19 0307 CISA EMP-Protection-Resilience-Guidelines PDF

UNCLASSIFIED
Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Protection

and Resilience Guidelines for Critical
Infrastructure and Equipment
February 5th, 2019

Version 2.2
Developed by the
National Coordinating Center for
Communications (NCC)
National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center

Arlington, Virginia
Note: These guidelines do not endorse Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

any referenced product, company, Guidelines are subject to change and
service, or information external to DHS. only represent the views of the NCC.
EMP Protection Guidelines UNCLASSIFIED
Executive Overview
This document provides guidelines to assist federal, state, and local officials and critical
infrastructure owners and operators to protect mission essential equipment against
electromagnetic pulse (EMP) threats. It was created to help fulfill the Secretary of Homeland
Security’s responsibilities to:
• “… provide strategic guidance, promote a national unity of effort, and coordinate the
overall Federal effort to promote the security and resilience of the Nation's critical
infrastructure.” [Presidential Policy Directive 21 - Critical Infrastructure Security and
Resilience]
• “… ensure … the necessary combination of hardness, redundancy, … to obtain, to the
maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP {national security/emergency
preparedness} communications …” [Executive Order 13618, Assignment of National
Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions]
• “… be the focal point within the Federal Government for all EMP technical data and
studies concerning telecommunications.” [Title 47 Part 215 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR)]
These guidelines also respond to the U.S. Congressional EMP Commission’s recommendation that
the “Department of Homeland Security should play a leading role in spreading knowledge of the
nature of prudent mitigation preparations for EMP attack to mitigate its consequences.” [Report of
the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)
Attack, Critical National Infrastructures, page 181, 2008]. The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) takes seriously the findings of this Commission, such as:
“The critical national infrastructure in the United States faces a present and continuing
existential threat from combined-arms warfare, including cyber and manmade
electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, as well as from natural EMP from a solar superstorm.
During the Cold War, the U.S. was primarily concerned about an EMP attack generated by a
high-altitude nuclear weapon as a tactic by which the Soviet Union could suppress the U.S.
national command authority and the ability to respond to a nuclear attack—and thus
negate the deterrence value of assured nuclear retaliation. Within the last decade, newly-
armed adversaries, including North Korea, have been developing the ability and
threatening to carry out an EMP attack against the United States. Such an attack would give
countries that have only a small number of nuclear weapons the ability to cause
widespread, long-lasting damage to critical national infrastructures, to the United States
itself as a viable country, and to the survival of a majority of its population.” [Assessing the
Threat from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), Executive Report, July 2017]
There are four EMP Protection Levels defined herein, as outlined in Table 1. These levels were
initially developed at the request of the federal Continuity Communications Managers Group
(CCMG), but are applicable to any organization that desires to protect its electronics and critical
infrastructures. For additional background on EMP, a set of reports can be found at
“www.firstempcommission.org“ that includes information about high-altitude EMP (HEMP), Source
Region EMP (SREMP), and Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI) EMP.

Table 1. Four EMP Protection Levels for Infrastructure and Equipment

Level 1: Lowest cost; Level 2: Only hours Level 3: Only minutes Level 4: Only seconds
longer mission of mission outages of mission outages are of mission outages
outages permitted are permitted permitted permitted
• Unplug power, data, In addition to Level 1 … In addition to Level 2 … In addition to Level 3 …
and antenna lines • Use EMP-rated SPDs • Use International • Use Military EMP
from spare equipment on power cords, Electrotechnical Standards (like MIL-
where feasible. antenna lines, and Commission (IEC) EMP STD-188-125-1 and
• Turn off equipment data cables to protect and IEMI protection MIL-HDBK-423), and
that cannot be critical equipment. standards (IEC SC 77C 80+ dB hardening
unplugged and is not • Use on-line/double- series, see Appendix F). through 10 GHz.
actively being used. conversion • Shielding should be 30+ • Use EMP shielding in
• Use at least a lightning uninterruptible power dB of protection rooms, racks, and
rated surge protection supplies (UPS) or a through 10 GHz. buildings as needed to
device (SPD) on power high quality line • Use EMP shielded racks, protect critical
cords, antenna lines, interactive UPS. rooms, or facilities to equipment.
and data cables; • Use fiber optic cables protect critical • Use EMP protected
maintain spare SPDs. (with no metal); computers, data double-door
• Have either EMP otherwise use centers, phone entryways.
protected backup shielded cables, switches, industrial and • Validate per Military
power or a generation ferrites, and SPDs. substation controls and guidelines, like Test
source that is not Note: shielded racks, other electronics. Operations Procedure
connected to the grid rooms or facilities may • Use “Recommended E3 (TOP) 01-2-620 HEMP.
with one (1) week of be more cost-effective HEMP Heave Electric • Have 30+ days of
on-site fuel or than hardening Field Waveform for the Military Standard
equivalent (e.g., numerous cables. Critical Infrastructures” protected power and
renewable source). • Use EMP protected from EMP Commission fuel, plus alternate
• Wrap spare backup power that is for grid and undersea generation source
electronics with not vulnerable to EMP cable protection (renewables
aluminum foil or put coupled through the planning. Use 85 V/km preferred).
in Faraday containers. power grid. for CONUS E3 threat.
• Consider double surge
• Use priority phone • Implement EMP • Use EMP tested SPDs protection on critical
services like GETS, protected, high and equipment. external lines entering
WPS (for cell phones), frequency (HF) voice • Institute IEC level EMP protected areas.
and TSP; join SHARES and email for long- hardness maintenance • Consider using
if applicable (see distance & surveillance (HM/HS). communications
Appendix C). communications.
• Have 30 days of EMP systems/networks that
• Consider land mobile • Consider protected power/fuel. are designed to meet
radios with standalone geosynchronous (GEO) Military EMP
orbit satellite services, • Store 30 days of food,
capabilities, HF radios, standards, like:
like BGAN. Avoid low- water, and critical
and FirstNet. Advanced EHF (AEHF)
earth orbit (LEO) supplies and spares.
• Store one week of satellite, EMP
satellite services. Use • Use time-urgent EMP protected fiber optic
food, water, and other
terminals that are resilient comms, like X, networks, and EMP
supplies for personnel.
EMP resilient. Ku and Ka satellite, and protected radios.
• Use battery operated either HF groundwave
AM/FM/NOAA radios • Consider shortwave • Institute ongoing
radio for situational or Automatic Link
to receive Emergency Establishment (ALE) HF. Military Standard
Alerts. awareness. HM/HS programs.

Level 1 begins with low-cost methods and best practices to help protect critical infrastructure from
severe damage. An important aspect of Level 1 protection is ensuring that personnel have backup
power and the food, water, and other essential supplies needed to operate and maintain their
mission-critical systems, given that normal services and supply chains are likely to be disrupted in
some reasonable scenarios for a week (or longer).
Level 2 guidelines are based on using EMP-capable filters and surge arresters on power cords,
antenna lines, and data cables, as well as installing fiber optics and ferrites, where possible, to
protect critical equipment. These will mitigate the majority of EMP equipment vulnerabilities when
EMP facility shielding is not feasible and are expected to be the most cost-effective approach for
hardening limited equipment in facilities. Levels 1 and 2 are for organizations where days or hours
of mission interruptions can be tolerated and for which “cost to harden” is a critical factor.
Level 3 guidelines are appropriate for organizations, facilities, and systems that cannot tolerate
more than a few minutes of mission outage due to EMP, in order to effectively protect life, health,
and security. The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) EMP and IEMI protection
standards (IEC SC 77C series, see Appendix F), serve as the foundation for planning and protecting
critical infrastructures and equipment that are in this category. For EMP Protection Levels 3 (and 4),
electromagnetically shielded racks and rooms are used to prevent electromagnetic (EM) fields and
currents from reaching mission critical equipment. At Level 3, shielding against high frequency EMP
should provide at least 30 dB of protection through 10 GHz (in other words, the EMP field strength
should be attenuated by a factor of at least 97% by the shielding).
Level 4 guidelines are for organizations/missions/systems that cannot tolerate more than a few
seconds of outage and where immediate life and safety are at stake. U.S. Military EMP Standards
supporting critical and time-urgent command, control, communications, computer, and intelligence
(C4I) missions serve as the foundation for planning and protecting critical infrastructures and
equipment in this category. Examples of missions where this apply are nuclear command and
control and Presidential conferencing. However, this level of protection may also be appropriate
for non-military related systems and missions, such as nuclear power plant controls, medical life-
support systems, and time-critical air traffic control functions. At Level 4, shielding against high
frequency EMP should provide at least 80 dB of protection through 10 GHz (in other words, the
EMP field strength should be attenuated by a factor of at least 99.99% by the shielding).
Levels 3 and 4 also use hardness maintenance and hardness surveillance (HM/HS) programs to
verify that the EMP shields are effective and that the EMP barrier’s integrity is maintained over the
life cycle of the system. A properly designed barrier with penetration protection for all power, data
and antenna cables will make equipment behind it safe from wide variations of external EM fields,
including HEMP, SREMP, and IEMI threats. Level 3 allows the use of commercial standards for
designing protection and performing HM/HS in a more cost-effective manner compared to Level 4.
Given the growing risks associated with EMP and IEMI related threats, it is hoped that
organizations that support essential functions will quickly achieve at least a Level 1 or 2 capability.
The costs of achieving Level 3 or 4 protection are small when compared to the life and mission risks
averted. For example, Level 3 protection can be achieved for many sites for far less than 1% of the
system cost. Even the most expensive Level 4 protections are only expected to cost 1% to 5% of
overall new system costs, if planned from the onset versus retrofitted into existing systems.

Acknowledgements and Authors

The Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Protection Guidelines were initially developed by Dr. George H.
Baker, based on his previous work where he led the Department of Defense program to develop
EMP protection standards (such as MIL-STD-188-125, MIL-HDBK-423, and MIL-STD-2169B) while at
the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). He is
currently serving as a consultant to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and is Professor
Emeritus of Applied Science, James Madison University (JMU). He presently serves on the Board of
Directors of the Foundation for Resilient Societies, the Board of Advisors for the Congressional Task
Force on National and Homeland Security, the JMU Research and Public Service Advisory Board,
and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation GMD Task Force. From 2002-2009 and
again from 2016-2017, he also served as a Senior Scientist to the Congressional EMP Commission.
A second principal author is Dr. William A. Radasky. Dr. Radasky started his career as a research
engineer at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory (AFWL) in 1968 working on the theory of the EMP.
In 1984 he founded Metatech Corporation (www.metatechcorp.com) in Goleta, California where
he is currently President and Managing Engineer. He has published over 500 technical papers,
reports and articles dealing with electromagnetic interference (EMI) and protection. In 1989, Dr.
Radasky began his volunteer work with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
developing reports and standards to protect commercial equipment and systems against the
threats of high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) and Intentional Electromagnetic
Interference (IEMI). He led the development of 22 publications as Chairman of IEC SC 77C since
1991. In addition, he helped to coordinate all of the electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) work of
the IEC as Chairman of the Advisory Committee on EMC from 1996 to 2008. He also organized and
presented many workshops for the IEC dealing with EMC in general and IEMI. In 2004 he received
the Lord Kelvin Award from the IEC for exceptional contributions to international standardization.
This award is presented annually to one individual out of 15,000 active participants within the IEC.
Dr. Radasky and his team of EMP experts developed the Electromagnetic Assessment Tool (EMAT)
for the Department of Homeland Security. The EMAT and the related Infrastructure Mapping Tool
(IMT) were used to develop many of the graphics and assessments in this report.
Dr. James L. Gilbert, who serves as the Chief Scientist at Metatech, has helped to lead Metatech’s
efforts in the development and use of analytic and numerical techniques to model electromagnetic
and plasma effects produced by nuclear and natural radiation. Much of his work over the last 45+
years has dealt with the protection of electronic systems from the EMP effects produced by nuclear
explosions. He is the principal developer of the Source Region EMP (SREMPTAPS) and EMAT codes
and has served as a consultant to DHS in modeling solar and EMP effects for many years.
Many others have worked to develop the assessments and information used in this document,
most notably: Rob Benish and Mark Jones of Jacobs Technology Inc. (past and current editorial
support), Dr. Edward Savage of Metatech, Dr. Don Morris-Jones, Mr. Seth Sobel and Mr. Matthew
Jackson (who developed many of the EMAT outputs used herein), Mr. Steven Karty (technical
contributor), Mr. Bronius Cikotas (a leader in the EMP community for decades and mentor to Dr.
Baker prior to passing away in 2014), and Kevin Briggs (the DHS/NCC Project Officer and Principal
Editor for this report). Questions on this report should be sent to: [email protected].

Table of Contents
Executive Overview ............................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements and Authors .......................................................................................................... v
List of Figures....................................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... ix
Document Change History .................................................................................................................... x
1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1
1.1. Document Purpose and Audience .................................................................................... 1
1.2. Scope ................................................................................................................................ 4
1.3. HEMP and GMD Characteristics ....................................................................................... 5
1.4. HEMP, SREMP, and IEMI Risks........................................................................................ 12
2. EMP PROTECTION AND RESILIENCE CONSIDERATIONS ............................................. 25
2.1. Prioritizing EMP Mitigation Efforts ................................................................................. 25
2.2. IEC Technical Design Standards ...................................................................................... 26
2.3. Surge Protective Device (SPD) Selection ........................................................................ 29
2.4. Use of Common Building Materials to Increase EMP Shielding ..................................... 31
3. LEVEL 1 EMP GUIDELINES ......................................................................................... 34
Calculated Level 3 Mitigation Effects ......................................................................................... 42
7. HEMP MODEL MITIGATION RESULTS........................................................................ 65
7.1. Model Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 65
7.2. Model Results ................................................................................................................. 66
8. NEXT STEPS .............................................................................................................. 70
Appendix A. EMP PROTECTION TEST AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ............................ A-1
Appendix B. EMP PROTECTION VENDORS AND SERVICES ......................................... B-1
Appendix C. PRIORITY SERVICES (GETS, WPS, FIRSTNET, TSP, AND SHARES) ............. C-1
Appendix D. EXCERPTS FROM 2017 BRIEF TO INFRAGARD SUMMIT ......................... D-1
Appendix E. ACRONYMS AND EXPLANATION OF DECIBELS ........................................E-1
Appendix F. IEC SC 77C BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................... F-1
Appendix G. REFERENCES .......................................................................................... G-1
Appendix H. EXAMPLE EMP IMPLEMENTATION FOR HF COMMUNICATIONS SITE .... H-1
Appendix I. ENDNOTES ............................................................................................. I-1

List of Figures
Figure 1. Generic HEMP waveform (ref. Meta-R-324) 4

Figure 2. IEC Standard E1 Waveform (ref. IEC 61000-2-9) 5
Figure 3. 100 Year geomagnetic storm – 50 degree GMD scenario (ref. Fig. 3-25) 7
Figure 4. 100 Year geomagnetic storm – 45 degree GMD scenario (ref. Fig. 3-26) 8
Figure 5. Normalized E3 Heave E field waveform from the 150 km burst height scenario 9
Figure 6. Normalized E peak contour pattern from the 150 km burst case 10
Figure 7. B-dot Magnetic Field Peak contour pattern from a 300 km burst case (from EMAT) 10
Figure 8. Frequency ranges of Lightning, HEMP, and IEMI 12
Figure 9. Potential disruption for 100’ Ethernet-connected equipment from 100 kT HEMP 13
Figure 10. Potential disruption for 100’ Ethernet-connected equipment from 30 kT HEMP 14
Figure 11. HEMP picture from the Fishbowl Starfish Prime at 0 to 15 seconds. 15
Figure 12. Generation of Source Region EMP (SREMP) from a ground burst 17
Figure 13. Potential 10 kT SREMP disruption of AC/DC adapters 18
Figure 14. Potential 10 kt SREMP Upset/Damage to FM Radio Transmission 19
Figure 15. Potential 10 kt SREMP Upset/Damage to Cellular Handsets 19
Figure 16. Typical IEMI interaction of radiated fields 22
Figure 17. DIEHL Munitions damped sine IEMI generator 23
Figure 18. Laboratory hyperband pulse generator used in Russia 23
Figure 19. RADAN 303B hyperband generator used in Sweden 23
Figure 20. High intensity JOLT hyperband generator used in the United States 24
Figure 21. Effect of Building Materials on EMP Attenuation 32
Figure 22. Organization of the current IEC SC 77C publications 41
Figure 23. Protective effects on cordless telephones with recommended 30 dB shielding 43
Figure 24. Protective effects on a 100’ Ethernet cable with recommended 30 dB shielding 44
Figure 25. Protective effects on a Plain Old Telephone Service Line with 30 dB shielding 44
Figure 26. Low-risk EMP barrier protection for facilities (per MIL-STD-188-125-1) 47
Figure 27. Typical cable POE protection design 49
Figure 28. Commercial electric power POE protection 50
Figure 29. Power line POE protection using a motor-generator set 51
Figure 30. Entryway using two doors separated by a WBC 51

Figure 31. Sample door with gaskets protecting against EMP threats 52
Figure 32. Typical waveguide-below-cutoff (WBC) piping POE protective design for E1 HEMP 53
Figure 33. Typical waveguide-below-cutoff ventilation POE protective design for E1 HEMP 54
Figure 34. Shield barrier earth electrode system 55
Figure 35. Example receiver protector unit diagram. 58
Figure 36. Special protective volume for piping POE for E1 HEMP 60
Figure 37. Special protective volume for electrical equipment 60
Figure 38. Global barrier vs. box-level protection 62
Figure 39. Box-level hardening techniques 63
Figure 40. EMP protected conduit 64
Figure 41. Potential upset/damage of equipment connected to 100’ Ethernet cable with 0 dB
protection 67
Figure 42. Reduced damage with 10 dB protection to 100’ Ethernet cable connected equipment 67
Figure 43. Localized damage only with 20 dB protection with 100’ Ethernet cable 67
Figure 44. No damage with 100’ Ethernet cable and 30 dB protection 67
Figure 45. Devastating POTS telephone damage with 0 dB protection 68
Figure 46. Significantly reduced damage with 10 dB protection 68
Figure 47. No POTS telephone damage with 20 dB protection 68
Figure 48. No POTS telephone damage with 30 dB protection 68
Figure 49. Devastating cordless telephone AC/DC adapter damage with 0 dB protection 69
Figure 50. Significantly reduced damage, but still huge with 10 dB protection 69
Figure 51. Only localized damage to cordless telephones with 20 dB protection 69
Figure 52. No cordless telephone damage with 30 dB protection 69
Figure A-1. HEMP Shielding Effectiveness Requirement A-4

List of Tables
Table 1. Four EMP Protection Levels for Infrastructure and Equipment iii
Table 2. E3 Heave Electric Field Strengths in V/km 9
Table 3. HEMP and GMD Comparison 11
Table 4. Some Effects of High Altitude Nuclear Detonations on Radio Systems 16
Table 5. Source Region EMP Damage and Upset Planning Factors 20
Table 6. Comparisons between IEMI threats and E1 HEMP 24
Table 7. Considerations for prioritizing infrastructures for EMP Protection 26
Table 8. EMP Induced Surges on Conductors 29
Table 9. Building shielding “rules of thumb” for E1 HEMP 33
Table 10. HEMP Specifications for Cable Runs Between Two Protected Areas 63
Table 11. Modeling Parameters Used to Calculate HEMP Damage 65
Table 12. Example HEMP Model Damage and Upset Mitigation Results 66
Table A-1. Injected Pulse Characteristics A-1

Table A-2. Residual internal stress limits for classes of electrical POEs A-2
Table A-3. Injected pulse characteristics and residual internal stress limits for antenna POE A-3
Table E-1. Explanation of Decibel (dB) E-4
Table H-1. Level 1 EMP Resilient HF Site Specific Technical Costs H-2
Table H-4. General, Non-HF Specific EMP Requirements for Levels 1-3 H-7

Document Change History

This table identifies the major changes to the NCC’s EMP Protection Guidelines since 2016. While
the descriptive “long title” of this document has changed several times since Version 1.0 of the
original EMP Protection Guidelines (9 October 2014), this short title, EMP Protection Guidelines, has
stayed consistent.
Date Version # Change Description

Initial release of the EMP Protection and Restoration Guidelines for
Equipment and Facilities to the Federal Continuity Community Managers
Group, FBI InfraGard EMP SIG Community, Appendix B companies, the
12/22/2016 1.0 reestablished Congressional Commission to Assess the Threat to the United
States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, and others. This document
replaced and extensively revised the earlier EMP Protection Guidelines for
Equipment, Facilities, and Data Centers, Version 6.0, 11 May 2015.
Changed title to Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Protection and Resilience

Guidelines for Critical Infrastructure and Equipment. Additional sections
11/14/2018 2.0 were created including an Executive Overview, a Document Purpose, a
Problem Background, a Scope, an EMP Protection and Resilience
Considerations section, and information about FirstNet.
Added or substantially changed several sections, such as: (i) Executive

Overview (modifications primarily to Table 1), (ii) HEMP Characteristics
(added), (iii) HEMP, SREMP, and IEMI Risks (previously just covered the
Problem Background), (iv) Prioritizing EMP Mitigation Efforts (added), (v) Use
1/16/2019 2.1 of Common Building Materials to Increase EMP Shielding (added), and (vi)
HEMP Model Mitigation Results (overhauled). Made a number of editorial
and consistency improvements. In the appendices, added Appendix D
“Excerpts from 2017 brief to InfraGard Summit”, included additional vendor
information, and updated the FirstNet subsection in Appendix C.
Revised the Executive Overview and Acknowledgments and Authors section.

Added information on IEMI risks and threats. Added Surge Protection Device
2/5/2019 2.2
guidelines for each level. Added Appendix H: Example EMP Implementation
for HF Communication Site.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Document Purpose and Audience

This document was initially developed to respond to: (1) a request by the federal Continuity
Communications Managers Group (CCMG) for guidelines to help protect critical communications
infrastructures against an EMP attack and (2) as part of the responsibilities of the Secretary of
Homeland Security, as the Executive Agent for the legacy National Communications System (NCS),
as fulfilled by the National Coordinating Center for Communications, under Title 47 Part 215 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 1
The purpose of these updated guidelines is to help federal, state, and local officials and critical
infrastructure owners and operators to protect essential equipment against electromagnetic pulse
(EMP) threats. It was created to help fulfill the Secretary of Homeland Security’s responsibilities to:
• “… provide strategic guidance, promote a national unity of effort, and coordinate the
overall Federal effort to promote the security and resilience of the Nation's critical
infrastructure.” [Presidential Policy Directive 21 - Critical Infrastructure Security and
Resilience]
• “… ensure … the necessary combination of hardness, redundancy, … to obtain, to the
maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP {national security/emergency
preparedness} communications …” [Executive Order 13618, Assignment of National
Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions]
• “… be the focal point within the Federal Government for all EMP technical data and
studies concerning telecommunications.” [Title 47 Part 215 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR)]
These guidelines also respond to the U.S. Congressional EMP Commission’s recommendation that
the “Department of Homeland Security should play a leading role in spreading knowledge of the
nature of prudent mitigation preparations for EMP attack to mitigate its consequences.” [Report of
the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)
Attack, Critical National Infrastructures, 2008]. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) takes
seriously the findings of this Commission, such as the following information released by the
Department of Defense on 8 May 2018, from the Commission’s “Assessing the Threat from
Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Executive Report”:
“The critical national infrastructure in the United States faces a present and continuing
existential threat from combined-arms warfare, including cyber and manmade
electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, as well as from natural EMP from a solar superstorm.
During the Cold War, the U.S. was primarily concerned about an EMP attack generated by a
high-altitude nuclear weapon as a tactic by which the Soviet Union could suppress the U.S.
national command authority and the ability to respond to a nuclear attack—and thus
negate the deterrence value of assured nuclear retaliation. Within the last decade, newly-
armed adversaries, including North Korea, have been developing the ability and
threatening to carry out an EMP attack against the United States. Such an attack would give
countries that have only a small number of nuclear weapons the ability to cause
Note: These guidelines do not endorse 1 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

widespread, long-lasting damage to critical national infrastructures, to the United States

itself as a viable country, and to the survival of a majority of its population.” [Assessing the
Threat from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), Executive Report, July 2017]
Finally, this document comports with the DHS “Strategy for Protecting and Preparing the Homeland
against Threats of Electromagnetic Pulse and Geomagnetic Disturbances”, issued on October 9th of
2018, which states:
Extreme electromagnetic incidents caused by an intentional electromagnetic pulse (EMP)

attack or a naturally occurring geomagnetic disturbance (GMD, also referred to as “space
weather”) could damage significant portions of the Nation’s critical infrastructure,
including the electrical grid, communications equipment, water and wastewater systems,
and transportation modes. The impacts are likely to cascade, initially compromising one or
more critical infrastructure sectors, spilling over into additional sectors, and expanding
beyond the initial geographic regions.
EMPs are associated with intentional attacks using high-altitude nuclear detonations,
specialized conventional munitions, or non-nuclear directed energy devices. Effects vary in
scale from highly local to regional to continental, depending upon the specific
characteristics of the weapon and the attack profile. High-altitude electromagnetic pulse
attacks (HEMP) using nuclear weapons are of most concern because they may permanently
damage or disable large sections of the national electric grid and other critical
infrastructure control systems.
Similarly, extreme geomagnetic disturbances associated with solar coronal mass ejections
(when plasma from the sun, with its embedded magnetic field, arrives at Earth) may cause
widespread and long-lasting damage to electric power systems, satellites, electronic
navigation systems, and undersea cables. …
For these reasons, the potential severity of both the direct and indirect impacts of an EMP
or GMD incident compels our national attention. The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) has been actively analyzing the risk of the EMP-GMD problem set since its inception.
The Strategy for Protecting and Preparing the Homeland Against Threats of
Electromagnetic Pulse and Geomagnetic Disturbances (hereafter referred to as the “DHS
Strategy”) represents the Department’s first articulation of a holistic, long-term,
partnership-based approach to confronting this challenge.
These guidelines provide recommendations to help protect critical electronic infrastructure based
upon their mission importance from the following three EMP types:
(1) High-altitude EMP (HEMP), from a nuclear detonation typically occurring 15 or more
miles above the Earth’s surface;
(2) Source Region EMP (SREMP), created when a nuclear weapon detonates at lower
altitudes, especially when the detonation is at or near the surface of the earth;
(3) Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI), from nearby sources such as an
Electromagnetic (EM) weapon (also known as a Radio Frequency (RF) weapon (RFW)).

Collectively, these will be called by the general term “EMP” in this document, unless one of the
specific EM environments is being discussed.
In addition to making recommendations on how to physically protect electronic equipment from

different types of EMP, this document provides guidance on how to help ensure communications
and information systems (and their supported missions) can continue to function or be rapidly
restored after one or more EMP events. Hence, Appendix C contains information on priority service
programs (like GETS, WPS, and TSP) as well as on the SHARES alternate communications service
that can be used to support critical missions and to facilitate and coordinate restoration activities.
The document supports the concepts of resiliency and recovery. The intention is to provide
different levels of protection that should allow less damage and/or loss of data as one moves to a
higher level of protection. This also should result in shorter outages of the system mission.
Lastly, it is worth noting that many of the EMP protection methods presented in these guidelines
can also help shield against “tapping” or monitoring telecommunications and IT equipment from
the weak EM signals that they emit.
Audience
The audience for this document is all governmental and civilian officials and owners and operators
of critical infrastructures, particularly those using sensitive electronics for their operations. This
includes the 16 critical infrastructure sectors identified under “Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-
21): Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience.” PPD-21 advances a national policy to strengthen
and maintain secure, functioning, and resilient critical infrastructure in the following specific
sectors (see www.dhs.gov/cisa/critical-infrastructure-sectors for more information):
1. Chemical (DHS is the Sector-Specific Agency (SSA) for the Chemical Sector)
2. Commercial Facilities (DHS is the SSA)
3. Communications (DHS is the SSA)
4. Critical Manufacturing (DHS is the SSA)
5. Dams (DHS is the SSA)
6. Defense Industrial Base (Department of Defense (DOD) is the SSA)
7. Emergency Services (DHS is the SSA)
8. Energy (Department of Energy (DOE) is the SSA)
9. Financial Services (Department of Treasury is the SSA)
10. Food and Agriculture (Department of Agriculture is the SSA)
11. Government Facilities (DHS is the SSA)
12. Healthcare and Public Health (Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the SSA)
13. Information Technology (DHS is the SSA)
14. Nuclear Reactors, Materials, and Waste (DHS is the SSA)
15. Transportation Systems (DHS and the Department of Transportation are the Co-SSAs)
16. Water and Wastewater Systems (Environmental Protection Agency is the SSA)

1.2. Scope
This document is focused on EMP related protection and resilience of critical infrastructure and
electronic assets, including communications, information technology (IT), and supervisory control
and data acquisition (SCADA) equipment. Per the 2017 National Security Strategy, resilience
“includes the ability to withstand and recover rapidly from deliberate attacks, accidents, natural
disasters, as well as unconventional stresses, shocks and threats to our economy and democratic
system.” 2
Following the above definition of resilience, this document covers the below topics for critical
infrastructure providers and equipment operators based upon risk management principles:
• Protection from EMP damage

• Quick recovery from an EMP related attack
• Ability to continue to communicate and operate during an EMP event based upon
maximum downtime permitted
• Test procedures to evaluate protective EMP measures
• Potential vendor EMP protection equipment
• Additional EMP related information
Route diversity and power resiliency recommendations beyond EMP protection are not covered
herein except for a few very high level comments.
This report’s main focus is on

protecting systems from E1 (early-time)
HEMP (shown in Figure 1), the radiated
SREMP, and the IEMI. All of these are
fast transient EM fields and can induce
voltages on cables that can damage and
upset unprotected electronics
connected to those cables. The E3 (late-
time) HEMP, which is also shown in
Figure 1, is covered briefly later in the
next section.
The E2 (intermediate-time) HEMP

component, between 1 µs to 1 second
in time or 1 Hz to 1 MHz in frequency, is
minimally covered in this report. Taking
precautions against E1 will help protect
against E2 since the devices and Figure 1. Generic HEMP waveform (ref. Meta-R-324)
techniques that protect against the
quick rise E1 pulses typically protect against the longer E2 pulse as well. Further, the precautions
that are used to prevent lightning damage are also useful to protect against E2 damage although
the E2 pulse magnitude can be higher than lighting at higher frequencies. Therefore, E2 is not as
significant a risk as E1 HEMP, SREMP, and IEMI and so will only be briefly discussed.

1.3. HEMP and GMD Characteristics

E1 HEMP has a pulse that is 1 nanosecond (ns) to 1 microsecond (µs) in time or 1 MHz to several
hundred MHz in frequency as shown in the “Generic HEMP waveform (ref. Meta-R-324)” figure
above. Additional technical information on the E1 waveform properties from the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is shown in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2. IEC Standard E1 Waveform (ref. IEC 61000-2-9)
E3 HEMP is similar to a larger version of solar geomagnetic disturbance (GMD) and consists of sub-
Hertz pulses lasting up to hundreds of seconds. However, a nuclear E3 pulse can be significantly
more intense than a solar storm induced GMD pulse. It is a risk both to the grid and undersea
cables. E3 HEMP is discussed in detail in Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s (ORNL’s) META-R-321
report, and GMD risks to the electric grid are explained in Meta-R-319. Some key quotes from
these reports follow, prior to resuming the discussion on E-3 risks and mitigation planning
guidelines.
According to ORNL’s META-R-321 report, E3 HEMP has the following characteristics:

“E3 HEMP is also called Magneto-hydrodynamic or MHD EMP as it arises from the motion of
the ionized bomb debris and atmosphere relative to the geomagnetic field. It was first noticed
in 1958 in the Teak and Orange exoatmospheric nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific and
Operation Argus in the Atlantic the same year, and additional information was obtained in the
later exoatmospheric tests of the Fishbowl series, especially the Starfish Prime test in 1962.
Analysis of these tests has shown that the E3 electromagnetic environments are produced by
two basically different physical mechanisms for bursts, both producing significant threats to
electrical systems.
1. The 1-10 second time period is known as the “Blast Wave”
2. The 10-300 second time period is known as the “Heave”

The first of these, designated E3A or Blast Wave, is the expansion of the fireball, expelling the
geomagnetic field and creating a magnetic bubble. At later times, the debris in the bubble
flows along geomagnetic field lines and heats and ionizes the upper atmosphere, causing it to
expand buoyantly and rise. The rising, conducting patch crosses the geomagnetic field lines,
causing currents to flow in the patch and producing magnetic fields on the surface of the earth
beneath the patch. This is designated E3B or Heave. The two processes occur in different time
regimes and have different geographical distributions of the electrical field at the surface of
the earth.”
According to ORNL’s META-R-319 report, geomagnetic storm induced currents have the following
characteristics:
“Geomagnetic storms are created when the Earth's magnetic field captures ionized particles
carried by the solar wind due to coronal mass ejections or coronal holes at the Sun. Although
there are different types of disturbances noted at the Earth surface, the disturbances can be
characterized as a very slowly varying magnetic field, with rise times as fast as a few seconds,
and pulse widths of up to an hour. The rate of change of the magnetic field is a major factor in
creating electric fields in the Earth and thereby inducing quasi-dc current flow in the power
transmission network. Unlike the HEMP threats, geomagnetic storms are a much more
frequent occurrence, which also allows for extensive opportunities to fully benchmark each
component of the simulation models and therefore provide greater confidence in the analysis
of plausible severe threats, such as the threat posed by an extreme geomagnetic storm
scenario.
… these types of disturbances could instantly create a loss of over 70 percent of the nation’s
electrical service. This could be a blackout several times larger than the previously largest, the
North American blackout of 14 August 2003. The most troubling aspect of the analysis is the
possibility of an extremely slow pace of restoration from such a large outage and the
multiplying effects that could cripple other infrastructures such as water, transportation, and
communications due to the prolonged loss of the electric power grid supply. This extended
recovery would be due to permanent damage to key power grid components caused by the
unique nature of the electromagnetic upset. The recovery could plausibly extend into months
in many parts of the impacted regions. Also other space weather environment interactions
can lead to loss of, or permanent damage to, satellites, communications, and other
infrastructures, as has been widely reported in the space weather community.
… Both HEMP and space weather disturbances, however, can have a sudden onset and cover
large geographic regions. They therefore cause near-simultaneous, correlated, multipoint
failures in power system infrastructures, allowing little or no time for meaningful human
interventions that are intended within the framework of the N–1 criterion. This is the situation
that triggered the collapse of the Hydro Quebec power grid on 13 March 1989, when their
system went from normal conditions to a situation where they sustained seven contingencies
(i.e., N–7) in an elapsed time of 57 seconds. The province-wide blackout rapidly followed, with
a total elapsed time of 92 seconds from normal conditions to a complete collapse of the grid.
For perspective, this occurred at a disturbance intensity of approximately ~480 nT/min over
the region. As previously discussed, an examination by Metatech of historically large
disturbance intensities indicated that disturbance levels greater than 2000 nT/min have been
observed even in contemporary storms on at least three occasions over the past 30 years at
geomagnetic latitudes of concern for the North American power grid infrastructure and most

other similar world locations; on August 1972, July 1982, and March 1989. Anecdotal
information from older storms suggests that disturbance levels may have reached nearly 5000
nT/min. Both observations and simulations indicate that as the intensity of the disturbance
increases, the relative levels of GICs and related power system impacts will also
proportionately increase. Under these scenarios, the scale and speed of problems that could
occur on exposed power grids will hit system operators unlike anything they have ever
experienced or even imagined in their careers. Therefore, as storm environments reach higher
intensity levels, it becomes more likely that these events will precipitate widespread blackouts
to exposed power grid infrastructures.
Continued quote from META-R-319: For this scenario, the intensity of the disturbance is
decreased as it progresses from the eastern to western U.S. The eastern U.S. is exposed to a
4800 nT/min disturbance intensity, while west of the Mississippi, the disturbance intensity
decreases to 2400 nT/min. This simulation was also performed for the two highest impact and
likeliest latitude locations at 45o and 50 o. … Figure 3-25 [Figure 3 below] provides the outage
regions that would be expected for a disturbance occurring at a 50 o latitude, while the regions
for a 45o disturbance latitude are shown in Figure 3-26” [Figure 4 that follows].
Figure 3. 100 Year geomagnetic storm – 50 degree GMD scenario (ref. Fig. 3-25)

Figure 4. 100 Year geomagnetic storm – 45 degree GMD scenario (ref. Fig. 3-26)
Note that the areas outlined in black are at greatest risks of collapse; cascading outages are likely.
Returning now to the topic of low-frequency nuclear EMP variants, only the E3B form of HEMP will
be addressed in some detail in the following paragraphs, as there is a need for guidelines on
characterizing the E3 HEAVE threat to the grid and other long-line based infrastructures. The most
current guidance on the E3 HEAVE threat is from an EMP Commission report released in 2018.
The U.S. EMP Commission published a July 2017 report: “Recommended E3 HEMP Heave Electric
Field Waveform for the Critical Infrastructures”. In this report, the Commission states:
“… there is a need to have bounding information for the late-time (E3) high-altitude
electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) threat waveform and a ground pattern to study the impact
of these types of electromagnetic fields on long lines associated with the critical
infrastructures. It is important that this waveform be readily available and useful for those
working in the commercial sectors.
While the military has developed worst-case HEMP waveforms (E1, E2, and E3) for its
purposes, these are not available for commercial use. Therefore, in this report openly
available E3 HEMP measurements are evaluated from two high-altitude nuclear tests
performed by the Soviet Union in 1962. Using these data waveforms and an understanding
of the scaling relationships for the E3 HEMP heave phenomenon, bounding waveforms for
commercial applications were developed.
As the E3 HEMP heave field also increases for burst points closer to the geomagnetic
equator, the measured results were also evaluated for this parameter. This scaling
increases the maximum peak electric field up to 85 V/km for locations in the southern part
of the continental U.S., and 102 V/km for locations nearer to the geomagnetic equator, as
in Hawaii. The levels in Alaska would be lower at an estimated peak value of 38 V/km …”
[Page 1 of Volume II, Recommended E3 HEMP Heave Electric Field Waveform for the Critical Infrastructures]

The following Table 2 is derived from the Conclusions of the above EMP Commission report for use
as an unclassified reference for determining risks to critical long-line infrastructures to E3.
Table 2. E3 Heave Electric Field Strengths in V/km

Hawaii Southern Continental Alaska
Scenarios
(Latitude 22° N) USA (Latitude 35° N) (Latitude 65° N)
Altitude: 150 kilometers
64 V/km 52 V/km 23 V/km
Yield: 300 kilotons
Altitude: 300 kilometers
102 V/km 85 V/km 38 V/km
Yield: 300 kilotons
Note: Assumes uniform ground conductivity of 1 millisiemens per meter (mS/m); estimates the expected
maximum E field strength.
Figure 5 below (derived from the Conclusions of the subject EMP Commission Report) provides a
normalized waveform that can be used when computing the induced currents flowing in power
lines (for example, to determine the amount of heating in transformer hot spots, as the time
dependence of the currents are important in determining thermal effects).
Figure 5. Normalized E3 Heave E field waveform from the 150 km burst height scenario
Figure 6 that follows provides a normalized E field ground pattern resulting from a 300 kT weapon
at 150 kilometers altitude, showing the spatial fall-off from the maximum value. Higher yield bursts
could lead to even higher maximum fields, although the peak value tends to saturate as yields
increase. Larger yields can increase the spatial extent of the high field, and a 300 km burst altitude
with a 300 kT weapon also increases the special extent, as shown in Figure 7 (output from EMAT 3
code).

Figure 6. Normalized E peak contour pattern from the 150 km burst case
E3B HEMP, Heave

Yield= 300.00 kT, HOB= 300.00 km at 40.0000N, 100.0000W
80N 90N 0
B-dot Peak
70N nT/min
60N London pk=2.974E+03
3.000E+03
2.500E+03
50N 30W 2.000E+03
Canada 1.500E+03
40N 1.000E+03
5.000E+02
3.000E+02
1.000E+02
Pacific
30N Buffalo
NewAtlantic
York 3.000E+01
1.000E+01
Oahu United States 3.000E+00
20N Los Angeles 1.000E+00
New Orleans
Miami
10N
Mexico City 60W
0 Brazil
120W
10S 90W 1900
kilometers
Figure 7. B-dot Magnetic Field Peak contour pattern from a 300 km burst case (from EMAT)

Geomagnetic Storm History and Comparison of HEMP and GMD

As noted in the DHS “Strategy for Protecting and Preparing the Homeland against Threats of
Electromagnetic Pulse and Geomagnetic Disturbances”:
“The strongest geomagnetic storm on record is the Carrington Event of 1859 which electrified telegraph
lines. The event caused major outages and disruptions in telegraph networks around the world; currents
induced in the lines by the event were strong enough to cause sparks and allow some operators to
disconnect their systems from batteries and send messages using only the current induced by the storm.
Impacts from the storm were limited given the state of technology at the time; modern society is far
more vulnerable to the effects of a significant GMD event due to its reliance on electricity and
technology. A more recent significant event occurred in 1989, when a geomagnetic storm collapsed the
Hydro-Québec power grid in under two minutes, resulting in the loss of electric power to more than six
million people for nine hours in Canada.
A Carrington-like event today, which exceeds the magnitude of the 1989 Hydro-Québec event, could
even more significantly disrupt and damage electric power grids. A major GMD event could also disrupt
radio communications and navigation signals from GPS satellites, and intense events could create
significant radiation hazards for astronauts. Due to technological interdependencies, a severe GMD
event could create a complex set of cascading effects, including requiring rerouting of air traffic to avoid
areas where communication and navigation would be limited by space weather impacts.”
Table 3. HEMP and GMD Comparison

Attribute HEMP GMD
Cause Adversarial threat Natural hazard

Strategic: unknown Strategic: 18 to 72 hours
Warning
Tactical: none to several minutes Tactical: 20 to 45 minutes
E1: High peak field – quick rise time No comparable E1 wave forms
E2: Medium peak field No comparable E2 wave forms
Effects
E3: low peak field, but quicker rise time and higher E3: low peak field – fluctuating
field than for GMD (possibly 3 times higher) magnitude and direction
E1: less than a 1 microsecond
No comparable E1 wave forms
E2: less than 10 millisecond
Duration No comparable E2 wave forms
E3 Blast: ~10 seconds
E3: hours
E3 Heave: ~1 – 2 minutes
E1: telecommunications, electronics and control
systems, relays, lightning arrestors
E2: lightning: power lines and tower structures – E3: transformers and protective relays
Equipment
“flashover”, telecommunications, electronics, controls – long-haul transmission and
at systems, transformers. communications – generator step-up
Risk E3: transformers and protective relays – long run transformers
transmission and communication - generator step-up
transformers
Regional to worldwide, depending
Footprint Regional to continental depending on height of burst
upon magnitude
Table above adapted from: U.S. Department of Energy, “Electromagnetic Pulse Resilience Action Plan,” p.4

1.4. HEMP, SREMP, and IEMI Risks

As mentioned within the Scope section, the protection mechanisms for HEMP, SREMP, and IEMI are
very similar, so these are covered together within the document and are discussed further below.
From an EMP perspective, the HEMP burst is the most serious due to the potential multi-state to
continental extent of impacts. A low altitude SREMP burst could also produce significant EMP
damage, but only in a city-wide or regional area, causing equipment upset and damage far beyond
the range of blast, shock, and prompt radiation effects. An IEMI attack (for example, using a radio
frequency weapon) on a single data center or other electronics dependent targets, such as a grid
substation, could cause significant localized or regional infrastructure damage or disruption. The
primary protection related difference between these three sources of EMP is that IEMI can occur
over a wider range of frequencies, as shown below in Figure 8 (see Wideband and Narrowband).
Figure 8. Frequency ranges of Lightning, HEMP, and IEMI 3

High-altitude EMP (HEMP) Risks

HEMP disruption and damage to critical infrastructures can “A nationwide blackout lasting
occur across multiple time zones with one or more nuclear one year could kill millions,
bombs exploded at high altitudes in the near-space region. perhaps prove fatal to most
These high altitude nuclear detonations create Compton Americans, by starvation,
currents in the upper atmosphere and radiate HEMP pulses disease, and societal collapse.”
downward. A single nuclear burst 250 miles (400 kilometers (William R. Graham, Chairman of the
[km]) above Kansas could destabilize much, if not most, of Commission to Assess the Threat to the
United States from EMP Attack)
the U.S. power grid. Likewise, one HEMP burst over North
American could significantly disrupt regional or continental
data infrastructures, such as the Internet and our television, radio, phone, and cellular networks.
The HEMP pulses could damage or disrupt a significant portion of the equipment connected to
power or data lines, if the connections between the cables and the equipment are unprotected.
The primary issue is that cables act as antennas to conduct EMP energy to unprotected equipment.
And while small electronics without cables, such as cell phones and land mobile radios, are
relatively resilient to EMP, their supporting infrastructures are not. Even without long cables, small
devices can be disrupted, particularly if they are turned on and/or charging when the EMP occurs.
An example of the potential disruption areas from E1 HEMP (on equipment connected to 100’
Ethernet cables inside of buildings providing 10 dB of protection) is shown in the figure below. As
the figure shows, with a 100 kT burst from a generic UNCLASSIFIED warhead at 400 km altitude
over the USA, much of the country’s equipment attached to ~ 100’ long Ethernet cables (in this
case, running north to south), if not protected against EMP, could be at risk of damage or upset.
E1 HEMP, 100' Ethernet Cable, Up: 5.000 A, Dmg: 10.000 A, 10.00 dB

Yield= 100.00 kT, HOB= 400.00 km at 40.0000N, 80.0000W; Tan=2200.8 km
55N 60N
50N Churchill N/S Line I
Edmonton Amps
pk=3.656E+01
Seattle
120W Goosebay System04
45N
Winnipeg St. John's
Damage
40N Quebec 40W Upset
Omaha Buffalo
Chicago
35N Las Vegas New York
United States
Washington DC
Atlantic
30N
Atlanta Bermuda
25N New Orleans

Monterrey
Miami
20N
Havana
1000
110W 100WMexico90W
City
80W 70W 60W 50W kilometers
San Juan
Figure 9. Potential disruption for 100’ Ethernet-connected equipment from 100 kT HEMP

HEMP weapons can be carried by a ballistic missile, a satellite, or a relatively low-cost high-altitude
balloon. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs),
Medium-Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBM), and Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs) can create
significant HEMP, if armed with nuclear warheads that are designed to detonate above the
atmosphere. 4 However, even Short Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBMs), like SCUDs, and high altitude
balloons can be used as weapons that carry a nuclear warhead to create significant regional HEMP.
The figure below shows the possible HEMP disruption of north/south oriented Ethernet connected
equipment inside of buildings providing 10 dB of shielding, from a lower altitude burst (100 km),
with a much lower yield than the previous figure (in this case, a 30 kT generic UNCLASSIFIED
warhead), as is possible using a shorter range ballistic missile.
E1 HEMP, 100' Ethernet Cable, Up: 5.000 A, Dmg: 10.000 A, 10.00 dB

Yield= 30.00 kT, HOB= 100.00 km at 40.0000N, 80.0000W; Tan=1121.5 km
55N 60N
50N Churchill N/S Line I
Edmonton Amps
pk=8.792E+01
Seattle
120W Goosebay System04
45N
Winnipeg St. John's
Damage
40N Quebec 40W Upset
Omaha Buffalo
Chicago
35N Las Vegas New York
United States
Washington DC
Atlantic
30N
Atlanta Bermuda
25N New Orleans

Monterrey
Miami
20N
Havana
1000
110W 100WMexico90W
City
80W 70W 60W 50W kilometers
San Juan
Figure 10. Potential disruption for 100’ Ethernet-connected equipment from 30 kT HEMP
The risk associated with a major EMP attack is significant since, as an EMP Commission
representative stated, “… many foreign analysts perceive nuclear EMP attack as falling within the
category of electronic warfare or information warfare, not nuclear warfare. Indeed, the military
doctrines of at least China and Russia appear to define information warfare as embracing a
spectrum ranging from computer viruses to nuclear EMP attack.” 5

Shown on the right is a night time photo from Maui

Station of the 1962 Fishbowl Starfish Prime HEMP test,
which was conducted about 900 miles from Hawaii. 6
The slide below provides information about some
infrastructure impacts from the Starfish Prime test and
Appendix D has extracts from a DHS briefing (that was
presented at the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s
(FBI’s) sponsored InfraGard Summit in 2017) that
provides additional background on EMP risks and
mitigation.
Figure 11. HEMP picture from the Fishbowl
Starfish Prime at 0 to 15 seconds.
A final set of HEMP-related risks that will be briefly discussed here, that can cause disruptions to
long-range radio and satellite communications and navigation, are due to High Altitude Nuclear
Effects (HANE). In a similar fashion, large geomagnetic storms can also affect the ionosphere. These
communication interruptions can be particularly harmful to longer range wireless communications,
such as High Frequency (HF) or satellite. Although this communications interference does not
directly harm the infrastructure or equipment, communications resiliency to these distortions of
the atmosphere can be a significant problem. See the Table that follows for a summary of some
potential HANE impacts on communications (as explained in National Communications System
Technical Information Bulletin (NCS TIB) 85-10).

Table 4. Some Effects of High Altitude Nuclear Detonations on Radio Systems
Degradation Spatial Extent and

Frequency Band Comments
Mechanism Duration of Effects
Very Low Phase and • Hundreds to • Ground wave not affected.
Frequency (VLF) amplitude thousands of miles • Reduces range and quality of signal.
(3 kHz – 30 kHz) changes • Minutes to hours • Lowering of sky wave reflection height
causes rapid phase changes with slow
recovery.
• Significant amplitude degradation also
possible.
Low Frequency Absorption and • Hundreds to • Ground wave not affected.
(LF) scattering of sky thousands of miles • Negative impact is sensitive to burst
(30 kHz – 300 waves • Minutes to hours location and propagation path.
kHz)
Medium Absorption of • Hundreds to • Ground wave not affected.
Frequency (MF) sky waves thousands of miles • Could also prevent AM radio reception
(300 kHz – 3 MHz) • Minutes to hours where signal is weak or transmitter is
hundreds of miles away
High Frequency Absorption, • Hundreds to • Reduces range and quality of signal.
(HF) multipath thousands of miles • Could impact HF sky wave, including
(3 MHz – 30 MHz) interference, • Minutes to hours SHARES and Amateur Radio Operators
loss of support (AROs).
for F-region
reflection • Daytime absorption is larger than
(region 150 km – nighttime.
800 km above
sea level)
Very High Absorption, • Few miles to • Reduces range and quality of signal.
Frequency (VHF) multipath hundreds of miles • 99% of EMP energy is found below 100
(30 MHz – 300 interference • Minutes to tens of MHz.
MHz) minutes
Ultra High Absorption • Few miles to • Could impact lower frequency satellite
Frequency (UHF) hundreds of miles services.
(300 MHz – 3 • Seconds to few • Only harms line-of-sight (LOS)
GHz) minutes propagation through highly ionized
regions.

Source Region EMP (SREMP)

Significant SREMP is generated when a nuclear detonation occurs on or near the ground. The
SREMP travels through the air and can damage or disrupt equipment connected to Ethernet cables,
telephone lines, and power cords out to 70 miles or more. Electronic systems not connected to
power cords or communications lines, such as cellular phones, are generally resistant to SREMP but
become useless for communicating if the infrastructure that supports them is non-functional.
While SREMP is only a secondary reason a terrorist or nation-state adversary would detonate a
nuclear weapon, all ground based (at or near surface) nuclear detonations create SREMP of
sufficient magnitude to cause infrastructure disruptions. Although the extent of the overall EMP
damage is likely much less with SREMP than with HEMP, the solutions are generally applicable to
both types of attacks and therefore SREMP is covered along with HEMP in this document.
For bursts near the Earth's surface (burst heights less than 1,000 meters), the phenomenology of
SREMP is well understood. The figure that follows illustrates the basic ground burst geometry and
SREMP characteristics. The peak fields occur near the time of the peak prompt gamma ray flux at
the observer (retarded time of approximately 10 ns); they are strongest close to the burst and
decrease with range. The air becomes highly conducting near the burst, reaching levels of 10
siemens per meter (S/m), which is more conducting than seawater. The Compton current can
exceed 1 mega-ampere per square meter, which creates peak electric fields from 1 to 10 million
volts per meter (larger fields are generated in the Earth). The prompt ionized source region extends
out to a range of 2 - 5 km depending mainly on the device gamma ray yield.
Figure 12. Generation of Source Region EMP (SREMP) from a ground burst

Although the peak early-time SREMP fields are much more intense than HEMP (by up to a factor of
1,000 for some blast-hardened silo systems), the late-time SREMP may be more important for
many classes of systems. The neutrons that interact with the air and ground produce gamma rays
at later times. The most important interaction is the ground-capture process that produces gamma
rays, which leave the Earth's surface, at retarded times from 0.1 to 100 milliseconds. These gamma
rays produce Compton currents, air ionization and conductivity and SREMP fields of a few kV/m,
which cover the same time frame. These low-frequency fields (in the kilohertz range) propagate
with little attenuation into the Earth to depths of 1 km or more (depending on the electrical
characteristics of the soil). These fields also couple readily to long buried cables and can induce
currents of 200 kA with pulse widths (and therefore energy) 10 times larger than worst case
lightning. In comparison, currents coupled due to early-time (E1) HEMP are no more than 5 kA and
1 kA at later times.
During the 1950s to 60s surface burst tests, equipment/cables were damaged by SREMP in over
100 cases at the Nevada Test Site. SREMP can cause long-term regional power outages and can
damage electronics in deeply buried structures. SREMP can also cause fires due to wires melting.
The figures that follow show the potential disruption zones for: AC/DC adapters, FM radio
transmission towers, and cellular handsets due to a simulated 10 kT surface burst in the National
Capital Region.
Figure 13. Potential 10 kT SREMP disruption of AC/DC adapters

Figure 14. Potential 10 kt SREMP Upset/Damage to FM Radio Transmission
Figure 15. Potential 10 kt SREMP Upset/Damage to Cellular Handsets

The table that follows provides some suggested upset/damage planning guidelines related to
SREMP.
Table 5. Source Region EMP Damage and Upset Planning Factors

Yield (kT) 10 100 1,000
Range to effect in km Effect Threshold and Notes
Buried Comms 21.00 34.91 44.16 100 A Short circuit current, assumed to connect with fireball at
Cable Damage / / / / / early times and cable insulation breaks down, 0.001 S/m
Upset 26.00 39.98 49.19 50 A ground conductivity, effect of branching not included
Overhead HV 65.00 110.05 134.16 1000 A Short circuit current, assumed to connect with fireball at
Power line / / / / early times, 138 kV line used for line parameters, 0.001
Damage/Upset 85.00 143.00 174.00 500 A S/m ground conductivity, effect of branching not included
0.5 km Offset 23.00 33.00 44.00 1000 A Short circuit current, assume connect with fireball at late
Overhead HV / / / / time based on fireball growth, 138 kV line used, 0.001
Power line D./U. 43.00 66.00 84.00 500 A S/m ground conductivity, effect of branching not included
21.04/ 23.76/ 26.40/ 10 A/ 0.1 m height, current into 100 ohms, aligned radially, max
100' Ethernet
of calculations for 0.01 S/m or 0.001 S/m ground
Damage / Upset 77.42 86.88 95.84 5A
conductivity
Wireline phone / 69.19 77.16 87.90 8 kV Voltage calculation for 1 km radial line. Wireline assumes
Cordless phone / / / / twisted pair. Cordless telephone base failure due to
adapter damage 118.50 131.80 149.64 4 kV AC/DC power adapter damage.
1000' T1 Line 95.26 105.84 115.06 10 A / 10 m height, current into 100 ohms, aligned radially, max
Damage / Upset /161.8 /179.35 /194.6 5A of calculations for 0.01 or 0.001 S/m ground conductivity
200' Cell Tower 2.30 / 2.67/ 2.99/ 1000 A
Short circuit current at base of 200' vertical monopole
Shield D./Upset 14.36 15.33 16.25 /100 A
100m FM Tower 4.74 / 5.20 / 5.49 / 1000 A
Short circuit current at base of 100m vertical monopole
Shield D./Upset 38.95 42.38 44.60 /100 A
500m FM Tower 17.72/ 21.65/ 24.57/ 1000 A
Shield D./Upset 133.38 160.37 180.06 /100 A
600m DTV Tower 21.18/ 26.65/ 30.62/ 1000 A
Shield D/U 183.31 226.00 256.48 /100 A
200m AM Signal 8.43 / 9.68 / 10.69 1000 A
Current into 50 ohm at base of vertical monopole
Antenna D./U. 78.97 90.18 /99.11 /100 A
7.5 m vertical monopole (1/4 wave antenna), current into
HF Vertical Mono. 2.50 / 2.81 / 3.09 / 10 A /
50 ohms, max. of calculations for 0.01 or 0.001 S/m
Signal Dam/Upset 15.85 16.72 17.29 1A
conductivity
HF Horizontal 1.50 / 1.77 / 2.02 / 10 A / 15 m horizontal dipole aligned radially (1/2 wave dipole),
Dipole Signal D/U 2.15 2.42 2.67 1A 15 m above ground, current into 50 ohms
VHF-Hi Antenna 1.25 1.54 1.75 10 A 1.4 m vertical monopole (modeling j-pole antenna),
Signal D./Upset / 1.95 / 2.22 / 2.45 /1A current into 50 ohms
Cell Tower Ant. 0.37 / 0.50 / 0.57 / 10 A / 19 cm horizontal dipole at 200' height (modeling 1/4
Signal Dam/Upset 0.65 0.83 0.95 1A wavelength crossed dipoles), current into 25 ohms
Cell or Land
1.30 1.57 1.72 100mA 10 cm vertical monopole, short circuit current, coupling
Mobile Radio
/ 1.90 / 2.21 / 2.49 /10mA dominated by air conductivity
Handset D./Upset

Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI)

IEMI is defined as “intentional malicious generation of electromagnetic energy introducing noise or
signals into electric and electronic systems, thus disrupting, confusing or damaging these systems
for terrorist or criminal purposes.” 7 In general, IEMI is generated by a high power generator that
can be hidden in a truck, aircraft, ship, backpack, or suitcase. This weapon could be used to shut
down the electronics associated with critical infrastructure, such as a communications site, data
center, power substation, or headquarters location.
EMI has been known to cause problems with heart pacemakers, but perhaps the worst incident
was in 1967 when an aircraft sitting on board the USS Forrestal was exposed to the ship’s radar and
accidentally fired its munitions hitting a fully armed and fueled aircraft sitting on the deck. The
explosions and resulting fire caused 134 deaths. “A later investigation discovered that a degraded
cable shield termination on the first aircraft was the cause of the accident.” 8
IEMI has been around since the dawn of wireless communications, causing the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) and National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) to play critical roles to minimize interference. EMI is becoming even more
critical as wireless continues to proliferate and becomes more and more important. Due to this
wireless growth and as electronic components and circuits continue to become an increasingly
integral part of society often with increased sensitivity to EMI, IEMI disturbances and damages
have become much more common. Further, devices that can cause IEMI have also become more
common and more powerful causing IEMI to gain more and more attention.
The type and amount of IEMI disturbances and damages is dependent on multiple parameters of
the IEMI source device:
• Proximity to the target, with the EM field decreasing with the square of the distance
• Power
• Frequency with higher frequencies typically used to damage equipment (in-band
frequencies cause the most harm to communications)
• Duration is usually a short pulse at high power such that it can destroy equipment
(continuous power is used to block wireless communications).
Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s report “Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI) and Its
Impact on the U.S. Power Grid”, Meta-R-323, by Dr. Radasky and Dr. Savage, January 2010,
provides a detailed technical overview of IEMI risks. Some key excerpts follow:
“In terms of system vulnerabilities, the narrowband threat is usually one of very high
power and high energy, since the electrical energy is delivered in a narrow frequency band.
It is fairly easy to deliver fields on the order of thousands of volts/meter at a single
frequency. Of course each system under test may have a vulnerable frequency that is
different from the next. Often the malfunctions observed in testing equipment with
narrowband waveforms are those of permanent damage. …”
“The wideband threat is somewhat different in this respect. Since a time domain pulse
produces energy over many frequencies at the same time, the energy density at any single
frequency is much less. This means that damage is not as likely as in the narrowband case;

however, it is easier to find a system’s vulnerability since many frequencies are applied at
the same time. Sources that have been built in the past typically produce repetitive pulses
that can continue for many seconds or minutes, thereby increasing the probability of
producing a system upset. …”
“For radiated fields, it seems clear that frequencies above 100 MHz are of primary concern
in that they are able to penetrate unshielded or poorly protected buildings very well and
yet couple efficiently to the equipment inside of the building. In addition, they have the
advantage that antennas designed to radiate efficiently at these frequencies are small. [The
Figure that follows] illustrates a qualitative view of how radiated fields may illuminate and
couple to system electronics through apertures (e.g., windows) and through building
wiring.”
Figure 16. Typical IEMI interaction of radiated fields
“For conducted voltages and currents, there are some differences in terms of the
frequency range of interest. It is well established that if common-mode conducted signals
are injected into the power supply or telecom cables outside of a building, that frequencies
below 10 MHz (and pulse widths wider than 50 ns) propagate more efficiently than higher
frequencies. Experiments by Parfenov et al. have shown that these “lower” frequencies can
disrupt the operation of equipment inside a building …”
“With regard to actual threat “weapons”, the following four figures describes some
published examples of devices that could be used as weapons. …”

Figure 17. DIEHL Munitions damped sine IEMI generator
Figure 18. Laboratory hyperband pulse generator used in Russia
Figure 19. RADAN 303B hyperband generator used in Sweden

Figure 20. High intensity JOLT hyperband generator used in the United States
“… For wideband radiated threat waveforms, buildings can be exposed externally to

hyperband waveforms with peak field levels on the order of 10 kV/m. For briefcase devices,
the same level of peak field in the hyperband to the mesoband range can be delivered and
should be considered. The frequency range of these devices is from 100 MHz to 10 GHz.
For narrowband radiated threat waveforms, buildings can be exposed externally to radar
type waveforms again in the range of 10 kV/m. Small internal narrowband generators have
not been observed beyond the level of cellular phones or walkie-talkies at very close ranges
(~100 V/m) or weapons made from microwave ovens (~1 kV/m).
For conducted IEMI threats, the induced conducted voltage from a 10 kV/m peak field
(narrowband or wideband) is on the order of 10 kV. The typical injected capability is also on
the order of 10 kV, although there are newer pulsers that may exceed this level.”
Table 6. Comparisons between IEMI threats and E1 HEMP

2. EMP PROTECTION AND RESILIENCE CONSIDERATIONS

This EMP guidance document provides a range of protection and resilience levels that are based on
the criticality of the EMP sensitive electronic infrastructure and equipment as well as the amount of
down time that can be tolerated. This section discusses basic requirements and design principles
that are applicable across all mission critical levels of importance and budgets.
2.1. Prioritizing EMP Mitigation Efforts
Each federal, state, and local critical infrastructure owner or operator can prioritize EMP protection
efforts by determining their infrastructure’s overall importance by (1) assessing the risk to society if
their infrastructure is disrupted and (2) by comparing their infrastructure’s role in supporting one
or more of the eight National Essential Functions defined in Presidential Policy Directive 40,
National Continuity Policy. 9 The infrastructure’s importance, together with the amount of
downtime that can be tolerated, can then be used to determine which level of EMP Protection
should be achieved for that infrastructure. It is recommended that for any infrastructure
supporting life or safety or the economic well-being of society, at least a Level 1 EMP Protection
capability should be attained as a near-term goal. If the loss of a particular infrastructure will likely
result in a significant loss of life or health or economic well-being, then an EMP Protection Level of
2 or 3 is recommended. Few infrastructure owners/operators will need to meet EMP Protection
Level 4 guidelines, as these protections are more expensive and were developed mainly for
Presidential support or strategic military missions.
For non-federal entities, the four National Essential Functions that are most often supported are:
• Protect and stabilize the Nation’s economy.

• Protect against threats to the homeland and bring perpetrators to justice.
• Provide for critical national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.
• Respond to and recover from domestic consequences of an attack.
The federal government provides a leading role overall in the above functions, but typically has an
even more important role in the following with support from non-federal entities:
• Ensure the continued functioning of the three separate branches of government

• Maintain and foster effective relationships with foreign nations
• Provide leadership visible to the Nation and the world
• Defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic
Table 7 that follows provides some additional guidelines to consider when prioritizing critical
infrastructures for EMP protection.

Table 7. Considerations for prioritizing infrastructures for EMP Protection

Step Decision Explanation
1 Rank • How many people are likely to die if this infrastructure is disrupted?
importance of • How many people are likely to suffer significant health risks if this
critical infrastructure is disrupted?
infrastructure
(CI) • What is the economic impact, measure in dollars of loss, if this
infrastructure is disrupted?
• Is a National Essential Function put at risk if this infrastructure is disrupted?
2 For the most • After prioritizing the high-level critical infrastructure’s importance, then
important assess the end-to-end substructures needed to effectively support the most
critical important CI. Remember that a CI is only as resilient as its weakest link.
infrastructures, Organizations may need to develop internal backup systems for supporting
prioritize end- infrastructures outside of their normal mission. For example, both power
to-end and communications and personnel support systems are typically required
substructures for every CI.
needed to meet • Do not rely on unprotected commercial power and communications
essential needs networks. If your CI does not have resilient back-up power and
and maximize communications, then consider what the most cost-effective alternatives
benefits for obtaining these are.
• After determining the key substructures, prioritize each supporting system
and independent subsystem to provide the most value per dollar spent on
EMP Protection. Different substructures and systems and subsystems are
likely to require different EMP Protection Levels.
• Example: A wireless vendor’s IT team may have determined in Step 1 that
their overall network is a Level 3 EMP priority. To meet this overall Level 3
goal, they classified the primary core control system and some sites in key
locations as Level 3, but most sites were classified as Level 2 or Level 1, and
some sites that overlap with others were considered not as critical.
3 Prioritize • Breakdown the above systems and subsystems from Step 2 into the major
components and components.
develop plans • Prioritize the various components within each prioritized system and
for protecting subsystem and assign an EMP Protection Level goal.
the end-to-end
functions • Continue the above process until down to the individual component level
that can be protected, such as a rack of equipment or a cable connecting
two components, and what resilient supporting systems are needed.
The following section provides an overview of the Technical Design Standards that most
organizations can use to help them achieve their EMP protection goals.
2.2. IEC Technical Design Standards

The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is the world’s leading organization that
prepares and publishes International Standards for all electrical, electronic and related
technologies. It has been producing HEMP and IEMI protection standards for commercial

electronics since 1989. These standards provide protection guidelines both against radiated fields
that can penetrate inside of a building and against transients induced on cables either entering a
building from the outside or induced on cables inside a poorly shielded building (where the internal
fields create the induced transients). Many countries have mandatory standards based upon these
IEC standards.
IEC Subcommittee 77C developed their HEMP and IEMI protection standards by considering that
normal commercial electronic equipment must survive everyday transient currents and voltages
that are induced on cables that flow into equipment. The two most important IEC 61000-5-10 tests
are the following:
• Electric Fast Transient (EFT) – This EMC conducted test protects against an EFT pulse with a
rise time of 5 ns and a pulse width of 50 ns, which is nearly the same as the waveshape of
E1 HEMP induced voltages (with a rise time of 10 ns and a pulse width of 100 ns).
• Lightning Induced Transient – This transient is caused by lightning surges that are
characterized by a voltage pulse rise time as fast as 1 µs and a pulse width of ~ 50 ms.
Typical commercial EMC peak test levels for these voltage pulses are 0.5 to 1 kV for EFT and
1-2 kV for surge (first number is for data lines and the second is for a power line).
The IEC has also developed standard waveforms and levels for the coupling of HEMP and IEMI
fields both to long external cables such as commercial power lines and for short cables as found
inside of a building. Worst case E1 HEMP external above ground power system cable voltage levels
are ~300 kV and the worst-case internal induced cable voltages are ~20 kV when there is no
building shielding from the penetrating fields (the reduction is because the wiring inside of a
building is not perfectly straight for hundreds of meters). The levels for IEMI coupling are
significantly less as those fields do not couple efficiently to wires and cables and have radiated
losses. But IEMI is a significant threat to the internal electronics since its frequency content above 1
GHz can penetrate the cases of most equipment. Both of these threats are covered in this
document, but the E1 HEMP cable tests are the most severe for equipment, so more emphasis is
placed on the protection of power, data, and antennas cables.
Since the E1 HEMP standards of the IEC (as well as most military standards) use a single worst-case
electric field pulse waveform (the IEC identifies a peak field of 50 kV/m), these waveforms are
considered a reasonable worst-case tool for the design of resilient infrastructures. (Note that while
50 kV/m peak field is used by the IEC and military standards, some Chinese and Russian authorities
have said “super-EMP” weapons can generate E1 levels as high as 100 kV/m to 200 kV/m,
respectively, as reported in the EMP Commission’s 2017 “Chairman’s Report” pages 21 and 31.) It is
possible, as in the case of the Starfish test in 1962, that
the HEMP peak fields can be smaller than the worst case, Peak voltage on a cable from
depending on the location of the burst and the location of HEMP only needs to be reduced
the infrastructure relative to the burst. Therefore, even for between a factor of 4 and 8. This
a building with no shielding for E1 HEMP, the voltages enables inexpensive solutions to
coupled to the wiring leading to equipment may be lower be deployed that can also be
by a factor of 5, for example. This means 4 kV could be used for lightning protection.
induced for fields oriented perfectly for cable coupling
(assuming no building attenuation). As the equipment can tolerate a peak EMC transient (EFT) of
500 V for a data line entering an electronic equipment and probably more (testing safety margin)

the amount of reduction required in the peak voltage on a cable is between a factor of 4 and 8,
which is not usually a problem for a typical SPD.
Also the IEC EMC test requirements are that no upsets occur during the certification testing, so the
damage immunity level is likely higher by at least a factor of 2. (Note: An upset is when the system
must be restarted, either by turning the equipment “off and on” and may sometimes even require
disconnecting equipment from the battery circuit (as was the case for some vehicles during testing
done by the EMP Commission)). Therefore, even standard lightning protection surge protection
devices (SPDs) will provide some reduction in the E1 HEMP conducted transients inside of a
building. If the building has some natural protection level (say 10-20 dB) then the induced voltages
inside are not likely to cause problems for equipment. Based on details in IEC 61000-5-10, if
building shielding is to be used, a level of 30 dB or higher is recommended, so this supports the
suggested levels of protection for Level 3.
For the external lines coming into a building (both power and data lines), if these lines enter the
building above ground (drop wires), much higher voltages can be induced by E1 HEMP than inside
the building, and a building level lightning SPD should be used to avoid large voltages entering the
building. A better solution for a commercial building is to ensure that the power and
communications lines enter the building below ground as the earth will reduce the coupling to
those external cables by more than a factor of 10. If this is done, then the main concern is for the
coupling to the cables inside the building by fields penetrating the poorly shielded walls of typical
building construction, but even this may be a minimal issue if the cable inside the building is short
enough.
Given the above, the first two levels of protection recommended in this document rely heavily
upon using inexpensive SPDs. Level 1 recommends using lightning protection SPDs. Level 2 suggests
the use of EMP SPDs for all critical equipment including power cords, data lines and antenna
connections. The EMP performance of an SPD has to do with the amount of peak voltage that can
pass through the SPD based on the rise time of the conducted E1 HEMP pulse. The lightning voltage
transient has a rise time of about 1 µs, while the E1 HEMP and the propagated SREMP will rise in
approximately 10 ns, and the IEMI conducted transient will rise in about 1 ns. Our focus here is on
the E1 HEMP, which rises 100 times faster than a typical lightning voltage pulse. So lightning SPDs
will not be as effective in limiting the pass-through voltages as an EMP SPD, but the energy of the
EMP pulses passing through the SPD will be much lower than the lightning-pass-through energy.
To summarize, IEC 61000-5-10 provides detailed information concerning the use of SPDs to limit
the EMP voltages flowing to equipment in Levels 1 and 2 and how to set the shielding levels for a
building (as recommended for Level 3 for at least 30 dB) based on the criticality of the function of
the facility and the nature of the equipment inside the building. The standard also recommends
simple test methods to establish the natural shielding effectiveness of an existing building, which
can be used in the hardening process. The level 4 EMP protection recommendations are presented
in this document for missions that cannot allow more than a few seconds of outage, and therefore
require the approach provided in MIL-STD-188-125-1, which requires an 80 dB shield and the test
procedures defined in the military standard. The basic details of that standard are included in this
document.

2.3. Surge Protective Device (SPD) Selection

Many surge protective devices have been designed to withstand the peak-induced voltages (and
currents) on cables connected to equipment from a nearby lightning stroke. Of course lightning
fields from nearby groundstrokes vary substantially, so the level of induced cable voltages can vary
a great deal. The IEC and other organizations have set requirements for typical equipment from 1 –
2 kV for a surge type pulse (1 µs rise time). A large direct strike to an above ground power line
entering a building will be much higher than this. In fact, most of the electronics inside the building
will be destroyed during a direct strike. But this is a low probability event. SPDs are designed to
reduce peak lightning-induced voltages to levels that won’t harm most equipment.
The issue, as discussed above, is that E1 HEMP and the propagated SREMP electric fields have a rise
time as fast as 1 ns (see Table 8 below). This means that nearly all SPDs designed for lightning will
allow higher peak voltages to bypass the voltage “clamping” or “protection” level identified. While
metal oxide varistors (MOVs) and transient voltage suppressors (TVSs) have the best performance
for waveforms rising faster than a typical lightning pulse, often the peak voltages bypassing the SPD
(including gas discharge tubes or GDTs) can be a factor of 3 higher than the voltage identified with
the SPD. This is because for GDTs the voltage is a DC level, and for MOVs the voltage indicated is
the “firing” level for an AC-type waveform. Therefore, a fast-rising voltage pulse that gets by the
SPD will always have a higher peak value than the “rated” value.
Table 8. EMP Induced Surges on Conductors 10
Type of Conductor ~ Rise Time Peak Voltage Peak Current

Long unshielded wires (power lines, large 10 ns – 100 ns 100 kV – 5 MV 1 kA – 10 kA
antennas)
Unshielded telephone line at wall plug 10 ns – 1 µs 100 V – 10 kV 1 A – 100 A
Unshielded AC power line at wall plug 100 ns – 10 µs 1 kV – 50 kV 10 A – 100 A
HF antennas 10 ns – 100 ns 10 kV – 1 MV 500 A – 10 kA
VHF antennas 1 ns – 10 ns 1 kV – 100 kV 100 A – 1 kA
UHF antennas 1 ns – 10 ns 100 V – 10 kV 10 A – 100 A
Shielded cable 1 µs – 100 µs 1 V – 100 V 0.1 A – 50 A
The best way to reduce this overshoot for EMP type pulses is to use an SPD followed by a low pass
filter (for power lines). An alternative approach is to take the typical 120 V power supply voltage,
multiply it times 2 for an operating safety margin (use a 240 V clamping voltage), and then accept
another factor of 3 for the EMP overshoot. The good news is that the 720 V peak computed would
still be lower than the normal EMC EFT immunity test level (1 kV) for commercial equipment for the
power cable attached to the equipment. Experience indicates that MOVs are the best choice for
power lines but care must be taken to ensure that the MOV does not overheat if the EMP pulse
keeps it in a short-circuit firing mode, permitting the power line current to heat up the MOV. The
newest UL standards identify characteristics of the MOV packaging to make them “fire-safe.”
The situation for data lines could be similar by taking the normal operating voltage level of a data
line, apply a safety margin and then multiply by 3 for the EMP overshoot, which in most cases will

still be below 500 V (the normal EFT test level for commercial equipment data lines). While MOVs
are a good choice for power, for data lines their capacitance may create problems for a high
frequency data rate. In this case a TVS is likely a better choice. Note that the TVS will not provide
protection from lightning surges.
EMP rated SPDs are available from several manufacturers. See the Level 2 EMP Guidelines section
and Appendix B, EMP Protection Level 2 for more information. Where possible, it is recommended
to use SPDs that have their HEMP or NEMP testing results available for review.
For antenna lines, the SPD voltage level must be set well above the transmitter peak voltage level,
including the modulation levels and the higher voltage levels created from standing waves due to
impedance mismatches (voltage standing wave ratio (VSWR)). To decrease the risk from an EMP
event or a lightning strike partially given this SPD peak voltage limitation, the following RF related
EMP risk mitigation procedures should be implemented:
Level 1
• Grounding – Should comply with “R56 Standards and Guidelines for Communication
Sites” 11 or other recognized grounding standard. The book “Grounding and Bonding for the
Radio Amateur” available through the National Association for Amateur Radio (ARRL) is
also helpful 12.
• Antenna line – Use a shielded/braided, double shielded/braided cable, or equivalent.
Ground the shield per R56.
• RF SPD (or RF Transmission SPD, sometimes also called an antenna SPD) – Connect an RF
SPD to the antenna line at the building egress (within 2 ft.). If electronics are at the
antenna, also connect an SPD near the antenna prior to the electronics.
o For HF antennas, it is recommended that an easily replaceable GDT be used (these
are also inexpensive).
o The RF SPD should be replaced per the manufacturer’s recommendations or when
there is a known extreme surge (nearby lightning strike or EMP event).
o The RF SPD should have a ground wire run to it, which will also ground the antenna
shield.
• Antenna mount – Ground the antenna mount.
• Robust Transmitter – Select a transmitter that can tolerate high levels of voltage
transients.
Level 2
• Ferrites – A ferrite choke should be used prior to the RF SPDs to help dampen and slow the
EMP.
• Secondary RF SPD – If the antenna line is run straight for more than a few meters inside a
facility with poor EMP shielding (e.g., it’s made out of wood), the line should be connected
to a secondary RF SPD near its termination point.
Level 3
• Metal Conduit – The external portion of the shielded antenna line should be run through a
grounded metal conduit to the extent possible.

Level 4
• EMP Transceiver Testing – The transceiver should be tested to ensure that it can tolerate
higher levels of EMP transients that bypass the selected voltage level of an SPD.
• SPD Redundancy – Double surge protect critical external lines entering EMP protected
areas assuming that the failed surge protector is designed to continue to allow voltage to
pass through upon failure. As an example of why this is necessary can be shown if there is a
double EMP event. The first burst could take out the first SPD, which leaves the equipment
vulnerable if there is a second EMP burst or a nearby lightning strike. SPD redundancy can
occur by connecting a primary SPD to a cable at the building egress and then connecting a
secondary SPD to that cable immediately prior to it entering the EMP area.
As an SPD typically degrades over time, it should provide an audio or visual status warning when it
is no longer able to effectively protect equipment. Otherwise, a subsequent lightning strike or EMP
pulse could destroy the equipment. If the SPD does not alert the operator, then the SPD should be
replaced as frequently as every year or two depending upon the location and the number of nearby
lightning strikes, which will generally cost more money than using an SPD with alerts. Note that
even if a cable is well shielded, an SPD is used both because the shielding won’t be perfect and an
EMP or lightning pulse could arc over an air gap to cause damage.
2.4. Use of Common Building Materials to Increase EMP Shielding

As discussed above, SPDs reduce EMP surges that travel via cables. These cables are most
vulnerable when part of the cable is above ground and external to a building (i.e., it is not covered).
Within buildings, the amount of protection required for cables is heavily dependent upon the
building material between the cable and the EMP E1 burst as shown in the figure below.

Figure 21. Effect of Building Materials on EMP Attenuation 13
The attenuation in the above figure is only at 900 MHz, but materials such as reinforced concrete
also attenuate signals at lower E1 frequencies as well. In addition to the above, natural barriers
such as dirt and rocks can significantly help reduce E1 pulses. Thus, burying a cable a few feet
underground can substantially reduce the EMP pulse that hits the cable although the amount is
very dependent upon the ground type (moist topsoil is much better than dry sand) and the length
of the run.
There are also manmade materials that can be used to significantly attenuate the RF signal, such as
EMP paint and other conductive coatings that are inexpensive. These generally don’t work equally
across all frequencies of concern, but they can still significantly attenuate EMP bursts. Simple tests
can be run to determine how much they will help or the manufacturer can be contacted to provide
these specifications.
Building Shielding
To get to the internal cabling, the HEMP must get through the building – the walls and roof.
Generally some amount of “shielding” (attenuation of the EM transient) is provided by the building.
The amount of attenuation varies with several factors, and building material type is an important
one. (Windows do not provide much EM attenuation, and can ruin the shielding provided by the
wall materials.) As a simplification, we might use categorized building types, such as listed in the
table below. The factor “dB” translates to a reduction in the HEMP by the logarithmic value 10−dB/ 20

(every increase by 20 dB means a factor of 10 smaller in field amplitude; see Appendix E, page E-4
for more information).
The table below provides some additional general engineering “rules of thumb” that can be used
when estimating how much inherent E1 EMP protection results from a facility’s design.
Table 9. Building shielding “rules of thumb” for E1 HEMP
Building Shielding
dB Type Example
0 Transparent Wood
5 Poor Masonry
10 Moderate Concrete, no windows
20 Good Metal siding, no windows
30 Very Good All metal, no windows

3. LEVEL 1 EMP GUIDELINES
Level 1: Lowest cost; longer mission outages permitted

• Unplug power, data, and antenna lines from spare equipment, where feasible.
• Turn off equipment that cannot be unplugged and is not actively being used.
• Use at least a lightning rated surge protection device (SPD) on power cords, antenna lines, and
data cables; maintain spare SPDs.
• Have either EMP protected backup power or a generation source that is not connected to the
grid with one (1) week of on-site fuel or equivalent (e.g., renewable source).
• Wrap spare electronics with aluminum foil or put in Faraday containers.
• Use priority phone services like Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS),
Wireless Priority Service (WPS) (for cell phones), and Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP)
programs to improve your chances of phone call completions and rapid restorations during
EMP crises; and join the SHAred RESources (SHARES) program if applicable (see Appendix C for
more information on all of these programs).
• Consider land mobile radios with standalone capabilities, High Frequency (HF) radios, and
FirstNet.
• Store one week of food, water, and other supplies for personnel.
• Use battery operated AM/FM/NOAA radios to receive alerts from the Emergency Alert System
(EAS) and other networks like the NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards networks.
1. Turn off and unplug equipment.

The easiest and quickest way to reduce equipment vulnerabilities to EMP is to turn off non-
essential equipment and then unplug this equipment from all metallic lines, such as power cords,
telephone lines, Ethernet cables, and antennas/coaxial cables. Battery packs should be removed
from small electronics as these batteries can work in conjunction with EMP to provide damaging
energy into equipment circuits. Where possible, the cords themselves should also be disconnected
from the equipment, not just unplugged at the wall or other distant connection point. The rationale
here is that these power cords and data cables will still act as antennas for picking up EMP signals
even if they are disconnected from a wall outlet or router or external radio or TV antenna. As an
extra precaution, you should also disconnect your non-essential computer(s) from any wired
external keyboard or mouse. You should unplug all cords and cables at the point where they
actually connect to the equipment, such as at the back of a computer or desktop phone or
equipment rack. If you cannot unplug the equipment from a long metallic cable, then coil the cable
near the equipment, if possible, so as to minimize its effective length and hence reduce its ability to
pick up EMP energy. For wireless devices such as cell phones and other battery operated devices
(like portable radios and walkie-talkies), you should turn them off and unplug them from any
charging station or adapter. If items need to be charged, be sure to use power cord surge
protectors that have a 10 ns or better response time (which can be found at popular retail stores).

2. Use a power surge protector device (SPD) that provides fire protection.
Use at least a “low fire risk” lightning SPD for all electronics with cables connected. Many surge
protectors use metal oxide varistors (MOVs) that can be a fire risk when they fail. Some
manufacturers provide fire-proof MOVs. If the power SPD is not fire-proof, it should be placed in an
area free of combustibles.
A spare SPD should be kept on hand in case one needs to be replaced. A spare transceiver fuse
should also be kept on hand in case the fuse is blown due to excessive power that might be caused
by a nearby lightning strike or an EMP event.
3. Use heavy-duty aluminum foil or inexpensive Faraday bags/cases.

For small electronics that are spares or backups, you can put these in a plastic or paper bag or
other insulating material and then wrap the item with an outer layer of heavy-duty aluminum foil.
If power or data cables are permanently connected to the equipment, you should also place these
inside the bag before wrapping the item with aluminum foil. You should ensure the aluminum foil
completely covers the item and that all seams overlap. If possible, protect the equipment with two
or more complete layers of aluminum foil. If you decide to use a Faraday bag, be sure that it is not
just a standard Mylar food bag which provides little protection. Metal trash cans do not usually
provide reliable EMP protection for items placed inside of them, unless they have been modified to
block radio waves from entering through the gaps in the lid, handles, and sometimes at the base.
Microwave ovens can serve as expedient Faraday cages for small electronics, but should be tested
with a cell phone and/or AM/FM radio to see if there is reception inside of the oven (obviously,
these “ovens” should never be turned “on” with equipment inside). In general, small handheld
electronics are relatively immune to EMP effects, unless they have long antennas or power cords
attached, and so the need for Faraday cages is of secondary importance.
4. Ensure your backup generation system is not directly connected to commercial power (unless
it has very good EMP surge protection on the connecting line).
While many companies will recommend connecting your backup diesel or other generator to
commercial power in order to provide an automated transfer to backup power when commercial
power is lost, you should avoid this unless excellent EMP surge protection is provided. The
relatively long commercial power line leading to your facility or organization provide an excellent
path for EMP energy and may destroy your backup generator’s electronics if they are wired into an
automated transfer switch.
Using a natural gas power generator also reduces risk since the natural gas itself will not act as an
antenna. Likewise, natural gas pipeline providers should use natural gas powered compressor
stations instead of electrically powered compressor stations. Other potential energy sources are
discussed in an upcoming DHS Power Resiliency Guidelines document.
5. Use battery operated AM/FM/NOAA radios to receive alerts

Battery operated radios are relatively resilient to EMP. The national level Emergency Alert System
(EAS) has many radio stations across the USA with some protection against EMP. Hence, listening
to handheld (or car) radios may be the principle means of receiving information from the
government on what is happening in your area and on what actions are recommended.

Level 2: Only hours of mission outages are permitted

In addition to Level 1 …
• Use EMP-rated SPDs on power cords, antenna lines, and data cables to protect critical
equipment.
• Use on-line/double-conversion uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) or a high quality line
interactive UPS.
• Use fiber optic cables (with no metal); otherwise use shielded cables and ferrites and/or SPDs.
Note: shielded racks, rooms or facilities may be more cost-effective than hardening numerous
cables.
• Use EMP protected backup power that is not vulnerable to EMP coupled through the power
grid.
• Implement EMP protected, high frequency (HF) voice and email for long-distance
communications (if required).
• Consider geosynchronous equatorial orbit (GEO) satellite communications, like Broadband
Global Area Network (BGAN). Avoid low-earth orbit (LEO) satellite supported services, unless
EMP protected. Use terminals that are EMP resilient.
• Consider shortwave radios for additional situational awareness.
1. Use of EMP-rated surge arresters on power cords and phone/data cables
Many commercially available power strips have surge protection built in. These should be used to
protect all essential equipment although the SPDs in the power strips also provide some protection
against fast rising transients. Many commonly available power strips use fire-protected MOVs (UL
1449 3rd Edition) and if spaced and grounded at distances of every 20 feet or so, can help mitigate
MOV and spark-induced fires from EMP as well as protect against lightning. See “Surge Protective
Device (SPD) Selection” under Section 2 for more information concerning the characteristics of SPDs
adequate for EMP protection.
2. Use of ferrites
Cable ferrites are often used to attenuate unwanted high-frequency cable signals. Ferrites use
materials that interact with the magnetic field of the cable signal. Type 61 material ferrites are
recommended in that they can attenuate pulses with faster rise times than those made with older
ferrite materials, such as Type 43 ferrites. These are simple and inexpensive – they simply snap
around the cable (preferably near the vulnerable equipment end).
Ferrites effectively introduce a complex impedance onto the cable. There is signal attenuation
because:
• Impedance mismatch relative to the normal cable impedance means some signal is
reflected back down the cable,
• And the imaginary part of the impedance means that energy is absorbed.

The impedance is frequency dependent, with a typical peak of hundreds of ohms. This impedance
affects only common mode cable signals, such as HEMP. It does not impact differential mode,
which are the normal cable signals. The protection is additive with each extra bead snapped on.
There is approximately 1 to 2 dB protection per ferrite, so their use with multiple beads is usually
good for obtaining ~10 dB of attenuation.
3. HF and other radio equipment protection
HF and other radios need three types of protective devices – (1) those for HF or other radio
antenna connections, (2) those for power connections and (3) those for low voltage DC connections
such as antenna rotators. Protective devices must be well grounded using low-inductance
grounding cables that are as short as possible.
4. Coaxial Cable RF (Antenna) Surge Protectors
Nothing can protect equipment from a direct lightning strike. Antenna surge protectors are
designed to reduce antenna-induced voltages resulting from nearby lightning voltage discharges. A
HEMP’s coupled current rise time is between 5 and 10 ns while IEMI currents will have a rise time
on the order of 1 ns. An HF antenna and feedline will slow these rise times down to longer than 10
ns. Most antenna surge protectors contain gas discharge tube (GDT) devices.
Antenna surge protectors should be installed at both ends of the antenna feedline with one near
the radio equipment (within 2 meters) and one by the building egress unless the feed line is
extremely short. Each surge protector should be grounded directly through a separate low
inductance wire or cable (not just through the coaxial cable outer conductor) because an
ungrounded protector provides only limited differential mode protection. The feedline should be
run as close to metallic surfaces (if available) as possible.
Each protector is installed in series with the antenna feedline. The GDT inside the protector is
connected from the center conductor to the shield so that the GDT element is in parallel with the
feedline. A GDT is a voltage-sensing device that is typically open (does not conduct). When the
voltage is sufficiently high, the gas inside the GDT ionizes and conducts which reduces the voltage
on the center pin with respect to the outer shield. If the peak surge is large enough, an arc inside
the GDT develops further reducing the voltage. The GDT returns to an open state after the power
being shunted through it decreases to a low level.
GDTs wear out with each surge event and usually fail by becoming either permanently open or
shorted. It is easy to detect when a GDT shorts because the transmitter will shut down from high
Voltage Standing Wave Ratio (VSWR), but not when it opens. What happens when a GDT opens is
the gas inside will not ionize anymore, but there is no easy way to predict when that will occur: RF
signals will pass through the GDT just as usual but the GDT won’t conduct, so it no longer provides
any protection.
Antenna surge protectors that are easy to remove and replace without opening their housings are
recommended because GDTs wear out and need to be replaced regularly to ensure continued
protection. A replaceable GDT typically fits into or beneath a small cap that screws into the
protector housing. Unscrewing an old GDT from its existing installed housing and replacing it with a

new GDT is easier and more convenient than replacing the entire housing. It is less expensive to
replace a few dollar GDT instead of the complete protector.
GDTs used in surge protectors wear out depending on how many times they have been triggered.
Worn out GDTs provide little or no protection. Since it is dangerous to test GDTs to determine their
characteristics, and because GDTs cost so little, it is a good idea to replace GDTs every few years or
after major thunderstorms when there have been close proximity lightning strikes. Another
advantage of using protectors with replaceable GDTs is that different GDTs are available with
different voltage ratings to customize the protection level depending on the VSWR and power
level. GDTs are triggered not only by voltage induced from an EMP or a nearby lightning strike, but
also by the VSWR resulting from reflected transmitter power.
Surge protectors with replaceable GDTs can be easily converted for other power output levels by
replacing their GDTs. But the VSWR should first be measured to determine where it is highest
(worst) throughout your operating frequencies. The worst VSWR must be known to calculate the
highest voltage level so that the voltage rating can be specified for the replacement GDT. Lower
voltage rating GDTs provide better protection as long as their voltage ratings are high enough so
that the GDTs will not fire under normal operating conditions. Much lower GDT voltage ratings
could be used if only low transmit powers are used into a perfectly impedance matched antenna).
GDTs respond to voltage levels, which are functions of both power and VSWR, and the VSWR
changes as a function of frequency. Therefore, a much larger selection of GDT voltage ratings is
required to match different power levels and VSWRs. Fortunately, there are several companies
making GDTs at a variety of different voltages. Several brands of low-cost GDTs (less than $3) are
available. Although many manufacturers list power levels for their surge protectors, the voltage
ratings of their GDTs are much more meaningful.
Antenna surge protectors are available from Alpha-Delta, PolyPhaser, Huber+Suhner, Fischer
Custom Communications, Amphenol® EMI/EMP Protection Connectors, and ETS-Lindgren. Bourns
manufactures GDT elements for other companies to repackage into protective devices. The
following URLs provide more information about using protective devices.
Gas Discharge Tubes (GDT)

http://www.bourns.com/resources/training/circuit-protection/gas-discharge-tubes-(gdt)/gas-discharge-
tubes-(gdt)
Telecommunications Application Schematics

http://www.bourns.com/applications/telecommunications
Network Communications PortNote® Solutions

http://www.bourns.com/applications/network-communications
5. Uninterruptible power supply (UPS) considerations
120 VAC protection from various power systems is best accomplished with a UPS since modern
switched-mode power supplies (SMPS) contain microelectronics potentially sensitive to
fluctuations. Note that the UPS itself will need protection from AC power feed transients, as the

UPS may be vulnerable to low frequency EMP (E3) or geomagnetic disturbance (GMD) caused
power service transformer harmonics. UPSes made by APC, CyberPower and Tripp are available in
suitable power ratings throughout the range from 200 W to 1200 W. It is not clear without testing
whether protection is needed for the antenna rotator circuit, as the excitation will be common
mode while the operation is differential mode, but if testing proves it necessary, the installation of
MOVs appropriate for the operating level of the specific rotator should suffice.
When selecting a UPS for protecting equipment from EMP, a true on-line, double-conversion type
of UPS is recommended although a high quality line interactive UPS with good surge suppression
and noise filtering can be used unless the equipment is extremely sensitive. Less expensive UPS
units provide insufficient protection in that they allow voltage spikes to reach equipment before
the battery is switched into the circuit, which can take as long as 25 milliseconds (ms). The more
expensive on-line, double-conversion UPS ensures that the battery is always connected so that no
power transfer switches are needed and voltage spikes will not damage the equipment. A high
quality line interactive unit will take 2-4 ms to transfer power to the battery source, which easily
meets the specifications for all common modern equipment.
6. Cable layouts, entry, and the use of shielded cables
Cable layout techniques to reduce the coupling of EMP signals at the equipment include:
• Run location: Run the cable along metal structures, such as metal walls or I-beams.
• Cable bundles: Put multiple cables into tight bundles – on average all the cables are helping
to short out the E field seen by any individual cable. If one cannot run along metallic
structures, periodically ground the bundle to the internal grounding system with low
inductance grounding braids or plates.
• Metal cable tray: If cable trays are used to hold the cables, be sure the tray is metal instead
of plastic or fiberglass; and ground it often along the run.
• Metal cable conduit: It is even better to have the cables in enclosed metal conduits, which
are well grounded at least on the ends, and at other points if possible. The best end
connection is a circumferential ground bond onto a metal building wall.
Cable entry into a facility best practices include:
• Use underground cable runs, at least for the part nearest the building (underground cables
have reduced HEMP, SREMP (radiated fields) and EM weapon field coupling, and higher
attenuation of signals that are flowing toward the building).
• Short out the external conductor at the entry point to the building – it is especially good to
use shielded cables, with the shield circumferentially bonded to a metal external wall.
• If the building has an ANSI/TIA/EIA-607 Telecommunications Bonding Backbone (TBB)
installed, entry cable shielding should be bonded to the TBB.
• Metal pipes also count as conductors – they should be shorted at the metal wall or the
current on them will flow inside and radiate fields, which can be picked up by other wiring.
• Terminal Protection Devices (TPD) may be needed on power and signal wires.

• Antennas need special attention, and possibly special surge protectors as discussed above
under “Coaxial Cable RF (Antenna) Surge Protectors.”
Considerations with shielded cables include:
• Using shielded cables is very common in EMP protection, and it is easy to procure shielded
network cables.
• The protection provided depends on the quality of the shield, but also on the handling of
the cable ends. While circumferentially bonded connectors are the best, for some levels of
EMP protection, shield clamping to the external wall of a building can provide 20-40 dB of
shield current attenuation.
• Common shielded network cabling has simple foil shields. Better and generally more
expensive cables use high-coverage braided shields. Although cable vendors often identify
cables with shields, it is important to obtain shielding effectiveness data for the range of
frequencies ranging from 1 MHz up to 1 GHz.
• The cable plugs must have metal sheaves, firmly grounded to the cable shields.
• The matching cable jack must also be configured to accept the shielded plug – typically
with metal tabs. These tabs are not equivalent to circumferential shields, but provide
some protection.
• Typical network equipment do not always have shield-ready jacks, so in these cases
shielded network cables will not be of value.

Level 3: Only minutes of mission outages are permitted

In addition to Level 2…
• Use International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) EMP and IEMI protection standards (IEC SC
77C series, see Appendix F).
• Shielding should be 30+ dB of protection through 10 GHz.
• Use EMP shielded racks, rooms, or facilities to protect critical computers, data centers, phone
switches, industrial and substation controls and other electronics.
• Use “Recommended E3 HEMP Heave Electric Field Waveform for the Critical Infrastructures”
from EMP Commission for grid and undersea cable protection planning. Use 85 V/km for
Continental U.S. (CONUS) E3 threat.
• Use EMP tested SPDs and equipment.
• Institute IEC level hardness maintenance & surveillance (HM/HS).
• Have 30 days of EMP protected power/fuel.
• Store 30 days of food, water, and critical supplies and spares.
• Use time-urgent EMP resilient comms, like X, Ku and Ka satellite, and either HF groundwave or
Automatic Link Establishment (ALE) HF.
The following IEC publications apply to Level 3 Protection and are shown in summary in the
figure below and in detail in the Bibliography (Appendix F) at the end of this report:
Note: Black text indicates publications dealing with HEMP, while blue/grey text indicates HPEM/IEMI publications.
Figure 22. Organization of the current IEC SC 77C publications

The Level 3 Facility EM barrier should be designed with the same features and provisions as with
Level 4 with the exceptions of both Provision 1 noted below and only one entryway door is
required instead of a double-door entry as in Level 4. With only a single door, an alarm or
automatic closing feature should be installed to prevent the door from inadvertently remaining
open for an extended period thus reducing the hardness of the facility.
The evaluation of the shielding effectiveness as identified in Provision 5 for Level 4 (“EM Barrier
Hardness Validation Testing”) is not required for Level 3. Commercial radio signal techniques may
be used to evaluate the shielding effectiveness or IEEE 299 can be used [see Reference 13]. This
shielding effectiveness testing is only required for the acceptance of the shielded enclosure, as
verification testing is not required (as it is in Level 4). Also, non-linear filter PCI testing may be
performed in the laboratory and is not required to be performed on site (as it is in Level 4).
1. Six-sided EM shield barrier
The shield barrier can be constructed using 3-6 mm thick steel sheeting (or by using other shielding
materials, such as aluminum or nickel composites) which provides the required level of shielding.
Shielding can be accomplished using a combination of bolt-together designs and welded designs. If
a large number of facilities need to be EMP protected, bolt-together designs that are carefully
tested in the factory to meet the required protection levels are more economical.
Copper, aluminum, conductive plastics or other materials may be used if they can provide the
required shielding effectiveness and are fully compatible with the POE protective treatments and
grounding requirements. Steel is typically preferred because of its superior shielding effectiveness
at lower HEMP/SREMP frequencies and its mechanical strength. Using metal screen or wire mesh
for the barrier presents problems related to inadequate inherent shielding properties and problems
posed in circumferentially bonding cable conduit, vent, and piping penetrations to mesh/screen
materials.
2. Uninterruptible power supply (UPS) considerations
When selecting a UPS for protecting equipment from EMP, it is recommended that a true on-line,
double-conversion type of UPS always be used as recommended in the Level 2 EMP Protection
Guidelines. As this UPS will be installed inside the shielded volume in protection level 4, there is no
concern over high frequency transient performance as they must be dealt with before entering the
building shield. However, the UPS selected shall be tested against high harmonic currents and
voltages (especially the 2nd harmonic), which is generated during E3 HEMP and/or GMD events.
Calculated Level 3 Mitigation Effects
Level 3 EMP Protection recommends a minimum of 30 dB of attenuation from a protective shield

through 10 GHz. How much additional shielding may be required beyond 30 dB is best determined
through an EM Threat Site Assessment Survey. Additional shielding may be required based on the
facility’s specific operational requirements including factors such as building construction, physical
site layout, the types and amount equipment to be protected, and how distributed or contained
the power systems and wired infrastructure are extended beyond the building or campus.

The figures that follow illustrate that just applying the minimum recommended level of 30 dB of
attenuation can mitigate the EMP threat to typical cables and devices found inside almost every
building. The upper models in each example show the unshielded directionally oriented effects
from a 1000 kT burst at 250 miles (400 km) above the center of the continental United States. The
bottom model in each example shows the survivable effect provided by 30 dB of shielding
attenuation. In addition all external currents coupled to cables outside the building must be
reduced before entering a building in order to prevent damage to equipment inside the building
connected to those cables (e.g. power).
UNCLASSIFIED
Figure 23. Protective effects on cordless telephones with recommended 30 dB shielding

Figure 24. Protective effects on a 100’ Ethernet cable with recommended 30 dB shielding
Figure 25. Protective effects on a Plain Old Telephone Service Line with 30 dB shielding

Level 4: Only seconds of mission outages permitted

In addition to Level 3…
• Use Military HEMP Standards (MIL-STD-188-125-1 and MIL-HDBK-423), and 80+ dB hardening
through 10 GHz.
• Use EMP shielding in rooms, racks, and buildings as needed to protect critical equipment.
• Use EMP protected double-door entryways.
• Validate per Military guidelines, like Test Operations Procedure (TOP) 01-2-620 HEMP.
• Have 30+ days of Military Standard protected power and fuel plus alternate generation source
(renewables preferred).
• Consider double surge protection on critical external lines entering EMP protected areas.
• Consider using communications systems/networks that are designed to meet Military EMP
standards, like: Advanced EHF (AEHF) satellite, EMP protected fiber optic networks, and EMP
protected radios.
• Institute ongoing Military Standard HM/HS programs.
The military standard for the EM barrier design is MIL-STD-188-125-1 [see Reference 1], which
specifies the following hardening program elements for the protection of HEMP:
1. The facility shield.
The facility EM shield is a continuous conductive enclosure that meets or exceeds specified
shielding effectiveness requirements. In MIL-STD-188-125-1 this requirement is generally 80 dB up
to 1 GHz. For this document we recommend that this requirement of 80 dB be extended to
10 GHz, which will also protect against the IEMI threat. In addition, this level and frequency range is
achievable for shielded rooms constructed by industry today.
2. Shield points of entry (POEs) including wire penetrations, conduit/pipe penetrations, doors,
and apertures.
The number of shield POEs shall be limited to the minimum required for operational, life-safety,
and habitability purposes. Each metallic cable POE is protected with a current limiting device that
satisfies the standard’s performance requirements.
3. Double surge protect critical external lines entering EMP protected areas.
Redundant RF surge protection is required on critical external lines entering EMP protected areas in
case either (1) the first SPD fails and continues to pass voltage or (2) the SPD is faulty and cannot
stop the EMP pulse. In the first case with a double EMP event, the first burst could take out the
primary SPD (or something like lightning could take it out), and without a secondary SPD the
second EMP burst could take out critical equipment. In the case where the SPD is faulty, the SPD

might simply pass an EMP pulse through the line into the equipment if there isn’t a secondary SPD
to protect the equipment. Lastly, two SPDs will block EMP better than one.
In the above cases, if the cable enters the building via a non-EMP protected area, then the primary
SPD should be placed at the building egress with a secondary SPD connected to the cable either
within the EMP area or immediately prior to it entering the EMP area. These guidelines are
applicable to RF, data, and power cables.
4. HEMP Shield and POE testing.
The standard requires protection performance certification by testing. The protection program
includes quality assurance during facility construction and equipment installation, acceptance
testing for the EM barriers, and verification testing of the completed and operational facility.
5. Life Cycle Hardness Maintenance and Hardness Surveillance (HM/HS).
HM/HS is included in the facility planning, design, and construction phases to assure that hardness
features stay intact over the life cycle of the protected facility and systems. The guidance provided
for Level 4 Protection draws heavily on MIL-STD-188-125-1 and the accompanying implementation
guidance provided in MIL-HDBK-423 [see References 1 and 2 in Appendix G].
Although the primary method used over the years for protecting equipment from the effects of a
HEMP event is to enclose all critical equipment within a steel-shielded electromagnetic (EM)
barrier, alternative methods exist including the use of shielded boxes interconnected by non-
metallic lines including optical fiber or fluidic control lines.
Generally, an EM barrier for Level 4 Protection is constructed using metal plate (copper, aluminum,
and/or steel walls, ceiling, and floor) with all seams continuously brazed or welded. To be
complete, the barrier must include treatments on all penetrations to limit currents on the
penetrating cables and the EM fields incident on doors, windows, vents, and pipes. Figure 26
provides a conceptual representation of a complete EM barrier. For the shield portion of the
barrier, steel plate is preferred over copper for the bulk of the construction because of its superior
shielding effectiveness at lower frequencies and its mechanical strength. MIL-STD-188-125-1
provides more detailed requirements for EM barrier construction. Additional information on
construction of EM protected facilities is also provided in the following military standards, as
referenced in Appendix G:
• MIL-STD-785 addresses reliability

• MIL-STD-470 addresses maintainability
• MIL-STD-2165 addresses testability
• MIL-STD-729 addresses corrosion control

Emergency Door
Figure 26. Low-risk EMP barrier protection for facilities (per MIL-STD-188-125-1)
The installation of an EM protection barrier provides a level of immunity to multiple EM
environments for electronic equipment. Specifically, the EM barrier provides a shield against EMP
and helps accomplish the following:
• Protects MC systems from harmful EM fields.

• Diverts HEMP, SREMP radiating fields and lightning currents to ground.
• Provides immunity to external EMI and IEMI environments,
• Contains classified emissions, which provides Transient EMP Emanation Standard
(TEMPEST) protection.
• Provides a sharing path for GMD long-line currents.
• Acts as an excellent ground for internal systems, and, if good contact is made with earth
ground, an excellent grounding surface for nearby external systems.
Note that the building surface that in contact with the earth or concrete provides a very low
inductance to ground. This is desirable for HEMP and IEMI. Ground rods have high inductance, and
while necessary for lightning, are of limited help against high frequency transient phenomena.

The EM barrier provides an EM isolated environment that enables commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)

equipment and systems with no special EM protection to be incorporated within the shielded
facility. If the shield is maintained over time, the EM barrier greatly simplifies interior system
upgrades and configuration management as systems are moved or replaced. This shifts the focus of
system configuration control to maintaining the integrity of the EM barrier.
6. Six-sided EM shield barrier
Shielding will be in accordance with MIL-STD-188-125-1 [see Reference 1], and related military
standards. The shield barrier should be constructed using 3-6 mm thick welded steel sheeting,
which provides at least 80 dB of shielding. Copper or other materials may be used if they can
provide the required shielding effectiveness and are fully compatible with the POE protective
treatments and grounding requirements. Steel is preferred because of its superior shielding
effectiveness at low frequencies and its mechanical strength. Using metal screen or wire mesh for
the barrier presents problems related to inadequate inherent shielding properties at lower and
higher frequencies and presents problems relating to circumferentially bonding cable conduits,
vents, and piping penetrations to mesh/screen materials.
7. Protection of barrier breaches and cable/piping points of entry (POEs)
Treatment of Protection Barrier Breaches and POEs will be in accordance with MIL-STD-188-125-1
[1], and related military standards. The number of shield breaches and cable/piping POEs should
be limited to the minimum required for mission operation, life-safety, and habitability purposes. As
a design objective, there should be a single penetration entry area on the EM barrier for all piping
and electrical POEs except those connected to external conductors less than 10 m (32.8 ft.) in
length. To eliminate cross coupling, the penetration entry area should be located as far from
normal and emergency personnel and equipment accesses and ventilation breaches in the shield,
as is permitted by the facility floor plan. Each POE should be “treated” with a POE protective
device. Guidance for specific types of penetrations follows.
Electrical POEs. EM protection for electrical POEs, including all power, communications, and
control penetrating conductors whether shielded or unshielded, should be provided with main
barrier transient suppression/attenuation devices. The main barrier transient suppression devices
should consist of filters (linear elements) and surge arresters (nonlinear elements), as required to
satisfy the shielding effectiveness requirements and residual transient limiting requirements. Figure
27 illustrates a typical cable POE protection design including filters and surge arresters. POE
protection should be installed in a manner that does not degrade the shielding effectiveness of the
facility EM shield.

Figure 27. Typical cable POE protection design
In the case of audio and data line penetrations through the shield, it is highly recommended that
fiber-optic signal lines be used exclusively. Likewise, if possible, bring radio antenna signals into the
barrier-protected space using fiber optic cables by employing copper-to-fiber converters outside of
the barrier, preferably as close to the antenna as possible to minimize loss and reduce EMI. In all
cases, fiber optic cables that penetrate the shield must use a metallic waveguide-below-cutoff
(WBC) entry. In the case of copper-to-fiber converters outside the barrier, these converters must
either be hardened to EMP or the communication system must not be a critical one, as the
converter is likely to be damaged.
With regard to electrical power service and associated barrier penetrations, the facility should be
provided with a backup EM-hardened electrical power generation and distribution capability
sufficient to perform missions, without reliance upon commercial electrical power sources. In cases
where external power sources are necessary or if internal power sources are used to power
external equipment, individual power feeder lines must be protected by installing an electrical
surge arrester (ESA) and MIL-STD-188-125 tested low pass filter within a shielded compartment or
“ESA vault” (see Figure 28) at both ends of these power cables. To prevent the enterprise-side
MOVs from shorting or blowing up, fuses or circuit breakers should be placed in series with each
phase line between the Distribution Transformer and the Filter/ESA Enclosure (these are not
shown). The facility should be designed to operate for more than 30 days for this protection level
using backup power in case the external transformers are damaged.

Figure 28. Commercial electric power POE protection
Metallic commercial power entering a critical facility or room that is closer than 50 miles from an
urban center with 50,000 or more people (and hence, more likely to be subject to SREMP long line
current threats) should be electrically isolated from the power grid. This can be accomplished
through either physical separation (disconnection while operating on backup power during periods
of heightened threats) or through the use of both an isolation transformer and the use of motor
generators outside of the shielded facility or room, etc. As an alternative, fuel cell power
technology has been considered in the past for this problem with the fuel passed through the
shield.
See Figure 29 to see an example of a power line POE protection approach using a motor-generator
set. The input power connection drives a motor external to the EM barrier shield connected to a
generator by a dielectric shaft penetrating the shield wall within a WBC. A typical installation would
use a flywheel on the motor to electromechanically filter power line disturbances and provide a
short, few second UPS function. The primary advantage of a motor-generator set is that there are
no metallic power penetrations through the shield. As a result, the motor-generator set provides
protection against SREMP, injection-type EM weapons, as well as HEMP (although the essential
need for this type of protection is for SREMP). If properly maintained, a motor-generator set can
last for more than two decades. The only requirement is to protect the motor against naturally
occurring power line transients, such as lightning. This can be accomplished with a Transient
Voltage Suppression System (TVSS) usually consisting of MOVs installed at the power input to the
motor. In addition, the power line entry to the external motor and any external controls for its
operation must be protected against the full set of EMP transients. This is also true if a fuel cell
system were used.

Figure 29. Power line POE protection using a motor-generator set
Personnel and utility breach-type POEs. For personnel entryways, two designs are permissible.
The first uses double doors separated by a shielded waveguide-below-cutoff (WBC) vestibule as
illustrated in Figure 30. This design provides additional protection for frequencies below ~50 MHz,
although for higher frequencies the waveguide alone is not sufficient.
Figure 30. Entryway using two doors separated by a WBC 14

The second option uses two doors separated by a metal-enclosed

vestibule preferably with an interlock to ensure that only one door is
open at a time (including a door interlock). The interlock is needed to
ensure that E1 HEMP fields above 50 MHz do not scatter through the
waveguide and that the IEMI fields that extend up to 10 GHz do not
enter the Facility HEMP Shield when both doors are open (a sample
outer door is shown in Figure 31 on the left). This approach is the best
in order to deal with all of the EMP threats. In either case, inflatable
gaskets or metal fingerstock should be used to ensure
electromagnetically tight door.
In the case of barrier penetrations to accommodate utility pipes and

conduits, one should circumferentially weld any metal pipe or conduit
penetrations at the exterior surface of the metal shield. Waveguide-
Below-Cutoff (WBC) designs for air vents and pipes are illustrated in
Figure 32 and Figure 33. The cutoff frequency for air filled waveguides
Figure 31. Sample door can be estimated as fc (Hz) = 1.5 x 108 / d, where d in meters is the
with gaskets protecting largest dimension of a rectangular waveguide or the diameter of a
against EMP threats circular waveguide. Given the cutoff frequency, the length of the
waveguide needs to be greater than 5 times the largest transverse
dimension of the waveguide.
It should be noted that for ventilation pipes, while a 10 cm diameter is adequate for HEMP
purposes, waveguide dimensions of 1 cm are needed to protect against IEMI threats. Industry
typically makes ventilation waveguides that are effective up to 18 GHz, satisfying IEMI and
TEMPEST requirements in addition to E1 HEMP. In most cases, even if TEMPEST is not a
requirement, the use of 1 cm diameter waveguide meshes create less of a mechanical stress on the
shield walls, but if hot exhaust is an issue, then the typical 18 GHz meshes cannot be used if they
are made from Aluminum, which cannot withstand high temperatures. In addition, small diameter

waveguide meshes will likely require some oversizing of the entire mesh to overcome the air
resistance factor.
Figure 32. Typical waveguide-below-cutoff (WBC) piping POE protective design for E1 HEMP

Figure 33. Typical waveguide-below-cutoff ventilation POE protective design for E1 HEMP 15
8. Designation of Mission Critical (MC) Systems
MC Systems include such items as communications electronics equipment, data processing

equipment, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems, local portions of hardened
network interconnects, and critical support subsystems such as power generation, power
distribution, transformers, and environmental control systems. All MC Systems, with the exception
of equipment that must access the external environment (e.g. antennas, heat exchangers), should
be installed within the EM barrier.
EM special protective measures include additional shielding, additional transient

suppression/attenuation devices, fiber optic cables, and equipment-level protection required to
achieve EM hardness. To facilitate life cycle system hardness, maintenance, surveillance, and
configuration management, it is important to minimize the number of subsystems requiring special
protective measures. The three categories requiring special protective measures are as follows:
• MC Systems that must be located outside the EM barrier and, therefore, are not protected by
the barrier (e.g., cables, radio antennas, evaporative heat exchangers).
• MC Systems that are enclosed within the EM barrier and experience mission aborting damage
or upset during verification testing, even though the barrier elements satisfy all performance
requirements. (It is noted that this is an exceptional situation that normally indicates that
there is in fact a failure of a barrier element.)
• Special protective volumes and barriers to provide supplementary isolation when POE
protective devices cannot satisfy the barrier requirements without interfering with facility
operation. (This often occurs when it is not possible to prevent in-band HEMP, SREMP or IEMI
penetration on antenna lines leading to a transmitter inside the barrier; in this case it is
recommended to build a special shielded area for the transmitter equipment inside of the
barrier.)

9. EM shield barrier grounding
The barrier grounding practices described here apply to HEMP, SREMP, EM weapons, and lightning.
The grounding required for these effects are part of the total facility-grounding network with the
ultimate path to ground being the earth electrode subsystem. The lightning subsystem and its
earth grounding electrode subsystem are the main interfaces with the EM protection system. It is
important that the grounding system be properly designed and constructed to provide the most
direct and lowest possible impedance to the earth ground at all frequencies of interest.
The barrier shield exterior should be multi-point grounded to a buried earth electrode system at
the corners of the barrier and at 20 foot intervals around the perimeter of the barrier [7-8] (see
Figure 34). This approach is particularly important if the shield barrier is not in direct contact with
the soil under the facility (when there is soil contact, the shield is grounded in a low inductance
fashion providing an excellent path for high-frequency currents on the shield to flow to ground).
This buried earth electrode system should also be used as the common ground counterpoise for
the EM protection systems of external equipment. Ground straps or cables used to connect the
barrier shield to the earth electrode subsystem should be electrically bonded to the external
surface of the barrier shield. At least one such low-inductance ground strap, cable or plate should
be located at each penetration entry area. Grounds for equipment and structures outside the
barrier shield should be electrically bonded to the outside surface of the barrier shield or to the
buried earth electrode subsystem.
Figure 34. Shield barrier earth electrode system
Grounds for equipment and structures enclosed within the protected volume should be electrically
bonded to the inside surface of the shield. Internal equipment should be single-point grounded to
the inside of the barrier shield to avoid inductive ground loops, although this aspect is not critical if
the shield reduces the external fields correctly. It is a concern for equipment not inside of a
shielded volume. All grounding connections to the facility EM shield should be made in a manner
that does not create POEs by breaching the shield.

10. EM Barrier Hardness Validation Testing
EM barrier testing is important to ensure the integrity of the shield and the POE protection. The
testing should include quality assurance testing during facility construction and equipment
installation, acceptance testing for the EM barrier and special protective measures, and verification
testing of the completed and operational facility.
Initial EM protection acceptance testing. Initial certification of the EM barrier protection

effectiveness should be based upon successful demonstrations of compliance with shielding
effectiveness (SE) tests for the barrier and pulsed current injection (PCI) tests of all conducting
penetrations. Initial acceptance tests of the EM barrier and special protective measures should be
conducted after all related EM barrier shield and PoE construction work has been completed.
Initial acceptance test procedures and results should be documented and retained for use as
hardness maintenance and hardness surveillance (HM/HS) baseline configuration and performance
data.
Operational verification testing. After completion of the EM protection subsystem and installation,
operational checks, and installation/acceptance of all system equipment, the EM hardness of the
facility should be verified through a program of tests and supporting analysis. The verification
program should result in a definitive statement that the critical time-urgent mission functions of
the barrier and its contents are certified to withstand exposure to the EM environments of
concern. Verification test procedures and results should also be documented and retained for use
as hardness maintenance and surveillance (HM/HS) baseline configuration and performance data.
Validation testing types. Both initial acceptance testing and operational verification testing include
(1) shielding effectiveness tests, (2) pulsed current injection testing of all electrical POEs and (3)
grounding system tests.
(1) Shielding effectiveness testing is used to certify that the facility EM shield, with all POE
protective devices installed, provides at least the minimum shielding effectiveness shown in
Appendix A, Figure A1 for HEMP (80 dB up to 1 GHz). This protection level is sufficient for the
radiated fields associated with HEMP and SREMP. To extend the protection to encompass the
threat of EM weapons producing IEMI, it is recommended that the shielding effectiveness
requirement be extended at the 80 dB level up to 10 GHz. Shielding effectiveness testing should
be conducted with barrier POEs and their protective devices in a normal operating
configuration, using shielding effectiveness test procedures described in Appendix A of MIL-STD-
188-125-1 [1].
(2) HEMP pulsed current injection (PCI) testing is well prescribed and involves injecting the
pulses prescribed in Appendix A, Table A1 of this document for each electrical POE. This baseline
testing for HEMP gives confidence that POE protection will withstand HEMP, radiated SREMP
and EM weapon threats up to 1 GHz. To extend the PCI testing to higher frequencies, the IEC
has developed test waveforms for EM threats above 1 GHz [9]. The EM barrier passes the test if
the POE protective devices attenuate voltages and currents measured inside the shield to the
upper bound levels prescribed for each class of electrical POE (as provided in Appendix A, Table
A2). Additionally, the main barrier protective device should be rated to withstand a sufficient
number of test pulses at the prescribed peak injection current without damage or unacceptable
performance degradation to accommodate life cycle testing.

(3) Ground system testing. The resistance to earth of the earth electrode subsystem should be
tested using the fall-of-potential method. The completed grounding system should be “Megger
tested” at the service disconnect enclosure grounding terminal, and at earth electrode system
ground test wells. Measure ground resistance not less than 2 full days after the last trace of
precipitation, and without the soil being moistened by any means other than natural drainage or
seepage and without chemical treatment or other artificial means of reducing natural ground
resistance. It is recommended that the tests be performed using the two-point method
according to IEEE 81, “Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity Grounding Impedance and Earth
Surface Potentials of Ground Systems.” Unless otherwise specified by facility drawings, the earth
ground resistance should be 10 ohms or less.
11. Hardness Maintenance and Hardness Surveillance (HM/HS)
A built-in test capability should be installed to at least qualitatively monitor for EM shield leakage.
The built-in shield monitoring system should include:
• Radiating antenna(s) external to the barrier shield

• Receiving antenna(s) internal to the shield
• Test control, antenna source, and data analysis electronics inside the shield
To facilitate HM/HS, the barrier shield design should include a crawl space underneath the shield
floor to enable inspection for floor plate defects due to maintenance or corrosion and shielding
effectiveness testing. On the other hand, if the barrier shield floor can be constructed in direct
contact with the soil, high frequency currents induced on the other 5 sides of the shield will be
severely attenuated at the soil/barrier interface.
12. Treatment of Mission Critical (MC) Systems outside the EM barrier
For MC Systems that must be located outside of the barrier shield, special protective measures
should be implemented to ensure effective EM protection. Special protective measures for MC
Systems outside the main barrier may include:
• Cable, conduit, and local volume shielding

• Use of fiber optic cables for signaling
• Linear and nonlinear transient suppression/attenuation devices
• Equipment-level hardening (reduced coupling cross-section, dielectric means of power
transport, use of inherently robust components)
• Moving sensitive circuits associated with external MC Systems to locations within the
protected volume
• Automatic recycling features or operator intervention schemes, when the mission timeline
permits
• Other hardening measures appropriate for the particular equipment to be protected
Performance requirements for the special protective measures should ensure that the highest
EMP-induced, peak time domain current stresses reaching the equipment are less than the
vulnerability thresholds of the equipment.

RF communications antennas outside the main EM barrier and any associated antenna-mounted
electronics, tuning circuits, and antenna cables located outside the main electromagnetic barrier
should be treated as MC Systems that are placed outside the EM barrier. Performance
requirements for the EM protection should ensure that the highest EM threat-induced peak time
domain current stresses at the antenna feed are less than the vulnerability thresholds of the MC
Systems located outside the barrier.
Front door in-band protection is one of the more challenging (but not insurmountable) EM
protection problems. The high gains associated with most “front door” coupling paths make these
potentially the most susceptible portion of radio communication systems. However, these well-
characterized front door receive paths have been the subjects of much attention in terms of
protection engineering. Radar systems are often protected from their own or neighboring
transmitters by a receiver protector or RP. Similar protection can be applied to communication
receivers against in-band EM weapon environments. A typical RP uses plasma and diode limiter
stages. At a given threshold the most sensitive diode turns on, forming a shunt across the
waveguide. At higher energies, the other stages activate in parallel. The plasma “vial” stages turn
on at the highest powers through a process similar to air breakdown and are capable of diverting
large amounts of energy to ground without damage. Most vial limiters use halogen gas as the
breakdown medium. If the system is transmitting, it will be necessary to unkey the transmitter to
extinguish the ignited plasma devices. As an example, the schematic of a Westinghouse RP design
is provided in Figure 35.
Effective and robust waveguide filters are available for out-of-band front door EM weapon
environments. The challenge is to provide protection at the same time minimizing insertion loss
effects on normal operation.
Figure 35. Example receiver protector unit diagram.

13. Special protective volumes
Special protective volumes for piping POEs. As discussed earlier in this section, when a pipe POE
diameter must be larger than 1/5 of the pipe’s length and a WBC array insert cannot be used, a
special protective volume should be established inside the EM barrier. The protective volume
should include a special protective barrier that should completely enclose the non-compliant
piping. The protective volume should be protected at the barrier shield outer wall using the WBC
technique having a cutoff frequency of at least 1.0 GHz for HEMP and SREMP, but should extend to
10 GHz for IEMI and 18 GHz for TEMPEST. The special protective barrier may be a separate shield
with protected penetrations, or it may be implemented by extending the metal walls of the piping
system itself as shown in the figure below. Performance requirements for the special protective
barrier should ensure that the total shielding effectiveness, measured through the main EM barrier
and special protective barrier, satisfies at least the minimum requirements shown in Appendix A,
Figure A1.

Figure 36. Special protective volume for piping POE for E1 HEMP
Figure 37. Special protective volume for electrical equipment

Special protective volumes for electrical POEs. When a main barrier protective device cannot be
designed to achieve the transient suppression/attenuation performance prescribed for the
particular class of electrical POE without interfering with operational signals it is required to pass, a
special protective volume should be established inside the main EM barrier as shown in Figure 37
above. A special protective volume should be enclosed by a special protective barrier with primary
and secondary special electrical POE protective devices, as required to meet the performance
requirements prescribed. The special protective barrier should completely enclose wiring and
equipment directly connected to a primary special electrical POE protective device. The special
protective barrier may be a separate shield, or it may be implemented using cable and conduit
shields and equipment cabinets. Performance requirements for the special protective barrier
should ensure that the total shielding effectiveness, measured through the main EM barrier and
special protective barrier, satisfies at least the minimum requirements shown on Appendix A,
Figure A1 (HEMP Shielding Effectiveness Requirement).
Secondary special electrical POE protective device requirements. When the combination of the
primary special electrical POE protective device and the directly connected equipment cannot be
designed to achieve the transient suppression/attenuation performance prescribed for the class of
electrical POE (per Appendix A, Table A2), a secondary special electrical POE protective device
should be used. The secondary special electrical POE protective device should be designed so that
the total transient suppression/attenuation, measured through the primary special protective
device, the connected equipment, and the secondary special protective device, satisfies at least the
minimum requirements prescribed for the class of POE without device damage or performance
degradation.
MC Systems in a special protective volume. Special protective measures should be implemented as

necessary to harden MC Systems in a special protective volume to the EM-induced stresses that
will occur in that volume. Special protective measures for MC Systems in a special protective
volume may include the use of the following:
• Cable, conduit, and volume shielding

• Fiber-optic cables
• Transient suppression/attenuation devices
• Equipment-level hardening
• Remote locating of sensitive circuits
• Automatic recycling or failover
• Operator intervention features
• Other hardening measures appropriate for the particular equipment to be protected.
Performance requirements for the special protective measures should ensure that the highest EM-
induced peak time-domain current stresses reaching the equipment are less than the vulnerability
thresholds for the equipment. Adequate WBC EM attenuation occurs if the length (L) is greater
than 5 H 2 + W 2 where H is the height and W is the width of the conduit or passageway.

14. Special Protection at the box level
While a facility-level barrier (“global” shielding and POE protection) is preferred, there are
situations where box-level protection can be used. A conceptual diagram of global vs. box-level
protection appears below in Figure 38.
Figure 38. Global barrier vs. box-level protection
A complete facility EM barrier provides the best protection. Its effectiveness is easy to verify using
CW field illumination, which facilitates initial protection certification and HM/HS activities. It is the
preferred method for critical systems where internal electronic boxes are being changed or
upgraded often. It has been successfully implemented for the HEMP protection of the U.S.
backbone communication and strategic missile systems. However, for many systems global
shielding may impose unacceptable cost and weight increases.
Alternatively, a combination could also be implemented where a 30 dB or more shielded facility is

used for equipment and cables that are less important or less sensitive. An additional EM barrier of
50 dB or more in this example could then also be used for more important or more sensitive
equipment.
Box level protection can be very effective, especially in the case where only a few pieces of
equipment are critical. Well-designed electronic boxes using RF gaskets and cable treatment have
been demonstrated to be very effective to the point that internally coupled RF levels are
indistinguishable from noise levels. Non-fiber optic cables must be well shielded with high quality
connectors circumferentially bonded to the cable shield. Box level hardening techniques are
depicted below in Figure 39.

Figure 39. Box-level hardening techniques
15. Multiple shielded buildings or shielded volumes connected by conduits
EMP protection for cables running between two shielded facilities or rooms may be provided by
using continuous conduit shielding or highly shielded and tested cables, when the lengths of the
runs do not exceed the applicable maximums provided in Table 10 that follows.
Table 10. HEMP Specifications for Cable Runs Between Two Protected Areas
Table Definitions:
(1) Signal Line: Contains one or more control or signal conductors.
(2) Low Current Power Line: Contains one or more conductors with maximum operating currents less
than 1.0 A.
(3) Medium Current Power Line: The maximum operating current on the lowest rated conductor is
between 1.0 A and 10 A.
(4) High Current Power Line: Contains only power lines with operating currents greater than 10 A.
(5) Buried Conduit: No more than 1 m (3.3 ft.) of its total length is not covered by earth or concrete fill.
(6) Nonburied Conduit: More than 1 m (3.3 ft.) of its total length is not covered by earth or concrete fill.

Main barrier ESAs and filters are not required on the penetrating conductors under conditions
where cable runs are shorter than shown in the previous Table and the conduit or cable is bonded
to the shields at both ends.
Some design and certification test requirements are shown below.

Additionally, “Figure 40. EMP protected conduit” on the right shows as a
sample conduit running from an EMP filtered area to a 120 dB EMP
protected container.
• Conduit design requirements. EMP protection conduits should be

rigid metal conduits, with circumferentially welded, brazed, or
threaded closures at all joints and couplings, pull boxes, and at both
ends of penetrations through the facility EMP shields.
• Conduit certification test requirements. A pulsed current injection

Figure 40. EMP
(PCI) source, producing an 800-A short-circuit current on a buried
protected conduit
signal or low current power line conduit and a 5000-A short-circuit
current on a non-buried signal or low current power line conduit, 20 ns risetime and 500-ns
pulse width (full width at half maximum), and source impedance ≥ 60 Ω, should produce a
residual internal transient stress no greater than 0.1 A on the wire bundle inside the
conduit.
The same PCI source connected on the outer surface of a medium or high current power line
conduit should produce a residual internal transient stress no greater than 10 A, when the
operating current on the lowest rated conductor in the wire bundle inside the conduit is greater
than 10 A, and no greater than 1.0 A when the operating current is between 1.0 A and 10 A.
If a multi-conductor shielded cable can be tested in the laboratory to the pulses described in the
second bullet above, and it can achieve the required peak residuals, then a shielded cable can be
used instead of a conduit.

7. HEMP MODEL MITIGATION RESULTS

This section uses a HEMP protection effectiveness model based upon: IEC recommendations,
known nuclear yields by nuclear-capable countries, and real-world testing of commonly used cables
and equipment. This model was developed to better understand the ramifications of a HEMP
attack and how much protection is needed to prevent damage or upsets (resetting the device). This
protection would also be critical for SREMP and IEMI attacks. The model showed that even though
minimal protection of 10 dB helps significantly, 20 dB is much more helpful, and 30 dB eliminates
almost all damage.
The above is excellent news since 10 dB can often be met simply by following good lightning
protection practices, including ensuring low inductance ground connections. 20 dB can generally be
met and sometimes 30 dB can also be met by making small, inexpensive modifications. These EMP
improvements include using EMP rated SPDs, adding ferrites, burying external cables, and moving
operations toward the middle of a building perhaps in the basement with more walls between the
cable runs and the potential HEMP burst.
These simple EMP related changes or additions could substantially reduce the risks associated with
an EMP attack and prevent it from devastating the country.
7.1. Model Assumptions

This section discusses the results of an EMP model that was created to better understand the
relationship between improved EMP protection and decreased equipment damage and upsets. The
key parameters in the model are shown in Table 11 below.
Table 11. Modeling Parameters Used to Calculate HEMP Damage
Parameter Assumption
Nuclear Yield 100 kiloton (kT) or a peak field of 50 kV/m (peak field is per IEC
recommendation)
Height of Burst 400 km (about 250 miles) (per IEC recommendation)
Latitude and longitude of burst 40.0 North, 100.0 West
100 ft. Ethernet • 0.1m height over ground; aligned radially
• Current into 100 ohms
• Maximum of calculations for 0.01 S/m or 0.001 S/m ground
conductivity
• Damage at 10 A; Upset at 5 A (per actual testing)
POTS Telephone • Voltage calculation for 1 km radial line
• Damage at 8 kV; no upsets (per actual testing)
Cordless Telephone • Voltage calculation for 1 km radial line
• Damage at 4 kV (AC/DC Power Adapter failed) (per actual testing)
The baseline of 0 dB shown in the results assumes that the item in question has a clear line of sight
to the HEMP burst and that the cables are not shielded.

7.2. Model Results

Below are the modeling results using the assumptions discussed under Model Assumptions above.
The first subsection below reviews the High Level HEMP Model Results. The next three subsections
show the damage and upset areas for the following: (i) 100’ Ethernet Model Results, (ii) POTS
Telephone Model Results, (iii) Cordless Telephone Model Results. These results include protections
of 0 dB, 10 dB, 20 dB, and 30 dB.
High Level HEMP Model Results

The high level HEMP modeling results shown in Table 12 demonstrate the potential devastating
national impact of a 100 kT HEMP burst. Fortunately, the results also demonstrate the potential to
substantially reduce the impact with 20 dB of protection and essentially eliminate it with 30 dB of
protection. These results drive the government’s desire to ensure that at least the critical
infrastructure has adequate EMP resiliency, particularly given the minimal cost that is often
involved in obtaining improved resilience.
Table 12. Example HEMP Model Damage and Upset Mitigation Results
Total
Total
Damage Upset Damage +
Scenario – with amount of Damage Upset Damage
Area US Area US Upset
Protection in dB % US % US + Upset
(sq mi) (sq mi) Area US
% US
(sq mi)
100 ft Ethernet – 0 dB 1,600,214 54.2% 458,229 15.5% 2,058,443 69.7%

100 ft Ethernet – 10 dB 617,929 20.9% 588,277 19.9% 1,206,206 40.8%
100 ft Ethernet – 20 dB 49,642 1.7% 193,159 6.5% 242,801 8.2%
100 ft Ethernet – 30 dB 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
POTS Telephone – 0 dB 1,522,461 51.5% 0 0.0% 1,522,461 51.5%
POTS Telephone – 10 dB 380,791 12.9% 0 0.0% 380,791 12.9%
POTS Telephone – 20 dB 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
POTS Telephone – 30 dB 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Cordless Telephone – 0 dB 2,305,017 78.0% 0 0.0% 2,305,017 78.0%
Cordless Telephone - 10dB 970,088 32.8% 0 0.0% 970,088 32.8%
Cordless Telephone - 20dB 129,791 4.39% 0 0.00% 129,791 4.4%
Cordless Telephone - 30dB 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.0%

100’ Ethernet Model Results

As shown in the figures below, the amount of EMP upset/damage to equipment connected to 100’
Ethernet cables could be substantially reduced or eliminated with 20 dB or 30 dB of protection.
Figure 41. Potential upset/damage of equipment Figure 42. Reduced damage with 10 dB
connected to 100’ Ethernet cable with 0 dB protection to 100’ Ethernet cable connected
protection equipment
Figure 43. Localized damage only with 20 dB Figure 44. No damage with 100’ Ethernet cable
protection with 100’ Ethernet cable and 30 dB protection

POTS Telephone Model Results

As shown in Figure 45 through Figure 48 below, the amount of damage to a POTS telephone could
be substantially reduced or even eliminated with 20 dB or 30 dB protection.
Figure 45. Devastating POTS telephone damage Figure 46. Significantly reduced damage with
with 0 dB protection 10 dB protection
Figure 47. No POTS telephone damage with Figure 48. No POTS telephone damage with
20 dB protection 30 dB protection

Cordless Telephone Model Results

As shown in Figure 49 through Figure 52 below, the amount of damage to a cordless phone base
could be substantially reduced or even eliminated with 20 dB or 30 dB protection. In all cases, the
damage was due to the AC/DC power adapter failing (not the handset).
Figure 49. Devastating cordless telephone Figure 50. Significantly reduced damage, but
AC/DC adapter damage with 0 dB protection still huge with 10 dB protection
Figure 51. Only localized damage to cordless Figure 52. No cordless telephone damage
telephones with 20 dB protection with 30 dB protection

8. NEXT STEPS
There are several next steps planned for this document to better support the DHS released
“Strategy for Protecting and Preparing the Homeland against Threats of Electromagnetic Pulse and
Geomagnetic Disturbances” document released on October 9, 2018. In particular, these next steps
include the following with references to the DHS EMP Strategy in parentheses:
• Review additional “intra-Departmental, Federal interagency, and civilian scientific research

on EMP and GMD and their effects on critical infrastructure.” (1.2)
• Include both more real world test data and additional prior research on the effects of EMP
on critical infrastructure systems. (1.2.1)
• List EMP knowledge gaps and prioritize potential research opportunities that could reduce
vulnerabilities in a cost-effective manner. (1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and 2.2.3)
• Discuss additional EMP-GMD response and recovery mechanisms, particularly guidelines
that can help make the critical infrastructure operational again or help technically mitigate
the damage. (2.2.2)
• Further prioritize the critical infrastructure operational resilience activities based on risk
management principles. (2.3.1, 2.3.3 , 3.1.1, and p. 6 of 3rd Core Principle)
• “Identify the technological advances likely to significantly enhance resilience or reduce
vulnerability of critical infrastructure to electromagnetic incidents.” (2.3)
Some of the above next steps are iterative by nature and the timeframe to complete each of the
above next steps will vary, which will likely lead to one or more incremental releases of this
document.

Appendix A
Appendix A. EMP PROTECTION TEST AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

From Reference 1. See notes at end of Table A-3.
Table A-1. Injected Pulse Characteristics
Note: These guidelines do not endorse A-1 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019
Appendix A
From Reference 1. See notes at end of Table A-3.
Table A-2. Residual internal stress limits for classes of electrical POEs
Appendix A
Table A-3. Injected pulse characteristics and residual internal stress limits for antenna POE
Notes for Tables A-1, A-2 and A-3.

1 Pulse current injection requirements are in terms of Norton equivalent sources. Short-circuit currents are double
exponential waveshapes. Source impedances are ≥ 60 Ω for the short pulse, ≥ 10 Ω for the intermediate pulse, and ≥ 5 Ω
for the long pulse.
2 FWHM is pulse full-width at half-maximum amplitude.
3 The long pulse peak short-circuit current (1,000 A) and FWHM (20-25 s) are design objectives. Any double exponential
waveform with peak short-circuit current ≥ 200 A, risetime ≤ 0.2 s, and peak current x FWHM product ≥ 2 x 104 A-s
satisfies the minimum requirement.
4 Whichever is larger. N is the number of penetrating conductors in the cable.
5 Low-voltage control/signal lines are those with maximum operating voltage < 90 V. High-voltage control/signal lines
are those with maximum operating voltage ≥ 90 V.
6 High-current power lines have maximum operating current > 10 A. Medium-current power lines have maximum
operating current between 1 A and 10 A. Low-current power lines have maximum operating current < 1 A.
7 An antenna shield is considered buried when it terminates at a buried antenna and less than 1 m (3.3 ft.) of its total
length is not covered by earth or concrete fill. A conduit is considered buried when it connects two protected volumes
and less than 1 m (3.3 ft.) of its total length is not covered by earth or concrete fill.
8 Pulse current injection requirements are in terms of Norton equivalent sources. The short pulse generator, with a source
impedance ≥ 60 Ω, is used for shield-to-ground injections and for wire-to-shield injections at dominant response
frequencies ≤ 30 MHz. A charge line pulser, with a source impedance ≥ 50 Ω, is used for wire-to-shield injections at
dominant response frequencies > 30 MHz.
9 The dominant response frequency (or frequencies) and threat-level peak short-circuit current are determined from
extrapolated coupling measurements. The length Ɩ of the charge line of the charge line pulser is the quarter-wavelength
of the dominant response frequency: Ɩ = 0.25 c/f, where c = 3 x 108 m/s and f is frequency in Hz.
Appendix A
Figure A-1. HEMP Shielding Effectiveness Requirement
Appendix B
Appendix B. EMP PROTECTION VENDORS AND SERVICES

This appendix is intended to familiarize those considering EMP protection options with the types of
solutions currently available in the U.S. marketplace. The companies listed offer specialized
products or services that address the threats from HEMP, radiated SREMP, and IEMI. This list is not
a comprehensive source listing of companies who offer EMP related products and services. If you
are a business who offers related products or services and would like to be included in future
releases of this document, please contact [email protected] and include, where possible,
any independent testing data that verifies product claims and customer references from previous
work, if applicable.
Disclaimer: Reference to any specific company’s product or service herein does not represent an
endorsement by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the NCC as to the effectiveness
or adequacy of any product or service, nor should this Appendix be considered an approved or
recommended vendor list. Use of any vendor product or service listed in this Appendix should be
based entirely on the buyer’s own analysis of alternatives and research of vendor capabilities.
EMP Protection Levels

Achieving cost effective protection from EM threats requires a “defense-in-depth” approach to
progressively increase equipment immunity and resiliency and ultimately harden critical systems
and infrastructures. It is not necessary or financially feasible to harden all systems and
infrastructure to survive and operate through an EMP event. System prioritization and planning for
an EMP event should be an integral part of each organization’s continuity and contingency planning
efforts.
DHS EMP Protection Level 1 generally uses manual procedures to isolate off-line equipment from
EM threats and adding ferrite devices to cables to attenuate unwanted HF cable signals. These are
intended to be added by existing site personnel for minimal cost. Level 2 measures focus on
increasing resiliency by installing active and passive components to mitigate the conductive effects
that threaten on-line systems. Level 2 measures can be performed by skilled in-house personnel or
obtained through contracted services.
Levels 3 and 4 measures address the radiated effects of EM threats by installing layers of EM
shielding around prioritized systems to harden operations. Shielding a new or existing facility is
typically performed by an experienced contractor who will design, engineer, install and test the
solution to meet the unique site requirements and performance specifications.
EMP Protection Level 1

Level 1 protection measures are the first line of defense in protecting essential equipment from the
conductive and radiated effects of EM threats. These manual isolation procedures can protect off-
line and spare equipment from the initial EM effects for little to no cost. Simply unplugging the
cables from equipment that is only required for continuity or backup purposes will create physical
and electrical separation and provide protection from EMP induced currents.
Note: These guidelines do not endorse B-1 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019
Appendix B
Add ferrite clip-on beads to equipment cables that must remain connected and on-line. To best
shield against the radiated effects of EMP, off-line equipment must be stored behind protective
metal barriers. Placing larger equipment in a Faraday case and storing it in a steel constructed
warehouse is preferable to on-the-shelf in an office or operations building.
Faraday Bags
Faraday bags are the most basic type of shielding available and are widely available online. They
are primarily designed to protect small electronics such as cell phones, key fobs, tablets, laptops,
and handheld radios from EMI. The frequency range covered is dependent upon the Faraday bag,
but some work as low as 10 MHz and others shield as high as 18 GHz. Most Faraday bags at least
cover the pre-5G cellular range as well as the frequency ranges for RFID (315 MHz in North
America), the GPS bands, and many cover Wi-Fi bands (the higher Wi-Fi frequency is at 5.9 GHz).
Bag size, construction and the level of protection can vary greatly although one bag should be
sufficient for most Level 1 and Level 2 protection situations. Nesting within multiple bags or storing
the bags in a metal container to create more layers will increase the level of protection. Be aware
that many bags marketed as Faraday bags are designed for evidence collection and may only
provide electrostatic protection. Prices range from a few dollars for small disposable bags to a
couple or few hundred dollars for backpacks or heavy-duty duffel bags. Also, while the material in
some bags can provide high levels of EM attenuation, often the closing method for the bags are the
main leakage point. Look for bags, which indicate that the entire bag has been tested.
Vendors selling Faraday bags can easily be found using a search engine or popular general online
shopping sites (e.g., Amazon, Walmart). Specific vendors include (see Disclaimer on page B-1):
Defender Shield: www.defendershield.com

Faraday Defense: https://faradaydefense.com/
Mission Darkness: (MOS Equipment) https://mosequipment.com/
Faraday Containers
If portability is required, a Faraday container offers a more durable solution than a Faraday bag.
These rigid containers are suitable for transport and can be stacked to store equipment off-line
until needed. Containers range in size from briefcase-sized for phones and laptops to suitcase size
containers and transit cases for large components or multiple devices. Prices typically range from a
few dollars to several hundred dollars although less expensive and more expensive containers are
available. Custom engineered cases can cost between $10K-$40K with deployable system solutions
offering onboard power, interfaces and thermal management ranging from $40K to over $100K.
Vendors selling Faraday containers include (see Disclaimer at the beginning of this Appendix):
Conductive Composites (www.conductivecomposites.com/SystemSolutions ) offers a line

of injection molded and laminated electronics enclosures that provides shielding
performance across a broad range of frequencies that meets MIL STD 461, 464 and 188-
125 requirements.
Appendix B
EMP Engineering (http://empengineering.com/storage-faraday-boxes) makes a line of

welded aluminum Faraday cases ranging from several hundred dollars to over a thousand
($787 - $1171 dollars in July 2018).
Ferrite Cores/Beads
Ferrite beads are widely available online and cost just a few dollars each. Normally more than one
bead is required to achieve significant attenuation (~10 dB). They can be clamped on, snapped on
or slipped over cables near the equipment end to attenuate unwanted high-frequency cable
signals. Type 61 (HF) ferrites made of Nickel Zinc are recommended. These are designed for
inductive applications to attenuate interfering pulses from 200 MHz to 2 GHz. They can be added
to existing cables or purchased with ferrites pre-built in common cable types. A wholesale
distributor such as Digi-Key Electronics (http://www.digikey.com/product-search/en/filters/ferrite-
cores-cables-and-wiring/3408554?WT.srch=1) allows for filtering any combination of sizes and
specifications to fit requirements (see Disclaimer at the beginning of this Appendix).
Other suppliers include:
Amindon Corporation: http://www.amidoncorp.com/61-material-ferrite-toroids/

API Delevan: http://www.delevan.com/
Bourns: https://www.bourns.com/
Fair-Rite Products: https://www.fair-rite.com/
Kemet: http://www.kemet.com/Ferrite_Products
Laird: https://www.lairdtech.com/
Leadertech: https://leadertechinc.com/
muRata: https://www.murata.com/en-us/products/emc/ferrite
Palomar Engineers: http://palomar-engineers.com/ferrite-products
TDK: tdk.com or https://product.tdk.com/info/en/products/ferrite/index.html
Toshiba: Toshiba.com or https://toshiba.semicon-
storage.com/us/product/amorphous/high-permeability-cores.html
Wurth: https://www.wuerth.com or https://www.we-
online.com/web/en/wuerth_elektronik/start.php
EMP Protection Level 2

Level 2 adds active and passive components designed to limit the conductive effects of EMP while
essential systems remain operational and connected to external power and network connections.
The cost to add Level 2 measures to an existing facility is relatively low proportional to the quantity
of power and communications connections that must be protected.
Appendix B
Surge Suppressors and Filters

Many commercially available power strips have surge protection built in. These should be used to
protect all essential equipment and must have response characteristics as discussed in Section 2
“EMP PROTECTION AND RESILIENCE CONSIDERATIONS” (see Disclaimer at the beginning of this
Appendix):
Alpha Delta https://www.alphadeltacom.com/ Transi-Trap ATT3G50 coaxial surge protectors have

replaceable GDT elements for different power levels. A Transi-Trap has an N female connector on
both ends (no suffix) or SO-239 UHF female connectors (U suffix). They are available for either stud
mounting (no suffix) or bulkhead mounting (B suffix). One of the UHF connectors is 1.5 inches long
with a UBXL suffix. The standard version of the ATT3G50 is suitable for protecting a 125-watt
transmitter, and the HP version is suitable for protecting a 1 kW transmitter. Transmitters
operating at other power levels can be better protected by selecting GDTs with different voltages.
Alpha-Delta uses standard 6x8-mm (height x diameter) GDTs which are available from GDT
manufacturers/distributors in voltages of 90, 230, 350, 470, 600, 900, 1000 and higher for less than
$3 each. Alpha-Delta uses GDTs from: EPCOS (https://en.tdk.eu/arresters) and Littelfuse
(http://www.littelfuse.com/~/media/electronics/product_catalogs/littelfuse_gdt_catalog.pdf.pdf).
Littelfuse also has a variety of catalogs featuring their other surge protection devices (e.g.,
datacenter lines) at http://electronicscatalogs.littelfuse.com/app.php?RelId=6.7.0.18.4
Alpha-Delta stocks only the 350 and 1,000-volt rating GDTs, suitable for 125 and 1,000-watts,
respectively, based on a VSWR of 3:1 or better (lower). VSWR is a function of the impedance
mismatch between the radio (which is almost always 50-ohms) and the antenna impedance, which
can vary widely as a function of frequency. If your worst (highest) VSWR is more or less than 3:1,
different voltage GDTs should be used. The GDT voltage is a concern because the voltage across the
GDT increases with transmitter power and antenna VSWR, which can cause the GDTs to trigger and
wear out prematurely if the GDT voltage-rating is too low. Although lower voltage-rating GDTs
provide better protection for the radio equipment, a GDT with a high enough voltage-rating needs
to be used so it won’t be triggered from normal operating voltages.
APC’s ProtectNet (http://www.apc.com/products/family/index.cfm?id=145&ISOCountryCode=us)

line of surge protection devices provide protection against power transients traveling over
telecommunications lines and meet rating requirements to be effective for EMP types of transients.
These types of devices should be used to protect all essential equipment at each power, phone and
network connection. Its SurgeArrest protectors will alert the user if they are damaged or
compromised. Prices range from $15 to $40 dollars per device.
http://www.apc.com/products/family/index.cfm?id=145&ISOCountryCode=us
Emprimus (www.emprimus.com ) is a research and development company partnered with ABB, a

global leader in power and automation technologies, working with major utilities to produce
effective products to protect the electric power grid (both AC and HVDC) against stray DC currents,
Solar Storm/Geomagnetic Induced Currents (GIC), EMP including Nuclear EMP (E3 Pulse), and
Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI) caused by Radio Frequency Weapons. The
SolidGround™ neutral blocker is a solution to help protect the electric power grid from stray DC,
Solar Storms (GMD) and Nuclear EMP E3.
Appendix B
ETS Lindgren (www.ets-lindgren.com ) is an international manufacturer of components and

systems that measure, shield and control electromagnetic and acoustic energy. Their Red Edge
Technology line of EMP rated power filters is designed to MIL-STD-188-125 for both TEMPEST and
non-TEMPEST applications.
Huber+Suhner (http://empselector.hubersuhner.com/) makes a line of EMP coaxial, data and

power components. Their EMP Protector Tool Box helps you select the correct EMP devices to
meet your requirements.
The H+S series of N-type connector inline GDT protector housings 3401.17.A and 3402.17.A, have
replaceable GDT elements for different voltage levels.
Huber+Suhner (H+S) has a very helpful on-line calculator for finding the recommended GDT for
various VSWRs and power levels at http://empselector.hubersuhner.com/gdtcalculator/index.php.
The H+S on-line calculator determines the voltage for specifying a GDT when the power and VSWR
are known. The VSWR should be measured at the point where the RF surge protector will be
located. The VSWR should also be measured at whatever operating frequency produces the highest
(worst) VSWR. Using the H+S on-line calculator, insert the “RF CW Power in W” (Watts), the “DC
Supply Voltage” (normally zero), the maximum antenna “VSWR” (normally at least 3), and the
“Impedance Z” (normally 50), and then click on the “Calculate” button.
Using the H+S online calculator for three typical powers of 100, 400, and 1000 watts (with a 3:1
VSWR) results in the following required GDT voltage ratings:
• 100 watts has a peak voltage of 150 volts, which x1.5 = 225 volts – requires a 350-volt GDT.
• 400 watts has a peak voltage of 300 volts, which x1.5 = 450 volts – requires a 600-volt GDT.
• 1,000 watts has a peak voltage of 474 volts, which x1.5 = 712 volts – requires a 900-volt
GDT.
There are two reasons why the required GDT voltages in the above three examples are so much
higher than the calculated peak voltages: (1) The on-line calculator multiplies the calculated peak
voltage by 1.5 to provide a safety factor against false triggering, and (2) GDTs have nominal
voltages specified with a 15 or 20% tolerance. Therefore, the calculated tolerance voltage must be
subtracted from the nominal voltage to determine the GDT’s minimum striking voltage. That is, the
350-volt GDT may strike at only 298 volts, the 600-volt GDT may strike at only 510 volts, and the
900-volt GDT may strike at only 765 volts.
Going into more detail for the last example above, a 900-volt GDT is used despite a calculated
striking voltage of 712 volts (to protect an amplifier with an output power of 1,000 watts) because
it might strike at a voltage as low as 765 volts with its 15% tolerance. This means that the voltage
induced in the antenna lead from a lightning strike or EMP will reach at least 765 volts before the
GDT fires. But the induced voltage could go up into the thousands of volts without the surge
protector. Also, a VSWR of 3 may only be nominal: Many VSWRs will be higher, requiring GDTs
with even higher voltage ratings. Disregarding the safety factor and the tolerance would result in
selecting a GDT with a striking voltage that is too low, compounding false triggering problems.
Appendix B
NexTek (http://nextek.com) was founded in 1986 to supply EMI/EMC solutions to the electronics
industry. It designs and manufactures its products in the USA for the communications, aviation,
computer, military, and medical electronic industries. The core product portfolio is based upon two
basic product types; coaxial RF protector designs using gas discharge, quarter-wave, and filter
technology, and the high-current feedthrough C-type EMI/RFI filters. The industry-leading coaxial
arrestor product portfolio delivers both superior performance and value for wireless
communications, telecom, WiMAX, Wi-Fi, aviation, military, and homeland security applications.
The filter solutions provide similarly class-leading performance and compact form factors for
mobile power system, industrial laser, medical device, and aerospace applications.
PolyPhaser, an Infinite Company, has several lines of GDT type coaxial line filters that can provide
EMP protection. The PolyPhaser IS-50NX-C0 (http://www.polyphaser.com/products/rf-surge-
protection/is-50nx-c0) limits at 600 Volts (+/- 20%) to protect transceivers with transmitter output
powers of 400 watts (with a 3:1 VSWR as was assumed previously with the H+S GDTs).
The PolyPhaser IS-NEMP-C0 has a lower turn-on voltage limiting at 330 Volts to provide better
protection against HEMP damage for a 100-watt transceiver.
Both of the above PolyPhaser protectors have female N connectors on both ends, but they are also
available with one female and one male N connector, or with UHF connectors instead (with
different part numbers). Both of these protectors contain capacitors in series with their center pins,
so they cannot pass a DC voltage (which some installations require for powering a remote antenna
tuner or switch). Both protectors contain non-replaceable GDTs.
See www.polyphaser.com for more information.
Transtector, an Infinite Company, (https://www.transtector.com/) product offering includes AC,

DC, high speed data and signal protection, EMP/EMI filters, power conditioners, UPS and power
distribution units. Their products include a 6 outlet AC Surge Protection device SL-V Surge Cord P/N
1101-058, which uses a silicon avalanche suppression diode and has a published surge suppression
response time of <5 ns. Some of its products have been tested to MIL-STD-188-125 E1 and E2
environments, such as the AC EMP product APEC IMAX HT, which is applicable to 120/208 VAC, 240
VAC, and 120 VAC applications.
Other vendors supplying EMP rated filters and suppressors include:
Captor Corporation – http://www.captorcorp.com/index.html

EMP Shield – www.myempshield.com/compliance-tests/ www.myempshield.com
Fischer Custom Communications – http://www.fischercc.com/transient-protection-
devices/
Glenair EMI/EMP Filter Connectors and TVS Devices - www.glenair.com/filter/index.htm
LCR Electronics (under Astrodyne TDI) – http://www.lcr-inc.com/emi-rfi-filters/
Technical Sales Solutions, LLC – http://mytechnicalsalessolutions.com
Appendix B
Double Conversion On-line and Line Interactive UPS

A true on-line, double-conversion type UPS or a high quality line interactive UPS is recommended
for protecting equipment from EMP. Double Conversion On-Line UPS provide continuous output
power from the battery backup through an inverter and not directly from the AC power source.
This design provides isolation from transients on the AC power line and continual power without
transfer. A high quality line interactive unit is often used for lower power applications (a few pieces
of equipment or a rack) and it uses a combination of surge suppression, line noise filtering, and
switchover to a battery to prevent damage to sensitive equipment.
Double Conversion On-line UPS are available from (see Disclaimer at the beginning of this
Appendix):
APC – http://www.apc.com/products/family/index.cfm?id=163
CyberPower – http://www.cyberpowersystems.com/products/tools/selector/ups
Dell – www.dell.com
Emerson-Liebert (a business of Vertiv) – http://www.emersonnetworkpower.com/en-

US/Products/ACPower/Pages/default.aspx or https://www.vertivco.com/en-us/products-
catalog/critical-power/uninterruptible-power-supplies-ups/
Tripp-Lite – http://www.tripplite.com/products/ups-systems~11
EMP Protection Levels 3 and 4

The next two levels of protective measures involve adding protective metallic shielding to the
operating environment. These solutions can range from a single equipment rack, to an operations
room, to an entire building or facility. Level 3 is designed and installed to meet commercial IEC
standards. Level 3 protection can be achieved with bolt-together shielded panels around all six-
sides of a room or an equipment rack or by relocating essential equipment into a pre-built shipping
container-size shielded enclosure. Nesting equipment behind multiple barriers has an additive
effect. For example, placing essential equipment radios in a moderately shielded container or room
in the middle of the basement of a building may be as good as placing the equipment near the
window of a building in a shielded container.
Level 4 increases the degree of protection to the higher MIL-STD-188-125-1. Level 4 requires
electrically bonded and tested joints. All penetrations into the shielded enclosure must be bonded
and grounded. Food, fuel and supplies should be provisioned to operate in an EMP environment
for up to 30 days.
Shielded Enclosures, EMP/GIC Testing, Engineering and Consulting Services
Building a shielded enclosure into a new or existing facility is the traditional proven method of EM
hardening. Many companies with EMP hardening experience support the Department of Defense
Appendix B
(DoD). They are very experienced in designing, engineering, installing and testing RF shielded
enclosures to meet MIL-STD-188-125-1 and -2 applications (note: see Disclaimer at the beginning of
this Appendix). As more industries begin to address EMP threats, companies will offer more
solutions for commercial and civil applications with different site requirements and performance
specifications that the military specifications do not cover.
Advanced Fusion Systems, LLC (AFS), (203-270-9700) is a division of Stratum (http://stratum-

technologies.com/). Its products include an EMI coating.
ARMAG Corporation (www.armagcorp.com) Armag Corporation has a rich history of client

partnership, particularly in U.S. Defense and Government, in developing and manufacturing secure
facilities to provide uncompromised physical security. Armag designs and manufactures
prefabricated steel, both large and small, to protect against HEMP, IEMI, GMD, and a broad
spectrum of threats. Armag incorporates over forty years of experience in consultation with the
client to provide solutions that meet their specific requirements. ARMAG has successfully produced
and provided third party testing of facilities in order to certify RF Shielding protection in accordance
with MIL-STD-188-125-2 and NSA 94-106.
ATEC Industries (http://www.atecindustries.com/) ATEC Industries is a full-service general

contractor headquartered in Elkridge, Maryland specializing in the design/build delivery of RF
shielded facilities. ATEC has the expertise to provide a turnkey solution for both new construction
and renovations of varying size and scope. Since 1987 ATEC Industries has been continuously
involved in the design, fabrication, construction and testing of RF shielded facilities. ATEC
specializes in EM/RFI shielding for governmental, military and medical facilities, both as stand-alone
projects and as part of larger integrated construction projects. RF attenuation requirements have
varied in the magnetic and electric fields from 50 dB at 1 kHz to 100 dB at 100 KHz to 100 dB at 50
MHz and microwave performance of 115 dB at 18 GHz to 80 dB at 50 GHz.
Braden Shielding Systems, LLC (www.bradenshielding.com) designs, manufactures, integrates and

tests EM shielding systems for medical, industrial and defense applications. A core competence of
the company is hardening of critical infrastructure facilities for protection against the damaging
effects of EMP, IEMI and GMD.
For more than 30 years, Braden Shielding has manufactured a comprehensive line of proven RF
shielding products at its facility in Tulsa, OK. The company provides a number of high-performance
shielding systems and a broad range of RF shielded facility penetrations designed specifically to
address every Point of Entry (POE) to the EM shield, such as shielded doors, power/signal/data and
fiber optic filters, waveguide penetrations for mechanical, fire protection and HVAC systems, as
well as custom POE’s for hardness critical items outside the main shielded barrier, e.g., cooling
towers, generators and telecommunications.
Braden’s staff of experienced design, engineering, fabrication, installation, testing and project
management personnel deliver turn-key RF shielding solutions for any shielding project. The
Company utilizes the latest 3-D design and Building Information Modeling (BIM) technology and
offers comprehensive design support for: Hardened facility planning,
architectural/structural/electrical and mechanical design integration, special protective measures
and hardness maintenance/hardness surveillance.
Appendix B
CenterPoint Energy (www.centerpointenergy.com ) CenterPoint Energy embarked on an initiative

to identify an effective, cost efficient solution for High-Power Electromagnetic (EM) mitigation for
new and retrofit installations. The focus of mitigation efforts was substation assets used for the
protection and control of the power delivery network. The design basis required the identified
electromagnetic protection not compromise the reliability of existing substation functions, result in
minimal increases to maintenance costs, and avoid significant changes in normal operating
procedures. The development of a solution was achieved in 2018 and is rapidly progressing to the
field pilot phase. The practical application of EM mitigation design practices in an unobtrusive
method will speed the time for implementation, lower initial installation costs, and minimize
ongoing maintenance. Each of the aforementioned achievements are realized while meeting the
shielding effectiveness requirements of MIL-188-125.
The EM module will be installed as a backup protection and control system as well as online
monitoring while the legacy protection and controls are still in service. If an EM event occurs, the
mitigation system could be used in response. By having the system as a redundant parallel backup,
the field technicians would not have to interface daily with the EM enclosure, which would help
maintenance cost and ensure the integrity of the module. The field technicians also would not need
to instantly change their skill sets learning the grounding, bonding and digital protection that would
be required on a complete EM control house. Lastly, the EM module has enhanced data gathering
and reporting capabilities for control center information which exceeds legacy systems.
From a financial perspective, the proposed solution is cost effective when compared to building a
new EM control house. Based on initial estimates, a new EM control house will cost over one
million dollars. The EM module enclosure would be less than 10% of a new EM control house. In
conclusion, utilizing a module based approach would be a cost effective retrofit solution to harden
substations for EM events. By being a redundant system, the module also provides a backup for
non-EM emergencies such as control house fire or flooding and it does not intrude on present
protection and control systems.
Contacts: [email protected] or [email protected]
EMP Engineering (http://empengineering.com/) is dedicated to the analysis, design, fabrication

and installation of specialized shielding, components and systems to mitigate the harmful effects of
EMP and Geomagnetic Storms on buildings, vehicles and structures world-wide. Their team of
highly skilled professional engineers, project managers and fabricators have worked on military,
government and private projects world-wide. Services include custom evaluations, installation and
commissioning services, shielding, verification testing, hardness, hardness assurance, maintenance
and surveillance and EMP solutions that integrate with Architectural, Structural, Electrical, and
Mechanical Engineering services to create a secured and safe shelter / bunker environment.
They provide full service professional architectural, engineering solutions and products for
hardened facilities including CBRE (chemical, biological, radiological, explosive) filters, structural
engineering, blast engineering and electrical/mechanical engineering are keep designed
environments effective against evolving threats now and in the future. All designs and projects are
HEMP hardened per MIL-STD-188-125-2. EMP Engineering also provides portable, custom
designed HEMP resistant electrical generators; communications centers and data centers
Appendix B
fabricated in ISO shipping containers at 10, 20, 30 and 40 foot lengths. These can be ballistic/blast
hardened with CRBN Air-Filtration systems.
ETS-Lindgren, an Esco Technologies Company. (http://www.ets-lindgren.com/). ETS-Lindgren is

an innovator of systems and components for the detection, measurement and management of EM,
magnetic and acoustic energy. ETS-Lindgren has the experience and expertise gained from over 70
years’ experience of designing and installing more than 10,000 shielded systems worldwide. Their
RedEdge Pulse Protection brand provides certified EMP Shielding to protect equipment and points
of entry and a higher level of protection for continuous data operations with independent,
uninterrupted power and utilities. Their solutions include welded steel construction, modular
panel systems, doors, filters, waveguide vents and penetrations and fiber optic penetrations.
HV TECHNOLOGIES, Inc. (https://hvtechnologies.com/hv-equipment) sells (N)EMP test equipment

and hardened video camera products. 8526 Virginia Meadows Drive, Manassas, VA 20109
Instant Access Networks, LLC (www.stop-emp.com) is a veteran-owned Maryland based company

whose on-demand services center on the protection of mission critical facilities and infrastructure
from EMP primarily through its commercial-off-the-shelf products and services. IAN has produced
and tested products that provide shielding from 30 dB to 140 dB and include EMP-safe inserts that
fit into standard cargo containers or trailers and can come with biological/chemical/radiological air
filter systems making an all-hazards safe system. IAN also developed and tested EMP-protected
solar arrays, wind turbines and diesel turbines. IAN is working with over 40 companies in its DTRA
SBIR contract to provide EMP protected microgrids and communications systems and welcomes
additional collaborators.
Jaxon (https://www.jaxon-em.com/) Jaxon is one of the leading High Altitude Electromagnetic

Pulse (HEMP) specialty engineering firms in the country. Jaxon is a woman owned, small business
located in Colorado Springs, CO. Jaxon’s staff represents one of the largest and most experienced
full service EMP service teams in the world. It designs, builds, tests and maintains EMP hardened
structures for government and commercial clients around the world.
Jaxon has developed multiple sets of ‘Next Generation' HEMP test equipment. This equipment
exceeds Mil STD 188-125 requirements with leading performance characteristics. Jaxon's state of
the art test equipment and engineering staff accelerate the test process and minimize mission
down time requirements. Jaxon management serves on the FBI’s InfraGard EMP Special Interest
Group as one of their Subject Matter Experts.
Keystone Compliance (https://keystonecompliance.com/emp/ ) in New Castle, Pennsylvania is a

full-service regulatory compliance laboratory offering solutions for nearly all EMC/EMI,
environmental, ISTA-certified package and ingress protection testing requirements. Their EMC/EMI
lab reportedly features five test chambers, including three anechoic/ferrite lined 3-meter
chambers. Keystone Compliance has extensive experience with shielding effectiveness and EMP
testing and works with manufacturers and citizens to determine if their equipment and shielding
can handle natural or man-made EMPs. MIL-STD 461 contains test methods and levels to
determine a device’s immunity to EMP from both a radiated and conducted immunity standpoint.
Radiated immunity in RS105 assesses the impact of radiated exposure. Conducted immunity in
CS116 assesses the impact of damped sinusoidal transients on the cables of equipment.
Appendix B
L-3 Advanced Technology, Inc. (L-3 ATI), is a subsidiary of L-3 Communications.

(https://www2.l3t.com/ati/solutions/redesign.htm) L-3 ATI is known worldwide for its
contributions in pulsed high-voltage and high-current systems. Engineers and scientists on the EMS
team have pioneered the use of most of the high-power techniques taken for granted today: oil
and water dielectric pulse forming line and Blumleinpulse generators; Marx generators; intense
bremsstrahlung, z-pinch, plasma radiation and X-ray sources; high-resolution x-radiography; low-
jitter, multi-site switching systems, and more. The systems that it has delivered include EMP
Generators and Large Area EMP Simulators.
Its ancestor Jaycor provided the first High-Altitude EMP (HEMP) shielding technologies to mission-
critical U.S. assets. It was formed in 1975 to perform nuclear weapon effects survivability hardening
and testing. The JAYCOR EME division formed by Mike Bell in Colorado Springs in 1977 became the
pre-eminent underground nuclear test organization. JAYCOR - Colorado Springs worked on many
major weapon system EMP hardening programs (Minuteman, Peacekeeper, B-52, B-1, B-2, Polaris,
Trident, M-1 Abrams, AH-64). JAYCOR EME began hardening and testing to MIL-STD-188-125
requirements in 1999 for Air Force Space Command. They have performed over 500+ Appendix A
SE, 150 Appendix B PCI and 100 Appendix C CWI test sequences since 2011. These tests have been
performed on over 400 test objects ranging from facilities buried in mountains to small shielded
rooms buried in large buildings to small telecommunications cabinets, from small mobile systems
to 12 story fixed radar sites. They have MIL-STD-188-125 tested for AFSPC, NORTHCOM,
STRATCOM, ACC, GMD, NMCC, DTRA, PM DCATS, DISA, Bechtel, Harris, and Boeing.
Shield Rite was formed in 1987 by Dr. Dave Merewether as a manufacturer of high quality RF doors
and RF shielding. The Shield Rite door is a patented design installed in over 360 locations
worldwide. Over the past 38 years, the main business has been the fabrication of extremely robust,
HEMP Shielded doors, but has expanded to provide custom designed hardened shelters and
facilities. Shield Rite was purchased by JAYCOR in mid - 2002 along with all manufacturing rights,
patents for various Shield Rite technologies.
LBA Group Inc. (https://www.lbagroup.com/about) is a North Carolina Top 50 Hispanic minority-

owned small business and is CVMSDC-certified. It has over 50 years of experience in providing
technology and risk management for industrial and telecommunications infrastructure assets in the
radio frequency and electromagnetic spaces. The group includes LBA Technology, Inc., a leading
source and integrator of radio frequency systems, lightning protection, and EMC equipment for
broadcast, industrial, and government users worldwide.
Little Mountain Test Facility (LMTF) is a USAF nuclear hardness simulation facility hosted by the
ICBM Systems Directorate (AFNWC/NI). LMTF is a state-of-the art laboratory dedicated to
simulation testing of radiation, shock and vibration, and electromagnetic effects for defense and
commercial systems. Since 1974 the Boeing Company has operated and maintain LMTF. The
Boeing Company operates, maintains, and upgrades all critical test capabilities at LMTF.
LMTF has over 40 years of experience in EMP harness design and testing a complete and
comprehensive approach to EMP test programs. LMTF extensive experiences includes site surveys,
system architecture and cost/schedule analysis to assist in a successful test program. Developing a
comprehensive test plan includes addressing system topology, operational scenarios, test
mythologies, test levels and points, and pass/fail criteria provides success for the basis for a
successful test execution.
Appendix B
LMTF has a long term working relationship with ICBM and MILSTAR in performing EMP test
planning/integration and test execution both per adapted EMP requirements in the systems’
specifications and per MIL-STD-188-125. LMTF developed complete MIL-STD-188-125 Hardness
Maintenance Hardness Surveillance (HMHS) programs for several programs.
Government customers may fund work efforts by MIPR or AF Form 616. Commercial customers
work with LMTF through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA).
Metatech Corporation (http://www.metatechcorp.com/) is a small veteran-owned and operated

business of highly-qualified scientists and engineers with broad experience in developing
technically sound and innovative EM environmental solutions. Offerings include EM compatibility
(EMC), protection designs and testing procedures, geomagnetic storm protection, nuclear EMP
prediction for any burst situation, assessments, protection and standardization (e.g. HEMP and
SREMP), and IEMI assessments, protection and standardization.
Metatech is a key contributor to EMP research in the areas of HEMP and SREMP environments and
coupling and in the development of hardening and testing technologies including military
standards, specifications, handbooks, and software. Major programs include SREMP testing and
analyses at flash x-ray simulators, SREMP and HEMP standards development, HEMP environment
and long-line coupling calculations and direct support for the design of facilities to achieve HEMP
hardening. Their IEMI activities have involved performing assessments of critical infrastructure
facilities, performing tests to determine the IEMI susceptibility of equipment and designing
protection for the high-frequency portions of HEMP and IEMI together.
Metatech has also been a leader in participating in the development of 22 International

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) high power transient (HEMP and IEMI) protection standards for
commercial applications through IEC Subcommittee 77C. These standards were developed for
commercial usage and fully consider the immunity of commercial electronics to EMI in the
protection methods to be used for HEMP, SREMP, IEMI and GMD disturbances.
Michael A. Caruso, ([email protected], 847-226-8849) is an independent consultant based in

Arizona offering consulting services for TEMPEST, SCIF, and EMP protected facility design. Mr.
Caruso has been involved in the business working with both Government and private clients for
over 30 years and offers an independent perspective of risk evaluations, various mitigation
techniques and available vendor materials.
Noovis (www.noovis.com) provides critical communication and IT-based infrastructures which have
core advantages from those currently deployed including EMP resilience, reduced energy
consumption, higher bandwidth, expedited post-event recovery, and reduced CapEx and OpEx
requirements. It designs, installs and integrates core IT infrastructures using passive optical
networking that drastically reduces copper connectivity and its associated power requirements
within communication and Information systems.
The Noovis passive, fiber-rich designs and infrastructures are intrinsically more resistant to EMP
and high power microwave (HPM) attacks, thus complimenting existing risk mitigation strategies
and disaster recovery plans. This is accomplished, in part, as the Noovis network topology
effectively eliminates the need for access switches, within a Local Area Network (LAN) and provides
an entirely passive and encrypted optical pathway for data to support communication networks,
Appendix B
typical end user devices as well as critical Industrial Control Systems (ICS), Supervisory Controls and
Data Acquisition (SCADA) networks. Noovis designed networks can run miles without the insertion
of electronics versus the requirement for electronics approximately every 300 feet for many
current networks. In addition, this creates substantially reduced power consumption over
traditional network connectivity, decreasing the draw on microgrid generated power, allowing the
reallocated energy to be used for additional critical needs.
NVIS Communications (www.nviscom.com) and its systems integration partner Pepro LLC
(http://www.peprollc.com/) designs and manufactures shielded enclosures using a patented
Faraday Cage technology to protect sensitive communications equipment against lightning strikes,
EMP, EMI, Passive Intermodulation (PMI), and Radio Frequency Interference (RFI). Their equipment
has endured many thousands of amps/joules in very rigorous industry standard testing criteria and
always performed flawlessly.
Each product has the ability to be customized in order to best address a variety of potential
applications and needs. These needs range from remote, difficult to reach fixed sites to
small/medium and very large deployable mobile platforms all the way to very compact rapid
deployable (C130/C17 transportable) kits. It provides ongoing support for all of its products as well
as a strong warranty.
Scientific Applications & Research Associates (SARA), Incorporated (https://sara.com) was formed
in 1989 to harness the creativity, innovation and entrepreneur spirit of engineers and scientists.
SARA, Inc. is employee-owned and is managed by leaders that each has 20+ years of experience in
Defense and Aerospace. SARA has nearly 100 innovative scientists and engineers doing research
and development for government, military, and industrial clients. It has world-class expertise in
understanding, modeling, fabricating, testing and adapting high power EM (EMP and HPM)
transmission, propagation, detection, diagnosing and shielding/hardening and low signal level EM
and RF sensing and signal processing, including passive EM detecting. Their “Cradle to Grave
Hardening” offers architectural and engineering services for EMP subsystem/electrical subsystem
integration, hardness maintenance and surveillance, EMI/EMP modeling, testing and analysis and
power quality and reliability of EMP related components.
Storm Analysis Consultants (http://solarstormconsultant.com/) provides consulting and

information on severe solar storms, space weather, geomagnetic storms and the electrical power
grid impacts. Principal Consultant John Kappenman has been a one of the leading advisors for
power companies both nationally and globally on the effect of solar storms to utilities. Storm
Analysis Consultants analysis services include (1) Assessing the Space Weather Threat Environment,
(2) Assessing Impact on Critical Infrastructures & Systems with PowerCast™, (3) Geomagnetic
Storm NowCasting and Forecasting Technology…Tailored to the Electrical Power Industry, (4)
Simulate Historic and Probable Threat Scenarios, (5) Model Complex Geologies for Accurate GIC
Calculation, (6) Scalability of PowerCast to Model Large Geographic Regions and Multiple
Interconnected Power Grids, (7) Assessing Space Weather Threat Environment Over Broad Ocean
Regions, and (8) Modeling Geo-potentials on cross undersea cables.
TEMPEST Inc. (http://www.tempest-inc.com/ 703-836-7378) provides TEMPEST security

engineering services including EMSEC, HEMP, high power microwave (HPM), and EMC testing with
cybersecurity, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems, as well as design
Appendix B
services in accordance with current U.S. DoD, FCC, Australian and European community
requirements.
Triton Metals Inc. (http://www.tritonmetals.com/) is one of the largest metal manufacturers on

the East Coast. Together with Electromagnetic Associates, LLC (www.emag-associates.com) they
provide EM threat hardening, design and integration, as well as EM threat project management
and construction administration/construction management services of critical infrastructure
systems and life-safety systems that must work during and after a HEMP/EMP attack, such as
power systems, controls, data centers, CBRN air-filtration systems, water systems, communications
systems and sensor systems.
Trusted Systems (http://www.trustedsys.com/) is the pioneer and industry leader in the

development and deployment of the Information Processing System Security Container or SCIF in a
Box® which combines the physical strength against near blast protection and magnetic shielding of
a GSA Class 5 IPS Container with EMP shielding exceeding MIL-STD-188-125. Their product line
offers sizes and configurations from COOP sites, to remote critical infrastructure facilities to office
and large data centers.
Page Southerland Page, Inc. (Page) (http://pagethink.com/v/iemi-hemp-protection/)

A 400-plus person architecture and engineering firm working in the U.S. and abroad offering
specialty design and engineering services for Critical Infrastructure facilities. Services include
planning, programming, design, commissioning and construction administration for facilities
protected from HEMP, IEMI, GMD and other high- and low-frequency EM radiation. Page offers
complete solutions, drawing upon experience protecting buildings and campuses owned by
government, public utilities, universities, healthcare, research, petrochemical, and manufacturing
companies from many types of threats: explosion, espionage, terrorism, floods and
hurricanes. Page has extensive experience with EM shielding for network operations centers,
embassies, data centers, and medical and biotechnology research facilities. Page can manage a
critical design project from program concept to completion of construction, working with
experienced partners to ensure that shielded facilities perform as designed. Page’s recent portfolio
includes two large (>70,000 SF), privately-owned HEMP and IEMI-shielded SCADA control and data
centers, each serving markets of over 2 million customers.
Shielded Data Centers

If a hosted solution is an option for data storage, particularly for a disaster recovery environment,
two companies are known to offer data center services within their EM hardened data centers (see
Disclaimer at the beginning of this Appendix).
Cyber Innovation Labs (CIL) (http://www.cyberinnovationlabs.com/) is a premier provider of

enterprise-class managed Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) solutions and professional services.
CIL’s Protected Platform as a Service (PPaaS) can provide EMP, HEMP, and IEMI shielded colocation
and 100% private, single-tenant cloud solutions for delivery of mission critical applications and
services to customers, at price points on par with less robust traditional offerings. CIL offers
custom designed steel wall, slab-to-roof facility shell, installed with 360 degree EMP shielded
protective hardened enclosure. Customer facilities include all shielding, housing, filtering and/ or
Appendix B
hardening for all electrical, mechanical and related MEP/FP infrastructure and related subsystems.
All facilities are designed, installed and tested per MIL-STD-188-125-1/2 standards.
EMP Grid Services LLC, (http://www.empgridservices.com/) is a consortium of industry-leading

advanced engineering and data-center centric design/build specialists who have delivered over 10
million square feet of premier global enterprise data center facilities and represent over $1.4 B in
annual revenues. Its team embody decades of experience in the data center build, commission and
delivery of EMP, HEMP, IEMI and Geomagnetic Storm Protected facilities. The EMP GRID Services
Team possesses core enterprise data center competencies that include:
• Master Technology Planning

• Facility Design/Build/Delivery
• Turn-key Program Management
• Infrastructure Commissioning
• Certification/Test-out
• Technical/Operational Service Support
New Approaches to EMP Protection

Hardening a new facility with welded steel can be cost prohibitive. Retrofitting an existing facility
adds operational disruption to the complexity and cost of a major renovation project. Depending
on your site specific mission and requirements, this may remain the best approach. However, two
alternative solutions are now commercial and address EM threats for civil and commercial
applications which may be more cost effective and less disruptive to current operations (see
Disclaimer at the beginning of this Appendix).
1. Conductive Composites (http://www.conductivecomposites.com/) has developed and

commercialized a line of multifunctional electrically conductive and EM shielding materials. In
essence, they make plastics and composites conduct and shield like metals, creating a whole new
realm of possibilities and opportunities for plastic and composite products. They provide cost
effective shielding across a broad spectrum of EM threats for numerous types of applications. They
offer multifunctional structural materials that integrate directly into typical manufacturing
architectures, in addition to installation, test, and certification services.
Solutions include conductive wallpapers, paints, adhesives, stuccos, concretes, and window
screens. Facilities shielded with these materials have been shown to effectively attenuate EMI/RFI
as well as shield against EMP threats. A key differentiating feature is that the materials can be
easily retrofitted into existing facilities as well as new construction. Conductive Composites is
considered critical to the defense industrial base, with rated production contracts and classified
programs, and has been awarded numerous funding phases from the Defense Production Act (DPA)
Title III program.
2. Omni-Threat Structures, LLC (OTS) (www.omnithreatstructures.com ) designs and builds multi-

threat structures protecting against HEMP, IEMI, Emanations, Ballistic/Blast, and extreme natural
disasters. OTS’s proprietary construction methods have been deployed successfully to build steel
and concrete structures that are threat configurable, scalable, and cost effective. The company
completed the world’s first shielded concrete structure that exceeded the shielding requirements
Appendix B
of MIL-STD-188-125. OTS has successfully completed multiple specialty and hardened and shielded
structures throughout the country for utility, commercial, and government clients. Notable
projects include the successfully completed Vertical Electro-Magnetic Pulse Simulator (VEMPS) at
Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Maryland as well as a 65,000 square foot utility
control and data center in Texas that incorporates commercial, hurricane-resistant, and HEMP
shielded structures all in one building.
Omni-Threat Structures’ team has three decades of success as a high integrity industrial GC, over a
decade of success with specialized design-build hardened structures and experience in the nuclear
power industry, building Fukushima Flex/Beyond Design Basis structures that meet NRC Regulatory
Guide 1.76 standards. Building on a history of success, OTS now constructs EMP – IEMI shielded
structures that also incorporate protection from ballistic/blast, natural threats, including Cat 5
hurricanes, EF-5 tornados, and seismic events.
Appendix C
Appendix C. PRIORITY SERVICES (GETS, WPS, FIRSTNET, TSP, AND

SHARES)
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Emergency Communications Division (ECD), formerly
the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC), offers priority services programs to mitigate the
impacts of communications threats such as EMP and to enhance the ability of our critical national
security and emergency preparedness personnel to communicate during disasters. In addition, the
DHS National Coordinating Center for Communications (NCC) provides resilient backup
communications services through the SHARES program.
Priority Telecommunications Services

DHS/ECD provides priority telecommunications services to support national security and
emergency preparedness communications for government officials, emergency responders, critical
infrastructure personnel, and industry members. The Government Emergency Telecommunications
Service (GETS), Wireless Priority Service (WPS), and Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP)
programs ensure key Federal, State, local, Territorial and Tribal governments, and first responder
and industry organizations have communications capabilities available to support emergency
response incidents.
GETS provides priority access on the landline networks:

• Increases call completion during telephone network congestion.
• Does not require special phone equipment.
• No charge for test calls or enrollment.
• Priority access, including calls to most cellular devices.
WPS provides priority access on the wireless networks:

• Increases call completion on cell phones during network congestion.
• Is an add-on feature to your cell phone.
• Can be used in conjunction with GETS to provide priority access.
FirstNet provides resilient, reliable wireless access on AT&T’s network:

• Public safety receives preemption and priority access to the network with no throttling.
• FirstNet has a public safety only core that comes with FIPS 140-2 compliant end-to-end
security solutions.
• The wireless coverage reaches more than 99 percent of Americans and covers 76.2 percent
of the continental United States with further improvements ongoing.
• Deployables improve resiliency and can be used to extend coverage when needed.
TSP provides priority installation and repair of critical communications circuits:

• Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandated program prioritizes restoration and
installation of circuits.
• Vendors restore or install TSP circuits prior to servicing other non-TSP circuits.
• Covers voice and data circuits that support emergency operations.
Note: These guidelines do not endorse C-1 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019
Appendix C
Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS)

During emergencies, the public telephone network can experience congestion due to increased call
volumes and/or damage to communications infrastructure, hindering the ability of critical
personnel to complete their calls. GETS is accessible nationwide providing authorized personnel
priority access and processing during an emergency or crisis situation when the landline networks
are congested and the probability of completing a call is reduced. GETS facilitated response and
recovery efforts during and after events such as 9/11 and Hurricanes Katrina, Ike, and Sandy by
providing over a 95 percent call completion rate.
GETS is an easy-to-use calling card service that works on both local and long distance networks; no
special phones are required. Calls placed through GETS will receive priority over normal calls;
however, GETS calls do not preempt calls in progress or prevent the general public’s use of the
telephone network. GETS allows users to communicate even during the highest levels of network
congestion and also provides priority calling to cell phones during times of congestion on most
major carrier networks. There is no charge to enroll in GETS or to make calls to the familiarization
line. When making GETS calls, subscribers can be charged the equivalent of long distance phone
rates.
Wireless Priority Service (WPS)

During emergencies, cellular networks can also become congested, hindering the ability of national
security and emergency preparedness personnel to complete emergency calls on their cell phones.
The WPS program is available nationwide, and is intended to provide authorized personnel priority
access in an emergency or crisis situation when the cellular networks are congested and the
probability of completing a call is reduced. After the April 2013 bombing at the Boston Marathon,
up to 93 percent of calls placed through WPS were successfully completed, allowing critical
personnel to carry out their missions to assist the public.
WPS is an easy-to-use, add-on feature that is offered by all nationwide cellular service providers.
Authorized personnel can subscribe to WPS on a per-cell phone basis. Calls placed via WPS will
receive priority over normal cellular calls; however, WPS calls do not preempt calls in progress or
prevent the general public’s use of the cellular networks. WPS subscribers are responsible for any
cellular carrier charges for initial enrollment and monthly subscription, as well as per-minute usage
fees.
FirstNet is an independent authority within the U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC). Its “mission is
to deploy, operate, maintain, and improve the first high-speed, nationwide wireless broadband
network dedicated to public safety.” 16 The AT&T-based public safety communications platform
includes all of the features found in commercial cellular networks together with several public
safety related improvements:
Preemption & Priority

• First responders receive guaranteed priority and preemption versus public traffic.
Appendix C
• Priority levels within public safety can also be boosted during an emergency.
• FirstNet users will not be throttled even if they are on unlimited plans.
Network Security
• “The FirstNet core comes with FIPS 140-2 compliant VPN solutions, radio, transport and
network core encryption, and advanced physical and logical security protocols to keep all
traffic on the network protected.” 17
• FirstNet lab certifies applications and devices for public safety use although certification is
not mandated.
• Certified applications can be downloaded from the FirstNet Applications Store.
Coverage
• “Wireless coverage will reach more than 99 percent of Americans, extending to 2.74 million
square miles, covering 76.2 percent of the continental United States.” 18
• AT&T is improving its coverage in each state and territory per commitments made in each
of its FirstNet State Plans.
• Deployables can be used to extend coverage when needed.
Resiliency
• With a dedicated FirstNet core, resiliency is significantly increased.
• Deployables are available to provide communications to FirstNet users when the network is
down or when extra capacity is required.
• Hardening of the network is expected to become more of a focus once the initial
requirements (e.g., coverage) have been met.
First Responders include fire, law enforcement, emergency medical

services, and emergency managers by default, but also includes
authorized national security personnel. These users have access to all of
AT&T’s commercial network. Further, as stated above, the public safety
users receive priority on this network and can even preempt an existing
user on any of the bands (not just the 700 MHz Band 14 that public
safety was allocated). Dedicated care is also provided for additional support as needed.
Mission Critical Voice (MCV) is the only indispensable wireless voice service that is just partially
implemented by FirstNet. Several MCV features have been implemented including Full Duplex,
Talker Identification, Emergency Alerting, and Audio Quality. However, because the following MCV
features have not been implemented, many MC personnel are continuing to use land mobile radio
(LMR) in addition to cellular or FirstNet:
• Mission Critical Push-To-Talk (MC PTT) was finalized in Release 13 of the 3rd Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP) LTE standards in March 2016 and is being implemented.
FirstNet has committed to going live with this feature set by March 2019. The standard
includes high availability/reliability, low latency, support for group calls and 1:1 calls, talker
identification, and clear audio quality.
• Device-to-Device Communications (D2D) can be supported via Proximity Services (ProSE),
but has not been implemented per public safety requirements where one cellular phone
can contact another phone that might be 0.25 miles away without infrastructure. This is an
area of research.
Appendix C
• Coverage and resiliency, including preventing EMP damage, may be better with some local
LMR networks than it is with FirstNet. These are issues that need to be worked out by
public safety agencies before relying upon FirstNet for MCV.
With the implementation of MC PTT, it is expected that more agencies will move their non-MC
users fully onto FirstNet or Verizon and off LMR in areas where the FirstNet or Verizon coverage is
adequate. Additionally, most agencies use these cellular networks for broadband data and FirstNet
is continuing to move forward with features such as MC Video and MC Data, which are planned to
be rolled out with 3GPP Releases 14 and 15.
Some MC users will move off LMR as well, but many agencies need more proof of the cellular
networks resiliency or require improved D2D communication capabilities. Once the above have
been resolved, cost concerns may continue to hinder some organizations from fully using FirstNet
since they already have spent the capital for an LMR system.
The bottom line is that FirstNet’s and Verizon’s public safety services can help improve
communications resiliency. However, until there is more evidence that these networks are resilient
across many threats including EMP, it is recommended that agencies also consider other backup
communications such as LMR and satellite. Agencies needing EMP Level 3 or 4 resiliency should
include EMP hardened solutions using satellite communications and HF as discussed earlier in this
document.
Verizon’s Priority Services

To better meet the needs of public safety, Verizon has rolled out FirstNet-like features that are
specific to public safety, most of which are at no additional cost. Similar to FirstNet, this includes a
Public Safety Private Core (PSPC), preemption and priority, excellent coverage, and deployables
(see www.verizonenterprise.com/Public-Safety). Further, Verizon is no longer throttling public safety
users even if they have an unlimited data plan that states users may be throttled after they’ve used
a specified amount of data.
Verizon is also working on MCV and D2D similarly to FirstNet and plans to offer MC PTT in 2019.
Perhaps the primary differences between the Verizon and FirstNet offerings are coverage and
performance that are dependent upon the local network capabilities. However, FirstNet also has an
independent team that represents public safety and helps set the priority of public safety related
requirements for AT&T. As part of this public safety support, this FirstNet team certifies new
devices and applications for the network, which helps ensure that new features work as advertised.
Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP)

Following hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and other natural or man-made disasters,
telecommunications service vendors can experience a surge in requests to restore existing services
and/or install new services. TSP authorizes national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP)
organizations to receive priority treatment for vital voice and data circuits. The TSP program
provides service vendors an FCC mandate to prioritize requests by identifying those services critical
to NS/EP. A TSP assignment ensures that it will receive priority attention by the service vendor
before any non-TSP service.
Appendix C
An organization can only receive a TSP assignment if it maintains services or infrastructures that are
considered critical NS/EP communications assets. TSP subscribers are subject to minimal telecom-
munications carrier charges for initial enrollment and monthly subscription fees.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, TSP was critical to restoration and recovery efforts by
facilitating the rapid repair of damaged circuits and processing over 200 requests to install new
circuits for the response community.
TSP Eligibility Criteria
The national security and emergency preparedness community spans the Federal, State, local,
Tribal and Territorial governments, public safety and emergency responders, industry partners who
are responsible for maintaining the Nation’s critical infrastructure, and other authorized users.
Organizations that rely on telecommunications on a daily basis to provide public health, maintain
law and order, ensure public safety, or provide financial or utility service should enroll in these vital
priority services.
Typical GETS, WPS, and TSP users are responsible for the command and control functions critical to
management of, and response to, national security and emergencies. There are five (5) broad
categories that serve as criteria for determining eligibility for the priority telecommunications
services:
• Serve national security leadership;

• Support the national security posture and U.S. population attack warning systems;
• Support public health, safety, and maintenance of law and order activities;
• Maintain the public welfare and the national economic system; or
• Are critical to the protection of life and property or to national security and emergency
preparedness and disaster recovery activities during an emergency.
TSP Enrollment Process
The first step in the enrollment process is to establish a point of contact (POC) for your
organization. Many organizations already have established POCs who facilitate the enrollment
process. To determine the POC and enroll in the priority services programs, please contact the DHS
Priority Telecommunications Service Center at (866) 627-2255, or visit one of the following
websites: www.dhs.gov/GETS, www.dhs.gov/WPS, or www.dhs.gov/TSP.
SHARES Program
National security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) personnel need to transmit critical
messages to coordinate emergency operations even when traditional means of communicating via
landlines and cellphones are damaged or destroyed. The SHAred RESources (SHARES) Program,
administered by the DHS National Coordinating Center for Communications (NCC), provides an
additional means for users with NS/EP missions to communicate when landline and cellular
communications are unavailable.
Appendix C
SHARES members use existing HF radio and other communications resources of government,
critical infrastructure, and disaster response organizations to coordinate and transmit emergency
messages. SHARES users typically rely on HF radio and satellite communications to perform critical
functions, including those areas related to leadership, safety, maintenance of law and order,
finance, and public health. This program also provides the emergency response community with a
single interagency emergency message handling and frequency sharing system. SHARES promotes
interoperability between HF radio systems and promotes awareness of applicable regulatory,
procedural, and technical issues.
More than 2,100 HF radio stations, representing 104 federal, state, and industry organizations
located in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and several locations overseas, are resource
contributors to the SHARES HF Radio Program. Nearly 500 emergency planning and response
personnel participate in SHARES. Approximately 180 HF radio channels are available for use by
SHARES members.
Membership in the SHARES program by government (federal, state, and county), critical
infrastructure, and disaster response organizations is voluntary. SHARES is available on a 24-hour
basis and requires no prior coordination or activation to transmit messages. Members consult the
SHARES Handbook to find stations, frequencies and/or Automatic Link Establishment (ALE)
addresses of participating organizations they need to communicate/coordinate with. Participating
SHARES HF radio stations accept and relay messages until a receiving station is able to deliver the
message to the intended recipient.
Further information on SHARES may also be obtained at https://www.dhs.gov/shares or by

contacting the SHARES Program Office at 703-235-5329 or [email protected].
Appendix D
Appendix D. EXCERPTS FROM 2017 BRIEF TO INFRAGARD SUMMIT
Note: These guidelines do not endorse D-1 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019
Appendix D
Appendix D
Appendix D
Appendix D
Appendix D
Appendix D
Appendix D
Appendix D
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix E. ACRONYMS AND EXPLANATION OF DECIBELS

3GPP 3rd Generation Partnership Project
A Ampere or Amp
AC/DC Alternating Current/Direct Current
AEHF Advanced Extremely High Frequency
AM Amplitude Modulation
ARO Amateur Radio Operator
CCMG Continuity Communications Managers Group
COTS Commercial off the shelf
D2D Device-to-Device Communications
dB Decibel (see Table E1 at the end of this Appendix for additional information)
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DoC Department of Commerce
DoD Department of Defense
DTRA Defense Threat Reduction Agency
DTV Digital Television
EAS Emergency Alert System
ECD Emergency Communications Division
EFT Electric Fast Transient
EM Electromagnetic
EMAT Electromagnetic Assessment Tool
EMC Electromagnetic Compatibility
EMI Electromagnetic Interference
EMP Electromagnetic Pulse
ESA Electrical Surge Arrester
FCC Federal Communications Commission
FM Frequency Modulation
GDT Gas Discharge Tube
GETS Government Emergency Telecommunications Service
GIC Geomagnetically Induced Current
GMD Geomagnetic Disturbance
HCI Hardness Critical Item
HEMP High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse
HF High Frequency
Note: These guidelines do not endorse E-1 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019
Appendix E
HIRF High-intensity Radiated Field

HM/HS Hardness Maintenance/Hardness Surveillance
HOB Height of Burst
HPM High Power Microwave
HV High Voltage
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IC Integrated Circuit
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
IEMI Intentional Electromagnetic Interference
IMT Infrastructure Mapping Tool
IND Improvised Nuclear Device
ISR Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
IT Information Technology
ITU International Telecommunication Union
IRA Impulse Radiating Antenna
kA kiloamp
km Kilometers
kT Kiloton
kV/m Kilovolts/meter
kW Kilowatt
MA Mega Amp
MC Mission Critical
MC PTT Mission Critical Push-To-Talk
MCV Mission Critical Voice
MHD Magneto hydrodynamic
MOV Metal Oxide Varistor
ms Millisecond
MT Megaton
MHz Megahertz
NB HPRF/M Narrowband, High Pulse Repetition Frequency mode Microwave
NCC National Coordinating Center for Communications
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
ns Nanosecond
Appendix E
OEC Office of Emergency Communications

PBX Private Branch Exchange
POE Point of Entry
POTS Plain Old Telephone System (wireline)
ProSE Proximity Services
ROM Rough Order of Magnitude
RF Radio Frequency
RFW Radio Frequency Weapon (RFW)
RP Receiver Protection
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SHARES SHAred RESources
SPD Surge Protection Device
SREMP Source Region Electromagnetic Pulse
TBB Telecommunications Bonding Backbone
TEMPEST Transient Electromagnetic Pulse Emanation Standard
TPD Terminal Protection Device
TOP Test Operations Procedures`
TRX Transceiver
TSP Telecommunications Service Priority
TVSS Transient Voltage Suppression System
UHF Ultra High Frequency
UPS Uninterruptible Power Supply
µs Microsecond
USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
UWB Ultra-wideband
VHF Very High Frequency
VSWR Voltage Standing Wave Ratio
WBC Waveguide Below Cutoff
WPS Wireless Priority Service
Appendix E
Table E-1. Explanation of Decibel (dB)
POWER FIELD
(like mW/cm²) (like V/m or kV/m)
Power % % Field % %
dB
Ratio Attenuation Transmission Ratio Attenuation Transmission
0 1.000 0 100 1.00 0 100
1 1.259 21 79 1.12 11 89
2 1.585 37 63 1.26 21 79
3 2.000 50 50 1.41 29 71
4 2.512 60 40 1.58 37 63
5 3.162 68 32 1.78 44 56
6 4.000 75 25 2.00 50 50
7 5.013 80 20 2.24 55 45
8 6.310 84 16 2.51 60 40
9 7.941 87 13 2.82 65 35
10 10 90 10 3.16 68 32
15 31.6 96.8 3.2 5.62 82 18
20 100 99 1 10 90 10
25 316 99.7 .3 17.8 94.4 5.6
30 1,000 99.9 .1 31.6 97 3
35 3,162 99.97 .03 56.2 98.2 1.8
40 10,000 99.99 .01 100 99 1
50 100,000 99.999 .001 316 99.7 .3
60 1,000,000 99.9999 .0001 1,000 99.9 .1
80 100,000,000 99.999999 .00001 10,000 99.99 .01
100 1,000,000,000 99.99999999 .000001 100,000 99.999 .001
Appendix F
Appendix F. IEC SC 77C BIBLIOGRAPHY

The below are publications dealing with the protection of civil equipment and systems from the
effects of HEMP and IEMI issued by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) SC 77C. For
dated references, only the edition cited applies.
1. IEC/TR 61000-1-3 Ed. 1.0 (2002-06): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 1-3: General –
The effects of high-altitude EMP (HEMP) on civil equipment and systems. Basic EMC publication.
2. IEC/TR 61000-1-5 Ed. 1.0 (2004-11): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 1-5: General –
High power electromagnetic (HPEM) effects on civil systems. Basic EMC publication.
3. IEC 61000-2-9 Ed. 1.0 (1996-02): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 2: Environment –
Section 9: Description of HEMP environment – Radiated disturbance. Basic EMC publication.
4. IEC 61000-2-10 Ed. 1.0 (1998-11): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 2-10: Environment
– Description of HEMP environment – Conducted disturbance. Basic EMC publication.
5. IEC 61000-2-11 Ed. 1.0 (1999-10): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 2-11: Environment
– Classification of HEMP environments. Basic EMC publication.
6. IEC 61000-2-13 Ed. 1.0 (2005-03): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 2-13: High-power
electromagnetic (HPEM) environments – Radiated and conducted. Basic EMC publication.
7. IEC 61000-4-23 Ed. 1.0 (2000-10): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 4-23: Testing and
measurement techniques – Test methods for protective devices for HEMP and other radiated
disturbances. Basic EMC publication.
measurement techniques – Test methods for protective devices for HEMP conducted
disturbance. Basic EMC Publication.
measurement techniques – HEMP immunity test methods for equipment and systems. Basic EMC
publication.
10. IEC/TR 61000-4-32 Ed. 1.0 (2002-10): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 4-32: Testing
and measurement techniques – High-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) simulator
compendium. Basic EMC publication.
measurement techniques – Measurement methods for high-power transient parameters. Basic
EMC publication.
12. IEC/TR 61000-4-35 Ed. 1.0 (2009-07): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 4-35: Testing
and measurement techniques – High power electromagnetic (HPEM) simulator compendium.
Basic EMC publication.
Note: These guidelines do not endorse F-1 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019
Appendix F
measurement techniques – IEMI immunity test methods for equipment and systems. Basic EMC
publication.
14. IEC/TR 61000-5-3 Ed. 1.0 (1999-07): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 5-3: Installation
and mitigation guidelines – HEMP protection concepts. Basic EMC publication.
15. IEC/TS 61000-5-4 Ed. 1.0 (1996-08): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 5: Installation
and mitigation guidelines – Section 4: Immunity to HEMP – Specifications for protective devices
against HEMP radiated disturbance. Basic EMC Publication.
16. IEC 61000-5-5 Ed. 1.0 (1996-02): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 5: Installation and
mitigation guidelines – Section 5: Specification of protective devices for HEMP conducted
disturbance. Basic EMC Publication.
17. IEC/TR 61000-5-6 Ed. 1.0 (2002-06): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 5-6: Installation
and mitigation guidelines – Mitigation of external EM influences. Basic EMC publication.
18. IEC 61000-5-7 Ed. 1.0 (2001-01): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 5-7: Installation and
mitigation guidelines – Degrees of protection by enclosures against electromagnetic
disturbances (EM code). Basic EMC publication.
19. IEC/TS 61000-5-8 Ed. 1.0 (2009-08): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 5-8: Installation
and mitigation guidelines – HEMP protection methods for the distributed infrastructure. Basic
EMC publication.
20. IEC/TS 61000-5-9 Ed. 1.0 (2009-07): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 5-9: Installation
and mitigation guidelines – System-level susceptibility assessments for HEMP and HPEM. Basic
EMC publication.
21. IEC/TS 61000-5-10 DTS (2017-105): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 5-10: Installation
and mitigation guidelines – Guidance on the protection of facilities against HEMP and IEMI. Basic
EMC publication.
22. IEC 61000-6-6 Ed. 1.0 (2003-04): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 6-6: Generic
standards – HEMP immunity for indoor equipment. Basic EMC publication.
Note: These guidelines do not endorse F-2 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019
Appendix G
Appendix G. REFERENCES
1. MIL-STD-188-125-1, “High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) Protection For Ground-Based
C4I Facilities Performing Critical, Time-Urgent Missions, Part 1: Fixed Facilities,” April 7, 2005.
2. MIL-HDBK-423, “High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse Protection for Fixed and Transportable
Ground-Based Facilities, Volume I: Fixed Facilities.”
3. TM 5-690, “Grounding and Bonding in Command, Control, Communications, Computer,
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Facilities.”
4. MIL-HDBK-419, “Grounding, Bonding, and Shielding for Electronic Equipment and Facilities.”
5. MIL-STD-464C, DOD Interface Standard: Electromagnetic Environmental Effects Requirements
for Systems, 1 December 2010.
6. MIL-STD-470, “Maintainability Program for Systems and Equipment.”
7. MIL-STD-785, “Reliability Program for Systems and Equipment Development and Production.”
8. MIL-STD-729, “Corrosion and Corrosion Prevention Metals.”
9. MIL-STD-2165, “Testability Program for Electronic Systems and Equipment.”
10. MIL-STD-2169B, High Altitude EMP (HEMP) Environment, 17 December 1993.
11. IEC 61000-4-36 Ed. 1.0 (2014-11): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-36: Testing and
measurement techniques – IEMI immunity test methods for equipment and systems.
12. IEEE-Std 81-2012, “Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity, Grounding Impedance, and Earth
Surface Potentials of a Ground System.”
13. IEEE Std 299-2006, “Standard Method for Measuring the Effectiveness of Electromagnetic
Shielding Enclosures.”
14. Meta-R-319, Geomagnetic Storms and Their Impacts on the U.S. Power Grid, John Kappenman,
Metatech Corporation, for Oak Ridge National Lab, January 2010.
15. Meta-R-320, The Early-Time (E1) High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) and Its Impact on
the U.S. Power Grid, by Dr. Edward Savage, Dr. James Gilbert, and Dr. William Radasky,
Metatech Corporation, for Oak Ridge National Lab, January 2010.
16. Meta-R-321, The Late-Time (E3) High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) and Its Impact on
the U.S. Power Grid, by Dr. James Gilbert, Dr. Edward Savage, John Kappenman, and Dr. William
Radasky, Metatech Corporation, for Oak Ridge National Lab, January 2010.
17. Meta-R-322, Low-Frequency Protection Concepts for the Electric Power Grid: Geomagnetically
Induced Current (GIC) and E3 HEMP Mitigation, by John Kappenman, Metatech Corporation,
for Oak Ridge National Lab, January 2010.
18. Meta-R-323, Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI) and Its Impact on the U.S. Power
Grid, by Dr. William Radasky and Dr. Edward Savage, Metatech Corporation, for Oak Ridge
National Lab, January 2010.
19. Meta-R-324, High-Frequency Protection Concepts for the Electric Power Grid, by Dr. William
Radasky and Dr. Edward Savage, Metatech Corporation, for Oak Ridge National Lab, January
2010.
Note: These guidelines do not endorse G-1 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019
Appendix G
20. TIA-607, Revision C (2015-11), “Generic Telecommunications Bonding and Grounding (Earthing)
for Customer Premises.
21. M.A. Messier, K.S. Smith, W.A. Radasky, M.J. Madrid, “Response of Telecom Protection To
Three IEC Waveforms, Zurich EMC Symposium, 2003.
22. QSTAG 244, Edition 4: Nuclear Survivability Criteria for Military Equipment, 19 January 1993.
23. QSTAG 620, Edition 2: Nuclear Survivability Criteria for Communications-electronics Equipment,
29 January 1993.
Note: These guidelines do not endorse G-2 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019
Appendix H
Appendix H. EXAMPLE EMP IMPLEMENTATION FOR HF

COMMUNICATIONS SITE
Many Federal Government departments and agencies use high frequency (HF) radio transceivers
for backup voice and email communications. To enable better interoperability using HF during
emergencies, the Department of Homeland Security operates the SHARES Program (see SHARES
Program in Appendix C). It is recommended that all critical infrastructure operators with a national
security and/or emergency preparedness mission join the SHARES program.
The three most commonly used SHARES HF transmitter power ratings are 100-150 W, 500 W, and 1
kW. The lower power ratings are typically good for regional communications while the higher
power ratings may be required for communicating across the country although the actual area
covered is highly dependent upon many factors (for example: location, antenna type/position, solar
weather, and time of day). For amateur radio operators, the lower power options are the most
popular due to lower costs and ease of operations.
The sample EMP implementation in this Appendix is designed to help enterprises better
understand the equipment, supplies, and rough order of magnitude (ROM) funds needed to install
an HF transceiver system with EMP resiliency versus installing it with protection only against
lightning. If the site already exists, these estimates could increase depending upon the EMP level
being implemented and the existing equipment and installation. Costs shown do not include
maintenance partially because those costs are operationally dependent and since the EMP material
maintenance costs are minimal (e.g., replace a very inexpensive GDT every few years).
For this sample implementation, it is assumed that the site consists of the following:
• Equipment
o HF transceiver, power supply, built-in antenna tuner, and power amplifier (PA)
connected to a combined microphone and speaker that are a 1 meter (m) away.
o Antenna system including RF antenna cable
o UPS for computer and networking equipment (only required for Level 2 and 3 with
data)
o Computer (optional for data).
• Data Cables
o Fiber connection from external data source (i.e., outside of the equipment
building/room) to an internal fiber optic media converter (assumed fiber is
standard from the facility operator or the communications provider).
o 20 m Ethernet cable from fiber optic media converter to computer.
o 3 m meandering Ethernet cable from computer to HF transceiver.
o 1 m – 2 m speaker/microphone cable
• Rooftop – The antenna is placed on top of a building and has a 100’ RF cable running from
the antenna to the HF base station.
o This antenna could be placed on an antenna tower instead of a rooftop with no
technical impact on the HF EMP prevention suggestions.
o Deploying an antenna on a tower could impact the labor costs to deploy the HF
equipment, but in many cases this deployment will occur at the same time as when
either installing the HF equipment initially, making an upgrade, or performing
Note: These guidelines do not endorse H-1 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019
Appendix H
maintenance in which case the additional labor to add the EMP improvements
discussed below would be minimal.
o Excellent grounding is available and can easily be connected to.
• Equipment Building/Room – The equipment building/room provides 10 dB of protection
(bricks, wood, and windows are not good shielding material as discussed in “Figure 21.
Effect of Building Materials on EMP Attenuation” and “Table 9. Building shielding “rules of
thumb” for E1 HEMP”). See Table E-1 for more information on decibels (dBs).
Potential solutions to achieve EMP Level 1, 2, and 3 results with the above assumptions are shown
below in two sets of tables. The first set, consisting of Table H-1 through Table H-3 below, discusses
the technical requirements that are specific to an HF site to make an HF site Level 1, 2, or 3 EMP
resilient. The second set consists of just one table shown in Table H-4, which discusses non-HF
specific requirements, such as food and fuel supplies.
As shown below in Table H-1, an enterprise can meet EMP Level 1 guidelines with no equipment
costs beyond implementing best practices for lightning protection.
Table H-1. Level 1 EMP Resilient HF Site Specific Technical Costs
HF Specific Requirement Level 1 EMP Cost Details Cost
Unplug power and data lines from

Best practice for lightning and energy savings and there is
spare or backup equipment where $0
no extra cost to leave a cable unplugged.
feasible.
Turn off equipment that cannot be
Best practice for lightning and energy savings and there is
unplugged and is not actively $0
typically no extra cost to turn off something.
being used.
Best practice for lightning and energy savings as well as
EMP; thus, assume these are already deployed or will be
used if it’s a new installation.
Use at least a lightning rated surge • Power Supply SPD (e.g., $15 for 6 outlet APC
protection device (SPD) on power SurgeArrest that will alert the operator when it’s no
$0
cords, antennas, and data cables; longer fully operational).
maintain spare SPDs • SPDs with Gas Discharge Tubes (GDTs) that are not
soldered are preferred for easy replacement. For
example, the Alpha Delta TT3G50 lightning SPD costs
around $50, its replacement cartridge costs under $15.
Store spare electronics in an area with at least 20 dB
Wrap spare electronics with
protection. This is adequate for smaller electronic devices
aluminum foil or put in Faraday $0
(or battery powered devices) as might be required for an
containers.
HF site.
There are no fees and the effort is negligible to join
Join SHARES, if applicable. $0
SHARES. This is also independent of EMP.
Consider HF radios This HF site meets suggestion. $0
Level 1 EMP Resilient HF Site Incremental Technical Costs $0
Appendix H
For Level 2, the HF specific EMP changes from Level 1 are the following:
• Implementation of a power SPD with a clamp time of 10 ns or less.

• Addition of an EMP rated RF SPD.
• Addition of ferrites to the antenna cable (minimal cost)
• Use of a UPS, which in this case is a line interactive unit since it is less expensive and more
efficient at low power loads than an online unit.
• A small amount was also allocated for a shielded Ethernet cable.
The material cost to implement Level 2 versus Level 1 is $630, which includes providing the site
with extra functionality via a UPS.
HF Specific Requirement(s) Level 2 Cost Details Cost
HF Transceiver & PA Power Supply SPD – To obtain an

SPD for the power cable that protects against EMP, the
SPD’s recovery time should be 10 ns or less. Note: The
$200 Transtector 6 outlet AC Surge Protection device SL- $200
V Surge Cord has a published tested specification of 5 ns.
It costs about $180 more than a lightning only SPD.
Use EMP-rated SPDs on Shielded RF Antenna Cable – No extra cost since low
power cords, antennas, and inductance and lightning protected cables can be
data cables to protect selected that also provide EMP protection. For instance, $0
critical equipment. RG-214 is double shielded/braided, or can use low loss
LMR-400, which is braided plus has a foil (this is not as
good as double shielded/braided).
Also…
Antenna RF Cable SPD –The NexTek HF (1-50 MHz) sub-
ns response SPD part FPNNMNFBCA3B, which has been
Use fiber optic cables (with
tested per MIL-STD-188-125-1, costs approximately $200
no metal); otherwise use $200
(minimum order may apply). Note: This is $150 more than the
shielded cables and ferrites
Level 1 SPD listed (plus the replacement cost is
and/or SPDs. Note: shielded
considerably higher).
racks, rooms or facilities
may be more cost-effective Antenna Cable Ferrites – Can buy a package of these for
$10
than hardening numerous under $10.
cables.
Antenna Tuner SPD – Use extra SPD outlet purchased
$0
above or can connect into the UPS for surge protection.
Computer Power Cable SPD – Connect to UPS for surge
$0
protection.
Fiber Optic Media Converter SPD – Connect to UPS for
$0
surge protection.
Appendix H
20 m Ethernet Cable to Computer – Use a shielded

Ethernet cable from the fiber optic media converter to
$20
the computer. Ground shield at one end only. Wireless
can also be used to connect to the computer.
Computer Microphone and Speaker Cable – Use EM
shielded cabling, which likely came with the system.
$0
Thus, there it is assumed that there is no extra cost (no
SPD is required given the short distance.
Meandering 3 m Ethernet Cable to HF Transceiver – Use
a shielded Ethernet cable from the computer to the HF
transceiver. Note: Could use an unshielded Ethernet
cable in this case since the cable is inside and it’s not $0
straight, but a shielded cable is better for consistency
and improved EMP protection with no material cost
increase. Regardless, no SPD is required given the above.
Use on-line/double- • The UPS includes back up power for everything but
conversion uninterruptible the HF transceiver and the HF power supply.
power supplies (UPS) or a • The pricing assumes the purchase of an interactive $200
high quality line interactive UPS for Level 2 (and an online UPS for Level 3).
UPS.
Implement EMP protected, The above includes a computer and data connection to
high frequency (HF) voice enable these communications.
$0
and email for long-distance
communications.
Level 2 EMP Resilient HF Site Costs (includes Level 1 costs) $630*
* Can save $90 if going straight to Level 2 and not purchasing standard lighting SPDs then replacing
them as well as installing shielded Ethernet cable from the start.
For Level 3, shown in the table below, the HF specific EMP changes from Level 2 are the following:
• UPS – Level 3 uses an online UPS instead of a line interactive unit in this example although
a line interactive unit could have been used.
o The online version will block EMP by default through its design.
o Unless the line interactive unit has been specifically tested for EMP, there is a risk
that it may not effectively block the EMP pulse if the built-in surge protection is
insufficient. Therefore an online version is used in this table.
• IEC and SPDs – The surge suppression components in Level 3 must the IEC requirements.
However, in this case all Level 2 surge suppression components meet Level 3.
• Maintenance Program – Although the upfront costs of this are minimal (create a plan and
procure spare equipment), the ongoing costs to replace UPS units and SPDs, surveil the
antenna site, etc. can impact the budget although most of the maintenance program
Appendix H
should be implemented for a normal lightning protected site (e.g., swap out defective
power SPDs).
The estimated material cost for Level 3 is over $7,000, but most of this cost is driven by buying a
Faraday enclosure which is the most expensive option listed and often will not be required.
Further, this assumes that Level 2 has not been implemented and therefore those parts cannot be
reused. Lastly, Level 3 uses an online UPS instead of a less expensive line interactive UPS.
In addition to the material costs, there is labor involved to maintain the system and potentially
resources involved to test the HF transceiver to ensure that it can tolerate higher levels of EMP
transients that bypass the selected voltage level of an SPD.
Use International • Equipment vendors should use the IEC SC 77C

Electrotechnical Commission generated series of standards. In particular, the
(IEC) EMP and IEMI 61000 series of standards could be listed, which $0 (cost
protection standards (IEC SC were prepared by the 77C subcommittee. occurs
77C series). • These standards include specifying the EMP test under
and measurement techniques. other
• The standardized EMC test for immunity to require-
surges is IEC/EN 61000-4-5 ments)
• Alternatively, MIL-STD-188-125-1 and MIL-
HDBK-423 may be met.
UPS (see Level 2 • Assumes use of online UPS.

requirement) • Online UPS cost shown is around $500 ($300 $500
more than the Level 2 line interactive UPS)
First Option: Appropriately shield all internal
components to meet 30 dB protection requirement
Shielding should be 30+ dB (shielding is additive). Note: Since it is assumed that
of protection through 10 the building offers 10 dB of protection, the
GHz. shielding may just offer 20 dB of protection to meet
Use EMP shielded racks, the 30 dB requirement.
rooms, or facilities to • Shield Cables – Ensure all RF, data, and power $40
protect critical computers, cables are shielded. RF cables should already be
data centers, phone shielded. Using shielding on data cables is very
switches, industrial and low cost (assume $10). Shielded power cables
substation controls and are also very inexpensive, but assume a few of
other electronics. these needs to be replaced for $10 each.
• Shield Equipment – Some equipment is
manufactured with all sensitive electronics in a
Appendix H
fully enclosed metal shield and do not require

extra shielding.
• This option is usually the least expensive for
smaller EMP-protected operations.
Second Option: Shield the room to at least 20 dB or
put the equipment in a shielded enclosure. Note:
This protection together with the assumed 10 dB of
shielding from the building will equal 30 dB.
• Might be able to move the equipment from a
room with windows into a room in the middle of
a building with no windows or into a more
protected area of the basement.
• Could put EMP composite on walls and ceiling in
sealed windowless room to improve EMP
protection (may need to use EMP rated
ventilation guides).
• Procure a Faraday cage for the equipment. The $6,000
(assumed;
cost of a Faraday cage varies depending upon Faraday cage
several characteristics, but this example costs can
assumes that it costs $6,000 together with the vary
necessary accessories. significantly)
• This requirement is primarily applicable to long

Use “Recommended E3 power and communications cables, such as used
HEMP Heave Electric Field in the electric grid or undersea – this is part of
Waveform for the Critical the reason behind the required EMP protected
Infrastructures” from EMP backup power. $0
Commission for grid and
undersea cable protection • As part of the maintenance plan, power SPDs
planning. Use 85 V/km for should not be replaced during an E3 HEMP
CONUS E3 threat. event, which can last for hours, unless there are
plenty of spare power SPDs.
Use EMP tested SPDs and • The Level 2 Transtector power SPD is sufficient
equipment. for Level 3 as well since it’s tested to MIL-STD-
188-125. List price is around Level 2: $200.
• The Level 2 NexTek HF (1-50 MHz) SPD part
FPNNMNFBCA3B can continue to be used since
it has been tested per MIL-STD-188-125-1. List $400
price is around Level 2: $200.
• The HF transceiver should be tested to ensure
that it can tolerate higher levels of EMP
transients that bypass the selected voltage level
of an SPD. The cost shown assumes that the
Appendix H
organization can reuse someone else’s test

results.
Institute hardening • HM/HS combines preventive maintenance,

maintenance and inspection, test, and repair activities $400
surveillance (HM/HS). accomplished on a HEMP protected operational upfront
facility to ensure that HEMP hardness is retained (On-going
throughout the lifecycle. effort is
• The cost shown assumes that spare SPDs are required)
purchased as part of the HM/HS program.
Level 3 EMP Resilient HF Site Upfront Costs (includes Level 2 costs) $7,340 *
* If reusing Level 2’s SPDs and line interactive UPS and if the first shielding option can be used, these
material costs can be substantially reduced to $40 plus the cost of the spare parts (which likely
would have been purchased in Level 2).
General EMP Requirements
General EMP requirements help sites prepare for a HEMP or SREMP event, but are also applicable
to other manmade disasters as well as natural disasters. These requirements impact the overall
operations or the site characteristics (e.g., priority phone service, EMP protected backup power).
The suggested requirements and the general nature of the costs to implement the requirements
are shown in the table below. The estimated costs are not specified both because they are highly
variable and they are not HF specific requirements.
Table H-4. General, Non-HF Specific EMP Requirements for Levels 1-3
Level Non-HF Specific Site Requirement Details

• A 3 kW generator could backup all of
the equipment, including a 1 kW
Have either EMP protected backup power or a transmitter.
generation source that is not connected to the
1 grid with one (1) week of on-site fuel or • If using a lower power transmitter or
equivalent (e.g., renewable source). a battery backup system for the HF
transceiver system, then a smaller
generator could be used with
improved fuel efficiency.
Use EMP protected backup power that is not The backup power generation is often
2, 3 vulnerable to EMP coupled through the power handled by the facility.
grid.
Have one (1) week of on-site fuel or equivalent The fuel supplies is often handled by
1, 2
(e.g., renewable source). the facility’s emergency planners.
Appendix H
Level Non-HF Specific Site Requirement Details

It may be helpful to shut off power to
Have thirty (30) days of EMP protected
3 all non-essential equipment to meet
fuel/power.
this requirement.
The costs for these services are
Use priority phone services like GETS, WPS (for dependent upon the service provider,
1,2,3
cell phones), and TSP. but they tend to be minimal as
discussed under Appendix C.
Consider land mobile radios with standalone There is no extra cost to use FirstNet or
1,2,3 Verizon’s priority services versus one of
capabilities and FirstNet.
their non-priority cellular services.
Use battery operated AM/FM/NOAA radios to Need just one of these radios to
1,2,3
receive Emergency Alerts. receive alerts.
Could work with on-site food provider,
Store one week of food, water, and other
1,2 such as a cafeteria to help ensure that
supplies for personnel.
food is available.
Store 30 days of food, water, and critical supplies Maintenance of the critical supplies
3
for personnel. also needs to occur.
LEOs could be damaged or become
Consider geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO)
dysfunctional due to a HEMP event.
satellite services, like BGAN. Avoid low-earth
2,3 GEO satellites are too far from
orbit (LEO) satellite supported communications,
potential HEMP events to be
unless EMP protected.
significantly impacted.
This consideration is for the overall
2,3 Shortwave radio for situational awareness.
facility and not just the HF site.
Use time-urgent EMP resilient comms, like X, Ku The higher satellite frequency bands
3 and Ka satellite, and either HF groundwave or are more resilient to EMP bursts until
Automatic Link Establishment (ALE) HF. the ionosphere stabilizes.
Appendix I
Appendix I. ENDNOTES
1
Title 47: Telecommunication, PART 215—FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOCAL POINT FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC
PULSE (EMP) INFORMATION, https://ecfr.io/Title-47/pt47.5.215
2
The White House, National Security Strategy of The United States of America (Dec 2017),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf
3
Graph courtesy of Metatech (Oct 2018)
4
Quartz Media LLC, North Korea’s latest missile test traveled 10 times higher THAN THE ISS,
https://qz.com/1140566/north-koreas-latest-missile-test-traveled-10x-height-of-iss-and-suggests-it-
could-hit-us/ (7/16/18)
5
Statement Dr. PETER VINCENT PRY, EMP COMMISSION STAFF BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
TERRORISM, TECHNOLOGY AND SECURITY AND HOMELAND SECURITY, MARCH 8, 2005, FOREIGN VIEWS OF
ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (EMP) ATTACK,
http://web.archive.org/web/20121108204504/http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/subdocs/030805_pry.p
df
6
Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)
Attack (July 2017), Recommended E3 HEMP Heave Electric Field Waveform for the Critical Infrastructures,
Courtesy of Los Alamos National Laboratory
7
William Radasky, Edward Savage, Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI) and Its Impact on the
U.S. Power Grid (Jan 2010), https://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-
act/reliability/cybersecurity/ferc_meta-r-323.pdf
8
ibid
9
Homeland Security Council, National Continuity Policy Implementation Plan (August 2007),
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=482817
10
National Communications System (NCS), Volume I EMP/Transient Threat Test of Protection Devices for
Amateur/Military Affiliate Radio System Equipment (October 1985)
11
Motorola Publication R56, “Standards and Guidelines for Communications Sites” (2005),
www.ronet.co.za/downloads/R56%20Guidelines.pdf
12
ARRL, Grounding and Bonding for the Radio Amateur (2017), www.arrl.org/shop/Grounding-and-Bonding-
for-the-Radio-Amateur
13
Digi, Indoor Path Loss (June 2012), http://ftp1.digi.com/support/images/XST-AN005a-IndoorPathLoss.pdf
14
MIL-STD-188-125-1 (7/17/1998), HIGH-ALTITUDE ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (HEMP) PROTECTION FOR
GROUND-BASED C4I FACILITIES PERFORMING CRITICAL, TIME-URGENT MISSIONS, Part 1, Fixed Facilities,
http://futurescience.com/emp/MIL-STD-188-125-1.pdf
15
ibid
16
https://www.firstnet.com/ (9/27/2018)
17
https://www.firstnet.gov/newsroom/blog/firstnet-core-delivers-promise-dedicated-network-public-
safety (9/27/2018)
18
https://www.firstnet.com/coverage
Note: These guidelines do not endorse I-1 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

19 0307 CISA EMP-Protection-Resilience-Guidelines PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

19 0307 CISA EMP-Protection-Resilience-Guidelines PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

19 0307 CISA EMP-Protection-Resilience-Guidelines PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNCLASSIFIED

Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Protection

February 5th, 2019

National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center

Note: These guidelines do not endorse Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

Note: These guidelines do not endorse Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

Table 1. Four EMP Protection Levels for Infrastructure and Equipment

Note: These guidelines do not endorse Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

Note: These guidelines do not endorse Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

Acknowledgements and Authors

Note: These guidelines do not endorse Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

Note: These guidelines do not endorse Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

Figure 1. Generic HEMP waveform (ref. Meta-R-324) 4

Note: These guidelines do not endorse Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

Figure A-1. HEMP Shielding Effectiveness Requirement A-4

Note: These guidelines do not endorse Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

Table A-1. Injected Pulse Characteristics A-1

Note: These guidelines do not endorse Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

Document Change History

Date Version # Change Description

Changed title to Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Protection and Resilience

Added or substantially changed several sections, such as: (i) Executive

Revised the Executive Overview and Acknowledgments and Authors section.

Note: These guidelines do not endorse Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

1.1. Document Purpose and Audience

Note: These guidelines do not endorse 1 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

widespread, long-lasting damage to critical national infrastructures, to the United States

Extreme electromagnetic incidents caused by an intentional electromagnetic pulse (EMP)

Note: These guidelines do not endorse 2 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

In addition to making recommendations on how to physically protect electronic equipment from

Note: These guidelines do not endorse 3 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

• Protection from EMP damage

This report’s main focus is on

The E2 (intermediate-time) HEMP

Note: These guidelines do not endorse 4 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

1.3. HEMP and GMD Characteristics

Figure 2. IEC Standard E1 Waveform (ref. IEC 61000-2-9)

According to ORNL’s META-R-321 report, E3 HEMP has the following characteristics:

Note: These guidelines do not endorse 5 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

Note: These guidelines do not endorse 6 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

Note: These guidelines do not endorse 7 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

Note: These guidelines do not endorse 8 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

Table 2. E3 Heave Electric Field Strengths in V/km

Note: These guidelines do not endorse 9 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

E3B HEMP, Heave

Note: These guidelines do not endorse 10 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

Geomagnetic Storm History and Comparison of HEMP and GMD

Table 3. HEMP and GMD Comparison

Cause Adversarial threat Natural hazard

Note: These guidelines do not endorse 11 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

1.4. HEMP, SREMP, and IEMI Risks

Figure 8. Frequency ranges of Lightning, HEMP, and IEMI 3

Note: These guidelines do not endorse 12 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

High-altitude EMP (HEMP) Risks

E1 HEMP, 100' Ethernet Cable, Up: 5.000 A, Dmg: 10.000 A, 10.00 dB

25N New Orleans

Note: These guidelines do not endorse 13 Version 2.2 – 5 February 2019

E1 HEMP, 100' Ethernet Cable, Up: 5.000 A, Dmg: 10.000 A, 10.00 dB

25N New Orleans