HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-01-28 Post Installation Radio-Frequency Measurements CHP
®'
Radiation Safety Specialist
PO Box 198,Hampstead,NH 03841 617-680-6262 Email: donald haes_chp@comcast.net
January 28, 2025
RE: Post-Installation Radio-Frequency Radiation Measurements at the Personal Wireless Services
Facility Located at 122 Foster Street, North Andover, MA.
PURPOSE
Radio-Frequency Radiation(RFR)measurements have been obtained in the vicinity of the Everest
Infrastructure Partners (EIP) Personal Wireless Services (PWS) installation at 122 Foster Street, North
Andover,MA. The PWS installation consists of a fenced compound and monopole-styled tower designed
in the shape of a tree, referred to as a "monopine" (see Figure 2). The monopine is designed to
accommodate several PWS antenna mounting locations, vertically spaced evenly at 10-foot separation
distance.
This report considers the contributions of all of the existing PWS transmissions, as well as the
ambient RF environment,including radio and television broadcast,2-way radio communications, etc. The
measured values of RFR are presented as a percentage of current Maximum Permissible Exposures
(%MPE) as adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC),'," and those established by the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH)."'
SUMMARY
The measured RFR levels indicate the maximum to be less than 1.4% of the RFR exposure
guidelines. These RFR measurements are accurate, and meet both FCC and the MDPH guidelines. The
results support compliance with the pertinent sections of the North Andover Zoning Bylaws (§ (7) (b) (1)
Radiofrequency radiation (RFR) filing requirements.
Based on the results of the ambient RF field measurements,it is my expert opinion that this facility
complies with all regulatory guidelines for RFR exposure.
Note:The analyses,conclusions and professional opinions are based upon the precise parameters and conditions of this particular site;122 Foster Street,North
Andover,MA.Utilization of these analyses,conclusions,and professional opinions for any personal wireless services installation,existing or proposed,other
than the aforementioned has not been sanctioned by the author,and therefore should not be accepted as evidence of regulatory compliance.
x 'S AND GUIDELINES
RF exposure guidelines enforced by the FCC were established by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) " and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP).W The
RF exposure guidelines are listed for RF workers and members of the public. The applicable FCC RF
exposure guidelines for the public are listed in Table 1, and depicted in Figure 1. All listed values are
intended to be averaged over any contiguous 30-minute period.
Table 1: Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Values in Public Areas
Frequency Bands Electric Fields Magnetic Fields Equivalent Power Density
0.3 — 1.34 MHz 614 (V/m) 1.63 (A/m) (100)mW/cm'
1.34 - 30 MHz 824/f (V/m) 2.19/f(A/m) (100)mW/cm2
30 -300 MHz 27.5 (V/iu) 0.073 (A/m) 0.2 mW/cm'
300 - 1500 MHz -- -- f/1500 mW/cm2
1500 - 100,000 MHz -- -- 1.0 mW/cm2
=Worka,/Controlled Areas —G—rul PopulatimXncuntr ou Areas
1000.0
100.0-
j✓`
G x 10.0
o `-
0.
1.0-
0.1
0.0
0 3 30 300 3,000 30,000
Frequency(MHz)
Figure 1: FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)
NOTE: FCC 5% Rule—When the exposure limits are exceeded in an accessible area due to the emissions
from multiple fixed RF sources, actions necessary to bring the area into compliance are the shared
responsibility of all licensees whose RF sources produce, at the area in question, levels that exceed 5% of
the applicable exposure limit proportional to power. (Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 63 / Wednesday,
April 1, 2020/Rules and Regulations 18145)
Page 2 of 10
PERTINENTSECTIONS OFTHE NORTH ANDOVERZONING A S
§ (7) Radiofrequency radiation(RFR) filing requirements.
(a) All telecommunications facilities shall be operated only at Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) designated frequencies, power levels and standards, including FCC
radiofrequency emissions standards. The applicant shall provide certification demonstrating that
the maximum allowable frequencies, power levels will not be exceeded. Certifications shall
include technical specifications, a written explanation of those specifications, and, if necessary,
field verification. The permit granting authority may condition any special permit granted under
this section upon a periodic submittal of certification of compliance with said standards.
(b) In order to determine compliance with applicable FCC regulations, the applicant shall provide
a statement listing the preexisting and maximum future projected measurements of RFR from the
proposed wireless service facility, including all co-locators, for the following situations:
[1] Preexistent or ambient: the measurement of preexisting RFR.
[2] Preexistent plus proposed wireless service facilities: maximum estimate of RFR from
the proposed wireless service facility plus the preexisting RFR environment.
[3] Certification, signed by an engineer, stating that RFR measurements are accurate and
meet FCC guidelines as specified in the radiofrequency radiation standards subsection of
this bylaw.
f;
f
Figure 2: Existing PWS Compound; 122 Foster Street, North Andover, MA
(Picture Obtained 1125125)
Page 3 of 10
FIELDRF EAS EN 'S
MEASUREMENTPROTOCOL
RF ambient field measurements were obtained on January 25, 2025, using accepted scientific
procedures.", "' During the survey, the following environmental conditions were noted: Sunny skies;
Temperature 22°F; Humidity 58% (Dew Point 10°); Barometric Pressure 30.30 in Hg; Winds 5 SW. The
measuring equipment included the following:
• WaveControl Electromagnetic Field Meter SMP with model WPF60S Broadband Isotropic probe,
calibrated from 1 MHz to 60,000 MHz.
• The instrumentation was last calibrated on 9/l/2023 by the manufacturer (which recommends a
two-year calibrations cycle).
• The WaveControl SMP with model WPF60S probe provides a meter read-out in %MPE (percent
FCC 1997 Maximum Permissible Exposure) for members of the general public within the
frequency band of 1 MHz to 60 GHz (NOTE: 1 MHz= 1,000,000 cycles per second, and 1 GHz
= 1,000,000,000 cycles per second).
The RF field measurements included the following parameters of interest:
1. The "Spatial Average": Readings were collected during a continuous scan with the probe from the
ground plane up to a height of six feet above ground level. The readings collected were then averaged.
The Spatial Average readings at each location were recorded in units of%MPE for members of the
public, and are contained in Table 2. Note that the minimum and maximum values were also recorded
during the scan.
2. The "Peak Field": The highest recorded values obtained during the "Spatial Average" scan. The
highest observed readings at each location were recorded in units of%MPE for members of the public,
listed as the "maximum reading", and are contained in Table 2.
3. GPS Location.
The uncertainty of the measurement system is dependent on several factors. The uncertainty
factors are provided on the certificates of calibration. For each measurement, the indicated RF field
strength was multiplied by the appropriate correction factor(CF2)to give the actual final RF field strength
value. The parameters that might influence the uncertainty of the measurement include parameters for
calibration, frequency response, linearity, and temperature. For each measurement, the indicated RF field
strength was multiplied by the appropriate total uncertainty value to give the actual final RF field strength
value. For example, the CF2 for the measurements was + 1.80 dB (1.515 - 0.661). The final values are
the observed readings were multiplied by 1.515 to account for any uncertainty.
Page 4 of 10
RF FIELD EAS[T I E 'LOCATIONS
i
Figure 3: Locations of RFR Field Measurements
(Picture courtesy Google Earth Pro 02024 and may not represent current conditions)
Figure 4: Locations of Additional RFR Field Measurements;
Vicinity of 122 Foster Street, N Andover, MA
(Picture courtesy Google Earth Pro`c'2024 and may not represent current conditions)
Page 5 of 10
GENERAL L A IN S
Table 2: Results of Broadband RF Field Measurements
Vicinity of 122 Foster Street,North Andover, MA
Corrected RF Field Reading;
Location # 1 —60,000 MHz (%MPE (public)�)
See Maps, Figures 3 and 4
Spatial Average Peak Value
The nearest point on the property line of the facility 1.224% 1.358%
owner(fenced compound gate).
The nearest point regularly occupied by the public 1.235% 1.236%
(access gate).
The nearest point regularly occupied by the public 1.180% 1.184%
(walkway behind dwelling).
#1 1.175% 1.180%
#2 1.184% 1.192%
#3 1.195% 1.195%
#4 1.166% 1.177%
#5 1.179% 1.185%
#6 1.172% 1.175%
#7 1.171% 1.172%
#8 1.193% 1.207%
#9 1.186% 1.200%
#10 1.175% 1.180%
Table Notes:
' Meter readings in"percent FCC MPE" for members of the public.
Page 6 of 10
CONCLUSION
The measured RFR levels indicate the maximum to be less than 1.4% of the RFR exposure
guidelines. These RFR measurements are accurate, and meet both FCC and the MDPH guidelines. The
results support compliance with the pertinent sections of the North Andover Zoning Bylaws (§ (7) (b) (1)
Radiofrequency radiation (RFR) filing requirements.
Based on the results of the ambient RF field measurements,it is my expert opinion that this facility
complies with all regulatory guidelines for RFR exposure.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
DoilaId 1 . liaes, Jr.
Note:The analyses,conclusions and professional opinions are based upon the precise parameters and conditions of this particular site;122 Foster Street,North
Andover,MA.Utilization of these analyses,conclusions,and professional opinions for any personal wireless services installation,existing or proposed,other
than the aforementioned has not been sanctioned by the author,and therefore should not be accepted as evidence of regulatory compliance.
Page 7 of 10
DONALD
CHP
L. ' ®'
Radiation Safety Specialist
PO Box 198,Hampstead,NH 03841 617-680-6262 Email: donald haes_chp@comcast.net
STATEMENT OF CERTIF'IC:ATION
1. I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements of fact contained in this report are
true and correct.
2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and
limiting conditions, and are personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.
3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and I have
no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
4. My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined energy level or direction
in energy level that favors the cause of the client, the amount of energy level estimate, the
attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.
5. This assignment was not based on a requested minimum environmental energy level or specific
power density.
6. My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or
conclusions in, or the use of, this report.
7. The consultant has accepted this assessment assignment having the knowledge and experience
necessary to complete the assignment competently.
8. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in
conformity with the American Board of Health Physics (ABHP) statements of standards of
professional responsibility for Certified Health Physicists.
Date: January 28, 2025
Doria d l . lia s, Jr.
;,Wtilied Health I'lowicist
Page 8 of 10
CHP.,
Radiation Safety Specialist
PO Box 198,Hampstead,NH 03841 617-680-6262 Email: donald haes_chp@comcast.net
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
• Academic Training-
o Graduated from Chelmsford High School, Chelmsford, MA; June 1973.
o Completed Naval Nuclear Naval Nuclear Power School, 6-12/1976.
o Completed Naval Nuclear Reactor Plant Mechanical Operator and Engineering Laboratory
Technician (ELT) schools and qualifications, Prototype Training Unit, Knolls Atomic Power
Laboratory, Windsor, Connecticut, 1-9/1977.
o Graduated Magna Cum Laude from University of Lowell with a Bachelor of Science Degree in
Radiological Health Physics; 5/1987.
o Graduated from University of Lowell with a Master of Science Degree in Radiological Sciences
and Protection; 5/1988.
• Certification -
o Board Certified by the American Board of Health Physics 1994; renewed 1998, 2002, 2006,
2010, 2014, 2018, and 2022. Expiration 12/31/2026.
o Board Certified by the Board of Laser Safety 2008; renewed 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2023.
Expiration 12/31/2026.
• Employment History-
o Consulting Health Physicist; Ionizing/Nonionizing Radiation, 1988 - present.
o Radiation, RF and Laser Safety Officer; BAE Systems, 2005-2018 (retired).
o Assistant Radiation Safety Officer; MIT, 1988 —2005 (retired).
o Radiopharmaceutical Production Supervisor - DuPont/NEN, 1981 — 1988 (retired).
o United States Navy; Nuclear Power Qualifications, 1975 — 1981 (Honorably Discharged).
• Professional Societies -
o Health Physics Society [HPS].
o American Academy of Health Physics [AAHP]
o Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers [IEEE];
o International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety [ICES] (ANSI C95 series).
o Laser Institute of America [LIA].
o Board of Laser Safety [BLS].
o American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee [ASC Z136].
o Committee on Man and Radiation [COMAR].
Page 9 of 10
REFERENCES
'. Federal Register, Federal Communications Commission Rules; Radiofrequency radiation;
environmental effects evaluation guidelines Volume 1, No. 153, 41006-41199, August 7, 1996. (47 CFR
Part l; Federal Communications Commission).
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 USC; Second Session of the 104rh Congress of the United States
of America, January 3, 1996.
"' 105 CMR 122.000: Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Non-Ionizing Radiation Limits for:
The General Public from Non-Occupational Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields, Employees from
Occupational Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields, and Exposure from Microwave Ovens.
°. IEEE C95.1-1999: Safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic
fields,from 3 kHz to 300 GHz (Updated in 2020 as C95.1-2019/Cor 2-2020TM Standard for Safety Levels
with Respect to Human Exposure to Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz,
Corrigenda 2).
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP); Biological Effects and Exposure
Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,NCRP Report 86, 1986.
°' IEEE C95.3-2021;IEEE Recommended Practice for Measurements and Computations of Electric,
Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields with Respect to Human Exposure to Such Fields, 0 Hz to 300
GHz.
°" NCRP Report No. 119: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1993;A
Practical Guide to the Determination ofHuman Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields.
Page 10 of 10