Regulatory policy for EMF

William A. Fannucchi Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

Regulatory Policy for EMF ver the last fifteen years, the concern 0 about potential health effects from ex-

posure to EMF (for the purposes of this discussion, EMF means 60 Hz magnetic fields) has become a significant problem for electric utilities and regulatory agencies. This issue continues to be a difficult problem today and it is likely to remain with us into the foreseeable future. While any conductor carrying a current will have an associated magnetic field, it has been power lines that have attracted the most attention. Of course, there are many sources of EMF, and to some it does not seem particularly fair or rational to focus so much attention on power lines. In truth, EMF is a complex issue that involves not only science and engineering but human attitudes, fears, and emotions. Making decisions about EMF can be difficult and somewhat confusing. Managing this issue poorly can lead to unforeseen problems and costs. It is therefore important for regulatory agencies and utilities to develop sound and balanced EMF policies.

A policy is simply a plan or course of action that is designed to influence and determine decisions or actions. Properly devised, a policy helps organizations, governmental or business, make consistent balanced decisions that are rational, defensible, and of value to both the organi- zation making the decisions and to the public.

Although the EMF health issue is considered by many to be a national problem, policy development has been largely left to state regulatory agencies. In recent years, the federal government has become actively involved in this issue through its EMF Research and Public Information Dissemination (RAPID) program, established under Section 2118 of the 1992 National Energy Policy Act. The RAPID program is designed to provide information to the public and to direct a coordi- nated scientific research effort. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also providing some support through an EMF hotline, which became operational in the summer of 1994. While these federal programs meet an important need, they do not provide any comprehensive policy direction.

Lacking a national policy that creates a context for state policy development, state agencies, in particular utility com-

IEEE ENGINEERING I N MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY

missions, face a difficult challenge. A primary responsibility of regulatory agencies is the duty to protect the public interest. In so doing, they must balance the concerns of all stakeholders when creating EMF policy. Regulatory agencies must first consider and insure public safety. There is certainly enough ambiguity surrounding this issue to support the possibility that under some circumstances, human health may be at risk. On the other hand, regulators must also insure the availability of adequate and reliable electric energy at a reasonable cost while at the same time minimizing negative effects on the environment. This means that while construction costs and delays in building needed projects are significant concerns, regulators cannot ignore effects on natural resources (wetlands, forests, and farmlands) and concerns about aesthetics and property values. Regulators must also consider the potential of future liability for utilities should EMF exposure from power lines be proven a human health risk. Finally, regulators must be prepared to act swiftly, with rational and effective policies if clear evidence of health risks are ever identified.

Regulators must do all this in a process that is open to public scrutiny and that incorporates and considers the values and concerns of the public they serve. This is no simple task. As a young wildlife biologist fresh out of graduate school, I soon learned that managing and coping with public opinions and attitudes was just as important as competently managing wildlife populations and habitats. Unfortu- nately, my scientific and technical training had done little to prepare me for the challenges of dealing with the fears, concerns, and attitudes of the general public. My years of study left me with an arrogant sense of authority that expected people to defer to my expertise. After all, I was the expert. I truly believed that if people just left me alone, I could get the job done quickly and efficiently. I mention this only because I have worked with many engineers who feel the same way about power lines and EMF. The truth is that we ignore public opinion at our own peril. Disregarding public attitudes and fears, especially where they relate to controversial issues such as EMF, almost always leads to unforeseen problems that in

0739-51 75/96 /$5 .0001996 71

the end can delay or cancel projects, drive up construction costs, and increase environmental and societal effects. Public policies must be designed so as to enable regulators and the utilities they regulate to balance and efficiently manage the technical, financial, and human issues surrounding EMF. A well designed EMF policy will place this issue in perspective and remind the public, utilities, and the regulator that it is not in the public interest to allow fear of EMF to dominate decisions on the need and placement of electric facilities.

Factors Influencing Policy Development

Initial action by states has varied, in part, because EMF policy development is influenced by a complex mix of factors. These factors include not only scientific evidence and the appearance of articles in the national media, but local issues as well. How individual utilities respond to fears about EMF, differences in the extent and degree that each state regulates its utilities, whether or not major power line projects have been proposed, and the reaction of citizens and citizen groups to this issue have all influenced the development of policy. Not every state has an EMF policy. However, in those states where policies have been implemented, decision makers appear to be headed down a simi- lar path.

Since concerns were first raised in the early 1980s, EMF has proven to be a difficult and challenging policy issue. The primary source of this difficulty lies in the extremely complex task of determining whether or not there really are health risks associated with exposure to low-frequency magnetic fields. Over the last 15 years, this issue has resisted resolution. The persistence of epidemiological find- ings associating exposure to low-frequency EMF with the occurrence of human disease has kept the issue in the public eye and continues to fuel the controversy. Studies conducted in the United States in 1991 and in Sweden as recently as 1994 have linked not only childhood cancers with EMF but, to a limited extent, adult cancers as well. [ 1-31 Links to childhood leukemia, in particular, catch the public’s attention and can generate a great deal of fear and emotion. Compounding the problem is a tendency for the public to overlook or be unaware of important mitigating factors, such as the general limita- t ions of ep idemiologica l s tud ies ,

weaknesses in study design, and the potential influence of confounding factors. These considerations, while important, are of limited value to policy makers when faced with public concern, fear, and in some cases, outrage. Fueling this controversy is the tendency for the media and the public to focus on positive studies and to ignore or downplay negative results.

Normally, federal and state health agencies would be responsible for identifying health risks to the public and initiat- ing public health policies. Unfortunately, health officials have not been able to act decisively on EMF because of the general lack of scientific evidence that can clearly define the nature of this potential health threat. Health agencies have found it difficult to respond to public concern without a clear understanding of the magnitude and nature of exposure that might cause disease. What segment of the population, if any, might be at risk and under what conditions also remain a mystery. Even a marginally plausible biological mecha- nism, that might explain how exposure to low-frequency EMF could cause illness has not been identified. The response of most health agencies, though there are exceptions, has been to point out the un- certainty of the science, to continue moni- toring the scientific literature, to advocate for continued research, and to provide information to the public.

A primary factor shaping this issue from a policy perspective has been the power line link described in many epidemiological studies. Since 1979, when Wertheimer and Leeper [4] publish- ed the first epidemiological study linking childhood cancer and power lines, electric utilities and utility regulators have been drawn into the controversy. Subsequent epidemiological studies have largely focused on residences near power lines or electric utility employees. A number of books and articles in the popular press, playing off of the epidemiological studies, have focused their attention on purported cancer clusters in schools and neighbor- hoods near power lines. [S, 61 Because of this epidemiological focus, utility regulatory agencies and the utilities they regulate have had to consider and develop EMF policies.

Policy Development Scientific knowledge is the basis for

establishing any policy that addresses environmental factors affecting human health. Guidance from the scientific com-

munity on EMF, however, has been equivocal at best. While reviews of the science and judgements by health professionals largely support the notion that there is no strong scientific evidence linking EMF and human disease, the issue remains unresolved. Health professionals reviewing the science continue to agree on the need for more research, and in some cases scientists will recommend the use of techniques to reduce exposure to EMF [7-91. In 1994, the Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Associa- tion (AMA) issued a report, which was adopted by the AMA in the spring of 1995. This report recommended not only continued research, but also supported creation of a multidisciplinary committee to make recommendations on EMF exposure levels for the public and workers [lo]. This recommendation was made even though the report concluded that no scientifically documented health risk has been associated with usually occurring levels of electromagnetic fields. The general public, unconcerned about the limitations of scientific research and the innate caution of the scientific community, views this apparent contradiction with skepticism. Common sense would seem to dictate that if there is no scientific support for a health effect, then there should be no need for continued study, and certainly no need to reduce or limit exposure. In other words, where there is smoke there is fire. The apparent lack of scientific certainty makes policy development difficult, at best.

State Policy Activity Policy development for issues such as

EMF often start as a response to public concern. State agencies generally begin by collecting scientific and technical information. A number of states have re- sponded to concerns about EMF by conducting studies or literature reviews. For example, in 1978, the New York Pnb- lic Service Commission ordered the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to fund a program of studies on the biological effects of EMF from power lines. Although the NYPA appealed this decision, an agreement was eventually reached where NYPA and seven major electric utilities agreed to contribute $5 million to a 5-year research program called The New York Power Lines Project. This was one of the first major EMF studies conducted in the United States, and while important, it did not provide definitive results. In Wiscon- sin, periodic hearings on EMF have been

12 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEOllClNE AND BIOLOGY July/August 1996

held. In 199 1, the Public Service Commis- sion of Wisconsin (PSCW) held nine days of technical and public hearings on EMF as part of its Advance Plan 6 proceedings. In 1994, the PSCW again held a hearing on EMF to reassess its previous decisions. Other states such as Virginia, Minnesota, Connecticut, Kansas, and Maryland have conducted literature reviews ‘or established an EMF task force to monitor and report on EMF developments [l 11. Cali- fornia’s Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) established an EMF consensus group consisting of 17 stakeholders from citizens and consumer groups, state agencies, unions, and utilities to make policy recommendations to the Commission.

Initial responses to studies, reviews, and hearings have varied somewhat. New York and Florida established edge of right-of-way magnetic field limits for major power lines. These limits reflect maximum magnetic field levels based on design current and establish the maximum exposure level allowed for new construction. These are not health based standards but rather design maximum fields. The standard in New York is 200 mG for lines greater than 230 kV while Florida estdb- lished a limit of 150 mG for double circuit lines less than 230 kV and 200 mG for single circuit 500 kV lines. Other states have resisted the temptation to set field limits, in part, because such limits imply a degree of knowledge about what is or is not safe which has not been scientifically established. In Wisconsin, the PSCW has

es to reduce EMF exposure and to use low EMF structures when con- structing new transmission lines. The PSCW recognized the need to balance exposure reduction with issues of cost, worker safety, reliability, and other ex- tenuating circumstances such as environmental impact. The PSCW decision, in part, also ordered utilities to contribute to the national research effort, provide in- home EMF measurements for customers, investigate methods for reducing EMF from power lines, and provide balanced information about EMF to the public. In California, the CPUC has moved to imple- ment the recommendations of the 1992 Consensus Group report, which include a $5.6 million 4-year non-experimental and administrative research program adminis- tered by the State Department of Health Services, a $1.5 million 4-year education program, and workshops for utilities to develop EMF design guidelines based on criteria established by the CPUC. The

CPUC also supported a no-costllow-cost approach to reducing EMF on new transmission lines. Overall, the general trend for states that are actively considering the EMF issue has been to develop an interim policy balanced between establishing field limits and taking no action.

Policy Drivers Public fears about EMF often develop

when new power lines are proposed. The epidemiology that focuses on power lines reinforces this reaction, but there are other important issues that regulators need to address. These factors include reliability, project cost, impact on electric rates, effect on property values, load growth, and environmental effects. The problem for regulators (and utilities) is how to recon- cile these factors in such a way as to balance society’s need for adequate, reliable, reasonably priced, and environmen- tally sound electric power with the fears and concerns of citizens.

Over time, a number of states have evolved or drifted into an interim policy position which can be labeled by the general term, “prudent avoidance.” Prudent avoidance was first described by Dr. Granger Morgan[9] and later promoted by the EPA. [ 121 The EPA explained prudent avoidance in this way “Prudent avoidance is an approach to making decisions about risks. This decision-making process is based on judgement and values, can be applied to groups and individuals, and can be considered for all aspects of our lives, not just EMF’s. Prudent avoidance applied to EMF’s suggests adopting proce- dures to avoid EMF exposures when it is reasonable, practical, relatively inexpensive and simple to do. This position or course of action can be taken even if the risks are uncertain and even if safety issues are unresolved.”

This concept works well for control- ling exposure from dishwashers, micro- wave ovens, and clock radios because people generally have control over the location and use of household appliances. This sense of control breaks down, however, when a power company builds a power line. Since it is not reasonable to expect people to move their homes, the implementation of prudent avoidance falls to those who propose to build the power line. In states where power line siting requires state approval, the need for a statewide EMF policy becomes clear.

Elements of Publicy Policy

The Public In establishing an EMF policy, policy

makers must consider the needs and concerns of all stakeholders. The public quali- fies as a legitimate stakeholder, in large part because the construction of major electric facilities requires the use of pri- vate property. The public also needs to be involved because it is ratepayer dollars that pay for these facilities and because a stable and adequate supply of power is important to a modern industrial society.

Citizen concern can be diverse and difficult to accommodate. Public fears generally center on the increased risk of disease, particularly for children. How- ever, others may express concern for di- minished property value, detrement to aesthetics, or for possible limitations on future development options because of the fear of EMF. Fueling these concerns is a frustration over not having control over power line EMF exposure. Fear and the anger that fear can generate are potent emotions. Normally reserved people can become quite outspoken. An approach that does not recognize and acknowledge these concerns is likely to increase public distress and could lead to a sense of outrage. Angry citizens and citizen groups can cause delays in construction that could be very costly. Even with a good policy in place, a letter writing campaign to legislators is not an unlikely occurrence. Natu- rally, a legislator must respond to the concerns of his or her constituents. While those reading this article are likely to know a great deal about EMF, legislators are just as likely to know little or nothing about the topic. When they receive com- plaints, they usually ask the state regulator for information about EMF and ask to be briefed on how the agency is handling the problem. Inquiries may even lead to legislative hearings. In the past, regulatory agencies have had to resist numerous pro- posals for construction moratoria, restric- t ive exposure limits, or extremely expensive modifications to line designs. A policy that has developed a solid track record of scientific review linked to practical and sound actions and that includes opportunities for public input is very effective in forestalling legislative and citizen actions.

An essential part of any EMF policy should be a commitment to providing the public with accurate and balanced information about EMF. For this issue, merely

July/August 1996 IEEE ENGINEERING I N MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY 73

providing information is usually not enough. A real effort should be made to not only iiiforni but to educate the public about the complexities of the EMF debate. While not a simple task, doing a good job of e,diicating the public i s extremely important. Regulatory policy should require utilities to provide balanced and nonjudgmental information about EMF. It is important that this effort not give the impression of propaganda. There are third party sources for this kind of educational material, for example, the EPA’s brochure EMF in Your Environment [13].

Regulatory agencies should also develop informational materials that explain, in lay terms, what EMF is and how it is created. These same materials should educate the public about the science to date and the difficult choices that arise from this issue. A nonjudgmental discussion about the balance that must be struck between concerns for health, reliability, safety, environmental effects, and cost should be part of the educational focus. Regulatory decisions and their rationale should also be clearly communicated. It helps to add a bibliography that includes a variety of information resources. The bibliography should include sources that claim serious health concerns as well as those skeptical of the importance of EMF health effects. The PSCW’s information brochure, An Overview to EMF - Electric andMagnetic Fields [ 141, includes aread- ing list that groups information sources under: research summaries and technical reviews, epidemiological studies, and the popular press.

Comprehensive and nonjudgmental educational materials designed to com- municate to the lay public can be very effective if they are developed carefully and with sensitivity. Discussions of rela- tive risk and the need to balance potential health impacts with cost, for example, are controversial issues. It is not a bad idea to consult communication experts before publishing educational materials. One concern sometimes voiced about information programs for EMF and proactive EMF policies, in general, is that such programs might raise concerns where none previously existed. After over 15 years of research and thousands of pages of news print devoted to this issue. it is hardly a secret. The greater danger is to appear to be hiding from the issue or to be uninter- ested in the concerns of the public and your customers. Educational materials should be used when concern is voiced or

interest is expressed. Having these materials ready when you need them is prudent and rational. The only other alternative is to be unprepared.

Reducing Exposure If a policy is to follow some form of

prudent avoidance, then it must address, in some way, methods to reduce exposure. In Wisconsin, we chose to use the 60 Hz resultant magnetic field because it is relatively easy to model and measure, and is the measure most commonly understood by the public. In calculating fields from proposed lines, normal current is defined as 80% of the system normal peak. In general, this gives us a slightly higher value than would normally be experi- enced. Using a conservative measure is a good idea because it eliminates accusa- tions that field calculations were made to look better than they might be. Other field measures such as transients, harmonics, or combinations of AC and static earth fields may prove to be more relevant to health effects but are too esoteric and difficult to measure and predict. Obviously, there is no right answer to this question. Regard- less of the exposure measure used, its limitations should be admitted up front and the rationale for using it clearly communicated to the public.

Utilities and regulators must consider the increased costs of building power lines. Mitigation strategies can be expensive. Estimates for increased costs result- ing from design changes that reduce EMF can range from a few percent to nearly 30% of a power line construction cost. In cases where mitigation includes installa- tion of underground facilities, the increase in costs can be significantly higher than 30%. In recent construction cases in Wis- consin, the cost of locating a line underground was reported to be 4 to 5 or even 8 to 10 times higher than overhead construction, depending on the size and design of the line. It has been estimated that EMF mitigation costs could exceed $1 billion per year if widely instituted by utilities [15]. Cost estimates can be mis- leading, however, and are often inflated. In the Wisconsin cases mentioned above, underground construction was compared to overhead construction for the entire line. In many cases, underground construction to reduce EMF would only involve portions of a line. While the cost per mile may be high for underground construction, the total project cost, where a portion of the line is built underground,

may not necessarily be unacceptable. Some mitigation strategies are less expensive. Proper phasing and reducing the physical distance between conductors are relatively inexpensive and effective. As always, a balance must be struck between bottom line costs, reliability, safety (especially safety for lineman), and social and environmental effects. A well designed policy helps decision makers determine the most appropriate mitigation strategy. In California, a no cost/low cost approach that caps mitigation costs to no more that 4% of total project cost has been developed. In Wisconsin, the Commission de- cides on a case by case basis, using a standardized method of analysis.

Concerns have also been raised about existing lines. Mitigation strategies for existing lines are far more difficult to imple- ment than those for new line construction. Reconstruction of existing lines would certainly be enormously expensive, not to mention potentially disruptive to the electric supply. Given the current state of knowledge, it would be impossible to make a defensible and rational judgement as to what lines should be redesigned or even how best to redesign them. An EMF policy should acknowledge this concern and discuss the problems and uncertain- ties in a straightforward manner. Whole- sale redesign of existing lines is certainly not warranted at this time. EMF policies should be clear on this issue. Keep in mind, however, that the issue of existing lines will clearly gain more importance in the future if health effects are proven to be widespread and serious. While this is unlikely. policy makers should be thinking about this issue and anticipating a course of action.

Litigation is also a concern. A survey by the Texas Public Utility Commission in 1993 reported 201 court challenges to utility projects where EMF was an issue [16]. While most utilities have done well in court cases brought against them, the cost and bad publicity is certainly not welcomed. Even a victory in court can lead to continued costs. In a recent case in Georgia (Jordan v. Georgia Power Com- pany and Oglethrope Power Company) the defendants won a court decision in May of 1994. That verdict, however, was overturned by the Georgia Court of Ap- peals in 1995. Now the utility must decide whether to appeal the reversal or go di- rectly to retrial. The cost of litigation is a

74 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY July/Augusi 1996

concern not only for utilities and their shareholders but for ratepayers as well. Litigation can lead to delays in the construction of needed facilities. Delays can increase costs, and presuming that the power lines are needed to support the transmission system, the functionality of the grid itself may be jeopardized. Good government policy may, to some extent, help or protect utilities from frivolous law suites. An example of this came in Febru- ary 1995, when the California Fourth Dis- trict Court of Appeals ruled that the CPUC was to deal with claims of personal injury and property damage from EMF exposure rather than the trial courts. The decision cited the CPUC’s work in developing a science-based EMF policy, as well as its statutory powers.

Government’s Role Regulators can bring three important

elements to an effective EMF policy. They can provide a degree of objectivity that cannot be claimed by profit driven utility businesses; they can create consistent statewide policy designed to serve equally all citizens; and they can provide for open and balanced public involve- ment.

The principle of prudent avoidance can work well as an interim policy if regulators take responsibility for mitigating exposure. The term itself, however, is not precise and is subject to individual inter- pretation. Regulators would need to define what is meant by prudent and must establish some rational measure of appropriate avoidance strategies. In Wisconsin, while the approach could be classified as prudent avoidance, we have avoided using the term. Rather than calling it prudent avoidance and then arguing over what is prudent and what is not, we instead de- scribe our policy in some detail. The Com- mission has developed an EMF brochure that discusses the scientific evidence, de- scribes the limits of the science, acknow- ledges the public’s concerns, discusses mitigation strategies, and lists the actions required of our utilities. For example, it is important for people to know that in making siting decisions, the Wisconsin Com- mission incorporates a project specific evaluation of EMF in all construction case proceedings. While providing this kind of detail is more difficult than simply saying we practice prudent avoidance, this approach is more effective and has worked well.

In general, a balanced interim EMF

policy for utility regulators, based on prudent avoidance, should contain the fol- lowing elements:

w A statement discussing the uncer- tainty of the science and an acknow- ledgement that there may be cause for concern. Agencies should continue to monitor research and regulatory developments in the United States and elsewhere. Statements on the scientific aspects should be updated regularly. The regulator should de- vise some way periodically to incor- porate public input. Focus groups, citizen advisory committees, or periodic technical and public hearings can be used to assess and include public input into ongoing policy development.

w A commitment to the idea that exposure to EMF from new transmission lines should be reduced where possible and be kept in balance with other considerations such as cost, need, functionality, safety, and environmental effects. The cost issue can be handled on a case by case basis or by setting a percentage cap on project costs.

w A commitment to provide balanced, accurate, and objective information about EMF to the public. This is an important task. A rational and balanced policy will be less effective if no one knows about it or understands it. It should be obvious that this requires an open and honest communication effort.

Where regulatory authority exists, utilities should be required or encouraged to:

m Provide, at no charge, in-home EMF measurements for customers upon request. Utilities should follow an ap- proved standard measurement proto- col in order to provide consistent treatment for all ratepayers. People receiving in-home measurements should be given a copy of the measurements taken and information about EMF.

w Collect information on magnetic fields around representative distribution and transmission facilities. Investigate and use practical and cost effective low-EMF power line designs

rn Report, in construction applications, the estimated EMF levels from proposed new power lines.

consider and report for power line approvals, estimated exposure to power line EMF for persons living along proposed routes. Sensitive ar-

eas, in particular, such as schools and day-care centers, should be identified. Alternative route options should be considered which reasonably reduce EMF exposure while balancing other important considerations. Contribute funds to the federally managed research program under RAPID.

Future EMF policy will depend on scientific discovery. If EMF is proven to be a health risk, then regulators will need to know who is at risk and under what conditions. Policy makers will also need to know the extent of that risk, demographic data on exposed populations, and what sources and levels of exposure are likely to cause problems. In a world were the EMF risk is proven, regulators will not only need to consider mitigation strategies for new power lines, but for existing power lines as well. In the case of existing lines, the balance between cost, environmental impact and human health will be difficult to strike. If the redesign of existing lines is necessary in the future, then it will be reasonable to focused first on areas where exposure might be considered criti- cal. This would include areas where lines are located near schools, day-care centers, playgrounds, and hospitals. Identifying these areas in advance would be helpful should actions prove necessary.

Restructuring the Electric Industry The current debate on restructuring the

electric industry has not considered the potential impact of EMF. The large verti- cally integrated electric companies of today are likely to undergo a massive change. Utilities may break apart into separate generation and line companies. Liability for EMF costs from exposure control and litigation would largely fall to transmission and perhaps distribution companies. These companies could be smaller compared to present day utilities and would likely have fewer financial resources. The potential impact on these new companies and on the cost of electric service has not been fully explored.

It is difficult to envision how market forces alone will be able to deal with this issue. Efficiencies theoretically available through competition may be difficult to achieve in the real world. If price competition allows excess generation to compete in more distant markets, larger and longer power lines are likely to be needed. Oppo- sition to these power lines may make the brave new world of electric competition

July/August 1996 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY 75

more difficult to achieve. At the very least, it is not hard to conclude that costs will

need to be in place as the industry is re- structured, in order to achieve a balanced treatment of health effects, cost, overall environmental impact, and system effi- ciency.

William A. Fannucchi is a wlldllfe biologist and

Plannlng analyst for the

mission of Wisconsin 119,1992 (PS CW). He has a 6. Broduer P: The Great Power-line Cover-up. Bachelors degree in Little, Brown and CO, New York NY, 1993. electronics from North- 7. Hendee WR. Boteler JC: The Ouestion of

4. Wertheimer N, Leeper E: Electric Wiring Configurations and Childhood Cancer. AM J

5 . Broduer P: Annals of Radiation The Cancer at rise. Effective regulatory policies will senior Environmental EPzdemlologY 7.467-481.

Public Service Corn- Slater School. The New Yoiker December 7 86-

Conclusion In states were EMF is a public concern,

it is reasonable and worthwhile to develop an interim EMF policy. For states where EMF has not been an issue, it is likely that a sound EMF policy would go a long way toward forestalling citizen fear and action against power line construction. In a time when individual and property rights issues are on the ascendance, an objective and balanced statewide EMF policy is essential for protecting both individual and larger societal interests.

For policy makers, the best outcome to this issue would be for the scientific community to eventually reach a clear consensus and conclude that exposure to power line EMF is not a risk to human health. Even a conclusion that there are real health effects would be something of a relief. At least we might have a clear understanding of the true nature of the problem so that we could focus on solutions. The scientific evidence I have seen to date, however, leads me to believe that this is not likely to happen any time soon. For the time being, policy makers will need to craft rational interim EMF policies, monitor scientific research, and share this information with the public. Perhaps public concern about EMF will wain. If not, then at some point it will be necessary for policy makers and scientists to work together to develop a regulatory consensus based on the best scientific knowledge available.

em Illinois University and a Masters de- g ree f rom the Univers i ty of Wisconsin-Stevens Point in Natural Re- sources-Wildlife Management.

Mr. Fannucchi has worked extensively on EMF issues, environmental analysis for power plant and transmission line siting, transmission system long range plan- ning, and biodiversity impacts related to electric utility infrastructure. Mr. Fannuc- chi is currently involved in the Commis- sion’s investigation into the restructuring of the electric industry and is part of a multidisciplinary team that has recently issued an environmental impact statement on industry restructuring in Wisconsin. Mr. Fannucchi has served as the PSCW’s lead on EMF issues since 1992. He can be reached at P.O. Box 7854, Madison WI. 53707-7854, Tel: (608) 267-3594, Fax: (608) 266-3957. E-mail: [email protected]

References 1. London SJ, Thomas DC, Bowman JD, Sobel E, Cheng TC, Peters JM, et al: Exposure to residential electric and Magnetic Fields and Risk of Childhood Leukemia. AM J . Epidemiology

2. Feychting M, Ahblom A: Magnetic Fields and Cancer in Children Residing Near Swedish High- Voltage Power Lines. A M / . Epidemiology 7:467- 481, 1993. 3. Feychting M, Ahlbom A: Magnetic Fields, Leukemia, and Central Nervous System Tumors in Swedish Adults residing near High-Voltage Power Lines. Epidemiology 5:501-509, 1994.

1341923-937, 1991.

Health Effects from Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields. Health Physics 66(2): 127-136. 8. Sheppard AR: Epidemiological and Labora- tory Research on the Potential Human Health Effects from Exposure to Power Frequency Elec- tric and Magnetic Fields. Background Paper Sub- mitted to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, St. Paul Minnesota, 1993.

9. Morgan G: Electric and Magnetic Fields From 60 Hertz Electric Power: What do We Know About Possible Health Risks? Depart. of Engi- neering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon Uni- versity, Pittsburgh, PA. 1989. 10. Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association: Effects of Elec- tric and Magnetic Fields. CSA Report 7-I-94, 1994. 11. EMF Information Project: An Overview of State & Local EMF Developments: 1993-94. (Available from the EMF Information Project. 2701 University Ave. SE Suite 203, Minneapolis Mn 55414)

12. US Environmental Protection Agency: Ques- tions and Answers about electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs). 1992.402-R-92-009. 13. US Environmental Protection Agency: EMF in Your Environment Magnetic Field Measure- ments of Everyday Electrical Devices. 1992.402- R-92-008. 14. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin: An Overview to EMF -Electric and Magnetic Fields. 1994. (Available from the Public Service Com- mission of Wisconsin, P.O. Box 7854, Madison WS 53707-7854).

15. Florig HK: Containing the Costs of the EMF Problem. 1992. Science 252:468-492. 16. Holmes P: How Prudent is Prudent Avoid- ance? Insider-PR. January 1994: 14-20.

76 IEEE ENGINEERING I N MEDICINE A N D BIOLOGY July/August 1996

Documents

Regulatory policy for EMF