Information Notice 2007-12, Tactical Communications Interoperability Between Nuclear Power Reactor Licensees and First Responders: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES | {{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES | ||
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION | ===NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION=== | ||
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION | OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION | ||
W ASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001 | W ASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001 | ||
===March 15, 2007=== | |||
NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2007-12: | |||
===TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS=== | |||
INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN NUCLEAR | |||
===POW ER REACTOR LICENSEES AND FIRST=== | |||
RESPONDERS | RESPONDERS | ||
| Line 42: | Line 44: | ||
licensees, Federal, State, and local first responders in the event of an emergency at a nuclear | licensees, Federal, State, and local first responders in the event of an emergency at a nuclear | ||
power reactor. It is expected that recipients of this document will review the information for | power reactor. It is expected that recipients of this document will review the information for | ||
applicability to their facilities and consider actions, as appropriate, to enhance tactical | applicability to their facilities and consider actions, as appropriate, to enhance tactical | ||
communications interoperability. However, suggestions contained in this IN are not NRC | communications interoperability. However, suggestions contained in this IN are not NRC | ||
regulatory requirements; therefore, no specific action or written response is required. | regulatory requirements; therefore, no specific action or written response is required. | ||
| Line 53: | Line 55: | ||
For the purpose of this IN, interoperability and tactical interoperable communications are terms | For the purpose of this IN, interoperability and tactical interoperable communications are terms | ||
defined by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In general, interoperability refers | defined by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In general, interoperability refers | ||
to the ability of emergency responders to work seamlessly with other systems or products | to the ability of emergency responders to work seamlessly with other systems or products | ||
without any special effort. W ireless communications interoperability specifically refers to the | without any special effort. W ireless communications interoperability specifically refers to the | ||
ability of emergency response officials to share information via voice and data signals on | ability of emergency response officials to share information via voice and data signals on | ||
demand, in real time, when needed, and as authorized (Ref. 1). Tactical interoperable | demand, in real time, when needed, and as authorized (Ref. 1). Tactical interoperable | ||
communications is defined as the rapid provision of on-scene, incident-based, mission-critical | communications is defined as the rapid provision of on-scene, incident-based, mission-critical | ||
| Line 75: | Line 77: | ||
to rely on a more robust system to maintain tactical communications interoperability with their | to rely on a more robust system to maintain tactical communications interoperability with their | ||
stakeholders, especially first responders. Policies, training, exercises, and procedures also play | stakeholders, especially first responders. Policies, training, exercises, and procedures also play | ||
a vital role in achieving tactical communications interoperability and ensure that a steady flow of | a vital role in achieving tactical communications interoperability and ensure that a steady flow of | ||
| Line 83: | Line 85: | ||
Various examples of lapses in effective tactical communications interoperability have been | Various examples of lapses in effective tactical communications interoperability have been | ||
documented by response organizations. Specific examples include the responses to the | documented by response organizations. Specific examples include the responses to the | ||
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and to Hurricane Katrina in late August 2005. These | terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and to Hurricane Katrina in late August 2005. These | ||
events have generated valuable lessons for Federal, State, and local response organizations. | events have generated valuable lessons for Federal, State, and local response organizations. | ||
| Line 97: | Line 99: | ||
licensees, in coordination with State and local response agencies, to self-identify ways to | licensees, in coordination with State and local response agencies, to self-identify ways to | ||
improve tactical communications interoperability. Each of the examples is intended to describe | improve tactical communications interoperability. Each of the examples is intended to describe | ||
different scenarios and challenges, and solutions implemented through collaboration with | different scenarios and challenges, and solutions implemented through collaboration with | ||
| Line 108: | Line 110: | ||
integrating their systems and processes in partnership with a broad range of State-wide | integrating their systems and processes in partnership with a broad range of State-wide | ||
communications enhancements implemented by the State of Illinois. These enhancements | communications enhancements implemented by the State of Illinois. These enhancements | ||
were coordinated by the State of Illinois Communications Committee using funding available | were coordinated by the State of Illinois Communications Committee using funding available | ||
through the DHS Office of Training and Grants. Enhancements made to communications | through the DHS Office of Training and Grants. Enhancements made to communications | ||
capabilities to ensure interoperability include: | capabilities to ensure interoperability include: | ||
* | * | ||
Deploying mobile command vehicles around the State to provide work space for various | |||
response agencies at the incident scene, as well as communications gear to patch | response agencies at the incident scene, as well as communications gear to patch | ||
together local agency radio frequencies; | together local agency radio frequencies; | ||
* | * | ||
Providing 700/800 MHz radios and digital very high frequency (VHF) radios to response | |||
agencies in the State of Illinois to facilitate communications with first responders; | agencies in the State of Illinois to facilitate communications with first responders; | ||
* | * | ||
Providing a satellite-based warning and alert system, capable of receiving simultaneous, authenticated text messages from the State Emergency Operations Center, to county | |||
emergency management agencies and other public safety agencies; | emergency management agencies and other public safety agencies; | ||
* | * | ||
Providing all hospitals in the State of Illinois with Medical Emergency Radio System of | |||
Illinois radio units; and | Illinois radio units; and | ||
* | * | ||
Providing transmitters and equipment to counties that did not have access to the States | |||
inter-agency radio system (Illinois Radio Emergency Assistance Channel) to allow | inter-agency radio system (Illinois Radio Emergency Assistance Channel) to allow | ||
| Line 138: | Line 145: | ||
Since the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, the State of Illinois has opened a new State | Since the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, the State of Illinois has opened a new State | ||
Emergency Operations Center. This center merges the State Incident Response Center, the | Emergency Operations Center. This center merges the State Incident Response Center, the | ||
Illinois Emergency Management Agency 24-hour Communications Center, the Statewide | Illinois Emergency Management Agency 24-hour Communications Center, the Statewide | ||
| Line 153: | Line 160: | ||
tactical communications interoperability with local law enforcement agencies (LLEAs) and State | tactical communications interoperability with local law enforcement agencies (LLEAs) and State | ||
and local response organizations. These modifications were subsequently evaluated following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This evaluation revealed that responding | and local response organizations. These modifications were subsequently evaluated following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This evaluation revealed that responding | ||
organizations communication equipment, in many cases, were not compatible or interoperable. | organizations communication equipment, in many cases, were not compatible or interoperable. | ||
| Line 161: | Line 168: | ||
allowed for the patching of various licensee and first responder radio frequencies, cellular | allowed for the patching of various licensee and first responder radio frequencies, cellular | ||
phones, satellite phones, and land lines. A few challenges surfaced during the implementation | phones, satellite phones, and land lines. A few challenges surfaced during the implementation | ||
of this patching process. The licensee recognized the need to collaborate with the vendor in | of this patching process. The licensee recognized the need to collaborate with the vendor in | ||
developing procedures, installing the equipment in a weather-tight enclosure, testing the | developing procedures, installing the equipment in a weather-tight enclosure, testing the | ||
equipment, and training of TPNP staff on equipment and procedural usage. An in-house | equipment, and training of TPNP staff on equipment and procedural usage. An in-house | ||
subject matter expert collaborated with the vendor and resolved these issues. Another | subject matter expert collaborated with the vendor and resolved these issues. Another | ||
challenge related to site-shared frequencies with the LLEA was resolved when the LLEA | challenge related to site-shared frequencies with the LLEA was resolved when the LLEA | ||
| Line 175: | Line 182: | ||
recognized the benefits of sharing radio frequencies with the licensee. | recognized the benefits of sharing radio frequencies with the licensee. | ||
Fermi 2 Nuclear Generating Station | |||
Prior to 2000, Fermi 2 had one base station on the same frequency as Monroe County, Michigan, the sites host county. In preparation for millennial computer problems (i.e., Y2K or | |||
Prior to 2000, Fermi 2 had one base station on the same frequency as Monroe County, Michigan, the sites host county. In preparation for millennial computer problems (i.e., Y2K or | |||
year 2000 problems), the licensee purchased radio units, similar to ones owned by the Michigan | year 2000 problems), the licensee purchased radio units, similar to ones owned by the Michigan | ||
| Line 182: | Line 190: | ||
State Police, to aid in communications interoperability. This acquisition supported a similar | State Police, to aid in communications interoperability. This acquisition supported a similar | ||
investment by Monroe County. The County used DHS grant resources to acquire the same | investment by Monroe County. The County used DHS grant resources to acquire the same | ||
800 MHz radio system as the Michigan State Police and thus achieved interoperability between | 800 MHz radio system as the Michigan State Police and thus achieved interoperability between | ||
local response units in the county and within the State. Subsequently, Fermi 2 purchased base | local response units in the county and within the State. Subsequently, Fermi 2 purchased base | ||
stations and additional portable units similar to the Michigan State Police radio system, thereby | stations and additional portable units similar to the Michigan State Police radio system, thereby | ||
| Line 205: | Line 213: | ||
level of tactical communications interoperability through enhancements to its 800-MHz | level of tactical communications interoperability through enhancements to its 800-MHz | ||
communication system. These enhancements involved the reprogramming of LLEA radios with | communication system. These enhancements involved the reprogramming of LLEA radios with | ||
licensee communication software that improved communications with the licensee. The LLEA | licensee communication software that improved communications with the licensee. The LLEA | ||
was able to re-configure the channel frequency which the licensee was using into their existing | was able to re-configure the channel frequency which the licensee was using into their existing | ||
and newly purchased portable radios. The communications system works by creating an | and newly purchased portable radios. The communications system works by creating an | ||
additional CCNPP security channel for LLEA to switch to when they are enroute to respond to | additional CCNPP security channel for LLEA to switch to when they are enroute to respond to | ||
an incident at the plant. These enhancements allow for the lines of communication with LLEA | an incident at the plant. These enhancements allow for the lines of communication with LLEA | ||
responders to remain open and facilitate the appropriate handling of incident command and | responders to remain open and facilitate the appropriate handling of incident command and | ||
control. This communications system can also be used to improve outside response to the site | control. This communications system can also be used to improve outside response to the site | ||
by incorporating another frequency for local fire departments and EMS personnel. | by incorporating another frequency for local fire departments and EMS personnel. | ||
| Line 226: | Line 234: | ||
For the initial licensing of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), the licensee acquired radios, as part of its site-trunked 800-MHz radio system, which shared at least one frequency with the | For the initial licensing of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), the licensee acquired radios, as part of its site-trunked 800-MHz radio system, which shared at least one frequency with the | ||
local fire department to ensure better communications during incident responses. More recently, local county authorities upgraded their radios to a digital (i.e., more efficient) 800-MHz | local fire department to ensure better communications during incident responses. More recently, local county authorities upgraded their radios to a digital (i.e., more efficient) 800-MHz | ||
system and partnered with the PNPP site to ensure compatibility. In a joint effort between | system and partnered with the PNPP site to ensure compatibility. In a joint effort between | ||
PNPP and Lake County, Ohio, county departments reprogrammed their digital radios so that | PNPP and Lake County, Ohio, county departments reprogrammed their digital radios so that | ||
| Line 234: | Line 242: | ||
both PNPP and the local fire department had at least two channels that were programmed to | both PNPP and the local fire department had at least two channels that were programmed to | ||
operate in their common frequencies. PNPP further enhanced its capability to create additional | operate in their common frequencies. PNPP further enhanced its capability to create additional | ||
patched frequencies by using the countys Viper frequency matching system and the State of | patched frequencies by using the countys Viper frequency matching system and the State of | ||
Ohios Buckeye State Sheriff Association Communication Vehicle. This capability was available | Ohios Buckeye State Sheriff Association Communication Vehicle. This capability was available | ||
to patch in additional responders into PNPPs security and the fire brigade common tracked | to patch in additional responders into PNPPs security and the fire brigade common tracked | ||
| Line 246: | Line 254: | ||
===Commonwealth of Pennsylvania=== | ===Commonwealth of Pennsylvania=== | ||
In addition to the examples provided above, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania) | In addition to the examples provided above, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania) | ||
has upgraded its communications capabilities since September 11, 2001. Pennsylvania | has upgraded its communications capabilities since September 11, 2001. Pennsylvania | ||
deployed an 800-MHz, non-scannable, encrypted data and voice system, which uses a virtual | deployed an 800-MHz, non-scannable, encrypted data and voice system, which uses a virtual | ||
| Line 256: | Line 264: | ||
the system by means of providing a secure user profile that allows the site to become a party to | the system by means of providing a secure user profile that allows the site to become a party to | ||
the Talk Group involved in the overall response to an incident. These prearranged Talk Groups | the Talk Group involved in the overall response to an incident. These prearranged Talk Groups | ||
include the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, LLEAs, fire departments, emergency medical services, hospitals, and other local response organizations. This system, as designed, allows continuous communication with all stakeholders making possible the | include the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, LLEAs, fire departments, emergency medical services, hospitals, and other local response organizations. This system, as designed, allows continuous communication with all stakeholders making possible the | ||
exchange of voice and data, as needed. For example, the Pennsylvania Department of | exchange of voice and data, as needed. For example, the Pennsylvania Department of | ||
Environmental Protection through its Bureau of Radiation Protection is currently structured to | Environmental Protection through its Bureau of Radiation Protection is currently structured to | ||
| Line 271: | Line 279: | ||
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, communications interoperability has | Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, communications interoperability has | ||
gradually improved nationally (Ref. 3). This improvement is partially due to financial support by | gradually improved nationally (Ref. 3). This improvement is partially due to financial support by | ||
DHS and through coordinated efforts among Federal, State, and local first responders and | DHS and through coordinated efforts among Federal, State, and local first responders and | ||
public safety officials. Nuclear power reactor sites rely on Federal, State and local first | public safety officials. Nuclear power reactor sites rely on Federal, State and local first | ||
responder resources to support the licensees response to an emergency. As such, effective | responder resources to support the licensees response to an emergency. As such, effective | ||
tactical communications is essential in the coordination of these offsite resources. | tactical communications is essential in the coordination of these offsite resources. | ||
| Line 285: | Line 293: | ||
Assistance Program (ICTAP) is designed to enhance interoperable communications between | Assistance Program (ICTAP) is designed to enhance interoperable communications between | ||
Federal, State, and local emergency responders and public safety officials (Ref. 4). The goal of | Federal, State, and local emergency responders and public safety officials (Ref. 4). The goal of | ||
ICTAP is to enable local public safety agencies to communicate as they prevent or respond to | ICTAP is to enable local public safety agencies to communicate as they prevent or respond to | ||
weapons of mass destruction attacks. ICTAP is associated with the Urban Area Security | weapons of mass destruction attacks. ICTAP is associated with the Urban Area Security | ||
Initiative (UASI) program. ICTAP works with State and local coordinating bodies to assess gaps | Initiative (UASI) program. ICTAP works with State and local coordinating bodies to assess gaps | ||
in the current communications infrastructure and determine the technical requirements for | in the current communications infrastructure and determine the technical requirements for | ||
designing an interoperable communications system. Recently, ICTAP has supported the | designing an interoperable communications system. Recently, ICTAP has supported the | ||
development of a Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan (TICP) for 75 urban areas and | development of a Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan (TICP) for 75 urban areas and | ||
| Line 301: | Line 309: | ||
designated multi-jurisdictional metropolitan areas. ICTAP and G&T are working together with SAFECOM to develop national interoperable | designated multi-jurisdictional metropolitan areas. ICTAP and G&T are working together with SAFECOM to develop national interoperable | ||
communications guidance. SAFECOM, a DHS program within the Under Secretary for Science | communications guidance. SAFECOM, a DHS program within the Under Secretary for Science | ||
and Technology, has dedicated its resources to the selected UASI sites. Therefore these | and Technology, has dedicated its resources to the selected UASI sites. Therefore these | ||
resources are unavailable for private entities (Ref. 5). For example; under these guidelines, SAFECOM has partnered with the Commonwealth of Virginia and developed a strategic plan for | resources are unavailable for private entities (Ref. 5). For example; under these guidelines, SAFECOM has partnered with the Commonwealth of Virginia and developed a strategic plan for | ||
improving Statewide communications interoperability, which is identified as the Statewide | improving Statewide communications interoperability, which is identified as the Statewide | ||
Interoperability Communications Planning (SICP) methodology. SICP methodology uses a | Interoperability Communications Planning (SICP) methodology. SICP methodology uses a | ||
10-phase collaborative planning process, shadowed by SAFECOM as the technical expert, to | 10-phase collaborative planning process, shadowed by SAFECOM as the technical expert, to | ||
| Line 317: | Line 325: | ||
Nuclear power reactor licensees that are located near the selected UASI sites could benefit | Nuclear power reactor licensees that are located near the selected UASI sites could benefit | ||
from the ongoing efforts to improve communications interoperability. However, these benefits | from the ongoing efforts to improve communications interoperability. However, these benefits | ||
are currently hampered by the existing variations of governance structures, interoperable | are currently hampered by the existing variations of governance structures, interoperable | ||
| Line 323: | Line 331: | ||
equipment, equipment policies and procedures, incident communications resource plans, and | equipment, equipment policies and procedures, incident communications resource plans, and | ||
communications unit leadership (Ref. 7). Nevertheless, key essential initiatives, such as the | communications unit leadership (Ref. 7). Nevertheless, key essential initiatives, such as the | ||
SICP methodology plan template, can be used as a tool by any organization committed to | SICP methodology plan template, can be used as a tool by any organization committed to | ||
| Line 334: | Line 342: | ||
related to improving tactical communications interoperability at the following W eb sites: | related to improving tactical communications interoperability at the following W eb sites: | ||
* | * | ||
Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program | |||
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/ta_ictap.htm | http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/ta_ictap.htm | ||
* | * | ||
Office of Grants and Training | |||
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/ | http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/ | ||
* | * | ||
===Interoperable Communications Users Handbook=== | |||
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/equipment_interopcomm.htm | http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/equipment_interopcomm.htm | ||
* | * | ||
===Lessons Learned Information Sharing=== | |||
https://www.llis.dhs.gov/ | https://www.llis.dhs.gov/ | ||
* | * | ||
SAFECOM | |||
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/ | http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/ | ||
* | * | ||
===Interoperability Continuum=== | |||
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitybasics/ | http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitybasics/ | ||
1190_interoperabilitycontinuum.htm | |||
* | * | ||
Interoperability Library (Interoperability in Virginia) | |||
http://www.interoperability.virginia.gov/library.html | |||
==DISCUSSION== | ==DISCUSSION== | ||
| Line 364: | Line 379: | ||
plant licensees to follow and maintain in effect emergency plans that meet the standards in | plant licensees to follow and maintain in effect emergency plans that meet the standards in | ||
10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. Planning standard | 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. Planning standard | ||
10 CFR 50.47(b)(6) states that provisions exist for prompt communications among principal | 10 CFR 50.47(b)(6) states that provisions exist for prompt communications among principal | ||
| Line 374: | Line 389: | ||
Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in | Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in | ||
Support of Nuclear Power Plants, Section II, Planning Standards and Evaluation Criteria, Subsection F, Emergency Communications. Subsection F.1 states that: 1) Each organization | Support of Nuclear Power Plants, Section II, Planning Standards and Evaluation Criteria, Subsection F, Emergency Communications. Subsection F.1 states that: 1) Each organization | ||
shall establish reliable primary and backup means of communication for licensee, local, and | shall establish reliable primary and backup means of communication for licensee, local, and | ||
| Line 380: | Line 395: | ||
State response organizations and 2) such systems should be selected to be compatible with | State response organizations and 2) such systems should be selected to be compatible with | ||
one another. Additionally, Subsection F.3 states that each organization shall conduct periodic | one another. Additionally, Subsection F.3 states that each organization shall conduct periodic | ||
testing of the entire emergency communication system (i.e., to ensure prompt communications | testing of the entire emergency communication system (i.e., to ensure prompt communications | ||
| Line 388: | Line 403: | ||
Currently, no NRC requirements directly address or mandate communications interoperability | Currently, no NRC requirements directly address or mandate communications interoperability | ||
between nuclear power reactor licensees and first responders. Nevertheless, establishing such | between nuclear power reactor licensees and first responders. Nevertheless, establishing such | ||
communications interoperability could enhance a licensees ability to respond to an event or | communications interoperability could enhance a licensees ability to respond to an event or | ||
| Line 398: | Line 413: | ||
available to all stakeholders who need to establish communications with each other, whenever | available to all stakeholders who need to establish communications with each other, whenever | ||
a need arises to address matters related to NRC-licensed facilities or materials. The NRC HOC | a need arises to address matters related to NRC-licensed facilities or materials. The NRC HOC | ||
can always be reached on a 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week basis. | can always be reached on a 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week basis. | ||
| Line 404: | Line 419: | ||
REFERENCES | REFERENCES | ||
1. | 1. | ||
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. SAFECOM: Interoperability. | |||
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/interoperability/default.htm. | http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/interoperability/default.htm. | ||
2. | 2. | ||
U.S. Department of Homeland Security: Tactical Interoperable Communications | |||
Scorecards Summary Report and Findings, January 2007. | Scorecards Summary Report and Findings, January 2007. | ||
| Line 414: | Line 433: | ||
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grants-scorecard-report-010207.pdf | http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grants-scorecard-report-010207.pdf | ||
3. | 3. | ||
Chertoff, M. May 8, 2006, Remarks by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff at | |||
the Tactical Interoperable Communications Conference. | the Tactical Interoperable Communications Conference. | ||
| Line 420: | Line 441: | ||
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/speeches/speech_0281.shtm. | http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/speeches/speech_0281.shtm. | ||
4. | 4. | ||
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Interoperable Communications Technical | |||
Assistance Program (ICTAP). http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/ta_ictap.htm 5. | |||
U.S. Department of Homeland Security: G&T Information Bulletin No. 205, March 23, 2006. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/info205.pdf | |||
6. | |||
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, SAFECOM, Interoperability Case Studies: | |||
Statewide Communications Interoperability Planning (SCIP) Methodology. | |||
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitycasestudies/1223_sta | http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitycasestudies/1223_sta | ||
| Line 431: | Line 458: | ||
tewidecommunications.htm | tewidecommunications.htm | ||
7. | 7. | ||
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ICTAP Fact Sheet. | |||
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/ICTAP_Fact_Sheet.pdf | http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/ICTAP_Fact_Sheet.pdf | ||
| Line 439: | Line 468: | ||
This IN is intended to provide information for achieving tactical communications interoperability | This IN is intended to provide information for achieving tactical communications interoperability | ||
and is presented solely to share information among nuclear industry stakeholders. It does not | and is presented solely to share information among nuclear industry stakeholders. It does not | ||
contain a definitive solution to the wide range of current challenges to tactical communications | contain a definitive solution to the wide range of current challenges to tactical communications | ||
| Line 452: | Line 481: | ||
S | S | ||
This information notice requires no specific action or written response. Please direct any | This information notice requires no specific action or written response. Please direct any | ||
questions about this matter to the technical contacts listed below or the appropriate Office of | questions about this matter to the technical contacts listed below or the appropriate Office of | ||
| Line 459: | Line 488: | ||
/RA/ | /RA/ | ||
===Michael J. Case, Director=== | |||
Division of Policy and Rulemaking | Division of Policy and Rulemaking | ||
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation | ===Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation=== | ||
Technical Contacts: | |||
Arlon O. Costa, NSIR | |||
===Michael D. McCoppin, NSIR=== | |||
301-415-6402 | |||
301-415-2737 E-mail: aoc@nrc.gov | |||
E-mail: mdm2@nrc.gov | |||
Note: NRC generic communications may be found on the NRC public Web site, http://www.nrc.gov, under Electronic Reading Room/Document Collections. | |||
ML070710233 *Incorporated DHS input into | |||
===Background=== | |||
section | |||
OFFICE | |||
NSIR:DPR:EPD | |||
TECH EDITOR | |||
BC:NSIR:DPR | |||
BC: NSIR:SPLB | |||
DD:NSIR | |||
NAME | |||
ACosta * | |||
HChang (e-mail) | |||
AMcMurtray | |||
RJohnson | |||
NMamish | |||
DATE | |||
02/08/07 | |||
03/14/07 | |||
02/28/07 | |||
03/02/07 | |||
03/05/07 OFFICE | |||
LA:PGCB:DPR | |||
PGCB:DPR | |||
BC:PGCB:DPR | |||
D:DPR | |||
NAME | |||
CHawes | |||
DBeaulieu | |||
CPJackson | |||
MCase | |||
DATE | |||
03/12/07 | |||
03/12/07 | |||
03/14/07 | |||
03/15/07}} | |||
{{Information notice-Nav}} | {{Information notice-Nav}} | ||
Latest revision as of 02:50, 15 January 2025
| ML070710233 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/15/2007 |
| From: | Michael Case NRC/NRR/ADRA/DPR |
| To: | |
| References | |
| IN-07-012 | |
| Download: ML070710233 (8) | |
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
W ASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001
March 15, 2007
NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2007-12:
TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS
INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN NUCLEAR
POW ER REACTOR LICENSEES AND FIRST
RESPONDERS
ADDRESSEES
All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors, except those who have
permanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel has been permanently removed
from the reactor vessel.
PURPOSE
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this information notice (IN) to
provide addressees information for achieving tactical communications interoperability between
licensees, Federal, State, and local first responders in the event of an emergency at a nuclear
power reactor. It is expected that recipients of this document will review the information for
applicability to their facilities and consider actions, as appropriate, to enhance tactical
communications interoperability. However, suggestions contained in this IN are not NRC
regulatory requirements; therefore, no specific action or written response is required.
DESCRIPTION OF CIRCUMSTANCES
For the purpose of this IN, interoperability and tactical interoperable communications are terms
defined by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In general, interoperability refers
to the ability of emergency responders to work seamlessly with other systems or products
without any special effort. W ireless communications interoperability specifically refers to the
ability of emergency response officials to share information via voice and data signals on
demand, in real time, when needed, and as authorized (Ref. 1). Tactical interoperable
communications is defined as the rapid provision of on-scene, incident-based, mission-critical
voice communications among all first responder agencies (i.e., emergency medical services
[EMS], fire, and law enforcement), as appropriate for the incident (Ref. 2).
There may be unforeseen instances where licensees may deplete their typical communication
resources such as land lines, cellular phones, or radio frequencies to the point where they need
to rely on a more robust system to maintain tactical communications interoperability with their
stakeholders, especially first responders. Policies, training, exercises, and procedures also play
a vital role in achieving tactical communications interoperability and ensure that a steady flow of
critical information is maintained between the licensee and first responders.
Various examples of lapses in effective tactical communications interoperability have been
documented by response organizations. Specific examples include the responses to the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and to Hurricane Katrina in late August 2005. These
events have generated valuable lessons for Federal, State, and local response organizations.
These lessons learned can apply to a major event response at a nuclear power reactor site
(i.e., hurricane, terrorist attack).
The following examples of enhanced communications are provided as a means for other
licensees, in coordination with State and local response agencies, to self-identify ways to
improve tactical communications interoperability. Each of the examples is intended to describe
different scenarios and challenges, and solutions implemented through collaboration with
Federal, State, and local public safety officials.
Exelon Nuclear (Mid-W est)
Exelon Nuclear (Mid-W est) sites have enhanced tactical communications interoperability by
integrating their systems and processes in partnership with a broad range of State-wide
communications enhancements implemented by the State of Illinois. These enhancements
were coordinated by the State of Illinois Communications Committee using funding available
through the DHS Office of Training and Grants. Enhancements made to communications
capabilities to ensure interoperability include:
Deploying mobile command vehicles around the State to provide work space for various
response agencies at the incident scene, as well as communications gear to patch
together local agency radio frequencies;
Providing 700/800 MHz radios and digital very high frequency (VHF) radios to response
agencies in the State of Illinois to facilitate communications with first responders;
Providing a satellite-based warning and alert system, capable of receiving simultaneous, authenticated text messages from the State Emergency Operations Center, to county
emergency management agencies and other public safety agencies;
Providing all hospitals in the State of Illinois with Medical Emergency Radio System of
Illinois radio units; and
Providing transmitters and equipment to counties that did not have access to the States
inter-agency radio system (Illinois Radio Emergency Assistance Channel) to allow
response agencies within that county to communicate with each other.
Since the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, the State of Illinois has opened a new State
Emergency Operations Center. This center merges the State Incident Response Center, the
Illinois Emergency Management Agency 24-hour Communications Center, the Statewide
Terrorism and Intelligence Center, and the State Radiological Emergency Assessment Center
under a common facility.
Turkey Point Nuclear Plant
Following Hurricane Andrew in 1992, the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant (TPNP), in the State of
Florida, installed dedicated phone lines and other wireless communication methods to improve
tactical communications interoperability with local law enforcement agencies (LLEAs) and State
and local response organizations. These modifications were subsequently evaluated following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This evaluation revealed that responding
organizations communication equipment, in many cases, were not compatible or interoperable.
TPNP subsequently procured a modular interface/interconnect system, available on-site, that
allowed for the patching of various licensee and first responder radio frequencies, cellular
phones, satellite phones, and land lines. A few challenges surfaced during the implementation
of this patching process. The licensee recognized the need to collaborate with the vendor in
developing procedures, installing the equipment in a weather-tight enclosure, testing the
equipment, and training of TPNP staff on equipment and procedural usage. An in-house
subject matter expert collaborated with the vendor and resolved these issues. Another
challenge related to site-shared frequencies with the LLEA was resolved when the LLEA
recognized the benefits of sharing radio frequencies with the licensee.
Fermi 2 Nuclear Generating Station
Prior to 2000, Fermi 2 had one base station on the same frequency as Monroe County, Michigan, the sites host county. In preparation for millennial computer problems (i.e., Y2K or
year 2000 problems), the licensee purchased radio units, similar to ones owned by the Michigan
State Police, to aid in communications interoperability. This acquisition supported a similar
investment by Monroe County. The County used DHS grant resources to acquire the same
800 MHz radio system as the Michigan State Police and thus achieved interoperability between
local response units in the county and within the State. Subsequently, Fermi 2 purchased base
stations and additional portable units similar to the Michigan State Police radio system, thereby
further enhancing the sites tactical communications interoperability with the county and the
State.
Currently, the Fermi 2 security organization performs daily system radio checks with the county.
Fermi 2 intends to assess the system performance and user proficiency during upcoming
security-related emergency preparedness drills.
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant
The Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) security organization has achieved a higher
level of tactical communications interoperability through enhancements to its 800-MHz
communication system. These enhancements involved the reprogramming of LLEA radios with
licensee communication software that improved communications with the licensee. The LLEA
was able to re-configure the channel frequency which the licensee was using into their existing
and newly purchased portable radios. The communications system works by creating an
additional CCNPP security channel for LLEA to switch to when they are enroute to respond to
an incident at the plant. These enhancements allow for the lines of communication with LLEA
responders to remain open and facilitate the appropriate handling of incident command and
control. This communications system can also be used to improve outside response to the site
by incorporating another frequency for local fire departments and EMS personnel.
Perry Nuclear Power Plant
For the initial licensing of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), the licensee acquired radios, as part of its site-trunked 800-MHz radio system, which shared at least one frequency with the
local fire department to ensure better communications during incident responses. More recently, local county authorities upgraded their radios to a digital (i.e., more efficient) 800-MHz
system and partnered with the PNPP site to ensure compatibility. In a joint effort between
PNPP and Lake County, Ohio, county departments reprogrammed their digital radios so that
both PNPP and the local fire department had at least two channels that were programmed to
operate in their common frequencies. PNPP further enhanced its capability to create additional
patched frequencies by using the countys Viper frequency matching system and the State of
Ohios Buckeye State Sheriff Association Communication Vehicle. This capability was available
to patch in additional responders into PNPPs security and the fire brigade common tracked
frequencies, such as county LLEAs, and fire, medical, and FBI responders.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
In addition to the examples provided above, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania)
has upgraded its communications capabilities since September 11, 2001. Pennsylvania
deployed an 800-MHz, non-scannable, encrypted data and voice system, which uses a virtual
Internet protocol network to create stable platforms for interoperable communications.
Pennsylvania has offered nuclear power reactor licensees within the Commonwealth access to
the system by means of providing a secure user profile that allows the site to become a party to
the Talk Group involved in the overall response to an incident. These prearranged Talk Groups
include the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, LLEAs, fire departments, emergency medical services, hospitals, and other local response organizations. This system, as designed, allows continuous communication with all stakeholders making possible the
exchange of voice and data, as needed. For example, the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection through its Bureau of Radiation Protection is currently structured to
use this system to maintain interoperability between field teams during any response to
incidents at a commercial power reactor facility.
BACKGROUND
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, communications interoperability has
gradually improved nationally (Ref. 3). This improvement is partially due to financial support by
DHS and through coordinated efforts among Federal, State, and local first responders and
public safety officials. Nuclear power reactor sites rely on Federal, State and local first
responder resources to support the licensees response to an emergency. As such, effective
tactical communications is essential in the coordination of these offsite resources.
The DHS Office of Grants and Training (G&T) Interoperable Communications Technical
Assistance Program (ICTAP) is designed to enhance interoperable communications between
Federal, State, and local emergency responders and public safety officials (Ref. 4). The goal of
ICTAP is to enable local public safety agencies to communicate as they prevent or respond to
weapons of mass destruction attacks. ICTAP is associated with the Urban Area Security
Initiative (UASI) program. ICTAP works with State and local coordinating bodies to assess gaps
in the current communications infrastructure and determine the technical requirements for
designing an interoperable communications system. Recently, ICTAP has supported the
development of a Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan (TICP) for 75 urban areas and
designated multi-jurisdictional metropolitan areas. ICTAP and G&T are working together with SAFECOM to develop national interoperable
communications guidance. SAFECOM, a DHS program within the Under Secretary for Science
and Technology, has dedicated its resources to the selected UASI sites. Therefore these
resources are unavailable for private entities (Ref. 5). For example; under these guidelines, SAFECOM has partnered with the Commonwealth of Virginia and developed a strategic plan for
improving Statewide communications interoperability, which is identified as the Statewide
Interoperability Communications Planning (SICP) methodology. SICP methodology uses a
10-phase collaborative planning process, shadowed by SAFECOM as the technical expert, to
develop and adopt key essential initiatives for a Statewide strategic plan (Ref. 6).
Nuclear power reactor licensees that are located near the selected UASI sites could benefit
from the ongoing efforts to improve communications interoperability. However, these benefits
are currently hampered by the existing variations of governance structures, interoperable
equipment, equipment policies and procedures, incident communications resource plans, and
communications unit leadership (Ref. 7). Nevertheless, key essential initiatives, such as the
SICP methodology plan template, can be used as a tool by any organization committed to
improve communications interoperability, including NRC power reactor licensees and their
respective stakeholders.
In addition to the references provided in this IN, addressees can access more information
related to improving tactical communications interoperability at the following W eb sites:
Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/ta_ictap.htm
Office of Grants and Training
Interoperable Communications Users Handbook
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/equipment_interopcomm.htm
Lessons Learned Information Sharing
SAFECOM
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/
Interoperability Continuum
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitybasics/
1190_interoperabilitycontinuum.htm
Interoperability Library (Interoperability in Virginia)
http://www.interoperability.virginia.gov/library.html
DISCUSSION
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.54(q) requires nuclear power
plant licensees to follow and maintain in effect emergency plans that meet the standards in
10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. Planning standard
10 CFR 50.47(b)(6) states that provisions exist for prompt communications among principal
response organizations to emergency personnel and to the public.
These requirements are amplified in NUREG 0654/FEMA REP 1, Rev.1, Criteria for
Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in
Support of Nuclear Power Plants,Section II, Planning Standards and Evaluation Criteria, Subsection F, Emergency Communications. Subsection F.1 states that: 1) Each organization
shall establish reliable primary and backup means of communication for licensee, local, and
State response organizations and 2) such systems should be selected to be compatible with
one another. Additionally, Subsection F.3 states that each organization shall conduct periodic
testing of the entire emergency communication system (i.e., to ensure prompt communications
among principal response organizations to emergency personnel and to the public).
Currently, no NRC requirements directly address or mandate communications interoperability
between nuclear power reactor licensees and first responders. Nevertheless, establishing such
communications interoperability could enhance a licensees ability to respond to an event or
emergency.
NRCs phone line conferencing system through the Headquarters Operations Center (HOC) is
available to all stakeholders who need to establish communications with each other, whenever
a need arises to address matters related to NRC-licensed facilities or materials. The NRC HOC
can always be reached on a 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week basis.
REFERENCES
1.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. SAFECOM: Interoperability.
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/interoperability/default.htm.
2.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security: Tactical Interoperable Communications
Scorecards Summary Report and Findings, January 2007.
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grants-scorecard-report-010207.pdf
3.
Chertoff, M. May 8, 2006, Remarks by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff at
the Tactical Interoperable Communications Conference.
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/speeches/speech_0281.shtm.
4.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Interoperable Communications Technical
Assistance Program (ICTAP). http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/ta_ictap.htm 5.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security: G&T Information Bulletin No. 205, March 23, 2006. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/info205.pdf
6.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, SAFECOM, Interoperability Case Studies:
Statewide Communications Interoperability Planning (SCIP) Methodology.
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitycasestudies/1223_sta
tewidecommunications.htm
7.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ICTAP Fact Sheet.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/ICTAP_Fact_Sheet.pdf
CONCLUSION
This IN is intended to provide information for achieving tactical communications interoperability
and is presented solely to share information among nuclear industry stakeholders. It does not
contain a definitive solution to the wide range of current challenges to tactical communications
interoperability between power reactor licensees and Federal, State, and local first responders.
This IN does not endorse specific tools, methods, or equipment that may be used to enhance
tactical communications interoperability.
CONTACT
S
This information notice requires no specific action or written response. Please direct any
questions about this matter to the technical contacts listed below or the appropriate Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.
/RA/
Michael J. Case, Director
Division of Policy and Rulemaking
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Technical Contacts:
Arlon O. Costa, NSIR
Michael D. McCoppin, NSIR
301-415-6402
301-415-2737 E-mail: aoc@nrc.gov
E-mail: mdm2@nrc.gov
Note: NRC generic communications may be found on the NRC public Web site, http://www.nrc.gov, under Electronic Reading Room/Document Collections.
ML070710233 *Incorporated DHS input into
Background
section
OFFICE
NSIR:DPR:EPD
TECH EDITOR
BC:NSIR:DPR
BC: NSIR:SPLB
DD:NSIR
NAME
ACosta *
HChang (e-mail)
AMcMurtray
RJohnson
NMamish
DATE
02/08/07
03/14/07
02/28/07
03/02/07
03/05/07 OFFICE
LA:PGCB:DPR
PGCB:DPR
BC:PGCB:DPR
D:DPR
NAME
CHawes
DBeaulieu
CPJackson
MCase
DATE
03/12/07
03/12/07
03/14/07
03/15/07