[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-7144]
[Federal Register: March 28, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Proposed Relocation of the San Francisco Weather Service Forecast
Office; Availability
SUMMARY: The National Weather Service (NWS) is publishing its proposed
certification for the proposed relocation of the San Francisco Weather
Service Forecast Office, Redwood City, to Monterey, California, as
required by Public Law 102-567. In accordance with this law, the public
will have 60-days in which to comment on this proposed certification.
The proposed certification is summarized in this notice but the entire
package is too voluminous to publish in its entirety in the FR and much
of the supporting documentation is, therefore, available by contacting
the addressees below.
DATES: Comments are requested by May 27, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the proposed relocation package
should be sent to Senator Raygor, Wx21, 1325 East-West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910 or Norman Hoffmann, MIC, 660 Price Avenue, Redwood
City, California 94063. All comments should be sent to Senator Raygor.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Senator Raygor at 301-713-0391.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Weather Service (NWS)
anticipates relocating its forecast office for Northern California from
Redwood City to Monterey. This is the first modernization action which
requires a certification of no degradation of service under the Weather
Service Modernization Act (the Act). In accordance with section 706 of
Public Law 102-567, the Secretary of Commerce must certify that this
relocation will not result in any degradation of service and must
publish the proposed relocation certification in the FR. The proposed
certification documentation includes the following:
(1) A draft memorandum by the meteorologist in charge recommending
the certification, the final of which will be endorsed by the Regional
Director and the Director of the National Weather Service if
appropriate, after consideration of public comments and completion of
consultation with the Modernization Transition Committee;
(2) A description of local weather characteristics and weather-
related concerns which affect the weather services provided within the
service area;
(3) A detailed comparison of the services provided within the
service area and the services to be provided after such action;
(4) A description of any recent or expected modernization of
National Weather Service operation which will enhance services in the
service area;
(5) An identification of any area within any State which would not
receive coverage (at an elevation of 10,000 feet) by the next
generation weather radar network;
(6) Evidence, based upon operational demonstration of modernized
NWS operations, which was considered in reaching the conclusion that no
degradation in service will result from such action including the
relocation checklist and evidence from similar moves; and
(7) A letter appointing the liaison officer.
The proposed certification will not include any report of the
Modernization Transition Committee (the Committee) which could be
submitted in accordance with sections 706(b)(6) and 707(c) of the
Public Law. At its March 16-17 meeting the Committee concluded that the
information presented by that date did not reveal any potential
degradation of service and decided not to issue a report.
As stated earlier, some of the documentation included in the
certification is too voluminous to publish, e.g. the description of
weather characteristics and the detailed comparison of services, and a
number of the attachments to the MICs evaluations. These items can be
obtained through either of the contacts listed above.
Attached to this notice is (1) the draft memorandum from Norman C.
Hoffman, Meteorologist in Charge, WSFO San Francisco to Dr. Thomas D.
Potter, Director, Western Region, summarizing the basis for his
recommendation for relocation certification; (2) the Relocation
Checklist; (3) memorandum from (a) Dean P. Gulezian, Meteorologist in
Charge, Detroit, (b) James D. Belville, Meteorologist in Charge, WSFO
Washington, DC (c) G.C. Henricksen, Jr., Meteorologist in Charge, WSFO
Philadelphia, all evaluating recent office moves for which they were
responsible and providing evidence for the present relocation.
Once all public comments have been received and considered, the NWS
will complete consultation with the Committee and determine whether to
proceed with the final certification. If a decision to certify is made,
the Secretary of Commerce must publish the final certification in the
Federal Register and transmit the certification to the appropriate
Congressional committees prior to relocating the office.
Dated: March 22, 1994.
Elbert W. Friday, Jr.,
Assistant Administrator for Weather Services.
Proposed MIC Recommendation. Included at this time for
Completeness. Also, acronyms used in this package are provided as
part of this letter for reference.
Memorandum For: W/WR--Thomas D. Potter
From: Norman C. Hoffmann, MIC, WSFO San Francisco
Subject: Recommendation for Relocation Certification
After reviewing the documentation herein, I have determined
that, in my professional judgment, relocating the Weather Service
Forecast Office (WSFO) for the northern and central California
service area from Redwood City to Monterey will not result in any
degradation in weather services to this service area. Accordingly, I
am recommending that you approve this section in accordance with
section 706 of Public Law 102-567. If you concur, please endorse
this recommendation and forward the package for transmittal to
Congress.
My recommendation is based on my review of the pertinent
evidence and application of the modernization criteria for
relocation of a field office. In summary:
1. A description of local weather characteristics and weather-
related concerns which affect the weather services provided within
the northern and central California service area is included as
attachment A. As discussed below, I find that providing the services
that address these characteristics and concerns from Monterey rather
than from Redwood City will not degrade these services.
2. A detailed list of the services currently provided within the
northern and central California service area from the Redwood City
location and a list of services to be provided from the Monterey
location after relocation is included as attachment B. Comparison of
these services shows that all services currently provided will
continue to be provided after the proposed relocation. As discussed
below, I find that there will be no degradation in the quality of
these services as a result of the relocation.
3. A description of the recent or expected modernization of
National Weather Service operations which will enhance services in
the service area is included as attachment C. The new technology
listed (ASOS, WSR-88D, and AWIPS) has or will be installed and will
enhance services in the northern and central California service
area.
4. A map showing planned NEXRAD coverage at an elevation of
10,000 feet for California is included as attachment D. It
identifies a limited area within the State (in the Sierra Nevadas)
which will not receive coverage. It should be noted that this area
does not have any NWS radar coverage at this time. NWS operational
radar coverage for the State and for the specific service area will
be increased dramatically.
5. A relocation checklist setting forth all necessary steps to
accomplish the proposed relocation without a disruption of services
is included as attachment E. In finalizing this checklist, I
carefully considered the evidence from already completed office
moves and the comments on my draft checklist from the MICs
responsible for these completed moves [and from users and/or the
public during the comment period.] Thus, the relevant aspects of
``battle plan'' and other planning materials from the successful
move from Ann Arbor to White Lake, Michigan are fully incorporated,
for example, extra care in ensuring an appropriate moving
contractor. (The move from Philadelphia to Mount Holly, New Jersey
also suggests adding this particular check point.) I note that
several recommendations made by the other MIC's, such as a new phone
system and a new demark box are already planned for the Monterey
facility. [Final letter may point out any important changes
resulting from user/public comment]
This checklist includes all of the items required by the
modernization relocation criteria. In particular, to satisfy Item 1
requiring ``notification and technical coordination with users,'' I
include as attachments F & G, a list of the users in the SWFO San
Francisco Bay Area service area that will be notified of the
relocation and a draft of the notification letter I plan to send to
these users approximately 60 days prior to the relocation.
6. In reaching my conclusion that no degradation in service will
result from this relocation, I considered evidence, based upon
operational demonstration of modernized National Weather Service
operations, of two types:
First is the evidence based on existing operations in Redwood
City which will remain the same once the office is relocated in
Monterey. Staff will continue to receive the same data and
information on the same computer terminals and comparable display
monitors and will disseminate their products over the same
telecommunications network to the media and other users as they did
before. In other words, in this case, ``modernized'' operations
after the relocation will be the same as existing operations. I am
certain there is no reason to anticipate any effect on the quality
of services throughout the affected service area simply because they
will be provided from a new location.
This expectation is confirmed by the second type of evidence I
considered, that from completed office moves of WSFO Washington
(from Camp Springs, MD to Sterling, VA); WSFO Philadelphia (from
Philadelphia, PA to Mount Holly, NJ); and WSFO Ann Arbor (from Ann
Arbor, MI to White Lake, MI), included as attachment H. The primary
mechanism for determining whether any degradation of service
resulted from these moves is evidence of user dissatisfaction in
products and services after the move. I believe that, in each case,
there has been adequate opportunity for such dissatisfaction to
surface if it existed and each MIC reports a successful move with no
indication of such dissatisfaction.
I recognize that no single move constitutes a perfect model for
the present relocation but, after reviewing these moves as a body, I
find adequate evidence that no degradation of service will result.
For example, the Ann Arbor WSFO did not contain a service unit as
does San Francisco, but the other two offices do contain such units
and were moved without degrading the services provided by such
units.
Therefore, based of my review of this evidence and in my
professional judgment, I find that the relocation will not result in
a degradation in services to the northern and central California
service area.
7. A memorandum assigning the liaison officer for the San
Francisco Bay Area service area is included as attachment I.
I note that WSFO San Francisco is not located on an airport and
is not the only field office in California, so that those special
criteria involving an air safety appraisal and an evaluation to in-
state users required under PL 102-567 are not applicable to this
proposed relocation certification.
[If, after the MIC considers comments raised during the comment
period, he continues to recommend certification, the final
memorandum will address appropriate comments either here or in an
attachment.]
I, Thomas D. Potter, Director, Western Region, endorse this
proposed relocation certification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas D. Potter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
I, Elbert W. Friday, Jr., Assistant Administrator for Weather
Services, endorse this proposed relocation certification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elbert W. Friday, Jr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
Relocation Checklist
I. Notification and Technical Coordination With Users
________Technical Coordination completed with users. Users have
received notification of the proposed relocation and relocation
date.
II. Identification and Preparation of Backup Sites
WSO Sacramento is the backup site.
________Personnel scheduled for deployment from WSFO San Francisco
to WSO Sacramento during backup operations.
________AFOS software loaded at WSO Sacramento for backup
operations.
________Portable NOAA Weather Radio system installed at Monterey and
tested for backup NOAA Weather Radio operation.
III. Start of Service Backup
Delay move and start of backup service if severe weather is in
progress or forecast for the day.
________Forecasters deployed to WSO Sacramento for backup
operations.
________WSFO San Francisco MIC coodinates with WSO Sacramento MIC
regarding start of backup operations.
________Start backup operations.
IV. Systems, Furniture and Communications
________Final Coordination with moving company. Ensure familiarity
with moving computer equipment. Also company will allow flexibility
in the order the truck is loaded.
________Furniture at Redwood City identified that will be moved to
the new WSFO.
________Inventory all circuits to be moved and established
relationships with all involved telephone companies.
________New telephone system and communications circuits installed
at the new WSFO.
________AFOS communications circuits installed.
________Satellite data circuits installed.
________Install furniture and equipment according to furniture and
equipment floor plan.
V. Installation and Checkout
________Connect wiring for AFOs, peripheral computers and modems.
AFOS
________Boot AFOS, bring it up and on line.
________Validate data base and verify data flowing.
________Send test message.
________Verify request reply.
________Test printer.
________Display maps on AFOS.
________Run animate on AFOS.
________Check out software
________Verify watchdog programs are running.
CFOS
________Bring CFOS and additional computers/peripherals (printer
plotter) on lone.
________Run applications program.
________Send test product to AFOS.
________Send test product over SDC.
________Send test product over Western Region Loop.
NOAA Weather Wire
________Transmit on NOAA Weather Wire.
National Warning System (NAWAS)
________Initiate call to California OES to verify operation of
NAWAS.
Satellite Display Systems
________Bring SWIS, MicroSWIS, DWIPS, HIPS Satellite systems on
line.
________Check receipt of images.
________Check looping capability after 2nd image.
Emergency Broadcast System (EBS)
________Ensure the EBS capabilities are reestablished.
Emergency Digital Information System (EDIS)
________Ensure EDIS transmission and reception.
ALERT
________Bring ALERT on line.
________Verify data is flowing.
________Verify dial-out and dial-in capabilities are working.
NOAA Weather Radio (NWR)
________Bring NWR on line.
________Verify the three NWR consoles are operational.
________Terminate use of portable NOAA Weather Radio (DALKE) system
for NWR backup.
________Verify the two phones: one for the media answered 24 hours
per day; the second for public and service requests, are working and
have the same phone numbers as they had at Redwood City.
VI. Validation of Systems Operability and Service Delivery
Once AFOS hardware and all associated PCs are deemed operational by
the ET staff, the meteorologist at the various forecast desks will
verify that their PCs are communicating with AFOS.
________Verify receipt of the needed hydrologic, radar, satellite,
surface and upper air observational data, appropriate computer model
guidance, and appropriate forecast products and guidance from other
NWS offices to maintain the watch, warning, advisory and forecast
programs for northern and central California.
VII. End of Backup Operations
________Following validation of systems operability and service
delivery, terminate backup operations at WSO Sacramento.
February 8, 1994.
Memorandum For: Louis J. Boezi Wx2
From: Dean P. Gulezian MIC/AM WSFO DTX
Subject: Evaluation of Office Move
Reference: Your Memo, Same Subject 1/21/94
Listed below are the responses to each of the questions raised
in your 1/21/94 memo.
Before answering the specific questions, I'll provide a little
background on how we approached the move.
Our office move from Ann Arbor to White Lake Michigan was a TQM
effort from the start. A move task team was developed which included
everyone in the office who volunteered or was assigned
responsibility for certain aspects of the move. The union had a
representative on the task team as well, and he worked ``hand in
hand'' with us every step of the way. We especially worked closely
with the union on such matters as floor plans, short distance
transfer benefits, paperwork necessary to process transfers, etc. A
letter was presented to the union 60 days in advance of the move
specifying the pertinent information regarding the move (attachment
1).
Most move related tasks were delegated to various staff members
who were given full authority and responsibility to execute these
tasks. My responsibility was to oversee everything, and carry out
the few tasks that I took on myself. Many ``move task force''
meetings were held during the time the move was being planned, with
the meetings becoming more frequent (daily at the end) as the move
drew closer.
A ``battle plan'' (attachment 2 shows the final summary) for
executing the move was developed at the first meeting. Subsequent
meetings evaluated the progress of this plan. Input for the battle
plan came from a number of sources. They were: the relocation
kickoff meeting conducted by CRH SOD (agenda in attachment 3), the
draft ROML issued by CRH on Facilities Relocation Management
(attachment 4), the Facilities Prep List prepared by the SFT
(attachment 5), and the Office Relocation Plan prepared by CRH SOD
with input from members of the move task force (attachment 6).
Furthermore, a Move Activities Plan was written, using CRH guidance.
Attachment 7 is the final copy of the plan. Rather than me
commenting on your draft relocation checklist, I offer our ``battle
plan'' and move activities plan as well as the additional documents
mentioned in this paragraph as alternatives to the plan you drafted.
As a result of many people being an important part of the move,
and excellent support from CRH and WSH, and a top-notch moving
company, our move went smoothly. Our staff was very supportive of
the move, despite the fact that it meant most people would have to
relocate. For all employees involved in a short-distance transfer,
the PCS's were processed quickly and without complication. Because
of the sparse population near the new office, the staff was given a
25 mile radius from the new office to move into and still claim a
short-distance transfer.
When reviewing our comments, it should be noted that our office
at Ann Arbor was rather unique. It did not have a public service
unit, or any interaction with the public. It also did not have a CWA
or NWR program. We still don't have these programs, but will have
them shortly when we pick up the service programs from WSOs Detroit
and Flint.
1. The Move From Where to Where--Distance
The move occurred between Ann Arbor, MI and White Lake MI, which
is a distance of 48 miles. AFOS and other communications were
disconnected at 8 AM and running again by 8 PM. We were fully
operational by 10 PM that day. The move was managed by following the
above-mentioned documents. It went smoothly with no problems
encountered.
2. User Notification of the Move
The attached user notification list was used to notify all users
of our move (attachment 8). It was developed based on a generic list
provided by CRH (attachment 9). The move letter is also attached
(attachment 10) as is the press release that was sent on AFOS
(attachment 11). Notification went smoothly with no problems
encountered.
3. Service Backup
The attached service back-up plan (attachment 12) and letter
explaining the Flexzone Program (attachment 13) enabled service
back-up to be perfectly executed with no problems encountered.
4. Communications, Installation, and Checkout
An inventory of all circuits at the old office was taken
(attachment 14). This included all voice and data circuits. Then a
list was made of all of the necessary circuits that would be needed
at the new office, including voice and data. A Request for Change
was written by WSH which also addressed necessary actions
(attachment 15). Regional Headquarters then ordered new circuits
that were needed and ordered ``add term circuits'' for circuits that
could be used at both locations i.e. AFOS RDC Circuits. The add term
circuits avoided the conflict of having to connect both ends when
the move took place. These circuits were ordered approximately eight
months in advance with an installation date at least a month in
advance of the move. A minor problem did develop with the local
telephone company during the evening of the move. It was quickly
taken care of by our ESA. Our Regional Communication Manager was
also a tremendous help on moving day. No matter how well the
communications portion of a move is planned, the actions of the
local telephone company are out of the NWS's hands. Other than that
minor problem, no other problems were encountered.
5. The Move of Furniture and Equipment
The move of furniture was handled by one of our forecasters. He
was in charge of everything from marking what furniture was to be
shipped to the new office, to what furniture was to be made excess
property. He also worked with our secretary on preparing the excess
property list (attachment 16), worked with CASC and met with the
movers to arrange details of the move, and drew color coded maps for
both locations as to where each piece of furniture was to be taken
from and placed. On move day he oversaw the move of furniture out of
Ann Arbor, while our Service Hydrologist oversaw the move of
furniture into the new White Lake office. The move of furniture went
smoothly with no problems encountered.
CRH SOD and CASC procurement handled contracting the moving
company for both furniture and equipment. They did not look for the
lowest bidder, but the company that showed they could move the
equipment properly, without tipping or laying the equipment over.
The mover also had to agree to allow the NWS to instruct them what
to move and when. This allowed the NWS to get the equipment loaded
first and moved safely to the new office immediately. Not only were
no problems encountered in moving equipment, but the ability to
dictate what equipment was to be moved first enabled us to restore
full operations as quickly as we did.
6. System Installation and Checkout
The following were the major systems relocated at DTX: AFOS,
SWIS, and Remote RADAR displays. An NWS telephone system was also
installed at the new office. Approximately 8 months in advance of
the move, an inventory was conducted of all of the cables needed by
the major systems being moved. The larger cables, such as the AFOS
GDM Bus cables were ordered by CRH. The smaller cables were made by
the Electronics staff at the WSFO using supplies purchased locally.
These were cables such as the ABT cables.
As soon as the building was accepted, the SFT installed the
necessary peculiar electrical outlets for the systems that would be
installed. At the same time the electronics staff installed all of
the phone system cabling and all of the system cables. The phone
system cables were terminated where necessary and the system cables
were checked to ensure the correct connectors were in the correct
locations. The phone system was connected and all of the phone
locations were programmed and checked out for proper operation. CRH
supplied the phone system and the phone sets. All of the
interconnecting cabling and termination supplies were purchased
locally by the electronics staff.
The layout of the equipment in the new office was planned well
in advance of the move and diagrammed, to scale, by CRH SOD. This
diagram allowed local staff to determine where all furniture and
equipment would be located. It also allowed the electronics staff to
determine where all of the system cables and telephone cables needed
to be terminated. As a result, no problems were encountered with
systems installation and checkout.
7. Validation of System Operability and Service Delivery
Diagnostics were run on AFOS followed by a MODIFY. Then all
equipment was turned on and the electronics staff and forecasters
made sure all incoming data was received. We were fully operational
and receiving all incoming data by 10 PM the evening of the move and
there were no problems encountered validating the system operability
or products delivered by the WSFO.
User Reaction
User reaction has been extremely positive. After moving to White
Lake, we immediately held 2 open houses. One was for our users (see
attachment 17), and one for our new neighbors (see attachment 18).
Both open houses went a long way toward building a positive
relationship with our users. A typical response from our users is
one that a county emergency manager made to a letter from our WPM
(attachment 19). One neighbor did raise some concerns which were
addressed in a memo which is attached to this response (attachment
20). The response satisfied his concerns.
Attachments
February 22, 1994.
Memorandum For: Louis J. Boezi, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Modernization
From: James D. Belville, MIC/AM WSFO, Washington, DC
Subject: Evaluation of the Relocation of WSFO, Washington, DC from
Camp Springs, MD to Sterling, VA
The Weather Service Forecast Office (WSFO) in Washington, DC
provides weather forecasts and warnings over a four state area
(Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and the eastern panhandle of West
Virginia) as well as, one federal district and a large section of
the North Atlantic Ocean. The WSFO in Washington, DC provides a full
suite of services including aviation, public, and marine forecasts;
fire weather, air pollution, and agricultural support services;
hydrologic data collection and forecasts; and severe weather
warnings. Due to the multi-state service area and multitude of
services, few if any WSFO's in the United States could compare in
complexity for the relocation of this particular office.
The WSFO Washington, DC (WBC) relocated on March 19, 1990 from
Camp Springs, MD to Sterling, VA. The relocation of this facility
was necessary because of the location of the WSR-88D weather radar
on property owned by the NWS just west of Dulles International
Airport. The distance of this move was approximately fifty (50)
miles.
The move of WSFO WBC was completely planned and coordinated by
myself, William Comeaux (DMIC), and numerous staff members of the
WSFO. Our first priority was to ensure that the office move was
totally transparent to our entire user community. This meant that
all services continued uninterrupted during the transition of
services from one location to another. In every aspect of the
planning process, the transition of services was the number one
consideration.
User notification of the office relocation along with new NWS
phone numbers presented the WSFO with a significant challenge. While
gearing up for this task, we found there was no central listing of
the various users. Each office focal point was tasked with
developing a comprehensive list of users, along with the current
address, for notification. These were then combined and compiled in
an administrative computer. A letter was composed for each specific
user group of individual along with computer produced mailing
labels. We found that computer paper with the NOAA letterhead was
available. We were able to generate in excess of 2400 notification
letters and mail them over a three day period. Following the office
relocation, we received zero complaints from all user groups
concerning our notification procedures. The notification occurred 45
days prior to the relocation.
Designing and implementing a communication system for the new
facility in Sterling was the most difficult, as well as frustrating,
experience of the entire move. For the most part, this was due to
the fact that the local phone company was Contel, but C&P Telephone
and AT&T also provided many of our data circuits. An enormous amount
of coordination was required in order to successfully install all
needed communications circuits. All data circuits were tested using
a PC one week prior to the move. Several problems were found and
immediately corrected. These efforts paid off as the WSFO AFOS
system, NWR, RADIDS monitors, and SWIS were all functioning in an
operational configuration at the new site within 18 hours of being
turned off at the old location.
One significant outcome of the WSFO relocation was the vastly
increased (nearly double) area covered by the metro area telephone
service the NWS obtained through Contel. The WSFO public service
function was greatly enhanced by the expanded telephone service
area.
There were three communication deficiencies which resulted from
the relocation of the WSFO.
1. FTS service was not available at the Sterling site for
approximately 1\1/2\ years following the relocation.
2. Relocating the office telephone system from the old site to
the new location was a mistake. It proved to be quite expensive and
required several days to complete installation. Installing a new
phone system prior to the relocation would have been better.
3. The FEMA NAWAS circuits were installed about one month
following the office move. This delay was caused by FEMA not
budgeting for the relocation of these circuits.
Service backup for the WSFO relocation was provided by several
means. The public forecast and warning programs were provided from
WSO Baltimore, MD by WSFO WBC forecasters. The backup service began
at 12 AM EST Sunday, March 19 and ended at 8 AM EST Monday, March
20, 1990. All products were issued on time and were of excellent
quality. Neither the public, local officials, nor media could tell
that a relocation had occurred. The aviation forecast products and
marine forecast products were issued by WSFO Charleston, WV and WSFO
Raleigh, NC respectively. They did an excellent job of providing
quality products for our users.
The relocation of the equipment was planned in great detail.
Equipment was loaded onto the vans in the order in which it needed
when unloaded. In other words, the most important was loaded last in
order to be first off. The first off was the NOAA Weather Radio
(NWR). This system was down for a total of 6 hours. Next, the AFOS
was off loaded. As each piece was moved into the new facility, it
was off loaded. As each piece was moved into the new facility, it
was hooked up immediately by the electronics technicians. The entire
system installation and checkout was completed by 8 PM EST, March
19. The system was allowed to run all night to ensure everything was
operating satisfactorily. Two forecasters and a meteorological
technician monitored data flow and product delivery to validate
service delivery capabilities. No troubles were encountered during
the night and all backup services were terminated at 8 AM Monday
morning.
The relocation of WSFO WBC to a new facility was more than just
a move. It also provided the WSFO with an opportunity to improve
several key areas of WSFO operations. These were:
1. Greatly improved operations layout with respect to access to
the various technologies and the facilitation of interaction between
forecasters.
2. Vastly improved NOAA Weather Radio operations both in the
basic programming and quality of the broadcast.
3. Improved warning procedures were obtained by locating the key
dissemination systems to local officials and the media in the
operations area (NAWAS and EBS).
4. The SKYWARN spotter program was significantly enhanced with
respect to the location of the amateur radio station in the
operations area and improved antenna system. It was difficult for
SKYWARN to function at the old location.
To-date, I have not received nor have I heard of a complaint
connected with the relocation of WSFO WBC to Sterling, VA. The
relocation went extremely well and was transparent to all users.
I have thoroughly reviewed the WSFO San Francisco relocation
checklist with respect to requirements of relocation of WSFO WBC. I
find this checklist quite comprehensive and serves its intended
purpose well. I could find no deficiencies in their planning for
this office relocation.
G. C. Henricksen, Jr., NWSFO PHI/MT. HOLLY, NOAA, 732 Woodlane Road,
Mount Holly, N.J. 08060
February 3, 1994.
Memorandum For: Louis J. Boezi, WX2
From: MIC/AM WSFO PHI
Subject: Evaluation of Office Move
Reference: WX21 memorandum 1/21/94
In reference to the above memorandum, the responses are as
follows:
(1) The move was from downtown Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(Federal Building, 600 Arch Street), to Westampton township, New
Jersey, just west of the town of Mount Holly. The distance is 21
road miles.
(2) User notification was handled by our office and Eastern
Region Headquarters. Over three thousand notifications were mailed
to radio, television, cable, newspapers, cooperative observers and
spotters.
(3) Full service backup was accomplished by NWSFO PIT and NYC
for sixty hours (60) from 7am edt August 23, 1993 to 7pm edt August
25, 1993.
(4) Telephone lines were moved across state boundaries. This
created numerous difficulties with the RDC/SDC AFOS circuits, the
asynchronous circuits, NWR, and general telephone lines. The NWR
circuit problems took the longest to resolve. The DMARC was moved
from the old location to the new location. A new DMARC should have
been constructed at the new facility. The old DMARC caused numerous
circuit restructuring problems. All cabling and connections were
installed and checked at the new facility prior to the move.
(5) & (6) The furniture and equipment move was handled poorly.
The ``A'' side of AFOS was dropped. SWIS was dropped and severely
damaged. The equipment was loaded first and off-loaded last which
was opposite to our instructions. The damage and delay in off-
loading equipment contributed to lengthening operational down time
of the new facility--requiring a longer full service backup. The
RDA, RPG, and PUP installation went smoothly. The new facility
environmental control was seriously faulty and took several weeks to
fully rectify.
(7) The WSR-88D was accepted approximately two weeks later than
target date (early October 1993). The building was conditionally
(with faults noted with suggested corrections) accepted just prior
to the move.
User reaction was strongly negative toward the poor
communication systems or lack of proper operating communication
systems prior to resolution. Current reaction of the users is highly
positive. In short, the major problem was communications. The damage
to the computer equipment and SWIS further delayed the restoration
of full service capability. In the long run, the systems were
repaired, re-routed, restructured, and stabilized to the full
satisfaction of all users.
Attachments: memorandum 9/21/93; memorandum WX21, 1/21/94
cc: W/ER Susan F. Zevin, DMIC, John Jones, AES, Ralph Paxson
September 21, 1993.
For the Record:
From: MIC/AM WSFO PHI/MT. HOLLY--Chet Henricksen
Subject: The NWSFO PHL move to Mt. Holly
On August 23, 1993, the forecast office moved from center city
Philadelphia to Mt. Holly, New Jersey. The move was approximately 21
miles. This is a summary of the move and the things that we've
learned. Each move is different, with separate problems. We can all
learn from each individual move scenario.
(1) The equipment and furniture move--Significant damage
occurred to our SWIS and AFOS system due to improper handling during
the move. We estimate approximately 10 thousand dollars in damages
due to dropped and damaged equipment. A more experienced computer
equipment mover should have been used.
Recommendations: The area manager should have an active role in
the selection of the equipment mover with EASC oversight. The mover
should have a history of successful computer moves. The computer
equipment should be loaded last and off loaded first. The delivery
of non-computer equipment to the new sight should be delayed to
allow for setup of moved computer systems. The placement and
handling of office and computer equipment requires at least two
dedicated NWS oversight personnel.
(2) Communications--All AFOS lines and telephone lines were laid
prior to the move. The AFOS DEMARC from the center city WSFO was
hand carried to the new office, and put in place in a couple of
hours. The new lines already in place in the office had to be
connected to the AFOS DEMARC. There was a circuit routing change
required by SMCC in addition to normal re-connection. This effected
all asynchronous circuits. An attempt was made to reroute all
asynchronous circuits in the DEMARC. This was only partially
successful. The end result was a significant delay in asynchronous
service. The RDC and SDC could not be checked prior to the move
other than to confirm that the new lines were active. Problems arose
in data distribution checks after AFOS was reconnected. This further
delayed return from full service backup. NWWS and NU IFLOWS saw
significant delays.
Recommendations: Standardized new DEMARC boxes should be
available prior to a move, with all cables and wiring accomplished
prior to the move. All required changes in the DEMARC should be done
well in advance, and available to the office for installation to the
new location prior to the physical move. Assistance from person(s)
at another management area, which has accomplished a similar move
should be required. Expertise and experience of NWS personnel should
be fully utilized. We need a design review of the satellite antenna
plot to stabilize the system.
(3) Telephone Systems--The switch over from the old telephone
line numbers to the new was not smooth. The old telephone numbers
were still active for over one week following the move. The public
ring through answering machine failed, probably due to an internal
power supply failure. This occurred on power up at the new location.
Additionally, the ring through telephone number did not properly
switch over to the New Jersey number as planned. It was more than
two weeks after the move, when we discovered that Bell Atlantic had
not passed the work request on to Bell of Pennsylvania to accomplish
a ``roll over'' number for Pennsylvania callers. The three 800
telephone numbers failed to ``roll over'' to the New Jersey numbers
as designed. In an attempt to keep the 800 numbers and ring through
number changes transparent to the user, unforeseen delays occurred
in incoming calls to the new office. Numerous public complaints were
filed due to telephones not being answered (due to the numerous
switch over problems). The learning curve on the NorthStar telephone
system was slow. This lead to an added irritant during and shortly
following the move.
Recommendations: If the new lines are connected and operational,
the old FTS 2000 lines should be disconnected by GSA within twenty-
four hours of the move. A voice intercept should be used for
approximately thirty days on the old telephone numbers announcing
the new telephone number. With at least four telephone companies
involved in an interstate move, you can be assured of delays and
errors in timing, and implementation of telephone numbers. A
comparable spare answering machine should be available for on site
use in the event of the primary system failure.
(4) Environmental Systems--The condenser units on two of the
three air conditioners flooded the ceiling and hallway of the new
office on four separate occasions. The problem turned out to be a
defect under recall by the manufacturer that had to be accomplished
by the local service installers. The humidifier unit flooded the
ceiling tiles twice. This appears to be an engineering problem with
the circulation system in the humidifier. we have a temporary fix in
place, but no permanent solution is available. The thermostatic
control for the three air handlers is a computer. A password and
system training is necessary to operate and control the temperature
environment in all but the equipment room. The password was not made
available until two weeks after the move. Training is still not
accomplished. The computer control unit failed due to a near by
lightning strike. This caused the entire environmental system to
fail. A telephone line was installed three weeks after the move.
This established contractor remote access to the computer control.
The environmental controller was placed on UPS three weeks after the
move.
Recommendations: Communications of recalls and equipment
modification lists must be improved. Facility problems experienced
at this location, are likely to be repeated at other NWS facilities.
All environmental computer control units should be placed on UPS in
all NWS facilities. Passwords and training for the control units
should be supplied within 48 hours of building occupancy. Remote
access to the control unit via telephone lines should be completed
prior to the move. A permanent fixed needs to be found for the
humidifier problem.
Many things did go well with the move. I have listed the problem
areas. This was done in an attempt to help other offices in their
move. I am open for questions and clarifications of these and other
issues at anytime.
cc: Susan F. Zevin, W/ER, Ted Wilk, W/ER4, AMs, NWSFOs ER, Ralph
Paxson, AES
[FR Doc. 94-7144 Filed 3-25-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-12-M
