Take Action: Contact the WSSC to Halt AMI Toxic Smartmeters

Take Action to Contact the WSSC 

Tell Them:  NO SMARTMETERS

Email your opposition to WSSC proposed AMI "Smart" Water Meters to 

 

chris.lawson@wsscwater.com, eloise.foster@wsscwater.com, fausto.bayonet@wsscwater.com
howard.denis@wsscwater.com, keith.bell@wsscwater.com, sandra.thompson@wsscwater.com

, marc.elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov,  Councilmember.Albornoz@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Friedson@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Glass@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Hucker@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Jawando@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Katz@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Rice@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Riemer@montgomerycountymd.gov, countyexecutive@co.pg.md.us, BLLaster@co.pg.md.us , CouncilDistrict1@co.pg.md.us, councildistrict5@co.pg.md.us, CouncilDistrict6@co.pg.md.us, CouncilDistrict7@co.pg.md.us, CouncilDistrict8@co.pg.md.us, ouncilDistrict9@co.pg.md.us, District4@co.pg.md.us, DLTaveras@co.pg.md.us, dmglaros@co.pg.md.us>, GPKonohia@co.pg.md.us, news@wamu.org, newsdesk@wjla.com, newstips@cbs17.com, news4pr@nbcuni.com, desk@wusa9.com, jnorwood@dcw50.com, darcy.spencer@nbcuni.com , Erika.Gonzalez@nbcuni.com,, klewis@sbgtv.com, kojo@wamu.org, news@wamu.org, iflatow@sciencefriday.com, newsroom@wtop.com, Maggie.Fox@nbcuni.com, tara.bahrampour@washpost.com, ariana.cha@washpost.com, Lena.Sun@washpost.com 

Please find below an expanded list of officials at the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) to whom you may wish to express concerns about WSSC's plan to impose wireless smart meters on it all of its customers.  This list now includes the individual addresses of the six "WSSC Commissioners".  The USPS address for the main individual, Carla T. Reid, is also provided.

Carla A. Reid
General Manager and CEO
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
14501 Sweitzer Lane
Laurel, MD 20707
Email: carla.reid@wsscwater.com
Website:  https://www.wsscwater.com

Names, positions, and email addresses:

Carla A. Reid - General Manager and CEO - WSSC  <carla.reid@wsscwater.com>
Sheila Finlayson, Esq. - Corporate Secretary - WSSC  <sheila.finlayson@wsscwater.com>
Amanda Stakem Conn, Esq. - Legal Counsel - WSSC <amanda.conn@wsscwater.com>
Latonya Allen - Administrative Assistant - Board of Ethics - WSSC <latonya.allen@wsscwater.com>
Arthur A. Elkins, Jr., J.D. - Office of the Inspector General - WSSC <arthur.elkins@wsscwater.com>

Chris Lawson - Chair and Prince George's County Representative - WSSC Commissioners <chris.lawson@wsscwater.com>
T. Eloise Foster - Vice Chair and Montgomery County Representative - WSSC Commissioners <eloise.foster@wsscwater.com>
Fausto R. Bayonet - Montgomery County Representative - WSSC Commissioners <fausto.bayonet@wsscwater.com>
Howard A. Denis  - Montgomery County Representative - WSSC Commissioners <howard.denis@wsscwater.com>
Keith E. Bell - Prince George's County Representative - WSSC Commissioners <keith.bell@wsscwater.com>
Sandra L. Thompson - Prince George's County Representative - WSSC Commissioners <sandra.thompson@wsscwater.com>

Email addresses alone (for easier copying/pasting into email messages):

carla.reid@wsscwater.com
sheila.finlayson@wsscwater.com
amanda.conn@wsscwater.com
latonya.allen@wsscwater.com
arthur.elkins@wsscwater.com

chris.lawson@wsscwater.com
eloise.foster@wsscwater.com
fausto.bayonet@wsscwater.com
howard.denis@wsscwater.com
keith.bell@wsscwater.com

New York Times Pulitzer Prize Winning Journalist Found to Have Violated Truth in 5G and Cell Phone Radiation Story

The Times of UK just reported on the fact that the New York Times violated the principle of truth. This article made headline news! The Irish Press Ombudsperson investigated a complaint that the New York Times article had inaccurate information and they ruled that yes.. the New York Times article violated the Principle of Truth.

See a tweet at https://twitter.com/MoCo4Safety/status/1229054736126611456

Read the decision" @WilliamJBroad @nyt article breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Code of Practice of the Press Council of Ireland.https://t.co/nLRx9ytDc7 @alanburdick @EllenBarryNYT @kenvogel @iraflatow @katherinemiller @maggieNYT @celiadugger https://t.co/HOYM2RBDvS pic.twitter.com/ABZ0RqPosY

— Citizens of Montgomery County (@MoCo4Safety) February 16, 2020

If you want to see the decision simply go to Irish Press Ombudsperson page and read it as it is front page news here https://www.pressombudsman.ie 

Then--- Read the Sunday article in The UK Times here- Prof Tom Butler's complaint upheld over wi-fi article in Irish Times

"The press ombudsman has upheld a complaint in relation to a New York Times article that was republished by The Irish Times last September, writes Eithne Dodd.

Headlined “Are there any real links between wireless technology and health?”, it was written by William Broad, an American science journalist who has twice shared the Pulitzer prize with colleagues.Asked last week to comment on the fact the press ombudsman in Ireland had upheld a complaint about one of its pieces, The New York Times said: “We’re confident in the accuracy of our reporting.”

What is the Story? 

Professor Tom Butler of University College Cork filed a complaint with the Office of the Press Ombudsman for the Press Council of Ireland about a cell phone story written by William Broad for The New York Times (William J. Broad, "The 5G Health Hazard That Isn't;" New York Times, July 16, 2019) and reprinted by The Irish Times (William J. Broad, "Are there any real links between wireless technology and health?," September 5, 2019).

Environmental Health Trust repeatedly wrote the Times with documentation on the unfactual information. The NYT refused to update the story.

Thankful Professor Butler in Ireland went to the Press Ombudsperson with documentation on the false information in the article.  The Press Ombudsman concluded that the Broad story violated the truth and accuracy code of practice of the Press Council of Ireland.




Following is The Irish Times' report of the Press Ombudsman's response which was published today and a copy of Broad's article as it appeared in The Irish Times. Attached are copies of the complaint that Professor Butler submitted to the Irish Press Ombudsman and the response he received from the Ombudsman.

Professor Tom Butler and The Irish Times

The Irish Times, Feb 6, 2020




The Press Ombudsman has upheld a complaint by Professor Tom Butler that The Irish Times breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Code of Practice of the Press Council of Ireland.

On 5 September 2019 The Irish Times published online an article challenging concerns that there might be health risks associated with 5G technology. A sub-heading to the article stated that the blossoming anxiety over professed health risks of 5G “can be traced to a single scientist and a single chart”.

Professor Butler made a formal complaint to the Office of the Press Ombudsman claiming that Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Code of Practice had been breached. Professor Butler challenged what he understood to be the subtext of the article which was, he said, that there were “no real links between wireless technology and health”. In particular, he disputed the accuracy of the sub-heading to the article, claiming that there was “significant scientific concern that dates back to the 1950s, at the very least”. He referenced many scientific papers and research findings which questioned the safety of microwave radiation, stating that “there is a significant body of scientific evidence on hazardous non-thermal levels of microwave radiation”. He questioned the statement of the author of the article that “mainstream scientists continue to see no evidence of harm from cell phone radio waves” which he described as “demonstrably false”.

The Irish Times responded by saying the article had been published in good faith and that its author had “twice won the Pulitzer prize and is a long-established science writer with the New York Times”. The Irish Times said that the article had been supplied by the syndication service of The New York Times and that it had been written by a “highly respected writer and commentator” who was expressing his opinions in the article. The editor stated that The Irish Times “does not have an opinion on whether there are links between wireless technology and health”. What was published, he said, was the author’s opinions on this subject. An offer of the publication of a letter that “would need to be not longer than 500-600 words” which would provide an opportunity to challenge the original article was made.



Professor Butler declined the offer of a letter of the length suggested as the “subject matter was not conducive to expression in a mere 500 words”.

As the complaint could not be resolved by conciliation it was forwarded to the Press Ombudsman for a decision.

It is not the function of the Press Ombudsman to evaluate the conflicting claims of the effects of wireless technology. The Press Ombudsman’s task is to decide if the Code of Practice of the Press Council has been breached. Principle 1 requires the press to strive at all times for truth and accuracy. In the article the author made assertions about the effects of wireless technology which Professor Butler claimed were inaccurate. His complaint, which included substantial supporting documentation and international research, contained sufficiently persuasive evidence to allow a decision that the article did not meet requirements in regard to Principle 1. It is a frequently repeated truism that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts. An opinion piece in a newspaper has the same obligation to facts as any other part of a newspaper. I am upholding this complaint on the basis that the article, in not taking more account of scientific research that raised concerns about the impact on human health of radio waves, breached the accuracy requirements found in Principle 1.

In this instance The Irish Times offered Professor Butler an opportunity to publish a 500-600 word letter. In my opinion given the complex arguments on the effects of wireless technology this was not a sufficient response to resolve the complaint.

Other parts of the complaint were not upheld. The full decision can be accessed at www.pressombudsman.ie

7 January 2020
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/professor-tom-butler-and-the-irish-times-1.4164003

Will the WSSC Ensure Our Safety? Read a Letter to the WSSC

Letter to the WSSC by Montgomery County Citizen

This was sent yesterday.. 

WSSC Commissioners –

It was very disappointed to receive the February 14, 2020 email from the AMI Project about the February 19^th meeting and attached health study (“Report”) conducted by WSSC. It was also very disappointing to receive a note from the AMI Project about how the study was conducted. This e-mail preceding the February 19^th seems to say that since a public agency has not found RF harmful to human health, you will take no action. The WHO has classified RF as a Class 2B Human Carcinogen and there have been discussions of increasing this to a Class 1 at the urging of scientists over the past few years.  Calls to the American Cancer Society indicate that they may be revisiting their review of RF and I am not sure they would weigh in on other health effects than cancer. 

I do not understand why the limit on public agency and why the conclusion of no harm to human health given the WHO classification and the NTP study. 

Additionally, the following organizations have studied RF safety:

•             World Health Organization;

•             American Cancer Society;

•             National Toxicology Project (National Institutes of Health); and

•             International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Because of these studies, no public agency has identified RF as harmful to human health.

1. As far as the Report, it notes that smart meters should clearly fall below the FCC guidance for RF.  However, the FCC standard for measuring the health effects of electromagnetic radiation is based on whether the exposure, on average, will heat human tissue over short periods (six minutes for occupational work and 30 minutes for public exposure). That standard was adopted in 1996 and was based on data from the 1980s to so hear that smart meters will fall below this is no comfort. The standard also does not assume 24/7 exposure. 

2. Page 17 of the Report states that “About 60% of WSSC water meters are located inside the basements of homes. Whereas, 40% are located outside the home at the property line…The distance from the front door to the property line can vary much with minimum distances of about 5-10 feet… Therefore, in general, meters are located away from the area where people spend time.”

My water meter is located directly on my home – on the wall opposite a basement office where my children study.  This means it would be within 5 feet of them. My home is not unusual in my community of 85 homes in Potomac MD. I am unaware of any home in my community where a meter is at the property line and not affixed directly to the home. 

3. Further, p. 18 of the Report states that “No exposure assessment studies focused on water smart meters have been identified, however several studies have looked at electric smart meters. Given that exposure from electric meters is likely to be higher than that of water meters they are reviewed below as representative of an upper bound.”  

If there is no study then how can the conclusion be made that these are “better” than a PEPCO smart meter (which allows for OPT OUT to its customers) and that they are safe?

4. In regard to the studies cited in the Report, why are so many based a small sampling of residences located outside the U.S. and not subject to U.S. standards? Studies like the bioiniative report are not included in your Report. 

Why? Please refer to the case filed by Montgomery County, Maryland that cites to a variety of health reports on RF. Why were those reports NOT considered by you? See June 10, 2019 filing – page 11 and page 55 discuss current research on RF health effects and the non-thermal health effects raised by RF.  https://www.khlaw.com/Files/39783_Montgomery_County_Brief.pdg.

5. Was the researcher who prepared your Report an independent third party? Many concerned citizens raised this issue with you prior to the undertaking of this report and I assume, like myself, did not receive a response on who was to conduct the Report and what materials would be considered and if the WSSC commissioners would be open to hearing from scientists. General research indicates that he author may not be an independent third party and this is very concerning. Did you invite any members of the scientific community to speak with you or was it solely this one author and this short Report?

See link below regarding Dr. Kheifets.

https://smartmeterharm.org/2017/02/19/industry-scientist-paid-14681-for-testimony-on-smart-meters/

The Report references the Itron meter. Attached below is an excerpt from Itron’s most recent shareholder report filed on Form 10-K with the SEC.  It notes that “we may face adverse publicity, consumer or political opposition, or liability associated with our products.” 

The safety and security of the power grid and natural gas and water supply systems, the accuracy and protection of the data collected by meters and transmitted via the smart grid, concerns about the safety and perceived health risks of using radio frequency communications, and privacy concerns of monitoring home appliance energy usage have been the focus of recent adverse publicity. Unfavorable publicity and consumer opposition may cause utilities or their regulators to delay or modify planned smart grid initiatives. Smart grid projects may be, or may be perceived as, unsuccessful….. We may be subject to claims that there are adverse health effects from the radio frequencies utilized in connection with our products. If these claims prevail, our customers could suspend implementation or purchase substitute products, which could cause a loss of sales.

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/780571/000078057119000007/itri10k12312018.htm

I hope the WSSC Commissioners will consider the following prior to implementing any smart meter roll-out?

1. Did WSSC ask for any current pending or settled actions or claims from companies such as Itron on health, privacy or similar issues as they have disclosed above?

2. Did WSSC consider that not every customer’s meter falls within the 60/40 categorization noted in the Report. 

3. Will WSSC provide for an opt-out like PEPCO does (with a fee or no fee)?

4. Will WSSC guarantee the number of times per day the meter will transmit?  There are reports that transmissions vary widely from a few times a day to a few times a minute.  How will WSSC guarantee this?  How many times will WSSC test its meter to ensure they are only transmitting infrequently as the Report states?  Will it have drivers that will come to our homes and measure this and provide us this information on our quarterly WSSC bills? If so, how frequently?

5. Will WSSC consider customer re-location of water meters that back to a bedroom or another room that is frequently used? The Report assumes that the meters are “conveniently located” in unused portions of one’s home.

6. Will WSSC guarantee the safety RF level of the meters or seek a guarantee from Itron or the meter provider it uses? Will this guarantee be made publicly available? Will WSSC require the meter provider to (or will WSSC employees) test the RF levels of the meter and on what type of periodic basis will this be done?  Will the test results be made public?

 I hope the Commissioners will take seriously their review of this report and complete their due diligence on this topic and, at an absolute minimum, provide an opt out for those who do not wish to have these meters attached to their homes. 

Thank you,

XXXX Citizen of Montgomery County  MD 

WSSC Hired A Well Known Longtime Industry Consultant to Evaluate Health Effects of Smartmeters

WSSC Hired A Well Known Longtime Industry Consultant to Evaluate the Health Effects of Smartmeters.

Professor Leeka Kheifets was hired by the WSSC to investigate the health effects pf smart meters. Here is her report. She not only is paid by companies to testify in their defense, but she also has been a longtime consultant for Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).

What vetting for conflict of interest was done?

Did WSSC ask if she was on retainer for industry or EPRI?

We want answers.

EPRI is a "nonprofit"funded by the electric utility industry which conducts research on issues related to the electric power industry in the United States. EPRI's corporate members represent more than 90 percent of the electricity generated and delivered in the United State. 

The study Race/ethnicity and the risk childhood leukemia: a case-control study in California states, “This project was supported by a research contract from the Electric Power Research Institute to UCLA”

So the electric companies give UCLA money for Dr. Kheifits to do studies? 

Studies about health effects from the very industry funding the study? 

Yes. It is true.

Here are two more examples of research studies she did funded by industry. Note: There are MANY she did funded by industry. plus companies hire her to present "expert" testimony to elected officials.

• The study Magnetic fields exposure from high-voltage power lines and risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in two Italian populations states, “received funding from EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) for other research activity and not for the present study. All the remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.”
• Residential magnetic fields exposure and childhood leukemia: a population-based case–control study in California funded by EPRI 
  
  

Leeka Kheifets was an expert consultant to SDG&E on the health effects of smart meters.

“PG&E (electric company) flew Leeka Kheifets, a University of California Los Angeles professor and epidemiology authority, to the event to address health concerns.”

“Of all the people I know, Leeka Kheifets has done more to subvert EMF research than anyone,” says American epidemiologist Samuel Milham, the first scientist to discover an increased risk of leukemia among electrical workers overexposed to EMFs. Read the news article this comes from here . 

UCLA Public Health Professor Responds to Smart Meter Questions

Industry scientist paid $14,681 for one day of testimony promoting Smart Meters

• Leeka Kheifets, lately of UCLA, but also connected to the utility industry’s Electric Power Research Institute and the World Health Organization conflict-of-interest filled EMF Project, has frequently appeared for PG&E, APS, and other utility companies to vouch for Smart Meter and wireless safety. What does an industry “expert” like Leeka Kheifets get paid for her testimony? 
• APS retained Dr. Kheifets to present on behalf of the Company at the Commission’s September 8, 2011 workshop regarding radio frequency concerns for a total remuneration of $14,681.14.

Dr. Kheifets was put in charge of the "UCSD Breast Cancer Cluster" investigation back in 2009 and they did nothing.

Her Long time relationship with EPRI-- 

According to her UCLA Web page. Dr Kheifets is most familiar with research on effects of EMFs on human health. “Prior to her professorship at UCLA, she was Head of the Radiation Studies Program at the World Health Organization and was a Technical Executive at the Electric Power Research Institute, where she directed a multi-disciplinary electric and magnetic fields (EMF) research program." Read October 2007 EPRI update : Dr. Leeka Kheifets, now an EPRI research consultant, is a member of the committee. 

Decades ago the electric utility industry paid Leeka Kheifets $50,000 for a literature review. Microwave ran a story on that here.

She was a member of the IEEE 2005 Subcommittee member, a long-term employee and on-going consultant for the Electric Power Institute (EPRI) and for various electrical utility corporations. 

EPRI is an independent nonprofit scientific organization funded by the electric power industry in the United States. Kheifets stated that she still receives research support from EPRI, but notes that EPRI is not a commercial entity.

Want to learn more?

Read an expose about California Smartmeters

Verizon, T-Mobile, and US Cellular lied on 4G coverage but will get away with it

Verizon, T-Mobile, and US Cellular lied on 4G coverage but will get away with it
Buried in the depths of a FCC press release, the authority has said Verizon, T-Mobile, and US Cellular exaggerated on 4G coverage maps but no punishments are being considered. As part of the Mobility Fund Phase II, telcos were given federal support for rolling out 4G services to rural and underserved areas. This cash was supposed to bridge the digital divide, and as part of the agreement, the telcos were obliged to provide accurate coverage maps to ensure the cash was being spent in the right manner.
Interestingly enough, the FCC does not currently have any plans to punish the trio, instead has created a new initiative to apply for federal funds. All three will be invited to apply for the Government hand-out. This is perhaps the latest example of a toothless watchdog, with the bureaucrats in charge in procession of the same spine as a lifeless slug.
The new fund will make $9 billion available to ensure 5G connectivity reaches the areas in the US which the telcos elect to ignore.
… which includes $1 billion which will have to be spent on delivering connectivity solutions for the agricultural industry. With an election on the horizon, this is a very intelligent move. In 2016, President Trump arguably won because he was able to mobilise communities and individuals who were feeling marginalised; in the digital world, farmers fit this description perfectly. The question which remains is whether the same telcos can be trusted to appropriately spend their allocation of the $9 billion moving forward. Seeing as the FCC is currently proving itself as toothless, there doesn’t seem to be any deterrent to behave, which is an interesting position to be in.

from https://telecoms.com/501286/verizon-t-mobile-and-us-cellular-lied-on-4g-coverage-but-will-get-away-with-it/   

Natural Resources Defense Counsel Q and A on 5G

Sharon Buccino, Natural Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC), December 6, 2019

Here's What You Need to Know

The next generation of wireless technology—5G—is dramatically different from previous versions. The 5G technology will enable more data to be carried more quickly, but in many places relies on low waves of the electromagnetic spectrum. As a result, its signal does not travel as far requiring the construction of thousands of new cells to repeat the wireless signals to make 5G work. As companies like AT&T, Verizon and Sprint construct these new small cell wireless facilities in communities across the country, citizens are organizing to ensure this infrastructure is built in a way that protects their health and quality of life. As communities face a flood of applications for this new wireless infrastructure, many want to know what laws and regulations govern 5G. Here’s some information that may help.   

Q:  Who is responsible for setting health standards for new cell towers and other wireless infrastructure?

A:  The Federal Communications Commission is responsible for setting health standards for radio frequency emissions.  As long as proposed wireless service facilities comply with the FCC’s radio frequency standards, federal law prohibits state and local governments from regulating them based on “the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions.”  47 USC § 332(c)(7)(iv).

Q:  What are the current FCC standards and are they adequate?

A:  The FCC has set limits for radio frequency emissions, with specific limits for occupational exposure and general population exposure. These limits are found in the FCC’s regulations at 47 C.F.R. § 1.1301.

Unfortunately, the FCC has not updated its guidelines since 1996. Based on 30-year-old studies, today’s FCC limits were designed to protect only against the gross effects of heat or burning of human tissue. Since then, extensive research has raised concerns about other serious health effects. The FCC initiated a review of its limits in 2013, but had not completed it until early this week. On December 4, the FCC issued an order ending its inquiry into the adequacy of its radio frequency exposure limits without changing the limits.

Q:  What can local governments do?

A:  Local governments can condition approval for new 5G cell construction upon compliance with state and federal requirements for environmental review. While a local government cannot add new requirements for environmental review, it can require proof that the necessary federal review has been done. Given the mounting evidence that the FCC’s radio frequency limits are inadequate, such federal review should include an evaluation of the adequacy of these limits.  

Q:  What are the requirements for environmental review of new wireless infrastructure?

A:  The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an analysis of environmental impacts of major federal actions. Such actions include various types of federal approvals including for pipelines, oil and gas wells, dams and wireless infrastructure.  If the impacts may be significant, the agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. If an agency is unsure whether the impacts may be significant, it can prepare a shorter Environmental Assessment. Based on the Environmental Assessment, the agency will either move forward to prepare an EIS or instead prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The only way to avoid an EA or an EIS is if the action qualifies for a categorical exclusion. While some new cell construction may qualify for a categorical exclusion (CE), the FCC has identified circumstances where a CE does not apply. For more information on the difference between an EIS and an EA, as well as information on the use and limits of categorical exclusions, see The Citizen’s Guide to the National Environmental Policy Act prepared by the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Anyone wishing to construct a facility that uses an FCC license must submit an Environmental Assessment to the FCC or certification that the facility is categorically excluded. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307. An Environmental Assessment is required if the proposed construction:

• Will be in a wilderness area or wildlife preserve (generally on federal land);
• Might affect threatened and endangered species or their habitat (Endangered Species Act);
• Might affect properties included or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places or Indian religious and cultural sites;
• Will be in a flood plain;
• Will involve “significant changes in surface features” during construction (e.g., wetlands, water diversion, deforestation);
• Will be taller than 450 feet and so might affect migratory birds;
• Involves high intensity lighting in a residential area; or
• Would cause radio frequency emission exposure in excess of FCC-established limits.

A company seeking to build a wireless facility that falls into any of the above categories must obtain a Finding of No Significant Impact before building. “Building without following the requirements at 47 CFR 1.1301-1.1319 can constitute a violation of FCC rules and subject the constructing party to potential enforcement action,” the FCC said in its fact sheet on this topic.

Even when these conditions do not apply, the public can request and the FCC can order environmental review. 

Q:  What was the effect of NRDC’s lawsuit against the FCC regarding the siting of small cell wireless construction?

A:  In March 2018, the FCC issued an order that attempted to eliminate environmental review requirements for small cell wireless facilities. NRDC challenged this order in court along with various other groups including the 19 Indian nations, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. While some of the construction might be called “small,” it can include new cell towers.

In August 2019, the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down the FCC’s elimination of review under NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act. No one appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, companies must comply with the environmental review requirements (listed above) that existed prior to the FCC’s order attempting to eliminate them.

As a result, companies wishing to construct new small cell wireless facilities must complete an Environmental Assessment or certify that the proposed facility is categorically excluded from review. Construction cannot proceed without such documentation. 

Q:  Where can I find out more about the environmental review requirements for new cell towers and other wireless infrastructure?

A:  The FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau develops and executes policies and procedures for fast, fair licensing of all wireless services, from fixed microwave links to amateur radio to mobile broadband services. This bureau has developed various materials explaining the environmental reviews required for various types of wireless infrastructure. 

Q:  Is NRDC monitoring the effects of 5G on human health or the environment?

A:  No. NRDC’s work is focused on protecting the right of each of us to have a say in government decisions that affect our lives and communities. We are not monitoring the effects of 5G on human health or the environment. Instead, we are working to hold the FCC accountable to its obligations under NEPA to ensure that the environmental effects of the activities it licenses are adequately evaluated and addressed.

Q:  What groups are working on the health impacts of 5G?

A:  Numerous citizen groups have organized across the country to address the impacts of 5G deployment. These groups include:  Napa/Sonoma Neighborhood Association - CA; Our Town, Our Choice - San Francisco, CA; Stop 5G Bellingham - Bellingham, WA; Stop 5G Chicago - Chicago, IL; Safe Tech Forward - Detroit, MI; Pima County 5G Awareness Coalition - Tucson, AZ;  Stop 5G Charlotte - Charlotte, NC;  5G Colorado Action - Denver, CO; ElectromagneticHealth.org - Boulder, CO. More than 100 groups aligned behind a set of principles regarding the implementation of new communications technologies have created a voluntary association, Americans for Responsible Technology.

The Environmental Health Trust collects information and helps bring this information to the attention of federal, state and local decision-makers. EHT carries out research, as well as providing policy and public educational materials.

Physicians for Safe Technology is another useful source of information.

Q:  What can concerned citizens do?

A:  Two immediate options are available to citizens concerned about the health and other environmental impacts of proposed new wireless infrastructure in their communities.

• First, citizens can contact the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and ask for the status of a company’s environmental compliance. Put your request in writing. Provide information about the specific proposals being considered in your community including the name of the company planning new construction. Ask if the company has provided the FCC with an Environmental Assessment for the proposed construction or certification that the construction qualifies for a categorical exclusion under NEPA.  Explain your concerns about the adequacy of the existing FCC’s radio frequency guidelines.

• Second, submit comments to the FCC regarding the adequacy of its existing radio frequency guidelines. The FCC maintains an electronic system for accepting comments here. When commenting, make sure to include the number of the proceeding (13-84).  Comments submitted to the FCC can be viewed here. Just this week, the FCC issued an order affirming the adequacy of its guidelines. Following publication in the Federal Register, the public will have 30 days to comment on this action.

Resources

For more information regarding what local governments can and cannot do related to construction of new small cell wireless infrastructure:

Grant Wilson, Policy Report – Small  Cell Facilities in Boulder, CO:  Planning Ahead for an Evolving Legal Regime (June 4, 2019).  This analysis includes examples of what various local governments have done to regulate small cell wireless facilities.

For a collection of research and articles related to Electromagnetic Radiation Safety:

Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Electromagnetic Radiation Safety. 

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/sharon-buccino/5g-coming-your-neighborhood  

===

5G and the FCC: 10 Reasons Why You Should Care

Sharon Buccino, September 8, 2019 (updated August 9, 2019)

As an environmental lawyer for over 25 years now, I have become intimately familiar with the workings of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior. I didn’t have occasion to watch what was happening across town at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Now I do. Here are ten reasons why you might want to also.

1. Created in 1934, the FCC regulates all interstate communications—both wired and wireless—as well as international communications originating or terminating in the United States. In the words of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, the FCC was established to provide “to all the people of the United States, without discrimination . . . a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”  47 U.S.C. § 151.  The law requires the FCC to serve the public interest. 

2. Wireless communication touches every aspect of life. Smart phones are used by billions of people across the globe. As volume of data increases and delay decreases, wireless service is expanding beyond person-to-person communication. The possibility of the “Internet of Things” combined with Artificial Intelligence will impact every aspect of human life including transportation, education and health care.

3. The next generation of wireless technology—5G—is dramatically different from previous versions. Telecommunication is possible through use of the electromagnetic spectrum.  5G will enable more data to be carried more quickly, but its signal does not travel as far so a denser network of cells and other facilities is needed to deploy it.

Electromagnetic Spectrum - Source: General Accountability Office

5G promises to deliver dramatically more information at faster speeds enabling activities like driverless cars and remote surgery.  The new technologies require the signal to be repeated more often – prompting companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Sprint to construct new towers and other infrastructure in communities across the country.  Unfortunately, many parts of the country still do not have access to basic broadband services.

4. Five Commissioners sit on the FCC. The current Chairman Ajit Pai is pursuing an aggressive deregulatory agenda. He is joined by four other Commissioners—Michael O’Reilly, Brendan Carr, Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks. The positions each takes on issues ranging from net neutrality to health standards will shape the development and impacts of wireless technology.

5. In December 2017, the FCC eliminated “net neutrality” rules for broadband. These rules prohibit websites from blocking or throttling traffic, or from selling off “lanes” of traffic that will advantage some content players and disadvantage others. Over 50 parties including 22 states and the District of Columbia have opposed rescission of the rules in court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held oral argument in the case on February 1, 2019. 

6. In March 2018, the FCC eliminated environmental and historical review for siting certain cell towers and other wireless facilities (FCC Order 18-30). Despite the license needed to provide wireless services, the FCC determined that there was no federal role in the construction of facilities needed to provide these services. In addition to NRDC, 19 tribes have challenged the FCC’s action along with the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.  On August 9, 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the FCC's action finding that the Commission's attempted explanations for eliminating environmental and historical review "did not meet the standard of reasoned decision-making."  The court's decision and briefs from the case can be found here.  (18-1135)

7. In Order 18-30, the FCC restricted fees tribes charge Sprint and other telecom companies for reviewing the impacts on historic and cultural resources.

8. In September 2018, the FCC restricted fees cities charge Sprint and other telecom companies for siting towers and other wireless infrastructure in their communities. (FCC Order 18-133).  Several lawsuits challenging the FCC’s action have been consolidated before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  (Case No. 19-70146)  Opening briefs were filed on June 10, 2019.  Final briefs are scheduled to be filed by September 18.

9. In addition to restricting fees that cities can charge for building new wireless networks, Order 18-133 limited the time allowed for review of the proposed construction. The FCC imposed a so-called “shot clock” on cities and towns. If the local government has not acted within as few as 60 days on a construction permit, the project is deemed approved.

10. While the FCC has limited the review by others, the Commission at the same time has refused to update its own health and environmental guidelines. The Commission’s guidelines date from the 1990's. In 2012, the General Accountability Office found that the existing guidelines may not reflect current knowledge and recommended that the FCC formally reassess its guidelines. The FCC’s guidelines address only one aspect of potential harm from electromagnetic radiation—heat. The current guidelines do not address other ways in which exposure to increasing electromagnetic radiation from wireless communications can harm human health, as well as the natural systems around us on which all life depends. 

The U.S. National Toxicology Program conducted rodent studies to help clarify the potential health hazards of radio frequency radiation (RFR). According to my NRDC colleague, Dr. Jennifer Sass, the results (which have been subjected to expert peer review and public comment) show that long-term high exposures to RFR used by 2G and 3G cell phones are associated with an elevated risk of cancer, particularly in heart and brain cells (NTP 2018). This is consistent with the previous hazard assessment of the World Health Organization’s cancer experts, which concluded that there was a possible link (Group 2B) to brain cancer in people with RFR exposures (IARC 2011). Both government agencies warn that the public should take pragmatic steps to reduce exposures (IARC Director, May 2011; NTP Fact Sheet, Nov 2018).

Montgomery County, Maryland has sued the FCC for failing to update its health and environmental guidelines.  This case is consolidated in the Ninth Circuit with other challenges to Order 18-133 as discussed above.  (19-70146)

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/sharon-buccino/5g-and-fcc-10-reasons-why-you-should-care

--