Hydrostatic Test Water Management - 1996 PDF

,I
Guidelines
Hydrostatic Test Water

Management
September, 1996
CAPP Pub. #1996-0014
*
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) represents 180 companies whose activities
focus on exploration, development and production of natural gas, natural gas liquids, crude oil,
synthetic crude oil, bitumen and elemental sulphur throughout Canada. CAPP member companies
produce approximately 95 per cent of Canada's natural gas and crude oil. CAPP has 115 associate
member companies who provide the broad range of services that complete the infrastructure of this
country's upstream petroleum industry.
The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) is the voice of the Canadian energy pipeline
industry. Our 11 member companies are responsible for transporting more than 95 per cent of the
crude oil and natural gas produced in Canada. As the Association for the transmission pipeline
companies, CEPA's mission is to provide effective representation to governments, regulators and the
public. We establish the pipeline industry as a key stakeholder in the Canadian economy and as a
leader in the areas of operational and environmental stewardship.
Disclaimer
This report was prepared for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
(CAPP) and Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) and prepared by Tera
Environmental Consultants (Alta.) Ltd. and CH2M Gore and Storrie Limited. While
it is believed that the information contained herein is reliable under the conditions
and subject to the limitations set out, neither Tera Enviromnental Consultants (Alta.)
Ltd. and CH2M Gore and Storrie Limited nor CAPP guarantee its accuracy. The use
of this report or any information contained will be at the user's sole risk, regardless
of any fault or negligence of Tera Environmental Consultants (Alta.) Ltd. and CH2M
Gore and Storrie Limited or CAPP.
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
'I
i
their members with a summary of the environmental concerns associated with hydrostatic 'I
testing, guidelines used to minimize the risk of environmental impacts and an overview of the II
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,
Pagei
Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines were prepared under the guidance of
the Hydrostatic Water Management Task Force composed of:
Gordon Dinwoodie Guy Hervieux

Alberta Environmental Protection Northwestern Utilities Limited
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta :'i
!I
Ken Jenner Cyril Karvonen 'i
AEC Pipelines, Alberta Energy Company Pembina Corporation 'I
Edmonton, Alberta Calgary, Alberta Ii,
Ian Mackenzie Wayne Marshall
Alberta Environmental Protection National Energy Board
Edmonton, Alberta Calgary, Alberta
Stephen Maunder Dan O'Rourke

Alberta Environmental Protection Trans Mountain Pipe Line Company Ltd.
Edmonton, Alberta Vancouver, B.C.
Ian Scott (Chairman) Bruce Stubbs I Ken Crutchfield

Canadian Association of Petroleum Alberta Environmental Protection
Producers Edmonton, Alberta
Calgary, Alberta
Bert Johnson Harold Karasiuk

Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Alberta Environmental Protection
Calgary, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
John Sutherland
Alberta Energy and Utilities Board
Calgary, Alberta
In addition, numerous others provided information or assistance in the preparation of the

guidelines.
;;;;;==============_ Page iii ===============_

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS
AOP Advanced oxidation processes
API American Petroleum Institute
BOD Biological oxygen demand
BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes
CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
COD Chemical oxygen demand
Core Water Test water between the zones of interface water where the
potential for contamination is least during testing of
previously in-service pipelines.
DAF Dissolved air floatation
DO Dissolved oxygen
EC Electrical conductivity
GAC Granular activated carbon
GRI Gas Research Institute
HADD Harmful alteration, disturbance or destruction of fish

habitat
IAF Induced air flotation
Interbasin transfer 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).
Interface Water The water immediately behind the lead pig and in front of
rear pig where the potential for contamination is greatest
during testing of previously in-service pipelines.
MOP Maximum operating pressure
==============_ Page iv ==============;;;;;

GLOSSARY Cont'd
NGL Natural gas liquids
PAR Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
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
oftest water from air, gas or liquid petroleum.
pipeline A pipe used to transport oil and gas industry products n

i.,
including installations (eg, storage tanks) associated with
the pipe II
II
SAR Sodium adsorption ratio IIi i
shunt To move water used in one test section along the pipeline II
to another test section
SMYS Specified minimum yield strength
TDS Total dissolved solids
Toe Total organic carbon
TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons
TSS Total suspended solids
Page v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . • . . . • • • • • . . . • . . . . • • • . • . . • . . • • • • • • • • • • . . . . • • • . •• 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF HYDROSTATIC TESTING

OF PIPELINES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 1
3.0 WATER WITHDRAWAL 3-1

3.1 Source Water 3-1
3.2 Potential Environmental Impacts 3 -2
3.3 Environmental Protection Measures 3 -4
4.0 TEST WATER 4-1

4.1 Characterization........................................... 4 - 1
4.2 Contamination Minimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 - 13
5.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS 5-1
6.0 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
7.0 TREATMENT 7-1
8.0 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
9.0 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
10.0 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
11.0 REFERENCES 11-1
============== Pagevi ==============

I
d
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS Cont'd Ii
I"
LIST OF APPENDICES Ii
I
APPENDIXA WATER HANDLING FLOW DIAGRAMS
APPENDIX B HYDROCARBON SPECTRUM DIAGRAM
APPENDIX C EXAMPLE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
APPENDIX D TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY SUMMARIES
APPENDIX E SPILL CONTINGENCY PLAN
APPENDIX F TESTING RELATED CONVERSIONS
I
Ii
APPENDIX G ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CODE OF ii
PRACTICE FOR DISCHARGE OF WATER FROM
HYDROSTASTIC TESTING OF PETROLEUM, LIQUID
AND NATURAL GAS PIPELINES
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2.1 SCHEMATICS OF HYDROSTATIC TEST LAYOUT

FOR IN-SERVICE PIPELINE 2 -6
FIGURE 3.1 INSTREAM FILL PUMP - SORBANT BOOM 3 -7
FIGURE 6.1 TESTWATER ENERGY DISSIPATERS 6 -10
FIGURE D.1 SKIM TANK FOR OIL AND WATER SEPARATION D -3
FIGURE D.2 CORRUGATED PLATE SEPARATOR D -6
FIGURE D.3 COALESCING FILTER D -7
FIGURE D.4 DISSOLVED AIR FLOATATION UNIT D -9
FIGURE D.5 HAY BALE FIELD TREATMENT UNIT D - 12
FIGURE D.6 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF GAC ADSORPTION
COLUMNS IN SERIES D - 15
FIGURE D.7 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AOP SYSTEM D - 17
FIGURE D.8 SCHEMATIC OF A STEAM STRIPPING PROCESS D - 19
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1 HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER VOLUME

REQUIREMENTS FOR STANDARD PIPE SIZES 2 -2
TABLE 4.1 WATER QUALITY OF HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER FROM
NEW, IN - SERVICE GAS AND IN-SERVICE LIQUID
PETROLEUM PIPELINES 4 -5
TABLE 5.1 ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS 5 -4
TABLE 5.2 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR WATER 5 -8
TABLE 5.3 RECOMMENDED SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL
METHODS FOR SOIL 5 - 12
TABLE 7.1 SUMMARY OF TREATMENT PROCESSES 7 -4
TABLE 7.2 DISCHARGE CRITERIA 7 -9
TABLE 7.3 EXPECTED COMPOSITION AND DISCHARGE CRITERIA 7 - 10
TABLE 7.4 SUMMARY OF CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS 7 - 12
TABLE 7.5 EXPECTED COMPOSITION AND DISCHARGE CRITERIA 7 - 13
TABLE 9.1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER WITHDRAWAL AND
DISCHARGE 9 -4

1.0 Introduction
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 Association's (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;
1-1

• 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 oftest water and water quality testing requirements.
1-2

I
J
2.0 General Description of Hydrostatic Testing of Pipelines

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.
2-1

TABLE 2.1
HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER VOLUME

REQUIREMENTS FOR STANDARD PIPE SIZES
I
Outside Diameter Wall Thickness Fluid Volume I:
(mm) (m3/km)
(mm) (inches) I
60.3 2 3.2 2.3
88.9 3 3.2 5.3
it
i
114.3 4 3.2 9.1 i
168.3 6 4.0 20.2

219.1 8 6.4 33.4 III
273.1 10 6.4 53.2
323.9 12 7.9 74.6 Ii
406.4 16 9.5 117.9
508.0 20 12.7 182.9
559.0 22 12.7 223.6
609.6 24 12.7 268.4
762.0 30 12.7 426.1
813.0 34 12.7 487.2
914.4 36 12.7 620.2
1067.0 42 12.7 852.1
1219.0 48 12.7 1118.9
Source: Stelpipe 1991, Lessard pers. comm.
2-2

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 I
I
"
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 II
il
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 II
the interfaces. Therefore, contamination of the test water with hydrocarbons will occur to II
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 a.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.
2-3

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
2-4

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. i
I,
I~
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.
I:
I
I:\:
u
Ii
!I
2-5

HYDROSTATIC TESTWATER
HYDROSTATIC TESTSECTION i'l
I"I'I
II
CORE
• •
INTERFACE
•
•INTERFACE
WATER WATER
PROFILE
N.T.S.
NOTE: Pig type and number should be selected to minimize core water contamination.
Canadian Association of SCHEMATICS OF HYDROSTATIC TEST

Petroleum Producers LAYOUT FOR IN·SERVICE PIPELINE
and
Canadian Energy
Pipeline Association Date: September, 1996 Figure No. 2.1
2-6

3.0 Water Withdrawal
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.
3-1

The quality of surface water and groundwater varies depending on the ecoregion, the type of
watershed and depth 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;
3-2

• timing;
• location and sensitivity of the withdrawal point; and
• activity needed to prepare, use and abandon the withdrawal site.
Fish and Fish Habitat
Improper selection of a water withdrawal site or poorly conducted water withdrawal 1

•1. 1
j
operations could adversely affect fish and fish habitat. Excessive volumes ofwater 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 I
could result in decreased mobility, increased susceptibility to predation, increased stress I
"r
related energy expenditures as well as abandonment, deterioration or loss of habitat. 1.1
Overwintering fish and incubating eggs of fall spawning fish may be particularly sensitive to II!
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.
3-3

I
I
Land Use I:
Excessive water withdrawal rates or volumes can adversely affect other water users such as Ii
irrigators, livestock, landowners, land users or recreationists if water is withdrawn from small II
watercourses or bodies of water. Access to water withdrawal points can result in rutting and ii
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, II
i
safety concerns and dust problems.
I,
3.3 Environmental Protection Measures II

I
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 i
order to minimize impacts on the environment.
Regulatory 1. Determine the regulatory requirements for water with-

Requirements drawal, instream activity and release (see Sections 8.0
and 9.0).
Communication with 2. Obtain all appropriate water withdrawal and instream
Regulators and activity permits/approvals as well as permission from
Landowners landowners, if required, for access to the intake site. Also
obtain regulatory/landowner approval for the routing and
construction offill lines, if required. Follow all conditions
on permits.
3. Identify and notify affected water users, if required, prior
to commencing water withdrawal activities.
Source Water Selection 4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Locate the water intake at a site with adequate water
depth, wherever possible, in order to avoid the excavation
ofa sump.
3-4

7. 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.
8. Avoid using saline water from sloughs, where feasible.
9. Note that regulators may prohibit the interbasin transfer
or export of water.
10. 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 environ- I,
mental risk. Maximum acceptable values for water I
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.
11. 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.
12. 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 13. Abide by instream timing constraints and permit
conditions.
Sump Excavation 14. 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.
Intake Screening 15. 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.
3-5

Pump / Fill Line 16. Isolate fill pump, test pumps and water heaters (if used)
Installation 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.
17. Place sorbent booms around fill pumps in bodies of water
if hydraulic hoses are used (see Figure 3.1).
18. Ensure temporary water supply lines are free ofleaks.
Pretest Debris 19. Collect pretest pigging debris and water, then dispose of
in accordance with regulatory requirements.
Site Security 20. Install fencing and signage, where warranted, at water
intake points for site security and public safety.
3-6

lnstream Pump
River or
Sorbant Boom
Hydraulic hoses
PROFILE
N.T.S.
NOTES:
1. Install a riveror sorbant boom around instream pumps where hydraulic hoses are
in useand contamination of the body of water could occur should hydraulic hose
failure occur.
2. Firmly secure riveror sorbant boom to shore with tie-down lines.
3. Adjust boom configuration, if required, depending upon streamflows.
4. Employ sorbant pads to remove any excess hydraulic fluid not captured by the
boom.
5. Recycle sorbant boom f pads and dispose of captured hydraulic fluid in

accordance with regulatory requirements,
Canadian Association of
Petroleum Producers INSTREAM FILL PUMP - SORBANT BOOM
and
Canadian Energy
3-7

4.0 Test Water
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.
4-1

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
i
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 II
'I
pipeline wall and keep them in solution.
I'I
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
4-2

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. 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 ofthe 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 in-service 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
4-3

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 in-service 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.
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.
4-4

TABLE 4.1
WATER QUALITY OF HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER FROM NEW, IN·SERVICE GAS AND IN·SERVICE LIQUID
PETROLEUM PIPELINES
Concentration (mgfL)l
IN·SERVICE
LIQUID CCME CCME
WATER IN-SERVICE PETROLEUM FRESHWATER CCME LIVESTOCK
QUALITY NEW PIPELINE GAS PIPELINE PIPELINE CCMEDW AQUATIC LIFE IRRIGATION WATERING
PARAMETER DISCHARGE' DISCHARGE' DISCHARGE' CRITERIA' CRITERIA' CRITERIA' CRITERIA'
Benzene <0.002 - 0.0046 <0.001 - 0.100 ND -18.0 0-005 0-3 NL NL
Toluene <0.002 - 0.0028 <0.001- 0.170 ND -18.0 0-024 0-3 NL NL
Ethylbenzene <0.002 - 0.0012 <0.001- 0.024 ND - 2.90 0-0024 0-7 NL NL
Xylenes <0.007 - 0.Ql8 <0.001- 0.053 ND -12.20 0-3 NL NL NL
. ~
Phenols
Oil and grease

<0.0005 - 0.05
<1-43
<0.001- 0.61
<1-79
ND -0.964
1- 5630
NL
NL
0-001
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
'" 0:
0
COD 6 - 240 <10 - 993 7 - 66 NL NL NL NL
TOC 4-11 3.0 - 50.0 3.3 - 42.3 NL NL NL NL
TPH 0.94 - 6.8 NDA 0.01- 35 NL NL NL NL
pH (no units) 4.5 -10.1 5.45 - 8.6 6.6 - 8.1 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 9.0 NL NL
TSS <1- 966 1- 2348 5 -1300 NL 10 or 10%4 NL NL

c 500
~
TDS 28 - 902 8 - 580 110 - 709 500 500 - 3500 3000
~
i5
EC (uS/em)
Chlorine
18 - 2370
12 - 28
34 -760
NDA
NDA
NDA
NL
NL
NL
0.002
NL
NL
NL
NL
(residual)
Chloride NDA NDA 23.2 - 128 250 NL 100 - 700 NL
Ammonia <0.1- 0.7 <0.1- 2.2 NDA NL 1.37 - 2.2 NL NL
." -_.
TABLE 4.1 Cont'd
Concentration (mgIL)l
IN-SERVICE
LIQUID CCME CCME
WATER IN-SERVICE PETROLEUM FRESHWATER CCME LIVESTOCK
QUALITY NEW PIPELINE GAS PIPELINE PIPELINE CCMEDW AQUATIC LIFE IRRIGATION WATERING
PARAMETER DISCHARGE' DISCHARGE' DISCHARGE' CRITERIA' CRITERIA' CRITERIA' CRITERIA'
Aluminium 0.05 - 2.03 0.04 - 0.4 0.02 - 0.19 NL 0.005 - 0.1 5 5
Arsenic 0.0012 - <0.002 <0.002 - 0.06 NDA 0-025 0-05 0·1 0.5-5.0
Barium 0.01- 0.066 <0.02 - 0.06 0.02 - 0.122 1 NL NL NL
Beryllium <0.001- 0.003 NDA <0.001 NL NL 0-1 0·1
Boron <0.04 - 0.3 NDA ND-0.12 5 NL 0.5 - 6.0 5
Cadmium <0.0002 - 12 <0.01- 0.016 ND - 0.005 0.005 0.0002-0.0018 0.01 0.02
Chromium 0.005 - 0.01 NDA <0.002 - 0.008 0-05 0.002 - 0.02 0-1 1
'"
"" Cobalt <0.001 - 0.009 <0.005 - 0.04 ND - 0.003 NL NL 0-05 1
;:!
'"
:;: Copper <0.001 - 1.19 0.001- <0.10 <0.001 - <0.01 1 0.002 - 0.004 0.2 -1.0 0.5 - 5.0
. Iron (total)
Lead
0.05 - 46
<0.001 - 0.696
0.003 - 29.0
<0.001 - 0.077
0.02 - 33.4
<0.02 - <0.04 0.01
0.3 0-3
0.001- 0.007
5
0-2
NL
0.1
'" Manganese 0.01- 1.9 0.1- 0.3 0.121 - 0.319 0.05 NL 0-2 NL
Mercury <0.00005 NDA <0.0001 0.001 0.0001 NL 0-003
Molybdenum <0.004 - 0.073 NDA <0.003 - <0.02 NL NL 0.01- 0.05 Q.5
Nickel <0.01- 0.18 <0.02 - 0.1 <0.01- <0.02 NL 0.025 - 0.150 0-2 1
Selenium <0.0005 - 0.004 <0.002 - 0.004 NDA 0-01 0-001 0.02 - 0.05 0.05
Silver <0.001- 0.003 NDA ND - <0.05 NL 0-0001 NL NL
Sodium 2.1- 390 20 - 240 2.72 - 79.4 200 NL NL NL
Vanadium 0.004 - 0.06 <0.025 - 0.06 <0.003 - 0.272 NL NL 0.1 0-1
7.in, 0004 - 140 ,0 OOQ _ 0 1A O""7_1~ < "OQ QMAR <0
Notes: 1. Units are milligrams per litre unless otherwise noted.

2. Range of results from limited sampling of test water; data sources include: NEB, eAPP information, GRI, and data from individual pipeline companies.
3. CCME, Canadian Water Quality Guidelines, 1995.
4. Increase of 10 mgIL ifbackground concentration is less than or equal to 100 mg!L; increase of 10% above background if background concentration is greater than
100 mgIL.
>I< Nljenondetectable
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 (PARs)
Phenols
Glycols (if added)
Methanol (if added).
BTEX, PARs and phenols may be present as dissolved organics and free emulsified hydro-
carbons. Glycol and methanol will be present in a dissolved form, if used as additives.
Inorganic parameters may include:
• pH
• Total suspended solids (T88)
• Total dissolved solids (TD8)
•. EC
• 8AR
• Temperature
• Residual chlorine
• Chloride
• Dissolved oxygen (DO)
• Amines
4-7

• Ammonia (biocides)
Trace metals may include:
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 \~
j"
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. II
'I
A more detailed discussion of hydrostatic test water characteristics for new, in-service gas and III,;
in-service liquid petroleum pipelinesis provided below.
II
New Pipelines iIi
Ii
Table 4.1 provides ranges of water quality data for hydrostatic test waters from new pipelines, II
'I
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 mgIL. 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.
4-8

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 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 II
(TSS) levels are typically less than 100 mg/L, however, levels as high as 966 mglL have been
measured in some hydrostatic test waters from new pipelines. This concentration level may
Ii
I. .!·
,:
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.
4-9

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 Institute (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 ofTOC, 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 mglL.
• 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 mglL 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.
4 -10

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
ifthe line was not pigged before testing.
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
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
4-11

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.
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.
TDB levels are generally not of concern, however, elevated TDB levels may occur if the source
water for hydrostatic testing has high TDB. While TBB 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).
BAR data are not included in Table 4.1 as they were not readily available. However, the BAR
of hydrostatic test water could be an important water quality parameter. For example, a
release of water with high BAR to land would have an adverse effect on soil conditions.
Chloride levels between approximately 23 and 128 mg/L have been measured in hydrostatic
test water from in-service 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 - 12

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. Tbis 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 bigh-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 ifpossible (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.),
• 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.
4 - 13

• 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. II
II
II
• Draining in-service lines of product and purge with an inert gas (e.g, nitrogen) IiI:,
before hydrostatic testing to remove hydrocarbon products from branch II
II
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
4 -14

and carry over between the petroleum product and test water phases may result in the
hydrostatic test water becoming contaminated with hydrocarbons.
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 cross-contamination between the petroleum product and
hydrostatic test water phases. The required velocity will vary depending on the
size of pipeline and the petroleum product's specific gravity.
• Providing adequate separation ofthe 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 - 15

5.0 Sampling and Analysis
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 environ-
mental 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
5-1

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 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
,i
are expected to change.
I
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:
5-2

o American Water Works Association et at. 1995. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater (ref. 19th edition).
o 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, OR.
o 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:
o Carter, Martin R. (ed.), 1993. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Canadian
Society of Soil Science. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton. Florida. II
Ii
I!
o McKeague, J.A. (ed.), 1981. Manual on Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis,
2nd edition. Canadian Society of Soil Science.
Ii
ti
II
o 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:
o What parameters are known or expected to be present (from available data,

knowledge of pipeline contents, etc.)?
o What parameters are regulated (e.g, on a permit, approval or Code of Practice)?
o Are there parameters that are not regulated but may adversely affect the
environment?
o Are there parameters that may affect treatment and release options?
5-3

TABLE 5.1
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
Typical Parameters Additional Parameters
Source Water
Potable Water Typically no analyses required as potable Parameters expected to be present that are regulated or
water meets Canadian drinking water could affect treatment or release options. For example:
standards
· parameters that have more stringent CCME
freshwater aquatic life criteria (e.g. chlorine,
cadmium, copper, lead, zinc)
Other source Depends on whether release of test water is Parameters expected to be present that are regulated or
waters (e.g. to land or to a receiving water. Typical could affect treatment or release options. For example:
groundwater, analyses include:
surface water,
industrial
·· Release to land: pH, BAR, EC or TDS ·· chlorine
metals such as iron, manganese, cadmium, copper,
water) Release to water: pH, TSS, EC or TDS, lead, and zinc
iron
· organics such as BTEX, phenol, TPH
Release Water
New pipelines Depends on whether release of test water is Other parameters that are regulated or could affect
to land or to a receiving water. Typical treatment or release options. For example:
analyses include:
·· Release to land: pH, SAR, EO or TDS ·· toxicity

metals such as manganese, cadmium, copper, lead,
Release to water: pH, TSS, EO or TDS, and zinc
iron, chlorine if added
· temperature
Other parameters that are regulated or could affect

In-service gas Depends on whether release oftest water is
pipelines to land or to a receiving water. Typical treatment or release options. For example:
analyses include:
· Release to land: pH, SAR, EC or TDS, ·· toxicity

metals such as aluminum, cadmium, copper, lead,
TPH manganese, and zinc
· Release to water: pH, TSS, TDS, iron,
BTEX, chlorine if added ·· organics such as BTEX, TPH and phenols
temperature
In-service liquid Depends on whether release of test water is Other parameters that are regulated or could affect
petroleum to land or to a receiving water. Typical treatment or release options. For example:
pipelines analyses include:
· Release to land: pH, SAR, EO or TDS, ·· toxicity

metals such as aluminum, cadmium, copper, lead,
TPH manganese, and zinc
· Release to water: pH, TSS, EO or TDS,
iron, TPH, BTEX, chlorine if added ·· organics such as BTEX and phenols
temperature
Receptors
Receiving
Water ·· pH
TSS
Parameters that are regulated or may adversely effect
the environment:
· TDS orEC
·· organics if present in release water
metals if present in the release water
Receiving Soil To ensure the receiving soil is not already

· temperature
Parameters that are regulated or may adversely effect

. stressed before releasing test water, the environment:
analyze for:
·· pH
SAR ·· chloride
organics if present in release water
· ECorTDS
· metals if present in the release water
5-4

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.
i"
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
5-5

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. Analyses are typically required to monitor the treatment process operation
and performance.
:.\
Analytical Methods i
II
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 il
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.
5-6

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 II
1.1
to confirm the field analysis and demonstrate compliance. Field screening methods may also
I!
be advantageous to monitor the performance of treatment processes for the removal of i:~
Ii!
contaminants of concern. II~~
Some analyses are best performed in the field, such as pH, temperature, EC and chlorine. II
Relatively inexpensive and easy-to-operate equipment is used to conduct these analyses. II
[1
I!
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.
5-7

TABLE 5.2
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR WATER
1996
MAXIMUM TYPICAL
ANALYTICAL SAMPLE CONTAINER AND STORAGE ANALYTICAL
TEST METHOD PARAMETERS VOLUME PRESERVATION TIME COST
TOC SM5310B orC Total organic carbon 100mL Polyethylene or Glass 28 days $30-$40
EPA 415.1 or
EPA 415.2 Addition of HSP04 or ~S04
to pH <2, refrigeration
COD SM5220B Organics that can be 100mL Polyethylene or Glass 28 days $30-$45
EPA 410.1 oxidized by strong inorganic
oxidizing agent Addition ofH,SO, to pH <2,
refrigeration
on BOD SM5210B Organics that can be 500mL Polyethylene or Glass 48 hours $30-$50
EPA 405.1 oxidized by microorganisms
00
(biodegradable organics) Refrigeration
00
U TPH Purgeables: Purgable organics - BTEX 3 x 40 ro.L vials Amber Glass with teflon- 14 days $150 - $250
.... SM6210D and hydrocarbons to Cs - C10 for purgable lined cap; no head space
~
~
EPA 8240D
EPA 5030
fraction
Refrigeration
0 Extractahles: Extractable organics - 1000 mLfor

EPA 3510 hydrocarbons containing extractable
EPA 8015 C11 - C30 fraction
EPA 8270
Oil and Grease SM5520B All solvent extraetables, 1000mL Amber glass with teflon- 28 days $30-$45
EPA 413.1 including surfactants lined cap
EPA 9070
Addition of HCI to pH <2,
refrigeration
BTEX SM6210D Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl- 3 X 40 mL vials Amber glass with teflon- 14 days $100-$150
EPA 8240 benzene, Xylenes lined septum; no head space
EPA 8260
EPA 5030 Addition of HCl to pH <2,
EPA 8020 refrigeration
TABLE 5.2 Cont'd
1996
MAX1MUM TYPICAL
TEST METHOD PARAMETERS VOLUME PRESERVATION TIllIE COST
Phenol 8M 5530C Total phenolics 1000mL Glass 28 days $30-$40
EPA 420.1
Addition of H 2S04
Volatile 8M 6210D Organic solvents (53 3 x 40 mL vials Amber glass with teflon- 14 days $200-$350
Organics EPA 8240 compounds in total, lined septum; no head space
EPA 8260 including acetone, benzene,
r.JJ chloroform, MEK, MIBK, Addition of HOI to pH < 2,
c dichlorobenzene, methylene refrigeration
~
chloride, etc.)
Acid 8M 6410B Phenolics (20 compounds in 1000mL Amber glass with tetlon- Extraction 7 $275-$450
Extractables EPA 8270 total, including benzoic acid, lined cap days
I:l: phenol, chlorinated phenols)
0 Refrigeration Analysis
40 days
cr Base-neutral 8M 6410B Amines, chlorobenzenes, 1000mL Amber glass with teflon- Extraction 7 $600-$850
<0 Extractables EPA 8270 nitro-anilines, nitroso- lined cap days
compounds (71 compounds
in total) Refrigeration Analysis
40 days
PARs 8M 6410B Polynuclear aromatic 1000mL Amber glass with teflon- Extraction 7 $200-$375
EPA 8270 hydrocarhons(21 lined cap days
compounds in total,
including naphthalene, Refrigeration Analysis
acenaphtene, 40 days
acenaphtylene, anthracene,
benzolalanthracene,
cmysene,pyrene,
dibenzofuran,
phenanthrene)
---------- ~__ - 'c~ c_==

TABLE 5.2 Cont'd
1996
MAXIMUM TYPICAL
pH SM4500 H+B Hydrogen ions (pH) 100mL Polyethylene or glass Analyze $5-$10
EPA 150.1 or immediately
EPA 9040 Field test Refrigeration
Temperature SM2550B Temperature Field test Field test Measure Field test
EPA 170.1 immediately
TSS SM2540D Total suspended solids 1000 mL (for TSS Polyethylene or glass 7 days $10-$20
EPA 160.2 (organic and inorganic) and TDS) Field filtered
Refrigeration
TDS SM2540C Total dissolved solids 1000 mL (for TSS Polyethylene or glass 7 days $10-$20
EPA 160.1 (organic and inorganic) and TDS)
0 Refrigeration
~
Ee SM2510B Electrical conductivity 100mL Polyethylene or glass Analyze Field test
EPA 120.1 or Immediately
EPA9050A Field test Refrigeration
'"
~ Total Anions SM4110e All anions except fluoride 100mL Polyethylene or glass 7 days $50-$100
>-'
o EPA300.0
Refrigeration
Total Cations SM 3120 Cations included with reAP 100mL Polyethylene or glass 6 months $60-$70
EPA 6010 metals scan
Addition ofHNDato pH < 2,
refrigeration
Residual SM4500 Free residual chlorine. 500mL Field Test Aoalyze Field test
Chlorine Recommended that test be or immediately $30-$35
conducted in the field. Field test
Ammonia SM4500H Ammonia 500mL Polyethylene or glass 28 days $10-$20
(NH,-N) EPA 350.1
Addition of H 2S04 to pH <2,
refrigeration
SAR SM3500B,e Sodium adsorption ratio 1000mL Polyethylene or glass, 7 days
cess 18.2, 18.3, 18.4 refrigeration
(for calculation)
~~~- ~~=~=_ "C' c ' _~~,~

TABLE 5.2 Cont'd
1996
MAXIMUM TYPICAL
Iron SM3120 Fe 100mL Polyetheylene 6 months $10 - $20
EPA 200.7/
SW846-6010 Addition ofHNUs to pH<2,
00 refrigeration
~
J';l Metals (lCAP 8M 3120 AI, Ba, Bo, Cu, Cd, Cr Fe, 100mL Polyetheylene 6 months $40-$90
::s Scan) EPA 200.7/
8W846-6010
Pb, Mg, Mo, Mn, Ni, P, K,
Na, si, Sn, V, Zn
Field filtered
Addition of ENOs to pH<2,
refrigeration
Aquatic Environment Canada Rainbow trout 80L Plastic 24 hours $400-$600

Toxicity Methods Daphnia Magna lOL
Refrigeration
ot
>"
>" ll:i
0
~
Notes: SM = Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Edition
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-o"'.'-'~ ·~~·=~,·;,:"=="_""·,,-·,",,.,,,.,,,,·"7 _"~"'"'_". .._ --'-'=~~~-=.'

TABLE 5.3
RECOMMENDED SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR SOIL
MAXIMUM 1996
TPH Purgeables: Purgable organics - 200 g' 500 mL glass' Extraction: $200-$275
EPA 8240 BTEX and hydrocarbons 14 days
EPA 5021/8000 to C, - ClO Refrigeration (purgeables)
7 days
Extractables: Extractable organics - (extractables)
EPA 3510 hydrocarbons containing Analysis:
EPA 3550 ell - C30
40 days
Oil and SM5520E Solvent extractables 200 g' 500 mL glass' N/A $30-$50
Grease EPA 9071
Refrigeration
'" BTEX EPA 8240 Benzene, Toluene, 200 g' 500 mL glass' 14 days $100-$175
t<: a:
0 EPA 5021J8000 Ethylbenzene, Xylenes
.... Refrigeration
~I:l: Phenol EPA 9065

(modified for
Total phenolics 200 g' 500 mL glass' 28 days $30-$40
0 soil) Refrigeration
EPA 8270B
PARs EPA 8270 Polynuclear aromatic 200 g' 500 mL glass' Extraction $395
hydrocarbons (21 within 7 days
compounds in total, Refrigeration
including naphthalene, Analysis
acenaphtene, within 40
acenaphtylene, days
anthracene,
benzo[a]anthracene,
chrysene, pyrene,
dibenzofuran,
phenanthrene)
----- ._~==~
TABLE 5.3 Cont'd
MAXIMlJM 1996
pH CSSS 16.3 Hydrogen ions (pH) 200g" 500 mL glass' N/A $10
EPA9045A
Refrigeration
EC CSSS 18.2, Electrical conductivity 200 g' 500 mL glass' N/A $7-$17
18.3,18.4
Refrigeration
0 Sodium EPA 6010 Sodium 200 g' 500 mL glass' 7 days $50-$100
~
~
Chloride SM41l0C
EPA 300.0
Chloride 200g"
Refrigeration
500 mL glass' N/A $20-$30
0
en Z (hot water Refrigeration
.... extractable)
>-"
co SAR CSSS 18.2, Sodium adsorption ratio 200g" 500 mL glass' N/A $30-$60
18.3,18.4
Refrigeration
Metals EPA 6010 Al, Ba, Bo, Cu, Cd, Ca, 200 g' 500 mL glass' or plastic bag 6 months $60-$90
rn (lCAP EPA 7471 Cr, Fe, Pb, Mg, Mo, Mn,
Scan) Ni, P, K, Si, Na, Sn, V, Refrigeration
~
rz1
Zn
::s
Notes: CSSS = Canadian Society of Soil Science

1 500 ml glass. is sufficient for all analyses. Alternatively submit 200 g total.
_.~~~~ __ 'p._,~_____ -------- -,-"-"'-.=;=:::..0 "-:.='"

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 in-house chain of custody procedures.
Typical QAlQC 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.
5 - 14

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 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 - 15

"
"
i
I
'I,
1:
I
'I
i}
6.0 Discharge Water

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. I
I
I
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 Mfecting 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.
6-1

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 ofthe discharge water should be of comparable water quality to the receiving water
6-2

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 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 ofthe 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.
6-3

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;
• contaminant levels;
• timing ofthe 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 ofthe 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.
6-4

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.
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 oftest 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.
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 ofthe test water is low.
6-5

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. SF, 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 1. Obtain all appropriate permits or approvals from

regulatory authorities to discharge test water. Follow
conditions on permits. Allow sufficient time to acquire
permits/approvals.
2. File with regulators any test plans, environmental
management plans, emergency response/contingency
plans, where appropriate.
3. Obtain permission from each landowner over whose land
will be affected by the discharge.
4. Analyze source water to assess its quality (see Section
3.3).
Contingency Plan 5. 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
AppendixE.
6. Notify landowners in the vicinity of the test section prior
to testing and inform them of the test schedule.
7. Notify appropriate authorities and landowners in the
event of a test failure and subsequent release of poten-
tially contaminated test water.
6-6

8. Have sufficient personnel and equipment available on
site to repair any rupture, leak or erosion.
Shunt Water 9. 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.
Pig Loading 10. 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).
Test Repairs 11. Follow appropriate protection measures (e.g. strip
topsoil) if exposure of the pipe is required to make
repairs prior to completion of the test.
Discharge Site Selection 12. 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.
13. Consider the volume and composition of test water when
selecting an appropriate discharge site.
14. 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).
15. Consider the volume oftest 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 fmalizing discharge site selection. (See Section
5.0).
16. 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.
17. Ensure that test water, if discharged onto the land, is of
a quality that will not adversely affect the soil capability.
6-7

18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Conduct a reconnaissance of downstream areas if water
21.
is to be discharged to a watercourse.
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.

22. Avoid locating discharge sites on cultivated lands or
immediately upstream of public water intakes.
Ponding otWater 23. 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.
Discharge Line 24. Ensure that the discharge or drain line is tied-down, if
required, and free ofleaks.
Erosion 25. 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.
Water Temperature 26. 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.
Analyze Discharge 27. Conduct laboratory testing of discharge water. Pipeline
Water 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.
Antifreeze Recovery 28. Recover discharge water containing antifreeze or
methanol used in pipe drying. Return to supplier for
recovery.
6-8

Hydrocarbon 29. Treat or dispose of contaminated test water and low
Contaminants quality source water in accordance with procedures and
options presented in Section 7.0.
Receptor Analysis 30. 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.
6-9

STABLE VEGETATED BODY
A. DISCHARGE PIPE TERRAIN (LINED WITH OF
POLYETHYLENE IF WATER
REQUIRED)
LARGER DIAMETER
PIPEWELDED TO-----..
DISCHARGE PIPE
RIP RAP
PLAN VIEW
N.T.S.
II
DISCHARGE ONTO
PLYWOOD SHEETING
ORTARPAULINS
DISCHARGE PIPE
B.
DEFLECTOR OR JUMP
WELDED TO DISCHARGE
PIPE
PROFILE
N.T.S.
Notes:
1. Dissipate the energy of water discharged during dewatering to prevent soil erosion and damage to the
beds and banks of bodies of water. Erosive energy can be dissipated as shown above or by other methods
Including: arcing pipe into the air: using a muffler-style energy dissipater; directing the !low at swamp
mats, plywood or rock riprap. Choice of the most appropriate method depends upon volume and
pressure of discharge water. A method that provides better energy dissipation and erosion control is
required when many kilometres of large diameter pipeline is to be dewatered at a high discharge rate than
a short smail diameter pipeline at a low discharge rate. If surging is anticipated, utilize a robust method.
2. Ensure that discharge pipe is free ofleaks.
3. Dewater at same rate used to withdraw water. If erosion control measures are found to be inadequate,
lower the dewatering rate or stop operations until satisfactory measures are in place.
4. Anchor the discharge pipe to prevent movement during surging.
Source: Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc., 1991. Environmental Manual for Pipeline Construction, Edmonton,
Alberta.
Canadian Association TESTWATER ENERGY DISSIPATERS

of Petroleum Producers
and
Canadian Energy Pipeline
Association Date: September, 1996 Figure No. 6.1
6 - 10

Ii
II
7.0 Treatment
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).
7-1

Discharge waters from in-service pipelines generally have more extensive treatment
requirements because of the 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:
7-2

• 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.);
• supplier's pricing; and
• pretreatment needs.
7-3

TABLE 7.1
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT PROCESSES
CONTAMINANT REMOVED
DISSOLVED
TREATMENT FREE EMULSIFIED SUSPENDED HYDROCARBONS TRACE
PROCESS OIL OIL SOLIDS BTEX Phenols METALS
Gravity Separation X 0' X - - N/A
Aeration N/A N/A N/A 0' - 0'
Coalescence X 0 0 - - N/A
Flotation X 0 0 - - N/A
I
II
'I
Filtration 0
I:
hay bales X 0 - - N/A I'
cartridge/bag filters X X - - N/A
media filter 0 X - - N/A i:
I
Granular Absorbent N/A X 0 - - N/A Ii
Media Filtration
Granular Activated N/A N/A N/A X X -

Carbon
Advanced Oxidation N/A N/A N/A X X 0
Air Stripping N/A N/A N/A 0' - -

Chemical N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A X
Preciuitafion
Most Removed X
Some Removed 0
None/Very Little Removed
Not Applicable N/A
Notes: 1 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
7-4

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 ($/m 3) 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 oftanks 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.
7-5

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 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 ofTreatment 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
7-6

• 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
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 fme 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/ft", compared to 3 to 5
gpm/ft", which are more typical in carbon adsorption processes. Consequently, contact times
7-7

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 iflower 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 m" of discharge water were treated over a six week
period.
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.
7-8

The treatment system operated 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and was designed for a
throughput of 1000 m 3/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/ft" and 5 gpm/ft", 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 effiuent 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 MAXIMUM DAILY

DISCHARGE LIMIT DISCHARGE LIMIT
PARAMETER (Mgll Unless Noted) (Mgll Unless Noted)
TSS 25 40
COD 50 75
nR 6.0 - 9.0 nR units 6.0 - 9.0 DR units
Oil and zrease No visible sheen No visible sheen
Iron 0.3 0.5
.
Benzene 0.3 0.5
Ethvlbenzene 0.7 1.1
Toluene 0.3 0.5
Phenols 0.001 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
7-9

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/m 3 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 in-service liquid petroleum pipeline. The treatment facility will be
located at a terminal. Water from an irrigation canal will be used as the source water. [I
~.~
Additives will be used during the hydrostatic test including: aniline dye, sulfur hexafluoride
and a valve sealant. II
Ii
Approximately 160,000 m" 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
I
"
Iin
ii
summarized in Table 7.3. fi
TABLE 7.3
EXPECTED COMPOSITION AND DISCHARGE CRITERIA
(all concentrations mgIL unless noted)
PARAMETER EXPECTED DISCHARGE CRITERIA

, COMPOSITION
pH 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5

TSS 15 - 40 10
COD not known 250

Benzene 2- 18 0.3
Toluene 2 - 18 0.3
Ethvlbenzene 0.2 - 3 0.7
Xvlene 1-12 0.3
Phenols 0.1- 0.6 0.005
Iron 1-9 0.3
7 -10

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 m")
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 ofthe 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
I
• 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/ft".
Activated carbon adsorption will be used for the removal of dissolved organics. Two vessels
in series designed for a hydraulic loading of 4 gpm/ft'' will provide over 30 minutes of contact
time between the water and activated carbon. EflIuent 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.
7 - 11

Treated water will be stored in two unlined effiuent 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 $2,180,000. As shown, over half of this cost is
associated with the construction of the ponds. However, these ponds could be used for storing
discharge water generated from future hydrostatic testing programs.
TABLE 7.4
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
FACILITY COMPONENT COST ($)
Ponds $1400,000
Treatment svstem $780000
Oneratinz cost $150000
Total cost $2180000
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.
7 - 12

TABLE 7.5
EXPECTED COMPOSITION AND DISCHARGE CRITERIA
(all concentrations mglL unless noted)
PARAMETER EXPECTED DISCHARGE CRITERIA

COMPOSITION
pH 6-9 6-9
TSS 2-5 2-5

Oil and grease 10 - 20 2
BTEX 1-5 0.5
Phenols <1.0 0.02
Iron <1 <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 mglL to 0.02 mglL, 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.
7 - 13

Ii
i!
II
II
II
I
!
f
I
Ia
'i
I
8.0 Federal Government Requirements

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 CEM
include Parks Canada, Health and Welfare Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
(lNAC), 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
(CEM) 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 ofthe 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 offish 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 ofthe 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.
8-1

There are no federal guidelines on interbasin transfer of exotic species, but it does represent
a potential concern to fish and fisheries.
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, liii
the same regulationts) as the respective province or territory use will apply. Indian Oil and II
Gas Canada as well as (INAC) do not have specific requirements for hydrostatic testing. Ii
II
Hydrostatic testing on Indian Reserves may be subject to CEAA review. I,
ii
if
8.1 Withdrawal I,
DFO has outlined the national standard-of-practice for screening requirements for water II
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
offish 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.
8-2

Contact the regional DFO office (Appendix H) for Application for Authorization for Works or
Undertakings Affecting Fish Habitat ifthe 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.
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 ofthe 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.
8-3

I
I
I'
Ii
iI,l
I
9.0 Provincial Government Requirements

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.
9-1

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 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 m", 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 ofless than 1,000 m" 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 m", 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).
9-2

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 ofthe 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 ofHADD.
9-3

TABLE 9.1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY REQUffiEMENTS

- FOR WATER WITHDRAWAL AND DISCHARGE
WATER
VOLUME MINIMUM
THRESHOLD KAME OFLICENSE, DISCHARGE STANDARDS FOR
REQUIRING AN FEE FOR FEE FOR APPROVAL APPLICATION PERMIT OR INTAKE SCREENING WITHDRAWAL RATE WATER TESTING DrS;~RGE
UR1SDICll0N ISSUING AGENCY'IES APPROVAL APPLICATION WATER PERIOD FORMAT APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS LIMITATIONS PROCEDURES WATER UAllTY RELEASE APPROVAlS SPILL REPORTING
Federal Fisheries and Oceans, (DFO) No NfA NfA Nolormal No NfA DFO lishscreen guideline 10% ofnatural NfA NlA Only required ~ harmful Refer toapproval
provides comments onany projects approval streamflow alteration, disruption or condltions
related 10 Flsh and Fish Habitat as granted, destruction 01 fish habitat
well as input on projects under comment only willoccur
CEM and if requested byany
federal agency
DFO has Jurisdiction ofallcenecen No NfA NfA Variable y" Authorization forWorks NlA NlA
Waters and allprojects affectjng fish orUndertakings
hebitat- approval required Affecting Fish Habitat
National Energy Board approval on No NlA NlA Variable No Variable On a project-specific NlA
federally regulated projects basis
British Regional Water Management No y" NlA Few days loa Form Approval forSection 7 Yes - DFO fish screen 2 cismustpess during On asne-specsc On asite-specific Noapprovals required 1-(800)-663-3456
Columbia Branch ofthe Minis!Jy of fullyear Reijulation oftheWater guidelines active pumping basis basis fortests with noaddltves (inB.C. only)
Environment, Lands and Parks Act-short-term use of
<0
coordinates responses from water (604) 387-5956
". appropriate government (outside B.C.)
departments
Regional Environmental Protection Form Approval under the Onas~e-specific On a s~e-speciflc Approval under Waste
Branch oftheMinistry of Waste Management Act basis basis Management Act
Environment, Lands and Parks (for
tests with addffives and in-service
pipe)
Regional EnvJronmental Protection Notilicalion Approval forProposed
Branch ofthaMinistry of Works and Changes In
Environment Lands and Parks and About aStream
(modffication ofthe stream channel under the section 7
isinvolved) Regulation oftheWater
Act
"""""=,=,c·",,,===,,, ,~-=. .,. "'"."?=".'"''''';!!'."._,''-''' ""'="""'==0,,,"",,=,",- .~~~~~~~~~_

.=-",,",';"'."._ _
TABLE 9.1 Cont'd
WATER
VOLUME MINIMUM
THRESHOLD NAME OFLICENSE, DISCHARGE STANDARDS FOR
REQUIRING AN FEE FOR FEE FOR APPROVAL APPLICATION PERMIT OR INTAKE SCREENING WITHDRAWAL RATE WATER TESTING DISCHARGE
URISDICTION ISSUING AGENcynES\ APPROVAL APPLICATION WATER PERIOD FORMAT APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS LIMITATIONS PROCEDURES WATER QUALITY RELEASE APPROVALS SPILL REPORTING
Alberta Water Resources Act- Natural No No No From afew Latter orphone Latter ofAuthority Yes - Fisheries Habitat Sitespecmc
Resources Service ofAlberta hours to6- B ~II Protection Guideline No. 10
Environmental Protection; lor weeks IIpublic
Temporary Diversion andUse of no~fication is
Waler required
Alberta Environmental Protection No No Letter Asrequired lor >1000 rTf Code 01 Asrequired forEPEA Pollution Emergency
and Enhancement ActRegional EPEA and Code of Practicator and Code 01 Practce Response Team
Directors (lorin-service pipe or tests Practice DiSCharge of 1-(800)-222-6514
w~h additives) Hydrostatic Test
Waterlrom Albarta Disaster
Hydrostatic Testing Services
01 Petroleum Liquid (403) 427-2n2
and Natural Gas
Pipeiines
<1000 m3
Environmental
Protection and
Enhancement Act
(EPEA) applies
Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Water Corporation lor No y" y" 24weeks Form Temporary Approvals to Yes DFO fish screen NIA 1-(800) -667-7525
<0 withdrawaVuse 01 water Operate Works under guideiines (inSaskatchewan only)
theSaskatchewan water (306) 787-8000
on Corporation Act (outside
Saskatchewan)
Sasl<atchewan Environment and No No NlA 2-5 Weeks letter Perm~ pursuant to Requested lor all Asrequired by Permit wfth conditions
Resource Management lorwater Section 17(a) 01 the discharges, level of EMPA
discharge Environmental testing is dependant
Management and upon anticipated
Protection Act(EMPA) water qualIty
Regional Fisheries Biologist, No 24 weeks Form orleiter Shoreland Alteration
Saskatchewan Environment and Permit
Resource Management (il stream
bed orbank disturbance isinvolved)
Man~oba Water Resources Branch of y" NIA No 3 weeks tener letterofAuthorization Yes - DFO fish screen 10% 01 instantaneous Onasile-specific Asdetermined by Asrequired under the (204) 944-4888
Manitoba Department 01 Natural under theWater Rigrrts guidelInes and onasJte- dischaJ]e ofthesource basis by Manitoba Man~oba Environment Act
Resources Act specific basis byFisheries sneam Environment Environmental
Branch 01 Manitoba Surface Water
Department 01 NaturaJ Quality Objectives
Resources
-~~,,,,,=,,,,,, . _= ~~,~-~~~~ -·-,_i~""''':~ ".__.__ ~---"'="'.=c'~ .." ,'-" ,_

TABLE 9.1 Cont'd
WATER
VOLUME MINIMUM
n1RESHOLD NAME OFLICENSE, DISCHARGE STANDARDS FOR
REQUIRING AN FEE FOR FEE FOR APPROVAL APPLlCATION PERMIT OR INTAKE SCREENING WITHDRAWAL RATE WATER TESTING DlSCHARGE
URISDICTION ISSUING AGENCY IESl APPROVAL APPLICATION WATER PERIOD FORMAT APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS LIMITATIONS PROCEDURES WATER QUALITY RELEASE APPROVALS SPilLREPORTING
Ontario Ministry 01 Environment and Energy 50,000 Iiday orif NtA NtA 4-6 weeks if Form(s) Permitlo Take Water No Upto10% ofavailable May berequired by Variable, onesite- May berequired by OMOEE Spills Action
(OMOEE), RegionaJ Director withdrawal new pipe and streamflow, if more OMQEE specific basis by OMOEE Centre
irrlerferes with limited concerns required, meel with OMOEE. Must meet 1-(800) -26B-BOeO
public orprivate toinexcess of3 RegionalOMOEE M1SA effluent criteria
interest Inany monlilsfor representative regulations forthe
water previously in- petroleum industry
service pipe
and complex
projects
requiring
advertising
Ministry ofNatural Resources NtA Work Permit
rtf stream bed orbank disturbance is
involved)
OMOEE, Approvals Branch (if 2%ollhecost Approval ForIndustrial
previously in-service pipe orif test oltheworks SewagaWorks
additives areused)
Conservation Authority (ifstream y" Approval under the
bank disturbance is invoived) Conservation Author~les
Act
Quebec Commission deProtection du NIA y" No ±3months Forms Authorization under No No Onaslte-specitic Meet the MEF Authorization under (418) 643-4595
""a> Territoire Agricola duQuebec (ifon
agricultural lands)
aectcn62oftheActTo
Preserve AgricuRural
basis reguiations Section 62oltheActTo
Preserve Agricultural
Om' Om'
Municipality (channelized No No Variable Letter Approval from the
watercourse) Municipality
Mlnistere deL'Environnement et de No No Variable Letter Certificate of Certificateo!
LaFaune (MEF) Authorization Authorization
(natural weterccurses oneither
agricultural land ornonagricuRural
land)
NWT NWT Water Board 100m l/day y" y" 4---B months Form Water Use Type A Yes Ofa fish screen NtA Ona s~e-specific Onasite-specffic Asrequired by NWT (403) 920-8130
ucence guidelines basis bytheNWT basis bytheNWT Waters Act
Water Use Type B Water Board WatarBoard
Ucence under the
Northvlesl Territories
Waters Act(NWTVIIA)
Yukon Yukon Water Board 100 ml/day y" y" asmonths Form Water Use Type A Yes - DFO fish screen NtA Onasfla-specitic Ona s~e"speclfic Asrequired byYukcn (403) 667-7244
ucence guidelines basis bytheYukon basis bytheYukon WatarsAcl
Water Use Type B Water Board Water Board
ucence under theYukon
I","
- ~--~~~~-=-- ·0';:C=,"";',,,
10.0 Other Requirements
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 community's potable water system
or to discharge water into a community's 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

Ii
Ii
Ii
11.0 References
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 i~

s
Sampling, Analysis and Data Management for Contaminated Sites ~ Volume I: Main iL
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
w
i
Method Summaries. Report CCME EPC NCS663, Winnipeg, Statutory Publications, 200 "
Vaughan St., Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1T5. i

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 IT5.
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 Chicago, IL.
w95/0366.
Gas Research Institute. 1996. Environmental Aspects of Hydrostatic Test Water Discharges:
Operations, Characterization, Treatment and Disposa1. April, 1996.
11 - 1

Hamilton, Gordon M. Sr. 1994. Environmental Concerns Drive Project Planning and Design.
Pipeline and Gas Journal. -Ian., 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.
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)

,
I
,1"
!i'
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/625/4-91J026, U.S.EPA Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268.
11- 2

I
I
J
II
II,.,
F
i
Ii
12.0 Appendix A
Water Handling Flow Diagrams
APPENDIX A
WATER HANDLING FLOW DIAGRAMS
A-I

FIGURE 1
Water Withdrawal Decision Process
Source
Suitability
Section 3.0
~ ~
Natural
(Surface,
Municipal Water
Supply
Other
(Man-Made)
I,
,j
,
Groundwater)
I I
Baseline
Sampling
Section 5.0
Environmental
Evaluation
(Section 3.0)
Agency and
Landowner Approvals
(Section B.O)
Water Withdrawal
(Section 3.0)
Water Treatment or
Additives
(Section 3.0)
InjectInto Pipeline
FIGURE 2
Water Handling Decision Process
Service
Determination
J. J.
In-Service Liquid
New In-Service Gas
Petroleum
I I
Expected Water
Quality
(Section 4.0)
Contamination
Minimization
(Section 4.0)
Pre-Release Analysis
(Sectlon 5.0)
Hydrostatic Testing
FIGURE 3
Release Decision Process
Treatment
(Optional)
(SecUon 7.0)
Select
Receptor
(Section 6.0)
I
J. J.
Surface Water Offsite Disposal
Land
(Flowing or Standing) Facility
I
..
I
Meets Release
Meets Disposal
Criteria -
Facility Criteria
(Section 6.0)
1 ..
~o
I Further Treatment
f--
Ve, Ve, Required
Release Water Discharge Water

Analysis Analysis
(Section 5.0) (Section 5.0)
Post-release
Evaluation Disposal Facility
(SecUon 5.0)
I
I
13.0 Appendix B
Hydrocarbon Spectrum Diagram
APPENDIXB
HYDROCARBON SPECTRUM DIAGRAM
Ii
i
I\i
,
;.,
ji
I'!
B-1

PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
Laboratory Analysis Methods
High Mobility Low Mobility
Petroleum Products
..
Furnace oil, diesel oil
Natural gas,
liquid gas
.. . ....Solvents
• Lubricating oils and greases
•
.. Gasoline
• Waxes and bottoms (heavy fuels, asphalts, waxes)
Stove oil, jet and turbofuels
.. •
I
I
.. Common PAH
•
......
BTEX
" C10 - napthalene " C20 - benzo(a)pyrene
Laboratory Analyses
.. Light Hydrocarbons ******* ..
..
Total Purgeables
. *******
Total Extractable Hydrocarbons by GC ***************

**************':'1"
**** Mineral Oil and Grease bv IR or Gravimetric
I I I I 1****1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
o 2 4 6 8 10 1216 18 20 14
22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Number of Carbon Atoms
NOTE:
****
~ Test recoveries in these ranges are insufficient
****
.'"c·"',, .·'~"",,""="-=====c=~; _",,,,,.,...

",,,,_'O.~ '~~--- __" _."""_=_.. __. . . __.. _"'='",,''',',
.._..
'::.C.C:.C.C.:=."'~._._ ._,~"
I
I
f
14.0 Appendix C
Example Chain of Custody Record
I
I
APPENDIXC I
EXAMPLE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
I
i
i
~
~'
C -1

CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD Page __ of __
PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME

ANALYSIS REaUESTED FOR LAB USE aNLY
CliENT NAME
Lot No.
Fleport To: Copy To: Enterod By:
'"a:
W Dale Entered:
REaUESTED COMPLETION DATE: z
SAMPLING PROGRAM
~0 Dale InvoIced:
0
u.
0 mspoetuem
a:
W Dtspese: Return:
~Dl ... g~
wa: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION !l! Dale:
~
STATiON
NUMBER
DATE TIME
~~ iii (This deecrfptlon will 2 SHIPPER ANO REFERENCE.
,."
8 "'"
iil~ appear on the repcn.)
SAMPLE REMARKS
SAMPLED DY/TITLE: (Signature) DATE/TIME RELINQUISHED BY: (Signature) DATE/TIME REMARKS/COMMENTS

(1) (2)
RELINQUISHED BY: (Signatura) DATEITIME RELINQUISHED BY: (Signature) OATEITIME
(3) (4)
RECEIVED BY: (Signature) DATEITIME RECEIVED BY LAB: (Signature) OATEITIME
(5) (61
lJlMIIlIlLMlOO, WIlli e AIm YelLOW· 10 I\CCOMI"I\NV IlIHl'MF.Nt J'INK· nl:II\INF.O F1YCUI:NI,
------_77.0.. .. _... ~ =~_-",'__· ...."__ ~"_ .. __ ___=____=-.-

"~
-,.... _...",--
\
I
i.'
15.0 Appendix D
Treatment Technology Summaries
APPENDIXD
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY SUMWUUllES
• Gravity Separation
• Aeration
• Coalescence
• Floatation
• Filtration
• Granular Absorbent Media Filtration
• Granular Activated Carbon
• Advanced Oxidation Processes
• Air Stripping
• Chemical Precipitation
I
II
I
.1
D -1
I
II
Treatment Technology: Gravity Separation
Primary Contaminants Removed: Free oil and suspended solids

Secondary Contaminants Removed: 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-in-water
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 j
;:
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 aud the
suspended solids require proper release.
D -2

_r
II l=-
t
Ji
~
on
\\\\t l
\0'\
~, \
'tt'fil
I
I.~
,~
~I ,
~
QU'rLE:T {/ \
<
/ ~
CLEMI WIITER
t
COHT....KIN....TED
( • ~
or
=
OUTLET
\~ATEtl INLET
.
Source: Patton, C., 1986. Applied Water Technology. Campbell Petroleum

Series. Oklahoma: Norman.
Petroleum Producers SKIM TANK FOR OIL AND WATER SEPARATION
and
Canadian Energy
0-3
Treatment Technology: Aeration
Primary Contaminants Removed: Volatile organics

Secondary Contaminants Removed: 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 i
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.
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
inorganice 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.
D-4
i
I
Treatment Technology: Coalescence I
Primary Contaminants Removed: Finely dispersed oil, some emulsified oil I
Secondary Contaminants Removed: Suspended solids ~,
f
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 I
'I
on hydraulic loading. Typical hydraulic loading rates are 350 to 900 roB/mll_d. Backwash
water rates are typically 475 to 1300 mB/mll_d. An air scour may also be used.
The use of coalescera, 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.
D -5

I
I
r
Polyurethane foam
i
"o i
"-
•
••
:E
Source: Bradley, W. 1987. Two Oilfield Water Systems, Stream Flooding, Oil
Removal, Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida.
Petroleum Producers CORRUGATED PLATE SEPARATOR
and
Canadian Energy
Pipeline Association Date: September, 1996 Figure No. D.2
D·.
,-------------------,
r-------------------,l
!
I ! 7 ...-----------., II
I I
I
'u/
~v
r-"'-------
, "" I
I I
I I I
I I I 8 I II I
I I I I I I
I
I I /.,~..... ,.,
--
COntrol
I I f , ' .,"-,' Panel
I ," •• ' -':,
• '1--,.,-'-""'::'" , I I Ii
. ..
: I ••
I I ~ .......... : , . . . (J, " 2 I
5,
i."
i""V
!""'7J.. • •• • '.'.~
IL"JL • • • •
",...
' •
'
•
'..
•• ".'
I
I
I
I
I
I
\ ."" ••••••• +-- I I
I I
I
I
Media I I
I I
I
<A I
I
4 .9.
-s- . 1 .0. 'j~.": ~ ....~ ••.~.~
••.: . :
_0
~•• ;I~ ~~_~.;~ -.I~.
!
••
J••
..•..
It-"
.......- •
"~'''•.•.
.•• I
A
I •••·.!:...•• •. _:.• ~.~·
-"""""-,:..;~ 'r':- ••.. I
t. "
::2:-D------------ J 3
1. Raw Water Inlet

2. Treated Water Outlet
v
'~~/'·'·'·'"
""0 ••• "
~~~.J~,."..,..,
,
: .•.•. : ~: -.', ' ~ : ,',/
• • - ••• , • • • • . • . • • . • • • • • • • • ~",
4. Air (or Gas) Scour Inlet

5. Wash water Outlet
•••..
i Vent
'"."
S. Oil Remcvet
•••• : .....
-
1-8
3. Preconditioning Chemical. 6. Wash Water Inlet
Source: Patton, D., 1986. Applied Water Technology. Campbell Petroleum

Series. Oklahoma: Norman.
Petroleum Producers COALESCING FILTER
and
Canadian Energy
D· 7

Treatment Technology: Flotation
i
Primary Contaminants Removed: Finely dispersed oil, some emulsified oil
Secondary Contaminants Removed: Oily suspended solids
I,
rI,
I,
I'
Process Description I,I
" I
Induced air flotation OAF) or dissolved air flotation (DAF) can be used to enhance gravity I
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 DA.
Design Criteria ii"

II
IAF units are sized to provide rmmmum retention time for effective separation. I.
[;
Manufacturers typically base their design on a 1 minute residence time in each cell. Longer k
F
residence times may be required for heavier oils (less density difference). The froth from an I!'
IAF unit comprises approximately 5 percent ofthe feed volume and it contains between 2 and
5 percent oil.
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 i
quality. The oily froth also requires release. il
il
!i
D-8

Effluent
weir Skimmer
a: IIA·l
~ Effluent I II I I Float trough
~
o·
..
:;? ~ -~
.....6.:=
~
ti
~
/'--
• Recycle
~~ '~" suction
, , .
i'.
~
fudge
collector
lec
~ Settled
l
sludge
discharge
Petroleum Producers DISSOLVED AIR FLOATATION UNIT
and
Canadian Energy
. =."'
_~~~=,= ·__,, __ c,,~~ =~C'_C"'" n,.".= .ill. "."_ _ ,,__,, ·__w_=~ - - .. _--.-
Treatment Technology: Filtration (hay bales, cartridge and bag filters
and media filters)
Primary Contaminants Removed: Suspended solids and oil droplets

i!
Secondary Contaminants Removed: None Ii
'I
n
I
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 nsed as stand
alone treatment processes or with an aeration bar. Following treatment, the hay bales are
disposed of. H
\!
u
Depending on the nature of the discharge water, cartridge and bag filters may be used as a H
stand alone process; more typically they are used downstream of a gravity separation process ii
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 ofhay 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 m S/m2wd for high-rate downflow filters. Backwash rates of700~900 m 3/m2 _d are common.
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.
========== D-10 ==========

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
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.
D -11

24-INCH DJAAIFTER BY 12-FDOT PIP£' ~
INNER H4Y 84LE RING- _ ,
OllTER H4r BA1..£ RING-_,.

R£lNFDRCING RODS (TYP.)-....-i:'
6-/NCH DJAAlE'TER amer P'P£;;;~~~~=:;:::b

•
1/2-INCH £XTCRIOR PLJ1+t)O;,~_J"':l?~~~-
CHICK£NW1RE roteING'-..L:--''-:-'':''
ADSORBENT BOOM
PLAN I
NOT TO SCALE fi
OllTER HAY BA1..£ RING n
INNER HAY 84LE RING
ADSORBENT BOOM
24-INCH DJAAI~ BY 12-FrJOT PIP£,
6-INCH DI4M~ DlITl£T PIPE
REfNF'DRCINC RODS (TYP.)' --i':f:::..j----------.-l
SECTION A-A
NOT TO SCAlE
Petroleum Producers HAY BALE FIELD TREATMENT UNIT
and
Canadian Energy
D - 12
Hydmetatie Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Treatment Technology: Granular Absorbent Media Filtration (GAMF)
Primary Contaminants Removed: Emulsified oil, finely dispersed oil

Secondary Contaminants Removed: 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 oftwice 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/ft'') 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.
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.
==========_ D-13
I
Treatment Technology: Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) i,
Primary Contaminants Removed: Dissolved hydrocarbons
Secondary Contaminants Removed: 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 gpmlft2 ) . 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 m 3/m2_d (10 to 15 gpm/tt'') are typica1. Another important design criteria is the
I
s
empty bed contact time (EBCT). Typical EBCTs for the removal of dissolved organics from
wastewater are 15 to 30 minutes.
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, PAR's and pheno1. 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.
========== D-14 ==========

I.!f
I.
I
L Ii
Source: Calgon Corporation, n.d. Adsorption Handbook.
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF GAC
Petroleum Producers
and ADSORPTION COLUMNS IN SERIES
Canadian Energy
D-15

Treatment Technology: Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOP) i'
ii
Primary Contaminants Removed: Dissolved organics I
Secondary Contaminants Removed: Some metals and inorganics
Process Description
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 ~O. The hydroxyl radical can be generated by:
photolysis of hydrogen peroxide (H 202 ) , photolysis of ozone (Os) 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 I.
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 ofUV 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.
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 I
system depends on the characteristics of the feed water and the design and operation of the I
system. AOP's have demonstrated effectiveness at destroying phenols, PAR's and BTEX.
Vendors claim high reductions of these contaminants. Natural water compounds such as II
carbonate, bicarbonate, nitrite and ammonium ions and other inorganics in the reduced state
(Fe 2+, cr'l+) 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 II
AOP's are susceptible to influent fluctuations and they may bave fairly stringent pretreatment II
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.
I I
D-16 ======__==== II
II
!
Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996 I
!
'
/ _ 0...
I
o
o 0
o
o
0
0
o 0
o
o
0
0
o 0
o
o
0
0
, 0
o
o
0
0
c-
0700
0
o
o
0
0
0 0
0
o
t
-
--51.......
Inlet
510.. - ) <>
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0 o 0
It,.og•• I'oo.....
r... 1"'"
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 1990. EPA Technology Evaluation

Report, Site Demonstration on the ULTROX International Ultraviolet
Radiation! Oxidation Technology. EPA 154015-891012. Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Petroleum Producers SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AOP SYSTEM
and
Canadian Energy
D ·17

Treatment Technology: Air stripping
Primary Contaminants Removed: Volatile and semi-volatile organics

Secondary Contaminants Removed: Some inorganics
Process Description
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.B. 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.

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 off-gas treatment is provided. Air emissions may cause environmental or
odour concerns. Air stripping does not remove phenol.
D-18 ===========
.1
ACCUMULA TERI
CON~S DECANTER
Overhead
'~ Product
»<:>
l
/'
!<, Reflux
Feed
PREHEATER
(S
[5\ AECTIFICA TION
SECTION
-
Inlet X -:/
1\ /
~ !l
STRIPPING
SECTION
/ \
.
<, /
I'~ AEBOILEA
/
Bottoms Product
""""
Source: CH,M Hill
Canadian Association ot SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A STEAM

Petroleum Producers
and
STRIPPING PROCESS
Canadian Energy
Pipeline Association Date: September, 1996 Figure No. D.e
D·19
Treatment Technology: Chemical precipitation
Primary Contaminants Removed: Trace metals
Secondary Contaminants Removed: Some suspended solids
Process Description
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. Lime 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 m 3/m2_d.

Chemical precipitation is an effective meaus 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 mglL. 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.
=========... D - 20 =========...
16.0 Appendix E
Spill Contingency Plan
APPENDIXE
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, Bodie or hydrocarbon
contaminated) test water as well as additive or fuelllubricant 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.
2. 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;
(b) 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 imple-
mented to control and contain the spill. The Contractor will be required
to make all resources available to contain and clean-up a spill; and
(c) the Project Engineer, provincial environmental government agency, com-

pany's Spill Coordinator / Environmental Staff, local Oil Spill Co-opera-
tive, the provincial or federal pipeline authority and police service are
notified of the spill and the initial response is being undertaken.
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 i
Plan. l
III
The following general guidelines will be followed for containment of most hazardous
materials. I
E-l

I';
APPENDIX E Cont'd I
,
1. Identify the product, stop source and physically contain spill as soon as I
practical. :
Ii
"
2. 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.
3. Minimize traffic on contaminated Boils.
4. If on land natural depressions or berms constructed with materials and equip-

ment in proximity to the site will be used to physically contain the spill.
Deployment of booms will be necessary 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 tMlck
1. Contain spilled product with berms and by blocking culverts..
2. Pump tanker dry (into appropriate containers or another tanker).
3. Remove tanker from site.
4. Pick up spilled product.
5. Clean-up contaminated area.
6. 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 appro-
priate. Repeat as required.
5.0 Spills Adjacent to or into a Body of Water
1. Construct berm and/or trenches to contain spilled product prior to entry in to j

a body of water. il
il
2. Deploy booms, skimmers, sorbents, etc., if feasible, to contain and recover
spilled material.
3. Pick up spilled product.

I
E-2
I
Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996 Ii
APPENDIX E Cont'd
4. Clean-up contaminated area including downstream shorelines.

I,
5. Dispose of heavily contaminated soil and vegetation at an approved facility.
On lightly contaminated soil areas where restoration is feasible, fertilize and
I
II
then cultivate beyond depth of contamination. Repeat as required.
~I
I
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 I Environmental
Inspector.
2. The Chief I Environmental Inspector, in consultation with the company's

Environmental Staffor applicable government agencies, will determine appro-
priate 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.
3. Locations where spot spills occur are to be flagged or otherwise marked to

ensure that post construction monitoring of tbe 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.
E- 3
APPENDIX E Cont'd
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.
w
(b) 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.
(c) Once the source has been cut off, attempt to contain the
spilled area.
(d) 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.
(e) If any of the above are beyond the capabilities at hand,
do not hesitate to ask for qualified assistance.
,j
'I
II
I,
E-4

APPENDIX E Cont'd
Ii:
SPILL REPORT FORM
Type of Material Spilled:

[,
'i
i
- Hydrocarbon contaminated test water _ i
- Test water additive'
Saline/sodie test water

_
_
I
fO:
1"
Gasoline _
- Diesel _
- Lube Oil _
- Hydraulic Fluid _ ,I
i
Time of Spill or Discovery: _ I;

!"
Source of Spill: _
Area of Spill (m''): _
Volume of Spill (lor m"): _
Location (land, water, land and water): _
Soil Type (e.g. sandy, clay, etc.): _
Legal Location: LSD _ _ Sec Twp _ _ Rg _ _ W---M; KP _
Land Use: _
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Potentially Mfected: _
Weather Conditions at time of Discovery: _
E-5

17.0 Appendix F
Testing Related Conversions
i"
APPENDIXF
it
Ii
TESTING RELATED CONVERSIONS
I
MULTIPLY BY TO OBTAIN !
:!,
Acre feet 43560 Cubic feet
Acre feet 1233A8 Cubic metres
Barrel 35 Imperial gallons
Barrel 42 U.S. gallons
Barrel 0.1193 Cubic metre !I
Cubic foot 0.0283 Cubic metres
Cubic foot 6.229 Imperial gallons L
n
Cubic foot 7A81 U.S. gallons
Cubic metre 264.17 U.S. gallons
Cubic metre 35.3144 Cubic feet
Cubic metre 220.1 Imperial gallons
Cubic metre 6.289 Barrels
Cubic metre 1000 Litres
Cubic metre 2204.6 Pounds of water
Cubic metre 1000 Kilograms of water
i
Cubic foot/sec 0.02832 Cubic metres/sec
Foot 0.3048 Metres
I
J
Kilogram 2.2046 Pounds
I
Metre 3.2808 Feet 1
Mile 1.609 Kilometre
Pound 0.45359 Kilogram
Pounds per square inch 6.895 Kilopascals
[Note: Test water volumes by pipe sizes are provided in Table 2.1 of Section 2]
- F·1
i
:
18.0 Appendix G
Alberta Environmental Protection
APPENDIXG
ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
CODE OF PRACTICE
FOR DISCHARGE OF HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER
FROM HYDROSTATIC TESTING
OF PETROLEUM LIQUID AND NATURAL GAS PIPELINES
G-l
Alwra
Code of Practice for
Discharge of Hydrostatic Test
Water from Hydrostatic

I Testing of Petroleum Liquid
i
and Natural Gas Pipelines
r,
i
.1'1'i\\j;1)"li>!);>j\li:'*.~llj1f'njf,N\l1hii\il'J\'1
,
I
1
Published by the Queen's Printer

for Alberta
Distribulsd by:
I Queen's PrinterBookstore Queen's Printer Bookstore
11510Kingsway AVenue MainFloor, McDougall Centre
Edmonton, Alberta T5G ZY5 455· 6th Street S.W.
427-4952 calgalY, Alberta TzP4EB
Fax: 452.0666 297-6251
CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DISCHARGE OF HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER FROM
I..
HYDROSTATIC TESTING OF PETROLEUM LIQUID AND NATURAL GAS PIPELINES
ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ,;.-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
2 Introduction
3 Definitions
4 Registration
5 Person Responsible's DUly
6 Release of Hydrostatic Test WEiler to Receiving Water
7 Release of Hydrostatic Test Water to Land
8 Analytical Test Methods
9 Record Keeping and Reporting
10 Code Amendment
11 Effective Date
, --,
)'liS,!;.;",I'));' ~'fi:\1i;)j)!~ 'I \~):i1;l1 Registration form t:-'}Nj)~:i~i;\i,iGt\$jU~;~:

, -1
i
!i
f:
CODE OF PRACnCE FOR DISCHARGE OF HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER FROM
HYDROSTATIC TESTING OF PETROLEUM LIQUID AND NATURAL GAS PIPELINES
ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Preface
1(1) The Code of Practice for Discharge of Hydrostatic Test Water from Hydrostatic
Testing of Petroleum Liquid and Natural GIIS Pipelines is incorporated by the Substance Release
Regula/ion (A.R. I24f93), under the authority of section 36 ofthd.Environmental Proteclion and
Enhancement Act. Persons responsible for release of hydrostatic test water affected by this Code
must meet all its requirements to ensure that their activities are in compliance with Alberta's
environmental laws. In addition to the requirements of this Code of Practice, persons responsible
!
\c
e
must comply with all requirements of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement ACI, its
associated regulations and all other applicable laws.
(2) Persons responsible lor releases of hydrostatic test water affected by this Code must
I
register with Alberta Environmental Protection prior to commencing hydrostatic testing of liquid I
"
petroleum or natural gas pipelines. Section 4 of this Code deals with registration in greater I
detail.
Introduction
2(1) This Code of Practice outlines the minimum requirements persons responsible must
meet when releasing hydrostatic test water from the hydrostatic testing of new or in-service
liquid petroleum or natural gas pipelines and associated installations
(a) when the volume of hydrostatic test water is greater than or equal to 1000 m': and
(b) when the hydrostatic test water is to be released to
(i) land,
(ii) flowing water, or
(iii) standing water.
As well, persons responsible should consult with persons or parties lhat may be affected by the
release of hydrostatic test water.
(2) Hydrostatic test water that is directed to a facility approved by Alberta Environmental
Protection or the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board must meetthat facility's requirements.
Where the test volume uf Ihe hydrostatic test water is less than 1000 m', persons responsible
must comply with all requirements of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Acl.
(3) Information on procedures for handling hydrostatic test water can be found in the
latest edition of flydroslatic Test Water Management Guidelines, published by the Canadian
Association of Petroleum Producers and the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.
;',;
,I-".~
jc
(4) Questions or concerns regarding the application or contents of this Code of Practice
can be addressed to:
; Alberta Environmental Protection

i Northeast Boreal and Parkland Regions
Regional Director
5th Floor, 9820 - 106 Street
Edmonton, AS T5K 2J6
phone: (403)427-5838
fax: (403)422-5120
or:

Northwest Boreal and Northern East Slopes Regions
Regional Director
203, III - 54 Street
Edson, AS T7E lT2
phone: (403)723-8395
fax; (403)723-8542
or:

Southern East Slopes and Prairie Regions
Regional Director
20 I Deerfoot Square
2938 - 11 Street N.E.
Calgary, AB T2E 7L7
phone; (403)297-7605
fax; (403)297-5944
,.
I
II
!
Definitions
3(1) In this Code of Practice,
(a) "flowing water" means surface water such as a stream or river that has water flowing
in it prior to and during release of hydrostatic test water;
(b) "hydrostatic testing" means hydrostatic testing of new or in-service liquid petroleum
or natural gas pipelines that generates 1000 m' or greater of water;
\ (e) "hydrostatic test water" means water resulting from hydrostatic testing;
(d) "limits" means end-or-pipe limits for hydrostatic test water before
(i) dilution with the receiving water, or
(ii) application to land;
(e) "liquid petroleum pipeline" means a pipeline through which liquid petroleum product
has passed;
(f) "natural gas pipeline" means a pipeline through which natural gas product has passed;
(g) "new pipeline" means a liquid petroleum or natural gas pipeline that has never been in
service;
(h) "peatland" means peat covered terrain;
(i) "peat" means soil composed almost exclusively of organic matter derived from the
partial decomposition of vegetation which has grown in shallow water;
(D "pipeline" means a pip, tor the transmission ofliquid petroleum or natural gas "0'
installations in connection with that pipe;
(k) "receiving water" mews flowing water or standing water;
(I) "standing water" means surface water such as a lake, beaver pond, or slough that nes
water standing in it prior to and during release nfhydrostatic test water.
(2) Terms that arc defined in section I of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement
Ac{ and in the Substance Release Regulation (A.R. 124/93) have the same meaning when they
arc nscd in this Code of Practice, unless otherwise defined or modified within this Code of
Practice.
Registration
4 In addition to any information required by the Director under the Approvals and
Registration Procedure Regulation (A.lt. 113/93), a person responsible planning to release
hydrostatic test water to receiving water or to land shall complete the registration form attached
to this Code of Practice and forward it to the Director at least one week before commencing
hydrostatic testing.
Person Responsible's Duly
5 The person responsible shall comply with all requirements of this Code of Practice.
,
Release of Hydrostatic Test Water to Receiving Water
!
6(1) The hydrostatic test water shall be sampled prior to release. A representative sample
of the hydrostatic test water shall be taken and analyzed for the parameters in Table I, according
to the analytical test methods in Table 3.
(2) I lydnl:;~ltil: [,.,,~j warcr rclcaxcx [0-receiving water xhall he controlled at all times [0
meet the applicable limits set out in Table I.
Table I \
Limits for Release of Hydrostatic Test Water to Receiving Water
Substance or parameter Limits (in mglL Limits (for2: 2: I Monitoring

unless otherwise dilution)' (in mglL requirements
stated) unless otherwise
slated)
TSS 10 20 A,B,C
benzene 0.3 0.6 [I,C
ethylbenzene 0.7 1.4 S,C
toluene 0.3 0.6 B,C
xylenes OJ ,
0.6 R,C
free chlorine residual' 0.02 0.04 A,B,C
pH 65 to 8.5 units 6.5 to 8.5 units A,B,C
iron, dissolved 1.0 20 A,13,C
narrative standards no: visible sheen no: visible sheen A,B,C
additives': non-toxic non-toxic A,B,C
concentration concentration
acute toxicity LC w , EC", or IC" LC"" EC,. or IC,. C
greater than or equal greater than or equal to
to 100% 100%
Key for Table I'

Type of'Hydrostatic Test Code
new pipeline A'
natural gas pipeline B
liquid petroleum pipeline C
'These limits are applicable only where a minimum ofa 2:1 dilution can be attained withtile receivingwater (for
example, 2 parts receiving water to I part Ilydrostatic releasewater).
'Monitor only if chlorineor chlorine productsused.
) Additives include, but are not limitedto blocides,corrosion inhibitors, detergents, antifreeze, oxygenscavengers
and leak detection tracers.
• The personresponsible shall demonstrate that the test water is non-toxicifadditives are used.
, New pipelines that havean intemalliner and where additives are not used are exempt from the monitoring
rcquired under Table l.
l':
Release of Hydrostatic Test Water to Land Imi!
7(1) Soil samples shall be taken and analyzed from the area of land that will receive the I
hydrostatic test water before carrying out the hydrostatic test. The samples shall be analyzed for
pI-I,electrical conductivity and sodium adsorption ratio according tu the analytical test methods
in Table 4.
(2) The hydrostatic test water shall be sampled prior to release. A representative sample [!
of the hydrostatic test water shall be taken and analyzed for the parameters in Table 2 according
to the analytical test methods in Table 3. Ii
(3) The hydrostatic test water shall meet the applicable limits set out in Table 2.
Ifi
I
Table 2 IIi
Limits for Release of Hydrostatic Test Water to Laud 1"
Substance or parameter Limits Monitoring

Requirements (see
Key for Table
below)
pl-l: peatland and forested land no more than I unit greater than A,B,C I
receiving snii or peat
pH: all other land 6.5 - 8.5 A,B,C ,
Electrical conductivity 2 dS/m A,O,C
,
,
i!i
,
Sodium adsorption ratio 6 A,B,C ,
,
TPH 1
100 mg/L B,C ,
Toxicity! EC SD greater than or equal to 100% A,B if additives'
,,
used
C in all cases I,
,
Narrative Standard No visible sheen ABC
Key for Tablc·

Type of Hydrostatic Test Code
new pipeline A
natural gas pipeline D
liquid petroleum pipeline C
\ Total petroleum hydrocarbons (sum of lolaI purgeable and total extractable hydrocarbons).
'AS1'M Me/hod E J598-94 (Amcnc"" Society ofTesling and Materials).
, Additives include biocides. ecrroslon inhibitors, detergents, an.tifreeze, oxygen scavengers and lcak deteolion
traters.
(4) The rate of release of hydrostatic test water shall be controlled to prevent visible soil
erosion.
(5) Hydrostatic test water shall no! be released in a manner or \0 a location that resnlts in
I
'1
injury to veghation due 10standing water or saturated soil conditions.
(6) Hydmstutic test water shall not be released onto soiltluu has an electrical
conductivity exceeding 2 dS/m and a sodium adsorption ratio exceeding 6. I
I
I
(7) Hydrostatic lest water shall not be released to land where surface runoff of the
hydrostatic test water may reach an open water body unless the hydrostatic test water meets the
limits in Tables I and 2.
Analytical Test Methods
8(1) The person responsible shall use the analytical test methods in Tables 3 and 4 for the
monitoring requirements in this Code of Practice.
(2) Should the analytical test method be modified or an alternative test method developed
by the person responsible, validation of the modified or alternative test method shall be
performed by the person responsible. The validation process should include the determination of
precision and hias, method ruggedness and analysis of independently prepared unknown
samples, as specified in Method 1040 of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, published by the American Public Health Association, Water Works Association,
and Water Environment Association, as amended from time to time. Once the new or modified
method has been validated, it shall he tested for its equivalency to the recommended methods
listed below.
Table 3
Water lest methods
'rese Analytical method Parameters

BTEX EPA or SM benzene, toluene, eihylbenzene. xylcnes
"[PH EPA or SM Total petroleum hydrocarbons (purgeable + extractable)
pH SMor EPA hydrogen ions
TSS SM or EPA total suspended solids (organic and inorganic)
TOS SM total dissolved solids
EC SM EPA electrical conductivity
SAR SM Sodium adsorption ratio
free chlorine SM The measurement is to be carried out in the field since free chlorine
residual content is affected by agitationand prolonged exposure to suniight
toxicity(for Greenetal.19890r seedling emergence or Microtox
release to land) Environment Canada Methods
acute toxicity (for Environment Canada Methods rainbow trout or Daphniamagna or Se!enaslrum capricornulum or
release to water) Ceriodaphnia duMa OrMicrotox
Dissolved iron SM or EPA iron
SM Franson, MAR. (ed.] 1995. Standard Me/hods/or the Examinationof woter
and Wastewater, 19th edition, as amended from time to time. American Public
Health Association, Water Works Association, Water Environment I
Association.
EPA U.S.E.P.A. 1983. Methods/of Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. TWA
60014-79-020, Revised March 1983, as amended from time to time. U.S.E.P.A.
I!
Environmental Monitoring Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
L
Green er al. Greene, J.e., C.L. Bartels, W.L. Warren-Hicks, u.n. Parkhurst, G.L. Linder, \ @
1989 S,A. Peterson, and W.E. Miller. 1989. Protocol for short term toxicity screening I
nf hazardous waste sites. EP /I. l'iOOf3-8R-029. 102p. R
Environment For rainbow trout: Environmental Protection Series Biological Test Method:
C<llloda Methods Reference Methadfor Determining the Acute Lethality ofEjJluenito Rainbow
Trout, Environment Canada, Report EPS IIRM113, July 1990, as amended
from time to time.
For lliIv.hni.!l m.millll, Environmental Protection Series Biological Test Method:

Reference Methodfor Determining the Acute Lethality ofEjJfuentto Dm2lJIJkI.
l!.1QgIlJ1, Environment Canada, Report EPS l1RM/14, July 1990, as amended
from time to time.
For Mierotox, Environmental ProtectionSeries Biological Test Method:

Toxicity Test Using Luminescent Bacteria (Photobacterium rhosnhoreumJ,
Environment Canada, Report EPS l1RM124, November 1992, as amended from
time to time.
For SelenMtrum ca,priCQffiutum, EnvironmentalProtection Series Biological

Test Method: Growth Inhibition Test Using the FreshwaterAlga (Selenastrum
capricomutllmJ, Environment Canada, Report EPS, October 1992, as amended
from time to time.
For Ceriodapbnja l1.uhin, Environmental ProtectionSeries Biological Test

Method: Test ofReproductionand Survival Usingthe Clondoceran
Ceriodarhnia dlillin., Environment Canada, Report EPS IIRMl2 l , February
1992, as amended from time to time.
For Fathead Minnows, EnvironmentalProtectionSeries Biological Test

Method: Test ofLarval Growth and SUlYival Using Fathead Minnows,
Environment Canada, Report EPS I1RM/22, February 1992, as amended from
time to time.
'~.
i'
,
Table 4
Soil and peat test methods
Test, Analytical Methnd Parameters

pH Carter, M. (ed.) 1993 hydrogen ions
EC Carter, M. (cd.) 1993 electrical conductivity
SAR Carter M. 'd. 1993 sodium ad'orption ratio
Carter, M. (cd.) 1993. Soil Sampling and Methods ofAnalysis, as amended from time to
time. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida.
Record Keeping And Reporting
9(1) The person responsible shall immediately report any contravention of this Code
of Practice by telephone to the Director of Pollution Control Division at (403) 422-4505.
(2) The person responsible shall provide the Director of Pollution Control Division
with a written report of all contraventions of this Code within one week of discovery of the
contravention and shall include the following information:
(a) a summary of all contraventions of this Code;
(h) explanation as to why the contraventions occurred; and
(c) proposed preventative measures designed to prevent future contraventions.
(3) The person responsible shall keep on file for 5 years from completion ofthc
hydrostatic testing all results of the operation related to the hydrostatic testing, and shall
make these results available to Alberta Environmental Protection upon request.
(4) As part of the hydrostatic testing, the person responsible shall compile the
following information:
(a) a schematic diagram and details nfthe monitoring and release operation including
monitoring points, holding system, conveyance system, hydrostatic test water
release flow rate, and area of receiving land or receiving water;
(b) the name of the receiving water, if available, and estimated receiving stream flow
rate;
(c) photographs of the monitoring points, holding system, and conveyance system;
(d) if released to receiving water, photographs of the release during representative
periods of release into the receiving water and downstream, if applinable, to a
distance of at least 100 metres;
(e) if released to land, photographs of the release taken during representative periods
of release and photographs of the lund receiving the release taken 5 days after the
release is complete; and
(f) a record of all of the analytical results associated with the release of hydrostatic
test water.
Colle Amendment
10 This Code of Practice will be reviewed by September 30, 1997 and every 10
years thereafter. Alberta Environmental Protection will accept and compile written
comments received as of September 30, 1997 for the initial review. Subsequently, Alberta
Environmental Protection will accept and compile written comments on the contents of this
Code at any time, and will review all comments received at the next 10 year review. The
Director may institute a review and amendment of this Code of Practice at any time. All
proposed,amendments to this Code of Practice will be reviewed by government, the
industry, and the interested public. The Director shall have the final decision on
amendments made to this Code of Practice. Amendments to this Code of Practice shall
become effective when published by Alberta Environmental Protection.
Effective Date
II This Code of Practice is effective September 30, 1996.

Alrorra
Environmental Protection
Application and Registration Form for Hydrostatic
Testing Water Diversion, Use and Release
i
Application Date: _
I
I
Person Responsible (Owner) Operator: same as owner nor: I
Company: Company:
Address:
City:
Address:
City:
\
,
Province: Province: r:
Postal Code: Postal Code:
f1
Y
Phone: Fax: Phone: Fax: 'I
i
Hydrostatic Test Contractor' Location of test section:
Company:
Address:
City:
Prom:
To: =
IIIITI
LSDSTRM
Province:
Postal Code:
Phone: Fax:
Length of test section:
Pipeline diameter:
Test water volume:
ri::
l::=:j m-
Type of pipeline: D Gas

D D
Gas Oil
D 1-==
011 Olher(Desclib.}
_
llCW in ""1V1ce new in se",1ce
=
Test water source:
Location:
L5DSTRM
Date ofwithdrawal: _
Type of source (check one):
Groundwater
H Surface Water
Municipal
Name of water body:
Muncipality or town:
Location: =
Test water release:
LSOsTRM
Date ctrelease: _
Volume of release: 1 1 m' Rate of release: 1- - 1 m'lhr
Type of receiving body (check one):
~
L,"d
Surface Water Name of water body:
Injection well Operator:
Other Description:
Additives Used:
Treatment
Methods:
(attach additional
sheet if necessary)
Attach map, diagram, or air photo of release area showing:

1. release location
2. area of land that will contain release (if released to land)
3. direction of stream now (if applicable)
3. sampling locations
I acknowledge that I have reviewed a copy of the Code of Practice for Discharge of
Hydrostatic Test Water from Hydrostatic Testing of Petroleum Liquid and Natural Gas
Pipelines, and that 1am bound by the provisions of the Code of Practice and any
subsequent amendments to it.
Signature of Person Responsible (Owner)
Date
For office nse only:
Date Received: _
Registered By:
Director's Signature Title Dilte
Registration Numbcr: _
~
II
!
19.0 Appendix H
Summary for Hydrostatic Testing Contacts
j
II
!
,I
i
I!,
APPENDIXH
SUMMARY FOR HYDROSTATIC TESTING CONTACTS
IADDRESS I PHONE NUMBER I

FEDERAL
National Energy Board (403) 292-4800

311 ~ 6th Avenue S.W.
Calgary, Alberta T2P 3H2
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
Quebec Region (418) 648-3270
320, rue St. Joseph est )
Case postale 51127
Comptoir postal G. Roy i,Ii
Quebec, Quebec GlK BZ7
11
Ontario Region (418) 973-8201
5th Floor
25 St. Clair Avenue East
II
Toronto, Ontario M4T 1M2 i
n
Manitoba Region (204) 983-2475 I
275 Portage Avenue I!
Room 1100
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 3A3
Saskatchewan Region (308) 780-5950
2221 Cornwall Street
Regina, Saskatchewan S4P 4M2
Alberta Region (403) 495-2835
630 Canada Place
9700 Jasper Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta T5J 4G2
B.C. Region (804) 668-5201
300, 1550 Albernie Street
Vancouver, British Columbia V6G 3C5
Yukon Region (403) 667-3300
Northern and Indian Affairs
Room 345, 300 Main Street
Whitehorse, Yukon YIA 2B5
N.W.T. Region (403) 920-8111
P.O. Box 1500
Yellowknife, NWT XIA 2R3
Indian Oil and Gas
Indian Oil and Gas Canada (403) 292-5625
Office 100
H -1

APPENDIX H Cont'd

Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Quebec Region (418) 648-4092
Fish Habitat Management
P.O. Box 15550
Quebec, Quebec GlK 7Y7
Central and Arctic Region (204) 983-5181
Habitat Management
501 University Crescent
Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N6
Pacific Region (604) 666-6566
Habitat Management ii
555 W. Hastings Street
Vancouver, British Columbia V6B 5G3
Navigable Waters
Regional Superintendent, Central Region (519) 383-1865
Navigable Waters Protection (519) 383-1989 (fax)
201 Front Street North, Suite 703
Sarnia, Ontario N7T BBI
Regional Superintendent, Western Region (604) 631-3730
Navigable Waters Protection (604) 631-3747 (fax)
Suite 620, BOO Burrard Street
Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z 2J8
Regional Superintendent, Maritimes Region (902) 426-2726
Navigable Waters Protection (903) 426-6501
Canadian Coast Guard
P.O. Box 1000
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 3ZB
Regional Superintendent, (709) 772-2284
Newfoundland Region (709) 772-2193
Navigable Waters Protection
P.O. Box 1300
St. John's, Newfoundland A1C 6HB
Regional Chief, Laurentian Region (418) 648-4549
Navigable Waters Protection (418) 648-7640
Canadian Coast Guard
101 Champlain Bou!., 3rd Floor
Quebec, Quebec G lK 4H9
H-2

APPENDIX H Cont'd

PROVINCIAL
I I
British Columbia
Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks
Water Management Environmental
Protection
Peace Regional Sub Office (604) 787-3268 (604) 787-3283
Room 200
10003 - HOth Avenue
Fort St. John, British Columbia
Vancouver Island Regional Headquarters (604) 751-3100 (604) 751-3100
2569 Kenworth Road
Nanaimo, British Columbia V9T 4P7
Lower Mainland Regional Headquarters (604) 582-5200 (604) 582-5200
10334 - 152A Street
Surrey, British Columbia V3R 7PB
Southern Interior Regional Headquarters (604) 371-6200 (604) 371-6227
I
t
1259 Dalhousie Drive
[
Kamloops, British Columbia V2C 5Z5
iI
Kootenay Regional Headquarters (604) 354-6372 (604) 354-6355
617 Vernon Street
Nelson, British Columbia VIL 4E9
Skeena Regional Headquarters (604) 847-7260 (604) 847-7260
Bag 5000, 3726 Alfred Avenue
Smithers, British Columbia VOJ 2NO
Northern Regional Headquarters Water Management Environmental
lOll-4thAvenue (604) 565-6160 Protection
Prince George, British Columbia V2L 3H9 (604) 565-6155
I Alberta I
Alberta Environmental Protection" Natural Resources Service - Water Management'
Regional Administrator - Northwest Boreal (403) 624-6167
Provincial Building (403) 624-6335 (fax)
9621 . 96A Avenue
l
Peace River, Alberta TOH2XO
!I
[
1 See attached maps
H-3

APPENDIX H Cont'd

Regional Administrator - Northern East* (403) 427-5296
Slopes, North East Boreal Regions and (403) 422-0528 (fax)
Northern Parkland 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 (403) 340-5310
Region (403) 340-5022 (fax)
Provincial Building
4920 - 51 Street '
II
t
Red Deer, Alberta T4N 6KB l
Regional Administrator - Prairie Region (403) 297-6582 0
(North) (403) 297-2749 (fax) 10
Deerfoot Square
1
0
3rd Floor ;
2938 - 11th Street N.E.
Calgary, Alberta T2E 7L 7 1!:;
Regional Administrator - Prairie Region (403) 381-5399

(South) (403) 381-5337 (fax)
Provincial Building
200 .·5th Avenue South
Lethbridbge, Alberta TIJ 4C7
Alberta Environmental Protection. Environmental Regulatory Service
Northeast Boreal and Parkland Regions (403) 427-5838
Regional Director (403) 422-5120 (fax)
5th Floor, Oxbridge Place
9820· 106 Street
Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2J6
Northwest Boreal and Northern East Slopes (403) 723-8395
Regions (403) 723-3879 (fax)
Regional Director
203, 111 - 54 Street
Edson, Alberta TIE 1T2
Southern East Slopes and Prairie Regions
~
(403) 297-7605
Regional Director (403) 297-5944 (fax)
201 Deerfoot Square
2938 - 11 Street N.E.
Calgary, Alberta T2E 7L7
II
'I
!
H-4

APPENDIX H Cont'd

I Saskatchewan I
Saskatchewan Water Corporation'
Head Office (306) 694-3900
Victoria Place
111 Fairford Street East
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan S6H7X9
Southeast Region (306) 848-2345
Weyburn Square
110 Souris Avenue
Weyburn, Saskatchewan S4H 2Z9
Southwest Region (306) 778-8257
350 Cheadle Street West
Swift Current, Saskatchewan S9H 4G3
East Central Region (306) 786-1490 Ii
Yorkton Broadcast Centre F
I'
120 Smith Street East I;
Yorkton, Saskatchewan S3N 3V3
Northeast Region
P.O. Box 2133
(306) 862-1750 I!i
201 - 1st Avenue East
Nipawin, Saskatchewan SOE lEO
Northwest Region (306) 446-7450 11
402 Royal Bank Tower
1101 - 10ist Street
North Battleford, Saskatchewan S9AOZ5
Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Managementl
Regional Fisheries Biologist (306) 425-4576
La Ronge Region (306) 425-4250
Box 5000 (306) 425-4575
La Ronge, Saskatchewan SOJ 1LO
Meadow Lake Region (306) 236-7555
Unit #1, 201 - 2nd Street West
Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan SOM 1VO
Melville Region
117 - 3rd Avenue
Melville, Saskatchewan BOA 2PO
, See attached maps
H- 5

APPENDIX H Cont'd

Prince Albert Region (306) 953-2669
Box 3003
Prince Albert, Saskatchewan S6V6Gl
Saskatoon Region
112 Research Drive
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K2H6
Swift Current Region
350 Cheadle Street West
Swift Current, Saskatchewan S9H4G3
I Manitoba I
Water Resources Branch (204) 945-6114
n
Manitoba Resources Branch i'
Manitoba Department of Natural Resources I

1577 Dublin Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3E 3J5
Ontario Ii
I
Ministry of the Environment and Energy!
Director (519) 661-2200 I
Permit to Take Water Program II
Southwestern Region
985 Adelaide Street Soutb
London, Ontario N6E iV3
Director (905) 521-7640
Permit to Take Water Program
West-Central Region
119 King Street West
P.O. Box 2112, 12th Floor
Hamilton, Ontario LBN 3Z9
Director (416) 326-6700
Central Region
6th Floor, 5775 Young Street
North York, Ontario M2M 4Jl
Director (613) 549-4000
Eastern Region
Box 820
133 Dalton Avenue
Kingston, Ontario K7L 4X6
See attached map
H-6

APPENDIX H Cont'd

Director (807) 475-1205
Northern Region
Suite 331, 435 James Street South
Thunder Bay, Ontario P7E 687 I
Approvals Branch
3rd Floor, 250 Daisville Avenue
Toronto, Ontario M4S lR2
(416) 440-3713
Conservation Authorities)
l
[
Ausable-Bayfield Conservation Authority (519) 235-2610 I
RR #3
Exeter, Ontario NOM 185
Cataraqut Region Conservation Authority (613) 546-4228 i
Box 160
1641 Perth Road
~'i
Glenburnie, Ontario KOHIS0 i
Catfish Creek Conservation Authority (519) 773-9037
RR #5 (519) 773-9605
Aylmer, Ontario N5H 2R4
Central Lake Ontario Conservation (905) 579-0411
Authority
300 Whiting Avenue
Oshawa, Ontario LIH 3T3
Credit Valley Conservation Authority (905) 670-1615
1255 Derry Road West
Meadowvale, Ontario L5N 6R4
Crown Valley Conservation Authority (613) 472-3137
Box 416
Marmora, Ontario KOK 2MO
Essex Region Conservation Authority (519) 776-5209
360 Fairview Avenue West
Essex, Ontario N8M lY6
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (905) 885-8173
Box 328
Port Hope, Ontario LIA 3W4
Grand River Conservation Authority (519) 621-2761
Box 729
400 Clyde Road
Cambridge, Ontario NIR 5W6
, See attached map
H-7

APPENDIX H Cont'd

Grey Bauble Conservation Authority (519) 376-3076
RR #4
Owen Sound, Ontario N4K 5N6
Halton Region Conservation Authority (905) 336-1158
2596 Britannia Road West
RR #2
Milton, Ontario L9T 2X6
Hamilton Region (905) 525-2181
Box 7099 (905) 648-4427
838 Mineral Springs Road
Ancaster, Ontario L9G 3L3
Kawartha Region Conservation Authority (705) 328-2271
Kenrei Park Road
RR #1 i
Lindsay, Ontario K9V 4Rl
Kettle Creek Conservation Authority (519) 631-1270
RR #8 t
St. Thomas, Ontario NSP 3T3
Lakehead Region Conservation Authority (807) 344-5857
I
,
Box 3476
130 Conservation Road
Thunder Bay, Ontario P7B 5J9
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (905) 895-1281
Box 282 (905) 773-6482
120 Bayview Parkway
Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1
Long Point Region Conservation Authority (519) 428-4623
RR #3
Simcoe, Ontario N3Y 4K2
Lower Thames Valley Conservation (519) 354-7310
Authority
100 Thames Street
Chatham, Ontario N7L 2Y8
Lower Trent Region Conservation Authority (613) 394-4829
441 Front Street
Trenton, Ontario KBV 6C1
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (613) 692-3571
Box 599
Mill Street
Monatick, Ontario K4M1A5
H-8

APPENDIXH Cont'd
ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER

Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (519) 364-1255
:
R.R. #1 I'i
ii:
Lot 4, Concession XVIII, Normanby
Township
Hanover, Ontario N4N 3E8
Sault Ste. Marie Region Conservation (705) 946-8530
Authority
100 Fifth Line East, R,R. #2
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario P6A 5K7
South Nation River Conservation Authority (613) 984-2948
Box 69
15 Union Street
Berwick, Ontario KOC lGO
St. Clair Region Conservation Authority (519) 245-3710
205 Mill Pond Crescent
Strathroy, Ontario N7G 3P9
Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (519) 451-2800
R.R. #6
Franshawe Conservation Area
London, Ontario N6A 4Cl
I Quebec I
Commission de Protection du Territoire (418) 643-3314
Agricole du Quebec
200-A chemin Ste - Fay _2e etage
Quebec, Quebec GIR 4X6
Minstere de l'Environnement et de Ia faune
Bas Saint Laurent
v (418) 727-3511
212, rue Belzile
Rimousld, Quebec G5L 3e3
Saguenay - Lac-Saint-Jean (418) 695-7883
3950, boul. Harvey, 4 9 etage
Jonqiriere, Quebec G7X BL6
Quebec (418) 622-5151
9530, rue de la Faune
Charlesbourg, Quebec G1G 5H9
Mauricie ~ Bois-Francs (819) 373-4444 ,i
100, rue Laviolette, 1er etage I]
'I'rois-Rivieres, Quebec G9A 589 :1
Estrie (819) 821-2020 II..,
700, rue Goretti
Sherbrooke, Quebec JIE 3H4 I
H-9

APPENDIX H Cont'd
ESS PHONE NUMBER

Montreal (514) 873-3636
5199, rue Sherbrooke est
Suite 3860
Montreal, Quebec HIT 3X9 •
Outaouais (819) 771-4840

98, rue Lois
Hull, Quebec J8Y 3R7
Abitibi-Temiscamingue (819) 762-8154
180, boul. Rideau, bur. 1,047 I!'i'
Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec J9X IN9
Cote-Nord (418) 962-3378
94, ~e Monseigneur Blanche
Sept-Iles, Quebec G4R 3G5
Nord-due-Quebec (418) 643-8662
150, Rene-Levesque est
8" etage
Quebec, Quebec GIR 4Yl
Gaspesie Iles-de-Ia-Madeleine
H (418) 763-3301
10, boul. Ste-Anne
C.P.550
Ste-Anne-des-Monts, Quebec GOE2GO
Chaudiere - Appalaches (418) 387-4143
700, rue Notre-Dame Nord
BureauE
Sainte-Marie, Quebec G8E2K9
Laval (514) 662-2816
4, Place Laval
Bureau 300
Laval, Quebec H7N 5Y3
Lanaudiere (514) 374-5840
6255, 13" Avenue
Montreal, Quebec HIX 3E6
Laurentides (514) 374-5840
6255, 13" Avenue
Montreal, Quebec H1X3E8
Monteregte (514) 928-7607
201, Place Charles-Lemoyne
Bureau 2.05, 2 e etage
Longueuil, Quebec J4K 2T5
H-10

APPENDIX H Cont'd
ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER

Northwest Territories
Water Resources Division (403) 669-2656
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
Box 1500
Yellowknife, NWT XIA 2R3
Yukon
I
Water Resources Division (403) 667-3145
Northern Affairs Program f
345 - 300 Main Street
Whitehorse, Yukon YIA 2B5
H-ll ===========
ALBERTA NATURAL RESOURCES SERVICE WATER MANAGEMENT REGIONS
REGIONAL BOUNDARIES JULY, 1990
M.D. 22
'""''', mH'"''
"J .,
I: ,
M.D.
I .... I
M.D. 131 '" (:
,-," "
"
"'
.l'.,C..'A" I.
', ,", , ., , . I"" -..
,
~~E"
>;;')-;~ . " "
~
An.~
I"
-"~~l'=---
~"~
3 Mr.::
! 't::
:-i
NATUfl.AL RESOURCES SERVICE

WATER MANAGEMENT REGIONS
\
Nate' 1?€;9:'"'''' I B"u"do.r'es Go-re"fly
Under re.1I~"" (J"..l.f z:J/!Jr.)
\
" () " ' ,
H-ll

SASKATCHEWAN WATER CORPORATION REGIONAL BOUNDARIES
,~ Sask Water
\..J OUr Water•..OUr FutUJe
" -'-
!I[)~'r.
~;-',iT[)jjQ
•
'<"""'.i"
" ." . I
H-12 II
'
Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996 I
SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
...
REGIONAL SERVICES BOUNDARIES MAP
'i
i
i
i
,• i
i I
i
i
i La Ronge \ I
i
i
Meadow lake
Flegion
Regi1n
\ I
j \i
i •I
•
I
I
•
I
•
•
\\ I
I,
I
I I
'"
ii.-
~I
\i;;
..\"
I•
Ir
j
i
j
• \
iI
i
I
Region
\
\
i. .--.l-_----1
-'
H-I. ============
ONTARIO MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY
1:
I
I
L
I
i
... ~
\
H-14
il
II
i
ONTARIO MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY DISTRICTS
®Ontario
Ministry 01 Environment and Energy
[) NORTHERNONrARIO(RO) l';> MIDONTARIO (RD) I> EASTERN (RO)

.... Thurder Bay (DO) .... SlJdbury (DO) ... Kings/on (DO)
•
•
o Kenom(DO) o
o
North Bay (DO) e
e
Ol'tawa (DO) I
8 Timnins (DO)
@) SaullSto Man·e (DO) o
MuSkoJca-Haliburton (DO)
Bame(DO)
COmwaf/{DO}
C@ Peterborough(DO) I
CD Parry Sourd (SO) ® Befleville (SO) ~
'r:
e Pembroke (SO)
~i
I> CENTRAL (RO)
... Toronto(DO)
ID HBiIorr'PeeJ (DO)
NORTHERN e Yorl<-DurfJam (DO)
ONTARIO
I> WESTCEffTRAL (RO)
... Ham/flon (DO)
.
,----'
ID
il!l
Cambridge(DO)
Ws/land(DO)
· JL>~-"'--
••
/"
•
·· I>
...
SOUTHWESTERN (RO)
r-:•
London (DO)
,-._---'
• I!i Owen Sound (DO)
---c.;='" )- ID Samia (DO)
ThunderBaY~~~~~t-r
---- .
..... 1;p
ID Windsor (DO)
MID ONTARIO
- - - - - RegionalBaundaty
_______________ DistridBaundary
(RO)- RegionalOffice
(DO)• Disttic1 Office
(SO) - Sub Ofr/Ce
CENTRAL
WEST CENTRAL
H-15

ONTARIO MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY DISTRICTS
11
II
!ii!
~
II
EASTERN
II
[I
SOUTHWESTERN
CENTRAL
WEST CENTRAL
o
RflgionalBolJl'ldary (RO)• Regiolla/ Offlre
DJslIidBoundary (DO)- Dlslfic/Office

fSOI - Sub Office
H-16
'I
~
'"~
1'
M~
~gg~M\
-. ~
!
$
l". (J ~
o
:;3 \.'NICKEC' -, o
NO~A~Y
"~
!1
~
,,,=
P MATTA"V
I~
t"
i?
0:
QUEBEC
>
::l
~
&:
~~.
ce
'\1
~ U.S.A.
.' MICHIGAN '"~
i NEWYORK
U.S.A. o
~
o
---'.~"~="~- ,.. .
"'.=,,=,.~==~- ".=".~'.~=~~.=.-

Hydrostatic Test Water Management - 1996 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Hydrostatic Test Water Management - 1996 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

,I

Hydrostatic Test Water

Pressure testing is routinely conducted before a new pipeline is commissioned to prove

This report provides a description of hydrostatic testing, identifies potential environmental

Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Gordon Dinwoodie Guy Hervieux

Stephen Maunder Dan O'Rourke

Ian Scott (Chairman) Bruce Stubbs I Ken Crutchfield

Bert Johnson Harold Karasiuk

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

;;;;;==============_ Page iii ===============_

API American Petroleum Institute

BOD Biological oxygen demand

BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes

CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment

COD Chemical oxygen demand

DAF Dissolved air floatation

GAC Granular activated carbon

GRI Gas Research Institute

HADD Harmful alteration, disturbance or destruction of fish

IAF Induced air flotation

MOP Maximum operating pressure

==============_ Page iv ==============;;;;;

NGL Natural gas liquids

PAR Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

pig A temporary plug composed of neoprene, brushes etc.,

pipeline A pipe used to transport oil and gas industry products n

SMYS Specified minimum yield strength

TDS Total dissolved solids

Toe Total organic carbon

TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons

TSS Total suspended solids

Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

2.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF HYDROSTATIC TESTING

3.0 WATER WITHDRAWAL 3-1

4.0 TEST WATER 4-1

5.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS 5-1

6.0 DISCHARGE WATER 6-1

7.0 TREATMENT 7-1

8.0 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS 8 -1

9.0 PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS 9 -1

10.0 OTHER REQUIREMENTS 10 - 1

11.0 REFERENCES 11-1

============== Pagevi ==============

FIGURE 2.1 SCHEMATICS OF HYDROSTATIC TEST LAYOUT

TABLE 2.1 HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER VOLUME

Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

• provide a general description of hydrostatic testing of new and in-service pipelines;

• provide water and soil sampling and analytical methods;

Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

• identify regulatory requirements related to minimum quantity of water withdrawn that

Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

2.0 General Description of Hydrostatic Testing of Pipelines

Hydrostatic testing of new pipelines is undertaken following completion of backfilling. Prior

Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER VOLUME

168.3 6 4.0 20.2

Source: Stelpipe 1991, Lessard pers. comm.

Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996