FCC Seeks Comments for Blanket Waiver to Allow Amateur Radio in Hospital Emergency Dr

I see it as a grant in part, since the waiver process will ultimately go away. And, a denial of anything broader. At least until the NPRM is decided upon. A grant of a blanket waiver giving hospitals authority beyond its proposed revision to 97.113a3 for participation in government sponsored drills wouldn't make much sense. They would have to rescind it later. And, worse, would color the proceeding outcome beyond the language proposed.

The most they can grant at this point is a waiver allowing all hospitals to participate in government sponsored drills only.

I think their request for commentary in the proceeding for just what AHA asked for is an indication that nothing more than what is proposed in language will happen unless something really convincing comes along in the NPRM comments. A lot more than what Ms. Welsh had to say.

 

I am strongly opposed to the NPRM as written. Here is part of my recent email about this issue......................I would state that the ERO Teams make up nearly all salaried employees at my plant.

"I am employed at one of the 104 Operating Nuclear Power Plants in the United States. Every nuclear power plant is required, as a condition of their operating license granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to have an operable Emergency Response Organization (ERO). Every two years each plant must participate in a graded Emergency Drill which influences their continued operation as a special nuclear materials license holder. Yearly, plants participate in multiple drills to ensure successful completion of their biennial graded drills. These drills vary in intensity from activating their ERO (recall) to ensure it can be properly manned all the way to a full site drills incorporating offsite organizations and both local and state government. The point being that there is a significant amount of resources devoted to the ERO and its function to ensure that nuclear power plants can properly perform to protect the public in the event some event occurs at their plant.

Most plants have a series of ERO Teams assigned that provide “coverage” in the case a drill occurs or an actual event. This requires the employees to carry a pager 24/7 for their duty week so they can be recalled if need be. This also requires the employee to be within one hour driving time from their plant and to be subject to Fitness for Duty criteria which includes a prohibition against consuming alcohol five hours prior to arrival on site. Since drills or events cannot be predicted, this is effectively a ban against the consumption of alcohol during their duty week as well as severely restricts the employee’s freedom of movements. My plant has a total of four ERO teams so effectively participants are “on the clock” one week out of four. Successful completion of their assigned duties is often a factor in the employee’s annual performance review which determines their pay as well as incentive bonus amounts they may be given. All positions are filled with salaried employees so there is no extra compensation to perform these duties.

The point being is that these are assigned positions and most definitely considered a “Condition of Employment” at most nuclear power plant. They are not volunteer positions by any stretch of the imagination.

Many plants have incorporated amateur radio as part of their ERO organizations and Emergency Response Plans. To date my plant has not, as all communications by radio with outside organizations is conducted by Part 90 equipment. I cannot address how those plants that do incorporate amateur radio have manned their Communicator positions in light of current interpretations of §97.113(a).

If either the AHA requested blanket waiver or the ARRL’s proposed changes to §97.113(a) are adopted it is not an unreasonable expectation that amateur radio operators may in the future be forced to participate in their ERO teams and exercise their license privileges as a condition of their continued employment as a plant employee. Their employers have a vested interest in continued successful operation of their plants and will use their employees as needed to ensure it. Any changes to §97.113(a) must be carefully considered and appropriate conditions included to ensure that no amateur radio operator can be forced operate as a condition of employment and that their participation is strictly voluntary and cannot be used as a factor in any annual personal performance evaluations.

There are many other industries and businesses that have requirements concerning emergency preparedness and disaster drills and response. I have communicated issues related to only one, the nuclear power industry. Any changes to §97.113(a) have potential unforeseen ramifications for those business interests as well as their employees.

With I have written, I must state that I am not against the appropriate use of any aspect of amateur radio in support of emergency preparedness or disaster drills, but any participation must be voluntary only. To do anything else challenges the very tenets of Amateur Radio as I understand them."

 

Lee, Ron, to your exchanges about whether these "drills" are adequately limited.

I don't think they are, as the proposed Rule is written.

Especially concerning is the wording about operational testing before the actual drill.

Isn't that what the drill itself is supposed to accomplish ? As written, the operational testing can be for any duration, taking place weeks or months or at any time between actual drills. The words "immediately prior" have no quantification value.

In my view, it would be redundant and superfluous to grant permission for operational testing outside of the actual, scheduled, government-sponsored drill.

The next issue is whether these drills, which by definition take place without any emergency at hand, would have any priority claim to a spot on the dial. As non-emergency communications, they do not. But this should be asserted in the final Rule.

 

Perhaps NRC or Department of Labor regulations constrain to what extent NRC licensees can place demands on employees beyond their job descriptions. I would suspect no one's job description includes or will include "must posess a valid amateur radio license."

If someone were to take issue, and were punished by the employer in some tangible way, I am sure that the Department of Labor would be interested in hearing about it. Retaliation by NRC licensees against employees is a fairly serious matter. Especially with respect to complaints about workplace conditions made to either the NRC or the DOL.

 

Lee,

The whistleblower protections apply towards reporting safety issues ONLY. There are little if any protections against other conditions one might face in the workplace. It is very clear employees without union protection are employees at will.

Participation in the ERO Teams is already a condition of employment at many plants. I have even seen it listed in job listings at multiple plants. It is commonly spoken at many plants that folks wear three hats...their "real" job, their refueling outage job and their ERO "job".

The "protections" against being forced to operate I feel that are now needed were not an issue before because of the "bright-line" interpretations of the FCC concerning 97.113(a) which first were eroded with the waiver process and now are potentially to be removed essentially all together.

If this all goes through as written I can already see the writing on the wall at those plants that have incorporated AR as part of their ERO.

 

Not quitting yet.

At this point I still plan to submit my comments. I already wrote a first draft yesterday and do not want to waste it. But I'll wait until after the hamfest to see if anything interesting comes up there.

The AHA request may be useful in formulating a reply on the new NPRM. The AHA letter shows that the AHA, if not the hospitals it represents, has some basic misunderstandings about the Amateur Radio Service. Considering the number of form letters all with the same misunderstandings submitted by various hospitals, there are a lot of hospitals with the same problem.

If we point out to the FCC that the hospitals don't know what they are doing when it comes to using ARS for their emergency preparedness plan then it will be harder to allow them the exception.

 

What the Feds think

Here's something interesting from the FEMA IS-700a coursework:

This probably affects how the Federal government will view things like employees participating in drills.

IMO!


Cortland
KA5S

 

In reading comments thus far submitted it seems hospital staff don't have a clear understanding of what Amateur radio is about; even less of what is being asked for in this blanket waiver request.

As I previously stated, one comment spoke of an Amateur station set up with grant money from somewhere[?] at a price tag of over one hundred thousand dollars. This is difficult for me to understand; I would like to learn more about that installation.

Expenditures of money obtained from grants may be a matter of public information so I plan to investigate and somehow learn how much was spent in my county for amateur radio equipment.

Could someone tell me how to learn of past grants from state and\or federal funds?

 

From the ARRL Executive Committee Meeting of March 13, 2010

"Mr. Sumner and Mr. Imlay have presented to FCC staff the ARRL’s position on additional language for §97.113(a)(3) of the FCC Rules. The addition would provide for a narrow exception to the prohibition on communications on behalf of an employer in order to permit participation in emergency preparedness and disaster drills. They spoke to advisors to all five FCC Commissioners and to the Chief and a Deputy Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. The FCC has received and has put on public notice a request from the American Hospital Association (AHA) for a blanket waiver to permit hospitals seeking accreditation to use Amateur Radio operators who are hospital employees to transmit communications on behalf of the hospital as part of emergency preparedness drills. After discussion the committee agreed that the ARRL will file comments supporting the waiver to the extent that it is consistent with the ARRL’s proposed modification to §97.113(a)(3), and will ask AHA to clarify its waiver request to bring it into conformity with that policy."