Loading...
Jefferson/PP-CS 940914JPI Texas Development, Inc. P.O. BOX 619208 · DALLAS, TEXAS 75261-9208 September 14, 1994 VIA COURIER Mr. Gary Sieb Director of Planning and Community Services City of Coppell Planning & Zoning Commission 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019 RE: Jefferson at Riverchase (386 Units) Approximately 21 Acres on the East Side of MacArthur Blvd., 400' North of Riverchase Drive Coppell, Texas Dear Mr. Sieb: In preparation for the Planning and Zoning Commission's Public Hearing on September 15, 1994 during which you will be reviewing the Preliminary Plat for the Jefferson at Riverchase project (Item #12), we wanted to provide you with some information regarding JPI's research of electric and magnetic fields (EMF). During a previous Planning and Zoning heating this issue came up. We believe our company has prudent guidelines for development near power lines and employs experienced consultants and professionals who take great care to insure us, our lenders and investors that our developments offer a practical living environment. Enclosed is a letter from JPI's attorney, Mark Story of Locke Purnell Rain Harrell, who specializes in environmental issues. This letter describes the professional analysis performed with respect to the power lines that are adjacent to the subject site. Hopefully, this information will help to answer any questions that you may have. Sincerely, Heather C. Finlay O Acquisitions/Development Associate (214) 556-3759 /hcf CC: Robert D. Page Guy E. Brignon 600 EAST LAS COLINAS BLVD. · CIGNA TOWER, SUITE 1800 ,, IRVING, TEXAS 75039 ° (214) 556-1700 ° FAX (214) 556-3784 LAW OFFICES OF LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL (A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION) 2200 ROSS AVENUE · SUITE 2200 DALLAS - TEXAS 75201.6776 (214) 740.8000 FAX: (214) 740.8800 TELEX: 73.0911 LOCKE DAL WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER NEW ORLEANS OFFICE 601 POYDRAS STREET · SUITE 2400 NEW ORLEANS · LOUISIANA 70130-6036 (504) 558-5100 214-740-8590 September 14, 1994 Ms. Marsha Tunnell, Chairperson City of Coppell Planning & Zoning Commission 137 Glenwood Coppell, TX 75019 Mr. George Redford City of Coppell Planning & Zoning Commission 469 Phillips Drive Coppell, TX 75019 Mr. Don Meador, Vice Chairperson City of Coppell Planning & Zoning Commission 224 East Bethel Road Coppell, TX 75019 Mr. Carl Thompson City of Coppell Planning & Zoning Commission 714 Beal Lane Coppell, TX 75019 Mr. Stan Lowry City of Coppell Planning & Zoning Commission 843 Lakeview Drive Coppell, TX 75019 Mr. Larry Wheeler City of Coppell Planning & Zoning Commission 718 Swallow Coppell, TX 75019 Mr. Raymond Hildebrand City of Coppell Planning & Zoning Commission 611 Allen Road Coppell, TX 75019 Mr. Gary Sieb Director of Planning and Community Services City of Coppell Planning & Zoning Commission 255 Parkway Blvd. Coppell, TX 75019 Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Coppell, September 15, 1994 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 12: Proposed "Jefferson at Riverchase" Apartments (the "Project"), consisting of 386 proposed units to be developed on 21 acres on the east side of McArthur Boulevard, 400' north of Riverchase Drive A TRADITION OF SERVICE SINCE 1891 September 14, 1994 Page 2 ISSUE: Electromagnetic Fields CEMF'') from High Voltage Transmission Lines - Summary of the investigations conducted by JPI Texas Development, Inc. ("JPI") Dear Members of the Commission: I am a lawyer and a shareholder in the law firm of Locke Purnell Rain Harrell (A Professional Corporation). My practice emphasizes environmental issues and, in the capacity of an environmental lawyer, I was asked by JPI to provide it with advice concerning the development of the Project. Specifically, I was asked to advise JPI on the appropriate considerations for developing the Project in light of the presence of electrical transmission lines along the eastern boundary of the Project. JPI has asked that I provide you with a summary of the methodology JPI and I employed in analyzing the impact of the transmission lines on the Project and the conclusions of this analysis. Before I proceed with this summary, it might be helpful: (1) to provide a brief synopsis of our ultimate conclusions; (2) to define a few common terms and concepts; (3) to provide a general description of the electrical transmission lines adjacent to the Project and the location of the building setback line for the Project; and (4) to describe the results of EMF studies prepared for JPI specifically for the Project. I. SYNOPSIS OF CONCLUSION From a practical standpoint, the goal of my involvement has been to assist JPI in determining the appropriate location of the building setback line for those buildings that would be closest to the transmission lines. Our conclusion is that the building setback line of 150' from the right-of-way boundary selected by JPI is very conservative and reasonable. We determined that the intensity of thc magnetic field at this 150' setback linc was approximately one-half of the only legal standard in the United States of which we are aware that regulates the development of real estate adjacent to transmission lines. We also determined that the intensity of the magnetic field at this 150' setback line was within the same range as the field generated by common electrical appliances and the same range as background levels in many urban areas. Finally, we reached the same conclusion as several recent '"olue-ribbon" panels convened by Texas and other states that the medical and scientific literature did not provide a sufficient consistency of conclusions to be relied upon even to justify setting any standard at all, much less provide any guidance as to what the standard, if any, should be. September 14, 1994 Page 3 Finally, we also determined that, like these same '"olue-ribbon" panels, it would be appropriate to follow a course of "prudent avoidance." This policy can be paraphrased as a "hedge" against the possibility that some day EMF from transmission lines might be determined to be dangerous to human health. It is also a "hedge" against the perception that EMF may be dangerous to human health. JPI employed a "prudent avoidance" policy to move the building setback line from the permissible 60' to its present 150' to avoid even any perception that EMF could be a concern for residents of the Project and to avoid any risk to these residents in the event EMF from transmission lines someday is determined to be a concern. We also took into consideration that if the intensity of the magnetic field at the 150' setback line is ever determined to be a concern, it is reasonable to assume that utility companies, not private property owners, would be charged with the responsibility of reducing this intensity. II. DEFINITIONS Electrical Field -- Magnetic Field -- Comparison of Electric Field and Magnetic Field - - Electrical fields, measured in volts, such as a 110 volt household appliance, are present whether or not an appliance is actually turned on. Magnetic fields, measured in milliGauss (mG), are created when the electrical current begins to move. Electric fields do not penetrate objects. Magnetic fields are generally not blocked, but their intensity falls off dramatically by distance. Electric fields are the forces that electrical charges (positive or negative) exert on other charges at a distance because they are charged. Forces of attraction and repulsion spread from charge to charge throughout the field. When the charges move, they create additional forces on each other. A magnetic field is the force that a charge exerts on another charge because it is moving. Electric fields move from positive to negative. Magnetic fields form closed continuous loops around currents. September 14, 1994 Page 4 Electromagnetic Spectrum Alternating Current Power Frequency -- High Voltage Transmission Lines -- Modem physics has divided a wide range of energy forms and ranked them by length or frequency of the wave (frequency is how many wave peaks pass through a given point in a second of time). At the high end of the spectrum are gamma rays, x-rays or ultraviolet rays, known as "ionizing radiation" that can penetrate virtually any object, produce heat and change molecular structure. In the middle are radon, sunlight, microwaves, radio and television signals. At the lower end of the electromagnetic spectrum are the low or "extremely low" energy fields or '~_JW." They are not considered radiation at all but are sometimes referred to as "non-ionizing radiation." In the U.S., our electrical power is provided at a frequency of 60,000 cycles per second, or 60-Hertz (Hz). 60-Hz electrical power is considered ELF. In fact, at this low end of the spectrum the electrical field and the magnetic field operate independently. A combined term used to refer to electric and magnetic fields. Transmission lines run from the electrical generation source, that is, the power plant, to the transmission station and then from the transmission station to a distribution station. September 14, 1994 Page 5 HI. Transmission lines are installed on large steel latticed towers. 230-kV lines are mounted on towers ranging from 85' to 115' in height and are separated at intervals/ of 900'-1150'. 170' in height and are generally placed at! 1150' intervals. Typical rights-of-way widths for 230-kV lines is 90'-125' and for 500-kV lines is 100'-165'. A DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE AND THE HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES ADJACENT TO THE PRO~ECT A right-of-way, which is 130' feet in width and is owned by TU Electric, runs along the eastern boundary of the Project. Located within this right-of-way are four high voltage transmission towers. Six "Circuits" (which consist of three wires each) are installed on the towers. Five of the Circuits are 134 kiloVolt Circuits, and the farthest Circuit to the west is a 345 kiloVolt Circuit. It is important to emphasize that magnetic fields do not necessarily increase because of the number of Circuits. In fact, the magnetic field from one Circuit can cancel out the field from another Circuit. Although JPI would be allowed to construct apartments within 60' feet of its common boundary with the right-of-way, JPI voluntarily elected, after studying the EMF issues, to utilize a setback of approximately 150'. This setback is 225' feet from the center of the right-of-way and is 190-200' from the closest Circuit. IV. EMF STUDIES PREPARED FOR JPI The first study of the intensity of the EMF at the Project was performed for JPI by Southwestern Laboratories, Inc. CSWL") in March of 1994. In this study, SWL established three imaginary lines ('Transepts") in the field perpendicular to the transmission lines. The Transepts were approximately 200' apart. SWL took seven readings along each Transept every hour for twelve hours, commencing at 5:00a:m. in the morning and finishing at 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon. The readings were taken at 50' intervals along the Transepi2 At the 200' station, which would be approximately equivalent to the current building setback line, the highest reading was 0.88 milliOaus and the lowest was 0.548 milliOaus. The second study at the Project was significantly more sophisticated and was performed for JPI by Electric Research & Management, Inc. ("ERM") of Felton, California in July of 1994. In this study, ERM requested and obtained information from TU Electric concerning: the physical configuration of the Circuits, including spacing and the height above the ground; the estimated currents for maximum and minimum demand periods for 1994; actual measured currents for the twelve month period ending in July of 1994; and September 14, 1994 Page 6 estimated changes in the loads on the Circuits projected for the next 10 years. The purpose of this study was to take into consideration that the magnetic field generated by transmission wires will vary from hour to hour, day to day, and month to month and to develop a time- weighted average ('~¥A") for the intensity of the magnetic field at the building setback line. To calculate the TWA, ERM utilized a commercially available software program. This program and the ERM study rely on the fact that, if the actual current load of the Circuits and their physical configuration is known, the magnetic field can be calculated mathematically in accordance with well-established principles of electrophysics. This study concluded that for the 12 month period ending in July of 1994 the TWA of the magnetic field was approximately 1.5 milliGaus at the 150' building setback line. The study further concluded that this TWA was not likely to change over the next 10 years. V. ANALYSIS OF THE EMF ISSUES AT THE PROJECT In determining the appropriate setback line for the Project in light of the results of these studies, JPI and I took into consideration several factors: (1) a comparison of the anticipated milliGaus levels at the setback line to the intensity generated by common electrical appliances and general background levels in urban areas; (2) a comparison of the anticipated milliGaus levels to any applicable legal standards; and (3) a comparison of the anticipated levels to the results of scientific studies. A. COMPARISON TO COMMON ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES AND BACKGROUND LEVELS When compared to the magnetic fields generated by common electrical appliances and to general background levels, the TWA of 1.5 milliGaus at the building setback line is extremely low. For example, a child playing a video game and sitting within 2 feet of a television screen is exposed to approximately 1.6 milliGaus. The magnetic field of a computer terminal at arms length is approximately 2 milliGaus. It is also not unusual in urban settings to have background levels in excess of 2 milliGaus. One study estimated that 15% of the homes in America have background levels in excess of 2 milliGaus. As Mr. Gregory Rauch, the president of ERM, has stated, if a magnetic field of less than 2 milliGaus were ever utilized as a legal standard, substantially all of America would have to re-wired. September 14, 1994 Page 7 Thus, this comparison of the TWA at the building setback line to these commonplace levels of EMF generated by appliances or present as a background level led JPI and me to the conclusion that the positioning of the setback line was very reasonable and conservative. B. COMPARISON TO LEGAL STANDARDS It is very difficult to find an expert on the impact of EMF on real estate development because a full understanding of its impact cuts across several complex and esoteric scientific disciplines: electrophysics, biology, toxicology and epidemiology. No one expert can master all of these disciplines and, neither I, nor anyone at JPI, purports to be an expert in any of these disciplines. I am, however, qualified to research and comment upon the legal regulation of EMF. I performed this research for JPI and my findings are summarized in the attached "SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF REVIEW OF LEGAL STANDARDS FOR EMF." As set forth in this attached Summary, there is no statute or regulation promulgated by the State of Texas, and to my knowledge, no ordinance of any county or municipality in Texas, which establishes legal standards for EMF. In Texas, as well as in several other states that have recently commissioned and received reports from commissions that performed reviews of all available scientific information, the Texas Public Utilities Commission concluded in 1992 that there was insufficient scientific consensus on the issue to justify setting any standards. We performed a computer database search of the statutes of all fifty states and did not find any standards for EMF except for New York and Florida that have established requirements for utility companies for the siting of utility lines. These standards were essentially arrived at by establishing a limit that was above the then current levels of magnetic field intensity in order to prevent any significant increases above then current levels. This limit has had no practical impact on utility companies. The most stringent of these standards requires that the magnetic field at the edge of the right-of-way may not exceed 150 milliGaus. By contrast, as stated earlier, the TV~A of the magnetic field at the building setback line at the Project has been determined to be 1.5 milliGaus. As described in the enclosed Summary, rather than establish standards, several states have adopted a "prudent avoidance" strategy and simply stated that EMF should be taken into consideration in the siting decisions of utility companies. It should be emphasized that, according to our research, no state has established standards that impact the development of real property. The states that have addressed the EMF issue have only elected to regulate utility companies and their siting decisions. September 14, 1994 Page 8 Except for the impractical process of actually contacting every city and county in the country, it is not possible to perform comprehensive research into the actions of all counties and municipalities in every state; in fact, there is no central depository of such information even for Texas. Thus, for a review of what has been done at the local level throughout the country, we relied on a computer search of the popular and business press over a several year period. The results of this review are also set forth in the attached Summary. We found only one city in the United States that has been reported to have passed an ordinance that regulates the development of property near a high voltage line. The City of Irvine in California has passed an ordinance that is applicable to only two residential areas in the city. The provision of the zoning code does not allow any residential living area or child care facility to be within a 4 milliGauss magnetic field contour line of a Circuit, based on the typical annual mean load of the Circuit. We found one other city, Brentwood, Tennessee, a suburb of Memphis, that is attempting to regulate utility companies. Its ordinance provides that no utility company may allow "spillage in excess of 4 milligauss beyond the legal right-of-way boundaries" of utility transmission corridors. Utility companies have until 1995 to bring any existing lines into compliance. Finally, we utilized the same method of reviewing the popular and business media to determine whether any other countries in the world have adopted EMF standards that impact the development of real estate. We found none. In fact, according to one press release, several European countries elected in 1993, after studying the issue, not to regulate EMF. Only one country, Sweden, is reportedly considering setting a standard. Although this information has not been confirmed by me, one article suggests that Sweden is "considering" a requirement of 2 milliGaus for residential areas. It is not clear how serious this "consideration" is or whether it applies to utility companies or developers. In summary, we found the lack of regulation very significant. The scientific community may and will continue to debate and research EMF issues for years to come; however, it is apparent that the current weight of scientific evidence has not been sufficient to convince any state, and apparently only one city, to set standards for real estate development. In light of this lack of regulation, and the results of the studies performed for JPI, if JPI elected to establish the building setback line at 60', JPI would be in compliance with every state in the United States, and every city known to us, except for two areas within the City of Irvine. In fact, at 60', JPI would almost comply with the 4 milliGaus requirement established by the City of Irvine. Nevertheless, JPI has elected to establish the building setback line at 150'. At this setback line, JPI complies with the most stringent, in fact, the only, known federal, state, or local ordinance regulating the development of property near September 14, 1994 Page 9 high voltage lines. In fact, the TWA at the building setback line is less than one-half of the requirements of this ordinance. Of course, legal standards are not just established by federal and state legislatures, state agencies, and county and municipal boards and councils. Legal standards are also established by the courts. Based on our research, there is not a single reported decision in which a plaintiff even sought to recover damages from the owner of an apartment complex for damages allegedly suffered as a result of proximity to high voltage wires. It is not difficult to see why. First, it has simply not yet been established that the EMF from power lines could ever be the source of a particular disease. More importantly, the source of the EMF is not coming from any property owned by or controlled by the apartment owner. The source is owned and operated by the utility company. Moreover, the source of the EMF, namely large metal towers, are open and obvious and in plain view. The only cases brought to date that have alleged that a disease was caused by the plaintiff living dose to a high voltage line have been brought by the owners of single family homes against a utility company. Only two of these cases have made it to trial and the utility company won a jury verdict in both cases. In the attached Summary, I summarize the reported EMF cases found as a result of our research. Thus, since no case law exists which suggests that an apartment owner might have liability for the exposure of residents to EMF, and no sound legal theory exists which could be the basis for such liability, we have no reason to base a decision on the appropriate location of the setback line on any legal standards set by any court. There simply are no such judicially created standards. C. COMPARISON TO SCIENTIFIC STUDIES The most difficult comparison of all to make is a comparison to any standards established by scientific studies. As stated earlier, I am not a scientist; nevertheless, anyone that reviews the EMF issue with an open mind would have to conclude that there is not even a consensus on whether the EMF generated by high voltage lines is even dangerous to human health; there is not a consensus on how it is even biologically possible for EMF to be dangerous to human health; and there is no consensus on whether the various epidemiological studies that have been performed on this issue have any value or not. The scientific community cannot set a scientific standard until it establishes whether EMF is dangerous, and, if it is, at what levels of intensity and duration of exposure. The scientific community cannot establish "safe" levels until it first establishes whether EMF from high voltage wires is dangerous. We enclose a recent editorial from the Wall Street Journal that expresses this same observation even more forcefully. September 14, 1994 Page 10 Because of this lack of consensus, it is accurate to conclude that there are simply no established scientific standards which are available for guidance for JPI. VI. CONCLUSION In summary, we have concluded that the most appropriate standard for determining the position for the building setback line is a legal standard and a "prudent avoidance" standard. Since there are no applicable legal standards in Texas or in Coppell, JPI takes comfort in the fact that its choice of a setback line results in a magnetic field that is less than one-half of the only known legal standard in the United States for developing property adjacent to high voltage lines. JPI takes further comfort from the fact that the magnetic field at the setback line is similar to the intensity generated by many electrical appliances and similar to the prevailing background levels in many urban areas. Finally, the use of a "prudent avoidance" strategy by JPI is consistent with the approach suggested by many states. JPI has thoroughly studied the current and future level of magnetic field intensity and has systemically arrived at a location for its building setback line that is very reasonable and conservative by any relevant standard of comparison. If you have any questions, I will be glad to address them at the meeting. rely, Mark T. Story MTS/cv J-PI TEXAS DEVELOPMENT, INC. SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF REVIEW OF LEGAL STANDARDS FOR EMF JULY 1, 1994 Introduction: In July of 1994, Locke Purnell Rain Harrell (A Professional Corporation) performed for JPI a computer search of (1) recent articles in the popular and business media concerning EMF; and (2) the statutes of all fifty states, for the purpose of determining the existence of EMF regulations at federal, state, or local levels. This search did not include a review of scientific or medical journals. The following summarizes all of the legal standards for EMF identified by this search. I. Examples of Public Sector "Prudent Avoidance" Strategy A. State Reeulafion of Siting of Transmission Lines Florida: Florida Administrative Code Annotated, Title 17; Department of Environmental Regulation; Chapter 17-814 Electric and Magnetic Fields For new (3/21/89) transmission lines operating at its Maximum Current Rating ('~ICR"), which is the maximum quantity of electric current, expressed in amperes, that can be continuously carried on the conductors, the maximum magnetic field at the edge of the "Right-of- Way" shall not exceed 150 milligauss for a 230 KV or smaller line or 200 milligauss for a 500 KV line. Magnetic field calculations will be based on the following assumptions; the conductor will be at its mhnimum clearance to the earth; currents will be assumed to be balanced in phase and in magnitude with no zero-sequence current. Right-of-way generally means closer of.' fifty feet from the point beneath the outmost conductor or nearest residential, commercial or industrial building. 2. New York: Similar to Florida; 200 mG at the edge of transmission right-of-way. B. State Regulations of School Sitin~ Ce 1. California, 5 California Code of Regulations 14010 (1994) The property line of a school site shall be at least the following distance from the edge of respective power line easements: 100 feet for 50-133 KV line; 150 feet for 220-230 KV line; 350 feet for 500-550 KV line. State Choice of No Regulatory Action other than "Prudent Avoidance" 1. Colorado; Electric Rules, Rule 18 (i) The utility shall include the concept of prudent avoidance with respect to planning, siting, construction, and operation of transmission facilities. Prudent avoidance shall mean the striking of a reasonable balance between the potential health effect of exposure to magnetic fields and the cost and impacts of mitigation of such exposure, by taking steps to reduce the exposure at reasonable or modest cost. Such steps might include, but are not limited to: (1) Design alternatives considering the spatial arrangement of phasing of conductors; (2) Routing lines to limit exposures to areas of concentrated population and group facilities such as schools and hospitals; (3) Installing higher structures; (4) Widening right of way corridors; and (5) Burial of lines. e Wisconsin; Advance Plans for Construction of Facilities; Public Service Commission Order 05-EP-6 (May 7, 1992) "Professor Savitz (epidemiologist) and Dr. Doldring (toxicologist) both concluded that the current state of science is not sufficient to determine whether EMF is a hazard to human health... The risk of adverse health effects is uncertain because the evidence is inconclusive, but it remains significant enough that it must be addressed." Prudent avoidance measures: analyze number of persons potentially exposed, duration, and intensity; utilize low-EMF designs; continue EMF research. Texas; "Health Effects of Exposure to Powerline-Frequeney Electric and Magnetic Fields, Electro-Magnetic Health Effects Committee," Public Utility Commission of Texas, Austin, Texas, March, 1992 -2- Ee "... the most appropriate response at this time is to defer any standard-setting activity until scientific evidence is more convincing and consistent so that effective and appropriate action can be devised." Oreeon: Indiana; Washington; and Connecticut. All have established commissions or task forces to: "monitor information being developed · . . and report the findings . . ." (Oregon); "determine, based on preponderance of evidence in the scientific literature, whether rules are necessary to protect the public health . . ." (Indiana); "collect . .., disseminate . .., maintain current information . . .; serve as a clearinghouse and lead agency . . . and periodically inform state agencies . . ." (Washington); "determine the need for and develop recommendations to the public concerning prudent methods of avoiding exposure ..." (Connecticut). Local Actions 1. Ci~ of Irvine~ California In two areas of the City, the Zoning Code does not allow any residential living area or child care facility to be within a 4 milligauss magnetic field contour line, based on the typical annual mean load. 2. Brentwood, Tennessee A transmission line shall not allow spillage "in excess of 4 milligauss beyond the legal right-of-way boundaries;" existing lines have until 1995 to comply. Industry_ Research, General Research and International Response 1. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California 2. Edison Electric Institute: Electric Light & Power· (February, 1994) "In 1993, governmental agencies and review committees in Denmark, Finland, France, and England, reviewed the published EMF health effects research, including the Scandinavian studies, and stated that EMF does not pose a significant health risk." -3- A 1994 Canadian and French study indicated that workers exposed to more than a medium of 31 milllgauss had a higher risk of one type of cancer, but there was no correlation with 29 other types of cancer. Sweden is reportedly considering a 2 milligauss standard for single family residences. U. S. Federal Action 1. Federally funded research Rationale for The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in its document "Question and Answers About Electric and Magnetic Fields," December, 1992 states: "... the bottom line is that there is no established cause and effect relationship between EMF exposure and cancer or other disease. For this reason, we can't define a hazardous level of EMF exposure ,, J'PI "Prudent Avoidance" Epidemiology is inconclusive; biological and toxicological evidence is inconclusive. Three studies are cited often by the public media to support regulation of EMFs: a 1979 study conducted by Nancy Wertheimer in Boulder, Colorado; a study by David Savitz; and two Swedish studies. These studies did not convince the States of Wisconsin or Texas to take any regulatory action. They also did not convince a scholarly panel convened to review all EMF literature for the previous 15 years. In December of 1992, the Oak Ridge Associated University issued a report that concluded that there was no evidence that EMFs act to either cause or enhance cancers, that epidemiological findings are inconclusive and inconsistent, and that no plausible biological mechanism exists for explaining a relationship between EMF and cancer. They also did not convince the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering Task Force that recommended, after extensive review of all literature, that the State of Connecticut take no action since the evidence was inconclusive. CASE even recommended no additional research. -4- III. B. Nevertheless; research is continuing and encouraged at every level of federal, state, and local government. C. Until this research concludes EMF is safe or unsafe at specified levels and duration of exposure, it is prudent to reduce the exposure of residents to EMF to hedge against the possibility that EMF is ultimately proven to be a human health hazard. D. The difficult question, in light of the inconclusive scientific evidence and absence of regulatory standards, is what standard to utilize as a goal for "prudent avoidance." What level of EMF should be considered acceptable? To be conservative, a logical approach is to establish a standard that is lower than any known regulatory standard. Case Law A. McCartin v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange County No 69949, 5/16/94) 24 original plaintiffs; 18 dropped out before trial; 6 remaining lived near high voltage transmission, distribution, and feed lines (some as close as 50 feet). Brought action under many tort theories, but ease was tried only on the issue of inverse condemnation. Jury found that the EMF did not constitute a "taking" or "damage" to plaintiff's property. B. Jordan v. Georgia Power Co. (Georgia Super. Ct., Douglas County, No. 91- 410355-296, (5/11/94) Plaintiff: woman was diagnosed as having a rare form of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 1989, six years after moving into a house within 50 feet of'high voltage lines. Jury verdict in favor of the utility company. C. Zuidema v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (California 1993) Plaintiff: child with a rare kidney disorder and juvenile cancer. Jury verdict in favor of the utility company. -5- De Houston l~ighting & Power Company v. Klein Independent School District, 739 S.W. 2d 508 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston (14th Dist.) 1987) In 1981, HL&P was allowed to condemn a 100' wide strip owned by KISD for the purpose of building a high voltage wire and KISD was awarded $78,000; KISD appealed to a trial court and asked that the condemnation be voided on the basis that HL&P "abused its discretion" and "acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner." HL&P constructed and energized the line in 1984 at a distance of 300 feet from the school. In 1985, a "jury found that HL&P had abused its discretion in taking the easement and had erected the transmission line in reckless disregard of the school's use of its property." Jury awarded KISD $104,225 in actual damages, $25 million in punitive damages, ordered the wire moved, and restored to property to KISD. Appellate court threw out $25 million in punitive damages, but upheld the rest of the verdict. Sole evidentiary issue before the appellate court was whether the evidence the jury heard was legally and factually insufficient to support the verdict. "In reviewing a no evidence report, an appellate court must consider only that evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to support the jury's findings disregarding all contrary evidence and inferences." Utilizing this standard, the appellate court held that the jury could have believed that: "the transmission lines posed a risk to the children," "that uncertainty over the magnitude of that risk should dictate caution," "HL&P refused to take these concerns into consideration," and "HL&P refused to deviate in the face of continued opposition from the school district." The trial court heard contradictory testimony from experts on the health risks of EMF and contradictory testimony on the levels of milligauss the children were exposed to (6-10 mG vs. 1.5-2 roG). (It is difficult to understand how a 345 KV line could generate 6-8 mG at 300 feet). The case does not represent a verdict that EMF is a health risk. It is a verdict that states it is an abuse of discretion for a utility company not to even consider EMF and "prudent avoidance" strategies in siting decisions. -6- International and Domestic Occupational and Public Exposure Limits A. International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA/INIRC); Interim Guidelines, Occupational Whole Working Day Short Term For I.imbs General Public Up to 24 hfs/day Few hours per day 5,000 mG 60,000 mG 250,000 mG 1,000 mG 10,000 mG American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists; recommended 'Whreshold Limit Values:" 10,000 mG for whole body exposure; 50,000 mG for extremities Germany: 50,000 mG for occupational and public exposure limits Australia: adopted the IRPA guidelines -7- Power Lines By WtLLi~! R. BENNETt JR. Five years ago, author Paul Bredeur published a series of sensational articles in The New Yorker that raised public con- cern about alleged health risks from the electromagnetic fields created by power lines in most urban areas. The resulting controversy quickly became a textbook case of how hysteria fed by special inter- ests can outface.scientific certainty. After the Brodeur articles appeared, other authors began warning of the possi- ble health risks from computer display terminals, microwave ovens, television sets and other devices. Responding to growing concern, several government agencies and the electric power industry have sponsored multimillion-dollar studies of the problem. The Denver studies linking power lines with leukemia among cml- dren-which Mr. Brodeur cited in his arti- cles-now have been extended to Los An- geles, Sweden, Canada and France, with increasing budgets and sample sizes. The studies haven't produced any de- finitive evidence of harm caused by elec- tromagnetic fields, but that hasn't ~topped a host of companies from cashing in by do- ing more costly studies of the phenome- non. Also benefiting are a growing number of companies selling special gaussmeters designed to measure the fields from power lines. Lots of people are now roaming the urban landscape measuring fields that are so weak as to be hard to determine accu- rately even in a physics lab. In several in- stances, these findings have led parents to pull their children out of classrooms; they have even forced the abandonment of newly constructed public schools. Hastily contrived legislation in a num- ber of states has limited the fields from power lines to the present levels, and there is the threat of still more ill-thought-out legislation on the horizon-for example, warning labels on microwave ovens and TV sets similar to those now found on cig- arettes. D. Allan Bromiey, President Bush's science adviser, has estimated the total cost from this scaremongering has al- ready exceeded $23 billion-aimast all spent by utilities to move high voltage power lines and transformer substations. This public hysteria is easily under- standable, if not excusable. Everyone has heard of the dangers of X-rays and ultra- violet radiation (which are also forms of electromagnetic energy, but at enor- mously higher frequencies), and there is a natural tendency among the lay public to assume that a large, ugly, fenced-in trans- former substation must be emitting some harmful substance. Should six people on the same block come down with cancer by chance, this belief becomes unshakeable. Yet this runs counter to medical knowl- edge. Consider a power substation on a short street in Guilford, Conn., which The New Yorker's Mr. Bredeur blamed for a rash of stomach cancer, brain cancer, skin cancer and brain tumors. As any doctor could tell you, the existence of such di- verse types of cancer in such a "cluster" is a strong argument in itself against any one specific cause in the environment. It is important to realize that direct de- struction of tissue by X-rays and ultravio- let light occurs because the frequency is large enough so that a single photon (the basic unit of energy for an electromag- netic field) has enough energy to tear the molecule apart. But power lines emit pho- tons at frequencies billions of times too small to harm any biological molecules. In fact, the electromagnetic emissions Are of power lines are dwarfed by natural sources. The Earth's magnetic field is hun- dreds of times larger than any power dis- tribution tine field at ground level Riding a bicycle or driving an open car through the Earth's magnetic field creates at least as much electric field inside the body as do power lines. Electromagnetic alarmists might be in- terested to know that every person .~,as enormous thermal electric fieid~'~i~nt at the cell level. Enormous fields are also produced naturally by biological activity. In some cells of the body, these fields can be millions of times greater than those re- sulting from power lines. Thus it's no surprise that the epidemio- logical studies ILnking power lines with cancer are highly inconclusive-even though various press reports have given the impression that they've established a conclusive linkage. There are two basic problems with the studies: marginal sta- tistical accuracy and extreme susceptibil- ity to systematic error. Because a disease like childhood leukemia is extremely rare (a few eases per 100,000 people annually}, it is hard to obtain large enough samples to permit meaningful analysis. Some studies report effects based on a difference of one or two cases between the exposed and control groups. But as the size of the sample groups has increased in these studies, the percentage "effect" has declined. The sources of systematic error in the epidemiological studies are numerous. The population groups are often of differ- ent ages, socio-economic classes and races. Leukemia primarily attac~ older people and white male children under the age of five. Without sorting the people in the exposed and control groups according to such categories, the epidemiological data are not meaningful. Economic factors also must be taken into account. Poorer folk are generally more subject to dkscase of all kinds and are often forced by economic circumstance to live near eyesores such as transformer substations and power lines. Hence there is a natural tendency for disease to be cor- related with such locations-a tende.ncy ig- nored by all the studies. Further, the populations sampled usu- ally have different work environments and spend unequal amounts of time in the "ex- posed" area, and we seldom know wh~tt they are exposed to elsewhere. If someone spends his working hours exposed to car- cinogenie solvents, it is irrelevant that he lives near a power line. Another source of systematic error: All of the studies to date have been retrospec- tive, not prospective. Records have been reconstructed and are subject to the va- garies of individual memory, inaccuracy of public records and personal prejudice. In no instances have actual individual ex- posures to electromagnetic fields been monitored on a day-to-day basis. Faced with the inadequacies of epidemi- ological studies, alarmists have fallen back on a far-fetched hypothesis. They suggest that there might be some biological reso- nance process that magnifies people's sen- Homely, Not Hazardous sitivity to magnetic fields-and that this sensitivity might be triggered by the fre- quency of power lines' fields. But to over- whelm naturally occurring thermal fields, such a resonance would have to be ex- tremely sharp. No plausible physical expla- nation for such an effect has yet been given. Although a few biological experiments re- ported frequency "windows" at marginal signal4e, vsls, those results have been incon- sistent and have not been duplicated by in- dependent observers. At any rate, the reso- nance explanation could not work simulta- neously in the U.S. and Europe, where the power line fi'equeneies are different. One other perplexing aspect of the epi- demiology studies is the tacit assumption that the dosage should be proportional to . the moonitude of the field over time, rather than the total power. If the field magnitude goes up by a factor of 10, the power goes up by a factor of 100. If fields of two milliganss really are a serious threat in Denver, Los Angeles and Sweden, then commuters on East Coast electric trains-where the fields at power line frequencies can be hundreds 9f times larger-ought to be dy- Lng like flies. 8o much for the electromagnetic hoax. To grasp how much damage it's caused, consider what useful developments in can- cer research, in education, or in any other field, could have been accomplished with the $23 billion already squandered on this scare. That ought be more shocking to peo- ple than any electromagnetic field. , Mr. Bennett, pt~)fessor of en.qineet~.g. applied science and physics at Yttle Univer- sity. is author of "Health anti Lolv-Fre- ~tency Electromao~tic Fields" (Yale Uni- versity Press, 199~). THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Peter R. K~nn Kenneth L. Burenga Chairman & Publisher President Paul E. Steiger Robert L BarUey Managing Editor Editor Byron F,. Calcine Daniel Henninger Deputy Managing Editor Deputy Editor. Editorial Page Danforth W. Austin Paul C. Atkinaon Vice President, Vice President, Circulation Advertising F. Thomas Kun Jr. Charles F, RusseU Vice President, Vice President, Operation$ Technology Published since 1889 by DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC. Editorial and Corporate Headquarters: 200 Liberty Street, New York, N.Y. 10281. Telephone (212) 416-2000 Peter IL.K~nm Chairman & Chic[Executive Kenneth L. Burengn, President & Chief Operating Officer; James H. Otteway Jr., Peter G. Skinner, Carl M. Valenti, Sen/or Vice President~t. Vice Presidents: William R. Cisbby, Richard J. Levine, Dorothea Coo:oK Pal~ho, Information Sercice$; Bernard T. Fisnagan, Marketing; Karen FAliott House, International; Donald L Miller, Employee Relations; David E. Moran, Law;. Kevin J. Roche. Finance. Hichard Myers, President, Ottaway Newspapers: Julian B. Childs. Executive Vice Pr~ident. Telerate. Southwest News and Sales ofn~e: 1253 Regal Row, Dallas, Texas 7~247 Telephone (214) as1-7250 SUBSCRIPTIONS AND ADDRESS CHANGES call I-SOO-JOURNAL or write to The Wall Street Journal. 200 Bumett Road, Chicopee, Ma~. 01020, giving old ~fld new addre~. For sui~cription rates see Page A2.