Voices of Safety International (VOSI)

  Home   Slip & Fall
Standards
  SCOF
Testing
  Public
Safety
  Public
Health
  Forensic
Engineers
  Contacts
& Links
  VOSI
Members
 

Environmental Issues Page | View Standard
Submit Your Vote/Comments

03/01/2002

Environmental Issues - VOSI Research Report RR12-V60.2
RESEARCH REPORT
FOR
PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION OF CELL TOWER RF ANTENNA TOWER VARIANCE

1. SCOPE

1.1 To require notification of property owners whenever a variance is requested to install a Cell Tower RF Antenna.

1.2 To create a notification zone by which NOT ONLY property owners within a 200 ft area of the perimeter of the block and lot number of the party requesting a Cell Tower antenna variance, but additional property owners within a minimum 500 -ft radius from the center of the antenna tower, must also be notified. Ref 2.5, Fig 1. (click here)

1.3 The property owners within the notification zone have the same "right-to-know" about radiation emitted from these towers as the property owners that are presently notified. Ref 2.6, Fig 2. (click here)

Click on Image for Details

Ref 2.5., Fig.1

Ref 2.6., Fig 2

2. REFERENCES

2.1 RF Compliance Assessment and Report, Sprint PCS, Site NY54XC466F, North Caldwell, NJ. January 8, 2002.

2.2 NJ Law Journal News Archive: "Towns Handed a Pyrrhic Victory In Quest To Regulate Monopoles", by Sandy Lovell. November 29, 1999.

2.3 NJ Bergen Record On-line: "Borough Denies Variance for Cell Tower". December 8, 2001.

2.4 Lawyers Weekly USA, "Towns can Reject Cellular Towers". April 16, 2001.

2.5 Fig 1. VOSI Proposed Cell Phone Tower Radial Notification Zone

2.6 Fig 2. Sprint Proposed Cell Phone Tower Radial Notification Zone, N. Caldwell Block 1201, Lot 58

2.7 Fig 3. Calculation of RF Power Density to a Distance of 500-ft.(Ref 2.1)

2.8 Fig 4. FCC Limits for both Occupational and General Exposures for the Different Radio Frequency (RF) Ranges (MPE Limits) (Ref 2.1)

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 Ref 2.1. states that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has established limits for the maximum continuous human exposure to Radio Frequency (RF) fields, a measurement also known as MPE, or Maximum Permissible Exposure Limits.

3.2 The determination of MPE represents a consensus amongst federal agencies and independent experts responsible for RF safety matters, including: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

3.3 The MPE can be seen in the Ref 2.8, fig. 4. Graph: "Showing FCC Limits for both Occupational and General Exposures for the Different Radio Frequency (RF) Ranges (MPE Limits)". (click here)

3.4 Ref 2.7, Fig 3 shows the calculation of RF power density to a distance of 500-ft. Ref 1. States that " at distances less than 500-ft, the MPE% calculations reflect variations in the vertical-plane antennae pattern, . . . therefore, at some intermediate distances, the level may increase slightly with distance." (click here)

3.5 Ref. 2.3 states how the Franklin Lakes NJ borough ordinance prohibits cellular towers within 250 feet of a school, residential area or recreational facility. A town may exceed the 200-ft requirement of the " State of NJ Municipal Land Use Law".

3.6 Cellular and PCS communications systems rely on a combination of antennae and associate electronic equipment referred to as "cellular or PCS base station" or "cell site".

3.7 These cellular communications systems use frequencies in the 800-900 megahertz (MHz) range, while Personal Communications Service (PCS) use frequencies in the range of 1850-1990 MHz.

3.8 Typical heights of a "cell site" are 50-200 ft, usually a monopole, consisting of a collection of 1x4 panels, arranged in 3 groups of 3, resulting in a overall 36 sq. ft panel, with several 10 to 15 ft "omni directional" antennas that look like whips hanging from each panel. (Ref. 2.1)

3.9 Ref. 2.2 States: "In Smart SMR v. Fair Lawn Board of Adjustment, 152 NJ 309 (1998), Justice Stewart Pollack held that communities could reject cellular towers based on aesthetic concerns if they supported their decisions with expert testimony."

Click on Image for Details

Ref 2.7., Fig.3

Ref 2.8., Fig 4

4. KEYWORDS

Cellular Communications Systems (CCS) Freq 800-900MHz, Dept of Environmental Protection (DEP), Effected Radiated Power, Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Communications commission (FCC), Maximum Permissible Exposure Limit (MPE), Monopole, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH), National Council on Ration Protection and Measurements (NCRP), Occupational and Safety Health Administration (OSHA), PCS Ranges 1850-1950 MHz, PCS base station (same as "cell site"), Personal Communications Services (PCS), Range 800-2000 MHz, Radio Frequency (RF), Right to Know

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Due to the potential of RF to increase within a 500-ft radius, notification of the installation should be distributed to all people, residents and commercial, within a 500-ft. radius, that such an installation is scheduled to occur.

5.2 Due to the potential of being an 'eye-sore', all involved parties within the 500-ft radius should be notified to allow them to participate in rebuttal of said RF tower installations.

5.3 As more and more of these cases are being turned back on a local level, once again the subject of "expert testimony" arises. Gathering a list of cases where tower application has been denied will provide a stronger case to present to the local boards.

5.4 The residents living within a 500-ft radius of a cell-site, have the same "Right-to-know" as residents within the present 200-ft. notification zone. Ref. 2.5 & 2.6.

Updated: 4/16/2002