Orange County Grand Jury • 2007-2008

Can the Emergency Operations Center at Loma Ridge Survive a Disaster?

Published: September 03, 2007 9 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 4 findings

F1
The HVAC systems are inadequate for the Emergency Operations Center facility because they lack a smoke filtration system.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The sewage system is barely adequate for the present staffing level. Any increase in staffing will overload the system and require daily, or more frequent, trips of the sewage pump truck.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The Emergency Operations Center uses water for its fire suppression system in vital equipment areas that house computer servers, critical telecommunications systems, and backup batteries. The release of water will damage all electronic equipment in the vicinity and the system responds only when a fire has substantially developed.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The four Liebert Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) systems used in the critical electrical service are nearing the end of their rated design life of 20 years, according to the manufacturer specifications. The demand on these units has exceeded the desired “less than 50% of available capacity.” Responses to Findings F1 through F4 are required from the Orange County Sheriff- Coroner. Responses to Findings F1 through F4 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The Orange County Sheriff-Coroner’s Department replace the existing four Liebert UPS units with four other units of 60 to 80 Kva each. Responses to Recommendations R-1a, R-2a, R-3a, and R-4 are required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. Responses to Recommendations R-1b, R-2b and R-3b are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. 9

Conclusions 1

Agency Responses 2

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.