Planning and Design for Fire and Smoke Incidents in Underground Passenger Rail Systems (2017)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

62 Appendix B Survey Questionnaire 1. WELCOME PLANNING AND DESIGN FOR FIRE/SMOKE INCIDENTS IN UNDERGROUND PASSENGER RAIL SYSTEMS Project purpose: The purpose of this synthesis is provide state-of-the-practice information for the planning, design, and management for fire/smoke incidents in underground or enclosed conditions of passenger rail systems. The study explores related issues including sources of information, detection and prevention, incident management, and training. The synthesis will identify successful strategies and document best-practice solutions. The survey questions try to address as many situations as possible, but given the variety of circumstances and rail systems, not all questions may be appropriate for all agencies. We encourage you to obtain input from others in your agency as needed. If any question does not apply to your system, simply answer “N/A.” We also ask for recommendations for other agencies to be included in our sample and for your willingness to participate in a telephone interview if your agency is selected for a more detailed case example. The final report, to be published by the Transportation Research Board, will document the current state of the practice and provide an overview to help transit agencies address the challenges presented. This report will be extremely useful to all rail transit agencies that operate underground in assessing current policies and identifying actions that have been successful elsewhere. All survey responses will be confidential and will be edited to remove information regarding individual agencies. Please complete the survey by February 12, 2016. Thank you for taking the time to participate. 2. Respondent Information MM/DD/YYYY MM / DD / YYYY 1. Today's Date Name: Title Company City/Town: State/Province: 2. Please list your name, agency, and contact information*

63 3. System Size <100 rail vehicles operated in maximum service 100 to 499 rail vehicles operated in maximum service 500+ rail vehicles operated in maximum service 3. SOURCES 4. What sources does your agency use in planning and design for fire/smoke incidents in underground portions of the rail system? (Check all that apply) NFPA 130, Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems APTA RP PS-005-01a, Recommended Practice for Fire Safety Analysis of Existing Passenger Rail Equipment APTA SS-E-013-99, Rev 1, Standard for Emergency Lighting Design for Passenger Cars National Incident Management System (NIMS) Presidential Directive No. 5 Local standards and guidelines Other (please specify) Email Address: Phone Number:

64 5. If you do not use NFPA 130, why not? Not familiar with this standard Other sources are adequate for our needs We do use NFPA 130 Other (please specify) 5. SOURCES 3 6. Briefly describe how your agency implements NFPA 130 4. SOURCES 2

65 Major Challenge Minor Challenge Not an Issue Difficulty in accessing the site Timely detection Inadequate ventilation Intensity of fire Training of agency personnel Training of first responders Confusion at the scene of the fire Establishing chain of command at the scene Passenger evacuation Sufficient number of trained and proficient transit staff to support training of emergency responders Other (please specify) 7. Please characterize the following elements as major challenges, minor challenges, or not an issue related to underground fire/smoke incidents at your agency. Major challenges have a significant actual or potential effect on your agency’s ability to respond to and resolve the situation; minor challenges are a concern but do not rise to the level of life-and-death issues. 6. ASSESSMENT

66 8. Please describe the one major challenge in planning and design for underground fire/smoke incidents. 9. Please describe any “lessons learned” that would benefit other transit agencies. 8. NEXT GENERATION 10. Has your agency explored new technologies to prevent or minimize the impact of underground fires on your system? 7. ASSESSMENT 2

67 11. Are there any promising approaches that your agency has undertaken or is planning that would be of interest to other rail agencies for managing underground fire/smoke incidents? 12. Based upon your experience, do you have any recommendations for specifications or design features for inclusion in the design of new tunnels or retrofit of legacy tunnels? What would the “ideal” fire prevention and response system look like to you? How would it be different from today? 9. DEFINITIONS 13. How does your agency define “underground” for a station or asset? Is there a minimum length of tunnel used in the definition?

68 14. How does your agency define a “fire/smoke” incident? (Check all that apply) Visible flames Sight or smell of smoke Automatic alarm triggered Manual alarm triggered by the operator Other (please specify) 10. INCIDENTS AND CAUSES Number of major incidents: Number of minor incidents: 15. Approximately how many underground fire/smoke incidents has your agency experienced in the past 12 months? A “major” incident is defined as causing a service disruption of 2 or more hours. 16. What were the primary causes of major underground fire/smoke incidents? (Check all that apply) Vehicle or vehicle equipment Trash fire (accidental or deliberate) in tunnel Trash fire (accidental or deliberate) in vehicle Trash fire (accidental or deliberate) in underground station Arcing -Traction power Electric Cable Feeder Insulator Other (please specify)

69 18. Please check all elements that are included in the early detection system. Inside vehicle detection (smoke or heat) Linear Heat Detector Tunnel smoke detector Station smoke or heat detector Closed head sprinkler in station (heat) CCTV Video Analytics Other (please specify) 13. DETECTION/PREVENTION 3 19. Has your agency adopted design standards or codes related to underground fire/smoke prevention and detection? Yes No 12. DETECTION/PREVENTION 2 11. DETECTION/PREVENTION 17. Does your agency have an early detection system for fire detection underground? Yes No

70 15. DETECTION/PREVENTION 5 21. Does your agency have a fire suppression system on-board the vehicles that operate in tunnels? Yes No 22. Does your agency have a sprinkler system in tunnels? Yes, in all tunnels Yes, in some but not all tunnels No 23. Does your agency have a sprinkler system in underground stations? Yes, in all underground stations Yes, in some but not all underground stations No 16. DETECTION/PREVENTION 6 24. As new techniques and regulations emerge, how does your agency change or augment its protocol and procedures to augment its response to underground fires? Are there “triggers” to retrofit the system? 14. DETECTION/PREVENTION 4 20. How are these design codes and standards applied?

71 25. Are there workarounds for legacy systems to meet new requirements? 17. MANAGING INCIDENTS 26. Briefly describe your agency’s protocol and procedures for responding to and managing underground fire/smoke incidents. 27. For fires where other agencies also respond, check all the actions that your agency takes: Send staff to meet responder command staff at scene Set up multi agency command center or similar on your property Send staff to a central command center (not on your property) 28. Does your agency use NIMS (National Incident Management System, i.e., Incident Command) to establish a chain of command and facilitate communication in responding to underground fire/smoke incidents? Yes, always Yes, usually No

72 29. What fire size do you plan for in your protocol and procedures? System not designed to handle smoke 0-10 MW 10-30 MW Greater than 30 MW Other (please specify) 30. Is your agency aware of recent full scale tests where fire size was measured at 52-72 MW in existing vehicles (roughly four times larger than most systems are designed to handle)? Yes No 18. MANAGING INCIDENTS 2 31. Did these tests result in changes to protocol and procedures in existing tunnels? No Yes (please describe below) 32. Did these tests result in changes in planning new tunnels? No Yes (please describe below)

73 19. MANAGING INCIDENTS 3 33. Within the past two years, has your agency made any changes to its standard operating procedures for managing underground fire/smoke incidents? Yes No 20. MANAGING INCIDENTS 4 34. Please describe briefly the changes to standard operating procedures and the reasons for the changes. 21. MANAGING INCIDENTS 5 35. Briefly describe your agency’s ventilation control system and how it is used/managed in underground fire/smoke incidents. Check all elements that apply. Ventilation control is designed to provide fresh air and/or cooling, not to remove smoke Ventilation control is designed to remove smoke only Ventilation control is designed to remove smoke and provide fresh air and/or cooling Ventilation control is used to remove smoke, although it is not designed for that purpose Other (please specify)

74 36. How are ventilation fans controlled? All are controlled remotely by the operations center or other centralized location All are controlled manually at on-site fan controls Some are controlled remotely, others manually Some or all can be controlled either remotely or manually Other (please specify) 22. MANAGING INCIDENTS 6 37. Does your agency regularly and periodically test fan operation? Yes No 23. MANAGING INCIDENTS 7 38. How often does your agency test fan operation? Weekly Monthly Annually As needed due to maintenance issues Other (please specify)

75 39. Does your agency’s training programs for its employees in responding to underground fire/smoke incidents include the following elements? (Check all that apply) Incident Command System (ICS) training Hands-on training for use of portable fire extinguishers Review of Standard Operating Procedures for fire/smoke incidents on tracks, on vehicles, and in stations Field tests of Standard Operating Procedures for fire/smoke incidents (in transit yard or elsewhere) Review of how smoke management system is designed to operate Field tests of smoke management with live or artificial smoke Training on options if one or more fans fail to operate correctly 40. Briefly describe any other elements of your agency’s training programs for its employees in responding to underground fire/smoke incidents. 41. How would you describe ongoing training with first responders from local jurisdictions? (Check all that apply) Conduct on-line training exercises Conduct classroom training exercises Conduct table-top training exercises Conduct joint training exercises in the field Meet on a regular basis to discuss fire response Meet on an ad hoc basis to discuss fire response Other/varies by jurisdiction (please describe) 24. TRAINING

76 42. Does your agency serve multiple jurisdictions with multiple first response teams? Yes No 25. TRAINING 2 43. How often do you train each local first response team? Annually Every two years Ad hoc Other (please specity) 26. TRAINING 3 44. Are your agency’s personnel who respond to fire/smoke incidents familiar and comfortable with NIMS – Incident Command System? Yes, all are familiar and comfortable with NIMS Yes, most are familiar and comfortable with NIMS Some are, some are not No, most or all are not familiar and comfortable with NIMS 45. Are first responders in your city or service area familiar and comfortable with NIMS – Incident Command System? Yes, all are familiar and comfortable with NIMS Yes, most are familiar and comfortable with NIMS Some are, some are not No, most or all are not familiar and comfortable with NIMS

77 46. What actions would be most useful in improving coordination with local jurisdictions in responding to underground fires? 27. CASE STUDY 47. Would you be willing to participate further as a case study, involving a telephone interview going into further detail on your agency’s experience, if selected by the TCRP panel for this project? Yes No 28. OTHER AGENCIES 48. Is there another rail transit system that you suggest we include in this synthesis project? Please provide the agency name and a contact. 29. THANK YOU! Thank you for participating! This survey is now complete. Please contact Dan Boyle at dan@danboyleandassociates.com or at 858- 259-6515 if you would like any additional information about this study.