Bush Urged to Deem Telecom, Power Crews Emergency Responders

In a letter to Bush, Duane Ackerman, NSTAC chmn. and BellSouth CEO, called for immediate action on the committee’s recommendations: (1) Define and establish “emergency responder” in the National Response Plan and other federal, state and local govt. emergency plans. (2) Designate key personnel of telecom and electric power infrastructure owners as emergency responders. (3) Include fuel supply, security, site access and other logistical support to telecom and electric providers as part of emergency responder planning, to ensure priority telecom and power restoration. (4) Promote “effective” emergency coordination to ensure “reliable and robust” communication between the telecom and power industries and local, state and federal govts.

Ackerman said NSTAC is still looking at interdependency issues, focusing on the “technical aspects” of emergency power, telecom “resiliency” related to power and communications operability and interoperability during an extended power outage. A report on these “vital issues of concern” will come out this year, he added.

In response to the NSTAC recommendations, the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) is developing guidelines for access to sites; it’s working first with state and local officials in Ga., said BellSouth Asst. Vp-Federal Relations David Barron, who is a TEPITF member. The goal is to have “at least a basic process and plan in place for access control for critical infrastructure operators by June 1 this year,” he told us. He said he believed a process using credentials for access to sites “will be understood and applied equally” across the 9 BellSouth states. On designation as emergency responder and access, he said, “we are making a lot of progress now.” But a lot of work remains, he said: “There is this whole issue of emergency communications and interoperability that NSTAC is working on.”

Amendments to the Stafford Disaster Relief & Emergency Assistance Act sought by the industry (CD Oct 11 p3) haven’t been made. Many members of Congress are interested in changes to the act and are looking at it, said Barron. The industry wants the law changed to allow federal assistance to the private sector, specifically for communications. The current law could be interpreted to mean the federal govt. can’t provide assistance to the private sector except for organizations like the Red Cross, he said. “We are not asking for funding,” Barron said: “The only thing we are asking for is a recognition in some cases we many need assistance from the federal government for access to a site, for security that’s beyond our control and fuel that’s being rationed that would run our generators.” The industry could be provided such assistance, he said, “because we will pay for it.”

After Katrina, the Stafford Act was interpreted to deny federal assistance to business, he said. The industry had sought assistance for access to sites and security because “it was beyond our ability to provide security in the environment we saw in New Orleans.” The FBI and U.S. Marshals eventually helped, he said, but it took them several days to reach that decision. “It would help the next time if it were more clear what they can’t do and what they can do and we think the Stafford Act amendments would allow for that.” He said the question for lawmakers may be how far they could extend the amendments beyond telecom and electricity providers. “I think Congress is looking at that bigger picture, which is the appropriate thing to do. But it further complicates it.”

Negotiations at the interdependency task force brought no formal agreement on the priority of telecom for power restoration after extended outages, said Barron. But the discussion has succeeded in fostering understanding and a “relationship” at the federal level. “I think there is a recognition that certainly we should be moved up that priority scale -- for wireline, wireless and telephony that are all very dependent upon power.” The need now is to push that understanding and recognition down to the state and local levels, he said, and “BellSouth has folks out in the states doing that -- build relationships with electric power.” There is also a push toward “future technologies” such as fuel cell, micro grid and improved batteries to maintain critical communications during extended power outages, said Barron. But he characterized them as “long- term” issues. “We are not going to rollout new battery technologies tomorrow.” Work is underway with govt. partners and the Sandia National Lab on new battery technologies, he said: “I am confident they will have some recommendations on what the communications industry should do [and] the government should do in the next 6-8 months,” he added.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) limits on emissions and diesel storage lead to “inconsistencies” in federal regulations that are continuing, said Barron. For instance, he said, DHS wants communications providers to tune up and maintain generators to ensure service during prolonged outages, he said: “Yet, the EPA is still looking at restrictions on diesel exhaust emissions specifically from emergency generators.” DHS is working on this, he said, and the National Response Plan and the National Infrastructure Protection Plan being developed are also dealing with “those needs and setting those priorities.” The industry, he said, is “pretty comfortable that the recognition and reconciliation of those conflicts is being addressed.” Because of underground storage restrictions, a lot of the fuel tanks have been raised above ground for environmental reasons. But that makes those tanks an easier target, he said: “If you've got 10,000 gallons of gasoline or diesel fuel above ground, it’s a pretty easy target at a critical location.” The industry looks at it from an “all-hazards approach,” he said: “We are concerned about natural disasters but there is still concern about man-made disasters and attacks could be made against critical infrastructure.”

There’s understanding in the electric sector of the communications industry’s concerns about power restoration, said Mike Hyland, vp-engineering of the American Public Power Assn. (APPA) and a TEPITF member. When the telecom industry wanted higher priority in power restoration, he said, “our first instinct was, yeah right.” But when telecom companies explained their reasoning after last year’s hurricanes, he said, “we saw some of the rationale was correct.” There’s realization that although telecom can’t be number one on the power restoration list, “we should have communications on our list of important things because we are relying on communications,” Hyland said: “I think it is just one of those educations from both sides.” He said there can’t be a federal policy on power restoration. It’s a decision to be made at the local level, he said: “Prioritization doesn’t come down to a national policy. Restoration of power comes down to Joe and Bob, the line workers and the utility making the decision.” What the task force is seeking, he said, is a policy across the country: “We don’t have an electric restoration policy, so how could we put telecom into that policy when it doesn’t exist.”

How prepared are the telecom and power utilities to deal with a destructive hurricane season? Barron said BellSouth has done “an awful lot since last year and we are better prepared than we have ever been.” If telecom gets emergency responder status that ensures access to sites and help with security, “we are confident we will be much better off.” Hyland said electric utilities didn’t “let anybody down” during last year’s hurricanes. “We restored power as quickly as we could given the devastation that we had.” Many damaged systems were replaced with “brand new” equipment, he said: “Every pole, every piece of wire, transformer is totally redone.” But that’s no guarantee against outages, he said: “The way our grid is set up right now, you are going to have outages unless you put generators in our houses, which no one wants to do.”

Barron said some states have been looking “very seriously” at mandating buried facilities. That, he said, is a “very, very expensive proposition.” Burial of lines will make them less susceptible to wind and tree damage. On the flip side, buried wires can be damaged by flooding, he added. Burying wires isn’t a panacea, said Hyland, pointing out that it didn’t help in New Orleans last year. “You get water in there and you have longer outages typically with underground.”