This report may be cited as
Appendix 4: Discussion guide for the Telecommunications Forum
Download 244.21 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Working with the NES
- Radio-frequency
- Appendix 6: Measurement issues
- Issue 1: Choice of settings at a site (eg, down tilt) and how to deal with multiple parameters
- Issue 2: Staged site implementation
- Issue 3: What to do when it is difficult to access an area to make measurements
Appendix 4: Discussion guide for the Telecommunications ForumThis was forwarded to the Telecommunications Forum as a guide for their responses. Overall impact of the NESHow has the telecommunications ‘landscape’ changed over the past decade from an industry and a consumer perspective? How has the NES contributed to these changes? Has the NES made things ‘easier’? Has the NES met its objectives? Are the regulations achieving their intended purpose in terms of: sourcing infrastructure and engineering practices shortening timeframes and lowering compliance costs reducing timeframes and lowering costs for the availability of new services to consumers providing an appropriate balance between community participation in planning and telecommunications infrastructure investment?
How useful is the householders’ brochure? Is any further work required on either? Is work required on additional communications? Are there any residual problems with implementation?
Working with councilsAre roles and responsibilities clear between council and industry? Is the expected national consistency being realised? If not, why not? Has the NES reduced the number of consents needed to install telecommunications facilities? If yes, how have industry practices changed? If not, why not? Do you obtain codes of compliance for your installations that are permitted under the NES? If yes, in what circumstances? Are there any issues in obtaining them? Are councils consistent in the way they issue them? What monitoring and compliance work do you do? Radio-frequencyWhat is your experience of working with the community over concerns with radio-frequency fields? Wish listWould industry like to see any changes made to the NES? Appendix 5: Details of issuesTable A5.1: Issues with the current NESTF
Appendix 6: Measurement issuesRegulation 4(5) states that measurements are required when predictions indicate that a device will produce radio-frequency levels that reach or exceed 25 per cent of the maximum allowed in NZS 2772.1:1999. There are some practical issues with measurement, and Martin Gledhill has provided advice on how they may be dealt with. Some issues could be addressed by further guidance, while others may require amendments to the NESTF. The various issues are described below. Examples are provided by Mr Gledhill. Issue 1: Choice of settings at a site (eg, down tilt) and how to deal with multiple parametersAdditional guidance would be helpful on the choice of certain settings for a site (eg, down tilts (the angle) on antennas. Operators may calculate exposures for a range of down tilts to cover worst-case scenarios. However, the value of the down tilt makes a big difference to where the position of maximum exposure falls, and whether measurements are needed at all (ie, whether the maximum will fall in an area where the public can be reasonably expected to be present, according to NZS 277.2:1:1999). Figure A6.1: Effect of down tilt on exposure plumes (based on an actual site) 
In the figure, the red line shows the 25 per cent exposure contour with a 0-degree down tilt set, and the purple line shows the 25 per cent contour with a 10-degree down tilt set. With a 10-degree down tilt, the lowest part of the 25 per cent contour is only about 1.5 m above the ground and measurements would be required, but with 0 degrees down tilt the lowest part of the contour is 3 m above the ground, and measurements would not be needed. Difficulties that might arise include the following. If the operator makes worst-case calculations based on (in this case) a high value of down tilt, but in operation a different value is used, then measurements may be made unnecessarily. If the operator makes calculations using one down tilt, but when measurements are made a different down tilt is set, the measurements may not show what the worst-case exposures might be.
1. When should measurements be made? Should it be: when the site first becomes operational (as required under regulation 4[5]), when exposures will not exceed 25 per cent of the public limit, or when the site is fully configured, and when the 25 per cent threshold may be exceeded? 2. If certain technologies are to be added later, in some cases it is possible to extrapolate before installation to estimate maximum exposure, but in some cases it is not. The users’ guide could be updated to explain these two situations. Issue 3: What to do when it is difficult to access an area to make measurementsThis is an issue in city locations. Sometimes it can be very difficult to arrange access to where exposure measurements may be needed; for instance, when a site on one commercial property produces exposures that may exceed 25 per cent on the roof of an adjoining commercial property. This could be addressed with new guidance on what should be counted as a public area in a commercial building. Solutions1. Guidance. As already stated, each of the issues warrants extra guidance. 2. An alternative to the 25 per cent threshold approach. This is an approach suggested by Martin Gledhill, whereby the measurement does not assume that the radio-frequency field is a single wave (as is currently the case). Instead, the interference pattern caused by reflections of radio-frequency waves off the ground is taken into account. Guidance on how to do this would need to be provided for measurement operators and councils alike, but it would result in an estimate of exposure plus the level of uncertainty of that measurement. The new measurement standard AS/NZS 2772.2:2011 provides a method for how to compare a measurement and its associated uncertainty against a limit. If:
L = the maximum exposure allowed by NZ 2772.1:1999 X = the measured exposure U = the measured uncertainty U0 = a threshold value for the uncertainty (provided by the standard) then a measurement X has a level of uncertainty of +/- U. The NESTF suggests that if the uncertainty is greater than U0, the site complies if and only if X + (U–U0) < L. This may be a suitable approach for staged sites or sites with difficult access, and is an alternative to the 25 per cent threshold. Measurement operators would have to be trained in the approach, but they need to come up to speed with the new AS/NZS 2772.2:2011 anyway. Adopting this alternative would require an amendment to the NESTF. 1 Usually the local council, sometimes the New Zealand Transport Agency or the Department of Conservation. 2 The Digital Strategy 2005. 3 The Business Growth Agenda progress report November 2012 – Infrastructure. 4 Telecommunications Industry Reference Group. 2006. Proposed National Environmental Standard for Radio-frequency Exposure and Low Impact Telecommunications Structures in Road Reserves: An Industry Perspective. 5 Being a regulation under the RMA, ‘low impact’ refers to the effect of an activity. 6 The Telecommunications Carriers Forum (now known as the Telecommunications Forum) was established in 2002. Its objective is to actively foster cooperation among the telecommunications industry’s participants to enable the efficient provision of regulated and non-regulated telecommunications services. It works with industry and government to resolve regulatory, technical and policy issues. 7 Note that cabinets for the UFB do not generate noise. 8 Industry data is indicative only, and estimates for a given process may vary among operators. 9 Chorus was split off from Telecom in 2011. It builds and maintains networks and is responsible for deploying 70 per cent of the UFB network, and it works with Vodafone with the Rural Broadband Initiative. It does not provide mobile infrastructure. 10 The NES is more stringent than 82 per cent of district plans (as at 2008) and 51 per cent of noise requirements. See: Incite. 2006. Assessment of Plans: Telecommunications Facilities. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. 11 The response was higher for city councils than for district councils: 7 of the 11 city councils responded (64 per cent), compared with 18 of the 50 district councils (36 per cent). Councils contributed on the basis of anonymity, so in this report no council is identified with any particular survey response. 12 A public facility is defined as “a physical premise which has a primary purpose of providing care, welfare or educational services to members of the community”. The guidelines are published at www.tcf.org.nz/content/6efda0e0-d74d-4a95-95d2-0769696c53d6.html (accessed 3 June 2013). 13 The committee was first formed in 1989, and its terms of reference of reviewing possible health effects from exposures to extremely low electric and magnetic fields were expanded in 2001 to include radio-frequency fields. 14 Mr Gledhill has worked at the National Radiation Laboratory of the New Zealand Ministry of Health for over 20 years and now runs EMF Services. He has a Master of Arts in Natural Sciences (Physics) from Cambridge and a Master of Science in Medical Physics from the University of Otago. He is a member of the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety, the Australian Radiation Protection Society, the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and the Interagency Committee. 15 International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection. 1998. Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics 74(4): 494–522. 16 International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection. 2009. Statement on the “Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz)”. Health Physics 97(3): 257–258. 17 The ICNIRP published additional guidelines for low-frequency radiation (1 Hz to100 kHz) in 2010, but none of the network operators licensed under the Telecommunications Act 2001 operate in this band. 18 Monitoring may be a condition for those activities that require resource consent. Measuring electromagnetic frequency fields is a highly specialised field. 19 National Radiation Laboratory. 2012. Measurements of Exposures Around Vodafone New Zealand Limited Cellsites from March 2011 to May 2012. Christchurch: Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited. 20 As well as the general public, who may not be aware they are being exposed to radio-frequency fields, the standard also details exposure limits for industry workers who may be occupationally exposed. 21 Section 32 report, (web reference) page 27. Directory: sites -> default -> files -> media -> Extra%20downloads -> Source%20file media -> Butler County Tourism & Convention Bureau media -> Appendix 7 – Emergency Plan media -> Working Syllabus University Honors 201 Course Title: “Lost” Literature Course Abstract media -> Employment Claremont McKenna College media -> General information media -> Technicolor to debut new animated preschool series, chamelia, at cartoon forum and mip jr/mipcom media -> Military training network administrative handbook bls acls pals media -> Request for funding to the [insert the foundation/funder’s name] Download 244.21 Kb. Share with your friends:
|