ICES · ICES International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety Approved Minutes . TC95 Committee (Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electric, Magnetic . and Electromagnetic

ICES

International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety

Approved Minutes TC95 Committee

(Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz

Thursday, 11 September 2014 0900 - Noon

The Cliffs Resort Pismo Beach, California, USA

1. Call to Order TC95 Chairman Chou called the meeting to order at 0803 h. Before moving forward, Chou asked for

a moment of silence in observance of 9/11/2001.

2. Introduction of those Present Each of the attendees introduced her/himself and noted their affiliation. (See Attachment 1 for list of

attendees.)

3. Approval of Agenda Following a motion by Gettman and a second by Wessel, the agenda was approved as modified (see

Attachment 2 – modifications in red font).

4. Approval of January 16, 2014 TC95 minutes Following a motion by Ziskin and a second by Keshvari, the minutes of the January 2014 meeting were approved as presented.

5. ICES Chairman’s Report ICES Chairman Bodemann reviewed the activities of the 14 August and 9 September 2014 AdCom meetings. He noted that a new subcommittee, Subcommittee 6, “EMF Dosimetry Modeling,” was approved at the 9 September meeting. The aim of SC6 is to resolve uncertainties in dosimetric data, recommend analytical tools and data-specific standards for human exposure, and follow and assess the recent literature on EMF dosimetry modeling. SC6 will cover the frequency range of 0 Hz to 300 GHz but initially the focus will be on low frequencies where the electrostimulation mechanism dominates. The new subcommittee will be chaired by Akimasa Hirata. Bodemann also noted that Reilly and Keshvari have been approved as members of the AdCom. Bodemann then provided a detailed overview of the EU/EC Directive, which was approved 26 June 2013 (see Attachment 3). Faraone pointed out issues relating to compliance in the workplace, specifically Commission mandates to publish guides to help implement the provisions of the Directive. In the absence of such guides, the lower tier limits must be implemented. Bodemann described the action levels and exposure limit values of the Directive. In response to a question from Faraone, Bodemann pointed out that comments and conclusions, which must be submitted by 30 September, such information can only be submitted by Working Party members. He also noted that

Approved Minutes – 11 September 2014 TC95 Meeting

while the Commission is mandated to consider adoption of the ICNIRP limit values, there are issues regarding the 0 – 1 Hz values published by ICNIRP in 2014. In absence of a clear rationale for these limits, the Working Party is unlikely to recommend adoption.

6. TC95 Chairman’s Report Chou briefly reviewed the activities of TC95. He pointed out that the major issue in the field of bioeffects associated with exposure to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields is the issue of possible effects versus established effects. The literature review and evaluation is expected to provide input for the resolution of this issue. The intent is to have draft review articles on the matter for discussion at the June 2015 meetings.

7. Executive Secretary’s Report Petersen reviewed a number of changes issued by the IEEE Standards Association Standards Board (SASB—see Attachment 4). He also reviewed the status of each of the TC95 standards and provided a list of those that are available at no cost through the GetProgram, noting that the program was initiated and is supported by the Department of Defense. Monthly download statistics for C95 standards downloaded via the GetProgram C95 were discussed. The available statistics note the number of each of 8 standards downloaded per month and the number of people in each of 8 interest category that downloaded standards. What would be useful would be the distribution of standards by interest category, which is not provided.

ACTION ITEM 1: Petersen will follow-up with the IEEE Standards Department to determine whether or not these data are available.

Petersen also reported that in order to continue to work on projects PC95.1-2005 and PC95.2-2002, Project Authorization Requests (PARs) will have to be submitted to the Standards Board’s New Standards Committee (NesCom) in time for consideration at their December meeting. He explained that he will submit the request for PC95.1; Tell will submit the request for PC95.2. Petersen concluded by explaining that the SCC39 Annual Report, which must be submitted to the Standards Board before their December meeting, is now being prepared. Comments have been solicited from the subcommittee chairs regarding update/changes to last year’s Annual Report (2013 – 2014). Once approved by the Standards Board, the report will be distributed to the TC95 membership and posted on the ICES website.

8. Treasurer’s Report Petersen presented the Treasurer’s report (see Attachment 5). He noted that the balance as of 12 September 2014 stands at $13,271.22, which does not include income and all expenses for this meeting. In addition, a number of recurring charges will be paid the last quarter of 2014 including charges for maintenance and updating the ICES website (NEMA) and maintenance of the IEEE-ICES database (web reflections).

9. Membership Chairman’s Report In the absence of Membership Chairman Murphy, Klauenberg briefly reviewed Murphy’s TC95 membership report (see Attachment 6). The report includes a list of members who were accepted in 2014, a distribution of TC95 membership by country, the advantages of membership, and how to apply for membership. It was noted that the age of the current membership and the leadership of TC95 is getting on in years and Chairman Chou urged everyone to try to attract young and enthusiastic new members.

10. Topic presentations a) In memory of Bill Guy

Chou took a few moments to note the passing of a mentor, colleague and friend, Arthur (Bill) Guy, who passed away 20 April 2014. Bill chaired Subcommittee 4 during the development of ANSI standards C95.1-1974 and C95.1-1982 and co-chaired SCC28 during the development of


IEEE C95.1-1991 and C95.1-1999. He also chaired NCRP Scientific Committee 53 upon which IEEE C95.1-1991 and the current FCC Safety guidelines are based in part.

b) WHO initiative to developing a WHO standard on non-ionizing radiation Keshvari presented a report on the WHO Consultancy and International Advisory Committee meetings, 2 – 3 June 2014, Geneva (see Attachment 7). The meetings addressed development of international standards for non-ionizing radiation, which included ultrasound, infrasound and ultraviolet radiation. Among other issues discussed were similarities and differences between the principles of ionizing radiation protection and non-ionizing radiation protection, gaps and lack of consistency between exposure limit values and basic restrictions, safety factors, and the way forward (see slides #7 and 8). Conclusions of the meetings were that the literature contains a large number of low-quality papers with poor dosimetry, and adverse health effects at levels below the limits in current standards and guidelines are not foreseen. Regarding philosophical similarities and differences in ionizing and non-ionizing radiation protection, Bushberg noted that regulations for protection against exposure to ionizing radiation are now under consideration for revision. Keshvari concluded by noting that there will be an update on WHO activities for a factsheet revision—the revision should be available for public comment 15 September 2014.

With respect to an ICES action, it was agreed that comments should be short and focused. The response will come from ICES Chairman Bodemann. Faraone agreed to collect and compile the comments from TC95 members; Bodemann, Faraone, Haes, Sheppard and Ziskin agreed to help draft a response.

c) Who initiative discussion points Klauenberg reviewed the current mandate regarding health protection and occupational safety pointing out the value of a single international standard (see Attachment 8), but with some flexibility. He reviewed the field of expertise of the participants involved with the WHO Consultancy for a global harmonized standard. He pointed out that in moving forward, the IAEA book Radiation protection and safety of radiation sources: International basic safety standards might be a good template that should be considered. He noted that while several groups, whose mission is the development of non-ionizing radiation safety standards, were officially listed as observers, IEEE ICES was not. Bushberg thought that it seemed unusual that the process is not following the UN pattern – it appears more like an ICNIRP type of activity, i.e., Eurocentric. Weller reported that while he was still at the FCC the US was offered a role in the organization. Rather than FCC, he suggested participation by some of the federal health agencies but they appeared not to be interested. Klauenberg discussed the challenges associated with the development of a single harmonized standard that includes non-ionizing radiation, ultra-sound and infra-sound pointing out that the program is extremely ambitious and success is not assured.

d) IEC TC106 New Work Item: “Guide for scientific framework and requirements in developing EMF compliance assessment standards” Keshvari discussed a proposal for a “Guide for the scientific framework and requirements in developing EMF compliance assessment standards” now under development by IEC TC106 Ad Hoc Group 6, which includes participants form IEC TC106 and IEEE SCC39 TC34 (see Attachment 9). The purpose of the guide, which is intended to be a jointly developed IEC/IEEE project, is to develop a consistent approach to ensure that the same scientific approach/criteria is applied by the various standards developing organizations in an effort to resolve inconsistencies between standards. The guide would be similar to EMC Guide 107, which falls under the IEC Advisory Committee on Electromagnetic Compatibility. Keshvari explained that it’s not clear which IEC Advisory Committee the guide should fall under – perhaps the Advisory Committee on Safety. He noted that different approaches would be necessary for low and high frequencies and a timeline for completing a draft has not been established. A specific agreement between IEC and IEEE will be explored.


e) IEEE Broadcast Technology Society Symposium Cleveland discussed a tutorial/workshop, “RF Exposure Safety Standards, Practices and Regulations,” that he will be chairing at the upcoming held at the IEEE Broadcast Technology Society Symposium that will be held 15 – 17 October 2015 in San Antonio, TX (see Attachment 10). The presenters are all members of SCC39/TC95, as are the planners. Cleveland noted while IEEE ICES is involved unofficially, each of the speakers is identified on the program as an ICES member and the ICES logo is displayed prominently on the handouts in hope of generating interest in ICES activities. In response to the question as to whether this tutorial would be a good prototype for future tutorials to increase the visibility of ICES, the consensus was that it definitely would. In response to a suggestion from Meltz, Cleveland noted that a one-page ICES information page will probably be prepared and distributed with the handout material to increase visibility among the more than 100 professionals attending the tutorial—many who are unaware of ICES. He concluded by requesting that anyone with ideas about promoting ICES via symposia should contact Chou.

f) Proposal for a Joint Project—NIOSH project to develop ELF-EMF policy document Bowman presented a series of slides that described a NIOSH project to adopt recommended exposure limits for frequencies between 3 Hz and 3 kHz. This is part of a project to develop an EMF policy document for managing workplace exposures (see Attachment 11). The concept and desired timelines were described—the publication date is estimated to be sometime in 2018. He pointed out that the basic restriction in terms of induced electric field is being considered as the recommended exposure limit, assuming that an instrument with a response shaped to the basic restriction will be commercially available, i.e., an induced body current meter. He described the philosophy behind development of such a device and expected technical problems. He briefly discussed similar instruments now commercially available, e.g., the Narda ELT-400, and their limitations. A prototype instrument has been developed/reported (see Slide 24) and exposure results evaluated. The intent is to collaborate with an instrument manufacturer in the development of a suitable commercially available instrument. In that the results of the program will benefit Subcommittee 6, he will eventually call for assistance of TC95 members for analyzing data and to provide critical reviews of the NIOSH document. Reilly noted that he has encountered similar proposals for years. The approach is to develop the appropriate system analysis and functionality to address complex exposure situations, e.g., multiple frequencies and modalities. He explained that in his experience, the results of such attempts have been conservative, sometimes overly conservative, but the method works. Bowman concluded by reminding everyone that he will be seeking help from ICES in moving forward.

11. Subcommittee Reports a) SC1 (Measurements and computations)

Colville reported that SC1 met 9 September; there were 41 attendees. The scope of the revision and merging of IEEE C95.3-2002 and C95.3.1-2010 was discussed as was the history of the current draft. He noted that the 191 comments on the first draft (31 October 2012) were discussed at the 16 January 2013 SC1 meeting. The main issues were the redundancies in the content above and below 100 kHz. He reported that the revised format of the document and similarities and differences between it and portions of IEC 62232 was discussed. The next face-to-face meeting is of the subcommittee is planned for the June 2015 TC95 meeting series but Editorial Team conference calls are planned between now and then. (See Attachment 12.)

b) SC2 (Safety programs) In Chairman Tell’s absence, Haes reported that the subcommittee met on 9 September. He noted that most of the discussion was associated with the activities of the Barrier Working Group, which will continue its work. Haes also noted that a presentation on warning signs led to a considerable discussion on interpretation of some of the language, and questions were raised on


distinguishing exactly who belongs to the upper tier and who to the lower tier regarding certain signs. The conclusion was that some of the warning signs used by the mobile telephone business at their sites contain insufficient meaningful language—the resolution of the issue is an ongoing SC2 effort.

c) SC3 (Safety levels – 0 Hz to 3 kHz) and SC4 (Safety levels – 3 kHz to 300 GHz) Ziskin reported that the two subcommittees met jointly 10 September. He reported now that IEEE C95.1-2345 (the civil standard being considered as the replacement for NATO STANAG 2345) was published 30 May 2014, the major effort of the combined subcommittees will now be directed toward completion of the revision of C95.1-2005 and C95.6-2002 and their merging into a single standard covering the frequency range of 0 Hz to 300 GHz. He also reported that some members of the subcommittees have been contacted by reporters from the Wall Street Journal with questions about the standards, to which responses were provided with the understanding that the responses were those of the individuals—not ICES or the IEEE. Ziskin also reported that the literature review process and evaluation was discussed at the SC3/SC4 meeting and tentative timelines set. He noted that the new subcommittee, SC6 (dosimetry modeling) was also discussed as was a proposal for a probabilistically based single-tier standard to replace the two-tiers in C95.1 and C95.6, which was submitted to the subcommittees by Bergeron and Tell for comment. The submitted material was in the form of a paper suitable for publication. Resolution of the latter is a work in progress.

d) SC5 (Effects of EM fields on blasting operations) Hay reported that while the current C95.4 standard appears stable, the intent is to hold an SC5 meeting later in the year, or early next year, to review the standard to see if any changes are required. Hay noted that the current standard applies only to electric blasting caps, which makes the standard difficult to apply in other situations where such a standard would be desirable, e.g., Navy ordnance situations. The limited application of the standard will be one issue discussed at the upcoming meeting.

e) SC6 (EMF dosimetry modeling) See item 5 (ICES Chairman’s Report).

12. ICES Website Update Chou reported that the ICES website is being re-designed to provide a more user-friendly, informative and attractive format. The approved minutes of all the TC95 and TC95/SC3/SC4 meetings and the annual reports, all going back to year 2000, will be re-formatted and included on the public portion of the website. General interest articles for the public pages are being sought. He requested that any of the TC95 members who have not submitted a bio-sketch for posting on the private portion of the website should please do so now.

13. New Business No new business

14. Future Meetings Chou announced that the next meeting series will be held 11 – 13 June 2015, Thursday – Saturday, immediately before BioEM2015 near Monterey. There was a brief discussion regarding the length of time scheduled for the TC95 series of meetings, especially in consideration of the new subcommittee SC6. Chou noted that traditionally the TC95 meetings are scheduled for 2 ½ days but the June 2015 meetings will be scheduled for 3 full days. SC6 is considering presenting an open workshop on issues in dosimetry modeling on Sunday June 14th immediately before BioEM2015 begins. Since many of the attendees of the TC95 meetings will probably stay for the Sunday workshop, the TC95 meetings will close Saturday afternoon, rather that noon.


15. Adjourn There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1216 h.

Action Items Arising at this Meeting ACTION ITEM 1: Petersen will follow-up with the IEEE Standards Department to determine whether or not these data are available.

Attachments A1 Sign-in sheet A2 Approved Agenda A3 ICES Chairman’s Report (Bodemann) A4 Secretary’s Report (Petersen) A5 Treasurer’s Report (Petersen) A6 TC95 Membership Report (Murphy) A7 Report from WHO Consultancy and IAC Meetings, 2-3 June 2014 (Keshvari) A8 WHO Consultancy 2-3 June 2014 Meetings (Klauenberg) A9 Guide for Scientific Framework and Requirements in Developing EMF Compliance

Standards (Keshvari) A10 RF Exposure Safety Standards, Practices and Regulations – A Tutorial (Cleveland) A11 NIOSH Proposal for a Joint Project re Adoption of ICES Basic Restriction (ELF-EMF)

(Bowman) A12 ICES TC95 SC1 September 2014 Meeting Summary (Colville)

Approved Minutes – 11 September 2014 TC95 Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

Sign-in Sheet

TC95

Name (last) Name (first) Affiliation Country

1. Bodemann Ralf Siemens DE 2. Bowman Joe NIOSH US

3. Bushberg Jerrold UC Davis US 4. Butcher Matt Site Safe US 5. Chou C-K C-K. Chou Consulting US 6. Cleveland Robert EMF Consulting US 7. Colville Frank US Army PHC US 8. Cotton David Sitesafe US 9. Dass Satish Dtech US 10. DeFrank John US Army MEDCOM PHC US 11. Delgado Michael Verizon Wireless US 12. Elder Joe Independent Consultant US 13. Faraone Antonio Motorola Solutions US 14. Gerdon Tricia IEEE SA US 15. Gettman Ken NEMA US 16. Graf Kevin Exponent US 17. Haes Donald BAE Systems US 18. Hatfield James Hatfield-Dawson US 19. Hay Tamera Naval Surface Warfare Ctr. US 20. Hirata Akimasa Nagoya Inst of Technology JP 21. Johnson Bob L-3 Communications US 22. Kavet Robert EPRI US 23. Keshvari Jafar Microsoft FI 24. Klauenberg B Jon USAFRL/HED US 25. Meltz Marty Retired US 26. Mills Andy Southern LINC Wireless US 27. Miyagi Hiroaki JANUS JP 28. Mundy Wes AltaLink Management, Ltd US 29. Packer Malcolm Harris RF Communications US

Approved Minutes – 11 September 2014 TC95 Meeting ATTACHMENT 1

Name (last) Name (first) Affiliation Country

30. Petersen Ron R C Petersen LLC US 31. Reilly J Patrick Metatec Associates US 32. Sheppard Asher Asher Sheppard Consulting US 33. Sheppard Christopher Verizon Wireless US 34. Shkolnikov Yakov Exponent US 35. Springer Steven Naval Surface Warfare Ctr. US 36. Tech Darang Dtech US

37. Toropainen Anssi Microsoft FI 38. Umbdenstock Don Tyco/Sensormatic US 39. Visser Auke Royal Netherlands Navy NL 40. Wandel Eric Wavepoint Research US 41. Weller Robert NAB US 42. Wessel Marvin Global RF Solutions US 43. Whitmore Jeffery USAFRL/RHDR US 44. Ziskin Marvin Temple University US


Approved Agenda TC95 Committee

(Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz

Thursday, 11 September 2014 0900 - Noon

The Cliffs Resort Pismo Beach, California, USA

1. Call to Order Chou 2. Introduction of those Present All 3. Approval of Agenda Chou 4. Approval of January 16, 2014 TC95 minutes Chou 5. ICES Chairman’s Report Bodemann 6. TC95 Chairman’s Report Chou 7. Executive Secretary’s Report Petersen 8. Treasurer’s Report Petersen 9. Membership Chairman’s Report Murphy 10. Topic presentations

a) In memory of Bill Guy Chou b) WHO initiative to developing a WHO standard on non-ionizing radiation Bodemann/Keshvari c) RF safety issues in various countries TBD c) Who initiative discussion points Klauenberg d) IEC TC106 New Work Item: “Guide for scientific framework and Keshvari requirements in developing EMF compliance assessment standards” e) IEEE Broadcast Technology Society Symposium Wandel f) NIOSH Project to Develop ELF-EMF Policy Document Bowman

11. Subcommittee Reports a) SC1 (Measurements and computations) Colville/Douglas b) SC2 (Safety programs) Tell c) SC3 (Safety levels – 0 Hz to 3 kHz) Kavet d) SC4 (Safety levels – 3 kHz to 300 GHz) Ziskin e) SC5 (Effects of EM fields on blasting operations) Harmon

12. ICES Website Update Chou 13. New Business Chou 14. Future Meetings Chou 15. Adjourn

ATTACHMENT 2

Chairman‘s Report

Dr. Ralf Bodemann Chairman IEEE-ICES

Pismo Beach/CA Sep 11, 2014

ATTACHMENT 3 Approved Minutes – 11 September 2014 TC95 Meeting

AdCom Activities and Decisions • AdCom teleconference Aug 14, 2014 • AdCom meeting Sep 9, 2014

• New SC6 „EMF Dosimetry Modelling“

– Chair: Akimasa Hirata • New AdCom members:

– J. Patrick Reilly – Jafar Keshvari

• Next TC95 meeting: June 11-13, Monterey (in advance of BioEM2015


Directive 2013/35/EU Approved Minutes – 11 September 2014 TC95 Meeting

Directive 2013/35/EU … • supersedes 2004/40/EC • provides minimum requirements for the protection of workers

against risks of occupational EMF exposure • obliges employers to perform an EMF risk assessment for all

workplaces (incl. indirect effects) • confirms safety concept, limit values, and action levels for thermal

effects (100 kHz – 300 GHz) • provides exposure limit values and action levels for non-thermal

(nervous system) effects (1 Hz – 10 MHz) – refined version of ICNIRP‘s recent ELF guidelines

• requires employer to provide safety measures, workers‘ information and training, provision of health surveillance in relevant circumstances

• contains derogations for the MRI and the military sector, option for other industries (well-defined criteria)

• mandates the Commission to publish practical guides to help implement the provisions of the Directive


Exposure Limit Values non-thermal (nervous system) effects

Exposure Limit Values (ELVs)

1,0E-02

1,0E-01

1,0E+00

1,0E+01

1,0E+02

1,0E+03

1,0E+04

1,0E+00 1,0E+01 1,0E+02 1,0E+03 1,0E+04 1,0E+05 1,0E+06 1,0E+07

Frequency in Hz

in s

itu e

lect

ric fi

eld

stre

ngth

(pea

k) in

V/m

Health Effect ELVsSensory Effect ELVs

must not exceed (PNS)

can be exceeded when safety risks of sens. effects excluded


Electric Fields Action Levels for non-thermal (nervous system) effects

Action Levels (ALs) for external electric fields

1,0E+02

1,0E+03

1,0E+04

1,0E+05

1,0E+00 1,0E+01 1,0E+02 1,0E+03 1,0E+04 1,0E+05 1,0E+06 1,0E+07

Frequency in Hz

elec

tric

fiel

d st

reng

th in

V/m Low ALs

High ALs

ensure compliance with sens. eff. ELVs

ensure compliance with health eff. ELVs


Magnetic Fields Action Levels for non-thermal (nervous system) effects

Action Levels (ALs) for external magnetic fields

1,0E+02

1,0E+03

1,0E+04

1,0E+05

1,0E+06

1,0E+00 1,0E+01 1,0E+02 1,0E+03 1,0E+04 1,0E+05 1,0E+06 1,0E+07

Frequency in Hz

Mag

netic

Fie

ld D

ensi

ty in

µT

Low ALs High ALs Limb ALs

ensure compliance with health eff. ELVs for limb exposure


Exposure Limit Values Thermal Effects

Frequency in Hz Description Value

100 kHz – 6 GHz Whole body SAR1 0.4 W/kg

100 kHz – 6 GHz Localized2 SAR1 (head and trunk) 10 W/kg

100 kHz – 6 GHz Localized2 SAR1 (limbs) 20 W/kg

0.3 GHz – 6 GHz Localized2 SA3 (head, microwave hearing) 10 mJ/kg

6 GHz – 300 GHz Power Density4 (20 cm2, surface heating) 50 W/m2

6 GHz – 300 GHz Peak Power Density4 (1 cm2, surface heating) 1000 W/m2

1SAR: Specific Absorption Rate 2averaged over 10 g of contiguos tissue (can be cube or sphere for calculations) 3SA: Specific Absorption 4averaging time: 6 min for frequencies 6 GHz – 10 GHz 68/f1,05 min for frequencies > 10 GHz, f is frequency in GHz


Action Levels Thermal Effects Electric Field Strength

0.00E+00

1.00E+02

2.00E+02

3.00E+02

4.00E+02

5.00E+02

6.00E+02

7.00E+02

1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08 1.0E+09 1.0E+10 1.0E+11 1.0E+12

elec

tric

fiel

d st

reng

th in

V/m

Frequency in Hz


Action Levels Thermal Effects Magnetic Field Strength

1.0E-01

1.0E+00

1.0E+01

1.0E+02

1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08 1.0E+09 1.0E+10 1.0E+11 1.0E+12 mag

netic

fiel

d st

reng

th in

A/m

Frequency in Hz


Art. 14 Practical Guides • In order to facilitate the implementation of this Directive the Commission

shall make available practical guides the latest by 1 January 2016. Issues to be covered: – Determination of exposure, taking into account appropiate European or

international standards including: • Calculation methods for the assessment of the ELVs • Spatial averaging of external electric or magnetic fields • Guidance for dealing with measurement and calculation uncertainties

– Guidance on demonstrating compliance in special types of non-uniform exposure in specific situations, based on well-established dosimetry

– The description of the „weighted peak method“ for the low frequency fields and of the „multifrequency fields summation“ for high frequency fields

– The conduct of the risk assessment and, wherever possible, the provision of simplified techniques, taking into account in particular the needs of SMEs

– Measures aimed at avoiding or reducing risks, including specific prevention measures depending on the level of exposure and the workplace characteristics

– Establishment of documented working procedures for workers exposed to EMFs during MRI acitivities

– Evaluation of exposures in the frequency range from 100 kHz to 10 MHz – Guidance on medical examinations and health surveillance


Status of Practical Guide

• Final draft provided by Health Protection England (HPE)

• Very comprehensive (187 pages + 137 pages case studies)

• Presentations to EU working party EMF on Sep, 8

• Final comments/conclusions submitted at WP meeting on Sep, 30


Adopt recent ICNIRP Guideline?

• ICNIRP published guideline on 0-1 Hz fields and movement in strong static magnetic fields (2014)

• Art. 11 (2) mandates EU Commission to consider adoption of that guideline

• EU working party EMF mandated to give advise • WP invited Keri Jokela/ICNIRP and Paul Glover • Glover claimed misinterpretation of his findings

and lack of data (no sufficient basis for limit value recommendations)

• Draft WP conclusions: Basically recommend NOT to adopt ICNIRP guideline (to be adopted on Oct, 1 and subsequently submitted to Commission)


THANK YOU!


Pismo Beach, CA 12 September 2014

Slide 1

IEEE ICES

Secretary’s Report

TC95 Meeting 12 September 2014

Pismo Beach, California R Petersen

ICES




Slide 2

IEEE ICES

ICES –Administrative

Policies and Procedures (P&P): Defines organizational structure (SCC-39)

Based on “SA Baseline P&Ps for Type 2 SCCs” (with deviations)

Revision of 2007 P&Ps accepted by SASB, December 2012

Working Group (SC) P&Ps are now Required

WG P&Ps deemed “without issue” by AudCom, June 2013

Annual Report (2012-2013): Accepted by SASB, December 2013



Slide 3

IEEE ICES

Changes: Reaffirmation/Stabilization

Effective Jan 1, 2012: There will be no new reaffirmation or stabilization ballots

The only actions allowed by Sponsors will be:

• Revision

• Amendment/Corrigendum

• Withdrawal

Standards will now have a 10 year maintenance cycle (i.e., extended from 5 years to 10 years after the last date of approval or maintenance action)

The status for a standard will be either active or inactive

All standards must have a revision approved by the IEEE-SASB prior to the close of Year 10 in order to remain active

Any standard not approved as a revision will become inactive after year 10



Slide 4

IEEE ICES

Changes: Inactive Standards

Categories of Inactive Standards:

Inactive – superseded: These standards have been replacedwith a revised version of the standard

Inactive – reserved: These standards are removed fromactive status through an administrative process for standardsthat have not undergone a revision process within 10 years

Inactive – withdrawn (valid for standards categorizedafter 1 January 2012): These standards have been removedfrom active status through a ballot where the standard is madeinactive as a consensus decision of the balloting group



Slide 5

IEEE ICES

Changes: Revisions

Revisions: A revision ballot may result in:

Changes to the standard

Changes to only the references or bibliography

No changes at all

In the event that no changes are made, the standard willretain its designation (i.e., the year will not change).

The title page will reflect the fact that a maintenanceaction occurred but no changes were made.

This will keep the standard active for another 10 years



Slide 6

IEEE ICES

ICES TC95 Standards: Status

C95.1-2005: (Safety levels, 3 kHz – 300 GHz) Approved 2005; published 2006

PAR for revision – approved June 2010; expires 31 December 2014

Revision will incorporate C95.6 (Safety levels, 0 Hz to 3 kHz)

PC95.1a: (Safety levels, 3 kHz – 300 GHz) Published May 2010

Amendment 1 (sets ceiling values for induced and contact current)

C95.1-2345-2014: (Safety levels, 0 Hz – 300 GHz) Approved 16 May 2014; published 30 May 2014

Replacement for NATO STANAG 2345



Slide 7

IEEE ICES


C95.2-1999: (RF energy and current flow symbols) Reaffirmed 2005

PAR for Revision – approved November 2010; expires 31 December 2014)

C95.3-2002: (RF measurements and computation: 100 kHz to 300 GHz)

Reaffirmed 2008

PAR for Revision – approved 6 February 2012; expires 31 December 2016

Revision will incorporate C95.3.1

PC95.3.1: (Measurements and computation: 0 Hz to 100 kHz)

Incorporates IEEE 1460

Published May 2010



Slide 8

IEEE ICES


C95.4-2002: (Safe distances from antennas during blasting operations)

Reaffirmed 2008

C95.6-2002: (Safety levels – 0 to 3 kHz)

Reaffirmed 2007

Will be incorporated into C95.1 (Safety levels, 3 kHz to 300 GHz)

C95.7-2014: (RF safety programs) Revision of C95.7-2005

Approved 12 June 2014; published 8 August 2014



Slide 9

IEEE ICES


1460-1996: (Measurement of quasi-static electric and magnetic fields)

Reaffirmed 2008

Incorporated into C95.3.1

Action – Withdraw or archive (2014)



Slide 10

IEEE ICES

SCC39 Standards: Expiration Dates

Number Year Approval Date Expiration Date

1460 1996 12/10/1996 12/31/2018 1528 2013 06/12/2013 12/31/2023 C95.1 2005 10/03/2005 12/31/2018 C95.1a 2010 02/02/2010 02/02/2020 C95.1-2345 2014 05/16/2014 12/31/2024 C95.2 1999 09/16/1999 12/31/2018 C95.3 2002 12/11/2002 12/31/2018 C95.3.1 2010 03/25/2010 03/25/2020 C95.4 2002 11/11/2002 12/31/2018 C95.6 2002 09/12/2002 12/31/2018 C95.7 2014 06/12/2014 12/31/2024



Slide 11

IEEE ICES

Get C95™ Standards

Access to the following standards at no cost has been sponsored by the US Navy, US Air Force, and US Army:*

• IEEE Std C95.1TM-2005• IEEE Std C95.1-2345TM-2005• IEEE Std C95.3TM-2002• IEEE Std C95.3.1TM-2010• IEEE Std C95.6TM-2002• IEEE Std C95.7TM-2005• IEEE Std C95.7TM-2014

http://standards.ieee.org/about/get/ *Sponsorship of the Get IEEE C95 no-cost-to-public web access of the IEEE C95standards does not imply that the Department of Defense nor its Component Services endorse or are obligated in any manner to adopt the covered standards current or future versions.



Slide 12

IEEE ICES

Get IEEE C95 Standards: Download Statistics

Standard Total Downloads

2012 2013 2014 (YTD)

C95.1-2005 1493 1362 742 C95.1a-2010 0 0 0 C95.1-2345-2014 39 C95.3-2002 571 536 280 C95.3.1-2010 472 476 196 C95.6-2002 620 424 250 C95.7-2005 515 341 228 C95.7-2014 14 Total 3671 3139 1749



Slide 13

IEEE ICES

Get IEEE C95 Standards: Download Statistics

Interest Category Total

2012 2013 2014 (YTD) Military User 219 216 108 Safety/Risk Manager 367 462 294 Other 588 506 238 Commercial User 662 615 310 Research Scientist 603 339 218 Government user (non Military) 407 307 191

Academic/Student 660 582 316 Standards Developer 163 109 74 Unknown 2 Total 3671 3111 1749



Slide 14

IEEE ICES

Active TC95 Project Authorization Requests (PARs)

Project Approval Date Expiration Date

PC95.1 17 June 2010 31 December 2014

PC95.2 8 November 2010 31 December 2014

PC95.3 6 February 2010 31 December 2016

Action:

PAR extension requests for PC95.1 and PC95.2 must be submitted to the Standards Board New Standards Committee (NesCom) no later than 20 October 2014 in order for the two projects to continue.



Slide 15

IEEE ICES

Changes: Interpretations

Rationale: Inefficient and a risk

Interpretation responses made in an attempt to clarify ambiguous text to be derived from a process that does not inform all materially interested parties of the activity

Does not require consensus to be achieved through the Sponsor balloting process

Elimination of Interpretations: The IEEE- SA Standards Board approved a proposal

to eliminate issuing interpretations in June 2011



Slide 16

IEEE ICES

Changes: Interpretations

Solution:

More sensible to simply funnel comments on standards toSponsors for handling Any document changes would appear in a revision

amendment/corrigendum

All require PARs – an open process & consensus through balloting

Therefore interpretations as discrete documents arediscontinued



Slide 17

IEEE ICES

Changes: Individual Experts

Individual Expert:

Members of the working groups who are not SA members but contributed significantly to the development of standard could participate in sponsor ballots if approved by the SASB as “individual experts”

Individual Expert category has been eliminated

Now, only IEEE-SA Members or individuals who pay a fee are permitted to vote on IEEE sponsor ballots

TC95 SC/WGs follow IEEE sponsor balloting procedures

TC95 members and members of the TC95 SCs and WGs who are not IEEE-SA members and desire to vote on a standard should join the WG ballot groups



Slide 18

IEEE ICES

Secretary’s Report

Questions?


TC95-September 2014 Pismo Beach, CA IEEE ICES

Treasurer’s Report

TC95 Meeting 12 September

Pismo Beach, California R Petersen

ICES



TC95-September 2014 Pismo Beach, CA IEEE ICES

Financial Statement: 1/1/14—9/12/14

Balance (01/01/14) $ 13 074.91

Income $ 4426.60 $ 22.18

January 14 Meeting Interest

Total $ 4448.78

Expenses $ 2583.16 $ 419.70 $ 249.61 $ 1000.00

January 14 Meeting Database Maintenance Flowers (Bill Guy Memorial) Deposit Sept 14 Meeting

Total $ 4252.47

Balance (9/12/14) $ 13 271.22


ICES TC95 Membership Report 11 September 2014

Pismo Beach, California

Dr. Michael R. Murphy Science Director (retired)

Bioeffects Division Air Force Research Laboratory


2

ICES TC95 Membership Report Outline

• Recent New Members

• Current Membership

• Maintaining Official Membership in ICES TC95

• Becoming a Member of ICES

3

Recent New Members in ICES TC95

Rajat Mathur, Calafornia - accepted Amnon Duvdevany, Israel - accepted Donald Farrer, San Antonio - accepted John Brewer, USAF, Singapore- accepted Rodney Croft, Australia - accepted Dave Cotton, Colorado - accepted Rene De Seze, France - accepted Hiroaki Miyagi, Japan – accepted 15 July 2009 Akinasa Hirata, Japan – accepted 12 Dec 2009 Niels Smit, Netherlands – accepted 10 Feb 2010 Jin Hongbin, China – accepted 17 Feb 2010 Tamera Hay. USA – accepted 14 April 2010 Ae-Kyoung Lee, Korea – accepted 14 April 2010 Shrivastava, Devashish, USA – accepted 16 July 2010 Chungsang Ryu, Korea – accepted 16 July 2010

Kenichi Yamazaki, Japan – accepted 16 July 2010

4

Recent New Members in ICES TC95

Daoud Attayi, Canada – accepted 5 October 2010 Martin R. Doczkat, USA – accepted 5 October 2010 Mark Douglas, Switzerland – accepted 13 January 2011 Byung, Chan Kim, Korea – accepted 8 July 2011 Shkolnikov, Yakov, USA – accepted 8 July 2011 Zhadobov, Maxim, France – accepted 8 July 2011 Christine M. Jones, USA – accepted 12 October 2011 Frank Colville – USA – accepted 17 November 2011 Sam Adhikari, USA – accepted 05 December 2011 Martin Gledhill, NZ – accepted 05 May 2012 Wes Mundy, CA – accepted 18 July 2012 Dave Dini, USA – accepted 31 August 2012 Hai Jiang, USA – accepted 31 August 2012 Ray Harmond, USA – accepted 23 Jan 2013

Bob Johnson, USA – accepted 23 Jan 2013

5

Recent New Members in ICES TC95 Marv Wessel Jr., USA – accepted 23 Jan 2013 Leeor Alcon, USA – accepted Feb 2013 Vijayalaxmi, USA – accepted March 2013 TV Ramachandran, India – accepted March 2013 Matt Butcher, USA – accepted November 2013 Wes Shelton, USA – accepted December 2013

James Futch, USA – accepted January 2014

Jafar Keshvari, Finland – accepted January 2014 Antonio Faraone, USA – accepted Feb 2014 Llkka Laakso, Japan – applied September 2014

6

TC95 Current Membership

TC95 membership, Jan 2014 - 135 Members

AU - 4 BL - 1 CA - 8 CH - 6 CN - 2 DE - 1 FI - 1 FR - 3 GR - 4 HU - 1 IE - 4 IL – 2 IN - 1

IT – 3 JP - 4 KR - 4 MY - 4 NL - 2 NZ - 2 PL - 1 SE - 1 SI - 1 TH - 1 TR - 1 UK - 4 US - 72

25 countries

7

Maintaining Official Membership in

ICES TC95

• Following the ICES Winter meeting each year, the membership roles will be reviewed. Members who joined ICES before that year, who have not attended meetings or otherwise participated in the business of ICES that year, will be contacted to determine if they are still interested in maintaining official membership in the Committee. Those failing to respond will be dropped from the membership roles. The membership of individuals who joined ICES within that year will be reviewed at the end of the next calendar year.

8

• Access to protected part of ICES Website

• E-mail notification of meetings and other events

• Permission to publically cite self as “Member of ICES TC95”

• Listing in the preface of IEEE C95 standards, if you contribute

• Inclusion in membership statistics

• Voting on committee issues at meetings and by letter (e-mail) ballot

• Participating in all ballots on ICES standards, subject to IEEE rules.

Privileges of Official Membership on IEEE ICES TC95

To apply for membership, e-mail [email protected]

Report from WHO Consultancy and IAC meetings, 2-3 June 2014

ICES TC95 meeting, Pismo Beach Jafar keshvari, Microsoft Corporation

Ralf Bodemann, Siemens BJ Klauenberg, Air force Laboratory



Background

• To date, WHO has not developed NIRstandards

• Request from a Member State in 2012• Discussion with the WHO International

Advisory Committee (June 2013, Paris)• Bilateral meetings with relevant UN

organizations• Consultancy meeting (2-3 June 2014),

Advisory not decision-making !


Bakground...

• International stds is part of WHO mandate,voluantary

• Both EMF and acoustic signals, above 20KHzand below 20 Hz

• International stds for NIR:


Example model Approved Minutes – 11 September 2014 TC95 Meeting

Objective of the meeting

• To discuss and brainstorm the proposal to developthe equivalent of BSS in ionizing radiation for NIRproposed by member states and also to have a clearguidance on NIR.

• Gaps in and lack of consistency amongst guidelineshas proven to be challenging to regulators and policymakers.

• Further to NIR (0-300 GHz), UV and Ultrasound andInfrasound were discussed to be included in this SS.


The way forward • Set up a small working group 5-10 people to work

on terms of reference.• Engage with appropriate stakeholders.• Review existing guidelines and identify gaps.• Review and consider “parking lot” items.• Draft table of content.• Draft a detailed proposal.• Evaluate funding needs.• Feedback to consultancy group and IAC members

by June 2015.


Joint Workshop on Radiation Protection Principles: Similarities and Differences in

Ionizing and Non-Ionizing Radiation

• identify similarities and differences in ionizing and non-ionizing radiationprotection principles

• The differences in endpoints in ionizing and non-ionizing radiation(associated with stochastic and deterministic processes respectively) werediscussed

• the approaches towards safety/uncertainty factors, for both workers andthe general public

• Discussion on the difference between workers and the general public, itmay also be different for ionizing and non-ionizing radiation

• The important issue of whether the principles of justification, optimizationand limitation that govern ionizing radiation protection can or should beapplied for non-ionizing radiation?


WHO IAC meeting main items

• WHO 2010 EMF research agenda still used asreference in many new research projects.

• There is an update on the IARC statement.• There will be new data source (EMF stds such as

Existence of limits, Regulation, and Legislativestatus ) in WHO website where the informationcould be tracked.

• The EMF guide for local authorities which hadbeen under development for about 9 years istowards completion by the end of the year.

• IARC presentation


WHO IAC meeting main items...

• IARC presentation– Not recognized as causal (weak evidence of

positive association; IARC class 2B– More recent studies attenuate evidence, in

particular for glioma (SCENIHR, 2014)– Knowledge gaps: latency > 15-20 years, use in the

very heaviest users.– classification of 2B can be changed with emerging

new data and evidence either to a higher riskcategory or lower.



• REFLEX findings– can be considered as non-reproducible: Speit et al.

(2013) repeated some of the experiments carried outin the framework of the EU-funded REFLEX project. Byusing the same exposure system and the sameexperimental protocols as the authors of the originalstudy, they failed to confirm its findings.

• Very large number of low-quality papers inbiology journals with very poor dosimetry

• No big breakthrough and no health effectsforeseen.



• Report on Mobile phones and children:– Peak SAR different but average similar to adults.– Conclusions HCN 2011 report still valid– No cause for concern– Cannot be excluded: Still limited data and data

mostly > 10y.– More research is needed on Younger children and

long term effects.



• Update on WHO activities for RF factsheetrevision– RF revision started on 2012– Progressing slowly, very many papers to review.– Timetable:

• Sep 2014: finalize draft chapters 2-12 and 14• 15 Sep 2014: drafts will be uploaded on web for public view• Nov-Dec 2014: core group members meet with contributors

to discuss comments• Jan 2015 Finalize second draft• Expected in summer 2016.• Get data from all IAC members by the end of June.


?...


DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; PS # TSRL 14-

IEEE/ICES

Cliffs Resort, Pismo Beach, CA 9-11 September 2014

Dr. B. Jon Klauenberg Senior Research Physiologist

711th Human Performance Wing Human Effectiveness Directorate

Bioeffects Division Radio Frequency Bioeffects Branch

Distribution A. Approved for public release

WHO Consultancy 2-3 June 2014


Presenter

Presentation Notes

16

2

Force Health Protection and Occupational Safety

for

Military Operations in Electromagnetic Environments

What is Current NATO Mandate

Distribution A: Approved for public release, distribution unlimited; PA # TSRL 14-0100

WHO Consultancy Preliminary Questions

3

• Single global harmonized standard would enable interoperability

• However, individual situations require flexibility based on total environment risk assessment and population characteristics

• Flexibility can be standardized in a managed manner

How would a single, global standard fit/help? (WHO Consultancy on Development of Ethical and Evidence-Based Standards)

WHO Consultancy Preliminary Questions


4

Thirty participants with expertise in: non-ionizing radiofrequency optical ultraviolet ionizing ultrasound infrasound food safety air pollution water safety


Report with input from Dr. Jafar Keshvari


5

• Single global harmonized NIR standard similar to the IAEC Basic Safety Standards Red Book “Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards” 2011

• Proposed as a good template to follow

• Note: This is a huge document: 283 pgs



6

• Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety agencies

– International Labour Organization

– International Telecommunications Union

– United Nations Environmental Programme

• WHO

• International Agency for Research on Cancer

• World Meteorological Organization

• None have core mission of non-ionizing radiation

WHO Standards Project Core


7

WHO Standards Project Members

Groups with core missions to set safety standards for non-ionizing radiation listed as observers

• International Commission on Non-Ionizing RadiationProtection (ICNIRP)

• International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)

• International Standards Organization (ISO)

• International Radiation Protection Association

Not listed

• Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)– Eurocentric– Chair invited: Dr. Ralf Bodemann


8

• Establish a Task Force to lay the groundwork for Inter-Agency Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Safety (IACNIRS) consisting of –Representatives of the relevant UN organizations –Individuals with experience in setting up such committees

• Establish Terms of Reference of the IACNIRS

• Clarify roles and levels of engagement of the different partners

• Outline plan on how to proceed and how to negotiate with other relevant organizations

• Invite formally the membership of the IACNIRS

WHO Short-term Plan


9

WHO Long-term Plan

• Inter-Agency Committee on Non-Ionizing RadiationSafety (IACNIRS) will

– Develop a system of non-ionizing radiation protectionthat will incorporate principles to ensure safe andproper use of NIR in all applications

– Develop ethical and evidence-based standards as thebenchmark for Member States


10

Expected Impact United Nations NIR Standards Plan

1. Guidelines would be recognized as representing theposition of the UN system on NIR issues

2. Collaboration with standard-setting organizations andparties, including regional and national relevantagencies

3. Networking and close collaboration with WHO MemberStates and Regulatory Authorities

4. Service available to all Member States


11

Force-Field Analysis The top reasons (N=48) for developing a common and unified standard

• Set an internationallyscience-based standardwhich cannot be ignored

• Harmonize existingstandards

• Enhance riskcommunication

• Establish high levelrecognized authority

• Leverage WHO credibilityand experience

The top challenges (N=32) and risk reasons for NOT developing a common and unified standard

• Complexity of the task

• Governments may ignore

• Risk of social agendasundermining science

• No motivation for jointstandard; many guidelinesadopted by nations

• Rigid one-size-fit-allapproach may not workfor all nations and acrossthe NIR spectrum


12

WHO Way Forward

1. Set up a small working group of 5-10 people towork on terms of reference

2. Engage with appropriate stakeholders

3. Review existing guidelines and identify gaps

4. Review and consider “parking lot” items

5. Draft table of contents

6. Draft a detailed proposal

7. Evaluate funding needs

8. Provide feedback to consultancy group and WHOInternational Advisory Committee by June 2015


13

Assessment

• The goal is overly ambitious and inclusion of infra-soundand ultra-sound will further confuse the public, which isalready confused about the difference between non-ionizing radiation and ionizing radiation

• Proposed project is overly ambitious and unlikely tosucceed given the breadth of scope


14

We Do Not Want This


Joint activity: IEC-ICES-ITU Guide for scientific framework and

requirements in developing EMF compliance assessment standards

ICES TC95 meeting, 11.09.2014 Pismo Beach, CA-USA

Jafar Keshvari Microsoft Corporation


Background

• Overlaping work items• Deviation in measurement concept and

procedurs• Harmonization of standards including EMF

compliance assessment standards• Close collaboration between different

committees one way towards harmonization• Common understanding and agreement of the

scientific principals in which the foundation of astandard is built on


ICES role and support

• Official liasion agreement between ICES andIEC

• ”GUIDE” type of documents in IEEE and ICES?• Contributions by ICES


Next steps

• Liaison agreements between IEC, ICES and ITUdone

• Brainstorming meeting• Different approachs for low and high

frequency• Close co-operation between IEC and SC6 is

foreseen• Difficult to suggest timeline


?...


RF Exposure Safety Standards, Practices and Regulations

A Tutorial to be Conducted on Wednesday Afternoon, October 15, 2014

at the IEEE Broadcast Symposium

San Antonio, Texas October 15-17, 2014

ATTACHMENT 10


Symposium Background

• The IEEE Broadcast Technology Society (BTS) has held an annualsymposium each year for over 60 years.

• The Symposium is attended primarily by broadcast engineeringprofessionals, consultants and FCC staff. Typical attendance isapproximately 125 people.

• A three-day event held from Wednesday-Friday, the Wednesdayprogram is typically a tutorial day to take deep dives into two topics,morning and afternoon.

• CEU credits are offered at the Symposium.• Until 2012, the Symposium was always held in the Washington D.C.

area. For the first time in 2013, BTS began to move the locationfrom year to year, and the 2013 Broadcast Symposium was held inSan Diego.

• The 2014 IEEE Broadcast Symposium will take place in SanAntonio from October 15-17, 2014, at the Hilton Palacio Del Rio onthe Riverwalk.

Slide 2


RF Safety Tutorial

• Audience typical interests will be related to RF safetypractices at high power radio and television transmissionsites, such as at towers and on rooftop installations.

• Objectives include:– Teach about the standards and regulations that exist.

What must be done at a transmission site?– Update measurement professionals about updates to

standards, regulations, practices.

Slide 3


Organizing Group

• Robert Cleveland, EMF Consulting, Portland, OR, retired Federal Communications Commission (FCC) expert on RF radiation safety and member of IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES)

• C.K. Chou, Chairman of IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES) TC95

• Martin Doczkat, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) • Robert D. Weller, P.E., Vice President for Spectrum Policy, National

Association of Broadcasters (NAB), member of IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES)

• J. Hatfield, Hatfield and Dawson Consulting, member of IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES)

• Ric Tell, Chair ICES TC95 Subcommittee 2 on Terminology, Symbols and Hazard Communications; Chair IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR)

• Eric Wandel, Wavepoint Research, Inc., Member or IEEE Broadcast Technology Society (BTS) AdCom, BTS Liaison Member to IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR)

Slide 4


Topics / Presenters (1 of 2)

Slide 5

Presentation Title Speaker Time

Opening Remarks Robert Cleveland, Session Chair 2:00 - 2:05

Standards of IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES) • Covering all standards that TC95 and TC34 have developed

over the years, including IEEE C95.7 guidance on RF safety programs

• Basis of IEEE and other international RF standards• Recent IEEE standards activities

C.K. Chou, Chairman of ICES TC95

2:05 - 2:40

FCC policy on RF exposure • Policies for adoption of RF standards• Recent FCC proposals (Order, NPRM, NOI, etc.)• RF regulatory issues

Martin Doczkat, Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

2:40 - 3:15

BREAK 3:15 - 3:35


Topics / Presenters (2 of 2)

Slide 6

Presentation Title Speaker Time Practical considerations • Responsibility at multiple-user sites, etc. • Collocation considerations for RFI • Techniques in antenna system design to reduce unwanted RF • Rooftop, tower analysis of RF exposure

Robert D. Weller, P.E., Vice President for Spectrum Policy, National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), Member of ICES

3:35 - 4:15

Examples of RF exposure problems • RF measurement equipment and techniques including

operator induced uncertainty • Example: changes in structures/fences/buildings causing new

hot spots • Example: Crane operation near high power AM sites

J. Hatfield, Hatfield and Dawson Consulting, Member of ICES

4:15 - 5:00

PANEL Q&A All Presenters 5:00 - 5:30


Discussion

• ICES/TC95 is involved in this tutorial “unofficially” because many of the presenters are associated with ICES. – These membership and chair positions with ICES are

currently listed in the technical program. • Questions:

– Does ICES/TC95 desire to be more prominently displayed?

– Will this workshop make a good “prototype” for a more comprehensive / more extended workshop that ICES may want to sponsor and conduct on RF Safety?

• Other thoughts / ideas?

Slide 7


How NIOSH can adopt the ICES Basic Restriction as

its Recommended Exposure Limit for ELF-EMF

Proposal for a joint project

Joe Bowman National Institute for Occupational

Safety & Health

NIOSH has not reviewed or approved this presentation.


Overview • NIOSH project to develop an ELF-EMF policy

document– Recommended Exposure Limit (REL)

• How the BR can become the REL• Research that has been done

– Induced current meter• Patent application submitted but rejected

– Multiwave III personal monitor and software– Side-by-side MW3 and EMDEX measurements

• What needs to be done• Collaboration?


NIOSH Project to Develop Strategies for Managing Workplace

Exposures to Power-Frequency EMF

Joseph Bowman, PhD U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH)

GLORE, Nov 2013

The findings and conclusions in this presentation have not been formally disseminated by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.


Scope of the EMF document and website

• Scope: EMF from 3 Hz to 3 kHz

• Recommended Exposure Limits (REL) to protect againstneurological disturbances

• Prevent electromagnetic interference (EMI) withpacemakers and other electronic implants in workplaces

• Precautionary strategies to reduce possible cancer risks

• Recommended Exposure Limits (REL) to protect againstneurological disturbances


Recommended Exposure Limits (REL) for ELF-EMF – 1

• NIOSH recommends RELs to the Occupational Safety &Health Administration (OSHA), which decides onregulatory Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL).

• Plan: Adopt an REL from one of the existing ELF-EMFexposure guidelines with these criteria:– RELs impaired health or functioning, not sensory effects– Compliance with PEL must be measurable in an OSHA inspection– Resulting options for a REL:

• ICNIRP’s 2010 Reference Levels• IEEE’s 2002 Maximum Permissible Exposure• EU’s 2013 High Action Level


REL for ELF-EMF – 2 • The proposed RELs are IEEE’s MPEs, e.g.

– Magnetic field REL = 2,710 µT for 20 – 800 Hz– Electric field REL = 20 kV/m for 1 – 272 Hz

for power frequencies (60 Hz, etc.)

• Advantages of the IEEE guidelines– Several metrics for multi-frequency fields (dB/dt, Einternal, sum

rule) gives practitioners options– Methods for measuring compliance specified in IEEE Standard

C95.3 [2010]


How the BR can become the REL

• NIOSH recommends the BR for the internal E asthe exposure limit , assuming that an internal Emeter shaped to the BR’s frequency response willbe on sale.

• Collaborate with instrument makers to develop“basic restriction meters”

• Develop a method to use RMS resultantmeasurements as a surrogate for the BR meter

• Determine uncertainties of the surrogate methodand BR meter to use in compliance decisions



An Induced Body Current Meter

A More Accurate Method for Measuring Adherence to Magnetic Field Guidelines

Joseph D. Bowman National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health

Cincinnati, Ohio U.S.A.

Bioelectromagnetic Society Annual Meeting 2000


Approach: Scaling Dosimetry to Measurements

• Start with induced internal E fields → from accuratedosimetric models for standard magnetic fields B.

• Measure the 3-axis magnetic field derivative dB/dt

• Use Faraday’s Law:

to scale Ei → from dB/dt to the dB/dt measurement.

t- ∂∂=×∇ BE

^

^


ELF Dosimetric Models (Stuchly, Dawson et al., 2000)

• Conductive model of male body from MRI image• Exposure to 3 standard magnetic fields

1 µT, 60 Hz, linearly-polarized along X,Y, or Z axes

• Outputs– induced current densities J– induced electric fields E– statistics for various organs

(heart, brain, bone marrow, etc.)

• UPDATE FROM ICES DOSIMETRY GROUP


Induced Body Current Meter

X

Y

Z

Induction coil

probe

Motion filter

(>40 Hz) ? ? x

B

yB

zB

A/D conversion

>6000 Hz

Digital signal

processing chip

Dosimetry data

Ei

Output:

• read-out•peak hold

•data logger

Probe axes aligned with

head


Inexact Assumption: Homogenous field across the brain


FURTHER WORK

• Numerical tests of scaling method with realistic fields

• Build induced internal E meter

• Workplace testing of meter in high fields


PROBLEM: BR is frequency dependent

0.01

0.1

1

10

1 10 100 1000 10000

Inte

rnal

E [V

/m]

Frequency [Hz]

Basic Restriction for head (controlled zone)


Exposure Metrics for EU Action Level 2. Linear Response Region

300 Hz–3kHz

100 uT


Sources in the Linear Response Region 300 Hz – 3kHz

Induction Heat Treating Depending on the part’s dimensions and metal properties, frequencies can be in the linear response region.

Metal Detector Frequency Spectrum Waveform

Single known frequency

Multiple frequencies


Most accurate metric for EU Action Level: ICNIRP Filter

Response

1

Metal detector spectrum

ICNIRP

245%


Gaussmeter with Filtering Capability

• 3-axis probe• Bandwidth 1 Hz – 400 kHz• Dynamic range up to 80 mT• Analysis modes:

– Field Strength (RMS magnitude or peakvector magnitude)

– Filters for ICNIRP and other standards• Shaped Time Domain (STD) mode

• Limitations:– Expense– Sequential multiplexing

narda ELT-400


SOLUTION: Develop shaped filter for ICES BR

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

1 10 100 1000 10000

Inte

rnal

E [V

/m]

Frequency [Hz]

Basic Restriction for head (controlled zone)

Internal E meter + shaped BR filter = BR meter Frequency [Hz]

Res

pons

e

Head BR filter


How the BR can become the REL

• NIOSH recommends the BR for the internal E asthe exposure limit , assuming that an internal Emeter shaped to the BR’s frequency response willbe on sale.



• Determine uncertainties of the surrogate methodand BR meter to use in compliance decisions



PROPOSAL: Use EMDEXs as a surrogate for the “basic restriction meter”

EMDEX II www.enertech.net

• Flat response: 40-1000 Hz• 3 orthogonal (3D) induction

coils isotropic probe• Spot measurements and

personal monitoring• EMCALC software for

statistics and graphing• Output called the “resultant”

2 2 2x y zB B B= + +


PROPOSAL: Study of EMDEX vs. BR measurements • Use NIOSH data of side-

by-side measurementswith EMDEX andprototype inducedcurrent meter

• Linear regression givesconversion factor(slope) and uncertainty(std. error of estimate)


Multiwave III – a prototype internal E field monitor

Bioelectromagnetics 31:391-405 (2010)

Analyzing Digital Vector Waveforms of 0-3000 Hz Magnetic Fields for Health Studies

Joseph D. Bowman, Christian K. Miller, Edward F. Krieg, and Ruiguang Song National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio


Sample of results

MW3 software also calculates the fundamental and first two harmonics of frequency spectrum for rms B estimate BR filter

294 summary-exposure metrics per worker

Max TWA Rate-of-changeB0 vector magnitude (uT)

139.4 42.3 7.2

rms BELF vector magnitude

7.622 0.648 0.246

rms dB/dt vector magnitude (uT/s)

2928.2 207.1 87

Total harmonic distortion (%)

2.98 0.078 0.012

Induced E in brain (median in uV/m)

51.044 2.485 1.632

Induced E in brain (max)

245.71 13.985 8.176

Exposure metric Summary metric over 8 hr


Study of electric utility workers with the Multiwave III (unpublished)

• 507 full-shiftmeasurements on allelectric utility jobs

• Workers wore a vest withthe MW3, high-fieldEMDEX and a contactcurrent meter

• Goal: a JEM of“biologically-based”magnetic field metrics forepi studies

• Over 1 million MW3 and EMDEX measurements

• Over 1 million MW3 andEMDEX measurements


PROPOSAL: Study of EMDEX vs. BR measurements • Use NIOSH data of side-

by-side measurementswith EMDEX andprototype inducedcurrent meter

• Linear regression givesconversion factor(slope) and uncertainty(std. error of estimate)


Summary of tasks

• Update dosimetry data in induced E model– ICES dosimetry committee

• Develop BR meter– NIOSH and instrument company

• Analysis of side-by-side measurements– Assistance of ICES members desired

• Expert and stakeholder reviews of NIOSHdocument

– Some recruited from ICES members


SEP 2014 - ICES TC95 SC1 - Summary

Frank Colville, US Army Public Health Command


ICES TC95 SC1 - Update

Scope of IEEE C95.3 • This recommended practice describes methods for measuring and

computing external electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields towhich persons may be exposed over the frequency range of 0 Hz to300 GHz. Instrument characteristics and the methods of calibratingsuch instruments and methods for computation and the measurementof the resulting fields and currents that are induced in bodies of humansexposed to these fields are included.


Status – Revisions of consolidated C95.3 and C95.3.1-2010)

• IEEE C95.3 comments submitted- 31 October 2012- 191 comments (most are editorial)- All comments reviewed in San Antonio (16 Jan 2013)- Document needs to updated to include all prior comments.*

• Main comments- remove redundant info from both frequency bands

- f < 100 kHz - f > 100 kHz

- need ‘big picture’ summary - planning, method, screening, equipment, measurement, uncertainty, reporting

- add flow charts - organize main text into 3 sections:

- general - f < 100 kHz - f > 100 kHz


4. Basic issues (measurement issues,screening methods)

- introduction - f < 100 kHz - f > 100 kHz

5. Instrumentation- f < 100 kHz- f > 100 kHz

6. Measurements- intro- f < 100 kHz- f > 100 kHz- SAR- Contact currents

7. Computational techniques

Annexes

Document Format (old vs proposed) 4. Introduction

Planning Parameters of assessment

5. Basic issues (all freqs)6. Instrumentation (all freqs)7. Measurements (all freqs)8. Specific requirements (f < 100 kHz)9. Specific requirements (f > 100 kHz)10. Computational techniques11. Uncertainty12. Reporting requirements

• Annexes- Case studies



Next steps • Discussion concerning document format. (Douglas/Colville)

- Originally scheduled for June 2014. Rescheduled for 1st quarter CY 2015.- Present findings to the SC1 for review and comment.

• Pending a finalized C95.3 document format, adoption by the EC of thedocument edits and editorial comments.

• conference call – editorial team- Scheduled for August 2013. Rescheduled for 2nd quarter CY 2014.

• Next face-to-face meeting- Summer 2015- Location: Monterey, Ca


Documents

ICES · ICES International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety Approved Minutes . TC95 Committee (Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electric, Magnetic . and Electromagnetic