January March 30, 2004

 

Memo for:   Business Continuity Plan Management Committee

 

Subject:  Minutes of the January 29March 26, 2004 Meeting

 

1.  A meeting of the Business Continuity Plan Management Committee was held on ThursdayFriday, January 29March 26, 2004 in Rm 210A Conethe Miltimore-Wallis Athletic Center.

 

2.       Attendance:

Ø                        Present:  Susan Brooks, Rick Conboy, Randy Duncan, Barbara Edwards, Ted Elling, Ray Galleno, Barry Godlewski, William Harper, Jon Hawn, Tony Hoppa, Phil Jones, John Mack, James Manly, Shannon Mason, Charlie Puckett, Mark Reynolds, Morgan Roseborough, Randy Ross, Wally Seigler, Darin Spease, Gary Stinnett, Doug Thomas, Richard Yount

 

Ø      Absent:  Kathi Baucom, Susan Brooks,Randy Duncan, Barbara Edwards, Lee Gray, Carter Heath, Bill Hill, Michelle Howard, Tom Lamb, Steve Mosier, Lars Powell, Charlie Puckett, Randy Ross, Laura Simic

, Darin Spease, Doug Thomas

 

3.      Main topics / issues:

 

A.     Update on Critical Business ProcessesLive Web Demonstration of Automated Notification System:   Continuity of Operations Plans are in hand for all but one Critical Business Processes (CBP) with recovery time objectives of day-1 thru day-7.  Overall, we have plans in hand for 27 of the 42 CBP’s. A demonstration of the MIR3 Inlogic notification system was presented by Stacey Giles (remotely from San Diego via the web).  The demonstration attempted automated notification of 34 University personnel who appear on the Emergency Response Plan notification matrix.  Messages were sent to office phone, cell phone, pager and email addresses.  In one hour, 22 of 34 had been contacted.  15 responded to the initial call.  The results are better than the two previous exercises which were done manually, by telephone only.  Doug Thomas reported that ITS is also evaluating another product that appears to have even greater capabilities.  He will keep us posted on the progress of that evaluation.

 

B.     Exercising the Plans. Update on Critical Business Processes.   To date we have received COOP documents for all critical processes with Recovery Time Objectives (RTO’s) in the first seven days following a disaster.  We have received COOP documents for 28 of 42 CBP’s.  All COOP documents should be completed no later than 1 June, 2004.  Update notices have been sent to “owners” of COOP documents that are over six months since the last update.  Those that have been updated have been stored in the “fireproof” cabinet in the Facilities Management Server Room in the appropriate bin.  Both paper copy and CD are available at that site.

 

(1)Planning for exercises continues.  We have conducted two semi-live exercises and two communications-only exercises to date.  We will concentrate on exercising CBP’s with RTO of day-1 thru 7.  Morgan will meet with “owners” of the CBP to shape an effective exercise plan.

(0)Exercises can be in the form of tabletop, semi-live, or mock disaster drills.  The intent is to get the maximum training benefit with minimum disruption of operations and least cost.

(0)It is important to document exercises.  Not only will this be a matter of auditor interest, it will also give us a means to collect best practices and make necessary adjustments to our plans.


 

C.  Power FailureBusiness Continuity Software.  Morgan reported that the winning bid for BCP software went to CPO, Inc for their product “Resource Tracker”.  Installation and user training should begin in April, ’04.   The software is designed to reside on the University network in a shared drive.  There it can be accessed from on-campus or off-campus (via Web Folders)  Each department or unit responsible for a CBP will have a user trained to post data and update documents using this software. Charlie Puckett gave a presentation on electrical power distribution on campus.  He outlined those areas served directly by Duke Power and those whose power comes through the University sub-station.  PowerPoint slides from his presentation were disseminated to committee members via email.  Key points from his presentation and the follow-on discussion were:

ØMost facilities on campus do not have emergency generators of sufficient capacity to run more than emergency lighting systems.

ØFor older buildings (e.g., high rise residence halls), the emergency lighting is not very good.  Flashlights should be on hand for RA’s and residents.

ØIt is also advisable for people to have a battery-powered radio in order to get updates on the local power situation, emergency shelters, etc, during regional blackouts.

ØThere will be no external lighting on campus (parking lots, walkways, etc.).  This poses an additional safety risk until portable emergency lights can be acquired and deployed.  Since the University does not own any of these, we should only be able to count on having them for planned power outages.

Ø                                    The SAC may be the best place on campus for an emergency shelter for students, staff, and faculty since it has the largest emergency generator.

Food service can operate out of two dining facilities that use natural gas and steam.  Chartwells maintains a three-day supply of food on campus.  Refrigerated and other perishable food will be consumed on day-1. 

D. 

Emergency Response Plan.  Jon Hawn reviewed experiences from the Campus Police point of view from the past two communications exercises:

The number of calls to persons designated as a “1” on the notification matrix requires the Dispatcher and both on-duty Watch Captains to assist.  This takes the Watch Captains away from their primary duties managing the disaster site and assisting first responders.  Even with three people making calls, it took almost an hour to contact all the “1’s” in the last communications exercise.

A solution may be to reduce the number of “1’s” to one or two people.  They, in turn would contact the “2’s” and the “2’s” would contact a new group, designated as “3’s”.  As much as possible, this would follow normal organization chains of command/supervision.  Morgan will make these revisions to the contact matrix and send it out for review.

In order to make the current matrix (or the revision) work more effectively, we will use the dial-in number for responses to the notification and detailed information about the emergency situation.  This should minimize the need for callers to repeat long messages.  They would simply state that there is an emergency on campus; call 704-687-3838 for further details and instructions.  Since this will only work when the land line phone system is functioning, this number may not be operational.  In that case, the full message must be delivered with each call made by cell phone.

 

We should give serious consideration to the purchase (or lease) of a system that would simultaneously broadcast the emergency notification message to all persons on the contact matrix, using land line, cell phone, pager, fax and email.  This system will also record successful contacts, and non-contacts.  This will greatly reduce the load on the Dispatcher, speed up the notification process, and raise the probability that contact will be made with key people in a minimum amount of time. As a result of feedback on previous communications exercises, modifications were made to the Emergency Notification Matrix (Tab C, Emergency Response Plan).  The matrix now has three designations (1, 2 , and 3) for specific people under each potential disaster scenario.  “1’s” are called by the Campus Police Dispatcher.  “2’s” will be called by “1’s”, and “3’s” will be called by “2’s” as they see the necessity to do so.  These changes were sent in hard copy to all CMT Core Group members and were posted on the BCP Web Site http://www.uncc.edu/bcp for all others.

 

E.  BCP Workbook and Planner.  All departments and administrative units should be working on completion of the Planner, for their Business Continuity Plans.  To date we have received several completed planners, but they are the standard by which the auditors will determine the adequacy of our plans.  They are a departmental responsibility to complete and maintain.  These Planners should be maintained in hard copy and on CD or floppy disk.  The storage cabinet in Facilities Management is still available to store these.

 

F.  Practice Disaster Scenario.  The committee went through a disaster scenario depicting a regional power blackout that would last for over 72 hours.  Available means for sheltering, evacuation, traffic control, internal and external communications, feeding, portable emergency power, and EOC operations were discussed. 

 

Since this scenario took place in January, a critical issue was lack of heat in residence halls.  There are many students who will not be able to go home (and many who will come to campus from surrounding apartment complexes seeking shelter, food, etc).  Therefore we must be prepared to handle large numbers.  A central shelter with some emergency power, restroom facilities, and food service capability is critical.  The best location at the present time appears to be the SAC, since it has all of these features and the largest emergency generator (1000KW) on campus.  A workgroup is being assembled to study the feasibility of designating the SAC for this purpose.

 

Since the University is on the same power transmission line with University Hospital, we are likely to be among the first to have power restored.  However, until power is restored, we face a significant challenge in being able to take care of students, staff and faculty on campus.  Sustained temperatures below freezing (as we have experienced during the past two weeks) make the challenge even greater.

 

The next meeting of the committee will be at 10:00AM on February, 27April 30, 2004.  The location will be announced when a meeting room is confirmed. 

 

 

 

 

Morgan Roseborough

Director, Business Continuity Planning

UNC Charlotte