Water Supply Drill - April 29, 2012

Participating Companies:
South Newton Twp. Vol. Fire Co. # 49
Engine 49, 1500 GPM pump and 1,000 gallon water tank
Tanker 49, 500 GPM pump and 1,800 gallon water tank
Penn Twp. Vol. Fire Co. # 50
Engine 150, 1500 GPM pump and 1,250 gallon water tank
Engine 250, 1500 GPM pump and 500 gallon water tank
Tanker 150, 1250 GPM pump and 1,500 gallon water tank
Tanker 250, 450 GPM pump and 2,500 gallon water tank
Vigilant Hose Company # 52
Engine 252, 2000 GPM pump and 750 gallon water tank
Tanker 52, 1250 GPM pump and 3,000 gallon water tank

Our simulated drill was conducted on Hays Grove Road in Penn Township, Cumberland County Pennsylvania. All units staged at our fire station and their response times were calculated and adjusted to simulate their staggered arrival similar to a real scenario. Our goal was to practice rural water supply operations in the form of an ISO evaluation. The apparatus that participated was indicative of the apparatus that would respond in this area. Each of the four tankers that participated were equipped with dual 3" rear dry fills with quarter turn adapters in place, the "norm" for our area.

Engine 49 responded and was the attack engine. One minute later, Engine 250 and Tanker 49 responded. When Engine 49 arrived, they forward laid 300' of 5" supply line and deployed their apparatus deluge monitor on a portable base. The monitor was equipped with a 1 3/8" smooth bore nozzle and was supplied by two 50' sections of 3" hose and secured to a tree. At the five minute mark, Engine 49 began to flow water via one of the 3" lines to the portable monitor in an attempt to preserve tank water until the water supply was established. With a nozzle pressure of 50 PSI, Engine 49 was flowing around 395 GPM.

Engine 250 was the water supply engine. Upon their arrival, they prepared to supply Engine 49 via the 5" supply line connected to their LDH discharge as well as drafting from a folding dump tank. Engine 250 is equipped with a rear mount pump which made for a busy area at the dump tank. Tanker 49 arrived the same time and dropped their folding dump tank and dumped their load of water. They assisted the crew of Engine 250 with establishing a drafting operation using one section of hard sleeve and a low level strainer. Engine 49 ran out of water before Engine 250 could establish the water supply as they simply were not set up yet. As it turned out, it may have been a better choice for Tanker 49 to nurse supply Engine 250 instead of dumping their water into the folding tank. Complications immediately arose with Tanker 49's folding tank. Due to the placement, a portion of the tank was on uneven ground and when filled with water, bent the frame of the tank. As a result, the dump tank could only be filled about ¾ of its capacity until it overflowed. Tanker 49 then departed for the first of two fill sites.

After two minutes, Tanker 150 was dispatched and after three minutes, Engine 150 was dispatched. Engine 250 obtained a prime and began to supply Engine 49. When Tanker 150 arrived, they dropped the second folding tank and dumped their water into the first tank as it was nearly empty. Engine 250 set up a siphon device at the second dump tank. Tanker 150 departed for the first fill site. Engine 150 was the first fill site engine and they established on a fill site location on South Quarry Hill Road. Engine 150 deployed a section of 5" supply line to a manifold equipped with 3" hose and quarter turn adapters. Engine 150 also ran into complications as they first tried to draft using their front intake as it allowed them more clearance on the narrow rural roadway. Their front intake valve would not open so Engine 150 had to reposition as to draft from the driver side intake. Engine 150 obtained a draft and started filling the awaiting Tankers; 49 and 150. Engine 150 would maintain a prime by discharging threw their deluge gun while not filling tankers.

After 4 minutes, Tanker 250 was dispatched. Tanker 250 was the oldest apparatus participating in the drill. Noting that fact, it was the only Tanker not equipped with side dumps however they had fabricated an adapter for side dumping operations out of PVC pipe and brackets. By the time, Tanker 250 arrived; Engine 250 had run out of water. Engine 49 depleted their tank water in an effort to maintain flow to no avail. Engine 250 dumped their load of water and left for the fill site. Flow was restored but soon ran out again. Engine 49 experienced a mechanic problem the operated noted when he could not get the tank to refill. They discovered that the linkage on the pump panel handle connected to the tank fill valve came off because the retaining cotter pin had come out. The crew quickly refilled the tank with a hand held 3" line at the fill tower. Tankers 49 and 150 soon returned to the scene and dumped their second load of water.

After 9 minutes, Engine 252 was dispatched and after 10 minutes Tanker 52 was dispatched. With what seemed like a good water supply established, Engine 49 charged the second 3" line to the portable monitor. Nozzle pressure on the portable monitor was now about 105 PSI flowing about 570 GPM. Engine 250 soon ran out of water for the third time. We made adjustments at the water supply to increase efficiency. Engine 250 was not initially able to get the siphon device to work properly because the discharge end of the hard sleeve was too high and it would not move the water to the primary tank. As a result, the primary dump tank had run empty and the secondary tank was full but they were not able to transfer the water. It was adjusted and tied down to a folding ladder and began to operate. In addition, the drain sleeve on the secondary dump tank caused problems. It was tied up on the inside of the dump tank however the rope had too much slack an it the pressure of the water, pushed the sleeve out and it was leaking heavily. When the tank was depleted that problem was corrected by simply tightening up the rope and pushing the drain sleeve back inside the dump tank. Engine 252 arrived and was held in reserve.

By now, flow was resumed and Tanker 52 arrived and had dumped their load of water. Now all four tankers were in the shuttle process. It was predetermined that they would all approach the dump site from the south and drive clockwise to the fill site then return. This action avoided crossing traffic at the four intersections. Other hazards encountered included railroad crossings. I believe during the drill, we had three trains travel the single line track. They did not affect the drill to any notable degree.

Once all four tankers were engaged in the shuttle, Engine 150 had a hard time refilling them without delay. To counter that, Engine 252 was assigned to a second fill site on Farm Road. They accessed a dry hydrant at the location and quickly obtained draft after back flushing the hydrant. Once the second fill site was established, we split the tankers up between the fill sites, one large and one small tanker was assigned to each location. Tankers traveled in a loop to maintain the flow of tanker traffic in the same direction at the dump site. Flows remained very constant after that and the drill continued for a total durations of two hours. Flow was only lost one time after that. That was contributed in part to the tankers stopping and switching driver / operators for training purposes. The only other issue encountered was when Tanker 52's exhaust pipe extension got caught on the 5" supply line from Engine 150 at the first fill site while crossing the narrow bridge at the location. The action damaged the tailpipe but not the hose and operations resumed with both units.

Total flows calculated:
Tanker 49 10 loads at 1,800 gallons 18,000
Tanker 150 8 loads at 1,500 gallons 12,000
Tanker 250 9 loads at 2,500 gallons 22,500
Tanker 52 8 loads at 3,000 gallons 24,000
Total gallons flowed in 2 hours 76,500
Adjusted gallons with estimated 10% loss 68,850
120 minutes – gallons per minute flowed 573 GPM