Improving Water Supply with Underground Tanks

[firedude 985]

Have any local communities looked into this?

Improving Water Supply with Underground Tanks

In the fire service, decreasing response times and increasing efficiency are necessities, and adaptations to local conditions in this pursuit are what make each fire department unique. But sometimes an innovative response to a local condition may have applications elsewhere. One such example is the underground storage tank and dry hydrant used by the Scarborough (Maine) Fire Department (SFD).

In the mid-1980s, the SFD began to explore ways to provide adequate water for fire protection to a rapidly expanding area that city infrastructure was not keeping pace with. Under then-Chief Robert Carson, the first 10,000-gallon underground storage tank was installed. The tank was such a success that today there are 60 tanks throughout Scarborough, and its rural water supply ordinance is based on NFPA standards. The tanks—now 15,000 gallons each—are required (in non-municipal hydrant areas) for subdivisions of three or more houses or for commercial buildings.

Full Firefighter Nation Article

Lets see... 15,000gal tank = 5 x 3000gal tankers. Logically it makes sense, right?

Photo Courtesy of Xerxes Corp

Edited March 3, 2012 by firedude

[JM15 386]

In our town I can think of at least one private underground tank that I believe is similar in concept. It is located on a horse farm.

[IzzyEng4 427]

Cisterns are a very common thing in the fire service and have been utilized since the 1700s. San Fran saw the need obviously to bring back an old technology that still works today.

In a neighboring town from mine, the factory area has a canal and "race-tails" throught the area. They had a bug fire a few years back and there wasn't a lot of usable hydrants. Ten the old timers came out, looked for the manhole covers for the canal, opened them up and the pumpers began to draft out of them. We had more than enought water supplied in the canal by the river to meet our needs.

Edited March 3, 2012 by IzzyEng4

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Cisterns are a very common thing in the fire service and have been utilized since the 1700s. San Fran saw the need obviously to bring back an old technology that still works today.

In a neighboring town from mine, the factory area has a canal and "race-tails" throught the area. They had a bug fire a few years back and there wasn't a lot of usable hydrants. Ten the old timers came out, looked for the manhole covers for the canal, opened them up and the pumpers began to draft out of them. We had more than enought water supplied in the canal by the river to meet our needs.

Repped for "Cisterns." Thanks for dusting that term off Izzy!

[Tanker 10eng 140]

I think it would be more of a home owner then a town or FD to install. I have wondered many times why these million dollar homes in the NO HYDRANT districts, do not have them near the main house... or even a development with poor water supply using them... but if I was the chief, I would not be going to my town with the request to install some...

[firedude 985]

but if I was the chief, I would not be going to my town with the request to install some...

From the article:

The cost of installation (currently $25,000) is passed on to the development, not the town.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Have any local communities looked into this?

Yes, and its a great way to improve ones ISO rating. In one case I know it helped them move from a 9 to a 4. And while not a tank, I set up a 30,000 gallon system at my mothers home.

Doesn't Pound Ridge have one under the firehouse?

Lets see... 15,000gal tank = 5 x 3000gal tankers. Logically it makes sense, right?

Yes, but 5 tankers is clearly not enough to deal with any volume of fire. That is why ISO will not accept less than 30,000 gallons as an emergency water supply.

Consider that 500gpm x 30min = 15,000 gallons. Now lets assume they got 100% out of the tank, did not spill any, nothing was left in the tankers or drop tanks and whats left in each line.

While this is a great start, you already aquired the land and have the labor, I suspect its not 2x the money to double the storage. And if you double the storage, you get an insurance discount that over time will pay for the investment.

I think it would be more of a home owner then a town or FD to install. I have wondered many times why these million dollar homes in the NO HYDRANT districts, do not have them near the main house... or even a development with poor water supply using them... but if I was the chief, I would not be going to my town with the request to install some...

While I agree that new developments should (and can) be mandated to install them, I do not believe its cost effective or useful to have single residentials install them. It is unlikely that it could be located in a spot that would be usable for other properties and they might not even allow it to be used for others.

I have seen this comment before about the FD not wanting to do this and in effect not be an advocate for better community fire protection. So its ok to go to the town and ask for $250,000 to $500,000 for a tanker (plus the cost for housing, maintenance, fuel, insurance) but its not ok to spend $50,000 (on 30,000 gal. tank) so they have a way to resupply the tanker. So for the cost of a 2nd tanker, they can install up to 10 systems. Depending on the road network, each one can cover about 3 square miles, giving a 1 mile maximum tanker shuttle (and/or relay) distance. That means for the cost of a 2nd tanker you could cover up to 30 square miles and save your property owners up to 40% of on their insurance (money which will cover the cost of the system).

Now if you really want to do it right......I watched one dept. that installed 30,000 gallon tanks, each with a dry hydrant and each had a diesel fire pump installed (I was told they spent about $15,000 on it) and 2 discharges (a 5in Storz & and overhead 6in dump pipe). With this feature, a tanker could pull up, press 1 button (from the cab) and automaticly fill the tanker from above, thus no need for another pumper to draft and fill and 3 or 4 more members to go fight the fire. If a relay is being utilized, drop your 5" hose, hook up, strech and hit the button to charge it. Again 1 less engine needed.

Nice thinking outside the box.

[Tanker 10eng 140]

Barry, I was not referring to the $ 400 - 600 K homes, but more so those massive house that have burned to the ground in the northern ends... They are the ones that could truly benefit from it..

As for installing them in the tanker districts ??? ok, who owns the land they are installed on ? What is the yearly costs for maintenance ? There are many lakes, ponds, streams and rivers in our area would be better choices... yes these underground tanks are great, but not for everyone.. We just need to pre plan and figure out tanker fill sites. In our Tanker districts, we have many locations to refill tankers, and at no cost to taxpayers.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

I know of several fire districts in upstate NY who have several "tanks" similar in nature but of different design and capacity.

Gerry, you're on the right track with your input. I learned of such systems I mentioned about upstate when talking with colleagues at the instructors conference and the way that many of them got more put in place was through contractors when they submit for permits for new construction of commericial property and subdivisions. Most I've seen done when travelling teaching were more of a sewer box like design and held volumes that Barry mentions. Nice part is outside of a few snakes that gets chummed and the water is fairly clean you don't seem to get much sediment.

On another side note...dry hydrants are what they are...but as I've mentioned in previous posts...their design is very influential on the flows you can get. Ditch the 90 degree angles....get rid of the flat low profile intakes often used in porta tanks...they kill your GPM's

[Bnechis 3,961]

Barry, I was not referring to the $ 400 - 600 K homes, but more so those massive house that have burned to the ground in the northern ends... They are the ones that could truly benefit from it..

My point was its better to do this so the community has coverage, than just 1 or 2 homes. If they were the ones to "truly benefit from it" then, why not also expand this to giving them their own engine?

In this country we generally do fire protection for the whole community.

When setting up the system for my mother, it private on her land, but we ran the dry hydrant out to the curb. We told the Fire Chief they could use it and he was so pleased he offered to fill it and maintain its water level. Thats saving them $1,000's since the water needs to be trucked in from another state. They did not expect it, but everyone benefited.

As for installing them in the tanker districts ??? ok, who owns the land they are installed on ?

Does it matter? If private land is used, it becomes a right of way, but the homeowner maybe able to right it off as a deduction, and once installed he still gets the use of the land and a lower insurance cost.

Otherwise you use public land. And there is a huge amount of State, County & local land available. Legally most of the "private" land near the roads edge (particularly under powerlines) is right of way. So reguardless of who owns it, the public gets to use it for this type of project. I saw one such system installed under the road at a large fork/island. This gave enough room to manuver, but most of the tanks were under the road.

What is the yearly costs for maintenance ?

Almost nothing. Whats to maintain. You have a 30+ year tank, you need to keep it full (I've seen rain water filters used to maintain it) so after a fire/drill you may need to provide water (and a few gallons of bleach if the refill is not drinking water). THats about it.

Now those of us with municipal hydrant systems have to pay to maintain them, its part of the cost of fire protection. And what we pay is in the millions, but the homeowner is rewarded with lower premiums that make it worth maintaining the system.

There are many lakes, ponds, streams and rivers in our area would be better choices... yes these underground tanks are great, but not for everyone..

If you have rateable water sources, great, yes they are much better if they are accessable, have enough water year round and where you need them. I would never suggest adding tanks if you have a well developped nonmunicipal water availablity.

We just need to pre plan and figure out tanker fill sites. In our Tanker districts, we have many locations to refill tankers, and at no cost to taxpayers.

Are you saying that you've known there are no hydrants in part of your district, its been that way since the FD started (well for 1,000's of years) and you have yet to pre-plan them?

While I have only seen a handful of the sites in your district, I know they are not properly identified, cataloged or prepared for use. If you have to explain the set up, (prior to a drill) to the mutual aid pumpers that will be going to them where they are and how to use them, then what happens during a fire?

Cutting down fences to get to water sources at the time of a fire should not be the norm. Every water source needs to be identified, volume of water during different seasons and during draught conditions calculated, marked with signs and cataloged (and shared with the mutual aid units that will be used there). These are all items needed to move you from an ISO 9 to a 4.

In addition, using hard suction & strainers should not take 4 members to set up. 140 years ago they figured out how to do it with one member and in less than 45 seconds, only a handful of depts can still do that today. Their is 100 years of tradition that we spoiled we "progress". When everyones manpower levels are what they are today, we can not afford to send lots of members to fill sites, they are needed at the fire building.

At a recent fire in another part of the county they had to stretch 1.5 miles of hose to get to the closes "drafting point". If they had preplanned and either installed more dry hydrants or purchased proper source pumpers, they would have had to go about 400 feet.

[ja3kfd 34]

In Bedford they are requested to be installed by the Fire Districts at the time of the development. (Cisterns and or Dry Hydrants) The districts are part of the town planning process. Also more and more the Insurance companies are getting homeowners to put them on there property to reduce the Insurance cost and risk.In Bedford The town has installed and maintains the dry hydrants in all three districts. The few private ones are tested and checked

by the FD.

[LTNRFD 266]

When setting up the system for my mother, it private on her land, but we ran the dry hydrant out to the curb. We told the Fire Chief they could use it and he was so pleased he offered to fill it and maintain its water level. Thats saving them $1,000's since the water needs to be trucked in from another state. They did not expect it, but everyone benefited.

I thought wine was the fluid of choice in your mother's area ?

[Bnechis 3,961]

I thought wine was the fluid of choice in your mother's area ?

Not for fire protection. They like to protect the investment with water.

[x129K 1,393]

When I win the lottery, not only will our home have one or two of these tanks, but also an engine with 3 career men on premise!

[CHIEFPHIL 90]

We have an ordinance that states any new construction of a sub-division in a non hydrant district will have a a 15000 gallon inground tank. There will be a tank for every 6 houses and no house can be more then 1000 feet from any tank.

Each tank has a 2.5" inlet for filling and a kocheck 6" female with 6"x5" female connection, so either a 1000 or 1250+ can draft (both separate pipes). Each tank is on private land and the town has a right-away to each tank. The tanks are filled by the FD during a drill, utilizing all our mutual aid companies that would respond to that area so that they are aware of the locations.

The Fd inspects each tank once a year to insure they are full. Part of out driver training/MPO training includes knowledge of each tank and this is where they usually learn how to draft.

[Tanker 10eng 140]

We have an ordinance that states any new construction of a sub-division in a non hydrant district will have a a 15000 gallon inground tank. There will be a tank for every 6 houses and no house can be more then 1000 feet from any tank.

Each tank has a 2.5" inlet for filling and a kocheck 6" female with 6"x5" female connection, so either a 1000 or 1250+ can draft (both separate pipes). Each tank is on private land and the town has a right-away to each tank. The tanks are filled by the FD during a drill, utilizing all our mutual aid companies that would respond to that area so that they are aware of the locations.

The Fd inspects each tank once a year to insure they are full. Part of out driver training/MPO training includes knowledge of each tank and this is where they usually learn how to draft.

I would agree with this whole approach.... The sub divison / builder would be resonsible to install these, not the taxpayers... I for one do not want to be paying more taxes for the super homes in the outer districts. They elected to build there, they should handle those costs. That is my main problem with the whole idea..

[pjtm4 4]

Fire Dept's wouldn't need as much water, if they would just use FOAM. I don't understand why it's taking so long for this concept to be comprehended by the people in charge. Maybe there should be a class given around different parts of the County so people can be educated on this.

P.S. I'm talking about Class A Foam

Edited March 5, 2012 by pjtm4

[Hazmatguy 5]

>>>There are many lakes, ponds, streams and rivers in our area would be better choices...<<< This response really misses the point.... there are better ways (or should be) than relying on natural water sources for firefighting. Years ago I witnessed a "drill" at a new development where an fire officer ordered an engine to refill at the stream down the road. This was a well known wild brown trout spawning stream during the height of the spawning season. He had absolutely no regard for the environmental consequences of withdrawing water from there. It easily could have escalated but he agreed to not take the water.

Underground tanks seem an obvious solution where appropriate; especially when one considers if they can remain full from normal storm run-off. I'd also add that departments must plan to have adequate water to fight fires from their initial arrival. It really makes little sense to have to "ferry" water to put out the smoldering remains so to speak. If this requires larger capacity tanks or budgeting tankers so be it.

[antiquefirelt 994]

When I win the lottery, not only will our home have one or two of these tanks, but also an engine with 3 career men on premise!

You could have 40-50 firefighters with lines stretched in your home for the price of a scratch ticket win!

Many subdivisions in the non-hydranted areas up this way are required to provide either a rateable cistern or pond or sprinkler all the homes as their built. Many developers found out many years ago the cisterns are a better alternative than ponds which are insurance nightmares and sprinklers are often better than the augmented water supply as the homeowner gets passed the costs and can directly relate it to the protection of their home and family. Of course there are plenty of naysayers too, but generally factual education wins them over.

[LTNRFD 266]

Many subdivisions in the non-hydranted areas up this way are required to provide either a rateable cistern or pond or sprinkler all the homes as their built. Many developers found out many years ago the cisterns are a better alternative than ponds which are insurance nightmares and sprinklers are often better than the augmented water supply as the homeowner gets passed the costs and can directly relate it to the protection of their home and family. Of course there are plenty of naysayers too, but generally factual education wins them over.

If developers opt to put sprinklers in houses in non-hydrant areas, what type of water source supplies the sprinklers? I assume that in non-hydrant areas the houses have well water and not a municipal water supply.

[CHIEFPHIL 90]

If developers opt to put sprinklers in houses in non-hydrant areas, what type of water source supplies the sprinklers? I assume that in non-hydrant areas the houses have well water and not a municipal water supply.

A company I'm familiar with installs a 300 gallon tank in the attic and feeds the system via gravity. We have several group homes in the non hydrant areas of town and each has this system in it. It is called FIRESTOP.

[mfc2257 464]

I for one do not want to be paying more taxes for the super homes in the outer districts. They elected to build there, they should handle those costs. That is my main problem with the whole idea..

For the sake of that argument, should they not have to pay taxes to support the water mains that the hydrants are on in the "inner districts"? Should they have to foot the bill for the department tanker since its not needed in hydanted areas?

[antiquefirelt 994]

If developers opt to put sprinklers in houses in non-hydrant areas, what type of water source supplies the sprinklers? I assume that in non-hydrant areas the houses have well water and not a municipal water supply.

Correct. Most of the systems use a tank or tanks in the basement. In our area we've found this adds about $1000 to the total system cost, but would save more money if a particular jurisdiction required a separate water entrance besides the domestic entrance. Fortunately for those in the municipal supply reach of our water company's area, the new entrances are all sized large enough for domestic water and residential sprinklers, those without sprinklers have a smaller meter, those with have the larger meter but are charged the lower rate for the smaller meter. They've agreed basically not to up-charge for the potential water use in residential homes (not the case in commercial systems with separate entrances).

Back to the tank systems: Recently more purpose built tanks have started to be used, as opposed to the "multiple 275/330 gal. oil tanks that were previously re-purposed for sprinklers. The number of tanks/amount of on hand water depends a lot on the well. IIRC the 12D sprinkler systems must only meet one small design flow requirement, so the size of your house wouldn't be a factor like it is in commercial sprinkler design. So if you can meet the 20 minute water supply at the design flow with a single tank because you have a strong well, you're set or vice versa, poor well= more tank water.

Before our adoption of the NFPA 101 Code with the sprinkler requirement for 1 and 2 family dwellings, we offered sprinklering house as an option to the water supply requirements for subdivisions, and in every case sprinklers were chosen over the other options.

[antiquefirelt 994]

A company I'm familiar with installs a 300 gallon tank in the attic and feeds the system via gravity. We have several group homes in the non hydrant areas of town and each has this system in it. It is called FIRESTOP.

I'd have serious doubts that a 300 gal. gravity feed tank could meet the requirements of NFPA 101 and 13D. Again IIRC the flow is two heads for 20 minutes. (26 gpm x 20 = 520 gallons?)

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Fire Dept's wouldn't need as much water, if they would just use FOAM. I don't understand why it's taking so long for this concept to be comprehended by the people in charge. Maybe there should be a class given around different parts of the County so people can be educated on this.

P.S. I'm talking about Class A Foam

I would actually surmise that I would still need the water...even with foam. So I have it.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

New Fairfield uses this concept extensively and with great success.

1. When a developer wants to build a subdivision, etc in town they are required to install a tank. Tank size is dependent upon the size of the subdivision, its been awhile since I've been active in NFVFD so I don't remember the exactly volume. (If anyone is interested I can get you in contact with one of the guys who manages the program to get the details)

2. IIRC, the development's contractors are responsible for installation of the tank but it must be approved by the Fire Departments Water Supply Committee before considered acceptable and added to the in-service hydrant list.

3. Fire Department personnel are responsible for filling the tank and addressing maintenance concerns after installation and initial approval. (Painting, new PVC fittings, etc)

When the FD fills the tanks we usually turn it into a tanker shuttle drill. Great way to pre-plan your water supply for a particular neighborhood and work out the kinks for apparatus placement and radio coverage issues. This way everyone knows what's expected of them when an incident DOES happen.

One caveat, in my experience we only used the tanks if we were far from a "normal" water source (lake, pond, reservoir, etc) just because its better to have that essentially limitless supply and you don't have to refill Candlewood Lake after you use it. But the initial units will determine where water supply is going to be.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I would agree with this whole approach.... The sub divison / builder would be resonsible to install these, not the taxpayers... I for one do not want to be paying more taxes for the super homes in the outer districts. They elected to build there, they should handle those costs. That is my main problem with the whole idea..

I have no problem with sub divisions paying for it for new developments, but for the new super home, is he not going to be paying taxes? what does the municipality or FD owe him in return for his high taxes over then next few years? Yes he built there, because the town wants development so it brings in more tax $$$$.

What about the homes that have been there for the last 50 years? You have been charging them for fire protection all this time. They have contributed to each of the new fire houses and all of the new apparatus and in turn they get an ISO 9. You can get an ISO 9 if all you own is a brush truck with a 250gpm skid pump. You have charged them for a whole lot more.

The idea here is not to build a tank for every property, but to build a system for water supply that covers the entire community. Some locations may be lakes, rivers, pools, etc. But even those need to be evaluated and potentially improved so you can get to the water.