Federal
The USA has no Federal exposure limits for ELF EMFs.
The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) publish recommended occupational exposure limits, but these have no legal force.
State
We are aware of the following six States which have exposure limits, mostly applying specifically to power lines:
| State |
Area where limits applies |
Field |
Limit |
| Florida |
Edge of right-of-way |
|
Electric |
2 kV m-1 |
| 230 kV lines |
Magnetic |
15 μT |
| 500 kV lines |
20 μT |
| Anywhere |
69-230 kV lines |
Electric |
8 kV m-1 |
| 500 kV lines |
10 kV m-1 |
| Minnesota |
Anywhere |
Electric |
8 kV m-1 |
| Montana |
Edge of right-of-way |
May be waved by landowner |
Electric |
1 kV m-1 |
| Road crossings |
Electric |
7 kV m-1 |
| New Jersey |
Edge of right-of-way |
Electric |
3 kV m-1 |
| New York |
Edge of right-of-way |
Electric |
1.6 kV m-1 |
| Magnetic |
20 μT |
| Public road crossings |
Electric |
7 kV m-1 |
| Private road crossings |
Electric |
11 kV m-1 |
| Anywhere |
Electric |
11.8 kV m-1 |
| Oregon |
Accessible or inhabited areas |
Electric |
9 kV m-1 |
In addition, the following States have versions of “prudent avoidance” (similar to what tend to be called "precautionary policies" in Europe) applied to new power lines:
- California: requirement to include EMF reduction measures in new power-line projects up to 5% of project cost, plus specific provisions for schools
- Colorado, Maryland: prudent avoidance decided through a specific siting case which set precedent and was subsequently applied to all new siting applications
- New Jersey: more of a practice than a policy
- Connecticut, Hawaii: formal policy
- Ohio: requires utilities to “prudently address” EMF issues
- Pennsylvania: staff handling siting applications expect evidence of prudent avoidance but has never been set down as formal policy
This information is based on our best understanding but we welcome corrections or additions - please contact us if you have better information.
