Hydro Static Test Water Management Guidelines-1

HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Prepared for:
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

Calgary, Alberta
and
Canadian Energy Pipeline Association

Calgary, Alberta
Prepared by:
Environmental Consultants (Alta.) Ltd.

Calgary, Alberta
and
CH2M Gore and Storrie Limited

Calgary, Alberta
September, 1996
This report was prepared for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and the Canadian Energy
Pipeline Association (CEPA) under the auspices of the industry/ government Pipeline Hydrostatic Testing Task
Force by TERA Environmental Consultants (Alta.) Ltd. (TERA), and CH2M Gore and Storrie (CG&S). While it is
believed the information contained herein will be reliable under the conditions and subject to the limitations set out,
neither TERA, CG&S, CAPP or CEPA guarantee its accuracy. The use of this report or any information contained
will be at the user’s sole risk, regardless of any fault or negligence of TERA, CG&S, CAPP or CEPA.
It would be appreciated if any comments on this report be brought to the attention of CAPP or CEPA.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pressure testing is routinely conducted before a new pipeline is commissioned to prove integrity at the operating
pressure. Testing of in-service pipelines is also conducted as part of a preventative program to verify pipeline
integrity or when a change in service or maximum operating pressure (MOP) is planned. This report is a revision
of a Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) document entitled “Environmental Regulatory
Requirements and Guidelines for Hydrostatic Testing of Pipelines in Canada” prepared in 1993. The update has
been prepared by CAPP and the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) to provide their members with a
summary of the environmental concerns associated with hydrostatic testing, guidelines used to minimize the risk of
environmental impacts and an overview of the environmental regulatory requirements associated with hydrostatic
testing.
This report provides a description of hydrostatic testing, identifies potential environmental impacts that could arise
as a result of the withdrawal and release of water for hydrostatic testing and provides guidelines to minimize these
impacts. Recommended sampling and analyses protocols are identified to ensure that regulatory limits are not
exceeded and that adverse impacts do not occur. Environmental concerns related to the release of hydrostatic test
water are noted and release guidelines, treatment alternatives and environmental protection measures are presented.
Testing of new pipelines presents relatively limited potential for environmental impacts and, consequently, the
sampling and protection measures recommended are generally straight forward. However, the testing of in-service
pipelines has a greater potential for environmental impact and typically requires more extensive planning. Water
used for these tests may require treatment prior to release and more extensive sampling.
Members of CAPP and CEPA operate pipelines that traverse many of the provinces and territories of Canada. This
report provides the members of CAPP and CEPA with an overview of the environmental regulatory requirements
associated with hydrostatic testing in areas of Canada in which the members are active.
The environmental regulatory requirements for the withdrawal and release of hydrostatic test water vary according
to the jurisdiction in which the testing is to occur. Nevertheless, most jurisdictions require approvals be in place
for both water withdrawal and release. Acquisition of approvals for hydrostatic testing of new pipelines is
generally relatively straightforward, while permits for testing of in-service pipelines tend to be subject to closer
scrutiny and a more lengthy review period due to the potential for substances in the test water.
Approvals obtained from government agencies for water withdrawal typically include the source waters to be used,
the withdrawal rate, screening requirements, total volume to be taken, cost of the water and period of withdrawal.
Page i
Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

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

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
Ken Jenner Cyril Karvonen

AEC Pipelines, Alberta Energy Company Pembina Corporation
Edmonton, Alberta Calgary, Alberta
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 / Ken Crutchfield

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

Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Calgary, Alberta Environmental Protection
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 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 in-
service pipelines.
MOP Maximum operating pressure

NGL Natural gas liquids
PAH Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
Page iv

GLOSSARY Cont’d
pig A temporary plug composed of neoprene, brushes etc., that is inserted

inside the pipeline to scrape hydrocarbon residuals from the pipe wall
or to maintain the separation of test water from air, gas or liquid
petroleum.
pipeline A pipe used to transport oil and gas industry products including
installations (eg. storage tanks) associated with the pipe
SAR Sodium adsorption ratio
shunt To move water used in one test section along the pipeline to another
test section
SMYS Specified minimum yield strength
TDS Total dissolved solids
TOC Total organic carbon
TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons
TSS Total suspended solids
Page v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. i
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
Page vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS Cont’d
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A 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
APPENDIX G ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CODE OF 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 VOLUMEREQUIREMENTS

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 WATER5 _ 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 ANDDISCHARGE...................9 _ 4
Page vii

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;
identify environmental regulatory requirements for federal agencies, as well as British Columbia, Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Northwest Territories and Yukon; and
identify regulatory requirements related to minimum quantity of water withdrawn that requires a permit,
typical approval period, screening requirements, minimum acceptable quality of test water and water
quality testing requirements.
1-1

2.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF HYDROSTATIC TESTING
OF PIPELINES
Hydrostatic testing involves the filling of a section of pipeline to be tested with water, adding additional water to
the pipeline until the desired test pressure is reached and maintaining the pressure in the pipeline for a period
specified by regulatory authorities. Pipelines are hydrostatically tested in order to prove the integrity of the pipe
and welds to the owner company, regulatory authorities and the public. This procedure is conducted on new
pipelines as well as on in-service pipelines when a change of service is proposed, an increase in operating pressure
is planned or to verify the integrity of the pipeline. Hydrostatic testing must be conducted in accordance with CSA
Z662-94 - Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. This national standard stipulates test pressures, test durations and other
engineering requirements.
Failure of an operating pipeline can result in health and safety concerns, damage to property and has the potential
for significant environmental impact. Consequently, it is important to ensure that a pipeline is free of leaks and is
capable of maintaining its integrity at an approved operating pressure in order to limit the risk to the public and the
environment. Safety of the public and workers along the right-of-way are also of concern during testing due to the
high test pressures involved. Companies conducting tests are required to follow all safety precautions and
regulations. Companies are required to post warning signs and advise the public of danger.
Hydrostatic testing of new pipelines is undertaken following completion of backfilling. Prior to filling the pipeline
with water, a cleaning pig is often run through the test section to remove any debris (e.g. welding litter, dirt) from
the pipeline. In some instances, a small volume of water is run through the pipe between two pigs to remove as
much remaining soluble material (rust, dirt, oils and grease) as possible prior to filling the test section with water.
Similarly, operating oil pipelines are often cleaned with pigs to evacuate hydrocarbons from the pipe and a solvent
may be used to remove any remaining hydrocarbon and build up of paraffins or waxes on the pipe walls prior to
testing.
The pipeline section to be tested is then filled with test water which is confined between a minimum of two pigs.
The volume of water required for a test is dependent upon the length of the test section, diameter of the pipe (Table
2.1), season of testing (i.e. if hot water is to be circulated prior to initiation of the test), need for contingency water
in case of a test failure and quantity of additives to be used. Since the transportation of water to a fill site can be
very expensive, fill points are usually situated at locations where the pipeline crosses or closely approaches a
watercourse or waterbody with an adequate water supply available for testing.
1-1

TABLE 2.1
HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER VOLUME

REQUIREMENTS FOR STANDARD PIPE SIZES
Outside Diameter Wall Thickness Fluid Volume

(mm) (m3/km)
(mm) (inches)
60.3 2 3.2 2.3
88.9 3 3.2 5.3
114.3 4 3.2 9.1
168.3 6 4.0 20.2
219.1 8 6.4 33.4
273.1 10 6.4 53.2
323.9 12 7.9 74.6
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.
1-2

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 pipeline from one test section to another in order to minimize water
requirements. Since the test section of an operating pipeline may be downstream from the nearest terminal or fill
point, the water may be required to travel along the pipeline for a considerable distance prior to reaching the test
section. Water used during testing of an in-service pipeline will come in contact with any residual hydrocarbons
and contaminants on the wall of the pipeline, hydrocarbons encountered at bypasses and stations as well as
hydrocarbons encountered at the interfaces. Therefore, contamination of the test water with hydrocarbons will
occur to some extent.
The potential exists for water to freeze in a pipeline under test when ground temperatures are below freezing. To
avoid this occurrence, either additives such as methanol or ethylene glycol are added to the water during filling to
reduce the freezing point of the test water or heated water is circulated through the test section for several hours
until the temperature of the pipe and surrounding ground reach 2 to 4 C. Larger diameter pipelines (ie. > 406.4
mm O.D.) are less susceptible to freezing below ground than smaller pipelines but may still require above ground
piping and valving to be protected and heated.
Some pipeline companies use other additives during testing to minimize the risk of corrosion to the pipeline when
the pipe is filled with water. The potential exists for bacterial activity in the source water to result in internal
corrosion of the pipe. A biocide batch may be run after dewatering to eliminate any remaining bacteria while
avoiding contamination of the test water. Since the presence of oxygen in the water can accelerate corrosion, some
companies add oxygen scavengers to the test water to remove free oxygen. Under some circumstances, biocides
may be added to the test water to minimize impacts on down hole formations if test water is discharged to an
injection well. Biocides may also be used to kill bacteria, fish pathogens or other undesirable aquatic biota when
water is to be transferred from one drainage basin or waterbody to another during testing. Some test additives such
as mercaptans, other odourants or dyes (e.g. Flourescein) are sometimes used during testing to assist in the location
of small leaks. Additional information on test additives is presented in Section 4.1.
1-3

After the pipe is filled, additional water is added to the pipeline with a squeeze pump to reach the desired test
pressure. The pipeline is considered to be on test or the strength test begun when the pressure reaches the
appropriate test pressure stipulated by federal / provincial requirements and the national standard CSA Z662-94.
Test pressure and duration vary, depending upon the type of hydrocarbon product to be transported and location of
the pipe in relation to residences. For example, in Class 1 areas the pressure is a minimum of 1.25 times the
maximum operating pressure (MOP) of the pipeline. This pressure is then held for a minimum of eight hours, (i.e.
four hour minimum strength test at > 1.25 MOP plus four hour minimum leak test at > 1.10 MOP) depending upon
thermal variations or other factors that affect the validity of the tests.
If the pressure remains constant, the test is deemed successful and the test section can be depressurized. The test
water is commonly discharged from the pipeline by inert gas (e.g. nitrogen) or product to push the pigs through the
pipe. In some cases (eg. new pipelines) compressed air may also be used for dewatering. Additional pig runs are
then generally conducted until no more water can be removed from the pipe by this method. A final slug of
methanol may be used to dry the pipeline. If the test does not maintain pressure throughout the required period,
this indicates there is a pipeline leak which must be located. Then, the pipeline must be exposed to repair the leak
and the pipeline retested. Occasionally, a pipe under test will suddenly fail and discharge test water. Test failures
can result in flooding of localized areas or the degradation of soil or water quality if the source water was of low
quality or the test water has been contaminated with hydrocarbons or additives. In order to minimize the risk to the
public, warning signs are erected at road crossings and other points of entry to the pipeline right-of-way under test,
and in populated areas, blasting mats may be placed and evacuation of nearby residents required.
Water used to test new pipelines is often discharged onto noncultivated lands, (e.g. pasture, bar ditches) or into
storm sewers, disposal wells, ponds, lakes or watercourses. Since the potential exists for contamination of the test
water with hydrocarbons during testing of in-service pipelines, subsequent treatment or special release measures
may be required for the test water upon completion of the test.
Testing of in-service oil, product and condensate pipelines have the greatest potential for contamination of test
water, while contamination during testing of gas or natural gas liquid pipelines generally results in lower levels of
contamination and testing of new pipelines has the least potential for contamination.
The portion of water that is most contaminated with hydrocarbons is referred to as the interface waters. Although
the volume of the interface water varies according to the length of the test section, hydraulic conditions and other
factors, the volume of the interface water generally comprises less than 10% of the total volume of the test water.
The interface waters are concentrated on the back side of the pigs (see Figure 2.1). The remainder of the test water
is generally less contaminated with hydrocarbons and is termed the core water. If treatment or disposal of the
interface waters is required, the pipeline company can direct the interface water into tanks, storage ponds or other
holding facilities by sampling or tracking the arrival of the pigs. Treatment and release options for contaminated
test water are discussed in Section 7.1.
Potential environmental impacts that could occur during testing and the mitigative measures that are available to
minimize the risk of environmental impact are described in Sections 3.0, 4.0 and 6.0.
1-4

1-5

1-6

3.0 WATER WITHDRAWAL
3.1 Source Water
Planning of a hydrostatic test program involves the selection of an appropriate test water source. Figure 1
(Appendix A) provides a summary of the water withdrawal decision making process. Ideally the source water
should be:
 of high quality;
 available in large volumes;
 located near the optimum fill location;
 accessible with a minimum of disturbance;
 within the same drainage basin as the discharge point; and
 economical.
Most operators attempt to use the highest quality source water available for testing to minimize the risk of pipeline
corrosion and optimize test water release options. However, the selection of a water source is also affected by the
volume required, availability and cost. Test volumes required can vary significantly depending upon the diameter
of the pipeline (Table 2.1) and length of the test section. Potential source waters include surface water, potable
municipal water supplies and groundwater. Regulatory approval, for both water use and activities related to the
withdrawal of water from the water source, is required, as discussed in Sections 8.0 and 9.0.
Potable water supplies are generally among the highest quality source waters since they are required to meet the
Canadian drinking water guidelines. These water sources are unlikely to introduce substances of concern into the
hydrostatic test water but could cause concern in the event of a test failure on a new pipeline, or, cause test water
release problems. The metals and chlorine found in some potable waters could adversely affect sensitive aquatic
species. When testing in-service pipelines, chlorine, if present in high concentrations could combine with residual
hydrocarbons to produce undesirable compounds. Under these circumstances testing for residual chlorine and/or
treatment measures (e.g. aeration) may be required.
The quality of surface water and groundwater varies depending on the ecoregion, the type of watershed and depth
1-7

of groundwater source. Some surface water, particularly those in swampy or low lying areas, may have high
suspended solids concentrations or other undesirable characteristics (e.g. high bacteria or high salinity/sodicity
levels). There is also a risk of contaminants being present from other industrial discharges. A company testing
with water of low quality must address the effects of an accidental release of this water. Selecting an appropriate
discharge site and assessing legal considerations regarding cleanup of the contaminants is imperative. The transfer
of exotic biota from one watershed to another may also be of concern and be restricted by regulation (see Sections
8.0 and 9.0). Groundwater sources in some regions may have high dissolved solids concentrations and contain
trace metals.
It is prudent and, in some jurisdictions, required to obtain analyses of non-potable source waters prior to
hydrostatic testing for comparison of baseline water quality data to the discharge water quality. The selection of
parameters for testing the source water will vary on a case by case basis (see Section 5.1). Some factors to
consider when testing source water include the origin of the water source (surface water or groundwater), release
method, discharge location and regulatory requirements related to the discharge of the test water.
The main objective of analyzing the source water is to confirm that substances that could pose a discharge problem
are not being introduced. Surface water or groundwater may be tested for total dissolved solids, salts (electrical
conductivity, sodium absorption ratio), pH, trace metals and suspended solids. Additional analyses may be
conducted if there is a concern of introducing substances that could adversely affect the environment. Sampling
and analytical methods are discussed in Section 5.0.
The selection of a test water source is also dependent upon the ability to obtain approval from regulatory agencies
and the landowner. For example, an alternate source may be required if a landowner or water management agency
denies access to an otherwise ideal source of test water.
3.2 Potential Environmental Impacts
The potential exists during water withdrawal to adversely affect aquatic biota, soils and land use. The degree of
risk to these environmental components is influenced by the:
 source water withdrawal rate;
 volume withdrawn;
 timing;
 location and sensitivity of the withdrawal point; and
 activity needed to prepare, use and abandon the withdrawal site.
Fish and Fish Habitat
1-2

Improper selection of a water withdrawal site or poorly conducted water withdrawal operations could adversely
affect fish and fish habitat. Excessive volumes of water withdrawn or water withdrawal rates could potentially
limit the amount of water available for use by fish. Small bodies of water can be more susceptible to adverse
impacts from high withdrawal rates and volumes than are larger bodies of water. Significant water reductions in a
body of water could result in decreased mobility, increased susceptibility to predation, increased stress related
energy expenditures as well as abandonment, deterioration or loss of habitat. Overwintering fish and incubating
eggs of fall spawning fish may be particularly sensitive to reduced streamflow since streamflows are lowest in
many regions of the country during the winter months and adequate water depth and streamflow are required to
prevent freezing of the body of water to the bottom. Inadequate screening of water intakes and excessive intake
velocities can result in mortality if fish eggs or small fish are withdrawn from the body of water.
Fish and fish habitat could also be adversely affected by intake site preparation (excavation of sumps or clearing
of riparian vegetation) or by an accidental spill of fuel or lubricants during water withdrawal activities. Instream
activities during sensitive life history phases (spawning, incubating, rearing and overwintering) have a higher
potential for affecting fish.
Aquatic Furbearers and Waterfowl
Aquatic furbearers and waterfowl could be adversely affected by inadequate water levels if a large volume of
water was withdrawn during sensitive time periods (e.g. under ice covered conditions or during staging or nesting
periods). A substantial reduction in water levels may result in den abandonment or the loss of, or reduction in,
preferred food sources for furbearers. Severe reductions in water levels could adversely affect waterfowl by
increasing access by predators to nests and reducing food availability. Alteration or loss of riparian wildlife
habitat could also occur as a result of water withdrawal activities. Accidental spills of fuel or lubricants could
adversely affect waterfowl and aquatic furbearers and their habitats. Auditory and visual disturbances arising from
water withdrawal activities during sensitive time periods could result in nest abandonment by waterfowl or nesting
raptors as well as temporary abandonment of optimum habitat by other wildlife species.
Land Use
Excessive water withdrawal rates or volumes can adversely affect other water users such as irrigators, livestock,
landowners, land users or recreationists if water is withdrawn from small watercourses or bodies of water. Access
to water withdrawal points can result in rutting and compaction of soils, loss of crop production as well as loss of
timber. If trucking of water is required from the source to the fill point, heavy truck traffic could result in road
damage, safety concerns and dust problems.
3.3 Environmental Protection Measures
Although the potential exists for numerous and significant environmental impacts to occur during water withdrawal,
protection measures are available to minimize these impacts. The following environmental protection measures
should be considered, where appropriate, in order to minimize impacts on the environment.
1-3

Regulatory Requirements 391 Determine the regulatory requirements for water with-drawal, instream
activity and release (see Sections 8.0 and 9.0).
Communication with 392 Obtain all appropriate water withdrawal and instream activity
Regulators and Landowners permits/approvals as well as permission from landowners, if required,
for access to the intake site. Also obtain regulatory/landowner
approval for the routing and construction of fill lines, if required.
Follow all conditions on permits.
393 Identify and notify affected water users, if required, prior to

commencing water withdrawal activities.
Source Water Selection 394 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.
395 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.
396 Locate the water intake at a site with adequate water depth, wherever
possible, in order to avoid the excavation of a sump.
397 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.
398 Avoid using saline water from sloughs, where feasible.
399 Note that regulators may prohibit the interbasin transfer or export of
water.
3910 Test source water quality to confirm the source is suitable. In
addition, an attempt should be made to limit levels of the electrical
conductivity, total dissolved solids and sodium adsorption ratio in
order to minimize environmental risk. Maximum acceptable values for
water quality parameters are variable and depend upon test volumes,
regulatory requirements, environmental concerns along the test section
and proposed discharge site. When water is to be discharged onto
agricultural lands (e.g. pasture), the quality of the source water should
be of equal or better quality than local recommendations for water to
be used in irrigation. Retain laboratory analyses results.
3911 Consider selecting another water source if laboratory analyses results

indicate that the water quality of the initial source is unsuitable for
discharge at the proposed discharge site. If the use of another water
source is not feasible, select an alternate discharge site or employ
treatment methods.
1-4

3912 Avoid locating the intake site at the base of a steep slope, in the
vicinity of important, site specific wildlife habitat, in muskeg or other
sensitive terrain.
Scheduling 3913 Abide by instream timing constraints and permit conditions.
Sump Excavation 3914 Excavate sump, if required, in substrate of water source. Employ
sediment reduction methods (e.g. sediment, silt fence, sandbags etc.),
if warranted, to protect downstream aquatic biota, habitat or water
users from increased sedimentation or reduced water quality. Obtain
any permits required for instream work and abide by conditions.
Intake Screening 3915 Screen water intake in bodies of water which support fish, in
accordance with regulatory requirements, in order to avoid the intake
of debris, fish eggs and small fish (see Sections 8.0 and 9.0). Limit
intake velocities if required to minimize screening requirements and to
meet permit conditions.
Pump/Fill Line 3916 Isolate fill pump, test pumps and water heaters (if used) from bodies of
Installation water with an impermeable lined dyke or depression to prevent spills
of fuels or lubricants from entering the body of water or the soil.
Maintain an appropriate supply of sorbent materials on site in the
event of a leak.
3917 Place sorbent booms around fill pumps in bodies of water if hydraulic
hoses are used (see Figure 3.1).
3918 Ensure temporary water supply lines are free of leaks.
Pretest Debris 3919 Collect pretest pigging debris and water, then dispose of in
accordance with regulatory requirements.
Site Security 3920 Install fencing and signage, where warranted, at water intake points for
site security and public safety.
1-5

1-6

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

 additives to the test water; and
 the nature of the pipeline and pipeline contents.
Nature of Source Water
A key factor affecting the composition of hydrostatic test discharge water is the quality of the source water used in
the test. The nature and quality of source water were discussed in Section 3.1.
1-7

Hydrostatic Test Water Additives
Hydrostatic test waters may contain a number of additives, depending upon the nature of the source water, the time
of year of testing and other case specific factors. Additives may include: antifreezes, biocides, corrosion
inhibitors, oxygen scavengers and leak detection tracers.
Antifreezes may be added, particularly during winter testing. Methanol, being the least expensive, is most
commonly used. It is normally supplied by a pipeline services contractor as a methanol-water mixture (e.g.
typically 20-40% methanol), recovered in tanks after testing and returned to the supplier for recycling. An adverse
effect of antifreezes is an increase in chemical oxygen demand, which could in turn affect aquatic life if a break or
leak in the line occurs. An alternative to adding antifreeze is to heat the hydrostatic water prior to testing the line.
However, warmer water may be more likely to remove contaminants from the pipeline wall and keep them in
solution.
Biocides may be added to hydrostatic test waters to kill microorganisms. This may be required to prevent
corrosion of the pipeline by sulphate reducing bacteria during testing and/or to prevent the interbasin transfer of
undesirable biota. However, some pipeline companies have found biocides to be unnecessary because of the short
time that the water is in the line. In this case, a biocide wash is run after hydrostatic testing and before filling the
line with petroleum product. Some operators use chlorinated municipal water to achieve the necessary disinfection
while other operators add over-the-counter bleach products in concentrations of 100 to 300 ppm. Biocides have a
toxic effect on aquatic species. In some cases, chlorine could lead to the formation of chlorinated hydrocarbons,
for example, if the concentration of chlorine is high.
Corrosion inhibitors are not often added to hydrostatic test waters to prevent corrosion during testing, because the
test water is only in the pipeline for a short period of time and the opportunity for corrosion is limited. Some
operators that previously used corrosion inhibitors have ceased their use because no noticeable benefit was
observed. Corrosion inhibitors typically contain quaternary amines in a solvent carrier, which may be problematic
from a treatment and release perspective. Corrosion inhibitors may be toxic to aquatic life.
Oxygen scavengers may be used to prevent pipeline corrosion. Aquatic life can be adversely affected by oxygen
scavengers due to their capacity to reduce available oxygen required by aquatic life. However, like corrosion
inhibitors they are rarely used during hydrostatic pressure tests.
Leak detection tracers are added by some operators during hydrostatic testing of pipelines. Both visual and odour
detection tracers are used. Fluorescein, which is a tracer dye, is highly soluble in water and imparts a fluorescent
colour to the test water. A concentration of 10 ppm, visible in white light, is typically used. Concentrations of 1
ppm are visible in ultraviolet light. Fluorescein is not considered toxic to humans or aquatic life and is used by the
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy for tracer studies. However, the public may be concerned if test
water containing flourescein is released into a natural body of water because of the fluorescent color.
An odour tracer contains an odorous chemical that has a high vapour pressure and readily migrates through soil.
1-2

Trained dogs can detect the chemical at concentrations below 1 ppb. The chemical composition of the tracer is
proprietary, however, alkyl sulphide is a key ingredient. Mercaptans may also be used as an odour tracer.
Pipeline operators walk the pipeline with vapour detectors or other analytical instruments to detect line leaks.
Sulphur hexafluoride gas is used by some companies for leak detection. It is added to the hydrostatic test water
and an instrument is used to detect the gas from leaks along the line. Sulphur hexafluoride gas is considered
nontoxic and it has minimal solubility in water. However, it is a greenhouse gas with a high global warming
potential (24,900 times that of carbon dioxide), which liberates upon depressurization and dewatering of the
pipeline.
Nature of Pipeline and Pipeline Contents
All new pipelines require pressure testing before commencing operation. Consequently, new pipelines account for
most hydrostatic testing that is currently conducted in Canada. However, an increasing number of in-service
pipelines are being tested when the pressure rating of the pipeline is to be increased, a change in service is planned
or as part of a preventative program to ensure pipeline integrity. While regulators do not require routine testing of
in-service pipelines, individual pipeline companies may choose to conduct routine testing as part of a corporate
initiative.
The quality of hydrostatic test water discharged from new pipelines may vary considerably from that released from
in-service pipelines. In general, hydrostatic test water from new pipelines is less contaminated than water from 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 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.
1-3

Test Water Composition
Table 4.1 provides water quality data for hydrostatic test waters discharged from new pipelines, in-service gas
pipelines and in-service petroleum products pipelines. The information shown is based on data provided by several
pipeline companies in Canada and results of studies conducted by the Gas Research Institute (1992, 1996).
Because the composition of hydrostatic test water varies on a case-by-case basis, ranges have been provided for
most parameters. CCME Canadian Water Quality Guideline Criteria are also provided in Table 4.1 for
comparison. However, they are not meant to represent the maximum allowable contaminant concentrations for
discharge waters.
There is variability in the water quality data shown in Table 4.1. This is primarily because there is a limited water
quality data base and many data gaps still exist. The data base should improve as more pipeline companies
conduct hydrostatic testing and monitor the discharge water quality. Pipeline companies are encouraged to keep
records of their water quality data for their own purposes and also to help improve this data base.
1-4

TABLE 4.1
WATER QUALITY OF HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER FROM NEW, IN-SERVICE GAS AND IN-SERVICE LIQUID PETROLEUM
PIPELINES
Concentration (mg/L)1
IN-SERVICE
CCME
IN-SERVICE GAS LIQUID CCME LIVESTOCK
WATER QUALITY NEW PIPELINE CCME DW FRESHWATER CCME IRRIGATION
PIPELINE PETROLEUM WATERING
PARAMETER DISCHARGE2 CRITERIA3 AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA3
DISCHARGE2 PIPELINE CRITERIA3
CRITERIA3
DISCHARGE2
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
4 Xylenes <0.007 - 0.018 <0.001 - 0.053 ND - 12.20 0_3 NL NL NL

Phenols <0.0005 - 0.05 <0.001 - 0.61 ND - 0.964 NL 0_001 NL NL
- ORGA
Oil and grease <1 - 43 <1 - 79 1 - 5630 NL NL NL NL
NIC
5 PARA COD 6 - 240 <10 - 993 7 - 66 NL NL NL NL
METE
TOC 4 - 11 3.0 - 50.0 3.3 - 42.3 NL NL NL NL
RS
TPH 0.94 - 6.8 NDA 0.01 - 35 NL NL NL NL
INOR 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
GANI
TSS <1 - 966 1 - 2348 5 - 1300 NL 10 or 10%4 NL NL
C
PARA TDS 28 - 902 8 - 580 110 - 709 500 500 500 - 3500 3000
METE
EC (uS/cm) 18 - 2370 34 - 760 NDA NL NL NL NL
RS
Chlorine 12 - 28 NDA NDA NL 0.002 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
META Aluminium 0.05 - 2.03 0.04 - 0.4 0.02 - 0.19 NL 0.005 - 0.1 5 5
LS
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
Concentration (mg/L)1
IN-SERVICE
CCME
IN-SERVICE GAS LIQUID CCME LIVESTOCK
WATER QUALITY NEW PIPELINE CCME DW FRESHWATER CCME IRRIGATION
PIPELINE PETROLEUM WATERING
PARAMETER DISCHARGE2 CRITERIA3 AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA3
DISCHARGE2 PIPELINE CRITERIA3
CRITERIA3
DISCHARGE2
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) 0.05 - 46 0.003 - 29.0 0.02 - 33.4 0_3 0_3 5 NL
Lead <0.001 - 0.696 <0.001 - 0.077 <0.02 - <0.04 0_01 0.001 - 0.007 0_2 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 0_5
Nickel <0.01 - 0.18 <0.02 - 0.1 <0.01 - <0.02 NL 0.025 - 0.150 0_2 1
4 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
6
Vanadium 0.004 - 0.06 <0.025 - 0.06 <0.003 - 0.272 NL NL 0_1 0_1
Zinc 0.004 - 1.45 <0.003 - 0.16 0.007 - 1.4 5 0_03 35068 50
Notes: 1. Units are milligrams per litre unless otherwise noted.

2. Range of results from limited sampling of test water; data sources include: NEB, CAPP information, GRI, and data from individual pipeline companies.
3. CCME, Canadian Water Quality Guidelines, 1995.
4. Increase of 10 mg/L if background concentration is less than or equal to 100 mg/L; increase of 10% above background if background concentration is greater than 100 mg/L.
* ND=nondetectable
NDA = no data available
NL = no limit established
The data shown in Table 4.1 represent a variety of hydrostatic test waters collected at different times during the
test (e.g. start, middle and end), from different sample locations (e.g. in-line, end of pipe, ponds/dug-outs, tanks,
etc.) and at various times following discharge (e.g. immediately after discharge to several hours after discharge).
The data is intended to represent core water quality before treatment, however, in some cases data may have been
provided for interface waters or treated discharge water.
The water quality parameters have been divided into four main categories:
 Organics;
 Inorganics;
 Metals; and
 Other parameters.
A range of organics may be present in hydrostatic test water such as:
 Free hydrocarbons;
 Emulsified hydrocarbons; and
 Dissolved organics
- Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX)
- Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
- Phenols
- Glycols (if added)
- Methanol (if added).
BTEX, PAHs and phenols may be present as dissolved organics and free emulsified hydrocarbons. Glycol and
methanol will be present in a dissolved form, if used as additives.
Inorganic parameters may include:
 pH
 Total suspended solids (TSS)
 Total dissolved solids (TDS)
 EC
 SAR
 Temperature
 Residual chlorine
 Chloride
 Dissolved oxygen (DO)
 Amines
 Ammonia (biocides)
4-7

Trace metals may include:
 Al, As, Ba, Be, Bo, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mn, Hg, Mo, Ni, Se, Ag, Na, V, Zn
Trace metals may be present in dissolved or particulate forms likely as metal oxides or sulphides.
These are the substances commonly found in hydrostatic test waters. Additional substances may be of concern if
they are regulated by government authorities or pose an environmental or health risk. This may be the case if the
hydrostatic test water is released to an environmentally sensitive, highly populated or tightly regulated area.
A more detailed discussion of hydrostatic test water characteristics for new, in-service gas and in-service liquid
petroleum pipelines is provided below.
New Pipelines
Table 4.1 provides ranges of water quality data for hydrostatic test waters from new pipelines, including new
pipeline for gas service and liquid petroleum service, internally coated and uncoated pipelines, and small and large
lines. A variety of discharge criteria are also included for the purposes of comparison. The water quality data
shown in Table 4.1 were obtained from a limited data base for a range of new pipelines.
Based on the data provided in Table 4.1 and data from a 1992 GRI study, the main water quality parameters
typically of concern for new lines are metals. Among these metals are iron, manganese and zinc. For each of these
metals, the concentrations are above either the CCME drinking water or freshwater aquatic life criteria. Even
though the drinking water standards for these metals are set for aesthetical rather than toxicological concerns, the
trend in some jurisdictions for discharge criteria is increasingly towards the Canadian drinking water quality
guidelines. However, zinc may be toxic to aquatic life, if present at concentrations above CCME criteria of 0.03
ppm.
Iron levels as high as 46 mg/L have been measured in hydrostatic test water from new pipelines, however, iron
concentrations are typically less than 10 mg/L. Manganese levels as high as 1.9 mg/L have been measured but they
are typically less than 0.3 mg/L. Zinc levels are typically less than 0.1 mg/L.
Other metals that may be of concern in hydrostatic test waters from new pipelines are aluminum, copper, cadmium
and lead. While the concentration of these metals is typically quite low, specific hydrostatic test water samples
have been shown to exceed the CCME drinking water and/or freshwater aquatic life criteria.
Residual chlorine levels may be a concern if a chlorinated water source is used or if chlorine is added as a biocide
to the test water.
A typical pH range for hydrostatic test water from new pipelines is about 6.5 to 8.5. However, the pH may fall
4-8

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

 Volatile and semi-volatile compounds were identified at the detection limit.
 No polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected.
 Acute toxicity studies indicated that the discharge waters were not acutely toxic to fathead
minnows, but were acutely toxic to daphnia.
Based on the data provided by Canadian pipeline companies, it appears that organic substances may be of concern
in some cases. Elevated oil and grease as well as phenol levels have been measured in some hydrostatic test
waters from in-service gas pipelines. This is likely the result of carry over products.
As with new pipelines, in-service gas pipelines may have elevated levels of iron, manganese and zinc. Of these,
iron appears to be the main concern. Iron levels as high as 29 mg/L have been measured. Manganese levels
typically exceed the CCME drinking water criteria but generally meet the CCME irrigation criteria. Zinc
concentrations are well below the drinking water and irrigation criteria but may exceed the CCME freshwater
aquatic life criteria.
Elevated levels of other metals have been reported for hydrostatic test waters from in-service gas pipelines. These
include aluminum, cadmium, copper and lead. However, the levels of these metals are not typically of concern.
to the test water.
Typical pH ranges for hydrostatic test water from in-service gas pipelines is about 6.5 to 8.5. However, the pH
may fall outside of this range, depending on the pH of the source water.
TDS levels are generally not of concern. While some elevated levels have been measured, these are likely
because the source water for hydrostatic testing had high TDS. Typically, TDS levels are below 500 mg/L.
TSS levels are typically less than 1000 mg/L, however, levels as high as 2,348 mg/L have been measured in some
hydrostatic test waters from in-service gas pipelines. This concentration level may have been the result of excess
debris in the line (e.g. inactive pipeline), particularly if the line was not pigged before testing.
SAR data are not included in Table 4.1 as it they were not readily available. However, the SAR of hydrostatic test
water could be an important water quality parameter. For example, a release of water with high SAR to land would
have an adverse effect on soil conditions.
In-Service Liquid Petroleum Pipelines
4 - 10

Table 4.1 provides water quality data for hydrostatic test waters from in-service liquid petroleum pipelines, as well
as various discharge criteria. The data shown are for core waters rather than interface waters.
The main substances of concern are organics such as free, emulsified and dissolved hydrocarbons. Elevated levels
of oil and grease, TPH, BTEX and phenols can be expected in hydrostatic test water from in-service liquid
petroleum pipelines, indicating the need for some treatment before discharge.
As shown, there is a wide variation in organic concentrations. This variability may be because the organic
concentration is highly dependent on the location and time of sampling. For example, BTEX compounds may
volatilize and biodegrade over time when exposed to air. Therefore, samples collected immediately after
discharging will have a higher BTEX concentration than those collected after being exposed to air (e.g. in a pond,
dugout or open tank). Immediately after discharging, BTEX levels are typically in the low ppm range and after
extended exposure to air, only trace levels may be detected. Organic contaminant levels also vary depending on
the type of product that was in the line before testing.
Other substances that may be of concern are: iron; trace metals; suspended solids; and dissolved solids.
Iron levels as high as 33 mg/L have been measured in hydrostatic test water from in-service liquid petroleum
pipelines; however, iron concentrations are typically less than 10 mg/L. Manganese levels typically exceed the
CCME drinking water criteria but generally meet the CCME irrigation criteria. Zinc concentrations are below the
drinking water and irrigation criteria but may exceed the CCME freshwater aquatic life criteria.
Other metals that may be of concern in hydrostatic test waters from in-service liquid petroleum pipelines are
aluminium, copper, cadmium and lead. While the concentration of these metals are typically below the CCME
drinking water and irrigation criteria, they may exceed the CCME freshwater aquatic life criteria.
to the test water.
Typical pH ranges for hydrostatic test water from in-service liquid petroleum pipelines are about 6.6 to 8.1.
Measurements outside this range were not reported.
TDS levels are generally not of concern, however, elevated TDS levels may occur if the source water for
hydrostatic testing has high TDS. While TSS levels are typically less than 1000 mg/L, higher levels may occur in
some hydrostatic test waters from pipelines as a result of excess debris in the line (e.g inactive line).
SAR data are not included in Table 4.1 as they were not readily available. However, the SAR of hydrostatic test
water could be an important water quality parameter. For example, a release of water with high SAR to land would
have an adverse effect on soil conditions.
4 - 11

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.
4.2 Contamination Minimization
A number of measures may be taken by pipeline companies to maintain water quality throughout hydrostatic
testing and to minimize the level of contaminants in discharge waters that are treated and released. The advantages
of contamination minimization include:
 protect environment and human health;

 minimize treatment requirements and costs;
 reduce environmental liability; and
 increase the number of potential release options.
Contamination minimization methods vary depending on the type of pipeline (new or in-service) and the products
carried. This section describes contamination minimization methods currently used by pipeline companies. They
have been divided into three categories: general considerations, pipeline preparation and interface management.
Consideration should be given to these measures during the planning stage of a hydrostatic test.
General Considerations
Some general considerations for minimizing contaminant levels in hydrostatic test water are provided below.
These focus on the quality of source water, water additives and discharge water handling practices.
 Use a high-quality water source (see Section 3.1). Source waters with high levels of salt content
(especially sodium or chlorides) should be avoided, if possible. Salts cannot be practically
removed and they could cause adverse impacts if released during a failure of the test, or
discharged onto the ground or a body of water of high water quality.
 Avoid or minimize the use of additives if possible (see Section 4.1). For example, use non-toxic,
biodegradable or photodegradable additives and minimize dosages.
 For in-service lines, recognize the potential for hydrocarbon contamination from carry over
products (e.g. from compressor stations, processing facilities, etc.).
4 - 12

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

Hydrostatic test 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 of the more highly contaminated interface waters from the core
water. Visually monitor the discharge water quality to determine where the break point is between
interface and core water.
4 - 14

5.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Sampling and analysis are an important component of the water handling and release decision processes associated
with hydrostatic testing (see Figures 2 and 3 in Appendix A). Sampling and analysis are normally carried out to
identify and quantify substances of concern. This information is useful in assessing treatment and release options,
assessing potential environmental effects of a hydrostatic test water release, demonstrating compliance with
regulatory requirements and protecting against environmental liability.
This section describes sampling and analytical methods applicable to hydrostatic testing source waters, release
waters and receptors (for example, receiving waters or land). A discussion of applicable sampling methods and
locations is provided, along with a description of applicable analytical methods for potential parameters of concern
identified in Section 4.0. The use of field analysis or screening techniques is also discussed along with quality
control procedures and practices.
Sampling Locations and Methods
A variety of samples may be collected for analysis during hydrostatic testing. These may include baseline
samples such as the source water; receiving waters or soils; intermediate samples of hydrostatic test water; release
water samples; and post-test samples of receiving soils or waters.
Baseline sampling may involve the collection of source water samples or samples of receiving waters or soils.
Analytical data on these samples help to predict the water quality of the test and release water as well as the
potential effect on receptors. This information is useful in evaluating suitable treatment and release options, and
environmental protection measures.
Samples of source waters may be collected at the source (e.g. lake, dugout, river, groundwater well, etc.) or during
pipeline filling. However, it is beneficial to sample and test the source water before hydrostatic testing to ensure
suitability for testing and appropriateness of the discharge location. Samples of receptors should be collected
from locations expected to be impacted by the release of discharge water (e.g. near discharge locations).
Intermediate sampling involves the collection of hydrostatic test water samples after the pipeline is filled but
before dewatering. These samples may be collected from either end of the pipeline or at available locations along
the pipeline (e.g. valves, air bleeds, etc.). Analysis of these samples provides useful information for predicting the
water quality of the discharge water, which could affect water handling procedures after dewatering.
Discharge water samples may be collected at various intervals during dewatering or after dewatering is completed,
assuming the discharge water is contained (e.g. in tanks or dugouts). A study by the Gas Research Institute (GRI
4-1

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

 Carter, Martin R. (ed.). 1993. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Canadian Society of Soil
Science. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton. Florida.
 McKeague, J.A. (ed.). 1981. Manual on Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, 2nd edition.
Canadian Society of Soil Science.
 CCME. 1993. Guidance Manual on Sampling, Analysis and Data Management for Contaminated
Sites. Volumes I and II. Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Analytical Parameters
The analytical parameters for baseline samples, hydrostatic testing discharge water and receptors will vary on a
case-by-case basis depending on the nature of the pipeline and pipeline contents, regulatory requirements and
discharge criteria, and treatment provided. Table 5.1 provides a summary of analytical parameters for source
water; discharge water from new or in-service pipelines; and receptors. Companies are encouraged to consider
these parameters when developing their monitoring program.
The main considerations in determining analytical parameters are:
 What parameters are known or expected to be present (from available data, knowledge of pipeline
contents, etc.)?
 What parameters are regulated (e.g. on a permit, approval or Code of Practice)?
 Are there parameters that are not regulated but may adversely affect the environment?
 Are there parameters that may affect treatment and release options?
TABLE 5.1
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
Typical Parameters Additional Parameters
Source Water
Potable Water Typically no analyses required as potable water meets Parameters expected to be present that are regulated or could affect
Canadian drinking water standards treatment or release options. For example:
 parameters that have more stringent CCME freshwater aquatic life
criteria (e.g. chlorine, cadmium, copper, lead, zinc)
4-3

Other source waters Depends on whether release of test water is to land or Parameters expected to be present that are regulated or could affect
(e.g. groundwater, to a receiving water. Typical analyses include: treatment or release options. For example:
surface water,
industrial water)  Release to land: pH, SAR, EC or TDS  chlorine
 Release to water: pH, TSS, EC or TDS, iron  metals such as iron, manganese, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc
 organics such as BTEX, phenol, TPH
Release Water
New pipelines Depends on whether release of test water is to land or Other parameters that are regulated or could affect treatment or release
to a receiving water. Typical analyses include: options. For example:
 Release to land: pH, SAR, EC or TDS  toxicity

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

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

 Release to water: pH, TSS, EC or TDS, iron,  metals such as aluminum, cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, and
TPH, BTEX, chlorine if added zinc
 organics such as BTEX and phenols
 temperature
Receptors
Receiving Water  pH Parameters that are regulated or may adversely effect the environment:
 TSS
 TDS or EC  organics if present in release water
 metals if present in the release water
 temperature
Receiving Soil To ensure the receiving soil is not already stressed Parameters that are regulated or may adversely effect the environment:
before releasing test water, analyze for:
 pH  chloride
 SAR  organics if present in release water
 EC or TDS  metals if present in the release water
4-4

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.
Generally, potable water sources do not require analysis since they are required to meet the Canadian drinking
water standards. However, CCME freshwater aquatic life criteria are more stringent than drinking water criteria for
some parameters.
Source waters from groundwater, surface water or industrial sources may be analyzed for regulated parameters that
are expected to be present or parameters that could affect treatment and release options. Analytical parameters
will vary depending upon whether the release of hydrostatic test water will be to land or to a receiving water. At a
minimum, source waters from surface waters or groundwaters should be analyzed for pH, TDS (or EC) and TSS, as
well as SAR (if released to land) and iron (if released to water). Analyses may also be conducted for other
regulated parameters such as chlorine, metals or organics. Analyses for these parameters should be conducted if
they are suspected of being present.
The analytical parameters for release waters will depend on the nature of the pipeline (e.g. new, in-service gas or
in-service liquid petroleum) and regulatory requirements. At a minimum, release waters should be analyzed for
regulated parameters or parameters that affect treatment and release. Analytical parameters will vary depending
upon whether the release of hydrostatic test water is to land or to a receiving water. Typical analyses for release
water from new pipelines are: pH, TSS, TDS or EC, SAR (if released to land) and iron (if released to water).
Waters from in-service gas and liquid petroleum pipelines should be analyzed for these parameters as well as TPH
and BTEX (if released to water). Other analyses may be required for release waters from new or in-service
pipelines, such as toxicity, chlorine, phenols, additional metals, or temperature.
Analyses of receptors either before or after the release of discharge water may be required by regulatory
authorities. However, it may also be conducted as part of a corporate initiative to demonstrate regulatory
compliance or ensure no adverse effect on the environment. The analytical parameters for receptors vary
depending on the type of receptor (e.g. receiving water or soil), water quality of the release water, regulatory
requirements and environmental sensitivity. However, the focus of monitoring programs for receptors should be on
parameters that are known to be present in the release water and are regulated or adversely affect the environment.
Typical analytical parameters for soils include pH, SAR and EC or TDS. Analyses for chloride, organics or
metals may also be recommended if these contaminants are present in the release water. Typical analytical
parameters for receiving waters may include pH, TSS and TDS or EC. Analyses for organics or other parameters
that may adversely effect the environment may also be recommended (for example metals and temperature).
There may be additional sampling and analyses requirements as part of the discharge water treatment system.
4-5

Analyses are typically required to monitor the treatment process operation and performance.
Analytical Methods
Tables 5.2 and 5.3 provide summaries of analytical methods for a wide range of parameters in water and soil
samples, respectively. The methods have been grouped into four main categories: organics, inorganics, metals and
other parameters. Information provided in these tables includes test type, test method, parameters measured by the
test, recommended sample volume, sample container requirements, preservative required, maximum recommended
storage time and typical analytical costs.
Once the analytical parameters have been identified for a specific sample (e.g as outlined in Table 5.1), Tables 5.2
and 5.3 can be used to select appropriate analytical methods and determine sample handling procedures. The cost
information provided in these tables is based on individual pricing provided by four laboratories at the time of
preparation of this document. They do not take into account any discounts that laboratories may offer. As well,
the costs reflect regular turn-around times (typically 7 to 10 working days); these prices may be marked up 50- to
100-percent for faster turnaround times.
Most of the analytical test methods provided in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 are based on either:
 Franson, M.A.H. (ed.) 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Waster and Wastewater, 19th
edition. American Public Health Association, Water Works Association, Water Environment
Association.
 U.S. EPA. 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA 600/4-79-020, Revised
March 1983. U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
 Carter, Martin R. (ed.). 1993. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Canadian Society of Soil
Science. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Other methods may be acceptable for some analyses, or may be required by regulatory authorities. Pipeline
operators should check with their laboratory and regulatory agency to confirm test methods. A source of
information on various analytical methods is provided in the following CCME publication:
 CCME. 1993. Guidance Manual on Sampling, Analysis and Data Management for Contaminated Sites.
Volume II. Winnipeg, Manitoba.
As an alternative or in addition to third party laboratory analyses, some field screening and analytical techniques
may be used. They have the advantage of providing real time data, which cannot be obtained if samples are
shipped to a laboratory for analyses. Real time data may be critical in situations where there are no holding
facilities for the discharge water (e.g. released directly to land or a receiving water). In this case, laboratory
analysis can be used to confirm the field analysis and demonstrate compliance. Field screening methods may also
be advantageous to monitor the performance of treatment processes for the removal of contaminants of concern.
4-6

Some analyses are best performed in the field, such as pH, temperature, EC and chlorine. Relatively inexpensive
and easy-to-operate equipment is used to conduct these analyses.
A qualitative assessment of the discharge water can be carried out in the field. For example, the presence of
hydrocarbons can be detected by visual evidence such as an oily sheen or by odour. A visual inspection may also
be a gross indicator of TSS in the discharge water. Recording this type of information during dewatering of the
pipeline can provide useful information regarding the quality of the water.
As discussed earlier, screening analyses of the pre-test water (e.g. after the line is filled but before hydrostatic
testing) may help predict the water quality of the discharge water. GRI (1992) indicated that pre-test analytical
results can be used to estimate the mass loadings in the pipeline discharge water within 20-percent accuracy in
most cases. This method requires that the results be weighted based on the pipeline length assumed for each
sample point.
Portable meters, such as an organic vapour analyzer (OVA) or HNu meter can be used to screen for volatile
hydrocarbons. These meters are reasonably easy to calibrate and operate. However, they are gross indicators of
volatile organics and are relatively insensitive to small changes in concentration. Nonetheless, they may be useful
in determining if volatiles such as BTEX compounds are present.
4-7

TABLE 5.2
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR WATER
1996
MAXIMUM
ANALYTICAL SAMPLE CONTAINER AND TYPICAL
TEST PARAMETERS STORAGE
METHOD VOLUME PRESERVATION ANALYTICAL
TIME
COST
ORGAN TOC SM 5310B or C Total organic carbon 100 mL Polyethylene or Glass 28 days $30-$40
EPA 415.1 or
ICS
EPA 415.2 Addition of H3PO4 or H2SO4 to pH
<2, refrigeration
COD SM 5220B Organics that can be oxidized by 100 mL Polyethylene or Glass 28 days $30-$45
5 EPA 410.1 strong inorganic oxidizing agent
Addition of H2SO4 to pH <2,
refrigeration
-
BOD SM 5210B Organics that can be oxidized by 500 mL Polyethylene or Glass 48 hours $30-$50
8 EPA 405.1 microorganisms (biodegradable
organics) Refrigeration
TPH Purgeables: Purgable organics - BTEX and 3 x 40 mL vials for Amber Glass with teflon-lined cap; 14 days $150 - $250
SM 6210D hydrocarbons to C3 - C10 purgable fraction no head space
EPA 8240D
EPA 5030 Refrigeration
Extractables: Extractable organics - hydrocarbons 1000 mL for
EPA 3510 containing C11 - C30 extractable fraction
EPA 8015
EPA 8270
Oil and Grease SM 5520B All solvent extractables, including 1000 mL Amber glass with teflon-lined cap 28 days $30-$45
EPA 413.1 surfactants
EPA 9070 Addition of HCl to pH <2,
refrigeration
BTEX SM 6210D Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl- benzene, 3 X 40 mL vials Amber glass with teflon-lined 14 days $100-$150
EPA 8240 Xylenes septum; no head space
EPA 8260
EPA 5030 Addition of HCl to pH <2,
EPA 8020 refrigeration
1996
MAXIMUM
TIME
COST
ORGAN Phenol SM 5530C Total phenolics 1000 mL Glass 28 days $30-$40

EPA 420.1
ICS
Addition of H2SO4
Volatile Organics SM 6210D Organic solvents (53 compounds in 3 x 40 mL vials Amber glass with teflon-lined 14 days $200-$350
EPA 8240 total, including acetone, benzene, septum; no head space
EPA 8260 chloroform, MEK, MIBK,
dichlorobenzene, methylene chloride, Addition of HCl to pH < 2,
etc.) refrigeration
Acid Extractables SM 6410B Phenolics (20 compounds in total, 1000 mL Amber glass with teflon-lined cap Extraction 7 days $275-$450
EPA 8270 including benzoic acid, phenol,
chlorinated phenols) Refrigeration Analysis
5 40 days
Base-neutral SM 6410B Amines, chlorobenzenes, nitro- 1000 mL Amber glass with teflon-lined cap Extraction 7 days $600-$850
-
Extractables EPA 8270 anilines, nitroso-compounds (71
compounds in total) Refrigeration Analysis
9 40 days
PAHs SM 6410B Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons 1000 mL Amber glass with teflon-lined cap Extraction 7 days $200-$375
EPA 8270 (21 compounds in total, including
naphthalene, acenaphtene, Refrigeration Analysis
acenaphtylene, anthracene, 40 days
benzo[a]anthracene, chrysene,
pyrene, dibenzofuran, phenanthrene)
INORG pH SM 4500 H+B Hydrogen ions (pH) 100 mL Polyethylene or glass Analyze $5-$10
EPA 150.1 or immediately
ANICS
EPA 9040 Field test Refrigeration
Temperature SM 2550B Temperature Field test Field test Measure Field test
EPA 170.1 immediately
TSS SM 2540D Total suspended solids (organic and 1000 mL (for TSS and Polyethylene or glass 7 days $10-$20
EPA 160.2 inorganic) TDS) Field filtered
Refrigeration
TDS SM 2540C Total dissolved solids (organic and 1000 mL (for TSS and Polyethylene or glass 7 days $10-$20
EPA 160.1 inorganic) TDS)
Refrigeration
1996
MAXIMUM
TIME
COST
EC SM 2510B Electrical conductivity 100 mL Polyethylene or glass Analyze Field test
EPA 120.1 or Immediately
EPA 9050A Field test Refrigeration
Total Anions SM 4110C All anions except fluoride 100 mL Polyethylene or glass 7 days $50-$100
EPA300.0
Refrigeration
Total Cations SM 3120 Cations included with ICAP metals 100 mL Polyethylene or glass 6 months $60-$70
EPA 6010 scan
Addition of HNO3 to pH < 2,
refrigeration
5 Residual Chlorine SM 4500 Free residual chlorine. 500 mL Field Test Analyze Field test
Recommended that test be conducted or immediately $30-$35
- in the field. Field test
Ammonia (NH3- SM 4500H Ammonia 500 mL Polyethylene or glass 28 days $10-$20
1 N) EPA 350.1
0 Addition of H2SO4 to pH <2,
refrigeration
SAR SM 3500B,C Sodium adsorption ratio 1000 mL Polyethylene or glass, refrigeration 7 days
CCSS 18.2, 18.3, 18.4
(for calculation)
METAL Iron SM 3120 Fe 100 mL Polyetheylene 6 months $10 - $20
EPA 200.7/
S
SW846-6010 Addition of HNO3 to pH<2,
refrigeration
Metals (ICAP SM 3120 Al, Ba, Bo, Cu, Cd, Cr Fe, Pb, Mg, 100 mL Polyetheylene 6 months $40-$90
Scan) EPA 200.7/ Mo, Mn, Ni, P, K, Na, Si, Sn, V, Zn Field filtered
SW846-6010 Addition of HNO3 to pH<2,
refrigeration
OTHER Aquatic Toxicity Environment Canada Rainbow trout 80 L Plastic 24 hours $400-$600
Methods Daphnia Magna 10 L
PARAM Refrigeration
ETERS
Notes: SM = Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Edition
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1
1
TABLE 5.3
RECOMMENDED SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR SOIL
MAXIMUM 1996
ANALYTICAL SAMPLE CONTAINER AND
TEST PARAMETERS STORAGE ANALYTICAL
METHOD VOLUME PRESERVATION
TIME COST
1
2
MAXIMUM 1996
TIME COST
OR T P Purgable 2 500 mL glass1 E $

P u organics - 0 x 2
H r BTEX 0 Refrigeration t 0
g and r 0
e hydrocar g a -
1
a bons to c $
b C3 - C10 t 2
l i 7
e o 5
s n
: :
5 E 1
P 4
- A
d
1 8 a
3 2 y
4 s
0
E (
P p
A u
r
5 g
0 e
2 a
1 b
/ l
8 e
0 s
0 )
0
MAXIMUM 1996
TIME COST
E Extractab
x le
t organics -
r hydrocar
a bons
c containin
t g C11 -
a C30
b
l
e
5
s
:
-
E
P
1
A
4
3
5
1
0
E
P
A
3
5
5
0
MAXIMUM 1996
TIME COST
O S Solvent 2 500 mL glass1 N $

i M extractabl 0 / 3
l es 0 Refrigeration A 0
5 -
a 5 g $
1
n 2 5
d 0 0
E
G E
r P
e A
5
a
s 9
-
e 0
7
1
1
5
MAXIMUM 1996
TIME COST
B E Benzene, 2 500 mL glass1 1 $

T P Toluene, 0 4 1
E A Ethylben 0 Refrigeration 0
X zene, d 0
8 Xylenes g a -
1
2 y $
4 s 1
0 7
E 5
P
A
5
5
-
0
2
1
1
6
/
8
0
0
0
MAXIMUM 1996
TIME COST
P E Total 2 500 mL glass1 2 $

h P phenolics 0 8 3
e A 0 Refrigeration 0
n d -
o 9 g a $
1
l 0 y 4
6 s 0
5
(
m
o
5
d
i
-
f
i
1
e
7
d
f
o
r
s
o
i
l
)
E
P
A
8
2
7
0
B
MAXIMUM 1996
TIME COST
P E Polynucle 2 500 mL glass1 E $

A P ar 0 x 3
H A aromatic 0 Refrigeration t 9
s hydrocar r 5
8 bons (21 g a
1
2 compoun c
7 ds in t
0 total, i
including o
naphthale n
ne,
5
acenapht w
ene, i
-
acenapht t
ylene, h
1
anthracen i
8
e, n
benzo[a]a
nthracene 7
,
chrysene, d
pyrene, a
dibenzofu y
ran, s
phenanth
rene) A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
4
0
d
a
MAXIMUM 1996
TIME COST
INO p C Hydrogen 2 500 mL glass1 N $

H S ions (pH) 0 / 1
S 0 Refrigeration A 0
S
g
1
1
6
.
3
E
P
5 A
- 9
0
1 4
9 5
A
MAXIMUM 1996
TIME COST
E C Electrical 2 500 mL glass1 N $

C S conductiv 0 / 7
S ity 0 Refrigeration A -
S $
g 1
1
1 7
8
.
2
,
5
1
8
-
.
3
2
,
0
1
8
.
4
S E Sodium 2 500 mL glass1 7 $
o P 0 5
d A 0 Refrigeration d 0
i a -
u 6 g y $
1
m 0 s 1
1 0
0 0
MAXIMUM 1996
TIME COST
C S Chloride 2 500 mL glass1 N $

h M 0 / 2
l 0 Refrigeration A 0
o 4 -
r 1 g $
1
i 1 3
d 0 0
e C
E
P
A
5
3
-
0
0
2
.
1
0
(
h
o
t
w
a
t
e
r
e
x
t
r
a
c
t
a
b
l
e
)
MAXIMUM 1996
TIME COST
S C Sodium 2 500 mL glass1 N $

A S adsorptio 0 / 3
R S n ratio 0 Refrigeration A 0
S -
g $
1
1 6
8 0
.
2
,
5
1
8
-
.
3
2
,
2
1
8
.
4
M M E Al, Ba, 2 500 mL glass1 6 $
e P Bo, Cu, 0 or plastic bag 6
t A Cd, Ca, 0 m 0
a Cr, Fe, Refrigeration o -
l 6 Pb, Mg, g n $
1
s 0 Mo, Mn, t 9
1 Ni, P, K, h 0
( 0 Si, Na, s
I E Sn, V, Zn
C P
A A
P
7
MAXIMUM 1996
TIME COST
S 4
c 7
a 1
n
)
Notes: CSSS = Canadian Society of Soil Science

1
500 ml glass. is sufficient for all analyses. Alternatively submit 200 g total.
2
3
An increasing number of field test kits are becoming available for a range of analytical parameters in water and
soil. Among these are kits for organics such as TPH, phenol and BTEX and a variety of different metals and
inorganic compounds. The test kits are usually based on either immunoassay or colorimetric reactions. Unit
prices vary depending on the parameter being tested, availability of the test kits and total number of samples being
analyzed. However, costs may be in the range of $20 to $55 per sample. The main disadvantages of field kits are
that they may be time consuming and some require a reasonably high skill level to operate. As well, many field
kits have elevated detection levels and data obtained from test kits may need to be confirmed by laboratory
analyses (e.g. for compliance monitoring).
Another option for field analyses, is to locate a mobile laboratory at the dewatering location. The advantage of a
mobile laboratory is that real time data is obtained using approved analytical methods, however, the cost for a
mobile laboratory is high (e.g. $1,500 to $3,000/day). Nevertheless, the use of a mobile laboratory in some
instances may be justified; for example, if numerous analyses are required over a short period of time.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
To ensure accurate characterization, representative samples must be obtained and handled in such a way that they
do not deteriorate or become contaminated before they reach the laboratory. Appropriate sampling and chain of
custody procedures should be established.
Once representative samples are collected they must be handled correctly. This includes the use of appropriate
sample containers, addition of necessary preservatives, field filtering, proper labelling of containers and chain of
custody documentation. Labels should include the name of sample, collector, date and time of collection, location,
field measurement data (e.g. temperature, pH) and any other information such as project identification.
Chain of custody procedures are a means of tracking a sample from the point of collection through to final data
reporting. Records should be kept by the sample collector, sample transporter and receiving laboratory. An
example of a chain of custody record form is provided in Appendix C. Laboratories typically have their own in-
house chain of custody procedures.
Typical QA/QC procedures also involve the collection of duplicate samples for analysis. As well, field blanks
may be taken. Duplicate samples are taken to determine the precision of the analytical method. Two separate
samples are taken from the same source, collected in separate containers and analyzed independently.
A field blank is a sample of distilled or deionized water taken from the laboratory out into the field, poured into a
sampling container at the site, closed, and returned as if it were a sample (US. EPA, 1993). It is designed to
monitor the introduction of artifacts resulting from site conditions, sampling equipment, transportation and shipping.
Field blanks are brought to the field and transported back to the laboratory with the sample containers. Trip
blanks and equipment blanks are specific types of field blanks. Trip blanks provide a check on sample
contamination originating from sample transport, shipping and site conditions; these samples are not opened in the
field. Equipment blanks are a check on sampling equipment cleanliness; the contents of an equipment blank is
5 - 24

opened in the field, poured over the sampling equipment, and collected for analysis. Reagent water is used as a
blank matrix for aqueous samples. There is no universal blank matrix for soil samples, however, clean sand has
been used.
5 - 25

6.0 DISCHARGE WATER
The following sections describe various aspects of discharge water handling and release, as shown in the release
decision process flowchart in Figure 3 in Appendix A. These subsections include a discussion of various release
options for the discharge water, as well as potential environmental effects and protection measures that can be
taken to minimize these effects. Treatment options for discharge waters are discussed in Section 7.0 of this guide.
6.1 Discharge Water Release Options
Following hydrostatic testing of a pipeline, the discharge water must be managed and released properly. A
discharge water release strategy should be developed that meets the following objectives: minimizes environmental
risk; complies with applicable regulatory requirements and criteria; and provides a final release method that is
economically feasible.
Factors Affecting Release Options
The development of a discharge water release strategy is case-specific and will vary depending on a number of
factors. Among these are:
 location and method of dewatering

 availability of release locations (receptors)
 discharge water volume
 types and concentrations of contaminants present
 regulatory and landowner requirements
 potential environmental effects
 economics
The dewatering location may be an important factor in determining an appropriate method of discharge water
release since it affects the proximity to potential receptors. The dewatering location can be controlled to some
extent; for example, dewatering may occur at either end of the pipeline section that was tested or the water may be
moved along the pipeline to a different dewatering location. As discussed in Section 4.0, contamination of
hydrostatic discharge water may be minimized through shorter pipeline transport distances.
The method of dewatering may also affect discharge water release options. For example, if the flowrate and
composition can be controlled (e.g. by providing tankage and/or treatment), a wider range of release options may
be available.
5-1

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

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

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

 total volume discharged;
 rate of discharge;
 quality of the source water (e.g. salts, temperature, chlorine, pH, metals);
 service of pipeline tested (new, liquid or gas pipeline);
 test additives used;
5-3

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

Vegetation
Excessive water discharge rates or volumes could result in flooding of vegetation. Damage or mortality of
vegetation could also occur if low quality source water or test water containing contaminants was released onto
vegetation.
Land Use
Improper selection of water discharge sites can result in flooding of poorly drained lands. The release of test water
with high concentrations of hydrocarbons, additives or long lasting dyes into a body of water could cause health
hazards or reduce the aesthetic appreciation of the area and/or alarm the public. Landowners could be adversely
affected if the soil capability or vegetation is adversely affected by the discharge of water.
An above ground discharge line can result in damage to crops during installation and removal as well as a short
term inconvenience to landowners. Leaks in the discharge line can result in a reduction in agricultural capability if
the quality of the test water is low.
Air Quality
Release of hydrostatic test water could result in hydrocarbon odour, mercapton odour, pump equipment emissions,
health affects from benzene and greenhouse gas emissions (eg. SF6 and others). When mercaptans or odourants are
added to the test water and the test water is discharged onto the ground or into a body of water, the potential exists
for a strong, persistent odour to be present.
6.3 Environmental Protection Measures
Although the potential exists for numerous environmental impacts to occur during the discharge of hydrostatic test
water, protection measures are available to mitigate these impacts. The following environmental protection
measures should be implemented, where appropriate, in order to minimize impacts on the environment.
Approvals 3921 Obtain all appropriate permits or approvals from regulatory

authorities to discharge test water. Follow conditions on permits.
Allow sufficient time to acquire permits/approvals.
3922 File with regulators any test plans, environmental management plans,
emergency response/contingency plans, where appropriate.
3923 Obtain permission from each landowner over whose land will be
affected by the discharge.
3924 Analyze source water to assess its quality (see Section 3.3).
5-5

Contingency Plan 3925 Prepare a contingency plan prior to testing when potentially
contaminated test water, harmful additives or saline test water are
used during the test or if the pipeline has been in-service and the
potential exists for hydrocarbons in the test water. Ensure the testing
crew is familiar with the contingency plan. Implement the
contingency plan to contain and clean up any contaminated test water
released in the event of a test failure. An example contingency plan
is provided in Appendix E.
3926 Notify landowners in the vicinity of the test section prior to testing
and inform them of the test schedule.
3927 Notify appropriate authorities and landowners in the event of a test

failure and subsequent release of potentially contaminated test water.
3928 Have sufficient personnel and equipment available on site to repair

any rupture, leak or erosion.
Shunt Water 3929 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 3930 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 3931 Follow appropriate protection measures (e.g. strip topsoil) if
exposure of the pipe is required to make repairs prior to completion
of the test.
Discharge Site Selection 3932 Avoid selecting a dewatering site in a location that will result in the
transfer of water from one drainage basin to another. If the potential
for interbasin transfer exists, confirm definition of drainage basin with
regulators and the acceptability of the transfer prior to selecting a
dewatering site.
3933 Consider the volume and composition of test water when selecting an
appropriate discharge site.
3934 Ensure that test water, if discharged to a body of water, is of a quality

that is the same or better than the receiving body of water and meets
regulatory requirements (see Sections 8.0 and 9.0).
3935 Consider the volume of test water, streamflow or volume of receiving

water body and proposed test water discharge volume rates in order to
ensure that the water quality of the receiving body of water is not
significantly lowered. Note that some jurisdictions prohibit the
discharge of test water into a body of water which supports fish.
Ensure that when approval conditions restrict the discharge only to
land, surface flow of the test water does not reach a body of water.
Conduct testing of receiving body of water prior to finalizing discharge
site selection. (See Section 5.0).
5-6

3936 Ensure that discharge water meets relevant provincial and federal
guidelines and permit conditions (see Sections 8.0 and 9.0). In the
absence of regulatory guidelines, refer to the Alberta Code of Practice
criteria (Appendix G) or other jurisdictional codes and guides.
3937 Ensure that test water, if discharged onto the land, is of a quality that
will not adversely affect the soil capability.
3938 Avoid discharging test water on to soils that have high levels of EC or
SAR. This is of particular concern on agricultural lands in the prairie
provinces.
3939 Prepare a site plan (elevation survey), if warranted on near level

terrain, prior to finalizing the selection of the discharge site to ensure
that flooding as a result of dewatering will not occur.
3940 Conduct a reconnaissance of downstream areas if water is to be

discharged to a watercourse.
3941 Select discharge sites where dewatering will not result in flooding,
erosion or lowering in agriculture capability. Avoid discharging test
water onto lands with long or steep slopes unless measures are in
place to avoid erosion.
3942 Avoid locating discharge sites on cultivated lands or immediately

upstream of public water intakes.
Ponding of Water 3943 Avoid discharge rates or volumes that could result in the ponding of
water and subsequent temporary reduction in land capability. Note
that some jurisdictions limit the duration of ponds or standing water
created by discharged test water.
Discharge Line 3944 Ensure that the discharge or drain line is tied-down, if required, and
free of leaks.
Erosion 3945 Dissipate water energy and utilize protective riprap, sheeting,
tarpaulins or equivalent to minimize erosion of soils during dewatering
or preheating operations (“circulating”) if heated water is used (see
Figure 6.1). Reduce the rate of discharge if these measures are
ineffective.
Water Temperature 3946 Avoid discharging test water that is significantly warmer or colder than
a receiving body of water that supports sport fish. For example, some
sport fish may be more prone to changes in water temperature at some
times of the year than others. Contact regulatory agencies to
determine whether any temperature limitations apply.
Analyze Discharge Water 3947 Conduct laboratory testing of discharge water. Pipeline companies are
encouraged to analyse the discharge water for protection from future
liability regarding the quality of discharge water. Conduct testing in
accordance with procedures noted in Section 5.0.
Antifreeze Recovery 3948 Recover discharge water containing antifreeze or methanol used in pipe
drying. Return to supplier for recovery.
5-7

Hydrocarbon Contaminants 3949 Treat or dispose of contaminated test water and low quality source
water in accordance with procedures and options presented in Section
7.0.
Receptor Analysis 3950 Conduct post discharge analysis of soils or receiving body of water
(i.e. watercourse, pond or lake), if requested by regulatory authorities.
Pipeline companies are encouraged to analyse the test water receptor
for protection from future liability regarding the effects of the
discharge water and to determine whether any mitigation is warranted.
Conduct testing in accordance with procedures noted in Section 5.0.
5-8

5-9

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

 proportion, volume and contaminant levels of interface water and core water;
 discharge criteria (regulatory and internal policy); and
 availability of appropriate discharge locations.
A key factor in determining treatment requirements is the type and concentration of substances present in the
discharge water. As discussed in Section 4.0, potential substances of concern vary depending on the nature of the
pipeline and the pipeline contents.
Discharge water from new pipelines is relatively uncontaminated and may require minimal treatment, if any. The
main substances that may be of concern and require removal are total suspended solids (TSS) and possibly some
metals (typically iron). Organic substances are generally not a concern. Treatment systems for discharge waters
from new pipelines are usually relatively simple and inexpensive (e.g. filtration and aeration).
Discharge waters from in-service pipelines generally have more extensive treatment requirements because of the
5 - 10

presence of hydrocarbons. In addition to TSS and metals, discharge waters from in-service pipelines may also
require organics removal. The type of treatment will depend on the nature of the organics, which may include free
oil, emulsified oil and dissolved hydrocarbons such as phenols and BTEX.
Treatment requirements can be minimized by preventing contaminants from entering the hydrostatic test water.
During the planning stage, attention should be given to the contamination minimization methods discussed in
Section 4.2.
Although TDS may be a substance of concern in some discharge waters, it is not economically feasible to remove
it. TDS normally originates from the hydrostatic test source water; therefore, measures should be taken to select
high-quality source waters rather than treat for TDS removal.
Chlorine is usually only a concern if it is added as a biocide during testing or the source water is chlorinated
potable water. Where possible, the addition of chlorine or other biocides should be minimized. However, free
chlorine may be removed during pipeline dewatering through aeration.
Applicable discharge criteria (either regulatory or internal) will play an important role in determining treatment
requirements. These criteria will indicate which parameters require removal and to what extent. For comparison,
CCME water quality criteria are provided in Table 6.1.
The availability of suitable release locations may also affect the treatment requirements. For example, if release
locations are limited and they involve environmentally sensitive receptors, more stringent treatment requirements
will likely be required. Conversely, if a number of release locations are available and they do not involve
environmentally sensitive receptors, treatment requirements will likely be less stringent. No treatment may be
required for some release options, such as offsite disposal.
Treatment Processes
There are a variety of treatment processes that can be used to remove substances of concern from hydrostatic
discharge waters. These range from simple and inexpensive unit processes to more complex and costly operations.
This subsection describes several unit processes that are currently being used or considered by the pipeline
industry for removal of the potential contaminants identified in Section 4.0. These unit processes include:
5-2

 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.
5-3

TABLE 7.1
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT PROCESSES
CONTAMINANT REMOVED
DISSOLVED
TREATMENT FREE EMULSIFIED SUSPENDED TRACE
HYDROCARBONS
PROCESS OIL OIL SOLIDS METALS
BTEX Phenols
Gravity Separation X 01 X - - N/A
Aeration N/A N/A N/A 02 - 04
Coalescence X 0 0 - - N/A
Flotation X 0 0 - - N/A
Filtration 0
hay bales X 0 - - N/A

cartridge/bag filters X X - - N/A
media filter 0 X - - N/A
Granular Absorbent Media N/A X 0 - - N/A

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 03 - -
Chemical Precipitation N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A X
Most Removed X
Some Removed 0
None/Very Little Removed -
Not Applicable N/A
1
Notes: demulsifer added
2
volatile compounds only (for example, BTEX; phenol not removed)
3
volatile and semi-volatile compounds only (for example BTEX; phenol not removed)
4
iron oxidation
5-4

The extent of contaminant removal required is dictated by the concentration of contaminants in the hydrostatic test
water before treatment and the required discharge limit (typically regulated criteria). Generally, the more extensive
the treatment requirements (e.g. very strict discharge limits), the higher the treatment cost will be.
The volume of discharge water and the required throughput affect the treatment cost. If a large volume of water
requires treatment over a short period of time, high treatment throughputs are necessary. This could require
oversizing of treatment equipment, which can be costly. Another cost consideration with respect to discharge water
volume is that the unit cost for treatment ($/m3) generally decreases as the volume increases.
Holding ponds or tanks can be used to provide storage for the discharge water before treatment. The costs
associated with constructing a storage pond and purchasing or leasing tanks can be significant; however, these
collection and holding facilities allow for greater flexibility in the treatment and release system. For example:
 The collection of discharge water in tanks or ponds results in a more uniform composition and allows for a
controlled flowrate to subsequent treatment processes or for release to the environment.
 It may allow for smaller sizing of subsequent treatment equipment (for example, lower treatment flow rate
required).
 Some treatment for contaminant removal may occur (e.g. settling of suspended solids, oil removal, loss of
volatile hydrocarbons such as BTEX, biodegradation and photodegradation of some contaminants and
additives).
 The use of tanks or ponds may allow for the segregation of more contaminated discharge water (e.g.
interface water) from less contaminated water (e.g. core water).
An economic analyses should be carried out to compare the cost of holding ponds or tanks and treatment
equipment requirements. As well, the cost of having the pipeline out of service should also be considered.
Potential environmental concerns related to holding ponds (eg. fencing, waterfowl scare measures, etc.) need to be
considered and addressed.
The location of pipeline dewatering and treatment can affect the treatment costs. For example, transportation,
mobilization and demobilization costs for equipment or contract services will be higher for more remote locations.
Caution should be exercised when comparing treatment costs for stand alone unit processes. The contaminants
removed by individual unit processes may vary, as well as the upstream or downstream treatment requirements.
Therefore, it is more meaningful to compare costs for complete treatment systems rather than individual unit
processes.
Treatment costs vary not only with the type of treatment processes used but the type of installation or service
involved. Treatment of hydrostatic discharge waters can be achieved using: contract services; portable or
5-5

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

 description of unit processes involved;
 assessment of treatment performance (discharge water quality);
 treatment throughput; and
 treatment costs where available.
Example 1: Contract Services for New and In-service Gas Pipelines
5-6

There are various companies within Canada offering contract services for the treatment of discharge water from
hydrostatic testing. Typically, these services have been applied to discharge waters with relatively low
contaminant levels (e.g. from new pipelines or in-service gas pipelines).
The treatment systems generally consist of the same basic features, with some minor differences. Key components
of the treatment are:
 a feed or surge tank to control the flowrate to downstream equipment and provide degassification
 disposable cartridge or bag filters for suspended solids and oil removal
 granular activated carbon vessels for the removal of fine oil, some dissolved organics and oxidized iron
The treatment systems, which are skid-mounted and portable, are typically rated for about 2000 gallons per minute.
However, some companies claim ratings of up to 5000 gallons per minute.
To achieve this high throughput with the equipment provided, high carbon loading rates are required. The loading
rates are in the order of about 14 to 20 gpm/ft2, compared to 3 to 5 gpm/ft2, which are more typical in carbon
adsorption processes. Consequently, contact times with the carbon are only about 2 to 3 minutes, compared with
15 to 30 minutes in other carbon adsorption processes.
These treatment systems are primarily used to remove suspended solids and oil. Oxidized iron is also removed as
a suspended solid. Because of the low carbon contact times, the removal of dissolved organics (such as BTEX
and phenol) are likely low. However, removals of dissolved organics could be increased if lower loading rates and
longer contact times are used.
The cost for these contract treatment services vary depending on the volume of water treated, water throughput and
treatment location. For the high throughputs discussed above (e.g. 2000 gpm) treatment costs typically range from
about $2.50 to $7.00 per cubic metre of discharge water. These prices include equipment mobilization and
demobilization, treatment, provision of a technician, and disposal of used treatment media. Higher costs would be
expected for lower throughput rates.
Example 2: Temporary Treatment Facility for Reactiviation of an Out-of-service Liquid Petroleum

Pipeline
A temporary treatment facility was located at a pump station to treat hydrostatic test water from an out-of-service
liquid petroleum pipeline to be reactivated. Surface water was used as a source water for hydrostatic testing and
no additives were used. The main contaminants of concern (e.g. present in the discharge water and regulated)
were: pH, TSS, BTEX, phenol, COD and iron. Approximately 25,000 m3 of discharge water were treated over a six
week period.
5-7

The treatment system included:
 existing tanks for discharge water storage before treatment

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

PARAMETER LIMIT LIMIT
(Mg/l Unless Noted) (Mg/l Unless Noted)
TSS 25 40
COD 50 75
5-8

pH 6.0 - 9.0 pH units 6.0 - 9.0 pH units
Oil and grease No visible sheen No visible sheen
Iron 0_3 0_5
Benzene 0_3 0_5
Ethylbenzene 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 absorbent media were determined to be nonhazardous
and disposed of accordingly. The spent activated carbon was returned for reactivation.
The total treatment cost for this treatment system was approximately $180,000 or $7/m3 of discharge water. The
cost for subsequent treatment systems would likely be less since engineering costs would be reduced (e.g. system
already designed and process information is readily available).
Example 3: Portable Treatment Facility for an In-service Liquid Petroleum Pipeline
A portable treatment facility has been designed to treat discharge water from a proposed hydrostatic test of an 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. Additives will be used during the hydrostatic test including: aniline dye,
sulfur hexafluoride and a valve sealant.
Approximately 160,000 m3 of core water will be treated over a 14 week period at a nominal rate of 300 US gpm.
The main contaminants of concern are: TSS, free and emulsified oil, iron, BTEX and phenol. The expected
composition of the core water and the discharge criteria are summarized in Table 7.3.
TABLE 7.3
EXPECTED COMPOSITION AND DISCHARGE CRITERIA
(all concentrations mg/L unless noted)
PARAMETER EXPECTED COMPOSITION DISCHARGE CRITERIA
pH 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5
TSS 15 - 40 10
COD not known 250
Benzene 2- 18 0_3
5-9

Toluene 2 - 18 0_3
Ethylbenzene 0.2 - 3 0_7
Xylene 1 - 12 0_3
Phenols 0.1 - 0.6 0_005
Iron 1-9 0_3
Interface fluids received from near the front and back ends of the test section will be separated and stored in tanks.
Demulsifiers will be added to promote the separation of oil and water. The separated water will be combined with
the core water. The recovered oil will be returned to the pipeline.
Core water and separated interface water will be held in a new 1,000,000 bbls (160,000 m3) lined storage pond.
The pond will be constructed of native clay and lined with 60 mil high-density polyethylene. The pond will allow
for storage of the large volume of water requiring treatment. As well, it will allow for gravity separation of free oil
and suspended solids from the water. The free oil will be removed by skimming. Suspended solids will settle to
the bottom of the pond. Natural aeration in the pond will oxidize iron to a particulate form, which will settle to the
bottom of the pond or be removed by filtration.
Water from the holding pond will be pumped to the treatment system, which has the following major components:
 bag filtration to remove suspended solids and oil
 absorbent media filtration to remove emulsified oil and some dissolved hydrocarbons
 activated carbon filtration to remove dissolved hydrocarbons
Two bag filters in series will remove suspended solids and oil that are not removed in the holding pond. The
disposable bag filters are designed to remove solids and oil droplets larger than 5 microns in size.
Final removal of free and emulsified oil will be achieved using absorbent media filtration. As well, some
dissolved organics may also be removed. The main purpose of this treatment unit is to prevent oil from entering
the carbon adsorption units downstream. The absorbent media, which consists of anthracite and clay, is sacrificial;
once saturated with oil it is removed for disposal and replaced with new media. The design hydraulic loading rate
on the filtration unit is 4 gpm/ft2.
Activated carbon adsorption will be used for the removal of dissolved organics. Two vessels in series designed
for a hydraulic loading of 4 gpm/ft2 will provide over 30 minutes of contact time between the water and activated
carbon. Effluent from the carbon adsorption vessels will be monitored and tested to determine when the carbon is
exhausted. Spent activated carbon will be removed for reactivation and replaced with fresh carbon.
5 - 10

Treated water will be stored in two unlined effluent ponds (90,000 bbls each). Each pond will have the capacity to
store one week's throughput from the treatment system. The water will be tested before releasing to ensure the
discharge criteria are met. Water that does not meet the criteria will be returned to the treatment system. Water
acceptable for discharge will be released to the terminal's drainage system and ultimately to surface water.
The treatment system is designed as a completely skid-mounted system suitable for relocation to other sites. It is
designed for manual, summer-only operation.
The estimated capital and operating costs for the ponds and treatment system are summarized in Table 7.4. The
total estimated cost is $2,180,000. As shown, over half of this cost is associated with the construction of the
ponds. However, these ponds could be used for storing discharge water generated from future hydrostatic testing
programs.
TABLE 7.4
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
FACILITY COMPONENT COST ($)
Ponds $1,400,000
Treatment system $780,000
Operating cost $150,000
Total cost $2,180,000
Example 4: Comparison of Treatment Processes for Dissolved Organics Removal from an In-service
Liquid Petroleum Pipeline
A liquid petroleum pipeline company is constructing a treatment facility for water from its hydrostatic testing
program. Discharge water from hydrostatic testing will be transported to an end-of-pipe facility for treatment and
subsequent release to a municipal sanitary sewer. The design flowrate for the system is 200 gpm.
The main contaminants of concern are: TSS, oil and grease, BTEX, phenol, and iron. The expected untreated
discharge water composition and the discharge criteria are summarized in Table 7.5.
TABLE 7.5
EXPECTED COMPOSITION AND DISCHARGE CRITERIA
(all concentrations mg/L unless noted)
PARAMETER EXPECTED COMPOSITION DISCHARGE CRITERIA
pH 6-9 6-9
5 - 11

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 mg/L to 0.02 mg/L, which meets the discharge criteria.
A UV/peroxide system was selected over GAC because it was found to be more cost effective. The estimated
capital and annual operating costs for a UV/peroxide system are $207,000 and $20,390 respectively. The main
operating costs for the UV/peroxide system are: electrical power, lamp replacement, hydrogen peroxide and
maintenance.
5 - 12

8.0 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Environment Canada and the National Energy Board (NEB) are the only
federal agencies which are involved in the approval or review of water withdrawal and water discharge applications
related to hydrostatic testing on a nation wide basis. Other federal departments that may provide approvals for
testing or input to CEAA include Parks Canada, Health and Welfare Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
(INAC), Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA) and Transport Canada.
Fisheries and Oceans
DFO does not provide formal approval on matters related to hydrostatic testing but may be involved in the review
of the project through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) process or when requested by any
other federal agency. Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) approval is generally not required for hydrostatic
testing, water withdrawal or water discharge activities. However, if hydrostatic testing equipment or activities
could affect navigation, NWPA approval would be required.
The following sections of the federal Fisheries Act apply to hydrostatic testing:
 Section 22 - flow limits;
 Section 30 - every water intake will have a fish guard or screen to prevent the passage of fish;
 Section 35(1) - no work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or
destruction of fish habitat; and
 Section 36(3) - no deposit of a deleterious substance of any type in water frequented by fish.
DFO is responsible for Sections 30 and 35.1 of the Fisheries Act, while DFO and Environment Canada are jointly
responsible for Section 36.3 of the Fisheries Act. It should be noted, however, that DFO authorization is required,
to destroy fish by means other than fishing and to alter fish habitat, under the Fisheries Act. If hydrostatic testing
procedure threatens fish or alters fish habitat, then DFO authorization may be required. DFO also requests that the
agency be contacted if interbasin transfer of water will occur as a result of a hydrostatic test. There are no federal
guidelines on interbasin transfer of exotic species, but it does represent a potential concern to fish and fisheries.
5-1

National Energy Board (NEB)
For federally regulated pipelines, operation and maintenance activities including testing as well as facilities
applications, may require NEB approval pursuant to the various acts and regulations that relate to these activities.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC)
No agency specific regulations apply to hydrostatic testing on Indian Reservations, however, the same
regulation(s) as the respective province or territory use will apply. Indian Oil and Gas Canada as well as (INAC)
do not have specific requirements for hydrostatic testing. Hydrostatic testing on Indian Reserves may be subject to
CEAA review.
8.1 Withdrawal
DFO has outlined the national standard-of-practice for screening requirements for water intakes in the "Freshwater
Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline" March 1995 (available from DFO) that outlines mesh sizes, approach
velocities and cleaning requirements of water intake screens.
Federal water withdrawal limits have not been developed. However, DFO recommends water withdrawal not
exceed 10% of the natural streamflow. This 10% water withdrawal limit is commonly recommended in most
provinces and territories across Canada. It should be noted that excessive water withdrawal could result in harmful
alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (HADD) and would require authorization from DFO.
Water withdrawal activities for federally regulated projects must, as a minimum, meet the NEB Guidelines for
Filing Requirements and the Onshore Pipeline Regulations.
8.2 Release
HADD could occur as a result of a test failure or release of hydrostatic test water with contaminants. Fish habitat
can be affected by alterations in temperature, hydrocarbon or other contaminants, sedimentation due to excessive
discharge rates and test additives. There are no hard numbers on the allowable levels of contaminants in
hydrostatic test water discharge on a federal basis at this time. Release approval is not required unless hydrostatic
testing operations threaten fish or alters fish habitat, then DFO authorization is required. Contact the regional DFO
office (Appendix H) for Application for Authorization for Works or Undertakings Affecting Fish Habitat if the
potential exists for HADD to occur as a result of testing.
The release of hydrostatic test water for federally regulated projects must, as a minimum, meet the NEB
Guidelines for Filing Requirements and the Onshore Pipeline Regulations.
5-2

8.3 Monitoring and Record Retention
There are no federal environmental requirements to monitor and provide records of the waters used in hydrostatic
testing. However, companies are recommended to monitor and retain records of environmental matters to establish
the sequence of events and demonstrate that HADD or other impacts did not occur.
8.4 Spill and Spill Reporting
Each province and territory has different arrangements with DFO and Environment Canada regarding the
administration of the Fisheries Act Section 36(3) that applies to deposition of a deleterious substance.
Environment Canada may become involved if the spill occurs on federal lands or if the company is regulated by
federal agencies. Charges can be laid under the Fisheries Act as the result of a spill.
Spill and spill reporting on federally regulated projects are regulated by the NEB.
5-3

9.0 PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS
The following outlines environmental regulatory requirements for hydrostatic testing in the provinces and territories
of Canada within which testing by CAPP and CEPA members are most common. No information is provided for
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland.
Regulatory approvals are generally required for land application of discharge water, with limitations on application
rates and contaminant loadings. As well, there may be provisions regarding the withdrawal and use of water,
erosion control, flood prevention, interbasin transfer, prevention of water reaching another water body, watercourse,
etc. Discharges to receiving waters may have limitations on the discharge flowrate as well as a number of water
quality parameters.
Table 9.1 provides a summary of the environmental regulatory requirements for hydrostatic testing within each
province and territory in Canada where CAPP and CEPA members operate pipelines.
Appendix H identifies the agency contact for each applicable jurisdiction in Canada. Mapping, is also provided in
Appendix H, where available, of provincial regional jurisdictions.
9.1 Withdrawal
A review of the environmental regulatory requirements for hydrostatic testing in Canada indicates that provincial
jurisdictions require testing proponents to obtain water withdrawal approvals and follow specific requirements. A
withdrawal rate limit of 10% of available natural streamflow or no significant impact on levels of standing water
are general rules of thumb in many jurisdictions or should be followed as a guide when specific withdrawal rates
are not specified. Some jurisdictions have specific requirements regarding screening intakes while others rely on
DFO guidelines for screening requirements as a general guide.
9.2 Release
Many jurisdictions require that specific approvals/permits be obtained before releasing hydrostatic test water.
Approval may be conditional upon monitoring release limits, water quality and location.
With the exception of the province of Alberta, there are currently no published regulatory requirements specific to
hydrostatic testing discharge waters. Generally, the treatment and release of discharge waters are regulated on a
case-by-case basis by the respective provinces. However, as a basis for determining applicable discharge criteria,
many provinces have used criteria established by the Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment (CCME)
as a starting point. The CCME has developed water quality criteria for a number of parameters for different water
5-1

uses.
In 1996, Alberta Environmental Protection (AEP) issued a Code of Practice for "Discharge of Hydrostatic Test
Water From Hydrostatic Testing of Petroleum Liquid and Natural Gas Pipelines". This Code outlines minimum
requirements for water quality that pipeline owners and operators must meet when releasing hydrostatic test water
to land or a receiving water. The Code applies to hydrostatic testing of new and in-service liquid petroleum and
natural gas pipelines where test volumes are greater than 1,000 m3. The Code includes registration, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements as well as requirements for the release of discharge water to land or receiving waters.
Release limits for a number of parameters for discharges to land and receiving waters are identified in the Code in
Appendix G. Release of test water volume of less than 1,000 m3 are not subject to the Code but must meet Alberta
Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act requirements (i.e. no adverse impacts).
Hydrostatic test water discharge flow rate and volume limits are not specified except in Ontario where the
discharge rate must be equal to the water withdrawal rate. All jurisdictions recommend some type of energy
dissipater be utilized to prevent and reduce erosion potential. Some jurisdictions do not permit the direct discharge
of test water to a watercourse and require test water be discharged over land before entering a water body or
discharged into a closed system such as a dugout or slough.
Many provincial agencies, on a case-by-case basis, require monitoring of the quality of the discharge water.
Alberta is the only jurisdiction that has water quality criteria specific to the release of hydrostatic test water
(Appendix G). Many provinces use the water quality criteria for drinking water or freshwater aquatic life
established by the Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment (CCME) for hydrostatic test releases.
9.3 Monitoring and Record Retention
Of the provincial jurisdictions, only Alberta requires the records or sample data be retained for hydrostatic tests
with test volumes greater than 1,000 m3. However, monitoring and analyses may be necessary to verify that the
discharge water is compatible with the receiving basin, soils or land use as well as to demonstrate regulatory
compliance (see Section 5.0).
Another release option for hydrostatic test water are approved release facilities. Regulatory approval will be
required for offsite release. Acceptable discharge water quality may vary depending on the nature of the offsite
release facility and the regulatory requirements imposed on the facility.
9.4 Spill and Spill Reporting
Most provinces and territories have a 24 hour spill reporting mechanism in place. The requirements for reporting
vary depending upon the jurisdiction, type of product spilled and volume of the spill. Charges can be laid under
the Fisheries Act as a result of a spill or an incident of HADD.
5-2

TABLE 9.1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER WITHDRAWAL AND DISCHARGE

WATER
MINIMUM
VOLUME FEE FOR NAME OF LICENSE, DISCHARGE
JURISDICTIO FEE FOR APPROVAL APPLICATIO INTAKE SCREENING WITHDRAWAL RATE STANDARDS FOR
ISSUING AGENCY(IES) THRESHOLD APPLICATIO PERMIT OR WATER TESTING RELEASE APPROVALS SPILL REPORTING
N WATER PERIOD N FORMAT REQUIREMENTS LIMITATIONS DISCHARGE
REQUIRING N APPROVAL PROCEDURES
WATER QUALITY
AN APPROVAL
Federal Fisheries and Oceans, (DFO) No N/A N/A No formal No N/A DFO fish screen 10% of natural N/A N/A Only required if Refer to approval
provides comments on any approval guideline streamflow harmful alteration, conditions
projects related to Fish and granted, disruption or
Fish Habitat as well as input comment destruction of fish
on projects under CEAA and only habitat will occur
if requested by any federal
agency
DFO has jurisdiction of all No N/A N/A Variable Yes Authorization for N/A N/A
9 Canadian Waters and all Works or
projects affecting fish Undertakings
habitat - approval required Affecting Fish
- Habitat
National Energy Board No N/A N/A Variable No Variable On a project - N/A
3 approval on federally specific basis
regulated projects
British Regional Water No Yes N/A Few days to Form Approval for Yes - DFO fish screen 2 cfs must pass On a site- On a site- No approvals 1-(800)-663-3456
Columbia Management Branch of the a full year Section 7 guidelines during active specific basis specific basis required for tests (in B.C. only)
Ministry of Environment, Regulation of the pumping with no additives
Lands and Parks coordinates Water Act - short- (604) 387-5956
responses from appropriate term use of water (outside B.C.)
government departments
Regional Environmental Form Approval under On a site- On a site- Approval under
Protection Branch of the the Waste specific basis specific basis Waste
Ministry of Environment, Management Act Management Act
Lands and Parks (for tests
with additives and in-
service pipe)
Regional Environmental Notification Approval for
Protection Branch of the Proposed Works
Ministry of Environment, and Changes In
Lands and Parks and About a
(modification of the stream Stream under the
channel is involved) section 7
Regulation of the
Water Act
Alberta Water Resources Act - No No No From a few Letter or Letter of Authority Yes - Fisheries Habitat Site specific
Natural Resources Service hours to 6 - 8 phone call Protection Guideline
of Alberta Environmental weeks if No. 10
Protection; for Temporary public
Diversion and Use of Water notification
is required
Alberta Environmental No No Letter As required for >1000 m3 Code As required for Pollution
Protection and EPEA and Code of Practice for EPEA and Code of Emergency
Enhancement Act Regional of Practice Discharge of Practice Response Team
Directors (for in-service pipe Hydrostatic Test 1-(800)-222-6514
WATER
MINIMUM
WATER QUALITY
AN APPROVAL
or tests with additives) Water from
Hydrostatic Alberta Disaster
Testing of Services
Petroleum (403) 427-2772
Liquid and
Natural Gas
Pipelines
<1000 m3
Environmental
Protection and
Enhancement
Act (EPEA)
applies
Saskatchew Saskatchewan Water No Yes Yes 2-4 weeks Form Temporary Yes - DFO fish screen N/A 1-(800) -667-7525
an Corporation for Approvals to guidelines (in Saskatchewan
withdrawal/use of water Operate Works only)
under the (306) 787-8000
Saskatchewan (outside
9 water Corporation Saskatchewan)
Act
Saskatchewan Environment No No N/A 2-5 Weeks Letter Permit pursuant to Requested for As required by Permit with
- and Resource Management Section 17(a) of all discharges, EMPA conditions
for water discharge the Environmental level of testing
4 Management and is dependant
Protection Act upon
(EMPA) anticipated
water quality
Regional Fisheries Biologist, No 2-4 weeks Form or Shoreland
Saskatchewan Environment Letter Alteration Permit
and Resource Management
(if stream bed or bank
disturbance is involved)
Manitoba Water Resources Branch of Yes N/A No 3 weeks Letter Letter of Yes - DFO fish screen 10% of On a site- As determined As required under (204) 944-4888
Manitoba Department of Authorization guidelines and on a instantaneous specific basis by by Manitoba the Environment
Natural Resources under the Water site-specific basis by discharge of the Manitoba Environmental Act
Rights Act Fisheries Branch of source stream Environment Surface Water
Manitoba Quality
Department of Objectives
Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of Environment and 50,000 l/day N/A N/A 4-6 weeks if Form(s) Permit to Take No Up to 10% of May be required Variable, on a May be required by OMOEE Spills
Energy (OMOEE), Regional or if new pipe Water available by OMOEE site-specific OMOEE Action Centre
Director withdrawal and limited streamflow, if basis by OMOEE. 1-(800) -268-6060
interferes concerns to more required, Must meet
with public or in excess of meet with MISA effluent
private 3 months for Regional OMOEE criteria
interest in any in-service representative regulations for
water pipe and the petroleum
complex industry
projects
requiring
advertising
Ministry of Natural Resources N/A Work Permit
(if stream bed or bank
disturbance is involved)
OMOEE, Approvals Branch (if 2% of the Approval For
in-service pipe or if test cost of the Industrial Sewage
WATER
MINIMUM
WATER QUALITY
AN APPROVAL
additives are used) works Works
Conservation Authority (if Yes Approval under
stream bank disturbance is the Conservation
involved) Authorities Act
Quebec Commission de Protection N/A Yes No ± 3 months Forms Authorization No No On a site- Meet the MEF Authorization under (418) 643-4595
du Territoire Agricole du under Section 62 specific basis regulations Section 62 of the
Québec (if on agricultural of the Act To Act To Preserve
lands) Preserve Agricultural Land
Agricultural Land
Municipality (channelized No No Variable Letter Approval from the
watercourse) Municipality
Ministère de No No Variable Letter Certificate of Certificate of
L’Environnement et de La Authorization Authorization
Faune (MEF)
(natural watercourses on
either agricultural land or
nonagricultural land)
9 NWT NWT Water Board 100 m3/day Yes Yes 4--6 months Form Water Use Type A Yes - DFO fish screen N/A On a site- On a site- As required by NWT (403) 920-8130
Licence guidelines specific basis by specific basis by Waters Act
Water Use Type B the NWT Water the NWT Water
-
Licence under the Board Board
Northwest
5 Territories Waters
Act (NWTWA)
Yukon Yukon Water Board 100 m3/day Yes Yes 2-6 months Form Water Use Type A Yes - DFO fish screen N/A On a site- On a site- As required by (403) 667-7244
Licence guidelines specific basis by specific basis by Yukon Waters Act
Water Use Type B the Yukon the Yukon
Licence under the Water Board Water Board
Yukon Waters Act
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

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

McKeague, J.A. (ed.). 1991. Manual on Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, 2nd edition. Canadian Society
of Soil Science.
National Energy Board. 1996. Hydrostatic Test Water Analysis. (unpublished)
Patton, C.C. 1986. Applied Water Technology. Campbell Petroleum Series. Oklahoma: Norman.
Stelpipe. 1991. Steel line pipe. 4th Edition.
U.S. EPA. 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA 600/4-79-020. Revised March
1983. U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. EPA. 1990. EPA Technology Evaluation Report, Site Demonstration of the Ultrox International Ultraviolet
Radiation/Oxidation Technology. EPA 154015-891012. Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S.EPA. 1991. Site Characterization for Subsurface Remediation, Seminar Publication. EPA/625/4-91/026,
U.S.EPA Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268.
10 - 2

APPENDIX A
WATER HANDLING FLOW DIAGRAMS
11 - 1
APPENDIX B
HYDROCARBON SPECTRUM DIAGRAM
11 - 1
APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
11 - 1
APPENDIX D
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY SUMMARIES
• Gravity Separation
• Aeration
• Coalescence
• Floatation
• Filtration
• Granular Absorbent Media Filtration
• Granular Activated Carbon
• Advanced Oxidation Processes
• Air Stripping
• Chemical Precipitation
11 - 1
Treatment Technology: 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 Refinery Wastes" discusses design criteria in detail.
Performance Review and Experience
Gravity separation is widely used throughout the oil industry for primary phase separation of oil and suspended
solids from produced waters. Gross free oil greater that 150 microns and suspended solids are removed.
Generally, emulsified oil, dissolved oil and finely dispersed solids are not removed. However, some finer oil
droplets and emulsified may be removed if demulsifiers are added to enhance coalescence.
Pipeline companies have successfully used gravity separation in ponds and tanks to treat hydrostatic discharge
water for oil and suspended solids removal.
Advantages
Gravity separators are widely used and proven technology. The units are mechanically reliable and require
minimal servicing. They are also inexpensive. Gravity separators are amenable to portable applications provided
the tankage required does not exceed the maximum allowable for transporting.
Disadvantages
Gravity separators require a relatively large amount of space. The skimmed oil phase and the suspended solids
require proper release.
11 - 2
FIGURE D.1 SKIM TANK FOR OIL AND WATER SEPARATION
11 - 3
Treatment Technology: 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 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 inorganics and metals may also be removed such
as free chlorine and iron. Non-volatile organics are not removed using aeration.
Advantages
Aeration is relatively simple and inexpensive means of reducing the concentration of volatile organics in discharge
waters. Aeration can readily be carried out at the dewatering location.
Disadvantages
Non-volatile compounds are not removed. Aeration releases volatile compounds to the atmosphere, which may
cause environmental or odour concerns. Natural aeration in a pond or other contained area may require a long
period of time for volatile organics to be removed.
11 - 4
Treatment Technology: Coalescence
Primary Contaminants Removed: Finely dispersed oil, some emulsified oil

Secondary Contaminants Removed: Suspended solids
Process Description
Coalescers are used to enhance gravity separation processes. Coalescers provide solid surfaces which can be
contacted and wetted by oil droplets. The droplets accumulate and create a thick film, which is sheared off by
other forces such as gravity or fluid flow. The larger oil droplets separate from the water more effectively than
smaller droplets.
Coalescing surfaces may be plates or filter media. Parallel plate and corrugated plate coalescers are commonly
available devices. A schematic diagram of a corrugated plate separator is shown in Figure D.2. The corrugated
plates are on an incline inside a tank, providing a large coalescing surface area. Suspended solids settle to the
bottom of the tank. A loose media coalescer is a vessel containing a bed of filter media, which provides a
coalescing surface and also removes suspended solids. A schematic diagram of a coalescing filter is shown in
Figure D.3. The agglomerated oil droplets rise to the top of the vessel and are collected. Backwashing may be
required to remove accumulated oil and solids from the media.
Design Criteria
Parallel plate and corrugated plate coalescers are sized based on required residence time to achieve effective
coalescence and gravity separation. Loose media coalescers are sized based on hydraulic loading. Typical
hydraulic loading rates are 350 to 900 m3/m2-d. Backwash water rates are typically 475 to 1300 m3/m2-d. An air
scour may also be used.
The use of coalescers, particularly corrugated plate separators is fairly common in the oil industry. Oil removal
efficiencies can be improved depending upon the nature of the oily phase. Emulsified oil is not effectively
removed without the addition of demulsifiers upstream of the coalescer. Pipeline operators have used corrugated
plate separators for oil removal from hydrostatic test waters from in-service liquid petroleum pipelines.
Advantages
Coalescers improve gravity separation efficiency by removing finer oil droplets. They also reduce the equipment
size for gravity separation and/or increase the allowable throughput. Coalescers are also relatively inexpensive
and they are amenable portable applications.
Disadvantages
More routine maintenance is required that with a conventional gravity separation unit to keep the coalescing media
clean and free of oily solids buildup.
11 - 5
FIGURE D.2 CORRUGATED PLATE SEPARATOR
11 - 6
FIGURE D.3 COALESCING FILTER
11 - 7
Treatment Technology: Flotation
Primary Contaminants Removed: Finely dispersed oil, some emulsified oil

Secondary Contaminants Removed: Oily suspended solids
Process Description
Induced air flotation (IAF) or dissolved air flotation (DAF) can be used to enhance gravity separation. Small air
bubbles are introduced into the water, which contact and adhere to fine oil droplets and oily particles. This results
in an apparent reduction in specific gravity causing the air/oil droplets to rise to the water surface to form a dense
froth. The froth is removed by skimming.
In IAF units, air is introduced either by an impeller or with a combination of centrifugal pump and eductor. In DAF
units, pressurized air is introduced in the water and air bubbles are released upon depressurization. A schematic
diagram of a DAF unit as shown in Figure D.4.
Design Criteria
IAF units are sized to provide minimum retention time for effective separation. Manufacturers typically base their
design on a 1 minute residence time in each cell. Longer residence times may be required for heavier oils (less
density difference). The froth from an IAF unit comprises approximately 5 percent of the feed volume and it
contains between 2 and 5 percent oil.
Flotation units are widely used in the oil industry for fine oil and suspended solids removal from produced water.
They normally follow gross oil removal in a gravity separator (skim tank). Oil removal efficiencies of 90 percent
are typical. This includes finely dispersed oil droplets. Emulsified oil may be removed if a demulsifier is added
upstream. Flotation units do not remove dissolved oil. Flotation units have been used by pipeline operators to
treat hydrostatic test waters.
Advantages
Flotation is a proven technology with predictable performance. Mechanical reliability is high. Flotation units may
be amenable to portable applications, provided the tankage required does not exceed the maximum allowable for
transporting.
Disadvantages
Flotation units are susceptible to upsets by free oil slugs, which deteriorates the effluent quality. The oily froth
also requires release.
11 - 8
FIGURE D.4 DISSOLVED AIR FLOATATION UNIT
11 - 9
Treatment Technology: Filtration (hay bales, cartridge and bag filters and media
filters)
Primary Contaminants Removed: Suspended solids and oil droplets

Secondary Contaminants Removed: None
Process Description
Filtration processes that are used by pipeline companies to remove fine suspended solids and oil droplets from
hydrostatic test waters are hay bale structures, cartridge or bag filters and media filters.
A schematic diagram of a hay bale structure is provided in Figure D.5. It consists of hay bales with an adsorbent
boom for free oil removal. Hay bale structures are normally used as stand alone treatment processes or with an
aeration bar. Following treatment, the hay bales are disposed of.
Depending on the nature of the discharge water, cartridge and bag filters may be used as a stand alone process;
more typically they are used downstream of a gravity separation process for the removal of finer oil and suspended
solids and upstream of dissolved organics removal treatment processes (e.g. activated carbon adsorption), which
are sensitive to overloading by free oil and solids. Cartridge and bag filters typically have a polypropylene filter
media that collects and traps suspended solids and oil droplets. Cartridge and bag filters are disposable.
Media filters contain a fixed bed of granular material (such as sand, anthracite, garnet, or nutshells) that traps
suspended solids and oil as water passes through it. Media filters can be operated in an upflow or downflow mode
and have a single or mixed media. Periodic backwashing with treated water is required to remove trapped oil and
suspended solids. Simultaneous gas and water scouring is commonly used.
Design Criteria
A relatively standard design is used for the construction of a hay bale structures as shown in Figure D.3. The
number of hay bale structures required for treatment will vary depending on the volume of discharge water and
concentration of contaminants (TSS and oil). Based on information reported by the Gas Research Industry, one hay
bale structure may treat between 10,000 US gallons and 300,000 US gallons. The key parameter affecting the life
of a hay bale structure is the free oil content of the discharge water.
Media filters are sized based on hydraulic loading rate, which varies depending upon the type of filter. Hydraulic
rates range from 175-350 m3/m2-d for conventional downflow filters to 600-900 m3/m2-d for high-rate downflow
filters. Backwash rates of 700-900 m3/m2-d are common.
Hay bale structures are used to treat relatively uncontaminated discharge water from new and in-service gas
pipelines. They have successfully removed free oil from discharge waters and larger suspended solids. Finer
solids and dissolved organics are not removed.
Cartridge and bag filters have been used to remove solids and oil droplets from discharge waters from in-service
liquid petroleum pipelines. Backwashing is not required as the filters are disposable. However, this results in
waste generation.
Media filtration has been used to remove solids from discharge waters from in-service liquid petroleum pipelines
(downstream of oil removal processes). Dissolved organics are not removed. Free or emulsified oil can be
problematic and cause fouling of the filter media, requiring more frequent backwashing.
Advantages
11 - 10
Filtration is widely used and a proven technology. The equipment is reliable, easy to operate and amenable to
portable applications.
Disadvantages
Media filters are susceptible to plugging if overloaded with oil and solids. Frequent backwashing may be required
in this case. The backwash water also requires release. Release of filter media is required with hay bales,
cartridge and bag filters.
11 - 11
FIGURE D.5 HAY BALE FIELD TREATMENT UNIT
11 - 12
Treatment Technology: 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 of twice the mass of the active media or 60 percent by weight. Once the media has
reached its maximum absorptive capacity it must be disposed of and replaced. Routine backwashing is required to
remove solids buildup.
Design Criteria
GAMF filters operate at a hydraulic loading rate of about 175-295 m3/m2-d (3-5 gpm/ft2) and a contact time of
about 15 minutes. This provides sufficient time for oil droplet adherence. A backwash rate of 825 m3/m2-d is
recommended by the manufacturer. Bed life depends on the amount of insoluble hydrocarbons removed and can
be estimated based on the influent concentration, flowrate and media mass.
GAMF filtration is commonly used in wastewater treatment to prevent oil emulsions, droplets and films from
carrying over to downstream polishing treatment processes. Both free and emulsified oils can be removed,
however the filters should not be used for gross free oil removal as the bed life will be greatly diminished. An
absorption filter can effectively remove all emulsified oil droplets leaving near-equilibrium concentrations of
dissolved organics in water. GAMF has been used by pipeline operators to treat discharge water from in-service
liquid petroleum pipelines.
Advantages
GAMF filters are proven technology and readily available. They remove finely dispersed and emulsified oil
droplets that could otherwise be problematic in downstream treatment processes. They are relatively compact and
applicable to start/stop operations. They are amenable to portable applications.
Disadvantages
Release of the spent absorbent media is required.
11 - 13
Treatment Technology: Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)
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
gpm/ft2). The bed height to diameter ratio should be greater that 2:1 and as the ratio increases, performance
increases. Backwash rates of 590 to 885 m3/m2-d (10 to 15 gpm/ft2) are typical. Another important design criteria
is the empty bed contact time (EBCT). Typical EBCTs for the removal of dissolved organics from wastewater are
15 to 30 minutes.
GAC adsorption is a widely used treatment technology for the removal of low level dissolved organics from water.
The technology is proven both technically and operationally. While GAC is not applicable to all organics, it can
be used to remove BTEX, PAH's and phenol. It will not successfully remove glycol or methanol because of their
high water solubility. Free and emulsified oil should be removed prior to GAC adsorption to avoid bed fouling.
GAC has been used by pipeline operators to treat discharge waters from in-service liquid petroleum pipelines.
Advantages
The main advantages of GAC adsorption include: low effluent organic concentrations achievable, proven
technology, easy to operate and low space requirements. GAC adsorption is applicable to start/stop operations.
The equipment is amenable to portable applications.
Disadvantages
Organic contaminants are not destroyed but transferred to another media, that requires subsequent treatment (e.g.
reactivation) or release. Operating costs may be high if breakthrough occurs too quickly.
11 - 14
FIGURE D.6 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF GAC ADSORPTION COLUMNS IN SERIES
11 - 15
Treatment Technology: Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOP)
Primary Contaminants Removed: Dissolved organics

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 H2O. The
hydroxyl radical can be generated by: photolysis of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), photolysis of ozone (O3) and
reaction between ozone and hydrogen peroxide. Photolysis reactions are carried out in the presence of ultraviolet
(UV) radiation and are the most common commercially available process. They are referred to as UV/ozone,
UV/peroxide and UV/ozone/peroxide processes. A schematic diagram of a UV/peroxide system is shown in Figure
D.7.
Design Criteria
AOP's are still somewhat of a blackbox technology and vendors supply package systems. Operational variables,
such as number and intensity of UV lamps, ozone and peroxide doses and retention time depend on the wastewater
characteristics. Manufacturers claim typical retention times of 1 to 5 minutes. Pilot testing is normally required to
determine the correct operating parameters.
Although AOP's have been widely used for water supply applications, they have only recently been used for
organics destruction in industrial wastewaters. The performance of an AOP system depends on the characteristics
of the feed water and the design and operation of the system. AOP's have demonstrated effectiveness at destroying
phenols, PAH's and BTEX. Vendors claim high reductions of these contaminants. Natural water compounds such
as carbonate, bicarbonate, nitrite and ammonium ions and other inorganics in the reduced state (Fe2+, Cr3+) also
oxidize, becoming hydroxyl radical scavengers. This reduces the availability of hydroxyl radicals for organic
oxidation. Pretreatment to remove natural water compounds and free and emulsified oil may be required. AOP's
may oxidize and precipitate metals, such as Mn and Fe as metal oxides. Glycols, amines and methanol will also be
oxidized. UV/peroxidation is being considered for the treatment of discharge water from an in-service liquid
petroleum pipeline.
Advantages
AOP's completely destroy organics rather than transferring them to another media. They also have reduced waste
generation and low space requirements. They can be cost competitive with alternative technologies (e.g. GAC
adsorption). AOP may be amenable to portable applications. They also have instant on-off and turndown
capabilities.
Disadvantages
AOP's are susceptible to influent fluctuations and they may have fairly stringent pretreatment requirements.
Equipment reliability has been a problem with some systems. Equipment operation may be operator intensive. As
well, there may be special handling requirements for the oxidant, which may be toxic or hazardous.
11 - 16
FIGURE D.7 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AOP SYSTEM
11 - 17
Treatment Technology: 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.8. Air enters at the
bottom of the tower and water near the top. The air leaving the top contains volatile components that are either
released or collected for further treatment.
Design Criteria
The design of a stripping process depends on the water feed rate and the volatile components present in the water.
Contact between the liquid and gas phases should be maximized. Process control variables include: temperature,
gas phase flowrate and liquid phase flowrate. Packing media or plates may be included in the column design to
improve liquid-gas contact.
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.
11 - 18
FIGURE D.8 SCHEMATIC OF A STEAM STRIPPING PROCESS
11 - 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. L ime
or caustic can be added to elevate the pH to 9-10, which is sufficient to remove Fe, Mn and Zn. Clarifiers are
designed based on overflow rate, providing sufficient residence time for phase separation. A typical overflow rate
is 30 to 118 m3/m2-d.
Chemical precipitation is an effective means of removing metals from wastewater. Fe, Mn and Zn can be removed
by this method, as well as other heavy metals. A pipeline operator in Ontario uses chemical precipitation for the
removal of metals from hydrostatic test waters from in-service liquid petroleum product lines; iron levels are
reduced to below 1 mg/L. Some suspended solids may also be removed.
Advantages
Chemical precipitation for metals removal is widely used and proven technology. It may be amenable to portable
applications, provided the tankage required does not exceed the maximum allowed for transporting.
Disadvantages
Chemical additives are required and sludge release is necessary. The equipment has relatively large space
requirements. Depending on the water chemistry, large volumes of sludge may be generated. The process is not
specific to any metals; therefore calcium and magnesium may be precipitated.
11 - 20
APPENDIX E
SPILL CONTINGENCY PLAN
1.0 Purpose
This plan has not been prepared to replace the Spill Contingency Plans or Emergency Response Plans of operating
companies. This plans purpose is to ensure that measures are available to deal with an accidental release of poor
quality (e.g. saline, sodic or hydrocarbon contaminated) test water as well as additive or fuel/lubricant spills in the
absence of formal company plans.
2.0 Initial Response
1. In the event of a spill of environmentally or otherwise hazardous material, the first person on
the scene will follow the actions presented in the Spill Scene Checklist.
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 implemented to control and contain the spill. The
Contractor will be required to make all resources available to contain and clean-up a
spill; and
(c) the Project Engineer, provincial environmental government agency, company's Spill
Coordinator / Environmental Staff, local Oil Spill Co-operative, the provincial or federal
pipeline authority and police service are notified of the spill and the initial response is
being undertaken.
3.0 General Spill Containment Procedures
The successful containment of a spill on land or water depends on a variety of factors including:
ground cover and topography, hydrogeology, solubility of the material, viscosity of the liquid, water
currents, soil permeability and climatic conditions. The procedures to be followed will be consistent
with those described in company's Spill Contingency Plan or the local Oil Spill Cooperative
Contingency Plan.
The following general guidelines will be followed for containment of most hazardous materials.
1. Identify the product, stop source and physically contain spill as soon as practical.
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 soils.
4. If on land natural depressions or berms constructed with materials and equipment in proximity
to the site will be used to physically contain the spill. Deployment of booms will be necessary
11 - 1
APPENDIX E Cont’d
on water.
5. Clean-up will not be attempted without competent advice from the company's Environmental
Staff or Spill Staff.
General clean-up guidelines for specific accidents are outlined below. However, the first person on
the scene will follow the actions listed in the Spill Scene Checklist.
4.0 Transportation by truck
1. 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 appropriate. 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 a body of water.
2. Deploy booms, skimmers, sorbents, etc., if feasible, to contain and recover spilled material.
3. Pick up spilled product.
4. Clean-up contaminated area including downstream shorelines.
5. Dispose of heavily contaminated soil and vegetation at an approved facility. On lightly

contaminated soil areas where restoration is feasible, fertilize and then cultivate beyond depth
of contamination. Repeat as required.
6.0 Spot Spills
Since impacts from small spot spills can generally be minimized if appropriate actions are
implemented, all small spills of fuels or noxious materials must be reported immediately to the Chief
/ Environmental Inspector.
1. Suspend construction activity in the immediate vicinity of the spot spill until permission to
resume activity has been granted by the Chief / Environmental Inspector.
2. The Chief / Environmental Inspector, in consultation with the company's Environmental Staff or
applicable government agencies, will determine appropriate methods to remove and restore
contaminated soils. Soil and vegetation heavily contaminated with petroleum products will be
incinerated or disposed of at an approved facility.
3. Locations where spot spills occur are to be flagged or otherwise marked to ensure that post
11 - 2
APPENDIX E Cont’d
construction monitoring of the site can be undertaken.
4. Lightly contaminated soil areas where restoration is feasible will be fertilized and then
cultivated to a depth below the depth of contamination, then repeated as required.
11 - 3
APPENDIX E 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.
(b) If possible, cut off the source of the spill. While efforts are imme-
diately 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.
11 - 4
APPENDIX E Cont’d
SPILL REPORT FORM
Type of Material Spilled:
- Hydrocarbon contaminated test water
- Test water additive
- Saline/sodic test water
- Gasoline
- Diesel
- Lube Oil
- Hydraulic Fluid
Time of Spill or Discovery:
Source of Spill:
Area of Spill (m2):
Volume of Spill (l or m3):
Location (land, water, land and water):
Soil Type (e.g. sandy, clay, etc.):
Legal Location: LSD _____ Sec _____ Twp _____ Rg _____ W_____M; KP
Land Use:
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Potentially Affected:
Weather Conditions at time of Discovery:
11 - 5
APPENDIX F
TESTING RELATED CONVERSIONS
MULTIPLY B TO OBTAIN
Y
Acre feet 4 Cubic feet

3
5
6
0
Acre feet 1 Cubic metres

2
3
3
_
4
8
Barrel 3 Imperial gallons

5
Barrel 4 U.S. gallons

2
Barrel 0 Cubic metre

_
1
1
9
3
Cubic foot 0 Cubic metres

_
0
2
8
3
Cubic foot 6 Imperial gallons

_
2
2
9
Cubic foot 7 U.S. gallons

_
4
8
1
11 - 1
Cubic metre 2 U.S. gallons
6
4
_
1
7
Cubic metre 3 Cubic feet

5
_
3
1
4
4
Cubic metre 2 Imperial gallons

2
0
_
1
Cubic metre 6 Barrels

_
2
8
9
Cubic metre 1 Litres

0
0
0
Cubic metre 2 Pounds of water

2
0
4
_
6
Cubic metre 1 Kilograms of water

0
0
0
Cubic foot/sec 0 Cubic metres/sec

_
0
2
8
3
2
11 - 2
Foot 0 Metres
_
3
0
4
8
Kilogram 2 Pounds
_
2
0
4
6
Metre 3 Feet
_
2
8
0
8
Mile 1 Kilometre
_
6
0
9
Pound 0 Kilogram
_
4
5
3
5
9
Pounds per square 6 Kilopascals

inch _
8
9
5
[Note: Test water volumes by pipe sizes are provided in Table 2.1 of Section 2]
11 - 3
APPENDIX G
ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
CODE OF PRACTICE
FOR DISCHARGE OF HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER
FROM HYDROSTATIC TESTING
OF PETROLEUM LIQUID AND NATURAL GAS PIPELINES
11 - 1
APPENDIX H
SUMMARY FOR HYDROSTATIC TESTING CONTACTS
ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER
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
Québec, Québec G1K BZ7
Ontario Region (416) 973-6201
5th Floor
25 St. Clair Avenue East
Toronto, Ontario M4T 1M2
Manitoba Region (204) 983-2475
275 Portage Avenue
Room 1100
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 3A3
Saskatchewan Region (306) 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 (604) 666-5201
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 Y1A 2B5
N.W.T. Region (403) 920-8111
P.O. Box 1500
Yellowknife, NWT X1A 2R3
Indian Oil and Gas
11 - 1
Indian Oil and Gas Canada (403) 292-5625

Office 100
9911 Chula Boulevard
Tsuu T’ina (Sarcee), Alberta T2W
6H6
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Québec Region (418) 648-4092
Fish Habitat Management
P.O. Box 15550
Québec, Québec G1K 7Y7
Central and Arctic Region (204) 983-5181
Habitat Management
501 University Crescent
Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N6
Pacific Region (604) 666-6566
Habitat Management
555 W. Hastings Street
Vancouver, British Columbia V6B
5G3
Navigable Waters
Regional Superintendent, (519) 383-1865
Central Region (519) 383-1989 (fax)
Navigable Waters Protection
201 Front Street North, Suite 703
Sarnia, Ontario N7T 8B1
Western Region (604) 631-3747 (fax)
Suite 620, 800 Burrard Street
Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z
2J8
Maritimes Region (903) 426-6501
Canadian Coast Guard
P.O. Box 1000
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 3Z8
Newfoundland Region (709) 772-2193
P.O. Box 1300
St. John’s, Newfoundland A1C 6H8
Regional Chief, Laurentian Region (418) 648-4549
Navigable Waters Protection (418) 648-7640
Canadian Coast Guard
101 Champlain Boul., 3rd Floor
Quebec, Quebec G1K 4H9
PROVINCIAL
11 - 2
British Columbia
Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks

Water Environme
Manage ntal
ment Protection
Peace Regional Sub Office (604) (604) 787-

Room 200 787- 3283
10003 - 110th Avenue 3268
Fort St. John, British Columbia
Vancouver Island Regional (604) (604) 751-
Headquarters 751- 3100
2569 Kenworth Road 3100
Nanaimo, British Columbia V9T
4P7
Lower Mainland Regional (604) (604) 582-
10334 - 152A Street 5200
Surrey, British Columbia V3R 7P8
Southern Interior Regional (604) (604) 371-
1259 Dalhousie Drive 6200
Kamloops, British Columbia V2C
5Z5
Kootenay Regional Headquarters (604) (604) 354-
617 Vernon Street 354- 6355
Nelson, British Columbia V1L 4E9 6372
Skeena Regional Headquarters (604) (604) 847-
Bag 5000, 3726 Alfred Avenue 847- 7260
Smithers, British Columbia V0J 7260
2N0
Northern Regional Headquarters Water Environme
1011 - 4th Avenue Manage ntal
Prince George, British Columbia ment Protection
V2L 3H9 (604) (604) 565-
565- 6155
6160
Alberta
Alberta Environmental Protection - Natural Resources Service - Water Management1

Regional Administrator - Northwest (403) 624-6167
Boreal (403) 624-6335 (fax)
Provincial Building
9621 - 96A Avenue
Peace River, Alberta T0H 2X0
Regional Administrator - Northern (403) 427-5296
East* Slopes, North East Boreal (403) 422-0528 (fax)
Regions and Northern Parkland
1
See attached maps
11 - 3
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 (403) 340-5310
Parkland Region (403) 340-5022 (fax)
Provincial Building
4920 - 51 Street
Red Deer, Alberta T4N 6K8
Regional Administrator - Prairie (403) 297-6582
Region (North) (403) 297-2749 (fax)
Deerfoot Square
3rd Floor
2938 - 11th Street N.E.
Calgary, Alberta T2E 7L7
Regional Administrator - Prairie (403) 381-5399
Region (South) (403) 381-5337 (fax)
Provincial Building
200 - 5th Avenue South
Lethbridbge, Alberta T1J 4C7
Alberta Environmental Protection - Environmental Regulatory Service
Northeast Boreal and Parkland (403) 427-5838
Regions (403) 422-5120 (fax)
Regional Director
5th Floor, Oxbridge Place
9820 - 106 Street
Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2J6
Northwest Boreal and Northern East (403) 723-8395
Slopes Regions (403) 723-3879 (fax)
Regional Director
203, 111 - 54 Street
Edson, Alberta T7E 1T2
Southern East Slopes and Prairie (403) 297-7605
Regions (403) 297-5944 (fax)
Regional Director
201 Deerfoot Square
2938 - 11 Street N.E.
Calgary, Alberta T2E 7L7
Saskatchewan
Saskatchewan Water Corporation1

Head Office (306) 694-3900
Victoria Place
111 Fairford Street East
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan S6H
1
See attached maps
11 - 4
7X9
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
Yorkton Broadcast Centre
120 Smith Street East
Yorkton, Saskatchewan S3N 3V3
Northeast Region (306) 862-1750
P.O. Box 2133
201 - 1st Avenue East
Nipawin, Saskatchewan S0E 1E0
Northwest Region (306) 446-7450
402 Royal Bank Tower
1101 - 101st Street
North Battleford, Saskatchewan
S9A 0Z5
Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management1
Regional Fisheries Biologist (306) 425-4576
La Ronge Region (306) 425-4250
Box 5000 (306) 425-4575
La Ronge, Saskatchewan S0J 1L0
Meadow Lake Region (306) 236-7555
Unit #1, 201 - 2nd Street West
Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan S0M
1V0
Melville Region
117 - 3rd Avenue
Melville, Saskatchewan S0A 2P0
Prince Albert Region (306) 953-2889
Box 3003
Prince Albert, Saskatchewan S6V
6G1
Saskatoon Region
112 Research Drive
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 2H6
Swift Current Region
350 Cheadle Street West
Swift Current, Saskatchewan S9H
4G3
11 - 5
Manitoba
Water Resources Branch (204) 945-6114

Manitoba Resources Branch
Manitoba Department of Natural
Resources
1577 Dublin Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3E 3J5
Ontario
Ministry of the Environment and Energy1

Director (519) 661-2200
Permit to Take Water Program
Southwestern Region
985 Adelaide Street South
London, Ontario N6E 1V3
Director (905) 521-7640
West-Central Region
119 King Street West
P.O. Box 2112, 12th Floor
Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z9
Director (416) 326-6700
Central Region
6th Floor, 5775 Young Street
North York, Ontario M2M 4J1
Director (613) 549-4000
Eastern Region
Box 820
133 Dalton Avenue
Kingston, Ontario K7L 4X6
Director (807) 475-1205
Northern Region
Suite 331, 435 James Street South
Thunder Bay, Ontario P7E 6S7
Approvals Branch (416) 440-3713
3rd Floor, 250 Daisville Avenue
Toronto, Ontario M4S 1H2
Conservation Authorities1
Ausable-Bayfield Conservation (519) 235-2610
Authority
R.R. #3
Exeter, Ontario N0M 1S5
1
See attached map
1
See attached map
11 - 6
Cataraqui Region Conservation (613) 546-4228

Authority
Box 160
1641 Perth Road
Glenburnie, Ontario K0H 1S0
Catfish Creek Conservation (519) 773-9037
Authority (519) 773-9605
R.R. #5
Aylmer, Ontario N5H 2R4
Central Lake Ontario Conservation (905) 579-0411
Authority
300 Whiting Avenue
Oshawa, Ontario L1H 3T3
Credit Valley Conservation (905) 670-1615
Authority
1255 Derry Road West
Meadowvale, Ontario L5N 6R4
Crown Valley Conservation (613) 472-3137
Authority
Box 416
Marmora, Ontario K0K 2M0
Essex Region Conservation (519) 776-5209
Authority
360 Fairview Avenue West
Essex, Ontario N8M 1Y6
Ganaraska Region Conservation (905) 885-8173
Authority
Box 328
Port Hope, Ontario L1A 3W4
Grand River Conservation Authority (519) 621-2761
Box 729
400 Clyde Road
Cambridge, Ontario N1R 5W6
Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (519) 376-3076
R.R. #4
Owen Sound, Ontario N4K 5N6
Halton Region Conservation (905) 336-1158
Authority
2596 Britannia Road West
R.R. #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 (705) 328-2271
Authority
Kenrei Park Road
R.R. #1
Lindsay, Ontario K9V 4R1
11 - 7
Kettle Creek Conservation Authority (519) 631-1270

R.R. #8
St. Thomas, Ontario N5P 3T3
Lakehead Region Conservation (807) 344-5857
Authority
Box 3476
130 Conservation Road
Thunder Bay, Ontario P7B 5J9
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation (905) 895-1281
Authority (905) 773-6482
Box 282
120 Bayview Parkway
Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1
Long Point Region Conservation (519) 428-4623
Authority
R.R. #3
Simcoe, Ontario N3Y 4K2
Lower Thames Valley Conservation (519) 354-7310
Authority
100 Thames Street
Chatham, Ontario N7L 2Y8
Lower Trent Region Conservation (613) 394-4829
Authority
441 Front Street
Trenton, Ontario K8V 6C1
Rideau Valley Conservation (613) 692-3571
Authority
Box 599
Mill Street
Monatick, Ontario K4M 1A5
Saugeen Valley Conservation (519) 364-1255
Authority
R.R. #1
Lot 4, Concession XVIII, Normanby
Township
Hanover, Ontario N4N 3B8
Sault Ste. Marie Region (705) 946-8530
Conservation Authority
100 Fifth Line East, R.R. #2
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario P6A 5K7
South Nation River Conservation (613) 984-2948
Authority
Box 69
15 Union Street
Berwick, Ontario K0C 1G0
St. Clair Region Conservation (519) 245-3710
Authority
205 Mill Pond Crescent
Strathroy, Ontario N7G 3P9
11 - 8
Upper Thames River Conservation (519) 451-2800

Authority
R.R. #6
Franshawe Conservation Area
London, Ontario N6A 4C1
Quebec
Commission de Protection du (418) 643-3314

Territoire Agricole du Québec
200-A chemin Ste - Foy - 2e étage
Québec, Québec G1R 4X6
Minstére de l’Environnement et de la faune
Bas Saint - Laurent (418) 727-3511
212, rue Belzile
Rimouski, Québec G5L 3C3
Saguenay - Lac-Saint-Jean (418) 695-7883
3950, boul. Harvey, 4e étage
Jonquiére, Québec G7X 8L6
Québec (418) 622-5151
9530, rue de la Faune
Charlesbourg, Québec G1G 5H9
Mauricie - Bois-Francs (819) 373-4444
100, rue Laviolette, 1er étage
Trois-Rivières, Québec G9A 5S9
Estrie (819) 821-2020
700, rue Goretti
Sherbrooke, Québec J1E 3H4
Montréal (514) 873-3636
5199, rue Sherbrooke est
Suite 3860
Montréal, Québec H1T 3X9
Outaouais (819) 771-4840
98, rue Lois
Hull, Québec J8Y 3R7
Abitibi-Témiscamingue (819) 762-8154
180, boul. Rideau, bur. 1,047
Rouyn-Noranda, Québec J9X 1N9
Côte-Nord (418) 962-3378
94, rue Monseigneur Blanche
Sept-Îles, Québec G4R 3G5
Nord-due-Québec (418) 643-6662
150, René-Lévesque est
8e étage
Québec, Québec G1R 4Y1
Gaspésie - Îles-de-la-Madeleine (418) 763-3301
10, boul. Ste-Anne
C.P. 550
Ste-Anne-des-Monts, Québec G0E
2G0
11 - 9
Chaudière - Appalaches (418) 387-4143

700, rue Notre-Dame Nord
Bureau E
Sainte-Marie, Québec G6E 2K9
Laval (514) 662-2616
4, Place Laval
Bureau 300
Laval, Québec H7N 5Y3
Lanaudière (514) 374-5840
6255, 13e Avenue
Montréal, Québec H1X 3E6
Laurentides (514) 374-5840
6255, 13e Avenue
Montréal, Québec H1X 3E6
Montérégie (514) 928-7607
201, Place Charles-Lemoyne
Bureau 2.05, 2e étage
Longueuil, Québec J4K 2T5
Northwest Territories
Water Resources Division (403) 669-2656

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
Box 1500
Yellowknife, NWT X1A 2R3
Yukon
Water Resources Division (403) 667-3145

Northern Affairs Program
345 - 300 Main Street
Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 2B5
11 - 10
ALBERTA NATURAL RESOURCES SERVICE WATER MANAGEMENT REGIONS
REGIONAL BOUNDARIES JULY, 1990
H - 11

SASKATCHEWAN WATER CORPORATION REGIONAL BOUNDARIES
H - 12

SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
REGIONAL SERVICES BOUNDARIES MAP
H - 13

ONTARIO MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY
H - 14

ONTARIO MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY DISTRICTS
H - 15

ONTARIO MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY DISTRICTS
H - 16

ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES OF ONTARIO
H - 17

Hydro Static Test Water Management Guidelines-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydro Static Test Water Management Guidelines-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

Canadian Energy Pipeline Association

Environmental Consultants (Alta.) Ltd.

CH2M Gore and Storrie Limited

Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

Gordon Dinwoodie Guy Hervieux

Ken Jenner Cyril Karvonen

Ian Mackenzie Wayne Marshall

Stephen Maunder Dan O'Rourke

Ian Scott (Chairman) Bruce Stubbs / Ken Crutchfield

Bert Johnson Harold Karasiuk

Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

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

DAF Dissolved air floatation

GAC Granular activated carbon

GRI Gas Research Institute

HADD Harmful alteration, disturbance or destruction of fish habitat

IAF Induced air flotation

MOP Maximum operating pressure

PAH Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

pig A temporary plug composed of neoprene, brushes etc., that is inserted

SAR Sodium adsorption ratio

SMYS Specified minimum yield strength

TDS Total dissolved solids

TOC Total organic carbon

TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons

TSS Total suspended solids

Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. i

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

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

Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

APPENDIX A WATER HANDLING FLOW DIAGRAMS

FIGURE 2.1 SCHEMATICS OF HYDROSTATIC TEST

TABLE 2.1 HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER VOLUMEREQUIREMENTS

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

Hydrostatic Test Water Management Guidelines, September, 1996

HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER VOLUME

Outside Diameter Wall Thickness Fluid Volume

60.3 2 3.2 2.3

88.9 3 3.2 5.3

114.3 4 3.2 9.1