# Presentation: 120632

## Update of RF Radiation Protection Standards

- Bob Curtis
- OSHA
- Directorate of Technical Support

## RF Standard Development

- ANSI C95.1-1966 (OSHA Adopted)
- ANSI 1982 (Frequency dependent)
- ANSI/IEEE 1992 (Two-Tiered)
- IEEE SCC-28 in process.

## IEEE “Culture”

- Engineers/Biologists - few IH’s
- Dominated by Industry and DoD
- Few Public Safety Regulators
- Standards Based on Known Adverse Health Effects

## Process for Standard Development

- Literature Review
- Engineering
- Animal and Cellular (In Vitro, In Vivo)
- Epidemiology
- Mechanisms
- Risk Assessment
- Consensus

## Problems

- Review process going slow.
- Risk Assessment proceeding.
- Difficulty in getting consensus on basic concepts for a new standard.

## Major Issues to Resolve

- Selection of adverse effect level.
- Basis for local SAR limit.
- Acute vs Chronic exposures.
- Time Averaging
- Uncertainty Factor
- One limit vs Public & Worker limits
- Action Limit and RF Program

**Notes:**
Other issues:
Medical surveillance and emergency response.

## Basis of Current RF Standards

- Behavioral disruption threshold
- Limit temperature increase to 1  degrees C
- 1-4 W/kg SAR
- 10-fold safety factor

**Notes:**
 4 W/kg based on animal behavioral effects is the basis
 Factor of  10 safety factor for whole body in humans (4/10 = .4 W/kg)
 Localized maximums of 20 times the whole body average (.4 x 20 = 8 W/kg).
 Uncontrolled environments limited to 20% of controlled (8 x .2 = 1.6 W/kg).

## Proposed Thresholds

- A - Adverse Effect
- B - Effect Preliminary to a Known Adverse Effect
- C - Effect, but Unknown Human Health Consequence
- X - Known Non-Adverse Effect

**Notes:**
Per NIEHS (1999), “ELF-EMF exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia hazard; the associations reported for childhood leukemia and adult chronic lymphocytic leukemia cannot be dismissed easily as random or negative findings.”

- Exposures between B and C occur within known gaps in research, so “Precautionary Principle” or ALARA may be appropriate.
- Precautionary Principle not justified below C level where most exposures occur.

**Notes:**
Concern for low-level exposures causing DNA changes.

Current standard based on heating causing behavior changes (animals reduced their activities and/or avoided the exposure areas.

## Major Issues to Resolve

- Selection of adverse effect level.
- Basis for local SAR limit.
- Acute vs Chronic exposures.
- Time Averaging
- Uncertainty Factor
- One limit vs Public & Worker limits
- Action Limit and RF Program

**Notes:**
Other issues:
Medical surveillance and emergency response.

## UK Stewart Commission

- Preliminary evidence that (phones) may cause, in some cases, subtle biological effects...  (This) does not necessarily mean that health is affected.
- Advocates the “Precautionary” approach until more information.
- Specifically: Labeling of phones; Reduce children use.
- Most points accepted by UK gov’t.

## Slide 12

## Comprehensive Standard vs. Exposure Limit

- Combination of practices and exposure limits gives more guidance (e.g. ANSI Laser Stds.)
- Exposure limit can be less restrictive.
- E.g.  Protection for all persons vs. exclusions for target populations.
- For each exclusion, you need a program that checks the criteria.

## Major Issues to Resolve

- Selection of adverse effect level.
- Basis for local SAR limit.
- Acute vs Chronic exposures.
- Time Averaging
- Uncertainty Factor
- One limit vs Public & Worker limits
- Action Limit and RF Program

**Notes:**
Other issues:
Medical surveillance and emergency response.

## Safety and Health Program Core Elements

- Management leadership and employee participation
- Hazard identification and assessment
- Hazard prevention and control
- Information and training
- Evaluation of program effectiveness

## Right to Know

- More lenient on threshold if people given choices.

## Major Issues to Resolve

- Selection of adverse effect level.
- Basis for local SAR limit.
- Acute vs Chronic exposures.
- Time Averaging
- Uncertainty Factor
- One limit vs Public & Worker limits
- Action Limit and RF Program

**Notes:**
Other issues:
Medical surveillance and emergency response.

## Slow Progress on Needed Standards

- RF Safety Program
- RF Awareness (Signs)
- Medical Surveillance and Response
- Measurement Procedures for induced currents
- Criteria for RF Protective Clothing
- Spark Discharge
- Cellular Phones

## New Developments Confound Consensus Building

- ICNIRP Standard being adopted more
- Precautionary Principle being adopted by some countries and local governments.
- Regulations regarding Mobile phones & Cellular Tower Sites

## Slide 20

## Predictions 

- Balloting next year on new limit.
- Consensus will drive the standard to be similar to existing version.
- US will continue to drift apart from other countries which will adopt precautionary principle.
- The use of cell phones will continue to rise dramatically.
- Other needed RF standards will proceed, but slow in development.

## Proposal for ANSI RF Program Standard

**Class I areas: No signs needed.**
**Class II areas: Notice Signs are suggested**
**Class III areas: Caution Signs are required**
**Class IV areas: Warning Signs are required**
**Class V areas: Danger Signs are required**

## Slide 23

## Exposure While Installing New Antenna

## Slide 25

## Slide 26

## Perimeter of FCC Uncontrolled Limits

## Perimeter of Controlled Limits indicating need for protective measures (e.g., time averaging)

## Time averaging is not feasible to prevent exposures > MPE’s