Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 142

HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

Prepared for: Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Calgary, Alberta and Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Calgary, Alberta

Prepared by: Environmental Consultants (Alta.) Ltd. Calgary, Alberta and CH2M Gore and Storrie Limited Calgary, Alberta

September, 1996

This report was prepared for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) under the auspices of the industry/ government Pipeline Hydrostatic Testing Task Force by TERA Environmental Consultants (Alta.) Ltd. (TERA), and CH2M Gore and Storrie (CG&S). While it is believed the information contained herein will be reliable under the conditions and subject to the limitations set out, neither TERA, CG&S, CAPP or CEPA guarantee its accuracy. The use of this report or any information contained will be at the users sole risk, regardless of any fault or negligence of TERA, CG&S, CAPP or CEPA. It would be appreciated if any comments on this report be brought to the attention of CAPP or CEPA.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pressure testing is routinely conducted before a new pipeline is commissioned to prove integrity at the operating pressure. Testing of in-service pipelines is also conducted as part of a preventative program to verify pipeline integrity or when a change in service or maximum operating pressure (MOP) is planned. This report is a revision of a Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) document entitled Environmental Regulatory Requirements and Guidelines for Hydrostatic Testing of Pipelines in Canada prepared in 1993. The update has been prepared by CAPP and the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) to provide their members with a summary of the environmental concerns associated with hydrostatic testing, guidelines used to minimize the risk of environmental impacts and an overview of the environmental regulatory requirements associated with hydrostatic testing. This report provides a description of hydrostatic testing, identifies potential environmental impacts that could arise as a result of the withdrawal and release of water for hydrostatic testing and provides guidelines to minimize these impacts. Recommended sampling and analyses protocols are identified to ensure that regulatory limits are not exceeded and that adverse impacts do not occur. Environmental concerns related to the release of hydrostatic test water are noted and release guidelines, treatment alternatives and environmental protection measures are presented. Testing of new pipelines presents relatively limited potential for environmental impacts and, consequently, the sampling and protection measures recommended are generally straight forward. However, the testing of in-service pipelines has a greater potential for environmental impact and typically requires more extensive planning. Water used for these tests may require treatment prior to release and more extensive sampling. Members of CAPP and CEPA operate pipelines that traverse many of the provinces and territories of Canada. This report provides the members of CAPP and CEPA with an overview of the environmental regulatory requirements associated with hydrostatic testing in areas of Canada in which the members are active. The environmental regulatory requirements for the withdrawal and release of hydrostatic test water vary according to the jurisdiction in which the testing is to occur. Nevertheless, most jurisdictions require approvals be in place for both water withdrawal and release. Acquisition of approvals for hydrostatic testing of new pipelines is generally relatively straightforward, while permits for testing of in-service pipelines tend to be subject to closer scrutiny and a more lengthy review period due to the potential for substances in the test water. Approvals obtained from government agencies for water withdrawal typically include the source waters to be used, the withdrawal rate, screening requirements, total volume to be taken, cost of the water and period of withdrawal.

Page i Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Government agencies typically approve the release location, discharge rate and minimum acceptable water quality criteria on test water discharge approvals.

Page ii Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines were prepared under the guidance of the Hydrostatic Water Management Task Force composed of:

Gordon Dinwoodie Alberta Environmental Protection Edmonton, Alberta Ken Jenner AEC Pipelines, Alberta Energy Company Edmonton, Alberta Ian Mackenzie Alberta Environmental Protection Edmonton, Alberta Stephen Maunder Alberta Environmental Protection Edmonton, Alberta Ian Scott (Chairman) Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Calgary, Alberta Bert Johnson Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Calgary, Alberta John Sutherland Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Calgary, Alberta

Guy Hervieux Northwestern Utilities Limited Edmonton, Alberta Cyril Karvonen Pembina Corporation Calgary, Alberta Wayne Marshall National Energy Board Calgary, Alberta Dan O'Rourke Trans Mountain Pipe Line Company Ltd. Vancouver, B.C. Bruce Stubbs / Ken Crutchfield Alberta Environmental Protection Edmonton, Alberta Harold Karasiuk Alberta Environmental Protection Edmonton, Alberta

In addition, numerous others provided information or assistance in the preparation of the guidelines.

Page iii Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS


AOP API BOD BTEX CCME COD Core Water Advanced oxidation processes American Petroleum Institute Biological oxygen demand Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Chemical oxygen demand Test water between the zones of interface water where the potential for contamination is least during testing of in-service pipelines. Dissolved air floatation Dissolved oxygen Electrical conductivity Granular activated carbon Gas Research Institute Harmful alteration, disturbance or destruction of fish habitat Induced air flotation The movement of water from one major drainage basin to another; some jurisdictions consider major rivers (eg. North Saskatchewan and South Saskatchewan) as individual drainage basins while others consider all watercourses that flow to the same final destination as part of one drainage basin (eg. Hay, Peace, Athabasca and Liard rivers would all be part of the MacKenzie River drainage basin). The water immediately behind the lead pig and in front of rear pig where the potential for contamination is greatest during testing of inservice pipelines. Maximum operating pressure Natural gas liquids Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

DAF DO EC GAC GRI HADD IAF Interbasin transfer

Interface Water

MOP NGL PAH

Page iv Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

GLOSSARY Contd pig A temporary plug composed of neoprene, brushes etc., that is inserted inside the pipeline to scrape hydrocarbon residuals from the pipe wall or to maintain the separation of test water from air, gas or liquid petroleum. A pipe used to transport oil and gas industry products including installations (eg. storage tanks) associated with the pipe Sodium adsorption ratio To move water used in one test section along the pipeline to another test section Specified minimum yield strength Total dissolved solids Total organic carbon Total petroleum hydrocarbons Total suspended solids

pipeline

SAR shunt

SMYS TDS TOC TPH TSS

Page v Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................ iii GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................... iv 1.0 2.0 3.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1 _ 1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF HYDROSTATIC TESTING OF PIPELINES ......................2 _ 1 WATER WITHDRAWAL.................................................................................................3 _ 1 3.1 Source Water .........................................................................................................3 _ 1 3.2 Potential Environmental Impacts ..............................................................................3 _ 2 3.3 Environmental Protection Measures .........................................................................3 _ 4 TEST WATER.................................................................................................................4 _ 1 4.1 Characterization......................................................................................................4 _ 1 4.2 Contamination Minimization....................................................................................4 _ 13 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS .........................................................................................5 _ 1 DISCHARGE WATER ....................................................................................................6 _ 1 6.1 Discharge Water Release Options ............................................................................6 _ 1 6.2 Potential Impacts ....................................................................................................6 _ 4 6.3 Environmental Protection Measures .........................................................................6 _ 6 TREATMENT .................................................................................................................7 _ 1 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS.................................................................8 _ 1 8.1 Withdrawal.............................................................................................................8 _ 2 8.2 Release ..................................................................................................................8 _ 2 8.3 Monitoring and Record Retention.............................................................................8 _ 3 8.4 Spill and Spill Reporting .........................................................................................8 _ 3 PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS ...........................................................9 _ 1 9.1 Withdrawal.............................................................................................................9 _ 1 9.2 Release ..................................................................................................................9 _ 1 9.3 Monitoring and Record Retention.............................................................................9 _ 2 9.4 Spill and Spill Reporting .........................................................................................9 _ 3 OTHER REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................. 10 _ 1 10.1 Aboriginal Requirements ....................................................................................... 10 _ 1 10.2 Municipal Requirements........................................................................................ 10 _ 1 10.3 Private Land Owner, Industrial or Other Requirements............................................. 10 _ 1 10.4 Irrigation Districts or Other Water Authorities ........................................................ 10 _ 1 REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 11 _ 1

4.0

5.0 6.0

7.0 8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

Page vi Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

TABLE OF CONTENTS Contd LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G WATER HANDLING FLOW DIAGRAMS HYDROCARBON SPECTRUM DIAGRAM EXAMPLE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY SUMMARIES SPILL CONTINGENCY PLAN TESTING RELATED CONVERSIONS ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DISCHARGE OF WATER FROM HYDROSTASTIC TESTING OF PETROLEUM, LIQUID AND NATURAL GAS PIPELINES LIST OF FIGURES SCHEMATICS OF HYDROSTATIC TEST LAYOUT FIGURE 3.1 FIGURE 6.1 FIGURE D.1 FIGURE D.2 FIGURE D.3 FIGURE D.4 FIGURE D.5 FIGURE D.6 FIGURE D.7 FIGURE D.8 FOR IN-SERVICE PIPELINE.............................................2 _ 6 INSTREAM FILL PUMP - SORBANT BOOM ...................3 _ 7 TESTWATER ENERGY DISSIPATERS...........................6 _ 10 SKIM TANK FOR OIL AND WATER SEPARATION.......................................... D _ 3 CORRUGATED PLATE SEPARATOR ............................................................... D _ 6 COALESCING FILTER....................................................................................... D _ 7 DISSOLVED AIR FLOATATION UNIT .............................................................. D _ 9 HAY BALE FIELD TREATMENT UNIT ............................................................ D _ 12 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF GAC ADSORPTION COLUMNS IN SERIES D _ 15 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AOP SYSTEM ..................................................... D _ 17 SCHEMATIC OF A STEAM STRIPPING PROCESS .......................................... D _ 19 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.1 TABLE 4.1 TABLE 5.1 TABLE 5.2 TABLE 5.3 TABLE 7.1 TABLE 7.2 TABLE 7.3 TABLE 7.4 TABLE 7.5 TABLE 9.1 HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER VOLUMEREQUIREMENTS FOR STANDARD PIPE SIZES .............................................................................2 _ 2 WATER QUALITY OF HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER FROM NEW, IN _ SERVICE GAS AND IN-SERVICE LIQUID PETROLEUM PIPELINES 4 _ 5 ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ........................................5 _ 4 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR WATER5 _ 8 RECOMMENDED SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR SOIL 5 _ 12 SUMMARY OF TREATMENT PROCESSES....................7 _ 4 DISCHARGE CRITERIA ..................................................7 _ 9 EXPECTED COMPOSITION AND DISCHARGE CRITERIA 7 _ 10 SUMMARY OF CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS....7 _ 12 EXPECTED COMPOSITION AND DISCHARGE CRITERIA 7 _ 13 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER WITHDRAWAL ANDDISCHARGE...................9 _ 4

FIGURE 2.1

Page vii Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

1.0

INTRODUCTION

Pressure testing of a new pipeline is required prior to commissioning to prove its integrity at operating pressure. Hydrostatic testing is the most common pressure testing method. Testing of an in-service pipeline may be done as part of a preventative program to verify pipeline integrity. In-service pipelines may also be tested if operating pressures are to be increased, modifications to the pipeline are made or a change in line service is planned. Approval from regulatory agencies must be acquired prior to testing. Regulatory approvals have been put in place to minimize the risk of unacceptable environmental impact or adverse impacts on other water users as a result of testing activities. Mitigative measures outlined in this report have been designed to minimize the potential for environmental impacts during testing. This report has been prepared to provide the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers' (CAPP) and Canadian Energy Pipeline Associations (CEPA) members with a summary of environmental considerations related to hydrostatic testing. It includes a summary of: potential environmental impacts or concerns associated with hydrostatic testing; guidelines for minimizing these environmental impacts; treatment/release options for handling test water contaminated with hydrocarbons, test additives, metals or other deleterious materials; and a review of environmental regulatory requirements related to hydrostatic testing in regions of Canada where CAPP and CEPA members are active. The purpose of this document is not to identify rigid practices that must be implemented during all hydrostatic testing operations. Rather, this report has been designed to: provide a general description of hydrostatic testing of new and in-service pipelines; identify potential environmental impacts that could arise from water withdrawal, handling and release during testing; provide environmental protection measures that pipeline companies may wish to adopt in their testing plans; provide water and soil sampling and analytical methods; identify and describe options from which companies may select the most appropriate method to treat or release contaminated test water; identify environmental regulatory requirements for federal agencies, as well as British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Northwest Territories and Yukon; and identify regulatory requirements related to minimum quantity of water withdrawn that requires a permit, typical approval period, screening requirements, minimum acceptable quality of test water and water quality testing requirements.

1-1 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

2.0

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF HYDROSTATIC TESTING OF PIPELINES

Hydrostatic testing involves the filling of a section of pipeline to be tested with water, adding additional water to the pipeline until the desired test pressure is reached and maintaining the pressure in the pipeline for a period specified by regulatory authorities. Pipelines are hydrostatically tested in order to prove the integrity of the pipe and welds to the owner company, regulatory authorities and the public. This procedure is conducted on new pipelines as well as on in-service pipelines when a change of service is proposed, an increase in operating pressure is planned or to verify the integrity of the pipeline. Hydrostatic testing must be conducted in accordance with CSA Z662-94 - Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. This national standard stipulates test pressures, test durations and other engineering requirements. Failure of an operating pipeline can result in health and safety concerns, damage to property and has the potential for significant environmental impact. Consequently, it is important to ensure that a pipeline is free of leaks and is capable of maintaining its integrity at an approved operating pressure in order to limit the risk to the public and the environment. Safety of the public and workers along the right-of-way are also of concern during testing due to the high test pressures involved. Companies conducting tests are required to follow all safety precautions and regulations. Companies are required to post warning signs and advise the public of danger. Hydrostatic testing of new pipelines is undertaken following completion of backfilling. Prior to filling the pipeline with water, a cleaning pig is often run through the test section to remove any debris (e.g. welding litter, dirt) from the pipeline. In some instances, a small volume of water is run through the pipe between two pigs to remove as much remaining soluble material (rust, dirt, oils and grease) as possible prior to filling the test section with water. Similarly, operating oil pipelines are often cleaned with pigs to evacuate hydrocarbons from the pipe and a solvent may be used to remove any remaining hydrocarbon and build up of paraffins or waxes on the pipe walls prior to testing. The pipeline section to be tested is then filled with test water which is confined between a minimum of two pigs. The volume of water required for a test is dependent upon the length of the test section, diameter of the pipe (Table 2.1), season of testing (i.e. if hot water is to be circulated prior to initiation of the test), need for contingency water in case of a test failure and quantity of additives to be used. Since the transportation of water to a fill site can be very expensive, fill points are usually situated at locations where the pipeline crosses or closely approaches a watercourse or waterbody with an adequate water supply available for testing.

1-1 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

TABLE 2.1
HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER VOLUME REQUIREMENTS FOR STANDARD PIPE SIZES Outside Diameter (mm) 60.3 88.9 114.3 168.3 219.1 273.1 323.9 406.4 508.0 559.0 609.6 762.0 813.0 914.4 1067.0 1219.0 (inches) 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 16 20 22 24 30 34 36 42 48 3.2 3.2 3.2 4.0 6.4 6.4 7.9 9.5 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 2.3 5.3 9.1 20.2 33.4 53.2 74.6 117.9 182.9 223.6 268.4 426.1 487.2 620.2 852.1 1118.9 Wall Thickness (mm) Fluid Volume (m3/km)

Source: Stelpipe 1991, Lessard pers. comm.

1-2 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

If a suitable water source is not crossed by the pipeline to be tested, water is either trucked to the fill site or a temporary water supply line is constructed and laid on the surface from a nearby water source to the fill point. Water sources commonly include rivers, lakes, ponds, dugouts, borrow pits, wells and municipal water supplies. Isolation valves may be used to break long sections of new pipelines into smaller test sections that vary in length depending upon the topography traversed and construction season. Alternatively, the pipeline may be cut and test heads welded on to allow testing. Test sections, which encounter relatively level terrain or are tested in the summer, are typically longer than test sections with significant changes in elevation or those tested in the winter. Water is commonly shunted along the pipeline from one test section to another in order to minimize water requirements. Since the test section of an operating pipeline may be downstream from the nearest terminal or fill point, the water may be required to travel along the pipeline for a considerable distance prior to reaching the test section. Water used during testing of an in-service pipeline will come in contact with any residual hydrocarbons and contaminants on the wall of the pipeline, hydrocarbons encountered at bypasses and stations as well as hydrocarbons encountered at the interfaces. Therefore, contamination of the test water with hydrocarbons will occur to some extent. The potential exists for water to freeze in a pipeline under test when ground temperatures are below freezing. To avoid this occurrence, either additives such as methanol or ethylene glycol are added to the water during filling to reduce the freezing point of the test water or heated water is circulated through the test section for several hours until the temperature of the pipe and surrounding ground reach 2 to 4 C. Larger diameter pipelines (ie. > 406.4 mm O.D.) are less susceptible to freezing below ground than smaller pipelines but may still require above ground piping and valving to be protected and heated. Some pipeline companies use other additives during testing to minimize the risk of corrosion to the pipeline when the pipe is filled with water. The potential exists for bacterial activity in the source water to result in internal corrosion of the pipe. A biocide batch may be run after dewatering to eliminate any remaining bacteria while avoiding contamination of the test water. Since the presence of oxygen in the water can accelerate corrosion, some companies add oxygen scavengers to the test water to remove free oxygen. Under some circumstances, biocides may be added to the test water to minimize impacts on down hole formations if test water is discharged to an injection well. Biocides may also be used to kill bacteria, fish pathogens or other undesirable aquatic biota when water is to be transferred from one drainage basin or waterbody to another during testing. Some test additives such as mercaptans, other odourants or dyes (e.g. Flourescein) are sometimes used during testing to assist in the location of small leaks. Additional information on test additives is presented in Section 4.1.

1-3 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

After the pipe is filled, additional water is added to the pipeline with a squeeze pump to reach the desired test pressure. The pipeline is considered to be on test or the strength test begun when the pressure reaches the appropriate test pressure stipulated by federal / provincial requirements and the national standard CSA Z662-94. Test pressure and duration vary, depending upon the type of hydrocarbon product to be transported and location of the pipe in relation to residences. For example, in Class 1 areas the pressure is a minimum of 1.25 times the maximum operating pressure (MOP) of the pipeline. This pressure is then held for a minimum of eight hours, (i.e. four hour minimum strength test at > 1.25 MOP plus four hour minimum leak test at > 1.10 MOP) depending upon thermal variations or other factors that affect the validity of the tests. If the pressure remains constant, the test is deemed successful and the test section can be depressurized. The test water is commonly discharged from the pipeline by inert gas (e.g. nitrogen) or product to push the pigs through the pipe. In some cases (eg. new pipelines) compressed air may also be used for dewatering. Additional pig runs are then generally conducted until no more water can be removed from the pipe by this method. A final slug of methanol may be used to dry the pipeline. If the test does not maintain pressure throughout the required period, this indicates there is a pipeline leak which must be located. Then, the pipeline must be exposed to repair the leak and the pipeline retested. Occasionally, a pipe under test will suddenly fail and discharge test water. Test failures can result in flooding of localized areas or the degradation of soil or water quality if the source water was of low quality or the test water has been contaminated with hydrocarbons or additives. In order to minimize the risk to the public, warning signs are erected at road crossings and other points of entry to the pipeline right-of-way under test, and in populated areas, blasting mats may be placed and evacuation of nearby residents required. Water used to test new pipelines is often discharged onto noncultivated lands, (e.g. pasture, bar ditches) or into storm sewers, disposal wells, ponds, lakes or watercourses. Since the potential exists for contamination of the test water with hydrocarbons during testing of in-service pipelines, subsequent treatment or special release measures may be required for the test water upon completion of the test. Testing of in-service oil, product and condensate pipelines have the greatest potential for contamination of test water, while contamination during testing of gas or natural gas liquid pipelines generally results in lower levels of contamination and testing of new pipelines has the least potential for contamination. The portion of water that is most contaminated with hydrocarbons is referred to as the interface waters. Although the volume of the interface water varies according to the length of the test section, hydraulic conditions and other factors, the volume of the interface water generally comprises less than 10% of the total volume of the test water. The interface waters are concentrated on the back side of the pigs (see Figure 2.1). The remainder of the test water is generally less contaminated with hydrocarbons and is termed the core water. If treatment or disposal of the interface waters is required, the pipeline company can direct the interface water into tanks, storage ponds or other holding facilities by sampling or tracking the arrival of the pigs. Treatment and release options for contaminated test water are discussed in Section 7.1. Potential environmental impacts that could occur during testing and the mitigative measures that are available to minimize the risk of environmental impact are described in Sections 3.0, 4.0 and 6.0.

1-4 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

1-5 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

1-6 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

3.0

WATER WITHDRAWAL

3.1

Source Water

Planning of a hydrostatic test program involves the selection of an appropriate test water source. Figure 1 (Appendix A) provides a summary of the water withdrawal decision making process. Ideally the source water should be: of high quality; available in large volumes; located near the optimum fill location; accessible with a minimum of disturbance; within the same drainage basin as the discharge point; and economical. Most operators attempt to use the highest quality source water available for testing to minimize the risk of pipeline corrosion and optimize test water release options. However, the selection of a water source is also affected by the volume required, availability and cost. Test volumes required can vary significantly depending upon the diameter of the pipeline (Table 2.1) and length of the test section. Potential source waters include surface water, potable municipal water supplies and groundwater. Regulatory approval, for both water use and activities related to the withdrawal of water from the water source, is required, as discussed in Sections 8.0 and 9.0. Potable water supplies are generally among the highest quality source waters since they are required to meet the Canadian drinking water guidelines. These water sources are unlikely to introduce substances of concern into the hydrostatic test water but could cause concern in the event of a test failure on a new pipeline, or, cause test water release problems. The metals and chlorine found in some potable waters could adversely affect sensitive aquatic species. When testing in-service pipelines, chlorine, if present in high concentrations could combine with residual hydrocarbons to produce undesirable compounds. Under these circumstances testing for residual chlorine and/or treatment measures (e.g. aeration) may be required. The quality of surface water and groundwater varies depending on the ecoregion, the type of watershed and depth

1-7 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

of groundwater source. Some surface water, particularly those in swampy or low lying areas, may have high suspended solids concentrations or other undesirable characteristics (e.g. high bacteria or high salinity/sodicity levels). There is also a risk of contaminants being present from other industrial discharges. A company testing with water of low quality must address the effects of an accidental release of this water. Selecting an appropriate discharge site and assessing legal considerations regarding cleanup of the contaminants is imperative. The transfer of exotic biota from one watershed to another may also be of concern and be restricted by regulation (see Sections 8.0 and 9.0). Groundwater sources in some regions may have high dissolved solids concentrations and contain trace metals. It is prudent and, in some jurisdictions, required to obtain analyses of non-potable source waters prior to hydrostatic testing for comparison of baseline water quality data to the discharge water quality. The selection of parameters for testing the source water will vary on a case by case basis (see Section 5.1). Some factors to consider when testing source water include the origin of the water source (surface water or groundwater), release method, discharge location and regulatory requirements related to the discharge of the test water. The main objective of analyzing the source water is to confirm that substances that could pose a discharge problem are not being introduced. Surface water or groundwater may be tested for total dissolved solids, salts (electrical conductivity, sodium absorption ratio), pH, trace metals and suspended solids. Additional analyses may be conducted if there is a concern of introducing substances that could adversely affect the environment. Sampling and analytical methods are discussed in Section 5.0. The selection of a test water source is also dependent upon the ability to obtain approval from regulatory agencies and the landowner. For example, an alternate source may be required if a landowner or water management agency denies access to an otherwise ideal source of test water.

3.2

Potential Environmental Impacts

The potential exists during water withdrawal to adversely affect aquatic biota, soils and land use. The degree of risk to these environmental components is influenced by the: source water withdrawal rate; volume withdrawn; timing; location and sensitivity of the withdrawal point; and activity needed to prepare, use and abandon the withdrawal site. Fish and Fish Habitat
1-2 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Improper selection of a water withdrawal site or poorly conducted water withdrawal operations could adversely affect fish and fish habitat. Excessive volumes of water withdrawn or water withdrawal rates could potentially limit the amount of water available for use by fish. Small bodies of water can be more susceptible to adverse impacts from high withdrawal rates and volumes than are larger bodies of water. Significant water reductions in a body of water could result in decreased mobility, increased susceptibility to predation, increased stress related energy expenditures as well as abandonment, deterioration or loss of habitat. Overwintering fish and incubating eggs of fall spawning fish may be particularly sensitive to reduced streamflow since streamflows are lowest in many regions of the country during the winter months and adequate water depth and streamflow are required to prevent freezing of the body of water to the bottom. Inadequate screening of water intakes and excessive intake velocities can result in mortality if fish eggs or small fish are withdrawn from the body of water. Fish and fish habitat could also be adversely affected by intake site preparation (excavation of sumps or clearing of riparian vegetation) or by an accidental spill of fuel or lubricants during water withdrawal activities. Instream activities during sensitive life history phases (spawning, incubating, rearing and overwintering) have a higher potential for affecting fish. Aquatic Furbearers and Waterfowl Aquatic furbearers and waterfowl could be adversely affected by inadequate water levels if a large volume of water was withdrawn during sensitive time periods (e.g. under ice covered conditions or during staging or nesting periods). A substantial reduction in water levels may result in den abandonment or the loss of, or reduction in, preferred food sources for furbearers. Severe reductions in water levels could adversely affect waterfowl by increasing access by predators to nests and reducing food availability. Alteration or loss of riparian wildlife habitat could also occur as a result of water withdrawal activities. Accidental spills of fuel or lubricants could adversely affect waterfowl and aquatic furbearers and their habitats. Auditory and visual disturbances arising from water withdrawal activities during sensitive time periods could result in nest abandonment by waterfowl or nesting raptors as well as temporary abandonment of optimum habitat by other wildlife species. Land Use Excessive water withdrawal rates or volumes can adversely affect other water users such as irrigators, livestock, landowners, land users or recreationists if water is withdrawn from small watercourses or bodies of water. Access to water withdrawal points can result in rutting and compaction of soils, loss of crop production as well as loss of timber. If trucking of water is required from the source to the fill point, heavy truck traffic could result in road damage, safety concerns and dust problems.

3.3

Environmental Protection Measures

Although the potential exists for numerous and significant environmental impacts to occur during water withdrawal, protection measures are available to minimize these impacts. The following environmental protection measures should be considered, where appropriate, in order to minimize impacts on the environment.

1-3 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Regulatory Requirements Communication with Regulators and Landowners

391 392

Determine the regulatory requirements for water with-drawal, instream activity and release (see Sections 8.0 and 9.0). Obtain all appropriate water withdrawal and instream activity permits/approvals as well as permission from landowners, if required, for access to the intake site. Also obtain regulatory/landowner approval for the routing and construction of fill lines, if required. Follow all conditions on permits. Identify and notify affected water users, if required, prior to commencing water withdrawal activities. Ensure that the source water is of the best available quality in order to limit the need for additives, increase water release options and minimize the risk to the environment in the event of a test failure. Select a source which will provide the required volume of water at an adequate rate during the proposed testing period. As a rule of thumb, the test volume should not exceed 10% of the streamflow of a watercourse or cause an effect on the water level in a natural waterbody. In addition, the volume withdrawn and rate of withdrawal must not exceed permitted values. Locate the water intake at a site with adequate water depth, wherever possible, in order to avoid the excavation of a sump. Select a water source close to the fill site to limit the construction of fill pipe or trucking distances. Where feasible, the location of the fill point should be altered to minimize the length of fill pipe required or trucking distances. Avoid using saline water from sloughs, where feasible.

393 Source Water Selection 394

395

396 397

398 399

Note that regulators may prohibit the interbasin transfer or export of water. 3910 Test source water quality to confirm the source is suitable. In addition, an attempt should be made to limit levels of the electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids and sodium adsorption ratio in order to minimize environmental risk. Maximum acceptable values for water quality parameters are variable and depend upon test volumes, regulatory requirements, environmental concerns along the test section and proposed discharge site. When water is to be discharged onto agricultural lands (e.g. pasture), the quality of the source water should be of equal or better quality than local recommendations for water to be used in irrigation. Retain laboratory analyses results. 3911 Consider selecting another water source if laboratory analyses results indicate that the water quality of the initial source is unsuitable for discharge at the proposed discharge site. If the use of another water source is not feasible, select an alternate discharge site or employ treatment methods.

1-4 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

3912 Avoid locating the intake site at the base of a steep slope, in the vicinity of important, site specific wildlife habitat, in muskeg or other sensitive terrain. Scheduling Sump Excavation 3913 Abide by instream timing constraints and permit conditions. 3914 Excavate sump, if required, in substrate of water source. Employ sediment reduction methods (e.g. sediment, silt fence, sandbags etc.), if warranted, to protect downstream aquatic biota, habitat or water users from increased sedimentation or reduced water quality. Obtain any permits required for instream work and abide by conditions. 3915 Screen water intake in bodies of water which support fish, in accordance with regulatory requirements, in order to avoid the intake of debris, fish eggs and small fish (see Sections 8.0 and 9.0). Limit intake velocities if required to minimize screening requirements and to meet permit conditions. 3916 Isolate fill pump, test pumps and water heaters (if used) from bodies of water with an impermeable lined dyke or depression to prevent spills of fuels or lubricants from entering the body of water or the soil. Maintain an appropriate supply of sorbent materials on site in the event of a leak. 3917 Place sorbent booms around fill pumps in bodies of water if hydraulic hoses are used (see Figure 3.1). 3918 Ensure temporary water supply lines are free of leaks. Pretest Debris Site Security 3919 Collect pretest pigging debris and water, then dispose of accordance with regulatory requirements. in

Intake Screening

Pump/Fill Line Installation

3920 Install fencing and signage, where warranted, at water intake points for site security and public safety.

1-5 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

1-6 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

4.0

TEST WATER

This section describes the nature and composition of hydrostatic test waters resulting from the testing of new pipelines, in-service gas pipelines and in-service liquid petroleum pipelines. Factors affecting the composition of hydrostatic test waters such as the quality of source water used for hydrostatic testing, additives to hydrostatic test water and the nature of products previously transported in the pipeline are discussed. For each of the three types of pipelines (new, in-service gas and in-service liquid petroleum), typical concentration ranges for a number of water quality parameters are provided and expected substances of concern are identified. A discussion of contamination minimization methods used by various pipeline companies to minimize contaminant levels in hydrostatic test water is also included. These methods are broken down into three categories: general considerations, pipeline preparation and interface management. The above information is useful in developing a water handling decision process, as shown in Figure 2 in Appendix A. Once expected contaminants and contamination minimization methods have been identified, a sampling and analytical program can be established and discharge and treatment options assessed. These aspects of the water handling decision process are discussed in Sections 5, 6 and 7, respectively.

4.1

Characterization

Hydrostatic test waters vary in character and composition depending on: the nature and quality of the source water used; additives to the test water; and the nature of the pipeline and pipeline contents. Nature of Source Water A key factor affecting the composition of hydrostatic test discharge water is the quality of the source water used in the test. The nature and quality of source water were discussed in Section 3.1.

1-7 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Hydrostatic Test Water Additives Hydrostatic test waters may contain a number of additives, depending upon the nature of the source water, the time of year of testing and other case specific factors. Additives may include: antifreezes, biocides, corrosion inhibitors, oxygen scavengers and leak detection tracers. Antifreezes may be added, particularly during winter testing. Methanol, being the least expensive, is most commonly used. It is normally supplied by a pipeline services contractor as a methanol-water mixture (e.g. typically 20-40% methanol), recovered in tanks after testing and returned to the supplier for recycling. An adverse effect of antifreezes is an increase in chemical oxygen demand, which could in turn affect aquatic life if a break or leak in the line occurs. An alternative to adding antifreeze is to heat the hydrostatic water prior to testing the line. However, warmer water may be more likely to remove contaminants from the pipeline wall and keep them in solution. Biocides may be added to hydrostatic test waters to kill microorganisms. This may be required to prevent corrosion of the pipeline by sulphate reducing bacteria during testing and/or to prevent the interbasin transfer of undesirable biota. However, some pipeline companies have found biocides to be unnecessary because of the short time that the water is in the line. In this case, a biocide wash is run after hydrostatic testing and before filling the line with petroleum product. Some operators use chlorinated municipal water to achieve the necessary disinfection while other operators add over-the-counter bleach products in concentrations of 100 to 300 ppm. Biocides have a toxic effect on aquatic species. In some cases, chlorine could lead to the formation of chlorinated hydrocarbons, for example, if the concentration of chlorine is high. Corrosion inhibitors are not often added to hydrostatic test waters to prevent corrosion during testing, because the test water is only in the pipeline for a short period of time and the opportunity for corrosion is limited. Some operators that previously used corrosion inhibitors have ceased their use because no noticeable benefit was observed. Corrosion inhibitors typically contain quaternary amines in a solvent carrier, which may be problematic from a treatment and release perspective. Corrosion inhibitors may be toxic to aquatic life. Oxygen scavengers may be used to prevent pipeline corrosion. Aquatic life can be adversely affected by oxygen scavengers due to their capacity to reduce available oxygen required by aquatic life. However, like corrosion inhibitors they are rarely used during hydrostatic pressure tests. Leak detection tracers are added by some operators during hydrostatic testing of pipelines. Both visual and odour detection tracers are used. Fluorescein, which is a tracer dye, is highly soluble in water and imparts a fluorescent colour to the test water. A concentration of 10 ppm, visible in white light, is typically used. Concentrations of 1 ppm are visible in ultraviolet light. Fluorescein is not considered toxic to humans or aquatic life and is used by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy for tracer studies. However, the public may be concerned if test water containing flourescein is released into a natural body of water because of the fluorescent color. An odour tracer contains an odorous chemical that has a high vapour pressure and readily migrates through soil.

1-2 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Trained dogs can detect the chemical at concentrations below 1 ppb. The chemical composition of the tracer is proprietary, however, alkyl sulphide is a key ingredient. Mercaptans may also be used as an odour tracer. Pipeline operators walk the pipeline with vapour detectors or other analytical instruments to detect line leaks. Sulphur hexafluoride gas is used by some companies for leak detection. It is added to the hydrostatic test water and an instrument is used to detect the gas from leaks along the line. Sulphur hexafluoride gas is considered nontoxic and it has minimal solubility in water. However, it is a greenhouse gas with a high global warming potential (24,900 times that of carbon dioxide), which liberates upon depressurization and dewatering of the pipeline. Nature of Pipeline and Pipeline Contents All new pipelines require pressure testing before commencing operation. Consequently, new pipelines account for most hydrostatic testing that is currently conducted in Canada. However, an increasing number of in-service pipelines are being tested when the pressure rating of the pipeline is to be increased, a change in service is planned or as part of a preventative program to ensure pipeline integrity. While regulators do not require routine testing of in-service pipelines, individual pipeline companies may choose to conduct routine testing as part of a corporate initiative. The quality of hydrostatic test water discharged from new pipelines may vary considerably from that released from in-service pipelines. In general, hydrostatic test water from new pipelines is less contaminated than water from inservice lines since there is no residual petroleum product in the line. Substances that would be expected to be present in the hydrostatic test water from new lines include metals from the pipeline steel, and welding debris. The extent of contamination may vary depending on whether the pipeline is internally coated or uncoated and how well it was cleaned before testing; coated pipelines would be expected to release metals in lower concentration than uncoated pipelines. Substances which may be of potential concern during hydrostatic testing of in-service gas pipelines include carry over products from compressor stations and gas processing such as condensate, amine solution, glycol, corrosion inhibitors, defoamers, mercaptans, compressor lubricating oils and corrosion products. Corrosion inhibitors and defoamers typically have solvent carriers. Some trace metals, naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMS) and various scales and waxes may also be present. Testing of liquid petroleum pipelines can result in contaminated hydrostatic test water due to contact with residual material on the pipeline walls. Liquid petroleum products include crude oil, condensate, NGL, fuel oil and other refined products. A wide range of hydrocarbons could be present in hydrostatic test water used for testing of inservice liquid petroleum pipelines depending upon the type of product previously transported in the pipeline. Hydrocarbons may range from light aliphatic compounds to heavier naphthenic and aromatic compounds, as illustrated in the hydrocarbon spectrum diagram in Appendix B. Similar to testing of in-service natural gas pipelines, some substances may also carry over from pipelines connected to upstream processing plants as well as substances encountered at by-passes and stations.

1-3 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Test Water Composition Table 4.1 provides water quality data for hydrostatic test waters discharged from new pipelines, in-service gas pipelines and in-service petroleum products pipelines. The information shown is based on data provided by several pipeline companies in Canada and results of studies conducted by the Gas Research Institute (1992, 1996). Because the composition of hydrostatic test water varies on a case-by-case basis, ranges have been provided for most parameters. CCME Canadian Water Quality Guideline Criteria are also provided in Table 4.1 for comparison. However, they are not meant to represent the maximum allowable contaminant concentrations for discharge waters. There is variability in the water quality data shown in Table 4.1. This is primarily because there is a limited water quality data base and many data gaps still exist. The data base should improve as more pipeline companies conduct hydrostatic testing and monitor the discharge water quality. Pipeline companies are encouraged to keep records of their water quality data for their own purposes and also to help improve this data base.

1-4 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

TABLE 4.1
WATER QUALITY OF HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER FROM NEW, IN-SERVICE GAS AND IN-SERVICE LIQUID PETROLEUM PIPELINES
Concentration (mg/L)1 IN-SERVICE GAS PIPELINE DISCHARGE2 <0.001 - 0.100 <0.001 - 0.170 <0.001 - 0.024 <0.001 - 0.053 <0.001 - 0.61 <1 - 79 <10 - 993 3.0 - 50.0 NDA 5.45 - 8.6 1 - 2348 8 - 580 34 - 760 NDA NDA <0.1 - 2.2 0.04 - 0.4 <0.002 - 0.06 <0.02 - 0.06 NDA NDA <0.01 - 0.016 NDA IN-SERVICE LIQUID PETROLEUM PIPELINE DISCHARGE2 ND - 18.0 ND - 18.0 ND - 2.90 ND - 12.20 ND - 0.964 1 - 5630 7 - 66 3.3 - 42.3 0.01 - 35 6.6 - 8.1 5 - 1300 110 - 709 NDA NDA 23.2 - 128 NDA 0.02 - 0.19 NDA 0.02 - 0.122 <0.001 ND - 0.12 ND - 0.005 <0.002 - 0.008 CCME FRESHWATER AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA3 0_3 0_3 0_7 NL 0_001 NL NL NL NL 6.5 - 9.0 10 or 10% 500 NL 0.002 (residual) NL 1.37 - 2.2 0.005 - 0.1 0_05 NL NL NL 0.0002-0.0018 0.002 - 0.02
4

WATER QUALITY PARAMETER

NEW PIPELINE DISCHARGE2

CCME DW CRITERIA3

CCME IRRIGATION CRITERIA3

CCME LIVESTOCK WATERING CRITERIA3 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 3000 NL NL NL NL 5 0.5-5.0 NL 0_1 5 0_02 1

Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene

<0.002 - 0.0046 <0.002 - 0.0028 <0.002 - 0.0012 <0.007 - 0.018 <0.0005 - 0.05 <1 - 43 6 - 240 4 - 11 0.94 - 6.8 4.5 - 10.1 <1 - 966 28 - 902 18 - 2370 12 - 28 NDA <0.1 - 0.7 0.05 - 2.03 0.0012 - <0.002 0.01 - 0.066 <0.001 - 0.003 <0.04 - 0.3 <0.0002 - 12 0.005 - 0.01

0_005 0_024 0_0024 0_3 NL NL NL NL NL 6.5 - 8.5 NL 500 NL NL 250 NL NL 0_025 1 NL 5 0_005 0_05

NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 500 - 3500 NL NL 100 - 700 NL 5 0_1 NL 0_1 0.5 - 6.0 0_01 0_1

4 5

Xylenes Phenols ORGA Oil and grease NIC PARA COD METE TOC RS TPH INOR GANI C PARA METE RS pH (no units) TSS TDS EC (uS/cm) Chlorine Chloride Ammonia META Aluminium LS Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Chromium

Concentration (mg/L)1 IN-SERVICE GAS PIPELINE DISCHARGE2 <0.005 - 0.04 0.001 - <0.10 0.003 - 29.0 <0.001 - 0.077 0.1 - 0.3 NDA NDA <0.02 - 0.1 <0.002 - 0.004 NDA 20 - 240 <0.025 - 0.06 <0.003 - 0.16 IN-SERVICE LIQUID PETROLEUM PIPELINE DISCHARGE2 ND - 0.003 <0.001 - <0.01 0.02 - 33.4 <0.02 - <0.04 0.121 - 0.319 <0.0001 <0.003 - <0.02 <0.01 - <0.02 NDA ND - <0.05 2.72 - 79.4 <0.003 - 0.272 0.007 - 1.4 CCME FRESHWATER AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA3 NL 0.002 - 0.004 0_3 0.001 - 0.007 NL 0_0001 NL 0.025 - 0.150 0_001 0_0001 NL NL 0_03 CCME LIVESTOCK WATERING CRITERIA3 1 0.5 - 5.0 NL 0_1 NL 0_003 0_5 1 0_05 NL NL 0_1 50

WATER QUALITY PARAMETER

NEW PIPELINE DISCHARGE2

CCME DW CRITERIA3

CCME IRRIGATION CRITERIA3

Cobalt Copper Iron (total) Lead Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel

<0.001 - 0.009 <0.001 - 1.19 0.05 - 46 <0.001 - 0.696 0.01 - 1.9 <0.00005 <0.004 - 0.073 <0.01 - 0.18 <0.0005 - 0.004 <0.001 - 0.003 2.1 - 390 0.004 - 0.06 0.004 - 1.45

NL 1 0_3 0_01 0_05 0_001 NL NL 0_01 NL 200 NL 5

0_05 0.2 - 1.0 5 0_2 0_2 NL 0.01 - 0.05 0_2 0.02 - 0.05 NL NL 0_1 35068

4 6

Selenium Silver Sodium Vanadium Zinc

Notes :

1. 2. 3. 4. *

Units are milligrams per litre unless otherwise noted. Range of results from limited sampling of test water; data sources include: NEB, CAPP information, GRI, and data from individual pipeline companies. CCME, Canadian Water Quality Guidelines, 1995. Increase of 10 mg/L if background concentration is less than or equal to 100 mg/L; increase of 10% above background if background concentration is greater than 100 mg/L. ND=nondetectable NDA = no data available NL = no limit established

The data shown in Table 4.1 represent a variety of hydrostatic test waters collected at different times during the test (e.g. start, middle and end), from different sample locations (e.g. in-line, end of pipe, ponds/dug-outs, tanks, etc.) and at various times following discharge (e.g. immediately after discharge to several hours after discharge). The data is intended to represent core water quality before treatment, however, in some cases data may have been provided for interface waters or treated discharge water. The water quality parameters have been divided into four main categories: Organics; Inorganics; Metals; and Other parameters. A range of organics may be present in hydrostatic test water such as: Free hydrocarbons; Emulsified hydrocarbons; and Dissolved organics - Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX) - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) - Phenols - Glycols (if added) - Methanol (if added). BTEX, PAHs and phenols may be present as dissolved organics and free emulsified hydrocarbons. Glycol and methanol will be present in a dissolved form, if used as additives. Inorganic parameters may include: pH Total suspended solids (TSS) Total dissolved solids (TDS) EC SAR Temperature Residual chlorine Chloride Dissolved oxygen (DO) Amines Ammonia (biocides)

4-7 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Trace metals may include: Al, As, Ba, Be, Bo, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mn, Hg, Mo, Ni, Se, Ag, Na, V, Zn Trace metals may be present in dissolved or particulate forms likely as metal oxides or sulphides. These are the substances commonly found in hydrostatic test waters. Additional substances may be of concern if they are regulated by government authorities or pose an environmental or health risk. This may be the case if the hydrostatic test water is released to an environmentally sensitive, highly populated or tightly regulated area. A more detailed discussion of hydrostatic test water characteristics for new, in-service gas and in-service liquid petroleum pipelines is provided below. New Pipelines Table 4.1 provides ranges of water quality data for hydrostatic test waters from new pipelines, including new pipeline for gas service and liquid petroleum service, internally coated and uncoated pipelines, and small and large lines. A variety of discharge criteria are also included for the purposes of comparison. The water quality data shown in Table 4.1 were obtained from a limited data base for a range of new pipelines. Based on the data provided in Table 4.1 and data from a 1992 GRI study, the main water quality parameters typically of concern for new lines are metals. Among these metals are iron, manganese and zinc. For each of these metals, the concentrations are above either the CCME drinking water or freshwater aquatic life criteria. Even though the drinking water standards for these metals are set for aesthetical rather than toxicological concerns, the trend in some jurisdictions for discharge criteria is increasingly towards the Canadian drinking water quality guidelines. However, zinc may be toxic to aquatic life, if present at concentrations above CCME criteria of 0.03 ppm. Iron levels as high as 46 mg/L have been measured in hydrostatic test water from new pipelines, however, iron concentrations are typically less than 10 mg/L. Manganese levels as high as 1.9 mg/L have been measured but they are typically less than 0.3 mg/L. Zinc levels are typically less than 0.1 mg/L. Other metals that may be of concern in hydrostatic test waters from new pipelines are aluminum, copper, cadmium and lead. While the concentration of these metals is typically quite low, specific hydrostatic test water samples have been shown to exceed the CCME drinking water and/or freshwater aquatic life criteria. Residual chlorine levels may be a concern if a chlorinated water source is used or if chlorine is added as a biocide to the test water. A typical pH range for hydrostatic test water from new pipelines is about 6.5 to 8.5. However, the pH may fall

4-8 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

outside of this range, depending on the pH of the source water. Total dissolved solids (TDS) levels are generally not of concern; however, elevated TDS levels may occur if the source water for hydrostatic testing has high TDS. Total suspended solids (TSS) levels are typically less than 100 mg/L, however, levels as high as 966 mg/L have been measured in some hydrostatic test waters from new pipelines. This concentration level may have been the result of excess debris in the line, particularly if the line was not pigged before testing. Temperature may be a water quality parameter of concern if the hydrostatic test water is discharged to a receiving water. A change in temperature of the receiving water body could have adverse effects on the aquatic life. Organics are generally not substances of concern for hydrostatic test waters from new pipelines. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) levels are well below the CCME criteria for drinking water and freshwater aquatic life. Phenol levels as high as 0.05 mg/L have been measured, which exceeds the CCME criteria for freshwater aquatic life, however, phenol levels are typically less than 0.001 mg/L. Oil and grease levels are typically less than 50 mg/L. Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) data are not included in Table 4.1 as they were not readily available. However, the SAR of hydrostatic test water could be an important water quality parameter. For example, a release of water with high SAR to land could have an adverse effect on soil conditions. In-Service Gas Pipelines Table 4.1 provides ranges of water quality data for hydrostatic test waters from in-service gas pipelines, as well as various discharge criteria. Since only limited data is available from Canadian pipeline companies (e.g. limited testing of in-service gas lines), the main sources of data presented in Table 4.1 are 1992 and 1996 reports published by the Gas Research I nstitute (GRI). In the 1992 GRI study, hydrostatic test waters from three in-service natural gas pipelines were characterized. The major findings of this study include: The concentration of substances found in hydrostatic test discharge waters were not significantly different from that observed in the fill waters, suggesting that contaminants in the pipeline contributed minimally to contamination of the test water. The discharge waters contained low levels of TOC, COD, oil and grease, iron, TSS and TDS. Oil and grease concentrations varied over a wide range during hydrostatic testing (up to 2 orders of magnitude). BTEX compounds were detected, but at concentrations below 0.170 mg/L.
4-9 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Volatile and semi-volatile compounds were identified at the detection limit. No polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected. Acute toxicity studies indicated that the discharge waters were not acutely toxic to fathead minnows, but were acutely toxic to daphnia. Based on the data provided by Canadian pipeline companies, it appears that organic substances may be of concern in some cases. Elevated oil and grease as well as phenol levels have been measured in some hydrostatic test waters from in-service gas pipelines. This is likely the result of carry over products. As with new pipelines, in-service gas pipelines may have elevated levels of iron, manganese and zinc. Of these, iron appears to be the main concern. Iron levels as high as 29 mg/L have been measured. Manganese levels typically exceed the CCME drinking water criteria but generally meet the CCME irrigation criteria. Zinc concentrations are well below the drinking water and irrigation criteria but may exceed the CCME freshwater aquatic life criteria. Elevated levels of other metals have been reported for hydrostatic test waters from in-service gas pipelines. These include aluminum, cadmium, copper and lead. However, the levels of these metals are not typically of concern. Residual chlorine levels may be a concern if a chlorinated water source is used or if chlorine is added as a biocide to the test water. Typical pH ranges for hydrostatic test water from in-service gas pipelines is about 6.5 to 8.5. However, the pH may fall outside of this range, depending on the pH of the source water. TDS levels are generally not of concern. While some elevated levels have been measured, these are likely because the source water for hydrostatic testing had high TDS. Typically, TDS levels are below 500 mg/L. TSS levels are typically less than 1000 mg/L, however, levels as high as 2,348 mg/L have been measured in some hydrostatic test waters from in-service gas pipelines. This concentration level may have been the result of excess debris in the line (e.g. inactive pipeline), particularly if the line was not pigged before testing. Temperature may be a water quality parameter of concern if the hydrostatic test water is discharged to a receiving water. A change in temperature of the receiving water body could have adverse effects on the aquatic life. SAR data are not included in Table 4.1 as it they were not readily available. However, the SAR of hydrostatic test water could be an important water quality parameter. For example, a release of water with high SAR to land would have an adverse effect on soil conditions. In-Service Liquid Petroleum Pipelines

4 - 10 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Table 4.1 provides water quality data for hydrostatic test waters from in-service liquid petroleum pipelines, as well as various discharge criteria. The data shown are for core waters rather than interface waters. The main substances of concern are organics such as free, emulsified and dissolved hydrocarbons. Elevated levels of oil and grease, TPH, BTEX and phenols can be expected in hydrostatic test water from in-service liquid petroleum pipelines, indicating the need for some treatment before discharge. As shown, there is a wide variation in organic concentrations. This variability may be because the organic concentration is highly dependent on the location and time of sampling. For example, BTEX compounds may volatilize and biodegrade over time when exposed to air. Therefore, samples collected immediately after discharging will have a higher BTEX concentration than those collected after being exposed to air (e.g. in a pond, dugout or open tank). Immediately after discharging, BTEX levels are typically in the low ppm range and after extended exposure to air, only trace levels may be detected. Organic contaminant levels also vary depending on the type of product that was in the line before testing. Other substances that may be of concern are: iron; trace metals; suspended solids; and dissolved solids. Iron levels as high as 33 mg/L have been measured in hydrostatic test water from in-service liquid petroleum pipelines; however, iron concentrations are typically less than 10 mg/L. Manganese levels typically exceed the CCME drinking water criteria but generally meet the CCME irrigation criteria. Zinc concentrations are below the drinking water and irrigation criteria but may exceed the CCME freshwater aquatic life criteria. Other metals that may be of concern in hydrostatic test waters from in-service liquid petroleum pipelines are aluminium, copper, cadmium and lead. While the concentration of these metals are typically below the CCME drinking water and irrigation criteria, they may exceed the CCME freshwater aquatic life criteria. Residual chlorine levels may be a concern if a chlorinated water source is used or if chlorine is added as a biocide to the test water. Typical pH ranges for hydrostatic test water from in-service liquid petroleum pipelines are about 6.6 to 8.1. Measurements outside this range were not reported. TDS levels are generally not of concern, however, elevated TDS levels may occur if the source water for hydrostatic testing has high TDS. While TSS levels are typically less than 1000 mg/L, higher levels may occur in some hydrostatic test waters from pipelines as a result of excess debris in the line (e.g inactive line). SAR data are not included in Table 4.1 as they were not readily available. However, the SAR of hydrostatic test water could be an important water quality parameter. For example, a release of water with high SAR to land would have an adverse effect on soil conditions.

4 - 11 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Temperature may be a water quality parameter of concern if the hydrostatic test water is discharged to a receiving water. A change in temperature of the receiving water body could have adverse effects on the aquatic life. Chloride levels between approximately 23 and 128 mg/L have been measured in hydrostatic test water from inservice liquid petroleum pipelines. These levels are below the CCME drinking water criteria and only slightly above the lower limit of the irrigation criteria range.

4.2

Contamination Minimization

A number of measures may be taken by pipeline companies to maintain water quality throughout hydrostatic testing and to minimize the level of contaminants in discharge waters that are treated and released. The advantages of contamination minimization include: protect environment and human health; minimize treatment requirements and costs; reduce environmental liability; and increase the number of potential release options. Contamination minimization methods vary depending on the type of pipeline (new or in-service) and the products carried. This section describes contamination minimization methods currently used by pipeline companies. They have been divided into three categories: general considerations, pipeline preparation and interface management. Consideration should be given to these measures during the planning stage of a hydrostatic test. General Considerations Some general considerations for minimizing contaminant levels in hydrostatic test water are provided below. These focus on the quality of source water, water additives and discharge water handling practices. Use a high-quality water source (see Section 3.1). Source waters with high levels of salt content (especially sodium or chlorides) should be avoided, if possible. Salts cannot be practically removed and they could cause adverse impacts if released during a failure of the test, or discharged onto the ground or a body of water of high water quality. Avoid or minimize the use of additives if possible (see Section 4.1). For example, use non-toxic, biodegradable or photodegradable additives and minimize dosages. For in-service lines, recognize the potential for hydrocarbon contamination from carry over products (e.g. from compressor stations, processing facilities, etc.).

4 - 12 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

If possible, minimize the transportation distance of hydrostatic test water through an active pipeline to a treatment facility or release location. This will help prevent additional hydrocarbon contamination of the test water. Also, minimize transportation from the source to the test section. Use pressurized air or an inert gas to push the hydrostatic test water upon completion of the tests rather than product. If storing hydrostatic test water before treating or discharging, use clean tanks. Pipeline Preparation The introduction of some contaminants during hydrostatic testing may be unavoidable. However, an effort can be made to remove as much residue as possible prior to hydrostatic testing. The following measures could be considered: Pigging new lines to remove mill scale, rust and debris. A combination of brush pigs followed by polyurethane pigs is used by some companies. Draining in-service lines of product and purge with an inert gas (e.g. nitrogen) before hydrostatic testing to remove hydrocarbon products from branch connections. Pigging in-service lines before testing to remove hydrocarbon products and debris. Cleaning the pipeline with detergent or a solvent before hydrostatic testing. The objective of cleaning is to prevent contamination of the test water, allowing it to be discharged directly without treatment. One company in the U.S. successfully used this procedure on an in-service gas line that had been pre-pigged to remove liquids and debris (Hamilton 1994). Cleaning batches of caustic soap were run through the pipeline and collected for offsite treatment and release. The volume of cleaning batches represented only a small percentage of the test water. Most of the hydrostatic test water met the regulatory discharge criteria for oil and grease. Pipeline preparation measures may be more applicable to new pipelines and inactive gas and liquid petroleum pipelines. Interface Management Most in-service liquid petroleum pipelines are not drained of product before hydrostatic testing. Instead, the petroleum product is used to push the hydrostatic test water through the line and a series of pigs are used to provide a barrier between the petroleum product and the test water (see Figure 2.1). The presence of residual petroleum product on the pipeline walls and carry over between the petroleum product and test water phases may result in the hydrostatic test water becoming contaminated with hydrocarbons.
4 - 13 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Hydrostatic test waters from in-service pipelines are comprised of interface waters and core water, which should be managed separately. The interface waters lie between the core water and the petroleum product, and generally have considerably higher organic concentrations than the core water and may require additional treatment. By minimizing the volume of water requiring treatment, equipment and operational costs can be minimized. Some measures that can be taken by pipeline companies to minimize contamination of core waters by interface waters and petroleum products are: Implementing a pigging procedure that provides an adequate barrier between the petroleum product and hydrostatic test water. For example, use new, tight-fitting pigs or use multiple pigs to separate product, interface water and core water. Maintaining an adequate liquid velocity to prevent laminar flow conditions, which increase crosscontamination between the petroleum product and hydrostatic test water phases. The required velocity will vary depending on the size of pipeline and the petroleum products specific gravity. Providing adequate separation of the more highly contaminated interface waters from the core water. Visually monitor the discharge water quality to determine where the break point is between interface and core water.

4 - 14 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

5.0

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

Sampling and analysis are an important component of the water handling and release decision processes associated with hydrostatic testing (see Figures 2 and 3 in Appendix A). Sampling and analysis are normally carried out to identify and quantify substances of concern. This information is useful in assessing treatment and release options, assessing potential environmental effects of a hydrostatic test water release, demonstrating compliance with regulatory requirements and protecting against environmental liability. This section describes sampling and analytical methods applicable to hydrostatic testing source waters, release waters and receptors (for example, receiving waters or land). A discussion of applicable sampling methods and locations is provided, along with a description of applicable analytical methods for potential parameters of concern identified in Section 4.0. The use of field analysis or screening techniques is also discussed along with quality control procedures and practices. Sampling Locations and Methods A variety of samples may be collected for analysis during hydrostatic testing. These may include baseline samples such as the source water; receiving waters or soils; intermediate samples of hydrostatic test water; release water samples; and post-test samples of receiving soils or waters. Baseline sampling may involve the collection of source water samples or samples of receiving waters or soils. Analytical data on these samples help to predict the water quality of the test and release water as well as the potential effect on receptors. This information is useful in evaluating suitable treatment and release options, and environmental protection measures. Samples of source waters may be collected at the source (e.g. lake, dugout, river, groundwater well, etc.) or during pipeline filling. However, it is beneficial to sample and test the source water before hydrostatic testing to ensure suitability for testing and appropriateness of the discharge location. Samples of receptors should be collected from locations expected to be impacted by the release of discharge water (e.g. near discharge locations). Intermediate sampling involves the collection of hydrostatic test water samples after the pipeline is filled but before dewatering. These samples may be collected from either end of the pipeline or at available locations along the pipeline (e.g. valves, air bleeds, etc.). Analysis of these samples provides useful information for predicting the water quality of the discharge water, which could affect water handling procedures after dewatering. Discharge water samples may be collected at various intervals during dewatering or after dewatering is completed, assuming the discharge water is contained (e.g. in tanks or dugouts). A study by the Gas Research Institute (GRI

4-1 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

1992) found that it may be difficult to collect representative samples of hydrostatic test water directly from the pipeline outlet because of the dynamic flow conditions. It was recommended that samples of hydrostatic test water be collected at regular intervals throughout the test, particularly when the water characteristics are expected to change. Grab samples can be collected manually at the pig trap at regular time intervals to identify changes in water quality, as well as distinguish and segregate waters of varying composition. Segregation of highly contaminated and less contaminated waters is likely necessary for subsequent treatment and release (e.g. interface waters from core waters). Representative samples of hydrostatic test water can be collected by compositing single grab samples to obtain average water characteristics over a given time. Equal volumes of water are collected at specific time intervals and combined in a sample container. For example, a one hour 1000-mL composite sample can be obtained by collecting four 250-mL samples at 15 minute intervals. According to Gas Research Institute (1992) report, it may be sufficient to sample core water at the beginning, middle and end of a discharge to obtain an overall representative sample. If the water characteristics are not expected to change with time, a single grab sample from the pipeline outlet may be considered representative. Also if tankage or a holding pond is available for storing the discharge water, a single grab sample may be taken from the holding facility as representative of the total contents. However, care should be taken when sampling through oil and water layers. Post-test sampling involves collection of receptor samples (receiving water or land) after releasing the discharge water. The objective is to assess and document the environmental effect of the discharge water on the receptor and demonstrate regulatory compliance where applicable. Depending on the type of receptor and the goals of post-test monitoring, samples may be collected at various locations and time intervals. For example, samples may be collected immediately after releasing the discharge water (to assess acute or immediate effects) or some time after the release (to assess chronic or longer term effects). For more information on specific water sampling methods and protocols refer to: American Water Works Association et al. 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (ref. 19th edition). U.S. EPA. 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA 600/4-79-020, Revised March 1983. U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. CCME. 1993. Guidance Manual on Sampling, Analysis and Data Management for Contaminated Sites. Volumes I and II. Winnipeg, Manitoba. For more information on specific soil sampling methods and protocols, refer to:
4-2 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Carter, Martin R. (ed.). 1993. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Canadian Society of Soil Science. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton. Florida. McKeague, J.A. (ed.). 1981. Manual on Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, 2nd edition. Canadian Society of Soil Science. CCME. 1993. Guidance Manual on Sampling, Analysis and Data Management for Contaminated Sites. Volumes I and II. Winnipeg, Manitoba. Analytical Parameters The analytical parameters for baseline samples, hydrostatic testing discharge water and receptors will vary on a case-by-case basis depending on the nature of the pipeline and pipeline contents, regulatory requirements and discharge criteria, and treatment provided. Table 5.1 provides a summary of analytical parameters for source water; discharge water from new or in-service pipelines; and receptors. Companies are encouraged to consider these parameters when developing their monitoring program. The main considerations in determining analytical parameters are: What parameters are known or expected to be present (from available data, knowledge of pipeline contents, etc.)? What parameters are regulated (e.g. on a permit, approval or Code of Practice)? Are there parameters that are not regulated but may adversely affect the environment? Are there parameters that may affect treatment and release options?

TABLE 5.1
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
Typical Parameters Source Water Potable Water Typically no analyses required as potable water meets Canadian drinking water standards Parameters expected to be present that are regulated or could affect treatment or release options. For example: parameters that have more stringent CCME freshwater aquatic life criteria (e.g. chlorine, cadmium, copper, lead, zinc) Additional Parameters

4-3 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Other source waters (e.g. groundwater, surface water, industrial water)

Depends on whether release of test water is to land or to a receiving water. Typical analyses include: Release to land: pH, SAR, EC or TDS Release to water: pH, TSS, EC or TDS, iron

Parameters expected to be present that are regulated or could affect treatment or release options. For example: chlorine metals such as iron, manganese, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc organics such as BTEX, phenol, TPH

Release Water New pipelines Depends on whether release of test water is to land or to a receiving water. Typical analyses include: Release to land: pH, SAR, EC or TDS Release to water: pH, TSS, EC or TDS, iron, chlorine if added Other parameters that are regulated or could affect treatment or release options. For example: toxicity metals such as manganese, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc temperature

In-service gas pipelines

Depends on whether release of test water is to land or to a receiving water. Typical analyses include: Release to land: pH, SAR, EC or TDS, TPH Release to water: pH, TSS, TDS, iron, BTEX, chlorine if added

Other parameters that are regulated or could affect treatment or release options. For example: toxicity metals such as aluminum, cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, and zinc organics such as BTEX, TPH and phenols temperature

In-service liquid petroleum pipelines

Depends on whether release of test water is to land or to a receiving water. Typical analyses include: Release to land: pH, SAR, EC or TDS, TPH Release to water: pH, TSS, EC or TDS, iron, TPH, BTEX, chlorine if added

Other parameters that are regulated or could affect treatment or release options. For example: toxicity metals such as aluminum, cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, and zinc organics such as BTEX and phenols temperature

Receptors Receiving Water pH TSS TDS or EC Parameters that are regulated or may adversely effect the environment: organics if present in release water metals if present in the release water temperature

Receiving Soil

To ensure the receiving soil is not already stressed before releasing test water, analyze for: pH SAR EC or TDS

Parameters that are regulated or may adversely effect the environment: chloride organics if present in release water metals if present in the release water

4-4 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

To avoid excessive analytical costs, analytical testing may be limited to regulated parameters that are suspected or known to be present. However, individual companies may develop more extensive analytical programs as a means of demonstrating due diligence and reducing environmental liabilities. Though not necessarily required by regulators, baseline sampling of the source water may be beneficial to ensure adequate water quality for hydrostatic testing and to help predict the water quality of the release water. This information is also useful in evaluating appropriate treatment and release options. Generally, potable water sources do not require analysis since they are required to meet the Canadian drinking water standards. However, CCME freshwater aquatic life criteria are more stringent than drinking water criteria for some parameters. Source waters from groundwater, surface water or industrial sources may be analyzed for regulated parameters that are expected to be present or parameters that could affect treatment and release options. Analytical parameters will vary depending upon whether the release of hydrostatic test water will be to land or to a receiving water. At a minimum, source waters from surface waters or groundwaters should be analyzed for pH, TDS (or EC) and TSS, as well as SAR (if released to land) and iron (if released to water). Analyses may also be conducted for other regulated parameters such as chlorine, metals or organics. Analyses for these parameters should be conducted if they are suspected of being present. The analytical parameters for release waters will depend on the nature of the pipeline (e.g. new, in-service gas or in-service liquid petroleum) and regulatory requirements. At a minimum, release waters should be analyzed for regulated parameters or parameters that affect treatment and release. Analytical parameters will vary depending upon whether the release of hydrostatic test water is to land or to a receiving water. Typical analyses for release water from new pipelines are: pH, TSS, TDS or EC, SAR (if released to land) and iron (if released to water). Waters from in-service gas and liquid petroleum pipelines should be analyzed for these parameters as well as TPH and BTEX (if released to water). Other analyses may be required for release waters from new or in-service pipelines, such as toxicity, chlorine, phenols, additional metals, or temperature. Analyses of receptors either before or after the release of discharge water may be required by regulatory authorities. However, it may also be conducted as part of a corporate initiative to demonstrate regulatory compliance or ensure no adverse effect on the environment. The analytical parameters for receptors vary depending on the type of receptor (e.g. receiving water or soil), water quality of the release water, regulatory requirements and environmental sensitivity. However, the focus of monitoring programs for receptors should be on parameters that are known to be present in the release water and are regulated or adversely affect the environment. Typical analytical parameters for soils include pH, SAR and EC or TDS. Analyses for chloride, organics or metals may also be recommended if these contaminants are present in the release water. Typical analytical parameters for receiving waters may include pH, TSS and TDS or EC. Analyses for organics or other parameters that may adversely effect the environment may also be recommended (for example metals and temperature). There may be additional sampling and analyses requirements as part of the discharge water treatment system.

4-5 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Analyses are typically required to monitor the treatment process operation and performance. Analytical Methods Tables 5.2 and 5.3 provide summaries of analytical methods for a wide range of parameters in water and soil samples, respectively. The methods have been grouped into four main categories: organics, inorganics, metals and other parameters. Information provided in these tables includes test type, test method, parameters measured by the test, recommended sample volume, sample container requirements, preservative required, maximum recommended storage time and typical analytical costs. Once the analytical parameters have been identified for a specific sample (e.g as outlined in Table 5.1), Tables 5.2 and 5.3 can be used to select appropriate analytical methods and determine sample handling procedures. The cost information provided in these tables is based on individual pricing provided by four laboratories at the time of preparation of this document. They do not take into account any discounts that laboratories may offer. As well, the costs reflect regular turn-around times (typically 7 to 10 working days); these prices may be marked up 50- to 100-percent for faster turnaround times. Most of the analytical test methods provided in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 are based on either: Franson, M.A.H. (ed.) 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Waster and Wastewater, 19th edition. American Public Health Association, Water Works Association, Water Environment Association. U.S. EPA. 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA 600/4-79-020, Revised March 1983. U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Carter, Martin R. (ed.). 1993. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Canadian Society of Soil Science. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Other methods may be acceptable for some analyses, or may be required by regulatory authorities. Pipeline operators should check with their laboratory and regulatory agency to confirm test methods. A source of information on various analytical methods is provided in the following CCME publication: CCME. 1993. Guidance Manual on Sampling, Analysis and Data Management for Contaminated Sites. Volume II. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

As an alternative or in addition to third party laboratory analyses, some field screening and analytical techniques may be used. They have the advantage of providing real time data, which cannot be obtained if samples are shipped to a laboratory for analyses. Real time data may be critical in situations where there are no holding facilities for the discharge water (e.g. released directly to land or a receiving water). In this case, laboratory analysis can be used to confirm the field analysis and demonstrate compliance. Field screening methods may also be advantageous to monitor the performance of treatment processes for the removal of contaminants of concern.
4-6 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Some analyses are best performed in the field, such as pH, temperature, EC and chlorine. Relatively inexpensive and easy-to-operate equipment is used to conduct these analyses. A qualitative assessment of the discharge water can be carried out in the field. For example, the presence of hydrocarbons can be detected by visual evidence such as an oily sheen or by odour. A visual inspection may also be a gross indicator of TSS in the discharge water. Recording this type of information during dewatering of the pipeline can provide useful information regarding the quality of the water. As discussed earlier, screening analyses of the pre-test water (e.g. after the line is filled but before hydrostatic testing) may help predict the water quality of the discharge water. GRI (1992) indicated that pre-test analytical results can be used to estimate the mass loadings in the pipeline discharge water within 20-percent accuracy in most cases. This method requires that the results be weighted based on the pipeline length assumed for each sample point. Portable meters, such as an organic vapour analyzer (OVA) or HNu meter can be used to screen for volatile hydrocarbons. These meters are reasonably easy to calibrate and operate. However, they are gross indicators of volatile organics and are relatively insensitive to small changes in concentration. Nonetheless, they may be useful in determining if volatiles such as BTEX compounds are present.

4-7 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

TABLE 5.2
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR WATER
MAXIMUM STORAGE TIME 28 days 1996 TYPICAL ANALYTICAL COST $30-$40

TEST

ANALYTICAL METHOD SM 5310B or C EPA 415.1 or EPA 415.2 SM 5220B EPA 410.1

PARAMETERS

SAMPLE VOLUME 100 mL

CONTAINER AND PRESERVATION Polyethylene or Glass Addition of H3PO4 or H2SO4 to pH <2, refrigeration

ORGAN ICS

TOC

Total organic carbon

COD

5 BOD

Organics that can be oxidized by strong inorganic oxidizing agent

100 mL

Polyethylene or Glass Addition of H2SO4 to pH <2, refrigeration

28 days

$30-$45

8
TPH

SM 5210B EPA 405.1 Purgeables: SM 6210D EPA 8240D EPA 5030 Extractables: EPA 3510 EPA 8015 EPA 8270

Organics that can be oxidized by microorganisms (biodegradable organics) Purgable organics - BTEX and hydrocarbons to C3 - C10

500 mL

Polyethylene or Glass Refrigeration

48 hours

$30-$50

3 x 40 mL vials for purgable fraction

Amber Glass with teflon-lined cap; no head space Refrigeration

14 days

$150 - $250

Extractable organics - hydrocarbons containing C11 - C30

1000 mL for extractable fraction

Oil and Grease

SM 5520B EPA 413.1 EPA 9070 SM 6210D EPA 8240 EPA 8260 EPA 5030 EPA 8020

All solvent extractables, including surfactants

1000 mL

Amber glass with teflon-lined cap Addition of HCl to pH <2, refrigeration

28 days

$30-$45

BTEX

Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl- benzene, Xylenes

3 X 40 mL vials

Amber glass with teflon-lined septum; no head space Addition of HCl to pH <2, refrigeration

14 days

$100-$150

TEST

ANALYTICAL METHOD SM 5530C EPA 420.1 SM 6210D EPA 8240 EPA 8260

PARAMETERS

SAMPLE VOLUME 1000 mL Glass

CONTAINER AND PRESERVATION

MAXIMUM STORAGE TIME 28 days

1996 TYPICAL ANALYTICAL COST $30-$40

ORGAN ICS

Phenol

Total phenolics

Addition of H2SO4 Volatile Organics Organic solvents (53 compounds in total, including acetone, benzene, chloroform, MEK, MIBK, dichlorobenzene, methylene chloride, etc.) Phenolics (20 compounds in total, including benzoic acid, phenol, chlorinated phenols) Amines, chlorobenzenes, nitroanilines, nitroso-compounds (71 compounds in total) Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (21 compounds in total, including naphthalene, acenaphtene, acenaphtylene, anthracene, benzo[a]anthracene, chrysene, pyrene, dibenzofuran, phenanthrene) Hydrogen ions (pH) 3 x 40 mL vials Amber glass with teflon-lined septum; no head space Addition of HCl to pH < 2, refrigeration 1000 mL Amber glass with teflon-lined cap Refrigeration 1000 mL Amber glass with teflon-lined cap Refrigeration 1000 mL Amber glass with teflon-lined cap Refrigeration Extraction 7 days Analysis 40 days Extraction 7 days Analysis 40 days Extraction 7 days Analysis 40 days $200-$375 $600-$850 $275-$450 14 days $200-$350

Acid Extractables

SM 6410B EPA 8270

5 9
PAHs SM 6410B EPA 8270 Base-neutral Extractables SM 6410B EPA 8270

INORG ANICS

pH

SM 4500 H+B EPA 150.1 EPA 9040 SM 2550B EPA 170.1 SM 2540D EPA 160.2 SM 2540C EPA 160.1

100 mL or Field test Field test 1000 mL (for TSS and TDS) 1000 mL (for TSS and TDS)

Polyethylene or glass Refrigeration Field test Polyethylene or glass Field filtered Refrigeration Polyethylene or glass Refrigeration

Analyze immediately Measure immediately 7 days

$5-$10

Temperature TSS

Temperature Total suspended solids (organic and inorganic) Total dissolved solids (organic and inorganic)

Field test $10-$20

TDS

7 days

$10-$20

TEST

ANALYTICAL METHOD SM 2510B EPA 120.1 EPA 9050A SM 4110C EPA300.0 SM 3120 EPA 6010

PARAMETERS

SAMPLE VOLUME 100 mL or Field test 100 mL

CONTAINER AND PRESERVATION Polyethylene or glass Refrigeration Polyethylene or glass Refrigeration

MAXIMUM STORAGE TIME Analyze Immediately 7 days

1996 TYPICAL ANALYTICAL COST Field test

EC

Electrical conductivity

Total Anions

All anions except fluoride

$50-$100

Total Cations

Cations included with ICAP metals scan

100 mL

Polyethylene or glass Addition of HNO3 to pH < 2, refrigeration

6 months

$60-$70

5 1 0

Residual Chlorine

SM 4500

Free residual chlorine. Recommended that test be conducted in the field. Ammonia

500 mL or Field test 500 mL

Field Test

Analyze immediately 28 days

Field test $30-$35 $10-$20

Ammonia (NH3N)

SM 4500H EPA 350.1

Polyethylene or glass Addition of H2SO4 to pH <2, refrigeration

SAR

METAL S

Iron

SM 3500B,C CCSS 18.2, 18.3, 18.4 (for calculation) SM 3120 EPA 200.7/ SW846-6010 SM 3120 EPA 200.7/ SW846-6010 Environment Canada Methods

Sodium adsorption ratio

1000 mL

Polyethylene or glass, refrigeration

7 days

Fe

100 mL

Polyetheylene Addition of HNO3 to pH<2, refrigeration

6 months

$10 - $20

Metals (ICAP Scan)

Al, Ba, Bo, Cu, Cd, Cr Fe, Pb, Mg, Mo, Mn, Ni, P, K, Na, Si, Sn, V, Zn

100 mL

Polyetheylene Field filtered Addition of HNO3 to pH<2, refrigeration Plastic Refrigeration

6 months

$40-$90

OTHER PARAM ETERS

Aquatic Toxicity

Rainbow trout Daphnia Magna

80 L 10 L

24 hours

$400-$600

Notes:

SM = Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Edition EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

5 1 1

TABLE 5.3
RECOMMENDED SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR SOIL
MAXIMUM STORAGE TIME 1996 ANALYTICAL COST

TEST

ANALYTICAL METHOD

PARAMETERS

SAMPLE VOLUME

CONTAINER AND PRESERVATION

5 1 2

TEST

ANALYTICAL METHOD P u r g e a b l e s : E P A 8 2 4 0 E P A 5 0 2 1 / 8 0 0 0

PARAMETERS Purgable organics BTEX and hydrocar bons to C3 - C10

SAMPLE VOLUME 2 0 0 g
1

CONTAINER AND PRESERVATION 500 mL glass1 Refrigeration

MAXIMUM STORAGE TIME E x t r a c t i o n : 1 4 d a y s ( p u r g e a b l e s )

1996 ANALYTICAL COST $ 2 0 0 $ 2 7 5

ORGANICS T
P H

5 1 3

TEST

ANALYTICAL METHOD E x t r a c t a b l e s : E P A 3 5 1 0 E P A 3 5 5 0

PARAMETERS Extractab le organics hydrocar bons containin g C11 C30

SAMPLE VOLUME

CONTAINER AND PRESERVATION

MAXIMUM STORAGE TIME

1996 ANALYTICAL COST

5 1 4

TEST O i l a n d G r e a s e

ANALYTICAL METHOD S M 5 5 2 0 E E P A 9 0 7 1

PARAMETERS Solvent extractabl es

SAMPLE VOLUME 2 0 0 g
1

CONTAINER AND PRESERVATION 500 mL glass1 Refrigeration

MAXIMUM STORAGE TIME N / A

1996 ANALYTICAL COST $ 3 0 $ 5 0

5 1 5

TEST B T E X

ANALYTICAL METHOD E P A 8 2 4 0 E P A 5 0 2 1 / 8 0 0 0

PARAMETERS Benzene, Toluene, Ethylben zene, Xylenes

SAMPLE VOLUME 2 0 0 g
1

CONTAINER AND PRESERVATION 500 mL glass1 Refrigeration

MAXIMUM STORAGE TIME 1 4 d a y s

1996 ANALYTICAL COST $ 1 0 0 $ 1 7 5

5 1 6

TEST P h e n o l

ANALYTICAL METHOD E P A 9 0 6 5 ( m o d i f i e d f o r s o i l ) E P A 8 2 7 0 B

PARAMETERS Total phenolics

SAMPLE VOLUME 2 0 0 g
1

CONTAINER AND PRESERVATION 500 mL glass1 Refrigeration

MAXIMUM STORAGE TIME 2 8 d a y s

1996 ANALYTICAL COST $ 3 0 $ 4 0

5 1 7

TEST P A H s

ANALYTICAL METHOD E P A 8 2 7 0

PARAMETERS Polynucle ar aromatic hydrocar bons (21 compoun ds in total, including naphthale ne, acenapht ene, acenapht ylene, anthracen e, benzo[a]a nthracene , chrysene, pyrene, dibenzofu ran, phenanth rene)

SAMPLE VOLUME 2 0 0 g
1

CONTAINER AND PRESERVATION 500 mL glass1 Refrigeration

MAXIMUM STORAGE TIME E x t r a c t i o n w i t h i n 7 d a y s A n a l y s i s w i t h i n 4 0 d a

1996 ANALYTICAL COST $ 3 9 5

5 1 8

TEST

ANALYTICAL METHOD C S S S 1 6 . 3 E P A 9 0 4 5 A

PARAMETERS Hydrogen ions (pH)

SAMPLE VOLUME 2 0 0 g
1

CONTAINER AND PRESERVATION 500 mL glass1 Refrigeration

MAXIMUM STORAGE TIME N / A

1996 ANALYTICAL COST $ 1 0

INORGANICSp
H

5 1 9

TEST E C

ANALYTICAL METHOD C S S S 1 8 . 2 ,

PARAMETERS Electrical conductiv ity

SAMPLE VOLUME 2 0 0 g
1

CONTAINER AND PRESERVATION 500 mL glass1 Refrigeration

MAXIMUM STORAGE TIME N / A

1996 ANALYTICAL COST $ 7 $ 1 7

5 2 0

1 8 . 3 , 1 8 . 4 S o d i u m E P A 6 0 1 0 Sodium 2 0 0 g
1

500 mL glass1 Refrigeration

7 d a y s

$ 5 0 $ 1 0 0

TEST C h l o r i d e

ANALYTICAL METHOD S M 4 1 1 0 C E P A 3 0 0 . 0 ( h o t w a t e r e x t r a c t a b l e )

PARAMETERS Chloride

SAMPLE VOLUME 2 0 0 g
1

CONTAINER AND PRESERVATION 500 mL glass1 Refrigeration

MAXIMUM STORAGE TIME N / A

1996 ANALYTICAL COST $ 2 0 $ 3 0

5 2 1

TEST S A R

ANALYTICAL METHOD C S S S 1 8 . 2 ,

PARAMETERS Sodium adsorptio n ratio

SAMPLE VOLUME 2 0 0 g
1

CONTAINER AND PRESERVATION 500 mL glass1 Refrigeration

MAXIMUM STORAGE TIME N / A

1996 ANALYTICAL COST $ 3 0 $ 6 0

5 2 2

1 8 . 3 , 1 8 . 4

METALS

M e t a l s ( I C A P

E P A 6 0 1 0 E P A 7

Al, Ba, Bo, Cu, Cd, Ca, Cr, Fe, Pb, Mg, Mo, Mn, Ni, P, K, Si, Na, Sn, V, Zn

2 0 0 g
1

500 mL glass1 or plastic bag Refrigeration

6 m o n t h s

$ 6 0 $ 9 0

TEST S c a n )

ANALYTICAL METHOD 4 7 1

PARAMETERS

SAMPLE VOLUME

CONTAINER AND PRESERVATION

MAXIMUM STORAGE TIME

1996 ANALYTICAL COST

Notes:

CSSS = Canadian Society of Soil Science 1 500 ml glass. is sufficient for all analyses. Alternatively submit 200 g total.

5 2 3

An increasing number of field test kits are becoming available for a range of analytical parameters in water and soil. Among these are kits for organics such as TPH, phenol and BTEX and a variety of different metals and inorganic compounds. The test kits are usually based on either immunoassay or colorimetric reactions. Unit prices vary depending on the parameter being tested, availability of the test kits and total number of samples being analyzed. However, costs may be in the range of $20 to $55 per sample. The main disadvantages of field kits are that they may be time consuming and some require a reasonably high skill level to operate. As well, many field kits have elevated detection levels and data obtained from test kits may need to be confirmed by laboratory analyses (e.g. for compliance monitoring). Another option for field analyses, is to locate a mobile laboratory at the dewatering location. The advantage of a mobile laboratory is that real time data is obtained using approved analytical methods, however, the cost for a mobile laboratory is high (e.g. $1,500 to $3,000/day). Nevertheless, the use of a mobile laboratory in some instances may be justified; for example, if numerous analyses are required over a short period of time. Quality Assurance and Quality Control To ensure accurate characterization, representative samples must be obtained and handled in such a way that they do not deteriorate or become contaminated before they reach the laboratory. Appropriate sampling and chain of custody procedures should be established. Once representative samples are collected they must be handled correctly. This includes the use of appropriate sample containers, addition of necessary preservatives, field filtering, proper labelling of containers and chain of custody documentation. Labels should include the name of sample, collector, date and time of collection, location, field measurement data (e.g. temperature, pH) and any other information such as project identification. Chain of custody procedures are a means of tracking a sample from the point of collection through to final data reporting. Records should be kept by the sample collector, sample transporter and receiving laboratory. An example of a chain of custody record form is provided in Appendix C. Laboratories typically have their own inhouse chain of custody procedures. Typical QA/QC procedures also involve the collection of duplicate samples for analysis. As well, field blanks may be taken. Duplicate samples are taken to determine the precision of the analytical method. Two separate samples are taken from the same source, collected in separate containers and analyzed independently. A field blank is a sample of distilled or deionized water taken from the laboratory out into the field, poured into a sampling container at the site, closed, and returned as if it were a sample (US. EPA, 1993). It is designed to monitor the introduction of artifacts resulting from site conditions, sampling equipment, transportation and shipping. Field blanks are brought to the field and transported back to the laboratory with the sample containers. Trip blanks and equipment blanks are specific types of field blanks. Trip blanks provide a check on sample contamination originating from sample transport, shipping and site conditions; these samples are not opened in the field. Equipment blanks are a check on sampling equipment cleanliness; the contents of an equipment blank is

5 - 24 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

opened in the field, poured over the sampling equipment, and collected for analysis. Reagent water is used as a blank matrix for aqueous samples. There is no universal blank matrix for soil samples, however, clean sand has been used.

5 - 25 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

6.0

DISCHARGE WATER

The following sections describe various aspects of discharge water handling and release, as shown in the release decision process flowchart in Figure 3 in Appendix A. These subsections include a discussion of various release options for the discharge water, as well as potential environmental effects and protection measures that can be taken to minimize these effects. Treatment options for discharge waters are discussed in Section 7.0 of this guide.

6.1

Discharge Water Release Options

Following hydrostatic testing of a pipeline, the discharge water must be managed and released properly. A discharge water release strategy should be developed that meets the following objectives: minimizes environmental risk; complies with applicable regulatory requirements and criteria; and provides a final release method that is economically feasible. Factors Affecting Release Options The development of a discharge water release strategy is case-specific and will vary depending on a number of factors. Among these are: location and method of dewatering availability of release locations (receptors) discharge water volume types and concentrations of contaminants present regulatory and landowner requirements potential environmental effects economics

The dewatering location may be an important factor in determining an appropriate method of discharge water release since it affects the proximity to potential receptors. The dewatering location can be controlled to some extent; for example, dewatering may occur at either end of the pipeline section that was tested or the water may be moved along the pipeline to a different dewatering location. As discussed in Section 4.0, contamination of hydrostatic discharge water may be minimized through shorter pipeline transport distances. The method of dewatering may also affect discharge water release options. For example, if the flowrate and composition can be controlled (e.g. by providing tankage and/or treatment), a wider range of release options may be available.

5-1 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Pipeline companies may use holding ponds or tanks to collect and store discharge water before treatment or release. Holding ponds may vary from dugouts to lined ponds, while tankage may include existing, new or leased tanks. The collection of discharge water in tanks or ponds results in a more uniform composition and allows for a controlled flowrate to subsequent treatment processes or for release to the environment. The volume and composition of discharge water both affect the selection of a release method. The composition, together with regulatory requirements, will dictate whether or not treatment is required before release and what receptors may be suitable. Treating the discharge water may increase the number of potential receptors. However, the economics of treatment may not be favourable. This is discussed in Section 7.0. Consideration should also be given to the quality of the test water source to determine an appropriate discharge location. For example, test water drawn from a slough may not be acceptable for release into a watercourse, water body or onto land if salt concentrations are high. Regulatory requirements and potential environmental effects both play key roles in selecting discharge water release options. For example, discharge water releases to environmentally sensitive receptors or to locations with stringent regulatory requirements may not be feasible without some level of treatment, which in turn has cost implications. Potential Receptors There are a variety of potential receptors for discharge waters from hydrostatic testing. These include releases to: land (directly or irrigation); receiving water (flowing or standing water); municipal sewer; off-site treatment facility; and off-site disposal facility.

Release to land or a receiving body of water is normally acceptable only for relatively uncontaminated test waters. This may require treatment of the discharge water for contaminant removal. Discharge water may be released directly to land or it may be irrigated to provide a more uniform distribution of water over a greater land area. Receiving waters may include watercourses or standing water such as lakes, peat lands, wetlands and ponds. Discharge waters may be returned to the source or to another acceptable receiving water. In either case, the quality of the discharge water should be of comparable water quality to the receiving water and/or meet applicable regulatory discharge criteria. Monitoring receptors before and after the release of discharge water is recommended. Discharge to a municipal sewage treatment plant may be acceptable provided the substances in the water are treatable and will not upset the treatment processes. The treatment facility must also be willing to accept the water. Most municipalities have by-laws regulating the type of water suitable for discharge to sewers and often
5-2 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

charge a fee. Discharge waters with substance levels unacceptable for direct release onto land, bodies of water or municipal sewage treatment plants may be sent to an offsite facility for treatment, such as a refinery, a processing plant, or a dedicated hydrostatic test water treatment facility. A dedicated hydrostatic test water treatment facility is generally only constructed if a pipeline company expects to be treating large volumes of hydrostatic discharge water or testing repeatedly. Contaminated discharge waters may also be sent offsite to a disposal facility if locally available. Examples of current offsite disposal options include injection into an approved deep well or salt cavern. However, the acceptability and availability of deep-well and salt-cavern disposal locations varies across Canada and regulatory approval is required before disposal. In some cases, it may be feasible to store the discharge water for reuse in subsequent hydrostatic tests. This will depend on the volume and composition of the discharge water, the storage time required and the location of subsequent hydrostatic testing. One of the main costs associated with the release of discharge water is for treatment before release. These costs are discussed in Section 7.0. Other release costs include: regulatory permits and approvals; monitoring and analytical requirements; and pumping and transportation costs. Off-site disposal facilities also charge a fee for release of discharge waters. This fee will vary depending on the volume and composition of the discharge water and the fee structure of the particular disposal facility. Regulatory Requirements Some regulatory requirements apply to most discharge water release options. In general, releases to the environment (e.g. land or receiving water) have the most stringent regulatory requirements while discharges to approved disposal facilities have the least stringent requirements. See Sections 8.0 and 9.0 for details on regulatory requirements.

6.2

Potential Impacts

The potential exists during test water discharge operations to adversely affect aquatic biota, downstream water users, soils and land use. The potential for impacts is influenced by the: test water discharge rate; total volume discharged; rate of discharge; quality of the source water (e.g. salts, temperature, chlorine, pH, metals); service of pipeline tested (new, liquid or gas pipeline); test additives used;

5-3 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

contaminant levels; timing of the release; weather conditions (e.g. with respect to air emissions); location and sensitivity of the discharge point; and method(s) of water treatment and/or release employed.

Fish and Fish Habitat Improper selection of a water discharge site or poorly conducted water discharge operations could adversely affect fish and fish habitat. A significant increase in flow of a watercourse, due to poorly controlled rate of discharge of test water, could result in bank erosion, substrate scouring or downstream flooding. Similarly, erosion of soils from poorly controlled discharge of test water adjacent to a watercourse could result in the introduction of significant levels of sediment to the watercourse. The potential also exists for transfer of undesirable biota (e.g. fish pathogens or parasites) from one drainage basin to another if the source of the test water is located in one drainage basin (eg. Milk River) and the test water is released into another drainage basin (eg. Saskatchewan River). In some regions, even transfer of water from one watershed to another is of concern due to the presence of problem weeds or other undesireable biota. The definition of drainage basin varies depending upon the jurisdiction and, consequently, regulatory authorities should be consulted with regard to interbasin transfer approval. The discharge of test water containing contaminants that are toxic (e.g. hydrocarbons) to aquatic fauna or flora could also adversely affect fish or fish habitat. Sudden fluctuations in water temperature, resulting from the discharge of test water which is warmer or colder than the receiving body of water, could adversely affect incubating eggs, fry and, in severe cases, adult fish. An increase in concentration of metal ions could also adversely affect fish. Aquatic Furbearers and Waterfowl Excessive test water discharge rates or volumes could result in flooding of waterfowl nests, aquatic furbearer dens or a reduction in aquatic habitat. Aquatic furbearers, waterfowl and their habitats could also be adversely affected by the discharge of test water that contains contaminants toxic to aquatic flora or fauna. The presence of workers and equipment during test water discharge operations could also adversely affect waterfowl, aquatic furbearers and other wildlife species if the activities are conducted during sensitive time periods. Soils A reduction in soil capability could result if test water containing contaminants that are deleterious to the soil was discharged on the ground. Adverse impacts on soil capability could also occur if a poor quality source of test water (e.g. saline water from sloughs) was discharged on the ground. Should a failure in the pipe occur during a test, soil capability could also be reduced if a poor quality source of test water is used or contaminants that are harmful to the soil are present. The potential exists for soil erosion if excessive test water discharge rates occur or inadequate energy dissipation measures are used during test water discharge.
5-4 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Vegetation Excessive water discharge rates or volumes could result in flooding of vegetation. Damage or mortality of vegetation could also occur if low quality source water or test water containing contaminants was released onto vegetation. Land Use Improper selection of water discharge sites can result in flooding of poorly drained lands. The release of test water with high concentrations of hydrocarbons, additives or long lasting dyes into a body of water could cause health hazards or reduce the aesthetic appreciation of the area and/or alarm the public. Landowners could be adversely affected if the soil capability or vegetation is adversely affected by the discharge of water. An above ground discharge line can result in damage to crops during installation and removal as well as a short term inconvenience to landowners. Leaks in the discharge line can result in a reduction in agricultural capability if the quality of the test water is low. Air Quality Release of hydrostatic test water could result in hydrocarbon odour, mercapton odour, pump equipment emissions, health affects from benzene and greenhouse gas emissions (eg. SF6 and others). When mercaptans or odourants are added to the test water and the test water is discharged onto the ground or into a body of water, the potential exists for a strong, persistent odour to be present.

6.3

Environmental Protection Measures

Although the potential exists for numerous environmental impacts to occur during the discharge of hydrostatic test water, protection measures are available to mitigate these impacts. The following environmental protection measures should be implemented, where appropriate, in order to minimize impacts on the environment.

Approvals

3921

Obtain all appropriate permits or approvals from regulatory authorities to discharge test water. Follow conditions on permits. Allow sufficient time to acquire permits/approvals. File with regulators any test plans, environmental management plans, emergency response/contingency plans, where appropriate. Obtain permission from each landowner over whose land will be affected by the discharge. Analyze source water to assess its quality (see Section 3.3).

3922 3923 3924

5-5 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Contingency Plan

3925

Prepare a contingency plan prior to testing when potentially contaminated test water, harmful additives or saline test water are used during the test or if the pipeline has been in-service and the potential exists for hydrocarbons in the test water. Ensure the testing crew is familiar with the contingency plan. Implement the contingency plan to contain and clean up any contaminated test water released in the event of a test failure. An example contingency plan is provided in Appendix E. Notify landowners in the vicinity of the test section prior to testing and inform them of the test schedule. Notify appropriate authorities and landowners in the event of a test failure and subsequent release of potentially contaminated test water. Have sufficient personnel and equipment available on site to repair any rupture, leak or erosion. Shunt test water ahead from test section to test section, if feasible, in order to minimize water hauling, water usage and the number of dewatering points.

3926 3927 3928 Shunt Water 3929

Pig Loading

3930

Test Repairs Discharge Site Selection

Ensure that test pigs are loaded into the test section in the appropriate order to permit dewatering to occur at the chosen end of the test section and to limit the degree of contamination of the core test water (i.e. attempt to confine heavy contamination to the interface waters). 3931 Follow appropriate protection measures (e.g. strip topsoil) if exposure of the pipe is required to make repairs prior to completion of the test. 3932 Avoid selecting a dewatering site in a location that will result in the transfer of water from one drainage basin to another. If the potential for interbasin transfer exists, confirm definition of drainage basin with regulators and the acceptability of the transfer prior to selecting a dewatering site. 3933 Consider the volume and composition of test water when selecting an appropriate discharge site. 3934 Ensure that test water, if discharged to a body of water, is of a quality that is the same or better than the receiving body of water and meets regulatory requirements (see Sections 8.0 and 9.0). 3935 Consider the volume of test water, streamflow or volume of receiving water body and proposed test water discharge volume rates in order to ensure that the water quality of the receiving body of water is not significantly lowered. Note that some jurisdictions prohibit the discharge of test water into a body of water which supports fish. Ensure that when approval conditions restrict the discharge only to land, surface flow of the test water does not reach a body of water. Conduct testing of receiving body of water prior to finalizing discharge site selection. (See Section 5.0).

5-6 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

3936 Ensure that discharge water meets relevant provincial and federal guidelines and permit conditions (see Sections 8.0 and 9.0). In the absence of regulatory guidelines, refer to the Alberta Code of Practice criteria (Appendix G) or other jurisdictional codes and guides. 3937 Ensure that test water, if discharged onto the land, is of a quality that will not adversely affect the soil capability. 3938 Avoid discharging test water on to soils that have high levels of EC or SAR. This is of particular concern on agricultural lands in the prairie provinces. 3939 Prepare a site plan (elevation survey), if warranted on near level terrain, prior to finalizing the selection of the discharge site to ensure that flooding as a result of dewatering will not occur. 3940 Conduct a reconnaissance of downstream areas if water is to be discharged to a watercourse. 3941 Select discharge sites where dewatering will not result in flooding, erosion or lowering in agriculture capability. Avoid discharging test water onto lands with long or steep slopes unless measures are in place to avoid erosion. 3942 Avoid locating discharge sites on cultivated lands or immediately upstream of public water intakes. Ponding of Water 3943 Avoid discharge rates or volumes that could result in the ponding of water and subsequent temporary reduction in land capability. Note that some jurisdictions limit the duration of ponds or standing water created by discharged test water. 3944 Ensure that the discharge or drain line is tied-down, if required, and free of leaks. 3945 Dissipate water energy and utilize protective riprap, sheeting, tarpaulins or equivalent to minimize erosion of soils during dewatering or preheating operations (circulating) if heated water is used (see Figure 6.1). Reduce the rate of discharge if these measures are ineffective. 3946 Avoid discharging test water that is significantly warmer or colder than a receiving body of water that supports sport fish. For example, some sport fish may be more prone to changes in water temperature at some times of the year than others. Contact regulatory agencies to determine whether any temperature limitations apply. 3947 Conduct laboratory testing of discharge water. Pipeline companies are encouraged to analyse the discharge water for protection from future liability regarding the quality of discharge water. Conduct testing in accordance with procedures noted in Section 5.0. 3948 Recover discharge water containing antifreeze or methanol used in pipe drying. Return to supplier for recovery.

Discharge Line Erosion

Water Temperature

Analyze Discharge Water

Antifreeze Recovery

5-7 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Hydrocarbon Contaminants Receptor Analysis

3949 Treat or dispose of contaminated test water and low quality source water in accordance with procedures and options presented in Section 7.0. 3950 Conduct post discharge analysis of soils or receiving body of water (i.e. watercourse, pond or lake), if requested by regulatory authorities. Pipeline companies are encouraged to analyse the test water receptor for protection from future liability regarding the effects of the discharge water and to determine whether any mitigation is warranted. Conduct testing in accordance with procedures noted in Section 5.0.

5-8 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

5-9 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

7.0

TREATMENT

Treatment may be a key component of a discharge water release strategy as shown in the water handling and water discharge decision process flowcharts in Figures 2 and 3 in Appendix A. While release without treatment may be an option for some hydrostatic discharge waters (e.g. uncontaminated water from new pipelines), many will require some form of treatment as part of the overall discharge water release strategy. The objectives in treating discharge waters are to minimize environmental impact and liability as well as comply with regulatory requirements associated with their release. Nevertheless, the cost of treatment must also be considered. Treatment needs for hydrostatic testing discharge waters should be evaluated for each testing program and strategies implemented to minimize treatment requirements as well as optimize release options. This section addresses various aspects of discharge water treatment including: factors affecting treatment requirements; description of applicable treatment processes; and examples of treatment trains used by the pipeline industry. Factors Affecting Treatment Requirements The need for and extent of treatment required varies on a case-by-case basis. Factors to consider when evaluating treatment requirements are: type and concentration of substances present; proportion, volume and contaminant levels of interface water and core water; discharge criteria (regulatory and internal policy); and availability of appropriate discharge locations.

A key factor in determining treatment requirements is the type and concentration of substances present in the discharge water. As discussed in Section 4.0, potential substances of concern vary depending on the nature of the pipeline and the pipeline contents. Discharge water from new pipelines is relatively uncontaminated and may require minimal treatment, if any. The main substances that may be of concern and require removal are total suspended solids (TSS) and possibly some metals (typically iron). Organic substances are generally not a concern. Treatment systems for discharge waters from new pipelines are usually relatively simple and inexpensive (e.g. filtration and aeration). Discharge waters from in-service pipelines generally have more extensive treatment requirements because of the

5 - 10 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

presence of hydrocarbons. In addition to TSS and metals, discharge waters from in-service pipelines may also require organics removal. The type of treatment will depend on the nature of the organics, which may include free oil, emulsified oil and dissolved hydrocarbons such as phenols and BTEX. Treatment requirements can be minimized by preventing contaminants from entering the hydrostatic test water. During the planning stage, attention should be given to the contamination minimization methods discussed in Section 4.2. Although TDS may be a substance of concern in some discharge waters, it is not economically feasible to remove it. TDS normally originates from the hydrostatic test source water; therefore, measures should be taken to select high-quality source waters rather than treat for TDS removal. Chlorine is usually only a concern if it is added as a biocide during testing or the source water is chlorinated potable water. Where possible, the addition of chlorine or other biocides should be minimized. However, free chlorine may be removed during pipeline dewatering through aeration. Applicable discharge criteria (either regulatory or internal) will play an important role in determining treatment requirements. These criteria will indicate which parameters require removal and to what extent. For comparison, CCME water quality criteria are provided in Table 6.1. The availability of suitable release locations may also affect the treatment requirements. For example, if release locations are limited and they involve environmentally sensitive receptors, more stringent treatment requirements will likely be required. Conversely, if a number of release locations are available and they do not involve environmentally sensitive receptors, treatment requirements will likely be less stringent. No treatment may be required for some release options, such as offsite disposal. Treatment Processes There are a variety of treatment processes that can be used to remove substances of concern from hydrostatic discharge waters. These range from simple and inexpensive unit processes to more complex and costly operations. This subsection describes several unit processes that are currently being used or considered by the pipeline industry for removal of the potential contaminants identified in Section 4.0. These unit processes include:

5-2 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Gravity separation; Aeration; Coalescence; Flotation; Filtration (hay bales, cartridge filters, bag filters, media filters); Granular adsorption filtration; Granular activated carbon; Advanced oxidation processes (UV/ozone/peroxide); Air stripping; Chemical precipitation.

For each of the above treatment processes, a summary is provided that includes the following information: primary and secondary contaminants removed; process description; design criteria; performance review and related experience; and advantages and disadvantages. Treatment technology summaries for these processes are presented in Appendix D. Table 7.1 provides a summary of these processes, indicating what contaminants of concern are typically removed. This table can be used as a reference guide when evaluating various treatment processes for discharge waters. However, the selection of treatment processes may depend on other factors such as operational constraints and economics. The selection of one treatment process over another for a specific application requires a detailed technical and economic feasibility study. Cost is a major consideration in the selection of a treatment process. However, generic cost data has not been provided for the treatment processes listed in Table 7.1. Treatment costs vary widely on a case-specific basis depending on the following: extent of contaminant removal required; volume of discharge water and throughput requiring treatment; interim holding tank or pond requirements; location of treatment; equipment is stand alone or used with other treatment processes; type of installation (contract, portable or permanent); operating requirements (e.g operator time, monitoring, maintenance, etc.); suppliers pricing; and pretreatment needs.

5-3 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

TABLE 7.1
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT PROCESSES

CONTAMINANT REMOVED TREATMENT PROCESS FREE OIL EMULSIFIED OIL 01 N/A 0 0 0 X X 0 N/A X 0 X X 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A SUSPENDED SOLIDS DISSOLVED HYDROCARBONS BTEX Phenols 02 TRACE METALS

Gravity Separation Aeration Coalescence Flotation Filtration hay bales cartridge/bag filters media filter Granular Absorbent Media Filtration Granular Activated Carbon Advanced Oxidation Air Stripping Chemical Precipitation

X N/A X X

X N/A 0 0

N/A 04 N/A N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A 0

X 03 N/A

X N/A

0 X

Most Removed Some Removed None/Very Little Removed Not Applicable Notes:
1

X 0 N/A

demulsifer added 2 volatile compounds only (for example, BTEX; phenol not removed) 3 volatile and semi-volatile compounds only (for example BTEX; phenol not removed) 4 iron oxidation

5-4 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

The extent of contaminant removal required is dictated by the concentration of contaminants in the hydrostatic test water before treatment and the required discharge limit (typically regulated criteria). Generally, the more extensive the treatment requirements (e.g. very strict discharge limits), the higher the treatment cost will be. The volume of discharge water and the required throughput affect the treatment cost. If a large volume of water requires treatment over a short period of time, high treatment throughputs are necessary. This could require oversizing of treatment equipment, which can be costly. Another cost consideration with respect to discharge water volume is that the unit cost for treatment ($/m3) generally decreases as the volume increases. Holding ponds or tanks can be used to provide storage for the discharge water before treatment. The costs associated with constructing a storage pond and purchasing or leasing tanks can be significant; however, these collection and holding facilities allow for greater flexibility in the treatment and release system. For example: The collection of discharge water in tanks or ponds results in a more uniform composition and allows for a controlled flowrate to subsequent treatment processes or for release to the environment. It may allow for smaller sizing of subsequent treatment equipment (for example, lower treatment flow rate required). Some treatment for contaminant removal may occur (e.g. settling of suspended solids, oil removal, loss of volatile hydrocarbons such as BTEX, biodegradation and photodegradation of some contaminants and additives). The use of tanks or ponds may allow for the segregation of more contaminated discharge water (e.g. interface water) from less contaminated water (e.g. core water).

An economic analyses should be carried out to compare the cost of holding ponds or tanks and treatment equipment requirements. As well, the cost of having the pipeline out of service should also be considered. Potential environmental concerns related to holding ponds (eg. fencing, waterfowl scare measures, etc.) need to be considered and addressed. The location of pipeline dewatering and treatment can affect the treatment costs. For example, transportation, mobilization and demobilization costs for equipment or contract services will be higher for more remote locations. Caution should be exercised when comparing treatment costs for stand alone unit processes. The contaminants removed by individual unit processes may vary, as well as the upstream or downstream treatment requirements. Therefore, it is more meaningful to compare costs for complete treatment systems rather than individual unit processes. Treatment costs vary not only with the type of treatment processes used but the type of installation or service involved. Treatment of hydrostatic discharge waters can be achieved using: contract services; portable or
5-5 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

temporary treatment facilities; or permanent treatment facilities. If contract services are used, a contractor is responsible for treating the discharge water (e.g. providing equipment, personnel, etc.). Contract services may be provided on a cost plus or lump sum fee basis. The costs generally include equipment mobilization and demobilization in addition to treatment. Portable or permanent treatment facilities can be built by an operator for treating discharge waters. Since hydrostatic testing is often a "one time" event, the construction of a permanent treatment facility for a specific test may not be practical. Unless the discharge water can be readily delivered to a central treatment facility, on-site treatment with portable or skid mounted equipment may be necessary. A treatment facility could be located at a refinery or another central location that is accessible to several pipelines. A refinery has the advantage of available infrastructure. There is more flexibility in selecting treatment options at a central facility, compared to treatment in the field. The need for portable equipment imposes equipment size and space constraints, thereby limiting treatment options. Consequently, processes requiring large tanks or vessels may not be feasible. Treatment costs are also affected by operating requirements, such as labour, monitoring and maintenance requirements, as well as the type and volume of treatment chemicals and disposable materials (e.g. filters, etc.) required. Examples of Treatment Systems Used by the Pipeline Industry In this subsection, four treatment systems are described that have been used or are being considered by Canadian pipeline companies to treat hydrostatic discharge water before release. These include: Contract services for discharges from new pipelines and in-service gas pipelines Temporary treatment facility for discharge water from an out-of-service liquid petroleum pipeline Portable treatment facility for discharge water from an in-service liquid petroleum pipeline Permanent treatment facility for discharge water from an in-service liquid petroleum pipeline

The following information is included in these descriptions: type of discharge water treated (feed water quality); description of unit processes involved; assessment of treatment performance (discharge water quality); treatment throughput; and treatment costs where available.

Example 1: Contract Services for New and In-service Gas Pipelines


5-6 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

There are various companies within Canada offering contract services for the treatment of discharge water from hydrostatic testing. Typically, these services have been applied to discharge waters with relatively low contaminant levels (e.g. from new pipelines or in-service gas pipelines). The treatment systems generally consist of the same basic features, with some minor differences. Key components of the treatment are: a feed or surge tank to control the flowrate to downstream equipment and provide degassification disposable cartridge or bag filters for suspended solids and oil removal granular activated carbon vessels for the removal of fine oil, some dissolved organics and oxidized iron

The treatment systems, which are skid-mounted and portable, are typically rated for about 2000 gallons per minute. However, some companies claim ratings of up to 5000 gallons per minute. To achieve this high throughput with the equipment provided, high carbon loading rates are required. The loading rates are in the order of about 14 to 20 gpm/ft2, compared to 3 to 5 gpm/ft2, which are more typical in carbon adsorption processes. Consequently, contact times with the carbon are only about 2 to 3 minutes, compared with 15 to 30 minutes in other carbon adsorption processes. These treatment systems are primarily used to remove suspended solids and oil. Oxidized iron is also removed as a suspended solid. Because of the low carbon contact times, the removal of dissolved organics (such as BTEX and phenol) are likely low. However, removals of dissolved organics could be increased if lower loading rates and longer contact times are used. The cost for these contract treatment services vary depending on the volume of water treated, water throughput and treatment location. For the high throughputs discussed above (e.g. 2000 gpm) treatment costs typically range from about $2.50 to $7.00 per cubic metre of discharge water. These prices include equipment mobilization and demobilization, treatment, provision of a technician, and disposal of used treatment media. Higher costs would be expected for lower throughput rates. Example 2: Temporary Treatment Facility for Reactiviation of an Out-of-service Liquid Petroleum Pipeline

A temporary treatment facility was located at a pump station to treat hydrostatic test water from an out-of-service liquid petroleum pipeline to be reactivated. Surface water was used as a source water for hydrostatic testing and no additives were used. The main contaminants of concern (e.g. present in the discharge water and regulated) were: pH, TSS, BTEX, phenol, COD and iron. Approximately 25,000 m3 of discharge water were treated over a six week period.

5-7 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

The treatment system included: existing tanks for discharge water storage before treatment coarse strainer for solids removal cartridge filters for suspended solids and oil removal (2) granular absorbent filters in parallel for fine oil removal (2) granular activated carbon (GAC) vessels in series for dissolved organics removal pumping and monitoring equipment

Because of elevated iron levels in the discharge water, aeration was provided in the storage tanks to oxidize the iron and the iron oxide precipitate was allowed to settle. Some iron oxide was also removed in the cartridge filters. The granular absorbent filter vessels and granular activated carbon vessels were rented for the treatment period. Aside from the storage tanks, the treatment system was skid-mounted. The treatment system operated 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and was designed for a throughput of 1000 m3/day (approximately 200 gpm), which corresponded to the permitted discharge rate. The design hydraulic loading rates on the granular absorbent filters and the carbon adsorption units were approximately 7 gpm/ft2 and 5 gpm/ft2, respectively. Based on the design loading rate, the contact time of water with the GAC media was approximately 20 minutes. Normal operation of the treatment system included: pumping the water through the treatment system; monitoring effluent flow and quality; monitoring treatment system performance; providing routine maintenance (e.g. backwashing and changing filters); and conducting sampling and analyses. A field test kit was used to monitor BTEX levels for process control purposes. Samples for compliance monitoring were collected and sent offsite for most analyses required. The discharge criteria are shown in Table 7.2. The treatment system was able to meet these criteria for the contaminants of concern, with the exception of phenol on one sampling occasion. However, the discharge water was not released to a receiving stream but held in a containment pond.

TABLE 7.2
DISCHARGE CRITERIA
MAXIMUM WEEKLY DISCHARGE LIMIT (Mg/l Unless Noted) 25 50 MAXIMUM DAILY DISCHARGE LIMIT (Mg/l Unless Noted) 40 75

PARAMETER

TSS COD

5-8 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

pH Oil and grease Iron Benzene Ethylbenzene Toluene Phenols

6.0 - 9.0 pH units No visible sheen 0_3 0_3 0_7 0_3 0_001

6.0 - 9.0 pH units No visible sheen 0_5 0_5 1_1 0_5 0_0015

Wastes generated from the treatment process included used bag filters, spent granular absorbent media and spent activated carbon media. The bag filters and spent granular absorbent media were determined to be nonhazardous and disposed of accordingly. The spent activated carbon was returned for reactivation. The total treatment cost for this treatment system was approximately $180,000 or $7/m3 of discharge water. The cost for subsequent treatment systems would likely be less since engineering costs would be reduced (e.g. system already designed and process information is readily available). Example 3: Portable Treatment Facility for an In-service Liquid Petroleum Pipeline

A portable treatment facility has been designed to treat discharge water from a proposed hydrostatic test of an inservice liquid petroleum pipeline. The treatment facility will be located at a terminal. Water from an irrigation canal will be used as the source water. Additives will be used during the hydrostatic test including: aniline dye, sulfur hexafluoride and a valve sealant. Approximately 160,000 m3 of core water will be treated over a 14 week period at a nominal rate of 300 US gpm. The main contaminants of concern are: TSS, free and emulsified oil, iron, BTEX and phenol. The expected composition of the core water and the discharge criteria are summarized in Table 7.3.

TABLE 7.3
EXPECTED COMPOSITION AND DISCHARGE CRITERIA (all concentrations mg/L unless noted)
PARAMETER pH TSS COD Benzene
5-9 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

EXPECTED COMPOSITION 6.5 - 8.5 15 - 40 not known 2- 18

DISCHARGE CRITERIA 6.5 - 8.5 10 250 0_3

Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylene Phenols Iron

2 - 18 0.2 - 3 1 - 12 0.1 - 0.6 1-9

0_3 0_7 0_3 0_005 0_3

Interface fluids received from near the front and back ends of the test section will be separated and stored in tanks. Demulsifiers will be added to promote the separation of oil and water. The separated water will be combined with the core water. The recovered oil will be returned to the pipeline. Core water and separated interface water will be held in a new 1,000,000 bbls (160,000 m3) lined storage pond. The pond will be constructed of native clay and lined with 60 mil high-density polyethylene. The pond will allow for storage of the large volume of water requiring treatment. As well, it will allow for gravity separation of free oil and suspended solids from the water. The free oil will be removed by skimming. Suspended solids will settle to the bottom of the pond. Natural aeration in the pond will oxidize iron to a particulate form, which will settle to the bottom of the pond or be removed by filtration. Water from the holding pond will be pumped to the treatment system, which has the following major components: bag filtration to remove suspended solids and oil absorbent media filtration to remove emulsified oil and some dissolved hydrocarbons activated carbon filtration to remove dissolved hydrocarbons

Two bag filters in series will remove suspended solids and oil that are not removed in the holding pond. The disposable bag filters are designed to remove solids and oil droplets larger than 5 microns in size. Final removal of free and emulsified oil will be achieved using absorbent media filtration. As well, some dissolved organics may also be removed. The main purpose of this treatment unit is to prevent oil from entering the carbon adsorption units downstream. The absorbent media, which consists of anthracite and clay, is sacrificial; once saturated with oil it is removed for disposal and replaced with new media. The design hydraulic loading rate on the filtration unit is 4 gpm/ft2. Activated carbon adsorption will be used for the removal of dissolved organics. Two vessels in series designed for a hydraulic loading of 4 gpm/ft2 will provide over 30 minutes of contact time between the water and activated carbon. Effluent from the carbon adsorption vessels will be monitored and tested to determine when the carbon is exhausted. Spent activated carbon will be removed for reactivation and replaced with fresh carbon.

5 - 10 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Treated water will be stored in two unlined effluent ponds (90,000 bbls each). Each pond will have the capacity to store one week's throughput from the treatment system. The water will be tested before releasing to ensure the discharge criteria are met. Water that does not meet the criteria will be returned to the treatment system. Water acceptable for discharge will be released to the terminal's drainage system and ultimately to surface water. The treatment system is designed as a completely skid-mounted system suitable for relocation to other sites. It is designed for manual, summer-only operation. The estimated capital and operating costs for the ponds and treatment system are summarized in Table 7.4. The total estimated cost is $2,180,000. As shown, over half of this cost is associated with the construction of the ponds. However, these ponds could be used for storing discharge water generated from future hydrostatic testing programs.

TABLE 7.4
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
FACILITY COMPONENT Ponds Treatment system Operating cost Total cost COST ($) $1,400,000 $780,000 $150,000 $2,180,000

Example 4:

Comparison of Treatment Processes for Dissolved Organics Removal from an In-service Liquid Petroleum Pipeline

A liquid petroleum pipeline company is constructing a treatment facility for water from its hydrostatic testing program. Discharge water from hydrostatic testing will be transported to an end-of-pipe facility for treatment and subsequent release to a municipal sanitary sewer. The design flowrate for the system is 200 gpm. The main contaminants of concern are: TSS, oil and grease, BTEX, phenol, and iron. The expected untreated discharge water composition and the discharge criteria are summarized in Table 7.5.

TABLE 7.5
EXPECTED COMPOSITION AND DISCHARGE CRITERIA (all concentrations mg/L unless noted)
PARAMETER pH EXPECTED COMPOSITION 6-9 DISCHARGE CRITERIA 6-9

5 - 11 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

TSS Oil and grease BTEX Phenols Iron

2-5 10 - 20 1-5 <1.0 <1

2-5 2 0_5 0_02 <2

The pretreatment processes for the hydrostatic test water consist of: surge tank and gravity separation for free oil and suspended solids removal chemical coagulation/flocculation for iron removal, suspended and oily solids dissolved air flotation for fine oil removal and oily solids granular media filtration for fine oil and suspended solids removal

As shown in Table 7.5, the main organic contaminants of concern are BTEX and phenol. In general, GAC is effective at removing organic contaminants with high molecular weight, low water solubility and low polarity. However, phenolic compounds have a relatively high polarity, suggesting that GAC may not be the most efficient treatment option over an extended period of time. GAC was compared to advanced oxidation processes (AOP) for BTEX and phenol removal. Based on proposals received from various suppliers, a UV/peroxide system appeared to be the most technically feasible and cost effective. This system uses high intensity UV lamps together with hydrogen peroxide. The feed water is dosed with hydrogen peroxide and mixed before passing through two UV reactors in series. Pilot testing revealed that this system is able to reduce the phenol concentration from 1 mg/L to 0.02 mg/L, which meets the discharge criteria. A UV/peroxide system was selected over GAC because it was found to be more cost effective. The estimated capital and annual operating costs for a UV/peroxide system are $207,000 and $20,390 respectively. The main operating costs for the UV/peroxide system are: electrical power, lamp replacement, hydrogen peroxide and maintenance.

5 - 12 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

8.0

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Environment Canada and the National Energy Board (NEB) are the only federal agencies which are involved in the approval or review of water withdrawal and water discharge applications related to hydrostatic testing on a nation wide basis. Other federal departments that may provide approvals for testing or input to CEAA include Parks Canada, Health and Welfare Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA) and Transport Canada. Fisheries and Oceans DFO does not provide formal approval on matters related to hydrostatic testing but may be involved in the review of the project through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) process or when requested by any other federal agency. Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) approval is generally not required for hydrostatic testing, water withdrawal or water discharge activities. However, if hydrostatic testing equipment or activities could affect navigation, NWPA approval would be required. The following sections of the federal Fisheries Act apply to hydrostatic testing: Section 22 - flow limits; Section 30 - every water intake will have a fish guard or screen to prevent the passage of fish; Section 35(1) - no work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat; and Section 36(3) - no deposit of a deleterious substance of any type in water frequented by fish.

DFO is responsible for Sections 30 and 35.1 of the Fisheries Act, while DFO and Environment Canada are jointly responsible for Section 36.3 of the Fisheries Act. It should be noted, however, that DFO authorization is required, to destroy fish by means other than fishing and to alter fish habitat, under the Fisheries Act. If hydrostatic testing procedure threatens fish or alters fish habitat, then DFO authorization may be required. DFO also requests that the agency be contacted if interbasin transfer of water will occur as a result of a hydrostatic test. There are no federal guidelines on interbasin transfer of exotic species, but it does represent a potential concern to fish and fisheries.

5-1 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

National Energy Board (NEB) For federally regulated pipelines, operation and maintenance activities including testing as well as facilities applications, may require NEB approval pursuant to the various acts and regulations that relate to these activities. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) No agency specific regulations apply to hydrostatic testing on Indian Reservations, however, the same

regulation(s) as the respective province or territory use will apply. Indian Oil and Gas Canada as well as (INAC) do not have specific requirements for hydrostatic testing. Hydrostatic testing on Indian Reserves may be subject to CEAA review.

8.1

Withdrawal

DFO has outlined the national standard-of-practice for screening requirements for water intakes in the "Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline" March 1995 (available from DFO) that outlines mesh sizes, approach velocities and cleaning requirements of water intake screens. Federal water withdrawal limits have not been developed. However, DFO recommends water withdrawal not exceed 10% of the natural streamflow. This 10% water withdrawal limit is commonly recommended in most provinces and territories across Canada. It should be noted that excessive water withdrawal could result in harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (HADD) and would require authorization from DFO. Water withdrawal activities for federally regulated projects must, as a minimum, meet the NEB Guidelines for Filing Requirements and the Onshore Pipeline Regulations.

8.2

Release

HADD could occur as a result of a test failure or release of hydrostatic test water with contaminants. Fish habitat can be affected by alterations in temperature, hydrocarbon or other contaminants, sedimentation due to excessive discharge rates and test additives. There are no hard numbers on the allowable levels of contaminants in hydrostatic test water discharge on a federal basis at this time. Release approval is not required unless hydrostatic testing operations threaten fish or alters fish habitat, then DFO authorization is required. Contact the regional DFO office (Appendix H) for Application for Authorization for Works or Undertakings Affecting Fish Habitat if the potential exists for HADD to occur as a result of testing. The release of hydrostatic test water for federally regulated projects must, as a minimum, meet the NEB Guidelines for Filing Requirements and the Onshore Pipeline Regulations.

5-2 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

8.3

Monitoring and Record Retention

There are no federal environmental requirements to monitor and provide records of the waters used in hydrostatic testing. However, companies are recommended to monitor and retain records of environmental matters to establish the sequence of events and demonstrate that HADD or other impacts did not occur.

8.4

Spill and Spill Reporting

Each province and territory has different arrangements with DFO and Environment Canada regarding the administration of the Fisheries Act Section 36(3) that applies to deposition of a deleterious substance. Environment Canada may become involved if the spill occurs on federal lands or if the company is regulated by federal agencies. Charges can be laid under the Fisheries Act as the result of a spill. Spill and spill reporting on federally regulated projects are regulated by the NEB.

5-3 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

9.0

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS

The following outlines environmental regulatory requirements for hydrostatic testing in the provinces and territories of Canada within which testing by CAPP and CEPA members are most common. No information is provided for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland. Regulatory approvals are generally required for land application of discharge water, with limitations on application rates and contaminant loadings. As well, there may be provisions regarding the withdrawal and use of water, erosion control, flood prevention, interbasin transfer, prevention of water reaching another water body, watercourse, etc. Discharges to receiving waters may have limitations on the discharge flowrate as well as a number of water quality parameters. Table 9.1 provides a summary of the environmental regulatory requirements for hydrostatic testing within each province and territory in Canada where CAPP and CEPA members operate pipelines. Appendix H identifies the agency contact for each applicable jurisdiction in Canada. Mapping, is also provided in Appendix H, where available, of provincial regional jurisdictions.

9.1

Withdrawal

A review of the environmental regulatory requirements for hydrostatic testing in Canada indicates that provincial jurisdictions require testing proponents to obtain water withdrawal approvals and follow specific requirements. A withdrawal rate limit of 10% of available natural streamflow or no significant impact on levels of standing water are general rules of thumb in many jurisdictions or should be followed as a guide when specific withdrawal rates are not specified. Some jurisdictions have specific requirements regarding screening intakes while others rely on DFO guidelines for screening requirements as a general guide.

9.2

Release

Many jurisdictions require that specific approvals/permits be obtained before releasing hydrostatic test water. Approval may be conditional upon monitoring release limits, water quality and location. With the exception of the province of Alberta, there are currently no published regulatory requirements specific to hydrostatic testing discharge waters. Generally, the treatment and release of discharge waters are regulated on a case-by-case basis by the respective provinces. However, as a basis for determining applicable discharge criteria, many provinces have used criteria established by the Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment (CCME) as a starting point. The CCME has developed water quality criteria for a number of parameters for different water

5-1 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

uses. In 1996, Alberta Environmental Protection (AEP) issued a Code of Practice for "Discharge of Hydrostatic Test Water From Hydrostatic Testing of Petroleum Liquid and Natural Gas Pipelines". This Code outlines minimum requirements for water quality that pipeline owners and operators must meet when releasing hydrostatic test water to land or a receiving water. The Code applies to hydrostatic testing of new and in-service liquid petroleum and natural gas pipelines where test volumes are greater than 1,000 m3. The Code includes registration, reporting and recordkeeping requirements as well as requirements for the release of discharge water to land or receiving waters. Release limits for a number of parameters for discharges to land and receiving waters are identified in the Code in Appendix G. Release of test water volume of less than 1,000 m3 are not subject to the Code but must meet Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act requirements (i.e. no adverse impacts). Hydrostatic test water discharge flow rate and volume limits are not specified except in Ontario where the discharge rate must be equal to the water withdrawal rate. All jurisdictions recommend some type of energy dissipater be utilized to prevent and reduce erosion potential. Some jurisdictions do not permit the direct discharge of test water to a watercourse and require test water be discharged over land before entering a water body or discharged into a closed system such as a dugout or slough. Many provincial agencies, on a case-by-case basis, require monitoring of the quality of the discharge water. Alberta is the only jurisdiction that has water quality criteria specific to the release of hydrostatic test water (Appendix G). Many provinces use the water quality criteria for drinking water or freshwater aquatic life established by the Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment (CCME) for hydrostatic test releases.

9.3

Monitoring and Record Retention

Of the provincial jurisdictions, only Alberta requires the records or sample data be retained for hydrostatic tests with test volumes greater than 1,000 m3. However, monitoring and analyses may be necessary to verify that the discharge water is compatible with the receiving basin, soils or land use as well as to demonstrate regulatory compliance (see Section 5.0). Another release option for hydrostatic test water are approved release facilities. Regulatory approval will be required for offsite release. Acceptable discharge water quality may vary depending on the nature of the offsite release facility and the regulatory requirements imposed on the facility.

9.4

Spill and Spill Reporting

Most provinces and territories have a 24 hour spill reporting mechanism in place. The requirements for reporting vary depending upon the jurisdiction, type of product spilled and volume of the spill. Charges can be laid under the Fisheries Act as a result of a spill or an incident of HADD.

5-2 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

TABLE 9.1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER WITHDRAWAL AND DISCHARGE
JURISDICTIO N ISSUING AGENCY(IES) WATER VOLUME FEE FOR THRESHOLD APPLICATIO REQUIRING N AN APPROVAL No N/A FEE FOR WATER APPROVAL PERIOD APPLICATIO N FORMAT NAME OF LICENSE, PERMIT OR APPROVAL N/A INTAKE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS WITHDRAWAL RATE LIMITATIONS DISCHARGE WATER TESTING PROCEDURES N/A MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR RELEASE APPROVALS DISCHARGE WATER QUALITY N/A Only required if harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat will occur SPILL REPORTING

Federal

Fisheries and Oceans, (DFO) provides comments on any projects related to Fish and Fish Habitat as well as input on projects under CEAA and if requested by any federal agency DFO has jurisdiction of all Canadian Waters and all projects affecting fish habitat - approval required National Energy Board approval on federally regulated projects

N/A

No formal approval granted, comment only

No

DFO fish screen guideline

10% of natural streamflow

Refer to approval conditions

No

N/A

N/A

Variable

Yes

9 3
British Columbia

Authorization for Works or Undertakings Affecting Fish Habitat Variable

N/A

N/A

No

N/A

N/A

Variable

No

On a project specific basis Yes - DFO fish screen guidelines 2 cfs must pass during active pumping On a sitespecific basis

N/A

Regional Water Management Branch of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks coordinates responses from appropriate government departments Regional Environmental Protection Branch of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (for tests with additives and inservice pipe) Regional Environmental Protection Branch of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (modification of the stream channel is involved)

No

Yes

N/A

Few days to a full year

Form

Approval for Section 7 Regulation of the Water Act - shortterm use of water Approval under the Waste Management Act

On a sitespecific basis

No approvals required for tests with no additives

1-(800)-663-3456 (in B.C. only) (604) 387-5956 (outside B.C.)

Form

On a sitespecific basis

On a sitespecific basis

Approval under Waste Management Act

Notification Approval for Proposed Works and Changes In and About a Stream under the section 7 Regulation of the Water Act No No No From a few hours to 6 - 8 weeks if public notification is required Letter or phone call Letter of Authority Yes - Fisheries Habitat Protection Guideline No. 10 Site specific

Alberta

Water Resources Act Natural Resources Service of Alberta Environmental Protection; for Temporary Diversion and Use of Water Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act Regional Directors (for in-service pipe

No

No

Letter

As required for EPEA and Code of Practice

>1000 m3 Code As required for of Practice for EPEA and Code of Discharge of Practice Hydrostatic Test

Pollution Emergency Response Team 1-(800)-222-6514

JURISDICTIO N

ISSUING AGENCY(IES)

WATER VOLUME FEE FOR THRESHOLD APPLICATIO REQUIRING N AN APPROVAL

FEE FOR WATER

APPROVAL PERIOD

APPLICATIO N FORMAT

NAME OF LICENSE, PERMIT OR APPROVAL

INTAKE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS

WITHDRAWAL RATE LIMITATIONS

DISCHARGE WATER TESTING PROCEDURES

MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR RELEASE APPROVALS DISCHARGE WATER QUALITY Water from Hydrostatic Testing of Petroleum Liquid and Natural Gas Pipelines <1000 m3 Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) applies

SPILL REPORTING

or tests with additives)

Alberta Disaster Services (403) 427-2772

Saskatchew Saskatchewan Water an Corporation for withdrawal/use of water

No

Yes

Yes

2-4 weeks

Form

9 4
Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management for water discharge No No N/A 2-5 Weeks Letter

Temporary Approvals to Operate Works under the Saskatchewan water Corporation Act Permit pursuant to Section 17(a) of the Environmental Management and Protection Act (EMPA) Shoreland Alteration Permit

Yes - DFO fish screen guidelines

N/A

1-(800) -667-7525 (in Saskatchewan only) (306) 787-8000 (outside Saskatchewan) Requested for all discharges, level of testing is dependant upon anticipated water quality As required by EMPA Permit with conditions

Regional Fisheries Biologist, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management (if stream bed or bank disturbance is involved) Manitoba Water Resources Branch of Manitoba Department of Natural Resources Yes

No

2-4 weeks

Form or Letter

N/A

No

3 weeks

Letter

Letter of Authorization under the Water Rights Act

Yes - DFO fish screen guidelines and on a site-specific basis by Fisheries Branch of Manitoba Department of Natural Resources No

10% of instantaneous discharge of the source stream

On a sitespecific basis by Manitoba Environment

As determined by Manitoba Environmental Surface Water Quality Objectives

As required under the Environment Act

(204) 944-4888

Ontario

Ministry of Environment and Energy (OMOEE), Regional Director

50,000 l/day or if withdrawal interferes with public or private interest in any water

N/A

N/A

4-6 weeks if new pipe and limited concerns to in excess of 3 months for in-service pipe and complex projects requiring advertising

Form(s)

Permit to Take Water

Up to 10% of available streamflow, if more required, meet with Regional OMOEE representative

May be required by OMOEE

Variable, on a May be required by OMOEE Spills site-specific OMOEE Action Centre basis by OMOEE. 1-(800) -268-6060 Must meet MISA effluent criteria regulations for the petroleum industry

Ministry of Natural Resources (if stream bed or bank disturbance is involved) OMOEE, Approvals Branch (if in-service pipe or if test

N/A

Work Permit

2% of the cost of the

Approval For Industrial Sewage

JURISDICTIO N

ISSUING AGENCY(IES)

WATER VOLUME FEE FOR THRESHOLD APPLICATIO REQUIRING N AN APPROVAL works Yes

FEE FOR WATER

APPROVAL PERIOD

APPLICATIO N FORMAT

NAME OF LICENSE, PERMIT OR APPROVAL Works Approval under the Conservation Authorities Act

INTAKE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS

WITHDRAWAL RATE LIMITATIONS

DISCHARGE WATER TESTING PROCEDURES

MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR RELEASE APPROVALS DISCHARGE WATER QUALITY

SPILL REPORTING

additives are used) Conservation Authority (if stream bank disturbance is involved) Quebec Commission de Protection du Territoire Agricole du Qubec (if on agricultural lands) Municipality (channelized watercourse) Ministre de LEnvironnement et de La Faune (MEF) (natural watercourses on either agricultural land or nonagricultural land) N/A

Yes

No

3 months

Forms

Authorization under Section 62 of the Act To Preserve Agricultural Land Approval from the Municipality Certificate of Authorization

No

No

On a sitespecific basis

Meet the MEF regulations

Authorization under (418) 643-4595 Section 62 of the Act To Preserve Agricultural Land

No No

No No

Variable Variable

Letter Letter

Certificate of Authorization

9 5

NWT

NWT Water Board

100 m3/day

Yes

Yes

4--6 months

Form

Water Use Type A Licence Water Use Type B Licence under the Northwest Territories Waters Act (NWTWA) Water Use Type A Licence Water Use Type B Licence under the Yukon Waters Act

Yes - DFO fish screen guidelines

N/A

On a siteOn a siteAs required by NWT (403) 920-8130 specific basis by specific basis by Waters Act the NWT Water the NWT Water Board Board

Yukon

Yukon Water Board

100 m3/day

Yes

Yes

2-6 months

Form

Yes - DFO fish screen guidelines

N/A

On a siteOn a sitespecific basis by specific basis by the Yukon the Yukon Water Board Water Board

As required by Yukon Waters Act

(403) 667-7244

10.0

OTHER REQUIREMENTS

In addition to provincial and federal approvals, permission and approvals for hydrostatic testing activities may also be required from other agencies and affected parties such as First Nations organizations, landowners and muncipalities.

10.1

Aboriginal Requirements

Permission may be required from the respective band and Treaty organization for hydrostatic testing activities on Indian Reservations or Metis Settlements (also see Section 8.0). Permission may also be required for access to water withdrawal and discharge sites, or if off right-of-way overland piping is required.

10.2

Municipal Requirements

Municipal approval is required to withdraw water from a communitys potable water system or to discharge water into a communitys sewage system. Access to water withdrawal sites in municipal areas may require municipal permission or approval if off right-of-way or over land piping is needed. Road use approval is not required on public roads if hydrostatic test water is trucked. However, if road damage occurs then the municipality will require repair of the damage and/or compensation.

10.3

Private Land Owner, Industrial or Other Requirements

Access to a water withdrawal or release sites, if off right-of-way or over land water piping is needed, will require landowner (including on Public lands, the Crown) approval or approval of other industrial land users (eg. forestry company). Compensation may be required for access off right-of-way. All damages to landowner property and private roads is the responsibility of the company. Release of hydrostatic test water requires landowner approval. If erosion occurs during release, the company may be required to pay compensation and will be required to repair the damages.

10.4

Irrigation Districts or Other Water Authorities

Approval may be required for access to and use of water from Irrigation Districts or other water authorities.

10 - 1 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

11.0

REFERENCES

Alberta Environmental Protection (AEP). 1996. Code of Practice for Discharge of Hydrostatic Test Water from Hydrostatic Testing of Petroleum Liquid and Natural Gas Pipelines. American Water Works Association et al. 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (ref. 19th edition). Betz Laboratories Inc. 1980. Betz Handbook of Industrial Water Conditioning. Calgon Corporation. n.d. Adsorption Handbook. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. n.d. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines. Prepared by the Task Force on Water Quality Guidelines. Carter, M. (ed.) 1993. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Canadian Society of Soil Science. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1993. Guidance Manual on Sampling, Analysis and Data Management for Contaminated Sites - Volume I: Main Report. Report CCME EPC-NCS62E, Winnipeg, Statutory Publications, 200 Vaughan St., Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1T5. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1993. Guidance Manual on Sampling, Analysis and Data Management for Contaminated Sites - Volume II: Analytical Method Summaries. Report CCME EPC NCS663, Winnipeg, Statutory Publications, 200 Vaughan St., Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1T5. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1991. Interim Canadian Environmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites. Report CCME EPC-CS34, Winnipeg Statutory Publications, 200 Vaughan St., Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1T5. Franson, M.A.H. (ed.). 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 19th edition. American Public Health Association, Water Works Association, Water Environment Association. Gas Research Institute. 1992. Regulating, Characterization and Treatment of Discharge Waters for Hydrostatic Testing of Natural Gas Pipelines. Volumes I-V. GRI-91/0126.1. Chicago, IL. Gas Research Institute. 1995. General Demographics Survey for Hydrostatic Test Water Discharges from Natural Gas Pipelines. GRI-95/0366. Chicago, IL. Gas Research Institute. 1996. Environmental Aspects of Hydrostatic Test Water Discharges: Operations, Characterization, Treatment and Disposal. April, 1996. Hamilton, Gordon M. Sr. 1994. Environmental Concerns Drive Project Planning and Design. Pipeline and Gas Journal. Jan., 1994. Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc. 1991. Environmental manual for pipeline construction. Edmonton, Alberta Metcalf and Eddy Inc. 3rd ed. 1991. Wastewater Engineering Treatment, Release and Reuse. McGraw Hill.
10 - 1 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

McKeague, J.A. (ed.). 1991. Manual on Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, 2nd edition. Canadian Society of Soil Science. National Energy Board. 1996. Hydrostatic Test Water Analysis. (unpublished) Patton, C.C. 1986. Applied Water Technology. Campbell Petroleum Series. Oklahoma: Norman. Stelpipe. 1991. Steel line pipe. 4th Edition. U.S. EPA. 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA 600/4-79-020. Revised March 1983. U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio. U.S. EPA. 1990. EPA Technology Evaluation Report, Site Demonstration of the Ultrox International Ultraviolet Radiation/Oxidation Technology. EPA 154015-891012. Cincinnati, Ohio. U.S.EPA. 1991. Site Characterization for Subsurface Remediation, Seminar Publication. EPA/625/4-91/026, U.S.EPA Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268.

10 - 2 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

APPENDIX A
WATER HANDLING FLOW DIAGRAMS

11 - 1

APPENDIX B
HYDROCARBON SPECTRUM DIAGRAM

11 - 1

APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD

11 - 1

APPENDIX D
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY SUMMARIES

Gravity Separation Aeration Coalescence Floatation Filtration Granular Absorbent Media Filtration Granular Activated Carbon Advanced Oxidation Processes Air Stripping Chemical Precipitation

11 - 1

Treatment Technology: Primary Contaminants Removed: Secondary Contaminants Removed:

Gravity Separation Free oil and suspended solids Emulsified oil if demulsifiers added

Process Description Gravity separation can occur in ponds or tanks. However, gravity separation units are typically constant level, atmospheric tanks that separate free oil and suspended solids based on density differences. Free oil, which is lighter than water floats to the top of the tank and is skimmed off. Suspended solids, which are heavier than water sink to the bottom of the tank. The removal of oil may be enhanced by the addition of demulsifiers to break oil-inwater emulsions and enhance droplet coalescence. Gravity separation units may be as simple as modified storage tanks to purpose-built vessels with specially designed inlets and outlets to provide uniform flow distribution. Examples of gravity separation units include skim tanks and API separators. A schematic diagram of a skim tank is shown in Figure D.1. Coagulants or flocculants may be added to enhance the removal of oil and suspended solids. Design Criteria The surface area of the separation unit should be sized to provide sufficient residence time to achieve the required phase separation. Units are normally sized to remove 150 micron oil droplets. Residence times of 30-60 minutes are typical. The "API Manual on Release of Refinery Wastes" discusses design criteria in detail. Performance Review and Experience Gravity separation is widely used throughout the oil industry for primary phase separation of oil and suspended solids from produced waters. Gross free oil greater that 150 microns and suspended solids are removed. Generally, emulsified oil, dissolved oil and finely dispersed solids are not removed. However, some finer oil droplets and emulsified may be removed if demulsifiers are added to enhance coalescence. Pipeline companies have successfully used gravity separation in ponds and tanks to treat hydrostatic discharge water for oil and suspended solids removal. Advantages Gravity separators are widely used and proven technology. The units are mechanically reliable and require minimal servicing. They are also inexpensive. Gravity separators are amenable to portable applications provided the tankage required does not exceed the maximum allowable for transporting. Disadvantages Gravity separators require a relatively large amount of space. The skimmed oil phase and the suspended solids require proper release.

11 - 2

FIGURE D.1

SKIM TANK FOR OIL AND WATER SEPARATION

11 - 3

Treatment Technology: Primary Contaminants Removed: Secondary Contaminants Removed:

Aeration Volatile organics Some metals (iron oxidation)

Process Description Aeration involves the introduction of air into the discharge water. This can be achieved by storing discharge water in a pond or tank open to the atmosphere. In this case, aeration could be enhanced with the addition of a mechanical aerator. Aeration may also be achieved in a pond or tank by sparging; diffused air is introduced with an air pump. Alternatively, spray aeration may be used as part of a release strategy (e.g. spray irrigation). The water is discharged through an aeration bar, which is a pipe containing numerous small holes that sprays the water into the air. Design Criteria The above aeration systems have limited design criteria. The design of spray irrigation systems are typically driven by water distribution and loading requirements or limitations. Sparging is typically conducted until such time that the organics content is reduced to acceptable levels. This requires ongoing monitoring and analyses. The extent of organics removal from water in a pond exposed to the atmosphere will depend on many factors such as the time of exposure, weather conditions (temperature and wind), and degree of mixing. For enhanced aeration, mechanical aerators are sized based on the power rating. Performance Review and Experience All three forms of aeration mentioned above have been used by pipeline companies to treat discharge water from in-service pipelines for the removal of BTEX compounds. Some inorganics and metals may also be removed such as free chlorine and iron. Non-volatile organics are not removed using aeration. Advantages Aeration is relatively simple and inexpensive means of reducing the concentration of volatile organics in discharge waters. Aeration can readily be carried out at the dewatering location. Disadvantages Non-volatile compounds are not removed. Aeration releases volatile compounds to the atmosphere, which may cause environmental or odour concerns. Natural aeration in a pond or other contained area may require a long period of time for volatile organics to be removed.

11 - 4

Treatment Technology: Primary Contaminants Removed: Secondary Contaminants Removed:

Coalescence Finely dispersed oil, some emulsified oil Suspended solids

Process Description Coalescers are used to enhance gravity separation processes. Coalescers provide solid surfaces which can be contacted and wetted by oil droplets. The droplets accumulate and create a thick film, which is sheared off by other forces such as gravity or fluid flow. The larger oil droplets separate from the water more effectively than smaller droplets. Coalescing surfaces may be plates or filter media. Parallel plate and corrugated plate coalescers are commonly available devices. A schematic diagram of a corrugated plate separator is shown in Figure D.2. The corrugated plates are on an incline inside a tank, providing a large coalescing surface area. Suspended solids settle to the bottom of the tank. A loose media coalescer is a vessel containing a bed of filter media, which provides a coalescing surface and also removes suspended solids. A schematic diagram of a coalescing filter is shown in Figure D.3. The agglomerated oil droplets rise to the top of the vessel and are collected. Backwashing may be required to remove accumulated oil and solids from the media. Design Criteria Parallel plate and corrugated plate coalescers are sized based on required residence time to achieve effective coalescence and gravity separation. Loose media coalescers are sized based on hydraulic loading. Typical hydraulic loading rates are 350 to 900 m3/m2-d. Backwash water rates are typically 475 to 1300 m3/m2-d. An air scour may also be used. Performance Review and Experience The use of coalescers, particularly corrugated plate separators is fairly common in the oil industry. Oil removal efficiencies can be improved depending upon the nature of the oily phase. Emulsified oil is not effectively removed without the addition of demulsifiers upstream of the coalescer. Pipeline operators have used corrugated plate separators for oil removal from hydrostatic test waters from in-service liquid petroleum pipelines. Advantages Coalescers improve gravity separation efficiency by removing finer oil droplets. They also reduce the equipment size for gravity separation and/or increase the allowable throughput. Coalescers are also relatively inexpensive and they are amenable portable applications. Disadvantages More routine maintenance is required that with a conventional gravity separation unit to keep the coalescing media clean and free of oily solids buildup.

11 - 5

FIGURE D.2

CORRUGATED PLATE SEPARATOR

11 - 6

FIGURE D.3

COALESCING FILTER

11 - 7

Treatment Technology: Primary Contaminants Removed: Secondary Contaminants Removed:

Flotation Finely dispersed oil, some emulsified oil Oily suspended solids

Process Description Induced air flotation (IAF) or dissolved air flotation (DAF) can be used to enhance gravity separation. Small air bubbles are introduced into the water, which contact and adhere to fine oil droplets and oily particles. This results in an apparent reduction in specific gravity causing the air/oil droplets to rise to the water surface to form a dense froth. The froth is removed by skimming. In IAF units, air is introduced either by an impeller or with a combination of centrifugal pump and eductor. In DAF units, pressurized air is introduced in the water and air bubbles are released upon depressurization. A schematic diagram of a DAF unit as shown in Figure D.4. Design Criteria IAF units are sized to provide minimum retention time for effective separation. Manufacturers typically base their design on a 1 minute residence time in each cell. Longer residence times may be required for heavier oils (less density difference). The froth from an IAF unit comprises approximately 5 percent of the feed volume and it contains between 2 and 5 percent oil. Performance Review and Experience Flotation units are widely used in the oil industry for fine oil and suspended solids removal from produced water. They normally follow gross oil removal in a gravity separator (skim tank). Oil removal efficiencies of 90 percent are typical. This includes finely dispersed oil droplets. Emulsified oil may be removed if a demulsifier is added upstream. Flotation units do not remove dissolved oil. Flotation units have been used by pipeline operators to treat hydrostatic test waters. Advantages Flotation is a proven technology with predictable performance. Mechanical reliability is high. Flotation units may be amenable to portable applications, provided the tankage required does not exceed the maximum allowable for transporting. Disadvantages Flotation units are susceptible to upsets by free oil slugs, which deteriorates the effluent quality. The oily froth also requires release.

11 - 8

FIGURE D.4

DISSOLVED AIR FLOATATION UNIT

11 - 9

Treatment Technology:

Filtration (hay bales, cartridge and bag filters and media filters) Suspended solids and oil droplets None

Primary Contaminants Removed: Secondary Contaminants Removed:

Process Description Filtration processes that are used by pipeline companies to remove fine suspended solids and oil droplets from hydrostatic test waters are hay bale structures, cartridge or bag filters and media filters. A schematic diagram of a hay bale structure is provided in Figure D.5. It consists of hay bales with an adsorbent boom for free oil removal. Hay bale structures are normally used as stand alone treatment processes or with an aeration bar. Following treatment, the hay bales are disposed of. Depending on the nature of the discharge water, cartridge and bag filters may be used as a stand alone process; more typically they are used downstream of a gravity separation process for the removal of finer oil and suspended solids and upstream of dissolved organics removal treatment processes (e.g. activated carbon adsorption), which are sensitive to overloading by free oil and solids. Cartridge and bag filters typically have a polypropylene filter media that collects and traps suspended solids and oil droplets. Cartridge and bag filters are disposable. Media filters contain a fixed bed of granular material (such as sand, anthracite, garnet, or nutshells) that traps suspended solids and oil as water passes through it. Media filters can be operated in an upflow or downflow mode and have a single or mixed media. Periodic backwashing with treated water is required to remove trapped oil and suspended solids. Simultaneous gas and water scouring is commonly used. Design Criteria A relatively standard design is used for the construction of a hay bale structures as shown in Figure D.3. The number of hay bale structures required for treatment will vary depending on the volume of discharge water and concentration of contaminants (TSS and oil). Based on information reported by the Gas Research Industry, one hay bale structure may treat between 10,000 US gallons and 300,000 US gallons. The key parameter affecting the life of a hay bale structure is the free oil content of the discharge water. Media filters are sized based on hydraulic loading rate, which varies depending upon the type of filter. Hydraulic rates range from 175-350 m3/m2-d for conventional downflow filters to 600-900 m3/m2-d for high-rate downflow filters. Backwash rates of 700-900 m3/m2-d are common. Performance Review and Experience Hay bale structures are used to treat relatively uncontaminated discharge water from new and in-service gas pipelines. They have successfully removed free oil from discharge waters and larger suspended solids. Finer solids and dissolved organics are not removed. Cartridge and bag filters have been used to remove solids and oil droplets from discharge waters from in-service liquid petroleum pipelines. Backwashing is not required as the filters are disposable. However, this results in waste generation. Media filtration has been used to remove solids from discharge waters from in-service liquid petroleum pipelines (downstream of oil removal processes). Dissolved organics are not removed. Free or emulsified oil can be problematic and cause fouling of the filter media, requiring more frequent backwashing. Advantages

11 - 10

Filtration is widely used and a proven technology. The equipment is reliable, easy to operate and amenable to portable applications. Disadvantages Media filters are susceptible to plugging if overloaded with oil and solids. Frequent backwashing may be required in this case. The backwash water also requires release. Release of filter media is required with hay bales, cartridge and bag filters.

11 - 11

FIGURE D.5

HAY BALE FIELD TREATMENT UNIT

11 - 12

Treatment Technology: Primary Contaminants Removed: Secondary Contaminants Removed:

Granular Absorbent Media Filtration (GAMF) Emulsified oil, finely dispersed oil Small amount of dissolved oil

Process Description Granular absorbent media filtration uses a granular absorbent in a filter column. The media is comprised of approximately 30 percent active absorbent ingredient (metallo-activated clay) and 70 percent anthracite material. The media selectively absorbs insoluble materials, such as free and emulsified hydrocarbons. The affinity of the media increases with increasing molecular weight and hydrophobicity of the absorbed material. The media may remove some dissolved organics, but free and emulsified oils are preferentially removed. The manufacturer claims an oil absorptive capacity of twice the mass of the active media or 60 percent by weight. Once the media has reached its maximum absorptive capacity it must be disposed of and replaced. Routine backwashing is required to remove solids buildup. Design Criteria GAMF filters operate at a hydraulic loading rate of about 175-295 m3/m2-d (3-5 gpm/ft2) and a contact time of about 15 minutes. This provides sufficient time for oil droplet adherence. A backwash rate of 825 m3/m2-d is recommended by the manufacturer. Bed life depends on the amount of insoluble hydrocarbons removed and can be estimated based on the influent concentration, flowrate and media mass. Performance Review and Experience GAMF filtration is commonly used in wastewater treatment to prevent oil emulsions, droplets and films from carrying over to downstream polishing treatment processes. Both free and emulsified oils can be removed, however the filters should not be used for gross free oil removal as the bed life will be greatly diminished. An absorption filter can effectively remove all emulsified oil droplets leaving near-equilibrium concentrations of dissolved organics in water. GAMF has been used by pipeline operators to treat discharge water from in-service liquid petroleum pipelines. Advantages GAMF filters are proven technology and readily available. They remove finely dispersed and emulsified oil droplets that could otherwise be problematic in downstream treatment processes. They are relatively compact and applicable to start/stop operations. They are amenable to portable applications. Disadvantages Release of the spent absorbent media is required.

11 - 13

Treatment Technology: Primary Contaminants Removed: Secondary Contaminants Removed:

Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Dissolved hydrocarbons None

Process Description Granular activated carbon (GAC) is an adsorbent material that removes a wide range of organics. However, it is best suited to hydrophobic, non-polar compounds in the mid-molecular range (4 to 20 Carbon atoms). Activated carbon adsorption is normally carried out in packed bed reactors or columns in series, as shown in the schematic diagram in Figure D.6. Water is fed from the top of the column and as it moves down the bed, organics are selectively adsorbed by the carbon. The bed eventually becomes saturated and organics "breakthrough" the bottom of the bed. At this time the carbon must be replaced. Reactivation of spent carbon is possible. Periodic backwashing may be required if there is a build up of solids in the bed. Design Criteria Hydraulic loading rates may vary depending on the objectives of treatment (e.g. types of contaminants and extent of treatment). Typical hydraulic loading rates for wastewater treatment range form 175 to 475 m3/m2-d (3 to 8 gpm/ft2). The bed height to diameter ratio should be greater that 2:1 and as the ratio increases, performance increases. Backwash rates of 590 to 885 m3/m2-d (10 to 15 gpm/ft2) are typical. Another important design criteria is the empty bed contact time (EBCT). Typical EBCTs for the removal of dissolved organics from wastewater are 15 to 30 minutes. Performance Review and Experience GAC adsorption is a widely used treatment technology for the removal of low level dissolved organics from water. The technology is proven both technically and operationally. While GAC is not applicable to all organics, it can be used to remove BTEX, PAH's and phenol. It will not successfully remove glycol or methanol because of their high water solubility. Free and emulsified oil should be removed prior to GAC adsorption to avoid bed fouling. GAC has been used by pipeline operators to treat discharge waters from in-service liquid petroleum pipelines. Advantages The main advantages of GAC adsorption include: low effluent organic concentrations achievable, proven technology, easy to operate and low space requirements. GAC adsorption is applicable to start/stop operations. The equipment is amenable to portable applications. Disadvantages Organic contaminants are not destroyed but transferred to another media, that requires subsequent treatment (e.g. reactivation) or release. Operating costs may be high if breakthrough occurs too quickly.

11 - 14

FIGURE D.6

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF GAC ADSORPTION COLUMNS IN SERIES

11 - 15

Treatment Technology: Primary Contaminants Removed: Secondary Contaminants Removed: Process Description

Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOP) Dissolved organics Some metals and inorganics

Advanced oxidation processes (AOP) include a family of chemical oxidation processes, that destroy organic compounds. Production of the hydroxyl radical (OHo) as an intermediate is common to all of them. OHo is a powerful oxidizing agent that reacts rapidly with organic compounds, oxidizing them to CO2 and H2O. The hydroxyl radical can be generated by: photolysis of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), photolysis of ozone (O3) and reaction between ozone and hydrogen peroxide. Photolysis reactions are carried out in the presence of ultraviolet (UV) radiation and are the most common commercially available process. They are referred to as UV/ozone, UV/peroxide and UV/ozone/peroxide processes. A schematic diagram of a UV/peroxide system is shown in Figure D.7. Design Criteria AOP's are still somewhat of a blackbox technology and vendors supply package systems. Operational variables, such as number and intensity of UV lamps, ozone and peroxide doses and retention time depend on the wastewater characteristics. Manufacturers claim typical retention times of 1 to 5 minutes. Pilot testing is normally required to determine the correct operating parameters. Performance Review and Experience Although AOP's have been widely used for water supply applications, they have only recently been used for organics destruction in industrial wastewaters. The performance of an AOP system depends on the characteristics of the feed water and the design and operation of the system. AOP's have demonstrated effectiveness at destroying phenols, PAH's and BTEX. Vendors claim high reductions of these contaminants. Natural water compounds such as carbonate, bicarbonate, nitrite and ammonium ions and other inorganics in the reduced state (Fe2+, Cr3+) also oxidize, becoming hydroxyl radical scavengers. This reduces the availability of hydroxyl radicals for organic oxidation. Pretreatment to remove natural water compounds and free and emulsified oil may be required. AOP's may oxidize and precipitate metals, such as Mn and Fe as metal oxides. Glycols, amines and methanol will also be oxidized. UV/peroxidation is being considered for the treatment of discharge water from an in-service liquid petroleum pipeline. Advantages AOP's completely destroy organics rather than transferring them to another media. They also have reduced waste generation and low space requirements. They can be cost competitive with alternative technologies (e.g. GAC adsorption). AOP may be amenable to portable applications. They also have instant on-off and turndown capabilities. Disadvantages AOP's are susceptible to influent fluctuations and they may have fairly stringent pretreatment requirements. Equipment reliability has been a problem with some systems. Equipment operation may be operator intensive. As well, there may be special handling requirements for the oxidant, which may be toxic or hazardous.

11 - 16

FIGURE D.7

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AOP SYSTEM

11 - 17

Treatment Technology: Primary Contaminants Removed: Secondary Contaminants Removed: Process Description

Air stripping Volatile and semi-volatile organics Some inorganics

Air stripping operations involve passing air through a liquid with sufficient contact that the volatile components are transferred from the liquid to the gas phase. The driving force is the concentration differential between the liquid and gas phases. A schematic diagram of an air stripping operation is shown in Figure D.8. Air enters at the bottom of the tower and water near the top. The air leaving the top contains volatile components that are either released or collected for further treatment. Design Criteria The design of a stripping process depends on the water feed rate and the volatile components present in the water. Contact between the liquid and gas phases should be maximized. Process control variables include: temperature, gas phase flowrate and liquid phase flowrate. Packing media or plates may be included in the column design to improve liquid-gas contact. Performance Review and Experience Stripping is widely used for the removal of volatile organics from wastewater. There are no known applications for the treatment of hydrostatic test waters. However, the process has been used for removal of volatile compounds such as BTEX. The extent of removal of a compound depends on the tendency of the compound to establish an equilibrium between the gas and liquid phases (Henry's Law Constant) and the contact opportunity between phases. Non-volatile organics (such as phenol) are not removed. Advantages Stripping effectively removes volatile and semi-volatile compounds. It is also proven technology. Air strippers are amenable to portable applications. Disadvantages Non-volatile compounds are not removed. Air stripping releases volatile compounds to the atmosphere, unless offgas treatment is provided. Air emissions may cause environmental or odour concerns. Air stripping does not remove phenol.

11 - 18

FIGURE D.8

SCHEMATIC OF A STEAM STRIPPING PROCESS

11 - 19

Treatment Technology: Primary Contaminants Removed: Secondary Contaminants Removed: Process Description

Chemical precipitation Trace metals Some suspended solids

Chemicals can be added to wastewaters to precipitate metals from solution. The most common method is by raising the pH and precipitating metals as hydroxides. Either lime or caustic is added to the wastewater to raise the pH until it reaches the metal's minimum solubility. At that point, small precipitates of metal hydroxide form. The solubilities of different metals varies as a function of pH and waters containing several metals with different solubilities may be difficult to treat. Once the metal hydroxides have precipitated, they are coagulated or flocculated and settled in a clarifier or removed by filtration. The sludge is dewatered and disposed of. The effluent pH is neutralized by acid addition. Metals can also be precipitated as sulphides, with the advantage of a wider range of minimum solubilities. However, sulphide sludge is more difficult to dewater and the sludge may be toxic. Design Criteria Chemical dose is dependent on the characteristics of the influent (metal concentrations and pH) and flowrate. L ime or caustic can be added to elevate the pH to 9-10, which is sufficient to remove Fe, Mn and Zn. Clarifiers are designed based on overflow rate, providing sufficient residence time for phase separation. A typical overflow rate is 30 to 118 m3/m2-d. Performance Review and Experience Chemical precipitation is an effective means of removing metals from wastewater. Fe, Mn and Zn can be removed by this method, as well as other heavy metals. A pipeline operator in Ontario uses chemical precipitation for the removal of metals from hydrostatic test waters from in-service liquid petroleum product lines; iron levels are reduced to below 1 mg/L. Some suspended solids may also be removed. Advantages Chemical precipitation for metals removal is widely used and proven technology. It may be amenable to portable applications, provided the tankage required does not exceed the maximum allowed for transporting. Disadvantages Chemical additives are required and sludge release is necessary. The equipment has relatively large space requirements. Depending on the water chemistry, large volumes of sludge may be generated. The process is not specific to any metals; therefore calcium and magnesium may be precipitated.

11 - 20

APPENDIX E
SPILL CONTINGENCY PLAN 1.0 Purpose This plan has not been prepared to replace the Spill Contingency Plans or Emergency Response Plans of operating companies. This plans purpose is to ensure that measures are available to deal with an accidental release of poor quality (e.g. saline, sodic or hydrocarbon contaminated) test water as well as additive or fuel/lubricant spills in the absence of formal company plans. 2.0 Initial Response 1. In the event of a spill of environmentally or otherwise hazardous material, the first person on the scene will follow the actions presented in the Spill Scene Checklist. When notified of a spill, the Chief / Environmental Inspector will immediately ensure that: (a) action is taken to control danger to human life including the appointment of an On-site Safety Supervisor; the company's Spill Contingency Plan / Emergency Response Plan and, if required, Oil Spill Cooperative Contingency Plan is implemented such that necessary equipment is mobilized and measures are being implemented to control and contain the spill. The Contractor will be required to make all resources available to contain and clean-up a spill; and the Project Engineer, provincial environmental government agency, company's Spill Coordinator / Environmental Staff, local Oil Spill Co-operative, the provincial or federal pipeline authority and police service are notified of the spill and the initial response is being undertaken.

2.

(b)

(c)

3.0 General Spill Containment Procedures The successful containment of a spill on land or water depends on a variety of factors including: ground cover and topography, hydrogeology, solubility of the material, viscosity of the liquid, water currents, soil permeability and climatic conditions. The procedures to be followed will be consistent with those described in company's Spill Contingency Plan or the local Oil Spill Cooperative Contingency Plan. The following general guidelines will be followed for containment of most hazardous materials. 1. 2. Identify the product, stop source and physically contain spill as soon as practical. Unless it is necessary to control a fire or prevent an explosion, water or fire extinguishing chemicals will not be used on nonpetroleum product spills as many chemicals react violently with water and chemical extinguishing agents may release toxic fumes. In addition, chemicals may be soluble in water and dispersal makes containment and clean-up more difficult. Minimize traffic on contaminated soils. If on land natural depressions or berms constructed with materials and equipment in proximity to the site will be used to physically contain the spill. Deployment of booms will be necessary
11 - 1

3. 4.

APPENDIX E Contd on water. 5. Clean-up will not be attempted without competent advice from the company's Environmental Staff or Spill Staff.

General clean-up guidelines for specific accidents are outlined below. However, the first person on the scene will follow the actions listed in the Spill Scene Checklist. 4.0 Transportation by truck 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Contain spilled product with berms and by blocking culverts.. Pump tanker dry (into appropriate containers or another tanker). Remove tanker from site. Pick up spilled product. Clean-up contaminated area. Dispose of sorbent pads, heavily contaminated soil and vegetation at an approved facility. On lightly contaminated soil areas where remediation is feasible, add amendments, repeat as required, sample soil and seed as appropriate. Repeat as required.

5.0 Spills Adjacent to or into a Body of Water 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Construct berm and/or trenches to contain spilled product prior to entry in to a body of water. Deploy booms, skimmers, sorbents, etc., if feasible, to contain and recover spilled material. Pick up spilled product. Clean-up contaminated area including downstream shorelines. Dispose of heavily contaminated soil and vegetation at an approved facility. On lightly contaminated soil areas where restoration is feasible, fertilize and then cultivate beyond depth of contamination. Repeat as required.

6.0 Spot Spills Since impacts from small spot spills can generally be minimized if appropriate actions are implemented, all small spills of fuels or noxious materials must be reported immediately to the Chief / Environmental Inspector. 1. Suspend construction activity in the immediate vicinity of the spot spill until permission to resume activity has been granted by the Chief / Environmental Inspector. The Chief / Environmental Inspector, in consultation with the company's Environmental Staff or applicable government agencies, will determine appropriate methods to remove and restore contaminated soils. Soil and vegetation heavily contaminated with petroleum products will be incinerated or disposed of at an approved facility. Locations where spot spills occur are to be flagged or otherwise marked to ensure that post

2.

3.

11 - 2

APPENDIX E Contd construction monitoring of the site can be undertaken. 4. Lightly contaminated soil areas where restoration is feasible will be fertilized and then cultivated to a depth below the depth of contamination, then repeated as required.

11 - 3

APPENDIX E Contd SPILL SCENE CHECKLIST Note: The following activities should be taken by the person first on the scene of a spill or release of environmental or otherwise hazardous material.

(a)

If possible without further assistance, control danger to human life and identify the composition (see Spill Report Form - next page) of the spilled material. If possible, cut off the source of the spill. While efforts are immediately begun to contain the spill, immediately notify the Chief Inspector and Environmental Inspector. If the Chief Inspector cannot be immediately contacted, notify the company's Environmental Staff or District Superintendent. These people will, in turn, contact the local police, provincial environmental government agency, provincial or federal pipeline authority, and, if required, the local Oil Spill Co-op. Once the source has been cut off, attempt to contain the spilled area. Before any reports are filed, take notice of dangers to the environment (e.g. proximity of watercourses) and clean-up actions that might be necessary. If any of the above are beyond the capabilities at hand, do not hesitate to ask for qualified assistance.

_______

(b)

_______

(c) (d)

_______ _______

(e)

_______

11 - 4

APPENDIX E Contd

SPILL REPORT FORM Type of Material Spilled: - Hydrocarbon contaminated test water - Test water additive - Saline/sodic test water - Gasoline - Diesel - Lube Oil - Hydraulic Fluid Time of Spill or Discovery: Source of Spill: Area of Spill (m2): Volume of Spill (l or m3): Location (land, water, land and water): Soil Type (e.g. sandy, clay, etc.): Legal Location: LSD _____ Sec _____ Twp _____ Land Use: Environmentally Sensitive Areas Potentially Affected: Rg _____ W_____M; KP

Weather Conditions at time of Discovery:

11 - 5

APPENDIX F
TESTING RELATED CONVERSIONS MULTIPLY B Y 4 3 5 6 0 1 2 3 3 _ 4 8 3 5 4 2 0 _ 1 1 9 3 0 _ 0 2 8 3 6 _ 2 2 9 7 _ 4 8 1 TO OBTAIN

Acre feet

Cubic feet

Acre feet

Cubic metres

Barrel Barrel Barrel

Imperial gallons U.S. gallons Cubic metre

Cubic foot

Cubic metres

Cubic foot

Imperial gallons

Cubic foot

U.S. gallons

11 - 1

Cubic metre

2 6 4 _ 1 7 3 5 _ 3 1 4 4 2 2 0 _ 1 6 _ 2 8 9 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 _ 6 1 0 0 0 0 _ 0 2 8 3 2

U.S. gallons

Cubic metre

Cubic feet

Cubic metre

Imperial gallons

Cubic metre

Barrels

Cubic metre

Litres

Cubic metre

Pounds of water

Cubic metre

Kilograms of water

Cubic foot/sec

Cubic metres/sec

11 - 2

Foot

0 _ 3 0 4 8 2 _ 2 0 4 6 3 _ 2 8 0 8 1 _ 6 0 9 0 _ 4 5 3 5 9 6 _ 8 9 5

Metres

Kilogram

Pounds

Metre

Feet

Mile

Kilometre

Pound

Kilogram

Pounds per square inch

Kilopascals

[Note: Test water volumes by pipe sizes are provided in Table 2.1 of Section 2]

11 - 3

APPENDIX G
ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DISCHARGE OF HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER FROM HYDROSTATIC TESTING OF PETROLEUM LIQUID AND NATURAL GAS PIPELINES

11 - 1

APPENDIX H
SUMMARY FOR HYDROSTATIC TESTING CONTACTS
ADDRESS FEDERAL National Energy Board 311 - 6th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3H2 Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Quebec Region 320, rue St. Joseph est Case postale 51127 Comptoir postal G. Roy Qubec, Qubec G1K BZ7 Ontario Region 5th Floor 25 St. Clair Avenue East Toronto, Ontario M4T 1M2 Manitoba Region 275 Portage Avenue Room 1100 Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 3A3 Saskatchewan Region 2221 Cornwall Street Regina, Saskatchewan S4P 4M2 Alberta Region 630 Canada Place 9700 Jasper Avenue Edmonton, Alberta T5J 4G2 B.C. Region 300, 1550 Albernie Street Vancouver, British Columbia V6G 3C5 Yukon Region Northern and Indian Affairs Room 345, 300 Main Street Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 2B5 N.W.T. Region P.O. Box 1500 Yellowknife, NWT X1A 2R3 Indian Oil and Gas (418) 648-3270 (403) 292-4800 PHONE NUMBER

(416) 973-6201

(204) 983-2475

(306) 780-5950

(403) 495-2835

(604) 666-5201

(403) 667-3300

(403) 920-8111

11 - 1

ADDRESS Indian Oil and Gas Canada Office 100 9911 Chula Boulevard Tsuu Tina (Sarcee), Alberta T2W 6H6 Fisheries and Oceans Canada Qubec Region Fish Habitat Management P.O. Box 15550 Qubec, Qubec G1K 7Y7 Central and Arctic Region Habitat Management 501 University Crescent Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N6 Pacific Region Habitat Management 555 W. Hastings Street Vancouver, British Columbia V6B 5G3 Navigable Waters Regional Superintendent, Central Region Navigable Waters Protection 201 Front Street North, Suite 703 Sarnia, Ontario N7T 8B1 Regional Superintendent, Western Region Navigable Waters Protection Suite 620, 800 Burrard Street Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z 2J8 Regional Superintendent, Maritimes Region Navigable Waters Protection Canadian Coast Guard P.O. Box 1000 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 3Z8 Regional Superintendent, Newfoundland Region Navigable Waters Protection P.O. Box 1300 St. Johns, Newfoundland A1C 6H8 Regional Chief, Laurentian Region Navigable Waters Protection Canadian Coast Guard 101 Champlain Boul., 3rd Floor Quebec, Quebec G1K 4H9 PROVINCIAL

PHONE NUMBER (403) 292-5625

(418) 648-4092

(204) 983-5181

(604) 666-6566

(519) 383-1865 (519) 383-1989 (fax)

(604) 631-3730 (604) 631-3747 (fax)

(902) 426-2726 (903) 426-6501

(709) 772-2284 (709) 772-2193

(418) 648-4549 (418) 648-7640

11 - 2

ADDRESS British Columbia Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks

PHONE NUMBER

Water Manage ment Peace Regional Sub Office Room 200 10003 - 110th Avenue Fort St. John, British Columbia Vancouver Island Regional Headquarters 2569 Kenworth Road Nanaimo, British Columbia V9T 4P7 Lower Mainland Regional Headquarters 10334 - 152A Street Surrey, British Columbia V3R 7P8 Southern Interior Regional Headquarters 1259 Dalhousie Drive Kamloops, British Columbia V2C 5Z5 Kootenay Regional Headquarters 617 Vernon Street Nelson, British Columbia V1L 4E9 Skeena Regional Headquarters Bag 5000, 3726 Alfred Avenue Smithers, British Columbia V0J 2N0 Northern Regional Headquarters 1011 - 4th Avenue Prince George, British Columbia V2L 3H9 (604) 7873268 (604) 7513100

Environme ntal Protection (604) 7873283

(604) 7513100

(604) 5825200 (604) 3716200

(604) 5825200

(604) 3716227

(604) 3546372 (604) 8477260 Water Manage ment (604) 5656160

(604) 3546355 (604) 8477260

Environme ntal Protection (604) 5656155

Alberta Alberta Environmental Protection - Natural Resources Service - Water Management1 Regional Administrator - Northwest Boreal Provincial Building 9621 - 96A Avenue Peace River, Alberta T0H 2X0 Regional Administrator - Northern East* Slopes, North East Boreal Regions and Northern Parkland
1

(403) 624-6167 (403) 624-6335 (fax)

(403) 427-5296 (403) 422-0528 (fax)

See attached maps

11 - 3

ADDRESS Region 15th Floor Standard Life Centre 10405 Jasper Avenue Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3N4 * Regional offices are under review and scheduled to be changed by December 1. Regional Administrator - Southern Parkland Region Provincial Building 4920 - 51 Street Red Deer, Alberta T4N 6K8 Regional Administrator - Prairie Region (North) Deerfoot Square 3rd Floor 2938 - 11th Street N.E. Calgary, Alberta T2E 7L7 Regional Administrator - Prairie Region (South) Provincial Building 200 - 5th Avenue South Lethbridbge, Alberta T1J 4C7

PHONE NUMBER

(403) 340-5310 (403) 340-5022 (fax)

(403) 297-6582 (403) 297-2749 (fax)

(403) 381-5399 (403) 381-5337 (fax)

Alberta Environmental Protection - Environmental Regulatory Service Northeast Boreal and Parkland Regions Regional Director 5th Floor, Oxbridge Place 9820 - 106 Street Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2J6 Northwest Boreal and Northern East Slopes Regions Regional Director 203, 111 - 54 Street Edson, Alberta T7E 1T2 Southern East Slopes and Prairie Regions Regional Director 201 Deerfoot Square 2938 - 11 Street N.E. Calgary, Alberta T2E 7L7 Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Water Corporation1 Head Office Victoria Place 111 Fairford Street East Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan S6H (306) 694-3900 (403) 427-5838 (403) 422-5120 (fax)

(403) 723-8395 (403) 723-3879 (fax)

(403) 297-7605 (403) 297-5944 (fax)

See attached maps

11 - 4

ADDRESS 7X9 Southeast Region Weyburn Square 110 Souris Avenue Weyburn, Saskatchewan S4H 2Z9 Southwest Region 350 Cheadle Street West Swift Current, Saskatchewan S9H 4G3 East Central Region Yorkton Broadcast Centre 120 Smith Street East Yorkton, Saskatchewan S3N 3V3 Northeast Region P.O. Box 2133 201 - 1st Avenue East Nipawin, Saskatchewan S0E 1E0 Northwest Region 402 Royal Bank Tower 1101 - 101st Street North Battleford, Saskatchewan S9A 0Z5

PHONE NUMBER

(306) 848-2345

(306) 778-8257

(306) 786-1490

(306) 862-1750

(306) 446-7450

Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management1 Regional Fisheries Biologist La Ronge Region Box 5000 La Ronge, Saskatchewan S0J 1L0 Regional Fisheries Biologist Meadow Lake Region Unit #1, 201 - 2nd Street West Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan S0M 1V0 Regional Fisheries Biologist Melville Region 117 - 3rd Avenue Melville, Saskatchewan S0A 2P0 Regional Fisheries Biologist Prince Albert Region Box 3003 Prince Albert, Saskatchewan S6V 6G1 Regional Fisheries Biologist Saskatoon Region 112 Research Drive Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 2H6 Regional Fisheries Biologist Swift Current Region 350 Cheadle Street West Swift Current, Saskatchewan S9H 4G3 (306) 425-4576 (306) 425-4250 (306) 425-4575 (306) 236-7556 (306) 236-7555

(306) 728-7491

(306) 953-2875 (306) 953-2889

(306) 933-7943

(306) 778-8210

11 - 5

ADDRESS Manitoba Water Resources Branch Manitoba Resources Branch Manitoba Department of Natural Resources 1577 Dublin Avenue Winnipeg, Manitoba R3E 3J5 Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy1 Director Permit to Take Water Program Southwestern Region 985 Adelaide Street South London, Ontario N6E 1V3 Director Permit to Take Water Program West-Central Region 119 King Street West P.O. Box 2112, 12th Floor Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z9 Director Permit to Take Water Program Central Region 6th Floor, 5775 Young Street North York, Ontario M2M 4J1 Director Permit to Take Water Program Eastern Region Box 820 133 Dalton Avenue Kingston, Ontario K7L 4X6 Director Permit to Take Water Program Northern Region Suite 331, 435 James Street South Thunder Bay, Ontario P7E 6S7 Approvals Branch 3rd Floor, 250 Daisville Avenue Toronto, Ontario M4S 1H2 Conservation Authorities1 Ausable-Bayfield Conservation Authority R.R. #3 Exeter, Ontario N0M 1S5

PHONE NUMBER

(204) 945-6114

(519) 661-2200

(905) 521-7640

(416) 326-6700

(613) 549-4000

(807) 475-1205

(416) 440-3713

(519) 235-2610

See attached map See attached map

11 - 6

ADDRESS Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Box 160 1641 Perth Road Glenburnie, Ontario K0H 1S0 Catfish Creek Conservation Authority R.R. #5 Aylmer, Ontario N5H 2R4 Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority 300 Whiting Avenue Oshawa, Ontario L1H 3T3 Credit Valley Conservation Authority 1255 Derry Road West Meadowvale, Ontario L5N 6R4 Crown Valley Conservation Authority Box 416 Marmora, Ontario K0K 2M0 Essex Region Conservation Authority 360 Fairview Avenue West Essex, Ontario N8M 1Y6 Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Box 328 Port Hope, Ontario L1A 3W4 Grand River Conservation Authority Box 729 400 Clyde Road Cambridge, Ontario N1R 5W6 Grey Sauble Conservation Authority R.R. #4 Owen Sound, Ontario N4K 5N6 Halton Region Conservation Authority 2596 Britannia Road West R.R. #2 Milton, Ontario L9T 2X6 Hamilton Region Box 7099 838 Mineral Springs Road Ancaster, Ontario L9G 3L3 Kawartha Region Conservation Authority Kenrei Park Road R.R. #1 Lindsay, Ontario K9V 4R1

PHONE NUMBER (613) 546-4228

(519) 773-9037 (519) 773-9605

(905) 579-0411

(905) 670-1615

(613) 472-3137

(519) 776-5209

(905) 885-8173

(519) 621-2761

(519) 376-3076

(905) 336-1158

(905) 525-2181 (905) 648-4427

(705) 328-2271

11 - 7

ADDRESS Kettle Creek Conservation Authority R.R. #8 St. Thomas, Ontario N5P 3T3 Lakehead Region Conservation Authority Box 3476 130 Conservation Road Thunder Bay, Ontario P7B 5J9 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Box 282 120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1 Long Point Region Conservation Authority R.R. #3 Simcoe, Ontario N3Y 4K2 Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority 100 Thames Street Chatham, Ontario N7L 2Y8 Lower Trent Region Conservation Authority 441 Front Street Trenton, Ontario K8V 6C1 Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Box 599 Mill Street Monatick, Ontario K4M 1A5 Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority R.R. #1 Lot 4, Concession XVIII, Normanby Township Hanover, Ontario N4N 3B8 Sault Ste. Marie Region Conservation Authority 100 Fifth Line East, R.R. #2 Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario P6A 5K7 South Nation River Conservation Authority Box 69 15 Union Street Berwick, Ontario K0C 1G0 St. Clair Region Conservation Authority 205 Mill Pond Crescent Strathroy, Ontario N7G 3P9

PHONE NUMBER (519) 631-1270

(807) 344-5857

(905) 895-1281 (905) 773-6482

(519) 428-4623

(519) 354-7310

(613) 394-4829

(613) 692-3571

(519) 364-1255

(705) 946-8530

(613) 984-2948

(519) 245-3710

11 - 8

ADDRESS Upper Thames River Conservation Authority R.R. #6 Franshawe Conservation Area London, Ontario N6A 4C1 Quebec Commission de Protection du Territoire Agricole du Qubec 200-A chemin Ste - Foy - 2e tage Qubec, Qubec G1R 4X6 Minstre de lEnvironnement et de la faune Bas Saint - Laurent 212, rue Belzile Rimouski, Qubec G5L 3C3 Saguenay - Lac-Saint-Jean 3950, boul. Harvey, 4e tage Jonquire, Qubec G7X 8L6 Qubec 9530, rue de la Faune Charlesbourg, Qubec G1G 5H9 Mauricie - Bois-Francs 100, rue Laviolette, 1er tage Trois-Rivires, Qubec G9A 5S9 Estrie 700, rue Goretti Sherbrooke, Qubec J1E 3H4 Montral 5199, rue Sherbrooke est Suite 3860 Montral, Qubec H1T 3X9 Outaouais 98, rue Lois Hull, Qubec J8Y 3R7 Abitibi-Tmiscamingue 180, boul. Rideau, bur. 1,047 Rouyn-Noranda, Qubec J9X 1N9 Cte-Nord 94, rue Monseigneur Blanche Sept-les, Qubec G4R 3G5 Nord-due-Qubec 150, Ren-Lvesque est 8e tage Qubec, Qubec G1R 4Y1 Gaspsie - les-de-la-Madeleine 10, boul. Ste-Anne C.P. 550 Ste-Anne-des-Monts, Qubec G0E 2G0

PHONE NUMBER (519) 451-2800

(418) 643-3314

(418) 727-3511

(418) 695-7883

(418) 622-5151

(819) 373-4444

(819) 821-2020

(514) 873-3636

(819) 771-4840

(819) 762-8154

(418) 962-3378

(418) 643-6662

(418) 763-3301

11 - 9

ADDRESS Chaudire - Appalaches 700, rue Notre-Dame Nord Bureau E Sainte-Marie, Qubec G6E 2K9 Laval 4, Place Laval Bureau 300 Laval, Qubec H7N 5Y3 Lanaudire 6255, 13e Avenue Montral, Qubec H1X 3E6 Laurentides 6255, 13e Avenue Montral, Qubec H1X 3E6 Montrgie 201, Place Charles-Lemoyne Bureau 2.05, 2e tage Longueuil, Qubec J4K 2T5 Northwest Territories Water Resources Division Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Box 1500 Yellowknife, NWT X1A 2R3 Yukon Water Resources Division Northern Affairs Program 345 - 300 Main Street Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 2B5

PHONE NUMBER (418) 387-4143

(514) 662-2616

(514) 374-5840

(514) 374-5840

(514) 928-7607

(403) 669-2656

(403) 667-3145

11 - 10

ALBERTA NATURAL RESOURCES SERVICE WATER MANAGEMENT REGIONS REGIONAL BOUNDARIES JULY, 1990

H - 11 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

SASKATCHEWAN WATER CORPORATION REGIONAL BOUNDARIES

H - 12 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REGIONAL SERVICES BOUNDARIES MAP

H - 13 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

ONTARIO MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

H - 14 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

ONTARIO MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY DISTRICTS

H - 15 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

ONTARIO MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY DISTRICTS

H - 16 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES OF ONTARIO

H - 17 Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996