OCPB agenda 090215 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 Michael Harvey From:Deputy Chief Pete Hallenbeck Sent:Tuesday, August 04, 2015 9:46 AM To:Michael Harvey Cc:Jason Shepherd; James Groves Subject:Re: Response from Harts Mill on water line and wastewater disposal concerns Regarding the wast water system: There is so much open space land that should a field fail, there are other areas that could be utilized. Other than that comment, what Mr. Hughes wrote works for me (with the understanding that this is not an area of expertise for me). Regarding the water pipe size for the development, I see no value to an 8” pipe. The 6” pipe will be fine. As long as there is a hydrant just before the drop from 6” to 4” Efland FD is good with 6”. A hydrant location by the pond and hydrants close to the structures and at least every 1000’ on a 6” line will be sufficient. Comments on Mr Hughes comments: With regard to the statement of the departments choice of a hydrant or pond as the primary water supply: In the event of a fire, Efland will most likely use the hydrant 1st due to the quicker set-up times. The on-site pond would be used if there was a need for a substantial amount of water at greater than 300 GPM rate. As many Firefighters know, you are either going to get a fire put out in a few minutes with two hand held hose lines at less than 300 GPM or you are going to be there a while and flow a lot of water. With regard to the OAWS system being used for fire supression: There has been an ongoing “discussion” between Efland FD and OAWS regarding the role of OAWS. OAWS indeed has claimed that they are not in the business of providing water for fire protection. Yet a 12” main on US 70 was installed, which is larger than needed if the goal was just providing drinking water. The initial system was purchased with a government grant. Subsequent expansion was funded by OAWS, and typically 6” lines where installed for economic reasons. This has resulted in a bit of a “Whack-a- Mole” funding scenario where OAWS saves money installing water lines, but Efland FD has to purchase an additional engine to flow the low flow hydrants on those 6” lines. The benefit of a water system that can support fire suppression is clear, and the Habitat for Humanity subdivisions are all hydrated and sprinklered. The Ashwick subdivision developers chose to install an 8” line so that the hydrants in the subdivision would have a usable flow rate. Both Ashwick and the Habitat developments had water systems funded by the developer and not OAWS, and it is likely that this trend will continue. The recent Tinnan Road Habitat system looped back into Richmond Hills to boost the hydrant flow, which was just barely useable for fire supression. A well designed (but more expensive) system helps with the fire departments ISO rating which in turn saves homeowners money on their insurance. Another cost “Whack-a-Mole” scenario- a cheaper water bill but more expensive insurance bill. Since water lines bring development it is not unreasonable to see a time when the older 6” lines are upgraded to a larger pipe as the growth that accompanies water systems continues. This future growth will most likely occur with the expectation that subdivisions should have hydrants, which we are already seeing. As such, a 6” for Harts Mill will provide all the flow needed to protect the planned subdivision in the future should the Frazier Rd water line be upgraded. And for now, it will provide low-flow hydrants which still have value due to the ease of use and reduced time to connect up to a pumper critical in the initial phase of fire suppression activities. - pete 30