Niagara Power Project FERC No. 2216
ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH,
SAFETY, AND SECURITY
HTML
Format. Text only
Prepared for: New York Power Authority
Prepared by: E/PRO Engineering & Environmental Consulting, LLC
August 2005
Copyright © 2005 New York Power Authority
___________________________________________________
ABBREVIATIONS
Agencies
CDHS California Department of Health Services
EEANY Environmental Energy Alliance of New York
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
IRM Installed Reserve Capacity
NERC North American Reliability Council
NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
NRPB National Radiological Protection Board
NYISO New York Independent System Operator
NYPA New York Power Authority
NYSRC New York State Reliability Council
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
WHO World Health Organization
Units of Measure
AC alternating current
gpm gallons per minute
G gauss
Hz hertz, cycles per second
km kilometer
kV kilovolt
kVA kilovolt-ampere
m milli (prefix for one-thousandth)
M mega (prefix for one million)
mgd million gallons per day
μ micro (prefix for one-millionth)
mG milligauss
mV millivolt
MV megavolt
mVA millivolt-ampere
MVA megavolt-ampere
MW megawatt
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
T tesla
V volt
VOC volatile organic compounds
V/m volts per meter
Regulatory
CEII Critical Energy Infrastructure Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
SEQRA State Environmental Quality Review Act
SPDES State Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Environmental
EMF electric and magnetic fields
ELF extremely low frequency
IPM Integrated Pest Management
IVM Integrated Vegetation Management
PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PEL Probable Effect Level
TEL Threshold Effect Level
Miscellaneous
CDS conduit drainage system
EAP Emergency Action Plan
FST Falls Street Tunnel
LUNR Land Use and Natural Resources Inventory
LWRP Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan
NMPC Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
ROW right–of-way
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
Electromagnetic Fields
Over the past three decades, there have been thousands of studies published related to possible health effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF). The studies have taken a variety of forms that can be categorized as animal studies, epidemiological studies, clinical studies, and cellular studies. Many of these studies have focused on the electric and magnetic fields associated with the 50- and 60-Hertz alternating current used in electric power systems (i.e., in the extremely low frequency range of the EMF spectrum). The EMF discussion presented in this report is largely compiled directly from comprehensive reviews and summaries of the literature.
Assessments of potential health risks due to EMF include numerous uncertainties. Comprehensive evaluations of published studies relating to the effects of power frequency electric and magnetic fields range from “…no conclusive and consistent evidence shows that exposure to residential electric and magnetic fields produce cancer, adverse neurobehavorial effects, or reproductive and developmental effects,” to “…there is a possibility that exposure to power frequency magnetic fields above 4 mG can increase the risk of leukemia in children.” Other conclusions state that “For most health outcomes, there is no evidence that EMF exposures have adverse effects.” and, “The best available evidence at this time leads to the conclusion that there is an association between measured magnetic fields and childhood leukemia, but the association is weak and it is not clear whether it represents a cause-and-effect relationship.”
There are no federal standards for limiting occupational or residential exposure to 60-Hz EMF. Some states, however, have adopted standards or guidelines for EMF exposure. New York State has adopted both electrical and magnetic field standards. Relevant measurements taken at the Niagara Power Project show that the Project is in compliance with the New York State standards.
EMF exposures are complex and come from multiple sources in the home and workplace in addition to power lines. Although scientists are still debating whether EMF is a hazard to health, several entities recommend that exercising prudent avoidance, that is limiting exposure by adopting simple, reasonable, practical, and inexpensive measures is a common sense thing to do.
Chemical Usage
New York Power Authority’s (NYPA) Niagara Power Project uses a series of industrial chemicals/substances that are typical of the utility sector. These chemicals and substances are in widespread use throughout the Niagara region and elsewhere wherever large rotating equipment is used and maintained and wherever electric power is generated and transmitted in large quantities.
NYPA has developed and implemented numerous policies and procedures regarding the safe handling, use, storage, transport, and disposal of chemicals and substances associated with the Niagara Power Project. These policies and procedures ensure that the Project is in full compliance with all applicable State and Federal regulations. In addition, NYPA staff members are thoroughly trained to deal with unforeseen spills and emergencies in the unlikely event that such situations should occur.
No radioactive materials have been, or are currently used, stored, generated, or buried at the Niagara Power Project facility or on Project lands.
As part of its preparation for the relicensing of the Niagara Power Project, NYPA has conducted numerous studies related to the ecological, engineering, recreational, cultural and socioeconomic aspects of the Project. Four of the studies, all related to the Lewiston Reservoir, were designated as potentially yielding valuable information relative to toxic substances or contaminants that might have adverse health effects. The four studies, Tetra Tech 2005, URS et al. 2003, ESI 2005, and Louis Berger 2005, and were conducted in 2002-2004.
Tetra Tech 2005 found that based on observed physical and chemical characteristics, it seems unlikely that drawdown would be a significant factor in enhancing the bioaccumulation of mercury in fish in the reservoir. Aqueous sampling in the reservoir indicated that most samples had concentrations below detection levels and that the one sample with detectable methylmercury had a very low concentration. Although there is very little aqueous phase mercury available, what is available supports the conclusion that Lewiston Reservoir is not a site of enhanced methylation. Nonetheless, fish throughout the Niagara River corridor and, indeed, throughout New York may have elevated levels of mercury due to the widespread nature of this metal. Therefore, any fish advisory that applies to the upper Niagara River should logically also apply to fish from Lewiston Reservoir.
For ESI 2005, sediment sampling was conducted in the Lewiston Reservoir, the forebay, and the upper and lower Niagara River. The sediment samples were analyzed for multiple constituents, including 18 priority toxic pollutants identified in the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan and five additional parameters of interest to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
The fine-grained sediment encountered in the Lewiston Reservoir was targeted in the study because its physical and chemical characteristics are more likely to contain chemical constituents thus providing a “worst case scenario”. The sediment obtained from the forebay was very coarse-grained (sand, gravel, and cobbles) and was very limited in volume. Consequently, forebay sediments were not assessed as to their chemical or physical quality.
In general, the constituents detected in the Lewiston Reservoir sediments (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mirex, arsenic, lead, and mercury) were also detected in the Niagara River sediments. The detected constituent levels in the Lewiston Reservoir samples were similar to, and in some instances considerably less than, the levels detected in the Niagara River sediments. With the exception of one PCB Aroclor (Aroclor 1242), there were no constituents detected in the Lewiston Reservoir that were not detected in the upper Niagara River and/or the lower Niagara River, upstream of the tailrace.
Due to natural partitioning processes assumed to have taken place in Lewiston Reservoir sediments, the fine-grained-nature of the sediments, the sediment organic carbon levels, the extremely low solubility’s of some of the chemicals of concern, and the pH of the overlying water, the presence of chemicals in bed sediments indicates they will remain there. In addition, designated sampling areas are depositional in nature, and likely serve as sinks for chemicals introduced into the reservoir.
URS et al. 2003 evaluated effects of Project operations on; (1) groundwater levels, flow, and quality in the vicinity of Lewiston Reservoir; (2) Groundwater infiltration into the Falls Street Tunnel (FST) near the intersection with the NYPA conduits; (3) overall groundwater levels, flow, and quality.
The study found that the effects of Lewiston Reservoir on groundwater include the following: the lateral extent of reservoir recharge influenced groundwater flow in the upper weathered bedrock zone extends approximately 1,500 feet to the east; this flow is limited to the north and east by groundwater flow divides; the presence of the reservoir likely acts to stabilize groundwater levels within this zone of influence; and the presence of the reservoir and project operations do not significantly adversely impact groundwater or surface water quality.
URS et al. 2003 also found that groundwater infiltration into the FST near the intersection of the NYPA conduits is estimated at an average of 4,500 gallons per minute (gpm) or 6.5 million gallons per day (mgd); infiltration varies directly with forebay water levels; and that approximately 75% of groundwater infiltration in this area is likely attributable to water flow through the conduit drainage system (CDS).
URS et al. 2003 further concluded that the influence of the NYPA conduits accounts for increased direct seepage of groundwater into the FST and that some of the water captured by the CDS also contributes to the FST seepage. The CDS terminates at Pump station B, where flow from the CDS into the conduits (and ultimately to the forebay) was estimated at approximately 7,000 gpm or 10 mdg. Operationally induced forebay level changes directly impact the rate of groundwater infiltration. Contaminants detected in the vicinity of the conduits were not, however, detected in forebay water samples.
Louis Berger 2005 postulated that the exposure of fish to contaminants in the Lewiston Reservoir is generally similar to the exposure of fish to contaminants in areas of the upper Niagara River and its tributaries with lower flow velocity and fine-grained sediment. Since exposure pathways in the Lewiston Reservoir and the Niagara River are also similar with regard to water, sediment, and prey items, the contaminant levels in fish in the two water bodies are expected to be within the same range. Because contaminant levels in fish living in the reservoir are expected to be similar to fish in the Upper Niagara River, the current health advisory provided by the New York State Department of Health for consumption of carp caught in the upper Niagara River should also be observed for carp caught from Lewiston Reservoir. In addition, any future advisories that may be developed for the river by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the New York State Department of Health should be considered applicable to Lewiston Reservoir fish.
Safety and Security
There are several safety issues inherent to hydropower projects and their associated facilities. For this reason, hydropower projects under FERC jurisdiction are subject to regular safety inspections by FERC inspectors. In addition, hydropower project licensees are required to hire an independent consultant to perform periodic safety inspections and reports. These reports result in recommendations aimed at correcting or improving safety-related issues found during inspections. FERC requires that each of these recommendations be addressed with corrective measures within a prescribed timeframe. The requirements of these regular safety inspections and periodic reports are defined in Chapter 18, Part 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). NYPA is in compliance with these requirements.
One safety issue related to dams is the possible sudden release of water and the significant increase in downstream hazard that could occur as a result of dam failure. For this reason, a facility capable of causing such impacts in the event of failure must design and maintain an Emergency Action Plan (EAP). This plan describes emergency measures to be enacted at the first sign of potential or imminent failure, for the purpose of minimizing downstream impacts. The EAP is comprehensively reviewed for adequacy on an annual basis. Requirements of the EAP are described in Chapter 18, Part 12 of the CFR. NYPA maintains a current EAP for the Project and is in compliance with these requirements.
Since September 11, 2001, security has been an issue of elevated concern nationwide. In an immediate effort to secure potentially sensitive information relative to hydropower facilities, FERC imposed rules regarding Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII). This measure retracted from public accessibility all documents that contain potentially sensitive information about the project, including some types of maps and descriptions of security measures. The provisions of the CEII rules, including information regarding stakeholder access to CEII, are outlined in Chapter 18, Part 388 of the CFR. NYPA complies with the provisions of these rules.
Also in response to heightened national security, the FERC developed the FERC Security Program for Hydropower Projects (Security Program, FERC 2002). This program requires that all hydropower licensees assess and address security issues at their projects to a degree consistent with the potential threat associated with that project, as determined by FERC. The Security Program includes regular security assessments performed by a FERC inspector. In addition, it prescribes certain safety measures to be enacted at all facilities during various degrees of national alert and guidelines for action in the event of a terrorist threat. The results and recommendations of security assessments are absolutely non-public. Information on safety measures (that are not readily visible) is also non-public. The FERC Security Program was developed and is monitored by a task force composed of about 23 members; two of who are NYPA employees. NYPA is in compliance with all requirements of the Security Program.
The most significant contributor to potential terrorist threat in the area of the Project appears to be associated with international border crossings. The area surrounding the Project harbors a number of other developments that may contribute minimally to the potential attraction of terrorism. These include other power facilities (chemical, nuclear and other), tourist destinations, an airport, and a military venue. The community has responded to security issues in the form of general preparation to deal with a possible attack. It is probable that if the Project did not exist, the community would not apply security-allocated funds any differently than it currently does. Available evidence indicates that the costs of providing local security-related services as a result of the Project are minimal..
If a failure of the Project facility that precluded its
ability to provide power were to occur, the lost generation would immediately
(within 10 minutes) and continuously be replaced pursuant to operating
criteria of the New York Independent
System Operator (NYISO).
The New York Power Authority (NYPA) is engaged in the relicensing of the Niagara Power Project in Lewiston, Niagara County, New York. The present operating license on the plant expires in August 2007. As part of it preparation for the relicensing of the Niagara Power Project, NYPA is developing/gathering information related to various aspects of the Project. As part of the Alternative Licensing Process, an assessment of potential impacts due to Project operations and facilities (e.g., transmission lines and substations within the Project boundary) on public health, safety, and security was identified as an issue that the stakeholders wished to have addressed. This report presents information that has been gathered for specific issues identified by the stakeholders: electromagnetic fields, toxic substances and contaminants, and safety and security issues. The report provides an assessment of this information as it relates to the Niagara Power Project.
Over the past three decades, there have been thousands of studies published in the peer-reviewed literature relating to possible health effects associated with electric and magnetic fields. This body of research includes studies on cells and cellular systems, whole animals, and human volunteers, as well as epidemiology studies of the rates of disease in human populations exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMF) at home and at work. Many of these studies have focused on the electric and magnetic fields associated with the 50- and 60- Hertz (Hz) alternating current (AC) used in electric power systems.
The EMF discussion presented in this report is largely compiled directly from comprehensive reviews and summaries of the literature on the potential impacts, if any, that electromagnetic fields might have on human beings. Primary among the sources include: NIEHS 2002; WHO 1999; WHO 2002; Moulder 2004; NRC 1997; and Kheifets 2001.
Electric and magnetic fields or electromagnetic fields (EMF) are invisible lines of force that occur wherever there is electricity. Sources of EMF include power lines, radio and microwave towers, household appliances such as clothes dryers, hair dryers, toasters, stoves and televisions, and electrical office equipment. Electric fields are produced by differences in voltage and they increase in strength as voltage increases. Electric fields are measured in units of volts per meter (V/m). Magnetic fields result from the flow of current through wires or electrical devices, and they increase in strength as the current increases. Magnetic fields are measured in units of gauss (G) or tesla (T). An electric field exists when an appliance is connected to the source of electric power i.e., “plugged in” regardless of whether any current is flowing. The magnetic field exists only when the appliance is “turned on” so that current is flowing. Both electric fields and magnetic fields decrease in strength rapidly as the distance from the source increases.
Electric and magnetic fields can be characterized by their wavelength, frequency, and amplitude (strength). Wavelength describes the distance between peaks along the sinusoidal waveform produced by electromagnetic fields. The frequency of the field, measured in Hertz (Hz), describes the number of cycles that occur in one second. The electromagnetic spectrum encompasses a very wide range of frequencies (0 to 1022+ Hz). Within this spectrum, various frequencies are characterized as extremely low frequency waves, very low frequency waves, radio waves, microwaves infrared radiation, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays, and gamma rays (see Figure 2.1.1-1). Alternating current (AC) electric power produced in North America alternates at a rate of 60 cycles per second, or 60 Hz and as such is in the extremely low frequency (ELF) range (3-3,000Hz). In many other parts of the world (e.g., Europe) the frequency of AC electric power is 50 Hz.
In the ELF range, electric and magnetic fields are not coupled or interrelated in the same way that they are at higher frequencies. Thus, it is more appropriate to refer to them as “electric and magnetic fields” rather than “electromagnetic fields”. In the popular press, however, both terms are typically abbreviated as EMF.
Electromagnetic fields occur in nature, light being its most familiar form, and thus have always been present on earth. During the twentieth century, however, environmental exposure to man-made sources of EMF steadily increased due to electricity demand, ever-advancing wireless technologies and changes in work practices and social behavior. Everyone is exposed to a complex mix of electric and magnetic fields at many different frequencies, at home and at work.
Potential health effects of man-made EMF have been a topic of scientific interest since the late 1800s and have received particular attention during the past 30 years. There have been thousands of studies published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature over the past three decades, relating to possible health effects of power frequency EMF. This research includes studies on cells and cellular systems, whole animals, and human volunteers, as well as epidemiology studies on the rates of disease in human populations exposed to EMF at home and at work.
Electrical currents exist naturally in the human body and are an essential part of normal bodily functions. All nerves relay their signals by transmitting electric impulses. Most biochemical reactions, from those associated with digestion to those involved in brain activity, involve electrical processes. The effect of external exposure to EMF on the human body and its cells depends mainly on the EMF frequency and magnitude, or strength. Low frequency electric fields are readily shielded and do not penetrate the body significantly, but they do build up a charge on its surface. As a result, electric currents flow from the skin to the ground (earth). In an alternating electric field (AC current), the currents flowing in the body change direction as the surface of the body builds up a charge on it that is alternatively positive and negative. In some alternating electric fields, for example beneath power lines, some people can feel the alternating charge when the hair on their body begins to vibrate. This is not harmful, but it can be annoying.
Low frequency magnetic fields can easily penetrate the body causing circulating currents to flow within in it. These currents do not necessarily flow to ground. If sufficiently large, the currents could cause stimulation of nerves and muscles and affect other biological processes.
Heating is the main biological effect of high frequency EMF (as employed in microwave ovens). At the even higher frequencies of ionizing radiation (e.g., X-rays or gamma rays) the chemical bonds within molecules can be broken and a cell’s genetic material can be damaged. The low ELF’s produced by electric transmission lines are called “non-ionizing” because they are far too weak to break molecular bonds. In fact, ELF’s have quantum energies that are more than a trillion times lower than ionizing radiation.
Over the past 30 years, thousands of EMF related studies have been performed, especially in Europe and the United States. These studies have taken a variety of forms that can be categorized as animal studies, epidemiological studies, clinical studies, and cellular studies.
Laboratory studies with cells and animals can provide evidence to help determine if an agent such as EMF causes disease. Cellular studies can increase our understanding of the biological mechanisms by which disease occurs. Experiments with animals provide a means to observe effects of specific agents under carefully controlled conditions. Neither cellular nor animal studies, however, can recreate the complex nature of the whole human organism and its environment. Therefore, one must use caution in applying the results of cellular or animal studies directly to humans or concluding that a lack of an effect in laboratory studies proves that an agent is safe. Even with these limitations, cellular and animal studies have proven very useful for identifying and understanding the toxicity of numerous chemicals and physical agents.
Very specific laboratory conditions are needed for researchers to be able to detect EMF effects, and experimental exposures are not easily comparable to human exposures. In most cases, it is not clear how EMF actually produces the effects observed in some experiments. Without understanding how the effects occur, it is difficult to evaluate how laboratory results relate to human health effects.
Some laboratory studies have reported that EMF exposure can produce biological effects, including changes in functions of cells and tissues, and subtle changes in hormone levels in animals. It is important to distinguish between a biological effect and a health effect. Many biological effects are within the normal range of variation and are not necessarily harmful. For example, bright light has a biological effect on our eyes, causing the pupils to constrict, which is a normal and non-harmful response.
In clinical studies, researchers use sensitive instruments to monitor human physiology during controlled exposure to environmental agents. In EMF studies, volunteers are exposed to electric or magnetic fields at higher levels than those commonly encountered in everyday life. Researchers measure heart rate, brain activity, hormonal levels, and other factors in exposed and unexposed groups to look for differences resulting from the EMF exposure.
A valuable tool to identify human health risks is to study a human population that has experienced the exposure. This type of research is called epidemiology. Epidemiological studies observe and compare groups of people who have had or have not had certain diseases and exposures to see if the risk of disease is different between the exposed and unexposed groups. The epidemiological studies do not control the exposure and cannot experimentally control all the factors that might affect the risk of disease.
In 1979, concern about the link between cancer and public exposures to magnetic fields arose because of a study by Wertheimer and Leeper (1979) on the incidence of childhood cancer in Denver, CO. This study, and the public and media interest it generated, stimulated most of the scientific research that followed. Although the earliest studies suggested an association between EMF exposure and all forms of childhood cancer, those initial findings have not been confirmed by other studies.
Summary conclusions of several major review studies are presented below.
In October 1996, the National Research Council committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NRC 1997) released its evaluation of research on potential associations between EMF exposure and cancer, reproduction, development, learning, and behavior. The report concluded:
Based on a comprehensive evaluation of published studies relating to the effects of power frequency electric and magnetic fields on cells, tissues, and organisms (including humans), the conclusion of the committee is that the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human health hazard. Specifically, no conclusive and consistent evidence shows that exposures to residential electric and magnetic field produce cancer, adverse neurobehavioral effects, or reproductive and developmental effects.
In June 1999, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), a branch of the U.S. National Institutes of Health reported to Congress that scientific evidence for an EMF-cancer link is weak. An excerpt from the 1999 report, which may be accessed via NIEHS 2002, reads:
The NIEHS believes that the probability that EMF-ELF exposure is truly a health hazard is currently small. The weak epidemiological associations and lack of any laboratory support for these associations provide only marginal, scientific support that exposure to this agent is causing any degree of harm.
The scientific evidence suggesting that extremely low frequency EMF exposures pose any health risk is weak. The strongest evidence for health effects comes from associations observed in human populations with two forms of cancer: childhood leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia in occupationally exposed adults. While the support for individual studies is weak, the epidemiological studies demonstrate, for some methods of measuring exposure, a fairly consistent pattern of a small, increased risk with increasing exposure that is somewhat weaker for chronic lymphocytic leukemia than for childhood leukemia. In contrast, the mechanistic studies and the animal toxicology literature fail to demonstrate any consistent pattern across studies, although sporadic findings of biological effects (including increased cancers in animals) have been reported. No indication of increased leukemias in experimental animals has been observed.
In 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the International Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Project to address the health issues associated with exposure to EMF. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a specialized research agency of WHO, has concluded the first step in WHO’s health risk assessment process by classifying ELF fields with respect to the strength-of-the-evidence that they could cause cancer in humans. Using the standard IARC classification that weighs human, animal and laboratory evidence, ELF magnetic fields were classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans based on epidemiological studies of childhood leukemia. Evidence for all other cancers in children and adults was considered not classifiable either due to insufficient or inconsistent scientific information.
“Possibly carcinogenic to humans” is a classification used to denote an agent for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in experimental animals. This classification is the weakest of three categories (“is carcinogenic to humans”, probably carcinogenic to humans”, and “possibly carcinogenic to humans”) used by the IARC to classify potential carcinogens based on published scientific evidence. Some examples of well-known agents that have been classified by IARC are shown in Table 2.1.4-1.
A review by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (2001) concluded that:
In the absence of evidence from cellular or animal studies, and given the methodological uncertainties and in many cases inconsistencies of the existing epidemiological literature, there is no chronic disease for which an etiological [causal] relation to [power-frequency fields] can be regarded as established.
In May 2003, the U.K. National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) released a “Consultation Document” which reviews the body of EMF research and makes exposure recommendations (NRPB 2001). A key conclusion from the NRPB Consultation Document is that:
Recent expert reviews have identified an apparent increased risk of childhood leukemia with time-weighted exposure to power frequency magnetic fields above 4mG. While this evidence is inconclusive as to whether magnetic fields actually cause childhood leukemia, there is a “possibility” that exposure to power frequency magnetic fields above 4mG can increase the risk of leukemia in children.
In June 2002, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) issued an updated version of its public information booklet on EMF (NIEHS 2002). The NIEHS booklet seeks to provide plain language answers for the public on questions about sources and levels of EMF exposures at home and work, as well as the state of EMF research, exposure standards and conclusions of scientific reviews. Key points from the NIEHS EMF Q&A booklet include:
Initial studies of the health effects of EMF did not provide straightforward answers. The study of possible health effects of EMF has been particularly complex and the results have been reviewed by expert scientific panels in the United States and other countries. Although questions remain about the possibility of health effects related to EMF, recent reviews have substantially reduced the level of concern….
For most health outcomes, there is no evidence that EMF exposures have adverse effects. The best available evidence at this time leads to the conclusion that there is an association between measured magnetic fields and childhood leukemia, but the association is weak and it is not clear whether it represents a cause-and-effect relationship. The association is difficult to interpret in the absence of reproducible laboratory evidence or a scientific explanation that links magnetic fields with childhood leukemia….
At present, the available series of studies indicates no association between EMF exposure and childhood cancers other than leukemia and that there have been no proven instances of cancer clusters linked with EMF exposure.
In October 2002, the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) issued a report on EMF health risks (Neutra et al. 2002). The CDHS EMF report was prepared by three staff scientists at the California Health Program, in consultation with other CDHS scientists and an independent Scientific Advisory Panel of scientists and researchers from universities and other organizations in California. The CDHS Report concludes in part that: “To one degree or another, all three of the CDHS scientists are inclined to believe that EMFs can cause some degree of increased risk of childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer and Lou Gehrig’s Disease, and miscarriage.” Under the IARC cancer evaluation scheme, the CDHS researchers classify EMF as a “possible to known” cause of childhood and adult leukemia, and a possible cause of adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig’s disease, and miscarriage. The researchers “strongly” believe that EMF exposure is not a “universal” carcinogen and is not a risk factor for birth defects or low birth weight. The researchers are “inclined to believe” that EMF exposure is not a risk factor for breast cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s Disease, depression, or “electrosensitivity”.
In the United States, there are no federal standards limiting occupational or residential exposure to 60-Hz EMF. At least six states, however, have set standards for transmission line electric fields; two of these also have standards for magnetic fields (see Table 2.1.5.1-1). In most cases, the maximum fields permitted by each state are the maximum fields that existing lines produce at maximum load-carrying conditions. Some states, such as New York, further limit electric field strength at road crossings to ensure that electric current induced into large metal objects, such as trucks and buses, does not represent an electric shock hazard. The New York State guidelines require new transmission lines to be designed so that the maximum magnetic field at the edge of the right-of-way will not exceed that produced by the average 345-kilovolt line now in operation. This interim magnetic field standard of 200 milligauss at the edge of right-of-way applies when the line is operating at the highest continuous current rating. This rating is rarely reached during normal operations and thus routine operations usually create much lower magnetic fields. The New York State standard for electric fields is 1.6 kilovolts per meter at the edge of transmission line rights-of-way for power lines built since the 1970’s. The 345 kV transmission lines operated by NYPA within the Project Boundary meet both the electric and magnetic field standards established by New York State.
International guidelines on exposure limits for all EMF have been developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a non-governmental organization partner in WHO’s International EMF Project. The ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure for 60 Hz magnetic and electric fields are 0.84 G and 4.2 kV/m, respectively. Limits of EMF exposure recommended in many countries are broadly similar to those of ICNIRP. While the ICNIRP guidelines for EMF exposure are based on comprehensive reviews of the full rang