Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Effects of high-voltage electricity transmission networks"

(1999/C 293/03)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Proposal for a Council Recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields 0 Hz-300 GHz, COM(1998) 268 final;

having regard to the decision taken by the Bureau on 16 September 1998, under the fourth paragraph of Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to draw up an Opinion on this subject and to direct Commission 4 "Spatial Planning, Urban Issues, Energy and Environment" to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to the European test standard CENELEC ENV 50166-1, which was drafted in November 1994 by the TC 111 Technical Committee of the European Committee for Electro-technical Standardisation;

having regard to the proposals of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a scientific commission set up by the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) with the aim of promoting protection of both humans and the environment against non-ionizing radiation (NIR);

having regard to the proposals of the World Health Organization (WHO) Section on Environmental Health, which is promoting cooperation between scientists of all nations to ensure optimum health conditions for the world's people;

having regard to the rules in effect in various European countries on the effects of low-frequency electric and magnetic fields on human health;

having regard to the COR's wish for the Council to issue a Recommendation on permissible limit values for low-frequency electric and magnetic fields, which, if observed, will ensure that there are no harmful effects on human health;

having regard to the Draft Opinion (CdR 399/98 rev. 2) adopted by Commission 4 on 4 February 1999 (Rapporteur: Mr Evangelos Kouloumbis),

adopted the following opinion at its 29th plenary session on 2 and 3 June 1999 (meeting of 3 June) by majority vote.

1. Introduction

1.1. The extremely rapid expansion of electricity and telecommunications networks has resulted in electromagnetic pollution of the environment, while generating a steady increase in public concern about the possible effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs).

1.2. Over the past ten years concern has grown about the environmental impact of electricity transmission and distribution in populated areas. The environmental aspect of electricity transmission and distribution encompasses a number of different issues, ranging from the unsightliness of electrical power lines to the growing concern of the general public about the presence and effects of electrical and magnetic fields.

1.3. Now that transmission of large quantities of electrical power through networks has become a fact of life, the location of high-voltage transmission lines has become particularly relevant.

1.4. The main environmental issues raised in connection with electricity transmission and distribution lines are:

- visual pollution;

- electrochemical pollution;

- electrical and magnetic fields;

- noise pollution (high-voltage and ultra-high-voltage transmission).

1.5. Interest and research are focusing on evaluating the possible harmful effects from high-voltage lines on human health. People living in areas near or even below high-voltage lines have started to "sense" EMFs, particularly in the case of high-intensity fields.

1.6. Although there has been significant research into the possible effects of EMFs on health, no definitive conclusions have been reached to date on the risks to living organisms. However, various environmental organizations have adopted a strong and increasingly negative position on the matter.

1.7. It has to be said that some of the international scientific community still have reservations about safety standards in relation to the effects of electromagnetic fields on the environment and on human health. Many researchers have presented studies indicating that a protective approach is called for on the question of acceptable minimum standards.

1.8. The standards formulated by CENELEC a few years ago provide an initial basis for revising safety levels in the light of scientific findings and public sensitivities.

1.9. Several cases can be cited to date where public opinion or those directly affected have succeeded in delaying or cancelling the construction of new - or upgrading of old - electrical power lines, resulting in total or partial disruption of the electricity supply (e.g. southern Italy in September 1995, Athens in March 1998). Such cases can be expected to cause more problems in the future.

1.10. For all the above reasons, a full understanding of the facts and problems relating to the transmission and distribution of electrical power will provide a response to growing public concern about the possible effects of electricity transmission on public health.

1.11. It is thought that studying the environmental effects of electric transmission lines in European Union networks will reveal a major obstacle to the development and completion of the Community's internal market in electric power. The development of an open market in electrical power can be expected to result in large amounts of electricity being transmitted via European networks to achieve optimum economic use and consumption of resources in accordance with the recent Directive concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity(1).

1.12. Structural measures will therefore be required to ensure the safety of high-voltage lines, paying particular attention to distance from population centres and height of installations. This action will require the involvement of the relevant local authorities.

2. The effects of electromagnetic fields

2.1. The question of how low-frequency electromagnetic fields affect human health has been a major concern of the international community over the past few years. Dozens of studies have been carried out and findings published, and it is extremely difficult to draw conclusions from the work of individual scientists.

2.2. Electromagnetic fields are produced by the flow of electricity, and are present in the environment. Electrical fields depend on tension (potential difference) and are measured in volts per metre (V/m). Buildings, trees, etc. form a protective barrier against electric fields.

2.3. Magnetic fields depend on the flow of the electrical current and are measured in amperes per metre (A/m). It is not so easy to protect against these fields as against electrical fields, but their intensity decreases substantially with distance.

2.4. During the 1970s, much attention was paid to the possible effects on human health of exposure to electrical fields. The dozens of detailed studies carried out failed to determine the risk to human health of exposure to electrical fields of the intensity found in areas below transmission lines.

2.5. During the 1980s, scientific interest shifted mainly to the effects on humans of magnetic fields, focusing in particular on their carcinogenic potential, given that a number of epidemiological studies had provided evidence of an increased incidence of tumours in adolescents and children living near electrical transmission lines.

2.6. A number of international organizations subsequently re-examined in detail the findings of the above-mentioned studies. In every case it was concluded that the findings were only enough to justify further studies on the effects of magnetic fields on humans, and that there was therefore no reason to change existing protective measures.

2.7. The risks posed by electromagnetic fields can involve biological action on the human body that can produce thermal and non-thermal effects.

Biological effects

2.8. Biological effects are caused by the action of radiation on the most sensitive and vulnerable tissue, such as the brain, eyes and reproductive organs. Specifically, several studies have linked exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) fields to an increased incidence of cancer and the development of brain tumours. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Committee for Electro-technical Standardisation (CENELEC) have already sponsored multiannual multicentre study programmes to clarify these issues conclusively.

Thermal effects

2.9. Thermal effects are fully understood and have been extensively studied. They relate to the overheating of the body when located in the direct radiation field. Most biological molecules absorb energy from time-varying electromagnetic fields, which is converted into kinetic energy, causing them to oscillate. This oscillation produces heat and an increase in body temperature.

2.10. These thermal effects may be beneficial and pleasant, but they may also be bad for health and safety. This overheating of the molecules must be avoided; the associated risks depend on the intensity of the radiation, not on its frequency. The critical factor is thus the density of the energy absorbed.

2.11. Establishing the acceptable radiation threshold, i.e. that below which there would be no risk to human safety, is a complicated procedure where safety factors have to be taken into account. The safety limits described as maximum permissible exposure levels are not magic dividing lines between complete safety and certain danger. They are recommended limits based on a cumulative appraisal of worldwide research.

Non-thermal effects

2.12. There has been much talk of non-thermal effects recently. Many research findings have already been published, of which only very few indicate some minor effects on cells. Similar or even identical studies to these have detected no such effects.

2.13. There is no clear mechanism by which non-thermal biological effects would be produced, and consequently all existing evidence is indirect. It is considered very difficult to investigate non-thermal effects, and even more difficult to evaluate epidemiological studies, because of the many distorting factors present.

2.14. So far the international scientific community does not consider such evidence to be sufficiently serious or well enough substantiated to warrant or require the setting of safety thresholds with respect to non-thermal effects.

3. Standards for electromagnetic fields

3.1. In November 1994 the TC 111 Technical Committee of the European Committee for Electro-technical Standardisation (CENELEC) approved the publication of European Standard ENV 50166-1, "Human exposure to electromagnetic fields, low frequency (0 Hz - 10 kHz)". This, together with standard ENV 50166-2 on frequencies of 10 kHz to 300 GHz are the first Europe-wide instruments to deal with the matter, effectively marking the first phase in an effort to address both the problem of exposure to electromagnetic fields in general and specific questions such as the procedure for measuring electromagnetic fields and ways of controlling and regulating human exposure to them and to the currents they emit.

3.2. Standard ENV 50166-1 is concerned with the prevention of harmful effects caused by short-term exposure of the human body to static and low-frequency electromagnetic fields in the spectral range of 0 Hz to 10 kHz. Within this range, electrical fields and magnetic fields have to be considered separately.

3.3. Specifically, this standard takes into account: (a) induced currents in the human body, which can stimulate nerve and muscle tissue; (b) surface currents from electric fields that can produce irritation and pressure; and (c) currents that may flow through the body when it comes into contact with objects in the field, provoking electric shock or momentary discomfort.

3.4. The standard sets basic limits and reference levels for exposure to electromagnetic radiation. It also divides these levels into two categories for implementation purposes: exposure of workers to electromagnetic fields and exposure of the population in general. The reference ranges and electrical current levels have understandably been set two to three times lower for the latter category than for the former.

3.5. However, further studies may lead, and have led, some countries to regard the reference levels set by the standard as the minimum requirement in certain spectral ranges, and to set stricter safety limits. Furthermore, this standard is likely to be amended in the light of recent scientific findings, until it ultimately is made into a definitive standard; it may even be withdrawn altogether. It is clear from the above that still more research and study is needed on this broader, but crucial field, if full standardization is to be achieved.

3.6. Although the above-mentioned standard (as well as ENV 50166-2) is not binding in principle, it is regarded as a very important and influential instrument, given that its existence ensures safety, within the single European market, allowing substandard equipment to be identified and replaced.

4. Legal provisions

4.1. All electrical and electronic installations and appliances produce electro-magnetic fields. The strength of these fields depends directly on the voltage and distance from the point where the electrical current is flowing.

4.2. Although electrical fields are not harmful to humans, they can have unpleasant effects, such as pins and needles, or itching, and may cause certain electrical and electronic appliances and instruments (e.g. pacemakers) to malfunction.

4.3. On the other hand, it is suspected that magnetic fields do affect human health, and such fields have therefore been the subject of dozens of studies worldwide. The overwhelming majority of these studies have not proved that magnetic fields are dangerous, though obviously there is no irrefutable evidence to confirm the reverse.

4.4. Regulations on electromagnetic fields

4.4.1. Exposure limits for EMFs

4.4.1.1. In January 1990 the IRPA (International Radiation Protection Association), under the aegis of the WHO (World Health Organization), and in 1998 the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) issued "Interim guidelines on limits of exposure to 50/60 Hz electric and magnetic fields".

The exposure limits recommended by these guidelines for the general public are: 5 kV/m for electrical fields; 0.1 mT for magnetic fields.

4.4.1.2. CENELEC is looking at proposals for rules based on these suggested limits. Some countries have already adopted these or comparable limits, while others are waiting for them to be officially adopted by CENELEC.

4.4.1.3. Most electricity companies in Europe have accepted the IRPA rules, even though they contain no binding provisions. Legislation has been passed in some countries specifying the minimum distance of electrical installations from homes and other buildings.

4.4.2. Distance of transmission lines from inhabited buildings

4.4.2.1. Some countries, e.g. Luxembourg, have adopted regulations specifying a minimum distance between electrical power lines and homes and other public buildings such as schools, sports centres, etc.

4.4.2.2. It should be noted that the distance of power lines from inhabited buildings varies between the different European countries. Some countries, e.g. Denmark and Sweden, have decided not to adopt proscriptive rules, but simply to propose precautionary measures defining certain distances from houses or other buildings when new power lines are to be erected.

4.4.2.3. The French rejected a change in the law which would have banned the siting of high-voltage power lines near inhabited buildings, allowing the creation of "corridors" where building below power lines would be prohibited.

4.4.2.4. The Committee of the Regions feels there is a need to specify that new buildings must be located a minimum distance from power lines. This minimum distance should be equal to that specified for the construction of new power lines near existing buildings.

4.5. Contentious claims

4.5.1. Electro-magnetic fields are usually invoked in the case of:

- appeals against the construction of new transmission lines;

- claims for compensation from property owners with buildings near power lines;

- financial obligations to people with health problems caused by electromagnetic fields.

4.5.2. In the debate over construction of new power lines, electromagnetic fields are among the issues cited in appeals against the erection of high-voltage lines.

4.5.3. The German and Italian courts reject claims for damages based on the effects of EMFs, because according to the IRPA there is no such risk. Danish courts accept that their is some reduction in the value of buildings located near transmission lines, while in Sweden the presence of EMFs has been taken into account in compensation claims involving owners of property located near transmission lines.

4.5.4. Regulations and court rulings will evolve over the coming years to take account of new scientific evidence. However, most European countries have adopted a cautious stance so as not to place an undue economic burden on companies involved in the transmission or distribution of electrical power.

4.6. Existing legislation

4.6.1. The overwhelming majority of European Union countries have no laws governing electromagnetic fields. Since 1 January 1997, Germany has had an EMF Regulation for certain infrastructure-related areas such as fixed radio transmission installations and high-voltage lines to protect the public and surroundings from the impact of environmental damage and to prevent EMF-induced environmental damage.

4.7. Legal action

4.7.1. Almost all legal proceedings instituted in the European Union have been actions opposing the construction of new electrical transmission lines.

5. Conclusions

5.1. The COR thinks that the Commission must take a clear position on the effects of electro-magnetic fields on the environment and human health on the basis of discussions and studies.

5.2. The COR feels that significant progress has been made in investigating the probable effects of low-frequency electro-magnetic fields, and that it is therefore now up to the Council to adopt a Recommendation on permissible limit values to prevent any harmful effects on human health and the environment.

5.3. With respect to setting appropriate limit values for electromagnetic fields, the COR thinks that the findings on which the CENELEC standard is based, as well as the studies that have been carried out on the subject by different international organizations such as the ICNIRP, IRPA and the WHO, should be taken into consideration. Consideration should also be given to non-thermal effects, which can occur at levels well below the maximum levels given and can have adverse effects on human health.

5.4. The COR considers that limit values for electromagnetic fields should on the one hand ensure that harmful effects on humans and the environment are prevented, but on the other should not contribute to creating intractable problems for the development of electrical power networks. It notes that network use is bound to increase with completion of the internal market in electrical power, as mentioned in EC Directive 96/92. Consequently, new urban development plans by national and regional authorities should stipulate, as a prerequisite, that high-voltage networks be placed undergound when they are passing through urban areas.

5.5. The COR believes that the proposal presented by the Commission for a Council Recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields is an important first step.

5.6. The COR urges those concerned in the Commission Directorates-General for energy, the environment and health to join forces and continue and intensify their efforts to investigate the issue, bearing in mind as far as possible the concept of risk prevention and minimisation, as is already partly the case - for instance in the area of high frequencies.

5.7. The COR asks the Commission to use the experience of local and regional authorities and to cooperate with them on an on-going basis.

5.8. The COR believes that the effort to align the operation and development of electricity networks in the European Union requires that the Commission propose common limit values for electromagnetic fields in the European countries, taking into account the rules in effect in EU Member States such as Germany and Luxembourg.

Brussels, 3 June 1999.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Manfred DAMMEYER

(1) Directive 96/92/EC - OJ L 27, 30.1.1997, p. 20.