Indoor Locates – ON1Call
By · Comments
Feature Article
One of the problems we often encounter, is misunderstandings related to having ON1Call locates completed for indoor drilling projects. We are facing challenges with locate requirements due to the approach of ON1Call to locate requests that involve drilling inside buildings. The feedback we are getting is that ON1Call is refusing to provide the requisite locates when a request is made that indicates that drilling will be undertaken indoors. We can partly understand the response, as ON1Call needs to make it known to callers that they do not locate privately owned services, which are the predominant utilities normally found indoors. However, we don’t believe that this is fulfilling the regulatory requirements of ON1Call utility members to mark the locations of their infrastructure. Although we are aware that it is rare for member utilities to have infrastructure under buildings, it does occur in some locations. We are not aware of any exemptions within the applicable Acts (and associated Regulations) which specifically exempts one from obtaining locates when the drilling is being undertaken within a building. Discussions with TSSA personnel have suggested that TSSA also interprets the regulations this way.
The problems noted above are leading to very frustrating and costly experiences for Kodiak, our consultant customers, and their property owner clients. We are arriving at sites, prepared to drill, but having to refuse to do the work because the locates are incomplete (i.e., they do not have ON1Call locates). When we are told that ON1Call refuses to do the locates, we are all in a state of paralysis, as we can’t drill without proper locates and consultants can’t obtain them from ON1Call. We are aware that some customers, who are familiar with the issue, are getting around this problem by requesting ON1Call to locate the entire site.
Because of the above noted problems, Kodiak has brought the issue to the attention of Ontario ON1Call. Kodiak concerns were then presented to the Board of Directors of ON1Call, which includes representation from TSSA regulated utility companies. Based on our submission, ON1Call has completed a re-education project of their staff to advise staff that they DO ACCEPT locates for areas on the inside of buildings. Therefore, when calling in for l
ocates, consultants should be able to indicate that their boreholes are inside and still obtain proper locates for their project. ON1Call has asked that if there are any problems with these requests, people should call the Help Desk at 1-866-466-7613 or email solutions@accu-link.ca. We commend ON1Call staff for moving quickly to address this issue and hope that the implementation is as smooth as possible.
No Locates – Jail Time ?
By · Comments48 hours in jail for not calling 1-Call…..We need a law like this in Ontario !
From Bristol Tennessee, we get this news report – Fencing Company admits to Failure to Call Before Digging.
Most of the downtown was shut down after a gas leak. A fencing company official said his company was supposed to call the one-call center for a locate request prior to digging fence post behind a local shop. Instead, a company employee called 30 minutes after one of their augers ruptured the gas line. The company spokesman said there should have been checks and balances in place, but there were not. The fencing company was completing the last steps of a renovation at the shop that began last year. To get it done quickly, the auger crew began drilling even though the ground had not been marked. Gas line owner Atmos Energy spent nearly three hours patching the leak. About 10 downtown businesses were evacuated and streets were closed and traffic re-routed. In Tennessee, failure to call before digging is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 48 hours in jail, a $2,500 fine or both. Atmos Energy would estimate the cost for the amount of gas lost and for the repairs.
Read the news report by clicking news report
Updated Utility Contact Lists
By · CommentsOntario 1-Call has recently (Spring 2010) updated their list of contacts for their member utilities. You can get to that list by clicking member utilities.
We have some locate contacts on our website as well, that you can get to by clicking locate contacts.
We also have a printable pdf version that you can get by clicking on printable version. As it is a few years old, it still shows our old logo, prior to rebranding to Kodiak Drilling.
Frontier Utility Locating Services has a good system on their website for finding the phone numbers for locate contacts. You can select the municipality and see the phone numbers for contacts. You can get directly to that system by clicking Frontier.
Bloor Street Explosion
By · CommentsNew Trial Ordered
The legal saga surrounding the Bloor Street explosion continues, as a retrial was granted on April 14, 2010. Anyone who has any involvement with borehole drilling and utility locates is encouraged to familiarize themselves with the Bloor Street explosion. We have previously posted a number of articles related to the explosion in the “Resources” section of the website.
Based on media reports, it appears that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has overturned the directed verdict and is ordering a new trial for Enbridge and their locate subcontractor. The company doing the excavation work without complete locates (Warren Bitulithic Limited) plead guilty in 2006 and was fined over $275,000.
In addition to the news items in our Resources section, some of the stories about the explosion and media reports on the appeal can be found below:
A good description of the incident and the recent appeal ruling, can be found in the April 21 summary provided by John Goudy:
http://landownerlaw.blogspot.com/2010/04/enbridge-bloor-street-gas-explosion.html
For some photos of the site
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/gary/blastweb/blast.html
Toronto Star story on re-trial being ordered (April 16, 2010)
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/796843–enbridge-subcontractor-face-re-trial-in-fatal-blast
Etobicoke Guardian stories on redevelopment, the appeal, and the names of the victims
http://www.mosun.com/news/MA-19032008.pdf
Story on the redevelopment of the site and the memorial garden honouring the 7 people who lost their lives because the locates weren’t complete.
http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/centre/article/55689
Whenever someone wants us to drill without complete locates, we would like them to read the press stories related to the incident, and to think about the seven people killed in the explosion, knowing that the reason for the explosion was that the locates were not complete.
1-Call Memo
By · CommentsThird Party Locate Requests
Ontario 1-Call has issued a memo (May 21, 2010), regarding requests for locates being submitted by third parties, which can be read by clicking here. It would appear from this memo, that one can no longer request a third party to look after the locates on their behalf. We have heard through the grapevine that some private locators have been providing this as a service to their consultant clients. This would also imply that one cannot use locates obtained by others on a site, such as a contractor who may also be working on the site at the same time who provides a copy of their locates to the consultant. Therefore, when Kodiak is drilling at a site, the locates must be in the name of the consultant who has hired us to drill, unless the other party will be “responsible” for directing the drilling.
Tragic
By · CommentsThere Must Be A Hydro Locate
It is absolutely imperative that at every site we drill there is a proper locate from the local hydro provider. Unfortunately we have had a number of sites where we could not drill because there was no hydro locate available from the consultant. In some areas these are obtained through Ontario One-Call, and in some areas the hydro provider must be contacted directly. A sad story from the Philadelphia Inquirer tells us all why.
A plumber excavating a trench in West Philadelphia was electrocuted yesterday after striking a 13,000-volt underground power line, causing a short circuit that shut off service to 1,300 customers for several hours, said Michael Wood, a spokesman for Peco Energy Co. Wood said the contractor had failed to notify utility companies before digging in the 800 block of North Brooklyn Street, near Lancaster Avenue. About 3:25 p.m., the plumber’s equipment came into contact with the high-power line, killing the plumber instantly and shutting down power to a large area. His name was not released.
Electrical service was restored after two hours, but it took two more hours more to make sure the excavation was safe to enter to remove the body, Wood said.
Under state law, anyone planning to excavate is required to call Pennsylvania One Call System at 1-800-242-1776 three days in advance so that utilities can mark the location of underground lines. “It is essential for the safety of workers and the public to call before you dig,” said Wood.
If we drill without a proper local hydro provider locate, we could be substituting the words “a driller drilling a borehole in ………”
Welcome to the Kodiak Drilling WebSite!
By · CommentsWelcome to the re-branded Kodiak Drilling website!
When we started providing limited access drilling services as “Kodiak Environmental Limited” in 1994, our work was done exclusively for environmental site assessment and remediation. Over the years, along with the evolution of our drilling capabilities, our work has also evolved to include an increasing amount of geotechnical drilling.
Therefore, while celebrating 15 years of providing leadership in limited access drilling, we have re-branded to “Kodiak Drilling” to better reflect the nature of our work.
Reducing Costs with Cluster Records
By · CommentsFeature Article
If you could save your client several hundred dollars on a drilling job by simply filling in a few forms, would you be interested? That’s what we can do for you when we file a cluster record.
Well drilling in Ontario is regulated by Regulation 903 (the “Water Well Regulation”), made under the Ontario Water Resources Act. With a few exceptions, the Regulation requires that well drillers submit a drilling record to the Ministry of Environment(MOE) for every well, regardless of whether it is for geotechnical, environmental or water supply purposes. Identification tags must also be attached to the wells. The paperwork to file the records takes time, as does tagging each well. Multiply these steps by several wells drilled during a project (particularly if it has spanned several days) and the costs quickly add up.
Fortunately, the Regulation offers us an alternative – the opportunity to file a “Cluster Record”. This is a single record, and single tag, which applies to a cluster of wells that are located on the same or adjacent property.
A cluster record reduces the level of effort required for tagging and recording – and consequently, our costs. One of the critical things we need in order to provide this cost savings is a signature from the owner(s) of the property(ies) on which the wells are installed. Unfortunately, getting the property owner’s signature for well clusters is our most difficult task when filing well records.
When we arrive onsite, you will receive a package requesting several pieces of information that we use for filing the well record. If your technician can provide that on the site, our crew can spend most of their time drilling, and at the end of the job, use only a short time to review the information that you have provided. This reduces the amount of time we spend at the site, and reduces the costs to your client. One of the items in the information package is a form to be signed by the owner of each property where one or more wells will be installed.
The signature is proof for the MOE that each property owner has been informed that there is a well on the property. If you think the signature is not likely to be available, please tell us before we get to the job site. In that case, the drill crew will simply tag each well and file a record for each – just as we did before cluster records became an option in the Regulation. If you don’t tell us – until after the job is over – that the property owner’s signature will not be forthcoming, it means that we must send staff back to the job site to tag each well, and file multiple records – a time consuming and costly exercise that probably wasn’t in the original project budget.
The signature aspect of the cluster record seems like a nuisance, but there is some rationale behind it. When wells are tagged individually, each property owner receives a copy of the well record in the mail. When a cluster record is filed, only one property owner receives a copy of the well record – if there are multiple properties involved in the cluster, the other owners may never know that there are wells on their property. By asking for signatures, the MOE ensures that all property owners are aware of wells on their own property. A knowledgeable owner is more likely to protect and maintain the well.
Some consultants have simply signed the Owner’s Permission form themselves, acting on behalf of their client. By doing so, they prevent the MOE from ensuring that the property owner has been told of the well. This practise has already been the grounds for at least one MOE staff visit to a consultant who, according to previously filed cluster records, appeared to be the owner of a large number of properties across Ontario!
If you can talk with your client in advance and get the owner’s authorization form signed, we will be able to file a cluster form and lower your project costs. If you can’t get a signature – just let us know before the job, and our staff will be happy to help out by doing individual tagging and by coming prepared to your site with a sufficient number of tags for all the wells that might possibly be drilled.
More information about well tagging, record filing and Regulation 903 is available in our FAQ on the Water Well Regulation, located here:
Reg 903 FAQ
MOE Best Practices Manual Released
By · Comments
At the end of December (2009) the Ministry of Environment released a document titled Water Supply Wells – Requirements and Best Practices Manual.
This is the finalized version of a draft that was released at the Ontario Ground Water Association (OGWA) Regional meetings last year, and offers comprehensive comments on working with Ontario’s wells regulation, Reg. 903. Weighing in at a whopping 739 pages (including 90 pages of the Act and Regulation, in both official languages), it represents an enormous effort to assist licensed well drillers and other users of water wells in interpreting the Regulation.
Although lengthy, the manual has been carefully designed to be user friendly. Each chapter follows the same format, providing a plain language version of the Reg, its key concepts and technical advice on implementation. Most chapters provide advice on best management practices that exceed the regulation’s requirements to protect groundwater resources. The manual does not supersede the Reg – if there are discrepancies between the manual and the Regulation, the Wells Regulation takes precedence.
It is important to note that the Best Practices manual is designed for Water Supply Wells. The boreholes and wells installed for Kodiak Drilling clients are either test holes or dewatering wells, and as such, they are exempt from many sections of the Regulation which apply only to water supply wells. A Best Practices manual for test holes and dewatering wells is still under construction; when it is released by the Ministry, we will post more news here.
The fifteen chapters of the Manual may be downloaded in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format from the Technical Publications section of the Ministry’s website:
www.ene.gov.on.ca/en/publications/water/index.php
Kodiak Drilling clients may also obtain a CD copy by contacting us directly.
Casing Drilling Under Structure
By · CommentsFeature Article
Kodiak Drilling is routinely involved in drilling projects to solve non-routine drilling problems. As the company specializes in limited access areas, solving a problem of how to get the drill to the borehole location and complete the required work program is a daily challenge.
A recent project was presented that involved drilling in an underground parking garage. The location initially did not present a problem as many projects have been completed in parking garages. The combination of the additional constraints presented below however, looked like they were going to be impossible to overcome:
- Borehole depth requirement of 40-50ft (~12-15m),
- Overhead clearance of approximately 7ft (2.1m),
- Requirement for Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs),
- Firm silt till materials, overlying unstable flowing sands below the water table, and
- Use of hollow stem augers was not permitted due to the potential for structural disturbance of the sand formation.
Together with the geotechnical engineering consultant and colleagues at Walker Drilling (who worked together with Kodiak on this project), a method was developed to overcome these obstacles. The primary components of the developed method include the following:
- A Big Beaver drill was used with the tower removed from the drill to allow access to areas with restricted headroom. Extended hydraulic hoses were used to allow the machine to operate without exhaust fumes within the confines of an indoor environment.
- To overcome the issues of depth and a requirement to limit the disturbance to the sand formation, the drill head was used to rotate BW size drilling casing, with a cutting shoe at the base of the string. Given the short stroke available, fabrication of custom casing lengths was required before starting the project.
- In order to prevent blow-back of the heaving sands into the casing, the interior of the casing was pressurized (through a swivel), with a dense, viscous drilling mud.
- As a traditional recirculation mud pit could not be accommodated within the low overhead environment, a vacuum extraction system was employed for retrieving the expended mud/cuttings mixture. A mud pump, operating from an auxiliary hydraulic power unit, provided the mud solution to the casing string, while the vacuum system returned it to a recirculation tank.
- The remaining problem to be overcome was the requirement for SPTs in an area lower than the 8ft minimum requirement for this drill. This issue was overcome by using a manual slide hammer to advance standard split spoons through the hollow casing. The requirement of 300-400 blows per foot in some areas made this aspect particularly challenging for the site crew.
Operation of the casing, the manual hammer, the mud pumping system and the vacuum recirculation component required a large crew, working in off-hours to minimize the impacts to the ongoing garage operations. By the end of the project, several boreholes along with piezometer installations were completed to a depth of 48ft.
Although the casing/washboring method is commonly used by larger rigs in unlimited access areas, the confines of this site made this seemingly impossible project possible with unique limited access equipment and teamwork.