05000400/FIN-2018001-01
From kanterella
Revision as of 08:59, 30 May 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Finding | |
|---|---|
| Title | Adequacy of Fire Brigade Response During Fire Dril |
| Description | The inspectors identified an URI during the March 21, 2018, announced fire drill that was observed. The drill involved an electrical failure inside the A transfer panel located in the RAB 286 elevation A cable spread room. The fire scenario assumed the electrical failure caused an explosion and fire in the room. The inspectors noted several performance weaknesses during the drill:The fire brigade leader directed three fire brigade members into the fire hot zone to fight the fire as the attack team. Since there is a 5-member fire brigade, only two fire brigade members remain, one of which is the fire brigade leader (who also serves as the site incident commander (SIC)), to be part of the designated 2-out rescue team, required when fighting internal building fires. This 2-out rescue team is responsible, if necessary, for providing assistance or rescue for any or all of the attack team members. The inspectors were concerned that this fire brigade strategy could result in challenges with fire brigade leader command and control, and with the effectiveness of conducting rescues. The fire brigade leader could be hampered in his primary role of directing a site fire response while serving as a rescue team member. Adding to this complication, in locations where radios are not allowed inside some buildings with electrical sensitive equipment during firefighting, as was the case for this fire drill, it would be difficult for the fire brigade leader to communicate and coordinate with the control room or others during a rescue situation. Regarding the actual rescue activity, its effectiveness could be challenged since a two-person rescue team would be faced with potentially assisting/removing three attack members out of the hot zone. Based on discussions with licensee fire brigade training personnel following the drill, theinspectors learned that this 3-in, 2-out deployment was the current manner in which all internal building firefighting strategies and fire training was based upon.The fire brigade leader allowed the 3-man attack team to enter the fire hot zone with permission to commence firefighting prior to the 2-man rescue team arriving at the fire scenes pre-established incident command post and available for implementing rescue. The inspectors later learned that the rescue team, including the fire brigade leader, had arrived at the incident command post approximately five minutes after the attack team had entered the fire area. This delay involved the fire brigade leader completing his thermal protective clothing dressout in the locker room. The inspectors were concerned that under actual circumstances, if the 2-man rescue team were not ready and prepared to fulfill their rescue responsibilities upon entry of the attack team into the fire hot zone, the effectiveness of the rescue team could be challenged.The inspectors observed that no fire hose or other form of fire suppression was pulled or readily available for the 2-man rescue team to take with them should they have needed to enter the hot zone to rescue the attack team. When questioned about this, the inspectors were told that on the same fire hose that the attack team was using, a 1-1/2 inch gated wye valve had been connected, and the rescue team could have connected another 50-foot, 1-1/2 inch fire hose to it and used that hose as a rescue hose. However, the inspectors determined this was inadequate since to get to this hose connection, the rescue team would have to enter into the hot zone prior to reaching it. In addition, the inspectors learned that the use of this 1-1/2 inch gatedwye valve to create two hose streams for either attack or rescue that essentially splits the available flow capacity through a single 1-1/2 inch hose station nozzlewas allowed in multiple fire pre-plan strategies. At the conclusion of the inspection, the inspectors were continuing to assess whether the use of these gated wye valves had been formally reviewed by the licensee in the past to ensure that the flow capacity of fire hose streams would not be adversely impacted by their use during a fire.Planned Closure Actions: Pending completion of additional evaluations needed to determine whether the above fire brigade issues of concern represented performance deficiencies and if so, whether the performance deficiencies were of more than minor significance, this issue was identified as an unresolved item.Licensee Actions: The licensee initiated an NCR to address the inspectors concerns. In addition, until a more thorough review of their fire brigade program could be performed against their NFPA 805 fire program requirements, an operator standing instruction (#18-009, Fire Brigade 2-Out Response) was developed and implemented. This standing instruction directed the following specific fire brigade required actions:The brigade attack team will consist of two fire members to ensure the fire brigade SIC is not normally utilized as one of the 2-out members. If a runner is needed based on the fire area, the SIC may serve as a 2-out member, but this should be the exception.The 2-out members will establish a ready method of suppression that is accessible outside the fire zone. This should be the identified backup hose in the fire pre-plan. This hose does not need to be charged but should be flaked out and ready for use.The attack team will not enter the fire area, except when search and rescue is necessary, until the 2-out team is in the area with the suppression method ready for use.The inspectors determined that the licensees interim actions were adequate to ensure the fire brigade response would be effective if called upon pending resolution of the issues. Corrective Action Reference: NCR 02194468NRC Tracking Number: URI 05000400/2018001-01 |
| Site: | Harris  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000400/2018001 Section 1R05 |
| Date counted | Mar 31, 2018 (2018Q1) |
| Type: | URI: |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71111.05 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | J Zeiler A Patz J Dodson S Rose |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |
Finding - Harris - IR 05000400/2018001 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Finding List (Harris) @ 2018Q1
Self-Identified List (Harris)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||