HomeMy WebLinkAboutEngineering Report Scinetx AUG 2 4 2017
Southold Town
Planning Board
l
IF
I
SCINET
II
� I
IY 1
II •
LLe
1836 Long Ridge Road A
Stamford,CT 06903
203-355-3676
914-588-3205
.LLC
i
ENGINEERING REPORT
- DATED MAY 22,2017
THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED AND SIGNED BY
LOUIS G. CORNACCHIA,B.E.E.,PRESIDENT
EVALUATION OF RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS
-- RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED MATTITUCK FIRE
DISTRICT RADIO COMMUNICATION FACILITY,INCLUDING
THE PROPOSED NEW YORK SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
(D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS) TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY,
AND THE PROPOSED NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS,LLC
(AT&T),ALL WITH ANTENNAS, TO BE MOUNTED TO THE
PROPOSED ELITE TOWERS LP, CONCEALMENT POLE
(SITE: LAUREL STONE), TO BE LOCATED AT DISTRICT 1000,
SECTION 122,BLOCK 06,LOT 35.4, 7055 MAIN ROAD,
MATTITUCK,NEW YORK.
B
REPORT TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION C
2. EMF POWER DENSITY C
3. ANALYSIS D
4. FREQUENCY BANDS E
5. PRINCIPAL FEATURES OF PROPOSED APPLICATION F
6. POWER DENSITY CALCULATIONS I
SUMMARY- TABLE IIA-1 K
ANALYTICAL RESULTS-TABLES IIA - IIC M
7 INTERFERENCE S
8. RESUME T
9. FCC EMF STANDARDS REVIEW. W
C
1. INTRODUCTION
This report is the result of an extensive study of Electromagnetic Field Intensities (EMF—
Power Densities) which could result from the Mattituck Fire District Radio
Communication Facility,including proposed Verizon Wireless Facility and proposed
New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC, (AT&T) Facility, all with antennas,to be mounted to
the proposed concealment pole, to be located at District 1000, Section 122, Block 06, Lot
35.4, 7055 Main Road, Mattituck,New York. The study incorporates the most
conservative considerations to determine combined cumulative worst-case Power
Densities (EMF)the Mattituck community could theoretically encounter from the
proposed operating Radio Communication Facilities.
2. EMF POWER DENSITY
The issue of EMF density 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. Further, the applicant will be in compliance with all applicable FCC/NCRP
General Public or "unrestricted environment" Standards. The cumulative combined EMF
emissions resulting from the proposed Mattituck Fire District Radio Communication
Facility including the Verizon Wireless Communication Facility and proposed New
Cingular Wireless PCS LLC, (AT&T)Facility, will be far below permitted 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 limits.
Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that;
"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 communications facilities issues. On August 1, 1996 the
FCC adopted portions of the 1991 ANSI/IEEE, and NCRP Maximum permitted exposure
(MPE) criteria.
Note: In consideration of the adoption by the FCC of the Telecommunications Act of
1996,passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, the herein municipality is
Federally pre-empted and there-by cannot regulate the placement, construction and
modification of communications services facilities in the Permit Application process on
the basis of"EMF Power Density" and"Non Harmful Interference" compliance.
D
3.ANALYSIS
The theoretical sum of the combined cumulative emissions resulting from the proposed
Verizon Wireless and AT&T Wireless Facility installations, with transmitting antennas,
including the proposed (receive only) Mattituck Fire District Communication Facility
antenna,the Mattituck community could be exposed to, would be less than 1.68%_of all
applicable FCC MPE General Public EMF Standards (100%). This combined cumulative
percentage of EMF emission levels which could result, would be below the applicable
FCC MPE General Public EMF Standards by a factor greater than 59.
(See Table IIA-1)
This combined cumulative EMF level and all other levels presented in Table IIA—IIF, 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 impedances 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 herein indicated.
(Note: All future co-locating carriers must complete an FCC Compliance analysis,
including the herein proposed Communication Facilities, resulting in a newly combined
cumulative EMF emissions impact.)
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is the applicable Federal Law with consideration of
environmental effects of RF emissions in the siting of Radio Communication Facilities. It
is the conclusion of this report, that the proposed Facility Applications will meet the
Federal Communications Commission FCC criteria as it is affected by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, with respect to environmental considerations of RF
emissions.
Further, all existing and potential newly proposed Wireless Communications Facility
Radio Frequency Bands are prohibited and will not interfere with television, telephones
and other radio receptions, due to the installation of harmonic frequency mitigating filters
installed between Broadcast Bands as mandated and monitored by the FCC. (See Table I)
This critical analysis* incorporated all Radio antenna emission characteristics, including
applied assumptions which exceed normal conditions of operations, yielding theoretical
worst case EMF Power Densities ordinarily not realized.
a. All antennas are located at the lowest elevation indicated in the construction
drawings to absorb errors in actual locations and to bring the antenna cluster
closer to community facilities and citizens than would normally be the case.
b. All antennas will be transmitting continuously 24 hours a day.
C. All channels will be communicating simultaneously.
d. Power levels emitting from the antennas are increased by a factor of 4.0 to take
into account possible in-phase continuous reflections at any point in the
community, which is rarely the case, and if so, are never continuous.
E
e. At all distances greater than 2000 feet, the Power Densities will decrease by a
factor of four(4)with every doubling of distance.
The proposed wireless facility antenna installations in question are an assembly of low
power antennas that emit radio frequency energy at levels 10 to 100 times below those of
Commercial Broadcast Network Antennas. Given the distances between the antennas
studied in this report and the community field points in question in the overall
community,the resulting worst-case EMF power densities of the radio energy broadcast
are proven to be far lower than all applicable FCC MPE General Public EMF Standards.
* Reference Basis for calculations:
A- "Evaluating Compliance With FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. OET Bulletin No. 65 -Edition 97-01 "
with analytical adjustments to equations per Richard Tell Associates and
Ed Mantiply of the FCC Office of Engineering Technology.
B- Copies of data, sketches, specifications and drawings dated 04/14/17 submitted by
Dewberry Engineers, Inc., are the basis for our studies, calculations and analysis.
4. FREQUENCY BANDS
According to the FCC, "Microwaves)" (MW) frequencies cover the
approximate band from 300 Mega Hertz(MHz)to 300 Giga Hertz (GHz). One
MegaHertz(MHz) is a million cycles and One Giga Hertz(GHz) is a billion
cycles per second. Table I lists several communication and interrogation
frequencies used in the United States. Clearly, a large fraction of commercial
and private telecommunication spectrums involve MW Frequencies.
TABLE I
(Non-Ionizing Frequency Definitions-The frequency bands presently employed by the Wireless
Industry have in some cases been a part of the EMF environment for over sixty years.)
RFS s� Frequency Intervals
FM Radio 88 MHz to 108 MHz
VHF TV 174 MHz to 216 MHz
UHF TV 470 MHz to 806 MHz
Mobile Phone: LTE/CELLULAR/PCS/AWS 700 MHz to 2.6 GHz
Typical Radar Systems 200 MHz to 3.0 GHz
REFERENCES
• Narda-Microwave-East
• FCC OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01
• Advanced Engineering Mathematics-Wylie
• http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biog_raphy/Planck
• Antennas, John D. Kraus
F
5. The principal features, of the proposed Fire District Radio Communication
Facility, the proposed Verizon Wireless Radio Communication Facility and the
proposed New Cingular Wireless, include the assumptions considered in the analysis
as follows;
a) The proposed"receive only"Fire District Radio Communication omnidirectional
antenna will be exterior mounted to the proposed 120-foot pole. The proposed whip
antenna will be an omnidirectional Model - SINCLAIR SD314- HF2P2SNM(D00). The
resulting height of the proposed Mattituck Fire District omnidirectional antenna will be
132' A.G.L. and will not transmit, instead,will be for receive only, contributing zero
emissions. The proposed Fire District omnidirectional antenna will have a C/L elevation
of 127.5 feet A.G.L.
b) The proposed Verizon Wireless radio antennas will be mounted within the
concealment pole. The location of the proposed Verizon Wireless carrier antennas will be
located at a centerline elevation of 115'-6"A.G.L.
c) The proposed New Cingular Wireless radio antennas (AT&T) will be mounted
within the concealment pole. The location of the proposed AT&T Wireless carrier
antennas will be located at centerline elevations of 105' and 95' A.G.L.
The closest distance an individual (having an elevation of 6.5 feet A.G.L.), can be from
an AT&T Wireless antenna, standing directly below the lower AT&T antennas would be
87.5 feet. The proposed A&T antenna clusters consist of three (3) Sectors, engaging one
(1) dual-pol Dual Band Directional type antenna per sector at the 105 and 95 elevations
for a total of six (6) antennas- (COMMS COPE SBNHH-1D65A) (or equivalent), for
transmission and receive. Additional proposed future carrier antennas could be mounted
within the proposed concealment pole at antenna section centerline elevations as
indicated in drawings provided.
The physical arrangements of the proposed antennas are illustrated in drawings submitted
by Dewberry Engineers Inc., Dated 4/14/17.
(Assumed a 4 degree Electronic down-tilt for proposed antennas in this analysis.)
d) The coverage pattern for the voice/data Wireless antennas, will be in three sectors
(120°) and is considered to transmit circularly ("360 degrees"). This allows for applied
worst-case analytical criteria, in accordance with FCC Compliance Analytical maximum
power density determinations, at any point of any sector of the community.
e) It is assumed that the elevation of the community, at a radius within 2000 feet, is
that of the elevation at the base of the proposed concealment pole, (exceptions as noted).
f) All radial field points analyzed, are located at an elevation of 16 feet A.G.L. This
elevation is above the base of the proposed concealment pole where the vertical line of
G
the Transmitting antennas intersect then to the proposed Radial distance field point in
questioned.
f) The maximum number of channels assigned to the proposed Verizon Wireless
carrier antenna array will be as indicated:
VERIZON WIRELESS INSTALLATION- C Block—700 LTE
Maximum ERP/Channel 1754 WERP/Channel
Number of Channels/sector 2
Antenna centerline height above grade 115'-6"
MODEL: Amphenol CWWX063X25x00 16.8 dBi
Frequency of transmission-(MHz) 777-787
Maximum continuous General Public Exposure-500 microwatts/cm.sq.
VERIZON WIRELESS INSTALLATION- F/C Block—PCS LTE
Maximum ERP/Channel 1968 WERP/Channel
Number of Channels/sector 2
Antenna centerline height above grade 115'-6"
MODEL: Amphenol CWWX063X25x00 17.3 dBi
Frequency of transmission-(MHz) 1970 - 1990
Maximum continuous General Public Exposure-1000 microwatts/cm.sq.
VERIZON WIRELESS INSTALLATION-A/B Block—AWS
Maximum ERP/Channel 2962 WERP/Channel
Number of Channels/sector 2
Antenna centerline height above grade 115'-6"
MODEL: Amphenol CWX063X25x00 17.3 dBi
Frequency of transmission-(MHz) 2110 -2130
Maximum continuous General Public Exposure-1000 microwatts/cm.sq.
AT&T WIRELESS B/C Bands-LTE/UMTS
Maximum ERP/Channel UMTS 710 WERP/Channel
Number of Channels 4
Antenna centerline height above grade 105 & 95feet
MODEL: COMMSCOPE SBNHH-1D65A) 11.3 dBd
Frequency of transmission- (MHz) 734-740/740-746 MHz
Maximum continuous General Public Exposure-500 microwatts/cm. sq.
AT&T WIRELESS A Band UMTS
Maximum ERP/Channel UMTS 365 WERP/Channel
Number of Channels/sector 2
Antenna centerline height above grade 105 & 95feet
MODEL: COMMSCOPE SBNHH-1D65A) 12.5 dBd
Frequency of transmission-(MHz) 869-890
Maximum continuous General Public Exposure-560 microwatts/cm.sq.
H
AT&T WIRELESS A-1/A-2/A-3 Bands LTE/UMTS
Maximum ERP/Channel UMTS 710 WERP/Channel
Number of Channels/sector 2
Antenna centerline height above grade 105 &95feet
MODEL: COMMSCOPE SBNHH-1D65A) 15.5 dBd
Frequency of transmission-(MHz) 1930-1940/1965-1970
Maximum continuous General Public Exposure-1000 microwatts/cm.sq.
a
I
6. POWER DENSITY CALCULATIONS-Analytical Data
The SCINETX Report represents worst-case scenarios
in determining EMF analysis. For example, one of the considerations is the
maximum number of channels which could transmit
from 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 as a"near field"region,
or a"far field"region). The resulting analytical emission levels would be considerably
different in the field point location considered 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.
EMF Analysis in accordance with FCC OET Bulletin No. 65, for the proposed
Verizon Wireless Carrier Facility,with transmitting antennas is determined as
follows:
X= 984 = (wave length in feet)
frequency (MHz)
"Antennas"-by John D. Kraus, Mcgraw Hill 1950 Section 2
R(NF)=122
4X
R(1717)=0.6D2
X
D =height of antenna panel
"OET Bulletin No. 65 - Edition 97-01, August 1997" (Pages 27 &29))
FOR PROPOSED TRANSMITTING ANTENNA EMISSIONS ANALYSIS AT ANY
POINT IN THE NEAR FIELD:
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
ftPRD
Pnet=Input power to antenna
D=antenna height
R=distance from C/L to point of interest-1 foot
ft=beamwidth
a=panel gain
Front to back ratio =normally 30 dbd
"OET Bulletin No. 65 - Edition 97-01, August 1997"-page 23).
J
FOR PROPOSED TRANSMITTING ANTENNA EMISSIONS ANALYSIS AT ANY
POINT IN THE FAR FIELD 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 r EIRP
4jtR2
Where:
S(ff) =power density
EIRP =power output of antenna relative to an isotropic radiator
=P(erp)x 1.64 (correction factor)
R =distance from point in question to center of emissions of
antenna
IF =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 = n IF EIRP Fo
4jtR2
Fri=Relative field factor (relative numeric gain)
"OET Bulletin No. 65 - Edition 97-01, August 1997" (Pages 21 - 23)
K
TABLE IIA-1
ELITE TOWERS SITE-LAUREL STONES
EMF LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM.SQ.&PERCENTAGE OF STANDARDS
RESULTING FROM
PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS AND NEW CINGULAR(AT&T) CARRIER
ANTENNA
INSTALLATION
Field Point-Any point in the community(a)-16.0 feet AGL or as otherwise indicated
Antenna System Elevation C/L Power Standard Calculated Percent of
Feet WERP/Chan FCC/NCRP EMF Density Standards
General Public (µW/cm2)
VERIZON WIRELESS 777-787 MHZ C Block-LTE
(proposed) 115'-6" 1754 500 3.10 0.62
VERIZON WIRELESS 1970-1990 MHZ F/C Block—PCS LTE
(proposed) 115'-6" 1968 1000 0.44 0.04
VERIZON WIRELESS 2110-2130 MHZ A/B Block-AWS
(proposed) 115'-6" 2952 1000 1.65 0.17
NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS B/C Blocks UMTS-LTE
(proposed) 105'&95' 710 500 2.65 0.53
NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS A Block UMTS-CELLULAR
(proposed) 105'&95' 365 560 1.07 0.19
NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS A-3/A-4/E-1 Blocks UMTS-LTE
(proposed) 105'&95' 710 1000 1.30 0.13
Total Percentage of EMF emissions resulting from All Antenna Sources 1.68%
NOTES:
1. Unless Indicated- Total Percentage of Each Antenna Source less than 0.01%is shown
as N/A.
2. WERP - effective radiated power in watts per channel
3. Total Percentage of All Antenna Sources -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 97.0 1, are addressed as follows:
"Therefore, in mixed or broad band fields, where a number of different frequencies are
L
involved, the contributing of all RF sources must be considered. When different limits
are recommended for different frequencies,the fraction of(or percentages of)the limit
incurred within each frequency interval should be determined, and the sum of all such
fractions (or percentages of) should not exceed 1.0 (or 100 percent)'
(See section 4.1 in Appendix A).
M
TABLE IIA
EMF LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM.SQ.
PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY
SITE: LAUREL STONE
MATTITUCK,NEW YORK.
PROPOSED VERIZON Percentage of the 1996
WIRELESS LTE Telecommunications Act
Field Points 777-787 NIHZ FCC/ANSI/IEEE C95.1-
ANTENNA ELEVATION—115'-6"(C/L) Antenna Emissions 1992 General Public
Exposure Standard 500µw/cmz
Point 1 0.17 0.03%
- R= 15'-Base of Concealment pole
Elev.—6.5'
Point 2 3.10 0.62
R=105'-Nearest residence.
Elev. — 16'
Point 3 0.62 0.12
R=300'-Nearby residence
Elev. - 16'
Point 4 0.24 0.05
R=500' - Medical Services Site
Elev. 16'
- Point 5 1.23 0.25
R=1000' - Other residences
Elev. -16'
Point 6 0.87 0.17
R=1500' - Other residences
Elev. -16'
Point 7 0.49 0.09
R=2000'- Other residences.
Elev. -16'
Note:N/A=factor less than 0.01%
N
TABLE IIB
EMF LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM.SQ.
PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY
SITE: LAUREL STONE
MATTITUCK, NEW YORK.
PROPOSED VERIZON Percentage of the 1996
WIRELESS PCS Telecommunications Act
Field Points 1970-1990 MHZ FCC/ANSI/IEEE C95.1-
ANTENNA ELEVATION—115'-6"(C/L) Antenna Emissions 1992 General Public
Exposure Standard 1000µw/cm2
Point 1 0.38 0.03
R= 15'- Base of Concealment pole
Elev.—6.5'
Point 2 0.44 0.04
R=105'-Nearest residence.
Elev.— 16'
Point 3 0.22 0.02
R=300'-Nearby residence
Elev. - 16'
Point 4 0.21 0.02
R=500' - Medical Services Site
Elev. 16'
Point 5 1.56 0.15
R=1000' - Other residences
Elev. -16'
Point 6 0.97 0.09
R=1500' - Other residences
Elev. -16'
Point 7 0.54 0.05
R=2000'- Other residences.
Elev. -16'
Note.N/A=factor less than 0 01%
O
TABLE IIC
EMF LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM.SQ.
PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY
SITE: LAUREL STONE
MATTITUCK,NEW YORK.
PROPOSED VERIZON Percentage of the 1996
WIRELESS AWS Telecommunications Act
Field Points 2110-2130 MHZ FCC/ANSMEE C95.1-
ANTENNA ELEVATION—115-6"(C/L) Antenna Emissions 1992 General Public
Exposure Standard 1000µw/cmZ
Point 1 0.45 0.04
R= 15'-Base of Concealment pole
Elev. —6.5'
Point 2 1.65 0.17
R=105'-Nearest residence.
Elev.— 16'
Point 3 0.33 0.03
R=300'-Nearby residence
Elev. - 16'
Point 4 0.41 0.04
R=500' -Medical Services Site
Elev. 16'
Point 5 2.27 0.22
R=1000' - Other residences
Elev. -16'
Point 6 1.46 0.14
R=1500' - Other residences
Elev. -16'
Point 7 0.82 0.08
R=2000'- Other residences.
Elev. -16'
Note:N/A=factor less than 0.01%
' I
I
P
TABLE IID
EMF LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM.SQ.
PROPOSED NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS,LLC (AT&T)
SITE: LAUREL STONE
MATTITUCK,NEW YORK.
AT&T Percentage of the 1996
734-740/740-746 MHz Telecommunications Act
Antenna Emissions FCC/ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992
Field Points General Public Exposure
ANTENNA ELEVATION—105'&95'(C/L) (500)Standard
Point 1 0.63 0.13
R= 15'- Base of Concealment pole
Elev. —6.5'
Point 2 2.65 0.53
R=105'-Nearest residence.
Elev.— 16'
Point 3 0.50 0.10
R=300'-Nearby residence
Elev. - 16'
Point 4 1.23 , 0.24
R=500' - Medical Services Site
Elev. 16'
Point 5 1.26 0.25
R=1000' - Other residences
Elev. -16'
Point 5 0.70 0.14
R=1000' - Other residences
Elev. -16'
a
Point 7 0.39 0.08
R=2000'- Other residences.
Elev. -16'
Note:N/A=factor less than 0.0 1%
i
i
Q
TABLE IIE
PROPOSED NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS,LLC (AT&T)
SITE: LAUREL STONE
MATTITUCK,NEW YORK.
AT&T Percentage of the 1996
870-880 MHz Telecommunications Act
Antenna Emissions FCC/ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992
Field Points General Public Exposure
ANTENNA ELEVATION—105'&95'(C/L) (560)Standard
! Point 1 0.16 0.03
R= 15'-Base of Concealment pole
Elev. —6.5'
Point 2 1.07 0.19
R=105'-Nearest residence.,
Elev.— 16'
Point 3 0.13 0.02
R=300'-Nearby residence
Elev. - 16'
Point 4 0.28 0.05
R=500' - Medical Services Site
Elev. 16'
Point 5 0.30 0.05
R=1000' - Other residences
Elev. -16'
Point 6 0.18 0.03
R=1500' - Other residences
Elev. -16'
Point 7 0.10 0.02
R=2000'- Other residences.
Elev. -16'
Note•N/A=factor less than 0.01%
I'
f
R
I
R
TABLE IIF
PROPOSED NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS,LLC (AT&T)
SITE: LAUREL STONE
MATTITUCK,NEW YORK.
AT&T Percentage of the 1996
1930-1940/1040-1970 MHZ Telecommunications Act
Antenna Emissions FCC/ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992
Field Points General Public Exposure
ANTENNA ELEVATION—105'&95'(C/L) (1000)Standard
Point 1 0.70 0.07
R= 15'-Base of Concealment pole
Elev. —6.5'
Point 2 1.30 0.13
R=105'-Nearest residence.
Elev. — 16'
Point 3 0.51 0.05
R=300'-Nearby residence
Elev. - 16'
Point 4 0.20 0.02
R=500' -Medical Services Site
Elev. 16'
Point 5 0.63 0.06
R=1000' - Other residences
Elev. -16'
Point 6 0.45 0.04
R=1500' - Other residences
Elev. -16'
Point 7 0.39 0.04
R=2000'- Other residences.
Elev. -16'
Note:N/A=factor less than 0.01%
I
C
I
S
7. INTERFERENCE
The issue of Harmful Interference Compliance is pre-empted from the
Municipality regulatory powers beyond the Applicant stating that it has examined the
Proposed Application Wireless Facilities as herein described, in accordance with FCC
"OET Bulletin No. 65 -Edition 97-01,August 1997" regarding transmission of non-
ionizing frequency emissions. Information submitted herewith is provided in response to
the Town of Southold,NY, Code. The emissions resulting from the proposed Verizon
Wireless Facility transmitters,will be broadcasting in the non-ionizing (VIER) 698-806,
1850-1990, 2110-2160 MHz frequency bands,therefore, will not cause harmful
interference to humans or animals.
Both, Physicist Max Planck, on the formulation of Planck's Constant and Albert Einstein,
in applying Quantum Theory to "the Photoelectric Effect",received the Nobel Prize in
Physics for their original research and papers on these proofs. The contributions of
Einstein's work clearly proved that electromagnetic fields (photons) have an"energy"
level related to "frequency x Planck's Constant", which is not related to the level of
power(watts) transmitted from an antenna. The higher the frequency,the higher the
"energy" level. Only Electromagnetic fields (EMF),resulting from frequencies so high
(higher than blue light-ultraviolet light region and higher), defined to be in the "ionizing
spectrum", can interfere with the molecular structure of matter (Photoelectric effect). In
fact, frequencies in the Ionizing spectrum (i.e.-ultra violet light, X-rays, gamma rays)
have energy levels high enough to cause mutations in human tissue. This activity (as with
sunlight and skin cancer) can cause destabilization of the molecular structure of matter to
the extent that an electron leaves the orbit of the atom to which it was originally bound. If
such an event occurred in human tissue, mutations of cells would be determined to occur.
Frequencies licensed and employed(non ionizing spectrum) by the wireless industry are
far below the ionizing spectrum,having much lower"energy" levels,thereby not able to
initiate damage to human cell (mutations).
FREQUENCY ENERGY LEVEL-
Measured in - eV =electron Volts
eV - is referred to Plancks constant
Plancks constant-eV (ENERGY)=hf
where:
h=6.63x10 joule second
f= frequency @ 2420 million Mhz (@ frequencies greater than blue light)
Plancks constant= eV= 12.4=energy binding electrons to atoms
@ this frequency spectrum, energy is classified as "ionizing"
Wireless Broadcast Frequency Bands (photons) carry considerably less energy
(0.001 eV), less than the weakest chemical bonds and are therefore classified as
"non-ionizing" (VIER) frequencies
T
8. RESUME
NAME: Louis G. Cornacchia
STATUS: Married, Four Children
EDUCATION: Manhattan College, BEE
Iona College, Computer Language Choices
Manhattanville College, Business Law Courses
PRESENT: SCINETX LLC -President
Engineering Consultants with Micro wave/Wireless Industry.
Mr. Cornacchia has been employed in the Electronics Industry as Electronic Engineer
after receiving his BEE from Manhattan College, School of Engineering. Mr. Cornacchia
was employed by Hazeltine Electronics Corp. as Engineer,Designing Signal Processor
and Radar Display Modules for the SAGE System, Primary Early Warning System/
DEW LINE, the TPS-I-GROUND BASED SEARCH RADAR SYSTEM and AWACS/
GRUMANN A6E, RF/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 for a specific SAC Bomber. 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. Further, Mr. Cornacchia designed/developed a solid state short
circuit proof magnetic amplifier for Tank Turret Drivers for the Fort Dix Army
Command. As Project Manager at Norden Systems, Mr. Cornacchia proposed/designed
specific Test Equipment for the proposed F111D-E Avionics and developed unique, more
aggressive programs incorporating Built-In Test Equipment ITE) within the cockpit
control center, to detect on-coming circuit failures, including simultaneous repairs,to the
F111D-E Avionics to increase reliability. Mr. Cornacchia was responsible for
presentation of"BITE"to Air Force procurement Officer, General Esposito, who
authorized change of Automatic Test Equipment Military Specifications to accommodate
this innovation. Presently, BITE is installed in F-14, F-15-many other later craft, i.e.,
Growler-Fighter/Bomber and a not yet released Tactical Military Helicopter.
A partial listing of companies, SCINETX and Charger Tech, contracted with, employing
state of the art Engineers with the Defense Industry, Technicians and Programmers, are
as follows:
Port Authority NY/NJ Airborne Instruments Labs United Technologies
Northrop Grumman Verizon Wireless AT&T Wireless
Sirius Satellite Radio Loral Electronics Systems Cingular
Allied Signal -Bendix Sprint/Nextel Fox News
Fairchild Camera Div. Shore Media Inc. T-Mobile
Syracuse Scientific Corp. IBM Martin Marietta
f
U
Mobile Radio Cellular EMF Studies and Testimonies Provided by SCINETXLLC 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,NY Hastings,New York Bedminster,N J
Martinsville,NJ Little Silver,NJ* Hazlet,New Jersey*
Readington,NJ* Garwood,New Jersey* Dix Hills,NY
Uniondale,NY Armonk,New York Bayville,NY
Jurisdictions in Nassau and Suffolk Counties in which Lou Cornacchia has provided
expert testimony and has been qualified as an expert witness for approval of Wireless
Facility Applications:
Towns
Hempstead,New York Oyster Bay,New York Huntington,New York
Babylon,New York Islip,New York Brookhaven,NY
Riverhead,New York Southold,New York Southampton,NY
Cities
Glen Cove,New York, Long Beach,New York Stamford, CT
(Chaired Wireless Public Hearings)
Villages:
Cedarhurst,New York East Hills,New York Freeport,New York
Hempstead Village,NY Lawrence,New York Lynbrook,NY
Malverne,New York Matinecock,New York Mineola,NY
Munsey Park,New York Muttontown,New York Rockville Centre,NY
Valley Stream,New York Amityville,New York Lloyd Harbor,NY
Northport,New York Patchogue,New York Port Jefferson,NY
OTHER ACTIVITIES:
School Board President-New Rochelle,New York.
SDA District Chairman-Boy Scouts of America,
New Rochelle,New York.
Chairman of The Board—State Bank of Westchester.
V
RESUME
NAME: Frank Barbara
EDUCATION: Manhattan College,BEE
Stevens Institute of Technology, MEE
EXPERIENCE: SCINETX LLC — Chief Engineer
Engineering Consultants in the Micro-wave/Wireless Industry
Mr. Barbara has over thirty years of experience designing complex Radio
Frequency (RF) systems for both commercial and military applications.
He designed multi-carrier PCS, Cellular, SMR, and UHF Networks for the
Queens Midtown Tunnel,Brooklyn Battery Tunnel,Lincoln Tunnel and
Holland Tunnel. He also developed a GPS Controlled Bi-directional Booster
Amplifier for Amtrak Acela High Speed Train (2 patents Pending), and Multi- i
Carrier RF Distribution-system over Fiber systems for In-Building
Applications.
Mr. Barbara has.designed RADAR, communication, navigation and display
systems for several military aircraft.
Mr. Barbara has testified as an expert witness on FCC EMF compliance at
P P
numerous public hearings.
Mr. Barbara holds a Bachelor of Engineering degree in Electrical Engineering
from Manhattan College and Masters of Electrical Engineering from Stevens
Institute of Technology.
l
I
I
G
r
W
9. FCC 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 the NEPA in
licensing and approving facilities and operations under its jurisdiction.
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 RF
emissions. As there were no federal standards for exposure to RF emissions, 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 Kilo Hertz (kHz)to 100 Giga Hertz(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 emissions.
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.
The EPA, aware of the FCC's Notice of Existing 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 1986 NCRP
Limits. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law 104-104-February 8, 1996
recommended adoption of portions of the ANSI - IEEE C95.1 - 1991/NCR Standards,
and in August of 1996, the FCC did adopt the ANSI - IEEE C95.1 - 1992 two tier
Standards, implemented for all applications submitted beginning September 1, 1997.
The Power Densities which could be emitted by the proposed Wireless Antenna
Installations are many orders of magnitude below the Health Standards adopted or
proposed in the United States and any Health Standard applied anywhere 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 applicable FCC/NCRP MPE
General Public or "unrestricted environment" Standard and is recognized by the New
York State District of Health (NYSDOH).
X
The results of this theoretical worst-case safety analysis clearly indicate that the'
combined cumulative EMF emissions which could be emitted by the proposed Wireless
installations, would be many orders of magnitude below FCC EMF Continuous Exposure
levels as per ANSI/IEEE C95.1-199I/NCRP (47 CFR§ 1.1310),Federal
Communications Commission(FCC) General Public Continuous Exposure Standards,
OSHA, and NYSDOH limits. Therefore, in the scientific consensus based on
overwhelming evidence,the resulting emissions are well below threshold effects. When
EMF levels encountered, are at or below the FCC Standards,no health effects occur,
therefore in accordance with Federal Communications Commission OET Bulletin 65,
Edition 97-01, no cumulative effect is possible regardless of exposure duration.
i
' I
- I
OSHA STANDARD • 10,000 microwatts / cm2
9,000 UP TO WALKIE TALKlE
RF X000 microwatts Fr ANTENNA
UP TO FIELD D -URB cm` 1 c
10,000 microwatts/c ANCE ALARM
8,000 UP TO 1Q,000 BqB distributed
microwatts/cmz p Ot bITOR
uted -
E 7,000
6,000
o UP TO 5,01 mO o4V COVEN
U
s/cmc
FCC OCCUPATIONAL STANDARD 0) 5 cm
• 5,000
�. 1900-2400 MHz
H
G�
Z
p 4,000
cc
w
3
n0. 3,000 FCC OCCUPATIONAL STANDARD
2,750 900-900 MHz
2,000
1900-2400 MHz
FCC GENERAL CORpLES
1,000 PUBLIC STANDARD MOBILRp�oSED 30 microwatts /ern,C
=CC GENERAL
'uBLIC STANDARD ANTENNAS m
5 K} M04WO MH: -
1.0 microwatt / cm2 POWER (EMR) SOURCES
KOR(Fp"G R A T 1 0 N
11 1
ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECT RU
NON-IONIZING RADIATION IONIZING RADIATION
AM Radio: 535-1605 kHz
CB Radio: 27 MHz LIGHT
Cordless Phones: 49 MHz/900 MHz
TV Ch 2-6: 54 - 88 MHz
FM Radio: 88 - 108 MHz
Marine Radio: 160 MHz
TV Ch 7-13: 174 - 216 MHz
TV UHF Ch 14 - 69: 470 - 800 MHz
Cellular Radio, Specialized Mobile Radio, Paging: 806 - 946 MHz
Antitheft Devices: 10-20 kHz and/or 915 MHz
Microwave Oven: 915 and 2450 MHz
Personal Communication Services: 1800 - 2200 MHz
Intruslon Alarms/Door Openers/Baby Monitors:10 MHz
POWER Microwave Radio: 1 -40 GHz
FREQUENCY
Satellite Communications: 100 MHz - 275 GHz
10 3 106 109 -::=_1012 _==_10'`' 1018
60 Hz 1 kHz 1 MHz 1 GHz Frequency (Hz)
'9C�N�71C'S'
Q R P O R A T 1 O N