Why Messaging Matters: A Regionalized Approach to Alerts and Warnings

On February 18, 2015, an explosion at the ExxonMobil Refinery in Torrance, California, released toxic catalytic dust into the atmosphere, exposing 250,000 residents or more during peak daytime hours. Flying debris narrowly avoided hitting a tank that contained tens of thousands of pounds of highly toxic modified hydrofluoric acid (MHF). The explosion registered 1.6 on the Richter scale, and many residents initially mistook the explosion for an earthquake. The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board later classified the incident as a “near miss” due to the potential catastrophe an MHF release could have caused.

The confluence of federal, state, and local agencies complicated the response as questions about radioactive material and a potential terrorism nexus were left unaddressed without agency coordination. The city’s police and fire departments struggled to establish unified command, issuing alerts independently. In January 2015, the Office of Emergency Services began the conversion and implementation of a new alerting software onto a different platform. The system had not been fully integrated at the time of the explosion, and different departments defaulted to past practices. An internal alert was sent using the new system out of the city manager’s office at 9:11 a.m. that an incident had occurred at the refinery, then again at 9:30 a.m. The first was an alert that an incident had occurred, and the second was a shelter-in-place advisory to employees through the new system. This was the new protocol for initial alerts. However, what transpired was contradictory messaging when the police department issued a NIXLE alert to the public at 9:47 a.m., informing the community of no air quality issues. This was largely because the watch commander had responded to the refinery and was interacting directly with the incident commander, not the emergency management staff responsible for issuing the alerts. At this time, NIXLE was not fully integrated into the new alerting platform.

First responders made personal calls to the nearby school district advising them to keep kids inside for physical education out of an abundance of caution. The uncertain situation worsened as ash began to fall from the sky. A fog of confusion blanketed the city, and Torrance’s Office of Emergency Services discovered critical flaws in its emergency communication and alert systems.

A shelter-in-place order was issued in response to the indisputability of a developing situation. Widespread winds spread the ash – later identified as toxic catalytic dust – across city lines and into several neighboring cities in the South Bay region. The shelter-in-place order issued to Torrance residents was largely ineffective due to three main issues:

1. No clear lines of authority were established for the approval of messaging within a unified command structure;
2. The outdated telecommunications infrastructure that supports landlines was outdated and unable to handle the sheer volume of calls being pushed in the area, which hindered the city’s ability to deliver timely notifications; and
3. The city’s alert system could not reach residents beyond its jurisdiction, so interoperability became a central concern.

In addition, the public was confused about what shelter-in-place means, as the Torrance Office of Emergency Services witnessed by phone calls and in-person comments at city council meetings. Following a 1989 explosion at a Torrance refinery that caused significant loss of life, a court-mandated alert and warning initiative was implemented to inform residents about refinery incidents, including public education on the meaning of these alerts. Even with the implementation of local public education initiatives, widespread confusion plagues the public due to inconsistent use of terms like “shelter-in-place” and “lockdown,” which are often used interchangeably but have distinct meanings. Common terminology in emergency communications is necessary, and public education should mirror this terminology nationwide.

The fragmented nature of local alert systems highlighted during this event is still a pressing public safety issue today. Disasters do not respect borders, and communication must be able to transcend them. That event profoundly shifted the city’s perspective on needing a more integrated approach to alerts and warnings. In the aftermath of the disaster, the limitations of existing emergency alert systems became clearer. Headlines across the country continue to highlight the difficulties in coordinating timely, clear, and consistent alerts due to a lack of understanding about alerts and warnings, a lack of policy- and decision-making, and the power dynamics that can happen within government organizations.

Delays, confusion, and lack of clarity often frustrate the public and can cost lives. During the fires in Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii, residents had little to no warning of a fast, wind-driven brushfire, and 102 people died. It was not the first time that had happened and, unfortunately, it will not be the last. Furthermore, accountability for these issues often falls on the local emergency manager, who is not always trained, notified, or the one with the ultimate authority to send the message. So, the central question remains: Can a standardized system and operational procedures be developed to ensure that emergency communications reach the right person at the right time with the right message so they know what to do?

Delegation of Authority and Interoperability

The lessons of the 2015 refinery explosion necessitated a reliable, coordinated emergency alert system. The South Bay region of Los Angeles County, home to nearly 900,000 residents and five major petroleum refineries, faces significant risks from natural and human-caused disasters. In response, the Alert SouthBay system launched in March 2020. This regionalized approach integrates emergency communication across 14 cities, using public messaging platforms to deliver real-time alerts. It enables cross-jurisdictional messaging, delegating the alerting authority to the jurisdiction where the incident unfolds. This allows alerts to reach beyond city boundaries when necessary, under the regional standard operating procedures. This regional model is built around larger statewide initiatives while addressing South Bay’s specific needs for lateral authorities:

• Challenges – Everyone must agree to the same platform and funding. An agency must be willing to host a regionalized program or set up a governance. There also must be agreement on operations, how alerts will be issued, the frequency of training, and who will oversee the program.
• Best Practices:
  • Know the community when it comes to the relationship they have with their governments.
  • Build trust before incidents occur.
  • Gain buy-in from all the stakeholders.
  • Work with local city council members because they can be good advocates for these programs.
  • Bring councils into the conversation early to build an understanding of how systems work and how they can help amplify the program to the community.
  • Reduce the cost to cities by regionalizing systems, standardize training and marketing, and integrate operational procedures across all agencies. This provides cost savings and consistent messaging.

Under a common operating picture, every city is trained to the same standard for issuing alerts and warnings and has the authority to laterally and cross-jurisdictionally notify residents, regardless of city boundaries. Put simply, those in the impacted area will be alerted. But this system does not just operate on its own. The program is run by an alert and warning administrator, a task force of all participating cities, and a board of directors. There are quarterly training requirements, testing proficiency requirements, and an off-hours duty officer for multi-jurisdictional alerts. In April 2023, its governance was formalized under a joint powers authority. The joint powers authority provides each city the statute notifying each other’s residents, thus creating a streamlined process for message approval, dissemination, and interoperability within the region.

A Regional Alert System Put to the Test

However, two weeks after the Alert SouthBay system’s launch, the COVID-19 pandemic forced the entire region into crisis management. The newly established joint information center was instrumental in coordinating public messaging across all 14 cities. During the pandemic, the center issued 56 regional messages, providing a unified voice that addressed public concerns and confusion. Feedback from three regional community-wide surveys administered to all 14 cities confirmed the value of this coordinated approach: It was clear, concise, and consistent. Additionally, this was presented at city council meetings for each city to discuss the program and the survey results and to solicit feedback from community members.

Since the pandemic, the Alert SouthBay system has been used for major events, including the 2022 Super Bowl and Tropical Storm Hilary in 2023, as well as other natural and man-made disasters. In February 2024, the Rancho Palos Verdes Peninsula experienced extraordinary land movement, which was “part of a larger complex of ancient landslides [and] … reactivated in 1956 by Los Angeles County’s planned extension.”  The region was no stranger to land movement, but a series of heavy storms began shifting the land up to 10 inches a week, severing gas lines, pulling power poles apart, and creating fissures through properties 50 feet deep. As a result, residents were issued an evacuation warning due to the instability of the land. The Alert SouthBay system was utilized to ensure interoperability and one-voice messaging with all the utility providers, government agencies, and private contractors. See Figure 1 for an example of the message.

Effective Communication, Interoperability, Infrastructure Challenges, and Scalability

Despite these advancements, the role of the alerting authority is as important as it has ever been. Every year, disasters make headlines due to the lack of emergency communications and the effects on the community. Managing alerts requires constant attention to timing, clarity, and public reaction. The lessons from the 2015 refinery explosion have reshaped emergency communications at the local and national levels, driving the development of regionalized alert systems like Alert SouthBay.

Effective emergency communication must be more than just the output of information. It must deliver clear, actionable instructions, delivered by multiple modalities. During the 2015 incident, alerts and warnings were distributed using landline phones only. This proved greatly problematic as landline infrastructure could not handle the volume of simultaneous calls. As a result, it took over eight hours to deliver the voice notifications, hours after the shelter-in-place order had been lifted.

Learning from this mishap, in 2017, the author (Sutherlin) developed the IDA Message Mapping Diagram with a framework to ensure that alerts address three key elements: impact, disruption, and action (IDA). This tool helps emergency managers create precise messages and determine the appropriate scale for alert delivery. Not every alert requires a phone call. The scalability needed to be worked through before pushing the button. The diagram below outlines a simple framework for quick decision-making when determining not just what should be sent and how, but whether the message should be sent at all. For instance, a message may be more appropriate for a social media post rather than a large broadcast to an entire community.

A Look Forward

As emergency management continues to evolve, regionalized and standardized alerting systems are essential to address the growing complexity of disasters. The 2015 refinery explosion revealed critical gaps in alert systems, especially in densely populated, disaster-prone regions like the South Bay. While significant progress has been made – evidenced by initiatives like Alert SouthBay – many challenges remain. The stakes are high, with larger-scale events like the 2028 Olympics and the increasing frequency of extreme weather and industrial risks on the horizon.

To truly safeguard communities, advancing emergency communications requires more than incremental changes. Effective, timely, and unified communication across jurisdictions is essential to saving lives. The 2015 ExxonMobil refinery explosion and recent strides with the Alert SouthBay system highlight the urgent need for coordinated, cross-jurisdictional alerting. Emergency managers, public safety officials, and policymakers must come together to prioritize a fully integrated alerting system – it is no longer a luxury but a life-and-death necessity. This means rethinking how emergency alerts are structured and delivered, expanding beyond local levels to a national scope. A unified approach is not merely aspirational; it is indispensable for the future of public safety.