HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07211992 - 2.1 TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FRQ1M-: Phil Batchelor
County Administrator Contra
DATE: July 21, 1992 Costa
CO^
.SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON THE COMMUNITY ALERT NETWORK (CAN)
EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION s) & BACKGROUND AM JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept this status report on the Community Alert Network (CAN)
and the county's experience to date in using the system to issue
emergency notifications to county residents.
BACKGROUND: .
On May 7, 1991 the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized
its Chairman to execute a contract with Community Alert Network
for implementation of a Computerized telephone dialing system to
be used to notify residents of emergencies and, as appropriate,
provide them with information on protective actions they should
take. Implementation of the CAN system" was recommended by the
Hazardous Materials Council and the -Community Awareness
Emergency Response (CAER) organization, whose members represent
petro-chemical industries, utility companies and public
emergency service - agencies such as law enforcement, fire,
environmental health and Office of Emergency Services. In
accordance with the Board's directive, the cost of the CAN
system is paid from AB 2185 fees. These fees also fund part of
the cost of a County O.ES employee who oversees the system.
The CAN system became operational October 1, 1991 and has been
used in three emergencies: December 5. 1991 for incident at
Chevron Refinery, Point Richmond; May 29, 1992 for incident at
Pacific Refining Company, Hercules/Rodeo; and, June 22, 1992 for
.incident at Rhone Poulenc Chemical Company, Martinez. In each
. incident the CAN system was used to notify residents in the
affected area that there had been a release from the facility
and that they should take certain protective actions, ie,
shelter-in-place and tune to their radio for further
information. In the Rhone Poulenc incident a few business sites
were notified to evacuate. In each case the initial CAN message
was followed by updated messages including an "ALL CLEAR" .
Combining all three ,incidents, the CAN system attempted to call
2, 271 phone numbers. For 1,767, or 78%, of these numbers, the
CAN message was received, meaning that a person or answering
machine got the message. In most cases where the CAN message
was not received, there simply was no answer.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: — YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF,�RD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATUREISI:
ACTION OF BOARD ON - Jul-Y 2L, 1.992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
APPFOVED the recamiendation set forth above; PEQUESTEI-? the County Administrator to solicit cooperation from
Pacific Bell in supporting a petition before the Public Utilities Commission to allow appropriate agencies access
to unlisted telephone numbers for inclusion in a CAN system; 1E)QLm7ED 'ITE county Administrator to send letters
of appreciation to the media for their cooperation in keeping the public informed of incidents of health/
environmental concerns as soon as they occur; and FE9JE= the ne,-'-3 media to alert the r)ublic with unlisted
telephone numbers to call. the office of Emergency Services (228-5000) for enrollment of their unlisted telephone
number in the CAN system.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - - - AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES* NOES. AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: ATTESTED July 21, 1992
Mark Finucane , Director, Health Srvc
Harold Juhala , CAER PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
la
M382/7-83 BY DEPUTY
Z111V
Ori June 23 , 1992 county staff called for activation of the CAN
system to notify residents in the North Richmond area of a
release from the Chevron Refinery. The system, however, would
not function and it was necessary to notify residents via radio
broadcasts and law enforcement field personnel. It was
eventually learned that the CAN system failure was due to
sabotage by an ex-employee. CAN has implemented new security
procedures to' prevent such system failures in the future. (See
attached copy of June. 29, 1992 letter from Ken Baechel,
President, CAN) .
The CAN system has given the county a means of rapidly issuing
an emergency notice to citizens in their own homes or places of
business. A direct telephone call is an effective method of
communication. However, it has never been contemplated that the
CAN system would be the only method of providing emergency
notifications. CAN is only one part of a four part Community
Notification Network (CNN) being implemented by county staff.
For additional information on the CAN system and the other parts
of the CNN, see attachment titled "Frequently Asked Questions
About Contra Costa County's Community Notification Network" .
County staff, along with representatives of the CAER
organization, will continue to monitor use of the CAN system and
to suggest ways to improve its operation.
GB:af
COMMUNITY
RUERT
NETWORK Z_
A DIVISION OF A.C.1,
June 29, 1992
Mrs. Tracy Hein-Silva
Senior Emergency Planning Coordinator
Contra Costa County
50 Glacier Drive
Martinez, California 94553
Dear Tracy:
We all know of times when sirens have failed to sound, radio and
TV stations have had "blackouts", power companies have had
outages, and even when AT&T lost service because of a virus. We
at Community Alert Network thought we were invincible until June
23, 1992 .
Throughout the eight year history of Community Alert Network we
have been proud of the fact that we have always performed when
called upon. Unfortunately on June 23, 1992 this unblemished
record was sullied.
At approximately 5: 10 p.m. EDT Contra Costa County called to
access Community Alert Network in order to notify residents of a
chemical emergency. Following standard operating procedures our
Operations Manager made several attempts to initiate calling on
your behalf. Each time the system failed. Immediately our
operations Manager called the authorized person from Contra Costa
County Who had requested the calling and advised them of the
system .failure. I was then notified and personally called the
County Office of Emergency Services and the County Executive to
keep them informed. Initially we guessed that a virus had
permeated our systems on both coasts as a result of the file
transfers that had been taking place during the day (later this
proved not to be the case) . Immediately, Community Alert Network
began a four stage response procedure to correct the situation
and insure that it never happens again:
1) Community Alert Network restored the system to complete
service within 18 hours.
2) Community Alert Network carried out extensive testing to
assure that no other problems were resident in the systems in
either New York or California. Since there are 48 pieces of
301 Nott Street • Schenectady, NY 12305-1039
518-382-8007 • 800-992-2331 • Fax 518-382-0675 --
interactive software some of which are highly complex, this
intensive testing continued for 2 1/2 days. Additional
testing has continued and is still in process.
3) Community Alert Network determined the source of the system
failure. Our initial suspicion that we had contracted a
virus proved to be false. The final determination was that a
disgruntled ex-employee had sabotaged our system.
4) Community Alert Network established appropriate measures to
avoid recurrence.
a) We are developing higher levels of security and access to
our computer.
b) The New York and California Offices will not be able to
modify each others computers. Thus, if someone does
discover how to get beyond various security measures
to the deepest levels of our system they would not be
able to destroy both coasts simultaneously.
c) All system changes will require two people with security
clearance.
d) We have changed our communication software, access codes
and telephone numbers. These can be used only with prior
approval of operations managers on duty.
e) All information concerning security is on a "need to
know" basis only.
f) A system has been set up to facilitate file transfers
between our offices that is outside the CAN calling
network, thus preventing the possibility of a virus
getting in.
g) Virus checking will take place at both ends prior to the
.transfer of data directly into the CAN . network.
h) we are taking additional steps to enhance the security
in our buildings and computers.
Tracy, we have taken significant steps toward preventing any
future interruptions in our service and I would appreciate any
comments or suggestions that you might have as to how we can
better provide this service.
Sincerely,
K n Ba-_p,
President
KB/i am
FREQUENTLY-ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S
COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION NETWORK
WHAT IS CONTRA COSTA'S 4 PART COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION NETWORK?
Knowing that no one system will meet all notification needs Contra Costa County
has focused on an integrated system including:
• Contra Costa based KISS AM990 and 92FM
• Traveler's Information System (City owned radio stations)
• Community Alert Network
• Sirens
Through this 4 part system both immediate and on going notification needs can be.
met. We continue to explore other methods of notification as well.
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF KISS RADIO?
The County Office of Emergency Services has an agreement with the management
of KISS radio that in an emergency they will interrupt their broadcast to get
emergency information out to the public. KISS radio has have been used
effectively in a number of exercises and actual incidents.
The media is the best way to provide continuous and updated information to
residents. Our education efforts emphasize that residents should immediately tune
to KISS AM990 or 92FM for information if they "sense" a large scale emergency
might be occurring.
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF TRAVELER'S INFORMATION SYSTEM?
Traveler's Information System is a city owned radio station that can be used in non
emergency times to broadcast such information as city points of interest, upcoming
events and emergency preparedness tips. In emergencies it can be used to give
very specific information and instructions to the residents. Currently the cities of
Walnut Creek and Martinez have Traveler's Information Stations. The County is
strongly encouraging the cities in West County to get Traveler's Information
stations due to poor reception of KISS radio in some areas.
1
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF SIRENS?
One of the goals of the Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) process
is to determine whether sirens may be necessary in certain industrial locations. In
making that decision, both the community and the facility must take into
consideration how a public education program will be carried out. The concern is
that without proper education the sirens may create a worse situation. Citizens
could run outside to see what is happening instead of sheltering-in-place. The goal
of sirens would be for people to automatically stay or go inside, "Shelter-in-Place",
and tune to KISS radio or their Traveler's Information Station for further information
and instructions.
WHAT IS "SHELTER-IN-PLACE"?
"Shelter-In-Place" means to stay or go inside, close and lock all your doors and
windows, turn off your heating and air conditioning systems, put out fireplace fires
completely and close the fireplace damper.
In the majority of hazardous materials Incidents, residents will be asked to shelter-
in-place. It can often be much more dangerous to try to evacuate residents rather
than have them shelter in place.
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF COMMUNITY ALERT NETWORK?
Contra Costa County went on line with Community Alert Network (CAN) October 1,
1991. The CAN system plays an important role in the notification network by
providing a means to alert residents of a potential danger and to instruct them to,
in most cases, "Shelter-In-Place" and tune to KISS radio. Although the CAN system
is effective in reaching a large number of individuals in a relatively short period of
time, it cannot reach residents who may be outside, on the phone or who do not
have listed phone numbers.
Since October, the system has been activated four times, all in response to
hazardous materials incidents.
2
HOW HAS COMMUNITY ALERT NETWORK (CAN) PERFORMED?
December 5, 1991 - Chevron Refinery
Phone numbers attempted: 657
Phone numbers the message was delivered to: 457
Phone numbers not answered after of three attempts: 148
This was the first time that CAN was activated in Contra Costa County. A
lack of familiarity with the system — It had only been on line for 2 months—
resulted in a delay notification to the area. Steps have been taken to
eliminate these problems in the future (see below).
May.29, 1992 - Pacific Refining Company
Phone numbers attempted: 701
Phone numbers the message was delivered to: 575
Phone numbers not answered after of three attempts: 83
Although there was an initial delay by Pacific Refining in notifying the County,
once it could be determined that CAN needed to be activated it only took 12
minutes for residents to begin receiving phone calls.
June 22, 1992 - Rhone Poulenc Basic Chemicals Company
Phone numbers attempted: 913
Phone numbers the message was delivered to: 735
Phone numbers not answered each of the three attempts: 120
During this incident, CAN effectively and in a timely fashion notified residents
who were potentially at risk of being exposed to the smoke and fallout from
the fire.
WHY DID THE COMMUNITY ALERT NETWORK SYSTEM FAIL ON JUNE 23, 1992?
The initial suspicion that they had contracted a virus proved to be false. The final
determination was that a disgruntled ex-employee had sabotaged the system.
CAN has implemented new security measures to prevent this from happening
again.
3
r
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO NOTIFY RESIDENTS?
When a call is made to activate Community Alert Network phone calls to residents
begin almost Immediately. As requested by the County, CAN attempts each
number in the notification area. Once all numbers are attempted,the numbers that
were not answered are tried a second and a third time if necessary.
As an example: During the June 22nd Rhone Poulenc incident 913 phone numbers
in the notification area were attempted. The message was relayed to 558 numbers
on the first attempt. This took 28 minutes. The remaining 355 numbers were
attempted a second and third time if necessary. The message was relayed to 177
more during these attempts. The entire calling process took 1 hour and 9 minutes.
WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO STREAMLINE NOTIFICATION?
Part of the delay in activating CAN during the December 5th incident was due to
difficulty In determining the area to be notified. Working together, the Chevron
Refinery and County staff have identified notification zones. These zones can be
programmed into the CAN system to help speed the notification process. Calls can
then be made on a priority basis starting with the streets closest to the facility and
working outward. These zones should be In place and operational in two to three
months.
Many of the chemical companies are looking into developing similar notification
zones around their facilities.
WHAT STEPS ARE BEING TAKEN TO MAXIMIZE RESPONSE TIME BY COUNTY
STAFF?
Extensive drills and debriefings have been conducted to help familiarize Emergency
Response and Office of Emergency Services personnel who are authorized to
activate CAN.
Since notification areas are determined by zip code and street boundaries,Thomas
Brother zip code books have been provided to all those authorized to activate the
system. This will help eliminate confusion associated with zip code Identification.
A pre-recorded "Shelter-In-Place" message has been added to the CAN system.
This can be used, if appropriate, to save the time it takes to record a message at
the time of the incident.
4
• y
WHO DECIDES WHETHER TO ACTIVATE COMMUNITY ALERT NETWORK?
There are currently 14 people authorized to activate Community Alert Network. In
a hazardous materials incident the decision will most likely be made by a member
of a County Environmental Health Emergency Response Team. The facilities can
also request activation of KISS and CAN to speed notification time.
Based on the current weather conditions and the material released, staff determine
the notification area. The primary factor taken into consideration is who may be in
potential danger from the incident. Although some individuals may receive a call
who are far from the incident, the County's position is that it is better to err on the
side of over notification. At the same time, however, In order to ensure that all
residents who may potentially be exposed receive notification in a timely fashion,
residents clearly not in danger will most likely not be notified.
5