RadLimits on Wireless Facilities – Your Ideas

The following are excerpts of content from the 2022 RadLimits petition initiative on limiting radiation from wireless facilities — keep in mind this MUST STICK TO RADIATION LIMITS and avoid all other questions such as appearance or property value. This is a requirement of the petition initiative, to stick to one topic.

If you have suggestions for improvement, please share. Your comments may not be posted as discussed here. However, just in case, please insert an asterisk (*) in front of your comment if you would like to have your comment publicly posted.

Without limiting the right of municipalities to craft additional ordinance requirements, the following state-wide regulations shall be required for the operation of wireless facilities:(a) Annual testing of wireless facility non-ionizing radiation shall be mandated, paid for by the operator of the wireless facility, with municipalities allowed to conduct additional testing at their own expense unless the wireless facility has failed to meet any relevant non-ionizing radiation state requirements or exceeded federal exposure guidelines, in which case testing shall be at the expense of the operator. The annual testing must be provided with a certification under penalty of perjury that the proposed facility, both individually and cumulatively with all other emitters that contribute more than five percent to the cumulative emissions in the vicinity (if any), will comply with federal exposure limits and any state requirements. The testing must be on-site and provide peak power and maximum peak power measurements. The report must be prepared and certified by an engineer acceptable to the municipality, and the testing time must, where possible, be kept secret from the operator. The report must include the actual frequency bands and power density (in volts per meter, watts effective radiated power and in DBM) for all existing and proposed antennas at the site and exhibits that show the location and orientation of all transmitting antennas and the boundaries of areas with exposures in excess of the uncontrolled/general federal exposure limit and the boundaries of areas in excess of the controlled/occupational federal exposure limit. Each such boundary shall be clearly marked and identified for every transmitting antenna at the project site.

(b) Wireless facility permittees must have the funds in escrow or the insurance to cover potential claims of harm from non-ionizing radiation. In addition to conventional insurance, the permittee shall procure and maintain at its expense or cause its contractor orsubcontractor to procure and maintain throughout the term of the permit environmental pollution liability insurance in an amount not less than $2,000,000 per antenna that covers non-ionizing radiation pollution with respect to the wireless facility. The insurance must be obtained from an insurer licensed to do business in Massachusetts. The relevant policy shall name the municipality, its elected/appointed officials, commission members, officers,representatives, agents, volunteers, and employees as additional insureds. The permittee is to use its best efforts to notify the municipality of any modification to the policy or cancellation of the insurance policy within 30 days.

(c) The permittee shall provide original certificates and amendatory endorsements of copies of the applicable policy language providing insurance coverage required in subsection (b). All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the municipality before any work commences, but failure to obtain documents prior to work shall not waive the licensee’s obligation to provide them. The permittee shall furnish updated certificates and endorsements to the municipality annually. The municipality shall have the right to require updated certificates and endorsements or complete, certified copies of the required insurance policies at any time.

(d) The permittee shall provide to the division of non-ionizing radiation described in chapter25C the documents necessary for monitoring and mapping of data and permit the county engineer(s) to conduct random audits at all times at the wireless facility.(e) An applicant for a wireless facility must provide substantial evidence for any claim of a significant gap in coverage or capacity deficiency, including for any carrier, and provide substantial evidence that the proposed facility would remedy any such gap. The evidence must include:

(1) For claims of a capacity deficiency or gap in service rendering the carrier incapable of providing adequate coverage, the applicant shall provide dropped call records and denial of service records evidencing the number and percentage of calls within which the carrier’s customers were unable to initiate, maintain and conclude the use of the carrier’s personal wireless services without actual loss of service, or interruption of service.

(2) If, and to the extent that an applicant claims that a specific wireless carrier suffers from a significant gap in its personal wireless services, the applicant shall conduct or cause to be conducted a Drive Test within the specific geographic areas within which the applicant is claiming such gap or gaps exist, for each frequency at which the carrier provides personal wireless services. The applicant shall provide the local authorities with the actual drive test data recorded during such drive test, in a simple format which shall include, in table format:

(i) the date and time for the test or test;

(ii) the location, in longitude and latitude of each point at which signal strength was recorded;

(iii) each signal strength recorded, measured in volts per meter and DBM, for each frequency.

Such data is to be provided in a separate table for each frequency at which the respective carrier provides personal wireless services to any of its end-use customers.

(iv) the applicant shall also submit Drive Test Maps, depicting the actual signal strengths recorded during the actual drive test, for each frequency at which the carrier provides personal wireless services to its end-use customers.

(3) If an applicant claims that it needs a “minimum” signal strength (measured in volts per meter and DBM) to remedy its gap or gaps in service, then for each frequency, the applicant shall provide three (3) signal strength coverage maps reflecting actual signal strengths in three (3) bins in both V/m and DBM, the first being at the alleged minimum signal strength,and two (2) additional three (3) bin maps in both V/m and DBM depicting signal strengths immediately below the alleged minimum signal strength claimed to be required.(f) On public higher education and public school campuses and in state parks and state forests, the installation of new wireless facilities shall be prohibited including, but not limited to,

(1) site distributed antenna systems and small cell networks;

(2) any structure; and

(3)collocation of distributed antenna systems and small cell networks on existing wireless communications infrastructure.

(g) In state parks and state forests, the installation of new wireless facilities shall be prohibited including, but not limited to,

(1) site distributed antenna systems and small cell networks;

(2) any structure; and

(3) collocation of distributed antenna systems and small cell networks on existing wireless communications infrastructure. An exception for wireless connectivity shall be made for minimal installations if required for basic emergency service,with selection of such services chosen to limit the potential risk of infrastructure expansion.

(h) Any applicant or permittee must provide information to the municipality and the county engineer on how to swiftly and safely turn off a facility’s transmissions so that the county engineer or municipality can turn off a facility’s transmissions in the event transmissions exceed allowable levels.(i) Violations. An applicant or permittee shall be prohibited from submitting further applications for 6 years if proven to have acted in bad faith in providing data or evidence. If the permittee has acted in bad faith in providing data or evidence or has shown a consistent pattern of non-compliance, the permittee’s facility shall be shut down, permit removed, and the facility may be removed at any time. Any facility that is non-compliant but claims innocence, must provide an explanation and evidence of innocence, and further must shutdown at once if exposures exceed allowable levels and fix the facility before returning to normal operations.

Any person or other legal entity who fails to comply with or who violates this section or who shall refuse a reasonable request to inspect any premises or who shall have aided or abetted the commission of any such violation shall each be guilty of a separate offense and, upon conviction thereof, shall be subject to a fine of not more than $400 or imprisonment for a term of not more than 15 days, or both. Each day after notice that a violation continues shall be deemed a separate offense. In addition, a civil penalty of $500 per day may be assessed for any such violation, which civil penalty shall be recovered by the municipality in a civil action in addition. Outstanding fines of 90 days shall define the facility as abandoned and subject to removal.This remedy shall not be exclusive and shall be in addition to all other causes of action,remedies and penalties provided by law

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

27 − = 25

Kirstin Beatty