Verizon Wireless Proposed Base Station (Site No Palos Verdes ) 1506 Camino Verde Walnut Creek, California

Similar documents
Verizon Wireless Proposed Base Station (Site No South Goleta ) 4500 Hollister Avenue Santa Barbara, California

AT&T Mobility Proposed Base Station (Site No. CN4779A) 1101 Keaveny Court Walnut Creek, California

Verizon Wireless Proposed Base Station (Site No Berkeley Bekins ) 2721 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, California

Verizon Wireless Proposed Base Station (Site No Lake Cachuma ) 2680 Highway 154 Santa Barbara County, California

Royal Street Communications, LLC Proposed Base Station (Site No. LA0366A) 315 4th Avenue Venice, California

Location Map. Legend. Exhibit A5

PROJECT SUPPORT STATEMENT APN: Meadow Lane Court, Placerville, CA

Sutro Tower, Inc San Francisco, California

Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Energy (RF-EME) Compliance Report

Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Energy (RF-EME) Compliance Report

RF EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE REPORT. Verizon Wireless. Report Status: Verizon Wireless is Compliant

Calculated Radio Frequency Emissions Report. Cotuit Relo MA 414 Main Street, Cotuit, MA 02635

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California AGENDA REPORT. Item 8a

ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY (EME) EXPOSURE REPORT

Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Energy (RF-EME) Compliance Report

2200 Noll Drive Lancaster, PA Latitude: N 40º (NAD 83) Longitude: W 76º (NAD 83) 362 AMSL

ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY (EME) EXPOSURE REPORT

Wireless Facility Peer Engineering Review

Radio Frequency Emissions Analysis Report Sprint Wireless Water Tank Facility

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C

Wireless Facility Engineering Review

RADIO FREQUENCY NIER REPORT

Wireless Facility Engineering Review

WHITEPAPER WHITEPAPER

RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS

Wireless Facility Radio Frequency Exposure Compliance Review

MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE STUDY

Verizon Wireless Site ID Lime Site Name Lime Site Compliance Report

Measurements of Exposures Around Vodafone New Zealand Limited Cellsites from June 2012 to May 2013

Health Issues. Introduction. Ionizing vs. Non-Ionizing Radiation. Health Issues 18.1

COMMUNITY BENEFITS. How Mobile Devices are Used Today (Mobile Device: Cellular Phones, Tablets, etc..)

C. CEQA Determination: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines ( Existing Facilities ).

Regulatory Authority of Bermuda report on

Safety Code 6 (SC6) Measurement Procedures (Uncontrolled Environment)

Human Exposure Requirements for R&TTE and FCC Approval

ITU-T Study Group 5. EMF Environmental Characterization

Report On. RF Exposure Assessment of the Sepura plc SRG3900 with AQHB Antenna. FCC ID: XX6SRG3900UW Industry Canada ID: 8739A-SRG3900UW

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD (EMF) STRENGTH MEASUREMENTS SITE: ROHRERSTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OCTOBER 16, 2017

NON-IONIZING ELECTROMAGNETIC EXPOSURE ANALYSIS & ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION

RF EMISSIONS FROM SMART GRID ELECTRIC METERS, HAN DEVICES, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE FCC MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMIT (MPE)

Modeling Electromagnetic Radiation on Lookout Mountain, Colorado

Frequently Asked Questions about Wireless Facilities on Wooden Utility Poles and Streetlight Poles

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA. County Board Agenda Item Meeting of September 15, 2012

Guidelines for the Protection of the General Public in Compliance with Safety Code 6

COMMUNITY BENEFITS. How Mobile Devices are Used Today (Mobile Device: Cellular Phones, Tablets, etc..)

SAR REPORT. TEST STANDARDS: FCC Part 15 Subpart C Intentional Radiator. ARRIS Model Spectrum 110A Set Top Box With Bluetooth (DSS) and RF4CE (DTS)

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) COMPLIANCE STUDY ON TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY

Modify Section , Major Impact Services and Utilities, of Chapter (Civic Use Types):

Wireless Facility Radio Frequency Compliance Review

Minimum Antenna Elevation for Specific Fraction of SC6 Limits Version 1.0 Standard May 7, 2009

Safety Code 6 Analysis Freedom Mobile 3G & LTE Network. Radio frequency exposure for uncontrolled and controlled environment.

R ICHARD T ELL A SSOCIATES, INC.

Re. Invitation to Comment on a Proposed Small Cell Telecommunications Installation Near (Road reserve) Coogee Bay Road COOGEE NSW 2034

MINOR SITE PLAN APPLICATION TOWER COLLOCATION OR MODIFICATION (ELIGIBLE FACILITIES)

Report On. Radio Frequency Exposure Testing of the Winland Electronics, Inc. EnviroAlert Electronic Multi-Zone Environmental Alarm System

RF Exposure Assessment Report (FCC ID: 2AD8UAZRBRH1)

CALCULATING RADIOFREQUENCY FIELD STRENGTH SAFETY CODE 6 SITE VALIDATION

Radio Frequency Exposure Test Report

Priority Actions for Timely Compliance Safety Measures for Building-based Antenna Sites

Model: M /800 MHz Mobile Radio

Mark E. Revis March 10, 2008 Radio Engineer II County of Riverside - PSEC Project 1855 Chicago Ave. Riverside, California

Honeywell, Automation and Control Solutions

Radiofrequency (RF) Safety Overview Massachusetts Environmental Health Association

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AT&T Proposed Telecommunications Facility 2700 Watt Avenue APN#

EN 62479:2010 ASSESSMENT REPORT WIN CHANNEL ELECTRONICS (HK) CO., LTD

Honeywell, Automation and Control Solutions

MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 220 SANSOME STREET, 14 FLOOR - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104

SAR Evaluation Considerations for Handsets with Multiple Transmitters and Antennas

JERROLD T. BUSHBERG Ph.D., DABMP, DABSNM HEALTH AND MEDICAL PHYSICS CONSULTING

Class: RPT Doc. no: RE Rev: A Date: Approved by: JCP

Electric Imp, Inc. IMP003-FCC FCC :2014. Report # ELIM NVLAP Lab Code:

Power Handling Considerations in a Compact Range

Mitigation of Radiation Levels for Base Transceiver Stations based on ITU-T Recommendation K.70

NIR MEASUREMENTS. Principles and practices of EMF characterization and measurements

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington DC 20554

: PERSONAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE FACILITIES: REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:

Safety Code 6 Compliance Analysis of NLA031. Study conducted by Eastlink, Radio Frequency Engineering Department

Occupational Exposure to Base Stations Compliance With EU Directive 2004/40/EC

Intertek Testing Services ETL SEMKO

RF Radiation Safety Training

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM FOR WIRELESS PROJECTS

S 0342 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D

GUIDELINES With elements of technical solution depending on the nature of radiocommunication service

Guidance and Declaration - Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) for the Delfi PTS ii Portable Tourniquet System

Wireless System Collocation Presents New Issues For Worker Protection

3G Mini-Card Gobi2000

GUIDELINES With elements of technical solution depending on the nature of radiocommunication service

ENGINEERING REPORT CONCERNING THE EFFECTS UPON FCC LICENSED RF FACILITIES DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE (Name of Project) WIND PROJECT Near (City, State)

CLARK COUNTY FIRE CODE AMENDMENTS

FIRE FIGHTERS GUIDANCE NOTE # 3-4

Product Compliance Assessments of Low Power Radio Base Stations with Respect to Whole-Body Radiofrequency Exposure Limits

EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO SIGNAL PERMIT APPLICATION

SAFETYTRAINING INFORMATION Your TYT ELECTRONICS CO.,LTD radio generates RF electromagnetic energy during transmit mode. This radio is designed for and

WiFi Lab Division C Team #

ECC Recommendation (16)04

City of Burbank. Planning and Transportation Division WIRELESS AND DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM ( DAS ) PROJECTS SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM

Mobile Phone Base-Station Audit

6 Radio and RF. 6.1 Introduction. Wavelength (m) Frequency (Hz) Unit 6: RF and Antennas 1. Radio waves. X-rays. Microwaves. Light

Provided by: Radio Systems, Inc. 601 Heron Drive Bridgeport, NJ

ITU-T K.70. Mitigation techniques to limit human exposure to EMFs in the vicinity of radiocommunication stations

Transcription:

Attachment 6 Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Verizon Wireless, a personal wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. 181666 Palos Verdes ) proposed to be located at 1506 Camino Verde in Walnut Creek, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ( RF ) electromagnetic fields. Executive Summary Verizon proposes to install directional panel antennas above the roof of the commercial building located at 1506 Camino Verde in Walnut Creek. The proposed operation, together with the existing base station at the site, can comply with the FCC guidelines limiting public exposure to RF energy; certain mitigation measures are recommended. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. A summary of the FCC s exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive FCC limit for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for several personal wireless services are as follows: Wireless Service Frequency and Occupational Limit Public Limit Microwave (Point-to-Point) 5,000 80,000 MHz 5.00 mw/cm 2 1.00 mw/cm 2 RS (roadband Radio) 2,600 5.00 1.00 WCS (Wireless Communication) 2,300 5.00 1.00 AWS (Advanced Wireless) 2,100 5.00 1.00 PCS (Personal Communication) 1,950 5.00 1.00 Cellular 870 2.90 0.58 SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio) 855 2.85 0.57 700 MHz 700 2.40 0.48 [most restrictive frequency range] 30 300 1.00 0.20 General Facility Requirements ase stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called radios or channels ) that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables. A small antenna for reception of GPS signals is also required, mounted with a clear view of the sky. Page 1 of 4

ecause of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. This means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology ulletin No. 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation, dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna s radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the near-field effect) and that at greater distances the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the inverse square law ). The conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description ased upon information provided by Verizon, including construction drawings by aystone Architecture & Engineering, Inc., dated March 31, 2014, it is proposed to install nine Andrew Model SNHH-1D65C directional panel antennas within two enclosures above the roof of the Rite Aid Pharmacy located at 1506 Camino Verde in Walnut Creek. The antennas would be mounted with up to 4 downtilt at an effective height of about 25 feet above ground, 7 feet above the roof, and would be oriented in groups of three toward 30 T, 150 T, and 280 T, to provide service in all directions. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 10,800 watts, representing simultaneous operation at 4,250 watts for AWS, 1,140 watts for PCS, 2,760 watts for cellular, and 2,650 watts for 700 MHz service. Presently located above the roof of the same building are similar antennas for use by T-Mobile. For the limited purpose of this study, the transmitting facilities of that carrier are assumed to be as follows: Service Maximum ERP Antenna Model Downtilt Height AWS 4,400 watts Ericsson AIR21 2 26 ft PCS 2,200 Ericsson AIR21 2 26 Also located on the roof, based on the drawings, are three antenna enclosures for use by Clearwire; these are assumed to be inactive now, pending redeployment by Sprint at some time in the future. Page 2 of 4

Study Results For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level due to the proposed Verizon operation by itself is calculated to be 0.13 mw/cm 2, which is 15% of the applicable public exposure limit. The maximum calculated cumulative level at ground, for the simultaneous operation of both carriers, is 19% of the public exposure limit. The maximum calculated cumulative level at the secondfloor elevation of any nearby building * is 14% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several worst-case assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels. RF exposure levels are calculated to exceed the applicable public exposure limit on the roof of the subject building, in front of the antennas, as shown in Figure 3. Recommended Mitigation Measures It is recommended that the roof access hatch be kept locked, so that the Verizon antennas are not accessible to unauthorized persons. To prevent occupational exposures in excess of the FCC guidelines, it is recommended that appropriate RF safety training be provided to all authorized personnel who have access to the roof, including employees and contractors of the wireless carriers as well as roofers, HVAC workers, and building maintenance staff. No access within 14 feet directly in front of the antennas themselves, such as might occur during maintenance work on the roof, should be allowed while the base station is in operation, unless other measures can be demonstrated to ensure that occupational protection requirements are met. Marking blue and yellow demarcation lines on the roof of the building to identify areas calculated to exceed the FCC public and occupational limits, respectively, and posting explanatory signs at the roof access hatch, next to the demarcation lines, and on the antenna enclosures, as shown in Figure 3, such that the signs would be readily visible from any angle of approach to persons who might need to work within that distance, would be sufficient to meet FCC-adopted guidelines. Similar measures should already be in place for T-Mobile; applicable keepback distances for that carrier have not been determined as part of this study. Conclusion ased on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned s professional opinion that operation of the base station proposed by Verizon Wireless at 1506 Camino Verde in Walnut Creek, California, can comply with the prevailing standards for limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, need not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow * Located at least 100 feet away, based on photographs from Google Maps. Signs should comply with OET-65 color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. Page 3 of 4

for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. Locking the roof access hatch, training of authorized personnel, marking roof areas, and posting explanatory signs are recommended to establish compliance with FCC RF exposure limits. Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration No. E-18063, which expires on June 30, 2015. This work has been carried out under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. August 4, 2014 Rajat Mathur, P.E. 707/996-5200 Page 4 of 4

FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, iological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ( NCRP ). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006, Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 khz to 300 GHz, includes similar limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive: Frequency Applicable Range (MHz) Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHz) Electric Field Strength (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (A/m) Equivalent Far-Field Power Density (mw/cm 2 ) 0.3 1.34 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 1.34 3.0 614 823.8/ f 1.63 2.19/ f 100 180/ f 2 3.0 30 1842/ f 823.8/ f 4.89/ f 2.19/ f 900/ f 2 180/ f 2 30 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 300 1,500 3.54 f 1.59 f f /106 f /238 f/300 f/1500 1,500 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 1000 Occupational Exposure Power Density (mw/cm 2 ) 100 10 1 PCS Cell FM 0.1 Public Exposure 0.1 1 10 100 10 3 10 4 10 5 Frequency (MHz) Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology ulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. FCC Guidelines Figure 1

RFR.CALC Calculation Methodology Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. Near Field. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications base stations, as well as dish (aperture) antennas, typically used for microwave links. The antenna patterns are not fully formed in the near field at these antennas, and the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology ulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives suitable formulas for calculating power density within such zones. For a panel or whip antenna, power density S = and for an aperture antenna, maximum power density Smax = 180 W 0.1 P net D 2 h, in mw /cm 2, where W = half-power beamwidth of the antenna, in degrees, and Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts, D = distance from antenna, in meters, h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and = aperture efficiency (unitless, typically 0.5-0.8). 0.1 16 P net h 2, in mw /cm 2, The factor of 0.1 in the numerators converts to the desired units of power density. Far Field. OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source: power density S = 2.56 1.64 100 RFF 2 ERP 4 D 2, in mw /cm 2, where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D= distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to obtain more accurate projections. Methodology Figure 2

Verizon antennas T-Mobile antennas Clearwire antennas (assumed inactive) roof access hatch Calculations performed according to OET ulletin No. 65, August 1997. Colors shown represent applicable FCC thresholds. [blank] < public > public > occupational Signage Legend: CAUTION OR EHIND THIS SURFACE. Notes: ase drawing from aystone Architecture & Engineering, Inc., dated June 11, 2014. Explanatory signs should be posted as shown above, readily visible to authorized workers needing access. Shaded areas and demarcation lines based on calculated contributions from Verizon only; extent not impacted lue and lines indicate minimum extent of demarcation boundaries, to be marked in paint on roof surface. Signs at boundaries can be glued to concrete pavers. See photo. Figure 3