Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05161989 - IO.2 T(?: Board of I.O. 2 .s- .L Supervisors FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE DATE: May 8, 1989 you_" SUBJECT: RESPONSE TIMES FOR BYRON AND EAST DIABLO FIRE DISTRICTS Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Request the County Administrator's Office to prepare a letter from the Chairman to the Board of Trustees of the Byron School District requesting the school district's cooperation in allowing the existing 1400 gallon water storage tank at the Byron School to be used in case of a fire;authorize the Chairman to sign such a letter on behalf on the Board of Supervisors. 2. Request the County Administrator to forward to the Fire Chiefs' Association the study conducted at the Byron School for the information of the Fire Chiefs when they are reviewing equipment needs and are evaluating the request of the Byron Fire District for an additional water tanker. 3. Remove this item as a referral to our Committee. BACKGROUND: The 1988 Internal Operations Committee spent a good deal of time studying various aspects of the Byron Fire District,including allegations that the District could not adequately respond to a fire at the Byron School because of the fact that they currently have only one operational water tanker. Concern has also been expressed regarding the time it would take for a tanker from the East Diablo Fire District to reach the Byron School in case it would be needed as backup to insure a constant flow of water. Therefore,the Board of Supervisors referred this issue to the respective fire districts and the County Administrator's Office to conduct a test designed to determine the response time and the availability of water, The County Administrator's Office was asked to report back to our Committee. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES IGNATURE: Recom endati of County Admin' ratAUNNErWRIGJI�T- Recommendation of Board Committee e ther: Signature(s) OM McP AK u Action of Bo rd on: Approved as Recommended X Other Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND X Unanimous(Absent CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND Ayes: Noes: ENTERED ON HE MINUTES OF THE BOARD Absent: Abstain: OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. cc: County Administrator ATTESTED /� /b, /1p89 Chief Nick Papadakos,Byron Fire District PHIL BATURELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD Chief Paul Hein,East Diablo Fire District SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Byron Fire District Board of Fire Commissioners Fire Chiefs' Association(Via CAO) Byron School District Board of Trustees(Via CAO) BY: ,Deputy Clerk Terry McGraw,CAO's Office 6 clvm:eh(io2.bo) • C On May 8, 1989 our Committee met with the Chiefs of the Byron and East Diablo Fire Districts, the Chair of the Byron Fire District Board of Fire Commissioners, staff from the County Administrator's Office and interested citizens from the area. Terry McGraw from the County Administrator's Office reviewed the attached report which outlines the test of the response times for the Byron and East Diablo Fire District to afire at the Byron School. There were some brief shortages of water due primarily to the fact that one of the tankers from the East Diablo Fire District had mechanical problems and arrived at the school site too late to be of assistance in the test. It was explained, however,that in a real fire one of East Diablo's other tankers would be dispatched,rather than taking the time to fix the tanker which was having mechanical problems. It was noted that there is a 1400 gallon water storage tank at the Byron School. If this tank were available to fire officials in case of an actual fire, this would assist in insuring that there are no lapses in the availability of water. Members of the community indicated that they believe the Byron Fire District needs a new water tanker,to insure that two are available for a fire. This might insure that there is no break in the availability of water. However, it was noted that the Byron Fire District does have two tankers; however, one tanker is over 30 years old and is scheduled for replacement by the Commission.The Chief of the East Diablo Fire District noted that there are a number of other tankers available in the immediate area. We believe that the results of this test should be made available to the Fire Chiefs'Association so they can take these results into account when they evaluate the need for additional or replacement equipment. We also believe that the Board should write to the Byron School District and attempt to insure that the 1400 gallon water storage tank will be available in case of a fire at the school. With these actions taken,there does not appear to be a need to keep this item on referral to our Committee. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR C O N T R A C 0 S T A C 0 U N T Y Administration Building Eighth Floor Martinez, California To: Internal Operations Committee Date: May 2, 1989 Supervisor Tom Powers Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak From: Phil Batchelor Subject: Byron Fire Protection District County Administrator Response Time Exercise By Terrence J. G aw RECOMMENDATION• APPROVE the report of the County Administrator regarding the structural fire fighting capabilities of the Byron Fire Protection District. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact resulting from the recommendation of this report. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION: In October of 1988, the County Administrator's Office reported to your Committee regarding the response capabilities of the Byron Fire Protection District and the East Diablo Fire Protection District to a fire at the Byron School. In addition to response times, the question of an adequate water supply was also at issue since most of the territory of the Byron Fire District, with the exception of the Discovery Bay area, does not have a fire hydrant system. This issue was reviewed by your Committee because of the concern of some of the citizens of the District that there was a need for more water transporting equipment to assure that there would be an adequate amount of water to control and extinguish structure fires in the Byron area. Some of the concerned district residents believed that the District needed a second water tanker in addition to its 1986 water tanker. The October report of the County Administrator's Office discussed the need for a second tanker which was requested by the District in the 1988-1989 budget. The request for the new tanker had been reviewed by the County Fire Chiefs' Association Capital Improvement Committee and was denied because of the capabilities of the 1986 tanker and the availability of backup tankers from other surrounding districts. The Finance Committee and the Board of Supervisors subsequently approved the Chief's Capital Improvement Committee recommendations. To: Internal Operations Committee Page 2 May 2, 1989 The report outlined the sequence of events that would occur in response to a structure fire in the Byron area. The report concluded that the District did not need a second tanker because the District's own equipment, in conjunction with support from surrounding districts, was adequate to deal with structure fires in the Byron area. However, some of the District residents in attendance at the Internal Operations Committee meeting questioned the validity of the fire response scenario outlined in the report. Accordingly, your Committee requested the District to conduct a timed exercise to determine whether or not available equipment could maintain a supply of water at the scene of a fire. On April 26, 1989, the Byron Fire Protection District, in conjunction with the East Diablo Fire Protection District, conducted a timed exercise at the Byron School. The exercise involved two pumpers from the Byron Fire Station, the District water tanker from the Byron Station, a pumper from the Discovery Bay Station, and a water tanker from the Brentwood Station of the East Diablo District. Attached is a schedule which outlines the events and times of the equipment involved in the exercise. The exercise was very successful from the standpoint of the high level of coordination among the personnel assigned to the various pieces of apparatus. In view of the fact that during the drill most of the equipment was at times physically interconnected, and there was interaction between all the pieces of apparatus, there was a lot of opportunity for coordination problems to occur. This part of the drill ran very smoothly. As demonstrated by the schedule, breaks in the water supply did occur during the exercise. Engine 97 and Engine 97A were the primary elements of the firefighting exercise with the water tankers and Engine 98 providing the water supply. Engine 97 had the responsibility of the primary attack with 97A in a somewhat secondary position. Engine 97A was dependent upon 97 for its water supply and thus was first to run out and last to begin applying water during the three water supply disruptions. Accordingly, the discussion about the discontinuation of water supply will be in reference to Engine 97. The first water outage lasted 35 seconds and occurred as a result of both pumpers exhausting the water supply carried on the trucks. Although the water tender arrived and began dumping water before the outage occurred, it took some time to set up the holding tank and dump enough water to reestablish a supply to the pumpers. Under a real situation involving a building on fire, it is not likely that the water carried on the two pumpers would have been used up so quickly. This exercise involved setting up the apparatus in the school parking lot and uncoiling the hoses out onto a lawn area where the water was dispersed. In a real situation, water would not be applied as quickly because of the time it would take to locate the source of the fire and the entrances to the building to develop a point of attack. To: Internal Operations Committee Page 3 May 2, 1989 Also, once the attack began it is not likely that both hoses on the two pumpers would be used continuously. The water would be applied intermittently as the hose team moves through the building. The second and third water disruptions of 55 seconds and 40 seconds respectively were caused by the delay of the water tanker from the Brentwood station of the East Diablo District. Unfortunately, water tanker 54 from Brentwood experienced mechanical problems and did not arrive on the scene until the end of the exercise. In two previous similar drills tanker 54 arrived on the scene in an average time of six minutes after dispatch. Absent the mechanical problems, the Brentwood tanker would have arrived at about 7:38 to fill the time gap from the time water stopped flowing at 7:46 and tanker 97 returned with a second load of water. Although the breakdown of tanker 54 adversely impacted the results of the test, the mechanical problem did add an element of realism not usually found in such drills. In real situations, things can go wrong. Equipment can breakdown, fire trucks can be involved in accidental collisions on the way to the scene and a less than adequate number of fire personnel may respond to the emergency call. Unless a fire district has a level of redundancy in terms of personnel and equipment beyond the financial capabilities of the districts of this County, mishaps, like the one that occurred in the subject exercise will happen. In summary, there are various conclusions that can be drawn about the success of the exercise. From a simplistic viewpoint, the exercise was a failure because there were breaks in the water supply. However, the exercise demonstrated that this volunteer district is able to provide a speedy, competent, well coordinated response to an emergency. In a sense, the exercise was designed to result in failure because it was conducted under ideal conditions that allowed the maximum amount of water to be applied in the shortest possible time. There was more than an adequate number of fire-fighters involved in the drill. In a real emergency, the district may have had less people respond, thus either delaying or preventing the arrival of the second pumper. Reduced pumper capability would have slowed water usage and prevented the disruption in the water supply. Also, fire-fighting tactics as discussed above would have delayed or prevented the depletion of the water supply. The exercise was conducted with the involvement of Roberta Fuss, Chair, Byron Fire Commission; Pierre Duquette, Byron Fire Commissioner; Chief Paul Hein, East Diablo Fire District and the County Administrator's Office. The participants seemed favorably impressed with the exercise. The results of the exercise were reviewed with the Riverview Fire Protection i To: Internal Operations Committee Page 4 May 2, 1989 District. District personnel stated that the outcome of the drill reflected an adequate and reasonable response to a hypothetical emergency of this kind. The Riverview personnel also believed that the Byron capabilities were consistent with other districts in East County. Attachment cc: Chief Nick Papadakos, Byron Fire Protection District Chief Paul Hein, East Diablo Fire Protection District Byron Fire Commissioners: Roberta Fuss Pierre Duquette Jack Rademacher Howard Patten Rick Gilmore K. Hemilhock, Superintendent, Byron School Dick McDonald, Discovery Bay Property Owners Association A. Templeton, Byron Chamber of Commerce Asst. Chief Homer Johnson, Byron Fire Protection District Byron Fire Protection District Byron School Mutual Aid Drill April 26, 1989 Equipment/Times Engine 97 Engine 97A Water Engine 98 Water (Pumper) (Pumper) Tanker 97 (Pumper) Tanker 54 Event Byron Byron Byron Disco Bay East Diablo Dispatch 7:32:00 7:32 7:32 7:32 7:32 On Scene 7:33:55 7:35 7:37 7:41 7:51:30 Water Flowing (or dumping) 7:35:30 7:36 7:38 7:42 7:52:00 Water Stopped (or dumped) 7:38:20 7:38 7:41 7:43 7:55:40 Water Flowing 7:38:55 7:40 N/A N/A N/A Water Stopped 7:46:45 7:46 N/A N/A N/A Water Flowing 7:47:40 7:49 N/A N/A N/A Water Stopped 7:47:55 7:50 N/A N/A N/A Water Flowing 7:48:35 7:51 N/A N/A N/A Water Stopped 7:52:00 7:52 N/A N/A N/A Returned to Scene N/A N/A 7:48 7:54 N/A Started Dumping N/A N/A 7:48 N/A N/A Finished Dumping N/A N/A 7:51 N/A N/A