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SB~ AND DISPOSED OF LEGALLY. THE SITE SHALL BE GRADED TO CAUSE SURFACE WATER TO FLOW AWAY FROM THE BTS EQUIPMENT AND TOWER AREAS. NO FILL OR EMBANKMENT MATERIN. SHALL BE PLACED ON FROZEN GROUND. FROZEN MATER~&S, SNOW OR ICe SHALL NOT BE PLACED IN ANY FILL OR EMBANKMENT. THE SUB GRADE SHNJ_ BE COMPACTED AND BROUGHT TO A SMOOTH UNIFORM GRADE PRIOR TO FINISHED SURFACE APPUCATION. THE AREAS OF THE OWNER'S PROPER3Y DISTURBED BY THE WORK AND NOT COVERED BY THE TOWER, EQUIPMENT OR DRIVEWAY, SHALL BE GRADED TO A UNIFORM SLOPE, AND STABILIZED TO PREVENT EROSION. SUBCON~P~OR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO EXISTING SiTE DURING CONSTRUCTION. EROSION CONSOL MEASURES, IF REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUC~ON, SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL. SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SITE SIGHAOE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS AND THOSE LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION. CONSTRUCTION DETAILS I I ~ GPS/BCCH ANTENNA GROUND CLAMP ' ~ ~//// ~GpCsOAX& CABLESBccH) (SEE NOTE 4) USE:  1. COMMSCOPE CONNECTOR (PART NO. SFXANMR) VALMONT MICROFLECT UNIVERSAL PiPE ADAPTERTER 'l~ _~ N, 2. ANCHOR MARINE HEATSHRINK KIT PART NO. B1534~~.~ (PART NO. 327106) ,xl~,NG ICE .BIDGE PON --~ 2" NDMI~_ D~R (2.37S' OR SIMI~ PORT. IF H,W POST ACT. O.D.) X 2'-0' ~. IS REQUIRED, SEE DETAIL 2/C02 SCHEDULE 40 RIGID GALVANIZED FOR POST AND FOUNDATION -- STEEL PIPE NOTES: ~ 1. LOCA~ON OF ANTENNA MUST NAVE CLEAR VIEW OF SOUTHERN SKY AND CANNOT HAVE ANY BLOCKAGES EXCEEDING 25% OF THE CABLE DIAMETER VS. LENGTH SURFACE AREA OF A HEMISPHERE AROUND THE GPS ANTENNA. /~-/14" PLATE CUT TO REQUIRED LENGTH TO FULLY SUPPORT SFX540PE (1/2-INCH) UP TO 70' 2. ALL GPS ANTENNA LOCATIONS MUST BE ABLE TO RECEIVE CLEAR THE J BOX F'XLIO7OPE (7/8-INCH) UP TO 120' .V4" DIA. U-BOLT SIGNALS FROM A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) SATELUTED. VERIFY WITH FXL1480PE (1 1/4-INCH) UP TO 170' HANDHELD GPS BEFORE FINAL LOCAIION OF GPS ANTENNA. CR1873PE (1 5/8-INCH) UP TO 200' (~YP) ~~1 Ho)UAL 150 WATr 120 NOTE: FOR LARDER DIA CABLE, USE 6' 3. THE WEIGHT OF ~}lE ANTENNA MOUNT IS 6.5 LBS. VOLT INCANDESCENT JUMPERS AT 1/2" DIA. 4. IF ICE BRIDGE OR SIMILAR POST IS NOT GROUNDED, GROUND WITH #2 FLOOD UGHTS. AWG TINNED BARE COPPER WIRE EXOTHERMICALLy BONDED TO POST AND CONNECTED TO GROUND RING. LE GANG BOX, DEAD SUPPORTFOR LMU/GPS SENSORS ~ ~...~ END, NEMA 5R J-BOX SECURE EGHT FIXTURE SCALE: NTB TO J-BOX ~" DIA. SURFACE MOUNTED CONDUIT, SECURE TO PIPE , WITH STEEL PIPE STRAPS ]15 AMP, 120V, 5 HOLE BOX, THROUGH FEED. ELECTRIC & TELCO SINGLE PLE TOGGLE 30-5/16' 30-5/16" RACK SUPPORT MAST SWITCH AND NEMA 24-13/32-. ~;5' ~g'H ~~ ..,-.ox ANoP 24-13/~2" 24-15/32" (TYP) · 35.40" 2-19/32" 5-29/52' 5-29/.32' (T ~) ~ .~(3)CONDUIT~12 AWGcoNTiNuEIN ~ ~' (PUNI~I) (PUNm) UMTS CABINET F(4)--5/a" Da i WORK LIGHT DETAIL CABINET ANCHOR LOCATION DIAGRAM ~ n n WEST ORIENT POINT NE ~,~-:~r~o~ ~-'~m~.' ~. ~ L '~ , engineering lar ........ s,.,-,.o.,,.,o,, vi c ngu .--0.-. '~' "~ '~°' ~-~-~ "~'-~ ~ ~'""/~'~ ~ ~ DETAILS 150-034 WIRELESS ~rr ,m~o.s ~ cuK,e ~,.~,~~~'./~oat I sr~ I DRAWI~,.UMaI~ REV 4.35' 26.77" ~ ~ UBTS CABINET I ' L .....J 3-FI MAX FROM LAST SUPPORT ~ SUPPORT FRAME .- - 1/2 JUMPER COAX CONNECTOR WE. ATHER PROOFED MAIN COAX 18" CONTRACTOR TO MATCH EXISTING SURFACE DIS3URBED _ _~___ JUMPER TERMINATION AT NOKIA BTS NOKLA CABINETS (SIDE VIEW) TRANSITION ALL CONDUITS TO BCCH/GPS ANTENNA MOUNTED TO COAX SUPPORT FRAME (2)-1/2" DIA E911 COAX JUMPERS ........ ~4_V_D~_ ........ GAMMA BTS BETA BTS ALPHA BTS e[~ee.~ee~ I' [~eeeeeee [~eeeeeee I®®®®,1®®®1 /, I®o®1®®®, Lee~.e ,_~N. =, Le_peee_~ /~eeeeeee¢ 6x6 NEMA 3R ENCLOSURE GAMMA GROUND I 1"C FOR BETA AND .o GAMMA BTS T1 s ~ BETA GROUND 1"C FOR NOKIA HETAi CIRCUITS 6-#14, 3-#14-GND SUPPORT FRAME AT REAR OF NOKIA POWER CABINET SUPPORT~.~ ,~ FRAME DETAIL ~ TRANSITION LMFC AT 24VDC CABINET BY EXCAVATION UNDISTURBED EAR11-I WARNING TAPE PRINTED W[3~H (TYp FOR 6) -- 2"C FOR POWER TO 24VDC 24-#8 AND 2-#14GND 1"C FOR ALPHA Tls TO E911 EQUIPMENT AND ~/SS ALARM CABLE TO APLHA BTS ALPHA GROUND UNISTRUT ANGLE ~ BRACKET AND FLAT pLATE % ~-3/8",~ BOLTS CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 24897 NYCENY1017 C06 GATE OPENING SUPPORT ARM W/BARBED I-1/2 PAIR INDUSTRIAL MALLEABLE IRON OFFSET PIN HINGE (PAGE-W~LSON M-6 OR CHAIN UNK- COPPER BRAID (TYP.) SEE GROUNDING DETNLS GATE DETAIL FINISH GATE DETENT DETAIL 150--054 WEST ORIENT POINT SITE NO. L1-1017 9395 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 IRON FORK TYPE LATCH WITH PROVISION FOR PADLOCK (PAGE-WILSON 3~PE 75 CATE LATCH ASSEMBLY OR EQUAL) CROWN 48' OR 6' BELOW FREEZE OR CORNER (WP.) m'-O' MAR. SPACING -- 2" MESH, 9 GAUGE GALV. WIRE LINE POST 1 1/*'e BRACE RNL t TRUSS ROD WITH BUCKLE. 1/2" O.D. POST GRADE ~ I'/it,o, roM ~S~ON W~RE I'.1 I' I. r-2' ~ .'"'.~2', FOR I.;I Id '1111U,E POST '~"~ SPACING (TYP.) L COMPOUND CROWN OYP.) ~C~H.A~IN LINK FENCE DETAIL (ELEVATION) FENCE NOTES: 1. FENCING MATERIALS SHALL BE OF GALVANIZED STEEL 2. POST, BRACES AND CATE FRAMES SHALL BE SCHEDULE 40 (STANDARD WE]Gl'IT) PIPE. SIZES SPECIFIED ARE ~ 3. DOUBLE SWING CATE SHALL BE PROV1DED WI~H TUBULAR PLUNGER BAR, 1 LOCK KEEPER, 1 LOCK KEEPER GUIDE, 2 LATCH FORKS, 2 PORK CATCHES, 1 CATCH FOR PLUNGER BAR, AND 2 GATE STOPS LOCATED AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER. 4. POSTS, CAPS AND OTHER NECESSARY FENCE FIT~NGS SHALL BE AS MANUFACTURED BY THE FENCE MANUFAC'~IRER OR EQUAL. HINGES SHALL BE OF GALVANIZED STSEL. 5. POSTS SHALL BE SPACED EQUIDISTANT BUT NOT MORE THAN 10' O.C. 6. BOTTOM OF FENCE SHNJ_ BE NO MORE THAN 3" ABOVE GRADE AT ANY SECTION. GATE/STOPPER DETAIL NE , -=s-~ gular ° cln . WIRELESS CONSTRUCTION DETAILS ~.~c~ ~ I sn~ ~ I DR~N~ NUUa~ 24897 INYCENY1(~171 CO? m m .~WIRE FENCE- WHERE REQUIRED COMMERCIAL ]¥PE C SILT F~RIC ON ~. bIO ~CH ~ 4' ~SHm ~NE 2. ~Y IN F~RIC TO ~ ~ StZE ~. 57 ~ ~.~N~ ~.,c SILT FENCE D~AIL ~ ~ ~ ~ 3. ~ mO S[C~ONS OF RL~R CLO~ RL~ CLO~: nL~R X, MI~ lO0X' SECTION THROUGH COMPOUND SET TREE PLUMB PRIOR TO STAKING RUBBER HOSE (2 PLY GRFrN) -- GUY WIRE (DOUBLE STRAND. 5' APPROVED t4 ~ mAKE 36' LENGTH. DRNE BELOW SCARIFf BASE OF PLANT PIT SOIL- 24" DIAME~ LARGER THAN ROOT BALL OR CONTNNER SEC~BN TREE STAKING AND GUYING NOT TO SCALE PROPOSED 5' LkNDSCAPE BUFFER F. APPROVED MULCH (3' SEIll. ED DEPTH) Om) GE~IE~AL PLAN~ING NOTES 1. STANDARDS S~ FORTH IN 'AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK', LATEST EDITION. REPRESENT OUIDEUNE SPECIFICATIONS ONLY AND SHALL CONSTIA~ MINIMUM QUAU~ REQUIREMENTS FOR PI. ANT MATERIAL 2. ALL PLANTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER'S REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE, DURING. AND AFTER iNSTALLATION. 3. PRIOR TO CONS~UCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND U~I. IT]ES AND SHALL AVOID DAMAGE TO ALL UTILIZES DURING COURSE OF THE WORK. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR RE~NR]NO ALL DAMAGE TO UTILITIES, STRUCTIJRES, SITE APPURTENANCES, ETC. WHICH OCCURS AS A RESULT OF THE LANDSCAPE CONS~UC~ON. 4. ALL PLANTS MUST BE HEALTHY. VIGOROUS MATERIA~ FREE OF PESTS AND DISEASE. 5. ALL PLANTS MUST BE CONTNNER-GROWN OR BALLED AND BURLAPPED AS SPECIFIED. 6. ALL TREES MUST BE STRAIGHT TRUNKED, FOLL HEADED AND MEET ALL REDU~REMENTS SPECiRED. 7. ALL TREES MUST BE'GUYED OR STANED AS SHOWN. B. ALL PLANTS AND PLANING AREAS MUST BE COMPLETELY MULCHED AS SPECIFIED. 9. THE ENGINEER'S REPRESENTATIVE W~LL APPROVE THE STAKED LOCATION OF ALL PLANT MA'~IAL PRIOR TO iNSTALLATION. 10. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERtFflNO ALL QUAKES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS BEFORE PRICING THE WORK. 11. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FULLY MNNTNNINO ALL pLANiNG (INCLUDING. BUT NOT UMffED TO: WATERING. SPBAY1NG. MULCHING, FER~UZATION, ETC,) OF pLAhmNG AREAS UNq]L THE WORK IS ACCEPTED IN TOTAL BY THE ENGINEER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 12. AFTER BEING DUG AT THE NURSERY SOURCE, ALL TREES IN LEAF SHALL BE ACCEMATED FOR ~I/O (2) WEEKS UNOER A Mist S'~M PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 15. ANY PLANT MATER[AL THAT DIES. ~JRNS BROWN OR DEFOLIATES(FPRIOR TO TOTAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK) SHALL BE PROMPTLY RFAIOVED FROM THE SITE AND REPLACED WiTH MATERIAL OF THE SAME SPECIES, OUANTRY. SIZE AND MEETING ALL SPECIRCATIONS. 14-. THE CONTBACTOR SHALL COMPLE-FELY GUARANTEE ALL pLANT MATERIAL FOR A PERIO0 OF ONE (1) YEAR BEGINNING AT THE BATE OF TOTAL ACCEPTANCE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROMPTLY MAKE ALL REPLACEMENTS BEFORE OR AT THE END OF THE OUAP, ANTEE PERIOD. infini y engineering 150-034 WEST ORIENT POINT SITE NO. U-1017 TOTAL AREA OF LANDSCAPED SITE: ::E675 SF LANSCAPING PLAN SCALF~ PROPOS~) 5' [ANDSCAPE BUFFER CALL~ NOEq11 PLANT MATERIALS LIST Q UANllIY COMMON te,~E SIZE REMARKS 27 ARBORVITAE 3' MIN, HEIGHT O EQUALLY SPACED ALL PLAN~N¢ AREAS WILL BE T~LLED AND PREP4RED FOR PLANING BY THE ADUmON OF APPROPRLAIE SOIL A~IENmES ANO TOPPED wm~ MIN. 3" APPROVED MULCH, v cmngular WIRELESS ~)) LANDSCAPE PI_AN CODED WING NOTES GROUNDING NOTES ALPH~ 850/1900 BOND ALL METALLIC OBJECTS TO GROUND PROVlDE 2 COPPER GROUND RING MIN 1'-§' FROM OU~IDE EDGE OF TOWER FO~t~NDAnON AND SL~) BUPJtD ~T MINIMUM 30' BELOW GRADE. CONNECT FENCE TO GROUND RING. 4 PL4C~. IN TOWER RING 3¥P. FOR 3 . c~CONNECT ToTOWERTowERBASEBAsETO PLATEGROUNDoRRODAs PER MANUFACTUreR'S SPECI~ICA~ON. w~ t2 AWe. CONNECT S[RV1CE DISCONNECDNG MEANS TO ISOLATED GROUND ROD 5. INSTNLED 2' AFB. I- BOND TOWER GROUND RING TO MAiN GROUND BAR WiTH (2) ~2 AWG GROUND WIRE. A OF MASTER AND BOTTOM /.~ GROUND BARS. BOND ALL COAX CABLES WITH COAX GROUND K~TS ALL ELECTRICAL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL CODES THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROPERLY SEQUENCING GROUNDING AND UNDERGROUND CONDUIT iNSTALLATION SO AS TO PREVENT ANy LOSS OF CONTINUI~ IN THE GROUNDING SYSTEM OR DAMAGE TO THE CONDUIT. ALL GROUND CONNECTIONS BELOW GRADE SHALL BE EXOTHERMIC (CADWELD). ALL GROUND CONNECTIONS ABOVE GRADE SHALL BE FORMED USING 2-HOLE LUGS AND 'i~/0 (2) HIGH PRESS CRIMPS. LEGEND ALL EXOTHERMIC MECHANICAL CONNECTIONS TO THE GROUND RODS COPPER GROUND BAR, 1/4'X 4'X 20', NEWTON INSTRUMENT CO, CAT. NO. B--6142 OR EQUAL HOLE CENTERS TO MATCH NEMA DOUBLE LUG CONFIGURATION. (ACTUAL GROUND BAR SIZE WILL VARY BASED ON NUMBER OF GROUND CONNECTIONS) 2- INSULATORS, NEWTON INSTRUMENT CAT. NO. 5061-4 OR EQUAL 3- 5/8' LOCKWASHERB, NEWTON INSTRUMENT CO. CAT. NO. 5015--8 OR EQUAL 4- WALL MOUNTING BRACKET, NEUtrON INSTRUMENT CO. CAT NO. A-6056 OR EQUAL 5- 5/8-11 X 1" HHCS BOLTS, NEWTON INSTRUMENT CO. CAT NO. 5012-1 OR EQUAL 6- INSULATORS SHALL BE ELJMINATED WHEN BONDING DIRECTLY TO TOWER/MONOPOLE STRUCTURE. CONNECTION TO TOWER/MONOPOLE STRUCTIJRE SHALL BE PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS. ~ GROUND BAR <~> 2 AWG GROUND WIRE SC~LF~ NTS MCPA x- UMTS CABINET 850/1900 BTS SHALL START AT THE TOP & HAVE A VERTICAL SEPARATION Of 6" FOR EVERY ADDITIONAL CONNECTION. ALL EXTERIOR GROUND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE COATED WITH A CORROSION RESISTANT MATERIAL. 8. 9. 10. 11. ALL EXTERIOR GROUND CONDUCTORS SHALL BE #2 SOLID AWG TIN PLATED COPPER UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. IF APPUCABLE: GROUND RODS SHALL BE STAINLESS STEEL OR COPPER CLAD STEEL, 5/8"¢ lO-FT. LONG, AND SHALL BE DRIVEN VERTICALLY WITH THEIR TOPS 18" BELOW FINAL GRADE. CONNEC~ONS TO THE OROUND BARS SHALL NOT BE DOUBLED UP OR STACKED. BACK TO BACK CONNECTIONS ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE OROUND BAR ARE PERMI'FI~ED. USE OF 90' BENDS IN THE PROTECTION GROUNDING CONDUCTORS SHALL BE AVOIDED WHEN 45' BENDS CAN BE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED. MAXIMUM RESISTANCE OF THE COMPLETED GROUND SYSTEM SHALL NOT EXCEED 10 OHMS. 12. NO UPHILL GROUND CONNECTIONS ALLOWED - PROPOSED FENCE COIL IO-FT ~2 AWG GROUND WIRE FOR NOKiA BTS CABINETS -- 2 AWG GROUND WIRE ~OR 24VOC CABINET &: BATTERY CABINET EXTERIOR GROUNDING PLAN CALLED NORTH infini!j engineering 1,50-034 WEST ORIENT POINT SITE NO. L1-1017 ~-CROUND ROD COPPERWELO COPPER-CLAD STEEL GROUND ROD v c ngular WIRELESS ABBREVIATIONS AWG AMERICAN WIRE GAUGE BCW BARE COPPER WIRE DWG DRAWING EMT ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING GEN GENERATOR INTERMEDIATE METALLIC CONDUIT [MC MOB MASTER GROUND BAR PCS PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEM PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE CONDUIT PVC RIGID GALVANIZED STEEL RWY RACEWAY TYp ~PICAL ELECTRICAL SYMBOLS GROUND ROD WITH ACCESS CHEMICAL GROUND ROD GROUND ROD DISCONNECT SWITCH METER CIRCUIT BREAKER CADWELD ~PE CONNECTION COMPRESSION TYPE CONNECTION GROUNDING WIRE .~.-~----REPRESENTS DETAIL NUMBER ",~/ REF. DRAWING NUMBER GROUNDING PLAN ~ / TELCO EXISTING PROPERTY LINE (TYP) \ \ \ \ / / UTILITY ROUTING PLAN SCALFJ (2) 6"X6" NEMA 3R ENCLOSURE ROUTE (2) 3/4' LMFC FROM ENCLOSURE TO NOKIA BTS (1) 1' PVC FOR BETA/GAMMA BTS Tls (4) BELDEN #7919A CAT5 CABLES 24 (1) 1' PVC CONDUIT FOR ALPHA/BETA/BA~MA BTS HE-FA CIRCUITS (6) t~14. (5) ~12 GND.- CINGULAR ELEC, METER AND SERVICE ENTRANCE PANEL. CINGULAR NEMA 3R ELCO BOX 30"x30"x12" WITH 5/8' BACKBOARD (1) 1' PVC CONDUIT fa AND (2) #12 eND FOR POWER TO 24VDC CABINE"I ELECTRICAL CONDUIT ~I~iLARGED LITY ROUTING PLAN BETA 850/1900 850/1900 ELECTRICAL NOTES 1. ALL ELECTRICAL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE AND ALL OTHER APPUCABLE LOCAL CODES. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROPERLY SEQUENCING GROUNDING AND UNDERGROUND CONDUIT INSTALLATION AS TO PREVENT ANY LOBS OF CONT~NU~ IN THE GROUNDING ~YSTEM OR DAMAGE TO THE CONDUIT. ALL E~CTRICAL F~MS SHALL BE U.L APPROVED OR USTED CABINET 6. 85o/19oo 1" PVC CONDUIT FOR ALPHA BTS 7. Tls (2) BELDEN ~7919 CAT5 CABLES ROUTED TO E911 EQUIPMEhT INSIDE 24VDC POWER PLANT AND (1) ALARM CABLE BELDEN ~9566 8. CONDUIT CONDUCTORS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN SCHEDULE 40 PVC CONDUITS (UNDERGROUND) AND IMC CONDUITS ABOVEOROUND. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL PERMITS, PAY ALL PERMIT FEES, AND SCHEDULE ALL REDUIRED INSPEC~ONS. cOErRACTOR SHALL OBTNN LOCAL POWER AND TELCO COMPANY APPROVAL AND COORDINATE WITH U~Lr~Y COMPANIES SERVICE ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL LABOR AND MATERIAL DESCRIBED ON MIS DRAWING, AND ALL ITEMS INCIDENTAL TO COMPLETING AND PRESEN1]NG THIS PROJECT AS FULLy OPERA~IONA~ PROVIDE 2" SCHEDULE 40 PVC UNDERGROUND CONDUIT WITH PULL WIRE BEqWEEN ELECmlCAL UTILI3Y DEMARCATION POINT AND KWH METER BASE. CONDUIT ROLmNGS ARE SCHEMATIC, CON~CTOR SHALL INSTALL CONDUITS SO THAT ACCESS TO EQUIPMENT IS NOT BLOCKED. SERVICE TO EQUIPMENT CABINETS SHALL BE 120/240 vac. 200 AMP, 1-PHASE. 11. 12. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE REQUIRED NUMBER AND LOCA~ON OF PULLBOXES PER UTILITY STANDARDS. USE ADAPTER FROM PVC CONDUIT TO RIGID STEEL 9~ BEND AND USE REDUCER TO ENTER METER BOX wr~l 2' DIA. CONDUIT, i n fi n i o/V engineering 150-034 WEST ORIENT POINT SITE NO. L1-1017 93~ MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 POWER SERVICE POWER 120/208v. 1-PH, 3W (EXISllNG UTiUTY POLE) E (~)-2'c-3f3/o TELCO INCOMING T1 FROM \ / &UIHA B'r~ ELEC/TELCO/ALARM ONE LINE DIAGRAM i..r-i fni ,n i g y g' e ring 150-.0,.34 WEST ORIENT POINT S[TE NO. U-1017 9395 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 AC SERVICE ENTRANCE PANEl_ NOTES: 1) STANDARD 42-POSITION INTERSECT PANEL SHALL ALWAYS BE USED WHERE POSSIBLE PART #MM1220042-3R. 2) ORDER NY/NJ INTERSECT BREAKER KIT PART ~BRKER KIT TS 3) TO ORDER A GENERATOR RECEPTACLE ON THE LEFT BIDE OF THE PANEL. ORDER PART i~GRINWIRRELAY-L AND APPLETON RECEPTACLE PART ~AR20034-RS. FOR A GENERATOR RECEPTACLE ON THE RIGHT ORDER PART ~GRINWlRRELAY-R AND APPLETON RECEPTACLE PART ~AR20034-RS. 5/8' ENCLO~RE VI~ 3/4'C W/KENTROX DSU ~72765, PANEL 'A' SCHEDULE PANEL 'A' SCHEDULE ~ NOTES: 1) 24VDC CABINET rNSTALLER SHALL MAKE ALL FINAL TERMINATIONS AT 24VDC CABINET 9) ALL CABLE ENDS AT~~THE~~,~(~ IDENTIFIED AND TAPED p /T~LCO ONE-LINE AND NEL SCHEDULE SITE ~ I DRA'/,3N¢ NUMB~ I R~ INYCENY~ O~ 71 E, I 2 OSM1900 Txl/RI DSMBSO TxIRxl 80O 10121 . ® 7/16' DEN ~fPE FEMALE CONNECTOR TYP. (ANTENNA) (TOP OF TOWER) · ® 8501900&50 ~Sa~ R~22 45--DEO 0 DE® 0 DE® 1900 45-DE® 2 PEG 0 DEG LMU N/A NATHREIN (2)-1/2" N/A 15--ET (:PS N/A N/A N/A BAR (BOTTOM OF TOWER) BAR (NEAR EQUIPMENT) 1900MHz NOKIA GEM RX2/TX2 850MHz NOKIA OSM RX2/TX2 1900 UMTS RX1/T)<I ANTENNA SCHEMATIC RX1/TX1 RX2/TX2 FUTURE 850 UMTS iB.n fi n i gY;.j Ineering 150-034 UMTS NOOE B WEST ORIENT POINT SITE NO. L1-1017 9395 MAIN ROAD BAST MARION, NY 11939 COLOR CODE ALPHA TX1/RX1 ALPHA TX2/RX2 BETA TX1/RX1 BETA TX2/RX2 GAMkLA TX1/RX1 GAMMA TX2/RX2 GPS BCCH ID TAG GEM GEM DSM DSM OSM ID TAG ALPHA TX1/RX1 ALPHA TX2/RX2 BETA TXl/RX1 BETA TX2/RX2 GAMMA TX1/RX1 GAMI~A TX2/RX2 COLOR CODE 2 GREEN 4 GREEN 2 BLUE ~ BLUE ~ ,~4 WHITE Xc n ular WIRELESS NOTES: 1. CONT.~,CT RF ~(;INE:B~I~ FOR L~.ST P~ ~ SCHEDULE PRIOR TO ORDERING ANI~NA COAX CABLES ...... OPTIONAL JJ MALE CONNECTOR D F~M/,LE CONNECTOR [ + (~ ~) ~E~ GR~JNDINO NO~ES~ ......................... 222225222222222222-~ -_Z--ZZ-- 2ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ m m m MUL~-~UP~S e ~ J mmmmm ( / ~ ~. J DUAL BAND COMBINER ~ / (~noN~ w/s~) (OP~ONAL W/850) ~ ~S ms mc I m / ~ ~*v~ ~ II~ (+> II c~ ~5 ~ ~s Po~. c~o ,~ ~Bz~ I m ~o5~ (+) , TX I RXl ~2~ I k~--/- I~ NOKIA ULT~SITE 850 GSM~ ~PICAL PER SECTOR NOKIA ULTRASITE 1900 GSM TYPICAL PER SECTOR i n fi.nr,j gY engine ' 150-034 WEST ORIENT POINT SITE NO. L1-1017 ~95 ~N ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 BiLL OF MATERIALS COLOR COOING NO~ES ,~2 AWG GROUND WIRE WHEN IT IS NOT STRAp ~t1~1~ E911 SCHEMATIC & ~// BILL OF MATERIALS ',,,%', l*o';:,c4 m%N""" _ I II WHT/BLU DLU/WHT WMT/ORG ORG/WHT WHT/GRN DRNt/WHT WHT~BRN BRN/WHT WHT/SLT SLT~ RED/BLU BLU/RED RED/ORG ORG/RED RED//GRN DRN/RED RED/BRN BRN/RED F' R~D/S~T SLT/RED ~ BLK/BLU r- BLU/BU( BIJ(~/ORG I-- ORGi/BU( E BLK/GRN C (GRN/BU~ I-- BU~/~RN BRN/BLK r- BLK/SLT I-- SLT/BLX YEL/BLU BLU/'~_ r' YEL/ORG I-- ORD,'f EL E ~L/GRN C~ (GRN~ RED RED NOTES: 0 0 0 566M1-50 O O Al. ARM CABLE FOR NOKIA SITES ARGUS 2~- VDC 66 BLOCK ALARM ASSIGNM[NT~ 66 BLOCK ALARM ASSlGNMENTS~ ALARM CABLE infinity engineerlng 150-034 WEST ORIENT POINT SITE NO. L1-1017 93~ MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 mngular WIRELESS o ISC~ PORT "PROTECTED" Ra4S (l~,) PLAS~C NOTCH LABEL I T1-SURGE SUPPRESSOR ATLANTIC SCIENTIFIC NO. 90700 ATLANTIC SCIENTIFIC 21607 (SEE NOTE 1) TONGUE COMPRESSION TERMINAL (SEE NOTE 2) PORT MARKED -- 'UNPROTECTED' Ra~ (TYP) I TO TELCO ~ ~6 AWG STRANDED NIU CU, ~HHN GREEN' INSULATED (:;ROUND WIRE BONDED TO MGB OR GROUNDED ENCLOSURE NOTES: 1. MOUNT SURGE ARRESTOR ON EXJST1NG DiN RAIL IF AV~JLABLE, OTHERWISE PRO'VID[ ATLANTIC SCIENTIFIC MOOEL NO. 21005, 5--INCH 5. 1VSS MAY BE ORIENTED TO SUFF SITE REQUIREMENTS. T1 SURGE SUPPRESSOR MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS ~0;'~.~"~ ~R7 INYOENY, O.,71 ALARMS PRE-WIRED BY PURCELL m ALARMS ROOTED TO CINDULAR 66-BLOCK N-ARM BLOCK INSIDE THE CINGULAR ELCO ENCLOSURE USING BELDEN ~9566 6-PR ~24UTP FROM MCPA CHASSIS SIGNAL WIRE COLOR ORG/BLK aL~/WHT RED/WHT BLUE/WHT OO I OO .,00 OO MCPA IhrTRUS~ON ~ ~ RTN ~ i i~ I ~ OR~ MCPA INTRUSION (MINOR) ENV ~ ~ ~ R~ ~ ~--~ BLU~ MCPA HIGH ~MP/F~ FA~L _. ~ ~JRB3 R~ ~ -- ~ CR~B3 ALM - / I , '1 A/.aJRM MCPA FAN FNL 1900 1--MCPA FNL 1900 2-MCPAs FNL 350 1-MCPA FNL 250 2-MCPAsFNL RF AMP FAULT_MCPA 1900 (CRIT) RF AMP FAULT_MCPA 850 (CELT) PERMANENT JUMPERS (TIES ALARMS IN SERIES) -- MCPA MAIN ALARM BLOCK 66-BLOCK.~ ALARM IN TELCO ENCLOSURF? NOKIA P[N 2 20 3 4 ? ~ g 25 x~ NOT~S: WHT/BLU BLU/WHT WHT/OaD ORG/gf, tHT WHT/GRN GRN/WNT WHT/BRN BRN/WHT WHT/SLT SLT/WHT BLU/R[D ORG/REO RED/GRN GRN~RED BRN~RED RED/SLT BLK/BLU BL~ORG ORG/BLK BLK/GRN F' 3 =2~ 19 r- -I =~= ~ 24 F o o o engineering WEST ORIENT POINT · · · mw I -9,--~ ,9 ~.~ ~ SITE NO. L1-1017 o -Ol-aS 150--034 ~ I WIRFI ~S'S ~o ~=~E RF AMP FAULT_MCPA 850 (~ f13, ~ ID t32) RF AMP FAULT_MCPA 1900 N/A -- N/A ) ALARM DETAILS J" 'J / RO. Box 1620, New Roch~e, NY 10802-1620 ~?0 ,~" ~ C O ",,~__V~¥ UPS Augus~ 8, 2007 R P 0 R A T I 0 Chairman Dinizio and Members of Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Town Annex Building (North Fork Bank) 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 N RE: Application of New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC (Site NYCENNY1017) at East Marion Fire District Dear Chairman DiNizio and Board Members: I am the principal of Scinetics Corp. This shall serve as a supplement to the report this firm submitted to you with respect to the captioned Application. In 1996 the FCC adopted guidelines and procedures for evaluating the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. It promulgated OET Bulletin 65, presently OET Bulletin 65 (Edition J7-01) [the "Bulletin", hereafter], to provide assistance in determining whether proposed wireless telecommunications facilities comply with limits for exposure to radio frequency emissions. Pursuant to the Bulletin, if a facility would likely result in a significant environmental effect, the applicant for such facility must submit to the FCC an environmental assessment. It is the responsibility of the applicant to make an initial determination as to whether it is necessary to submit an environmental assessment. In adopting its new exposure guidelines, the FCC adopted rules indicating which transmitting facilities will be categorically excluded from performing routine initial evaluations. The exclusion criteria are based on factors such as type of service, antenna height and operating power. Facilities such as the facility that is the subject of this application are excluded from routine evaluation for RF exposure. The Bulletin states in that regard: "Although we believe there is no need to require routine evaluation of towers, where antennas are mounted high above the ground, out of abundance of caution, the FCC requires tha: tower mounted installations be evaluated if antennas are mounted lower than 10 meters above ground and if the power of all channels being used is over 1,000 watts effective radiated power..." OET Bulletin-65 (Edition 97-01) page 13-14. The Bulletin notes that for antennas mounted higher than 10 meters, data for cellular facilities have indicated that ground level power densities are typically hundreds to thousands of times below the FCC limits. Therefore, pursuant the foregoing, no environmental assessment is required for a site such as this site, that is the subject of this application. Despite the exclusion contained in the Bulletin, the applicant nevertheless requested that I perform a study of the proposed site and provide to you a detailed report summarizing my findings. I conducted my study pursuant to the guidelines set forth in Section 2 of OET Bulletin 65 (Edition 97-01) for predicting RF fields, and my findings were submitted in the report submitted to you at the time the Application was filed. In doing so, Scinetics and the applicant have gone beyond what is required in an effort to provide you and the community with information regarding the emissions that would be expected at this site. It should be noted that Scinetics has provided evaluations to the wireless industry for approximately twenty years. Occasionally, but quite infrequently, we encounter sites where the proposed location of antennas on a rooftop would possibly result in emissions above the FCC standard for persons on the roof in close proximity to the antennas. In those cases, Scinetics recommends site design modifications to the applicant, so that the proposed facility can be brought into compliance. Scinetics takes seriously its responsibility in performing such evaluations. Scinetics' report submitted with the application is a Statement of Compliance with applicable FCC EMF Emissions General Public Standards and satisfies the FCC Compliance Test. Scinetics is not contractually prohibited from providing services to other licensed wireless carriers and is not prohibited from assisting municipalities in evaluating sites and in designing sites to overcome obstacles as related to FCC emission compliance standards. Scinetics Corp, adheres to strict ethical standards in carrying out its professional duties, responsible only to the Health and Safety of the General Public in continually assuring strict adherence to the OET Bulletin-65 (Edition 97-01) in the process of completing Health and Safety EMF Analyses and Reports for the wireless communications industry. For your records, I enclose a complete copy of OET Bulletin 65 and a copy of Local Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance. Sincerely Lou Cornacchia, B.E.E., President 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 Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields OET BULLETIN 65 Edition 97-01 August 1997 ~4 UTHORS Robert F. Cleveland, Jr. David M. Sylvar Jerry L. UIcek Standards Development Branch Allocations and Standards Division Office of Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 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. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 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. Basseu, 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., GIobalstar Electromagnetic Energy Association Professor Om P. Gandhi, University of Utah Robert Gonsett, Communications General Corp. Hammett & Edison, lnc. Norbert Hankin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency James B. Hatfield, Hatfield & Dawson Robert Johnson Dr. John A. Leouowich 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 Chart, Errol Chang, William Cross, Richard Engelman, Bruce Franca and Jay Jackson TABLE OF CONTENTS 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 RE FIELDS ......................................... 44 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 MPE Limits .................................................... 55 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 iii 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: 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 (V/m). 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". 2 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 ora 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, (D. 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 (Mm). 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. Occupational/controlled exposure. For FCC purposes, applies to human exposure to RF fields when persons arc 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/em2) or microwatts per square centimeter (llW/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 E~ 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 thc same electric (E) or magnetic (It) 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". 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 (~.). The wavelength (~.) of an electromagnetic wave is related to the frequency 60 and velocity (v) by the expression v =f~.. In free space the velocity of an electromagnetic wave is equal to the speed of light, i.e., approximately 3 x 10a rn/s. 5 Section 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION FCC Implementation of NEPA The National Enviromuental 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) 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. I~f FCC approval to cons?~_cct or operate a facility would likely result in a significant environmental effect included in this list, the applicant for such a fac~hty must submit an Environmental Assessment or EA of the environmental effect ]~ormatio~n specified in the FCC Rules. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ~ial 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 staffdetermination that the action in question will have a significant environmental effect. If an ElS 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 ElS 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 them 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 statement or an EA. This may involve informal National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. Section 4321, et seq. 2 See 47 CFR§ 1.1301, et seq. 6 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 emissionsfi 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,s 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 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 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). 4 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, adopted August 25, 1997. 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 Colnmission 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). ~' See Reference 20, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radioftequency 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. replace the 1982 ANSI guidelines.7 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/IEEE 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 (II), and the direction of propagation ? 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). can be considered to be all mutually orthogonal ("plane-wave" conditions), these quantities are related by the following equation.9 -- = 37.7H2 (l) 3770 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 ofE2 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. Generalpopulation/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/cm2. The impedance of free space, 377 ohms, is used in deriving the equation. 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?° 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. A fundamental aspect of the exposure guidelines is that they apply to power densities or the squares of the electric and magnetic field strengths that are spatially averaged over the body 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 Appendix A are based on this concept. This means that local values of exposures that exceed the stated MPEs may not be related to non-compliance if the spatial average of RF fields over the body does not exceed the MPEs. Further discussion of spatial averaging as it relates to field measurements can be found in Section 3 of this bulletin and in the ANSI/IEEE and NCRP reference documents noted there. Another feature of the exposure guidelines is that exposures, in terms of power density, E2 or H2, may be averaged over certain periods of time with the average not to exceed the limit for continuous exposure. ~ As shown in Table 1 of Appendix A, the averaging time for occupational/controlled exposures is 6 minutes, while the averaging time for general population/uncontrolled exposures is 30 minutes. It is important to note that for general 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 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 t~ee times the limit for two minutes as long as no exposure occurs during the preceding or subsequent four minutes, and so forth. ~o 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 forpeak power density, guidance on these types of exposures can be found in Section 4.4 of the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard. 10 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. ~ ~exp~exp = ~limi~tavg (2) where: S.~" = power density level of exposure (mW/cm2) Sli.,~, = appropriate power density MPE limit (mW/cra2) t..~. = allowable time of exposure for t. vg = 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 offences, 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. 11 Applicability of New Guidelines The FCC's environmental roles 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?: In that regard, all transmitting facilities and devices regulated by this Conunission 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 evaluation across the various FCC-regulated services. ~2 See47CFR§§ 1.1307(c) and (d). 12 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 RI? 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 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 I3 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? 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. 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 Cormmunication 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 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, Nil and millimeter wave devices are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure ,3 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. ~4 For example, under Part 90, paging operations in the 929-930 MHz band may operate with power levels as high as 3500 W ERP. 14 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 recent Report and Order, certain amateur radio installations were made subject to routine evaluation for compliance with the FCC's RF exposure guidelines?5 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 roles 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).~6 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 I of this bulletin). The Commission's Report and Order instituted a requirement that operator license 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 See para. 160 of Report and Order, ET Dkt 93-62. See also, 47 CFR § 97.13, as amended. ~" 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). 15 TABLE 1. Power thresholds for routine evaluation of amateur radio stations. Wavelength Band Transmitter Power (watts) MF 160 m 500 HF 80 m 500 75 m 500 40 m 500 30 m 425 20 m 225 17 m 125 15 m 100 12 m 75 10 m 50 VHF (all bands) 50 UHF 70 cm 70 33 cm 150 23 cm 200 13 cm 250 SHF (all bands) 250 EHF (all bands) 250 16 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 roles. 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's Report 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 17 contains an excellent section on analyzing amateur radio facilities for compliance with RF guidelines (Reference [4] ). Also, the 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)418-2464orto: 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 helpfuI 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 ~7 Supp~ement A t~ ~ET Bu~~etin 65~ Versi~n 97~~ ~~ Additi~na~ ~nf~rmati~n f~r Radi~ and Televisi~n 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. 18 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 ora 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. $ =__PG ( 4KR~ 3) 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: EIRP S 4 KR 2 (4) where: EIRP = equivalent (or effective) isotropically radiated power 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, 19 when power gain is expressed in logarithmic terms, i.e., dB, a conversion is required using the relation: dB G = 10 lo 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, ifERP 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: EIRP 1.64 ERP 0.41 ERP s; -- 4JIR2 4~R2 ~R2 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: ( 2 ) 2 PG PG EIRP $ = (6) 4~R2 ~IR2 KR2 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 20 increase in power density of 2.56 (1.6 X 1.6). Equation (4) can then be modified to: 2.56 EIRP 0.64 EIRP $ (7) 4~R2 ~R2 If ERP is used in Equation (7), the relation becomes: 0.64 EIRP (0.64) (1.64) ERP 1.05 ER$ - (8) ~R2 7~R2 ~R2 It is sometimes convenient to use units of microwatts per centimeter squared ([tW/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: 33 .4 ERP (9) where: S = power density in [IW/cm2 ERP = power in watts R = distance in meters 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 21 calculated conservative "worst case" power density is: 33.4 (10,000 watts) (52 m)2 = about 124 DW/cm2 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 [tW/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 22 accurate representation of the power density at the ground-level point of interest, as follows. 33.4 F2 ERP 33.4 (0.5)2 (10,000 watts) R2 (52 /12)2 about 31 ¢W/cm2 where: F = the relative field factor (relative numeric gain) In general, Equation (9) can be modified to: 33.4 (F2) ERP S - (10) where: S = power density in [tW/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 I 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 offofa 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 roofi ~8 To convert to EIRP use the relation: EIRP = ERP X 1.64. 23 Main-Beam Exposure (No Reflection) 100000 10000 ~ 1000 ~ 100 1 0.1 0.01 1 10 100 1000 Distance From Antenna (meters) 10000 FIGURE 1. Power Density vs. Distance (assumes no surface reflection). Main-Beam Exposure (With Reflection) 100000 10000 1000 100 1 0.1 0.01 I 10 100 1000 Distance From Antenna (meters) 10000 FIGURE 2. Power Density vs. Distance (assumes surface reflection). 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. Hyperbolic Sub-Reflector 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 densities existing at locations where people may be typically exposed are substantially less 26 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 am 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: 4P A (11) where: S~u~acc = 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 ~. in same units): D2 4~. (12) where: R~f = extent of near-field D = maximum dimension of antenna (diameter if circular) ~. = 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 27 be expressed by the following equation: 161]P Snf : (13) where: S~f = maximum near-field power density ~1 = aperture efficiency, typically 0.5-0.75 P = power fed to the antenna D = antenna diameter 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: (14) where: B - aperture efficiency for circular apertures G - power gain in the direction of interest relative to an isotropic radiator 3. - 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: G = 4~]A ~.2 (15) where: B = aperture efficiency G - power gain in the direction of interest relative to an isotropic radiator 3. - wavelength A physical area of the antenna 28 Transition Region. Power density in the transition region decreases inversely with distance 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: 0.6 D2 Rff = )~ (16) where: Rrf = distance to beginning of far-field D = antenna diameter 3~ = wavelength The transition region will then be the region extending from R~f, calculated from Equation (12), to l~f. If the location of interest falls within this transition region, the on-axis Snf Rnf S~ = R (17) power density can be determined from the following equation: where: S~ power densiiy in the transition region S.f - maximum power density for near-field calculated above R.f = 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: PG S££ -- 4KR2 (18) where: Sfr = 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 29 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] ). 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 station in the fixed-satellite service, the Commission's Rules specify maximum allowable gain for antenna sidelobes not within the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit, such as at ground level? In such cases, the rules require that the gain of the antenna shall lie below the envelope defined by: 32-{251og~0(0)} dBi for 1°<0<48° and: - 10dBi for 48°<0 < 180° Where: 0 = the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe dBi = dB relative to an isotropic radiator Use of the gain obtained from these relationships in simple far-field calculations, such as 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. 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 ~9 Se~e 47 CFR 25.209 (a)(2). 3O was developed for FM radio broadcast antennas is discussed in Supplement A to this bulletin? 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 significantly overpredict 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 20 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: www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety. Otherwise contact the FCC RF Safety Program at: (202) 418-2464. ~ 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. 31 length will closely follow the relation given by the following equation. 2KRh (19) where: S - power density P.ot - net power input to the antenna R distance from the antenna h = aperture height of the antenna 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 ora 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, 0ew, 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. S =(180) Pnec O BW 'gRh (20) where: S = power density P.~ = net power input to the antenna 0Bw= 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 meant to apply to any exposure situation caused by transmitters regulated by 32 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 enviromment 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 roles 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? When performing an evaluation for compliance with the FCC's RF guidelines all 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, lfthe 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 am 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 enviromnent at an accessible area not in compliance with the guidelines the following policy applies. The renewal applicant must submit an EA if 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 See 47 C.F.R. 1.1307(b)(3), as amended. 33 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 ifa 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. Therefore, at multiple-transmitter sites the various responsibilities for evaluating the RF environment, taking actions to ensure compliance or submitting an EA may lie either with a newcomer to the site, with a renewal applicant (or applicants) or with all significant users, depending on the situation. In general, an applicant or licensee for a transmitter at a multiple- transmitter site should seek answers to the following questions in order to determine compliance responsibility. (1) New transmitter proposed for a multiple-transmitter site. · Is the transmitter in question already categorically excluded from routine evaluation? · 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 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? · lfyes, 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 enviroamental evaluation is required and the applicant certifies compliance. 34 (2) Renewal applicant at a multiple-transmitter site · Is the transmitter in question already categorically excluded from routine evaluation? · Ifyes, 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 Conunission 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 [tW/cm2 to the total power density (which is 50% of the applicable 200 pW/cm2 MPE limit for the FM frequency band). Also, assume that FM station Y contributes an additional 50 ~tW/cm2 (25% of its limit) and that a nearby UHF-TV station operating on Channel 35 (center frequency = 599 MHz) contributes 200 p~W/cm2 at the same location (which is 50% of the applicable MPE limit for this frequency of 400 gW/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). 35 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 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, Itl and Il2, 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. 23 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. 36 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. 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. 37 HI J~tenna 1 J~x~tenna 2 R2~ [Point qfInterest] Figure 4. Single tower, co-located antennas, ground-level exposure (at 2 m). H1 Antenna 2 H2 FIGURE 5. Antennas on multiple towers contributing to RF field at point of interest. 38 x1 X2 FIGURE 6. Single roof-top antenna, various exposure locations. Antenna I ~[ Antenna 2 ~__1 ~-- FIGURE 7. Single tower, co-located antennas, on-tower exposure. 39 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 roles 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 C95.1-1992. 40 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 Nil 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 mom: (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 Nil 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 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 41 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 ora 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 pattems. 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 25 For example, see sections of ANSI/IEEE 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. 42 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.2* 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 measurements should be made at least 5 cm "from any object in the field.''29 The more recent NCRP Report 119 seems to endorse the 20 cm value, at least for the case of 26 IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 34 (IEEE SCC34), sub-committee Il. 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 Standarff~zation 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. 29 See Reference [20], NCRP Report No. 86 at Section 17.5. 43 "secondary" sources? In some cases, for example, near an open-ended waveguide or consumer device operating at a millimeter-wave frequency, a 20 cm separation requirement from the primary radiating soume for measurements would not be practical for determining exposure potential. Therefore, in such cases a 5 cm separation requirement can be justified to allow for evaluation of potential exposure at distances closer than 20 cm. Some research relevant to this issue has been done in the VHF band that indicates there is no practical reason why a 5 cm minimum distance cannot be used for measuring power density.3~ Since a 5 cm separation distance is already built-in to many isotropic broadband RF probes, performing measurements at this distance is straightforward. In view of these facts, it is appropriate to evaluate both mobile and portable devices that operate at frequencies above 6 GHz for compliance with FCC RF guidelines in terms of the FCC MPE limits for power density. In that regard, it is appropriate to make measurements of power density at a minimum distance of 5 cm from the radiator of a portable device to show compliance. Section 3: MEASURING RF FIELDS Reference Material In some cases the prediction methods described in Section 2 of this bulletin cannot be used, and actual measurements of the RF field may be necessary to determine whether there is a potential for human exposure in excess of the MPE limits specified by the FCC. For example, in a situation such as an antenna farm, with multiple users the models discussed previously would not always be applicable. Measurements may also be desired for cases in which predictions are slightly greater or slightly less than the threshold for excessive exposure or when fields am likely to be seriously distorted by objects in the field, e.g., conductive structures. Techniques and instrumentation are available for measuring the RF environment near broadcast and other transmitting sources. In addition, references are available which provide detailed information on measurement procedures, instrumentation, and potential problems. Two excellent references in this area have been published by the IEEE and by the NCRP. The ANSI/IEEE document (ANSI/IEEE C95.3-1992) is entitled, "Recommended Practice for the Measurement of Potentially Hazardous Electromagnetic Fields - RF and Microwave," 30 Reference [21], NCRP Report 1 19 at Section 3.3.6. 3~ R.A. Tell, "An Investigation of RF Induced Hot Spots and their Significance Relative to Determining Compliance with the ANSI Radiofrequency Protection Guide." Report prepared for the National Association of Broadcasters, July 3, 1989. 44 (Reference [2]) and the NCRP publication (NCRP Report No. 119) is entitled, "A Practical Guide to the Determination of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields" (Reference [21 ] ). Both of these documents contain practical guidelines and information for performing field measurements in broadcast and other environments, and the FCC strongly encourages their use. Other selected references are given in the reference section of this bulletin. Instrumentation Instruments used for measuring radiofrequency fields may be either broadband or narrowband devices. A typical broadband instrument responds essentially uniformly and instantaneously over a wide frequency range and requires no tuning. A narrowband instrument may also operate over a wide frequency range, but the instantaneous bandwidth may be limited to only a few kilohertz, and the device must be tuned to the frequency of interest. Each type of instrument has certain advantages and certain disadvantages, and the choice of which instrument to use depends on the situation where measurements are being made. All instruments used for measuring RF fields have the following basic components: (1) an antenna to sample the field, (2) a detector to convert the time-varying output of the antenna to a steady-state or slowly varying signal, (3) electronic circuitry to process the signal, and (4) a readout device to display the measured field parameter in appropriate units. The antennas most commonly used with broadband instruments am either dipoles that respond to the electric field (E) or loops that respond to the magnetic field (H). Surface area or displacement-current sensors that respond to the E-field are also used. In order to achieve a uniform response over the indicated frequency range, the size of the dipole or loop must be small compared to the wavelength of the highest frequency to be measured, lsotropic broadband probes contain three mutually orthogonal dipoles or loops whose outputs are summed so that the response is independent of orientation of the probe. The output of the dipoles or loops is converted to a proportional steady-state voltage or current by diodes or thermocouples, so that the measured parameter can be displayed on the readout device. As described in the first edition of this bulletin, there are certain characteristics which are desirable in a broadband survey instrument. The major ones are as follows: (1) The response of the instrument should be essentially isotropic, i.e., independent of orientation, or rotation angle, of the probe. (2) The frequency range of the instrument and the instruments response over that range should be known. Generally this is given in terms of the error of response between certain frequency limits, e.g., + 0.5 dB from 3 to 500 MHz. (3) Out-of-band response characteristics of the instrument should be specified by the manufacturer to assist the user in selecting an instrument for a particular application. 45 For example, regions of enhanced response, or resonance, at frequencies outside of the band of interest could result in error in a measurement, if signals at the resonant frequency(ies) are present during the measurement. (4) The dynamic range of the instrument should be at least + 10 dB of the applicable exposure guideline. (5) The instrument's readout device should be calibrated in units that correspond to the quantity actually being measured. An electric field probe responds to E or E2, and a magnetic field probe responds to H or H2, equally well in both the near-field and far-field. However, a readout device calibrated in units of power density does not read true power density if measurements are made in the near-field. This is because under plane-wave conditions, in which E, H, and power density are related by a constant quantity (the wave impedance which, for free space, is equal to 377 ohms), do not exist in the near-field where the wave impedance is complex and generally not known. Readout devices calibrated in "power density" actually read "far-field equivalent" power density or "plane-wave equivalent" power density (see discussion of MPE limits in Section 1 of this bulletin). (6) The probe and the attached cables should only respond to the parameter being measured, e.g., a loop antenna element should respond to the magnetic field and should not interact significantly with the electric field. (7) Shielding should be incorporated into the design of the instrument to reduce or eliminate electromagnetic interference. (8) There should be some means, e.g., an alarm or test switch to establish that the probe is operating correctly and that none of the elements are burned out. Also, a means should be provided to alert the user if the measured signal is overloading the device. (9) When the amplitude of the field is changing while measurements are being made, a "peak-hold" circuit may be useful. Such a change in amplitude could result either from variation in output from the source or from moving the probe through regions of the field that are non-uniform. (10) For analog-type meters, the face of the meter should be coated with a transparent, conductive film to prevent false readings due to the accumulation of static charge in the meter itself. Also, the outer surface of the probe assembly of electric-field survey instruments should be covered with a high-resistance material to minimize errors due to static charge buildup. (11) The instrument should be battery operated with easily replaceable or rechargeable batteries. A test switch or some other means should be provided to determine whether the batteries are properly charged. The instrument should be capable of operating 46 within the stated accuracy range for a time sufficient to accomplish the desired measurements without recharging or replacing the batteries. (12) The user should be aware of the response time of the instrument, i.e., the time required for the instrument to reach a stable reading. (13) The device should be stable enough so that frequent readjustment to zero ("rezeroing") is not necessary. If not equipped with automatic zeroing capability, devices must be zeroed with the probe out of the field, either by shielding them or turning off the RF source(s). Either method is time consuming, making stability an especially desirable feature. (14) If the instrument is affected by temperature, humidity, pressure, etc., the extent of the effect should be known and taken into account. (15) The sensor elements should be sufficiently small and the device should be free from spurious responses so that the instrument responds correctly to the parameter being measured, both in the near-field and in the far-field. It should be emphasized that an instrument with a readout expressed in terms of power density will only be correct in the far-field. However, the term "far-field equivalent" or "plane-wave equivalent" power density is sometimes used in this context and would be acceptable as long as its meaning is understood and it is appropriately applied to the situation of interest (see discussion in Section 1). (16) The instrument should respond to the average (rms) values of modulated fields independent of modulation characteristics. With respect to measurements of pulsed sources such as radar transmitters, many commercially-available survey instruments cannot measure high peak-power pulsed fields accurately. In such cases, the instrument should be chosen carefully to enable fields close to the antenna to be accurately measured. (17) The instrument should be durable and able to withstand shock and vibration associated with handling in the field or during shipping. A storage case should be provided. (18) The accuracy of the instrument should not be affected by exposure to light or other forms of ambient RF and low-frequency electromagnetic fields. (19) The markings on the meter face should be sufficiently large to be easily read at arm's length. (20) Controls should be clearly labeled and kept to a minimum, and operating procedures should be relatively simple. 47 (21) Typical meters use high-resistance leads that can be particularly susceptible to flexure noise when measuring fields at relatively low intensities. Therefore, when a broadband isotropic meter is used for measuring power density levels that fall into the lower range of detectability of the instrument (e.g., a few p.W/cm2), the meter should exhibit low noise levels if such measurements are to have any meaning. (22) When measuring fields in multiple-emitter environments, the ability of many commonly available RF broadband survey meters to accurately measure multiple signals of varying frequencies may be limited by how the meter sums the outputs of its diode detectors. This can lead to over-estimates of the total RF field that may be significant. Although such estimates can represent a "worst case," and are allowable for compliance purposes, users of these meters should be aware of this possible source of error. A useful characteristic of broadband probes used in multiple-frequency RF environments is a frequency-dependent response that corresponds to the variation in MPE limits with frequency. Broadband probes having such a "shaped" response permit direct assessment of compliance at sites where RF fields result from antennas transmitting over a wide range of frequencies. Such probes can express the composite RF field as a percentage of the applicable MPEs. Another practical characteristic of some RF field instruments is their ability to automatically determine spatial averages of RF fields. Because the MPEs for exposure are given in terms of spatial averages, it is helpful to simplify the measurement of spatially variable fields via data averaging as the survey is being performed. Spatial averaging can be achieved via the use of "data loggers" attached to survey meters or circuitry built into the meter. Narrowband devices may also be used to characterize RF fields for exposure assessment. In contrast to broadband devices, narrowband instruments may have bandwidths of only a few hundred kilohertz or less. Narrowband instruments, such as field-strength meters and spectrum analyzers, must be tuned from frequency to frequency, and the field level at each frequency measured. Spectrum analyzers can be scanned over a band of frequencies, and the frequency and peak-amplitude information can be stored and printed for later analysis. The results of all narrowband measurements may then be combined to determine the total field. As with broadband instruments, narrowband devices consist of basically four components: an antenna, cables to carry the signal from the antenna, electronic circuitry to process the output from the antenna and convert it to a steady-state signal proportional to the parameter being measured, and a readout device. Narrowband instruments may use various antennas, such as rods (monopoles), loops, dipoles, biconical, conical log spiral antennas or aperture antennas such as pyramidal horns or parabolic reflectors. A knowledge of the gain, the antenna factor, or the effective area for a particular antenna provides a means for determining the appropriate field parameter from a measurement of voltage or power. Cable 48 loss also should be taken into account. Tunable field strength meters and spectrum analyzers are appropriate narrowband instruments to use for measuring antenna terminal voltage or power at selected frequencies. Each has certain advantages and disadvantages. Field Measurements Before beginning a measurement survey it is important to characterize the exposure situation as much as possible. An attempt should be made to determine: (1) The frequency and maximum power of the RF source(s) in question, as well as any nearby sources. (2) Duty factor, if applicable, of the source(s). (3) Areas that are accessible to either workers or the general public. (4) The location of any nearby reflecting surfaces or conductive objects that could produce regions of field intensification ("hot spots"). (5) For pulsed sources, such as radar, the pulse width and repetition rate and the antenna scanning rate. (6) If appropriate, antenna gain and vertical and horizontal radiation patterns. (7) Type of modulation of the soume(s). (8) Polarization of the antenna(s). (9) Whether measurements are to be made in the near-field, in close proximity to a leakage source, or under plane-wave conditions. The type of measurement needed can influence the type of survey probe, calibration conditions and techniques used. If possible, one should estimate the maximum expected field levels, in order to facilitate the selection of an appropriate survey instrument. For safety purposes, the electric field (or the far-field equivalent power density derived from the E-field) should be measured first because the body absorbs more energy from the electric field, and it is potentially more hazardous. In many cases it may be best to begin by using a broadband instrument capable of accurately measuring the total field from all sources in all directions. If the total field does not exceed the relevant exposure guideline in accessible areas, and if the measurement technique employed is sufficiently accurate, such a determination would constitute a showing of compliance with that particular guideline, and further measurements would be unnecessary. 49 When using a broadband survey instrument, spatially-averaged exposure levels may be determined by slowly moving the probe while scanning over an area approximately equivalent to the vertical cross-section (projected area) of the human body. An average can be estimated by observing the meter reading during this scanning process or be read directly on those meters that provide spatial averaging. Spatially averaging exposure is discussed in mom detail in the ANSI/IEEE and NCRP documents referenced above. A maximum field reading may also be desirable, and, if the instrument has a "peak hold" feature, can be obtained by observing the peak reading according to the instrument instructions. Otherwise, the maximum reading can be determined by simply recording the peak during the scanning process. The term "hot spots" has been used to describe locations where peak readings occur. Often such readings am found near conductive objects, and the question arises as to whether it is valid to consider such measurements for compliance purposes. According to the ANSI C95.3 guidelines (Reference [2]) measurements of field strength to determine compliance are to be made, "at distances 20 cm or greater from any object." Therefore, as long as the 20 cm criterion is satisfied, such peak readings should be considered as indicative of the field at thatpoint. However, as far as average exposure is concerned such localized readings may not be relevant if accessibility to the location is restricted or time spent at the location is limited (see Section 4 of this bulletin on controlling exposure). It should be noted that most broadband survey instruments already have a 5 cm separation built into the probe. In many situations there may be several RF sources. For example, a broadcast antenna farm or multiple-use tower could have several types of RF soumes including AM, FM, and TV, as well as CMRS and microwave antennas. Also, at rooftop sites many different types of CMRS antennas are commonly present. In such situations it is generally useful to use both broadband and narrowband instrumentation to fully characterize the electromagnetic environment. Broadband instrumentation could be used to determine what the overall field levels appeared to be, while narrowband instrumentation would be required to determine the relative contributions of each signal to the total field if the broadband measurements exceed the most restrictive portion of the applicable MPEs. The "shaped" probes mentioned earlier will also provide quantification of the total field in terms of percentage of the MPE limits. In cases where personnel may have close access to intermittently active antennas, for example at rooftop locations, measurement surveys should attempt to minimize the uncertainty associated with the duty cycle of the various communications transmitters at the site to arrive at a conservative estimate of maximum possible exposure levels. At broadcast sites it is important to determine whether stations have auxiliary, or stand- by, antennas at a site in addition to their main antennas. In such cases, either the main antenna or the auxiliary antenna, which may be mounted lower to the ground, may result in the highest RF field levels in accessible areas, and contributions from both must be properly evaluated. At frequencies above about 300 MHz it is usually sufficient to measure only the electric field (E) or the mean-squared electric field. For frequencies equal to or less than 30 50 MHz, for example frequencies in the AM broadcast band, measurements for determining compliance with MPE limits require independent measurement of both E field and the magnetic field (H). For frequencies between 30 and 300 MHz it may be possible through analysis to show that measurement of only one of the two fields, not both, is sufficient for determining compliance. Further discussion of this topic can be found in Sections 4.3(2) and 6.6 of Reference [1]. At sites with higher frequency sources, such as UHF-TV stations, only E-field measurements should be attempted since the loop antennas used in H-field probes are subject to out-of-band resonances at these frequencies. In many situations a relatively large sampling of data will be necessary to spatially resolve areas of field intensification that may be caused by reflection and multipath interference. Areas that are normally occupied by personnel or are accessible to the public should be examined in detail to determine exposure potential. If narrowband instrumentation and a linear antenna are used, field intensities at three mutually orthogonal orientations of the antenna must be obtained at each measurement point. The values of E2 or H2 will then be equal to the sum of the squares of the corresponding, orthogonal field components. If an aperture antenna is used, unless the test antenna responds uniformly to all polarizations in a plane, e.g., a conical log-spiral antenna, it should be rotated in both azimuth and elevation until a maximum is obtained. The antenna should then be rotated about its longitudinal axis and the measurement repeated so that both horizontally and vertically polarized field components are measured. It should be noted that when using aperture antennas in reflective or near-field environments, significant negative errors may be obtained. When making measurements, procedures should be followed which minimize possible sources of error. For example, when the polarization of a field is known, all cables associated with the survey instrument should be held perpendicular to the electric field in order to minimize pickup. Ideally, non-conductive cable, e.g., optical fiber, should be used, since substantial error can be introduced by cable pick-up. Interaction of the entire instrument (probe plus readout device) with the field can be a significant problem below approximately 10 MHz, and it may be desirable to use a self-contained meter or a fiber-optically coupled probe for measuring electric field at these frequencies. Also, at frequencies below about 1 MHz, the body of the person making the measurement may become part of the antenna, and error from probe/cable pickup and instrument/body interaction may be reduced by supporting the probe and electronics on a dielectric structure made of wood, styrofoam, etc. In all cases, it is desirable to remove all unnecessary personnel from an area where a survey is being conducted in order to minimize errors due to reflection and field perturbation. in areas with relatively high fields, it is a good idea to occasionally hold the probe fixed and rotate the readout device and move the connecting cable while observing the meter reading. Alternatively, cover the entire sensor of the probe with metal foil and observe the 51 meter reading. Any significant change usually indicates pickup in the leads and interference problems. When a field strength meter or spectrum analyzer is used in the above environments, the antenna cable should occasionally be removed and replaced with an impedance matched termination. Any reading on the device indicates pickup or interference. As noted previously, substantial errors may be introduced due to zero drift. Ifa device is being used which requires zeroing, it should frequently be checked for drift. This should be done with the probe shielded with metal foil, with the probe removed from the field or, ideally, with the source(s) shut off. With regard to compliance with the FCC's guidelines in mixed or broadband fields where several sources and frequencies are involved, the fraction or percentage of the recommended limit for power density (or square of the field strength) incurred within each frequency interval should be determined, and the sum of all contributions should not exceed 1.0 or 100% (see discussion of this topic in Section 1 of this bulletin). As mentioned before, probes with "shaped" responses may be useful in these environments. Section 4: CONTROLLING EXPOSURE TO RF FIELDS Public Exposure: Compliance with General Population/Uncontrolled MPE Limits Studies have indicated that the majority of the United States population is normally exposed to insignificant levels of RF radiation in the ambient environment (e.g. see References [22] and [30]). However, there are some situations in which RF levels may be considerably higher than the median background, and in those cases preventive measures may have to be taken to control exposure levels. As discussed in Section 1 of this bulletin (also see Appendix A), the FCC's guidelines for exposure incorporate two tiers of limits, one for conditions under which the public may be exposed ("general population/uncontrolled" exposure) and the other for exposure situations usually involving workers ("occupational/controlled" exposure). Exposure problems involving members of the general public are generally less common than those involving persons who may be exposed at their place of employment, due to the fact that workers may be more likely to be in close proximity to an RF source as part of their job. However, if potential exposure of the general public is a problem them are several options available for ensuring compliance with the FCC RF guidelines. In general, in order for a transmitting facility or operation to be out of compliance with the FCC's RF guidelines an area or areas where levels exceed the MPE limits must, first of all, be in some way accessible to the public or to workers. This should be obvious, but there is often confusion over an emission limit, e.g., a limit on field strength or power density 52 at a specified distance from a radiator that always applies, and an exposure limit, that applies anywhere people may be located. The FCC guidelines specify exposure limits not emission limits, and that distinction must be emphasized. This is why the accessibility issue is key to determining compliance. The MPE limits indicate levels above which people may not be safely exposed regardless of the location where those levels occur. When accessibility to an area where excessive levels is appropriately restricted, the facility or operation can certify that it complies with the FCC requirements. Restricting access is usually the simplest means of controlling exposure to areas where high RF levels may be present. Methods of doing this include fencing and posting such areas or locking out unauthorized persons in areas, such as rooftop locations, where this is practical.32 There may be situations where RF levels may exceed the MPE limits for the general public in remote areas, such as mountain tops, that could conceivably be accessible but are not likely to be visited by the public. In such cases, common sense should dictate how compliance is to be achieved. If the area of concern is properly marked by appropriate warning signs, fencing or the erection of other permanent barriers may not be necessary?3 In some cases, the time-averaging aspects of the exposure limits may be used by placing appropriate restrictions on occupancy in high-field areas. However, such restrictions are often not possible where continuous exposure of the public may occur. In general, time averaging of exposures is usually more practical in controlled situations where occupational exposure is the only issue. Although restricting access may be the simplest and most cost-effective solution for reducing public exposure, other methods are also available. Such methods may be relevant for reducing exposure for both the general public and for workers. For example, modifications to antennas, elevating antennas on roof-top installations or incorporation of appropriate shielding can reduce RF fields in locations accessible to the public or to workers. 32 Standard radiofrequency hazard warning signs are commercially available from several vendors. They incorporate the format recommended by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) as specified in ANSI C95.2-1982 (Reference [3]). Although the ANSI format is recommended, it is not mandatory. Complaints have been received concerning the lack of color durability in outdoor environments of the yellow triangle specified by ANSI. In that regard, long-lasting and clearly visible symbols are mom important than the exact color used, and the use of the ANSI format with mom durable colors may be more practical in certain environments. When signs are used, meaningful information should be placed on the sign advising of the potential for high RF fields. In some cases, it may be appropriate to also provide instructions to direct individuals as to how to work safely in the RF environment of concern. U.S. vendors of RF warning and hazard signs include: National Association of Broadcasters (800-368-5644), EMED Co., Inc. (800-442-3633) and Richard Tell Associates (702-645-3338). 33 Regarding this issue, the Commission's Mass Media Bureau released a Public Notice, on January 28, 1986, entitled, "Further Guidance for Broadcasters Regarding Radiofrequency Radiation and the Environment," (No. 2278). This Notice lists several typical exposure situations around broadcast sites and explains what is expected of broadcast Iicensees and applicants with respect to ensuring compliance with the FCC's RF guidelines. This Notice may be useful as guidance for other antenna sites. A summary of the major points of the 1986 Public Notice are included as Appendix B of this bulletin. Also, another Public Notice, dealing pri~narily with occupational exposure, was issued by the Mass Media Bureau on August 19. 1992 (No. 24479). 53 With regard to antennas used for FM broadcast stations, the EPA found that there are several corrective measures that may be taken to reduce ground-level field strength and power density (Reference [11]). Some of these findings may also be relevant to other similar types of antenna systems. EPA's examination of measured elevation patterns for several different types of FM antennas has shown that some antennas direct much less radiation downward than others. Therefore, in some cases a change of antenna may be an appropriate way to reduce ground-level fields below a given level. A more expensive, but also effective, approach for FM antennas involves modifying the array pattern by reducing the spacing between the radiating elements. The pattern of an FM antenna is the product of the element pattern and the array pattern. FM antennas typically use one-wavelength spacing between elements. Because the wave from each element adds in phase with all the other elements, at points directly beneath the elements the array pattern results in downward radiation that can be significant and, in the case of dipole elements, could equal that in the main beam. If the spacing is reduced to one-half wavelength spacing (for an antenna with an even number of bays), each wave will have a counterpart which is out-of-phase. This will result in a significant reduction in the energy radiated toward the ground. The disadvantage of this method is that the shorter aperture that will occur with one-half wavelength spacing reduces the overall gain of the antenna. To maintain the original gain of the antenna, the number of elements (bays) has to be increased and, usually, doubled. Alternatively, the spacing between elements could be reduced so that waves from element (n) and from element (N/2 + n) are exactly out of phase, where n is a particular element in an array with a total of N bays. Use of the latter method would result in a smaller increase in the total number of bays that would be necessary. However, EPA has noted that feeding such an array would be more difficult since the length of the transmission line between bays determines phasing. For one-half wave spacing, EPA suggests that criss-crossing the transmission line or turning alternate elements upside down will yield proper phasing. The EPA's report (Reference [11]) contains a table showing suggested interbay spacings required to reduce downward radiation in the array pattern of FM antennas. Unfortunately, the optimum spacing may differ for different types of antennas. Coupling effects may occur at spacings of less than one wavelength that are not easy to predict theoretically. EPA has studied this problem, and Reference [11] also contains figures showing the effects of altering spacing for three types of FM antenna elements. Another possible method for reducing downward radiation that has been suggested involves using 1.5-wavelength spacing between elements. This method reportedly results in little significant change in antenna gain. Other actions that could be taken to reduce the potential for excessive exposure would be raising the height of an FM or TV antenna or relocating a broadcast tower. However, such 54 actions would have to take into account other factors including signal coverage, land use limitations, and air traffic safety. In the case of television broadcast antennas, the EPA identified two methods for reducing potential exposure, besides the obvious method of restricting access discussed above. The first measure that might be taken, as with FM antennas, would be a change of antenna. EPA verified, for example, that arrays for VHF-TV antennas can be designed to minimize downward radiation to as little as 7% of the main beam field. However, such antennas apparently are at least twice as expensive as standard antennas. Antennas used for UHF-TV have very high gain in the main beam and radiate relatively little directly down toward the ground. Therefore, these antennas already are designed for minimum downward radiation. The remaining option for both VHF-TV and UHF-TV antennas would be an increase in antenna height above ground. However, this could involve the same difficulties as discussed above with regard to FM broadcast facilities. With respect to AM radio broadcast stations, monopole antennas are used for transmissions. The MPE limits in the AM broadcast band (see Appendix A) are given in terms of electric and magnetic field strength, since significant exposures always occur in the near-field of these antenna systems. Electric and magnetic field strengths near monopole antennas decrease rapidly with increasing distance, and normally the MPE limits can only be exceeded very close- in to these antennas. Therefore, exposure problems due to AM radio antennas are usually those involving workers or others who have access to the immediate vicinity of these antennas (see discussion below). Occupational Exposure: Compliance with Occupational/Controlled MPE Limits Exposure to RF fields in the workplace or in other controlled environments usually presents different problems than does exposure of the general public. For example, with respect to a given RF transmitting facility, a worker at that facility would be more likely to be close to the radiating source than would a person who happens to live nearby. Although restricting access to high RF field areas is also a way to control exposures in such situations, this may not always be possible. In some cases a person's job may require him or her to be near an RF source for some part of the workday. Depending on the level and time of exposure this may present a problem with respect to compliance with the MPE limits. In general, a locked rooftop or other appropriately restricted ama that is only accessible to workers who are "aware of' and "exercise control over" their exposure would meet the criteria for occupational/controlled exposure, and protection would be required at the applicable occupational/controlled MPE limits for those individuals who have access to the rooftop. Persons who are only "transient" visitors to the rooftop, such as air conditioning technicians, etc., could also be considered to fall within the occupational/controlled criteria as long as they also are "made aware" of their exposure and exercise control over their exposure (see Appendix A for definitions of exposure tiers and MPE limits). 55 As explained in Section 1 of this bulletin, the MPE limits adopted by the FCC are time- averaged exposure limits. This means that the exposure duration should be taken into account when evaluating a given exposure situation, and this is especially relevant for cases of occupational/controlled exposure. For example, a person walking into an area where RF fields exceed the absolute MPE limit (in terms of field strength or power density) might not exceed the time-averaged MPE limit as long as the exposure was for an appropriately short period of time (relative to the time-averaging interval). However, if that person were to remain in the area for an extended period it is more probable that the time-averaged limit would be exceeded. Therefore, in order to comply with the FCC's guidelines, in some situations it may be necessary to limit exposure in certain areas to specific periods of time. For example, in workplace situations where extended maintenance tasks must be performed in areas where RF fields exceed MPE limits, the work may have to be divided up and carried out during several intervals of time so that the time-averaged exposure during each interval is acceptable. The actual exposure time allowed during any given interval would have to be determined by use of the appropriate averaging time specified in the guidelines (six-minutes for occupational exposure) as explained in Section 1. In addition to time-averaging, other means are available for controlling exposures in occupational or controlled environments. These include reducing or shutting off power when work is required in a high RF area, switching to an auxiliary transmitter (if available) while work on a main system is in progress or incorporating appropriate shielding techniques to reduce exposure. In multiple-transmitter environments, reducing power or RF shielding may be especially important for allowing necessary work procedures to be carried out. For example, on-tower exposures due to nearby co-located transmitting sources may be more significant when work on another station's tower is required. In such complex environments power reduction agreements may often be necessary to ensure that all licensees are aware of the potential for their station to expose other individuals at the site and site occupants are generally jointly responsible for compliance with FCC guidelines (see discussion of multiple-transmitter sites in Section 2 of this bulletin). Although reduction of power at broadcasting and other telecommunications sites is one approach to reducing personnel exposure, th/s may not always be possible. For example, measurements have shown that relatively high RF fields may exist in the immediate vicinity of high~powered anteimas such as those used at FM broadcast stations (Reference [25]). If power reduction or other measures are not practical, alternative means for protecting personnel from excessive exposure may be necessary when access to these areas is required. In such instances, the use of radiofrequency protective clothing may facilitate compliance with RF exposure guidelines even in the presence of intense RF fields. Radiofrequency protective clothing has become commercially available in recent years that appears to effectively attenuate fields over a broad frequency band. This clothing has been manufactured into RF protective suits that cover the entire body of the user and allow him or her to perform maintenance and other procedures in the presence of RF fields that may 56 exceed MPE limits. A recent study performed for the FCC by Richard Tell Associates, Inc., concluded that if properly used by appropriately trained personnel, and with adequate coupling to ground potential, RF protective suits can provide significant reduction in whole-body RF absorption (Reference [29]). Recently, direct measurements of reduction in SAR afforded by one RF protective suit were completed using a full-size human phantom filled with a dielectric fluid having the RF absorption characteristics of biological tissue? The SAR was determined by scanning the interior of the body of the phantom with a robotically controlled miniature, isotropic electric- field probe with and without the suit covering the phantom. Near-field exposure conditions were duplicated at frequencies of 150 MHz, 450 MHz and 835 MHz. The measurement results supported the contention that the protective suit provides a nominal minimum reduction in SAR of 10 times or more. These measurements also were consistent with measurement data obtained by the Deutsche Telekom Technologiezentmm (German Telekom).3s Another observation from the tests performed by Tell is that the peak SAR in the unprotected head of the phantom clothed with the protective suit did not reach the SAR limit of 8 W/kg (localized partial-body exposure limit for occupational/controlled environments) until the 150-MHz near-field exposure was 23 times the most restrictive whole-body averaged MPE limit of 1.0 mW/cm2. At 450 MHz, the maximum field incident on the unprotected head was found to be more than 11 times the applicable MPE limit of 1.5 mW/cm2, and, at 835 MHz, more than 3 timestheMPElimitof2.8mW/cm2. Such data suggest that, at least in some environments, complete coverage of the body may not be necessary for compliance with MPE limits. In general, the use of RF protective clothing may be considered an acceptable mitigation technique for occupational exposures as long as sufficient precautions are taken to comply with all of the clothing manufacturer's recommendations and caveats and to ensure that use of the clothing is confined to RF environments for which it is designed in terms of RF field intensity and frequency range. As with any personal protective equipment, RF protective clothing should be considered as a method of choice only when other engineering or administrative controls cannot be used to reduce exposure or are otherwise impractical. Those employing or supervising the wearer should ensure that the wearer has full knowledge of the proper use and limitations of the protective clothing being used. Also, users should be knowledgeable of the approximate RF environment before spending a prolonged period of time in areas where RF fields are believed to significantly exceed MPE limits. Users of RF protective clothing are cautioned that, in addition to evaluating RF field intensity and frequency considerations, they should routinely visually inspect the clothing material for 34 Tell, Richard A. (1996). SAR Evaluation of the Naptex?~ Suit for Use in the VHF and UHF Telecommunications Bands. Presented at the International RF Safety Workshop, Schwangau, Germany, September 25-26. 35 Heinrich, W. (1996). Test Method for Determining the Attentuation of RF-protective Clothing. Presented at the International RF Safety Workshop, Schwangau, Germany, September 24-26. 57 indications of substantial wear, such as tears and rips, that may reduce the clothing's effectiveness in reducing exposure. When users are climbing towers, special caution is advised regarding possible safety hazards from RF shocks and bums, trip hazards, decreased mobility/agility and reduced visibility (if a protective hood is worn) that may occur while climbing. In addition to the issue of protective clothing, Tell's 1995 study for the FCC investigated the use of RF personal monitors that have become commercially available in recent years. These monitors are warning devices that are worn by the user and alert him or her by an audible or visible signal to the presence of RF fields that approach the MPE limits for occupational/controlled exposure. The Tell study concluded that such devices can act as reliable RF detectors and the device tested generally responded in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Such devices could be especially useful in areas where multiple transmitters are located and it may not be easy or possible to predict the presence of high RF fields. Work procedures could be instituted requiring the wearer of such a device to leave an area or take other precautions when the device alerts that an RF field approaching the MPE limit is present. These monitors can be a valuable component of an RF safety program. However, they should be viewed only as warning devices and should not be viewed as protective devices. For workers who must occupy areas near AM broadcast antennas, MPE limits are normally only exceeded very close to an antenna. Even for a 50 kW transmitter, distances from an antenna of less than fifteen meters are required before field strengths are likely to approach the FCC limits (References [26] and [33]). For multiple-tower arrays the spacing between adjacent antennas would not be less than 35 meters, so that, as one antenna is approached, the contribution of field strength from other antennas in the array would decrease to relatively insignificant levels. However, if work on or immediately adjacent to a tower is required it may be necessary to designate zones within which a worker may remain for specified periods of time appropriate for compliance with the FCC limits. Tuning circuits for AM broadcast antennas have been identified as a source of locally intense magnetic fields (Reference [31]). These magnetic fields decrease rapidly with distance from the tuning circuits but should be carefully considered when evaluating exposure very near the base of AM towers or at other locations where such coils may be located. It should be possible to locate the tuning circuits in such a way as to greatly reduce the potential for exposures exceeding the FCC magnetic field limits. For example, separating the circuits from normally accessible areas by a few meters should provide sufficient protection. Time-averaging exposure near such coils is another method for complying with the MPE limits. Probably the most common means by which workers at AM radio stations may be exposed in excess of the FCC exposure guidelines occurs when persons must climb actively transmitting AM antennas to perform maintenance tasks. Measurement surveys and studies conducted by the FCC and the EPA have clearly indicated that significant RF currents exist in the body of a person climbing such a tower (References [6], [27], [28] and [32]). As addressed by the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard, such currents can cause significant levels of RF 58 absorption in the body that can be well in excess of allowable SAR thresholds (see discussion in Section 1 of this bulletin). Although the FCC RF exposure guidelines did not specifically adopt limits on RF body currents, evaluation of such currents is the only practical means to control exposure of persons climbing transmitting AM radio towers. The FCC and EPA studies referenced above include data and models that allow a correlation to be made between the power fed into an AM antenna and the potential current that will be induced in the body ora person climbing the antenna. This current can be correlated with the appropriate limit on whole-body absorption specified by the FCC's guidelines and thereby can be used as a guideline for the appropriate power reduction that an AM station must undertake when a person is on a tower. Further information and guidance on controlling such exposures can be found in Supplement A to this bulletin that is designed for radio and television broadcast applications. With regard to maintenance of FM and TV broadcast transmitters and antennas, two situations are of particular interest and should be noted. Because currents and voltages in power amplifier cabinets can be lethal, it is common practice that cabinet doors be closed when the transmitter is on. However, it may not be recognized that at multiple station locations high RF field strengths can be encountered even when the transmitter being worked on is completely shut down. This is because the antenna for a particular station is likely to pick up high levels of energy from other stations. That energy can be conducted to the final amplifier cubicle and produce high field strengths and high voltages in the vicinity of the cubicle. Therefore, if measurements are made in a multistation environment this factor should be evaluated. If such induced field strength levels are found to be a problem, it should be possible to reduce them to acceptable levels by either opening the RF transmission line leading to the antenna or by bypassing the center conductor to ground of the coaxial line wherever access can be conveniently achieved. With regard to protecting personnel at paging and cellular antenna sites, Motorola, in association with Richard Tell Associates, Inc., has developed a video for electromagnetic energy awareness that is focused on wireless telecommunications service providers. Although this video was originally produced for Motorola's use and is copyrighted, Motorola has decided to make this video commercially available to other interested industrial users.36 Also, as mentioned earlier, software has been developed by various organizations for use in estimating RF levels and ensuring compliance at transmitter sites, particularly rooftop sites used for personal wireless, cellular and paging services? 36 The title of the video is: "EME Awareness for Antenna Site Safety," ©Motorola, 1996. Copies are available in the U.S.A. from Stephen Tell Productions (702-396-5912), or from Narda Microwave Corporation, (516) 23 l- 1700 (Narda Part No. 42929000). See footnote 23. 59 REFERENCES NOTE: References with NTIS Order Numbers are available from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service at: 1-800-553-6847 (toll-free in U.S.A.) or 1-703-487-4650. [ 1] American National Standards Institute (ANSI), "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 (previously issued as IEEE C95.1-1991). Copyright 1992 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), New York, N.Y. 10017. For copies contact the IEEE: 1-800-678-4333 or 1-908-981-1393. [2] American National Standards Institute (ANSI), "Recommended Practice for the Measurement of Potentially Hazardous Electromagnetic Fields - RF and Microwave." ANSI/IEEE C95.3-1992. Copyright 1992, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), New York, NY 10017. For copies contact the IEEE: 1-800-678-4333 or 1-908-981- 1393. [3] American National Standards Institute (ANSI), "American National Standard Radio Frequency Radiation Hazard Warning Symbol," ANSI C95.2-1982. Copyright 1982, The lnstitute ofElectrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., (IEEE). For copies contact the IEEE: 1- 800-678-4333 or 1-908-981-1393. [4] American Radio Relay League (ARRL), "RF Radiation Safety," The ARRL Radio Amateur Handbook For Radio Amateurs. Copyright 1992 ARRL, Newington, CT 06111, USA. [5] Balzano, Q., Garay O. and Manning, T.J. "Electromagnetic energy exposure of simulated users of portable cellular telephones," IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Vol. 44 (3), pp. 390-403, 1995. [6] Cleveland, R.F., Jr., E.D. Mantiply and R.A. Tell; "A Model for Predicting Induced Body Current in Workers Climbing AM Towers." Presented at the Twelfth Annual Meeting, Bioelectromagnetics Society, San Antonio, Texas, 1990 (Abstracts, p. 77). [7] Dimbylow, P.J. and S.M. Mann, "SAR Calculations in an Anatomically Realistic Model of the Head for Mobile Communication Transceivers at 900 MHz and 1.8 GHz," Phys. Med. Biol. 39(12): 1537-1553 (1994). [8] Federal Communications Commission (FCC), "Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation," Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 93-62, 8 FCC Rcd 2849 (1993). 6O [9] Federal Cormnunications Commission (FCC), "Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation," Report and Order, ET Docket 93-62, FCC 96-326, adopted August 1, 1996. 61 Federal Register 41006 (1996). [10] Federal Communications Commission (FCC), "Measurements of Environmental Electromagnetic Fields at Amateur Radio Stations," FCC Report No. FCC/OET ASD-9601, February 1996. FCC, Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), Washington, D.C. 20554. NTIS Order No. PB96-145016. Copies can also be downloaded from OET's Home Page on the World Wide Web at: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/. [11] Gailey, P. C., and R.A. Tell, "An Engineering Assessment of the Potential Impact of Federal Radiation Protection Guidance on the AM, FM, and TV Broadcast Services," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. EPA 520/6-85-011, April 1985. NTIS Order No. PB 85-245868. [12] Gandhi, O.P., "Some Numerical Methods for Dosimetry: Extremely Low Frequencies to Microwave Frequencies," Radio Science, vol. 30(I), pp. 161-177 (1995). [13] Gandhi, O.p. and J.Y. Chen, "Electromagnetic Absorption in the Human Head from Experimental 6-GHz Handheld Transceivers," IEEE Trans. EMC, 37:547-558 (1995). [14] Gandhi, O.P., G. Lazzi and C.M. Furse, "EM Absorption in the Human Head and Neck for Mobile Telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz," IEEE Trans. on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 44 (10), pp1884-1897, October 1996. [15] Hankin, N., "The Radiofrequency Radiation Environment: Environmental Exposure Levels and RF Radiation Emitting Sources," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460. Report No. EPA 520/1-85-014, July 1986. [16] Kuster, N., and Q. Balzano, "Energy Absorption mechanism by biological bodies in the near field of Dipole antennas above 300 MHz. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 41(1), 17-23, February 1992. [17] Kuster, N., Q. Balzano and J. Lin, Eds., Mobile Communications Safety, Chapman and Hall, London, 1997. [18] Lewis, R.L. and A.C. Newell, "An Efficient and Accurate Method for Calculating and Representing Power Density in the Near-Zone of Microwave Antennas." NBSIR Report No. 85-3036 (December 1985). [19] National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), "Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields; Properties, Quantities and Units, Biophysical Interaction, and Measurements," NCRP Report No. 67, 1981. Copyright NCRP, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA. For copies contact: NCRP Publications at 1-800-229-2652. 61 [20] National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," NCRP Report No. 86, 1986. Copyright NCRP, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA. For copies contact NCRP Publications: 1-800-229-2652. [21] National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), "A Practical Guide to the Determination of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields," NCRP Report No. 119, 1993. Copyright NCRP, Bethesda, MD 20814. For copies contact: NCRP Publications at: 1-800-229-2652. [22] Petersen, R. and P. Testagrossa, "Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Associated with Cellular-Radio Cell-Site Antennas." Bioelectromagnetics, 13:527 (1992). [23] Schmid, T., O. Egger and N. Kuster, "Automated E-Field Scanning System for Dosimetric Assessments," IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory and Techniques, 44(1): 105-113, January 1996. [24] Sullivan, D.M., O.P. Gandhi and A. Taflove, "Use of the Finite-Difference Time- Domain Method for Calculating EM Absorption in Man Models," IEEE Trans. on Biomedical Engineering, 35(3): 179-186, March 1988. [25] 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, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 1976. NTIS Order No. PB 257698. [26] Tell, R.A., "Electric and Magnetic Fields and Contact Currents Near AM Standard Broadcast Radio Stations," Richard Tell Associates, Inc., Las Vegas, NV. Contracted by Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Office of Engineering and Technology, Washington, D.C. 20554. FCC Reference No. FCC/OET RTA 89-01, August 1989. NTIS Order No. PB89- 234850. [27] Tell, R.A., "Induced Body Currents and Hot AM Tower Climbing: Assessing Human Exposure in Relation to the ANSI Radiofrequency Protection Guide," Richard Tell Associates, Inc., Las Vegas, NV. Contracted by Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Office of Engineering and Technology, Washington, D.C. 20554. FCC Reference No. FCC/OET RTA 91-01, October 1991. NTIS Order No. PB92-125186. [28] Tell, R.A., "RF Current Reduction Provided by Work Gloves at AM Radio Broadcast Frequencies," Richard Tell Associates, Inc., Las Vegas, NV. Contracted by Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Office of Engineering and Technology, Washington, D.C. 20554. FCC Reference No. FCC/OET RTA 93-01, September 1993, NTIS Order No. PB94- 117041 [29] Tell, R.A., "Engineering Services for Measurement and Analysis of Radiofrequency (RF) Fields," Richard Tell Associates, Inc., Las Vegas, NV. Contracted by 62 Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Office of Engineering and Technology, Washington, D.C. 20554. FCC Report No. OET/RTA 95-01, June 1995. NTIS Order No. PB 95-253829. [30] Tell, R. A. and E. D. Mantiply, "Population Exposure to VHF and UHF Broadcast Radiation in the United States," Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 68(1), pages 6-12, January 1980. [31] Tell, R.A., and G.G. Gildore, "Assessing Personnel Exposure to Magnetic Fields Associated with AM Radio Broadcast Tower Matching Networks," p. 505-508, NAB Engineering Conference Proceedings, National Association of Broadcasters, Broadcast Engineering Conference, Las Vegas, NV, April 8-12, 1988. [32] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, "Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields and Induced Currents in the Spokane, Washington Area," EPA Report No. EPA/520/6-88/008, June 1988, NTIS Order No. PB88-244819/AS. [33] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, "Electric and Magnetic Fields Near AM Broadcast Towers," EPA Report No. EPA/520/6-91/020, July 1991. NTIS Order No. PB92-101427. 63 `4PPENDIX .4 SUMMARY OF RF EXPOSURE GUIDELINES This appendix summarizes the policies, guidelines and requirements that were adopted by the FCC on August 1, 1996, amending Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and further amended by action of the Commission on August 25, 1997 (see 47 CFR Sections 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091 and 2.1093, as amended). Commission actions granting construction permits, licenses to transmit or renewals thereof, equipment authorizations or modifications in existing facilities, require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA), as described in 47 CFR Section 1.1311, if the particular facility, operation or transmitter would cause human exposure to levels of radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields in excess of these limits. For exact language, see the relevant FCC rule sections. FCC 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. With the exception of the Amateur Radio Service, the date established for the end of the transition period is October 15, 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. Summary of Station and Transmitter Requirements Applications to the Commission for construction permits, licenses to transmit or renewals thereof, equipment authorizations or modifications in existing facilities must contain a statement or certification confirming compliance with the limits unless the facility, operation, or transmitter is categorically excluded from routine evaluation, as discussed below. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request. The FCC-adopted limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) are generally based on recommended exposure guidelines published by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) in "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," NCRP Report No. 86, Sections 17.4.1, 17.4.1.1, 17.4.2 and 17.4.3. Copyright NCRP, 1986, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. In the frequency range from 100 MHz to 1500 MHz, exposure limits for field strength and power density are also generally based on the MPE limits found in Section 4.1 of, "IEEE Standard for Safety 64 Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992, Copyright 1992 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York, New York 10017, and approved for use as an American National Standard by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The FCC's MPE limits for field strength and power density are given in Table 1 (and in 47 CFR § 1.1310) Figure 1 is a graphical representation of the limits for plane-wave (far-field) equivalent power density versus frequency. The FCC's limits are generally applicable to all facilities, operations and transmitters regulated by the Commission, and compliance is expected with the appropriate guidelines. However, routine determination of compliance with these exposure limits (routine environmental evaluation), and preparation of an EA if the limits are exceeded, is required only for facilities, operations and transmitters that fall into the categories listed in Table 2, or those specified below under the headings "mobile," "unlicensed" or "portable" devices. All other facilities, operations and transmitters are categorically excluded from routine evaluation or preparing an EA for RF emissions, except that the Commission may, on its own merits or as the result of a petition, complaint or inquiry, require RF environmental evaluation of transmitters or facilities even though they are otherwise excluded [see 47 CFR Sections 1.1307(c) and (d)]. For purposes of Table 2, the term "building-mounted antennas" means antennas mounted in or on a building structure that is occupied as a workplace or residence. The term "power" in column 2 of Table 2 refers to total operating power of the transmitting operation in question in terms of effective radiated power (ERP), equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP), or peak envelope power (PEP), as defined in 47 CFR. § 2.1. For the case of the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, 47 CFR § 22, Subpart H, the Personal Communications Service, 47 CFR § 24, and Specialized Mobile Radio Service, 47 CFR § 90, the phrase "total power of all channels" in column 2 of Table 2 means the sum of the ERP or EIRP of all co-located simultaneously operating transmitters owned and operated by a single licensee. When applying the criteria of Table 2, 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. For purposes of calculating EIRP of an MDS station, the power level refers to the cumulative EIRP of ail channels. Further, this power limit assumes conventional NTSC transmissions with 10% aural power, and refers to peak visual power. MDS stations employing other than NTSC transmissions, e.g., digital transmissions, must apply the appropriate NTSC peak visual to average power conversion factor for their modulation scheme in order to determine whether the EIRP power criteria is exceeded. In general, as specified in 47 C.F.R. 1.1307(b), as amended, when the FCC's guidelines are exceeded in an accessible area due to the emissions from multiple fixed transmitters the following policy applies. Actions necessary to bring the area into compliance 65 with the guidelines are the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitter's contribution to the RF environment at the non-complying area exceeds 5% of the exposure limit (that applies to their particular transmitter) in terms of power density or the square of the electric or magnetic field strength. This applies regardless of whether such transmitters would, by themselves, nom~ally be excluded from performing a routine environmental evaluation. Owners of transmitter sites are expected to allow applicants and licensees to take reasonable steps to comply with the FCC's requirements and, where feasible, should encourage co-location of transmitters and common solutions for controlling access to areas where the RF exposure limits might 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 submit an EA if emissions from the applicant's transmitter or facility would cause non-compliance at the area in question. However, this applies only if the applicant's transmitter causes exposure levels at the area in question that exceed 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. 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 emissions from the applicant's transmitter or facility, at the area in question, result in exposure levels that exceed 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 am taken to prevent non-compliance before an EA is necessary. In addition, in a renewal situation ifa 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. 66 Table 1. LIMITS FOR MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE (MPE) (A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure Frequency Electric Field Magnetic Field Power Density Averaging Time Range Strength (E) Strength (H) (S) lEI2, Imlor s (MHz) (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm2) (minutes) 0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6 3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/f (900/~)* 6 30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6 300-1500 .... fi300 6 1500-100,000 .... 5 6 (B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure Frequency Electric Field Magnetic Field Power Density Averaging Time Range Strength (E) Strength (H) (S) lEI5 IHI2 or S (MHz) (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm2) (minutes) 0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30 1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (180/~)* 30 30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30 300-1500 .... ff1500 30 1500-100,000 .... 1.0 30 f = frequency in MHz *Plane-wave equivalent power density NOTE 1: Occupational/controlled limits apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment provided those persons are fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Limits for occupational/controlled exposure also apply in situations when an individual is transient through a location where occupational/controlled limits apply provided he or she is made aware of the potential for exposure. NOTE 2: General populationduncontrolled exposures apply in situations in which the general public may be exposed, or in which persons that are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or can not exercise control over their exposure. 67 Figure 1. FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Plane-wave Equivalent Power Density 1,000 100 10 5 1 0.2 0.1 I 0.03 0.3 Occupational/Controfled Exposure .... General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure T3 30 300 13,000 30,0001300,000 1.34 1,500 100,000 Frequency (MHz) TABLE 2: TRANSMITTERS, FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS SUBJECT TO ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) Experimental Radio Services (part 5) Multipoint Distribution Service (subpart K of part 21) Paging and Radiotelephone Service (subpart E of part 22) Cellular Radiotelephone Service (subpart H of part 22) EVALUATION REQUIRED IF: power > 100 W ERP (164 W EIRP) non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and power > 1640 W EIRP building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W EIRP non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: ~ower > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) 69 TABLE 2 (cont.) SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) EVALUATION REQUIRED IF: Personal Communications Services (part 24) Satellite Communications (part 25) General Wireless Communications Service (part 26) Wireless Communications Service (part 27) Radio Broadcast Services (part 73) (1) Narrowband PCS (subpart D): non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) (2) Broadband PCS (subpart E): non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and total power of all channels > 2000 W ERP (3280 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 2000 W ERP (3280 W EIRP) all included total power of all channels > 1640 W EIRP total power of all channels > 1640 W EIRP all included 70 TABLE 2 (cont.) SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) EVALUATION REQUIRED IF: subparts A, G, L: power > 100 W ERP Experimental, auxiliary, and special broadcast and other program distributional services (part 74) subpart I: non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and power > 1640 W EIRP building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W EIRP Stations in the Maritime Services ship earth stations only (part 80) Private Land Mobile Radio Services Paging Operations (part 90) Private Land Mobile Radio Services Specialized Mobile Radio (part 90) non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) 71 TABLE 2 (cont.) SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) EVALUATION REQUIRED IF: Amateur Radio Service mitter output power > levels specified in (part 97) § 97.13(c)(1) of this chapter (see Table 1 in text) Local Multipoint Distribution Service (subpart L of part 101) non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and power > 1640 W EIRP building-mounted antennas: power> 1640 W EIRP LMDS licensees are required to attach a label to subscriber transceiver antennas that: (1) provides adequate notice regarding potential radiofrequency safety hazards, e.g., information regarding the safe minimum separation distance required between users and transceiver antennas; and (2) references the applicable FCC-adopted limits for radiofrequency exposure specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter. 72 Mobile and Portable Devices Mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the Personal Communications Services (PCS), the Satellite Communications Services, the Maritime Services (ship earth stations only) and the Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Service are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, as specified in 47 CFR § 2.1091 and § 2.1093. Unlicensed PCS and millimeter wave devices are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, as specified in 47 C.F.R. § 15.253(0, § 15.255(g), and § 15.319(i). All other mobile, portable, and unlicensed transmitting devices are categorically excluded from routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure under 47 CFR § 2.1091 and § 2.1093, except (as described previously) as specified in 47 CFR § 1.1307(c) and (d). (a) Mobile Devices This section describes the requirements of Section 2.1091 of the FCC's Rules (47 CFR § 2.1091) that apply to "mobile" devices. For purposes of these requirements mobile devices are defined 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 the transmitter's radiating structure(s) and 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. 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. Mobile devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the Personal Communications Services, the Satellite Communications Services, the General Wireless Communications Service, the Wireless Communications Service, the Maritime Services and the Specialized Mobile Radio Service authorized under the following parts and subparts of the FCC's Rules: subpart H of part 22, part 24, part 25, part 26, part 27, part 80 (ship earth station devices only) and part 90 (SMR devices only), are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use if they operate at frequencies of 1.5 GHz or below and their effective radiated power (ERP) is 1.5 watts or more, or if they operate at frequencies above 1.5 GHz and their ERP is 3 watts or more. Unlicensed personal communications service devices, unlicensed millimeter wave devices and unlicensed Nil devices authorized under FCC Rule parts 15.253, 15.255 and subparts D and E of part 15 are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use if their ERP is 3 watts or more or if they meet the definition ora portable device as specified below, requiring evaluation under the provisions of 47 CFR §2.1093. All other mobile and unlicensed transmitting devices are categorically excluded from routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, except as specified in 47 CFR §§ 1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d), as discussed previously. 73 The limits to be used for evaluation of mobile and unlicensed devices (except portable unlicensed devices) are the MPE field strength and power density limits specified in Table 1 above (and in 47 CFR §1.1310). Applications for equipment authorization must contain a statement confirming compliance with these exposure limits as part of their application. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request. All unlicensed personal communications service (PCS) devices shall be subject to the limits for general population/uncontrolled exposure. For purposes of analyzing mobile transmitting devices under the occupational/controlled criteria specified in Table 1, time- averaging provisions of the guidelines may be used in conjunction with typical maximum duty factors to determine maximum likely exposure levels. Time-averaging provisions may not be used in determining typical exposure levels for devices intended for use by consumers in general population/uncontrolled environments. However, "source-based" time-averaging based on an inherent property or duty-cycle of a device is allowed. An example of this is the determination of exposure from a device that uses digital technology such as a time-division multiple-access (TDMA) scheme for transmission of a signal. In general, maximum average rms power levels should be used to determine compliance. If appropriate, compliance with exposure guidelines for mobile and unlicensed devices can be accomplished by the use of warning labels and by providing users with information concerning minimum separation distances from transmitting structures and proper installation of antennas. In some cases, for example, modular or desktop transmitters, the potential conditions of use of a device may not allow easy classification of that device as either mobile or portable. In such cases, applicants are responsible for determining minimum distances for compliance for the intended use and installation of the device based on evaluation of either specific absorption rate (SAR), field strength or power density, whichever is most appropriate. (b) Portable Devices This section describes the requirements of Section 2.1093 of the FCC's Rules (47 CFR §2.1093) that apply to "portable" devices. For purposes of these requirements a portable device is defined as a transmitting device designed to be used so that the radiating structure(s) of the device is/are within 20 centimeters of the body of the user. Portable devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the Personal Communications Services, the Satellite Communications Services, the General Wireless Communications Service, the Wireless Communications Service, the Maritime Services and the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, and authorized under the following sections of the FCC's rules: subpart H of part 22, part 24, part 25, part 26, part 27, part 80 (ship earth 74 station devices only), part 90 (SMR devices only), and portable unlicensed personal communication service, unlicensed Nil devices and millimeter wave devices authorized under rule parts 47 CFR §§ 15.253, 15.255 or subparts D and E of part 15, are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use. All other portable transmitting devices are categorically excluded from routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, except as specified in 47 CFR §§ 1.1307(c) and (d), as discussed previously. Applications for equipment authorization of portable transmitting devices subject to routine environmental evaluation must contain a statement or certification confirming compliance with the limits specified below as part of their application. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request. The limits to be used for evaluation are based generally on criteria published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., (IEEE) for localized specific absorption rate ("SAR") in Section 4.2 of "IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," ANSI/IEEE C95.1- 1992, Copyright 1992 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York, New York 10017. These criteria for SAR evaluation are similar to those recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) in "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," NCRP Report No. 86, Section 17.4.5. Copyright NCRP, 1986, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. SAR is a measure of the rate of energy absorption per unit mass due to exposure to an RF transmitting source. SAR values have been related to threshold levels for potentially adverse biological effects. The criteria to be used are specified below and shall apply for portable devices transmitting in the frequency range from 100 kHz to 6 GHz. Portable devices, as defined above, that transmit at frequencies above 6 GHz are to be evaluated in terms of the MPE limits specified in Table 1 above (and in 47 CFR § 1.1310). Measurements and calculations to demonstrate compliance with MPE field strength or power density limits for devices operating above 6 GHz should be made at a minimum distance of 5 cm from the radiating source. (1) Limits for Occupational/Controlled exposure: 0.4 W/kg as averaged over the whole-body and spatial peak SAR not exceeding 8 W/kg as averaged over any 1 gram of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape ora cube). Exceptions are the hands, wrists, feet and ankles where the spatial peak SAR shall not exceed 20 W/kg, as averaged over any 10 grams of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube). Occupational/Controlled limits apply when persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment provided these persons are fully aware of and exercise control over their exposure. Awareness of exposure can be accomplished by use of warning labels or by specific training or education through appropriate means, such as an RF safety program in a work environment. (2) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled exposure: 0.08 W/kg as averaged over the whole-body and spatial peak SAR not exceeding 1.6 W/kg as averaged over any 1 gram of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube). Exceptions are the hands, wrists, feet and ankles where the spatial peak SAR shall not exceed 4 W/kg, as averaged over 75 any 10 grams of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube). General Population/Uncontrolled limits apply when the general public may be exposed, or when persons that are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or do not exercise control over their exposure. Warning labels placed on consumer devices such as cellular telephones will not be sufficient reason to allow these devices to be evaluated subject to limits for occupational/controlled exposure. Compliance with SAR limits can be demonstrated by laboratory measurement techniques or by computational modeling, as appropriate. Methodologies and references for SAR evaluation are described in technical publications including "IEEE Recommended Practice for the Measurement of Potentially Hazardous Electromagnetic Fields - RF and Microwave," IEEE C95.3-1991, and further guidance on measurement and computational protocols is being developed by the IEEE and others (see text of this bulletin for further discussion). For purposes of analyzing a portable transmitting device under the occupational/controlled criteria only, the time-averaging provisions of the MPE guidelines identified in Table 1 above can be used in conjunction with typical maximum duty factors to determine maximum likely exposure levels. However, assurance must be given that use of the device will be limited to occupational or controlled situations, as defined previously. Time-averaging provisions of the MPE guidelines identified in Table 1 may not be used in determining typical exposure levels for portable devices intended for use by consumers, such as hand-held cellular telephones, that are considered to operate in general population/uncontrolled environments as defined above. However, "source-based" time- averaging based on an inherent property or duty-cycle of a device is allowed. An example of this would be the determination of exposure from a device that uses digital technology such as a time-division multiple-access (TDMA) scheme for transmission of a signal. In general, maximum average rms power levels should be used to determine compliance. 76 APPENDIX B Summary of 1986 Mass Media Bureau Public Notice on RF Compliance On January 28, 1986, the FCC's Mass Media Bureau released a Public Notice providing guidance to broadcast licensees and applicants regarding compliance with the FCC's RF exposure guidelines.38 The primary sections of that Public Notice are reproduced below (text in brackets has been added or edited). Non-broadcast applicants and licensees may also find this information helpful in evaluating compliance (see discussion in text of Section 4 on controlling exposure). "Most broadcasting facilities produce high RF radiation levels at one or more locations near their antennas. That, in itself, does not mean that the facilities significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Each situation must be examined separately to decide whether humans are or could be exposed to high RF radiation ...... [A]ccessibility is a key factor in making such a determination. As a general principle, if areas of high RF radiation levels are publicly marked and if access to such areas is impeded or highly improbable (remoteness and natural barriers may be pertinent) then it may be presumed that the facilities producing the RF radiation do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and do not require the filing of an [E]nvironmental [A]ssessment. Because we wish to avoid burdening applicants with unnecessary work, expenses and administrative filings, we offer the following guidance as to how we will view typical situations. The term "high RF level" means an intensity of RF radiation, whether from single or multiple sources, which exceeds the [FCC] guidelines. Situations (A) High RF levels are produced at one or more locations above ground level on an applicant's tower. - If the tower is marked by appropriate warning signs, the applicant may assume that there is no significant effect on the human environment with regard to exposure of the general public. (B) High RF levels are produced at ground level in a remote area not likely to be visited by the public. ~ Further Guidance for Broadcasters Regarding Radio frequency Radiation and the Environment, January 28, 1986, FCC Public Notice No. 2278. 77 - If the area of concem is marked by appropriate warning signs, an applicant may assume that there is no significant effect on the human environment with regard to exposure of the general public. It is recommended that fences also be used where feasible. (C) High RF levels are produced at ground level in an area which could reasonably be expected to be used by the public (including trespassers). - If the area of concern is fenced and marked by appropriate warning signs, an applicant can assume that there is no significant effect on the human environment with regard to exposure of the general public. (D) High RF levels are produced at ground level in an area which is used or is likely to be used by people and to which the applicant cannot or does not restrict access. - The applicant must submit an [E]nvironmental [A]ssessment [unless corrective action is taken prior to submission of an application]. This situation may require a modification of the facilities to reduce exposure or could lead to a denial of the application. (E) High RF levels are produced in occupied structures, on balconies, or on rooftops used for recreational or commercial purposes. - The applicant must submit an [E]nvironmental [A]ssessment [unless corrective action is taken prior to submission of an application]. The circumstances may require a modification of the broadcasting facility to reduce exposure or could lead to a denial of the application. (F) High RF levels are produced in offices, studios, workshops, parking lots or other areas used regularly by station employees. - The applicant must submit an [E]nvironmental [A]ssessment [unless corrective action is taken prior to submission of an application]. The circumstances may require a modification of the facilities to reduce exposure or the application may be denied. This situation is essentially the same as (E). We have included it to emphasize the point that station employees as well as the general public must be protected from high RF levels [also, see FCC definitions used to determine application of exposure tiers: general population/uncontrolled vs. occupational/controlledJ. Legal releases signed by employees willing to accept high exposure levels are not acceptable and may not be used in lieu of corrective measures. (G) High RF levels are produced in areas where intermittent maintenance and repair work must be performed by station employees or others. 78 - [FCC] guidelines also apply to workers engaged in maintenance and repair. As long as these workers will be protected from exposure to levels exceeding [FCC] guidelines, no [E]nvironmental [A]ssessment is needed. Unless requested by the Commission, information about the manner in which such activities are protected need not be filed. If protection is not to be provided, the applicant must submit an [E]nvironmental [A]ssessment. The circumstances may require corrective action to reduce exposure or the application may be denied. Legal releases signed by workers willing to accept high exposure levels are not acceptable and may not be used in lieu of corrective measures. The foregoing also applies to high RF levels created in whole or in part by reradiation. A convenient rule to apply to all situations involving RF radiation is the following: (1) Do not create high RF levels where people are or could reasonably be expected to be present, an~d (2) [p]revent people from entering areas in which high RF levels are necessarily present. Fencing and warning signs may be sufficient in many cases to protect the general public. Unusual circumstances, the presence of multiple sources of radiation, and operational needs will require more elaborate measures. Intermittent reductions in power, increased antenna heights, modified antenna radiation patterns, site changes, or some combination of these may be necessary, depending on the particular situation. 79 Federal Communications Commission Local and State Government Advisory Committee A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance June 2~ 2000 A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance Over the past two years, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its Local and State Government Advisory Committee (LSGAC) have been working together to prepare a voluntary guide to assist state and local governments in devising efficient procedures for ensuring that the antenna facilities located in their communities comply with the FCC's limits for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields. The attached guide is the product of this joint effort. We encourage state and local government officials to consult this guide when addressing issues of facilities siting within their communities. This guide contains basic information, in a form accessible to officials and citizens alike, that will alleviate misunderstandings in the complex area of RF emissions safety. This guide is not intended to replace OET Bulletin 65, which contains detailed technical information regarding RF issues, and should continue to be used and consulted for complex sites. The guide contains information, tables, and a model checklist to assist state and local officials in identifying sites that do not raise concerns regarding compliance with the Commission's RF exposure limits. In many cases, the model checklist offers a quick and effective way for state and local officials to establish that particular RF facilities are unlikely to exceed specific federal guidelines that protect the public from the environmental effects of RF emissions. Thus, we believe this guide will facilitate federal, state, and local governments working together to protect the public while bringing advanced and innovative communications services to consumers as rapidly as possible. We hope and expect that use of this guide will benefit state and local governments, service providers, and, most importantly, the American public. We wish all of you good luck in your facilities siting endeavors. William E. Kennard, Chairman Federal Communications Commission Kenneth S. Fellman, Chair Local and State Government Advisory Committee Lo ~cial's Guide to RF FCC/LSGAC A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL'S GUIDE TO TRANSMITTING ANTENNA RF EMISSION SAFETY: RULES, PROCEDURES, AND PRACTICAL GUIDANCE A common question raised in discussions about the siting of wireless telecommunications and broadcast antennas is, "Will this tower create any health concerns for our citizens?" We have designed this guide to provide you with information and guidance in devising efficient procedures for assuring that the antenna facilities located in your community comply with the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC's) limits for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields.~ We have included a checklist and tables to help you quickly identify siting applications that do not raise RF exposure concerns. Appendix A to this guide contains a checklist that you may use to identify "categorically excluded" facilities that are unlikely to cause RF exposures in excess of the FCC's guidelines. Appendix B contains tables and figures that set forth, for some of the most common types of facilities, "worst case" distances beyond which there is no realistic possibility that exposure could exceed the FCC's guidelines. As discussed below, FCC rules require transmitting facilities to comply with RF exposure guidelines. The limits established in the guidelines are designed to protect the public health with a very large margin of safety. These limits have been endorsed by federal health and safety agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. The FCC's rules have been upheld by a Federal Court of Appeals.2 As discussed below, most facilities create maximum exposures that are only a small fraction of the limits. Moreover, the limits themselves are many times below levels that are generally accepted as having the potential to cause adverse health effects. Nonetheless, it is recognized that any instance of noncompliance with the guidelines is potentially very serious, and the FCC has therefore implemented procedures to enforce compliance with its rules. At the same time, state and local governments may wish to verify compliance with the FCC's exposure limits in order to protect their own citizens. As a state or local government official, you can play an important role in ensuring that innovative and beneficial communications services are provided in a manner that is consistent with public health and safety. This document addresses only the issue of compliance with RF exposure limits established by the FCC. It does not address other issues such as construction, siting, permits, inspection, zoning, environmental review, and placement of antenna facilities within communities. Such issues fall generally under the jurisdiction of states and local governments, within the limits imposed for personal wireless service facilities by Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act? ~ This guide is intended to complement, but not to replace, the FCC's OET Bulletin 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," August 1997. Bulletin 65 can be obtained from the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology (phone: 202-418-2464 or e-mail: rfsafety~fcc.gov). Bulletin 65 can also be accessed and downloaded from the FCC's "RF Safety" website: http://www.fcc.gov/oeffr fsafety. 2 See Cellular Phone Taskforce v. FCC, 205 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000). Lo fficial's Guide to RF FCC/LSGAC This document is not intended to provide legal guidance regarding the scope of state or local government authority under Section 332(c)(7) or any other provision of law. Section 332(c)(7)4 generally preserves state and local authority over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities,s subject to specific limitations set forth in Section 332(c)(7). Among other things, Section 332(c)(7) provides that "[n]o State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [FCC's] regulations concerning such emissions." The full text of Section 332(c)(7) is set forth in Appendix C. State and local governments and the FCC may differ regarding the extent of state and local legal authority under Section 332(c)(7) and other provisions of law. To the extent questions arise regarding such authority, they are being addressed by the courts. Rather than address these legal questions, this document recognizes that, as a practical matter, state and local governments have a role to play in ensuring compliance with the FCC's limits, and it provides guidance to assist you in effectively fulfilling that role. The twin goals of this document are: (1) to define and promote locally-adaptable procedures that will provide you, as a local official concerned about transmitting antenna emissions, with adequate assurance of compliance, while (2), at the same time, avoiding the imposition of unnecessary burdens on either the local government process or the FCC's licensees. First, we'll start with a summary of the FCC's RF exposure guidelines and some background information that you'll find helpful. Next, we'll review the FCC's procedures for verifying compliance with the guidelines and enforcing its rules. Finally, we'll offer you some practical guidance to help you determine if personal wireless service facilities may raise compliance concerns. Note, however, that this guide is only intended to help you distinguish sites that are unlikely to raise compliance concerns from those that may raise compliance concerns, not to identify sites that are out of compliance. Detailed technical information necessary to determine compliance for individual sites is contained in the FCC's OET Bulletin 65 (see footnote 1, above). 347 u.s.c. § 332(c)(7). Under limited circumstances, the FCC also plays a role in the siting of wireless facilities. Specifically, the FCC reviews applications for facilities that fall within certain environmental categories under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), see 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a). Antenna structures that are over 200 feet in height or located near airport runways must be marked or lighted as specified by the Federal Aviation Administration and must be registered with the FCC, see 47 C.F.R. Part 17. 4 Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act is identical to Section 704(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 5 "Personal wireless services" generally includes wireless telecommunications services that are interconnected with the public telephone network and are offered commercially to the public. Examples include cellular and similar services (such as Personal Communications Service or "PCS"), paging and similar services, certain dispatch services, and services that use wireless technology to provide telephone service to a fixed location such as a home or office. Lo ~cial's Guide to RF FCC/LSGAC Before we start, however, let's take a short tour of the radiofrequency spectrum. RF signals may be transmitted over a wide range of frequencies. The frequency of an RF signal is expressed in terms of cycles per second or "Hertz," abbreviated "Hz." One kilohertz (kHz) equals one thousand Hz, one megahertz (MHz) equals one million Hz, and one gigahertz (GHz) equals one billion Hz. In the figure below, you'll see that AM radio signals are at the lower end of the RF spectrum, while other radio services, such as analog and digital TV (DTV), cellular and PCS telephony, and point-to-point microwave services are much higher in frequency. AM Band / Ham 0~3 Mhz · Cordless Cordless Cordless Shortwave Radio Phones Phones Phones Aircraft Microwaves 3 Mhz CB VHF VHF UHF P.C.S. Phones TV+DTV TV+DTV TV+DTV Pagers Cellular Phones FM Band 30 Mhz 300 Mhz 3000 Mhz · As the frequency increases, the wavelength of the transmitted signal decreases Mhz = Megahertz = Millions of cycles per second Illustration 1 The FCC's limits for maximum permissible exposure (MPE) to RF emissions depend on the frequency or frequencies that a person is exposed to. Different frequencies may have different MPE levels. Later in this document we'll show you how this relationship of frequency to MPE limit works. I. The FCC's RF Exposure Guidelines and Rules. Part 1 of the FCC's Rules and Regulations contains provisions implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). NEPA requires all federal agencies to evaluate the potential environmental significance of an agency action. Exposure to RF energy has been identified by the FCC as a potential environmental factor that must be considered before a facility, operation or transmitter can be authorized or licensed. The FCC's requirements dealing with RF exposure can be found in Part 1 of its roles at 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b). The exposure limits themselves are specified in 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310 in terms of frequency, field strength, power density and averaging time. Facilities and transmitters licensed and authorized by the FCC must either comply with these guidelines or else an applicant must file an Environmental Assessment (EA) with the FCC as specified in 47 C.F.R. § 1.1301 et seq. An EA is an official document required by the FCC's rules whenever an action may have a significant environmental impact (see discussion below). In practice, however, a potential environmental RF exposure problem is typically resolved before an EA would become necessary. Therefore, compliance with the FCC's RF guidelines constitutes a de facto threshold for obtaining FCC approval to construct or operate a station or transmitter. The FCC guidelines are based on exposure criteria FCC/LSGAC Lo fficial's Guide to RF recommended in 1986 by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and on the 1991 standard developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and later adopted as a standard by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992). The FCC's guidelines establish separate MPE limits for "general population/uncontrolled exposure" and for "occupational/controlled exposure." The general population/uncontrolled limits set the maximum exposure to which most people may be subjected. People in this group include the general public not associated with the installation and maintenance of the transmitting equipment. Higher exposure limits are permitted under the "occupational/controlled exposure" category, but only for persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment (e.g., wireless radio engineers, technicians). To qualify for the occupational/controlled exposure category, exposed persons must be made fully aware of the potential for exposure (e.g., through training), and they must be able to exemise control over their exposure. In addition, people passing through a location, who are made aware of the potential for exposure, may be exposed under the occupational/controlled criteria. The MPE limits adopted by the FCC for occupational/controlled and general population/uncontrolled exposure incorporate a substantial margin of safety and have been established to be well below levels generally accepted as having the potential to cause adverse health effects. Determining whether a potential health hazard could exist with respect to a given transmitting antenna is not always a simple matter. Several important factors must be considered in making that determination. They include the following: (1) What is the frequency of the RF signal being transmitted? (2) What is the operating power of the transmitting station and what is the actual power radiated from the antenna? 6 (3) How long will someone be exposed to the RF signal at a given distance from the antenna? (4) What other antennas are located in the area, and what is the exposure from those antennas? We'll explore each of these issues in greater detail below. For all frequency ranges at which FCC licensees operate, Section 1.1310 of the FCC's rules establishes maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits to which people may be exposed. The MPE limits vary by frequency because of the different absorptive properties of the human body at different frequencies when exposed to whole-body RF fields. Section 1.1310 establishes MPE limits in terms of "electric field strength," "magnetic field strength," and "far-field equivalent power density" (power density). For most frequencies used by the wireless services, the most relevant measurement is power density. The MPE limits for power density are given in terms of "milliwatts per square centimeter" or mW/cm2. One milliwatt equals one thousandth of one watt (1/1000 of a watt).7 In terms of power density, for a given frequency the FCC MPE limits can be interpreted as specifying the maximum rate that energy can be transferred (i.e., the power) to a square centimeter of a person's body over a period of time (either 6 or 30 minutes, as explained 6 Power travels from a transmitter through cable or other connecting device to the radiating antenna. "Operating power of the transmitting station" refers to the power that is fed from the transmitter (transmitter output power) into the cable or connecting device. "Actual power radiated from the antenna" is the transmitter output power minus the power lost (power losses) in the connecting device plus an apparent increase in power (if any) due to the design of the antenna. Radiated power is often specified in terms of"effective radiated power" or "ERP" or "effective isotropic radiated power" or "EIRP" (see footnote 14). Thus, by way of illustration, it takes 100,000 milliwatts of power to fully illuminate a 100 watt light bulb. FCC/LSGAC Loca~Official's Guide to RF below). In practice, however, since it is unrealistic to measure separately the exposure of each square centimeter of the body, actual compliance with the FCC limits on RF emissions should be determined by "spatially averaging" a person's exposure over the projected area of an adult human body (this concept is discussed in the FCC's OET Bulletin 65). For determining compliance, exposure is averaged over the approximate projected area of the body. Power decreases as the distance from the antenna increases. Illustration 2 Electric field strength and magnetic field strength are used to measure "near field" exposure. At frequencies below 300 MHz, these are typically the more relevant measures of exposure, and power density values are given primarily for reference purposes. However, evaluation of far- field equivalent power density exposure may still be appropriate for evaluating exposure in some such cases. For frequencies above 300 MHz, only one field component need be evaluated, and exposure is usually more easily characterized in terms of power density. Transmitters and antennas that operate at 300 MHz or lower include radio broadcast stations, some television broadcast stations, and certain personal wireless service facilities (e.g., some paging stations). Most personal wireless services, including all cellular and PCS, as well as some television broadcast stations, operate at frequencies above 300 MHz. (See Illustration 1 .) As noted above, the MPE limits are specified as time-averaged exposure limits. This means that exposure can be averaged over the identified time interval (30 minutes for general population/uncontrolled exposure or 6 minutes for occupational/controlled exposure). However, for the case of exposure of the general public, time averaging is usually not applied because of uncertainties over exact exposure conditions and difficulty in controlling time of exposure. Therefore, the typical conservative approach is to assume that any RF exposure to the general public will be continuous. The FCC's limits for exposure at different frequencies are shown in Illustration 3, below: 5 FCC/LSGAC LocRfficial's Guide to RI? Illustration 3. FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) (A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure Frequency Electric Field Magnetic Field Strength Power Density Averaging Time Range Strength (E) (H) (S) lEIz, Iai2 or S (MHz) (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm2) (minutes) 0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6 3.0-30 1842/£ 4.89/f (900/f2)* 6 30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6 300-1500 .... f/300 6 1500-100,000 .... 5 6 (B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure Frequency Electric Field Magnetic Field Strength Power Density Averaging Time Range Strength (E) (H) (S) lEI2, IHI2 or S (MHz) (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm2) (minutes) 0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30 1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (180/f:)* 30 30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30 300-1500 .... f/1500 30 1500-100,000 .... 1.0 30 f- frequency in MHz *Plane-wave equivalent power density NOTE 1: Occupational/controlled limits apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment provided those persons are fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Limits for occupational/controlled exposure also apply in situations when an individual is transient through a location where occupational/controlled limits apply provided he or she is made aware of the potential for exposure. NOTE 2: General population/uncontrolled exposures apply in situations in which the general public may be exposed, or in which persons that are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Finally, it is important to understand that the FCC's limits apply cumulatively to all sources of RF emissions affecting a given area. A common example is where two or more wireless operators have agreed to share the cost of building and maintaining a tower, and to place their antennas on that joint structure. In such a case, the total exposure from the two facilities taken together must be within the FCC guidelines, or else an EA will be required. A. Categorically Excluded Facilities The Commission has determined through calculations and technical analysis that due to their low power or height above ground level, many facilities by their very nature are highly unlikely to 6 FCC/LSGAC Loca~Official's Guide to RF cause human exposures in excess of the guideline limits, and operators of those facilities am exempt from routinely having to determine compliance. Facilities with these characteristics are considered "categorically excluded" from the requirement for routine environmental processing for RF exposure. Section 1.1307(b)(1) of the Commission's rules sets forth which facilities are categorically excluded.8 Ifa facility is categorically excluded, an applicant or licensee may ordinarily assume compliance with the guideline limits for exposure. However, an applicant or licensee must evaluate and determine compliance for a facility that is otherwise categorically excluded if specifically requested to do so by the FCC.9 If potential environmental significance is found as a result, an EA must be filed with the FCC. No radio or television broadcast facilities are categorically excluded. Thus, broadcast applicants and licensees .must affirmatively determine their facility's compliance with the guidelines before construction, and upon every facility modification or license renewal application. With respect to personal wireless services, a cellular facility is categorically excluded if the total effective radiated power (ERP) of all channels operated by the licensee at a site is 1000 watts or less. If the facility uses sectorized antennas, only the total effective radiated power in each direction is considered. Examples ofa 3 sector and a single sector antenna array are shown below: Example of a 3 sector antenna array Example of a single sector antenna array Sector C/l'x Sector B Antenna Array ~,/~(~'~ Antenna Array Sector A Antenna Array Single Sector ~ Antenna Array Illustration 4 8 "The appropriate exposure limits.., are generally applicable to all facilities, operations and transmitters regulated by the Commission. However, a determination of compliance with the exposure limits... (routine environmental evaluation), and preparation of an EA if the limits are exceeded, is necessary only for facilities, operations and transmitters that fall into the categories listed in table I [of § 1.1307], or those specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. All other facilities, operations and transmitters are categorically excluded from making studies or preparing an EA..." See 47 C.F.R § 1.1307(c) and (d). FCC/LSGAC Loca~Official's Guide to RF In addition, a cellular facility is categorically excluded, regardless of its power, if it is not mounted on a building and the lowest point of the antenna is at least 10 meters (about 33 feet) above ground level. A broadband PCS antenna array is categorically excluded if the total effective radiated power of all channels operated by the licensee at a site (or all channels in any one direction, in the case of sectorized antennas) is 2000 watts or less. Like cellular, another way for a broadband PCS facility to be categorically excluded is if it is not mounted on a building and the lowest point of the antenna is at least 10 meters (about 33 feet) above ground level. The power threshold for categorical exclusion is higher for broadband PCS than for cellular because broadband PCS operates at a higher frequency where exposure limits are less restrictive. For categorical exclusion thresholds for other personal wireless services, consult Table 1 of Section 1.1307(b)(1).~° For your convenience, we have developed the checklist in Appendix A that may be used to streamline the process of determining whether a proposed facility is categorically excluded. You are encouraged to adopt the use of this checklist in your jurisdiction, although such use is not mandatory. What If An Applicant Or Licensee Wants To Exceed The Limits Shown In Illustration 3? Any FCC applicant or licensee who wishes to construct or operate a facility that, by itself or in combination with other sources of emissions (i.e., other transmitting antennas), may cause human exposures in excess of the guideline limits must file an Environmental Assessment (EA) with the FCC. Where more than one antenna is collocated (for example, on a single tower or rooftop or at a hilltop site), the applicant must take into consideration all of the RF power transmitted by all of the antennas when determining maximum exposure levels. Compliance at an existing site is the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce exposure levels in excess of 5% of the applicable exposure limit. A new applicant is responsible for compliance (or submitting an EA) at a multiple-use site if the proposed transmitter would cause non-compliance and if it would produce exposure levels in excess of 5% of the applicable limit.il An applicant or licensee is not permitted to construct or operate a facility that would result in exposure in excess of the guideline limits until the FCC has reviewed the EA and either found no significant environmental impact, or pursued further environmental processing including the preparation of a formal Environmental Impact Statement. As a practical matter, however, this process is almost never invoked for RF exposure issues because applicants and licensees normally undertake corrective actions to ensure compliance with the guidelines before submitting an application to the FCC. Unless a facility is categorically excluded (explained above), the FCC's rules require a licensee to evaluate a proposed or existing facility's compliance with the RF exposure guidelines and to ~0 Table 1 of §1.1307(b)(1) is reproduced in Appendix A to this guide. ~ For more information, see OET Bulletin 65, or see 47 CFR § 1. 1307(b)(3). 8 FCC/LSGAC LocgOfficial's Guide to RF determine whether an EA is required. In the case of broadcast licensees, who are required to obtain a construction permit from the FCC, this evaluation is required before the application for a construction permit is filed, or the facility is constructed. In addition, ifa facility requires the filing of an EA for any reason other than RF emissions, the RF evaluation must be performed before the EA is filed. Factors other than RF emissions that may require the filing of an EA are set out in 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a). Otherwise, new facilities that do not require FCC-issued construction permits should be evaluated before they are placed in operation. The FCC also requires its licensees to evaluate existing facilities and operations that are no~t categorically excluded if the licensee seeks to modify its facilities or renew its license. These requirements are intended to enhance public safety by requiring periodic site compliance reviews. All facilities that were placed in service before October 15, 1997 (when the current RF exposure guidelines became effective) are expected to comply with the current guidelines no later than September 1, 2000, or the date of a license renewal, whichever is earlier? Ifa facility cannot meet the September I, 2000, date, the licensee of that facility .must file an EA by that date. Section 1.1307(b) of the FCC's rules requires the licensee to provide the FCC with technical information showing the basis for its determination of compliance upon request. II. How the FCC Verifies Compliance with and Enforces Its Rules. A. Procedures Upon Initial Construction, Modification, and Renewal. The FCC's procedures for verifying that a new facility, or a facility that is the subject of a facility modification or license renewal application, will comply with the RF exposure rules vary depending upon the service involved. Applications for broadcast services (for example, AM and FM stations, and television stations) are reviewed by the FCC's Mass Media Bureau (MMB). As part of every relevant application, the MMB requires an applicant to submit an explanation of what steps will be taken to limit RF exposure and comply with FCC guidelines. The applicant must certify that RF exposure procedures will be coordinated with all collocated entities (usually other stations at a common transmitter site or hill or mountain peak). If the submitted explanation does not adequately demonstrate a facility's compliance with the guidelines, the MMB will require additional supporting data before granting the application. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) reviews personal wireless service applications (for cellular, PCS, SMR, etc.). For those services that operate under blanket area licenses, including cellular and PCS, the license application and renewal form require the applicant to certify whether grant of the application would have a significant environmental impact so as to require submission of an EA. The applicant's answer to this question covers al~l of the facilities sites included within the area of the license. For those services that continue to be licensed by site (e.g., certain paging renewals), the WTB requires a similar certification on the application form for each site. To comply with the FCC's rules, an applicant must determine its own compliance before completing this certification for Prior to October 15, 1997, the Commission applied a different set of substantive guidelines. FCC/LSGAC LocgOfficial's Guide to RF every site that is not categorically excluded. The WTB does not, however, routinely require the submission of any information supporting the determination of compliance. B. Procedures For Responding To Complaints About Existing Facilities. The FCC frequently receives inquiries from members of the public as to whether a particular site complies with the RF exposure guidelines. Upon receiving these inquiries, FCC staffmay ask the inquiring party to describe the site at issue. In many instances, the information provided by the inquiring party does not raise any concern that the site could exceed the limits in the guidelines. FCC staff will then inform the inquiring party of this determination. In some cases, the information provided by the inquiring party does not preclude the possibility that the limits could be exceeded. Under these circumstances, FCC staff may ask the licensee who operates the facility to supply information demonstrating its compliance. FCC staffmay also inspect the site to determine whether it is accessible to the public, and examine other relevant physical attributes. Usually, the information obtained in this manner is sufficient to establish compliance. If compliance is established in this way, FCC staff will inform the inquiring party of this determination. In some instances, a licensee may be unable to provide information sufficient to establish compliance with the guideline limits. In these cases, FCC staff may test the output levels of individual facilities and evaluate the physical installation. Keep in mind, however, that instances in which physical testing is necessary to verify compliance are relatively rare. Ifa site is found to be out of compliance with the RF guidelines, the FCC will require the licensees at the site to remedy the situation. Depending on the service and the nature and extent of the violation, these remedies can include, for example, an immediate reduction in power, a modification of safety barriers, or a modification of the equipment or its installation. Actions necessary to bring a site into compliance are the shared responsibility of all licensees whose facilities cause exposures in that area that exceed 5% of the applicable MPE limit. In addition, licensees may be subject to sanctions for violating the FCC's rules and/or for misrepresentation. The FCC is committed to responding fully, promptly, and accurately to all inquiries regarding compliance with the RF exposure guidelines, and to taking swift and appropriate action whenever the evidence suggests potential noncompliance. To perform this function effectively, however, the FCC needs accurate information about potentially problematic situations. By applying the principles discussed in this guide about RF emissions, exposure and the FCC's guidelines, state and local officials can fulfill a vital role in identifying and winnowing out situations that merit further attention. IlL Practical Guidance Regarding Compliance. This section is intended to provide some general guidelines that can be used to identify sites that should not raise serious questions about compliance with FCC RF exposure guidelines. Sites that don't fall into the categories described here may still meet the guidelines, but the determination 10 FCC/LSGAC Loc~Official's Guide to RF of compliance will not be as straightforward. In such cases, a detailed review may be required. The tables and graphs shown in Appendix B are intended only to assist in distinguishing sites that should not raise serious issues from sites that may require further inquiry. They are not intended for use in identifying sites that are out of compliance. As noted above, the factors that can affect exposure at any individual site, particularly a site containing multiple facilities, are too numerous and subtle to be practically encompassed within this framework. Applying the basic principles discussed in this guide should allow you to eliminate a large number of sites from further consideration with respect to health concerns. You may find it useful to contact a qualified radio engineer to assist you in your inquiry. Many larger cities and counties, and most states, have radio engineers on staff or under contract. In smaller jurisdictions, we recommend you seek initial assistance from other jurisdictions, universities that have RF engineering programs, or perhaps the engineer in charge of your local broadcast station(s). We'll exclude any discussion of broadcast sites. As explained before, broadcast licensees are required to submit site-specific information on each facility to the FCC for review, and that information is publicly available at the station as long as the application is pending. The focus in this section is on personal wireless services, particularly cellular and broadband PCS, the services that currently require the largest numbers of new and modified facilities. Many other personal wireless services, however, such as paging services, operate in approximately the same frequency ranges as cellular and broadband PCS. ~3 Much of the information here is broadly applicable to those services as well, and specific information is provided in Appendix B for paging and narrowband PCS operations over frequency bands between 901 and 940 MHz. Finally, this section only addresses the general population/uncontrolled exposure guidelines, since compliance with these guidelines generally causes the most concern to state and local governments. Compliance with occupational/controlled exposure limits should be examined independently. A. Categorically Excluded Facilities. As a first step in evaluating a siting application for compliance with the FCC's guidelines, you will probably want to consider whether the facility is categorically excluded under the FCC's rules from routine evaluation for compliance. The checklist in Appendix A will guide you in making this determination. Because categorically excluded facilities are unlikely to cause any exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines, determination that a facility is categorically excluded should generally suffice to end the inquiry. B. Single Facility Sites. If a wireless telecommunications facility is not categorically excluded, you may want to evaluate potential exposure using the methods discussed below and the tables and figures in Appendix B. ~ The major exception is fixed wireless services, which often operate at much higher frequencies. In addition, some paging and other licensees operate at lower frequencies 11 FCC/LSGAC Loc~Official's Guide to RF If you "run the numbers" using the conservative approaches promoted in this paper and the site in question does not exceed these values, then you generally need look no further. Alternately, if the "numbers" don't pass muster, you may have a genuine concern. But remember, there may be other factors (i.e., power level, height, blockages, etc.) that contribute to whether the site complies with FCC guidelines. Where a site contains only one antenna array, the maximum exposure at any point in the horizontal plane can be predicted by calculations. The tables and graphs in Appendix B show the maximum distances in the horizontal plane from an antenna at which a person could possibly be exposed in excess of the guidelines at various levels of effective radiated power (ERP)? Thus, if people are not able to come closer to an antenna than the applicable distance shown in Appendix B, there should be no cause for concern about exposure exceeding the FCC guidelines. The tables and graphs apply to the following wireless antennas: (1) cellular omni-directional antennas (Table B 1-1 and Figure B 1-1 ); (2) cellular sectorized antennas (Table B 1-2 and Figure B 1-2); (3) broadband PCS sectorized antennas (Table B 1-3 and Figure B 1-3);ts and (4) high- power (900 MHz-band) paging antennas (Table B1-4 and Figure B1-4). Table B1-4 and Figure B1-4 can also be used for omni-directional, narrowband (900 MHz) PCS antennas. Note that both tables and figures in Appendix B have been provided. In some cases it may be easier to use a table to estimate exposure distances, but figures may also be used when a more precise value is needed that may not be listed in a table. It's important to note that the predicted distances set forth in Appendix B are based on a very conservative, "worst case" scenario. In other words, Appendix B identifies the furthest distance from the antenna that presents even a remote realistic possibility of RF exposure that could exceed the FCC guidelines. The power levels are based on the approximate maximum number of channels that an operator is likely to operate at one site. It is further assumed that each channel operates with the maximum power permitted under the FCC's rules and that all of these channels are "on" simultaneously, an unlikely scenario. This is a very conservative assumption. In reality, most sites operate at a fraction of the maximum permissible power and many sites use fewer than the maximum number of channels. Therefore, actual exposure levels would be expected to be well below the predicted values. Another mitigating factor could be the presence of intervening structures, such as walls, that will reduce RF exposure by variable amounts. For all these reasons, the values given in these tables and graphs are considered to be quite conservative and should over-predict actual exposure levels. t4 ERP is the apparent effective amount of power leaving the transmit antenna. The ERP is determined by factors including but not limited to transmitter output power, coaxial line loss between the transmitter and the antenna, and the "gain" (focusing effect) of the antenna. In some cases, power may also be expressed in terms of EIRP (effective isotropically radiated power). Therefore, for convenience, the tables in Appendix B also include a column for EIRP. ERP and EIRP are related by the mathematical expression: (l.64) X ERP -- EIRP. ~ Because broadband PCS antennas are virtually always sectorized, no information is provided for omni-directional PCS antennas. 12 FCC~SGAC Loc~a~fficial's Guide to RF ~Power decreases as the distance from the antenna increases Illustration 5 Personal wireless service antennas typically do not emit high levels of RF energy directed above or below the horizontal plane of the antenna. Although the precise amount of energy transmitted outside the horizontal plane will depend upon the type of antenna used, we are aware of no wireless antennas that produce significant non-horizontal transmissions. Thus, exposures even a small distance below the horizontal plane of these antennas would be significantly less than in the horizontal plane. As discussed above, the tables and figures in Appendix B show distances in the horizontal plane from typical antennas at which exposures could potentially exceed the guidelines, assuming "worst case" operating conditions at maximum possible power levels. In any direction other than horizontal, including diagonal or straight down, these "worst case" distances would be significantly less. Where unidirectional antennas are used, exposure levels within or outside the horizontal plane in directions other than those where the antennas are aimed will typically be insignificant. In addition, many new antennas are being designed with shielding capabilities to minimize emissions in undesired directions. C. Multiple Facility Sites. Where multiple facilities are located at a single site, the FCC's rules require the total exposure from all facilities to fall within the guideline limits, unless an EA is filed and approved. In such cases, however, calculations of predicted exposure levels and overall evaluation of the site may become much more complicated. For example, different transmitters at a site may operate different numbers of channels, or the operating power per channel may vary from transmitter to transmitter. Transmitters may also operate on different frequencies (for example, one antenna array may belong to a PCS operator, while the other belongs to a cellular operator). A large number of variables such as these make the calculations more time consuming, and make it difficult to apply a simple rule-of-thumb test. See the following illustration. 13 FCC/LSGAC Loc~Official's Guide to RF ower decreases as the distance from the antenna increases Illustration 6 However, we can be overly conservative and estimate a "worst case" exposure distance for compliance by assuming that the total power (e.g., ER_P) of all transmitting antennas at the site is concentrated in the antenna that is closest to the area in question. (In the illustration above, this would be the antenna that is mounted lower on the building.) Then the values in the tables and graphs in Appendix B may be used as if this were the only antenna at the site, with radiated power equal to the sum of the actual radiated power of all antennas at the site. Actual RF exposure at any point will always be less than the exposure calculated using these assumptions. Thus, if people are not able to come closer to a group of antennas than the applicable distance shown in Appendix B using these assumptions, there should be no cause for concern about exposure exceeding the FCC guidelines. This is admittedly an extremely conservative procedure, but it may be of assistance in making a "first cut" at eliminating sites from further consideration. IV. Conclusion. We've highlighted many of the most common concerns and questions raised by the siting of wireless telecommunications and broadcast antennas. Applying the principles outlined in this guide will allow you to make initial conservative judgments about whether RF emissions are or should be of concern, consistent with the FCC's rules. As we have explained, when first evaluating a siting application for compliance with the FCC's guidelines, you will probably want to consider whether the facility is categorically excluded under the FCC's rules from routine evaluation for compliance. The checklist in Appendix A will guide you in making this determination. Because categorically excluded facilities are unlikely to cause any exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines, determination that a facility is categorically excluded should generally suffice to end the inquiry. If a wireless telecommunications facility is not categorically excluded, you may want to evaluate potential exposure using the methods discussed in Part III of this paper and the tables and figures in Appendix B. If the site in question does not exceed the values, then you generally need look no further. Alternately, if the values don't pass muster, you may have a genuine concern. But 14 FCC/LSGAC Loca~Official's Guide to RF remember, there may be other factors (i.e., power level, height, blockages, etc.) that contribute to whether the site complies with FCC guidelines. If you have questions about compliance, your initial point of exploration should be with the facilities operator in question. That operator is required to understand the FCC's rules and to know how to apply them in specific cases at specific sites. If, after diligently pursuing answers from the operator, you still have genuine questions regarding compliance, you should contact the FCC at one of the numbers listed below. Provision of the information identified in the checklist in Appendix A may assist the FCC in evaluating your inquiry. General Information: Compliance and Information Bureau, (888) CALL-FCC Concerns About RF Emissions Exposure at a Particular Site: Office of Engineering and Technology, RF Safety Program, phone (202) 418-2464, FAX (202) 418-1918, e-mail rfsafety~fcc.gov Licensing and Site Information Regarding Wireless Telecommunications Services: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Commercial Wireless Division, (202) 418-0620 Licensing and Site Information Regarding Broadcast Radio Services: Mass Media Bureau, Audio Services Division, (202) 418-2700 Licensing and Site Information Regarding Television Service (Including DTV): Mass Media Bureau, Video Services Division, (202) 418-1600 Also, note that the RF Safety Program Web site is a valuable source of general information on the topic of potential biological effects and hazards of RF energy. For example, OET recently updated its OET Bulletin 56 ("Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields"). This latest version is available from the program and can be accessed and downloaded from the FCC's web site at: http://www, fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/ 15 FCC/LSGAC Lo'Official's Guide to RI? APPENDIX A Optional Checklist for Determination Of Whether a Facility is Categorically Excluded FCC~SGAC Loc~al Official's Guide to RI? Optional Checklist for Local Government To Determine Whether a Facility is Categorically Excluded Purpose: The FCC has determined that many wireless facilities are unlikely to cause human exposures in excess of RF exposure guidelines. Operators of those facilities are exempt from routinely having to determine their compliance. These facilities am termed "categorically excluded." Section 1.1307(b)(1) ofthe Commission's rules defines those categorically excluded facilities. This checklist will assist state and local government agencies in identifying those wireless facilities that are categorically excluded, and thus are highly unlikely to cause exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines. Provision of the information identified on this checklist may also assist FCC staff in evaluating any inquiry regarding a facility's compliance with the RF exposure guidelines. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Facility Operator's Legal Name: 2. Facility Operator's Mailing Address: 3. Facility Operator's Contact Name/Title: 4. Facility Operator's Office Telephone: 5. Facility Operator's Fax: 6. Facility Name: 7. Facility Address: 8. Facility City/Community: 9. Facility State and Zip Code: 10. Latitude: continue FCC/LSGAC Loc~al Official's Guide to RF Optional Local Government Checklist (page 2) EVALUATION OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION 12. Licensed Radio Service (see attached Table 1): 13. Structure Type (free-standing or building/roof-mounted): 14. Antenna Type [omnidirectional or directional (includes sectored)]: 15. Height above ground of the lowest point of the antenna (in meters): 16. [] Check if all of the following are true: (a) This facility will be operated in the Multipoint Distribution Service, Paging and Radiotelephone Service, Cellular Radiotelephone Service, Narrowband or Broadband Personal Communications Service, Private Land Mobile Radio Services Paging Operations, Private Land Mobile Radio Service Specialized Mobile Radio, Local Multipoint Distribution Service, or service regulated under Pan 74, Subpart I (see question 12). (b) This facility will no~t be mounted on a building (see question 13). (c) The lowest point of the antenna will be at least 10 meters above the ground (see question 15). If box 16 is checked, this facility is categorically excluded and is unlikely to cause exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines. The remainder of the checklist need not be completed. If box ~:16 is not checked, continue to question 17. ~17. Enter the power threshold for categorical exclusion for this service from the attached Table 1 in watts ERP or EIRP* (note: EIRP = (1.64) X ERP): 18. Enter the total number of channels if this will be an omnidirectional antenna, or the maximum number of channels in any sector if this will be a sectored antenna: 19. Enter the ERP or EIRP per channel (using the same units as in question 17): 20. Multiply answer 18 by answer 19: 21. Is the answer to question 20 less than or equal to the value from question 17 (yes or no)? }If the answer to question 21 is YES, this facility is categorically excluded. It is unlikely to cause exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines. :~If the answer to question 21 is NO, this facility is not categorically excluded. Further investigation may be appropriate to verify whether the facility may cause exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines. *"ERP" means "effective radiated power" and "EIRP" means "effective isotropic radiated power FCC/LSGAC Local Official s Guide to TABLE 1: TRANSMITTERS, FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS SUBJECT TO ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) EVALUATION REQUIRED IF: Experimental Radio Services power > 100 W ERP (164 W EIRP) (part 5) Multipoint Distribution Service (subpart K of part 21) Paging and Radiotelephone Service (subpart E of part 22) Cellular Radiotelephone Service (subpart H of part 22) non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and power > 1640 W EIRP building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W EIRP non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) FCC/LSGAC Loc~al Official's Guide to RF TABLE 1 (cont.) SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) EVALUATION REQUIRED IF: Personal Communications Services (part 24) Satellite Communications (part 25) General Wireless Communications Service (part 26) Wireless Communications Service (part 27) Radio Broadcast Services (part 73) (1) Narrowband PCS (subpart D): non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) (2) Broadband PCS (subpart E): non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and total power of all channels > 2000 W ERP (3280 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 2000 W ERP (3280 W EIRP) all included total power of all channels > 1640 W EIRP total power of all channels > 1640 W EIRP all included FCC/LSGAC Loca~Official's Guide to RF TABLE 1 (cont.) SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) EVALUATION REQUIRED IF: subparts A, G, L: power > 100 W ERP Experimental, auxiliary, and special broadcast and other program distributional services (part 74) subpart I: non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and power > 1640 W EIRP building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W EIRP Stations in the Maritime Services ship earth stations only (part 80) Private Land Mobile Radio Services Paging Operations (part 90) Private Land Mobile Radio Services Specialized Mobile Radio (part 90) non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP) FCC/LSGAC Loc~al Official's Guide to RF TABLE 1 (cont.) SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) EVALUATION REQUIRED IF: Amateur Radio Service transmitter output power > levels specified in (part 97) § 97.13(c)(1) of this chapter Local Multipoint Distribution Service (subpart L of part 101) non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of anteima < 10 m and power > 1640 W EIRP building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W EIRP LMDS licensees are required to attach a label to subscriber transceiver antennas that: (1) provides adequate notice regarding potential radiofrequency safety hazards, e.g., information regarding the safe minimum separation distance required between users and transceiver antennas; and (2) references the applicable FCC-adopted limits for radiofrequency exposure specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter. FCC/LSGAC Loc~a Official's Guide to RF APPENDIX B Estimated "Worst Case" Distances that Should be Maintained from Single Cellular, PCS, and Paging Base Station Antennas APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS James Dinizio, Jr., Chairman Gerard R Goehringer Ruth D. Oliva Michael A. Simon Leslie Kanes Weisman Mailing Address: Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road · RO. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, North Fork Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765.1809 · Fax (631) 765-9064 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 2007 ZBA File No. 5826 - NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS, PCS LLC Property Location: East Marion Fire District, 9245 Main Road, East Marion CTM 31-3-11.31 containing 3.05 acres Zone District: R-40 Low-Density Residential SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without further steps under SEQRA. In addition, the Town Planning Board has issued a Negative Declaration with a Determination of Non-Significance dated September 11, 2006. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property contains 3.05 acres owned by the East Marion Fire District and improved with two Fire House structures. The East Marion Fire District (EMFD), an established special district for emergency communications, has a building permit issued for the tower, inside of which this antenna facility will be co-located. The EMFD maintains at its fire station communication transmissions to and from this site, and the wireless communications tower was determined to be in a location that provides sufficient space and height to provide an installation of a 450 Hz antenna, north of the firehouse, and sufficient land area of three acres shown on the October 25, 2005 survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application has been referred as required under the Suffolk County Administrative Code Sections A 14-14 to 23. The Suffolk County Department of Planning reply dated January 22, 2007 states that the application is considered a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. FINDINGS OF FACT APPLICANT'S REQUEST: By application received May 15, 2007, a request was filed by New Cingular Wireless, PCS LLC, applicant/lessee, for a Special Exception under Section 280-69A, based on the Building Inspector's April 18, 2007 Notice of Disapproval, concerning the proposed co- location of a wireless communications antenna on an existing approved tower. Town of Southold Chapter 280, Article XVII Wireless Communications Facility reads: Page 2 - August 16, 2007 ZB File No. 5826 - New Cing CTM No. 31-3-11.31 Any unstaffed facility for the transmission and/or reception of wireless telecommunications services or other radio transmission and/or receiving service or use usually consisting of a wireless communication facility array, connection cables, an equipment facility and a support structure to obtain the necessary elevation. The support structure is either a building, telecommunication or radio antenna or tower or other approved structure. [Added 11-12-1997 by L.L No. 26-1997; amended 2-2~1999 by L.L. No. 3-1999] CODE ARTICLE XVII: Section 280-67 (former #100-160) of the Zoning Code allows wireless communications, and particularly telecommunication towers, to be reviewed and approved in keeping with the town's existing zoning and historic development patterns, including the size and spacing of structures and open spaces. Furthermore, the standards herein reflect two preferences: that wireless communication facilities are preferred in industrial areas and that wireless communication facilities be located on existing buildings and towers rather than on newly constructed towers. Any wireless communication facility must take into account the aesthetic aspects of the town, including open vistas, scenic byways and historic districts. In addition, the following provisions have been applied: § 280-68 [former #100-161). Scope. [Amended 12-8-1998 by L.L. No. 25-1998] The regulations of this article shall govern and control the erection, enlargement, expansion, alteration, operation, maintenance, relocation and removal of all wireless communication facilities. The regulations of this article relate to the location and design of these facilities and shall be in addition to the provisions of the Southold Building and Zoning Codes and any other federal, state or local laws or Federal Communication Commission (FCC) regulations pertaining to such facilities. Nothing herein shall be construed to, apply to, prohibit, regulate or otherwise affect the erection, maintenance or utilization of antennas or support structures by those licensed by the Federal Communications Commission pursuant to Chapter 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97, to operate amateur radio stations. §280-69 (former #100-162). Location of use. No wireless communication facility shall be used, erected or altered in the Town of Southold when located in an R-80 Residential Zone District, except by (Planning Board) site plan approval, meeting the following requirements. (1) Wireless communication facilities on buildings shall require a special exception approval pursuant to this article. Wireless communication facilities on buildings shall be no higher than 10 feet above the average height of buildings (excluding signs, fences and walls) within 300 feet of the proposed facility. The building on which the wireless communication facility is located must be located at least 100 feet from the nearest property line and 300 feet from any landmark property or distdct listed by federal, state or town agencies. (2) Wireless communication facilities on existing telecommunications towers shall require a special exception approval pursuant to this chapter unless otherwise allowed by the terms of a prior special exception approval. (3) Wireless communication facilities on telecommunication towers shall require special exception approval pursuant to this article and shall not project higher than 10 feet above the average height of buildings (excluding signs, fences and walls) within 300 feet of the facility or, if there are no buildings within 300 feet, these facilities shall not project higher than 10 feet above the average tree canopy height in that radius measured from ground level. If there are Page 3 - August 16, 2007 ZR File No. 5826 - New Cingular CTM No. 31~3-11.31 no buildings within 300 feet of the proposed facility site, all telecommunication towers shall be surrounded by dense tree growth to screen views of the facility in all directions. The base of the tower shall be located at least 100 feet from the nearest property line and 300 feet from a landmark property or district listed by federal, state or town agencies. (4) A wireless communication facility is a permitted use, not requiring site plan approval, if located on property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by state, federal or town government, provided that a license or lease authorizing such facility has been approved by that government. The height of such facility may be established by the public agency. (5) A wireless communication facility is a permitted use, not requiring site plan approval, if located on property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by a special district, provided that a license or lease authorizing such facility has been approved by the commissioners of the special district, and provided that it does not exceed the maximum heights specified above. Section 280-70B(1-5). Code Standards. In addition to the standards in Article XVll of this Code, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall find and determine the following: (1) The applicant is a public utility. (2) The co-location of a public utility antenna is a public necessity, in that it is required to meet current or expected demands of the telecommunications provider and to render adequate service to the public. (3) The applicant has made substantial effort to co-locate on a permitted tower. (4) The facility conforms with applicable FCC regulations. (5) There are compelling reasons, economic or otherwise, which make it more feasible to construct the proposed antenna than alternatives. OTHER CODE CONSIDERATIONS: In addition to considerations under Article XVII (Special Exceptions) of Chapter 280, the Zoning Board of Appeals has given consideration to the following in issuing a special exception approval for a wireless communication facility: (1) The antenna will be located within the tower without affecting the height, and is the minimum necessary to render adequate service. (2) The antenna for the wireless communication facility is to be situated within an existing previously approved monopole antenna and therefore will have no visual affects to residential structures, residential district boundaries and landmarks designated by town, federal or state agencies. (3) The antenna is designed and situated to be compatible with the nature of uses on adjacent and nearby property. (4) The antenna has been designed to minimize any possible visual impact. Page 4 -August 16, 2007 ZB File No. 5826 - New Cing CTM No. 3'1-3-11.31 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on June 28, 2007 and August 2, 2007, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: 1) That the applicant is a public utility. 2) The applicant is locating (co-locating) within an existing approved monopole tower which is encouraged by the town to help mitigate the aesthetic aspects including vistas, scenic byways and historic districts. 3) The proposed antenna is compatible with the nature of uses on adjacent and nearby property, to the extent that East Marion has a commercial/industrial area, and within this area is a fire house, permitted tower for telecommunications, and New York State Highway Route 25. 4) There are compelling reasons, economic or otherwise, which make it more feasible to construct the proposed antenna than alternatives. A) The location of the previously approved tower is at the East Marion Fire House which is in the heart of the business district for this hamlet. B) Other locations within the effective range of this tower, such as inside church steeples, are not high enough and would increase the need for additional towers and antennas by decreasing the propagation footprint required to service the areas. 5) The height, at which the antenna will be installed, on the previously approved tower, will maximize the propagation footprint. The board has investigated other alternative sites within the effective range of the proposed antenna, sach as church steeples and determines that (any) alternate site if chosen would increase the need to build more towers and antennas in the area. 6) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 addresses and regulates the strength of the signal emitted from telecommunications antennas for the purposes of health and safety. 7) The effect on real estate values will be minimal because the antenna will not be visible after it is installed on the inside of the previously approved tower. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Oliva, seconded by Member Page 5- August 16, 2007 ZB File No. 5826 - New Cingular CTM No. 31-3-11.31 Goehringer, and duly carried, to GRANT, the special exception as applied for, as shown on Diagrams Z-01 ,. Z-02, Z-03, T-01 prepared 4-16-07 by Infinigy Engineering, date stamped May 4, 2007 by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Dinizio (Chairman), Oliva, Goehringer, and Weisman. Simon was absent. This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). Ja)~es Dinizio Jr., ZBA C~lairman A~proved for Filing 8/~/2007 Member I £'~3,'.~9/2087 15:52 6317B591364 APPEALS BOARD MEM[BERS Ruth D. OHva Genrd R Goehdnger James Dinizio, Jr, Ch~i.nmn Michael .&. Simon Leslie Kanes Weisman p~ 02 Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road · P.O. Box I1'~9 Southoid, NY 11971-0959 Town Annex/First Float, Nculh Fork Bank 54375 Main Ro~d (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 h~lp://sou~oldtown,nomhfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF $OUTIrlOLD Td. (631) 76~-1809 · Fax (6.%1) 765.9064 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING HELD: MARCH 8, 2007 ZB File No. 5972 ~,, EAST MARION FiRE DISTRICT Property Location: 9245 Main Road, East Marion Zone Districts (split): HB Hamlet Busir~ess; R,40 Low Density Residential CTM 31-3-11.31 containing 3.05 acres SEQRA DETERMINATIQH: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of ACtions, without further steps under 5EQRA- In addition, the Town Planning Board has issued a Negative Declaration with a Determination of Non-Significance dated September 11, 2006. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property contains 3,05 acres owned by the East MaCon Fire Oistrict and improved with two Fire House StruCtures, as shown on the site plan prepared by Infinigy Englneedng dated 8/17/06. BASIS {DF APPLICATION: The applicant request~ a Variance under Section 260-69 (100-162A3, AS), based on an application for a building permit and the Building Inspector's July 25, 2006 NOtiCe of DisapprOval, concerning const~ction of a proposed wireless communication/telecommuniCations monopo~e tower on p.mperty owned, leased er otherwise controlled by a special district approved by the commissioners of the special-district. The proposed tower will exceed the code limitation - with a height greeter than 10 feet above the average I~eight of buildings within 300 feet of the facility, OR higher than 10 feet above the average tree canopy height in that radius measured from ground level if there are no buildings within 300 feet. Also, if there are no buildings within 300 feet of the proposed facility site, all telecommunication towers shall be surrounded by dense tree growth to screen views of the facility in all directions. ~: The applicant, East Maden Fire Distdct (EMFD), is an established special district for emergen0y communications on at least 4.35 acres of land. The EMFD maintains its fire station communication transmissions to and from this site. and the wireless communications tower would be in a location that provides sufficient space and height to provide an installation of a 450 Hz antenna, north of the firehouse. S~UFF~LK ,COUNTY ,,ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; This application has been referred as required under the $uffolk County Administrative Coda Sections A 14-14 to 23, and the Suffolk Coun17 Department of Planning replied in its communications dated November 24, 2006 and January £0:9I 60, 68 ~UW ~Od 96£ ~S3 OA08 £ aaUM~3 696SS9&I£9 ZBA PaGE 83 2007 stating that the application is considered a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inte~-community impact. .TOWN CQDE CHAPTER 95 ~2683 L~NRP CONSISTENCY: This application has also been referred as required under Chapter 95 (2e8) of the Town Code, and L.WRP Coordinator Marl< Terry has issued a determinatio~ dated April 26, 20D6, received October 23, 2006, stating that this application is consistent with the Policy Standards. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Aphasia hetd a public hearing on this application on November 30, 2006 and January 25, 2007, at which time written and oral evidence were presented, Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the pn3perty, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the foIIOWZng facts to'be true and relevant: ~__REA VARIANCE RELIEF RE(~,UESTED: The applicant, East Marion Fire District, wishes to construct a tere¢ommunications menopole tower to support public safety communications antennas, at a maximum hei9ht of 120 feet. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the BOard makes the follow~ng findings: 1. Grant of alternative relief will not produce, an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, The site where the monopole antenna wllJ be constructed is presently open space lying just north of the two structures that Se~e the community of East Marion as a firehouse, The site has been used for many years for the PurPOSes of storing and maintaining fire fighting and assOCiated support e~uipment such as fire trucks, hoses, ladders and radio equipment to communicate during actual rites, The addition of this monopole antenna will improve the reliability of the radio equipment currently in use. 2. The benefit sought by the ap~31icant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant tO pursue, other than an area variance, The East Marion Fire District only owns one piece of real proPel'ty, and it is upon this property that the monopote antenna will be erected. Security. electrical supply, and proximity to ttle source of dispatch demand that the principal antenna be located as close to the firehouse as possible. 3. The alternative relief granted herein is substantial. The variance sought by the applicant and the alternative relief granted herein, will increase the antenna height at least 90% Over the code maximum, (The code requirement is a maximum of 60 feet in height,) Although a monopole antenna of this size will create some v~sual change in the area, this change must be balanced against the necessity of improving emergency Communications for the community. 4. Granting of the alternative relief for a height variance will not have an adverse effect or impact On the physicai or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The monopole antenna is designed to withstand the highest anticipated wind velocities and constructed in accordance to current en, gineedng standards All equipment required for powering and maintenance of the antenna w~ll be located within a securely fenced area surrounding the base of the mon0pole, which £0:9I 60, 60 ~dW £0d 9A£ OSB ~A08 £ OSUMOB 696SS9&I£9 Page 3 - Mamh B, 2007 ZB ~:ile No. 5972 - East Marion Fire Dietrict CTM Ne. 31-3-11,31 ZBA PAGE 04 will be screened by native plantings. All radio transmissions will be regulated by appropriate agencies, 5. The alleged difficulty has not been self-created. It is necessary to update the means of communications as technology advances with time, The current technology requires a certain tower height in order to guarantee adequate coverage of the fire district. 6. The proposed height is not the minimum that is necessary to preserve and protec~ the chara~.ter of the neighborhood end the I~ealth, safety, and welfare of the community. The testimony presented was not sufficient to persuade that the antenna height of 120 feet is necessary to provide the desired coverage at the fire district. The BOard considers the substantial altema'~ive relief granted to be sufficient to satisfy the applicant's needs and to meet reasonable concerns of public safety, 7. Grant of the re~juested relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant t~ enjoy the benefit of a telecommunications tower facilib/, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. P~ESQLUTtQN OF THE BOARD: In considering ell of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 2~7-B, motion was offered by Member Simon, secc)nded by Member Olive, and duly carried, to DENY the variance as applied for, and in the ALTERNATIVE, to GRANT a vedanta in the location shown on the (~-~ 7-06 Infinigy Site Diagram (setbacks 105 feet from the north lot li~a, 1~8+/- feet set back from the westerly lot line), at a maximum antenna height of 110 feet, subject to the following conditions: 1) The covering of the monopois ahell be painted a color that wijl make it blend into the area, The board suggests a neutral color such as gray or gray- blue. 2) No flag shall be placed upon the monopole antenna. 3) The monopole shall not be lighted except ss required by law. That these ZBA conditions be written into the Building Inspector's Certificate of Occupancy, when i~ued. Any deviation from the variance given SUCh as extensions, or demolitions which ere not shown on the applicant's diagrams or survey site maps, are not authorized 9rider this appllcetfon when involving nonc. onfon'nities ~nder the -oning c.~xJe. This a~ion does not authorize or condone a~ly ~3~r~ent or future use, Setback or other feature of the subject Droperty that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. The BoarcJ reserves the right to sub.~tffute a similar design that is de minimis in nature for an alteration that doss not increase the degree of ncn~onforrnity, Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members, Oliva, Goehringe~Simon, and Weisman. Nay: Chairman Dinizio (in favor of requested 120 ft. hei[~l~. This Res~lu~,~n ~was duly e~lopted (4-1). Ja,~e~'-Dinizio Jr.; C{~airr~n- / "3/9/2007 · a~3proved for FiJing ~0:9~ 60, 68 ~W ~Od 96£ DSB OAO8 £ ~M~B 696SS9&~£9 DATE: April 18, 2007 TO: SBA Network Services (Cingular/East Marion Fire District) 5900 Broken Sound Parkway NW Boca Raton, FL 33487-2797 Please take notice that your application dated April 13, 2007 For permit for co-location of a wireless communications antenna on an existing approved tower at Location of property: 9245 Main Road, East Marion County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 3._[1 Block3 Lot 11.31 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed antenna is not permitted pursuant to Article XXIV, 280-69, A., which states, "In Residential and Marine Districts including A-C, R-80, R-40, R-120, R-200, R-400, AHD, HD, RR, RO, MI and MI1, a wireless communication facility is subject to site plan approval and must meet the following requirements. "(2) Wireless communication facilities on existing telecommunications towers shall require a special exception approval pursuant to this chapter unless otherwise allowed by the terms of a prior special exception approval." Therefore, a special exception approval is required from the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. In addition, the proposed co-location requires site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Dep~~may now apply to these agencies directly. ~X~__~__.gxi~e Sign a"~"rur e Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: file, Z.B.A., Planning FORM NO. 3 NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: October 10, 2005 TO: Munley, Meade, Nielsen & Re a/c East Marion Fire District 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 Please take notice that your application dated September 7, 2005 For permit for construction of a telecommunications tower and equipment structure at Location of property: 9245 Main Road, East Marion County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 3~1 Block3 Lot 11.31 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed telecomm~mications tower and equipment structure, on this 3.05 acre parcel in the Residential R-40 District, is not permitted, pursuant to Article XVI, Section 100-162. Site plan approval is required from the Southold Town Planning Board. "No wireless communication facility shall be used, ~'ected or altered in the Town of Southold except as follows: A. In Residential and Marine Districts including AC, R80, R40, R120, R200, R400, AHD, HD, RR, RO, MI and MII, a wireless communication facility is subject to site plan approval and must meet the following requirements. (1) Wireless communication facilities on buildings shall require a special exception approval pursuant to this article. Applicant may apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for special exception approval and The Planning Board for site plan approval. ~~ed $ignatu Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may requ;' further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: file, Z.B.A. FORM NO. 3 NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: October 10, 2005 TO: Munley, Meade, Nielsen & Re aJc East Marion Fire District 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 PLease take notice that your application dated September 7, 2005 For permit for construction of a telecommunications tower and equipment structure at Location of property: 9245 Main Road, East Marion County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 31 Block3 Lot 11.31 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed telecommunications tower and equipment structure, on this 3.05 acre parcel in the Residential R-40 District, is not permitted, pursuant to Article XVI, Section 100-162. Site plan approval is required from the Southold Town Planning Board. Special Exception approval is required from the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Applicarkt mag4pplv to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Board for ate plan agpm-val~--~. ,, // Authored sign tu~. Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: file, Z.B.A. special exception approval and The Planning SO T.OLO Phone (631) 765-1809 Fax (631) 765-9064 APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION Application No. Date Files: I ~ ) hereby apply to the ZO14~G BO~ OF ~PEALS, Southold, New York for a SPEC~L EXCEPTION in accordance with the ZON~G O~CE, ARTICLE ~I , SECTION 280-6g and 280-70 SUBSECTION Owner(s)(~: Eagt ~ar~on F~ra Mailing Address: _9245 Route 25. East ~ar5on~ ~ 11939 Telephone: NOTE: If applicant is not the omar, state if applinant is omer'g ~lder. con,act vendee, etc. ~ .... ~ AuthodzedRepresentafi~: New C~ngular ~5reless, Address: 333 Cro~ways Park Drive, ~oodbur7~=~ ' Telephone: (516~ 677-~ For the below-described property for the following uses and purposes (and as shown on the attached plan drawn to scale): (attach separate sheetsifneeded) Publ±c Utility Wireless Telecommunication Facility The Applicant proposes to affix public utility wireless telecommunications inside existing/approved flagpole/monopole, and install related equipment as depicted in the plans submitted herewith. A. Statement of Ownership and Interest: East Marion Fire District is (are) the owner(s) of property known and referred to as 0245 Route 25; East Marion, New York (House No., Street, Hamlet) identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 31 ,Block 3 , Lot(s) 11.31 which is not (is) on a subdivision Map (Filed , "Map of "Filed Map No. _, and has been approved by the Southold Town Panning Board on as a [Minor] [Major] Subdivision). The above-described property was acquired by the owner on November 23. 1998 · B. The applicant alleges that the approval of this exception would be in harmony with the intent and purpose of said zoning ordinance and that the proposed use conforms to the standards prescribed therefore in said ordinance and would not be detrimental to property or persons in the neighborhood for the following reasons: PLEASE SEE ATTACBMENT "A" C. The property which is the subject of this application is zoned R-40 and [ ] is consistent with the use(s) described in the Certificate of Occupancy(copy attached). [ X] is not consistent with the Certificate of Occupancy being furnished herewith for the following reason(s): [ ] is vacant land. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) New Ci~g~l~r/~treless PCS, LLC (Si-~ose~p'h~Sweet, System Development Manager ZBA2 (rev. 2/06) LAWRENCE C. RE' Notary public, State ot New York No. 52-4799664 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires May 31 ATTACMENT "A" Application for Special Exception Town of Southhold Zoning Board of Appeals Applicant: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC The applicant, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to operate a personal wireless service system in Suffolk County and throughout much of the United States. It is considered to be a public utility for zoning purposes. The applicant is unable to provide reliable service in the vicinity of the proposed site. The East Marion Fire District has obtained all municipal approvals to erect a communications flagpole/monopole at the subject premises. In keeping with the Town's policy to encourage co-location, the applicant proposes to install its antennas inside the approved flagpole and to install equipment on the ground as depicted in the plans that have been submitted. We believe that the proposal represents the least obtrusive means for the applicant to provide reliable service to the surrounding area. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 TEL: (631) 765-1802 FAX: (631) 765-9502 www. northfork.net/Southold/ PERMIT NO. BUILD1N~i~ERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST have or need the following, before applying? Board of Health 3 sets of Building Plans Planning Board approval Survey_ Check Septic Form N.Y.S.D.E.C. Trustees Examined ,20 Contact: Lawrence C. Re' Approved /,20/ ,.. ~ ---'-'--'---l~lto. Munley, Meade, Nielsen& Re' Disepproved a/c ~ff///~ J / /' ~/N. New York Ave., Huntinqton, N' /~ ,/ f / /J Phone:631-425-4100 ' 11743! Expiration , 20__ ~ ~ ~ "?:'-:~..~,~'?~3,~0_..~ INSTRUCTIONS · S~ation MUST be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and waterways. c. The work covered by this application may not be cormnenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such a permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose what so ever until the Building Inspector issues a Certificate of Occupancy. f. Every building permit shall expire if the work authorized has not commenced within 12 months after the date of issuance or has not been completed within 18 months from such date. If no zoning amendments or other regulations affecting the properly have been enacted in the interim, the Building Inspector may authorize, in writing, the extension of the permit for an addition six months. Thereafter, a new perm/t shall be required. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the q'own of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions, or alterations or for removal or demolition as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable ! ., ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and !n build ~ for necessary inspections. State whether applicant is owner, lessee Lessee New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Si nature0f0 li t.or ifa o orati ) (A Delaware [~ml~P~ca~,abn~ty 333£ro~swaysParkDrive. Woodbury. Ny 11797 (Mailing address of applicant) nt, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder Name of owner of premises_ East Mar If applicant isa caorporatx~d[~o[~ · .' / Dela~ imi By: , (Name an~ti~e;~of~'rporate oosepb Sweet~ ~ystem Deve]opmt Builders License No.X,D .. Plumbers License No. Electricians License No. Other Trade's License No. :ire District · (As on the tax roll or latest deed) ltV Comoanw authonzBd Officer Manager 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done: 9245 Route 25 House Number Street East Marion Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Subdivision (Name) Section 31 Block 3 Lot 11.31 Filed Map No. Lot 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed constixi~tion: a. Existing use and occupancy Fi rehouse b. Intended use and occupancy Public Utility Wireless Telecommunication Facility - Unmanned Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building Repair Removal Demolition Estimated Cost $130, 000.00 If dwelling, number of dwelling units N/A If garage, number of cars N/A Fee Addition Alteration - 'iic U~iiit Wit Other WorklVet~Do c nmm,, n i c a ffi nn ~e~v (Description) (To be paid on filing this application) Number of dwelling units on each floor N/A 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use. N/A 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front Height. Number of Stories Rear Depth Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front ', Depth Height Number of Storie~* 9. Size of lot: Front 10. Date of Purchase Dimensions of entire new construction: Front Height Number of Stories Rear .Depth 11/23/98 Rear Rear .Depth Eugene Kessler, as Executor of the Estate Name of Former Owner of Herbert R. Mandel 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated R40 and l-lB 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation? YES NO__ /at limited area of construction only 13. Will lot be re-graded? YES x NO Will excess fill be removed fi'om premises? YES x East Marion 9245 Route 25 14. NamesofOwnerofpremises Fire District Address East Marion PhoneNo. Name of Architect Address Phone No Name of Contractor Address Phone No. NO 15 a. Is this property within 100 feet of a tidal wetland or a freshwater wetland? *YES __NO __ * IF YES, SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES & D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. b. Is this pi:operty within 300 ~eet of a tidal wetland? * YES __ NO__ * IF YES, D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. 16. Provide survey, to scale, with accurate foundation plan and distances to property lines. 17. If elevation at any point on property is at 10 feet or below, must provide topographical data on survey. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF Joseph Sweet being duly swom, deposes and says that (s)he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract) above named, (~)He is the System Development Manager of New Cinqular Wireless PCS, LLC (Contractor, Agent, Corporate Officer, etc.) Lessee - Authori zed Agent of said owner or owners, and is duly authoi~zed to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC By: __.~ ~ u N~*I' ~Sht~gnatureofApplicant dosep~N~weet, System Development Manager TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Town Hall Southold, N.Y. BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FILm; ~ COMPLETION OF TME WORK AUTHORIZED) PERMIT NO. 32920 Z Date APRIL 19~ 2007 Permission is hereby granted to: for MARION FIRE DISTRICT EAST PO BOX 131 EAST MARIONtNY 11939 CONSTRUCTION OF AN EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS TOWER PER ZBA #5972 AS APPLIED FOR at premises located at 9245 MAIN RD EAST County Tax Map No. 473889 Section 031 Block 0003 Lot No. pursuant to application dated APRIL 10, 2007 and approved by the Building Inspector to expire on OCTOBER Fee $ 250.00 Rev. 5/8/02 COPY 60:0I LO, 60 AUH I0d ~I~ 0S3 GA0~ f (/~U[gG3 696~9£]~c9 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Town Hall Southold, N.Y. BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES ~fTiL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) FULL PERMIT NO. 32920 Z Date APRIL 19, 2007 Permission is hereby granted to: MARION FIRE DISTRICT EAST P0 BOX 131 EAST MARION,NY 11939 for : CONSTRUCTION OF AN EMERGENCY COMMLr~ICATIONS TOWER PER ZBA %5972 AS APPLIED FOR at premises located at 9245 MAIN RD EAST MAR I CN County Tax Map No. 473889 Section 031 pursuant to application dated APRIL Block 0003 Lot No. Olj.{!~i i0, 2007 and approved by ~he Building Inspector to expire on OCTOBER Fee $ 19 , 2008. Rev. 5/S/o2 COPY t~E:£I LO, 0I AUW EOd 6IP 053 CADS] £ (]~JUPl(]3 696GS9£1£9 TONN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Town Hall Southold, N.Y. BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES L~TIL FULL COMPLETION OP THE WORK AUTHORIZED) PERMIT NO. 82920 Z Date APRIL 19, 2007 Permission is hereby granted MARION FIRE DISTRICT EAST PO BOX 131 EAST MARION~NY 11939 for : CONSTRUCTION OF AN EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS TOWER PER ZBA ~5972 AS APPLIED FOR at premises located at 9245 MAIN RD EAST County Tax Map No. 473889 Section 031 Block 0003 Lot No. 0t' }~i pursuant to application dated APRIL 10, 2007 and approved by the Building Inspector to expire on OCTOBER Fee $ 250.00 19, 2008. Rev. 5/8/02 COPY OWNER STRi-~ET ~:~.V~ V,LLAGE D,ST. ~U'~. LOT ) ACR. ' ~ ~ REMARKS '"'~ TYPE OF BI~O. ~ LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE FRONTAGE ON WATER ZILLABLE f' FRONTAGE ON ROAD j ~ ~, WOODLAND DEPTH ~ C~ ) 6~ MEADOWLAND BULKHEAD HOUSE/LOT TOTAL , c Bath Dinette M. Bldg. Foundation cs FULL CRAWL Floors Kit. Extension Basement SLAB Extension Ext. Walls Interior Finish L.R. Extension Fire Place Heat D.R. ~ Woodstove BR. Patio ? ,, Porch Dormer Fin. B. · Deck Attic Breezeway Rooms 1st Floor Garage Driveway Rooms 2nd Floor Pool COLOR TRIM O~WNER STREET ~;~ "7,.~ VILLAGE DIST. SUB. LOT TYPE OF BLD. PROP. ~LASS -- ~ TOTAL DATE LAND· IMP. ~ FRONTAGE ON WATER TILLAE~LE FRONTAGE ON ROAD WOODLAND DEPTH MEADOWLAND BULKHEAD HOUSE/LOT TOTAL COLOR TRIM ~ ~,.;~ . _ 31-3-11.29 10/02 - ~ .c Bath ~ ~2.~ Dinette M~d~.~ %~Y~ J~l -"'~'/I 27''° ~1~ Foundation c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ FULL ExtenSion ~ Basement SLAB CRAWL Floors Kit. ~tension ~O Ext. Walls Interior Finish L.R. Extension Fire Place. Heat D.R. Patio ~ ~ ~ - Woodstove ~ BR' Porch ~/Z~ Dormer Fin. B, ~'~ ~ ~ Attic ~ ~- . Rooms 1st Floor Garage ~riveway Rooms 2nd Floor O.B.. Pool -' TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY I~~- ~1- OWNER STRE~ ~L.~4_.~ V'L~GE D,ST.~ SUB.LOT ? FORMER OWNER E W ~PE OF BUILDING RES: S~S. VL FARM CO~. CB. MICS. ~kt. y°lue ~6~' ~D DATE RE~RKS IMP. TOTAL .... ~ / ~ . ~ ' ~ ~ A~E BUILDIN~ CONDITION N~ NOR~L BELOW ABOVE ~ FA~ Acre Volue Per V~lue Ac re Tillable FRONTAGE ON WATER W~l~nd FRONTAGE ON ROAD Me~dowl~d DEPTH ~ ~ ~ ~b House ~1o~, ,. · , BULKH~D To~l ~ ~ DOCK COLOR TRIM ~J~, TF-~~ M. Bldg. Extension Extension Porc~'~ ~ Porch Breezeway Garage Patio Total Basement Ext. Walls Fire Place TTpe Roof Recreation Room Dormer Bath Floors Interior Finish Heat Rooms 1st Floor Rooms 2nd Floor Driveway /r~' Z.. LR. DR. BR. FIN. B J FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY SITE PLAN USE DETERMINATION Initial Determination Date: ¢' / //'/ / Project Name: g",ff~T / Project Address: ?,~¢?'~ Suffolk County Tax Map No.:1000- _P/ ,-.¢ -//'.N/Zoning District: ~-,¢'¢///~ ',, Request: ,,ZA-'ZL.,/~ 7-'d/</~'/ .:¢¢",/~~ ~-~, ~/.,%,~//¢//~ F- (Note: Copy of Building Permit Application and supporting documentation as to proposed use or uses should be submitted.) Initial Determination as to whether use is p?mitted:/~dE- Initial Determination as to whether site plan is required: ~Z~ .~ Planning Department (P.D.) Referral: P.D. Date Received:/O' //O~' / Oo Date of Comment: '~;[~'r'.,.~ / Comments: S gnature of Planning Dept. Staff Reviewer Final Determination Date:~__~J_.~O / 0~"' FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY SITE PLAN USE DETERMINATION Initial Determination Date: ¢ / /¢' / :¢' , ', Date Sent: ~ Project Name: ~"-/¢~7' /22,.¢~/0,4 ; ,,~'-/,,~"' ,/~/~<%/¢/~'2-" /d//U E'C/Z..,CCZ Project Address: ~,~.2/4~~- ~¢'¢¢~',~,=~'-'~/ ~"~/¢-¢'7 .,4¢,~z,~/,~x./ Suffolk County Tax Map No.:lO00- _?/ .-.¢ -//~/Zoning District: ~-.¢'¢//Z~ Request: (.~"7.~/z~ /-'~z4/~ .'~' ~ .~"-~,¢¢;~7~ ~--~ ~/',,~/¢~,¢'~-- (Note: Copy of Building Permit Application and supporting documentation as to proposed use or uses should be submitted.) Initial Determination as to whether use is p,ermitted: UJ¢'- ~'¢"'~/~/,7"~-,¢:> ,z¢ ~ Initial Determination as to whether site plan is required: SCgn~t-u'~e of Buildi~C'i~-spector Planning Department (P.D.) Referral: P.D. Date Received: / / Date of Comment: / Comments: Final Determination Date: / / Decision: Signature of Planning Dept. Staff Reviewer Signature of Building Inspector September 7, 2005 BY HAND Michael J. Verity, Chief Building Inspector Town of Southold Building Department 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 1197l · L 75'-': ~.--i New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Building Permit Application (for Denial) Premises: 9245 Route 25 East Marion, NY SCTM#: 1000-31-3-11.3 Dear Mr. Verity: We are the attorney's for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC in connection with the captioned application. Accordingly, we enclose the following: 2. 3. 4. Executed Building Permit Application; Owner's Authorization Affidavit; Filing fee check payable to "Town of Southold" in the amount of $35.00 (for Denial); Four (4) sets of Construction Drawings with Site Plans, signed and sealed by a New York State licensed engineer or architect. Should you have any questions with respect to the foregoing, please communicate with the undersigned. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI~ By: , [~vl/R. ~ Jacalyn R. Fleming JF/cp Enclosures ~VIUNLEY~ ~IEADE, NIELSEN May~, 2006 BY HAND Ms. Linda Kowalski Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Application of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC For Special Exception Approval and Variance Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Main Road East Marion, New York District 1000 Section 31.00, Block 03.00, Lot 011.031 Dear Ms. Kowalski: As you know, we are the attorneys for Cingular in connection with the captioned matter. Pursuant to your request, enclosed herewith are eight (8) sets of revised plans, prepared by Infinigy Engineering Co., and dated March 22, 2006. It is our understanding that the submission of the foregoing will result in Cingular's application being scheduled for the July 27, 2006 public hearing. Please confirm same at your earliest convenience. Thanking you for your courtesies, we remain Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN By: [~m~. Janine M~rc'hese /jm--/ Enclosure AUG 01 20137 22:53 FR ARI~BMIS LEKAKIS ~367 OW~eTON AW.~rg BROOKLYn, NEW YoRK 11219 August 1, 2007 BY E~MAIL & Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Arm: i~mes Dinizio, St., Chairman T0~1~317659064 P.02402 Request for Adjournment of Aug. 2, 2007 Hearing Concerning Cingular Wireless' Application to Install A Wireless Commun!e~_*i. nns Tower In East Marion. NY Dear Chairman Dinizio and Members of the Zoning Boant of Appeals: This letter supplements my July 26, 2007 letter requesting an adjournment of the hearing, which did not fully explain the reasons for the requested adjournment. In addition to thc reasons set forth in thc July 26, 2007 letter, the adjournment is necessary b~eause my family and other neighbors are interested in retaining experts who could present evidence to the ZBA as to the impact on property values (an appraisal expert) and the public necessity of the proposed installation of the wireless communications tower (an engineering expert). Both of these factors have been recognized by federal courts as appropriate and relevant grounds for local zoning authorities to consider with regards to cellular communications tower applications. See Omninoint v. City of WMte Plains, 430 F. 3d 529, 533 (2d Cir. 2005) (affirming local board's decision to reject cell tower application for zoning variance based on i_n_ter alia the diminution of property values and a lack of public necessity). Several of the neighbors - whose property is in plain sight of the tower - advised that they did not receive notice of the June 28, 2007 heating. In addition, some of the neighbors are contemplating retaining an attorney to represent them with regards m this matter, but have not yet done so. Because these neighbors did not receive notice of the prior hearing, if the August 2, 2007 hearing is not adjourned, it would deprive these neighbors of their opportunity to be heard with regards to a decision that would have a very significant impact on them. Conversely, a one month delay will have a de minimis, if any, real impact on a multi-billion dollar corporation such as Cingular/AI&T. As previously noted, this thc first request by my family on behalf of themselves and certain other neighbors for an adjournment of this heating. Your consideration of this request is greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Artemis Lekakis cc: Ms. Linda Kowalski ** TOTAL PRGE.02 ** NOTICE OF HEARING The following application will be heard by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold: NAME: NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS MAP #: 31-3-11.31 #5826 REQUEST: HEIGHT VARIANCE/TOWER TELECOMMUNICATIONS USE DATE: THURSDAY, JUNE 28, If you are interested in this project, you may review the file(s} prior to the hearing during normal business days between 8 AM and 3 PM. ZONING BOARD-TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 765-1809 AUG 01 ~007 TO G31?G5906~ ~.01×0~ Fax Organization: Fax No.: Phone No.: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: ]?AGES: Linda Kowalski Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 631-765-9064 631-765-1809 Artemis Lekakis August 1, 2007 Request for ~4djournment of August 2, 2007 Hearing Re: Cingular Apl~licatio~ to Install Cell Tower in East Marion NY 2, inctuding cover sheet COMMENTS: If you received this transmission in error, please call 718-254-6096. Residential TOwn ofSouthold Z BA Received Date: Tot. Fees: I $~00.00 Date forwarded to ToWn Clerk 111/1/2005 Neet ng Dates Hearing ND Date Flea ND Date /~tion Date: ND Date I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I i I PO Box 1620. New Rochelle, NY10802-1620 Phone: 914-576-6530 FI P 0 R A T I 0 N ENGINEERING REPORT JUNE5,2007 THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED AND SIGNED BY EVALUATION OF RADIO FREQUENCY EMIS SION S FROM THE PROPOSED NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC SYSTEMS INSTAI.1,ATION, WITH ANTENNAS (SITE #NYCENY1017/LI-1017- EAST MARION), TO BE MOUNTED WITHIN AN APPROVED UNIPOLE, TO BE LOCATED AT SECTION 31, BLOCK 3, LOT 11.31, 9245 MAIN ROAD, EAST MARION, NEW YORK. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 271 North Avenue RO Box 1620, New Rochelle, NY10802-1620 Phone: 914-576-6530 Fax: 914-576-0576 C 0 R P 0 R A T I 0 N Mr. Joseph Sweet Real Estate Manager New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC 333 Crossways Park Dr. Woodbury, New York 11797 Subject: Evaluation of Radio Frequency Emissions from the proposed New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Systems Installation with Antennas (Site #NYCENY 1017/[,I- 1017- East Marion), to be mounted within an approved Unipole, to be located at Section 31, Block 3, Lot 11.31, 9245 Main Road, East Marion, New York. Attn.: Mr. Joseph Sweet As per the request of the applicant, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, enclosed please find: An analysis of findings and conclusions prepared by SCINETICS Corporation, Staff Engineers on the following: Maximum Power Density of the combined fields at the closest point to the proposed Wireless Facility, and at specific radial distances from the Proposed Wireless transmitting antennas, where people can be. Calculated levels compared to allowable EMF continuous Exposure levels as per ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1991/NCRP (47 CFR § 1.1310), Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Continuous Exposure Standards, and New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). B I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C SUMMARY This report is the result of an extensive study of Electromagnetic Field Intensities (EMF- Power Densities) emitted by the proposed New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Systems Installation with Antennas (Site #NYCENY1017/LI- 1017- East Marion), to be mounted within an approved Unipole, to be located at Section 31, Block 3, Lot 11.31, 9245 Main Road, East Marion, New York. The study incorporates the most conservative considerations to determine practical combined cumulative worst case Power Densities, contributed by the proposed New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, dual band and the approved Fire Department transmitting antennas, the East Marion community could theoretically encounter. CONCLUSIONS It is the conclusion of this report, the emissions meet the safety criteria specified by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, with respect to environmental considerations of RF emissions as well as the limits recognized by New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). The results of this analysis indicate that the maximum level of RF energy to which the public may be exposed from the operation of the proposed Facility is below all applicable health and safety limits. Additionally, the Power Densities emitted by the proposed carrier installation, individually and cumulatively are far below the safety criteria adopted or proposed in the United States and any health standard used in the world. The issue of EMF compliance is pre-empted from the municipality regulatory powers beyond the applicants stating that it has examined the emissions in accordance with "OET Bulletin No. 65 - Edition 97-01, August 1997" with analytical adjustments to equations Per Richard Tell Associates and Ed Mantiply of the FCC Office of Engineering Technology and that the applicant is in compliance with the FCC MPE EMF General Public Standards of 550/1000 microwatts/cm, sq. Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 states: "No State or local government or instrumentality thereof, may regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless services facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequencies emissions to the extent that such Facilities comply with the Commissions (FCC) Regulations concerning such emissions". This law directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to offer assistance to state and local governments in wireless facilities issues. On August 1, 1996 the FCC adopted portions of the 1992 ANSI/IEEE, and NCRP Maximum permitted exposure (MPE) criteria. I I I I I I I I I I i I I I i I I I I D The results of this theoretical worse case safety analysis clearly indicate that the EMF levels attributed to the emissions contributed by the proposed New Cingular Wireless and the approved Fire Dept, antennas, will be far below EMF continuous Exposure levels as per ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 * (47 CFR § 1.1310), Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Continuous Exposure Standards, OSHA, 1986 NCRP and NYSDOH Code Limits.. The emissions broadcast from the Wireless transmitters are in the non-ionizing 806-900 and 1900-2000 (PCS) MHz frequency bands, bands previously assigned to television channels and fixed mobile communications from the 1950s. Presently the FCC has assigned these same frequencies in the 869-891.5 and 1965-1970 MHz bands to the Wireless Communications Industry, capable of transmitting at a power level of 350 Watts ERP. These frequency bands, have in fact, been a part of the EMF environment for over fifty years. The EMF levels attributed to the emissions caused by these wireless systems are well below EMF Standards which in the scientific consensus based on overwhelming evidence, are well below threshold effects. The derived Standards have added safety limits to the threshold levels. When EMF levels encountered are at or below the Standard, no health effects occur, therefore no cumulative effect is possible regardless of exposure duration. The theoretical highest combined cumulative EMF emissions from the proposed New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC dual band and the approved Fire Department transmitting antennas, the East Marion community could be exposed to (at an elevation of 26 feet above ground level), at any point in the community, would be less than 0.75% of the applicable FCC MPE General Public EMF Standards. This combined cumulative percentage of EMF levels which could be emitted would be 130 times below all applicable FCC MPE General Public EMF Standards. (See Table IIA-1) Note: The theoretical highest combined cumulative EMF emissions from the proposed New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC dual band and the approved Fire Department transmitting antennas, at any point on site/building would be less than 3.9% of the applicable FCC MPE General Public EMF Standards. These EMF levels and all other levels presented in Table II-IID, are theoretical maximas that could occur only under worst case events, assuming conditions such as in phase reflections occurring steady state, all transmitters operating simultaneously and continuously and excluding resistance or attenuating characteristics of construction material used in schools, homes and other similar structures. In reality, actual field measurements continually provide readings of power density levels far lower than the more conservative analytical levels indicated. (Note: All future co-locating carriers must complete an FCC Compliance analysis, including the proposed New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC and approved Fire Dept. antenna emissions as determined heroin, providing combined cumulative EMF emissions impact.) I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I E Further, Mobile GSM/PCS Radio Frequency Bands do not interfere with television reception, telephones or radio reception due to the wide separation of the Broadcast Bands as mandated and monitored by the FCC. (See Table I ANALYSIS- This critical analysis* incorporated antenna emission characteristics and included the following assumptions which exceed realistic conditions of operations, but will yield worst case EMF - Power Densities ordinarily not realized and never exceeded. All antennas are located at the lowest elevation indicated in the construction drawing to absorb errors in actual locations and to bring the antenna cluster closer to facilities and citizens than would normally be the case. All antennas will be transmitting continuously, 24 hours a day. All channels will be communicating simultaneously. Power levels emitting from the antennas are increased by a factor of 4.0 to take into account possible in - phase reflections at any point in the community, which is rarely the case, and if so, are never continuous. At all distances greater than 2000 feet, the Power Densities decrease by a factor of four (4) with every doubling of distance. * Reference Basis for calculations: 1- "Evaluating Compliance With FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. OET Bulletin No. 65 -Edition 97-01" Copies of data, sketches and specifications submitted by New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC are the basis for our studies, calculations and analysis. The attached photograph indicating acceptable EMF emissions from various household appliances provides a further perspective for better understanding the EMF levels encountered in this summary. For additional information addressing the environmental impact of EMF Emissions please refer to the section in the report titled "References" which provides current names of agencies, contact personnel and phone numbers. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Frequency Bands - According to most authorities, microwave (MW) frequencies cover the approximate band from 900 MegaHertz (MHz) to 300 GigaHertz (GHz). One MegaHertz (MHz) is a million cycles and One GigaHertz (GHz) is a billion cycles per second. Table I lists several other communication and interrogation frequencies used in the United States. Clearly, a large fraction of commercial and private telecommm~/cation involves MW Frequencies. TABLE I (Some Frequency Definitions) Type of System FM Radio VHF TV UHF TV Mobile Phone: Cellular/PCS Typical Radar Systems Long Distance Telephone Linkage Frequency Interval 88 MHz to 108 MHz 174 MHz to 216 MHz 470 MHz to 806 MHz 806 MHz to 2.0 GHz 200 MHz to 3.0 GHz 4GHz to llGHz I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I G The Principal Features Of The Proposed Installation And The Assumptions Considered In The Analysis Are As Follows; a) The proposed Facility antennas will be mounted within an approved Unipole as indicated by the New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC drawings. The elevation fi'om the centefline of the proposed New Cingular Wireless dual band transmitting antenna centerlines to the base of the approved Unipole will be a minimum of 101 feet. The closest an individual can approach the proposed New Cingular or the approved Fire Dept. transmitting antenna C/L is 29 feet. This assumes a 6 foot tall person standing directly below Unipote mounted transmitting antennas, with the distances being measured from the head of the individual to the centerline of the approved Fire Department antennas described herein. b) The antennas will be mounted in three sectors, one (i) dual band dualpol directional antenna (Kathrein 800-10121 or equivalent dual band for 869-891.5 and 1965- 1970 MHz) in each sector for transmission and receive. The physical arrangement of these antennas is illustrated in drawings provided by the New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC. (Assumed 0 degree downtilt for all antennas in this analysis.) c) The power output for the 869 MHz GSM channels will not exceed 632 watts ERP (316 WERP/channel ~ two (2) channels.) radio transmissions will be at frequencies between 869 and 891.5 MegaHertz. The power output for the 1965 MHz GSM channels will not exceed 632 watts ERP (3 I6 WERP/channel ~ two (2) channels.) radio transmissions will be at frequencies between 1965 and 1970 MegaHertz. d) The coverage pattern of the Wireless antennas will be assumed to transmit circularly, 360 degrees. This will provide a worst case situation, resulting in the maximum possible power density. e) It was assumed that the elevation of the East Marion community within a radius of 2000 feet is equal to the elevation at the base of the approved Unipole, with exceptions as noted. f) All field points are at Radial distances indicated from the base of the approved Unipole where the vertical line of the Transmitting antennas intersect. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H g) The additional carrier RF and elevation data including transmitting characteristics, to be located on the approved Unipole: FIRE DEPARTMENT (approved) Maximum ERP/Channel 35 watts ERP Number of Channels 3 Number of Transmit/Receive Antennas 1 Antenna centefline height above grade 38 feet Antenna Model-Celwave PD-1142 omnidirectional- gain= Unity Frequency of transmission-46.460 MHz Maximum continuous residential Exposure-200 microwatts/cm.sq. FIRE DEPARTMENT (approved) Maximum ERP/Channel Number of Channels Number of Transmit/Receive Antennas Antenna centerline height above grade Antenna Model-Celwave PD-201 omnidirectional- Frequency of transmission-460 MHz Maximum continuous residential Exposure-200 microwatts/cm.sq. 50 watts ERP 1 1 35 feet gain= 5.0 dBd FIRE DEPARTMENT (approved) Maximum ERP/Channel Number of Channels Number of Transmit/Receive Antennas Antenna centerline height above grade Antenna Model-Decibel 636 omnidirectional- Frequency of transmission-460 MHz Maximum continuous residential Exposure-200 microwatts/cm.sq. 50 watts ERP 1 1 114 feet gain= 6.0 dBd I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I POWER DENSITY CALCULATIONS-Analytical Data The Scinetics Engineering report represents worst case scenarios in determining EMF analysis. One of the considerations is the maximum number of channels which could be transmitted by each of the proposed antennas in each sector. Further, in determining maximum public exposure to EMF emissions, potential close proximity of the antennas must be defined ("near field" region, or "far field" region). The following will examine procedures followed in accordance with FCC OET Bulletin 65- Edition 97-01, with analytical adjustments to equations per Richard Tell and Ed Mantiply of the FCC Office of Engineering Technology. For Proposed 869-891.5 MHz New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC GSM transmitting Antennas: Kathrein 800-10121 )~= 984 = 1.13 ft frequency (Mhz) Frequency =869 MHz "Antennas"-by John D. Kraus, Mcgraw Hill 1950 Section 2 R(NF)= D2 = 4.0 feet 4)~ R(FF)=0.6D2 = 9.5 feet D =height of antenna panel=4.25 feet "OET Bulletin No. 65 - Edition 97-01, August 1997" (Pages 27 & 29) For Proposed 869-891.5 MHz GSM Antenna: ~ P=316 WERP/channel: (R=I foot) The power density in the near field region can be determined as follows: Sac=- On axis maximum power density in the near field Sm~-180 Pnet = 9288 ~tw/cm2~2 channels 0 IIR'D Pnet =Input power to antenna-- 56,327,059 ~w ~2 channels D=antenna height = 4.25 feet R =distance from C/L to point of interest=l foot O =beamwidth= 88° degrees c~ =antenna gain =10.5 dBd I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I For Proposed 1965-1970 MHz New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC transmitting Antennas: Kathrein 800-10121 X= 984 = 0.50 ft frequency (MHz) Frequency =1965 MHz "Antennas"-by John D. Kraus, Mcgraw Hill 1950 Section 2 R(NF)= D2 = 9.0 feet 4~, R(FF)=0.6D2= 21.6 feet D =height of antenna panel=4.25 feet "OET Bulletin No. 65 - Edition 97-01, August 1997" (Pages 27 & 29) For Proposed 1965-1970 MHz GSM (PCS) Antenna: ~ P=316 WERP: (R=I foot) The power density in the near field region can be determined as follows: S~=- On axis maximum power density in the near field Snf=-180 Pnet = 4344 gw/cm2~2 channels O HR'D Pnet =Input power to antenna= 26,346,145/xw ~2 channels D=antenna height = 4.25 feet R =distance from C/L to point of interest= 1 foot O =beamwidth= 88° degrees ct =antenna gain =13.8 dBd I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I K To determine emissions of proposed New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC GSM Antennas at any point in the East Marion Community- Far Field Region-Any point in the community When power density predictions of field points in the community are calculated Far Field equations can be used. For far field (fO EMF analysis: Where S(ff)=power density Sff= n F EIRP 4zrR2 EIRP=power output of antenna relative to an isotropic radiator =P(erp) x 1.64 (correctionfactor) R=distance from point in question to center of emissions of antenna F--The ground reflectivity n=number of channels In cases where antennas incorporating directional arrays and where antennas are pointed to the horizon, the far field equation shown will result in overly worst case prediction. Therefore the equation can be modified by the antenna vertical radiation pattern where a relative gain can be derived: Sff= nF EIRP Fo 4~rR2 Fo=Relative field factor (relative nmneric gain) "OET Bulletin No. 65 - Edition 97-01, August 1997" (Pages 21 - 23) I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I ! I I I L TABLE IIA-1 EMF LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM.SQ./PERCENTAGE OF STANDARDS PROPOSED NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, ANTENNA INSTALLATION (SITE# NYCENY1017/LI-1017- EAST MAPJON), 9245 MAIN ROAD, EAST MARION, NEW YORK Field Point - Any point in the communiW-26.0 feet above ground Antenna System Elevation Power Standard Calculated Percent of Feet WERP FCC/NCRP EMF Density Standard General Public NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC 869-891.5 MHz GSM (Proposed) 107 316 550 1.48 0.27 NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC 1965-1970 MHz GSM (Proposed) 107 316 1000 0.23 0.02 FIRE DEPT. (1) 46-54 MHz (Approved) 38 35 200 0.65 0.33 FIRE DEPT. (1) 460 MHz (Approved) 35 50 300 0.31 0. I0 FIRE DEPT. (1) 460 MHz (Approved) 114 50 300 0.09 0.03 Total Percentage Of All Antenna Sources 0.75% NOTE: 1. 2. N/A is less than 0.001. Unless Indicated - Total Percentage of All Antenna Sources = less than 0.01%. WERP - power output per channel EMF emissions contributed by transmitting antennas in differing frequency bands are regulated by MPE Standards for the specific bands in which the emissions are analyzed. When adding the emissions resulting from transmissions in differing frequency bands, the resulting percentages of the emissions compared to the governing MPE standards are added. Per the FCC, percentages of EMF Density levels of applicable Standards, as specified by the FCC OET Bulletin No. 65 Edition 97.01, are addressed as follows: "Therefore, in mixed or broad band fields, where a number of different frequencies are involved, the contributing of all RF sources must be considered. When different limits are recommended for different frequencies, the fraction of (or percentages) the limit incurred within each frequency interval should be determined, and the sum of all such fractions (or percentages) should not exceed 1.0 (or 100 percent)" (See section 4.1 in Appendix A). I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I M TABLE II EMF LEVELS IN MICROWATT$/CM.$Q. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC #NYCENY1017/LI-1017- EAST MARION 9245 MAIN ROADs EAST MARION~ NEW YORK Proposed Lower than the I996 Percentage of the 1996 CINGULAR Telecommunications Telecommunications Act Field Points 869 MHz Act FCC/ANSI/IEEE FCC/ANSI/IEEE C95.1 - Transmitting C95.1-I992 General 1992 General Public Antenna Public Exposure Exposure (550) Standard (550) by a Standard Emissions factor of Point 1 0.11 5000 0.01% R= 10'- Base of Unipole- Elev. - 6' Point 2 2.33 235 0.42% R=100'- Site located FD Bld'g- Etev. - 26' Point 3 1.65 333 0.30% R=250'- Fire Dept. Roof- Elev. - 26' Point 4 1.48 370 0.27% R=300'- Nearby Homes- Elev. - 26' !Point 5 1.39 395 0.25% R=500'- Other nearby Homes- Elev. - 26' Point 6 0.35 1570 0.06% R=1000'- East Marion community- Elev. - 26' Point 7 0.09 6100 0.01% R=2000'- East Marion community- Elev. - 26' Note: N/A =factor over 100000 or less than 0.01% I I I I I I N TABLE IIA EMF LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM.SO. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC #NYCENY1017/LI-1017- EAST MARION 9245 MAIN ROAD, EAST MARION, NEW YORK Proposed Lower than the 1996 Percentage of the i996 C1NGULAR Telecommunications Telecommunications Act Field Points 1965 MHz Act FCC/ANSI/IEEE FCC/ANSI/IEEE C95.1- Transmitting C95.1-1992 General 1992 General Public Antenna Public Exposure Exposure (1000) Standard (1000) by a Standard Emissions factor of Point 1 0.05 20000 0.01% R=10'- Base of Unipole- Elev. - 6' Point 2 0.23 4345 0.02% R=100'- Site located Bld'g- Elev. - 26' Point 3 0.20 5000 0.02% R=250'- Fire Dept. Roof- Elev. - 26' Point 4 0.23 4345 0.02% R=300'- Nearby Homes- Elev. - 26' Point 5 0.35 2855 0.04% R=500'- Other nearby Homes- Elev. - 26' , Point 6 0.28 3570 0.03% R=1000'- East Marion community- Elev. - 26' Point 7 0.09 11000 0.01% R=2000'- East Marion community- Elev. - 26' Note: N/A =factor over 100000 or less than 0.01% I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE IIB EMF LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM.SO. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC #NYCENY1017/LI-1017- EAST MARION 9245 MAIN ROAD, EAST MARION, NEW YORK Approved Lower than the 1996 Percentage of the 1996 FIRE DEPT. Telecommunications Telecommunications Act Field Points 46.460 MHz Act FCC/ANSI/IEEE FCC/ANSI/IEEE C95. l- Antenna C95.1-1992 General 1992 General Public Emissions Public Exposure Exposure (200) Standard (200) Standard by a factor of Point 1 2.01 100 1.00% R=I 0'- Base of Unipole- Elev. - 6' Point 2 5.63 35 2.82% R=100'- Site located Bld'g- Elev. - 26' Point 3 0.93 215 0.47% R=250'- Fire Dept. Roof- Elcv. - 26' Point 4 0.65 307 0.33% R=300'- Nearby Homes- Elev. - 26' Point 5 0.24 830 0.12% R=500'- Other nearby Homes- Elcv. - 26' Point 6 0.06 3300 0.03% R=1000'- East Marion community- Elev. - 26' Point 7 0.02 10000 0.01% R=2000'- East Marion community- Elev. - 26' Note: N/A =factor over ! 00000 or less than 0.01% I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE IIC EMF LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM.SO. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC #NYCENY1017/LI-1017- EAST MARION 9245 MAIN ROAD~ EAST MARION~ NEW YORK Approved Lower than the 1996 Percentage of the 1996 FIRE Telecommunications Telecommunications Act Field Points DEPT Act FCC/ANSI/IEEE FCC/ANSI/IEEE C95.1 - 460 MHz C95.1-1992 General 1992 General Public Public Exposure Exposure (300) Antenna Standard (300) Standard Emi ssions b~' a factor of Point 1 0.35 857 0.12% R= 10'- Base of Unipole- Elev.- 6' Point 2 1.70 176 0.57% R=100'- Site located Bld'g- Elev. - 26' Point 3 0.35 855 0.12% R=250'- Fire Dept. Roof- Elev. - 26' Point 4 0.31 965 0.10% R=300'- Nearby Homes- Elev. - 26' Point 5 0.11 2725 0.04% R=500'- Other nearby Homes- Elev. - 26' Point 6 0.03 10000 0.01% R=1000'- East Marion community- Elev. - 26' Point 7 0.01 30000 N/A R=2000'- East Marion community- Elcv. - 26' Note: N/A =factor over 100000 or less than 0.01% I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I q TABLE IID EMF LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM.SO. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC #NYCENY1017/LI-1017- EAST MARION 9245 MAIN ROAD, EAST l~lAR1Obl, blEW YORK Approved Lower than the 1996 Percentage of the 1996 FIRE Telecommunications Telecommunications Act Field Points DEPT Act FCC/ANSI/IEEE FCC/ANSi/IEEE C95.1- 460 MHz C95.1-1992 General 1992 General Public Public Exposure Exposure (300) Antenna Standard (300) Standard Emissions b~ a factor of Point 1 0.06 5000 0.02% R=10'- Base of Unipole- Elev. - 6' Point 2 0.19 1575 0.06% R=100'- Site located Bld'g- Elev. - 26' Point 3 0.08 3750 0.03% R=250'- Fire Dept. Roof- Elev. - 26' Point 4 0.09 3300 0.03% R=300'- Nearby Homes- Elev. - 26' Point 5 0.07 4285 0.02% R=500'- Other nearby Homes- Elev. - 26' Point 6 0.03 10000 0.01% R=1000'- East Marion community- Elev. - 26' Point 7 0.01 30000 N/A R=2000'- East Marion community- Elev. - 26' Note: N/A =factor over 100000 or less than 0.01% I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EMF STANDARDS REVIEW The U.S. Congress adopted "The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969" (NEPA) which requires all government agencies to take into account the potential environmental impact of their actions. The agencies must consider whether their actions significantly affect the "the quality of the human environment". To implement this mandate, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted rules covering NEPA in licensing and approving facilities and operations under its jurisdiction. Rules adopted are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1, Subpart I, of the FCC Rules and Regulations. Facilities or operations specified must provide information assessing the environmental effect of tl'.eir proposal. In the case of RF emissions, the environmental effect would be the relative health risk to people living or working near or at the facility in question. The FCC was required by NEPA to make a determination as to whether the facilities or operations it approves may significantly affect the human environment with regard to the emission of RF radiation. As there was no federal standard for exposure to RF radiation, the FCC chose to rely upon a recognized non-government standard. The FCC selected .the "American National Standard Safety Level With Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, "300 KiloHertz (kHz) to 100 GigaHertz (GHz)" prepared by the American Ndtional Standards Institute (ANSI) in 1982. The protection guides' recommended by ANSI were the guidelines the FCC had identified for using in evaluating environmental significance with respect to Human Exposure to RF Radiation. The FCC adopted rules which required preparation of environmental assessment if the particular facility or operation would cause exposure of workers or the general public to levels of radio frequency radiation in excess of the ANSI protection guides. The rule was contained in 47 CFR 1.1307(d). That rule applied to facilities or operations licensed or authorized under the following parts of the Commission's Rules, 5, 21 (Subpart K), 25, 73, 74 (Subparts A, G, I, and L), and 80. The facilities and operations licensed or authorized under all other parts, subparts or sections of the Commission's Rules are categorically excluded fi'om consideration.. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In 1986 the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Sub-Committee SC-53, published recommended limits for occupational and public exposure (NCRP - "Biological effects and exposure criteria for radio frequency electromagnetic fields." NCRP Report No. 86, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland). Sub-Committee SC-53 independently retained Radiation Frequency Protection Guidelines (RFPGs) similar to those of the 1982 ANSI Standard but with one notable exception: two tiers appear, one for occupational exposure and one for exposure of the general public. In 1993, the EPA, aware of the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rule Making (In the matter of Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation, August 13, 1993, ET Docket No. 93-62), recommended adoption of the 1996 NCRP Limits as well. In 1990, Sub-Committee IV (SC-IV of C95), formed by the IEEE using rigid selection criteria for their studies and critical reviews, recommended the same two tiers but with differences in rational. ANSI soon accepted the recommendations of IEEE Sub-Committee IV and the recommendations were proposed, adopted and termed ANSI - IEEE C95.1 - 1991. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law 104-104- February 8, 1996 recommended adoption of portions of the ANSI - IEEE C95.1 - 1991/NCRP Standards, and in August of 1996, the FCC did adopt the two tier Standards to be implemented for all Applications starting September 1, 1997. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I References for BMR recommended ceilinr, s. dat.~.....aI~d comments tO radiation sources, radiation hazards and available reports on studies of household....appliance~ emittin~ electromagnetic radiation: Code of Federal Regulations recommends OSHA standards for maximum continuous exposure of EMR in the work place, not to exceed 10 milliwatts/cm, sq. NOTE: I milliwatt = I000 microwatts OTHER STANDARDS-JAIl.Standards are at 850 MegaHertz (MHz)] ANSI (American National Standards Institute) 1982 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) REGULATIONS Occupational Environment Residential Environment 2750 microwatts/cm, sq. 2750 microwatts/cm, sq. Massachusetts/National Council on Radiation Code of Continuous Exposure for Residential Environment 550 Protection microwatts/cm. sq. New Jersey/Connecticut/1982-ANSI Occupational Environment 2750 microwatts/cm, sq. Residential Environment 2750 microwatts/cm, sq. ANSI - IEEE C95.1 ~1991 Standards Occupational Environment (Controlled Environment) Residential Environment (Uncontrolled Environment) 2750 microwatts/cm, sq. 550 microwatts/cm, sq. New York State Dept. of Health OccupationaI Environment Residential Environment 2750 microwatts/cm, sq. 550 microwatts/cm, sq. REFERENCES_: Dr. Robert Cleveland, Jr. Federal Communications Commission PHONE: 202-653-8 1 69 Off. of Engr. and Tech., Rm. 7002, 2000 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20554 William J. Condon, CFI/> - PHONE: Bureau of Environ. Radiation Protection NYS Dept. of Health, 2 University Place, Albany, NY 12203 518-458-6495 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I References for EMR recommended ceilings, data and comments to radiation..., sources, radiation..hazaEd~..and, a.v. ailable reports on studies of househol, d.......appliances emitting electromagnetic radial.ion: ~ummary .o£..International, Federal, State_and Consensus SaEcty Criteria...For Exposure to Radio Frequency Energy at...Frequencies. Used for 1900 MHz iPCS).Communicatio~ Or g anization[G.o.v, ernment Agency Exposure P.ower P.opul.ation Density (~W/cm sq.) Inter~ at.J~o.B al -World Occupational 4,875 Health Organization-(EHC 137, 1993) Public 975 International -National Radiologica/ Protection Board (NRPB, 1993) Occupational 10,000 Public 10,000 In.t.er. national -European Prestandard Occupational 4,875 (CENELEC ENV.50166-2, 1995 Public 975 F..~deral -Federal Communications Commission(follows NCRP-1986) Occupational 5,000 Public 1,000 Consensus Standards American National Standards (ANSI C95.1-1982) Institute Occupational 5,000 Public 5,000 ANSI & Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 Occupational 6,500 Public 1,300 National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements (NCRP Report 86,1986) Occupational 5,000 Public 1,000 S tate.....Code, s. New Jersey (NJAC 7:28~42) Public 5,000 Massachusetts (Dept. of Health, 105 CMR 122) Public 1,000 New York State (Dept. of Health follows NCRP-86) Public 1,000 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NAME: STATUS: EDUCATION: PRESENT: PERSON~SL.RESUME Louis G. Cornacchia Married, Four Children Manhattan College, BEE Iona College, Computer Language Courses* Manhattanville College, Business Law Courses SCINETICS Corporatiou - President Engineering Consultants. After Market Wireless phone Patent Applied for- US Patent Office Charger Tech Services, Inc.-President Engineering Services OTHER ACTIVITIES: School Board President - New Rochelle, New York. Finance Campaign Manager - Mayoral Campaign, New Rochelle, New York. SDA District Chairman - Boy Scouts of America, New Rochelle, New York. Chairman- Board of Directors Reliance Bank, White Plains , New York Member of Advisory Board of Patriot National Bank Stamford, Connecticut. Licensed Real Estate Broker State of New York I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Cornacchia has been employed in the Electronics Industry as Electronic Engineer after receiving his BEE from Manhattan College, School of Engineering. Prior to forming Collins Consultants Int'l in 1969 and subsequently Charger Tech Services Inc. in 1974, Mr. Cornacchia was employed by Hazeltine Electronics Corp. as Engineer, Designing Signal Processor and Radar Display Module for The SAGE System, Primary Early Warning System or DEW LINE, The TPS-1- GROUND BASED SEARCH RADAR SYSTEM and AWACS (A6E) Power Systems. Subsequently, Lou was employed by Loral Systems Design Team developing The AN/ALQ58 Reconnaissance System and developed (two man team) the precursor YIG TUNER - [ALR~20] Crystal Scanner covering the full 200 megahertz - 12 gigahz Frequency Range Surveillance System ['or interception of Enemy Navigational Fire Control and Homing Devices for purposes of Identification and Signal Jamming. Seven years after receiving his degree Mr. Cornacchia was hired as Chief Engineer by Victory Electronic to Develop the Image Intensifier or Night Vision Scopes (Using Star Light) for the Fort Dix Army Command. At Norden Systems, Mr. Cornacchia developed unique, more aggressive programs incorporating Built-In Test Equipment(BITE) to detect on- coming circuit failures of the Fl llD-E Avionics to increase reliability and was responsible for Air Force change of Automatic Test Equipment Specifications to accommodate this innovation. In 1969 Collins Consultants Int'l, LTD was formed to continue servicing Norden Systems in developing Automatic Test Programs AIRBORNE Computers and Navigational Radar Modules. for In 1974 Charger Tech Services, a New York Corporation was formed by Cornacchia (President), with Mr. Robert ttarris to service additional companies in both the Nuclear and Industrial communities on an Engineering level. In 1987 SCINETICS was formed by Mr. Cornacchia (President), and application for a service mark was filed with the United States Patent Office, and granted. SCINETICS Corporation assumed responsibilities for all Mobile Cellular and Broadcast Channel Radio Frequency Environmental Impact Studies as of July 1992. A partial listing of companies SCINETICS and Charger has been contracted w/th, employing 30 to 50 state of the art Engineers, Technicians and Programmers, are as follows: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Westinghouse Corp. Martin Marietta IBM Allied Signal Bendix United Technologies Corp. Loral Electronics Systems ITT New York Telephone Co. Fairchild Camera Division Airborne Instruments Labs Grumann Corp. Miles Inc. Perkin Ehner Corporation Shore Media Inc. Syracuse Scientific Corp. Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems Favorable enefiting Mobile Radio Cellular EMF Studies and Testimonies Provided by Scinetics For the Following Communities. Case law decisions favoring Applicant, where SCINETICS Corp. was mentioned as providing critical written technical support data aud Expert testimony in applicant's application process. (Partial Listing): Hillsborough, New Jersey Valley Cottage, New York Fair Lawn, New Jersey* New York City, New York Hastings, New York Bedminister, New Jersey Martinsville, New Jersey Little Silver, New Jersey* Hazlet, New Jersey* Readington, New Jersey* Garwood, New Jersey* Dix }{ills, New York Uniondale, New York Armouk, New York Supreme Court, Superior and Appellate Court Decisions Cellular Service I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C 0 F~ P 0 R A T I 0 N I 271 Nodh Avenue RO BOX 1620, New Rochelle, NY10802-1620 O R P R A T I O N ENGINEERING REPORT SUMMARY OCTOBER 4, 2005 THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED AND SIGNED BY A I I I I EVALUATION OF RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS FROM THE PROPOSED NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC SYSTEMS INSTALLATION, WITH ANTENNAS (SITE #NYCENY1017/LI-1017. EAST MARION FIRE DEPT.), TO BE MOUNTED TO A PROPOSED FLAGPOLE, TO BE LOCATED AT SECTION 31, BLOCK 3, LOT 11.31, 9245 MAIN ROAD, EAST MARION, NEW YORK. I I I ! I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 27'i North Avenue RO. Box 1620, New Rochelle, NY10802-1620 Phone: 914-576-6530 Fax: 914-576-0576 C O R P R A T I B Mr. Joseph Sweet Real Estate Manager New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC 333 Crossways Park Dr. Woodbury, New York 11797 Subject: Evaluation of Radio Frequency Emissions from the proposed New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Systems Installation with Antennas (Site #NYCENY1017/LI-1017- East Marion Fire Dept.), to be mounted to a proposed Flagpole, to be located at Section 31, Block 3, Lot 11.31, 9245 Main Road, East Marion, New York. Attn.: Mr. Joseph Sweet As per the request of the applicant, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, enclosed please find: An analysis of findings and conclusions prepared by SCINETICS Corporation, Staff Engineers on the following: Maximum Power Density of the combined fields at the closest point to the proposed Wireless Facility, and at specific radial distances from the Proposed Wireless transmitting antennas, where people can be. Calculated levels compared to allowable EMF continuous Exposure levels as per ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1991/NCRP (47 CFR § 2.1 & § 1.1310), Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Continuous Exposure Standards, and New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY This report is the result of an extensive study of Electromagnetic Field Intensities (EMF- Power Densities) emitted by the proposed New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Systems Installation with Antennas (Site #NYCENY1017/LI-1017-East Marion Fire Dept.), to be mounted to a proposed Flagpole, to be located at Section 31, Block 3, Lot 11.31, 9245 Main Road, East Marion, New York. The study incorporates the most conservative considerations to determine practical combined cumulative worst case Power Densities, contributed by the proposed New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, dual band and to be relocated/future Fire Department transmitting antennas, the East Marion community could theoretically encounter. CONCLUSIONS It is the conclusion of this report, the emissions meet the safety criteria specified by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, with respect to environmental considerations of RF emissions as well as the limits recognized by New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). The results of this analysis indicate that the maximum level of RF energy to which the public may be exposed from the operation of the proposed Facility is below all applicable health and safety limits. Additionally, the Power Densities emitted by the proposed carrier installation, individually and cumulatively are far below the safety criteria adopted or proposed in the United States and any health standard used in the world. The issue of EMF compliance is pre-empted from the municipality regulatory powers beyond the applicants stating that it has examined the emissions in accordance with "OET Bulletin No. 65 - Edition 97- 01, August 1997"* with analytical adjustments to equations per Richard Tell Associates and Ed Mantiply of the FCC Office of Engineering Technology and that the applicant is in compliance with the FCC MPE EMF General Public Standards of 550/1000 microwatts/cm, sq. Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 states; "No State or local government or instrumentality thereof, may regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal C I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I wireless services facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequencies emissions to the extent that such Facilities comply with the Commissions (FCC) Regulations concerning such emissions" This law directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to offer assistance to state and local governments in wireless facilities issues. On August 1, 1996 the FCC adopted portions of the 1992 ANSI/IEEE, and NCRP Maximum permitted exposure (MPE) criteria. The results of this theoretical worse case safety analysis clearly indicate that the EMF levels attributed to the emissions contributed by the proposed Cingular Wireless and the to be relocated Fire Dept, antennas, will be far below EMF continuous Exposure levels as per ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992' (47 CFR § 2.1 &§ 1.1310), Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Continuous Exposure Standards, OSHA, 1986 NCRP and NYSDOH Code Limits.. The emissions broadcast from the Wireless transmitters are in the non-ionizing 806-900 and 1900-2000 (PCS) MHz frequency bands, bands previously assigned to television channels and fixed mobile communications from the 1950s. Presently the FCC has assigned these same frequencies in the 869-891.5 and 1965-1970 MHz bands to the Wireless Communications Industry, capable of transmitting at a power level of 350 Watts ERP. These frequency bands, have in fact, been a part of the EMF environment for over fifty years. The EMF levels attributed to the emissions caused by these wireless systems are well below EMF Standards which in the scientific consensus based on overwhelming evidence, are well below threshold effects. The derived Standards have added safety limits to the threshold levels. When EMF levels encountered are at or below the Standard, no health effects occur, therefore no cumulative effect is possible regardless of exposure duration. This analysis and the results of this analysis are based on a power output of three hundred sixteen (316) Watts ERP per channel for 869-891.5 MHz GSM and three hundred sixteen (316) Watts ERP per channel for the 1965-1970 MHz GSM (PCS) band antennas. The theoretical highest combined cumulativeEMF emissions from the proposed New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC dual band and the to be relocated/future Fire Department transmitting antennas, the East Marion community could be exposed to (at an elevation of 26 feet above ground level), at any point in the community, would be less than 0.75% of the applicable 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FCC MPE General Public EMF Standards. This combined cumulative percentage of EMF levels which could be emitted would be 130 times below all applicable FCC MPE General Public EMF Standards. The theoretical highest combined cumulative EMF emissions from the proposed New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC dual band and the to be relocated/future Fire Department transmitting antennas, at any point on site would be less than 3.9% of the applicable FCC MPE General Public EMF Standards. (See Table IIA-1) These EMF levels and all other levels presented in Table II-IID, are theoretical maximas that could occur only under worst case events, assuming conditions such as in phase reflections occurring steady state, all transmitters operating simultaneously and continuously and excluding resistance or attenuating characteristics of construction material used in schools, homes and other similar structures. In reality, actual field measurements continually provide readings of power density levels far lower than the more conservative analytical levels indicated. (Note: All future co-locating carriers must complete an FCC Compliance analysis, including the proposed New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC and existing wireless carrier emissions as determined herein, providing combined cumulative EMF emissions impact.) Further, Mobile GSM/PCS Radio Frequency Bands do not interfere with television reception, telephones or radio reception due to the wide separation of the Broadcast Bands as mandated and monitored by the FCC. (See Table I) E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ANALYSIS- This critical analysis* incorporated antenna emission characteristics and included the following assumptions which exceed realistic conditions of operations, but will yield worst case EMF - Power Densities ordinarily not realized and never exceeded. o All antennas are located at the lowest elevation indicated in the construction drawing to absorb errors in actual locations and to bring the antenna cluster closer to facilities and citizens than would normally be the case. All antennas will be transmitting continuously, 24 hours a day. All channels will be communicating simultaneously. Power levels emitting from the antennas are increased by a factor of 4.0 to take into account possible in - phase reflections at any point in the community, which is rarely the case, and if so, are never continuous. At all distances greater than 2000 feet, the Power Densities decrease by a factor of four (4) with every doubling of distance. * Reference Basis for calculations: 1- "Evaluating Compliance With FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. OET Bulletin No. 65 -Edition 97-01" Copies of data, sketches and specifications submitted by New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC are the basis for our studies, calculations and analysis. The attached photograph indicating acceptable EMF emissions from various household appliances provides a further perspective for better understanding the EMF levels encountered in this summary. For additional information addressing the environmental impact EMF Emissions please refer to the section in the report titled "References" which provides current names of agencies, contact personnel and phone numbers. of F I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Frequency Bands According to most authorities, microwave (MW) frequencies cover the approximate band from 900 MegaHertz (MHz) to 300 GigaHertz (GHz). One MegaHertz (MHz) is a million cycles and One GigaHertz (GHz) is a billion cycles per second. Table I lists several other communication and interrogation frequencies used in the United States. Clearly, a large fraction of commercial and private telecommunication involves MW Frequencies. TABLE I (Some Frequency Definitions) Type of System FM Radio VHF TV UHF TV Mobile Phone: Cellular/PCS Typical Radar Systems Long Distance Telephone Linkage Frequency Interval 88 MHz to 108 MHz 174 MHz to 216 MHz 470 MHz to 806 MHz 806 MHz to 2.0 GHz 200 MHz to 3.0 GHz 4GHz to 11 GHz G I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I POWER DENSITY CALCULATIONS-Analytical Data The Scinetics Engineering report represents worst case scenarios in determining EMF analysis. One of the considerations is the maximum number of channels which could be transmitted by each of the proposed antennas in each sector. Further, in determining maximum public exposure to EMF emissions, potential close proximity of the antennas must be defined ("near field" region, or "far field" region). The following will examine procedures followed in accordance with FCC OET Bulletin 65- Edition 97-01, with analytical adjustments to equations per Richard Tell and Ed Mantiply of the FCC Office of Engineering Technology. For Proposed 869-891.5 MHz New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC GSM transmitting Antennas; Decibel 731DG90VTAXM )~= _954 = 1.13 ft frequency (MHz) Frequency =869 MHz "Antennas'-by John D. Kraus, Mcgraw Hill 1950 Section 2 R(NF)= _1)2 = 3.54 feet 4)~ R(FF)=0.6D2 = 8.50 feet D =height of antenna panel=4.0 feet "OET Bulletin No. 65 - Edition 97-01, August 1997" (Pages 27 & 29) For Pronosed 869-891,5 MHz GSM Antenna @ P--316 WERP/chatln¢:l(R=l foot) The power density in the near field region can be determined as follows: Snf= On axis maximum power density in the near field Snf=180 Pnet = 8600 gw/cm2@2 channels 0 IIR'D Pnet =Input power to antenna= 50,201,544 gw @2 channels D=antenna height = 4.0 feet R =distance from C/L to point of interest=l foot 0 =beamwidth= 90° degrees c~ =antenna gain =11.0 dBd H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I For Proposed 1965-1970 MHz New Cin~ular Wireless PCS, LLC transmitting Antennas: Decibel 731DG90VTAXM ~.= _984 = 0.50 ft frequency (MHz) Frequency =1965 MHz "Antennas"-by John D. Kraus, Mcgraw Hill 1950 Section 2 R(NF)= _D2 = 8.0 feet 43. R(FF)=0.6D2 = 19.2 feet D =height of antenna panel=4.0 feet "OET Bulletin No. 65 - Edition 97~01, August 1997" (Pages 27 & 29) For Pronosed 1965-1970 MHz GSM (PCS) Antenna @P=316 WERE(R=I foot) The power density in the near field region can be determined as follows: Snf= On axis maximum power density in the near field Snf=lS0 Pnet = 4310 gw/cm2@2 channels 0 HR'D Pnet =Input power to antenna= 25,160,373 gw @2 channels D=antenna height = 4.0 feet =distance from C/L to point of interest=l foot =beamwidth= 90° degrees =antenna gain =14 dBd I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I To determine emissions of oronosed New Cingular Wireless PCS. LLC GSM Antennas at any ooint in the E~t M~rion Community- Far Field Re~ion-Anv ooint in the community When power density predictions of field points in the community are calculated Far Field equations can be used. For far field (ff) EMF analysis: Sff = n F EIRP 4~R2 Where S(ff)=power density EIRP=power output of antenna relative to an isotropic radiator =P(erp) x 1.64 (correctionfactor) R=distance from point in question to center of emissions of antenna F=The ground refiectivity n=number of channels In cases where antennas incorporating directional arrays and where antennas are pointed to the horizon, the far field equation shown will result in overly worst case prediction. Therefore the equation can be modified by the antenna vertical radiation pattern where a relative gain can be derived: Sff = n F...EIRP FO 47[R2 FO=Relative field factor (relative numeric gain) "OET Bulletin No. 65 - Edition 97-01, August 1997" (Pages 21 - 23) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Principal Features Of The Proposed Installation And The Assumptions Considered In The Analysis Are As Follows; a) The proposed Facility antennas will be mounted to a proposed Flagpole as indicated by the New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC drawings. The elevation from the centerline of the proposed Cingular dual band or relocated/future Fire Department transmitting antennas to the base of the proposed Flagpole will be a minimum of 98 feet. The closest an individual can approach the proposed or the to be relocated/future transmitting antenna C/L is 39 feet. This assumes a 6 foot tall person standing directly below Flagpole mounted transmitting antennas, with the distances being measured from the head of the individual to the centerline of the proposed and to be relocated/future antennas described herein. b) The antennas will be mounted in three sectors, two (2) directional antenna [Decibel 731DG90VTEXM dual band or equivalent for 869-891.5 and 1965-1970 MHz] in each sector for transmission and receive. The physical arrangement of these antennas is illustrated in drawings provided by the New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC. (Assumed 0 degree downtilt for all antennas in this analysis.) c) The power output for the 869 MHz GSM channels will not exceed 632 watts ERP (316 WERP/channel @ two (2) channels.) radio transmissions will be at frequencies between 869 and 891.5 MegaHertz. The power output for the 1965 MHz GSM channels will not exceed 632 watts ERP (316 WERP/channel @ two (2) channels.) radio transmissions will be at frequencies between 1965 and 1970 MegaHertz. d) The coverage pattern of the Wireless antennas will be assumed to transmit circularly, 360 degrees. This will provide a worst case situation, resulting in the maximum possible power density. e) It was assumed that the elevation of the East Marion community within a radius of 2000 feet from the proposed Flagpole is equal to the elevation at the base of the proposed Flagpole, with exceptions as noted. K I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I f) All field points are at Radial distances indicated from the base of the proposed Flagpole where the vertical line of the Transmitting antennas intersect. g) The additional carrier RF and elevation data including transmitting characteristics, to be located on the proposed Flagpole: FIRE DEPARTMENT (Existing Relocated) Maximum ERP/Channel Number of Channels Number of Transmit/Receive Antennas Antenna centerline height above grade 35 watts ERP 3 1 48 feet Antenna Model-Celwave PD-1142 omnidirectional- Gain= Unity Frequency of transmission-46.460 MHz Maximum continuous residential Exposure-200 microwatts/cm.sq. FIRE DEPARTMENT (Future) Maximum ERP/Channel 50 watts ERP Number of Channels 1 Number of Transmit/Receive Antennas 1 Antenna centerline height above grade 45 feet Antenna Model-Celwave PD-201 omnidirectional- Gain= 5.0 Frequency of transmission-460 MHz Maximum continuous residential Exposure-200 microwatts/cm.sq. FIRE DEPARTMENT (Future) Maximum ERP/Channel 50 watts ERP Number of Channels 1 Number of Transmit/Receive Antennas 1 Antenna centerline height above grade 125 feet Antenna Model-Decibel 636 omnidirectional- Gain= 6.0 Frequency of transmission-460 MHz Maximum continuous residential Exposure-200 microwatts/cm.sq. L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE IIA-1 EMF LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM.SQ./ PERCENTAGE OF STANDARDS PROPOSED NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, ANTENNA INSTALLATION (SITE# NYCENY1017/LI-1017-EAST MARION FIRE DEPT.), 9245 MAIN ROAD, EAST MARION, NEW YORK Field Point - Any point in the community-26.0 feet above ~rQ~n0 Antenna System ElcvationP0wcr Standard Calculated Percent of Feet WERP FCC/NCRP EMF Density Standard Residential NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC 869-891.5 MHz GSM (6) (Proposed) 98 &102 316 550 2.33 0.42 NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS. LLC 1965-1970 MHz GSM (6) (Proposed) 98 &102 316 1000 0.23 0.02 FIRE DEPT, (1) 46-54 MHz (Existing Relocated) 48 35 200 5.63 FIRE DEPT. (1) 460 MHz (Future) 45 50 300 1.70 FIRE DEPT. (1) 460 MHz (Future) 125 50 300 0.19 2.82 0.57 0.06 Total Percentage Of All Antenna Sources 3.89% NOTE: 1. 2. N/A is less than 0.001. Unless Indicated - Total Percentage of All Antenna Sources = less than 0.01%. WERP - power output per channel ** EMF emissions contributed by transmitting antennas in differing frequency bands are regulated by MPE Standards for the specific bands in which the emissions are analyzed. When adding the emissions resulting from transmissions in differing frequency bands, the resulting percentages of the emissions compared to the governing MPE standards are added. Per the FCC, percentages of EMF Density levels of applicable Standards, as specified by the FCC OET Bulletin No. 65 Edition 97.01, are addressed as follows: "Therefore, in mixed or broad band field~, where a number of different frequencies are involved, the contributing of all RF sources must be considered. When different limits are recommended for different frequencies, the fraction of (or percentages) the limit incurred within each frequency interval should be determined, and the sum of all such fractions (or percentages) should not exceed 1.0 (or 100 percentY' (See section 4.1 in Appendix A). M ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N TABLE II EMF LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM.SQ. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC #NYCENY1017/LI-1017.EAST MARION FIRE DEPT, 9245 MAIN ROAD? EAST MARION? NEW YORK Proposed Lower than the 1996 Percentage of the 1996 CINGULAR Telecommunications Telecommunicat~.ons Field Points 869 MHz Act FCC/ANSI/IEEE Act FCC/ANSI/IEEE Transmitting C95.1-1992 General C95.1-1992 General Antenna Public Exposure Public Exposure (550) Standard (550) by a Standard Emissions factor of Point 1 0.11 5000 0.01% R=10'- Base of Flagpole- Elev. - 6' Point 2 2.33 2 3 5 0.42% R=100'- Site located Bld'g- Elev. - 26' Point 3 1.65 333 0.30% R=250'- Fire Dept. Roof- Elev. - 26' Point 4 1.48 3 7 0 0.27% R=300'- Nearby Homes Elev. - 26' Point5 1.39 3 95 0.25% R=500'- Other nearby Homes- Elev. - 26' Point 6 0.35 1 570 0.06% R=1000'- East Marion community- Elev. - 26' Point 7 0.09 6 1 00 0.01% R=2000'- East Marion community- Elev. - 26' Note: N/A =factor over 100000 or less than 0.01% I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE IIA EMF LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM.SQ. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC #NYCENY1017/LI-1017-EAST MARION FIRE DEPT. 9245 MAIN ROAD? EAST MARION? NEW YORK Proposed Lower than the 1996 Percentage of the 1996 CINGULAR Telecommunications TeIecommunications Field Points 1965 MHz Act FCC/ANSI/IEEE Act FCC/ANSI/IEEE Transmitting C95.1-1992 General C95.1-1992 General Antenna Public Exposure ~ Public Exposure (1000) Standard (1000) by a Standard Emissions factor of Point 1 0.05 20000 0.01% R=10'- Base of Flagpole- Elev. - 6' Point 2 0.23 4345 0.02% R=100'- Site located Bld'g- Elev. - 26' Point 3 0.20 5000 0.02% R=250'- Fire Dept. Roof- Elev. - 26' Point 4 0.23 4345 0.02% R=300'- Nearby Homes Elev. - 26' Point 5 0.35 285 5 0.04% R=500'- Other nearby Homes- Elev. - 26' Point 6 0.28 3570 0.03% R=1000'- East Marion community- Elev. - 26' Point 7 0.09 1 1000 0.01% R=2000'- East Marion community- Elev. - 26' Note: N/A =factor over 100000 or less than 0.01% I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I P TABLE liB EMF LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM.SQ. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC #]NYCENY1017/LI-1017-EAST MARION FIRE DEPT. 9245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION? NEW YORK Existing Lower than the 1996 ] Percentage of the 1996 Relocated Telecommunications Telecommunications Field Points FIRE DEPT. Act FCC/ANSI/IEEE Act FCC/ANSI/IEEE 46.460 MHz C95.1-1992 General C95.1-1992 General Antenna Public Exposure Public Exposure (200) Standard (200) Standard Emissions b~ a factor of Point 1 2.01 1 00 1.00% R=10'- Base of Flagpole- Elev. - 6' Point 2 5.63 3 5 2.82% R=I00'- Site located Bld'g- Elev. - 26' Point 3 0.93 2 1 5 0.47% R=250'- Fire Dept. Roof- Elev. - 26' Point 4 0.65 3 07 0.33% R=300'- Nearby Homes Elev. - 26' Point 5 0.24 8 3 0 0.12% R=500'- Other nearby Homes- Elev. - 26' Point 6 0.06 3 3 00 0.03% R=1000'- East Marion community- Elev. - 26' Point7 0.02 10000 0.01% R=2000'- East Marion community- Elev. - 26' Note: N/A =factor over 100000 or less than 0.01% I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q TABLE IIC EMF LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM.SQ. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC #NYCENY1017/LI-1017-EAST MARION FIRE DEPT, 9245 MAIN ROAD, EAST MARION, NEW YORK FIRE Lower than the 1996 Percentage of the 1996 DEPT Telecommunications Telecommunications Field Points 460 MHz Act FCC/ANSI/IEEE Act FCC/ANSI/IEEE 45 foot cloy. C95.1-1992 General C95.1-1992 General Antenna Public Exposure Public Exposure (300) Standm'd (300) Stand~d Emissions by a factor of Point 1 0.35 857 0.12% R=10'- Base of Flagpole- Elev. - 6' Point 2 1.70 17 6 0.57% R=100'- Site located Bld'g- Elev. - 26' Point 3 0.35 855 0.12% R=250'- Fire Dept. Roof- Elev. - 26' Point 4 0.31 965 0.10% R=300'- Nearby Homes Elev. - 26' Point 5 0.11 27 25 0.04% R=500'- Other nearby Homes- EIev. - 26' Point 6 0.03 10000 0.01% R=1000'- East Marion community- Elev. - 26' Point 7 0.01 30000 N/A R=2000'- East Marion community- Elev. - 26' Note: N/A =factor over 100000 or less than 0.01% I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I R TABLE IID EME LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM.SQ. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC #NYCENY1017/LI-101?-EAST MARION FIRE DEPT. 9245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARIONt NEW YORK FIRE Lower than the 1996 Percentage of the 1996 DEPT Telecommunieations Telecommunications Field Points 460 MHz Act FCC/ANSI/IEEE Act FCC/ANSI/iEEE 125 foot elcv. ! C95.1-1992 General C95.1-1992 General Antenna Public Exposure Public Exposure (300) Emissions Standard (300) Standard by a factor of Point 1 0.06 5000 0.02% R=10'- Base of Flagpole- Elev. - 6' Point 2 0.19 1 5 7 5 0.06% R=100'- Site located Bld'g- Elev. - 26' Point 3 0.08 3 7 50 0.03% R=250'- Fire Dept. Roof- Elev. - 26' Point 4 0.09 3 3 00 0.03% R=300'- Nearby Homes Elev. - 26' Point 5 0.07 4285 0.02% R=500'- Other nearby Homes- Elev. - 26' Point 6 0.03 1 0000 0.01% R=1000'- East Marion community- Elev. - 26' Point7 0.01 30000 N/A R=2000'- East Marion community- Elev. - 26' Note: N/A =factor over 100000 or less than 0.01% I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EMF STANDARDS REVIEW The U.S. Congress adopted "The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969" (NEPA) which requires all government agencies to take into account the potential environmental impact of their actions. The agencies must consider whether their actions significantly affect the "the quality of the human environment". To implement this mandate, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted rules covering NEPA in licensing and approving facilities and operations under its jurisdiction. Rules adopted are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1, Subpart I, of the FCC Rules and Regulations. Facilities or operations specified must provide information assessing the environmental effect of their proposal. In the case of RF emissions, the environmental effect would be the relative health risk to people living or working near or at the facility in question. The FCC was required by NEPA to make a determination as to whether the facilities or operations it approves may significantly affect the human environment with regard to the emission of RF radiation. As there was no federal standard for exposure to RF radiation, the FCC chose to rely upon a recognized non-government standard. The FCC selected the "American National Standard Safety Level With Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, "300 KiloHertz (kHz) to 100 GigaHertz (GHz)" prepared by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in 1982. The protection guides recommended by ANSI were the guidelines the FCC had identified for using in evaluating environmental significance with respect to Human Exposure to RF Radiation. The FCC adopted rules which required preparation of environmental assessment if the particular facility or operation would cause exposure of workers or the general public to levels of radio frequency radiation in excess of the ANSI protection guides. The rule was contained in 47 CFR 1.1307(d). That rule applied to facilities or operations licensed or authorized under the following parts of the Commission's Rules, 5, 21 (Subpart K), 25, 73, 74 (Subparts A, G, I, and L), and 80. The facilities and operations licensed or authorized under all other parts, subparts or sections of the Commission's Rules are categorically excluded from consideration. S I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In 1986 the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Sub-Committee SC-53, published recommended limits for occupational and public exposure (NCRP - "Biological effects and exposure criteria for radio frequency electromagnetic fields." NCRP Report No. 86, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland). Sub-Committee SC-53 independently retained Radiation Frequency Protection Guidelines (RFPGs) similar to those of the 1982 ANSI Standard but with one notable exception: two tiers appear, one for occupational exposure and one for exposure of the general public. In 1993, the EPA, aware of the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rule Making (In the matter of Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation, August 13, 1993, ET Docket No. 93-62), recommended adoption of the 1996 NCRP Limits as well. In 1990, Sub-Committee IV (SC-IV of C95), formed by the IEEE using rigid selection criteria for their studies and critical reviews, recommended the same two tiers but with differences in rational. ANSI soon accepted the recommendations of IEEE Sub-Committee IV and the recommendations were proposed, adopted and termed ANSI - IEEE C95.1 - 1991. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law 104-104- February 8, 1996 recommended adoption of portions of the ANSI - IEEE C95.1 - 1991/NCRP Standards, and in August of 1996, the FCC did adopt the two tier Standards to be implemented for all Applications starting September 1, 1997. T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Reference~ for EMR recommended ceilings, data and comments to radiation sources, radiation hazards and available reports on studies of household appliances emitting electromagnetic radiation.: Code of Federal Regulations recommends OSHA standards for maximum continuous exposure of EMR in the work place, not to exceed 10 milliwatts/cm, sq. NOTE: 1 milliwatt = 1000 microwatts OTHER STANDARDS-JAIl Standards are at 850 MegaHertz (MHz)I ANSI (American National Standards Institute) 1982 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) REGULATIONS Occupational Environment Residential Environment 2750 microwatts/cm, sq. 2750 microwatts/cm, sq. Massachusetts/National Council on Radiation Code of Continuous Exposure for Residential Environment 550 Protection microwatts/cm. sq. New Jersey/Connecticut/1982-ANSI Occupational Environment 2750 microwatts/cm, sq. Residential Environment 2750 microwatts/cm, sq. ANSI - IEEE C95.1 -1991 Standards Occupational Environment (Controlled Environment) 2750 microwatts/cm, sq. Residential Environment (Uncontrolled Environment) 550 microwatts/cm, sq. New York State Dept. of Health Occupational Environment Residential Environment 2750 microwatts/cm, sq. 550 microwatts/cm, sq. REFERENCES: Dr. Robert Cleveland, Jr. Federal Communications Commission PHONE: 202-653-8169 Off. of Engr. and Tech., Rm. 7002, 2000 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20554 William J. Condon, CHP - Bureau of Environ. Radiation Protection NYS Dept. of Health, 2 University Place, Albany, NY 12203 PHONE: 518-458-6495 U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I References for EMR recommended ceilings, data and comments to radiation sources, radiation hazards and available reports on studies of household appliances emitting electromagnetic radiation: Summary of International, Federal, State and Consensus Safety Criteria For Exposure to Radio Frequency Energy at Frequencies Used for 1900 MHz (PCS) Communications .Organization/Government Agency Exposure Population Power Density (gW/cm sq.) International -World Occupational 4,875 Health Organization-(EHC 137, 1993) Public 975 International -National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB, 1993) Occupational 10,000 Public i0,000 International -European Prestandard (CENELEC ENV.50166-2, 1995 Occupational 4,875 Public 975 Federal -Federal Communications Commission(follows NCRP-1986) Occupational 5,000 Public 1,000 Consensus Standards American National Standards (ANSI C95.1-1982) Institute Occupational 5,000 Public 5,000 ANSI & Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 Occupational 6,500 Public 1,300 National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements (NCRP Report 86,1986) Occupational 5,000 Public 1,000 State Codes New Jersey (NJAC 7:28-42) Public 5,000 Massachusetts (Dept. of Health, 105 CMR 122) Public 1,000 New York State (Dept. of Health follows NCRP-86) Public 1,000 V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PERSONAL RESUME NAME: Louis G. Cornacchia STATUS: Married, Four Children EDUCATION: Manhattan College, BEE Iona College, Computer Language Courses Manhattanville College, Business Law Courses PRESENT: SCINETICS Corporation - President Engineering Consultants with Wireless Industry. Charger Tech Services, Inc.-President Engineering Services with DOD OTHER ACTIVITIES: School Board President - New Rochelle, New York. Finance Campaign Manager - Mayoral Campaign, New Rochelle, New York. SDA District Chairman - Boy Scouts of America, New Rochelle, New York. Chairman- Board of Directors Reliance Bank, White Plains , New York Member of Advisory Board of Patriot National Bank Stamford, Connecticut. Member of Board of Directors Axonyx Corp. Licensed Real Estate Broker State of New York I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Cornacchia has been employed in the Electronics Industry as Electronic Engineer after receiving his BEE from Manhattan College, School of Engineering. Prior to forming Collins Consultants Int'l in 1969 and subsequently Charger Tech Services Inc. in 1974, Mr. Cornacchia was employed by Hazeltine Electronics Corp. as Engineer, Designing Signal Processor and Radar Display Module for The SAGE System, Primary Early Warning System or DEW LINE, The TPS-1- GROUND BASED SEARCH RADAR SYSTEM and AWACS (A6E) Power Systems. Subsequently, Lou was employed by Loral Systems Design Team developing The AN/ALQ58 Reconnaissance System and developed (two man team) the precursor YIG TUNER ~ [ALR-20] Crystal Scanner covering the full 200 megahertz - 12 gigahz Frequency Range Surveillance System for interception of Enemy Navigational Fire Control and Homing Devices for purposes of Identification and Signal Jamming. Seven years after receiving his degree Mr. Cornacchia was hired as Chief Engineer by Victory Electronic to Develop the Image Intensifier or Night Vision Scopes (Using Star Light) for the Fort Dix Army Command. At Norden Systems, Mr. Cornacchia developed unique, more aggressive programs incorporating Built-In Test Equipment(BITE) to detect on- coming circuit failures of the FlllD-E Avionics to increase reliability and was responsible for Air Force change of Automatic Test Equipment Specifications to accommodate this innovation. In 1969 Collins Consultants Int'l, LTD was formed to continue servicing Norden Systems in developing Automatic Test Programs AIRBORNE Computers and Navigational Radar Modules. for In 1974 Charger Tech Services, a New York Corporation was formed by Cornacchia (President), with Mr. Robert Harris to service additional companies in both the Nuclear and Industrial communities on an Engineering level. In 1987 SCINETICS was formed by Mr. Cornacchia (President), and application for a service mark was filed with the United States Patent Office, and granted. SCINETICS Corporation assumed responsibilities for all Mobile Cellular and Broadcast Channel Radio Frequency Environmental Impact Studies as of July 1992. A partial listing of companies SCINETICS and Charger has been contracted with, employing 30 to 50 state of the art Engineers, Technicians and Programmers, are as follows: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Westinghouse Corp. Martin Marietta IBM Allied Signal - Bendix United Technologies Corp. Loral Electronics Systems ITT New York Telephone Co. Fairchild Camera Division Airborne Instruments Labs Grumann Corp. Miles Inc. Perkin Elmer Corporation Shore Media Inc. Syracuse Scientific Corp. Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems Mobile Radio Cellular EMF Studies and Testimonies Provided by Scinetics For the Following Communities. Case law decisions favoring Applicant, where SCINETICS Corp. was mentioned as providing critical written technical support data and Expert testimony in applicant's application process. (Partial Listing): Hillsborough, New Jersey Valley Cottage, New York Fair Lawn, New Jersey* New York City, New York Hastings, New York Bedminister, New Jersey Martinsville, New Jersey Little Silver, New Jersey* Hazlet, New Jersey* Readington, New Jersey* Garwood, New Jersey* Dix Hills, New York Uniondale, New York Armonk, New York * Favorable Supreme Court, Superior and Appellate Court Decisions Benefiting Cellular Service COVERAGE LEGEND: [] Nei§hl)ering Site [] P[eposed Site at&t Sites Neighboring On~i~ Sites L]-1017 East ~arior~ Fire District Date: June 21, 2007 COVERAGE LEGEND: [] Nei~jhbodn~j Site [] Pioposed Site LI-lOl7 East [~larion Fire District TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: BOARD OF APPEALS STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK In the Matter of the Application of NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, For Special Exception Approval, pursuant to Article XVI of the Code of the Town of Southold, to install a public utility wireless telecommumcatlons facility at ( Premises ). East Marion Fire District 9245 Route 25 East Marion, New York 11939 District 1000, Section 31, Block 3, Lot 11.31 STATE OF NEW JERSEY ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF BERGEN ) AFFIDAVIT OF RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEER Shaded Husain, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am a radio frequency engineer retained by New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC CCingular"). As a radio frequency engineer, I am trained to identify service deficiencies in Cingular's wireless telecommunications network and to evaluate the ability of proposed antenna sites to remedy these service deficiencies. I am fully familiar with Cingular's wireless telecommunications network in the Town of Southold and throughout Suffolk County. 2. I submit this affidavit in support of Cingular's application for approval to install a wireless telecommunications facility at the Premises. Pursuant to this application, Cingular requests approval to install public utility wireless telecommunications antennas within the previously approved pole at the Premises, and to install related equipment on the ground near the base of the pole, all as depicted in the plans previously submitted to the Board. 3. Cingular is considered a public utility for zoning purposes under the laws of the State of New York and is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to serve the public within Suffolk County and throughout much of the United States. Cingular strives to provide reliable service throughout its licensed coverage area. 4. At present, there is a substantial service gap in Cingular's wireless telephone coverage in the vicinity of the proposed site. A service gap exists if the user of a Cingular mobile telephone cannot reliably transmit, receive or maintain a voice or data connection. The service gap in coverage that now exists in the vicinity of the proposed site prevents Cingnlar from providing reliable service in the area. This unreliability represents an inconvenience to users of Cingular's services and can have serious consequences during times of emergency or disaster. 5. In order to understand why the proposed antenna site is needed, it is necessary to understand how Cingular's system works from an engineering standpoint. Cingular's wireless telecommunications system is designed so that low powered base stations are strategically located at determined distances apart and at predetermined heights. Due to such factors as hills, valleys, trees, buildings, and other physical obstructions and due to the nature of radio waves, each coverage area or "cell" is irregularly shaped. With sufficient signal strength from each base station, the Cingular user can reliably transmit, receive or maintain voice or data connections. The sites are ordinarily engineered to cover a limited area so that an antenna facility will cover only the area surrounding it but will not interfere with other sites in the system. 6. In order to eliminate the service deficiency in a particular area, Cingular performs signal propagation studies to determine the height and location of the needed cell site. Based on its studies, Cingular determined that an antenna facility would have to be established within a narrowly defined search area in order to remedy the service gap in question. In this case, we determined that the installation of the proposed facility will allow Cingular to provide reliable service in the vicinity of the Premises. 7. The proposed antennas must be affixed at least as high as those depicted on the plans previously submitted to the Board in order to ensure that reliable service can be afforded to Cingular users in the vicinity of the site. The location and height of the antennas is determined 2 by some or all of the following factors: availability of existing structures, willingness of property owners to enter into leases, drive test data, location of existing antenna sites in the area, topography in the surrounding area, land cover features in the area such as buildings and foliage, and the results provided by computer propagation software that enables radio frequency engineers to predict the anticipated signal propagation at a given height and location. 8. In order to illustrate the effect that the proposed site would have on coverage in its vicinity, maps have been prepared for submission to the Board at the public heating. The maps depict the areas presently enjoying reliable service in the vicinity, and the area to be served by the proposed site. As the maps indicate, the proposed facility is of vital importance to Cingular's efforts to provide reliable service to the area in question. Unless this application is granted, Cingular will be unable to provide reliable service in the vicinity of the Premises. 9. The antennas proposed will not interfere with radio or television service or public safety telecommunications in the surrounding area. Sworn to day of~ .-"2?_ ............... :.~ ~. _-- 0:',~-~ '~ .;:.. ~8 Lx .-', ~-~ -.. ... -,,..... ....... ~eforejne this Radio Frequency Engineer Camm~ Expm 7/1~/~ 3 nT 0 © 0 0 PLANNING AND ZONING ANALYSIS PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC EAST MARION FIRE DISTRICT 9245 MAIN ROAD, HAMLET OF EAST MARION TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK Prepared For: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC 333 Crossways Park Drive Woodbury, New York 11797 Prepared By: Freudenthal & Eikowitz Consulting Group, Inc. 1757-24 Veterans Memorial Highway Islandia, New York 11749 (631) 499-2222 June 2007 Table of Contents Page Introduction and Methodology .................................................................... 1 Existing Site Conditions and Proposed Public Utility Communications Facility ............................................................................. 2 Land Use, Zoning and Environmental Analysis .......................................... 8 Findings and Conclusions .......................................................................... 13 Figure l Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C List of Figures Site Location Map ................................................................ 3 Site Plan ............................................................................... 4 Detailed Site Plan and Details .............................................. 5 Elevation Views ................................................................... 6 Zoning Map Excerpt ........................................................... 9 Aerial Photograph .............................................................. 11 List of Appendices Photographs of Site and Surrounding Area Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Findings, Deliberations and Determination Curriculum Vitae of Ginny Watral, Vice President, Planning, Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY A Planning and Zoning Analysis was performed for the proposed New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (hereinafter, "Cingular") public utility communications facility, to be located at 9245 Main Road in the hamlet of East Marion, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Cingular is proposing to locate its antennas within an approved stealth monopole, and to install associated ground-based equipment at grade level, within a 16*-foot by 22±-foot fenced area at the East Marion Fire Department. A site and area inspection, review of Town of Southold Zoning Maps, and review of aerial photographs were conducted to examine land use and zoning both on the subject site and in the surrounding community. Photographs were taken to document the land uses of the subject site and in the surrounding area (see Appendix A). EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY The proposed project includes the installation of a public utility communications facility on the property known as 9245 Main Road, situated on the north side of Main Road (New York State Route 25), west of Stars Road, in East Marion, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York (see Figure 1 - Site Location Map). The subject property is currently developed with the East Marion Fire District firehouse and associated structures, paved areas and landscaped areas. Cingular is proposing to install its antennas within a previously-approved1 ll0~:-foot above grade level ("agl") stealth monopole within a 16*-foot by 22±-foot fenced compound. As part of the proposed action, the panel antennas of Cingular would be installed within the stealth monopole, and associated ground-based equipment would be installed within the fenced compound (see Figure 2 - Site Plan and Figure 3 - Detailed Site Plan and Details). Cingular is proposing to affix three sectors of antennas, with one antenna per sector, at a centerline height of 107± feet agl, concealed within the stealth monopole (see Figure 4 - Elevation Views). Associated equipment cabinets would be installed on a 10~- foot by 22-foot-8±-inch concrete pad. Cables would be routed within an ice bridge between the proposed equipment compound and the base of the monopole. A single GPS antenna would be affixed to a support post of the ice bridge within the equipment compound. Landscaped buffers would be created to surround and screen the overall compound. ~ The Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals issued a Findings, Deliberations and Determination, dated March 8, 2007 (File No. 5972), approving the construction of a 110a:-foot above grade level monopole subject to conditions (see Appendix C). A Building Permit was issued for same on April 19, 2007. · 2 Site Location Map c MAPLE PL o Street Atlas USA® 2005 Data use subject to license. © 2004 DeLorme. Street Atlas USA® 2005, F~gure I CHERTLL BONDARCHUK USE: RESIDE:NTL~- - 1 FAMILY RES~ENCE ~ ZONED: R-40 LOT 1 PROR3S~ CR~Y ~ N/F N/F ANTHONY LEK~d(IS SYMBOLS AND MATERIALS DETAIL REFERENCE SEC~ONS ANO DETAILS [~.,=.: .,~.~ CONCRE~ ~ EARTH ~ GRAVEL/STONE infinigy 150-0~4 ! SITE LEGEND ...... PROPERTY ENE EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 8245 IVLNN ROAD ~=~,ci ng wU..l~.r o-,,- GENE'PAL NOTES: Figure 2 D AUX 85o/19oo UCPA DETAILED SITE PLAN IN NE:UII~J. BLUr./ SUPPORT POST + BRACKET FOR CHANNEL (PtROD INC OR EQUAL) CUT POST LENGTH TO SU~ BY REMOVING UNCAPPED END (PIROD PAET NO, 852168 OR B52163 (PIROD INC OR EOL~L) CABLE sPN,~ - 3'-0' ~) (PIROD P~ No. 802262) (s~ ~) (Pl~ P~ COMMSCOPE MANUF. MIN. SEE TABLE BELOW GENERAL SITE NOTES: 1. THE SUBORADE SHALL BE COMPACTED N4D BROUGHT TO A SMOOTH UNIFORM GRADE PRIOR TO F~NISHED SURFACE APPLICA'~ON. EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 9245 MAIN ROAD EAST MARION, NY 11939 infin! y engineeri g 150-034 CABLE ICE BRIDGE DETAIL  UNISTRUT pIPE/CONDUIT CLAMP Pl119 P2s~-a5 (~cv.) ~lC~ 1/2" O.D, , 4'-0' UNISTRUT P1001 (GALV) UNISTRUT PLO01 fGALV) · 10"~ pLAIN ¥1 ~1 ~ PIER DETAILED SITE PLAN , , ~ 5 Figure 3 ~,,.~ ,~ELEC/TELCO SUPPORT RACK ~ INFINIGY ENGINEERING HAS NOT EVALUATED THE E~I$~INO TOWER FO~ THIS SIT;', [r Is THE CARRIER'S RE~PONSIBILJ~' TO INVES11GATE ANy ANTENNA LAYOUT A~TE~~A infini~v engineering 150-054 i GRADE L~ GRADE LEVEL -- O' (AGL) (BY OTHERS) I] AT T~' T/I~' OF 7H/S Z~/, /NF/~M~ ~ U AR~ (1) ANTE~h~ pER SECTOR~ PROPOSr~ 6' BLACK VINYl. CHNN UNK FENCE (B~ OT~S) EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 SOUTH ELEVATION Examination of the surrounding neighborhood indicates a mix of residential and agricultural uses, with few commercial uses interspersed along Main Road. In order to depict the nature of the surrounding community, photographs are included in Appendix A. A detailed description of the land use surrounding the subject site, and an aerial photograph, are contained in the section entitled Land Use, Zoning and Environmental Analysis. 7 LAND USE~ ZONING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Zoning and Land Use of the Site and Surrounding Area, and Planning Considerations According to the Town of Southold Zoning Map, Section 3, the subject property is split-zoned, where a portion of the property is situated within the Hamlet Business HB Zoning District, and the remainder of the property, including the proposed facility location, is situated within a Low- Density Residential R-40 Zoning District (see Figure 5 -Zoning Map Excerpt). Pursuant to the Code of the Town of Southold, the R-40 District permits, among other uses, residences, agricultural uses and sales, public and private schools, Town parks, and firehouses, among other uses. The proposed facility requires site plan and special exception approval, as well as an area variance, as the subject property does not meet the minimum area requirement of five (5) acres for a communications tower within a residential zoning district. The zoning classifications and land uses of the properties surrounding the subject site are as follows: North: Properties north of the subject property, extending to the Long Island Sound, lie within the Low-Density Residential R-40 Zoning District, and are developed with residential or agricultural uses, or are undeveloped. South: Immediately south of the overall subject property is Main Road, followed by residential uses along the roadway, with wooded areas and Marion Lake beyond. These properties are within the Low-Density Residential R-40 Zoning District, with the exception of a single parcel zoned Resort/Residential. Zo~ng Map Excerpt Source: Town of Southold Zoning Map, Sheet No. 3, 2004. Scale: 1 inch = 1,000 feet FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWlTZ CONSULTiNG GROUP, iNC. Figure 5 9 East: West: To the east of the subject property, along the Main Road corridor, are residentially-developed properties, a cabin rental facility and a chapel within the Low-Density Residential R-40 Zoning District. Beyond are residential and undeveloped properties within the Low-Density Residential R-80 Zoning District. Immediately west of the subject property, along the north side of Main Road, are a post office and few commercial uses zoned Hamlet Business HB. Beyond this, along either side of Main Road, are residential uses, agricultural uses a bed-and-breakfast establishment, as well as undeveloped properties, within the Low-Density Residential R-40 ZovJng District. Farther west, along the north side of Main Road, is a large Low-Density Residential R-80 Zoning District, developed with residential and agricultural uses. Along the south side of Main Road, properties are zoned Low-Density Residential R-40, with the exception of a single parcel zoned Resort/Residential, and are developed accordingly. The proposed facility is located within an area in which Cingular is experiencing a service deficiency gap, according to information provided by Cingular. The area in which the facility must be placed is primarily residentially-zoned and developed, with agricultural and limited commercial development interspersed (see Figure 6 - Aerial Photograph). As such, the installation of antennas within a previously-approved stealth monopole and commtmications compound on a property controlled by a fire district, with commercial properties adjacent, is appropriate t~om a planning perspective. 10 Aerial View of Subject Property and Surrounding Area - 9245 Main Road, East Marion, Town of Southold Page 1 of 1 Oven/Jew Aerial View of Subject Property and Surrounding Area 9245 Main Road, East Marion, Town of Southold Map Layers 0 100 20O feet http://wwwl.nysgis.state.ny.us/print/index.cfm l! Figure 6 6/22/2007 Environmental Considerations Since the facility would be manned, there would be minimal impact on the environmental conditions in the area. The facility would not generate either sewage or solid waste, and would not need to be supplied with potable water. The traffic generated by the proposed project would also be minimal, as the site would be remotely monitored. There would be approximately one trip per month to inspect the equipment. Additionally, the equipment installed on the site would use minimal electricity. As the proposed communications facility would be situated on previously-disturbed land, and would include only minimal areas of impervious surfaces, there would be no significant adverse impacts to soils or topography, area drainage, or regional ecology. Since there would be no sewage generation or water use, and as there are no wetlands present on or contiguous to the subject property, there would be no impacts to surface waters or groundwater quantity or quality. 12 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Based upon an inspection of the subject property and surrounding areas, review of Town zoning maps, evaluation of characteristics of the proposed stealth monopole, and examination of potential areas of impact using photographic simulations, the following findings can be made: From a planning perspective, Cingular has chosen an appropriate location for the proposed facility, as the subject property is developed with a fire department and is situated proximate to the limited commercial development in an area primarily zoned for and developed with residential uses. Cingular would also conceal its antennas within a previously-approved East Marion Fire Department monopole. The proposed public utility communications facility would have a minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site and the surrounding area as the facility would be unmanned. As such, no sewage or solid waste would be generated. There would be no significant impact to soils or topography, as the overall compound would be situated entirely on previously-disturbed ground and would include minimal impervious surface area. The Telecommnnications Act of 1996, the federal law that governs Wireless Communications facilities, encourages co-location, which is the location of multiple antennas on the same site. The co-location (in this case placement of antennas within a previously-approved monopole) helps to minimize the development of different sites in the same area and serves to minimize potential cumulative impacts. Based upon the analysis conducted herein, development of the proposed public utility communications facility would not result in substantial changes to the physical characteristics of the area or significant adverse impacts to neighborhood character or environmental conditions. 13 APPENDIX A FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWlTZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Photograph No. 1 ~ View of the East Marion Fire Department from along Main Road. Photograph No. 2: View of the proposed facility location (at right of the building in the foreground). Photograph No. 3: View toward the proposed facility location, facing south from the southern extent of Oak Court. Photograph No. 4_.' View facing northeast along the Main Road corridor, toward the overall Fire Department property, from southwest of the site. Photograph No. 5: View lacing southwest along the Main Road corridor, toward the overall Fire Department property, from the intersection with Stars Road. Photograph No. 6: View of the residential area to the southeast of the subject property, along Bay Avenue, from the intersection with Main Road. APPENDIX B FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, 1NC. 0B/0~/2007 ~3109/~007 I~: $~ 6~lTG590G4 AppEALS ~OARD ~M~ER~ Ruth D. O~a Gerard P. ~hfing~r Mich~ A, Simon ~slie K~n~ Weisman 17:28 88888888 PAGE PA~ 02 Southold T6wn Hall 53095 Main Road · 1%O, Box 11'~9 5outhol& NY 11971-0959 T~. Annex ~ ~, N~ F~k Bank ~37~ M~n R~d (~ Y~ A~en~e) Southold, NY 119~1 http:ll$ou~oldtown ,north fork.net ~ONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOWI~IOLD T~I. (631) 76~-1809 · Fax (631) FINDINGS, DELIRERATION$ AND DETERMINATION MEETING HE, kD; MARCH 8, 2007 ZB File No. 5972 - EAST MARION FIRE DISTRICT Properly Location: 9245 Main Road, East Marion Zone Districts (split): HB Hamlet Business; R.40 Low Density Residential CTM 31-3-11.31 containing &05 SEQ~ D~ERMINATION: The Zoni~ Boa~ of Appeals has visl~ the pm~y under ~nsideration in this appli~aflo~ and determines ~at this review falls under ~e T~ Ii ~o~ of ~e ~ate'S List ~ A~ions, ~th~ fu~er s~ under ~EQRA. In addffion, the Town Planning BOard has issued a N~afive D~arafion w~ a Dete~min~ion ~f Non~ignEi~n~ deled Segtembe~ 11, ~. PR~ER~ FACT~DESCRLPTION: The appii~nt's prope~ contains 3.05 sores ~ by the East ~Hon Fire Ols~i~ and im~ve~ wi~ ~ Fire House st~ree, as sho~ an the site plan prep~re~ by Infin~y Engineegng dstaa 8/17~06. B~S OF APPORTION: The appli~t requests a Va~an~ under S~/~n 280-69 A6), based on a~ appli~on ~t a building pe~it and the ~uitdlng insp~o~s Ju~ 25, 2~ N0tice of Di~ppr~al. ~n~ming ~nst~ion of a ~rop~ed ~rele~ ~mmu~i~fio~le~mmuni~fi0ns monopoia t~er ~ pm~ owned, leased or o~e~ise ~ntmtled by a spatial dls~ ~pproved by · e ~missionem of the sp~ial.distdm. ~e prOpoSed tour wM ex~ the ~de Ilmit~ion - with a height greater than 10 ~et a~ve the a~ge height of buildings within ~0 feat ~ t~ facill~, OR higher ~an 10 feet a~ t~ e~mge tree ca,ow height in that radius ~aa~md from ground ie~l if them am no bulldlsgs wi~l~ 300 f~t Also, if there em no buildings within 300 feat d the proposed fadli~ si~, all ~le~mmuni~{~n ~wem ~hall be surmu~ed by dense t~ g~h tO scr~n views of the faa}l~ in all di~bns. $_~EC!AL.,pISTRICT: T~ aOp{i~nt, East Madon Fire D{s~ (EMFD), im an e~blimhed spe~a{ dlstdct for emergen~ commu~loations on at I~st 4,35 acres of la~d. ~e EMFD ma{n~inm i~ fire station ~mmunl~t~n ~ns~l~ions to and ~ this site, end ~e ~m}es{ ~mmuni~ions t~er would be in a {o~tlon ~mt pro~es s~dent spa~ and height to pray{de an I~all~}on of a ~ Hz antenna, no~h of the fimhousa. ~J_FFOLK COUNTY ADMINIS'[1RATIVE CODE: This appil~atlon has Been referred as required under the Suffolk County Administrative Coda Sections A 14-14 t~ 23, and the Suffolk Count7 Department of Planning relaiied in it~ communications ~lated November 24, 2006 and January 22, Ol · EO:9I 68, ff~ ~d%4 ~d ':3aK ~SB (IA[~I £ ~ 656~9LSk"~ 03/09/2007 17:28 00000000 PAGE 02 03/0g/~0~? 1S:S2 G317G590G~ Z~A PA~ 03 ZI~ F;le No. 5§?2 - E~ Marion Fire Di~tri~ C?M NO, 2007 stating that the application is considered a matte? for local determination aa there appears to be no signiflosnt county-wide et inter,community impact. TOWN OQDE CHAPTER 1~.{2S8) LWRP CONSISTENCY: This application has also been referred as required under Chapter 95 (2e8) of the Town Coda, and L.WRP Coordinatoc Marl< Ten'y has issued a determination1 dated April 2i~, 3008, received October 23, 2006, Statlhg that this application s cone sten~ with the Policy Standards. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of APpeals held a public hoeing on this application on November 30, 2008 and Janue~ =S, 2007, at which time written and oral evMenco were presented, Baaed upon alt testimony, documentation, p~rsonal Inspection of the pl'eper~y, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to'be true and relevant: /~EA VARIANCE RELIEF P. IQUESTEI'): The applicant, East Marion Fire District, wishes to construct a telecommunications menopole tower to support public safety nommunications antennas, at a maximum height Of 120 feel REASONS FOR BOAR~ ,ACTION; On the basis of testimony presented, materiels submitted and personal Inspections, fha b~ard makes th~ relieving findings: 1. Grant of alternative r~l~ef will not pr~uce an undesirable change i~ the character of the neigh~e~xl or a defflment to nearby properl~es, The see where the monopole antenna will be ~'onstructed Is pm~ently open a¢aca lying just n~rth of the two sti'uctures that Sen/e the community of East bladon as a firehouse. The ~ has bean used for many years for the P~q3osea of storing and maintaining fire ~gMtlng and associated support equipment such as fire trucks, hoses, ladders and radio equipment t~ communicate O*Jdng actual rimS, The addition of-this monopole antenna will Improve the reliability of the radio equiptneht currently in use, 2, The benefit sought by the ep~)licant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a~ area variance, The East Marion Fire District only owns one piece of real pro~rty, and it is upon this croperty that the monopole antenna will be erected. SeOUdty, electrical supply, and proximity to the source of dispatch demand that the principal anlenna be located as cleme to the firehouse ,as posa~le. 3. The alternative relief granted herein is eubstantlah The variance sought by the applicant and the alternative relief g~ntad herein, will In~rease the antenna height at least 90% Over the code max[mum, (The code requirement is a maximum of $0 feat Jn height,) Although a monopo~e antenna of this size will create Some visual ahange in the ama, ~is change mu~t be belenced against the ne~"assity of Iml3roving e/13erganc¥ COmmunications for the ~mmunibj. 4.' Grantl~ of the alternate relief f~' a height variance will not have an advers~ effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or die,Ct, The monopole antenna Is designed ~o withstand the highe4't anticipated win~ velocities and constructed in accordance to current engineering standards. All equipment reouim antares wll~ be I~ted wit i _ ~ for. po.w. eri.ng and maintenance of th h n a seourel · , y fenced eras aurrounamg the base of the monopole, which t £0:9~ ~, ~0 ~ £0~ ~5£ BS3 C~AOB £ (~b"dP~OB GgGS_~cj~¥£9 03/09/707 17:28 00000000 PAGE 03 Page 3- Mero~ 0, 2007 2:e File No. 5972 - Esot Marion Fire Distr~t O~'M No, 31o3-11~31 will be screened by native plantings. All radio transmissions will be r~uleted by appropriate agencies, 5, The alleged difficLIIty has i~ot been self.0reated. It is ne<;eagery to update the means of communications am technology advances with time. The current te¢l~nology requires a certain tower height in 0~er to guarantee adequate coverage of the fire district. 6. The 13reposed height i~ not the minimum that is necessary to preserve and prote~ the chara~er Of the neighborhood and the health, II~fely, and welfare of the community. The testimony presented was not sufficient to persuade that the antenna height of ~20 fe~t ia necessary to I~r0vide the desired coverage et the fire dis~'lCt, The Board ~onslders the subetst~tlal alternative relief granted lo be sufficient to satisfy the applicant's needs and to meet reasonable concede of public s~ety. 7, Grant of the requested relief ia the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to a~oy the benefit of a telecommunications tower facility, while preserving and protecting the c. hara~e~ of the neighborhood ancl the health, safety and welfare of the community. RE$OLUTIQN OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above fa~tors and epl~lying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, eaton w~e offered by Member 8[~'non, seconded by Member Olive, and duly carded, to DENY the variance as applied for, and in the ALTERNATIVE, to (~RANT a va~lan~ In the location shown On the 6.~7-06 Inflntgy Site Diagram (~etbacks lO5 feet from the ~orth lot line, llii~.l- feet set back tam ~e westerly lot line), at a maximum antenna height or 110 feet. subjeCt tO the following condigns: 1) The coVering of the mortop01e Shall be painted a c~tor that wilt make it blend trite the area, The board suggests e t~eut~al color such as gray er gray- blue. 2) No flag shall be placed upon the monopole antenna. ' 3) The monopole shall not be lighted except as required by law. That these ZBA cor~dition~ be written Into ~ila Built/lng inspector's C. ettEt~te of Occupancy, when Any deviation from the varlan~ gNen such aa axtsn~iona, or demolftions which ars not ~how~ on the applicant's diagrams or survey $~ maps, are not Suthorlzed under this application v~len involving n~nr.,o~forrfll~4~l ~Jnder the ~-o~ling ~sde, This a~ion does not suthori~'-e ~ condone a~ly 0~ffent o~ ~uture usa, ~etbaek or Otller feature of the subject Property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, so.ac, ks.and el/tar foatu~es aa am expressly addressed i~ th~ action. The Board ra~erves the right to ~u~titute a s~nll$~' eSSl~l that is de minimis in nature for an alte~tlc~ that Vote of the Bee~; Ayes: Members, O va, Geehr hoar. Simon, and Welsman, Nay: Chairman Dthl~lo (in favor of requested 120 ft. hel~l~, This Res~u~i'~n .WaS duly e~opted j.a/m~--DiriizioJr,;¢Eaiml~n; 1.3/9/2007 ,'4oproved for Filing APPENDIX C FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Ginny Watral, MPA Freudenthal & Eikowitz Consulting Group, Inc. 1757-24 Veterans Memorial Highway, Islandia, New York 11749 Telephone: (631) 499-2222 Facsimile: (631) 499-5928 PRESENT POSITION Vice President of Planning PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Mrs. Watral has comprehensive and diverse experience in overall planning and environmental evaluation associated with redevelopment of numerous parcels within various municipalities on Long Island. Specifically, this includes community development; waterfront revitalization; preparation of grant applications for commercial and residential projects; planning, zoning and visual impact assessments for public utility communication facilities; neighborhood character studies; preparation of environmental assessment forms ("EAFs"); preparation of environmental impacts statements ("EISs"); and municipal planning. Additionally, Mrs. Watral prepares New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit applications. Prior to joining F&E, Mrs. Watral worked for the Long Island Housing Partnership and the City of Glen Cove. Among her responsibilities were preparation of environmental assessments for community development projects for the Town of Babylon, in accordance with the State Environmental Review Quality Act ("SEQRA") and the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and monitoring regulatory compliance of federal, state and other public and private funding sources. Mrs. Watral has provided expert testimony relative to the planning and environmental impacts of public utility communications facilities and development projects throughout Long Island. Representative projects in which Mrs. Watral has been instrumental include but are not limited to: Preparation and submission of planning and zoning analyses and neighborhood character studies, including expert testimony, for public utility wireless communications facilities, commercial and residential development projects in most of the Towns and Villages on Long Island, the Cities of Long Beach and Glen Cove and in New York City; EAFS for projects including residential land divisions, commercial and residential redevelopment, public utility communications facilities, hospitals, religious institutions and senior citizens developments, throughout Nassau and Suffolk Counties and the five boroughs of New York City; Preparation, submission and presentation at public hearings in the Town of Babylon, of Comprehensive Annual Performance Evaluation Report for the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Programs to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; Preparation, submission and presentation of documentation supporting land divisions and various applications; Ginny Watral Page 2 Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. Compilation of information for planning, zoning and visual impact assessments for over one hundred public utility communications facilities; Expanded EAF for South Nassau Communities Hospital in the Town of Hempstead; Part 3 EAF for Stony Brook University Hospital; EIS for Rezoning and Residential Development of 34±-acres in the Town of Babylon; EEAF for a hotel at the Watermill Inn and Caterers in the Town of Smithtown; and EIS for the expansion of the Greek Orthodox Church of the Hamptons in the Town of Southampton. EDUCATION Bachelor of Science/Master of Public Administration, College of Management, School of Public Service, Long Island University, C. W. Post Campus, Greenvale, New York, Accelerated degree program, Magna cum Laurie, September, 1998. Associate in Arts, Liberal Arts and Sciences, Suffolk County Community College, Selden, New York, With Highest Distinction, May, 1995. LEG.~L NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS family dwelling, which will consti an increase in the degree of non-cc.. formance (third floor/third story), al 8 Shingle Hill Drive, Fishers Island; CFM 9-1 15. 1:05 p.m. VALERIE and FOSTER REEVE #604l. Request for a Variance under Section 280-105, based on the Building Inspector's October 6, 2006 Notice of Disapproval concerning the height of a proposed fence exceeding the code limitation of four feet when located in the front yard, at 76375 Main Road (a/k/a Front Street), Greenporl; CTM 48-1-2. THURSDAY, ~.rNE 2~ 2007 a ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS 1: OSS #6045. Re- or Variances under Sections 280- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV 15F and 280 116A tile ' suant to Sect on n Law - , based c~ Bmld- ~~vS.~ ~oncern?g an application hearings will be held by the ~S~ ~osed ~'-' · , .OLD _TO.~ 7.~o~n Hall, 53095 lng, pergola and ' g pool· The ~ ~oaa, RO. Box 1179 Sou h reaso rovin . NewYork I197i_0959 ' old, ns ca ' g the braiding 9:30 a.m. . . 50. than 100 feet ~gt awelhng will be less B bank he top of the blu inc Udes dem~'~ ~aera0on to dwethn istln a~l~°sea add'tlon p aces the e~' · brunn and re g g ssory gara e · - on of the emstin g . Construe_ yard; and 3 t g partly ~n a s~de . ffomZBAdecsig~ndat,,mndeviated mine nOB, !_) hat t!le proposed sw m_ · PP cant s ri ben the c . 11 ?rmngse backs ~. or request con- from the fr ?e-reqmred 50 feet increase ofceill rein[ed to theproposed a fron ar ont lot !me when located in 1.5 stori the ex sting hei ht o 1:3 e. Or. leto; CTM 13- e t°t'Osto es nder go'nnf #60470 ? JOS p. i^V^R 4 ACC?e Seclions 280 116 and g .- Request for Var/ NE Isorequested fa . 280 124. Sections 280-1 ances under ed, is a variance a reversal ~s not grant- 280 15~ based 22A, 280~124, 280-116 mendmem for recon tot's Sep embe°n the Braiding lnspec struction of the dwelling with setbacks r 7, 2007 Notice of Dis- approval, amended Ma 1 at.less than 75 feet from the bulkhead cerning ro . .Y , 2007, con less than 35 f front yard s , . . P posed addit~ons a less than 35 fl r,. etback, and t~ons to a nOnconformin n~. altera- B ' ' - · ear yard setback ref re!drag lnspec or's Au ust ( . g dwelhng and Notice of D sa roy g 25, 2006 tember 28 2006pp al, amended Sep- ' ) Location of Pr 405 Private Ro operty: R ad #3 (a/k/a Pine ' Bad), Southold; CTM 70-6-15. Creek ~lty When located less than I5 feet on a 9:40 a.m. JOHN MAZUR JR. and ALICE MAZUR #6044 Re ~ Variance based · q est for a tor's Ma on the Braiding Ins e hasedoT l N°" eo D'sapp&; I7 2106 A 145909 iSSUed Au us , . ·basedonB ' ' g ~rd 3, 2006 No ' uflthng {nspeetor's cltmg Sections 280~~ee of. Disapproval for approva of the [o2~-A-' and 280 124) atlon of the new foundation at less than 35 feet from the fronl yard line and less than 35 f from thereat ar eet Y d hne, after demolltion ~f the foundation of the existing dwell mg and related COnstruc on Location ~reate a new non ~welhng will Increase in t conformity or be an he degree of nonconfo~ single side yard and les the bulkhea s than 75 feet t ~ · d. A new accessory build/ (garage) ~s pr vOSed ~ k , ng Creek), Pecothc. ~.- (Richmond I :55 p. m. ST~'¢~ ~AS(6-6-4. 9, 2007 Notice ol~'~isI~spect°r s Aprff a[._a size exceeding he c .... b~te, (2) q e feet, and (3) with dormers 9:55 a tn BR of the roof width· - YARD #6[151'. Re E.W. ERS YACHT 4705 Nassau E .Locatmn of Pr)perry: under Secdo quesl for a Variance CTM 111-9- Bmr Road, Cutcho ue Buil' n 280-1 6, based on ~ , 9, g . drag lnspec offs M the 2.10 p.m. BRIA tsce of D~sapproval co~acYe 7,. 2007 No- Request for Varian~Nes RETUS #6049. pOsed accesso .. rmng a pro- 280-116A a ~ Under Sect ns less than 75 v ry (pavlhon) buildin, at Build n~ ~ ) nd 280-124, based on /he Beach Roadmet to the bulkhead, at~00 rice of 1~i~nspect°r s May 14, 2007 No- lO- 0 a m '~ffT~,np°rl: CTM 43-3 2 posed adn~Pr°val c°ncern ng: nder Section 280 1 Varmnce I00 feet from the at less than Building Ins eco ' 16A, based on the qenl to the Lon top of the bluff a~ia- t,ce of Disa~ro..r~ May 20, 2~7 No- 0on at less tha~/~l~nd Sound, (2)add/- : a.m. A~R/~NE : 0P'm. NEWCINGuk No0ce of Di~ff~t~a January 4 2~6 a propos~d70~cer~[ng instal a0on ~,2~7, conce~i~j ~r~ amended April c°m~unicati~ns ~ ~?h~ wireless tele htmn of ex St/n d ter?bst~nt~aldemo antennas ~it ~e/~ss telecommun cations less hanl~fe~ welhng Wthsethacks beilt, andlo hm'-'approvedpoletobe ad' of the to of . nsta/l relate t ~. , · 855 Soundview~°~ ~s~and Sound, at ~ 31-3 l l ~° ~°ute 25, East Marioo· 11:35 a.m. JEF ?rsons, or ~ ?' ~ppeals w~ll hear a OAK ~6046. Re ~EY AND·CAROL mg to be he~;Ir representatlve~ desi~] der Section280 q st for a Varmnce un- desitin to al each hearing, an~ ,era, ohs Z ~'}~tq adO, tm? and a abe for g~$1ed abo[e. Fdes are 2~.and 21 (com~;;~e;ff;n ~h~:es Lots do no~ I, es;;;e ht;v~ ques,,on~ o1~;~M80_4_i01 ne mt), South_ ~ (631) 765-1809 o~°~tact ~ur office R U PONT LY · e6,2~7. 280 14 and 280 12~a~e Under Sections JAMEs DiN~RD OFAPPEALS and based on he ~u ~ Appbcation) 54375 Main R~?~2reda Kowalski Story bedroom [~ conf~r~mg) m rd- ~/14 outhold, NY11971.0959 #8410 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Dina Mac Donald of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 _week(s), successively, commencing(~o-rr~. 14th .day of June1 2007. ~dncipal Clerk 2007 ~' NOTARV PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No 01-VO6105050 Qualified in Suffolk County ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS · TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of (Name of Applicant) AFFIDAVIT OF SIGN POSTING Regarding Posting of Sign upon Applicant's Land Identified as 1000- 31 3 - 11.3] COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) I, Jessicca L. Newmark residing at Lindenhu~ st , New York1 being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the 18 day of 3une , 200 7, [ personally placed the Town's official Poster, with the date of hearing and nature of my application noted thereon, securely upon my property, located ten (10) feet or closer from the street or right-of-way (driveway entrance) - facing the street or facing each street or right-of-way entrance;* and that I hereby confirm that the Poster has remained in place for seven days prior to the date of the subject hearing date, ~hich hearing d¢te ~/as shown j~.9 be Thursday, June 28, 2007 at 2:40 PM. ~-¢A~' ¢//7~6&~'~.~<.~. (~ (Signature{ Sworn to before me this 2oo'7 No. 01BE6036810 Quatified in Suifolk Coun~ ~ Commission Expires Feb. 7, 20 ~O *near the entrance or driveway entrance of my properly, as the area most visible to passersby. Fax Organization: Fax No.: Phone No.: tmOM: DATE: S.UBJECT: PAGES,: James Dinizio, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 631-765-9064 631-765-1809 Artemis Lck~kis July 26, 2007 Date of Hearlng for Cingular Application for Wireless Communications Tower At 9245 Route 25 in East Marion, Ne~ York 2, including cover sheet COMMENTS: If you received this transmission in error, please call 718-254-6096. ARTEMIS !_.!*.KAKIS 1567 OVlNGTON AV~mIE BROOKLYN, BlEW YORK 11210 CELL: (646) 644-74O4 July 26, 2007 BY FACSIMILE & Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road P.O. l~ox 1179 Sonthold, NY 11971-0959 Atto: Janles Dinizio, Jr., Chairolan Re: Application by Cingular Wireless to Build a Wireless Communications Tower At 9245 Route 25. East Marion. NY D~r Chairman Dinizio and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: I write to respectfully request that thc hearing on this application, currently scheduled for 1:00 p.m. on August 2, 2007 bo adjourned at least two weeks to August 16, 2007 or a date thereat~er that is convenient for the Board. This request is being made because I will be out of the State of New York and it will be difficult, if not nearly impossible, for mc to attend a hearing on August 2, 2007. My family owns thc property that is closest to the proposed Cingular wireless communic, attons tower (less than 90 feet away from the proposed tower s fence) and w* have a si~ificant knterest in attending, and possibly presenting evidence and testifying at this heating. If the hearing is not adjourned, it would deprive us of our opportunity to be heard with regards to a decision that would have a very significant impact on ns and the other neighboring property OWII~. This is our first request for an adjournment of this hearing. There was a hearing held on Thursday, June 28, 2007, at which the Board received testimony, but decided to reserve decision pending the potential retainer of an independent engineering expert to assist thc Board in its analysis of the evidence. Thank you in advance Chairman Dinizio and Members of the Zoning Board for your consideration of tl'ds request. cc: Ms. Linda Kowalski TOTAL PAGE.OR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUI'HOLD: NEW YORK In the Matler of the Application of NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, kkC (Owner, East Marion Fire District) (Name of Applicants) CTM Parcel #1000- 31 3 _ 11.31 AFFIDAVIT OF MAii.IN( ;S COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) Dorothy Bel ard residing at. Greenl awn New York, being dui), sworn, depose and sa.,,, that; On the 8th da5.' of June,. 2007, I personally ma/led at the Un/ted States' · Post Office in Hal esi te , New York, by CF, I)41'IFLED NLAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTT~;D, a lrue copy of the attached Legal Notice in prepaid envelopes addressed to current owners shown on the cu~Tent assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the (x) Assessors, or ( ) County Real Property Office ___, for evmy property which abuts and is across a public or private st 'eet, or vehicular right-of-way of record, surrounding die applicant's proper[5,. ; Sworn to before me this 8th day of June · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front Jf space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: A. Signature [~] Agent I Addressee B. Received by ( Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery - D. Isdelive~Jaddressdlfferent fromiteml? []Yes - YES, enter delivery address below: F1 No · '°~'~go $ , ~"¢-! ~ George Geatrakis =r= c~.gi~d Foe --D~ ~'~q, ~ 679 Fifth Avenue =J Return ...~p ... ~ Brookl~, NY 11215-6310 (Endorsement Requded) ~. /~ ~ ~ (Endorsement Required) ~ Artemis and OesDina-~nsferfmmse~lcel~0 ?DON [}~S{%~S.._ ~_~ E. 8th Street ~ PS F°rm 3811' Febmaw 2004 Domesc~R Brooklyn, NY 11230 LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 280 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179, Southold, New York 1't971-0959, on THURSDAY, JUNE 28t 2007: 2:40 p.m. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS (and EAST MARION FIRE DISTRICT) #5826. Request for a Special Exception under Sections 280-69 and 280-70, concerning installation of a proposed public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the premises by affixing wireless telecommunications antennas within an approved pole to be built, and to install related equipment as required, at 9245 Route 25, East Marion; CTM 31-3-1~1.31. The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular business hours and prior to the day of the hearing. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (631) 765-1809, or by email: Linda. Kowalski@Town.Southold.ny.us. Dated: June 4, 2007. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JAMES DINIZIO, JR., CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski 54375 Main Road (Office Location) 53095 Main Road (Mailing Address) P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 New Cingular Wireless Application to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Premises: East Marion Fire District, 9245 East Marion, NY Tax Map No. 31-3-11.31 List of Owner's of Property Abutting and Across the Street from the Premises, Pursuant to Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals and Southold Tax Assessor's Office Records of 6/5/07 SCTM# Physical Address Owner Mailing Address 31-3-11.10 335 Oak Court Artemis & Despina Lekakis East Marion, NY 11939 1152 E. 8th Street Brooklyn, NY 11230 31-3-11.11 350 Oak Court Cheryl L. Bondarchuk East Marion, NY 11939 350 Oak Court East Marion, NY 11939 31-3-12 8875 Route 25 George Geatrakis East Marion, NY 11939 679 Fifth Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11215-6310 31-3-11.32 9395 Route 25 Eastern Breezes Real Estate (Also listed as 54795 Rte. LLC 25, East Marion, NY P.O. Box 1103 11939) Southold, NY 11971 31-3-17 8985 Route 25 Sylvia M. Daley East Marion, NY 11939 P.O. Box 574 E. Marion, NY 11939 31-3-18 9165 Route 25 East Marion War Memorial East Marion, NY 11939 Association P.O. Box 313 East Marion, NY 11939 31-3-20 9495 Route 25 White Swan EM LLC East Marion, NY 11939 2 Richard Road Selden, NY 11784 31-8-3 9100 Route 25 Earnest Baxter East Marion, NY 11939 c/o Alliance Mortgage Company Attention: Tax Department 8100 Nations Way, Jacksonville, FL 32256 31-8-4 9220 Route 25 Jacqueline Rogers East Marion, NY 11939 Revocable Trust 1500 Brecknock Road Apartment 112 Greenport, NY 11944-3129 ~o ¢ N/F CHERYL L. BONDARCHUR USE: RESIDENTIAL - 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE ~, ZONED: R-40 ., %~;~ J 1 ~ PROPOSED 16x22' ~ '' FENCED LEASE AREA N/F GEATRAKIS & CEORGE KORTSOLAKIS USE: RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONED: R-40 N/F ANTHONY LEKAKIS USE: REStDENTALVACNAT LAND ZONED: R-40 -EXISTING CONC. SLAB N/F WHITE SWAN USE: 1 FAMILY X RESIDENCE ZONED: R-40 N/F EASTERNR.E.BREEZE~ USE: 1 FAMILY '~ RESIDENCE ZONED: R-40 ACCESS THROUGI~ EXISTING ENTRANCE A~D '%, AREA N/F SYLVIA M, DALEY USE: 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONED: R-4D RREHOUSE S 65'40'00" W N/F E,M. WAR MEMORIAL ASSOC. USE: RESIDENCE ZONED: HB SITE PLAN SITE LEGEND PROPERTY LINE × FENCE LINE ELECTRIC SERVICE NOR T-- TELEPHONE SERVICE NOTE: METES AND BOUNDS ARE TAKEN FROM A SURVEY PERFORMED BY PECONIC SURVEYORS PC, LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR. --~-- PROPOSED CONTOUR 50 EXISTING CONTOUR infinigy engineering EAST MARION SITE NO. L1-1017 9245 ivtAIN ROAD EAST MARION. NY 11939 "E'w Ingul MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RE 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, New York 11743 (631) 425-4100 Telecopier (631) 424-4104 June 8, 2007 Artemis and Despina Lekakis 1152 East 8th Street Brooklyn, NY 11230 New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("Cingular") (and East Marion Fire District) #5826 Application to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals For Special Exception Permit Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY Tax Map#: 1000-31-3-i 1.31 Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed is the Legal Notice with respect to the Public Heating scheduled on Thursday, June 28, 2007, at approximately 2:40 p.m. for the captioned Application. The Public Hearing relates to a request by Cingular for Special Exception under Southold Town Code Sections 280-69 and 280-70, concerning installation of a proposed public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the premises by affixing wireless telecommunications antennas within the Fire District's pole that has already been approved, and to install related equipment as required, at 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY. A copy of the site plan showing the proposed location of the equipment and the approved pole is also enclosed. Should you have any questions with respect to the Application, you may contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI~ By: Lctvorenwc C. R& Lawrence C. R6 LCR:db Enclosures ~I~uNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, New York 11743 RE (631)425-4100 Telecopier (631) 424-4104 June 8, 2007 Cheryl L. Bondarchuk 350 Oak Court East Marion, NY 11939 New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("Cingular") (and East Marion Fire District) #5826 Application to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals For Special Exception Permit Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY Tax Map#: 1000-31-3-11.31 Dear Ms. Bondarchuk: Enclosed is the Legal Notice with respect to the Public Hearing scheduled on Thursday, June 28, 2007, at approximately 2:40 p.m. for the captioned Application. The Public Hearing relates to a request by Cingular for Special Exception under Southold Town Code Sections 280-69 and 280-70, concerning installation of a proposed public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the premises by affixing wireless telecommunications antennas within the Fire District's pole that has already been approved, and to install related equipment as required, at 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY. A copy of the site plan showing the proposed location of the equipment and the approved pole is also enclosed. Should you have any questions with respect to the Application, you may contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI~ By: La wre ce C. Rd, Lawrence C. R6 LCR:db Enclosures ~UNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RE 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, New York 11743 (631)425-4100 Telecopier (631) 424-4104 June 8,2007 Mr. George Geatrakis 679 Fifth Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11215-6310 New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("Cingular") (and East Marion Fire District) #5826 Application to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals For Special Exception Permit Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY Tax Map#: 1000-31-3-11.31 Dear Mr. Geatrakis: Enclosed is the Legal Notice with respect to the Public Hearing scheduled on Thursday, June 28, 2007, at approximately 2:40 p.m. for the captioned Application. The Public Hearing relates to a request by Cingular for Special Exception under Southold Town Code Sections 280-69 and 280-70, concerning installation of a proposed public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the premises by affixing wireless telecommunications ante~mas within the Fire District's pole that has already been approved, and to install related equipment as required, at 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY. A copy of the site plan showing the proposed location of the equipment and the approved pole is also enclosed. Should you have any questions with respect to the Application, you may contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & R]~ By: Lawr ¢. R& Lawrence C. R6 LCR:db Enclosures , MEADE, NIELSEN & RE 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, New York 11743 (631)425~4100 Teleeopier (631)424-4104 June 8, 2007 Eastern Breezes Real Estate LLC P.O. Box 1103 Southold, NY 11971 New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("Cingular") (and East Marion Fire District) #5826 Application to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals For Special Exception Permit Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY Tax Map#: 1000-31-3-11.31 Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed is the Legal Notice with respect to the Public Hearing scheduled on Thursday, June 28, 2007, at approximately 2:40 p.m. for the captioned Application. The Public Hearing relates to a request by Cingular for Special Exception under Southold Town Code Sections 280-69 and 280-70, concerning installation of a proposed public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the premises by affixing wireless telecommunications antennas within the Fire District's pole that has already been approved, and to install related equipment as required, at 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY. A copy of the site plan showing the proposed location of the equipment and the approved pole is also enclosed. Should you have any questions with respect to the Application, you may contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI~ By: Lcvwr C. R& Lawrence C. R~ LCR:db Enclosures MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RE 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, New York 11743 (631) 425-4100 Telecopier (631) 424-4104 June 8, 2007 Sylvia M. Daley P.O. Box 574 East Marion, NY 11939 New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("Cingular") (and East Marion Fire District) #5826 Application to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals For Special Exception Permit Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY Tax Map#: 1000-31-3-11.31 Dear Ms. Daley: Enclosed is the Legal Notice with respect to the Public Hearing scheduled on Thursday, June 28, 2007, at approximately 2:40 p.m. for the captioned Application. The Public Hearing relates to a request by Cingular for Special Exception under Southold Town Code Sections 280-69 and 280-70, concerning installation of a proposed public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the premises by affixing wireless telecommunications antennas within the Fire District's pole that has already been approved, and to install related equipment as required, at 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY. A copy of the site plan showing the proposed location of the equipment and the approved pole is also enclosed. Should you have any questions with respect to the Application, you may contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI~ By: Lc wr C. R& Lawrence C. Rfi LCR:db Enclosures ~UNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RE 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, New York 11743 (631) 425-4100 Telecopier (631) 424-4104 June 8, 2007 East Marion War Memorial Association P.O. Box 313 East Marion, NY 11939 RE: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("Cingular") (and East Marion Fire District) #5826 Application to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals For Special Exception Permit Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY Tax Map#: 1000-31-3-11.31 Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed is the Legal Notice with respect to the Public Hearing scheduled on Thursday, June 28, 2007, at approximately 2:40 p.m. for the captioned Application. The Public Hearing relates to a request by Cingular for Special Exception under Southold Town Code Sections 280-69 and 280-70, concerning installation of a proposed public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the premises by affixing wireless telecommunications antennas within the Fire District's pole that has already been approved, and to install related equipment as required, at 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY. A copy of the site plan showing the proposed location of the equipment and the approved pole is also enclosed. Should you have any questions with respect to the Application, you may contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI2 By: Lawr c C. R& Lawrence C. R6 LCR:db Enclosures , MEADE, NIELSEN & RE 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, New York 11743 (631)425-4100 Telecopier (631)424-4104 June 8, 2007 White Swan EM LLC 2 Richard Road Selden, NY 11784 New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("Cingular") (and East Marion Fire District) #5826 Application to the TOwn of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals For Special Exception Permit Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY Tax Map#: 1000-31-3-11.31 Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed is the Legal Notice with respect to the Public Heating scheduled on Thursday, June 28, 2007, at approximately 2:40 p.m. for the captioned Application. The Public Hearing relates to a request by Cingular for Special Exception under Southold Town Code Sections 280-69 and 280-70, concerning installation of a proposed public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the premises by affixing wireless telecommunications antennas within the Fire District's pole that has already been approved, and to install related equipment as required, at 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY. A copy of the site plan showing the proposed location of the equipment and the approved pole is also enclosed. Should you have any questions with respect to the Application, you may contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI2 By: La.wre4nxz& C. R& Lawrence C. R6 LCR:db Enclosures MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RE 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, New York 11743 (631)425-4100 Telecopier (631) 424-4104 June 8,2007 Earnest Baxter C/o Alliance Mortgage Company Attention: Tax Department 8100 Nations Way Jacksonville, FL 32256 New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("Cingular") (and East Marion Fire District) #5826 Application to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals For Special Exception Permit Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY Tax Map#: 1000-31-3-11.31 Dear Mr. Baxter: Enclosed is the Legal Notice with respect to the Public Hearing scheduled on Thursday, June 28, 2007, at approximately 2:40 p.m. for the captioned Application. The Public Hearing relates to a request by Cingular for Special Exception under Southold Town Code Sections 280-69 and 280-70, concerning installation of a proposed public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the premises by affixing wireless telecommunications antennas within the Fire District's pole that has already been approved, and to install related equipment as required, at 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY. A copy of the site plan showing the proposed location of the equipment and the approved pole is also enclosed. Should you have any questions with respect to the Application, you may contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI~ By: La. C. Rd., Lawrence C. R6 LCR:db Enclosures MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RE 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, New York 11743 (631)425-4100 Telecopier (631)424-4104 June 8,2007 Jacqueline Rogers Revocable Trust 1500 Brecloaock Road Apartment 112 Greenport, NY 11944-3129 New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("Cingular") (and East Marion Fire District) #5826 Application to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals For Special Exception Permit Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY Tax Map#: 1000-31-3-11.31 Dear Ms. Rogers: Enclosed is the Legal Notice with respect to the Public Hearing scheduled on Thursday, June 28, 2007, at approximately 2:40 p.m. for the captioned Application. The Public Hearing relates to a request by Cingular for Special Exception under Southold Town Code Sections 280-69 and 280-70, concerning installation of a proposed public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the premises by affixing wireless telecommunications antennas within the Fire District's pole that has already been approved, and to install related equipment as required, at 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY. A copy of the site plan showing the proposed location of the equipment and the approved pole is also enclosed. Should you have any questions with respect to the Application, you may contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI~ By: Lc wre C. R& Lawrence C. R6 LCR:db Enclosures MUNLEY~ ~IEADE, NIELSEN & 1~ June ll, 2007 BY HAND Ms. Linda Ko~valski Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Public Hearing June 28, 2007 Application of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC For Special Exception Approval -- #5826 Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Main Road East Marion, New York District 1000 Section 31.00, Block 03.00, Lot 011.03l Dear Ms. Kowalski: On behalf of our client New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, we enclose, herewith, the completed and executed "Affidavit of Mailings" for the captioned Public Hearing, together with attached copy of Hearing notice; list of names and addresses of owner's of property abutting and across the street from the premises and tax map indicating related lots, as provided by the Southold Tax Assessor's Office; one (l) copy of each of our notice letters sent to the relevant property owners, as well as one (1) copy of the site plan included with our notice mailing. Thanking you tk)r your courtesies, we remain Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN By: Lawr C. Rd, Lawrence C. R6 LCR:db Enclosures MUNI,EY~ MEADE, NIELSEN (6:} 1) 4~25-41 O0 June 21,2007 VIA UPS Ms. Linda Ko~valski To~vn of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Public Hearing June 28, 2007 Application of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC For Special Exception Approval -- #5826 Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: East Marion Fire District 9245 Main Road East Marion, New York District 1000 Section 31.00, Block 03.00, Lot 011.031 Dear Ms. Kowalski: On behalf of our client, Nexv Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, we enclose herewith four (4) returned Certified Mail green cards representing our Public Hearing notice mailing for the captioned Application to George Geatrakis, Artemis & Despina Lekakis, Eastern Breezes Real Estate LLC, and Earnest Baxter. This will supplement our original hand delivery to you on June 11, 2007, of the returned Certified Mail green cards in the names of Sylvia M. Daley, Jacqueline Rogers, Cheryl L. Bondarchuk, and East Marion War Memorial Association, an additional copy of which is also enclosed. Thanking you for your courtesies, we remain Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI~ Lawrenc C. R& Lawrence C. R~ LCR:db Enclosures · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Pdnt your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. Sylvia M. Daley P.O. Box 574 East Marion, NY 11939 2. Article Number (1-ranlfer from service la~ PS Form 3811, February 2004 If YES, enter deliver~ · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. Jacqueline Rogers Revocable Trust [] Agent [] Address~ addres.~ [] If YES, enter delivery address below: [] NO 7004 1350 0004 2673 4965 1500 Brecknock Road, Apt. 112 g. Service Type Green~ort~ NY I 1944-3129 m Certified Mail [] Express Marl [] Registered [] Return Receipt for Memhandl,, [] insured Mall [] C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (E~'a Fee) [] Yes 2. ArficleNumber 7006 2760 0003 3911 6160 (Transfer from service labeO 102595-92-M-1540 pS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02 M*t 5 · Complete items 1,2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Pdnt your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. Cheryl L. Bondarchuk 350 Oak Court East Marion, NY 11939 D. Is delivery address different from item 1 ? []~- If YES, enter delivery address below: Restected Delivery? (Extra Fee) [] Yes · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Rsstdcted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this c~rd to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1, Ar[icle Addressed to: East Marion War Memorial Association P.O. Box313 East Marion, NY 11939 2. Ar[iaie Number (Transfer from service label; 7006 2760 B. I~eceived by ( Printed Name) [] Agent [] Addresse~ [] No I~ Certified Mall []f Ex~ress Mail . F'l Registered [] Return Receipt for Merchandis~ [] insured Mall [] C.O.D. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) [] Yes 0003 3911 6191 2, ~icte Number 7004 1350 0004 2673 4996 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 02595-02-M-1540 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-O2-M-154 BY HAND ARTEMIS LEKAKIS 1367 OVINGTON AVENUE BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11219 ~ (646) 644-74o4 June 28, 2007 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Re~ Submission In Opposition to Application by Cingular Wireless to Build a Cellular Tower At 9245 Route 25~ East Marion, NY Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: This submission is being made in opposition to the application of Cingular Wireless to build a cellular tower on top of the firehouse located at 9245 Route 25 in East Marion, New York. Our family owns property that is a little more than 100 feet away from the proposed building site of the tower. We oppose the construction of this tower and are concerned about its construction for many reasons. First, there is substantial documentation~ about the potential health risks to people presented by a cellular phone tower to be erected so close to a densely populated residential area. The documented health risks include potential health risks to children (tumors), pregnant woment (increased potential risks of miscarriages), men (decreased sperm counts) and, perhaps most significantly, the firefighters (reported cognitive function disorders). The problem to the firefighers is so threatening that the International Association of Firefighters has requested that a moratorium be held on construction of cell phone towers on firehouses until after a conclusive study has been performed concerning the effects of cell phone radiation on the firefighters. Is it fair, after these brave firefighters have volunteered to risk their lives to save those of others, that Cingular should then volunteer them to be guinea pigs in a copy of all the referenced documentation is attached. Southold Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2007 Page 2 of 3 radiation experiment to see how they will be affected 20 years from now? Second, there is substantial documentation about the general biological hazards of cell phone tower radiation. Studies have shown that cell phone tower radiation has negatively affected wildlife, injuring some, and causing migration disruptions in others, and, in one recent study, the radiation from cellular phone towers has directly caused the death of biological cells. Third, contrary to the assertions that Cingular will undoubtedly make about the safety of cell phone towers, and compliance with applicable regulations, documentation exists that existing standards in the United States which allow for radiation at levels hundreds of times higher than those of other industrialized nations - are not safe. Most of this documentation exists in European studies. Fourth, there have been several articles concerning the manipulation of the media with regards to the safety of cell phone radiation. One article notes that while the research appears to be split on the issue of the safety of cell phone radiation, unsurprisingly, the vast majority of the research concluding that cell phone radiation poses no health hazards has been sponsored by the cell phone companies themselves. According to this article, if this cell phone company- sponsored research were removed from the public domain, then the reseamh indicating the potential health hazards of cell phone radiation would dominate. Several articles have likened the cell phone industry's tactics to those of big tobacco at the turn of the century, where advertisements showed doctors smoking and telling you that cigarettes are good for you. We all know how that turned out. Are we willing to take the same risk with our neighbors? Finally, the last burden placed on the community by this cell phone tower will be the loss of property values. Articles have documented property value losses ranging from 20% to 40% for property in view of a cell phone tower. In contrast, the benefits of this tower, will inure almost exclusively to Cingular. Over time, Cingular certainly stands to gain millions of dollars in leasing contracts for its cell phone tower as well as money directly obtained from customers who seek potentially better cell phone service in this area. While Cingular will bear the financial burden of paying for the tower, it will not bear any of burdens in terms of health or loss of property values that the tower will bring. Please keep in mind that the witnesses Cingular presented here today are paid experts who regularly make such presentations on Cingular's behalf. While they may not be employed by Cingular, it is rather likely that these witnesses understand if they were to conclude that cell phone towers were dangerous or harmful, then it may affect their ability to earn a living by testifying on Cingular's behalf. Southold Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2007 Page 3 of 3 We respectfully request that the Members of the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals seriously consider the significant burdens placed on the community by the construction of this tower, and deny Cingular's application to build it. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you should have any questions or require additional information about the statements made herein. Thank you for the Zoning Board's consideration and attention to this matter. enclosure ARTEMIS LEKAKIS 1367 OVlNGTON AVENUE BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11219 CELL: (646) 644-7404 APPENDIX TO: Submission In Opposition to Application by Cingular Wireless to Build a Cellular Tower At 9245 Route 25, East Marion, NY Cell Tower Radiation Health Hazards to Children October 4, 2002 - EMF Rapid; "Epidemiological studies of carinogenity in children" - notes possible carcinogenic effect of cell tower radiation on children (see pages 20-36) December 2004 - Microwave News; "EMF Epidemiological Studies Show A Consistent and Robust Cancer Effect;" - notes significant childhood leukemia findings (see page 2) January 12, 2005 - The Times of London; "Mobile phones tumor risk to young children," - concludes that children under the age of eight should not use mobile phones because of radiation risks January 20, 2005 - "Cell Phone Antenna May Pose Health Hazard" - notes that because of children's developing and softer bone tissue and skulls, they are more susceptible to cell tower radiation than adults June 19, 2007 - "Study: Cancer and cellular masts" - Spanish study finds link between cancer and cell phone masts Undated - "A Cellular Phone Tower on Ossining High School?" - notes that Ossining community, which has a maximum security prison, opposes a cell phone tower based on risk to children Cell Tower Radiation Health Hazards to Adults 2003 - Neruoepidemiology, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden; "Vestibular Schwannoma, Tinnitis and Cellular Telephones" - finds a causal link between cell radiation, listed ailments and other brain tumors. Recommends reducing exposure to cell phone radiation. (see pgs 124, 129) -1- 2004 - Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; "Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma," - concludes that radiation can cause such neuromas after long term use 2006 - Department of Epidemology, School of Public Health and Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; "Physical activity and magnetic field exposure in pregnancy" - concludes that these factors contribute to at least a 2% increase in miscarriages 2006 - Institute of Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna, Austria; "Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living enar mobile phone base stations" - notes that effects on well being and performance of persons living near cell phone towers cannot be ignored (see pg 2) October 24, 2006 - Consumer Affairs, "Study: Cell Phone Users Have Lower Sperm Counts" Cell Tower Radiation Health Hazards to Firefighters August 24, 2004 - "International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) Votes To Study Health Effects of Cell Towers On Fire Stations" - requests that further knowledge of potential hazards be determined before towers are built. General Biological Hazards of Cell Tower Radiation November 25, 2000 - The Lancet; "Physics of Biology of mobile telephony;" - concludes that there are non-thermal risks associated with cell phone radiation which may present a health hazard to humans December 2, 2000 - Presentation; Cell Tower Forum: State of the Science/State of the Law; "Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Transmission Towers," - notes that guidelines were written in 1985 before the proliferation of cell phone towers and that long terms effects are unclear, but initial research shows that they likely will be deleterious (see pages 8-9) December 22, 2004 - Powerwatch, UK News; "REFLEX report shows that mobile phone radiation damages living cells. 2005 - Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine; "Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields from Phone Masts On a Population of White Stork" - notes that because of cell phone tower radiation we are witnessing a paradigm change in biology (see pg 116) -2- 5. January 10, 2007 - "Cell death induced by GSM 900-Mhz and DCS 1800-Mhz mobile telephony radiation" Undated - Bedford Audubon Society Fact Sheet; "Cell Towers & Wildlife" - notes the deletehous effects of cell towers on wildlife Undated - BioElectromagnetics Laboratory, Catholic University of America - "Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields" - concludes that health hazards are present and need to be studied Current United States Regulations May Be Unsafe Undated - "The Microwave Syndrome - Further Aspects of A Spanish Study" - concludes that the only safe levels are approximately 10,000 times less than those currently allowed in the United States Undated - "Study of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations: Influences of distance and sex" - concludes that cell phone towers are unsafe at distances less than 300 meters or approximately 1000 feet from populated areas (see page 1 summary). Cellular Industry Manipulation of the Media June 2004 - Sage Associates, Environmental Consultants; "An Overview of Low- Intensity Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation Studies Relevant To Wireless Communications And Data" - an informative overview illustrating the significant numbers of findings of health hazards associated with cell phone radiation which apparently are under-reported in the American media. March 2005 - University of Washington Alumni Magazine; "Wake-up Call" - details efforts by cell phone industry to harass and intimidate independent researchers whose research finds health hazards associated with cell phone radiation. Notes that industry-sponsored research makes up the vast majority of the documentation that cell phone radiation is safe, while non-industry sponsored research makes up the majority of the documentation about cell phone's health hazards. March 8, 2005 - CNET.com; "The cell phone industry; Big Tobacco 2.0?" - reports suppression of negative information about cell phone radiation by cell phone industry -3- March 8, 2005 - mercola.com; "Cellular Phone Industry Just as Health-Harming as Big Tobacco?" - reports suppression of health hazards from cell phone radiation (including tumors, genetic damages and brain cancer deaths) by big cell phone companies March 10, 2005 - ZDNet.com; "Big Cell Companies: Big Tobacco Repeating itself?." - reports suppression of negative information about cell phone radiation by big cell phone companies June 19, 2007 - Safewireless.org; "When Bad News Is No News" - notes American media's failure to follow up on European studies evidencing cell phone radiation hazards G. Property Value Reductions Caused By Cell Tower Construction May 25, 2003 - UK Guardian / Observer; "Phone Masts Blight House Sales," - noting an up to 40% loss of property values (see page 1) April 14, 2004 - Los Altos Town Crier; "The Antenna Dilemma, People want better cell-phone coverage - but at what cost?," - noting minimum of 10% decline in property values March 17, 2005 - Industry Canada; "Report On the National Antenna Policy Review," indicates an up to 24% loss of property values after cell phone tower construction (see page 3) -4- ARTEMIS LEKAKIS 1367 OVINGTON AVENUE BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11919 CELL: (646) 644-7404 APPENDIX TO: Submission In Opposition to Application by Cingular Wireless to Build a Cellular Tower At 9245 Route 25, East Marion~ NY Ao Bo Cell Tower Radiation Health Hazards to Children October 4, 2002 - EMF Rapid; "Epidemiological studies of carinogenity in children" - notes possible carcinogenic effect of cell tower radiation on children (see pages 20-36) December 2004 - Microwave News; "EMF Epidemiological Studies Show A Consistent and Robust Cancer Effect;" - notes significant childhood leukemia findings (see page 2) January 12, 2005 - The Times of London; "Mobile phones tumor risk to young children," - concludes that children under the age of eight should not use mobile phones because of radiation risks January 20, 2005 - "Cell Phone Antenna May Pose Health Hazard" - notes that because of children's developing and softer bone tissue and skulls, they are more susceptible to cell tower radiation than adults June 19, 2007 - "Study: Cancer and cellular masts" - Spanish study finds link between cancer and cell phone masts Undated - "A Cellular Phone Tower on Ossining High School?" - notes that Ossining community, which has a maximum security prison, opposes a cell phone tower based on risk to children Cell Tower Radiation Health Hazards to Adults 2003 - Neruoepidemiology, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden; "Vestibular Schwannoma, Tinnitis and Cellular Telephones" - finds a causal link between cell radiation, listed ailments and other brain tumors. Recommends reducing exposure to cell phone radiation. (see pgs 124, 129) -1- 2004 - Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; "Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma," - concludes that radiation can cause such neuromas after long term use 2006 - Department of Epidemology, School of Public Health and Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; "Physical activity and magnetic field exposure in pregnancy" - concludes that these factors contribute to at least a 2% increase in miscarriages 2006 - Institute of Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna, Austria; "Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living enar mobile phone base stations" - notes that effects on well being and performance of persons living near cell phone towers cannot be ignored (see pg 2) October 24, 2006 - Consumer Affairs, "Study: Cell Phone Users Have Lower Sperm Counts" Cell Tower Radiation Health Hazards to Firefighters August 24, 2004 - "International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) Votes To Study Health Effects of Cell Towers On Fire Stations" - requests that further knowledge of potential hazards be determined before towers are built. General Biological Hazards of Cell Tower Radiation November 25, 2000 - The Lancet; "Physics of Biology of mobile telephony;" - concludes that there are non-thermal risks associated with cell phone radiation which may present a health hazard to humans December 2, 2000 - Presentation; Cell Tower Forum: State of the Science/State of the Law; "Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Transmission Towers," - notes that guidelines were written in 1985 before the proliferation of cell phone towers and that long terms effects are unclear, but initial research shows that they likely will be deleterious (see pages 8-9) December 22, 2004 - Powerwatch, UK News; "REFLEX report shows that mobile phone radiation damages living cells. 2005 - Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine; "Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields from Phone Masts On a Population of White Stork" - notes that because of cell phone tower radiation we are witnessing a paradigm change in biology (see pg 116) -2- 5. January 10, 2007 - "Cell death induced by GSM 900-Mhz and DCS 1800-Mhz mobile telephony radiation" Fo Undated - Bedford Audubon Society Fact Sheet; "Cell Towers & Wildlife" - notes the deleterious effects of cell towers on wildlife Undated - BioElectromagnetics Laboratory, Catholic University of America - "Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields" - concludes that health hazards are present and need to be studied Current United States Regulations May Be Unsafe Undated - "The Microwave Syndrome - Further Aspects of A Spanish Study" - concludes that the only safe levels are approximately 10,000 times less than those currently allowed in the United States Undated - "Study of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations: Influences of distance and sex" - concludes that cell phone towers are unsafe at distances less than 300 meters or approximately 1000 feet from populated areas (see page I summary). Cellular Industry Manipulation of the Media June 2004 - Sage Associates, Environmental Consultants; "An Overview of Low- Intensity RadiofrequencyFMicrowave Radiation Studies Relevant To Wireless Communications And Data" - an informative overview illustrating the significant numbers of findings of health hazards associated with cell phone radiation which apparently are under-reported in the American media. March 2005 - University of Washington Alumni Magazine; "Wake-up Call" - details efforts by cell phone industry to harass and intimidate independent researchers whose research finds health hazards associated with cell phone radiation. Notes that industry-sponsored research makes up the vast majority of the documentation that cell phone radiation is safe, while non-industry sponsored research makes up the majority of the documentation about cell phone's health hazards. March 8, 2005 - CNET.com; "The cell phone industry; Big Tobacco 2.0?" - reports suppression of negative information about cell phone radiation by cell phone industry -3- March 8, 2005 - mercola.com; "Cellular Phone Industry Just as Health-Harming as Big Tobacco?" - reports suppression of health hazards from cell phone radiation (including tumors, genetic damages and brain cancer deaths) by big cell phone companies March 10, 2005 - ZDNet.com; "Big Cell Companies: Big Tobacco Repeating itself?." - reports suppression of negative information about cell phone radiation by big cell phone companies June 19, 2007 - Safewireless.org; "When Bad News Is No News" - notes American media's failure to follow up on European studies evidencing cell phone radiation hazards Property Value Reductions Caused By Cell Tower Construction May 25, 2003 - UK Guardian / Observer; "Phone Masts Blight House Sales," - noting an up to 40% loss of property values (see page 1) April 14, 2004 - Los Altos Town Crier; "The Antenna Dilemma, People want better cell-phone coverage - but at what cost?," - noting minimum of 10% decline in property values March 17, 2005 - Industry Canada; "Report On the National Antenna Policy Review," indicates an up to 24% loss of property values after cell phone tower construction (see page 3) -4- Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of Healt... Page 1 of 36 NIEH$ ,~ ;he National Institute of Environmenlol Hea~h Sc~ence.~ Assessment of Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children Wedheimer and Leeper (Wertheimer & Leeper, 1979) were the first to generate the hypothesis that EMF from electrical power lines and substations are associated with childhood cancer. Since their seminal paper, a number of epidemiological studies have been undertaken to investigate that hypothesis. Interpretation of epidemiological evidence on the potential causal relationship between exposure to magnetic fields and childhood cancer is difficult because of the Iow incidence of the diseases involved and the rarity of high exposures. The results of several epidemiological studies have been combined to derive a single summary measure of association, and the consistency of the results across individual studies have been examined in meta-analyses by several researchers. The Working Group decided to exclude studies in which established epidemiological methods were not used, for example those in which advertisements were used to identify subjects or in which dwellings were analyzed rather than subjects. Studies in which the methods were too crude to assess exposure to magnetic fields were not considered; thus, results based on distance alone were not included, nor were those of one study in which 0.1 IJT was the highest exposure cut-point (Myers et al., 1990). One study in which exposure was assessed for only 12% of the subjects was also not evaluated (Dockerty et aL, 1998). The Working Group also decided not to consider studies that were re-analyses of primary data. As weight is given in the evaluation to individual studies with primary data, formal meta-analyses are included but are only briefly discussed. The characteristics of all of the studies are summarized in Table 4.20, while the results are summarized in Tables 4.21-4.24, and the meta-analyses are summarized in Tables 4.25 and 4.26. 4.3.1 Effects of power lines In the case-control study of Wertheimer and Leeper (Wertheimer & Leeper, 1979) cancer mortality was examined from death certificates for residents of greater Denver, Colorado (USA), who died at less than 19 years of age during the years 1950-73. The population was further restricted to subjects living in the greater Denver area and born 1949-73 in Colorado. A total of 344 cases of childhood cancer were identified, and 344 population controls were selected from Denver-area birth certificates matched on birth month and county. Exposure was assessed from the wire code configurations of the homes occupied at the time of birth and the homes occupied at the time of death. Addresses at the time of birth were missing for 20% of cases and addresses at the time of death for 5%. The equivalent information for controls was not available. Wire code configurations were developed as a surrogate method of estimating long-term exposure to EMF from information on nearby distribution lines, transmission lines, and substations (see section 2.5). Two classes of wire-code configuration have been examined: high-current and Iow-current configurations. These measures were developed http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/htmt/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogcnicity in children- Assessment of Healt... Page 2 of 36 specifically for the Denver area, considering such issues as location of transformers, placement of service drops, and age of the lines (pre-1956 or later). They noted that children who died of cancer were more likely to have lived in homes classified as high-current configuration than in homes classified as Iow-current configuration. The unadjusted relative risks for leukemias, lymphomas, and nervous system tumors (exposure classification conducted at the death address) were 3.0 (95% CI, 1.8-5.0), 2.1 (0.84-5.2), and 2.4 (1.2-5.0), respectively. In this exploratory study, when wire codes were assigned, the case or control status of the homes was known to the coder. Thus, exposure assessment was not conducted in a blinded fashion. This may have introduced bias, although the investigators conducted two smaller studies to assess the possible effect of lack of blinding on the outcome (Wertheimer & Leeper, 1979). In part of that study, a separate investigator blindly coded the homes of 70 cases and 70 controls and found a 91% agreement, with about half of the disagreements favoring the association with higher wire codes and half countering the association. [This rate of agreement is similar to that observed in studies in which the process of wire coding was blinded] (Tarone et al., 1998). In a second, smaller study including birth addresses in Colorado Springs and Pueblo, 32% of the cases and 18% of the controls had lived in high-wire code homes, whereas in the larger study the numbers were 37 and 20%, respectively. Furthermore, accounting for potential confounding factors and effect modifiers (e.g. socioeconomic class, urban-suburban differences, traffic density, and gender) did not change the results. None of the relative risks reported in this study was adjusted for these factors. [Death certificate-based studies are subject to differential survival bias. Children in families of higher socioeconomic class have greater access to health care and may thus have higher rates of survival from cancer. Consequently, there may be a bias toward lower socioeconomic cases in this study. If children in families of lower socioeconomic class tended to be categorized in the high-current configuration homes, such bias would inflate the risk estimates.] Savitz et al. (Savitz et al., 1988) conducted a case-control study of residential exposure in the same area as that of Wertheimer and Leeper (Wertheimer & Leeper, 1979). They studied Denver residents under 15 years of age and assessed the exposure in the homes occupied at the time of cancer diagnosis and two years before diagnosis. Cases were obtained from population-based cancer registries and hospital records for the years 1976-83. Controls were selected by random-digit telephone dialing after the close of the study period and were further restricted to have been living in the study area at the time their matched cases (by age + three years, gender, and telephone exchange at the time of cancer diagnosis of the matched case) were diagnosed. A total of 356 childhood cancer cases were eligible, and 278 population controls were identified. [It is unclear why there are fewer controls than cases despite the matched selection of controls.] Exposure in the home occupied at the time of diagnosis was assessed by the dichotomous wire coding scheme of Wertheimer and Leeper (Wertheimer & Leeper, 1979) and the five-level wire code of Wertheimer and Leeper (Wertheimer & Leeper, 1982) for 90% of cases and 93% of controls and by spot measurements of EMF taken 1-9 years after diagnosis, by the front door, in the child's and parents' bedrooms, and in all rooms occupied by the child for at least 1 h/d; 36% of cases and 75% of controls participated. Both the electric and magnetic fields were measured with a model 111 or 113 Electric Field Meter. A weighted average of measurements in all measured rooms was computed and used as a summary exposure measure. The relative risk for all cancers among children living in homes in the high-current classification was 1.5 (95% CI, 1.0-2.3). A detailed categorization of wiring configurations (very Iow, which http://www.niehs.nih.gov/em frapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43 .html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of Healt... Page 3 of 36 included buried wires, ordinary Iow, ordinary high, and very high) was analyzed to elucidate a dose-response relationship. The estimated relative risks tend to increase in a linear fashion up to an almost tripling of risk in the highest exposure category (2.8; 0.9-8.4), representing a statistically significant linear trend. This association was not corroborated by spot field-strength measurements, regardless of Iow or high power use conditions. For leukemias, a relative risk of 1.5 (0.9- 2.6) was reported when comparisons were made between high- and Iow-current classifications; the relative risk with spot measurements of >0.2 pT was 1.9 (0.7-5.6) under Iow-power use conditions and 1.4 (0.6-3.5) under high-power use conditions. For brain cancer, a relative risk of 2.0 (1.1-3.8) was found for the high-current configuration exposure category. For homes occupied at the time of diagnosis, the relative risk for brain cancer associated with average spot magnetic field-strengths > 0.2 pT was 1.0 (0.2- 4.8). No increase in the risk for childhood lymphoma was found in a comparison of high-current and Iow-current configurations. The relative risk for lymphoma with spot measurements >0.2 pT was 2.2 (0.5- 10) under Iow and 1.8 (0.5-6.9) under high power use conditions. Approximately 20 other potential risk factors for childhood leukemia were considered, and those found to be related to the risk for leukemia, e.g., socioeconomic status, traffic density, maternal age, and smoking during pregnancy, were controlled for in the analyses. Control for confounding did not change the risk estimates. [An important methodological issue is the selection of controls that represent a residentially stable subset of the population in which the cases occurred after the study period. Control selection bias may have been introduced if exposure was related to characteristics of residential stability. Jones et aL examined the effect of the differential stability in a different population and concluded that the control selection bias would lead to an exaggerated estimate of risk. Wertheimer and Leeper, however, presented additional analyses of the Savitz et aL study to show that the effect of the bias was to attenuate risk. The very Iow participation rate for spot measurements among the cases limits the validity of the results based on these measurements. Control selection through random-digit dialing is also a limitation. A strength of the study is the evaluation of a large number of potential confounding factors, including socioeconomic status and traffic density.] (Jones et al., 1993; Savitz et al., 1988; Wertheimer et al., 1994) London et al. (London et al., 1991 ) conducted a case-control study of 232 cases and 232 population controls, focusing strictly on the incidence of childhood leukemia, and assessed exposures in selected homes during an 'etiologic period' defined as the period beginning at the estimated time of conception and ending on the date of diagnosis for children aged one year or less at diagnosis, six months before diagnosis for children aged one to two years at diagnosis, and one year before diagnosis for children aged above two years at diagnosis. The population base in this study consisted of all children under 10 years of age living in Los Angeles County during the years 1980-87. The 331 eligible cases were obtained from a population-based tumor registry. Controls were friends (65 controls accrued during the period 1980-84) or obtained by random-digit telephone dialing (167 controls accrued during the period 1985-87) and were matched to the cases by age, gender, and ethnicity. [Whether friends of cases are representative of the entire population from which the cases were identified is not clear. Issues previously discussed with regard to random-digit telephone dialing are also applicable here.] Exposure was assessed by three methods: five-level wire code configuration classifications developed by Wertheimer and Leeper (Wertheimer & Leeper, 1982); spot measurements in the center of the child's bedroom of EMF, static magnetic fields, and the harmonic content of the magnetic field; and 24-h measurements of magnetic fields under the bed in the child's htlp://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of Healt... Page 4 of 36 bedroom. Spot measurements were made with a Deno Power Frequency Meter 120; 24-h measurements were made with an IREQ meter in the early parts of the study and with an EMDEX-100 meter for most of the study. The comparability of the data collected with the IREQ and EMDEX meters was ascertained. Harmonic content was determined during the spot measurement period with the broad-band mode of the Deno meter. The investigators also recorded the Earth's magnetic field during the spot measurements with a fiuxgate magnetometer (Bartington MAG-01 ). The participation rates were 42% for both cases and controls for the spot measurements, 50% for cases and 56% for controls for 24~h measurements, and 66% for cases and 81% for controls for wire codes. The measurements were made 1-10 years after diagnosis. Comparisons across these various exposure metrics and between previous studies showed that the 24-h average measurements were considerably higher than the spot measurements in the same homes, and in contrast to the study of Savitz et aL (Savitz et aL, 1988), more than twice the number of control homes were classified in the high-current configuration categories (45%), but spot-measured magnetic fields were lower within five-level wiring configuration code categories (the difference was especially pronounced in the high-current categories). London et al. (London et aL, 1991) noted that this discrepancy may have been due to the differences in the electrical distribution system in the Los Angeles and Denver areas. The relative risk for leukemia in relation to wire code configuration (high- versus Iow-current classification) was 1.7 (95% CI, 1.1-2.5). With a more detailed categorization of wiring configuration (very Iow, ordinary Iow, ordinary high, and very high), the estimated relative risks tended to increase in a linear fashion (statistically significant linear trend) up to more than a doubling of risk in the highest exposure category (2.2; 1.1-4.3). No associations were found with spot electric or magnetic field measurements or static magnetic fields. The results with the 24-h magnetic field measurements indicated an increased risk only for the highest cut-point used (> 0.27 IJT) with a relative risk of 1.5 (0.7-3.3). The authors noted that similar results were obtained for the ALL and ANLL subtypes of leukemia, but they did not report them separately. Potential factors associated with cancer risk that were controlled for and included were age, gender, ethnicity, paternal use of pesticides, use of cigarettes, drugs, and incense, traffic density, and socioeconomic status. [A limitation of this study is the uneven ascertainment of wire code information between cases and controls: spot and 24-h measurements of magnetic fields resulted in much lower percentages of ascertainment than wire codes.] Feychting and Ahlbom (Feychting & Ahlbom, 1993) conducted a population-based case- control study in Sweden to examine the association between exposure to magnetic fields generated by high-voltage power lines and cancer incidence in children. The population base for this study consisted of all children who resided on a property located in a high-voltage power-line corridor, defined as a property located at least partially within 3 m of any 220 or 400 kV power lines. The subjects were children under 16 years of age who resided within a high- voltage power-line corridor during 1960-85. They were followed from the time they moved into the corridor through the end of the study period. The Swedish Cancer Registry was used to identify the 142 cancer cases occurring within high-voltage corridors during the study period. Approximately four controls per case (total, 558) were selected randomly from the study base and were matched according to age, gender, parish residence during the year of diagnosis or the last year before the case moved, and proximity to the same power line. Exposure to magnetic fields was assessed by spot measurements, contemporary calculated fields, and historical calculated fields (see section 2.4). The spot measurements were made closely following the protocol implemented by Savitz et al. (Savitz et al., 1988) with a meter http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapiWhtml/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies ofcarcinogenicity in children - Assessment of Healt... Page 5 of 36 constructed for the purpose of the study. Spot measurements were performed in the home within the power-line corridor in which the patients and corresponding controls had lived closest to the time of diagnosis and were obtained for 62% of cases and controls. The measurements were made 5-31 years after diagnosis, with a median of 16 years (Feychting et aL, 1995). Most of the dwellings in which measurements were not made were located in Stockholm. Contemporary calculated field strengths were estimated from information about the height of the towers, distance between the towers, distance between phases, ordering of phases, and line load. The contemporary line load was obtained during the visit to each dwelling. Both transmission and distribution lines were considered; however, less than 20% of the homes were located near distribution lines. Historical annual average line load during the study period was used in calculating historical field strengths for all but one case and four controls. In their analysis, Feychting and Ahlbom (Feychting & Ahlbom, 1993) emphasized the use of historical fields calculated from exposure metrics, due to the presumed accuracy of using historically calculated field strengths to estimate exposures several decades previously for some subjects and the fact that averaged spot measurements are not a representative measure of long-term exposure. Cut-points for the analyses of historical calculations consisted of a three-level, ordinal scale with the following categories: < 0.1 pT, 0.1 pT, < 0.2 pT, and >0.2 pT; analyses were also made for exposures of >0.3 pT. Feychting et aL (Feychting et aL, 1995) examined exposures >0.5 pT. With spot measurements, the highest exposure examined was >0.2 pT. The results for historically estimated field strengths showed elevated risks for childhood leukemia with increase in exposure (statistically significant linear trend), up to more than a tripling of risk in the exposure category >0.3 pT (RR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.4-9.3). When the data on leukemia were further stratified by age and gender, a dose-response trend was observed for single-family dwellings but not multiple-family dwellings. Controlling for potential confounders (age, gender, county, dwelling type, year of diagnosis, socioeconomic status, and levels of nitrogen dioxide as an estimate of exposure to motor vehicle exhaust) did not alter this relationship. For exposure to 0.5 pT, the relative risk was 4.6 (1.5-14). There was no evidence in this study of an association between historically calculated exposure to magnetic fields and all cancers combined, lymphomas, or central nervous system tumors. In analyses based on spot measurements, no increase in risk was observed for all cancers, leukemia, or central nervous system tumors. In analyses to validate the various calculations and measurements of magnetic fields used by Feychting and Ahlbom (Feychting & Ahlbom, 1993), spot measurements showed poor agreement with calculated historical fields but good agreement with contemporary calculations. This result was interpreted by the authors as an indication that spot measurements are poor predictors of exposure many years earlier. [A strength of this study is the minimal potential for selection bias in the analyses of historical calculations. Another strength is that the historical calculations are based on established laws of physics and conditions prevailing prior to diagnosis. A limitation is the small number of exposed subjects.] OIsen et aL (Olsen et aL, 1993)conducted a population-based case-control study to investigate whether residence before and after birth near high voltage facilities was associated with an increased risk for childhood cancer. They studied 1707 cases of leukemia, malignant lymphoma, and central nervous system tumor in Danish children aged < 15 reported to the Danish Cancer Registry during the years 1968-86. Two to five controls, selected randomly from the Danish Central Population Register among cancer-free children, were matched to each case by gender and age (_+ one year), for a total of 4788 controls. They assessed http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of Healt... Page 6 of 36 exposure from calculated average magnetic field strengths. Residences located outside the area of potential exposure to high-voltage facilities (generally > 300 m away from overhead lines or transformer substations) were assumed to have an average calculated magnetic field of zero. Estimates of relative risk were obtained for cut-points associated with Iow (0.1 pT), intermediate (0.25 pT), and high exposure (0.4 pT) and were adjusted for gender and age at diagnosis. Comparisons made between exposure to >0.4 pT and to < 0.1 pT resulted in crude relative risks of 6.0 (95% CI, 0.8-44) for leukemia, 6.0 (0.7-44) for central nervous system tumors, and 5.0 (0.3- 82) for malignant lymphoma. In analyses further adjusted for the potential confounding effects of population density, socioeconomic class, and family's mobility, no effect on the risk estimates was observed. [The current on the transmission lines was not recorded, but was estimated on an annual average basis by an expert group of utility planners. This process led to uncertainty in the calculated fields. In addition, the methods of calculation were not confirmed by measurements. Due to the Iow prevalence of exposure, the risk estimates were unstable.] Verkasalo et al. (Verkasalo et al., 1993) conducted a population-based cohort study of 134 800 Finnish children (68 300 boys and 66 500 girls) aged < 20 who lived within 500 m of 110-400 kV overhead power lines and to magnetic fields calculated to be >0.01 pT during the period 1970-89. The 140 cases of childhood cancer were obtained from the Finnish Cancer Registry and included all primary tumors of the nervous system, leukemia, lymphoma, and all other cancers grouped. Exposure to magnetic fields was estimated from calculations of the annual average fields for all years between birth and diagnosis, based on information about typical line configurations, historical load on the lines, and distance (obtained from computerized sources). The historical load for the last third of the observation period was obtained from simulations, those for the middle third from existing records, and those for the first third from the last year with existing records. Exposure was assessed by two calculated estimates: average magnetic field and cumulative exposure. Cumulative exposure was defined as the average exposure per year multiplied by the number of years exposed (pT-years). The cut- points chosen for high exposure were 0.2 pT for average exposure and 0.4 pT-years for cumulative exposure to magnetic fields. These cut-points were selected a priori from the distribution of the number of exposed children and taking into account the typical residential magnetic field of 0.01 pT (referent exposure). [The calculated fields were not validated by actual measurements.] A cohort approach with person-years calculations was used to investigate the risk of cancer in children living close to power lines. The expected number of cases was calculated from Finnish national incidence rates. Regardless of exposure metric, a four-fold increase in risk for nervous system tumors was seen among boys (SIR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.4-9.9) for cumulative exposure, but not for girls for whom no cases were observed at high exposure. The increase in risk was largely attributable to one boy who had three primary tumors of the nervous system. If the analysis had been restricted to first primary cancers, the estimate would have been slightly elevated, with a larger confidence interval overlapping the null. The SIRs for leukemias, lymphomas, and cancers at other sites were close to unity for both average and cumulative exposure. The results for cumulative exposure of >1.0 pT-years has also been reported (Verkasalo et al., 1994). The relative risk estimates were 2.3 (95% CI, 1.0-1.3) for all cancers combined, 3.5 (0.7-1.0) for leukemia, and 2.8 (0.6-8.1) for nervous system tumors. These risk estimates were not adjusted for potential confounding factors. In particular, Verkasalo et aL (Verkasalo et aL, 1993) reported that childhood cancer, other than leukemia, was commoner in urban than in rural http://www.niehs.nih.gov/em frapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43 .html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies ofcarcinogenicity in children - Assessment of Healt... Page 7 of 36 settings. Thus, the crude risk estimates reported (excepting leukemia) are slightly higher than they would have been had the analysis been adjusted for this covariant. [Selection bias is not a concern in this study since it is population-based. The study is limited by the small number of exposed subjects. The calculated field strengths were not validated by measurements. The validity of including three brain tumors in one subject as three separate cases is questionable.] The United States West Coast Childhood Brain Tumor Study was a multicenter, population- based case-control interview study to evaluate potential environmental and nutritional risk factors for diagnosis of brain tumor (benign or malignant tumor of the brain, cranial nerves, or cranial meninges) in children aged < 19 in 1984-90. To be eligible for participation in the study, each child's biological mother had to speak English, be available for interview, and have a telephone. Mothers of children with brain tumors were asked questions about exposure and conditions thought likely to be related to risks for pediatric tumor (e.g. ionizing radiation, predisposing genetic syndromes, exposure to magnetic fields during pregnancy). Subanalyses of this multicenter trial addressed the risk for childhood brain tumor in relation to residential exposure to magnetic fields in Los Angeles, California (Preston-Martin et al., 1996b), to residential power-line configurations, electric heating sources, and electric appliances in Seattle, Washington (Gurney et aL, 1996), and the use of electric blankets and water-bed heaters for the entire study population (Preston-Martin et al., 1996a). Preston-Martin et al. (Preston-Martin et al., 1996b) initiated a study of magnetic fields two years after the beginning of the multicenter interview study. The parents of cases were re- contacted by telephone in order to obtain measurements of magnetic fields at their residences. Of the 304 cases in the multicenter study, 298 cases were included in the substudy. A control group of 298 children within the same range of birth years and with the same distribution by gender as the cases were identified by random-digit dialing, were matched to the cases by gender, birth date (_+ one year), and had to be the same age at the time of interview as the case had been at the time of diagnosis. Cases and controls were accrued concurrently during 1989 to the end of the study period; before 1989, the controls were accrued by random-digit dialing [but further details are not given]. Exposure to magnetic fields was assessed from spot measurements taken outside the residence and from wire code configurations. Magnetic fields could be measured for 59% of the eligible cases and 54% of the eligible controls. The exterior residential measures included the fields over water meters and water pipes, static magnetic fields, front-door fields, and STAR magnetic field profiles (see section 2.3.1), including the front wall and perimeter of the dwelling. [The STAR meter does not measure magnetic fields at harmonic frequencies.] For cases whose current residence was also the residence in which they lived at the time of diagnosis (and for their matched controls), interior home measurements were taken, consisting of 24-h EMDEX measurements in the children's bedrooms and in a second room in which the children spent most of their time. Wire codes were obtained for three types of residences: the residence occupied at the beginning of the study (nine months before birth), the residence occupied for the longest time, and the residence occupied at the date of diagnosis. Wire codes were obtained for 80% of cases for homes two years before diagnosis. The investigators found that too few subjects were within category of the usual reference wire code, 'underground', to serve as a stable reference, and so they pooled the 114 cases and 102 controls in the 'very Iow' and 'ordinary Iow' categories and used this as the reference category. [This categorization of wire codes is unusual.] Preston-Martin et al. (Preston-Martin et al., 1996b) reported elevated risks for brain cancer in http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of Healt... Page 8 of 36 several exposure categories but no statistically significant trend, e.g. for all exposure metrics. When the analyses were restricted to very high exposure (> 0.3 pT ), the 24-h EMDEX measure revealed a relative risk of 1.7 (95% CI, 0.6- 5.0), and spot measurements and STAR profiles both led to a relative risk of 0.9 (95% CI, 0.3- 3.2 and 0.2-4.1, respectively). These estimates are highly unstable owing to the small numbers of subjects living in residences with magnetic field strengths > 0.3 IJT, i.e. 12 or fewer cases and 7 or fewer controls. [Limitations associated with random-digit dialing telephone methods to select controls are applicable to this study. Notably, the participation rates for all EMF measurements except wire codes were Iow. Stratified analyses based on whether controls were concurrently accrued with cases yielded inconsistent risk estimates with wire codes.] Gurney et aL (Gurney et al., 1996) initiated an epidemiological study to assess the relationship between childhood brain cancer and proximity to high-current power lines. The study population was derived from the Seattle, Washington, component of the multicenter United States West Coast Childhood Brain Tumor Study and comprised children < 20 years of age at diagnosis of a primary brain tumor in 1984-90, who were identified from a population-based cancer registry. Of the 179 eligible cases, 133 participated in the study (a participation rate of 74%). A control group of children stratified within the same range of birth years and county of residence as the cases was identified by random-digit dialing, which resulted in the participation of 270 controls out of 343 eligible for inclusion (a participation rate of 79%). Exposure was assessed by the five-level wire coding scheme developed by Wertheimer and Leeper (Wertheimer & Leeper, 1982). Gurney et aL (Gurney et al., 1996) reported no association between the occurrence of pediatric brain tumors and residential exposure to magnetic field sources, which included analyses of five-level and two-level wire code configurations. The risk for brain tumor did not increase with increasing exposure (relative to underground wiring) when the five-level Wertheimer and Leeper wire code configuration was analyzed, the relative risks being 1.3 (95% CI, 0.7-2.1 ) for very Iow current configuration, 0.7 (0.3-1.6) for Iow current configuration, 1.1 (0.6-2.1) for high current configuration, and 0.5 (0.2-1.6) for very high current configuration. When the wire codes were dichotomized (high vs. Iow), the relative risk was approximately unity. After evaluating 13 potential risk factors, the authors found no associations, and thus crude risk estimates were reported. [The limitations associated with random-digit dialing to select controls are applicable to this study. A strength is the large number Of potential confounding factors evaluated.] Linet et al. (Linet et aL, 1997) assessed the association between childhood ALL and residential exposure to magnetic fields for children aged < 15 who resided in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin and were registered with the Children's Cancer Group, in whom ALL was diagnosed during the period 1989-94. A total of 767 cases were eligible for inclusion. Random-digit telephone dialing was used to recruit the controls, who were individually matched to the cases by the first eight digits of their telephone numbers (including area code), age, and race, resulting in 725 controls who were eligible for inclusion. The authors reported a participation rate of 78% for cases and 63% for controls. Magnetic fields were measured at all subjects' residences with EMDEX-C meters. The standardized measurement protocol followed included 24-h measurements in the child's bedroom (with the meter placed under or adjacent to the bed), 30-s measurements in the center of the child's bedroom, the family room, the kitchen, and the room in which the mother slept during the subject's pregnancy, and a 30-s outdoor measurement made within 1 m of the http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies ofcarcinogenicity in children - Assessment of Healt... Page 9 of 36 front door of the residence. A single summary exposure metric for each home was calculated from a weighted average of the room measurements (see section 2.3.1 ). The weights were based on the typical amount of time spent in each room according to the child's age (Kleinerman et al., 1997). For each child under the age of five, the investigators attempted to measure magnetic fields in all homes the subject had lived in for at least six months and required that at least 70% of the child's life had been spent in the measured homes. For children over the age of five, the investigators measured a maximum of two homes lived in during a reference period of five years immediately preceding diagnosis, and required that the child had lived for at least 70% of the reference period in the measured houses. A weighted average of all homes was used as the summary exposure metric. On the basis of the distribution of the measurements in the control homes, the following exposure categories were chosen a priori for the summary measurements of residential magnetic fields: 0.065 pT, 0.065- 0.09 pT, 0.1-0.19 pT, and >0.2 pT. Higher exposures (up to 0.5 pT) were also measured. Wire code classifications (the five-level Wertheimer-Leeper classification and the modified three- level Kaune-Savitz scheme) were assigned to the subjects' main residences for a subgroup of 408 case-control pairs in which both the case and the control had been residentially stable, i.e. lived for at least 70% of the reference period in one home, and to those in which the family had lived during the mother's pregnancy (230 matched case-control pairs). [In most cases, the fields were measured within two years of diagnosis; thus, the measurements taken are more representative of exposure during the relevant etiologic period than fields many years and sometimes decades after diagnosis. There are apparent discrepancies in the reported participation rates of all eligible subjects: we calculate participation rates of 68% for cases and 48% for controls. Another concern is that wire codes were assessed for only 43% of the eligible cases and 32% of the eligible controls. Limitations associated with the use of random- digit dialing to select controls apply to this study.] For TWA exposure to >0.2 pT, the matched and unmatched analyses give relative risks of 1.5 (95% Cl, 0.91-2.6) and 1.2 (0.86-1.8), respectively. For exposure to >0.3 pT, matched analyses were not reported, but the unmatched analyses gave a relative risk of 1.7 (1.0-2.9). For the a priori measurement categories, when exposure was evaluated as a continuous variable, the p value for trend was 0.09 for the matched analysis and 0.15 for the unmatched analysis. When exposure was evaluated as a categorical variable, the p value for trend was 0.12 for the matched analysis and 0.22 for the unmatched analysis. In the matched analyses based on wire code configurations, the risk for childhood ALL was not associated with very high wire codes in the subject's main residence: relative risk = 0.88 (95% Cl, 0.48-1.6) for the Wertheimer-Leeper wire code and 1.0 (0.65-1.7) for the Kaune-Savitz wire code. The results reported for the 225 matched case-control pairs for which wire codes were assessed for the mothers' residences during pregnancy showed a trend (p = 0.07) for the Wertheimer-Leeper wire code configuration. All of the unmatched risk estimates reported by Linet et al. (Linet et al., 1997) were adjusted for the age of the subject at the reference date, the subject's gender, the mother's educational level, and family income. These adjustments for potentially confounding variables had little effect on the risk estimates. The authors note that a limitation of this study is the use of random-digit dialing, which was believed to have resulted in higher family incomes of controls as compared with cases. The authors interpret their study as providing little evidence for an association between exposure to magnetic fields and childhood leukemia. [It is unclear why the criteria for matching controls to cases did not include gender, since males are at greater risk for leukemia than females.] (Robison et al., 1995) [The heterogeneity of wire codes as estimates of exposure to magnetic fields across geographic areas (nine states) may also be of http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter4.3 Epidemiologicalstudies ofcarcinogenicityin children- Assessment of Hea... Page 10of36 concern. The use of TWA measured fields in several different homes may have diluted the effect (e.g. high exposures for short times averaged with Iow exposures for longer times). The results based on 24-h measured fields strengthen the evidence for an association, especially in view of the pattern of trend in the estimates; however, the results for wire codes detract from this evidence.] Tynes and Haldorsen (Tynes & Haldorsen, 1997) conducted a nested case-control study of Norwegian children < 15 years of age who had lived in a census ward crossed by power lines (voltages of 45 kV or more in urban areas and more than 100 kV in rural areas) during at least one of the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1985, 1987, or 1989. Cases were identified from the Cancer Registry of Norway and consisted of children in whom cancer had been diagnosed during the years 1965-89. For each case, five controls were selected from the cohort who had been alive at the time of diagnosis of the case and were matched by gender, year of birth, and municipality. Calculated historical magnetic fields were the primary basis for classifying study subjects into different categories of exposure. All power lines 11 kV or greater were considered in the calculations of exposure. Underground cables were not taken into account because it was assumed that they were not a significant source of magnetic fields. Categories for the analyses of exposure were obtained for a three-level ordinal scale from average background levels in a typical Norwegian residence (< 0.05 pT) and the median TWA exposure of the controls (0.14 pT). [The calculated fields were not validated by actual measurements.] The risk for cancers at all sites combined in relation to calculated TWA exposure to magnetic fields from birth to diagnosis was estimated to be 1.9 (1.2-3.3) for the category 0.5 < 0.14 pT and 0.9 (0.5-1.8) for exposure to >0.14 T; the corresponding risks for leukemia were 1.8 (0.7- 4.2) and 0.3 (0.0-2.1), respectively. Adjustment for socioeconomic status and number of residences did not affect these results. [The results are based on a Iow exposure category (0.14 pT, and few subjects were exposed to magnetic field strengths of >0.14 pT: approximately 2% (TWA exposure) and 4% (calculated exposure closest to time of diagnosis) of the study population.] Michaelis et al. (Michaelis et al., 1998; Michaelis et al., 1997) performed a population-based case-control study to explore the association between childhood leukemia and exposure to EMF in Lower Saxony, Germany, and later used the same study design in Berlin; they then pooled the two sets of results. Cases were recruited from the German Childhood Cancer Registry. The eligibility criteria for the study in Lower Saxony were newly diagnosed leukemia during the years 1988-93, date of birth after 1 July 1975, < 15 years of age at diagnosis, and a resident of Lower Saxony at the date of diagnosis. For the cases in Berlin, the diagnosis had to have been made between January 1991 and September 1994, and the children had to be residents of Bedin at the time of diagnosis. A total of 283 cases were eligible. Controls (919) were selected from the respective local government offices for registration of residents and were matched to the cases by gender, date of birth, and district within the city. Questionnaires were distributed to patients and controls to ascertain their residential history and potential confounding factors, i.e. socioeconomic status and degree of urbanization. The participation rates were 62% for cases and 45% for controls. [The age ranges and observation periods differed for the two cohorts, but these were controlled for in the analysis.] Exposure was assessed by two methods: measurements of the magnetic field over a 24-h period and indoor spot measurements with an EMDEX II meter. The 24-h measurements were collected in the subject's bedroom and in the living room of the residence where the child had lived longest before the date of diagnosis. Measurements were made 1-7 years after http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of ilea... Page 11 of 36 diagnosis. The median magnetic field strength during the 24-h period in the child's bedroom was the primary measure used in the analyses. Median values were preferred to mean values since they are less likely to be influenced by outlying values. The relative risk estimates were adjusted for gender, age, socioeconomic status, and degree of urbanization. The exposure was dichotomized at 0.2 IJT, and the risk estimate was 2.3 (95% CI, 1.2-12). The risk was higher in Lower Saxony, 3.2 (0.7-15) than in Berlin, 1.3 (0.1-12). When the analysis was restricted to the median magnetic field measured during the night, the risk estimate for the 0.2 IJT cut-point was 3.8 (1.2-12). No associations were reported between the incidence of childhood leukemia and indoor spot measurements. [The main limitations of this study are the Iow percentage of subjects exposed to magnetic fields at strengths > 0.2 IJT, the reduction in the study size due to inability to obtain permission to measure residential magnetic fields, and the lower participation rate among controls than among cases.] 4.3.2 Effects of appliances Several epidemiological studies have been conducted to determine the association between exposure to magnetic fields attributed to the use of various electrical appliances and childhood cancer. Appliances that can result in substantial exposure were usually studied and assessed on the basis of each subject's recall of use. Electrical appliances may be a potentially important contributor to overall exposure to EMF. Savitz et al. (Savitz et aL, 1990) examined the association between the incidence of childhood cancer and prolonged exposure to electrical appliances on the basis of information from interviews conducted during their previous case-control study (Savitz et al., 1988), described in the previous section. The appliances of primary interest in this study were electric blankets, heated water-beds, electric heating pads, and bedside electric clocks, and they studied both the mother's and the child's use, i.e. prenatal and postnatal exposure, respectively. Exposure was first examined as 'ever' or 'never' use, separately for prenatal and postnatal exposures; more detailed information obtained included electric blanket and heated water-bed settings, duration of use, and timing of use. Complete information on use of appliances was obtained for 233 mothers of patients (65% of those eligible) and 206 mothers of controls (74% of those eligible) and for 244 patients (69% of those eligible) and 216 controls (78% of those eligible). Use of none of the appliances considered in the study was associated with a notably elevated relative risk (ever vs. never use) for cancers at all sites. The estimated, unadjusted risks with prenatal exposure to electric blankets were 1.8 (95% CI, 0.9-4.0) for childhood brain cancer, 1.3 (0.7-2.6) for leukemia, and 1.1 (0.4-3.6) for lymphoma. In analyses of prenatal exposure stratified by electric blanket use during the first trimester, the estimated risks were 1.6 (0.8-3.2) for cancers at all sites, 4.0 (1.6-9.9) for brain cancer, and 2.3 (1.0-5.8) for leukemia. For postnatal use of electric blankets, the crude risk estimates were 1.5 (0.6-3.4) for cancers at all sites, 1.5 (0.5-5.1) for leukemias, 1.2 (0.3-5.7) for brain cancer, and 1.0 (0.2-8.6) for lymphoma. [The methodological limitations of this study include those with the control selection process, described by Savitz et aL (Savitz, 1988) and the fact that the study size was severely limited for assessing the exposures of interest, especially in the postnatal analyses, as very few children were exposed to electric blankets or electric water-bed heaters. Parents' recollection of appliance use was the only method used to assess exposure, and their recall may be incomplete; furthermore, the parents of patients might report differently from those of controls, http://www.niehs.nih.gov/em frapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43 .html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of ilea... Page 12 of 36 resulting in recall bias. The questionnaire was not validated. Most of the statistical analyses in this study were based on 'ever/never' use of appliances. An underlying assumption is that the pattern of appliance use among users was similar for cases and controls; if the patterns of use were dissimilar, the sensitivity to detect an association would be diminished.] London et al. (London et al., 1991 ) examined the association between the incidence of childhood cancer and prolonged exposure to electrical appliances on the basis of information collected at interviews during their study of residential exposure. The appliances of primary interest were those that could produce considerable magnetic fields. Children's exposure was estimated on the basis of regular use (at least once a week) of the appliance. The statistical analyses were based on regular vs. infrequent use (less than once per week). Mothers' exposure was based on use of the appliance at any time during pregnancy. Complete information on use of 15 appliances by mothers and children was obtained for 232 cases and 232 controls; the participation rates were 70% for cases and 90% for controls. The relative risks associated with use of 11 of the appliances were greater than the null. The risks for leukemia among children who used black-and-white televisions and electric hair- dryers at least once a week were 1.5 (95% CI, 1.0-2.2) and 2.8 (1.4-6.3), respectively, as compared with nonusers and children who used these appliances less than once a week. The largest relative risks were associated with use of electric blankets and curling irons, but these estimates were unstable because of the small number of subjects. The risks associated with use by the mothers of three of the five appliances that were evaluated were greater than the null. [The limitations of this study are similar to those described for the study of Savitz et al.] (Savitz et al., 1990). As part of the study of Preston-Martin et al. (Preston-Martin et aL, 1996b), a questionnaire was administered to mothers and fathers about exposures and conditions thought likely to be related to the risk for pediatric brain tumors. Mothers were asked about exposure to appliances during their pregnancy and about their child's daily exposure to specific appliance-related sources of magnetic fields. The exposures were examined as 'ever' or 'never' used, separately for the mother's exposure during pregnancy and the child's exposure. Complete information on appliance use by mothers and children was obtained for 304 cases and 304 controls. The risks associated with use by the mothers of six of the seven appliances that were evaluated were greater than the null. An approximately two-fold increase in risk for brain tumors was reported among children whose mothers had slept in electrically heated water- beds during pregnancy (2.1; 1.0-4.2). For the 12 appliances that were evaluated for children, the relative risks were greater than the null for six. As for the mothers, there was a two-fold increase in risk among children who slept in electrically heated water-beds (2.0; 0.6-6.8). [VVith such Iow percent use of these appliances, it is difficult to assess their impact with respect to cancer risk.] Preston-Martin et al. (Preston-Martin et al., 1996a) evaluated the effects of use of electric blankets and water-bed heaters on the risk for pediatric brain tumors. Since there were not enough cases in Los Angeles to adequately address this hypothesis, cases were included from two other regions that participated in the multicenter US West Coast Childhood Brain Tumor Study: Seattle, Washington and San Francisco, California. The cancer registry at each location was used to identify 813 cases, of which 540 children were considered to be eligible on the basis of information in the registry and the study criteria and were enlisted in the study as cases. Controls were identified and recruited from the same geographic regions in which the http://www.niehs.nih.gov/em frapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43 .html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of ilea... Page 13 of 36 cases arose by a two-step random-digit telephone dialing procedure. This resulted in a comparison group that was similar to the cases with regard to gender and age and at ratios of approximately two controls per case in Seattle and San Francisco and one control per case in Los Angeles, for a total of 801 eligible controls. Of those eligible to participate, 73% of cases and 74% of controls were interviewed for the study. Maternal use of electric blankets during pregnancy with the patient, regardless of trimester or use, was not associated with subsequent risk for brain tumor; thus, the relative risk as compared with nonusers of these appliances was 0.9 (95% CI, 0.6-1.2). Similar results were reported for prenatal use of water-beds with electric heaters, but the risk varied substantially with geographic area. The relative risk for pediatric brain tumor associated with maternal use of heated water-beds during pregnancy was 2.1 (1.0-4.4) for Los Angeles participants and 0.7 (0.4-1.0) for participants from San Francisco and Seattle. [This study includes information about use of electric blankets and heated water-beds that was reported by Preston-Martin et aL and Gurney et al.] (Preston-Martin et al., 1996b) and (Gurney et al., 1996). [Although data from three study sites was pooled, exposure to electric blankets and heated water-beds was relatively uncommon, especially among children. Furthermore, reported use of these appliances from the questionnaires may not have been a sensitive enough measure to detect differences in brain cancer risk due to prolonged exposure to magnetic fields.] Gurney et al. (Gurney et al., 1996) assessed exposure to magnetic fields from electric blankets and heated water-beds on the basis of responses to a questionnaire administered in person to 133 patients and 270 controls, with participation rates of 74% among cases and 79% among controls. A mailed questionnaire was used subsequently to collect information on use of electric heating and electric appliances other than electric blankets and water-beds. Questionnaires were returned for 98 cases and 208 controls. The analyses of use of electric heaters (within three years before diagnosis of the cancer) and appliances were based on whether the subject had ever used the appliance in question or never used it. Mothers' use of seven appliances and heat sources was evaluated. The only increase in relative risk was that associated with prenatal use of an electric water-bed. Of the relative risks associated with use of 19 appliances and heat sources that were evaluated for children, eight were greater than the null. [The study size was severely limited for assessing the exposures of interest. Recall may have been incomplete, and it is unclear whether the parents of the patients report differently from those of controls, resulting in recall bias. Most of the statistical analyses in this study were based on 'ever/never' use of appliances. An underlying assumption is that the pattern of appliance use among users was similar for cases and controls; if the patterns of use were dissimilar, the sensitivity to detect an association would be diminished.] As part of a study of residential exposure to magnetic fields, Liner, et aL (Linet et aL, 1997), Hatch, et al. (Hatch et al., 1998), evaluated the association between childhood ALL and use of electrical appliances during pregnancy and childhood. The study population is described in section 4.2.2. Personal interviews were conducted with 788 patients and 699 controls, corresponding to participation rates of 84% among cases and 54% among controls. [The authors report participation rates of 88% and 64%, but the number of eligible cases was 942 and that of eligible controls, 1232.] Of these participants, 640 matched pairs were used in the analysis. Questions were asked about the mother's use during pregnancy and the child's use of electric blankets, mattress pads, heating pads, water-beds, stereos or other sound systems, television, video machines in arcades, computers, microwave ovens, sewing machines, hair- dryers, curling irons, humidifiers, and electric clocks. Use of stereo systems without headsets, http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter4.3 Epidemiologi.cal studies ofcarcinogenicity in children - Assessment of Hea... Page 14of36 night lights, and ceiling fans was considered unlikely to have resulted in substantial exposure to magnetic fields, but they were included as 'red herring' variables to evaluate the potential for recall bias. The interviewers asked for the child's age when starting and stopping use of a specific appliance and the frequency of use during the year before diagnosis. For three appliances associated with potentially high exposure to magnetic fields (electric blankets, water-beds, and hair-dryers), questions were asked about the frequency of use during the last year of use if the child had stopped using the appliance. The authors analyzed the use of each of the appliances separately and did not create an overall estimate of exposure to magnetic fields from appliances. Mattress pads and electric blankets were analyzed together. Matched analyses were conducted with adjustment for income and maternal education. Potential confounding from parental age, occupation, smoking, type of dwelling, urbanization, number of siblings, and breast feeding were evaluated. Age- and gender-specific analyses were done, and the mother's use was analyzed according to trimester. The estimated risks were 1.6 (95% CI, 1.1-2.3) for mother's use of electric blankets or mattress pads and 1.5 (1.0-2.1) for their use of heating pads and humidifiers, but with no consistent dose-response pattern. When frequency of use was evaluated, a reduced risk was found for use of sewing machines (0.76; 0.59-0.98). The risk estimates for use of other appliances were close to unity. Elevated risks were found for children's use of electric blankets (2.8; 1.5-5.0), hair-dryers (1.6; 1.2-2.1), curling irons (1.7; 0.91-3.3), video arcade machines (1.7; 1.2-2.3), sound systems with headset (1.3; 0.97-1.8), and video games connected to a television (1.9; 1.4-2.7). Consistent dose-response patterns were found for use of sound systems with a headset, video arcade machines, and video games connected to a television, but not for use of electric blankets, hair-dryers, or curling irons. The risk estimates for other appliances were close to unity, except for night-lights (0.81; 0.63-1.0). None of the 'red herring' variables was associated with an increased risk. Time spent watching television was associated with disease, and the risk increased with increasing time. Watching television at closer than 6 feet (2 m) was also associated with disease, but the highest risk was found for distances 4 to 6 feet (>1.3 and < 6 m; relative risk, 1.7; 1.2-2.4). For distances < 4 feet (< 1.3 m), the relative risk was 1.6 (1.1- 2.4). When the time spent watching television and the distance from the television were combined, inconsistent dose-response patterns were seen. The authors emphasized the potential for differential recall bias, especially when patterns of use changed after diagnosis, as may be the case for television viewing patterns. They also mention the possibility that mothers of children with ALL may be more prone to remember use of appliances discussed in the media as potential risk factors for leukemia, such as electric blankets. Another source of error noted by the authors is potential selection bias due to the use of random-digit dialing for control selection and the lower participation rate among controls, both being associated with socioeconomic status. The authors also mention the possibility of confounding from some factor related to the type of life-style associated with, for example, watching television for many hours per day. They found it unlikely that the associations found reflect a causal association between exposure to magnetic fields and childhood ALL. [The inconsistent dose-response patterns may also be the result of nondifferential exposure misclassification.] Selection bias is unlikely to explain the findings for use of electric blankets. Differential recall bias may have affected the results, but a comparison between answers from an earlier telephone interview and those obtained at the later personal interview about electric blanket use did not indicate differences in the recall between cases and controls. [Questions on other appliances were not http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies ofcarcinogenicity in children- Assessment of Hea... Page 15 of 36 validated. Another limitation is the considerable lower participation rate among controls as compared to cases. Finally, the magnetic fields of the appliances were not measured.] 4.3.3 Meta-analyses of studies of effects of power lines In reviewing the individual epidemiological studies, it is difficult to summarize and draw overall conclusions about a possible association between exposure to ELF EMF and the incidence of childhood cancer. These difficulties arise due to differences in study design, case selection, identification of controls, exposure assessment methods, and accounting for such factors as confounders and effect modifiers. Furthermore, a common feature of most of the studies was the lack of a large population of highly exposed children. Meta-analysis provides a means for summarizing the results of individual studies into a single measure of effect (Fleiss, 1993). The objectives of a meta-analyses often include identification and review of all studies conducted on a specific topic; assessment of the consistency and comparability of the results of each identified study; estimation of average measures of effect, if studies are sufficiently similar; and assessment of reasons for heterogeneity (Blair et al., 1995). Four meta-analyses have been conducted of studies of the possible association between exposure to magnetic fields and the incidence of childhood cancers, in which summary effect measures were stratified by exposure metric (wire codes, distance from electrical facility, calculated magnetic fields, and measured magnetic fields) (NRPB, 1992); (Ahlbom et al., 1993); (Miller et al., 1995); (Meinert & Michaelis, 1996). These are summarized in Tables 4.25 and 4.26. In general, the summary risks for each of the metrics considered were elevated but less than 2.0 at all cut-points. [In general, as the number of studies included in the meta- analysis increased, the confidence intervals narrowed, indicating increasing statistical power; however, the effect estimates did not change substantially. Use of different exposure metrics, such as 24-h measures vs. spot measures, or cut-points, such as 0.2 IJT vs. 0.3 pT, can result in quantitative but not qualitative differences.] Wartenberg and colleagues (Wartenberg et al., 1998) and National Academy of Sciences (NRC et al., 1997) conducted a more extensive meta-analysis of the studies of the possible association between exposure to magnetic fields and the incidence of childhood leukemia and brain tumors. In addition to calculating a summary effect measure, they conducted a limited sensitivity analysis, assessed the heterogeneity among the studies, evaluated possible dose- response relationships, evaluated the likelihood of publication bias, and assessed the robustness of results to inclusion of additional studies. They also provided a more carefully considered rationale for grouping studies. The reported summary effect measures are similar to those reported in previous meta- analyses: generally > 1.0 but < 2.0. The results were moderately robust to exclusion of individual studies. Substantial heterogeneity was reported for wire codes and proximity to electrical facilities for both leukemia and brain tumors. Analyses to characterize the source of the heterogeneity gave equivocal results. The relative risk estimates for dose-response relationships for spot measures were weakly elevated, those for calculated fields were slightly higher, and those for wires codes (converted to magnetic fields by using the mid-range of the wire code category) were still slightly higher. There is little evidence for publication bias. Calculations showed that inclusion of an extremely large study would be required to substantially change the reported summary estimates of effect. http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter4.3 Epidemiologicalstudies ofcarcinogenicityinchildren- Assessment of Hea... Page 16of36 [This meta-analysis included several studies that this Working Group excluded from consideration in their deliberations.] 4.3.4 Summary Cancers at all sites The Working Group considered that an evaluation of cancers at all sites combined would not be informative because it would be driven largely by the results for leukemia and brain cancer. Childhood leukemia Four studies in which wire codes were used to assess exposure to EMF were considered to be of sufficient quality to be used in the evaluation of an association between the incidence of childhood leukemia and exposure to magnetic fields. Three of the studies found an increased risk (Wertheimer & Leeper, 1979); (Savitz et al., 1988); (London et al., 1991 ), and one study found no effect on the risk for childhood leukemia (Linet et al., 1997). A trend of increasing risk with increasing wire codes was found by both Savitz et al. and London et al. Wertheimer and Leeper did not assess trend. The unblinded assessment of the wire codes in the latter study may have affected the results, but it is unlikely that this potential bias can fully explain the observed increase in risk. Selection bias introduced by the control selection technique is unlikely in the Wertheimer and Leeper study, because a birth registry was used as the population source. In the other three studies, random-digit dialing was used to select controls, which may have introduced some bias toward higher socioeconomic status among the controls, if higher socioeconomic status is related to lower wire codes, use of random-digit dialing may have led to an overestimation of the risk. As Savitz et al., London et al., and Linet et al. all used random-digit dialing to select controls, it is unlikely that the associated bias would have affected only the risks found by Savitz et aL and London et al. The study of Savitz et al. has a further limitation in the way in which controls were selected, requiring them to be residentially stable; this may have introduced bias leading to an overestimation of the risk, but it is unlikely that this could entirely explain the larger risk estimate. The observed elevated risks and dose-response patterns cannot be explained by selection bias. Confounding from other risk factors for childhood leukemia must also be considered. The etiology of this disease is largely unknown. The most frequently discussed factors that may be related to both wire codes and childhood leukemia are traffic density and socioeconomic status. Confounding from traffic density was evaluated in all three studies that showed increased relative risks and was found not to explain the observed association. It was not evaluated in the study of Linet et al. The potential impact of socioeconomic status was evaluated in all four studies: it did not explain the observed results. Furthermore, Savitz et aL evaluated a substantial number of additional potential risk factors, which were also shown to have little effect on the risk estimates. The lack of an association with wire codes in the study by Linet et aL is difficult to explain, given the associations observed in the other studies. The validity of using wire codes in regions other than in Denver is not clear, but the potential shortcomings should have applied to the studies of both Linet et al. and London et al. Linet et al. included several regions in their study, however, and the validity of using the wire codes as estimates of exposure to magnetic http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter4.3 Epidemiologicalstudies ofcarcinogenicityin children- Assessment of Hea... Page 17of36 fields may vary among the regions. The fact that the proportion of subjects exposed to magnetic fields > 0.2 IJT was considerably higher in the study of Savitz et aL than in those of Linet et al. or London et al. may explain some of the disparity in the results. Linet et aL included only cases of acute lymphoblastic leukemia, while the other studies included all types of leukemia. The results of the studies, when taken together, support the association between classification of exposure from wire codes and the incidence of childhood leukemia. This is further supported by the results of the formal meta-analysis, which found, on average, a 40% excess risk for leukemia (OR = 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2) (Wartenberg et al., 1998). Among the studies in which calculated fields were used to assess exposure to magnetic fields, four Nordic studies were considered to be of sufficient quality to be used in the evaluation. Three of the studies found increasing leukemia risk with increasing calculated fields (Feychting & Ahlbom, 1993; Olsen et aL, 1993; Verkasalo et al., 1993), and a smaller study found no effect (Tynes et al., 1992). All four studies were population-based, with minimal potential for selection bias both in terms of control selection and participation rates. The exposure assessment method used in these studies is based on the laws of physics and engineering design and provides estimates of the exposure for a relevant etiologic period from historical information about line loads and configurations. Thus, the exposure estimates may be less subject to misclassification than those in the studies based on wire codes. The main limitations of all four of the studies are the small number of cases and the Iow prevalence of exposure. Potential confounding from traffic exhaust was controlled in the Swedish study and did not change the effect estimate. Adjustment for socioeconomic status was made in all of the studies except that in Finland, again with no effect on the observed risk estimates. The results of these studies, when taken together, support an association between exposure to calculated magnetic fields and the incidence of childhood leukemia. This conclusion is further supported by the results of the formal meta-analysis which found, on average, a 63% excess risk for leukemia (OR -- 1.6; 95% CI, 0.8-3.0) (Wartenberg et aL, 1998). Of the studies in which spot measurements were used to assess exposure to magnetic fields, three were considered to be of sufficient quality to be used in the evaluation (London et al., 1991; Michaelis et al., 1998; Savitz et al., 1988). The results of these three studies are inconsistent, two being close to unity and the third (Savitz et al.) showing increased risks. The very Iow participation rate among cases in the study of Savitz et aL limits its validity. The study of Feychting and Ahlbom (Feychting & Ahlbom, 1993) is not included in this assessment because the spot measurements were made too long after the relevant etiologic period. Neither selection bias nor confounding had a major impact on the reported results. The study of Michaelis et al. is limited by the small number of exposed subjects. Exposure misclassification is a potential limitation in all three studies. The usefulness of spot measurements for retrospective assessment of exposure to magnetic fields during the etiologically relevant period has been questioned. These studies do not provide sufficient information to evaluate the association between exposure to magnetic fields evaluated by spot measurements and the incidence of childhood leukemia. Furthermore, the formal meta- analysis did not find an appreciable excess risk for leukemia (OR: 1.2; 95% CI, 0.7-2.1) (Wartenberg et al., 1998). Three studies in which 24-h measured magnetic fields were used to assess exposure to magnetic fields were considered to be of sufficient quality to be used in an evaluation of the association between the incidence of childhood leukemia and exposure to magnetic fields (Linet et al., 1997; London et al., 1991; Michaelis et al., 1998). The results of all three studies http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of ilea... Page 18 of 36 showed an increased risk for children in higher exposure classes. The data reported by Linet et aL showed an exposure-response relationship, which was not found by London et al. and was not assessed by Michaelis et aL The studies of both Linet et aL and London et al. had potential limitations due to use of random-digit dialing to select controls. Control selection in the study of Michaelis et al. is unlikely to be subject to selection bias. The Iow participation rates in all three studies might have resulted in selection bias. Confounding due to socioeconomic status was controlled in all three studies. Confounding by traffic exhaust was addressed in previous studies in which other exposure assessment methods were used, and was found unlikely to affect the results. The study of Michaelis et aL is limited by the small number of exposed subjects, and there were few highly exposed subjects in all three studies. It is not clear how well a 24-h magnetic field measurement reflects exposure during the relevant etiologic period, nor how representative it is of long-term exposure, given the weekly, seasonal, and secular patterns. This method is, however, an improvement over spot measurements of magnetic fields. The study of Linet et aL is an improvement over the previous studies because of the markedly shorter time between diagnosis and exposure assessment. The results of these studies provide some support for a possible association between exposure based on 24-h measured magnetic fields and the incidence of childhood leukemia. This conclusion is further supported by the results of the formal meta-analysis, which showed, on average, a 50% excess risk (OR -- 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.3). Three studies of appliance use were considered to be of sufficient quality to be used in an evaluation of the association between the incidence of childhood leukemia and exposure to magnetic fields (Hatch et al., 1998; London et al., 1991; Savitz et aL, 1990). The results do not fit a coherent pattern, but elevated risks were reported for a variety of appliances in different studies. Many increased risk estimates were found by Hatch et aL; however, it is interesting to note that no associations were found for the three appliances that do not to involve significant exposure to magnetic fields (i.e. those that were included in the study to assess the possible role of recall bias). The possibility of recall and reporting bias in the study of Hatch et al. and in any of the other studies cannot, however, be ruled out. Furthermore, chance cannot be ruled out as an explanation for the observations. In addition, Iow participation rates and use of random-digit dialing in all three of the studies may have influenced the results in any direction. These studies provide inadequate evidence to assess an association of use of appliances and the incidence of childhood leukemia. Childhood nervous system tumors Four studies were considered to be of sufficient quality to be used in an evaluation of the association between the incidence of childhood brain tumors and classification of exposure based on wire codes. The two early studies found an increased risk (Savitz et al., 1988; Wertheimer & Leeper, 1979), and the two later studies found no effect on the incidence of child brain tumors (Gurney et al., 1996; Preston-Martin et al., 1996b). Selection bias is an unlikely explanation for the observed increased risks in the earlier studies or the lack of association in the later ones. A large number of potential confounding factors were evaluated in three of the studies. The disparity of the results precludes the drawing of an inference. The formal meta- analysis beam this out, providing a relative risk estimate of 1.2 with an associated 95% confidence interval of 0.7-2.2 (Wartenberg et aL, 1998). http://www.niehs.nih.gov/em frapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter4.3 Epidemiologicalstudics ofcarcinogenicity in children - Assessment of Hea... Page 19of36 Equally inconclusive results were observed in studies of the possible association between childhood brain tumors and spot-measured magnetic fields, 24-h measured magnetic fields, and use of appliances. The data from studies on childhood brain tumors and calculated magnetic fields provide some evidence that there is no association; however, these results are based on a very small number of cases, and chance cannot be ruled out as an explanation for the lack of association. The results of the meta-analysis results are inconclusive with regard to all exposure metrics. Childhood lymphoma The number of cases of lymphoma in each of the studies was too small for any reliable inferences to be drawn. Reasoning for the evaluation of degree of evidence from studies of childhood leukemia The results of the studies of a possible association between exposure to magnetic fields and the incidence of childhood leukemia present a complex picture. The most compelling data come from the Nordic studies, in which calculated magnetic fields were used as the metric of exposure to magnetic fields, arguably the most accurate way of reconstructing exposure during the relevant etiological periods, especially if they are very long. These data are supported by the results of studies in which 24-h magnetic field measurements and wire codes were used as the exposure metrics. The only exposure metric that did not appear to be associated with an increased leukemia risk with increased exposure was spot measurement, but this exposure metric has been criticized as being unrepresentative of long-term exposure to magnetic fields because it fails to capture the daily, weekly, seasonal, and long-term fluctuations in magnetic field strength. The studies of the possible association of use of appliances and the incidence of childhood leukemia were not viewed as contributing to this evaluation. Chance is an unlikely explanation for the observed associations, and the dose-response patterns observed strengthens this conclusion. Confounding seems to be an unlikely explanation for the observed results. A confounder must be associated with a sufficiently large relative risk to overcome that associated with magnetic fields. Given the extensive search for possible confounders and the fact that no strong candidates have been identified, the impact of confounding appears to be minimal. Selection bias cannot be ruled out in several of the studies; however, increased risk estimates and consistent dose-response patterns were found also in the Nordic studies, in which selection bias is unlikely. As research on EMF evolved, both exposure assessment and study designs have improved. The results of studies would thus have been expected to become more consistent. In fact, this has not occurred, which raises questions about whether the 'improvements' in exposure assessment have more accurately captured the relevant EMF exposure. In sum, although the exposure metrics used as surrogates for exposure to magnetic fields are of varying precision, it is difficult to find an explanation other than exposure to magnetic fields for the consistency of the reported excess risks for childhood leukemia in studies conducted in different countries under different conditions, with different study designs. Overall, the Working Group gave preference to the Nordic studies in which bias in the selection of study subjects can be ruled out and in which the most sophisticated exposure assessment methods were http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of ilea... Page 20 of 36 used. The Working Group considers, with some minor reservations, that the strengths and consistency of these study results are suggestive in spite of their limitations. Evaluation There is limited evidence that residential exposure to ELF magnetic fields is carcinogenic to children. [This conclusion was supported by 20 Working Group members; there were 6 votes for 'inadequate' evidence, 2 abstentions, and 1 absent.] There is inadequate evidence with respect to childhood nervous system tumors. [This conclusion was supported by 25 Working Group members; there were 2 abstentions and 2 absent.] There is inadequate evidence with respect to childhood lymphoma. [This conclusion was supported by 25 Working Group members; there were 2 abstentions and 2 absent.] Table 4.20 Summary of epidemiological studies on childhood cancers Study* Case selection Control selection Exposure metrics Confounders Additional notes analyzed Wertheimer Cancer mortality and Leeper records (1950- (1979) Savitz et aL (1988) Denver-area birth certificates 1973) of persons Total number of less than 19 years controls enrolled: of age, that were born in Colorado and resided in Denver Largest number of cases used in the analysis: 328 All cancer incidence cases reported in Denver, Colorado during the years 1976- 1983 of persons less than 15 years of age 356 cases identified 320 cases had 5- level wire codes assessed 252 cases were interviewed 128 cases had 344 Controls selected via random digit telephone dialing methods Matched to cases by age, gender, and telephone exchange area 278 controls identified 259 cases had 5- level wire codes assessed 222 cases were interviewed 207 cases had 2-level wire code (HCC vs. LCC) Non-blinded wire code assessment Cancer onset Crude relative risk age estimates cited Urban/suburban Potential Socioeconomic confounders were status individually Birth order analyzed Maternal age Traffic congestion Gender 5-1evelwire codeln- Gender, age home electric and Type of housing magnetic field spot Socioeconomic measurements under status iow and high'power Smoking during use conditions pregnancy Traffic density Parental age Race and education Income Family cancer history, In utero exposure to Alcohol Control selection procedures resulted in the controls being more residentially stable than the cases Matched analysis not performed Adjusted relative risk estimates were described but not presented in a table and did not change the results. http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of ilea... Page 21 of 36 London et aL (1991) Olsen et aL (1993) magnetic field magnetic field measurement data measurement data All leukemia incidence cases reported to the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program (1980- 1987) of persons less than 10 years of age 331 cases identified and 232 interviewed 169 cases had 24- hour magnetic field measurements recorded 140 cases had spot measurements recorded 219 cases had 5- level wire codes assessed Controls were obtained through friends of cases (1980-1984) and via random digit telephone dialing methods (1980- 1987) Matched to cases by age, gender, and ethnicity 257 controls identified and 232 interviewed 149 controls had 24- hour magnetic field measurements recorded 109 controls had spot measurements recorded 207 controls had 5- level wire codes assessed All leukemia, tumor of the central nervous system, or malignant lymphoma incidence cases reported to the Danish Cancer Registry (during the period from April 1, 1968 to December 31, 1986) of persons less than 15 years of age 1707 cases identified Two to five controls were selected at random from among people who had survived without cancer until the date of diagnosis of the case Controls matched to the case by gender and date of birth 4788 eligible controls identified 5-level wire code Outdoor and in-home electric and magnetic field spot measurements under Iow and normal power use conditions 24-hour magnetic field measurements underneath the bed in the child's bedroom Self-report of appliance use Distance from transformer substations, overhead lines, and underground cablesAverage calculated magnetic field exposureaveraged over residence period Cumulative calculated magnetic field exposure = (number of months exposed) multiplied use X-rays, influenza, and medications Birth defects Birth order Birth weight Illness Residential stability Medication x- rays Various factors Exposures associated with assessed in homes cancer that were during an "etiologic reported in period" defined as previous studies the period Appliance use beginning at the Socioeconomic estimated time of status conception and ending on the date of diagnosis inset "for children aged 1 year or less at time of diagnosis date minus 6 months" for children aged 1-2 years at diagnosis; and one year prior to diagnosis for children diagnosed at ages greater than 2 years Matched and unmatched analyses were carried out since the mean 24-hour magnetic field exposure was lower among matched controls as compared to unmatched Gender Analyses controlled Age at diagnosis for gender and age Socioeconomic at diagnosis for status each cancer Population grouping density at place At cut-point 0.4 I. JT of residence and greater the Number of numbers of changes of exposed cases and address controls is too small to indicate significant increases in cancer incidence for individual cancer types. http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of Hea... Page 22 of 36 Feychting All cancer and incidence cases Ahlbom reported to the (1993) Swedish Cancer Registry of persons under 16 years of age living on a property located within 300 meters of any 220 or 400 kV power lines in Sweden (1960- 1985) 142 cases identified 141 cases had calculated fields assessed 89 cases had spot measurements recorded Verkasalo et al. (1993) Ail primary cancer cases reported to the Finnish Cancer Registry ( 1970- 1989) of persons less than 20 years of age living within 500 m of overhead power lines of 110- 400 kV in magnetic fields calculated to be 0.01 pT and greater140 cases identified Preston- Patients under 20 Martin et aL years of age who (1996a) were residents of Los Angeles Controls per case were randomly selected from all persons under 16 years of age living on a property located within 300 meters of any 220 or 400 kV power lines in Sweden (1960-1985) Controls matched to cases by birth year, gender, residence in the same parish during the year of diagnosis or the last year before the case moved, lived near the same power line as the case 558 controls identified 554 controls had calculated fields assessed 344 controls had spot measurements recorded Entire cohort consisted of 68,300 boys and 66,500 girls less than 20 years of age living during 1970-1989 within 500 m of overhead power lines of 110- 400 kV in magnetic fields calculated to be 0.01 pT and greater Controls were obtained via random digit telephone dialing by (average calculated level of magnetic field at the residence) Distance to power lines from residence In-home magnetic field spot measurements under iow and high power use conditions Calculations of the magnetic fields generated by the power lines at the time spot measurements were assessed (calculated contemporary fields) and for the year closest in time to diagnosis (historical calculated fields) Age Matched analysis Gender was conducted Year of Magnetic field spot diagnosis measurements Whether or not taken 5-31 years the subject lived after diagnosis. in the county of Median 16 years Stockholm Type of residence (single- family home or apartment) Nitrogen dioxide content as an index of air pollution from road traffic Socio-economic status Calculated magnetic Gender field exposure Age average exposure cumulative exposure Wire coding according to the 5- level Wertheimer- Leeper classification Demographic variables Parental occupation Analysis based upon cohort approach (standardized incidence ratios) with person years at risk stratified by gender, age (grouped in 5-year age categories), and exposure category Analysis included all primary cancers rather than first primary cancers, which resulted in multiple cancers per person being counted Matched and unmatched analyses performed Compared to http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of ilea... Page 23 of 36 Gurney et aL (1996) Linet et al. (1997) County and had a benign or malignant primary tumor of the brain, cranial nerves, or cranial meninges of any histologic type diagnosed during the period January 1,1984- June 30, 1991 437 eligible cases were obtained 304 cases had complete interview data 292 cases had wiring maps assessed for at least one residence 255 cases had spot measurement data 236 cases had at least one STAR magnetic field profile 110 cases had 24- hour measurements assessed in at least one room Patients under 20 years of age who were diagnosed with a benign or malignant primary tumor of the brain, cranial nerves, or cranial meninges of any histologic type diagnosed during the period 1984-1990 195 cases were eligible Largest number of cases used in the analysis: 120 methods Matched to cases by bidh date, age at time of diagnosis 433 eligible controls were obtained 304 controls had complete interview data 269 controls had wiring maps assessed for at least one residence 206 controls had spot measurement data 181 controls had at least one STAR magnetic field profile 101 controls had 24-hour measurements assessed in at least one room Spot measurements inside and outside the residence STAR magnetic field profiles 24-hour magnetic field measurements taken in the child's bedroom and other rooms Self-report of appliance use Controls were Wire coding obtained via according to the 5- random digit level and 2-level telephone dialing Wedheimer-Leeper methods classifications Approximately two Self-report of heating cases per control sources and were stratified by appliance use age, gender, and area of residence 270 eligible controls were identified Largest number of controls used in the analysis: 240 All acute Controls were lymphoblastic obtained via leukemia incidence random digit 24-h magnetic fields measurements in the child's bedroom Exposures during gestation Building type Appliance use Maternal occupational exposure to high magnetic fields during pregnancy Age, gender, race County at reference date Reference year Mother's education Family history of brain tumors Passive tobacco smoke exposure in the home Whether the child lived on a farm Whether or not the child had a history of head injury x-ray to the head or neck, Epilepsy, or Fits from severe fever Age Gender Race parents of cases, a higher proportion of control mothers and fathers were Latino Compared to cases, a higher proportion of controls were in the highest social class A small pementage of cases were classified in the very high current classification (3%) Magnetic field measurements generally measured http://www.niehs.nih.gov/em frapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43 .html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of ilea... Page 24 of 36 Tynes and Haldorsen (1997) Michaelis et aL (1997) cases registered with the Children's Cancer Group (1989-1994) of persons less than 15 years of age 942 cases were eligible for the study 629 unmatched cases had magnetic field measurements recorded (463 case-control pairs included in the analysis) 408 matched cases had wire codes assessed in their main residence 225 matched cases had wire codes assessed in the residence of pregnancy All cancer incidence cases reported to the Cancer Registry of Norway (1965- 1989) of persons less than 15 years of age who had lived in a census ward crossed by high-voltage power lines (45 kV or more in urban areas and more than 100 kV in rural areas) during at least one of the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1985, 1987, or 1989 532 cases identified Largest number of cases used in the analysis: 500 All leukemia incidence cases reported to the German Childhood telephone dialing methods Matched to cases by the first eight digits of the telephone number, age, and race 1292 controls were eligible for the study 619 unmatched controls had magnetic field measurements recorded (463 case-control pairs included in the analysis) 408 matched controls had wire codes assessed in their main residence 225 matched controls had wire codes assessed in the residence of pregnancy 5 controls per case were selected at random from among Norwegian children living in a census ward crossed by high- voltage power lines (45 kV or more in urban areas and more than 100 kV in rural areas) during at least one of the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1985, 1987, or 1989 that were alive at the time of diagnosis of the case Matched to cases by gender, birth year, and municipality 2122 controls identified Largest number of controls used in the analysis: 2004 Controls were obtained from the files of local government offices 30-s measurements Socioeconomic in the center of the status child's bedroom, Temporal factors family room, kitchen, Urbanization the room in which the Type of mother slept during residence the index pregnancy, Gender and near the front Race door of the residence Mathew's Wire coding educational level according to the 5- level Wertheimer- Leeper classification and the modified 3- category Kaune- Savitz scheme 24-h measurement 1- bedroom within two years of leukemia diagnosis Single summary exposure for magnetic field measurements was calculated based upon a weighted average of the room measurements with weights based upon estimated time spent in each room according to the child's age. Matched and unmatched analyses cited. Measurements summarized as time-weighted- average over five years preceding diagnosis. Distance to power Socioeconomic line from residence status Calculated magnetic Type of building field exposure Number of estimate dwellings Time-weighted average calculated magnetic field exposure Time-weighted average cumulative exposure Average maximal exposure Mother's exposure at the time of conception Child's exposure in the year closest in time to diagnosis Average exposure during the first year of the child's life Average exposure during the first 4 years of the child's life Few subjects were exposed to calculated, magnetic fields greater than 0.14 pT The narrow distribution of exposures resulted in limited discrimination of the effects of different exposure indices 24-h magnetic field Gender Matched analysis measurements in the Age oonductedA prior child's bedroom Age at diagnosis cut-point of pT G 24-h magnetic field Socioeconomic was chosen http://www.niehs.nih.gov/em frapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43 .html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of ilea... Page 25 of 36 Cancer Registry (1988-1993) of persons less than 15 years of age and a resident of Lower Saxony at the date of diagnosis 219 cases were identified 1 29 cases had 24-h magnetic field measurements recorded for registration of residents Two controls per case were selectedone control from the same registration office as the caseone control selected from a randomly chosen registration office in Lower Saxony 328 controls had 24-h magnetic field measurements recorded measurements in the status living room Urbanization Spot measurement at the residence where the child lived the longest Non-blinded magnetic field assessment Low percentage of subjects exposed to measured magnetic field strengths greater than 2 I~T (1.5% of the entire study population) * All studies are case-control with the exceptions of Verkasalo et al. (1993), Lin and Lee (1994), and Li et al. (1998), which are cohort studieslAnalysis results based upon dwelling counts of cases and controls Table 4.2i Childhood leukemia Studies wire Exposure Leukemia no. RR (95% CI) Acute RR (95% CI) codes classification cases lymphoblastic no. of cases Wertheimer & Birth address: Leaper LCC 84 reference (1979) HCC 52 2.28 (1.34- Death address: 92 3.91 ) LCC 63 reference HCC 2.98 (1.78- 4.98) Savitz et aL HCC/LCC 27 ! 70 1.54 (0.90- (1988) VHCC/Buried 7 / 28 2.63) 2.75 (0.94- 8.04) London et aL UG+VL 31 references (1991 ) OLCC 58 0.95 (0.53- OHCC 80 1.69) VHCC 42 1.44 (0.81- 2.56) 2.15 (1.08- 4.26) Linetetal UG+VLCC (1997) OLCC OHCC VHCC <19 / 59 1.28 (0.70- 6 / 24 2.34) 2.75 (0.90- 8.44) 175 references 116 1.07 (0.74- 87 1.54) 24 0.99 (0.67- 1.48) O.88 (0.48- 1.63) Calculated fields http://www.niehs.nih.gov/em frapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43,html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies ofcarcinogenicityin children- Assessment ofHea... Page26of36 Feychting & Unmatched analyses Ahlbom (IJT) (1993) <0.1 27 reference 0.1-0.19 4 2.1 (0.6-6.1) >0.2 7 2.7 (1.0-6.3) >0.3 7 3.8 (1.4-9.3) Matched analyses:(pT) 0.1-0.19 4.3 (1.0-8.9) >0.2 3.5 (0.9-13.6) Olsen et aL (pT) (1993) < 0.1 829 reference 0.1-0.24 1 0.5 (0.1-4.3) >0.25 3 1.5 (0.3-6.7) >0.40 3 6.0 (0.8-44) Verkasalo et aL Cumulative exposure (IJT- (1993, 1994) years) 32 0.90 (0.62- 0.01-0.39 3 1.3) >0.40 3 1.2 (0.26-3.6) >1.0 3.5 (0.7-10) Average exposure (IJT) 0.01-0.19 32 >0.2 3 0.89 (0.61- 1.3) 1.6 (0.32-4.5) Tynes & Huldersen (1997) Average exposure (pT) < 0.05 139 reference 0.05-0.13 8 1.8 (O.7-4.2) >0.14 1 0.3 (0.0-2.1) Closest to diagnosis (pT) <0.05 134 reference 0.05-0.13 10 1.5 (0.7-3.3) >0.14 4 0.8 (0.3-2.4) >0.2 2 0.5 (0.1-2.2) Spot measurements Savitz et aL (1988) London et al (1991) Low Power conditions (pT) < 0.2 31 reference >0.2 5 1.93 (0.67- High power conditions (pT) 5.56) < 0.2 30 >0.2 7 reference Electric fields (pT) 1.41 (0.57- < 12 Vim 31 3.50) >12 Vim 6 reference 0.75 (0.29- 1.91) Low power conditions (pT) < 0.032 67 reference 0.032-0.067 34 1.01 (0.61- 0.068-0.124 23 1.69) >0.125 16 1.37 (0.65- 2.91) 1.22 (0.52- 2.82) 23 3 23 4 23 4 reference 1.56 (0.42- 5.75) reference 1.05 (0.34- 3.26) reference O.67 (O.22- 2.04) http://www.niehs.nih.gov/em frapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43 .html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of ilea... Page 27 of 36 Michaelis (1997b) London, etaL (1991) Michaelis, et aL (1997a) Michaelis et aL (1997b) Linet et aL (1997) Short-term measurement (pT) 170 reference < 0.2 6 0.7 (0.3-1.8) >0.2 24 hour measurements (pT) 85 reference 0-0.067 35 0.68 (0.39- 0.068-0.118 24 1.17) 0.119-0.267 20 0.89 (0.46- >0.268 1.71 ) 1.48 (0.66- 3.29) Median of measurements (pT) < 0.2 >0.2 Mean of measurements (pT) < 0.2 >0.2 Median during the night (pT) <0.2 >0.2 Median of measurements (pT) < 0.2 >0.2 Median during the night (pT) <0.2 >0.2 Unmatch Analysis (pT) < 0.065 0.065-0.099 0.1-0.199 0.2-0.299 0.3-0.399 0.4-0.499 >0.5 >0.2 >0.3 Matched Analysis (pT) <0.065 0.065-0.099 0.1-0.199 0.2-0.299 0.3-0.399 0.4-0.499 >0.5 >0.2 125 reference 4 3.2 (0.7-14.9) 125 reference 4 1.5 (0.4-5.5) 124 reference 5 3.9 (0.9-16.9) 167 reference 9 2.3 (0.8-6.7) 167 reference 9 3.8 (1.2-11.9) 267 123 151 38 22 14 9 83 45 2O6 92 107 29 14 10 5 58 reference 1.1 (0.81-1.50) 1.1 (0.83-1.48) 0.92 (0.57- 1.48) 1.39 (0.72- 2.72) 3.28 (1.15- 9.39) 1.41 (0.49- 4.09) 1.24 (0.86- 1.79) 1.7 (1.0-2.9) reference 0.96 (0.65- 1.40) 1.15 (0.79- 1.65) 1.31 (0.68- 2.51 ) 1.46 (0.61- 3.50) 6.41 (1.30- 31.73) http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of Hea... Page 28 of 36 1.01 (0.26- 3.99) 1.53 (0.91- 2.56) Table 4.22 Results for childhood nervous system tumors Studies Exposure No. of cases RR (95% CI) classification Wire codes Wertheimer and Leeper Birth address (1979) HCC/LCC 22 / 35 Death address HCC/LCC 30 / 36 Savitz et al. HCC/LCC 20 / 39 2.36 (1.03-5.41) 2.40 (1.15-5.01 ) 2.04 (1.11-3.76) (1988) VHCC/Buried Preston-Martin et al. UG (1996a) VLCC/OLCC OHCC VHCC Gurney et al. High/Iow 3 / 17 1.94 (0.47-7.95) 39 2.3 (1.2-4.3) 114 reference 97 0.8 (0.6-1.2) 31 1.2 (0.6-2.2) 23 / 97 0.9 (0.5,1.5) (1996) UG VLCC OLCC OHCC VHCC Calculated fields 47 reference 39 1.3 (0.7-2.1) 11 0.7 (0.3-1.6) 19 1.1 (0.6-2.1) 4 0.5 (0.2-1.6) Feychting & Ahlbom Unmatched analyses (pT) (1993) < 0.1 29 0.1-0.19 2 >0.2 2 >0.3 2 Matched analyses 0.1-0.19 >0.2 Olsen et al. < 0.1 621 (1993) 0.1-0.24 1 >0.25 2 >0.4 2 Verkasalo et aL Cumulative exposure (pT-years) (1993) 0.01-0.39 32 >0.40 7 >1.0 3 Average exposure (pT) 0.01-0.19 34 reference 1.0 (0.2-3.8) 0.7 (0.1-2.7) 1.0 (0.2-3.9) 0.8 (0.1-4.9) 0.7 (0.1-3.2) reference 1.0 (0.1-9.6) 1.0 (0.2-5.0) 6.0 (0.7-44) (SIR) 0.82 (0.56-1.2) 2.3 (0.94,4.8) 2.8 (0.6-8.1) 0.85 (0.59-1.2) http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of Hea... Page 29 of 36 Tynes & Haldorsen (1997) >0.2 5 2.3 (0.75-5.4) Average exposure (pT) < 0.05 144 reference 0.05-0.13 8 1.9 (0.8-4.6) >0.14 4 0.7 (0.2-2.1) Closest to diagnosis (pT) < 0.05 142 reference 0.05-0.13 5 0.9 (0.3-2.5) >0.14 9 1.1 (0.5-2.5) Measurements Savitz et aL (1988) Preston-Martin et al. (1996) Spot measurements Low power conditions (pT) < 0.2 23 reference >0.2 2 1.04 (0.22-4.81) High power conditions < 0.2 22 reference >0.2 3 0.82 (0.23-2.93) Electric fields (V/m) < 12 22 reference >12 3 0.53 (0.15-1.81 ) Spot measurements (pT) > 0.2 13 0.7 (0.3-1.5) > 0.25 11 0.9 (0.3-2.3) > 0.3 7 0.9 (0.3-3.2) p for trend 0.29 24-h measurements (pT) > 0.2 16 1.2 (0.5-2.8) > 0.25 13 1,4 (0.5-3.8) > 0.3 12 1.7 (0.6-5.0) p for trend 0.79 STAR profiles (pT) > 0.2 13 1.2 (0.5-3.3) > 0.25 10 1.5 (0,5-5.1) > 0.3 5 0.9 (0.2-4.1) p for trend 0.82 Table 4.23 Results for childhood lymphoma Studies Exposure classification No. of RR (95% CI) cases Wire codes Wertheimer and Leeper Birth address (1979) HCC/LCC Death address HCC/LCC Savitz et aL HCC/LCC (1988) VHCC/Buried 10 / 21 2.48 (0.73-8.37) 18 / 26 2.08 (0.84-5.16) 5 0.80 (0.29-2.18) 3 3.30 (0.80-13.65) http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of ilea... Page 30 of 36 Calculated fields Feychting & Ahlbom Unmatched analyses (pT) (1993) < 0.1 16 reference 0.1-0.19 1 0.9 (0.0-5.2) >0.2 2 1.3 (0.2-5.1) >0.3 1 0.9 (0.0-5.4) Matched analyses 0.1-0.19 0.8 (0.1-7.8) >0.2 0.9 (0.2-5.0) Olsen et al. < 0.1 247 reference (1993) 0.1-0.24 2 5.0 (0.7-36) >0.25 1 5.0 (0.3-82) >0.4 1 5.0 (0.3-82) Verkasalo et al. Cumulative exposure (pT-years) (SIR) (1993) 0.01-0.39 14 0.88 (0.48-1.5) >0.40 1 0.64 (0.02-3.6) Average exposure (pT) 0.01-0.19 15 0.91 (0.51-1.5) >0.2 0 0.0 (0.0-4.2) Tynes & Haldorsen Average exposure (pT) (1997) < 0.05 27 reference 0.05-0.13 1 1.0 (0.1~8.7) >0.14 2 2.5 (0.4-15.5) Closest to diagnosis (pT) < 0.05 27 reference 0.05-0.13 1 0.8 (0.1-6.7) >0.14 2 1.2 (0.2-6.4) Measurements Savitz et al. (1988) Spot measurements Low power conditions (pT) < 0.2 11 reference >0.2 2 2.17 (0.46-10.31) High power conditions < 0.2 10 reference >0.2 3 1.81 (0.48-6.88) Electric fields (V/m) < 12 11 reference >12 2 0.70 (0.15-3.27) Table 4.24 Summary of appliance studies Studies Appliances Leukemias Lymphoma Nervous system tumors Prenatal Postnatal Prenatal Postnatal Prenatal Postnatal Savitz Electric blanket 1.3 (0.7-2.6) 1.5 (0.5-5.1) 1.1 (0,4- 1.0 (0.2- 1.8 (0.9- 1.2 (0.3- http://www.niehs.nih.gov/em frapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of Hca... Page 31 of 36 et aL 3.6) 8.6) 4.0) 5.7) (1990)1 London et al. (1991 )2 Preston- Martin et aL (1996a)1 Electric water bed 0.3 (0.1-1.2) 0.7 (0.2-2.5) 0.5 (0.2- 2.0) Bedside electric 0.9 (0.5-1.6) 1.4 (0.7-2.9) 0.5 (0.2- 1.5 (0.6- 0.8 (0.4- clock 1.2) 4.5) 1.7) Heating pad 0.9 (0.4-2.2) 2.0 (0.7- 0.9 (0.4- 5.9) 2.7) Hair dryer 0.5 (0.2-1.3) 0.7 (0.2- 2.5) Bedroom. air 0.91 (0.51- 0.54 (0.21-1.25) conditioner 1.66) Electric blanket Electric fan Electric space heater Electric water bed B&W television Electric clock (all) Electric clock-dial Electric clock- digital Color television Curling iron Electric clippers Electric hair dryer Microwave oven Video game Electric blanket Electric water bed Electric clock (all) Electric clock-dial Electric heat Electric heat- radiant Microwave Ham radio Hair dryer 1.21 0.66- 2.29 1.16 0.77- 1.75 1.18,0.62- 2.32 0.67,0.34- 1.28 7.0 (0.86-121.8) 1.20 (0.81-1.80) 1.45 (0.82-2.66) 1.49 (1.01-2.23) 1.33 (0.90-1.97) 1.88 (0.97-3.83) 1.10 (0.71-1.72) 1.06 (0.66-1.74 6.0 (0.72-104.8 1.0 (0.06-19.60 2.82 (1.42-6.32 0.81 (0.48-1.36 1.57 (0.80-3.27 1.2 (0.6- 2.2) 2.1 (1.0- 4.2) 1.0 (0.8- 1.3) 1.1 (0.7- 1.8) 1.6 (0.8- 3,0) 1.3 (0.2- 8,3) 1.4 (0.9- 2.3) 0.3 (0.1- 2.7) 1.1 (0.5- 2.8) 0.6 (0.3- 1.7) 1.2 (0.5- 3.0) 2.0 (0.6- 6.8) 0.7 (0.4- 1.0) 0.6 (0.3- 1.4) 1.3 (0.7- 2.4) 1.4 (0.4- 5,o) 1.0 (0.6- 1.5) 2.1 (0.2- 23.7) 1.2 (0.7- 2.1) http://www.niehs.nih.gov/em frapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43 .html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of ilea... Page 32 of 36 Curling iron 1.0 (0.4- 2.5) B&W television 0.7 (0.4- 1.4) Baby monitor 0.6 (0.2- 0.7) Preston- Electric blanket 0.9 (0.6- 1.0 (0.6- Martin 1.2) 1.7) et aL (1996b)1 Hatch et aL (1998) Electric water bed Electric blanket Ever used Electric water bed Ever used Hair dryer Ever used Curling iron Ever used Electric clock Digital display Dial display TV video game Ever used 1.59 (1.11- 2.29) 2.75 (1.52-4.98) 0.9 (0.67- 1.21) 1.19 (0.87-1.62) 1.14 (0.8- 1.61) 1.55 (1.18-2.05) 1.06 (0.83- 1.36) 1.74 (0.91-3.31) Reference: Never Reference: Not used or not used within during reference 3 feet year 0.98 (0.73- 1.31 ) 1.20 (0.83-1.76) 0.81 (0.52- 1.69 (0.61-4.65) 1.28) 1.91 (1.36-2.68) 0.9 (0.6- 1.2 (0.7- 1.3) 2.0) 1Odds ratios (ever use versus never use) 2Matched analysis. Odds ratios (prenatal use: anytime during pregnancy versus never use, postnatal use: at least once a week versus less than once a week) Table 4.25 Summary of meta-analysis results Meta- Studies All childhood Leukemias Lymphomas Central nervous analyses included cancers system tumors NRPB Wertheimer Measured Measured EMFs: (1992)1 and Leeper EMFs:l.82 (1.09- 1.16 (0.65-2.08) (1979) 3.04) Distance from EMF Fulton et al. Distance from source: (1980) EMF source:l.11 1.31 (0.72-2.21) Tomenius (0.71-1.73) Wire codes (HCC vs. (1986) Wire codes (HCC LCC): Savitz et aL vs. LCC):1.53 1.39 (1.08- 1.78) (1988) (1.04-2.25) Measured EMFs: 1.85 (0.91-3.77) Distance from EMF source: 1.09 (0.50-2.37) Wire codes (HCC vs LCC): 2.04 (1.11-3.76) http ://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of Hen... Page 33 of 36 Ahlbom et aL (1993) Washburn et aL (1994) 2,3 NAS Report (1994)2'4 Coleman et aL (1989) Lin and Lu (1989) Myers et aL (1990) London et al. (1991) Feychting and Ahlbom (1993) 1.3 (0.9-2.1) OIsen et aL (1993) Verkasalo et aL (1993) Wertheimer and Leeper (1979) Fulton et al. (1980) Tomenius (1986) Savitz et aL (1988) Coleman et aL (1989) Myers et aL (1990) London et aL (1991 ) Lowenthal et aL (1991) Fajardo- Gutierrez (1993) Feychting and Ahlbom (1993) Olsen et aL (1993) Petridou et aL (1993) Verkasalo et aL (1993) Wertheimer and Leeper (1979) Fulton et al. (1980) Tomenius (1986) Savitz et al. (1988) Coleman et a/. (1989) London et al. (1991 ) Fajardo- Gutierrez (1993) Feychting and Ahlbom (1993) Calculated EMFs: Calculated EMFs: 2.1 (1.1-4.1) Distance from EMF source: 1.49 (1.11-2.00) Wire codes (HCC vs. LCC): 1.48 (1.18-1.85) - fixed 1.52 (1.08-2.14) - random Wire codes and distances less than 100 m: 1.36 (1.13-1.63) - fixed 1.38 (1.08-1.76)- random Spot measurements (2 mg exposures and greater): 0.92 (0.57-1.49) - fixed 0.89 (0.51-1.57) - random Calculated EMFs: Calculated EMFs: 1.0 (0.3- 3.7) 1.5 (0.7-3.2) Distance from EMF Distance from EMF source: source: 1.58 (0.91- 2.76) 1.89 (1.34-2.67) http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapiddhtml/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of ilea... Page 34 of 36 Olsen et aL (1993) Petridou et aL (1993) Verkasalo et aL (1993) Feychting Feychting and 0.1 - 0.19 pT: 1.4 10.1 - 0.19 pT: 2.0 0.1 - 0.19 pT: 0.7 1.0 - 1.9 mG: 1.1 et al. Ahlbom (1993) (0.6-2.9) (0.7-5.3) (0.1-5.6) (0.3-3.6) (1995)s Olsen et al. >0.2:1.5 (0.9-2.7) >0.2:2.0 (1.0-4.1) >0.2:2.1 (0.8-5.5) >2.0:0.8 (0.3-2.4) (1993) >0.5:3.5 (1.7-7.3) >0.5:5.1 (2.1-12.6) >0.5:3.3 (0.7-15.0) >5.0:2.3 (0.6-8.0) Meinert and Wedheimer Wire code (HCC Wire code (HCC vs. Wire code (HCC Wire code (HCC Michaelis and Leeper vs. LCC): LCC): vs. LCC):1.32 vs. LCC): (1996)2,6 (1979) 1.37 (0.94-2.00) 1.66 (1.11-2.49) (0.52-3.37) 1.50 (0.69-3.26) Fulton et aL (1980) Distance: Distance: Distance: Tomenius < 100 m: 1.09 < 100 m: 1.13 (0.79- < 50 m: 1.53 (0.19- (1986 ) (0.89-1.35) 1.62) 12.0) SavitzetaL <50m: 1.10 <50m: 1.31 (0.92- (1988) (0.86-1.40) 1.87) EMF measures: Coleman et al. < 25 m: 1.42 < 25 m: 1.85 (0.98- > 0.1 pT: 0.89 (1989) (0.88-2.29) 3.49) EMF measures: (0.39-2.05) Myers et aL > 0.1 pT: 2.18 > 0.2 pT: 1.30 (1990) EMF measures: EMF measures: (0.51-9.34) (0.78-2.19)> 0.3 London et aL > 0.1 pT: 0.97 > 0.1 pT: 1.55 (0.88- > 0.2 pT: 2.21 pT: 1.89 (0.80- (1991 ) (0.82-1.15) 2.73) (0.72-6.80) 4.43) Fajardo- > 0.2 pT: 1.23 > 0.2 pT: 1.89 (1.10- > 0.3 pT: 1.69 Gutierrez (0.96-1.57) 3.26) (0.43-6.59) (1993) > 0.3 pT: 1.62 > 0.3 pT: 1.27 (0.28- Feychting and (1.10-2.39) 5.76) Ahlbom (1993) Olsen et aL (1993) Petridou et aL (1993) Verkasalo et al. (1993) Preston-Martin et aL (1994) 1Relative risk estimates do not incorporate the results from the Wertheimer and Leeper (1979) study 2Relative risk estimates do incorporate the results from the Wertheimer and Leeper (1979) study 3Relative risk estimates in relation to distances 50 meters and greater 4Relative risk estimates based upon fixed and random effects statistical models 5Relative risk estimates in relation to calculated historical magnetic field exposures less than 0.1 pT (1 mG, adjusted for age, gender, and country) 6Relative risk estimates in relation to dichotomous cut-points Table 4.26 Summary of NIEHS meta-analysis Leukemia: No. of No. of Random Fail-safe N Sample P-Value for Range of odds meta-analysis studies exposed effects size heterogeneity ratios from cases odds ratio needed sensitivity (95% Cl) analysis http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of ilea... Page 35 of 36 Calculated Fields 5 20 1.6 (1.0-2.7) -- 3268 0.4 1.3-1.8 Measured Fields 6 125 1.3 (0.8-2.0) - 2454 0.1 1,1-1,4 Wire Codes 5 336 1.4 (1.0-2.0) 13 1898 0.03 1,3-1,6 Proximity to 11 375 1.4 (1.1-1.8) 31 3433 0.06 1,3-1.5 electrical facilities Leukemia: No. of dose-response studies analysis Random Regression Standard P-Value for effects slope error heterogeneity relative risk test (95% Cl) per 0.1 uT Spot 4 measurements Calculated fields 0.2 or 0.25 IJT 4 0.3 or 0.4 pT 4 Wire codes Scored by spot 2 measurements Scored by 24- 2 hour Bedroom measurements 1.1 (0.9-1.3) 0.08 0.10 0.3 1.2 (0.9-1.5) 0.16 0.13 0.2 1.2 (1.0-1.5) 0.20 0.11 0,2 2,7 (0.8-8.7) 0.99 0,60 0.1 1.6 (0.5-4.6) 0,45 0.55 0.02 Brain cancer: meta analysis No. of No. of Random Fail-safe N Sample studies exposed effects size cases odds ratio needed (95'/. CI) P-value for Range of odds heterogeneity ratios from sensitivity analysis Calculated fields 4 Measured fields 4 Wire codes 4 Proximity to 6 electrical facilities Spot 3 measurements Calculated fields 0.2 or 0.25 IJT 4 0.3 or 0.4 pT 4 13 1.2 (0.6-2.4) -- 2699 36 1.4 (0.8-2.4) -- 612 193 1.2 (0.7-2.2) -- 1106 208 1.1 (0.7-1.7) -- 1790 0.2 0.8-1.5 0.4 1.1-1.6 0.01 1.0-1.5 0.03 0.9-1.3 1.1(0.7-1.6) 0.05 0.20 1.1(0.9-1.3) 0.08 0.08 1.1(1.0-1.3) 0.10 0.07 Brain cancer: No. of Random Regression Standard dose response studies effects slope error analysis relative risk (95% Cl) per 0.1 pT P-Value for heterogeneity test Wire codes Scored by spot measurement Flat model 2 1.2 (0.8-2.0) 0.22 0.23 Linear model 2 1.2 (0.7-2.0) 0.18 0.25 0.3 0.2 http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 Chapter 4.3 Epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity in children - Assessment of ilea... Page 36 of 36 Back to: Assessment of Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields EMFRAPID Home I NIEHS Home For More Information About EMF: Web Center Last Modified: 04 Oct 2002 http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter43.html 6/27/2007 MICRO WAVE NEWS Vol. XXIII No. 1 A Report on Non-Ionizing Radiation December 2004 Suppo~ source for news and effects of EMFs and RF radiation Microwave ~rews is now distributed free of charge, so we need your support more than ever. Please sena us what you can. Simply fill out and mail or fax us the form on p.8. Thank you! This is our first special issue since we stopped pubtishing on a bimonthly schedule last yeah The full text can also be read on our Web site, .<www. microwavenews.com>, where you can also access numerous links to papers and documents, as well as to the abstracts and PowerPoint presentations from the International Scientific Con- terence on Childhood Leukaemia, held in London, September 6-10, 2004. MICROI'FAVE NEWS · ISSN 0275-6595 · 155 East 77th Street, New York, NY 10021 · (212)517-2800 · Fax:(212) 734-0316 · E-mail: <mwn~pobox.com> ° Web: <www.microwavenews.com > · Editor and Publisher: Louis Slesin, PhD; Consulting Editor: Douglas Barnes, PbD; Copy Editor: David Penick · Copyright (© 2004 by Louis Slesin- Reproduction is forbidden without written permission. The Case for EMF Precautionary Policies WHO and Public Health Officials Stand in the Way Eight Wrongheaded Excuses Debunked in London Precautionary policies to protect children from power line electromag- netic fields (EMFs) should have been adopted years ago. It's a no-bminer, yet health officials continue to sit on their hands. There has long been widespread agreement that EMFs are linked to child- hood leukemia. They are also likely to play a role in both brain and breast cancer as well as in miscarriages and in neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's and ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. But health agencies have been unwilling to move against these largely preventable risks, lt's astonishing that those charged with promoting public health not just electric utility executives are the roadblocks to change. The most recent betrayal came in Novembcr when the World Health Organization's (WHO) EMF project refused to recommend any action under the precautionary principle. The WHO report reads more like a business plan than a road map for promoting children's health. Indeed, its first option for dealing with EMFs is to "do nothing." Nor does the WHO want anyone else to take firm action. Mike Repacholi, the bead of the EMF project, and his assistant Leeka Kheifets am discourag- ing national health officials from setting new stricter exposure standards for power-frequency EMFs. Instead they continue to endorse a recklessly lenient exposure limit of 1,000 mG( 100 uT). This is inexcusable given that the thresh- old for the childhood leukemia risk appears to be about 3-4mG. They don't even advocate some kind of ALARA policy (reducing exposures "as low as reasonably achievable"), an option which has been used to control ionizing radiation risks for generations. Unfortunately, the WHO is hardly alone. In the US, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the American Cancer Society have all mi'used to alert thc public about EMFs. In the UK and many other countries, health agencies are also remaining silent. Utilities are sure to resist changes in EMF policies and the only way they (continued on p.2) The Case for EMF Precautionary Policies will ever mitigate exposures is if they are forced to do so. But what's the excuse for those whose mission is to protect public health? Why doesn't the public health community speak up? Eight Possible Excuses--Ail Bogus Over thc years, those who stand in thc way of stricter expo- sum roles have offered eight reasons: · Epidemiological studies linking childhood leukemia to EM Fs are flawed and unreliable. · Epidemiological studies carded out in the US and the UK don't show a link between EMF exposure and childhood leukemia. · Despite a steady increase in electrification over the last cen- tory, them has been no parallel increase in the incidence of child- hood leukemia. ·Thcm is no conceivable mechmfism by which EMFs can influ- ence the development of leukemia. · EMFs can't cause cancer because the fields don't have enough energy to break chemical bonds. · Air pollution from roadway traffic is a mom impm~ant risk factor for childhood leukemia than EMFs. · A vires is a more likely cause of childhood leukemia. · And even if it were true that EMFs could lead to childhood leukemia, thc risk is so small that it's not worth bothering about. Each one of these excuses is wrong. Every single one of them. This was brought home at the International ConJbrence on Childhood Leukemia, held in London, September 6-10, spon- sored by Children with Leukemia, a UK charity. All the poten- tial risk factors were on the agenda. There were lectures on ion- izing radiation, viruses, air pollution, light-at-night and EMFs. It was a rewarding and eye-opening week and infuriating be- cause in the end them was simply no way to excuse the indiffer- ence and complacency of those charged with protecting the pub- lic fi.om EMFs. Hem's the real story. EMF Epidemiological Studies Show a Consistent and Robust Cancer Effect The epidemiological evidence linking EMFs to childhood leukemia is "rather strong and consistent," said Anders Ahlbom in London. He believes that them is no point doing any more epi- demiological studies, at least until we know how EMFs can trig- ger or promote cancer Ifa biophysical mechanism were in hand, Ahlbom would no doubt drop all the caveats and qualifiers. Ahlbom, one of the world's leading cpidemiologists, is the deputy director of thc Institute of Environmental Medicine at the Kamlinska in Stockholm. He has been studying EMFs and childhood leukemia for 20 years and is known to be cautious and not to overreach. In thc early 1990s, Ahlbom and Maria Feychting put the skep- tics on the run when they published their study of childhood leukemia and power lines in Sweden. But their study had only a small number of cases and there remained some uncertainW as to how reliable the results really wcm. Ahlbom then assembled epidemiologists from nine different countries, each of whom had carried out their own EMF-leukc- mia studies. They combined and analyzed all their mw data and found that the link became stronger and undeniable. In 2000, they announced that children who lived in fields of over 4 mG (0.4uT) had twice as much leukemia as those exposed to less than I mG. Any lingering doubts were put to mst by a second metu-analy- sis, headed up by another eminent epidemiologist, Sander Greenland of the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA). Greenland, using a somewhat different nfix of past studies, came up with essentially the same result. The International Agency for Reseamh on Cancer (IARC) was convinced. In the summer of 2001, an IARC panel unani- mously classified EMFs as a possible human caminogen, largely based on the Ahlbom and Greenland papers. The committee even came close to upgrading the threat level and designating EMFs as a "probable" cancer agent. One of those who argued for the stronger classification was Chris Pottier of the US N1EHS. Even after the two recta-analyses were completed, additional epidemiological studies have been released that also support the EMF-cancer link. At the London leukemia conference, a Japa- nese team led by Michinori Kabuto reported that it too had found support for the association --with an even higher estimated risk. Children exposed to 4 mG or more had close to five times thc expected rate of leukemia. WHO's Repacholi's main excuse tbr refusing to act on the cpidemiological studies is they are biased. It's tree that epidemi- ology has its imperfections and is susceptible to errors. But, in the casa of EMFs, essentially all the reliable epidemiological studies point to a leukemia risk. It seems highly unlikely that whatever errors were made in each of thc different countries all around the world, they all led to a finding that EMFs are linked to higher rates of childhood leukemia. Mistakes would have a random effect and sometimes lead to a finding of no risk. But that was not the case, In London, Anders Ahlbom put concerns about the reliabil- ity of the epidemiology to rest. Confounding by other possible risk t~actors (for instance, air pollution from traffic, etc.) "does not seem to be a real issue," he said. And if the methodology had biased the result, he added, the effect would have been small with a very limited impact on the overall risk estimates. And then Ahlbom, dropped a bombshell. For the first time, he suggested that them was probably a leukemia risk below 4 mG because, he said, it is unlikely that them is a threshold for the EMF effect. Though the risk below 4mG would be quite small !hr any single individual, he argued, the societal risk would be signifi- cant due to the huge number of children exposed to low-level 2 MICROWAVE NEWS December 2004 The Case for EMF Precautionary Policies fields. The net result,Ahlbom advised, would be that same num- ber of children would develop leukemia below 4 mG as above 4 roG. In one step,Ahlbom doubled the number of children at risk of leukemia from EMFs. Anders Ahlbom's message was clear: The epidcmiology is reliable and thc EMF leukemia risk is beyond reasonable doubt. The US and UK Studies Do Point to a Leukemia Risk The conventional wisdom is that the US and UK leukemia studies--led by Martha Linet of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Nick Day of thc University of Cambridgc, respec- tively-show no link to EMFs. This was the view offered by the study teams when they released their results and was further bolstered by commentaries that accompanied their publication. In 1997, an editorial in thc New England Journal of Medi- cine, "Power Lines, Cancer and Fear," which appeared in the same issue as the Linet study, proclaimed that it was time to stop all EMF research. The headline of the New Scientist's editorial following the release of the 1999 Day study needs no elabora- tion: "It's Official. Power Lines Don't Give Children Leuke- mia.'' They wanted everyone to believe that the issue was now closed. But, as is so of[en the case, the convcutional wisdom is wrong. The Linet and Day studies are major components of the Ahlbom meta-analysis. (The Liner study, but not Day's, was also included in the Greenland recta-analysis). If they had been as dead nega- tive as was being portrayed, the meta-analysis would also have shown no leukemia risk. Together the US and UK studies contributcd more than half the total number of leukemia cases from the nine countries par- ticipating in the Ahlbom recta-analysis. The original 1992 Swed- ish study, though clearly pointing to a cancer risk, made up only 2% of Ahlbom's overall total and had little hnpact on his final risk estimate. The US study by itself has the largest number of cases with exposures above 4 mG and it does indicate a leukemia risk above this level. In its published recta-analysis, Ahlbom's team notcd that when the US data were excluded, the association between EMFs and childhood leukemia actually became weaker and its statistical significance became marginal. Far from negating the leukemia risk, the US data amplified it. Nick Day's UK study is also an integral part of the EMF leu- kemia equation. But it tums out that there are even stronger data that have been kept out of public sight. In October, the news media revealed thanks to a leak from power line activists-- that a UK Deparm~ent of Health study of 70,000 children showcd that children who live near power lines had double the risk of developing leukemia. Gerald Draper, who led that study at the Childhood Cancer Research Group in Oxford, told the press that he kept thc results under wraps because he had been surprised by the result. Sur- prised? Not likely. Draper's findings are entirely consistent with what had been reported in any number of previous studies. It could only be surprising if Draper was unaware of the EMF epi- demiological literature that had accumulated over the last 25 years. Now, that would be surprising. Draper, the National Radiological Pmtectinn Board (NRPB) and the UK Department of Health have been sitting on these findings for a couple of years--some say, longer. No one seemed to be at all embarrassed by the revelation that they have long been keeping people in the dark. The disconcerting fact is that cancer researchers in the US, the UK and elsewhere have felt no need to set the record straight and tell the public that there is indeed an EMF health risk. Leukemia Rates Are Rising in US, UK and Ail Over Europe When the EMF controversy was heating up in thc early 1990s, David Jackson, a particle physicist turned amateur epidemiolo- gist at the University of California, Berkeley, set out to show that EMFs could not promote cancen His argument was decep- tively simple: The use of electric power had surged in the 20th century bringing much mom human exposure to EMFs. So if EMFs were to pose a cancer risk, there would have been a paral- lel increase in cancen Since cancer rates have held steady, EMFs must be harmless. Simple, but wrong. Most rank-and-file epidemiologists immediately dismissed Jackson's thesis. (Why do so many people think they can do epi- demiology as well, if not better, than those trained to be epide- miologists?) Nevertheless, Jackson won a large following among those eager to debunk the EMF health risk. Among the most zealous of these were some of Yale University's most senior physics professors, including Robert Adair, William Bennett and Allan Bromley. In an elegant presentation at the opening session of the Lon- don conference, Michel Coleman, a professor of epidemiology and medical statistics at the London School of Hygieuc and Tropi- cal Medicine, showed that the incidence of childhood leukemia in the UK has in Pact been going up, on average, about 1% per yeah Even this small rate of growth compounds to an overall increase of about 60% over the last 50 years--and a fivefold jump over the 20th century. No one knows what is causing this "steady increase," Coleman said. Britain is not alone. Childhood leukemia is also rising in the US. The NCI reports that the annual number of cases of leuke- mia went up by over 60% between 1950 and 2000, an increase of just less than 1% a year, about the same rate as in the UK. Paid this December, IARC announced tbat cancer rates among children in 19 European countries have been increasing over the last 30 years once again by about 1% per yeah In his talk, Sam Milham, an American epidemiologist who in 1982 first reported that EMF-exposed workers had elevated rates of leukemia, presented a series of graphs showing how rates of leukemia have changed over the 20th century among children of various ages. He made a strong case that thc now well-known peak in the incidence of leukemia, which occurs an~ong 2- m 7- MICROWAVE NEWS December 2004 3 The Case for EMI: Precautionary Policies year-olds, did not exist prior to thc widespread electrification of the US in the 1920s. With each passing decade one could see that thc peak had become more and more distinct in the incidence curves. That same grovnh of the childhood leukemia peak can be seen in the new IARC study which was published in the De- cember 11 issue of The Lancet. Milham estimates that if needless EMF exposure were to be stopped, 60% of all childhood leukemia could be prevented. EMFs Can Cause DNA Breaks Without Breaking Chemical Bonds The reason that epidemiologists often appear to be ambiva- lent about emphasizing the link between EMFs and childhood leukemia is that no one knows how the fields can trigger or pro- mote cancer. Take for example, the most recent review by members of ICNIRP's epidemiology committee. "On initial consideration, it is not obvious that EMFs would pose any hazard to human health," they wrote. "In particular, this radiation has insufficient energy to damage DNA directly, and theretbre in principle should not be capable of initiating cancers." The chair of this commit- tee is none other than Anders Ahlbom, who has done more than anyone else to legitimize the EMF leukemia link. It's true that power-frequency EMFs do not have enough quantum energy to break a chemical bond, but that does not mean that they cannot damage DNA. What too often goes unmentioned is that at least halfa dozen research labs have reported an increase in the number of DNA breaks among cells exposed to power-frequency EMFs. That's still a big step away fi'om understanding how EMFs can damage DNA, but it does say that DNA is susceptible to EMFs and it gives us clues as to where to look for thc underlying mechanisms. Henry Lai was the first to show, back in 1997, that power- frequency EMFs can cause both single and double-strand DNA breaks. In his talk in London, Lai listed five published studies from other labs that have also documented EMF-induccd DNA damage. At the same time, he also acknowledged that five other labs had failed to sec a similar effect. Lai then took the next logical step. He attempted to reconcile thc conflicting findings. He outlined a model in which magnetic fields lead to the production of free radicals, molecules that can damage DNA. Using this hypothesis, he was able to explain why at least two of the labs had failed to see thc DNA breaks following EMF exposure. Lai sees a measure of consistency where others see only mess of conflicting results. Few physicists have devoted much time to trying to explain what EMFs may be capable of doing. Some thanries have been proposed, but much more work needs to be done. Mechanisms of interaction have always been a tough problem. We have long accepted that cigarette smoke and asbestos are potent careino- gens, but only recently have we come to understand the way they do their dirty work. And thcre is still much to learn about even these "well-established carcinogens." There's Much To Learn About Causes Of DNA Damage and About Much Else On the last day of the London meeting, David Gee of the European Envimmnent Agency reminded the audience that"mis- placed certainty about the absence of harm" has caused a lot suffering over the years. He urged everyone to have a lill. le "more humility" and a little "less hubris" about what we think we know about the way nature works. Previous talks by Eric Wright of the University of Dundee and Munira Kadhim of the UK Medical Research Council were perfect illustrations of what Gee was talking about. Over the last ten yearn, Wright and Kadhim have nurtured a paradigm shift on how ionizing radiation can affect DNA. Simply put, they have shown that what was once thought to be highly improbable does in fact happen--if one knows how and where to look. They outlined three very surprising observations: First, ion- izing radiation can damage unexposed cells. Wright explained that by using a sharply focused radiation beam, one could see genetic effects among cells that are outside the target area. That is, DNA that was not hit by any radiation still showed clear evi- dence of damage. This has become known as the "bystander effect." The DNA breaks must have occurred by some mecha- nisms other than a direct attack on DNA chemical bonds. The precise mechanism of action is still murky, but some type of communication among the cells is likely at work. Second, exposing thc parts of the cell where there is no DNA to ionizing radiation can still result in DNA damage. And third, radiation effects sometimes only become appar- ent a long time after exposure. Kadhim has found that irradiated cells that appear to be normal can lead to offspring which, some generations later, have a higher than expected rate of spontane- ous mutations. This is known as radiation-induced ganomic in- stability. Kadhim has also found that ionizing radiation effects do not always follow a simple linear dose-response relationship. She has sometimes observed more pronounced effects at low expo- sures than at high ones. "What is going on at high doses is com- pletely different from what is going on at Iow doses," she said. However heretical all these findings may seem, they are now part of the mainstream science of radiation biophsyics. "There is now strong evidence from studies in a number of differeot cell culture systems that [the bystander effect and genomic instabil- ity] are real," wrote John Little of Harvard University in a recent review article. Fifteen years ago the late RossAdey, one of the world's lead- ing EMF researchers, dcscribcd how cells regulated their growth and survival by exchanging information. "Cells in body tissue initiate weak electrical and chemical signals by which they can 'whisper together' in a private language necessary for normal health of the tissue," Adey wrote in 1990. "lfthis normalpattern of communication is interrupted, unregulated cell gro'~,th may t~esult" [his emphasis]. Cancer is often defined as unregulated cell growth and could well result from such garbled exchanges of information. Much remains to be learned about this "private 4 MICROWA [~E NEWS December 2004 The Case for EMF Precautionary Policies language" and how EMFs can interfere with "conversations" among cells. The day afl.er Wright and Kadhim had outlined these once- unexpected genetic effects, Russell Foster presented his own perhaps even more startling breakthrough. Foster works with visible light and has discovered that, in addition to the well -known rods and cones, them is a third type of photoreceptor in the hu- man eye. This novel photoreceptor regulates circadian rhythms and, in mm, may play a crucial role in cancer development. (A quick aside on how scientists handle new ideas: Foster corrunented that he had had a very hard time publishing his find- ings on this new photomccptun He could not get his paper through peer review. His scientific colleagues--the very people who arc trained to have an open mind in their search to understand the world around them--were closed to his discovery. In this case, happily, Foster persevered and got his papers into print. But let there be no doubt that the deck can be stacked against those who venture against the prevailing dogma.) If we are still learning crucial aspects of what is surely one of the most studied parts of the human sensory system, how do we take seriously claims that EMFs cannot affect us? Afl.er hearing from Foster, Kadhim and Wright, some advice from Socrates, later offered by David Gee, seemed particularly apt: "Wisdom is m know that you don't know." Air Pollution Plays Only a Small Role, If Any, in Childhood Leukemia Concern that air pollution from mad and highway traffic could be a risk factor for childhood leukemia arose after Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper, and Iater David Savitz, implicated EMFs. Many of the early studies on air pollution and leukemia used data sets that had been collected for EMF epidemiological studies. EPRI, the research arm of the US electric utility industry, nuriumd and exploited the air pollution threat if only to get EMFs offthe hook. But EPRI was going down a blind alley. In her presentation in London, Peggy Reynolds, an cpidemiologist at the California health deparnnent, said that later studies, spe- cifically designed to investigate the role of air pollution, did not support the link. One single study~ however, docs point to a relatively strong air pollution risk it stands out like Gulliver among the Lilliputians when placed next to other similar eflbrts. This one study is by two other amateur cpidcmiologists, who had years of support from EPRI. Robert Pearson and Howard Wachtel say they sec a sixfold increase in leukemia among children living near high-traffic roads. Pearson is an engineer who worked for thc Public Service Company of Colorado, an electric utility, for close to 20 years and Wachtcl is an electrical engineer at the University of Colo- rado in Boulder and a former EPRI fellow. Over thc years, EPRI has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Pearson and Wachtel's efforts. The only real result has been a muddying of the EMF waters. Leeka Kheifets and Kristie Ebi were in charge of EPRI's contracts with Pearson and Wachtcl. In 2001 Kheifets left. EPRI to join Mike Repacholi at the WHO EMF project. Not long af- ter, Ebi took a partial sabbatical from EPRI to work at the WHO Regional Office for Europe in Rome where she wrote a chapter on EMF risks to children for the European Environment Agency. She concluded that any EMF effect "is likely to be small." That she was also working for EPRI went unmentioned. The same people who orchestrated efforts in the US to downplay the EMF threat then promoted a similar agenda at the WHO in Europe. Khcifcts's opinions while she was at EPRI were no secret. The fact that Repacholi recruited her to be his principal assistaot could well be interpreted to indicate that he never had any plans to Iimit children's exposures to EMFs. Search fora Leukemia V"trus Continues And Will No Doubt Go On and On The possibility that an infectious agent could lead to child- hood leukemia looks doubtful. Nothing has yet emerged despite years of hunting. There is no direct evidence of a virus, said Robin Weiss of University College, London, at the end of his talk. "Infection might not be relevant to childhood leukemia," he cautioned. Leo Kinlen of Cancer Research UK in Oxford is the main proponent ora virus theory. Mel Greaves of the Institute of Can- cer Reseamh in London favors a somewhat more complicated hypothesis. In his two-step model, leukemia results from a com- mon infectious agent, transmitied by population mixing, which prompts an abnormal immune response caused by some genetic event that had occurred in the womb. Greaves did not attend the London conference, leaving the floor to Kinlen, who, undeterred by Weiss's skepticism, made the case for an infectious agent. He closed his talk with the claim that a particularly large cluster of childhood leukemia in Fallon, Nevada, was a "confirmation" of his theory. Fallon is the home ora Naval Strike and Air Warfare Cen- ten According to one recent estimate, a cluster as big as the one identified there (11 cases between 1999 and 2001) would occur in the US by chance every 22,000 years. A naval base is a population mixing bowl. Tens of thousands of military personnel go in and out of Fallon every year: 55,000 people were temporarily assigned to the base in 2000, compared with 20,000 in 1990. Those 55,000 men and women could well have triggered the cluster, Kinlen said. But Kinlcn's argument lost its footing when Alasdair Philips, one of the organizers of the conference and the leader of Powerwatch, an influenfial activist group, asked why an influx of 20,000 visitors a year had not been enough mixing to initiate the clusten Kinlen offered no convincing response. Sam Milham later wondered why no one had mentioned the 37 powerful radars that are located at the Fallon training com- plex. He also thought that the idea that high-frequency electro- MICROWAVE NE~?S December 2004 5 The Case for EMF Precautionary Policies magnetic radiation might play a role in childhood leukemia would have developed more traction if a second leukemia cluster in Sierra Vista, Arizona, were better known. Sierra Vista is the home of Fort Huachuca, another electronic warlhre center--this one mn by the US Army. More than 40 years ago, Milham identified a cluster of childhood leukemia in Oneida County, home of Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, New York. The Lancet, one of the world's leading medical journals, published Milham's ob- servation of this abnomml clustering, back in 1963. There Is Much More At Stake Than Childhood Leukemia The meta-analyses show that exposing children to more lhan 3-4 mG doubles their risk of leukemia. According to a recent estimate from one of these pooled studies, approximately I% of childhood leukemia cases are attributable to EMFs. Factoring in what Ahlbom said in London about the risk of those exposed to less than 4 mG doubles the attributable fi'action to 2%. For the US, this means that about 180 cases of leukemia may be due to EMFs each year--with many more in the rest of the world. Let's assume that EMFs are responsible for 1,000 cases of childhood leukemia a year Would that be enough for the WHO and other health agencies to issue a warning to minimize EMF exposures? What about 3,000 cases? How about 5,000? Whatever the number might actually be, them can be no doubt that it is dwarfed by the annual toll due to AIDS, influenza, and the many other diseases that are at the top of WHO's agenda. But this is not a rationale for doing nothing. Another way to deal with competing health risks is to use similar safety factors in setting exposure standards. In his pre- sentation at the London conference, Michael Kundi of the Uni- versity of Vienna showed that applying thc same guidelines as thc WHO uses for air pollutants to EMFs would lead to an expo- sum limit of 2 mG (0.2 uT). This would be a 500-tbld reduction oftbe current ICNIRP standard of 1,000rog (100 uT). Them is another important mason to reduce exposures: Child- hood leukemia could be just the tip of the EMF iceberg. This link to EMFs has been relatively well studied compared with that of the many other diseases that may also be brought on by EMFs. Some of these are quite common. A report from the California health department recently con- cluded that exposures to power-frequency EMFs am likely as- sociated with adult brain cancer, ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) and miscarriagcs, as well as childhood leukemia. In addition, there are possible links to breast cancer, Alzhcimer's disease and childhood brain cancer If some of these connections turn out to be renl, then the cost-benefit equation would tilt sharply toward adopting sirict exposure limits. Why EMF Risks Get No Respect The Public Pushes for Change... If none of these masons carry much weight, why are E MFs health risks so easily dismissed? It's temptthg to say that most people don't believe the fields actually exist. No one can see, hear, feel, taste or touch EMFs, so maybe people think that they aren't really them. (Activists have found an easy way to show- case the fields by lighting up fluorescent tubes under a high- voltage power line.) But that isn't the answer The public has long been the prin- cipal driver of the EMF issue. In the 1980s, citizen concern over a new 765 -kV power linc prompted thc New York State reseamh program, which confirmed the 1979 Wcrtheimer-Leeper leuke- mia study. And a decade later, similar public fears led to the $7 million California EMF program which, as we have just seen. led to an expansion of the list of E MF-linked diseases far be- yond childhood leukemia. And without pressure from citizens across the country, the federal reseamh program, known as EMF RAPID, would never have gotten offthc ground. When the public first learned about EMFs--primarily from the writings of Paul Brodcur in The New Yorker dnring the late 1980s and early 1990s--the issue quickly moved from near- total obscurity to the top ofAmericas's envimnmental priorities. In Europe the public has also set thc EMF agenda. But be- cause the primar3' interest there has been on cell phones and towers, power-frequency EMFs have gotten only a small amount of attention. Switzerland and Italy stand out as exceptions, how- ever: Each has adopted some of thc most stringent exposure stan- dards for power-frequency EMFs in the world. ...But Advocacy Groups and The Media Don't Follow A more likely explanation for institutional complacency is that environmental, consumer and labor groups, which often lob- by for legislative and regulatory reforms, have not supported EMF activists. Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Gmcnpeace and Consum- ers Union have ali shied away from the EMF arena, virtually guaranteeing that current exposure limits will remain unjustly high. Even Children with Leukemia, the charity that sponsored the London meeting, refused to highlight the need to control EMF exposures. Each day of the meeting, its publicists issued press releases and made keynote speakers available for inter- 6 MICROWAVE NEWS December 2004 The Case for EMF Precautionary Policies views. The risks from ionizing radiation, light-at-night, diet and chemical pollutants were all promoted, and the British newspa- pers responded accordingly, though it is not clear whether head- lines like the one in the Daily Express--" How a Cuny Can Help in Cancer Fight"~helped or hindered the cause. Nor did anyone at the charily appear to be embarrassed when the Daily Telegraph ran a front-page story under the headline "Night Light Link to Child Leukemia'--even after Thomas Ermn of Germany's University of Cologne, a member of the conference scientific committee, pointed out that not a single study had ever linked light-at-night to childhood leukemia. Yet when it came to publicizing the EMF risk, Children with Leukemia got cold feet. A press release calling fbr precautionary policies, pegged to Michael Kundi's talk, was prepared but never distributed to reporters. "We did not feel wc bad a chance to convey the message without creating undue public alarm," ex- plained Edward Copisarow, the charity's chief executive. "We want to generate public concern, not public alarm." (An carlier draft endorsing Kundi's 2 mG (0.2 uT) proposal had been quickly scuttled as far too radical.) What is particularly surprising about Copisamw's hesitant approach to EMFs is that Eddie O'Gorman, who lbunded the charily after his son Paul died of leukemia at the age of 14, fin'nly believes that EMFs brought on Paul's cancen While the British press will mn as many EMF stories as it can find, many US reporters and editom long ago dismissed EMFs as the junk-science flavor of the month. The New York Times has led the pack. When Paul Brodeur's New Yorker articles were published in book form under the provocative title, Currents of Death, Bill Broad, a 7~mes science writer, ridiculed Brodeur by drawing a parallel between his claims and those of a "person asserting the earthly presence of space aliens." Broad is one among many. Respected magazines (The lantic) and television news shows (Frontline) have also de- nounccd those who say that EMFs can affect health. The Electric Utilities Control The Agenda... With a free pass from prcssum groups and the American media, the electric utility industry has been able to control much of what happens in the EMF arena. The industry, through its reseamh arno, EPRI, and its lobby- ists at the Edison Electric Institute, has used a number of tactics to protect its member companies from having to pay damages from cancer lawsuits and from having to mitigate high EMF exposures. One of EPRI's favorite strategies is to not do followup stud- ies of potentially productive reseamh findings. Instead, institute staffers favor those avenues that might free the industry from EMF liabilities for instance, as we have seen, when EPRI's Ebi and Kheifets promoted air pollution as the cause of child- hood leukemia in an eflbrt to move thc spotlight away from EMFs. Industry has also sabotaged work that could lead to a be~ler understanding of EMF health effects. Hydro-Qufibec confiscated a data set assembled by Gilles Thdriault ofMcGill Unive~ity in Montreal after his epidemiological study of electric utility work- ers generated some of the most provocative, and incriminating, results. Thdriault's work might have, if allowed to continue, pro- vided a nmch needed breakthrough. None of Th~riault's col- leagues in the epidemiological and bioelcctromagnetic commu- nities uttered a word of protest. But industry's most commonly used way to delay the day of reckoning was simply not to sponsor studies that might advance E MF health research. Time and time again, EPRI would say that some new promising findings would be followed up, only to later quietly put the projects on ice. Instead of exposing how industry was hindering progress on EMF mseamh, a number of leading members of the public health community have helped give EPRI an air of legitimacy. At one point in the early 1990s, halfofEPRl's six-member EMF advi- sory committee were thc deans of major public health schools: A.A. Afifi of UCLA, Pat Buffier of the University of Califomia, Berkeley and Gil O~nmm of the University of Washington. Luckily, them have been some exceptions. The most impor- tant of these is David Carpenter of the New York Department of Health, who for a time was the dean of the State University of New York School of Public Health in Albany. (He is now at the University of Albany school of public health.) Carpenter ran thc New York Power Line Project in the 1980s and for a decade devoted much of his professional life to EMFs. lhough a skep- tic at the outset, he changed his mind as the study results pointed to a health risk. By the time the project closed down, Carpenter had become a vocal advocate for protecting the public from EMF health risks. Another public health official who made a difference is Ray- mond Neutra, who mn the Calitbrnia EMF project in the 1990s. ...As Public Health Officials Wait for Conclusive Proof But Carpenter and Neutra are still very much in thc minority and cannot alone make the needed changes in US EMF policies --aud they of course have even less authority on the interna- tional level. Those who can help the most--Liner at NCI, Portier at NIEHS, Repacholi at WHO, Tenforde at NCRP, Panlo Vecchia at 1CNIRP, John Stather at the NRPB and Hilary Walker at the UK Deparlment of Health--won't budge. (There have [x:en some signs that the UK may adopt an ALARA policy for EMFs, but so far there has been no fore,al action.) Far from pushing for precautionary policies, some govern- ment health agencies have actually adopted the industry's posi- tion. For example, the NIEHS has publicly dismissed the EMF- leukemia link. "Them is no valid association bcP. veen nearby power lines and any cancer--including childhood leukemia," it proclaimed on the Web after the IARC decision to classify EMFs as possible human carcinogens. Apanel assembled by the NIEHS had roached the same conclusion as IARC two years earlier, but MICROWAVE NEWS December 2004 7 The Case for EMF Precautionary Policies even this did not sway NIEHS staffers who had already made up their minds that EMFs are not worth their attention~ Portier, who runs NIEHS' Environmental Toxicology Pro- gram, had pushed to upgrade the EMF throat at IARC to "prob- able'' carcinogen but then forgot all about it back at home. It's as if Portier were playing some kind of intellectual parlor game-- "Let me see if [ can out-argue those who say EMFs are harm- less"--but he seems to feel no moral responsibility to use his position of authoriiy at NIEHS to protect the children. Over at the WHO EMF project in Geneva, Repacholi did what he could to play down the IARC decision. (Note that IARC is part of the WHO.) With the help of Kheifets and Portier and a few others, he issued a booklet in six different languages that drew a parallel between EMF exposure and drinking a cup of coffee. Each had risks and benefits: While coffee may increase the risk of kidney cancer, it might also protect against colon can- ccr, he wrote. Repacholi neglected to offer a mason why EMFs could be good for you. No doubt because no one had yet come up with one. Even some of his WHO colleagues privately ex- pressed embarrassment at Repacholi's double-talk. And when, long before they were announced in London, Repacholi learned oftl~e new Japanese findings that reaffirmed the EMF-childhood leukemia risk, he said nothing. Kheifets had been one of a select group invited to Tokyo last year to hear the news. She too kept her silence. (Khei lets is now at UCLA, though she is still working for Repacholi.) The net result is that thc WHO and NIEHS continue to en- dorse the current international exposure standards that do noth- ing to protect against a cancer risk. Repacholi, Kheifcts and Portier am in effect telling mothers and fathers that their chil- dmn could be safely exposed up to 1,000mG (100uT) all day, every day. By any measure, an irresponsible recommendation for those charged with protecting public health. Their justification is the same as the industry's: the absence of conclusive pmofi If that is the burden of proof, no one should expect a change in policy for a long, long time given that nearly all EMF research has stopped. But there is no good mason to wait. A decision to apply pm- cautionary policies would be a sound move--based on a large number of epidemiological studies of mai children in real-world environments. However imperfect the epidemiology may be, human data should be mom persuasive than exposure studies of rats or mice. And as David Gee of the European Environment Agency argued in London, health officials have a special duty to protect children, because they am among the most sensitive mem- bers of the population, they have the longest to live and they don't have thc power to protect thmnselves. In the WHO booklet, Establishing a Dialogue on Ris~ from EMFs, Repacholi writes that setting precautionary exposure limits would undermine"the credibility of the science." Similarly, in a recent e-mail to a Canadian activist who had berated him for consistently siding with industry, Repacholi wrote, "WHO bases its decisions on the science...ifthe science does not support your position, this is not my problem." Sadly, Repacholi and the others have lost their way. It's not just about doing science, but also about protecting public health. Please Help Keep Microwave News On the Web. Enclosed is My Contribution of [] $25.00 []$50.00 gl $100.00 []$250.00 [] $500.00 [] $1,000.00 [] Others Suggested Contributions: Individuals $50 -$100; Corporations and Institutions $250 -$500 Name Organization Address CitylStatelZiplCountry Credit Card Information Mail or Fax to: Microwave News 155 East 77th Street Suite 3D New York, NY '10021, USA '~: +1 (212) 517-2800 Fax: +1 (212) 734-0316 Or send us an e-mail to: < mwn@pobox.com> For contributions from outside the US, please use Visa or MasterCard. Thank you. 8 MICROWAVENEWS December 2004 The Times of London January 12, 2005 No child's toy: warnings from the National Radiological Protection Board suggest that children are at greater risk of harm when using their mobile phones (RICHARD POHLE) Mobile phones tumour risk to young children By Sam Coates, Nigel Hawkes and Alexandra Blair CHILDREN under the age of eight should not use mobile phones, parents were advised last night after an authoritative report linked heavy use to ear and brain tumours and concluded that the risks had been underestimated by most scientists. Professor Sir William Stewart, chairman of the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), said that evidence of potentially harmful effects had become more persuasive over the past five years. The news prompted calls for phones to carry health warnings and panic in paris of the industry. One British manufacturer immediately suspended a model aimed at four to eight-year-olds. The number of mobiles in Britain has doubled to 50 million since the first government- sponsored report in 2000. The number of children aged between five and nine using mobiles has increased fivefold in the same period. In his report, Mobile Phones and Health, Sir William said that four studies have caused concem. One ten-year study in Sweden suggests that heavy mobile users are more prone to non-malignant tumours in the ear and brain while a Dutch study had suggested changes in cognitive function. A German study has hinted at an increase in cancer around base stations, while a project supported by the EU had shown evidence of cell damage from fields typical of those of mobile phones. "All of these studies have yet to be replicated and are of varying quality but we can't dismiss them out of hand," Sir William said. If there was a health risk -- which remained unproven -- it would have a greater effect on the young than on older people, he added. For children aged between 8 and 14, parents had to make their own judgments about the risks and benefits. "I can't believe that for three to eight year-olds they can be readily justified," he said. David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Headteachers, called last night for a ban on mobiles in schools. Mobile phone companies reacted furiously, saying that the report fanned public concern without presenting new research. The youth market is highly lucrative because teenagers are more likely to use video downloads and other services. The World Health Organisation is preparing to publish an international report, drawing on hundreds of studies conducted over a decade, which many hope will give a definitive judgment on mobile phone safety. The board's report says that while there is a lack of hard information of damage to health, the approach should be precautionary. Sir William said: "Just because there are 50 million of them out there doesn't mean they are absolutely safe." One school in the North East has begun using mobile scanners to prevent pupils using mobiles in class. "Outside college hours it is up to parents, but in our care if mobiles are found on children, they are confiscated and returned to the parents," David Riden, vice principal of Tollbar Business and Enterprise College in New Waltham, said. One group that appears to target young users is Richard Branson's Virgin Mobile, which derives much of its revenue from the 16s-35s market. It denies targeting under 16s but has cornered a large slice of the youth market with cheap voice and text messages. HEALTH RISK · Acoustic neuromas are benign tumours of the acoustic nerve. · A study in Sweden has shown that they are twice as common in mobile phone users. · They were also four times as common on the side of the head where the phone was held. · Acoustic neuromas occur in 100,000 people a year and can cause deafness. · They can be treated by surgery. In most cases the patient's hearing is saved. · Brain tumours affect about 4,700 new patients a year in Britain. · They are becoming more common -- the UK Brain Tumour Society says that incidence has increased by 45 per cent in 30 years. · The causes of primary brain tumours are unknown, so it is hard to identify specific risk factors. Cell Phone Antenna May Pose Health Hazards Page 1 of 3 Home My Content My Syndicate New Popular Site Map Webmaster Tools ~ ~ ~ Need Content for Your Website? Get 1,000 Private Label Articles, templates, ebooks, and more every month! Join Search Hetp NOW- eMailAddress PW:[ h Login Media / PR Resources [ Media Search I Reference / Research Tools t Small Business Tools Back: Home: Cell Phone Antenna May Pose Health Hazard Added: 1/20/2005 Current Rating: 0 Votes: 0 [Rate] [Broken Link] [Incorrect Categ About the Content: There is growing consensus that cell phone antennas may be harmful to humans due to the huge volume electromagnetic waves that get concentrated Content: There is growing consensus that cell phone antennas may be harmful to humans due to the huge volume of electromagnetic waves that get concentrated around it during the receipt and placing of calls. This danger is even further aggravated by cellular manufacturers who place the internal antennas close to the earpiece. Mobile phones are basically radio sets and therefore emit energy radio signals that can penetrate the body and cause harm. There have been several commissions on the study of the effect of mobile phone on the human body and the most pronounced has been The Stewart Report which suggested that radio waves indeed penetrate human bodies from mobile phone antennas and specially recommended that children who obviously have softer skulls be extra careful and use the device sparingly. The report further went on to state that the brain cells of children are not as fully developed as those of adults and can therefore be at greater risk as they absorb the radiation more than fully hardened adult skulls. http://www.contentmart.com/ContentMart/content.asp?LinkID=25116&CatID= 13&conten... 6/27/2007 Cell Phone Antenna May Pose Health Hazards Page 2 of 3 These hazards may exist but cell phones have become part of everyday living like cars and cannot be dispensed with. In the light of this fact, doing away with our phones may not be a practical approach to solving the health hazards issue. Rather we can adopt some habits to mitigate the effects of the radiation. Children should not use cell phones for long calls. They should sue land lines instead so as to minimize the length of contact with the radiation emitted by the device. Consumers should buy phones with Iow specific absorption rate (SAR). Mobile phones should be kept away from the body as much as possible. They can be put in the purse or bag and only brought into contact with the body when there is the need to make or receive a call. Users should try to keep their conversations short. If possible, SMS messages can be sent instead of calls so that there is less contact with the body especially around the skull area. Keep switching between both ears so that one particular ear does not absorb the full brunt of the radiation all the time. Radiation emission is at the highest when the phone is trying to connect so keep the phone away from the skull till you see the call fully connected. Weak signal results in higher radiation so avoid making calls in areas where reception is poor as the device will try to boost its power to get you a connection and resultantly bombard you with more radiation. We cannot do away with cellular devices looking at the convenience they have ushered consumers in. Nevertheless, we can adopt some helpful attitudes to minimize the harmful effects this technology is bringing to mankind. About The Author Peter Lenkefi For more more information about the hazards that cell phone antenas may pose please visit http://www.cellular-mobile-phones.com plenkefi@yahoo.comau Get Free Content at ContentMart.com Get the Content: Cut-And-Paste Select All http://www.contentmart.com/ContentMart/content.asp?LinklD=25116&CatlD= 13&conten... 6/27/2007 Cell Phone Antenna May Pose Health Hazards Page 3 of 3 <p>There is growing consensus that cell phone antennas may be harmful to humans due to the huge volume of electromagnetic waves that get concentrated around it during the receipt and placing of calls. This danger is even further aqqrava}~ ~ ~lular ~t~rers w~ p~e http://www.contentmart.com/ContentMart/content.asp?LinkID=25116&CatlD=l 3&conten... 6/27/2007 Page 1 of 1 Tuesday~ ,lune 19~ 2007 Study: Cancer and cellular masts By HFosburg @ 3:39 PM :: 76 Views :: Research Reports, Research-Archive, Cell Phones, General EHR School Study about cancer and phone masts at Gijon [Spain]. Published at: "La Nueva £spafia" june 20th 2005, see links below. A school study using official data shows a link between cancer and cellular masts. Pupils of "La Asunci6n" [School of Gij6n] find that a tumors cluster in the area of emission of the mast. Between 2000 and 2004 seven thousand had been diagnosed, ].400 each year (in the researched area). Thirteen pupils of 4th grade [last course of secondary school, ].6 years old] of the school of"La Asunci6n", leaded by his physics-chemical teacher, have completed a research work to clarify the possible link between tumors and masts one week before that the Government of .~os~ Luis Rodriguez Zapatero [President of Spain] conceded the expansion of permission to the phone companies to all the country. The result is a detailed report plenty of data obtained from official sources, like the Council of Gij6n, the "3ove" Hospital, and "Cabefiueles" Hospital. The pupils don't judge the data, only show them. The metropolitan area of the council of GIj6n has 92 base stations, added to at least 299 masts, most of all with official permission, although not all. "El Llano", with 14 base stations with 5 antennas is the neighbourhoed where the radiation emissions are the highest. The largest number of cancer cases (760 cases) were diagnosed there during the last 5 years. Pupils who sign this report have proved that on the streets near base stations, the number of cancer cases are "highly random", in opposite direction at the areas where there is no presence of base stations "the statistics repeats the results, they don't change". "Masts don't have antennas to all directions, but to determinated areas of the city", warn the pupils, who checked a "larger concentration" of cancer patients "in the area where this beams emit". The authors of this work call this peculiarity "cone effect", because this is the geometric figure who appears when they gather on a map with the help of a pencil the homes of the cancer patients diagnosed the past 5 years. This is not all. The documented effort of the pupils concludes that the new cancer cases diagnosed in town are in higher rate at the buildings that receive the "combined action of several combined masts". Alarmed by the incidence of cancer at several neigbourhoods in Gij6n confirmed by graphic maps, the authors declare that "our intenUon is only to show the actual situation, not attack or offend to any company". "We just show the facts, we don't look for someone to blame", they say. The thirteen of "La Asunci6n" own and use their mobile phones, "but now with more precautions at initiate or finish the calls", says 3ulio C&sar Garda, the only male of the research group with twelve girls, one of them, Ana Rtera, presented a study about relation between cancer and mast already, but limited to "El Bibio" building where in short period of time 13 cancer cases appeared. Original links: Complete news paper article: http://www,avaate,org/IMG/pdf/Mapa_de_Gijon,pdf Other news paper article: http://www.avaate,org/IMG/pdf/Pdr_La_nueva_espana_Gijon_.pdf Present word document: h~p://www.avaate.org/article.php3?id_article=].50 Translated by molinodehydra@hotmail.com (march, 2006) http://www~safewire~ess~~rg/Deskt~pM~du~es/DnnF~rge%2~-%2~NewsArti~~es/Print.aspx..~ 6/27/2007 Cell Tower Health Effects Page 1 of 13 A Cellular Phone Tower on Ossining High School? The Ossining School Board voted to allow placement of a PCS Base Station atop the Ossining High School on the basis of a "Safety Analysis" which claimed to report the health effects of the radiation emitted from such antennas.(1) Instead, it suppressed current areas of controversy and uncertainty and claimed falsely that this technology is, in effect, universally considered safe. Critical questions concerning the health effects and safety of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF) remain! Should we expose our children and ourselves to this radiation for the next twenty years when so much uncertainty exists? Our School Board was told that concerns about health effects from exposure to magnetic fields from electric power distribution lines or the use of hand held cell phones are based on fear, not fact. The Board was no~t told that a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences panel this year designated power frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) as "possible human carcinogens.'' 2~2) There is a robust and ongoing controversy over many aspects of RF health effects. While no one disagrees that serious health hazards occur when living cells in the body are heated, as happens with high intensity RF exposure (just like in a microwave oven), scientists are currently still investigating the health hazards of low intensity exposure. Low intensity exposure is exposure which does not raise the temperature of the living cells in the body. The telecommunications industry claims cellular antennas are safe because the radiation they produce is too weak to cause heating, a "thermal effect." They point to "safety standards" from groups such as ANSI/IEEE or ICNIRP to support their claims. But these groups have _explicitly stated that their claims of "safe levels of exposure" are based on thermal levels.°) Thus the claim that the RF exposure is harmless rests on the fact that it is too weak to produce a rise in temperature, a "thermal effect." There is a large body of intemationally accepted scientific evidence which points to the existence of nonthermal effects of microwave radiation. The issue at the present time is not whether such evidence exists, but rather what weight to give it. Internationally acknowledged experts in the field of RF research have shown that RF of the type used in digital cellular antennas and phones can have critical effects on cell cultures, animals, and people in laboratories and have also found epidemiological evidence (studies of communities, not in the laboratory) of serious health effects at "non-thermal levels," where the intensity of the radiation was too low to cause heating. They have found: http://www.cyburb an.com/-lplachta/safeweb2 .htm 6/27/2007 Cell Tower Health Effects Page 2 of 13 · Increased cell growth of brain cancer cells® · A doubling of the rate oflymphoma in mic6® · Changes in tumor growth in rats® · An increased number of tumors in rats7~ · Increased breaks in double and single stranded DNA, our genetic material® · 2 to 4 times as many cancers in Polish soldiers exposed to RF® · More childhood leukemia in children exposed to RF® · Changes in sleep patterns and REM type sleep(11) · Headaches caused by RF exposure® · Neurologic changes® including o Changes in the blood-brain-barrier® o Changes in cellular morphology (including cell death)® o Changes in neural electrophysiology (EEG)® o Changes in neurotransmitters (which affect motivation and pain perception)® o Metabolic changes (of calcium ions, for instance)® o Cytogenetic effects (which can affect cancer, Alzheimer's, neurodegenerative diseases)® · Decreased memory, attention, and slower reaction time in school children~203 · Retarded learning in rats indicating a deficit in spatial "working memory"(21) · Increased blood pressure in healthy men(22) · Damage to eye cells when combined with commonly used glaucoma medications(23) Many national and international organizations have recognized the need to define the true risk of low intensity, non-thermal RF exposure, calling for intensive scientific investigation to answer the open questions. These include: · The World Health Organization, noting reports of"cancer, reduced fertility, memory loss, and adverse changes in the behavior and development of children. ,,(24) · The U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)£2J) · The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)(26) · The Swedish Work Environmental Fund® · The National Cancer Institute (NCI)(28) · The European Commission (EC)® · New Zealand's Ministry of Health® · National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia® · Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization of Australia (CSIRO)(32) Non-thermal effects are recognized by experts on RF and health to be potential health hazards. Safe levels of RF exposure for these low intensity, non-thermal effects have not yet been established. http://www.cyburban.com/-lplachta/safeweb2.htm 6/27/2007 Cell Tower Health Effects The FDA has explicitly rejected claims that cellular phones are "safe."(33) Page 3 of 13 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has rejected the current (ANSI/IEEE) safety standards because they are based on thermal effects alone.(34) Many scientists and physicians question the safety of exposure to RF. The CSIRO study, for example, notes that there are no clear cutoff levels at which low intensity exposure has no effect, and that the results of ongoing studies will take years to analyze.05) The county of Palm Beach, FL, the state of California, and the country of New Zealand have all prohibited cellular antennas near schools due to safety concerns. What should we do while waiting for the much needed answers about the non-thermal effects of RF? This is the question we, as parents, students, and Ossining residents must answer. The Board of Education has the responsibility of protecting and promoting the best interests of the students of our schools and of our community in general. The commercial interests of outside profit- making corporations can play no role in their decisions. We simply don't know at this time what the possible health consequences of long term, low level exposure to RF of the type used by the PCS Base Station antenna will be. No one knows--the data just isfft there. The chairman of the ICNIRP, one of the main groups which formulated the current exposure guidelines, has stated that the guidelines include "no consideration regarding prudent avoidance" for health effects for which evidence is less than conclusive.3053 Should we allow ourselves to take this risk? Should we allow our children to take this risk? School buildings, youth centers, and other places where children are found are not the proper place for a technology which could endanger health and well being. As noted at the start of this brief review, our School Board was told none of this when they were asked to decide on the siting of the cellular phone antenna. The "Safety Analysis" they received was not an honest attempt to explain the health effects of RF exposure, but rather a sophisticated "sale's pitch" designed to blind the Board to the real questions and uncertainties. While such behavior in an attempt to "make a sale" can never be condoned, in the case of the suppression of information about possible adverse health consequences for the children of our schools, it is unconscionable. Our children and their parents stand defenseless before such a strategy. http://www.cyburban.com/~lplachta/safeweb2.htm 6/27/2007 Cell Tower Health Effects Page 4 of 13 The only reasonable and responsible course is to "play it safe" with our children. The Ossining High School is not the proper place for a cellular telephone antenna. [back] 1. "Safety Analysis of the Electromagnetic Environment in the Vicinity of a Proposed Personal Communications Services Base Station, Site 06-460I: Ossining High School, Ossining, New York" prepared by the Wireless & Optical Technologies Safety Department of Bell Laboratories for Sprint Spectrum L.P. [back] 2. An international blue ribbon panel assembled by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences fNIEHS) designated power frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) as "possible human carcinogens" on June 24, 1998. The panel's decision was based largely on the results of epidemiological studies of children exposed at home and workers exposed on the job. The evaluation of the EMF literature followed procedures developed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), based in Lyon, France. The working group's report will be the basis for the NIEHS report to Congress on the EMF Research and Public Information Dissemination program (EMF RAPID). The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) of the United Kingdom noted that the views of its Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation are "consistent with those of the NIEHS expert panel." June 26, 1998 statement of the National Radiological Protection Board, sited in Microwave News, July~August 1998 [back] 3. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) statement "Health Issues Related to the Use of Hand-Held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters" of 1996 reads: "Thermally mediated effects of RF fields have been studied in animals, including primates. These data suggest effects that will probably occur in humans subjected to whole body or localized heating sufficient to increase tissue temperatures by greater than lC. They include the induction of opacities of the lens of the eye, possible effects on development and male fertility, various physiological and thermoregnlatory responses to heat, and a decreased ability to perform mental tasks as body temperature increases. Similar effects have been reported in people subject to heat stress, for example while working in hot environments or by fever. The various effects are well established and form the biological basis for restricting occupational and public exposure to radiofrequency fields. In contrast, non-thermal effects are not well established and currently do not form a scientifically acceptable basis for restricting human exposure for frequencies used by hand-held radiotelephones and base stations." International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, "Health Issues Related to the Use of Hand-HeM Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters, "Health Physics 70:587-593, 1996 The ANSI/IEEE Standard for Safety Levels of 1992 similarly states: "An extensive review of the literature revealed once again that the most sensitive measurements of potentially harmful biological effects were based on the disruption of ongoing behavior associated with an increase of body temperature in the presence of electromagnetic fields. Because of the paucity of reliable data on chronic exposures, IEEE Subcommittee IV focused on evidence of behavioral disruption under acute exposures, even disruption of a transient and fully reversible nature." http://www.cyburban.corn/-lplachta/safeweb2.htm 6/27/2007 Cell Tower Health Effects Page 5 of 13 IEEE Standards Coordinating committee 28 on Non-Ionizing Radiation Hazards: Standard for Safe 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 [back] 4. Drs. Czerska, Casamento, Ning, and Davis (working for the Food and Drug Administration in 1997) using "a waveform identical to that used in digital cellular phones" at a power level within our current standards (SAR of 1.6 W/Kg, the maximum spatial peak exposure level recommended for the general population in the ANSI C95.1-1991 standard) found increases in cellular proliferation in human glioblastoma cells. This shows that "acceptable" levels of radiation can cause human cancer cells to multiply faster. The authors note that "because of reported associations between cellular phone exposure and the occurrence of a brain tumor, glioblastoma, a human glioblastoma cell line was used" in their research. E.M. Czerska, J. Casamento, J. T. Ning, and C. Davis, "Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Cell Proliferation, "[Abstractpresented on February 7, 1997 at the workshop 'Physical Characteristics and Possible Biological Effects of Microwaves Applied in Wireless Communication, Rockville, MD] E. ~ Czerska, J. Casamento Centers for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland 20857, USA; H. T. Ning, Indian Health Service, Rockville, Maryland 20857, USA; C. Davis, Electrical Engineering Dept., Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Maryland20742, USA [back] 5. Dr. Michael Repacholi (in 1997, currently the director of the Intemational Electromagnetic Fields Project at the World Health Organization) took one hundred transgenic mice and exposed some to radiation for two 30 minute periods a day for up to 18 months. He found that the exposed mice developed lymphomas (a type of cancer) at twice the rate of the unexposed mice. While telecommunications industry spokespersons criticized the experiment for using mice with a mutation which predisposed them to cancer (transgenic) the researchers pointed out that "some individuals inherit mutations in other genes...that predispose them to develop cancer, and these individuals may comprise a subpopulation at special risk from agents that would pose an otherwise insignificant risk of cancer." Dr. Repacholi stated "I believe this is the first animal study showing a true nonthermal effect." He repeated the experiment in 1998 using 50 Hz fields instead of the 900 MHz pulsed radiation (the type used by cellular phones) used in the original experiment and found no cancer risk. He stated that this new data had implications for his original cellular phone study: "the control groups for both our RF and 50 Hz field studies showed no statistical differences, which lessens the possibility that ihe RF study result was a chance event or due to errors in methodology." It is extremely important to note that Dr. Michael Repacholi was Chairman of the ICNIRP at the time its Statement on Health Issues Related to the Use of Hand-Held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters was developed in 1996. M. Repacholi et al., "Lymphomas in E#-Piml Transgenic Mice Exposed to Pulsed 900 MHz Electromagnetic Fields, "Radiation Research, 147, pp.631-640, May 1997 [back] 6. Dr. Ross Adey (Veterans Administration Hospital in 1996) found what appeared to be a protective effect in rats exposed to the type of radiation used in digital cellular phones. The rats were exposed to an SAR of 0.58-0.75 W/Kg 836 MHz pulsed radiation of the TDMA type two hours a day, four days a week for 23 months, with the signals turned on and off every 7.5 minutes, so total exposure was 4 hours a week. Interestingly this effect was not present when a non-digital, analog signal was used. Rats exposed developed cancer less often. This study shows that low power fields of the digital cellular http://www.cyburban.com/~lplachtaYsafeweb2.htm 6/27/2007 Cell Tower Health Effects Page 6 of 13 frequency can influence cancer development. Whether they would protect or promote in our children is a question for further study. Ross Adey of the Veterans Administration Hospital of Loma Linda, CA presented the results of pulsed (digital cellular) radiation on June 13, 1996 at the 18th Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society in Victoria, Canada. He presented the findings of the analog cellular phone radiation effect at the June 1997 2nd World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine in Bologna, Italy. Reviews can be found in Microwave News issues July~August, 1996 and March/April 1997. [back] 7. Dr. A. W. Guy reported an extensive investigation on rats chronically exposed from 2 up to 27 months of age to low-level pulsed microwaves at SARs up to 0.4 W/Kg. The exposed group was found to have a significantly higher incidence of primary cancers. A. W. Guy, C. K. Chou, L. Kunz, L, Crowley, and J. Krupp, "Effects of Long-Term Low-Level Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure on Rats." Volume 9. Summary. Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, USF-SAM- TR-85-11; 1985 [back] 8. Drs. Henry Lai and N. P. Singh of the University of Washington in Seattle have reported breaks in both single stranded and double stranded DNA in the brains of rats exposed to radiofi'equency electromagnetic radiation at an SAR of 1.2 W/Kg. DNA is the carrier of the genetic information in all living cells. Cumulated DNA strand breaks in brain cells can lead to cancer or neurodegenerative diseases. H. Lai and N. P. Singh, "Single- and Double-Strand DNA Breaks in Rat Brain Cells Afler Acute Exposure to Radio frequency Electromagnetic Radiation, " International Journal of Radiation Biology, Vol 69, No. 4, 513-521, 1996 [back] 9. Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski has studied many thousands of Polish soldiers. He has found that those exposed to radiofrequency and microwave radiation had more than double the cancer rate of the unexposed servicemen analyzing data from 1971-1985. He has presented further data suggesting a dose- response relationship with soldiers exposed to 100-200 W/cm2 suffering 1.69 times as many cancers as the unexposed, and those exposed to 600-1000 W/cm2 suffering 4.63 times as many cancers. 1000 W/cm2 is the level considered safe for the public according to FCC regulations. Occupational exposure up to 5000 W/cm2 is allowed. S. Szmigielski, "Cancer Morbidity in Subjects Occupationally Exposed to High Frequency (Radio frequency and Microwave) Electromagnetic Radiation," The Science of the Total Environment 180:9-17, 1996 [ha_c_kj 10. Dr. Bruce Hocking found an association between increased childhood leukemia incidence and mortality in the proximity of television towers. The power density ranged from 0.2-8.0 W/cm2 nearer and 0.02 W/cm2 farther from the towers. B. Hocking, I. R. Gordon, H. L. Grain, and G. E. Hatfield, "Cancer Incidence and Mortality and Proximity to TV Towers, "Medical Journal of Australia 165: 601-605; 1996 [back] 11. Drs. Mann and R6schke investigated the influence of pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields of digital mobile radio telephones on sleep in healthy humans. They found a hypnotic effect with shortening of sleep onset latency and a REM (Rapid Eye Movement) suppressive effect with reduction http://www.cyburban.com/-lplachta/safeweb2.htm 6/27/2007 Cell Tower Health Effects Page 7 of 13 of duration and percentage of REM sleep. "REM sleep plays a special physiological role for information processing in the brain, especially concerning consolidation of new experiences. Thus the effects observed possibly could be associated with alterations of memory and learning functions." K. Mann and J. R6schke, "Effects of Pulsed High-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields on Human Sleep," Neuropsychobiology 33:41-47, 1996 [back] 12. Dr. Allen Fmy has been researching microwave radiation for over 3 decades. Here is the abstract on a paper concerning headaches and cellular phone radiation. "There have been numerous recent reports of headaches occurring in association with the use of hand-held cellular telephones. Are these reported headaches real? Are they due to emissions from telephones? There is mason to believe that the answer is "yes" to both questions. There are several lines of evidence to support this conclusion. First, headaches as a consequence of exposure to low intensity microwaves were reported in the literature 30 years ago. These were observed during the course of microwave hearing research before there were cellular telephones. Second, the blood-brain barrier appears to be involved in headaches, and low intensity microwave energy exposure affects the barrier. Third, the dopamine-opiate systems of the brain appear to be involved in headaches, and low intensity electromagnetic energy exposure affects those systems. In all three lines ofmsearch, the microwave energy used was approximately the same--in frequencies, modulations, and incident energies--as those emitted by present day cellular telephones, Could the current reports of headaches be the canary in the coal mine, warning of biologically significant effects?" A. H. Frey, "Headaches from Cellular Telephones: Are they Real and What Are the Implications?" Environmental Health Perspectives Vol 106, Num. 3, pp. 1 O1-103, March 1998 [back] 13. Henry Lai's review of the literature conceming neurological effects of RF: Existing data indicate that Ri: of relatively low intensity can affect the nervous system. Changes in blood-brain barrier, morphology, electrophysiology, neurotransmitter functions, cellular metabolism, and calcium effiux, and genetic effects have been reported in the brain of animals after exposure to RF. These changes can lead to functional changes in the nervous system. Behavioral char!_ges in animals after exposure to RR have been reported. Even a temporary change in neural functions after RF exposure could lead to adveme consequences. For example, a transient loss of memory fimction or concentration could result in an accident when a person is driving. Loss of short term working memory has indeed been observed in rats after acute exposure to RF. Research has also shown that the effects of RF on the nervous system can cumulate with repeated exposure. The important question is, after repeated exposure, will the nervous system adapt to the perturbation and when will homeostasis break down? Related to this is that various lines of evidence suggest that responses of the central nervous system to RF could be a stress response. Stress effects are well known to cumulate over time and involve first adaptation and then an eventual break down of homeostatic processes. H. Lai, "Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Relating to }Fireless Communication Technology, "Paperpresentation at the IBC-UK Conference: "Mobile Phones-Is There a Health Risk?September 16-17, 1997, Brussels, Belgium [back] 14. Blood-Brain-Barrier: The blood-brain-barrier (BBB) is primarily a continuous layer of cells lining the blood vessels of the brain. It is critical for regulation of the brain's activity. Lai notes that http://www.cyburban.com/-lplachta/safeweb2.htm 6/27/2007 Cell Tower Health Effects Page 8 of 13 "Even though most studies indicate that changes in the BBB occurs only after exposure to RF of high intensities with significant increase in tissue temperature, several studies have reported increases in permeability after exposure to RF of relatively low intensities....Pulsed RF seems to be more potent than continuous wave RF." Pulsed RF is the type used in digital cellular systems. Effects on the BBB were noted at the 0.2 W/cm2 level, and even at SAR of 0.016-5 W/Kg. These effects could lead to local changes in brain function. H. Lai, Ibid [back] 15. Cellular Morphology: RF induced morphological changes of the central nervous system are shown only to occur under relatively high intensity or prolonged exposure to the radiation. However, there are several studies which show that repeated exposure at relatively low power intensities caused morphological changes in the central nervous system. Again here pulsed (as in digital phone use) RF produced more pronounced effects. Certain drugs given to nonhuman primates sensitized them, for instance allowing eye damage to occur at very low power intensities. Dr Lai notes "Changes in morphology, especially cell death, could have an important implication on health. Injury-induced cell proliferation has been hypothesized as a cause of cancer." Some of these experiments were in the range of SAR 0.53 W/Kg or even 0.26 W/Kg. H. Lai, IbM [back] 16. Neural Electrophysiology: Changes in neuronal electrophysiology, evoked potentials, and EEG have been reported. Some effects were observed at low intensities and after repeated exposure, suggesting cumulative effect. Energy density levels were as low as 50 W/cm2. H. Lai, Ibid [back] 17. Neurotransmitters: Neurotransmitters are molecules which transmit information from one nerve cell to another. Early studies have reported changes in various neurotransmitters (catecholamines, serotonin, and acetylcholine) in the brain of animals only after exposure to high intensities of RF. However, there are more recent studies that show changes in neurotransmitter functions after exposure to low intensities of RF. For example, effects were seen at 50 W/cm2 in one experiment. RF activates endogenous opioids in the brain. Endogenous opioids are neurotransmitters with morphine- like properties and are involved in many important physiological and behavioral functions, such as pain perception and motivation. The response to RF depends on the area of the brain studied and on the duration of exposure. Exposure to RF has been shown to affect the behavioral actions of benzodiazepines (these are drugs such as Valium). H. Lai, IbM [back] 18. Metabolic Changes in Neural Tissue: Several studies investigated the effects of RF exposure on energy metabolism in the rat brain. Surprisingly, changes were reported after exposure to relatively low intensity RF for a short duration of time (minutes). The effects depended on the frequency and modulation characteristics of the RF and did not seem to be related to temperature changes in the tissue. Calcium ions play important roles in the functions of the nervous system, such as the release of neurotransmitters and the actions of some neurotransmitter receptors. Thus changes in calcium ion http://www.cyburban.com/~lp lachta/safeweb2 .htm 6/27/2007 Cell Tower Health Effects Page 9 of 13 concentration could lead to alterations in neural functions. This is an area of considerable controversy because some researchers have also reported no significant effects of RF exposure on calcium efflux. However, when positive effects were observed, they occurred after exposure to RF of relatively low intensities and were dependent on the modulation and intensity of the RF studied (window effects). Some studies had SARs as low as 0.05-0.005 W/Kg. H. Lai, Ibid [back] 19. Cytogenetic effects: Cytogenetic effects have been reported in various types of cells after exposure to RF. Recently, several studies have reported cytogenetic changes in brain cells by RF, and these results could have important implication for the health effects of RF. Genetic damage to glial cells can result in carcinogenesis. However, since neurons do not undergo mitosis, a more likely consequence of neuronal genetic damage is changes in functions and cell death, which could either lead to or accelerate the development ofneurodegenerative diseases. Power densities of t mW/em2 were employed, a level considered safe for the public by the FCC. RF-induced increases in single and double strand DNA breaks in rats can be blocked by treating the rats with melatonin or the spin-trap compound N-t-butyl--phenylnitrone. Since both compounds are potent free radical scavengers, these data suggest that free radicals may play a role in the genetic effect of RF. If free radicals are involved in the RF-induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells, results from this study could have an important implication on the health effects of RF exposure. Involvement of free radicals in human diseases, such as cancer and atherosclerosis, have been suggested. Free radicals also play an important role in the aging process, which has been ascribed to be a consequence of accumulated oxidative damage to body tissues, and involvement of free radicals in neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Huntington, and Parkinson, has also been suggested. One can also speculate that some individuals may be more susceptible to the effects of RF exposure. H. Lai, Ibid [back] 20. Dr. A. A. Kolodynski and V. V. Kolodynska of the Institute of Biology, Latvian Academy of Sciences, presented the results of experiments on school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia. Motor function, memory, and attention significantly differed between the exposed and control groups. The children living in front of the station had less developed memory and attention and their reaction time was slower. A. A. Kolodynski, V. V.. Kolodynska, "Motor and PsychologicalFunctions of School Children Living in the Area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia," The Science of the Total Environment 180:87-93, 1996 ~ack] 21. Dr. H. Lai and colleagues in 1993 exposed rats to 45 minutes of pulsed high frequency microwaves at low intensity and found that the rats showed retarded learning, indicating a deficit in spatial "working memory" function. H Lai, A. Horita, and A. W. Guy, "Microwave Irradiation Affects Radial-Arm Maze Performance in the Rat, "Bioelectromagnetics 15:95-104, 1994 [back] 22. Dr. Stefan Braune reported a 5-10 mm Hg resting blood pressure rise during exposure to a radio frequency electromagnetic field of the sort used by cellular phones in Europe. The Lancet, the British medical journal where the report appeared, stated that "Such an increase could have adverse effects on people with high blood pressure." http://www.cyburban.com/-lplachtaJsafeweb2.htm 6/27/2007 Cell Tower Health Effects Page 10 of 13 S. Braune, "Resting Blood Pressure Increase During Exposure to a Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field," The Lancet 351, pp. 1,857-1,858, 1998 [back] 23. Dr. Kues and colleagues (of Johns Hopkins University and the Food and Drug Administration) found that placing timolol and pilocarpine into the eyes of monkeys and then exposing them to low power density pulsed microwaves caused a significant reduction in the power-density threshold for causing damage to the cells covering the eye and the iris. In fact the power was reduced by a factor of 10, so that it entered the "acceptable, safe" level of the FCC, 1 mW/cm2! Timolol and pilocarpine are commonly used by people suffering fi.om glaucoma. This is a very_ important study, as it points to the fact that laboratory_ experiments under "ideal" conditions are rarely what one finds in real life. The "safe" level of radiation exposure for healthy people is likely to be very different than for those of us who suffer from illness, take medications, or are perhaps simply younger or older than those in the experiments. IL. A. Kues, J. C. Monahan, S. A. D'Anna, D. S. McLeod, G. A. Lutty, andS. Koslov, "Increased Sensitivity of the Non-Human Primate Eye to Microwave Radiation Following Ophthalmic Drug Pretreatment, "Bioelectromagnetics 13:379-393, 1992 [bach 24. The World Health Organization states that "concerns have been raised about the safety of cellular mobile telephones, electric power lines and police speed-control 'radar guns.' Scientific reports have suggested that exposure to electromagnetic fields emitted from these devices could have adverse health effects, such as cancer, reduced fertility, memory loss, and adverse changes in the behaviour and development of children." Therefore, "In May 1996, in response to growing public health concerns in many Member States over possible health effects from exposure to an ever-increasing number and diversity of EMF sources, the World Health Organization launched an international project to assess health and environmental effects of exposure to electric and magnetic fields, which became known as the International EMF Project. The International EMF Project will last for five years." "A number of studies at [frequencies above about 1 MHz] suggest that exposure to RF fields too weak to cause he'ting may have adverse health consequences, including cancer and memory loss. Identifying and encouraging coordinated research into these open questions is one of the major objectives of the International EMF Project." World Health Organization Fact Sheet N181, "Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, The International EMF Project, "reviewed May 1998 and World Health Organization Fact Sheet N182, "Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, Physical Properties and Effects on Biological Systems," reviewed May 1998, underlining added [back~ 25. The U. S. Food and Drug Administration in a January 14, 1998 letter to the House Telecommunications Subcommittee stated it "believes additional research in the area of RF is needed." In 1997 the agency established the following priorities: · Chronic (lifetime) animal exposures should be given the highest priority. · Chronic animal exposures should be performed both with and without the application of chemical initiating agents to investigate tumor promotion in addition to tumorigenesis. · Identification of potential risks should include end points other than brain cancer (e.g. ocular effects of RF radiation exposure). · Replication of prior studies demonstrating positive biological effects work is needed. A careful replication of the Chou and Guy study (Bioelectromagnetics, 13, pp.469-496, 1992) which suggests that chronic exposure of rats to microwaves is associated with an increase in tumors, http://www.cyburban.com/-lplachta/safeweb2.htm 6/27/2007 Cell Tower Health Effects Page 11 of 13 would contribute a great deal to the risk identification process for wireless communication products. · Genetic toxicology studies should focus on single cell gel studies of DNA strand breakage and on induction of micronuclei ..... · Epidemiology studies focused on approaches optimized for hazard identification are warranted .... Food and Drug Administration Recommendations quoted in Microwave News, March/April, 1997 [back] 26. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is planning a multicountry, multimillion dollar study of cancer among users of wireless phones, beginning 1998. Microwave News, January/February, 1998 Rack] 27. The Swedish Work Environmental Fund initiated a new epidemiological study on cellular phone radiation and brain tumors in 1997. Microwave News, November/December, 1997 [~g_c_kj 28. The National Cancer Institute announced plans for a 5 year study of brain tumors and cellular phone radiation in 1993. Microwave News, January/February, 1993 [back] 29. The European Commission (EC) Expert Group on health effects of wireless phones called for a 5 year research program with a $20 million budget, reported 1997. Microwave News, January/February, 1997 [back] 30. A report commissioned by New Zealand's Ministry of Health stated that "It is imperative that the scientific issues be clarified as soon as possible, as there is much at stake." It called for more research to examine the potential health effects of RF radiation. Microwave News, November/December, 1996 [back~ 31. The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia announced its sponsorship of a 5 year, $3.5 million project on potential health effects of mobile phone technology in 1996. Microwave News, November/December, 1996 [back] 32. Finally, the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) of Australia concluded in 1995 that the safety of cellular telephones cannot be resolved "in the near future." Dr. Stan Barnett, a principal researcher of CSIRO, states that "My goal is to establish a national committee to approach this problem by coordinating relevant and focused research." He estimated a budget of $3 million over a 3 year period would be necessary. Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization, "Status of Research on Biological Effects and Safety of Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies, " a report prepared by Dr. Stan Barnett, as sited in Microwave News, September/October, 1995 [back] 33. On July 19, 1993 Dr. Elizabeth Jacobson, Deputy Director for Science, Center for Devices http ://www.cyburban.com/-lplacht aYsa feweb2 .htm 6/27/2007 Cell Tower Health Effects Page 12 of 13 and Radiological Health, Food and Drag Administration criticized Thomas Wheeler, President of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association: "I am writing to let you know that we were concerned about two important aspects of your press conference of July 16 concerning the safety of cellular phones, and to ask that you carefully consider the following comments when you make future statements to the press. First, both the written press statements and your verbal comments during the conference seemed to display an unwarranted confidence that these products will be found absolutely safe. In fact, the unremittingly upbeat tone of the press packet strongly implies that them can be no hazard, leading the reader to wonder why any further research would be needed at all.....More specifically, your press packet selectively quotes from our Talk Paper of February 4 in order to imply that FDA believes that cellular phones are "safe." ("There is no proof at this point that cellular phones are harmful.") In fact, the same Talk Paper also states, "There is not enough evidence to know for sure, either way." Our position, as we have stated it before, is this: Although there is no direct evidence linking cellular phones with harmful effects in humans, a few animal studies suggest that such effects could exist. It is simply too soon to assume that cellular phones are perfectly safe, or that they are hazardous--either assumption would be premature. This is precisely why more research is needed." Full text of letter can be found in Microwave News, July~August, 1993 [back] 34. In 1993 the Director of the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air of the Environmental Protection Agency suggested that the FCC not adopt the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard "due to serious flaws," among them (1) "the ANSI/IEEE conclusion that there is no scientific data indicating that certain subgroups of the population are more at risk than others is not supported by NCRP and EPA reports" and (2) "the thesis that ANSI/IEEE recommendations are protective of all mechanisms of interaction is unwarranted because the adverse effects level in the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard are based on a thermal effect." Letter from Margo T. Oge, Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air to Thomas Stanley, Chief Engineer, Office of engineering and Technology, FCC, dated Nov 9, 1993 [back] 35. A brief sampling of the report, "Status of Research on Biological Effects and Safety of Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies" follows: Problems in studies of human populations published to date include imprecise estimates of exposure. As a result, such epidemiological studies may underestimate any real risk. The likelihood of epidemiological studies providing useful information is questionable, particularly if the biological end point cannot be predicted. Its value in the short term (less than 10 years) must be negligible unless there was an enormous increase in the rate of cancer growth. Interestingly, the incidence'of brain tumors in the EC countries has increased substantially in recent years .... [RF] safety cannot be assessed in the absence of reported serious effects when so little research has been aimed at the problem. It is somewhat surprising, and rather disappointing, to fmd that although the literature contains many hundreds of publications, there are very few areas of consensus....At low levels the absence of clear thresholds and [the] presence of intensity and frequency windows have created questions rather than provided answers .... Them is no doubt that the interpretation of bioeffects data has been clouded by a preoccupation with thermally mediated processes. In fact, development of the ANSI/IEEE standard is based only on well- established thermal effects, and ignores the more subtle nonthermal processes that are more difficult to http ://www.cyburban.com/-lplachta/safeweb2 .htm 6/27/2007 Cell Tower Health Effects Page 13 of 13 interpret and apply to human health .... Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization, "Status of Research on Biological Effects and Safety of Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies," a report prepared by Dr. Start Barnett, as sited in Microwave News, September/October, 1995 [back] 36. The ICNIRP exposure guidelines are only designed to protect against "known adverse health impacts," according to Dr. Jfirgen Bernhardt, ICNIRP's chairman. Bernhardt reviewed the updated limits, which cover the spectrum from 1 Hz to 300 GHz, in a presentation at the 20th AnnualMeeting of the Biolectromagnetics Society in St. Pete Beach, FL, on June 10. The limits protect against "short-term, immediate health effects" such as nerve stimulation, contact shocks and thermal insults, according to the guidelines, which appear in the April issue of Health Physics (74, pp.494-522, 1998). Despite "suggestive" evidence that power frequency magnetic fields can be carcinogenic, ICNIRP has concluded that this and other nonthermal health effects have not been "established." ICNIRP has long followed this approach to standard-setting. In his talk, Bernhardt noted that the guidelines include "no consideration regarding_prudent avoidance" for health effects for which evidence is less than conclusive. Microwave News, July~August, 1998, underlining added lf you would like to help or wish more information, please e-maih Ossining Citizens for a Safe Envi~ent Back to the previous page! http ://www.cyburb an.com/-lplachta/safeweb2 .htm 6/27/2007 Original Paper Neuroepidemiology 2003;22:124-129 Vestibular Schwannoma, Tinnitus and Cellular Telephones Lennart Hardella,c K. jell Hansson Mildc,d Monica SandstrOmd Michael Carlberga Arne Hallquiste Anneli P~hlsonb aOepartrnent of Oncolo§y, and bDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital, Orebro, CDepar~ment of Natural Sciences, Orebro University, Orebro, dNational Institute for Working Life, Umea, and eDepaCcment of OncolocJy/Pathology, Karolinska Institute, Radiumhemrnet, Stockholm, Sweden Key Words Acoustic neurinoma · Incidence · Cellular telephones Abstract Cases with tinnitus after using analogue cellular tele- phones are presented. An increased odds ratio of 3.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.77-6.76, was found for vestibular schwannoma (VS) associated with the use of analogue cell phones. During the time period 1960-1998, the age-standardized incidence of VS in Sweden signifi- cantly increased yearly by +2.53% (CI 1.71-3.35). A sig- nificant increase in the incidence of VS was only found for the latter of the two time periods 1960-1979 and 1980-1998. For all other brain tumors taken together, the incidence significantly increased yearly by +0.80% (CI 0.59-1.02) for the time period 1960-1998, although the increase was only significant for benign tumors other than VS during 1960-1979. Vestibular schwaunoma CVS), or acoustic neurinoma, accounts for 8-10% of intracranial tumors [1, 2]. They constitute 90% of all tumors found in the cerebellopon- tine angle [3]. It is a benign tumor with the histopathology of neurinoma or neurilemmoma (C24 code = 541, Snomed code = 95600) of the nerve sheet of the eighth cranial nerve. The vast majority of these histopathology types constitute VS and only a few with intracerebral localization have been reported [1]. The reported inci- dence of this tumor varies between 1 in 50,000 adults per year [4] and 1 in 81,000 adults per year [5]. The natural history of VS is one of slow growth, although a potential for growth spurts has been reported [6, 7]. The tumor manifests itself in imbalance and pro- gressive hearing loss with tinnitus in the affected ear. The development of these symptoms tends to be slow. In a series from Cambridge, progressive hearing loss was the most common initial symptom reported by 59% of the patients [8]. Tinnitus was the principal presenting symp- tom in 11%, but was reported by 73% during the clinical course. Similar results were reported in a case series from Finland [9]. VS may present clinically in one of two forms: sporadic unilateral or hereditary bilateral [10]. An increasing inci- dence was reported from Denmark for the time period 1977-1995 [11]. This is at least partly explained by the introduction of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We report here findings of both tiunitus and VS among cell phone users as well as the incidence of VS and other brain tumors during 1960-1998 based on the Swedish Cancer Registry. KARGER Materials and Methods Details of tbese studies are presented elsewhere and only briefly in the following. Symptoms Experienced in Connection with Cell Phone Use A cross-sectional epidemiological study of symptoms among users of cell phones was performed in Norway and Sweden. The study included 12,000 cell phone users in Sweden and 5,000 in Nor- way. Symptoms were assessed by a questionnaire. More details of the study have been published elsewhere [12, 13]. In addition to the structured questionnaire, other symptoms were spontaneously re- ported, i.e., tinnitus in the Swedish part of the study. We also present some ease reports outside the study. Case-Control Study on Cell Phones and Brain Tumors Our study encompassed 1,617 cases with brain tumor diagnosed during January 1, 1997 and June 30, 2000, who were reported to the Swedish Cancer Registry, living in the medical administrative areas of Stockholm, Uppsala/0rebro, Link~iping and Gothenburg, Sweden. One control was extracted from the Swedish Population Registry for each case and was matched for sex, age and geographical area. Expo- sure was assessed by self-administered questionnaires, as described elsewhere [14]. For all cases, histopathology as weU as anatomical tumor localization was assessed using CT and MRI scans. This paper only concerns vestibular neurinoma. For the calculation of odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), conditional logistic regression analysis for matched studies was used (SAS Institute, Cap/, N.C., USA). Only complete pairs (1:1) were used. Incidence of VS In Sweden, it is compulsory to report all brain tumors (both benign and malignant) to the Swedish Cancer Registry, which started in 1958 and is regarded to be reliable from 1960. VS is identified by using anatomical site (brain, ICD-7 code 193.0) and histopathology (neurinoma, neurdemmoma, C24 cede 451, Snomed code 95600}. The age-standardized incidence rotes were calculated for each year from 1960 to 1998, expressed per 100,000 pemon-years. The back- ground population was obtained from Statistical Yearbooks 1960- 1967 and from Statistics Sweden 1968-1998. The incidence rates were standardized to the world population in 1970 [ 15]. Trends were analyzed using the exponential regression model to obtain the annual percent change in incidence. Results Symptoms Experienced in Connection with Cd/Phone Use Of 7,803 answering Swedish subjects, 76 (1%) reported spontaneously some kind of ear symptoms, such as hear- ing problems (n = 14), sensations of pricking, swelling or pressure around the ear (n = 27), pulsation (n = 3), tiuni- tus (n = 18), and pain in the ear (n = 14). These symptoms were not reported in more detail, since this was not the aim of the study. Outside this study, we had bean contacted by 3 men with tinnitus in the same ear as used during cell phone calls. Case 1. A man bom in 1941 who had used an analogue phone (450 MHz) during 1982-1992 and a digital phone since then. He estimated daily use up to 45 rain on aver- age for each phone types. He had always used his left ear. In the fall of 2000, he felt increasing tinnitus and pulsa- tion in his left ear. Both clinical investigation and MRI failed to reveal anything abnormal. He experienced no impairment of his hearing. Case 2. A man born in 1954 who had used an analogue phone (450 MHz) during 1986-1989, an analogue phone (900 MHz) during 1989-1998 and a digital phone since 1998 always with his left ear. The average daily use was 45 rain for each phone type. During 1986-1989, he used his analogue phone in a car connected to an external antenna. In the year 2000, he experienced a swollen sensation around his left ear with pricking and first appearance of tinnitus. The tinnitus has increased since then and the symptoms also occur during daytime. Clinical examina- tion has revealed no explanation, no tumor and no hear- ing loss. Case 3. A man born in 1956 who had used an analogue cell phone since 1994 (450 MHz) for 45 rain per day on average with his left ear. Tiunitus appeared in 1996 in his left ear and in 1997 also in his right ear. In 1999, sensa- tions of his pulse 'in the head' appeared. The clinical examination did not show any anatomical defects that could explain his symptoms. Additionally, we had also been contacted by 2 further persons with appearance of tinnitus in the ear used during cell phone calls. Case-Control Study on Cell Phones and Brain Tumors Of the 1,429 cases with brain tumor who answered the questionnaire, 159 (11.1%) had VS, a slight excess eom- pared with other case series [ 1, 2]. Of all 1,617 cases with brain tumor fulfilling the inclusion criteria [14], 177 had VS, and 18 (10%) of these did not answer the question- naire. The use of an analogue phone yielded an OR of 3.45 (CI 1.77-6.76), digital phone an OR of 1.21 (CI 0.66- 2.22), and cordless phone an OR of 1.03 (CI 0.62-1.72) with a latency (tumor induction) period of >1 year (ta- ble 1). Using a latency period of>5 years, the risk further increased. The median latency (presumed tumor induction) time among the cases for the use of an analogue phone was 8 years (range 2-17), for a digital phone 3 years (range 2-7) and for a cordless phone 4 years (range 2-1 I). Vestibular Schwarmoma, Cell Phones Neuroepid*miolosy 2003;22:124-129 125 Fig. 1. Incidence of VS during 1960-1998 (total, men, women). Age adjusted to the world standard population. Table 1. ORs and 95 % Cls for VS and the use of analogue, digital or cordless phones >l year 38/11 3.45 (1.77-6.76) 23/19 1.21(0.66-2.22) 30129 1.03(0.62-1.72) >5 years 26/7 3.71(1.61-8.56) 2/1 2.00(0.18-22.1) 11/6 1.83(0.68-4.96) >10years 7/2 3.50(0.73-16.8) 010 2/1 2.00 (0.18-22.1) Ca = Cases; Co = control. Figures in parentheaes are 95% CIs. Incidence of VS During the time period 1960-1998, there was a signifi- cant increase by +2.53% (CI 1.71-3.35) in the age-stan- dardized yearly incidence of VS (table 2, fig. 1). The increase was highest among men and for both sexes, it was highest in the age group 50-59 years (fig. 2). The time period was divided into two groups (1960-1979 and 1980-1998), since there was a steep increase in incidence during the first part of the 1980s (fig. 1). For the time peri- od 1960-1979 (n = 791), the age-standardized incidence changed yearly by -0.64% (C1-3.02 to 1.80), and for the time period 1980-1998 (n = 1441), it significantly in- creased yearly by +2.16 % (CI 0.72-3.62; table 3). For all other brain tumors excluding VS, the age-stan- dardized incidence significantly increased yearly by +0.80% (CI 0.59-1.02; table 4, fig. 3). The increase was somewhat higher in women and highest in the age group 10-19 years. For the time period 1960-1979, malignant brain tumors increased yearly by +0.44% (CI -0.31 to 1.20) and for other benign brain tumors than VS by +2.38% (CI 1.80-2.97). For the period 1980-1998, the corresponding results for malignant tumors was-0.06 (CI -0.64 to 0.51) and for other benign tumors than VS -0.01 (C1-0.79 to 0.78; table 3). 126 Neurcepidemiology 2003;22:124-129 HardelFHans~on Miid/Saadstri~m/ Carlberg/Hallquist/P~hlson Fill. 2. Incidence of rs during 1960-1998, in thc age group 50-59 years (total, men, women). Age edjusted to the world standard population. Table 2. Increase in thc age-standardized yearly incidence of VS during the time period 1960-1998 All +2.53 +1.71-3.35 2,232 Men +3.05 +2.03-4.08 975 Women +2.27 +1.33-3.21 1,257 0-9 years * * 8 10-19 years * * 30 20-29 years * * 133 30-39 years * * 250 40-49 years +2.33 +1.09-3.59 407 50-59 years +3.36 +2.51-4.20 552 60-69 ye, ars +2.61 + 1.53-3.70 545 70-79 years + 1.71 +0.35-3.08 259 80+ years * * 48 * = Not calculated due to low numbers. Tabta ,a. Change~ of the age-standardized yearly incidence (%) with 95 % CIs of VS, all other benign brain tumors and malignant brain tumors for different time periods Vestibular schwannoma All other benign tumors +2.53 (1.71-3.35) +1,60(1.29-1.91) +0.41 (0.17-0.64) -0.64 (-3.02 to 1.80) +2.38 (1.80-2.97) +0.44(-0.31 to 1.20) +2.16 (0.72-3.62) -0.01 (-0.79 to 0.78) -0.06 (-0.64 to 0.51 ) Figures in parentheses are 95% CIs. Vestibular Schwannoma, Cell Phones Neuroepid~iniology 2~03;22:124-129 127 Fig. a. lnoidancc of brain tumors excluding VS during 1960-1998 (total, men, women). Age adjustad to the world standard population. Table 4. Increase in the age-standardized yearly incidence of all oth- er brain tumors (excluding VS) during thc time poHod 1960-1998 All +0.80 +0.59-1.02 36,184 Men +0.73 +0~50--0.96 17,418 Women +0.90 +0.66-1.14 18,766 0-9 years + 1.43 +0.92-1.93 1,568 10-19 years +1.72 +1.15-2.30 1,315 20-29 years +1.32 +0.82-1.81 1,532 30-39 years +0.52 +0.07-0.97 2,527 40-49 years +0.40 +0.14-0.67 4,316 50-59 years +0.24 -0.07 to 0.55 6,684 60-69 years +1.01 +0.71-1.31 8,482 70-79 yearn + 1.46 +0.98-1,94 6,658 80+ years -0.90 -1.98 to +0.19 3,107 Discussion We report cases of unilateral tinnitus in some persons using a cell phone on the same (ipsilateral) side. Of course, a causal association cannot be established from a case report. However, of interest is that these persons were clinically examined including MR/without pathological findings of tumor, hearing loss (noise injury) or other dis- eases. In a series of 174 patients in whom unilateral tinni- tus was investigated, only 0.6% (1 case) were due to VS [16]. If tinnltus is associated with cell phones, the mecha- nism is unclear. However, the inner part of the ear is located in an area with high exposure to microwaves. About 40-60% of radio frequency (RF) energy was calcu- lated to be absorbed by the brain [17]. Auditory brain stem response to digital RF exposure was studied among healthy volunteers. A hearing deficiency was only found on the exposed side [ 18]. Furthermore, we report results on the risk for VS among cell phone users. A significantly increased risk was found for analogue phone users. However, in the calcula- tions using different latency periods, digital and cordless phones also revealed an increased risk, although it was not significant and based on low numbers (table 1). It is note- worthy that the median latency period for the use of ana- logue phones was 8 years, but much shorter for digital and cordless phones. An increasing incidence of brain tumors in the western world has previously been reported [19, 20]. The increase has been marked during the early 1980s, as also shown in our data. It has been much discussed if this increase repre- sents a true increase or reflects better diagnostic tools such 128 Neumepidemiolog~ 2003;22:12~-129 Hardall/Hansson Mild/Sandstr6m/ Car lberg/HallquistdP~lhlson as CT and MRI. The first CT was introduced in Sweden in 1974 and the first MRI in 1984. For that reason, we used the year 1980 as a ant-offtime point when we studied the incidence dur'mg two time periods. Our result showed a stable incidence of VS from 1960 until the early 1980s for both sexes. For the period 1980- 1998, the age-standardized incidence increased yearly by 2.16%. As for other brain tumors, the increase was more marked during the fa:st part of the 1980s, although the incidence also increased for the later time period. These data suggest that the increasing incidence is not only relat- ed to improved diagnosis, but does not exclude a true increase. This increase may be compared with the results for all other brain tumors excluding VS. The results showed that the age-standardized incidence significantly increased yearly for the whole time period. However, for different periods, the incidence significantly increased only for benign brain tumors other than VS during the time period 1960-1979. One explanation for the decreasing incidence of brain tumors during the recent years may be the decreasing fre- quency of autopsies in Sweden. The frequency of antopsy of patients with a diagnosis of brain tumor was 39.6% in the 1960s, 38.3% in the 1970s, 25.1% in the 1980s and 10.5% in the 1990s. Of the brain tumors, 13% were diag- nosed during autopsy in 1984, 8% in 1994 and 5% in 1999 for men. The corresponding frequencies for females were 18, 7 and 4%, respectively [21]. Due to this large decline in autopsy diagnosis, it is doubtful whether a true decline in the incidence of brain tumors has occurred duro ing the last two decades. As to the association between VS and cellular and cordless phones, it is of interest to find that the highest increasing incidence was found for men and the age group 50-59 years. These results differ from the findings for oth- er types of brain tumors. Since the highest prevalence of cell phone use is among younger men, the results regard- ing VS might be worth investigating in more detail. One important question is of course, how our results should be interpreted for a person using a cell phone with ipsilateral occurrence oftinnitus. Since tinnitus may be an early sign of VS, a full clinical examination of these patients is nec- cssaty including MRI. To be prudent, these persons should also reduce RF exposure from cellular telephones. References 8 Moffat DA, Baguley DM, Beynon G J, Da M: Clinical acumen mid veatibular schwanao- ma. Am $ Otol 1998; 19:82-87. 9 Kentala E, Pykko I: Clinicalpicture of vestibu- lar achwannoma. Auris Nasus La.ax 2001;28: 15-22. Vestibular Sehwaunoma, Cell Phones Neuroepidemiolog},2~03;22:124-129 129 Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma. [Epidemiology. 2004] - PubMed Result Page 1 of 2 I~ A .,mx'ice ~fth~ National labrar), of Medie. iu~ p L ed My NCBI ED~ www.pubmed, gov I[Sign In] [Regis Ail Databases PubMed Nucleotide Protein Genome Stru~ure OMIM PMC Journals Boo~ Se~ch PubMed ~ for [ ~ Limits Preview/Index Histo~ Clipboard Details About Entrez Text Version Dis la Abstract ~ Show 20 Sort by Send to P Y I ~ I2L~I ~l ~ All:l Review: 0 ~ Entrez PubMed Overview Help I FAQ Tutorials New/Noteworthy E-Utilities PubMed Services Journals Database MeSH Database Single Citation Matcher Batch Citation Matcher Clinical Queries Special Queries LinkOut My NCBI Related Resources Order Documents NLM Mobile NLM Catalog NLM Gateway TO×NET Consumer Health Clinical Alerts ClinicalTrials.gov PubMed Central Epidemiology. 2004 Nov; 15(6):653-9. Related Articles, Links Comment in: · Epidemiology, 2004 Nov;15(6):651-2, · Epidemio!ogy, 2005 May;16(3):414-5; author reply 417-8, · Epidemiology. 2005 May;16(3):414; author reply 417-8. · Epidemiology. 2005 May;16(3):415-6; author reply 417-8. · Epidemiology. 2005 May;16(3):415; author reply 4! 7-8. · Epidemiology. 2005 May;16(3):416-7; author reply 417-8. Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma. Liinn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, Feychting M. Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, S-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden. Stefan. Lonn~imm.ki.se BACKGROUND: Radiofi'equency exposure from mobile phones is concentrated to the tissue closest to the handset, which includes the auditory nerve. If this type of exposure increases tumor risk, acoustic neuroma would be a potential concern. METHODS: In this population-based case-control study we identified all cases age 20 to 69 years diagnosed with acoustic neuroma during 1999 to 2002 in certain parts of Sweden. Controls were randomly selected from the study base, stratified on age, sex, and residential area. Detailed information about mobile phone use and other environmental exposures was collected from 148 (93%) cases and 604 (72%) controls. RESULTS: The overall odds ratio for acoustic neuroma associated with regular mobile phone use was 1.0 (95% confidence interval = 0.6-1.5). Ten years after the start of mobile phone use the estimates relative risk increased to 1.9 (0.9-4.1); when restricting to tumors on the same side of the head as the phone was normally used, the relative risk was 3.9 (1.6-9.5). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not indicate an increased risk of acoustic neuroma related to short-term mobile phone use after a short latency period. However, our data suggest an increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with mobile phone use of at least 10 years' duration. Publication Types: · Comparative Study http://www.ncbi.n~m.nih.g~v/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&d~pt=Abstract&~is... 6/27/2007 Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma. [Epidemiology. 2004] - PubMed Result Page 2 of 2 · Mu!ticenter Study · Research Support. Non-U.S, Gov't PMID: 15475713 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Dis la Abstract Showl2? ~IS~O!? ~ p y[ Write to the Help Desk IqCBI J NLM J NIH Department of Health &Human ~i~s Privacy Statemen~ J Freedom of !nformation Act I Disclaimer http://www~ncbi~n~m~nih~g~v/sit~s/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&d~pt=Abstract&~is... 6/27/2007 Physical activity and magnetic field exposure in p...[Epidemiology. 2006] - PubMed Result Page 1 of 1 All Databases ~ A ~eax~ice ~t~ Natioml Lihra~~ of Med~ Publ led "'"c"' tS gn n] [Regis ~ ~ www,p~meS. PubMed Nuc~eotide Protein Genome Structure OMIM PMC Journals BOO~ Limits Preview/Index History Clipboard Details Display IAbstractP us ~ Show [20 ~[Sort by ~[Send !0 ~ All: 1 Review: 0 ~ ~ 1: Epidemiology. 2006 Mar;17(2):222-5. Physical activity and magnetic field exposure in pregnancy. Savitz DA, Herring AH, Mezei G, Evenson KR, TerrylW, Kavet R, Department of Epidemiology School of Public Health, and Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA. david_savitz@unc.edu BACKGROUND: Peak magnetic field exposure was associated with increased risk of miscarriage in 2 recent studies. Reduced physical activity levels in healthy pregnancies may affect measured exposure and thus bias results. METHODS: We recruited :[00 pregnant women to wear an Actigraph accelerometer and EHDEX magnetic field monitor for a 7-day period. We evaluated the association between physical activity and magnetic field exposure (peaks and time- weighted average) using generalized estimating equations and linear mixed models. RESULTS: We found a positive association between level of activity and likelihood of incurring elevated exposure in the person-day analysis, most strongly for cutpoints of :[6 or 20 mG, for both working and nonworking women among whom odds ratios in the uppermost quartile ranged from 2.1 to 2.6. A positive association was found using person-minutes only among nonworking women. CONCLUSION: Physical activity may affect peak magnetic field exposure. If the early nausea and later cumbersomeness of healthy pregnancies leads to reduced physical activity, this could distort measured magnetic field-health outcome associations. plVlID: 16477264 [PubHed - indexed for HEDMNE] Dis Ia AbstractPlus Show 20 Sort by ~ Send to Related Links magnetic IcieJds during pregnancV and the risk of rniscarriac.[~pidemiology, 2002] Anal,/Je$ of magnetic-field peak- ~equencg (ELF) magn~ic field and homemeker s, measures and misca[~ol~. ~2] See all Related A~icles... Write to the Help Desk NCBI I BgB I B!H Departm~o~ o~ ~!¢n ~ H~rn~o ~ervices Privacy Statemen_t I Freedom of information Act J Disclaimer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermTo... 6/27/2007 Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living ne... Page 1 of 3  Author Keywo ! HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER [Advanced] Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2006;63:307-313; doi: 10.1136/oem.2005.020784 © 2006 by BMJ Publishing Group Ltd ORIGINAL ARTICLE Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations H-P Hutter, H Moshammer, P Wallner and M Kundi Institute of Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna, Austria Correspondence to: Dr H-P Hutter Institute of Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15, A- 1095 Vienna, Austria; hans-peter.hutter~univie.ac.at Background: The erection of mobile telephone base stations in inhabited areas has raised concerns about possible health effects caused by emitted microwaves. Methods: In a cross-sectional study of randomly selected inhabitants living in urban and rural areas for more than one year near to 10 selected base stations, 365 subjects were investigated. Several cognitive tests were performed, and wellbeing and sleep quality were assessed. Field strength ofhigh-fi'equency electromagnetic fields (HF-EMF) was measured in the bedrooms of 336 households. Results: Total HF-EMF and exposure related to mobile telecommunication were far below recommended levels (max. 4.1 mW/m2). Distance from antennae was 244500 m in the rural area This Article Full Text Full Text {PDF} Submit a resoonse Read responses to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is oosted Citation Mag Services Email this link to a friend Similar article~ in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Addartic!~ to my folders Download to citation manaoer Cited by othgr online articles Request Permissions Goog[e Schniar Articles by Hutter, H-P Articles bv Kundi, M Articles c!ti~g this Article Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles bv_H_utter~ H-P Arti;!es by Kundi. M Related CoUections Occupat!ona! Health Ott!gr Peychiatrv Sleep Aonea Related Article and 20-250 m in the urban area. Average power density was slightly higher in the rural area (0.05 mW/m2) than in the urban area (0.02 mW/m2). Despite the influence of confounding variables, including fear of adverse effects from exposure to HF-EMF from the base station, there was a significant relation of some symptoms to measured power density; this was highest for headaches. Perceptual speed increased, while accuracy decreased insignificantly with increasing exposure levels. There was no significant effect on sleep quality. http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/63/5/307 6/27/2007 Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living ne... Page 2 of 3 Conclusion: Despite very low exposure to HF-EMF, effects on wellbeing and performance cannot be ruled out, as shown by recently obtained experimental results; however, mechanisms of action at these low levels are unknown. Abbreviations: ANCOVA, analysis of covariance; BCCH, broadcast channel; CI, confidence interval; GSM, global system for mobile telecommunication; HF-EMF, high-frequency electromagnetic fields; MHz, megahertz; POR, prevalence odds ratio; SAR, specific (energy) absorption rate; SD, standard deviation; TDMA, time division multiple access; WHO, World Health Organisation Keywords: base station; cognitive performance; microwaves; mobile telecommunication; sleep quality; subjective symptoms Related Article Health risks from mobile phone base stations D Coggon Occup. Environ. Med. 2006 63: 298-299. [Extra~ct.] [Full Text] This article has been cited by other articles: (S grch Goog[e Scholar for Other Citing Articles) A W Preece, A G Georgiou, E J Dunn, and $ C Farrow Health response of two communities to military antennae in Cyprus Occup. Environ. Ned., ,lune 1, 2007; 64(6): 402 - 408. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] ~HOME H. Marcovitch What's new this month in BHJ Journals. BM.l, June 10, 2006; 332(7554): 1382 - 1382. [Fu!! Text] [~DF] D Coggon Health risks from mobile phone base stations. Occup. Environ. Med., May 1, 2006; 63(5): 298 - 299. [Full Text] [pDF] ~HOME http://oem.bmj .com/cgi/content/abstract/63/5/307 6/27/2007 Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living ne... Page 3 of 3 K. Palmer Work in brief Occup. Environ. Med., May 1, 2006; 63(5): 297 - 297. [Full Text] [PDF] eLetters: Read all eLetters No provable effects Christian W. Wolf, et al. Occup Environ Med Online, 30 May 2006 [Full text] Re: No provable effects Hans-Peter Hurter, et al. Occup Environ Med Online, 5 ]un 2006 [Full text1 HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions aurchased online ', Website terms and conditions '~ Privacy policy Copyright © 2006 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/63/5/307 6/27/2007 Study: Cell Phone Users Have Lower Sperm Counts Page 1 of 3 consumeraffairs.com Automotive Education Consumer News Recalls Complaint Form Scem Alerts Rogues Gallery Good Guys Search Home Page Small Claims Guide I Lemon Law I FAQ I Resources I Newsletters I Blogs J Electronics Family Finance Health Homeowners Shopping Trave High Profile Lawyer- Consumer Affair Do I Have A L~ Now Open To The Public! ~,~gunde[~!~ers.com :Ads by Goo_ale- Cell Phone News Cell Device Cell Industry Cell MEWS La,asr I Aroh~vas I Auto I Ca,s, a,e. I Computers I Financia, I Hea~h I Homeowners I Ps Study: Cell Phone Users Have Lower Sperm Counts October 24, 2006 Researchers warn that your sperm Cell Phone Hazarda cell count may drop as your cell phone usage rises. A study presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine conference in New Orleans showed a drop in sperm count and quality with increased usage of mobile phones. The study covered 361 men attending a fertility clinic. Results of tests on the men's sperm showed significant declines in four standard measures of sperm quality, including count, viability, motility and shape, with a definite link to the average amount of time spent using their phones daily. The researchers found those men who used a phone for four or more hours a day had fewer sperm and those they had moved less well and were of poorer quality. Those who said they did not use cell phones at all had the highest average sperm counts and their sperm was of the highest quality seen. · ~e!! Phones Unked to Bee Decline · H~yo Clinic Finds Ce!! Phones Safe in Hospite_l~ · _Origin of California Cell Phone Fire Disputed · Ce Phone ,qn tes, California Man Severely Burned · Study: Cell Phone Users Have Lower Sperm Counts · ~_tudy: Drivers Us ng Cell Phones As Bad As Drunks · Doctors Warn Against Cell Phone Use In Storms · Cell Phones Cleared in Gas · ~!~p ~t~ Yeur C~!!.E~ooe? Don't Forget the D~g · Feds Warn of Ceil Phone ~affe~ Hazards Gm~ing · Cell ~hone Catches Fire · Baffe~ Re~ll · Traffic Tickets · Gasoline Fires · RadiatioP Fears · Consumer Complaints http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/10/cell~hones_fertility.html 6/27/2007 Study: Cell Phone Users Have Lower Sperm Counts Page 2 of 3 Ads_ bY Googl~ High Profile Lawyer Consumer Affair Do I Have A Lawsuit Now Open To The Public! www.sau nderslawyers.com The study was conducted by Ashok Agarwal and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine. Agarwal stressed that while the research did not conclusively prove that mobiIe phones were damaging fertility, it certainly suggested that more research was needed. According to Agarwal, mobile phone radiation may harm sperm by damaging DNA, disrupting ceils that produce testosterone in the testes, or shrinking the tubules where sperm are created. Recent research in Hungary concluded that men who carry mobile phones in their pockets risk damaging their sperm count. Last year the chair of the UK Health Protection Agency, Sir William Stewart, warned that children under eight should not be using mobile phones because there was still no certainty about the long-term health impact. Rep~_rt.¥_ou r Experience If you've had a bad experience with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now. 0 diggs digg it 361 reddit bookmark this on del.icio.us ] be the first to bookmark this page! Advertisement R Sr E~ D Ei http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/10/cell~hones_fertility.html 6/27/2007 Study: Cell Phone Users Have Lower Sperm Counts Page 3 of 3 · Ads by Google- Back to the top ] Cellular Phone Market Cell Tower prepaid Mobile Phones Samsung Ph Home I Rogues Gallery I G~od Guys I Complaint Form I News I Recalls I S~ Consumer Resources I Small Claims Guide [ Ler0on Law I Newsletter Advertise With Us I Testimonials I Newsroom I RSS Feeds I Radio I Jo Advertisement Terms of Use Your use of this site const tutes acceptance of the Terms of Use Advertisements on this site are placed and controlled by outside advertising networks. ConsumerAffairs. Com does not evalm FAQ for more information. Company Response Welcome If complaints about your company appear on our site, we welcome your response. Please se* For more information, see the FAQ and privacy policy. The information on this Web site is general in nature and is not intend ConsumerAffairs. Com Inc. makes no representation as to the accuracy of the information herein provided and assumes no lial Copyright © 2003-2007 ConsumerAffairs. Com inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/10/cell~ohones_fertility.html 6/27/2007 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS (IAFF) VOTES TO STUDY HEALTH EFFECTS OF CELL TOWERS ON FIRE STATIONS Call for Moratorium on New Cell Towers on Fire Stations Until Health Effects Can Be Studied Boston, MA - August 24, 2004 - Firefighters returned to their home stations throughout the United States and Canada following last week's IAFF convention after passing a resolution to study the health effects of cell towers placed on the fire stations where they work and live. Added to the resolution was an amendment calling for the IAFF to support a moratorium on the placement of new cell towers on fire stations until the completion of the study. In many parts of the U.S. and Canada, the wireless industry has sought to place cell towers on fire stations because of their strategic locations. Fire stations tend to be located in densely populated areas, many of them near main highways, making them attractive locations for cell towers to maximize coverage. The wireless industry is not alone in the benefits of placing cell towers on these stations. Municipalities receive revenue from the wireless companies in exchange for locating the antennas on fire station property. Lt. Ron Cronin of the Brookline, MA Fire Department and Acting Lt. Joe Foster of the Vancouver Fire Department and Vice President of Vancouver, B.C. Local #18 spearheaded the passage of the resolution. "Some firefighters with cell towers currently located on their stations are experiencing symptoms that put our first responders at risk. It is important to be sure we understand what effects these towers may have on the firefighters living in these stations," Cronin explained. "If the jakes in the fire house are suffering from headaches, can't respond quickly and their ability to make decisions is clouded by a sort of brain fog, then entire communities they are protecting will clearly be at risk. No one wants the guys responding to their family emergency to be functioning at anything less than 100 percent capacity." A recent pilot study of six California firefighters, first publicly revealed at the IAFF convention by medical writer and study organizer Susan Foster Ambrose of San Diego, CA, raises concern about the safety of fire fighters working and sleeping in stations with towers. The study, conducted by Dr. Gunnar Heuser of Agoura Hills, CA, focused on neurological symptoms of six firefighters who had been working for up to five years in stations with cell towers. Those symptoms included slowed reaction time, lack of focus, lack of impulse control, severe headaches, anesthesia-like sleep, sleep deprivation, depression, and tremors. Dr. Heuser, along with Dr. J. Michael Uszler of Santa Monica, CA, used functional brain scans - SPECT scans - to assess any changes in the brains of the six firefighters as compared to healthy brains of men of the same age. Computerized psychological testing known as TOVA was used to study reaction time, impulse control, and attention span. Disturbingly, the SPECT scans revealed a pattern of abnormal change which was concentrated over a wider area than would normally be seen in brains of individuals exposed to toxic inhalation, as might be expected fi.om fighting rims. Dr. Heuser indicated the only plausible explanation at this time would be RF radiation exposure. Additionally, the TOVA testing revealed among the six fimfighters delayed reaction time, lack of impulse control, and difficulty in maintaining mental focus. Because of increasing complaints among firefighters with cellular antennas on their stations coupled with the California study showing damage among the six firefighters tested, a group of five individuals spread across two provinces and three states worked with Southern California firefighters to draf~ the resolution put before the IAFF membership last week. Lt. Ron Cronin and Acting Lt. Joe Foster were joined by Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, Vermont-based Janet Newton - president of the EMR Policy Institute, and Susan Foster Ambrose. "It is imperative to understand that in spite of the build out of an extensive wireless infrastructure in the U.S. and Canada," explained Ambrose, "we have no safety standards for cell towers. There are only regulatory standards, not proven safety standards. The Heuser Study in California calls into question whether or not we are safrificing the health and well being of our countries' first responders for the convenience of a technology we've come to rely upon." Considering approximately 80 percent of the firefighters attending last week's convention voted in favor of a medical study with the spirit of a cell tower moratorium attached, it appears firefighters throughout the U.S. and Canada share that concem. This study has far-reaching public health implications in view of the fact that the wireless industry pays local governments to place cell towers, not only on fire stations, but also on top of schools and municipal buildings. For more information contact: Susan Foster Ambrose: 858.756.3532; sfambrose~cox.net Lt. Ron Cronin: 617.212.5670; ron.cronin~verizon.net Acting Lt. Joe Foster: 604.250.5727; joe~iaffl 8.org Magda Havas, Ph.D.: 705.748.1011 x 1232; mhavas~trentu.ca Janet Newton: 802.426.3035; JNewton~emrpolic¥.org Gunnar Heuser, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.P.: 818.865.1858; www.toxgun.com J. Michael Uszler, M.D.: 310.264.0080; www.santamonicaimaging.com Seminar ] SEMINAR Physics and biology of mobile telephony G J Hyland Although safety guldellnes~to which mobile telephones and their base-stations conform---do protect against excessive microwave heating, there Is evidence that the Iow Intensity, pulsed radiation currently used can exert subtle non-thermal influences. If these Influences entail adverse health consequences, current guidelines would be Inadequate. This review will focus on this pesslbillty. The radiation used Is Indeed of very Iow Intensity, but an oscillatory similitude between this pulsed microwave radiation and certain eleatrocbemlcal activities of the living human being should prompt concern. However, being so Inherently dependent on allvenees, non-tbermal effects cannot be expected to be as robust as thermal ones, as is Indeed found; nor can everyone be expected to be affected In the same way by exposure to the same radiation. Notwithstanding uncertainty about whether the non-thermal influences reported do adversely affect health, there are consistencies between some of these effects and the neurological problems reported by some mobile-telephone users and people exposed Iongterm to base-station radiation. These should be pointers for future research. Public concern over possible adverse health impacts from exposure to the radiation used in GSM (Global System for Mobile communication) mobile telephony shows little sign of abating, despite assurances from the industry and official bodies such as the UK National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) that all is well. In March, 1999, the UK Government set up the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, under the chairmanship of Sir William Stewart. The Stewart Report,~ published in May, 2000, makes some sensible recommendations, but unfortunately some of its greyer areas are now being exploited by the industry to obfuscate the issue. As yet unresolved is the question of adverse health irapacts provoked by the contentious non- thermal effects of the low intensity, pulsed microwave radiation (MWR) used. For these effects are not taken into account in current safety guidelines,z which simply restrict the intensity of the radiation to prevent tissue heating in excess of what the body's thermoregulatory mechanism can cope with. Whilst these guidelines, which are the result of careful investigation over many years, are clearly necessary, the question remains as to whether they are comprehensive enough. For in the case of living systems (and only living ones) there are many reports over the past 30 years that MWR can exert non-thermal influences, at intensities well below those necessary to cause any detectable heating.' The purpose of this review is to introduce clinicians to the physics of mobile telephony and to explain how low- intensity, pulsed microwaves can affect living organisms, both thermally and non-thermally; and then to identify some of the reported biological impacts of exposure to this radiation, particularly those provoked by the contentious non-thermal effects. It is thereby hoped to Lancet 2000; 356:1833-36 See Commentary page 1782 alert clinicians to the possibility that certain presenting symptoms might well be a consequence of non-thermal exposure to this ldnd of radiation. A companion Lancet review* covers the epidemiological evidence for effects of mobile telephony on human health. Physics of mobil® t®l®phony Mobile (cellular) telephony is based on two-way radio communication between a portable handset and the nearest base-station. Every base-station serves a cell, varying from hundreds of metres in extent in densely populated areas to kilometres in rural areas, and is connected both to the conventional landqine telephone network and, by tightly focused line-of-sight microwave links, to neighbomfing stations. As the user of a mobile phone moves from cell to cell, the call is transferred between base-stations without interruption. The radio communication utilises microwaves at 900 or 1800 MHz to carry voice information via small modulations of the wave's frequency. A base-station antenna typically radiates 60 W and a handset between l and 2 W (peak). The antenna of a handset radiates equally in all directions but a base-station produces a beam that is much more directional. In addition, the stations have subsidiary beams called side-lobes, into which a small fraction of the emitted power is channelled. Unlike the mean beam, these side-lobes are localised in the immediate vicinity of the mash and, despite their low power, the power density can be comparable with that of the main beam much further away from the mast. At 150~200 m, for example, the power density in the main beam near ground level is typically tenths of a ~.W/cmL A handset that is in operation also has a low-frequency magnetic field associated, not with the emitted microwaves, but with surges of electric current from the battery that are necessary to implement "time division multiple access" (TDMA), the system currently used to increase the number of people who can simultaneously communicate with a base-station. Every communication channel has eight time slots (thus the average power of a handset is Vs of the peak values cited above--lc, is between 0.I25 W and 0'25 VO, which are transmirted as 576 ~.s bursts. Together, the eight slots define a frame, the repetition rate of which is 217 Hz. The frames THE LANCET · Vol 356 · November 25, 2000 1833 For personal use onty. Not to be reproduced without permission of The Lancet. transmitted by both handsets and base-stations are grouped into "multi-frames" of 25 by the absence of every 26th frame. This results in an additional low- frequency pulsing of the signal at 8.34 Hz, which, unlike that at 217 Hz, is unaffected by call density, and is thus a permanent feature of the emission. With handsets that have an energy-saving discontinuous transmission mode (DTX), there is an even lower frequency pulsing at 2 Hz, which occurs when the user is listening but not speaking. Biological Impacts: thermal Heating of biological tissue is a consequence of microwave energy absorption by the tissue's water content. The amount of heating produced in a living organism depends primarily on the intensity (or power density) of the radiation once it has penetrated the system, on certain electrical properties of the biomatter, and on the efficiency of the body's thermoregulation mechanism. Above a certain intensity of the microwaves, temperature homoeostasis is not maintained, and effects on health ensue once the temperature rise exceeds about l°C. Safety guidelines impose upper limits on the radiation intensity to ensure that this does not happen. Heating occurs whether the organism is alive or dead. The frequency of the radiation, as opposed to the intensity, is taken into account only in so far as it affects (via size resonance) the ability of die organism to absorb energy from the irradiating field. Amongst the most thermally vulnerable areas of the body,-' because of their Iow blood supply, are the eyes and the testes, and cataract formation and reduced sperm counts are well-documented acute exposure hazards. Animal studies indicate that a variety of behavioural and physiological disorders can be provoked by temperature rises below l°C~e, under much less acute exposure conditions. There have been many investigations to estimate, using phantom heads,~ the rate at which thermal energy is deposited in the head during use of a mobile phone~the so-called absorption rate. These studies indicate that, for most handsets, safety guidelines are not violated. In publicly accessible areas near a base-station, thermal influences of the emitted MWR can be totally discounted; the microwave intensity is far too low. Nevertheless, in both cases there are reports of adverse health effects of subthermal intensities, the possible origin of which will now be considered. Biolo~ical effects: non-thermal The possibility that the pulsed, low-intensity MWR currently used in GSM mobile telephony can exert subtle, non-thermal influences on a living organism arises because microwaves are waves; they have properties other than the intensity that is regulated by safety guidelines. This microwave radiation has certain well-defined frequencies, which facilitate its discernment by a living organism (despite its ultralow intensity), and via which the organism can, in turn, be affected. The human body is an electrochemical instrument of exquisite sensitivity whose orderly functioning and control are underpinned~ by oscillatory electrical processes of various kinds, each characterised by a specific frequency, some of which happen to be close to those used in GSM. Thus some endogenous biological electrical activities can be interfered with via oscillatory aspects of the incoming radiation, in much the same way as can the reception on a radio. The biological electrical activities that are vulnerable to interference from GSM radiation include highly organised electrical activities at a cellular level whose frequency happens to lie in the microwave region, and which are a consequence of metabolism/ Although not universally accepted, there is experimental evidence' ~ consistent with these endogenous activities, in terms of which effects of ultralow-intensity microwave radiation of a specific frequency on processes as fundamental as cell division, for example, can be understood in a rather natural wayd° Furthermore: the DTX pulse frequency at 2 Hz and the TDMA frequency of 8-34 Hz correspond to frequencies of electrical oscillations found in the human brain, specifically the delta and alpha brain-waves, respectively. It is thus quite possible that living organisms have a two-fold sensitivity to the pulsed GSM sigual~ie, to both the microwave carrier and the lower frequency pulsings of the TDM~ and DTX signals. To deny this possibility yet admit the importance of ensuring electromagnetic compatibility with electronic instruments by banning the use of mobile phones on aircraftu and hospitals (a prohibition driven by concerns about non- thermal interference) seems inconsistent. Thus, in contrast to heating, which relies on an organism's ability to absorb energy from the irradiating field, the possibility of non-thermal effects arises from an "oscillatory similitude" between the radiation and the living organism, which makes it possible for the living organism to respond to low-intensity, pulsed MWR via its ability to recognise certain frequency characteristics of that radiation. The intensity of radiation needed for this recognition is many orders of magnitude below even that currently associated with non-thermal effects. This influence is possible only when the organism is alive, with excited endogenous frequencies; the dead have fiat electroencephalograms. Non-thermal effects thus depend on the state of the person when exposed to the radiation ie, non-thermal effects are nonqinear. A low- intensity field can entail a seemingly disproportionately large response (or none at all), and vice versa, quite unlike the predictable thermal responses. Thus not everyone can be expected to be affected in the same way by identical exposure to the same radiation. A good example of human vulnerability to a non- thermal, electromagnetic influence is the ability of a light flashing at about 15 Hz to induce seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy.': It is not so much the amount of energy absorbed from the light that provokes the seizure, but rather the information transmitted to the brain by the (coherent) regularity of its flashing, at a frequency that the brain "recognises' because it matches or is close to a frequency utillsed by the brain itself. 1834 THE LANCET · Vol 356 · November 25, 2000 For personal use only, Not to be reproduced without permission of The Lancet. What do we know experimentally about non-thermal biological influences of MWR (both pulsed and continuous) of an intensity close to that near a mobile phone handset, but often at higher microwave carrier frequencies? A selection of in vitro studies is given in panel 1. In vivo evidence of non-thermal influences, including exposure to actual GSM radiation, comes predominantly from animal studies (panel 2). Finally, human in vivo studies, under GSM or similar conditions, include effects on the EEG and on blood pressure. A delayed increase in spectral power density (particularly in the alpha band) has been corroborated~' in the "awake" EEG of adults exposed to GSM radiation. Influences on the "alseep' EEG include a shortening of rapid-eye-movement (REM) sleep during which the power density in the alpha band increases,a: and effects on non-REM sleep? Exposure to mobile phone radiation also decreases the preparatory slow potentials in certain regions of the brain" and affects memory tasks? In 1998, Braune et aP6 recorded increases in resting blood pressure during exposure to radiofrequencies. Although the power density of the radiation used in these experiments is typical of that found at the head when a mobile handset is used, and thus much higher than that close to a base-station, the information content of the radiation emitted by base-stations is the same. Accordingly--apart from near/far field differences (ie, incalised exposure to the near field d~ring handset use and whole body exposure to the far field from a base- station)--these results are not irrelevant to any consideration of potential adverse health effects associated with chronic exposure to base-station radiation. Non-thermal effects have proved controversial, and independent attempts to replicate them have not always been successful. Such difficulties are not unexpected, however, because these effects depend on the state of the organism when it is exposed, particularly in vivo. In in vitro studies, discrepant findings can sometimes be traced to differences in the conditions or design of the experiment. Examples of this are the unsuccessful attempts to replicate an earlier yeast-growth experiment,*;,* and the reported increased incidence of DNA strand breaks?sas The highly non-linear nature of living systems makes them hypersensitive (via deterministic chaos,~ as exemplified by the so-called "butterfly effect", for example) to the prevailing conditions, and thus militates against the realisation of the identical conditions necessary for exact replication. Possible associated adverse health reactions It is important to stress that the existence even of established non-thermal effects does not make adverse health consequences inevitable. Nonetheless GSM radiation does seem to affect non-thermally a variety of brain functions (including the neuroendoctine system), and health problems reported anecdotally do tend to be neurological, although formal confirmation of such reports, based on epidemiologicar studies, is still lacking. For example, reports of headache are consistent with the effect of the radiation on the dopamine-opiate system of the brain:7 and the permeability of the bkiod-brain barrier,26 both of which have been connected to headache/°,4' Reports of sleep disruption are consistent with effects of the radiation on melatonin levels:' and on rapid-eye-movement sleep? Furthermore, since there is no reason to suppose that the seizure-inducing ability': of a flashing visible light does not extend to microwave radiation (which can access the brain through the skull) flashing at a similarly low frequency, together with the fact that exposure to pulsed MWR can induce epileptic activity in rats," reports of epileptic activity in some children exposed to base-station radiation are perhaps not surprising. I have heard of one child whose seizures diminish when, unbeknown to her or her family, the mast is not functioning (or when she is away), only to increase again when the base-station is working again or when she returns home. Finally, the significant increase (by a factor of between 2 and 3) in the incidence of neuroepithelial turnouts (the laterality of which correlates with cell-phone use) found in a nationwide US study~: is consistent not only with the genotoxicity of GSM radiation, as indicated by increased DNA strand breaks:~ and formation of chromosome aberrations and micronuclei but also with its promotional effect on turnout development2a However, as Rothman's accompanying review shows,~ the overall epidemiological evidence for an association with cell-phone use is rather weak. Nevertheless~ it cannot be denied that non-thermal effects of the MWR used in mobile telephony do have the potential to induce adverse health reactions of the kind reported, and this possibility should not be ignored even if only a small minority of people are at risk. Whether a person is affected or not could depend, for example~ on the level of stress before exposure; if it is high enough, the additional contribution from MWR exposure might be sufficient to trigger an abnormality that would otherwise have remained latent. It is often argued that anecdotal reports of health problems should be dismissed. However, given the paucity of systematic epidemiological studies of this new technology, such reports are an indispensable source of information, a point acknowledged in the 1999 report of the UK parlia- mentary committee.*~ Preadolescent children can be expected to be more vulnerable to any adverse health effects than adults because absorption of GSM microwaves is greatest' in an object about the size of a child's head, because of the "head resonance" effect and the greater ease with which the radiation can penetrate the thinner skull of an infant'. Also the multiframe repetition frequency of 8-34 Hz and the 2 Hz pulsing in the DTX mode of cellphones lie in the range of the alpha and delta brain-waves, respectively. In a child, alpha waves do not replace delta waves as a stable activity until the age of about 12 years. Furthermore, the immune system, whose efficacy is degraded'*'" by this kind of radiation, is less robust in children. This makes them less able to cope with any adverse health effect that might be provoked by chronic exposure, not only to the pulsed microwave radiation but also to the the more penetrating low-frequency magnetic fields associated with the current surges from the handset battery which can reach 40 p,T (peak) near the back of THE L&NCET · Vol 356 * November 25, 2000 1835 For persoaal use only. Not to be reproduced without permission of The Lancet. the case? Indications of the biological noxiousness of these magnetic fields (in animals) can be found in ref 25. In the context of base-station radiation: reports relating to animals are of particular value since it cannot here be claimed that the effects are psychosomatic. Of particular interest is a publication on cattle,4~ recording severely reduced milk yields, emaciation, spontaneous abortions, and stillbirths. When cattle are removed to pastures well away from the mast, their condition improves, but it deteriorates once they are brought back. The adverse effects appeared only after GSM microwave antermae were installed on a tower formerly used to transmit only non-pulsed television and radio signals. Finally, in support of the reality of an adverse health impact of non-thermal influences of the kind of radiation used today in mobile telephony, we should recall that during the "cold war" the Soviet irradiation of western embassies with microwave radiation (of an intensity intermediate between that in the viciniw of a handset and a base-station)~ done with the express intention of inducing adverse health effects, was quite successful? health. London: Stationery Office, 2000 and http://iegmp.gov.uk 7 Fr0hlich H. The biological effects of microwaves and ~elated Berlin: Sprlnger-Verlag, 1988. 10 Hyland GJ. Non-thermal bloeffects induced by Iow intensity radiation-induced calcium ion efflux from human neuroblastoma cells 22 Garaj-Vnovac V~ Fucic A, Horvat D. The correlation between the fl~quency of micronuclei and specific abersation$ in human lymphocytes exposed to microwave radiation in vitro. ~Iutadon Res 1836 THE LANCET · Vol 356 - November 25, 2000 For personal use only, Not to be reproduced without permission of The Lancet. A presentation at the "Cell Tower Forum: State of the Science/State of the Law" sponsored by the Berkeshire-Litchfield Environmental Council on December 2, 2000, in Lakeville, CT. Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Transmission Towers Henry Lai Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory Department of Bioengineering University of Washington Seattle, WA Some Definitions: Wireless transmission towers for radio, TV, telecommunications, radar and many other applications, emit radiofrequency radiation (RFR). Once emitted, the radiation travels through space at the speed of light and oscillates during propagation (like waves in the ocean). How many times the wave oscillates in one second determines its frequency. Radiofrequency radiation covers a large segment of the electromagnetic spectrum and falls within the non-ionizing bands. Its frequency ranges between 10 kilohertz (KHz) to 300 gigahertz (GHz). [One hertz (Hz) is one oscillation per second. One kilohertz (KHz) is 1000 Hz; one megahertz (MHz) is 1,000,000 I-Iz; and 1 gigahertz (GHz) is 1,000,000,000 Hz.] Different frequencies of RFR are used in different applications. For example, the frequency range of 5.4 to 16 KHz is used in AM radio transmission, while 76 to 108 MHz is used for FM radio. Cell phone technology uses frequencies between 800 MHz and 3 GHZ. And RFR of 2,450 MHz is used in microwave cooking. These are just a few examples. The intensity of RFR is called the power density. Generally, it is measured in milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2) which is an energy relationship that exists in space. However, biological effects depend on how much of the energy is absorbed in the body of a living organism, not just what exists in space. Absorption of RFR depends on many factors including the transmission frequency and the intensity, the duration of exposure, and one's distance from the source. Other factors include an organism's size, shape, water content, and orientation toward the radiating source. Children, for instance, absorb energy differently than adults. The term used to describe the absorption of radiofrequency radiation is "specific absorption rate" or SAR, which is the rate of energy that is actually absorbed. Specific absorption rates are measured in watts per kilogram (W/kg) of tissue. Specific absorption rates are a more reliable determinant and index of RFR biological effects than are power densities because SARs reflect what is actually being absorbed rather than an energy quotient in space. In addition to SARs, there are some indications that biological effects may also depend on how energy is deposited in the body. Different propagation characteristics such as 'modulation,' or different wave-forms and shapes may have different effects on a living system. For example, the same amount of energy can be delivered to tissue 'continuously' or 'in short pulses'. Different biological effects may result depending on the type, kind, and duration of the exposure. Transmission Facilities: The intensity of RFR decreases with the distance from the generating source, therefore exposure to RFR from transmission towers is usually of low intensity depending on one's proximity. But intensity is not the only factor. Living near a facility means the exposure will be of a long duration because a person will be exposed to radiation for many hours in the day. Thus, the relevant questions are: (1) Do biological/health effects occur after exposure to low- intensity RFR? (2) Do effects accumulate over time, since the exposure is of a long duration and is usually intermittent? (3) What precisely is low-intensity RFR and what might its biological effects be? (4) What does the science tell us about such exposures? RFR Government Guidelines: How Spatial Energy Translates to the Body's Absorption: The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has issued guidelines for both power density and specific absorption rates. For power density, the U.S. guidelines are between 0.2 - 1 mW/cm2. At 100-200 ft from a cell phone base station, a person can be exposed to a power density of 0.001 mW/cm2 (i.e. 1 microwattYcm2). The Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) at such a distance can be 0.001 W/kg (i.e., 1 milliwatt/kg). The U.S. guidelines for SARs are between 0.08 - 0.4 W/kg. Thus, lets define low-intensity exposure to RFR of power density of 0.001 mW/cra2, or a SAR of 0.001 W/kg. Biological Effects at Low Intensities: Do biological effects occur at such low intensities? Many have been documented. Here are some examples of biological effects that occurred in studies of cell cultures and animals after exposures to low-intensity RFR: (1) De Pomerai et al. [2000] reported an increase in a molecular stress response in cells after exposure to a RFR at a SAR of 0.001 W/kg. This stress response is a basic biological process that is present in almost all animals -- including humans. (2) Dutta et al. [1989] reported an increase in calcium effiux in cells after exposure to RFR at 0.005 W/kg. Calcium is an important component of normal cellular functions. (3) Fesenko et al. [1999] reported a change in immunological functions in mice after exposure to RFR at a power density of 0.001 mW/cm2. (4) Magras and Xenos [1999] reported a decrease in reproductive function in mice exposed to RFR at power densities of 0.000168 - 0.001053 mW/cm2. (5) Persson et al. [1997] reported an increase in the permeability of the blood-brain barrier in mice exposed to RFR at 0.0004 -0.008 W/kg. The blood-brain barrier envelops the brain and protects it from toxic substances. (6) Phillips et al. [1998] reported DNA damage in cells exposed to RFR at SAR of 0.0024 - 0.024 W/kg. (7) Velizarov et al. [1999] showed a decrease in cell proliferation (division) after exposure to RFR of 0.000021-0.0021 W/kg. These are important findings at such low-intensity exposures. There are many other reports in the recent research literature showing biological effects in cell cultures and animals after exposure to low- intensity RFR. But we don't know if these effects occur in humans exposed to low-intensity RFR, or whether the reported effects are health hazards. Biological effects do not automatically mean adverse health effects. Many biological effects are reversible. However, it is very clear that low-intensity RFR is not biologically inert. Much more needs to be leamed, however, before a presumption of safety can be made. Long-Term Exposures and Cumulative Effects: There are flaws and important gaps in the RFR research. The majority of the studies on RFR have been conducted with short-term exposures, i.e. a few minutes to several hours. Little is known about the effects of long-term exposure such as would be experienced by people living near telecommunications installations, especially with exposures spanning months or years. What are the effects of long- term exposure? Does long-term exposure produce different effects from short-term exposure? Do effects accumulate over time? There is some evidence that effects of RFR do accumulate over time. Here are some examples: (1) Phillips et al. [1998] reported DNA damage in cells after 24 hours of exposure to low intensity RFR. DNA damage can lead to gene mutation, which accumulates over time. (2) Magras and Xenos [1999] reported that mice exposed to low- intensity RFR became less reproductive. After five generations of exposure, the mice were not able to produce offspring. This shows that the effect of RFR can pass from one generation to another. (3) Persson et al. [1997] reported an increase in permeability of the blood-brain barrier in mice when the energy deposited in the body exceeded 1.5 J/kg (joule per kilogram) -- a measurement of the total amount of energy deposited. This suggests that a short-term/high intensity exposure can produce the same effect as a long-term/low intensity exposure. This is another indication that RFR effects can accumulate over time. There is some indication that an animal becomes more sensitive to the radiation after long-term exposure. Let us consider two of the critical experiments that contributed to the present U.S. RFR- exposure standards -- the 'Behavior-Disruption Experiments' carded out in the 1980s: In the first experiment, de Lorge and Ezell [1980] trained rats on an 'auditory observing-response task'. In the task, an animal was presented with two bars. Pressing the right bar would produce either a low-pitch or a high-pitch tone for half a second. The low-pitch tone signaled an 'unrewarded' situation and the animal was expected to do nothing. However, when the high-pitch tone was on, pressing the left bar would produce a food reward. Thus, the task required continuous vigilance in which an animal had to coordinate its motor responses according to the stimulus presented in order to get a reward by choosing between a high pitch or low pitch tone. After learning the task, rats were then irradiated with 1280-MHz or 5620-MHz RFR during performance. Disruption of behavior (i.e., the rats couldn't perform very well) was observed at a SAR of 3.75 W/kg for 1280- MHz and 4.9 W/kg for 5620-MHz. Disruption occurred within 30- 60 minutes of exposure. In another experiment, de Lorge [1984] trained monkeys on a similar 'auditory observing-response task'. Monkeys were exposed to RFR of 225, 1300, and 5800 MHz. Disruption of performance was observed at 8.1 mW/cm2 (SAR 3.2 W/kg) for 225-MHz, 57 mW/cm2 (SAR 7.4 W/kg) for 1300 MHz, and 140 mW/cm2 (SAR 4.3 W/kg) for 5800 MHz. The disruption occurred when body temperature was increased by l°C. The conclusion from these experiments is that 'disruption of behavior occurred when an animal was exposed at a SAR of approximately 4 W/kg, and disruption occurred after 30-60 minutes of exposure and when body temperature increased by l°C.' Thus, the 4 W/kg figure is used in the setting of the present U.S. RFR exposure guidelines for humans with theoretical margins of safety added. With this, the limit for occupational exposure was set at 0.4 W/kg (i.e. 1/10 of the SAR where effects were observed) and for public exposure 0.08 W/kg (i.e. 1/5 of that of occupational exposure). But is this standard adequate? The studies described above are effects of short-term exposure (less than 1 hour). Are they comparable to long-term exposure? The same investigators of the above short-term exposure experiments reported two series of experiments in 1986 on the effects of long-term exposure. Here are the results: D'Andrea et al. [1986a] exposed rats to 2450-MHz RFR for 7 hours a day, 7 days a week for 14 weeks. They reported a disruption of behavior at an SAR of 0.7 W/kg. D'Andrea et al. [1986b] also exposed rats to 2450-MHz RFR for 7 hours a day, 7 days a/week, for 90 days at an SAR of 0.14 W/kg and found a small but significant disruption in behavior. The experimenters concluded, "the threshold for behavioral and physiological effects of chronic (long-term) RFR exposure in the rat occurs between 0.5 mW/cm2 (0.14 W/kg) and 2.5 mW/cms (0.7 W/kg)." Thus, RFR can produce an effect at much lower intensities after an animal is chronically exposed. This can have very significant implications for people exposed to RFR from transmission towers. Other Observations: Other biological outcomes also have been reported after long-term exposure to RFR: (1) Effects were observed after prolonged, repeated exposure but not after short-term exposure [e.g., Baranski, 1972; Takashima et al., 1979]. (2) Effects that were observed after short-term exposure, disappeared after prolonged, repeated exposure (habituation) [e.g., Johnson et al., 1983; Lai et al., 1987, 1992]. (3) Different effects were observed after different durations of exposure [e.g., Dumanski and Shandala, 1974; Lai et al., 1989]. The conclusion from this body of work is that effects of long-term exposure can be quite different from those of short-term exposure. Effects Below 4 W/kg: Thermal v. Non-Thermal There are many studies that show biological effects at SARs less than 4 W/kg after short-term exposure to RFR. For example, effects on behavior have been observed at SARs less than 4 W/kg. (D'Andrea et al [1986a,b] 0.14 to 0.7 W/kg; DeWitt et al. [1987] 0.14 W/kg; Gage [1979] 3 W/kg; King et al. [1971] 2.4 W/kg; Lai et al. [1989] 0.6 W/kg; Mitchell et al. [1977] 2.3 W/kg; Navakatikian and Tomashevskaya [1994] 0.027 W/kg; Schrot et al. [1980] 0.7 W/kg; Thomas et al. [1975] 1.5 to 2.7 W/kg; Wang and Lai [2000] 1.2 W/kg). For decades, there have been questions about whether an effect is thermal (i.e., a significant change in temperature) or non-thermal (i.e., no significant change in temperature). The present guidelines, as mentioned before, are based on thermal effects (e.g., a change of body temperature of l°C). However, this distinction is now obsolete. We actually don't need to know whether RFR effects are thermal or non-thermal to set exposure guidelines for RFR exposure. Most of the studies on biological effects of RFR carried out since the 1980's were under 'non-thermal' conditions. In studies using isolated cells, the ambient temperature during exposure was generally well controlled. In most animal studies, the RFR intensity used usually did not cause a significant increase in body temperature of the animals exposed. But scientists continue to wonder about non-thermal effects. Most scientists recognize that non-thermal effects are established, even as the implications are not fully understood. There are several arguments for the existence of non-thermal effects: (1) There are reports that RFRs of the same fi'equency and intensity but with different modulations and waveforms produce different effects [Arber and Lin, 1985; Baranski, 1972; Frey et al., 1975; Oscar and Hawkins, 1977; Sanders et al., 1985]. (2) RFR triggers effects different from an increase in temperature [D'Inzeo et al., 1988; Seaman and Wachtel, 1978; Wachtel et al., 1975]. (3) Effects are observed with RFR of very low intensities, when temperature increase is unlikely [e.g., dePomerai et al., 2000]. Conclusion: (1) Biological effects do occur after a short-term exposure to low- intensity RFR. However, potential hazardous health effects of such exposure to humans are not clear. (2) Not much is known about the biological effects of long-term exposure. The effects of long-term exposure can be quite different from those of short-term exposure. (3) The present U.S. guidelines for RFR exposure are not up-to- date. The most recent IEEE Guidelines only included research data up to 1985. In addition, effects of long-term exposure, modulation and other propagation characteristics are not considered. Therefore, the current guidelines are questionable in protecting the public from possible harmful effects of RFR exposure. (4) Exposure of the general population to RFR from wireless communication devices and transmission towers should be kept to a minimum and should follow the ALAR principle - 'As Low As Reasonably Achievable'. Literature cited: Arber, S.L., and Lin, J.C., 1985, Microwave-induced changes in nerve cells: effects of modulation and temperature, Bioelectromagnetics 6.'257-270. Baranski, S., 1972, Histqlogical .and histochemical effects of microwave irradiation on tl~e central nervous system of rabbits anct guinea pigs, Am J Physiol Med 51:182-190. D'Andrea, J.A., DeWitt, J.R., Emmerson, R.Y., Bailey, C., Stensaas, S., and Gandhi, O. P., 1986a, Intermittent exposure of rat to 2450- MHz microwaves at 2.5 mW~cra2: behavioral and physiological effects, Bioelectromagnetics 7.'315-328. D'Andrea, J.A., DeWitt, J.R., Gandhi, O. P., Stensaas, S., Lords, J.L., and Nielson, H.C., 1986b, Behavioral and physiological effects of chronic 2450-MHz microwave irradiation of the rat at 0.5 mW~cra~, Bioelectromagnetics 7.'45-56. de Lorge, J.O. , 1984, Operant behavior and colonic temperature of Macaca mulatta exposed to radiofrequency fields at and above resonant frequencies. Bioelectromagnetics 5.'233-246. de Lorge, J., and Ezell, CS., 1980, Observing-responses of rats exposed to 1.28- and 5.62-GHz microwaves, Bioelectromagnetics 1.'183-198. de Pomerai, D., Daniells, C., David, H., Allan, J., Duce, I., Mutwala'l, M., Thomas, D., Sewell, P., Tattersall, J., Jones, D., and Candido, P., 2000, Non-thermal heat-shock response to microwaves, Nature 405:417-418. DeWitt, J.R., D'Andrea, J.A., Emmerson, R.Y., and Gandhi, O.P., 1987, Behavioral effects of chronic exposure to 0.5 mW~cra2 of 2450- MHz microwaves. Bioelectromagnetics 8.'149-157. D'Inzeo, G., Bernardi, P., Eusebi, F., Grassi, F., Tamburello, C., and Zani, B.M., 1988, Microwave effe_cts on acetylcholine-induced channels in cultured chick myotubes, Bioelectromagnetics 9.'363-372. Dumansky, J.D., and Shandala, M.G., 1974, The biologic action and hygienic significance of electromagnetic fields of super high and ultra h_-ifi, h fr. equencies in densely populated areas, in: "Biologic Effects and Health Hazard of Microwave Radiation: Proceedings o_f an International Symposium," P. Czerski, et al., eds., Polish Mkdical Publishers, Warsaw. Dutta, S.K., Ghosh, B., and Blackman, C.F., 1989, Radiofrequency radiation-induced calcium ion effiux enhancement from human and other neuroblastoma cells in culture. Bioelectromagnetics l O(2) :197- 202. Fesenko, E.E., Makar, V.R., Novoselova, E.G., and Sadovnikov, V.B., 1999, Microwaves and cellular immunity. I. Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 49(1):29-35. Fr_ey, A.H., Feld, S.R., and Frey, B., 1975, Neural function and behavior: defining the relationship. Ann N YAcad Sci 247.'433-439. Gage, M.I., !979, Behavior in rats after exposure to various power densities of 2450 MHz microwaves, Neurobehav Toxicol 1:137-143. dohnson, R.B., Spackman, D., Crowley, d., Thompson, D., Chou, C.K., Kurtz, L.L., and Guy, A.W., 1983, Effects of long-term low-level radiofrequenc_y radiation exposure on rats, vol. 4, Open fieM behavior and corticosterone, USAF SAM-TR83-42, Report 0£ USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB, San Antonio, T~. King, N.W., dustesen, D.R., and Clarke, R.L., 1971, Behavioral sensitivity to microwave irradiation, Science 172:398-401. Lai, H., Horita, A., Chou, CK., and Guy, A.W., 1987, Effects of low- level microwave irradiation on hippocampal and frontal cortical choline uptake are classically conditionable, Pharmac Biochem Behav 27.'635-639. Lai, H., Carino, M.A., and Guy, A.W., 1989, Low-level microwave irradiation and central cholinergic systems, Pharmac Biochem Behav 33.'131-138. Lai, H., Carino, M.A., Horita, A., and _Guy, A.W., 1992, Single vs r_epeated microwave exposure: effects on benzodiazepine receptors in the brain of tt~e rat, Bioelectromagnetics 13.'57-66. Lai, H., Carino, M.A., and Guy, A.W., 1989, Low-level microwave irradiation and central cholinergic systems, Pharmac Biochem Behav 33:131-138. Magras, tN., and Xenos, T.D., 1997, RI: radiation-induced changes in the prenatal development of mice. Bioelectromagnetics 18(6).'455- 461. Mitchell, D.S., Switzer, W. G., and Bronaugh, E.L., 1977, Hyperactivity and disruption of operant behavior in rats after multiple exposure to microwave radiation, Radio Sci 12(6):263-271. Navakatila'an, M.A., and Tomashevskaya, L.A., 1994, Phasic behavioral and endocrine effects of microwaves of nonthermal intensity. In: "Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields, vol. 1 ", D.O. Carpenter, ed., Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Oscar, K.d. and Hawkins, T.D., 1977, Microwave alteration of the blood-brain barrier system of rats, Brain Res 126:281-293. Persson B.R.R., Salford L.G., and Brun, A., 1997, Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Network 3:455-461. Phillips, d.L., Ivaschuk, 0., Ishida-Jones, T., Jones, R.A., Campbell- Beachler, M., and Haggren, W., 1998, DNA damage in Molt-4 T- lymphoblastoid cells exposed to cellular telephone radiofrequency fields in vitro. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 45:103-110. Sanders, A.P., doines, W.T., and Alii& J.W., 1985, Effect of_ continuous-wave, pulsed, and sinusoidal-amplitude-modulatebl microwaves on brain energy metabolism, Bioelectromagnetics 6.'89- 97. Schrot, J., Thomas, JR., and Banvard, R.A., 1980, Modification of the repeated acquisition of response sequences in rats by low-level microwave exposure, Bioelectromagnetics 1:89-99. Seaman, R.L., and Wachtel, H., 1978, Slow and rapid responses to CW and pulsed microwave radiation by individual Aplysia pacemakers, d Microwave Power 13:77-86 Takashima, S., Onaral, B., and Schwan, H.P., 1979, Effects of modulated RF energy on the EEG of mammalian brain, RadEnviron Biophys 16.'15-27. Thomas, J.R., Finch, E.D., Fulk, D.W., and Burch, L.S., 1975, Effects of low level microwave radiation on behavioral baselines, Ann NY Acad Sci 247.'425-432. Velizarov, S., Raskmark, P., and Kwee, S., 1999, radiofrequency fields on cell proliferation are Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 48(1):177-180. The effects of non-thermal. Wachtel, H., Seaman, R., and Joines, W., 1975, Effects of low- intensity microwaves on isolated neurons, Ann NY Acad Sci 247.'46- 62. Wang, B.M., and Lai, H., 2000, Acute exposure to pulsed 2450-MHz microwaves affects water-maze performance of rats, Bioelectromagnetics 21:52-56. Powerwatch News - REFLEX report shows that mobile phone radiation damages living c... Page 1 of 5 ~'~l - Print Page Return to normal view Taken from the following http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20041222_reflex.asp source: News :: 22/12/2004 - REFLEX report shows that mobile phone radiation damages living cells Relevant Links: ~ - Ross Adey's foreword on this site ~ - New Scientist Report ~ - BBC News Report '~ - Download the whole 291 page scientific report (10.8HB)* Yourfeedback We would greatly appreciate to know how you heard about this story. Please enter where you heard about us in the box below and click "send". Thanks. * Please be aware that this is a large file and may take some time to download Summary: Twelve institutes in seven countries have found genotoxic effects and modified expressions on numerous genes and proteins after Radio frequency and extremely Iow frequency EMF exposure at Iow levels, below current international safety guidance, to living cells in-vitro. These results confirm the likelihood of long-term genetic damage in the blood and brains of users of mobile phones and other sources of electromagnetic fields. The idea behind the REFLEX study was to attempt replicate damage already reported to see if the effects were real and whether, or not, more money should be spent of research into the possible adverse health effects of EMF exposure. They concluded that in-vitro damage is real and that it is important to carry out much more research, especially monitoring the long-term health of people. "Project Leader Franz Adlkofer advised against the use of a mobile phone when an alternative fixed-line phone was available and recommended using a headset whenever possible, "He said: "We don't want to create a panic but it is good to take precautions"." Page 21, Tuesday 21st December 2004 Issue, Daily Express Ross Adey's FOREWORD to the report should be read - it contains much wisdom. It is reproduced in full below. The REFLEX project (QLK4-CT-1999-01574 / REFLEX / Final Report) has made a substantial contribution to the database on biological effects of both ELF-EHF and RF-EHF on in vitro cellular http://www.powerwatch.org.ukgnews/20041222_reflex.asp?pf=l 6/27/2007 Powerwatch News - REFLEX report shows that mobile phone radiation damages living c... Page 2 of 5 systems. The study was designed to investigate whether or not EIqF exposure below the energy density reflected by the present safety levels generates in vitro critical cellular events. Gene mutations, deregulated cell proliferation and suppressed or exaggerated programmed cell death (apoptosis) that are caused by or result in an altered gene and protein expression profile are such critical events, the convergence of which is required for the development of chronic diseases. Genotoxic effects and a modified expression of numerous genes and proteins after EMF exposure could be demonstrated with great certainty, while effects on cell proliferation, cell differentiation and apoptosis were much less conclusive. Since all these observations were made in in vitro studies, the results obtained neither preclude nor confirm a health risk clue to EMF exposure, but they speak in favour of such a possibility. Because of their fundamental character the findings will be presented to WHO, IARC and ICNIRP. It will be up to these organisations to make use of them for risk evaluation, in combination with findings from animal and epidemiological studies. FOREWORD by Professor Ross Adey Ross Adey, who made fundamental contributions to the emerging science of the biological effects of electromagnetic fields (ElqFs), died in May 2004. In memory of his achievements as a scientist and in recognition of his support of the REFLEX work, the consortium decided that his message would be an inspiration to all those scientists who are willing to accept the challenges posed by EMF research, and in addition, make a fitting introduction to the final report. The Future Of Fundamental Research Tn A Society Seeking Categoric Answers To Health Risks Of New Technologies The Challenge to Conventional Wisdom The history of bioelectromagnetics epitomizes a range of problems that arise whenever a community of sciences is confronted with a frontier that delves deeply into the established orthodoxies of biology, the physical sciences and engineering. These conflicts have become even more sharply defined when emerging new knowledge in bioelectromagnetics research has challenged the conventional wisdom in each part of this trinity. Thirty-five years ago, we, who first voiced our observations of physiological responses to a spectrum of environmental EMFs at levels below thresholds for significant tissue heating, were promptly challenged by acolytes of orthodoxies in the biological and physical sciences. At best, we were euphemistically described as "controversial", a designation that persists to this day. A Yale physicist recently added the charming term "crackpot" to describe a highly qualified biophysicist investigator. What is the basis of this deep thorn of discontent? Historically, excitation in biological systems has been modeled and tested in terms of equilibrium thermodynamics. In this classic tradition, it was assumed that the potential effectiveness of an exciting agent could be assessed by its ability to transfer energy to the receptor in excess of its random thermal atomic and molecular collisions. Thus, the physical expression kT, the union of the Boltzmann constant and temperature, has been regarded as an expression of an immutable threshold below which an exciting agent would not be physiologically effective. In like fashion from the quantum realm of the physicist, photon energies of Iow-frequency magnetic fields, now known to act as effective physiological stimuli, would also fall below this thermal barrier. Here is one example: The human auditory threshold involves a hair cell vibration of 10-11 meters, or about the diameter of a single hydrogen atom. But, by an as-yet-unknown mechanism, the ear http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20041222_reflex.asp?pr=- 1 6/27/2007 Powerwatch News - REFLEX report shows that mobile phone radiation damages living c... Page 3 of 5 suppresses the vastly larger noise of its thermal atomic and molecular collisions, functioning as an almost "perfect" amplifier close to O°K. Clearly, we face a profound paradox, with answers to be sought in cooperative states and nonequilibrium thermodynamics, as first suggested in a biological context almost 60 years ago by Herbert Frohlich. The lesson is clear. The awesome complexity of biological organization demands our most careful consideration. The Recent History of Technology Applications We also find the heat of controversy in the recent history of technological applications in western societies. At no point in the last 20 years has public school education ensured that a majority of citizens has even a basic understanding of sophisticated communication devices and systems, such as telephones, radio and television. Similarly, automotive engineering remains a sea of vast ignorance for most users. Nor is such knowledge considered appropriate or necessary. In summary, we have become superstitious users of an ever-growing range of technologies, but we are now unable to escape the web that they have woven around us. Media reporters in general are no better informed. Lacking either responsibility or accountability, they have created feeding frenzies from the tiniest snippets of information gleaned from scientific meetings or from their own inaccurate interpretation of published research. In consequence, the public has turned with pleading voices to government legislatures and bureaucracies for guidance. Public Concerns and the Evolving Pattern of Research Funding We face the problem brought on by the blind leading the blind. Because of public pressure for rapid answers to very complex biological and physical issues, short-term research programs have been funded to answer specific questions about certain health risks. Participating scientists have all too often accepted unrealistic expectations that, in a matter of a few years, they will provide answers to pivotal questions in cell and molecular biology that can only be achieved slowly, painstakingly and collaboratively over a decade or more. Using EF4Fs as tools, we have launched our ship on a vast, uncharted ocean, seeking a new understanding of the very essence of living matter in physical processes at the atomic level. This is an awesome and humbling prospect, surely not to be ignored or forgotten in the pragmatic philosophies of most risk research. Tn many countries, and particularly in the USA, the effects of such harassing and troublesome tactics on independent, careful fundamental research have been near tragic. Beguiled by health hazard research as the only source of funding, accomplished basic scientists have diverted from a completely new frontier in physical regulation of biological mechanisms at the atomic level. Not only have governments permitted corporate interests in the communications industry to fund this research, they have even permitted them to determine the research questions to be addressed and to select the institutions performing the research. These policies overlook the immutable needs of the march of science. In their hasty rush to judgment, they have sought a scientific consensus where none can yet exist. Such a consensus will occur only after experimental convergence emerges from a spectrum of related but certainly not identical experiments. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20041222_reflex.asp?pr= 1 6/27/2007 Powerwatch News - REFLEX report shows that mobile phone radiation damages living c... Page 4 of 5 Defining the Role of Epidemiology in Current Controversies Much in the fashion of ancient Romans, standing four-square and reading the auguries of future events by noting flight patterns of passing birds, the modern-day epidemiologist has become the high priest in the search for correlates of disease processes with a constellation of environmental observables. It is rare for them to be competent in delving into questions of causality, particularly where no exposure metric has been established for a suspected environmental factor. Nevertheless, in courts of law, in legislatures, and among a concerned public, epidemiological opinions have become a gold standard, typically outranking evidence based on a balanced and often cautionary review of current medical science. We should remind ourselves that their professional tool is biostatistics - they build endless Byzantine edifices of levels of statistical risk, with little or no commitment to the underlying science or medicine. Their mutual discussions have produced the technique of meta-analysis, the pooling of statistical analyses from a series of epidemiological studies. The method ignores the nuances of both experimental design and epidemiological findings in the separate studies, and blinds us to options for further research based on the possible uniqueness of these separate observations. It appears reasonable that there should be no more large epidemiological studies on human EI~IF exposures until essential exposure metrics are established, based on mechanisms of field interactions in tissues. Repairing the Body Politic of Science: Some Personal Reflections The passage of time across the years has not diminished in any way the importance, even the urgency, that one feels towards the growing edifice of science. We must not fail to engender in younger minds a passionate curiosity and an imagination sufficient to kindle their commitment to all that is great and good in the scientific method. As I reflect on major changes wrought in the U.S. national research scene over the past 40 years, I sense a deep and growing concern that research training and the culture of research accomplishment have stifled the burning thorn of personal discontent that should be the creative option of all young minds entering on a research career. Graduate students are assigned a project that is typically a segment of their advisor's grand vista. They may not deviate to ask creative "what if?" questions. They emerge from the chrysalis of their training, bearing a parchment for the professional market place, affirming proficiency in certain techniques, but in no way proclaiming the arrival of that precious citadel of a creative mind. Please allow me to conclude with an urgent proposal that comes from my own research experience. Formal instruction in physics, theoretical and applied, has become the weakest link for those entering on a career in medical research. Bioelectrornagnetics research has opened the door to a new understanding of the very essence of living matter in physical regulation at the atomic level, beyond the realm of chemical reactions in the exquisite fabric of biomolecules. Without versatility in biophysics that matches their typical knowledge in molecular biology and biochemistry, none of these students may cross this threshold to the cutting edge of in future medical research. Let us not see this opportunity lost prematurely through prostitution of mechanistic research in the market place of possible health risks. Thank you for the great privilege of offering these personal reflections. http://www.powenvatch.org.uk/news/20041222_reflex.asp?p f= 1 6/27/2007 Powerwatch News - REFLEX report shows that mobile phone radiation damages living c... Page 5 of 5 From 7,12 Summary ... the omnipresence of ENF's in infrastructures and consumer products have become a topic of public concern. This is due to the fear of people that based on the many conflicting research data a risk to their health cannot be excluded with some certainty. Therefore, the overall objective of REFLEX was to find out whether or not the fundamental biological processes at the cellular and molecular level support such an assumption. For this purpose, possible effects of ENFs on cellular events controlling key functions, including those involved in carcinogenesis and in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative disorders, were studied through focussed research. Failure to observe the occurrence of such key critical events in living cells after EMF exposure would have suggested that further research efforts in this field could be suspended and financial resources be reallocated to the investigation of more important issues. But as clearly demonstrated, the results of the REFLEX project show the way into the opposite direction. (Comment: i.e. more funding for important research is urgently needed) http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20041222_reflex.asp?pr= 1 6/27/2007 Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 24:109-119, 2~5 Copyright © Taylor & Francis, Inc. ISSN 1536-8378 print DOI: I 0.1080/15368370500205472 (~ Taylor & Francis Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields from Phone Masts on a Population of White Stork ( Ciconia ciconia) ALFONSO BALMORI Consejeria de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Castilla y Le6n, Valladolid, Spain Monitoring of a white stork population in Valladolid (Spain) in the vicinity of Cellular Phone Base Stations was carried out, with the objective of detecting possible effects. The total productivity, in the nests located within 200meters of antennae, was 0.86 4-0.16. For those located further than 30Om, the result was practically doubled, with an average of 1.64-0.14. Very significant differences among the total productivity were found (U = 240; p = 0.001, Mann-Whitney test). In pdrtial productivity, an average of 1.44 4- 0.16 was obtained for the first group (within 200m of antennae) and of 1.65 4- 0.13 for the second (further than 300m of antennae), respectively. The difference between both groups of nests in this case were not statistically significant (U = 216; P = 0.26, Mann-Whitney Test U). Twelve nests (40%) located within than 200m of antennae never had chicks, while only one (3.3%) located further than 300m had no chicks. The electric field intensity was higher on nests within 200m (2.36 4- 0.82 Win) than on nests further than 300m (0.53 4- 0.82 V/m). Interesting behavioral observations of the white stork nesting sites located within lOOm of one or several cellsite antennae were carried out. These results are compatible with the possibility that microwaves are interfering with the reproduction of white storks and would corroborate the results of laboratory research by other authors. Keywords Cellsites; Cellular phone masts; Ciconia ciconia; Electromagnetic fields; Microwaves; Nonthermal effects; Reproduction; White stork. Introduction Most of the attention on the possible biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) has been focused on human health. People frequently use wildlife as biological indicators to detect the alterations in the ecosystems and in an urban Address correspondence to Alfonso Balmori, Consejerfa de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Castilla y Le6n, C/Rigoberto Cortejoso, 14 47071 Valladolid, Spain; E-mail: balmaral~jcyl.es 109 110 Balmori habitat. The numeric tendency of the populations of birds is of particular interest in the conservation of nature [1]. The cellsite antennae emit a frequency of 900 or 1800MHz, pulsed in very low frequencies, generally known as microwaves (300 MHz-300 GHz), similar to the radar spectrum. The cellsite ordinarily have 3 sectors, with 3 antennae that cover an angle of 120 degrees each [2-5]. Thou~a they have many and varied outputs, at a distance of 50m, the power density is about 10p, W/cm2 [2], while at distances of 100 m at ground level it measures above 1 p,W/cm2 (personal observation). Between 150 and 200m, the power density of the main lobe near the ground is typically of some tenth of 1 p,W/cm2 [3]. In real life, living organisms are exposed to variable levels of electromagnetic fields (radiofrequencies), according to the distance from the cellular bases stations, the presence of passive structures to either amplify the waves (e.g., the metallic structures) or to shield them (buildings or other obstacles), the number of transmission calls within the transmitters and their position with relationship to the orientation of the antenna [2]. Animals am very sensitive electrochemical complexes that communicate with their environment through electrical impulses. Ionic currents and electric potential differences exist through the cellular membranes and corporal fluids [6]. The intrinsic electromagnetic fields from the biological structures are characterized by certain specific frequencies that can be interfered with by the electromagnetic radiation, through induction and causing modification in their biological responses [3]. Animals exposed to the EMF can suffer a deterioration of health, changes in behavior [7, 8], and changes in reproductive success [9, 10]. The low intensity pulsed microwave radiation from cellsites produces subtle athermal influences in the living organisms, because this radiation is able to produce biological responses by the microwave carrier and by the low frequency of pulses from GSM system. "Windows" exist in whereby EMFs produce biological effects at specific frequencies (window effect) [11]. Some effects are manifested exclusively with a certain power density [12], while others are manifested after a certain duration of the irradiation, which indicates long-term cumulative effects [13]. During lingering exposure, the effects can change from stimulant to inhibition, depending on the pulse shape [14, 15], the duration, development, and differentiation and the physiologic condition or health of the receiving organism [16], and their genetic predisposition [17]. These waves seem to cause different, and even contrary effects, depending on their frequency, intensity, modulation, pulses or time of exposure [12, 16, 18]. The pulsed waves (in bursts) and certain low frequency modulations, produce great biological activity [14, 15, 18]. The dose-response relationships (athermal) are nonlinear [19]. Research has shown such effects on the living organisms at molecular [12] and cellular levels [20] on immune processes [21], in DNA [22], on the nervous, cardiac, endocrine, immune, and reproductive systems [16, 23-28], modification of sleep and alteration of the cerebral electric response (EEG) [29], increase of the arterial pressure and changes in the heart rhythm [30], and an increase in the permeability of the blood brain barrier [31]. The objective of this study was to investigate if the phone mast cellsites caused effects in wild birds similar to the laboratory studies, and studies carried out on people exposed to this radiation [3, 5, 32-35]. EMF Effects on C. ciconia lll Materials and Methods For monitoring the brcedlng success of the white stork population, nests (n = 60) were selected and visited from May to June of 2003. The difficulty of the investigation in the field, (and when studying wild species) does not allow one to control all variables as in the laboratory; however, the selected nests had similar characteristics. They were located in the roof of churches and buildings inside urban nuclei in Valladolid (Spain). (The nests on trees and other natural supports or outside the urban nuclei were never studied.) Since the cellsite radiations are omnipresent, very few places exist with an intensity of 0 V/m near inhabited nuclei. For that reason, nests were chosen that were exposed at very high or very low levels of electromagnetic radiation, depending on the distance from thc nests to the antennas. The nests were selected and separated in two categories: a) Nests (n = 30) located within 200m of one or several cellsite antennae (GSM- 900 MHz and DCS-1800 MHz), placed in masts and in the roof of the buildings at 15-30m high. b) Nests (n = 30) located further than 300m of any cellsites. The nest were observed using a prismatic Zeiss 8 × 30 and a "Leika" 20-60 X telescope. The number of young were counted. For the analysis of the results of the reproduction, two indexes were used: 1) the total productivity (number of young flown by each couple, including nests with zero chicks). 2) the partial productivity (number of young flown by couples with some chicks, excluding nests with zero chicks). To compare the breeding success of both groups of nests a nonparametric test was applied (Mann-Whitney test U). Also, we measured the electric field intensity (radiofrcquencies and microwaves) in V/m, using a "Nuova Elettronica" device Model LX 1435 with 10% sensitivity, from a unidirectional antenna (range: 1 MHz-3GHz). Keeping in mind the inaccessibility of the nests, the measurements were made in their vacinity under similar conditions, recording the reproducible values obtained when directing thc antenna of the device toward the cellsite antenna in line of sight. Between February 2003 and June 2004, we carried out 15 and 10 visits, respectively, to 20 nests located within 100m of one or several cellsite antennae to observe the behavior of the species. The visits covered all the phases of breeding, from construction of the nest, until the appearance of young storks exercising their wings and practicing flight. Results Table 1 presents the number of young and electric field intensity (V/m) of each studied nest. The total productivity, in the nests located within 200m of antennae was 0.86 :t: 0.16. For those located further than 300m, the result was practically doubled, with an average of 1.6+0.14 (Table 1). Both groups showed very significant differences in the breeding success (U = 240; P = 0.001, Mann-Whitney Test U). 112 Balmori Table 1 Intensity of electric field, total and partial productivity in the nests within 200 m and further than 300m to the phone mast Nests within 200m Nests further than 300m Number of Number of Nest young EMF (V/m) Nest young EMF (V/m) 1 2 0.8 1 I 0.4 2 2 0.6 2 2 0.7 3 0 0.8 3 1 1.3 4 3 1.5 4 1 1.1 5 1 1.7 5 1 0.6 6 2 2.9 6 3 0.4 7 1 3.1 7 2 0.6 8 1 1.3 8 2 0.7 9 1 1.3 9 3 0.6 10 1 2.8 10 1 0.7 11 1 1.8 11 2 0.8 12 3 3.2 12 2 0.3 13 I 1.6 13 3 0.1 14 0 2.7 14 1 0.6 15 0 2.3 15 2 0.5 16 0 2.7 16 3 0 17 0 2.5 17 2 0.3 18 0 3.5 18 1 0.8 19 0 3.5 19 2 0.2 20 0 2.7 20 0 0.8 21 0 2.9 21 2 0.2 22 2 3.2 22 1 0.6 23 0 2.5 23 1 0.5 24 1 2.6 24 1 0.7 25 1 2.4 25 1 1.4 26 0 2.2 26 2 0.1 27 1 2.6 27 1 0.1 28 1 3.1 28 2 0.2 29 1 3.1 29 1 0 30 0 3.0 30 I 0.6 Mean EMF 2.36 0.53 Total productivity 0.86 1.6 Partial productivity 1.44 1.65 Nests without young 12 (40%) I (3.3%) In partial productivity in average of 1.44 + 0.16 was obtained for the first group (within 200m of antennae) and 1.65 + 0.13 for the second (further than 300m of antennae) respectively. The difference between both groups of nests in this case was not statistically significant (U = 216; P = 0.26, Mann-Whitney Test U). EMF Effects on C. ciconia 113 Twelve nests (40%) located within 200m of the antennae never had any chicks, while only one (3.3%), located further than 300m, never had chicks. The electric field intensity was higher on nests within 200m (2.36 =t: 0.82V/m) that on nests further 300m (0.53 =[: 0.82V/m) (Table 1). The results of the findings and interesting behavioral observations of the white stork nesting sites located within 100m of one or several cellsite antennae and on those that the main beam impacted directly (EFI > 2 V/m) included young that died from unknown causes. Also, within this distance, couples frequently fought over the nest construction sticks and failed to advance the construction of the nests. (Sticks fell to the ground while the couple tried to build the nest.) Some nests were never completed and the storks remained passively in front of cellsite antennae. Discussion The effects of athermal microwaves on birds have been well known for more than 35 years [36, 37]. Some authors obtained beneficial effects in the production of insect eggs and exposed birds, but found that the mortality was doubled [38]. In hen experiments, problems of health and a deterioration of the plumage arose, while in the autopsies, leucosis and tumors of the central nervous system appears [39]. Giarola and KrUeger [40] obtained a large reduction of the rate of growth and also a reduction of the adrenal glands, in exposed chickens. Kondra et al. [41] obtained an increase in the frequency of ovulation of exposed birds, and a bigger production of eggs but with less weight, proposing that the pituitary gland was stimulated. Other authors also have obtained effects reducing the rate of growth in chickens and rats, reduction in the production of eggs in hens exposed to microwaves of different frequencies and intensities, increase of fertility, and a deterioration of the quality of the eggshell at certain frequencies [42]. An increase in the embryonic mortality of chickens also has been found [15, 17, 43, 44]. These microwave effects are athermal [45]. Recently, it also has been demonstrated that the microwaves used in cellphones produce an athermal response in several types of neurons of the nervous system in birds [46] and that they can affect the blood brain barrier as has been observed in rats [47]. Birds are especially sensitive to the magnetic fields [48]. The white stork (Ciconia ciconia) build their nests on pinnacles and other very high places with high electromagnetic contamination (exposed to the microwaves). Also, they usually live inside the urban environment, where the electromagnetic contamination is higher, and remain in the nest a lot of the time, for this reason the decrease on the brood can be a good biological indicator to detect the effects of these radiations. The results indicate a difference in total productivity but not in partial productivity between the near nests and those far from the antennae. This indicate the existence of nests without chicks, or the death of young in their first stages in the nests near cellsites (40% of nest without young, compared to 3.3% in nests further 300m). Also, in the monitoring of the nests near to cellsite antennae, some dead young were observed and several couples never built the nest. In previous studies in Valladolid, the results of productivity were generally higher than those obtained in this study and less nests appeared without young (Table 2). Consistent with these results, the microwaves could be affecting one or several reproductive stages: the construction of the nest, the number of eggs, the embryonic 114 Babnori Table 2 Results of censuses carried out in Valladolid (Spain). Couples Number of Total Partial without Year visited nests productivity productivity young(%) References 1984 113 1.69 2.13 7 [65] 1992 115 1.93 5.2 [62] 1994 24 1.84 7.6 [63] 2001 35 2.43 [64] 2003 (<200m) 30 0.83 1.44 40 This study 2003 (>300m) 30 1.6 1.65 3.3 This study development, the hatching or the mortality of chicks in their first stages. The faithfulness of the white stork to nest sites can increase the effects of the microwaves. A Greek study [49] relates to a progressive drop in the number of births of rodents. The mice exposed to 0.168~W/cm2 become sterile after 5 generations, while those exposed to 1.053 p,W/cmZbecame sterile after only 3 generations. The interaction seems to take place through the central nervous system more than on the reproductive gland directly. Other studies find a decrease of fertility, increase of deaths after the birth in rats and dystrophic changes in their reproductive organs [16]. A recent study shows a statistically significant high mortality rate of chicken embryos subjected to the radiation from a cellphone, compared to the control group [43]. EMF exposure affected the reproductive success of kestrels (Falco sparverius), increasing fertility, egg size, embryonic development and fledging success but reduced hatching success [10]. An increase in the mortality [50] and the appearance of morphological abnormalities, especially of the neural tube [14, 15, 17] has been recorded in chicken embryos exposed to pulsed magnetic fields, with different susceptibility among individuals probably for genetic reasons. It is probable that each species, even each individual, shows different susceptibility to the radiation, since the susceptibility depends on the genetic bias, and of the irradiated living organisms physiologic and neurological state [4, 51]. Different susceptibility of each species also has been proven in wild birds exposed to CEM from high- voltage powerlines [9]. When the experimental conditions (power density, frequency, duration, composition of the tissue irradiated, etc.) change, their biological effects also change [25, 52]. Microwaves have the potential to induce adverse reactions in the health of people [2-5, 34, 35, 47]. Although the power output differs per site and type of transmitter, at more than 300m distance from the antennas, most of the symptoms recorded in people diminish or disappear [34, 35]. It also has been pointed out that below 0.6V/m the effects on the people disappear (Salzburg resolution). Since, we cannot see symptoms for white storks, it is necessary to use objective variables such as the Total and Partial Productivity, and other characteristics of behavior (nonconstruction of nest, sticks fall, etc.). We recommend electromagnetic contamination in the microwave range be considered a risk factor in the decline of some populations, especially urban birds, especially when exposed to higher radiation levels. Because of their thinner skull, their great mobility and the fact that they use areas with high levels of microwave electromagnetic radiation, birds EMF Effects on C. ciconia 115 are very good biological indicators. The freedom of movement of birds and their habit of settling in the proximity and even on the cellsites, makes them potentially susceptible to such effects. Small organisms (children, birds, small mammals, etc.) are especially vulnerable, as absorption of microwaves of the frequency used in mobile telephones is greater as a consequence of the thinner skull of a bird, the penetration of the radiation into the brain is greater [2, 49, 53, 54]. Several million birds of 230 species die annually from collisions with the masts of telecommunication facilities in United States during migration [55]. The cause of the accidents has yet to be proven, although one knows that they mainly take place during the night, in fog, or bad weather. The birds use several orientation systems: the stars, the sun, the site-specific recognition and the geomagnetic field [48]. The illumination of the towers probably attracts the birds in the darkness, but it is possible that the accidents take place in circumstances of little visibility, because at the time, other navigational tools are not available. The perception to the terrestrial magnetic field can be altered by the electromagnetic radiation from the antennae. The reports of carrier pigeons losing direction in the vicinity of cellsites are numerous, and more investigation is necessary. In the United Kingdom, where the allowed radiation levels are 20 times higher than those of Spain, a decline of several species of urban birds has recently taken place [56], coinciding with the increasing installations of cellsites. Although this type of contamination is considered at the present time by some experts as the most serious [4], inspection systems and controls have never been developed to avoid their pernicious effects on living organisms. Some of the biological mechanisms of the effects of these waves are still ignored [12], although the athermal effects on organisms have been sufficiently documented. The telephone industry could be taking advantage of the complexity of the biological and physical processes implied, to create an innocuous atmosphere, repeatedly denying the existence of harmful effects in living organisms. For this reason the reports related to animals are of special value, since in this case it can never be alleged that the effects are psychosomatic [3]. Future investigation should be carried out with long-term monitoring of the breeding success, of the sleeping places and of the uses of the habitat for species more vulnerable to the microwaves. Of special interest should be investigations that try to make correlations with the radiofrequency electromagnetic field measurements. Field studies investigating populations of urban parks and territories surrounding cellsites should be. a high-priority. A radius of 1 sq K and the layout of concentric lines at intermediate distances can be useful to investigate differential results among areas depending on their vicinity and the radiation levels. We consider that the birds most affected from the microwave electromagnetic contamination could be: 1) those bound to urban environments with more sedentary customs, in general those that spend more time in the vicinity of the base stations; 2) those that live or breed in high places, more exposed to the radiation and at higher power density levels; 3) those that breed on open structures where the radiation impacts directly on adults and chicks in the nest; 4) those that spend the night outside of holes or structures that attenuate the radiation. 116 Balmo ri In far away areas, where the radiation decreases progressively, the chronic exposure can also have long term effects [13, 49]. Effects from antennas on the habitat of birds are difficult to quantify, but they can cause a serious deterioration, generating silent areas without male singers or reproductive couples. The deterioration of the ecosystem can also take place from the impact of the radiation on the populations of invertebrate prey [54, 57, 58] and on the plants [59]. Bioelectromagnetics is historically a frontier discipline. Controversy is frequent when the scientists recognize serious effects on health and on the environment that cause high economic losses. Independent investigators state the necessity of a drastic reduction of the emmitted power levels on people and the ecosystems and that it is technically viable although more expensive for the industry [4, 22, 60]. Our opinion is that areas of continuous use should never exist at the height of the antennas either inside the beam or within a radius of several hundreds meters. The restriction to exposure to fauna presents special complexity; the main reason for the drastic reduction in the emission power of the antennae is presented as the only viable and effective solution to prevent these effects. Some authors have already propose that we are withessing a paradigm change in biology [61]. Acknowledgment Thanks are due to Denise Ward revised the English translation of the text and to Manuel Gonzfilez, for his company in the visit to San Pablo. Juan Matute and Jos6 Antonio Garcia provided the information of some white stork censuses carried out in Valladolid. The CDA (Junta de Castilla y Le6n) helped me efficiently in obtaining some of the papers. Comments by an anonymous referee greatly improved the manuscript. References 1. Bibby, C.J.; Burgess, N.D.; Hill, D.A. Bird Census Techniques. BTO and RSPB. 2. Santini, R.; Seigne, M.; Bonhomme-Faibre, L. Danger des t~l~phones cellulaires et de leurs stations relais. Pathol. Biol. 2000, 48, 525-528. 3. Hyland, G.J. Physics and biology of mobile telephony. Lancet 2000, 356, 1-8. 4. Hyland, G.J. The physiological and environmental effects of non-ionising electromagnetic radiation. Working document for the STOA Panel. European Parliament. Directorate General for Research. 2001. 5. Navarro, E.A.; Segura, J.; Portol~s, M.; G6mez Perretta, C. The microwave syndrome: a preliminary study in Spain. Electromag. Biol. Med. 2003, 22, 161-169. 6. Heredia-Rojas, L.; Rodffguez-Flores, M.; Santoyo-Stephano, E.; Casta~eda Garza, A.; Rodr~guez-De La Fuente. Los campos electromagn~ticos: Un problema de salud pfiblica? Respyn. 2003, 4, 1-10. 7. Marks, T.A.; Ratke, C.C.; English, W.O. Stray voltage and developmental, reproductive and other toxicology problems in dogs, cats and cows: a discusion. Vet. Hum. Toxicol. 1995, 37, 163-172. Monteagudo, J.L. Bioelectromagenefismo y salud ptlblica efectos, prevenci6n y tratamiento, Bardasano J.L. IBASC Alcala de Henares, 1997; 201-210. 8. L6scher, W.; K~is, G. Conspicuous behavioural abnormalities in a dairy cow herd near a tv and radio transmitting antenna. Pract. Vet. Surg. 1998, 29, 437 444. 9. Doherty, P.F.; Gr~bb, T.C. Effects of high-voltage power lines on birds breeding within the power lines' electromagnetic fields. Sialia 1996, 18, 129-134. EMF Effects on C. ciconia 117 10. Fernie, K.J.; Bird, D.M.; Dawson, R.D.; Lague, P.C. Effects of electromagnetic fields on the reproductive success of American kestrels. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 2000, 73 (1), 60-65. 11. Adey, W.R. Tissue interactions with non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Physiol. Rev. 198L 61, 435-514. 12. Daniells, C.; Duce, I.; Thomas, D.; Sewell, P4 Tattersall, J., De Pomerai, D. Transgenic nematodes as biomonitors of microwave-induced stress. Mutat. Res. 1998, 399, 55-64. 13. Adey, W.R. Bioeffects of mobile communications fields: possible mechanisms for cumulative dose. In Mobile Communication Safety; Kuster, Balzano, Lin, Eds.; London: Chapman and Hall, 1996; 95-131. 14. Ubeda, A.J.; Leal, M.A.; Trillo, M.A.; Jimenez, M.A.; Delgado, J.M.R. Pulse shape of magnetic fields influences chick embryogenesis. J. Anat. 1983, 137, 513-536. 15. Ubeda, A.; Trillo, M.A.; Chacon, L.; Blanco, M.J. Leal, J. Chick embryo development can be irreversibly altered by early exposure to weak extremely-low-frequency magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 1994, 15, 385-398. 16. Nikolaevich, N.; Igorevna, A.; Vasil, G. Influence of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation at non-thermal intensities on the human Body (a review of work by Russian and Ukrainian researchers). No Place to Hide 2001, 3, Suppl. 17. Farrel, J.M.; Litovitz, T.L.; Penafiel, M. The effect of pulsed and sinusoidal magnetic fields on the morphology of developing chick embryos. Bioelectromagnetics 1997, 18, 431-438. 18. Grigoriew, Ju. G. Role of modulation in biological effects of electromagnetic radiation. Radiat. Biol. Radioecol. 1996, 36, 659-670. 19. Marino, A.A.; Nilsen, E.; Frilot, C. Nonlinear changes in brain electrical activity due to cell phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 2003, 24, 339-346. 20. Dutta, S.K.; Ghosh, B.; Blackman, C.F. Radiofrequency radiation-induced calcium ion efttux enhancement from human and other neuroblastoma cells in culture. Bioelectromagnetics 1989~ 10, 197-202. 21. Obukhan, K.I. The effect of ultrahigh-frequency radiation on adaptation thresholds and the damages to blood system cells. Lik Sprava 1998, 7, 71-73. 22. Sarkar, S.; Ali, S.; Behari, J. Effect of low power microwave on the mouse genome: a direct DNA analysis. Mutat. Res. 1994, 320, 141-147. 23. Grigoriew, Ju. G.; Luk'ianova, S.N.; Makarov, V.P.; Rynskov, V.V. Total bioelectric activity of various structures of the brain in low-intensity microwave irradiation. Radiat. Biol. Radioecol. 1995, 35, 57-65. 24. Altpeter, E.S.; Krebs, Th.; Pfluger, D.H.; yon Kanel, J.; Blattmann, R. Study of health effects of Shortwave Transmitter Station of Schwarzenburg, Berne, Switzerland. University of Berne, Institute for Social and Preventative Medicine, 1995. 25. Dasdag, S.; Ketani, M.A.; Akdag, Z.; Ersay, A.R.; Sar, I.; Demirtas, O.C.; Celik, M.S. Whole body microwave exposure emitted by cellular phones and testicular function of rats. Urolog. Res. 1999, 27, 219-223. 26. Belousova, T.E.; Kargina-Terent'eva, R.A, Adrenergic nerve plexuses of heart and adrenal and myocardial catecholamines of spontaneously hypertensive rats under the influence of electromagnetic irradiation in the milimeter range. Morfologia 1999, 115~ 16--18. 27. Kolodynski, A.A.; Kolodynska, V.V. Motor and psychological functions of school children living in the area of the Skrunda radio location station in Latvia. Sci. Total Environ. 1996, 180, 87-93. 28. Petrides, M. Exposure to electromagnetic fields by using cellular telephones and its influence on the brain. Neuroreport 2000, 15, FI5. 29. Mann, K.; Roschkle, J. Effects of pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields on human sleep. Neuropsychobiol. 1996, 33, 41-47. Balmori 118 30. Szmigielski, S.; Bortkiewicz, A.; Gadzicka, E.; Zmyslony, M.; Kubacki, R. Alteration of diurnal rhythms of blood pressure and heart rate to workers exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Blood Press. Monit. 1998, 3, 323-330. 31. Fritze, K.; Sommer, C.; Schmitz, B.; Mies, G.; Hossman, K.; Kiessling, M. Effect of global system for mobile communication (GSM) microwave exposure on blood-brain barrier permeability in rat. Acta Neuropathol. 1997, 94, 465-470. 32. Lilienfeld, A.M.; Tonascia, J.; Tonascia, S.; Libauer, C.A.; Cauthen, G.M. Foreign Service Health Status Study--Evaluation of Health Status of Foreign Servic and Other Employees from Selected Eastern European Posts. Final Report; 1978. 33. Hurter, H.P.; Moshammer, H.; Kundi, M. Mobile telephone base-stations: elects on health and wellbeing. 2nd International workshop on biological effects of EMFs. Rhodes (Greece). 2002~ 1, 344-352. 34. Santini, R.; Santini, P.; Le Ruz, P.; Danze, J.M. Seigne, M. Survey study of people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base. Electromag. Biol. Med. 2003, 22, 41-49. 35. Santini, R.; Santini, P.; Danze, J.M.; Le Ruz P.; Seigne, M. Symptoms experienced by people in vicinity of base stations: II/incidences of age, duration of exposure, location of subjects in relation to the antennas and other electromagnetic factors. Pathol. Biol. 2003, 51,412-415. 36. Tanner, J.A. Effect of microwave radiation on birds. Nature 1966, 210, 636. 37. Tanner, J.A.; Romero-Sierra, C.; Davie, S.J. Non-thermal effects of microwave radiation on birds. Nature 1967, 216, 1139. 38. Tanner, J.A.; Romero-Sierra, C. Beneficial and harmful growth induced by the action of nonionizing radiation. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1974, 238, 171-175. 39. Tanner, J.A.; Romero-Sierra, C. The effects of chronic exposure to very low intensity microwave radiation on domestic fowl. J. Bioelectr. 1982, 1, 195-205. 40. Giarola, A.J.; Krueger, W.F. Continuous exposure of chick and rats to electromagnetic fields. IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech. 1974, 22, 432-437. 41. Kondra, P.A.; Smith, W.K.; Hodgson, G.C.; Brag, D.B.; Gavora, J.; Hamid, M.A.; Boulanger, R.J. Growth and reproduction of chickens subjected to microwave radiation. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1970, 50, 639~44. 42. Krueger, W.F.; Giarola, A.J.; Bradley, J.W.; Shrekenhamer, A. Effects of electromagnetic fields on fecundity in the chicken. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1975, 247, 391-400. 43. Grigoriew, Ju. G. Influence of the electromagnetic field of the mobile phones on chickens embryo, to the evaluation of the dangerousness after the criterion of this mortality. J. Radiat. Biol. 2003, 5, 541-544. 44. Youbicier-Simo, B.J.; Lebecq, J.C.; Bastide, M. Mortality of chicken embryos exposed to EMFs from mobile phones. Presented at the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, St. Petersburg Beach, Florida, June 1998. 45. Van Ummersen, C.A. An Experimental Study of Developmental Abnormalities Induced in the Chick Embryo by Exposure to Radiofrequency Waves. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Biology, Tufts University, Medford, MA, 1963. 46. Beasond, R.C.; Semm, P. Responses of neurons to an amplitude modulated microwave stimulas. Neurosci. Lett. 2002, 33, 175-178. 47. Sa[ford, L.G.; Brun, A.E.; Eberhardt, J.L.; Malmgren, L.; Persson, B.R. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Env. Health Persp. 2003, 111, 881-893. 48. Liboff, A.R.; Jenrow, K.A. New model for the avian magnetic compass. Bioelectromagnetics 2000, 21, 555-565. 49. Magras, I.N.; Xenos, T~D. Radiation-induced changes in the prenatal development of mice. Bioelectromagnetics. 1997, 18, 455-461. 50. Youbicier-Simo, B.J.; Bastide, M. Pathological effects induced by embryonic and postnatal exposure to EMFs radiation by cellular mobile phones. Radiat. Protect. 1999, 1,218-223. EMF Effects on C. ciconia 119 51. Fedrowitz, M.; Kamino, K4 L~scher, W. Significant differences in the effects of magnetic field exposure on 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene-induced mammary Carcinogenesis in two substrains of Sprague-Dawley rats. Cancer Reseamh 2004, 64, 243-251. 52. Kemerov, S.; Marinkev, M.; Getova, D. Effects of low-intensity electromagnetic fields on behavioral activity of rats. Folia Med. 1999, 41, 75-80. 53. Maisch, D. Children and mobile phones ... is there a health risk? The case for extra precautions. J. Australasian Coll. Nutri. Env. Med. 2003, 22, 3-8. 54. Balmori, A. Aves y telefonfa m6vil. Resultados preliminares de los efectos de las ondas electromagn6ticas sobre la fauna urbana. El Ecologista 2003, 36, 40-42. 55. Shire, G.G.; Brown, K.; Winegrad, G. Communication Towers: A Deadly Hazard To Birds. American Bird Conservancy, 2000. 56. Raven, M.J.; Noble, D.G.; Baillie, S.R. The Breeding Bird Survey 2002. BTO Research Report 334. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford, 2003. 57. Weisbrot, D.; Lin, H.; Ye, L.; Blank, M.; Goodman, R. Effects of mobile phone radiation on reproduction and development in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Cell. Biochem. 2003, 89, 48-55. 58. Panagopoulos, D.J.; Karabarbounis, A.; Margaritis, L.H. Effect of GSM 900-MHz mobile phone radiation on the reproductive capacity of Drosophila melanogaster. Electromag. Biol. Med. 2004, 23, 29-43. 59. Balmori, A. LPueden afectar las microondas pulsadas emitidas por las antenas de telefonfa a los ~rboles y otros vegetales?. Ecosistemas 2004, 3, 1-10. Balode, S. Assessment of radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation by the micronucleus test in bovine peripheral erythrocytes. Sci. Total. Environm. 1996, 180, 81-85. 60. De Pomerai, D.; Daniells, C.; David, H.; Allan, J.; Duce, I.; Mutwakil, M.; Thomas, D.; Sewell, P.; Tattersall, J.; Jones, D.; Candido, P. Non-thermal heat-shock response to microwaves, Nature 2000, 405, 417-418. 61. Adey, W.R. Electromagnetic fields, the modulation of brain tissue functions~a possible paradigm shift in biology. In International Encyclopedia of Neuroscience; Smith, B., Adelman, G., Eds.; New York; 2003. 62. Alauda. Censo de Cigiiefia Blanca (Ciconia clconia) en la provincia de Valladolid. Afio, 1992. 63. Alauda. Censo de Cigliefia Blanca (Ciconia ciconia) en la provincia de Valladolid. Afio, 1994. 64. Gamia, J.A. Apuntes sobre la poblaci6n de Cigiiefia Blanca (Ciconia ciconia) en el nficleo urbano de Valladolid. 65. Lfizaro, E.; Chozas, P.; Fernandez-Cruz, M. Demograffa de la Cigiiefia blanca (Ciconia ciconia) en Espafia. Censo Nacional de 1984. Ardeola 1986, 33, 131-169. Cell death induced by GSM 900-MHz and DCS 1800-MHz...[Mutat Res. 2007] - PubMed... Page 1 of 2  A ~.r~'ice of the Natioml Ltbm,'y ~f Mt~cine and ~e Natieml Mmtates of Heal~a My NC BI Pub ed www,pu [ne ,gov A~I Databases PubMed Nucleotide Protein Genome Structure OMIM PMC Journals Boo[ Search ffi for I Limits Preview/Index History Clipboard Details About Entrez Text Version Disnlav IAbstract ~ Showl20 i~lSort bY Review: 0 All: 1 Entrez PubMed Overview Help ] FAQ Tutorials New/Noteworthy E-Utilities PubMed Services Journals Database MeSH Database Single Citation Matcher Batch Citation Matcher Clinical Queries Special Queries LinkOut My NCBI Related Resources Order Documents NLM Mobile NLM Catalog NLM Gateway TOXNET Consumer Health Clinical Alerts ClinicalTrials.gov PubMed Central Murat Res. 2007 Jan 10;626(1-2):69-78. Epub 2006 Oct 11. Related Articles, Links Cell death induced by GSM 900-MHz and DCS 1800-MHz mobile telephony radiation. Panagopou!os DJ, Chavdoula ED, Nezis IP, Margaritis LH. Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Faculty of Biology, University of Athens, Panepistimiopolis, 15784 Athens, Greece. dpanagop~biol.uoa.gr http:~/www~ncbi~nlm~nih~g~v/sites/~ntrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&d~pt=Abstract&~is... In the present study, the TUNEL (Terminal deoxynucleotide transferase dUTP Nick End Labeling) assay-a well known technique widely used for detecting fragmented DNA in various types of cells--was used to detect cell death (DNA fragmentation) in a biological model, the early and mid stages of oogenesis of the insect Drosophila melanogaster. The flies were exposed in vivo to either GSM 900-MHz (Global System for Mobile telecommtmications) or DCS 1800-MHz (Digital Cellular System) radiation from a common digital mobile phone, for few minutes per day during the first 6 days of their adult life. The exposure conditions were similar to those to which a mobile phone user is exposed, and were determined according to previous studies of ours [D.J. Panagopoulos, A. Karabarbounis, L.H. Margaritis, Effect of GSM 900-MHz mobile phone radiation on the reproductive capacity olD. melanogaster, Electromagn. Biol. Med. 23 (1) (2004) 29-43; D.J. Panagopoulos, N. Messini, A. Karabarbounis, A.L. Philippetis, L.H. Margaritis, Radio frequency electromagnetic radiation within "safety levels" alters the physiological function of insects, in: P. Kostarakis, P. Stavroulakis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Millennium International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, October 17-20, 2000, pp. 169-175, ISBN: 960- 86733-0-5; D.J. Panagopoulos, L.H. Margadtis, Effects of electromagnetic fields on the reproductive capacity of D. melanogaster, in: P. Stavroulakis (Ed.), Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, Springer, 2003, pp. 545- 578], which had shown a large decrease in the oviposition of the same insect caused by GSM radiation. Our present results suggest that the decrease in oviposition previously reported, is due to degeneration of large numbers of egg chambers after DNA fragmentation of their constituent cells, induced by both types of mobile telephony radiation. Induced cell death is recorded for 6/27/2007 Cell death induced by GSM 900-MHz and DCS 1800-MHz...[Mutat Res. 2007] - PubMed... Page 2 of 2 the first time, in all types of cells constituting an egg chamber (follicle cells, nurse cells and the oocyte) and in all stages of the early and mid-oogenesis, from germarium to stage 10, during which programmed cell death does not physiologically occur. Germarium and stages 7-8 were found to be the most sensitive developmental stages also in response to electromagnetic stress induced by the GSM and DCS fields and, moreover, germarium was found to be even more sensitive than stages 7-8. Publication Types: · Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't PMID: 17045516 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Display Abstract ~ Show 20 ~ Sort by ~ Send to Write to the Help Desk NCBII NLM I NIH Department of Health & Human Services Privacy Statement I Freedom of Information Act ] Disclaimer http://www~ncbi~n~m~nih~g~v/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&d~pt=Abstract&~is... 6/27/2007 the increasing number of applications for new communication towers many municipal officials are aware of aesthetic and possiblo health con- cerns posed by these structures. Fewer may be aware that the towers often pose a serious hazard to migrating birds. Every spring millions of birds make the long journey from the tropics to breed and fill their ecological niches in North America. In the fall they must return again to the rich sources of food in Central and South America. These journeys are already long and arduous. The increasing number of communication towers is an added, deadly obstacle course. Many migrating birds crash into the towers or their supporting structures and am killed. Ornithologists have been studying the effect of towers on migration for decades. Based on this well documented history the United States Fish and Wildlife Service now estimates that at least four million birds - and possibly as many as 40 million - are killed every year at towers nationwide. Since most birds migrate at night the largest threat is posed by lighted towers. When birds encounter lighted structures their nocturnal navigation systems can be~ come disorientated. They cimle the structure repeat- edly, reluctant to leave the lighted area. The birds col- lide with the guy wires, or with the tower itself, or with each other. Many of the birds killed belong to species that am already in decline. The numbers and species known to be affected are probably only the tip of the iceberg. Studies ha~e been conducted at only a small minority of towers, and most bird carcasses am quickly scavenged by predators. While mortality may be low on some nights studied, it can roach drastic proportions under certain weather conditions, such as fog. In 1998 be- tween 5,000 atLd 10,000 birds of a single species - Lapland Longspurs were killed at one 420 foot tower in I(ansas on one night. In New York kills over 1,000 birds on a single night have been documented at an 850 foot tower in Elmira. Most studies have been conducted at towers over 500 feet, but any tower over ;>00 feet, and those within throe miles of an airport are required to be lit by the Federal Aviation Authority. In New York, as elsewhere, towers in the 200 - 500 foot height range am proliferating at the greatest rate. Many of these towers are being constructed on hilltops to broaden their range. This may increase cell towers impacts on migratory birds even further. New York State's mountain valleys and coastal regions can concentrate bird migration in specific weather conditions creating above average tower hazard. The number of towers in the state has doubled since the mid-1980's, and is on track to double again by the year 2010. Nationwide, the industry projections am that there may be as many as 100,000 new towers built in the next decade alone. The proliferation of new towers, and the impact of the studies conducted by ornitholo- gists, have brought the issue to the attention of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and a number of national conservation oganizations, including National Audubon Society. Balancing the need for new towers and greater coverage with the environmental impact has become an important conservation issue. Groups such as The Communication Tow- ers Working Group and Partners in Flight are working with state and federal agen- cies, and the industry to achieve this bal- ance. There are solid grounds for believing that we can greatly reduce bird mortality at tow- ers with relatively little effort. Perhaps as much as ninety percent of bird mortality could be avoided by implementing simple conservation measures such as avoiding the [~se of guy wires, carefully considering the location of towers with regard to migratory flyways and other bird concentration ar- eas, and keeping as many towers as pos sible unlit. Accordingly the US Fish and Wildlife Service has recently issued a set of guidelines for the siting and construction of new towers to help assure greater safety at towec~ for migrating birds. Bedford Audubon Society has recently adopted a resolution and set up a subcommittee to promote awareness of the issue of cell towers and migrating birds, and to encourage implementation in our area of simple conservation measures of the type outlined in the USFWS guidelines. The focus is on making towers safer - not on preventing the construction of~ towers altogether. The measures advised by the USFWS ing co-location wherever possible - dovetail neatly with other issues facin mCnts when addressing the problems of new tower construction. Brevard County, Florida recently passed a model ordinance for bird-friendly siting and construction of communication towers incorporating many of the guidelines. In our area such matters of planning and zoning am the concern of the local munici- palities. Individual municipalities can help achieve better protection of migratory birds by being aware of the USFWS guidelines when considering applications for new com- munication towem, or by passing ordinances that include the measures advised in the guidelines as Brevard County has done. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines are available on theinternet at: http://mi§ratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/comtow, html The Brevard County Ordinance can be viewed on the internet: http://www.abcblrds.org/pollcy/florlda_tower_or dtnance.pdf Further information is available at a number ofwebsites: http://www.towerkill.com http://migratorybirds, fws.gov/issues/tower s/tower.html Http://www.wildbirds.com/prot ect_towers.ht m Or contact: Jane Grant, chair Cell Tower and Wildlife Subcommittee of Bedford Audubon Society . Email: celltowers @ bedfordaudubon.org Tel. (914) 764 4241 Page - IMSI Masterclips - Copyright The Artist Illustration: 2 Fall Warblers THE MICROWAVE SYNDROME - FURTHER ASPECTS OF A SPANISH STUDY Oberfeid Gerd~, Navarro A. Enrique3, Portoles Manuel2, Maestu Ceferino4, Gomez-Perretta Claudio2 1) Public Health Department Salzburg, Austria 2) University Hospital La Fe, Valencia, Spain 3) Department of Applied Physics, University Valencia, Spain 4) Foundation European Bioelectromagnetism (FEB) Madrid, Spain Adress Corresponding author: Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, Public Health Department Salzburg, PO Box 527, 5010 Salzburg, Phone 0043 662 8042-2969, Fax 0043 66 8042-3056, ~erd.oberfeld~salzbur~,.~v. at Abstract A health survey was carried out in La I~lora, Murcia, Spain, in the vicinity of two GSM 900/1800 MHz cellular phone base stations. The E-field (- 400 MHz - 3 GHz) measured in the bedroom was divided in tertiles (0.02 - 0.04 / 0.05 - 0.22 / 0.25 - 1.29 V/m). Spectrum analysis revealed the main contribution and variation for the E- field fi.om the GSM base station. The adjusted (sex, age, distance) logistic regression model showed statistically significant positive exposure-respoase associations between the E-field and the following variables: fatigue, irritability, headaches, nausea, loss o£appetite, sleeping disorder, depressive tendency, feeling of discomfort, difficulty in concentration, loss of memory, visual disorder, dizziness and cardiovascular problems. The inclusion of the distance, which might be a proxy for the sometimes raised "concerns explanation", did not alter the model substantially. These results support the first statistical analysis based on two groups (arithmetic mean 0,65 V/m versus 0,2 V/m) as well as the correlation coefficients between the E-field and the symptoms (Navarro et al, "The Microwave Syndrome: A preliminary Study in Spain", Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, Volume 22, Issue 2, (2003): 161 - 169). Based on the data of this study the advice would be to strive for levels not higher than 0.02 V/m for the sum total, which is equal to a power density of 0.0001 gW/cm2 or 1 p.W/m~, which is the indoor exposure value for GSM base stations proposed on empirical evidence by the Public Health Office of the Government of Salzburg in 2002. Introduction The relationship between biological/health effects and electromagnetic exposure has been widely recognized from epidemiological and experimental studies. Even some institutional consensus has been reached and formal health risk assessments for exposure to ELF, extremely Iow frequency fields, e.g. from powerlines and electric appliances, have recently been scheduled. In 2002 the first IARC review on this topic classified ELF magnetic fields as" possibly human carcinogen" based on epidemiological studies of childhood leukemia [1]. In 2002 the California Department of Health judged ELF magnetic fields at least possibly related with leukemia in children and adults, brain tumors in adults, miscarriage and motor neuron disease [2]. With respect to radioffequency (30 kHz - 300 MHz) and microwave exposure (300 MHz - 300 GHz) the scientific evidence from in vitro, in vivo and epidemiological studies shows a great spectrum of biological/health effects at low level exposures [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. A specific symptomatology in humans linked to radiofrequency and microwaves, named "microwave sickness" or "radio frequency syndrome" was described at Iow level exposure which include headache, fatigue, irritability, loss of appetite, sleeping disorders, difficulties in concentration or memory, and depression [10]. The growing use of mobile communication, GSM 900/1800, cordless telephones etc in the last decade has reintroduced concerns about whether some health risks could derive fi.om microwave exposure, especially from mobile phones and their basestations. In contrast to the public debate on health risks from mobile phone base stations, only three epidemiological studies on this issue have been published until now. A study done in France THE MICROWAVE SYNDROME - FURTHER ASPECTS OF A SPANISH STUDY by Santini showed significant associations between symptoms fitting to the microwave sickness and the distance to mobile phone base stations [11]. It should be noted that the health related symptoms were most frequently reported at a distance of 50 - 100 m, which fits perfectly to the area with the highest microwave exposure in urban areas, where the main beam of the antennas usually hits the first houses. The second study done in Austria showed significant positive associations between the frequency selective measured electric field (GSM 900/1800) in the bedroom and cardiovascular symptoms, irrespective of the concerns of the people under study [12]. The third study was published by our group [13] where we measured the electric field via a broadband device in the bedroom of 97 participants in La I%ra, Murcia, Spain. The statistical analysis showed significantly higher symptom scores in 9 out of 16 symptoms in the group having an exposure of 0.65 V/m compared to the control group having an exposure of 0.2 V/m, both as an average mean. In the same paper we reported also significant correlation coefficients between the measured electric field and fourteen out of sixteen health related symptoms. The aim of this paper is to present additional statistical tests like logistic regression of the La I~ora data set and a detailed investigation of the EMF spectrum in six bedrooms (8 participants) done on July 3rd, 2004. Geographical Area and Time Schedule The study was done in La I%ra, a town in the south-east of Spain, close to Murcia, with 1900 inhabitants, situated on the slope of a hill. For the mobile phone coverage of La ~lora two masts had been sited on two different positions near the top of the hill above the village. The start of the transmission of both stations is not clear. However for the GSM 900 base station the siting is not earlier than 1997/1998, for the GSM 1800 base station was sited in December 1999. The questionnaires have been distributed in October 2000 and collected in November 2000. Broad band measurements (.-400 MHz - 3 GHz) in 97 bedrooms as well as some frequency selective measurements have been done in February and March 2001. In July 2004 frequency selective measurements were done in 6 bedrooms of former study participants. Questionnaire we used a questionnaire, translated to Spanish, of the Santini publication [10] which refers to demographic data: Address, sex, age, distance to mobile phone basestations, exposure time (years, days per week, hours per day). The questionnaire also collected information about proximiiy to power lines < 100 m, proximity to transformer stations < 10 m, use of personal computers > 2 hours per day and the use of cellular phones > 20 minutes per day. Finally a symptom checklist allowed to know the frequency of 16 health related symptoms: 0 = never, I = sometimes, 2 = often, 3 - very often. Many of the symptoms were those described as microwave/radiofrequency syndrom/sickness: Fatigue, iititability, headache, nausea, loss of appetite, sleeping disorders, depression, feeling of discomfort, difficulty in concentration, loss of memory, skin alterations, visual disorder, auditory disorder, dizziness, gait difficulty and cardiovascular alterations. The questionnaires were distributed in La ~lora in frequently used locations (hair dresser, pharmacy) in October/November 2000 and collected in November/December 2000. From 144 questionnaires returned, 97 measurements in the bedrooms were done in 2001. The difference of 47 subjects was due to the impossibility to read the name or adress in order to get the contact, no interest in the measurements, not at home at the scheduled measurement time or symptoms of the health questionnaire checked with an "x" instead of the proposed numbers "0", "1", "2", or "3". In 2004 the analysis of the La ~lora data set had been done with n=94 subjects having full information on exposure values from 2001, sex, age and symptoms except for one subject, where all informations were available except for the "skin disorder question" n=93. Exposure Assessment The exposure to mobile phone basestations was assessed in 2001 with a portable broad band measurement device (- 400 MHz - 3 GHz) called LX-1435. The electric field meter had been calibrated with a network analyser HP-8510C inside the anechoic chamber of the University of Valencia, Spain. The electric field probe was held around 1 meter from the walls and 1.2 meters above the ground, to avoid reflection of the waves in the walls and metallic structures and moved around a cimle of 25 centimeters' radius, orientating the dipole antenna to get the maximum electric field strength above the bed. The measurements were performed from 11:00 h to 19:00 h on February 24t~, 200 I, and on March 10t~, 2001, in the respondents' home. The bedroom was chosen because the pineal gland and its hormone melatonine is considered one of the target organs for EMF, having secretion peaks during the sleep. 3 OBERFELD, GOMEZ-PERRETTA, NAVARRO, PORTOLES, MAESTU To check the intensity of TV and radio channels (ultra short wave range), as well as the number and type of channels of the GSM 900/1800 base stations, measurements of the spectral power density were performed with a probe antenna and a portable spectrum analyzer. The probe was mounted on a linen phenolic tripod about 1.2 meters above ground. Location of the probe was the same in both days, on a hill next to the town. With the spectrum analyser we scanned the GSM 900/1800 MHz bands, at the beginning of the journey, taking the average for a period of 6 minutes. The spectrum was similar in both days, with a difference in the peak estimation (carriers of the channels) of about I dB in radio and TV channels, GSM 900/1800 showed small differences, around 3 dB, associated to the working channels that were dependent on the traffic of cellular phones. On July 3'~, 2004 from 11:00 to 19:00 h the spectrum of the electric field from 80 MHz - 2.5 GHz was measured in six bedrooms in La ~ora. The points of measurement were randomly selected from the study population which had been divided in three exposure groups (Iow, intermediate, high) with respect to the measured electric field in 2001. The aim was to check the exposure situation inside the houses in several places to validate the measurements of 2001 and to get the portion of radio, TV and G SM of the electromagnetic spectrum. A calibrated hand-held spectrum analyzer, FSH3 (100 kHz - 3 GHz) from the manufacturer Rhode & Schwarz, Germany and calibrated electric-field probes EFS 9218 (9 kHz - 300 MHz) and USLP 9143 (300 MHz - 5 GHz) from the manufacturer Schwarzbeck, Germany were used. A volume of about one m3 above the surface of the bed was examined holding the antennas in different polarization directions as well as different directions in order to pick up the highest signals. The spectrum analyzer was adjusted: detector: max peak, trace: max hold. In order to differentiate broadcast control channels (BCCH) from traffic channels (TCH) both GSM spectra (GSM 900/1800) had been analysed at the time of measurements. The traces were stored in the spectrum analyzer and analysed via FSH View Version 7.0 on the PC afterwards. Results From n=94 participants under study, 47 were female, 47 male. The age span was 14 to 81 years, with a median age of 39 years. In the questionnaire the distances to the next GSM 900/1800 base stations were given in six different categories. Table 1: Distance to next GSM 900/1800 base stations Distance Frequenc~ Percen~ <: 10m 7.,~ 10-50m 6A 50- 100 m 9.~ 100-200 m 3( 31.5 200 - 300 m lz 14.5 > 300 m 21 29.~ Total 9~ 100.( 93 % reported to be exposed to the mobile phone base stations for more than one year. The time spent in the house of the study site, was more than 8 hours per day for at least 6 days in 94 % of the respondents. 17 % reported to be exposed to an electric transformer distance less than 10 m. 43 % reported to live closer than 100 m to a high voltage power line. 40 % reported that they live at a distance of less than 4 km from a radio / TV transmitter. Using a mobile phone for more than 20 minutes per day was reported by 29 %. Working on a personal computer more than two hours per day was reported by 14 % of the study participants. TV and radio channels maintained constant intensity during the 2001 measurements, however the traffic channels of the mobile phone base stations (GSM 900/1800) showed typical fluctuations. Table 2 shows the measured broad band electric field in V/m and the corresponding power density in ~.W/cm~ and gW/n~ in the bedroom in 2001. THE MICROWAVE SYNDROME - FURTHER ASPECTS OF A SPANISH STUDY Table 2: Broad band measurement in the bedroom 2001 E-field Power density Power density IV/mi [~tW/cm2] [pW/m2] n valid 9z 94 94 missing 0 average 0.2Z 0.051615 516.1 median 0.11 0.003157 31.57 SD 0.35 0.107775 1077.7~ Minimum 0.0~ 0.000088 0.8g Maximum 1.2c~0.442028 4420.2t The frequency selective measurements done in 2004 in six bedrooms showed that the variance of the broad band signal is mostly due to differences in the strength of the GSM 900/1800 signal. Because the broad band measurements had an attenuation in the FM frequency range of 15 dB the contribution of the FM signals to the broad band results are of small influence. The TV signals showed also to be quite small in comparison to the GSM 900/1800 signal as well. In order to aia'ibute the proportion of different signals to a health outcome a frequency selective exposure assessment on an individual level is prefered. Figure 1 shows the results of the frequency selective measurements of 2004. Figure 1: Exposure distribution (GSM 900/1800, FM, TV) in six bedrooms 2004 0,50 0,45 Exposure distribution FM / TV / GSM in La Nora (Murcia), Spain, July 3, 2004 0,40 0,35 0,30 [V/m] 0,25 0,20 0,05 0,00 high high intermediate intermediate Iow low · Sum GSM [V/m] · Sum FM IV/m] [] Sum Tv~[v(~]- For the logistic regression model we divided the broad band measured electric field in three exposure categories: Low exposure 0.02 - 0.04 V/m (1 - 4 p.W/m2), intermediate exposure 0.05 - 0.22 V/m (6 - 128 ~.W/m2) and high exposure 0.25 - 1.29 V/m (165 - 4400 gW/m2). We calculated a raw model to derive the odds ratio (OR) and the corresponding 95%-confidence interval (95%-C1) as well as the probability value (p-value) for all 16 health related symptoms for the intermediate and the high exposure category- using the low exposure category as the reference. In the second model we controlled for sex and age. In the third model we controlled for sex, age and distance to the next mobile phone base station reported by the study participants. The distance was added in order to see if there is any significant contribution to the model (which still includes the measured electric field, sex and age) from this variable. If one assumes the reversed distance as a proxy for concerns from the antennas, the reversed distance might show up as a variable with a certain amount of explanation of the model. In two out OBERFELD, GOMEZ-PERRETTA, NAVARRO, PORTOLES, MAESTU of 16 symptoms the reversed distance showed a significant contribution to the model in addition to the sex and age adjusted model. The variables being "sleeping disorders" with OR 1.47 (95%-CI 1.01 - 2.15) and "dizziness" with OR 1.71 (95%-C1 1.17 - 2.51). In comparison with the explanation of the measured E-field, the contribution is very small. See table 5, where the symptom "sleeping disorder" was associated with the measured E-field OR 10.39 (95%-C1 2.43 - 44.42) and OR 10.61 (95%-CI 2.88 - 39.19) and "dizziness" OR 2.98 (95%-CI 0.62 - 14.20) and OR 8.36 (95%-C1 1.95 - 35.82). A relevant influence of the reversed distance would result in a substantially alteration of the odds ratios associated with the E-field, which is not the case. We also calculated logistic regression models including other variables like living closer than 100 m to high voltage power lines or 10 m to a transformer, living closer than 4 km to a radio / TV station, use of a computer > 2h/day or a cell phone > 20 minutes/day. For some of the above mentioned variables we found a significant contribution to the explanation of the model (data not shown) for few of the symptom variables which did not alter the overall associations of the models presented in this paper. For future studies we advice that the exposure to high voltage power lines and transformers as well as to radio / TV stations should be measured on an individual level in order to reduce exposure misclassification. In 13 out of the 16 health related symptoms significant exposure-response relationships and very high and significant odds ratios for the measured electric fields were found which is one of the main findings of this study. An other important finding is that 10 out of 16 symptoms showed significantly elevated OR between the reference exposure category (0.02 - 0.04 V/m) and even the intermediate exposure category (0.05 - 0.22 V/m). In order to derive guideline values for the protection of public health from electromagnetic fields from mobile phone base stations G SM 900/1800 MHz, one should take into account that epidemiological studies usually underestimate individual risks, as well as the uncertainty with respect to the reference exposure category, which could be at a sufficiently Iow level but that is not known in this study and an open question in this issue as well. In order to take this arguments into account a provisional reference level of about 0,02 V/m for the sum total of electric fields from mobile phone base stations GSM 900/1800 MHz is recommended and is in line with the level recommended in 2002 by the Public Health Office of the Government of Salzburg, based on empirical evidence. Table 3 shows the raw logistic regression model. Table 4 shows the sex and age adjusted model, Table 5 shows the sex, age and distance adjusted model. Table 3: Raw Model tealth Outcome :atigue rritability feadaches qaasea .oss of Appetite ;leeping Disorder )epressive Tendency :eeling of Discomfort )ifficulty in Concentration ~oss of Memory ?,kin Disorder /isual Disorder leafing Disorder )izziness 3ait Difficulties Cardiovascular Problems 0.05 - 0.22 V/m (6 - 128 ~tW/m2) OR 95%-CI p 23.46 2,77 - 198,82 0,0038 3.71 1.19 - 11,55 0.0234 7.46 2.10-26.55 0.0019 7.62 0.83 - 69.89 0.0726 5.82 0.61 -55.61 0.1263 7.67 2.36 - 24,86 0.0007 32~00 3.79-270.21 0.0015 4.80 1.41 - 16.33 0.0121 8.46 2.31 -31.00 0.0013 1.65 0.53 - 5.14 0,3844 4.50 0.82 - 24.55 0.0825 1.65 0.53-5.14 0.3844 2.72 0.87 - 8.52 0.0852 5.29 1.26 - 22.25 0.0229 0.74 0.21 - 2,62 0,6454 9.60 1.07 - 85.72 0.0429 0.25 - 1.29 V/m (165 - 4400 gW/m2) OR 95%-CI p 33,88 4.16-276.04 0,0010 10.73 3.48-33.13 0,0000 6.56 2.14-20.05 0.0010 14.67 1.77- 121.49 0,0128 24.00 2.94- 195.94 0,0030 6.64 2.30- I9,20 0.0005 42.66 5.23 - 348.33 0.0005 12,21 3,72-40.12 0,0000 18.12 5.05-64.99 0.0000 4.69 1.65- 13.32 0.0037 5.19 1.08-26,21 0.0463 3.31 1.17-9.32 0.0236 1.10 0.35-3.47 0.8702 9.44 2.43 - 36.77 0.0012 1,08 0.36 - 3.25 0.8886 14.67 1.77- 121.49 0.0128 p forthe trend 0.0044 0.0002 0.0005 0.0382 0.0028 0.0003 0.0021 0.0002 0.0000 0.0108 0.1278 0.0707 0.1534 0.0053 0.8321 0.0442 THE MICROWAVE SYNDROME - FURTHER ASPECTS OF A SPANISH STUDY Table 4: Age and Sex adjusted model Health Outcome Fatigue Irritability Headaches Nausea Loss of Appetite Sleeping Disorder Depressive Tendency Feeling of Discomfort Difficulty in Concentration Loss of Memory Skin Disorder Visual Disorder Hearing Disorder Dizziness Gait Difficulties Cardiovascular Problems 0.05 - 0.22 Wm (6 - 128 gW/m~) OR 95%-C1 p 25.79 2.94 - 225.85 0.0033 3.36 1.06 - 10.66 0.0395 8.06 2.14-30.31 0.0020 7.53 0.80 - 70.75 0.0774 6.03 0.60-60.19 0.1260 13.982 3.50- 55.85 0.0002 44.87 4.85 - 414.69 0.0008 4.34 1.25 - 15.03 0.0207 9.40 2.44 - 36.21 0.0011 2.40 0.70 - 8.26 0.1642 6.25 1.05-37.13 0.0437 2.57 0.74-9.08 0.1380 4.45 1.23 - 16.13 0.0231 5.37 1.24-23.16 0.0243 1.09 0.28 - 4.24 0.8970 12.56 1.32 - 118.99 0.0274 0.25 - 1.29 V/m ( 165 - 4400 gW/m2) OR 95%-CI p 37.72 4.42 - 32I .49 0.0009 9.60 3.05 - 30.26 0.0001 7.29 2.22 - 23.94 0.0011 14.33 1.68- 122.55 0.0150 25.84 2.98-223.80 0.0032 12.39 3.47-44.26 0.0001 64.28 7.05 - 586.27 0.0002 10.97 3.27-36.77 0.0001 20.55 5.35 - 79.00 0.0000 7.91 2.37-26.35 0.0008 7.67 1.36 -43.44 0.0212 5.88 1.75 - 19.74 0.0041 1.75 0.49 - 6.24 0.3859 9.70 2.39-39.33 0.0015 1.86 0.54 - 6.41 0.3235 20.43 2.26- 184.95 0.0073 p for the ~end 0.0040 0.0006 0.0007 0.0445 0.0031 0.0001 0.0011 0.0005 0.0001 0.0027 O.O647 0.0158 0.0643 0.0063 0.5629 0.0267 Table 5: Age, Sex and distance adjusted model Health Outcome Fatigue Irritability Headaches Nausea Loss of Appetite Sleeping Disorder Depressive Tendency Feeling of Discomfort Difficulty in Conceniration Loss of Memory Skin Disorder Visual Disorder Hearing Disorder Dizziness Gait Difficulties Cardiovascular Problems 0.05 - 0.22 V/m (6 - 128 gW/m2) OR 95%-C1 p 28.53 3.03 - 268.78 0.0034 3.12 0,91 - 10.68 0.0704 5.99 1.50- 23.93 0.0113 5.92 0.60 - 58.68 0.1288 6.66 0.62 - 71.52 0,1175 10.39 2.43 - 44.42 0.0016 39.41 4.02 - 386.40 0.0016 4.29 1.14 - 16.15 0.0314 8.27 2.01 - 34.01 0.0034 2.35 0.62 - 8.89 0.2090 7.04 1.06 - 46.62 0.0429 2.48 0.65 - 9.44 0.1830 3.89 0.99 - 15.21 0.0510 2.98 0.62 - 14.20 0.1712 1.32 0.30- 5.84 0.7114 9.42 0.93 - 95.07 0.0572 0.25 - 1.29 V/m ( 165 - 4400 gW/ro2) OR 95%-CI p 40.11 4.56 - 352.44 0.0009 9.22 2.86 - 29.67 0.0002 6.10 1.80 -20.65 0.0037 12.80 1.48 - 110.64 0.0205 27.53 3,07 - 247.03 0.0031 10.61 2.88 -39.19 0.0004 59.39 6.41 - 550.11 0.0003 10.90 3.16 - 37.56 0.0002 19.17 4.91 - 74.77 0.0000 7.81 2.27 - 26.82 0.0011 8.22 1.39 - 48.51 0.0201 5.75 1.68 - 19.75 0.0054 1.63 0.45 - 5.95 0.4572 8.36 1.95 - 35.82 0.0042 2.07 0.57 - 7.50 0.2690 17.87 1.96- 162.76 0.0105 p forthe ~end 0.0039 0.0009 0.0050 0.0499 0.0030 0.0008 0.0016 0.0007 0.0001 0.0031 0.0628 0.0186 0.1285 0.0117 0.5211 0.0333 7 OBERFELD, GOMEZ-PERRETTA, NAVARRO, PORTOLES, MAESTU Summary Frequency selective measurements done in July 2004 (n=6) showed that the main contribution and the main variability of the broad band signal measured in February and March 2001 is due to GSM 900/1800 signals (n=97). This is further supported by the fact that the dipol antenna used in 2001 is quite insensitive to frequencies below 400 MHz which is related to FM (80 - 110 MHz) and that the TV channels were quite weak in comparison to the GSM signals. However we would prefer to have frequency selective personal exposure values for all important signals of the electromagnetic spectrum in future studies. For the logistic regression we devided the broad band measurements of the electric field in three exposure groups, the low exposure group served as the reference category. We calculated the odds ratios and 95% CI for the raw model, an age and sex adjusted model and an age, sex and distance adjusted model. All models showed statistical significant associations between the measured electric field (- 400 MHz - 3 GHz) and 13 out of 16 health related symptoms. The s'a'ongest five associations found are depressive tendency, fatigue, sleeping disorder, difficulty in concentration and cardiovascular problems. The symptoms associated are in line with the symptoms reported in the literature as "Microwave Syndrom". The odds ratios are quite high having small p- values. Some kind of selection bias cannot be ruled out, because of the way the questionnaires were distributed, but that would affect more or less all cases and therefore affect the odds ratios not substantially. The introduction of the reversed distance to the nearest base station, which might serve as a surrogat for the sometimes claimed "concerns explanation" for health related symptoms attributed to mobile phone base stations, did not alter the odds ratios substantially and the OR associated with the measured electric fields remained at their high level. It should be noted that the findings of this study might be of great importance for Public Health and should be taken seriously. Further epidemiological studies are warranted but do not preclude measures to reduce microwave exposures fi.om GSM 900/1800 base stations now. Based on the data of this study the advice would be to strive for levels not higher than 0.02 V/m for the sum total, which is equal to a power density of 0.0001 gW/cmz or I gW/m=, which is the indoor exposure value for GSM base stations proposed on empirical evidence by the Public Health Office of the Government of Salzburg in 2002 [14]. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Mrs. Angeles Martinez Gomez for her great support during the fieId work in La l~lora as well as the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology for the grant FIT Number 070000-2002-58. References [1] Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely Low-Frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, VOLUME 80 (2002), World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon. [2] An Evaluation of the Possible Risks From Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) From Power Lines, lntemal Wiring, Elecn'ical Occupations and Appliance; California departraent of health; ww~v.dhs.ca, gov/ehib/emfiRiskEvaluation/riskeval.html [3] Lai, H.; Horita, A.; Chou, C.K.; Guy, A.W.. "Effects of low-level microwave irradiation on amphetamine hyperthermia are blockable by naloxone and classically conditionable". Psychopharmacology. 1984, 88:354-61. [4] Dutta, S.K.; Ghosh, B.; Blackman, C.F. "Radiofi.equency radiation-induced calcium ion effiux enhancement from human and other neuroblastoma cells in culture". Bioelectromagnetics. 1989, 10:197-202. [5] Lai, H.; Singh, N.P. "Single- and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation". Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 1996, 69:513-21. [6] Goldsmith, J.R. "Epidemiologic evidence relevant to radar (microwave) effects". Environmental Health Perspectives. 1997, 105 (Suppl 6): 1579-87. [7] de Pomerai, D.; Daniell~, C.; David, H.; Allan, J.; Duce, 1.; Mutwakil, M.; Thomas, D.; Sewell, P.; Tattersall, J.; Jones, D.; Candido, P. "Non-thermal heat-shock response to microwaves". Nature. 2000, 405:417-8. 8 THE MICROWAVE SYNDROME - FURTHER ASPECTS OF A SPANISH STUDY [8] Hardell, L.; Hallquist, A.; Hansson Mild, K.; Carlberg, M.; Pahlson, A.; Lilja, A.: Cellular and cordless Telephones and the risk for brain turnouts; European Joumal of Cancer Prevention 2002, 11, S. 377 - 386 [9] Salford L. G.; Bran A. E.; Eberhard J. L.; Malmgren L.; Perrson B. R. R.: Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain aider Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones; in: Environ Health Perspect 111, S. 881-883 (2003); http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2003/6039/abstract.html [I 0] Johnson-Liakouris, A.J. "Radiofrequency (RF) Sickness in the Lilienfeld Study: an effect of modulated microwaves?". Amh. Environ. Health. 1998, 53:236-238. [11] Santini, R.; Santini, P.; Danze, J.M.; Le Ruz, P.; Seigne, M.: Study of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations: 1 st Influence of distance and sex; Pathol Biol 2002; 50; S. 369 - 373. [12] Hutter, H-P.; Moshammer,H.; Kundi, K.: Mobile Telephone Base-Stations: Effects on Health and Well- beeing; Presented at the 2nd Workshop on Biological Effects of EMFs, 7. - 11. Oktober 2002, Rhodos, Greece. [13] Navarro A. E.; Segura J.; Portol6s M.; G6mez-Perretta de Mateo C.: The Microwave Syndrome: A Preliminary Study in Spain; in: Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (formerly Electro- and Magnetobiology), Volume 22, Issue 2, (2003); S. 161 - 169. [14] Website of the Public Health Office, Environmental Health, Government of Salzburg, Austria: www.salzbur~.~v.at/umweltmedizin 9 Pathol Biol 2002; 50: 369-73 © 2002 Editions scientifiques et medicales Elsevier SAS. Tous droits reserves S0369-8114(02)00311-5/FLA (English translation) Study of the health of people livi~.g in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations: I. Influences of distance and sex R. Santini**, P. Santini, J.M. Danze, P. Le Ruz, M. Seigne [,stitut national des sciences appIiqu~es - laboratoire de biochimie-pharmacologie - bf~timent Louis Pasteur, 20, avenue Albert Einstein, 69621 Villeurbanne, France Summary A survey study using a questionnaire was conducted on 530 people (270 men, 260 women) living or not in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations, on 18 Non Specific Health Symptoms. Comparisons of complaint frequencies (CHF SQUARE test with Yates correction) in relation to the distance from base stations and sex show significant (p <0.05) increase as compared to people living > 300 m or not exposed to base stations, up through 300 m for tiredness, 200 m for headache, sleep disruption, discomfort, etc., 100 m for irritability, depression, loss of memory, dizziness, libido decrease, etc. Women significantly more often than men (p < 0.05) complained of headache, nausea, loss of appetite, sleep disruption, depression, discomfort and visual disruptions. This first study on symptoms experienced by people living in the vicinity of base stations shows that, in view of radioprotection, the of minimal distance of people from cellular phone base stations should not be < 300 m. © 2002 Editions scientifiques et medicales Elsevier SAS base station / bioeffects / cellular phone 1. IN'I~ODUCTION Chronic exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields or microwaves brings on biocffects in man such as headaches, fatigue, and sleep and memory disruptions [ 1,2]. These biological effects, associated with othees (skin problems, nausea, irritability, etc.) constitute what is known in English as "Non Specific Health Symptoms" (NSHS) that characterize radiofrequency sickness. [3] Cellular mobile phone technology uses hyperfrequencies (frequencies of 900 or 1800 MHz) pulsed with ext~mmely low frequencies (frequencies < 300 Hertz) [4]. Even though the biological effects resulting from mobile phone use are relatively well known and bring to mind those described in radiofrequency sickness [5, 6], to our knowledge no study exists on the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. We are reporting here the results pertaining to 530 people living in France, in the vicinity or not, of base stations, in relation to the distances from these stations and to the sex of thc study participants. 2. MA'nERIALS AND METHODS 2.1. Questionnaire employed: A questionnaire similar to that developed for the study on mobile phone users [6] was sent to people wishing to perficipatein the study. General questions pertained to age, sex, estimated distance from base stations (less than 10 m, 10 to 50 m, 50 to 100 m, 100 to 200 m, 200 to 300 m, more than 300 m) and their location in relation to the antennas (facing, beside, behmd, l~neath inthe case of antennas placed on rooftops). The exposure conditions were defined by the length of time living in the neighborhood of base stations, [less than I year through more than 5 years), the number of days per week and the numberofhoumperday(lessthanl hour through 16-24 hours per day). Participants were asked to indicate the presence or not of electrical transformers (at less that 10 m), high or very high tension electric power lines (at less that 100 m) and radio and television transmitters (at less than 4 kin). The questionnaire also sought information on computer usc (more than 2 hours per day) and portable telephone use [more than 20 minutes per day). The level of complaints for the studied symptoms was expressedby the study pathcipants using a scaleot~ 0=never, 1 = sometimes, 2 = often, 3 = very often. O f 570 questionnaires received, 40 were not used due to lack of information on the distance from the base stations or on the level of the complaints experienced. For the 530 questionnaires studied, 270 came from males [average age + or - variation: 45 years + or - 20) and 260 from females (47 years + or - 19). 18 syrr~ptorca re~erenc~inthe"NSHS" were the subject of thc questionnaire, one of which, premature menopause, concerned only females. .The resul s presen ed m his s udy do no involve INSA in Lyon. INSA is the French National Institute of Applied Sciences. For correspondence or reprints - E-mail: rsantiniSt/insa-lvon fr (R. Santini). 2.2 Analysis of results: The results obtained, periaining to the frequency of the complaints experienced (in comparison to complaints at a level of"O"), were analyzed by the CHI-SQUARE test with Yates correction [7] using a program (STATITCF, 19787, Frmr. e). We present he~ the results tallying: a) The influence of distance for the base stations on the ~equency ofreporied complaints, by comparison with the reference subjects, exposed at >300 m or not exposed (no existing base stations or non-operating base stations). b) The influence of sex on the frequency of reported complaints, and this independent of the age of the subjects. 3. RESULTS 3.1 Influence of distance: The study subjects are distributed in the following manne~ 19.6% areatlessthan 10m frombase stationantennas, 26.2% between 10 and 50 m, 13.8% between 50 and 100 m, 9.6% between 100 and 200 m, 10.1% between 200 and 300 m and 20.7% are at more than 300 m or not exposed (reference group). In comparison with the reference subject group located at >300 m or not exposed to base stations, the complaints are experienced to a significantly higher degree by the subjects located in the distance zones of < 10 m through 300 m from base stations. Certain symptoms are experienced significantly more often (p < 0.05) tmiquelyin the immediate vicinieyofbase stations (<10 m) and not beyond that: nausea, loss of appetite, visual disruptions, difficulty in moving. Significant differences (.o<0.05)) are observed up through 100 m from base stations for symptoms such as: irritability, depressive tendencies, difficulties in concentration, loss of memory, dizziness, lowering of libido). In the zone 100 m to 200 m, the symptoms of headaches, sleep disruption, feelings of discomfort, and skin problems are again experienced significantly more often (p < 0.05) in ~with the group of subjects at > 300 m or not exposed. Beyond 200 m, only the symptom of fatigue is reported at a significantly high frequency (p < 0.05) (Table 1). By contrast, no significant effect is demonstrated in relation to distance for the symptom of premature menopause. A significant lowering of libido is reported for the distances of less than 10 m, 10 to 50 m and 50 to 100 m from base stations. For fatigue and headaches Figures I and 2 present the percentages of complaints expressed as a function of distance from base stations. 3.2 lnfluence of sex: Two symptoms were experienced significantly more often in women (p < 0.05) as a function o fdifferent distance zones: nausea at a distance o f less than 10 m, and headaches at distances of 10-50m, 50-I 00 m, 100-200 m, and 200-300 m. Men complained significantly more often (p < 0.05) than women of decrease th libido at a distance of 50 to 100 m fi, om base stations. When the men/women comparison is made for subjects exposed at a distance of< 300 m, seven symptoms (headaches, nausea, loss of appetite, sleep disruptions, depressive tendencies, feeling of discomfort, and visual disruptions) are exp eaienced significantly more often in women (p < 0.05) (Table Il). On the contrary, in the group of subjects living beyond 300 m or not exposed to base stations, no significant difference related to sex appears in the frequency of complaints reported for t he d~fferent symptoms. 4. DISCUSSION This study gives evidence of the fact that bioeffects are reported by people exposed at up to 300 m from base stations. The significant increase in the frequency of complaints in relation to the reference group (people exposedat>300mor notexposed) leads toward the observation found in the Australian governmental report indicating that at 200 m from a base station, some people exposed in their homes are complaining of chronic fatigue and sleep disruption [8]. The n umber of reported symptoms is higher close to base stations and it decreases with increased distance from them. Some symptoms such as nausea, loss of appetite, visual disturbances, and difficulties in movement are no longer experienced in a significant way beyond 10 m. For symptoms that, like fatigue, headaches, and sleep disruptions, are experienced significantly at considerable distances from base stations, no notable diminishment is observed in the percentages of complaints experienced with increased distance. However, the measurements of electromagnetic fields in the neighborhood ofhase stations show a reduction in field strength over distance [ 1,9]. One can expect that human sensitivity to electromagnetic waves is such that increased distance from base stations has no significant effect on certain symptoms up to a distance of 200 to 300 m. It is equally possible that the levels of electromagnetic fields found around base stations would not be the exact representation of the levels of exposure of populations. In fact, different parameters are likely to interfere to modify the levels and in particular fluctuations in emission strengths such as the number of calls handled by the base stations, the reflection of electromagnetic waves, etc. [10]. The re suits obtained demonstrate the greater sensitivity of women for 7 of the studied NSHS. One earlier study relating to portable phone users demonstrated a greater sensitivity of females to the symptom of sleep disturbance. This s ex-n~lated diffenmce is parallel to the particular sensitivity of females to electromagnetic fields [11, 12]. 5. CONCLUSION From these results and in applying the precautionary principle, it is advisable that mobile phone base stations not be sited closer than 300 meters to populations and most significantly because exposed people can have different sensitivities related particularly to their sex. Table 1. Percentages of complaints reported compared to responses of a level of ~< 0 ~>,by persons living in the vicnity of~a.se staa~nSas a fmcl~n of thinr distance away from a base station. Distances from base stations In meters m} Symptoms <10m 10toS0 m 50to 100 m 100 to 200 m 200 to 300 m > 300 m ... 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 Fatigue 76 * 72 * 63.5* 50.9* 60.6 56.6* 64.2 41.1 66.6* 43.7 40.7 27.2 Irritability, 32.8 23.2* 41.7' 25.7* 47.2* 44.1' 25.8 4.1 25 9 18 3.3 Headaches 51 * 47.8* 40 * 26.1' 40.6* 36.7* 60.7* 31.2' 19.3 0 15.6 1.8 Nausea 14.5' 6.9 8.4 3 5.7 3.8 2.4 4,6 0 2.3 2,1 1.1 Loss of Appetita 20.4* 8.3 8 5.5 5 5 6.9 0 4.2 0 3.3 3.3 Sleep Disruption 41.3' 57.1' 41.4' 57.5* 46.9* 58.5* 45.8* 50* 33.3 35.5 13.8 21.1 Depression 16,9 26.8* 21.6 19.7' 11.6 24* 16.2 3.1 13.6 2.5 10.3 3.7 Feeling of 28 * 45.4* 25.2* 18.9 30.6* 12.8 15.7' 0 9.7 5.1 2.4 8.1 Discomfort Difficuliy in 39.3 28.8* 37.5 16.6 34.2 26.4* 25 12.5 43.3 5.5 26.7 7.1 concentration Memor~ Loss 27.8 25.4* 29.4 26.6* 37.1' 29* 25 15.6 17.2 11.1 17.9 5.8 Skin Problems 18.1' ITl* 6.6 10.8 11.1' Il.1 13.9' 7.5 8.7 0 1.2 4.6 Visual 14.5 24.3* 23 13.5 22 7.1 2.5 4.9 15 2.8 13.6 4.1 Disruptions Hearing 33.3* 17.4 17.7' 12 8.3 15.5 7.7 7.7 11.6 9.5 5.6 8.7 Disruptions Dizziness l0 12.5' 17.3' 7,5* 9.6 9.6* 12.2 2.7 7.7 5.2 6.2 0 Movement 5.6 7.7* 8.2 1.7 3 3 0 0 2 0 2.9 I Difficulties Cardio-vascular Problems 10.1* 13 * 15.3' 9.6 12.3' 7.4 8.7 0 8.5 6.5 1 3 * Significant difference (p < 0.05) in comparison to reference subjects found at > 300 m or not exposed, for the responses 2 = << often ~>ard3= Table Il. Influence of sex on the frequency of symptoms reported by subjects (205 men, 215 women) living in the vicinity (all distances < 300 m) of mobile phone base stations Symptoms (%) (%) Fatigue 41.4 57.5 Irritability 17.9 28.3 Headaches 14.4 45.6 * Nausea 0 5.9 * Sleep disruptions 45.4 61 * Feeling of discomfort 15 25.4 * Skin problems 8 13. l Hearing disruptions 9.6 19 Cardio -vascular problems 8.3 8.8 Lowering of libido 18 12 0.05. Levels ofcompalints in parentheses. Fatigue (M + F) as a function of distances 20 -10 10/50 50/100 100/200 200/300 >300 distances in m Figure 1..- Frequencies of complaints compared to a response level of{~ 0 }> for the symptom of fatigue, in people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations as a function of their distance from base stations. M = Males, F = Females, m - meters, deux (souvent) = two (often), trois (tres souvent) = three (very often). * =p < 0.05 (comparison with the subjects at a distance > 300 m or not exposed). Headachee (M + F) as a function of distances 9O · -~ * . n [Odeux (souvent) o"' 50 ~ Iltrois etr~s souvent) level of {{ 0 >~ for the symptom of headaches in people living in the vicinity of base M - Males, F = Females, m = meters, deux (souvent) = two {often ), trois Ores souvent) = three (very often), * = p < 0.05 (comparison with the subjects at a distance > 300 m or not exposed). 1. Santini R. Les t616phones cellulaires et leurs stations relais: risques pour la sant~ ? La Presse M6dicale 1999 ;28:18844 2. Bielski J. Bioelectrical brain activity in workers exposed to electromagnetic fields. Ann NY Acad Sci 1994; 724: 435-7. 3. Johnson Liakouris AG. Radiofrequency (RF) sickness in the Lilienfeld study: An effect of modulated microwaves? Arch Environm Health 1998; 53: 236-8. 4. Linde T, Mild KH. Measurement of low frequency magnetic fields from digital cellular telephones. Bioelectmmagnetics 1997; 18:184-6. 5. Mild KH, Oftedal G, Sandstr6ms M, Wilen J, Tynes T, Haugsdal B et al. Comparison ofsymptotm experiencedby users of analogue and digital mobile phones. Arbetslisrapport 1998; 23: 1-47. 6. Santini R, Seigne M, Bonhomme-Faivre L, Bouffet S, Defrasme E, Sage M. Symptoms experienced by users of digital cellular phones: A study of a French engineering school. Electro And Magnetobiology 2001 (in publication). 7. Dabis F, Drucker J, Moren A. Epid6miologie d'intervention. Editions Arnette; 1992. 589 pages. 8. Rapport australien. A local governement and community ressource document: ~ Mobile phone and their transmitterbase stations The evidence for health hazards>>. EmFacts Informations Service, 1996. 240 pages. 9. Petersen RC, Testagrosa PA. Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields associated with cellular radio cell-site antennas. Bioelectromagnetics; 1992; 13: 527-42. 10. Santini R, Seigne M, Bonhomme -Faivre L. Danger des t~16phones cellulaires et de leurs stations relais. Pathol Biol2~0;48: 525-8. 11. LoomisDP, SavitaDA, AnanthCV. Breastcancermorlalityamong femal electfical workers in the United States. J. National Cancer Institute. 1994; 86: 921-5. 12. Santini R. Breast cancer in women, high voltage power 13. lines and melatonin. Bioloectromagnetics Newsletter 1998; 144: 5. June, 2004 SAGE '"-'Associates. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS SAGE Associates June, 2004 AN OVERVIEW OF LOW-INTENSITY RADIOFREQUENCY/MICROWAVE RADIATION STUDIES RELEVANT TO WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS AND DATA. C. Sage, Sage Associates Santa Barbara, California 93108 "SAGE ~ ~ssociates Summary of Outcomes June, 2004 · Studies Showing Effect · Studies Showing No Effect · Not Applicable (study design, dosimetry, equipment design, etc.) SAGE Associates 3 June, 2004 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Positive Studies Negative Studies Not Applicable Associates 4 June, 2004 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Studies Showing Effects Studies Showing No Effect SAGE Associates June, 2004 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Studies Showing Effects Studies Showing No Effect SAGE Associates June, 2004 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 O, Studies Showing Effects Studies Showing No Effect SAGE Associates uenc June~ 2004 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Studies Showing Effects Studies Showing No Effect SAGE Associates' June, 2004 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Studies Showing Effects Studies Showing No Effect SAGE Associates' snges June, 2004 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Studies Showing Effects Studies Showing No Effect SAGE Associates .lune~2004 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Studies Showing Effects Studies Showing No Effect SAGE ~4ssociates June~2004 9 8 6 5 4 3 2 Studies Showing Effects Studies Showing No Effect SAGE Associates (~ June, 2004 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 SAGE Associates' %.. % % °o,: % 13 Positive Assertion of Safety Not Defensible June, 2004 Low-Intensity RF Bioeffects Indisputable · 4 to 1 ratio: Studies reporting effects · Chronic Exposure = Stress · Cumulative effects on health · Highly suggestive evidence of risk · Positive assertion of safety not possible :,~ SAG E ~, --- zlssociates 14 SCIENCE REQUIRES The highest standard of evidence =conclusive evidence based on: LAW REQUIRES "Preponderance of the evidence" CEQA REQUIRES "Potential for significant impact" STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE SAGE Associates June, 2004 SAGE Associates dune~2004 SAGE Associates JudgIng the Scientific Evidence June, 2004 · Weight of the evidence, not conclusive evidence or causal linkage · Sufficient Evidence - Not Proof · Proportionate to certainty · Proportionate to how widespread · Proportionate to how involuntary · Proportionate to risk of inaction SAGE Associates 18 Need for New RF Standard June, 2004 · SAR Inadequate Basis for Standard · New standard that addresses Iow-intensity research findings · Chronic exposure · Cumulative damage · Children and more sensitive populations · Growing, lifelong, pervasive, involuntary ,.. SAGE .~ . ~4ssoctates 19 June, 2004 What Should a New Standard Address? · Low-intensity RF studies cannot be disregarded · Concept of "dose" needs to change · Biologically meaningful biomarkers needed · Same stress response (biochemical paths and stress proteins) from both RF and ELF · Artificial eng~neenng distinction (frequency) · Standard = scientific, policy and public decision .~. SAGE ~ Associates 2O Possible Biomarkers for L~)w-lntensity RF June, 2004 · HSP · V~asodilation · Cortisol levels · Cognition testing (TOVA) · Histamines · SPECT (SPECT'scans · Unusual EEG show blood flow to brain, · Salivary IgA oxygen level, metabolism, by color scan) · Salivary Melatonin SAGE Associates 21 June, 2004 Need for A New Federal Policy · New public exposure standard will take time · Interim policies can protect public health while we continue study, limit exposure, limit liability, limit reliance, limit costs to retrofit · Prevention, rather than expensive cures · Costs of inaction to society are large · Proof of harm not required to act prudently · Proof of bioeffect is sufficient for interim policy where possible consequence of long-term stressor is harm. · Public health consequence of even small risk is enormous worldwide ~.'SAGE :~:,' <~ ,4ssoctates 22 June, 2004 RF Charts Reporting Effects at Low-Intensity Levels Power Density Reported Biological Effects Reference 0.16 p_W/cm2 Motor function, memory and attention of school children Kolodynski, 1996 affected (Latvia). O.168 - Irreversible infertility in mice after 5 Magras & Xenos, 1997 1.053 pW/cm2 generations of exposure to RFR from an "antenna park". 0.2 - 8 pW/cm2 Two-fold increase in childhood leukemia / exposure Hocking, 1996 to RFR from TV towers. 0.2 - 8 pW/cm2 Decreased survival of children with childhood leukemia with Hocking, 2000 exposure to RFR from television towers. 0.8 - 10 I~W/cm2 Changes in emotional behavior in rats from very Iow microwave Akoev, 2002 exposure, possibly through increased free-radical production affecting ATP synthesis and activity of monoaminoxidase. 1.0 pW/cm2 Whole body RFR irradiation of male mice caused a Fesenko, 1999 significant effect on the immune system. 1.0 pW/cm2 Irradiation (5 hours) with Iow-power RFR stimulates Novoselova, 1999 the immune potential of macrophages and T cells ,~.'SAGE Associates 23 June, 2004 RF Charts Reporting Effects at Low-Intensity Levels Power Density Reported Biological Effects Reference 1.3 - 5.7 pW/cm2 Two-fold increase in leukemia in adults from AM RFR Dolk, 1997 exposure. ~2-4 pW/cm2 Direct effect of RFR on acetylcholine-induced ion channels D'lnzeo, 1988 on cell membrane. 4-15 pW/cm2 Visual reaction time in children is slowed / lower memory Chiang, 1989 function in tests; changes in immune functions. 5 pW/cm2 Cell phone (GSM-like 9.4 GHz RF) interferes with gene expressionPyrpasopoulou 2004 during early gestation; resulting in abberant BMP in newborn. 5 pW/cm2 Immune function in women adversely affected by radio/tv antenna Boscol, 2001 exposure (significant reduction in NK blood lymphocytes). 5 - 10 i~W/cm2 Impaired nervous system activity Dumansky, 1974 Associates 24 June, 2004 RF Charts Reporting Effects at Low-Intensity Levels Power Density Reported Biological Effects Reference 10 pW/cm2 Changes in active avoidance conditioned reflex Navakatikian, 1994 (0.0027 W/Kg SAR) (behavioral change) after 0.5 hour exposure to pulsed RFR. 10-20 pW/cm2 Increase in micronuclei (aberrant DNA form) in blood ceils of Garaj-Vrhovac, 1999 workers chronically exposed to RFR at 1250-1350 MHz. 10 - 25 pW/cm2 Changes in the hippocampus of the brain. Belokrinitsky, 1982 10-100 IJW/cm2 Increased risk of cancer associated with exposure to RFR in radar Richter, 2000 operators. Very short latency period; showed dose response to exposure. 20 pW/cm2 Increase in serum cortisol (stress hormone) Mann, 1998 (900 MHz RFR pulsed at 217 Hz). 30 pW/cm2 Immune system effects - elevation of PFC count Veyret, 1991 (0.015 W/Kg SAR) (antibody-producing cells). 50 pW/cm2 An 18% reduction in REM sleep (important to memory and Mann, 1996 learning functions). SAGE ~4 ssociates 25 June, 2004 RF Charts Reporting Effects at Low-Intensity Levels Power Density Reported Biological Effects Reference Cortex of brain activated by 15 minutes of 902 MHz cell phone 60 pW/cm2 exposure. Lebedeva, 2000 1001JW/cm2 Changes in immune system functions Elekes, 1996 100 lJW/cm2 A 24.3% drop in testosterone after 6 hours Navakatikian, 1994 (0.027 W/Kg SAR) of continuous-wave RFR exposure. 120 IJW/cm2 A pathological change in the blood brain barrier Salford, 1994 (915 MHz). 500 l~W/cm2 A 24.6% drop in testosterone and 23.2% drop in insulin Navakatikian, 1994 (0.135 W/Kg SAR) after 12 hours pulsed RFR exposure. 500 I~W/cm2 Intestinal epithelial cells exposed to 2450 MHz microwave Somozy, 1993 (0.135 W/Kg SAR) pulsed at 16 Hz showed changes in intercellular calcium. SAGE :::::-. ~4ssoctates 26 June, 2004 Slandar(ls ai d Back r nd {.is Power Density -530-600 pW/cm2 Limit for uncontrolled public exposure to 800-900 MHz ANSI/IEEE PCS STANDARD for public exposure (as of September 1000 pW/cm2 1,1997) FCC, 1996 5000 pW/cm2 PCS STANDARD for occupational exposure FCC, 1996 (as of September 1,1997) Power Density Background Levels Medim~ ambient power density in cities in Sweden (30- 0.05 pW/cm2 2000 MHz) Hamnerius, 2000 0.003 pW/cm2 0.1-10 pW/cm2 SAGE ~s,~so.~c~t~tes Background Level Ambient background RF exposure in US cities and suburbs 1990s Ambient RF exposure within 100-200 feet of cell/PCS antenna array Mantiply, 1997 Sage, 2000 27 _ June, 2004 RF Charts Reporting Effects at Low-Intensity Levels SAR Reported Biological Effects Reference 0.000064 W/Kg - Well-being and cognitive function affected in humans exposed TNO Physics and 0.000078 W/Kg to GSM-UTMS cell phone frequencies; RF levels are Electronics Lab, similar to those found near cell mast sites. Netherlands, 2003 0.00015 - 0.0003 Calcium ion movement in isolated frog heart tissue is increased by W/Kg 18% (0.0003 W/Kg - P<.01 ) and by 21%(0.00015 W/Kg - P< Schwartz, 1990 .05) by weak RF field modulated at 16 Hz. 0.000021- .0021 Changes in cell cycle and cell proliferation (960 MHz GSM cell Kwee, 1997 W/Kg phone signal). 0.0016-.0044 Very Iow power 700 MHz CW affects excitability of hippocampal W/Kg tissue, consistent with reported behavioral effects of RF. Tattersall, 2001 MW modulated at 7 Hz produces more errors in short-term memory function on complex tasks (can affect cognitive 0.0095 W/Kg processes such as attention and short-term memory). Lass, 2002 0.0004-0.008 W/Kg 915 MHz cell phone RFR caused leakage in blood-brain barrier Worst at lowest levels and worse with CW compared to PW with a maximum pathology with 8-50 Hz modulation. Frequency of pathological changes was 35% in rats exposed topulsed radiation and 50% to continuous wave RFR. Effects observed at a specific absorption (SA) of >1.5 Joules/Kg. Persson, 1997 ~ SAGE ~:~. , .4ssoctates 28 June, 2004 RF Charts Reporting Effects at Low-Intensity Levels SAR Reported Biological Effects Reference 750 MHz continuous-wave (CW) RFR exposure caused an increase in heat shock proteins (stress proteins). Heat shock proteins induced by RFR exposure were equivalent to that which would be induced with 3 degree C. heating of tissue, but no heating de Pomerai, 2000 0.001 W/Kg occurred during the RFR exposure.. Statistically significant change in intracellular calcium concentration in Wolke, 1996 0.001 W/Kg heart muscle cells exposed to RFR (900 MHz/50 Hz modulation) A significant change in cell proliferation not attributable to thermal heating. RFR probably induces non-thermal cell stress involving Velizarov, 1999 0.0021 W/Kg heat shock proteins (960 MHz GSM cell phone signal). Heat shock protein HSP 70 (stress response) is activated by very Iow 0.0021 W/Kg power microwave exposure in human epithelial amnion cells. Kwee, 2001 0.0024 W/Kg to Digital cell phone RFR at very Iow intensities causes Phillips, 1998 DNA effects in human cells. DNA effects are direct DNA damage and 0.024 W/Kg the rate at which DNA is repaired. Changes in active avoidance conditioned reflex (behavioral change) 0.0027 W/Kg after 0.5 hour exposure to pulsed RFR. Navakatikian, 1994 .005 to .05 W/Kg Increase in calcium efflux Dutta, 1989 'SAGE ~:" /lssoci ~ ates 29 June, 2004 SAR Reported Biological Effects Reference 0.0059 W/Kg Cell phone RFR induces glioma (brain cancer) cells to significantly increase thymidine uptake, which may be Stagg, 1997 indication of increased cell division. 0.015 W/Kg Immune system effects - elevation of PFC count Veyret, 1991 (antibody-producing cells) 0.02 W/Kg Single 2-'hour exposure to GSM cell phone RF results in serious neuron damage and death in cortex, hippocampus and basal ganglia of brain as measured 50 days later, where blood brain barrier is still leaking albumin (P <.002) following one exposure. Salford, 2003 0.026 W/Kg Activity of c-jun (oncogene) was altered in cells after only 20 minutes exposure to cell phone signal (TDMA); Ivaschuk, 1997 an average 38% decrease was reported. 0.28 - 1.33 Significant increase in headache with increasing use of hand-held Chia, 2000 W/Kg cell phone use (maximum tested was 60 minutes per day) 0.0317 W/Kg Decrease in eating and drinking Ray, 1990 0.037 W/Kg Hyperactivity caused by nitric oxide synthase inhibitor is Seaman, 1999 countered by exposure to ultra-wide band pulses (600/sec) for 30 min. "SAGE Associates 3O June, 2004 SAR Reported Biological Effects Reference 0.05 W/Kg Significant increase in firing rate of neurons (350%) with pulsed 900 mHz but not unmodulated cell phone frequency exposure in Beason, 2002 avian brain cells. 0.121 W/Kg Cardiovascular system/significant decrease in arterial Lu, 1999 blood pressure (hypotension) after exposure to ultra-wide band pulses. 0.13 - 1.4 W/Kg Lymphoma cancer rate is 2 times normal with two 1/2 Repa~holi, 1997 hour exposures per day of cell phone RFR for 18 months (pulsed digital mobile phone signal 900 MHz). 0.14 W/Kg Elevation of immune response at 100 pW/cm2. Elekes, 1996 0.141 W/Kg Structural changes in testes/smaller diameter of Dasdag, 1999 seminiferous tubules in rats exposed to RFR from cell phone on speech transmission (but not stand-by mode) with 3 one-minute exposures per hour for two hours per day for one month. 0.15-0.4 W/Kg Statistically significant increase in malignant tumors at Chou, 1992 480 pW/cm2 in rats chronically exposed to RFR. 0.26 W/Kg Harmful effects to the eye/certain drugs can sensitize the eye Kues, 1992 to RFR. SAGE 4ssociates 31 June, 2004 SAR Reported Biological Effects Reference Cellular phone use results in changes to cognitive thinking/mental 0.3-0.44 W/Kg tasks related to memory retrieval. Krause, 2000 0.3-0.44 W/Kg Attention function of brain/responses are speeded up. Preece, 1999 Koivisto, 2000a,b Cell phone RFR doubles pathological blood-brain barrier permeability at two days (P = .002) and triples permeability at four days (P=.001). (1.8 GHZ GSM cell phone signal in an in vitro blood 0.3-0.46 W/Kg brain barrier model). Schirmacher, 2000 0.5 W/Kg 900 mHz pulsed RF affects firing rate of neurons Bolshakov, 1992 (Lymnea stagnalis) but continuous wave had no effect. 0.58 - 0.75 W/Kg Decrease in brain tumors after chronic exposure to RFR Adey, 1999 (836 MHz TDMA digital cell phone signal). Altered human mental performance after exposure to GSM phone radiation (900 MHz - 1 hour) with increased speed of processing but decreased capacity to deal effectively with information; overall 0.87 W/Kg slowing of decision-making. Hamblin, 2004 Change in human brainwaves;decrease in EEG potential .01-3.7 pV; statistically significant change in alpha (8-13 Hz) and 0.87 W/Kg in beta (13-22 Hz) band brainwaves D'Costa, 2003 GSM mobile phone use modulates brain oscillations and sleep 1 W/Kg EEG. Huber, 2002 S A G E 32 June, 2004 SAR Reported Biological Effects Reference Cell phone RFR during waking hours affects brain wave activity (EEG 1.0 W/Kg (max) patterns) during subsequent sleep. Achermann, 2000 Cell phone use causes nitric oxide (NO) nasal vasodilation (swelling 1.0 W/Kg (max) inside nasal passage) on side of head phone used. Paredi, 2001 1.0 W/Kg (max) Four-fold increase in eye cancer (uveal melanoma) in cell phone users. Stang, 2001 Increase in headache, fatigue and warmth behind the ear in cell phone 1.0 W/Kg (max) users. Sandstrom, 2001 Significant increase in concentration difficulties using 1800 MHz cell 1.0 W/Kg (max) phone compared to 900 MHz cell phone frequency. Santini, 2001 Sleep patterns and EEG are changed with 900 MHz cell phone 1.0 W/Kg (max) exposure during sleep. Borbely, 1999 GSM cell phone exposure elevated heat shock protein HSP 70 by 360% 1.4 W/Kg (stress response), and phosphorylation of ELK-1 by 390%. Weisbrot, 2003 A significant decrease in protein kinase C activity at 112 MHz at 2 hours/day for 35 days; hippocampus appears to be site of EMF- biointeraction consistent with other reports that RF negatively 1.48 W/Kg affects learning and memory functions. Paulraj, 2004 Significant elevation in micronucleus frequency in peripheral blood Trosic, 2002 1 - 2 W/Kg erythrocytes at 2450 MHz (8 treatments of 2 hours each). Increase in DNA single and double strand breaks from RFR exposure 0.6 and 1.2 W/Kg (2450 MHz). Lai & Singh, 1996 ,'SAGE :!! Associates 33 June, 2004 SAR Reported Biological Effects Reference 1.5 W/Kg GSM cell phone exposure affected gene expression levels in tumor suppresser p53-deficient embryonic stem cells; and significantly increased Hsp70 heat shock protein production. Czyz, 2004 2 W/Kg GSM cell phone exposure of 1 hour activated heat shock protein HSP 27 (stress response) and P38 MAPK (mutagen-activated protein kinase) that authors postulate facilitates brain cancer and causes increase in blood-brain barrier permeability. Leszczynski, 2002 MHz cell phone exposure caused brain cell oxidative damage by increasing levels of NO, MDA, XO and ADA in brain; caused statistically significant increase in "dark neurons" or damaged brain cells in cortex, hippocampus and basal ganglia with 1-hour 2 W/Kg exposure for 7 consecutive days. Ilhan, 2004 9OO 900 MHz cell phone exposure for one hour significantly altered protein expression levels in 38 proteins following irradiation. Cell phone exposure activates the P38 MAP kinase stress signalling pathway and leads to changes in cell size and shape (shrinking and rounding-up) and to activation of Hsp 27, a heat-shock 2.6 W/Kg protein. 2 - 3 W/Kg Accelerated development in skin and breast tumors by RFR. Szmigielski, 1982 Leszczynski, 2004 SAGE ,4ssoclates 34 June, 2004 STANDARDS and BACKGROUND LEVELS IEEE standard uncontrolled environment 0.08 W/Kg (whole body) IEEE IEEE standard controlled environment (whole 0.4 W/Kg body) I E E E FCC(IEEE) SAR limit over 1 gram of tissue in a partial body exposure situation (for example, 1.6 W/Kg cell phone to ear) FCC, 1996 SAGE " /lssociates 35 March 2005 Columns Magazine Feature: Wake Up Call Page 1 of 3 TIlE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON ALUMNI MAGAZINE COLUMNS ,,~ s s 0 c F~iTi-¢TS; March 2005- Issue Home I UW Home I UWAA Home I Columns Home I Search HENRY LAI HAS A VIVID RECOLLECTION OF HIS INTRODUCTION to the politics of big science. It was 1994, and he had just received a message from the National Institutes of Health, which was funding work he was doing on the effects of microwave radiation, similar to that emitted by cellular phones, on the brain. He and UW colleague Narendra "N.P." Singh had results indicating that the radiation could cause DNA damage in brain cells. The news was apparently unwelcome in some quarters. Someone had called the NIH to report that Lai was misusing his research funding by doing work not specified in the grant (the grant didn't mention DNA). And the agency wanted to know what was going on. .i~It really scared the hell out of me," says Lai, a research professor in the UW's Department of Bioengineering who earned his Ph.D. from the UW in 1977. "I was awake all night, worrying about it, wondering what to do." In the morning, he sent a fax to the agency, explaining how the research fell within the parameters of the grant. The NIH accepted his explanation and assured him that all was well. "They are usuhlly fairly liberal in that regard," Lai says. "To do otherwise would stifle the scientific process." The incident, he says, was only the beginning in a David-and-Goliath conflict pitting him- and other researchers-against an emerging gy that apidly b technolo would r ecome one of http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/wakeupcall01 .html 6/27/2007 March 2005 Columns Magazine Feature: Wake Up Call Page 2 of 3 the most lucrative and powerful businesses on the planet: the cell phone industry. The controversy goes back to a study by Lai and Singh published in a 1995 issue of Bioelectromagnetics. They found an increase in damaged DNA in the brain cells of rats after a single two-hour exposure to microwave radiation at levels considered "safe" by government standards. The idea behind that study was relatively simple: expose rats to microwave radiation similar to that emitted by cell phones, then examine their brain cells to see if any DNA damage resulted. Such damage is worrisome because DNA carries the body's genetic code and breaks, if not repaired properly, could lead to mutations and even cancer. When the study was first published, a spokesperson from the cell phone industry said it was "not very relevant because they didn't use the [same] cellular frequency or cellular power." True, responds Lai. But effects at one frequency could also happen at another frequency, and the exposure level in the experiment was actually lower than one can get from a cell phone. What it indicated was potential problems with the type of radiation the devices emit. To this day, the cell phone industry continues to dispute Lai and Singh's findings. "I don't believe any of those studies have ever been replicated," says Joe Farren, director of public affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, a Washington, D.C.- based industry consortium that provides $1 million a year in funding for cell phone research. "We believe you should follow the science. The science to date shows there is not a health risk associated with the use of any wireless device." Technically, Farren may be correct about Lai's study, but that's because no one has tried to replicate Lai and Singh's exact experiment. And a 1998 experiment that used common cell phone frequeficies did find biological damage in some cases. More recently, a European research effort by 12 groups in seven countries also documented DNA damage from cell phone radiation. While Lai is the first to say there are "no solid answers" to the controversy over cell phones and DNA damage, there is "cause for concern" and more work needs to be done. Instead, Lai says, he and his colleague have been the focus of a campaign to discredit their research. Consider: · Internal documents from Motorola in the 1990s point to an organized plan to "war-game" Lai's work. http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/wakeupcall01 .html 6/27/2007 March 2005 Columns Magazine Feature: Wake Up Call Page 3 of 3 · When a scientist in California published results that seemed to support Lai's findings, he lost research funding and eventually left the field. · At one point, the director of a group created to manage $25 million in industry- donated research money sent a memo to then-UW President Richard McCormick saying that Lai and Singh should be fired. · Federal money for scientific investigation in the field has dried up, supplanted by funding from the industry-funding that Lai and others say can come with restrictions so oppredsive they hamper scientific inquiry. The stakes, both in terms of potential ramifications and profits, are high. According to consulting firm Deloitte & Touche, the global wireless market is expected to grow to two billion subscribers by the end of this year. An overall dollar figure for the industry would easily be in the hundreds of billions, according to Louis Slesin, who as editor of Microwave News has followed the ins and outs of research in the field of bioelectromagnetics for more than 20 years. Go To: Page 1 I Page 2 I Page 3 [ Pa~e~ Inside the Wave: Web exclusive on more cell phone radiation research Making W_aves: Worrisome results from European cell phone study Old Medicine, New Cure?: Henry Lai's cancer research shows promise · Return to March 2005 Table of Contents Home / Current Issue I Archives / Talk Back I Advertising I FAQ I UWAA Site I Search http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/wakeupcall01 .html 6/27/2007 March 2005 Columns Magazine Feature: Wake Up Call Page 1 of 3 THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON ALUMNI MAGAZINE COLUMNS ASSOCIATION March 2005 - Issue Home I UW Home UWAA Home Columns Home I Search "It's all about science, politics and money, and not necessarily in that order," Slesin says. "Henry and N.P. had the courage to buck the system, and they have paid dearly for that." In preparing this article, some industry officials didn't return phone calls asking about Lai's work and the controversy surrounding it. Others said they didn't have specific knowledge of the original study and the events it set into motion-it was more than 10 years ago-but they characterized such research as outside mainstream findings, which they say show that wireless technology is safe. Still others maintain that possible hazards from recent studies could be discounted because those studies focus on older analog phones, which sendout a steady wave of radiation. Newer digital phones operate at a lower intensity, sending out a pulsed stream. A Swedish study published' last fall that tracked 750 subjects who had used cell phones for at least 10 years made note of that difference, and included the following caveat: "At the time the study was conducted, only analog mobile phones had been in use for more than 10 years and therefore we cannot determine if the results are confined to the use of analog phones or if the results would be similar after long-term use of digital phones." UW Research Professor Henry Lai with a few of his http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/wakeupcall02.html 6/27/2007 March 2005 Columns Magazine Feature: Wake Up Call Page 2 of 3 laboratory rats. Photo by Kathy Sauber. But it would be a mistake to use that to support a stance that digital phones are proven safe, according to Slesin. The problem, he says, is that pulsed radiation is more likely than continuous wave radiation to have an effect on living things. "There is a lot of work out there showing that digital signals are more biologically active," Slesin says. "At this point, no one knows whether the enhanced biological activity might compensate for the weaker signals." Lai, a soft-spoken bespectacled man with an understated sense of humor-he once deadpanned to a national television reporter that the most difficult part of his research involved getting the rats to use tiny cell phones-still expresses surprise at being at the center of the ongoing, swirling debate. 'Tm just a simple scientist trying to do my research," he says. He sees the path that led to controversy as marked by chance and serendipity. A Hong Kong native, Lai earned his bachelor's degree in physiology from McGill University in Montreal and came to the UW in 1972 to do graduate work. He earned his doctoral degree in psychology and did post-doc work in pharmacology with Akira Horita. His initial research involved the effects of alcohol on the brain. He also worked on a new compound to treat schizophrenia. A shift came in 1979. Bill Guy, UW emeritus professor and a pioneer in the field of radio wave physics, offered Lai a chance to do research on microwaves through a grant from the Office of Naval Research. The pair first examined wh~ther microwaves can affect drag interactions (they can), then if there appears to be an effect on learning (there does). Then, in the early '90s, Singh arrived in Seattle. He approached Lai about joining his lab. "He was an expert on DNA damage," Lai recalls. '2 said, 'Well, why not?'" Top: A comet assay of a normal cell shows little DNA damage. Bottom: The same assay of cells exposed to microwave radiation shows "tails" of damaged DNA. Images courtesy of Henry Lai. Singh is one of the world's foremost experts on a DNA analysis called the "comet assay." The assay gets its name from the appearance of a damaged cell. First, the cell is set in a gel and "lysed" or punctured. Then an electric current is run across the cell. When strands of DNA break, the broken pieces are charged. The electric current causes those pieces to http ://www.washington.edu/alunmi/colurrms/march05/wakeupcall02.html 6/27/2007 March 2005 Columns Magazine Feature: Wake Up Call Page 3 of 3 migrate through the gel. As a result, a damaged cell takes on the appearance ora comet, with the bits of damaged DNA forming the tail. The longer the tail, the more damage has resulted. With Singh's expertise now at hand, Lai decided to look at how microwaves affect DNA. Lai and Singh compared rats exposed to a low dose of microwave radiation for two hours to a control group of rats that spent the same amount of time in the exposure device, but didn't receive any radiation. The exposed rats showed about a 30 percent increase in single -strand breaks in brain cell DNA compared to the control group. As Lai and Singh sought funding to conduct follow-up studies, word of the research began to get out. According to internal documents that later came to light, Motorola started working behind the scenes to minimize any damage Lai's research might cause. In a memo and a draft position paper dated Dec. 13, 1994, officials talked about how they had "war-gamed the Lai-Singh issue" and were in the process of lining up experts who would be willing to point out weaknesses in Lai's study and reassure the public. This was before the study was published in 1995. A couple of years later, Lai got money from Wireless Technology Research (WTR), a group organized by CTIA to administer $25 million in industry research funding, to do some follow-up studies. But the conditions that came with the funding were restrictive. So much so that Lai and Singh wrote an open letter to Microwave News recounting their experience. The letter, published in 1999, cited irregularities in processes and procedures that the two called "highly suspicious." "In the 20 years or so that we have conducted experiments, for a variety of funding agencies, we have never encountered anything like this in the management of a scientific contract," the two wrote. Go To: Page_ 1 ] Page 21 Page 3 I Page 4 Inside the Wave: Web exclusive on more cell phone radiation research Making Waves: Worrisome results from European cell phone study Old Medicine, New Cure?: Henry Lai's cancer research shows promise · Return to March 2005 Table of Contents Home / Current Issue I Archives / Talk Back / Advertising / FAQ / UWAA Site / Search http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/wakeupcall02 .html 6/27/2007 March 2005 Columns Magazine Feature: Wake Up Call Page 1 of 3 THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON ALUMNI MAGAZINE COLUMNS March 2005- Issue Home I UW Home I UWAA Home Columns Home I Search WTR leader George Carlo responded with a six-page letter to then-UW President Richard McCormick, complaining of the "libelous" letter to Microwave News and "a pattern of slanderous conduct by these men over the past several years." The letter closed with a threat of legal action and stated that Lal and Singh should be fired from the project. An answering letter from Vice Provost Steven Olswang stated that the University "encourages legitimate academic discourse" and would not intervene in the dispute. While Lai and Singh were attempting to do their industry-funded follow-up study, the industry was looking for another opinion. Motorola approached Jerry Phillips, a researcher who worked in a lab at the Veteran's Administration Medical Center in Loma Linda, Calif. He was investigating electromagnetic fields and their biological effects. The lab had done work with Motorola before, and Phillips was interested. He made a proposal and was funded. He sent people to Seattle to learn how to do the comet assay. And he decided to expose the animals in his experiment to actual cell phone frequencies. What they found were increases in DNA damage at some levels of exposure and decreases at others. "That's not tmusual," Phillips says. "It happens with chemicals. One dose can do one thing, while a higher or lower dose does the opposite. In this case, if you produce a little bit of DNA damage, you are stimulating the repair mechanisms and you could actually see a net decrease because the repair will be done. However, if you overwhelm the repair mechanism, then you could see an increase. http ://www.washington.edu/almnni/columns/march05/wakeupcall03 .html 6/27/2007 March 2005 Columns Magazine Feature: Wake Up Call Page 2 of 3 "Based on the data, I told them that we need to start looking at repair mechanisms," Phillips recalls. ---- -- -- -- - Phillip ,. Motorola disagreed, s says he was told ! :!-T .:l~ ~ ! ":i ' : ~' ~! ~, ~ ~:'ir the results were not ready for publication, was ~t~ i::I ,. r~ ~.-r:~ .,- encouraged to do more work, and was offered ~ '-i ~ :~ additional money to continue the experiment. "I said as much as I would like the money, this part of the study is done," he recalls. "I said it's time to move on." The study was published in Nov. 1998. Once the findings were released, Phillips' source of funding dried up. Since then, another group, working out of Washington University in St. Louis with industry funding, has tried to replicate the experiment, but without success. · According to Lai and Phillips, that group is doing the study differently, including using a different technique to gauge DNA damage. "They haven't properly replicated the work that Henry did, or that I did," Phillips says. In the meantime, recent findings from overseas, more than 10 years after Lai's work, seem to finally be providing support for a closer look at cell phone radiation. Last fall, the journal Epidemiology published research results from a Swedish group that showed an increase in a rare type of non-cancerous brain tumor among cell phone users on the side of the head where the phone was most often held. In December, a pan-European organization released results from an extensive four- year study carried out by 12 research groups in seven countries. Known as the REFLEX study, that research found significant increases in DNA damage in human and animal cells exposed to cell phone radiation in the laboratory. While not a cause for alarm, the results, which have yet to be published, underline the need for further study, scientists said (see "Making Waves," page 4). A spokeswoman for the UK-based Mobile Operators Association called the results '!preliminary," adding that, "It is not possible to draw conclusions from this preliminary data." In 2000, Sir William Stewart, former chair of a British group that looked into the cell phone debate issued a report urging "a precautionary stance" while scientific data is gathered. This January he repeated that warning, adding that children should not use the devices for the time being. Industry spokesman Farren says his organization sticks to its position. "Any official precautionary measures need to be based on the science," he says. "The majority of studies have shown there are no health effects." http ://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/wakeupcall03 .html 6/27/2007 March 2005 Columns Magazine Feature: Wake Up Call Page 3 of 3 Go To: Page 11 Page 2 I Page 3 I Page 4 Inside the Wave: Web exclusive on more cell phone radiation research Making Waves: Worrisome results from European cell phone study Old Medicine, New Cure?: Henry Lai's cancer research shows promise · Return to March 2005 Table of Contents Home I Current Issue / Archives / Talk Back I Advertising I FAQ I UWAA Site I Search http ://www.washington.edu/alurnni/cglumns/march05/wakeupcall03 .html 6/27/2007 March 2005 Columns Magazine Feature: Wake Up Call Page 1 of 3 THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON ALUMNI MAGAZINE COLUMNS March 2005- Issue Home UW Home [ UWAA Home [ Columns Home I Seamh It's a point well taken, Lai says. However, what the science seems to say depends on how you quantify it. Lai says there have been about 200 studies on the biological effects of cell-phone- related radiation. If you put all the ones that say there is a biological effect on one side and those that say there is no effect on the other, you'd have two piles roughly equal in size. The research splits about 50-50. "That, in and of itself, is alarming," Lai says. But it's not the whole story. If you divide up the same 200 studies by who sponsored the research, the numbers change. "When you look at the non-industry sponsored research, it's about three to one-three out of every four papers shows an effect," Lai says. "Then, if you look at the industry-funded research, it's almost opposite-only one out of every four papers shows an effect." The problem, he adds, is that there is no longer funding available in the United States that isn't attached to the industry. Lai, for one, refuses to take any more industry money. "There are too many strings attached," he maintains. "Everyone uses the analogy of the tobacco industry and what happened there. It's like letting the fox watch the henhouse." While the FDA administers cell phone radiation studies, the money comes from the industry, he adds. Microwave News Editor Slesin says he has http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/wakeupcall04.html 6/27/2007 March 2005 Columns Magazine Feature: Wake Up Call Page 2 of 3 pondered why government funding isn't available. His hypothesis is that it's a matter of attitude. "There is a view out there among many scientists that this is just impossible-the radiation is too weak and there cannot be any effects," Slesin says. "We all know that ionizing radiation is bad. Ions are more reactive, there's no doubt it can lead to cancer, it's nasty stuff." The people who work with ionizing radiation see EMF radiation-that from electromagnetic fields-as a 97-pound weakling, he continues. They believe it's not capable of doing anything. "Yet, when you see effects like Henry reported, especially at the low power intensities, you have to ask what is going on to cause this?" he says. "As long as that attitude remains unchanged, you won't get more funding and you don't get anywhere." As a result, many U.S. scientists have moved on, either focusing on other areas or leaving the research arena altogether, relying on the rest of the world to pick up the slack. In Lai's case, he is pursuing other research directions, where he can get funding. The most promising involves artemisinin, a derivative from the wormwood plant currently used to treat malaria. Lai's research shows it has promise as a powerful anti-cancer agent. Late last year, the UW licensed the technology to a Chinese pharmaceutical company that plans to take it to human trials and, if successful, to market. After what happened in Loma Linda, Phillips and his wife left research altogether. They now live in Colorado Springs, Colo., where he works for a company that develops science curricula. "I do have a lot of regret for those lost opportunities," Phillips says. "We were really in a position to develop some good basic understandings of how radio frequency affects biological systems." It's an issue that desperately needs to be explored, according to Slesin. Right now, a solid understanding doesn't exist. If anyone says they absolutely have the answer, he cautions, absolutely don't believe them. "We are swimming in uncertainty." And the issue becomes increasingly relevant with each passing day. "We are making some fundamental changes to the electromagnetic environment in which we live," Slesin continues. "Soon entire cities will be online so you can take your laptop anywhere and be on the Internet. What that means is we will all be exposed to electromagnetic radiation 24/7. I don't know if there's a problem, but I think we owe it to society to find out." http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/wakeupcall04.html 6/27/2007 March 2005 Columns Magazine Feature: Wake Up Call Page 3 of 3 In the meantime, Lai prefers to err on the side of caution. He doesn't use a cell phone and requires that cell-savvy family members use headsets. He doesn't see the problem as intractable, just one that needs serious attention. We engineered the technology, he says, and he's confident that we can engineer our way out of any problems. But first, we need to take a close look at the data and admit that there may be a problem. Either way, the answers will come, given time, Lai says. The question is will we get those answers in the way we want? "We see effects, but we don't know what the consequences are," Lai says. "With so many people using cell phones, we will eventually know. The largest experiment in the history of the world is already under way. We will know in about 10 or 15 years, maybe." -Rob Harrill is the engineering writer in the UW's College of Engineering. Although his children are not allowed cell phones (despite repeated pleas), both he and his wife use one-sparingly. Go To: Page 11 Page 21Page~ I Page 4 Inside th_e Wa_y_e: Web exclusive on more cell phone radiation research Making Waves: Worrisome results from European cell phone study Old Medicine, New Cure?: Henry Lai's cancer research shows promise · Return to March 2005 Table of Contents Home I Current Issue / Archives / Talk Back I Advertising I FAQ / UWAA Site I Search http://www.washin~on.edu/alumni/columns/marchO5/wakeul~callO4.html 6,/27/2007 Page 1 of 2 The cell phone industry: Big Tobacco 2.0? By Molly Wood, senior editor, CNET.cora Tuesday, March 8, 2005 So, there's this incredibly popular product that has widespread consumer usc and a massive marketing presence. Nearly everyone uses it, and it has very high social acceptance, even though some people find it annoying when it's used in pgblic. It's highly habit-forming; people who use the product on a regular basis fred it almost impossible to live without. Unfortunately, studies start to appear showing that the product might be harmfu! to its users--even cancer-causing. The product's manufacturers deny the presence of any danger and even spend millions of dollars trying to discredit the research that points to problems. Then, an insider emerges, seemingly with proof that the product could be dangerous. The industry agrees to pub!j~h warning data about the product, but continues to maintain that the product itself is safe for use. Lawsuits hgainst the product's manufacturers are filed, but all are dismissed. Industry analysts know that any case that does succeed could start a domino effect of future lawsuits, which keeps the industry determined to maintain that the product is harmless, despite increasing evidence to the contra,~. Sound familiar? Well, put down your lighter, I'm talking about cell phones. I've already maintained that I don't like the cell phone industry's iron-clad control over phone releases and pricing, its ever-lengthening contracts, and the annoying habit it has of crippling Bluetooth phones so that I can't use them the way I want to. But it takes only a few minutes of looking into the cell phone radiation quagnfire before I start to think, man, these guys have Big Tobacco 2.0 written all over them. Actually, I'm not the frrst to think of it, but a recent article in the University of Washington alumni magazine indicates that the behaviors aren't going away, even as the potentially damning research continues to mount. TalkBack What do you think? Is the cell phone radiation scare a conspiracy theory or woffi~ using a headset for? ~ Post your comment here OK, I know the obvious differences: I'm sure cell phone manufacturers are not deliberately making their products more addictive, for example--although they are, of course, always offering new and improved services and ever-increasing buckets of minutes, which can't help but encourage us to use our phones more and more frequently. But, just as Big Tobacco did, the cell phone industry seems bound and determined to thwart and deny any suggestion that its product might be dangerous. A history of bad news For example, in 1994, University of Washington bioengineering professors Henry Lai and Narendra Singh found that the DNA in rats' brains was damaged after two hours of exposure to levels of microwave radiation considered safe by the government. When Lai and Singh published the research, a leaked memo from Motorola's head of global strategy, Norm Sandier, talked about ways to minimize damage by undermining their research, with Sandier writing, "I think that we have sufficiently war-gamed the Lai/Singh issue." Ouch. Worse, research biologist Jerry Phillips, who was paid by Motorola to conduct similar testing, says he was able to duplicate Lai and Singh's findings, but was then asked not to publish the research and was subsequently shunned by the company. Motorola says it told Phillips that his findings needed clarification, and the industty still maintains that Lai and Singh's results have never been duplicated and can't be considered legitimate. The biggest Russell Crowe-style insider in this case, though, is Dr. George Carlo, who was hired by the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association to head up a $28 million research program into possible health effects from cellular phones. Unfommately, he now says his findings show an increased rate of brain cancer deaths, development of tumors, and genetic damage among heavy cell phone users. He wrote this letter of concern to the president of AT&T Corporation and later went public with his findings after what he considered to be neglect by the industry. He's since broken with the industry, become a vocal critic, and coauthored a book called Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age--so you can tell he's on the "cell phones could cause cancer" side of things. Meanwhile, more studies keep coming, and they seem to be getting worse. A study funded by the European Union reported last December that radio waves from mobile phones do, definitively, damage DNA and other cells in the body--and that the damage extended to the next generation of cells. Even though mutated cells are considered a possible cause of cancer,'the UK National Radiological Protection Board said that since the study didn't show that the damage definitely led to disease, consumers shouldn't worry too much about the findings. Uh, right. In the meantime, the report recommended that children use mobile phones only in emergency situations. You know, just in case. How reassuring. http://www.cnet.com/4520-6033_1-5754931-1 .html 6/27/2007 Page 2 of 2 The cell phone industry hasn't commissioned another large-scale study--at least not publicly--since its fateful encounter with Dr. Carlo--and why would they? They're in a catch-22. It's a multibillion dollar industry, and they simply can't afford to fred out, definitively, that cell phones are dangerous. Worse, just like the tobacco companies, if they start issuing warnings and precautionary tales now, it'll look like they knew all along that the radio waves were dangerous, opening them up to major liability claims. They've already dodged one big, big bullet--an $800 million lawsuit against Motorola and cell phone carders was thrown out in 2002, with the judge ruling that there wasn't sufficient evidence for trial. Since then, neurologist Dr. Christopher Newman, who filed the lawsuit, has died of brain cancer. Listen, I use a cell phone, and I'm not trying to scare the bejesus out of everyone. But I do use a headset when I'm talking for any long period of time, and I carry that sucker in my purse, not my pocket. (I know you guys don't have that luxury, but reconsider the briefcase, OK?) And if you're shopping for a new phone, you might want to check our cell phone radiation chart to see which ones carry a low dose. In a few more years, we'll either know for sure that cell phones can cause cancer, or we'll know they can't. I just hope we don't fred out the hard way--through subpoenaed documents from cell phone makers and carders who've been trying to minimize their damages and maximize their profits for more than a decade. Copyright ©1995-2005 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved. http://www.cnet.conff4520-6033_1-5754931-1 .html 6/27/2007 Cellular Phone Industry Just as Health-Harming as Big Tobacco? 3/26/05 Page 1 of 3 Cellular Phone Industry Just as Health- Harming as Big Tobacco? Does this sound familiar? · Nearly everyone uses it · Has wide social acceptance · Highly habit forming More hints: · More and more studies come out documenting harm from the product · Product manufacturer denies dangers Sure sounds like the tobacco industry, doesn't it? Well, it would appear the cellular phone industry is repeating the same path. We all know that history has a tendency to repeat itself, and that certainly seems to be the case here. Critics claim the cell phone industry, just like the tobacco industry (Big Tobacco), seems determined to prevent and deny any suggestion that its products might be dangerous; however, years of negative research may prove otherwise. For example, one study showed that radio waves from mobile phones definitely damage DNA and other cells in the body, and that the damage extended to the next generation of cells. Another research case in particular delivered quite a blow to the cell phone industry: The Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association hired a man to head up a $28-million research program into possible health effects fi.om cellular phones. Findings revealed that heavy cell phone users experienced: · An increased rate of brain cancer deaths · Development of tumors · Genetic damage Ironically, the cell phone industry has not commissioned another large-scale study, at least not publicly, since. Why? Because the cell phone industry is a multi-billion- dollar industry that can't afford to find out that, ultimately, cell phones are dangerous. Moreover, similar to Big Tobacco, the cell phone industry will be opened up to large liability claims if they were to start issuing warnings and precautionary tales now, which opens up the possibility that they knew the danger of radio waves all along. CNET.com March 8, 2005 http://www.mercola, com/display/PrintPage.aspx?docid=29178&PrintPage=yes 6/27/2007 Cellular Phone Industry Just as Health-Harming as Big Tobacco? 3/26/05 Page 2 of 3 Dr. Mercola's Comment: Most everyone reading this is not old enough to remember the JAMA (Journal of the AMA) ads that showed physicians smoking and describing all the health benefits of smoking. This happened in the 1920s and appeared in one of the most widely distributed medical journals. Nearly 100 years later, after science has had time to document the destructive effects of tobacco these ads look absolutely ridiculous. I suspect many of these experts are voicing these opinions because they are in denial and don't want to face the reality that they may need to reduce their cell phone radiation exposure. So, it is my projection that not too far down the road many of the expert articles you have read defending how safe cell phone use will be viewed as ridiculous as the 1920 JAMA cigarette ads. If this sounds foolish, remember I am the guy that predicted Vioxx would be removed from the market because of killing people from cardiovascular side effects. FIVE YEARS, and 55,000 deaths later, they removed it from the market. From my seat the evidence is even stronger on cell phones. So heed the warning now or heed it later. The only thing I am earning on this strong recommendation is the satisfaction of knowing I was able to prevent unnecessary misery, suffering and grief. I have run many articles detailing the studies that expose how cell phones can wreak havoc on your body by exposing your brain to harmful radiation. If you really don't believe cell phone radiation is an issue I would encourage you to review an article that was published in Lancet five years ago. You can review my extensive summary~f ~tb~t art_ icle~ or you can go to the journal directly and obtain the information. I can't give you the link as the journal has a primitive technology that prevents me from doing so and you will also have to register. Regardless of the method you chose, please carefully review this article and decide for yourself. Do you really want an ~g0u~tJc ng~r0mas (tumor) growing inside your head? If you are fortunate enough to avoid the neuroma then how will you contend with the cellular damage these mobile phone cause? I previously advised complete abstinence from cell phones, but now I recommend cautious use to reduce your risk of damage. If you ever took physics there is a good chance that you understand that radiation decreases exponentially as you move away from an object. So one of the best solutions you can do is to put distance between yourself and the cell phone. However, very few people believe this. How do I know? I frequently see many people that are fanatic about health and pay careful attention to their diet but never use headsets. Folks, you would be surprised to know, but this includes many top health experts across the country. http://www.mercola.com/display/PrintPage.aspx?docid=29178&PrintPage=yes 6/27/2007 Cellular Phone Industry Just as Health-Harming as Big Tobacco? 3/26/05 Page 3 of 3 So the first step in protecting yourself is to put some distance between you and the headset. Please understand that you need to keep it away from your entire body. Holding the handset (sometimes unavoidable) while it is on will direct the radiation into your hand. While this is far better than your brain it can still be problem. So place it on a table or some handy place a few feet away from your body. However some experts are concerned that the radiation will travel down the headset wire to your head. I ran an article an article last month on ferrit~ beads that can be placed on the headset that would eliminate this problem and make the headset 100 percent radiation free but I haven't been able to find those beads anywhere. If anyone can find them please contact me through our contact page for information on how we can track them down. It would also be prudent to lower the radiation at the source and select a cell phone that has the lowest amount of radiation. You can find this out by going by using CNet's review of cell phone radiation levels. Last, but certainly not least. It isn't the brightest idea in the world to talk on your cell phone and drive. A 1997 New England Journal of Medicine showed that talking on your cell phone increases your risk of death by 400 percent. Since car accidents are the number one cause of death for most of us, why risk it? Please understand this statistic is unrelated to having a hands free operation; however, in my opinion, even if you aren't dialing, you are at risk because your focus and concentration is not on the road but on the phone. After ail, you need to be careful out there and protect yourself from all the temporarily unconscious people who refuse to heed the warning about driving and talking on their cell phone. I'm not aware of any studies on this but I bet there are a large number of accidents in which both parties were talking on their cell phones. Related Articles: Cell Phone Index ~!! Pbo~ May H~ Blood G~!!~ Mobile Telephones and Brain Tumors Print :: Close http://www.mercola.com/display/PrintPage.aspx?docid=29178&PrintPage=yes 6/27/2007 Big Cellcos: Big tobacco repeating itself?. I Between the Lines I ZDNet.com Page 1 of 6 Members Log [g Site Assistance New_$1etters RSS F~eds Podcasts Between the L~es Berlind's T~stbed All About Microsoft So,iai Web Storage Bits Ed Bott RSS Feeds home / blogs Between the Lines search ISearch Dan Farber & Larry Dignan Also featuring David Berlind Subscribe Alerts Dan's Bio ~ Bio Pick a blog category March 10th, 2005 Big Cellcos: Big tobacco repeating itself? Posted by David Berlind @ 1:48 pm Categories: Gen~ral~ HTired & 147irele~ Mobile Tags: +0 ovotesWorthwhile?~ Over on Anchordesk, my colleague and CNET senior editor Molly Wood has reopened the debate over the dangers of cell phone use by citing some disturbing parallels -- including whistleblowing and attempts to supress relevant evidence -- between the cell phone and tobacco industries. I can't tell you how glad I am that I read it, and?in a moment, you'll know why. While there haven't been any new earthshattering revelations since the most recent cell phone radiation studies (which demonstrate DNA damage that scientists aren't yet concerned about), Wood cites an article published this month by University of Washington engineering writer Rob Harrill that paints a picture of a cell phone industry that's more interested in discrediting revenue- threatening research than finding the truth. Referring to researchers doing research on the subject matter,Harrill wrote: As Lai and Singh sought funding to conduct follow-up studies, word of the research began to get out. According to internal documents that later came to light, Motorola started working behind the scenes to minimize any damage Lai?s research might cause. In a memo and a drafi position paper dated Dec. ~3, z994, officials talked about how they had .hoar-gamed http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p= 1132 6/27/2007 Big Cellcos: Big tobacco repeating itself'?. [ Between the Lines I ZDNet.com Page 2 of 6 the Lai-Singh issue? and were in the process of lining up experts who would be willing to point out weaknesses in Lai?s study and reassure the public. This was before the study was published in 1995. Then, in describing how funding4everage was applied to the same researchers by a group that's backed by the CTIA (an industry consortium), Harrill writes: A couple of years later, Lai got money from Wireless Technology Research (WTR), a group organized by CTIA to administer $25 million in industry research funding, to do some follow-up studies. But the conditions that came with the funding were restrictive. So much so that Lai and Singh wrote an open letter to Microwave News recounting their experience. The letter, published in 1999, cited irregularities in processes and procedures that the two called ?highly suspicious....?In the 2o years or so that we have conducted experiments, for a variety of funding agencies, we have never encountered anything like this in the management of a scientific contract,? the two wrote. The WTR threatened the University of Washington, where the researchers worked, with legal action (which makes me wonder what might have happened had the blogosphere been active at the time). Obviously, none of this is enough to?justify any definitive conclusions about whether cell phones do or do not pose health risks. But, in addition to providing a scary look behind the scenes of university-level research when big industry gets involved, it does raise an important question for all of us. As a society, we've gotten much better about investigating the saftey records of certain cars and car manufacturers before making any investments. While the same sort of track record data isn't available for cell phones, all cell phones do come with specific absorption rate or SAR ratings that give you some idea of how much radiation a phone puts out. When was the last time you checked out a SAR rating before buying a phone or double-checked the SAR rating of the One you have? I knew about SAR ratings but completely blanked on the issue when I saw and took opportunity to get paid $5o to take a Motorola v265 picture phone from Verizon Wireless. Now that I see, at a SAR rating of ~55, that my new vo65 is tied for the worst SAR rating of all cell phones from all manufacturers, I'm not so proud of my purchase. (I also suspect that's why I got such a great deal.) While I'm mad at Amazon (where I purchased two of these phones - one for me, one for my wife) for not putting a neon SAR sign on the ad for v265 that it sent me to from its home page, I'm also mad at myself and trying to figure out what to do next. Of course, the cell phone industry will tell you it doesn't matter -- that they're all safe. Sorry, it's no consolation to me to know that I equipped my wife with the worst-rated phone of the bunch. I don't think I'll stop using cell phones, but if I'm going to use one, I'd rather use one that has one of the lowest SAR ratings of all phones than one of the highest (at.m, the Audiovox PPC66ol PocketPC-based smartphone has the lowest SAR rating of all US phones). So, do yourself a favor. Learn from my mistake. BlogThis E-mail Print Sphere 0 diggs diggit Previous postNext post Talkback - Add your opinion http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p= 1132 6/27/2007 Big Cellcos: Big tobacco repeating itself?. ] Between the Lines I ZDNet.com Page 3 of 6 !he analogy is good, after a more careful reading The analogy David is drawing here is not between the threat to health posed by tobacco and a possibl... (Read the rest) Tell The Whole Story CauseInTheMatter -- o3/1~/o5 Can't compare the two issues george_ou -- o3/~/o5 Add your opinion No Trackbacks Yet The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/wp-trackback.php?p:~3a Popular white papers, webcasts, and case studies Best Practices for Accelerating Problem Resolution in .NET Applications and Web Services BMC Software Best Practices for Rapid Resolution of J2EE Application Problems BMC Software Waehovia and SOA IBM Fax over IP: What is the Right Way to Implement it for Your Organization? Instant InfoSgstems IBM Cool Blue Videos IBM Meeting US FDA 2z CFR Part ~1 Requirements MetricStream ~The page cannot displayed be The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings. Please try the following: · Click the r~ Refresh button, or try again later. · If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly. · To check your connection settings, click the Tools menu, and then click [nternet Options, On the Connections tab, click Seffings. The settings should match those provided by your local area network (LAN) administrator or Internet service provider (ISP). · See if your Internet connection settings are being detected. You can set Hicrosoft Windows to examine your network and automatically discover network connection settings (if your .... ,~ a'dver t isement http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p= 1132 6/27/2007 Big Cellcos: Big tobacco repeating itself?. I Between the Lines I ZDNet.com Page 4 of 6 Recent Entries CRM for the iPhone JustinTV: Long live the lifeblogger? Yahoo Messenger MIA Faeebook: The rise of social applications News to know: iPhone reviews; Pink Dell; Enterprise Faeebook Top Rated L~e without G~ogle Day a: Windows Live Search a viable contender+46 votes Life without Google Day ~: The Ask experiment+45 votes D5 Live: No fight--Gates and Jobs ponder the past and the future+33 votes Review: Safari for Windows (what took so long?)+28 votes Privacy International pokes a stick in Google's eye+27 votes iPhone reviews: Not perfect, but worthy of the hype+21 votes Flash analysis: Takeaways from Jobs keynote; 64-bit Leopard is big; Safari on Windows+21 votes Firefox 3 takes shape with Alpha 5+20 votes Latest News Senate takes step away ~m ReM lP bogle D~8~op go~ L~ux Vo0afone iPhon~ hinges p~y on subsidi~8 Fujifilm look to garbage for energy Mierosoft !aBn~hes new low-cost PC effort in India Subscribe to Feed Featured Sponsor How to Tame Your Boss Premier Vendor Content Whltepapers, webcaets & resources from our Power Center Sponsors http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p= 1132 6/27/2007 Big Cellcos: Big tobacco repeating itself?. ] Between the Lines I ZDNet.com Page 5 of 6 Jo~a~8 B!og /Presiden~ and CEO of Sun M~crosystems, Jonathan Schwartz is an inveterate blogg~r. He has led Sun's drive toward transparency and ~penn~88, Read the latest from Sun CEO Jonathan Sch~a~? ~ *¢ advertisement Archives June 2007 May 2~07 April 2007 March go07 February 2007 J~ua~ 2007 December 2oo6 November 2006 October 2oo6 September 2oo6 August 2oo6 July 2o06 ZDNet Blogs All About Microsoft The Apple Core Berlind,s Testbed Between the Lines The BlackBe~ Beat BriefingsDirect ChipLand Dev Connection E-Communications & Community Ed Bott!~ Microsoft Report Emerging Teeh Enterprise Anti-matter Ente~rise Web 2.o Googling Google The Great Seduction Hardware 2.0 IP Telephony IT Facts John Carroll Lawgarithms Managing L'unix The Mobile Gadgeteer Newton's Theory Off~..~y_olution Open Source Rational Rants Real World IT Service Oriented The Social Web Software as Services Storage Bits Threat Chaos Tom Foremski: IMHO The Universal Desktop Virtually Speaking ~W..~b_2.0 Explorer ZDNet Education ZDNet Government gero. Da~v Favorite Links Blogroll ~S Techni~ ~! ~rna! ~gadget Ente~ri~ !~s GigaOm Google Blogoscoped Mac Rumors Mashab!e Officiffi ~ogle Blog Read~riteWeb Scobleizer SeekingAlpha TechCrunch Techdirt ~e Ponderings of Woodrow The Unofficial Appl~.~blog (TUA~Ar) http ://blogs.zdnet .corn/B TL/index.php?p= 1132 6/27/2007 Big Cellcos: Big tobacco repeating itself?. I Between the Lines I ZDNet.com Valleywag Page 6 of 6 ¢~o w~on series The role of instant messaging in war Col. John Hayes, the CIO of the Air Force Reserve Command, explains how collaborative tools, such as instant messaging, are helping to support ground forces in combat. Watch the short dip now View full video ~l SF Giant_'~S_b. al!par_k gets HD makeover CIO Bill Schlough shows off the SF Giants new HD big screen monitor which gives fans ~6 by 9 HD images and the latest player information. Watch the o-minute clip ~umbs up for SaaS At the Software 2007 conference, the CIOs of Disney, Motorola and Unilever discuss the benefits and limitations of software as a service. ~gtch ~ shod clip View the full video See all CIO Vision Series videos ~ advertisement Site Support & Feedback About CNET Networks I Jobs I Advertise I Partnerships Visit other CNET Networks sites: Copyright © 2006 CNET Networks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ~yg~ PO~y [ Terms of Use http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p= 1132 6/27/2007 Page 1 of 2 Tuesday, .lune 19, 2007 When Bad News Is No News By MFosburg @ 4:07 plVl :: 103 Views :: News, Ceil Phones, General EMR When Bad News Is No News European papers are reporting some troubling research about cell phones that American papers aren't. By Michael Miner June 15, 2007 THE COI. UMBZ4 .IOURNAI.[$I4 Review plays darts every issue with unworthy joumalists, but its Darts & Laurels feature for May and .lune threw one at the entire "U.S. news media," Launching a dubious metaphor, C/Rtook the American media to task "for failing to pick up a long-distance signal." The item explained that when major papers in Britain, Germany, Canada, Israel, and other countries "recentJy rang, sometimes on page one, with the findings of a five-country study that showed a statistically significant increase in a certain type of brain tumor among people who had used cell phones for ten years or more, one might have expected the American press to at least record the message." But it didn't, said ~]R, even though "the telecom industry here keeps hoping that the FCC and the federal health agencies will raise the levels of call-pbone radiation currently allowed. "Memo to journalists: call waiting." CalFpbone radiation is non-ionizing, which means it produces heat but, at least in theory, doesn't threaten biological organisms at the atomic level. The idea that noniodlzing radiation is a menace regardless goes back at least as far as the 1977 book The Z~pping of America: ~licrowave~, Their Deadiy Risk, and the Coverup, by New Yorkerwriter Paul Brodeur. NOW AVAILABLE BY EMAIL The our critics i~ick the best bets 'q'here is a vast conspiracy among the press, especially newspapers, not to write about the biological studies, especially the epidemiological studies done in Europe," Brodeur told me this week. Like other vast conspiracies, this one shows every sign of being able to live on indefinitely, never confirmed beyond doubt or discredited to everyone's satisfaction. That a long period of latency precedes whatever damage cell phones might do only hardens both sides' convictions. click here to sign up C-JR singled out two publications for praise: the F/or/da 5un- Sent/ne/, for reporting the study, which was published in January by the ,rnternabbna/Jouma/of Cancer, and fil/crowave · News, a newsletter that provided a "comprehensNe, comprehensible account of the controversial findings." Brodeur tells me its editor, Louis Slesln, got his start by studying the Zapp/ngfiles and is now "the authority on microwave radiation." When I looked online for the story C]Rtold me wasn't there -- well, it wasn't there. On the ABC News site ! found an AP story with the headline "Study Disputes Cell Phone-Cancer Link: Large Study From Denmark Offers the Latest Reassurance That Cell Phones Don't Trigger Cancer." Hedpagetoday.com carried a staff-written story citing the same Danish study and headlined "Once Again, No Call Phone-cancer Link Found." The FCPlagaz/neWeb site carried a Reuters story based on a British survey under the headline "Study Minimizes Cancer Risk From Call Phones." And the very day I conducted my search, May 29, MSN.com touted a story by MSNBC science editor Alan Boyle on the possible link between call-phoee radiation and Iow sperm count and played it for laughs: 'q'here's no known connection between cell phone radiation and health risks, but thankfully there's silver-threaded underwear for those who are concerned." HO ho. Slesin was so concerned that the American press wasn't telling the public something it needed to know that he wrote and shopped around an op-ed sounding the alarm. !t began, 'Two billion people now use cell phones, many for hours on end. But are they safe? Could putting a small microwave transmitter next to your brain lead to cancer or a neurological disease?" http://www~safewire~ess~~rg/Deskt~pM~du~es/DrmF~rge%2~~%2~NewsArtic~es/Print~aspx~.~ 6/27/2007 Page 2 of 2 He couldn't be sure, "but some of the early returns are disquieting." Citing studies that other reporters took comfort in, Slesin said they "point to a problem over the long term. These studies show that using a cell phone for more than ten years leads to higher rates of two different kinds of tumors: gliomas, a type of brain tumor, and acoustic neuromas, a tumor of the nerve that connects the ear to the brain. In each case, the tumors were more likely to be on the side of the head closest to the phone." 'q'o be sum, these am still preliminary findings," Slesin acknowledged, but he didn't think it made sense to ignore them. In his view skeptics who assert that "the worst microwaves can do is heat you up, and even then only at power levels much higher than you could ever get from a cell phone" not only "abound" but dominate the debate in this country. "the heating-only advocates, many of whom have links to industry, am in control even though laboratory research has shown that microwave radiation can damage DNA, upset sleep patterns, alter cognitive function, increase the flow of chemicals through the blood-brain barrier and bring on headaches." Hem in the U.S., Slesin wrote, no epidemiological studies are being made of cell-phone radiation, the American Cancer Society has called the idea of cancer risk a "myth," and ConsumerReFod3published a long recent report on cell phones that didn't even take up the question of radiation. But "it's a completely different story in Europe." The op-ed wasn't published. Slesin says the New York 77mes and Eo.~lon Globeboth turned it down. When I asked Brodeur to explain what he meant by a "vast conspiracy," he took a verbal step back, as if to distance himself from the lunatic fringe. "What them is is seif-censership," he replied. 'q'he mason is, as always, money. You follow the money trail and the newspapers have a vested interest in the big telecommunications companies. It's an enormously powerful industry and it has managed to convince a lot of people there is absolutely no harm." Slesin said something similar in his op-ed: he claimed the "wireless industry has a stranglehold on the health debate" and "Motorola and Nokia, the two largest phone manufactumm, dismiss all claims of a possible hazard." When I looked harder I began to find studies that backed Slesin up. For instance, 'q'umour risk associated with use of cellular telephones or cordless desktop telephones" appeared in the g/odd Jouma/of Surge/Onco/oEy in October 2006. And in January of that year, "Cellular Phones, Cordless Phones, and the Risks of Glioma and Meningloma" ran in the ,4merican Journal of Ep/c/em/o/ogy, where it was reported that "among long-term cellular phone users [ten years or moro] a twofold dsk of glioma was observed." But I also discovered a mainstream newspaper article neither OR nor Slesin had given credit to. It ran February 18 in the Ch/cago Tdbuneand was written by Mike Hughlett, a financial writer who covers Motorola. Hughlett says he wrote about the debate because he considered it part of his beat. "I'd read for years about it," he says. "I wondered, is it a dead issue? I researched and it didn't seem to be a dead lsaue -- on the other hand, there was nothing you could prove. My story was more about science than business, the limits of science." Hughlett reported that most epidemiological studies done in Europe haven't found a statistical link between tumors and cell- phone usage -- but not all. '~he problem," Hughlett wrote, "in addition to the conflicting lab results: lack of an accepted scientific theory" of how cell-phone radiation could cause harm. Hughlett talked off and on with Slesin for months, and the article labeled him either "a pot-stirring independent voice, or an advocate of the view that radiation risks are being serf-peddled -- depending on who's describing him." Those am pretty friendly characterizations, and not even mutually exclusive. Slesin is willing to answer to either one. Yet when Slesin accused the media of negligence he didn't cite Hughlett as an exception. "Here's why he dropped off my radar screen," Slesin e-mailed me. "I guess ] never considered his piece as covering the tumor findings. He does mention them, but not as spot news, the way the Su/7-Sent/he/did. It's more one item in an 'On the one hand.., and on the other hand' piece .... But he did mention the tumor findings, which is mom than most everyone else in the U.S. did." Gloria Cooper, who writes Darts & Laurels for C]R, didn't know about Hughlett's story until I told her, and then she was embarrassed. "We did the best search we could possibly do," she said, wondering aloud if she should run a correction. She asked what Hughlett had said to me about her C]R item, but the obliviousness was mutual. Hughlett hadn't known it existed. O O http://www~safewire~¢ss~g/Deskt~pM~du~s/DnnF~rg~ ~2~- ¼2~N~wsArtic~es/Print~aspx~ 6/27/2007 Observer I Phone masts blight house sales Page 1 of 2 Phone masts blight house sales Health fears are alarming buyers as masts spread across Britain to meet rising demand for mobiles Paul Harris Sunday May 25, 2003 Observer Once it was the nightmare of a new motorway being built on their doorsteps that haunted homeowners anxious to preserve the value of their houses. But now a new threat is wiping tens of thousands of pounds off the value of properties across Britain: mobile phone masts. They are scores of feet tall and criticssay they are a health risk to anyone who lives near them. They are being built in every corner of Britain. Over the past decade Britain has embraced mobile phone technology with almost religious fervour. There are now more than 50 million mobiles in use, and to cope with the demand a network of 35,000 masts has been erected. By 2007 there will be 48,000. Anti-mast campaigners have warned that radiation emitted by them is potentially dangerous to humans, especially children. Though phone companies and government experts insist the technology is safe, fear of the masts has become a real issue in buying and selling houses. It mirrors the health fears - and the resultant impact on property prices - that surrounded Britain's network of electricity pylons when they were built. 'It can be a bit like dealing with negative equity. Some houses just become very, very difficult to sell and if you need to move quickly for your job or family reasons, then you are going to have a real problem,' said Alasdair Philips, founder of Powerwatch, an anti-phone mast lobby group. The consequence of having a phone mast near you can be tragic. Nancy Watts suffers from multiple sclerosis and has been forced to retire from her job as an international business consultant. Her husband is now working part-time to be able to help care for her. With such restricted employment, the value of their bungalow in the Shropshire countryside was a vital part of their retirement plans. But now that value has been almost halved by the phone mast outside their home. 'We tried to sell and everyone who came around would see what a lovely home we had and then see the mast so close to us and just leave,' Mrs Watts said. Their estate agent told them the mast would prevent them from selling their house at anything like the £189,000 it had been valued at. 'She said that if we wanted a quick sale, we would have to take our asking price down by £70,000-£80,000. That was just heartbreaking,' Mrs Watts said. With their reduced earnings and Mrs Watts's condition worsening and confining her to a wheelchair, such a loss was unacceptable. She also believes the radiation from the mast has led to a sudden deterioration in her health. '1 feel we are trapped here next to this mast. We can't move away from it because no one will buy our house,' she said. It is a problem replicated across the country as more masts are built and awareness of the health warnings from anti-mast campaigners becomes more widespread. 'We are getting a lot of inquiries about this from people asking us if they should buy a house or not. It is something that people are becoming very concerned about,' said Lisa http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/O,,4676655-102285,00.html 6/27/2007 Observer I Phone masts blight house sales Page 2 of 2 Oldham, spokeswoman for campaign group Mast Sanity. Estimates of the effect on property prices vary and no academic research has been carried out. However, Mast Sanity believes anecdotal evidence from its hotline indicates a mast will knock between 15 and 25 per cent off the value of a house, depending on how close it is and the size of the structure. Melfyn Williams, chairman of the National Association of Estate Agents, said in some cases a mast could see a home reduce in value by between 5 and 10 per cent. 'It is not scaremongering. It is more about a growing fear of the unknown of what the health risks are, especially among those with young children,' he said. Campaigners are considering legal action to seek compensation for the loss in value of their properties or to get the masts removed. Last week, seven householders in Swindon won sums of between £10,000 and .~2.0,000 each from their local council after it mistakenly allowed a mast to be erected in the middle of their residential street, causing their properties to crash in value. Campaigners have hailed this as a landmark judgment: it was the first time a government ombudsman had accepted masts could hurt house prices. A flood of similar claims is expected. 'It was a huge decision and we will see many more claims like this,' said Frankie Evans, spokeswoman for Mast Action UK. Several other cases are being pre pared. One home owner in Gloucestershire, who wished to remain anonymous as legal proceedings had already begun, said building a mast had wiped .~.2.50,000 from the value of his house. 'Losing that amount through something beyond our control does leave one feeling more than a little browned off,' he said. However, phone companies insist the masts have not been shown to bring house prices down. 'The reasons why people buy or don't buy houses are very diverse and it is impossible to identify one factor as having such an effect,' said a spokeswoman for the Mobile Operators Association, the industry body representing British mobile phone firms. That does not convince Nancy Watts. She said many of the people who came to view her house blamed the mast as the reason for not making an offer. Some did not even view it once they saw the mast. 'It was terrible to see some people drive up, take one look at the mast and then drive off again without even stopping,' she said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/O,,4676655 - 102285,00.html 6/27/2007 The antenna dilemma -- Los Altos Town Crier Page 1 of 4 gllto omn o£der The antenna dilemma People want better cell-phone coverage - but at what cost? By Bruce Barton / Town Crier Staff Writer Published on April 14, 2004 The number of applications for cellular-phone antennas is on the rise, and so is the number of resident concerns. Los Altos already has 15 antenna sites, and that number promises to go up. The number of antenna towers nationwide is expected to double in five years. As cell phone coverage providers such as Cingular and Verizon attempt to fill gaps in coverage, the companies are targeting residential areas and unleashing a raft of questions about health risks, noise impact and a potential loss in property values. Two projects in Los Altos and Mountain View have recently heightened residents' concerns: Verizon's planned 45-foot monopole for property owned by the California Water Service Company at Giffin Road and Fremont Avenue; and a recently erected "stealth" antenna in the steeple of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on Springer Road. The lure of easy lease money proves tempting for neighborhood schools and churches, often short on cash and looking to fund one project or another. Curtis Church, pastor at the Central Seventh-day Adventist Church of Mountain View, said the $1,500 per month lease income from the cell- phone antenna will fund landscaping and church outreach projects. Last week, the Los Altos School District board of trustees were told of a standing offer by Cingular to erect an antenna at the Egan Junior High School campus. The wireless company offered $400,000 in lease income that district officials said could fund a new track at Egan. However, Randy Kenyon, superintendent of business services, said there has been no movement on the proposal since Cingular first inquired a year ago. Kenyon acknowledged the hesitancy in going forward has to do with anticipated negative resident reaction. PHOTO BY$OE HU ~lountain View Parent Education operates amid the presence of a cellular phone antenna tower in the hfountain View-Los Altos Union High School District maintenance yard. Last year, clergy at Los Altos Lutheran Church were pressured by nearby residents to ditch a plan to install a "stealth" antenna in the steeple of their church at Cuesta Drive and El Monte Avenue. Property value question Prompting resident concerns are inconclusive evidence that the antennas pose no health risk and the prospect that having antennas nearby could hurt property values. Los Altos residents Jackie Wright and Christine Vieira Sellers expect a property value drop of 10 percent or more resulting from the Verizon monopole to be erected near their homes. They, along with neighbors Debra Moe and Christiane Creighton, said they would rather see the pole and its "horrible metallic http://latc.com/2004/04/14/news/news01 .print.html 6/27/2007 The antenna dilemma -- Los Altos Town Crier Page 2 of 4 hum" (Vieira Sellers) erected at the nearby Los Altos Civic Center complex at Hillview Avenue and San Antonio Road, where people would not be exposed to constant radiation by living within a few hundred feet of the tower. "Putting it (the monopole) in a residential area is unforgivable," Creighton said. The council approved the pole in December, accepting staff findings that said, ironically, "the project protects and enhances real property values" and "the project conserves the city's natural beauty." Conditions are that the 45-foot-high pole will not go above the tree line and be painted dark green to blend in. Such findings prompted horselaughs from the neighbors, but Zachary Carter, a planning consultant with Cingular, said people, conversely, may opt out of buying a home due to poor cell-phone coverage. "It comes down to money. 'It's going to depreciate the value of my home,'" Carter said, repeating comments he has heard repeatedly as he has worked with neighborhoods across Silicon Valley about antenna placement. "But as time goes on, they have to have cell-phone service. They won't buy the house without it." Health issues Unresolved in many residents' minds is the health risk. Wireless providers offer experts who virtually laugh off any claim that the Iow-level radiation from cell-phone antennas poses any health issue, even over 30 years. But Vieira Sellers, who has tirelessly researched the issue, said the issue is substantive enough to have prompted the World Health Organization to embark on a five-year study on the long-term risks. The findings will not be completed until 2007. Kenneth Harker, a retired physicist who lives near the Central Seventh-day Adventist Church of Mountain View, said Federal Communications Commission regulations allow up to 1,000 microwatts per square centimeter of thermal energy from cell-phone antennas. The antenna at the SDA church emits 10.7 microwatts by comparison but still exceeds the 10-microwatt limit set by four other countries - China, Russia, Italy and Switzerland. The United States has one of the highest acceptable radiation thresholds in the world, and the 1996 Telecommunications ACt dictates that local governments cannot cite health risks as a reason for denying antennas as long as the radiation is within FCC limits. However, some scientists and other experts fear even Iow-level radiation may be too much. Concerns draw from the nonthermal, or nonheating aspects of long-term exposure to antenna radiation. Some experts say the Soviet Union purposely bombarded the U.S. Embassy in Moscow with Iow-level microwave radiation from 1953 to 1976 in an attempt to disorient officials. Two diplomats contracted leukemia. Some studies have indicated a connection between prolonged exposure to nonthermal radiation and such issues as increased brain cancer cell growth (1997 FDA study), decreased memory (Latvian Academy of Sciences, 1996), increased blood pressure (The Lancet, British medical journal, 1998), headaches and adverse neurological changes (H. Lai, paper at IBC-UK Conference in Brussels, Belgium, 1997). Such medical problems are not affirmed, because cell phones have not been around long enough to be subjected to a 25-year or 30-year study. Still, just the discussion of the issue is enough to concern neighbors near cell-phone antennas. "Cell-phone towers affect people's perceptions," said Bobbi Lynn Taylor, a resident near the SDA church. "There's a perception that cell-phone towers cause cancer. As long as there's a perception, our property is going to be less marketable and valuable." http://latc.com/2004/04/14/news/news01 .print.html 6/27/2007 The antenna dilemma -- Los Altos Town Crier Page 3 of 4 Residents in the Springer neighborhood have joined together with Fremont-Giffin residents to fight residential antennas, calling themselves Citizens for Antenna-free Neighborhoods. Wireless response Carter with Cingular doesn't see what all the fuss is about. An average cell-phone tower, he said, emits about 400 watts, the same wattage as four 100-watt light bulbs. "I could have a ham radio tower that puts out 10 times the power and it would be allowed as a matter of right, because it's for me," Carter said. He added that people are constantly using cell phones, cupping phones to their ears for lengthy periods. "It's only going to get worse," he said of the demand for cell phones and better coverage. "There's more and more competition on phones. Most people carry it all the time. There are kids in seventh and eighth grade with phones." Cingular and other providers also use signal transmitters in small boxes, set inconspicuously on telephone poles. He said Cingular has employed "stealth" in the placement of their antennas - inside church steeples and, in the case of one antenna, behind the clock tower of a building in Los Altos' Loyola Corners district. "We're driven by complaints," Carter said. "Why would Cingular spend $:150,000 to $250,000, turnkey, to build a site? They want to keep their customers." Residents say Residents, however, said the issue comes down to wanting to have some control over whether or not they want a cell-phone antenna in their neighborhood. "When you're using a cell phone, you have a choice (to use it)," Harker said, and assume any health risks associated with cell-phone use. "We're subjected to this chronically." Residents near the SDA church tower said approximately 50 residents from Los Altos living within 300 feet of the tower were not notified by the city of Mountain View about the tower, while 47 Mountain View residents were notified. Approximately 80 neighbors signed a petition protesting the SDA church's antenna, but pastor Church remains convinced the lease benefit;s to the church outweigh what he sees as unfounded concerns of some residents. "How much do you cater toward misinformed people?" he asked. Church's chief concern about the antenna installation is the health risk, but he said nothing has yet been proven. "If science determines a risk factor, we'll terminate (the lease) immediately," he said. The issue of notification failure also resonates with neighbors near the proposed Fremont-Giffin monopole. Vieira Sellers said she received word of one Los Altos hearing in a flier that arrived 1:1:30 p.m. the night before. Others do not recall receiving a notification. "What if we just don't want it?" Vieira Sellers said. "We are the ones who will have to live under this .... Given that we don't know (the health risks), why not put it someplace where people are going to be exposed intermittently? All it takes is the political will to make this happen. We want them to be placed responsibly." Los Altos ordinance Although wireless guidelines have been in place since :1997, Los Altos officials have in effect acknowledged http://latc.com/2OO4/O4/14/news/newsOl.print.html 6/27/2007 The antenna dilemma -- Los Altos Town Crier Page 4 of 4 resident concerns by forming a council subcommittee to look at the impact of cell-phone antennas. Councilmen David Casas and King Lear head the subcommittee. "We're trying to keep them (cell-phone towers) out of neighborhoods," said James Walgren, the city's community development director. "Part of the effort would be to take a site, like city hall, and proactively work to get first use (by antenna applicants) at city hall." Residents feel Verizon and other providers pushed the city around, and they're worried about providers doing whatever they want to once city approvals are in. Vieira Sellers thinks the monopole will attract additional antennas and the providers will "crank up the power" along with the radiation. Walgren said the city will, in fact, be able to retain control and prevent such scenarios. Lynn Taylor would like to see a moratorium on approval of any more antennas until an ordinance is in place. Meanwhile, Verizon officials still need to appear before the planning commission for approval of a shed design. The approval is needed before the monopole project can begin, Walgren said. Copyright © 2004 Los Altos Town Crier http://latc.conff2OO4/O4/14/news/newsO1 .print.ht~nl 6/27/2007 Spectrum Management and Telecommunications - Report On the National Antenna Towe... Page 1 of 5 Report On the National Antenna Tower Policy Review Section D - The Six Policy Questions Question 6. What evidence exists that property values are impacted by the placement of antenna towers? Policy Question 6, about the impact of antenna towers on property values, was not one of the original questions posed by the Honourable Allan Rock for the National Antenna Tower Policy Review. It was added by the chairperson of the Advisory Committee and author of this report, Professor David A. Townsend. This was done so that consultations conducted for the review would uncover any useful data on this issue. The question was cast so as not to lead the respondents. It did not presuppose the existence of such evidence or that any evidence provided would support the case that property values tend to go up or down upon the establishment of an antenna tower. The opinions and evidence submitted by those who participated in this national policy review covered all three options: No, there is no evidence that antenna tower impact upon property values, Yes, there is evidence that property values go up and Yes, there is evidence that property values go down. This section of the final report will begin by discussing the opinions submitted by those who participated in the policy review and then it will discuss evidence tendered by respondents and gathered through other research. The section will conclude by offering a recommendation about how public concerns and evidence related to negative impact (should such exist) be treated within the context of local consultations on the siting of particular antenna installations. a. Opinions and Evidence Offered by Participants to Policy Review To those members of the public and community groups who participated in the online Discussion Forum (operated as part of this policy review) the issues of the potential for negative impact upon property values and the potential for negative health effects were their greatest concerns related to antenna installations. (Footngte 319) Some of the formal submissions filed by municipalities expressed the view that these two concerns dominate the interactions they have with the public when an antenna siting becomes contentious. (_Footnote 320) One contributor to the Discussion Forum, who self-identified as a member of the general public, stated that if evidence of negative impact is found, the antenna proponent should offer compensatory payments to the property owners located next to the antenna installation. The vast majority of the written submissions filed on behalf of members of the radio industry held the view that there is no credible evidence that the establishment of an antenna installation negatively impacts upon local property values. Some industry members claimed that they had been maintaining an active watch for such evidence for a considerable period of time. (Footnote 321) A few of the submissions expressed the view that it was unfair to single out antenna towers when other urban infrastructure may affect property values. (Footnote 322) Within its submission, Rogers Communications suggested that the loss of property value argument is often made as a negotiating ploy. (Footnote 323) Within the Discussion Forum and through their formal submissions, amateur radio users expressed the view that no reputable studies show that amateur antenna towers have a negative impact upon the property values of their neighbours. (_Footnote 324) Many complained that it was discriminatory to prevent the establishment of an amateur tower on such grounds when their neighbours were siting things such as boats and travel trailers on their properties. (Footnote 325) Within attachments to its formal submission, the Radio Amateurs of Canada (RAC) offered references to various property assessments that the RAC have relied upon for proof that property values are not impacted by the establishment of amateur antenna installations. One such reference was to an Ontario superior court decision where an http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt~gst.nsf/print-en/s f08353e.html 6/27/2007 Spectrum Management and Telecommunications - Report On the National Antenna Towe... Page 2 of 5 interlocutory injunction was denied to the neighbours of a radio amateur who were seeking to prevent the amateur from establishing an antenna tower on his own property. (Footnote 326) One of the grounds advanced by the neighbours was negative impact upon their property values. As evidence the neighbours provided a sworn affidavit from a real estate agent supporting their claim. In reply, the radio amateur filed an affidavit from an accredited land appraiser who offered the opinion that the value of the neighbouring lands would not be impacted. The judge found the appraiser's evidence to be persuasive and credible and dismissed the application for an injunction. The RAC also attached quotations from two studies done in the U.S.A. that concluded that land values were not impacted by antenna installations. (Footnote 327) One study examined for impact through property value assessments and the other looked at market transactions (home sales) of properties located near a commercial antenna tower. b. Discussion of the Opinions and Evidence On the question of negative impact upon property values, it is clear that individual members of the public are relying upon their intuitive sense of 'disamenity.' (Footnote 328) To them, if a structure appears imposing and unattractive or blocks scenic viewscapes, then it must have a negative impact on local property values. Land-use planners believe that the public's intuitive sense of disamenity will be reduced to the extent that camouflaging, screening and landscaping techniques are used to make the antenna less obtrusive and the installation is sited as sensitively as possible in the circumstances. It is submitted that the public's sense of disamenity in relation to a particular antenna proposal also may be reduced when the community is consulted and participates in a meaningful way in the siting decision. Of course, concerns about negative health effects influence concerns about negative impacts upon local property values. Whether or not citizens truly have concerns for the health of their own family and friends, they are worried that the market value of their property may be inversely related to the general perceptions of negative health effects held by the public. Thus, as public concern increases, the market for their property will decrease and the (fewer) willing buyers who are interested in their property will expect to pay less. Generally, this is known as one form of stigmatic effect. (Footnote 329) Public concerns or fears (particularly of health effects such as cancer) can have a negative effect on property values, even when those fears are found to be unwarranted. However, according to Jaconetty (1996), "public fear can and will affect market transactions [only] so long as market participants actually share those fears." (Footnote 330) A considerable amount of research has been done on the stigmatic effect associated with electrical transmission lines, contaminated lands and incinerators and their impact upon local property values. (Footnote 331) The evidence submitted within the attachments forwarded by the RAC was useful but it is respectfully submitted that its probity value is Iow. For example, the judge in the Page et. al v. Mangaroo case was merely comparing the respective evidence submitted by the applicant and the respondent and the examination of evidence during an application for an interlocutory injunction is not thorough enough to regard the result of the case as a meaningful endorsement of the evidence supplied by the certified appraiser. Also, the study that examined and compared the real property assessments of residential lands located proximately to a radio amateur living in New York (Eo9tr~ote ~2) was not compelling because no neighbours had ever raised concerns to the assessment office about the amateur's antenna installations. The issue of the presence of the antennas had never been addressed. c. Antenna Towers and Property Assessment Value To the extent that it is possible, residential property value assessments are based upon the market value of the land being assessed. This ensures the most consistency between appraisals and that properties are not assessed at values beyond their worth. (Footnote 333) Generally, five methods are used to determine the market value of land: · ..a recent free sale of the property; recent free sales of identical properties in the Same neighbourhood and market; recent free sales of comparative properties (the comparative sales method); the price which the revenue-producing possibilities of the property will command (the income-capitalization technique); and finally, the depreciated replacement http://strategis.ic.gc.caYepic/site/smt-gst.nsf/print-en/sf08353 e.html 6/27/2007 Spectrum Management and Telecommunications - Report On the National Antenna Towe... Page 3 of 5 cost method. (Footnote 334) Also, intangible factors such as the reluctance of potential buyers to purchase lands that were contaminated but subsequently reclaimed through remediation activities are considered. (Footnote 335) There are at least two instances in Canada where the assessed value of residential properties were reduced due to close proximity to commercial antenna towers. In Red Deer, Alberta, a three percent downward adjustment was made recently to the assessments of eight residential properties that back directly onto a microwave tower site. The justification for the reduction was the impact of the tower upon the aesthetics of the neighbouring lands. (Footnote 336) In 2001, the assessed values of sixteen residential properties located in Colwood, British Columbia were reduced by BC Assessment by an average of 7.2% (approx. $9,500 each) due to the aesthetic impacts of a broadcasting antenna tower installation that had been recently upgraded. (Footnote 337) d. Evidence of Antenna Towers' Impact upon House Sales Transactions The most reliable evidence of the value of land is its market value as determined by the price that a willing purchaser is willing to pay to a willing vendor in a free market. Some research completed recently in New Zealand has used actual sales transaction data to attempt to determine whether market price was negatively impacted by the presence of cellular base stations. Dr. Sandy Bond of the Department of Property at the University of Auckland, in collaboration with colleagues Karen Beamish (2004) (Footnote338) and Ko-Kang Wang (2004), (Footngte 339) has conducted two parallel studies about the effects of cell tower placement on local property values. As the principal research activity, case studies were performed in four suburbs of Christchurch, New Zealand where a cellular base station had been established. Survey data was collected on people's perceptions about the impact of the base station on their property value and, most importantly, that data was combined with actual housing price changes over time. Changes were determined using a hedonic house price approach. (_F_ootnote 340) The hypothesis of this reseamh was: In suburbs where there is a CPBS [cell phone base station] constructed, it will be possible to observe that discounts are made to the selling price of homes located near these structures. The survey data indicated that a major concern of people living proximately to a cell tower was the effect of this tower on property values - a third of the respondents believed it would decrease the price or rent they would be prepared to pay by between 1 to 9% and neady a quarter (24%) indicated that they believed it would decrease the price or rent by between 10 and 19%. The findings of the market study of actual home prices confirmed the opinion survey results. In the two suburbs studied where towers were built in 2000, the effect of a tower on home prices was a decrease of between 20.7% and 21%. Interestingly, in the two suburbs where the towers were constructed in 1994, the effect was either insignificant or prices actually increased by 12% due to the presence of the tower. A possible explanation for this difference was the significantly increased media coverage and public controversy that surrounded the most recent tower placements in the study. Also, two high profile legal cases, involving cell towers, were decided after 1994 when the two eadier base stations were established. (Footnote 341) Finally, the survey questionnaire provided respondents with the opportunity to indicate ongoing concerns they have with cell phone base stations and their location. Based on these comments the researcher concluded that: In particular, there is the need for increasing the public's understanding of CPBSs [cell phone base stations], of how radiofrequency transmitting facilities operate, and of the strict exposure standard limits imposed on the telecommunication industry. (Footnote 342) While arriving too late to be included in the data analysis, a recent empirical study of a site in southwest London, Ontario, commissioned by Telus Mobility and conducted by R.W. Hughes & Associates Inc. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/print-en/sf08353 e.html 6/27/2007 Spectrum Management and Telecommunications - Report On the National Antenna Towe... Page 4 of 5 (Footnote 343) offers further evidence that property values, this time in a Canadian context, are not impacted by proximity of communications towers. They state: 'q'he quantitative data analysis indicates that the proximity of the communication tower has no measurable effect on the price/value of dwellings in close proximity to the tower." (Footnote 344) They go on to say: "The analysis of the qualitative data indicates that a high percentage of the respondents in the study area do not perceive the proximate communication tower as a negative influence on the quality of their lives or on the price/value of their homes."(Footnote 345) Recommendations about Antennas and Property Values During public hearings, and other interactions between members of the public and antenna proponents and local land-use authorities, those who will live in close proximity to an antenna installation under consideration likely will raise concerns about the possible impact of the proposal upon the value of their properties. These individuals should be permitted to voice their concerns, but it should be explained that the principle purpose of consultations with the public and/or land-use authorities is to consider the visual impact of the antenna proposal upon the immediate environment. Negative impacts should be explored through discussions about the potential for loss of the particular amenities or important visual characteristics of the area. Recommendation 34: That the impact (positive or negative) that an proposed antenna installation may have upon the property values of particular parcels of land should not be the subject of an antenna consultation. Generally, land-use planning authorities are not required to take such impacts into account when siting urban and rural infrastructure that concerned members of the public may find objectionable. Almost every planning decision will produce positive and negative impacts upon the value of land located in the immediate vicinity. This recommendation is consistent with the way in which the telecommunication and planning policies of Wales handle issues related to claims of loss of property values. The planning and development authorities will address the possible impact on property values only if there is evidence of a negative effect on the locality as a whole, To quote from the policy itself: Authorities may receive representations about alleged impact of proposed telecommunications development on property values. It is not for the planning system to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another. Although in a particular case considerations of public interest may serve to protect private interests, the material question is not whether a particular development would cause financial or other loss to owners or occupiers of the neighbouring property, but whether the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the locality generally, and on amenities that ought, in the public interest, to be protected. (Footnote346J Even if the actual or perceived impact on individual property values is not to play a prominent role within public and local consultations in Canada, the concerns of residents about their property values should be important to both antenna proponents and to municipalities for two masons, This information may aid in site selection and planning and help both constituencies to better understand one important source of likely opposition from neighbouring property owners. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, to the extent that the perceived or actual loss of property values relates to the public's intuitive sense of disamenity, that may be reduced through camouflaging, screening and landscaping techniques to make the antenna less obtrusive and by ensuring that the installation is sited as sensitively as possible in the circumstances, It is submitted that the public's sense of disamenity in relation to a particular antenna proposal also may be reduced when the community is consulted and participates in a meaningful way in the siting decision. For the siting of an antenna tower to have a stigmatic effect upon the actual values of lands located very proximately to it, likely, it is necessary that public concerns about human exposure to mdiofrequency fields be strong and pervasive. Those terms could not be used to describe current http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.ns f/print-en/sf08353 e.html 6/27/2007 Spectrum Management and Telecommunications - Report On the National Antenna Towe... Page 5 of 5 public perceptions in Canada about this issue, but this could change. It is submitted that another motivation for the proponents of significant antenna installations to develop proper risk communication strategies for their dealings with the public, is to keep the stigmatic effects of their installations to a minimum. Within the section of this repod written in reply to Policy Question 2 (What information would best benefit concerned members of the public...) specific recommendations were made about the creation of risk communication strategies by Industry Canada and antenna proponents to address public concerns about human exposure to radiofrequency fields. Hopefully, the case for a risk communication strategy is more compelling when one considers the indirect benefits that may accrue. Canad Updated: 2005-03-17 http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/print-en/sfO8353e.html 6/27/2007